Pest Risk Assessment for Chile Fig and Pomegranate 

Importation of Fresh Fruits of Pomegranate (Punica 

granatum) and Fig (Ficus carica) from Chile into the 

Continental United States 

A Qualitative, Pathway-initiated Risk Assessment 

August 2009 

Rev. 003 

Agency Contact: 

Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory 

Center for Plant Health Science and Technology 

United States Department of Agriculture 

Animal Plant Health Inspection Services 

Plant Protection and Quarantine 

1730 Varsity Drive, Suite 300 

Raleigh, NC 27606 
Pest Risk Assessment for Chile Fig and Pomegranate 

Rev. 003 August 26, 2009 i

Executive Summary 

This document assessed the risk associated with importing fresh fig (Ficus carica) and 

pomegranate fruit (Punica granatum) from Chile into the continental United States. Other than 

post-harvest cleaning and sorting, we assumed that these commodities would not undergo any 

specialized phytosanitary treatments to mitigate pest risk. Thus, we estimated unmitigated risk of 

figs and pomegranates from Chile. A search of print and electronic sources of information 

identified two quarantine pests that are likely to be introduced into the continental United States 

in consignments of these commodities (Brevipalpus chilensis and Ceratitis capitata). A risk 

analysis that considered the likelihood and consequences of introducing these pests indicated that 

both of these pests pose a High pest risk potential. 

Following the pest risk assessment, we identified several risk mitigation options that may either 

eliminate or minimize the risk associated with B. chilensis and C. capitata. Although APHIS has 

already approved several quarantine treatments for these pests on other commodities, there is no 

single treatment for both of these pests on figs and pomegranate. Thus, it is unknown which 

treatment schedules would be the most effective for mitigating the risk of these pests on figs and 

pomegranates. Furthermore, due to differences in the characteristics and phytosanitary options 

for fig and pomegranate fruit, different mitigation options will need to be considered for each 

these two commodities. 
Pest Risk Assessment for Chile Fig and Pomegranate 

Rev. 003 August 26, 2009 ii

Table of Contents 

Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................... i

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

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

2.1. Initiating Event: Proposed action ......................................................................................... 2

2.2. Assessment of weed potential .............................................................................................. 2

2.3. Previous risk assessment, current status, pest interceptions and decision history potential 4

2.4. Pest Categorization: Identification of quarantine pests and quarantine pests likely to 

follow the pathway .............................................................................................................. 7

2.5. Quarantine pests likely to follow the pathway ................................................................... 22

2.6. Consequences of Introduction ........................................................................................... 23

2.7. Likelihood of Introduction ................................................................................................. 27

2.8. Pest Risk Potential ............................................................................................................. 29

3. Authors and Reviewers ........................................................................................................... 29

3.1. Preparers ............................................................................................................................ 29

3.2. Reviewers ........................................................................................................................... 30

4. Literature Cited ...................................................................................................................... 30

5. Appendices ............................................................................................................................... 42

Appendix A: Pest and pathogens that have been intercepted on Ficus carica and Punica 

granatum fruit at U.S. ports from 1985 to 2007. ............................................................... 42

Appendix B: Description of Risk Elements and Rating Criteria .............................................. 50

Appendix C: Mean Monthly Temperature and Mean Absolute Minimum Temperature for 

Representative Chilean Cities and Regions ....................................................................... 52

Appendix D. Mitigation Options .............................................................................................. 54
Pest Risk Assessment for Chile Fig and Pomegranate 

Rev. 003 August 26, 2009 1

1. Introduction 

This document examined the unmitigated risks associated with the importation of fresh 

pomegranate fruit (Punica granatum) and fresh fig fruit (Ficus carica) into the continental 

United States from Chile1

. Other than post-harvest cleaning and culling, we assumed that figs 

and pomegranate fruit from Chile would not undergo any special post-harvest treatment or 

cleaning. This document is a qualitative risk assessment in which risk was expressed in terms 

such as high, medium, and low rather than in numerical terms, such as probabilities or 

frequencies. The details of the methodology and rating criteria can be found in Pathway-Initiated 

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

Whereas there are two commodities being considered here in a single document, the pest 

associations for each commodity, the related analysis and the review of phytosanitary mitigations 

was conducted independently for each commodity; they are presented here as a group because 

they were developed by the same team, for the same country, and many of the resources used 

were similar in this particular case. 

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

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

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

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

(IPPC, 2004, 2006, 2007; NAPPO, 2004). The IPPC standards describe three stages of pest risk 

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

document meets the requirements of Stages 1 and 2, and provides mitigation options for Stage 3. 

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

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

initial list of pests for each commodity was provided the Chilean Servicio Agrícola y Ganadero 

(SAG) (Vergara and Castro, 2006a, 2006b). 

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

approximately 6-12 cm in diameter with a thick, leather rind that protect hundreds of juice-filled 

sacs. The sacs (arils) range from white to red and enclose an oblong seed (Morton, 1987). Seeds 

are typically about 52% of the total weight of a pomegranate (Morton, 1987). Insect pests are 

frequently found under the sepals surrounding the area where the stem joins the fruit (Rogers, 

pers. obs.). Diseases are usually not visible unless they directly affect the rind, because the thick 

rind prevents observation of internal damage (Rogers, pers. obs.). Pomegranate fruit are 

harvested by hand and the peduncle is removed to avoid fruit damage (USEP, 2007). 

Chile plans to export pomegranates to the continental U.S. during winter in the Northern 

Hemisphere, when U.S. production is impossible (SerAgro, 2007). Currently, 150 ha are under 

pomegranate cultivation in Chilean zones III and IV (SerAgro, 2007). The optimum fresh fruit 

production for this acreage would be approximately 2000 tons (see Likelihood of Introduction 

below); however, much of this is likely processed into dried arils and pomegranate juice 

 

1

 Initially, the PRA request included export to Hawaii and some U.S. territories, however, it was later limited to the 

continental United States (Roman, 2007). 
Pest Risk Assessment for Chile Fig and Pomegranate 

Rev. 003 August 26, 2009 2

(FedeFruta, 2007; SerAgro, 2007), which does not require phytosanitary review. The actual 

proportion of production that would be devoted to fresh fruit is currently not known. 

The fig is native to southwestern Asia and heavily cultivated in the Mediterranean area (Aksoy et 

al., 2003). Unlike most other Ficus species, it is the only Ficus species cultivated for fruit 

production. The edible fruit of F. carica is morphologically a synconium which is comprised 

almost entirely of vegetative peduncular tissue. The true fruit are tiny, pedicellate drupelets, 

which are found within the synconium. Figs may be obovoid, turbinate, or pear-shaped, 1 to 4 in 

(2.5-10 cm) long, and vary in color from yellowish-green to coppery, bronze, or dark-purple 

(Michailides, 2003). They are usually harvested by hand, but may be collected by mechanical 

means after fruit fall to the ground (Morton, 1987). Fresh figs are very perishable (Aksoy et al., 

2003; McGregor, 1987) and are prone to numerous diseases (CABI, 2006). 

Because of its location in the southern hemisphere, Chile will be able to produce and export figs 

during a period when the major fig producing nations in the northern hemisphere can not. The 

export period for Chile extends from December to April (Juillerat M., 2007). Just from the 

2004/2005 seasons to the 2005/2006 season, Chile increased its exports of fresh figs by 168%. 

Across Chilean Regions IV to VIII, there are approximately 55 hectares (ha) of fig trees planted 

in Chile (Juillerat M., 2007). Figs are also cultivated in the United States. Although commercial 

fig production now exists in at least 14 U.S. States, California houses more than half of the farms 

growing figs in the country and produces 98% of the total crop (11,500 acres in 2006) (USDANASS, 2006). Much of the remaining production is grown in Texas, Alabama, Georgia, 

Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and North Carolina (USDA-NASS, 2006). . 

2. Risk Assessment 

2.1. Initiating Event: Proposed action 

The Chilean Servicio Agrícola y Ganadero (SAG) requested export of fresh figs and 

pomegranates to the continental United States. Entry of these commodities into the United States 

presents a potential pathway for the introduction of plant pests. Title 7, Part 319, Section 56 of 

the United States Code of Federal Regulations (7 CFR §319.56) grants regulatory authority to 

the United States Department of Agriculture for the importation of fruits and vegetables from 

foreign sources. Importation of fruits and vegetables is regulated because plant pests have the 

potential to follow the pathway into the United States and become established pests that impact 

U.S. agricultural and natural resources. 

2.2. Assessment of weed potential 

We examined the potential of figs and pomegranates to become weeds after they enter the United 

States (Tables 1 and 2). A formal weed risk assessment was not conducted because the baseline 

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

levels. 
Pest Risk Assessment for Chile Fig and Pomegranate 

Rev. 003 August 26, 2009 3

Table 1. The Weed Potential of Pomegranate 

Punica granatum L. 

Common Names: Pomegranate, grenadier, Granatapfelbaum, Granatapfelstrauch, 

zakuro, romanzeiro, romã, romã-de-flor-dobrada, romeira, romeira-da-granada, 

granado, mangrano (USDA-ARS, 2007). 

Synonyms: None (USDA-ARS, 2007). 

Phase 1: Distribution in the United States: Pomegranate is native to western Asia 

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

Federation, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Pakistan) (USDA-ARS, 2007). It 

has been introduced to the United States where it is under cultivation in at 

least California and Arizona (CRFG, 2007), and has escaped or naturalized 

in several states (USDA-NRCS, 2007). This species is hardy to USDA 

Plant Hardiness Zones 9-11 (Page and Olds, 2001). 

Phase 2: Invasive / Weed Status: Listing as weed 

No

(7 CFR § 360, 2007; Gunn and Ritchie, 1988; Holm et al., 1997; Holm et 

al., 1979; Holm et al., 1977; Reed, 1977; Skinner et al., 2005; Weber, 

2003; WSSA, 2006) 

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

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

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

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

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

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

2005); however, the literature does not indicate that it is invasive (i.e., with 

self-sustaining populations that are expanding, spreading, and causing 

environmental harm). Because P. granatum is widely distributed in the 

continental United States and not under official control, it does not meet the 

IPPC definition of a quarantine pest (IPPC, 2006). Thus, this pest risk 

assessment continues. 

*Some authors place Punica in its own family, Punicaceae. 

Table 2. The Weed Potential of Fig 

Ficus carica L. (Moraceae) 

Common Names: Fig, figuier commun, echte Feige, Feigenbaum, fico, figueira, 

higo, higuera común (USDA-ARS, 2007). 

Synonyms: None (USDA-ARS, 2007). 

Phase 1: Distribution in the United States: Fig is native to eastern Mediterranean 

and western Asia (USDA-ARS, 2007). It has been introduced to the 

United States where it is under cultivation in at least California (CRFG, 

2007), and has escaped or naturalized in several other states, including 

California, Florida, Indiana, Pennsylvania, and North Carolina 

(Swearingen, 2005; USDA-NRCS, 2007). This species is hardy to 

USDA Plant Hardiness Zones 8-11 (Page and Olds, 2001). 
Pest Risk Assessment for Chile Fig and Pomegranate 

Rev. 003 August 26, 2009 4

Phase 2: Invasive / Weed Status: Listing as weed 

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

al., 1979; Holm et al., 1977; Reed, 1977; Skinner et al., 2005) 

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

Yes Invasive plant species of the world (Weber, 2003).

Yes Weed Science Society of America’s weed list (WSSA, 2006).

Yes A global compendium of weeds (Randall, 2007). 

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

Phase 3: Summary and Conclusions: Fig has escaped from cultivation in several 

countries and regions including the United States, Australia, New 

Zealand, Egypt, Galapagos, and Puerto Rico (Liogier and Martorell, 

2000; LR, 2005; Randall, 2007; Swearingen, 2005; Weber, 2003). It is 

reported as invasive in Australia and the western United States where it 

“forms dense thickets that displace native trees and understorey shrubs” 

(Weber, 2003). Despite these impacts, F. carica is not regulated in the 

United States as a Federal Noxious Weed (7 CFR § 360, 2007). Because 

it is not under official control, it does not meet the definition of a 

quarantine pest (IPPC, 2006). Thus, this pest risk assessment continues. 

2.3. Previous risk assessment, current status, pest interceptions and decision history 

potential 

2.3.1. Decision history and current status 

Several countries have requested that the United States accept their fig exports (Table 3; USDA, 

2007a). Prior to 1936, two countries (Belgium and Chile) were permitted shipment of figs to 

North Atlantic ports; however, for unknown reasons, in 1936, all foreign countries and localities 

were denied shipment. Figs were not allowed entry again until 1988, when a request from New 

Zealand was approved (USDA, 2007a). Currently, figs are allowed entry from New Zealand and 

Mexico (7 CFR § 319.56, 2007; USDA-PPQ, 2007). The decision to allow Mexican figs into the 

continental United States was based on a pest risk assessment conducted in 2001 (Kenney, 

2001). Mexican figs are allowed entry from only fruit fly free areas of the country (7 CFR § 

319.56, 2007; USDA-PPQ, 2007). 

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

4, USDA, 2007b). Most of these were approved, however, Iran, Italy, and Greece were denied 

for various reasons. 

2.3.2. Previous risk assessments 

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

fig once before. This risk assessment was for the “Importation of Fresh Common Fig (Ficus 

carica L.) Fruit from Mexico into the Continental United States” (Kenney, 2001). This PRA 

found four fruit flies (Anastrepha fraterculus, A. ludens, A. serpentine, and Ceratitis capitata) 

that posed a High pest risk potential to the United States. With regard to pomegranate, APHIS 

has conducted one pest risk assessment for this species “Importation of Pomegranate Fruits, 

Punica granatum from Israel into the United States” (PPQ, 1997). This risk assessment found 
Pest Risk Assessment for Chile Fig and Pomegranate 

Rev. 003 August 26, 2009 5

that Ceratitis capitata, Deudorix isocrates, D. livia, and Planococcus lilacinus posed a High pest 

risk potential to the United States, while Sphaceloma punicea and Cryptoblabes gnidiella posed 

a Medium risk potential. 

Table 3. Prior decisions of the United States on requests to import fig. 

Year Country Decision Reasons / Conditions 

1925 Mexico Denied Presence of fruit flies and other insects 

1926 Chile Approved North Atlantic ports 

1926 Italy Denied 

1932 Belgium Approved Permit entry of hot-house grown tomatoes to North 

Atlantic ports 

1936 South Africa Denied 

1936 All foreign 

countries and 

localities 

Denied 

1936 India Denied 

1968 Brazil Denied Lack of approved treatment for three fruit flies 

1969 Peru Denied Lack of approved treatment for three fruit flies 

1983 Chile Denied No residue tolerance established for fumigation of 

figs for Brevipalpus chilensis

1984 Japan (to Guam) Denied No treatment available for a complex of insect pests 

1988 Italy Denied No acceptable treatment for Ceratitis capitata & 

Silba virescens

1988 New Zealand Approved Inspect and treat if warranted 

1990 USSR Denied No acceptable treatment for Ceratitis capitata

1991 Puerto Rico Denied No approved USDA treatment for Anastrepha spp. 

Table 4. Prior decisions of the United States on requests to import Pomegranate. 

Year Country Decision Reasons / Conditions 

1924 Mexico Approved 

1925 Italy Denied Several major pests may be associated with pomegranate 

1925 Greece Denied 

1969 Argentina Approved Entry into or through California 

1971 Haiti Approved North Atlantic & Pacific ports; cold treatment 

1987 Greece Approved Inspection and treatment 

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

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

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

fraterculus & A. ludens. 

1990 Mexico Approved Inspection and treatment if necessary 

1997 Israel Approved Treat for Medfly 
Pest Risk Assessment for Chile Fig and Pomegranate 

Rev. 003 August 26, 2009 6

2.3.3. Current import status 

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

(USDA-PPQ, 2007), figs are currently enterable from Belgium, Mexico, and New Zealand, 

while pomegranates are enterable from Argentina, Colombia, Greece, Haiti, Israel, and Mexico. 

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

or T107-c), except for Mexico which is required to export fruit from fruit fly free areas. Belgium 

figs can only enter into North Atlantic ports, while Mexico figs can only enter from fruit fly free 

areas. There are no required treatments for New Zealand figs (USDA-PPQ, 2007). 

2.3.4. Pest interceptions at U.S. Ports-of-Entry 

APHIS-PPQ maintains a database (Agricultural Quarantine Activity Systems) of all the 

interceptions of pests and pathogens on commodities entering the United States. The database 

includes interceptions on permit cargo, general cargo, ship’s quarters, ship’s holds, passenger 

baggage, ship stores, mail, and other pathways since 1985. This database was examined to 

determine which pests and pathogens have been intercepted on figs and pomegranate fruit from 

the world (PestID query July 17, 2007). Because over 99% of the interceptions were on baggage 

and cargo, only data for these two categories were included in Appendix 1. Of these data, the 

vast majority occurred on passenger baggage relative to cargo (1,427 vs. 10 for F. carica; 6,903 

vs. 37 for P. granatum). Of the 345 taxa that have been intercepted, 28 have been intercepted 

more than 20 times (Table 5). 

Table 5. Pest taxa most frequently intercepted on fig and pomegranate at U.S. ports. See 

Appendix 1 for the complete data set. 

Pest Fig Pomegranate

Baggage Cargo Baggage Cargo

Anastrepha sp. (Tephritidae) 13 1 246 1 

Ceratitis capitata (Wiedemann) (Tephritidae) 646 2 84 

Ceroplastes rusci (Linnaeus) (Coccidae) 51 1 

Crematogaster sp. (Formicidae) 3 21 

Cryptoblabes gnidiella (Milliere) (Pyralidae) 1 311 2 

Cryptoblabes sp. (Pyralidae) 89 1 

Cryptophlebia sp. (Tortricidae) 21 2 

Diptera, species of 31 

Ectomyelois ceratoniae (Zeller) (Pyralidae) 2 114 2 

Ectomyelois sp. (Pyralidae) 22 1 

Lonchaeidae, species of 339 1 

Lycaenidae, species of 29 

Olethreutinae, species of (Tortricidae) 4 27 

Oxycarenus hyalinipennis (Costa) (Oxycarenidae) 60 

Phycitinae, species of (Pyralidae) 5 1 39 

Planococcus citri (Risso) (Pseudococcidae) 65 

Planococcus ficus (Signoret) (Pseudococcidae) 39 

Planococcus minor (Maskell) (Pseudococcidae) 32 

Planococcus sp. (Pseudococcidae) 2 59 1 
Pest Risk Assessment for Chile Fig and Pomegranate 

Rev. 003 August 26, 2009 7

Pest Fig Pomegranate

Baggage Cargo Baggage Cargo

Pseudaonidia trilobitiformis (Green) (Diaspididae) 2 35 

Pseudocercospora punicae (Henn.) Deighton 

(Hyphomycetes) 57 

Pseudococcidae, species of 6 452 5 

Pseudococcus sp. (Pseudococcidae) 2 54 2 

Pyralidae, species of 6 44 2 

Silba virescens Macquart (Lonchaeidae) 134 

Sphaceloma punicae Bitanc. & Jenkins (Coelomycetes) 4175 4 

Tephritidae, species of 38 24 

Tortricidae, species of 7 1 50 1 

2.4. Pest Categorization: Identification of quarantine pests and quarantine pests likely to 

follow the pathway 

We created a list of pests potentially associated with fig and pomegranate in Chile (Table 6). In 

the list we identify: (1) the presence or absence of the pests in the United States; (2) the 

references supporting an association between the pest and the host; (3) the plant parts where the 

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

would follow the pathway into the continental United States through commercial shipments of 

fig and pomegranate. 

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

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

controlled” (IPPC, 2006). A pest is likely to follow the pathway on fig and pomegranate fruit if 

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

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

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

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

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

alternative hosts and vectors are influential. 
Pest Risk Assessment for Chile Fig and Pomegranate 

Rev. 003 August 26, 2009 8

Table 6. Pests potentially associated with fig, Ficus carica, and pomegranate, Punica granatum, in 

Chile. 

Pest Scientific Name Distribution2 Host association Plant part 

affected3

Quarantine pest Follow 

Fig Pomegranate pathway

ACARI: Acaridae

Tyrophagus longior 

(Gervais)

CL (Klein Koch 

and Waterhouse, 

2000); U.S. 

(Zhang, 2003) 

Gencer et 

al., 2005 

 N/A No N/A 

Tyrophagus 

putrescentiae 

(Schrank)

CL (Prado, 1991); 

U.S. (CABI, 2006) 

 PestID, 20074

 N/A No N/A 

ACARI: Eriophyidae

Aceria fici (Essig) Syn:

Eriophyes fici

CL (Prado, 1991); 

U.S. (Amrine and 

Stasny, 1994) 

Prado, 1991 N/A No N/A 

Aceria ficus (Cotte) 

Syn: Eriophyes ficus

CL (Klein Koch 

and Waterhouse, 

2000) 

Gonzalez, 

1989; Hill, 

1983; Klein 

Koch and 

Waterhouse

, 2000 

 L (Hill, 1983; 

Sadhu, 2002) 

Yes No 

Rhyncaphytoptus 

ficifoliae Keifer

CL (Prado, 1991); 

U.S. (CA) (Amrine 

and Stasny, 1994) 

CABI, 

2006; Klein 

Koch and 

Waterhouse

, 2000; 

Prado, 1991

 N/A No N/A 

ACARI: Tenuipalpidae

Brevipalpus chilensis

Baker 

CL (CABI, 2006; 

Prado, 1991) 

Prado, 1991 Klein Koch 

and 

Waterhouse, 

2000 

B, Tw, L 

(Jeppson et al., 

1975); Fruit 

(CABI, 2006) 

Yes Yes 

ACARI: Tetranychidae

Bryobia praetiosa Koch 

Syn: B. latitans; B. 

pseudopraetiosa

CL, & U.S. 

(Bolland et al., 

1998) 

Bolland et 

al., 1998 

 N/A No N/A 

Eotetranychus lewisi

(McGregor)

CL, & U.S. 

(Bolland et al., 

1998) 

Bolland et 

al., 1998 

 N/A No N/A 

 

2

 Distribution (specific states are listed only if distribution is limited): CA= California, GA= Georgia, MS = Mississippi, SC= 

South Carolina, NC= North Carolina, FL = Florida, TX = Texas, CL= Chile, and U.S.= United States (widely distributed). 3

 Plant Parts: B = Bark, Br = Branch, F = Fruit, I = Inflorescence (Flower), L = Leaf, R = Root, S = Stem, Tr = Trunk, Tw = 

Twig, and W = Wood. 4

 Host status was based soley on two interception records which could be misidentifications. Because no other literature 

source associates this pest with pomegranate, the interception records were deemed to be mistaken; thus, this pest was not 

considered likely to follow the pathway on pomegranates. 
Pest Risk Assessment for Chile Fig and Pomegranate 

Rev. 003 August 26, 2009 9

Pest Scientific Name Distribution2 Host association Plant part 

affected3

Quarantine pest Follow 

Fig Pomegranate pathway

Oligonychus 

mangiferus (Rahman 

& Sapra)

CL (Bolland et al., 

1998) 

Bolland et 

al., 1998 

Bolland et al., 

1998 

L (Waite, 

2002) 

Yes No 

Oligonychus punicae

(Hirst)

CL & U.S. 

(Bolland et al., 

1998) 

 Bolland et al., 

1998 

N/A No N/A 

Oligonychus sp. CL (González, 

1958); U.S. 

 González, 

1958 

L (González, 

1958) 

Yes No 

Oligonychus yothersi 

(McGregor)

CL, U.S. (Bolland

et al., 1998) 

 Bolland et al., 

1998 

N/A No N/A 

Panonychus ulmi 

(Koch)

CL, U.S. (Bolland

et al., 1998) 

Bolland et 

al., 1998 

 N/A No N/A 

Petrobia latens (Muller) CL, U.S. (Bolland

et al., 1998) 

Bolland et 

al., 1998 

 N/A No N/A 

Tetranychus 

desertorum Banks 

Syn: T. opuntiae; 

Septanychus 

argentinus; S. 

deserticola; S. 

texazona

CL, U.S. (Bolland

et al., 1998) 

Bolland et 

al., 1998 

 N/A No N/A 

Tetranychus ludeni

Zacher, 1913 Syn: 

Septanychus 

deviatarsus

CL, U.S. (Bolland

et al., 1998) 

Bolland et 

al., 1998 

 N/A No N/A 

Tetranychus urticae

Koch Syn: T. telarius, 

T. cinnabarinus, T. 

arabicus, T. aduncus,

T. ricinus, T. arabicus

CL, U.S. (Bolland

et al., 1998) 

Bolland et 

al., 1998 

Bolland et al., 

1998 

N/A No N/A 

COLEOPTERA: Anobiidae

Lasioderma serricorne

(Fabricius)

CL (Prado, 1991); 

U.S. (CABI, 2006) 

PestID, 

2007 

 N/A No N/A 

COLEOPTERA: Bostrichidae

Micrapate scabrata

(Erichson)

CL (Prado, 1991) Barriga et 

al., 1993 

 Dead St 

(Barriga et al., 

1993) 

Yes No 

COLEOPTERA: Cerambycidae

Eburia pilosa Erichson CL (Monné and 

Hovore, 2005) 

Duffy, 

1960; 

Martins, 

1999 

 St, Dead Tr 

(Duffy, 1960; 

Martins, 1999) 

Yes No 
Pest Risk Assessment for Chile Fig and Pomegranate 

Rev. 003 August 26, 2009 10

Pest Scientific Name Distribution2 Host association Plant part 

affected3

Quarantine pest Follow 

Fig Pomegranate pathway

Eryphus laetus

(Blanchard)

CL (Monné and 

Hovore, 2005) 

Barriga et 

al., 1993; 

Napp and 

Martins, 

2002 

 St, Dead Tr 

(Barriga et al., 

1993; Napp 

and Martins, 

2002) 

Yes No 

Grammicosum 

signaticolle

Blanchard Syn: 

Abyarachryson 

signaticolle ?

CL (Monné and 

Hovore, 2005) 

Barriga et 

al., 1993 

 St, Dead Tr 

(Barriga et al., 

1993) 

Yes No 

Leiopus asperipennis

Fair. Y Germ.

CL (Monné and 

Hovore, 2005; 

Prado, 1991) 

Klein Koch 

and Waterhouse, 

2000; 

Prado, 1991

 B, W, St 

(Bense, 1995; 

Cherepanov, 

1991) 

Yes No 

Nathrius brevipennis

(Mulsant)

CL, U.S. (Monné 

and Hovore, 2005) 

Barriga et 

al., 1993; 

Gonzalez et 

al., 1973 

 N/A No N/A 

Xenocompsa flavonitida

(Fairmaire & 

Germain)

CL (Monné and 

Hovore, 2005) 

Barriga et 

al., 1993 

 St, Dead Tr 

(Barriga et al., 

1993) 

Yes No 

COLEOPTERA: Curculionidae

Rhyephenes humeralis

(Guen.)

CL (Prado, 1991; 

Wibmer and 

O'Brien, 1986) 

Klein Koch 

and Waterhouse, 

2000; 

Prado, 1991

 Tr, Dead W 

(Vergara and 

Castro, 2006a) 

Yes No 

COLEOPTERA: Dryophthoridae

Sitophilus oryzae 

(Linneaus)

CL (Prado, 1991); PestID, 20075

 N/A No N/A 

COLEOPTERA: Nitidulidae

Carpophilus freemani 

Dobson

CL (Klein Koch 

and Waterhouse, 

2000); U.S. (CABI, 

2006) 

Gencer et 

al., 2005 

 N/A No N/A 

Carpophilus hemipterus 

Linnaeus 

CL (Prado, 1991); 

U.S. (Arnett Jr., 

2000) 

Hill, 1983 N/A No N/A 

Carpophilus humeralis 

Dobson Syn: 

Urophorus humeralis

 Gencer et 

al., 2005 

 N/A No N/A 

 

5

 Host status is based on two interceptions in passenger baggage, which could be misidentifications. Because no other 

literature source associates this pest with pomegranates and because this pest is primarily a pest of grains, we consider 

these two port interceptions to be misidentifications. Thus, this pest is not expected to follow the pathway because it is not 

associated with the host. 
Pest Risk Assessment for Chile Fig and Pomegranate 

Rev. 003 August 26, 2009 11

Pest Scientific Name Distribution2 Host association Plant part 

affected3

Quarantine pest Follow 

Fig Pomegranate pathway

COLEOPTERA: Scolytidae

Phloeotribus willei

Schedl.

CL (Prado, 1991; 

Wood and Bright, 

1992) 

Klein Koch 

and 

Waterhouse

, 2000; 

Prado, 1991

 Branches 

(Vergara and 

Castro, 2006a) 

Yes No 

DIPTERA: Lonchaeidae

Neosilba glaberrima

(Wiedemann) Syn: 

Silba glaberrima, 

Lonchaea glaberrima

CL (Vergara and 

Castro, 2006a); 

U.S. (FL) (Arnett 

Jr., 1997; 

Thompson and 

Evenhuis, 2004) 

Vergara and 

Castro, 

2006a 

 N/A No N/A 

Neosilba pendula Bezzi 

Syn: Silba pendula

CL (Prado, 1991) Klein Koch 

and 

Waterhouse

, 2000; 

Prado, 1991

 St & Fr 

(McAlpine 

and Steyskal, 

1982) 

Yes No6

DIPTERA: Tephritidae

Ceratitis capitata

(Wiedemann) 

CL (Prado, 1991) De Meyer

et al., 2002; 

Prado, 1991

CABI, 2006 Fr (PestID, 

2007; CABI, 

2005) 

Yes Yes7

HEMIPTERA: Aleyrodidae

Aleurothrixus floccosus 

(Maskell) 

CL (Klein Koch 

and Waterhouse, 

2000) ; U.S. (CA 

FL LA TX) 

(Evans, 2007) 

 Ulusoy et al., 

2003 

N/A No N/A 

Aleurothrixus porteri 

Quaintance & Baker

CL (Prado, 1991) Vergara and 

Castro, 2006b 

L (Vergara 

and Castro, 

2006b) 

Yes No 

Dialeurodes citri 

(Ashmead)

CL, U.S. (CABI, 

2006) 

 CABI, 2006; 

Mound and 

Halsey, 1978 

N/A No N/A 

Siphoninus phillyreae

(Haliday) Syn: 

Siphoninus finitimus

CL, U.S. (CA) 

(CABI, 2006) 

 CABI, 2006; 

Mound and 

Halsey, 1978 

L (CABI, 

2006) 

Yes No 

Trialeurodes 

vaporariorum

Westwood

CL (Prado, 1991); 

U.S. (CABI, 2006) 

 Vergara and 

Castro, 2006b 

N/A No N/A 

 

6

 This species and genus (McAlpine and Steyskal, 1982), has been reported from fruits and stems; however, as a secondary 

invader of fruit (McAlpine and Steyskal, 1982), it is unlikely to follow the pathway on commercial quality fruit. This 

species has never been intercepted at U.S. ports (PestID query, June 15, 2007). 7 Ceratitis capitata is a quarantine pest, under official control in Chile (EPPO, 1996). All of Chile is free of this pest, except 

for the Arica province (Lemly, 2007; USDA-APHIS, 2007a). Ceratitis capitata was analyzed further in case Chile exports 

fruit from this province. Please see text after pest list for additional details. 
Pest Risk Assessment for Chile Fig and Pomegranate 

Rev. 003 August 26, 2009 12

Pest Scientific Name Distribution2 Host association Plant part 

affected3

Quarantine pest Follow 

Fig Pomegranate pathway

HEMIPTERA: Aphididae

Aphis craccivora Koch CL, U.S. (CABI, 

2006) 

 Blackman and 

Eastop, 2000 

N/A No N/A 

Aphis fabae Scopoli 

Syn: Aphis rumicis

CL, U.S. (CABI, 

2006) 

Blackman 

and Eastop, 

1994 

Blackman and 

Eastop, 2000 

N/A No N/A 

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

2006) 

Blackman 

and Eastop, 

1994 

Blackman and 

Eastop, 2000; 

CABI, 2006 

N/A No N/A 

Aphis spiraecola Patch CL, U.S., HI, PR 

(CABI, 2006) 

Blackman 

and Eastop, 

2000 

Blackman and 

Eastop, 2000 

N/A No N/A 

Aulacorthum 

circumflexum

Kaltenbach Syn: 

Neomyzus 

circumflexus

CL (Prado, 1991); 

U.S. (USDA, 

2007c) 

 Blackman and 

Eastop, 2000 

N/A No N/A 

Brachycaudus 

helichrysi Kaltenbach

CL, U.S. (CABI, 

2006) 

 Blackman and 

Eastop, 2000 

N/A No N/A 

Myzus ornatus Laing CL (Prado, 1991); 

U.S. (Leonard et 

al., 1971) 

 Blackman and 

Eastop, 2000 

N/A No N/A 

Myzus persicae Sulzer 

Syn: Aphis persicae

CL, U.S. (CABI, 

2006) 

 Blackman and 

Eastop, 2000; 

CABI, 2006 

N/A No N/A 

Sitobion africanum

(Hille Ris Lambers)

CL (Blackman and 

Eastop, 2000) 

Blackman 

and Eastop, 

1994, 2000 

 St, L, I & Fr 

(CABI, 2006)8

Yes No9

Toxoptera aurantii

Boyer de 

Fonscolombe

CL, U.S. (CABI, 

2006) 

Blackman 

and Eastop, 

1994, 2000 

Blackman and 

Eastop, 2000 

N/A No N/A 

Toxoptera citricida

(Kirkaldy) Syn: 

Toxoptera citricidus

CL, U.S. (FL) 

(CABI, 2005, 

2006) 

Millar, 

1994 

 L (CABI, 

2005) 

[Yes] No 

HEMIPTERA: Coccidae

Ceroplastes 

cirripediformis

Comstock 

CL (Prado, 1991); 

U.S. (Ben-Dov et 

al., 2004) 

 Ben-Dov et 

al., 2007 

N/A No N/A 

 

8

 Due to limited information, association with host plant organs was evaluated at the genus level. 

9

 Aphids are soft-bodied insects that are not expected to survive harvest and post-harvest processing and culling. 

Furthermore, if fruit are washed, they would be readily washed off. 
Pest Risk Assessment for Chile Fig and Pomegranate 

Rev. 003 August 26, 2009 13

Pest Scientific Name Distribution2 Host association Plant part 

affected3

Quarantine pest Follow 

Fig Pomegranate pathway

Ceroplastes sinensis Del 

Guercio

CL (Ben-Dov et 

al., 2007; Prado, 

1991); US (CA, 

PA, VI, NC) (BenDov et al., 2007) 

Ben-Dov et 

al., 2007; 

Hill, 1983 

Ben-Dov et 

al., 2007 

N/A No N/A 

Coccus hesperidum

Linnaeus

CL (Prado, 1991); 

U.S. (CABI, 2003) 

Ben-Dov et 

al., 2007; 

Hill, 1983 

Ben-Dov et 

al., 2007 

N/A No N/A 

Parthenolecanium 

corni (Bouché)

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

al., 2007 

N/A No N/A 

Parthenolecanium 

persicae (Fabricius) 

Syn: Coccus 

elongatus

CL (CABI, 2006); 

U.S. (Ben-Dov et 

al., 2007) 

Ben-Dov et 

al., 2007; 

CABI, 2006

CABI, 2006 N/A No N/A 

Saissetia coffeae

Walker Syn: S. 

hemisphaerica

(Targioni)

CL, U.S. (CABI, 

2006) 

Ben-Dov et 

al., 2007 

Ben-Dov et 

al., 2007 

N/A No N/A 

Saissetia oleae (Olivier)

Syn: Coccus oleae

CL (Prado, 1991); 

U.S. (Ben-Dov et 

al., 2007) 

Ben-Dov et 

al., 2007; 

Hill, 1983 

Ben-Dov et 

al., 2007; 

CABI, 2006 

N/A No N/A 

HEMIPTERA: Diaspididae

Abgrallaspis 

cyanophylli 

(Signoret)

CL (Prado, 1991 ); 

U.S. (BMESD, 

2003; Kessing and 

Mau, 1993) 

ECOPORT, 

2007 

 N/A No N/A 

Aonidiella aurantii

Maskell

CL (CABI, 2006); 

U.S. (AZ, CA, MS, 

FL & TX) (BenDov et al., 2007; 

CABI, 2006}) 

Ben-Dov et 

al., 2007; 

CABI, 2006

 N/A No N/A 

Aspidiotus destructor

Signoret Syn: A. 

transparens; A. 

watanabei; 

Temnaspidiotus 

destructor

CL (Prado, 1991); 

U.S. (CABI, 2006) 

CABI, 

2006; Hill, 

1983 

 N/A No N/A 

Aspidiotus nerii Bouche 

Syn: Aspidiosus 

unipectinatus

CL, U.S. (Ben-Dov

et al., 2007; CABI, 

2003, 2005) 

Ben-Dov et 

al., 2007 

Ben-Dov et 

al., 2007 

N/A No N/A 

Chrysomphalus 

aonidum Linnaeus 

Syn: C. ficus, 

Aonidiella ficorum; 

Aspidiotus aonidum

CL (Ben-Dov et 

al., 2007); U.S. 

(CABI, 2003) 

Ben-Dov et 

al., 2007; 

Hill, 1983 

Ben-Dov et 

al., 2007 

N/A No N/A 
Pest Risk Assessment for Chile Fig and Pomegranate 

Rev. 003 August 26, 2009 14

Pest Scientific Name Distribution2 Host association Plant part 

affected3

Quarantine pest Follow 

Fig Pomegranate pathway

Chrysomphalus 

dictyospermi Morgan 

Syn: C. castigatus; C. 

dictyospermatis, 

Aspidiotus 

agrumicula

CL (Prado, 1991); 

U.S. (Johnson and 

Lyon, 1991) 

Ben-Dov et 

al., 2007 

 N/A No N/A 

Diaspidiotus 

perniciosus 

(Comstock) 

Cockerell; Danzig. 

Syn: Quadraspidiotus 

pernicious

(Comstock)

CL, U.S. (CABI, 

2006) 

 Vergara and 

Castro, 2006b 

N/A No N/A 

Hemiberlesia lataniae

Signoret Syn: 

Diaspidiotus lataniae; 

Euaspidiotus lataniae; 

Aspidiotus lataniae

CL, U.S. (Ben-Dov

et al., 2006; CABI, 

2006) 

Ben-Dov et 

al., 2007; 

CABI, 2006

Ben-Dov et 

al., 2007 

N/A No N/A 

Lepidosaphes beckii 

(Newman)

CL, U.S. (Ben-Dov

et al., 2007) 

Ben-Dov et 

al., 2007 

 N/A No N/A 

Lepidosaphes 

conchiformis

(Gmelin) Syn: 

Lepidosaphes ficus,

Mytilaspis 

conchiformis

CL (Ben-Dov et 

al., 2007; Prado, 

1991), U.S. (CA, 

MO, MD, DC) 

(Ben-Dov et al., 

2007) 

Ben-Dov et 

al., 2007; 

Prado, 1991

Ben-Dov et 

al., 2007 

N/A No N/A 

Lepidosaphes ulmi

(Linnaeus)

CL (CABI, 2006); 

U.S. (Ben-Dov et 

al., 2007) 

Ben-Dov et 

al., 2007; 

CABI, 2006

Ben-Dov et 

al., 2007 

N/A No N/A 

Lindingaspis rossi 

(Maskell) Syn: 

Aspidiotus rossi 

CL, U.S. (CA) 

(Ben-Dov et al., 

2007) 

 Hill, 1983 N/A No N/A 

Morganella longispina

(Morgan)

CL (Prado, 1991); 

U.S. (FL), HI, & 

PR (Ben-Dov et al., 

2007) 

Ben-Dov et 

al., 2007 

 N/A No N/A 

Pinnaspis strachani

Cooley Syn: 

Pinnaspis gossypii; 

Pinnaspis marchali;

Pinnaspis temporaria

CL (Prado, 1991); 

U.S. (Ben-Dov et 

al., 2006; CABI, 

2003) 

Ben-Dov et 

al., 2007 

Ben-Dov et 

al., 2007 

N/A No N/A 

HEMIPTERA: Margarodidae

Icerya purchasi Maskell CL, U.S. (CABI, 

2006) 

Hill, 1983 CABI, 2006 N/A No N/A 
Pest Risk Assessment for Chile Fig and Pomegranate 

Rev. 003 August 26, 2009 15

Pest Scientific Name Distribution2 Host association Plant part 

affected3

Quarantine pest Follow 

Fig Pomegranate pathway

HEMIPTERA: Pseudococcidae

Dysmicoccus brevipes 

(Cockerell)

CL, U.S. (Ben-Dov

et al., 2006) 

 PestID, 2007 N/A No N/A 

Planococcus citri Risso CL (Klein Koch 

and Waterhouse, 

2000); U.S. (BenDov et al., 2007) 

Ben-Dov et 

al., 2007; 

Hill, 1983 

Ben-Dov et 

al., 2007 

N/A No N/A 

Planococcus ficus 

(Signoret)

(Ben-Dov et al., 

2007) 

Ben-Dov et 

al., 2007; 

CABI, 2006

Ben-Dov et 

al., 2007; 

CABI, 2006 

N/A No N/A 

Pseudococcus 

calceolariae 

(Maskell)

CL (Prado, 1991); 

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

 Vergara and 

Castro, 2006b 

N/A No N/A 

Pseudococcus elisae 

Borchsenius

CL (Prado, 1991) PestID, 2007 L & Fr (CABI, 

2006) 

Yes No10

Pseudococcus 

longispinus (Targioni 

Tozzetti) Syn: 

Pseudococcus 

adonidum

CL (Prado, 1991); 

U.S. (McKenzie, 

1967) 

Ben-Dov et 

al., 2007; 

Bruner, 

1945; Hill, 

1983 

Ben-Dov et 

al., 2007 

N/A No N/A 

Pseudococcus sp.

(maritimus group) 

CL (Vergara and 

Castro, 2006b); 

U.S. (Ben-Dov et 

al., 2007) 

 Chile Vergara 

and Castro, 

2006b 

Fr (Vergara 

and Castro, 

2006b) 

Yes Yes 

Pseudococcus viburni

Signoret Syn: 

Pseudococcus 

obscurus

CL, U.S. (Ben-Dov

et al., 2007) 

Ben-Dov et 

al., 2007 

Ben-Dov et 

al., 2007 

N/A No N/A 

LEPIDOPTERA: Gelechiidae

Phthorimaea 

operculella (Zeller) 

CL, U.S. (CABI, 

2006; Prado, 1991) 

 PestID, 2007 N/A No N/A 

LEPIDOPTERA: Noctuidae

Achaea janata (L.) CL (Klein Koch 

and Waterhouse, 

2000); U.S. (CABI, 

2006) 

Robinson et 

al., 2001 

Robinson et 

al., 2001 

L & Fr (Hill, 

1994); Fr 

(CABI, 2006; 

Hill, 1994) 

Yes No11

LEPIDOPTERA: Nymphalidae

Lycorea ilione (Cramer) CL (Savela, 2007) Robinson et 

al., 2007 

 L (Hill, 1994) Yes No12

 

10 Other than this one interception record, no other literature source associates this pest with pomegranate. We consider one 

interception record to be insufficient evidence of host association. Consequently, this pest was not considered likely to 

follow the pathway on pomegranates. 11 Achaea janata is unlikely to follow the pathway because it is the adult form that feeds on fruit (CABI, 2006); because 

adults are not sessile and should be readily disturbed as fruit are harvested, they are not expected to remain with fruit 

during harvest. 
Pest Risk Assessment for Chile Fig and Pomegranate 

Rev. 003 August 26, 2009 16

Pest Scientific Name Distribution2 Host association Plant part 

affected3

Quarantine pest Follow 

Fig Pomegranate pathway

Marpesia petreus

(Cramer)

CL (Savela, 2007); 

U.S. (BSI, 2007) 

Robinson et 

al., 2007 

 N/A No N/A 

LEPIDOPTERA: Pyralidae

Apomyelois ceratoniae

Zellar Syn: 

Ectomyelois 

ceratoniae

CL (Gonzalez, 

2002; Prado, 

1991); U.S. 

(Robinson et al., 

2007) 

Robinson et 

al., 2001; 

Robinson et 

al., 2007 

CABI, 2006; 

Patil et al., 

2002; 

Robinson et 

al., 2007 

N/A No N/A 

Cadra cautella (Walker) 

Syn: Ephestia cautella

CL (Prado, 1991); 

U.S. (Arnett Jr., 

2000) 

CABI, 

2006; 

Robinson et 

al., 2007 

Robinson et 

al., 2007 

N/A No N/A 

Cadra figulilella

Gregson Syn: 

Ephestia figulilella

CL (Vergara and 

Castro, 2006a); 

U.S. (Arnett Jr., 

2000) 

Robinson et 

al., 2001; 

Robinson et 

al., 2007 

 N/A No N/A 

Ephestia kuehniella 

Zeller Syn: Anagasta 

kuehniella

CL, U.S. (CABI, 

2006) 

PestID, 

2007 

 N/A No N/A 

Plodia interpunctella 

(Hubner)

CL (Klein Koch 

and Waterhouse, 

2000); U.S. (CABI, 

2006) 

Robinson et 

al., 2007; 

Sadhu, 

2002 

Robinson et 

al., 2007 

N/A No N/A 

Pyralis farinalis

Linnaeus

CL (Klein Koch 

and Waterhouse, 

2000); U.S. (Arnett 

Jr., 2000) 

 Robinson et 

al., 2007 

N/A No N/A 

LEPIDOPTERA: Tortricidae

Cydia pomonella 

Linnaeus

CL, & U.S. (CABI, 

2006) 

 Robinson et 

al., 2007 

N/A No N/A 

THYSANOPTERA: Thripidae

Frankliniella 

occidentalis 

(Pergande)

CL, U.S. (CABI, 

2006) 

CABI, 2006 N/A No N/A 

Heliothrips 

haemorrhoidalis

(Bouche)

CL, U.S., & HI 

(CABI, 2006) 

 N/A No N/A 

Pseudodendrothrips 

stuardoi (Moulton) 

Syn: Graphidothrips 

stuardoi

CL (Klein Koch 

and Waterhouse, 

2000; Prado, 1991) 

Gonzalez, 

1989; 

Prado, 1991

 L & Young 

fruit (Vergara 

and Castro, 

2006a) 

Yes No13

 12 Due to limited information on this pest, we based the association of this pest with plant host organs on descriptions of the 

family (Hill, 1994). 13 This thrips is unlikely to follow the pathway because it is primarily associated with leaves and immature fruit (Vergara and 

Castro, 2006a). 
Pest Risk Assessment for Chile Fig and Pomegranate 

Rev. 003 August 26, 2009 17

Pest Scientific Name Distribution2 Host association Plant part 

affected3

Quarantine pest Follow 

Fig Pomegranate pathway

Thrips tabaci Lindeman CL (CABI, 2006; 

Prado, 1991); U.S. 

(CABI, 2006); 

Hill, 1983 N/A No N/A 

FUNGI

Alternaria alternata 

(Fr.) Keissi

CL (Franck et al., 

2000), U.S. (CABI, 

2006) 

Alfieri et 

al., 1993; 

Farr et al., 

2007; 

Montealegre et al., 

2001; SAG, 

2001 

Wellman, 

1977 

N/A No N/A 

Armilleria mellea 

(Vahl.) P. Kumm. 

[Basidiomyctes, 

Agaricales] 

CL (Franck et al., 

2000), U.S. (CABI, 

2006) 

Farr et al., 

2007; 

French, 

1989 

 N/A No N/A 

Aspergillus niger Tiegh. 

Anamorph: 

Emericella sp. 

[Eurotiomycetes; 

Eurotiales] 

Chile (CABI, 

2006); U.S. (CABI, 

2006) 

 CABI, 2006 N/A No N/A 

Cephalosporium sp.

[Ascomyctes, 

Helotiales] 

CL (Franck et al., 

2000); U.S. (FL)8

 

Alfieri et 

al., 1993 

 Fr 

(Alfieri et al., 

1993) 

Yes Yes 

Ceratocystis fimbriata 

(pomegranate strain) 

Ellis & Halst 

Anamorph: Charla sp. 

[Ascomycetes, 

Microascales] 

CL14 (Lanfranco et 

al., 2003); U.S. 

(CABI, 2006) 

CABI, 2007 Huang et al., 

2003 

Rt, St, L, and 

Fr (CABI, 

2006) 

Yes15 No16

 

14.Currently, C. fimbriata is found throughout South America, primarily infecting Theobroma sp (Peru, Ecuador, Brazil, 

Colombia, Venezuela) and Eucalyptus sp (Brazil and Uruguay) (CABI, 2006). We found no documents directly 

demonstrating a C. fimbriata infection of any host in Chile. However, a recent description of eucalyptus processing in 

Chile describes eucalyptus wood with blue stains and “fruiting bodies” of a Ceratocystis species (Lanfranco et al., 2003). 

The author further describes the infection as deriving from Ceratocystis pilifera (Lanfranco et al., 2003). It is unlikely, 

however, that this infection is caused by C. pilifera as this pathogen has only been identified in Pinus sp (CABI, 2006). It 

is possible that this species of Ceratocystis in Chile is indeed C. fimbriata which is present on Eucalyptus sp (Brazil and 

Uruguay) (CABI, 2006). 15 Although Ceratocystis fimbriata (sensu latu) is present in the continental United States, it is highly unlikely the strain or 

taxon that causes pomegranate wilt is (Somasehara, 1999). The taxonomic status of C. fimbriata is very complex (e.g., 

Johnson et al., 2005). Its host range is very broad and recent research indicates that C. fimbriata may contain more than 

one species (Baker et al., 2003). There is no research that indicates which genotype(s) of C. fimbriata causes pomegranate 

wilt or where it is distributed. Because pomegranate wilt has not been reported in the continental United States, we are 

assuming it is not present, and therefore, this strain is a quarantine pest. 16 Although C. fimbriata may be present in Chile, we found no evidence of this (see previous footnotes). Furthermore, it is 

unknown if the strain that attacks Eucalyptus sp. also attacks Ficus and Punica. Therefore, because of insufficient 
Pest Risk Assessment for Chile Fig and Pomegranate 

Rev. 003 August 26, 2009 18

Pest Scientific Name Distribution2 Host association Plant part 

affected3

Quarantine pest Follow 

Fig Pomegranate pathway

Cerotelium fici (E.J 

Butler) 

(Urediniomycetes,Ure

dinales) (no other 

taxonomic info. 

available) 

CL17 (Farr et al., 

2006); U.S. (Farr et 

al., 2006), 

Farr et al., 

2006 

 N/A No N/A 

Cladosporium 

herbarum 

[Hyphomycetes]

CL (Franck et al., 

2000); U.S. (CA, 

GA) 

Dugan et 

al., 2004; 

Montealegre et al., 

2001; 

 N/A No N/A 

Cochliobolus lunatus 

R.R. Nelson & Haasis 

Anamorph: 

Curvularia lunata

Wakker & Boedjin 

[Ascomycetes; 

Pleosporales] 

CL(CABI, 

2006);U.S. (CABI, 

2006) 

 CABI, 2006 N/A No N/A 

Collybia velutipes 

(Curtis) P. Kumm. 

[Basidiomycetes: 

Agaricales] 

CL (Mujica and 

Vergara, 1980) 

Mujica and 

Vergara, 

1980

 Br 

(Mujica and 

Vergara, 

1980) 

Yes No 

Corticium rolfsii Curzi 

Teleomorph: Sclerotium 

rolsfii Sacc. 

[Basidiomayctes, 

Polyporales] 

CL (Sepulveda, 

1993), U.S. [Fl] 

(Minton and Bell, 

1981) 

CABI, 2006 N/A No N/A 

Fusarium sp. CL, U.S. [Al, FL, 

NC, (CABI, 2006); 

(PestID, 2007; 

Franck et al., 2000)

CABI, 2006 N/A No N/A 

Glomerella cingulata 

(Stonem.) Spauld & 

Schrenk 

[Teleomorph] 

[Anamorph: 

Collectotricum 

gloeosporides (Penz.) 

Penz. & Sacc] 

[Ascomycetes] 

CL (Perodo and 

Valenzuala, 1988); 

U.S. (CABI, 2006) 

CABI, 

2006; 

Bailey and 

Jeger, 1992 

Wellman, 

1977 

N/A No N/A 

 evidence, we consider it unlikely that C. fimbriata will follow the pathway to the continental U.S. on fresh fig and 

pomegranate fruit. 17 Cerotellum fici has only been observed on Easter Island which is politically part of Chile but it is ecologically and 

geographically distinct fro the mainland. The host was not fig. Thus, there is little chance that Easter Island is a source of 

export fig . 
Pest Risk Assessment for Chile Fig and Pomegranate 

Rev. 003 August 26, 2009 19

Pest Scientific Name Distribution2 Host association Plant part 

affected3

Quarantine pest Follow 

Fig Pomegranate pathway

Hendersonia toruloidea 

Natrass11

CL (SAG, 2001), 

U.S. (Michailides, 

2003; Ogawa and 

English, 1991) 

Michailides

, 2003; 

Ogawa and 

English, 

1991; SAG, 

2001 

 N/A No N/A 

Nectria hematococca 

(Wollenw) Gerlach 

Teleomorph: 

[Ascomycetes: 

Hypocreales] 

CL, U.S. (CABI, 

2006) 

CABI, 2006 N/A No N/A 

Penicillium sp. 

Anamorph: 

Eupenicillium

CL (USEP, 2007), 

U.S. (CABI, 2006) 

 USEP, 2007 Fr (CABI, 

2006) 

Yes Yes 

Penicillium italicum 

Wehmer [Anamorph] 

[Euromycetes: 

Eurotiales] 

CL, U.S. (CABI, 

2006) 

CABI, 2006 N/A No N/A 

Penicillium 

minioluteum 

[Euromycetes, 

urotiales]

CL (Montealegre et 

al., 2001) 

Montealegr

e et al., 

2001 

 N/A No N/A 

Phyllosticta sp.

Anamorph: 

Guignardia sp.

[Coelomycetes: 

Botryosphaeriales]

CL, U.S. (FL, TX, 

CA) (PestID, 2007; 

Farr et al., 1989) 

CABI, 

2006; 

Montealegr

e et al., 

2001 

 Fr and L 

(Alfieri et al., 

1993; 

Montealegre

et al., 2001) 

Yes Yes 

Pythium 

aphanidermatum 

(Edson) Fitsp. 

[Oomycetes: 

Pythiales] 

CL, U.S. (CABI, 

2006) 

CABI, 2006 N/A No N/A 

Phomopsis sp. CL (Franck et al., 

2000), U.S. 

(PestID, 2007) 

Hanson, 

1949 

 Fr and Leaf 

(Franck et al., 

2000) 

Yes Yes 

Phytophthora sp. CL (Franck et al., 

2000); FL (Alfieri

et al., 1993). 

Alfieri et 

al., 1993; 

Franck et 

al., 2000 

 Fr and Root 

(Franck et al., 

2000) 

Yes Yes 

Rhizoctonia solani J.G 

Kuhn Syn: 

Thanatephorus 

cucumeris Anamorph: 

Ceratobasidium 

(Basidiomycetes, 

Corticales) 

Cl (Farr et al., 

2006); U.S. 

(French-Monar and 

Roberts, 2006) 

FrenchMonar and 

Roberts, 

2006 

 N/A No N/A 
Pest Risk Assessment for Chile Fig and Pomegranate 

Rev. 003 August 26, 2009 20

Pest Scientific Name Distribution2 Host association Plant part 

affected3

Quarantine pest Follow 

Fig Pomegranate pathway

Rhizoctonia sp. CL, U.S. (TX, HI, 

FL) (Franck et al., 

2000) 

Franck et 

al., 2000; 

Miller, 

1993; 

Raabe et 

al., 1981 

 N/A No N/A 

Rhizopus arrhizus A. 

Fisco [Zygomycetes, 

Mucorales] 

CL (USEP, 2007), 

U.S. (CABI, 2006) 

 USEP, 2007 Fr 

(CABI, 2006) 

No N/A 

Rhizopus stolonifer 

(Ehrenb.) Lind 

[Zygomycetes; 

Mucorales] 

CL (Franck et al., 

2000; Montealegre

et al., 2001); U.S. 

(CA, FL)(Alfieri et 

al., 1993; CABI, 

2006) 

Alfieri et 

al., 1993; 

French, 

1989; 

Montealegre et al., 

2001 

 N/A No N/A 

Sphaceloma punicae 

[Bitanc] & Jenkins 

Anamorph: Elsinoe

sp. [Dothideomycetes, 

Myriangiales] 

CL18 (Farr et al., 

2007); U.S. (FL)19

(Alfieri et al., 

1993) 

 Farr et al., 

2007 

Fr (Cook, 

1975) 

No Yes 

Sclerotinia sclerotium 

(Lib) de Bary 

Ascomycetes, 

Helotiales 

CL, CA, TX 

(Montealegre et al., 

2001; (Alfieri et 

al., 1993) 

Montealegr

e et al., 

2001; 

Alfieri et 

al., 1993 

 N/A No N/A 

Sclerotium rolfsii 

(Sacc) Anamorph: 

Athelia rolfsii 

(Agaricomycetes,Aga

ricales)

CL & U.S. (Farr et 

al., 2006 ) 

Farr et al., 

2006 

 N/A No N/A 

VIRUSES

Hop Stunt Viroid 

Pospiviroidae

CL (Torres et al., 

2004), U.S. (Sano

et al., 1986) 

 Astruc et al., 

1996 

N/A No N/A 

Fig mosaic virus CL, U.S. (Alfieri et 

al., 1993; 

Gonzalez, 1989) 

No; 

Alfieri et 

al., 1993; 

Gonzalez, 

1989 

 N/A No N/A 

 

18 Pomegranate scab (Sphaceloma punicae Britanc. & Jenkins) has been identified in pomegranate from the Southern cone of 

South America. The Systematic Botany and Mycology Laboratory Fungal Database (Farr et al., 2007) has four accessions 

from Argentina (three from port interceptions and one from a survey conducted in Argentina) and one from Chile. 

Although there is only one accession from Chile, that does not reflect the total number of interceptions and accessions are 

more rigorously identified than typical port interceptions. 19 Currently there is only a single citation (Alfieri et al., 1993) that associates Sphaceloma punicae with the United States and 

that reference restricts it to Florida. 
Pest Risk Assessment for Chile Fig and Pomegranate 

Rev. 003 August 26, 2009 21

Pest Scientific Name Distribution2 Host association Plant part 

affected3

Quarantine pest Follow 

Fig Pomegranate pathway

 

BACTERIA

Pseudomonas cichorii 

(Swingle) Stapp 

CL, U.S. (CABI, 

2006; Pinto de 

Torres and Carrero 

Ibanez, 1983) 

CABI, 2006 N/A No N/A 

Rhizobium radiobacter 

(Beijerink & van 

Delden) Young

CL, U.S. (CABI, 

2006) 

CABI, 2006 Wellman, 

1977 

N/A No N/A 

NEMATODES

Ditylenchus dispaci

(Kuhn, 1857)

CL (Wellman, 

1977); U.S (CABI, 

2006) 

Wellman, 

1977 

 N/A No N/A 

Helicotylenchus 

dihystera (Cobb) Sher 

Syn.: Rotylenchoides 

Whitehead 

Zimmermannia 

Shamsi 

[Hoplolaiminae]. 

 CL (Gallo, 1979), 

U.S. (Ko and 

Schmitt, 1996) 

CABI, 

2006; 

Gallo, 

1979; Ko 

and 

Schmitt, 

1996 

 N/A No N/A 

Meloidogyne arenata 

(Neal) Chitwoodi 

[Meloidogynidae]

CL (Franck et al., 

2000; Jimenez, 

1984), U.S. (CABI, 

2006; Evans et al., 

1993) 

CABI, 

2006; 

Davide, 

1979; 

Evans et al., 

1993 

 N/A No N/A 

Meloidogyne incognita 

(Kofold & White) 

Chitwoodi 

[Meloidogynidae]

CL(Franck et al., 

2000), U.S. (CABI, 

2006; Evans et al., 

1993; Jimenez, 

1979; Jimenez and 

Gallo, 1983) 

CABI, 

2006; 

Evans et al., 

1993; 

Jimenez, 

1979; 

Jimenez 

and Gallo, 

1983 

 N/A No N/A 

Xiphinema americanum 

Cobb 

[Xiphinematidae]

CL (EPPO, 2006; 

Franck et al., 2000; 

Guinez, 1980; 

Jimenez, 1974), 

U.S. (EPPO, 2006) 

CABI, 

2006; Forer 

and 

Stouffer, 

1982; 

Taylor and 

Brown, 

1997 

 N/A No N/A 
Pest Risk Assessment for Chile Fig and Pomegranate 

Rev. 003 August 26, 2009 22

Pest Scientific Name Distribution2 Host association Plant part 

affected3

Quarantine pest Follow 

Fig Pomegranate pathway

Xiphinema index 

Thorne & Allen 

[Xiphinematidae]

CL (EPPO, 2006; 

Franck et al., 2000; 

Gonzalez, 1970); 

U.S. (CABI/EPPO, 

2000) 

CABI, 2006 N/A No N/A 

2.5. Quarantine pests likely to follow the pathway 

We reviewed the literature and identified 130 pests that either are or may be associated with fig 

and/or pomegranate, in Chile (Table 6). Not all of these pests are quarantine pests of the 

continental United States. Furthermore, not all of the quarantine pests are likely to follow the 

pathway on fresh figs and pomegranates from Chile. Quarantine pests not expected to follow the 

pathway are not considered further, however, should any of these pests be intercepted in 

shipments of the commodity, quarantine action may be taken at the port of entry and additional 

risk analyses may be conducted. 

Pest categorization identified eight quarantine taxa likely to follow the pathway on fresh figs and 

pomegranates (Table 7). Of these, six were identified to only the genus level. The United States 

may consider incompletely identified taxa at higher taxonomic levels as quarantine pests if the 

higher taxon is not present in the United States (e.g., an entire genus or family), or if there is 

specific evidence indicating the unidentified taxon is different from the ones in the United States. 

In this case, however, there is no evidence suggesting these incompletely identified taxa are 

different from U.S. taxa. Consequently, these taxa were not analyzed further due to limited 

taxonomic and/or biological knowledge about those pests and pathogens. Lack of species 

identification may indicate limited taxonomic knowledge about that group, inappropriate life 

stage for full identification, or poor quality of the specimen. This lack of biological information 

on any given insect or pathogen should not be equated with low risk. By necessity, pest risk 

assessments focus on those organisms for which biological information is available and for 

which effective mitigation procedures may be developed (IPPC, 2004). Agricultural inspectors at 

the port of entry will continue to take action against pests not identified to the species level if 

other species in the same genus are quarantine pests. Furthermore, if pests identified to only 

higher taxa are intercepted in the future, the USDA may re-evaluate their risk. 

Ceratitis capitata is a quarantine pest, under oficial control in Chile (EPPO, 1996). All of Chile 

is free of this pest, except for the Arica province (Lemly, 2007; USDA-APHIS, 2007a). C. 

capitata was analyzed further below in case Chile exports fruit from this province. Note that 

Chile recently submitted data to the United States supporting their claim that the province of 

Arica is free of medfly (Lemly, 2007), however, the United States has not yet officially 

recognized the pest-free status of Arica (USDA-APHIS, 2007a). In addition to medfly, 

Anastrepha fraterculus and Anastrepha sp. have been reported to attack figs and pomegranates in 

Chile (PestID, 2007; White and Elson-Harris, 1992), however, because these pests are not 

currently established in Chile (CABI, 2006; Klein Koch and Waterhouse, 2000; Prado, 1991; 

Weems, 2002; White and Elson-Harris, 1992), they were not included in the pest list. Specimens 
Pest Risk Assessment for Chile Fig and Pomegranate 

Rev. 003 August 26, 2009 23

of Anastrepha previously collected in Chile were from temporary incursions from neighboring 

countries (Gonzalez, 1989). 

Of the eight pests listed in Table 7, Brevipalpus chilensis and Ceratitis capitata were analyzed 

further below. Both of these taxa are quarantine pests that are expected to follow the pathway on 

fresh figs and pomegranates from Chile. Neither pest would be readily detected during harvest or 

packing as they are either an internal pest (C. capitata) or are relatively small and could escape 

detection by hiding on the fruit surface (B. chilensis). 

Table 7. Quarantine pests likely to follow the pathway on fresh figs and pomegranate fruit from 

Chile. 

Pest (Group: Family) Analyzed Further? 

Brevipalpus chilensis (Acari: Tenuipalpidae) Yes 

Ceratitis capitata (Diptera: Tephritidae) Yes 

Pseudococcus sp. (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) No 

Cephalosporium sp. (Fungus) No 

Penicillium sp. (Fungus) No 

Phyllosticta sp. (Fungus) No 

Phomopsis sp. (Fungus) No 

Phytophthora sp. (Fungus) No 

2.6. Consequences of Introduction 

The negative impacts resulting from the introduction and establishment of quarantine pests are 

considered in this assessment. The potential consequences of introduction are rated using five 

risk elements. For each risk element, the pests are rated: Low (1 point), Medium (2 points) or 

High (3 points). A cumulative risk rating score, considered to be a biological indicator of the 

potential of the pest to establish, spread, and cause economic and environmental impacts, is 

calculated by adding all of the risk element values (Table 8) (USDA, 2000). Appendix 2 

describes in greater detail each of the risk elements and their rating criteria. 

Consequences of Introduction: Brevipalpus chilensis Risk Rating 

Risk Element #1: Climate-Host Interaction 

Brevipalpus chilensis is restricted to Regions III-X in Chile (CABI, 2006; Gonzalez, 

1989). The average minimum yearly temperature (Appendix 3) of these regions 

corresponds to three USDA. Plant Hardiness Zones, 9-11 (USDA-NA, 2003). The 

continental United States spans a wide climatic range from Zone 1 in Fairbanks, Alaska 

to Zone 10 in Miami, Florida (USDA-NA, 2003). Based on its climatic distribution, we 

estimated this species could establish in two Plant Hardiness Zones (9-10) of the 

continental United States. Because one or more hosts of B. chilensis are present in these 

zones (USDA-NRCS, 2007), we rated this risk element as Medium. 

Medium (2) 

Risk Element #2: Host Range 

Brevipalpus chilensis is a polyphagous pest, attacking multiple species across a variety 

High (3) 
Pest Risk Assessment for Chile Fig and Pomegranate 

Rev. 003 August 26, 2009 24

Consequences of Introduction: Brevipalpus chilensis Risk Rating 

of taxa. Known host families and genera include: Actinidiaceae (Actinidia); 

Annonaceae (Annona); Apiaceae (Apium); Apocynaceae (Vinca); Asteraceae 

(Chrysanthemum); Bignoniaceae (Catalpa); Chenopodiaceae (Chenopodium); 

Convolvulaceae (Convolvulus); Ebenaceae (Diospyros); Geraniaceae (Geranium, 

Pelargonium); Grossulariaceae (Ribes); Moraceae (Ficus); Oleaceae (Ligustrum); 

Rosaceae (Cydonia, Malus, Prunus); Rutaceae (Citrus); Solanaceae (Cestrum); and 

Vitaceae (Ampelopsis, Vitis) (CABI, 2006). This risk element was rated High. 

Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential 

The spread potential of pest is directly related to its reproductive potential and dispersal 

ability. Brevipalpus chilensis has a high reproductive potential with four to five 

generations per year (multivoltine) (González, 1958). However, its dispersal potential is 

not very high because the Tenuipalpidae family, and mites in general, move relatively 

slowly (Doreste, 1988; Jeppson et al., 1975). Like other mites, B. chilensis disperses 

mainly across adjacent plants. This risk element was rated Medium. 

Medium (2) 

Risk Element #4: Economic Impact 

Jeppson et al. (1975) and Gallasch et al. (1999) describe B. chilensis as harmful on wine 

grapes. High population levels of this insect can result in tissue dehydration (Gallasch et 

al., 1999). Brevipalpus chilensis distorts and discolors leaves, and causes rachis 

necrosis. New leaves are small in size and the new shoots are short, giving a lower crop 

yield. However, despite its polyphagous nature, B. chilensis does not appear to cause 

significant damage to species other than V. vinifera. It is reported to cause scarring on 

kiwi fruit (CABI, 2006). On other hosts, like Citrus spp., kiwi fruit and cherimoya, 

there is no evidence of economic impact (Peralta et al., 2002). Chemical applications 

used for other similar mite species could properly control B. chilensis (Anonymous, 

1991) if it did become an economically important pest (e.g., Childers, 1994; French and 

Rakha, 1994). According to the USDA’s export certification database (query, 2002), 

Korea and South Africa list B. chilensis as a pest of interest. South Africa specifically 

requires grape exports from California to be “free of B. chilensis”. Thus, the 

introduction of B. chilensis to the United States could potentially impact U.S. exports 

due to the higher quarantine safety measures to produce a product without the presence 

of the pest. Although there is no evidence that B. chilensis significantly damages fig or 

pomegranate, it would impact domestic grape production and increase U.S. safety 

measures on grape exports. Consequently, this risk element was rated High. 

High (3) 

Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact 

Brevipalpus chilensis could potentially attack two Threatened and Endangered species in 

the continental United States that are congeners of current hosts: Ribes echinellum and 

Prunus geniculata (USFWS, 2007). It is unknown if B. chilensis would reduce community 

biodiversity or disrupt ecological processes in natural areas, however, it has not been 

reported as an environmental pest. Introduction of this species is unlikely to result in the 

imposition of new biological or chemical controls, as those now targeting mite pests of 

domestically produced fruits, such as grapes (UC IPM, 2005), would probably be equally 

effective against any new mite pest, including B. chilensis. Consequently, this risk 

element was rated Medium.

Medium (2) 

Consequences of Introduction: Ceratitis capitata Risk Rating 

Risk Element #1: Climate-Host Interaction 

Ceratitis capitata has been reported in Europe (Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, 

Medium (2) 
Pest Risk Assessment for Chile Fig and Pomegranate 

Rev. 003 August 26, 2009 25

Consequences of Introduction: Ceratitis capitata Risk Rating 

France, Greece, Italy, Malta, Portugal, Russian Federation (Southern Russia), Serbia 

and Montenegro, Slovenia, Spain, Switzerland), Asia (Iran, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, 

Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, Yemen), Africa (Algeria, Angola, Benin, Botswana, 

Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Comoros, Congo Democratic Republic, 

Congo, Côte d'Ivoire, Egypt, Ethiopia, Gabon, Ghana, Guinea, Kenya, Liberia, Libya, 

Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritius, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, 

Nigeria, Réunion, Saint Helena, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra 

Leone, South Africa, Sudan, Tanzania, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe), 

Central America (Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama), 

North America (Mexico, Hawaii), South America (Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, 

Colombia, Ecuador, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay, Venezuela), and Oceania (Australia) 

(CABI, 2005). It has the capacity to tolerate colder climates better than most other fruit 

fly species (Weems, 1981). This broad region roughly corresponds to USDA Plant 

Hardiness Zones 8-13 (Maxwell, 2007). The continental United States spans a wide 

climatic range from Zone 1 in Fairbanks, Alaska to Zone 10 in Miami, Florida (USDANA, 2003). Based on the geographic distribution of C. capitata, we estimated this 

species could establish in areas of the continental United States corresponding to three 

Plant Hardiness Zones (8-10) and is rated Medium for this risk element. One or more hosts 

of C. capitata are present in these Plant Hardiness Zones in the United States (USDANRCS, 2007). 

Risk Element #2: Host Range 

Ceratitis capitata has a very wide range of host species, attacking over 400 different 

species, including: Anacardiaceae (Mangifera), Arecaceae (Phoenix), Lauraceae 

(Persea), Lythraceae (Punica), Moraceae (Ficus), Myrtaceae (Psidium), Rosaceae 

(Malus, Prunus), Rubiaceae (Coffea), Rutaceae (Citrus), Solanaceae (Capsicum, 

Solanum), and Sterculiaceae (Theobroma) (CABI, 2006; Capinera, 2001; Weems, 

1981). For brevity, its entire host range was not listed. Because this pest attacks multiple 

species among multiple plant families, it was rated High for this risk element. 

High (3) 

Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential 

Females may deposit up to 22 eggs per day and as many as 800 eggs in a lifetime, although 

300 is more typical (Weems, 1981). Eggs are inserted into the host fruit in small batches of 

one to 10 (Weems, 1981). In Australia, breeding is year-round, with several overlapping 

generations (Hassan, 1977). Under ideal conditions, it only takes 18 days to complete a 

generation; however, 30-40 days is common (Bedford et al., 1998). Up to 15 

generations can be observed per year (Capinera, 2001). Adult C. capitata are highly 

mobile, flying distances from 2 to 20 kilometers (CABI, 2003; Fletcher, 1989). 

Movement of infested commodities is the major means of dispersal to previously uninfested areas (CABI, 2006). Since 1985, Ceratitis capitata has been intercepted 2,988 

times by agricultural specialists at U.S. ports-of-entry, with the vast majority of 

interceptions occurring on fruit (query May 1, 2007; PestID, 2007). This evidence 

supports C. capitata’s ability to be transported long distances in fruit. Ceratitis capitata

may also be dispersed via puparia in soil, or growing media accompanying plants 

(CABI, 2006). Because this species has both high reproductive and dispersal potential, it 

was rated High for this risk element. 

High (3) 

Risk Element #4: Economic Impact 

Ceratitis capitata is one of the world’s most destructive fruit pests (Weems, 1981). 

Because of its wide distribution, ability to tolerate colder climates compared to most other 

fruit flies, and its wide host range, it is ranked as the most important among economically 

important fruit flies (CABI, 2006; Weems, 1981). It is a major pest of citrus, but is often an 

High (3) 
Pest Risk Assessment for Chile Fig and Pomegranate 

Rev. 003 August 26, 2009 26

Consequences of Introduction: Ceratitis capitata Risk Rating 

even more serious pest of some deciduous fruits, such as peach, pear, and apple (CABI, 

2006; Weems, 1981). In Mediterranean countries, it is damaging to citrus and peach crops 

(CABI, 2006). Bedford et al. (CABI, 2004) stated that susceptible deciduous fruits crops 

can suffer losses of up to 80% when control measures are not applied. It may also 

transmit fruit-rotting fungi (CABI, 2006). Ceratitis capitata is of quarantine significance 

worldwide, particularly in Japan and the United States. Its presence, even as temporary 

adventive populations, can lead to severe constraints for the export of fruits to uninfested 

areas in other parts of the world. For instance, eradication of recurring populations of C. 

capitata in an area (to maintain pest-free status) can be very costly and resource intensive. 

Consequently, C. capitata is one of the most significant quarantine pests for any tropical or 

warm temperate areas in which it is not yet established (CABI, 2006). Based on this 

evidence, C. capitata was rated High for this risk element. 

Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact 

Because of its broad host range, Ceratitis capitata may negatively impact numerous 

federally Threatened and Endangered (T&E) species in the continental United States, 

particularly congeners of current hosts. Potentially impacted T&E plants include Prunus 

geniculata (FL), Argemone pleiacantha (NM), Asimina tetramera (FL), Berberis nevivii

(CA), B. pinnata (CA), Cucurbita okeechobeensis (FL), Echinocereus chisoensis (TX), 

E. reichenbachii (TX), E iridiflorus (TX), E. fendleri (NM), E. triglochidiatus (AZ), E. 

telephioides (FL), Opuntia treleasei (CA), Ribes echinellum (FL, SC), and Ziziphus 

celata (FL) (USFWS, 2007). Fruit flies can harm plants directly by damaging seeds 

(Minchinton and Dalby-Ball, 2001; Webber and Woodrow, 2004) and indirectly by 

altering patterns of frugivory and dispersal and ultimately seedling recruitment 

(Traveset et al., 1995; Vivian-Smith et al., 2006). Ceratitis capitata represents a 

significant threat to citrus and peach production, so the establishment of C. capitata in the 

United States would trigger the initiation of chemical or biological control programs, as has 

occurred in Hawaii and California (CABI, 2004). Consequently, C. capitata was rated 

High for this risk element. 

High (3) 

Table 8. Summary of risk ratings for Consequences of Introduction

Pest Risk elements Cumulative 

Risk Ratinga Climate/Host 

Interaction 

Host 

Range 

Dispersal 

Potential 

Economic 

Impact 

Environ. 

Impact 

Brevipalpus 

chilensis 

Med (2) High 

(3) 

Med (2) High (3) Med (2) Medium (12) 

Ceratitis capitata Med (2) High 

(3) 

High (3) High (3) High (3) High (14) 

a

 Low = 5-8 points; Medium = 9-12 points; High = 13-15 points. 
Pest Risk Assessment for Chile Fig and Pomegranate 

Rev. 003 August 26, 2009 27

2.7. Likelihood of Introduction 

The likelihood of a pest being introduced and establishing a reproductive population is 

dependent on a series of six independent events: 1) the quantity of the commodity imported, 2) 

the ability of the pest to survive post-harvest treatment and 3) the ability of the pest to survive 

shipment, 4) the probability the pest will not be detected at the port of entry, 5) the likelihood 

that it will be moved to a suitable habitat, and 6) the probability that it will come into contact 

with suitable host material (USDA, 2000). These six elements of the likelihood of introduction 

were evaluated below. We calculated the Cumulative Risk Rating for the Likelihood of 

Introduction as the sum of the six sub-elements (Table 9). 

2.7.1. Quantity of product imported annually 

Without specific information from Chile on the amount figs and pomegranates they wish to 

export, we estimated this amount based on other criteria. The most current estimate of Chilean 

pomegranate production is 150 ha devoted to pomegranate production. Pomegranate yield ranges 

between 15 and 20 tons per hectare in Chile (USEP, 2007). At an average production rate of 17.5 

tons per hectare, 150 hectares should produce approximately 2625 tons of fruit. A typical 40 foot 

shipping container can contain up to 29 tons of cargo (Anonymous, 2007). Thus, Chile’s total 

annual production could be shipped in about 90 containers. Actual quantities shipped should be 

less because some production is for fruit juice and not fresh fruit (SerAgro, 2007). Thus, this 

level of production places Chile in the middle of the 10-100 container range even if actual 

importation is less than maximal. Thus, the risk associated with the quantity being imported is 

Medium for pomegranate. Although the quantity of figs for export or in production in Chile is 

unknown, this sub-element was rated Medium for figs as well, because U.S. market demand and 

consumption for fresh figs is not as great as dried figs (Pollack and Perez, 2004). 

2.7.2. Survive post harvest treatment 

Post-harvest treatment refers to any standard handling or specific phytosanitary treatment to 

which a commodity is subjected. This sub-element evaluated the efficacy of post-harvest 

handling to eliminate pests from the pathway. In Chile, pomegranates are harvested by hand 

(USEP, 2007). Even if the fruit are washed and waxed as they are in India (Sheikh, 2006), C. 

capitata will survive post-harvest treatment because it is an internal pest of figs and 

pomegranates. Brevipalpus chilensis will also survive if mites are present in the calyx end of the 

fruit where there is a protective cavity. The same argument applies to figs. Although figs do not 

have a recessed cavity at the distal end of the fruit, they do have an ostiole, which is an opening 

covered by scales that pollinating fig wasps use to gain entry into the fruit. We assumed that 

mites may occur in the ostiole. This sub-element was rated High for both pests.

2.7.3. Surviving shipment 

Survival of pests and pathogens during shipment depends on several factors, including duration 

of shipment period, ambient conditions during shipment and application of any particular 

mitigation procedures. Because this risk assessment considered only unmitigated risk, the latter 

factor is not relevant. Figs are highly perishable fruit that can spoil within a week due to high 

sugar concentrations (Colelli et al., 1991; McGregor, 1987). Consequently, this commodity is 

typically stored and shipped under very cold conditions (-0.5° to 5°C, depending on the literature 

source; Colelli et al., 1991; Dussan-Sarria and Honorio, 2005; McGregor, 1987). Given this 
Pest Risk Assessment for Chile Fig and Pomegranate 

Rev. 003 August 26, 2009 28

range of temperatures and the short storage life of fresh figs, it is highly likely that C. capitata

and B. chilensis would survive shipment conditions to the U.S. (High). 

Pomegranates have a potentially longer storage life than figs. At 5°C and 90-95% relative 

humidity, they can be maintained for about two months before the risk of chilling injury 

(McGregor, 1987; Sheikh, 2006). However, because we do not know how pomegranates would 

be shipped by Chile, we must assume that C. capitata and B. chilensis would survive shipment 

conditions to the U.S. (High). 

2.7.4. Not detected at ports of entry 

The likelihood that a pest will not be detected at a port-of-entry is dependent on several factors 

including pest size, mobility, and degree of concealment. In general, internal pests of fruits are 

highly likely to escape detection, while externally feeding pests are less likely. Even though port 

interception records show that B. chilensis can be detected (query June 21, 2007; PestID, 2007), 

it is reasonable to assume that many contaminated consignments are passing undetected. 

Brevipalpus chilensis is a small arthropod, with a body measuring 320-340 μm (less than 1 mm, 

CABI, 2006). These pests could be readily missed, especially if they are hiding in the floral 

cavity on pomegranates or in the ostiole of figs. Ceratitis capitata is an internal pest (CABI, 

2006) and would only be detected if fruit are destructively sampled (cut open). Both pests were 

rated High for this sub-element. 

2.7.5. Imported or moved subsequently to an area with an environment suitable for survival 

The likelihood a pest will be moved to an area with a suitable environment for survival is 

dependent on the potential distribution of markets for the host commodity throughout the country 

and the presence of suitable habitats for the pest/pathogen. Fruit arriving at U.S. ports does not 

arrive at one port, but is distributed according to market demand. Three of the four more 

populated U.S. states (California, Florida, and Texas) are located in the southern part of the 

country (U.S. Gov., 2006), where climatic conditions are conducive for survival of B. chilensis

and C. capitata (USDA-NA, 2003). These three states represent about 25% of the total U.S. 

population. If it is assumed that figs and pomegranates would be proportionally distributed 

across the U.S., according to population size, the score for this pest sub-element would be High.

2.7.6. Contact with host material suitable for reproduction 

Even if the final destination of infested commodities is suitable for pest survival, pests must still 

come in contact with suitable host material. This process is dependent on two factors, the pest’s 

potential for dispersal, and the presence of host material in the region (IPPC, 2004). While 

Brevipalpus chilensis has a wide taxonomic host range, the actual number of hosts is relatively 

small (CABI, 2006). Two suitable host genera include Convolvulus and Ribes, which are widely 

distributed across the U.S. (USDA-NRCS, 2007). Brevipalpus chilensis is a very small arthropod 

with limited natural dispersal ability (i.e., it does not fly). Spread occurs mainly through plant to 

plant contact, although humans can facilitate spread. Accordingly, this sub-element was rated 

Medium for it. Ceratitis capitata, however, has a very broad host range and is a very mobile pest 

(CABI, 2006); it was rated High. 
Pest Risk Assessment for Chile Fig and Pomegranate 

Rev. 003 August 26, 2009 29

Table 9. Summary of Risk Ratings for Likelihood of Introduction 

Pest Quantity 

imported 

annually 

Survive 

postharvest 

treatment 

Survive 

shipment

Not 

detected at 

port of 

entry 

Moved 

to 

suitable 

habitat 

Contact 

with 

host 

material 

Cumulative 

risk rating*

Brevipalpus 

chilensis 

Med (2) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) Med (2) High (16) 

Ceratitis 

capitata 

Med (2) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (17) 

* Low = 6–9 points; Medium = 10–14 points; High = 15–18 points 

2.8. Pest Risk Potential 

The overall Pest Risk Potential of a pest incorporates the likelihood of its introduction and 

establishment with the potential economic and environmental consequences that may follow. The 

USDA summarizes Pest Risk Potential by summing the risk element values from these two 

components of risk (USDA, 2000). The Pest Risk Potential of a pest is a qualitative estimation of 

risk that is expressed in terms of Low, Medium, or High. According to the Guidelines for 

Pathway-Initiated Pest Risk Assessments, Version 5.02 (USDA, 2000), 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. With a Consequence of Introduction score 

of 12 and a Likelihood of Introduction score of 15, the overall Pest Risk Potentials for both 

species was High (Table 10). We list potential risk mitigation options below (Appendix D). 

Table 10. Pest Risk Potential 

Pest Consequences of 

Introduction 

Likelihood of 

Introduction 

Cumulative 

Risk Rating* 

Brevipalpus chilensis Medium (12) High (16) High (28) 

Ceratitis capitata High (14) High (17) High (31) 

* Low =11-18 points; Medium = 19-26 points; High = 27-33 points 

3. Authors and Reviewers 

3.1. Preparers 

Draft prepared by: 

David Castro, Agricultural Engineer, Foundation for Fruit Development (Chile) 

Carlota Vergara, Agricultural Engineer, Servicio Agrícola y Ganadero (Chile) 

Updated and modified by: Anthony L. Koop, John Rogers, and Kayimbi Tubajika, USDAAPHIS-PPQ-CPHST-PERAL 
Pest Risk Assessment for Chile Fig and Pomegranate 

Rev. 003 August 26, 2009 30

3.2. Reviewers 

Ron Sequeira, National Science Program Leader for Risk & Pathway Analysis, CPHST 

Scott Weihman, Entomologist, CPHST 

4. Literature Cited 

7 CFR § 319.56. 2007. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 7, Part 319 (7 CFR §319.56 - Fruit 

and Vegetable Quarantine Regulations). 

7 CFR § 360. 2007. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 7, Part 360, (7 CFR §360 - Noxious 

Weed Regulations). United States Government. 

Aksoy, U., B. Balci, H. Z. Can, and S. Hepaksoy. 2003. Some significant results of the research 

work in Turkey on fig. Acta Horticulturae (605):173-181. 

Alfieri, S. A. J., K. R. Langdon, J. W. Kimbrough, N. E. El Gholi, and C. Wehlburg. 1993. 

Diseases and Disorders of Plants in Florida. Division of Plant Industry, Florida 

Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Gainesville, FL., U.S.A. 1114 pp. 

Amrine, J. W., and T. A. Stasny. 1994. Catalog of the Eriophyoidea (Acarina: Prostigmata) of 

the World. Indira Publishing House, West Bloomfield, Michigan, USA. 798 pp. 

Anonymous. 1991. Integrated Pest Management for Citrus (2nd edition). University of 

California, CA, U.S.A. 144 pp. 

Anonymous. 2007. Wikipedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Last accessed July 25, 2007, 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page. 

Arnett Jr., R. H. 1997. American Insects: A Handbook of the Insects of America North of 

Mexico. CRC Press LLC, Boca Raton, FL, U.S.A. 850 pp. 

Arnett Jr., R. H. 2000. American Insects: A Handbook of the Insects of America North of 

Mexico, Second edition. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, U.S.A. 1003 pp. 

Astruc, N., J. Marcos, L. Macquaire, T. Candresse, and V. Pallas. 1996. Studies on the diagnosis 

of hop stunt viroid in fruit trees: Identification of new hosts and application of nucleic 

acid extraction procedure based on non-organic solvents. European Journal of Plant 

Pathology 102:837-846. 

Bailey, J. A., and M. J. Jeger. 1992. Colletotrichum: Biology, Pathology and Control. CAB 

International, Wallingford, UK. 416 pp. 

Baker, C. J., T. C. Harrington, U. Krauss, and A. C. Alfenas. 2003. Genetic variability and host 

specialization in the Latin American clade of Ceratocystis fimbriata. Phytopathology 

93(10):1274-1284. 

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. 

Barriga, J., S. Curkovic, T. Fichet, J. Henríquez, and J. Macaya. 1993. Nuevos antecedentes de 

coleópteros xilófagos y plantas hospederas en Chile, con una recopilación de citas 

previas. Revista Chilena de Entomologia 20:65-91. 

Bedford, E. C. G., M. A. van den Berg, and E. A. d. Villiers. 1998. Citrus Pests in the Republic 

of South Africa (2nd edition). Agricultural Research Council, Institute for Tropical and 

Subtropical Crops, Nelspruit, South Africa. 288 pp. 

Ben-Dov, Y., D. R. Miller, and G. A. P. Gibson. 2004. ScaleNet. United States Department of 

Agriculture (USDA), Agricultural Research Service (ARS), Systematic Entomology 
Pest Risk Assessment for Chile Fig and Pomegranate 

Rev. 003 August 26, 2009 31

Laboratory (SEL). Last accessed January 16, 2004, 

http://www.sel.barc.usda.gov/scalenet/scalenet.htm. 

Ben-Dov, Y., D. R. Miller, and G. A. P. Gibson. 2006. ScaleNet. United States Department of 

Agriculture (USDA), Agricultural Research Service (ARS), Systematic Entomology 

Laboratory (SEL). Last accessed November 20, 2006, 

http://www.sel.barc.usda.gov/scalenet/scalenet.htm. 

Ben-Dov, Y., D. R. Miller, and G. A. P. Gibson. 2007. ScaleNet. United States Department of 

Agriculture (USDA), Agricultural Research Service (ARS), Systematic Entomology 

Laboratory (SEL). Last accessed August 13, 2007, 

http://www.sel.barc.usda.gov/scalenet/scalenet.htm. 

Bense, U. 1995. Longhorn Beetles: Illustrated Key to the Cerambycidae and Vesperidae of 

Europe. Margraf Verlag, Weikersheim, Germany. 512 pp. 

Blackman, R. L., and V. F. Eastop. 1994. Aphids on the World's Trees: An Identification and 

Information Guide. CAB International & The Natural History Museum, Wallingford, 

United Kingdom. 987 pp. 

Blackman, R. L., and V. F. Eastop. 2000. Aphids on the World's Crops: An Identification and 

Information Guide. Wiley, Chichester, United Kingdom. 466 pp. 

BMESD. 2003. Bohart Museum of Entomology: Scale Insect Database. Bohart Museum of 

Entomology. Last accessed December 19, 2003, http://bohart.ucdavis.edu/scale/. 

Bolland, H. R., J. Gutierrez, and C. H. W. Flechtmann. 1998. World Catalogue of the Spider 

Mite Family (Acari: Tetranychidae). Brill, Leiden, The Netherlands. 392 pp. 

Bruner, S. C., L.C. Scaramuzza and A.R. Otero. 1945. Catalogo de los Insectos que Atacan a las 

Plantas Economicas de Cuba. Academia de Ciencias de Cuba, Instituto de Zoologia, 

Habana, Cuba. 246 pp. 

BSI. 2007. Butterflies and Moths of North America, Online Database. Motana State University, 

Big Sky Institute (BSI). Last accessed June 1, 2007, http://www.butterfliesandmoths.org/. 

CABI. 2003. Crop Protection Compendium. CAB International, Wallingford, UK. 

CABI. 2004. Crop Protection Compendium. CAB International, Wallingford, UK. 

CABI. 2005. Crop Protection Compendium. CAB International, Wallingford, UK. 

CABI. 2006. Crop Protection Compendium. CAB International, Wallingford, UK. 

CABI. 2007. Forestry Compendium, Online Database. CAB International. Last accessed July 20, 

2007, http://www.cabi.org/compendia/fc/. 

CABI/EPPO. 2000. Xiphinema index. Distribution Maps of Plant Diseases. Maps No. 819. CAB 

International, Wallingford, UK. 

Capinera, J. L. 2001. Handbook of Vegetable Pests. Academic Press., San Diego, CA, U.S.A. 

729 pp. 

Carson, R. 1962. Silent Spring. Houghton Mifflin Company Boston, MA, U.S.A. 

Cherepanov, A. I. 1991. Cerambycidae of Northern Asia. Volume 3: Lamiinae. Part II. E.J. Brill, 

Leiden. 308 pp. 

Childers, C. C. 1994. Feeding injury to 'Robinson' tangerine leaves by Brevipalpus mites (Acari: 

Tenuipalpidae) in Florida and evaluation of chemical control on citrus. Florida 

Entomologist 77:265-271. 

Colelli, G., F. G. Mitchell, and A. A. Kader. 1991. Extension of postharvest life of ‘Mission’ figs 

by CO2-enriched atmospheres. HortScience 26(9):1193-1195. 

Cook, A. A. 1975. Diseases of Tropical and Subtropical Fruits and Nuts. Hafner Press, London. 

317 pp. 
Pest Risk Assessment for Chile Fig and Pomegranate 

Rev. 003 August 26, 2009 32

CRFG. 2007. Fruit facts. California Rare Fruit Growers (CRFG). Last accessed June 25, 2007, 

http://www.crfg.org/pubs/ff/. 

Culliney, T. W. 2003. Survey for parasitic honey bee mites in Hawaii (Acariformes: 

Tarsonemidae; Parasitiformes: Laelapidae, Varroidae). Proceedings of the Hawaiian 

Entomological Society 36:103-109. 

Davide, R. 1979. Reactions of different crops to infections by Meloiddogyne arenaria isolated 

from fig and the influence of temperature on development of the nematode. Plant Disease 

Reporter 63:207-211. 

De Meyer, M., R. S. Copeland, S. A. Lux, M. Mansell, S. Quilici, R. Wharton, I. M. White, and 

N. J. Zenz. 2002. Annotated Check List of Host Plants for Afrotropical Fruit Flies 

(Dipter: Tephritidae) of the Genus Ceratitis. Royal Museum for Central Africa, Belgium. 

91 pp. 

Doreste, E. 1988. Acarologia. Instituto Internacional de Cooperacion para la Agricultura (IICA), 

San Jose, Costa Rica. 410 pp. 

Duffy, E. A. J. 1960. A monograph of the inmature stages of Neotropical timber beetles 

(Cerambycidae). British Museum (Natural History), London. 327 pp. 

Dugan, F. M., K. Schulbert, and U. Braun. 2004. Checklist of Cladosporium names. 

Schlechtendalia 11(1-103). 

Dussan-Sarria, S., and S. L. Honorio. 2005. Precooling parameters for figs (Ficus carica L.) cv. 

Roxo de Valinhos packed in carton box for exportation [Abstract]. Revista Cientifica 

UDO Agricola 5(1):96-102. 

ECOPORT. 2007. ECOPORT's Pest and Pathogen Database. University of Florida, FAO & The 

National Museum of Natural History. Last accessed June 28, 2007, www.ecoport.org. 

EPPO. 1996. Eradication of Ceratitis capitata in Chile (96/064). EPPO Reporting Service 04. 

EPPO. 2006. PQR Database (version 4.5). European and Mediterranean Plant Protection 

Organization. Last accessed July 30, 2007, 

http://www.eppo.org/DATABASES/pqr/pqr.htm. 

Evans, G. A. 2007. The whiteflies (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae) of the world and their host plants 

and natural enemies (v. January 16, 2007). United States Department of Agriculture 

(USDA), Animal Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), United States. 715 pp. 

Evans, K., D. L. Trudgill, and J. M. Webster (eds.). 1993. Plant Parasitic Nematodes in 

Temperate Agriculture. CAB International, Wallingford, United Kingdom. 648 pp. 

Farr, D. F., G. F. Bills, G. P. Chamuris, and A. Y. Rossman. 1989. Fungi on Plants and Plant 

Products in the United States. APS Press, St. Paul, MN. 1252 pp. 

Farr, D. F., A. Y. Rossman, M. E. Palm, and E. B. McCray. 2006. Fungal Databases. Systematic 

Botany & Mycology Laboratory, ARS, USDA. Last accessed February 10, 2006, 

http://nt.ars-grin.gov/fungaldatabases/. 

Farr, D. F., A. Y. Rossman, M. E. Palm, and E. B. McCray. 2007. Fungal Databases. Systematic 

Botany & Mycology Laboratory, ARS, USDA. Last accessed May 10, 2007, http://nt.arsgrin.gov/fungaldatabases/. 

FedeFruta. 2007. Exportacionde arilos de este fruto: EE.UU autorizo ingreso de granada. 

Federacion de Productores de Frutas. Last accessed July 30, 2007, 

http://www.fedefruta.cl/index.php?area=Noticias&id=146. 

Fletcher, B. S. 1989. Movements of tephritid fruit flies. Pages 209-219 in A. S. Robinson and G. 

Hooper, (eds.). Fruit flies: their biology, natural enemies, and control (Vol. 3b). Elsevier, 

Amsterdanm. 
Pest Risk Assessment for Chile Fig and Pomegranate 

Rev. 003 August 26, 2009 33

Forer, L. B., and R. F. Stouffer. 1982. Xiphinema spp. associated with tomato ringspot virus 

infection of Pennsyvania fruit crops [Abstract]. Plant Disease 66(8):735-736. 

Franck, N., C. Botti, L. Prat, R. Y. Tapia, and B. Moratles. 2000. Resultados de la investigacion 

realizada en Chile en higuera. in C. Botti, (ed.). Cultivos Frutales para Zonas Aridas 

Escuela de Agronomia. Facultad de Ciencias Agronomias, Universidad de Chile, Chile. 

French-Monar, R. D., and P. D. Roberts. 2006. 2006 Florida plant disease management guide: 

Fig (Ficus carica). University of Florida, Institute for Food and Agricultural Services. 

Last accessed August 17, 2007, http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/PG010. 

French, A. M. 1989. California Plant Disease Host Index. California Department of Food and 

Agriculture, Sacramento, CA, U.S.A. 394 pp. 

French, J., and M. Rakha. 1994. False spider mite damage and control on Texas citrus. 

Subtropical Plant Science 46:16-19. 

Gallasch, P., J. Ortuzar, and C. Anderson. 1999. The Chilean citrus industry. SARDI Research 

Report Series No. 52. South Australian Research and Development Institute, Adelaide, 

Australia. 51 pp. 

Gallo, D. P. 1979. Phytoparasitic nematodes from Easter Island, Region V. (Part 1) [Abstract]. 

Idesa 5:225-230. 

Gardner, S. N., J. Gressel, and M. Mangel. 1998. A revolving dose strategy to delay the 

evolution of both quantitative vs major monogene resistances to pesticides and drugs. 

International Journal of Pest Management 44(3):161-180. 

Gencer, N. S., K. S. Coskuncu, and N. A. Kumral. 2005. Bursa ilinde incir bahcelerinde gorulen 

zararli ve yararli turlerin saptanmasi [Determination of harmful and beneficial fauna in 

fig orchards in Bursa Province] Journal of Faculty of Agriculture, Ondokuz Mayıs 

University 20(2):24-30. 

Gonzalez, R. H. 1970. Nuevas especies de nematodos que atacan la vid en Chile [Abstract]. 

Agricultura Technico 30:31-37. 

Gonzalez, R. H. 1983. The false grape mite Brevipalpus chilensis Baker (Acarina, 

Tenuipalpidae). Revista Fruticola 4(2):61-65. 

Gonzalez, R. H. 1989. Insectos y Acaros de Importancia Agricola y Cuarentenaria en Chile 

[Insects and Mites of Agricultural and Quarantine Importance in Chile]. Universidad de 

Chile, Santiago, Chile. 

Gonzalez, R. H. 2002. Development of first and second generation of apple codling moth Cydia 

pomonella (L.) and its influence on management programmes [Abstract]. Revista 

Fruticola 23(1):5-16. 

González, R. H. 1958. Biología y control de la falsa arañita de la vid Brevipalpus chilensis Baker 

(Acarina: Phytoptipalpidae) (Technical Bulletin No 1 Agronomical Experimental Station). 

Universidad de Chile, Santiago, Chile. 31 pp. 

Gonzalez, R. H., P. V. Arretz, and L. E. Campos. 1973. Catalogo de las plagas agricolas de 

Chile. Universidad de Chile, Facultad de Agronomia, Agricultural Sciences Publications 

2:1-68. 

Guinez, S. A. 1980. Comparative efficacy of organic amendments and four nematicides for the 

control of nematodes on tomato [Abstract]. Agricultura Technica 40(4):143-146. 

Gunn, C. R., and C. A. Ritchie. 1988. Identification of disseminules listed in the Federal Noxious 

Weed Act (Technical Bulletin Number 1719.). United States Department of Agriculture, 

Agricultural Research Service, U.S.A. 313 pp. 
Pest Risk Assessment for Chile Fig and Pomegranate 

Rev. 003 August 26, 2009 34

Hallman, G. J. 2000. Expanding radiation quarantine treatments beyond fruit flies. Agricultural 

and Forest Entomology 2:85-95. 

Hanson, H. N. 1949. Phomopsis canker of figs. California Agriculture 3(11):13-14. 

Hassan, E. 1977. Major Insect and Mite Pest of Australian Crops. Ento Press, Gatton, 

Queensland, Australia. 232 pp. 

Herrera Villamil, G. 1958. Bionomics and control of the false spider mite of vines (B. chilensis). 

Agricultura Tecnica 28(1):35-42. 

Hill, D. S. 1983. Agricultural Insect Pests of the Tropics and their Control (2nd ed.). Cambridge 

University Press, Cambridge, U.S.A. 746 pp. 

Hill, D. S. 1994. Agricultural Entomology. Timber Press, Portland, Oregon, U.S.A. 635 pp. 

Holm, L., J. Doll, E. Holm, J. Rancho, and J. Herberger. 1997. World Weeds: Natural Histories 

and Distribution. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York. 1129 pp. 

Holm, L. G., J. V. Pancho, J. P. Herberger, and D. L. Plucknett. 1979. A Geographical Atlas of 

World Weeds. Krieger Publishing Company, Malabar, Florida, U.S.A. 391 pp. 

Holm, L. G., D. L. Plucknett, J. V. Pancho, and J. P. Herberger. 1977. The World's Worst 

Weeds: Distribution and Biology. Krieger Publishing Company, Malabar, Florida, U.S.A. 

69 pp. 

Huang, Q., Y. Zhu, H. Chen, Y. Wang, Y. Liu, W. Lu, and X. Ruan. 2003. First report of 

pomegranate wilt caused by Ceratocystis fimbriata in Yunnan, China. Plant Disease 

87:1150. 

IAEA. 2003. Trapping guidelines for area wide fruit fly programmes. International Atomic 

Energy Agency, Vienna, Austria. 48 pp. 

IPPC. 1996. International standards for phytosanitary measures (ISPM#4): Requirements for the 

establishment of pest free areas (ISPM#4). IPPC & Food and Agriculture Organization of 

the United Nations, Rome. 

IPPC. 1997. 1997 - International Plant Protection Convention (New Revised Text). IPPC & Food 

and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 28 pp. 

IPPC. 1999. International standards for phytosanitary measures (ISPM #10): Requirements for 

the establishment of pest free places of production and pest free production sites. 

International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) & Food and Agriculture Organization 

of the United Nations, Rome. 10 pp. 

IPPC. 2001. International standards for phytosanitary measures (ISPM#12): Guidelines for 

phytosanitary certificates. International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) & the Food 

and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 14 pp. 

IPPC. 2002. International standards for phytosanitary measures (ISPM#14): The use of 

integrated measures in a systems approach for pest risk management. International Plant 

Protection Convention (IPPC) & Food and Agriculture Organization of the United 

Nations, Rome. 21 pp. 

IPPC. 2004. International standards for phytosanitary measures (ISPM#11): Pest risk analysis for 

quarantine pests, including analysis of environmental risks and living modified 

organisms. International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) & Food and Agriculture 

Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 41 pp. 

IPPC. 2005. International standards for phytosanitary measures (ISPM#22): Requirements for 

the establishment of areas of low pest prevalance. International Plant Protection 

Convention (IPPC) & Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 
Pest Risk Assessment for Chile Fig and Pomegranate 

Rev. 003 August 26, 2009 35

IPPC. 2006. International standards for phytosanitary measures (ISPM#5): Glossary of 

phytosanitary terms. International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) & Food and 

Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 23 pp. 

IPPC. 2007. International standards for phytosanitary measures (ISPM#2): Framework for pest 

risk analysis. International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) & the Food and 

Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 15 pp. 

Jadue, Y., C. Vargas, T. Rubio, and J. E. Araya. 1996. Effects of cold storage on the false grape 

mite, Brevipalpus chilensis Baker. Journal of Plant Diseases and Protection 103:403-408. 

Jeppson, L. R., H. H. Keifer, and E. W. Baker. 1975. Mites injurious to economic plants. 

University of California Press, Berkeley, CA, U.S.A. 614 pp. 

Jimenez, R. M. 1974. Contribucion al conocimiento de los nematodos del Departemento de 

Arica: Coleccion de nematodos fitofagos (Third part). Idesia (Chile) 3:9-26. 

Jimenez, R. M. 1979. Antecedentes sobre el nematodo cecidogeno en la 1a. Region, Chile. Idesia 

(Chile) 5:41-47. 

Jimenez, R. M. 1984. Nematodos de la region de Chile II Especies y razas del genero 

Meloidogyne spp. (Nematodes of the northern most part of Chile (I region). II Species 

and races of the genus Meloidogyne spp.). Idesia (Chile) 8:63-76. 

Jimenez, R. M., and P. D. Gallo. 1983. Nematodos de la I Region de Chile, I. Predominancia de 

especies del genero Meloidogyne spp. (Nematodes of the northern most part of Chile (I 

Region) I. Prevailing species of the genus Meloidogyne spp.). Idesia (Chile) 7:5-14. 

Johnson, J. A., T. C. Harrington, and C. J. B. Engelbrecht. 2005. Phylogeny and taxonomy of the 

North American clade of the Ceratocystis fimbriata complex. Mycologia 97(5):1067-

1092. 

Johnson, W. T., and H. H. Lyon. 1991. Insects that Feed on Trees and Shrubs. Cornell University 

Press, Hong Kong. 560 pp. 

Juillerat M., F. 2007. Inauguración. Presentation given at the Nuevas Alternativas para la 

Fruticultura Chilena de Exportacion Granadas e Higos, Santiago, Chile. April 17, 2007. 

Kakinohana, H., H. Kuba, T. Kohama, K. Kinjo, M. Taniguchi, H. Nakamori, A. Tanahara, and 

Y. Sokei. 1997. Eradication of the melon fly, Bactrocera cucurbitae Coquillett, by mass 

release of sterile flies in Okinawa Prefecture, Japan. Japan Agricultural Research 

Quarterly 31(2):91-100. 

Kenney, M. J. 2001. Importation of fresh common fig (Ficus carica L.) fruit from Mexico into 

the continental United States. 

Kessing, J. L. M., and R. F. L. Mau. 1993. Abgrallaspis cyanophylli (Signoret). University of 

Hawaii, Department of Entomology. Last accessed March 31, 2004, 

http://www.extento.hawaii.edu/kbase/crop/Type/a_cyanop.htm. 

Klein Koch, C., and D. F. Waterhouse. 2000. The distribution and importance of arthropods 

associated with agriculture and forestry in Chile (Distribucion e importancia de los 

artropodos asociados a la agricultura y silvicultura en Chile). Australian Centre for 

International Agricultural Research (ACIAR), Canberra, Australia. 234 pp. 

Ko, M. P., and D. P. Schmitt. 1996. Changes in plant-parasitic nematode populations in 

pineapple fields following inter-cycle cover crops [Abstract]. Journal of Nematology 

28(4):546-556. 

Lanfranco, D., S. Ide, C. Ruiz, I. Vives, and H. Peredo. 2003. Caracterizacion fitosanitaria de 

astillas de Eucalyptus spp. y de especies nativas. Bosque (Valdiva) 24(1):47-54. 
Pest Risk Assessment for Chile Fig and Pomegranate 

Rev. 003 August 26, 2009 36

Lemly. 2007. What is the status of medfly in Chile? Personal communication to A. L. Koop on 

October 12, 2007, from Jennifer Lemly, USDA-APHIS trade director for South America. 

Leonard, M. D., H. G. Walker, and L. Enari. 1971. Host plants of three polyphagous and widely 

distributed aphids in the Los Angeles State and County arboretum, Arcadia, California 

(Homoptera: Aphididae). Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington 

73(2):120-131. 

Liogier, H. A., and L. F. Martorell. 2000. Flora of Puerto Rico and adjacent islands: a systematic 

synopsis (2nd ed.). Editorial de la Universidad the Puerto Rico, San Juan, Puerto Rico. 

LR. 2005. Ngā Tipu o Aotearoa - New Zealand Plants. Landcare Research (LR). Last accessed 

June 25, 2007, http://nzflora.landcareresearch.co.nz/. 

Martins, U. R. 1999. Tribo Eburiini: Cerambyidae Sul-americanos. Sociedad Brasileira de 

Entomologia, Sao Paulo 3:119-391. 

Maxwell, B. 2007. Brandt's palm and tropical/subtropical tree page. Brandt Maxwell. Last 

accessed May 1, 2007, http://www.geocities.com/westcornersville/. 

McAlpine, J. F., and G. C. Steyskal. 1982. A revision of Neosilba McAlpine with a key to the 

world genera of Lonchaeidae (Diptera). Canadian Entomologist 114(2):105-137. 

McGregor, B. M. 1987. Tropical products transport handbook (Agriculture Handbook No. 688). 

United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC., U.S.A. 148 pp. 

McInnis, D. O., S. Tam, R. Lim, J. Komatsu, R. Kurashima, and C. Albrecht. 2004. 

Development of a pupal color-based genetic sexing strain of the melon fly, Bactrocera 

cucurbitae (Coquillett) (Diptera : Tephritidae). Annals of the Entomological Society of 

America 97(5):1026-1033. 

McKenzie, H. L. 1967. Mealybugs of California: With taxonomy, biology and control of North 

American species (Homoptera: Coccoidea: Pseudococcidea). University of California 

Press, Berkeley, California, U.S.A. 525 pp. 

Michailides, T. J. 2003. Diseases of fig. Pages 253-273 in R. C. Ploetz, (ed.). Diseases of 

Tropical Fruit Crops. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK. 

Millar, I. M. 1994. A Catalogue of the Aphids (Homoptera: Aphidoidea) of sub-Saharan Africa. 

Agricultural Research Council, Pretoria, South Africa. 130 pp. 

Miller, J. W. 1993. Plant pathology section. Tri-ology Technical Report. Division of Plant 

Industries Florida 32(1):4-8. 

Minchinton, T. E., and M. Dalby-Ball. 2001. Frugivory by insects on mangrove propagules: 

effects on the early life history of Avicennia marina. Oecologia 129(2):243-252. 

Minton, N. A., and D. K. Bell. 1981. Effects of chemicals, applied before and after planting on 

nematodes and southern stem rot of peanuts. Plant Disease 65(6):497-500. 

Monné, M. A., and F. T. Hovore. 2005. Electronic version 2005 checklist of the Cerambycidae, 

of the Western Hemisphere. Frank Hovore & Associates. Last accessed July 25, 2006, 

http://www.hovore.com/cerambycidae.htm#Free%20Electronic%20Checklists%20for%2

0download. 

Montealegre, J., J. Oysrzun, R. Herrera, and H. Berger y Galletti. 2001. Hongos causantes de 

pudriciones en postcosecha de brevas e hogos. En Siemente 71(1-2):68. 

Morton, J. F. 1987. Fruits of Warm Climates. Julia F. Morton, Miami, FL. 

Mound, L. A., and S. H. Halsey. 1978. Whitefly of the World: A Systematic Catalogue of the 

Aleyrodidae (Homoptera) with Host Plant and Natural Enemy Data. British Museum and 

John Wiley & Sons, Chichester. 340 pp. 
Pest Risk Assessment for Chile Fig and Pomegranate 

Rev. 003 August 26, 2009 37

Mujica, F., and C. Vergara. 1980. Flora Fungosa Chilena (Agricultural Sciences No. 5 (2nd 

edition checked and updated by Edgar Oehrens B. Editorial Universitaria, Santiago)). 

Universidad de Chile, Facultad de Agronomia, Chile. 308 pp. 

Napp, D. S., and U. R. Martins. 2002. Eryphus Perty, 1832 and Tacyba, a new genus of 

Heteropsini (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae). Revista Brasileira de Entomologia 46(1):83-92. 

NAPPO. 2004. NAPPO regional standards for phytosanitary measures: RSPM#5: NAPPO 

glossary of phytosanitary terms. North American Plant Protection Organization, Ottawa, 

Ontario, Canada. 9 pp. 

Ogawa, J. M., and H. English. 1991. Diseases of Temperate Zone Tree, Fruit, and Nut Crops. 

University of California, Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Oakland, CA, 

U.S.A. 461 pp. 

Ortu, S., A. Lentini, and A. Cocco. 2005. Control methods of Ceratitis capitata (Wied.) in citrus 

groves. Informatore Fitopatologico 55(1):28-34. 

Page, S., and M. Olds (eds.). 2001. The Plant Book: The World of Plants in a Single Volume. 

Mynah, Hong Kong. 1020 pp. 

Patil, A. V., A. R. Karale, and T. K. Bose. 2002. Pomegranate. Pages 125-162 in T. K. Bose, S. 

K. Mitra, and D. Sanyal, (eds.). Fruits: Tropical and Subtropical (Volume II). Naya 

Udyog, Calcutta, India. 

Peck, S. L., and S. P. Ellner. 1997. The effect of economic thresholds and life-history parameters 

on the evolution of pesticide resistance in a regional setting. American Naturalist 

149(1):43-63. 

Peralta, L., V. Irribarra, and J. Farias. 2002. Observaciones de la biologia de Brevipalpus 

chilensis Baker, (AC. Tenuipalpidae) en huertos de Kiwi (Actinidia decliciosa (Chv.) 

Liang & Ferguson). 

Perodo, H. L., and F. E. Valenzuala. 1988. New records of pathogenic fungi of forest plants in 

Chile. Boletin Micologico 3(4):249-252. 

PestID. 2007. Agriculture Quarantine Activity Systems (PestID) Database. United States 

Department of Agriculture - Plant Protection and Quarantine. Last accessed July 2, 2007, 

https://mokcs14.aphis.usda.gov/aqas/login.jsp. 

Pinto de Torres, A., and I. Carrero Ibanez. 1983. Pseudomonas cichorii (Swingle) Stapp, 

associated with gummy spots on armking nectarines: locality Padre Hurtado, Chile. 

Agricultura Technica 43(3):283-284. 

Pollack, S., and A. Perez. 2004. Commoditiy highlight: Figs. Fruit and Tree Nuts Outlook 

309(March 30):17-20. Last accessed July 25, 2007, 

http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/fts/. 

PPQ. 1997. Importation of pomegranate fruits, Punica granatum from Israel into the United 

States. Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ), Riverdale, MD, U.S.A. 19 pp. 

PPQ. 2003. Guidelines for fruit fly systems approach to support the movement of regulated 

articles between Mexico and the United States. United States Department of Agricultire, 

Plant Protection and Quarantine, U.S.A. 

Prado, E. C. 1991. Arthropodos y sus enemigos naturlaes asociados a plantas cultivadas en Chile 

(Boletin Tecnico No. 169.). Instituto de Investigaciones Agropecuarias (INIA), Santiago, 

Chile. 

Raabe, R. D., I. L. Conners, and A. P. Martinez. 1981. Checklist of plant diseases in Hawaii 

(Information Text Series No. 22). Hawaii Institution of Tropical Agriculture, Human 
Pest Risk Assessment for Chile Fig and Pomegranate 

Rev. 003 August 26, 2009 38

Resources, College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources, University of Hawaii. 

313 pp. 

Randall, R. P. 2007. A Global Compendium of Weeds, Online Database. Department of 

Agriculture of Western Australia. Last accessed January 12, 2007, 

http://www.hear.org/gcw/. 

Reed, C. F. 1977. Economically Important Foreign Weeds. Agricultural Research Service, 

United States Department of Agriculture., U.S.A. 746 pp. 

Robinson, G. S., P. R. Ackery, I. J. Kitching, G. W. Beccaloni, and L. M. Hernandez. 2001. 

Hostplants of the Moth and Butterfly Caterpillars of the Oriental Region. The Natural 

History Museum & Southdene Sdn Bhd, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. 744 pp. 

Robinson, G. S., P. R. Ackery, I. J. Kitching, G. W. Beccaloni, and L. M. Hernandez. 2007. 

HOSTS - A Database of the Hostplants of the World's Lepidoptera. The Natural History 

Museum. London, United Kingdom. Last accessed May 25, 2007, 

http://www.nhm.ac.uk/entomology/hostplants. 

Roman, J. 2007. Chile: Pomegranate, baby kiwi and fig. Personal communication to A. L. Koop 

on June 14, 2007, from Juan Roman, Commodity Import Analysis and Operations 

(CIAO). 

Sadhu, M. K. 2002. Fig. Pages 411-448 in T. K. Bose, S. K. Mitra, and D. Sanyal, (eds.). Fruits: 

Tropical and Subtropical (Volume II). Naya Udyog, Calcutta, India. 

SAG. 2001. Report: Sanitary fig (Ficus carica) situation in Chile. Servicio Agricola y Ganadero, 

Chile. 

Sano, T., K. Ohshima, T. Hataya, I. Uyeda, E. Shikata, T. Chou, T. Meshi, and Y. Okada. 1986. 

A viroid resembling hop stunt viroid in grapevines from Europe, the United States, and 

Japan. Journal of General Virology 67:1673-1678. 

Savela, M. 2007. Lepidoptera and some other life forms. Last accessed August 14, 2007, 

http://www.funet.fi/pub/sci/bio/life/intro.html. 

Sepulveda, C. G. 1993. Sclerotium rolsfii Saac. in the first region of Chile. Idesia (Chile) 12:13-

17. 

SerAgro. 2007. Produccion de Granadas para Exportacion, Arbol de Granado, Punica granatum. 

SerAgro.Cl. Last accessed July 26, 2007, http://www.seragro.cl/?a=888. 

Sheikh, M. K. 2006. The Pomegranate. International Book Distributing, Co., Charbagh, India. 

191 pp. 

Siscaro, G., S. Longo, G. Mazzeo, P. Suma, L. Zappala, and G. Samperi. 2006. Side-effects of 

insecticides on natural enemies of citrus scale pests in Italy. Bulletin OILB/SROP 

29(3):55-64. 

Skinner, K., L. Smith, and P. Rice. 2005. Noxious Weeds in the US and Canada, Online 

Database. University of Montana. Last accessed February 25, 2005, 

http://invader.dbs.umt.edu/Noxious_Weeds/. 

Somasehara, Y. M. 1999. New record of Ceratocystis fimbriata causing wilt of pomegranate in 

India. Plant Disease 83(4):400. 

Swearingen, J. 2005. Alien plant invaders of natural areas. National Park Service. Last accessed 

May 2, 2005, http://www.nps.gov/plants/alien/list/all.htm. 

Taylor, C. E., and D. J. F. Brown. 1997. Nematode Vectors of Plant Viruses. CAB International, 

Wallington, U.K. 296 pp. 

TDOA. 2003. Texas Rio Grande Valley Mexican fruit fly, Anastrepha ludens, (Loew) protocol - 

2003/2004. Texas Department of Agriculture (TDOA), TX, U.S.A. 
Pest Risk Assessment for Chile Fig and Pomegranate 

Rev. 003 August 26, 2009 39

Thompson, F. C., and N. L. Evenhuis. 2004. Diptera Names, Version 6.1. The Biosystematic 

Database of World Diptera. USDA, ARS, Systematic Entomology Laboratory, Beltsville, 

Maryland [CD-ROM]. 

Torres, H., G. Gomez, V. Pallas, B. Stamo, A. Shalaby, B. Aouane, I. Gavriel, P. Konienk, K. 

Caglayan, M. Sipahioglu, R. Michelutti, A. Myrta, and N. Fiore. 2004. Detection of 

tissue printing stone fruit viroids from Europe, the Mediterranean, and North and South 

America. Acta Horticulture 657:379-383. 

Traveset, A., M. F. Willson, and J. C. Gaither. 1995. Avoidance by birds of insect-infested fruits 

of Vaccinium ovalifolium [Abstract]. Oikos 73(3):381-386. 

U.S. Gov. 2006. U.S. population. United States Government Census Bureau. Last accessed June 

21, 2007, http://factfinder.census.gov/home/saff/main.html?_lang=en. 

UC IPM. 2005. UC IPM Online: Pest Management Guidelines. Statewide IPM Program, 

Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of California. Last accessed January 5, 

2005, http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PMG/crops-agriculture.html. 

Ulusoy, M. R., G. Vatansever, L. Erkılıc, and N. Uygun. 2003. Studies on Aleurothrixus 

floccosus (Maskell) (Homoptera, Aleyrodidae) and its parasitoid, Cales noacki Howard 

(Hymenoptera, Aphelinidae) in the East Mediterranean region of Turkey. Journal of Pest 

Science 76:163-169. 

USDA-APHIS. 1997. Irradiation for phytosanitary regulatory treatment: Environmental 

assessment, October 1997. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Animal 

and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). 12 pp. 

USDA-APHIS. 2007a. Pest free areas. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) - 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). Last accessed October 12, 2007, 

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/newsroom/hot_issues/quarantine_56/download/pestfreeareas_

Q56.pdf. 

USDA-APHIS. 2007b. Treatment manual (v. July 26, 2007). Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service, United States Department of Agriculture. 

USDA-ARS. 2007. Germplasm Resources Information Network (GRIN), Online Database. 

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Agricultural Research Service (ARS), 

Systematic Botany and Mycology Laboratory. Last accessed June 25, 2007, 

http://www.ars-grin.gov/cgi-bin/npgs/html/paper.pl. 

USDA-NA. 2003. The 2003 US National Arboretum "web version" of the USDA Plant 

Hardiness Zone Map. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), National 

Arboretum (NA). Last accessed October 20, 2006, 

http://www.usna.usda.gov/Hardzone/ushzmap.html. 

USDA-NASS. 2006. Noncitrus fruits and nuts 2006 summary. USDA National Agricultural 

Statistics Service, U.S.A. 

USDA-NRCS. 2007. The PLANTS Database. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), 

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), National Plant Data Center. Last 

accessed September 6, 2007, http://plants.usda.gov/cgi_bin/. 

USDA-PPQ. 2007. Fresh fruits and vegetables import manual (July 19, 2007). United States 

Department of Agriculture (USDA), Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ), U.S.A. 650 

pp. 

USDA. 2000. Guidelines for pathway-initiated pest risk assessments (v. 5.02). Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Last accessed 

November 18, 2004, http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/pra/. 
Pest Risk Assessment for Chile Fig and Pomegranate 

Rev. 003 August 26, 2009 40

USDA. 2005. Regulated Plant Pest List. United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and 

Plant Health Inspection Service. Last accessed January 28, 2005, 

http://www.invasivespecies.org/RegulatedPestList.pdf. 

USDA. 2007a. Decision history for figs (Ficus carica). United States Department of Agriculture 

(USDA), U.S.A. 41 pp. 

USDA. 2007b. Decision history for pomegranate (Punica granatum). United States Department 

of Agriculture (USDA), U.S.A. 

USDA. 2007c. U.S. National Collection of Aphididae Database. United States Department of 

Agriculture (USDA), Systematic Entomology Laboratory Last accessed May 30, 2007, 

http://www.sel.barc.usda.gov/aphid/aphframe.htm. 

USEP. 2007. El granado (Punica granatum). Unidad de Seleccion y Propagacion para la Venta 

de Material Fitogenetico (USEP), Facultad de Ciencias Agronomicas, Universidad de 

Chile. Last accessed July 30, 2007, 

http://agronomia.uchile.cl/centros/USEP/Granado/granado.htm. 

USFWS. 2007. Threatened and endangered animals and pants. United Stated Fish and Wildlife 

Service (USFWS). Last accessed January 3, 2007, 

http://endangered.fws.gov/wildlife.html#Species. 

Vargas, M. R., P. N. Olivares, and O. A. Cardemil. 2005. Postembryonic development and life 

table parameters of Typhlodromus pyri Scheuten, Cydnodromus californicus (McGregor) 

(Acarina: Phytoseiidae) and Brevipalpus chilensis Baker (Acarina: Tenuipalpidae) 

[Abstract]. Agricultura Tecnica 65(2):147-156. 

Vergara, C., and D. Castro. 2006a. Pests associated to Ficus carica in Chile: Preliminary pest 

list., Chile. 13 pp. 

Vergara, C., and D. Castro. 2006b. Pests associated to Punica granatum in Chile: Preliminary 

pest list., Chile. 9 pp. 

Vivian-Smith, G., C. R. Gosper, A. Wilson, and K. Hoad. 2006. Lantana camara and the fruitand seed-damaging fly, Ophiomyia lantanae (Agromyzidae): Seed predator, recruitment 

promoter or dispersal disrupter? Biological Control 36(2):247-257. 

Vreysen, M. J. B., H. J. Barclay, and J. Hendrichs. 2006. Modeling of preferential mating in 

areawide control programs that integrate the release of strains of sterile males only or 

both sexes. Annals of the Entomological Society of America 99(3):607-616. 

Waite, G. K. 2002. Pests and pollinators of mango. Pages 103-129 in J. E. Pena, J. L. Sharp, and 

M. Wysoki, (eds.). Tropical Fruit Pests and Pollinators: Biology, Economic Importance, 

Natural Enemies and Control. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, U.K. 

Webber, B. L., and I. E. Woodrow. 2004. Cassowary frugivory, seed defleshing and fruit fly 

infestation influence the transition from seed to seedling in the rare Australian rainforest 

tree, Ryparosa sp nov 1 (Achariaceae). Functional Plant Biology 31(5):505-516. 

Weber, E. 2003. Invasive Plant Species of the World: A Reference Guide to Environmental 

Weeds. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK. 548 pp. 

Weems, H. V., Jr. 1981. Mediterranean fruit fly, Ceratitis capitata (Wiedemann) - Circular No. 

230. Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Service - Division of Plant 

Industry, U.S.A. 

Weems, H. V., Jr. 2002. Anastrepha fraterculus (Wiedemann) (Diptera: Tephritidae). University 

of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Services. Last accessed June 26, 2007, 

http://creatures.ifas.ufl.edu/fruit/tropical/south_american_fruit_fly.htm. 
Pest Risk Assessment for Chile Fig and Pomegranate 

Rev. 003 August 26, 2009 41

Wellman, F. L. 1977. Dictionary of tropical American crops and their diseases. Scarecrow Press, 

Metuchen, N.J., USA. 

White, I. M., and M. M. Elson-Harris. 1992. Fruit Flies of Economic Significance: Their 

Identification and Bioeconomics. CAB International, Wallingford, UK. 601 pp. 

Wibmer, G. J., and C. W. O'Brien. 1986. Annotated Checklist of the Weevils (Curculionidae 

sensu lato) of South America (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). The American Entomological 

Institute, Gainesville, FL, U.S.A. 563 pp. 

Wood, S. L., and D. E. Bright. 1992. A Catalog of Scolytidae and Platypodidae (Coleoptera), 

Part 2: Taxonomic Index Volume A&B. Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah. 1553 

pp. 

WSSA. 2006. Weed List. Weed Science Society of America (WSSA). Last accessed November 

28, 2006, http://www.wssa.net/weednames/common.asp. 

Zhang, Z.-Q. 2003. Mites of Greenhouses: Identification, Biology and Control. CABI, 

Wallingford, UK. 244 pp. 
Pest Risk Assessment for Chile Fig and Pomegranate 

Rev. 003 August 26, 2009 42

5. Appendices 

Appendix A: Pest and pathogens that have been intercepted on Ficus carica and Punica 

granatum fruit at U.S. ports from 1985 to 2007. 

Because baggage and cargo interceptions (general and permit cargo) represented 99% of all 

interceptions, interception data for mail, ship stores, quarters, etc., were not shown. Query: July 

13, 2007 (PestID, 2007). 

Pest Fig Pomegranate

 Baggage Cargo Baggage Cargo

Acaridae, species of 1 

Acrolophus sp. (Acrolophidae) 1 

Acromyrmex sp. (Formicidae) 1 

Acrosternum millierei Mulsant & Rey (Pentatomidae) 1 

Acutaspis albopicta (Cockerell) (Diaspididae) 2 

Acutaspis sp. (Diaspididae) 2 

Agromyzidae, species of 2 

Aleyrodidae, species of 2 

Algarobius prosopis (Leconte) (Bruchidae) 1 

Allothrombium sp. (Trombidiidae) 1 

Altica sp. (Chrysomelidae) 1 

Amorbia sp. (Tortricidae) 11 

Amyelois sp. (Pyralidae) 1 

Amyelois transitella (walker) (Pyralidae) 2 

Anarsia sp. (Gelechiidae) 1 

Anastrepha ludens (Loew) (Tephritidae) 5 

Anastrepha sp. (Tephritidae) 13 1 246 1 

Anthicidae, species of 1 

Anthocoridae, species of 2 

Anthomyiidae, species of 2 

Aphididae, species of 1 4 

Aphidoletes aphidimyza (Rondani) (Cecidomyiidae) 1 

Aphthona sp. (Chrysomelidae) 1 

Apion sp. (Apionidae) 2 4 

Apis Mellifera (Linnaeus) (Apidae) 1 

Araneidae, species of 1 

Archipini, species of (Tortricidae) 1 

Arctiidae, species of 3 

Ascidae, species of 1 

Asterolecanium Pustulans (Cockerell) (Asterolecaniidae) 1 

Auchenorrhyncha, species of 1 

Avena sterilis Linnaeus (Poaceae) 1 

Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel) (Tephritidae) 1 5 

Bactrocera oleae (Gmelin) (Tephritidae) 1 

Bactrocera sp. (Tephritidae) 3 18 

Bibionidae, species of 1 

Blapstinus sp. (Tenebrionidae) 3 4 

Blastobasinae, species of (Coleophoridae) 4 
Pest Risk Assessment for Chile Fig and Pomegranate 

Rev. 003 August 26, 2009 43

Pest Fig Pomegranate

 Baggage Cargo Baggage Cargo

Boissiera squarrosa (Banks & Sol.) Nevski (Poaceae) 1 

Bothrotes sp. (Tenebrionidae) 2 

Brachycerinae, species of (Curculionidae) 2 

Brochymena sp. (Pentatomidae) 1 

Bruchidae, species of 1 

Bruchidius atrolineatus (Pic) (Bruchidae) 1 

Bruchidius dispar (Gyllenhal) (Bruchidae) 1 

Cacoecimorpha dronubana (Hubner) (Tortricidae) 5 

Cadra calidella (Guenee) (Pyralidae) 10 

Cadra cautella (Walker) (Pyralidae) 3 

Cadra figulilella (Gregson) (Pyralidae) 16 

Cadra sp. (Pyralidae) 4 

Calligrapha sp. (Chrysomelidae) 1 

Calliphoridae, species of 2 1 

Camponotus sp. (Formicidae) 1 

Carabidae, species of 1 1 

Cardiocondyla emeryi Forel (Formicidae) 3 

Carposina sp. (Carposinidae) 1 

Carposinidae, species of 6 

Cecidomyiidae, species of 4 

Ceratitini, species of (Tephritidae) 2 4 

Ceratitis capitata (Wiedemann) (Tephritidae) 646 2 84 

Ceratitis sp. (Tephritidae) 1 2 

Cercospora punicae Henn. (Hyphomycetes) 1 

Cercospora sp. (Hyphomycetes) 3 

Ceroplastes rusci (Linnaeus) (Coccidae) 51 1 

Ceroplastes sinensis Del Guercio (Coccidae) 1 

Ceroplastes sp. (Coccidae) 10 1 

Chaetocnema sp. (Chrysomelidae) 1 

Chalcidoidea, species of 1 

Chamaemyiidae, species of 1 

Cicadellidae, species of 2 

Cladosporium sp. (Hyphomycetes) 1 9 

Coccidae, species of 10 

Coccinellidae, species of 6 

Coccoidea, species of 1 

Coccus sp. (Coccidae) 2 

Coccus viridis (Green) (Coccidae) 2 

Coelomycetes, species of 1 

Coleoptera, species of 1 

Colletotrichum gloeosporioides (Penz) Penz & Sacc. 

(Coelomycetes) 1 

Colletotrichum sp. (Coelomycetes) 1 3 

Coniothecium sp. 1 

Coniothyrium fuckellii Sacc. (Coelomycetes) 1 

Coniothyrium sp. (Coelomycetes) 1 
Pest Risk Assessment for Chile Fig and Pomegranate 

Rev. 003 August 26, 2009 44

Pest Fig Pomegranate

 Baggage Cargo Baggage Cargo

Conoderus sp. (Elateridae) 1 

Conogethes punctiferalis (Guenée) (Crambidae) 1 

Conogethes sp. (Crambidae) 4 

Conotrachelus leucophaeatus Fahraeus (Curculionidae) 1 

Conotrachelus sp. (Curculionidae) 1 

Coreidae, species of 1 

Cornu aspersum (Müller) (Helicidae) 1 

Corylophidae, species of 1 

Cosmopterigidae, species of 1 1 

Cossidae, species of 1 

Crambinae, species of (Crambidae) 1 

Crematogaster sp. (Formicidae) 3 21 

Cryptoblabes gnidiella (Milliere) (Pyralidae) 1 311 2 

Cryptoblabes sp. (Pyralidae) 89 1 

Cryptophlebia leucotreta (Meyrick) (Tortricidae) 1 

Cryptophlebia sp. (Tortricidae) 21 2 

Cryptorhynchinae, species of (Curculionidae) 1 

Cucujidae, species of 1 

Curculionidae, species of 3 5 

Cyclorrhapha, species of 1 1 

Cydia sp. (Tortricidae) 9 

Dacinae, species of (Tephritidae) 1 

Dacus sp. (Tephritidae) 2 

Daidalotarsonemus sp. (Tarsonemidae) 1 

Delphacodes sp. (Delphacidae) 1 

Diaspididae, species of 4 8 1 

Diptera, species of 31 

Dolichoderus sp. (Formicidae) 1 

Drosophilidae, species of 1 

Duponchelia fovealis Zeller (Crambidae) 1 

Dysmicoccus bispinosus Beardsley (Pseudococcidae) 1 

Dysmicoccus brevipes (Cockerell) (Pseudococcidae) 3 

Dysmicoccus grassii (Leonardi) (Pseudococcidae) 1 

Dysmicoccus neobrevipes Beardsley (Pseudococcidae) 20 

Dysmicoccus sp. (Pseudococcidae) 8 

Earias sp. (Noctuidae) 1 

Ecdytolopha sp. (Tortricidae) 1 

Ectomyelois ceratoniae (Zeller) (Pyralidae) 2 114 2 

Ectomyelois sp. (Pyralidae) 22 1 

Eoreuma sp. (Crambidae) 1 

Ephestia elutella (Hübner) (Pyralidae) 2 7 

Ephestia kuehniella (Zeller) (Pyralidae) 1 

Ephestia sp. (Pyralidae) 1 

Epicauta sp. (Meloidae) 1 

Epitrix sp. (Chrysomelidae) 1 

Eriococcus sp. (Eriococcidae) 1 
Pest Risk Assessment for Chile Fig and Pomegranate 

Rev. 003 August 26, 2009 45

Pest Fig Pomegranate

 Baggage Cargo Baggage Cargo

Etiella sp. (Pyralidae) 1 

Eurydema ornatum (Linnaeus) (Pentatomidae) 2 

Eurydema sp. (Pentatomidae) 1 

Evergestinae, species of (Crambidae) 1 

Ferrisia sp. (Pseudococcidae) 4 

Ferrisia virgata (Cockerell) (Pseudococcidae) 1 1 

Fiorinia sp. (Diaspididae) 1 

Forficulidae, species of 1 

Formicidae, species of 2 

Frankliniella sp. (Thripidae) 1 

Galleriinae, species of (Pyralidae) 1 1 

Gelechiidae, species of 1 11 

Gelechioidea, species of 1 

Geometridae, species of 2 

Glyphidocera sp. (Glyphidoceridae) 1 

Glyphonyx ferruginosus Schaeffer (Elateridae) 1 

Glyphonyx sp. (Elateridae) 1 

Gracillariidae, species of 1 

Grapholita sp. (Tortricidae) 3 

Gryllidae, species of 2 

Gryllus sp. (Gryllidae) 1 

Haplothrips sp. (Phlaeothripidae) 6 

Heliococcus sp. (Pseudococcidae) 1 

Helix sp. (Helicidae) 1 

Hemerobiidae, species of 1 

Hemiberlesia diffinis (Newstead) (Diaspididae) 5 

Hemiberlesia lataniae (Signoret) (Diaspididae) 1 

Hemiberlesia neodiffinis (Miller & Davidson) (Diaspididae) 1 

Hemiberlesia rapax (Comstock) (Diaspididae) 3 

Hemiberlesia sp. (Diaspididae) 1 4 

Heteranthelium piliferum (Banks Et Sol.) Hochst. (Poaceae) 1 

Heterogaster urticae (Fabricius) (Heterogastridae) 2 

Heteroptera, species of 1 

Homoptera, species of 1 1 

Homotoma ficus (Linnaeus) (Psyllidae) 1 

Hymenoptera, species of 5 

Hypera brunnipennis (Boheman) (Curculionidae) 4 2 

Hypera postica (Gyllenhal) (Curculionidae) 10 1 

Hypera sp. (Curculionidae) 10 

Hypocassida subferrugines (Schrank) (Chrysomelidae) 1 

Hypogeococcus sp. (Pseudococcidae) 1 

Insecta, species of 1 4 

Lagriinae, species of (Tenebrionidae) 5 

Largus sp. (Largidae) 2 

Lasioderma serricorne (Fabricius) (Anobiidae) 2 

Lasius emarginatus Olivier (Formicidae) 1 
Pest Risk Assessment for Chile Fig and Pomegranate 

Rev. 003 August 26, 2009 46

Pest Fig Pomegranate

 Baggage Cargo Baggage Cargo

Lepidoptera, species of 1 13 

Lepidosaphes conchiformis (Gmelin) (Diaspididae) 2 

Lepidosaphes granati Koroneos (Diaspididae) 4 

Lepidosaphes sp. (Diaspididae) 1 3 

Leptoglossus sp. (Coreidae) 2 

Leptoglossus zonatus (Dallas) (Coreidae) 1 

Leptothorax sp. (Formicidae) 1 

Leptothrips sp. (Phlaeothripidae) 1 

Lestodiplosis sp. (Cecidomyiidae) 2 

Leucaspis riccae (Targioni-Tozzetti) (Diaspididae) 1 

Leucinodes orbonalis Guenée (Crambidae) 1 

Linepithema humile Mayr (Formicidae) 2 

Lobesia botrana (Denis & Schiffermuller) (Tortricidae) 2 

Lobometopon metallicum (Champion) (Tenebrionidae) 3 

Lobometopon sp. (Tenebrionidae) 2 

Lonchaeidae, species of 339 1 

Lopholeucaspis sp. (Diaspididae) 1 

Lycaenidae, species of 29 

Lygaeidae, species of 1 

Lygaeoidea, species of 6 1 

Maconellicoccus hirsutus (Green) (Pseudococcidae) 13 

Margarodidae, species of 9 

Melanaspis inopinata (Leonardi) (Diaspididae) 1 

Melanaspis sp. (Diaspididae) 1 

Melyridae, species of 1 

Membracidae, species of 2 

Metachroma sp. (Chrysomelidae) 1 

Metopoplax origani (Kolentai) (Oxycarenidae) 1 

Microlepidoptera, species of 1 

Microsphaeropsis globulosa (Camara) Sutton (Coelomycetes) 1 

Microsphaeropsis sp. (Coelomycetes) 4 

Micrutalis sp. (Membracidae) 1 

Mimosestes protractus (Horn) (Bruchidae) 1 

Miridae, species of 3 

Monochaetia sp. (Coelomycetes) 1 

Monosteira unicostata Mulsant & Rey (Tingidae) 1 

Mussidia sp. (Pyralidae) 1 

Mycetophagidae, species of 2 

Mycosphaerella lythracearum F.A. Wolf (Mycosphaerellaceae) 1 

Myochrous sp. (Chrysomelidae) 1 

Naupactus sp. (Curculionidae) 1 

Nertinus sp. (Curculionidae) 1 

Nipaecoccus sp. (Pseudococcidae) 1 

Nipaecoccus viridis (Newstead) (Pseudococcidae) 2 

Nitidulidae, species of 1 5 

Noctuidae, species of 11 
Pest Risk Assessment for Chile Fig and Pomegranate 

Rev. 003 August 26, 2009 47

Pest Fig Pomegranate

 Baggage Cargo Baggage Cargo

Notodontidae, species of 2 

Oecophoridae, species of 1 

Oenopia conglobata Linnaeus (Coccinellidae) 2 

Ogdoecosta biannularis (Boheman) (Chrysomelidae) 1 

Ogdoecosta sp. (Chrysomelidae) 2 

Olethreutinae, species of (Tortricidae) 4 27 

Ornebius sp. (Gryllidae) 1 

Orthezia sp. (Ortheziidae) 1 

Oxycarenus hyalinipennis (Costa) (Oxycarenidae) 60 

Pantomorus sp. (Curculionidae) 1 

Paracoccus ferrisi Ezzat & Mcconnell (Pseudococcidae) 2 

Paracoccus herreni Williams & Granara De Willink (Pseudococcidae) 1 

Paracoccus marginatus Williams & Granara De Willink (Pseudococcidae) 1 

Paracoccus sp. (Pseudococcidae) 8 

Paralipsa gularis (Zeller) (Pyralidae) 1 

Parasaissetia nigra (Nietner) (Coccidae) 3 

Parlatoreopsis longispinus (Newstead) (Diaspididae) 2 

Parlatoria oleae (Colvee) (Diaspididae) 2 

Parlatoria sp. (Diaspididae) 1 

Penicillium sp. (Hyphomycetes) 3 1 

Pentatomidae, species of 3 

Pestalotiopsis sp. (Coelomycetes) 2 

Pheidole sp. (Formicidae) 1 

Phenacoccus solani Ferris (Pseudococcidae) 1 

Phenacoccus sp. (Pseudococcidae) 5 

Phlaeothripidae, species of 3 

Phoma punicina Traverso (Coelomycetes) 1 

Phoma sp. (Coelomycetes) 1 3 

Phomopsis sp. (Coelomycetes) 1 

Phoridae, species of 1 

Phthorimaea operculella (Zeller) (Gelechiidae) 1 

Phycitinae, species of (Pyralidae) 5 1 39 

Phycitinae, species of (Pyralidae) 1 4 

Phyllosticta sp. (Coelomycetes) 1 

Pieridae, species of 1 

Piezodorus lituratus (Fabricius) (Pentatomidae) 1 

Pinnaspis sp. (Diaspididae) 1 

Plagiolepis alluaudi Emery (Formicidae) 1 

Plagiolepis pygmaea (Latreille) (Formicidae) 2 

Planococcoides sp. (Pseudococcidae) 1 

Planococcus citri (Risso) (Pseudococcidae) 65 

Planococcus dorsospinus Ezzat & Mcconnell (Pseudococcidae) 1 

Planococcus ficus (Signoret) (Pseudococcidae) 39 

Planococcus lilacinus (Cockerell) (Pseudococcidae) 10 1 

Planococcus litchi Cox (Pseudococcidae) 2 

Planococcus minor (Maskell) (Pseudococcidae) 32 
Pest Risk Assessment for Chile Fig and Pomegranate 

Rev. 003 August 26, 2009 48

Pest Fig Pomegranate

 Baggage Cargo Baggage Cargo

Planococcus sp. (Pseudococcidae) 2 59 1 

Platygastridae, species of 1 

Platynota sp. (Tortricidae) 16 

Platynota stultana (Walsingham) (Tortricidae) 1 

Pleurocytospora sp. 3 

Plodia interpunctella (Hübner) (Pyralidae) 6 3 1 

Poa bulbosa Linnaeus (Poaceae) 1 

Poaceae, species of 1 

Pseudaonidia trilobitiformis (Green) (Diaspididae) 2 35 

Pseudocercospora piperis (Pat.) Deighton (Hyphomycetes) 1 

Pseudocercospora punicae (Henn.) Deighton (Hyphomycetes) 57 

Pseudocercospora sp. (Hyphomycetes) 6 

Pseudococcidae, species of 6 452 5 

Pseudococcus citriculus Green (Pseudococcidae) 1 

Pseudococcus comstocki (Kuwana) (Pseudococcidae) 6 

Pseudococcus elisae Borchsenius (Pseudococcidae) 1 

Pseudococcus jackbeardsleyi Gimpel & Miller (Pseudococcidae) 1 

Pseudococcus longispinus (Targioni-Tozzetti) (Pseudococcidae) 1 16 

Pseudococcus solenedyos Gimpel & Miller (Pseudococcidae) 4 

Pseudococcus sp. (Pseudococcidae) 2 54 2 

Pseudococcus viburni (Signoret) (Pseudococcidae) 17 

Psocoptera, species of 1 

Pteromalidae, species of 1 

Pterophoridae, species of 2 

Punica granatum Linnaeus (Punicaceae) 1 

Puto barberi (Cockerell) (Pseudococcidae) 1 

Puto mexicanus (Cockerell) (Pseudococcidae) 17 

Puto sp. (Pseudococcidae) 2 

Pyralidae, species of 6 44 2 

Pyraustinae, species of (Crambidae) 2 6 

Pyrrhocoridae, species of 1 

Rhyssomatus sp. (Curculionidae) 2 

Riodinidae, species of 11 

Saissetia miranda (Cockerell & Parrott) (Coccidae) 2 

Saissetia neglecta Delotto (Coccidae) 1 

Saissetia oleae Olivier (Coccidae) 1 

Scelionidae, species of 1 

Scymnus sp. (Coccinellidae) 1 

Scythrididae, species of 5 

Scythridinae, species of (Coleophoridae) 4 

Scythris sp. (Scythrididae) 1 

Septoria veronicae Desm. 1 

Shivaphis celti Das (Aphididae) 1 

Silba virescens Macquart (Lonchaeidae) 134 

Silvanidae, species of 1 

Siphoninus phillyreae (Haliday) (Aleyrodidae) 1 
Pest Risk Assessment for Chile Fig and Pomegranate 

Rev. 003 August 26, 2009 49

Pest Fig Pomegranate

 Baggage Cargo Baggage Cargo

Sitophilus oryzae (Linneaus) (Dryophthoridae) 2 

Smicronyx sp. (Curculionidae) 1 3 

Sphaceloma perseae Jenk. (Coelomycetes) 1 

Sphaceloma punicae Bitanc. & Jenkins (Coelomycetes) 4175 4 

Sphaceloma sp. 3 

Sphaeropsis sp. (Coelomycetes) 1 

Spilococcus sp. (Pseudococcidae) 1 

Stator vachelliae Bottimer (Bruchidae) 1 

Stephanitis pyri (Fabricius) (Tingidae) 1 

Strymon sp. (Lycaenidae) 3 

Syrphidae, species of 2 1 

Systena sp. (Chrysomelidae) 1 

Tapinoma sp. (Formicidae) 1 

Tarsonemus sp. (Tarsonemidae) 1 8 1 

Tenuipalpus sp. (Tenuipalpidae) 1 

Tephritidae, species of 38 24 

Tetralicia sp. (Aleyrodidae) 2 

Tetranychidae, species of 1 

Tetranychus sp. (Tetranychidae) 2 

Thripidae, species of 1 

Tineidae, species of 1 

Tortricidae, species of 7 1 50 1 

Tortricinae, species of (Tortricidae) 20 

Trialeurodes vitrinellus Cockerell (Aleyrodidae) 1 

Truncatella sp. 4 

Tydeus sp. (Tydeidae) 1 

Tyrophagus putrescentiae (Schrank) (Acaridae) 2 

Uroleucon sp. (Aphididae) 1 

Verticillium sp. 1 

Virachola livia (Klug) (Lycaenidae) 2 

Grand Total 1,427 10 6,903 37 
Pest Risk Assessment for Chile Fig and Pomegranate 

Rev. 003 August 26, 2009 50

Appendix B: Description of Risk Elements and Rating Criteria 

Risk Element #1- Climate-Host Interactions

If a species encounters suitable climate and hosts in the area where it is introduced, the organism 

may survive and achieve pest status in the new environment. This risk element is evaluated on 

the minimum number of USDA “Plant Hardiness Zones” in which the species might achieve pest 

status (USDA, 2000). Risk ratings are based on the following criteria: 

Low: the species is only likely to become established in one hardiness zone 

Medium: the species is likely to become established in two or three hardiness zones 

High: the species is likely to become established in four or more hardiness zones 

Risk Element #2- Host Range 

The risk posed by a plant pest depends on its ability to establish a viable, reproductive population 

and its potential to injure plants. For arthropods, risk is assumed to be positively correlated with 

host range. For pathogens, risk is assumed to depend on host range, aggressiveness, virulence 

and pathogenicity; for simplicity, risk is rated as a function of host range: 

Low: pest attacks a single species or multiple species within a single genus 

Medium: pest attacks multiple species within a single plant family 

High: pest attacks multiple species among multiple plant families 

Risk Element #3-Dispersal Potential 

A pest may disperse after arriving in a new area. The following items are considered in regard to 

dispersal potential: reproductive patterns of the pest (e.g., voltinism, biotic potential); inherent 

powers of movement; factors facilitating dispersal, wind, water, presence of vectors, humans, 

etc. 

Low: pest has neither high reproductive potential nor rapid dispersal capability 

Medium: pest has either high reproductive potential OR the species is capable of rapid 

dispersal 

High: pest has high biotic potential, e.g., many generations per year, many offspring per 

reproduction (“r-selected” species), AND evidence exists that the pest is capable of rapid 

dispersal, e.g., over 10km/year under its own power; via natural forces, wind, water, 

vectors, etc., or human-assistance. 

Risk Element #4-Economic Impact 

Introduced pests can cause a variety of direct and indirect economic impacts. These impacts are 

divided into three primary categories (other types of impacts may occur): lower yield of the host 

crop, e.g., by causing plant mortality, or by acting as a disease vector; lower value of the 

commodity, e.g., by increasing costs of production, lowering market price, or a combination; and 

loss of foreign or domestic markets due to the presence of a new quarantine pest. 

Low: pest causes any one or none of the above impacts 

Medium: pest causes any two of the above impacts 

High: pest causes all three of the above impacts 
Pest Risk Assessment for Chile Fig and Pomegranate 

Rev. 003 August 26, 2009 51

Risk Element #5- Environmental Impact 

A pest may cause significant, direct consequences to the environment, e.g., cause an ecological 

disaster or reduce biodiversity. In the context of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

(7CFR§372), significance is qualitative and encompasses the likelihood and severity of an 

environmental impact. The act describes an environmental pest as: “expected to have direct 

impacts on species listed by Federal Agencies as endangered or threatened (50CFR§17.11 and 

§17.12), by infesting/infecting a listed plant. If the pest attacks other species within the genus or 

other genera within the family, and preference/no preference tests have not been conducted with 

the listed plant and the pest, then the plant is assumed to be a host; pest is expected to have 

indirect impacts on species listed by Federal Agencies as endangered or threatened by disrupting 

sensitive, critical habitat; introduction of the pest would stimulate chemical or biological control 

programs.” 

Low: none of the above would occur 

Medium: one of the above would occur 

High: two or more of the above would occur. 
Pest Risk Assessment for Chile Fig and Pomegranate 

Rev. 003 August 26, 2009 52

Appendix C: Mean Monthly Temperature and Mean Absolute Minimum Temperature for 

Representative Chilean Cities and Regions 

Table C1. Temperature 

Locality Region

E F M A M J J A S O N D ° C ° F

Arica

Lat. 18 ° 28' S and Long. 70° 02' W I 17,8 18,2 16,9 15,4 14,5 13,8 13,1 13,2 14,0 14,5 15,3 16,4 15,26 59,47

Iquique

Lat. 29 ° 54' S and Long. 71° 15' W I 16,8 16,6 15,6 14,3 13,7 13,1 12,5 12,6 13,2 13,8 14,8 15,8 14,40 57,92

Copiapó

Lat. 27 ° 21' S and Long. 70° 21' W III 15,5 15,7 13,8 11,8 8,7 7,0 6,5 8,0 9,2 11,9 13,0 13,6 11,23 52,21

La Serena

Lat. 29 ° 54' S and Long. 71° 15' W IV 13,5 12,8 11,8 9,9 8,8 7,7 7,0 7,3 8,1 9,1 10,7 11,3 9,83 49,70

Ovalle

Lat. 30 ° 03' S and Long. 71° 01' W IV 13,2 13,1 11,2 9,2 7,7 6,6 6,3 6,8 7,8 8,7 10,0 11,7 9,36 48,85

La Ligua

Lat. 32 ° 27' S and Long. 71° 16 ' W V 11,0 9,5 8,5 7,5 5,0 4,6 4,5 6,0 6,5 7,0 7,0 8,0 7,09 44,77

Quillota

Lat. 32 ° 43' S and Long. 71° 16 ' W V 11,5 11,2 9,8 8,1 7,4 5,8 5,5 5,8 6,9 8,2 9,1 10,7 8,33 47,00

Santiago

Lat. 33° 34' S and Long. 70 ° 38 ' W RM 10,3 9,5 8,3 5,7 4,8 3,0 2,8 3,1 4,2 6,0 7,8 9,7 6,27 43,28

Rengo

Lat. 34° 24' S and Long. 70° 52 ' W VI 11,4 10,1 7,7 4,9 5,7 4,1 2,9 3,9 4,2 6,6 8,4 10,4 6,69 44,05

Talca

Lat. 35° 26' S and Long. 71° 40 ' W VII 12,6 11,8 9,8 7,1 5,6 4,2 3,8 4,0 5,3 7,4 9,5 11,3 7,70 45,86

Chillan

Lat. 36° 34' S and Long. 72° 06' W VIII 12,6 11,5 9,6 7,3 6,6 4,8 3,5 4,1 5,1 6,7 8,7 10,7 7,60 45,68

Angol

Lat. 37° 47' S and Long. 72° 42' W IX 10,9 10,6 9,0 6,7 5,3 4,3 4,4 4,0 5,0 6,9 8,1 8,7 6,99 44,59

Remehue

Lat. 40° 35' S and Long. 73° 09' W X 8,6 7,7 7,0 5,6 5,9 3,2 3,8 3,6 3,6 4,9 6,0 7,7 5,63 42,14

Puerto Aysen

Lat. 45° 24' S and Long. 72° 42' W XI 9,9 9,4 7,8 6,1 4,1 2,4 2,5 2,1 3,8 5,5 7,0 8,3 5,74 42,34

Punta Arenas

Lat. 53° 10' S and Long. 70° 54' W XII 7,1 6,7 5,4 3,8 1,9 0,3 -0,3 0,5 1,6 3,4 4,5 6,1 3,42 38,15

Source: Novoa et al. 1989. Agroclimatic Map of Chile. Instituto de Investigaciones Agropecuarias. 

Months Yaer Average
Pest Risk Assessment for Chile Fig and Pomegranate 

Rev. 003 August 26, 2009 53

Table C2. Monthly Absolute Minimum Temperatures of Chilean Cities 

Locality Region

EFMAM J J A SON D ° C ° F

Arica

Lat. 18 ° 28' S and Long. 70° 02' W I 11,0 12,0 11,5 10,2 8,3 8,5 5,2 6,5 8,0 9,0 10,5 11,0 5,2 41,36

Iquique

Lat. 29 ° 54' S and Long. 71° 15' W I 13,0 12,0 9,0 8,4 9,0 9,6 8,1 8,0 9,0 10,0 11,2 11,5 8,0 46,40

Caldera

Lat. 27 ° 03' S and Long. 70° 51' W III 11,4 11,4 10,0 4,8 6,0 4,0 2,8 3,0 4,0 6,3 6,5 9,0 2,8 37,04

Ovalle

Lat. 30 ° 03' S and Long. 71° 01' W IV 9,4 9,3 7,5 6,1 3,7 2,0 1,5 1,8 2,9 4,0 6,4 8,3 1,5 34,70

Quillota

Lat. 32 ° 43' S and Long. 71° 16 ' W V 8,4 7,8 5,3 3,6 2,7 0,9 0,4 0,1 2,4 3,3 5,2 6,7 0,1 32,18

Santiago

Lat. 33° 34' S and Long. 70 ° 38 ' W RM 7,1 6,2 3,8 1,5 0,0 -1,8 -2,5 -2,1 -0,8 0,6 3,6 5,4 -2,5 27,50

Rengo

Lat. 34° 24' S and Long. 70° 52 ' W VI 10,2 6,7 5,6 0,6 -1,0 -3,0 -3,2 -0,6 -1,1 1,6 2,2 6,7 -3,2 26,24

Talca

Lat. 35° 26' S andc Long. 71° 40 ' VII 9,7 8,7 5,7 2,0 -0,9 -1,9 -2,0 -1,8 1,8 2,6 5,7 9,1 -2,0 28,40

Chillan

Lat. 36° 34' S and Long. 72° 06' W VIII 7,0 5,1 2,5 -0,4 -2,3 -2,0 -3,6 -2,4 -1,5 0,3 3,5 4,1 -3,6 25,52

Angol

Lat. 37° 47' S and Long. 72° 42' W IX 6,4 5,5 2,8 0,4 -2,0 -2,3 -2,3 -2,6 -0,5 0,6 1,9 3,7 -2,6 27,32

Remehue

Lat. 40° 35' S and Long. 73° 09' W X 2,4 2,4 0,3 -1,7 -1,3 -4,2 -3,5 -2,8 -2,6 -1,0 0,0 1,8 -4,2 24,44

Chile Chico

Lat. 46° 36' S and Long. 71° 43' W XI 5,5 5,2 3,2 -0,9 -4,4 -8,0 -6,9 -5,5 -3,4 -0,5 3,4 5,6 -8,0 17,60

Punta Arenas

Lat. 53° 10' S and Long. 70° 54' W XII 2,0 0,8 -1,0 -3,2 -5,0 -6,4 -9,3 -6,5 -6,0 -2,5 -2,5 -0,2 -9,3 15,26

Source: Novoa et al. 1989. Analityc Map of Chile. Instituto de Investigaciones Agropecuarias. 

Months Year minimum
Pest Risk Assessment for Chile Fig and Pomegranate 

Rev. 003 August 26, 2009 54

Appendix D. Mitigation Options 

1. Introduction 

This pest risk assessment for fresh figs (Ficus carica) and pomegranate (Punica granatum) from 

Chile identified two quarantine pests likely to follow the pathway to the continental United 

States (Table D1). Further analysis revealed these pests pose a High risk potential to the 

continental United States. Other than minimal post-harvest cleaning and culling, we assumed that 

figs and pomegranate fruit from Chile would not undergo any special post-harvest treatment or 

cleaning (i.e., unmitigated risk). 

According to the International Plant Protection Convention, countries have the sovereign right to 

use risk mitigation strategies that minimize pest risks to a scientifically justified level (Article 

VII; IPPC, 1997). The appropriate level of protection for an imported commodity can be 

achieved by the application of a single phytosanitary measure, such as inspection or a quarantine 

treatment, or a combination of measures through a systems approach (IPPC, 2002). While 

developing mitigation strategies, it is important to understand that risk can never be eliminated, 

but it can be reduced and managed. Selection of the appropriate risk management20 options must 

consider not only the efficacy of the various risk management strategies, but also the potential 

impact that such strategies would have on the importing and exporting countries. Risk 

management strategies must also minimize impacts on the international movement of people, 

commodities and conveyances (ISPM#2, IPPC, 2007). IPPC standards outline two steps in risk 

management: 1) identification of risk management options and 2) analysis of the efficacy and 

impact of the different options (ISPM#2, IPPC, 2007). This appendix provides the first step in 

risk management, i.e., the identification of phytosanitary options to reduce and manage pest risk. 

Table D1. Quarantine pests likely to follow the pathway on fresh figs and pomegranates from 

chile to the continental United States. Also shown are estimated USDA plant hardiness zones 

and risk level. 

Pest Zone Pest Risk Potential 

Brevipalpus chilensis Baker 9 & 10 High risk 

Ceratitis capitata (Wiedemann) 8 to 10 High risk 

2. Phytosanitary Options 

Many types of risk mitigation procedures may be used to minimize pest risk in the importing 

country. Specific mitigations may be selected from a range of pre-harvest and post-harvest 

options, and can include measures such detection and certification. If no single measure is likely 

to reduce pest risk to an acceptable level, then a combination of measures may be needed. The 

combination of specific phytosanitary measures that provides overlapping or redundant 

safeguards is called a “systems approach”. Systems approaches vary in complexity; however, all 

require the integration of two or more measures that act independently of each other, with the 

 

20 Pest risk management is the “evaluation and selection of options to reduce the risk of introduction and spread of a 

pest.” (IPPC, 2006). 
Pest Risk Assessment for Chile Fig and Pomegranate 

Rev. 003 August 26, 2009 55

cumulative effect achieving the desired level of phytosanitary protection (ISPM #14; IPPC, 

2002). Combining specific mitigation measures in a way that provides overlapping or sequential 

safeguards is distinctly different from applying single mitigation methodologies such as 

fumigation or inspection. In a systems approach, mitigation measures may be added or the 

strength of measures increased to compensate for uncertainty and changing pest dynamics. At a 

minimum, for a measure to be considered for use in a systems approach, it must be: 1) clearly 

defined; 2) efficacious; 3) officially required (mandated); and 4) subject to monitoring and 

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

Below, we introduce and briefly describe some of the more frequently used phytosanitary 

options that are used to mitigate pest risk. Afterwards, we describe the efficaciousness of some 

of these options for figs and pomegranates (Table A6). 

Inspection & Monitoring and Phytosanitary Certification

Inspection. Fruit inspection and monitoring is an important mitigation measure that can be used 

alone or in conjunction with other mitigation measures. Through inspection and monitoring, pest 

infestations can be identified and managed before pests have an opportunity to follow the 

pathway to the importing country. Continuous monitoring can be used at production sites to 

ensure pest free areas or areas of low pest prevalence (ISPMs #10, #22; IPPC, 1999, 2005). 

Inspection of random samples of fruit during the growing season is useful to identify particular 

pests before they become problematic. Following harvest and post-harvest treatment, additional 

inspections help insure quarantine significant pests have been eliminated from the pathway. 

Finally, at U.S. ports, additional inspections increase our assurance that a commodity is free from 

quarantine pests before entering the country. Statistical procedures are available to verify, to a 

specified confidence level, the pest-free status of an area or commodity, given negative sampling 

results (e.g., Barclay and Hargrove, 2005; Culliney, 2003). 

Phytosanitary Certification. A phytosanitary (plant health) certificate is an official document 

issued by an exporting country, verifying that the shipment conforms to the phytosanitary import 

requirements of the importing country, whatever those may be (e.g., pre-harvest inspection, postharvest treatment, etc.) (IPPC, 2001). The intended purpose of a phytosanitary certificate is to 

expedite the entry of plants or plant products into a country while protecting the country’s 

agriculture and natural environment. Thus, phytosanitary certification is a mitigation measure 

that provides additional oversight; it is always used in conjunction with other mitigation 

measures. 

Pest Freedom and Areas of Low Pest Prevalence

Establishment of Pest Free Areas. A pest free area (PFA) is “an area in which a specific pest 

does not occur as demonstrated by scientific evidence and in which, where appropriate, this 

condition is being officially maintained” (ISPM #4; IPPC, 1996). PFAs can be defined within a 

region of a country or for a group of countries comprising a certain region. To establish a pest 

free area, 1) the area must be readily delimited/determined, 2) there must be phytosanitary 

measures in place to establish and maintain the pest free status, and 3) there must be checks to 

verify that freedom has been maintained (ISPM #4; IPPC, 1996). As a sole mitigative measure, 

the establishment of pest-free areas may be effective in satisfying an importing country’s 

appropriate level of phytosanitary protection. This option has been successful in practice, 
Pest Risk Assessment for Chile Fig and Pomegranate 

Rev. 003 August 26, 2009 56

eliminating the need for post-harvest commodity treatments to achieve probit-9-level security 

(e.g., TDOA, 2003). Establishment and maintenance of PFAs or production sites should be in 

compliance with international standards. These standards would be crucial in establishing pest 

free areas for any of the quarantine significant pests listed above. 

Establishment of a Pest Free Production Site. A pest free place of production or production site 

is a “place of production in which a specific pest does not occur as demonstrated by scientific 

evidence and in which, where appropriate, this condition is being officially maintained for a 

defined period” (ISPM #10; IPPC, 1999). This definition is similar to the previous one for pest 

free areas; however, they differ in degree of scale. A place of production is much more localized 

in scope and can only include places/sites that are being managed in the same way, usually by 

the producer. Pest free areas are usually managed by the national plant protection organization 

and are maintained pest free over an extended period of time. In contrast, pest free production 

sites are managed by the producer and may be maintained pest free for as little as one or two 

seasons. Pest free production sites are established similarly to pest free areas, but with the added 

requirement that all products are adequately labeled to identify the particular production site. 

Once a pest free production site or place of production has been established, the producer must 

maintain the site pest free (ISPM #10; IPPC, 1999). As a sole mitigative measure, the 

establishment of pest free production sites or places of production may be effective in satisfying 

an importing country’s appropriate level of phytosanitary protection for any of the pests 

considered here 

Suppression, Control and Prevention. 

Cultural, chemical, or mechanical means (e.g., orchard sanitation, pruning of dead and diseased 

branches, pre-harvest application of pesticides, fruit bagging) may be used to prevent, reduce or 

suppress pest populations in crops. These techniques are useful in maintaining pest free areas and 

sites of production or suppressing pest populations to beneath certain levels (including for 

ALPPs). 

Sterile Insect Release. Sterile insect release is an effective pest control strategy that works by 

disrupting pest mating (Vreysen et al., 2006). Effectiveness of this control strategy increases as 

the wild pest population decreases because it becomes increasingly difficult for a wild female to 

find a wild (non-sterilized male). Sterile insect programs have been developed and used for 

Ceratitis capitata (PPQ, 2003) and Bactrocera cucurbitae (Kakinohana et al., 1997; McInnis et 

al., 2004). 

Chemical Application. Pesticides, including those based on microbiological agents can control 

and suppress pests, especially when strategically used; however, their widespread and prolific 

use can impact the environment (Carson, 1962), foster pesticide resistance in pests (Gardner et 

al., 1998; Peck and Ellner, 1997), and kill natural enemies (Siscaro et al., 2006). There are a 

large variety of pesticides available for pest management, however, it is beyond the scope of this 

document to present a summary of the pesticides that have been used against the quarantine pests 

examined here. In general, it is expected that pesticides will be effective at reducing, or perhaps 

even eliminating pest populations. 
Pest Risk Assessment for Chile Fig and Pomegranate 

Rev. 003 August 26, 2009 57

Post-harvest Safeguards and Packinghouse Procedures. 

Because fruit harvest, grading, and packing procedures sometimes require a lot of “hands-on” 

handling of fruit, these processes provide an excellent opportunity for mitigative measures to 

eliminate pests from the pathway, particularly external surface pests. 

Quarantine Treatments 

Cold Treatment. Cold treatment involves maintaining fruit near freezing conditions for an 

extended period (USDA-APHIS, 2007b). Temperature sensors placed in the storage 

compartment and within fruit insure that cold treatment procedures are precisely followed and 

that fruit reaches the required temperature. 

Irradiation. Irradiation consists of exposing the commodity to gamma-emitting isotopes such as 

Cobalt-60 or Cesium-137) or to electron beams (beta rays) produced by linear accelerators 

(USDA-APHIS, 1997). Irradiation has been demonstrated to be effective at sterilizing organisms 

that may contaminate commodities and yet pose no significant danger to human health or the 

environment (Hallman, 2000; USDA-APHIS, 1997). Because the object of irradiation is 

sterilization and not necessarily mortality, documentation of the dosage must accompany all 

irradiated shipments.

Methyl bromide fumigation. Methyl bromide (CH3Br) is a colorless, odorless fumigant with 

relatively low solubility in water (USDA-APHIS, 2007b). As a fumigant, it is very effective at 

treating a wide variety of pests on a variety of hosts. It can also be used to devitalize plants at 

higher concentrations. Methyl bromide fumigation involves exposing the commodity to the 

fumigant in a somewhat enclosed space over a relatively short period of time (e.g., a few hours). 

Following treatment, sufficient time is given to allow the fumigant to diffuse from the 

commodity. 

3. Phytosanitary Options for Fresh Figs and Pomegranates 

Pest risk assessment of fresh figs and pomegranate fruit from Chile identified Brevipalpus 

chilensis and Ceratitis capitata as quarantine pests likely to follow the pathway. A few 

quarantine treatments have already been developed to kill or mitigate against B. chilensis on 

other commodities such as table grapes and citrus (USDA-APHIS, 2007b); however, it is 

unknown how effective these treatments would be on fresh figs and pomegranates and whether 

the treatments would adversely affect the fruit. Numerous treatments have been developed for C. 

capitata on various fruits and vegetables. But again, specific treatment schedules are needed for 

fresh pomegranates and figs. One cold treatment schedule (T107-a1) has been developed for C. 

capitata on pomegranates. 

Below we list mitigation options for B. chilensis and C. capitata on fresh figs and pomegranates

(Table D2). 
Pest Risk Assessment for Chile Fig and Pomegranate 

Rev. 003 August 26, 2009 58

Table D2. Mitigation options for Brevipalpus chilensis and Ceratitis capitata on fresh figs 

(Ficus carica) and pomegranates (Punica granatum) from Chile. 

Mitigation Option Pest Description & Potential Efficacy 

Inspection & Monitoring and Phytosanitary Certification 

Foreign inspection 

& monitoring, and 

phytosanitary 

certification 

All pests Inspection and monitoring at production sites and packing houses can 

safeguard against all pests. Sampling protocol and sizes would need 

to be determined. Commodity must be accompanied by a 

phytosanitary certificate from the national plant protection 

organization of the exporting country. For additional information on 

pest free areas, please refer to ISPM #12 (IPPC, 2001). 

Pest Freedom and Areas of Low Pest Prevalence 

Pest free areas B. chilensis

& C. 

capitata

Because B. chilensis and C. capitata are widely distributed 

throughout most if not all of Chile (Gonzalez, 1989; Prado, 1991), 

establishment of pest free areas may not be feasible in the near future. 

For additional information on pest free areas, please refer to ISPM #4 

(IPPC, 1996). 

C. capitata The United States recognizes most of Chile to be free of C. capitata 

(except the Arica province) (USDA-APHIS, 2007a). Thus, shipping 

figs and pomegranates from only pest free areas is a feasible risk 

mitigation option. Note that Chile recently submitted data to the 

United States supporting their claim that the province of Arica is free 

of medfly (Lemly, 2007), however, the United States has not yet 

officially recognized the pest-free status of Arica (USDA-APHIS, 

2007a). 

Pest free 

production sites or 

places of 

production 

B. chilensis

& C. 

capitata

If the abundance and distributions of these pests are heterogeneous, 

then this option may be feasible with appropriate monitoring and 

mitigation measures, however, monitoring of the mite may prove 

difficult due to its size. For additional information on pest free areas, 

please refer to ISPM #10 (IPPC, 1999). 

Suppression / Control / Prevention 

Sterile Insect 

Release 

B. chilensis To our knowledge, sterile insect techniques have not been developed 

for mites. 

C. capitata Sterile insect programs have been developed and used for Ceratitis 

capitata (PPQ, 2003) 

Pesticides B. chilensis Some pesticides have been identified as providing some control over 

populations of B. chilensis (e.g., Gonzalez, 1983; Herrera Villamil, 

1958). Instead of or in addition to pesticides, predatory mites could 

also be used to exert some population control over B. chilensis

(Vargas et al., 2005); see Gonzalez (1983) for a discussion of how to 

use an acaricide in combination with a beneficial mite. 

C. capitata Cover/aerial sprays and bait sprays can be used to control fruit flies, 

however, bait sprays are more economically effective and much more 

environmentally friendly (CABI, 2006; IAEA, 2003; Ortu et al., 

2005). For example, malathion is an effective insecticide that is 

sometimes combined with protein hydrolysate, to form a bait spray 

that will attract both male and female tephritids (IAEA, 2003). 
Pest Risk Assessment for Chile Fig and Pomegranate 

Rev. 003 August 26, 2009 59

Mitigation Option Pest Description & Potential Efficacy 

Post-Harvest Safeguards and Packinghouse Procedures 

Soapy water / wax 

treatment 

B. chilensis Plant Protection and Quarantine has approved a soapy water/wax 

treatment (T 102-b) for B. chilensis on three different fruit 

commodities imported from Chile (cherimoya, limes and passion 

fruit) (USDA-APHIS, 2007b). While this may be an effective 

treatment for removing mites from the fruit surface, mites may 

survive the treatment if they are located in the cavity at the distal end 

of pomegranates or figs. Therefore, testing is required to further 

evaluate the efficacy of this particular treatment on these two 

commodities. 

C. capitata A soapy water / wax treatment would be ineffective against internal 

pests such as C. capitata. 

Quarantine Treatments 

Cold Treatment B. chilensis Although not approved as an APHIS treatment, cold treatment (0-2°C 

for 15 days at 95% RH) delays hatching of 1-4 day old eggs, and 

increases mortality of juveniles and adults (particularly juveniles), 

and reduced adult oviposition (Jadue et al., 1996). Cold treatment 

would not be effective for fresh figs because they do not have a long 

shelf/storage life (Colelli et al., 1991; McGregor, 1987). 

Pomegranates however, can be stored at relatively cold temperatures 

for at least two months (McGregor, 1987; Sheikh, 2006). Thus, cold 

treatment over a longer period of time may be an effective quarantine 

treatment for B. chilensis on pomegranates, but further research is 

required to confirm this. 

C. capitata APHIS has already approved a cold treatment for C. capitata on 

pomegranate (T107-a1; USDA-APHIS, 2007b). Cold treatment 

would not be effective for fresh figs because they do not have a long 

shelf/storage life (Colelli et al., 1991; McGregor, 1987). 

Methyl Bromide B. chilensis APHIS has already developed and approved a methyl bromide 

treatment schedule for B. chilensis on lemons and limes from Chile (T 

101-n-2-1) (USDA-APHIS, 2007b); however, it is unknown how 

effective this treatment would be on fig and pomegranate fruit or how 

these commodities would respond to this treatment, particularly if 

they are heated simultaneously (USDA-APHIS, 2007b). Because figs 

are very perishable (Aksoy et al., 2003), they would probably not do 

well under relatively high temperatures. 

C. capitata While APHIS has developed various methyl bromide treatment 

schedules for C. capitata on a range of commodities (USDA-APHIS, 

2007b), none have been developed for figs and pomegranates. 

Because figs are very perishable (Aksoy et al., 2003), they would 

probably not do well under relatively high temperatures associated 

with methyl bromide treatment. 

Irradiation B. chilensis A dose of 300 Gy irradiation is already approved for use on B. 

chilensis (USDA-APHIS, 2007b), however, it is unknown how fig 

and pomegranate fruit will respond to irradiation. 

C. capitata APHIS has approved irradiation as a treatment for all tephritid fruit 

flies in fruit, with a minimum generic absorbed pest dose of 150 Gy 

(USDA-APHIS, 2007b), however, it is unknown how fig and 

pomegranate fruit will respond to irradiation. 
Pest Risk Assessment for Chile Fig and Pomegranate 

Rev. 003 August 26, 2009 60

4. Conclusions 

Several risk mitigation options for Brevipalpus chilensis and Ceratitis capitata on fresh figs 

(Ficus carica) and pomegranates (Punica granatum) are listed above. Due to differences in the 

longevity (shelf life) of fig and pomegranate fruit, probably different mitigation options will need 

to be used on these two commodities. Choice of the appropriate option or combination of options 

will be decided by port import specialists in consultation with the exporting country. The 

specification and implementation of phytosanitary measures, as would be present in an 

operational work plan, is beyond the scope of this document.