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 27606 
Litchi 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 examine 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 qualitative 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 criteria 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 Australia 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, fifteen 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, Conogethes punctiferalis, Cryptophlebia 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............................................................................................................................... 70
Litchi from Australia 

Rev. 006 November 6, 2008 1

1. Introduction 

This risk assessment was prepared by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) 

of the United States Department of Agriculture (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 commercial markets are clipped from the panicles leaving 

5mm of stem attached (Biosecurity Australia, 2002).] This risk assessment is qualitative; risk is 

expressed in terms of High, Medium or Low rather than probabilities 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 this 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, Initiation; 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 the United States is regulated 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 change 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 weediness 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 literature 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 Laboratory, Center for Integrated 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 litchi 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 treatment for complex of pests reported 

1972 China Denied No acceptable treatment for complex of pests reported 

1972 Taiwan Denied No acceptable treatment for complex of pests reported 
Litchi from Australia 

Rev. 006 November 6, 2008 3

Year Country Decision Rationale 

1972 Japan Approved Ethylene dibromide treatment; 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 parts; the quarantine status of the pest with respect to the United States; 

if the pest is likely to follow the pathway and enter the United States on commercially exported litchi 

fruit (with approximately 5mm of stem); and pertinent citations for either the distribution or the biology 

of the pest. Based on pest biology 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 that 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 Distribution1 Reported on

litchi

Plant Part(s) 

Association 

Quarantine PestLikely 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) 

Yes2

-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 the pest species is considered a quarantine pest for the United 

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

Rev. 006 November 6, 2008 5

Pest Scientific Name Distribution1 Reported on

litchi

Plant Part(s) 

Association 

Quarantine PestLikely 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-No4

 

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 Distribution1 Reported on

litchi

Plant Part(s) 

Association 

Quarantine PestLikely 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-No5

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); US6

(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) 

No7-No8

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 liable 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 established in California (Guidicipietro, 2003). A National Exotic Fruit Fly Detection 

Program is run cooperatively by APHIS and U.S. states susceptible 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 Crop 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 Distribution1 Reported on

litchi

Plant Part(s) 

Association 

Quarantine PestLikely to 

Follow 

Pathway

Aphididae 

Aphis gossypii Glover AU (CABI, 2004); 

US (CABI, 2004) 

CABI, 2004; 

Hill, 1983 

leaves, stems, flowers 

(CABI, 2004) 

No-No10

Aphis spiraecola Patch AU (CABI, 2004); 

US (CABI, 2004) 

Morton, 1987 stems, leaves, flowers, 

fruit (CABI, 2004) 

No-No11

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-No13

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 occasionally feed from fruits, they are generally leaf and stem feeders (Borrer et al., 

1989). As soft-bodied insects, they will likely be crushed during 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 fruit. Thus they are not expected 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 Australia, which was in passenger baggage (PestID, 

2008). This is considered insufficient evidence that this unidentified scale 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 Distribution1 Reported on

litchi

Plant Part(s) 

Association 

Quarantine PestLikely 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 

Coreidae15 

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-No16

Amblypelta nitida Stål AU (Biosecurity 

Australia, 2002) 

Biosecurity 

Australia, 2002 

fruit (Biosecurity 

Australia, 2002); 

flowers, fruit, leaves 

(Astridge et al., 2004; 

CABI, 2004) 

Yes-No17

Leptoglossus 

membranaceus

(Fabricius)

AU (EPPO, 2003) Anonymous, 

1965a 

fruit (Anonymous, 

1965a); twigs, leaves, 

fruit (Ondieki, 1975) 

Yes-No18

 

15 Because coreids in general are large 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 large 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 Distribution1 Reported on

litchi

Plant Part(s) 

Association 

Quarantine PestLikely 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-No20

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-Yes24

 

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 insufficient 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 specialists 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 distribution in the United States (NIS, 2006). 
Litchi from Australia 

Rev. 006 November 6, 2008 10

Pest Scientific Name Distribution1 Reported on

litchi

Plant Part(s) 

Association 

Quarantine PestLikely 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-No28

Lygaeidae 

Nysius vinitor 

(Bergroth) 

AU (Biosecurity 

Australia, 2002) 

Waite and 

Hwang, 2002 

fruit (Waite and Hwang, 

2002) 

Yes-No29

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-No30

 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 specialists 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 date 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 think 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 (Waite 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-entry 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 geographical range and wide host range (CABI, 2007; USDA, 
Litchi from Australia 

Rev. 006 November 6, 2008 11

Pest Scientific Name Distribution1 Reported on

litchi

Plant Part(s) 

Association 

Quarantine PestLikely 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-No31

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 -No34

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-No37

 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 commercial 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, culled 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 5mm 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), and 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 "quarters," 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 passenger baggage (PestID, 2008). This is considered insufficient 

evidence to determine the true origin of the fruit. Consequently, 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 specialists 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 scale species likely to follow the 

pathway of commercial litchi fruit. 
Litchi from Australia 

Rev. 006 November 6, 2008 12

Pest Scientific Name Distribution1 Reported on

litchi

Plant Part(s) 

Association 

Quarantine PestLikely 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-No39

Planococcus minor 

(Maskell) 

AU (Biosecurity 

Australia, 2002; 

ScaleNet, 2005) 

PestID, 200840 fruit (PestID, 2008)41 Yes-Yes 

Rhopalidae 

Leptocoris 

ruformarginata 

(Fabricius) 

AU (Biosecurity 

Australia, 2002) 

Waite and 

Hwang, 2002 

fruit (Waite and Hwang, 

2002) 

Yes-No42

Leptocoris tagalica 

(Burmeister) 

AU (Biosecurity 

Australia, 2002) 

Waite and 

Hwang, 2002 

fruit (Waite and Hwang, 

2002) 

Yes-No43

 

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 because of the questionable status of litchi 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 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 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 harvest, and standard 

handling and processing. 
Litchi from Australia 

Rev. 006 November 6, 2008 13

Pest Scientific Name Distribution1 Reported on

litchi

Plant Part(s) 

Association 

Quarantine PestLikely 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-No45

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-No47

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 attacked were based on the family level 

(i.e., Tessaratomidae). Since 1985, two interceptions of Tessaratomidae 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 through 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), indicating 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 fruit by burrowing through the outer edible fruit tissue (Storey and 

Rogers, 1980). 47 Pyroderces dendrophaga: Attack by this species causes premature fruit drop 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 other 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 and/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 through the outer edible fruit tissue (Storey and Rogers, 1980). 
Litchi from Australia 

Rev. 006 November 6, 2008 14

Pest Scientific Name Distribution1 Reported on

litchi

Plant Part(s) 

Association 

Quarantine PestLikely 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-No49

Herminiidae 

Hydrillodes lentalis 

Guenée

AU (Storey and 

Rogers, 1980) 

Storey and 

Rogers, 1980 

fruit (Storey and Rogers, 

1980)50

Yes-No51

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 through the outer edible fruit tissue (Storey and Rogers, 1980). 51 Hydrillodes lentalis (Lepidoptera: Herminiidae): this species damaged 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. 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 decaying 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 require 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 through 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 Distribution1 Reported on

litchi

Plant Part(s) 

Association 

Quarantine PestLikely 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, fruit54 (CABI, 

2004); leaves (Storey 

and Rogers, 1980) 

Yes-No55

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-No57

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-No58

 

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 standard handling and 

processing. 56 Larvae feed on the seed within litchi fruit by burrowing through 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 fruit “to drop if young, or makes it unmarketable” (Storey and 

Rogers, 1980). Any such fruit will likely be detected during grading. Also, although Storey and Rogers (1980) report this 

species feeds inside litchi fruit, the species and genus are more often reported to feed externally 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 fruit externally (CABI, 2004; Menzel and McConchie, 1998; Waite 
Litchi from Australia 

Rev. 006 November 6, 2008 16

Pest Scientific Name Distribution1 Reported on

litchi

Plant Part(s) 

Association 

Quarantine PestLikely to 

Follow 

Pathway

Eudocima jordani

(Holland) 

AU (Biosecurity 

Australia, 2002) 

Biosecurity 

Australia, 2002; 

Waite and 

Hwang, 2002 

fruit (Biosecurity 

Australia, 2002) 

Yes-No59

Eudocima materna

(Linnaeus) 

AU (Biosecurity 

Australia, 2002; 

Zhang, 1994) 

Astridge and 

Fay, 2003b 

fruit (Biosecurity 

Australia, 2002) 

Yes-No60

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-No61

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 

Walker62

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 stay on 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 feed externally on the fruit (Biosecurity Australia, 2002; CABI, 

2004; Menzel and McConchie, 1998; Waite and 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 feed externally on the fruit (Biosecurity Australia, 2002; CABI, 

2004; Menzel and McConchie, 1998; Waite and 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 stay on 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 through the outer edible fruit tissue (Storey and Rogers, 1980). 
Litchi from Australia 

Rev. 006 November 6, 2008 17

Pest Scientific Name Distribution1 Reported on

litchi

Plant Part(s) 

Association 

Quarantine PestLikely 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-No68

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-No70

 

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 through 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 fruit 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 flowers, 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 with 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 the 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 reports of this genus 

feeding on plants in other groups, these reports “probably constitute misidentification of the insects and/or 

misinterpretation of the damage”, and “some records may represent chance feeding events” (Griffiths, 2001). Dr. Saul 
Litchi from Australia 

Rev. 006 November 6, 2008 18

Pest Scientific Name Distribution1 Reported on

litchi

Plant Part(s) 

Association 

Quarantine PestLikely 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-No73

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-No75

 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 through the outer edible fruit tissue (Storey and Rogers, 1980). 72 Larvae feed on the seed within litchi fruit by burrowing through 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 larvae of this species are relatively large (up to 30mm) and very 

active when disturbed, and they cause immature fruit to abort (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 through the outer edible fruit tissue (Storey and Rogers, 1980). 75Although 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 and Evenhuis, 1991); 3) this genus has only been intercepted by PPQ 

on two occasions since 1985, once on cut flowers and once on fruit (PestID, 2008); and 4) because 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 pests eating the fruit surface and/or 

the leaves of their hosts (including litchi) (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 the larvae leave characteristic patterns on the fruit (point-like 

holes to large irregular depressions) that often do not penetrate deeper than the skin (Dickler, 1991; USDA, 1985). Infested 

fruit will likely be culled during standard post-harvest treatment 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 unlikely to have any larvae associated with them, 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 Distribution1 Reported on

litchi

Plant Part(s) 

Association 

Quarantine PestLikely 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-No76

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), larvae 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 larvae inside of mature litchi fruit, they would likely be later 

instar larvae that would cause obvious 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. Storey and Rogers (1980) report E. postvittana as attacking only leaves of 

litchi, and Biosecurity Australia (2007) states there is no evidence of this species attacking the fruit of litchi. Since 1985,

immatures of this species have been intercepted at U.S. ports-of-entry 16 times in commercial fruit shipments, but none of 

these interceptions were with litchi fruit (PestID, 2008), despite 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 baggage, 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 Distribution1 Reported on

litchi

Plant Part(s) 

Association 

Quarantine PestLikely 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-Yes77

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 Distribution1 Reported on

litchi

Plant Part(s) 

Association 

Quarantine PestLikely 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-No78

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); therefore, the risk of this 

species being on harvested fruit is considered to be small (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 Distribution1 Reported on

litchi

Plant Part(s) 

Association 

Quarantine PestLikely 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 CHROMISTANS80

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. (Mitosporic 

FungiHyphomycetes)

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 unknown, they will be listed under the Mitosporic Fungi. 
Litchi from Australia 

Rev. 006 November 6, 2008 23

Pest Scientific Name Distribution1 Reported on

litchi

Plant Part(s) 

Association 

Quarantine PestLikely 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 

pallescens Tsuda & 

UeYama] 

(Ascomycetes: 

Pleosporales)

AU (Biosecurity 

Australia, 2002) 

Biosecurity 

Australia, 2002 

leaves (CABI, 2004; 

Farr et al., 2005) 

Yes-No 
Litchi from Australia 

Rev. 006 November 6, 2008 24

Pest Scientific Name Distribution1 Reported on

litchi

Plant Part(s) 

Association 

Quarantine PestLikely 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-Yes 
Litchi from Australia 

Rev. 006 November 6, 2008 25

Pest Scientific Name Distribution1 Reported on

litchi

Plant Part(s) 

Association 

Quarantine PestLikely 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. (Mitosporic 

FungiHyphomycetes)

AU (Farr et al., 

2006) 

Farr et al., 2006 leaves, fruits, stems 

(Cooke, 1975; Ploetz et 

al., 1994) 

Yes-Yes81

Penicillium crustosum 

Thom (Mitosporic 

FungiHyphomycetes)

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 pathogens; 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 Distribution1 Reported on

litchi

Plant Part(s) 

Association 

Quarantine PestLikely to 

Follow 

Pathway

Penicillium lilacinum 

Thom 

[=Paecilomyces 

lilacinus (Thom) 

Samson] (Mitosporic 

FungiHyphomycetes)

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

No83-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 leaves (gray leaf spot) (CABI, 2004). 83 Pestalotiopsis mangiferae is a “nonreportable”/”nonactionable” pest (PestID, 2008). 
Litchi from Australia 

Rev. 006 November 6, 2008 27

Pest Scientific Name Distribution1 Reported on

litchi

Plant Part(s) 

Association 

Quarantine PestLikely 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. (Mitosporic 

FungiHyphomycetes)

AU (Farr et al., 

2006) 

Farr et al., 2006 saprobe on decaying 

material, leaves (Grandi 

and Silva, 2003; 

Rambelli et al., 2004) 

No84-No 

Stemphylium 

globuliferum 

(Vestergren) E. 

Simmons (Mitosporic 

FungiHyphomycetes)

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 interception 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 associated with plant parts other than the commodity; or they may be 

more reasonably associated with larger diameter stems 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 associated with the fruit during transport 

or processing because of their inherent mobility. 

We identified the armored scale Pseudaonidia trilobitiformis (Hemiptera: Diaspididae) as a quarantine 

pest likely to follow the pathway; however, we did not further analyze 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 operational data, and expert opinion concludes that, even 

assuming high quantities of imported fruit infested with armored scale species that could be 

parthenogenic, highly fecund, polyphagous, invasive, theoretically able to survive in most of the United 

States, and cause high level consequences, the specific pathway represented by commercially produced 

fruit shipped without leaves, stems or contaminants constitutes an extremely low risk (PERAL, 2007). 

This low risk is explained by poor ability of armored scales to disperse to new host plants from fruits for 

consumption, and consequently, by their low probability of establishment (PERAL, 2007). The 

following characteristics of armored scales contribute to their poor dispersal capabilities: 

• Legs and wings are absent in females and in feeding immature forms. Males possess wings but are 

short-lived, do not feed, and tend to mate with nearby females. 

• Self-dispersal of armored scales occurs by immature 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 one plant to another only during a time period of approximately 24 

hours. No further dispersal is possible after the crawlers start feeding as they lose their legs during 

the first molt and the mouth parts are deeply inserted 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 survival rate of crawlers on the ground or on decaying fruit or fruit 

peel. There is a low probability of active dispersal of crawlers by walking from their natal host since 

they are not capable of rapid movement over bare soil or rough surfaces. 

Biological hazards associated with organisms not identified to the species level 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 above 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). All five of these genera are reported to occur in the United States 

(Farr et al., 2005; Robinson et al., 2005; Zhang, 1994). Lack of specific identification may indicate the 

limits of current taxonomic knowledge, the life stage, or the quality of the specimen submitted for 

identification. By necessity, pest risk assessments focus on organisms for which biological information 
Litchi 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 assessments 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 identified to higher taxa are intercepted in the future, then a reevaluation 

of their risk may occur. 

2.5 Analysis of Quarantine Pests 

The undesirable consequences that may occur from the introduction of quarantine pests are assessed in 

this section. The ratings were determined using the criteria in the Risk Assessment Guidelines, Version 

5.02 (USDA, 2000). 

The major sources of uncertainty present in this risk 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 (Bier, 1999; Morgan and Henrion, 1990), and the evaluation 

of risk by comparisons to lists of factors 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 information, even if not explicitly part of the criteria, can 

be used when relevant to a rating. Other sources of uncertainty include the quality of the biological 

information and the amount of information available on the regional flora and fauna. Inherent biological 

variation within a population of organisms 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 Australia 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 Walker 
Litchi 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 estimate it could establish in the 

continental United States in U.S. Plant Hardiness 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 (NCSU CIPM, 2005) and Hawaii, and is grown 

in backyard gardens in southern 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) (Huang, 1967; Jeppson et al., 1975). 

Medium (2) 

Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential 

In India and China, 13-15 overlapping generations 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 the 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 and 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 (fruit, 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 pest 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 percent 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 commodity (Huang, 1967), and a pest of “major 

economic significance” to longan (Taiwan, 2002). Damage by this mite includes a feltlike erineum on leaves and fruit, deformed terminals, leaf fall, prevention of fruit set, 

and malformed fruit, which may be unmarketable (Waite and Hwang, 2002). Because it 

is an important economic pest, attack by this 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). Although the introduction of A. litchii into the continental United 

States does not present any foreseeable impacts on Threatened or Endangered plants, it 

would probably lead to the initiation of chemical 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 (Northern 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 Hardiness Zones in the United States (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 Queensland, Australia, this species may 

attack litchi, but normally only when the skin 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 reproductive 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 accompanies 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. Fletcher (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). Completion 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 pest” (CABI, 2005), quarantine pest (CERIS, 

2006), or a “major quarantine pest” (DBIRD, 2002). It infests native 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). External damage to the fruit skin can include 

bruising, necrosis, and oviposition punctures, while internally the 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 would likely trigger the initiation of chemical and/or biological control 

programs. Therefore, we rated this organism High for this element. 

High (3) 

Bactrocera tryoni (Froggatt) (Diptera: Tephritidae) Risk ratings 

Risk Element #1: Climate-Host Interaction 

Bactrocera tryoni is reported in Australia, French Polynesia, and New Caledonia 

(CABI, 2005). Based on that, we estimate this fruit fly could establish in the continental 

United States in USDA Plant Hardiness Zones 9-10. One or more hosts of B. tryoni are 

present in these Plant Hardiness Zones in the United States (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 reproductive rate and can 

disperse over long distances. The major means of dispersal of B. tryoni to new areas are 

via adult flight and the 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 (PestID, 2008), which is 

evidence of their ability to be dispersed via human-assisted movement of plants and 

plant products. Fletcher (Fletcher, 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 that females have the 

potential to produce over 1000 eggs in a lifetime and can lay between 80 to over 100 

eggs per week. Up to 70 flies have been recorded developing in a single fuit (CABI, 

2005). This species can have five or more overlapping generations 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: Tephritidae) Risk ratings 

Risk Element #4: Economic Impact 

Bactrocera tryoni is a “major quarantine pest” (DBIRD, 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 countries that list this species as a 

quarantine pest. It does not greatly affect host 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 (CABI, 2005; DBIRD, 2002). Damage levels can 

be up to 100 percent of unprotected fruit (CABI, 2005). If fruit 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 prohibit the importation of hosts of 

this fruit fly unless strict phytosanitary measures, such as fumigation, heat treatment, 

cold treatment, insecticidal dipping, or irradiation, 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 species are present in B. tryoni’s predicted climatic range in the 

continental United States (Florida or California) and are congeneric with plant species 

reported as hosts of B. tryoni. As this fruit fly species represents an economic threat, its 

establishment in the United States would probably trigger the initiation of chemical and/or 

biological control programs. Based on this evidence, we rated 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 Walkamin in northern Queensland, 

Australia (Storey and Rogers, 1980). This distribution corresponds to the USDA Plant 

Hardiness Zone 10 (Foulis, 2001). Its 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. 

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 Phycitinae (Oboyski, 2004), which contains 

Cactoblastis cactorum (Nielson and Common, 1991). Since the 1989 discovery of C. 

cactorum in the Florida Keys, this moth's range 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 Wildlife 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 thought to be due to both natural spread and 

human-mediated movement of plant materials (Habeck and Bloem, 2002). Since 1985, 

over 16,000 interceptions of Lepidoptera 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 knowledge 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 information 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 Lepidoptera” (Zhang, 1994), for example, but 

not as major pests. Cateremna sp. damages macadamia kernels in Australia (Hill, 1983) 

and is a “minor insect pest” of this commodity in Queensland (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 the 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 above evidence and the fact that its host 

range is limited to litchi, a minor crop 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 represents an estimated low potential 

economic threat (see Risk Element #4), its establishment in the United States would likely 

initiate limited chemical and/or biological 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 Federation (Southern Russia), Serbia and 

Montenegro, Slovenia, Spain, Switzerland], Asia (Iran, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi 

Arabia, Syria, Turkey, Yemen), Africa (Algeria, Angola, Benin, Botswana, Burkina 

Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Comoros, 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, Senegal, 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 Mediterranean 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 (USDA 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 plant families (CABI, 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 species among multiple plant families, we rated it High. 

High (3) 

Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential 

Females may deposit up to 22 eggs 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 fly 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 species’ ability to be transported long 

distances in fruit. Ceratitis capitata may also be dispersed via puparia in soil, or 

growing medium accompanying plants (CABI, 2002). As this species has both high 

biotic potential and capability for 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 destructive 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, but is often an even more serious pest of some 

deciduous fruits, such as peach, pear, and apple (Weems, 1981). For example, in 

Mediterranean countries it damages citrus and peach crops (CABI, 2002). It may also 

transmit fruit-rotting fungi (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 world. Eradication of recurring populations of C. capitata in an area (to 

maintain pest-free status) can be very costly and resource intensive. Consequently, C. 

capitata is one of the most significant quarantine pests for any tropical or warm temperate 

areas in which it is not yet established (CABI, 2002). Based on this evidence, we rated C. 

capitata High for the Economic Impact 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 CFR §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 initiation of chemical or biological control programs, 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 temperate zones to the tropics. It is 

found in east and south Asia, Oceania (including Australia), eastern and southern parts of 

Africa, the West Indies, Hawaii, Florida, and parts of the Caribbean (CABI, 2005). We 

estimate it could survive 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 recorded on many wild and cultivated hosts, 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 eggs, but mean fecundity is just below 300 (CABI, 2001). 

There are two generations per year (CABI, 2002). As with other 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 been intercepted at U.S. portsof-entry over 4,000 times on plants and other plant materials (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 pest 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, causing reduced growth (CABI, 2002). Based on 

this evidence, if C. rubens should become more widely established in the United States, 

there would likely be a 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 this species increases the probability of it attacking plants in the 

United States listed as Threatened or Endangered. It has been 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 this pest in the United States would 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 India through Indo-China, 

Malaysia to the Philippines and Indonesia, throughout much of Oceania and sub-Saharan 

Africa south to South Africa (CABI, 2002). In the New World, it is present in Florida, 

throughout the Caribbean, and from Central America to northern South America. Its 

distribution corresponds to Plant Hardiness Zones 8-11 (BackyardGardner.com, 2003). We 

estimate this species could establish in areas of the continental United States corresponding 

to Plant Hardiness Zones 9-10. Zones 9-10 correspond to Florida, southern Texas, southern 

Arizona, much of California, and Hawaii (USDA, 1990). One or more hosts of C. viridis

are present in these states (USDA NRCS, 2003). This estimate does not include Plant 

Hardiness Zone 8, as this zone only occurs in isolated areas 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 (Dekle, 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 low (Tandon and Veeresh, 1988); 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 and the plant growth rate (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 India, citrus fruit quality was 

significantly lower on trees following C. viridis infestation and the sooty mold (Capnodium 

citri) contamination that accompanied it (Haleem, 1984). Based 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 vulnerable 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 §17.12. The wider establishment of this species 

could stimulate the initiation of chemical or biological 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 species occurs in Australia and Papua New 

Guinea (CABI, 2005). We estimate this species could establish in parts of the 

continental United States corresponding to Plant 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 generations per year (Wang and Cai, 1997). Larvae 

are internal fruit feeders (CABI, 2002; CSIRO, 1991; Gupta and Arora, 2001; Huang et al., 

2000; Wongsiri, 1991a) with the potential to spread long distances. Since 1985, port-ofentry inspectors have intercepted Conogethes 654 times, including 330 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 pests 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). Recently, C. punctiferalis has been 

found more commonly on longan in China, causing important economic damage to this 

crop (Huang et al., 2000). Waterhouse (1993) includes C. punctiferalis as one of the 

major arthropod pests on longan in southeast Asia. In longan, a single larva can cause 

damage on multiple fruit (Huang et al., 2000). In India, this species 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 reduced 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 plum (Wang and Cai, 1997). The moth’s excretions, which cover the 

fruit’s surface and have a high sugar content, attract other insect pests and diseases that can 

damage fruit (CABI, 2002). In China, insecticides and the bagging of fruit are two control 

measures employed against this insect pest (CABI, 2002). Introduction of this pest into the 

United States would likely result in a loss of foreign 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 the potential to attack Q. hinckleyi, a 

Texas tree listed as Threatened in 50 CFR §17.12. Introduction of this pest into the United 

States could result in the initiation of chemical and/or biological 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, Shanxi, Sichuan and Yunna), India, 

Indonesia, Japan, Laos, the Philippines, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Taiwan, Vietnam, Oceania 

(Australia, the Northern Mariana Islands, Papua New Guinea, 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 United 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) (Zhang, 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 Hwang, 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 this 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 those were on fruit (PestID, 2008). The genus 

Cryptophlebia has been intercepted 1,814 times, also mostly on fruit (PestID, 2008). 

High (3) 

Risk Element #4: Economic Impact 

This tortricid is a significant pest of litchi and longan in Hawaii and Australia (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 Hwang, 2002). Larval damage renders litchi and longan fruit 

unmarketable; neighboring fruit may also be unmarketable if they 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 acceptable treatment for disinfestation 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 Endangered in 50 CFR 

§17.12; however, this plant is only reported in Hawaii (USDA NRCS, 2003), where C. 

ombrodelta is already present. Plants in the family Fabaceae that are Threatened or 

Endangered (e.g., Amorpha crenulata, Apios priceana) are also potential 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 these plants as hosts. Its establishment in 

the United States would probably initiate chemical 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 distribution; it is reported in India 

(Jammu, Kashmir, Uttar, and Pradesh), the Philippines, China (Guangdong), Australia 

(Queensland) (Zhang, 1994), and Taiwan (Anonymous, 1965b; Heppner and Inoue, 

1992). Based on this distribution, we estimate Deudorix epijarbas dido and D. diovis

could establish in the continental United States 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) (Anonymous, 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 field 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 butterflies 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 reported as pests on of minor economic crops 

for the United States, the probability of these organisms being dispersed via commercial 

trade of plant products is likely to be low. Overall, we rated D. epijarbas dido and D. 

diovis Medium for this risk 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) and 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 Australia (Ironside, 1979; Waite and Hwang, 2002). 

Females of both species lay eggs singly on fruit; then larvae bore 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 pomegranate fruit in the Jammu 

region of India (Thakur et al., 1995). Chemical control 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 important 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 continental United States (USFWS, 2006). 

As these organisms represent an estimated low potential economic threat (see Risk 

Element #4), their establishment in the United States would likely 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 reported in Australia (Zhang, 1994). It 

occurs widely throughout coastal Queensland (Astridge and Fay, 2003d; Hassan, 1977) 

and New South Wales (AFFA, 2001; Hassan, 1977). 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 generations per year (Astridge and Fay, 2003d; Smith et 

al., 1997). We found no other information 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 (PestID, 2008), suggesting that it is not readily 

dispersed via plants and plant products. Given its limited distribution in Australia, 

despite its broad host range and apparent ability to survive in multiple Plant Hardiness 

Zones, the species may have only a limited ability 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 having 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 attacked (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 the calyx. Larval boring causes mature fruit to 

fall and decay, but young larvae may enter fruit just prior to harvest and, if undetected 

during packing, can cause the fruit decay during marketing (Astridge and Fay, 2003d). 

As this species is absent from most geographical areas of the world, its establishment in 

the United States could lead to a loss of domestic or international 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 Annonaceae, Lauraceae, and Anacardiaceae listed as Endangered 

(Asimina tetramera, Deeringothamnus pulchellus, Deeringothamnus rugelii, Lindera 

melissifolia, and Rhus michauxii) are present in areas of the continental United States with 

suitable climatic conditions for I. miserana. These families contain host genera for I. 

miserana, but lacking specific preference 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 establishment in the United States would probably lead to 

the initiation of chemical and/or biological control programs. 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 subtropical 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 America, its distribution is limited to California and Hawaii 

(CABI, 2002). Based on its current geographic distribution, we estimate it could survive in 

the warmer, southern parts of the continental United States, Plant Hardiness Zones 9-10. 

One or more of its potential 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). Primary 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 138 eggs per female; there are as many as three generations 

per year (CABI, 2002). Local dispersal is accomplished by crawlers, which often settle in 

protected areas (e.g., under the sepals of fruitlets); 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 young 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, eventually dropping off the tree, and 

infested citrus fruit can develop “lumpy outgrowths or raised shoulders” near the stem end 

(CABI, 2002). Copious quantities of honeydew may contaminate fruit and other plant 

parts, which can serve as a medium for the growth of sooty molds (CABI, 2002). This 

mealybug was responsible for losses up to 5 percent 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 orange crop has been lost in 

this way (CABI, 2002). Second, fruits with deformities caused by mealybug feeding are 

culled in the packinghouse, resulting in further loss of production (CABI, 2002). Based on 

this evidence, the establishment of this insect in the United States could cause a loss of 

foreign and domestic markets and would likely stimulate chemical and/or biological 

control programs, lowering the value of the commodity by increasing 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 important 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). Its 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 information; 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 interceptions 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 this species (indicating low prevalence in plant 

commodities), and that there are no recorded interceptions 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 little economic impact. The only specific 

information found was that by Menzel (2002) and Menzel and 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 this organism represents an estimated 

low potential economic threat (see Risk Element #4), its establishment in the United States 

would likely trigger the initiation of limited chemical and/or biological control 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 (Bangladesh, 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, Tonga, Vanuatu, Western Samoa), Africa 

(Madagascar, Rodriques Island, Seychelles), tropical areas of the 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 these zones (USDA NRCS, 2003). 

Risk Element #2: Host Range 

This species is extremely polyphagous, having been recorded on hosts in at least 65 plant 

families (Ben-Dov, 1994). 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 about 200 to over 400 eggs 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 example, it is an important pest of coffee 

in India (Reddy et al., 1997), and severe outbreaks (originally attributed to P. citri [Risso]) 

have been reported on coffee and sugarcane in New Guinea (CABI, 2002). Planococcus 

minor’s host range includes many economically important plants in the continental United 

States, including Solanum spp., Citrus spp., Vitis vinifera, Persea americana, Zea mays, 

and Cocos nucifera. Its introduction into the United States could cause a decreased yield of 

host crops, in addition to increased production costs due to implementation of control 

measures. Introduction of this mealybug into the United States could cause the loss of 

domestic or foreign markets for a number of commodities. 

High (3) 

Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact 

The extreme polyphagy of this species predisposes it to attack native plants listed as 

Threatened or Endangered in 50 CFR §17.12 (e.g., Cucurbita, Helianthus, Euphorbia, 

Ziziphys) (USFWS, 2006). As it represents a potentially 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 

rating1

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 Introduction—Quantity Imported and Pest Opportunity 

Likelihood of Introduction is a function of the quantity of the commodity imported annually and 

pest opportunity. Pest opportunity consists 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). Litchi production in Australia is growing (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 (FAS, 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. This equals a volume of approximately 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-harvest 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 picked in clusters, with each panicle containing 4-20 fruits. 

2. Following harvest, fruits are kept at high humidity and cooled to 5o

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 visually sorted on mechanical conveyors to cull small, poorly 

colored, and damaged specimens. Industry standards for litchi fruit exist. 

4. The ‘Extra class’ fruit must be “practically free of defects,” and the ‘First class’ fruit can 

have “moderate defects, with skin blemishes not exceeding 60mm2.” 

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, Cryptophlebia ombrodelta, and Isotenes miserana, as internal feeders, would likely 

survive these post-harvest treatments. 

The scale insects and the mite, Aceria litchi, are external feeders, and therefore are less likely to 

survive post-harvest treatments than the internal feeders above. Depending on their stage (egg, 

nymph/larva, adult), these arthropods might find shelter on fruit or in packing materials. Most 

scales are less than 5 mm long (Gullan and Kosztarab, 1997), and they have sessile stages that 

live firmly pressed to plant surfaces.. Their water-repellent and waxy coverings, cryptic behavior, 

small size, and firm attachment to the substrate could make them difficult to see or dislodge. 

Many scales prefer tight, protected areas, such as cracks and crevices (Kosztarab, 1996). Adult 
Litchi 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 tephritid 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 refrigerated and airfreighted, so that they arrive at 

market three days after harvest (Biosecurity Australia, 2002). To maintain high fruit quality, the 

recommendations for transport and storage are 1.5oC (35oF) and 90-95 percent relative humidity 

(McGregor, 1987). If properly packaged and stored, the time available for transit and storage is 

about three to five weeks (McGregor, 1987). Based on this, we assume 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 recognizes cold treatment of litchi fruit at around 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 killed if the fruit are stored properly. On the other 

hand, a three-day transit time would likely not reduce fruit fly populations, 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 35o

F would significantly kill these other pests. Hence, 

we assume the transport and storage of the fruit at the recommended temperature for all possible 

storage times would be insufficient to reduce population levels of these pests of concern. Based 

on these assumptions and evidence, we estimate the unmitigated (i.e., absence of any specific 

quarantine treatment during shipment) risk for the ability 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 intercepted 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 unrecognized (White and Elson-Harris, 1992). Inspectors 

cutting different types of fruit failed to detect larvae of Anastrepha suspensa, a fruit fly in the 

same family as Bactrocera, on average 16.5 percent (for carambolas) to 82.1 percent (for green 

guavas) of the time (Gould, 1995). These findings underscore the high likelihood 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 arthropods 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 tephritid 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 location of likely markets and the chance that the 

commodity will be moved to locations suitable for pest survival. Fruit imported into the United 

States typically arrives at multiple ports and is distributed according to market demand. 

Demographics derived from U.S. Census data may be useful in predicting the distribution of 

imported litchi fruit by indicating population centers where demand may be greatest. Three of the 

four most populated states in the United States, Florida, Texas, 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 climates of the pests analyzed. Furthermore, the demand for litchi fruit in the 

United States has been fueled mainly by increasing Asian populations in the country (Evans et al., 

2004). These populations mostly occur on the West Coast, but also have sizable populations in the 

northeast, Chicago (Illinois), and Florida (Snell, 2003). Litchi 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 throughout the country, usually in larger urban and suburban areas where 

specialty markets are common. Consequently, we assume markets can potentially occur 

throughout the United States, often in urban and 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 Climate-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 survival, 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 reproduction. 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 commodity is sent to a few or many destinations 

• proximity of entry, transit and destination points 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 among the arthropods in their potential geographic range in the 

continental United States. The extremely polyphagous species—Bactrocera jarvisi, Bactrocera 

tryoni, Ceratitis capitata, Ceroplastes rubens, Conogethes punctiferalis, Cryptophlebia 

ombrodelta, Isotenes miserana, Nipaecoccus viridis, and Planococcus minor—have hosts that 

include temperate-zone or widely cultivated plants (USDA NRCS, 2006) that should be available 

throughout their potential U.S. range. By comparison, the monophagous 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 more 
Litchi from Australia 

Rev. 006 November 6, 2008 50

limited distribution in the United States (USDA NRCS, 2006) and are less likely to be encountered 

and colonized. 

Australia harvests litchi fruit from mid-October to early April (Biosecurity Australia, 2002); 

therefore, we assumed that litchi would be shipped to the United States during these months. 

Suitable hosts would be available for all the pests 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 period 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 Florida, 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 (October 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)]. Fruits 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 they produce high numbers of fruit, often yearround, are not managed or harvested, and are difficult to survey (Sequeira et al., 2001). 

 

Even if hosts are available for colonization, biological 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 dispersal. Long range dispersal strategies depend on 

large numbers of insects being dispersed so that some may find suitable hosts. Insects arriving 

with fruit represent small populations; as a result, dispersal by air to a host is unlikely. 

Furthermore, successful establishment of these insects in a new environment 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 highly unlikely to co-occur (Miller et al., 

1985), scale insects have a low probability of coming into contact with potential hosts. On the other 

hand, all of the Lepidoptera pests and the mite, A. litchii, have some natural but limited ability to 

disperse. Moths are generally weak fliers and do not disperse far (Smith et al., 1997). The fruit flies 

have excellent dispersal 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, Cryptophlebia 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 Introduction and the Likelihood of Introduction values 

produce the Pest Risk Potential (Table 7). Pest Risk Potential 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 for ‘Quantity imported annually’ was “Medium (2)”. 

Pest Ratings for Pest Opportunity 

Survive 

postharvest 

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 points 
Litchi 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 Potential1

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 United States and likely to follow the pathway of 

imported litchi fruit. We did a more detailed analysis on fifteen pests, fourteen 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 and the Likelihood of Introduction (Table 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, Conogethes punctiferalis, Cryptophlebiaypicaelta, 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 typically 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 inspection, are strongly recommended. Risk mitigation 

options for the quarantine pests of concern associated with litchi fruit from Australia are 

described in Appendix B. A detailed examination 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 Analyst, CPHST, PERAL (primary contact) 

Heather Hartzog, Plant Pathologist/Risk Analyst, CPHST, PERAL 

Reviewers 

Marina Zlotina, Entomologist/Risk Analyst, CPHST, PERAL (scientific review) 

Melissa Fabiano, Writer/Editor, CPHST, PERAL (editorial review) 

5. Literature Cited 

7 CFR § 360. January 1, 2005. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 7, 360, (7 CFR §360 - 

Noxious Weed Regulations). United States Government. 

Abraham, V., and P. D. K. Jayanthi. 1999. Lepidopteran pest complex on mango inflorescence. 

Insect Environment 5(2):51-52. 

AFFA. 2001. Technical market access submission for Australian Mangoes to the USA. 

Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, 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. Entomophaga 22(1):107-110. 

Aitken Soux, P. 1985. Some pests and diseases generally encountered in coffee nurseries. Feuille 

d'Extension No. 53:5 pp. 

Alfieri, S. A., K. R. Langdon, J. W. Kimbrough, N. E. El-Gholl, and C. Wehlburg. 1993. 

Diseases and disorders of Plants in Florida. Florida Department of Agriculture and 

Consumer Services, Division of Plant Industry, 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 (Acarina: Prostigmata) of 

the world. Indira Publishing House, 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 Economic Affairs, Republic of China. 

Anonymous. 1994. Harmful pests of China fruit trees. Second Edition. (English translation 

arranged by Ray Miyamoto, USDA APHIS International Services). China Agriculture 

Science Institute, China Agriculture Press. 1063 pp. 

Arthur, V., and F. M. Wiendl. 1996. Irradiation of Planococcus citri (Risso) (Homoptera: 

Pseudococcidae) with gamma radiation from cobalt-60 to determine the disinfestation 

dose. Anais da Sociedade Entomologica 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 Government 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 Government 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 and 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 Government 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 Government 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 Government Department of Primary Industry and 

Fisheries. http://www2.dpi.qld.gov.au/horticulture/5100.html. 

Astridge, D., H. Fay, and R. Elder. 2004. Horticulture and fresh produce DPI&F Note: Bananaspotting & fruit-spotting bugs in rare fruit. Queensland Government Department of 

Primary Industry and Fisheries. http://www.dpi.qld.gov.au/horticulture/5107.html. 

Azab, A. K., M. F. S. Tawfik, and A. I. Ezz. 1969. Studies on Icerya aegyptiaca (Douglas) 

’Homoptera:Margarodidae). Bulletin-de-la-Societe-Entomologique-d'Egypte 52:155-178. 

BackyardGardner.com. 2003. Map of South America, Central America, and 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 geographical distribution, host 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 Importance. Intercept Ltd., Andover, UK. 

Bergsten, D., D. Lance, and M. Stefan. 1999. Mediterranean 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 Access Submission: Export of Australian Tropical 

Fruits to USA (report submitted to USDA-APHIS July 31, 2002). Agriculture, Fisheries 

and Forestry - Australia, Canberra, Australia. 

Biosecurity Australia. 2007. Biosecurity Australia's Response to APHIS's Risk Assessment for 

Australia Litchi (Litchi chinensis Sonn.). Biosecurity Australia, Australian Government, 

Canberra. 

Biosecurity New Zealand. 2006. BORIC. Last accessed Feb. 23, 2006, 

http://www.biosecurity.govt.nz/files/pests-diseases/registers-lists/boric/boric.xls. 

Bolland, H. R., J. Gutierrez, and C. H. W. Flechtmann. 1998. World catalogue of the spider mite 

family (Acari: Tetranychidae). Brill, Boston. 

Borrer, D. J., C. A. Triplehorn, and N. F. Johnson. 1989. An Introduction to the Study of Insects 

6th Edition. Harcourt Brace College Publishers. xiv + 875 pp. 
Litchi from Australia 

Rev. 006 November 6, 2008 55

Bose, T. K., S. K. Mitra, and D. Sanyal. 2001. Fruits: tropical and subtropical, 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 Plants. 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. CAB International, Wallingford, Oxon, UK. 

CABI. 2002. Crop Protection Compendium. CAB International, Wallingford, Oxon, UK. 

CABI. 2003. Crop Protection Compendium. CAB International, Wallingford, Oxon, UK. 

CABI. 2004. Crop Protection Compendium. CAB International, Wallingford, Oxon, UK. 

CABI. 2005. Crop Protection Compendium. CAB International, Wallingford, Oxon, UK. 

CABI. 2006. Crop Protection Compendium. CAB International, Wallingford, Oxon, UK. 

CABI. 2007. Crop Protection Compendium. CAB 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 European and Mediterranean Plant Protection 

Organization. CAB International (CABI) and the European and Mediterranean Plant 

Protection Organization (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/Diptera/tephriti/pests/adults/. 

CDFA. 2003. Mediterranean Fruit Fly. Pest Detections/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 Profile. California Department of Food and 

Agriculture Last accessed July 10, 2007, 

http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/phpps/pdep/LBAM_profile.htm. 

CERIS. 2006. Export Certification Project - EXCERPT. The Center for Environmental and 

Regulatory Information Systems (CERIS), Entomology 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. International 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 Subtropical Fruits and Nuts. Hafner Press, New 

York, NY. 

Cooper, R. M., and R. D. Oetting. 1987. Hymenopterous parasitoids of tea scale and camellia 

scale in Georgia. Journal of Entomological Science 22(4):297-301. 

CSIRO. 1991. The insects of Australia: a textbook 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 compositional 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 Pests, Diseases and Disorders of Mangoes in the 

Northern Territory: An Illustrated Guide. Entomology and Plant Pathology Sections, 

Resource Protection Division and the Horticulture Division, Department of Business, 

Industry and Resource Development (DBIRD), Northern Territory Government, in 

partnership with the Northern Territory Mango Industry Association. 

http://kakadu.nt.gov.au/pls/portal30/docs/FOLDER/DBIRD_PI/HORTICULTURE/FRUI

T/MANGO/MANGO_PUBLICATIONS/MANGO_PEST_DISEASE_BOOK.PDF. 

DeHaven, W. R. 2005. Citrus from Peru. Proposed 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://creatures.ifas.ufl.edu/orn/scales/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, (eds.). Tortricid pests: their biology, natural 

enemies, and control: World crop pests 5. Elsevier, Amsterdam; New York. 

Dohino, T., S. Masaki, T. Takano, and T. Hayashi. 1997. Effects of electron beam irradiation on 

sterility of Comstock mealybug, Pseudococcus comstocki (Kuwana) (Homoptera: 

Pseudococcidae). Research Bulletin of the Plant 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. University 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 Section, Department of 

Business, Industry, and Resource Development, 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 Organization (EPPO), Paris, France. 

EPPO. 2005. PQR - EPPO's Plant Quarantine Data Retrieval System Version 4.4. European and 

Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization (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/tektran/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 Ways to Improve the Profitability of Lychee in 

South Florida, EDIS document FE497. Department of Food and Resource Economics, 

Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute 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 Agricultural 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. Lincoln University College of Agriculture, 

Canterbury. 312 pp. 

Fitt, G. P. 1990. Comparative fecundity, clutch size, ovariole number and egg size of Dacus 

tryoni and D. jarvisi, and their relationship to body size. Entomologia Experimentalis et 

Applicata 55(1):11-21. 

Fletcher, B. S. 1989a. Life history strategies of tephritid fruit flies. Pages 195-208 in A. S. 

Robinson and G. Hooper, (eds.). Fruit flies, their biology, natural enemies and control, 

World crop pests, Vol. 3b. 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, natural 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 sapindaceous fruits from Hawaii. Journal of Economic 

Entomology 93(6):1848-1854. 

Follett, P. A., and S. S. Sanxter. 2001. Hot water 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 Plants in a Single Volume. James Mills-Hicks. 

1019 pp. 

Gaskell, M. 2003. Small farms and specialty crops. University of California at Davis. 

http://www.sbceo.k12.ca.us/~uccesb1/smfm.htm. 

Gordh, G., and D. H. Headrick. 2001. A dictionary 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 Water treatment and insecticidal 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. Hyphomycetes sobre folhas em decomposição de 

Caesalpinia echinata Lam.: occurrências novas para o Brasil. Revista Brasil. Bot. 26(4): 

489-493. Revista Brasil. Bot. 26(4):489-493. 

Greathead, D. J. 1990. Crawler behaviour and dispersal. Pages 305-308 in D. Rosen, (ed.). 

Armored scale insects: their biology, natural 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: their 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 California 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. Adaptations in scale insects. Annual Review of 

Entomology 42:23-50. 

Gunn, C. R., and C. A. Ritchie. 1988. Identification of disseminules listed in the federal Noxious 

Weed Act (Technical Bulletin Number 1719.). United States Department of Agriculture, 

Agricultural Research Service, U.S.A. 

Gupta, R. K., and R. K. Arora. 2001. Lepidopteran 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 Consumer 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 Soft 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, and M. M. Elson-Harris. 2000. The distribution 

and host plants of fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) 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 disinfestation of green scale (Homoptera: 

Coccidae). Journal of Economic 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 integrated 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 weeds: 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 Publishing Company, Malabar, Florida, U.S.A. 

Horak, M. 1994. Identity of two phyticine pests on macadamia (Lepidoptera: 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 Journal of Biological Sciences 7(5):848-851. 

Huang, T. 1967. A study on morphological features 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/Pests/Durian_fruit_borer.htm. 

IPPC. 1996. International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures, Publication No. 4: 

Requirements for the establishment of pest free areas. Secretariat of the International 

Plant Protection Convention (IPPC), Food and Agriculture Organization of the United 

Nations. 

https://www.ippc.int/servlet/BinaryDownloaderServlet/13700_ISPM_04_English.pdf?file

name=1027433415687_ispm4e.pdf&refID=13700. 

IPPC. 1999. International Standards for Phytosanitary 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/BinaryDownloaderServlet/13738_ISPM_10_English.PDF?fi

lename=1027429549140_Ispm10e.PDF&refID=13738. 

IPPC. 2002a. International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures, Publication No. 5. Glossary of 

Phytosanitary Terms 2002. Secretariat of the International Plant Protection Convention 

(IPPC), Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 

http://www.ippc.int/servlet/BinaryDownloaderServlet/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 Phytosanitary Measures, Publication No. 14: The use of 

integrated measures in a systems approach for pest risk management. Secretariat of the 

International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC), Food and Agriculture Organization of 

the United Nations. 

https://www.ippc.int/servlet/BinaryDownloaderServlet/16210_ISPM_14_English.pdf?file

name=1028115366312_ispm14e.pdf&refID=16210. 

IPPC. 2003. International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures, Publication No. 11: Pest risk 

analysis for quarantine pests including analysis of environmental risks. Secretariat of the 

International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC), Food and Agriculture Organization of 

the United Nations. 

http://www.ippc.int/servlet/BinaryDownloaderServlet/ISPM_11_Rev1_English.pdf?filen

ame=1060250221108_Ispm11Rev1_English.pdf. 

IPPC. 2004. International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures, Publication No. 11: Pest risk 

analysis for quarantine pests including analysis of environmental risks and living 

modified organisms. Secretariat of the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC), 

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 

https://www.ippc.int/servlet/BinaryDownloaderServlet/34163_ISPM_11_E.pdf?filename

=1146658377367_ISPM11.pdf&refID=34163. 

IPPC. 2005. International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures, Publication No. 22: 

Requirements for the establishment of areas of low pest prevalence. Secretariat of the 

International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC), Food and Agriculture Organization of 

the United Nations. 

https://www.ippc.int/servlet/BinaryDownloaderServlet/76455_ICPM7_ISPM22.pdf?filen

ame=1118415619871_ISPM22_2005.pdf&refID=76455. 

IPPC. 2006. International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures, Publication No. 5. Glossary of 

Phytosanitary Terms. Secretariat of the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC), 

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 

https://www.ippc.int/servlet/BinaryDownloaderServlet/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/maclib/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 macadamia - part 2. Predominantly foliage pests. 

Queensland Agricultural Journal 106(1):i-iv. 

Jeppson, L. R., H. H. Keifer, and E. W. Baker. 1975. Mites injurious to economic plants. 

University of California Press, 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. Estimation 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 Natural 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, Natural 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 measures 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 Queensland. Australian Entomological Magazine 

10(4):56-58. 

Lammerink, J. 1990. Effects of fumigation, cold storage, and fungicide 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: Tephritidae) in southern California. Journal of Economic Entomology 

87(6):1377-1383. 

Lester, P. J., P. R. Dentener, R. J. Petry, and 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. Entomological Knowledge 41(2):172-173. 

Lingappa, S., and C. Siddappaji. 1981. Note on the biology of tamarind fruit-borer, 

Cryptophlebia ombrodelta (Lower) (Lepidoptera:–Olethreutidae). 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. Agricultural Research Service, United States 

Department of Agriculture. 

Liu, T., and P. A. Stansly. 2000. Insecticidal activity 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 laboratory 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 chemical control against the leaf-webber, 

Dudua aprobola (Meyr.) on litchi. International 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 Transport 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. Yoshimoto. 2000. Field infestation of rambutan fruits by 

internal-feeding pests in Hawaii. Journal of Economic Entomology 93(3):846-851. 

Meats, A., and S. M. Leighton. 2004. Protein consumption 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. Eurasian 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 Asia-Pacific Region. Food and Agriculture 

Organization, Rome, Italy. 

Menzel, C., and C. McConchie. 1998. The new rural industries, A handbook for Farmers and 

Investors: Lychee and Longan. Rural Industries 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 abundance in Egypt. Mededelingen Faculteit 

Landbouwkundige en Toegepaste Biologische Wetenschappen, Universiteit Gent. 2001; 

66(2b): 537 544. Ghent Belgium: Faculteit Landbouwkundige en Toegepaste Biologische 

Wetenschappen. 

Miller, D. R., V. L. Blackburn, J. A. Davidson, and W. F. Gimpel, Jr. 1985. Pest Risk 

Assessment of Armored Scales on Certain 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 State Region including a description of a new 

species and New United States records. Proceedings 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 Fruit of Orange Trees [Abstract]. Journal of 

Economic Entomology 99(4):1321-1326. 

Morgan, M. G., and M. Henrion. 1990. Uncertainty. 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 Thysanoptera from Australia. 

28 pp. 

Nakhla, J. M., E. M. El-Sherif, N. G. Iskander, and S. M. Ibrahim. 1991. Efficiency of 

fumigation with methyl bromide against the mango bud mite Aceria mangiferae and 

Fusarium moniliforme infecting mango. Egyptian Journal 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. Iskander, and S. M. Ibrahim. 1993. Efficiency of 

fumigation with methyl bromide 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 glossary of phytosanitary terms, Ontario, 

Canada. (RSPM No. 5). 

Narasimham, A. U. 1987. Scale insects and mealybugs on coffee, tea and cardamom and their 

natural enemies. Journal of Coffee Research 17(1):7-13. 

NCSU CIPM. 2005. USDA Crop Profiles. North Carolina State University, Center for Integrated 

Pest Management, Raleigh, NC. http://cipm.ncsu.edu/CropProfiles/. 

Nearctica. 2005. Nearctica: The natural history 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: Australian 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. Lepidoptera. 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 August 4, 2003) from USDA-APHIS-PPQ National 

Identification Services to Leah Millar, Entomologist, USDA-APHIS-PPQ- CPHST Plant 

Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory. 

NIS. 2004a. Personal communication (Email February 3, 2004) from USDA-APHIS-PPQ 

National Identification Services to Marina Zlotina, USDA-APHIS-PPQ-CPHST Plant 

Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory. 

NIS. 2004b. Personal communication (Email February 25, 2004) from USDA-APHIS-PPQ 

National Identification Services to Marina Zlotina, USDA-APHIS-PPQ-CPHST Plant 

Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory. 

NIS. 2006. Personal communication (Email October 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 Natural Resources, University of California 

at Berkeley. http://www.cnr.berkeley.edu/~poboyski/pages/leps2.htm. 

Ofek, G., G. Huberman, Y. Yzhar, 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: Diaspididae) 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 Fruit Pests and Pollinators: Biology, Economic 

Importance, Natural Enemies and Control. CAB International, Wallingford, U.K. 

Orr, R. L., S. D. Cohen, and R. L. Griffin. 1993. Generic non-indigenous pest risk assessment 

process: "The generic process" (For estimating pest risk associated 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). Journal of Natural History 17(4):507-518. 

Park, J., S. Lee, C. Kim, B. Byun, J. D. Park, 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 New 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 Scales in Commercial Shipments 

of Fruit for Consumption to the United States, Revision Original. United States 

Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection 

and Quarantine, Center for Plant Health Science and Technology, Plant Epidemiology 

and Risk Analysis Laboratory (PERAL), Raleigh, NC. 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.aphis.usda.gov/aqas/login.jsp. 

Ploetz, R. C., G. A. Zentmyer, W. T. Nishijima, K. G. Rohrbach, and H. D. Ohr. 1994. 

Compendium of Tropical Fruit Diseases. American Phytopathological Society, St. Paul, 

Minnesota. 88 pp. 

Posada, L. 1989. Lista de insectos dañinos y otras plagas en Colombia. (Boletín Técnico No. 

43.). Instituto Colombiano Agropecuario, División de disciplinas agricolas, Seción de 

Entomología. 

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 Approach to Support the Movement of Regulated 

Articles between Mexico and the United States. 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 Analysis (Draft December 2, 2005). USDA-APHIS 

Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ), Center for Plant Health Science and Technology. 

PPQ. 2006a. Fresh Fruits and Vegetables Import Manual. United States Department of 

Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine 

(PPQ). 

PPQ. 2006b. Treatment Manual. United States Department 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 Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine 

(PPQ). 

Prasad, V. G., and R. K. Singh. 1981. Prevalence and control of litchi mite, Aceria litchii Kiefer 

in Bihar. Indian Journal of Entomology 43(1):67-75. 

Punnaiah, K. C., and V. Devaprasad. 1996. Studies 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 litter: 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 Australia. 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. Kitching, G. W. Beccaloni, and L. M. Hernandez. 2001. 

Hostplants of the Moth and Butterfly Caterpillars of the Oriental Region. The National 

History Museum Publishing, London. 744 pp. 

Robinson, G. S., P. R. Ackery, I. J. Kitching, 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. Kitching, 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. Kitching, 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 Agricultural and Animal Sciences 38(2):191-194. 
Litchi from Australia 

Rev. 006 November 6, 2008 66

Rohrbach, K. G., and W. J. Apt. 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 butterflies (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae) of Brisbane: 

New food plant records and life history notes. 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 States and analysis of selected 

pathways. USDA-APHIS-PPQ Center for Plant Health Science and Technology, Raleigh, 

NC. 

Shea, K. 2006. Treatments for Fruits and Vegetables. Rules and Regulations. Final Rule. Federal 

Register: January 27, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 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 Western 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 mango in Western U.P. Progressive 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. Queensland 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, Phytosanitary Issues Management). Archived at the PERAL 

library, Raleigh, NC. 

Storey, R. I., and D. J. Rogers. 1980. Lepidopterous 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 banana 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 between 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 Natural 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 Taiwanese 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 parasitoids 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/Entomology/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 Information 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 November 3, 2005, http://www.ars-grin.gov/cgibin/npgs/html/paper.–l. 

USDA. 1957. Pests not known to occur in the 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 United 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 United States or of limited distribution, No. 26: 

Mediterranean fruit fly. USDA APHIS PPQ, Hyattsville, MD. 1-8 pp. 

USDA. 1984. Pests not known to occur in the United States or of limited distribution, no. 50: 

Light-brown apple moth. USDA APHIS 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. USDA APHIS PPQ, Hyattsville, MD. 

USDA. 1990. USDA plant hardiness zone map. USDA Agricultural 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, Version 3.5. National Plant Data Center. 

http://plants.usda.gov/. 

USDA NRCS. 2003. The PLANTS Database, Version 3.5. National Plant Data Center. 

http://plants.usda.gov/. 

USDA NRCS. 2006. The PLANTS Database, Version 3.5. National Plant Data Center. 

http://plants.usda.gov/. 

USFWS. 2006. Threatened and endangered species system (TESS). U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. Last accessed May 3, 2006, 

http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/SpeciesReport.do?dsource=plants. 

van den Berg, M. A., E. A. de Villiers, and P. H. Joubert. 2001. Pests and beneficial arthropods 

of tropical and non-citrus subtropical crops in South Africa. Institute for Tropical and 

Subtropical Crops, Nelspruit, South Africa. 

Van Der Geest, L. P. S., and H. H. Evenhuis. 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. Govindan, and V. V. Sulladamath. 1978. A new flower 

bud borer, Phycita sp. (Lepidoptera: Phycitidae) on sapota. Current Research 7(12):208. 

Waite, G. 2004a. Horticulture and fresh produce DPI&F Note: Green Shield Scale in Lychees & 

Longans. Queensland Government Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries. 

http://www.dpi.qld.gov.au/horticulture/5429.html. 

Waite, G. 2004b. Horticulture and fresh produce DPI&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 Department 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. Queensland 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 pollinators: 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 origin. Australian Centre for International Agricultural 

Research, Canberra, Australia. 141 pp. 

Watson, G. W. 2005. Diaspididae: Howardia biclavis. 

http://ip30.eti.uva.nl/bis/diaspididae.php?selected=beschrijving&menuentry=soorten&id

=128. 

Weber, E. 2003. Invasive plant species of the world: 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 Agriculture 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 southern Taiwan. J. Agric. Res. China 51(3):56-64. 

White, I., and M. M. Elson-Harris. 1992. Fruit Flies of Economic Significance: Their 

Identification and Bionomics. CAB International, 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 other 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 other zoological pests of economic plants in 

Thailand. Entomology and Zoology Division, Department 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 incorporating 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 Important 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 sp. 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 1
Litchi 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 2
Litchi 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 2
Litchi 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 Importation of Fresh Litchi Fruit (Litchi chinensis

Sonn.) from Australia into the 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 movement of fruits and vegetables into the United 

States is regulated in 7 CFR §319.56. Currently, the entry of litchi from Australia is not 

authorized under 7 CFR §319.56. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) 

Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ) of the United 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 Pest 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 necessary. 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 quarantine pests of concern. We list phytosanitary measures based 
Litchi from Australia 

Rev. 006 November 6, 2008 75

on evidence of their pest mitigation capability and 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 appropriate level of phytosanitary protection” (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 appropriate level of 

phytosanitary protection (IPPC, 1996, 1999). Establishment and maintenance of pest-free areas 

or production sites should be in compliance with international standards (e.g., IPPC, 1996, 

1999). 

2.2 Establishment of Areas of Low Pest 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 particular pest species occurs at low 

population densities and which is or are subject to effective surveillance and control or 

eradication measures. Procedures for the establishment 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 the area; specification of an upper limit to pest densities; means 

to document and verify all necessary procedures and maintain records; specification of 

phytosanitary procedures (e.g., survey, pest control); and movement 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 early stages of implementation to ensure that importing country 

requirements are met. In particular, target or threshold population densities 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 application of pesticides, fruit bagging) may be used to suppress pest 

populations in orchards or prevent fruit infestation. Sanitation and pesticide applications, as 

essential components of best management practices, are mainstays of commercial fruit 

production (PPQ, 2005). For the fruit flies, PPQ guidelines (PPQ, 2003) could be consulted for a 

systems approach in which sterile insect release and other controls are employed as prophylactic 

measures in response to pest detection or when fruit fly detections reach a certain specified level. 

[Note: Any protocol for establishing and maintaining a pest-free area or an area of low pest 

prevalence should also include a pest-reporting procedure and emergency action plan to address 

target pest detections in the pest-free or low-prevalence 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 accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate issued by 

Australia’s department of agriculture. The certificate should contain additional declarations 

stating the litchi fruits were treated and/or grown in accordance with any phytosanitary measures 

required by APHIS. Production areas 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 requirements for the issuance of a phytosanitary 

certificate. This measure is useful for detecting 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 packinghouse in a timely manner (e.g., within three hours of 

harvest). Packinghouse standards help ensure adequate pest exclusion. While packing the litchi 

fruits for export to the United States, the packinghouse 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 damaged 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 containers 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, Cateremna quadriguttella, Conogethes punctiferalis, Phycita 

leucomilta, Cryptophlebia ombrodelta, and Isotenes miserana, would be difficult to detect during 

post-harvest inspection because they are internal feeders. To increase the likelihood of detecting 

infestations, the fruit could be dissected during 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 reduce 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”. However, feeding damage by this mite causes 

projections of light brown color 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 compressed air (or other treatment) should reduce the 

likelihood of the external insect pests from being 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 detergent, may show a high degree of insecticidal 

activity with minimal risk of phytotoxicity. For example, Liu 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 teaspoon 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 Tephritidae” and “a minimum generic dose of 400 Gy for all plant pests 

of the class Insecta other than pupae and adults of the order Lepidoptera” for “all regulated 

articles (i.e., fruits, vegetables, cut flowers, and foliage)” (Shea, 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 and adults) and all the scale (Hemiptera: 

Coccoidea) pests: 400 Gy 

This final rule does not mention a generic irradiation dose for mites; therefore, the rule does not 

apply to Aceria litchii. 

Considering irradiation is not an approved treatment 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 between the spines of durian fruits 

(IPM DANIDA, 2003), it pupates inside mango fruits (Singh et al., 2002). Pupae of the tortricid 
Litchi 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, and 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 temperature 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 mentioned 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 required 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 options 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 days 
Litchi 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 above, 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 that hot water immersion quarantine treatment for fruit flies 

(49°C water for 20 minutes) should effectively disinfest litchi fruit of Cryptophlebia ombrodelta; 

however, research is required to confirm this efficacy. 

Cold treatment and cold treatement + methyl bromide are potential treatment options for two of 

the Lepidoptera pests in litchi, but research is required to demonstrate efficacy. We conclude 

these treatments represent possible mitigation 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 quarantine 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 external 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 other 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 irradiation 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, irradiation below 400 Gy, and hot water immersion are 

potential treatment options, but research is needed to demonstrate efficacy. This statement is 

based on the following evidence: 

• PPQ recognizes methyl bromide quarantine treatment 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 controlled 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 scale species of concern. Adults of the species 

Planococcus citri, which is in the same genus as Planococcus minor, irradiated with 40 

Gy or higher produce no offspring (Arthur and Wiendl, 1996). There are also reports in 

the literature of irradiation being detrimental to other scale genera. For instance, 

irradiation at 200 Gy or higher sterilized 12-day-old eggs and third-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 crawlers 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 approach 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 

49o

C for 20 minutes resulted in no surviving mealybugs (or other arthropods) (Gould and 

McGuire, 2000). Hot-water immersion is a potentially useful control 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 literature. Evidence suggests the following types of treatment may be worth 

evaluating for mitigation of this mite: fumigation with methyl bromide, irradiation, and, less 

likely, hot water immersion. Methyl bromide treatment for 24 hours at 12.9, 9, and 7.7 mg/litre at 

10, 20, and 30oC, respectively, gave 100 percent mortality of the related species Aceria 

mangiferae on mango twigs (Nakhla et al., 1991, 1993). Methyl bromide fumigation at 32g/m3

for 2 hours at 21oC is recommended for the control of the related species, Aceria tulipae, in 

stored garlic (Lammerink, 1990). As for irradiation, multiple authors report sterility 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, 49o

C hot water 

immersion treatment is effective against mealybugs 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, adoption 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 paperwork and seals on vehicles to ascertain that the chain of custody 

remained intact while in-transit. Litchi fruit from Australia could potentially be inspected by 

APHIS in Australia under a preclearance program. 

3. Monitoring and Traceability 

We recommend that operational arrangements include provisions for the following: 

• Inspection, treatment, and other prescribed phytosanitary procedures 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 identify the approved production site 

4. Conclusion 

There are multiple options available for mitigating pests 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 combined measures include orchard monitoring and 

management programs to achieve and maintain area pest freedom or low pest prevalence, 

packinghouse inspection and treatments, phytosanitary certification, quarantine treatments, 

maintenance of consignment security and traceability in transit, and port-of-entry inspection. 

Table 2 summarizes options for risk mitigation. 

This appendix does not purport to establish 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

Cold treatment Research required to demonstrate efficacy 

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 

Hot water immersion Research required to demonstrate efficacy 

combined with low pest 

prevalence 

C. capitata PPQ-recognized quarantine treatment for 

litchi 

Vapor heat combined B. jarvisi, B. tryoni Research required to demonstrate efficacy 

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

Fumigation combined Research required to demonstrate efficacy 

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