United States

Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service December 1 6 , 201 2 Version 9 

### Importation of Fresh Citrus Fruit, including Sweet

**Orange ( Citrus sinensis**  **(L.) Osb eck**  **), Lemon ( C. lim**  **on (L.)**  **Burm. f.**  **), Mandarin ( C. reticulata**  **Blanco, C.**  **cle me** **ntina Hort. ex Tanaka**  **, C. deliciosa**  **Ten., C. unshiu**  **Marcow. ),**  **Citrus Hybrids, and the**  **Citrus**
**- Related Genus**  **Fortunella (** **F. japonica (**  **Thunb. ) Swingle**  **, F. ma** **rgarita (Lour.) Swingle**  **), from Uruguay into the Continental**  **United States**
**A Qualitative, Pathway**
**- Initiated Risk Assessment** 

**Agency Contact:** Plant Epidemiology

and Risk Analysis Laboratory Center for Plant Health Science and Technology United States Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Plant Protection and Quarantine Raleigh, NCPest Risk Assessment for Citrus from Uruguay

Ver

. 9 December 1 6 , 201 2 i 

### Executive Summary The Plant Protection Division of the Dirección General de Servicios Agrícolas (DGSA), Ministerio de Ganadería, Agricultura y Pesca (MGAP) for Uruguay initially draft ed a pest risk assessment to examine plant pest risks associated with importation of the following Citrus fruit from Uruguay

into the continental United States: sweet oranges ( Citrus sinensis (L .) Osbeck), lemons ( C. limon (L .) Burm. f. ), mandarins ( C. reticulata Blanco, C. clementina Hort. ex Tanaka , C. deliciosa Ten., C. unshiu Marcow), Citrus hy brids, and the Citrus

- related genus Fortunella (

F. japonica ( Thunb

. ) Swingle, F. margarita (Lour.) Swingle ). The draft was reviewed and revised by

the Plant Epidemiology

and Risk Analysis Laboratory (PERAL) staff who examined the risk of commerciall y produced Citrus spp. and Fortunella spp. fruit from Uruguay . We assessed the risk in qualitative terms (high, medium, low). The details of the methodology

and rating criteria used to anal yz e these pests are in the Guidelines for Pathway

Initiated Pest Risk Assessment, Version 5.02 (PPQ, 2000). Quarantine pests of Citrus spp. and Fortunella spp. in Uruguay found to follow the pathway include four arthropods and two plant pathogens: Arthropods Anastrepha fraterculus (Wiedemann)

Ceratitis capitata (Wiedemann) Cryptoblabes gnidiella Milliere Gymnandrosoma aurantian um (Lima) Fungi Elsino ё australis (Bitancourt & Jenks.) Bacteria Xanthomonas citri subsp. citri (ex. Hasse) In addition to the quarantine pests currently in Uruguay , quarantine pests of concern are present in citrus production areas in countries bordering Uruguay

. Such quarantine pests include pathogens, such as Xylella fastidiosa Citrus Variegated Chlorosis strain (CVC), “ Candidatus Liberibacter” species, Citrus leprosis virus , Citrus Greening, and Zonate Chlorosis, and their associated vectors. In a previous revision of the PRA , Guignardia citricarpa Kiely was included as a quarantine pathogen likely to follow the pathway

. However a pest risk assessment (PRA) conducted in 2010 concluded that fresh or dried citrus fruit is not epidemiologicall y significant as a pathway

for the introduction of CBS because the combination of conditions required for disease transmis sion from harvested fruit are highly unlikel y. We therefore consider that fruit which is commerciall y harvested and surface treated with fungicides prior to shipment is a negligible risk, so analysis of this pathogen was removed from the document.
We analyzed e ach quarantine pest likely to follow the pathway

and rated its pest risk potential. The Pest Risk Potential is a summary of the ratings for the Consequences of Introduction and Likelihood of Introduction. We estimated the Consequences of Introductio n by assessing the climate

- host interaction, the host range, the dispersal potential, the economic impact, and the environmental impact: all are based on the biology of the pests. We estimated the Likelihood of Introduction by

evaluating the proposed quantity imported annuall y in combination with the pest’s survival potential

. A given pest’s survival p otential is the likelihood that the pest survive sPest Risk Assessment for Citrus from Uruguay

Ver. 9 December 1 6 , 201 2 ii standard production practices, post

- harvest treatments, and shipment ; avoid s detection at the port of arrival; and is likel y to be moved to a suitable habitat and come into contact with suitable host material. Rating of Likelihood of Introduction is followed by proposal of pest risk management strategies, designed to reduce the risk of introduction of a qu arantine pest. Anastrepha fraterculus , Ceratitis capitata, Cryptoblabes gnidiella, and Gymnandrosoma aurantianum had High Pest Risk Potential; and Xanthomonas citri subsp. citri , and Elsinoё australis had Medium Pest Risk Potential

. We analyzed the quarantine pests based on international principles and internal guidelines described in the PPQ Guidelines for Pathway

- Initiated Pest Risk Assessments, Version 5.02 (PPQ, 2000). Pest biology studies are the basis for the Consequences of Introduction and Likelihood of Introduction sections. These anal ytical phases and specific criteria are then used to categorize pests; in this case the estimates resulted in several species receiving High risk ratings. Port

- of

- entry inspections, as a sole mitigative measure, are deemed insufficient to safeguard U.S. agriculture from pests; additional phy tosanitary measures are necessary

to reduce risks to acceptable levels. Phy tosanitary risk may be reduced using mitigation measures designed to eliminate, reduce, or prevent the presence of pests in shipments of commodities primarily in the country

of origin. The appropriate risk management strategy for a particular pest depends on the risk posed by that pest. The pest risks associated with the importation of fresh fruit of Citrus spp. from Uruguay were assessed, taking into account the standard industry practices ( e.g. , crop and pest management, routine processes in packinghouses), the Surveillance Program and Citrus Fruit Phytosanitary Certification Sy stem, developed by DGSA (see Appendices) , and several other risk mitigation measures for each pest. Possible options for mitigation of the pests identified are outlined in the document.Pest Risk Assessment for Citrus from Uruguay

Ver

. 9 December 1 6 , 201 2 iii 

### Table of Contents
**1. Introduction**
**................................ ................................**  **................................ ...............................**  **1** 1.1 Regulatory

Authority

................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 2 1.2 Initiating Event / Proposed Action

................................ ................................ ...................... 2 1.3 Citrus Pest Surveillance

................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 4 1. 4 Citrus Fruit Phy

tosanitary Certification

................................ ................................ .............. 4 **2. Risk Assessment**
**................................ ................................**  **................................ ........................**  **5** 2.1 Assessment of Weediness Potential of Citrus spp. and Fortunella spp.
............................ 5 2.2 Pests intercepted on Citrus spp.
................................ ................................ .......................... 6 2.3 Pests Associated with Citrus spp. and hy brids and Fortunella spp. in Uruguay

................ 7 2.4 Consequences of Introduction

................................ ................................ ........................... 34 2.5 Likelihood of Introduction

................................ ................................ ................................ 47 2.6 Pest Ris k Potential

................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 61 **3. Risk Management Options**
**................................ ................................**  **................................ .....**  **62** 3.1 Measures for Pest Risk Reduction

................................ ................................ .................... 62 3.2 Phy tosanitary Options

................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 63 3.3 Oversight

................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 69 3.4 Conclusions

................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 69 3.5 Contacts, Authors, Contributors, and Reviewers

................................ .............................. 71 **4. References**
**................................ ................................**  **................................ ................................**  **71 5. Appendices** 
**................................ ................................**  **................................ ...............................**  **95** Appendix A. Citrus Pest Surveillance information provided b y DGSA

................................ 95 Appendix B. Selected Plant Pest Interception Records

................................ .......................... 98 Appendix C. Citrus production, harvest, and post

- harvest processes in Uruguay

................ 108 Appendix D. Citrus Fruit Phy tosanitary Certification

................................ .......................... 114 Appendix E. Life cycle of Xanthomonas citri subsp. citri , the pathogen causing citrus canker

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 122Pest Risk Assessment for Citrus from Uruguay

Ver. 9 December 1 6 , 201 2 1 

### 1
**. Introduction**  The Plant Protection Division of the Dirección General de Servicios Agrícolas (DGSA), Ministerio de Ganadería, Agricultura y Pesca (MGAP) for Uruguay initially draft ed a pest risk assessment to examine plant pest risks associated with importation of Citrus and Fortunella fruit from Uruguay

into the continental United States

. The Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analy sis Laboratory

(PERAL) of the United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine, Center for Plant Health Science and Technology

(USDA, APHI S, PPQ, CPHST) reviewed and revised this pest risk assessment to examine plant pest risks associated with the importation of the commercially produced fresh citrus fruit listed below from Uruguay into the continental United States:

 **Sweet oranges:** Citrus sinensis (L .) Osbeck
 **Lemons:** C. limon (L.) Burm. f.
 **Mandarins:** C. reticulata Blanco, C. clementina Hort. ex Tanaka , C. deliciosa Ten., C. unshiu Marcow
 **Citrus**
**- related**  **genus :**  Fortunella spp., Fortunella japonica ( Thunb

. ) Swingle, F. margarita (Lour.) Swingle

.  **Citrus hybrids:**  C. nobilis x C. deliciosa, C. clementina x C. tangerina, (C. paradisi x C. tangerina) x C. clementina, C. unshiu x C. sinensis, C. clementina x C. reticulata, C. clementina x (C. paradisi x C. tangerina), [ C. clementina x (C. paradisi x C. tangerina) ] x C. temple, C. paradisi x C. tangerina, C. reticulata x C. sinensis

. Commercially

produced fresh citrus in Uruguay is grown, processed, and packed in accordance with DGSA Phy

tosanitary Standards, which support a production process that satisfies the requirements of the Quality Management Systems, Good Agricultural Practices, and Traceability ( Global G.A.P., 2008 ). In the packinghouse the fruit are subjected to cleaning and sanitizing processes , including a surface treatment of fungicides to produce quality fruit for the fresh fruit export market and to fulfill all the client’s requirements ( DGSA, 2008; Díaz et al., 2001) . The commodity

includes short, clipped stems (~ 0.5 cm), and excludes fruit that is over

- mature, off

color for the Citrus species and variety , damaged, rotted, spotted, or misshapen. Fruit not commerciall y grown or packed are beyond the scope of this risk assessment. Factors anal yz ed in the assessment include the biology , host range, distribution, entry potential, establishment potential, spread potential, and economic damage potential of the pests that may be associated with shipments of fresh citrus fruits from Uruguay . The estimates of risk are expressed qualitatively

(high, medium or low). Details of the risk assessment method may be found in Guidelines for Pathway

- Initiated Pest Risk Assessment, Version 5.02 (PPQ, 2000). The International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) provides guidance for conducting pest risk anal ys es. The methods used to initiate and conduct this pest risk assessment are consistent with IPPC guidelines (IPPC, 2007 a : I SPM # 11 ). Biological and phytosanitary terms conform to the IPPC Glossary of Phy tosanitary Terms (IPPC, 2007 b : I SPM #5 ) and to the Definitions and Abbreviations (Introduction Section) in the International Standards for Phy tosanitary Measures, Guidelines for Pest Risk Analy sis for Quarantine Pests Including Analy sis of Environmental Risks and Living Modified OrganismsPest Risk Assessment for Citrus from Uruguay

Ver. 9 December 1 6 , 201 2 2 (IPPC, 2007 a : ISPM #11 ). As used in this document, pest risk assessment is the determination of whether a pest is a quarantine pest and the evaluation of its introduction potential (IPPC, 2007 a and 2007b : I S PM # 5 and 11 ). Pest risk management is the decision

- making process of reducing the risk of introduction of a quarantine pest (IPPC, 2007 a and 2007b : ISPM #5 and 11) . Pest risk anal ys is is the process of evaluating biological or other scientific and economic evidence to determine whether a pest should be regulated and the strength of any phytosanitary measures taken against it. Pest risk anal ys is encompasses both risk assessment and risk management (IPPC, 2007 a : ISPM #2 ). The Framework for Pest Risk Analysis (IPPC, 2007 a : I SPM #2 ) describes three stages in pest risk anal ys is. This document satisfies the requirements of FAO Stages 1 and 2, initiation and risk assessment, and gives options for Stage 3 that will be met later in the development of the risk manag ement document. **1.1 Regulatory Authority** Title 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations 319, Part 56 (7 CFR § 319.56, 2008) provides regulatory

authority for the importation of fruits and vegetables from foreign sources into the United States. Quarantine 19 ( 7 CFR §319.19, 2008 , Citrus Canker and Other Citrus Diseases ) prohibits the importation of citrus plants or plant parts except fruit into the United States. Quarantine 28 (7 CFR § 319.28, 2008, Citrus Fruit) prohibits the importation of citrus fruit from most countries where certain diseases occur, including Uruguay . Quarantine 28 further promulgates a general prohibition against the importation of citrus fruit from countries where citrus canker disease occurs. Importation of citrus fruit is generall y prohibited except for particular citrus species and varieties grown, packed, and shipped under certain conditions from specific areas ( e.g. , Australia, Japan, Korea, Mexico, and Republic of South Africa) as stated in 7CFR 319.28 and 56. These restrictions prev ent the introduction of a number of citrus pests including, but not limited to, fruit flies in the genera Anastrepha and Ceratitis , citrus canker ( Xanthomonas citri subsp. citri), and sweet orange scab ( Elsinoë australis ). Imported fruit is also subject to regulations that govern domestic interstate movement of regulated fruit from quarantined areas for citrus canker and sweet orange scab ( 7 CFR § 301.75

- 1 to 310.75

- 14. 2011 ; APHI S

- USDA. 2010 a). **1.2 Initiating Event / Proposed Action**  In 1990, the government of Uruguay requested that the APHI S Administrator initiate the process to allow the export of citrus fruit from Uruguay into the Continental United States. APHI S identified Ceratitis capitata, Anastrepha fraterculus , Guignardia citricarp a , Elsinoё australis and Xanthomonas citri subsp. citri (Xcc), as quarantine pests

. In 1995, APHI S developed the first draft of the Uruguayan proposal and required additional information. In November 1996, APHI S sent the first Technical Mission, and the DGSA proposed a s ys tems approach for Xcc risk mitigation based on the Self Protecting Areas (SPAs). SPAs contain one or more canker free places of production or have a localized eradicated disease focus, in which sy mptoms have not been observed before h arvest and all risk mitigation measures have been applied. The DGSA provided APHI S with survey results for G. citricarpa based on 1448 samples from all citrus areas to demonstrate the absence of this pathogen. Likewise the DGSA shared the r esults obtained in determinations of citrus scab biotype, citrus scab control assays, and confirmed the absence of the pathogen in Uruguay at that time. The APHI S Technical Mission accepted thePest Risk Assessment for Citrus from Uruguay

Ver. 9 December 1 6 , 201 2 3 Uruguayan proposal and decided to complete a qualitative PRA to defin e the phy tosanitary requirements within one year, after which APHIS could implement a possible operational pilot program. By 2000, the PRA had not been completed and APHI S sent a new Technical Mission to collect information needed for a quantitative pest risk assessment. The Mission reviewed the standards and protocols presented in 1996, and the DGSA presented the Citrus Fruit Phy tosanitary Certification Sy stem (CFPCS). The DGSA has had a legal framework since 1977 supporting the eradication campaign for Xcc and a risk mitigation system defined within the framework of the CFPCS. Xcc is the key

pest for this sy stem, which is ba sed on risk mitigation and traceability procedures. A Citrus Plant Production Program has been in place since 1998, which uses more restrictive measures for production and implements sanitation procedures for citrus materials entering the country

. The DG SA implemented the National Surveillance System for Fruit Flies, including C

. capitata and A

. fraterculus

. APHIS approved treatments for fruit flies are available. After this mission and up to 2002, the DGSA sent Dr. David Oryan g (Tuskegee University) all the information required for a quantitative citrus canker PRA. For other pests of concern, G. citricarpa and E. australis, APHI S would develop a qualitative PRA. The PRA was put on hold from 2002 to 2005 in part because the DGSA and APHIS did not agree on the status of E. australis . In 2006, the Ministry of Livestock, Agriculture, and Fisheries (MGAP) of Uruguay asked for an update of the citrus PRA. The present risk assessment is for the importation of commercially grown and packed fresh Citrus, Citrus hyb rids, and Fortunella fruit from Uruguay into the continental United States. Most commercial production in Uruguay occurs in the Northern and Southern areas of the country (Figure C1 in Appendix C) . The Northern area includes the departments 1 of Salto, Pay sandú, Río Negro, and Rivera. The Southern area includes the departments of San José, Canelones, Montevideo, Maldonado, and Colonia. The most recent National Citrus Census ( CHNPC, 1996 ) reported that 85 percent of the total 20,862 hectares planted are located in the Northern area and 15 percent in the Southern area of the country . Prominent technological improvements implemented in Uruguay include the plant certification program, improvements in irrigation systems, continuous growth in producti vity , changes to new varieties, modern cold storage facilities, and improvements in logistics. The citrus industry has developed an agroindustrial infrastructure of packing, cold storage, and ports that facilitates exports. The DGSA has a significant role in safeguarding citrus production through the support of phy tosanitary surveillance, phy

tosanitary certification systems for export and its commitment in the opening of new markets. Great efforts are being made to produce high quality fruit within a respon sible production process that satisfies the requirements of the Quality Management Sy stems, Good Agricultural Practices, and Traceability ( Global G.A.P., 2008)

. There are up to 14 packinghouses for citrus fruit processing in Uruguay : seven in the Norther n area and the remainder in the Southern area. Five of them also have their own cold storage facilities and degreening chambers. Nueva Palmira Fruit Terminal, Frigofrut S.A, has I SO 9000:2000 certification and operates under a bar coding s ys tem called Cool track. The

1 Departments in Uruguay are equivalent of states or provinces.Pest Risk Assessment for Citrus from Uruguay

Ver. 9 December 1 6 , 201 2 4 Montevideo port is used mainly to export fruit in containers. Commercial production areas and packinghouses approved for export in these provinces are defined b y DGSA through a system of registration that is required in Uruguay for traceability (Appendices A , B , and C ). This assessment is independent of previous risk assessment work. It draws from information compiled by

DGSA and previous assessments as a baseline for pest listing, but it uses a different, more familiar methodology . The present pest risk assessment also incorporates important research, experience, and other evidence gained over the past thirteen ye ars. The pest list has been substantially

updated based on new information provided by DGSA or found by

APHI S in the current literature. New information and experience have also contributed to a better understanding of the main pest risks associated with Citrus from Uruguay, including citrus canker, sweet orange scab, mites, fruit flies, and Lepidoptera pests

– all pests of quarantine co ncern that are identified in this assessment.
**1.3 Citrus Pest Surveillance** The DGSA continuall y s urveys for quarantine pests of concern for importing countries through pre - harvest inspection of export fruit. These pre

- harvest surveys are conducted on 100 percent of plants in all the places of production registered for export. Specific annual surveys are conducted in groves with fruit going to the domestic market. In the main citrus production area of Uruguay (north), the DGSA has 50 trained inspectors and all the export companies have trained personnel who help with the pre

- harvest inspection. All pests found during survey s and inspections that are not identifiable by

personnel are sent to the DGSA lab for diagnosis. In addition, the DGSA has an agreement with the Agronomic Faculty and the National Research Institute, and their phy tosanitary experts inform the DGSA about citrus survey and research conducted b y these institutions.
See **Appendix A**  for a detailed update on surveillance for some of the quarantine pests including Xanthomonas citri subsp. citri, Guignardia citricarpa, Ceratitis capitata , and Anastrepha fraterculus. **1.4 Citrus Fruit Phytosanitary Certification** In 1998 the DGSA implemented the Citrus Fruit Phy tosanitary Certification System (CFPCS) to comply with phy tosanitary requirements of citrus fruit for export (summary in Appendix D ). Accomplishments of this sy stem follow:

 CFPCS has demonstrated that it can meet requirements for any export market.
 The Uruguayan citrus industry h as improved the traceability s ys tems, adjusting them for phy tosanitary regulation purposes.

 CFPCS allows the official and private sectors to clearl y define their responsibilities in production and export.Pest Risk Assessment for Citrus from Uruguay

Ver. 9 December 1 6 , 201 2 5 

### 2 **. Risk Assessment** 
**2.1 Assessment of Weediness Potential of Citrus**  **spp. and Fortunella**  **spp.** Citrus and Fortunella species do not have s ignificant potential as weeds indicated in the scientific literature, so we concluded that Citrus and Fortunella species are not potential weeds ( Table 1)

. **Table 1** 
**.** Weediness potential of Citrus spp., Fortunella spp., and Citrus hyb rids. **Plant Species** : Sweet orange ( Citrus sinensis (L .) Osbeck), lemons ( C. limon (L .) Burm. f. ), mandarins ( C. reticulata Blanco, C. clementina Hort. ex Tanaka , C. deliciosa Ten., C. unshiu Marcow), the Citrus

- related g enus Fortunella ( Fortunella japonica ( Thunb .) Swingle, F. margarita (Lour.) Swingle ), and Citrus hy brids. **Phase 1:** Consider whether the species is new to or not widely prevalent in the United States (exclude plants grown under USDA permit in approved containment facilities). Citrus limon , C. sinensis , C. reticulata, C. paradisi, C. clementina, C. unshiu , Citrus hy brids, F. japonica and F. margarita are introduced and grown in the United States (USDA

-NRCS, 2007b; USDA

- ERS, 2007)

. **Phase 2:** Weediness Potential. I s Citrus listed in: No Geographical Atlas of World W eeds ( Holm et al., 1979 ) No Invasive Plant Species of the W orld: A Reference Guide to Environmental Weeds (Weber, 2003) No World's Worst Weeds ( Holm et al., 1977 ) No World Weeds. Natural Histories and Distribution (Holm et al., 1977 ) No Report of the Technical Committee to Evaluate Noxious Weeds; Exotic Weeds for

Federal Noxious Weed Act ( Gunn and Ritchie, 1982 ) No Economically Important Foreign Weeds ( Reed, 1977 ) No Weed Science Society of America list (WSSA, 2007 ) Yes Is there any literature reference indicating weed status ( e.g. , AGRICOLA , CAB ,

Biological Abstracts , AGRIS; Internet search")? Biondi and Pedrosa

- Macedo, 2008 report that Citrus limon is invasive in Brazil. No 7CFR § 360 (January 1, 2005; Skinner et al., 2008 ). Yes Randall ( 2007 ) listed the status of the following species: C. limon : weed, naturalized,

garden escape, environmental weed, cultivation escape, casual alien. C. reticulata : weed, naturalized, introduced. C. sinensis : weed, naturalized, introduced, environmental weed , casual alien. Citrus spp .: weed **Phase 3:** Summary

and Conclusions: There is no reason to consider Citrus species as potential weeds because various species, including C. sinensis , C. x paradisi, C. limon , C. reticulata , C. clementina , C. unshiu and Citrus hy brids are cultivated throughout the United States; furthermore, the scientific literature provides little indication of weed potential.Pest Risk Assessment for Citrus from Uruguay

Ver. 9 December 1 6 , 201 2 6 **2.2 Pests intercepted on**  **Citrus spp.**  APHI S

- PPQ maintains a database of all the interceptions of pests on commodities entering the United States (PestID, 2007 ) , including permit cargo, general cargo, ship’s quarters, ship’s holds, passenger baggage, ship stores, mail, and other pathways. B etween 1985 and 2007, 25,450 interception records exist for Citrus fr uit from South America (PestID, 2007) , but only 160 of these records were from Uruguay ( PestID, 2007 ) , which increased to 174 records in 2008 (PestID, 2008) . Pest interception records on Citrus spp. from South America (1985

- 2007) are shown in Appendix B in Table B 1 , and from Uruguay (1985

- 200 8 ) in Table B2. No interceptions were made of Fortunella spp. from South America. 2.2.1. Pests intercepted on Citrus spp. from Uruguay Most of these interceptions were made from passenger baggage, and ship’s stores and quarters. The interception data shows three records from permit cargo, which must be in error, since Uruguay is not authorized to export citrus fruit to the United States. Arthropods: Aonidiella sp
. (Homoptera: Diaspididae) Lepidosaphes beckii (Homoptera: Diaspididae) Parlatoria sp. Parlatoria cinerea (Homoptera: Diaspididae) Parlatoria pergandii (Homoptera: Diaspididae) Parlatoria ziziphi (Homoptera: Diaspididae) Pseudococcus sp. Tarsonemus sp. Pathogens: Colletotrichum sp. Coniothyriu m sp. Diaporthe citri F. A. Wolf [Anamorph: Phomopsis citri H. S. Fawcett] (As comycetes: Diaporthales) Elsinoё australis Bitanc. & Jenkins (Elsinoaceae) Elsinoё sp. (Elsinoceae) Phoma sp. Xanthomonas citri subsp. citri [reported as Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. citri (Hasse) Dye and Xanthomonas campestris pv. citri (Hasse) Dye] (Xanthomonadaceae) 2.2.2 Pests intercepted on Citrus from South America Arthropods: We added the following to the pest list based on interceptions and evidence that they are Citrus pests in Uruguay : Aleurocanthus woglumi Ashby (Aley rodidae) Aleurothrixus floccosus Maskell (Aley rodidae) Amyelois transitella (Walker) (P yralidae) Aonidiella aurantii (Maskell) (Diaspididae) Aspidiotus excisus Green (Diaspididae)Pest Risk Assessment for Citrus from Uruguay

Ver. 9 December 1 6 , 201 2 7 Aspidiotus nerii Bouche (Diaspididae) Aulacorthum solani (Kaltenbach) (Aphididae) Brevipalpus obovatus Donnadieu (Tenuipalpidae) Ceratitis capitata (Wiedemann) (Tephritidae) Chysomphalus dictyospermi (Morgan) (Diaspididae) Coccus hesperidium (L.) (Coccidae) Dialeurodes ci tri (Ashmead) (Aley rodidae) Dialeurodes citrifolii (Morgan) (Aley rodidae) Diaphorina citri Kuwa Yama (Psyllidae) Hemiberlesia rapax (Comstock) (Diaspididae) Lepidosaphes beckii (Newman) (Diaspididae) Lepidosaphes gloverii (Packard) (Diaspididae) Parlatoria ziziphi (Lucas) (Diaspididae) Planococcus citri (Risso) (Pseudococcidae) Planococcus minor (Maskell) (Pseudococcidae) Pseudaonidia trilobitiformis (Green) (Diaspididae) Pathogens: Although numerous interceptions of pathogens occurred from South America, there were none added to the pest list based on this evidence. Most pathogens reported from South America had directly been reported from Uruguay on Citrus

. **2.3 Pests Associated with**  **Citrus spp. and hybrids and**  **Fortunella spp. in Uruguay** 
2.3 .1 Pest Categorization

– Identification of Quarantine Pests Our procedures are based on I SPM 11 (IPPC, 2007 a). The first step in identifying quarantine pests is to present a comprehensive list of potential quarantine pests known to occur in the country or reg ion from which the commodity is to be exported. The list includes all pests in the exporting country

associated with the proposed export commodity

. Because all pests on the list are associated with the plant species, they are considered to be “of potential economic importance” (IPPC, 2007 a). The listed pests may or may not also occur in the United States. Comprehensive pest lists are developed because of the dy namic nature of quarantine species (for example, species move into new territories , and, on the other hand, eradication programs change their distribution).
The definition of a quarantine pest has two primary components (IPPC, 2007 b : I SPM #5 ). First, a pest must be “of potential economic importance” to be included in the comprehensive list of potential quarantine pests. An organism is considered to be of potential economic importance if evidence demonstrates that the organism is harmful and has an association with the plant species being assessed. Second, to be considered a quarantine pest, an organism must satisfy geographic and regulatory

criteria; specificall y, the pest must not yet be present in the area being assessed, or if present, it should be under official control (IPPC, 2007 b ). The risk assessment documents the evidence used to deter mine how each organism satisfies the defining criteria for a quarantine pest. Pertinent geographic and regulatory information with respect to the exporting country and the United States is provided on the comprehensive pest list.Pest Risk Assessment for Citrus from Uruguay

Ver. 9 December 1 6 , 201 2 8 If none of the listed pest s satisfy the geographic and regulatory criteria for a quarantine pest, further assessment is not necessary

. Below we comprehensive ly listed pests for Citrus spp., Citrus hy brids, and Fortunella spp. from Uruguay (Table 2)

. In the pest list we identified the presence or absence of these pests in the United States and the quarantine status of the pest with respect to the United States. If the pest has quarantine status we identify the generall y affected plant part or parts, and whether or not the pest is likely to follow the pathway

to enter the United States on commerciall y exported Citrus spp., Citrus hy brids, or Fortunella spp. For each piece of information, we include pertinent citations for distribution, host association, and biology of the pest for quar antine species.
2.3 .2 Pest Categorization

– Quarantine Pests Likely to Follow the Pathway A pest is considered to follow the pathway if it is associated with the commodity and likel y to survive with the commodity until entry

into the United States. Quarantine pests identified as likely to be associated with the potential export commodity are subject to Steps 5

- 7 of the USDA Guidelines (PPQ, 2000)

. The biology and pest potential for these pests are documented as appropriate to inform the risk anal ys is; therefore, it is reasonable to assume that these quarantine pests:
 will be present in the exporting country ;
 will be associated with the commodity at the time of harvest; and
 will remain with the commodity in a viable form during harvesting, packing, and shipp ing procedures. Because all pests associated with the plant species are listed, there will be quarantine pests not expected to follow the pathway

. For example:

 a pest may

be onl y associated with plant parts other than commodity shipped, or
 a pest may

not reasonably

be expected to remain with the commodity during harvest and packing. The status of the pests in the table assumes that the commodity will be produced using commercial practices and that post

- harvest measures will include culling, cleaning (remo ving foreign matter, washing with brushing), and dipping with chemicals such as chlorine and/or other disinfectants, waxing, treatment with fungicides ( imazalil and/or thiabendazole ) and the exclusion of overripe fruit ( 7 CFR § 301.75

- 1 to 310.75

- 14, 2011; 7 CFR § 305.11, 2010 ; APHI S

- USDA, 2010 b ). If post

- harvest processes are not followed, then status of the pests in the table may change, particularly

the likelihood of the pest following the pathway

. Pests not expected to follow the pathway are not considered. Supporting information must be documented on the pest list or in the text. The decision to not further anal yze a particular pest only applies to the current assessment; a pest may pose a different level of risk for the same commodity

from a di fferent country , or for a different commodity ( e.g
. , propagative cuttings) from the same host plant species. If any of the pests should be intercepted in commodity shipments, quarantine action may be taken at the port

- of

- entry and additional risk anal ys es may be conducted. Finall y, the status of a pest may change (that is, global population dy namics result in changes in the distribution of pests) and the current document may need to be updated if significant changes occur in the future. A significant change would include the appearance of aPest Risk Assessment for Citrus from Uruguay

Ver. 9 December 1 6 , 201 2 9 new serious quarantine pest species in the exporting country or changes in the quarantine status of an existing pest if that organism becomes established in the United States and is deregulated.
We compiled the list by reviewing scientific literature and the PPQ database of pests intercepted on Citrus and Fortunella species and hyb rids from South America (PestID, 2007) , specifically Uruguay (PestID, 2008). Of the pests intercepted on Citrus or Fortunella spp. from South America (Appendix B , Table B 1) and from Uruguay specifically ( Table B 2), pests included in the list associated with c itrus in Uruguay conformed to the following criteria: o Organisms identified to species level found in Uruguay

. o Organisms identified to the genus level were included in the list only if reported on Citrus or Fortunella in Uruguay ; if the genus is not known to occur in the United States the pest was analyzed further o Intercepted pests identified to only the family level were not included because it is impossible to confirm pest identity

. The list of pests intercepted on Citrus spp. from South America was reviewed in consultation with DGSA Mycologist Luis Díaz and Entomologist Iris B. Scatoni, Faculty of Agronomy

in Uruguay (Scatoni, 2007). Pest interceptions from Citrus or Fortunella spp. from South America and Uruguay

specifically are summarized from the extended table in Appendix B

. Unless the genus or higher taxonomic group does not occur in the United States, o rganisms identified to the genus or higher taxonomic level, are not analyzed further, even though individual species within those taxonomic groups are potential pests that may or may not occur within the United States , The IPPC guidelines do not require risk assessment of pests identified only by genus name (IPPC, 2007 a : I SPM # 11 ). By necessity, pest risk assessments focus on those organisms for which adequate biological and taxonomic information is available. Often, there are many species within a genus, and it is not reasonable to assume that the biology of all organisms within a genus is identical. Lack of species identification may indicate the limits of the current taxonomic knowledge, or inadequacy of the life stage or the quality of the specimen sub mitted for complete identification. The lack of identification at the species level does not rule out the possibility

that a high risk quarantine pest was intercepted or that the intercepted pest was not a quarantine pest. By

developing detailed assessment s for known pests that inhabit a variety of niches on the parent commodity, for example, on the surface of, within the stem or fruit, on the flowers, etc., effective mitigation measures may be developed to eliminate the known pests, and any similar unknown ones that inhabit the same niches. Lack of biological information on any given insect or pathogen should not be equated with either a low or high risk. Organisms identified to the genus or higher taxonomic level, are not analyzed further, even though individual species within those taxonomic groups are potential pests that may or may not occur within the United States. Pests in this category were: Tarsonemus sp ., Aonidiella sp. , Colletotrichum sp. Cladosporium sp., and Phoma sp.Pest Risk Assessment for Citrus from Uruguay

Ver. 9 December 1 6 , 201 2 10 **Table 2** 

. Pests Associated with Citrus spp., Citrus hybrids, and Fortunella spp. in Uruguay. Scientific names in **bold** indicate when a synonym is the name reported from Uruguay. Pests shaded in gray are quarantine pests likely to follow the pathway

and are anal yz ed below. **Pest Geographic**  **Distribution 2**  **Host**

**association Quaran** 
****

**tine Pest Follows** 

**pathway 3**  **Plant Part**

**Affected ARTHROPODS**  **ACARI Eriophydiae**  Aceria sheldoni (Ewing), Sy n: **Eriophyes sheldoni**  Ewing UY (Bentancourt and

Scatoni, 1999), US (CA, FL, HI) (Amrine and Stasny , 1994; CABI, 2012 ) Amrine and

Stasny , 1994; Bentancourt and Scatoni, 1999; CABI, 2012 No NA NA

Phyllocoptruta oleivora (Ashmead) UY (Bentancourt and

Scatoni, 1999; CABI, 20 12 ), US (Anciso et al., 2002; CABI, 20 12 ) Anciso et al.,

2002; Bentancourt and Scatoni, 1999; CABI, 20 12 No NA NA

**Tarsonemidae** Polyphagotarsonemus latus Banks UY (Bentancourt and

Scatoni, 1999; Bernal, 1995), US (CABI, 20 12 ) Bentancourt

and Scatoni, 1999; Bernal, 1995; CABI, 20 12 No NA NA

Tarsonemus sp. 4 UY (PestID, 2008) PestID, 2008 Yes Yes Fruit (PestID, 2008) **Tenuipalpidae** Brevipalpus obovatus Donnadieu UY (Bentancourt and

Scatoni, 1999; CABI, 20 12 ), US (Anciso et al., 2002; CABI, 20 12 ) Anciso et al.,

2002; Bentancourt and Scatoni, 1999; CABI, 20 12 No NA NA

2 Abbreviations for Geographic Distribution: UY = Uruguay, US = United States: AL = Alabama, AZ = Arizona, CA = California, DC = District of Columbia, FL = Florida, GA= Georgia, HI= Hawaii, ID = Idaho, LA = Louisiana, MS = Mississippi, NC = North Carolina, OK = Oklahoma, SC = South Carolina, TX = Texas, VA = Virginia, VI = Virgin Islands. 3 NA means Not Applicable. For non

- quarantine pests, we did not include pathway and plant part information. 4 One interception of Tarsonemus sp. was associated with Citrus fruit considered to be of Uruguayan origin. PestID indicates that this was intercepted from permit cargo, but this must be in error since no permit cargo shipments are yet allowed from Uruguay. The citrus intercepted were likely not commercial export products, but were locally grown for consumption. The precise origin of intercepted items is uncertain since it may have originated in any country previously visited by the passenger.Pest Risk Assessment for Citrus from Uruguay

Ver. 9 December 1 6 , 201 2 11 **Pest Geographic**  **Distribution 2**  **Host**

**association Quaran** 
****

**tine Pest Follows** 

**pathway 3**  **Plant Part**

**Affected** Brevipalpus phoenicis Geijskes UY (Bentancourt and

Scatoni, 1999), US (DC, FL, TX, HI) (Anciso et al., 2002; CABI, 20 12 ) Anciso et al.,

2002; Bentancourt and Scatoni, 1999; CABI, 20 12 ) No NA NA

**Tetranychidae** Bryobia rubrioculus (Scheuten) UY (Bentancourt and

Scatoni, 1999; Bolland et al., 1998), US (Bolland et al., 1998; Bolland et

al., 1998 No NA NA

Eutetranychus banksi Mc Gregor UY (Bentancourt and

Scatoni, 1999: Bolland et al., 1998), US (TX) (Anciso et al., 2002; Bolland et al., 1998) Anciso et al.,

2002; Bentancourt and Scatoni, 1999; Bolland et al., 1998 No NA NA

Panonychus ulmi Koch UY (Bentancourt and Scatoni, 1999; CABI, 20 12 ), US (CABI, 2007; Bolland et al., 1998) CABI, 20 12 ;

Bolland et al., 1998 No NA NA

Tetranychus cinnabarinus (Boisduval) UY (Bentancourt and

Scatoni, 1999; Bolland et al., 1998), US (CA, HI , TX) (CABI, 20 12 ; Bol land et al., 1998) Bentancourt

and Scatoni, 1999: Bolland et al., 1998; CABI, 20 12 No NA NA

Tetranychus mexicanus (McGregor) UY (Bentancourt and

Scatoni, 1999; Bolland et al., 1998), US (Bolland et al., 1998) Bentancourt

and Scatoni, 1999; Bolland et al., 1998; CABI, 20 12 No NA NA

Tetranychus urticae Koch UY (Bentancourt and

Scatoni, 1999; Bolland et al., 1998), US (Bolland et al., 1998; CABI, 20 12 ) Bentancourt

and Scatoni, 1999; Bolland et al., 1998; CABI, 20 12 No NA NAPest Risk Assessment for Citrus from Uruguay

Ver. 9 December 1 6 , 201 2 12 **Pest Geographic**  **Distribution 2**  **Host**

**association Quaran** 
****

**tine Pest Follows** 

**pathway 3**  **Plant Part**

**Affected Coleoptera**  **: Cerambycidae**  Ancylocera cardinalis (Dalman) UY (Monné and

Hovore, 2005; Duffy , 1960) Bentancourt

and Scatoni, 1999; Duffy , 1960 Yes No Twigs, branches, stems (Bentancourt and Scatoni, 1999), items (Borror et al., 1989) Diploschema rotundicolle (Serville) UY (Bentancourt &

Scatoni, 1999; Monné, 2005) Bentancourt

& Scatoni, 1999 Yes No Twigs, branches, stems (Bentancourt and Scatoni, 1999) Rhopalophora collaris (Germar) UY (Monné and

Hovore, 2002) Duffy , 1960 Yes No Wood (Duffy , 1960) Stenodontes spinibarbis (L .) UY (Sandoval

Clavería, 2005) Duffy , 1960 Yes No Wood (Duffy , 1960) Trachyderes striatus (F.) UY ( Duffy , 1960; Rinderknecht, 2005) Duffy , 1960 Yes No Wood (Duffy , 1960) Trachyderes thoracicus (Olivier) Sy

n: Retrachyderes thoracicus (Ol.) UY ( Bentancourt and

Scatoni, 1999; Rinderknecht, 2005) Bentancourt

and Scatoni, 1999; Duffy , 1960 Yes No Wood (Duffy , 1960) , twigs, trunk (Bentancourt and Scatoni, 1999) **Coleoptera :**  **Chrysomelidae** Diabrotica significata Grahan UY (Bentancourt and

Scatoni, 1999) Bentancourt

and Scatoni, 1999 Yes No 5 Fruits, flowers, leaves, roots, stems, (Cabrera Walsh, 2003)

5 Adults of Diabrotica feed on leaves, fruit surfaces, and flowers. They are highly mobile, capable of flight, and are not expected to remain on fruit after harvest and packing (Cabrera Walsh, 2003). The larvae are pests on roots, especially maize (CABI, 2007). Thus, they are unlikely to follow the pathway.Pest Risk Assessment for Citrus from Uruguay

Ver. 9 December 1 6 , 201 2 13 **Pest Geographic**  **Distribution 2**  **Host**

**association Quaran** 
****

**tine Pest Follows** 

**pathway 3**  **Plant Part**

**Affected** Diabrotica speciosa (Germar) UY (Bentancourt and

Scatoni, 1999; CABI, 20 12 Bentancourt

and Scatoni, 1999; CABI, 2 0 12 Yes No 6 Fruits, flowers, leaves, roots, stems, whole plants (Cabrera Walsh, 2003) **Coleoptera :**  **Curculionidae** Naupactus xanthographus (Germar) UY (Bentancourt and

Scatoni, 1999) CABI, 20 12 ;

Bentancourt and Scatoni, 1999 Yes No 6 Leaves, fruit, roots, shoots (Whitehead and Whittle, 1985) Pantomorus cervinus (Boheman) UY (CABI, 20 12 ;

Wibmer and O'Brien, 1986), US (CABI, 20 12 ) CABI, 20 12 No NA NA

Rhynchophorus palmarum (Linnaeus) UY (CABI, 20 12 ) CABI, 20 12 Yes No 7 Fruit (EPPO, 2005a) **Coleoptera :**  **Platypodidae** Megaplatypus mutatus (Chapuis) (s yn : Platypus mutatus (Chapuis), P

. sulcatus (Dejean) ) UY (EPPO, 2004 ;

Alfaro, 2007 ) EPPO, 2004 ;

Alfaro et al., 2007 Yes No Wood (EPPO, 2004)

**Coleoptera :**  **Scolytidae** Xyleborus volvulus (Fabricius ) UY (CABI, 20 12 ;

PEET, 2009 ), US (CABI, 20 12 ) CABI, 20 12 No No Wood, stems, bark (CABI, 20 12 ) **Diptera : Tephritidae**  Anastrepha fraterculus Wiedemann UY (Bentancourt and

Scatoni, 1999; CABI, 20 12 ; EPPO, 2008a ), US (TX) 8 (CABI, 20 12 ; EPPO, 2008a) Bentancourt

and Scatoni, 1999; CABI, 20 12 Yes Yes 9 Fruit (CABI, 20 12 )

6 Only adults feed on the fruit surface. Adults are highly mobile and are not expected to remain on the fruit through harvest. 7 Only Rhynchophorus palmarum adults feed on the surfaces of citrus fruit. These adult insects are large, conspicuous (black, 4

– 5 cm in length, approx. 1.4 cm wide, weigh 1.6

–2 g) , and highly mobile (EPPO, 2005a), and therefore are highly unlikely to remain on fruit after harvest and commercial processing

. 8 Weems (Weems, 2002) included south Texas in the distribution of A. fraterculus . However the USDA has informed EPPO that A. fraterculus does not occur in the United States. Pests Not Known to Occur No. 18 (INKTO/PINKTO, 2002) explains that the records in Texas are a distinct form of the species, with different host preferences and possibly mo rphology.Pest Risk Assessment for Citrus from Uruguay

Ver. 9 December 1 6 , 201 2 14 **Pest Geographic**  **Distribution 2**  **Host**

**association Quaran** 
****

**tine Pest Follows** 

**pathway 3**  **Plant Part**

**Affected** Ceratitis capitata (Wiedemann) UY (Bentancourt and

Scatoni, 1999; CABI, 20 12 ) US (HI), CA, TX, and FL (eradicated) (CABI, 20 12 ; EPPO, 2005b Bentancourt

and Scatoni, 1999; CABI, 20 12 11 Yes Yes Fruit (CABI, 20 12 )

**Hemiptera :**  **Aleyrodidae** Aleurocanthus woglumi Ashby UY (PestID, 2008;

Evans, 2006), US (FL) (Nguyen et al., 2007) (HI, TX) (CABI, 20 12 ) Nguye n et

al., 2007 Yes No Leaves (CABI, 20 12 )

Aleurothrixus howardi (Quaintance) [= Aleurothrixus floccusus (Maskell)] UY (Bentancourt and

Scatoni, 1999), US (CA, FL, TX, HI) (CABI, 20 12 ; Nearctica, 2007) Bentancourt

and Scatoni, 1999; Timmer and Duncan, 1999; CABI, 20 12 No NA NA

Dialeurodes citri (Ashmead) UY (Bentancourt and

Scatoni, 1999, US (CABI, 20 12 ; Nearctica, 2007) Bentancourt

and Scatoni, 1999; CABI, 20 12 ; Timmer and Duncan, 1999 No NA NA

Dialeurodes citrifolii (Morgan) UY (Bentancourt and

Scatoni, 1999), US (CABI, 20 12 ; Nearctica, 2007) Bentancourt

and Scatoni, 1999; CABI, 20 12 No NA NA

Paraleyrodes citri Bondar UY (Bentancourt and

Scatoni, 1999), US (TX) (Anciso et al., 2002) Bentancourt

and Scatoni, 1999; Evans, 2006 Yes No Leaves (Bentancourt and Scatoni, 1999) **Hemiptera: Aphididae**  Aphis fabae (Scopoli) UY, US (CABI, 20 12 ) CABI, 20 12 No NA NA

9 Citrus limon (not fully mature) are not considered hosts of A. fraterculus, however other Citrus species are hosts, thus for Citrus as a group, A. fraterculus is considered to follow the pathway.Pest Risk Assessment for Citrus from Uruguay

Ver. 9 December 1 6 , 201 2 15 **Pest Geographic**  **Distribution 2**  **Host**

**association Quaran** 
****

**tine Pest Follows** 

**pathway 3**  **Plant Part**

**Affected** Aphis gossypii Glover UY (Bentancourt and Scatoni, 1999; CABI, 20 12 ), US (CABI, 20 12 ; Nearctica, 2007) Anciso et al.,

2002; Bentancourt and Scatoni, 1999; CABI, 20 12 No NA NA

Aphis spiraecola Patch UY (Bentancourt and Scatoni, 2002; CABI, 20 12 ), US (CABI, 20 12 ) Anciso et al.,

2002; Bentancourt and Scatoni, 2002; CABI, 20 12 No NA NA

Aulacorthum solani Kaltenbach UY (Bentancourt and

Scatoni, 2002), US (Nearctica, 2007) Bentancourt

and Scatoni, 2002; CABI, 20 12 No NA NA

Brachycaudus helichrysi Kaltenbach UY (Bentancourt and

Scatoni, 1999), US (CA, ID) (CABI, 20 12 ; Nearctica, 2007) CABI, 20 12 No NA NA

Macrosiphum euphorbiae (Thomas) UY (Bentancourt and

Scatoni, 1999; CABI, 20 12 ), US (CABI, 20 12 ; Nearctica, 2007) Bentancourt

and Scatoni, 1999; CABI, 20 12 No NA NA

Myzus persicae Sulzer UY (Bentancourt and Scatoni, 1999; CABI, 20 12 ) ; US (CABI, 20 12 ; Nearctica, 2007 ) Bentancourt

and Scatoni, 1999; CABI, 20 12 No NA NA

Rhopalosiphum maidis (Fitch) UY (Bentancourt and

Scatoni, 1999; CABI, 20 12 ), US (Nearctica, 2007; CABI, 20 12 ) CABI, 20 12 No NA NA

Toxoptera aurantii Bo yer de Fonscolombe UY ( Bentancourt and

Scatoni, 1999; CABI, 20 12 ), US (CABI, 20 12 ; Nearctica, 2007) Bentancourt

and Scatoni, 1999; CABI, 20 12 No NA NA

Toxoptera citricidus (Kirkaldi) UY (Bentancourt and

Scatoni, 1999); US (FL, HI) (CABI, 20 12 ; Nearctica, 2007) CABI, 20 12 Yes No Leaves, flower buds (CABI, 20 12 )Pest Risk Assessment for Citrus from Uruguay

Ver. 9 December 1 6 , 201 2 16 **Pest Geographic**  **Distribution 2**  **Host**

**association Quaran** 
****

**tine Pest Follows** 

**pathway 3**  **Plant Part**

**Affected Hemiptera:**  **Cicadellidae** Ceresa ustulata Fairmaire 10 UY (Museo Virtual de

la Biodiversidad, 2008 ; de Andrade, 2004 ) de Coll et al.,

1998 Yes No Leaves, shoots (de Coll et al., 1998) Ciminius platensis (Berg) UY (Remes

- Lenicov

et al., 1999) Remes

Lenicov et al., 1999 Yes No Leaves (Ferreira et al., 2003) Frequenamia spiniventris Linnavuori & DeLong (Sy n.: Bahita spiniventris Linnavuori) 10 UY (Rocha Zanol,

2003) de Coll et al.,

1998; Beltrán et al., 2004 Yes No Leaves, shoots (Beltrán et al., 2004; de Coll et al., 1998)

**Hemiptera: Coccidae**  Ceroplastes grandis Hempel UY (Bentancourt and

Scatoni, 1999) Ben

- Dov et

al., 2007; Bentancourt and Scatoni, 1999 Yes No Stems, twigs, leaves (Bentancourt and Scatoni, 1999) Ceroplastes rusci (L .) UY (Bentancourt and Scatoni, 1999; CABI, 20 12 ), US (FL) (CABI, 20 12 ; Ben

Dov et al., 2007; Miller and Miller, 2003 ) Ben

- Dov et

al., 2007; Bentancourt and Scatoni, 1999; CABI, 20 12 ; Miller and Miller, 2003 Yes No Leaves,stems, branches (CABI, 20 12 )

Ceroplastes sinensis Del Guercio UY (Bentancourt and

Scatoni, 1999), US (CA, NC, VA) (Miller and Miller, 2003; Nearctica, 2007; Stimmel, 1998) Ben

- Dov et

al., 2007; Bentancourt and Scatoni, 1999; Miller and Miller, 2003; Qin et al., 1994; Stimmel, 1998 Yes No Leaves, stems (Stimmel, 1998)

10 This species is a potential vector of CVC strains of X ylella fastidiosa (de Coll et al., 1998).Pest Risk Assessment for Citrus from Uruguay

Ver. 9 December 1 6 , 201 2 17 **Pest Geographic**  **Distribution 2**  **Host**

**association Quaran** 
****

**tine Pest Follows** 

**pathway 3**  **Plant Part**

**Affected** Coccus hesperidum L. UY (Bentancourt and Scatoni, 1999; CABI, 20 12 ), US (CABI, 20 12 ; Miller and Miller, 2003; Nearctica, 2007) Anciso et al.,

2002; Bentancourt and Scatoni, 1999; CABI, 20 12 No NA NA

Coccus perlatus (Cockerell) Sy

n: Parthenolecanium perlatum (Cockerell) UY (Bentancourt and

Scatoni, 1999) Ben

- Dov et

al., 2007; Bentancourt and Scatoni, 1999 Yes No Leaves (Bentancourt and Scatoni, 1999) Eulecanium perinflatum (Cockerell) UY (Ben

- Dov et al.,

2007; Bentancourt and Scatoni, 1999) Ben

- Dov et

al., 2007; Bentancourt and Scatoni, 1999 Yes No Branches (Bentancourt and Scatoni, 1999)
Parthenolecanium persicae (Fabricius) UY (CABI, 20 12 ;

Bentancourt and Scatoni, 1999), US (CABI, 20 12 ; Miller and Miller, 200 3; Ben

Dov et al., 2007; Nearctica, 2007) CABI, 20 12 ;

Ben

- Dov et al., 2007 No NA NA

Saissetia coffeae (Walker) UY (Bentancourt and

Scatoni, 1999; CABI, 20 12 ), US (Ben

- Dov et al., 2007; CABI, 20 12 ; Miller and Miller, 2003; Nearctica, 2007) Ben

- Dov et

al., 2007; CABI, 20 12 No NA NA

Saissetia oleae (Olivier) UY (Bentancourt and Scatoni, 1999; CABI, 20 12 ), US (Ben

- Dov et al., 2007; CABI, 20 12 ; Miller and Miller, 2003; Nearctica, 2007) Ben

- Dov et

al., 2007; Bentancourt and Scatoni, 1999; CABI, 20 12 No NA NA

**Hemiptera: Diaspididae**  Abgrallaspis cyanophylli (Signoret) [= Hemiberlesia cyanophylli ] UY (Watson, 2005 ) ,

US (Ben

- Dov et al., 2007) Watson,

2005 No NA NAPest Risk Assessment for Citrus from Uruguay

Ver. 9 December 1 6 , 201 2 18 **Pest Geographic**  **Distribution 2**  **Host**

**association Quaran** 
****

**tine Pest Follows** 

**pathway 3**  **Plant Part**

**Affected** Aonidiella aurantii (Maskell) UY (Bentancourt and

Scatoni, 1999; CABI, 20 12 ), US (CABI, 20 12 ; Miller, 2005; Nearctica, 2007) Anciso et al.,

2002 ; Asplanato and García Marí, 2002 ; Bentancourt and Scatoni, 1999 ; CABI, 20 12 No NA NA

Aonidiella sp. 11 UY (PestID, 2008) PestID, 2008 Yes Yes Fruit (PestID, 2008) Aspidiotus nerii Bouché UY (Bentancourt and Scatoni, 1999; CABI, 20 12 ), US (CABI, 20 12 ; Miller, 2005; Nearctica, 2007) Bentancourt

and Scatoni, 1999; CABI, 20 12 No NA NA

Chrysomphalus aonidum (Linnaeus) UY (Bentancourt and

Scatoni, 1999; CABI, 20 12 ), US (CABI, 20 12 ; Miller, 2005; Nearctica, 2007) Anciso et al.,

2002; CABI, 20 12 ; Bentancourt and Scatoni, 1999 No NA NA

Chrysomphalus dictyospermi (Morgan) UY (Bentancourt and

Scatoni, 1999; CABI, 20 12 ), US (CABI, 20 12 ; Miller, 2005;Nearctica, 2007 Bentancourt

and Scatoni, 1999; CABI, 20 12 No NA NA

Diaspidiotus perniciosus (Comstock) [Sy

n: Quadraspidiotus perniciosus (Comstock)] UY (Bentancourt and

Scatoni, 1999; CABI, 20 12 ; Ben

- Dov et al., 2007), US ( Ben

- Dov et al., 2007 ; CABI, 20 12 ) Ben

- Dov et

al., 2007 No NA NA

Hemiberlesia rapax (Comstock) UY (Bentancourt and

Scatoni, 1999; Ben

Dov et al., 2007), US (Ben

- Dov et al., 2007) PestID,

20 12 ; Ben

Dov et al., 2007 No NA NA

11 Two interceptions of Aonidiella sp. were associated with citrus fruit considered to be of Uruguayan origin. The citrus intercepted were not commercial export products, but likely were locally grown for consumptio n. The precise origin of intercepted items is uncertain since it may have originated in any country previously visited by the passenger.Pest Risk Assessment for Citrus from Uruguay

Ver. 9 December 1 6 , 201 2 19 **Pest Geographic**  **Distribution 2**  **Host**

**association Quaran** 
****

**tine Pest Follows** 

**pathway 3**  **Plant Part**

**Affected** Lepidosaphes beckii (Newman) UY (Bentancourt and

Scatoni, 1999; CABI, 20 12 ; PestID, 2008), US (CABI, 20 12 ; Miller, 2005) Anciso et al.,

2002; Bentancourt and Scatoni, 1999; CABI, 20 12 No NA NA

Lepidosaphes gloverii ( Packard) UY (Bentancourt and

Scatoni, 1999), US (CABI, 20 12 ; Miller, 2005) CABI, 20 12 ;

Bentancourt and Scatoni, 1999 No NA NA

Lopholeucaspis cockerelli (Grandpré & Charmo y) UY, US (Ben

- Dov et

al., 2007) 17 Ben

- Dov et

al., 2007 No NA NA

Parlatoria cinerea Hadden UY (PestID, 20 12 12 ) Watson, 2005 Yes Yes 13 Stems, branches, leaves, fruit, roots (rarely) (Watson, 2005) Parlatoria pergandii Comstock UY (PestID, 20 12 14 ),

US (CABI, 20 12 ) CABI, 20 12 No NA NA Parlatoria ziziphi (Lucas) UY (PestID, 20 12 15 ) ,

US (FL, HI, MS) (CABI, 20 12 ) CABI, 20 12 Yes 16 Yes Fruit, leaves, stems (CABI, 20 12 ) Pseudaonidia trilobitiformis (Green) UY, US (FL) (Ben

Dov et al., 2007) 17 Ben

- Dov et

al., 2007; CABI, 20 12 Yes No Leaves (Watson, 2005) Pseudaulacaspis pentagona (Targioni Tozzetti) UY (Bentancourt and

Scatoni, 1999; Ben

Dov et al., 2007), US (Ben

- Dov et al., 2007) Ben

- Dov et

al., 2007 No NA NA

12 Parlatoria cinerea wa s intercepted at U.S. ports of entry associated with c itrus from 1985 to the present (PestID, 20 12 ). 13 Parlatoria cinerea wa s not analyzed further due to the very low likelihood of establishment of armored scales (Zlotina and Hennessey, 2007). 14 Parlatoria pergandii wa s intercepted at U.S. ports of entry associated with c itrus from 1985 to the present (PestID, 20 12 ). 15 Parlatoria ziziphi wa s intercepted at U.S. ports of entry associated with c itrus in baggage and ships’ stores 16 times from 1985 to the present (PestID, 20 12 ). Parlatoria ziziphi wa s not further analyze d because, although armored scales may enter on commercial fruit for consumption, they are not expected to become established ( Miller, 1985; Zlotina and Hennessey, 2007 ). 16 This is a quarantine significant species with limited distribution in the United States and is being considered by APHIS for official control (NIS, 2006). However, we did not analyze it further due to the very low likelihood of establishment for armored scales (Zlotina and Hennessey, 2007). 17 According to personal communication (Scatoni, 2007), Uruguay reports that this pest is not present. They also dispute the reference given by Ben

- Dov et al . (2007) as not specific enough to support its presence in Uruguay.Pest Risk Assessment for Citrus from Uruguay

Ver. 9 December 1 6 , 201 2 20 **Pest Geographic**  **Distribution 2**  **Host**

**association Quaran** 
****

**tine Pest Follows** 

**pathway 3**  **Plant Part**

**Affected** Unaspis citri (Comstock) UY (Bentancourt and Scatoni, 1999), US (CABI, 20 12 ; Miller, 2005) Bentancourt

and Scatoni, 1999; CABI, 20 12 No NA NA

**Hemiptera: Lecanodiaspididae**  Lecanodiaspis dendrobii (Douglas) UY( Ben

- Dov et al.,

2007) 17 Ben

- Dov et

al., 2007 Yes No Branches, trunk (Chiesa Molinari, 1948) **Hemiptera: Margarodidae**  Icerya purchasi Maskell UY (Bentancourt and Scatoni, 1999; CABI, 20 12 ), US (CABI, 20 12 ; Nearctica, 2007) Anciso et al.,

2002; Bentancourt and Scatoni, 1999; CABI, 20 12 No NA NA

**Hemiptera: Pentatomidae**  Edessa meditabunda (Fabricius) UY (Bentancourt and

Scatoni, 1999; CABI, 20 12 ) Bentancourt

and Scatoni, 1999; CABI, 20 12 Yes No 18 Flowers, leaves, stems, fruit, seeds (CABI, 20 12 ) Nezara viridula (Linnaeus) UY (Bentancourt and

Scatoni, 1999; CABI, 20 12 ), US (CABI, 20 12 ; Nearctica, 2007) Bentancourt

and Scatoni, 1999; CABI, 20 12 No NA NA

**Hemiptera: Ps**  **eudococcidae** Dysmicoccus brevipes (Cockerell) UY (Ben

- Dov et al.,

2007), US (Ben

- Dov et al., 2007; CABI, 20 12 ) Ben

- Dov et

al., 2007; CABI, 20 12 No NA NA

Phenacoccus tucumanus Granara de Willink UY (Ben

- Dov et al.,

2007) Ben

- Dov et

al., 2007 Yes No Leaves (Culik et al., 2006) Planococcus citri (Risso) UY (Bentancourt and Scatoni, 1999; CABI, 20 12 ), US (CABI, 20 12 ; Miller, 2005; Nearctica, 2007) Anciso et al.,

2002; Bentancourt and Scatoni, 1999; CABI, 20 12 ; Granara de Willink et al. , 1997 No NA NA

18 This pest is not expected to survive post

- harvest cleaning, chemical dip, and waxing.Pest Risk Assessment for Citrus from Uruguay

Ver. 9 December 1 6 , 201 2 21 **Pest Geographic**  **Distribution 2**  **Host**

**association Quaran** 
****

**tine Pest Follows** 

**pathway 3**  **Plant Part**

**Affected** Planococcus minor (Maskell) UY (Bentancourt and

Scatoni, 1999), US (CABI, 20 12 ) Bentancourt

and Scatoni, 1999; CABI, 20 12 ; Granara de Willink et al., 1997 No No 19 Fruit, flowers, leaves (Pena et al., 2002)

Pseudococcus longispinus Targioni UY (Bentancourt and

Scatoni, 1999; CABI, 20 12 ), US (CABI, 20 12 ; Miller, 2005; Nearctica, 2007) Bentancourt

and Scatoni, 1999; CABI, 20 12 No NA NA

Pseudococcus viburni Signoret (S yn: Pseudococcus affinis Maskell) UY (Bentancourt and

Scatoni, 1999) , US (CABI, 2007; Miller, 2005) CABI, 2007;

Granara de Willink et al., 1997 No NA NA

**Hemiptera: Psyllidae**  Diaphorina citri Kumayama UY (Bentancourt and

Scatoni, 1999; CABI, 2007), US (AL, AZ, CA, Fl, GA, HI, LA, MS, SC, TX) ) (CABI, 20 12 ; Timmer and Duncan, 1999 ; 7CFR § 319.19, 2012 ) Anciso et al.,

2002; Bentancourt and Scatoni, 1999; CABI, 20 12 ; Timmer and Duncan, 1999 Yes No 20 Le aves , shoots, fruit (CABI, 20 12 )

**Hymenoptera :**  **Fo rmicidae**  Acromyrmex lundi (Guérin) UY (Bernal, 1995;

CABI, 2007) Bernal, 1995;

CABI, 2007 Yes No Leaves, whole saplings (Bernal, 1995) Atta sexdens Linnaeus UY , US (AZ) Bentancourt and Scatoni, 1999 ; CABI, 2012 ;Weber, 1969 ) CABI, 2012 Yes No 25 Leaves, whole plant (CABI, 20 12 ) Linepithema humile (May r) [= Iridomyrmez humilis ] UY (Wild, 2004), US

(CABI, 20 12 ) Haney et al., 1987 No NA NA

19 Surface

- feeding mites, mealy bugs, and thrips are not expected to survive post

- harvest cleaning, chemical dip and waxing. 20 Surface feeders are not expected to remain associated with the commodity or the pathway through washing with soap, brushing, drying, waxing, and culling, which are part of standard commercial processing on the packing line.Pest Risk Assessment for Citrus from Uruguay

Ver. 9 December 1 6 , 201 2 22 **Pest Geographic**  **Distribution 2**  **Host**

**association Quaran** 
****

**tine Pest Follows** 

**pathway 3**  **Plant Part**

**Affected** Solenopsis invicta (Buren) UY (Folgarait et al.,

2008), US (CABI, 20 12 ) CABI, 20 12 Yes 21 No 20 Fruit, leaves, roots, seeds, vegetative organs, whole plant (CABI, 20 12 ) **Lepidoptera :**  **Gracillariidae** Phyllocnistis citrella Stainton UY (Buenahora, 1999;

Bentancourt and Scatoni, 1999), US (Restricted distribution in AL , CA, FL, LA, TX) (CABI, 20 12 ) Anciso et al.,

2002; Bentancourt and Scatoni, 1999; Buenahora, 1999 ; CABI, 20 12 Yes N o Leaves (CABI, 20 12 )

**Lepidoptera :**  **Noctuidae** Agrotis ipsilon (Hufnagel) UY (Bentancourt and

Scatoni, 1999; CABI, 20 12 ), US (CABI, 20 12 ; Nearctica, 2007) CABI, 20 12 No NA NA

Helicoverpa zea (Boddie) UY (Bentancourt and

Scatoni, 1999; CABI, 20 12 ), US (CABI, 20 12 ; Nearctica, 2007) CABI, 20 12 No NA NA

Peridroma saucia (Hubner) UY (Bentancourt and

Scatoni, 1999; CABI, 20 12 ), US (CABI, 20 12 ; Nearctica, 2007) CABI, 20 12 No NA NA

Spodoptera eridania Stoll UY (Bentancourt and

Scatoni, 1999), US (CABI, 20 12 ; Nearctica, 2007) CABI, 20 12 No NA NA

Spodoptera frugiperda J. E. Smith UY (Bentancourt and

Scatoni, 1999; CABI, 20 12 ), US (CABI, 20 12 ; Nearctica, 2007) CABI, 2007 No NA NA

21 Solenopsis invicta is non - reportable if commodity destination is AL, AR, FL, GA, LA, MS, NC, SC, or TX, ( PestID, 2008 ). It is reportable if destined for states other than those listed.This pest on Citrus is highly unlikely to survive post

harvest cleaning, chemical dip, and waxing, considering the type of damage caused on other hosts, such as apples and pears.Pest Risk Assessment for Citrus from Uruguay

Ver. 9 December 1 6 , 201 2 23 **Pest Geographic**  **Distribution 2**  **Host**

**association Quaran** 
****

**tine Pest Follows** 

**pathway 3**  **Plant Part**

**Affected** Trichoplusia ni (Hubner) UY (Bentancourt and Scatoni, 1999; CABI, 20 12 ), US (CABI, 20 12 ; Nearctica, 2007) CABI, 2007 No NA NA

**Lepidoptera :**  **Papilionidae** Heraclides anchisiades capys (Hubner) Sy

n: **Papilio anchisiades capys**  (Hubner) UY (Bentancourt and

Scatoni, 2006) Bentancourt

and Scatoni, 2006; Opler et al., 2006 Yes No Leaves, stems (Young et al., 1986)
Heraclides thoas brasiliensis (Rothschild & Jordan). Sy n : **Papilio thoas brasiliensis**  Rothschild & Jordan UY (Bentancourt and

Scatoni, 2006) Bentancourt

and Scatoni, 2006; Opler et al., 2006 Yes No Leaves ( Jeppson , 1989)

Papilio thoas thoantiades (Burmeister) UY (Savela, 2008) Chiesa Molinari, 1948 Yes No Leaves (Chiesa Molinari, 1948) **Lepidoptera :**  **Psychidae** Oiketicus platensis Berg UY (Bentancourt and Scatoni, 1999) Bentancourt

and Scatoni, 1999 Yes No Leaves (Bentancourt and Scatoni, 1999) **Lepidoptera :**  **Py ralidae**  Amyelois transitella (Walker) UY(Bentancourt and

Scatoni, 1999), US (CA) (CABI, 2007) PestID,

2008 ; CABI, 2007 No NA NA
Cryptoblabes gnidiella Milliere UY (Bentancourt and

Scatoni, 1999; CABI, 20 12 ) Bentancourt

and Scatoni, 1999; Bentancourt and Scatoni, 2006 22 ; CABI, 20 12 Yes Yes 23 Fruit, leaves, stems (CABI, 20 12 )

22 Although it is polyphagous, in Uruguay C. gnidiella wa s found on limited hosts, attacking grapes, and occasionally Citrus (Bentancourt and Scatoni, 2006). It was never found during DGSA surveys in commercial citrus production areas. 23 Cryptoblabes gnidiella is an internal fruit feeder , which occasionally bo res into citrus fruit causing fruit drop ( CABI, 2007; SINAVIMO, 2005a). Moore (2003) noted that C. gnidiella will usually attack smaller lemons and does not finish the life cycle on fruit, it is unclear how C. gnidiella pupates in other Cit rus sp.Pest Risk Assessment for Citrus from Uruguay

Ver. 9 December 1 6 , 201 2 24 **Pest Geographic**  **Distribution 2**  **Host**

**association Quaran** 
****

**tine Pest Follows** 

**pathway 3**  **Plant Part**

**Affected Lepidoptera**  **: Tortricidae**  Bonagota cranaodes (Mey rick) UY (Bentancourt and

Scatoni, 1999) Bentancourt

and Scatoni, 1999; Robinson et al., 2007 Yes No 24 Leaves, fruit (Bentancourt and Scatoni, 1999) Gymnandrosoma aurantianum (Lima) [ Sy n. Ecdytolopha aurantiana , Ecdytolopha aurantiana ] UY (Bentancourt and

Scatoni, 1999) Bentancourt

and Scatoni, 1999; CABI, 20 12 Yes Yes 25 Fruit (SI NAVIMO, 2005b)

**Thysanoptera :**  **Thripidae** Frankliniella occidentalis (Pergande) UY (Bentancourt and

Scatoni, 1999; CABI, 20 12 ), US (CABI, 20 12 ; Nearctica, 2007) Bentancourt

and Scatoni, 1999; CABI, 20 12 No NA NA

Heliothrips haemorrhoidalis Bouché UY (Bentancourt and

Scatoni, 1999 CABI, 20 12 ), US (CABI, 20 12 ; Nearctica, 2007) Bentancourt

and Scatoni, 1999; CABI, 20 12 ) No NA NA

**FUNGI** Athelia rolfsii (Curzi) Tu & Kinbr. [ Sy

n. Corticium rolfsii ; Anamorph **Sclerotium rolfsii**  Sacc.] [Basidiomycetes: Poly porales] UY (DGSA, 2001a),

US (CABI, 20 12 ; Farr et al., 2008) CABI, 20 12 ;

Farr et al., 2008; Timmer et al., 2000 No NA NA

Alternaria citri Ellis and N. P ierce **[** Ascomycet es: Pleosporales] UY(Koch de Brotos et

al., 1981), US (Farr et al., 2008) Farr et al.,

2008; Koch de Brotos et al., 1981 No NA NA

Alternaria alternata Fr. (Keissler) pv. citri Solel **[** Ascomycetes: Pleosporales] UY (Farr et al., 2008),

US (CABI, 20 12 ; Farr et al., 2008; Timmer et al., 1998) Farr et al.,

2008; Timmer et al., 1998 No NA NA

24 This pest on Citrus is not expected to survive post

- harvest cleaning, chemical dip, and waxing, considering the type of damage caused on other hosts, such as apples and pears. 25 Gymnandrosoma aurantianum wa s found in isolated fruits from domestic groves in Uruguay (Bentancourt and Scatoni, 2006). In addition, although larvae develop inside fruit, damaged fruit often rot or drop prematurely limiting the number of infested fruit likely to be harvested from commercial citrus groves.Pest Risk Assessment for Citrus from Uruguay

Ver. 9 December 1 6 , 201 2 25 **Pest Geographic**  **Distribution 2**  **Host**

**association Quaran** 
****

**tine Pest Follows** 

**pathway 3**  **Plant Part**

**Affected** Aspergillus níger Tiegh. [Ascomycetes: Eurotiales] UY (DGSA, 2001b),

US (Farr et al., 2008; Timmer et al., 2000) CABI, 20 12 ;

Timmer et al., 2000 No NA NA

Bionectria ochroleuca (Schwein) Schroers & Samuels [ Sy

n. Nectria ochroleuca (Schwein) Berk.] Anamorph Clonostachys rosea f. rosea (Link: Fr.) Schroers et al. [Ascomycetes: Hy pocreales] UY , US (Farr et al.,

2008) Farr et al.,

2008 No NA NA

Botryosphaeria dothidea (Moug.) Ces. & De Not [Sy n. B. ribis ) Grossenb. & Dugar) ; Anamorph Fusicoccum aesculi Corda] [Ascomycetes: Dothideales] UY (Farr et al., 2008),

US (CABI, 20 12 ; Farr et al., 2008) Farr et al.,

2008; Timmer et al., 2000 No NA NA

Botryosphaeria ribis Grossenb. & Duggar [Anamorph Neofusicoccum ribis (Slippers, Crous & M. J. Wingfield) Crous, Slippers & A. J. L

. Phillips] [Ascomycetes: Dothideales] UY (Koch de Brotos

et al., 1981 ) , US (Farr et al., 2008) Farr et al.,

2008 No NA NA

Botrytis cinerea Pers.: Fr. [ Sy n. Botryotinia fuckeliana (de Bary) Whetzel] [Ascomycetes: Helotiales] UY (Farr et al., 2008),

US (CABI, 20 12 ; Farr et al., 2008) CABI, 20 12 ;

Timmer et al., 2000 No NA NA

Capnodium sp. 26 UY (Koch de Brotos et al., 1981) Koch de

Brotos et al., 1981 No NA NA

26 Organisms ident ified to the genus, or higher taxonomic level, are not analyzed further.Pest Risk Assessment for Citrus from Uruguay

Ver. 9 December 1 6 , 201 2 26 **Pest Geographic**  **Distribution 2**  **Host**

**association Quaran** 
****

**tine Pest Follows** 

**pathway 3**  **Plant Part**

**Affected** Ceratocystis fimbriata Ellis & Halst. [Ascomycetes: Microascales] UY (Farr et al., 2008),

US (CABI, 20 12 ; Farr et al., 2008) CABI, 20 12 No NA NA

Colletotrichum sp. UY (PestID, 2008) PestID, 2008; Yes Yes 27 Flowers, Fruits (Timmer et al., 2000) Cytosporina citriperda Campan. [Ascomycetes: In certae sedis] UY (Koch de Brotos

et al., 1981) Koch de

Brotos et al., 1981 Yes Yes 28 Fruit (Koch de Brotos et al., 1981) Diaporthe citri F. A. Wolf [Anamorph: Phomopsis citri H. S. Fawcett] [Ascomycetes: Diaporthales] UY (PestID, 2008),

US (Anciso et al., 2002; CABI, 20 12 ; Farr et al., 2008) Anciso et al.,

2002; CABI, 20 12 ; DGSA, 2004; Farr et al., 2008; Timmer et al., 2000 No NA NA

Elsinoë australis (Bitancourt & Jenk.) [Anamorph: Sphaceloma australis Bitancourt & Jenk.] [Ascomycetes: My riangiales] UY (Koch de Brotos et

al., 1981; Palm, 2007, 2008 ; PestID, 2008) , US [TX, LA, MS , FL , AZ ] (USDA APHI S, 2010b ; NAP P O, 2011 ) Farr et al.,

2008; Timmer et al., 2000 Yes Yes Fruit (Timmer et al., 2000)

Elsinoё fawcettii Bitanc. & Jenkins [Anamorph: Spaceloma fawcetti var. fawcettii Jenkins] [Ascomycetes: My riangiales] UY ( Díaz et al., 1992 ),

US (CABI, 20 12 ; Farr et al ., 2008) CABI, 20 12 ;

Díaz et al., 1992 ; Farr et al., 2008 ; Timmer et al., 2000 No NA NA

Fusarium oxysporum Schlechtendahl [Ascomycetes: Hy pocreales] UY (Farr et al., 2008),

et al

. , US (CABI, 20 12 ; Farr et al., 2008) CABI, 20 12 No NA NA

27 Colletrichum spp. are noted by Timmer et al. (2000) as pathogens of citrus flowers. Infections result in young fruit drop, but C. accutatum attacks fruit and can follow the pathway. Therefore, the unidentified species of Colletotrichum has the potential to follow the pathway, but the level of uncertainty is high. 28 Cytosporina citriperda wa s only reported once from Uruguay (Koch de Brotos et al., 1981), and the taxonomic status is not very clear. Therefore, this pest was not analyzed further.Pest Risk Assessment for Citrus from Uruguay

Ver. 9 December 1 6 , 201 2 27 **Pest Geographic**  **Distribution 2**  **Host**

**association Quaran** 
****

**tine Pest Follows** 

**pathway 3**  **Plant Part**

**Affected** Fusarium solani (Martius) Sacc. Ascomycetes Hy pocreales UY ( DGSA, 2004;

DGSA, 2005 ), US (CABI, 2007; Farr et al., 2008) CABI, 2007;

Timmer et al., 2000; Farr et al., 2008 No NA NA

Geotrichum citri

aurantii (Ferraris) Butler Ascomycetes UY ( DGSA, 2005 ) ,

US ( Farr et al ., 2007 ) CABI, 2007;

Timmer et al., 2000; Farr et al., 2008 No NA NA

Glomerella acutata Guerber & J.C. Correll [Anamorph: **Colletotrichum acutatum**  Simmonds ex Simmonds [Ascomycetes: In certae sedis] UY (CABI, 20 12 ), US

(CABI, 20 12 ; Farr et al., 2008; Timmer et al., 2000) DGSA,

2004 ; Farr et al., 2008; Timmer et al., 2000 No NA NA

Glomerella cingulata (Stoneman) Spauld. & H. Schrenk [Anamorph: **Colletotrichum gloeosporioide** 

s (Penz.) Sacc.] [Ascomycetes: In certae sedis] UY ( Farr et al., 2008 ),

US (Anciso et al., 2002 ; CABI, 20 12 ; Farr et al., 2008 ) Anciso et al.,

2002; CABI, 20 12 ; DGSA, 2004; Farr et al., 2008; Timmer et al., 2000 No NA NA

Guignardia citricarpa Kiely [Anamorph: Phyllosticta citricarpa (McApline) Aa [Ascomycetes: Dothideales] UY (DGSA, 2004 ;

PestID, 2008) , US [FL ] (USDA APHIS, 2010a; 2011) CABI, 2007;

DGSA, 2004; Timmer et al., 2000 Yes No 29 Bud, Fruit, Flower, Stem, Leaves (Kotzé, 1981; Whiteside, 1965)

29 APHIS has recently assessed the risk of fresh and dried fruit of Citrus spp. as a pathway for the introduction of G. citricarpa (Citrus Black Spot, or CBS) (USDA , 2010b)

. We concluded that fresh or dried citrus fruit is not epidemiologically significant as a pathway for the introduction of CBS because the combination of conditions required for disease transmission from harvested fruit are highly unlikel y. We therefore consider that fruit which is commercially harvested and surface treated with fungicides prior to shipment is a negligible risk, so analysis of this pathogen was removed from the document.Pest Risk Assessment for Citrus from Uruguay

Ver. 9 December 1 6 , 201 2 28 **Pest Geographic**  **Distribution 2**  **Host**

**association Quaran** 
****

**tine Pest Follows** 

**pathway 3**  **Plant Part**

**Affected** Lasiodiplodia theobromae (Pat.) Griffon & Maubl. Sy

n: Diplodia natalensis Pole

- Evans Ascomycetes UY ( DGSA, 2003 ),

US (CABI, 2012 ; Farr et al., 2008) CABI, 2012 ;

Timmer et al ., 2000 ; Farr et al., 2008 No NA NA

Limacinia citri ( Briosi & Pass.) Sacc. [Sy

n. Capnodium citri Mont. 30 [Ascomycetes: Capnodiales] UY (Koch de Brotos

et al., 1981), US (as Capnodium citri Farr et al., 2008) Farr et al.,

2008 No 31 NA NA

Macrophomina phaseolina (Tassi) Goid [Sy n: Macrophomina phaseoli (Maubl.) F. S. Ashby] [Ascomyc etes: In certae sedis] UY (DGSA, 2001c ;

Koch de Brotos et al., 1981 ), US (CABI, 20 12 ; Farr et al., 2008) CABI, 20 12 ;

Farr et al., 2008 No NA NA

Mycosphaerella citri Whiteside [Anamorph: Stenella citri

-grisea (F.E. Fisher) Sivan.] [Ascomycetes: Mycosphaerellales] UY ( DGSA, 2003 ),

US (FL, TX) (Anciso et al., 2002; CABI, 20 12 ; Farr et al., 2008) Anciso et al.,

2002 ; CAB I, 20 12 ; Timmer et al., 2000 No NA NA

Penicillium digitatum (Pers.: Fr.) Sacc. [Ascomycetes: Eurotiales] UY ( Reyes et al.,

1993), US CABI, 20 12 ; Farr et al., 2008 CABI, 20 12 ;

Farr et al., 2008; Reyes et al., 1993; Timmer et al., 2000 No NA NA

Penicillium italicum Wehmer [Ascomycetes: Eurotiales] UY (Reyes et al.,

1993), US (CA, FL, HI) (CABI, 20 12 ; Farr et al., 2008) CABI, 20 12 ;

Reyes et al., 1993; Timmer et al., 2000 No NA NA

30 Limacinia citri is a synonym of Capnodium citri a ccording to the Catalogue of Life: 2007 Annual Checklist: Species Fungorum (GBIF, 2008) , but are currently not listed as synonyms in the USDA Systematic Mycology and Microbiology Laboratory online database (Farr et al., 2008). 31 Limacinia citri and Capnodium citri may be synonyms, but the taxonomy of C. citri is not certain (Minnis, 2008); therefore, L. citri is not analyzed further.Pest Risk Assessment for Citrus from Uruguay

Ver. 9 December 1 6 , 201 2 29 **Pest Geographic**  **Distribution 2**  **Host**

**association Quaran** 
****

**tine Pest Follows** 

**pathway 3**  **Plant Part**

**Affected** Penicillium ulaiense Hsieh, Su & Tzean [Ascomycetes: Eurotiales] UY (Díaz and Sendra,

1997), US (CA) (Holmes et al., 1994; Farr et al., 2008 ) Díaz and

Sendra, 1997; Holmes et al., 1994; Timmer et al., 2000 No NA NA

Phoma sp. UY ( PestID, 2008 ) PestID, 2008 Yes Yes 32 Fruit (Timmer et al., 2000) Phytophthora cactorum (Lebert & Cohn) J. Schröt

. [Oomycetes: Py thiales] UY ( DGSA, 2002 ;

CABI, 2012 ), US (CABI, 20 12 ) CABI, 20 12 ;

Farr et al., 2008 No NA NA

Phytophthora citrophthora (R. E. Sm. & E. H. Sm.) Leonian [Oomycetes: Py thiales] UY (Koch de Brotos

et al., 1981), US (CABI, 20 12 ; Farr et al., 2008) CABI, 20 12 ;

Timmer et al., 2000 No NA NA

Phytophthora nicotianae Breda de Haan [ Sy

n. **Phytophthora parasitica**  Dast.] [Oomycetes: Py thiales] UY (Koch de Brotos

et al., 1981), US ( CABI, 20 12 ) CABI, 20 12 ;

Timmer et al., 2000 No NA NA

Rhizoctonia solani J. G. Khun [Teleomorph Thanatephorus cucumeris (A.B. Frank) Donk] [Basidiomycetes: Ceratobasidiales] UY (DGSA, 2006;

Koch de Brotos et al., 1981), US (CABI, 20 12 ; Farr et al., 2008) CABI, 20 12 ;

Farr et al., 2008; Koch de Brotos et al., 1981 No NA NA

Rosellinia necatrix Prill

. [Teleomorph] [Ascomycetes: Xylariales] UY (CABI, 20 12 ;

Koch de Brotos et al., 1981), US (CABI, 20 12 ) CABI, 20 12 ;

Koch de Brotos et al., 1981 No NA NA

**BACTERIA and PHYTOPLASMAS**  Pseudomonas syringae pv . syringae van Hall UY , US ( CABI,

20 12 ) Timmer et

al., 2000 No NA NA

32 An unidentified species of Phoma wa s intercepted on fruit at the port of entry (PestID, 2008).Pest Risk Assessment for Citrus from Uruguay

Ver. 9 December 1 6 , 201 2 30 **Pest Geographic**  **Distribution 2**  **Host**

**association Quaran** 
****

**tine Pest Follows** 

**pathway 3**  **Plant Part**

**Affected** Rhizobium radiobacter (Beijerinck & van Delden ) Young et al

. [Sy n: **Agrobacterium tumefaciens**  (Smith & Tousend) Conn ] UY (CABI, 20 12 ), US

(Bradbury , 1986; CABI, 20 12 ) Timmer et

al., 2000 No NA NA

Xanthomonas citri subsp. citri (ex Hasse ) Gabriel et al. 33 [Sy

n. X. axonopodis pv. citri (Vauterin, et al .) , X. campestris pv. citri (Hasse) Dye; Pseudomonas citri Hasse] (Citrus canker A ) UY (CABI, 20 12 ;

Koch de Brotos et al., 1981; PestID, 2008 ), US (FL) ( Bradbury , 1986; CABI, 20 12 ) Timmer et

al., 2000 Yes 34 Yes Fruit, Leaves, Stem (CABI, 20 12 ; Timmer et al., 2000)

**VIRUSES, VIROIDS, and VIRUS** 
**- LIKE PATHOGENS**  Citrus cachexia viroid Pospiviroidae: Hostuviroid UY (Koch de Brotos

et al., 1981), US (CABI, 2007) Timmer et

al., 2000 No NA NA

Citrus exocortis viroid Pospiviroidae: Pospiviroid UY (Koch de Brotos

et al., 1981) , US () CABI, 20 12 Timmer et

al., 2000 No NA NA

Citrus psorosis virus (CPsV) Ophiovirus UY (Koch de Brotos

et al., 1981), US (CABI, 20 12 ; Alioto et al., 1999) CABI, 20 12 ;

Timmer et al., 2000 No NA NA

Citrus tristeza virus Closteroviridae UY (CABI, 20 12 ;

Koch de Brotos et al., 1981), US (CABI, 20 12 ) Anciso et al.,

2002; CABI, 20 12 ; Timmer et al., 2000 No NA NA

**NEMATODES Tylenchulidae**  Pratylenchus penetrans (Cobb, 1917) Filipjev & Schuurmans Stekhoven UY, US (CABI, 20 12 ) CABI, 20 12 No NA NA

33 This is the only X

anthomonas citri (Syn. X. axonopodis ) strain currently reported in citrus in Uruguay. Information provided by DGSA to APHIS during technical missions 1996

- 2006. 34 Xanthomonas citri subsp. citri occurs in the United States (FL), but is under official contro l.Pest Risk Assessment for Citrus from Uruguay

Ver. 9 December 1 6 , 201 2 31 **Pest Geographic**  **Distribution 2**  **Host**

**association Quaran** 
****

**tine Pest Follows** 

**pathway 3**  **Plant Part**

**Affected** Tylenchulus semipenetrans Cobb UY, US 35 (CABI,

20 12 ) Anciso et al.,

2002; CABI, 20 12 No NA NA

**Table 3** 

. Pests of concern a ssociated with Citrus spp., Citrus hybrids, and Fortunella spp. in citrus production regions adjacent to Uruguay, some with disputed previous reports in Uruguay

. **Pest Geographic** 

**Distribution Host** 

**association Quaran** 
****

**tine Pest Follows** 

**pathway Plant Part Affected**  Xylella fastidiosa (Wells, et al

. ) Citrus variegated chlorosis strain [Sy n.: Pecosita, declinamiento, fruta bolita] UY (Bove and

Ay res, 2007; Phillips, 2001) 36 Timmer et

al ., 2000 Yes Yes Roots, Stems ( CABI , 20 12 ), Fruit and Seed (Li et al., 2003)

‘ Candidatus Liberibacter americanus’ BR 1 (Teixeira et

al., 2005b) Teixeira et

al., 2005b Yes Yes Vector, v ascular tissues, including seed (CABI, 2012 ; Tatineni et al., 2008), Possible transmission by

seed 37 (Graham et al., 2008; Hartung et al., 2008; Shatters, 2008; Zhou et al., 2008)

35 This pest was not detected during specific surveys of citrus areas and nurseries in Uruguay (DGSA 2000

– 2007 Nursery surveys). 36 These two papers note the presence of X. fastidiosa CVC strains in Uruguay, but neither report was further cited. The authors subsequently noted that the reports were not accurate (Bove and Ayres, 2008; Phillips, 2001). Although there are concerns about the pathogen since it occurs in neighboring countries , current mo nitoring and survey methods may not be sufficient for the detection of this pathogen because they do not include molecular methods . In addition, climate in Uruguay may suppress symptoms (Phillips, 2001) . However, e vidence is not available to confirm that X. fastidiosa CVC is in Uruguay and therefore the pathogen is not analyzed further. 37 This quarantine pest of concern is present in citrus production areas in countries bordering Uruguay , and vectors of this pathogen are present in Uruguay, thus additional monitoring measures may be needed to prevent spread of this pathogen. We found no evidence that the pathogen occurs in Uruguay, so it is not analyzed in this document. M ultiple sources indicate that “ Ca. Liberibacter ” species are seed transmitted, as well as co ntradictory reports in the same proceedings that they are not (Graham et al., 2008; Hartung et al., 2008; Shatters, 2008; Zhou, et al., 2008). Due to this uncertainty and the seriousness of the consequences of introduction of “ Ca. Liberibacter” species , weindicated that the pathogen will follow the pathway with fruit, pending more conclusive evidence about seed transmission, although the pathway with fruit for consumption is not likely to result in the establishment of the pathogens.Pest Risk Assessment for Citrus from Uruguay

Ver. 9 December 1 6 , 201 2 32 **Pest Geographic** 

**Distribution Host** 

**association Quaran** 
****

**tine Pest Follows** 

**pathway Plant Part Affected** 

‘ Candidatus Liberibacter a siaticus’ BR (Lopes et al.,

2007; Coletta

Filho et al., 2004; Teixeira et al. 2005a), US (Manjunath et al., 2008) (FL , GA, PR, USVI , SC, and LA, under official control) (USDA, 2011) Lopes et al.,

2007; Coletta

Filho et al., 2004; Teixeira et al. 2005a Yes Yes Vector, vascular tissues, including seed (CABI, 2012 ; Tatineni et al., 2008), Possible transmission by

seed 38 (Graham et al., 2008; Hartung et al., 2008; Shatters, 2008; Zhou et al., 2008)
Citrus leprosis virus ( CiLV

-N) Rhabdovirus (unclassified) CiLV

- C Cilevirus proposed ( Locali

Fabris et al., 2006) UY 39 (Lovisolo,

2001) Timmer et

al., 2000 Yes No 40 Leaves, fruit, twigs (Lovisolo, 2001; Timmer et al., 2000)

Zonate Chlorosis Virus

- like Disease UY (Koch de

Brotos et al., 1981) 41 Frison and

Taher, 2000; Koch de Brotos et al., 1981; Timmer et al., 2000 Yes No 42 Fruit, leaves, twigs (Frison and Taher, 2000)

38 This quarantine pest of concern is present in citru s production areas in countries bordering Uruguay , and vectors of this pathogen are present in Uruguay, thus additional monitoring measures may be needed to prevent spread of this pathogen. We found no evidence that the pathogen occurs in Uruguay, so it is not analyzed in this document. Multiple sources indicate that “ Ca. Liberibacter asiaticum” is seed transmitted, as well as contradictory reports in the same proceedings that it is not (Graham et al., 2008; Hartung et al., 2008; Shatters, 2008; Zhou, et al., 2008). Due to this uncertainty and the seriousness of the consequences of introduction of “ Ca. Liberibacter” species, we indicated that the pathogen will follow the pathway with fruit, pending more conclusive evidence about seed transmission, although the pathway with fruit for consumption is not likely to result in the establishment of the pathogens. 39 Lovisolo ( 2001 ) cites old reports of Citrus leprosis virus in Uruguay. However, DGSA has conducted indirect surveys for this and other viruses, and has not detected this virus since an extensive freeze killed commercial citrus trees in 1967 (DGSA, 2008). There is no report on the status of this virus in noncommercial plantings, the vectors are present, and the pathogen and vectors are present in neighboring countries (CABI, 2007). Fruit also has been suggested as a pathway (Lovisolo, 2001). 40 Citrus leprosis virus (CiLV) was once considered present in United States, but an extensive survey showed that it is absent ( Childers et al., 2003 ). CiLV is not seed transmitted, symptomatic fruit are likely to be culled at the packinghouse, and thus the fruit alone are not considered a pathway for pathogen dissemination . CiLV is vectored by mites in the genus Brevipalpus . T wo Brevipalpus species , Brevipalpus obovatus and Brevipalp us phoenicis , are present in Uruguay where the disease also was once present . The pathogen CiLV and Brevipalpus vectors are present in the neighboring countries of Brazil and Argentina, however as the disease is not present in Uruguay we will not analyze mites. 41 Zonate Chlorosis reports in Uruguay are old, 1941 and 1955 (Koch de Brotos et al., 1981).Pest Risk Assessment for Citrus from Uruguay

Ver. 9 December 1 6 , 201 2 33 42 Zonate Chlorosis has symptomology similar to Citrus Leprosis and is transmitted by Brevipalpus phoenicis (Frison and Taher, 2000; Timmer et al., 2000), but has not had the economic impact of CiLV (Timmer et al., 2000). This disease is graft transmissible with difficulty (Frison and Taher, 2000). Little information was available and no evidence was available to indicate whether or not fruit is a pathway.Pest Risk Assessment for Citrus from Uruguay

Ver. 9 December 1 6 , 201 2 34 **Summary of quarantine pests likely to follow the pathway which were analyzed:**  The pests listed below satisfy the defining criteria for a quarantine pest: “a pest of potential economic importance to the area endangered thereby, and not yet present there, or present bu t not widely distributed and being officially controlled” (IPPC, 2007 b ). These pests also satisfy the defining criteria for following the pathway with the imported commodity : “any means that allows entry

or spread of a pest (IPPC, 2007 b ). ” **Arthropods** Anastrepha fraterculus (Wiedemann) Ceratitis capitata (Wiedemann) Cryptoblabes gnidiella (Millière) Gymnandrosoma aurantianum (Lima)
**Bacteria** Xanthomonas citri subsp. citri (ex Hasse 1915) Gabriel et al . 1989 [Sy n. X. axonopodis pv. citri (Vauterin, et al

. ), X. campestris pv. citri (Hasse) Dye] (Citrus canker A) **Fungi** Elsinoë australis (Bitancourt & Jenk) **2.4 Consequences of Introduction**
In this portion of the analysis we consider negative outcomes that may occur when the quarantine pests identified as following the pathway with Citrus spp ., Citrus hy brids, and Fortunella spp. from Uruguay are introduced into the continental United States. Potential consequences of introduction are rated using five risk elements: climate

- host interaction, host range, dispersal potential, economic impact, and environmental impact. These elements reflect the biology , host range, and climatic/geographic distribution of the p ests . For each risk element, pests are assigned a rating of Low (1 point), Medium (2 points) or High (3 points) based on the criteria as stated in the Guidelines for Pathway

- Initiated Pest Risk Assessment, Version 5.02 (PPQ, 2000). A Cumulative Risk Rating is then calculated by summing all risk element values. For each pest, the sum of the five risk elements produces a cumulative risk rating for the consequences of introduction. This cumulative rating is considered the biological indicator of the pest’s potential to cause economic and environmental impacts. We found a cumulative risk rating for the Consequences of Introduction for each pest (Table 4 ).
**Anastrepha fraterculus Wiedemann (Diptera: Tephritidae)**  **Risk r**  **ating s**  **Risk Element #1: Climate**

**— Host Interaction**  Anastrepha fraterculus ranges from the south of Texas to Argentina (Foote et al., 1993), including Uruguay , where it is widespread (CABI, 2007). These areas generall y correspond to U.S. Plant Hardiness Zones 9 to 11 (PERAL , 2008). One or more of its potential hosts occurs in th ese zones (USDA

-NRCS, 2007a). Anastrepha fraterculus can become established in at least 3 plant hardiness zones, so is rated High

. High ( 3 )Pest Risk Assessment for Citrus from Uruguay

Ver. 9 December 1 6 , 201 2 35 **Anastrepha fraterculus Wiedemann (Diptera: Tephritidae)**  **Risk r**  **ating s**  **Risk Element #2: Host Range** Anastrepha fraterculus is very pol yphagous. The preferred hosts are M yrt aceae, particularl y the Psidium guajava , Eugenia and Syzygium (CABI, 2007). Annona cherimola , Citrus , Eugenia , Prunus , Psidium guajava , and Syzygium are major hosts (CABI, 2007). Other hosts include: Actinidia chinensis , Annona , Annona muricata , Annona squamosa , Averrhoa carambola, Citrus aurantium , Citrus limetta , Citrus maxima , Citrus reticulata , Citrus sinensis , Citrus x paradisi , Coffea arabica , Coffea liberica , Cydonia oblonga , Diospyros , Diospyros kaki , Eriobotrya japonica , Eugenia dombeyi , Eugenia uniflora , Feijoa sellowiana , Ficus carica , Fortunella japonica , Fragaria vesca , Inga edulis , Juglans neotropica , Juglans regia , Malus , Malus domestica , Mangifera indica , Manilkara zapota , Olea europaea subsp. europaea, Persea americana , Pouteria obovata , Prunus armeniaca , Prunus dulcis , Prunus persica , Psidium guineense , Psidium longipes , Punica granatum , Pyrus , Pyrus communis, Solanum quitoense , Spondias , Spondias dulcis , Spondias mombin , Spondias purpurea , S yzygium jambos , Syzygium malaccense , Terminalia catappa, Theobroma cacao , Vitis vinifera (CABI, 2007). Anastrepha fraterculus attacks multiple species among multiple plant families, so we rated it High. High (3)

**Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential** Anastrepha fraterculus has a high reproductive capacity ; females deposit from 200 to 400 eggs in host fruits (White and Elson

- Harris, 1992). Long

- distance dispersal has not been reported for adults of A. fraterculus. However, another Anastrepha sp., A. lud

ens , was trapped 135 km away from its origin (Fletcher, 1989). In international trade, the major means of dispersal to previously un infested areas is the transport of fruit containing eggs and live larvae. For most regions, the most important fruits liabl e to carry A. fraterculus are Annona , Citrus , Fortunella , Malus , mango, peach, and guava (CABI, 2007). The pest has both high reproductive potential and can disperse over long distances, so is rated High. High (3)

**Risk Element #4: Economic Impact** Anastrepha fraterculus is the most economically important Anastrepha species in Brazil and other South American countries because of its broad host range (Foote et al., 1993). In Brazil, it causes severe yi eld losses in apple, is a major pest , and constrains fresh fruit exports to countries with quarantine barriers (Sugayama et al., 1996). Anastrepha fraterculus is a quarantine pest for several countries and regions including Europe (EPPO, 2008a); thus its introduction could result in a loss of foreign markets for American commodities such as citrus. Establishment of A. fraterculus in the United States would increase production costs in susceptible commodities (EPPO, 2008a). Anastrepha fraterculus lowers yi eld, increases cost of production, and can impact fo reign or domestic markets, thus we rated it High. High (3)

**Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact** Because it is poly

phagous, A. fraterculus can potentially impact numerous species listed as Threatened and Endangered (T& E) (50 CFR § 17, 2007). In places where it could become established in the continental United States (Zones Medium ( 2 )Pest Risk Assessment for Citrus from Uruguay

Ver. 9 December 1 6 , 201 2 36 **Anastrepha fraterculus Wiedemann (Diptera: Tephritidae)**  **Risk r**  **ating s**  9

- 11), A. fraterculus could impact threatened or endangered species in the same genera as current hosts , although they do not directly

injure their hosts, so impacts should be minimal . One example is Prunus geniculata in Florida (USFWS, 2007). If potential T&E plants are considered at the famil y level, then A. fraterculus could impact three additional taxa. Establishment of A. fraterculus in the Unite d States may

require the use of additional control measures such as pesticide applications which may have environmental impacts ( CABI, 2007 ). The pest is expected to have both direct and indirect impacts on T & E species and the environment, thus is rated Medium ( 2)

.
**Ceratitis capitata (** **Wiedemann) (Diptera: Tephritidae) Risk**  **r ating**  **s Risk Element #1: Climate** 

**— Host Interaction**  Ceratitis capitata is widely distributed in the Mediterranean, South and Central America, western Asia (CABI, 20 12 ) and western Australia (Hassan, 1977). The area in which it survives has a Mediterranean climate, corresponding to citrus growing areas ( Magarey

et al., 2008 ). Based on this distribution and the geographic range predicted by Vera et al. (2002) , we estimated that C. capitata could establish in U.S. Plant Hardiness Zones 8

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

-NRCS, 2007a) , so we rated C. capita ta high

. High ( 3 )

**Risk Element #2: Host Range** Ceratitis capitata is recorded on hosts from numerous plant families, including Anacardiaceae, Arecaceae, Chrysobalanaceae, Cucurbitaceae, Ebenaceae, Lauraceae, Loganiaceae, Malpighiaceae, Meliaceae, Moraceae, My rtaceae, Oleaceae, Podocarpaceae, Rosaceae, Rutaceae, Sapotace ae, Solanaceae and Sterculiaceae (CABI, 20 12 ; Thomas et al., 2008; White and Elson

- Harris, 1992). Citrus species vary in their host status for C. capitata, for example, C

. limon is not considered to be a fruit fl y host under certain environmental condition s (Vaccaro and Bouvet, 2006; Spittler et al., 1984; Nguye n and Fraser, 1989; Augier et al., 2008 ; Gastaminza et al., 2007; Willink et al., 2007 ). Other species of Citrus have not been shown to be non

- hosts for C. capitata

. The risk rating for this element is High

. High (3)

**Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential** Females may

deposit up to 22 eggs per day , and as many as 300

- 800 eggs in a lifetime (Thomas et al., 2008; White and Elson

- Harris, 1992). Eggs are inserted under the skin of host fruit as it begins to ripen (Thomas et al., 2008). There can be several overl apping generations each ye ar (Hassan, 1977). There is evidence that C. capitata can fly

at least 20 km during its two

- month lifespan, and larvae can be transported over long distances in infested fruit (CABI, 20 12 ). In addition, this species may disperse a s pupae in soil, or in the growing medium accompanying plants (CABI, 20 12 ). This species has a high biotic potential and capability for rapid dispersal. We rated it High for this element. High (3)

**Risk Element #4: Economic Impact** Ceratitis capitata is one of the world's most destructive and economically High (3)Pest Risk Assessment for Citrus from Uruguay

Ver. 9 December 1 6 , 201 2 37 **Ceratitis capitata (** **Wiedemann) (Diptera: Tephritidae) Risk**  **r ating**  **s** important fruit pests, due to its wide distribution, ability to tolerate cooler climates, and wide host range (Thomas et al., 2008). In some Mediterranean countries, C. capitata infests approximately 100 percent of stone fruits (Weems, 1981). In addition to substantial yield reductions, C

. capitata lowers crop values by requiring control measures. In Central America, losses of 5 to 15 percent have been recorded for coffee, as C

. capitata infestations increas e labor costs and reduce bean quality

(Enkerlin et al., 1989). In addition to substantial yield reductions, C

. capitata lowers crop values b y requiring costl y controls (Thomas et al., 2008). Eradication of C

. capitata has occurred multiple times in the Uni ted States, and cost on average $10 million per introduction (USDA

- APHI S

PPD, 2002 . It is anticipated that if not eradicated, living with C

. capitata could result in $1.5 billion in losses annuall y (USDA

- APHI S

- PPD, 2002 ). Ceratitis capitata is of quarantine significance almost worldwide and countries without C. capitata use considerable resources to prevent its introduction. Ceratitis capitata is listed by

EPPO as an A2 quarantine pest for Europe (Smith et al., 1997).The introduction of C

. ca pitata into the United States will lead to losses of foreign and domestic markets (CABI, 20 12 ). The rating for this risk element is High

. **Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact** Because C. capitata is a poly phagous pest, there are many closel y related native Threatened and Endangered (T&E) species (USFWS, 20 12 ) within the same host genera and families. The following T&E species are in the genera of known hosts of C. capitata : Eugenia haematocarpa , E. koolauensis , E. woodburyana , Flueggea neowawraea , Juglans jamaicensis , Opuntia treleasei , Prunus geniculata , Santalum freycinetianum var. lanaiense , Scaevola coriacea , Solanum drymophilum , S. incompletum , S. sandwicense , and Ziziphus celata (USFWS, 20 12 ). If potential hosts are considered at the family level, then there are an additional 174 T&E species (USFWS, 2012) that C. capitata may negativel y impact across the United States and its territories

. However, not all of these may

occur within the preferr ed climatic range for C. captitata , and the fruit fly does not directl y injure the host plant, but affects only the fruit . Because of its potential to harm endangered taxa and economically important plants, conservation managers, farmers, and horticultural ists would likely need to use chemical and/or biological control programs to control populations of C. capitata (Weems, 2002). Its introduction and establishment in the United States would almost certainl y trigger chemical or biological control programs. The rating for this risk element is Medium

. High ( 3 )

**Cryptoblabes gnidiella Milliere (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae)**  **Risk r**  **ating s**  **Risk Element #1: Climate**

**— Host Interaction**  Cryptoblabes gnidiella is poly phagous, we therefore characterized its potential U.S. distribution based on climate (CABI, 20 12 ). This moth does best in warm climates and cannot survive winters in cooler temperate areas (CABI, 2007). Cryptoblabes gnidiella is found in Europe (Austria, Cyprus, F rance, Greece, High (3)Pest Risk Assessment for Citrus from Uruguay

Ver. 9 December 1 6 , 201 2 38 **Cryptoblabes gnidiella Milliere (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae)**  **Risk r**  **ating s**  Ital y, Malta, Portugal, and Spain), Asia (India, Is rael, Lebanon, Pakistan, Thailand, and Turkey), Africa (Egy pt, Liberia, Morocco, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, and South Africa), the Caribbean (Bermuda), North America (United States

-- Hawaii), So uth America (Argentina, Uruguay), and Oceania (New Zealand) (CABI, 20 12 ). We estimated the potential distribution of C. gnidiella using the degree

- day

model reported by Ringenberg et al. (2005) . We simulated the degree

- day

model using the North Carolina St ate University APHI S Plant Pest Forecast Sy stem ( Magarey et al., 2007 ) predictive modeling s ys tem. We considered areas where C. gnidiella could complete five generations as conducive for permanent establishment (Yehuda et al., 1991). We found that C. gnidi ella could establish in U.S. Plant Hardiness Zones 6

- 11 (Figure 1) ( Magarey et al., 2008 ). The risk rating for this element is High

. **Risk Element #2: Host Range** Cryptoblabes gnidiella is poly phagous and attacks multiple plant species in multiple families (CABI, 2007). Examples of hosts C. gnidiella attacks include Allium sativum , Annona muricata , Citrus , Coffea , F icus , Gossypium , Mangifera indic a, Mespilus , Morus alba , Oryza sativa , Osmanthus , Philodendron , Persea americana , Phaseolus , Ricinus communis , Saccharum officinarum , Schinus terebinthifolius , Sorghum bicolor , Swietenia, Zea mays , and Vitis (CABI, 2007 ; CABI, 2012 ) . The risk rating for this element is High
**.** High (3)

**Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential** The moth can have between three and nine generations per year and each female can lay an average of 105 eggs (Ringenberg et al., 2005; Wysoki et al., 1993). Cryptoblabes gnidiella adults can naturally dispers e by flying ( Ozturk and Ulusoy, 2011 ; CABI, 20 12 )

. The risk rating is High

. High (3)

**Risk Element #4: Economic Impact** Cryptoblabes gnidiella is a quarantine pest that is not distributed worldwide ( CABI, 2012 ) and thus could cause a loss of markets if introduced into the United States. In citrus it is an internal feeder that punctures fruit and causes premature ripening, blotche s, and earl y fruit drop ( Silva and Mexia, 1999 ; PestID, 2012 ; CABI, 2012 ; Moore, 2003 ). This type of damage can cause substantial losses to citrus crops (Moore, 2003 ; Silva and Mexia, 1999 ). In grapes, C. gnidiella feeds on grape clusters which causes them to wilt and the consequent fall (Bisotto

- de

- Oliveira et al., 2007 ; Ringenberg et al., 2005 ). On fr uit close to harvest, feeding causes the disruption of the berries, which results in leakage of juice which reduces the quality of wines or depreciates the fruits ( Ringenberg et al., 2005 ). In addition, feeding increases the incidence of fungal and bacteria diseases that cause fruit rot ( Bisotto

- de

- Oliveira et al., 2007 ; Ringenberg et al., 2005 ). Several countries actively control Cryptoblabes gnidiella populations (e.g. Turkey ( Ozturk and Ulusoy , 2011 ) and Israel ( Harari et al., 2007 )). Control programs currently in place for other Lepidoptera pest are unlikely to be sufficient for managing this pest. The risk rating for this element is High. High (3)

**Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact**  An endangered or threatened species that Cryptoblabes gnidiella could impact is High (3)Pest Risk Assessment for Citrus from Uruguay

Ver. 9 December 1 6 , 201 2 39 **Cryptoblabes gnidiella Milliere (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae)**  **Risk r**  **ating s**  Allium muznii (USFWS, 20 12 ). Its introduction could also cause the implementation of chemical and/or biological control programs (CABI, 20 12 ; M oore, 2003 ). The risk rating for this element is High

.

**Figure 1.** Predicted U.S. distribution of C. gnidiella based on the ten

- ye ar frequency of occurrence of required degree days to complete five generations.
**Gymnandrosoma aurantianum (Lima) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae)**  **Risk r**  **ating s**  **Risk Element #1: Climate**

**— Host Interaction**  Gymnandrosoma aurantianum is poly phagous (CABI, 20 12 ) and we estimated its potential U.S. distribution using the degree

- day model reported b y Garcia (1998) as cited in Parr et al. (2004) . We simulated the degree

- day model using NAPPFAST (Magarey

et al., 2007 ) predictive modeling s ys tem. We considered areas where G. aurantianum could complete seven generations as conducive for permanent establishment based on its biology in Brazil (Garcia, 1998 as cited in Parra et al., 2004). The resulting map indicated that G. aurantianum could establish in U.S. Plant Hardiness Zones 6

- 11 (Figure 2) ( Magarey et al., 2008 ). The risk rating for this element is High

. High (3)

**Risk Element #2: Host Range** Gymnandrosoma aurantianum ’s main host is citrus, but it is poly phagous and attacks multiple plant species in multiple families (CABI, 20 12 ). Gymnandrosoma aurantianum hosts include Pithecellobium dulce (Roxb.) Benth., Psidium guajava L., Punica granatum L., Eriobotrya japonica (Thunb.) L indl., Prunus persica (L.) Batsch, and Sapindus saponaria L. ( Gilligan and Epstein, 2012 ), which occur in the United States (NRCS, 2012 ) . The risk rating for this element is High
**.** High (3)Pest Risk Assessment for Citrus from Uruguay

Ver. 9 December 1 6 , 201 2 40 **Gymnandrosoma aurantianum (Lima) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae)**  **Risk r**  **ating s**  **Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential** Gymnandrosoma aurantianum is capable of flight and the larva is an internal fruit borer, indicating it could move in harvested fruits (Bento et al., 2001; Parra et al., 2004). The moth can have between seven to eight generations per ye ar and each female can lay

approximately

200 eggs (Garcia, 1998 as cite d in Parra et al., 2004). The risk rating for this element is High

. High (3)

**Risk Element #4: Economic Impact** Gymnandrosoma aurantianum is an internal feeder that punctures fruit (Parra et al., 2004 ). This ty

pe of damage can cause substantial losses to citrus crops due to fruit drop and rot , rendering fruit unsuitable for the fresh or processed markets ( Parra et al., 2004 )

. Gymnandrosoma aurantianum can attack fruit at the earl y, mid

- , and late ripening stages and complete larval development within the host ( Parra et al., 2004 ; Parra et al. , 2001 ). In Brazil, yi eld losses of up to 50 percent have been reported (Bento et al., 2001 ). In one major orchard in Trinidad, direct fruit loss reached up to 40 percent in the 1992

- 93 season (White, 1999 ). If G

. aurantianum becomes established in the United States, growers woul d likel y institute an Integrated Pest Management approach to controlling this pest, as is done in other countries ( Parra et al., 2004 ). These measures would likel y increase the cost of production. The risk rating for this element is High

. High (3)

**Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact** None of the known hosts of Gymnandrosoma aurantianum or plants in the same genera are Threatened or Endangered plants in the United States. However, h osts of G. aurantianum belong to the Rutaceae, Sapindaceae, and Sterculiaceae families, members of which are listed as Threatened and Endangered plants (USFWS, 20 12 ) , although none have been confirmed as hosts . Also, the introduction of Gymnandrosoma aurantianum coul d cause the implementation of chemical and/or biological control programs (Molina and Parra, 2006; Parra et al., 2004; Scarpellini and Santos, 1997). Due to the potential for direct impacts on Threatened or Endangered plant species and the need for additio nal control programs, the risk rating for this element is High

. High ( 3 )Pest Risk Assessment for Citrus from Uruguay

Ver. 9 December 1 6 , 201 2 41 **Figure 2** . Predicted U.S. distribution of G ymnandrosoma aurantianum based on the ten

- year frequency of occurrence of required degree

- days to complete seven generations.

**Elsinoё australis**  **(Bitancourt & Jenk.) (Sweet Orange Scab, SOS)**  **Risk r**  **ating s**  **Risk Element #1: Climate**

**– Host Interaction**  Sweet orange scab (SOS), caused b y E. australis, is largel y confined to the humid citrus

-producing areas in southern South America ( Timmer et al., 2000): Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Paraguay (Sivanesan and Critchett, 1974) and recentl y confirmed in Uruguay (Palm, 2007; 2008). SOS was reported in Uruguay (Koch de Brotos et al., 1981) and as unpublished data by L . W. Timmer ( Timmer et al ., 1996b). It was intercepted on fruit from Uruquay (PestID, 2008), and recent testing has confirmed its presence (Palm, 2007, 2008 ) but not its distribution in Uruguay

. Elsinoe australis has been reported in the United States and is under official control , but it may become more widel y established in warm, humid areas, such as the southeastern United States ( Timmer et al., 2000 ), or in areas where fruit set coincides with relativel y warm humid weather. Thayer et al. (2003) developed a NAPPFAST climate risk which predicted suitable climates for E. australis development are limited to the humid Southeast, primarily to the state of Florida . Thayer et al.’s prediction concurs with Timmer et al. ( Timmer et al., 2000 ). In the United States c itrus production areas (Borchert, 2008) and favorable climatic conditions for SOS (Thayer et al., 2003; Timmer et al., 2000 ) occur in Plant Hardiness Zones 9

- 11 (Magarey , 2008). Therefore, we rated this element Medium

. Medium (2)

**Risk Element #2: Host Range** Elsinoё australis primarily causes disease on the fruit of sweet orange s , such as navel orange ( C. sinensis ), and tangerines, such as mandarin ( C. reticulata ) ( Timmer et al., 2000 ), but lemons ( C. limon ), satsumas ( C. unshiu ), limes ( C. aurantifolia ), oval kumquat ( Fortunella margarita ), Fortunella sp. and fruit of Medium (2)Pest Risk Assessment for Citrus from Uruguay

Ver. 9 December 1 6 , 201 2 42 **Elsinoё australis**  **(Bitancourt & Jenk.) (Sweet Orange Scab, SOS)**  **Risk r**  **ating s**  many other citrus species can also be hosts (Farr et al., 2008; Timmer et al., 1996b , Timmer et al., 2000 ). Thus, E. australis incites disease in two genera in the same famil y ; therefore the rating for hos t range is Medium
**. Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential**  Little is known about the biology , ecology , and epidemiology of E. australis and SOS. Bitancourt and Jenkins ( 1937 ) suggested four sources of primary inoculum : the limited number of leaves with lesions ; out of season , green , scabbed fruit ; scabbed fruit left from the past season ; and twig infections. Elsinoe australis requires moisture for both spore production and infection. Insects or wind

carried water droplets containing spores may contribute to the spread of the pathogen (USDA

- APHI S

- PPQ, 2005). Young fruit are susceptible for onl y 6 to 8 weeks after petal fall, but this time is sufficient for secondary infections to occur (Bitancourt and Jenkins, 1937). Natural dispersal over short dist ances occurs by rain

- splashing fungal spores between trees (Chung and Timmer, 2005). The estimated spread rate for E. fawcetti was no more than 100 to 300 meters per ye ar in Florida groves ( Whiteside, 1975 ). However, long distance dispersal occurs through the movement of fruit (Chung and Timmer, 2005). Therefore, the rating for dispersal is Medium
**.** Medium (2)

**Risk Element #4: Economic Impact** Elsinoë australis is a fungal pathogen that causes fruit disfigurement and reduces fresh market value ( Bitancourt and Jenkins, 1937 ; EPPO/CABI , 1997c ); in addition, this pathogen may stunt young seedlings ( EPPO/CABI, 1997c )

. The introduction of E. australis may not require the use of different chemicals since the y are part of recommended citrus control programs (Timmer and Chung, 2008)

. However, additional applications of chemicals may be required in the field or in post harvest treatments

. Although the disease is no t expected to be problem in California production areas (Thayer et al., 2003), the pathogen will be difficult to eradicate i f established in Florida. The cost of permanent establishment of SOS in Florida is estimated to be high

. “The cost of living with SO S would be primarily

associated with increased expenditures for field control to reduce disease s ymptoms, post

- harvest treatments, grove survey s, and the loss in export market of fresh citrus from all states. Thus, a rough estimate of the cost of a permanent establishment of SOS in Florida, including a loss in export revenue of $32 million per year, would be about $55 million annually (an amount which does not take into consideration the cost of post

- harvest treatments)” (USDA

- APHI S

- PPD, 2002 ). Since E. aus tralis may cause fruit to have a lower market value and control of the pathogen may increase costs of production, and foreign markets may be jeopardized, the risk rating is Medium
**.** Medium ( 2 )

**Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact** N o threatened or endangered species of Citrus or Fortunella in the United States should be impacted b y sweet orange scab (USFWS, 20 12 ). The chemical control options for E. australis are copper products, which are commonl y used b y Citrus pest management programs (Timmer and Chung, 2008; Timmer et al., 2000). Since the chemicals are already recommended for control of E. fawcettii in some Low ( 1 )Pest Risk Assessment for Citrus from Uruguay

Ver. 9 December 1 6 , 201 2 43 **Elsinoё australis**  **(Bitancourt & Jenk.) (Sweet Orange Scab, SOS)**  **Risk r**  **ating s**  production regions of the United States, such as Florida the impacts may be minor. However, in other regions where E. fawcetti is not a problem (California), potential impact on the environment may occur with the increased use of pesticides (USDA

- APHIS

- PPD, 2002 ) . Therefore, we rated its Environmental Impact Low

.

**Xanthomonas citri subsp**  **. citri (Citrus Canker, Xcc)**  **Risk r**  **ating s**  **Risk Element #1: Climate**

**– Host Interaction**  High relative humidity

is conducive for reproduction and dispersal of Xanthomonas citri subsp

. citri (Xcc) (Graham et al., 1992 a ; Serizawa et al., 1959) . Wind speeds greater than 8 m/sec. provide the necessary pressure for Xcc cells to penetrate the stomata, facilitating entry by the pathogen and thereby increasing disease ( Graham and Gottwald, 1991 ). Koizumi ( 1976 ) found the time needed for incubation de creased with increasing temperature, but no relationship was detected between the incubation period and the ten varieties tested. Koizumi (1976) also verified optimal temperatures for canker development under field conditions between 25 and 30 °C. The succ essful establishment of Xcc several times in the United States is indicative of favorable climates ( Graham et al., 2004; Civerolo, 1984; Smith et al., 1997) . The disease was successfully

eradicated in Florida by

1933 (Whiteside, 1988a) and nationwide by

19 47 ( Schubert and Sun, 2003 ). Citrus canker reappeared in Miami in 1995. Xcc is now widespread throughout citrus

-producing areas in Florida and eradication is not possible. To date, Xcc has not spread outside of Florida to other U.S. citrus

-producing areas. The main citrus

-producing states are Florida, California, Arizona and Texas (USDA

-NASS, 2008), but citrus is also cultivated in Louisiana and Arkansas ( Cross, 2008 ). Borchert et al. ( 2007 ) developed a citrus canker spread model to identify areas where citrus canker could become established in the major citrus

-producing regions of the United State ; California and Arizona, though favorable conditions can occur, have a lower potential for establishment of Xcc than Florida. The availability

of both suitable h ost plants and suitable climatic conditions citrus canker could establish in three Plant Hardiness Zones ( 9

- 11) , and our rating for Host

- Climate Interaction is Medium
**.** Medium (2)

**Risk Element #2: Host Range** Known natural hosts are members of the Rutaceae family , including species, hy brids and cultivars of Citrus spp., Poncirus trifoliata , Fortunella japonica , F. margarita , Severinia buxifolia, and Swinglea glutinosa . Two non

- Rutaceous hosts, Lansium domesticu m (Meliaceae) and Ageratum conyzoides (Asteraceae) have been reported, but this information was not confirmed ( COSAVE, 2004 ; CABI, 2007 ). In addition, plants in several other plant families (Asteraceae, Convolvulaceae, Meliaceae, Poaceae, and Solanaceae) have been artificially infected with Xcc ( CABI, 20 12 ; Goto, 1970; Goto et al., 1975a; Goto et al., 1978). The natural host range of citr us canker includes multiple species within Medium (2)Pest Risk Assessment for Citrus from Uruguay

Ver. 9 December 1 6 , 201 2 44 **Xanthomonas citri subsp**  **. citri (Citrus Canker, Xcc)**  **Risk r**  **ating s**  one plant family

so our rating was Medium. **Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential** Bacteria survive in lesions formed on aboveground parts of susceptible hosts, including fruit attached to the tree, leav es, twigs, stems, and the bark of the trunk (Leite Jr. and Mohan, 1990). Xcc can survive on non

- citrus weed and grass hosts, although the epidemiological significance 43 is unclear ( Stall et al., 1980; Goto, 1970; Goto et al., 1975a; Goto et al., 1975b; 197 8; Pereira et al., 1976; 1978; Serizawa, 1981) Bacteria produced in leaf and twig lesions are epidemiologically

significant for secondary infections (Pruvost et al., 2002); stem lesions can act as reservoirs of inoculum for longer periods than fruits and l eaves (Leite Jr. and Mohan, 1990; Verniere et al., 2003). The number of Xcc bacteria present within active lesions decreases as the lesions age. Timmer et al

. ( Timmer et al., 1991 ) demonstrated in vitro that young lesions (4

- 6 weeks old) exude ~10 4

- 10 6 cfu44/ml in the first 48 hours of wetting, while older lesions (4

- 6 months old) exude ~10 2

- 10 3 cfu/ml in the same period. Bacteria may survive for a few weeks to several months on decomposing plant litter (fallen fruit, leaves, and limbs) on the soil surface ( Civerolo, 1984; Gottwald et al., 2002a; Leite and Mohan, 1990; Graham et al., 1987; Schubert et al., 2001 ) or on plant material buried in the soil (Graham et al., 1987), but do not survive as well in the absence of host material (Graham et al., 1989; Leite Jr. and Mohan, 1984)

. Survival in decomposing leaves, both in and on the soil surface, is dependant on the moisture and temperature ( Goto, 1992; Graham et al., 1987 ) . This bacterium is a facultative saprotroph on citrus debris, Zoysia sp. rhizomes, and ri ce straw ( Goto et al., 1978; Graham et al., 1987 ). Viable bacteria have been isolated from lesions on 5

- 7 year - old branches (Xun, unpublished data in: Schubert et al., 2001). Asy

mptomatic citrus leaves still attached to the tree are believed to harbor citrus canker bacteria for several months. Late

- season lesions are capable of sustaining bacteria from one season into the next season (Schubert et al., 2001), and bacteria residing on plant material in the soil (as long as 2

- 4 years) has been shown to inf

ect healthy

trees ( Goto, 1992;Goto, 1992; Goto et al., 1975a; Pereira et al., 1976 ). Thus citrus canker bacteria can persist in areas where the disease is already established, providing inoculum for the spread of the pathogen (Graham et al., 1987) (Appendi x E )

. Citrus canker is readily

dispersed by wind

- driven rain in large quantities immediately

after a rain event occurs ( Bock et al., 2005 ). Pathogen spread has been recorded from 32 meters to several miles ( Gottwald et al., 2002b; Stall et al., 1980; Gottwald and Graham, 2000; Gottwald et al., 1988)

. In Florida, pathogen spread was detected within 579 m (1900 ft) from the source 95 percent of the time (Gottwald et al., 2002a; Compton and Fagan, 2000; Gottwald et al., 2001; McElroy , 2000 ). Citrus canker sp read from an initial 50 square miles to 1,265 square miles area in the first five ye ars following detection in Florida. The Medium ( 2 )

43 The term “epidemiologically significant” refers to minimum conditions required for successful Xcc transmission. 44 cfu refers to colony forming unit.Pest Risk Assessment for Citrus from Uruguay

Ver. 9 December 1 6 , 201 2 45 **Xanthomonas citri subsp**  **. citri (Citrus Canker, Xcc)**  **Risk r**  **ating s**  epidemic centered on the Miami area (Gottwald et al

. , 2001). The spread possibly resulted from favorable environmental conditions th at included storms with high winds and wind

- driven rain on a regular basis, as well as limited management of the disease. For example, a thunderstorm in 1989 spread inoculum that resulted in the establishment of four new disease foci 230 to 810 m from the infected source trees (Graham et al., 2004 ; Gottwald et al., 1992 ). W inds at speeds of 8 m/sec or greater aid in the penetration of bacteria through the stomatal pores or wounds ( Timmer et al., 2000 ). Long

- distance spread of the pathogen can also occur vi a the movement of infected planting and propagating material, such as budwood, rootstock seedlings or budded trees from nurseries ( Gottwald et al., 2002a; Smith et al., 1997; Graham and Leite Jr., 2004) . There is no confirmed record of seed transmission ( S mith et al., 1997) . Contaminated personnel, clothing, equipment, tools, field boxes, and other items associated with harvesting and post

- harvest handling of fruit may

also provide a means of long

- distance dissemination, especiall y when trees are wet ( Civerolo, 1984; Timmer et al., 2007 ). The movement of diseased fruit has often been considered a potential means of long

- distance pathogen spread; however, there is no authenticated record of this being related to the epidemiology of the disease ( Smith et al., 1997b ), despite a long global history

of co mmercial trade in citr us fruit. Likewise, infected culled fruit and processed fruit pulp have also been identified as possibly facilitating long

- distance pathogen spread. In recent research conducted b y Gottwald et al. ( 2009 ), culled fruit and processed fruit pulp appear to be unlikely pathways for spread. Gottwald et al. ( 2009 ) examined several possible transmission scenarios to ascertain the potential of harv ested fruit to transmit Xcc in the natural environment. In the first transmission scenario, s ymptomatic fruit that had undergone a typical packinghouse process were placed in cull piles with yo ung susceptib le trap trees surrounding them. The experiment was conducted in Florida and Argentina. In each experiment, treated sy mptomatic fruit ( i.e

. were put through the packinghouse process) were left in the field for several weeks under natural rain and wind conditions. None of the “trap” trees developed citrus c anker. Gottwald et al. ( 2009 ) also tried to create a worst

- case scenario b y simulating spread with wind and rain events. In those experiments, severel y infected fruit that were not put through th e packinghouse process were either placed into elevated cull piles or suspended on vertical strings. Trap plants were placed around the infected fruit at distances of 0, 2, 5, and 10 m. An airboat fan was used to produce wind at various speeds (1, 10, and 25 m/sec), and garden sprayers were used to simulate rain. In all the treatments, only one plant became infected with Xcc. The infected tree developed a single lesion at a wound site (likely created by

the wind treatment). The infection occurred on a plant that was 0 m away

from the infected fruit cull pile, and was subjected to 25 m/secPest Risk Assessment for Citrus from Uruguay

Ver. 9 December 1 6 , 201 2 46 **Xanthomonas citri subsp**  **. citri (Citrus Canker, Xcc)**  **Risk r**  **ating s**  wind speed. The strength of this wind treatment is likely to only occur in strong storms, such as tropical storm s. For contrast, a category 1 hurricane starts at 33 m/s on the Saffir

- Simpson scale (AOML, undated). Whereas the windspeeds used in the experiments were not equivalent to a hurricane, personal communications with the authors (December 2008) revealed that at the highest wind speed, the trap trees lost approximately 50 percent of their leaves. Gottwald et al. ( 2009 ) also examined the potential of Xcc bacteria to infect susceptible grapefruit plants when the fruit is forcefully broken and spread over the susceptible plants. This set of experiments used apparentl y healthy fruit from healthy trees, apparently

healthy fruit from infected trees, and s ymptomatic fruit. Fruit were struck with a bat so that the flesh of the fruit would splatter over susc eptible citrus plants. Three hundred total fruit (the juice, rind and fruit fragments) were splattered over 300 plants and none developed Xcc s ymptoms or had Xcc bacteria recovered from the surface of the plants. In the another transmission scenario, Go ttwald et al. ( 2009 ) examined the potential for discarded infected citrus peel to infect susceptible citrus trees in nature. Fruit peels from severel y infected 'Rub y R ed' grapefruit were placed in fiberglass mesh and placed either under a susceptible grapefruit tree in the shade or near the tree exposed to the sun. The peels were sampled weekl y for viable Xcc. No infections developed in bioassays from inoculations using Xcc

- infected peels left in th e field for more than eight days. Since peels were sampled on day 1 and at weekly

intervals thereafter, viability was lost after more than 1 day and less than or equal to 8 days. There is no record that either infected fruit with lesions or asy mptomatic f

ruit are epidemiologically

significant with respect to the initiation of new infections (Anonym ous, 2005a ; Anony mous, 2005b ; Jetter et al., 2000 ; Canteros, 2004 ). Based on the above, citrus canker is rated Medium

. **Risk Element #4: Economic Impact** Citrus canker is mainly

a leaf

- spotting and rind

- blemishing disease, but when conditions are highly

favorable for infection, it causes defoliation, death of terminal branches and premature fruit drop in susceptible hosts ( Timmer et al., 2000 ). The internal quality of the infected tree

- ripened fruit is not affected; however, such fruit have reduced marketability as fresh fruit. Ingeneral, grapefruits, limes and Poncirus trifoliata are highly susceptible; sour orange, lemon and sweet orange are moderatel y susceptible. Mandarins are moderately resistant, but some mandarins and hybrid mandarins, such as Fremont, Kara, and Umatilla are highl y susceptible to citrus canker ( Leite Jr., 2000 ). Defoliation and fruit drop are more severe on very susceptible varieties, under highl y favorable conditions for disease development, and without adequate phytosanitary management ( Timmer et al., 2000 ). Although there is a loss in commercial quality due to rind

- blemishes and fruit drop, the most important economic loss results from quarantine restrictions imposed on the international trade of citrus High (3)Pest Risk Assessment for Citrus from Uruguay

Ver. 9 December 1 6 , 201 2 47 **Xanthomonas citri subsp**  **. citri (Citrus Canker, Xcc)**  **Risk r**  **ating s**  fruit. Thus, the rating for Economic Impact is High
**. Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact**  There are no related threatened and endangered species within the same host genera infected b y Xcc (USFWS, 20 12 ). The introduction of citrus canker in a new area may

require specific control programs that may negativel y impact non

target pests and the environment. Prophylactic sprays of copper oxychloride or other copper

- containing compounds are commonly used to provide protection against initial infection in canker

- endemic areas during growth flushes and fruit development (2

- 6 cm diameter) ( Graham et al., 2004 ; Stall et al., 1980; Leite, 1990 ; Muraro et al., 2001; Das, 2003; Kuhara, 1978; Koizumi, 1977b ; Medina

Urrutia and Stapleton, 1985; Timmer, 1988). Additional copper fungicide sprays are often necessary

to avoid sy

mptoms in infected areas because the initial spray wears off ( Gottwald et al., 2002a; Stall et al., 1980; L eite and Mohan, 1990 ). Five to six copper spray s during the susceptible rainy season in Brazil decreased disease incidence 90 percent in moderatel y susceptible cultivars (Leite Jr. et al., 1987). This pesti cide is commonly used within citrus pest management programs for other diseases; however, in some environments, like Florida, additional copper spray s may be needed. Therefore, the rating fo r Environmental Impact is Medium
**.** Medium (2)

**Table 4**
**.** Risk Rating s for Consequences of Introduction **Pest Climate** 
****

**Host Interaction**  **Host**

**Range Dispersal**  **Potential Economic** 

**Impact Environ** 
****

**mental Impact**  **Cumulative**

**risk r ating**  **a** Anastrepha fraterculus High ( 3 ) High (3) High (3) High (3) Med (2) **High (1 4**  **)** Ceratitis capitata High ( 3 ) High (3) High (3) High (3) High ( 3 ) **High ( 1**  **5 )**  Cryptoblabes gnidiella High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) **High (15)** Elsinoё australis Med (2) Med (2) Med (2) Med ( 2 ) Low ( 1 ) **Medium ( 9**  **)** Gymnandrosoma aurantianum High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3 ) **High (1 5**  **)**
Xanthomonas citri subsp

. citri Med (2) Med (2) Med ( 2 ) High (3) Med (2) **Medium (1 1**  **)** Low is 5

- 8 points; Medium is 9

- 12 points; and High is 13

- 15 points

**2.5 Likelihood of Introduction**
In this portion of the assessment we consider two separate components. First, we estimate the amount of commodity

likely to be imported (which is the same for all quarantine pests considered). Second, we consider five biological features ( i.e ., sub

- elements) concerning the pest and its interactions with the commodity . The likelihood of a pest being introduced and establishing a reproductive population is dependent on six independent criteria: 1) quantity of the commodity

imported, 2) ability

of the pest to survive standard production practices and pos t

harvest treatment, 3) ability of the pest to survive shipment, 4) probability that pests will not bePest Risk Assessment for Citrus from Uruguay

Ver. 9 December 1 6 , 201 2 48 detected at the port

- of

- entry , 5) likelihood that it will be moved to a suitable habitat, and 6) probability

that it will come into contact with suitable host material (PPQ, 2000). For consistency of approach with other PRA’s for similar commodities, we have altered sub

- element 2 from our standard guidelines to account for prevalence of pests and ability of production practices to reduce prevalence of some infested or infected fruit that are exported. The resulting risk ratings are specific to each pest. For each pest, the sum of the sub

- elements produces a cumulative risk rating for likelihood of introduction. The cumulative risk rating for introduction i s considered to be an indicator of the likelihood that a particular pest would be introduced. These ratings and the value for the Likelihood of Introduction are summarized below ( Table 5)

. 2.5.1. Quantity Imported Annually The likelihood that an exotic pest will be introduced depends on the amount of potentially infested commodity

imported. For qualitative pest risk assessments, the amount of commodity imported is estimated in units of standard 40

- foot

- long shipping containers. Standard 40

- foot shipping containers have a capacity of slightl y over 210 tons. Uruguayan exporters estimate a total of 39,000 tons will be exported per ye ar for the different varieties (Appendix C ). This is >100 containers per ye ar, therefore the Quantity Imported Annually

is rate d **High** for all pests.
2.5.2 Survives standard production practices and post

- harvest treatment The second sub

- element is the likelihood of a pest or pathogen surviving the packing process and post

- harvest treatment. It also attempts to account for expected prevalence of each pest under standard production practices which are outlined in Appendices C and D . We assumed that infestation is likely

if fruit originates in areas where the pest/disease occurs, but the magnitude of the hazard at this stage will depend in large part on the proportion of infested/infected fruit and the nature of the infestation/contamination. The incidence of infested/infected fruit will depend primarily on the species of Citrus or Fortunella , variety, environmental conditions, field m anagement, and harvesting practices. The location of the pest in or on fruit will directly impact its abililty to survive any post

- harvest treatments.
Post

- harvest treatment refers to any manipulation, handling, or specific phytosanitary treatment to whi ch the commodity

is subjected. The citrus fruit packing process includes washing with disinfectant, culling, mechanical brushing, chemical treatments, drying, and waxing (see Appendix C ). This process removes organic matter and other contaminants (such as soil), and some pests and pathogens from the fruit surface. Harvested fruit is transported to the packinghouse where it is subjected to manual and/or optical scanner culling. Citrus fruit is washed when it enters the packinghouse as a normal part of any packing process. This washing usually includes mechanical brushing, detergent, and disinfectant with chlorine and/or sodium orthophenylphenate (SOPP). The fruit may also be chemically

treated (Thiabendazole (TBZ), Imazalil) to control fungal and bacterial growth. Finally , the fruit is dried and waxed. We evaluated ability

to survive the listed post

- harvest measures, as well as determining impacts of standard production and harvest practices. **Anastrepha fraterculus and**  **Ceratitis capitata**
**.** S everal methods exist for controlling fruit fl y populations in the field which include bait sprays, sterile insect technique (SIT), and malePest Risk Assessment for Citrus from Uruguay

Ver. 9 December 1 6 , 201 2 49 annihilation (CABI, 20 12 ). Appendix A outlines Uruguay ’s fruit fly surveillance program, and provides monthly

data on fruit fly

populations from 2003 to 2006, and data showing populations associated with different species and varieties of Citrus grown in Uruguay

. Harvest and export of Citrus fruits in Uruguay stretches from late February through December, although the volume and ty p e of fruit shipped varies during this time period (Appendix C ). The earliest harvest and export begins with mandarins in late February to March. The highest levels of harvest and export, which includes lemons, most orange varieties (except Valencia), many mandarin varieties, and grapefruits, occur during June, July, and August. The majority of harvest and exports finish at the end of September. The exceptions to the harvest and export calendar are Valencia oranges, whose harvest stretches from July to December. January

and February

are the two months in which little or no Citrus spp. are harvested or shipped. Ty pically , post

- harvest measures remove overripe or damaged fruit which are more likely to be infested (Willink et al., 2007). Due to the number of Citrus species and varieties produced b y Uruguay , it seems difficult to avoid times of the year when A. fraterculus and C. capitata populations are present (Appendix A). For example, numbers of C. capitata trapped were highest in the Southern production regio n from December to March, which overlaps with harvest periods for some mandarin varieties and Valencia oranges, but may diminish the risk associated with certain other Citrus species and cultivars. In the Northern production region, C. capitata were lower than the Southern region, but numbers peaked between December and March, and sometimes extended into May when larger amounts of fruit are harvested and shipped. Anastrepha fraterculus numbers were relativel y low for both production regions and varied in mo nths in which they peaked, but the pest is still a concern for fruit exported. Selective harvesting methods, such as harvesting green fruit and eliminating damaged and overripe fruit, accompanied with monitoring may reduce prevalence of fruit flies in the harvested fruit for export. Generally , internall y feeding arthropods are expected to survive minimal post

- harvest treatment. Because Anastrepha fraterculus and Ceratitis capitata are internal feeders, they are expected to survive post

- harvest processing in host fruits , such as washing and culling, especiall y if the infestation of the fruit does not result in obvious damage. Fruit fl y- infested fruit may have a high probability

of escaping detection during culling, since fruit fl y- infested fruit may go unre cognized (White and Elson

- Harris, 1992). Anastrepha fraterculus and Ceratitis capitata are rated **High** (3) for the likelihood that they will survive post harvest treatment and standard production practices. **Cryptoblabes gnidiella**
**.** Cryptoblabes gnidiella is an internal fruit feeder reported to occasionall y bore into citrus fruit and cause fruit drop (CABI, 2007; SI NAVIMO, 2005a). Newly enclosed larva will move directly

into the fruit, ty

pically dwelling within the peel or flavedo (Moore, 2003). Cryptoblabes gnidiella is an internal feeder and Moore (2003) noted that C. gnidiella will usually attack smaller lemons and does not finish the life cycle on fruit. Silva and Mexia, 1999 report C. gnidiella earl y i nstars feed primaril y on honeydew associated with aphi ds or mealy bugs, and only

later instars can pierce the fruit unless it is already previously

damaged by other pests. Sy

mptoms may

include premature coloring followed by fruit drop, which can lead to yi eld losses in the grove (Silva and Mexia, 1999). Crypto blabes gnidiella feeding injury consists of fruit piercing and gallery formation at fruit exocarp and endocarp. Gummy exudates may

be apparent and fruits may

turn yellow and dropped prematurel y. It is unclear how C. gnidiellaPest Risk Assessment for Citrus from Uruguay

Ver. 9 December 1 6 , 201 2 50 impacts or survives in other C itrus fruits. Larvae bore into other fresh fruits such as avocados, and reportedly

overwinter in fruit (Swirski et al., 1995 ). However, it has characteristics that probably make it less likely

than the fruit flies to survive the post

- harvest culling phase. Any visible sy mptoms of infestation by C. gnidiella should decrease the chance of infested fruit being selected during post

- harvest processing for export. Based on this evidence, we theorize that only fruit infested at earl y stages and at low levels of in festation would go undetected and survive the post

- harvest treatments and standard production practices

. The risk rating for this sub

- element is **Medium**

. **Gymnandrosoma aurantianum**
**.** The tortricid G. aurantianum (Sy n: Ecdytolopha aurantiana ) is also an internal feeder (White, 1999; Adamski, 2001), which protects it from most post

- harvest treatments (e.g., chlorine dip, brushing) (Parra et al., 2004; Parra et al., 2001). However, it has characteristics that probably make it less likel y than the fruit flies to survive the post

- harvest culling phase. Fruit attacked by G. aurantian um graduall y develop a necrotic area around the entrance hole caused b y the larva in the rind of the fruit, and then the fruit either drops prematurel y or develops a bright orange color distinct from healthy fruit (White and Tuck, 1993). These s ymptoms caused by infestation by G. aurantian um should decrease the chance of infested fruit being selected during post

- harvest processing for export. Based on this evidence, we theorize that only fruit in earl y stages of infestation would go undetected and survive the post

harvest treatments and standard production practices

. The risk rating for this sub

- element is **Medium**

. **Elsino ё**  **australis.** Elsino ё australis infects fruit when new shoots emerge and “petal

- fall” starts; tissue susceptibility

decreases as fruit mature. Lesion development on leaves is rare but can occur (Bitancourt and Jenkins, 1937). For six to eight weeks after petal fall, fruits are susceptib le to E. australis (Timmer et al., 2000). Production practices such as barrier zones around export groves reduce inoculum spread from one grove to another. Chemical sprays during new spring growth and flowering further protect the young fruit from infection ( Timmer et al., 2000 ; Whiteside, 1975 ) : c opper ox ychloride sprays protect the young leaves and fruit b y preventing germinati on of E. fawcetti spores and subsequent infection (Timmer et al., 2007; Chung and Timmer, 2005). Spray programs used to control E

. fawcettii are anticipated to be effective for controlling E. australis in heavily infected groves (Timmer et al., 2007). Two fungicide sprays are often applied in infected regions (Bushong and Timmer, 2000). Copper fungicides may be used to control citr us scab, but may

not be as effective in heavil y infected groves (Diaz et al., 1996). Harvested fruit is visually inspected for disease s ymptoms , both in the grove and in the packinghouse (DGSA, 2008) . Fruit infected in the earl y stages of their development grow misshapen and are subject to premature fall (EPPO/CABI, 1997b ). Lesions on young fruit are round to irregular, 2 to 6 mm in diameter . They begin as slightly raised and pink to light brown scab pustules and later become warty, cracked , and yellowish

- brown to dark gray in c olor ( Bitancourt and Jenkins, 1937; Timmer et al., 2000 ). Since these s ymptoms are distinctive and easily detected b y visual inspection, culling procedures used to remove s ymptomatic Xcc fruit (Ploper et al., 2004) should b e effective in removing E

. australis sy mptomatic fruitPest Risk Assessment for Citrus from Uruguay

Ver. 9 December 1 6 , 201 2 51 Routine packinghouse treatments to control E. australis include chlorine dips, warm water baths, chemical tank dips (1000 μg ml - 1 guazatine, 503 μg ml - 1 imazalil sulphate, 500 μg ml - 1 2,4

- D sodium salt) or combinations of these treatments (Korf et al., 2001), and should reduce the viability of fungal spores present on the fruit. The fungicide imazalil is active against a large number of fungi imperfecti and some ascomyc etes (IPCS, 1977) and is often incorporated into the waxing process . Packinghouse treatments reduced the viability of Elsinoë spp. in highl y infected fruit (60 percent of its surface covered b y scab lesions) during DGSA trials (Díaz et al., 2001; Habtemariam et al., 2001). The rating f

or survives standard production practices and post

- harvest treatment is **Medium**

. **Xanthomonas citri subsp**  **. citri (Xcc)** 
**.** Resistance of fruit to infection by citrus canker is correlated with its stage of maturity . Small fruit (<20mm) are not susceptible to infection as the stomata are not full y open at this stage. Above this size susceptibility is inversel y related to fruit age. The younger the fruit, the less resistant it is to citrus canker (Graham et al

. , 1992b). Persistence of the citrus canker pathogen in lesions varies based on the plant part infected (Schubert et al

. , 2001). Fruit and leaves removed from trees sustain bacterial populations in lesions for 1

- 2 months in the presence of saprophytic microorganisms (Schubert et al

. , 2001). Timmer et al

. (19 91) inoculated grapefruit and Swingle citrumelo leaves with Xanthomonas campestris in the field, and then collected the leaves at 14, 21, and 49 days after inoculation to assess bacteria concentrations within the active lesions. Fourteen

- day

- old lesions produced significantl y more bacteria than 49

- day

- old lesions. Young leaves (4

- 6 weeks old) and mature leaves (4

- 6 months old) naturally infected with Xanthomonas c. pv. citri were removed from the infected tree and assessed in the lab. Bacterial populations within the lesions were closel y correlated with lesion age. Young leaves exuded ~10 6 cells/ml, while older lesions exuded ~10 3 cells/ml. After a 48

- hour period, all samples exuded fewer th an 10 2 cells/ml (Timmer et al

. , 1991). Fruit and leaves removed from trees sustain bacterial populations in lesions for 1

- 2 months in the presence of saprophytic microorganisms (Schubert et al

. , 2001). Diseased leaves removed from trees and placed on the soil surface harbor bacteria populations for 90 to 120 day s, with no detectable bacteria after 120 days (Graham et al

. , 1987). Xcc populations within the lesions of infected fruit decline after harvest (Koizumi, 1972 ). Epiphy tic populations of Xcc on citrus tissue drop 3

- 5 orders of magnitude in 24 hours during experiment al testing (Timmer et al

. , 1996b). Timmer et al

. (1996) detected epiphy tic populations of Xcc on as ymptomatic plants, but these populations did not correlate with s ub sequent sy mptom development and did not survive very long on either hosts or non

- hosts. No bacteria could be recovered form as ymptomatic fruit that had been removed from trees, treated with a bacterial suspension of 10 6 cfu/ml, and incubated at room temperature for 5 day s (Belasque Jr. and Rodriguez Neto, 2000). The survival of epiphytic Xcc populations on as ymptomatic fruit under natural conditions would be expected to be further reduced due to harsher environmental conditions. Harvested fruit is transpo rted to the packinghouse, where it is subjected to one or more visual inspections. Field culling is highly effective in removing s ymptomatic and blemished or injured fruit prior to arrival at the packinghouse. Visual and/or mechanical inspection at the pac kinghouse further reduce the possibility that s ymptomatic, injured, or blemished fruit, as wellPest Risk Assessment for Citrus from Uruguay

Ver. 9 December 1 6 , 201 2 52 as misshapen, off

- color, damaged, and otherwise low quality fruit, will be packed. Current programs in Argentina have demonstrated that culling of s ymptomatic c itrus canker fruit is highl y effective in packinghouse operations. For example, trays of fruit known to contain either 1 percent or 3 percent of s ymptomatic fruit were visually inspected at three stages throughout the packing process, resulting in extremel y low (near 0) numbers of s ymptomatic, injured or blemished fruit reaching the packing bench, and zero s ymptomatic fruit packed in boxes (Ploper et al

. , 2004). Commercially

packed citrus fruit is washed when it enters the packinghouse. This washing usuall y includes mechanical brushing and detergent (at least), which will remove organic and other contaminants (such as soil) (Schubert et al

. , 1999). Brushing increases the exposure of Xcc to detergents or other toxins (Brown and Schubert, 1987). New research by Gottwald et al. ( 2009 ) observed that exposing apparentl y healthy fruit from infected citrus trees to a prewash with SOPP detergent followed b y a wash with chlorine (Cl) reduce d the survival of s urface Xcc. Although the observations by Gottwald et al. ( 2009 ) were not conclusive given the variability in the experiments, prewashing the fruit with sodium ortho

-phenylphanate (SOPP) detergent m ay be effective because it lowers the surface tension, which allows the Cl better access to bacteria and prevents the Cl from binding to debris or other surface contaminants. The drying process ( i.e ., hot air at 58 °C for 2.5 minutes), further reduces epiphy tic Xcc populations (Schubert et al

. , 1999). When the washing process includes a disinfectant, such as 200 ppm chlorine or sodium orthophenylphenate (SOPP) or both, the closely related species Xanthomonas campestris pv. vesicatoria populations are significantl y reduced to epidemiologically insignificant or undetectable levels ( Brown and Schubert, 1987; Graham and Gottwald, 1991 ). The packinghouse wash with disinfectants can practically remove all epiphy

tic Xcc from fruits without sy mptoms (Canteros, 200 4, (undated); Canteros et al. , 2000). The use of 200 ppm Cl for two minutes reduces natural bacterial populations on citrus fruits from 77

- 99 percent (Stapleton, 1986). The estimated reduction in bacterial populations on the surface of citrus fruits brushe d, washed, and disinfected with Cl or SOPP is between 3 and 7 orders of magnitude

. In contrast research b y Gottwald et al. ( 2009 ) treating the fruit with only Cl for 45 s did not significantly reduce surface bacteria populations. The differing results could be attributed to differing bacteria loads on the fruit entering treatment or differences in exposure time of the treatments. The amount of bacteria on the fruit can be affected by several factors , such as field control measures, the time of year that the fruit was harvested (differences in field bacteria load), and the amount of time the fr uit were held before treatment. The results also may differ because the treatments were not identical. Gottwald et al. ( 2009 ) treated fruits in chlorine for 45 s with and without pre

- wash. Canteros et al. ( 2000 ) treated fruit in chlorine for 2 min with pre

- wash. According to research b y Verdier et al . (undated) indicated that average bacterial populations on artificially

infested fruits were 1.7x10 3 cfu/ml and 39.4 cfu/ml on naturall y infested asy mptomatic fruit prior to post

- harvest treatment in Uruguay . After treatment, bacterial populations were teste d by plating on artificial growing medium and were reduced to 8 cfu/ml on artificially

infested fruit and 0.06 cfu/ml for naturally infested fruit. No growth or disease developed on tests using susceptible leaf tissue. Bacterial populations used for artifi cialPest Risk Assessment for Citrus from Uruguay

Ver. 9 December 1 6 , 201 2 53 inoculation of fruit are at extremely high levels typically never found in natural conditions (~43 times higher than naturally infected fruit) (Verdier et al., undated). Such levels of bacterial presence as used in these experiments are considered “high” because those levels are consistent with every tree in a grove being infected (as all fruit in the experiments are inoculated or exposed to Xcc). That very high level of disease incidence is not likely to be found in any commercial grove anywh ere bec ause the grove would not be productive and the fruit would not be marketable. Studies performed in Argentina on the effectiveness of sodium hy

pochlorite on mature s ymptomless fruit artificially inoculated with Xcc showed that sodium hy

pochlorite levels as low as 8 ppm were effective in eliminating epiphy tic or surface bacteria from fruit ( Canteros, undated). If a small epiphy tic population of Xcc did survive the post

- harvest treatment it would not survive on th e surface of the fruit for long ( Goto, 1969 ; Timmer et al., 1991 ; USDA and FDACS, 2000 ). Epiphy tic bacteria do not multiply in water, on leaf surfaces, or on dry

leaves ( Timmer et al., 1991 ; Timmer et al., 1996b ). Disinfection protocols are not 100 percent e ffective. Golmohammadi et al. ( 2007 ) report that a low level of Xcc may

survive post harvest treatments and shipment in fruit lesions . The pathogen was recover from 11 of 16 fruit samples: 16 of 130 tested lesions yielded viable Xcc b y isolation, and some samples were only positive by

PCR protocols (Golmohammadi et al., 2007). Golmohammadi et al. ( 2007 ) found molecular methods to be the more efficient in detecting Xcc , suggesting it was because the treatments used prior to shipment did in deed reduce the Xcc population.
H ealthy fruit can be obtained in Xcc endemic areas

. There is a high likelihood that sy mptomatic fruit that are harvested are likely to be culled out in the packinghouse. Any sy mptomatic fruit that are not culled would be subjected to brushing , washing with disinfectant, and waxing,that is likely to greatly

reduce the number and viability of bacteria within lesions and eliminated epiphy tic bacteria. Therefore, it is likely that very low levels of Xcc survive standard production practices and po st harvest treatments inside lesions. Therefore, the rating for this sub

- element is **Low.** 2.5.3 Survives shipment The third sub

- element is concerned with the survival of pests and pathogens during shipment

. Pest survival depend s on several factors, including duration of shipment and ambient conditions. Transport of citrus fruit from Uruguay to the United States takes 14 to 20 days under refrigeration at temperatures of 4 °C

– 8 oC, depending on the Citrus species. **Anastrepha fra terculus**  **and Ceratitis capitata.**  Low temperatures lengthen the duration of larval instars of both species ( CABI, 2007) , but under normal shipment temperatures, larvae are expected to survive. APHI S

- approved cold treatments for A

. fraterculus and C

. capitata require temperatures lower than 2 oC for a duration between 15 and 17 day s (USDA, 2008a , T107

- a - 1)). The current USDA approved cold treatment schedule (T107

- a - 1) for Ceratitis capitata and species of Anastrepha (other than A. ludens ) in grapefruit , mandarins, oranges, and tangerines (including clementines) requires either 34° F (1.11° C) or below for 15 days, or 35° F (1.67° C) or below for 17 day s (USDA

- APHIS

- PPQ, 2008a, 2008b , T107

- a - 1). Standard shipping procedures will not lower the temperature to these levels so at least some of the larvae and eggsPest Risk Assessment for Citrus from Uruguay

Ver. 9 December 1 6 , 201 2 54 of C. capitata and Anastrepha species would survive. The fruit itself should provide larvae and eggs some protection against. Both Anastrepha sp. and C. capitata have been intercepted b y PPQ at ports of entry

with citrus fruit in cargo (PestID, 20 12 ), which demonstrates that at least a small percentage of these fruit flies have the ability to survive the transport conditions of citrus. Shipping temperatures will vary based on Citrus species shipped. The rating for this element is **High** for Anastrepha fraterculus and Ceratitis capitata. **Cryptoblables gnidiella**
**.** There were 45 7 interceptions of C. gnidiella , 5 1 reported on Citrus spp. and one on Fortunella sp., although most were intercepted from fruit in baggage, ships stores and in general cargo. In permit cargo Cryptoblabes gnidiella has only been intercepted 11 times in permit cargo shipments, with four of those interceptions occurring in fruit. One of the interceptions was on citrus leaves (PestID, 20 12 ). It is unclear what effect proposed shipping temperatures will have on C

. gnidiella . Therefore, the risk rating for this sub

- element is **High**

. **Gymnandrosoma aurantianum**
**.** There are several factors that m ay aid survival of G

. aurantianum during shipment. Gymnandrosoma aurantianum is an internal feeder, which can remain viable in green and ripe fruits, and completes larval development within the host (Parra et al., 2004; Parra et al., 2001). We concluded it could survive shipment in harvested fruits. The risk rating for this sub

- element is **High**

. **Elsinoё australis**
**.** This pathogen survive s in scab pustules on fruits remaining on the tree providing inoculum for the next season (Bitancourt and Jenkins, 1937; CAB I, 20 12 ), and may also survive on twigs and in leaf lesions (Bitancourt and Jenkins, 1937; Timmer et al., 2000). Whiteside (1988b) demonstrated that the viability of E. fawcetti mycelium in scabs decreases significantl y after nine months. Elsinoë australis m ay present little additional threat to sweet orange unless it is able to survive in scab pustules on fruit rind longer than E. fawcettii does (Whiteside, 1988b). Since E. australis survives both overwinter conditions and survives cross

Atlantic, the rating is **High**

. **Xanthomonas citri subsp.**  **citri**
**.** Xcc cells that may survive the packing process on the surface of citrus fruit are unlikel y to survive the shipping process. Epiphytic populations of X. citri subsp

. citri only survive for a limited amount of tim e, 8

- 72 hours in sun and shade ( Goto, 1962; Goto, 1969 ). No variation of survival has been detected for epiphy tic Xcc bacteria on varyingplant or inorganic material. Gottwald examined epiphy tic bacteria survival on metal, wood, plastic, cloth, leather, an d grass; he did not detect Xcc on any surface tested after 72 hours (USDA and FDACS, 2000). In one study , leaves inoculated with culture grown bacteria displayed a significant population decline (3

- 5 orders of magnitude) in the first 24 hours following ino culation, but bacteria persisted in low numbers (<10 4 cfu/leaf) for up to 5 day s (Timmer et al., 1996b). In a laboratory

study inoculating unwounded leaves via air pressure, bacteria concentrations of less than 10 4 cells per ml were unable to cause infection (Gottwald and Graham, 1992). Wounded leaves are more susceptible to infection and may only require a minimum of 10 2 cells per ml ( Goto et al., 1978 ). Epiphy tic bacteria do not multiply in water on leaf surfaces or on dry

leaves (Timmer et al., 1991; Timmer et al., 1996b). There is, therefore, a very limited window of time when an epiphy tic population will pose an epidemiological threat.Pest Risk Assessment for Citrus from Uruguay

Ver. 9 December 1 6 , 201 2 55 Temperatures during shipping and storage influence Xcc inoculum survival. Recommended shipping and storage temperatures and times for citrus vary from and from two to twelve weeks (one to six months for lemons) (Cantwell, 2002). Only grapefruit are stored at the highest temperatures (10 to 15°C). In host plant tissues, Xcc infection and subsequent multiplication only occurs at temperatures above 14oC and below 38oC (Koizumi, 1976). Dalla Pria et al

. (2006) reported 20°C temperatures, interfere in the infection process, reducing disease incidence. Bacterial populations in existing lesions decreased from 10 7 to between 10 2 and 10 4 cells when the average maximum temperature was below 20°C and average minimum temperature was below 10°C (Koizumi, 1977b ). Xanthomonas is unable to grow at 4

- 5 oC ( Swings et al., 1993 ) and epiphyt ic Xcc p opulations on asy mptomatic leaves and fruits have previously been shown to decline substantially in 3 to 5 days under suitable conditions for bacterial multiplication ( Belasque Jr. and Rodriguez Neto, 2000 ; Timmer et al., 1996a). S torage conditions can vary from 0°C to 15°C, with the cooler temperatures used for sweet orange (0

- 9°C), kumquat (4°C), and tangerines (4

- 7°C), and warmer temperatures used for grapefruit (10

- 15°C) (Cantwell, 2002 ). Therefore, the few Xcc bacteria that survive the post

- harvest tre atment may not survive storage temperatures during the transport period (14

- 18 days) for sweet orange, kumquat, and tangerine fruit stored at the lower temperatures but m ay for grapefruit and other citrus stored above 5 °C . The post

- harvest treatment described effectively eliminated more than 99.5 percent of the Xcc population from naturally and artificially

infested fruit in these tests

. Fruit

- to

- fruit post

- harvest spread of bacteria has not been documented. Xcc latent populations do not produce s ymptoms in harvested fruit (Civerolo, 1997). The multiplication of Xcc bacteria associated with lesions is closely related to lesion expansion. Xcc multiplies abundantly during lesion expansion but decrease s noticeable as lesion expansion ceases ( Koizumi and K uhara, 1982 ). In addition, with the exception of the earl y stages of lesion development, the cells in the center of lesions disintegrate during lesion expansion, and during the late stages of lesion expansion, bacterial multiplication becomes inhibited at the edges of the lesion as well (Koizumi, 1977a). Bacteria survive in the margin of the lesions in citrus leaves and fruit, until they fall off or are removed from the tree ( Graham et al., 2004 ). Xcc bacteria do not increase in number on fruit once the fruit is removed from the tree; rather, populations decline within the lesions of infected fruit following harvest ( Civerolo, 1981 ; Koizumi, 1972 ). Several experiments b y Gottwald et al. ( 2009 ) sugg ested that the viability of bacteria on fruit and in lesions drops off once fruit is harvested, but their observations were inconsistent

. Ina 2007 study using naturall y infected ‘Rub y Red’ grapefruit, Gottwald et al. ( 2009 ) concluded that viable Xcc populations generall y declined with time when the fruit was stored at 5 to 8°C. However, in those experiments, general bacterial population data were variable and although bioassay plants formed no lesions when inoculated with washates from fruit stored for 21 day s, there was no statistical difference among the pretreatment c ontrols and the 21 day results. In a related experiment using the lemon cultivar ‘Lisbon’, a statistically significant reduction in both total bacterial populations and lesion formation in bioassays after infecte d fruit was stored for 7 days at 5 to 8°C ( Gottwald et al., 2009 )

. Importantly , in all of the experimental scenarios, no harvested mature fruit ever developed new Xcc lesions.Pest Risk Assessment for Citrus from Uruguay

Ver. 9 December 1 6 , 201 2 56 Golmohammadi et al. ( 2007 ) were able to detect viable Xcc on s ymptomatic fresh citrus fruit in 11 of 15 shipments from Argentina and Ur uguay to Spain. Shipments from which Xcc

- infected citrus fruit were sampled were certified to have been treated with bactericides [chlorine or sodium orthophenylphenate (SOPP)]. These results indicate disinfection protocols are not 100 percent effective. S ome samples were only positive by

PCR protocols. The authors concluded this was probabl y due to the disinfection treatments, which would reduce bacterial populations, and may induce the non

- cultivable state in the analy zed lesions. They

further suggested that the bacterial cells in the lesions could be stressed after the fruit treatments (washing, disinfection, chemical treatments, transport, and storage at low temperatures for variable periods of time). Pathogenicity tests were successfull y conducted by ar tificial inoculations, but the epidemiological significance of these results was not evaluated . The rating is **Low** for this risk element.
2.5.4 Not detected at the port

- 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. **Anastrepha fraterculus and**  **Ceratitis capitata**
**.** Ingeneral, internal pests of fruit are likel y to escape detection

. Eggs and larvae of the fruit flies ( Ceratitis capitata, Anastrepha fraterculus ) are borne internall y and are quite small (CABI, 20 12 ). Therefore, they would be difficult to detect, depending on the age of infestation. Fruit fly

- infested f ruit can go unrecognized (White and Elson

- Harris, 1992) even if fruit are dissected

. Fruit can show signs of oviposition punctures; however, these are often difficult to detect in early stages of infestation (CABI, 20 12 ). Gould ( 1995) examined inspectors’ ability to detect Anastrepha suspensa infesting a variety of fruit and found inspectors unable to detect infested grapefruit in most cases, indicating species and variety differences in appearance of infested fruit. Consequently this risk element is rated as **High**

. **Cryptoblabes gnidiella and**  **Gymnandrosoma aurantianum.** Depending on how recently fruit are infested and the extent of infestation, internal feeders may have a high probability

of escaping detection at a port

- of

- entry , unless fruit is cut open. Entrance holes of C. gnidiella and G. aurantianum on the outside of fruit might be detected b y visual inspection, so fruit infested b y these Lepidoptera are probably easier to detect than fruit infested by fruit flies. For this reason we rated this element as **Medium**

. **Elsinoë australis**

. The fungus produces distinctive le sions on infected fruit and has been detected at the port multiple times, both from Uruguay and other South American countries (Appendix C , Tables C 1 and C 2). Therefore, the rating for “Not Detected at the Port of Entry” is **Low.**
**Xanthomonas citri subsp.**  **citri (Citrus Canker o**  **r Xcc)**
**.** The bacterium produces distinctive lesions on infected fruit and has been detected at the port multiple times, both from Uruguay and other South American countries (Appendix C, Tables C1 and C2). Therefore, the rating for “No t Detected at the Port of Entry” is **Low**

. 2.5.5 Imported or moved subsequently to an area with an environment suitable for survival This sub

- element considers the geographic location of likely markets and the proportion of the commodity

that is likely

to move to a location suitable for pest survival. Even if an infestedPest Risk Assessment for Citrus from Uruguay

Ver. 9 December 1 6 , 201 2 57 commodity

enters the country , not all final destinations will have suitable climatic conditions for pest survival. In risk element 1 Climate

- Host Interaction, we determined areas in the United States with both suitable host plants and suitable climate, where pests have potential for establishment. Fruit that arrives in the United States does not arrive in a single state. Rather, the fruit is distributed according to market demands through c ommercial distribution areas. The distribution channels and the fact that all fruit is destined for consumption reduce the number of fruit which arrive in the potential suitable areas. Demographics and the distribution of markets in the United States are strong indicators of the ultimate destination of fruit. The distribution of the U.S. population according to the 2000 U.S. Census (Figure 3) describes the likely patterns of fruit destined for human consumption (U.S. Census Bureau, 2001 ). Comparing the s uitable U.S. Plant Hardiness Zone Map ( Magarey et al., 2008 ) determined in risk element 1 and the U.S. c ensus map (Figure 3 ) for each arthropod pest is a useful tool in estimating the risk of imported fruit being moved to a suitable habitat. **Anastrepha fraterculus and**  **Ceratitis capitata**
**.** Citrus fruit potentially contaminated with fruit flies will be moved to areas suitable for the survival of these pests. Based on the predicted distribution of imported citrus fruit in the United States described above and the areas with suitable conditions for these pests, the risk associated with this sub

- element is estimated to be **Medium. Cryptoblabes gnidiella**  **and Gymn**  **androsoma aurantianum.** Both C. gnidiella and G. aurantianum can probably survive in Plant Hardiness Zones 6

- 11. States within these zones contain more than 89 percent of the U.S. population (US Census Bureau, 2005 ), and a significant percentage of citrus imports likely would be shipped there . Risk associated with the likelihood that these pests will be moved to suitable habitat in the United States is estimated to be **High**

. **Elsinoё australis**

. Climate mapping showed that E. australis was likely to become established only in the Southeast United States and principall y in the state of Florida (Thayer et al., 2003) , and in 2011, the pathogen had been confirmed and quarantined in five U.S. states: Lo uisiana , Mississippi , Texas , Florida , and Arizona (APHI S

- USD A, 2011)

. With citrus shipped proportionally

to the populations across the United States (Figure 3 ), the likelihood that E. australis infected fruit will be shipped to a suitable habitat is limited. Therefore the risk rating for this element is **Medium**

. **Xa nthomonas citri**  **subsp . citri.**  Three of the four most populous states in the United States, Florida, Texas, and California, are in the southern tier of the United States (Figure 3) where the climate most closely

resembles the native climates for Xcc

. With the assumption that citrus is distributed across the United States in proportion to the human population an even smaller portion of fruit will be distributed to areas with climates suitable for Xcc disease development. Still there are regions with suitable climates, and therefore, the rating for this risk element is **Medium.**Pest Risk Assessment for Citrus from Uruguay

Ver. 9 December 1 6 , 201 2 58 **Figure 3** . U.S. population density , by state, 2000 U.S. Census (U.S. Census Bureau, 2001).

2.5.6 Come into contact with host material suitable for reproduction The sixth sub

- elem ent examines the risk that imported infested fruit will encounter a suitable host within the suitable habitat, and a viable reproductive unit of the insect pest or plant pathogen associated with the fruit is able to complete its life cycle. Furthermore, fo r disease development to occur, the host must be at a stage that is susceptible to the pathogen, with proper environmental conditions. In determining the risk ratings for this element, we considered the complete host range of the pest species. This process depends on two factors, the pest’s potential for dispersal, and the presence of host material in the region. **Anastrepha fraterculus and**  **Ceratitis capitata.** Upon arrival at the port

- of

- entry , these pests could be in various developmental stages inside the fruit, according to their biology and temperature required for their development. Thus it is unlikely that all specimens that could be present in the fruit c ould complete their life cycles. Since both fruit fly species are pol yphagous and adults highl y mobile, hosts should be available throughout its potential area of establishment. Ceratitis capitata , for instance, has become established sporadically in the c ontinental United States (CABI, 20 12 ; Foote et al., 1993). However, C. capitata has not become permanentl y established and is subject to official control when detected. These species have a high probability

of contacting host material suitable for reproduc tion, as demonstrated by the fact that C. capitata has already done so during past transient outbreaks. The probability that these pests will encounter suitable host material is considered **High** for Anastrepha fraterculus and Ceratitis capitata. **Cryptoblabes gnidiella and**  **Gymnandrosoma aurantianum.** Cryptoblabes gnidiella and G. aurantianum are both polyphagous and attack multiple plant species in multiple families (CABI, 20 12 ). Also, the adults fly, which increases the likelihood of locating a hos t and mating (Bento et al., 2001; Parra et al., 2004). Consequently , both insects are likel y to encounter hosts and become established in areas with suitable climates. As evidence of this, C. gnidiella was recentl y introduced into South Africa and has beco me a pest of lemons (Moore , 2003). For gravidPest Risk Assessment for Citrus from Uruguay

Ver. 9 December 1 6 , 201 2 59 females of either species to come into contact with hosts the following would have to happen: 1) multiple infested fruit must be discarded together 2) a male and female emerge, find each other, and mate and 3) female flies to a suitable host. The risk rating for this sub

- element is **Medium**
**. Elsinoё australis** 
**.** The suitable climate for E. australis development is limited to Florida (Thayer et al ., 2003) and other humid southeast citrus production areas. Infection only occurs when there is new shoot growth ( Timmer et al., 2000 ). Lesion development on leaves is rare but can occur (Bitancourt and Jenkins, 1937). Fruit are onl y susceptible to E

. austra lis infection for 6

- 8 weeks following petal fall and become less susceptib l e as they mature ( Timmer et al., 2000 ). According to Whiteside (1988b) even if E

. australis is more virulent than E. fawcettii on sweet orange fruit, it may not create a problem on sweet orange cultivars in Florida unless there is leaf infection. The pathogen will survive if existing scab pustules retain the infectious conidia ( EPPO/CABI, 1997b ). Conidia form abundantly on wet scabs (CABI, 20 12 ). Germination of conidia and infection do not require rainfall, but a minimum wet period, via dew, fog, or other high moisture conditions of 2.5

- 3.5 hours, is necessary for conidial infection (CABI, 20 12 ; EPPO/CABI , 1997b ). When these favorable conditions are present, infection and further coni dial production can occur within 4

- 6 hours (Whiteside, 1975 ). Elsinoë australis might present little additional threat to sweet orange unless it is able to survive in scab pustules on fruit longer than E. fawcettii does (Whiteside, 1988b)

. Fruit are a kno wn pathway for spreading Elsinoë spp. (EPPO/CABI, 1997b). The closel y related species E. fawcettii was already established in Florida, and E. australis performs well at both the same and higher temperatures than E. fawcettii in laboratory tests (Bitancourt and Jenkins, 1937).
APHI S has recently assessed “ The significance of Citrus spp. fruit as a pathway for the introduction or spread of Elsinoë australis, the organism that causes Sweet orange scab disease (SOS). We concluded that sy mptomatic fresh fruit that is commercially packed is not epidemiologically

significant as a pathway

if washed with a surface disinfestant and treated with fungicides during packing (P ERAL , 2010b ). The implementation of a disease management program reduces the incidence of SOS infected fruit in the field. Commercial packinghouse procedures that include culling, washing with a surface disinfectant, and surface treatment with a fungicide

- wax destroy

fruiting bodies on sy

mptomatic fruit and inhibit f urther sporulation (APHI S

- USDA 2010b ; PERAL , 2010b ). The potential for establishment is further reduced b y the unique set of conditions that must be met for infection to occur during the 1.5 hours that any spores which may

be produced will survive (PERAL , 2010b ). Therefore, it is likely that E. australis will encounter suitable host and climatic conditions for disease development, as we have already seen in five U.S. states, and the rating for this subelement is **Low .**  **Xanthomonas citri subsp**  **. citri (Citrus Canker or Xcc)** 
**.** The development of disease requires the presence of the pathogen in an infective stage, the host with susceptible tissues, and favorable environmental conditions. It is unlikel y that viable bacteria from an infected fruit would enc ounter a suitable host under the conditions required for disease development for several reasons. First, the fifteen proven hosts of Xcc are exclusively in the Rutaceae family

( CABI, 20 12 ; Smith et al., 1997; Gottwald et al., 1993; Pereira et al., 1976 ), p articularly Citrus spp
.Pest Risk Assessment for Citrus from Uruguay

Ver. 9 December 1 6 , 201 2 60 Second, the host would need to be in a susceptible state for infection to occur. The majority of leaf infection occurs during enlargement ( Civerolo, 1984) with the majority of infection occurring within the first six weeks (Gottwal d and Graham, 2000). Fruit are susceptible to infection 90

- 120 days beginning with petal fall. Fruit can be exposed to several infection cycles ( Civerolo, 1984; Gottwald et al., 2002a; Gottwald and Graham, 2000 ). Fruit 2

- 6 cm in diameter are highl y susceptible to infection; however, susceptibility reduces as fruit develops ( Civerolo, 1984; Graham et al., 1992 a ; Graham and Leite Jr., 2004; Verniere et al., 2003 ). Mature, unwounded fruit are not susceptible to infection ( Civerolo, 1984; Gottwald and Graham, 2 000 ). Mature fruit and leaves are relatively immune to citrus canker because a waxy cuticle builds up on maturing fruit and leaves causing the stomata and other natural openings to become plugged and less susceptible to pathogen penetration (Albrigo, 1976; Gottwald and Graham, 2000; Graham et al

. , 1992b; NPB, 2002). Therefore, as long as fruit are not wounded during harvest, post harvest treatments and packing, susceptible tissue is unlikely to be available. Hosts, however, may

be available in the unlikely scenario that infected fruit is discarded near hosts in residential or commercial plantings. Third, weather conditions must be appropriate for infection, which often includes dispersal of Xcc. Infection is likely

when high moisture and wind conditions occur in conjunction with the presence of sufficient inoculum and susceptible hosts. The infiltration of bacteria into stomata on unwounded fruit or leaves is aided by wind

- driven rain, in which wind speeds are in excess of eight meters/second; these wind spe eds generate sufficient impact force to drive inoculum infested water into the stomata ( Gottwald et al., 2002a; Graham et al., 2004)

. Gottwald et al. ( 2009 ) examined several possible transmission s cenarios to ascertain the potential of harvested fruit to transmit Xcc in the natural environment. In the first transmission scenario, sy mptomatic fruit that had undergone a ty pical packinghouse process were placed in cull piles with young susceptible trap trees surrounding them. The experiment was conducted in Florida and Argentina. In each experiment, treated s ymptomatic fruit ( i.e. were put through the packinghouse process) were left in the field for several weeks under natural rain and wind conditions. None of the “trap” trees developed citrus canker. Gottwald et al. ( 2009 ) also tried to create a worst

- case scenario b y simulating spread with wind and rain events. In those experiments, severel y infected fruit that were not put through the packinghouse process were either placed into elevated cull piles or suspended on vertical strings. Trap plants were placed around the infected fruit at distances of 0, 2, 5, and 10 m. An airboat fan was used to produce wind at various speeds (1, 10, and 25 m/sec), and garden sprayers were used to simulate rain. In all the treatments, onl y one plant became infected with Xcc. The infected tree developed a single lesion at a wound site (likel y created b y the win d treatment). The infection occurred on a plant that was 0 m away from the infected fruit cull pile, and was subjected to 25 m/sec wind speed. The strength of this wind treatment is likely to onl y occur in strong storms, such as tropical storms. For contrast, a category 1 hurricane starts at 33 m/s on the Saffir

Simpson scale (AOML, undated). Whereas the windspeeds used in the experiments were not equivalent to a hurricane, personal communications with the authors (December 2008) revealed that at the highest wind speed, the trap trees lost approximately 50% of their leaves. During an experiment by

Shiotani et al. ( 2009 ), a typhoon with winds as high as 50 m/sec struck the experimental Xcc experimental site. At the time of the storm, fruit artificially contaminated withPest Risk Assessment for Citrus from Uruguay

Ver. 9 December 1 6 , 201 2 61 a traceable strain of Xcc were hung in the field. Shiotani et al. (2009) were unable to recover the specific strain of Xcc from any of the fruit harvested after the storm. Smith et al. ( 1997) found no authenticated record for diseased fruit playing a role in the epidemiology

of citrus canker disease )

. Neither infec ted fruit with lesions or asy mptomatic fruit are epidemiologically

significant with respect to the initiation of new infections (Anony mous, 2005a, 2005b; Canteros, 2004; Jetter et al

. , 2000; USDA, 2007a) , although a recent report did find 1 of 16 plants became infected when infected fruit were used to as an inoculum source under artificially

produced conditions of high wind with moisture (Gottwald et al., 2009 )

. Since post harvest and packinghouse treatments reduce both the risk would be expected to be much lower. Consequently , the risk associated with this sub

- element is estimated to be **Low**

.

**Table 5 .**  Risk Rating for Likelihood of Introduction

. **Pest Risk ele**  **ments Cumulative**  **Risk Rating**  **a Quantity**  **Imported Survive** 

**Standard Production**  **and Post**
  ** Harvest** **Survive**

**Shipment Not** 

**Detected Moved to** 

**Suitable Area**  **Contact**

**Host Material** 
Anastrepha fraterculus High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) Med (2) High (3) High (17) Ceratitis capitata High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) Med (2) High (3) High (17) Cryptoblabes gnidiella High (3) Med (2) High (3) Med (2) High (3) Med (2) High (15) Elsinoё australis High (3) Med (2) High (3) Low (1) Med ( 2 ) Low ( 1 ) Medium (12) Gymnandrosoma aurantianum High (3) Med (2) High (3) Med (2) High (3) Med (2) High (15)
Xanthomonas citri subsp . citri High (3) Low ( 1 ) Low ( 1 ) Low (1) Med (2) Low (1) Low ( 9 )

a Lo w is 6

- 9 points; Medium is 10

- 14 points; and High is 15

- 18 points

**2.6 Pest Risk Po**  **tential**
Pest risk p otential is an estimate of the risk associated with importation in the absence of mitigation. The overall risk p otential of a pest is the summation of the Consequences of Introduction and Likelihood of Introduction values for that pes t. According to the Guidelines for Pathway

-Initiated Pest Risk Assessments, Version 5

. 02 (PPQ, 2000), port

- of

- entry inspection provides sufficient phytosanitary security for pests assigned l ow p est risk p otentials, while specific phytosanitary

measures may be necessary for pests assigned m edium p est risk p otentials and are strongl y recommended for pests assigned high p est risk p otentials. Anastrepha fraterculus , Ceratitis capitata, Cryptoblabes gnidiella, and Gymnandrosoma aurantianum had High risk ratings for Consequences of Introduction and Likelihood of Introduction, resulting in a high p est risk p otential

. Elsinoё australis and Xanthomonas citri subsp. citri had ratings resulting in a m edium p est risk p otential for each (Table 6 ).Pest Risk Assessment for Citrus from Uruguay

Ver. 9 December 1 6 , 201 2 62 **Table 6**
**.** Pest Risk Potential s **Pest Cumulative Risk Ratings**  **Pest Risk Potential a**  **Consequences of Introduction**  **Likelihood of**

**Introduction** Anastrepha fraterculus High (1 4 ) High (17) High (31) Ceratitis capitata High ( 1 5 ) High (17) High ( 3 2 ) Cryptoblabes gnidiella High (15) High (1 5 ) High (30) Elsinoё australis Medium ( 9 ) Medium (1 2 ) Medium (2 1 ) Gymnandrosoma aurantianum High (1 5 ) High (1 5 ) High (30) Xanthomonas citri subsp . citri Medium (1 1 ) Low ( 9 ) Medium (2 0 )
a Lo w is 11

- 18 points; Medium is 19

- 26 points; and High is 27

- 33 points



### 3 **. Risk Management Options** 
**3.1 Measures for Pest Risk Reduction** The appropriate level of protection for an importing country can be achieved by the application of a single phytosanitary

measure, such as inspection or a quarantine treatment, or a combination of measures. The combination of specific phytosanitary measures that provides overlapping or redundant safeguards is distinctly different from the use of a s ingle risk mitigation technique. Such combinations vary

in complexity ; however, all require the integration of two or more measures that act independently of each other , the cumulative effect achieving the desired level of phy tosani t ary protection (i.e., a sy stems a pproach ; I SPM No. 14: IPPC, 2007 a). Specific mitigations may

be selected from a range of pre - harvest and post

- harvest options, and may include other safeguarding measures. Measures may be added or the strength of measures increased to compensate for uncertainty

. At a minimum, for a measure to be considered for use in a systems approach, it must be: 1) clearl y defined; 2) efficacious; 3) officially required (mandated); and 4) subject to monitoring and control by the responsible national plant prote ction organization (IPPC, 2007 a). Sy stems approaches to risk mitigation have been specified in recent work plans for the importation of commodities, such as citrus from Chile (Fernandez, 2004 ) and avocado from Mexico (USDA, 2005).
A sy stems approach to mi tigating risks involved with Citrus spp., Citrus hy brids, and Fortunella spp. including: sweet oranges ( Citrus sinensis (L .) Osb.), lemons ( C. limon (L .) Burm.), mandarins ( C. reticulata Blanco, C. clementina Hort. ex Tan., C. deliciosa Ten., C. unshiu (Mak.) Marc.), Citrus hybrids, and Citrus

- related genus ( Fortunella japonica Thunb ., F. margarita (Lour.) Swing.) from Uruguay might combine a variety of measures . These measures may include: 1) certification of p est free areas , pest free places of produc tion , or areas of low pest prevalence for certain quarantine pests , such as fruit flies ; 2) programs (e.g ., mechanical, chemical, cultural) to control pests within orchards ; 3) preclearance oversight by USDA

- APHI S officials; 4) packinghouse procedures (e.g., washing with detergent, chemical dips, brushing,Pest Risk Assessment for Citrus from Uruguay

Ver. 9 December 1 6 , 201 2 63 culling and inspection of fruit) to eliminate external pests; 5) quarantine treatments to disinfest fruit of internal and external pests; 6) consignments inspected and certified by Uruguay ’s DGSA and APHI S, PPQ to be free of quarantine pests; 7) fruit traceable to s tate of origin, packing facility , grower , and orchard ; 8) consignments subject to sampling and inspection after arrival in the United States ; and 9) limits on dis tribution and transit within the United States. We identified the following six quarantine pests that could be introduced with fresh commerciall y produced Citrus , Citrus hy brids, or Fortunella fruit imported from Uruguay : Anastrepha fraterculus (South American fruit fl y) , Ceratitis capitata

- Mediterranean fruit fly (Medfl y), Cryptoblabes gnidiella (honeydew moth) , Elsinoë australis (causal agent of sweet orange scab disease (SOS)), Gymnandrosoma aurantianum

- citrus borer, and Xanthomonas citri subsp. citri ( causal agent of citrus canker disease (Xcc )). Since quarantine plant pests are likel y to be present, a risk management strategy is required to mitigate the phytosanitary risks posed b y these pests. Below we outline options available to mitigate risk of introduction of these quarantine pests. For the quarantine pathogens Elsinoë australis and Xanthomonas citri subsp. citri , a baseline of packinghouse processes and treatments which meet current domestic regulations for these pathogens will be required for imported fruit to reduce risk of introduction of these pathogens ( 7 CFR § 301.75

- 1 to 310.75

- 14,2011; 7 CFR § 305.11, 2010 ; APHI S

- USDA, 2010 b ). **3.2 Phytosanitary Options** This section describes risk mitigation options with discussion of efficacy , if kno wn, and application

. 3.2.1 Pest

-

free areas As a sole mitigative measure, the establishment of pest

- free areas or pest

- free places of production may

be completely

effective in satisfying an importing country ’s appropriate level of phy tosanitary protection (I SPM # 4, 10, 29; IPPC, 2007 a). This option has proven to be successful in practice, eliminating the need for post

- harvest commodity treatments to achieve probit

- 9

- level security

(e.g., TDOA, 2003). Establishment and maintenance of pest

- free areas or prod uction sites should comply with international standards (e.g., IS PM Nos. 4, 10, 29: IPPC, 2007 a ; NAPPO, 2004). Anastrepha fraterculus and Ceratitis capitata : For example, in survey s for fruit flies, such as Anastrepha spp., for which parapheromones are not available, minimal trap density in zones of high risk (areas having high probability of fl y establishment or introduction) should be five traps per km2 (NAPPO, 1998), traps (e.g., McPhail) to be baited with protein hydrolysate (IAEA, 2003; NAPPO, 2004). To confirm area freedom from A

. fraterculus and C

. capitata , which are currentl y being monitored in Uruguay ( Fruit Fl y S urveillance program), surveillance and identification would be needed to monitor fruit flies in th e area. The sex pheromone of Gymnandrosoma aurantianum has been discovered, and the active ingredients isolated, sy

nthesized, and field

- tested (Leal et al., 2001). The resulting parapheromone has been developed into a commercial product in Brazil under the trade name Ferocitrus Furão ® (http://www.ferocitrusfurao.com.br/controlar.htm), which includes thePest Risk Assessment for Citrus from Uruguay

Ver. 9 December 1 6 , 201 2 64 compound in tablet form and a trap (Parra et al., 2004). This pheromone could be used for trapping to monitor G. aurantianum populations. There are various methods available for survey of the remaining arthropods and pathogens, C ry ptoblabes gnidiella , Elsinoë australis , and Xan thomonas citri subsp. citri to establish pest free areas.
3.2.2 Areas of low pest prevalence According to the IPPC, an area of low pest prevalence may comprise all of a country , part of a country , or all or parts of several countries, in which a particular pest species occurs at low population densities and which is or are subject to effective sur veillance and control or eradication measures (ISPM No. 5 : IP PC, 2007 b ). Procedures for the establishment and maintenance of areas of low pest prevalence should comply with international standards (e.g., NAPPO, 2003; I SPM No. 29 : IP PC, 2007 a). For example, elements of an operational plan for establishment and maintenance of such areas might include a geographic description to delimit the area; specification of an upper limit to pest densities; means to document and verify all necessary procedures and maintain records; specification of phy tosanitary procedures (e.g., survey , pest control); and movement controls to prevent pest entry or re - entry

into the area. The international standards recommend that the exporting country consult with the importing country in the earl y stages of implementation to ensure that importing country requirements are met. In particular, target or threshold population densities defining an area of low pest prevalence should be established in consultation with the importing country.
3 .2.3 Control program Cultural, chemical , or mechanical means (e.g., grove sanitation, pruning of dead and diseased branches, pre

- harvest application of pesticides, fruit bagging) may be used t o eliminate pests from groves or prevent fruit infestation

. Sani tation and pesticide applications, as essential components of best management practices, are mainstays of commercial fruit production (e.g., Kirk et al., 2001). For fruit flies, in particular, sterile insect release and other controls may be employed as prophylactic measures or in response to pest detection, following guidelines in USDA (2003a). Simple physical barriers, such as paper or plastic bags, may be highly effective in protecting fruit from pests. For example, fruit bagging combined with protein b ait sprays reduced fruit fly ( Bactrocera and Dacus spp.) infestations in unspecified fruit b y up to 98 percent (Sar et al., 2001). Depending on the timing of the operation (early or late in fruit development), bagging reduced infestations of the fruit

- boring caterpillar , Deudorix livia (Klug) (Lycaenidae) , by 84

- 98 percent in pomegranate, Punica granatum (Hussein et al., 1994). In pineapple guava, Feijoa sellowiana , effective control of Anastrepha fraterculus was achieved if bagging was commenced when fruit reached an average diameter of 22 mm (Hickel and Ducroquet, 1994). Experimentation is needed to determine the timing of Citrus fruit bagging that will provide optimal control of pests in Uruguay . However, despite its high degree of efficacy in preventing attack b y some insect pests, bagging may increase fruit infestation by others, such as meal ybugs (Shevale and Khaire, 1998).Pest Risk Assessment for Citrus from Uruguay

Ver. 9 December 1 6 , 201 2 65 Products frequentl y used in citrus groves, such as abamectin, chlorp yrifos , and oil spray s, target citrus leafminer and rust mites and may be applied before the harvest season. In s ecticide programs in the grove would also impact Lepidopteran pests, C. gnidiella and G. aurantianum

. Elsinoë australis: Integrated pest management practices in the grove can also be used to control the fungal pathogen, E. australis . These practices may include grove sanitation measures, chemical spray

programs, barrier zones, or other practices to reduce incidence and severity of disease. S pray

programs used to control Elsinoë fawcetti , a fungus related to E. australis, would also be expected to be effective in controlling sweet orange scab ( SOS ) caused by E. australis ( EPPO/CABI, 1997b)

. Products such as thiophanate methyl, azoxy trobin, trifloxystrobin, py raclostrobin, ferbam, and copper fungicides are used to control E. fawcetti and citrus scab disease ( Garran, 2006; Chung and Timmer, 2005). Barrier zones around export groves help to reduce the spread of pathogen s from one grove to another (Palacios, 2005)

. Xanthomonas citri subsp. citri : Well

- timed field treatments significantly reduce the incidence of citrus canker , the level of inoculum, and the number of s ymptomatic fruit in the field. Combinations of prophylactic sprays and cultural control practices, such as windbreaks and pruning diseased shoots, further reduce di sease incidence (Das, 2003; Leite Jr., 2000; L eite and Mohan, 1990)

. 3.2.4 Phytosanitary certification inspections and monitoring If pest

- free areas are established, fruit of Citrus spp., Citrus hy brids, and Fortunella spp. should be sampled and inspecte d periodicall y during the growing season and after harvest for both quality control and phy

tosanitary precautionary

measures. Production areas also should be subject to scheduled audits and periodic, unannounced inspections b y certified inspectors from PPQ and Uruguay ’s DGSA. These inspections should insure that production areas meet stipulated requirements for the issuance of a phyt osanitary certificate s required for each consignment. This measure is useful for detecting pests present during the growing season that may be more difficult to detect post

- harvest. Detection methods need to be combined with other measures to ensure the absence of pests of conc ern. Fruit should be sampled and inspected periodicall y during the growing season and after harvest. These measures are use ful for detecting pests present in the field that may be more difficult to det ect post

- harvest , but it must be combined with other me asures to ensure th e absence of pests of concern. Statistical procedures are available to verify , to a specified confidence level, the pest

- free status of an area, given negative survey

or trapping results (e.g., Venette et al., 2002; Barclay and Hargrove, 2005).
3.2.5 Post

- harvest safeguards and p ackinghouse procedures Covering containers of harvested fruit with tarpaulins or other covers and moving them to the packinghouse in a fruit fly

- proof conveyance in a timely manner can prevent infestation (USDA, 2005). Practices in the grove such as selective harvesting, in which harvesters select onl y fruit visually free of disease sy

mptoms and blemishes , can reduce levels of infested or infected harvested fruit (USDA

- APHI S

- PPQ, 2007 ). In the packinghouse, fruit may undergo sanitizing, washing, mechanical brushing, rinsing, waxing, treatment with fungicides, and drying, as well as visual inspection or other treatment to remove external pests and to cull damaged or s ymptomatic fruit. In spection for internal pests c an remove or reduce the risk of introduction of certain pests. Phy tosanitary treatment of fruits to comply with domestic quarantine regulations will be required (7 CFR § 301.75

- 1 to 310.75

- 14, 2011; 7 CFR § 305.11, 2010; APHI S

- USDA, 2010 b ). ForPest Risk Assessment for Citrus from Uruguay

Ver. 9 December 1 6 , 201 2 66 citrus canker fruit treatment must include one of the following in accordance with federal regulations: (a) fruit must be thoroughl y wetted for at least 2 minutes with a solution containing 200 parts per million sodium hy pochlorite; (b) thoroughl y wetted with a solution containing sodium o

-phenyl phenate (SOPP) at a concentration of 1.86 to 2.0 percent of the total solution, for 45 seconds if the solution has sufficient soap or detergent to cause a visible foaming action or for 1 minute if the solution does not contain sufficient soap to cause a visible foaming action; or (c) must be thoroughl y wetted for at least 1 minute with a solution containing 85 parts per million peroxyacetic acid ( 7 CFR § 305.11, 2010 ). Cryptoblabes gnidiella : F ruit attacked by C. gnidiella , if showing visible symptoms, could be removed during the packing inspection process. Cryptoblabes gnidiella feeds in its early stages on honeydew on the fruit surface excreted b y aphids or meal ybugs ( Silva and Mexia, 1999 ) and standard commercial process ing (washing with detergent

- brushing

- rinsing

- drying

- waxing

drying) on the packing line may remove larvae that have not bored into fruit

. Later instars usually burrow into the fruit and e xterior damage and signs on the fruit may allow visual inspection to b e effective. In spection in the packinghouse in Uruguay , following by port

- of

- entry inspections (for external and internal pests) will reduce numbers of infested fruit that enter the United States. Gymandrosoma aurantianum : Since f emales deposit one egg e xternally on the fruit ( Parra et al., 2004), and larvae, upon hatching, bore into the rind of the fruit (White, 1999 ) , e ggs and newly hatched larvae on the surface of the fruit (prior to larvae boring into the fruit) could be removed during standard commercial processing (washing with detergent

- brushing

- rinsing

- drying

waxing

- drying) on the packing line. Removing obviously damaged fruits during the packing line inspection or post

-packing inspection will also reduce numbers of infested fruit

. Elsinoë australis : Culling procedures used commerciall y to remove diseased and blemished fruit on the packinghouse line in Uruguay can be effective in also removing sweet orange scab (SOS) sy mptomatic fruit by

visual inspection . The incubation period (from spore infectio n to sy mptoms expression) could be up to fourteen day s and fruit is only susceptible to infection for up to eight weeks after petal fall. As a result , any fruit that is infected will express s ymptoms during the first 10 weeks of development. Since all citr us requires more than 3 months for fruit to develop and mature, infected fruit will show sy mptoms well before they

are harvested (USDA, 2010) If mature fruit that does not show scab s ymptoms at harvest is n ot infected and therefore has no possibility

to be a source of inoculums for the spread of SOS

. . Xanthomonas citri subsp. citri : Packinghouse processes that cull out fruit with citrus canker lesions can reduce numbers of infected fruit packaged. Packinghouse requirements in Uruguay for cleaning fruit which include mechanical brushing, detergent, sanitizing agents or disinfectants, followed by drying, cumulatively reduce levels of Xcc present on the exterior of the fruit ( Schubert et al., 1999; Brown and Schubert, 1987)

. D isinfectant s for use in the washing process , such as sodium hy pochlorite, SOPP ( sodium orthophenylphenate ) , perox yacetic acid (PAA) or co mbination s of products are currentl y approved b y USDA for Xcc decontamination of fresh citrus fruit moved interstate from areas quarantined for Xcc within the United States

. Various studies demonstrated the effectiveness of these disinfectants in reducing numbers of XccPest Risk Assessment for Citrus from Uruguay

Ver. 9 December 1 6 , 201 2 67 cells or similar bacteria to low or undetectable levels (Brown and Schubert, 1987; Canteros et al., 2000; Gottwald et al., 2009 ; Obata et al., 1969; Parra, 2007; Ry bak and Canteros, 2001). 3.2.6. Quarantine treatments There are several quarantine treatment schedules for citrus fruit specified in the APHI S, PPQ Treatment Manual (PPQ, 2008c). These treatment protocols employ heat ( e.g
. forced air, vapor, or hot water: T103

- a - 1, T103

- b

- 1, T106a, T102

- a) cold ( e.g
. T107

- a - 1, T107

- b

- 1, T107

- c, T107

- k), irradiation (T101

- i

- 1

- 1) and methylbromide fumigation ( e.g
. T101

- w - 1

- 2, T101

- n - 2

- 1, T101

- j

- 2

- 1, T101

-

j

- 2), and have been tested and found to be effective in disinfesting citrus fruit of pests, with a strong focus on c ontrol of fruit flies ( Anastrepha and Ceratitis spp.) and external pests and may

be suitable for citrus fruit from Uruguay

. Hot

- water treatment usually entails dipping fruit in water baths heated to temperatures between 43° and 49°C, and may

provide effe ctive control of arthropod pests and plant pathogens (Fallik, 2004). For example, immersion of Persian lime, Citrus latifolia , for 20 minutes in water at 49°C eliminated infestations of mealy bugs, Coleoptera, Hy

menoptera, Lepidoptera, Thysanoptera, and mit es on the fruit surface and within the cal yxwith no loss of fruit quality (Gould and McGuire, 2000). Hallman (1998) obtained 100 percent mortality in larvae and adults of Conotrachelus nenuphar (Herbst) immersed for 40 minutes in water baths heated to 46° C (a similar protocol might prove successful in disinfesting citrus fruit if pests are susceptible to similar high temperatures). Results of studies of apricot, Prunus armeniaca , indicated that immersion of fruit in water at 46°C for about 10 minutes produced 99 percent mortality in external infestations of the tydeid mite, Orthotydeus californicus (Koch) (Jones and Waddell, 1996 )

. Immersion of guava for 30 minutes in water heated to 50° C eliminated Pestalotiopsis versicolor (Speg.) Steyaert infection whil e preserving storage quality of the fruit (Madhukar and Reddy, 1990), so there may be some potential for use to treat other plant pathogenic fungi. Hot

- water treatment thus is a risk mitigation option, provided that the appropriate research demonstrates it s efficacy in eliminating infestations of the Anastrepha spp., Ceratitis capitata , and other internal and external pests of Citrus fruit in Uruguay

. Cold treatment of Citrus is another option for controlling C. capitata and Anastrepha spp. that may infest fruit from Uruguay

. APHI S has approved irradiation with a minimum generic absorbed pest dose of 150 Gy as a treatment for all tephritid fruit flies in fruit, a minimum dose of 400 Gy for all other insects, except L epidoptera pupae and adults ( PPQ, 2008d)

. Therefore , irradiation would be an effective pest quarantine treatment for all the insect pests of concern, except for the pupae and adults of G

. aurantianum , and Cryptoblabes gnidiella

. Treatment of commodities with ionizing radiation, employing x

- rays, gamma rays (from 60 Co or 137 Cs), or electron beams (beta rays), has been shown to be an effective means of controlling pests to achieve quarantine security (Hallman, 2000; Fields and White, 2002). For example, based on results of experiments on several species in various hosts, a generic dose of 150 Gy has been proposed for the control of pestiferous fruit flies, including Anastrepha spp. (Bustos et al., 2004; Follett and Armstrong, 2004). At least one study showed that a dose of 400 Gy was sufficient to control G

. aurantianum in citrus (Faria et al., 1998), but efficacy for bothPest Risk Assessment for Citrus from Uruguay

Ver. 9 December 1 6 , 201 2 68 Lepidopteran pests (pupae and adults) must be demonstrated. External pests, such as scales, were controlled effectivel y at a dose of 250 Gy (Hara et al., 200 2). Hallman (2003) found that a target dose as low as 80 Gy

(maximal absorbed dose: 92 Gy) was sufficient to prevent development and reproduction of C

onotrachelus nenupha r in apple, Malus pumila ; a comparable dose might provide effective control of C

. dimidiatus and C

. psidii if their biologies are similar. Minimal absorbed doses (preventing normal pest development or reproduction) ranging from 50

- 100 and 200

- 350 Gy

provided effective control of Aley rodidae and tetranychid mites, respectivel y ( IS PM #18; IP PC, 2007 a). Specifically , doses of 100

- 300 Gy , administered to eggs and adults, resulted in sterility

in Oligonychus biharensis (Majumder et al., 1996). Methyl bromide (CH 3 Br) fumigation is effective in killing eggs and larvae of internal Diptera and L epidoptera, as well as some scale insects and mites, infesting fresh fruit (Bond, 1984), and thus is an option for disinfesting guava of these pests. In one study, for example, methyl bromide produced 100 percent mortality in A

. suspensa at all dosages tes ted (16, 32, and 48 g/m 3 at 24° and 30°C); by

the ninth day

of storage under ideal conditions (10°C at 85

- 90 percent R.H.), fumigated guava fruit had suffered no loss of market quality (Witherell, 1983). Further research is needed to determine the efficacy of fumigation for the control of the Anastrepha spp. and other quarantine

- significant Citrus fruit pests in Uruguay

. The probit

- 9

- level security afforded by

a quarantine treatment may be overwhelmed by

a large volume of infested fruit (Powell, 2003). For this reason, adoption of a particular quarantine treatment should be in conjunction with efforts to maintain pest populations in production zones below specified densities (e.g., 0.01 fruit fl y trap - 1 day- 1 ; DeHaven, 2005), as would satisfy requirements f

or the establishment of areas of low pest prevalence (I SPM #22; IPPC, 2007 a).
3.2.7. Point

- of

- entry sampling and inspection Upon arrival in the United States, consignments should be inspected, with particular attention given to paperwork and seals on vehi cles, to ascertain that the chain of custody has remained intact. A random sample of fruit from each consignment should be inspected to detect a pest infestation rate of 10 percent or greater (Page 4

- 3; PPQ, 2008a). Gymandrosoma aurantianum : Fruit attacked b y the citrus borer can develop lesions ( CABI, 2007 ) and a necrotic area in the rind around the larval entrance hole; the fruit either drops prematurel y or the fruit becomes discolored and easily distinguishable from that of the healthy frui t (White and Tuck, 1993 ). Frass around the entrance hole is also very likely to be present (as occurs for codling moth; Metcalf and Metcalf, 1993 ). Because of the nature of the damage and the biology

of the pest, detection through inspection should be effe ctive. In spection for this lepidopteran , G

. aurantianum, is currentl y required by APHIS for citrus from Peru (part 41: 7 CFR § 319.56, 2008 ). To certify inspections and fruit freedom from the citrus borer, a phy tosanitary certificate can be issued by the c ountry ’s NPPO

. 3.2.8 Limits on distribution and transit within the United States Under § 412(a) of the Plant Protection Act (U.S., 2000), the Secretary of Agriculture may prohibit or restrict the movement in interstate commerce of any plant or plant prod uct if the Secretary determines that the prohibition or restriction is necessary to prevent the dissemination of a plant pest within the United States. The actions the Secretary may take under this paragraph include limiting the importation or distribution of a plant or plant product to certain States.Pest Risk Assessment for Citrus from Uruguay

Ver. 9 December 1 6 , 201 2 69 Limiting distribution of citrus fruit imported or moved from areas where citrus diseases are present prevents the introduction of the diseases into tho se States that have the highest likelihood for introduc tion of the disease s , due to the density of citrus plantings in those States

. Outside of commercial citrus

-producing States, conditions under which citrus diseases could be introduced or established are far less likely to prevail. Limiting imports of Citrus to certain time periods can also be an effective way to reduce risk of pest introduction, for example shipping Citrus fruit from Uruguay when the fruit fly

populations are lowest would reduce risk of entry of A. fraterculus and C. capitata

. **3.3 Oversight**
3.3.1 Pre

-shipment programs Inspection, treatment , or other mitigati on measures performed in the orchard and packinghouse should be under the direct supervision of qualified APHI S and DGSA personnel , and in accordance with spec ified phy tosanitary procedures . Such programs require monitoring all aspects of the application of any required phy tosanitary measures and also aim to identify shortcomings or opportunities for program modifications (ISPM # 14; IPPC, 2007 a). Provision should be made for the formal recognition of approved areas, sites, or producers, as well as the specification of conditions for revoking approvals or refusing certification for export to the United States.
3.3.2 Shipments traceable to place of origin in Uruguay A requirement that Citrus spp., Citrus hy brids, and Fortunella spp. be packed in containers with identification labels indicating the specific place of origin is necessary to ensure traceability

to each production site.
**3.4 Conclusions** The number and diversity of pests potentially

infesting Citrus imports make it unlikely that a single mitigation measure will be adequate to reduce risk of their introduction into the United States. For this reason, a combination of measures in a sy stems appro ach, including orchard monitoring and management programs to achieve and maintain area pest freedom or low pest prevalence, packinghouse inspection and treatments, quarantine treatments, and maintenance of consignment security and traceability in transit, is most feasible. Options for risk mitigation are summarized in Table 7. This document does not purport to establish specific work plans or to evaluate the quality of a specific program or s ys tems approach. Itidentifies risks and provides information reg arding known mitigati on measures. The specification and implementation of measures, as would be present in an operational work plan, is beyond the scope of this document.Pest Risk Assessment for Citrus from Uruguay

Ver. 9 December 1 6 , 201 2 70 **Table 7**  . Summary

of risk mitigati on options for Citrus spp., Citrus hy brids, and Fortunella spp. from Uruguay

. **Measure(s) Pests**  **Efficacy** Pest

- free areas or places of production All Satisfies requirements for appropriate level of protection Areas of low pest prevalence All Ty pically would require additional measures. Control program All Research required to demonstrate efficacy Phy tosanitary certification inspections and monitoring Monitoring could work effectivel y for all pests, although tools and techniques would need to be validated Some pests would be likely to escape detection in phy tosanitary inspections, such as internal pests or pathogens with a latent phase. Post

- harvest safeguards and Packinghouse procedures Fruit cleaning: X anthomonas citri subsp. citri (Xcc), when washing, sanitizing, drying etc. are done in a prescribe d required program that shows effective removal of pests ( 7 CFR § 305.11. 2010) Fruit waxing/fungicide treatment: Elsinoe australis (APHI S

- USDA, , 2010b ) Culling/inspection: obvious sy mptomatic fruit for Xcc, Elsinoe australis, Lepidopteran boring ( C. gnidiella, G. aurantianum )

. Obvious sy mptomatic or damaged fruit can be removed, but internal pests or latent pathogens would be difficult to detect and remove.

**Quarantine treatments** Hot

- water treatment combined with low pest prevalence Anastrepha fraterculus, Ceratitis capitata APHI S

- recognized quarantine treatment Cold treatment with low pest prevalence Anastrepha fraterculus, Ceratitis capitata APHI S

- recognized quarantine treatment Irradiation combined with low pest prevalence All insect pests (except pupae and adults of Gymnandrosoma aurantianum ) APHI S

- recognized quarantine treatment All other pests Potential probit

- 9; research required to demonstrate efficacy Methyl bromide fumigation combined with low pest Anastrepha spp., C. capitata , APHI S

- recognized quarantine treatmentPest Risk Assessment for Citrus from Uruguay

Ver. 9 December 1 6 , 201 2 71 **Measure(s) Pests**  **Efficacy** prevalence Point

- of

- entry sampling and inspection Fruit flies (internal sampling), X. citri subsp. citri , and E. australis (if sy mptomatic) Some pests would be likely to escape detection in phy tosanitary inspections, such as internal pests (fruit flies, Lepidoptera), pathogens with a latent phase ( E. australis, ), or organisms which are too tiny to see

**3.5 Contact**  **s , Authors, Contributors**  **, and Reviewers** 
**APHIS Contact** Robert Griffin
**APHIS Authors/Reviewers and Contributors**  Bets y L. Randall

- Schadel, Risk Analy st/Plant Pathologist Lisa M. Ferguson, Risk Analy st/Plant Pathologist Walter Gutierrez, Risk Analy st/Plant Pathologist Shawn Robertson, Risk Analy st/Entomologist Gary L . Cave, Senior Risk Analy st/Entomologist Tony Koop, Risk Anal ys t/Botanist **DGSA Authors/Contributors** María Inés Ares, Director of Plant Protection Division, MGAP/DGSA Beatriz Melcho, Sub Director of Plant Protection Division, MGAP/DGSA Elina Zefferino, Citrus Health Dep artment, MGAP/DGSA Enrique Verdier, Bacteriologist, MGAP/DGSA Luis Díaz, Plant Pathologist, MGAP/DGSA Is abel Frioni, Entomologist, MGAP/DGSA Iris B. Scatoni, Entomologist, Faculty of Agronomy Carlos Bentancourt, Entomologist, Faculty of Agronomy Gabriela A splanato, Entomologist, Faculty of Agronomy Roberto Bernal, Plant Pathologist, National Research Institute (INIA) Jose Buenahora, Entomologist, National Research Institute (INIA) Gonzalo Arocena, Citrus Exporters Chamber



### 4
**. References**  7 CFR § 301.75

- 11. 2008. Code of Federal Regulations. Agriculture. Title 7 part 301 and 305 (7 CFR § 301.75

- 11 Citrus Canker; Movement of Fruit From Quarantined Areas; FinalPest Risk Assessment for Citrus from Uruguay

Ver. 9 December 1 6 , 201 2 72 Rule). Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration, Washington, DC, USA. 7 CFR § 301.75

- 1 to 310.75

- 14. 2011. Code of Federal Regulations. Agriculture. Title 7. Part 301 Domestic Quarantine Notices, Subpart Citrus Canker (7 CFR § 301.75

- 1 Citrus Canker; Movement of Fruit From Quarantined Areas; Final Rule). Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, United States Department of Agriculture. 7 CFR § 305.11. 2010. Code of Federal Regulations. Agriculture. Title 7. Part 305 Phy tosanitary Treatments, Subpart Miscellaneous Treatments (7 CFR § 305.11 Miscellaneous Chemical Treatments). Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, United States Department of Agriculture. 7 CFR § 319.56

- 2(mm). 2008. Code of Federal Regulations. Agriculture. 7CFR 319.56

- 2(mm). Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration, Washington, DC, USA. 7 CFR §319.19, C. 2008. U.S. Code of Federal Requlations, Title 7, Part 319 (7 CFR §319.19

- Notice of Quarantine). Subpart

- Citrus Canker and Other Citrus Diseases. 7 CFR § 319.28. 2008. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 7 , Part 319 (7 CFR § 319.28

– Notice of Quarantine ). 7 CFR § 319.56. 2008. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 7, Part 319 (7 CFR § 319.56

– Notice of Quarantine). 50 CFR § 17. 2007. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 50, Part 17 (50 CFR § 17

– En dangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants). Adamski, D. a. B., J. W. 2001. Sy stematic revision of the Ecdytolopha group of genera (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae: Grapholitini) in the New World. Entomologica Scandinavica/Insect Sy stematics and Evolution Supplement No. 58:1

- 86. Albrigo, L. G. 1976. Water relations and citrus fruit quality . Pages 41

- 48 in Proceedings of the 2nd Int'l Citrus Short Course, University of Florida, Gainesville. Alfaro, R. I., L. M. Humble, P. Gonzalez, R. Villaverde, and G. Allegro. 2 007. The threat of the ambrosia beetle Megaplatypus mutatus (Chapuis) ( = Platypus mutatus Chapuis) to world poplar resources. Forestry 80: 471

- 479. Alioto, D., M. Gangemi, S. Deaglio, P. Sposata, E. Noris, E. Luisoni, and R. G. Milne. 1999. Improved detection of citrus psorosis virus using polyclonal and monoclonal antibodies. Plant Pathology

48:737

- 741. Alves, E. B., N. F. B. Casarin, and C. Omoto. 2005. Dispersal mechanisms of Brevipalpus phoenicis (Geijskes)(Acari: Tenuipalpidae) in citrus groves. Neotropical Entomology 34:89

- 96. Amrine, J. W., and T. A. Stasny . 1994. Catalog of the Eriophyoidea (Acarina: Prostigmata) of the World. Indira Publishing House, West Bloomfield, Michigan. 798 pp. Anciso, J. R., V. J. French, M. Skaria, J. W. Sauls, and R. Holloway . 2002. IPM in Texas Citrus. in . Texas Cooperative Extension

- Texas A & M University

. Anony mous. 2005a. Report of the second meeting of the Expert Working Group on “The use of integrated measures in a sy stems approach for pest risk management”, B uenos Aires, Argentina. 61 pp. Anony mous. 2005b. Response to the report of the audit mission carried out in Argentina by DG

SANCO/European Commission (18 to 22/7/2005): Evaluation of the official control and examination regime for citrus fruits originating in Argentina and exported to the European Union. Ministry of Economy and Production, Argentina; Secretariat ofPest Risk Assessment for Citrus from Uruguay

Ver. 9 December 1 6 , 201 2 73 Agriculture, Livestock, Fisheries and Food; and National Animal Health and Quality Agrifood Service, Buenos Aires, Argentina. AOML . undated. Hurricane Research Division: Frequently Asked Questions. Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory . Last accessed 26 May , 2009, http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/D1.html

. APHI S. 2006. Trip Report: Spanish L emon Site Visit. USDA

- Animal and Plant Health Inspection Services. 16 pp. APHI S

- USDA. 2010 a . Federal Quarantine Order. Elsinoë australis Bitanc. & Jenkins Causal Agent of Sweet Orange Scab (SOS). DA

- 2010

- 62. http://www. aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/plant_pest_info/citrus/downloads/sweet_orange/ 2010

- 62.pdf APHI S

- USDA. 2010 b . APHI S

- Approved Packinhouse Procedures for Elsinoë australis, Causal Agent of Sweet Orange Scab (SOS) http://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/plant_pest_info/citrus/downloads/sweet_orange/ CitrusPackingHouseProcedures.pdf. Asplanato, G., and F. García Marí. 2002. Parasitismo de la cochinilla roja californiana Aonidiella aurantii (Hemiptera: Diaspididae) en la zona citrícola sur de Uruguay

(Parasitism of the California red scale Aonidiella aurantii in the citrus producing region of Southern Uruguay). Bol. San. Veg. Plagas 28:5

- 20. APHI S

- USDA. 201 1. Federal Quarantine Order. Elsino ë australis Bitanc. & Jenkins Causal Agent of Sweet Orange Scab (SOS). DA

- 2011

- 22. http://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/plant_pest_info/citrus/downloads/sweet_orange/ 2011

- 22.pdf Augier, L., G. Gastaminza , M. E. Villagrán, M. F. Villagrán, G. Zaia, E. Wil link, and B. Stein. 2008. Detection of juvenile stages of Ceratitis capitata and Anastrepha fraterculus in lemon fruit. Chapter VII. Pages 1

- 6 in E. Willink, G. Gastaminza, L . Augier, and B. Stein, (eds.). Fruit flies and its quarantine relevance in the citriculture of Northwestern Argentina. Eleven years of research 1996

- 2007. Estación Experimental Agroindustrial Obispo Columbres, Tucumán, Argentina. Barclay , H. J., and J. W. Hargrove. 2005. Probability models to facilitate a declaration of pest

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

- 11. Bassanezi, R. B., and F. F. Laranjeira. 2007. Spatial patterns of leprosis and its mite vector in commercial citrus groves in Brazil. Plant Pathology 56(1):97. Bastianel, M., J. Freitas

- Astúa, E. W. Kitajima, and M. A. Machado. 2006. The CiLV pathosystem. Summa Phy topathologica 32:211

- 220. Belasque Jr., J., and J. Rodriguez Neto. 2000. Sobrevivencia da bactéria causadora do cancro cítrico ( Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. citri) em frutos de laranja nao infectados com a doença. Summa Phy

topathologica 26(1):128. Beltrán, V. M., S. Cáceres, H. Zubrzycki, D. Ploper, E. Willink, and H. Jaldo. 2004. CVC associated vectors in Valencia oranges of Corrientes, Argentina.10th International Society of Citriculture. Ben

- Dov, Y., D. R. Miller, and G. A. P. Gibson. 2007. Scalenet. http://www.sel.barc.usda.gov/scalenet/scalenet.htm . (Archived at PERAL). Bentancourt, C., and I. Scatoni. 1999. Guía de insectos y ácaros de impo rtancia agrícola y forestal en el Uruguay

(Guide to important insects and mites for agriculture and forestryPest Risk Assessment for Citrus from Uruguay

Ver. 9 December 1 6 , 201 2 74 in Uruguay). Editorial Agropecuaria Hemisferio Sur S.R.L . , Montevideo, Uruguay . 207 pp. Bentancourt, C., and I. Scatoni. 2002. Guía de insectos y ácaros de importancia agrícola y forestal en el Uruguay in . GTZ

– PREDEG

- Facultad de Agronomía. Bentancourt, C. M., and I. B. Scatoni. 2006. Lepidópteros de importancia económica en Uruguay

. Reconocimiento, biología y daños de las plagas agrícolas y fore stales. (Economicall y important L epidoptera in Uruguay

. Id entification, biology , and damage of agricultural and forestry

pests) (2). Editorial Hemisferio Sur. S. R. L

. Facultad de Agronomía, Montevideo, Uruguay . 437 pp. Bento, J. M. S., J. R. P. Parra, E. F. Vilela, J. M. Walder, and W. S. L eal. 2001. Sexual behavior and diel activity

of citrus fruit borer Ecdytolopha aurantiana . [abstract]. Journal of Chemical Ecology

27(10):2053

- 2065. Bernal, R. 1995. Plagas de Citrus y su control (Pests of Citrus and the ir control) (Serie Técnica 63). INIA Salto Grande. Instituto Nacional de Investigación Agropecuaria, Salto Grande, Uruguay . 38 pp. Biondi, D., and J. H. Pedrosa

- Macedo. 2008. Invasive plants observed in the urban area of Curitiba

- Brazil. Floresta 38(1):1 29

- 144. Bisotto

- de

- Oliveira, R., L. R. Redaelli, J. Sant’Ana, C. Cover, and M. Botton. 2007. Ocorrência de Cryptoblabes gnidiella (Millière) (Lepidoptera: Py ralidae) Relacionada à Fenologia da Videira em Bento Gonçalves, RS. Neotropical Entomology 36(4):555

- 559. Bitancourt, A. A., and A. E. Jenkins. 1937. Sweet orange scab caused b y Elsinoë australis. Journal of Agricultural Research 54:1

- 18. Bock, C. H., P. E. Parker, and T. R. Gottwald. 2005. Effect of simulated wind

- driven rain on duration and distance of dispersal of Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. citri from canker

infected citrus trees. Plant Disease 89:71

- 80. Bolland, H. R., J. Gutierrez, and C. H. W. Flechtmann. 1998. World catalogue of the spider mite family (Acari: Tetranyc hidae). Pages 392. Brill, Boston. Bond, E. J. 1984. Manual of fumigation for insect control. FAO Plant Production & Protection Paper 54. United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome. Borchert, D. 2008. Host Population Map for Elsinoe australis. InCAPS Top 50 Pest Risk Maps, CAPS Top 50 and 150 Pest Matrix. NAPPFAST (NCSU APHI S Plant Pest Forecasting Sy stem), http://www.nappfast. org/. Borchert, D., C. Thayer, L. Brown, N. Jones, and R. Magarey . 2007. NAPPFAST

- GI S model for citrus canker ad

- hoc project report. USDA APHIS PPQ CPHST Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory , Raleigh, NC, USA. 74 pp. Borror, D. J., C. A. Tripleh orn, and N. F. Johnson. 1989. An introduction to the study of insects (6th ed.). Harcourt Brace College Publishers, Fort Worth, Texas, U.S.A. Bove, J. M., and A. J. Ayres. 2007. Etiology of three recent diseases of citrus in Sao Paulo State: sudden death, variegated chlorosis and Huanglongbing. . IUBMA Life 59(346

- 354). Bove, J. M., and A. J. Ayres. 2008. Letter To Whom it May Concern re: Report of CVC in Uruguay in 2007 publication. Personal communication to T. w. i. M. Concern on November 24, 2008, from J . M. Bove, Fundecitrus, Sao Paulo, Brazil (Archived in PERAL). Bradbury , J. F. 1986. Guide to plant pathogenic bacteria. CAB International Mycological Institute, Wallingford, UK. 332 pp.Pest Risk Assessment for Citrus from Uruguay

Ver. 9 December 1 6 , 201 2 75 Brodrick, H. T., and C. J. Rabie. 1970. Light and temperature effects on symptom development and sporulation of Guignardia citricarpa Kiely , on Citrus sinensis (Linn) Osbeck. Phy tophylactica 2:157

- 163. Brown, G. E., and T. S. Schubert. 1987. Use of Xanthomonas campestris pv. vesicatoria to evaluate surface disinfectants for canker quarantine treatment of citrus fruit. Plant Disease 71:319

- 323. Buenahora, J. 1999. Minador de los Brotes de los Cítricos. Phyllocnistis citrella Stainton. (Citrus leaf miner, P. citrella ) Avances de Investigación 1997

– 1999. Reunión de Divulgació n. ( Serie de Actividades de Difusión No 212). INIA Las Brujas, Las Brujas, Uruguay

. Bushong, P. M., and L. W. Timmer. 2000. Evaluation of post infection controlof citrus scab and melanose with benomyl , fenuconazole, azoxystrobin. Plant Disease 84:1246

- 124 9. Bustos, M. E., W. Enkerlin, J. Reyes, and J. Toledo. 2004. Irradiation of mangoes as a postharvest quarantine treatment for fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae). Journal of Economic Entomology

97(2):286

- 292. CABI. 2007. Crop Protection Compendium. Commonw ealth Agricultural Bureau International (CABI), Wallingford, UK. CABI. 20 12 . Crop Protection Compendium. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureau International (CABI), Wallingford, UK. Cabrera Walsh, G. 2003. Host Range and Reproductive Traits of Diabrotica speciosa (Germar) and Diabrotica viridula (F.) (Coleoptera: Chry somelidae), Two Species of South American Pest Rootworms, with Notes on Other Species of Diabroticina. Environ. Entomol. 32(2):276

- 285. Canteros, B. I. 2004. Management of citrus canker in Argentina : A review. Proceedings of the International Society of Citriculture. Paper No. 90. Canteros, B. I. (undated). Effect of low concentrations of sodium hy pochlorite in external disinfection of organic fruits as quarantine treatment for citrus canker. Final Report. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA), Bella Vista, Argentina. 71 pp. Canteros, B. I., M. Naranjo, and M. Ry bak. 2000. Production of fruits free of Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. citri in selected plots, in areas of endemic canker in Argentina. Pages 1136

- 1137 in Proceedings of the International Society of Citriculture. IX Congress 2000. International Society of Citriculture, Orlando, FL, USA. Cantwell, M. 2002. Appendix: Summary table of optimal handling conditions for fresh produce. Page s 511

- 518 in A. A. Kader, (ed.). Postharvest Technology of Horticultural Crops. University

of California Agriculture and Natural Resources Communication Services, Oakland, CA, USA. Chiesa Molinari, O. 1948. L as Plagas de la Agricultura: Manual práctico de procedimientos para combatirlas. Librería "El Ateneo" Editorial, Buenos Aires, Argentina. 497 pp. Childers, C., E. Kitajima, W. Welbourn, C. Rivera, and R. Ochoa. 2001. Brevipalpus mites on citrus and their status as vectors of citrus leprosis. Manejo Inte grado de Plagas (Costa Rica) 60:66

- 70. Childers, C. C., J. V. French, and J. C. V. Rodrigues. 2003. Brevipalpus californicus , B. obovatus , B. phoenicis , and B. lewisi (Acari: Tenuipalpidae): a review of their biology, feeding injury

and economic importance . Experimental and Applied Acarology 30:29

- 105.Pest Risk Assessment for Citrus from Uruguay

Ver. 9 December 1 6 , 201 2 76 Childers, C. C., and J. C. V. Rodrigues. 2005. Potential pest mite species collected on ornamental plants from Central America at port of entry to the United States. Florida Entomologist 88(4):408

- 417. Childers, C. C., W. C. Welbourne, and N. J. Fashing. 2006. A ranking model and list to identify foreign Tetranychoidea pests of agricultural and environmental significance to the United States. L ast accessed 31 March, 2007, http://www.lucidcentral.org/key s/v3/mi tes/invasive_mite_identification/key /Whole_site/ Tet_files/Tetranyc hoidea_report.htm

. CHNPC. 1996. Censo Nacional Citrícola. Comisión Honoraria Nacional del Plan Citrícola. Ministerio de Ganadería, Agricultura y Pesca, Montevideo, Uruguay . 100 pp. Chung, K. R., and L. W. Timmer. 2005. Citrus diseases exotic to Florida: Sweet orange scab (SOS) (EDIS document PP

- 224). Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA. Civerolo, E. L . 1981. Citrus bacterial canker disease: an overview. Proceedings of the International Society of Citriculture:390

- 394. Civerolo, E. L . 1984. Bacterial Canker Disease of Citrus. Journal of Rio Grande Valley Horticultural Society 37:126

- 147. Civerolo, E. L . 1997. Risk of transmission of Xanthomon as campestris (= axonopodis ) pv. citri on commercial citrus fruit. Pages 39

- 40 in Colloquim on Quarantine Security . 21st NAPPO Annual Meeting. Coletta

- Filho , H. D., M. L. P. N. Targon , M. A. Takita , J. D. De Negri , J. Pompeu, Jr. , and M. A. Machado , A. M. do Amaral , and G. W. Muller

. 2004. First report of the c ausal agent of Huanglongbing (“ Candidatus Liberibacter asiaticus”) in Brazil . Plant Disease 88 (12): 1382. Compton, L ., and M. Fagan. 2000. Stepped

- up canker eradication effort is launched (Press Rele ase No. 2

- 23

- 2000). Florida Department of Agriculture, Tallahassee, FL, USA. 1 pp. COSAVE. 2004. Risk Assessment Report for Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. citri on citrus fruits. Comité de Sanidad Vegetal del Cono Sur. 14 pp. Cross, G. 2008. Southern Plant Board Resolution on Funding for the Citrus Health Response Program Personal communication to M. Cindy J. Smith, Adminstrator, USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service on May 5, 2008, from Gene Cross, President, Southern Plant Board (Archived at PERAL). Culik, M. P., D. dos Santos

- Martins, and P. J. Gullan. 2006. First records of two meal ybug species in Brazil and new potential pests of papaya and coffee. Journal of Insect Science 6(23):1

- 6. Dalla Pria, M., R. C. S. Christiano, E. L . Furtado, L. Amorim, and A. Bergamin Filho. 2006. Effect of temperature and leaf wetness duration on infection of sweet oranges b y Asiatic citrus canker. Plant Pathology 55:657

- 663. Das, A. K. 2003. Citrus Canker

- a review. Journal of Applied Horticulture 5(1):52

- 60. de Coll, O. R., A. M. M. Remes

- Lenicov, J. P. Agostini, and S. Paradell. 1998. Bases para la discusión acerca del manejo integrado de Homopteros Auquenorrincos potenciales vectores de CVC. Citrusmisiones 27:12

- 31. de Andrade, G. S. 2004. As espécies do gênero Ceres a Amyot & Serville (Hemiptera, Auchenorrhyncha, Membracidae). Revista Brasileira de Zoologia 21: 671

- 738. DeHaven, W. R. 2005. Citrus from Peru,Proposed Rules. Federal Register 70(189):57206

- 57213.Pest Risk Assessment for Citrus from Uruguay

Ver. 9 December 1 6 , 201 2 77 DGSA. 2001a. Resultado de Clínica de Diagnóstico de fecha 26/3/2001 y 19/4/2001. . Departamento de Laboratorios Biológicos. Dirección General de Servicios Agrícolas (DGSA), Montevideo, UY. DGSA. 2001b. Resultado de Clínica de Diagnóstico de fecha 30/2/2001. Departamento de Laboratorios Biológicos. Dirección General de Servicios Agrícolas (DGSA), Montevideo, UR. DGSA. 2001c. Resultado de Clínica de Diagnóstico de fecha 2/5/2001. Departamento de Laboratorios Biológicos. Dirección General de Servicios Agrícolas (DGSA), Montevideo, Uruguay

. DGSA. 2002. Resultados Clínica de Diagnóstico de Plagas. Ministerio de Ganadería, Agricultura y Pesca, Dirección General de Servicios Agrícolas (DGSA) DGSA. 2003. Resultados Clínica de Diagnóstico de Plagas Ministerio de Ganadería, Agricultura y Pesca, Dirección General de Servicio s Agrícolas (DGSA) DGSA. 2004. Detección de mancha negra ( G. citricarpa ) en quintas de Citrus. Comunicación interna. . División Protección Agrícola. Dirección General de Servicios Agrícolas (DGSA) Montevideo, UY. DGSA. 2006. Resultados Clínica de Diagnóstico de Plagas Ministerio de Ganadería, Agricultura y Pesca, Dirección General de Servicios Agrícolas (DGSA) DGSA. 2008. Report about items requested to be addressed on the meeting held on April 25, 2008. Report June 08. Dirección General de Servicios Agrí colas (DGSA), Montevideo, UY. 38 pp. Diaz, L ., I. Cerdeiras, G. Jiménez, and S. Muzio. 1996. Report of citrus scab trials carried out at the Plant Protection Services (MGAP/DSPA). 1991

- 1993. Document provided to APHI S during 2000 Technical Mission and 2006 Mission as Document No. 14, APHI S Mission, Montevideo, November 7

- 8, 2006. . Mycology Department, DSPA/MGAP. 1

- 7 pp. Díaz, L ., I. Cerdeiras, G. Jiménez, and S. Muzio. 2001. Evaluación del transporte de inóculo viable de Elsinoё fawcettii en fruta cítrica de exportación/Evaluation of risks of disemination of Elsinoё australis on Uruguayan citrus fruit for export. Fitopatología Brasilera 26 (Suplement: Resumen 723):458. Díaz, L ., G. Jiménez, E. Zefferino, and J. Cerdeiras. 1992. Relevamiento de especies y bi otipos de sarnas de los Citrus en Uruguay . (Abstract 098). Fitopatología Brasilera 17(Agosto ):165. Díaz, L ., and H. Sendra. 1997. Penicillium ulaiense . Un nuevo patógeno de fruta cítrica en post

cosecha en Uruguay

( P. ulaiense , a new post

- harvest pathogen of citrus fruit in Uruguay). Pages 112 in IXCongreso L atinoamericano de Fitopatología, Libro de Reúmenes, Montevideo, Uruguay

. Duffy , E. A. J. 1960. A Monograph of the Immature Stages of Neotropical Timber Beetles (Ceramb ycidae). Commonwealth Institute o f Entomology , British Museum of Natural History , London, UK. 327 pp. Enkerlin, D., L. Garcia, and F. Lopez. 1989. Chapter 2.7: Mexico, Central and South America. Pages 83

- 90 in A. S. Robinson and G. Hooper, (eds .). World Crop Pests: Fruit Flies, Their Biology , Natural Enemies and Control. Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam, Netherlands. EPPO. 2004. Megaplatypus mutatus (Coleoptera: Platy podidae). European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization. L ast accessed Sept 16, http://www.eppo.org/QUARANTINE/insects/Megaplaty pus_mutatus/PLTPMU.htm

.Pest Risk Assessment for Citrus from Uruguay

Ver. 9 December 1 6 , 201 2 78 EPPO. 2005a. Data sheets on quarantine pests: Rhynchophorus palmarum . EPPO Bulletin, 35:468

- 471. EPPO. 2005b. PQR database (version 4.4). European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization (EPPO), Paris, France. Last accessed http://www.eppo.org/ or http://www.eppo.org/DATABASES/pqr/pqr.htm

. EPPO. 2008a. Data sheets on quarantine pests: Anastrepha fraterculus . European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization (EPPO). Last accessed 16 May , http://www.eppo.org/

. EPPO. 2010. Citrus leprosis 'rhabdovirus'. EPPO. Last accessed April 15, 2010, http://www.eppo.org/QUARANTINE/virus/Citrus_leprosis_virus/CILV00_ds.pdf. EPPO/CABI . 1997b. Data sheet on quarantine pes ts: Elsinoë fawcettii and Elsinoë australis

. Pages 747

- 752 in I. M. Smith, D. G. McNamara, P. R. Scott, and M. Holderness, (eds.). Quarantine Pests for Europe. 2nd edition. CAB International, Wallingford, UK. Evans, G. A. 2006. The whiteflies (HEMIPTERA: A LE YRODIDAE) of the world and their host plants and natural enemies. United States Department of Agriculture Animal Plant Inspection Service (APHIS). http://www.sel.barc.usda.gov:591/1WF/World

- Whitefly

Catalog.pdf

. (Archived at PERAL). Fallik, E. 2004. Pres torage hot water treatments (immersion, rinsing and brushing). Postharvest Biology and Technology

32(2):125

- 134. Faria, J. T., V. Arthur, T. A. Wiendl, and F. M. Wiendl. 1998. Gamma radiation effects on immature stages of the orange fruit borer, Ecdytoloph a aurantiana (Lima). Journal of Nuclear Agriculture and Biology 27(1):52

- 56. Farr, D. F., A. Y. Rossman, M. E. Palm, and E. B. McCray . 2008. Fungal Databases. United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, S ys tematic Mycology and M icrobiology

L aboratory

. http://nt.ars

- grin.gov/fungaldatabases/ . (Archived at PERAL). Fernandez, P. 2004. Importation of clementines, mandarins, and tangerines from Chile. Rules and Regulations. Fed. Register 69(237):71691

- 77169. Ferreira, E., J. A. Freita s Barrigossi, and E. da Maia de Castro. 2003. Homópteros Associados ao Arroz (152). Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária, Centro Nacional de Pesquisa de Arroz e Feijão, Ministério da Agricultura, Pecuária e Abastecimento. 61 pp. Fields, P. G., and N . D. G. White. 2002. Alternatives to methyl bromide treatments for stored

product and quarantine insects. Annual Review of Entomology 47:331

- 359. Fletcher, B. S. 1989. Movements of Tephritid fruit flies. Pages 209

- 219 in A. S. Robinson and G. Hooper, (eds. ). Fruit flies: their biology , natural enemies and control, vol. B

- (World crop pests; 3B). Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., Amsterdam; Netherlands. Folgarait, P. J., R. J. W. Patrock, G. Albioni

- Montenegro, L. Saldua, and L. E. Gilbert. 2008. Solenopsis invicta : evidence for recent internal immigration across provinces in Argentina. Florida Entomologist 91(1):131

- 132. Follett, P. A., and J. W. Armstrong. 2004. Revised irradiation doses to control melon fly , Mediterranean fruit fly , and oriental fruit fl y (Diptera: Tephritidae) and a generic dose for tephritid fruit flies. Journal of Economic Entomology 97(4):1254

- 1262. Foote, R. H., F. L. Blanc, and A. L. Norrbom. 1993. Handbook of the Fruit Flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) of America North of Mexico. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY, USA. Frison, E. A., and M. M. Taher. 2000. FAO/IBPGR Technical Guidelines for the Safe Movement of Citrus Germplasm. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations,Pest Risk Assessment for Citrus from Uruguay

Ver. 9 December 1 6 , 201 2 79 International Board for Plant Genetic Resources in colloboration with the International Organization of Citrus Virologists, Rome. 50 pp. Garran, S. M. 2006. Control de la Sarna de los citricos: Programa Trianal. Estacion Experimetal Agricola Concordia del INTA. Gastaminza, G., L . Augier, M. E. Villagrán, M . F. Villagrán, and E. Willink. 2007. Determination of the condition of lemons as host of Ceratitis capitata and Anastrepha fraterculus. Chapter IX. Pages 1

- 15 in E. Willink, G. Gastaminza, L . Augier, and B. Stein, (eds.). Fruit flies and its quarantine re levance in the citriculture of Northwestern Argentina. Estación Experimental Agroindustrial Obispo Columbres, Tucumán, Argentina. Gilligan, T. M., and M. E. Epstein. 2012. Gy mnandrosoma aurantianum. Tortricids of Agricultural Importance. Last accessed 2012 , http://www.tortai.org

. Global G.A.P. 2008. GlobalG.A.P. (Eurepgap) Standard Documents. Last accessed December 29, http://www.globalgap.org/cms/front_content.php?idcat=3

. Goes, A., de. 1998. Citrus black spot control. Laranja 19(2):305

- 320. Golmohammadi, M., J. Cubero, J. Penaalver, J. M. Quesada, M. M. Lopez, and P. L lop. 2007. Diagnosis of Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. citri, causal agent of citrus canker, in commercial fruits by

isolation and PCR

- based methods. Journal of Applied Microbiology 103:2309

- 2315. Goto, M. 1962. Studies on citrus canker. Bull. Fac. Agric. Shizuoka Univ. Japan 12:2

- 72. Goto, M. 1969. Studies on citrus canker in Japan. Pages 1251

- 1252 in H. D. Chapman, (ed.). Proceedings of the 1st International Citrus Sy mposium. University

of California

Riverside, Riverside, CA, USA. March 1968. Goto, M. 1970. Studies on citrus canker III. Survival of Xanthomonas citri (Hasse) Dowson in soils and on the surface of weeds. Bulletin of the Faculty of Agriculture, Shizuoka University

20:21

- 29. Goto, M. 1992. Citrus canker. Pages 170

- 208 in J. Kumar, H. S. Chaube, U. S. Singh, and A. N. Mukhopadhyay , (eds.). Plant diseases of international importance. Vol. III. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA. Goto, M., K. O hta, and N. Okabe. 1975a. Studies on the saprophytic survival of Xanthomonas citri (Hasse) Dowson. II. Longevity and survival density of the bacterium on artificially infested weeds, plant residues and soils. Annals of the Phy topathological Society

of Japan 41:141

- 147. Goto, M., K. Ohta, and N. Okabe. 1975b. Studies on the saprophytic survival of Xanthomonas citri (Hasse) Dowson. I. Detection of the bacterium from a grass (Zoysia japonica ). Annals of the Phy

topathological Society of Japan 41:9

- 14. Goto, M., A. Toyoshima, and S. Tanaka. 1978. Studies on saprophy tic survival of Xanthomonas citri (Hasse) Dowson. III. Inoculum density of the bacterium surviving in saprophy tic form. Annals of the Phyt opathological Society of Japan 44:197

- 201. Gottwald, T., J. Graham, C. Bock, G. Bonn, E. Civerolo, M. Irey, R. Leite, M. M. L opez, G. McCollum, P. Parker, J. Ramallo, T. Riley , T. Schubert, B. Stein, and E. Taylor. 2009

. The epidemiological significance of post

-packinghouse survival of Xanthomonas citri subsp. citri for dissemination of Asiatic citrus canker via infected fruit. Crop Protection 28:508

- 524 Gottwald, T., and J. H. Graham. 2000. Canker. Pages 5

- 7 in J. O. Whiteside, S. M. Garnsey , and L. W. Timmer, (eds.). Compendium of Citrus Diseases. American Phy topathological Society , St Paul, MN, USA.Pest Risk Assessment for Citrus from Uruguay

Ver. 9 December 1 6 , 201 2 80 Gottwald, T. R., and J. H. Graham. 1992. A device for precise and nondisruptive stomatal inoculation of leaf tissue with bacterial pathogens. Phy topathology

82:930

- 935. Gottwald, T. R., J. H. Graham, E. L. Civerolo, H. C. Barrett, and C. J. Hearn. 1993. Differential host range of citrus and citrus relatives to citrus canker and citrus bacterial spot determined b y leaf mesophyll susceptibility . Plant Disease 77:1004

- 1009. Gottwald, T. R., J. H. Graham, an d D. S. Egel. 1992. Analy sis of foci of Asiatic citrus canker in a Florida citrus orchard. Plant Disease 76:389

- 396. Gottwald, T. R., J. H. Graham, and T. S. Schubert. 2002a. Citrus canker: the pathogen and its impact. Plant Health Progress. Last accessed March 2007, http://www.plantmanagementnetwork.org/pub/php/review/citruscanker/

. Gottwald, T. R., G. Hughes, J. H. Graham, X. Sun, and T. Riley. 2001. The citrus canker epidemic in Florida: The scientific basis of regulatory eradication policy

for an invas ive species. Phy

topathology

91:30

- 34. Gottwald, T. R., R. G. McGuire, and S. Garran. 1988. Asiatic citrus canker: spatial and temporal spread in simulated new planting situations in Argentina. Phy topathology

78:739

- 745. Gottwald, T. R., X. Sun, T. Riley , J . H. Graham, F. Ferrandino, and E. L. Taylor. 2002b. Geo

referenced spatiotemporal analysis of the urban citrus canker epidemic in Florida. Phy topathology

92:361

- 377. Gould, W. P. 1995. Probability of detecting Caribbean fruit fl y (Diptera: Tephritidae) in festations by

fruit dissection Florida Entomologist 78(3):502

- 507. Gould, W. P., and R. G. McGuire. 2000. Hot Water Treatment and Insecticidal Coatings for Disinfesting Limes of Meal ybugs (Homoptera: Pseudococcidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 93(3):1017

- 1020. Grah am, J. H., and T. R. Gottwald. 1991. Research perspectives on eradication of citrus bacterial diseases in Florida. Plant Disease 75(12):1193

- 1200. Graham, J. H., T. R. Gottwald, E. L. Civerolo, and R. G. McGuire. 1989. Population dy namics and survival of X

anthomonas campestris in soil in citrus nurseries in Maryland and Argentina. Plant Disease 73:423

- 426. Graham, J. H., T. R. Gottwald, J. Cubero, and D. S. Achor. 2004. Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. citri : factors affecting successful eradication of citrus canker. Molecular Plant Pathology 5(1):1

- 15. Graham, J. H., T. R. Gottwald, T. D. Riley , and D. Achor. 1992 a . Penetration through leaf stomata and growth of strains of Xanthomonas campestris in citrus cultivars varying in susceptibility

to bacterial diseases. Phy topathology

82(11):1319

- 1325. Graham, J. H., T. R. Gottwald, T. D. Riley , and M. A. Bruce. 1992b. Susceptibility of citrus fruit to bacterial spot and citrus canker. Phytopathology 82:452

- 457. Graham, J. H., and R. P. Leite Jr. 2004. Lack of control of citrus canker b y induced s ys temic resistance compounds. Plant Disease 88(7):745

- 750. Graham, J. H., R. G. McGuire, and J. W. Miller. 1987. Survival of Xanthomonas campestris pv. citri in citrus plant debris and soil in Florida and Argentina. Plant Disease 71:1094

- 1098. Graham, J. H., M. S. Irey , W. O. Dawson, D. Hall, and Y. P. Duan. 2008. Assessment of transmission of Ca. Liberibacter asiaticus from seed to seedlings of‘Pineapple’ sweet orange and Carrizo citrange. Pages 199

- 200 in International Research Conference on Huanglongbing, Orlando, FL.Pest Risk Assessment for Citrus from Uruguay

Ver. 9 December 1 6 , 201 2 81 Granara de Willink, M. C., I . B. Scatoni, A. L. Terra, and M. I. Frioni. 1997. Cochinillas harinosas (Homoptera, Pseudociccidae) que afectan plantas cultivadas y silvestres en Uruguay . Lista actualizada de plantas hospederas. Agrociencia 1(1):96

- 100. Gunn, C. R., and C. Ritchie. 1982. Report of the Technical Committee to Evaluate Noxious Weeds; Exotic Weeds for Federal Noxious Weed Act. USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Services (unpublished). Habtemariam, T., D. Nganwa, C. Bonsi, H. AbdelRahman, D. Oryang, B. Tameru, L. Ayanwale, A. Trottman, and A. Ahmad. 2001. Pest Risk Assessment of Citrus Canker bacterium ( Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. citri) and Citrus Scab fungi Introduction into the USA via Importation of Citrus Fruits (Sweet oranges, Mandarins, Lemons and Grapefruits) from Uruguay . Draft Report Submitted to the USDA/APHI S. January 24, 2001. Updated in February , 2001. Center for Computational Epidemiology & Risk Anal ys is (CCERA). College of Veterinary

Medic ine Nursing and Allied Health. Tuskegee University

. Hallman, G. J. 1998. Potential quarantine treatments against plum curculio to replace methyl bromide. Pages 121

- 121

- 121

- 122 in 1998 Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions. Methyl Bromide Alternatives Outreach, Fresno, CA. Hallman, G. J. 2000. Expanding radiation quarantine treatments beyond fruit flies. Agricultural and Forestry

Entomology 2(2):85

- 95. Hallman, G. J. 2003. I onizing irradiation quarantine treatment against plum curculio (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Journal of Economic Entomology 96(5):1399

- 1404. Haney , P. B., R. F. Luck, and D. S. Moreno. 1987. Increases in densities of the citrus red mite, Panonychus citri [Acarina: Tetranyc hidae], in association with the argentine ant, Iridomyrmex humilis [Hymenoptera: Formicidae], in southern California citrus Entomophaga 32(49

- 57). Hara, A. H., J. A. Yalemar, E. B. Jang, and J. H. Moy . 2002. Irradiation as a possible quarantine treatment for green scale Coccus viridis (Green) (Homoptera: Coccidae). Postharvest Biology and Technology

25(3):349

- 358. Harari, A. R., T. Zahavi, D. Gordon, L. Anshelevich, M. Harel, S. Ovadia, and E. Dunkelblum. 2007. Pest management programmes in vineyards using male mating disruption. Pest Management Science 63:769

–775. Hartung, J. S., S. Halbert, and R. Shatters. 2008. Can " Ca. Liberibacter asiaticus" be transmitted through citrus seed? International Research Conference on Huanglongbing, Orlando, FL. 16 pp. Hassan, E. 1977. Major Insect and Mite Pest of Australian Crops. Pages pages 73

- 89 in J. T. Swarbrick, (ed.). Ento Press, Gatton, Queensland. Hickel, E. R., and J. P. H. Ducroquet. 1994. Occurrence of fruit flies Anastrepha fraterculus (Wied.) on fruits of Feijoa sellowiana . Anais da Sociedade Entomologica do Brasil 23(2):311

- 315 [in Portuguese; English summary]. Holm, L . G., J. V. Pancho, J. P. Herberger, and D. L . Plucknett. 1979. A Geographical Atlas of World Weeds. John Wiley and Sons, New York. 391 pp. Holm, L . G., D. L. Plucknett, J. V. Pancho, and J. P. Herberger. 1977. The World's Worst Weeds: Distribution and biology . University Press of Hawaii, Honolulu. 609 pp. Holmes, G., J. Eckert, and J. Pitt. 1994. Revised description of Penicillium ulaiense and its role as a pathogen of Citrus fruit. Phy topathology

84:719

- 727.Pest Risk Assessment for Citrus from Uruguay

Ver. 9 December 1 6 , 201 2 82 Hussein, A. A., A. G. Abdel

- Rahman, and R. B. Ahmed. 1994. Effectiveness of fruit bagging on yi eld and fruit quality

of pomegranate (

Punica granatum L. ). Annals of Agricultural Science 32(2):949

- 957. IA EA. 2003. Trapping Guidelines for Area

- Wide Fruit Fl y Programmes. International Atomic Energy Agency , Vienna, Austria. IN KTO/PINKTO. 2002. Arthropods. Risk Analy sis Systems , Policy and Program Development , Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service , U.S. Department of Agriculture. 941 pp. IPCS. 1977. Imazalil

. La st accessed 15 January , 2008, http://www.inchem.org/documents/jmpr/jmpmono/v077pr31.htm

. IPPC. 2007. International Standards For Phytosanitary Measures, 1 to 29 (2007 edition). Food and Agri culture Organization of the United Nations, Secretariat of the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC), Rome, Italy . 376 pp. IPPC. 2007 International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures, Publication No. 5. Glossary of Phy tosanitary Terms. . Secretariat of the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC), Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy

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

of California Press, B erkeley , CA, USA. 614 pp. Jeppson, L . R. 1989. Chapter 1. Biology of Citrus insects, mites, and mollusks. In Reuther, W., E. C. Calavan, H. J. Webber, and G. E. Carman (eds.). 1989. The Citrus Industry : Crop Protection, Postharvest Technology , and Earl y Hi story of Citrus Research in California. ANR Publications. 388 pp. Jetter, K. M., D. A. Sumner, and E. L. Civerolo. 2000. Ex ante economics of exotic disease policy : Citrus canker in California. United States Department of Agriculture. Draft prepared for presentation at the Conference: Integrating Risk Assessment and Economics for Regulatory

Decisions, Washington, DC, December 7, 2000. 57 pp. Jones, V. M., and B. C. Waddell. 1996. Mortality responses of tydeid mite following hot water treatment. Pages 21

- 23 in Proceedings of the 49th New Zealand Plant Protection Conference. Kirk, K., R. Bessin, J. Hartman, J. O’L eary , and J. Strang. 2001. Total quality assurance: apple production: best management practices. Kentucky Cooperative Extension Service ID

137. Koch de Brotos, L., C. Boasso, O. R. d. Machado, and C. G. Antunez. 1981. Enfermedades de las plantas, hongos superiores y saprofitas en el Uruguay . Ministerio de Agricultura y Pesca. Dirección General de Servicios Agronómicos. Dirección de Sanidad Vegetal. In f orme Técnico No 9. Koizumi, M. 1972. Studies on the sy mptoms of citrus canker formed on Satsuma mandarin fruit and existence of casual bacteria in the affected tissues. Bulletin of the Horticultural Research Station. Series B: Okitsu (Japan) 12:229

- 244. Koizumi, M. 1976. Incubation period of citrus canker in relation to temperature. Bull. Fruit Tree Res. Sta. Japan B(3):33

- 46. Koizumi, M. 1977a. Behavior of Xanthomonas citri (Hasse) Dowson and histological changes of diseased tissues in the process of les ion extension. Ann. Phy topath. Soc. Japan 43:129

- 136. Koizumi, M. 1977b. Factors related to the occurrence of spring canker caused by Xanthomonas citri (Hasse) Dowson. Kaju Shikenjo Hokoku B Okitsu. 4:115

- 129.Pest Risk Assessment for Citrus from Uruguay

Ver. 9 December 1 6 , 201 2 83 Koizumi, M., and S. Kuhara. 1982. Evaluation o f citrus plants for resistance to bacterial canker disease in relation to lesion extension. Bull. Fruit Tree Res. Stn. D 4:73

- 92. Korf, H. J. G., G. C. Schutte, and J. M. Kotze. 2001. Effect of packhouse procedures on the viability of Phyllosticta citricar

pa , anamorph of the citrus black spot pathogen. African Plant Protection 7(2):103

- 109. Kotzé, J. M. 1981. Epidemiology and control of citrus black spot in South Africa. Plant Disease 65(12):945

- 950. Kuhara, S. 1978. Present epidemic status and ontrol of th e citrus canker disease ( Xanthomonas citri (Hasse) Dowson) in Japan. Review of Plant Protection Research 11:132

- 142. Leal, W. S., J. M. S. Bento, Y. Murata, M. Ono, J. R. P. Parra, and E. F. Vilela. 2001. Id entification, s ynthesis, and field evaluation of the sex pheromone of the citrus fruit borer Ecdytolopha aurantiana . Journal of Chemical Ecology 27(10):2041

- 2051. Leite Jr., R. P. 2000. Surviving with citrus canker in Brazil. Proc. Int. Soc. Citriculture IX Congr.:890

- 896. Leite Jr., R. P., and S. K. Moh an. 1984. Evaluation of citrus cultivars for resistance to canker caused b y Xanthomonas campestris pv. citri (Hasse) Dye in the State of Paraná Brazil. Pages 385

- 389 in in Proceedings of the International Society of Citriculture, Volume 1. V Congress, 1984 . International Society of Citriculture, São Paulo, Brazil. Leite Jr., R. P., S. K. Mohan, A. L. G. Pereira, and C. A. Campacci. 1987. Integrated control of citrus canker

- effect of genetic resistance and application of bactericides. Fitopatologia Brasileira 12:257

- 263. Leite, R. P., Jr., and S. K. Mohan. 1990. Integrated management of the citrus bacterial canker disease caused b y Xanthomonas campestris pv. citri in the State of Parana, Brazil. Crop Protection 9(1):3

- 7. Leite, R. P. J. 1990. Cancro Citrico: Prevencao e controle no Parana. Fundacao Instituto Agronomico do Parana Vinculada a Secretaria da Agricultura e do Abastecimento, Londrina

- Parana

- Brasil. Li, W. B., j. W. D. Pria, P. M. L acava, X. Qin, and J. S. Hartung. 2003. Presence of Xylella fastidiosa in sweet orange fruit and seeds and its transmission to seedlings. Phy topathology

93:953

- 958. Locali

- Fabris, E. C., J. Freitas

- Astúa, A. A. Souza, M. A. Takita, G. Astua

- Monge, R. Antonioli

Luizon, V. Rodrigues, M. L . P. N. Targon, and M. A. Machado. 20 06. Complete nucleotide sequence, genomic organization and phylogenetic anal ys is of Citrus leprosis virus cy toplasmic type. Journal of General Virology 87(2721

- 2729). Lopes , S. A., G. F. Frare , P

. T

. Yamamoto , A

. J

. Ayr es , J

. C

. Barbosa

. 2007. In effectiveness of pruning to control citrus huanglongbing caused b y Candidatus Liberibacter americanus. Eur

. J

. Plant Pathol

. 119:463

–468

. Lovisolo, O. 2001. Citrus leprosis virus: properties, diagnosis, agro

- ecology and phy tosanitary importance. Bulletin OEPP 31(1):79

- 89. Madhukar, J., and S. M. Reddy . 1990. Control of fruit

- rot of guava b y hot water treatment. Indian Phytopathology

43(2):234

- 236. Magarey , R. D., D. M. Borchert, G. L. Fowler, T. G. Sutton, M. Colunga

- Garcia, and J. A. Simpson. 2007. NAPPFAST, an Internet Sy stem for the Weather

- based Mapping of Plant Pathogens. Plant Disease 91:336

- 345. Magarey , R. D., D. M. Borchert, and J. W. Schlegel. 2008. Global plant hardiness zones for phy tosanitary risk anal ys is. Scientia Agricola 65(Special):54

- 59.Pest Risk Assessment for Citrus from Uruguay

Ver. 9 December 1 6 , 201 2 84 Majumder, M. Z. R., A. D. Bhui ya, and N. Chowdhury. 1996. Effects of radiation on mortality , fecundity and sterility of Oligonychus biharensis (Hirst) infesting common flower plants in Bangladesh [Abstract]. Bangladesh Journal of Zoology 24(1):25

- 32. Manj unath, K. L., S. E. Halbert, C. Ramadugu, S. Webb, and R. F. Lee. 2008. Detection of' Candidatus Liberibacter asiaticus' in Diaphorina citri and its importance in the management of citrus Huanglongbing in Florida. Phy topathology

98(4):387

- 396. McElroy , T. 2 000. Crawford unveils bold new canker plan. Press Release. Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Tallahassee, FL, USA. Feb. 11, 2000. McOnie, K. C. 1964b. Control of citrus black spot disease 1: A comparison of the relative merits of a copper fungicide and Maneb for the control of the black spot disease on the Valencia orange. South African Citrus Journal 361:5

- 11. Medina

- Urrutia, V. M., and J. J. Stapleton. 1985. Control of Mexican lime bacteriosis with copper- based products. PRoc. Fla. State Hort. Soc. 98:22

- 25. Metcalf, R. L., and R. A. Metcalf. 1993. Destructive and Useful Insects: Their Habits and Control (5th edition). McGraw Hill, Inc., New York. 1200 pp. MGAP

– DGSA. 2000. Procedures for the verification of the absence of Citrus B lack Spot in Citrus production places. Proposal. July, 2000. Miller, D. R. 2005. Selected scale insect groups (Hemiptera: Coccoidea) in the southern region of the United States. Florida Entomologist 88(4):482

- 501. Miller, G. L ., and D. R. Miller. 2003. Inv asive soft scales (Hemiptera: Coccidae) and their threat to U.S. agriculture. Proc. Entomol. Soc. Wash. 105(4):832

- 846. Minnis, D. 2008. Capnodium citri and Limacinia citri

- sy nony ms? Personal communication to B. Randall

- Schadel on December 18, 2008, from D. Minnis, USDA

- ARS Sy stematic Mycology

and Microbiology

L aboratory

(Archived at PERAL). Molina, R. M. d. S., and J. R. P. Parra. 2006. Selection of Trichogramma strains and determination of number of parasitoids to be released to control Gymnandrosoma au rantianum Lima (Lepidoptera, Tortricidae) / Selecao de linhagens de Trichogramma (H ym enoptera, Trichogrammatidae) e determinacao do numero de parasitoides a ser liberado para o controle de Gymnandrosoma aurantianum Lima (Lepidoptera, Tortricidae). [abstrac t]. Revista Brasileira de Entomologia 50(4):534

- 539. Monné, M. A., and F. T. Hovore. 2002. Checklist of the Cerambycidae of the Western Hemisphere http://www.cerambycoidea.com/titles/monnehovore2002a.pdf

. Monné, M. A., and F. T. Hovore. 2005. Checklist of the Ceramb ycidae of the Western Hemisphere http://www.cerambycids.com/checklist/Monne&Hovore_2005.pdf

. Moore, S. D. 2003. The lemon borer moth: a new citrus pest in South Africa [abstract]. South African Fruit Journal 2(5):37

- 41. Muraro, R. P., F. M. Rok a, and T. H. Spreen. 2001. An overview of Argentina's citrus canker control program. Department of Food and Resource Economics, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS). 6 pp. Museo Virtual de la Biodiversidad. 2008. Especies de Auchenorrhyncha (Hemiptera) de Misiones (Listado preliminar) (1). Provincia de Misiones de Argentina. Last accessed September 17, http://www.fceqyn.unam.edu.ar/museo

biodiversidad/museovirtual_archivos/page0024.htm

. NAPPO. 1998. Surve illance for quarantine fruit flies (in a portion of a generally infested area) (NAPPO Regional Standards for Phytosanitary Measures No. 10.). Secretariat of the North American Plant Protection Organization, Ottawa, Canada.Pest Risk Assessment for Citrus from Uruguay

Ver. 9 December 1 6 , 201 2 85 NAPPO. 2003. Guidelines for the e stablishment, maintenance and verification of areas of low pest prevalence for insects (NAPPO Regional Standards for Phytosanitary Measures No. 20). Secretariat of the North American Plant Protection Organization, Ottawa, Canada. NAPPO. 2004. Guidelines fo r the establishment, maintenance and verification of fruit fly pest free areas in North America (NAPPO Regional Standards for Phy tosanitary Measures No. 17). Secretariat of the North American Plant Protection Organization, Ottawa, Canada. NRCS. 2012. The PLANTS Database. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), The National Plant Data Center. Last accessed http://plants.usda.gov

. Ozturk, N., and M. R. Ulus oy . 2011. The adult population dy namics of the Honeydew moth, Cryptoblabes gnidiella Mill., 1867 (L epidoptera: Py ralidae) in citrus orchards in the Eastern Mediterranean Region. Bitki Koruma Bulteni 51(1):17

- 32. Parra, J. R. P., J. M. S. Bento, M. S. Garci a, P. T. Yamamoto, E. F. Vilela, and W. S. L eal. 2004. Development of a control alternative for the citrus fruit borer, Ecdytolopha aurantiana (Lepidoptera, Tortricidae): from basic research to the grower. Revista Brasileira de Entomologia 48(4):561

- 567. P arra, J. R. P., P. K. Júnior, R. M. d. S. Molina, and M. d. L . Haddad. 2001. Effect of the fruit acidity on the development of the citrus fruit borer. Entomologia 22(2):321

- 332. PERAL . 2010. The significance of Citrus spp. fruit as a pathway for the introd

uction or spread of Elsinoë australis, the organism that causes Sweet orange scab disease (SOS) . United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine, Center for Plant Health Science and Technology , Plant Epidemiology

and Risk Analysis Laboratory (PERAL), Raleigh, NC. 15pp Nearctica. 2007. Nomina Insecta Nearctica. A check list of the insects of North America. Last accessed June 7, http://www.nearctica.com/nomina/nomina.htm

. Nguye n, R., and S. Fraser. 1989. Lack of suitability of commercial limes and lemons as hosts of Anastrepha suspensa (Diptera: Tephritidae). Florida Entomologist 72(4):718

- 720. Nguye n, R., A. B. Hamon, and T. R. Fasulo. 2007. Featured Creatures: Aleurocanthus woglumi Univers ity

of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences. Last accessed http://creatures.ifas.ufl.edu/citrus/citrus_blackfl y. htm

. NI S. 2006. Another Request for Quarantine Status Confirmations. Personal communication to L

. C. Millar on October 12, 2006, from Paul Courneya National Identification Services (USDA

- APHIS

- PPQ)Archived at PERAL , Raleigh, NC, from NPB. 2002. Preventing the introduction of plant pathogens into the United States: the role and application of the “S ys tems Approach”. National Plant Board:86 pp. http://www.nationalplantboard.org/policy /approach.html

. Obata, T., F. Tsuboi, and S. Wakimoto. 1969. Studies on the detection of Xanthomonas citri by phage technique and the surface sterilization of Unshu orange for export to the United State s. Res. Bull. Plant Prot. Japan 7:26

- 37. Opler, P. A., H. Pavulaan, R. E. Stanford, and M. Pogue. 2006. Butterflies and Moths of North America. Mountain Prairie Information Node. Palacios, J. 2005. Citricultura. Alfabeta, Buenos Aires, Tucumán, Argentina. 518 pp pp. Palm, M. E. 2007. Analysis of citrus scab pathogens isolated from Uruguay samples. PPQ Molecular Diagnostic Lab, United States Department of Agriculture, Plant Protection and Quarantine, Plant Health Programs, Beltsville, MD. 2 pp.Pest Risk Assessment for Citrus from Uruguay

Ver. 9 December 1 6 , 201 2 86 Palm, M. E. 2 008. Report on molecular anal ys is of citrus scab samples from Uruguay by USDA/APHI S/PPQ Molecular Diagnostics Laboratory , 3 September 2008. United States Department of Agriculture Animal Plant Health Inspection Service Plant Protection and Quarantine Belts ville, MD. Palmer, W. A., and K. R. Pullen. 1995. The phy tophagous arthropods associated with Lantana camara , L. hirsuta, L. urticifolia, and L. urticoides (Verbenaceae) in North America. Biological Control 5:54

- 72. Parra, G. 2007. Information regarding Pe rox yacetic Acid and its efficacy to treat Citrus Canker bacteria Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. citri. Unpublished report from USDA PPQ Treatment Quality

Assurance Unit: 2. Parra, J. R. P., J. M. S. Bento, M. S. Garcia, P. T. Yamamoto, E. F. Vilela, and W. S. Leal. 2004. Development of a control alternative for the citrus fruit borer, Ecdytolopha aurantiana (Lepidoptera, Tortricidae): from basic research to the grower. Revista Brasileira de Entomologia 48(4):561

- 567. Parra, J. R. P., P. K. Júnior, R. M. d. S. M olina, and M. d. L . Haddad. 2001. Effect of the Fruit Acidity on the Development of the Citrus Fruit Borer. Entomologia 22(2):321

- 332. PEET. 200 9

. Xyleborus volvulus , taxonomy sheet. National Science Foundation, Partnerships for Enhancing Expertise in Taxonomy . Last accessed http://xyleborini.tamu.edu/query .php?tax_id=1661

. Pena, J. E., J. L . Sharp, and M. Wysoki. 2002. Tropical Fruit Pests and Pollinators: Biology , Economic lmportance, Natural Enemies and Control. CAB International, Wallingford, UK. 43 0 pp. PERAL . 2008. Plant Hardiness Zones of the United States: Area and Population Analysis. United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine, Center for Plant Health Science and Technology, Plant Epidemiology

and Risk Analysis Laboratory (PERAL), Raleigh, NC. 6 pp. PERAL . 2010 a
. Risk assessment of Citrus spp. fruit as a pathway for the introduction of Guignardia citricarpa Kiely , the organism that causes Citrus Black Spot disease . United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine, Center for Plant Health Science and Technology, Plant Epidemiology

and Risk Analysis Laboratory (PERAL), Raleigh, NC. 34pp. PERAL . 2010b. The significance of Citrus spp. fruit as a pathway for the introduction or spread of Elsinoë australis, the organism that causes Sweet orange scab disease (SOS) . United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protectio n and Quarantine, Center for Plant Health Science and Technology, Plant Epidemiology

and Risk Analysis Laboratory (PERAL), Raleigh, NC. 15pp. Pereira, A. L. G., K. Watanabe, A. G. Zagato, and P. L . Cianculli. 1976. Sobrevivência de Xanthomonas citri (Hasse ) Dowson em capim amargoso ( Trichachne insularis (L .) Nees) de pomares erradicados no Estado de São Paulo [Survival of Xanthomonas citri (Hasse) Dowson on capim amargoso ( Trichachne insularis (L .) Nees) of uprooted orchards in Sao Paulo State]. Biologico 4 2(11/12):217

- 220. Pereira, A. L. G., K. Watanabe, A. G. Zavgatto, and P. L . Cianciulli. 1978. Survival of Xanthomonas citri (Hasse) Dowson, the causal agent of citrus canker in the rhizosphere of guinea grass (

Panicum maximum Jacq.). Biológico 44:135

- 138.Pest Risk Assessment for Citrus from Uruguay

Ver. 9 December 1 6 , 201 2 87 PestID. 2007. Pest Identification Database (PestID). United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine. https://mokcs14.aphis.usda.gov/aqas/login.jsp. (Archived at PERAL). PestID. 2008. Pes t Identification Database (PestID). United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine. https://mokcs14.aphis.usda.gov/aqas/login.jsp. (Archived at PERAL). PestID. 2012. Pest Identification Database (PestID). United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine. https://mokcs14.aphis.usda.gov/aqas/login.jsp. Phillips, P. A. 2001. The glass y- winged sharpshooter

- a new threat for California citrus as a potential vector of CVC. Pages 16, 17, 28 in The CAPCA Adviser. California Association of Pest Control Advisors. Ploper, L . D., C. J. Ramallo, and G. Fogliata. 2004. Technical Report: Proposal for monitoring citrus farms according to packing plant ability to remove fruit with quarantine disease sy mptoms. Estación Experimental Agroindustrial “Obispo Colombres” (EEAOC), National University of Tucumán, Las Talitas, Argentina. 7 pp. Powell, M. R. 2003. Modeling the response of the Mediterranean fruit fly (Diptera: Tephritidae) to cold treatment. Journal of Economic Entomology 92(2):300

- 310. PPQ. 2000. Guidelines for pathway

- initiated pest risk assessments (Version 5.02). United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ), Riverdale, MD. 30 pp. PPQ. 2008a. Agricultural Quarantine Inspection Monitoring (AQIM) Handbook. United States Department of Agricultural, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quaratine (PPQ). PPQ. 2008b. Miscellaneous and Processed Products. Regulating the importation of miscellan eous and processed products and regulated by Plant Protection and Quarantine. in A. a. P. H. I. S. United States Department of Agriculture, Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ), ed. PPQ. 2008c. Treatment Schedules

- Schedules for Fruit, Nuts, and Vegetabl es. PPQ Treatment Manual. United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ). Last accessed 20 May 2008, http://www.aphis.usda.gov/import_export/plants/manuals/ports/downloads/treatment.pdf PPQ. 2008d. USDA Treatment Manual. United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ). Pruvost, O., B. Boher, C. Brocherieux, M. Nicole, and F. Chiroleu. 2002. Survival of Xanth omonas axonopodis pv citri in leaf lesions under tropical environmental conditions and simulated splash dispersal of inoculum. Phy topathology

92:336

- 346. Qin, T. K., P. J. Gullan, C. Beattie, J. Trueman, P. S. Cranston, M. J. Fletcher, and P. A. Sands. 199 4. The current distribution and geographical origin of the scale insect pest Ceroplastes sinensis (Hemiptera: Coccidae). Bulletin of Entomological Research 84:541

- 549. Randall, R. P. 2007. A global compendium of weeds. Department of Agriculture of Western Australia. http://www.hear.org/gcw/ . (Archived at PERAL). Reed, C. F. 1977. Economically Important Foreign Weeds: Potential problems in the United States (TOC and partial index). United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection S ervice, Agricultural Research Service.Pest Risk Assessment for Citrus from Uruguay

Ver. 9 December 1 6 , 201 2 88 Remes

- Lenicov, A. M., S. Paradell, O. De Coll, and J. Agostini. 1999. Cicadelinos asociados a citrus afectados por clorosis variegada (CVC) en la Republica Argentina (Insecta: Homoptera: Cicadellidae) Rev. Soc. Entomo l. Argentina 58(3

- 4):211

- 225. Reyes, L., L. Díaz, H. Sendra, A. Chouhy , M. Chifflet, D. Marínez, and J. Franco. 1993. Racionalización del manejo post

- cosecha de fruta cítrica de exportación. Pages 111 in IX Congreso Latinoamericano de Fitopatología, Libro de Resúmenes. Rinderknecht, F. 2005. Coleópteros y Lepidópteros del Uruguay . Last accessed Sept 16, http://rinderknecht.galeon.com/index.htm

. Ringenberg, R., M. Botton, M. S. Garcia, and A. Nondillo. 2005. Compared biology in artificial diets and thermal requirements of Cryptoblabes gnidiella / Biologia comparada e exigencias termicas de Cryptoblabes gnidiella em dieta artificial [abstract]. Pesquisa Agropecuaria Brasileira 40(11):1059

- 1065. Robinson, G. S., P. R. Ackery , I. J. Kitching, G. W. Beccaloni, an d L. M. Hernandez. 2007. HOSTS

- A Database of the World's Lepidopteran Hostplants. The Natural History Museum. L ondon, United Kingdom. http://www.nhm.ac.uk/entomology /hostplants Rocha Zanol, K. M. 2003. Frequenamia (Cicadellidae, Deltocephalinae): geograp hical distribution, sy

nony mical notes and descriptions of seventeen new species. Acta Biol. Par., Curitiba 32:9

- 67. Rodrigues, J. C. V., E. W. Kitajima, C. C. Childers, and C. M. Chagas. 2003. Citrus leprosis virus vectored b y Brevipalpus phoenicis (Acari: Tenuipalpidae) on citrus in Brazil. Experimental and Applied Acarology 30:161

- 179. Rodrigues, J. C. V., L . N. Nogueira, D. S. Freitas, and H. S. Prates. 1997. Virus

- like Particles Associated With Brevipalpus phoenicis Geijskes (Acari: Tenuipalpidae), Vector of Citrus Leprosis Virus. An. Soc. Entomol. Brasil 26:391

- 395. Ry bak, M., and B. I. Canteros. 2001. Populations of Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. citri in endemic areas. Pages 362

- 370 in S. H. De Boer, (ed.). Plant Pathogenic Bacteria. Kluwer Academic, Neth erlands. Sandoval

- Clavería, A. 2005. Insectos pertenecientes a la familia Cerambycidae que podrian interceptarse en durmientes de ferrocarril procedentes de Sudamerica. Gobierno de Chile, Servicio Agricola y Ganadero, División de Protección Agrícola, Pro ye cto Vigilancia y Control de Plagas Forestales, Santiago, Chile. 4 pp. Sar, S., S. Balagawi, A. Mararuai, and D. Putulan. 2001. Fruit fl y research and development in PNG. Pages 571

- 576 in R. M. Bourke, M. G. Allen, and J. G. S. (eds.), (eds.). Food Security for Papua New Guinea (ACIAR Proceedings 99). Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research, Canberra. Savela, M. 2008. Lepidoptera and some other life forms. Last accessed October, http://www.funet.fi/pub/sci/bio/life/intro.html

. Scarpellini, J. R., and J. C. C. d. Santos. 1997. Chemical control of Ecdytolopha aurantiana Lima, 1927 (Lepidoptera

- Olethreutidae) in a citrus orchard / Controle quimico do bicho furao Ecdytolopha aurantiana Lima, 1927 (Lepidoptera

- Olethreutidae) na cultura dos ci tros. [abstract]. Ecossistema 22:27

- 28. Scatoni, I . B. 2007. En relación a la solicitud de información para la elaboración de la lista de plagas de Citrus Personal communication to D. D. Ines Ares, Proteccion Agricola, DGSA/MGAP on 12 June 2007, from Iris Beatriz Scatoni, Prof. Agregada de Entomologia, Facultad de Agronomia, UruguayPest Risk Assessment for Citrus from Uruguay

Ver. 9 December 1 6 , 201 2 89 Schubert, T. S., J. W. Miller, T. R. Gottwald, J. H. Graham, L. H. Hebb, and S. R. Poe. 1999. Bacterial citrus canker and commercial movement of fresh citrus fruit. An assessment of the risks of fresh citrus fruit movement relative to the spread of bacterial citrus canker ( Xanthomonas axonopodis pv citri). A report prepared for the Citrus Canker Risk Assessment groups for Manatee, Collier, Miami/Dade, and Broward Counties. Flori da Department of Agricultural and Consumer Services, Gainesville, FL, USA. 17 pp. Schubert, T. S., S. Rizvi, X. Sun, T. Gottwald, J. Graham, and W. Dixon. 2001. Meeting the challenge of eradicating citrus canker in Florida

- again. Plant Disease 85:340

- 345. Schubert, T. S., and X. Sun. 2003. Bacterial Citrus Canker. Plant Pathology Circular 377:1

- 6. Serizawa, S. 1981. Recent studies on the behavior of the causal bacterium of the citrus canker. Pages 395

- 397 in in Proceedings of the International Society of Ci triculture, Volume 1. IVCongress 1981. International Society of Citriculture, Tokyo, Japan. Serizawa, S., K. Inoue, and M. Goto. 1959. Studies on citrus canker disease. I . Dispersal of the citrus canker organism. Bulletin of the Faculty of Agriculture, Shizuoka University 8:81

- 85. Shatters, R. G. J. 2008. Detection of " Candidatus Liberibacter asiaticus" in citrus seedlings germinated from Florida seed.International research conference on Huanglongbing, Orlando, Florida. Shevale, B. S., and V. M. Khaire. 1998. Relative performance of fruit

- bagging against pomegranate butterfl y. Journal of Maharashtra Agricultural University 23(3):276

- 279. Shiotani, H., H. Uematsu, T. Tsukamoto, Y. Shimizu, K. Ueda, A. Mizuno, and S. Sato. 2009. Survival and dispersal of X anthomonas citri pv. citri from infected Satsuma mandarin fruit. Crop Protection 28 28:19

- 23. Silva, E. B., and A. Mexia. 1999. The pest complex Cryptoblabes gnidiella (Milliére) (Lepidoptera: P yr alidae) and Planococcus citri (Risso) (Homoptera: Pseudococc idae) on sweet orange groves ( Citrus sinensis (L .) Osbeck) in Portugal: Interspecific association. Bol. San. Veg. Plagas, 25:89

- 98. SI NAVIMO. 2005a. Cryptoblabes gnidiella . SENASA. http://www.sinavimo.gov.ar . (Archived at PERAL). SI NAVIMO. 2005b. Gymnadrosoma aurantianum . SENASA. http://www.sinavimo.gov.ar

. (Archived at PERAL). Sivanesan, A., and C. Critchett. 1974. Elsinoe australis. CMIDescriptions of Pathogenic Fungi and Bacteria No. 440. Commonwealth Mycological Institute. Kew, England. Skinner, K., L . Smith, and P. Rice. 2008. Noxious weeds in the US and Canada. University of Montana. http://invader.dbs.umt.edu/Noxious_Weeds/ . (Archived at PERAL). Smith, I . M., D. G. McNamara, P. R. Scott, M. Holderness, and B. Burger. 1997. Quarantine Pests f or Europe. CAB International and EPPO, Wallingford. 146

- 152; 758

- 763; 1425 pp. Spittler, G. H., J. W. Amstrong, and H. M. Couey . 1984. Mediterrenean Fruit Fly (Diptera: Tephritidae) host status of commercial lemon. Journal of Economic Entomology 77(6):1441

- 1444. Sposito, M. B. 2003. Dinamica temporal e espacial da macha preta ( Guignardia citricarpa ) e quantificacao dos danos causados a cultura dos citros. Piracicaba, Sao Paulo, Brasil. 124 pp.Pest Risk Assessment for Citrus from Uruguay

Ver. 9 December 1 6 , 201 2 90 Stall, R. E., J. W. Miller, G. M. Marco, and B. I. C. Echenique. 1980. Population dy namics of Xanthomonas citri causing cancrosis of citrus in Argentina. Proceedings Annual Meeting Florida State Horticultural Society . 93:10

- 14. Stapleton, J. J. 1986. Effects of postharvest chlorine and wax treatments on surface microfl ora of lime fruit in relation to citrus bacteriosis disease. Plant Disease 70:1046

- 1048. Stimmel, J. F. 1998. Wax scales, Ceroplastes spp. Homoptera: Coccidae. Regulatory Horticulture 24(2):17

- 19. Sugayama, R. L ., A. Malavasi, I. Nora, and E. S. Branco. 19 96. Ovipositional responses to apple in a caged tree b y Anastrepha fraterculus in southern Brazil. Pages 67

- 69 in B. A. McPheron and G. J. Steck, (eds.). Fruit Fl y Pests: A World Assessment of their Biology and Management. St. Lucie Press, Delray Beach, FL , U.S.A. . Swings, J., L . Vauterin, and K. Kersters. 1993. The bacterium Xanthomonas Pages 121

- 156 in J. G. S. a. E. L . Civerolo, (ed.). ?? Chapman and Hall, London, England. Swirski, E., M. Wysoki, and Y. Izhar. 1995. Avocado Pests In I srael Pages 419

- 428 in Proceedings of the World Avocado Congress III. Tatineni, S., U. Sagaram, S., S. Gowda, C. J. Robertson, W. O. Dawson, T. Iwanami, and N. Wang. 2008. In planta distribution of ‘ Candidatus Liberibacter asiaticus’ as revealed by poly merase chain reaction (PCR) and real

- time PCR. Phy topathology

98:592

- 599. TDOA. 2003. Texas Rio Grande Valley Mexican Fruit Fl y, Anastrepha ludens , (Loew) [sic] Protocol

—2003/2004 (Unpublished report). Texas Department of Agriculture. Teixeira, D. do C., J

. L

. Danet , S

. Eveillard, E

. C

. Martins, W

. C

. de Jesus Junior, P

. T

. Yamamoto, S

. A

. Lopes, R

. B

. Bassanezi, A

. J

. Ayres, C

. Saillard, J

. M

. Bove . 2005a. Citrus huanglongbing in Sao Paulo State, Brazil: PCR detection of the ‘ Candidatus ’ Liberibacter species associated with the disease

. Molecular and Cellular Probes 19 : 173

– 179

. Teixeira, D. do C.,C. Saillard, S. Eveillard, J. L . Danet, P. I . daCosta, A. J. Ay res, and J. Bove. 2005 b . ‘ Candidatus Liberibacter americanus’, associated with citrus huanglongbing (greening disease) in São Paulo State, Brazil. International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary

Microbiology

55: 1857

– 1862. Thayer, C., R. Magarey , and D. Borchert. 2003. PEST ASSESSMENT: Sweet Orange Scab, Elsinoe australis (Bitancourt & Jenk), (M yriangiales: Elsinoaceae) . USDA APHI S PPQ CPHST Plant Epidemiology and Risk Anal ys is Laboratory and North Carolina State University . 5 pp. Thomas, M. C., J. B. Heppner, R. E. Woodruff, H. V. Weems, and G. J. Steck. 2008. Mediterranean fruit fly . University of Florida. Last accesse d October 26, http://creatures.ifas.ufl.edu/fruit/tropical/mediterranean_fruit_fly .htm

. Timmer, L . W. 1988. Evaluation of bactericides for control of citrus canker in Argentina. Proceedings of the Florida State Horticultural Society 101:6

- 9. Timmer, L . W., and K. R. Chung. 2008. 2008 Florida Citrus Pest Management Guide: Citrus Scab (EDIS document pp 146). Institute of Food and Agricultural Services, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA. Timmer, L . W., and L. W. Duncan. 1999. Citrus health management . APS Press, St. Paul, Minnessota. 197 pp. Timmer, L . W., S. M. Garnsey , and J. H. Graham, (eds.). 2000. Compendium of Citrus Diseases. 2nd Edition. APS Press, St. Paul, MN. 92 pp.Pest Risk Assessment for Citrus from Uruguay

Ver. 9 December 1 6 , 201 2 91 Timmer, L . W., T. R. Gottwald, and S. E. Zitko. 1991. Bacterial exudation f rom lesions of Asiatic citrus canker and citrus bacterial spot. Plant Disease 75:192

- 195. Timmer, L . W., T. R. Gottwald, and S. E. Zitko. 1996a. Populations dy namics of Xanthomonas campestris pv. citri on symptomatic and asy mptomatic citrus leaves under various environmental conditions. Pages 448

- 451 in Proceedings of the VIII Congress of the International Society of Citriculture, Sun City, South Africa. Timmer, L . W., J. H. Graham, H. L. Chamberlain, K. R. Chung, and T. S. Schubert. 2007. Florida Citrus Pe st Management Guide: Citrus Canker (PP

- 182). IFAS Extension. University

of Florida, Gainesville, FL. 4 pp. Timmer, L . W., M. Priest, P. Broadbent, and M. K. Tan. 1996b. Morphological and pathological characterization of species of Elsinoe causing scab dise ases of citrus. Phytopathology 86:1032

- 1038. Timmer, L . W., Z. Solel, T. R. Gottwald, A. M. Ibañez, and S. E. Zitko. 1998. Environmental factors affecting production, release, and field populations of conidia of Alternaria alternata , the cause of brown spo t of citrus. Phy topathology

88:1218

- 1223. U.S. 2000. Plant Protection Act. Public L aw 106

- 224, June 20, 2000. U.S. Census Bureau. 2001. Census 2000 Summary File 1 (SF 1) 100

- Percent Data. United States Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, United States Census Bureau. http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/CTGeoSearchByListServlet?ds_name=DEC_2000_S F1_U&_lang=en&_ts=193734058361 . (Archived at PERAL). U

. S

. Census Bureau. 2005. Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2004

- 2005. 56 pp. USDA APHI S. 2010 a . Federal Domestic Quarantine Order: Guignardia citricarpa , Causal Agent of Citrus Black Spot (CBS) (DA

- 2010

- 47). United States Department of Agriculture. USDA APHI S. 2010 b . Federal Domestic Quarantine Order: Elsinoë australis Bitanc. & Jenkins Causal Agent of Sweet Orange Scab (SOS) (DA

- 2010

- 62). United States Department of Agriculture. USDA APHI S. 2011. Federal Domestic Quarantine Order: Guignardia citricarpa Kiely , Causal Agent of Citrus Black Spot (CBS) (DA

- 2011

- 03). United States D epartment of Agriculture. USDA

- APHIS

- PPQ. 2005. Citrus commodity survey reference. July

2005 Perpetual Draft. United States Department of Agriculture Animal Plant Health Inspection Service Plant Protection and Quarantine. USDA

- APHIS

- PPQ. 2007. Evaluation of as ymptomatic citrus fruit ( Citrus spp.) as a pathway for the introduction of citrus canker disease ( Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. citri). United States Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Plant Protection and Quarantine Center for Plant Health and Technology Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analy sis Laboratory

. USDA

- APHIS

- PPQ. 2008a. Treatment Schedules

- Schedules for Fruit, Nuts, and Vegetables , PPQ Treatment Manual. Last accessed 20 May 2008, http://www.aphis .usda.gov/import_export/plants/manuals/ports/downloads/treatment_pdf /05_02_t100schedules.pdf USDA

- APHIS

- PPQ. 2008b. USDA Treatment Manual (Revision 10). USDA APHI S Plant Protection and Quarantine, Riverdale, MD, USA. 770 pp.Pest Risk Assessment for Citrus from Uruguay

Ver. 9 December 1 6 , 201 2 92 USDA

- ERS. 2007. Background Statistics: U.S. Citrus Market. USDA. Last accessed December 29, USDA

-NASS. 2008. Citrus Fruits 2008 Summary . Fr NT 3

- 1 (08). United State Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). 49 pp. USDA

-NRCS. 2007a. PLANTS Profil e. http://plants.usda.gov

. http://plants.usda.gov . (Archived at PERAL). USDA

-NRCS. 2007b. PLANTS Profile: Citrus × limon (L .) Burm. f. . http://plants.usda.gov

. http://plants.usda.gov . (Archived at PERAL). USDA. 2005. Work plan for the Exportation of Hass Avocados from Mexico to the United States of America . USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. USDA. 2007a. Evaluation of as ymptomatic citrus fruit (Citrus spp.) as a pathway for the introduction of citrus canker disease ( Xanthomonas axonopodis pv
. citri). in USDA

APHI S

- PPQ

- CPHST

- PERAL , ed. USDA. 2008a. USDA Treatment Manual (Revision 10). USDA APHIS Plant Protection and Quarantine, Riverdale, MD, USA. 770 pp. USDA, 2010 a . Technical Working Group (TWG) Report: Sweet Orange Scab (Elsinöe australis ). United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Animal Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ), Center for Plant Health Science and Technology (CPHST). http://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/plant_pest_info/citrus/downloads/black_spot/cbs

- twg_report_6

- 2

- 10.pdf USDA, 2010b. Risk assessment of Citrus spp. fruit as a pathway for the introduction of Guignardia citricarpa Kiely , the organism that causes Citrus Black Spot disease

. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Animal Plant Health Inspection Service (APHI S), Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ), Center for Plant Health Science and Technology

(CPHST). http://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/plant_pest_info/citrus/downloads/black_spot/cbs

- risk

- assessment.pdf USDA, 2011. National quarantine of citrus greening and Asian citrus ps yl lid. Map of areas under regulation. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Animal Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), Plant Protecti on and Quarantine (PPQ) . Published January 7, 2001. Last accessed at: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/plant_pest_info/citrus_greening/downloads/pdf_ files/nationalquarantinemap.pdf USDA, and FDACS. 2000. Transcript of the 1st International Citrus Canker Research Workshop, June 20

- 22, 2000. USDA Agricultural Research Service (ARS); USDA Animal Plant Health and Inspections Service (APHIS); and the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS), Ft. Pierce, FL, USA. 595 pp. USDA/APHI S. 2 004. Importation of Fresh Commercial Citrus Fruit: Clementine (Citrus reticulata Blanco var. Clementine) Mandarin (Citrus reticulata Blanco) and Tangerine (Citrus reticulata Blanco) from Chile into the United States. United States Department of Agriculture , Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine, Center for Plant Health Science and Technology

. USFWS. 2007. Threatened and endangered species system (TESS). United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). http://www.fws.gov/endangered/wildlife.html . (Archived at PERAL).Pest Risk Assessment for Citrus from Uruguay

Ver. 9 December 1 6 , 201 2 93 USFWS. 2012. Threatened and endangered species system (TESS). United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). http://www.fws.gov/endangered/wildlife.html . (Archived at PERAL). University

of California. 2004. Citrus broad mite. UC Pest Management Guidelins. L ast accessed 23 January

2008, http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PMG/r107400311.html. Vaccaro, N. C., and J. P. R. Bouvet. 2006. Presence of Ceratitis capitata Wied. and Anastrepha fraterculus (Wied.) on blueberries ( Vaccinium spp.) in the department of Concordia, Entre Rios and in the department of Curuzu Cuatia, Corrientes, Argentia [Poster]. Western Hemisphere Fruit Fly Meeting, Brazil. Venette, R. C., R. D. Moon, and W. D. Hutchison. 2002. Strategies and statistics of sampling for rare individuals. Annual Review of Entomology 47(143

- 174). Vera, M. T., R. Rodriguez, D. F. Segura, J. L . Cladera, and R. W. Sutherst. 2002. Potential geographical distribution of the Mediterranean fruit fly , Cera titis capitata (Diptera: Tephritidae), with emphasis on Argentina and Australia. Environmental Entomology 31(6):1009

- 1022. Verdier, E., E. Zefferino, and S. Mendez. undated. Survival of Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. citri on the surface of citrus fruit treate d with sodium hy pochlorite and sodium ortho

phenylphenate. Unpublished. in

. Verniere, C. J., T. R. Gottwald, and O. Pruvost. 2003. Disease development and sy mptom expression of Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. citri in various citrus plant tissues. Phy topathology 93:832

- 843. Watson, G. W. 2005. Diaspididae of the World. Last accessed October 8, http://nlbif.eti.uva.nl/bis/diaspididae.php?selected=beschrijvin g&menuentry=soorten&id =168

. Weber, N. A. 1969. Ecological Relations of Three Atta Species in Panama. Ecology 50: 141

- 147. Weber. N. A. 2003. A Global Compendium of Weeds. Hawaiian Ecos ys tems at Risk and Department of Agriculture of Western Australia. Last accessed http://www.hear.org/gcw/. Weems, H. V., Jr. 2002. Anastrepha fraterculus (Wiedemann) (Diptera: Tephritidae). University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Services. Last accessed June 26, 2007, http://creatures.ifas.ufl.edu/fruit/tropi cal/south_american_fruit_fly .htm

. Weems, H. V., Jr.,. 1981. Mediterranean Fruit Fl y: Ceratitis capitata (Wiedemann). Entomology Circular No. 230, Florida Dept. of Agric. Consumer Services, Division of Plant Industry

. White, G. L . 1999. Sapindus saponaria L . (Sapindaceae), a new host of Ecdytolopha aurantianum (Lima) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae: Olethreutinae) International Journal of Pest Management 45(4):287

- 291. White, G. L ., and K. Tuck. 1993. Outbreak of Ecdytolopha aurantianum (Lima) on citrus in Trinidad. FAO Plant Protection Bulletin 41(2):130

- 132. White, I . M., and M. M. Elson

- Harris. 1992. Fruit flies of economic significance: Their identification and bionomics. CAB International

- The Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR). Whitehead, D. R., and K. Whittle. 1985. A curculionid weevil: Naupactus xanthographus (Germar). Pests Not Known to Occur in the United States or of Limited Distribution. No. 64. USDA APHI S Plant Protection and Quarantine, Beltsville, MD, USA. Whiteside, J . 1988a. The history and rediscovery

of citrus canker in Florida. Citrograph:197

- 206.Pest Risk Assessment for Citrus from Uruguay

Ver. 9 December 1 6 , 201 2 94 Whiteside, J. O. 1965. Black spot disease in Rhodesia: A review of current information. Rhodesia Agricultural Journal 64:87

- 91. Whiteside, J. O. 1975. Biological characteristics of Elsinoё fawcetti pertaining to the epidemiology

of sour orange scab. Phy topathology

65:1170

- 1177. Whiteside, J. O. 1988b. Factors contributing to the rare occurrence of scab on sweet orange in Florida. Plant Disease 72:626

- 628. Wibmer, G. J., an d C. W. O'Brien. 1986. Annotated checklist of the weevils (Curculionidae Sensu lato ) of South America (Coleoptera: Curculionoidea). Memoirs of the American Entomological Institute 39:55, 65. Wild, A. L . 2004. Taxonomy and distribution of the Argentine ant, Linepithema humile (H ym enoptera: Formicidae). Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 97(6):1204

- 1215. Willink, E., G. Gastaminza, L . Augier, B. Stein, M. E. Gatti, and N. Larrea. 2007. Risk for introducing Anastrepha fraterculus and Ceratitis capitata in lemons from Northwestern Argentina. Chapter 10. Pages 1

- 5 in E. Willink, G. Gastaminz, L . Augier, B. Stein, and (eds.). Fruit flies and its quarantine relevance in the citriculture of Northwestern Argentina. Eleven years of research 1996

- 2007. Estación Experimental Agroin dustrial Obispo Colombres, Tucumán, Argentina. Witherell, P. C. 1983. Methyl Bromide Fumigation of Four Species of Tropical Fruits: Tolerance to Treatment, Residues, and Efficacy . Unpublished report. USDA

- APHI S, PPQ, Miami Methods Development Station. Wright, G. C. 2001. Protecting a Citrus Tree from Cold (AZ1222). The University of Arizona, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. WSSA. 2007. Composite List of Weeds. Weed Science Society of America (WSSA). http://www.wssa.net/Weeds/ID/WeedNames/namesearch .php . (Archived at PERAL). Wysoki, M., S. B. Yehuda, and D. Rosen. 1993. Reproductive behavior of the honeydew moth, Cryptoblabes gnidiella [a bstract]. Invertebrate Reproduction and Development 24(3):217

- 224. Yehuda, S. B., M. W ys oki, and M. Rosen. 1991. P henology of the honeydew moth, Cryptoblabes gnidiella (Millière) (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae), on avocado in Israel. . Israel Journal of Entomology

25

- 26:149

- 160. Young, A. M., M. S. Blum, H. M. Fales, and Z. Bian. 1986. Natural history and ecological chemistry of the neotropical butterfl y Papilio anchisiades (Papilionidae). Journal of the Lepidopterists' Society 40(1):36

- 53. Zhou, L.

- J., L. S. Benyon, C. A. Powell, T. Gottwald, and Y. P. Duan. 2008. Improved detection of low

- titer, non

- lethal, seed transmitted " Candidatus Liberibacter asiaticus" in Citrus, periwinkle and dodder using nested PCR. Pages 112

- 113 in International Research Conference on Huanglongbing, Orlando, FL. Zlotina, M., and M. K. Hennessey

. 2007. Phy tosanitary Risks Associated with Armored Scales in Commercial Shipments of Fruit for Consumption to the United States. United States Department of Agriculture,Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine, Center for Plant Health Science and Technology , Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analy sis Laboratory , Raleigh, NC.Pest Risk Assessment for Citrus from Uruguay

Ver. 9 December 1 6 , 201 2 95 

### 5 **. Appendices Appendix A.**  Citrus Pest Surveillance information provided b y DGSA
**Citrus Canker** : From 1977

- 2002, the DGSA had a Citrus Canker Prevention and Eradication Campaign. In 1997, the introduction of Phyllocnistis citrella (leaf miner) and especiall y favorable climatic conditions ( El Niño phenomenon) led to an increase in the incidence of the disease. This climate change in combination with the arrival of the leaf miner changed the distribution pattern of citrus canker. Due to leaf miner injury , the clustered distribution that was common in previous years changed to aggregated and random distribution patterns. During the eradication campaign, the DGSA destro yed 505,085 plants (9 percent of existing plants on nearl y 1,300 hectares). Citrus canker A (or Asiatic citrus canker, X. citri subsp. citri) was detected in Salto (1979), Paysandú (1981), Rivera (1995), and Río Negro (1997) in the North, and in San Jose in the South (2002). Citrus canker B (originally from South America, X. axonopodis pv. aurantifolii), which causes canker on lemon, Mexican lime, sour orange, and pummelo, was eradicated in 1985; between 1977 and 1985, 2,970 infected plants were detected and 12,804 were eradicated. In the North, disease incidence (plants and fruit) varies b y the place of production and the cultivars grown. In the South, the prevalence is 9 percent and the incidence 1 percent ; therefore, there are citrus

- canker

- free places of production. Prevalence means the number of places of production where the disease is present over the total places of production, including domestic groves. Disease inc idence was calculated b y dividing the number of affected plants by the total number of plants in the area (Zadoks and Schein, 1979). **Citrus Black Spot:** In1996, the DGSA made the first national survey for G. citricarpa: all citrus production areas were in cluded and 1,448 samples were tested b y incubating asy mptomatic fruit at 27

–29 o C under high humidity for 13

- 17 days to stimulate development of citrus black spot (CBS) symptoms/signs. If s ym ptoms or signs appeared, specific lab protocols were followed to complete pathogen identification (MGAP

- DGSA, 2000). No G. citricarpa was detected in this survey . In 1999, within the Citrus Fruit Phy tosanitary Certification Sy stem for export (CFPCS), the DGSA established the Black Spot Surveillance program and inspecte d places of production and packinghouses. Since this time, the DGSA has provided training activities at different levels for official personnel, technicians, workers at citrus companies, and growers. In 2000, the second national survey (690 samples) was c onducted with induction testing, and again G. citricarpa was not detected

. In 2001, the EPPO Reporting Service (109, 2001 No. 9) published an interception from the Netherlands, but the DGSA did not receive notification from either the European Commission or an individual European country . The information from the exporters indicated that no lot was refused for this disease. For that reason the DGSA suspects that it was a mistake from EPPO and sent a letter informing EPPO of the error. However, in 2004, the disease was detected in groves of Valencia orange during regular surveys on places of production for the domestic market. The DGSA continues to find G. citricarpa in crops for the domestic market in Valencia orange in the North and lemon in the South. It has also been detected in lemon with a prevalence of 3.9Pest Risk Assessment for Citrus from Uruguay

Ver. 9 December 1 6 , 201 2 96 percent (6 out of 154 groves were found to have G. citricarpa ) in the places of production registered in the CFPCS for export fruit. The prevalence in the North is 5.3 percent (5/95), and 1.7 percent (1/59) in the South. The grove in the south is in Soriano Department, outside the main Southern citrus production area. The prevalence in the lemon production blocks is 16.4 percent (12/73) in the North and 9.4 percent (3/32) in the South. Low prevalenc e in the groves for export fruit is due to the application of preventive measures, such as use of healthy propagative material, windbreaks in all production fields, field treatments for fungal diseases and citrus canker, and management of the fruit (total harvest). The DGSA’s actions include continued surveillance in the export system, epidemiological studies, and application of chemical control measures. In addition, surveillance specific for this disease will be conducted next year (induction test) to det ermine the prevalence of the disease in all citrus areas. **Fruit flies:** The fruit flies present in Uruguay are the Mediterranean fruit fly ( Ceratitis capitata ) and the South American fruit fly ( Anastrepha fraterculus ). Their presence in Argentina and Urugu ay was first reported in the earl y 20 th century . In Uruguay , they were declared as agricultural pests in 1937, and there are bibliographic references related to their study and control programs from that time up to the present. In the last decades an important effort was made in Uruguay

to conduct studies to obtain updated information about the species present in the country , their host ranges, and to evaluate integrated management control measures and eradication programs. The DGSA implemented the National Surveillance System for Fruit Flies in 2001. The objective was to establish an official monitoring network to collect and preserve permanent and reliable data about the fruit fly

species present in the country , their hosts, and the characteristics of pes t population. The information obtained from the National Surveillance Sy stem for Fruit Flies is useful for:

 Id entifying population fluctuations of the fruit flies present in the country

.  Determining and analyzing general and regional variations in the pes t populations throughout the ye ar, interactions with climatic conditions, and phenology of the different citrus species and varieties. This information and anal ys is assists in making pest management decisions as well as evaluating which of the export varieties are of higher risk.

 Obtaining updated and historical information to support negotiations in international trade.

 Detecting, in an appropriate manner, the presence of exotic pests in the country

. The population fluctuations of C. capitata and A. fraterculus from 2003 to 2006 in the main citrus area are illustrated in the following figures (Figures 4 and 5). It appears that the earliest harvest and export begins with mandarins in late February to March. The highest levels of harvest and export, which includes lemons, most orange varieties (except Valencia), many mandarin varieties, and grapefruits, occur during June, July, and August, when fruit fl y populations are not ty

pically at their peak. The majority of harvest and exports finish at the en dPest Risk Assessment for Citrus from Uruguay

Ver. 9 December 1 6 , 201 2 97 of September. The exceptions to the harvest and export calendar are V alencia oranges, whose harvest stretches from July to December. January

and February

are the two months in which little or no Citrus spp. are harvested or shipped. Harvesting and shipping when fruit fly populations are lowest will minimize the risk of introduction of these fruit flies into importing countries. From February

2004 to October 2006, the DGSA conducted a special survey to gather scientific information to identify

which Citrus species or varieties are hosts of Anastrepha fraterculus. The fruit was sampled from the field, based on information provided by the Surveillance S ys tem, when the number of Flies per Trap per Day (FTD) for Anastrepha was greater than Ceratitis FTD and f

rom the packinghouse from damaged fruit. All the larvae were identified by the DGSA laboratory

. Six

- hundred and fifteen samples were collected from groves with different species and varieties:

 518 samples were negative for Tephritidae.
 Ceratitis capitata was detected in 49 samples.
 Anastrepha fraterculus was detected in 48 samples.
 As of 2006, the results of 28 samples are pending. **Anastrepha fraterculus**  was confirmed on varieties of pink and white grapefruits (43 samples), T. Ortanique (tangor = C. reticulata Blanco x C. sinensis ) (3 samples) and Valencia oranges (2 samples). During 2005

–2006, 26 samples (fruits/larvae) from the packinghouses were sent to the laboratory . Eight samples contained C. capitata, 11 samples had A. fraterculus, and 7 samples were negative. The samples in which A. fraterculus was confirmed were pink and white grapefruits (6 samples) and T. Ortanique (5 samples). Based on the above

- mentioned survey , A. fraterculus and C. capitata were not detected in lemon, although as sh own in Figure 5 there are populations of both fruit flies in the Southern part of the country . As mentioned in 1.2.2, 15 percent of the Citrus production area is located in the Southern part of the country , where mainly lemon is planted (70 percent).Pest Risk Assessment for Citrus from Uruguay

Ver. 9 December 1 6 , 201 2 98 **Ap pendix B.**  Selected Plant Pest Interception Records
**Table B**  **1.** Pests Intercepted On Citrus spp. from South America (1985

- 2007) ( PestID, 2007)

. *Non

- Rep* indicates that the pest was non reportable. Interceptions that occurred less than 5 times since 1985 are considered relatively rare, and may

reflect anomalies in the data or errors in identification. **Scientific Name (taxonomic affiliation) Interceptions (no.)**  Acremonium sp. (Hyphomycetes) 1 Acutalis sp. (Membracidae) 1 Acutaspis rhizophorae (Cockerell) (Diaspididae) 4 Acutaspis sp. (Diaspididae) 2 Aelia acuminata (Linnaeus) (Pentatomidae) 1 Aeolus nigromaculatus Drapiez (Elateridae) 1 Agallia sp. (Cicadellidae) 1 Agromyzidae, Species of 2 Aleurocanthus woglumi Ashby (Aleyrodidae) 3 Aleurodothrips fasciapennis (Franklin) (Phlaeothripidae) *Non

- Rep* 2 Aleurodothrips sp. (Phlaeothripidae) *Non

- Rep* 1 Aleurolobus marlatti (Quaintance) (Aleyrodidae) 1 Aleurothrixus floccosus Maskell (Aleyrodidae) *Non

- Rep* 4 Aleurothrixus sp. (Aleyrodidae) 2 Aleurotrachelus sp. (Aleyrodidae) 1 Aleyrodes sp. (Aleyrodidae) 1 Aleyrodidae, Species of 7 Alleculinae, Species of (Tenebrionidae) *Non

- Rep* 1 Alternaria sp. (Hyphomycetes) *Non

- Rep* 2 Amyelois transitella (Walker) (Pyralidae) *Non

- Rep* 1 Anastrepha sp. (Tephritidae) 37 Anaxipha sp. (Gryllidae) 1 Anomala sp. (Scarabaeidae) 1 Aonidiella aurantii (Maskell) (Diaspididae) *Non

- Rep* 32 Aonidiella citrina (Coquillett) (Diaspididae) *Non

- Rep* 1 Aonidiella comperei Mckenzie (Diaspididae) 2 Aonidiella inornata Mckenzie (Diaspididae) 3 Aonidiella SP. (Diaspididae) 7 Aphididae, Species of 4 Arctiidae, Species of 1 Ascochyta citri Penz. (Coelomycetes) 2 Ascochyta sp
. (Coelomycetes) 1 Aseminae, Species of (Cerambycidae) *Non

- Rep* 1 Aspidiotus excisus Green (Diaspididae) *Non

- Rep* 1 Aspidiotus nerii Bouche (Diaspididae) *Non

- Rep* 1 Aulacaspis tubercularis Newstead (Diaspididae) 12 Aulacorthum solani (Kaltenbach) (Aphididae) *Non

- Rep* 1 Aureobasidium sp. (Hyphomycetes) 1 Baridinae, Species of (Curculionidae) 1 Blapstinus sp. (Tenebrionidae) 6 Brevipalpus chilensis Baker (Tenuipalpidae) 6Pest Risk Assessment for Citrus from Uruguay

Ver. 9 December 1 6 , 201 2 99 **Scientific Name (taxonomic affiliation) Interceptions (no.)**  Brevipalpus obovatus Donnadieu (Tenuipalpidae) *Non

- Rep* 2 Brevipalpus sp. (Tenuipalpidae) 3 Camarosporium sp. (Coelomycetes) 1 Camponotus sp. (Formicidae) *Non

- Rep* 1 Carabidae, Species of *Non

- Rep* 1 Cecidomyiidae, Species of 1 Cephaleuros virescens Kunze (Trentepohliaceae) *Non

- Rep* 1 Ceraspis sp. (Scarabaeidae) 1 Ceratitis capitata (Wiedemann) (Tephritidae) 16 Ceratitis sp
. (Tephritidae) 1 Cercospora sp. (Hyphomycetes) 2 Charidotella sp. (Chrysomelidae) 1 Chrysomelidae, Species of 1 Chrysomphalus aonidium (Linnaeus) (Diaspididae) *Non

- Rep* 6 Chrysomphalus dictyospermi (Morgan) (Diaspididae) *Non

- Rep* 1 Chrysomphalus pinnulifer (Maskell) (Diaspididae) 2 Chrysomphalus sp. (Diaspididae) 3 Cicadellidae, Species of 2 Cladosporium citri Mass. (Hyphomycetes) *Non

- Rep* 1 Cladosporium sp. (Hyphomycetes) 34 Coccidae, Species of 12 Coccostroma sp. 2 Coccus hesperidium (Linnaeus) (Coccidae) *Non

- Rep* 1 Coccus viridis (Green) (Coccidae) 7 Coleoptera, Species of 1 Colletotrichum acutatum J. H. Simmonds (Coelomycetes) *Non

- Rep* 4 Colletotrichum gloeosporioides (Penz) Penz & Sacc. (Coelomycetes) *Non

Rep* 46 Colletotrichum sp. (Coelomycetes) 16 Coniothyrium sp. (Coelomycetes) 1 Conoderus sp. (Elateridae) 1 Conoderus varians (Steinheil) (Elateridae) 3 Contarinia sp. (Cecidomyiidae) 1 Copitarsia sp. (Noctuidae) 1 Corylophidae, Species of *Non

- Rep* 1 Cryptoblabes gnidiella (Milliere) (Pyralidae) 1 Cryptophlebia sp. (Tortricidae) 1 Dead organism *Non

- Rep* 7 Diabrotica sp. (Chrysomelidae) 1 Dialeurodes citri (Ashmead) (Aleyrodidae) *Non

- Rep* 1 Dialeurodes citrifolii (Morgan) (Aleyrodidae) *Non

- Rep* 1 Dialeurodes sp. (Aleyrodidae) 1 Diaphorina citri Kuwa Yama (Psyllidae) 1 Diaporthe arctii (Lasch) Nits. 1 Diaporthe citri Wolf (Valsaceae) *Non

- Rep* 34 Diaspididae, Species of 141 Didymella sp. (Pleosporaceae) 1Pest Risk Assessment for Citrus from Uruguay

Ver. 9 December 1 6 , 201 2 100 **Scientific Name (taxonomic affiliation) Interceptions (no.)**  Didymosphaeria sp. (Didymosphaeriaceae) 1 Digitaria insularis (Linnaeus) Fedde (Poaceae) *Non

- Rep* 1 Diplodia sp. (Coelomycetes) 3 Diptera, Species of 4 Dorylaimidae, Species of *Non

- Rep* 1 Dothiorella sp. (Coelomycetes) 1 Drosophilidae, Species of *Non

- Rep* 1 Dynastinae, Species of (Scarabaeidae) 1 Dysmicoccus sp. (Pseudococcidae) 2 Ecdytolopha sp. (Tortricidae) 3 Echidnodes sp. 1 Echoma sp. (Chrysomelidae) 1 Elsinoe annonae Bitanc. & Jenkins (Elsinoaceae) 1 Elsinoe australis Bitanc. & Jenkins (Elsinoaceae) 9879 Elsinoe fawcetti Bitanc. & Jenkins (Elsinoaceae) *Non

- Rep* 20 Elsinoe sp. (Elsinoaceae) 46 Epermeniidae, Species of 1 Epicoccum sp. *Non

- Rep* 1 Eucalandra sp. (Dryophthoridae) 1 Euplatypus parallelus (Fabricius) (Platypodidae) *Non

- Rep* 1 Fiorinia sp. (Diaspididae) 1 Fiorinia theae Green (Diaspididae) *Non

- Rep* 1 Frankliniella sp. (Thripidae) 2 Fusarium sp. (Hyphomycetes) 6 Fusicoccum sp. (Coelomycetes) 2 Gelechiidae, Species of 3 Geometridae, Species of 1 Geotrichum sp. *Non

- Rep* 1 Gnomoniella sp. 1 Gracillariidae, Species of 1 Gryllus sp. (Gryllidae) 1 Guignardia citricarpa Kiely (Botryosphaeriaceae) 1 107 Guignardia sp. (Botryosphaeriaceae) 1 Gymnandrosoma sp. (Tortricidae) 1 Helicellidae, Species of 1 Helicotylenchus pseudorobustus Steiner (Golden) (Hoplolaimidae) *Non

Rep* 1 Helicotylenchus sp. (Hoplolaimidae) 1 Hemiberlesia lataniae (Signoret) (Diaspididae) *Non

- Rep* 3 Hemiberlesia rapax (Comstock) (Diaspididae) *Non

- Rep* 1 Hemiberlesia sp. (Diaspididae) 1 Hesperiidae, Species of 1 Heteroptera, Species of 2 Homoptera, Species of 1 Hypothenemus sp. (Scolytidae) 1 Icerya sp. (Margarodidae) 1 Inj ury sp. *Non

- Rep* 25Pest Risk Assessment for Citrus from Uruguay

Ver. 9 December 1 6 , 201 2 101 **Scientific Name (taxonomic affiliation) Interceptions (no.)**  Insecta, Species of 1 Karnyothrips sp. (Phlaeothripidae) *Non

- Rep* 2 Lepidoptera, Species of 1 Lepidosaphes beckii (Newman) (Diaspididae) *Non

- Rep* 35 Lepidosaphes bladhiae Takahashi (Diaspididae) 1 Lepidosaphes gloverii (Packard) (Diaspididae) *Non

- Rep* 7 Lepidosaphes sp. (Diaspididae) 2 Lepidosaphes tapleyi Williams (Diaspididae) 1 Lepidosaphes tokionis (Kuwana) (Diaspididae) 1 Leprosis , sp. *Non

- Rep* 1 Leptodothiorella sp. 1 Leptosphaeria sp. (Leptosphaeriaceae) 1 Lestodiplosis sp. (Cecidomyiidae) *Non

- Rep* 3 Lonchaeidae, Species of 2 Margarodidae, Species of 2 Melanaspis sp. (Diaspididae) 2 Meloidogyne sp. (Meloidogynidae) 1 Membracidae, Species of 1 Metamasius dimidiatipennis (Jekel) (Dryophthoridae) 1 Microsphaeropsis sp. (Coelomycetes) 3 Miogryllus convolutus (Johansson) (Gryllidae) 1 Miyagia pseudosphaeria (Mont.) Jørst. (Pucciniaceae) 1 Monomorium destructor (Jerdon) (Formicidae) *Non

- Rep* 1 Morganella longispina (Morgan) (Diaspididae) *Non

- Rep* 1 Murraya sp. (Rutaceae) *Non

- Rep* 2 Mycetaspis personata (Comstock) (Diaspididae) *Non

- Rep* 8 Mycetaspis sp. (Diaspididae) 2 Mycosphaerella sp. (Mycosphaerellaceae) 2 Nasonovia ribisnigri (Mosley) (Aphididae) *Non

- Rep* 1 Nasonovia sp. (Aphididae) 1 No identifiable insecta found *Non

- Rep* 6 No identifiable pathogen found *Non

- Rep* 16 No pathogen found *Non

- Rep* 2 No specimen found *Non

- Rep* 2 Noctuidae, Species of 2 Oecophoridae, Species of 1 Olethreutinae, Species of (Tortricidae) 3 Oryza sp. Red rice (Poaceae) 1 Paragryllus temulentus Saussure (Gryllidae) 1 Paraleyrodes sp. (Aleyrodidae) 1 Parasaissetia nigra (Nietner) (Coccidae) *Non

- Rep* 2 Paratettix sp. (Tetrigidae) 2 Parisoschoenus sp. (Curculionidae) 2 Parlatoria cinerea Hadden (Diaspididae) 3544 Parlatoria citri Mckenzie (Diaspididae) 2 Parlatoria crypta Mckenzie (Diaspididae) 2 Parlatoria pergandii Comstock (Diaspididae) *Non

- Rep* 10Pest Risk Assessment for Citrus from Uruguay

Ver. 9 December 1 6 , 201 2 102 **Scientific Name (taxonomic affiliation) Interceptions (no.)**  Parlatoria sp. (Diaspididae) 28 Parlatoria vandae Mckenzie (Diaspididae) *Non

- Rep* 1 Parlatoria ziziphi (Lucas) (Diaspididae) 8654 Pentatomidae, Species of 3 Pentatomoidea, Species of 1 Pestalotiopsis sp. (Coelomycetes) 4 Pheidole sp. (Formicidae) 2 Phenacoccus sp. (Pseudococcidae) 2 Phlaeothripidae, Species of 9 Phoma sp. (Coelomycetes) 16 Phomopsis citri Fawc. (Coelomycetes) *Non

- Rep* 1 Phomopsis sp. (Coelomycetes) 6 Phthia picta (Drury) (Coreidae) *Non

- Rep* 1 Phyllosticta citricarpa (Mcalpine) Aa (Coelomycetes) 94 Phyllostictina hypoglossi (Mont.) Petr. & Syd. 1 Pinnaspis aspidistrae (Signoret) (Diaspididae) *Non

- Rep* 5 Pinnaspis strachani (Cooley) (Diaspididae) *Non

- Rep* 7 Planococcus citri (Risso) (Pseudococcidae) *Non

- Rep* 4 Planococcus minor (Maskell) (Pseudococcidae) 4 Planococcus sp. (Pseudococcidae) 15 Pleospora sp. (Pleosporaceae) 1 Plutellidae, Species of 1 Protopulvinaria longivalvata Green (Coccidae) 2 Pseudaonidia trilobitiformis (Green) (Diaspididae) 512 Pseudaulacaspis cockerelli (Cooley) (Diaspididae) *Non

- Rep* 1 Pseudaulacaspis sp. (Diaspididae) 28 Pseudococcidae, Species of 89 Pseudococcus cryptus Hempel (Pseudococcidae) 1 Pseudococcus landoi (Balachowsky) (Pseudococcidae) 1 Pseudococcus sp. (Pseudococcidae) 6 Pseudoparlatoria sp. (Diaspididae) 1 Pseudorobillarda sp. 1 Psyllidae, Species of 1 Psyllobora sp. (Coccinellidae) *Non

- Rep* 1 Pterophoridae, Species of 1 Puccinia sp. (Pucciniaceae) 1 Pyralidae, Species of 2 Pyralinae, Species of (Pyralidae) 1 Pyraustinae, Species of (Crambidae) 1 Rhyparochromidae, Species of 1 Rhyparochromus quadratus (Fabricius) (Rhyparochromidae) 1 Saissetia neglecta Delotto (Coccidae) *Non

- Rep* 1 Sancassania sp. (Acaridae) *Non

- Rep* 1 Saprophyte sp. *Non

- Rep* 2 Scirtidae, Species of *Non

- Rep* 1 Scythridinae, Species of (Coleophoridae) 1 Secondary fungi *Non

- Rep* 1Pest Risk Assessment for Citrus from Uruguay

Ver. 9 December 1 6 , 201 2 103 **Scientific Name (taxonomic affiliation) Interceptions (no.)**  Selenaspidus articulatus (Morgan) (Diaspididae) *Non

- Rep* 5 Selenaspidus sp. (Diaspididae) 1 Septoria sp. (Coelomycetes) 11 Silvanidae, Species of *Non

- Rep* 1 Sinoxylon anale Lesne (Bostrichidae) *Non

- Rep* 1 Sphaceloma fawcettii Bitanc. & Jenkins var. scabiosa (Mcalp. & Tryon) 1 Sphaceloma punicae Bitanc. & Jenkins (Coelomycetes) 1 Stemphylium sp. (Hyphomycetes) 1 Strabala sp. (Chrysomelidae) 1 Syngenaspis parlatoriae Sulc (Diaspididae) 1 Tarsonemus sp. (Tarsonemidae) 26 Tenebroides sp. (Trogossitidae) *Non

- Rep* 1 Tephritidae, Species of 3 Tetraleurodes sp. (Aleyrodidae) 1 Tetranychidae, Species of 1 Tetranychus sp. (Tetranychidae) 2 Thripidae, Species of 3 Tortricidae, Species of 4 Tortricinae, Species of (Tortricidae) 1 Trioza anceps Tuthill (Psyllidae) 1 Tydeidae, Species of *Non

- Rep* 1 Unaspis citri (Comstock) (Diaspididae) *Non

- Rep* 9 Unaspis yanonensis (Kuwana) (Diaspididae) 1 Vinsonia stellifera (Westwood) (Coccidae) 3 Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. citri (Hasse) Dye (Xanthomonadaceae) 90 Xanthomonas campestris (Pam.) Dows. (Xanthomonadaceae) *Non

- Rep* 23 Xanthomonas campestris pv. citri (Hasse) Dye (Xanthomonadaceae) 374 Xanthomonas sp. (Cancrosis B) 1 Xanthomonas sp. (Xanthomonadaceae) 6 **Grand Total 25450** Pest Risk Assessment for Uruguay citrus

Ver. 9 December 1 6 , 201 2 104 **Table B2.** Pests intercepted on Citrus spp. arriving from Uruguay (1985

– 2008) (PestID, 2008). **Host Host Part**  **Where Intercepted Pest**  **Records** Citrus limon Fruit Stores Aonidiella aurantii 1 Citrus limon Fruit Stores Aonidiella orientalis 1 Citrus reticulata Not reported Quarters Aonidiella Sp. 1 Citrus sinensis Fruit Stores Aonidiella Sp. 1 Citrus aurantiifolia Fruit Stores Chrysomphalus aonidum 1 Citrus sinensis Fruit Baggage Colletotrichum Sp. 1 Citrus sinensis Fruit Stores Coniothyrium Sp. 1 Citrus reticulata Fruit Quarters Diaporthe citri 1 Citrus sinensis Stores Diaporthe citri 1 Citrus sp. Fruit Permit cargo Diaporthe citri 1 Citrus sinensis Fruit Quarters Diaspididae 1 Citrus aurantiifolia Fruit Stores Elsinoe australis 1 Citrus limon Fruit Baggage Elsinoe australis 1 Citrus limon Fruit Stores Elsinoe australis 1 Citrus limon Fruit Stores Elsinoe australis 1 Citrus limon Fruit Stores Elsinoe australis 1 Citrus nobilis Fruit Stores Elsinoe australis 1 Citrus reticulata Fruit Quarters Elsinoe australis 1 Citrus reticulata Fruit Stores Elsinoe australis 1 Citrus reticulata Fruit Stores Elsinoe australis 1 Citrus reticulata Fruit Stores Elsinoe australis 1 Citrus sinensis Fruit Stores Elsinoe australis 1 Citrus sinensis Fruit Stores Elsinoe australis 1 Citrus sinensis Fruit Stores Elsinoe australis) 1 Citrus sinensis Fruit Stores Elsinoe australis 1 Citrus sinensis Fruit Stores Elsinoe australis 1 Citrus sinensis Fruit Stores Elsinoe australis 1 Citrus sinensis Fruit Stores Elsinoe australis 1 Citrus sinensis Fruit Stores Elsinoe australis 1 Citrus sinensis Fruit Stores Elsinoe australis 1 Citrus sinensis Fruit Stores Elsinoe australis 1 Citrus sinensis Fruit Stores Elsinoe australis 1 Citrus sinensis Fruit Stores Elsinoe australis 1 Citrus sinensis Fruit Stores Elsinoe australis 1 Citrus sinensis Fruit Stores Elsinoe australis 1 Citrus sinensis Fruit Stores Elsinoe australis 1 Citrus sinensis Fruit Stores Elsinoe australis 1 Citrus sinensis Fruit Stores Elsinoe australis 1 Citrus sinensis Fruit Stores Elsinoe australis 1 Citrus sinensis Fruit Stores Elsinoe australis 1 Citrus sinensis Fruit Stores Elsinoe australis 1 Citrus sinensis Fruit Stores Elsinoe australis 1 Citrus sinensis Fruit Stores Elsinoe australis 1Pest Risk Assessment for Uruguay citrus

Ver. 9 December 1 6 , 201 2 105 Citrus sinensis Fruit Stores Elsinoe australis 1 Citrus sinensis Fruit Stores Elsinoe australis 1 Citrus sinensis Fruit Stores Elsinoe australis 1 Citrus sinensis Fruit Baggage Elsinoe australis 1 Citrus sinensis Fruit Baggage Elsinoe australis 1 Citrus sinensis Fruit Stores Elsinoe australis 1 Citrus sinensis Fruit Stores Elsinoe australis 1 Citrus sinensis Fruit Stores Elsinoe australis 1 Citrus sinensis Fruit Miscellaneous Elsinoe australis 1 Citrus sinensis Fruit Stores Elsinoe australis 1 Citrus sinensis Fruit Stores Elsinoe australis 1 Citrus sinensis Fruit Stores Elsinoe australis 1 Citrus sinensis Fruit Stores Elsinoe australis 1 Citrus sinensis Fruit Quarters Elsinoe australis 1 Citrus sinensis Fruit Stores Elsinoe australis 1 Citrus sinensis Fruit Stores Elsinoe australis 1 Citrus sinensis Fruit Stores Elsinoe australis 1 Citrus sinensis Fruit Stores Elsinoe australis 1 Citrus sinensis Fruit Stores Elsinoe australis 1 Citrus sinensis Fruit Stores Elsinoe australis 1 Citrus sinensis Fruit Stores Elsinoe australis 1 Citrus sinensis Fruit Stores Elsinoe australis 1 Citrus sinensis Fruit Stores Elsinoe australis 1 Citrus sinensis Fruit Stores Elsinoe australis 1 Citrus sinensis Fruit Stores Elsinoe australis 1 Citrus sinensis Fruit Stores Elsinoe australis 1 Citrus sinensis Fruit Stores Elsinoe australis 1 Citrus sinensis Fruit Stores Elsinoe australis 1 Citrus sinensis Fruit Stores Elsinoe australis 1 Citrus sinensis Fruit Stores Elsinoe australis 1 Citrus sinensis Fruit Stores Elsinoe australis 1 Citrus sinensis Fruit Stores Elsinoe australis 1 Citrus sinensis Fruit Stores Elsinoe australis 1 Citrus sinensis Fruit Miscellaneous Elsinoe australis 1 Citrus sinensis Fruit Stores Elsinoe australis 1 Citrus sinensis Fruit Stores Elsinoe australis 1 Citrus sinensis Fruit Stores Elsinoe australis 1 Citrus sinensis Fruit Baggage Elsinoe australis 1 Citrus sinensis Fruit Stores Elsinoe australis 1 Citrus sinensis Fruit Baggage Elsinoe australis 1 Citrus sinensis Fruit Stores Elsinoe australis 1 Citrus sinensis Fruit Stores Elsinoe australis 1 Citrus sinensis Fruit Stores Elsinoe australis 1 Citrus sinensis Fruit Stores Elsinoe australis 1 Citrus sinensis Fruit Stores Elsinoe australis 1 Citrus sinensis Fruit Quarters Elsinoe australis 1Pest Risk Assessment for Uruguay citrus

Ver. 9 December 1 6 , 201 2 106 Citrus sinensis Fruit Stores Elsinoe australis 1 Citrus sinensis Fruit Stores Elsinoe australis 1 Citrus sinensis Fruit Stores Elsinoe australis 1 Citrus sinensis Fruit Stores Elsinoe australis 1 Citrus sinensis Not reported Stores Elsinoe australis 1 Citrus sinensis Not reported Stores Elsinoe australis 1 Citrus sinensis Fruit Stores Elsinoe australis 1 Citrus sinensis Fruit Quarters Elsinoe australis 1 Citrus sinensis Fruit Stores Elsinoe australis 1 Citrus sinensis Fruit Stores Elsinoe australis 1 Citrus sinensis Fruit Stores Elsinoe australis 1 Citrus sinensis Fruit Stores Elsinoe australis 1 Citrus sinensis Fruit Stores Elsinoe australis 1 Citrus sinensis Fruit Stores Elsinoe australis 1 Citrus sinensis Fruit Stores Elsinoe australis 1 Citrus sinensis Fruit Stores Elsinoe australis 1 Citrus sinensis Fruit Quarters Elsinoe australis 1 Citrus sinensis Not reported Stores Elsinoe australis 1 Citrus sinensis Not reported Stores Elsinoe australis 1 Citrus sinensis Fruit Stores Elsinoe australis 1 Citrus sinensis Fruit Stores Elsinoe australis 1 Citrus sinensis Fruit Stores Elsinoe australis 1 Citrus sinensis Fruit Baggage Elsinoe australis 1 Citrus sinensis Fruit Stores Elsinoe australis 1 Citrus sinensis Fruit Stores Elsinoe australis 1 Citrus sinensis Fruit Stores Elsinoe australis 1 Citrus sp. Fruit Baggage Elsinoe australis 1 Citrus sp. Fruit Baggage Elsinoe australis 1 Citrus sp. Fruit Baggage Elsinoe australis 1 Citrus sp. Fruit Baggage Elsinoe australis 1 Citrus sinensis Fruit Stores Elsinoe Sp. 1 Citrus sp. Fruit Mail Elsinoe Sp. 1 Citrus aurantium Fruit Stores Guignardia citricarpa 1 Citrus limon Fruit Stores Guignardia citricarpa 1 Citrus reticulata Not reported Quarters Guignardia citricarpa 1 Citrus reticulata Fruit Holds Guignardia citricarpa 1 Citrus sinensis Fruit Stores Guignardia citricarpa 1 Citrus sinensis Fruit Stores Guignardia citricarpa 1 Citrus sinensis Fruit Stores Guignardia citricarpa 1 Citrus sinensis Fruit Stores Guignardia citricarpa 1 Citrus sinensis Fruit Stores Guignardia citricarpa 1 Citrus sinensis Fruit Stores Guignardia citricarpa 1 Citrus sp. General Cargo Homoptera 1 Citrus limon Fruit Baggage Inj ury Sp. *Non

- Rep* 1 Citrus sinensis Not reported Stores Inj ury Sp. *Non

- Rep* 1 Citrus sinensis Fruit Baggage Lepidosaphes beckii 1Pest Risk Assessment for Uruguay citrus

Ver. 9 December 1 6 , 201 2 107 Citrus paradisi Fruit Stores Parlatoria cinerea 1 Citrus reticulata Stores Parlatoria cinerea 1 Citrus sinensis Fruit Baggage Parlatoria cinerea 1 Citrus sp. Fruit Baggage Parlatoria cinerea 1 Citrus sp. Fruit Stores Parlatoria cinerea 1 Citrus reticulata Not reported Stores Parlatoria pergandii 1 Citrus sp. Not reported Baggage Parlatoria pergandii 1 Citrus reticulata Not reported Stores Parlatoria Sp. 1 Citrus aurantiifolia Baggage Parlatoria ziziphi 1 Citrus aurantiifolia Fruit Stores Parlatoria ziziphi 1 Citrus aurantiifolia Fruit Stores Parlatoria ziziphi 1 Citrus aurantiifolia Fruit Stores Parlatoria ziziphi 1 Citrus aurantiifolia Fruit Stores Parlatoria zi ziphi 1 Citrus aurantiifolia Fruit Stores Parlatoria ziziphi 1 Citrus limon Fruit Stores Parlatoria ziziphi 1 Citrus limon Fruit Stores Parlatoria ziziphi 1 Citrus paradisi Fruit Baggage Parlatoria ziziphi 1 Citrus paradisi Fruit Stores Parlatoria ziziphi 1 Citrus sinensis Fruit Stores Parlatoria ziziphi 1 Citrus sinensis Not reported Stores Parlatoria ziziphi 1 Citrus sinensis Not reported Quarters Parlatoria ziziphi 1 Citrus sinensis Fruit Baggage Parlatoria ziziphi 1 Citrus sinensis Fruit Stores Parlatoria ziziphi 1 Citrus sp. Fruit Baggage Parlatoria ziziphi 1 Citrus limon Fruit Stores Phoma Sp. 1 Citrus limon Fruit Stores Phoma Sp. 1 Citrus sinensis Fruit Stores Pseudococcus Sp. 1 Citrus sinensis Fruit Baggage Pseudococcus Sp. 1 Citrus sinensis Fruit Permit cargo Tarsonemus Sp. 1 Citrus limon Fruit Baggage Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. Citri 1 Citrus sinensis Fruit Stores Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. Citri 1 Citrus aurantiifolia Fruit Baggage Xanthomonas campestris (pam.) 1 Citrus aurantiifolia Dried fruit Stores Xanthomonas campestris pv. Citri 1 Citrus limon Fruit Stores Xanthomonas campestris pv. Citri 1 Citrus limon Fruit Stores Xanthomonas campestris pv. Citri 1 Citrus paradisi Fruit Stores Xanthomonas campestris pv. Citri 1 Citrus sinensis Fruit Stores Xanthomonas campestris pv. Citri 1 Citrus sp. Leaf Baggage Xanthomonas campestris pv. Citri 1 Citrus sp. Fruit Permit cargo Xanthomonas campestris pv. Citri 1 **Total 174** Pest Risk Assessment for Uruguay citrus

Ver. 9 December 1 6 , 201 2 108 **Appendix C.**  Citrus production, harvest, and post

- harvest processes in Uruguay **The citrus sector in Uruguay** Uruguay ’s citrus industry developed significantl y during the 1970 ́s, 1980 ́s and 1990 ́s. Key factors for this increase included a climate conducive for citrus development, fruit with external and internal quality suitable for the European market, and the competitive advantages of the counter season production. Both the state and private industry provided additional key

factors that facilitated this growth. Growers increased productivity and provided innovations, introducing new technologies which increased the produc tion areas and provided citrus varieties with higher market value. The State fulfilled a very important roll by giving support to the incipient export sector, declaring the sector of national interest and creating the Citrus Commission. During the last dec ade growers have made additional changes to improve efficiency , diminish production and handling costs, and improve logistics, commercial channels and marketing. Uruguay specializes in the production of high quality fresh fruit for the international market, particularl y to the Northern Hemisphere during its off

- season. Citrus has become one of the main agricultural export products, after rice and dairy products. The citrus industry is characterized today

by 20,862 hectares, 6.36 million plants and around 3 00 thousand metric tons of production. There are 479 growers distributed thoughout the country. More than 75 percent of the citrus production occurs on orchards of 10 or more hectares. Between 1981 and 1999, the citrus industry

increased 23 percent in hect ares, 180 percent in production and 330 percent in exports of fresh fruits. At the moment Uruguay is supplying 30 markets with a wide range of varieties of oranges, mandarins, lemons and grapefruits. A vertical and horizontal integration of companies has characterized the last decade. Prominent technological improvements include: the plant certification program, the irrigation s ys tems that cover 25 percent of the total production area and 37 percent of the effective hectares, the continuous growth in produc tivity , the changes to new varieties, the modern cold storage facilities, and the improvement of the logistical process. Nationall y the per hectare net productivity

for adult plants is 19 tons, for an average density of 413 plants/hectare. According to the Census information, plantations in full production, obtain yields of 35 and 40 tons/hectare in mandarins; 40 to 45 tons in oranges and 45 to 60 tons/hectare in lemons and grapefruits, for densities of approximately 500 plants/hectare. The sector employ s 0 .7 people/hectare, or around 15,000 people for permanent and seasonal labor. **The structure of the industry.** The most recent National Citrus Census (CHNPC, 1996) reported that 85 percent of the 20,862 planted total hectares are located in the Northern Area and 15 percent in the Southern Area of the country

(Fig

. C1 ). The Northern Area includes the Departments of Salto, Pay sandú, Río Negro and Rivera. The Southern Area includes the Departments of San José, Canelones, Montevideo, Maldonado and Colonia. The varietal composition, harvest time and the export period are detailed in Table C 1. According to the census, oranges and mandarins each represent 43 percent , lemons 11 percent , and grapefruits 3 percent of the plants in production. In metric tons, oranges represent 52 percent , mandarins 30 percent , lemons 14 percent and grapefruits 4 percent

. Valencias constitute the main variety of oranges (66 percent), followed b y the Navel group (27 percent). Satsuma occupies the first place in the mandarins (30 percent) , then thePest Risk Assessment for Uruguay citrus

Ver. 9 December 1 6 , 201 2 109 Ellendale (22 percent), followed by Clementina and Nova (20 percent), Common mandarin for domestic consumption (11 percent) and then Murcott, Ortanique and others. The developed lemon variety called “Four Seasons”, is similar to Lisbon. The larg est proportion of grapefruit belongs to the red and pink varieties (60 percent) and followed by white seedless. There are 9 to 14 packinghouses for citrus fruit processing, 7 in the Northern Area and the rest in the Southern Area. Five of them also have their own cold storage facilities and degreening chambers. With the cold storage capacity in the port of Nueva Palmira and other service companies, the national total capacity reaches 22,000 pallets. Nueva Palmira Fruit Terminal, Frigofrut S.A, has a total capacity of 5,300 pallets in cold storage and 2000 pallets in sheds. It also has precooling Californian tunnels, with a capacity of 1000 pallets per day . The company has obtained the certification of ISO 9000:2000 and it operates under a bar coding s ys tem called Cooltrack. Montevideo port is used mainly to export fruit in containers.

**Figure C1** 

. Citrus production zones in Uruguay

. The Northern Area is indicated in red and the Southern Area in green.Pest Risk Assessment for Uruguay citrus

Ver. 9 December 1 6 , 201 2 110 **Table C**  **1.** Harvest and export calendar for citrus p roduction in Uruguay

. Lemon varieties are noted in green, orange in red, mandarins in orange and grapefruit in yellow

**Citrus production and destination.** Total production has grown from 272 thousand tons in the year 1996 to 358 in the year 1988, but from 1999 until 2006, total production fluctuates near an average of 277,000 tons, with important annual variations (Table C 2)

. Annual domestic consumption is e stimated between 24 and 27 kg per capita, depending on the exports of fresh fruit. Agroindustry

began to grow during the decade of the 1980 ́s, as an alternative for the growing production of non

- exportable quality produce. The volumes that are processed annually fluctuate according to production levels and amount of the exports in fresh fruit. Concentrated juices, essential oils, and pectin are the main processed products for the international market. There are four industrial plants, three of which produce concentrated juices and essential oils and one which produces natural juices. The production b y species is shown in Table C 3. The export harvest begins in March with Satsuma mandarins and goes through mid

- October with Valencia oranges for the Europe an Union and into November for Eastern Europe. Within the region, and depending on supplies of citrus fruit in Argentina and Brazil, exports can continue until December. The most important traditional market for Uruguay is the European Union, and in recent ye ars, the EU participation has been between the 79 and 85 percent in average for all species. Table C 4 shows exports of citrus fruit by destination. **J F**  **M A**  **M J**  **J A**  **S O**  **N D**  **LEMON NAVEL**  **SA LUSTIA** **NA CADENERA**  **VA LENCIA**  **SA TSUMA**  **CLEMENULES CLEMENVILLA**  **CLEMENT INA**  **ORLA NDO**  **MINEOLA ELLENDALE**  **URUNIQUE SA**  **LTEÑITA MURCOTT**  **GRA PEFRUIT WHIT**  **E GRA**  **PEFRUIT RED High**  **Low**Pest Risk Assessment for Uruguay citrus

Ver. 9 December 1 6 , 201 2 111 **Table C2** . Production And Market Distribution Of Uruguayan Citrus (1970 To 2006) **Sector Production**  **and Destination In 000 Tons**

**Year 1971**  **1981 1991**  **2001 2002**  **2003 2004**  **2005 2006**  Production 73.9 116.7 226.5 342.5 235.5 248.7 242.2 326.0 277.0 Export 13.4 28.0 78.1 98.0 86.8 117.9 129.4 158.5 136.0 Export ( Percent) 18.1 24.0 34.5 28.6 36.9 47.4 53.5 48.6 49.1 Processing N.S. N.S. 67.4 87.4 62.9 32.0 44.0 64.5 47.0 Domestic And Losses 60.5 88.7 81.9 157.1 85.7 98.7 68.6 103.2 94.0

**Table C**  **3** . Citrus production in Uruguay by species (1970 to 2006) **Type 1970**  **1980 1991**  **1996 2001**  **2002 2003**  **2004 2005**  **2006** Lemons 5.5 13.8 42.2 36.5 46.4 38.5 36.7 33.5 46.0 43.0 Mandarins 35.9 36.7 52.5 82.1 97.0 74.5 74.7 77.3 94.4 88.0 Oranges 42.1 61.6 121.4 141.2 189.0 115.8 131.6 124.1 176.5 138.0 Grapefruit 2.5 9.0 10.4 11.6 10.1 6.7 5.7 7.3 9.1 8.0 **Total 86.0**  **121.1 226.5**  **271.4 342.5**  **235.5 248.7**  **242.2 326.0**  **277.0**

**Table C**  **4**
**.** Geographic distribution of fresh citrus fruit from Uruguay (2002 to 2006). **Region Fruit Exports (percent)**  **2002 2003**  **2004 2005**  **2006** European Union 82.35 81.32 85.07 79.60 82.10 Russia And E. Europe 7.14 11.25 8.41 13.42 11.7 Mercosur (Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay) 3.07 2.21 2.11 2.90 1.66 Others American Countries 3.82 2.01 2.34 1.77 2.07 Arab Countries And Africa 0.58 0.97 0.21 0.59 1.23 Far East 3.04 2.25 1.86 1.73 1.28

**Citrus industry, actual situation and perspectives.**  Uruguay has demonstrated over the last four decades characteristics that make it ideal for the citrus production. Among these are natural resources, climate and appropriate soils which allow high fruit quality production. Distance to main ports and access to national and international routes is not restrictive. The citrus industry has developed an agroindustrial infrastructure of packing, cold storage, and ports that facilitates exports. The structure of the ind ustry clearl y shows that the scale economies have become very important for the achievement of success. The role of the Ministry (DGSA) in safeguarding production through the support of phytosanitary surveillance, phytosanitary certification system for exp ort and its commitment in the opening of new markets has been of particular significance. One of the most dramatic outstanding aspects in Uruguayan agriculture was the change in the trade structure at the world level. The Uruguayan citrus industry has made a great effort to adapt to this change. Today

we see substantial changes in the trade channels and in the relationship with client

- importers. The companies have prioritized the requirements of the market to promote growth in new areas. The new scenario implies the necessity to open new markets and development of the current ones. The relationship between the Euro and the US dollar has had negative effects on the profitability of the companies. Growing competition of citrus and other fruit suppliers and rel ated products are forcing the companies to improve efficiencyPest Risk Assessment for Uruguay citrus

Ver. 9 December 1 6 , 201 2 112 along the whole supply

chain. In spite of this, great efforts are being made to produce high quality fruit within a responsible production process that satisfies the requirements of the Quality Management S ys tems, Good Agricultural Practices and Traceability (EUREPGAP). **Current Citrus Fruit Export Process** Citrus fruit for export is cultivated under a specific crop management s ys tem in the case of citrus canker, because this pest has been regulated under an eradication program since 1976. Citrus canker has been the key pest for Uruguayan citrus exports, being of quarantine concern of its main importing countries. Some preventive measures are routine for citrus growers such as: **Selection of varieties**
**-** There are cultivars that have demonstrated significantly less susceptibility

to disease both in foliage and fruit, allowing a better phy tosanitary conditions in the crop. **Measures in affected trees**
**-** Pruning, defoliation or tree removal, and removal of fruit with sy mptoms, applicable to the pest situation in an area, reduces the available inoculum. **Preventive crop chemical treatments**

**–** Application of Cooper products protects the new flushes of growth and fruits from pest infection. **Integrated management of Citrus leaf miner**
**-** Chemical and biological control lower the number of its lesions, and reduce entry points for the bacteria through these lesions. **Cultural measures**
**-** Windbreaks, pruning, irrigatio n, appropriate fertilization to avoid a large number of flushes, inter row management, disinfection measures (grove entrance, personnel, tools, equipments, etc) reduce favorable conditions for infection development. A specific harvest date is used by exp ort growers to ensure the quality of export fruit. The start of harvest is determined using a Maturity Index and the fruit is selected according to several criteria including: color (especiall y early varieties that need degreening); absence of lesions and other blemishes; absence of visible signs of pests; and size. In the packinghouse the fruit are subjected to cleaning and sanitizing processes (washing, disinfection with chlorine and sodium orthophenyl phenate (SOPP), culling, brushing, waxing) to produc e quality fruit for the fresh fruit export market and to fulfill all the client’s requirements. In Uruguay the citrus packinghouse vary in size and scale, and not all have pre

grading machine. Figure C2 shows the general steps applied to citrus fruit, including pre

grading.Pest Risk Assessment for Uruguay citrus

Ver. 9 December 1 6 , 201 2 113 **Figure C2**  **:** Process flow of citrus fruit in the Uruguayan packinghouse (DGSA, 2007)

Start

1.W eigh

5. Wash, disinfect, apply chemical treatment, cull, dry and wax. (Processing line

- Packaging) 3. Wash, cull and grade fruit. (Pre

- Grading) 2. Disinfect fruit

6. Store fruit (Cool chambers) 4. Degreen fruit

EndPest Risk Assessment for Uruguay citrus

Ver. 9 December 1 6 , 201 2 114 **Appendix D.** Citrus Fruit Phy tosanitary Certification

**MINISTERIO DE GANADERIA, AGRICULTURA Y PESCA DIRECCION GENERAL DE SERVICIOS AGRICOLAS**  **DIVISION PROTECCION AGRICOLA**
**CITRUS FRUIT PHYTOSANITARY CERTIFICATION SYSTEM (Summary 2007)** 
**1.**
**- INTRODUCTION**  This System establishes the requirements needed to issue Phy tosanitary Certificates for Citrus Fruit consignments according to the requirements of the NPPO’s from the importing countries. Phy tosanitary requirements are based on the knowledge of the specified pest situation of an area, Place of Prodution or Blo ck of Production from which fruit originates. Thus consignments need proper identification of the area of origin. This kind of Phy tosanitary Certification Sy stem ensures the traceability of export consignments. All operators involved at all stages from production to export (Places of production, packinghouses, storage facilities and exporters) are registered in the Citrus Fruit Phy tosanitary Certification Sy stem (CFPCS) and need to fulfill DGSA requirements to obtain the phy tosanitary certification for con signments to be exported.
**2.**
**- GENERAL REQUIREMENTS** 
**2.1 REGISTRATION OF OPERATORS** The different operators through all stages from production to export (Places of Production, Packinghouses, Fruit Storage Facilities and Exporters) will apply to DGSA, at least a month before their first operation destined to intended markets. The registration will be renewed annually . Application implies compliance with the responsibilities derived from the fulfillment of terms and conditions of CFPCS. General conditions f or registration of operators are included in the corresponding registration forms. For example for places of production these conditions include to specify their location using geographical position sy stem, varieties planted, number of plants/variety, etc. **2.2 CERTIFICATION OF PHYTOSANITARY REQUIREMENTS IN THE PLACES OF PRODUCTION REGISTERED IN THE CFPCS** 
**INSPECTION** Phy tosanitary inspection in the field is made pre

- harvest on 100 percent of the trees to determine the occurence of citrus canker and black spot diseases. If disease occurence is verified, then its incidence is determined.Pest Risk Assessment for Uruguay citrus

Ver. 9 December 1 6 , 201 2 115 **Types of Inspection.** The following types of inspection of Places of Production will be applied:
**Officia l**  : Inspections are made by official inspection teams (DGSA). **Officially recognized** : Inspections are made by personnel of the owner of the Place of Production, under the supervision of a Responsible Technician and under Official Audit. The Responsible Technician must be registered with the DGSA.
**Audit:** Officiall y Recognized Inspections are subject to audits by official inspection teams. DGSA has 55 inspectors in the north and 15 in the south for official field Inspection and audits.
**2.3 AUTHORIZATION OF OPERATORS** Operators registered in the CFPCS will be authorized after the corresponding verifications. Their status will be continuously updated in the Computer Sy stem of CFPCS and will be sent to all Packinghouses, Fruit Storage Faci lities and points of export. Operator’s authorization will be annual and it can expire at any time due to non

- compliance with the CFPCS conditions accepted at registration or due to inspection or audit results.
**2.4 TRACEABILITY** (See Diagram) Acceptance of the terms of the CFPCS at the moment of registration requires all registered operators maintain fruit identification through all stages from production to export and provide the traceability

of export consignments back to the Places of Production.
**2.4.1 At P**  **laces of Production Level** The grower of the Place of Production, the Responsible Technician and/or the person responsible for the documentation (non

-price invoice) accompanying fruit during transport to the packing house have the responsibility to fulfill the DGSA requirements, specificall y: a) Be sure before harvest, based on the information consigned in the CFPCS, that the Place of Production is authorized to send fruit to the Packinghouse. b) Id entify

all harvest bins with code number of each Place of Production or Block. c) Consign the required information in the no price invoice that must accompany the fruit. **2.4.2 At Packinghouse Level** Packinghouses must fulfill DGSA requirements, specificall y: a) Verify

that the information from the CFPCS is correct and that code numbers on the bins correspond to Places of Production authorized in the CFPCS to process to the established destination. b) Enter into the Computer System the information of all no price invoices as thePest Risk Assessment for Uruguay citrus

Ver. 9 December 1 6 , 201 2 116 corresponding consignment enters for processing. c) D o not process consignments from Places of Production not authorized by the CFPCS , or whose invoices are not properly completed or which do not have the code number, when they are processing. d) Consign on all export pallets the code numbers of Place/s and Blo ck/s of Production, which indicates the origin of the fruit. e) Allow the DGSA inspectors full access at any time to all facilities of the Packinghouse, and keep available and updated all the backup documentation of the fruit processing within CFPCS, entry

re gi sters, intermediate destination (degreening, culling, cool) and fruit delivery

. f) Apply the required phytosanitary treatments for the pests of concern. g) Confirm the citrus fruit consignments only with pallets or bins with code numbers authorized in the CFPC S, including on the no price invoice the code numbers, species, and the quantity

of units that correspond to each.
**2.4.3 At Fruit Storage Facilities Level**  The Fruit Storage Facilities have the responsibility specificall y to: a) Verify

that no price invoices only come from Packinghouses authorized by the CFPCS to process citrus fruit for the established destination. b) Enter into the Computer System the information of all no price invoices at arrival of fruit. c) Allow full access of the DGSA inspectors at any t ime to al l Fruit Storage Facilities, and keep available and updated in its Computer system entry and fruit delivery

registers, as well as all backup information. d) Keep individualized DGSA lots authorized for some market separated from other lots not authorized for these destinations. e) Conform the citrus fruit consignments, only with pallets or bins with code numbers authorized by

the CFPCS, indicating in the no price invoice the code numbers, the species, and the quantity

of units (pallets) that correspond to each.
**2.4.4 At Exporter level**  Exporters have the responsibility to fulfill the procedures that lead in the issue of the Phy tosanitary Certificate by

DGSA (Name and address of importer, number of pallets, codes of places of production, etc.).

**3.**
**- CERTIFICATION AT PA**  **CKINGHOUSE LEVEL**
**3.1 Inspection**  Routine inspections will be made b y DGSA personnel to verify the phytosanitary

condition of export fruit and to verify the post harvest treatments required b y the export markets. Detection of quarantine pests for the specific market in lots from Places of Production authorized will result in automatic non

- authorization.Pest Risk Assessment for Uruguay citrus

Ver. 9 December 1 6 , 201 2 117 **3.2 Verification of export lots identification**  Inspectors will verify

the fulfillment of the procedures established in item 2 about traceability

. **3.3 Conformity to**  **Certification of export lots** When containers proceed directly to the port of expot, inspectors will issue a certificate of conformity

for each export lot stating lot details and fulfillment of export market requirements.
**4.**
**- PHYTOSANITARY CERTIFICATE IS**  **SUE** Phy tosanitary Certificates accompanying consignments to the importing country will be issued by DGSA authorized personnel in the point of export. To issue the Phy tosanitary Certificate, the information of the no price invoice, information supplied by the C FPCS and the certificate of conformity is verified.
**5. AUDIT OF THE SYSTEM**  To continually

improve CFPCS, DGSA will establish audit procedures to the registered operators, in order to follow the different stages of the CFPCS.Pest Risk Assessment for Uruguay citrus

Ver. 9 December 1 6 , 201 2 118 **TRACEABILITY SCHEME**
**PRO CEDURES INVOLVED IN THE CFPCS** 

Production

Processing

Concentration Export Register Operators

Authorization of Operators Audit

ControlPest Risk Assessment for Uruguay citrus

Ver. 9 December 1 6 , 201 2 119 **OPERATOR REGISTRATION**

Submission of required information

Evaluation of supplied information Location
**Description** Technician Responsible Responsible of non - pr ice invoice

Standard met

Inclusion in the CFPCS Register YES NO

Enter the information to the System Registration Process

Registered Operator Descriptio

n of the Traceability System (processing, packing, cool chamber)Pest Risk Assessment for Uruguay citrus

Ver. 9 December 1 6 , 201 2 120

**AUTHORIZATION OF PLACES OF PRODUCTION**

Officially recognized inspections Audit Process Authorization Process

Report of Phy tosanitary Situatio n Official Inspections

Report of Phy tosanitary Situatio n

Presentation of Application

Authorization Request

Authorized Operator Verification of Information

Communications

Points of Export Packing

houses Storage facilitiesPest Risk Assessment for Uruguay citrus

Ver. 9 December 1 6 , 201 2 121 **PLACE OF PRODUCTION**

STORAGE FACILITY PACKI NGHOUSE Harvest and Bin filling Transport

Bin Identification

Reception of No Price Invoice Control of System

Authorization Control of Bins

Identification Grading

Degreening Processing Line Packing Conformation of Pallets Place of Production No Price Invoice

Internal

No Price Invoice

Internal No

Price Invoice Packing

house No Price Invoice

Reception of No price Invoice Verification of

Sy stem Authorization Control of Pallet

Identification Internal No price invoice Conformation of

Pallets (Chamber)

Control of System Authorisation at Export Point Transport Transport

Storage no price Invoice

**EXPORT POINT** Pallets Conformation (Chamber)Pest Risk Assessment for Uruguay citrus

Ver. 9 December 1 6 , 201 2 122 **Appendix E. Life cycle of**  **Xanthomonas citri subsp.**  **citri , the pathogen causing citrus canker** 

.

Bacteria wind and rain dispersed small distances within trees or to neighboring trees; bacterial multiplication occurs from 14

- 36o C with optimum temperature of 25

- 30 o C

harvest Immature fruit 3

- 6 cm diameter are highly susceptible

Leaf infection rarely occurs after 85% expansion. Mature fruit gain some immunity. Warm (20

- 30 C), wet weather favo rs bacterial growth and spread
Leaves, twigs and fruit are highly susceptible for the first 6 weeks. Infection

can occur with 14

- 21 days after shoots begin to develop. Critical period for rind infection occurs between petal fall and 90 days thereafter. New plant growth initiated

winter