United States Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Plant Protection and Quarantine

In order to prevent the introduc tion of quarantine pests into th e United States, § 319.37-2a allows the APHIS Administrator to designate the importati on of certain taxa of plants for planting as not authorized pending pest risk an alysis (NAPPRA). APHIS has determined that the following plant taxa should be added to the NAPPRA cate gory. In accordance with paragraph (b)(1) of that section, APHIS has produced data sheets which detail th e 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 corres ponding 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 ZiziphusBursaphelenchus 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

ManicariaR. 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

PunicaUnited 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 introduc tion of quarantine pests into th e United States, § 319.37-2a allows the APHIS Administrator to designate the importati on of certain taxa of plants for planting as not authorized pending pest risk an alysis (NAPPRA). APHIS has determined that the following plant taxa should be added to the NAPPRA cate gory. 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 ar e 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 l onghorned beetle (CLB)

Known distribution:

Afghanistan 21 , China 1,4 , Croatia 14 , European Union 1,3,4,8-18 , Japan 1, , Indonesia 1,4, , Republic

of Korea 1,4 , Korea Democratic People's Republic 1,4 , Madagascar 3 , Malaysia 4

, Myanmar 3,4 , Philippines 1,4 , Taiwan 1, , and Vietnam 1,4

.

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

shrubs 2, 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 environment 2,4,11 . The larvae feed on the pith and vascular tissue of the trunk and roots. In addition, adu lts feed on leaves, petioles and bark. Pupation occurs within the larval t unnels. 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 th e root collar. Infested plants for planting that have cleared port of entry inspection have b een 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 years 6 depending on host and environment 11

.

Damage potential of pest:

A. chinensis is a destructive wood boring pest atta cking over 75 host genera, including many economically important fruit, fo rest, and ornamental plant species 3 . The larval feeding tunnels increase the plant's suscepti bility to disease and wind damage and reduce efficient water and nutrient transportation, which may result in reduced fruit production and/or premature tree death 5 . In addition, adults feed on leaves, petioles and bark.

The most likely pathway for in troduction and establishment of A. chinensis is in woody plants for planting, including dwarfed pl ants and in wood packing material via

international trade 3

.

Control:

Foliar insecticides are effective at controlling adult A. chinensis

, but have little effect on the wood boring larvae and pupae 4, 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 pupa l stages are to chip or burn potentially infested trees and

to use foliar insecticides for adults 4 . Systemic insecticides (soil drench or injected) may

be used as an eradication tool for larv ae 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 s pp. 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 pl anting genera, excluding seed, that are hosts

of A. chinensis , is not authorized pending a pest risk anal ysis (NAPPRA) from all countries, except Canada:

Acacia, Aesculus, Alnus, Betula, Br oussonetia, 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), Pl atanus, 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 pl anting genera, excluding seed, that are hosts

of A. chinensis , is not authorized pending a pest risk anal ysis (NAPPRA) from all countries, except those liste d after the plant genus:

Acer Canada, Netherlands, New Zealand Albizia Canada, Israel Aralia Canada, Costa Ri ca, 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, Co sta 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, NetherlandsRhododendron 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 fo r planting genera th at are hosts of A. chinensis is currently regulated under either 7 CF R 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 Anoplop hora (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae). The Entomological Societ y of Washington, Wa shington, 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: Coleopte ra: Cerambycidae) (EENY357), University of Florida, Institute of Food and agriculture Scien ce. 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/insect s/Anoplophora_chinensis/ANOLCN_ds.pd fhttp://www.eppo.org/QUARANTINE/insect s/Anoplophora_chinensis/ANOCN_ds.pdf

7. Haack, R.A., F. Herard, J.H. Sun, J.J. Tu rgeon. 2010. Managing Invasive Populations of Asian Longhorned Beetle: A Worldwide Perspective. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 55:521-

46.8. Pest Report – The Netherla nds. 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 Ma rch 12, 2010 (web page no longer available)

10. Pest Report – The Netherlands. Sept ember 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/pes t-risk-analysis/evaluation-of-pestrisks

12. Factsheet – The Netherlands. Februa ry 2, 2009. Citrus longhorned beetle ( Anoplophora chinensis ) Measures regarding buffer z one Boskoop. . Plant Protection

Service of the Netherlands. Accesse d 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/E PPOReporting/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/E PPOReporting/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/E PPOReporting/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/E PPOReporting/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/E PPOReporting/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/E PPOReporting/2010/Rse-1007.pdf19. 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 Intercepti on and Outbreak Chart. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affa irs, /accessed August 29, 2008 at http://www.defra.gov.uk/plan th/interc/intercold.htm.

21. Tavakilian, G. 2006. Catalogue of Life: 2008 Annual Checklist (Cerambycidae database). Anoplophora chinensis. Species 2000. Accessed on May 3, 2011, athttp://www.catalogueoflife.org/annualchecklist/2008/show_species _details.php?r ecord_id=3920472

22. USDA, Agriculture Research Service, National Genetic Resources Program. Germplasm Resources Information Networ k (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.plUnited 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 introduc tion of quarantine pests into th e United States, § 319.37-2a allows the APHIS Administrator to designate the importati on of certain taxa of plants for planting as not authorized pending pest risk an alysis (NAPPRA). APHIS has determined that the following plant taxa should be added to the NAPPRA cate gory. 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 ar e hosts of a quarantine pest.

Quarantine Pest: Bursaphelenchus cocophilus

Hosts: See known host range below

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

__________________________________________________________________________

Taxonomy and description of the pest:

Bursaphelenchus cocophilus (Cobb, Goodey) Baujard (Aphele nchida: 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 America 1

.

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) ingest s as a larva while feeding on nematode-infested palms, and transmits as an adult weevil during oviposition 2 . The most characteristic symptom ofinfection is a reddish, concen tric band of discolored ti ssue in the stem. External symptoms include a drop in fruit producti on, yellowing and senescence of fronds and “little leaf syndrome” where fronds are stun ted in growth though they vary widely depending on host species, age, cultivar and environmental conditions 1 . This variability in symptoms and the inability to detect the “red ring” wit hout destroying the plant make identification of early infection difficult. Lo cal movement of the ne matode occurs by its weevil vector but wider dissemination can only o ccur by the transport of infested palms.

Damage potential of pest:

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

losses 3 . 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 palms 4

.

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 plan ting genera, except seed, that are hosts of Bursaphelenchus cocophilus is not authorized pending a pest risk anal ysis (NAPPRA)

from all countries:

Acrocomia
, Astrocaryum, Attalea, Bactris, Euterpe, Mauritia, Oenocarpus, Roystonea (=Oreodoxa)

The importation of the following plants fo r planting genera th at are hosts of Bursaphelenchus cocophilus are currently regulated unde r either 7CFR 319.15 or 7CFR 319.37 and these genera are therefore not include d, 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. Re d 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 Be havioral 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 plan tacion comercial en Honduras. Truuialba.

40:471-477.

4. Oehlschlager, A. C., Chinchilla, C., Castil lo, 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&ent ityType=NE****&entityDisplayCategory=f

ullUnited 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 introduc tion of quarantine pests into th e United States, § 319.37-2a allows the APHIS Administrator to designate the importati on of certain taxa of pl ants for planting as not authorized pending pest risk an alysis (NAPPRA). APHIS has determined that the following plant taxa should be added to the NAPPRA cate gory. In accordance with paragraph (b)(1) of that section, this data sheet details the sc ientific evidence APHIS evaluated in making the

determination that the taxa ar e hosts of a quarantine pest.

Quarantine Pest: Ceratocystis manginecans

Hosts: Mangifera 1 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 Pakistan 2

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 r oots to the branches and twigs. Symptoms include dark staining of wood, e xudation of gum, and leaf wilting 3 . As the disease progresses, branches gradually dry out until the whole plant dies 2 . 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 disease 2

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

beetle and its exit holes have been c onsistently found in infected mango trees 5,6

. H. mangifearae is widely distributed in India 2

, Samoa, Mangareva Island, Brazil and

Hawaii 4

.

The fungus can be transported in so il in the form of chlamydospores 3

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

1997 2 . 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 destruc tive mango wilt disease in Oma n 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 Hypocr yphalus mangiferae (Stebb ing) and its Occurrence in Hawaii ( Coleoptera: Scolitidae) (Presented at the meeting of May 10, 1948). Accessed June 22, 2011 athttp://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.e du/bitstream/handle/10125/16196/PHES13_445- 446.pdf.txt;jsessionid=6CE216413C1328D 9B3D14588D26DFBE9?sequence=2

5. Shafqat Saeed, Asad Masood, Asif Sajjad a nd 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 Erbilg in 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: Curculioni dae: Scolytinae) and in the symptom development of quick decline of mango trees in Pakist an. Entomological

Research 40:316-327United 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 introduc tion of quarantine pests into th e United States, § 319.37-2a allows the APHIS Administrator to designate the importati on of certain taxa of plants for planting as not authorized pending pest risk an alysis (NAPPRA). APHIS has determined that the following plant taxa should be added to the NAPPRA cate gory. 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 ar e 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, C zechoslovakia, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, Poland, Romania, Russia, Serbia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and UK 2

.

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

Biology of the pest:

This autoecious rust forms mycelium that travel intra- and intercellularly 3 . Hyphae enters the needle via the stomata, and colonizes the mesophyll tissue 3,4 . Only new, developing needles are susceptible to infecti on by the basidiospores of the rust 2 . Cold weather during spring delays maturation of new needles and allows longer infection periods for C.abietis , increasing the likelihood of an epidemic 3 . High relative humidity is ideal for the spread of infection 4

.

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

needles. These needles remain on the tree duri ng 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 needles 3

. 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 abies 3

. A similar synergistic effect may occur

on North American confirmed hosts such as P. engelmannii, P. rubens, P. sitchensis if this pathogen is introduced 4

.

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 Ja panese 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 generati on 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.; Falc o, P. di. 2006. Host surface tissues and basidiospore-derived infection st rategies 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 introduc tion of quarantine pests into th e United States, § 319.37-2a allows the APHIS Administrator to designate the importati on of certain taxa of plants for planting as not authorized pending pest risk an alysis (NAPPRA). APHIS has determined that the following plant taxa should be added to the NAPPRA cate gory. 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 ar e hosts of a quarantine pest.

Quarantine Pest: Lachnellula willkommii

Hosts: Larix spp

. , Pseudolarix spp.

__________________________________________________________________________

Taxonomy and description of the pest:

Lachnellula willkommii (Hartig) Dennis 1

Common name – European Larch Canker 2

Known distribution:

Belgium, Byelorussia, China, Czechoslova kia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Ne therlands, Norway, Portugal, Romania, Sweden, Russia, United Kingdom, Canada (N ova 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 temperatures 2

. L. willkommii most likely overwinters on dead twigs and fallen branches of Lari x 1 . Ascospores, which ar e produced year round,cause infections in autumn where ins ect feeding sites or dwarf shoots exist 2,4 . 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 round 2

.

Damage potential of the pest:

Perennial cankers form on branches and ma in 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 tw ig. The stem appears swollen at the canker site, and can cause girdling as well as d ead bark to fall off. Premature needle yellowing can occur in summer 2 . 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 fo r symptoms to appear are main concerns regarding L. willkommii 2

.

Known host range:

Larix spp. and Pseudolarix spp. 2

.

Action under NAPPRA:

The importation of Larix spp. and Pseudolarix spp. plants for plan ting, except seed but including cut flowers and gr eenery, 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 Protecti on, Gent, Belgium, 4 May 2004. Part II

. Communications in Agricultural and Applie d 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 year s of research on larc h 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 introduc tion of quarantine pests into th e United States, § 319.37-2a allows the APHIS Administrator to designate the importati on of certain taxa of plants for planting as not authorized pending pest risk an alysis (NAPPRA). APHIS has determined that the following plant taxa should be added to the NAPPRA cate gory. 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 ar e 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. Kirk 1

.

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

P. cambivora and a Phytophthora species similar to P. fragariae 2

. There are three subspecies of P. alni , the P. alni subsp. alni being the most prevalent 1

.

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, Sw eden, UK, England, Wales, and Scotland 3

.

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 baiting 4,5,6 . The infectious pa rt of the pathogen is mainly its zoospores 3 . It is homothallic (self fertile) and produces ornamented and se mi-ornamented oospores in culture as well

as in infected tissue. 3,7 . The viability of oospores appear s 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 stem 3 . Trees suffer from root and collar rot, as well as disrupted vascular systems, resulting in death 1,3

.

The disease is most commonly associated with alder stands along riparian ecosystems as well as in nurseries associated with alder seedlings 8,9 . Studies in France showed that water flow played a role in disease developm ent. 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
symptons 11 . Higher summer temperatures and clay soils also increased prevalence of the pathogen 10 . In some cases tree decline took more than four years and some trees actually overcame infection through inhe rent resistance mechanisms 8

.

Damage potential of the pest:

P. alni was first discovered in the UK in 1993 2 . Since then it has spread to over 18 countries in Europe 4 . While the origin of P. alni is unknown, information from Poland suggested that introducti on of the pathogen to natural ecosystems may have occurred via nursery-infested seedlings planted th roughout the country for reforestation 9 . The pathogen further established in the field via zoospores in streams, particularly greater infection rates were found during the growing season when flooding occurred 11

.

In Europe this disease has already do ne extensive damage to alder populations 3 . In inoculation tests, the North American red al der has shown to be susceptible to this pathogen 3

.

Known host range:

Alnus spp. 3,12

.

Action under NAPPRA:

The importation of Alnus spp. plants for planting, ex cluding 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 nove l 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: desi gnation of emerging heteroploid hybrid pathogens spreading on Alnus trees. Mycological Research 108, 1172-1184.

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

4. Adams G CM, & Trummer, L. 2009. Di stribution 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. Charact erization 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 gl eba 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 gr ey alders in the Czech Republic. Plant Pathology 57, 370.

8. András KG, I., József, B., & Árpá d, N. Z. 2009. The importance of Phytophthora disease of alder in forestry. Növényvédelem 45, 169-177.

9. Oszako, T. 2006. The consequences of alde r decline phenomenon in Poland, factors involved and possibilities to mitigate the prob lem, in: Forest Research Institute DoFP, Sekocin, 05-090 Raszyn, Poland. (Ed), Possible limitation of dieback in broadleaved stands through silvicultura l and protective measures, Puszczykowo, Poland, November 2005., Puszczykowo, Poland, pp. 143-157.

10. Thoirain, B., Husson, C., & Marc ais B. 2007. Risk factors for the Phytophthora

induced 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 a nd 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 introduc tion of quarantine pests into th e United States, § 319.37-2a allows the APHIS Administrator to designate the importati on of certain taxa of plants for planting as not authorized pending pest risk an alysis (NAPPRA). APHIS has determined that the following plant taxa should be added to the NAPPRA cate gory. 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 ar e hosts of a quarantine pest.

Quarantine Pest: Pseudomonas syringae pv. actinidiae

Hosts: Actinidia spp.

Status: This pest and host were originally re gulated under a Federal Order DA-2010-11 dated November 10, 2010.

__________________________________________________________________________

Taxonomy and description of the pest:

Pseudomonas syringae pv. actinidiae Takikawa, Serizawa, Ichi kawa, Tsuyumu and Goto is the causal organism of bacterial canker di sease 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:

China 4

, Italy 4 , Japan 1, 2 , Korea 1, 3 , and New Zealand 5

.

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 pat hogen may exist as a resident on the surface of mature fruit, but it is improbable that it would survive to inf ect seed or seedlings.Symptoms appear on trunks, l eaders and overwintering canes fr om late winter to early spring as cankers or angular ne crotic leaf spots, longitudi nal 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. Br own 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 app ear 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 ma terial. 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 Japan 1, 2 and Korea 2 causing damage in

Actinidia spp. orchards. In 1992 the disease wa s first noticed in northern Italy 4 where it remained sporadic for 15 years (until 2007/2008) when it began causing economic

losses 4 ; it is estimated that the economic lo sses (including impact on trade) due to P. syringae pv. actinidiae have reached 2 million Euros 4

.

Known host range:

Actinidia spp.

Action under NAPPRA:

The importation of Actinidia spp. plants for planting, ex cept 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, Ta kikawa Y, Tsuyumu S, Goto M, 1989. Occurrence of bacterial canker of kiwifruit in Japan: descri ption of symptoms, isol ation of the pathogen and screening of bactericides . Annals of the Phytopatholog ical 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 Phytopathologica l Society of Japan 55:437-444.3. Jeong, Ho, et al., 2008. Incidences of Leaf Spots and B lights on Kiwifruit in Korea. The Korean Society of Pl ant 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 ki wifruit 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 introduc tion of quarantine pests into th e United States, § 319.37-2a allows the APHIS Administrator to designate the importati on of certain taxa of plants for planting as not authorized pending pest risk an alysis (NAPPRA). APHIS has determined that the following plant taxa should be added to the NAPPRA cate gory. 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 ar e 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 organi sm of the disease bleeding canker of horse chestnut. PSA is a pat hovar 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, Be lgium, France, Germany, and India 1

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

The earliest symptoms of infection are bleedi ng lesions that can range from red to yellow or black. The lesions are usually located at the base of the tr ee expanding upward to branches and stems as the infection spread s. In dry conditions there may be a crust present near the exit wound. The tree crown ma y show leaf yellowi ng and early leaf drop. Girdling of the trunk or branch is possible with in a few years. If bark is removed an orange-brown mottling may be present 1 . Bark may be cracked or missing 2

.

PSA has been successfully isolated from the su rfaces of horse chestnut leaves, branches, flowers, and parts of the fruit 1 . Like other bacterial plan t 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 percen t of the trees surveyed in 2007) are infected with this pathogen 3 and in the Netherlands 30 percent of horse ches tnut trees are infected 1 . In Europe this disease is extremel y damaging to the commonly planted A. hippocastanum

and A . x carnea 4 , although apparently the dis ease 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 so me dying within 3-5 years after symptom development 4 . Research is underway on the susceptibility of other Aesculus species, with the ultimate aim of finding po ssible sources of resistance 1 . Several species of Aesculus

are native to the United States 5 and A. hippocastanum is a widely planted ornamental tree. If these species prove to be suscep tible, 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 , ex cluding 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 Organi zation. Accessed February 16, 2011 at: http://www.eppo.org/QUARANTINE/Alert_Li st/bacteria/Pseudomonas_s_aesculi.htm



### 2. Mabbett, T. 2007. Bacterial bleeding canke r 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 canke r of horse chestnut trees in Great Britain. Forestry Commission, Plant Health Service. Accessed February 14, 2011 at: http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/bleedcanke rsurveyrep020408.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 Servic e. Plants Database for Aesculus spp.

Natural Resources Conservation Serv ice. Accessed February 16, 2011 at: http://plants.usda.gov/java/nameSearch?k eywordquery=Aesculus&mode=sciname&subm it.x=7&submit.y=5United 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 introduc tion of quarantine pests into th e United States, § 319.37-2a allows the APHIS Administrator to designate the importati on of certain taxa of plants for planting as not authorized pending pest risk an alysis (NAPPRA). APHIS has determined that the following plant taxa should be added to the NAPPRA cate gory. 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 ar e hosts of a quarantine pest.

Quarantine Pest: Rhynchophorus ferrugineus

Hosts: See Known host range below

Status: This pest and these hosts were regu lated 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 Melanesia 1

. R

. ferrugineus has also been reported from Algeria 1

, Cyprus 2 , Egypt 1 , France 3 , Greece 4 , Italy 5 , Iraq, Iran 1 , Morocco 6 , Portugal 7 , Spain 1 , Syria 8

, Turkey 9 , United Arab Emirates 1

.

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 year 9 . 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 de stabilize the tree. The damage caused by the larvae is only visible long after infestati on, and by the time the first symptoms of the attack appear, they are so serious that they ge nerally 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 infestation 10 . There is no indication thus far that seeds are a pathway for infestation.

Damage potential of pest:

Rhynchophorus ferrugineus is a polyphagous weevil with th e potential to be a serious pest in any area where palms are widely gr own. 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 world 11

.

Control:

The most-widely used and effective means of reducing infestation is the chemical or mechanical killing of affected trees coupled with the trappi ng of adults using pheromone and/or appropriate plant material. Other c ontrol measures include treatments to save infested palms through the use of systemic insecticides injected into and around trees 11

. However, additional research is necessary to determine their effectiveness.

Known host range:

Areca spp , Arenga spp , Borassus spp 1 , Brahea spp 5

, Butia spp. , Calamus 12 , 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 fo r planting genera th at are hosts of R

. ferrugineus is currently regulated under either 7 CFR 319.15 or 7CFR 319.37 and thesegenera are therefore not incl uded, at this time, as poten tial 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-Cre spo, F. and Jimenez-Alavarez, A. 1998. Curculionidos exoticos susceptibles de ser in troducidos en Espana y otros paises de la Union Europea a traves de vege tales 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://a rchives.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://a rchives.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/E PPOReporting/2008/Rse-0802.pdf

6. EPPO. 2008. First record of Rhynchophorus fe rrugineus 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 Me diterranean Plant Protection Organization. Accessed May 3, 2011. http://a rchives.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://a rchives.eppo.org/EPPOReporting/2007/Rse0701.pdf9. 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://a rchives.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 pos sible control (Coleopt era: 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) (Cole optera, 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 introduc tion of quarantine pests into th e United States, § 319.37-2a allows the APHIS Administrator to designate the importati on of certain taxa of plants for planting as not authorized pending pest risk an alysis (NAPPRA). APHIS has determined that the following plant taxa should be added to the NAPPRA cate gory. 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 ar e 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 America 1

.

This weevil has been intercep ted in the United States in San Diego County, California where emergency action was taken and this pe st 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 year 2 . Thefemale lays eggs in wounds or soft tissue of the plant and after ha tching the larvae burrow into the stem creating large galleries that ev entually weaken and destabilize the tree. The damage caused by the larvae is usually only vi sible long after infestation, and by the time the first symptoms appear, they are so serious th at they generally result in the death of the

tree 3

. R

. palmarum is also the main vector of the plant-parasitic nematode Bursaphelenchus cocophilus 4,5 . The rapid spread of this ins ect 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 a nd damage only becomes visible long after

infestation 3

.

Damage potential of pest:

Rhynchophorus palmarum is considered to be one of the most important pests on commercial palm plantations. Native to Neotropi cal forests this weevil is a serious pest affecting palm plantations and ornament al palms throughout Central and South

America 1,3 . 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 nematode 4,5

.

Control:

The most-widely used and effective means of reducing infestation is the chemical or mechanical killing of affected trees coupled with the trappi ng of adults using pheromone and/or appropriate plant material. Other c ontrol measures include treatments to save infested palms through the use of systemic insecticides injected into and around trees 11

. 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 pe st 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 fo r planting genera th at are hosts of R. palmarum is currently regulated under either 7 CF R 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, SaccharumLiterature cited:

1. Esteban-Duran, J., Yeta, J.L.. Beitia-Cre spo, F. and Jimenez-Alavarez, A. 1998. Curculionidos exoticos susceptibles de ser in troducidos en Espana y otros paises de la Union Europea a traves de vege tales importados (Coleoptera: Curculionida: Rhynchophorinae ). Boletin de Sanidad Vegetal Plagas, 24: 23-40.

2. Restrepo, L.G., Rivera, F.R. and J. B. Ra igosa. 1982. Ciclo de vida, habitos, y morfometria de Metamasius hemipter a 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 Medite rranean Plant Protection Organization. http://www.eppo.org/QUARANTINE/insects/Rhynchophorus_palmaru m/DS_Rhynchophorus_palmarum.pdf.

4. Oehlschlager, A. C., Chinchilla, C., Castil lo, 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 introduc tion of quarantine pests into th e United States, § 319.37-2a allows the APHIS Administrator to designate the importati on of certain taxa of plants for planting as not authorized pending pest risk an alysis (NAPPRA). APHIS has determined that the following plant taxa should be added to the NAPPRA cate gory. 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 ar e hosts of a quarantine pest.

Quarantine Pest: Tomato sev ere leaf curl virus (ToSLCV)

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

Status: This pest and these hosts were original ly 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 begomoviru ses (Geminiviridae) and other virus and virus-like diseases, many of which are quarantin e pests. The begomoviruses, the group to which Tomato severe leaf curl virus (T oSLCV) belongs, are major constraints to vegetable production 1

.

Known distribution:

ToSLCV has been reported from Guatemala, Nicaragua, Honduras 2 , and Mexico 3

.

ToSLCV is not known to o ccur in the United States

Biology of the pest:

Symptoms of ToSLCV include stunting, seve re mosaic, yellowing, cu rling, 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 a nywhere from a few weeks through the life of

the vector 6 . The virus can therefore be transm itted to a large number of hosts.Plant pathogens, including vi ruses and viroids are extremel y 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 samples 1 . A similar begomovirus, tomato mottle virus, introduced into Florid a caused an epidemic of severe proportions 4

. The threat of introduction of one or more of these viruses lead APHIS to develop the New Pest Response Guideline: Whitefly-bor ne Geminiviruses (Family Geminiviridae) 5

.

Known host range:

Lycopersicon 1 ,2,3 and Capsicum 1

.

Action under NAPPRA:

The importation of the following plants for planting genera, except seed, but including cut flowers and greenery, that are hosts of To SLCV, 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., Ar guello-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 Gu ideline: Whitefly-borne Geminiviruses (Family Geminiviridae). Last accessed August 19, 2008. http://www.aphis.usda.gov/import_export/pla nts/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 introduc tion of quarantine pests into th e United States, § 319.37-2a allows the APHIS Administrator to designate the importati on of certain taxa of plants for planting as not authorized pending pest risk an alysis (NAPPRA). APHIS has determined that the following plant taxa should be added to the NAPPRA cate gory. 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 ar e 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 original ly 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 form s of Tomato yellow leaf curl virus, Tomato zonate spot virus, Tomato fruit ye llow ring virus, Tomato curly stunt virus, and Tomato Marchitez virus. ToTV belongs a new picorna-like group of plant viruses.

Known distribution:

Canary Islands, Spain 1 and Poland 4 . Tomato marchitez virus (ToMarV), a closely related viral pathogen of tomato, occurs in Mexico 5

.

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 Mu rcia, Spain, although not identified and reported until 2007 1,3 . A similar disease was observed in Poland in 2003 and identified and reported as ToTV in 2007 4 . ToTV was also reported from the Canary Islands in 2007 1 . ToTV is not known to occur in the United States. A closely related viral pathogen of tomato, Tomato ma rchitez virus (ToMarV), occurs in Mexico 5

.

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

hosts for ToTV and act as virus reservoirs 2 . Preliminary experiments indicate the

involvement of whiteflies as a vector of ToTV 3,6

.

Virus diseases and their causal agents are ex tremely difficult to de tect during a port of entry inspection of the host plants es pecially 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 necr otic, almost burn-like sy mptoms on leaves and stems and necrotic blotches or patter ns on fruit which become deformed and unmarketable. Plant growth a nd yields are seriously reduced 2

.

Known host range:

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

, Chenopodium , Halogeton (synonym Halogetum )

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

, Polygonum, and Spergularia 2

.

Action under NAPPRA:

The importation of the following plants for planting genera, except seed, but including cut flowers and greenery, that are hosts of To TV, is not authorized pending a pest risk analysis (NAPPRA) from a ll countries except Canada :

Amaranthus, Atriplex, Chenopodi um, 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. Firs t report of tomato torra do 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 vi rus, a new plant pico rna-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 char acterisation 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 torra do 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 introduc tion of quarantine pests into th e United States, § 319.37-2a allows the APHIS Administrator to designate the importati on of certain taxa of plants for planting as not authorized pending pest risk an alysis (NAPPRA). APHIS has determined that the following plant taxa should be added to the NAPPRA cate gory. 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 ar e 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 pomegranate 1

.

Known distribution:

India, Pakistan, South Africa 1

.

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

Biology of the pest:

Certain environmental factors such as incr eased temperature, ra in, and low humidity facilitate the spread of the disease. Insect s, rain splash, and the use of contaminated pruning tools are additional ways that the bacteria can be spread 2 . 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 shed 2 . The bacterium causes branch, stem, and nodal cankers as well as fr uit blemishes. Immature fruit burst as a

result of bacterial infecti on, because the pericarp tissues cannot expand during fruitexpansion 1

.

Damage potential of the pest:

Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. punicae is the causal agent of serious blight disease of
pomegranate 2 . This bacterial pathogen has been recorded as attack ing the above ground parts of the plant, including branches, fruits, leaves, nodes, pericarps, and stems, entering the plant via wounds 1,2 . Production losses of 50 to 100% can occur as a result of the blight, depending on the severity of the disease 2 . In India, pomegranate production is described as being seriously hampered by the bacterium 1

.

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 Pl ant Pathology Society. Accessed June 16,

2011 at: http://www.australasianplantpathologysoc iety.org.au/Publications/POTM/Jan10%20POT M.pdf