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 27606Pest Risk Assessment for Chile Fig and Pomegranate



### Rev. 003 August 26, 2009 i 

## Executive Summary

This document assessed the risk asso ciated 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 tr eatments 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 conse quences 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 a nd phytosanitary options for fig and pomegranate fruit, different mitigatio n 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: Identi fication of quarantine pests an d quarantine pests likely to follow the pathway ............................................................................................................ .. 7 2.5. Quarantine pests likely to follow the pathway ................................................................... 22 2.6. Consequences of Introduction ........................................................................................... 2 3 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 th at 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 .............................................................................................. 5 4Pest Risk Assessment for Chile Fig and Pomegranate



### Rev. 003 August 26, 2009 1 

## 1. Introduction

This document examined the unmitigated ri sks associated with the importation of fresh pomegranate fruit ( Punica granatum ) and fresh fig fruit ( Ficus carica ) into the continental United States from Chile 1 

### . Other than post-harvest cleaning an d culling, we assumed that figs and pomegranate fruit from Chile would not und ergo any special post-harvest treatment or cleaning. This document is a qualitative risk asse ssment 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 metho dology 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 consid ered here in a single document, the pest associations for each commodity, the related analys is 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, su ch as the North American Plant Protection Organization (NAPPO) and the International Plant Protectio n 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 standard s describe three stages of pest risk analysis: Stage 1, Initiation; St age 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 re viewed by staff at the Pest Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory (PERAL ) of the United States Departme nt of Agriculture (USDA). An initial list of pests for each commodity was provi ded the Chilean Servicio Agrícola y Ganadero (SAG) (Vergara and Castro, 2006a, 2006b).

Pomegranate is a small tree or shrub that grow s 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 re d and enclose an oblong s eed (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 rem oved to avoid fruit damage (USEP, 2007).

Chile plans to export pomegranates to the cont inental U.S. during winter in the Northern Hemisphere, when U.S. production is impossibl e (SerAgro, 2007). Currently, 150 ha are under pomegranate cultivation in Chil ean zones III and IV (SerAgro , 2007). The optimum fresh fruit production for this acreage would be approxi mately 2000 tons (see Likelihood of Introduction below); however, much of this is likely proc essed 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 w ould be devoted to fresh fr uit is currently not known.

The fig is native to southwestern Asia and heav ily 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 pe duncular 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, br onze, or dark-purple (Michailides, 2003). They are us ually harvested by hand, but may be collected by mechanical means after fruit fall to the ground (Morton, 198 7). 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 nati ons 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 incr eased its exports of fresh figs by 168%. Across Chilean Regions IV to VIII, there are approxi mately 55 hectares (ha) of fig trees planted in Chile (Juillerat M., 2007). Figs are also cu ltivated in the United States. Although commercial fig production now exists in at l east 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 re gulatory 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 St ates 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 pomegranat es to become weeds afte r 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, Arme nia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Russian Federation, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Pakistan) (USDA-ARS, 2007). It has been introduced to the United States where it is under cu ltivation 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 Martorel l, 2000; LR, 2005; USDA-NRCS, 2007).

Phase 3: Summary and Conclusions: Pomegranate is a warm temperate species that has escaped from cultivation in the Un ited States, Australia, New Zealand and Puerto Rico (Liogier and Mart orell, 2000; Randall, 2007; Swearingen, 2005); however, the literature does not indi cate that it is i nvasive (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 o fficial 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 easte rn Mediterranean and western Asia (USDA-ARS, 2007) . It has been introduced to the United States where it is under cultiva tion 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 Martorel l, 2000; LR, 2005; USDA-NRCS, 2007). Phase 3: Summary and Conclusions: Fig has es caped from cultivation in several countries and regions including th e United States, Australia, New Zealand, Egypt, Galapagos, and Puerto Rico (Liogier and Martorell, 2000; LR, 2005; Randall, 2007; Sweari ngen, 2005; Weber, 2003). It is reported as invasive in Australia a nd 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 we re not allowed entry again unt il 1988, when a request from New Zealand was approved (USDA, 2007a). Currently, fi gs are allowed entry from New Zealand and Mexico (7 CFR § 319.56, 2007; USDA-PPQ, 2007). Th e decision to allow Mexican figs into the continental United States was based on a pe st risk assessment conducted in 2001 (Kenney, 2001). Mexican figs are allowed entry from only fr uit fly free areas of the country (7 CFR § 319.56, 2007; USDA-PPQ, 2007).

Several countries have requested permission to export pomegranate s 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 Servi ce (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 Stat es. With regard to pomegranate, APHIS has conducted one pest risk a ssessment for this species “ Importation of Pomegranate Fruits
, Punica granatum from Israel into the United States ” (PPQ, 1997). This risk assessment foundPest 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 MedflyPest Risk Assessment for Chile Fig and Pomegranate



### Rev. 003 August 26, 2009 6 2.3.3. Current import status According to Plant Protecti on and Quarantine’s Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Import Manua l (USDA-PPQ, 2007), figs are currently enterabl e from Belgium, Mexico, and New Zealand, while pomegranates are enterable from Argentin a, Colombia, Greece, Haiti, Israel, and Mexico. Pomegranates are enterable only after irradiation (T105-d) or co ld 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, whil e Mexico figs can only enter from fruit fly free areas. There are no required treatments fo r New Zealand figs (USDA-PPQ, 2007).

2.3.4. Pest interceptions at U.S. Ports-of-Entry APHIS-PPQ maintains a database (Agricultura l Quarantine Activity Systems) of all the interceptions of pests and pathogens on commod ities entering the United States. The database includes interceptions on permit cargo, general cargo, ship’s quar ters, 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 ove r 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 ba ggage 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 1Pest 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 qua rantine pests and quarantine pests likely to follow the pathway

We created a list of pests poten tially associated with fig and pomegranate in Chile (Table 6). In the list we identify: (1) the presence or abse nce of the pests in the United States; (2) the references supporting an associa tion between the pest and the hos t; (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 pot ential 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 follo w the pathway on fig and pomegranate fruit if the pest is present in Chile, if the pest is associ ated 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 follo wing the pathway could establish and spread throughout the United States depends on the pres ence of appropriate climatic and ecological conditions, including protected area s (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 Distribution 2 Host association Plant part affected 3 Quarantine pest Follow pathway Fig Pomegranate 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, 2007 4 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 = Inflores cence (Flower), L = Leaf, R = Root, S = Stem, Tr = Trunk, Tw = Twig, and W = Wood.
4 Host status was based soley on two in terception records which could be misiden tifications. Because no other literature source associates this pest with pomegranate, the interception re cords 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 Distribution 2 Host association Plant part affected 3 Quarantine pest Follow pathway Fig Pomegranate 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 NoPest Risk Assessment for Chile Fig and Pomegranate



### Rev. 003 August 26, 2009 10 Pest Scientific Name Distribution 2 Host association Plant part affected 3 Quarantine pest Follow pathway Fig Pomegranate 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 Kochand 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 Kochand Waterhouse, 2000; Prado, 1991 Tr, Dead W (Vergara and Castro, 2006a) Yes No

COLEOPTERA: Dryophthoridae Sitophilus oryzae (Linneaus) CL (Prado, 1991); PestID, 2007 5 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 w ith pomegranates and because this pest is primarily a pest of grains, we consider these two port interceptions to be misiden tifications. 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 Distribution 2 Host association Plant part affected 3 Quarantine pest Follow pathway Fig Pomegranate 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 No 6

DIPTERA: Tephritidae Ceratitis capitata (Wiedemann) CL (Prado, 1991) De Meyer et al

. , 2002; Prado, 1991 CABI, 2006 Fr (PestID, 2007; CABI, 2005) Yes Yes 7

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 St eyskal, 1982), has been reported from fruits and stems; however, as a secondary invader of fruit (McAlpine and Steyskal, 1982), it is unlik ely 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 Distribution 2 Host association Plant part affected 3 Quarantine pest Follow pathway Fig Pomegranate 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 No 9

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-har vest processing and culling. Furthermore, if fruit are washed, th ey would be readily washed off.Pest Risk Assessment for Chile Fig and Pomegranate



### Rev. 003 August 26, 2009 13 Pest Scientific Name Distribution 2 Host association Plant part affected 3 Quarantine pest Follow pathway Fig Pomegranate 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/APest Risk Assessment for Chile Fig and Pomegranate



### Rev. 003 August 26, 2009 14 Pest Scientific Name Distribution 2 Host association Plant part affected 3 Quarantine pest Follow pathway Fig Pomegranate 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/APest Risk Assessment for Chile Fig and Pomegranate



### Rev. 003 August 26, 2009 15 Pest Scientific Name Distribution 2 Host association Plant part affected 3 Quarantine pest Follow pathway Fig Pomegranate 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 No 10

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 No 11

LEPIDOPTERA: Nymphalidae Lycorea ilione (Cramer) CL (Savela, 2007) Robinson et al

. , 2007 L (Hill, 1994) Yes No 12

10 Other than this one interception record, no other literature so urce associates this pest with pomegranate. We consider one interception record to be insufficient evidence of host associa tion. 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 a dult form that feeds on fruit (CABI, 2006); because adults are not sessile and should be readily disturbed as fruit are harvested, they are not ex pected to remain with fruit during harvest.Pest Risk Assessment for Chile Fig and Pomegranate



### Rev. 003 August 26, 2009 16 Pest Scientific Name Distribution 2 Host association Plant part affected 3 Quarantine pest Follow pathway Fig Pomegranate 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 No 13

12 Due to limited information on this pest, we based the associati on of this pest with plant host organs on descriptions of the family (Hill, 1994).
13 This thrips is unlikely to fo llow the pathway because it is prim arily 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 Distribution 2 Host association Plant part affected 3 Quarantine pest Follow pathway Fig Pomegranate 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] CL 14 (Lanfranco et al

. , 2003); U.S. (CABI, 2006) CABI, 2007 Huang et al

. , 2003 Rt, St, L, and Fr (CABI, 2006) Yes 15 No 16

14 .Currently, C. fimbriata is found throughout South Am erica, 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 th at indicates which genotype(s) of C. fimbriata causes pomegranate wilt or where it is distributed. Because pomegranate wilt has no t been reported in the cont inental United States, we are assuming it is not present, and therefor e, 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 insufficientPest Risk Assessment for Chile Fig and Pomegranate



### Rev. 003 August 26, 2009 18 Pest Scientific Name Distribution 2 Host association Plant part affected 3 Quarantine pest Follow pathway Fig Pomegranate Cerotelium fici (E.J Butler) (Urediniomycetes,Ure dinales) (no other taxonomic info. available) CL 17 (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 Distribution 2 Host association Plant part affected 3 Quarantine pest Follow pathway Fig Pomegranate Hendersonia toruloidea Natrass 11 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/APest Risk Assessment for Chile Fig and Pomegranate



### Rev. 003 August 26, 2009 20 Pest Scientific Name Distribution 2 Host association Plant part affected 3 Quarantine pest Follow pathway Fig Pomegranate 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] CL 18 (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 on e accession from Chile, that does not reflect th e total number of inter ceptions 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 Distribution 2 Host association Plant part affected 3 Quarantine pest Follow pathway Fig Pomegranate

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 dispac i (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/APest Risk Assessment for Chile Fig and Pomegranate



### Rev. 003 August 26, 2009 22 Pest Scientific Name Distribution 2 Host association Plant part affected 3 Quarantine pest Follow pathway Fig Pomegranate 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 id entified 130 pests that either are or may be associated with fig and/or pomegranate, in Chile (Table 6). Not al l 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 Ch ile. 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 ta xa likely to follow the pathway on fresh figs and pomegranates (Table 7). Of these, six were identi fied to only the genus level. The United States may consider incompletely identified taxa at hi gher 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 sugge sting these incompletely identified taxa are different from U.S. taxa. Consequently, these ta xa were not analyzed further due to limited taxonomic and/or biological knowledge about th ose pests and pathogens. Lack of species identification may indicate limited taxonomic k nowledge about that gr oup, 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 e quated 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 de veloped (IPPC, 2004). Agricultural inspectors at the port of entry will continue to take action against pests not id entified to the species level if other species in the same genus are quarantine pe sts. 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 cont rol in Chile (EPPO, 1996). All of Chile is free of this pest, except for the Ari ca province (Lemly, 2007; USDA-APHIS, 2007a). C. capitata was analyzed further below in case Chile e xports 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 (U SDA-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-Ha rris, 1992), they were not include d in the pest list. SpecimensPest Risk Assessment for Chile Fig and Pomegranate



### Rev. 003 August 26, 2009 23 of Anastrepha previously collected in Chile were fr om 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 pe st 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 pathwa y 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 fr om the introduction and establis hment of quarantine pests are considered in this assessment. The potential co nsequences of introductio n 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, a nd cause economic and environmental impacts, is calculated by adding all of the risk elemen t 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 clima tic 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 rela ted 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 importa nt pest (e.g., Childers, 1994; French and Rakha, 1994). According to the USDA’s expor t 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 measur es 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. Consequent ly, this risk element was rated High

. High (3)

Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact Brevipalpus chilensis could potentially attack two Threat ened 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 ecolog ical 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, su ch 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, Ru ssian Federation (Southern Russia), Serbia and Montenegro, Slovenia, Spain, Switzerla nd), Asia (Iran, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, Yemen), A frica (Algeria, Angola, Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verd e, Comoros, Congo Democratic Republic, Congo, Côte d'Ivoire, Egypt, Ethiopia, Gabon, Ghana, Guinea, Kenya, Liberia, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritius, Mo rocco, 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 c ontinental 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 contin ental 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 Hardines s 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, breedi ng is year-round, with several overlapping generations (Hassan, 1977). Under ideal conditio ns, 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. por ts-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 tole rate 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 (CAB I, 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 frui ts, 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 contro l 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 inst ance, 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 frugivor y 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 chem ical 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 Rating a 

### 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 bei ng introduced and establishi ng 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 surviv e 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). Thes e 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 si x 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 cr iteria. The most current estimate of Chilean pomegranate production is 150 ha devoted to pomegranate production. Po megranate yield ranges between 15 and 20 tons per hectar e in Chile (USEP, 2007). At an average production rate of 17.5 tons per hectare, 150 hectares should produce approximately 2625 t ons of fruit. A typical 40 foot shipping container can contain up to 29 tons of cargo (Anonym ous, 2007). Thus, Chile’s total annual production could be shippe d 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 cont ainer 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 fi gs 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-el ement 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 a nd 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 protectiv e 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 fact ors, including duration of shipment period, ambient conditions during sh ipment and application of any particular mitigation procedures. Because this risk assessm ent 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 cond itions (-0.5° to 5°C, depending on the literature source; Colelli et al

. , 1991; Dussan-Sarria and Honorio, 2005; McGregor, 1987). Given thisPest 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 storag e life than figs. At 5°C and 90-95% relative humidity, they can be maintained for about tw o months before the ri sk of chilling injury (McGregor, 1987; Sheikh, 2006). However, becaus e 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 detecti on, while externally f eeding 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 contam inated consignments are passing undetected. Brevipalpus chilensis is a small arthropod, with a body meas uring 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 dest ructively 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 dist ribution of markets for the host commodity throughout the country and the presence of suitable habi tats for the pest/pathogen. Fruit arriving at U.S. ports does not arrive at one port, but is di stributed according to market demand. Three of the four more populated U.S. states (California, Florida, and Te xas) are located in the southern part of the country (U.S. Gov., 2006), where climatic c onditions are conducive for survival of B. chilensis and C. capitata (USDA-NA, 2003). These three states re present about 25% of the total U.S. population. If it is assumed that figs and pomeg ranates 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 materi al suitable for reproduction Even if the final destination of infested commoditie s 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 ac tual 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 abi lity (i.e., it does not fly). Spread occurs mainly through plant to plant contact, although humans can facilitate sp read. Accordingly, this sub-element was rated Medium for it. Ceratitis capitata , however, has a very broad host ra nge 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 in corporates the likelihood of its introduction and establishment with the potential economic and environmental consequences that may follow. The USDA summarizes Pest Risk Potential by summi ng the risk element values from these two components of risk (USDA, 2000). The Pest Risk Pote ntial 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 necessa ry 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 mitigat ion 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-PERALPest Risk Assessment for Chile Fig and Pomegranate



### Rev. 003 August 26, 2009 30 3.2. Reviewers

Ron Sequeira, National Science Program Lead er 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 Regulatio ns, Title 7, Part 360, (7 CFR §360 - Noxious Weed Regulations). United States Government. Aksoy, U., B. Balci, H. Z. Can, and S. Hepaks oy. 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. Ki mbrough, N. E. El Gholi, and C. Wehlburg. 1993. Diseases and Disorders of Plants in Fl orida. 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 (Acari na: Prostigmata) of the World. Indira Publishing House, We st Bloomfield, Michigan, USA. 798 pp. Anonymous. 1991. Integrated Pest Management fo r Citrus (2nd edition). University of California, CA, U.S.A. 144 pp. Anonymous. 2007. Wikipedia. Wikipedia, The Fr ee 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. Mac quaire, T. Candresse, and V. Pa llas. 1996. Studies on the diagnosis of hop stunt viroid in fruit trees: Identificat ion of new hosts and application of nucleic acid extraction procedure base d 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 Cerato cystis 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 tset se (Diptera: Glossinidae). Bulletin of Entomological Research 95(1):1-11. Barriga, J., S. Curkovic, T. Fich et, J. Henríquez, and J. Maca ya. 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 Re search Council, Institute for Tropical and Subtropical Crops, Nelspr uit, South Africa. 288 pp. Ben-Dov, Y., D. R. Miller, and G. A. P. Gi bson. 2004. ScaleNet. United St ates Department of Agriculture (USDA), Agricultural Research Service (ARS), Systematic EntomologyPest 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. Gi bson. 2006. ScaleNet. United St ates Department of Agriculture (USDA), Agricultural Research Service (ARS), Systematic Entomology Laboratory (SEL). Last a ccessed November 20, 2006, http://www.sel.barc.usda.gov/ scalenet/scalenet.htm. Ben-Dov, Y., D. R. Miller, and G. A. P. Gi bson. 2007. ScaleNet. United St ates 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 Ke y 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, Ch ichester, 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. Fl echtmann. 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, In stituto de Zoologia, Habana, Cuba. 246 pp. BSI. 2007. Butterflies and Moths of North Ameri ca, Online Database. Motana State University, Big Sky Institute (BSI). Last accessed J une 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 Plan t 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 Mi fflin Company Bo ston, MA, U.S.A. Cherepanov, A. I. 1991. Cerambycidae of Northern As ia. 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 contro l 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 Subtr opical 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 Frui t 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 diffe rent 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. Ma nsell, 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 Cent ral Africa, Belgium. 91 pp. Doreste, E. 1988. Acarologia. Institu to Internacional de Cooperacion para la Agricultura (IICA), San Jose, Costa Rica. 410 pp. Duffy, E. A. J. 1960. A monograph of the inmatu re 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 Data base. 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). Eur opean and Mediterran ean Plant Protection Organization. Last accessed July 30, 2007, http://www.eppo.org/DATABASES/pqr/pqr.htm. Evans, G. A. 2007. The whiteflies (Hemiptera: Aley rodidae) of the world and their host plants and natural enemies (v. January 16, 2007). Un ited States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Animal Plant Health Inspecti on Service (APHIS), United States. 715 pp. Evans, K., D. L. Trudgill, and J. M. Webster (eds.). 1993. Plant Parasitic Nematodes in Temperate Agriculture. CAB Internati onal, Wallingford, United Kingdom. 648 pp. Farr, D. F., G. F. Bills, G. P. Chamuris, a nd 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, US DA. 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 Frut as. Last accessed July 30, 2007, http://www.fedefruta.cl/inde x.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, natu ral 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 [A bstract]. Plant Di sease 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. Faculta d de Ciencias Agronomias, Un iversidad 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, Sacramen to, 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. Th e Chilean citrus industry. SARDI Research Report Series No. 52. South Australian Res earch 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 monoge ne resistances to pe sticides and drugs. International Journal of Pe st Management 44(3):161-180. Gencer, N. S., K. S. Coskuncu, and N. A. Kumral. 2005. Bursa ili nde incir bahcelerinde gorulen zararli ve yararli turlerin saptanmasi [Deter mination of harmful and beneficial fauna in fig orchards in Bursa Province] Journal of Faculty of Agriculture, Ondokuz May ı s University 20(2):24-30. Gonzalez, R. H. 1970. Nuevas especies de nemat odos 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 Im portancia 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 manageme nt 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 E xperimental 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 Agr onomia, Agricultural Sciences Publications 2:1-68. Guinez, S. A. 1980. Comparative efficacy of orga nic amendments and four nematicides for the control of nematodes on tomato [Abstr act]. Agricultura Technica 40(4):143-146. Gunn, C. R., and C. A. Ritchie. 1988. Identificati on of disseminules listed in the Federal Noxious Weed Act (Technical Bulletin Number 1719.). Un ited 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 quarantin e treatments beyond fru it flies. Agricultural and Forest Entomology 2:85-95. Hanson, H. N. 1949. Phomopsis canker of fi gs. 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 contro l of the false spider mite of vines ( B. chilensis ). Agricultura Tecnica 28(1):35-42. Hill, D. S. 1983. Agricultural Insect Pests of th e Tropics and their Control (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.S.A. 746 pp. Hill, D. S. 1994. Agricultural Entomology. Timb er Press, Portland, Oregon, U.S.A. 635 pp. Holm, L., J. Doll, E. Holm, J. Rancho, and J. Herberger. 1997. World W eeds: 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 Comp any, 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 Biol ogy. 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 standard s 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 C onvention (New Revised Text). IPPC & Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 28 pp. IPPC. 1999. International standard s 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 phytosan itary measures (ISPM#12): Guidelines for phytosanitary certificates. International Pl ant Protection Conven tion (IPPC) & the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 14 pp. IPPC. 2002. International standards for phytos anitary measures (ISPM#14): The use of integrated measures in a systems approach fo r pest risk management. International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) & Food and Ag riculture 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 Pl ant Protection Convention (IPPC) & Food and Agriculture Organization of the Unit ed Nations, Rome. 41 pp. IPPC. 2005. International standards for phytosan itary 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 phytos anitary measures (ISPM#5): Glossary of phytosanitary terms. International Plan t Protection Conventio n (IPPC) & Food and Agriculture Organization of th e United Nations, Rome. 23 pp. IPPC. 2007. International standard s for phytosanitary measures (ISPM#2): Framework for pest risk analysis. International Plant Pr otection Convention (I PPC) & the Food and Agriculture Organization of th e 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 Di seases and Protection 103:403-408. Jeppson, L. R., H. H. Keifer, and E. W. Ba ker. 1975. Mites injurious to economic plants. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA, U.S.A. 614 pp. Jimenez, R. M. 1974. Contribucion al conocimie nto 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 nema todo 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 pa rt 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 north ern 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. Phyloge ny 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 gi ven at the Nuevas A lternativas para la Fruticultura Chilena de E xportacion 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. Th e distribution and impor tance of arthropods associated with agriculture and forestry in Chile (Distribucion e importancia de los artropodos asociados a la agricu ltura 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 cove r crops [Abstract]. Journal of Nematology 28(4):546-556. Lanfranco, D., S. Ide, C. Ruiz, I. Vives, a nd H. Peredo. 2003. Caracter izacion 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-APHI S 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 Stat e 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 Ri co and adjacent islands: a systematic synopsis (2nd ed.). Editorial de la Universi dad the Puerto Rico, San Juan, Puerto Rico. LR. 2005. Ng ā Tipu o Aotearoa - New Zealand Plants. Landcare Research (LR). Last accessed June 25, 2007, http://nzflora.l andcareresearch.co.nz/. Martins, U. R. 1999. Tribo Eburiini: Cerambyid ae Sul-americanos. Sociedad Brasileira de Entomologia, Sao Paulo 3:119-391. Maxwell, B. 2007. Brandt's palm and tropical/sub tropical tree page. Br andt 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 tr ansport handbook (Agric ulture Handbook No. 688). United States Department of Agricu lture, Washington, DC., U.S.A. 148 pp. McInnis, D. O., S. Tam, R. Lim, J. Ko matsu, R. Kurashima, and C. Albrecht. 2004. Development of a pupal color-based gene tic sexing strain of the melon fly, Bactrocera cucurbitae (Coquillett) (Diptera : Tephritidae). A nnals 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: Ps eudococcidea). Univer sity 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: Aphidoi dea) of sub-Saharan Africa. Agricultural Research Council, Pretoria, South Africa. 130 pp. Miller, J. W. 1993. Plant pathology section. Tr i-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#Fr ee%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 Clim ates. 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 a nd 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. Er yphus Perty, 1832 and Tacyba, a new genus of Heteropsini (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae). Revi sta Brasileira de Entomologia 46(1):83-92. NAPPO. 2004. NAPPO regional st andards for phytosanitary measures: RSPM#5: NAPPO glossary of phytosanitary terms. North Amer ican 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 Agri culture and Natural Re sources, 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 Fitopa tologico 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. Valenz uala. 1988. New records of pathogeni c 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 appro ach to support the movement of regulated articles between Mexico and the United Stat es. United States Department of Agricultire, Plant Protection and Quarantine, U.S.A. Prado, E. C. 1991. Arthropodos y sus enemigos naturl aes asociados a plantas cultivadas en Chile (Boletin Tecnico No. 169.). Inst ituto de Investigaciones Ag ropecuarias (INIA), Santiago, Chile. Raabe, R. D., I. L. Conners, and A. P. Mar tinez. 1981. Checklist of plan t diseases in Hawaii (Information Text Series No. 22). Hawaii In stitution of Tropical Agriculture, HumanPest Risk Assessment for Chile Fig and Pomegranate



### Rev. 003 August 26, 2009 38 Resources, College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resour ces, University of Hawaii. 313 pp. Randall, R. P. 2007. A Global Compendium of Weeds, Online Database. Department of Agriculture of Western Australi a. Last accessed January 12, 2007, http://www.hear.org/gcw/. Reed, C. F. 1977. Economically Important Forei gn Weeds. Agricultural Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture., U.S.A. 746 pp. Robinson, G. S., P. R. Ackery, I. J. Kitchi ng, G. W. Beccaloni, and L. M. Hernandez. 2001. Hostplants of the Moth and Butterfly Caterp illars of the Orient al Region. The Natural History Museum & Southdene Sdn B hd, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. 744 pp. Robinson, G. S., P. R. Ackery, I. J. Kitchi ng, 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: Pomegranat e, baby kiwi and fig. Personal communication to A. L. Koop on June 14, 2007, from Juan Roman, Commod ity 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 grapev ines 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 pa ra Exportacion, Arbol de Granado, Punica granatum

. SerAgro.Cl. Last accessed July 26, 2007, http://www.se ragro.cl/?a=888. Sheikh, M. K. 2006. The Pomegranate. Internat ional 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 natu ral 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 Ag riculture (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. Dipt era 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 Eur ope, the Mediterranean, and North and South America. Acta Horticulture 657:379-383. Traveset, A., M. F. Willson, and J. C. Gaither. 19 95. 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 G overnment Census Bureau. Last accessed June 21, 2007, http://factfinder.census.gov/home/saff/main.html?_lang=en. UC IPM. 2005. UC IPM Online: Pest Manage ment 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. Erk ı l ı c, and N. Uygun. 2003. Studies on Aleurothrixus floccosus (Maskell) (Homoptera, Aleyrodidae) and its parasitoid, Cales noacki Howard (Hymenoptera, Aphelinidae) in th e East Mediterranean region of Turkey. Journal of Pest Science 76:163-169. USDA-APHIS. 1997. Irradiation for phytosanitar y regulatory treatment: Environmental assessment, October 1997. United States Depa rtment of Agriculture (USDA), Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). 12 pp. USDA-APHIS. 2007a. Pest free areas. United Stat es Department of Agriculture (USDA) - Animal and Plant Health Inspection Servi ce (APHIS). Last a ccessed October 12, 2007, http://www.aphis.usda.gov/newsroom/hot_issu es/quarantine_56/downl oad/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 Inform ation Network (GRIN), Online Database. United States Department of Agriculture (US DA), Agricultural Research Service (ARS), Systematic Botany and Mycology La boratory. 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 Depart ment 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 St ates Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (N RCS), 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 Pr otection 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 Stat es Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Servi ce. 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 Aphidi dae Database. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Systematic Ento mology 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/centr os/USEP/Granado/granado.htm. USFWS. 2007. Threatened and e ndangered animals and pants. Un ited 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. He ndrichs. 2006. Modeling of preferential mating in areawide control programs that integrate the re lease of strains of sterile males only or both sexes. Annals of the Entomologi cal Society of America 99(3):607-616. Waite, G. K. 2002. Pests and pol linators of mango. Pages 103-129 in J. E. Pena, J. L. Sharp, and M. Wysoki, (eds.). Tropical Fruit Pests a nd Pollinators: Biology, Economic Importance, Natural Enemies and Control. CA BI Publishing, Wallingford, U.K. Webber, B. L., and I. E. Woodrow. 2004. Casso wary 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: Te phritidae). University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricu ltural 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 Ameri can crops and their dise ases. Scarecrow Press, Metuchen, N.J., USA. White, I. M., and M. M. Elson-Harris. 1992. Fr uit Flies of Economic Significance: Their Identification and Bioeconomics. CAB International, Wallingford, UK. 601 pp. Wibmer, G. J., and C. W. O'Brien. 1986. Annotat ed Checklist of the Weevils (Curculionidae sensu lato ) of South America (Coleoptera: Curcu lionidae). The American Entomological Institute, Gainesville, FL, U.S.A. 563 pp. Wood, S. L., and D. E. Bright. 1992. A Catalog of Scolytidae and Plat ypodidae (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: Iden tification, 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 th at have been intercepted on Ficus carica and Punica granatum fruit at U.S. ports from 1985 to 2007. Because baggage and cargo interceptions (gener al and permit cargo) represented 99% of all interceptions, interception data for mail, ship st ores, 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) 4Pest 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) 1Pest 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) 1Pest 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) 1Pest 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 zonat us (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 11Pest 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) 32Pest 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, speci es 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) 1Pest 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 37Pest 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 Z ones” 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 beco me established in one hardiness zone Medium: the species is likely to become es tablished in two or three hardiness zones High: the species is likely to become esta blished in four or mo re hardiness zones

Risk Element #2- Host Range The risk posed by a plant pest depends on its abil ity to establish a viab le, reproductive population and its potential to injure plants. For arthropods, risk is a ssumed 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 arrivi ng in a new area. The following items are considered in regard to dispersal potential: reproductiv e patterns of the pest (e.g

. , voltinism, biotic potential); inherent powers of movement; factors fac ilitating dispersal, wind, water, presence of vectors, humans,
etc

. Low: pest has neither high reproductive potential nor rapid di spersal capability Medium: pest has either high reproductive pote ntial OR the species is capable of rapid dispersal High: pest has high bi otic potential, e.g

. , many generations per year, many offspring per reproduction (“r-selected” species ), AND evidence exists that th e 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 variet y of direct and indi rect economic impacts. These impacts are divided into three primary categories (other type s 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 th ree of the above impactsPest 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 enco mpasses the likelihood a nd severity of an environmental impact. The act describes an envi ronmental pest as: “expected to have direct impacts on species listed by Federal Agencies as endangered or thre atened (50CFR§17.11 and §17.12), by infesting/infecting a listed plant. If the pest attacks othe r 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 endangere d or threatened by disrupting sensitive, critical habitat; introduction of the pe st 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. Yaer Average MonthsPest 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

I q ui q ue 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

Q uillota 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

Santia g o 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

Ren g o 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

An g ol 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 minimumPest 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 anal ysis revealed these pests pose a High risk potential to the continental United States. Other than minimal post -harvest cleaning and cu lling, 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 Pl ant Protection Convention, countries have the sovereign right to use risk mitigation strategies that minimize pest risks to a scientif ically justified level (Article VII; IPPC, 1997). The appropriate level of protection for an imported commodity can be achieved by the application of a si ngle 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. Selec tion of the appropriate risk management 20 

### 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 imp acts 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 phytosan itary options to reduce a nd manage pest risk.

Table D1. Quarantine pests likely to follow the path way 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 accepta ble 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”. System s approaches vary in co mplexity; 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 protec tion (ISPM #14; IPPC, 2002). Combining specific mitigation measures in a way that provides overlapping or sequential safeguards is distinctly different from a pplying single mitigation methodologies such as fumigation or inspection. In a systems approac h, 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) offi cially required (mandated); and 4) subject to monitoring and control by the responsible national plan t 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. Af terwards, 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 impor tant mitigation measure that can be used alone or in conjunction with ot her mitigation measures. Through inspection and monitoring, pest infestations can be identified and managed be fore pests have an opportunity to follow the pathway to the importing country. Continuous m onitoring 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 gr owing season is useful to identify particular pests before they become problematic. Following harvest and post-harvest treatment, additional inspections help insure quarant ine significant pests have been eliminated from the pathway. Finally, at U.S. ports, additional inspections increa se our assurance that a commodity is free from quarantine pests before entering th e country. Statistical procedures are available to verify, to a specified confidence level, the pest-free status of an area or commodit y, given negative sampling results (e.g., Barclay and Hargrove, 2005; Culliney, 2003).

Phytosanitary Certification . A phytosanitary (plant health) certif icate is an official document issued by an exporting country, verifying that th e shipment conforms to the phytosanitary import requirements of the importing country, whateverthose 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, phytos anitary 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 co mprising a certain region. To establish a pest free area, 1) the area must be readily delimite d/determined, 2) there must be phytosanitary measures in place to establish and maintain the pe st 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 satis fying an importing country’s appropriate level of phytosanit ary 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 st andards would be crucial in establishing pest free areas for any of the quarantin e significant pests listed above.

Establishment of a Pest Free Production Site. A pest free place of produc tion 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 defin ition is similar to the previous one for pest free areas; however, they differ in degree of sc ale. 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 manage d by the national plant protection organization and are maintained pest free over an extended pe riod of time. In contrast, pest free production sites are managed by the producer and may be main tained pest free for as little as one or two seasons. Pest free production sites ar e established similarly to pest free areas, but with the added requirement that all products ar e adequately labeled to identify the particular production site. Once a pest free production site or place of produc tion 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 pl aces of production may be effective in satisfying an importing country’s appropria te level of phytosanitary prot ection 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 suppressi ng pest populations to beneath cer tain levels (including for ALPPs).

Sterile Insect Release . Sterile insect release is an effec tive pest control strategy that works by disrupting pest mating (Vreysen et al

. , 2006). Effectiveness of this control strategy increases as the wild pest population d ecreases because it becomes increasi ngly difficult for a wild female to find a wild (non-sterilized male). Sterile inse ct 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 wh en strategically used; however, their widespread and prolific use can impact the environment (Carson, 1962), fo ster 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 ma nagement, 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 pe sticides will be effectiv e 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 proc edures 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, part icularly external surface pests.

Quarantine Treatments Cold Treatment . Cold treatment involves maintaining fruit near freezing conditions for an extended period (USDA-APHIS, 2007b). Temper ature 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 demonstrat ed 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 necessari ly mortality, documentation of the dosage must accompany all irradiated shipments.

Methyl bromide fumigation . Methyl bromide (CH 3 

### Br) is a colorless, odorless fumigant with relatively low solubility in wate r (USDA-APHIS, 2007b). As a fumiga nt, 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 a nd 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 treatm ent 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 countr y. 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 identifie d 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 econom ically 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 a nd 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 locat ed 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 ha tching 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 develope d 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 gene ric 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 frui t, 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 sp ecialists in consultation w ith the exporting country. The specification and implementation of phytosanitar y measures, as would be present in an operational work plan, is beyond the scope of this document.