## Importation of Fresh Papaya
, Carica papaya

, from Peru into the

Continental United States

A Qualitative , Pathway

- Initiated Pest Risk Assessment

March 27 , 20 12

Version 2

Agency Contact:

Center for Plant Health Science and Technology Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory

United States Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Plant Protection and Quarantine 1730 Varsity Dr.

, Suite 300 Raleigh, NC 27606Pest Risk Assessment for Papaya from Peru



### Executive Summary

In this pest risk analysis, t he United States D epartment of Agriculture (USDA)’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ) analyzed the plant pest risks associated with import ing papaya ( Carica papaya ) into the continental United

States from Peru

. Peru did not provide information on post harvest handling of fruit, so we assume minimal post harvest treatment. Information regarding pests affecting papaya in Peru

indicates that quarantine pests could be introduced via the importation of fresh papaya into the

continental United State s

. These pests include the following fruit flies in the family Tephritidae :

Ceratitis capitata Wiedemann Anastrepha fraterculus (Wiedemann)

We qualitatively analyzed t he se pests using the methodology described in the USDA

- APHIS

PPQ Guidelines for Pathway

- Initiated Pest Risk Assessment, V ersion 5.02

. Following the guidelines , we examine d pest biology to asses s the Consequences of Introduction and the Likelihood of Introduction, which we , in turn, used to estimate the b aseline Pest Risk Potential.

The b aseline Pest Risk Potential for the two pests of concern is High

.

Port

- of

- entry inspections are considered i nsufficient to safeguard from the introduction of pests

w ith High Pest Risk Potential . We discussed available phytosanitary measures that might be

chosen for risk mitigation

.

Ver. 2 March 27, 2012 iPest Risk Assessment for Papaya from Peru



### Table of Contents

Executive Summary

................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... i

1. Introduction

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 1

1.1. Commodity information

................................ ................................ ................................ ... 1

1.2. Potential Distribution in the United States

................................ ................................ .......... 1

2. Risk Assessment

................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 2 2.1. Initiating Event: Proposed Action

................................ ................................ ........................ 2 2.2. Assessment of the Weed Potential of Papaya

................................ ................................ ...... 2 2.3. Previous Risk Assessments, Decision History, Current Status and Pest Interceptions

....... 3

2.4. Pe st Categorization

................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 5 2.5. Analysis of Quarantine Pests

................................ ................................ ............................. 15

2.6. Conclusi on: Pest Risk Potential

................................ ................................ ......................... 19

3. Risk Mitigation Options

................................ .............................. Error! Bookmark not defined.

3.1. Introduction

................................ ................................ ......... Error! Bookmark not defined. 3.2. Phytosanitary Measures

................................ ...................... Error! Bookmark not defined. 3.3. Mitigation require ments for Central America and Brazilian Papaya Error! Bookmark not

defined.

4. Authors and Reviewers

................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 19

5. References

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 19

Ver. 2 March 27, 2012 iiPest Risk Assessment for Papaya from Peru



### 1. Introduction

This risk analysis was prepared by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to examine the plant pest risks associated with the importation of fresh fruits of papaya
, Carica papaya L.

, from Peru into the continental United

States.

This risk analysis is qualitative, with risk being expressed in terms of High, Medium or Low rather than probabilities or frequencies. The details of the methodology and rating criteria can be

found in Guidelines for Pathway

- Initiated Pest Risk Assessments, Version 5.02 ( PPQ , 2000).

T he International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) provide s standards for conducting pest risk analyses

. The methods used to initiate, conduct

, and report this analysis, as well as the use of biological a nd phytosanitary terms

, are consistent with these standards ( IPPC

, 2007 : ISPM #2 ).

This standard describe s three stages of pest risk analysis: Stage 1, Initiation, Stage 2, Risk Assessment, and Stage 3, Risk Management. This document satisfies the requireme nts of all three stages

, but APHIS will examine the appropriate phytosanitary measures to mitigate pest

risk separately prior to making import decisions

.

1.1. Commodity information

Carica papaya is native to Central America, but is widely cultivated around the world ( CABI, 2003; Morton, 1987 ). Although it has a trunk and can reach heights of up to 30 feet, it is technically an herb ( Morton, 1987 ). It is soft

- wooded and grows rapidly in favorable conditions. Carica papaya produces large, musky or sweet smelling fruits that can reach sizes of about 50 by 20 cm. The fruits are usually eaten fresh or used in fruit beverages. Part of the U.S. demand for papayas has been for papain, an enzyme obtained from green fruits and used as a meat tenderizer (Simpson and M. Conner

- Ogorzaly, 1986). Other countries use the flowers, leaves and young stems as vegetables ( Morton, 1987 ). It is a major host for many pests (CABI, 2006)

Carica papaya produces numerous ovoid seeds that are about 5 mm ( Morton, 1987 ). Birds

somet imes peck at fruits and may thus contribute to seed dispersal if seeds are swallowed. Small mammals may also contribute to seed dispersal. Carica papaya readily germinates within three to five weeks from seeds given favorable conditions ( Morton, 1987 ). Bec ause of its rapid growth, papaya can displace native pioneer species during forest regeneration following disturbances ( Horvitz et al

. , 1995; Kwit et al

. , 2000 ). Papaya is restricted to tropical and subtropical regions (between 32 o north and south of the e quator) due to frost sensitivity ( Morton,

1987 ).

Peru did not provide information on post harvest handling of fruit. Without evidence to the contrary, we assume minimal post harvest treatment beyond a general inspection for quality.

1.2. Potential Distribution in the United States

Due to its popularity as a fruit crop, C. papaya is already distributed in the United States, including southern Texas and Florida ( NRCS, 2008 ). Global warming will probably promote its

Ver. 2 March 27, 2012 1Pest Risk Assessment for Papaya from Peru

spread north as frost no longer bec omes limiting. Papaya seeds are readily available on the internet for both personal and commercial planting (personal communication T. Koop, internet

search 10

- 28

- 03).



### 2. Risk Assessment

2.1 . Initiating Event: Proposed Action

This commodity

- based, pathw ay

- initiated pest risk analysis accompanies a request for USDA authorization to allow the importation of papaya grown in Peru (a potential pathway for plant pest introduction) into the continental United States. T he United States Code of Federal Regulation s (7 CFR § 319 , 2003; 319 .56) provides regulatory authority for the importation of fruits and vegetables from foreign countries into the United States. T he entry of papaya from

Peru into United States is not currently authorized.

2.2 . Assessment of the We ed Potential of Papaya

If the species considered for import poses a risk as a weed pest, then a “pest

- initiated” risk

assessment is conducted. The results of the weediness screening for papaya do not prompt a
pest

- initiated risk assessment because papaya plants are already present in the United States

.

Table 1

. Assessment of the weed potential of papaya

Commodity: Carica papaya L. ( Caricaceae) Synonyms: Papaya carica Gaertn. Common Names: Papaya, pawpaw (English); fruta bomba, mamon, mamona (Spanish).

Phase 1: P apaya is reported to occur in the United States, and is widely prevalent in Florida, where it is grown commercially (NRCS, 2008 ).

Phase 2: Is the species listed in:

No Geographical Atlas of World Weeds ( Holm et al

. , 1979 ).

No The World's Worst W eeds: Distribution and biology ( Holm et al

. , 1997b ).

No Report of the Technical Committee to Evaluate Noxious Weeds; Exotic Weeds for the Federal Noxious Weed Act ( Gunn and Ritchie, 1982 ).

No Economically Important Foreign Weeds ( Reed, 1977 ).

No Composite List of Weeds ( WSSA, 2008 ).

Yes AGRICOLA, CAB, AGRIS. Other literature and database search indicating weediness:

No World weeds: natural histories and distributions ( Holm et al

. , 1997a ).

No World Economic Plants ( Wiersema and Leon, 1999 ).

No Noxious Weeds of Australia ( Parsons and Cuthbertson, 2001 ).

No Florida's Invasive Species List, Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council ( FLEPPC, 2007 ).

No Federal Noxious Weed List (APHIS, 2000).

Phase 3: A weed

- initiated risk assessment was not needed for C. papaya because the species is a widely prevalent crop in Florida

Ver. 2 March 27, 2012 2Pest Risk Assessment for Papaya from Peru

2.3 . Previous Risk Assessments, Decision History, Current Status and Pest Interceptions

2.3. 1. Previous Risk Assessments Previous pest risk assessments for papaya from anywhere in the Western Hemisphere are given below (Table 2)

.

2.3. 2. Decision History

We summarized the d ecision history for papaya from the Western Hemisphere below (Table 3)

.

2.3.3. Pest interceptions APHIS maintains a database of interceptions made at U

. S

. ports since 1985 ( PestID, 2008 )

.

Table 2

. Previous Risk Assessments for papaya, C. papaya

. Year Origin Pests of Concern Risk Rating

2007 Ecuador Ceratitis capitata Anastrepha fraterculus

Phoma caricae

- papayae High High

Medium

2007 Colombia Ceratitis capitata Anastrepha fraterculus High High

2000 Central America Ceratitis capitata Paracoccus marginatus High High

1999 Guatemala Ceratitis capitata High

1998 Nicaragua Ceratitis capitata High

1996 Brazil Ceratitis capitata Anastrepha fraterculus Cercospora mamaonis

Freckles Phomopsis carica

- papaya High High

Medium

Medium

Medium

1996 Panama Ceratitis capitata High

1996 Hawaii Ceratitis capitata

Bactrocera cucurbitae

Bactrocera dorsalis Calacarus brionesae, Cercospora mamaonis Phomopsis caricae

- papayae High High High

Medium

Medium

Medium

Ver. 2 March 27, 2012 3Pest Risk Assessment for Papaya from Peru

Table 3

. Decision history for papaya from Western Hemisphere countries
Year(s) Country Decision Comments

1984 Ecuador Approved With treatment for Ceratitis capitata

1984 Trinidad Approved

1986 Guyana Approved Subject to inspection and treatment

1990 Surinam Disapproved Bactrocera dorsalis complex

1990 Panama Disapproved Ceratitis capitata

1995 Belize Approved

1996 Brazil Approved With mitigation program

Table 4

. Quarantine pest interceptions on Papaya from South American countries, 1985

- 2008. Organism Country Interceptions (no.)
Abgrallaspis sp. (Hemiptera: Diaspididae) Ecuador 1
Agromyzidae, species of Brazil 1

Ecuador 1

Venezuela 1
Anastrepha sp. (Diptera: Tephritidae) Bolivia 1

Venezuela 4
Aonidiella comperei (Hemiptera: Diaspididae) Brazil 5

Aonidiella inornata (Hemiptera: Diaspididae) Brazil 10
Aonidiella sp. (Hemiptera: Diaspididae) Brazil 4
Cicadellidae, species of Brazil 1
Cladosporium sp. (Hyphomycetes) Brazil 9

Colombia 1

Ecuador 1

Venezuela 1
Clavaspis sp. (Hemiptera: Diaspididae) Brazil 1
Coccidae, species of Brazil 4

Colombia 1
Coccus hesperidum (Hemiptera: Coccidae) Brazil 17
Coccus sp. (Hemiptera: Coccidae) Brazil 2
Colletotrichum sp. (Coelomycetes) Brazil 1
Cosmopterigidae, species of Brazil 1
Ctenuchinae, species of Brazil 1
Curculionidae, species of Chile 1
Diaspididae, species of Brazil 4

Ecuador 1
Diaspidiotus sp. (Hemiptera: Diaspididae) Brazil 1
Dysmicoccus sp. (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) Brazil 6
Empoasca sp. (Hemiptera: Cicadellidae) Brazil 1

Ver. 2 March 27, 2012 4Pest Risk Assessment for Papaya from Peru

Organism Country Interceptions (no.)
Eubulus sp. (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) Brazil 1
Fusarium sp. (Hyphomycetes) Colombia 1 Heteroptera, species of Brazil 3
Homoptera, species of Brazil 1
Lagriini, species of Brazil 1
Lepidoptera, species of Brazil 3

Venezuela 1
Pentatomidae, species of (Hemiptera) Brazil 1
Philephedra sp. (Hemiptera: Coccidae) Colombia 1
Phoma sp. (Coelomycetes) Brazil 1
Pseudococcidae, species of Brazil 13
Pseudococcus sp. (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) Brazil 1
Succinea sp. (Mollusk

- Succineidae) Brazil 2
Tarsonemus sp. (Acari: Tarsonemidae) Brazil 1 Tephritidae, species of Venezuela 2
Tetranychus sp. (Acari: Tetranychidae) Venezuela 1
Tineidae, species of Brazil 6

2.4 . Pest Categorization

We list ed the pests associated with papaya anywhere in the world and present in Peru (Table 5), with information about the following: 1) the presence or absence of these pests in the United States, 2) the generally affected plant part(s), 3) the quarantine status of the pest with respect to the continental United States, 4) whether the pest is likely to follow the pathway to enter the

c ontinental United States on commercially exported papaya fruit

, and 5) pertinent citations for either the distribution or biology of the pest. In light of pest biology and distribution, we eliminated many organisms from further consideration of phytosanita ry risk on papaya from Peru because they either d id not satisfy the definition of a quarantine pest or we re not associated with the commodity during harvest and processing.

Note: Even if non

- quarantine pests are able to follow the pathway, phytosanitary measures against these pests would not be justified considering the pest already occurs in the United

States . T herefore, information on plant part association and whether the pest is likely to follow the pathway is not needed for non

- quarantine pests. Ther efore, for the non

- quarantine pests in Table 5, we put N/A (= Not Applicable) in the columns for “Plant Part(s)” and “Follow Pathway.”

Ver. 2 March 27, 2012 5Pest Risk Assessment for Papaya from Peru

Table 5 : Pests reported on papaya, Carica papaya , anywhere in the world and present in Peru on any host. Organism Reported on

papaya Peru & US

Distribution Quaran

tine pest Plant Part(s) 1 Follow

p athway

ARTHROPODS

Acari: Tarsonemidae
Polyphagotarsonemus latus

Banks Aubert et al

. , 1981 Peru (Chandler, 1980), US (Pena and Bullock, 1994) No N/A N/A

Acari: Tenuipalpidae
Brevipalpus phoenicis (Geijskes) Nakasone and Paull, 2004 Peru, US (Jeppson

et al

. , 1975) No N/A N/A

Acari: Tetranychidae
Eotetranychus lewisi (McGregor) Bolland et al

. , 1998 Peru, US (Jeppson

et al

. , 1975) No N/A N/A

Eutetranychus banksi (McGregor) (Acari: Tetranychidae) Morton, 1987 Peru, US, (Bolland et al

. , 1998) No N/A N/A

Oligonychus yothersi (McGregor) Bolland et al

. , 1998 Peru, US (Bolland

et al

. , 1998) No N/A N/A

Panonychus citri (McGregor) Bolland et al

. , 1998 Peru, US (Bolland

et al

. , 1998) No N/A N/A

Tetranychus desertorum Banks Jeppson et al

. , 1975 Peru, US, (Jeppson et al, 1975) No N/A N/A

Tetranychus gloveri Banks Migeon, 2006 Peru, US (Migeon, 2006) No N/A N/A

Tetranychus mexicanus (McGregor) Bolland et al,

1998 Peru, US (Bolland et al, 1998) No N/A N/A

Tetranychus neocalidonicus

Andre Bolland et al,

1998 Peru, US, (Jeppson et al, 1975) No N/A N/A

Tetranychus urticae Koch = T.

cinnibarinus (Boisduval)

Boudreaux Bolland et al,

1998 Peru, US (Bolland et al, 1998) No N/A N/A

Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae
Diabrotica speciosa (Germar) Walsh, 2003 Peru (CABI, 2007) Yes L

, F (Walsh, 2003) No 2

1 Plant Parts: Bk = Ba rk , F = Fruit, L = Leaf, R = Root, and S = Stem.

2 Diabrotica speciosa feeds on the fruit as a winged adult (Walsh, 2003), and is highly unlikely to remain with the fruit through harvest.

Ver. 2 March 27, 2012 6Pest Risk Assessment for Papaya from Peru

Organism Reported on

papaya Peru & US

Distribution Quaran

tine pest Plant Part(s) 1 Follow

p athway
Coleoptera: Curculionidae
Metamasius hemipterus L. Pantoja et al

. , 2002 Peru, US (Fl) (CABI, 2006) Yes R (Pantoja

et al

. , 2002) No

Rhynchophorus palmarum (L.) McGuire and Crandall, 1967 Peru (CABI, 2006) Yes L (OEPP/EP PO, 2005) No

Coleoptera: Scolytidae
Xyleborus volvulus (Fabricius) CABI, 2006 Peru, US (FL HI) (CABI, 2006) No N/A N/A

Diptera: Lonchaeidae

Neosilba batesi (Curran) McAlpine and Steyskal, 1982 Peru 3 (McAlpine and Steyskal, 1982), US (FL) (Thomas, 2000) No N/A N/A

Diptera: Muscidae
Atherigona orientalis Schiner CABI, 2006 Peru, US (CABI, 2006) No N/A N/A

Diptera: Tephritidae
Anastrepha fraterculus (Wiedemann) Norrbom,

2008 Peru (CABI, 2006) Yes F (CABI, 2006) Yes

Ceratitis capitata (Wiedemann) Pantoja et al

. , 2002 Peru, US (HI) (CABI, 2006) Yes F (Pantoja

et al

. , 2002) Yes

Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae
Aleurocanthus woglumi Ashby Pantoja et al

. , 2002 Peru, US (FL, TX, HI) (CABI, 2006) [Yes] 4 L (Pantoja

et al

. , 2002) No

Aleurodicus dispersus Russell Pantoja et al

. , 2002 Peru, US (FL, HI) (CABI, 2006) [Yes] 4 L (CABI, 2007) No

Bemisia tabaci (Gennadius) (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae) CABI, 2006 Peru, US (CABI, 2006) No N/A N/A

Tetraleurodes acaciae (Quaintance) Pantoja et al

. , 2002 S. America, N

. America ( Pantoja

et al

. , 2002) No N/A N/A

3 McAlpine and Steyskal (1982) do not specific ally state that Neosilba batesi occurs in Peru, but they examined specimens from Colombia, Mexico, and Panama, indicating that the insect may be widespread.

4 Quarantine significant species with a limited distribution in the United States ( NIS, 2 006; PestI D, 2008)

Ver. 2 March 27, 2012 7Pest Risk Assessment for Papaya from Peru

Organism Reported on

papaya Peru & US

Distribution Quaran

tine pest Plant Part(s) 1 Follow

p athway
Hemiptera: Aphididae
Acyrthosiphon pisum Harris CABI (2007) Peru, US (CABI, 2007) No N/A N/A

Aphis gossypii Glover Pantoja et al

. , 2002 Peru, US (CABI, 2006) No N/A N/A

Aphis nerii Boyer de

Fonscolombe Pantoja et al

. , 2002 Peru, US (CABI, 2006) No N/A N/A

Aphis spiraecola (Patch) Posada, 1989 Peru, US (CABI, 2006) No N/A N/A

Macrosiphum euphorbiae (Thomas) Pantoja et al

. , 2002 Peru, US (CABI, 2006) No N/A N/A

Myzus persicae (Sulzer) Posada, 1989 Peru, US (CABI, 2006) No N/A N/A

Rhopalosiphum maidis (Fitch) CABI (2007) Peru, US (CABI, 2007) No N/A N/A

Hemiptera: Asterolecaniidae
Russellaspis pustulans pustulans (Cockerell) Ben

- Dov et al.

2008 Peru, US (Ben

Dov et al, 2008) No N/A N/A

Hemiptera: Coccidae
Coccus hesperidum (L.) Pantoja et al

. , 2002 Peru, US (CABI, 2006) No N/A N/A

Coccus viridis (Green) PestID, 2008 Peru, US (CABI, 2006) [Yes] 5 L

, F ( CABI,

2006 ) No 6

Parasaissetia nigra (Nietner) Pantoja et al

. , 2002 Peru, US (CABI, 2006) No N/A N/A

Philephedra tuberculosa

Nakahara & Gill Pantoja et al

. , 2002 S. America, N. America (Pantoja

et al

. , 2002 No F N/A

Protopulvinaria pyriformis (Cockerell) Pantoja et al

. , 2002 Peru, US (CABI, 2006) No N/A N/A

Saissetia coffeae (Walker) Pantoja et al

. , 2002 Peru, US (CABI, 2006) No N/A N/A

Saissetia oleae (Oliver) Pantoja et al

. , 2002 Peru, US (CABI, 2006) No N/A N/A

5 Quarantine significant species with a limited distribution in the United States (NIS, 2006; PestID, 2008)

6 A lthough Coccus viridis reportedly attack s fruit (CABI, 2006 ) , it mainly attacks the leaves of its hosts (Dekle, 1976 )

. Coccus viridis has only been intercepted once on papaya (1984

- 2008), on a papaya leaf found in passenger baggage (PestID, 2008). Because of this, we concluded that the pest was highly unlikely to follow the pathway on papaya.

Ver. 2 March 27, 2012 8Pest Risk Assessment for Papaya from Peru

Organism Reported on

papaya Peru & US

Distribution Quaran

tine pest Plant Part(s) 1 Follow

p athway
Hemiptera: Conchaspididae
Conchaspis angraeci Cockerell Pantoja et al

. , 2002 Peru, US (CABI, 2006) No N/A N/A

Hemiptera: Diaspididae
Aonidomytilus albus (Cockerell) CABI, 2006 Peru, US (CABI, 2006) No N/A N/A

Aspidiotus destructor Signoret Posada, 1989 Peru, US (CABI, 2006) No N/A N/A

Chrysomphalus aonidum (Linnaeus) CABI, 2007 Peru, US (Ben

Dov et al, 2008) No N/A N/A

Chrysomphalus dictyospermi (Morgan) Pantoja et al

. , 2002 Peru, US (CABI, 2006) No N/A N/A

Hemiberlesia lataniae (Signoret) PestID, 2008

, Ben

- Dov et al,

2008 Peru (PestID, 2008), US (von Ellenrieder, 2003) No N/A N/A

Howardia biclavis (Comstock) Ben

- Dov et al,

2008 Peru, US (Ben

Dov et al, 2008) No N/A N/A

Pseudaonidia trilobitiformis (Green) Ben

- Dov et al., 2008 Peru, US (FL) (Ben

- Dov et al., 2008) [Yes] 7 Bk

, S

, L (Kosztarab, 1996); L

, F (PestID, 2008) Yes 8

Pseudaulacaspis pentagona (Targioni

- Tozzeti) PestID, 2008 Peru, US (CABI, 2006) No N/A N/A

Pseudoparlatoria ostreata

Cockerell Pantoja et al

. , 2002 S. America, N

. America (Pantoja

et al

. , 2002) No N/A N/A

Selenaspidus articulatus (Morgan) Ben

- Dov et al,

2008 Peru, US (Ben

Dov et al, 2008) No N/A N/A

Hemiptera: Margarodidae
Icerya purchasi Maskell Pantoja et al

. , 2002 Peru, US (CABI, 2006) No N/A N/A

Hemiptera: Pentatomidae
Podisus sagitta (Fabricius) PestID, 2008 Peru, US (PestID, 2008) No N/A N/A

7 Quarantine significant species with limite d distribution in the United States (NIS, 2006).

8 This armored scale may enter the United States on commercial fruit for consumption, but is highly unlikely to establish via this pathway. Please see discussion following the pest list for a detailed explan ation. In addition, from 1985

- 2008 P

. trilobitiformis has only been intercepted three times on papaya, in passenger baggage, twice from the Caribbean and once

from South Africa.

Ver. 2 March 27, 2012 9Pest Risk Assessment for Papaya from Peru

Organism Reported on

papaya Peru & US

Distribution Quaran

tine pest Plant Part(s) 1 Follow

p athway
Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae
Dysmicoccus brevipes (Cockerell) PestID, 2008 Peru (PestID, 2008), US (CABI, 2006) No N/A N/A

Dysmicoccus grassii (Leonardi) Ben

- Dov et al,

2008 Peru (Ben

- Dov et al, 2008) No 9 N/A N/A

Ferrisia virgata Cockerell PestID, 2008; CABI, 2007 Peru, US (CABI, 2006) No N/A N/A

Nipaecoccus nipae (Maskell) CABI, 2006 Peru, US (CABI, 2006) No N/A N/A

Planococcus citri (Risso) McGuire and Crandall, 1967 Peru, US (CABI, 2006) No N/A N/A

Pseudococcus longispinus (Targioni Tozzetti) Ben

- Dov et al,

2008 Peru, US (CABI, 2007; Ben

- Dov et al., 2008) No N/A N/A

Pseudococcus viburni (Signoret) Ben

- Dov et al,

2008 Peru, US (Ben

Dov et al, 2008) No N/A N/A

Hymenoptera: Formicidae

Atta texana (Buckley) McGuire and Crandall, 1967 Peru, US (LA, TX) (CABI, 2006) No N/A N/A

Lepidoptera: Noctuidae
Helicoverpa zea (Boddie) {Robinson, 2008 #16928} Peru, US (CABI, 2007) No N/A N/A

Spodoptera frugiperda J.E.

Smith {Robinson, 2008 #16928} Peru, US (CABI, 2007) No N/A N/A

Lepidoptera: Pyralidae

Cadra cautella Walker PestID, 2008 Peru, US (CABI, 2006) No N/A N/A

Lepidoptera: Sphingidae
Erinnyis alope (Drury) Posada, 1989 Peru, US (CABI, 2006) No N/A N/A

Erinnyis ello (L.) McGuire and Crandall, 1967 Peru, US (CABI, 2006) No N/A N/A

Thysanoptera: Phlaeothripidae
Gynaikothrips ficorum (Marchal) PestID, 2008 Peru (PestID, 2008), US (Denmark et al

. , 2004) No N/A N/A

9 Not considered a reportable pest by the NIS (PestID, 2008).

Ver. 2 March 27, 2012 10Pest Risk Assessment for Papaya from Peru

Organism Reported on

papaya Peru & US

Distribution Quaran

tine pest Plant Part(s) 1 Follow

p athway
Thysanoptera: Thripidae
Thrips tabaci Lindeman Pantoja et al

. , 2002 Peru, US (CABI, 2006) No N/A N/A

Frankliniella occidentalis (Pergande) Pantoja et al

. , 2002 Peru, US (CABI, 2006) No N/A N/A

BACTERIA
Erwinia carotovora subsp. atroseptica (van Hall) Dye (Enterobacteriales) Alfieri et al

. , 1994 Peru (CABI, 2006), US (Alfieri

et al

. , 1994) No N/A N/A

FUNGI
Asperisporium caricae (Speg.) Maubl. (Hyphomycetes) (Anamorphic fungi) Ploetz, 2003 Peru (CABI, 2006), US (Ploetz

et al

. , 1998) No N/A N/A

Choanephora cucurbitarum (Berk. & Ravenel) Thaxt (Zygomycetes: Mucorales) Ploetz, 2003 Peru (Bazan de Segura, 1973), US (CABI, 2006) No N/A N/A

Cochliobolus lunatus R.R. Nelson & Haasis [teleomorph] (Dothideomycetes: Pleosporales) Farr et al

. , 2008 Peru (CABI, 2006), US (Farr et
al

. , 2008) No N/A N/A

Colletotrichum gloesporioides (Penz.) Penz & Sacc. (teleomorph: Glomerella cingulata (Stonem.) Spauld. & Schrenk) (Coelomycetes: Melanoconiales) Farr et al

. , 2008; Ploetz,

2003 Peru (CABI, 2006), US (Ploetz, 2003) No N/A N/A

Corticium rolfsii Curzi [teleomorph] (Basidiomycetes: Aphyllophorales) Farr et al

. , 2008; Ploetz,

2003 Peru (CABI, 2006), US (Farr et
al

. , 2008) No N/A N/A

Fusarium solani (Wollenw.) Gerlach [teleomorph] (Sordariomycetes: Hypocreales) Ploetz, 2003 Peru (Mont, 1998), US (Ploetz, 2003) No N/A N/A

Lasiodiplodia theobromae

Griffiths & Maubl. (Dothideomycetes :Xylariales) Bazan de Segura, 1973;

Farr et al

. , 2008 Peru (Bazan de Segura, 1973), US (Farr et al

. , 2008) No N/A N/A

Leveillula taurica (Lév.) G.

Arnaud (Leotiomycetes:Erysiphales) Bazan de Segura, 1973;

Farr et al

. , 2008 Peru (Bazan de Segura, 1973), US (CABI, 2006) No N/A N/A

Ver. 2 March 27, 2012 11Pest Risk Assessment for Papaya from Peru

Organism Reported on

papaya Peru & US

Distribution Quaran

tine pest Plant Part(s) 1 Follow

p athway
Macrophomina phaseolina (Tassi) Goid ( Dothideomycetes: Botryosphaeriales) Bazan de Segura, 1973;

Farr et al

. , 2008) Peru (Bazan de Segura, 1973), US (Farr et al

. , 2008) No N/A N/A

Monilinia fructicola (G. Winter) Honey (Leotiomycetes: Helotiales) Ploetz, 2003 Peru (Bazan de Segura, 1973), US (Ploetz, 2003) No N/A N/A

Oidium caricae F. Noack Syn: Sphaerotheca caricae papayae Tanda & Braun (Hyphomycetes) Ploetz, 2003 Peru (Franciosi Tijero, 1992

Garcia , US (Farr

et al

. , 1989) No N/A N/A

Phytophthora cinnamomi Rands (Oomycetes: Peronosporales) Farr et al

. , 2008 Peru (Franciosi Tijero, 1992), US (Farr, et al

. , 2006) No N/A N/A

Phytophthora nicotianae Breda de Haan (Oomycetes: Peronosporales) Ploetz, 2003 Peru (CABI, 2006), US (Farr,

et al

. , 2008) No N/A N/A

Phytophthora palmivora (E. J. Butler) E. J. Butler (Oomycetes: Peronosporales) Ploetz, 2003 Peru (Coronel et
al

. , 1980), US (CABI, 2008) No N/A N /A

Pseudoperonospora cubensis (Berk. & M.A. Curtis) Rostovzev (Oomycetes: Peronosporales) Farr et al

. , 2008 Peru (CABI, 2006), US (Farr et
al

. , 2008) No N/A N/A

Pythium aphanidermatum (Edson) Fitzp. Syn: P

. butleri (Oomycetes: Peronosporales) Farr et al

. , 2008 Peru (CABI, 2006), US (Farr et
al

. , 2008) No N/A N/A

Rhizopus stolonifer (Ehrenb.) Lind (Zygomycetes: Mucorales) Farr et al

. , 2008 Widespread (Nakasone and Paull, 2004), US (Farr et al

. , 2008) No N/A N/ A

Thanatephorus cucumeris (A.B. Frank) Donk Anamorph:
Rhizoctonia solani (Frank)

Donk Basidiomycetes: Tulasnella les) Farr et al

. , 2008 Peru (Mont, 1998), US (Farr et
al

. , 2008) No N/A N /A

Thielaviopsis basicola (Berk. & Broome) Ferraris (Hyphomycetes) (Anamorphic fungi) Farr et al

. , 2008 Peru (CABI, 2006), US (Farr et
al

. , 2008) No N/A N/A

Ver. 2 March 27, 2012 12Pest Risk Assessment for Papaya from Peru

Organism Reported on

papaya Peru & US

Distribution Quaran

tine pest Plant Part(s) 1 Follow

p athway

NEMATODA
Helicotylenchus dihystera (Cobb, 1893) Sher, 1961 (Tylenchidae: Hoplolaimidae) Starr, 1999 Peru (CABI, 2006), US (FDACS, 1999) No N/A N/A

Helicotylenchus multicinctus (Cobb, 1893) Golden, (Tylenchidae: Hoplolaimidae) CABI, 2006 Peru (CABI, 2006), US (SN, 1984) No ( PestID

, 2006) N/A N/A

Hemicriconemoides mangiferae Siddiqi (Tylenchidae: Criconematidae) CABI, 2006;

El

- Borai and Duncan, 2005 Peru (CABI, 2006), US (CABI, 2006) No N/A N/A

Meloidogyne incognita (Kofoid

& White) Chitwood (Tylenchidae: Meloidogynidae) Bazan de Segura, 1975; Ploetz, 2003 Peru (Bazan de Segura, 1975), US (Ploetz, 2003) No N/A N/A

Meloidogyne javanica (Treub) Chitwood (Tylenchida e : Meloidogynidae) Jaraba et al

. , 2007 Peru (Jaraba et al

. , 2007), US (Ploetz, 2003) No N/A N/A

Rotylenchulus reniformis

Linford & Oliveira (Tylenchidae: Hoplolaimidae) Ploetz, 2003 Peru (Jaraba et al

. , 2007), US (Ploetz, 2003) No N/A N/A

Scutellonema brachyurus Steiner (1938) Andrássy (Tylenchidae: Hoplolaimidae) Ploetz, 2003 Peru (CABI, 2006), US (Ploetz et al, 1998) No N/A N/A

VIRUS
Papaya Ringspot Virus (PRSV) Potyviridae = Papaya Mosaic Virus (Brunt et al

. , 2008) Ploetz, 2003 S. America, US (Brunt et al

. , 2008) No NA N/A

Tobacco streak virus (TSV)

Bromoviridae Brunt et al

. , 2008 Peru (CABI, 2006), US (Brunt

et al

. , 2008) No N/A N/A

Tomato spotted wilt virus Bunyaviridae. Gonsalves,

1996 Peru (CABI, 2006), US (Gonsalves, 1996) No N/A N/A

2.4.1. Discussion of Quarantine Pests Not Likely to Follow the Pathway

We o nly analyzed those quarantine pests that we re reasonably expected to follow the pathway of commercial shipments of exported papaya

. Some quarantine pests we did not include may be detrimental to U.S. agriculture , but we did not further analy ze them for a variety of reasons

.

Pests on different plant parts

. Often, t he primary association of the pest wa s with plant parts other than the commodity at harvest, such as Metamasius hemipterus

, Aleurocanthus woglumi

,

Ver. 2 March 27, 2012 13Pest Risk Assessment for Papaya from Peru

Oliarus sp

. , Lichtensia sp

. , Aulacaspis sp.
, and Aconophora pallescens

, which are associated with leaf, stem, root, inflorescence or young fruit

.

Pests not identified to species

. We did not assess t he risk associated with pests identified only to the order, family or generic levels , but if pests identified to higher taxa levels are intercepted in the future, their risk may be reevaluat ed

. Generally, the biological hazard of organisms not identified to the sp ecies level is not assessed because a genus contains many species, and assuming that the biology of all species within a genus is identical is not reasonable. The lack of species’ identification may indicate the limits of the current taxonomic knowledge, t he life stage, or the quality of the specimen submitted for identification. By necessity, pest risk assessments focus on the organisms for which biological information is available. The lack of identification at a specific level does not rule out the possi bility that a high risk quarantine pest was intercepted or that the intercepted organism was not a quarantine pest. Conversely, develop ing detailed assessments for known pests that inhabit a variety of ecological niches, such as the surfaces

and/or interio rs of fruit, stems or roots, allow s effective mitigation measures to eliminate known organisms, as well as similar, but incompletely identified organisms that inhabit the same niche.

Anastrepha distincta

. We did not list Anastrepha distincta as a pest of papaya, despite one reference suggesting a host association (CABI, 2006), because it was based on data mining and was countermanded by other evidence showing papaya as a non

- host (Aluja et al

. , 1987).

Armored scale

. We did not further analy ze t he armored scale, Pseudaonidia trilobitiformis

, because, although armored scales may enter on commercial fruit for consumption, they are not expected to become established, and therefore introduced, via this pathway (Miller, 1985; PERAL, 2007). A recen t review of the literature, APHIS

- PPQ operational data, and expert opinion concludes that, even assuming high quantities of imported fruit infested with armored scale species that could be parthenogenic, highly fecund, polyphagous, invasive, theoretically able to survive in most of the United States, and cause high level consequences, the specific pathway represented by commercially produced fruit shipped without leaves, stems or contaminants constitutes an extremely low risk (PERAL, 2007).

Other pests. O ther quarantine pests were not selected for further analysis f or a variety of reasons, including that they are external feeders, produce obvious damage, are visible on commodities, will move off the fruit when disturbed, or can be eliminated during standar d post

harvest proce ssing

.

We excluded Neosilba batesi ( Diptera: Lonchaeidae ) from further analysis because it feeds only after a primary feeder has punctured the fruit. In that case, the ruined fruit is highly likely to be

culled

.

Diabrotica speciosa ( Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae ) feeds on the papaya fruit as a mobile, winged

adult . Because it would be highly unlikely to remain w ith the commodity after harvest, we excluded it from further analysis.

We excluded Coccus viridis ( Hemiptera: Coccidae ) from fur ther analysis because it is primarily

a leaf

- feeder and infrequently attacks fruit (Dekle, 1976). This wa s corroborated by the fact that

Ver. 2 March 27, 2012 14Pest Risk Assessment for Papaya from Peru

C. viridis has never been specifically intercepted on papaya fruit ; only once on leaves in passenger baggage (PestID, 2 008).

2.4.2. Discussion of Quarantine Pests Likely to Follow the Pathway

We included Anastrepha fraterculus i n the pest list and, consequently, in the pathway in spite of the inconclusive evidence regarding the host suitability of papaya

. Previous risk assessments

have evaluated A. fraterculus for papaya. Current evidence suggests that papaya can become a

field host for C. capitata (M edfly ) ( Norrbom, 2008 ) , but only in ripe stages unsuitable for

international trade. This information should be taken into account when developing a mitigation strategy for this fruit fly.

2.5 . Analysis of Quarantine Pests

2.5.1. Consequences of Introduction

In this section we assessed t he undesirable consequences that may occur from the introduction of

quar antine pests. For each quarantine pest, we rated the potential Consequences of Introduction

in five areas called Risk Elements ( PPQ , 2000): Climate

- Host Interaction, Host Range, Dispersal Potential, Economic Impact and Environmental Impact. These Risk Elem ents reflect the biology, host range and climatic/geographic distribution of each pest and are supported by biological information on each of the pests analyzed in this section. For each Risk Element, we assigned pests a rating of Low (1 point), Medium (2 points) or High (3 points)

, using the c riteria in the risk assessment g uidelines ( PPQ , 2000). We then calculated a Cumulative Risk Value by summing the ratings (Table 6)

.

Anastrepha fraterculus Risk ratings

Risk Element #1: Climate

- Host Interaction Anastrepha fraterculus is a species complex that has not yet been studied in sufficient detail to clearly separate the included species. Still, the population in Peru and the Andean region is distinct from other populations in South America (Steck, 1991), and probably a different species from the Mexican population (Hernández

- Ortiz et al

. , 2004). The complex ranges from southern Texas to Argentina (Foote et al

. , 1993), including Uruguay, where it is widespread (CABI, 2006). These areas generally correspond to U.S. Plant Hardiness Zones 7

- 11 (PERAL, 2008) (which counts as a total of three zones). One or more of its potential hosts occurs in these zones (NRCS, 2008). High (3)

Risk Element #2: Host Range Anastrepha fraterculus is extremely polyphagous. Preferred hosts are Myrtaceae, including Eugenia and Syzygium spp. ( CABI, 2006 ) . Other hosts include Terminalia catappa (Combretaceae), Malus pumila and Prunus spp. (Rosaceae),

Annona spp. (Annonaceae), Citrus spp. (Rutaceae), Coffea spp. (Rubiaceae),

Ficus carica (Moraceae), Juglans spp. (Juglandaceae), Diospyros kaki (Ebenaceae), Manilkara zapota (Sapotaceae), Persea americana (Lauraceae),

Solanum quitoense (Solanaceae), Theobroma cacao (Sterculiaceae), Olea

europaea (Oleaceae ), and Vitis vinifera (Vitaceae) ( CABI, 2006 )

. High (3)

Ver. 2 March 27, 2012 15Pest Risk Assessment for Papaya from Peru

Anastrepha fraterculus Risk ratings Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential Females deposit from 200 to 400 eggs in host fruits (White and Elson

- Harris,

1994 ) . The species goes through several generations per year (CABI, 2006 )

. Long

- dist ance dispersal has not been reported for adults of A

. fraterculus ; however, another member of the genus was trapped 135 km away from its origin (Fletcher, 1989). The major means for introducing the species to previously

uninfested areas is international tr ansport of fruit containing larvae (CABI,

2006 ) . For most regions, the fruits most likely to carry this species are mango and guava. Based on this evidence, we rated A. fraterculus High for dispersal potential. High (3)

Risk Element #4: Economic Impact

An astrepha fraterculus is the most economically important species of Anastrepha in Brazil and other South American countries because of its broad host range (Foote et al

. , 1993 ). In Brazil it causes severe yield losses in apple, is a major concern of growers , and represents a significant constraint to exporting fresh fruit to countries with quarantine barriers (Sugayama et al

. , 1998). The insect is also an important pest of guava and mango, and to some extent of Citrus

and Prunus spp. (CABI, 2006 ). Anastrepha fraterculus is a quarantine pest for several countries and regions including Europe (EPPO, 2004); thus, its

introduction into the continental United States could result in a loss of foreign

markets for U.S. grown commodities. High (3)

Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact Anastrepha fraterculus can attack plants in the genus Prunus , which includes one species, Prunus geniculata in Florida, that occurs in the continental United States and is listed as Endangered (USFWS, 2008). Growers might have to apply more pesticides if A. fraterculus became established in the United States (CABI,

2006 )

. High (3)

Ceratitis capitata Risk ratings

Risk Element #1: Climate

- Host Interaction Ceratitis capitata is found in southern Europe, west Asia, Africa, South and Central America, and northern Australia ( CABI, 2006 ). This species can establish

in U.S. Plant Hardiness Zones 8

– 11 ( PERAL, 2008 )

, where many of its hosts

are available ( NRCS, 2008 ). Because Zone 11 is so small, it does not count toward the total number of zones, and so the rating is Medium

. Medium ( 2 )

Risk Element #2: Host Range This pest has been recorded on a wide variety of host plants in several families, including Rubiaceae ( Coffea spp. ), Solanaceae ( Capsicum annuum ), Rutaceae ( Citrus spp. ), Rosaceae ( Malus pumila, Prunus spp .), Moraceae ( Ficus carica ), Myrtaceae ( Psidium guajava ), Sterculiaceae ( Theobroma cacao ), Arecaceae ( Phoenix dactylifera ) and Anacardiaceae ( Mangifera in dica ) ( CABI, 2006 ). High (3)

Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential This pest deposits six to eight eggs in host fruit ( Hassan, 1977 ). Females can lay High (3)

Ver. 2 March 27, 2012 16Pest Risk Assessment for Papaya from Peru

Ceratitis capitata Risk ratings
up to 300 eggs in their lifetime ( Weems, 1981 ). In warm climates, breeding is

continuous and there are sev eral overlapping generations throughout the year ( Hassan, 1977 ). Adults can fly distances over 20 kilometers ( CABI, 2007 ). Transport of infested fruits is the major means of movement and dispersal to previously uninfested areas ( CABI, 2006 ).

Risk Element #4: Economic Impact Ceratitis capitata is an important pest in Africa, and can be spread in suitable climates worldwide, making it the single most important pest species in its family (CABI, 2005). In Mediterranean countries, the pest is particula rly damaging to citrus and peach crops

, increasing cost of production due to control program expenses. It may also transmit fruit

- rotting fungi ( CABI, 2006 ). Ceratitis capitata is of quarantine significance worldwide, especially for Japan and the United States, where we spen d considerable resources in order to prevent introduction of this fly ( CABI, 2006 ). Its presence can lead to severe constraints for fruit export

, leading to losses of foreign markets ( CABI, 2006 ). High (3)

Risk Element #5: Environment al Impact

The introduction and establishment of C. capitata in the United States w ould

initiat e chemical control, particularly bait sprays. The species is highly polyphagous, and can attack plants from the following genera with species listed

as Threatened or Endangered by the F ederal government ( USFWS, 2008 ):

Prunus ( P. geniculata , FL), Argemone ( A. pleiacantha , NM), Asimina ( A.

tetramera , FL), Berberis (B. nevivii

, B. pinnata

, B. sonnei , CA), Cucurbita ( C.

okeechobeensis , FL), Echinocereus ( E. chisoensis

, E. reichenbachii

, E. iridiflorus , TX; E. fendleri , NM; E. triglochidiatus , AZ), Euphorbia ( E. telephioides , FL), Opuntia ( O. treleasei , CA )

, Ribes ( R. echinellum , FL, SC), and Ziziphus ( Z. celata , FL). High (3)

Table 6 . Summary of risk ratings and values for the Consequences of Introduction.

Pest Climate

/Host Host Range Dispersal

Potential Economic Impact Environ

mental

i mpact Cumulative

r isk r ating a

Anastrepha fraterculus High ( 3 ) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (1 5 )
Ceratitis capitata Med (2 ) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (14 )

a Low is 5

- 8 points; Medium is 9

- 12 points; and High is 13

- 15 points

2.5.2. Likelihood of Introduction The value for the Likelihood of Introduction is the sum of the ratings for the Quantity Imported

Annual ly and Pest Opportunity (Table 7 ).

Quantity Imported Annually

. Peru exported an estimated 28 metric tons of papaya in 2006 and 14 metric tons in 2007 ( GTI, 2008 ). The sea shipping containers that are typically used for estimating the volume of commodity shipments are 40 feet (12.2 m) in length and hold approximately 40,000

Ver. 2 March 27, 2012 17Pest Risk Assessment for Papaya from Peru

pounds (18 metric tons) ( FAS, 2008 ). Based on this data, we project that the annual quantit y of papaya shipped from Peru to the United States would fill approximately 1

- 2 40

- foot shipping

containers at a maximum. Consequently, t he rating for this risk factor is Low

.

Survival of Post

- Harvest T reatment

. With no statement from Peru, we assume no p ost harvest

treatment of fruit beyond general inspection for quality before shipment. Anastrepha fraterculus

and C. capitata are internal feeders that are likely to survive minimal post

- harvest treatment s . If only minimal postharvest treatment s are used , t he likelihood of fruit fly survival is High

.

Survive shipment

. Fruit fly larvae can survive shipment when exported without any mitigating

treatment , demonstrated by numerous interceptions of live fruit fly larvae by U.S. agricultural inspectors at ports of entry ( PestID, 2008). In the absence of a treatment, the risk associated with the survival of shipment of internal feeders is High

.

Not detected at the port of entry

. Internal feeders are difficult to detect during normal USDA inspection procedure s at ports of entry (Gould, 1995 ) . T he risk associated with the inability t o detect these pests is High

.

Imported or moved to area with environment suitable for survival

. The fruit flies A. fraterculus

and C. capitata are highly likely to establish in parts o f the United States . Populations of C. capitata have repeatedly invaded Florida and California (Davies et al

. , 1999) . The risk associated with their importation in to the United States is High

.

Come into contact with host material suitable for reproduction

. It is likely that if A. fraterculus

and C. capitata enter the United States, they will find numerous hosts available for reproduction due to their polyphagous nature (CABI, 2006) and capacity for long range movement (up to 20 km) ( F letcher, 1989 )

. Theref ore, t he rating is High for the risk that these imported fruit flies can find host material suitable for reproduction.

The likelih ood that a particular pest will be introduced is reflected in the value for the Cumulative Risk Rating. The Cumulative Risk R ating is High for each of the pests (Table 7 ).

Table 7 . Risk Rating for Likelihood of Introduction

Pest Quantity

i mported

a nnually Survive

p ost

- harvest

t reatment Survive

s hipment Not detected at port of

e ntry Moved to

suitable

h abitat Contact

with host

m aterial Cumulative

r isk r ating a

Anastrepha

fraterculus Low (1 ) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (16 )

Ceratitis capitata Low (1 ) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (16 )

a Low = 6

- 9 points, Medium = 10

- 14 points and High = 15

- 18 points.

Ver. 2 March 27, 2012 18Pest Risk Assessment for Papaya from Peru

2.6 . Conclusion: Pest Risk Potential

We summ ed the values for the Consequences of Introduction and the Likelihood of Introduction

to determine the Pest Risk Potential (Table 8 ). This is a baseline estimate of the risks associated with this importation in the absence of specific mitigation measures

. Both pests analyzed in this

risk assessment had High Pest Risk Potential. That rating means that port

- of

- entry inspection is

not considered su fficient to provide phytosanitary security and specific phytosanitary measures are strongly recommended

.

The reduction of risk occurs through the use of mitigation measures. The conclusions from pest

risk assessment are used to consider whether risk mana gement is required and the strength of measures to be used (Stage 2 of PRA) ( IPPC, 2007; ISPM # 11 ). Pest risk management (Stage 3 of PRA) is the process of identifying ways to react to a perceived risk, evaluating the efficacy of these procedures, and reco mmending the most appropriate options

. The choice of appropriate phytosanitary measures to mitigate risks is undertaken as part of Risk Management, and is not

addressed in this document.

Table 8 . Pest Risk Potential s

Pest Consequences of

Introduction Likelihood of

Introduction Pest risk p otential

Anastrepha fraterculus High (1 5 ) High (16 ) High (3 1 )
Ceratitis capitata High (14 ) High (16 ) High (30 )

a Low = 11

- 18 points, Medium = 19

- 26 pts, and High = 27

- 33 pts.



### 3

. Authors and Reviewers

Authors:

Shawn Robertson

– Entomologist Feridoon Mehdizadegan

– Plant Pathologist

Reviewers:

Scott Redlin

– Plant Pathologist

Leah Millar

- Entomologist



### 4

. References

7 CFR § 319. 2007. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 7, Part 319 (7 CFR § 319

– Foreign Quarantine Notices). 7 CFR § 319.56

- 2w. 2007. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 7, Part 319 (7 CFR § 319

– Foreign Quarantine Notices). Alfieri, S. A., K. R. Langdon, J. W. Kimbrough, N. E. El

- Gholl, and C. Wehlburg. 1994. Bulletin No. 14, Diseases a nd disorders of plants in Florida {Papaya specific pages}. Div i sion of Plant Industry, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Gainesville, Florida. 1114 pp.

Ver. 2 March 27, 2012 19Pest Risk Assessment for Papaya from Peru

Aluja, M. 1994. Bionomics and management of Anastrepha . Annual Review of Entomolo gy 39:155

- 178. Aluja, M., J. Guillen, G. d. l. Rosa, M. Cabrera, H. Celedonio, P. Liedo, J. Hendrichs, G. De la Rosa, and G. d. La Rosa. 1987. Natural host plant survey of the economically important fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) of Chiapas, Mexico. Fl orida Entomologist 70(3):329

- 330. Alvarez, A. M., and W. T. Nishijima. 1987. Postharvest diseases of papaya. Plant Disease

71:681

- 686. Aubert, B., P. Lossois, J. Marchal, J. Rabaud, and P. deBoisvilliers. 1981. Mise en evidence des degats causes par Polyph agotarsonemus latus (Banks) sur papayer a l'ile de Ia Reunion. Fruits 36(1):9

- 24. Bazan de Segura, C. 1973. Relación de enfermedades y microorganismos patógenos aislados de plantas cultivadas, forestales y ornamentales en el Peru. . Ministerio de Agricultu ra. 68

pp. Bazan de Segura, C. 1975. Enfermedades de cultivos frutícolas y hortícolas. Editorial Jurídica S.A. Lima, Peru. 276 pp. Bolland, H. R., J. Gutierrez, and C. H. W. Flechtmann. 1998. World catalogue of the spider mite family (Acari: Tetranychidae) . Brill, Boston. Brunt, A. A., K. Crabtree, M. J. Dallwitz, A. J. Gibbs, L. Watson, and E. J. Zurcher (eds.). 2008. Plant Viruses Online: Descriptions and Lists from the VIDE Database. http://image.fs.uidaho.edu/vide/. CABI. 2003. Crop Protection Compendiu m. CAB International (CABI) , Wallingford, UK. CABI. 2006. Crop Protection Compendium. CA B International (CABI), Wallingford, UK. Chandler, L. D. 1980. Control of the carmine spider mite on greenhouse grown foliage plants. Southwestern Entomologist 5:53.

Co ronel, L. E., D. Navarro, and O. R. Masías. 1980. Pythium butleri agente causal de la pudrición radicular del papayo. Fitopatología 15(1):7

- 8. Couey, H. M., and C. F. Hayes. 1986. Quarantine procedure for Hawaiian papaya using fruit

selection and a two

- sta ge hot

- water immersion. Journal of Economic Entomology 79(5):1307

- 1314. Davies, D., F. X. Villablanca, and G. K. Roderick. 1999. Bioinvasions of the medfly Ceratitis capitata : source estimation using DNA sequences at multiple intron level. Genetics

153:351

- 360. Denmark, H. A., T. R. Fasulo, and J. E. Funderburk. 2004. Cuban Laurel Thrips, Gynaikothrips ficorum (Marchal) (Insecta: Thysanoptera: Phlaeothripidae) . Entomology Circular No. 59. 4 pp.

El

- Borai, F. E., and L. W. Duncan. 2005. Nematode Parasites of Subtropical and Tropical Fruit Trees. Pages 467

- 491 in M. Luc, R. Sikora, and J. Bridge, (eds.). Parasitic Nematodes in Tropical & Subtropical Agriculture. CAB International, St. Albans, UK. EPPO. 2004. EPPO Standard PM1/2(13). A1 and A2 Lists of pests re commended for regulation as quarantine pests (adopted in 2004

- 09). European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization (EPPO). http://www.eppo.org/QUARANTINE/lists.htm. Farr, D. F., G. F. Bills, G. P. Chamuris, and A. Y. Rossman. 1989. Fungi on Plants and Plant Products in the United States. APS Press, St. Pau., MN. 152 pp.

Ver. 2 March 27, 2012 20Pest Risk Assessment for Papaya from Peru

Farr, D. F., A. Y. Rossman, M. E. Palm, and E. B. McCray. 2008. Fungal Databases. United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Systematic Mycology

and Mic robiology Laboratory. http://nt.ars

- grin.gov/fungaldatabases/. FAS. 2008. Glossary. United States Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS). http://www.fas.usda.gov/agexport/export_plan/glossary.htm.

FLEPPC. 2007. List of Florida's Inva sive Species. Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council (FLEPPC)

. http://www.fleppc.org. Fletcher, B. S. 1989. Movement of tephritid fruit flies. Pages 209

- 219 in A. S. Robinson and G. Hooper, (eds.). Fruit flies, their biology, natural enemies and control, World crop pests, Vol. 3b. Elsevier, Amsterdam. Fons, J. F. 1990. Quarantine barriers, treatments as a means to facilitate trade. Pages 435 in J. F. Fons, ed. A cta Horticulturae. Foote, R. H., F. L. Blanc, and A. L. Norrbom. 1993. Handbook of the Fruit Flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) of America North of Mexico. Pages 94

- 97,124

- 127. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY, USA. Franciosi Tijero, R. 1992. El Cultivo del Papayo en el Peru. Ediciones Fundeagro, Lima. 89 pp. Gonsalves, D. 1996. Tomato spotted wilt virus in papaya and detection of the virus by ELISA.

Plant Disease 70:501

- 506. Gould, W. P. 1995. Probability of detecting Caribbean fruit fly (Diptera: Tephritida e) infestations by fruit dissection. Florida Entomologist 78(3):502

- 507.

GTI. 2008. Global Trade Atlas. Global Trade Information Services (GTI) , Inc. http://www.gtis.com/gta. Gunn, C. R., and C. Ritchie. 1982. Report of the Technical Committee to Evaluate Noxious Weeds; Exotic Weeds for Federal Noxious Weed Act (unpublished). Hallman, G. J., and P. Loaharanu. 2002. Generic Ionizing Radiation Quarantine Treatments Against Fruit Flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) Proposed

. Journal of Economic Entomology 95(5):893

- 9 01. Hassan, E. 1977. Major Insect and Mite Pest of Australian Crops. Pages 73

- 89 in J. T. Swarbrick, (ed.). Ento Press, Gatton, Queensland.

Hernández

- Ortiz, V., J. A. Gómez

- Anaya, A. Sánchez, B. A. McPheron, and M. Aluja. 2004. Morphometric analysis of Mex ican and South American populations of the Anastrepha fraterculus complex (Diptera:Tephritidae) and recognition of a distinct Mexican morphotype. Bulletin of Entomological Research 94(6):487

- 499. Holm, L. G., J. Doll, E. Holm, J. V. Pancho, and J. P. Herbe rger. 1997a. World Weeds: Natural Histories and Distribution. John Wiley & Sons, New York. 1129 pp. Holm, L. G., J. V. Pancho, J. P. Herberger, and D. L. Plucknett. 1979. A Geographical Atlas of World Weeds. John Wiley and Sons, New York. 391 pp. Holm, L. G., D. L. Plucknett, J. V. Pancho, and J. P. Herberger. 1997b. The World's Worst Weeds: Distribution and biology. University Press of Hawaii, Honolulu. 609 pp. Horvitz, C. C., S. McMann, and A. Freedman. 1995. Exotics and hurricane damage in three

hardwood hammocks in Dade County Parks, Florida. Journal of Coastal Research SI(21):145

- 158. IPPC. 2007. International Standards For Phytosanitary Measures, 1 to 29 (2007 edition). Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Secretariat of the Interna tional Plant Protection Convention (IPPC), Rome, Italy. 376 pp.

Ver. 2 March 27, 2012 21Pest Risk Assessment for Papaya from Peru

Jaraba, J. d. D., Z. Lozano, and M. Espinosa. 2007. Nematodos agalladores asociados al cultivo de papaya ( Carica papaya L.) en el departamento de Córdoba, Colombia. Agronomía Colombiana 25(1): 124

- 130. Jeppson, L. R., H. H. Keifer, and E. W. Baker. 1975. Mites injurious to economic plants. University of California Press, Berkel e y. 614 pp. Kwit, C., W.

- J. Platt, and H.

- H. Slater. 2000. Post

- hurricane regeneration of pioneer plant species in south Florida subtropical hardwood hammocks. Biotropica 32(2):244

- 251. Lance, D. R., and D. B. Gates. 1994. Sensitivity of detection trapping systems for Mediterranean fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) in southern California. Journal of Economic Entomology 87( 6):1377

- 1383. Lara, F., and F. Marin. 1990. Infestation rates of papaya by fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) in relation to degree of ripeness and effect of hot

- water and cold

- water storage treatment on egg survival. PPI Del Monte Trop. Fruit Co. 13 pp.

M cAlpine, J. F., and G. C. Steyskal. 1982. A revision of Neosilba McAlpine with a key to the world genera of Lonchaeidae (Diptera). Canadian Entomologist 114(2):105

- 137. McGuire, J. U. J., and B. S. Crandall. 1967. Survey of insect pests and plant diseases of selected food crops of Mexico, Central America, and Panama. USDA. 159 pp. Miller, D. R. 1985. Pest risk assessment of armored scales on certain fruit (USDA

- ARS Report

submitted to USDA

- APHIS

- PPQ). USDA Agricultural Research Service, Beltsville, MD. Morton, J. F. 1987. Fruits of warm climates. Julia F. Morton. http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/morton/index.html. Nakasone, H. Y., and R. E. Paull. 2004. Papaya. Pages 239

- 269 Tropical Fruits. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK. Norrbom, A. L. 2008. Fruit Fly Host Plant Database. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Agricultural Research Service, Systematic Entomology Laboratory. http://www.sel.barc.usda.gov. (Archived at PERAL) NRCS. 2008. The PLANTS Database. United States Department of Agricul ture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), The National Plant Data Center. http://plants.usda.gov. (Archived at PERAL) Pantoja, A., P. A. Follett, and J. A. Villanueva

- Jimenez. 2002. Pests of papaya. Pages 131

- 156 in J.E. Pena, J. Sharp, and M. W ysoki, (ed.). Tropical fruit pests and pollinators. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK. Parsons, W., and E. Cuthbertson. 2001. Noxious weeds of Australia. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood. 698 pp. Pena, J. E., and R. C. Bullock. 1994. Effects of feeding of broa d mite (Acari: Tarsonemidae) on vegetative plant growth. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=lah&AN=19951102163&site=eh

ost

- live&scope=site PERAL. 2007. Phytosanitary Risks Associated with Armored Scales in Commercial Shipments

of Fruit f or Consumption to the United States, Revision Original. United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine, Center for Plant Health Science and Technology, Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analys is Laboratory (PERAL), Raleigh, NC. PestID. 2008. Pest Identification Database (PestID). United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine. https://mokcs14.aphis.usda.gov/aqas/login.jsp. (A rchived at PERAL)

Ver. 2 March 27, 2012 22Pest Risk Assessment for Papaya from Peru

Ploetz, R. C. 2003. Diseases of Tropical Fruit Crops CAB International, Wallingford, UK. 544

pp. Posada, L. 1989. Lista de insectos dañinos y otras plagas en Colombia. (Boletín Técnico No. 43.). Instituto Colombiano Agropecuario, División de disciplinas agricolas, Seción de Entomología. PPQ. 2003. Guidelines for Fruit Fly Systems Approach to Support the Movement of Regulated Articles between Mexico and the United States (Draft Document). United States Department of Agriculture , Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ)

. PPQ. 2008. Treatment Manual. United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ)

. http://www.aphis.usda.gov/impor t_export/plants/manuals/ports/treatment.shtml. (Archived at PERAL) Reed, C. F. 1977. Economically important foreign weeds, potential problems in the United States. Pages 746 Agriculture Handbook No. 498. Agricultural Research Service, Animal

and Plant Heal th Inspection, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. Simpson, B. B., and M.Conner

- Ogorzaly. 1986. Economic Botany: Plants in our World.

McGraw

- Hill Publishing Company, New York. 544 pp. Steck, G. J. 1991. Biochemical systematics and population geneti c structure of Anastrepha fraterculus and related species (Diptera: Tephritidae). Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 84(1):10

- 28. Sugayama, R. L., A. Kovaleski, P. Liedo, and A. Malavasi. 1998. Colonization of a new fruit crop by Anastrepha fraterculus (Diptera: Tephr itidae) in Brazil: a demographic analysis. Environmental Entomology 27(3):642

- 648. Thomas, M. C. 2000. The exotic invasion of Florida: a report on arthropod immigration into the sunshine state. (Florida) Department of Agr iculture and Consumer Services http ://doacs.state.fl.us/~pi/enpp/ento/exoticsinflorida.htm. USFWS. 2008. Threatened and endangered species system (TESS). United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/TESSWebpage. (Archived at PERAL) von Ellenrieder, N. 200 3. Latania scale ( Hemiberlesia lataniae ). California Department of Food and Agriculture. http://www.cdfa.ca.gov

. Walsh, G. C. 2003. Host range and reproductive traits of D iabrotica speciosa (Germar) and

Diabrotica vir idula (F.) (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae), two species of South American pest rootworms, with notes on other species of Diabroticina. Environmental Entomology

32:276

- 285. Weems, H. V. 1981. Mediterranean fruit fly, Ceratitis capitata (Wiede mann) (Diptera: Teph ritidae). Entomology Circular No. 230. Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Plant Industry. White, I. M., and M. M. Elson

- Harris. 1994. Fruit flies of economic significance: their

identification and bionomics. CAB Internatio nal, Wallingford, UK. 601 pp. Wiersema, J. H., and B. Leon. 1999. World economic plants: A standard reference. CRC Press,
Boca Raton, FL. WSSA. 2008. Title. Weed Science Society of America (WSSA). http://www.wssa.net/. (Archived at PERAL)

Ver. 2 March 27, 2012 23