## I **mportation of Fresh A** **pricot, Prunus armeniaca**  **(L .**  **) fruit**  **, from**

**Continental Spain into the United States, including Hawaii and U**  **. S**  **. Territories** 
**A Pathway**
**- Initiated Risk Assessment** 

**March 8**  **, 20 10**  **Rev. 03**

**Agency Contact:** Center for Plant Health Science and Technology Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory United States Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Plant Protection and Quarantine 1730 Varsity Drive, Suite 300 Raleigh, North Carolina 27606Pest R isk A ssessment for A pricot from Spain

Rev. 03 March 8, 2010 ii 

### Executive Summary This document assesses the risks associated with the importation of fresh apricot fruit , Prunus armeniaca (L.) , from continental Spain into the United States. A search of print and electronic resources identified four quarantine

- significant pests that occur in Spain and could be introduced into the United States in shipments of the commodity

. The quarantine pests were qualitatively anal yz ed based on international principles and internal guidelines as described in the PPQ guidelines for Pathway

- Initiated Pest Risk Assessments version 5.02 (USDA, APHI S, 2000)

. Quarantine

- significant pests likely to follow the pathway

( i.e. , accompany s hipments of apricot) include one fruit fl y, one moth, and two fungi

. **Type Organism**  **Taxonomy** Fruit fl y Ceratitis capitata Wiedemann Diptera: Tephritidae Moth Cydia funebrana (Treitschke) Lepidoptera: Tortricidae Fungi Apiognomonia erythrostoma (Pers.) Ascomycetes

Monilinia fructigena Honey Discomycetes
All of the quarantine

- significant pests identified in this document and deemed likely to follow the pathway

pose phytosanitary

risks to U.S. agriculture. Apiognomonia erythrostoma w as assigned a M edium p est risk p otential, and the remaining species were assigned H igh p est risk p otential s . Additional phy tosanitary measures may

be necessary

to guard against the introduction and establishment of pests with M edium p est risk p otentials and are strongly recommended for p ests with H igh p est risk p otential s .Pest R isk A ssessment for A pricot from Spain

Rev. 03 March 8, 2010 iii 

### Table of Contents **Executive Summary ................................**  **................................ ................................**  **...................... ii**  **I. Introduction ................................**  **................................ ................................**  **............................... 1**  **II. Risk Assessment ................................**  **................................ ................................**  **....................... 1**  A. Initiating Event: Proposed Action

................................ ................................ ................... 1 B. Assessment of the Weed Potential of Apricot

................................ ................................ . 1 C. Current Status, Previous Decisions, and Pest Interceptions

................................ ............ 2 D. Pest Categorization

................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 2 **III. Risk Management ................................**  **................................ ................................**  **................. 25**  1. Management Prior to Harvest

................................ ................................ ........................ 25 2. Management After Harvest and Before Shipping

................................ .......................... 27 3. Management During Shipping and at U.S. Ports

- of

- entry

................................ ............. 27 4. Conclusions

................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 28 **IV. Authors and Reviewers ................................**  **................................ ................................**  **........ 29**  **V. Literature Cited ................................**  **................................ ................................**  **...................... 29** Pest R isk A ssessment for A pricot from Spain

Rev. 03 March 8, 2010 1 

### I **. Introduction** This risk assessment was prepared b y the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ), Center for Plant Health Science and Technology (CPHST), Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory

(PERAL) on behalf of the Sub

- Director General de Sanidad Vegetal, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Spain. Plant pest risks associated with the importation of fresh fruit of apricot, Prunus armeniaca (L.), from continental Spain into the United States were estimated and assigned the qualitative terms H igh, M edium or Low in accordance with the template document, Guidelines for Pathway

-Initiated Pest Risk Assessments, Version 5

. 02 (USDA, 2000a). The methods used to initi ate, conduct and report the plant pest risks associated with importation of fresh fruits of apricot from continental Spain into the United States meet international standards provided b y the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (IPPC, 1996a, 2004). Biological and phy tosanitary terms meet the definitions in International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures : Glossary of Phytosanitary Terms (IPPC, 2002a). The apricot is native to China and has been cultivated for over 4 ,000 years (Ogawa et al ., 1995)

. It is an economicall y important crop in many countries with world production estimated at 3. 5 million metric tons annually ( CABI, 2003 ). Production is concentrated in the former U .S.S.R., Turkey, Ital y, Spain, Greece, France and the United States (Ogawa et al ., 1995). 

### II **. Risk Assessment**  **A . Initiating Event: Proposed Action**  This risk assessment was developed in response to a request b y the government of Spain through the Counselor for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food , Embassy of Spain, Washington, D.C. for USDA authorization to import fresh fruit of apricot into the United States. Entry of this commodity

into the United States presents a potential pathway for the introduction of plant pests. Title 7, Part 319, Section 56 of the United States Code of Federal Regulations (7 CFR §319.56) provides regulatory

authority for the importation of fruits and vegetables from foreign sources into the United States. 

### B **. Assessment of the**  **Weed Potential of Apricot**  The potential of the commodity to become a weed after it enters the United States was examined, with analysis indicating that the commodity had negligible weed potential (Table 1).Pest R isk A ssessment for A pricot from Spain

Rev. 03 March 8, 2010 2 **Table 1.** Assessment of the weed p otential of a pricot ( Prunus armeniaca ) (Rosaceae) **Phase 1:** Apricot is cultivated throughout the United S tates in H ardiness Z ones 4

- 9 (Kuhns and Rupp , 200 0 ). It is commercially grown in Arizona , California, Michigan, Utah and Washington (Ogawa et al ., 1995). **Phase 2:** Is the species listed in: N o Geographical Atlas of W orld Weeds (Holm et al

. , 1979 ). N o World’s Worst Weeds (Holm et al

. , 1977 ) or World W eeds : Natural Histories and Distribution (Holm et al ., 1997)

. N o Report of the Technical Committee to Evaluate Noxious Weeds: Exotic Weeds for the Federal Noxious Weed Act (Gunn and Ritchie, 1982). N o Economically Important Foreign Weeds (Reed, 1977). N o Weed Science Society of America Composite List of Weeds (WSSA, 200 4 ). N o Does any literature indicate weed potential ( e . g . AGRICOLA, CAB, Biological Abstracts, AGRIS search on “species name” combined with “weed”) **Phase 3:** Apricot is a common deciduous tree with a wide geographic distribution in the United States. This species and its botanical varieties were not listed as weeds in the United States or any foreign country

. 

### C **. Current Status,**  **Previous Decisions,**  **and Pest Interceptions 1. Current status**  Title 7, Part 319, Section 56 of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (7 CFR §319.56) does not currentl y permit importation of fresh fruit of apricot from continental Spain into the United States. **2. Previous d**  **ecisions** Apricot from Spain was denied entry into the United States on 11 May 1988 beca

use there was no acceptable treatment for Cydia funebrana. **3. Pest**  **interception r ecords**  From 1985 and 2007 , in passenger baggage from Spain there have been two interceptions on Prunus armeniaca reported in the AQAS database: one interception of a Tortricidae , sp. and one interception of Ceratitis capitata

. 

### D **. Pest Categorization 1. Pests associated with apricot in Spain**  Pests that were associated with apricot and occur in Spain are listed in Table 2. We included information on the geographic distribution of these pests, the affected plant part(s), quarantine status with respect to the United States , and relevant references on distribution and biology

. This provided the basis for selecting pests for further analyses.Pest R isk A ssessment for A pricot from Spain

Rev. 03 March 8, 2010 3 **Table 2.** Pests a ssociated with a pricot in Continental Spain 1 **Pest Geographic** 

**distribution 2**  **Plant part**

**a ffected**  **3 Quaran** 
****

**tine p**  **est Follow** 

**p athway**  **References ARTHROPODS**  **A CARI**  **Tenuipalpidae** Brevipalpus californicus (Banks) ES, US F, L, S No Yes Childers et al ., 2003; Jeppson et al ., 1975 **Tetranychidae** Amphitetranyuchus ( Tetranychus ) viennensis (Zacher) ES F, L, S Yes No 1 6 Bolland et al ., 1998; CABI, 2003; J eppson et al

. , 1975; Pucat and Garland, 2003 Bryobia praetiosa Koch ES, US L No No Bolland et al

. , 1998 ; Jeppson et al ., 1975 Bryobia rubrioculus Scheuten ES, US F, L No Yes Bolland et al ., 1998; Jeppson et al ., 1975 Panonychus ulmi (Koch) ES, US L No No Bolland et al ., 1998 ; Jeppson et al ., 1975 Tetranychus ludeni Zacher ES, US L No No Bolland et al ., 1998 ; Jeppson et al ., 1975 Tetranychus urticae Koch ES, US L No No Bolland et al ., 1998; CABI, 2003 ; Esteruelas, 2001 **INSECTA Coleoptera:**  **Bostrichidae** Apate monachus Fabricius ES S Yes No Avidov and Harpaz, 1969; CABI, 200 3 ; Lopez

- Colon, 1996 **Coleoptera: Buprestidae**  Capnodis tenebrionis (Linnaeus) ES S Yes No CABI, 200 3 ; Esteruelas, 2001; HYPPZ, 2004 **Coleoptera: Curculionidae**  Otiorhynchus cribricollis Gyllenhal ES, US L, R No No CABI, 2003;Van Steenwy k et al

. , 2004 **Coleoptera: Nitidulidae**  Carpophilus hemipterus (Linnaeus) ES, US F No Yes CABI, 2003; Danielson, 2004; Plaza, 1976Pest R isk A ssessment for A pricot from Spain

Rev. 03 March 8, 2010 4 **Pest Geographic** 

**distribution 2**  **Plant part**

**a ffected**  **3 Quaran** 
****

**tine p**  **est Follow** 

**p athway**  **References** Carpophilus mutilatus Erichson ES, US I No No CABI, 2003; Danielson, 2004; Plaza, 1976 **Coleoptera: Scolytidae**  Scolytus amygdali Guerin

- Meneville ES S Yes No CABI, 2003; Bright and Skidmore, 1997; Wood and Bright, 1992 Scolytus kirschi Skalitzky ES S Yes No CABI, 2003; Bright and Skidmore, 1997; Wood and Bright, 1992 Scolytus mali (Bechstein) ES, US S No No CABI, 2003; Bright and Skidmore, 1997; Wood and Bright, 1992 Scolytus rugulosus (Ratzeburg) ES, US S No No CABI, 200 3 Scolytus scolytus (Fabricius) ES S Yes No CABI, 2003; Bright and Skidmore, 1997; Wood and Bright, 1992 Trypodendron signatum (Fabricius) ES S Yes No CABI, 2003; Bright and Skidmore, 1997; Wood and Bright, 1992 Xyleborinus saxeseni (Ratzeburg) ES, US S No No CABI, 2003; Wood and Bright, 1992 Xyleborus dispar (Fabricius) ES, US S No No CABI, 2003 **Dermaptera: Fo**  **rficulidae** Forficula auricularia Linnaeus ES, US F No No 4 Nafria et al ., 2003; Van Steenwy

k et al ., 2004 **Diptera: Tephritidae**  Ceratitis capitata Wiedemann ES, US (HI) F Yes Yes Avidov and Harpaz, 1969; CABI, 2003 ; CABI/EPPO, 1999; Esteruelas, 2001 ; White and Elton

Harris, 1992Pest R isk A ssessment for A pricot from Spain

Rev. 03 March 8, 2010 5 **Pest Geographic** 

**distribution 2**  **Plant part**

**a ffected**  **3 Quaran** 
****

**tine p**  **est Follow** 

**p athway**  **References Hemiptera:**  **Aphididae** Aphis gossypii Glover ES, US L, S No No Avidov and Harpaz, 1969; CABI, 2003 Aphis spiraecola Patch ( = A. citricola ) ES, US L, S No No CABI, 2003 ; Nieto

Nafria et al

. , 1984 Brachycaudus cardui ( Linnaeus ) ES , US L, S No No Blackman and Eas top, 1994 ; Nafria et al

. , 2003 Brachycaudus persicae (Passerini) ES, US L, R, S No No Blackman and Eas top, 1994; Nafria et al ., 2003 Hyalopterus pruni ( Geoffrey) ES, US L, S No No Avidov and Harpaz, 1969; Blackman and Eas top, 1994; CABI, 2003 ; Nieto

-Nafria et al ., 1984 Myzus persicae Suler ES, US L, S No No Avidov and Harpaz, 1969; CABI, 2003 ; Nieto

-Nafria et al. , 1984 Pterochloroides persicae (Cholodkovsky) ES S Yes No Blackman and Eas top, 1994 , CABI, 2003 **Hemiptera: Cicadellidae**  Austroagallia sinuata (Mulsant and Rey) ES L Yes No Borror et al ., 1989; CABI, 2003; Nafria et al ., 2003 Neoaliturus fenestratus (Herrich

- Schäffer) ES L Yes No Borror et al ., 1989; CABI, 2003; Llácer and Medina. 1988 Neoaliturus haematoceps (Muls ant and Rey) ES L Yes No Borror et al ., 1989; CABI, 2003 ; Llácer and Medina. 1988 Psammotettix striatus (Linnaeus) ES L Yes No Borror et al ., 1989; CABI, 2003; Llácer and Medina. 1988 **Hemiptera: Coccidae**  Ceroplastes floridensis Comstock ES, US L, S No No Avidov and Harpaz, 1969; Ben

- Dov, 1993; CABI, 2003 ; IIE, 1982b; Scalenet, 2004Pest R isk A ssessment for A pricot from Spain

Rev. 03 March 8, 2010 6 **Pest Geographic** 

**distribution 2**  **Plant part**

**a ffected**  **3 Quaran** 
****

**tine p**  **est Follow** 

**p athway**  **References** Coccus hesperidum Linnaeus ES, US L, S No No Avidov and Harpaz, 1969; Ben

- Dov, 1993; CABI, 2003 ; Scalenet, 2004 Eulecanium tiliae (Linnaeus) ES, US L , S No No Ben

- Dov, 1993; CABI, 2003 ; Scalenet, 2004 Parasaissetia nigra (Nietner) ES, US L, S No No Ben

- Dov, 1993; CABI, 2003; Scalenet, 2004 Parthenolecanium corni (Bouche) ES, US L, S No No Ben

- Dov, 1993; CABI, 2003; Scalenet, 2004 Parthenolecanium persicae (Fabricius) ES, US L, S No No Ben

- Dov, 1993; Scalenet, 2004 Pulvinaria vitis (Linnaeus) ES, US L, S No No Ben

- Dov, 1993; CABI, 2003; Scalenet, 2004 Saissetia oleae (Olivier) ES, US L, S No No Avidov and Harpaz, 1969; CABI, 2003; Scalenet, 2004 Sphaerolecanium prunastri (Boyer de Fonscolombe) ES, US L, S No No Avidov and Harpaz, 1969; Ben

- Dov, 1993; CABI, 2003; Kosztarab and Kozar, 1988 **Hemiptera: Diaspididae**  Diaspidiotus ancylus (Putnam) ES, US F, L, S No Yes CABI, 2003; Scalenet, 2004 Diaspidiotus pyri (Lichtenstein) ES S Yes No CABI, 2003; Scalenet, 2004 Lepidosaphes ulmi (Linnaeus) ES, US F, L, S No Yes CABI, 2003; Scalenet, 2003 Parlatoria oleae (Colvee) ES, US F, L, S No Yes CABI, 2003; Scalenet, 2004 Pseudaulacaspis pentagona (Targioni Tozzetti) ES, US F, L, S, R No Yes CABI, 2003 ; Kosztarab and Kozar, 1988 ; Scalenet, 2004 Quadraspidiotus ( Aspidiotus ) perniciosus (Comstock) ES, US F, L, S No Yes CABI, 2003 ; Esteruelas, 2001Pest R isk A ssessment for A pricot from Spain

Rev. 03 March 8, 2010 7 **Pest Geographic** 

**distribution 2**  **Plant part**

**a ffected**  **3 Quaran** 
****

**tine p**  **est Follow** 

**p athway**  **References Hemiptera:**  **Lygaeidae** Oxycarenus hyalinipennis (Costa) ES F Yes No 4 Avidov and Harpaz, 1969; CABI, 2003 ; Henry , 1983; IIE, 1982c **Hemiptera: Pentatomidae**  Nezara viridula (Linnaeus) ES, US F, I , L, S, Sd No No 4 Avidov and Harpaz, 1969; CABI, 2003 **Hemiptera: Tingidae**  Stephanitis pyri (Fabricius) ES L Yes No Avidov and Harpaz, 1969; Hill, 1994; HYPPZ, 2004 ; IIE, 1983 **Hymenoptera: Tenthredinidae**  Caliroa cerasi Linnaeus (= C. limacina ) ES, US L No No CABI, 2003 ; Mansilla et al

. , 1987 Hoplocampa flava Linnaeus ES L Yes No CABI, 2003 ; HYPPZ, 2004 ; IIE, 1963a Hoplocampa minuta (Christ) ES L Yes No CABI, 2003 ; HYPPZ, 2004 ; IIE, 1963b **Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae**  Anarsia lineatella Zeller ES, US F, I, L, S No Yes CABI, 2003; Carter, 1984; Esteruelas, 2001; Zhang, 1994 Parachronistis albiceps Zeller ES I , L Yes No Carter, 1984; Zhang, 1994 **Lepidoptera: Geometridae**  Operophtera brumata Linnaeus ES, US

(OR, WA) F, I, L [Yes] 5 No 6 CABI, 2003; Carter, 1984; Hill, 1994; Zhang, 1994 Erannis defoliaria (Clerck) ES L Yes No CABI, 2003; Carter, 1984 **Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae**  Euproctis chrysorrhoea (Linnaeus) ES, US

(MA, ME) L [Yes] 5 No CABI, 2003; Carter, 1984 ; IIE , 1976; USDA, 200 2 aPest R isk A ssessment for A pricot from Spain

Rev. 03 March 8, 2010 8 **Pest Geographic** 

**distribution 2**  **Plant part**

**a ffected**  **3 Quaran** 
****

**tine p**  **est Follow** 

**p athway**  **References** Lymantria dispar Linnaeus ES, US ( CT,

DE, IL, IN, MA, MD, ME, MI , NC, NH, NJ, NY, OH, PA, RI , VA, VT , WI , WV) I, L Yes No CABI, 2003; Hill, 1994; USDA, 2000b; USDA, 2000c; Zhang, 1994

**Lepidoptera: Noctuidae**  Acronicta psi (Linnaeus) ES L Yes No CABI, 2003; Carter, 1984; Zhang, 1994 Diloba caeruleocephala ( Linnaeus ) ES F, L Yes No 6 Carter, 1984
Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner) ES F, I, L, S Yes No 17 CABI, 2003; Robinson et al ., 2004 Peridroma saucia (Hübner) ES, US F, L, S No No 7 CABI, 2003; Carter, 1984; Zhang, 1994 Phlogophora meticulosa (Linnaeus) ES I, L Yes No CABI, 2003; Carter, 1984 Xylena exsoleta (Linnaeus) ES L Yes No Carter, 1984; Luque, 2003 **Lepidoptera: Notodontidae**  Phalera bucephala ES L Yes No Carter, 1984; Luque, 2003 **Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae**  Hypolimnas misippus (Linnaeus) Canary

Islands , US (FL, MS, NC) L No No CABI, 2003; Opler et al ., 2004; Padron and Hernandez, 1988; Robinson et al ., 2004 **Lepidoptera: Papilionidae**  Iphiclides podalirius (Scopoli) ES L Yes No CABI, 2003; Mansilla et al

. , 1987; Zhang, 1994 **Lepidoptera: Pieridae**  Aporia crataegi Linnaeus ES L Yes No CABI, 2003; Carter, 1984; Zhang, 1994 **Lepidoptera: Py**  **ralidae** Cadra cautella Walker ES, US F, R, Sd No No 8 Avidov and Harpaz, 1969; CABI, 2003; Zhang, 1994Pest R isk A ssessment for A pricot from Spain

Rev. 03 March 8, 2010 9 **Pest Geographic** 

**distribution 2**  **Plant part**

**a ffected**  **3 Quaran** 
****

**tine p**  **est Follow** 

**p athway**  **References** Ephestia elutella Hübner ES , US F, Sd No No 8 CABI, 2003; Carter, 1984; Robinson et al ., 2004 Ephestia figulilella Gregson ES, US F, Sd No No 8 CABI, 2003; Carter, 1984; Robinson et al ., 2004 Plodia interpunctella (Hübner) ES, US F, Sd No No 8 CABI, 2003; Carter, 1984; Riudavets et al ., 2002; Robinson et al ., 2004 **Lepidoptera: Tortricidae**  Adoxophyes orana Fischer von Röeslerstamm ES F, L Yes No 4 CABI, 2003; Carter, 1984; Hill, 1994; IIE, 1982a; USDA, 2000b; Whittle, 1985; Zhang, 1994 Archips rosana Linnaeus (= A. rosanus ( Linnaeus ) ) ES, US L No No CABI, 2003; Hill, 1994; Zhang, 1994 Archips xylosteanus Linnaeus ES L Yes No CABI, 2003; Carter, 1984; Hill, 1994; Zhang, 1994 Cnephasia longana (Haworth) ES, US I, L No No CABI, 2003; Carter, 1984; Robinson et al ., 2004 Cydia funebrana (Treitschke) ES F Yes Yes CABI, 2003; Carter, 1984; Esteruelas, 2001; Hill, 1994; HYPPZ, 2004; Whittle, 1984; Zhang, 1994 Cydia ( Grapholita ) molesta (Busck) ES, US F, S No Yes CABI, 2003; Carter, 1984; Esteruelas, 2001; Hill, 1994; Zhang, 1994 Cydia pomonella Linnaeus ES, US F No Yes CABI, 2003; Carter, 1984; Hill, 1994; Zhang, 1994 Pandemis heparana Denis and Schiffermüller ES F, L Yes No 6 CABI, 2003; Carter, 1984; Ribes

- Dasi et al ., 2001; Robinson et al ., 2004Pest R isk A ssessment for A pricot from Spain

Rev. 03 March 8, 2010 10 **Pest Geographic** 

**distribution 2**  **Plant part**

**a ffected**  **3 Quaran** 
****

**tine p**  **est Follow** 

**p athway**  **References** Tortricidae, sp. of ES F Yes 9 No 9 P estID , 2004 **Lepidoptera: Saturniidae**  Saturnia pyri (Denis and Schiffermuller) ES L Yes No CABI, 2003 ; Zhang, 1994 **Lepidoptera: Sessiidae**  Synanthedon myopaeformis (Borkhausen) ES S Yes No Bosch et al ., 2001; CABI, 2003; Carter, 1984 **Lepidoptera: Zygaenidae**  Aglaope infausta (Linnaeus) ES F, L Yes No 10 CABI, 2003; Carter, 1984 ; Schmitt and Seitz, 2004 **Thysanoptera: Thripidae**  Frankliniella occidentalis (Pergande) ES, US F, I, L No Yes CABI, 2003 ; Gonzalez et al

. , 1994 Thrips flavus Schrank ES I Yes No CABI, 2003 **FUNGI and CHROMISTANS**  **Ascomycetes** Alternaria alternata (Fr.: Fr.) ES, US F No Yes CABI, 2003; Farr et al , 1989; Ogawa et al

. , 1995 Apiognomonia ( Gnomonia ) erythrostoma (Pers.) ES F, L Yes Yes CABI, 2003; EPPO, 1993; Fé de Andrés et al

. , 1998; Ogawa et al

. , 1995 Aspergillus niger Tiegh ES, US F No Yes CABI, 2003; Farr et al ., 2003; Ogawa et al

. , 1995 Blumeriella jaapii (Rehm) (= Coccomyces hiemalis ) ES, US L No No CABI, 2003; Farr et al

. ,1989; Fé de Andrés et al

. , 1998; Ogawa et al

. , 1995 Botrytis cinerea Pers.: Fr. ES, US F, I, L, S No Yes Alfieri et al

. , 1994; CABI, 2003; Farr et al

. ,1989; Fé de Andrés et al

. , 1998; Ogawa et al

. , 1995 Cladosporium sp. ES F, L, S Yes 9 No 9 Fé de Andres et al

. , 1998; Ogawa et al ., 1995Pest R isk A ssessment for A pricot from Spain

Rev. 03 March 8, 2010 11 **Pest Geographic** 

**distribution 2**  **Plant part**

**a ffected**  **3 Quaran** 
****

**tine p**  **est Follow** 

**p athway**  **References** Colletotrichum acutatum J.H. Simmonds ES, US F, L, S No Yes CABI, 2003; Farr et al

. ,1989; Fé de Andrés et al

. , 1998; Ogawa et al

. , 1995 Colletotrichum gloesporioides (Penz.) ES, US F, L, S No Yes CABI, 2003; Farr et al

. ,1989; Fé de Andrés et al

. , 1998; Ogawa et al

. , 1995 Eutypa lata (Pers.: Fr.) ES, US F, I, S No Yes CABI, 2003; Carter and Moller, 1974; Farr et al ., 2003; Fé de Andrés et al

. , 1998; Ogawa et al ., 1995 Gibberella baccata (Wallr.) ES, US L, S No No CABI, 2003; Farr et al

. , 1989; Farr et al

. , 2003; Fé de Andrés et al

. , 1998 Leucostoma cincta (Fr.: Fr.) ES, US S No No CABI, 2003; Farr et al

. , 1989; Farr et al ., 2003; Fé de Andrés et al

. , 1998; Ogawa et al

. , 1995 Leucostoma persoonii Höhn. ES, US S No No Alfieri et al

. , 1994; CABI, 2003; Farr et al

. ,1989; Farr et al ., 2003; Fé de Andrés et al

. , 1998; Ogawa et al

. , 1995 Macrophomina phaseolina (Tassi ) ES, US L, R, S No No CABI, 2003; Fé de Andrés et al

. , 1998 Monilinia fructigena Honey ES F, I, L, S Yes Yes CABI, 2003; Chang, 1986; Esteruelas, 2001; Fé de Andrés et al

. , 1998; Ogawa et al

. , 1995 Monilinia laxa (Aderhold and Ruhland) ES, US F, I, L, S No Yes CABI, 2003; Farr et al

. ,1989; Farr et al ., 2003; Ogawa et al

. , 1995 Phoma pomorum Thuem. ES, US F, L No Yes CABI, 2003; Farr et al

. , 1989; Fé de Andrés et al

. , 1998; Ogawa et al

. , 1995Pest R isk A ssessment for A pricot from Spain

Rev. 03 March 8, 2010 12 **Pest Geographic** 

**distribution 2**  **Plant part**

**a ffected**  **3 Quaran** 
****

**tine p**  **est Follow** 

**p athway**  **References** Podosphaera leucotricha (Ellis and Everh.) ES, US F, I, L, S No Yes CABI, 2003; Farr et al ., 1989 Podosphaera tridactyla (Wallr.) ES, US F, L No Yes Farr et al ., 2003; Ogawa et al

. , 1995 Rosellinia ( Dematophora ) necatrix Prill. ES, US R, S No No CABI, 2003; Farr et al ., 2003; Ogawa et al

. , 1995; Sztejnberg and Madar; 1980 Sclerotinia sclerotiorum (Lib.) ES, US F, I, L, R, S, Sd No Yes CABI, 2003; Farr et al ., 1989 Sphaerotheca pannosa (Wallr.: Fr.) ES, US F, L, S No Yes CABI, 2003; Esteruelas, 2001; Farr et al

. ,1989; Farr et al ., 2003; French, 1989; Ogawa et al

. , 1995 Verticillium dahliae Kleb

. ES, US F, I, L, R, S, Sd No Yes CABI, 2003; Fé de Andrés et al

. , 1998; French, 1989; Ogawa et al

. , 1995 Wilsonomyces carpophilus (Lév.) (= Stigmina carpophila ) ES, US F, L, S No Yes CABI, 2003; Farr et al ., 2003; Fé de Andrés et al

. , 1998; Kirk, 1999; Ogawa et al

. , 1995 **Basidiomycetes** Armillaria mellea (Vahl: Fr.) ES, US R No No CABI, 2003; Farr et al ., 2003; Fé de Andres et al

. , 1998; Ogawa et al

. , 1995 Athelia rolfsii (Curzi) [anamorph = Sclerotium rolfsii ] ES, US F, L, R, S, Sd No Yes CABI, 2003; Farr et al ., 200 3 ; Fé de Andres et al

. , 1998; Ogawa et al

. , 1995 Chondrostereum purpureum (Pers.: Fr.) ES, US L, S No No CABI, 2003 ; Farr et al

. ,1989; Fé de Andrés et al ., 1998; French, 1989; Ogawa et al

. , 1995Pest R isk A ssessment for A pricot from Spain

Rev. 03 March 8, 2010 13 **Pest Geographic** 

**distribution 2**  **Plant part**

**a ffected**  **3 Quaran** 
****

**tine p**  **est Follow** 

**p athway**  **References Oomycetes**  Phytophthora cactorum (Lebert and Cohn) ES, US F, L, R, S No Yes CABI, 2003; Farr et al ., 2003; Fé de Andrés et al

. , 1998 Phytophthora cambivora (Petri) ES, US F, L, R, S No Yes CABI, 2003; Farr et al ., 1989; Ogawa et al ., 1995 Phytophthora citrophthora (R.E. Sm. and E.H . Sm.) ES, US F, L, R, S, Sd No Yes CABI, 2003; Farr et al ., 1989; Farr et al ., 2003 Phytophthora cryptogea Pethy

br. and Lafferty ES, US F, L, R, S No Yes CABI, 2003; Farr et al ., 2003; Fé de Andrés et al

. , 1998; Ogawa et al

. , 1995 Pythium irregulare Buisman ES, US R, S No No CABI, 2003; Farr et al ., 2003 Phytophthora megasperma Dreschs. ES, US F, L, R, S No Yes CABI, 2003, Farr et al

. , 1989 Fé de Andrés et al

. , 1998; Ogawa et al

. , 1995 Phytophthora nicotianae Breda de Haan ES, US F, L, R, S, Sd No Yes CABI, 2003; Farr et al

. 1989; Farr et al ., 2003 **Taphrinomycetes** Taphrina deformans (Berk. ) ES, US F, I, L, S No Yes CABI, 2003; Farr et al

. ,1989; Farr et al ., 2003; Fé de Andres et al

. , 1998; French, 1989; Ogawa et al

. , 1995 **Urediniomycetes** Tranzschelia pruni

spinosae (Pers.: Pers .) ES, US F, L, S No Yes Alfieri et al

. , 1994; CABI, 2003; Farr et al

. , 1989; Fé de Andrés et al

. , 1998; Ogawa et al

. , 1995 **BACTERIA Pseudomonadales**  Pseudomonas fluorescens (Trevisan) ES, US F, I, L, R, S No Yes Bradbury , 1986; CABI, 2003 ; Fé de Andrés et al

. , 1998;Pest R isk A ssessment for A pricot from Spain

Rev. 03 March 8, 2010 14 **Pest Geographic** 

**distribution 2**  **Plant part**

**a ffected**  **3 Quaran** 
****

**tine p**  **est Follow** 

**p athway**  **References** Pseudomonas syringae pv. syringae van Hall ES, US F, I, L, R, S No Yes Bradbury , 1986; CABI, 2003 ; Fé de Andrés et al

. , 1998; Ogawa et al

. , 1995 Pseudomonas viridiflava (Burkholder) ES, US F, I, L, S , Sd No Yes Bradbury , 1986; CABI, 2003 **Rhizobiales** Agrobacterium tumefaciens (E. F. Smith and Townsend) ES, US R, S No No Bradbury , 1986; CABI, 2003 ; Fé de Andrés et al

. , 1998; López et al ., 1988 ; Ogawa et al

. , 1995 **VIRUSES** Apple chlorotic leafspot trichovirus ES, US F, I, L, S No No 11 CABI, 2003 ; Dominguez et al ., 1998; Fé de Andrés et al

. , 1998; Llácer, 1995; Ogawa et al

. , 1995 Apple mosaic ilarvirus (Bromoviridae) ES, US F, I, R, S No No 11 CABI, 2003 ; Dominguez et al ., 1998; Fé de Andrés et al

. , 1998 Apple stem grooving capillovirus ES, US I, L, R, S, Sd No Yes 11 CABI, 2003 ; Fé de Andrés et al

. , 1998 Cherry leaf roll nepovirus (Comoviridae) ES, US Sd No Yes 11 CABI, 2003 ; Fé de Andrés et al

. , 1998; Nemeth, 1986; Ogawa et al

. , 1995; Rowhani and Mircetich, 1988 Cucumber green mottle mosaic virus ES F, I, L, R, S, Sd Yes No 1 2 CABI, 2003 ; Brunt et al ., 1996; Fé de Andrés et al

. , 1998Pest R isk A ssessment for A pricot from Spain

Rev. 03 March 8, 2010 15 **Pest Geographic** 

**distribution 2**  **Plant part**

**a ffected**  **3 Quaran** 
****

**tine p**  **est Follow** 

**p athway**  **References** Plum pox virus (Poty viridae) ( strain D ) 18 ES, US (PA) F, I, L, R, S, Sd Yes No 1 9 Amai et al

. , 1999; CABI, 2003 ; Chang, 1987; Damsteegt et al ., 2001; Gildow, 2001; Gildow et al. , 2002; Levy et al

. , 2000; Llácer, 1995; Llácer and Cambra, 1998; Németh, 1986; Ogawa et al

. , 1995 ; Pasquini and Barba, 2006 Prune dwarf ilarvirus (Bromoviridae) ES, US Sd No Yes 1 1 Dominguez et al ., 1998; Fé de Andrés et al

. , 1998; Németh, 1986; Ogawa et al

. , 1995 Prunus necrotic ringspot ilarvirus (Bromoviridae) ES, US I, L, R, S, Sd No Yes 1 1 CABI, 2003 ; Dominguez et al ., 1998; Fé de Andrés et al

. , 1998; Németh, 1986; Ogawa et al

. , 1995 Strawberry

latent ringspot nepovirus (Comoviridae) ES, US L, S, F, Sd Yes 1 3 No 1 3 Brunt et al

. , 1996; CABI, 2003; Čech et al ., 1980; Martin et al , 2004; Ogawa et al

. , 1995 ; Postman et al ., 2004; USDA, 2000b **VIROIDS** Hop stunt hostuviroid (= Peach dapple fruit viroid) (Pospiviroidae) ES, US (AZ,

CA, FL, TX) Ws No Yes 1 4 Amari et al

. , 2001; CABI, 2003; Canizares et al

. , 1998; Ogawa et al ., 1995; Šutić et al ., 1999 Peach latent mosaic viroid (Avsunviroidae) ES, US Ws No Yes 1 4 Badenes and Llácer, 1998; CABI, 2003 ; Fé de Andres et al

. , 1998; Llácer, 1998; Ogawa et al

. , 1995 **PHYTOPLASMAS** Aster yellows phy toplasma group (Acholeplasmatales) ES, US Ws No No 1 5 CABI, 2003; Carraro et al , 2001Pest R isk A ssessment for A pricot from Spain

Rev. 03 March 8, 2010 16 **Pest Geographic** 

**distribution 2**  **Plant part**

**a ffected**  **3 Quaran** 
****

**tine p**  **est Follow** 

**p athway**  **References** European stone fruit ye llows phy toplasma (= Apricot chlorotic leafroll phy toplasma) (Acholeplasmatales) ES Ws Yes No 1 5 CABI, 2003; Carraro et al , 2001; Fé de Andrés et al

. , 1998; Llácer, 1995; Nemeth, 1986; USDA, 2000b

Peach rosette mycoplasma (Acholeplasmatales) ES, US Ws No No 1 5 CABI, 2003; Ogawa et al

. , 1995; Scott and Zimmerman, 2001 **NEMATODES DORYLAIMIDA**  **Longidoridae** Xiphinema americanum Cobb ES, US R No No Anony mous, 1984; CABI, 2003 Xiphinema index Thorne and Allen ES, US R No No Anony mous., 1984; CABI, 2003 **TYLENCHIDA Heteroderidae**  Meloidogyne incognita (Kofoid and White) ES, US R No No CABI, 2003; Goodey et al ., 1965 Meloidogyne javanica (Treub.) ES, US R No No CABI, 2003; Goodey et al ., 1965 **Hoplolaimidae** Rotylenchulus reniformis Lindford and Olivera ES, US R No No Anony mous, 1984; CABI, 2003 **Pratylenchidae** Pratylenchus coffeae (Zimmermann) ES, US R No No CABI, 2003; Goodey et al ., 1965 Pratylenchus penetrans (Cobb) ES, US R No No Anony mous, 1984; CABI, 2003; Nyczepir and Halbrendt, 1993 Pratylenchus vulnus Allen and Jensen ES, US R No No Anony mous, 1984; CABI, 2003; Nyczepir and Halbrendt, 1993

1 Data were included for some pests that occur only in the Canary Islands, which are not part of continental Spain. These data were included because some literature lists these pests as occurring in Spain without specification. Because the se species were assumed to not occur in continental Spain, theyPest R isk A ssessment for A pricot from Spain

Rev. 03 March 8, 2010 17 were not likely to follow the pathway

. 2 ES = Spain; US = United States (specific states were listed only if the distribution was limited; AZ = Arizona; CA = California, CT = Connecticut, DE = Delaware, FL = Florida, H I = Hawaii, IL = Illinois, IN = Indiana, MA = Massachusetts, ME = Maine, MI = M ichigan, MS = Mississippi , NC = North C arolina, NH = New Hampshire, NJ = New Jersey, NY = New York, OH = Ohio, OR = Oregon, PA = Pennsylvania, RI = Rhode Island, VA = Virginia, VT = Vermont, WA = Washington , WI = Wisconsin, WV = West Virginia)

. 3 F = Fruit; I = Inflorescence; L = Leaf; R = Root; S = Stem; Sd = Seed; Ws = Systemic. 4 Large or highly mobile arthropods that fe e d externally and only occasionally on fruit were highly unlikely to follow the pathway because minimal processing of the commodity would remove these pests prior to shipment. 5 Species with a limited distribution in the United States and deemed actionable by APHIS because it is being considered for an official control program (personal communication, USDA APHIS National Identification Services). 6 Species was considered unlikely to follow the pathway because its larvae are primarily leaf feeders that occasionally attack immature fruit (Carter, 1984). 7 Species i s highly unlikely to follow the pathway because it spends the day below ground and feeds on plant material at night (CABI, 2003). Itis, therefore, not associated with the commodity during harvest. 8 Species is a stored product pest (CABI, 2003 ; Carter, 1984 ) that is unlikely to accompany shipments of fresh apricot. 9 Pest not identified to the specific level in this document belong to genera that are present in the United States (CABI 2003; Farr et al 2003 ). These pests may or may not be quarantine pests. Those that were associated with fruit were not analyzed because their risk is reasonable encompassed in the analysis of another pest in the same taxon or there was no evidence of other pests in the taxon being associated with the commodity in the region examined. If pests identified to higher taxa are intercepted in the future, APHIS may take action at the port of entry and a reevaluation of risk may occur

. 10 Aglaope infausta was considered unlikely to follow the pathway because apricot is not a preferred host (HYPPZ, 2004), and larvae only attack immature fruit (Carter, 1984). 11 Viruses are typically transmitted from plant to plant through sap, seed, pollen, dodder ( Cuscuta sp.), fungi , nematodes, or arthropod vectors (Agrios, 1997). Only those viruses that are seed transmissible or spread by aerial arthropods and detected in fruit were considered likely to follow the pathway. 12 The association of CGMMV with Prunus was made from two related studies/papers published in the same volume of Acta Hor ticulturae ( Blattny and Janeckova , 1980 ; Čech et al ., 1980). Publications thereafter do not cite this publication nor confirm a host range for Cucumber green mottle mosaic virus in the Rosaceae plant family ( Brunt et al ., 1996 onwards; Celix et al ., 1996; Varveri, et al ., 2002). Most references state the virus is restricted to the Cucurbitaceae plant family (Hollings et al ., 1975; Celix et al ., 1996; Varveri, et al ., 2002 ). The papers by Blattny and Janeckova, 1980 and Čech et al ., 1980 report that one of the symptoms of infection by the virus in apricot is “unfruitfulness” or lack of fruit production. However this type of symptom was found in apricots when Strawberry latent ringspot virus was also present and long term studies were not conducted to see if CGMMV alone woul d cause “unfruitfulness”

. Host association and symptoms aside, CGMMV is reported to be seed transmitted in Cucurbitaceae hosts ( CABI, 2006; Hollings et al ., 1975 ) however this has not been tested or demonstrated in Prunus. Even if CGMMV were seed transmiss ible in Prunus most commercial cultivars of Prunus species are hybrids and propagation from seed does not guarantee conservation of the parent hybrid ’s traits , therefore it is not the preferred method for propagation

. Germination of most Prunus seed also requires a minimum of 2

- 6 months moist chilling and other dormancy problems may need to be breached for successful germination (Hartmann et al ., 1990). Because the host association for CGMMV and Prunus is not strong, infection may cause “unfruit fulness” , s eed transmission for Prunus has not been documented, and seed propagation is not straightforward , Prunus fruits for consumption are considered an unlikely pathway of introduction for CGMMV and the pathogen willPest R isk A ssessment for A pricot from Spain

Rev. 03 March 8, 2010 18 not be analyzed in this document. 13 Due to the recent U.S. detections of SLRSV by Martin et al ., 2004 and Postman et al ., 2004, the quarantine status for Strawberry latent ringspot virus is under review

. At the time of writing this risk assessment it is still considered a regulated pest (US DA, 2000b). Even though SLRSV may be associated with Prunus fruit and seed, it will not be analyzed in this assessment for reasons stated in the Appendix of this document. 1 4 Viroids are not well understood, but they are typically transmitted from plant to plant through mechanical inoculation ( e . g. pruning and grafting) (Agrios, 1997). Only those viroids isolated from fruit and spread by aerial vectors were considered likely to follow the pathway. 1 5 Phytoplasmas are typically present in only a few phloem elements of an infected plant, and they are usually transmitted from plant to plant by aerial arthropods (Agrios, 1997). Phytoplasmas were considered unlikely to follow the pathway because the commodity contains few phloem elements and vectors are not like ly to gain access to these elements. 16 Amphitetetranychus viennensis has been reported to be associated with fruit, but it does not feed on fruit (Lee and Lee, 1997). Females may incidentally

attach during autumn as it enters diapause, which does not cor respond to the time of apricot harvest. 1 7 Helicoverpa armigera larvae may feed on immature or developing fruit of host crops (Bedford, 1978; Butani, 1993; Hely, 1982; Van den Berg, 2001). Larvae can cause the immature fruit to abort, or cause damage that would render the fruit unmarketable (Bedford, 1978). In some fruits, like mango, the larvae can only insert its head and thorax into fruit leaving a portion of its body visible on the exterior of the fruit (Butani, 1993). Since 1985, there has only been one port interception of H. armigera on Prunus sp. (from baggage/Asia) ( PestID , 20 10 ). The larvae are unlikely to be associated with commercial fruit destined for the United States. **18** At the time of writing this assessment, only strain D of p lum pox virus is reported in Spain. S train M of PPV was reported in Spain but has since been eradicated (Cambra et al. 2004). **19** Seed transmission of plum pox virus (PPV) was reported by Németh and Kölber (1983), but was discredited by Pasquini and Barba (2006). Certain aphids (that are present in the United States) have been shown to acquire PPV from Prunus fruit and transmit the virus to healthy Prunus seedlings under artificial conditions (Labonne and Quiot, 2001; Gildow, 2001; Gildow et al ., 2002 ; Gildow et al ., 2004 ); however the virus is non

-persistent in the aphids . With this type of transmission, there is a very small window of time for the aphid to be able to successfully move the virus to new hosts (Ng and Perry, 2004 ). The aphid loses the virus with its next probe or when it molts (Gildow et al., 2004; Ng and Perry, 2004). PPV positive fruit, intended for consumption, would need to be discarded outdoors, aphid would need to find and probe this fruit, aphid would need to acquire sufficient amount of virus and retain it at requisite sites, aphid would need to immediately move to a susceptible Prunus host adjacent to the culling location, and finally the aphid would need to successfully transfer PPV to that susceptible Prunus host. W e feel the likelihood of this sequence of events is low enough to negate further assessment. The movement of apricot fruit from Spain is not anticipated to introduce PPV to the United States.

. **2. Pests likely to follow the pathway** Quarantine pests that were reasonabl y likely to follow the pathway ( i.e. , accompany shipments of apricot) were identified ( Table 3 ) and subjected to further anal ys es ( i.e. , steps 5

- 7 in USDA, 2000 a). Numerous pests in Table 2 were not subjected to further anal ys es for various reasons: they were widel y established in the United States, they were associated mainly with plant parts other than the commodity, or they were not likely to remain with the commodity during processing.Pest R isk A ssessment for A pricot from Spain

Rev. 03 March 8, 2010 19 Pests listed in Table 3 were selected for further an alyses because they were quarantine pests of the United States that were considered likel y to follow the pathway ( i

. e . accompany

shipments of apricot). Justifications for considering these pests as reasonably likel y to follow the pathway are presented belo w. C eratitis capitata and C

ydia funebrana were considered likel y to follow the pathway because they can lay eggs in or on, and develop inside fresh fruit (CABI, 2003; Carter, 1984; McQuate et al ., 2000; Meijerman and Ulenberg, 2000; Van der Geest and Evenhuis, 1991). These species have been intercepted b y U.S. agriculture inspectors on a variety of fruit, including those of Prunus species. Apiognomonia ( Gnomonia ) erythrostoma was considered likel y to follow the pathway because reports of fruit infection are contradictory ; some state that fruit is not infected (Diekmann and Putter, 1996; Ivanova and Karov, 1999), while others state that fruit is infected (EPPO, 1993; Ogawa et al ., 1995)

. These c ontradictory reports may b e an indication that the fungus is capable of producing quiescent infections. Monilinia fructigena was considered likel y to follow the pathway because it produces quiescent infections in fruit that may become active sometime after harvest (CABI, 2003; Ogawa et al ., 1995).

**Table 3.** Quarantine pests likely to follow the pathway

and therefore selected for further analyses **Type Organism**  **Taxonomy** Arthropods Ceratitis capitata Wiedemann Diptera: Tephritidae

Cydia funebrana (Treitschke) Lepidoptera: Tortricidae Fungi Apiognomonia erythrostoma (Pers.) Ascomycetes

Monilinia fructigena Honey Discomycetes 

### E. Consequences of Introduction Consequences of Introduction were estimated using five risk elements: climate

- host interaction, host range, dispersal potential, economic impact and environmental impact. Pests were assigned a rating of Low (1 point), Medium (2 points), or High (3 points) for each risk element, and a Cumulative Risk Rating was calculated b y summing all risk elements for each pes t analyzed (USDA, 2000a). Consequences of Introduction values for each pest are summarized in Table 4.

**Apiognomonia erythrostoma (Pers.)**  **Risk rating**  **Risk Element #1: Climate/Host Interaction** A. erythrostoma occurs in Russia and Europe, including the United Kingdom and Norway (CABI, 2003). Based on this distribution, it is estimated that A

. erythrostoma could establish in U.S. Hardiness Zones 5

- 9. One or more of its hosts occur in these Zones (USDA

-NRCS, 2002 ). High (3)Pest R isk A ssessment for A pricot from Spain

Rev. 03 March 8, 2010 20 **Apiognomonia erythrostoma (Pers.)**  **Risk rating**  **Risk Element #2: Host Range** A. erythrostoma infects plants in the genus Prunus ; reported hosts include apricot ( P

. armeniaca ), plum (

P

. domestica ), sweet cherry ( P

. avium ) and sour cherry ( P

. cerasus ) (CABI, 2003; Diekmann and Putter, 1996; EP PO, 1993). Low (1)

**Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential** A. erythrostoma produces numerous ascospores, which act as primary inoculum, during a two month period in the spring (Ivanova and Karov, 1999; Ogawa et al ., 1995; Stejerean and Bobes, 1982). Conidia, which cause secondary infections, are released from the time that ascospore production ends until leaf drop in the fall (Stejerean and Bobes, 1982). Fungal spores can be dispersed over long distances by animals (including man), wind and water (Agrios, 199 7). High (3)

**Risk Element #4: Economic Impact** A. erythrostoma causes reddish leaf spots that expand and turn brown as the disease progresses (Diekmann and Putter, 1996; EPPO, 1993; Ogawa et al ., 1995). In severe cases, infected trees may lose their leaves and fruit may show s ymptoms that range from superficial blemishes to necrosis and premature drop (Diekmann and Putter, 1996; EPPO, 1993; Ogawa et al ., 1995). Three to five fungicide applications are usually

required each year to control this disease (Ogaw a et al ., 1995), which is considered an A1 quarantine pest ion some African nations (IAPSC, 2003). Apiognomonia erythrostoma may, therefore, reduce crop yield, lower the value of the commodity by requiring chemical controls and cause a loss of markets. Sev ere economic damage is, however, not ty pical (Ogawa et al ., 1995), so we reduced the risk rating to Medium. Medium (2)

**Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact** A. erythrostoma could potentially attack plants that are listed as Threatened or Endangered in the United States ( e . g . Prunus geniculata ). Establishment of this fungus in the United States is likely to stimulate chemical control programs because it infects economically important species, and fungicides are routinely used for control in infected areas (Ogawa et al ., 1995). High (3)

**Ceratitis capitata Wiedemann**  **Risk rating**  **Risk Element 1: Climate**
**- Host Interaction**  Ceratitis capitata is widely distributed in the Mediterranean, South and Central America, west Asia (CABI, 2003) and northern Australia (Hassan, 1977). Based on this distribution and the geographic range predicted by Vera et al . (2002), it is estimated that C

. capitata could establish in U.S. Hardiness Zones 8

- 11. One or more of its hosts occur in these Zones (USDA

-NRCS, 2002). High (3)

**Risk Element 2: Host Range** Ceratitis capitata has been recorded on hosts from numerous plant families, including Anacardiaceae, Arecaceae, Moraceae, My rtaceae, Rosaceae, Rubiaceae, Rutaceae, Solanaceae and Sterculiaceae (CABI, 2003). High (3)

**Risk Element 3: Dispersal Potential** Female C

. capitata can mature and deposit up to 800 eggs during their life High (3)Pest R isk A ssessment for A pricot from Spain

Rev. 03 March 8, 2010 21 **Ceratitis capitata Wiedemann**  **Risk rating**  (Weems, 1981), and the species has several overlapping generations each year (Hassan, 1977). Adult C

. capitata can fl y up to 20km during their life, and larvae can be transported over long distances in infested commodities (CABI, 2003). **Risk Element 4: Economic Impact** In some Mediterranean countries, C

. capitata infestation of stone fruit hovers near 100 percent (Weems, 1981). Ceratitis capitata lowers crop values b y requiring controls, and its presence in the United States would cause a loss of foreign and domestic markets (Weems, 1981). High (3)

**Risk Element 5 : Environmental Impact**  Ceratitis capitata is extremely pol yphagous and could potentially attack plants listed as Threatened or Endangered in the United States ( e . g . Opuntia treleasei and Prunus geniculata ). Establishment of this pest in the continental United States would initiate chemical or biological control programs (Weems 1981). High (3)

**Cydia funebrana (Treitschke)**  **Risk rating**  **s Risk Element 1: Climate** 
**- Host Interaction**  Cydia funebrana is found throughout the Palearctic region, including Siberia, and in Japan (CABI, 2003; Carter, 1984). Based on this distribution, it is estimated that C

. funebrana could establish in U.S. Hardiness Zones 5

- 9. One or more of its hosts occur in these Zones (USDA

-NRCS, 2002). High (3)

**Risk Element 2: Host Range** Cydia funebrana is primarily a pest of plants in the genus Prunus (Rosaceae), but it also attacks apple, Malus pumila (Rosaceae), and the chestnut, Castanea sativa (Fagaceae) (CABI, 2003). High (3)

**Risk Element 3: Dispersal Potential** Compared to some other arthropod s, C

. funebrana has low fecundity: first generation females deposit about 13 eggs and females of subsequent generations deposit about 34 eggs (Deseo, 1973). Cydia funebrana can, however, h ave up to three generations per year (CABI, 2003). Adults can fly, and larvae may be transported long distances in shipments of infested commodities (CABI, 2003). Medium (2)

**Risk Element 4: Economic Impact** In Europe, the second and third generation s of C

. funebrana damage more than 50 percent of stone fruit (CABI, 2003). Such extensive damage would lower the commodity

value b y stimulating chemical and/or biological control programs. Establishment of this species in the United States is likely to cause a lo ss of markets. High (3)

**Risk Element 5: Environmental Impact** Cydia funebrana could potentially attack the Endangered plant, Prunus geniculata

. As mentioned above, its presence in the United States could stimulate chemical and/or biological control program s. High (3)Pest R isk A ssessment for A pricot from Spain

Rev. 03 March 8, 2010 22 **Monilinia fructigena Honey**  **Risk rating**  **Risk Element 1: Climate**
**- Host Interaction**  Monilinia fructigena is widely distributed across Europe (including Finland, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Norway, and Sweden), the Middle East, Russia, China and Japan (CABI, 2003). Based on this distribution, it is estimated that M

. fructigena could establish in U.S. Hardiness Zones 5

- 9. One or more of its hosts occur in these Zones (USDA

-NRCS, 2002). High (3)

**Risk Element 2: Host Range** Monilinia fructigena infects a wide variety of plants in the families Berberidaceae, Betulaceae, Ebenaceae, Ericaceae, Cornaceae, Moraceae, M yrt aceae, Rosaceae, Solanaceae and Vitaceae (CABI, 2003). High (3)

**Risk Element 3: Dispersal Potential** Monilinia fructigena produces numerous spores that can be disseminated over long distances b y animals (including man), wind , and water (CABI, 2003; Chang, 1986). High (3)

**Risk Element 4: Economic Impact** Fruit decay

caused b y M

. fructigena can significantly reduce yi eld, but losses rarel y initiate control programs (CABI, 2003). Establishment of M

. fructigena in the United States could cause a loss of markets. Medium (2)

**Risk Element 5: Environmental Impact** Monilinia species cause fruit rot, blossom blight, leaf infections and stem cankers (Ogawa et al ., 1995). Monilinia fructigena is known to infect hosts in the genera Berberis , Rhododendron and Prunus (CABI, 2003). It could, therefore, potentially reduce the vigour and reproductive efforts of the Endangered plants P

. geniculata , R

. chapmanii , B

. nevinii, B

. pinnata ssp. insularis , and B

. sonnei

. As mentioned above, M

. fructigena rarely

initiates control programs (CABI, 2003)

. Medium (2)

**Table 4.** Risk Rating s for Consequences of Introduction **Pest Climate** 
**- host**  **i nteraction**  **Host**

**r ange**  **Dispersal**

**p otential**  **Economic**

**i mpact**  **Environ**
 

** ment** **al i**  **mpact Cumulative** 

**risk r ating**  Apiognomonia erythrostoma High (3) Lo w (1) High (3) Med (2) High (3) Medium (12) Ceratitis capitata High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (15) Cydia funebrana High (3) High (3) Med (2) High (3) High (3) High (14) Monilinia fructigena High (3) High (3) High (3) Med (2) Med (2) High (13)

**F . Likelihood of Introduction**  Cumulative Risk Ratings for the Likelihood of Introduction were estimated from the quantity of the commodity

that was expected to be imported annually and the probabilities that a pest would survive postharvest treatment and shipment, enter the United States undetected, and arrive in an area with a climate and host plants capable of supp orting reproduction (USDA, 2000a).Pest R isk A ssessment for A pricot from Spain

Rev. 03 March 8, 2010 23 Cumulative Risk Ratings for the Likelihood of Introduction are summarized in Table 5

. **1. Quantity Imported Annually**  Communication with a Spanish NPPO official, reported Spain’s intention to export approximately four 40

- fo ot
- long shipping containers of apricot fruit in a letter on 29 October 2001. This quantity

was assigned a risk rating of Low in accordance with the template document, Guidelines for Pathway

-Initiated Pest Risk Assessments, Version 5

. 02 (USDA, 2000a). **2 .**  **Su rvive Post** 
**- Harvest Treatment**  Arthropods that feed internally and pathogens that produce latent or sy mptomless infections were expected to survive minimal postharvest treatments, such as washing and culling. The fruit fl y, C

. capitata , the moth, and C

. funebrana , were, therefore, rated High for this sub

- element. The fungi , A

. erythrostoma and M

. fructigena , w ere assigned Medium risk rating s because they may produce latent infections or subtle sy mptoms on the fruit (CABI, 2003; Ogawa et al ., 1995), but dormant spores and obviously infected fruit would likely be removed b y washing and culling prior to shipment. **3. Survive Shipment**  Apricot s are stored at 1

- 3 oC ( CABI , 2003 ). Even if th e temperature was maintained in this range while transporting the commodity via a modern cargo ship, which should take about eight days to cross the Atlantic Ocean, assuming fair weather, a distance of 3,589 miles and a constant speed of 16 knots, some individuals of each pest would likely survive. For example, C

. capitata is o ne of the least cold

- hardy pests anal yz ed here, and USDA (200 7 ) currently recommends that fruit be stored at 1.11 oC or lower for 1 4 days to kill all C

. capitata larvae. C eratitis capitata was, therefore, assigned a High risk rating for this sub

- element. The remaining pests have been reported in areas that regularly experience sub

- zero winter temperatures and were, therefore, also given High risk ratings. **4. Not Detected at Port of Entry**  The probability

that an arthropod pest is detected at the port of entry is a function of their size and degree of concealment. Internal feeders have a high probability of escaping detection because they

are well concealed. Ceratitis capitata , C

. funebrana , were, therefore, given High risk ratings for this sub

- element. Th e probability of pathogens being detected at the port of entry depends on how well the sy mptoms are expressed in the commodity

. Monilinia fructigena produces s ymptoms on fruit that are easil y detected by visual inspection, but can cause latent infections where no s ymptoms would be present (CABI, 2003; Ogawa et al ., 1995). Apiognomonia erythrostoma may or may not infect fruit without producing obvious s ymptoms. Reported s ymptoms range from superficial blemishes to complete necrosis (Diekmann and Putter, 1996; EPPO, 1993; Ogawa et al ., 1995). Due to the potential of latent infections or infection without obvious sy mptoms Monilinia fructigena and A

. erythrostoma were given High pest risk ratings.Pest R isk A ssessment for A pricot from Spain

Rev. 03 March 8, 2010 24 **5. Moved to Suitable Habitat**  Apricots have widespread acceptance among consumers in the United States. Widespread acceptance means that markets exist in all parts of the United States, and infested fruit is likely to arrive in areas that are suitable for pest survival. Risk ratings for this sub

- element were, therefore, based on the area of the United States where each pest could potentially establish. For example, those pests having the potential to establish in U.S. Hardiness Zones 5

- 9 or 5

- 10 ( e . g . A

. erythrostoma , C

. funebrana , and M

. fructigena were rated High because these zones represent about 80 percent of the United States. The remaining pest, C

. capitata , was rated Medium because it was estimated as having the potential to establish in U.S. Hardiness Zones 8

- 11, which represents less than an estimated 33 percent of the United States. **6. Contact with Host Material**  Pests and pathogens that had wide host ranges and were capable of long distance aerial dispersal ( i

. e . C

. capitata , C

. funebrana , and M

. fructigena ) were considered likel y to come into contact with suitable hosts and were assigned High pest risk ratings. A piognomonia erythrostoma w as given a Medium pest risk rating because of a limited host range but ability to aeriall y disperse considerable distances.

**Table 5.** Risk Rating s for Likelihood of Introduction **Pest Quantity** 

**imported a**  **nnually Survive** 

**postharvest t**  **reatment Survive** 

**s hipment**  **Not**

**detected at port** **** **of**
**- e**  **ntry Move**  **d to**  **suitable h**  **abitat Contact** 

**host m**  **aterial Cumulative** 

**risk r ating**  **s**
Apiognomonia erythrostoma Lo w (1) Medium (2) High (3) High ( 3 ) High (3) Medium (2) Medium

(1 4 ) Ceratitis capitata Lo w (1) High (3) High (3) High (3) Medium (2) High (3) High (15) Cydia funebrana Lo w (1) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (16) Monilinia fructigena Lo w (1) Medium (2) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (15)

**G. Conclusion: Pest Risk Potential and**  **Pests Requiring Phytosanitary Measures**  Pest Risk Potentials, which are summations of the Consequences of Introduction and Likelihood of Introduction values, are recorded in Table 6. Pest Risk Potentials are estimations of the risk in the absence of mitigation. According to the template document, Guidelines for Pathway

-Initiated Pest Risk Assessments, Version 5

. 02 (USDA, 2000a), port of entry inspection provides su fficient phy tosanitary security for pests assigned Low pest risk potentials, while specific phytosanitary measures may

be necessary

for Medium pest risk potentials and are strongly recommended for High pest risk potentials.Pest R isk A ssessment for A pricot from Spain

Rev. 03 March 8, 2010 25 **Table 6.** Pest Risk Potential s **Pest Consequences of**  **Introduction Likelihood of** 

**Introduction Pest Risk Potential**  Apiognomonia erythrostoma Medium (12) Medium (1 4 ) Medium (2 6 ) Ceratitis capitata High (15) High (15) High (30) Cydia funebrana High (14) High (16) High (30) Monilinia fructigena High (13) High (15) High (28)



### III. Risk **Management** This section of the risk analysis describes risk management options and discusses their efficacy

. The development of a detailed risk management plan is beyond the scope of this document. The present document emphasizes the identification of phy tosanitary measures included in existing USDA APHI S manuals or that are described in international standards. A single phytosanitary

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

provide phy

tosanitary security for a country

importing agricultural commodities. Specific measures may

include pre

- and post

- harvest treatments. The strength of a measure may be increased, or additional measures may be added to compens ate for uncertainty

. A measure intended for use in a s ys tems approach must be clearl y defined, efficacious, mandated, and monitored by

the responsible national plant protection organization (IPPC, 2002b). A combination of different measures (e.g., ‘s ys tem s approach’) for a pricot from Spain might include pest
- free areas, pest

- free places of production, areas of low pest prevalence, cultural, chemical, or biological control programs, pre

- clearance oversight by USDA

- APHIS, clearl y defined harvest and packing procedures, quarantine treatments, port

- of

- entry inspection, and limits on commodity

distribution and transit within the United States. We have summarized possible mitigation options by pest below (Table 7). 

### 1. **Management Prior to Harvest Pest** 
**- free areas**  or **Pest**
**- fr**  **ee places of production** can provide an acceptable level of phy tosanitary protection (IPPC, 1996b, 1999). The establishment and maintenance of these areas are described in ISPM Nos. 4 and 10 (IPPC, 1996b, 1999). An **Area of low pest prevalence,** which may encompass all or part of a country or countries where a pest occurs at a low level and is subject to surveillance, control, or eradication efforts, can provide an acceptable level of phytosanitary protection when used as part of a s ys tems approach (IPPC, 2002b, 2005). The establishment and maintenance of areas of low pest prevalence are described in I SPM No. 22 (IPPC, 2005). **Phytosanitary certificates** may provide an acceptable level of protection when used as part of a systems approach. The crop s hould be sampled and periodicall y inspected during the growing season and after harvest. Survey results must be negative for issuance of a certificate. StatisticalPest R isk A ssessment for A pricot from Spain

Rev. 03 March 8, 2010 26 procedures are available to verify confidence in declaring an area pest

- free, based on negative survey results (Barclay

and Hargrove, 2005; Venette et al ., 2002). **Control programs** can eliminate pests from fields or prevent commodity infestation. Successful control programs typically include monitoring, cultural, biological, and chemical components (Dreistadt, 1994). The components of the control program must be clearl y defined for use in a systems approach (IPPC, 2002b). **Monitoring** Traps baited with ammonia or parapheromones are ty pically used to monitor fruit fl y populations (White & El son - Harris, 1992). Lure type determines the spacing between traps, and the traps should be emptied every

few days to prevent specimen decay (White & Elson

- Harris, 1992). Visual inspection, light traps, and pheromone traps are commonl y used to monitor pest moth populations (Dreistadt, 1994). Researchers have identified pheromones for C

. funebrana , (CABI, 2006 , El

- Sayed, 2007 ). In addition to monitoring, pheromones can be used to disrupt communication and mating (Capinera, 2001). Molecular techniques, like E LI SA probes, can be used to monitor plant pathogen populations (Agrios, 1997; Erwin & Ribeiro, 1996). These methods can detect latent infections in plant parts, contaminated soil , and contaminated irrigation water (Erwin & Ribeiro, 1996). In addition to th ese sophisticated methods, lesions on leaves, stems and fruit can be monitored by visual inspection (CABI, 2006). **Cultural** Few cultural controls are available for fruit flies. Michaels (2005) recommends removing and destroying fruit with dimples or those leaking sap. These fruit may contain fruit fly

eggs or larvae (Michaels, 2005). Caterpillars can be hand

- picked into buckets of alcohol, while egg masses can be scraped into buckets of soap y water (Dreistadt, 1994). Controlling weeds in and around crops may also reduce invasion, as these sites often serve as refugia and mating areas for Lepidoptera pests (Capinera, 2001). Sanitation is extremely

important to control plant pathogens (Agrios, 1997; Pirone, 1978). Sanitation ty

pically includes: using diseas e free stock for propagation, sterilizing soil, pruning and destro ying diseased plant parts, and disinfecting tools used for pruning and cultivation (Agrios, 1997; Pirone, 1978). Ideall y, parent stock should be tested for disease prior to using cuttings or seed for propagation (Pirone, 1978). Soil should be sterilized to kill disease causing organisms that spend a portion of their life in the soil (Pirone, 1978). Soil infested with fungi can be sterilized using heat or chemicals (Agrios, 1997). Heating soil to 180  ̊F for 30 minutes will destroy all phy toparasitic organisms (Pirone, 1978). One pint of commercial formalin, a 37

- 40 percent solution of formaldehyde and water, diluted with 6.25 gallons of water and applied to the soil at a rate of 0.5 gallons per square foot can control fungi (Agrios, 1997; Pirone, 1978). The treated soil should be covered for 24 hours to confine the fumes and then left fallow for 10

- 14 days before planting (Pirone, 1978). Diseased foliage should be pruned from the infected plant and burnt or carried away from the growing area and buried or sterilized by one of the methodsPest R isk A ssessment for A pricot from Spain

Rev. 03 March 8, 2010 27 described for soil (Pirone, 1978). Tools used for pruning and cultivation should be frequently disinfected in a 5 percent formalin solution, a 0.525 percent sodium hy pochlorite solution or 70 percent denatured alcohol (Howell, 2004; Pfleger & Gould, 1998; Pirone, 1978). **Chemical and Biological** Fruit flies are typicall y controlled using cover or bait sprays (White & Elson

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

- Harris, 1992). For example, they have a lower impact on existing natural enemies because they are not spread throughout the environment (White & Elson

- Harris, 1992). Insecticidal soaps and narrow

- range oils are effective against moth eggs (Dreistadt, 1994). Augmentive releases of commercially available natural enemies may severely reduce pest populations (Dreistadt, 1994; Rosen, 1990). A narrow spectrum or s ys temic insecticide may be needed when all else fails (Capinera, 2001; Dreistadt, 1994). Cydia funebrana is commonly controlled using organophosph ates and insect growth

- regulators (CABI, 200 6 ). Systemic fungicides, copper compounds, and sulfur are all used to control Apiognomonia erythrostoma and Monilinia fructigena (CABI, 200 6 ; EPPO, 2004 ). 

### 2. Management After Harvest and Before Shipping Washing the commodity

and removing obviously

infected or infested material reduces the likelihood of introducing quarantine organisms into the United States vi a importation. The post

- harvest and packhouse procedures for a pricots in Spain were not communicated but are likely similar to those used in the United States

. 

### 3. Management During Shipping and at U.S. Ports
**- of** 
**- entry**  **Temperature and moisture levels in t he shipping container**  may reduce the risk of introducing certain quarantine pests into the United States. For example, USDA ( 200 7 ) currentl y recommends storing fruit at 1.11 oC or lower for 1 4 days to kill all Ceratitis capitata larvae. Apricot s are shipped at 1

- 3oC ( CABI , 2003 )

. This temperature is not expected to provide adequate quarantine security (see Survive Shipment under the Likelihood of Introduction). **Port**
**- of** 
**- entry inspection**  may

provide an acceptable level of protection against obvious or not so obvious pests, when used as part of a s ys tems approach. A random sample from each consignment should be inspected to detect a pest infestation rate of 10 percent or greater (USDA, 2003). **Quarantine treatments** provide probit

- 9 security by killing 9 9.9968 percent or more of the quarantine organisms. Specific treatments are not available for Cydia funebrana , Apiognomonia erythrostoma , orPest R isk A ssessment for A pricot from Spain

Rev. 03 March 8, 2010 28 Monilinia fructigena on apricot (USDA, 200 7 )

. The methyl bromide treatment for external pests on apricot (USDA, 200 7 ) should, however, provide an appropriate level of phy tosanitary security against Cydia funebrana

. Storing apricots at 1.1  ̊C or lower for at least 14 days according to T107

- a cold treatment requirements provides an appropriate level of phyt osanitary security against Ceratitis capitata (USDA, 200 7 ). The minimum generic dose of gamma irradiation (400 Gy) that was published as a final rule in the Federal Register on 27 January 2006 would provide an appropriate level of phy tosanitary security against Ceratitis capitata and Cydia funebrana

.
**Table 7.** Summary

of Risk Management Options for Apricot from Spain **Measure(s) Pests**  **Efficacy** Pest

- free areas or places of production All Provides appropriate level of protection Pre

- harvest control program All Research required to demonstrate efficacy Post

- harvest and packinghouse procedures All Unknown Shipping conditions All Not effective Point

- of

- entry sampling and inspection All Provides appropriate level of protection when used as part of a s ys tems approach Methyl bromide Cydia funebrana Accepted APHIS treatment Cold treatment Ceratitis capitata Accepted APHIS treatment Irradiation Ceratitis capitata Cydia funebrana Accepted APHIS treatment



### 4. **Conclusions** The diversity

of pests that are expected to follow the pathway on apricot from Spain makes it unlikely that a single measure will address the risks identified here. This section of the risk analysis does not establish a work plan, or describe a pest management program. It simply

provides information regarding known pest management strategies. A written agreement between the government of Spain and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is called a bilateral work plan, will describe the details of any resulting importation program, including all applicable phy tosanitary measures .Pest R isk A ssessment for A pricot from Spain

Rev. 03 March 8, 2010 29 

### I**V . Authors**  **and Reviewers 1. Authors**  R. Kahn and P. Lima (consultants) developed a first draft of this document. Itwas subsequentl y updated and revised b y USDA APHI S staff including Mr . K. Colpetzer , Dr. R.A. Sequeira , Dr. K. Lakin , Ms. H. Hartzog, and Dr. D. Borchert

. 

### 2. Reviewers (in alphabetic order) Bentley, W., Entomologist, University of California, Kearney Agricultural Center Converse, R., Plant Pathologist, USDA, ARS, HCRL(Retired) Li ghtfield, J., Plant Pathologist, USDA, APHIS, PPQ (Retired) Pfeiffer, D., Entomologist, Virginia Tech, Department of Entomology Scott, S., Plant Pathologist, Clemson University, Department of Plant Pathology and Physiology


### V **. Literature Cited**  Agrios, G.N. 1997. Plant Pathology , 4 th Ed. Academic Press. San Diego, California. Alfieri, S.A., K.R. Langdon, J.W. Kimbrough, N.E. El

- Gholi and C. Wehlburg. 1994. Diseases and Disorders of Plants in Florida, Bulletin No 14. Florida Department of Agriculture, Division of Plant Industry . Gainesville, Florida. Amai, A.E., A.E. Aboul

- Ata and H.M. Maz yad. 1999. Plum pox poty virus situation in Egy

ptian stone
- fruit trees. Acta Horticulturae. 488: 745. Amari, K., M.C. Canizares, V. Pallis, A. My tra, A. Sabanadzovic and N. Terlizzi. 2001. Tracking hop stunt viroid infection in apricot trees during a whole ye ar b y non - isotopic tissue printing hybridization. Acta Horticulturae. 550: 315

- 319. Anony mous. 1984. Distribution of Plant

-parasitic Nematodes in North America: Project of the Nematode Geographical Distribution Committee of the Society of Nematologists. The Society of Nematologists. Marceline, Missouri. Avidov, Z. and Harpaz, I. 1969. Plant Pe sts of I srael. Is rael Universities Press. Jerusalem, I srael. Badenes, M.I. and G. Llácer. 1998. Occurrence of peach latent mosaic viroid in American peach and nectarine cultivars. Acta Horticulturae. 472: 565

- 567. Barclay, H. J., and J. W. Hargrove. 2005. Probability models to facilitate a declaration of pest

free status, with special reference to tsetse (Diptera: Glossinidae). Bulletin of Entomological Research 95(1):1

- 11. Bedford, E. C. G. 1978. Citrus Pests in the Republic of South Africa. Department of Agricultural Technical Services, Republic of South Africa. 253 pp. Ben

- Dov, Y. 1993. A S ystematic Catalogue of the Soft Scale Insects of the World (Homoptera: Coccoidea: Coccidae) with Data on Geographical Distribution, Host Plants, Biology and Economic Importance. Sandpile Crane Press, Inc. Gainesville, Florida. Blackman, R.L. and V.F. Eastop. 2000. Aphids on the Worlds Crops: An Identification and In formation Guide. John Wiley and Sons. New York, New York. Blattny, C. and Janeckova, M. 1980. Apricot Bare Twig and Unfruitfulness. Acta Phy topathologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae. Acta Horticulturae No. 94. 15(1

- 4):Pest R isk A ssessment for A pricot from Spain

Rev. 03 March 8, 2010 30 383

- 390. Bolland, H.R., J. Gutierrez and C.H.W. Flechtmann. 1998. World Catalog of the Spider Mite Family (Acari: Tetranychidae). Brill. Bo ston, Massachusetts. Borror, D.J., C.A. Triplehorn and N.F. Johnson. 1989. An Introduction to the Study of Insects. Harcourt Brace College Publishers. Orlando, Florida. Bosch, D., M.J. Saraua, J. Avilla, and F. Polesny. 2001. Mass trapping of Synanthedon m yopaeformis (Borkhausen) in Lleida with Pheromone traps. Bulletin OILB SROP. 24(5): 167

- 171. Bradbury , J.F. 1986. Guide to Plant Pathogenic Bacteria. CAB International Mycological Institute. CAB International, Slough, United Kingdom. Bright, D.E. and R.E. Skidmore. 1997. A Catalog of Scoly tidae and Platy

podidae (Coleoptera), Supplement 1 (1990

- 1994). NCR Research Press. Ottawa, Canada. Brunt, A.A., K. Crabtree, M.J. Dallwitz, A.J. Gibbs, L . Watson and E.J. Zucher. 1996. Plant Viruses Online: Descriptions and Lists from the VIDE Database. Available: http://image.fs.uidaho. edu/vide/ . Accessed: 08 December 2004. Butani, D. K. 1993. Mango: Pest Problems. Periodical Expert Book Agency, Delhi, India. 290 pp. CABI, 2003. Crop Protection Compendium. CAB International. Wallingford, United Kingdom. [CD

- ROM]. CABI, 200 6 . Crop Protection Compendium. CAB International. Wallingford, United Kingdom. [CD

- ROM]. CABI/EPPO. 1999. Ceratitis capitata . Distribution Maps of Plant Pe sts No. 1. CAB International. Wallingford, United Kingdom. Canizares, M.C., J.F. Marcos, V. Pallas and A. Hadidi. 1998. Studies on the incidence of hop stunt viroid in apricot trees ( Prunus armeniaca ) by

using an easy

and short extraction method to analyze large numbers of samples. Acta Horticulturae. 472: 581

- 585 Capinera, J. L . 2001. Handbook of Vegetable Pests. Academic Press, San Diego, California. Carraro, L., R. Osler, N. Loi, P. Ermacora and E. Refatti. 2001. Fruit tree phy toplasma diseases diffused in nature b y ps yl lids. Acta Horticulturae. 550: 345

- 350. Carter, D.J. 1984. Pest Lepidoptera of Europe, with Special Reference to the British Isles. Klumer Academic Publishers. Hingham, Massachusetts. Carter, M.V. and W.J. Moller. 1974. Euty pa canker of ap ricot in Spain. Plant Disease Reporter 58: 442

- 443. Č ech, M., M. Filigarová , J. Poz ěna and H. B ranišová. 1980. Strawberry latent ringspot and cucumber green mottle mosaic viruses in apricots with bare twig and unfruitfulness disease sy ndrome. Acta Phy

topathologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 15: 391

- 396. Chang, L.W.H. 1986. A Fruit Brown Rot. Pests Not Known to Occur in the United States or of Limited Distribution. Paper No. 76. USDA, APHIS. Chang, L.W.H. 1987. Plum Pox Virus. Pests not known to occur in the United States or of limited distribution. Paper No. 88. USDA, APHIS. Childers , C.C., J.C.V. Rodrigues and W.C . Welbourn. 2003. Host plants of Brevipalpus californicus , B. obovatus , and B. phoenicis (Acari: Tenuipalpidae) and their potential involvement in the spread of viral diseases vectored by these mites. Experimental and Applied Acarology . 30: 29

- 105.Pest R isk A ssessment for A pricot from Spain

Rev. 03 March 8, 2010 31 Damsteegt, V.D., A.L. Stone, D.G. Luster, L. Levy, F.E. Gildow and R. Williver. 2001. Preliminary

characterization of a North American isol ate of plum pox from naturally infected peach and plum orchards in Pennsylvania, USA. Acta Horticulturae. 550: 145

- 149. Danielson, R. 2004. Coleoptera: Nitidulidae present in the Entomological Museum of Lund University .Available: http://130.235.149.100/zoo mus/ZooDoc/VetSam/ZooEnt/OrdCol/ListCol/105bNitidulidae.ht ml

. Accessed: December 2007 Deseo, K.V. 1973. Side

- effect of diapause inducing factors on the reproductive activity of some Lepidopterous species. Nature New Biology . 242: 126

- 127. Diekmann, M. and C.A.J. Putter. 1996. FAO/IPGRITechnical Guidelines for the Safe Movement of Germplasm. No. 16. Stone Fruits. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations /International Plant Genetic Resources Institute. Rome, Italy

. Dominguez, S., F. Aparicio, J.A. Sanchez

-Navarro, V. Pallás, A. Cano and J. García

- Brunton. 1998. Studies on the incidence of Ilarviruses and apple chlorotic leaf spot virus in apricot tree in the Murcia Region (Spain) using serological and molecular hybridization m ethods. Acta Horticulturae. 472: 203

- 210. Drees, B.M. 1997. Greenhouse Mites and Their Management. Texas A&M University , College Station, Texas. Available: http://insects.tamu.edu/extension/bulletins/uc/uc

- 030.html

. Accessed: 10 March 2006. Dreistadt, S. H . 1994. Pests of Landscape Trees and Shrubs: An Integrated Pest Management Guide. University of California, Davis, California. El

- Sayed, A. 2007. The Pherobase: Database of Insect Pheromones and Semiochemicals. Last accessed 26 July

2007, http://www.pherob ase.com/. EPPO. 1993

. Guideline on Good Protection Practice: Prunus (Peach, Apricot, Plum, Cherry). PGPP Point 4.7. European Plant Protection Organization

. Paris , France

. EPPO. 2004. Good plant protection practice: Stone fruits. European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization. Last accessed 24 July 2007, http://archives.eppo.org/EPPOStandards/PP2_GPP/pp2

- 33(1)

- e.pdf Erwin, D.C. and O.K. Ribeiro. 1996. Phytophthora Diseases Worldwide. APS Press, St. Paul, Minnesota. Esteruelas, L. 2001. Letter to Dr. Robert Kahn, dated October 29, 200l, transmitting pest risk anal ys is for plum, apricot, peach and nectarine. Office of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Washington, DC. Farr, D.F., A.Y. Rossman, M.E. Palm and E.B. McCray . 2003. Fungal Databases. USDA, S ys tematic Botany and Mycology Laboratory. Available: http://nt.ars

- grin.gov/ fungaldatabases/ . Accessed 15 November 2004. Farr, D. F., G.F. Bills, G.P. Chamuris and A.F. Rossman . 1989. Fungi on Plants and Plant Products in the United States. American Phy topathological Society Press. St. Paul, Minnesota. Fé de Andrés, M., F. Garcia

- Arenal, M. Milagros López and P. Melgarejo. 1998. Patógenos de Plantas Descritos en España. Ministerio de Agricultura , Pesca Y Alimentación, Madrid. French, A.M. (Compiler). 1989. California Plant Disease Host Index. California Department of Food and Agriculture, Sacramento, California. Gildow, F. 2001. Plum Pox Virus: A Review and Update

- February , 2001. Pennsylvania S tate University , University

Park, Pennsylvania. Available: http://sharka.cas.psu.edu/ review_update.htm. Accessed: 15 November 2004.Pest R isk A ssessment for A pricot from Spain

Rev. 03 March 8, 2010 32 Gildow, F.E., V.D. Damsteegt, A.L. Stone and D.G. Luster. 2002. Aphid vector competence and transmission of Pennsylvania is olates of plum pox virus from infected peach fruit. Abstracts of the 2002 Annual Meeting of the American Phy topathological Society . Available: http://www.aps.org/meetings/2002/abstract s/a02ma205.htm . Accessed: 20 October 2003. Goodey , J.B., M.T. Franklin and D.J. Hooper. 1965. The Nematode Parasites of Plants Catalogued Under Their Hosts. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux. Farnham Royal, England. Gonzales, E., M. Alvarado, E. Berlanga, A. Serrano, and A. De la Rosa. 1994. Damage to nectarines caused b y thrips in the Guadalquivir Valley. Boletin de Sanidad Vegetal Plagas. 20: 229

- 241. Gunn, C.R. and C. Ritchie. 1982. Report of the Technical Committee to Evaluate Noxious Weeds: Exotic Weeds for Federal Noxious Weed Act (unpublished). Hartmann, H. T., D. E. Kester, and F. T. Davies. 1990. Plant Propagation

- Principles and Practices. Fifth Edition. Prentice Hall, NJ. 647pp. Hassan, E. 1977. Major Insect and Mite Pests of Australian Crops. Ento Press. Gatton, Queensland. Hely, P.C., Pasfield, G. and J.G. Gellatley . 1982. Insect Pests of Fruit and Vegetables in NSW. Inkata Press, Melbourne, Australia. Henry , T. J. 1983. Pests Not Known to Occur in the United States or of Limited Distribution, No. 38: Cottonseed Bug. USDA

. Hyattsville, Maryland. Hill, D.S. 1994. Agricultural Entomology . Timber Press. Portland, Oregon. Hollings, M., Y. Komuro and H. Tochihara. 1975. Cucumber green mottle mosaic virus. In Descriptions of Plant Viruses. Association of Applied Biologists. DPV. Accessed December 2007 from: www.dpvweb.net/dpv/showadpv.php?dpvno=154. Holm, L .G., D.L. Plucknett, J.V. Pancho and J.P. Herberger. 1977. The World's Worst Weeds. University

Press of Hawaii. Honolulu, Hawaii. Holm, L .G., J. Do ll, E. Holm, J.V. Pancho and J.P. Herberger. 1997. World Weeds: Natural Histories and Distribution. John Wiley and Sons, New York, New York. Holm, L .G., J.V. Pancho, J.P. Herberger and D. L. Plucknett. 1979. A Geographical Atlas of World Weeds. Krieger Publ ishing. Malabar, Florida. HYPPZ. 200 4

. Hy

permedia Plant Protection Zoology Database. Available: http://www.inra.fr/ Internet/Produits/HYPPZ/pa.htm. Accessed: 08 November 2004. IAPSC, 2003. High Risk Quarantine Pests for Africa and the Revised Co

- ordinated Phy tosanitary Regulation. Available: http://www.au

appo.org/en/IMG/pdf/quarantinepests.pdf . Accessed: 13 December 2004. IIE. 1963a. Distribution Maps of Pests. No.168. Hoplocampa flava (L.). Commonwealth Agricultural Bureau International, Wallingford, United Kingdom. IIE. 1963b. Distribution Maps of Pests. No.167. Hoplocampa minuta (Christ). Commonwealth Agricultural Bureau International, Wallingford, United Kingdom. IIE. 1976. Distribution Maps of Pests. No.362. Euproctis chrysorrhoea (L.). Commonwealth Agricultural Bureau International, Wallingford, United Kingdom. IIE. 1982a. Distribution Maps of Pests. No. 442. Adoxophyes orana (Fisch. V. Roesl.). Commonwealth Agricultural Bureau International, Wallingford, United Kingdom. IIE. 1982b. Distribution Maps of Pests. No. 440. Ceroplastes floridensis (Comstock). Commonwealth Agricultural Bureau International, Wallingford, United Kingdom.Pest R isk A ssessment for A pricot from Spain

Rev. 03 March 8, 2010 33 IIE. 1982c. Distribution Maps of Pests. No. 433. Oxycarenus hyalinipennis (Costa). Commonwealth Agricultural Bureau International, Wallingford, United Kingdom. IIE. 1983. Distribution Maps of Pests. No. 454. Stephanitis pyri (F.). Commonw ealth Agricultural Bureau International, Wallingford, United Kingdom. IPPC. 1996a. International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures: Guidelines for Pest Risk Analysis. International Plant Protection Convention of the United Nations Food and Agriculture O rganization, Rome, Ital y. IPPC. 1996b. International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures: Requirements for the Establishment of Pest Free Areas. International Plant Protection Convention of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome, Ital y . IPPC. 1999. International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures: Requirements for the Establishment of Pest Free Places of Production and Pest Free Production Sites. International Plant Protection Convention of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome, Ital y. IPPC. 2002a. International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures: Glossary

of Phy tosanitary Terms. International Plant Protection Convention of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome, Italy

. IPPC. 2002b. Internatio nal Standards for Phy tosanitary Measures: The Use of Integrated Measures in a S ys tems Approach for Pest Risk Management. International Plant Protection Convention of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome, Italy

. IPPC. 2004. International Standards for Phy tosanitary Measures: Pest Risk Analysis for Quarantine Pests including Analysis of Environmental Risks and Living Modified Organisms. International Plant Protection Convention of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, Rom e, Ital y. IPPC. 2005. International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures: Requirements for the Establishment of Areas of Low Pest Prevalence. International Plant Protection Convention of the United Nations Food & Agriculture Organization, Rome, Ital y. Iv anova, L. and S. Karov. 1999. Investigations on apricot leaf scorch , Gnomonia erythrostoma (Pers. Ex. Fr.) Auersw. , Bio eco logy and control. Acta Horticulturae

. 488: 719

- 721. Jeppson, L .R., H.H. Keifer and E.W. Baker. 1975. Mites Injurious to Economic Plants. University

of California Press. Berkeley, California. Kirk, P.M. 1999. Descriptions of Fungi and Bacteria, No. 393, Stigmina carpophila . CABI Bioscience. Surrey , United Kingdom. Kosztarab, M. and F. Kozar. 1988. Scale Insects of Central Europe. Dr. W. Junk Publishers. Boston, Massachusetts. Kuhns, M. and L. Rupp. 2000. Selecting and Planting Landscape Trees. Utah State University

. Lo gan, Utah. Labonne, G. and J.B. Quiot. 2001. Aphids can acquire plum pox virus from infected fruits. Acta Horticulturae. 550: 79

- 83. Lee, M.L. and M.H. Lee. 1997. Amplified mitochondrial DNA identify four species of Tetranychus mites (Acarina: Tetranyc hidae) in Korea. Korean Journal of Applied Entomology . 36: 30

- 36. Levy, L., V. Damsteegt, R. Scorza and M. Kölber. 2000. Plum Pox Poty virus Disease of Stone Fruits. American Phy

topathological Society . St. Paul, Minnesota. Available: http://www.apsnet.org/online/feature/PlumPox/ . Accessed: 15 November 2004.Pest R isk A ssessment for A pricot from Spain

Rev. 03 March 8, 2010 34 Llácer, G. 1995. Virus, Viroids and Mycoplasma Diseases of Apricots. Acta Horticulturae 384: 511

- 520. Llácer, G. 1998. General aspects of peach latent mosaic disease. Acta Horticulturae. 472: 561

- 564. Llácer, G. and A. Cambra. 1998. Thirteen ye ars of sharka disease in Spain. Acta Horticulturae. 472: 379

- 385. Llácer, G. and V. Medina. 1988. A survey of potential vectors of apricot chlorotic leaf roll. Agronomie. 8(1): 79

- 84. Lopez, M.M., M.T. Gorris and A.M. Montojo. 1988. Opine utilization by Spanish isolates of Agrob acterium tumefaciens

. Plant Pathology . 37: 5565

- 572. Lopez

- Colon, J.I . 1996. Presencia de Apate monachus Fabricius, 1775 en Andalusia (Coleoptera, Bostrichidae). Nouv. Revue Ent. 13: 294. Luque, Q. 2003. Mariposas de la Provincia de Castellon. InterNatura: Fauna y Flora. Available: http://www.internatura.uji.es/estudios/listas/lmaripo.html

. Accessed 04/28/03. Mansill a, J.P., R. Vazquez, A. Abelleira and M.C. Salinero. 1987. Principales organismos perjudiciales encontrados sobre Mirabel ( Prunus insititia var. syriaca ) en la provincia de Pontevedra. Boletin de Sanidad Vegetal Plagas. 13: 229

- 239. Martin, R. R., I . E. Tz anetakis, J. E. Barnes, and J. F. Elmhirst. 2004. First Report of Strawberry latent ringspot virus in Strawberry in the United States and Canada. Disease Notes. Plant Disease. 88 (5): 575. McQuate, G.T., P.A. Follett and J.M. Yoshimoto. 2000. Field infestation of rambutan fruits by internal

- feeding pests in Hawaii. Journal of Economic Entomology . 93: 846

- 851. Meijerman, L. and S.A. Ulenberg. 2000. Arthropods of Economic Importance: Eurasian Tortricidae. The Expert Center for Taxonomic Identification, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands. [CD

- ROM]. Michaels, F. 2005. Organic Fruit Fl y Control. Green Harvets, Maleny, Australia. Available: http://www.greenharvest.com.au/pes tcontrol/fruit_fly _info.html . Accessed: 15 February 2006. Mink, G. I. 1993

. Pollen

- and Seed

- transmitted Viru ses and Viroids. Annual Review of Plant Pathology

. 31: 375

- 402. Murant, A.F. 1987. Raspberry yellow dwarf and associated diseases caused by arabis m osaic and strawberry

latent ringspot viruses. pp. 204

- 211. In Virus Diseases of Small Fruits. Agriculture Handbook No. 631. USDA, Agricultural Research Service. Nafria, J.M.N., M.L .P. Mier, F.G. Prieto, and N.P. Hidalgo. 2003. The Animal Kingdom in the Ib erian Peninsula and Balearic Islands. Available: http://www.fauna

iberica.mncn.csic.es/faunaib/arthropoda/insecta/hemiptera/aphididae/aphidinae.php Accessed: December 2007

. Németh, M. 1986. Virus, Mycoplasma and Rickettsia Diseases of Fruit Trees. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. Akadémiai Kiadó, Hungary

. Németh, M. and M. Kölber. 1983. Additional evidence on seed transmission of plum pox virus in apricot, peach and plum, proved b y ELISA. Acta Horticulturae. 130: 293

- 300. Nieto

-Nafria, J.M., T.E. Diaz

- Gonzalez and M.P. Mier

- Durante. 1984. Catalog of the Aphids of Spain and their Host Plants. Universidad de Leon, Secretariado de Publicaciones. Leon, Spain.Pest R isk A ssessment for A pricot from Spain

Rev. 03 March 8, 2010 35 Nyczepir, A.P. and J.M. Halbrendt. 1993. Nematode Pests of Deciduous Fruit and Nut Trees. In Plant Parasitic Nematodes in Temperate Agriculture. CABI International, Wallingford, United Kingdom. Ogawa, J.M., E.I . Zehr, G.W. Bird, D.F. Richie, K. Uriu and J.K. Uyemoto. 1995. Compendium of Stone Fruit Diseases. American Phytopathological Society . St . Paul, Minnesota. Opler, P.A., H. Pavulaan and R.E. Stanford. 2004. Butterflies of North America. Available: http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/distr/lepid/bfly usa/bfl yusa.htm

. Accessed: 08 November 2004. Padron, F.P. and A.C. Hernandez. 1988. Recent colo nization by a nymphalid of the Canary Islands (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae). Boletin de la Asociacion Espanola de Entomologia. 12: 363. Pasquini, G. and M. Barba. 2006. The question of seed transmissibility of Plum pox virus. Bulletin_OEPP. 36(2): 287

- 292. Av ailable: http://www.blackwell

sy nergy .com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1365

- 2338.2006.00989.x . Accessed: December 2007. PestID. 2004. Pest Identification Database (PestID). United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine. (archived at PERAL). PestID. 2010. Pest Identification Database (PestID). United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health In spection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine. (archived at PERAL). Pfleger, F. L. and S.L. Gould. 1998. Bacterial Leaf Diseases of Foliage Plants. University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Available: http://www.extension.umn.edu/distribution/horticulture/DG1170.html . Accessed: 15 February 2005. Plaza, E. 1976. Los Carpophilus Stephens, 1830, de España (Col. Nitidulidae). Graellsia. 32: 171

- 192. Pirone, P.P. 1978. Diseases and Pests of Ornamental Plants. John Wiley and Sons, New York, New York. Postman, J. D., I . E. Tzanetakis, and R. R. Martin. 2004. First Report of Strawberry latent ringspot virus in a Mentha sp. from North America. Disease Notes. Plant Disease. 88(8): 907. Pucat, A.M. and J.A. Garland. 2003. Tetranychus viennensis , Hawthorn Sp ider Mite. Canadian Food Inspection Agency . Available: http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/sci/surv/data/ tetviee.shtml Accessed: 15 November 2004. Reed, C.F. 1977. Economically Important F oreign Weeds. USDA Agriculture Handbook No. 498. Ribes

- Dasi, M., R. Albajes, M.J. Sarasua, J. Avilla and F. Polesny. 2001. The use of geostatistics to study the geospatial distribution of Cydia pomonella and Pandemis heparana in Lleida. Bulletin OILB SROP. 24(5): 185

- 188. Robinson, G.S., P.R. Ackery , I.J. Kitching, G.W. Beccaloni and L.M. Hernandez. 2004. HOSTS

- A Database of the Hostplants of the World's Lepidoptera. Available: http://internt.nhm.ac.uk/jdsml/research

- curatio n/projects/hostplants/ . Accessed: December 2007 Rowhani. A. and S.M. Mircetich. 1988. Pathogenicity on walnut and serological comparisons of cherry leafroll virus strains. Phy topathology

78: 817

- 820.Pest R isk A ssessment for A pricot from Spain

Rev. 03 March 8, 2010 36 Riudavets, J., E. Lucas, M.J. Pons, C. Alder, S. Navarro , M. Scholler and L. Stengard

- Hanson. 2002. Insects and mites of stored products in the northeast of Spain. Bulletin OILB SROP. 25 (3) : 41

- 44. Scalenet. 2004. Scalenet: A Database of the Scale Insects of the World. USDA, Systematic Entomology

L aboratory . Av ailable: http://www.sel.barc.usda.gov/scalenet/scalenet.htm

. Accessed: 05 November 2004. Schmitt T. and A. Seitz. 2004. Lo w diversity but high differentiation: the population genetics of Aglaope infausta (Zygaenidae: Lepidoptera)

. Journal of Biogeography. 31: 137

- 144. Scott, S. and M.T. Zimmerman. 2001. Peach rosette, little peach, and red suture are diseases induced b y a phytoplasma closel y related to western x

- disease. Acta Horticulturae. 550: 351

- 353. Stejerean, M. and I. Bobes. 1982. Investigations on Gnomonia erythrostoma (Pers.) Anersw. Biology and Control. Acta Horticulturae 121: 425

- 427. Šutić, D.D., R.E. Ford and M.T. Tošić. 1999. Handbook of Plant Virus Disease. CRC Press. New York, New York. Sztejnberg, A. and G. Madar. 1980. Host range of Dematophora necatrix , the cause of white root rot disease in fruit trees. Plant Disease 64: 662

- 664. Thomas, B.J. 1984. Epidemiology of 3 Viruses Infecting the Rose, Rosa spp., in the UK . Annals of Applied Biology . 105: 213

- 222. USDA. 2000a. Guidelines for Pathway

- initiated Pest Risk Assessments, Version 5.02. USDA, APHI S, PPQ. Riverdale MD. 31 pp

. USDA. 2000b. United States Department of Agriculture , Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service , Re gulated Plant Pest List . Available: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/import_export/plants/plant_imports/regulated_pest_list.shtml

. Accessed: December 2007

. USDA. 2000c. Gy

ps y M oth, Lymantria dispar, Pest Alert. USDA, Forest Service. Available: http://www.na.fs.fe d.us/spfo/pubs/pest_al/gm/gm.htm. Accessed: 10 November 2004. USDA. 200 2 a . Browntail Moth, Euproctis chrysorrhoea , Pest Alert. USDA, Forest Service. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/na/durham/ima/pubs_maps/text/browntail.html . Accessed: 10 November 2004. USDA. 2002b. Evaluation of cold storage treatment against Mediterranean Fruit Fl y, Ceratitis capitata (Wiedemann) (Diptera: Tephritidae). USDA, APHI S, PPQ. Availa ble: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/lpa/issues/clementine/10

- 17

- 02/ctr5

- 2

- 02.pdf . Accessed: 15 November 2004. USDA

-NRCS. 2002. The PLANTS Database, Version 3.5. National Plant Data Center, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Available: http://plants.usda.gov . Accessed: 15 November 2004. USDA. 2003. Agricultural Quarantine Inspection Monitoring Handbook. United States Department of Agriculture., http: //www.aphis.usda.gov/import_export/plants/manuals/ports/downloads/aqim_handbook.p df

. Accessed: December 2007 USDA . 2007. Treatment Manual. United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. Available http://www.aphis.usda.gov/import_export/plants/manuals/ports/downloads/treatment.pdf

. Accessed: December 2007

.Pest R isk A ssessment for A pricot from Spain

Rev. 03 March 8, 2010 37 Varveri, C., N. Vassilakos and F. Bem. 2002. Characterization and Detection of Cucumber Green Mottle Mosaic Virus in Greece. Phy toparasitica. 30(5): 1

- 9. Accessed: December 2007 from: www.phytoparasitica.org/phyto/pdfs/2002/issue5/VARV.pdf

. Van den Berg, M.A. 2001. Family Noctuidae. In Pests and Beneficial Arthropods of Tropical and Non

- citrus Subtropical Crops in South Africa, edited by van den Berg, M.A., de Villiers, E.A. and P.H. Joubert. Nelspruit, S.A.: ARC

- In stitute for Tropical and Subtropical Crops. Van der Geest, L. and H. Evenhuis. 1991. Tortricid Pests: Their Biology , Natural Enemies and Control. Elsevier. New York, New York. Van Steenwy

k, R.A., W.W. Coates and L .C. Hendricks. 2004. University of California Integrated Pest Management Guidelines: Apricot. Available: http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PMG/ selectnewpest.apricots.html. Accessed: 08 November 2004. Venette, R. C., R. D. Moon, and W. D. Hutchison. 2002. Strategies and statistics of sampling for rare individuals. Annual Review of Entomology 47:143

- 174. Vera, M.T., R. Rodriguez, D.F. Segura, J.L . Cladera and R.W. Sutherst. 2002. Potential geographical distribution of the Mediterranean fruit fly , Ceratitis capitata (Diptera: Tephritidae), with emphasis on Argentina and Australia. Environmental Entomology . 31: 1009

- 102 2. Weems, H.V. 1981. Mediterranean fruit fl y, Ceratitis capitata (Wiedemann) (Diptera: Tephritidae). Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. Entomology Circular No. 230. White, I .M. and M.M. Elton

- Harris. 1992. Fruit Flies of Economic Significance: Their Id entification and Bionomics. CAB International. Wallingford, United Kingdom. Whittle, K. 1984. Pests Not Known to Occur in the United States or of Limited Distribution, No. 49: Plum Fruit Moth

. USDA, Hyattsville, Maryland. Whittle, K. 1985 . Pests Not Known to Occur in the United States or of Limited Distribution, No. 62: Summer Fruit Tortrix Moth

. USDA, Hyattsville, Maryland. Wood, S.L . and D.E. Bright. 1992. A Catalog of the Scoly tidae and Platyp odidae (Coleoptera), Part 2: Taxonomic Index Volumes A and B. Brigham Young University. Rexburg, Idaho. WSSA. 2004. Composite List of Weeds. Weed Science Society of America. Available: http://www.wssa.net/ . Accessed: 05 November 2004. Zhang, B

. C. 1994. Index of E conomicall y Important Lepidoptera. CAB International. Wallingford, the United Kingdom.Pest R isk A ssessment for A pricot from Spain

Rev. 03 March 8, 2010 38 

### Appendix **1. Rationale for not analyzing Strawberry latent ringspot virus in**  **the risk assessment**  **for the I**  **mportation of Fresh**  **Prunus arm**  **eniaca F**  **ruit from Continental**  **Spain into the United States** S trawberry

latent ringspot virus (S LR SV) is currently considered a regulated pest in the United States (USDA

- APHIS, 2000). Title 7 of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations Section 319, Part 37 (7 CFR §319. 37 ) lists specific regulations for propagative Prunus species (almond, cherry, cherry laurel, English laurel, nectarine, peach, plum, prune) and Vitis spp. (grape) from Canada. The following information is presented to explain why it was not anal yz ed in the risk assessment for the “Importation of fresh Apricot , Prunus armeniaca (L. ) fruit from Continental Spain into the United States including Hawaii and U.S. Territories ”

. **G eneral Background**  Strawberry

latent ringspot virus is a nematode vectored, mechani call y transmitted, and seedborne virus with a wide host range encompassing many economicall y important plant families (Hanson and Campbell, 1979; CABI/EPPO, 2004). It is considered a Sadwavirus but lacks consensus for a family level designation and remains unassigned ( IC TVdB Management , 2006 )

. For many ye ars it was considered a nepovirus due to its transmission via nematode s ; however this classification has now been disputed (Tzanetakis et al ., 2006). Depending on the host and titer of the virus within the plant SLRSV can cause stem and fruit deformations, leaf chlorosis or mottling, bunchy growth, reduced fruit or seed set ( Č e ch et al ., 1980; Everett et al ., 1994; Faggioli et al ., 2002; Hicks et al ., 1 986; Thomas, 1984 ). Some hosts remain s ymptomless (latent infection) (CABI/EPPO, 2004). A number of studies have shown that SLRSV is commonly found in association with other viruses such as Arabis mosaic virus (CABI/EPPO, 2004 ; Thomas, 1984), Cucumber green mottle mosaic virus ( Č e ch et al , 1980), or Apple chlorotic leaf spot virus (Marenaud and Dunez, 1969)

. The association of SLRSV with Prunus species is well documented ( Č e ch et al ., 1980; Everett et al ., 1994; Marenaud and Dunez, 1969) however research on certain aspects of the virus in Prunus , such as seed transmission, was not found. **G eographic Distribution**  SLRSV is reported from many European countries and, with dispute, in parts of Oceania, Asia, and North America (CABI/EPPO, 2003 , 2004; ICTVdB Management , 2006 ). In 1979, SLRSV was reported in three imported cultivar ‘Plain’ parsley seedlots in California (Hanso n and Campbell , 1979) . The parsley seed, for two of the infected lots, originated from Europe and was unknown for the third (Hanson and Campbell, 1979). This was published as the first U.S. detection of the virus. Hanson and Campbell (1979) noted that because parsley is not an economically

important crop in California, the chance for establishment from planting seed originating in Europe seemed “slight”.Pest R isk A ssessment for A pricot from Spain

Rev. 03 March 8, 2010 39 It was not until additional research in 2004 that Martin et al . (2004) found 17 percent of the strawberries tested in a California study were infected in SLRSV. That same year Postman et al

. (2004) found SLRSV in variegated mint ( Mentha x gracilis ‘Variegata’) sold by wholesale and mail

- order nurseries in Maryland, Ohio, and Nebraska. Viral infection produced chlorosis of the leaves and the infected plants were being sold as a “variegated” mint, desired by many gardeners as an ornamental feature of the herb. Postman et al . (2004) concluded that this pathway has likel y spread the virus throughout the United States. With this new information for its widespread presence in the United States , the U.S. regulations for SLRSV are under review. **B iological Features Affecting Likelihood of Introduction**  The main concern with SLRSV and importation of host fruit, is that it is reported to be seed transmitted, and to a high degree, for some hosts ( CABI

- EPPO, 2004; Hicks et al ., 1986; Murant, 1974). Seed transmission has been repor ted for Rosa sp. (a member of the same plant famil y) ( Thomas, 1984). No research was found for seed transmission of Prunus species

. Prunus species are more commonly propagated b y budding or grafting onto rootstocks rather than propagation from seed (Hartmann et al ., 1990). Most commercial cultivars of Prunus species are hybrids and propagation from seed does not guarantee conservation of the parent hy brid’s traits. G ermination of most Prunus seed also requires a minimum of 2

- 6 months moist chilling and there may

be other dormancy

problems where in commercial production techniques such as embryo excision or tetrazolium tests need to be used to determine germinative capacity (Hartmann et al ., 1990). The intent of importing this commodity is for consumption and the likelihood for propagation from seed resides at the consumer level after consumption or in discarded food waste. If the consumer is able to get the seed to germinate or the discarded seed germinates in the environment, the likelihood for natural transmission to other hosts is also limited. This is primarily because the only

known vectors for the virus are the nematodes Xiphinema divers icaudatum and X. coxi (Murant, 1974). Xiphinema diversicaudatum is present in the United States, but is not widely distributed (CABI, 2006; NGDC, 1984) and movement from plant to plant with nematodes is slow and limited (CABI/EPPO, 2004). Xiphinema coxi was first described b y Tarjan in 1964 as occurring in parts of Florida, however no further records of U.S. distribution were found (Tarjan, 1964 via Cho and Robbins, 1990; Lehman, 2002; NGDC, 1984). Itis reported that not all populations of X. diversicaud atum are equally efficient in transmitting the virus; in one study a peach isolate of SLRSV was onl y transmitted by

three out of nine X. diversicaudatum populations tested (Brown, 1985 via CABI/EPPO, 2004). Transmissibility via aphid and beetle vectors was also recentl y investigated by Tzanetakis et al . (2006) and the results were negative. There were also two papers published in the same volume of Acta Horticulturae (1980) that report a mixed infection of SLRSV and Cucumber green mottle mosaic virus in S outh Moravia apricot trees caused them to cease bearing fruit ( Č e ch et al ., 1980; Blattny and Janeckova, 1980).Pest R isk A ssessment for A pricot from Spain

Rev. 03 March 8, 2010 40 These earl y reports are notable for considering the possibility that infected trees might not produce fruit suitable for export, however subsequ ent published research or references to the observed results in other Prunus species were not found. **S ummary**  The anal ys is of SLRSV in the pest risk assessment for Prunus armeniaca from Spain is not warranted or justified for the following reasons: 1) SLRSV is present in the United States (regulations under review) 2) Commodity

is for consumption and seed propagation is not the preferred or easiest method of propagation 3) Vectors are not widel y distributed in the United States and do not possess ability to move th e pathogen long distances

**L iterature Cited (Appendix Only)**  Blattny, C. and Janeckova, M. 1980. Apricot Bare Twig and Unfruitfulness. Acta Phy topathologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae. Acta Horticulturae No. 94. 15(1

- 4): 383

- 390. CABI/EPPO. 2003. Strawberry latent ringspot virus. Distribution Maps of Plant Diseases. No. 891. CAB International, Wallingford, UK. CABI

- EPPO. 2004. Data Sheets on Quarantine Pests, Strawberry latent ringspot ‘nepovirus’. Retrieved December 2007 from: http://www.eppo.org/QUARANTINE/virus/Strawberry _latent_ringspot_virus/SLRSV0_ds.p df

. Č e ch , M., M. Filigarová, J. Pozděna, and H. Branišová. 1980. Strawberry Latent Ringspot and Cucumber Green Mottle Mosaic Viruses in Apricots with the Bare Twig and Unfruitfulness Disease S yndrome. Acta Phy topathologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae. Acta Horticulturae No. 94. 15(1

- 4): 391

- 396. Cho, M. R. and R. T. Robbins. 1990. Observations of All Postembryonic Stages of Xiphinema coxi coxi (Nematoda: Longidoridae). Journal of Nematology . (22)1: 69

- 78. Retrieved December 2007 from: http://broker10.fcla.edu/DLData/SN/SN0022300X/0022_001/90_10.pdf

. Everett, K. R., K. S. Milne, and R. L. S. Forster. 1994. A new host record: strawberry latent ringspot virus isolated from flowering cherry

. Australasian Plant Pathology . 23: 11

- 15. Faggioli, F., L. Ferretti, G. Pasquini, and M. Barba. 2002. Detection of Strawberry latent ring spot virus in Leaves of Olive Trees in Ital y using One

- Step RT

- PCR. J. Phy topathology

150: 636

- 639. Hanson, C. M. and R. N. Campbell. 1979. Strawberry latent ringspot virus from ‘Plain’ Parsley in California. Plant Disease Reporter. 63(2): 142

- 146. Hartmann, H. T., D. E. Kester, and F. T. Davies. 1990. Plant Propagation

- Principles and Practices. Fifth Edition. Prentice Hall, NJ. 647pp. Hicks, R. G. T., T. J. Smith, and R. P. Edwards. 1986. Effects of strawberry latent ringspot virus on the development of seeds and seedlings of Chenopodium quinoa and Pastinaca sativa (parsnip). Seed Science and Technology . 14: 409

- 417.Pest R isk A ssessment for A pricot from Spain

Rev. 03 March 8, 2010 41 ICTVdB Management (2006). Strawberry latent ringspot virus. In: ICTVdB

- The Universal Virus Database , Version 3. Büchen

- Osmond, C. (Ed), Columbia University , New York, USA. Retrieved December 2007 from ICTVdB

- The Universal Virus Database , Version 4: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ICTVdb/ICTVdB/

. Lehman, P. 2002. Phy

toparasitic Nematodes Reported in Florida. Florida Dept. of Ag. And Consumer Services. Nematode Section. Retrieved De cember 2007 from: http://www.doacs.state.fl.us/pi/enpp/nema/images/phyotnema.pdf

. Marenaud, C. and J. Dunez. 1969. Contribution to the study of viruses transmitted by nematodes in stone fruit trees. Annals of Phy topathology . 1(4): 591

- 602. Martin, R. R., I . E. Tzanetakis, J. E. Barnes, and J. F. Elmhirst. 2004. First Report of Strawberry latent ringspot virus in Strawberry in the United States and Canada. Disease Notes. Plant Di sease. 88 (5): 575. Murant, A. F. 1974. Strawberry L atent Ringspot Virus. CMI/AAB Descriptions of Plant Viruses. No. 126. Commonwealth Mycological Institute and Association of Applied Biologists. NGDC. 1984. Distribution of Plant

- Parasitic Nematode Specie s in North America. A Project of the Nematode Geographical Distribution Committee of the Society of Nematologists. Postman, J. D., I . E. Tzanetakis, and R. R. Martin. 2004. First Report of Strawberry latent ringspot virus in a Mentha sp. from North America. Disease Notes. Plant Disease. 88(8): 907. Thomas, B. J. 1984. Epidemiology of three viruses infecting the rose in the United Kingdom. Annals of Applied Biology . 105: 213

- 222. Tzanetakis, I . E., J. D. Postman, R. C. Gergerich, and R. R. Martin. 2006. A virus between families: nucleotide sequencing and evolution of Strawberry latent ringspot virus. Virus Research. 121: 199

- 204. Retrieved December 2007 from: www.elsevier.com/loc ate/virusres USDA

- APHIS. 2000. USDA Animal Plant Health Inspection Service Regulated Plant Pest List. Retrieved December 2007 from: http://www.invasivespecies.org/RegulatedPestList.pdf

. U .S. Government. 2007. Code of Federal Regulations. U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved December 2007 from: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/cfr/index.html

.