Importation of Fresh Apricot, Prunus armeniaca (L.) fruit, from 

Continental Spain into the United States, including Hawaii and U.S.

Territories

A Pathway-Initiated Risk Assessment

March 8, 2010

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 27606
Pest Risk Assessment for Apricot 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

analyzed based on international principles and internal guidelines as described in the PPQ 

guidelines for Pathway-Initiated Pest Risk Assessments version 5.02 (USDA, APHIS, 2000).

Quarantine-significant pests likely to follow the pathway (i.e., accompany shipments of apricot) 

include one fruit fly, one moth, and two fungi.

Type Organism Taxonomy

Fruit fly 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 was

assigned a Medium pest risk potential, and the remaining species were assigned High pest risk 

potentials. Additional phytosanitary measures may be necessary to guard against the introduction 

and establishment of pests with Medium pest risk potentials and are strongly recommended for 

pests with High pest risk potentials.
Pest Risk Assessment for Apricot 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 Risk Assessment for Apricot from Spain

Rev. 03 March 8, 2010 1

I. Introduction

This risk assessment was prepared by 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 High, Medium or Low in 

accordance with the template document, Guidelines for Pathway-Initiated Pest Risk Assessments, 

Version 5.02 (USDA, 2000a).

The methods used to initiate, 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 by the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) of the United 

Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (IPPC, 1996a, 2004). Biological and 

phytosanitary 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 economically 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, Italy, 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 by 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 Risk Assessment for Apricot from Spain

Rev. 03 March 8, 2010 2

Table 1. Assessment of the weed potential of apricot (Prunus armeniaca) (Rosaceae)

Phase 1: Apricot is cultivated throughout the United States in Hardiness Zones 4-9 (Kuhns 

and Rupp, 2000). It is commercially grown in Arizona, California, Michigan, Utah and 

Washington (Ogawa et al., 1995).

Phase 2: Is the species listed in:

No Geographical Atlas of World Weeds (Holm et al., 1979).

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

Distribution (Holm et al., 1997).

No Report of the Technical Committee to Evaluate Noxious Weeds: Exotic Weeds 

for the Federal Noxious Weed Act (Gunn and Ritchie, 1982).

No Economically Important Foreign Weeds (Reed, 1977).

No Weed Science Society of America Composite List of Weeds (WSSA, 2004).

No 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 

currently permit importation of fresh fruit of apricot from continental Spain into the United 

States.

2. Previous decisions

Apricot from Spain was denied entry into the United States on 11 May 1988 because there was 

no acceptable treatment for Cydia funebrana.

3. Pest interception records

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 Risk Assessment for Apricot from Spain

Rev. 03 March 8, 2010 3

Table 2. Pests associated with apricot in Continental Spain 1

Pest Geographic

distribution2

Plant part 

affected 3

Quarantine pestFollow

pathway

References

ARTHROPODS

ACARI

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 No16 Bolland et al., 1998; 

CABI, 2003; Jeppson 

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, 2003; 

Lopez-Colon, 1996

Coleoptera: Buprestidae

Capnodis tenebrionis 

(Linnaeus)

ES S Yes No CABI, 2003; 

Esteruelas, 2001; 

HYPPZ, 2004

Coleoptera: Curculionidae

Otiorhynchus 

cribricollis

Gyllenhal

ES, US L, R No No CABI, 2003;Van 

Steenwyk et al., 2004

Coleoptera: Nitidulidae

Carpophilus 

hemipterus

(Linnaeus)

ES, US F No Yes CABI, 2003; 

Danielson, 2004; 

Plaza, 1976
Pest Risk Assessment for Apricot from Spain

Rev. 03 March 8, 2010 4

Pest Geographic

distribution2

Plant part 

affected 3

Quarantine pestFollow

pathway

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, 2003

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: Forficulidae

Forficula auricularia 

Linnaeus

ES, US F No No4 Nafria et al., 2003;

Van Steenwyk 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 EltonHarris, 1992
Pest Risk Assessment for Apricot from Spain

Rev. 03 March 8, 2010 5

Pest Geographic

distribution2

Plant part 

affected 3

Quarantine pestFollow

pathway

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; NietoNafria et al., 1984

Brachycaudus cardui

(Linnaeus)

ES, US L, S No No Blackman and Eastop, 

1994; Nafria et al., 

2003

Brachycaudus 

persicae (Passerini)

ES, US L, R, S No No Blackman and Eastop, 

1994; Nafria et al., 

2003

Hyalopterus pruni 

(Geoffrey)

ES, US L, S No No Avidov and Harpaz, 

1969; Blackman and 

Eastop, 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 Eastop, 

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 

(Mulsant 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, 2004
Pest Risk Assessment for Apricot from Spain

Rev. 03 March 8, 2010 6

Pest Geographic

distribution2

Plant part 

affected 3

Quarantine pestFollow

pathway

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, 2001
Pest Risk Assessment for Apricot from Spain

Rev. 03 March 8, 2010 7

Pest Geographic

distribution2

Plant part 

affected 3

Quarantine pestFollow

pathway

References

Hemiptera: Lygaeidae

Oxycarenus 

hyalinipennis

(Costa)

ES F Yes No4 Avidov and Harpaz, 

1969; CABI, 2003; 

Henry, 1983; IIE, 

1982c

Hemiptera: Pentatomidae

Nezara viridula

(Linnaeus)

ES, US F, I, L, S, 

Sd

No No4 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 No6 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, 2002a
Pest Risk Assessment for Apricot from Spain

Rev. 03 March 8, 2010 8

Pest Geographic

distribution2

Plant part 

affected 3

Quarantine pestFollow

pathway

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 No6 Carter, 1984

Helicoverpa armigera

(Hübner)

ES F, I, L, S Yes No17 CABI, 2003; Robinson 

et al., 2004

Peridroma saucia

(Hübner)

ES, US F, L, S No No7 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: Pyralidae

Cadra cautella 

Walker

ES, US F, R, Sd No No8 Avidov and Harpaz, 

1969; CABI, 2003; 

Zhang, 1994
Pest Risk Assessment for Apricot from Spain

Rev. 03 March 8, 2010 9

Pest Geographic

distribution2

Plant part 

affected 3

Quarantine pestFollow

pathway

References

Ephestia elutella

Hübner

ES, US F, Sd No No8 CABI, 2003; Carter, 

1984; Robinson et al., 

2004

Ephestia figulilella

Gregson

ES, US F, Sd No No8 CABI, 2003; Carter, 

1984; Robinson et al., 

2004

Plodia interpunctella

(Hübner)

ES, US F, Sd No No8 CABI, 2003; Carter, 

1984; Riudavets et al., 

2002; Robinson et al., 

2004

Lepidoptera: Tortricidae

Adoxophyes orana

Fischer von 

Röeslerstamm

ES F, L Yes No4 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., 2004
Pest Risk Assessment for Apricot from Spain

Rev. 03 March 8, 2010 10

Pest Geographic

distribution2

Plant part 

affected 3

Quarantine pestFollow

pathway

References

Tortricidae, sp. of ES F Yes 9 No 9PestID, 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 9Fé de Andres et al., 

1998; Ogawa et al., 

1995
Pest Risk Assessment for Apricot from Spain

Rev. 03 March 8, 2010 11

Pest Geographic

distribution2

Plant part 

affected 3

Quarantine pestFollow

pathway

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., 1995
Pest Risk Assessment for Apricot from Spain

Rev. 03 March 8, 2010 12

Pest Geographic

distribution2

Plant part 

affected 3

Quarantine pestFollow

pathway

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., 2003; 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., 

1995
Pest Risk Assessment for Apricot from Spain

Rev. 03 March 8, 2010 13

Pest Geographic

distribution2

Plant part 

affected 3

Quarantine pestFollow

pathway

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 Pethybr. 

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 prunispinosae (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 Risk Assessment for Apricot from Spain

Rev. 03 March 8, 2010 14

Pest Geographic

distribution2

Plant part 

affected 3

Quarantine pestFollow

pathway

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 12 CABI, 2003; Brunt et 

al., 1996; Fé de Andrés 

et al., 1998
Pest Risk Assessment for Apricot from Spain

Rev. 03 March 8, 2010 15

Pest Geographic

distribution2

Plant part 

affected 3

Quarantine pestFollow

pathway

References

Plum pox virus

(Potyviridae) (strain 

D)

18

ES, US (PA) F, I, L, R, 

S, Sd

Yes No19 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 11 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 11 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 Yes13 No 13 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 14 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 14 Badenes and Llácer, 

1998; CABI, 2003; Fé 

de Andres et al., 1998; 

Llácer, 1998; Ogawa 

et al., 1995

PHYTOPLASMAS

Aster yellows 

phytoplasma group

(Acholeplasmatales)

ES, US Ws No No 15 CABI, 2003; Carraro 

et al, 2001
Pest Risk Assessment for Apricot from Spain

Rev. 03 March 8, 2010 16

Pest Geographic

distribution2

Plant part 

affected 3

Quarantine pestFollow

pathway

References

European stone fruit 

yellows 

phytoplasma (= 

Apricot chlorotic 

leafroll 

phytoplasma) 

(Acholeplasmatales)

ES Ws Yes No 15 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 15 CABI, 2003; Ogawa et 

al., 1995; Scott and 

Zimmerman, 2001

NEMATODES

DORYLAIMIDA

Longidoridae

Xiphinema 

americanum Cobb

ES, US R No No Anonymous, 1984; 

CABI, 2003

Xiphinema index

Thorne and Allen

ES, US R No No Anonymous., 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 Anonymous, 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 Anonymous, 1984; 

CABI, 2003; Nyczepir

and Halbrendt, 1993

Pratylenchus vulnus

Allen and Jensen

ES, US R No No Anonymous, 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 these species were assumed to not occur in continental Spain, they 
Pest Risk Assessment for Apricot 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, HI = Hawaii, IL = Illinois, 

IN = Indiana, MA = Massachusetts, ME = Maine, MI = Michigan, MS = Mississippi, NC = North 

Carolina, 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 feed 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 is highly unlikely to follow the pathway because it spends the day below ground and feeds on 

plant material at night (CABI, 2003). It is, 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 Horticulturae (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 would 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 transmissible 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 “unfruitfulness”, seed 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 will 
Pest Risk Assessment for Apricot 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 (USDA, 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.

14 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.

15

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 likely 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 correspond to the time of apricot harvest.

17 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, 2010). 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 plum pox virus is reported in Spain. Strain 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. We 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 reasonably likely to follow the pathway (i.e., accompany shipments of 

apricot) were identified (Table 3) and subjected to further analyses (i.e., steps 5-7 in USDA, 

2000a). Numerous pests in Table 2 were not subjected to further analyses for various reasons: 

they were widely 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 Risk Assessment for Apricot from Spain

Rev. 03 March 8, 2010 19

Pests listed in Table 3 were selected for further analyses because they were quarantine pests of

the United States that were considered likely to follow the pathway (i.e. accompany shipments of 

apricot). Justifications for considering these pests as reasonably likely to follow the pathway are 

presented below.

Ceratitis capitata and Cydia funebrana were considered likely 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 by U.S. agriculture inspectors on a variety of fruit, including those of 

Prunus species.

Apiognomonia (Gnomonia) erythrostoma was considered likely 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 contradictory reports may be an indication that the fungus is capable 

of producing quiescent infections.

Monilinia fructigena was considered likely 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 by summing all risk elements for each pest 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 Risk Assessment for Apricot 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; EPPO, 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, 1997).

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 symptoms 

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 (Ogawa 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. Severe economic damage is, however, not typical (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, Myrtaceae, 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 Risk Assessment for Apricot 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 fly 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 by 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 polyphagous 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 ratings

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 arthropods, 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, have 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 generations of C. funebrana damage more than 

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

commodity value by stimulating chemical and/or biological control programs.

Establishment of this species in the United States is likely to cause a loss 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 programs.

High (3)
Pest Risk Assessment for Apricot 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, Myrtaceae, 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 by animals (including man), wind, and water (CABI, 2003; Chang, 

1986).

High (3)

Risk Element 4: Economic Impact

Fruit decay caused by M. fructigena can significantly reduce yield, but losses 

rarely 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 Ratings for Consequences of Introduction

Pest Climate-host 

interaction

Host 

range

Dispersal 

potential

Economic 

impact

Environmental 

impact

Cumulative 

risk rating

Apiognomonia 

erythrostoma

High (3) Low (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 supporting reproduction (USDA, 2000a).
Pest Risk Assessment for Apricot 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-foot-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. Survive Post-Harvest Treatment

Arthropods that feed internally and pathogens that produce latent or symptomless infections were 

expected to survive minimal postharvest treatments, such as washing and culling. The fruit fly, 

C. capitata, the moth, and C. funebrana, were, therefore, rated High for this sub-element. The 

fungi, A. erythrostoma and M. fructigena, were assigned Medium risk ratings because they may

produce latent infections or subtle symptoms on the fruit (CABI, 2003; Ogawa et al., 1995), but 

dormant spores and obviously infected fruit would likely be removed by washing and culling 

prior to shipment.

3. Survive Shipment

Apricots are stored at 1-3oC (CABI, 2003). Even if the 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 one of the least cold-hardy pests analyzed here, and USDA (2007) currently recommends that 

fruit be stored at 1.11oC or lower for 14 days to kill all C. capitata larvae. Ceratitis 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. The probability of pathogens being detected at the port of entry

depends on how well the symptoms are expressed in the commodity. Monilinia fructigena

produces symptoms on fruit that are easily detected by visual inspection, but can cause latent 

infections where no symptoms would be present (CABI, 2003; Ogawa et al., 1995). 

Apiognomonia erythrostoma may or may not infect fruit without producing obvious symptoms. 

Reported symptoms 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 symptoms Monilinia fructigena and A. erythrostoma were given High 

pest risk ratings. 
Pest Risk Assessment for Apricot 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 likely to come into contact 

with suitable hosts and were assigned High pest risk ratings. Apiognomonia erythrostoma was

given a Medium pest risk rating because of a limited host range but ability to aerially disperse 

considerable distances.

Table 5. Risk Ratings for Likelihood of Introduction

Pest Quantity 

imported 

annually

Survive 

postharvest 

treatment

Survive 

shipment

Not 

detected 

at portof-entry

Moved 

to 

suitable 

habitat

Contact 

host 

material

Cumulative 

risk ratings

Apiognomonia 

erythrostoma

Low (1) Medium (2) High (3) High (3) High (3) Medium 

(2)

Medium 

(14)

Ceratitis 

capitata

Low (1) High (3) High (3) High (3) Medium 

(2)

High (3) High (15)

Cydia 

funebrana

Low (1) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (16)

Monilinia 

fructigena

Low (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 sufficient 

phytosanitary 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 Risk Assessment for Apricot from Spain

Rev. 03 March 8, 2010 25

Table 6. Pest Risk Potentials

Pest Consequences of 

Introduction

Likelihood of 

Introduction

Pest Risk Potential

Apiognomonia erythrostoma Medium (12) Medium (14) Medium (26)

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 phytosanitary measures included in existing 

USDA APHIS manuals or that are described in international standards. 

A single phytosanitary measure, such as inspection, quarantine treatment, or a combination of 

measures, may provide phytosanitary 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 compensate for uncertainty. A measure 

intended for use in a systems approach must be clearly defined, efficacious, mandated, and 

monitored by the responsible national plant protection organization (IPPC, 2002b).

A combination of different measures (e.g., ‘systems approach’) for apricot 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, clearly 

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-free places of production can provide an acceptable level of 

phytosanitary 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 systems 

approach (IPPC, 2002b, 2005). The establishment and maintenance of areas of low pest 

prevalence are described in ISPM No. 22 (IPPC, 2005).

Phytosanitary certificates may provide an acceptable level of protection when used as part of a 

systems approach. The crop should be sampled and periodically inspected during the growing 

season and after harvest. Survey results must be negative for issuance of a certificate. Statistical 
Pest Risk Assessment for Apricot 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 clearly defined for use in a 

systems approach (IPPC, 2002b).

Monitoring

Traps baited with ammonia or parapheromones are typically used to monitor fruit fly populations 

(White & Elson-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 commonly 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 ELISA 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 

these 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 soapy water (Dreistadt, 1994). Controlling weeds in and around crops may also 

reduce invasion, as these sites often serve as refugia and mating areas for Lepidoptera pests 

(Capinera, 2001).

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

Sanitation typically includes: using disease free stock for propagation, sterilizing soil, pruning 

and destroying diseased plant parts, and disinfecting tools used for pruning and cultivation 

(Agrios, 1997; Pirone, 1978). Ideally, 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 phytoparasitic 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 methods 
Pest Risk Assessment for Apricot 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 hypochlorite solution or 70

percent denatured alcohol (Howell, 2004; Pfleger & Gould, 1998; Pirone, 1978).

Chemical and Biological

Fruit flies are typically 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 systemic insecticide may be 

needed when all else fails (Capinera, 2001; Dreistadt, 1994).

Cydia funebrana is commonly controlled using organophosphates and insect growth-regulators 

(CABI, 2006).

Systemic fungicides, copper compounds, and sulfur are all used to control Apiognomonia 

erythrostoma and Monilinia fructigena (CABI, 2006; 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 via importation.

The post-harvest and packhouse procedures for apricots 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 the shipping container may reduce the risk of 

introducing certain quarantine pests into the United States. For example, USDA (2007) currently 

recommends storing fruit at 1.11oC or lower for 14 days to kill all Ceratitis capitata larvae.

Apricots 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 systems 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 99.9968 percent or more of the 

quarantine organisms.

Specific treatments are not available for Cydia funebrana, Apiognomonia erythrostoma, or
Pest Risk Assessment for Apricot from Spain

Rev. 03 March 8, 2010 28

Monilinia fructigena on apricot (USDA, 2007). The methyl bromide treatment for external pests 

on apricot (USDA, 2007) should, however, provide an appropriate level of phytosanitary 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 phytosanitary security against Ceratitis capitata

(USDA, 2007).

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 phytosanitary

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 systems 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 phytosanitary measures.
Pest Risk Assessment for Apricot from Spain

Rev. 03 March 8, 2010 29

IV. Authors and Reviewers

1. Authors

R. Kahn and P. Lima (consultants) developed a first draft of this document. It was subsequently 

updated and revised by USDA APHIS 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)

Lightfield, 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, 4th 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. Mazyad. 1999. Plum pox potyvirus situation in Egyptian 

stone-fruit trees. Acta Horticulturae. 488: 745.

Amari, K., M.C. Canizares, V. Pallis, A. Mytra, A. Sabanadzovic and N. Terlizzi. 2001. 

Tracking hop stunt viroid infection in apricot trees during a whole year by non-isotopic tissue 

printing hybridization. Acta Horticulturae. 550: 315-319.

Anonymous. 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 Pests of Israel. Israel Universities Press. Jerusalem, Israel.

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 pestfree 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 Systematic 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 

Information Guide. John Wiley and Sons. New York, New York.

Blattny, C. and Janeckova, M. 1980. Apricot Bare Twig and Unfruitfulness. Acta 

Phytopathologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae. Acta Horticulturae No. 94. 15(1-4): 
Pest Risk Assessment for Apricot 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. Boston, 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 

myopaeformis (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 Scolytidae and Platypodidae (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, 2006. Crop Protection Compendium. CAB International. Wallingford, United Kingdom. 

[CD-ROM].

CABI/EPPO. 1999. Ceratitis capitata. Distribution Maps of Plant Pests 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 phytoplasma diseases 

diffused in nature by psyllids. 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. Eutypa canker of apricot in Spain. Plant Disease Reporter 

58: 442-443.

Čech, M., M. Filigarová, J. Pozěna and H. Branišová. 1980. Strawberry latent ringspot and 

cucumber green mottle mosaic viruses in apricots with bare twig and unfruitfulness disease 

syndrome. Acta Phytopathologica 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 Risk Assessment for Apricot 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 isolate 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/zoomus/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/IPGRI Technical 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 methods. 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.pherobase.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 

analysis 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, 

Systematic 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 Phytopathological 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 State 

University, University Park, Pennsylvania. Available: http://sharka.cas.psu.edu/ 

review_update.htm. Accessed: 15 November 2004.
Pest Risk Assessment for Apricot 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 isolates of plum pox virus from infected peach fruit. Abstracts 

of the 2002 Annual Meeting of the American Phytopathological Society. Available: 

http://www.aps.org/meetings/2002/abstracts/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 by 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. Doll, 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 Publishing. Malabar, Florida.

HYPPZ. 2004. Hypermedia 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 

Phytosanitary Regulation. Available: http://www.auappo.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 Risk Assessment for Apricot 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.). Commonwealth 

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 Organization, Rome, Italy.

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, Italy.

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, Italy.

IPPC. 2002a. International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures: Glossary of Phytosanitary

Terms. International Plant Protection Convention of the United Nations Food and Agriculture 

Organization, Rome, Italy.

IPPC. 2002b. International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures: The Use of Integrated 

Measures in a Systems Approach for Pest Risk Management. International Plant Protection 

Convention of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome, Italy.

IPPC. 2004. International Standards for Phytosanitary 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, Rome, Italy.

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, Italy.

Ivanova, L. and S. Karov. 1999. Investigations on apricot leaf scorch, Gnomonia erythrostoma

(Pers. Ex. Fr.) Auersw., Bioecology 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. 

Logan, 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: Tetranychidae) in Korea. Korean Journal of Applied 

Entomology. 36: 30-36.

Levy, L., V. Damsteegt, R. Scorza and M. Kölber. 2000. Plum Pox Potyvirus Disease of Stone 

Fruits. American Phytopathological Society. St. Paul, Minnesota. Available: 

http://www.apsnet.org/online/feature/PlumPox/. Accessed: 15 November 2004.
Pest Risk Assessment for Apricot 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 years 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 

Agrobacterium 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.

Mansilla, 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. 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 

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 Fly Control. Green Harvets, Maleny, Australia. Available: 

http://www.greenharvest.com.au/pestcontrol/fruit_fly_info.html. Accessed: 15 February

2006.

Mink, G.I. 1993. Pollen- and Seed-transmitted Viruses and Viroids. Annual Review of Plant 

Pathology. 31: 375-402.

Murant, A.F. 1987. Raspberry yellow dwarf and associated diseases caused by arabis mosaic 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 

Iberian Peninsula and Balearic Islands. Available: http://www.faunaiberica.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 by 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 Risk Assessment for Apricot 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/bflyusa/bflyusa.htm. Accessed: 08 

November 2004.

Padron, F.P. and A.C. Hernandez. 1988. Recent colonization 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. Available: http://www.blackwellsynergy.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 Inspection 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 Spider 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 Foreign 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-curation/projects/hostplants/. Accessed: December 

2007

Rowhani. A. and S.M. Mircetich. 1988. Pathogenicity on walnut and serological comparisons of 

cherry leafroll virus strains. Phytopathology 78: 817-820.
Pest Risk Assessment for Apricot 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 Laboratory. Available: http://www.sel.barc.usda.gov/scalenet/scalenet.htm. 

Accessed: 05 November 2004.

Schmitt T. and A. Seitz. 2004. Low 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 by a phytoplasma closely 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, 

APHIS, PPQ. Riverdale MD. 31 pp.

USDA. 2000b. United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service, Regulated Plant Pest List. Available: 

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/import_export/plants/plant_imports/regulated_pest_list.shtml.

Accessed: December 2007.

USDA. 2000c. Gypsy Moth, Lymantria dispar, Pest Alert. USDA, Forest Service. Available: 

http://www.na.fs.fed.us/spfo/pubs/pest_al/gm/gm.htm. Accessed: 10 November 2004.

USDA. 2002a. 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 Fly, Ceratitis 

capitata (Wiedemann) (Diptera: Tephritidae). USDA, APHIS, PPQ. Available: 

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 Risk Assessment for Apricot 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. Phytoparasitica. 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-Institute 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 Steenwyk, 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: 

1009-1022.

Weems, H.V. 1981. Mediterranean fruit fly, 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 

Identification 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 Scolytidae and Platypodidae (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 Economically Important Lepidoptera. CAB International.

Wallingford, the United Kingdom.
Pest Risk Assessment for Apricot from Spain

Rev. 03 March 8, 2010 38

Appendix 1. Rationale for not analyzing Strawberry latent ringspot virus in 

the risk assessment for the Importation of Fresh Prunus armeniaca Fruit from 

Continental Spain into the United States

Strawberry latent ringspot virus (SLRSV) 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 analyzed 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”.

General Background

Strawberry latent ringspot virus is a nematode vectored, mechanically transmitted, and seedborne 

virus with a wide host range encompassing many economically 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 (ICTVdB Management, 2006). For many 

years it was considered a nepovirus due to its transmission via nematodes; 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 (Čech et al., 

1980; Everett et al., 1994; Faggioli et al., 2002; Hicks et al., 1986; Thomas, 1984). Some hosts 

remain symptomless (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 (Čech et al, 1980), or 

Apple chlorotic leaf spot virus (Marenaud and Dunez, 1969).

The association of SLRSV with Prunus species is well documented (Čech 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.

Geographic 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 

(Hanson 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 Risk Assessment for Apricot 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 likely 

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.

Biological 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 reported for Rosa sp. (a member of the same plant family)

(Thomas, 1984). No research was found for seed transmission of Prunus species.

Prunus species are more commonly propagated by 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 

hybrid’s traits. Germination 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 

diversicaudatum 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 by 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). It is reported that not all populations of X. diversicaudatum are 

equally efficient in transmitting the virus; in one study a peach isolate of SLRSV was only 

transmitted by three out of nine X. diversicaudatum populations tested (Brown, 1985 via 

CABI/EPPO, 2004). Transmissibility via aphid and beetle vectors was also recently 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 South Moravia 

apricot trees caused them to cease bearing fruit (Čech et al., 1980; Blattny and Janeckova, 1980).
Pest Risk Assessment for Apricot from Spain

Rev. 03 March 8, 2010 40

These early reports are notable for considering the possibility that infected trees might not 

produce fruit suitable for export, however subsequent published research or references to the 

observed results in other Prunus species were not found.

Summary

The analysis 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 widely distributed in the United States and do not possess ability to move 

the pathogen long distances

Literature Cited (Appendix Only)

Blattny, C. and Janeckova, M. 1980. Apricot Bare Twig and Unfruitfulness. Acta 

Phytopathologica 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.

Čech, 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 Syndrome. Acta Phytopathologica 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 Italy using One-Step RT-PCR. J. Phytopathology 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 Risk Assessment for Apricot 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. Phytoparasitic Nematodes Reported in Florida. Florida Dept. of Ag. And 

Consumer Services. Nematode Section. Retrieved December 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 Phytopathology. 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 

Disease. 88 (5): 575.

Murant, A. F. 1974. Strawberry Latent 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 Species 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/locate/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.