## Importation of Fresh Litchi, Litchi chinensis Sonn., Fruit
from Australia into the Continental United States

A Qualitative, Pathway-initiated
Pest Risk Assessment

November 6, 2008

Revision 006

Agency Contact:

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 1730 Varsity Drive, Suite 300 Raleigh, NC 27606Litchi from Australia

Rev. 006 November 6, 2008 ii Executive Summary

The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) prepared this pest risk assessment to exam ine plant pest risks associated with the importation of fresh litchi ( Litchi chinensis Sonn.) fruit with stems from Australia into the continental United States. This is a qualita tive risk assessment; estimates of risk are expressed in terms of High, Medium, and Low rather than numerical terms such as probabilities or frequencies. The methodology and rating criteri a used to analyze these pests are in the Guidelines for Pathway-Initiated Pest Risk Assessment, Version 5.02 (USDA, 2000).

A list of pests reported in Aust ralia and reported as attacking litchi was developed based on the scientific literature, USDA port-of-entry pest interception data, and information provided by the Australian government. From this pest list, fift een quarantine pests were identified as likely to follow the pathway of litchi fruit imported from Australia and were further analyzed. Quarantine pests likely to follow the pathway and selected for further analysis include the arthropods:

Order Family Organism Acari Eriophyidae Aceria litchii (Keifer) Diptera Tephritidae Bactrocera jarvisi (Tryon) Bactrocera tryoni (Froggatt) Ceratitis capitata (Wiedemann) Hemiptera Coccidae Ceroplastes rubens (Maskell)
Coccus viridis (Green)
Pseudococcidae Nipaecoccus viridis (Newstead)
Planococcus minor (Maskell) Lepidoptera Lycaenidae Deudorix epijarbas dido Waterhouse
Deudorix diovis Hewitson Pyralidae Cateremna quadriguttella Walker Conogethes punctiferalis (Guenée) Phycita leucomilta Lower
Tortricidae Cryptophlebia ombrodelta (Lower)

Isotenes miserana Walker

The Pest Risk Potentials for Bactrocera jarvisi, Bactrocera tryoni, Ceratitis capitata, Ceroplastes rubens, Con ogethes punctiferalis, Cr yptophlebia ombrodelta, and Isotenes miserana

are High

. The Pest Risk Potentials for Aceria litchii, Cateremna quadriguttella, Coccus viridis, Deudorix epijarbas dido, Deudorix diovis, Nipaecoccus viridis, Phycita leucomilta, and
Planococcus minor are Medium

. None of the pests have a Low Pest Risk Potential

.

A list of risk mitigation options is available (Appendix B). Detailed examination and choice of appropriate phytosanitary measures to mitigate pest risk are part of the pest risk management phase within APHIS and are not addressed in this document.Litchi from Australia

Rev. 006 November 6, 2008 iii 

### Table of Contents

1. Introduction................................................................................................................ ............... 1

2. Risk Assessment ............................................................................................................. ........... 1

2.1 Initiating Event: Proposed Action............................................................................... 1

2.2 Assessment of the Weediness Potential of Litchi ....................................................... 1

2.3 Current Status and Pest Interceptions........................................................................ 2

2.4 Pest Categorization ..................................................................................................... ..... 3

2.5 Analysis of Quarantine Pests ........................................................................................ 29

3. Conclusions................................................................................................................. ............. 52

4. Author(s) and Reviewer(s) ................................................................................................... .. 53

5. Literature Cited ............................................................................................................ .......... 53

6. Appendices.................................................................................................................. ............. 70Litchi from Australia

Rev. 006 November 6, 2008 1 1. Introduction

This risk assessment was prepared by the Anim al and Plant Health In spection Service (APHIS) of the United States Department of Agricultu re (USDA) to examine the plant pest risks associated with the importation of fresh litchi ( Litchi chinensis Sonn.) fruit with stems from
Australia into the continental United States. [According to information provided by Biosecurity Australia, in Australia, litchi fruits for commerci al markets are clipped from the panicles leaving 5mm of stem attached (Bio security Australia, 2002).] This risk assessment is qualitative; risk is expressed in terms of High, Medium or Low rather than probabiliti es or frequencies. The details of the methodology and rating criteria are in the Pathway-Initiated Pest Risk Assessments: Guidelines for Qualitative Assessments, Version 5.02 (USDA, 2000).

Regional and international plant protection organizations, such as the North American Plant Protection Organization (NAPPO) and the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC), provide standards for conducting pest risk analyses (IPPC, 2004, 2006; NAPPO, 2004). The methods used to initiate, conduct, and report th is assessment, as well as the biological and phytosanitary terms, are based on IPPC standards. These standards describe three stages of pest risk analysis: Stage 1, Initiati on; Stage 2, Risk Assessment; and Stage 3, Risk Management. This document satisfies the requirements of IPPC Stages 1 and 2.

2. Risk Assessment

2.1 Initiating Event: Proposed Action

This commodity-based, pathway-initiated pest risk assessment accompanies a request for USDA authorization to allow the importation of litchi grown in Australia into the United States. Litchi from Australia provides a potential pathway for the introduction of plant pests. The movement of fruits and vegetables from Australia into th e United States is re gulated in 7 CFR §319.56. Currently, the entry of litchi from Australia into the United States is not authorized under 7 CFR §319.56; the government of Australia seeks a cha nge in this Federal Regulation to allow importation.

2.2 Assessment of the Weediness Potential of Litchi

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 w eediness screening for litchi do not prompt a pest-initiated risk assessment because the plant is already present in the United States and is not reported as a weed anywhere in the world (Table 1).Litchi from Australia

Rev. 006 November 6, 2008 2 

### Commodity Weediness Assessment
Litchi chinensis Sonn

Table 1. Determining the weediness potential of Litchi chinensis Sonn. (Sapindaceae)

Common Names: Lychee, Litchi, Leechee, Lichee, Lichi, Litchia (USDA-ARS, 2005) Synonyms: Nephelium litchi Cambess (Morton, 1987)

Phase 1: Distribution in the United States includes south Florida, California, and Hawaii (Morton, 1987). Litchi is native to China. Currently, it is cultivated worldwide in the subtropical regions.

Phase 2: Invasive / Weed Status : Listing as weed

No (7 CFR § 360, January 1, 2005; Gunn and Ritchie, 1988; Holm et al

. , 1997; Holm
et al

. , 1991; Holm et al

. , 1977; Randall, 2005; Reed, 1977; Skinner et al

. , 2005; Swearingen, 2005; Weber, 2003; WSSA, 2005)

No Other scientific literature.

Phase 3: Summary and Conclusions:

A review of the litera ture did not indicate Litchi chinensis is an invasive species. Thus, litchi fruits may be considered for import following an appropriate pest risk

assessment.

Conclusion: Proceed with the pest risk assessment.

Author: Anthony L. Koop Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laborator y, Center for Integrat ed Pest Management USDA-APHIS-PPQ

Last Updated: November 4, 2005

2.3 Current Status and Pest Interceptions

Currently, 7 CFR §319.56 prohibits the entry of fresh litchi fruit from Australia into the United States. Table 2 summarizes decisions on previous requests for litchi importation from Australia and other countries in the region.

In Appendix A, we list pest interceptions on litc hi from all countries since 1985 (PestID, 2008).

Table 2. Decision history for litchi from Asia and the Pacific

Year Country Decision Rationale 1972 Hong Kong Denied No acceptable treatme nt for complex of pests reported 1972 China Denied No acceptable treatment for complex of pests reported 1972 Taiwan Denied No acceptable treatme nt for complex of pests reportedLitchi from Australia

Rev. 006 November 6, 2008 3

Year Country Decision Rationale 1972 Japan Approved Ethylene dibromide treat ment; not currently permitted (PPQ, 2006a). 1980 Taiwan Denied No acceptable treatment for Dacus spp. 1981 China Denied No acceptable treatment for Dacus and Chryptophlebia species 1983 Thailand Approved Ethylene dibromide treatment for Dacus dorsalis ; but not currently permitted (PPQ, 2006a). 1985 Australia Denied No acceptable treatment for a complex of pests 1987 Taiwan Denied No acceptable treatment for Dacus latiprons 1988 Philippines Denied No acceptable treatment for Dacus dorsalis

1992 Australia Denied No treatment data available for Conogethes punctiferalis and

Isotenes miserana 1992 Taiwan Approved Cold treatment for Bactrocera dorsalis and Conopomorpha

sisensis ; prohibited into Florida. Clusters of fruit on stem are currently allowed (PPQ, 2006a), and irradiated fruits are allowed (PPQ, 2006b). 1994 China, India Approved As fruit only and subject to cold treatment for B. dorsalis and
C. sisensis ; prohibited into Florida. Clusters of fruit on stem are currently allowed (PPQ, 2006a), and irradiated fruits are allowed (PPQ, 2006b).

2.4 Pest Categorization

Pests associated with litchi Below, we list the pests associated with litchi (in any country) that occur in Australia (on any host) (Table 3). In this list we identified the presence or absence of these pests in the United States; the generally affected plant part or part s; the quarantine status of the pest with respect to the United States; if the pest is likely to follow th e pathway and enter the United Stat es on commercially exported litchi fruit (with approximately 5mm of stem); and pertinen t citations for either the distribution or the biology of the pest. Based on pest biol ogy and distribution, we eliminate many organisms from further
consideration as sources of phytosanitary risk on litchi from Australia.

[Note: CABI (2004) reports Bactrocera cucurbitate (Coquillett) as present in Australia (“few occurrences”); however, EPPO (2005) reports th at this is an erroroneous report and that B. cucurbitae is absent from Australia. Consequently, B. cucurbitae was not included in the pest list.]Litchi from Australia

Rev. 006 November 6, 2008 4 Table 3. Pests reported on litchi ( Litchi chinensis ) in any country, and present in Australia on any host.

Pest Scientific Name Distribution 1 Reported on
litchi Plant Part(s)
Association Quarantine Pest Likely to
Follow Pathway

ARTHROPODS

ACARI Eriophyidae

Aceria litchii (Keifer) (synonym: Eriophyes
litchi Keifer) AU (Biosecurity Australia, 2002); US (HI) (Amrine and Stasny, 1994) Waite and Elder, 1999a;
Waite and Hwang, 2002 foliage, flowers, fruit (Biosecurity Australia, 2002) Yes-Yes

Tarsonemidae Polyphagotarsonemus
latus (Banks) AU (Biosecurity Australia, 2002); US (C.I.E., 1986) Waite and Hwang, 2002 leaves (Hill, 1983), fruit (NCSU CIPM, 2005); leaves, fruit, stems, flowers (CABI, 2004) No-Yes

Tenuipalpidae Brevipalpus phoenicis (Geijskes) AU (Biosecurity Australia, 2002); US (CABI, 2004; Jeppson et al

. , 1975) CABI, 2004 leaves, stems, fruit (CABI, 2004) No-Yes

Brevipalpus californicus (Banks) AU, US (CABI, 2005) van den Berg et al

. , 2001 fruit, leaves (CABI, 2005) No-Yes

Tetranychidae Bryobia praetiosa Koch AU (Bolland et al

. , 1998); US (Bolland
et al

. , 1998) Bolland et al

. , 1998 leaves, flowers (Jeppson
et al

. , 1975) No-No

Oligonychus biharensis (Hirst) (synonym: Paratetranychus hawaiiensis) AU (Bolland et al

. , 1998); US (HI) (Bolland et al

. , 1998) Bolland et al

. , 1998; Morton,
1987 leaves (Wongsiri, 1991a) Yes 2 -No

Oligonychus coffeae (Nietner) AU (Biosecurity Australia, 2002); US (CABI, 2004) Bolland et al

. , 1998; Waite and Hwang, 2002 leaves (CABI, 2004; Waite and Hwang, 2002) No-No

Oligonychus mangiferus (Rahman & Sapra) AU (Bolland et al

. , 1998); US (HI) (Jeppson et al

. , 1975) Bolland et al

. , 1998 leaves (Jeppson et al

. , 1975) Yes-No

1 Geographic Distribution: AU = Australia, US = United States, HI = Hawaii, FL = Florida, CA = California, TX = Texas, MS = Mississippi (Individual U.S. states are listed only if th e pest species is considered a quarantine pest for the United States.)

2 Oligonychus biharensis : Nonactionable pest if intercepted on co mmodities coming into Hawaii (PestID, 2008).Litchi from Australia

Rev. 006 November 6, 2008 5 Pest Scientific Name Distribution 1 Reported on
litchi Plant Part(s)
Association Quarantine Pest Likely to
Follow Pathway

COLEOPTERA Cerambycidae Platyomopsis humeralis (White) AU (Biosecurity Australia, 2002) Biosecurity Australia, 2002;
Waite and Hwang, 2002 bark, wood (Gordh and Headrick, 2001) 3 Yes-No

Chrysomelidae Monolepta australis (Jacoby) AU (Biosecurity Australia, 2002) Astridge and Fay, 2004;
Waite and Hwang, 2002 foliage (Biosecurity Australia, 2002) Yes-No

Rhyparida caeruleipennis (Lea) AU (Biosecurity Australia, 2002) Biosecurity Australia, 2002 foliage (Biosecurity Australia, 2002) Yes-No

Rhyparida clypeata AU (Biosecurity Australia, 2002) Biosecurity Australia, 2002 foliage (Biosecurity Australia, 2002) Yes-No

Rhyparida discopunctulata (Blackburn) AU (Biosecurity Australia, 2002) Biosecurity Australia, 2002;
Waite and Hwang, 2002 foliage (Biosecurity Australia, 2002; Waite and Hwang, 2002) Yes-No

Curculionidae Asynonychus sp. AU (Biosecurity Australia, 2002) Waite and Elder, 1999b bark, branch (Waite and Elder, 1999b) Yes-No

Euthyrrhinus
meditabundus (Fabricius) AU (Biosecurity Australia, 2002) Waite and Elder, 1999b;
Waite and Hwang, 2002 twigs (Biosecurity Australia, 2002); bark, branch (Waite and Elder, 1999b) Yes-No

Orthorrhinus klugii
Boh. AU (Biosecurity Australia, 2002) Waite and Elder, 1999b;
Waite and Hwang, 2002 bark, branch (Waite and Elder, 1999b) Yes-No

Nitidulidae Carpophilus mutilatus
Erichson AU (CABI, 2004); US (CABI, 2004) CABI, 2004 flowers (CABI, 2004); fruit (Bose et al

. , 2001) No-Yes

Scarabaeidae Xylotrupes gideon (Linnaeus ) AU (Biosecurity Australia, 2002; Waite and Hwang, 2002) Waite and Elder, 2004;
Waite and Hwang, 2002 fruit (Biosecurity Australia, 2002); roots (Waite and Hwang, 2002) Yes-No 4

3 Beetles in the family Cerambycidae lay their eggs under bark, and the larvae bore into the wood of the host plant (Gordh and Headrick, 2001).

4 Only the adults of Xylotrupes gideon are reported to feed on litchi fruit (Waite and Elder, 2004). Because of the size and mobility of adults, this pest is not expected to stay on the commodity through harvest and standard handling and processing.Litchi from Australia

Rev. 006 November 6, 2008 6 Pest Scientific Name Distribution 1 Reported on
litchi Plant Part(s)
Association Quarantine Pest Likely to
Follow Pathway Scolytidae Euwallacea fornicatus (Eichhoff) (synonym: Xyleborus fornicatus Eichhoff) AU (CABI, 2004); US (HI) (CABI, 2004) CABI, 2004;
Rai and Bhandary, 1973; Wang and Yuan, 2003 bark, stems, wood (CABI, 2004); branches (Rai and Bhandary, 1973); trunk, branches, fruit, seed (Wang and Yuan, 2003) Yes-No 5

DIPTERA Tephritidae Bactrocera jarvisi (Tryon) AU (Biosecurity Australia, 2002) Biosecurity Australia, 2002 fruit (Biosecurity Australia, 2002) Yes-Yes

Bactrocera tryoni (Froggatt) AU (Biosecurity Australia, 2002) Waite and Hwang, 2002 fruit (Biosecurity Australia, 2002) Yes-Yes

Ceratitis capitata (Wiedemann) AU (localized) (CABI, 2004; EPPO, 2003); US 6 (HI) (CABI, 2005) CABI, 2004; Liquido et al

. , 1998; USDA,
1982b fruit (CABI, 2004) Yes-Yes

Dirioxa pornia (Walker) AU (Hancock et al

. , 2000) Hancock et al

. , 2000 fruit (Hancock et al

. , 2000) No 7 -No 8

HEMIPTERA Aleyrodidae Aleurocanthus woglumi Ashby AU (Christmas Island) (Bellis et al

. , 2004); US (HI, FL, TX) (CABI, 2004) CABI, 2004 leaves (CABI, 2004) [Yes] 9 -No

5 Euwallacea fornicatus (Eichhoff) (synonym: Xyleborus fornicatus Eichhoff): reported on fruit once (Wang and Yuan, 2003). All other literature reports this species on bark, wood , branches, and stem. CABI (2005) states that fruit are "not known to carry the pest in trade/transport" and "plant parts lia ble to carry the pest in trade/transport" include bark, stems, and wood (CABI, 2005). Because the larvae reach up to 3.5mm long (CABI, 2005), they would be unlikely to feed on the small 5mm stem attached to the litchi fruit. Based on this evidence, we estimate this beetle would be unlikely to follow the pathway of commercial quality litchi fruit from Australia.

6 The distribution of Ceratitis capitata in the United States only includes the Hawaiian islands (CDFA, 2003). Although this pest has been introduced periodically into the United States, first in Florida (1929) and most subsequent infestations in California and Florida, it has not become established in the continental United States (Bergsten et al

. , 1999). In terms of California, C. capitata infestations have been detected since 1975, all of which have been declared eradicated (Lance and Gates, 1994). This fruit fly is not es tablished in California (Guidicipietro, 2003). A National Exotic Fruit Fly Detection Program is run cooperatively by APHIS and U.S. states suscep tible to fruit fly establishment in order to prevent the
establishment of C. capitata , thereby ensuring pest-free status (Bergsten et al

. , 1999; Lance and Gates, 1994).

7 Species in the genus Dirioxa are not considered pests because they feed mainly on injured fruit (CABI, 2005). The genus is
not considered in the Elsevier World Cr op Pests series on Fruit Flies (Robinson and Hooper, 1989a, 1989b). Because it is not considered a “pest,” Dirioxa pornia does not meet the IPPC definition of a quarantine pest (IPPC, 2006).

8 Because it is not considered a “pest,” Dirioxa pornia is not likely to follow the pathway on commercial export quality fresh fruit for consumption.

9 Quarantine significant species with a limited distribution in the United States (NIS, 2003, 2004a, 2004b)Litchi from Australia

Rev. 006 November 6, 2008 7 Pest Scientific Name Distribution 1 Reported on
litchi Plant Part(s)
Association Quarantine Pest Likely to
Follow Pathway Aphididae Aphis gossypii Glover AU (CABI, 2004); US (CABI, 2004) CABI, 2004; Hill, 1983 leaves, stems, flowers (CABI, 2004) No-No 10

Aphis spiraecola Patch AU (CABI, 2004); US (CABI, 2004) Morton, 1987 stems, leaves, flowers, fruit (CABI, 2004) No-No 11

Toxoptera aurantii Boyer de
Fonscolombe AU (CABI, 2004); US (CABI, 2004) Hill, 1983 leaves (Morton, 1987); leaves, shoots (CABI, 2004) No-No

Coccidae Ceroplastes ceriferus (Fabricius) AU (ScaleNet, 2005); US (ScaleNet, 2005) Waite and Hwang, 2002 twigs, leaves, stems, branches, bark (CABI, 2004) No-Yes

Ceroplastes rubens (Maskell) AU (Biosecurity Australia, 2002); US (FL, HI) (CABI, 2004; Hamon and Williams, 1984; ScaleNet, 2005) Biosecurity Australia, 2002;
Waite and Hwang, 2002 leaves, stems, twigs, fruit (CABI, 2004); stems, branches, leaves (Hamon and Williams, 1984) [Yes] 12 -Yes

Ceroplastes sinensis Del
Guercio AU (ScaleNet, 2005); US (ScaleNet, 2005) ScaleNet, 2005 leaves, fruit (Alterio and Benitez, 1994); leaves (Hill, 1983) No-Yes

Coccus hesperidum
Linnaeus AU (Biosecurity Australia, 2002); US (ScaleNet, 2005) Biosecurity Australia, 2002;
Waite and Hwang, 2002 leaves, stems, twigs (CABI, 2004) No-Yes

Coccus longulus (Douglas) AU (Biosecurity Australia, 2002); US (ScaleNet, 2005) Elder, 2004; ScaleNet, 2005 stems, twigs, petioles (Elder, 2004) No-Yes

Coccus sp. AU (PestID, 2008); US (ScaleNet, 2005) PestID, 2008 fruit (PestID, 2008) Yes-No 13

Coccus viridis (Green) AU (Biosecurity Australia, 2002); US (FL, HI) (ScaleNet, 2005) Biosecurity Australia, 2002 foliage, fruit (Biosecurity Australia, 2002); leaves, stems, fruit (CABI, 2002) [Yes] 14 -Yes

10 Aphis sp.: Although Aphididae species occasi onally feed from fruits, they are gene rally leaf and stem feeders (Borrer et al

. , 1989). As soft-bodied insects, they will likely be crushed duri ng fruit harvesting and packaging if they are associated with fruits or the fruit pedicel. Since 1985, aphids in the genus Aphis have never been intercepted by agricultural specialists at U.S. ports-of-entry on stem associated with commercial fru it. Thus they are not expect ed to follow the pathway on
commercial litchi fruit.

11 Aphis sp.: Based on the evidence presented above, species in the genus Aphis are not expected to follow the pathway on
commercial litchi fruit.

12 Quarantine significant species with a limited distribution in the United States (NIS, 2003)

13 Since 1985, Coccus sp. was intercepted one time on litchi fruit from Au stralia, which was in passenger baggage (PestID, 2008). This is considered in sufficient evidence that this unidentified scal e species would regularly follow the pathway of commercial shipments of litchi fruit and associated fruit pedicels.

14 Quarantine significant species with a limited distribution in the United States (NIS, 2003)Litchi from Australia

Rev. 006 November 6, 2008 8 Pest Scientific Name Distribution 1 Reported on
litchi Plant Part(s)
Association Quarantine Pest Likely to
Follow Pathway Eucalymnatus
tessellatus (Signoret) AU (ScaleNet, 2005); US (ScaleNet, 2005) ScaleNet, 2005 leaves (Dekle, 1999) No-No

Parasaissetia nigra (Nietner) AU (Biosecurity Australia, 2002); US (ScaleNet, 2005) ScaleNet, 2005;
Waite and Hwang, 2002 foliage, fruit (Biosecurity Australia, 2002) No-Yes

Pulvinaria psidii
Maskell AU (Biosecurity Australia, 2002); US (ScaleNet, 2005) ScaleNet, 2005; Waite, 2004a;
Waite and Hwang, 2002 foliage, fruit (Biosecurity Australia, 2002); leaves, twigs, flowers, fruit (Waite and Hwang, 2002) No-Yes

Pulvinaria urbicola
Cockerell AU (ScaleNet, 2005); US (ScaleNet, 2005) ScaleNet, 2005 leaves (Posada, 1989) No-No

Saissetia coffeae (Walker) [synonym:
Saissetia hemisphaerica (Targioni)] AU (CABI, 2004); US (CABI, 2004) CABI, 2004;
Waite and Hwang, 2002 leaves (Hill, 1983); leaves, stems, fruit (Wen
et al

. , 2002) No-Yes

Saissetia oleae (Olivier) AU (Biosecurity Australia, 2002); US (ScaleNet, 2005) ScaleNet, 2005 Leaves, stems (CABI, 2004); leaves (Wen et al

. , 2002). No-Yes

Coreidae 15
Amblypelta lutescens (Distant) AU (Biosecurity Australia, 2002) Astridge et al

. , 2004 fruit (Biosecurity Australia, 2002); flowers, fruit, leaves (Astridge et al

. , 2004; CABI, 2004) Yes-No 16

Amblypelta nitida Stål AU (Biosecurity Australia, 2002) Biosecurity Australia, 2002 fruit (Biosecurity Australia, 2002); flowers, fruit, leaves (Astridge et al

. , 2004; CABI, 2004) Yes-No 17

Leptoglossus
membranaceus (Fabricius) AU (EPPO, 2003) Anonymous,
1965a fruit (Anonymous, 1965a); twigs, leaves, fruit (Ondieki, 1975) Yes-No 18

15 Because coreids in general are larg e and nymphs are gregarious (Borrer et al

. , 1989), these pests should be readily seen during harvest and eliminated from the pathway.

16 Because the nymphs and adults only feed externally on the fruit and because of their mobility (Astridge et al

. , 2004),

Amblypelta lutescens is not expected to stay on the commodity through harvest, and standard handling and processing.

17 Because the nymphs and adults only feed externally on the fruit, and because of their mobility (Astridge et al

. , 2004),

Amblypelta nitida is not expected to stay on the commodity through harvest, and standard handling and processing.

18 Because coreids in general are larg e and nymphs are gregarious (Borrer et al

. , 1989), these pests should be readily seen during harvest and eliminated from the pathway.Litchi from Australia

Rev. 006 November 6, 2008 9 Pest Scientific Name Distribution 1 Reported on
litchi Plant Part(s)
Association Quarantine Pest Likely to
Follow Pathway Diaspididae

Aonidiella orientalis (Newstead) AU (Biosecurity Australia, 2002); US (FL) (CABI, 2004; ScaleNet, 2005) CABI, 2004; ScaleNet, 2005 leaves (CABI, 2004; ScaleNet, 2005); leaves, twigs, fruit (Ofek et al

. , 1997); leaves, fruit (PestID, 2008) 19 No-Yes

Aulacaspis tubercularis
Newstead AU (CABI, 2004; ScaleNet, 2005) PestID, 2008 leaves, stems, fruit (CABI, 2004) Yes-No 20

Chrysomphalus
aonidium (Linnaeus) AU (Biosecurity Australia, 2002); US (CABI, 2004) Morton, 1987 leaves, fruits, stems, trunks (CABI, 2004) No-Yes

Hemiberlesia lataniae Signoret AU (Biosecurity Australia, 2002); US (ScaleNet, 2005) Biosecurity Australia, 2002;
Waite and Hwang, 2002 leaves (ScaleNet, 2005); braches, leaves, fruit, bark, twigs, stems (CABI, 2004) No-Yes

Howardia biclavis (Comstock) AU (Biosecurity Australia, 2002; ScaleNet, 2005); US (ScaleNet, 2005) Watson, 2005 bark (ScaleNet, 2005); bark, branches (Watson, 2005) No-No

Ischnaspis longirostris (Signoret) AU (Biosecurity Australia, 2002); US (ScaleNet, 2005) ScaleNet, 2005 leaves, stems, fruits (Tenbrink and Hara, 1992) No-Yes

Lopholeucaspis
cockerelli (Grandpré & Charmoy) AU (ScaleNet, 2005); US (ScaleNet, 2005) ScaleNet, 2005 bark, stems, leaves (Kosztarab, 1996) 21 No-Yes

Pinnaspis strachani (Cooley) AU (ScaleNet, 2005); US (ScaleNet, 2005) ScaleNet, 2005 stem, leaves, fruit (CABI, 2004) No-Yes

Pseudaonidia trilobitiformis (Green) AU (ScaleNet, 2005); US (FL) (ScaleNet, 2005) PestID, 2008; Quilici et al.,
1988 bark, stem, leaves (Kosztarab, 1996); leaves (USDA, 1979); fruit, leaves (PestID, 2008) 22 [Yes] 23 -Yes 24

19 Aonidiella orientalis : Since 1985, the genus Aonidiella has been intercepted 188 times on fruit and 195 times on leaves by agricultural specialists at U.S. ports-of-entry (PestID, 2008); therefore, we assume Aonidiella orientalis could attack both
leaves and fruit.

20 The only evidence of litchi possibly being a host of Aulacaspis tubercularis are three interceptions on Litchi chinensis in passenger baggage (PestID, 2008). This is considered insufficie nt evidence that this scale species would regularly follow the pathway of commercial shipments of litchi fruit and associated fruit pedicels. No other source has documented an
association with litchi.

21 Due to limited information on this pest, the association of this pest with plant host organs was based on descriptions of the

genus.
22 Pseudaonidia trilobitiformis : Since 1985, this species has been intercepted by agricultural speci alists at U.S. ports-of-entry over 6,000 times on fruit (of various commodities), and over 4,000 times on leaves (of various commodities) (PestID, 2008).

23 Quarantine significant species with a limited di stribution in the United States (NIS, 2006).Litchi from Australia

Rev. 006 November 6, 2008 10 Pest Scientific Name Distribution 1 Reported on
litchi Plant Part(s)
Association Quarantine Pest Likely to
Follow Pathway Pseudaulacaspis

pentagona (Targioni Tozzetti) MacGillivray AU (Biosecurity Australia, 2002); US (ScaleNet, 2005) Morton, 1987 roots, trunk, branches (CABI, 2004) No-No

Selenaspidus articulatus (Morgan) AU (ScaleNet, 2005); US (FL) (ScaleNet, 2005) (CA) (CABI, 2004) CABI, 2004 leaves, fruit, stems (CABI, 2004; Caicedo and González, 1997) No-Yes

Thysanofiorinia nephelii (Maskell) (synomym: Fiorinia nephelii Maskell) AU (Biosecurity Australia, 2002; ScaleNet, 2005); US (HI) (ScaleNet, 2005) (FL) (Coile and Dixon, 2002a, 2002b) Biosecurity Australia, 2002; ScaleNet, 2005 fruit, stems, leaves (PestID, 2008) 25 ; leaves, fruit (PestID, 2008) 26 ; leaves (Cooper and Oetting, 1987; Takagi, 1979; Wen et al

. , 2002); branches (Mesbah et al

. , 2001); leaves, stems, and bark (Kosztarab, 1996) [Yes] 27 -No 28

Lygaeidae Nysius vinitor (Bergroth) AU (Biosecurity Australia, 2002) Waite and Hwang, 2002 fruit (Waite and Hwang, 2002) Yes-No 29

Margarodidae Icerya seychellarum (Westwood) AU (CABI, 2004) CABI, 2004;
Waite and Hwang, 2002 leaves, stems (CABI, 2003); leaves, twigs, branches, petioles of
flowers and fruit (USDA, 1982a); fruit (PestID, 2008) Yes-No 30

24 Armored scales may enter on commercial fruit for consumption; however, they are not expected to become established via

this pathway. Please see discussion following Table 3 for a detailed explanation.

25 Thysanofiorinia nephelii : Since 1985, this species has been intercepted 26 times by agricultural special ists at U.S. ports-ofentry with leaves, stems, and fruit, the majority of times with fruit (PestID, 2008).

26 Fiorinia nephelii : Since 1985, the genus Fiorinia has been intercepted 22 times with fruit (including one time with litchi fruit), and 39 times on leaves by agricultural specialists at U.S. ports-of-entry (PestID, 2008).

27 Quarantine significant species with a limited distribution in the United States (NIS, 2003)

28 Thysanofiorinia nephelii : Records of this scale species in Australia da te back to 1897 and 1906 (ScaleNet, 2005; van Meurs, 2005), and "a search of the Australian Plant Pest Database 2005 [http://www.planthealthaustralia.com.au/APPD/legal.asp] produced no records of this pest on litchi or any other host in Australia" (van Meurs, 2005). Based on this evidence, we thin k this scale is unlikely to follow the pathway of litchi fruit
from Australia.

29 Nysius vinitor : We estimate this pest will be unlikely to follow the pathway of mature litchi fruit, as this pest is reported to mainly infest litchi at the flowering or early fruit set stage (Wa ite and Hwang, 2002). Even if present at the stage of mature fruit, because it feeds only externally on the fruit and because of its size and mobility, this pest is not expected to stay on the commodity through harvest and standard handling and processing. Since 1985, this genus has never been intercepted by agricultural specialists as U.S. ports-of-ent ry with imported litchi fruit (PestID, 2008).

30 Icerya seychellarum : Based on the following evidence, we estimate this giant mealybug is unlikely to be associated with commercial export quality litchi fruit. Despite its wide geog raphical range and wide host range (CABI, 2007; USDA,Litchi from Australia

Rev. 006 November 6, 2008 11 Pest Scientific Name Distribution 1 Reported on
litchi Plant Part(s)
Association Quarantine Pest Likely to
Follow Pathway

Pentatomidae

Nezara viridula (Linnaeus) AU (Biosecurity Australia, 2002); US (CABI, 2004) Biosecurity Australia, 2002 shoots, fruit, leaves, stems (CABI, 2004); fruit (Morton, 1987) No-No 31

Pseudococcidae Dysmicoccus neobrevipes Beardsley AU (PestID, 2008) 32 ; US (HI, FL) (Miller and Miller, 2002; ScaleNet, 2005) PestID, 2008 roots, stems, flowers, leaves, fruit (PestID, 2008) [Yes] 33 -No 34

Ferrisia virgata Cock AU (Biosecurity Australia, 2002); US (CABI, 2004; ScaleNet, 2005) CABI, 2004 shoots, leaves, fruit (CABI, 2004) No-Yes

Maconellicoccus
hirsutus (Green) AU (Biosecurity Australia, 2002); US (CA, FL, HI) (CABI, 2004) PestID, 2008 bark, fruit, flowers, leaves, stems (CABI, 2004); fruit (PestID, 2008) 35 [Yes] 36 -No 37

1982a), agricultural inspectors at U.S. ports-of-entry have intercepted this species on fruit only 11 times, none of which were on litchi fruit and only one of which was with commer cial fruit (PestID, 2008; query October 20, 2008). Based on an extensive search of the scientific literature, we found no other report of this insect attacking fruit. This insect usually attacks leaves, twigs, and small branches (USDA, 1982a). Only in heavy infestations may it also attack the petioles of flowers and fruits (USDA, 1982a). Even if individuals do infest litchi fruit or the fruit’s associated 5 mm stem, the mealybug’s physical characteristics would make it easily detected and, therefore, culle d during standard post-harvest fruit processing. The early immature stage is covered with “bright yellow or white wax”, and the bodies of the intermediate stages are covered with “yellow wax that are lobed marginally and fringed with long, glassy, waxy filaments”; the female adult is an orange red color, is relatively large (about 5m m long), is covered with either yellow or white wax, and has many long waxy filaments (USDA, 1982a). Males are rarely found (USDA, 1982a).

31 Because it only feeds externally on fruit (CABI, 2004), an d because of its size and mobility, Nezara viridula is not expected to stay on the commodity through harvest and standard handling and processing.

32 Since 1985, Dysmicoccus neobrevipes was intercepted by agricultural specialists at U.S. ports-of-entry on plant products from Australia three times: one time in "quarter s," and two times in baggage (PestID, 2008).

33 Reportable pest (PestID, 2008) with limited distribution (FL) in the United States (Miller and Miller, 2002).

34 The only evidence found of Dysmicoccus neobrevipes possibly being present in Australia is three interceptions on rambutan, one time in ship's quarters and two times in passe nger baggage (PestID, 2008). This is considered insufficient evidence to determine the true origin of the fruit. Consequen tly, we consider it not present in Australia and, therefore, unlikely to follow the pathway of litchi fruit from Australia.

35 Since 1985, Maconellicoccus hirsutus has been intercepted by agricultural specia lists at U.S. ports-of-entry eight times with litchi fruit (PestID, 2008).

36 Quarantine significant species with a limited distribution in the United States (NIS, 2003)

37 Maconellicoccus hirsutus : The only evidence of Litchi chinensis being a host of M. hirsutus is eight interceptions with this plant at U.S. ports-of-entry, seven of which were with passenger baggage and one with “miscellaneous”; none of the interceptions were with cargo (PestID, 2008). We considered this insufficient evidence that L. chinensis is a host of this scale species. Consequently, we concluded there is insufficient evidence to consider this scal e species likely to follow the pathway of commercial litchi fruit.Litchi from Australia

Rev. 006 November 6, 2008 12 Pest Scientific Name Distribution 1 Reported on
litchi Plant Part(s)
Association Quarantine Pest Likely to
Follow Pathway Nipaecoccus viridis (Newstead) [synonym: Nipaecoccus vastator (Maskell)] AU (ScaleNet, 2005); US (HI) (ScaleNet, 2005) Waite and Hwang, 2002 fruit, leaves, twigs, branches (CABI, 2004); twigs, shoots, leaves, flower, fruit, branches, roots (ScaleNet, 2005) Yes-Yes

Planococcus citri (Risso) AU (Biosecurity Australia, 2002); US (ScaleNet, 2005) Waite and Hwang, 2002 leaves, stems, roots, shoots, flowers, fruit (CABI, 2004); leaves, stems, fruit (Wen et al

. , 2002). No-Yes

Planococcus lilacinus (Cockerell) AU (Biosecurity Australia, 2002) PestID, 2008 fruit (PestID, 2008); leaf, flower, fruit (Wen
et al

. , 2002); fruit (CABI, 2004) 38 Yes-No 39

Planococcus minor (Maskell) AU (Biosecurity Australia, 2002; ScaleNet, 2005) PestID, 2008 40 fruit (PestID, 2008) 41 Yes-Yes

Rhopalidae Leptocoris ruformarginata (Fabricius) AU (Biosecurity Australia, 2002) Waite and Hwang, 2002 fruit (Waite and Hwang, 2002) Yes-No 42

Leptocoris tagalica (Burmeister) AU (Biosecurity Australia, 2002) Waite and Hwang, 2002 fruit (Waite and Hwang, 2002) Yes-No 43

38 Since 1985, Planococcus lilacinus has been intercepted by agricultural specialists at U.S. ports-of-entry 16 times with litchi fruit (PestID, 2008).

39 Planococcus lilacinus : We considered this species unlikely to follow the pathway of commercial litchi fruit because of its
absence from mainland Australia and becau se of the questionable status of litc hi as a host. The distribution of P. lilacinus in Australia is limited to Boigu Island, which is an island off mainland Queensland (Biosecurity Australia, 2007). As litchi is grown only in mainland Australia (Biosecurity Australia, 2002), P. lilacinus would be unlikely to occur on litchi fruit exported from Australia. Furthermore, except for 18 interceptions since 1985 of P. lilacinus with litchi fruit at U.S. portsof-entry, none of which were in commercial shipments (PestID, 2008), we found no report of litchi as a host of this scale species. Biosecurity Australia confirms that this scale species is not associated with litchi in Australia (Biosecurity Australia, 2007).

40 Since 1985, Planococcus minor has been intercepted by agricultural specialists at U.S. ports-of-entry 41 times with litchi fruit (34 times in passenger baggage, two times in commercial cargo, one time in ships quarters, and four times in ships stores) (PestID, 2008).

41 Since 1985, Planococcus minor has been intercepted by agricultural specialists at U.S. ports-of-entry 41 times with litchi fruit (34 times in passenger baggage, two times in commercial cargo, one time in ships quarters, and four times in ships stores) (PPQ, 2007).

42 Leptocoris ruformarginata : Because it is reported to only feed on the gr een (or immature) fruit of litchi (Waite and Hwang, 2002), and because of its size and mobility, this insect is not expected to stay on the commodity through harvest, and standard handling and processing.

43 Leptocoris tagalica : Because it is reported to only feed on green (or immature) fruit of litchi (Waite and Hwang, 2002), and because of its size and mobility, this insect is not expected to stay on the commodity through ha rvest, and standard handling and processing.Litchi from Australia

Rev. 006 November 6, 2008 13 Pest Scientific Name Distribution 1 Reported on
litchi Plant Part(s)
Association Quarantine Pest Likely to
Follow Pathway

Tessaratomidae
Lyramorpha rosea
Westwood AU (Biosecurity Australia, 2002) Waite and Hwang, 2002; Biosecurity Australia, 2002;
Waite and Hwang, 2002 leaves, fruit (PestID, 2008) 44 Yes-No 45

HYMENOPTERA

Formicidae Oecophylla smaragdina (Fabricius) AU (Biosecurity Australia, 2002; CABI, 2004) Hill, 1983 leaves (Hill, 1983) No-No

LEPIDOPTERA Cosmopterigidae Pyroderces dendrophaga (Meyrick) AU (Storey and Rogers, 1980) Storey and Rogers, 1980 fruit (Storey and Rogers, 1980) 46 Yes-No 47

Gelechiidae

Anarsia sp. AU (Storey and Rogers, 1980); US (Zhang, 1994) Storey and Rogers, 1980 fruit (Storey and Rogers, 1980) 48 Yes-Yes

Hypatima ? baliodes (Lower) AU (Storey and Rogers, 1980) Storey and Rogers, 1980 leaves (Storey and Rogers, 1980) Yes-No

Hypatima sp. AU (Storey and Rogers, 1980) Storey and Rogers, 1980 leaves (Storey and Rogers, 1980) Yes-No

Geometridae Gymnoscelis lophopus
Turner AU (Storey and Rogers, 1980) Storey and Rogers, 1980 flowers (Storey and Rogers, 1980) Yes-No

44 Lyramorpha rosea : Because of a lack of information at the genus level, plant parts attack ed were based on the family level ( i.e. , Tessaratomidae). Since 1985, two interceptions of Tessarat omidae species have been made, one on a leaf and one on a fruit (PestID, 2008).

45 Lyramorpha rosea : Because of its size and mobility, this pest is not expected to stay on the commodity thro ugh harvest, and standard handling and processing. Since 1985, this genus has never been intercepted by agricultural specialists at U.S. ports-of-entry on any plant commodities (PestID, 2008), indi cating a very low likelihood of it being able to follow the pathway of commercial export quality fruit.

46 Larvae are reported to feed on the seed within litchi fru it by burrowing through the outer edible fruit tissue (Storey and Rogers, 1980).

47 Pyroderces dendrophaga : Attack by this species causes premature fruit dr op or makes the fruit unmarketable (Storey and Rogers, 1980). No other information was found on P. dendrophaga . The related species, Pyroderces rileyi , is a scavenger that feeds on dry or decayed fruits following injury by ot her insects (Ebeling, 1959). Pyroderces dendrophaga may possibly behave similarly to P. rileyi in this respect. There is no other report of this species on litchi, suggesting a low likelihood of this species occurring on litchi in the field an d/or low economic significance. Based on this evidence, we estimate this species is unlikely to follow the pathway of mature export quality litchi fruit from Australia.

48 Larvae feed on the seed within litchi fruit by burrowing th rough the outer edible fruit tissue (Storey and Rogers, 1980).Litchi from Australia

Rev. 006 November 6, 2008 14 Pest Scientific Name Distribution 1 Reported on
litchi Plant Part(s)
Association Quarantine Pest Likely to
Follow Pathway Gymnoscelis subrufata
Warren AU (Biosecurity Australia, 2002; Zhang, 1994) Biosecurity Australia, 2002 flowers (CSIRO, 1991) Yes-No

Prasinocyma albicosia (Walker) AU (Storey and Rogers, 1980) Storey and Rogers, 1980 leaves (Storey and Rogers, 1980) Yes-No

Thalassodes quadraria
Guenée AU (Robinson et al

. , 2005) Wongsiri, 1991a leaves (Wongsiri, 1991a) Yes-No

Gracillariidae Conopomorpha
cramerella Snellen (synonym: Acrocercops
cramerella Snellen) AU (Zhang, 1994) Bose et al

. , 2001 leaves, fruit (Bose et al

. , 2001); seeds, twigs (Morton, 1987) Yes-No 49

Herminiidae Hydrillodes lentalis
Guenée AU (Storey and Rogers, 1980) Storey and Rogers, 1980 fruit (Storey and Rogers, 1980) 50 Yes-No 51

Lycaenidae Anthene lycaenoides godeffroyl (Semper) AU (Storey and Rogers, 1980) Storey and Rogers, 1980 flowers (Storey and Rogers, 1980) Yes-No

Deudorix epijarbas dido
Waterhouse AU (Storey and Rogers, 1980) Storey and Rogers, 1980 fruit (Storey and Rogers, 1980) 52 Yes-Yes

Deudorix diovis Hewitson (synonym: Deudorix epijarbas
diovis Hewitson) 53 AU (Biosecurity Australia, 2002; Ironside, 1979; Waite and Hwang, 2002) Waite and Hwang, 2002 fruit (Biosecurity Australia, 2002; Waite and Hwang, 2002) Yes-Yes

49 Conopomorpha cramerella : Although the literature does report Conopomorpha cramerella on litchi ( e.g ., Bose et al

. , 2001; Morton, 1987), other authors recognize that the insect identified on litchi in the past was not C. cramerella , but instead C.

sinensis or C. litchiella (Waite and Hwang, 2002). The host range of C. cramerella is restricted to rambutan and cocoa (Waite and Hwang, 2002). Consequently, it is estimated that C. cramerella would be unlikely to follow the pathway of
litchi fruit.

50 Larvae feed on the seed within litchi fruit by burrowing th rough the outer edible fruit tissue (Storey and Rogers, 1980).

51 Hydrillodes lentalis (Lepidoptera: Herminiidae): this species damaged litc hi fruit by burrowing through the outer edible fruit tissue to feed on the seed, which causes the fruit “to drop if young, or makes it unmarketable” (Storey and Rogers, 1980). Any such fruit will likely be detected during grading. In addition, we found no reports of this species attacking litchi or any other fresh fruit, and since 1985 this species has not been intercepted at U.S. ports-of-entry (PestID, 2008). Sulaiman and Yukawa (1992) report that H. lentalis attacks fruit galls caused by the cecidomid Pseudasphondylia
matatabi , and its larvae also feed on dead matter (Robinson et al

. , 2001, 2006). Other Hydrillodes species also feed on fallen flowers and detritus (Robinson et al

. , 2001), and Herminiidae larvae usually feed on dead and decaying leaves (Nielson and Common, 1991). Based on the biology of this genus and family, and because Storey and Rogers (1980) did not indicate whether or not litchi fruit were only collected from the tree or also from the ground, we assume H. lentalis larvae were on fallen and perhaps d ecaying fruit on the ground. Also, the authors neither stated how often H. lentalis was collected on litchi, nor listed it as a species that “could requir e further study for control purposes.” Overall, we think this species is unlikely to follow the pathway of export-quality litchi fruit from Australia.

52 Larvae feed on the seed within litchi fruit by burrowing th rough the outer edible fruit tissue (Storey and Rogers, 1980).

53 Deudorix epijarbas diovis Hewitson was raised to Deudorix diovis Hewitson (Parsons, 1999). The designation Deudorix
diovis is used by other authors as well (e.g., Johnson et al

. , 1994; Nielsen et al

. , 1996; Schmidt and Rice, 2002).Litchi from Australia

Rev. 006 November 6, 2008 15 Pest Scientific Name Distribution 1 Reported on
litchi Plant Part(s)
Association Quarantine Pest Likely to
Follow Pathway

Prosotas dublosa (Semper) AU (Storey and Rogers, 1980) Storey and Rogers, 1980 flowers (Storey and Rogers, 1980) Yes-No

Prosotas nora alutes (Waterhouse and Lyell) AU (Storey and Rogers, 1980) Storey and Rogers, 1980 flowers (Storey and Rogers, 1980) Yes-No

Rapala varuna simsoni (Miskin) AU (Lambkin, 1983; Zhang, 1994) Lambkin, 1983; Storey and Rogers, 1980 flowers, young green stems (Lambkin, 1983); flowers (Storey and Rogers, 1980) Yes-No

Lymantriidae Dasychira mendosa (Hübner) AU (Biosecurity Australia, 2002) Biosecurity Australia, 2002 leaves (PestID, 2008; Wongsiri, 1991b) Yes-No

Orgyia australis Walker AU (Storey and Rogers, 1980) Storey and Rogers, 1980 leaves (Storey and Rogers, 1980) Yes-No

Porthesia sp. AU (Storey and Rogers, 1980) Storey and Rogers, 1980 leaves (Storey and Rogers, 1980) Yes-No

Noctuidae Achaea janata (Linnaeus) AU (Biosecurity Australia, 2002; Waite and Hwang, 2002); US (HI) (CABI, 2004) Astridge and Fay, 2003c;
Waite and Hwang, 2002 foliage (Astridge and Fay, 2003c; Biosecurity Australia, 2002; Waite and Hwang, 2002); foliage, fruit 54 (CABI, 2004); leaves (Storey and Rogers, 1980) Yes-No 55

Eublemma versicolor Walker (synonym:
Autoba versicolor Walker) AU (Storey and Rogers, 1980) Storey and Rogers, 1980; Wongsiri, 1991a flowers (Wongsiri, 1991a); flowers, fruit (Storey and Rogers, 1980) 56 Yes-No 57

Eudocima fullonia (Clerck) (synonym: Othreis fullonia Clerck) AU (Biosecurity Australia, 2002; Zhang, 1994); US (HI) (Zhang, 1994) Astridge and Fay, 2003b;
Waite and Hwang, 2002 fruit (Biosecurity Australia, 2002; CABI, 2004; Menzel and McConchie, 1998) Yes-No 58

54 Only adult moths feed on the fruit (CABI, 2004).

55 Because of its mobility, this pest is not expected to stay on the commodity through harvest and st andard handling and processing.

56 Larvae feed on the seed within litchi fruit by burrowing th rough the outer edible fruit tissue (Storey and Rogers, 1980).

57 Eublemma versicolor (synonym: Autoba versicolor ): This species damaged litchi fruit by burrowing through the outer edible fruit tissue to feed on the seed, which causes the fr uit “to drop if young, or makes it unmarketable” (Storey and Rogers, 1980). Any such fruit will likely be detected during gr ading. Also, although Storey and Rogers (1980) report this species feeds inside litchi fruit, the species and genus are more often reported to feed extern ally on the leaves, flowers, and/or fruit (Anonymous, 1965a; Robinson et al

. , 2001; Wongsiri, 1991b). Also, related species (e.g., Autoba sp., Eublemma olivacea

, E. rivula ) feed externally on host leaves (Hill, 1983). Finally, since 1985, Eublemma has only been intercepted twice—not on fruit or in permit cargo, and Autoba has not been intercepted (PestID, 2008). Therefore, we estimate a low likelihood of this species following the pathway of litchi fruit from Australia.

58 Eudocima fullonia : This species would be unlikely to follow the pathway of commercial export quality litchi fruit, as only the adults feed on the fruit, and they only feed on the fr uit externally (CABI, 2004; Menzel and McConchie, 1998; WaiteLitchi from Australia

Rev. 006 November 6, 2008 16 Pest Scientific Name Distribution 1 Reported on
litchi Plant Part(s)
Association Quarantine Pest Likely to
Follow Pathway Eudocima jordani (Holland) AU (Biosecurity Australia, 2002) Biosecurity Australia, 2002;
Waite and Hwang, 2002 fruit (Biosecurity Australia, 2002) Yes-No 59

Eudocima materna (Linnaeus) AU (Biosecurity Australia, 2002; Zhang, 1994) Astridge and Fay, 2003b fruit (Biosecurity Australia, 2002) Yes-No 60

Eudocima salaminia (Cramer) AU (Biosecurity Australia, 2002; Zhang, 1994) Astridge and Fay, 2003b;
Waite and Hwang, 2002 fruit (Biosecurity Australia, 2002; Menzel and McConchie, 1998) Yes-No 61

Oxyodes tricolor (Guenée) AU (Biosecurity Australia, 2002; Waite and Hwang, 2002) Astridge and Fay, 2003c;
Waite and Hwang, 2002 foliage (Astridge and Fay, 2003c; Biosecurity Australia, 2002) Yes-No

Xanthodes congenita (Hampson) AU (Biosecurity Australia, 2002) Astridge and Fay, 2003a flower (Astridge and Fay, 2003a) Yes-No

Zalaca paurograpta (Butler) AU (Storey and Rogers, 1980) Storey and Rogers, 1980 flowers (Storey and Rogers, 1980) Yes-No

Pyralidae

Cadra cautella Walker (synonym: Ephestia
cautella Walker) AU (CABI, 2004); US (CABI, 2004) Kumar and Lall,
1984 fruit (Kumar and Lall, 1984) No-Yes

Cateremna quadriguttella
Walker 62 AU (Storey and Rogers, 1980) Storey and Rogers, 1980 fruit (Storey and Rogers, 1980) 63 Yes-Yes

and Hwang, 2002). Because of the size and mobility of the adults, this pest is not expected to stayon the commodity through harvest, and standard handling and processing. Furthermore, this species feeds on the fruit at night (CABI, 2004), decreasing the likelihood of this insect being associated with fruit at harvest and, therefore, following the pathway.

59 Eudocima jordani : Like Eudocima fullonia and E. salaminia , this species is a fruit piercing moth (Biosecurity Australia, 2002). Therefore, we estimate this species would be unlikely to follow the pathway of commercial export quality litchi fruit, as only the adults feed on the fruit, and they only fe ed externally on the fruit (Biosecurity Australia, 2002; CABI, 2004; Menzel and McConchie, 1998; Waite an d Hwang, 2002). Because of the size and mobility of the adults, this pest is not expected to stay on the commodity through harvest, and standard handling and processing.

60 Eudocima materna : Like Eudocima fullonia and E. salaminia , this species is a fruit piercing moth (Biosecurity Australia, 2002). Therefore, we estimate this species would be unlikely to follow the pathway of commercial export quality litchi fruit, as only the adults feed on the fruit, and they only fe ed externally on the fruit (Biosecurity Australia, 2002; CABI, 2004; Menzel and McConchie, 1998; Waite an d Hwang, 2002). Because of the size and mobility of the adults, this pest is not expected to stay on the commodity through harvest, and standard handling and processing.

61 Eudocima salaminia : We estimate this species would be unlikely to follow the pathway of commercial export quality litchi fruit, as only the adults feed on the fruit, and they only feed on the fruit externally (Menzel and McConchie, 1998; Waite and Hwang, 2002). Because of the size and mobility of the adults, this pest is not expected to stayon the commodity through harvest, and standard handling and processing.

62 Cateremna quadriguttella : Horak (Horak, 1994) states that Cateremna is a junior synonym of Assara ; however, an
exhaustive search of the literature did not reveal the name Assara quadriguttella

. 63 Larvae feed on the seed within litchi fruit by burrowing th rough the outer edible fruit tissue (Storey and Rogers, 1980).Litchi from Australia

Rev. 006 November 6, 2008 17 Pest Scientific Name Distribution 1 Reported on
litchi Plant Part(s)
Association Quarantine Pest Likely to
Follow Pathway Conogethes

punctiferalis (Guenée) (synonym:
Dichocrocis punctiferalis Guenée) AU (Biosecurity Australia, 2002) Biosecurity Australia, 2002 fruit (Biosecurity Australia, 2002); fruit (PestID, 2008) 64 ; flower (Waterhouse, 1993); fruit, stems, leaves, bark (CABI, 2004); fruit (CSIRO, 1991; Gupta and Arora, 2001; Ooi et al

. , 2002; Wongsiri, 1991a); fruit (Storey and Rogers, 1980) 65, 66 Yes-Yes

Homoeosoma vagella
Zeller AU (Storey and Rogers, 1980) Storey and Rogers, 1980 fruit, flowers (Storey and Rogers, 1980) 67 ; flowers (Astridge and Fay, 2005; Ebeling, 1959; Hill, 1983) Yes-No 68

Hypsipyla robusta
Moore AU (Zhang, 1994) Zhang, 1994 shoots (Cunningham and Floyd, 2004; Hossain et al

. , 2004); fruit (Sangha, 2000; Verma and Nutul, 2000); seedlings (Nguyen Van, 2001); shoots, flowers, fruit, bark (Griffiths, 2001) 69 ; branches (Chen and Cha, 1998) Yes-No 70

64 Since 1985, the genus Conogethes has been intercepted 350 times with fruit by agricultural specialists at U.S. ports-ofentry, including four times with litchi fruit (PestID, 2008).

65 Larvae feed on the seed within litchi fruit by burrowing th rough the outer edible fruit tissue (Storey and Rogers, 1980).

66 Because the species name Dichocrocis punctigeralis Guenée could not be located anywhere else in the literature, we assume the species name reported by Storey and Rogers (Storey and Rogers, 1980) is a misspelling of Dichocrocis punctiferalis Guenée.

67 Larvae are reported to feed on the seed within litchi fru it by burrowing through the outer edible fruit tissue (Storey and Rogers, 1980).

68 Homoeosoma vagella : Attack by this species causes premature fruit drop or makes the fruit unmarketable (Storey and Rogers, 1980). All other literature related to this species report it to feed only on buds and fl owers, in particular that of
Macadamia (Astridge and Fay, 2005; Ebeling, 1959; Hill, 1983). Also, the one other report of it on litchi (Astridge and Fay, 2005) states that the larvae feed on flowers, resulting in reduced fruit set. Based on this evidence, we estimate this species would be unlikely to be associated with mature litchi fruit and follow the pathway.

69 Hypsipyla robusta : This species feeds externally and internally on the fruit of some of its hosts; larvae feeding on host species with small fruit (such as Toona ciliata : 1.2cm x 2.5cm) generally emerge from the fruit to pupate, whereas larvae feeding on host species w ith large fruit (such as Khaya senegalensis : 4-6cm diameter) generally pupate within the fruit (Griffiths, 2001).

70 Hypsipyla robusta : We considered this organism unlikely to follow th e pathway of commercial litchi fruit because of the questionable status of litchi as a host. Griffiths (2001) states that the host range of pyralids in the genus Hypsipyla is generally restricted to plants in the family Meliaceae, subfamily Swietenioideae. Although, there are repo rts of this genus feeding on plants in other groups, these reports “proba bly constitute misidentification of the insects and/or misinterpretation of the damage”, and “some records may re present chance feeding events” (Griffiths, 2001). Dr. SaulLitchi from Australia

Rev. 006 November 6, 2008 18 Pest Scientific Name Distribution 1 Reported on
litchi Plant Part(s)
Association Quarantine Pest Likely to
Follow Pathway Phycita leucomilta Lower (also erroneously spelled Phycita leucomiltra in the literature) AU (Biosecurity Australia, 2002) Biosecurity Australia, 2002; Storey and Rogers, 1980 flowers (Biosecurity Australia, 2002;
Viswanath et al

. , 1978); fruit, flowers (Storey and Rogers, 1980) 71 Yes-Yes

Tirathaba rufivena
Walker AU (Storey and Rogers, 1980) Storey and Rogers, 1980 Flowers, growing points, young fruit (CABI, 2005); fruit (Storey and Rogers, 1980) 72 Yes-No 73

Sesiidae Carmenta chrysophanes Meyrick AU (Biosecurity Australia, 2002) Waite and Elder, 1999b bark, wood, branches (Waite and Elder, 1999b) Yes-No

Tortricidae Acropolitis canana (Walker) AU (Storey and Rogers, 1980) Storey and Rogers, 1980 leaves (Storey and Rogers, 1980) Yes-No

Adoxophyes templana (Pagenstecher) AU (Storey and Rogers, 1980) Storey and Rogers, 1980 fruit (Storey and Rogers, 1980) 74 Yes-No 75

Cunningham (CSIRO Entomology, Canberra), an expert on H. robusta , reports that this species only feeds on hosts in the family Meliaceae (Biosecurity Australia, 2007). Besides the report by Zhang (1994) (which is simply a catalog, not an original reference source), we found no other report of litchi as a host of H. robusta ; plus, since 1985, inspectors at U.S. ports-of-entry have never intercepted the genus Hypsipyla associated with litchi or any other Sapindaceae plants (PestID, 2008).

71 Larvae feed on the seed within litchi fruit by burrowing th rough the outer edible fruit tissue (Storey and Rogers, 1980).

72 Larvae feed on the seed within litchi fruit by burrowing th rough the outer edible fruit tissue (Storey and Rogers, 1980).

73 Tirathaba rufivena : Field surveys found this species damaging litchi fruit by burrowing through the outer edible fruit tissue to feed on the seed, which causes the fruit “to drop if young, or makes it unmarketable” (Storey and Rogers, 1980). Any such fruit will likely be detected during grading. Also, the larv ae of this species are relatively large (up to 30mm) and very active when disturbed, and they cause immature fruit to abor t (CABI, 2005). Based on this evidence, we estimate this species is unlikely to follow the pathway of mature litchi fruit from Australia.

74 Larvae feed on the seed within litchi fruit by burrowing th rough the outer edible fruit tissue (Storey and Rogers, 1980).

75 Although Storey and Rogers (1980) report Adoxophyes templana on litchi fruit, we estimate this species would be unlikely to follow the pathway of commercial quality litchi fruit from Australia. This estimation is based on the following evidence: 1) no other report of this species on litchi could be found in the literature (in fact there is nearly no information on this species on any host in the literature), thereby suggesting a low likelihood of this species attacking litchi in the field and a low economic importance of this pest; 2) the scientific literature reports this genus as mainly attacking leaves (leaf-roller) and not fruit ( e.g. , Hill, 1983, 1987; Van Der Geest an d Evenhuis, 1991); 3) this genus has only been intercepted by PPQ on two occasions since 1985, once on cut fl owers and once on fruit (Pes tID, 2008); and 4) becaus e of its size, biology and mobility, this pest is not expected to stay on the commodity through harvest, standard handling and processing. For those species in the genus reported on fruit ( e.g. , Adoxophyes orana ), the larvae are external pest s eating the fruit surface and/or the leaves of their hosts (including litc hi) (Hill, 1983, 1987), the larvae usually eat the surface of the fruits under a leaf webbed onto the fruit surface (CABI, 2005; Hill, 1987), and th e larvae leave characteristic patterns on the fruit (point-like holes to large irregular depressions) that often do not penetrat e deeper than the skin (Dickler , 1991; USDA, 1985). Infested fruit will likely be culled during standard post-harvest treatme nt as the feeding damage is obvious, resulting in downgrading the fruit (Dickler, 1991), and leaves are not associated with litchi fruit for import. Even if slightly damaged fruit are not culled, these fruit would be unlikel y to have any larvae associated with th em, as the larvae are relatively large (up to 22mm) (Dickler, 1991), and, when disturbed, the larvae typically wiggle violently and fall off the plant (CABI, 2005; Hill, 1987).Litchi from Australia

Rev. 006 November 6, 2008 19 Pest Scientific Name Distribution 1 Reported on
litchi Plant Part(s)
Association Quarantine Pest Likely to
Follow Pathway Cryptophlebia
ombrodelta (Lower) AU (Biosecurity Australia, 2002); US (HI) (Chang, 1995; McQuate et al

. , 2000) Hill, 1983; Waite, 2004b;
Waite and Hwang, 2002; Zhang, 1994 fruit (Biosecurity Australia, 2002; Hill, 1983; Waite, 2004b; Waite and Hwang, 2002) Yes-Yes

Epiphyas postvittana Walker (synonym: Tortrix postvittana Walker) AU (CABI, 2004; Waite and Hwang, 2002); US (HI) (CABI, 2004; USDA, 1984; Waite and Hwang, 2002) CABI, 2006; CDFA, 2007; Higgins, 1917; Storey and Rogers, 1980 leaves, fruit (CABI, 2004; USDA, 1984); leaves, stems, fruit (Smith et al

. , 1997); leaves (Storey and Rogers, 1980); leaves, flowers (Higgins, 1917) Yes-No 76

Homona coffearia (Nietner) AU (localized) (CABI, 2004) CABI, 2004;
Waite and Hwang, 2002 leaves (CABI, 2004; Hill, 1983); flowers (Storey and Rogers, 1980) Yes-No

Homona sp. AU (Storey and Rogers, 1980) Storey and Rogers, 1980 leaves (Storey and Rogers, 1980) Yes-No

76 Epiphyas postvittana : There are numerous reports of E. postvittana larvae attacking the fruit of its host plants ( e.g. , Ferro, 1976; Meijerman and Ulenberg, 2000; Mo et al

. , 2006; Smith et al

. , 1997; USDA, 1984). However, this species is predominately a leaf feeder (Meijerman and Ulenberg, 2000; USDA, 1984), and when it attacks fruit, it mainly attacks the surface of the fruit (CDFA, 2007; Ferro, 1976; Smith et al

. , 1997). Because of their size [larvae range from 1.6 mm up to 20 mm in length (CABI, 2007)] and mobility (CABI, 2007), larv ae occurring externally on the fruit are not expected to stay on the commodity through harvest, and standard handling and processing. Sometimes this species enters the fruit of its hosts through the calyx (CDFA, 2007; Ferro, 1976). Because mature litchi fruit do not have a persistent calyx, we assume that commercial quality mature litchi fruit would be unlikely to contain internal boring early instar larvae that may not yet cause any obvious symptoms. Instead, if there are any la rvae inside of mature litchi fruit, they would likely be later
instar larvae that would cause o bvious symptoms, as larval feeding on fruit of its hosts causes large irregular blemishes,
which either callous over or allow the entry of rot organisms (Ferro, 1976). These obvious symptoms would lead to culling of infested fruit. Furthermore, we found no report in the scientific literature nor in USDA port interception data of E. postvittana attacking litchi fruit specifically. St orey and Rogers (1980) report E. postvittana as attacking only leaves of litchi, and Biosecurity Australia (2007) states there is no evid ence of this species attacking the fruit of litchi. Since 1985, immatures of this species have been intercepted at U.S. ports-o f-entry 16 times in commercial fruit shipments, but none of these interceptions were with litchi fruit (PestID, 2008), desp ite the fact that PPQ permits importation of litchi fruit from
areas that have E. postvittana , Hawaii (CABI, 2007; Robinson et al., 2008; USDA, 1984; Waite and Hwang, 2002) and India (Robinson et al., 2008) (PPQ, 2008). Also, since 1985, agricultural officers have never intercepted E. postvittana with litchi fruit in any non-commercial pathways (passenger baggag e, etc.) at U.S. ports of entry (PestID, 2008). Based on this evidence, we consider it unlikely for E. postvittana to follow the pathway of commercial export quality litchi fruit for consumption.Litchi from Australia

Rev. 006 November 6, 2008 20 Pest Scientific Name Distribution 1 Reported on
litchi Plant Part(s)
Association Quarantine Pest Likely to
Follow Pathway

Isotenes miserana
Walker AU (Biosecurity Australia, 2002; Waite and Hwang, 2002) Biosecurity Australia, 2002;
Waite and Hwang, 2002 leaves, fruit, flowers (Astridge and Fay, 2003d; Biosecurity Australia, 2002; Waite and Hwang, 2002); fruit (Smith et al

. , 1997); leaves, fruit (Waite and Hwang, 2002); leaves, flowers (Storey and Rogers, 1980) Yes-Yes

Lobesia physophora
Lower AU (Storey and Rogers, 1980) Storey and Rogers, 1980 flowers (Storey and Rogers, 1980) Yes-No

Lobesia sp. AU (Morton, 1987; Rogers and Blair, 1981; Storey and Rogers, 1980); US (Nearctica, 2005) Morton, 1987; Rogers and Blair, 1981; Storey and Rogers, 1980 seed, fruit (Morton, 1987); fruit (Pavan and Sbrissa, 1994); fruit (Hill, 1983); fruit, flowers (Storey and Rogers, 1980) Yes-Yes 77

Merophyas divulsana (Walker) AU (Storey and Rogers, 1980) Storey and Rogers, 1980 leaves, flowers (Storey and Rogers, 1980) Yes-No

Olethreutes perdulata Meyr. AU (Waite and Hwang, 2002) Waite and Hwang, 2002 flowers, leaves (Waite and Hwang, 2002) Yes-No

Platynota sp. AU (PestID, 2008); US (CABI, 2004) PestID, 2008 leaf (PestID, 2008) Yes-No

Platypeplus aprobola (Meyrick) (synonyms: Dudua aprobola Meyrick; Argyroploce aprobola Meyrick) AU (Biosecurity Australia, 2002; Waite and Hwang, 2002) Biosecurity Australia, 2002;

Bose et al

. , 2001; Waite and Hwang, 2002 flowers (Abraham and Jayanthi, 1999; Bose et al

. , 2001); leaves (Biosecurity Australia, 2002; Bose et al

. , 2001; Mann and Singh, 1984;
Punnaiah and Devaprasad, 1996; Wen
et al

. , 2002); leaves, flowers (Storey and Rogers, 1980) Yes-No

THYSANOPTERA Thripidae Chaetanaphothrips
orchidii (Moulton) AU (Biosecurity Australia, 2002); US (CABI, 2004) CABI, 2004 leaves, flowers (CABI, 2004) No-No

77 Lobesia sp.: Based on the biology of the grape berry moth, Lobesia botrana , (Hill, 1983; Pavan and Sbrissa, 1994), we
assume that the unidentified Lobesia species reported on litchi in Australia would be likely to follow the pathway of litchi
fruit.Litchi from Australia

Rev. 006 November 6, 2008 21 Pest Scientific Name Distribution 1 Reported on
litchi Plant Part(s)
Association Quarantine Pest Likely to
Follow Pathway Megalurothrips distalis (Karny) (synonym: Taeniothrips distalis Karny) AU (CABI, 2004) CABI, 2004; Hill, 1983;
Waite and Hwang, 2002 leaves, flowers (CABI, 2004); flowers (Morton, 1987) Yes-No

Scirtothrips dorsalis
Hood AU (CABI, 2004; Entomology Section, 2005; Palmer and Mound, 1983); US (HI) (CABI, 2004) Li et al

. , 2004;
Waite and Hwang, 2002 shoots (Waite and Hwang, 2002); bark, leaves, shoots (Li et al

. , 2004); shoots, leaves, young fruit, flowers (CABI, 2006 ) Yes-No 78

Thrips coloratus
Schmutz AU (Mound and Houston, 1987) Wongsiri, 1991a flowers (Wongsiri, 1991a) Yes-No

Thrips hawaiiensis Morgan AU (CABI, 2004); US (CABI, 2004) Wongsiri, 1991a flowers (Wongsiri, 1991a); young fruit, flowers (CABI, 2004) No-No

Thrips imaginis Bagnall AU (Biosecurity Australia, 2002) Biosecurity Australia, 2002 flowers (CABI, 2004; Waite and Hwang, 2002) Yes-No

NEMATODES DORYLAIMIDA: Longidoridae Xiphinema americanum
Cobb AU (Biosecurity Australia, 2002); US (CABI, 2004) Biosecurity Australia, 2002 roots, soil (CABI, 2004) No-No

Xiphinema brevicolle
Lordello and DaCosta AU (Biosecurity Australia, 2002) Biosecurity Australia, 2002 roots, soil (CABI, 2004) Yes-No

Xiphinema elongatum
SchuurmansStekhoven and
Teunissen AU (Biosecurity Australia, 2002) Biosecurity Australia, 2002 roots, soil (CABI, 2004) Yes-No

TRIPLONCHIDA:Trichodoridae

Paratrichodorus minor (Colbran) Siddiqi AU (Biosecurity Australia, 2002); US (CABI, 2004) Biosecurity Australia, 2002 roots, soil (CABI, 2004) No-No

TYLENCHIDA

Criconematidae

Criconema mutabile (Taylor) Raski & Luc AU (Biosecurity Australia, 2002) Biosecurity Australia, 2002 roots, soil (CABI, 2004) Yes-No

78 Scirtothrips dorsalis is reported to only attack immature fruit (CABI, 2006; CABI/EPPO, 1997); ther efore, the risk of this species being on harvested fruit is considered to be sma ll (CABI/EPPO, 1997). Furthermore, the literature only reports S.
dorsalis as attacking shoots, bark, and leaves of litchi ( e.g ., Li et al

. , 2004; Waite and Hwang, 2002). Consequently, we
estimate S. dorsalis would be unlikely to follow the pathway of commercial litchi fruit.Litchi from Australia

Rev. 006 November 6, 2008 22 Pest Scientific Name Distribution 1 Reported on
litchi Plant Part(s)
Association Quarantine Pest Likely to
Follow Pathway

Hemicriconemoides mangiferae Siddiqi AU (Biosecurity Australia, 2002); US (CA, FL) (CABI, 2004) Biosecurity Australia, 2002 roots, soil (CABI, 2004) [Yes] 79 -No

Hoplolaimidae Helicotylenchus dihystera (Cobb) Sher AU (Biosecurity Australia, 2002); US (CABI, 2004) Biosecurity Australia, 2002 roots, soil (CABI, 2004) No-No

PATHOGENS

ALGAE Cephaleuros virescens
Kunze AU (Biosecurity Australia, 2002); US (Alfieri et al

. , 1993; Brannen, 2004) Biosecurity Australia, 2002 leaves (Alfieri et al

. , 1993; Brannen, 2004; CABI, 2004); stems (Brannen, 2004; NCSU CIPM, 2005) No-No

FUNGI AND CHROMISTANS 80

Alternaria alternata (Fr.) Keissl.(Mitosporic FungiHyphomycetes) AU (Biosecurity Australia, 2002); US (CABI, 2004) Biosecurity Australia, 2002 flowers (Farr et al

. , 2005); fruits (CABI, 2004); leaves (CABI, 2004; Farr et al

. , 2005) No -Yes

Armillaria
luteobubalina Watling & Kile (Basidiomycetes: Agaricales) AU (Biosecurity Australia, 2002) Biosecurity Australia, 2002 roots, stems (CABI, 2004) Yes-No

Aspergillus flavus Link ex Fr. (MitosporicFungiHyphomycetes) AU (Biosecurity Australia, 2002); US (Farr et al

. , 2005) Biosecurity Australia, 2002;

Farr et al

. , 2005 fruits, flowers, seeds, leaves, stems (CABI, 2004) No-Yes

Aspergillus glaucus Link:Fr [anamorph of

Eurotium
herbariorum (A. Wigg.:Fr.) Link] (Ascomycetes: Eurotiales) AU (Sivasithamparam et al

. , 1987); US (Farr
et al

. , 2006) Farr et al

. , 2006 leaves, flowers, fruits, seed, soil, stems (Farr et al

. , 2006) No-Yes

Aspergillus niger Tiegh.(Mitosporic FungiHyphomycetes) AU (CABI, 2004); US (CABI, 2004) CABI, 2004 fruits, flowers, seeds, stems (CABI, 2004) No-Yes

79 Quarantine significant species with a limited distribution in the United States (NIS, 2006)

80 For the fungal pathogens there may be more than one name in the entry. The first name reflects the state (sexual or asexual/teleomorphic or anamorphic) that the fungus was found in relation to the commodity. Beyond that name, synonyms of the fungus may be listed (=) as well as the sexual state of that fungus (if the asexual state was listed first). The sexual state may or may not be in the exporting country, but serves as the basis for the taxonomic groupings in the pest list. For those fungi whose sexual state is unkno wn, they will be listed under the Mitosporic Fungi.Litchi from Australia

Rev. 006 November 6, 2008 23 Pest Scientific Name Distribution 1 Reported on
litchi Plant Part(s)
Association Quarantine Pest Likely to
Follow Pathway

Auricularia cornea
Ehrenb.:Fr. (Basidiomycetes: Auriculariales) AU (Farr et al

. , 2006); US (Farr et al

. , 2006) Farr et al

. , 2006 trunk, branches (Farr et al

. , 2006) No -No

Bipolaris cynodontis (Marig.) Shoemaker [anamorph of
Cochliobolus cynodontis Nelson] (Ascomycetes: Pleosporales) AU (Biosecurity Australia, 2002); US (Farr et al

. , 2005) Biosecurity Australia, 2002 leaves (CABI, 2004;

Farr et al

. , 2005) No-No

Bipolaris hawaiiensis (M.B. Ellis) Uchida & Aragaki [anamorph
of Cochliobolus
hawaiiensis Alcorn] (Ascomycetes: Pleosporales) AU (Biosecurity Australia, 2002); US (FL, MS, HI) (Farr
et al

. , 2005) Biosecurity Australia, 2002 leaves (CABI, 2004) No-No

Colletotrichum

acutatum J.H.
Simmonds(Mitosporic FungiCoelomycetes) AU (Biosecurity Australia, 2002); US (Farr et al

. , 2005) Biosecurity Australia, 2002 fruits, flowers, seeds, leaves, roots, stems (CABI, 2004) No-Yes

Colletotrichum

gloeosporioides (Penz.) Penz. & Sacc. In Penz. [anamorph
of Glomerella cingulata (Stonem.)Spaud. and Schrenk.)] (Ascomycetes:
Incertae sedis ) AU (Biosecurity Australia, 2002); US (Alfieri et al

. , 1993;
Farr et al

. , 2005) Biosecurity Australia, 2002 fruits (CABI, 2004; NCSU CIPM, 2005), flowers, seeds, stems (CABI, 2004), leaves (Alfieri et al

. , 1993; CABI, 2004; NCSU CIPM, 2005) No-Yes

Curvularia pallescens Boedijn [anamorph of
Pseudocochliobolus pallescen s Tsuda & UeYama] (Ascomycetes: Pleosporales) AU (Biosecurity Australia, 2002) Biosecurity Australia, 2002 leaves (CABI, 2004;

Farr et al

. , 2005) Yes-NoLitchi from Australia

Rev. 006 November 6, 2008 24 Pest Scientific Name Distribution 1 Reported on
litchi Plant Part(s)
Association Quarantine Pest Likely to
Follow Pathway Cylindrocladium

scoparium Morg. [anamorph of Calonectria morganii Crous, Alfenas, & M.J. Wingf. or Calonectria kyotensis Terash.] (Ascomycetes: Hypocreales) AU (Farr et al

. , 2005; Shivas, 1989); US (Farr et al

. , 2005}) Farr et al

. , 2005 flowers, fruits, leaves, roots, stems (Farr et al

. , 2005) No-Yes

Dothiorella sp.(Mitosporic FungiCoelomycetes) AU (Biosecurity Australia, 2002) Biosecurity Australia, 2002 fruits (Biosecurity Australia, 2002) Yes-Yes

Erythricium
salmonicolor (Berk. & Broome) Burdsall [= Corticium
salmonicolor Berk. & Broome) (Basidiomycetes: Polyporales) AU (Biosecurity Australia, 2002); US (Alfieri et al

. , 1993; CABI, 2004) Biosecurity Australia, 2002 leaves, stems (CABI, 2004; Coates et al

. , 2003) No-No

Fusarium

pallidoroseum (Cooke) Sacc.(Mitosporic FungiHyphomycetes) AU (Biosecurity Australia, 2002); US (CABI, 2004) Biosecurity Australia, 2002 on Musa sp. (crown rot) (Jones, 1997) No-No

Fusarium solani (Mart.) Sacc. [anamorph of

Nectria
haematococca Berk. and Broome, ] (Ascomycetes: Hypocreales) AU (Biosecurity Australia, 2002); US (CABI, 2004) Biosecurity Australia, 2002 roots (Biosecurity Australia, 2002;CABI, 2004), stem (lower) (CABI, 2004) No-No

Geotrichum candidum Link [anamorph of Galactomyces geotrichum (Butler & Peterson) Redhead &
Malloch or Dipodascus geotrichum (Butler & Peterson)] (Ascomycetes: Saccharomycetales) AU (Biosecurity Australia, 2002); US (Farr et al

. , 2005) Biosecurity Australia, 2002 fruits (Biosecurity Australia, 2002) No-YesLitchi from Australia

Rev. 006 November 6, 2008 25 Pest Scientific Name Distribution 1 Reported on
litchi Plant Part(s)
Association Quarantine Pest Likely to
Follow Pathway Gloeosporium spp.(Mitosporic FungiCoelomycetes) AU (Biosecurity Australia, 2002) Biosecurity Australia, 2002 fruits (Biosecurity Australia, 2002), leaves (Alfieri et al

. , 1993) Yes-Yes

Gyrothrix circinata (Berk. & M.A. Curtis) S. Hughes(Mitosporic FungiHyphomycetes) AU (Farr et al

. , 2006) Farr et al

. , 2006 fallen leaves, dead stems (Farr et al

. , 2006) Yes- No

Lasiodiplodia
theobromae (Pat)
Griffon & Maubl. [=

Diplodia
theobromae (Pat.)W. Nowell, anamorph of Botryosphaeria
rhodina Berk. & M. A. Curtis] (Ascomycetes: Dothideales) AU (Biosecurity Australia, 2002); US (CABI, 2004; Farr
et al

. , 2005) Biosecurity Australia, 2002 bark, fruits, flowers, leaves, roots, seeds, stems (CABI, 2004) No-Yes

Nectria pseudotrichia
Berk. & M.A. Curtis [teleomorph of
Tubercularia lateritia (Berk.) Seifert] (Ascomycetes: Hypocreales) AU (Farr et al

. , 2006); US (CABI, 2005; Farr et al

. , 2006) Farr et al

. , 2006 bark and wood (Farr et al

. , 2006) No- No

Nigrospora sphaerica (Sacc.) E. Mason(Mitosporic FungiHyphomycetes) AU (Biosecurity Australia, 2002); US (Farr et al

. , 2005) Biosecurity Australia, 2002 leaves (Biosecurity Australia, 2002), seed (CABI, 2004), fruits (Farr et al

. , 2005; Rohrbach and Apt, 1993); stems (Farr et al

. , 2005) No-Yes

Oidium sp. (MitosporicFungiHyphomycetes) AU (Farr et al

. , 2006) Farr et al

. , 2006 leaves, fruits, stems (Cooke, 1975; Ploetz et al

. , 1994) Yes-Yes 81

Penicillium crustosum Thom (MitosporicFungiHyphomycetes) AU (Biosecurity Australia, 2002); US (Farr et al

. , 2005) Biosecurity Australia, 2002 fruits (postharvest) (CABI, 2004; Farr et al

. , 2005) No-Yes

81 Powdery mildews are primarily foliar pa thogens; however, there are reports of Oidium species on fruits (Cooke, 1975;
Ploetz et al

. , 1994). For some Oidium species, only the young fruits are susceptible (Cooke, 1975), but since it is unknown which species is in association with litchi in Australia, it will be considered to follow the pathway.Litchi from Australia

Rev. 006 November 6, 2008 26 Pest Scientific Name Distribution 1 Reported on
litchi Plant Part(s)
Association Quarantine Pest Likely to
Follow Pathway

Penicillium lilacinum
Thom [=

Paecilomyces
lilacinus (Thom) Samson] (MitosporicFungiHyphomycetes) AU US (CABI, 2005) Coates et al

. , 2003 fruits (Coates et al

. , 2003) No-Yes

Pestalotiopsis mangiferae (Henn.) Steyaert (Mitosporic Fungi-Coelomycetes) AU (Biosecurity Australia, 2002) Biosecurity Australia, 2002 fruits (postharvest) (Biosecurity Australia, 2002); leaves (Biosecurity Australia, 2002; CABI, 2004; Farr
et al

. , 2005) 82 No 83 -Yes

Pestalotiopsis
versicolor (Speg.) Steyaert [= Pestalotia
versicolor Speg.](Mitosporic FungiCoelomycetes) AU US (Farr et al

. , 2006) Farr et al

. , 2006 leaves, fruits (Farr et al

. , 2006) No- Yes

Phellinus noxius (Corner) G. Cunn (Basidiomycetes: Hymenochaetales) AU (CABI, 2005) Farr et al

. , 2006 root, trunk (Farr et al

. , 2006) Yes-No

Phoma glomerata (Corda) Wollenweb. & Hochapfel(Mitosporic FungiCoelomycetes) AU (Biosecurity Australia, 2002); US (Farr et al

. , 2005) Biosecurity Australia, 2002 fruits (Biosecurity Australia, 2002); leaves (Farr et al

. , 2005) No-Yes

Phomopsis sp.(Mitosporic FungiCoelomycetes) AU (PestID, 2008) PestID, 2008 leaves (PestID, 2008) Yes-No

Phyllosticta sp.(Mitosporic FungiCoelomycetes) AU (Biosecurity Australia, 2002) Biosecurity Australia, 2002 leaves (Alfieri et al

. , 1993; Biosecurity Australia, 2002) Yes-No

Physalospora sp. (Ascomycetes: Xylariales) AU (PestID, 2008) PestID, 2008 leaves (PestID, 2008) Yes-No

Phytophthora

cinnamomi Rands (Oomycetes: Pythiales) AU (Biosecurity Australia, 2002); US (CABI, 2004) Biosecurity Australia, 2002 roots, stems (CABI, 2004) No-No

82 Primarily known for incidence on l eaves (gray leaf spot) (CABI, 2004).

83 Pestalotiopsis mangiferae is a “nonreportable”/”nonac tionable” pest (PestID, 2008).Litchi from Australia

Rev. 006 November 6, 2008 27 Pest Scientific Name Distribution 1 Reported on
litchi Plant Part(s)
Association Quarantine Pest Likely to
Follow Pathway

Rhizoctonia solani Kühn [anamorph of Thanatephorus

cucumeris (A.B. Frank) Donk] (Basidiomycetes: Ceratobasidiales) AU (Biosecurity Australia, 2002); US (CABI, 2004) Farr et al

. , 2005 fruits, flowers, leaves, roots, stems (CABI, 2004) No-Yes

Rhizopus stolonifer (Ehrenb.: Fr.) Vuill. (Zygomycetes: Mucorales) AU (Biosecurity Australia, 2002); US (CABI, 2004) Farr et al

. , 2005 fruits (Biosecurity Australia, 2002; CABI, 2004) No-Yes

Sporidesmium filiferum Piroz. (MitosporicFungiHyphomycetes) AU (Farr et al

. , 2006) Farr et al

. , 2006 saprobe on decaying material, leaves (Grandi and Silva, 2003;
Rambelli et al

. , 2004) No 84 -No

Stemphylium globuliferum ( Vestergren) E. Simmons (MitosporicFungiHyphomycetes) AU (Biosecurity Australia, 2002); US (Farr et al

. , 2005) Biosecurity Australia, 2002 leaves (Farr et al

. , 2005) No-No

84 Sporidesmium filiferum : This species is not listed in PPQ’s pest interc eption database as a reportable or actionable pest (PestID, 2008). We found no evidence that this species is a plant pest. In most cases it is mentioned as a leaf litter decomposer (Grandi and Silva, 2003; Rambelli et al

. , 2004). Based on this evidence, we are not considering it a quarantine pest.Litchi from Australia

Rev. 006 November 6, 2008 28 Pests likely to follow the pathway

We summarized the quarantine pests that are likely to follow the pathway on commercial shipments of litchi from Australia (Table 4), and further analyzed these pests. Quarantine pests not included can be detrimental to U.S. agriculture or ecosystems, but we did not further analyze them for the following reasons: they are either mainly a ssociated with plant pa rts other than the commodity; or they may be more reasonably associated with larger diameter st ems or branches than with the 5 mm length stems of litchi fruit; they may have a greater association with new stem or leaf growth rather than with mature fruit-bearing pedicels at harvest time; or they are unlikely to be associ ated with the fruit during transport or processing because of their inherent mobility.

We identified the armored scale Pseudaonidia trilobitiformis (Hemiptera: Diaspidi dae) as a quarantine pest likely to follow the pathway; however, we did not further an alyze this pest 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 et al., 1985; PERAL, 2007). A recent critical review of the literature, APHIS-PPQ operati onal data, and expert opinion concludes that, even assuming high quantities of imported fruit infested with armored scale sp ecies that could be parthenogenic, highly fec und, polyphagous, invasive, theoretically able to survive in most of the United States, and cause high level conseq uences, the specific pathway represented by commercially produced fruit shipped without leaves, stems or contaminants constitutes an extremel y low risk (PERAL, 2007). This low risk is explained by poor ability of armored sc ales to disperse to new hos t plants from fruits for consumption, and consequently, by their low proba bility of establishment (PERAL, 2007). The following characteristics of armored scales cont ribute to their poor dispersal capabilities:

• Legs and wings are absent in females and in f eeding immature forms. Ma les possess wings but are short-lived, do not feed, and tend to mate with nearby females.

• Self-dispersal of armored scales occurs by imma ture forms, or “crawlers”. They are the most vulnerable life stage, survival of which decreases with long distance wind dispersal. Crawlers can be passively dispersed by wind from on e plant to another only during a time period of approximately 24 hours. No further dispersal is possible after the craw lers start feeding as they lose their legs during the first molt and the mouth parts are deeply inse rted in the host, anchoring them firmly to the
substrate.

• Dispersal from fruit discarded in the environment is considered very unlikely because of low wind speeds at ground level and low surviv al rate of crawlers on the gr ound or on decaying fruit or fruit peel. There is a low probability of active dispersal of crawlers by walking fr om their natal host since they are not capable of rapid moveme nt over bare soil or rough surfaces.

Biological hazards associated with organisms not iden tified to the species leve l are not assessed because often there are many species within a genus, and we cannot know if the unidentified species occurs in the United States and, consequently, whether it meets the definition of a quarantine pest for the United States. In this risk assessment, the a bove statement applies to the arthropods Anarsia sp. (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae) and Lobesia sp. (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae), and to the fungi Dothiorella sp. (Mitosporic Fungi: Coelomycetes), Oidium sp. (Mitosporic Fungi: Hyphomycetes), and Gloeosporium spp. (Mitosporic Fungi: Coelomycetes). A ll five of these genera are reporte d to occur in the United States (Farr et al

. , 2005; Robinson et al

. , 2005; Zhang, 1994). Lack of specifi c identification may indicate the limits of current taxonomic knowledge, the life stag e, or the quality of the specimen submitted for identification. By necessity, pest risk assessments focus on organisms for which biological informationLitchi from Australia

Rev. 006 November 6, 2008 29 is available. Lack of specific identification does not rule out the possibility that a high risk quarantine pest was intercepted. Conversely, the development of detailed assessmen ts for known pests that inhabit a variety of ecological niches, such as internal fruit feeders or foliage pests, allow effective mitigation measures to eliminate the known organisms as well as similar but incompletely identified organisms that inhabit the same niche. If pests iden tified to higher taxa are intercepte d in the future, then a reevaluation of their risk may occur.

2.5 Analysis of Quarantine Pests

The undesirable consequences that ma y occur from the introduction of qu arantine pests are assessed in this section. The ratings were dete rmined using the criteria in the Risk Assessment Guidelines, Version
5.02 (USDA, 2000).

The major sources of uncertainty present in this ri sk assessment are similar to those in other risk assessments. They include the use of a developing or evolving process (Orr et al

. , 1993; USDA, 2000), the approach used to combine risk elements (Bie r, 1999; Morgan and Henrion, 1990), and the evaluation of risk by comparisons to lists of factor s within the guidelines (Kaplan, 1992; Orr et al

. , 1993). To address this last source of uncertainty, the lists of factors were interpreted as illustrative and not exhaustive, implying that additional biological informati on, even if not explicitly part of the criteria, can be used when relevant to a rating. Other sources of uncertainty include the qua lity of the biological
information and the amount of information available on the regional flora and fa una. Inherent biological variation within a population of or ganisms introduces uncertainty as well (Morgan and Henrion, 1990).

We calculated a cumulative risk rating by summing all risk element values. Table 5 summarizes the values for each pest.

Table 4. Quarantine pests likely to be associated with litchi imported from Aust ralia and selected for further analysis

Order Family Pest Acari Eriophyidae Aceria litchii (Keifer) Diptera Tephritidae Bactrocera jarvisi (Tryon) Bactrocera tryoni (Froggatt) Ceratitis capitata (Wiedemann)
Coccidae Ceroplastes rubens (Maskell)
Coccus viridis (Green) Hemiptera

Pseudococcidae Nipaecoccus viridis (Newstead)
Planococcus minor (Maskell) Lycaenidae Deudorix epijarbas dido Waterhouse
Deudorix diovis Hewitson Pyralidae Cateremna quadriguttella Walker Conogethes punctiferalis (Guenée) Phycita leucomilta Lower Lepidoptera

Tortricidae Cryptophlebia ombrodelta (Lower)

Isotenes miserana WalkerLitchi from Australia

Rev. 006 November 6, 2008 30 2.5.1. Consequences of Introduction

Aceria litchii (Keifer) (Prostigmata: Eriophyidae) Risk ratings

Risk Element #1: Climate-Host Interaction
Aceria litchii is reported in China (He and He, 2001; Waite and Hwang, 2002), Taiwan (Huang, 1967; Taiwan, 2002; Waite and Hwang, 2002), India (Kumar, 1992a; Waite and Hwang, 2002), Hawaii (Amrine and Stasny, 1994), Pakistan (Jeppson et al

. , 1975; Waite and Hwang, 2002), and Australia (Waite and Hwang, 2002). Based on the distribution and reported host range of this species, we estimat e it could establish in the
continental United States in U.S. Plant Hard iness Zones 9-10. Neither of its hosts, longan nor litchi, occur naturally in the United States (USDA NRCS, 2003) ; however, longan is commercially grown in southern Florida (N CSU CIPM, 2005) and Hawaii, and is grown in backyard gardens in s outhern California (Erickson et al

. , 1999; Gaskell, 2003). Medium (2)

Risk Element #2: Host Range
Aceria litchii ’s host range includes Dimocarpus longan (Sapindaceae) (Huang, 1967; Taiwan, 2002) and Litchi chinensis (Sapindaceae) (Hua ng, 1967; Jeppson et al

. , 1975). Medium (2)

Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential In India and China, 13-15 overlapping gene rations are produced each year (Waite and Hwang, 2002). In a study in India, A. litchii completed its life-cycle in 15-20 days and had 10-12 annual generations (Prasad and Singh, 1981). The reproductive rate of A

. litchii is not reported in th e literature; however, a related species, Aceria guerreronis , has a high reproductive rate (CABI, 2003). This mite could easily be dispersed by human activity because it is minute a nd it attacks young leaves, fruits, stems, shoots, and flower buds (Jeppson et al

. , 1975; Taiwan, 2002). Since 1985, the genus Aceria has been intercepted on 20 occasions by PPQ officers on various plant parts (f ruit, leaf, plant,

etc. ), most of which were in cargo (PestID, 2008). In India, it moves with gootee plants from affected orchards (Prasad and Singh, 1981) . All stages of the pest are mobile and can move easily from old to new leaves (Waite and Hwang, 2002). Erinose mites can be transported from tree to tree by phoresy (e.g., on honeybees at flowering), human activity or other agents; however, wind currents are the most common method of movement (Waite and Hwang, 2002). High (3)

Risk Element #4: Economic Impact
Aceria litchii is a serious pest of litchi (Kumar, 1992a) in places such as Taiwan, China, India, Hawaii, and Pakistan. For example, it is the most important pe st of litchi in Hawaii and Pakistan (Jeppson et al

. , 1975), in Bihar, India (Mathur and Tandon, 1974; Prasad and Singh, 1981), and one of the most important pests in the Guangdong production areas of China (He and He, 2001). In Bihar, India, young and mature litchi trees are attacked and seriously damaged by A. litchi , causing losses as high as 80 pe rcent in severely infested orchards (Prasad and Singh, 1981). Similarly, in Taiwan, A. litchi is a “serious” pest of litchi, damaging 20 -83 percent of the comm odity (Huang, 1967), an d a pest of “majoreconomic significance” to longan (Taiwan, 2002). Damage by this mite includes a feltlike erineum on leaves and fruit, deformed term inals, leaf fall, prevention of fruit set, and malformed fruit, which may be unmark etable (Waite and Hwang, 2002). Because it is an important economic pest, attack by th is mite likely increases cost of production due to the implementation of control measures. The introduction of this pest into the
United States could cause a loss of foreign and/or domestic markets. High (3)Litchi from Australia

Rev. 006 November 6, 2008 31 Aceria litchii (Keifer) (Prostigmata: Eriophyidae) Risk ratings Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact The genera Litchi and Dimocarpus are not listed as Threatened or Endangered in 50 CFR §17.12 (USFWS, 2006). Althou gh the introduction of A. litchii into the continental United States does not present any fo reseeable impacts on Threatened or Endangered plants, it would probably lead to the initiation of chemi cal and/or biological control programs. Management of A. litchii in China includes the use of chemical pesticides (He and He, 2001). Phosphamidon, dimethoate phosalone (Kumar, 1992b), dicofol, monocrotophos (Kumar, 1992a), and malathion (Prasad and Singh, 1981) are successful control measures when used against this pest. Medium (2)

Bactrocera jarvisi (Tryon) (Diptera: Tephritidae) Risk ratings

Risk Element #1: Climate-Host Interaction Bactrocera jarvisi is only reported in Australia (N orthern Territory, New South Wales, Queensland, Western Australia) (CABI, 2005). Based on this, we think it could establish
in the continental United States in Plant Hardiness Zones 9-10. One or more hosts are present in these Plant Hardin ess Zones in the United St ates (USDA NRCS, 2002). Medium (2)

Risk Element #2: Host Range The major hosts of B. jarvisi are Mangifera indica (Anacardiaceae), Psidium guajava (Myrtaceae), and Terminalia catappa (Combretaceae). Minor hosts include Citrus aurantiifolia (Rutaceae), C. limon (Rutaceae), C. sinensis (Rutaceae), Citrus x paradisi (Rutaceae), Malus sylvestris (Rosaceae), Passiflora edulis (Passifloraceae), Persea

americana (Lauraceae), Prunus armeniaca (Rosaceae), P. persica (Rosaceae), and Pyrus communis (Rosaceae) (CABI, 2005). In Queensla nd, Australia, this species may attack litchi, but normally only when the sk in of the fruit has been damaged by fruit borers (Biosecurity Australia, 2002). Because it can feed on fruit in multiple plant families, the Host Range risk element receives a High rating. High (3)

Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential Fruit flies in the genus Bactrocera generally have a high re productive rate and can disperse over long distances. The major means of B. jarvisi dispersal to new areas is through adult flight and the transport of fruit infested with eggs and larvae, in addition to the pupae in growing media that a ccompanies plants (CABI, 2005). Since 1985,

Bactrocera fruit flies have been intercepted 12,281 times at U.S. ports-of-entry (PestID, 2008), which is evidence of their ability to be dispersed via human-assisted movement of plants and plant products. Fl etcher (1989a) reports that many Bactrocera spp. can fly
50-100 km. Females of B. jarvisi produce 240 and 201 female eggs on Planchonia

careya and apples, respectively (Fitt, 1990). Comp letion of its life-cycle takes about 2.5 weeks in the summer (Biosecurity Australia, 2002); therefore, we assume it can have multiple generations per year. For these reasons, we rated this fruit fly species High

. High (3)

Risk Element #4: Economic Impact Bactrocera jarvisi is listed in “Pest Fruit Flies of the World” by Carrol et al

. (2002 onwards) and is considered a “significant pe st” (CABI, 2005), quarantine pest (CERIS, 2006), or a “major quarantine pest” (DBIRD, 200 2). It infests nativ e and commercial plants in Australia (DBIRD, 2002). While B. jarvisi does not affect host yields, it High (3)Litchi from Australia

Rev. 006 November 6, 2008 32 Bactrocera jarvisi (Tryon) (Diptera: Tephritidae) Risk ratings seriously reduces quality (DBIRD, 2002). Extern al damage to the fruit skin can include bruising, necrosis, and oviposition punctures, while internally th e pest causes larval tunneling and decay of flesh (CABI, 2005; DBIRD, 2002). It may also cause indirect impacts via lost markets resulting from the imposition of quarantine restrictions. For all these reasons, we rated it High for Economic Impact. Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact Opuntia treleasei and Prunus geniculata are two potential hosts listed as Endangered in 50 CFR §17.12. Both species are present in B

. jarvisi’ s predicted climatic range in the
continental United States and are congeneric with plant species that are hosts of B. jarvisi . As this fruit fly species is an important economic threat (above ), its establishment
in the United States wo uld likely trigger the initiation of chemical a nd/or biological control programs. Therefore, we rated this organism High for this element. High (3)

Bactrocera tryoni (Froggatt) (Diptera: Te phritidae) Risk ratings

Risk Element #1: Climate-Host Interaction Bactrocera tryoni is reported in Australia, Fren ch Polynesia, and New Caledonia (CABI, 2005). Based on that, we estimate this fruit fly could establis h in the continental
United States in USDA Plant Hardiness Zones 9-10. One or more hosts of B. tryoni are present in these Plant Hardin ess Zones in the United St ates (USDA NRCS, 2002). Medium (2)

Risk Element #2: Host Range Bactrocera tryoni has been recorded on 49 families of plants, represented by 234 plant species (CABI, 2005). Major hosts include Anacardium occidentale (Anacardiaceae),
Averrhoa carambola (Oxalidaceae), Capsicum annuum (Solanaceae), Coffea arabica (Rubiaceae), Eugenia uniflora (Myrtaceae), Lycopersicon esculentum (Solanaceae), Malus sylvestris (Rosaceae), Mangifera indica (Anacardiaceae), Prunus persica (Rosaceae), and Syzygium aqueum (Myrtaceae) (CABI, 2005). Litchi is reported as a minor host (CABI, 2005). Because this fruit fly species can feed on fruit in multiple plant families, it receives a High rating for the Host Range risk element. High (3)

Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential Fruit flies in the genus Bactrocera generally have a high re productive rate and can disperse over long distances. The major means of dispersal of B. tryoni to new areas are via adult flight and th e transport of fruit infested with eggs and larvae and of pupae in the growing media accompanying plants (CABI, 2005). Since 1985, Bactrocera fruit flies have been intercepted 12,281 times at U. S. ports-of-entry (Pes tID, 2008), which is evidence of their ability to be dispersed via human-assisted movement of plants and plant products. Fletcher (Fletc her, 1989a) reports that many Bactrocera spp. can fly 50-
100km. Females of B. tryoni can oviposit up to 540 eggs under laboratory conditions (Meats and Leighton, 2004). Yonow et al

. (2004), however, state th at females have the potential to produce over 1000 eggs in a li fetime and can lay between 80 to over 100 eggs per week. Up to 70 flies have been r ecorded developing in a single fuit (CABI, 2005). This species can have five or more overlapping ge nerations per year (Hassan, 1977). Because of its ability to rapidly disperse, in addition to its high reproductive rate, this fruit fly species is rated High for Dispersal Potential. High (3)Litchi from Australia

Rev. 006 November 6, 2008 33 Bactrocera tryoni (Froggatt) (Diptera: Te phritidae) Risk ratings Risk Element #4: Economic Impact Bactrocera tryoni is a “major quarantine pest” (DBI RD, 2002), and a serious pest of commercial fruit and vegetable production in Australia (CABI, 2005; Hassan, 1977;
Yonow et al

. , 2004). CERIS (2006) reports eleven count ries that list this species as a quarantine pest. It does not greatly affect hos t yields, but greatly reduces the quality of the commodity (DBIRD, 2002). External damage to the fruit skin is manifested by bruising, necrosis, and oviposition punctures, while internal fruit damage is caused by larval tunneling and the decay of flesh (C ABI, 2005; DBIRD, 2002). Damage levels can be up to 100 percent of unprotec ted fruit (CABI, 2005). If fru it flies were not controlled in Australia, potential losses could reach $100 million a year, most of which would be caused by B. tryoni (CABI, 2005). Many countries prohi bit the importation of hosts of this fruit fly unless strict phytosanitary measures, such as fumigation, heat treatment, cold treatment, insecticidal dipping, or irra diation, are applied (CABI, 2005). For these reasons, we rated this fruit fly High for Economic Impact. High (3)

Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact
Cucurbita okeechobeensis ssp. okeechobeensis

, Prunus geniculata

, Opuntia treleasei

, and Ziziphus celata are examples of potential hosts listed as Endangered in 50 CFR §17.12. These plant sp ecies are present in B

. tryoni’ s predicted climatic range in the continental United States (Flo rida or California) and are congeneric with plant species reported as hosts of B. tryoni . As this fruit fly species repr esents an economic threat, its
establishment in the Unit ed States would probably trigger the initiation of chemical and/or biological control programs. Based on th is evidence, we ra ted this organism High for the Environmental Impact risk element. High (3)

Cateremna quadriguttella Walker (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) Risk ratings

Risk Element #1: Climate-Host Interaction Cateremna quadriguttella is found in Cairnes and Walk amin in northern Queensland, Australia (Storey and Rogers, 1980). This di stribution corresponds to the USDA Plant Hardiness Zone 10 (Foulis, 2001). Its one reporte d host, litchi, is grown in Zone 10 in the United States (Morton, 1987). Based on this evidence, the Climate-Host Interaction risk rating is rated Low

. Low (1)

Risk Element #2: Host Range Storey and Rogers (1980) report this species on litchi. An exhaustive literature search
for C. quadriguttella yielded no additional host information; therefore, we think its host range is limited to litchi

. Consequently, we rated this species Low for the Host Range
risk element. Low (1)

Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential
We found no information about the dispersal potential of C. quadriguttella

. Cateremna sp. is classified in the subfamily P hycitinae (Oboyski, 2004), which contains
Cactoblastis cactorum (Nielson and Common, 1991). Si nce the 1989 discovery of C.

cactorum in the Florida Keys, this moth's ra nge has expanded along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts; it is currently found as far north as Charleston, South Carolina, and as far west as Piney Island and the St. Mark's W ildlife Refuge south of Tallahassee, Florida Medium (2)Litchi from Australia

Rev. 006 November 6, 2008 34 Cateremna quadriguttella Walker (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) Risk ratings (Habeck and Bloem, 2002). Its spread is t hought to be due to bot h natural spread and human-mediated movement of plant mate rials (Habeck and Bloem, 2002). Since 1985, over 16,000 interceptions of Lepidopt era in the family Pyralidae have been made at U.S. ports-of-entry (PestID, 2008). During this same period, neither the genus Cateremna nor the genus Assara [the synonym for Cateremna (Horak, 1994)] was intercepted. Given the above findings, we believe this species has a low likelihood of being dispersed via plant materials. Because of the high degree of uncertainty associated with the biology of this species, plus a general knowle dge that many pyralids, such as C. cactorum , have good dispersal ability, we rated C. quadriguttella Medium for this risk element. Risk Element #4: Economic Impact We found no specific informati on on the economic impact of C. quadriguttella

, suggesting it causes little to no economic impact. Other congeners are reported as pests, in the “Index of Economically Important Le pidoptera” (Zhang, 1994), for example, but not as major pests. Cateremna sp. damages macadamia kernel s in Australia (Hill, 1983) and is a “minor insect pest” of this commodity in Queensl and (Ironside, 1979). However, Cateremna sp. only infests nuts in the field following damage to the shell by
other insects or when there is access to th e kernel through an open micropyle (Ironside, 1973). The species C. cedrellacones infests cones of Pinus griffithii (Ahmad et al

. , 1977). Another related species, Assara seminivale (synonym: C. seminivale ), is an agricultural pest in Australia on macadamia nuts (Herbison-Evans and Crossley, 2005). Only one report exists of this species as a regulated pest, which is for New Zealand (Biosecurity New Zealand, 2006). Based on the a bove evidence and the fact that its host range is limited to litchi, a minor cr op in the continental United States, C. quadriguttella
is rated Low for the Economic Impact risk element. Low (1)

Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact No plant species in the genus Litchi or the family Sapindaceae are listed as Threatened or Endangered in 50 CFR §17.12. As this organism repres ents an estimated low potential economic threat (see Risk Element #4), its es tablishment in the United States would likely
initiate limited chem ical and/or biol ogical control programs, if any. Low (1)

Ceratitis capitata (Wiedemann) (Diptera: Tephritidae) Risk ratings

Risk Element #1: Climate-Host Interaction Ceratitis capitata is reported in Europe [Albania , Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, France, Greece, Italy, Malta, Portugal, Russian Fe deration (Southern Russia), Serbia and Montenegro, Slovenia, Spain, Switzerland], Asia (Iran, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, Yemen), Africa (A lgeria, Angola, Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Co moros, Congo Democratic Republic, Congo, Côte d'Ivoire, Egypt, Ethiopia, Gabon , Ghana, Guinea, Kenya, Liberia, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritius, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Réunion, Saint Helena , Sao Tome and Principe, Se negal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Sudan, Tanzania, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe), Central America (Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama), North America (Mexico, Hawaii), South America (Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay, Venezuela), and Oceania (Australia) Medium (2)Litchi from Australia

Rev. 006 November 6, 2008 35 Ceratitis capitata (Wiedemann) (Diptera: Tephritidae) Risk ratings (CABI, 2005). This species tolerates colder climates better than most other fruit fly species (Weems, 1981). It survives well in Me diterranean climates, virtually coinciding with where citrus is grown (CABI, 2005). Based on the geographic distribution of C. capitata , we estimate the species could establish in areas of the continental United States corresponding to three Plant Hardiness Zones (8-10). One or more hosts of C. capitata are present in these Zones (USD A NRCS, 2002). We rated it Medium for this risk element. Risk Element #2: Host Range Ceratitis capitata has been recorded on a wide variety of host plan t families (CAB I, 2005). Its major hosts include Coffea sp. (Rubiaceae), Capsicum annuum (Solanaceae), Citrus (Rutaceae), Ficus carica (Moraceae), Malus domestica

, Prunus (Rosaceae), Psidium guajava (Myrtaceae), and Theobroma cacao (Sterculiaceae) (CABI, 2005). Because this species attacks multiple sp ecies among multiple plant families, we rated it High

. High (3)

Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential Females may deposit up to 22 eg gs per day and as many as 800 eggs in a lifetime, although 300 is typical (Weems, 1981). Eggs are inserted into the host fruit in small batches of one to 10. In Australia, it breeds year-round, with several overlapping generations (Hassan, 1977). Adults flying 20 km or more (Fletcher, 1989b), and the transport of infested fruits, are the major means by which this fruit fl y disperses to new areas (CABI, 2002). Since 1985, C. capitata has been intercepted 2,674 times at U.S. ports-of-entry, nearly all on fruit (PestID, 2008), which is evidence of this sp ecies’ ability to be transported long
distances in fruit. Ceratitis capitata may also be dispersed via puparia in soil, or growing medium accompanying plants (CAB I, 2002). As this species has both high biotic potential and capability fo r rapid dispersal, we rated it High for this risk element. High (3)

Risk Element #4: Economic Impact Ceratitis capitata is one of the world’s most destru ctive fruit pests (Weems, 1981), and
has been ranked as the most important fruit fly, based on economic losses (CABI, 2002; Weems, 1981). It is a major pest of citrus, bu t is often an even more serious pest of some deciduous fruits, such as peach, pear, an d apple (Weems, 1981). For example, in Mediterranean countries it damages citrus an d peach crops (CABI, 2002). It may also transmit fruit-rotting fu ngi (CABI, 2002). The species is quarantine significant worldwide, particularly in Japan and the United States. Its presence, even as temporary adventive populations, can lead to severe constraints for the export of fruits to uninfested areas in other parts of the worl d. Eradication of recu rring populations of C. capitata in an area (to maintain pest-free status) can be very co stly and resource intensive. Consequently, C. capitata is one of the most significant quarantin e pests for any tropical or warm temperate
areas in which it is not yet established (C ABI, 2002). Based on this evidence, we rated C. capitata High for the Economic Im pact risk element. High (3)

Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact Its broad host range predisposes C. capitata to attack plants in the continental United States
listed as Threatened or Endangered in 50 CF R §17.12. Examples of potential host plants
listed as Threatened or Endangered include Opuntia treleasei (in California) and Prunus geniculata (in Florida) (USFWS, 2006). Establishment of C. capitata in the United States would undoubtedly trigger the in itiation of chemical or biolog ical control pr ograms, as has occurred in California and Hawaii. Consequently, we rated it High for the Environmental Impact risk element. High (3)Litchi from Australia

Rev. 006 November 6, 2008 36 Ceroplastes rubens Maskell (Hemiptera: Coccidae) Risk ratings

Risk Element #1: Climate-Host Interaction Ceroplastes rubens ’ distribution extends from the warm temp erate zones to the tropics. It is
found in east and sout h Asia, Oceania (including Australi a), eastern and southern parts of Africa, the West Indies, Hawa ii, Florida, and parts of th e Caribbean (CABI, 2005). We
estimate it could surv ive in the continental United States in Plant Hardiness Zones 7-10. One or more of its potential hosts occurs in these zones in the United States (USDA NRCS, 2003). High (3)

Risk Element #2: Host Range The species has been reco rded on many wild and cultivated ho sts, including Mangifera
indica (Anacardiaceae), Alpinia purpurata (Zingiberaceae), Annona sp. (Annonaceae),
Artemisia sp. (Asteraceae), Artocarpus altilis (Moraceae), Camellia sinensis (Theaceae),
Cinnamomum verum (Lauraceae), Citrus spp. (Rutaceae), Cocos nucifera (Arecaceae), Coffea sp. (Rubiaceae), Myristica fragrans (Myristicaceae), Pinus spp. (Pinaceae), Prunus spp. (Rosaceae), Psidium guajava (Myrtaceae) (CABI, 2001), Dimocarpus longan , and
Litchi chinensis (Sapindaceae) (Li-zhong, 2000; ScaleNet, 2002). High (3)

Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential Females may deposit over 1000 eg gs, but mean fecundity is ju st below 300 (CABI, 2001). There are two generations per year (CABI, 2002). As with othe r scales, the species exhibits limited mobility on its own. The main means of long-distance dispersal is on infested plant materials (CABI, 2002). Since 1985, this scale species has be en intercepted at U.S. portsof-entry over 4,000 times on plants and other plant materi als (PestID, 2008), which indicates its ability to spread via infested plant materials. High (3)

Risk Element #4: Economic Impact Ceroplastes rubens is a widespread pest of Citrus , coffee, tea, Cinnamomum , mango, avocado and litchi (CABI, 2001). It is a major pe st of citrus in Australia, Hawaii, Korea, China, and Japan (CABI, 2002). Damage occurs through phloem feeding and indirectly through the promotion of sooty mold growth, which lowers the market value of fresh fruit and can reduce photosynthetic efficiency, caus ing reduced growth (CABI, 2002). Based on this evidence, if C. rubens should become more widely es tablished in the United States, there would likely be a lower yield of host crops, lower valu e of host crop commodities, and loss of foreign or domestic markets. High (3)

Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact The extreme polyphagy of this species increases the probability of it attacking plants in the
United States listed as Threat ened or Endangered. It has b een recorded from species of Euphorbia

, Gardenia

, Ilex

, Lindera , and Rhus (CABI, 2001), which have congeners listed in 50 CFR §17. 12, such as E. haeleeleana

, E. telephioides

, G

. brighamii

, G

. mannii

, I.
cookii

, I. sintenisii

, L. melissifolia , and R

. michauxii . As this species is a pest of citrus, the
wider establishment of th is pest in the United States woul d likely result in the initiation of chemical and/or biological control programs. High (3)Litchi from Australia

Rev. 006 November 6, 2008 37 Coccus viridis (Green) (Hemiptera: Coccidae) Risk ratings

Risk Element #1: Climate-Host Interaction This species is pantropical in distribution. It has been reported in I ndia through Indo-China, Malaysia to the Philippines an d Indonesia, throughout much of Oceania and sub-Saharan Africa south to South Africa (C ABI, 2002). In the New World, it is pr esent in Florida, throughout the Caribbean, an d from Central America to northern South America. Its distribution corresponds to Plant Hardiness Z ones 8-11 (BackyardGar dner.com, 2003). We estimate this species co uld establish in areas of the contin ental United Stat es corresponding
to Plant Hardiness Zones 9-10. Zones 9-10 corre spond to Florida, sout hern Texas, southern Arizona, much of California, and Hawaii (USDA, 1990). One or more hosts of C. viridis are present in these states (USDA NRCS, 20 03). This estimate does not include Plant Hardiness Zone 8, as this zone only occurs in isolated area s of some of the countries (e.g

. , Andean regions of Bolivia and Peru, northern Mexico, isolated central area of South Africa) from which C. viridis is reported (BackyardGardner. com, 2003). Survival outside
of Zones 9-10 in the continental United States would be limited to greenhouse or similar
artificial situations. Medium (2)

Risk Element #2: Host Range This species has a broad host range (CABI, 2002). Primary hosts are Citrus spp. (Rutaceae), Coffea arabica (Rubiaceae), Artocarpus sp. (Moraceae), Camellia sinensis (Theaceae), Manihot esculenta (Euphorbiaceae), Mangifera indica (Anacardiaceae), Psidium guajava (Myrtaceae), and Theobroma cacao (Sterculiaceae) (CABI, 2002). Other
hosts include Alpinia purpurata (Zingiberaceae), Chrysanthemum sp. (Asteraceae), Manilkara zapota (Sapotaceae), Nerium oleander (Apocynaceae) (CABI, 2002), and Dimocarpus longan (Sapindaceae) (ScaleNet, 2002). High (3)

Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential
Coccus viridis is parthenogenetic and oviparous (Dek le, 1976). Females may deposit up to 500 eggs (CABI, 2002). There may be several generations per year (Kosztarab, 1997). The rate of natural dispersal is inherently lo w (Tandon and Veeresh, 19 88); however, since 1985, C. viridis has been intercepted 10,252 times by PPQ at ports-of-entry (PestID, 2008), which is strong evidence that this species can spread quickly and widely via the transport of infested plant materials. High (3)

Risk Element #4: Economic Impact Although its economic impact is usually minor, it can be extremely devastating at times, depending on location and crop (CABI, 2002). Coccus viridis is a pest of coffee, citrus and other crops in several tropical regions, and it is reported as a major pest of citrus in Bolivia (Ben-Dov, 1993) and coffee in Haiti (Aitken Soux, 1985) and India (Narasimham, 1987). In Brazil, infestations of 50 scales per plant caused significant damage to coffee seedlings, reducing leaf area an d the plant growth ra te (Silva and Parra, 1982). Of all the scale insects known on coffee in Papua New Guinea, C. viridis and one other scale species cause most of the yield loss (Williams , 1986). In Indi a, citrus fruit quality was significantly lower on trees following C

. viridis infestation and the sooty mold ( Capnodium

citri ) contamination that accompanied it (Haleem, 1984). Ba sed on this evidence, the wider
establishment of C. viridis in the United States would likely lead to lower yield of host crops, lower value of host crop commodities, and loss of foreign or domestic markets. High (3)

Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact The extreme polyphagy of C

. viridis predisposes it to attack vuln erable native plants in the High (3)Litchi from Australia

Rev. 006 November 6, 2008 38 Coccus viridis (Green) (Hemiptera: Coccidae) Risk ratings United States. The potential host Manihot walkerae (Euphorbiaceae), which is present in Texas, is listed as Endangered in 50 CFR §1 7.12. The wider establishment of this species
could stimulate the initiation of chemical or biolog ical control programs, or increase the use of chemical pesticides already in place to control other scale species.

Conogethes punctiferalis (Guenée) (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) Risk ratings

Risk Element #1: Climate-Host Interaction
The distribution of C

. punctiferalis is from warm temperate regions to the tropics of south and east Asia [Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, China, India, Indonesia, Japan, Korea (DPR), Korea (Republic of), Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and Vietnam] (CABI, 2005). The sp ecies occurs in Australia and Papua New Guinea (CABI, 2005). We estimate this spec ies could establish in parts of the continental United States corresponding to Pl ant Hardiness Zones 6-10. One or more of its potential hosts occurs in these zones (USDA NRCS, 2003). High (3)

Risk Element #2: Host Range This moth has a broad host range, including Carica papaya (Caricaceae), Macadamia integrifolia (Proteaceae), Morus alba (Moraceae), Prunus persica (Rosaceae), Psidium guajava (Myrtaceae), Gossypium herbaceum (Malvaceae), Zea mays (Poaceae), Averrhoa
carambola (Oxalidaceae), Nephelium lappaceum (Sapindaceae), Helianthus annuus (Asteraceae), Curcuma longa (Zingiberaceae), Punica granatum (Punicaceae), Ricinus

communis (Euphorbiaceae), Castanea mollissima (Fagaceae), Citrus nobilis (Rutaceae), Cryptomeria japonica (Taxodiaceae), Piper nigrum (Piperaceae) (CABI, 2001), and Dimocarpus longan (Sapindaceae) (Waterhouse, 1993). High (3)

Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential Each female lays 20-30 eggs, on the surface of fruits or on the ear silk and tassels of maize (CABI, 2001). There can be up to five genera tions per year (Wang and Cai, 1997). Larvae are internal fruit feeders (CABI, 2002; CS IRO, 1991; Gupta and Arora, 2001; Huang et al

. , 2000; Wongsiri, 1991a) with the potential to spre ad long distances. Since 1985, port-ofentry inspectors ha ve intercepted Conogethes 654 times, including 33 0 times on fruit and 292 times on seed (PestID, 2008). High (3)

Risk Element #4: Economic Impact Conogethes punctiferalis is one of the most destructive pe sts of peaches in China, and of cotton in Australia (USDA, 1957). It is also an important pest of apples in China, causing stunting, scorching and falling of fruit (CABI, 2001). R ecently, C. punctiferalis has been found more commonly on longan in China, cau sing important economic damage to this crop (Huang et al

. , 2000). Waterhous e (1993) includes C. punctiferalis as one of the major arthropod pests on longan in southeast Asia. In longa n, a single larva can cause damage on multiple fruit (Huang et al

. , 2000). In India, this speci es has severely infested guavas (Gupta and Arora, 2001), and is a major pest of sorghum in some areas (Kishore and Jotwani, 1982). In maize and sorghum, pollination is redu ced due to the damage done to the plant by C

. punctiferalis feeding on tassels and maize ear silk (CABI, 2002). Stems bored by the moth are easily broken by wind and farming practices, which decreases yield (CABI, 2002). Yield losses can be as high as 63 percent in castor bean (Kapadia, 1996), High (3)Litchi from Australia

Rev. 006 November 6, 2008 39 Conogethes punctiferalis (Guenée) (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) Risk ratings and 48 percent in pl um (Wang and Cai, 1997). The moth ’s excretions, which cover the fruit’s surface and have a high sugar content, a ttract other insect pests and diseases that can damage fruit (CABI, 2002 ). In China, insectic ides and the bagging of fruit are two control measures employed against this insect pest (CABI, 2002). Introdu ction of this pest into the United States would likely result in a loss of fore ign and domestic markets. Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact Because of its broad host range, this pest is expected to have direct, negative impacts on vulnerable native plants. For example, C

. punctiferalis is an important pest of Quercus spp. (oaks) in Korea (Park et al

. , 1998) and, thus, has th e potential to attack Q

. hinckleyi , a Texas tree listed as Threatened in 50 CFR §17.12. Introduction of this pest in to the United
States could result in the initiation of chemic al and/or bi ological control programs. High (3)

Cryptophlebia ombrodelta (Lower) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) Risk ratings

Risk Element #1: Climate-Host Interaction Cryptophlebia ombrodelta is reported in Bangladesh, Cambodia, China (Beijing, Fujan, Guangdon, Guizhou, Heibei, Inner-Mongolia, Sh anxi, Sichuan and Yunna), India, Indonesia, Japan, Laos, the Philippines, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Taiwan, Vietnam, Oceania (Australia, the Northern Ma riana Islands, Papua New Guin ea, the Solomon Islands, and Vanuatu) (CABI, 2002), Hawaii (Chang, 1995; Waite and Hwang, 2002), and Africa (Van Der Geest and Evenhuis, 1991). Based on this distribution, we estimate this species
could establish in areas of the continental Un ited States corresponding to Plant Hardiness
Zones 8-10. One or more of its potential hosts occurs in these zones (USDA NRCS, 2003). Medium (2)

Risk Element #2: Host Range Cryptophlebia ombrodelta is reported on Acacia (Fabaceae), Cassia (Fabaceae),
Macadamia (Proteaceae), Litchi chinensis (Sapindaceae) (Z hang, 1994), Dimocarpus longan (Sapindaceae) (Anonymous, 1994), Macadamia integrifolia (Proteaceae),
Tamarindus indica (Fabaceae), Averrhoa carambola (Oxalidaceae), Bauhinia (Fabaceae), Glycine max (Fabaceae), Lablab purpureus (Fabaceae), Phaseolus lunatus (Fabaceae), Phaseolus vulgaris (Fabaceae), Parkia (Fabaceae), and Vigna unguiculata (Fabaceae) (CABI, 2002). High (3)

Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential Eggs of C. ombrodelta are laid on fruit singly or in groups; females may lay up to 250 eggs during their life (Waite and Hwa ng, 2002). No information was found on the number of generations per year in the field, but C. ombrodelta completed 3-4 generations per year in a laboratory study (Lingappa and Siddappaji, 1981). Cryptophlebia ombrodelta is an internal fruit feeder that tunnels towards the seed (Waite and Hwang, 2002). Thus, we assume th is pest could be transported over long distances in shipments of infested fruit. Since 1985, this species has been intercepted 115 times at U.S. ports-of-entry; 98 of t hose were on fruit (PestID, 2008). The genus Cryptophlebia has been intercepted 1,814 times, al so mostly on fruit (PestID, 2008). High (3)

Risk Element #4: Economic Impact This tortricid is a sign ificant pest of litchi and longan in Hawaii and Aust ralia (Waite and Hwang, 2002), and is one of the most important pests of macadamia in China (Zhan, High (3)Litchi from Australia

Rev. 006 November 6, 2008 40 Cryptophlebia ombrodelta (Lower) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) Risk ratings 1998). One larva can damage up to three immature litchi or longan, although they prefer mature fruit (Waite and Hwan g, 2002). Larval damage renders litchi and longan fruit unmarketable; neighboring fruit may also be unmarketable if th ey are stained by the juice
that exudes from the attacked fruit (Waite and Hwang, 2002). The economic importance of
C. ombrodelta is evident from the fact that studies have been undertaken to determine
whether irradiation is an acce ptable treatment for disinfes tation of sapindaceous fruit (Follett and Lower, 2000). Establishment of this pest in the continental United States is likely to cause a loss of foreign and domestic markets, and to stimulate chemical and/or biological control programs. Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact Vigna o-wahuensis , a potential host of C. ombrodelta , is listed as Enda ngered in 50 CFR §17.12; however, this plant is only repo rted in Hawaii (USDA NRCS, 2003), where C.
ombrodelta is already present. Plants in the fa mily Fabaceae that are Threatened or Endangered (e.g., Amorpha crenulata, Apios priceana ) are also potentia l hosts. Preference tests with these plants and C. ombrodelta are unknown; therefore, we assumed that C.
ombrodelta would be able to use one or more of th ese plants as hosts. Its establishment in the United States would probably initiate chem ical and/or biological control programs. High (3)

Deudorix epijarbas dido Waterhouse and Deudorix diovis Hewitson (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae) 85 Risk ratings

Risk Element #1: Climate-Host Interaction Deudorix epijarbas has a tropical/subtropical distribu tion; it is reported in India (Jammu, Kashmir, Uttar, and Pradesh), th e Philippines, China (Guangdong), Australia (Queensland) (Zhang, 1994), and Taiw an (Anonymous, 1965b; Heppner and Inoue, 1992). Based on this distribution, we estimate Deudorix epijarbas dido and D. diovis
could establish in the continental United St ates in Plant Hardiness Zones 9-10. One or more potential hosts occurs in these zones (USDA NRCS, 2003). Medium (2)

Risk Element #2: Host Range Deudorix epijarbas is reported on Nephelium (Sapindaceae), Litchi chinensis (Sapindaceae), Macadamia (Proteaceae), Aesculus indica (Hippocastanaceae) (Zhang, 1994), Dimocarpus longan (Sapindaceae) (A nonymous, 1965b), Punica granatum (Punicaceae) (Verma, 1985), and Aesculus indicus (Hippocastanaceae) (Verma, 1985).
Deudorix diovis is reported on Litchi chinensis, Dimocarpus longan (Biosecurity Australia, 2002; Waite and Hwang, 2002), Macadamia (Ironside, 1979), and Elaeocarpus angustifolius (Elaeocarpaceae), as well as other plants in the families Sapindaceae and Proteaceae (Schmidt and Rice, 2002). High (3)

Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential Three to four generations per year of D. epijarbas have been reported on pomegranate Medium (2)

85 Because of a lack of information on the subspecies D. epijarbas dido and the species D. diovis , we rated these organisms largely
based on information for D. epijarbas . In doing this, we assume the biology of D. epijarbas dido is very similar to that of all subspecies of D. epijarbas . Also, considering D. diovis was previously classified as a subspecies of D. epijarbas , we assume the biology of D. diovis is similar to that of D. epijarbas , and that some of the historical information on D. epijarbas could possibly be
based on D. diovis

.Litchi from Australia

Rev. 006 November 6, 2008 41 Deudorix epijarbas dido Waterhouse and Deudorix diovis Hewitson (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae) 85 Risk ratings

( Punica granatum ) in India under laboratory and fi eld conditions (Verma, 1985). The females of this species usually lay up to four eggs on a pomegranate fruit, usually inside the calyx cup (Zaka ur Rab, 1980). Adult butterf lies migrate to their alternate host, horse chestnut ( Aesculus indicus ) (Verma, 1985), but we found no other specific information on natural dispersal. Likewise, we found no evidence about the insect dispersing via human-mediated means. Since 1985, this genus has not been intercepted by PPQ at ports-of-entry (PestID, 2008). The larvae of D. epijarbas and D. diovis bore into fruit (Verma, 1985; Waite and Hwang, 2002), and eggs are laid on flowers and fruit (Verma, 1985), which would seem to make them easily dispersed via commercial trade. However, because these species are only re ported as pests on of minor economic crops for the United States, the probability of thes e organisms being disp ersed via commercial trade of plant products is likely to be low. Overall, we rated D. epijarbas dido and D.
diovis Medium for this ri sk element. Risk Element #4: Economic Impact Deudorix epijarbas is a serious pest of pomegranate, Punica granatum , in India (Dubey
et al

. , 1993; Verma, 1985; Zaka ur Rab, 1980) an d a minor pest of litchi and longan in China, India and Thailand (Waite and Hwang, 2002). Deudorix diovis is a minor pest of litchi, longan and macadamia in Austra lia (Ironside, 1979; Waite and Hwang, 2002). Females of both species lay eggs singly on fruit; then larvae bor e into fruit soon upon hatching and completely destroy the flesh and seed (Verma, 1985). A single larva can damage up to four fruits (Verma, 1985). Larval feeding can cause immature fruit to drop from the tree, and those fruits that do not drop are unfit for consumption (Thakur et al

. , 1995). Deudorix epijarbas damaged 25 percent of pome granate fruit in the Jammu region of India (Thakur et al

. , 1995). Chemical contro l of this insect is often ineffective, and biological control is being studied (Thakur et al

. , 1995). Because this species is only a minor pest on litchi and longan, and an impor tant pest to pomegranate, which are all minor crops in the United States, we gave it a Low rating for this risk element. Low (1)

Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact The genera in D. epijarbas ’ and D. diovis ’ reported host ranges are not listed as Threatened or Endangered in 50 CFR §17.12 (USFWS, 2006). There are no plants within
the families of the Deudorix species’ reported host range listed as Threatened or Endangered in 50 CFR §17.12 occurring in the continenta l United States (USFWS, 2006). As these organisms represent an estimated low potential economic threat (see Risk Element #4), their estab lishment in the United States would li kely initiate only limited chemical and/or biological control programs. Low (1)

Isotenes miserana Walker (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) Risk ratings

Risk Element #1: Climate-Host Interaction
Isotenes miserana , the orange fruit borer, is repo rted in Australia (Zhang, 1994). It occurs widely throughout coastal Queensl and (Astridge and Fay, 2003d; Hassan, 1977) and New South Wales (AFFA, 2001; Hassan, 19 77). In the continental United States, this area could encompass the Plant Hardiness Zones 8-10 (Foulis, 2001). Medium (2)Litchi from Australia

Rev. 006 November 6, 2008 42 Isotenes miserana Walker (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) Risk ratings Risk Element #2: Host Range The host range of I. miserana includes citrus, avocados, feijoa, macadamia (Astridge and Fay, 2003d), mango (AFFA, 2001) , litchi, and custard apple (Biosecurity Australia, 2002; Waite and Hwang, 2002), in the families Rutaceae, Lauraceae, Myrtaceae, Proteaceae, Anacardiaceae, Sapindaceae, and Annonaceae. Ficus (Moraceae), Pinus
merkusii (Pinaceae), and Camellia (Theaceae) are also hosts (Robinson et al

. , 2001). High (3)

Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential The orange fruit borer has 3-6 generati ons per year (Astridge and Fay, 2003d; Smith et al

. , 1997). We found no other informati on about reproductive potential (e.g

. , number of eggs per female) or dispersal potential. Since 1985, the genus Isotenes has not been intercepted at U.S. ports-of-entry (PestI D, 2008), suggesting that it is not readily dispersed via plants and plant products. Gi ven its limited distribution in Australia, despite its broad host range and apparent abil ity to survive in multiple Plant Hardiness Zones, the species may have only a limited abil ity to disperse. Considering this, as well as uncertainty, we rated I. miserana Medium for this risk element. Medium (2)

Risk Element #4: Economic Impact Although reportedly a “major and frequent” tropical fruit pest (Biosecurity Australia, 2002), I. miserana is typically described as havi ng only minor, sporadic economic impacts (Astridge and Fay, 2003d; Hill, 1983; Ironside, 1980; Smith, 1973; Smith et al

. , 1997). Young and mature fruit can be att acked (Astridge and Fay, 2003d). Larvae roll flower buds and young leaves together to form feeding shelters, but can also burrow into the fruit, just below the skin, often near th e calyx. Larval boring cau ses mature fruit to fall and decay, but young larvae may enter fruit just prior to harves t and, if undetected during packing, can cause the fruit decay during marketing (Astridge and Fay, 2003d). As this species is absent from most geogra phical areas of the worl d, its establishment in
the United States could lead to a loss of domestic or inte rnational markets due to the presence of a new quarantine pest. Based on this evidence, we rated I. miserana
Medium for the Economic Impact risk element. Medium (2)

Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact
Plants in the families Ann onaceae, Lauraceae, and Anacardiaceae lis ted as Endangered ( Asimina tetramera, Deeringothamnus pulche llus, Deeringothamnus rugelii, Lindera melissifolia, and Rhus michauxii ) are present in areas of the contin ental United States with
suitable climatic conditions for I. miserana . These families contain host genera for I.

miserana , but lacking specific preferen ce tests, we assumed that I. miserana could use one or more of these plants as hosts (USDA, 2000 ). As this species represents an economic threat (see Risk Element #4), its establishmen t in the United States would probably lead to
the initiation of chemical and/ or biological control progra ms. Pesticides are used to control this pest (Astridge and Fay, 2003d; Smith et al

. , 1997). For these reasons, we
rated I. miserana High for Environmental Impact. High (3)

Nipaecoccus viridis (Newstead) (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) Risk ratings

Risk Element #1: Climate-Host Interaction This species is widespread in tropical and subt ropical Asia, Africa, and in parts of Oceania Medium (2)Litchi from Australia

Rev. 006 November 6, 2008 43 Nipaecoccus viridis (Newstead) (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) Risk ratings (CABI, 2002). In North Americ a, its distribution is limited to California and Hawaii (CABI, 2002). Based on its current geographic di stribution, we estimate it could survive in the warmer, southern parts of the continenta l United States, Plant Hardiness Zones 9-10. One or more of its potent ial hosts occurs in these zones (USDA NRCS, 2003). Risk Element #2: Host Range Nipaecoccus viridis has been recorded on hosts distributed among 18 different plant families (CABI, 2002). Prim ary hosts are species of Citrus (Rutaceae), Coffea (Rubiaceae),
and Gossypium (Malvaceae). Other hosts include Leucaena leucocephala (Fabaceae),
Nerium oleander (Apocynaceae), Punica granatum (Punicaceae), Artocarpus heterophyllus (Moraceae), Corchorus capsularis (Tiliaceae), Asparagus officinalis (Liliaceae), Euphorbia hirta (Euphorbiaceae), Mangifera indica (Anacardiaceae), Jacaranda mimosifolia (Bignoniaceae), Vitis vinifera (Vitaceae), Clerodendrum infortunatum (Verbenaceae), Solanum tuberosum (Solanaceae) CABI, 2002, and Dimocarpus longan (Sapindaceae) (China, 1997)

. High (3)

Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential Fecundity ranges from 90 to 13 8 eggs per female; there are as many as three generations per year (CABI, 2002). Local dispersal is acc omplished by crawlers, which often settle in protected areas (e.g

. , under the sepals of fr uitlets); this behavior predisposes them to dissemination on exported plants or plant products (CABI, 2002). High (3)

Risk Element #4: Economic Impact This insect causes bulbous outgrowths on yo ung twigs, and heavy infestations by this insect may severely stunt the growth of young trees (CABI, 2002). Infested fruits often become yellow and then partly black around the stem, eventual ly dropping off the tree, and
infested citrus fruit can develo p “lumpy outgrowths or raised shoulders” near the stem end (CABI, 2002). Copious quantities of honeyd ew may contaminate fruit and other plant parts, which can serve as a me dium for the growth of soot y molds (CABI, 2002). This mealybug was responsible for losses up to 5 pe rcent in vineyards in India (CABI, 2002). Losses in citrus orchards are due, first, to fruit drop caused by large infestations of mealybugs; in South Africa, 50 percent or more of the navel or ange crop has been lost in this way (CABI, 2002). Second, fruits with deformities caused by mealybug feeding are culled in the packinghouse, resu lting in further loss of produc tion (CABI, 20 02). Based on this evidence, the establishmen t of this insect in the Unite d States could cause a loss of foreign and domestic markets and would lik ely stimulate chemical and/or biological control programs, lowering the value of th e commodity by increasi ng production costs. High (3)

Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact This pest represents a potential threat to plants listed as Threatened and Endangered in 50 CFR § 17.12. (e.g

. , Euphorbia ). The widespread establishment of N

. viridis in the United States is likely to stimulate chemical and/or biological control programs because it is a pest of the economically im portant citrus crop. High (3)

Phycita leucomilta Lower (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) Risk ratings

Risk Element #1: Climate-Host Interaction Phycita leucomilta is is found in Southedge, Mareeba, and Julatten in northern Low (1)Litchi from Australia

Rev. 006 November 6, 2008 44 Phycita leucomilta Lower (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) Risk ratings Queensland, Australia (Storey and Rogers, 1980). This distribution corresponds to the USDA Plant Hardiness Zone 10 (Foulis, 2001). It s one reported host, litchi, is grown in Zone 10 in the United States (Morton, 1987). Based on this evidence, the Climate-Host Interaction risk rating is rated Low (1). Risk Element #2: Host Range Storey and Roger (1980) report this species on Litchi chinensis . An exhaustive literature
search for Phycita leucomilta yielded no additional host in formation; therefore, we assume its host range is limited to Litchi chinensis . Consequently, this species is rated Low (1) for the Host Range risk element. Low (1)

Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential
An exhaustive literature search for Phycita leucomilta yielded no information on the dispersal potential of this species. Since 1985, there have been over 16,000 interceptions of Lepidoptera in the family Pyralidae at U.S. ports-of-entry (PestID, 2008). During this time period, there were no intercep tions identified to the genus Phycita . Based on the fact that no report was found of P. leucomilta in any other country besides Australia, that there is scarce information regarding th is species (indicating low prevalence in plant commodities), and that there are no recorded in terceptions of this genus at U.S. ports-ofentry, we assume there is low likelihood of this species being dispersed through humanassisted movement of plant materials. However, many pyralids have good dispersal potential. Consequently, due to uncertainty, P. leucomilta is rated Medium (2) for the Dispersal Potential risk element. Medium (2)

Risk Element #4: Economic Impact
An exhaustive literature search for P. leucomilta yielded little specific information on its economic impact, suggesting it causes li ttle economic impact. The only specific information found was that by Menzel ( 2002) and Menzel an d McConchie (1998). These authors report Phycita leucomiltra (which we assume is a misspelling of P.
leucomilta ) as a “major but only occasional” pest of litchi flowers in Australia, and that it can be easily controlled with endosulfan or carbaryl. Other species within the genus are reported in Zhang’s Index of Economically Important Lepidoptera (Zhang, 1994),
such as Phycita cirrhodelta (on sesame), P. clientella (on eggplant), P. infusella (on cotton), and P. metzneri (on oak, Quercus ilex ). Based on this evidence and the fact that its host range is limited to litchi, a crop of relatively minor economic importance in the continental United States, we rated P. leucomilta Low for this risk element. Low (1)

Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact There are no plant species in the genus Litchi or the family Sapindaceae listed as Threatened or Endangered in 50 CFR §17.12. As th is organism represents an estimated low potential econom ic threat (see Risk Elem ent #4), its establishmen t in the United States would likely trigger the initiation of limited chem ical and/or bi ological contro l programs, if any. Thus, we rated this species Low for the Environmental Impact risk element. Low (1)

Planococcus minor (Maskell) (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) Risk ratings

Risk Element #1: Climate-Host Interaction
Planococcus minor is reported in south Asia (Ban gladesh, Brit. Indian Ocean Terr., Medium (2)Litchi from Australia

Rev. 006 November 6, 2008 45 Planococcus minor (Maskell) (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) Risk ratings Burma, India, Indonesia, Kalimantan, Sumatra, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Taiwan, Thailand), Australia, and the islands of the South Pacific (American Samoa, Cook Islands, Fiji, French Polynesia, Kiribati, New Caledonia, Niue, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Tokelau, T onga, Vanuatu, Western Samoa), Africa (Madagascar, Rodriques Island, Seychelles), tropical areas of th e New World [Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Bermuda, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominica, Galapagos Islands, Grenada, Guadeloupe, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Saint Lucia, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago, U.S. Virgin Islands, Uruguay], and Mexico (ScaleNet, 2004). It is found in the tropical areas of Mexico (Ben-Dov, 1994). Based on this geographical distribution, we estimate this species could establish
in the continental United States in Plant Hardiness Zones 9-10. One or more of its potential hosts occurs in thes e zones (USDA NRCS, 2003). Risk Element #2: Host Range This species is extremely polyphagous, having be en recorded on hosts in at least 65 plant families (Ben-Dov, 19 94). Hosts include Colocasia esculenta (Araceae), Solanum spp. (Solanaceae), Theobroma cacao (Sterculiaceae), Citrus spp. (Rutaceae), Coffea spp. (Rubiaceae), Mangifera indica (Anacardiaceae), Musa spp. (Musaceae), Eugenia spp. (Myrtaceae), Vitis vinifera (Vitaceae), Ziziphus sp. (Rhamnaceae), Amaranthus sp. (Amaranthaceae), Annona spp. (Annonaceae), Helianthus sp. (Asteraceae), Euphorbia spp. (Euphorbiaceae), Persea americana (Lauraceae), Ipomoea spp. (Convolvulaceae),

Brassica spp. (Brassicaceae), Cucumis spp. (Cucurbitaceae), Zea mays (Poaceae), Arachis hypogaea (Fabaceae), Artocarpus spp. (Moraceae), Cocos nucifera (Arecaceae), Pandanus spp. (Pandanaceae), Pyrus pyrifolia (Rosaceae), and Asparagus plumosus (Liliaceae) (BenDov, 1994; CABI, 2002). High (3)

Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential Fecundity ranges from ab out 200 to over 400 eg gs per female, depending on the host plant (Maity et al

. , 1998; Martinez and Suris, 1998; Sahoo et al

. , 1999). There may be as many as 10 generations per year (Sahoo et al

. , 1999). This insect can be transported long distances in shipments of fruit (Sugimoto, 1994). High (3)

Risk Element #4: Economic Impact
Planococcus minor is a common species of many economically important plants throughout its distribution (Ben -Dov, 1994). For exampl e, it is an important pest of coffee in India (Reddy et al

. , 1997), and severe outbreak s (originally attributed to P

. citri [Risso]) have been reported on coffee and su garcane in New Guin ea (CABI, 2002). Planococcus

minor ’s host range includes many economically import ant plants in the continental United States, including Solanum spp., Citrus spp., Vitis vinifera

, Persea americana, Zea mays

, and Cocos nucifera . Its introduction into th e United States could ca use a decreased yield of host crops, in addition to increased produc tion costs due to impl ementation of control measures. Introduction of this mealybug into the United States could cause the loss of
domestic or fo reign markets for a numb er of commodities. High (3)

Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact The extreme polyphagy of this species predis poses it to attack nativ e plants listed as Threatened or Endangered in 50 CFR §17.12 (e.g

. , Cucurbita

, Helianthus

, Euphorbia, Ziziphys ) (USFWS, 2006). As it represents a pote ntially serious threat to economically valuable crops in the United States (e.g

. , avocado, citrus, cucurbits ), its introduction could High (3)Litchi from Australia

Rev. 006 November 6, 2008 46 Planococcus minor (Maskell) (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) Risk ratings stimulate chemical and/or biological control programs.

Table 5. Summary of the risk ratings and values for the Consequences of Introduction

Pest Climate /
Host Host Range Dispersal
Potential Economic Impact Environmental Impact Overall rating 1

Aceria litchii Medium (2) Medium (2) High (3) High (3) Medium (2) Medium (12) Bactrocera jarvisi Medium (2) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (14) Bactrocera tryoni Medium (2) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (14)

Cateremna

quadriguttella Low (1) Low (1) Medium (2) Low (1) Low (1) Low (6)

Ceratitis capitata Medium (2) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (14) Ceroplastes rubens High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (15)

Coccus viridis Medium (2) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (14) Conogethes punctiferalis High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (15)

Cryptophlebia

ombrodelta Medium (2) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (14)

Deudorix diovis Medium (2) High (3) Medium (2) Low (1) Low (1) Medium (9) Deudorix epijarbas

dido Medium (2) High (3) Medium (2) Low (1) Low (1) Medium (9)

Isotenes miserana Medium (2) High (3) Medium (2) Medium (2) High (3) Medium (12) Nipaecoccus viridis Medium (2) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (14) Phycita leucomilta Low (1) Low (1) Medium (2) Low (1) Low (1) Low (6)

Planococcus minor Medium (2) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (14)

1 Low is 5-8 points, Medium is 9-12 points and High is 13-15 points

Risk Element 6: Likelihood of Introducti on—Quantity Imported and Pest Opportunity
Likelihood of Introduction is a func tion of the quantity of the co mmodity imported annually and pest opportunity. Pest opportunity co nsists of five criteria that consider the potential for pest survival along the pathway (USDA, 2000) (Table 6).

Sub-element 1: Quantity Imported Annually During the 1997-1998 growing season, about 4,500 metric tons of litchi was produced in Queensland, and estimates for yields in the 2001-2002 season were around 6,000 tons (Biosecurity Australia, 2002) . Production in Queensland is approximately 90 percent of production in the country, and northern New South Wales accounts for about 10 percent (Biosecurity Australia, 2002). L itchi production in Australia is gr owing (Biosecurity Australia, 2002).Litchi from Australia

Rev. 006 November 6, 2008 47 Based on this data, we assume that future production will be at least 6,000 tons per season. Around 30 percent of Australian litchi production, or 1,800 tons , is exported (Biosecurity Australia, 2002). Given that a 40-foot shipping container can contain 40,000 pounds (approximately 20 metric tons) of product (F AS, 2006), this volume is approximately 90 standard shipping containers annually.

Australia currently exports small volumes, under 1,000 tons, of litchi fruit to Hong Kong, Singapore, Europe, and Canada. Th is equals a volume of appr oximately 50 standard shipping containers. Based on this data, we estimate that between 10 and 100 containers per year will be exported to the United States. Therefore, the Quantity Imported Annually is rated Medium for all pests.

Sub-element 2: Survive Post-harvest Treatment This risk element evaluates the efficacy of post-ha rvest treatments in terms of the mortality of pests exposed to the treatments.

Harvest/post-harvest procedures for Australian litchi are as follows (Biosecurity Australia, 2002):

1. The fruits are generally pick ed in clusters, with each pa nicle containing 4-20 fruits.
2. Following harvest, fruits are kept at high humidity and cooled to 5 o C as quickly as possible (hydro coolers or cool rooms are used frequently to achieve these conditions).
3. In the packinghouse, fruits are clipped from the panicles (leaving only 5mm of “stem” attached to the fruit), and vi sually sorted on mechanical c onveyors to cull small, poorly colored, and damaged specimens. Industry standards for litchi fruit exist.
4. The ‘Extra class’ fruit must be “practically fr ee of defects,” and the ‘F irst class’ fruit can have “moderate defects, with skin blemishes not exceeding 60mm 2 .”
5. For all standards, split fruit, broken skin, stings, and rots are not allowed.
6. Following culling, fruits can be marketed in different ways: bulk, 5kg crispy wrap bags in cartons, 2.5kg low density polybags, or 250g punnets with cling wrap film.
7. Prior to packing, fruits are free of surface moisture to reduce the potential for disease development.

The tephritid fruit flies— Bactrocera jarvisi, B. tryoni, and Ceratitis capitata —and the Lepidoptera
insects Deudorix epijarbas, D. diovis, Cateremna quadriguttella, Conogethes punctiferalis, Phycita leucomilta, Cryptoph lebia ombrodelta, and Isotenes miserana , as internal feed ers, would likely survive these post-harvest treatments.

The scale insects and the mite, Aceria litchi , are external feeders, and th erefore are less likely to survive post-harvest treatments than the internal feeders above. Dependin g on their stage (egg, nymph/larva, adult), these arthropo ds might find shelter on fruit or in packing materials. Most scales are less than 5 mm long (Gullan and Koszta rab, 1997), and they have sessile stages that live firmly pressed to pl ant surfaces.. Their water-repellent and waxy coverings, cryptic behavior, small size, and firm attachment to the substrat e could make them difficult to see or dislodge. Many scales prefer tight, protected areas, such as cracks and crevices (Kosztarab, 1996). AdultLitchi from Australia

Rev. 006 November 6, 2008 48 mites of A. litchii are very small and escape notice unless they attack leaves (Mathur and Tandon, 1974).

Based on the above evidence, we rated the te phritid fruit flies and the Lepidoptera pests High

, while rating A. litchii and the scales Medium

.

Sub-element 3: Survive Shipment Litchi exports from Australia are normally refriger ated and airfreighted, so that they arrive at market three days after harvest (Biosecurity Australia, 2002). To maintain high fruit qua lity, the
recommendations fo r transport and storage are 1.5 o C (35 o F) and 90-95 percen t relative humidity (McGregor, 1987). If properly p ackaged and stored, the time available for transit and storage is about three to five weeks (McGrego r, 1987). Based on this, we assu me the minimum time for transit and storage of imported Australian litchi would be three days, and the maximum would be five weeks. Considering that PPQ reco gnizes cold treatment of litchi fruit at ar ound 35°F for less than three weeks as an effective quarantine treatment for Bactrocera dorsalis

, B. cucurbitae [35°F (1.67°C) for 14 days], and Ceratitis capitata [36°F (2.22°C) for 18 days] (PPQ, 2006b), a significant proportion of the fruit flies may be kille d if the fruit are stored properly. On the other hand, a three-day transit time would likely not reduce fruit fly populatio ns, regardless of conditions. PPQ does not recognize cold treatment of litchi as a quarantine treatment for any of the other quarantine pests of concern (PPQ, 2006b), and we did not find evidence in the scientific literature that exposure to temperatures near 35 o F would significantly kill th ese other pests. Hence, we assume the transport and storage of the fru it at the recommended temperature for all possible storage times would be insufficient to reduce popul ation levels of these pests of concern. Based on these assumptions and evidence, we estimate the unmitigated (i.e

. , absence of any specific quarantine treatment du ring shipment) risk for the ab ility to survive shipment is Medium for the
fruit flies and High for the other pests.

Sub-element 4: Not Detected at Port-of-entry The tephritid fruit flies ( Bactrocera jarvisi, B. tryoni, and Ceratitis capitata ) and the Lepidoptera pests are internal pests and, as a result, would usually only be inte rcepted by destructive sampling. Depending on the age of infestation, these pests are likely to escape detection at a port-of-entry. In fact, fruit fly-infested fruits often go unrecogn ized (White and Elson-Harris, 1992). Inspectors cutting different types of fru it failed to detect larvae of Anastrepha suspensa , a fruit fly in the same family as Bactrocera , on average 16.5 percent (for caram bolas) to 82.1 percent (for green guavas) of the time (Gould, 1995). These findings underscore the high like lihood of fruit flies crossing borders undetected in fruit.

As external pests, all of the scales and the mite, A. litchii , are easier to detect; however, because of their small size (of at least some life stages) and secretive nature of feeding, as well as the scales’ sessile nature, low population densities of these ar thropods may escape detection. Regarding litchi from Hawaii, the PPQ Treatment Manual (PPQ, 2006b) states that “ Eriophyes litchii [ Aceria
litchii ] cannot be effectively detected by inspection.” However, feeding damage by this mite causes projections of light brown color on the skin of fruit (Mathur and Tandon, 1974), making it possible for at least some infested fruit to be detected.

Based on the above evidence, we rated the te phritid fruit flies and the Lepidoptera pests High

, and A. litchii and the scales Medium for the likelihood of not be detected at ports-of-entry.Litchi from Australia

Rev. 006 November 6, 2008 49 Sub-element 5: Moved to Suitable Habitat This sub-element considers the geographic locatio n of likely markets and the chance that the commodity will be moved to locations suitable fo r pest survival. Fruit imported into the United States typically arrive s at multiple ports and is distribut ed according to market demand.

Demographics derived from U.S. Census data ma y be useful in predictin g the distribution of imported litchi fruit by indicating population centers wher e demand may be greatest. Three of the four most populated states in the United States, Florida, Texa s, and California, which account for almost 25 percent of the total U. S. population (U.S. Census Bureau , 2000). All three have climates
similar to the native clim ates of the pests analyzed . Furthermore, the demand for litchi fruit in the United States has been fueled mainly by incr easing Asian populations in the country (Evans et al

. , 2004). These populations mostly occur on the West Coast, but also have si zable populations in the northeast, Chicago (Illinois), and Flor ida (Snell, 2003). Litc hi is also in demand with “curious or health-conscious consumers who purchase fruit in specialty stores” (Evans et al

. , 2004). These
consumers can be found th roughout the country, usually in la rger urban and suburban areas where specialty markets are common. Consequently, we assume markets can potentially occur throughout the United States, often in urban a nd suburban areas. Risk ratings for this subelement are, therefore, based on the amount of area in the United States that is suitable for each pest’s survival.

Based on the evidence provided above for each pest with regard to the C limate-Host Interaction risk element, Cateremna quadriguttella and Phycita leucomilta are rated Low

, Ceroplastes
rubens and Conogethes punctiferalis are rated High , and the other pests are rated Medium for the likelihood of being moved to suitable habitat.

Sub-element 6: Contact with Host Material
Even if the final destination of infested commodities is suitable for pest surv ival, suitable hosts must be available in order for the pest to survive. This sub-element considers the likelihood that the pest species can come into contact with host material for reproductio n. The complete host range of the pest is considered. According to the IPPC standard for pest risk analysis (IPPC, 2003), other factors that may be considered include:

• dispersal mechanisms, including vectors, for movement from the pathway to a suitable host

• if the imported co mmodity is sent to a few or many destinations

• proximity of entry, tr ansit and destination po ints to suitable hosts

• time of year when imports arrive

• intended use of the commodity (e.g

. , for planting, processing or consumption)

• risks from by-products and waste

Availability of hosts varies am ong the arthropods in their po tential geographi c range in the
continental United States. The extremely polyphagous species— Bactrocera jarvisi

, Bactrocera tryoni

, Ceratitis capitata

, Ceroplastes rubens, Conogethes punctiferali s, Cryptophlebia ombrodelta, Isotenes miserana, Nipaecoccus viridis, and Planococcus minor —have hosts that include temperate-zone or widely cultivated plan ts (USDA NRCS, 2006) that should be available throughout their potential U.S. range. By comparison, the mono phagous or oligophagous pests ( Aceria litchii, Cateremna quadriguttella, Coccus viridis, Deudorix epijarbas, D. diovis, and Phycita leucomilta ), especially of A. litchii

, C. quadriguttella, and P. leucomilta , are of moreLitchi from Australia

Rev. 006 November 6, 2008 50 limited distribution in the United States (USDA NRCS, 20 06) and are less likely to be encountered
and colonized.

Australia harvests litchi fruit from mid-Octobe r to early April (Biosecurity Australia, 2002); therefore, we assumed that litchi would be sh ipped to the United Stat es during these months. Suitable hosts would be available for all the pe sts of concern throughout the shipping season in the southern states, in particular in Florida and California. Additionally, suitable hosts bearing fruit would be available during this time peri od for the pests that attack only fruit (i.e

. , Bactrocera jarvisi

, B. tryoni

, Cateremna quadriguttella, Ceratitis capitata , and Cryptophlebia
ombrodelta ). For instance, citrus fruit would be available for B. jarvisi

, B. tryoni

, and C. capitata during the entire shipping season in Flor ida, California, and Texas (Sequeira et al

. , 2001).
Macadamia nuts would also be available for C. quadriguttella and Cryptophlebia ombrodelta for part of the shipping season (O ctober to November) (Malo and Campbell, 2005) [Note: We
assume that C. quadriguttella could use macadamia as a host considering that Cateremna sp. is reported to feed on the nuts of this plant (Hill, 1983; Ironside, 1979)]. Fr uits of other potential hosts, in particular ‘backyard’ or ‘dooryard’ fruit trees as well as abandoned groves and orchards, are likely to be available for use by these arthropod species. ‘Backyard’ or ‘dooryard’ fruit trees and abandoned orchards are high risk because th ey produce high numbers of fruit, often yearround, are not managed or harvested, a nd are difficult to survey (Sequeira et al

. , 2001).

Even if hosts are available for colonization, biol ogical attributes of the organisms influence the probability of finding these hosts successfully establishing in the United States. Sessile hemipterans (mealybugs, scale insects, etc.) may disperse great distances by wind (Greathead, 1990; Greathead, 1997), but are incapable of direct disp ersal. Long range disper sal strategies depend on large numbers of insects being dispersed so that some may find suitable hosts. Insects arriving with fruit represent small popula tions; as a result, dispersal by air to a host is unlikely. Furthermore, successful establishm ent of these insects in a new en vironment can occur only when mobile forms (i.e

., crawlers) are present on imported fruit and these fruit are placed in close proximity to a susceptible host . As these circumstances are hi ghly unlikely to co-occur (Miller et al

. , 1985), scale insects ha ve a low probability of coming into contac t with potential ho sts. On the other hand, all of the Lepidopt era pests and the mite, A. litchii , have some natural but limited ability to disperse. Moths are generally weak fl iers and do not di sperse far (Smith et al

. , 1997). The fruit flies have excellent disper sal capabilities; many Bactrocera fruit flies can fly 50-100 km during their life,
and C. capitata can fly 20 km or more (Fletcher, 1989b).

Based on this evidence (host ranges, host availability, biological attributes), we rated A. litchi, C. quadriguttella, P. leucomilta, Deudorix epijarbas, D. diovis, and the scales as Low ; Conogethes punctiferalis, Crypto phlebia ombrodelta, and Isotenes miserana as Medium ; and Bactrocera jarvisi

, Bactrocera tryoni

, Ceratitis capitata as High , for their ability to make contact with host
material.

Pest Risk Potential The summation of the Consequences of Introduc tion and the Likelihood of Introduction values produce the Pest Risk Pote ntial (Table 7). Pest Risk Potentia l is a baseline estimate of the risks associated with the importation of the commodity in the absence of specific mitigation measures.Litchi from Australia

Rev. 006 November 6, 2008 51 Table 6. Summary of the ratings for the quantity imported annually, pest opportunity, and the Likelihood of Introduction. For all pests the rating fo r ‘Quantity imported annually’ was “Medium (2)”. Ratings for Pest Opportunity Pest

Survivepostharvest

treatment Survive Shipment Not
Detected at the Port(s)- of-entry Moved to a
Suitable
Habitat Contact
with Host
Material Overall rating (value) 1

Aceria litchii Medium (2) High (3) Medium (2) Medium (2) Low (1) Medium (12) Bactrocera jarvisi High (3) Medium (2) High (3) Medium (2) High (3) High (15) Bactrocera tryoni High (3) Medium (2) High (3) Medium (2) High (3) High (15)

Cateremna quadriguttella High (3) High (3) High (3) Low (1) Low (1) Medium (13)

Ceratitis capitata High (3) Medium (2) High (3) Medium (2) High (3) High (15) Ceroplastes rubens Medium (2) High (3) Medium (2) High (3) Low (1) Medium (13)

Coccus viridis Medium (2) High (3) Medium (2) Medium (2) Low (1) Medium (12) Conogethes

punctiferalis High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) Medium (2) High (16)

Cryptophlebia
ombrodelta High (3) High (3) High (3) Medium (2) Medium (2) High (15)

Deudorix epijarbas
dido High (3) High (3) High (3) Medium (2) Low (1) Medium (14)

Deudorix diovis High (3) High (3) High (3) Medium (2) Low (1) Medium (14)

Isotenes miserana High (3) High (3) High (3) Medium (2) Medium (2) High (15) Nipaecoccus viridis Medium (2) High (3) Medium (2) Medium (2) Low (1) Medium (12) Phycita leucomilta High (3) High (3) High (3) Low (1) Low (1) Medium (13)

Planococcus minor Medium (2) High (3) Medium (2) Medium (2) Low (1) Medium (12)

1 Low is 6-9 points, Medium is 10-14 points, and High is 15-18 pointsLitchi from Australia

Rev. 006 November 6, 2008 52 Table 7. Pest Risk Potentials for pests on litchi from Australia

Pest Consequences of Introduction rating Likelihood of Introduction rating Pest Risk Potential 1

Aceria litchii Medium (12) Medium (12) Medium (24) Bactrocera jarvisi High (14) High (15) High (29) Bactrocera tryoni High (14) High (15) High (29) Cateremna quadriguttella Low (6) Medium (13) Medium (19) Ceratitis capitata High (14) High (15) High (29) Ceroplastes rubens High (15) Medium (13) High (28)

Coccus viridis High (14) Medium (12) Medium (26) Conogethes punctiferalis High (15) High (16) High (31) Cryptophlebia ombrodelta High (14) High (15) High (29) Deudorix epijarbas dido Medium (9) Medium (14) Medium (23)

Deudorix diovis Medium (9) Medium (14) Medium (23)

Isotenes miserana Medium (12) High (15) High (27) Nipaecoccus viridis High (14) Medium (12) Medium (26) Phycita leucomilta Low (6) Medium (13) Medium (19)

Planococcus minor High (14) Medium (12) Medium (26)

1 Low is 11-18 points, Medium is 19-26 points, and High is 27-33 points

3. Conclusions

A large number of organisms are associated with litchi worldwide and reported in Australia, but a small proportion are quarantine pests for the Unit ed States and likely to follow the pathway of imported litchi fruit. We did a more detailed anal ysis on fifteen pests, fo urteen insects and one mite. The Pest Risk Potential for the pests analyzed in this document is the sum of the ratings for Consequences of Introduction a nd the Likelihood of Introduction (T able 7). This risk assessment assumed minimal post-harvest handling and no specific mitigation measures. The Pest Risk
Potential was estimated to be High for Bactrocera jarvisi, Bactrocera tryoni, Ceratitis capitata, Ceroplastes rubens, Con ogethes punctiferalis, Cr yptophlebiaypicaelta, and Isotenes miserana,
and Medium for Aceria litchii, Cateremna quadriguttella, Coccus viridis, Deudorix epijarbas dido, Deudorix diovis, Nipaecoccus viridis, Phycita leucomilta, and Planococcus minor. None of the pests were rated Low

.

Pests with a Low Pest Risk Potential do not t ypically require mitigation measures, other than port-of-arrival inspection (USDA, 2000). A rating of Medium indicates that specific phytosanitary measures may be necessary. A rating of High indicates that specific phytosanitary measures, supplemental to port-of-arrival insp ection, are strongly recommended. Risk mitigation options for the quarantine pests of concern associated with l itchi fruit from Australia are described in Appendix B. A detailed examin ation and choice of appropriate phytosanitary measures to mitigate pest risk is undertaken as part of the pest risk management phase and is not
discussed in this document.Litchi from Australia

Rev. 006 November 6, 2008 53 4. Author(s) and Reviewer(s)

Authors Leah Millar, Entomologist/Risk Analys t, CPHST, PERAL (primary contact) Heather Hartzog, Plant Pathologis t/Risk Analyst, CPHST, PERAL

Reviewers Marina Zlotina, Entomologist/Risk Anal yst, CPHST, PERAL (scientific review) Melissa Fabiano, Writer/Editor, CP HST, PERAL (editorial review)

5. Literature Cited

7 CFR § 360. January 1, 2005. Code of Federa l Regulations, Title 7, 360, (7 CFR §360 - Noxious Weed Regulations). United States Government. Abraham, V., and P. D. K. Jayanthi. 1999. Lepi dopteran pest complex on mango inflorescence. Insect Environment 5(2):51-52.
AFFA. 2001. Technical market access submissi on for Australian Mangoes to the USA. Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestr y, Australia, received October, 2001. Ahmad, S., R. Ahmad, and M. A. Ghani. 1977. Notes on the incidence and biology of some parasites of the pine cone-borers in Pakistan. Entomopha ga 22(1):107-110. Aitken Soux, P. 1985. Some pests and diseases gene rally encountered in co ffee nurseries. Feuille d'Extension No. 53:5 pp. Alfieri, S. A., K. R. Langdon, J. W. Ki mbrough, N. E. El-Gholl, and C. Wehlburg. 1993.
Diseases and disorders of Plants in Florid a. Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Plant I ndustry, Gainesville, Florida. x + 1114 pp. Alterio, M. A., and R. Benitez. 1994. Análisis del Cultivo de la Feijoa ( Acca sellowiana Berg.) en Colombia. Facultad de Agronomía, Universidad de Caldas, Colombia. Amrine, J. W., and T. A. Stasny. 1994. Catalog of the Eriophyoidea (Acari na: Prostigmata) of the world. Indira Publishing Hous e, West Bloomfield, Michigan. Anonymous. 1965a. A host list of the insects of Thailand. Thailand Department of Agriculture and the US Operations Mission to Thailand. 149 pp. Anonymous. 1965b. List of phytophagous insects in Taiwan. Bureau of Commodity Inspection and Quarantine, Ministry of Econo mic Affairs, Republic of China. Anonymous. 1994. Harmful pests of China fruit trees. Second Edition. (English translation arranged by Ray Miyamoto, USDA APHIS Inte rnational Services). China Agriculture Science Institute, China Agriculture Press. 1063 pp. Arthur, V., and F. M. Wi endl. 1996. Irradiation of Planococcus citri (Risso) (Homoptera: Pseudococcidae) with gamma radiation from cobalt-60 to determine the disinfestation
dose. Anais da Sociedade Ento mologica do Brasil 25(2):345-346. Astridge, D., and H. Fay. 2003a. Horticulture and fresh produce DPI&F Note: Flower-eating Caterpillars in rare fruit. Queensland Gove rnment Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries. http://www.dpi .qld.gov.au/horticulture/5100.html. Astridge, D., and H. Fay. 2003b. Horticulture and fresh produce DPI&F Note: Fruitpiercing moths in rare fruit. Queensland Governme nt Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries. http://www.dpi .qld.gov.au/horticulture/5099.html.Litchi from Australia

Rev. 006 November 6, 2008 54 Astridge, D., and H. Fay. 2003c. Horticulture an d fresh produce DPI&F Note: Loopers in rare fruit. Queensland Government Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries. http://www.dpi.qld.gov.au/ horticulture /5094.html. Astridge, D., and H. Fay. 2003d. Horticulture and fresh produce DPI&F Note: Orange Fruit Borer in rare fruit. Queensland Governme nt Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries. http://www2.dpi .qld.gov.au/horticulture/5093.html. Astridge, D., and H. Fay. 2004. Horticulture and fresh produce DPI&F Note: Redshouldered Leaf Beetle in rare fruit. Queensland Gove rnment Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries. http://www.dpi .qld.gov.au/horticulture/5056.html. Astridge, D., and H. Fay. 2005. Horticulture and fresh produce DPI&F Note: Flower-eating Caterpillars in rare fruit. Queensland Gove rnment Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries. http://www2.dpi .qld.gov.au/horticulture/5100.html. Astridge, D., H. Fay, and R. Elder. 2004. Hor ticulture and fresh produce DPI&F Note: Bananaspotting & fruit-spotting bugs in rare fru it. Queensland Government Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries. http ://www.dpi.qld.gov.au/hort iculture/5107.html. Azab, A. K., M. F. S. Tawfik, and A. I. Ezz. 1969. Studies on Icerya aegyptiaca (Douglas) ’Homoptera:Margarodidae). Bu lletin-de-la-Societe-Ent omologique-d'Egypte 52:155-178. BackyardGardner.com. 2003. Map of South America, Central America, an d the Caribbean with USDA plant hardiness zones indicated. Last accessed March 7, 2003, http://www.backyardgardener.com/zone/sazone.html. Bellis, G. A., J. F. Donaldson, M. Carver, D. L. Hancock, and M. J. Fletcher. 2004. Records of insect pests on Christmas Island and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands, Indian Ocean. Australian Entomologist 31(3):93-102. Ben-Dov, Y. 1993. A systematic catalogue of the soft scale insects of the world (Homoptera: Coccoidea: Coccidae) with data on geogra phical distribution, hos t plants, biology and economic importance. Sandhill Crane Press, Inc., Gainesville, Florida. 536 pp. Ben-Dov, Y. 1994. A Systematic Catalogue of the Mealybugs of the World (Insecta: Homoptera: Coccoidea: Pseudococcidae and Putoidae) With Data on Geographical Distribution, Host Plants, Biology and Economic Import ance. Intercept Ltd., Andover, UK. Bergsten, D., D. Lance, and M. Stefan. 1999. Med iterranean fruit flies and their management in the U.S.A. Pesticide Outlook 10(5):207-212. Bier, V. M. 1999. Challenges to the acceptance of probabilistic risk analysis. Risk Analysis 19(4):703-710. Biosecurity Australia. 2002. Technical Market A ccess Submission: Export of Australian Tropical Fruits to USA (report submitted to USDA-AP HIS July 31, 2002). Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry - Australia, Canberra, Australia. Biosecurity Australia. 2007. Bios ecurity Australia's Response to APHIS's Risk Assessment for Australia Litchi ( Litchi chinensis Sonn.). Biosecurity Australi a, Australian Government,
Canberra. Biosecurity New Zealand. 2006. BO RIC. Last accessed Feb. 23, 2006, http://www.biosecurity.govt.nz/f iles/pests-diseases /registers-l ists/boric/boric.xls. Bolland, H. R., J. Gutierrez, and C. H. W. Flech tmann. 1998. World catalogue of the spider mite family (Acari: Tetranyc hidae). Brill, Boston. Borrer, D. J., C. A. Triplehorn, and N. F. J ohnson. 1989. An Introduction to the Study of Insects
6th Edition. Harcourt Brace Colle ge Publishers. xiv + 875 pp.Litchi from Australia

Rev. 006 November 6, 2008 55 Bose, T. K., S. K. Mitra, and D. Sanyal. 2001. Fr uits: tropical and subtro pical, Volume I. Pages 721. NAYA UDYOG, Calcutta; India. Brannen, P. M. 2004. Orange felt (Orange Cane Blotch) of Blackberry (Vol. 4 No. 3). The Southern Region, Small Fruits Consortium. Burditt, A. K., Jr. 1994. Irradiation. Pages 101-117 in J. L. Sharp and G. J. Hallmann, (eds.). Quarantine Treatments for Pests of Food Pl ants. Westview Press, Boulder, CO. C.I.E. 1986. Distribution Maps of Plant Pests, Map No. 191. Polyphagotarsonemus latus . CAB International, Wallingford, UK. CABI. 2001. Crop Protection Compendium. CA B International, Wallingford, Oxon, UK. CABI. 2002. Crop Protection Compendium. CA B International, Wallingford, Oxon, UK. CABI. 2003. Crop Protection Compendium. CA B International, Wallingford, Oxon, UK. CABI. 2004. Crop Protection Compendium. CA B International, Wallingford, Oxon, UK. CABI. 2005. Crop Protection Compendium. CA B International, Wallingford, Oxon, UK. CABI. 2006. Crop Protection Compendium. CA B International, Wallingford, Oxon, UK. CABI. 2007. Crop Protection Compendium. CA B International, Wallingford, Oxon, UK. CABI/EPPO. 1997. Quarantine Pests for Europe, Second Edition: Data sheets on quarantine pests for the European Union and for the Eu ropean and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization. CAB Internati onal (CABI) and the European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organizati on (EPPO), Oxon, UK. Caicedo, G., and V. F. González. 1997. La Curuba de Castilla Passiflora mollissima (H.B.K.) Bailey. In: Notas Divulgativas. Jardín Botánico de Bogotá José Celestino Mutis. Bogotá,
Colombia. Carrol, L. E., I. M. White, A. Friedberg, A. L. Norrbom, M. J. Dallwitz, and F. C. Thompson.
2002 onwards. Pest Fruit Flies of the World: Descriptions, Illustrations, Identification,
and Information Retrieval. Version: 8th August 2002. http://www.sel.barc.usda.gov/Dipt era/tephriti/pes ts/adults/. CDFA. 2003. Mediterranean Fruit Fly. Pest Detec tions/Emergency Projects Branch, California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA). Last accessed April 9, 2004, http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/phpps/pdep/mediterranean_ff_profile.htm. CDFA. 2007. Light Brown Apple Moth Pest Pr ofile. California Department of Food and Agriculture Last accessed July 10, 2007, http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/phpps/pdep/LBAM_profile.htm. CERIS. 2006. Export Certificati on Project - EXCERPT. The Center for Environmental and Regulatory Information Systems (CERIS), En tomology Department, Purdue University. http://excerpt.ceris.purdue.edu/. Chang, V. C. S. 1995. Trapping Cryptophlebia illepida and C. ombrodelta (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) in macadamia in Hawaii. In ternational Journal of Pest Management 41(2):104-108. Chen, Y., and G. Cha. 1998. The biology and control of Hypsipyla robusta (Moore). Journal of Beijing Forestry University 20(4):59-64. China. 1997. Pest list of longan provided by China (cited in the USDA, APHIS, PPQ Commodity Risk Assessment for Longans from China, May 1999). Coates, L. M., S. Sangchote, G. I. Johnson, and C. Sittigul. 2003. Diseases of longan, lychee, and rambutan. Pages 307-325 in R. C. Ploetz, (ed.). Diseases of tropical fruit crops. CABI Publishing, Cambridge, MA.Litchi from Australia

Rev. 006 November 6, 2008 56 Coile, N. C., and W. N. Dixon. 2002a. TRI-OLOGY, Vol. 41, No. 1. Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. http ://www.doacs.state.fl.us/pi/enpp/02-janfeb.html. Coile, N. C., and W. N. Dixon. 2002b. TRI-OLOGY, Vol. 41, No. 2. Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. http: //doacs.state.fl.us/~pi/enpp/02-mar-apr.html. Cooke, A. A. 1975. Diseases of Tropical and Subt ropical Fruits and Nuts . Hafner Press, New York, NY. Cooper, R. M., and R. D. Oetting. 1987. Hymenopter ous parasitoids of tea scale and camellia scale in Georgia. Journal of En tomological Science 22(4):297-301.
CSIRO. 1991. The insects of Australia: a text book for students and research workers, Second Edition, Volumes I and II. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York. 1137 pp. Cunningham, S. A., and R. B. Floyd. 2004. Leaf co mpositional difypicals predict variation in Hypsipyla robusta damage to Toona ciliata in field trials. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 34(3):642-648. DBIRD. 2002. Pests, Diseases and Disorders of Pe sts, Diseases and Disorders of Mangoes in the Northern Territory: An Illu strated Guide. Entomology and Plant Pathology Sections,
Resource Protection Division a nd the Horticulture Division, Department of Business, Industry and Resource Development (DBIRD), Northern Territory Government, in partnership with the Northern Te rritory Mango Indus try Association. http://kakadu.nt.gov.au/pls/ portal30/docs/FOLDER/DBI RD_PI/HORTICULTURE/FRUI T/MANGO/MANGO_PUBLICATIONS/MAN GO_PEST_DISEASE_BOOK.PDF. DeHaven, W. R. 2005. Citrus from Peru. Pr oposed Rules. Federal Register 70(189): 57206- 57213 (FR Doc. 05-19574). http://frwebgate5.access.gpo.gov/cgibin/waisgate.cgi?WAISdocID= 095826250441+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve. Dekle, G. W. 1976. Green scale, Coccus viridis (Green) (Homoptera: Coccidae). Florida Deparment of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Plant Industry, Entomology Cypicalcal. Dekle, G. W. 1999. Tessellated scale, Eucalymnatus tessellatus (Signoret) (Insecta: Hemiptera: Coccidae). University of Florida and the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. http://cr eatures.ifas.ufl.edu/orn/sc ales/tessellated_scale.htm. Dickler, E. 1991. Tortricid pests of pome and stone fruits, Eurasian species. Pages 435-452 in L. P. S. Van Der Geest and H. H. Evenhuis, (e ds.). Tortricid pests: their biology, natural enemies, and control: World crop pest s 5. Elsevier, Amsterdam; New York. Dohino, T., S. Masaki, T. Takano, and T. Hayash i. 1997. Effects of electron beam irradiation on sterility of Comstock mealybug, Pseudococcus comstocki (Kuwana) (Homoptera: Pseudococcidae). Research Bulletin of the Pl ant Protection Service, Japan (33):31-34. Dubey, J. K., N. Amith, J. R. Thakur, and A. Nath. Chemical control of pomegranate fruit borer(s), Virachola isocrates (Fabr.) and Deudorix epijarbas (Moore). Indian Forester 119(11):928-931. Ebeling, W. 1959. Subtropical Fruit Pests. Univ ersity of California, Los Angeles. 436 pp. Elder, R. 2004. DPI&F Note: Long soft scale in leucaena. Queensland Government Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries. http://www.dpi.qld.gov.au/beef/3184.html. Entomology Section. 2005. Northern Territory Insects. Entomology S ection, Department of Business, Industry, and Resource Developm ent, Northern Territory Government. http://pestinfo.nt.gov.au/.Litchi from Australia

Rev. 006 November 6, 2008 57 EPPO. 2003. PQR - EPPO's Plant Quarantine Data Retrieval System Version 4.2. European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Orga nization (EPPO), Paris, France. EPPO. 2005. PQR - EPPO's Plant Quarantine Data Retrieval System Version 4.4. European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Orga nization (EPPO), Paris, France. Erickson, J., E. H. , A. H. Atmowidjojo, and S. E. McGregor. 1999. Pollination of litchi in Hawaii. http://www.nal.usda.gov/ttic/te ktran/data/000010/26/0000102656.html (last accessed September 16, 2003) (no longer available as of April 7, 2005). Evans, E., R. Degner, and K. Morgan. 2004. Six Wa ys to Improve the Profitability of Lychee in South Florida, EDIS document FE497. Depart ment of Food and Resource Economics, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Inst itute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida. http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/FE497. Farr, D. F., A. Y. Rossman, M. E. Palm, and E. B. McCray. 2005. Fungal Databases, Systematic Botany & Mycology Laboratory, USDA, ARS. Agricultural Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture. http://nt.ars-grin.gov/fungaldatabases/. Farr, D. F., A. Y. Rossman, M. E. Palm, and E. B. McCray. 2006. Fungal Databases, Systematic Botany & Mycology Laboratory, USDA, ARS. Agricultural Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture. http://nt.ars-grin.gov/fungaldatabases/. FAS. 2006. Glossary. Foreign Agricu ltural Service, United States Department of Agriculture. http://www.fas.usda.gov/agexport/export_plan/glossary.htm#C. Ferro, D. N. 1976. New Zealand Insect Pests. Li ncoln University College of Agriculture, Canterbury. 312 pp. Fitt, G. P. 1990. Comparative fecundity, clut ch size, ovariole number and egg size of Dacus tryoni and D. jarvisi , and their relationship to body si ze. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 55(1):11-21. Fletcher, B. S. 1989a. Life history strategi es of tephritid fru it flies. Pages 195-208 in A. S. Robinson and G. Hooper, (eds.). Fruit flies, their biology, natural enemies and control, World crop pests, Vol. 3 b. Elsevier, Amsterdam. Fletcher, B. S. 1989b. Movement of tephritid fruit flies. Pages 209-219 in A. S. Robinson and G. Hooper, (eds.). Fruit flies, their biology, na tural enemies and control, World crop pests, Vol. 3b. Elsevier, Amsterdam. Follett, P. A., and R. A. Lower. 2000. Irradiation to ensure quarantine security for Cryptophlebia spp. (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) in sapindace ous fruits from Hawaii. Journal of Economic Entomology 93(6):1848-1854. Follett, P. A., and S. S. Sanxter. 2001. Hot wate r immersion to ensure quarantine security for Cryptophlebia spp. (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) in lychee and longan exported from Hawaii. Journal of Economic Entomology 94(5):1292-1295. Foulis, L. 2001. The Plant Book: The world of Pl ants in a Single Volume. James Mills-Hicks. 1019 pp. Gaskell, M. 2003. Small farms and specialty cr ops. University of California at Davis. http://www.sbceo.k12.ca.us/~uccesb1/smfm.htm. Gordh, G., and D. H. Headrick. 2001. A dictiona ry of entomology. CABI Publishing, New York, NY. ix + 1032 pp. Gould, W. P. 1995. Probability of detecting Caribbean fruit fly (Diptera: Tephritidae) infestations by fruit dissection. Florida Entomologist 78(3):502-507.Litchi from Australia

Rev. 006 November 6, 2008 58 Gould, W. P., and R. G. McGuire. 2000. Hot Wa ter treatment and insec ticidal coatings for disinfesting limes of mealybugs (Homoptera: Pseudococcidae). Journal of Economic Entomology 93(3):1017-1020. Grandi, R. A. P., and T. V. Silva. 2003. Hypho mycetes sobre folhas em decomposição de Caesalpinia echinata Lam.: occurrências novas para o Bras il. Revista Brasil. Bot. 26(4): 489-493. Revista Brasil. Bot. 26(4):489-493. Greathead, D. J. 1990. Crawler beha viour and dispersal. Pages 305-308 in D. Rosen, (ed.). Armored scale insects: their biology, natu ral enemies and control, World Crop Pests Volume 4A. Elsevier Scientific Publishers, Amsterdam. Greathead, D. J. 1997. Crawler behaviour and dispersal. in Y. Ben-Dov and C. J. Hodgson, (eds.). Softscale insects: thei r biology, natural enemies, and control. Elsevier, New York. Griffiths, M. W. 2001. The biology and ecology of Hypsipyla shoot borers. Hypsipyla shoot borers in Meliaceae Proceedings of an International Workshop held at Kandy, Sri Lanka, 20-23 August 1996. 2001; 74-80. Canberra Australia: Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR). Guidicipietro, M. 2003. Draft "briefs" on Californi a plums to China. Personal communication to K. Lakin on February 2, 2004, from Michael Guidicipietro (Trade Specialist, USDAAPHIS-PPQ). Archived at PERAL, Raleigh, NC. Gullan, P. J., and M. Kosztarab. 1997. Adaptatio ns in scale insects. Annual Review of Entomology 42:23-50. Gunn, C. R., and C. A. Ritchie. 1988. Identificati on of disseminules listed in the federal Noxious Weed Act (Technical Bulletin Number 1719.). Un ited States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, U.S.A. Gupta, R. K., and R. K. Arora. 2001. Lepidopt eran fruit borers on guava in Jammu. Insect Environment 7(2):83-84. Habeck, D. H., and K. A. Bloem. 2002. Cactus moth. University of Florida and the Florida Department of Agriculture and C onsumer Services, Gainseville, FL. http://creatures.ifas.ufl. edu/bfly/cactus_moth.htm. Haleem, S. A. 1984. Studies on fruit quality of sweet orange as affected by soft green scale and sooty mould. South Indian Horticulture 32(5):267-269. Hamon, A. B., and M. L. Williams. 1984. The So ft Scale Insects of Florida (Homoptera: Coccoidea: Coccidae). Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Gainesville. 194 pp. Hancock, D. L., E. L. Hamacek, A. C. Lloyd, a nd M. M. Elson-Harris. 2000. The distribution and host plants of fruit flies (Diptera: Te phritidae) in Australia. Queensland Dept. of Primary Industries. 80 pp. Hara, A. H., T. Y. Hata, B. K. S. Hu, T. Kaneko, and V. L. Tenbrink. 1994. Hot-water immersion of cape jasmine cuttings for di sinfestation of green scale (Homoptera: Coccidae). Journal of Economi c Entomology 87(6):1569-1573. Hara, A. H., J. A. Yalemar, E. B. Jang, and J. H. Moy. 2002. Irradiation as a possible quarantine treatment for green scale Coccus viridis (Green) (Homoptera: Coccidae). Postharvest Biology and Technology 25(3):349-358. Hassan, E. 1977. Major Insect and Mite Pest of Australian Crops. Ento Press, Gatton, Qld. 238

pp. He, D., and D. P. He. 2001. On the integrat ed management of litchi pests in Guangdong province. South China Fruits 30(5):23-26.Litchi from Australia

Rev. 006 November 6, 2008 59 Heppner, J. B., and H. Inoue. 1992. Lepidoptera of Taiwan Vol, 1 Part2: Checklist. Scientific Publishers, Inc., Gainesville, FL. Herbison-Evans, D., and S. Crossley. 2005. Assara seminivale (Turner, 1904). http://www.usyd.edu.au/macleay/larvae/pyra/semini.html. Higgins, J. E. 1917. The Litchi in Hawaii. Hawaii Agric. Expt. Sta., Bull (no. 44). Hill, D. S. 1983. Agricultural insect pests of the tropics and their control (Second). Cambridge University Press, New York, NY. xii+ 746 pp. Hill, D. S. 1987. Agricultural insect pests of temperate regions and their control. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY. 659 pp. Holm, L., J. Doll, E. Holm, J. Rancho, and J. Herberger. 1997. World w eeds: natural histories and distribution. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, New York, U.S.A. Holm, L. G., J. V. Pancho, J. P. Herberger, and D. L. Plucknett. 1991. A geographical atlas of world weeds. Krieger Publishing Company, Malabar, Florida, U.S.A. Holm, L. G., D. L. Plucknett, J. V. Pancho, and J. P. Herberger. 1977. The world's worst weeds: distribution and biology. Krieger Publishi ng Company, Malabar, Florida, U.S.A. Horak, M. 1994. Identity of two phyticine pest s on macadamia (Lep idoptera: Pyralidae: Phycitinae). Journal of the Australian Entomological Society 33(3):235-244. Hossain, M. A., M. M. Hossain, A. K. Azad, and M. A. Islam. 2004. Shoot borer, Hypsipyla
robusta Moore (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) infestation on Chukrasia velutina Wight et Arn. in hilly areas of Bangladesh. Pakistan J ournal of Biological Sciences 7(5):848-851. Huang, T. 1967. A study on morphological feat ures of erinose mite of litchi ( Eriophyes litchii Keifer) and an observation on the conditions of its damage. Plant Protection Bulletin, Taiwan 9(3-4):35-46. Huang, Y., X. Zhang, H. Wei, Q. Hu, and Z. Zhan. 2000. Studies on the Dichocrocis punctiferalis Guenee and its enemies. Acta Agriculturae Universitatis Jiangxiensis 22(4):523-525.
IPM DANIDA. 2003. Durian fruit borer. IPM Thailand. http://www.ipmthailand.org/EN/P ests/Durian_fruit_borer.htm. IPPC. 1996. International Standards for Phyt osanitary Measures, Publication No. 4: Requirements for the establishment of pest free areas. Secretariat of the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC), Food a nd Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations. https://www.ippc.int/servlet/BinaryDow nloaderServlet/13700_ISPM_04_English.pdf?file name=1027433415687_ispm4e.pdf&refID=13700. IPPC. 1999. International Standards for Phyt osanitary Measures, Publication No. 10: Requirements for the establishment of pest free places of production and pest free production sites. Secretariat of the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC), Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. https://www.ippc.int/servlet/BinaryDow nloaderServlet/13738_ISPM_10_English.PDF?fi lename=1027429549140_Ispm10e.PDF&refID=13738. IPPC. 2002a. International Standards for Phytosanita ry Measures, Publication No. 5. Glossary of Phytosanitary Terms 2002. Secretariat of th e International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC), Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. http://www.ippc.int/servlet/BinaryDow nloaderServlet/13703_ISPM_05_En_Fr_Sp.pdf?fi lename=1061795895343_ispm5_enfrsp02final.pdf&refID=13703.Litchi from Australia

Rev. 006 November 6, 2008 60 IPPC. 2002b. International Standards for Phytosanita ry Measures, Publicati on No. 14: The use of integrated measures in a systems approach fo r pest risk management . Secretariat of the International Plant Protection Convention (I PPC), Food and Agriculture Organization of
the United Nations. https://www.ippc.int/servlet/BinaryDow nloaderServlet/16210_ISPM_14_English.pdf?file name=1028115366312_ispm14e.pdf&refID=16210. IPPC. 2003. International Standards for Phytosanit ary Measures, Publication No. 11: Pest risk analysis for quarantine pests in cluding analysis of environmen tal risks. Secretariat of the International Plant Protection Convention (I PPC), Food and Agriculture Organization of
the United Nations. http://www.ippc.int/servlet/BinaryDownl oaderServlet/ISPM_11_Rev1_English.pdf?filen ame=1060250221108_Ispm11Rev1_English.pdf. IPPC. 2004. International Standards for Phytosanit ary Measures, Publication No. 11: Pest risk analysis for quarantine pest s including analysis of environmental risks and living modified organisms. Secretariat of the Inte rnational Plant Protect ion Convention (IPPC), Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. https://www.ippc.int/servlet/BinaryDow nloaderServlet/34163_ISPM_11_E.pdf?filename =1146658377367_ISPM11.pdf&refID=34163. IPPC. 2005. International Standards for Phyt osanitary Measures, Publication No. 22: Requirements for the establishment of areas of low pest prevalence. Secretariat of the International Plant Protection Convention (I PPC), Food and Agriculture Organization of
the United Nations. https://www.ippc.int/servlet/BinaryDow nloaderServlet/76455_ICPM7_ISPM22.pdf?filen ame=1118415619871_ISPM22_2005.pdf&refID=76455. IPPC. 2006. International Standards for Phytosanit ary Measures, Publication No. 5. Glossary of Phytosanitary Terms. Secretariat of the Inte rnational Plant Protect ion Convention (IPPC), Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. https://www.ippc.int/servlet/BinaryD ownloaderServlet/133607_ISPM05_2006_E.pdf?fil ename=1151504714760_ISPM05_2006_E.pdf&refID=133607. Ironside, D. A. 1973. Insect pests of Macadamia. http://www.coopersnuthouse.com/m aclib/InsectPestsOfMacadamia.htm. Ironside, D. A. 1979. Minor insec– pests of macadamia - part 1. Queensland Agricultural Journal 105(6):xxxi-xxxiv. Ironside, D. A. 1980. Minor insect pests of macad amia - part 2. Predominantly foliage pests. Queensland Agricultural Journal 106(1):i-iv. Jeppson, L. R., H. H. Keifer, and E. W. Ba ker. 1975. Mites injurious to economic plants. University of California Pr ess, Berkeley, California. Johnson, S. J., I. R. Johnson, and P. S. Valentine. 1994. New and interesting butterfly records (Lepidoptera) from Torres Strait Islands. Australian Entomologist. Jones, D. R. 1997. Diseases of Banana and Plantain ( Musa spp.). American Phytopathological Society, St. Paul, MN. Kapadia, M. N. 1996. Estimation of losses due to pod borers in oilseed crops. Journal of Oilseeds Research 13(1):139-140. Kaplan, S. 1992. 'Expert information versus expert opinions.' Another approach to the problem of eliciting/combining/using expert knowledge in PRA. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 35:61-72.Litchi from Australia

Rev. 006 November 6, 2008 61 Kishore, P., and M. G. Jotwani. 1982. Estimati on of avoidable losses caused by the earhead caterpillars on sorghum and their control. Entomon 7(1):65-69. Kosztarab, M. 1996. Scale insects of northeastern North America: identification, biology, and distribution. Virginia Museum of Na tural History, Martinsville. x, 650 pp. Kosztarab, M. 1997. Deciduous forest trees. Pages 347-355 in Y. Ben-Dov and C. J. Hodgson, (eds.). Soft Scale Insects: Their Biology, Natu ral Enemies and Control Vol. 7B. Elsevier,
Amsterdam. Kumar, K. K. 1992a. Management of litchi mite, Aceria litchi Keifer. Indian Journal of Plant Protection 20(2):229-231. Kumar, M., and B. S. Lall. 1984. Incidence of insect pests of litchi fruits in different localities of Bihar. Bulletin of Entomology 25(1):98-99. Kumar, R. 1992b. Status of litchi leaf curl mite disease and meas ures for its control. Indian Journal of Hill Farming 5(1):39-42. Lambkin, T. A. 1983. The early stages of Rapala varuna simsoni (Miskin) (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae) from south-eastern Queensla nd. Australian Entomological Magazine 10(4):56-58. Lammerink, J. 1990. Effects of fumi gation, cold storage, and fungi cide treatment of planting cloves on yield and quality of garlic. New Zealand journal of Crop and Horticultural Science 18(1):55-59. Lance, D. R., and D. B. Gates. 1994. Sensitivity of detection trapping systems for Mediterranean fruit flies (Diptera: Te phritidae) in southern Californ ia. Journal of Economic Entomology 87(6):1377-1383. Lester, P. J., P. R. Dentener, R. J. Petry, a nd S. M. Alexander. 1995. Hot-water immersion for disinfestation of lightbrown apple moth ( Epiphyas postvittana ) and longtailed mealy bug ( Pseudococcus longispinus ) on persimmons. Postharvest Biology and Technology 6(3- 4):349-356. Li-zhong, H. 2000. List of Chinese Insects Vol. 1. Zhongshan (Sun Yat-sen) University Press, Guangzhou, China. Li, J., G. Liu, and R. Peng. 2004. Bionomics and control of the yellow tea thrips, Scirothrips
dorsalis infesting litchi. Entomologi cal Knowledge 41(2):172-173. Lingappa, S., and C. Siddappaji. 1981. Note on the biology of tamarind fruit-borer, Cryptophlebia ombrodelta (Lower) (Lepidoptera:–Olethre utidae). Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 51(6):467-470. Liquido, N. J., P. G. Barr, and R. T. Cunningham. 1998. MEDHOST - An encyclopedic bibliography of the host plants of the Mediterranean fruit fly, Ceratitis capitata (Wiedemann) ARS-144 Version 1.0. Agricultur al Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Liu, T., and P. A. Stansly. 2000. Insecticidal activ ity of surfactants and oils against silverleaf whitefly ( Bemisia argentifolii ) nymphs (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae) on collards and tomato. Pest Management Science 56(10):861-866. Maity, D. K., A. K. Sahoo, and S. K. Mandal. 1998. Evaluation of labor atory hosts for rearing and mass multiplication of Planococcus minor (Maskell) (Pseudococcidae: Hemiptera). Environment and Ecology 16(3):530-532. Malo, S. E., and C. W. Campbell. 2005. The Macadamia, EDIS document FC9. Horticultural Sciences Department, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida. http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/MG052.Litchi from Australia

Rev. 006 November 6, 2008 62 Mann, G. S., and G. Singh. 1984. Development of ch emical control against the leaf-webber, Dudua aprobola (Meyr.) on litchi. Interna tional Pest Control 26(3):77. Martinez, M. d. l. A., and M. Suris. 1998. Biology of Planococcus minor Maskell (Homoptera: Pseudococcidae) under laboratory conditions. Revista de Proteccion Vegetal 13(3):199-
201. Mathur, A. C., and P. L. Tandon. 1974. Litchi mite can be controlled. Indian Horticulture 19(1):11-12. McGregor, B. M. 1987. Tropical Products Tran sport Handbook (Agricultural Handbook Number 668). Office of Transportation, United States Department of Agriculture. viii + 1-148 pp. McQuate, G. T., P. A. Follett, and J. M. Yosh imoto. 2000. Field infestation of rambutan fruits by internal-feeding pests in Hawaii. Jour nal of Economic Entomology 93(3):846-851. Meats, A., and S. M. Leighton. 2004. Protein cons umption by mated, unmated, sterile and fertile adults of the Queensland fruit fly, Bactrocera tryoni and its relation to egg production. Physiological Entomology 29(2):176-182. Meijerman, L., and S. A. Ulenberg. 2000. Eura sian Tortricidae. Last accessed July 11, 2007, http://ip30.eti.uva.nl/bis/tortricidae.php. Menzel, C. 2002. Lychee production in Australia. Pages 14-27 in M. K. Papademetriou and F. J. Dent, (eds.). Lychee Production in the As ia-Pacific Region. Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome, Italy. Menzel, C., and C. McConchie. 1998. The ne w rural industries, A handbook for Farmers and Investors: Lychee and Longan. Rural Industr ies Research & Development Corporation. http://www.rirdc.gov.au/pub/handbook/lychee.html#About. Mesbah, H. A., A. A. S. Fata, K. E. Moursi, A. K. Mourad, and S. I. Abdel-Razak. 2001. The population dynamics of Fiorinia fioriniae (Targioni) (Homoptera: Diaspididae) and factors affecting its seasonal abundan ce in Egypt. Mededelingen Faculteit Landbouwkundige en Toegepaste Biologische Wetenschappen, Universiteit Gent. 2001; 66(2b): 537 544. Ghent Belgium: Faculteit Land bouwkundige en Toegepaste Biologische Wetenschappen. Miller, D. R., V. L. Blackburn, J. A. Davi dson, and W. F. Gimpel, Jr. 1985. Pest Risk
Assessment of Armored Scales on Certai n Fruit (USDA-ARS Report submitted to USDA-APHIS-PPQ). USDA Agricultural Research Service, Beltsville, MD. Miller, G. L., and D. R. Miller. 2002. Dysmicoccus Ferris and similar genera (Hemiptera: Coccoidea: Pseudococcidae) of the Gulf Stat e Region including a de scription of a new species and New United States records. Pro ceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington 104(4):968-979. Mo, J., M. Glover, S. Munro, and G. A. C. Beattie. 2006. Development of Epiphyas postvittana (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) on Leaves and Fru it of Orange Trees [Abstract]. Journal of Economic Entomology 99(4):1321-1326. Morgan, M. G., and M. Henrion. 1990. Uncerta inty. Cambridge Univ. Press, U.K. 332 pp. Morton, J. F. 1987. Fruits of warm climates. Julia F. Morton, Miami, FL. Mound, L. A., and K. J. Houston. 1987. An annotated check-list of Thysa noptera from Australia. 28 pp. Nakhla, J. M., E. M. El-Sherif, N. G. Iska nder, and S. M. Ibrahim. 1991. Efficiency of fumigation with methyl bromid e against the mango bud mite Aceria mangiferae and Fusarium moniliforme infecting mango. Egyptian Journa l of Agricultural Research 69(1):119-126.Litchi from Australia

Rev. 006 November 6, 2008 63 Nakhla, J. M., E. M. El-Sherif, N. G. Iska nder, and S. M. Ibrahim. 1993. Efficiency of fumigation with methyl bromid e against the mango bud mite Aceria mangiferae and Fusarium moniliforme infesting mango trees. Egyptian Journal of Agricultural Research 71(1):207-214.
NAPPO. 2004. North American Plant Protection Organization (NAPPO) Regional Standards for Phytosanitary Measures (RSPM): NAPPO glos sary of phytosanitary terms, Ontario, Canada. (RSPM No. 5). Narasimham, A. U. 1987. Scale insects and m ealybugs on coffee, tea and cardamom and their natural enemies. Journal of Coffee Research 17(1):7-13. NCSU CIPM. 2005. USDA Crop Profiles. North Carolin a State University, Center for Integrated Pest Management, Raleigh, NC. h ttp://cipm.ncsu.edu/CropProfiles/.
Nearctica. 2005. Nearctica: The natural histor y of North America. http://www.nearctica.com/. Newbery, D. M. 1980. Interactions between the coccid, Icerya seychellarum (Westw.), and its host tree species on Aldabra Atoll. 1. Euphorbia pyrifolia Lam. Oecologia 46(2):171-
179. Nguyen Van, D. 2001. Hypsipyla shoot borers of Meliaceae in Vietnam. Hypsipyla shoot borers in Meliaceae Proceedings of an International Workshop held at Kandy, Sri Lanka, 20-23 August 1996. 2001; 18-19. Canberra Australia: Au stralian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR). Nielsen, E. S., E. D. Edwards, and T. V. Rangsi. 1996. Checklist of the Lepidoptera of Australia [CD-ROM]. CSIRO Australia. Nielson, E. S., and I. F. B. Common. 1991. Lepi doptera. Pages 817-915 The Insects of Australia:
A Textbook for Students and Research Workers. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New
York. NIS. 2003. Personal communication (Email Augus t 4, 2003) from USDA-A PHIS-PPQ National Identification Services to Leah Millar, Entomologist, USDA-APHIS-PPQ- CPHST Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory. NIS. 2004a. Personal communication (Email Fe bruary 3, 2004) fr om USDA-APHIS-PPQ
National Identification Services to Mari na Zlotina, USDA-APHIS-PPQ-CPHST Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory. NIS. 2004b. Personal communication (Email Fe bruary 25, 2004) fr om USDA-APHIS-PPQ
National Identification Services to Mari na Zlotina, USDA-APHIS-PPQ-CPHST Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory. NIS. 2006. Personal communication (Email Oc tober 19, 2006) from USDA-APHIS-PPQ
National Identification Services to Leah Millar, Entomologist, USDA-APHIS-PPQCPHST Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory, Oboyski, P. T. 2004. Moths of the Society Islands, French Polynesia: Checklist of Society Island Lepidoptera (moths & butterflies). College of Na tural Resources, University of California at Berkeley. http://www.cnr.berk eley.edu/~poboyski/pages/leps2.htm. Ofek, G., G. Huberman, Y. Yzha r, M. Wysoki, W. Kuzlitzky, S. Reneh, and Z. Inbal. 1997. The control of the oriental red scale, Aonidiella orientalis Newstead and the California red scale, A. aurantii (Maskell) (Homoptera: Diaspidid ae) in mango orchards in Hevel Habsor (Israel). Alon Hanotea 51(5):212-218. Ondieki, J. J. 1975. Diseases and pests of passion fruit in Kenya. Acta Horticulturae (49):291-
293.Litchi from Australia

Rev. 006 November 6, 2008 64 Ooi, P. A. C., A. Winotai, and J. E. Peña. 2002. Pests of minor tropical fruits. in J. E. Peña, J. L. Sharp, and M. Wysoki, (eds.). Tropical Fru it Pests and Pollinators: Biology, Economic Importance, Natural Enemies and Control. CAB International, Wallingford, U.K. Orr, R. L., S. D. Cohen, and R. L. Griffi n. 1993. Generic non-indigenous pest risk assessment process: "The generic process" (For estimating pest risk a ssociated with the introduction of non-indigenous organisms). USDA-APHIS Policy and Program Development, MD. 40pp. Palmer, J. M., and L. A. Mound. 1983. The Scirtothrips species of Australia and New Zealand (Thysanoptera: Thripidae). Journa l of Natural History 17(4):507-518. Park, J., S. Lee, C. Kim, B. Byun, J. D. Par k, S. G. Lee, C. S. Kim, and B. K. Byun. 1998. Bionomics of the oak nut weevil, Mechoris ursulus (Roelofs) (Coleoptera: Attelabidae) and the insect pests of the acorn in Korea. FRI Journal of Forest Science Seoul (57):151-
156. Parsons, M. 1999. The butterflies of Papua Ne w Guinea: their systematics and biology [Abstract]. Academic Press, San Diego. i-xvi, 1-736 pp. Pavan, F., and F. Sbrissa. 1994. Damage of the grape berry moths, Lobesia botrana (Den. e Schiff.) and Eupoecilia ambiguella (Hb.), on late-harvested cultivars in north-eastern Italy. Frustula Entomologica No. 17:43-53. PERAL. 2007. Phytosanitary Risks Associated with Armored Scal es in Commercial Shipments of Fruit for Consumption to the United St ates, Revision Origin al. 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. 24 pp.
PestID. 2008. Pest Identification Database v1.2. Plant Protection and Quarantine, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Last accessed October 22, 2008, https://mokcs14.a phis.usda.gov/aqas/login.jsp. Ploetz, R. C., G. A. Zentmyer, W. T. Nish ijima, K. G. Rohrbach, and H. D. Ohr. 1994. Compendium of Tropical Fruit Diseases. Am erican Phytopathological Society, St. Paul, Minnesota. 88 pp. Posada, L. 1989. Lista de insectos dañinos y otra s plagas en Colombia. (Boletín Técnico No. 43.). Instituto Colombiano Agropecuario, Divi sión de disciplinas agricolas, Seción de Entomología. Powell, M. R. 2003. Modeling the response of the Mediterranean fruit fly (Diptera: Tephritidae)
to cold treatment. Journal of Economic Entomology 96(2):300-310. PPQ. 2003. Guidelines for Fruit Fly Systems Appr oach to Support the M ovement of Regulated
Articles between Mexico and the United St ates. USDA-APHIS Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ). http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/manuals/ domestic/pdf_files/FF_Guidelines.pdf. PPQ. 2005. Importation of Guava, Psidium guajava , from Mexico into the United States: A Pathway-initiated Commodity Risk Anal ysis (Draft December 2, 2005). USDA-APHIS Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ), Cent er for Plant Health Science and Technology. PPQ. 2006a. Fresh Fruits and Vegetables Impor t Manual. United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspect ion Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ). PPQ. 2006b. Treatment Manual. United States Depa rtment of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ).Litchi from Australia

Rev. 006 November 6, 2008 65 PPQ. 2008. Fresh Fruits and Vegetables Import Manual. United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspect ion Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ). Prasad, V. G., and R. K. Singh. 1981. Pr evalence and control of litchi mite, Aceria litchii Kiefer
in Bihar. Indian Journa l of Entomology 43(1):67-75. Punnaiah, K. C., and V. Devaprasad. 1996. St udies on population dynamics of cashew leaf folders. Cashew 10(1):5-8. Quilici, S., B. Verbizier, B. Trahais, and R. Manikom. 1988. Note sur ravageurs du litchi à la Réunion. Fruits 43(7-8):447-453. Rai, P. S., and K. R. Bhandary. 1973. Occurrence of Xyleborus fornicatus Eichhoff (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) on litchi ( Litchi chinensis Sonn.) in India. Current Science 42(10):369. Rambelli, A., M. Bonaria, and M. Pasqualetti. 2004. Comparative studies on the microfungi in tropical ecosystems in Ivory Coast forest litte r: behavior on different substrata. Mycol. Res. 108(3):325-336. Randall, R. P. 2005. A global compendium of weeds: Annona cherimola

, Annona squamosa

, Dimocarpus longan

, Garcinia mangostana , & Vaccinium corymbosum . Department of Agriculture of Western Australi a. Last accessed November 3, 2005, http://www.hear.org/gcw/. Reddy, K. B., P. K. Bhat, and R. Naidu. 1997. Suppression of mealybugs and green scale infesting coffee with natural enemies in Karnataka. Pest Management and Economic Zoology 5(2):119-121. Reed, C. F. 1977. Economically important foreign weeds. Agricultural Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture. 746 pp. Robinson, A. S., and G. Hooper. 1989a. Fruit flies: their biology, natural enemies and control, vol. A - (World crop pests; 3A). Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., Amsterdam; Netherlands. xii + 372 pp. Robinson, A. S., and G. Hooper. 1989b. Fruit flies: their biology, natural enemies and control, vol. B - (World crop pests; 3B). Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., Amsterdam; Netherlands. xv + 447 pp. Robinson, G. S., P. R. Ackery, I. J. Kitchi ng, G. W. Beccaloni, and L. M. Hernandez. 2001. Hostplants of the Moth and Butterfly Caterp illars of the Orient al Region. The National History Museum Publishing, London. 744 pp. Robinson, G. S., P. R. Ackery, I. J. Kitchi ng, G. W. Beccaloni, and L. M. Hernandez. 2005. HOSTS - a database of the hostplants of the world's Lepidoptera. Department of Entomology, The Natural History Museum. http://’ww.nhm.ac.uk/entomology/hostplants/. Robinson, G. S., P. R. Ackery, I. J. Kitchi ng, G. W. Beccaloni, and L. M. Hernandez. 2006. HOSTS - a database of the hostplants of the world's Lepidoptera. Department of Entomology, The Natural History Museum. http://www.nhm.ac.uk/entomology/hostplants/. Robinson, G. S., P. R. Ackery, I. J. Kitchi ng, G. W. Beccaloni, and L. M. Hernandez. 2008. HOSTS - a database of the hostplants of the world's Lepidoptera. Department of Entomology, The Natural History Museum. http://www.nhm.ac.uk/entomology/hostplants/. Rogers, D. J., and A. D. Blair. 1981. Assessment of insect damage to litchi fruit in northern Queensland. Queensland Journal of Agricult ural and Animal Sciences 38(2):191-194.Litchi from Australia

Rev. 006 November 6, 2008 66 Rohrbach, K. G., and W. J. Ap t. 1993. Diseases of Pineapple ( Ananas comosus (L.) Merr.). American Phytopathological Society. http://www.apsnet.org/online/ common/names/pineappl.asp. Sahoo, A. K., A. B. Ghosh, S. K. Mandal, and D. K. Maiti. 1999. Study on the biology of the mealybug, Planococcus minor (Maskell) Pseudococcidae: Hemiptera. Journal of Interacademicia 3(1):41-48. Sangha, K. S. 2000. Hypsipyla robusta , tun ( Toona ciliata ) fruit and shoot borer outbreak [in] Punjab. Annals of Forestry 8(2):287-288.
ScaleNet. 2002. ScaleNet: A Database of Scale Insects of the World. http://www.sel.barc.usda.gov/ scalenet/scalenet.htm.
ScaleNet. 2004. ScaleNet: A Database of Scale Insects of the World. http://www.sel.barc.usda.gov/ scalenet/scalenet.htm.
ScaleNet. 2005. ScaleNet: A Database of Scale Insects of the World. http://www.sel.barc.usda.gov/ scalenet/scalenet.htm. Schmidt, D., and S. Rice. 2002. Lycaenid butterf lies (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae) of Brisbane: New food plant records and life history not es. Australian Entomologist 29 (1):37-46. Sequeira, R. A., L. M. Millar, and D. Bartels. 2001. Identification of susceptible areas for the
establishment of Anastrepha spp. fruit flies in the United St ates and analysis of selected pathways. USDA-APHIS-PPQ Center for Plan t Health Science and Technology, Raleigh,
NC. Shea, K. 2006. Treatments for Fruits and Vegetabl es. Rules and Regulations. Final Rule. Federal Register: January 27, 2006 (Volume 71, Numb er 18) (Pages 4451-4464) (FR Doc. 06-746). http://frwebgate6.access.gpo.gov/cgibin/waisgate.cgi?WAISdocID= 846637502021+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve. Shivas, R. G. 1989. Fungal and bacterial diseases of plants in Western Australia. Journal of the Royal Society of Wester n Australia 72(1&2):1-62. Silva, C. G., and J. R. P. Parra. 1982. Biology and injuriousness of Coccus viridis (Green, 1889) (Homoptera Coccidae) on coffee seedlings ( Coffea spp.). Anais da Sociedade Entomologica do Brasil 11(2):181-195. Singh, Y. P., G. K. Singh, and K. Suresh. 2002. Occurrence of Dichocrocis punctiferalis Guen. (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) on ma ngo in Western U.P. Progressi ve Horticulture 34(1):130. Sivasithamparam, K., G. C. MacNish, C. S. Fang, and C. A. Parker. 1987. Microflora of soil and wheat rhizosphere in a field following fumigation. Austral. J. Soil Res. 25(4):491-498. Skinner, K., L. Smith, and P. Rice. 2005. Noxious weeds in the U.S. and Canada. University of Montana. Last accessed February 25, 2005, http://invader.dbs.umt.edu/Noxious_Weeds/. Smith, D. 1973. Insect pests of avocados. Qu eensland Agricultural Journal 99(12):645-653. Smith, D., G. A. C. Beattie, and R. Broadley. 1997. Citrus pests and their natural enemies: integrated pest management in Australia. State of Queensland, Department of Primary Industries, and Horticultural Research and Development Corporation, Brisbane, Australia. 272 pp. Snell, W. E. 2003. Personal communication to M. Zlotina on June 3, 2003, from Wilmer E. Snell (USDA-APHIS-PPQ, Phytosanit ary Issues Management). Archived at the PERAL library, Raleigh, NC. Storey, R. I., and D. J. Rogers. 1980. Lepidopter ous pests of the litchi in north Queensland. Queensland Journal of Agricultural and Animal Sciences 37(2):207-212.Litchi from Australia

Rev. 006 November 6, 2008 67 Sugimoto, S. 1994. Scale insects intercepted on ba nana fruits from Mindanao Is., the Philippines (Coccoidea: Homoptera). Research Bulletin of the Plant Protection Service, Japan (30):115-121. Sulaiman, H., and J. Yukawa. 1992. Relationship betw een inhabitants and size or weight of galls caused by Pseudasphondylia matatabi (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae) [Abstract]. Proceedings
of the Association for Plant Protection of Kyushu 38:186-189. Swearingen, J. 2005. Alien Plant Invaders of Natura l Areas. National Park Service. Last accessed May 2, 2005, http://www.nps.gov/plants/alien/list/all.htm. Taiwan. 2002. Pest list provided by the Taiwan ese government to USDA-APHIS during a March 2002 Bilateral: Pests associated with Longan ( Euphoria longana Lam.) in Taiwan. 1 pp. Takagi, S. 1979. A further study on the horii-group of Fiorinia (Homoptera: Coccoidea: Diaspididae). Insecta Matsumurana 16:32. Tandon, P. L., and G. K. Veeresh. 1988. Inter-tree spatial distribution of Coccus viridis (Green)
on mandarin. International Journal of Tropical Agriculture 6(3-4):270-275. Tenbrink, V. L., and A. H. Hara. 1992. Ischnaspis longirostris (Signoret), black thread scale. http://www.extento.hawaii.edu/ kbase/crop/Type/i_longin.htm. Thakur, J. N., O. P. Verma, J. P. Singh, and A. D. Pawar. 1995. Incidence of Deudorix epijarbas Moore (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae) and its pa rasitoids on pomegranate in Jammu region. Journal of Biological Control 9(2):116-118. Townsend, L. 1994. Houseplant insect control. Department of Entomology, University of Kentucky. http://www.uky.edu/Ag/Ent omology/entfacts/trees/ef406.htm.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. United States Census 2000: www.census.gov/main/www/cen2000.html. USDA-ARS. 2005. Germplasm Resources Inform ation Network (GRIN), Online Database:
Annona cherimola

, Annona squamosa

, Dimocarpus longan

, Garcinia mangostana

, Nephelium lappaceum

, Vaccinium corymbosum , and Vaccinium ashei . United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Systematic Botany and Mycology Laboratory. Last accessed N ovember 3, 2005, http://www.ars-grin.gov/cgibin/npgs/html/paper.–l.
USDA. 1957. Pests not known to occur in th e United States. Yellow peach moth ( Dichocrocis punctiferalis Guen.). CEIR 7(34). USDA. 1979. A diaspidid scale ( Pseudaonidia trilobitiformis (Green) - Florida - new continental United States record. Cooperative Plant Pest Report 4(38):750.
USDA. 1982a. Pests not known to occur in the Unite d States or of limited distribution, No. 21: Seychelles fluted scale Icerya seychellarum (Westwood). USDA APHIS PPQ, Hyattsville, MD.
USDA. 1982b. Pests not known to occur in the Unite d States or of limited distribution, No. 26: Mediterranean fruit fly. USDA AP HIS PPQ, Hyattsville, MD. 1-8 pp.
USDA. 1984. Pests not known to occur in the Unite d States or of limited distribution, no. 50: Light-brown apple moth. USDA AP HIS PPQ, Hyattsville, MD. 1-12 pp.
USDA. 1985. Pests not known to occur in the United States or of limited distribution, No. 62:
Summer fruit tortrix moth. US DA APHIS PPQ, Hyattsville, MD. USDA. 1990. USDA plant hardines s zone map. USDA Agricultura l Research Service (ARS). http://www.usna.usda.gov/Hardzone/ushzmap.html.Litchi from Australia

Rev. 006 November 6, 2008 68 USDA. 2000. Guidelines for Pathway-Initiated Pest Risk Assessments, Version 5.02. Plant Protection and Quarantine, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, United States Department of Agriculture. USDA NRCS. 2002. The PLANTS Database, Ve rsion 3.5. National Plant Data Center. http://plants.usda.gov/. USDA NRCS. 2003. The PLANTS Database, Ve rsion 3.5. National Plant Data Center. http://plants.usda.gov/. USDA NRCS. 2006. The PLANTS Database, Ve rsion 3.5. National Plant Data Center. http://plants.usda.gov/. USFWS. 2006. Threatened and endangered specie s system (TESS). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Last accessed May 3, 2006, http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/Spe ciesReport.do?dsource=plants. van den Berg, M. A., E. A. de Villiers, and P. H. Joubert. 2001. Pests a nd beneficial arthropods of tropical and non-citrus subtropical crops in South Africa. Institute for Tropical and Subtropical Crops, Nels pruit, South Africa. Van Der Geest, L. P. S., and H. H. Evenhui s. 1991. Tortricid pests: their biology, natural enemies, and control. Elsevier, Amsterdam; New York. xviii, 808 pp. van Meurs, L. 2005. Thysanofiorinia nephelii . Personal communication to C. Enright on December 8, 2005, from Louise van Meurs (General Manager, Plant Biosecurity, Biosecurity Australia). Archived at the PERAL library, Raleigh, NC. Verma, R. R. 1985. Preliminary observations on the biology of pomegranate butterfly Deudorix epijarbas . Agricultural Science Digest 5(1):1-2. Verma, T. D., and K. Nutul. 2000. Biology of Hypsipyla robusta Moore on Toona ciliata M J Roem. (Meliaceae) in Himachal Pradesh. Pest Management and Economic Zoology 8(2):117-121. Viswanath, B. N., H. R. Rangaswamy, R. Govi ndan, and V. V. Sulladamath. 1978. A new flower bud borer, Phycita sp. (Lepidoptera: Phycitidae) on sa pota. Current Research 7(12):208. Waite, G. 2004a. Horticulture and fresh produce DP I&F Note: Green Shield Scale in Lychees & Longans. Queensland Government Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries. http:// www.dpi.qld.gov.au/hortic ulture/5429.html. Waite, G. 2004b. Horticulture and fresh produce DP I&F Note: Macadamia nutborer in lychees. Queensland Government Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries. http://www.dpi.qld.gov.au/ horticulture /5442.html. Waite, G., and R. Elder. 2004. Horticulture and fresh produce DPI&F Note: Elephant Beetles in Lychees & Longans. Queensland Government Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries. http://www.dpi .qld.gov.au/horticulture/5415.html. Waite, G. K., and R. Elder. 1999a. Horticulture and fresh produce DPI&F Note: Lychee erinose mite in Lychees. Queensland Government Depa rtment of Primary Industry and Fisheries. http://www.dpi.qld.gov.au/ horticulture /5432.html. Waite, G. K., and R. Elder. 1999b. Horticulture and fresh produce DPI&F Note: Stem-girdlers and borers in Lychees and Longans. Queensl and Government Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries. http: //www.dpi.qld.gov.au/horticulture/5459.html. Waite, G. K., and J. S. Hwang. 2002. Pests of litchi and longan. Pages 331-359 in J. E. Peña, J. L. Sharp, and M. Wysoki, (eds.). Tropical fruit pests and pollina tors: biology, economic importance, natural enemies and control. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK.Litchi from Australia

Rev. 006 November 6, 2008 69 Wang, W., and Z. Yuan. 2003. A new pest of Litchi, Xyleborus fornicalus and its control. South China Fruits 32(5):34-35. Wang, Y. X., and R. T. Cai. 1997. The emergence and control of Dichocrocis punctiferalis Guen. for Younai plum variety. South China Fruits 26(3):45. Waterhouse, D. F. 1993. The major arthropod pests and weeds of agriculture in Southeast Asia: distribution, importance, and or igin. Australian Centre fo r International Agricultural Research, Canberra, Australia. 141 pp. Watson, G. W. 2005. Diaspididae: Howardia biclavis

. http://ip30.eti.uva.nl/bis/diaspididae.php?sele cted=beschrijving& menuentry=soorten&id
=128. Weber, E. 2003. Invasive plant species of the worl d: A reference guide to environmental weeds. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK. 548 pp. Weems, H. V., Jr. 1981. Mediterranean fruit fly, Ceratitis capitata (Wiedemann) (Diptera: Tephritidae). Florida Department of Agricu lture and Consumer Services, Division of Plant Industry, Entomology Circular No. 230. Wen, H. C., F. M. Lu, H. H. Hao, and T. D. Liou. 2002. Insects pests and their injuries and control on longan in southe rn Taiwan. J. Agric. Res. China 51(3):56-64. White, I., and M. M. Elson-Harris. 1992. Fr uit Flies of Economic Significance: Their
Identification and Bionomics. CAB Internati onal, Redwood Press, Ltd., Melksham, U.K. 601 pp. Williams, D. J. 1986. Scale insects (Homoptera: Coccoidea) on coffee in Papua New Guinea. Papua New Guinea Journal of Agriculture , Forestry and Fisheries 34(1-4):1-7. Wongsiri, N. 1991a. List of insect, mite and ot her zoological pests of economic plants in Thailand. Entomology and Zoology Division, Department of Agriculture Thailand
Technical Bulletin. Wongsiri, N. 1991b. List of insect, mite and ot her zoological pests of economic plants in Thailand. Entomology and Zoology Division, De partment of Agriculture, Thailand. WSSA. 2005. Weed List. Weed Science Society of America. Last accessed February 24, 2005, http://www.wssa.net/weednames/common.asp. Yonow, T., M. P. Zalucki, R. W. Sutherst, B. C. Dominiak, G. F. Maywald, D. A. Maelzer, and D. J. Kriticos. 2004. Modelling the population dynamics of the Queensland fruit fly,

Bactrocera ( Dacus ) tryoni : a cohort-based approach incor porating the effects of weather. Ecological Modelling 173(1):9-30. Zaka ur Rab, M. 1980. The Cornelian, Deudorix epijarbas Moore (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae) as a serious pest of pomegranate fruits in Kashmir. Journal of Entomological Research 4(2):233-235. Zhan, R. L. 1998. The main diseases and pests of macadamia in China and in the world and its control. South China Fruits 27(5):23-28. Zhang, B. C. 1994. Index of Economically Impo rtant Lepidoptera. CAB International, Wallingford, U.K. 599 pp.Litchi from Australia

Rev. 006 November 6, 2008 70 6. Appendices

Appendix A. Interceptions on Litchi, Litchi chinensis , from all Countries as Reported in the Pest Identification Database from 1985-2005 (PestID, 2008) Pest Interceptions (no.) Commodity imported as: Fruit Leaf Plant Seed Stem Total Aeolothripidae, species of (Aeolothripidae) 1 1

Aleurocanthus sp. (Aleyrodidae) 1 1 Aleyrodidae, species of (Aleyrodidae) 1 1

Amitermes sp. (Termitidae) 1 1

Anarsia sp. (Gelechiidae) 1 1 Anastrepha sp. (Tephritidae) 3 3 Aphididae, species of (Aphididae) 2 2 Arctiidae, species of (Arctiidae) 1 1 Aulacaspis sp. (Diaspididae) 10 1 1 12 Aulacaspis tubercularis Newstead (Diaspididae) 3 3

Bactericera sp. (Triozidae) 1 1 Bactrocera dorsalis ( Hendel) (Tephritidae) 6 6

Bactrocera sp. (Tephritidae) 112 1 113 Blapstinus sp. (Tenebrionidae) 1 1 Brevipalpus sp. (Tenuipalpidae) 1 1 Carposinidae, species of (Carposinidae) 1 1 Castniidae, species of (Castniidae) 1 1 Cataenococcus hispidus (Morrison) (Pseudococcidae) 5 5 Cephaleuros sp. 1 1

Ceraleurodicus sp. (Aleyrodidae) 1 1 Ceratitini, species of (Tephritidae) 1 1 Ceratitis capitata (Wiedemann) (Tephritidae) 1 1

Ceratitis sp. (Tephritidae) 1 1 Ceroplastes rubens Maskell (Coccidae) 1 1 Chionaspis sp. (Diaspididae) 1 1 Cicadellidae, species of (Cicadellidae) 2 2 Cladosporium s p. 1 1 Coccidae, species of (Coccidae) 77 1 78

Coccus sp. (Coccidae) 6 6

Coccus viridis (Green) (Coccidae) 3 3 Conogethes punctiferalis (Guenee) (Pyralidae) 1 1 Conogethes sp. (Pyralidae) 3 3 Conopomorpha sp. (Gracillariidae) 15 2 17 Crematogaster sp. (Formicidae) 3 3

Croesia sp. (Tortricidae) 1 1Litchi from Australia

Rev. 006 November 6, 2008 71 Pest Interceptions (no.) Commodity imported as: Fruit Leaf Plant Seed Stem Total Cryptoblabes gnidiella (Milliere) (Pyralidae) 1 1 Cryptophlebia illepida (Butler) (Tortricidae) 7 7 Cryptophlebia leucotreta (Meyrick) (Tortricidae) 1 1 Cryptophlebia ombrodelta (Lower) (Tortricidae) 34 34 Cryptophlebia sp. (Tortricidae) 20 1 1 22 Curculionidae, species of (Curculionidae) 2 2

Dacus dorsalis Hendel (Tephritidae) 3 3

Dacus sp. (Tephritidae) 10 10 Diaspididae, species of (Diaspididae) 14 1 15 Didymella sp. 1 1 Diptera, species of 7 7 Drepanococcus sp. (Coccidae) 2 2

Drosicha sp. (Margarodidae) 3 3 Dysmicoccus neobrevipes Beardsley (Pseudococcidae) 17 17 Dysmicoccus sp. (Pseudococcidae) 9 9 Ecdytolopha sp. (Tortricidae) 3 3

Exallomochlus camur Williams (Pseudococcidae) 1 1 Exallomochlus hispidus (Morrison) (Pseudococcidae) 1 1

Ferrisia sp. (Pseudococcidae) 4 4 Frankliniella intonsa ( Trybom) (Thripidae) 1 1 Gelechiidae, species of (Gelechiidae) 1 1 1 3 Geotomus pygmaeus (Dallas) (Cydnidae) 1 1 Gracillariidae, species of (Gracillariidae) b 803 25 18 847 Gryllus sp. (Grylliypicalcaldae) 4 4

Hemiberlesia sp. (Diaspididae) 2 2 Hendecasis duplifascialis Hampson (Pyralidae) 1 1 Homoptera, species of 4 4 Icerya seychellarum (Westwood) (Margarodidae) 1 1 Imperata cylindrica (Linnaeus) Beauvois (Poaceae) 3 3 Insecta, species of 6 6 Lepidoptera, species of 6 6

Maconellicoccus hirsutus (Green) (Pseudococcidae) 7 7 Margarodidae, species of (Margarodidae) 3 3

Mikania micrantha Humboldt Bonpland, Et Kunth. (Asteraceae) 1 1

Miridae, species of (Miridae) 5 5 Navarrus phaeophilus (Walker) (Lygaeidae) b 1

Neochetina sp. (Curculionidae) 1 1 Nipaecoccus sp. (Pseudococcidae) 1 1 Noctuidae, species of (Noctuidae) 2 2Litchi from Australia

Rev. 006 November 6, 2008 72 Pest Interceptions (no.) Commodity imported as: Fruit Leaf Plant Seed Stem Total Olethreutinae, species of (Tortricidae) 11 11 Opogona sp. (Tineidae) 1 1

Paracoccus sp. (Pseudococcidae) 2 2

Pheidole sp. (Formicidae) 1 1

Phenacoccus sp. (Pseudococcidae) 1 1 Phlaeothripidae, species of (Phlaeothripidae) 1 1 Phomopsis sp. 1 2 3 Phycitinae, species of (Pyralidae) 2 1 3 Phyllophaga sp. (Scarabaeidae) 1 1 Physalospora sp. 1 1 Planococcus dorsospinus Ezzat &Amp; Mcconnell (Pseudococcidae) 1 1

Planococcus lilacinus (Cockerell) (Pseudococcidae) 16 16

Planococcus litchi Cox (Pseudococcidae) 1 1

Planococcus minor (Maskell) (Pseudococcidae) 36 36

Planococcus morrisoni (Ezzat &Amp; Mconnell) (Pseudococcidae) 3 3

Planococcus sp. (Pseudococcidae) 23 23 Platynota sp. (Tortricidae) 1 1 Prytanes sp. (Rhyparochromidae) 3 3 Pseudaonidia trilobitiformis (Green) (Diaspididae) 1 1 Pseudaulacaspis sp. (Diaspididae) 2 2 Pseudococcidae, species of (Pseudococcidae) 273 2 1 5 281

Pseudococcus citriculus Green (Pseudococcidae) 1 1 Pseudococcus cryptus Hempel (Pseudococcidae) 2 2

Pseudococcus elisae Borchsenius (Pseudococcidae) 1 1

Pseudococcus sp. (Pseudococcidae) a 26 27

Pulvinaria sp. (Coccidae) 5 5 Pyralidae, species of (Pyralidae) 3 3 Pyraustinae, species of (Crambidae) 4 4

Rastrococcus sp. (Pseudococcidae) 1 1

Saissetia sp. (Coccidae) 3 3 Septoria sp. 1 1 Stephanitis typica (Distant) (Tingidae) 1 1

Tarsonemus sp. (Tarsonemidae) b 3 4 Tephritidae, species of (Tephritidae) 128 1 129 Tetranychus sp. (Tetranychidae) 1 1

Thosea sp. (Limacodidae) 1 1 Thripidae, species of (Thripidae) 7 7 Thysanofiorinia leei Williams (Diaspididae) 2 2Litchi from Australia

Rev. 006 November 6, 2008 73 Pest Interceptions (no.) Commodity imported as: Fruit Leaf Plant Seed Stem Total Thysanofiorinia nephelii (Maskell) (Diaspididae) 4 4 Thysanofiorinia sp. (Diaspididae) 2 2 Tineidae, species of (Tineidae) 1 1 Tortricidae, species of (Tortricidae) 23 1 24 Tortricinae, species of (Tortricidae) 6 6 Triozidae, species of (Triozidae) 1 1 Trogoderma sp. (Dermestidae) 1 1 Total 1,858 36 14 20 13 1,945

a Includes one interception on a cut flower.

b Includes one interception on a cutting.Litchi from Australia

Rev. 006 November 6, 2008 74 Appendix B. Risk Mitigation Options for the Im portation of Fresh Litchi Fruit ( Litchi chinensis Sonn.) from Australia into th e Continental United States

1. Introduction

The government of Australia requested permission to export fresh litchi ( Litchi chinensis Sonn.)
fruit with stems into the United States. The move ment of fruits and vegetables into the United States is regulated in 7 CF R §319.56. Currently, the entry of litchi from Australia is not authorized under 7 CFR §319.56. The Animal and Plant Health Inspec tion Service (APHIS) Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ) of the Un ited States Department of Agriculture (USDA) prepared this pest risk assessment to examine unmitigated pest risks associated with the importation of fresh litchi fruit from Australia. This pest risk assessment identified fifteen quarantine pests (fourteen insects and one mite) that could potentially become introduced into the United States through litchi importation from Australia.

The pest risk assessment identified the following pests as having High unmitigated Pest Risk
Potential: Bactrocera jarvisi (Tryon) (Diptera: Tephritidae) Bactrocera tryoni (Froggatt) (Diptera: Tephritidae) Ceratitis capitata (Wiedemann) (Diptera: Tephritidae) Ceroplastes rubens (Maskell) (Hemiptera: Coccidae) Conogethes punctiferalis (Guenée) (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) Cryptophlebia ombrodelta (Lower) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae)

Isotenes miserana Walker (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae)

The following pests have a Medium unmitigated risk potential:
Aceria litchii (Keifer) (Acari: Eriophyidae) Cateremna quadriguttella Walker (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae)
Coccus viridis (Green) (Hemiptera: Coccidae) Deudorix epijarbas dido Waterhouse (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae)
Deudorix diovis Hewitson (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae) Nipaecoccus viridis (Newstead) (Hemiptera: Coccidae) Phycita leucomilta Lower (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae)
Planococcus minor (Maskell) (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae)

None of the pests were identified as having a Low unmitigated risk potential.

According to USDA (2000), pests with a Low Pe st Risk Potential do not typically require mitigation measures, other than port-of-entry inspection. A value within the Medium range indicates that specific phytosanitary measures may be n ecessary. A High rating indicates that specific phytosanitary measures, supplemental to port-of-entry inspection, are strongly
recommended.

The aim of this appendix is to assist PPQ Risk Management decision makers. This document presents available phytosanitary measures that can provide, or potentially provide, an appropriate level of protection against the qu arantine pests of concern. We lis t phytosanitary measures basedLitchi from Australia

Rev. 006 November 6, 2008 75 on evidence of their pest mitigation capability an d without consideration of their effect on the plant commodity, which is beyond the scope of this document.

The appropriate level of protection may be achieved through the application of a single phytosanitary measure, such as inspection or a quarantine treatment, or a combination of measures. A “systems approach” combines different measures and is defined as “the integration of different pest risk management measures, at least two of which act independently, and which cumulatively achieve the appropr iate level of phytosanitary pr otection” (IPPC, 2002a). Specific measures may be selected from a range of pre-harvest and post-harvest measures (e.g

. , surveys, inspections, sanitation, chemical treatments, etc. ) and include mitigation measures to compensate for uncertainty.

2. Risk Mitigation Options

2.1 Establishment of Pest-free Areas As a sole mitigative measure, the establishment of pest-free areas or pest-free places of production may be effective in satisfying an importing country’s ap propriate level of phytosanitary protection (IPPC, 1996, 1999). Establis hment and maintenance of pest-free areas or production sites should be in complia nce with internati onal standards (e.g

., IPPC, 1996, 1999).

2.2 Establishment of Areas of Low Pe st Prevalence / Pest Suppression According to the IPPC (2005), an area of low pest prevalence may comprise all of a country, part of a country, or all or parts of several countries in which a partic ular pest species occurs at low population densities and which is or are subject to effective survei llance and control or
eradication measures. Procedures for the establ ishment and maintenance of areas of low pest prevalence should comply with international standards (e.g

., IPPC, 2005). For example, elements of an operational plan for establishment and maintenance of such areas might include a geographic description to delimit th e area; specification of an upper limit to pest densities; means to document and verify all necessary procedur es and maintain records; specification of phytosanitary procedures (e.g

., survey, pest control); and move ment controls to prevent pest entry or re-entry into the area. IPPC (2005) recommends that the exporting country consult with the importing country in the earl y stages of implementation to ensure that importing country requirements are met. In particular, target or threshold population densitie s defining an area of low pest prevalence should be established in consultation with the importing country.

Cultural, chemical, or mechanical means (e.g

., orchard sanitation, pruning of dead and diseased branches, pre-harvest applicati on of pesticides, fruit bagging) may be used to suppress pest populations in orchards or prev ent fruit infestation. Sanitation a nd pesticide applications, as essential components of best management practices, are mainstays of commercial fruit production (PPQ, 2005). For the fruit flies, PPQ gui delines (PPQ, 2003) could be consulted for a systems approach in which sterile insect releas e and other controls ar e employed as prophylactic measures in response to pest detect ion or when fruit fly detections reach a certain specified level. [Note: Any protocol for establishing and maintain ing a pest-free area or an area of low pest prevalence should also include a pest-reporting procedure and emer gency action plan to address target pest detections in the pest-free or low-prev alence zones (IPPC, 1999, 2005).]Litchi from Australia

Rev. 006 November 6, 2008 76 2.3 Phytosanitary Certification Inspections and Monitoring Each shipment of litchi fruit should be accomp anied by a phytosanitary certificate issued by Australia’s department of agriculture. The cer tificate should contain a dditional declarations stating the litchi fruits were treated and/or grown in accordance with any phytosanitary measures required by APHIS. Production area s also may be subject to periodic, unannounced inspections by certified inspectors from PPQ and/or Australia’s department of agriculture. Inspection will ensure that production areas meet stipulated re quirements for the issu ance of a phytosanitary
certificate. This measure is useful for detecti ng pests present in the field during the growing season that may be more difficult to detect post- harvest; however, it must be combined with other measures to ensure the absence of pests of concern.

2.4 Post-harvest Safeguards and Packinghouse Procedures
Containers of harvested fruit should be covered with screens, plastic tarpaulins, or other pestproof covers while in transit to the packinghouse and awaiting packing. The fruit should be transferred to a pest exclusionary packinghous e in a timely manner (e.g., within three hours of harvest). Packinghouse standards he lp ensure adequate pest excl usion. While packing the litchi fruits for export to the United States, the p ackinghouse should only accept litchi fruits from registered approved production sites. As part of the packinghouse procedures, the fruits should be sized, inspected, and culled to remove damage d and deformed fruit. The fruits could undergo mechanical brushing and cleansing using compressed air or other treatments to remove external pests. Following this procedure, fruits could then be immersed in a water bath containing a surfactant followed by air-drying.

Finally, the fruit should be packed in pest-proof containe rs and transported in sealed vehicles for shipment to the United States.

2.4.1 Internal Pests (fruit flies, Lepidoptera pests) The tephritid fruit flies ( Bactrocera jarvisi, B. tryoni, Ceratitis capitata ) and the Lepidoptera insects, Deudorix epijarbas, D. diovis, Cateremn a quadriguttella, Conogeth es punctiferalis, Phycita leucomilta, Cryptoph lebia ombrodelta, and Isotenes miserana , would be difficult to detect during post-harvest inspection because they are internal feeders. To increase th e likelihood of detecting infestations, the fruit could be dissected dur ing inspection. On the other hand, in one study, inspectors cutting different types of fruit failed to detect larvae of Anastrepha suspensa , a fruit fly in the same family as Bactrocera , on average from 16.5 percent (for carambolas) to 82.1 percent (for green guavas) of the time (Gould, 1995).

2.4.2 External Pests ( scales, mites) Culling for damage and insect infestation should re duce the probability of insect pests, especially external pests like Aceria litchi , and the numerous scale species of concern, from being in the pathway. Adult mites of A. litchii are very small and may not be noticed. The PPQ Treatment Manual (PPQ, 2006b) states (regarding litchi from Hawaii) that “ Eriophyes litchii [ Aceria litchii ] cannot be effectively detected by inspection”. Ho wever, feeding damage by this mite causes projections of light brown co lor on the fruit skin (Mathur and Tandon, 1974), making it possible
for some infested fruit to be detected and culled.Litchi from Australia

Rev. 006 November 6, 2008 77 Mechanical brushing and cleansing using compresse d air (or other treatmen t) should reduce the likelihood of the external insect pests from bei ng in the pathway. External insect pests like aphids, mites, mealybugs, and thrips can often be removed or greatly reduced in numbers with a brisk water spray (Townsend, 1994).

Surfactants, such as common dishwashing deterg ent, may show a high degree of insecticidal activity with minimal risk of phytotoxicity. For example, Li u and Stansly (2000) achieved mortalities of 95-99 percent in leaf-infesting populations of silverleaf whitefly (Bemisia argentifolii ) treated with detergent-water solutions with concentrations ranging from 2 to 30 ml

L -1 . Washing with detergent-water solutions (1 t easpoon detergent/1 gallon water) is effective in removing or killing scales, aphids, mealybugs, or other small insects on plants (Townsend, 1994).

2.5 Quarantine Treatments

2.5.1 Generic Dose Irradiation APHIS recently published a final rule establishing “a minimum generic dose of 150 Gy for all fruit flies of the family Tephr itidae” and “a minimum generic dos e of 400 Gy for all plant pests of the class Insecta other than pupae and adults of the order Lepidopter a” for “all regulated articles (i.e

. , fruits
, vegetables
, cut flowers, and foliage)” (Sh ea, 2006). There are two exceptions to these generic doses: 1) “lower minimum doses for certain fruit flies, ” and 2) “new approved
minimum doses for 10 plant pests” (Shea, 2006). Of all the quarantine pests of concern on litchi from Australia, Bactrocera jarvisi

, B. tryoni , and Cryptophlebia ombrodelta are specifically listed. Based on the final rule (Shea, 2006), irradiation is approved for all insect pests of concern on litchi from Australia at the following doses (PPQ, 2006b):

• Bactrocera jarvisi and B. tryoni (Diptera: Tephritidae): 100 Gy

• Ceratitis capitata (Diptera: Tephritidae): 150 Gy

• Cryptophlebia ombrodelta (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae): 250 Gy

• All the other Lepidoptera (except for pupae a nd adults) and all th e scale (Hemiptera: Coccoidea) pests: 400 Gy

This final rule does not mention a generic irradiation dose for mite s; therefore, the rule does not apply to Aceria litchii

.

Considering irradiation is not an approved tr eatment for Lepidoptera pupae, we looked at the evidence as to whether or not pupae of the Lepidoptera species could be present in the litchi fruit. Evidence suggests that pupae of the lycaenid, Deudorix epijarbas

, and of the pyralids, Cateremna quadriguttella, Conogethes punctiferalis, and Phycita leucomilta

, could possibly be present inside litchi fruit. As for D. epijarbas , the larvae will pupate on the inside of fruit (Verma, 1985; Zaka ur Rab, 1980) as well as on the outside (Verma, 1985); in pomegranate, pupation usually takes place inside the fruit (Zaka ur Rab, 1980). Cateremna sp. larvae pupate
inside the nuts of macadamia (Ironside, 1973), and the larvae of Assara seminivale (synonym:
Cateremna seminivale ) often pupate in the nut of macadamia (Herbison-Evans and Crossley, 2005). Although Conogethes punctiferalis pupates externally be tween the spines of durian fruits (IPM DANIDA, 2003), it pupates inside mango fruits (Singh et al

. , 2002). Pupae of the tortricidLitchi from Australia

Rev. 006 November 6, 2008 78 species Isotenes miserana , are unlikely to be inside litchi fruit. Pupae of I. miserana are found on
leaves (Astridge and Fay, 2003d) or in the flower panicles (Biosecurity Australia, 2002).

Additional information on quarantine treatments was extracted from the PPQ Treatment Manual (PPQ, 2006b) and the scientific literature.

2.5.2 Fruit Fly Pests PPQ recognizes hot water immersion, vapor heat, a nd cold treatment as quarantine treatments for Ceratitis capitata in litchi (PPQ, 2006b):

• Hot water immersion (T102-d) for C. capitata in litchi fruit from Hawaii: 120.2°F (or above) for 20 minutes

• Vapor heat (T106-f) for C. capitata in litchi from Hawaii: 117° F (47.2° C) or above for
20 minutes

• Cold treatment (T107-a) for C. capitata in litchi: schedule options range from 34°F (1.11°C) or below for 14 days to 36°F (2.22°C) for 18 days

PPQ also recognizes methyl bromide, high temper ature forced air, and fumigation plus cold
treatments for C. capitata in other host commodities (PPQ, 2006b).

In addition to the irradiation dose of 100 Gy me ntioned above, PPQ does not recognize any other specific quarantine treatments for Bactrocera jarvisi or B. tryoni in litchi. Hot water immersion, vapor heat, cold treatment, and fumigation + cold treatment are potential treatment options for
these Bactrocera species in litchi, but research is requi red to demonstrate efficacy. We conclude these treatments represent possible mitigation options, because PPQ recognizes cold treatment and fumigation + cold treatment for the mitigation of B. tryoni in other hosts, and PPQ recognizes hot water immersion, vapor heat, and cold treatment for other Bactrocera species in litchi (PPQ, 2006b). These treatments include:

• Cold treatment (T107-d) for Bactrocera tryoni in apple, grapefruit, kiwi, orange, pear, tangerine (includes clementine): schedule opti ons range from 32°F (0°C) or below for 13 days to 36°F (2.22°C) for 22 days

• Fumigation plus cold treatment (T108-a) for B. tryoni in apple, apricot, avocado, cherry, grape, kiwi, nectarine, peach, pear, plum, plumcot, quince

• Methyl bromide followed by cold treatment (T108-b) for B. tryoni in apple, grape, and

pear

• Cold treatment followed by methyl bromide (T109-d-1) for B. tryoni in apple, grape, and pear from Australia

• Hot water immersion (T102-d) for B. dorsalis in litchi from Hawaii: 120.2°F (or above)
for 20 minutes

• Vapor heat (T106-f) for B. dorsalis in litchi from Hawaii: 117°F (47.2°C) or above for 20
minutes

• Cold treatment (T107-h) for B. dorsalis and B. cucurbitae in litchi: schedule options range from 33.8°F (0.99°C) or below for 17 days to 34.5°F (1.38°C) for 20 days

• Cold treatment (T107-j) for B. dorsalis in litchi: schedule options range from 33.8°F (0.99°C) or below for 15 days to 34.5°F (1.38°C) for 18 daysLitchi from Australia

Rev. 006 November 6, 2008 79 2.5.3 Lepidoptera pests The Lepidoptera of concern are: Deudorix epijarbas dido (Lycaenidae) , Deudorix diovis (Lycaenidae), Cateremna quadriguttella (Pyralidae) , Conogethes punctiferalis (Pyralidae)

, Phycita leucomilta (Pyralidae), Cryptophlebia ombrodelta (Tortricidae), and Isotenes miserana (Tortricidae).

In addition to the irradiation doses mentioned ab ove, PPQ does not recognize any other specific quarantine treatments for these pests in litchi (PPQ, 2006b).

Hot water immersion is a possible quarantine treatment for Cryptophlebia ombrodelta in litchi. Follet and Sanxter (2001) report th at hot water immersion quarant ine treatment for fruit flies (49°C water for 20 minutes) should eff ectively disinfest litchi fruit of Cryptophlebia ombrodelta ; however, research is required to confirm this efficacy.

Cold treatment and cold treatement + methyl br omide are potential treatment options for two of the Lepidoptera pests in litchi, but research is required to de monstrate efficacy. We conclude these treatments represent possible mitigati on options because PPQ recognizes them as quarantine treatments in other commodities.

Cold Treatment

• PPQ recognizes cold treatment (T107-e) for Thaumatotibia leucotreta , a species closely
related to Cryptophlebia ombrodelta , on apricot, citrus , nectarine, peach, and plum (PPQ, 2006b).

Cold Treatement + Methyl Bromide

• PPQ recognizes cold treatment followed by methyl bromide (T109a) as a quarantine
treatment for Conogethes punctiferalis on ‘Fuji’ apple from Japan and Korea (PPQ, 2006b).

No non-irradiation quarantine treatment was found in the PPQ Treatment Manual or the
scientific literature for Deudorix epijarbas, D. diovis, Cateremna quadriguttella, Phycita leucomilta, or Isotenes miserana on any host plant. No quaran tine treatment was found for the

genera Deudorix, Cateremna, Phycita, or Isotenes.

2.5.4 External Pests (Scales, Mites) In addition to the generic irradiation dose of 400 Gy, PPQ does not recognize any other quarantine treatments aimed at the specific ex ternal species of concern (PPQ, 2006b). PPQ recognizes methyl bromide quarantine treatment for surface pests, such as scale insects, thrips, and spider mites, on “various commodities” (T104-a-1, T104-a-2) (PPQ, 2006b). Hot water immersion may be a mitigation option for external pests on litchi, as PPQ recognizes hot water immersion (T102-e) for mealybugs and ot her surface pests on limes (PPQ, 2006b).

Scale Insects
The scale insects of concern include Ceroplastes rubens (Maskell) (Hemiptera: Coccidae) , Coccus
viridis (Green) (Hemiptera: Coccidae) , Nipaecoccus viridis (Newstead) (Hemiptera: Coccidae)

, and
Planococcus minor (Maskell) (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae)Litchi from Australia

Rev. 006 November 6, 2008 80 As noted above, in addition to the generic ir radiation dose, there are no other PPQ-approved quarantine treatments aimed specifically at these scale species or related species within these pest genera.

Fumigation with methyl bromide, irradiati on below 400 Gy, and hot water immersion are potential treatment options, but research is need ed to demonstrate efficacy. This statement is based on the following evidence:

• PPQ recognizes methyl bromide quarantine tr eatment for surface pests such as scale insects on “various commodities” (T104-a- 1, T104-a-2) (PPQ, 2006b). PPQ recognizes methyl bromide treatment (T101-b-1-1) for mealybugs (Pseudococcidae) on litchi (PPQ, 2006b).

• Research indicates that Coccus viridis would be effectively cont rolled by irradiation at a dose of 250 Gy (Hara et al

. , 2002). No information was found in the literature regarding
the effect of irradiation on the other scal e species of concern. A dults of the species
Planococcus citri , which is in the same genus as Planococcus minor , irradiated with 40 Gy or higher produce no offspring (Arthur a nd Wiendl, 1996). There are also reports in
the literature of irradiatio n being detrimental to other scale genera. For instance, irradiation at 200 Gy or higher sterilized 12- day-old eggs and thir d-instar nymphs of
Pseudococcus comstocki (Dohino et al

. , 1997).

• On propagative cuttings of Gardenia jasminoides , hot water immersion at 49°C for 10 minutes was 99.9 percent effective against C. viridis adults and crawle rs and 99.7 percent effective against nymphs (Hara et al

. , 1994). Hara et al (1994) conclude that hot water immersion can be used in a systems appr oach to obtain quarantine security for C. viridis

on G. jasminoides . Evidence suggests that hot water immersion might also mitigate the other scale species of concern. In one study, hot water immersion of Citrus latifolia at 49 o C for 20 minutes resulted in no surviving mealybugs (or other ar thropods) (Gould and McGuire, 2000). Hot-water immersion is a poten tially useful contro l method for the scale species Pseudococcus longispinus on persimmons (Lester et al

. , 1995).

Mite [ Aceria litchii (Prostigmata: Eriophyidae)] We found no specific quarantine treatments for the genus Aceria (nor Eriophyes , which is the genus of Aceria litchii ’s synonym Eriophyes litchii ) in the PPQ Treatment Manual (PPQ, 2006b)
nor in the scientific li terature. Evidence suggests the following types of treatment may be worth evaluating for mitigation of this mite: fumigati on with methyl bromide, irradiation, and, less likely, hot water immersion. Methyl bromide trea tment for 24 hours at 12.9, 9, and 7.7 mg/litre at 10, 20, and 30 o C, respectively, gave 100 percent mo rtality of the related species Aceria mangiferae on mango twigs (Nakhla et al

. , 1991, 1993). Methyl bromide fumigation at 32g/m 3

for 2 hours at 21 o C is recommended for the control of the related species, Aceria tulipae , in stored garlic (Lammerink, 1990). As for irradiation, multiple authors report st erility in other mite species ( Tetranychus urticae, Tyrophagus putrescentiae, Rhyizoglyphus echinopus ) exposed to irradiation ranging from 260 to 350 Gy (Burditt, 1994). Finally, a 20-minute, 49 o C hot water immersion treatment is effective against meal ybugs and other arthropods, including mites, on Citrus latifolia (Gould and McGuire, 2000). However, the PPQ Treatment Manual (PPQ, 2006b) states that, for litchi from Hawaii, Eriophyes litchii [ Aceria litchii ] “would not be effectively eliminated by hot water immersion.”Litchi from Australia

Rev. 006 November 6, 2008 81 [Note: The probit-9-level security afforded by a quarantine treatment may be overwhelmed by a large volume of infested fruit (Powell, 2003). For this reason, adop tion of a particular quarantine treatment should be in conjunction with efforts to maintain pest populations in production zones below specified densities (e.g

., 0.01 fruit flies per trap per day; DeHaven, 2005), as would satisfy requirements for the establishment of areas of low pest prevalence (IPPC, 2005).]

2.6 Port-of-entry Sampling and Inspection Upon arrival in the United States, consignments should be inspected as per CFR319.56-6, giving particular attention to paperwor k and seals on vehicles to asce rtain that the chain of custody
remained intact while in-transit. Litchi fruit from Australia could pot entially be inspected by
APHIS in Australia under a preclearance program.

3. Monitoring and Traceability

We recommend that operational arrangement s include provisions for the following:

• Inspection, treatment, and other pr escribed phytosanitary proce dures performed in the field and/or packinghouse be subject to direct monitoring by APHIS personnel and qualified personnel of Australia’s NPPO to identify shortcomings or opportunities for program modifications, and ensure conformity with program requirements (IPPC, 2002b)

• A program for the formal recognition of approved production sites, including the specification of conditions for revoking approved status

• Labeling requirements that iden tify the approved production site

4. Conclusion

There are multiple options available for mitigating pe sts of concern on litchi fruit from Australia. A combination of measures is more likely to prevent the pests from entering the United States than the use of a single measure. These comb ined measures include orchard monitoring and management programs to achieve and maintain area pest freedom or low pest prevalence, packinghouse inspection and treatments, phytosan itary certification, qu arantine treatments, maintenance of consignment security and traceab ility in transit, and port-of-entry inspection. Table 2 summarizes options for risk mitigation.

This appendix does not purport to es tablish specific work plans or to evaluate the reliability of a specific program or systems approach; it provides information regarding known mitigation measures. The specification and implementation of measures, as would be present in an operational work plan, is beyond the scope of this document.Litchi from Australia

Rev. 006 November 6, 2008 82 Table 2. Summary of Risk Mitigation Options for Litchi, Litchi chinensis , from Australia Measure(s) Pests Efficacy
Pest-free areas or places of production All Satisfies requirements for appropriate level of protection
Areas of low prevalence All May satisfy requirements for appropriate level of protection alone or in combination
with other measures
Post-harvest and packinghouse procedures External arthropod pests (scales, Aceria
litchii ) Likely to significantly lower population levels, but research required to demonstrate efficacy Bactrocera jarvisi, B. tryoni, Ceratitis capitata, all Lepidoptera pests (except pupae and adults), all scale insects PPQ-recognized quarantine treatment on all regulated plant articles Irradiation combined with low pest prevalence

A. litchii Research required to demonstrate efficacy B. jarvisi, B. tryoni, all Lepidoptera pests Research required to demonstrate efficacy Cold treatment combined with low pest prevalence C. capitata PPQ-recognized quarantine treatment for
litchi B. jarvisi, B. tryoni, all Lepidoptera pests, all scale insects, A. litchii Research required to demonstrate efficacy Hot water immersion combined with low pest prevalence C. capitata PPQ-recognized quarantine treatment for
litchi B. jarvisi, B. tryoni Research required to demonstrate efficacy Vapor heat combined with low pest prevalence C. capitata PPQ-recognized quarantine treatment for
litchi High temperature
forced air combined with low pest prevalence C. capitata, all Lepidoptera pests Research required to demonstrate efficacy

C. capitata, all Lepidoptera pests Research required to demonstrate efficacy Fumigation combined with low pest prevalence All scale insects, A.
litchii PPQ-recognized quarantine treatment for surface pests on “various commodities”; PPQ-recognized treatment for mealybugs (Pseudococcidae) on litchi Fumigation + cold
treatment combined with low pest prevalence B. jarvisi, B. tryoni, C. capitata, all Lepidoptera pests Research required to demonstrate efficacy