Importation of Fresh Papaya, Carica papaya, from Peru into the 

Continental United States

A Qualitative, Pathway-Initiated Pest Risk Assessment

March 27, 2012

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 27606
Pest Risk Assessment for Papaya from Peru

Executive Summary

In this pest risk analysis, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)’s Animal and 

Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ) analyzed the 

plant pest risks associated with importing 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 States. These pests include the following fruit flies in the family Tephritidae:

Ceratitis capitata Wiedemann

Anastrepha fraterculus (Wiedemann)

We qualitatively analyzed these pests using the methodology described in the USDA-APHISPPQ Guidelines for Pathway-Initiated Pest Risk Assessment, Version 5.02. Following the

guidelines, we examined pest biology to assess the Consequences of Introduction and the 

Likelihood of Introduction, which we, in turn, used to estimate the baseline Pest Risk Potential.

The baseline Pest Risk Potential for the two pests of concern is High.

Port-of-entry inspections are considered insufficient to safeguard from the introduction of pests 

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

chosen for risk mitigation.

Ver. 2 March 27, 2012 i
Pest 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. Pest Categorization .............................................................................................................. 5

2.5. Analysis of Quarantine Pests............................................................................................. 15

2.6. Conclusion: 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 requirements for Central America and Brazilian Papaya Error! Bookmark not 

defined.

4. Authors and Reviewers........................................................................................................... 19

5. References................................................................................................................................ 19

Ver. 2 March 27, 2012 ii
Pest 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).

The International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) provides standards for conducting pest risk 

analyses. The methods used to initiate, conduct, and report this analysis, as well as the use of

biological and phytosanitary terms, are consistent with these standards (IPPC, 2007: ISPM #2).

This standard describes three stages of pest risk analysis: Stage 1, Initiation, Stage 2, Risk 

Assessment, and Stage 3, Risk Management. This document satisfies the requirements 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 

sometimes 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). Because 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 32o north and south of the equator) 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 1
Pest Risk Assessment for Papaya from Peru

spread north as frost no longer becomes 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, pathway-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. The United States Code of Federal 

Regulations (7 CFR § 319, 2003; 319.56) provides regulatory authority for the importation of 

fruits and vegetables from foreign countries into the United States. The entry of papaya from 

Peru into United States is not currently authorized.

2.2. Assessment of the Weed 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: Papaya 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 Weeds: 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 2
Pest 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 decision 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 3
Pest 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 4
Pest 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 listed 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 

continental 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 phytosanitary risk on papaya from Peru

because they either did not satisfy the definition of a quarantine pest or were 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. Therefore, information on plant part association and whether the pest is likely to follow 

the pathway is not needed for non-quarantine pests. Therefore, 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 5
Pest 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

Quarantine pestPlant 

Part(s)1

Follow 

pathway

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)

No2

1 Plant Parts: Bk = Bark, 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 6

 
Pest Risk Assessment for Papaya from Peru

Organism Reported on 

papaya

Peru & US 

Distribution

Quarantine pestPlant 

Part(s)1

Follow 

pathway

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

Peru3 (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 specifically 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, 2006; PestID, 2008)

Ver. 2 March 27, 2012 7

 
Pest Risk Assessment for Papaya from Peru

Organism Reported on 

papaya

Peru & US 

Distribution

Quarantine pestPlant 

Part(s)1

Follow 

pathway

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 (BenDov 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)

No6

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 Although Coccus viridis reportedly attacks 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 8

 
Pest Risk Assessment for Papaya from Peru

Organism Reported on 

papaya

Peru & US 

Distribution

Quarantine pestPlant 

Part(s)1

Follow 

pathway

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 (BenDov 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 (BenDov 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) 

Yes8

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 (BenDov 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 limited 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 explanation. 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 9

 
Pest Risk Assessment for Papaya from Peru

Organism Reported on 

papaya

Peru & US 

Distribution

Quarantine pestPlant 

Part(s)1

Follow 

pathway

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)

No9 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 (BenDov 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 10

 
Pest Risk Assessment for Papaya from Peru

Organism Reported on 

papaya

Peru & US 

Distribution

Quarantine pestPlant 

Part(s)1

Follow 

pathway

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 11
Pest Risk Assessment for Papaya from Peru

Organism Reported on 

papaya

Peru & US 

Distribution

Quarantine pestPlant 

Part(s)1

Follow 

pathway

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 caricaepapayae

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 12
Pest Risk Assessment for Papaya from Peru

Organism Reported on 

papaya

Peru & US 

Distribution

Quarantine pestPlant 

Part(s)1

Follow 

pathway

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 (Tylenchidae: 

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 only analyzed those quarantine pests that were 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 analyze them for a variety of reasons. 

Pests on different plant parts. Often, the primary association of the pest was with plant parts 

other than the commodity at harvest, such as Metamasius hemipterus, Aleurocanthus woglumi, 

Ver. 2 March 27, 2012 13
Pest 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 the 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 reevaluated. Generally, the biological hazard of organisms not 

identified to the species 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, the 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 possibility that a high risk quarantine pest was intercepted or 

that the intercepted organism was not a quarantine pest. Conversely, developing detailed 

assessments for known pests that inhabit a variety of ecological niches, such as the surfaces 

and/or interiors of fruit, stems or roots, allows 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 analyze the 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 recent 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. Other quarantine pests were not selected for further analysis for 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 standard postharvest processing.

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 with the commodity after harvest, we 

excluded it from further analysis.

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

a leaf-feeder and infrequently attacks fruit (Dekle, 1976). This was corroborated by the fact that 

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

C. viridis has never been specifically intercepted on papaya fruit; only once on leaves in 

passenger baggage (PestID, 2008).

2.4.2. Discussion of Quarantine Pests Likely to Follow the Pathway

We included Anastrepha fraterculus in 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 (Medfly) (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 the undesirable consequences that may occur from the introduction of 

quarantine 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 Elements 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 criteria in the 

risk assessment guidelines (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 15
Pest 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-distance 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 transport 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

Anastrepha 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 indica) (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 16
Pest 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 several 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 particularly 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 spend 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: Environmental Impact

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

initiate 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 Federal 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

Environmental 

impact

Cumulative

risk ratinga

Anastrepha fraterculus High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (15)

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

Annually 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 17
Pest Risk Assessment for Papaya from Peru

pounds (18 metric tons) (FAS, 2008). Based on this data, we project that the annual quantity of 

papaya shipped from Peru to the United States would fill approximately 1-2 40-foot shipping 

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

Survival of Post-Harvest Treatment. With no statement from Peru, we assume no post 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 treatments. If 

only minimal postharvest treatments are used, the 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 procedures at ports of entry (Gould, 1995). The risk associated with the inability to 

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 of the United States. Populations of C. 

capitata have repeatedly invaded Florida and California (Davies et al., 1999). The risk associated 

with their importation into 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)

(Fletcher, 1989). Therefore, the rating is High for the risk that these imported fruit flies can find 

host material suitable for reproduction.

The likelihood that a particular pest will be introduced is reflected in the value for the Cumulative 

Risk Rating. The Cumulative Risk Rating is High for each of the pests (Table 7).

Table 7. Risk Rating for Likelihood of Introduction

Pest Quantity 

imported 

annually

Survive 

post-harvest 

treatment

Survive

shipment

Not detected 

at port of 

entry

Moved to 

suitable 

habitat

Contact 

with host

material

Cumulative

risk ratinga

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 18
Pest Risk Assessment for Papaya from Peru

2.6. Conclusion: Pest Risk Potential

We summed 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 sufficient 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 management 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 recommending 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 Potentials

Pest Consequences of 

Introduction

Likelihood of 

Introduction

Pest risk potential

Anastrepha fraterculus High (15) High (16) High (31)

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 and disorders of plants in Florida {Papaya specific pages}. Division of 

Plant Industry, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Gainesville, 

Florida. 1114 pp.

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

Aluja, M. 1994. Bionomics and management of Anastrepha. Annual Review of Entomology 

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. Florida 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 Polyphagotarsonemus 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 Agricultura. 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 Compendium. CAB International (CABI), Wallingford, UK.

CABI. 2006. Crop Protection Compendium. CAB International (CABI), Wallingford, UK.

Chandler, L. D. 1980. Control of the carmine spider mite on greenhouse grown foliage plants. 

Southwestern Entomologist 5:53.

Coronel, 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-stage 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 recommended 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 20
Pest 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 Microbiology 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 Invasive 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. Acta 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: Tephritidae) 

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):893-901.

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 Mexican 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. Herberger. 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 International Plant 

Protection Convention (IPPC), Rome, Italy. 376 pp.

Ver. 2 March 27, 2012 21
Pest 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, Berkeley. 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.

McAlpine, J. F., and G. C. Steyskal. 1982. A revision of Neosilba McAlpine with a key to the 

world genera of Lonchaeidae (Diptera). Canadian Entomologist 114(2):105-137.

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 Agriculture, 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. Wysoki, (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 broad 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 for 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 Analysis 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. (Archived at PERAL)

Ver. 2 March 27, 2012 22
Pest 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/import_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 Health 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 genetic 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: Tephritidae) 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 Agriculture 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. 2003. 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 Diabrotica speciosa (Germar) and 

Diabrotica viridula (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 (Wiedemann) 

(Diptera: Tephritidae). 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 International, 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