United States Department of Agriculture 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 

Plant Protection and Quarantine 

In order to prevent the introduction of quarantine pests into the United States, § 319.37-2a allows 

the APHIS Administrator to designate the importation of certain taxa of plants for planting as not 

authorized pending pest risk analysis (NAPPRA). APHIS has determined that the following 

plant taxa should be added to the NAPPRA category. In accordance with paragraph (b)(1) of 

that section, APHIS has produced data sheets which detail the scientific evidence APHIS 

evaluated in making the determination that the taxa are hosts of quarantine pests. 

Plants for Planting Quarantine Pest Evaluation Data Sheets 

Table of Contents 

Click on a quarantine pest name below to view the corresponding data sheet: 

Anoplophora chinensis Acacia 

Acer 

Aesculus 

Albizia 

Alnus 

Aralia 

Betula 

Broussonetia 

Cajanus 

Camellia 

Carpinus 

Carya 

Castanopsis 

Casuarina 

Catalpa 

Celastrus 

Cercis 

Chaenomeles 

Cornus 

Corylus 

Cotoneaster 

Crataegus 

Cryptomeria 

Cydonia 

Elaeagnus 

Eriobotrya 

Fagus 

Ficus 

Grevillea 

Hedera 

Hibiscus 

Ilex 

Juglans 

Lagerstroemia 

Lindera 

Liquidambar 

Litchi 

Maackia 

Mallotus 

Malus 

Melia 

Morus 

Olea 

Ostrya 

Parrotia 

Persea 

Photinia 

Pinus 

Platanus 

Polygonum 

Populus 

Prunus 

Psidium 

Pyracantha 

Pyrus 

Quercus 

Rhododendron 

Rhus 

Robinia 

Rosa 

Rubus 

Sageretia 

Salix 

Sapium 

Sophora 

Sorbus 

Styrax 

Toona 

Ulmus 

Vernicia 

Viburnum 

Ziziphus
Bursaphelenchus cocophilus 

Ceratocystis manginecans

Chrysomyxa abietis

Lachnellula willkommii

Phytophthora alni subsp. alni

Pseudomonas syringae pv. actinidiae

Pseudomonas syringae pv. aesculi

Rhynchophorus ferrugineus

Rhynchophorus palmarum

Acrocomia

Astrocaryum 

Attalea 

Bactris 

Euterpe 

Mauritia 

Oenocarpus 

Roystonea

Mangifera 

Picea 

Larix 

Pseudolarix 

Alnus 

Actinidia 

Aesculus 

Brahea 

Butia 

Calamus 

Euterpe 

Manicaria 

Metroxylon 

Oncosperma 

Roystonea

Acrocomia 

Attalea 

Bactris 

Desmoncus 

Euterpe 

Manicaria 
R. palmarum (continued)

Tomato severe leaf curl virus (ToSLCV) 

Tomato torrado virus (ToTV) 

Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. punicae

Metroxylon 

Roystonea 

Sabal 

Syagrus 

Washingtonia

Lypersicon 

Capsicum 

Amaranthus 

Atriplex 

Chenopodium 

Halogetum 

Lepidium 

Malva 

Nicotiana 

Polygonum 

Solanum 

Spergularia 

Punica 

 
United States Department of Agriculture 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 

Plant Protection and Quarantine 

Plants for Planting Quarantine Pest Evaluation Data Sheet 

August 20, 2012 

In order to prevent the introduction of quarantine pests into the United States, § 319.37-2a allows 

the APHIS Administrator to designate the importation of certain taxa of plants for planting as not 

authorized pending pest risk analysis (NAPPRA). APHIS has determined that the following 

plant taxa should be added to the NAPPRA category. In accordance with paragraph (b)(1) of 

that section, this data sheet details the scientific evidence APHIS evaluated in making the 

determination that the taxa are hosts of a quarantine pest. 

Quarantine Pest: Anoplophora chinensis 

Hosts: See known host range below

Status: This pest and most of these hosts were regulated under a Federal Order DA-2011-18 

dated April 1, 2011. 

__________________________________________________________________________ 

Taxonomy and description of the pest:

 

Anoplophora chinensis (Forster) (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) 

Common name – Citrus longhorned beetle (CLB) 

Known distribution: 

Afghanistan21, China1,4, Croatia14, European Union1,3,4,8-18, Japan1,, Indonesia1,4,, Republic 

of Korea1,4, Korea Democratic People's Republic1,4, Madagascar3

, Malaysia4, 

Myanmar3,4, Philippines1,4, Taiwan1,, and Vietnam1,4. 

This pest is not known to occur in the United States. 

 

Biology of the pest: 

A. chinensis adults lay eggs in the trunk and exposed roots of live woody trees and 

shrubs2, 3. The life cycle of A. chinensis is one to two years, but may be as long as three 

years, depending on the climate and feeding environment2,4,11. The larvae feed on the 

pith and vascular tissue of the trunk and roots. In addition, adults feed on leaves, petioles 

and bark. Pupation occurs within the larval tunnels. Adults emerge from April to August 

with peak emergence from May to July depending on environmental conditions 3. 
 A. chinensis can infest trees with a trunk diameter as small as 12.7 millimeter (0.5 inch). 

Infested trees are difficult to detect during inspection because larval development occurs 

inside the tree, frequently at the root collar. Infested plants for planting that have cleared 

port of entry inspection have been found at the importing nursery 1. Sap and frass may be 

visible for a short time after the larvae bore into the trunk 6. Adults emerge in one to two 

or more years6

 depending on host and environment11. 

 

Damage potential of pest: 

A. chinensis is a destructive wood boring pest attacking over 75 host genera, including 

many economically important fruit, forest, and ornamental plant species3. The larval 

feeding tunnels increase the plant's susceptibility to disease and wind damage and reduce 

efficient water and nutrient transportation, which may result in reduced fruit production 

and/or premature tree death5. In addition, adults feed on leaves, petioles and bark. 

The most likely pathway for introduction and establishment of A. chinensis is in woody 

plants for planting, including dwarfed plants and in wood packing material via 

international trade3

. 

 

Control: 

Foliar insecticides are effective at controlling adult A. chinensis, but have little effect on 

the wood boring larvae and pupae4, 6. Eradication measures for A. chinensis are similar to 

those used for Asian longhorned beetle and emerald ash borer. The only effective means 

of controlling the larval and pupal stages are to chip or burn potentially infested trees and 

to use foliar insecticides for adults4. Systemic insecticides (soil drench or injected) may 

be used as an eradication tool for larvae and pupae, however additional research is 

necessary to determine the effectiveness. 

Known host range: 

Acacia spp.1,4, Acer spp.1 3 4, Aesculus spp.3

, Albizia spp.1,4, Alnus spp.1,4,11, Aralia 

spp.1,4, Atalantia spp.1,4, Betula spp.1,3,4, Broussonetia spp.1,4, Cajanus spp.1,4, Camellia

spp.5

, Carpinus spp.1,3,4, Carya spp.1,4, Castanea spp.1,4, Castanopsis spp.1,4, Casuarina

spp. (= Allocasuarina spp.)1,4,22, Catalpa spp.19, Celastrus spp.6,11, Cercis spp.20, 

Chaenomeles spp.

11, Citrus spp.1,4,11, Cornus spp.7,10,20, Corylus spp.3

, Cotoneaster spp.3, 

Crataegus spp.3, Cryptomeria spp.1, 4,7, Cydonia spp. (= Pseudocydonia spp.)11,22, 

Elaeagnus spp.

1 , Eriobotrya spp. 1,4, Fagus spp.1,3,4, Ficus spp.1,4, Fortunella spp.4

, 

Fraxinus spp.5

, Grevillea spp. (= Stylurus spp.)1, Hedera spp.1,4, Hibiscus spp.1,4, Ilex

spp.1,4, Juglans spp.1,4, Lagerstroemia spp.3,4,

 Lindera spp.1,4, Liquidambar spp.19, 

Litchi spp.1,4, Maackia spp.

1 , Mallotus spp.1,4, Malus spp.1,3,4, Melia spp.1,4, Morus 

spp.1,4, Olea spp.

1

, Ostrya spp.19 Parrotia spp.19 , Persea spp. (= Machilus spp.)1,4,22, 

Photinia spp. (= Stranvaesia spp.)5, 22, Pinus spp.1,4, Platanus spp. 3,4, Polygonum spp. (= 

Reynoutria spp., = Fallopia spp.)19,22, Poncirus spp.1,4, Populus spp.1,3,4, Prunus spp.1,3,4, 
Psidium spp.1,4, Pyracantha spp.1,4, Pyrus spp.1,4,11, Quercus spp. 1,3,4, Rhododenron

spp.19, Rhus spp.(= Toxicodendron spp.)1,4,22, Robinia spp.1,4, Rosa spp.1,3,4, Rubus spp.1,4, 

Sageretia spp.

11, Salix spp.1,, Sapium spp. (= Triadica spp.)1,4,22, Sophora spp.1,4, Sorbus

spp.7

, Styrax spp.1,4, Toona spp.19, Ulmus spp.1,3,4, Vernicia spp. (= Aleurites spp.)4,22, 

Viburnum spp.19, and Ziziphus spp.

4

. 

.

Action under NAPPRA: 

The importation of the following plants for planting genera, excluding seed, that are hosts 

of A. chinensis, is not authorized pending a pest risk analysis (NAPPRA) from all 

countries, except Canada:

Acacia, Aesculus, Alnus, Betula, Broussonetia, Cajanus, Camellia, Carya, 

Castanopsis, Casuarina (= Allocasuarina), Catalpa, Celastrus, Chaenomeles, 

Crataegus, Cryptomeria, Cydonia (= Pseudocydonia), Elaeagnus, 

Eriobotrya, Grevillea (= Stylurus), Juglans, Lindera, Liquidambar, Litchi, 

Maackia, Mallotus, Melia, Morus, Olea, Ostrya, Parrotia, Persea (= 

Machilus), Photinia (= Stranvaesia), Platanus, Polygonum (= Reynoutria, = 

Fallopia), Populus, Psidium, Pyracantha, Pyrus, Rhus (= Toxicodendron), 

Salix, Sapium (= Triadica), Sophora, Sorbus, Toona, Ulmus, Vernicia (= 

Aleurites), Viburnum, Ziziphus 

The importation of the following plants for planting genera, excluding seed, that are hosts 

of A. chinensis, is not authorized pending a pest risk analysis (NAPPRA) from all 

countries, except those listed after the plant genus:

Acer Canada, Netherlands, New Zealand 

Albizia Canada, Israel 

Aralia Canada, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Netherlands 

Carpinus Canada, Netherlands 

Cercis Canada, Netherlands, Israel 

Cornus Canada, Netherlands 

Corylus Canada, Netherlands 

Cotoneaster Canada, Costa Rica, Netherlands 

Fagus Canada, Netherlands 

Ficus Canada, China, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, 

Guatemala, Mexico, Netherlands, Taiwan, Thailand 

Hedera Canada, Colombia, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Israel, 

Kenya, Mexico, Netherlands 

Hibiscus Canada, France 

Ilex Canada, Netherlands 

Lagerstroemia Canada, Israel 

Malus Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Netherlands 

Quercus Canada, France 

Pinus Canada, Republic of Korea, Japan 

Prunus Canada, Netherlands 
Rhododendron Canada, Japan 

Robinia Canada, Israel, Netherlands 

Rosa Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Netherlands, 

United Kingdom 

Rubus Canada, United Kingdom 

Sageretia Canada, China 

Styrax Canada, Netherlands 

The importation of the following plants for planting genera that are hosts of A. chinensis

is currently regulated under either 7 CFR 319.19 or 7 CFR 319.37 and these genera are 

therefore not included, at this time, as potential candidates for listing on NAPPRA: 

Atalantia, Castanea, Citrus, Fortunella, Fraxinus, Poncirus 

Literature cited: 

1. Lingafelter, S.W., E. R. Hoebeke. 2002. Revision of Anoplophora (Coleoptera: 

Cerambycidae). The Entomological Society of Washington, Washington, DC, p 238. 

2. Wang, Q, L-Y, Chen, W-Y Zeng, J-S Li. 1996. Reproductive behavior of Anoplophora 

chinensis (Forester) (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae: Lamiinae), a serious pest of citrus. 

Entomologist 115: 40-49. 

3. Herard, F., M. Ciampitti, M. Maspero, H. Kerhan, U. Beuker, C. Boegel, R. Schrage, L. 

Bouhot-Delduc, P. Bialooki. 2006. EPPO Bulletin 36: 470-474. 

4. CABI (2008). Crop Protection Compendium. Wallingford, UK: CAB International. 

Accessed October 8, 2008 at http:cabicompendium.org/cpc. 

5. Gyeltshen, J, A. Hodges. 2005. Citrus Longhorned Beetle, Anoplophora chinensis

(Forster) (Insecta: Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) (EENY357), University of Florida, 

Institute of Food and agriculture Science. Assessed December 12, 2008 (web page no 

longer available) 

6. EPPO. No date. Data Sheets on Quarantine Pest: Anoplophora malasiaca and 

Anoplophora chinensis. European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization. 

Accessed April 2, 2011 at 

http://www.eppo.org/QUARANTINE/insects/Anoplophora_chinensis/ANOLCN_ds.pd

fhttp://www.eppo.org/QUARANTINE/insects/Anoplophora_chinensis/ANOCN_ds.pdf 

7. Haack, R.A., F. Herard, J.H. Sun, J.J. Turgeon. 2010. Managing Invasive Populations 

of Asian Longhorned Beetle: A Worldwide Perspective. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 55:521-

46. 
8. Pest Report – The Netherlands. Jan. 2010. Two larvae of Anoplophora chinensis in 

hedgerow of company importing Acer palmatum. Plant Protection Service of the 

Netherlands. Accessed March 12, 2010 (web page no longer available) 

9. Pest Report – The Netherlands. December 2009. Findings of Anoplophora chinensis in 

an old consignment of Acer palmatum plants for planting from China. Plant Protection 

Service of the Netherlands. Accessed March 12, 2010 (web page no longer available) 

 

10. Pest Report – The Netherlands. September 3, 2009. Update: Findings of Anoplophora 

chinensis on Cornus sp. and Crataegus sp. Plant Protection Service of the Netherlands. 

Accessed on March 12, 2010 (web page no longer available) 

11. Gaag, D.J.v.d., M. Ciampitti, B. Cavagna, F. Herard. 2008. Pest risk analysis 

anoplophora chinensis. Plant Protection Service, Wageningen, The Netherlands. 

September, 2008. 49 pp. Accessed on May 2, 2011 at 

http://www.vwa.nl/onderwerpen/english/dossier/pest-risk-analysis/evaluation-of-pestrisks 

12. Factsheet – The Netherlands. February 2, 2009. Citrus longhorned beetle 

(Anoplophora chinensis) Measures regarding buffer zone Boskoop. . Plant Protection 

Service of the Netherlands. Accessed on March 12, 2010 (web page no longer 

available) 

13. EPPO. 2009. Anoplophora chinensis detected in Germany. EPPO Reporting Service 

2009/174. Accessed on October 7, 2010 at: 

http://archives.eppo.org/EPPOReporting/2009/Rse-0909.pdf 

14. EPPO. 2009. First record of Anoplophora chinensis in Croatia. EPPO Reporting 

Service 2009/047. Accessed on October 7, 2010 at: 

http://archives.eppo.org/EPPOReporting/2009/Rse-0903.pdf 

15. EPPO. 2009. Further details on the outbreak of Anoplophora chinensis in Roma (IT). 

EPPO Reporting Service 2009/048. Accessed on October 7, 2010 at: 

http://archives.eppo.org/EPPOReporting/2009/Rse-0903.pdf 

16. EPPO. 2010. Update on the outbreaks of Anoplophora chinensis in Italy. EPPO 

Reporting Service 2010/123. Accessed on October 7, 2010 at: 

http://archives.eppo.org/EPPOReporting/2010/Rse-1007.pdf 

17. EPPO. 2010. Anoplophora chinensis eradicated from the Netherlands. EPPO 

Reporting Service 2010/122. Accessed on October 7, 2010 at: 

http://archives.eppo.org/EPPOReporting/2010/Rse-1007.pdf 

18. EPPO. 2010. Isolated findings of Anoplophora chinensis and A. glabripennis in the 

United Kingdom. EPPO Reporting Service 2010/124. Accessed on October 7, 2010 at: 

http://archives.eppo.org/EPPOReporting/2010/Rse-1007.pdf 
19. Gaag, D.J.v.d., G. Sinatra, P.F. Roversi, A. Loomans, F. Herard, A. Vukadin. 2010. 

Bulletin OEPP/EPPO. Bulletin 40:176-187. 

20. DEFRA. 2008. UK Plant Health Interception and Outbreak Chart. Department for 

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, /accessed August 29, 2008 at 

http://www.defra.gov.uk/planth/interc/intercold.htm. 

21. Tavakilian, G. 2006. Catalogue of Life: 2008 Annual Checklist (Cerambycidae 

database). Anoplophora chinensis. Species 2000. Accessed on May 3, 2011, at 

http://www.catalogueoflife.org/annualchecklist/2008/show_species_details.php?record_id=3920472

22. USDA, Agriculture Research Service, National Genetic Resources Program. 

Germplasm Resources Information Network (GRIN). [Online Database] National 

Germplasm Resources Laboratory (NGRL), Beltsville, Maryland. Accessed March 16, 

2012 on line at http://www.ars-grin.gov/cgi-bin/npgs/html/taxgenform.pl 
 

United States Department of Agriculture 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 

Plant Protection and Quarantine 

Plants for Planting Quarantine Pest Evaluation Data Sheet 

August 20, 2012 

In order to prevent the introduction of quarantine pests into the United States, § 319.37-2a allows 

the APHIS Administrator to designate the importation of certain taxa of plants for planting as not 

authorized pending pest risk analysis (NAPPRA). APHIS has determined that the following 

plant taxa should be added to the NAPPRA category. In accordance with paragraph (b)(1) of 

that section, this data sheet details the scientific evidence APHIS evaluated in making the 

determination that the taxa are hosts of a quarantine pest. 

Quarantine Pest: Bursaphelenchus cocophilus

Hosts: See known host range below 

Status: This pest and most of these hosts were originally regulated under a Federal Order DA2010-04 dated January 25, 2010.

__________________________________________________________________________ 

Taxonomy and description of the pest:

 

Bursaphelenchus cocophilus (Cobb, Goodey) Baujard (Aphelenchida: Aphelenchoididae) 

Synonym: Rhadinaphelenchus cocophilus

Common name: Red Ring Nematode 

Known distribution: 

Bursaphelenchus cocophilus is widespread in tropical America, from Mexico through 

Central America and into South America1

. 

This nematode is not known to occur in the United States. 

Biology of the pest: 

Bursaphelenchus cocophilus is a plant-parasitic nematode that Rhynchophorus palmarum

L. (Giant Palm Weevil) ingests as a larva while feeding on nematode-infested palms, and 

transmits as an adult weevil during oviposition2

. The most characteristic symptom of 
infection is a reddish, concentric band of discolored tissue in the stem. External 

symptoms include a drop in fruit production, yellowing and senescence of fronds and 

“little leaf syndrome” where fronds are stunted in growth though they vary widely 

depending on host species, age, cultivar and environmental conditions1

. This variability 

in symptoms and the inability to detect the “red ring” without destroying the plant make 

identification of early infection difficult. Local movement of the nematode occurs by its 

weevil vector but wider dissemination can only occur by the transport of infested palms. 

Damage potential of pest: 

Bursaphelenchus cocophilus is a serious pest of palms, causing up to 10-15% annual 

losses3

. Infected palms usually die within a few months. Most palm species appear to be 

susceptible to infection by the nematode and there is no known treatment for this disease. 

 

Control: 

Controlling the vector R. palmarum can help reduce nematode infestation but the most 

recommended method of control is the early removal and destruction of affected palms4. 

Known host range: 

Acrocomia spp.

1, 5, Astrocaryum spp.5 Attalea spp.1, 5, Bactris spp. (= Guilielma spp.)5

, 

Cocos spp.1, 5, Elaeis spp.1, 5, Euterpe spp.

5

, Mauritia spp.

1, 5, Oenocarpus spp. (= 

Jessenia spp.)5, Phoenix spp.1, 5, and Roystonea spp

1

. 

Action under NAPPRA: 

The importation of the following plants for planting genera, except seed, that are hosts of 

Bursaphelenchus cocophilus is not authorized pending a pest risk analysis (NAPPRA) 

from all countries: 

Acrocomia, Astrocaryum, Attalea, Bactris, Euterpe, Mauritia, Oenocarpus, 

Roystonea (=Oreodoxa) 

The importation of the following plants for planting genera that are hosts of 

Bursaphelenchus cocophilus are currently regulated under either 7CFR 319.15 or 7CFR 

319.37 and these genera are therefore not included, at this time, as potential candidates 

for listing on NAPPRA: 

Cocos, Elaeis, Phoenix, Saccharum 

Literature cited: 

1. Esser, R.P. and Meridith, J.A.. 1987. Red ring nematode. Nematology Circular 141. 

Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Plant 

Industry, Gainesville. 
2. Giblin-Davis, R. M., Oehlschlager, A.C., Perez, A., Gries, G., Gries, R., Weissling, 

T. J., et al. 1996. Chemical and Behavioral Ecology of Palm Weevils 

(Curculionidae: Rhynchophorinae). Florida Entomologist, 79:153-167. 

3. Chinchilla, C.M., Menjivar, R., and Arias, E. 1990. Picudo de la palma y enfermedad 

del anillo rojo/hoja pequena en un plantacion comercial en Honduras. Truuialba. 

40:471-477. 

4. Oehlschlager, A. C., Chinchilla, C., Castillo, G., & Gonzalez, L. 2002. Control of Red 

Ring Disease by Mass Trapping of Rhynchophorus palmarum (Coleoptera: 

Curculionidae). Florida Entomologist 85:507-513. 

5. EcoPort: Rhadinaphelenchus cocophilus. (n.d.). EcoPort Foundation. Accessed June 5, 

2010 at 

http://ecoport.org/ep?Nematode=74950&entityType=NE****&entityDisplayCategory=f

ull 
United States Department of Agriculture 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 

Plant Protection and Quarantine 

Plants for Planting Quarantine Pest Evaluation Data Sheet 

August 20, 2012 

In order to prevent the introduction of quarantine pests into the United States, § 319.37-2a allows 

the APHIS Administrator to designate the importation of certain taxa of plants for planting as not 

authorized pending pest risk analysis (NAPPRA). APHIS has determined that the following 

plant taxa should be added to the NAPPRA category. In accordance with paragraph (b)(1) of 

that section, this data sheet details the scientific evidence APHIS evaluated in making the 

determination that the taxa are hosts of a quarantine pest. 

Quarantine Pest: Ceratocystis manginecans

 

Hosts: Mangifera1

 spp. 

 

Status: This host genus was regulated under postentry quarantine (7 CFR 319.37-7). 

________________________________________________________________________ 

Taxonomy and description of the pest:

Ceratocystis manginecans M. van Wyk, A. Adawi & M.J. Wingf. 2007 (Microascales, 

Ceratocystidaceae) 

Common name – mango killer or sudden wilt of mango 

Known distribution: 

 

Oman and Pakistan2 

Biology of the pest: 

The fungus, commonly known as mango killer or sudden wilt of mango, prevents the 

movement of water and nutrients from the roots to the branches and twigs. Symptoms 

include dark staining of wood, exudation of gum, and leaf wilting3. As the disease 

progresses, branches gradually dry out until the whole plant dies2

. This pathogen is not 

known to be seed transmitted. 
In Oman and Pakistan, the bark beetle Hypocryphalus mangiferae Stebbing (Coleoptera: 

Scolytidae) appears to play an important role in the spread and development of mango 

wilt disease2

. While it has not been proven to be a vector of C. manginecans, the bark 

beetle and its exit holes have been consistently found in infected mango trees5,6. H. 

mangifearae is widely distributed in India2

, Samoa, Mangareva Island, Brazil and 

Hawaii4. 

The fungus can be transported in soil in the form of chlamydospores3

 

Damage potential of pest: 

Mango is an important fruit crop worldwide. Mango wilt disease has devastated the 

mango industry in Oman since its first occurrence. Since 1998, over 60,000 trees have 

been killed or removed in Oman and mango production has decreased by 43% since 

19972. Thousands of mango trees were affected by the disease and killed within six 

months after the appearance of the first symptoms. 

Known host range: 

Mangifera spp.

1 

Action under NAPPRA: 

The importation of Mangifera spp. plants for planting, except seed but including cut 

flowers and greenery, a host of Ceratocystis manginecans, is not authorized pending a 

pest risk analysis (NAPPRA) from all countries. 

Literature cited: 

1. Farr, D.F., and Rossman, A.Y. 2011. Fungal Databases, Systematic Mycology and 

Microbiology Laboratory, ARS, USDA. Accessed May 6, 2011 at http://nt.arsgrin.gov/fungaldatabases/ 

2. Van Wyk, M., Al Adawi, A.O., Khan, I.A., Deadman, M.L., Al Jahwari, A.A., 

Wingfield, B.D., Ploetz, R. and Wingfield, M.J. 2007. Ceratocystis manginecans sp. 

nov., causal agent of a destructive mango wilt disease in Oman and Pakistan. Fungal 

Diversity 27:213-230. 

3. Masood, A., Saeed, S., Iqbal, N, Tariq, M. M., and Kazmi, M. R,. 2010. Methodology 

for the evaluation of symptoms severity of mango sudden death syndrome in Pakistan, ,

Pakistan Journal of Botany, 42:1289-1299. 

4. Swezey, O.H. 1948. Synonymy of Hypocryphalus mangiferae (Stebbing) and its 

Occurrence in Hawaii (Coleoptera: Scolitidae) (Presented at the meeting of May 10, 

1948). Accessed June 22, 2011 at 
http://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/bitstream/handle/10125/16196/PHES13_445-

446.pdf.txt;jsessionid=6CE216413C1328D9B3D14588D26DFBE9?sequence=2 

5. Shafqat Saeed, Asad Masood, Asif Sajjad and Din Muhammad Zahid. 2010. Monitoring 

the Dispersal Potential of Bark Beetle, Hypocryphalus mangiferae Stebbing (Scolytidae: 

Coleoptera) in Mango Orchards, Pakistan J. Zool, 42:473-479. 

6. Asad Masood, Shafqat Saeed, Nadir Erbilgin and Yong Jung Kwon. 2010. Role of 

stressed mango host conditions in attraction of and colonization by the mango bark beetle 

Hypocryphalus mangiferae Stebbing (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae) and in the 

symptom development of quick decline of mango trees in Pakistan. Entomological 

Research 40:316-327 
United States Department of Agriculture 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 

Plant Protection and Quarantine 

Plants for Planting Quarantine Pest Evaluation Data Sheet 

August 20, 2012 

In order to prevent the introduction of quarantine pests into the United States, § 319.37-2a allows 

the APHIS Administrator to designate the importation of certain taxa of plants for planting as not 

authorized pending pest risk analysis (NAPPRA). APHIS has determined that the following 

plant taxa should be added to the NAPPRA category. In accordance with paragraph (b)(1) of 

that section, this data sheet details the scientific evidence APHIS evaluated in making the 

determination that the taxa are hosts of a quarantine pest. 

Quarantine Pest: Chrysomyxa abietis

Hosts: Picea spp.

__________________________________________________________________________ 

Taxonomy and description of the pest:

 

Chrysomyxa abietis (Wallr.) Unger.1 

Common name - Spruce Needle Rust. 

Known distribution: 

Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, China, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Finland, France, 

Germany, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, 

Poland, Romania, Russia, Serbia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and UK2

 . 

This pathogen is not known to occur in the United States.

Biology of the pest: 

This autoecious rust forms mycelium that travel intra- and intercellularly3

. Hyphae enters 

the needle via the stomata, and colonizes the mesophyll tissue3,4. Only new, developing 

needles are susceptible to infection by the basidiospores of the rust2

. Cold weather during 

spring delays maturation of new needles and allows longer infection periods for C. 
abietis, increasing the likelihood of an epidemic3

. High relative humidity is ideal for the 

spread of infection4

.

During the first summer after infection, golden bands appear on previously infected 

needles. These needles remain on the tree during the winter and early spring, and are cast 

shortly thereafter. The flush of new needles in spring occurs during the same time when 

basidiospores are being produced and released from teliospores on the previous year’s 

infected needles3

. Basidiospores are disseminated by wind. 

Damage potential of the pest:

C. abietis is thought to weaken its host and make it more susceptible to other pathogens, 

like the ascomycete Lophodermium picea. L. picea was isolated slightly more often from 

chlorotic needle parts where C. abietis was already present. Other endophytic fungi were 

also isolated more frequently from areas already infected by C. abietis. This suggests that 

the introduction of C. abietis to an area where L. picea is already an established pathogen 

could pose a very serious problem to Picea abies3. A similar synergistic effect may occur 

on North American confirmed hosts such as P. engelmannii, P. rubens, P. sitchensis if 

this pathogen is introduced4

. 

Known host range: 

Picea spp.1

Action under NAPPRA: 

The importation of Picea spp. plants for planting, excluding seed but including cut 

flowers and greenery, a host of Chrysomyxa abietis, is not authorized pending a pest risk 

analysis (NAPPRA) from all countries except Canada.

Literature cited: 

1. Takahashi OS, H. 1985. Notes on the Japanese rust fungi IX. Dissemination of 

Chrysomyxa abietis (Wallroth) Unger. Transactions of the Mycological Society of Japan

26:433-439. 

2. UK CI. 1989. Chrysomyxa abietis. [Distribution map]. Distribution Maps of Plant 

Diseases. Oxfordshire. 

3. Lehtijärvi AS, C.; Barklund, P. 2001. Co-occurrence of the ascomycete 

Lophodermium piceae and the rust fungus Chrysomyxa abietis in Norway spruce needles. 

Forest Pathology 31, 25-31. 

4. Uotila AWTWL. 2000. Some ecological aspects of Chrysomyxa abietis (Wallr.) 
Unger epidemiology. Tree diseases in the first generation stands and other Nordic forest 

pathology problems. Proceedings of the Nordic/Baltic meeting on forest pathology.

Metsanduslikud Uurimused, Sagadi, Estonia, 17-22 June 2000., pp. 17-23. 

5. Longo NN, B.; Fiordi, A. C.; Tani, G.; Falco, P. di. 2006. Host surface tissues and 

basidiospore-derived infection strategies of some rust fungi. Caryologia Florence: 

Department of Plant Biology, University of Florence 59, 168-176. 
United States Department of Agriculture 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 

Plant Protection and Quarantine 

Plants for Planting Quarantine Pest Evaluation Data Sheet 

August 20, 2012 

In order to prevent the introduction of quarantine pests into the United States, § 319.37-2a allows 

the APHIS Administrator to designate the importation of certain taxa of plants for planting as not 

authorized pending pest risk analysis (NAPPRA). APHIS has determined that the following 

plant taxa should be added to the NAPPRA category. In accordance with paragraph (b)(1) of 

that section, this data sheet details the scientific evidence APHIS evaluated in making the 

determination that the taxa are hosts of a quarantine pest. 

Quarantine Pest: Lachnellula willkommii 

Hosts: Larix spp., Pseudolarix spp.

__________________________________________________________________________ 

Taxonomy and description of the pest:

 

Lachnellula willkommii (Hartig) Dennis1

Common name – European Larch Canker2

Known distribution: 

Belgium, Byelorussia, China, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, 

Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Romania, 

Sweden, Russia, United Kingdom, Canada (Nova Scotia), and Maine (United States).3

This pest is under official control in the United States. 

Biology of the pest: 

L. willkommii is most commonly found in coastal areas with oceanic climate, abundant 

moisture, and moderate winter temperatures2

. L. willkommii most likely overwinters on 

dead twigs and fallen branches of Larix

1

. Ascospores, which are produced year round, 
cause infections in autumn where insect feeding sites or dwarf shoots exist2,4. The 

infection process is slow, the first symptoms take 1-4 years after inoculation to appear. 

Apothecia appear on lesions one or more years after infection and complete the life cycle. 

Apothecia are visible in cankers year round2

. 

Damage potential of the pest:

Perennial cankers form on branches and main stems and expand during host dormancy. 

These cankers begin as circular depressions in the bark of small stems and almost always 

are found surrounding a dead dwarf shoot or twig. The stem appears swollen at the 

canker site, and can cause girdling as well as dead bark to fall off. Premature needle 

yellowing can occur in summer2

. Incidence of infection on a natural stand of 

Larix laricina in New Brunswick averaged 59% in the 1990’s. The high infection rates, 

as well as the lengthy amount of time it takes for symptoms to appear are main concerns 

regarding L. willkommii2

. 

Known host range: 

Larix spp. and Pseudolarix spp.

2

. 

Action under NAPPRA: 

The importation of Larix spp. and Pseudolarix spp. plants for planting, except seed but 

including cut flowers and greenery, that are hosts of Lachnellula willkommii, are not 

authorized pending a pest risk analysis (NAPPRA) from all countries except the areas 

of Canada not regulated for Lachnellula willkommii.

Literature cited: 

1. Feige GBA-A, N., Jensen, M., Christians, B., & Kricke, R. 2004. New, rare or 

remarkable microfungi in the Italian Alps (Carnic Alps) - Part I - Ascomycotina., 56th 

International Symposium on Crop Protection, Gent, Belgium, 4 May 2004. Part II. 

Communications in Agricultural and Applied Biological Sciences Essen, Germany, pp. 

457-465. 

2. Sinclair, L. 2005. Diseases of Trees and Shrubs. 2nd ed. Comstock Publishing 

Associates, Ithaca, N.Y.. 

3. UK CI. 1989. Lachnellula willkommii. [Distribution map]. 1 ed. CAB International, 

Wallingford. 

4. Sylvestre-Guinot GD, C. 2002. Twenty years of research on larch canker in France. 

Pâques LE (Ed), Improvement of larch (Larix sp.) for better growth, stem form and wood 

quality. Proceedings of an International Symposium, Gap (Hautes-Alpes), Auvergne & 

Limousin, France, pp. 194-203. 
United States Department of Agriculture 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 

Plant Protection and Quarantine 

Plants for Planting Quarantine Pest Evaluation Data Sheet 

August 20, 2012 

In order to prevent the introduction of quarantine pests into the United States, § 319.37-2a allows 

the APHIS Administrator to designate the importation of certain taxa of plants for planting as not 

authorized pending pest risk analysis (NAPPRA). APHIS has determined that the following 

plant taxa should be added to the NAPPRA category. In accordance with paragraph (b)(1) of 

that section, this data sheet details the scientific evidence APHIS evaluated in making the 

determination that the taxa are hosts of a quarantine pest. 

Quarantine Pest: Phytophthora alni subsp. alni

Hosts: Alnus spp.

Status: This pest and host were regulated under a Federal Order DA-2009-27 dated June 22, 

2009 

__________________________________________________________________________ 

Taxonomy and description of the pest:

 

Phytophthora alni Brasier & S.A. Kirk1

. 

 P. alni is a hybrid of two different Phytophthora parents. These parents are likely 

P. cambivora and a Phytophthora species similar to P. fragariae2

. There are three 

subspecies of P. alni, the P. alni subsp. alni being the most prevalent1. 

Phytophthora alni is commonly known as both Alder Dieback and Alder Phytophthora. 

Known distribution: 

Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, 

Netherlands, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden, UK, England, Wales, and Scotland3

. 

P. alni subsp. alni is not known to occur in the United States.
Biology of the pest: 

P. alni has been isolated from infected roots, stems of alder trees, and from stream 

baiting4,5,6. The infectious part of the pathogen is mainly its zoospores3. It is homothallic 

(self fertile) and produces ornamented and semi-ornamented oospores in culture as well 

as in infected tissue.3,7. The viability of oospores appears to be low. Ideal temperatures 

for growth in culture are between 22.5-25.0° C, with the upper temperature limit about 

30° C. Infection of a plant seems to occur usually at the collar level or, during flooding, 

on the stem3

. Trees suffer from root and collar rot, as well as disrupted vascular systems, 

resulting in death1,3. 

The disease is most commonly associated with alder stands along riparian ecosystems as 

well as in nurseries associated with alder seedlings8,9. Studies in France showed that 

water flow played a role in disease development. Fewer diseased alders were found in 

sites where water flow was rapid compared to sites with slower water flow. In Germany, 

alders that were planted on high hills or banks were less likely to show disease 

symptons11. Higher summer temperatures and clay soils also increased prevalence of the 

pathogen10. In some cases tree decline took more than four years and some trees actually 

overcame infection through inherent resistance mechanisms8. 

Damage potential of the pest:

P. alni was first discovered in the UK in 19932. Since then it has spread to over 18 

countries in Europe4. While the origin of P. alni is unknown, information from Poland 

suggested that introduction of the pathogen to natural ecosystems may have occurred via 

nursery-infested seedlings planted throughout the country for reforestation9. The 

pathogen further established in the field via zoospores in streams, particularly greater 

infection rates were found during the growing season when flooding occurred11. 

In Europe this disease has already done extensive damage to alder populations3

. In 

inoculation tests, the North American red alder has shown to be susceptible to this 

pathogen3

. 

Known host range: 

Alnus spp.3,12. 

Action under NAPPRA: 

The importation of Alnus spp. plants for planting, excluding seed but including cut 

flowers and greenery, a host of P. alni subsp. alni, is not authorized pending a pest risk 

analysis (NAPPRA) from all countries except Canada.

Literature cited: 
1. Bakonyi JN, Z. Á., & Érsek, T. 2007. A novel hybrid with the nuclear background of 

Phytophthora alni subsp. alni exhibits a mitochondrial DNA profile characteristic of P. 

alni subsp. uniformis. Acta Phytopathologica et Entomologica Hungarica 42, 1-7. 

2. Brasier CMK, S. A., Delcan, J., Cooke, D. E. L., Jung, T., & Man In't Veld, W. A. 

2004. Phytophthora alni sp. nov. and its variants: designation of emerging heteroploid 

hybrid pathogens spreading on Alnus trees. Mycological Research 108, 1172-1184. 

3. Anonymous. 2009. USDA Forest Service, Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team. 

4. Adams G CM, & Trummer, L. 2009. Distribution and Severity of Alder Phytophthora

in Alaska, Fourth Sudden Oak Death Science Symposium Santa Cruz, Ca, p. 17. 

5. Merlier DdC, A., Debruxelles, N., Noldus, M., Laurent, F., Dufays, E., Claessens, H., 

Cavelier, M. 2005. Characterization of alder Phytophthora isolates from Wallonia and 

development of SCAR primers for their specific detection. Journal of Phytopathology

153, 99-107. 

6. Oszako T.O., & L. B. 2005. Phytophthora alni as the main cause of the alder decline in 

Poland. Porazone drzewa, siewki olszy i gleba jako z ́róda Phytophthora alni w Polsce. 

Progress in Plant Protection 45, 343-350. 

7. Cerny KG, B., Strnadova, V., Holub, V., Tomsovsky, M., & Cervenka, M. 2008. 

Phytophthora alni causing decline of black and grey alders in the Czech Republic. Plant 

Pathology 57, 370. 

8. András KG, I., József, B., & Árpád, N. Z. 2009. The importance of Phytophthora

disease of alder in forestry. Növényvédelem 45, 169-177. 

9. Oszako, T. 2006. The consequences of alder decline phenomenon in Poland, factors 

involved and possibilities to mitigate the problem, in: Forest Research Institute DoFP, 

Sekocin, 05-090 Raszyn, Poland. (Ed), Possible limitation of dieback in broadleaved 

stands through silvicultural and protective measures, Puszczykowo, Poland, November

2005., Puszczykowo, Poland, pp. 143-157. 

10. Thoirain, B., Husson, C., & Marcais B. 2007. Risk factors for the Phytophthorainduced decline of alder in northeastern France. Phytopathology 97, 99-105. 

11. Schumacher JL, S., Grundmann, B. M., & Roloff, A. 2006. New Alder disease in 

Spreewald biosphere reserve - causes and incidental factors of an epidemic. 

Nachrichtenblatt des Deutschen Pflanzenschutzdienstes 58, 141-147. 

12. Santini A., Biancalani, F., Barzanti, G.P., & Capretti P. 2006. Pathogenicity of four 

Phytophthora species on wild cherry and Italian alder seedlings. Journal of 

Phytopathology 154, 163-167. 
United States Department of Agriculture 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 

Plant Protection and Quarantine 

Plants for Planting Quarantine Pest Evaluation Data Sheet 

August 20, 2012 

In order to prevent the introduction of quarantine pests into the United States, § 319.37-2a allows 

the APHIS Administrator to designate the importation of certain taxa of plants for planting as not 

authorized pending pest risk analysis (NAPPRA). APHIS has determined that the following 

plant taxa should be added to the NAPPRA category. In accordance with paragraph (b)(1) of 

that section, this data sheet details the scientific evidence APHIS evaluated in making the 

determination that the taxa are hosts of a quarantine pest. 

Quarantine Pest: Pseudomonas syringae pv. actinidiae 

Hosts: Actinidia spp. 

Status: This pest and host were originally regulated under a Federal Order DA-2010-11 dated 

November 10, 2010.

__________________________________________________________________________ 

Taxonomy and description of the pest:

 

Pseudomonas syringae pv. actinidiae Takikawa, Serizawa, Ichikawa, Tsuyumu and Goto 

is the causal organism of bacterial canker disease of kiwifruit. This pathogen is a 

pathovar within the diverse bacterial species Pseudomonas syringae and is only known to 

infect Actinidia spp. in the environment. 

 

Known distribution: 

 China4

,Italy4, Japan1, 2, Korea 1, 3, and New Zealand5.

Biology of the pest: 

Leaves, canes, pollen and stems are affected by Pseudomonas syringae pv. actinidiae. It 

is not known to be seed transmitted. The pathogen may exist as a resident on the surface 

of mature fruit, but it is improbable that it would survive to infect seed or seedlings. 
Symptoms appear on trunks, leaders and overwintering canes from late winter to early 

spring as cankers or angular necrotic leaf spots, longitudinal cracks along the petiole, 

oozing and wilting of branches. 

Rusty-brown bacterial ooze exudes from lesions and from apparently healthy buds, leaf 

scars, lenticels and joints of trunks, leaders and canes. Brown water-soaked lesions with 

halos appear on leaves, and wilt or blight of vigorous canes and flower buds appear in 

late spring. Leaves of the kiwi plant are most susceptible to the pathogen just before 

maturity. Relatively low temperatures (50° – 68 °F; optimum 59 °± 37.4 ° F), strong 

winds and heavy rainfall appear to promote the disease. 

Damage potential of pest: 

P. syringae pv. actinidiae is present in infected plant material and is thought to be 

introduced into new regions in nursery material. The pathogen can be dispersed in 

aerosols and can be carried between trees and adjacent orchards in wind-driven rain. As a 

wound-infecting pathogen, it can also be transmitted on orchard equipment such as 

pruning tools. 

Bacterial canker of kiwifruit was first observed in Japan1, 2 and Korea2 causing damage in 

Actinidia spp. orchards. In 1992 the disease was first noticed in northern Italy4

 where it 

remained sporadic for 15 years (until 2007/2008) when it began causing economic 

losses4; it is estimated that the economic losses (including impact on trade) due to P. 

syringae pv. actinidiae have reached 2 million Euros4. 

Known host range: 

 Actinidia spp. 

Action under NAPPRA: 

The importation of Actinidia spp. plants for planting, except seed but including cut 

flowers and greenery, a host of the Pseudomonas syringae pv. actinidiae, is not 

authorized pending a pest risk analysis (NAPPRA) from the all countries. 

 

Literature cited: 

1. Serizawa S, Ichikawa T, Takikawa Y, Tsuyumu S, Goto M, 1989. Occurrence of 

bacterial canker of kiwifruit in Japan: description of symptoms, isolation of the pathogen 

and screening of bactericides. Annals of the Phytopathological Society of Japan, 55:427-

436. 

2. Takikawa Y, Serizawa S, Ichikawa T, Tsuyumu S, Goto M., 1989. Pseudomonas 

syringae pv. actinidiae pv. nov.: the causal bacterium of canker of kiwifruit in Japan. 

Annals of the Phytopathological Society of Japan 55:437-444. 
3. Jeong, Ho, et al., 2008. Incidences of Leaf Spots and Blights on Kiwifruit in Korea. The 

Korean Society of Plant Pathology, 24:124-130. 

4. Scortichini M, 1994. Occurrence of Pseudomonas syringae pv. actinidiae on kiwifruit in 

Italy. Plant Pathology, 43:1035-1038. 

5. MAFBNZ. 2010. MAF confirms positive test for kiwifruit vine bacteria Psa. Ministry of 

Agriculture and Forestry Biosecurity New Zealand (MAFBNZ). November 8, 2010. 

Accessed November 10, 2010, at http://www.biosecurity.govt.nz/media/8-11-

10/positive-test-kiwifruit-vine-bacteria-Psa. 
United States Department of Agriculture 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 

Plant Protection and Quarantine 

Plants for Planting Quarantine Pest Evaluation Data Sheet 

August 20, 2012 

In order to prevent the introduction of quarantine pests into the United States, § 319.37-2a allows 

the APHIS Administrator to designate the importation of certain taxa of plants for planting as not 

authorized pending pest risk analysis (NAPPRA). APHIS has determined that the following 

plant taxa should be added to the NAPPRA category. In accordance with paragraph (b)(1) of 

that section, this data sheet details the scientific evidence APHIS evaluated in making the 

determination that the taxa are hosts of a quarantine pest. 

Quarantine Pest: Pseudomonas syringae pv. aesculi

Hosts: Aesculus spp.

Status: This pest and host were regulated under a Federal Order DA-2010-02 dated January 7, 

2010. 

__________________________________________________________________________ 

Taxonomy and description of the pest:

 

Pseudomonas syringae pv. aesculi (PSA) is the causal organism of the disease bleeding 

canker of horse chestnut. PSA is a pathovar within the diverse bacterial species 

Pseudomonas syringae and is only known to infect Aesculus spp. in the environment. 

The symptoms greatly resemble Phytophthora infection, leading to the misidentification 

of the causal organism of this disease until recent research positively identified it as P. 

syringae pv. aesculi.2

Known distribution: 

 The Netherlands, United Kingdom, Belgium, France, Germany, and India1

This pathogen is not known to occur in the United States. 
Biology of the pest: 

The earliest symptoms of infection are bleeding lesions that can range from red to yellow 

or black. The lesions are usually located at the base of the tree expanding upward to 

branches and stems as the infection spreads. In dry conditions there may be a crust 

present near the exit wound. The tree crown may show leaf yellowing and early leaf drop. 

Girdling of the trunk or branch is possible within a few years. If bark is removed an 

orange-brown mottling may be present1

. Bark may be cracked or missing2. 

PSA has been successfully isolated from the surfaces of horse chestnut leaves, branches, 

flowers, and parts of the fruit1. Like other bacterial plant pathogens, spread of the 

organism is likely to be by rain and wind as well as insects visiting the bleeding cankers 

and human activity such as pruning. 

Seed transmission is not known for this pathogen. 

Damage potential of pest: 

Recent surveys have estimated that in the United Kingdom 35-50,000 horse chestnut 

trees (approximately 49 percent of the trees surveyed in 2007) are infected with this 

pathogen3

 and in the Netherlands 30 percent of horse chestnut trees are infected1. In 

Europe this disease is extremely damaging to the commonly planted A. hippocastanum 

and A. xcarnea

4

, although apparently the disease is found on all species of Aesculus in 

the Netherlands. Trees of all sizes and ages are affected. Young trees (10-30 years old) 

are apparently more susceptible with some dying within 3-5 years after symptom 

development4

. Research is underway on the susceptibility of other Aesculus species, with 

the ultimate aim of finding possible sources of resistance1. Several species of Aesculus

are native to the United States5

 and A. hippocastanum is a widely planted ornamental 

tree. If these species prove to be susceptible, then the potential environmental and 

economic damage due to this pest would be significant. 

Known host range: 

 Aesculus spp.

1

 

Action under NAPPRA: 

The importation of Aesculus spp. plants for planting , excluding seed but including cut 

flowers and greenery, a host of Pseudomonas syringae pv. aesculi, is not authorized 

pending a pest risk analysis (NAPPRA) from all countries except Canada.
Literature cited: 

1. EPPO. 2009. EPPO Alert List: Pseudomonas syringae pv. aesculi. European and 

Mediterranean Plant Protect Organization. Accessed February 16, 2011 at: 

http://www.eppo.org/QUARANTINE/Alert_List/bacteria/Pseudomonas_s_aesculi.htm

2. Mabbett, T. 2007. Bacterial bleeding canker beyond doubt. Forestry & British Timber 

36:16-23. 

3. Forestry Commission – United Kingdom. 2008. Report on the national survey to assess 

the presence of bleeding canker of horse chestnut trees in Great Britain. Forestry 

Commission, Plant Health Service. Accessed February 14, 2011 at: 

http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/bleedcankersurveyrep020408.pdf/$FILE/bleedcankersurv

eyrep020408.pdf 

4. Forest Research – United Kingdom. Extent of bleed canker of horse chestnut problem. 

Forestry Commission. Accessed February 14, 2011 at: 

http://www.forestry.gov.uk/fr/INFD-6KYBN2 

5. USDA, National Resources Conservation Service. Plants Database for Aesculus spp. 

Natural Resources Conservation Service. Accessed February 16, 2011 at: 

http://plants.usda.gov/java/nameSearch?keywordquery=Aesculus&mode=sciname&subm

it.x=7&submit.y=5 
United States Department of Agriculture 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 

Plant Protection and Quarantine 

Plants for Planting Quarantine Pest Evaluation Data Sheet 

August 20, 2012 

In order to prevent the introduction of quarantine pests into the United States, § 319.37-2a allows 

the APHIS Administrator to designate the importation of certain taxa of plants for planting as not 

authorized pending pest risk analysis (NAPPRA). APHIS has determined that the following 

plant taxa should be added to the NAPPRA category. In accordance with paragraph (b)(1) of 

that section, this data sheet details the scientific evidence APHIS evaluated in making the 

determination that the taxa are hosts of a quarantine pest. 

Quarantine Pest: Rhynchophorus ferrugineus

Hosts: See Known host range below 

Status: This pest and these hosts were regulated under a Federal Order DA-2010-04 dated 

January 25, 2010. 

__________________________________________________________________________ 

Taxonomy and description of the pest:

 

Rhynchophorus ferrugineus Olivier (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) 

Common names: Red palm weevil, Asian palm weevil 

Known distribution: 

Rhynchophorus ferrugineus is native to tropical Asia, ranging from Pakistan through 

Southeast Asia to Melanesia1

. R. ferrugineus has also been reported from Algeria1, 

Cyprus2, Egypt1, France3, Greece4, Italy5, Iraq, Iran1, Morocco6, Portugal7, Spain1, Syria8, 

Turkey9

, United Arab Emirates1. 

Within the United States it is known only to occur in Orange County, California where it 

is currently under official control. 

 
Biology of the pest: 

The life cycle of Rhynchophorus ferrugineus ranges from 45-139 days, depending on the 

climate, which allows for several generations in a year9

. The female lays eggs in wounds 

or soft tissue of the plant and after hatching the larvae burrow into the stem creating large 

galleries that eventually weaken and destabilize the tree. The damage caused by the 

larvae is only visible long after infestation, and by the time the first symptoms of the 

attack appear, they are so serious that they generally result in the death of the tree. The 

rapid spread of this insect is attributed to the nursery trade, specifically that of mature 

palms and offshoots. Infestation by this stem borer is difficult to detect in the early 

stages and damage only becomes visible long after infestation10. There is no indication 

thus far that seeds are a pathway for infestation. 

Damage potential of pest: 

Rhynchophorus ferrugineus is a polyphagous weevil with the potential to be a serious 

pest in any area where palms are widely grown. Date palm populations have been 

particularly hard hit by this pest, with some considering it to be the most important pest 

of date palms in the world11. 

Control: 

The most-widely used and effective means of reducing infestation is the chemical or 

mechanical killing of affected trees coupled with the trapping of adults using pheromone 

and/or appropriate plant material. Other control measures include treatments to save 

infested palms through the use of systemic insecticides injected into and around trees11. 

However, additional research is necessary to determine their effectiveness. 

Known host range: 

Areca spp, Arenga spp, Borassus spp

 1, Brahea spp 5

, Butia spp., Calamus12, Caryota 

spp., Chamaerops (synonym Trachycarpus), Cocos spp, Corypha spp, Corypha spp., 

Elaeis spp.

 1, Livistona spp. 13, Metroxylon spp. 1, Oncosperma spp. 11, Roystonia spp. 

(synonym Oreodoxa spp.), Phoenix spp., Chamaerops spp.

1 

Action under NAPPRA: 

The importation of the following plants for planting, except seed, that are hosts of R.

ferrugineus, is not authorized pending a pest risk analysis (NAPPRA) from all 

countries: 

Brahea, Butia, Calamus, Euterpe, Manicaria, Metroxylon, Oncosperma, 

Roystonea (synonym Oreodoxa) 

The importation of the following plants for planting genera that are hosts of R.

ferrugineus is currently regulated under either 7 CFR 319.15 or 7CFR 319.37 and these 
genera are therefore not included, at this time, as potential candidates for listing on 

NAPPRA: 

Areca, Arenga, Borassus, Caryota, Chamaerops (synonym Trachycarpus), 

Cocos, Corypha, Elaeis, Livistona, Phoenix, 

Literature cited: 

1. Esteban-Duran, J., Yeta, J.L.. Beitia-Crespo, F. and Jimenez-Alavarez, A. 1998. 

Curculionidos exoticos susceptibles de ser introducidos en Espana y otros paises de la 

Union Europea a traves de vegetales importados (Coleoptera: Curculionida: 

Rhynchophorinae). Boletin de Sanidad Vegetal Plagas, 24: 23-40, 1998. 

2. EPPO. 2007. First report of Rhynchophorus ferrugineus in Cyprus (2007/022). EPPO 

Reporting Service, 2, 1-23. Paris: European and Mediterranean Plant Protection 

Organization. Accessed May 3, 2011. http://archives.eppo.org/EPPOReporting/2007/Rse0702.pdf 

3. EPPO. 2006. First record of Rhynchophorus ferrugineus in France (2006/225). EPPO 

Reporting Service, 11, 1-25. Paris: European and Mediterranean Plant Protection 

Organization. Accessed May 3, 2011. http://archives.eppo.org/EPPOReporting/2006/Rse0611.pdf 

4. EPPO. 2006. First report of Rhynchophorus ferrugineus in Greece (2006/226). EPPO 

Reporting Service, 11, 1-25. Paris: European and Mediterranean Plant Protection 

Organization. Accessed May 3, 2011. http://archives.eppo.org/EPPOReporting/2006/Rse0611.pdf 

5. EPPO 2008. Rhynchophorus ferrugineus detected on new palm species in Italy 

(2008/023). EPPO Reporting Service, 2, 2. Paris: European and Mediterranean Plant 

Protection Organization. Accessed May 3, 2011. 

http://archives.eppo.org/EPPOReporting/2008/Rse-0802.pdf 

6. EPPO. 2008. First record of Rhynchophorus ferrugineus in Morocco (2009/001). EPPO 

Reporting Service, 1, 2. European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization. 

Accessed May 3, 2011. http://archives.eppo.org/EPPOReporting/2008/Rse-0802.pdf 

7. EPPO. 2008. First report of Rhynchophorus ferrugineus in Portugal (2008/022). EPPO 

Reporting Service, 2, 2. Paris: European and Mediterranean Plant Protection 

Organization. Accessed May 3, 2011. http://archives.eppo.org/EPPOReporting/2008/Rse0802.pdf 

8. EPPO. 2007. First report of Rhynchophorus ferrugineus in Syria (2007/002). EPPO 

Reporting Service, 1, 1-29. Paris: European and Mediterranean Plant Protection 

Organization. Accessed May 3, 2011. http://archives.eppo.org/EPPOReporting/2007/Rse0701.pdf 
9. EPPO. 2007. First report of Rhynchophorus ferrugineus in Turkey (2007/001). EPPO 

Reporting Service, 1, 1-29. Paris: European and Mediterranean Plant Protection 

Organization. Accessed May 3, 2011. http://archives.eppo.org/EPPOReporting/2007/Rse0701.pdf 

10. Esteban, J.R., Yela, J.L., .Jimenez, A and Beitia, F. 1998. Biologia del curculionido 

ferruginoso de las palmeras Rhynchophorus ferrugineus (Olivier) en laboratorio y 

campo: ciclo en cautividad, peculiaridades biologicas en su zona de introduccion en 

Espana y metodos biologicos de deteccion y possible control (Coleoptera: Curculionida: 

Rhynchoprhorinae). Boletin de Sanidad Vegetal Plagas, 24: 737-748. 

11. Murphy, S. T. and Briscoe, B.R. 1999. The red palm weevil as an alien invasive: 

biology and the prospects for biological control as a component of IPM. Biocontrol 

20: 35N-46N. 

12. Braza, R.D. 1988. Asiatic palm weevil destroys rattan, too. Canopy International. MayJune 1988: 6. 

13. Barranco, P., Pena, J.A. de la, Martin, M.M., Cabello, T. 2000. Rango de hospedantes de 

Rhynchophorus ferrugineus (Olivier, 1790) (Coleoptera, Curculionidae) y diametro de la 

palmera hospedante. Boletin de Sanidad Vegetal Plagas, 26:73-78. 
United States Department of Agriculture 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 

Plant Protection and Quarantine 

Plants for Planting Quarantine Pest Evaluation Data Sheet 

August 20, 2012 

In order to prevent the introduction of quarantine pests into the United States, § 319.37-2a allows 

the APHIS Administrator to designate the importation of certain taxa of plants for planting as not 

authorized pending pest risk analysis (NAPPRA). APHIS has determined that the following 

plant taxa should be added to the NAPPRA category. In accordance with paragraph (b)(1) of 

that section, this data sheet details the scientific evidence APHIS evaluated in making the 

determination that the taxa are hosts of a quarantine pest. 

Quarantine Pest: Rhynchophorus palmarum 

Hosts: See Known host range below 

Status: This pest and most of these hosts were originally regulated under a Federal Order DA2010-04 dated January 25, 2010.

__________________________________________________________________________ 

Taxonomy and description of the pest:

 

Rhynchophorus palmarum (Linnaeus, 1758) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) 

 Synonyms: Rhynchoporus.cycadia, R. depressus, R. longuinossis, Calandra palmarum 

 Common names: Giant palm weevil, South American palm weevil 

Known distribution: 

Rhynchophorus palmarum is widespread in tropical America, from Mexico through 

Central America and into South America1

. 

This weevil has been intercepted in the United States in San Diego County, California 

where emergency action was taken and this pest is now under consideration for official 

control. 

Biology of the pest: 

The complete life cycle of Rhynchophorus palmarum ranges from 4 to 6 months, 

depending on the climate, which allows for more than one generation in a year2

. The 
female lays eggs in wounds or soft tissue of the plant and after hatching the larvae burrow 

into the stem creating large galleries that eventually weaken and destabilize the tree. The 

damage caused by the larvae is usually only visible long after infestation, and by the time 

the first symptoms appear, they are so serious that they generally result in the death of the 

tree3. R. palmarum is also the main vector of the plant-parasitic nematode 

Bursaphelenchus cocophilus4,5. The rapid spread of this insect is attributed to the nursery 

trade, specifically that of mature palms and offshoots. Infestation by this stem borer is 

difficult to detect in the early stages and damage only becomes visible long after 

infestation3

. 

Damage potential of pest: 

Rhynchophorus palmarum is considered to be one of the most important pests on 

commercial palm plantations. Native to Neotropical forests this weevil is a serious pest 

affecting palm plantations and ornamental palms throughout Central and South 

America1,3. Aside from the direct damage that this pest poses to palms it is also the main 

vector of Bursaphelenchus cocophilus, commonly known as the red ring nematode4,5. 

Control: 

The most-widely used and effective means of reducing infestation is the chemical or 

mechanical killing of affected trees coupled with the trapping of adults using pheromone 

and/or appropriate plant material. Other control measures include treatments to save 

infested palms through the use of systemic insecticides injected into and around trees11. 

However, additional research is necessary to determine their effectiveness. 

Known host range: 

Acrocomia spp.

1

, Attalea spp.

 1, Bactris spp. 1, Dypsis spp. 1 (synonym Chrysalidocarpus

lutescens), Cocos spp.

1

, Desmoncus spp.

 1, Elaeis spp. 1, Euterpe spp. 1, Manicaria spp. 1, 

Metroxylon spp. 1, Phoenix spp.

 1, Roystonea spp. (synonym Oreodoxa) 1, Sabal spp. 1, 

Syagrus spp.

 1, Washingtonia spp. 1 and the only non-palm main host, Saccharum spp.1,2. 

Action under NAPPRA: 

The importation of the following plants for planting, except seed, that are hosts of R. 

palmarum, is not authorized pending a pest risk analysis (NAPPRA) from all countries: 

Acrocomia, Attalea, Bactris, Desmoncus, Euterpe, Manicaria, Metroxylon, 

Roystonea (synonym Oreodoxa), Sabal, Syagrus, Washingtonia 

The importation of the following plants for planting genera that are hosts of R. palmarum

is currently regulated under either 7 CFR 319.15 or 7CFR 319.37 and these genera are 

therefore not included, at this time, for listing on NAPPRA: 

Dypsis (synonym Chrysalidocarpus), Cocos, Elaeis, Phoenix, Saccharum 
Literature cited: 

1. Esteban-Duran, J., Yeta, J.L.. Beitia-Crespo, F. and Jimenez-Alavarez, A. 1998. 

Curculionidos exoticos susceptibles de ser introducidos en Espana y otros paises de la 

Union Europea a traves de vegetales importados (Coleoptera: Curculionida: 

Rhynchophorinae). Boletin de Sanidad Vegetal Plagas, 24: 23-40. 

2. Restrepo, L.G., Rivera, F.R. and J. B. Raigosa. 1982. Ciclo de vida, habitos, y 

morfometria de Metamasius hemiptera Olivier y Rhynchophorus palmarum L. 

(Coleoptera: Curculionidae) en cana de azucar. Acta Agron. 32(1/4): 33-44. 

3. EPPO. 2005. Data sheets on quarantine pests: Rhynchophorus palmarum. EPPO 

Bulletin, 35, 468-471. European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization. 

http://www.eppo.org/QUARANTINE/insects/Rhynchophorus_palmaru 

m/DS_Rhynchophorus_palmarum.pdf. 

4. Oehlschlager, A. C., Chinchilla, C., Castillo, G., & Gonzalez, L. 2002. Control of Red 

Ring Disease by Mass Trapping of Rhynchophorus palmarum (Coleoptera: 

Curculionidae). Florida Entomologist, 85: 507-513. 

5. Hagley, E.A.C. 1962. The palm weevil, Rhynchophorus palmarum L., a probable vector 

of red ring disease of coconuts. Nature, 4814: 499. 
United States Department of Agriculture 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 

Plant Protection and Quarantine 

Plants for Planting Quarantine Pest Evaluation Data Sheet 

August 20, 2012 

In order to prevent the introduction of quarantine pests into the United States, § 319.37-2a allows 

the APHIS Administrator to designate the importation of certain taxa of plants for planting as not 

authorized pending pest risk analysis (NAPPRA). APHIS has determined that the following 

plant taxa should be added to the NAPPRA category. In accordance with paragraph (b)(1) of 

that section, this data sheet details the scientific evidence APHIS evaluated in making the 

determination that the taxa are hosts of a quarantine pest. 

Quarantine Pest: Tomato severe leaf curl virus (ToSLCV) 

Hosts: Solanum spp. (including syn. Lycopersicon spp.), Capsicum spp.

Status: This pest and these hosts were originally regulated under a Federal Order DA-2009-20 

dated May 5, 2009. 

__________________________________________________________________________ 

Taxonomy and description of the pest:

 

Tomato, Solanum lycopersicum (syn. Lycopersicon esculentum), and pepper, Capsicum

spp., are prone to a large number of begomoviruses (Geminiviridae) and other virus and 

virus-like diseases, many of which are quarantine pests. The begomoviruses, the group to 

which Tomato severe leaf curl virus (ToSLCV) belongs, are major constraints to 

vegetable production1

. 

Known distribution: 

ToSLCV has been reported from Guatemala, Nicaragua, Honduras2

, and Mexico3. 

ToSLCV is not known to occur in the United States 

 

Biology of the pest: 

Symptoms of ToSLCV include stunting, severe mosaic, yellowing, curling, distortion and 

deformation of leaves. ToSLCV and the other begomoviruses are transmitted between 

plants by whiteflies. After acquisition by the whitefly vector, the begomoviruses are 

persistent in the whitefly and retained for anywhere from a few weeks through the life of 

the vector6

. The virus can therefore be transmitted to a large number of hosts. 
Plant pathogens, including viruses and viroids are extremely difficult to detect during a 

port of entry inspection of the host plants, particularly in the absence of symptoms.

ToSLCV infects the entire plant, but is not known to be seed transmitted. 

Damage potential of pest:

In Nicaragua, all tomato plants sampled in a field survey were infected with 

begomoviruses with ToSLCV present in most of the samples1. A similar begomovirus, 

tomato mottle virus, introduced into Florida caused an epidemic of severe proportions4

. 

The threat of introduction of one or more of these viruses lead APHIS to develop the 

New Pest Response Guideline: Whitefly-borne Geminiviruses (Family Geminiviridae)5

. 

Known host range: 

 Lycopersicon1,2,3 and Capsicum1

.

Action under NAPPRA: 

The importation of the following plants for planting genera, except seed, but including 

cut flowers and greenery, that are hosts of ToSLCV, is not authorized pending a pest risk 

analysis (NAPPRA) from all countries except Canada: 

Solanum spp. (including Lycopersicon), Capsicum spp. 

Literature cited: 

1. Ala-Poikela, M., Svensson, E., Rojas, A., Horko, T., Paulin, L., Valkoned, J. P. T., & 

Kvarnheden, A. 2005. Genetic diversity and mixed infections of begomoviruses 

infecting tomato, pepper and cucurbit crops in Nicaragua. Plant Pathology 54:448-459. 

2. Maxwell, P., Nakhla, M. K., & Maxwell, M. D. 2002. Diversity of begomoviruses 

and their management in Latin America. Phytopathology 92:S127. 

3. Mauricio-Castillo, J. A., Arguello-Astorga, G. R., & Alpuche-Solis, A. G. 2006. First 

report of Tomato Severe leaf curl in Mexico. Plant Disease 90:1116. 

4. Polston, J. E., Hiebert, E., McGovern, R. J., Stansly, P. A., & Schuster, D. J. 1993. 

Host range of tomato mottle virus, a new geminivirus infecting tomato in Florida. Plant 

Disease 77:1181-1184. 

5. USDA-APHIS. 1996. New Pest Response Guideline: Whitefly-borne Geminiviruses 

(Family Geminiviridae). Last accessed August 19, 2008. 

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/import_export/plants/manuals/emergency/downloads/gemini.

pdf. 
6. Jones, D. R. 2003. Plant viruses transmitted by whiteflies. European Journal of Plant 

Pathology 109:195-219. 
United States Department of Agriculture 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 

Plant Protection and Quarantine 

Plants for Planting Quarantine Pest Evaluation Data Sheet 

August 20, 2012 

In order to prevent the introduction of quarantine pests into the United States, § 319.37-2a allows 

the APHIS Administrator to designate the importation of certain taxa of plants for planting as not 

authorized pending pest risk analysis (NAPPRA). APHIS has determined that the following 

plant taxa should be added to the NAPPRA category. In accordance with paragraph (b)(1) of 

that section, this data sheet details the scientific evidence APHIS evaluated in making the 

determination that the taxa are hosts of a quarantine pest. 

Quarantine Pest: Tomato torrado virus (ToTV) 

Hosts: Solanum (including Lycopersicon), Amaranthus, Atriplex, Chenopodium, Halogeton,

Lepidium (synonyms Senebiera, Coronopus), Malva, Polygonum, Nicotiana and 

Spergularia

Status: This pest and these hosts were originally regulated under a Federal Order DA-2009-20 

dated May 5, 2009. 

__________________________________________________________________________ 

Taxonomy and description of the pest:

 

Tomato, Solanum lycopersicum, is prone to a large number of potential quarantine virus 

pathogens, including the many forms of Tomato yellow leaf curl virus, Tomato zonate 

spot virus, Tomato fruit yellow ring virus, Tomato curly stunt virus, and Tomato 

Marchitez virus. ToTV belongs a new picorna-like group of plant viruses. 

Known distribution: 

Canary Islands, Spain1 and Poland4

. Tomato marchitez virus (ToMarV), a closely related 

viral pathogen of tomato, occurs in Mexico5

. 

This virus is not known to occur in the United States. 
Biology of the pest: 

Tomato torrado virus was observed since 2001 in the region of Murcia, Spain, although 

not identified and reported until 20071,3. A similar disease was observed in Poland in 

2003 and identified and reported as ToTV in 20074

. ToTV was also reported from the 

Canary Islands in 20071. ToTV is not known to occur in the United States. A closely 

related viral pathogen of tomato, Tomato marchitez virus (ToMarV), occurs in Mexico5

. 

The host plants listed include environmental and greenhouse weeds that serve as alternate 

hosts for ToTV and act as virus reservoirs2

. Preliminary experiments indicate the 

involvement of whiteflies as a vector of ToTV3,6. 

Virus diseases and their causal agents are extremely difficult to detect during a port of 

entry inspection of the host plants especially in the absence of symptoms. 

ToTV infects the entire plant but is not known to be seed transmitted. 

Damage potential of the pest:

Infected plants exhibit very distinct necrotic, almost burn-like symptoms on leaves and 

stems and necrotic blotches or patterns on fruit which become deformed and 

unmarketable. Plant growth and yields are seriously reduced2

. 

Known host range: 

Solanum (including Lycopersicon)1,2, Amaranthus, Atriplex, Chenopodium, Halogeton 

(synonym Halogetum), Lepidium (synonyms Senebiera, Coronopus), Malva, Nicotiana, 

Polygonum, and Spergularia2. 

Action under NAPPRA: 

The importation of the following plants for planting genera, except seed, but including 

cut flowers and greenery, that are hosts of ToTV, is not authorized pending a pest risk 

analysis (NAPPRA) from all countries except Canada: 

Amaranthus, Atriplex, Chenopodium, Halogetum, Lepidium (synonyms Senebiera, 

Coronopus), Malva, Nicotiana, Polygonum, Solanum (including Lycopersicon), 

Spergularia. 

Literature cited: 

1. Alfaro-Fernández, A., Córdoba-Sellés, C., Cebrián, M. C., Sánchez-Navarro, J. A., 

Espino, A., Martín, R., & Jorda, C. 2007. First report of tomato torrado virus in tomato 

in the Canary Islands, Spain. Plant Disease 91:1060. 

2. Alfaro-Fernández, A., Córdoba-Sellés, C., Cebrián, M. C., & Herrera-Vásquez, J. A. 
2008. First report of tomato torrado virus on weed hosts in Spain. Plant Disease 92:831. 

3. Verbeek, M., Dullemans, A. M., van den Heuvel, J. F. J. M., Maris, P. C. & van der 

Vlugt, R. A. A. 2008. Tomato marchitez virus, a new plant picorna-like virus from 

tomato related to tomato torrado virus. Arch. Virol. 153:127-134. 

4. Pospieszny, H., Borodynko, N., Obrepalska-Steplowska, A. & Hasiów, B. 2007. The 

first report of tomato torrado virus in Poland. Plant Disease 91:1364. 

5. Verbeek, M., Dullemans, A. M., van den Heuvel, J. F. J. M., Maris, P. C. & van der 

Vlugt, R. A. A. 2007. Identification and characterisation of tomato torrado virus, a new 

plant picorna-like virus from tomato. Arch. Virol. 152:881-890. 

6. Amari, K., Gonzalez-Ibeas, D., Gómez, P., Sempere, R. N., Sanchez-Pina, M. A., 

Aranda, M. A., et al. 2008. Tomato torrado virus is Transmitted by Bemisia tabaci and 

infects pepper and eggplant in addition to tomato. Plant Disease 92:1139. 
United States Department of Agriculture 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 

Plant Protection and Quarantine 

Plants for Planting Quarantine Pest Evaluation Data Sheet 

August 20, 2012 

In order to prevent the introduction of quarantine pests into the United States, § 319.37-2a allows 

the APHIS Administrator to designate the importation of certain taxa of plants for planting as not 

authorized pending pest risk analysis (NAPPRA). APHIS has determined that the following 

plant taxa should be added to the NAPPRA category. In accordance with paragraph (b)(1) of 

that section, this data sheet details the scientific evidence APHIS evaluated in making the 

determination that the taxa are hosts of a quarantine pest. 

Quarantine Pest: Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. punicae 

Hosts: Punica spp.1

__________________________________________________________________________ 

Taxonomy and description of the pest: 

 Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. punica (Hingorani & Singh 1959)1

 Common name – bacterial blight of pomegranate1

.

 

Known distribution: 

India, Pakistan, South Africa1. 

This bacterial pathogen is not known to occur in the United States. 

Biology of the pest: 

Certain environmental factors such as increased temperature, rain, and low humidity 

facilitate the spread of the disease. Insects, rain splash, and the use of contaminated 

pruning tools are additional ways that the bacteria can be spread2

. Early signs of 

infection are water-soaked translucent irregular to circular minute spots on the leaves of 

the plant. The spots then become necrotic, turning dark brown, and in some cases 

coalesce and form large patches that cause the leaves to shed2

. The bacterium causes 

branch, stem, and nodal cankers as well as fruit blemishes. Immature fruit burst as a 

result of bacterial infection, because the pericarp tissues cannot expand during fruit 
expansion1

. 

Damage potential of the pest:

Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. punicae is the causal agent of serious blight disease of 

pomegranate2. This bacterial pathogen has been recorded as attacking the above ground 

parts of the plant, including branches, fruits, leaves, nodes, pericarps, and stems, entering 

the plant via wounds1,2. Production losses of 50 to 100% can occur as a result of the 

blight, depending on the severity of the disease2

. In India, pomegranate production is 

described as being seriously hampered by the bacterium1

. 

Known host range: 

Punica spp.

1

Action under NAPPRA: 

The importation of Punica spp. plants for planting, except seed but including cut flowers 

and greenery, a host of Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. punicae, is not authorized pending a 

pest risk analysis (NAPPRA) from all countries.

Literature cited: 

1. Peterson, Y., Mansvelt, E.L., Venter, E., & Langenhoven, W.E. 2010. Detection of 

Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. punicae causing bacterial blight on pomegranate in South 

Africa. Australasian Plant Pathology, 39, 544-546. 

2. Siddique, A.M., & Cook, D.C. 2010. Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. punicae. Pathogen 

of the month-January 2010. Australasian Plant Pathology Society. Accessed June 16, 

2011 at: 

http://www.australasianplantpathologysociety.org.au/Publications/POTM/Jan10%20POT

M.pdf