## Importation of Fresh Fruit of **Highbush Blueberry** 

**( V**  **accinium corymbosum**  **L innaeus**  **) and**  **its hybrid**  **vari e**  **tie s**  **Southern Highbush Blueberry [**  **V .**  **corymbosum x**  **angustifolium (**  **V**

**. x atlanticum**  **) and**  **V**

**. corymbosum**  **x virgatum**  **] into the Continental United States from**  **Morocco A Qualitative, Pathway**  **- I**  **nitiated Pest Risk Assessment**

**March 23 , 201**  **2 Version**  **2**

**Agency Contact:** Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory Center for Plant Health Science and Technology United States Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Plant Protection and Quarantine 1730 Varsity Drive, Suite 300 Raleigh, NC 27606Pest Risk Assessment for Blueberry from Morocco

Ver. 2 March 23 , 2012 ii 

### Executive Summary The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHI S) of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) prepared this document to examine plant pest risks associated with the movement of fresh fruit of the varieties Misty, Sharpblue (also Sharpeblue), Biloxi, Gulf Coast, O’Neal, Star, and Emerald of southern highbush blueberry (Ericaceae) from Morocco into the continental United States. These blueberry varieties are variously

considered to be Vaccinium corymbosum L. or its hy

brids V. corymbosum x angustifolium [possible sy nony m V. atlanticum ] and V . corymbosum x virgatum (sy n. V. ashei) (NGRP, 2011 ; NRCS , 2011). Morocco has proposed to have the commodity treated with post - harvest cold storage , but it has not been certified to meet or exceed PPQ T107
- a as a condition of entry (Hilali, 2010). In addition, Morocco will be growing blueberry p l ants within net houses and utilizing hand
-picking , hand
sorting , and hand
- grading (Hilali, 2010)
. We developed a list of pests reported in Morocco that attack blueberry , based on the scientific literature, port
- of

- entry pest interception data, and information provided by the government of Morocco . From the pest list, we identified two quarantine pests that follow the commodity pathway of fresh blueberry fruit from Morocco and that are candidates for further mitigation
. **Type Taxonomy**  **Pest Scientific Name Pest Risk**  **Potential** Arthropods Diptera: Tephritidae Ceratitis capitata (Wiedemann) High Fungi Ascomycetes : Heliotales Monilinia fructigena Honey ex Whetzel 1945 High We rated Ceratitis capitata and Monilinia fructigena both as H igh risk. This risk anal ys is is onl y valid when the described post
- harvest processing procedures are followed; otherwise, additional anal ys es for quarantine pests of concern could be required. Risk management will be addressed further in a separate risk mitigation document
.Pest Risk Assessment for Blueberry from Morocco

Ver. 2 March 23 , 2012 iii 

### Table of Contents **Executive Summary ................................**  **................................ ................................**  **...................... ii**  **1. Introduction ................................**  **................................ ................................**  **............................... 1**  1.1. Background
................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 1 1.2. Standard Post
- Harvest Processing
................................ ................................ ....................... 1 **2. Risk Assessment ................................**  **................................ ................................**  **........................ 2**  2.1. Initiating Event: Proposed Action
................................ ................................ ........................ 2 2.2. Assessment of the Weed Potential of Blueberry
................................ ................................ . 2 2.3. Current Status ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 3 2.4. Pest Categorization
................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 6 2.5. Analysis of Quarantine Pests
................................ ................................ ............................. 15 **3. Pest Risk Potential and Conclusions ................................**  **................................ .....................**  **20 4. Authors and Reviewers**  **................................ ................................**  **................................ ...........**  **20 5. Literature Cited**  **................................ ................................**  **................................ ......................**  **21**Pest Risk Assessment for Blueberry from Morocco

Ver. 2 March 23, 2012 1 

### 1. Introduction **1.1. Background** This document was prepared b y the Plant Epidemiology and Risk Anal ys is L aboratory of the Center for Plant Health Science and Technology , USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHI S), Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ), in response to a request to evaluate the risks associated with the importation of commercially produced fresh fruit of southern highbush blueberry , Vaccinium corymbosum L. and its hybrids V. corymbosum x angustifolium and V. corymbosum x virgatum (sy n. V. ashei), (Ericaceae) from Morocco into the continental United States. The International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) provides guidance for conducting pest risk anal ys es. The methods used here are consistent with guidelines provided b y the IPPC, specificall y the International Standard for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPM) on ‘Pest Risk Analysis for Quarantine Pests, Including Analysis of Environmental Risks and Living Modified Organisms’ (IPPC, 2009: I SPM #11). The use of biological and phy tosanitary terms is consistent with the ‘Glossary

of Phy t osanitary Terms and the Compendium of Phy tosanitary Terms’ (IPPC, 2009: I SPM #5). Three stages of pest risk anal ys is are described in international standards: Stage 1, Initiation, Stage 2, Risk Assessment, and Stage 3, Risk Management. This document sati sfies the requirements of Stages 1 and 2. This is a qualitative risk anal ys is; estimates of risk are expressed in terms of High, Medium, and Low pest risk potentials based on the combined ratings for specified risk elements (PPQ, 2000) related to the probability

and consequences of importing this fresh fruit of southern highbush blueberry , Vaccinium corymbosum L. and its hybrids V. corymbosum x angustifolium and V. corymbosum x virgatum (sy n. V. ashei), (Ericaceae) commodity from Morocco . For the purposes of this assessment High, Medium, and L ow probabilities will be defined as: High: More likel y to occur than not to occur Medium: As likely

to occur as not to occur Low: More likely not to occur than to occur The appropriate risk management strategy for a particular pest depends on the risk posed by that pest. Identification of appropriate sanitary and phy tosanitary measures to mitigate the risk, if any, for this pest is undertaken as part of Stage 3 (Risk Management). Other than listing possible mitigation options for the pests of concern, we did not discuss risk management in this document. **1.2. Standard Post -**  **H arvest Processing**  We assumed that the commodity would undergo the following minimal standard post
- harvest processing described b y the government of Morocco (Hilali, 2010) :  Grow blueberry

varieties of poor to fair host preference for Ceratitis capitata (Mediterranean fruit fl y , or Medfl y)Pest Risk Assessment for Blueberry from Morocco

Ver. 2 March 23, 2012 2  growing blueberries within net houses  standard schedule of fungicide sprays  hand
- harvesting daily when berries are first ripe  hand
-packing and hand
- grading  extended cold treatment that has not been certified to meet the requirements of PPQ T107 - a, based on information received from Morocco. 

### 2. Risk **Assessment 2.1. Initiating Event: Proposed Action**  We prepared this commodity
-based, pathway
- initiated pest risk assessment in response to a request for the USDA’s authorization to import fresh blueberry fruit from Morocco into the continental United States (Hilali, 2010 ). The movement of fruits and vegetable s from foreign countries, such as Morocco , into the United States is regulated in 7 CFR §319.56 (2011). Currently , the entry

of fresh blueberry fruit from Morocco into the continental United States is not authorized under 7 CFR §31 9 .56; the government of M orocco seeks a change in this Federal Regulation to allow entry. **2.2. Assessment of the Weed Potential of Blueberry**  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 weed potential screening for blueberry did not prompt a pest - initiated risk assessment (Table 1). **Table 1.** Assessment of weed p otential of Vaccinium corymbosum Linnaeus and hy brids. **Commodity sc**  **ientific name:**  Vaccinium corymbosum Linnaeus ( Ericaceae ) and Vaccinium hy brids of V

. corymbosum x angustifolium and V. corymbosum x virgatum (sy n. V . ashei). **Common name:** highbush blueberry , southern highbush blueberry ( CABI , 201 1 ) **Phase 1:** Consider whether the species is new to or not widely prevalent in the United States (exclude plants grown under USDA permit in approved containment facilities). The species Vaccinium corymbosum (highbush blueberry) and the parents of its hy brids ( southern highbush blueberry) are all native to the United States with distribution s , as follows : V. corymbosum : AL , AR, CT , DC , DE , GA , IL , IN , KY , LA , MA , MD, ME , MI , MS , N C , NH , NJ , NY , OH , OK, PA , RI , SC , TN , TX , VA , VT , WA , WI , WV ; V. angustifolium : CT , DE , IA, IL , IN , MA , MD, ME , MI , MN , NC, NH , NJ , NY , OH , PA , RI , TN, VA , VT , WI , WV ; and V. virgatum (sy n. V. ashei): AL , AR , FL , GA, LA , MS , NC, SC, TX (NGRP, 2011 ; NRCS , 2011 )
. **Phase 2:** Invasive / We ed Status: Listing as Weed The species is listed in: NO Geographical Atlas of World Weeds (Holm et al., 1991a) NO World’s Worst Weeds (Holm et al., 1991b) NO World Weeds: Natural Histories and Distribution (Holm et al., 1997) NO Weed Science Society of America (WSSA, 2010) NO Federal Noxious Weed List (PPQ, 2010) NO Economically Important Foreign Weeds (Reed, 1977)Pest Risk Assessment for Blueberry from Morocco

Ver. 2 March 23, 2012 3 NO Id entification of disseminules listed in the Federal Noxious Weed Act (Gunn and Ritchie, 1988) NO Global Invasive Species Database (ISSG, 2010). YES A Global Compendium of Weeds (Randall, 2011) NO Invasive Species of the World (Weber, 2003) NO Invasive Plant Atlas of the United States (CI SEH, 2011) NO Noxious weeds in the United States and Canada (Rice, 2010) NO State Noxious Weeds. Invasive and Noxious weeds (NRCS , 2011) Other: Scientific literature, Internet sources, etc.: NO Florida's Invasive Species List, Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council (FLEPPC, 2009) NO Pacific Island Ecos ystems at Risk (PIER , 2010) NO Noxious weed list for Australian states and territories (Australian Weeds Committee , 201 0 ) **Phase 3:** Summary

and Conclusions Vaccinium corymbosum , V. angustifolium , and V. virgatum ( sy n. V. ashei) are present in 33 U.S. states and territories and are native to the United States (NRCS , 2011)
. Specific information referring to blueberry as a weed in other parts of the world , with specific patterns of invasion, is described in Randall (2007) as “invasive, a weed of natural areas, or an established escape from cultivation”. Eight species of Vaccinium are listed by Holm et al. (1991a) as weeds whose rank s of importance are unknown , but all these species ; i.e.: V. angustifolium , V. arboretum , V. ovalifolium , V. ovatum , V. oxycoccus , V. parvifolium , V. stamineum , and V. vitis
- id aea , are native to the United States, so their weed potential is not rated
. **Conclusion:** We proceeded with the commodity pathway
- initiated pest risk assessment because Vaccinium corymbosum , V. angustifolium , and V. virgatum (s yn. V. ashei) are native to the continental United States and are grown as crop s (NRCS , 2011 ). Because blueberry is native in the continental United States, importing fresh fruit from Morocco should not increase the plant’s weed potential beyond that existing at present. A pest - initiated weed risk assessment is therefore not necessary
. 

### 2.3. Current Status Blueberry fruit for consumption of species V. corymbosum [and the hy brids V. corymbosum x angustifolium and V. corymbosum x virgatum (syn. V. ashei)] may enter the continental United from Canada, Mexico, New Zealand, and South Africa (Table 2); it is not authorized to enter from any other countries or territories (APHI S , 2011 )
. Vaccinium angustifolium, Vaccinium ashei (junior sy

nony m of V. virgatum ) , and Vaccinium corymbosum (highbush blueberry , southern highbush blueberry , arandano azule [S panish ] ) may also be entered under the broader category , Vaccinium spp. , from Argentina, Armenia, Australia (Tasmania only), Aberbaijan, Belarus, Belgium, Bolivia, Bulgaria, Chil e, Colombia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Georgia, Iceland, Japan (all areas other than Amami, Bonin, Ry uky u, Tokara, and Volcano Islands), Kazakhstan, Ky

rgy zstan, L atvia, Li thuania, Moldova, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway , Peru, Poland, Russian Federation, Sweden, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, the UnitedPest Risk Assessment for Blueberry from Morocco

Ver. 2 March 23, 2012 4 Kingdom (England, Orkney , Scotland, and Wales), Uruguay , and Uzbekistan (APHIS , 2011 ; NGRP, 2011 ) ( Table 3 ). **Table 2.** Countries or regions from which blueberry fruit are permitted entry into the continental United States (APHI S , 2011). **Country or Region Requirement for Entry**  **for Blueberry** Canada 1) Enterable into all ports
- of
- entry in the United States ; 2) if field
- grown, grown May

1 through October 31 ; and 3 ) subject to inspectio n at port - of
entry and all general requirements of 7 CFR 319.56
- 10 . Mexico 1) Enterable into all ports
- of
- entry in the United States, 2) import p ermit required, and 3) subject to inspection at port
- of
- entry and all general requirements of 7 CFR 319.56
- 3. New Zealand 1) Enterable into all ports
- of
- entry in the United States, 2) subject to inspection at port - of

- entry and all general requirements of 7 CFR 319.56
- 3, and 3) if PPQ Form 203 is lacking, requires a phy tosanitary certificate issued by Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF) in New Zealand with the declaration “The fruit in this consignment have been inspected and found free of all life stages of Epiphyas postvittana .” South Africa 1) Import p ermit required ; 2) subject to inspection at port
- of
- entry and all general requirements of 7 CFR 319.56
- 3 ; 3) may or may not be pre
cleared: a) if pre
- cleared: i ) may

enter all ports
- of

- entry and ii ) b e accompanied b y PPQ Form 203 signed b y the APHI S inspector for the country ; or b ) if not pre - cleared: i ) must receive treatment T101
- i
- 1 - 1 or T107 - a, ii ) may enter only at ports located north of 39  latitude and east of 104  longitude, and iii ) at ports with approved cold treatment facilities; 4) must be accompanied by

a phytosanitary

certificate issued by the National Plant Protection Organization of South Africa ; 5) commercial consignments only ; and 6) condition of entry treatment T101 - i
- 1 - 1 or T107 - a. **Table 3**  **.** Countries or regions from which Vaccinium spp. are permitted entry into the continental Unite d States (APHI S , 2011). **Country Conditions**  Argentina 1) Import p ermit is required ; 2) subject to inspection at port
- of
- entry and all general requirements of 7 CFR 319.56
- 3 ; 3) condition of entry treatment T107 - a - 1or T101 - i
- 1 - 1 unless accompanied by a phy tosanitary certificate with the declaration “ Meets the provisions of 7 CFR 319.56 - 5” then waive treatment ; 4) if treatment has not been completed before entry , may arrive onl y at , a) ports located north of 39  latitude and east of 104  longitude, and b) ports that have approved cold treatment facilities ; and 5) if pre
- cleared, must be accompanied by PPQ Form 203 signed b y the APHI S inspector on site.Pest Risk Assessment for Blueberry from Morocco

Ver. 2 March 23, 2012 5 **Country Conditions**  Armenia Azerbaijan Belarus Bulgaria Estonia Finland Georgiaa Iceland Japan**b** Kazakhstan Ky rgyzstan Lithuania M oldova, Republic of Netherlands New Zealand Norway Poland Russian Federation Sweden Tajikistan Turkmenistan Ukraine United Kingdom c Uzbekistan 1) Enterable into all ports
- of
- entry in the United States, 2) import p ermit is required, and 3 ) subject to inspection at port
- of
- entry and all general requirements of 7 CFR 319.56
- 3.

Belgium Denmark 1) Import p ermit is required and 2) subject to inspection at port
- of
entry and all general requirements of 7 CFR 319.56
- 3, 3) enterable into North Atlantic (NA) ports only (north of 39  latitude and east of 104  longitude). Bolivia Colombia Ecuador Guatemala Peru Uruguay 1) Import p ermit is required ; 2) subject to inspection at port
- of
- entry and all general requirements of 7 CFR 319.56
- 3 ; 3) condition of entry treatment T107 - a - 1or T101 - i
- 1 - 1 unless accompanied by a phy tosanitary certificate with the declaration “ Meets the provisions of 7 CFR 319.56 - 5” then waive treatment ; 4) if treatment has not been completed before entry , may arrive onl y at a) ports located north of 39  latitude and east of 104  longitude, and b) ports that have approved cold treatment facilities ; 5) if pre
- cleared , must be accompanied by PPQ Form 203 signed b y the APHI S inspector on site ; 6) commercial consignments onl y ; and 7) must be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate issued b y the National Plant Protection Organization of the country of origin.Pest Risk Assessment for Blueberry from Morocco

Ver. 2 March 23, 2012 6 **Country Conditions**  Chile 1) Enterable into all ports
- of
- entry in the United States ; 2) import p ermit is required ; 3 ) subject to inspection at port of entry and all general requirements of 7 CFR 319.56
- 3 ; 4 ) commercial consignment only ; and 5 ) phytosanitary certificate pest
- free area : consignment must be accompanied b y a Chilean Phytosanitary Certificate with the additional declaration stating “The fruit in this consignment comes from an area that is not under quarantine for Mediterranean fruit fly ( Ceratitis capitata ).” Australia (T asmania only) 1) Enterable into all ports
- of
- entry in the United States ; 2) import p ermit is required ; 3 ) subject to inspection at port
- of
- entry and all general requirements of 7 CFR 319.56
- 3 ; 4 ) required that each consignment be certified as Tasmanian origin by an authorized official of Tasmania ; and 5 ) each container be marked to identify it as being of Tasmanian origin. a Country of b A ll areas other than Amami, Bonin, Ry uky u, Tokara, and Volcano Islands c England, Orkney

I slands, Scotl and, and Wales 

### 2.4. Pest Categorization 2.4.1. Pests associated with blueberry The pests associated with blueberry (in any country) that occur in Morocco (on any host) are listed in Table 4 . We identified the presence or absence of these pests in the continental United States, the quarantine status of the pests with respect to the continental United States, the generall y affected plant part or parts, whether quarantine pests are likel y to fo llow the pathway and enter the continental United States on commercial blueberry fruit, and pertinent references. We developed this pest list based on the scientific literature, USDA port
- of
- entry pest interception data, and information provided by the gov ernment of Morocco . Pests in shaded rows are quarantine pests that are candidates for further risk mitigation, since we consider them reasonabl y likel y to follow the pathway of commercial fruit shipments. We summarize these pests in a separate table (Table 5 ). Please note that in the pest list (Table 4 ), we do not provide information on whether the pest is likely to follow the pathway

for non
- quarantine pests. Even if non
- quarantine pests are able to follow the pathway , phy

tosanitary measures against thes e pests would not be justified because they already occur in the continental United States. Therefore, for non
- quarantine pests we indicate “Follow pathway” with N/A (not applicable).Pest Risk Assessment for Blueberry from Morocco

Ver. 2 March 23, 2012 7 **Table 4**  **.** Pests associated with blueberry , Vaccinium corymbosum , that are also present in Morocco . **Scientific Name Reported on** 

**Vaccinium Morocco**  **and U.S.**

**Distribution 1**  **Quaran**   ** tine pest****2 Plant part(s)** 

**association 3**  **Follow**

**pathway 3**  **ARTHROPODS ACARI:**  **Tarsonemidae** Tarsonemus sp. PestID , 2011 MO: PestID , 2011 ; US: CABI, 2011 (as synonym) 4 Yes Fl, Fr, L, S, T ( CABI, 2011 ) Yes **ACARI: Tenuipalpidae** Brevipalpus sp. PestID , 2011 MO: PestID , 2011 ; US: CABI, 2011 Yes L, S ( CABI, 2011 ) No **ACARI: Tetranychidae**  Tetranychus urticae Koch Hilali, 2010 MO: Hilali, 2010 ; US: CABI, 2011 No Fl, Fr, L, St (CABI, 2011) N/A **INSECTA Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae**  Chaetocnema sp. PestID , 2011 MO: PestID , 2011 ; US: CABI, 2011 Yes Fl, Fr, L, S, R ( CABI, 2011) Yes **Coleoptera: Curculionidae /Apioninae**  Apion sp. PestID , 2011 MO: PestID , 2011 ; US: Arnett, 1985 Yes S, T ( CABI, 2011 ) No **Coleoptera: Curculionidae/Brachyderinae** Sitona sp. PestID , 2011 MO: CABI, 2011, PestID , 2011 ; US: Arnett, 1985, CABI, 2011 Yes L, R ( CABI, 2011 ) No **Coleoptera: Curculionidae/Cylindrorhininae** Listroderes sp. PestID , 2011 MO: CABI, 2011 ; US: Arnett, 1985, CABI, 2011 Yes L, S, R ( CABI, 2011 ) No **Coleoptera: Curculionidae/Scolytinae** Orthotomicus sp. PestID , 2011 MO: CABI, 2011 ; US: Arnett, 1985, CABI, 2011 Yes S, T ( CABI, 2011 ) No **Diptera: Tephritidae** Ceratitis capitata (Wiedemann) Hilali, 2010 ; Follett et

al., 2011 MO: Hilali, 2010,

CABI, 2011 ; US: CABI, 2011 5 [ Yes ] Fr ( CABI, 2011 ) Yes 6

1 Geographic Distribution: MO = Morocco, US = United States. Individual U.S. states are listed only if the pest species is considered a quarantine pest for the United States. 2 Brackets [] around the quarantine status designation indicate that the pest has a limited distribution in the continental United States and is either under official control or under consideration for official control. 3 Plant part association: Fl = flower, Fr = fruit, L = leaf, R = root, S = stem, T = twig. For non
- quarantine pests, N/A (not applicable) is used for “Follow Pathway.” 4 Polyphagotarsonemus latus , formerly Tarsonemus latus , is distributed in Morocco and the United States (CABI, 2011). 5 Eradicated or under official control
.Pest Risk Assessment for Blueberry from Morocco

Ver. 2 March 23, 2012 8 **Scientific Name Reported on** 

**Vaccinium Morocco**  **and U.S.**

**Distribution 1**  **Quaran**   ** tine pest****2 Plant part(s)** 

**association 3**  **Follow**

**pathway 3**  **Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae** Bemisia tabaci (Genadius) Hilali, 2010 MO: Hilali, 2010, CABI, 2011 ; US: CABI, 2011 No 7 N/A N/A Trialeurodes vaporariorum Westwood PestID , 2011 MO: CABI, 2011 ; US: Arnett, 1985, CABI, 2011 No N/A N/A Trialeurodes sp. PestID , 2011 MO: CABI, 2011, PestID , 2011 ; US: Arnett, 1985, CABI, 2011 Yes Fl, Fr, L ( CABI, 2011 ) Yes **Hemiptera: Aphididae** Aphis fabae Scopoli Blackman and

Eastop, 2000, 2006; Isaacs and Woodford, 2007 MO: CABI, 2011 ; US:

CABI, 2011 No N/A N/A Aphis gossypii Glover Blackman and

Eastop, 2000, 2006; Isaacs and Woodford, 2007 MO: CABI, 2011 ; US:

CABI, 2011 No N/A N/A Aphis spiraecola Patch Blackman and

Eastop, 2006 MO: CABI, 2011 ; US:

CABI, 2011 No N/A N/A Aphis sp. Hilali, 2010 MO: Hilali, 2010 , CABI, 2011 ; US: CABI, 2011 Yes Fl, L, S, T ( CABI, 2011 ) No Macrosiphum euphorbiae Thomas Blackman and

Eastop, 2006 MO: CABI, 2011 ; US:

CABI, 2011 No N/A N/A Neomyzus circumflexus (Buckton); syn s . Aulacorthum circumflexum Buckton , Myzus circumflexus Buckton Blackman and

Eastop, 2006 MO: Mimuer, 1934 ,

CABI, 1990, Mau and Kessing, 2007 ; US: CABI, 1990, Mau and Kessing, 2007 No N/A N/A

Sitobion sp. Blackman and

Eastop, 2006 MO: CABI, 2011 ; US:

CABI, 2011 Yes Fl, Fr, L, S ( CABI, 2011 ) Yes Toxoptera aurantii Boyer de Fonscolombe Blackman and

Eastop, 2006 MO: CABI, 2011 ; US:

CABI, 2011 No N/A N/A

6 Ceratitis capitata , or Mediterranean fruit fly (Medfly) may follow the pathway because standard harvest and postharvest processing may not meet USDA requirements for cold storage (§1.2). Specifically, the use of non
-preferred varieties and grow th inside net houses may eliminate contact with the fruit, but cold storage after harvest has not been certified to meet the requirements of PPQ T107
- a that will kill any insects present. See discussion in section 2.4.2. 7 No action required except for whitefly
- infested tomato from Dominican Republic (PestID, 2011).Pest Risk Assessment for Blueberry from Morocco

Ver. 2 March 23, 2012 9 **Scientific Name Reported on** 

**Vaccinium Morocco**  **and U.S.**

**Distribution 1**  **Quaran**   ** tine pest****2 Plant part(s)** 

**association 3**  **Follow**

**pathway 3**  **Hemiptera: Diaspididae** Chionaspis salicis (Linnaeus) Ben - Dov et al., 2011 MO : Ben - Dov et al ., 2011; US : Ben - Dov et al., 2008 No N/A N/A Diaspidiotus ostreaeformis (Curtis) Ben - Dov et al ., 2011 MO : Ben - Dov et al ., 2011 ; US (20 states) : Ben - Dov et al ., 2011 No N/A N/A Diaspidiotus zonatus (Frauenfeld) Ben - Dov et al ., 2011 MO : Ben - Dov et al ., 2011 [ Yes ] Fr, S, T ( CABI, 2011 ) 8 Yes 9 Fiorinia sp. Ben - Dov et al
. , 2011;

PestID , 2011 MO: Ben - Dov et al
. ,

2011; PestID , 2011 US: Arnett, 1985 Yes L ( PestID ) N o Hemiberlesia sp. CABI, 2011; PestID ,

2011 MO: CABI, 2011; Ben Dov et al
. , 2011 US: Arnett, 1985; CABI, 2011; Ben - Dov et al
. , 2011 10 Yes Fr, L, S ( CABI, 2011 ) Yes
Lepidosaphes ulmi (Linnaeus) Ben - Dov et al ., 2011 MO : Ben - Dov et al ., 2011 ; US : Ben - Dov et al ., 2011 No N/A N/A **Hemiptera: Lygaeidae** Nysius sp. PestID , 2011 MO: PestID , 2011 ; US: Arnett, 1985 Yes Fr, L ( CABI, 2011 ) Yes **Lepidoptera: Noctuidae** Agrotis sp. PestID , 2011 MO: PestID , 2011 ; US: Arnett, 1985; CABI, 2011 Yes L , S, R ( CABI, 2011 ) N o **Lepidoptera: Tortricidae** Grapholita sp. PestID , 2011 MO: CABI, 2011; PestID , 2011 ; US: Arnett, 1985; CABI, 2011 Yes Fl, Fr ( CABI, 2011 ) Yes **Thysanoptera: Thripidae** Heliothrips haemorrhoidalis Bouché Hummer et al
. , 2009 MO: CABI, 2011 ; US: CABI, 2011 No N/A N/A Thrips sp. PestID , 2011 MO: PestID , 2011 ; US: Arnett, 1985 Yes Fl, Fr, L ( CABI, 2011 ) Yes

8 We found no information about plant part association for this species . Entries based on Diaspidiotus general biology (CABI, 2011)
. 9 Armo red scales (Diaspididae) may enter on commercial fruit for consumption, but are highly unlikely to become established via this pathway. Please see discussion in section 2.4.2 for more details. 10 Hemiberlesia rapax attacks Vaccinium corymbosum and is virtually cosmopolitan in distribution (CABI, 2011).Pest Risk Assessment for Blueberry from Morocco

Ver. 2 March 23, 2012 10 **Scientific Name Reported on** 

**Vaccinium Morocco**  **and U.S.**

**Distribution 1**  **Quaran**   ** tine pest****2 Plant part(s)** 

**association 3**  **Follow**

**pathway 3**  **FUNGI AND CHROMISTANS** Alternaria alternata CABI, 2011 ; Farr et

al , 2011 MO: CABI, 2011 ; Farr

et al , 2011 ; US: CABI, 2011 ; Farr et al , 2011 No N/A N/A Alternaria tenuissima (Kunze: Fr.) Wiltshire Milholland and

Meyer, 1984; Caruso and Ramsdell, 1995; Farr et al , 2011 MO: Rieuf, 1969
- 1971 ;

US: CABI, 2011; Farr et al , 2011 No N/A N/A
Alternaria sp. PestID , 2011 MO: Rieuf, 1969
- 1971 US: CABI, 2011; Farr et al , 2011 Yes Fr, L, S ( CABI, 2011 ) Yes Ascochyta sp. PestID , 2011 MO: PestID , 2011 ; US: Farr et al , 2011 Yes Fr, L. S ( CABI, 2011 ) Yes Botryosphaeria dothidea (Moug.:Fr.) Ces. & De Not. Milholland and

Meyer, 1984; Farr et al , 2011 MO: Rieuf, 1969 ; US:

CABI, 2011; Farr et al , 2011 No N/A N/A Botryosphaeria obtusa (Schwein.) Shoemaker; syn. Physalospora obtusa (Schwein.) Cooke Farr et al , 2011 MO: Rieuf, 1969
- 1971 ; US: Farr et al , 2011 No N/A N/A

Botryosphaeria sp. PestID , 2011 MO: CABI, 2011; PestID , 2011 ; US: CABI, 2011; Farr et al , 2011 Yes Fl, Fr, L, S ( CABI, 2011 ) Yes Botrytis cinerea Pers.:Fr. ; anamorph: Botryotinia fuckeliana (de Bary) Whetzel Milholland and

Meyer, 1984; Hilali, 2010; CABI, 2011; Farr et al , 2011 MO: Rieuf, 1969
- 1971 ;

Hilali, 2010; CABI, 2011 ; US: CABI, 2011; Farr et al , 2011 No N/A N/A

Camarosporium sp. PestID , 2011 MO: PestID , 2011 ; US: Farr et al , 2011 Yes L, S, T ( Farr et al , 2011 ) N o Cercospora sp. Farr et al , 2011 MO: Rieuf, 1969
- 1971 ; US: CABI, 2011; Farr et al , 2011 Yes S ( CABi, 2011 ) N o Colletotrichum sp. PestID , 2011 MO: PestID , 2011 ; US: CABI, 2011; Farr et al , 2011 Yes Fl, Fr, L, S ( CABI, 2011 ) YesPest Risk Assessment for Blueberry from Morocco

Ver. 2 March 23, 2012 11 **Scientific Name Reported on** 

**Vaccinium Morocco**  **and U.S.**

**Distribution 1**  **Quaran**   ** tine pest****2 Plant part(s)** 

**association 3**  **Follow**

**pathway 3**  Davidiella tassiana (De Not.) Crous & U. Braun Syn.: Mycosphaerella tassiana (De Not.) Johans. Anamorph: Cladosporium herbarum (Pers. : Fr.) Link Farr et al , 2011 MO: Rieuf, 1969
- 1971 ; US: Farr et al , 2011 No N/A N/A

Glomerella cingulata (Stoneman) Spauld. & H. Schrenk Anamorph: Colletotrichum gloeosporioides (Penz.) Penz. & Sacc. In Penz. Caruso and Ramsdell,

1995; Farr et al , 2011 MO: Rieuf, 1969
- 1971 ;

US: CABI, 2011; Farr et al , 2011 No N/A N/ A

Kalmusia coniothyrium (Fuckel) Huhndorf Syn.: Leptosphaeria coniothyrium (Fuckel) Sacc. Anamorph : Microsphaeropsis fuckelii (Sacc.) Boerema CABI, 2011; Farr et

al , 2011 MO: CABI, 2011 ; US:

CABI, 2011 No N/A N/A

Monilinia fructigena Honey ex Whetzel CABI, 2011 MO: Rieuf, 1969
- 1971 Yes Fl, Fr, S ( CABI, 2011 ) Yes 11 Mycosphaerella sp. PestID , 2011 MO: PestID , 2011 Yes Fr, L, S ( CABI, 2011 ) Yes Nectria cinnabarina (Tode: Fr.) Fr. Farr et al , 2011 MO: Rieuf, 1969
- 1971 US: Farr et al , 2011 No N/A N/A Penicillium expansum Link CABI, 2011; Farr et

al , 2011 MO: Rieuf, 1969
- 1971

US: CABI, 2011 No N/A N/A Pestalotiopsis maculans (Corda) Nag Raj S yn s . : P
. guepini Desmaz , Pestalotia guepini Desmaz Farr et al , 2011 MO: Rieuf, 1969
- 1971 US: Farr et al , 2011 No N/A N/A

11 This pathogen may, but is unlikely, to follow the pathway bec ause of the following standard production, harvest, and post
harvest processing measures (see §1.2): regular fungicide applications, harvest of slightly immature fruit, indoor production to eliminate wounds from attacking insects, visual inspection and cul ling (Hilali, 2010). See discussion in section 2.4.2.Pest Risk Assessment for Blueberry from Morocco

Ver. 2 March 23, 2012 12 **Scientific Name Reported on** 

**Vaccinium Morocco**  **and U.S.**

**Distribution 1**  **Quaran**   ** tine pest****2 Plant part(s)** 

**association 3**  **Follow**

**pathway 3**  Pestalotiopsis sp. PestID , 2011 MO: PestID , 2011 ; US: Farr et al , 2011 Yes L, S, T ( Farr et al , 2011) /No Pestalotiopsis maculans (Corda) Nag Raj syn . P
. guepini Desmaz. , Pestalotia guepini Desmaz. Farr et al , 2011 MO: Rieuf, 1969
- 1971 US: Farr et al , 2011 No N/A N/A

Phaeosphaeria sp. PestID , 2011 MO: CABI, 2011, PestID , 2011 ; US: CABI, 2011 Yes Fl, L ( CABI, 2011 ) N o Phoma sp. PestID , 2011 MO: CABI, 2011, PestID , 2011 ; US: CABI, 2011 Yes L, R, S ( CABI, 2011 ) N o Phy llactinia guttata (Wallr.: Fr.) Lév.; syn. P
. corylea (Pers.) P. Karst Farr et al , 2011 MO: Rieuf, 1969
- 1971 US: Farr et al , 2011 No N/A N/A Phytophthora cinnamomi Rands Milholland and

Meyer, 1984; Caruso and Ramsdell, 1995; CABI, 2011 MO: CABI, 2011, Farr

et al , 2011 ; US: CABI, 2011; Farr et al , 2011 No N/A N/A Pleospora herbarum (Pers.: Fr.) Rabenh. Farr et al , 2011 MO: Rieuf, 1969
- 1971 US: Farr et al , 2011 No N/A N/A Podosphaera clandestina (Wallr.: Fr.) Lev.; syn. P
. oxycanthae (DC) de Bary Farr et al , 2011 MO: Rieuf, 1969
- 1971 US: Farr et al , 2011 No N/A N/A

Rhizocto nia solani Kühn Farr et al , 2011 MO: Rieuf, 1969 - 1971 US: Farr et al , 2011 No N/A N/A Rhizo pus stolonifer (Ehrenb.: Fr.) Vuill. Farr et al , 2011 MO: Rieuf, 1969
- 1971 US: Farr et al , 2011 No N/A N/A Sclerotinia minor Jagger Farr et al , 2011 MO: Rieuf, 1969
- 1971 US: Farr et al , 2011 No N/A N/A Sclerotinia sclerotiorum (Lib.) de Bary Farr et al , 2011 MO: Rieuf, 1969
- 1971 , CABI, 2011 ; US: CABI, 2011, Farr et al , 2011 No N/A N/A Thielaviopsis basicola (Berk. & Br.) Ferraris Farr et al , 2011 MO: Rieuf, 1969
- 1971 US: Farr et al , 2011 No N/A N/A Trichothecium roseum (Pers.: Fr.) Link Farr et al , 2011 MO: Rieuf, 1969
- 1971 US: Farr et al , 2011 No N/A N/A Uredo sp. PestID , 2011 MO: PestID , 2011 ; US: CABI, 2011 Yes L, S ( PestID ) N oPest Risk Assessment for Blueberry from Morocco

Ver. 2 March 23, 2012 13 **Scientific Name Reported on** 

**Vaccinium Morocco**  **and U.S.**

**Distribution 1**  **Quaran**   ** tine pest****2 Plant part(s)** 

**association 3**  **Follow**

**pathway 3**  **NEMATODES** Helicotylenchus dihystera (Cobb) Sher. CABI, 2011 MO , US : CABI, 2011 No N/A N/A Pratylenchus penetrans (Cobb) Filipjev & Schuurmans Stekhoven CABI, 2011 MO , US : CABI, 2011 No N/A N/A

**BACTERIA** Pseudomonas syringae pv. syringae van Hall CABI, 2011 MO: Rieuf, 1969
- 1971 US: CABI, 2011 No N/A N/A Pseudomonas viridiflava (Burkholder 1930) Dowson 1939 CABI, 2011 MO , US : CABI, 2011 No N/A N/A
Rhizobium radiobacter (Beijerinck & van Delden) Young et al.; syn. Agrobacterium tumefaciens (Smith & Townsend) Conn CABI, 2011 MO: Rieuf, 1969
- 1971 US: CABI, 2011 No N/A N/A

Rhizobium rhizogenes (Riker et al.) Young et al.; syn. Agrobacterium rhizogenes (Riker et al.) Conn CABI, 2011 MO: Rieuf, 1969
- 1971 US: CABI, 2011 No N/A N/A

**VIRUSES** Tobacco ringspot nepovirus CABI, 2011 MO , US : CABI, 2011 No N/A N/A
2.4. 2 . Quarantine pests following the pathway but not candidates for further risk mitigation **General issues** . Quarantine pests not listed above could be detrimental to agriculture or ecos ys tems in the continental United States, but they are not candidates for risk mitigation for a variety of reasons. For example, they are mainly associated with plant parts other than the commodity ; they

may be associated with the commodity, but would not reasonably remain with the commodity

through standard harvest and post
- harvest processing; they have been intercepted as biological contaminants of these commodities during U.S. agricultural port
- of
- entry inspection, but would not likely be present in commercial shipments; or the organism was identified (in the literature or in USDA’s interception data) only to the genus level, and the genus in question occurs in the continental United States.Pest Risk Assessment for Blueberry from Morocco

Ver. 2 March 23, 2012 14 **Lack of specific identification** . Generally , based on standards by the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC, 2009), we do not consider risk mitigation measures for organisms identified only

to the genus level if the genus in question is reported in the continental United States. Often there are many species within a genus, and we cannot know if the unidentif ied species occurs in the continental United States and, consequentl y, whether it meets the definition of a quarantine pest for the continental United States. In this risk assessment, the preceding statement applies to the arthropod genera Chaetocnema , Gra pholita , Hemiberlesia , Nysius , Tarsonemus , Trialeurodes , Sitobion , and Thrips , and to the pathogen genera Alternaria , Ascochyta , Botryosphaeria , Colletotrichum , Mycosphaerella , and Pestalotiopsis
. These genera are reported to occur in the continental United States (Ben
- Dov et al., 20 11 ; CABI, 20 11 ; Farr et al , 201 1 ). Lack of specific identification may indicate the limits of current taxonomic knowledge or the life stage or the quality of the specimen submitted for identification. Pest risk assessments focus on organisms for which biological information is available. Lack of specific identification does not rule out the possibility that a high
- risk quarantine pest was intercepted. Conversel y, the development of detailed assessments for known pests that inhabit a variety of ecological niches, such as internal fruit feeders or foliage pests, allows 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, we may reevaluate their risk. **Armo r**  **ed scale** . We did not further analyze the armored scale Diaspidiotus zonatus (Hemiptera: Diaspididae) identified in this risk assessment as a quarantine pest likel y to follow the pathway , because armored scales are highl y unlikel y to establish via this pathway due to their very limited ability to disperse to new host plants (Miller et al., 1985 ; PERAL , 2007 ). Only a certain immature form of armored scales, the crawler stage, can self
- disperse. Crawlers are highl y unlikely to successfully

disperse by

walking from their natal host since they are not capable of rapid movement over bare soil or rough surfaces. They typically disperse by being blown from plant to plant in the wind. Additionally , their dispersal period is limited to approximately 24 hours, after which they

start feeding, become firmly anchored to the host tissue, and lose their legs. Adult females have no wings or legs. Dispersal from fruit discarded into the environment is highl y unlikely because of low wind spee ds at ground level and low survival rate of crawlers on the ground or on decaying fruit or fruit peels. 2.4.3 . Quarantine pests likely to follow the pathway

that are candidates for risk mitigation **Medfly** . Medfly , Ceratitis capitata , is a candidate for further mitigations, because the following processes may

not eliminate it from the blueberry fruit pathway (Hilali, 2010) :  Blueberry production area of Morocco may be a pest - free area , but has not been certified as such based on trapping an d isolation from citrus
-producing areas  The southern highbush blueberry varieties selected for export are poor hosts of Medfl y (Follett et al., 2 011)  Blueberries will be grown within net houses that may not prevent oviposition  Hand
- harvesting and hand
-packing of small quantities will be practiced  Cold storage following harvest and prior to shipping has not been certified to meet or exceed PPQ T107 - a cold treatment for Medfl y (USDA, 2011)Pest Risk Assessment for Blueberry from Morocco

Ver. 2 March 23, 2012 15 **Monilinia fruct**

**i gena**  . The fungus Monilin ia fructigena is a candidate for further mitigation because production, harvest, and postharvest processing measures , while likely to remove infected fruit from the pathway , may not be 100 percent effective . First, blueberry is not a commonly

infected by M. fructigena ,which ty pically infects plants in the Rosaceae, most frequentl y pome fruits (

Malus spp., Pyrus spp.). and occasionall y stone fruits ( Prunus spp.) (Cline, 2005). Picking fruit at a stage slightl y less than fully mature , and growing them in nets and under cover and eliminating insect, wind, or hail damage to fruit, will further reduce its susceptibility

to the pathogen, which often infests damaged fruit
. Regular chemical treatment of developing fruit with fungicides should further reduce the number of infected fruit
. F inall y, f ruit will be visually

inspected and any fruit that are damaged or suspected to be infected with brown rot are likel y to be culled in the production facility or in the packinghouse. These practices may not remove 100 percent of Monilinia fructigena. 

### 2.5. Analysis of Quarantine Pests For the quarantine pests selected for further analysis, we assess their likelihood of introduction into the continental United States and the undesirable consequences that may occur from their introduction. W e rated pests using the criteria in the Guidelines for Pathway
-Initiated Pest Risk Assessments, Version 5.02 (PPQ, 2000 ). We calculated a cumulative risk rating, or Pest Risk Potential, for each pest by summing all risk element values. Below we summarize the values for each pest (Table 8 ). The major sources of uncertainty present in this risk assessment 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. 2.5.1. Consequences of Introduction Here we assess the undesirable consequences that may occur from the introduction of pests. For each quarantine pest, the potential consequences of introduction are rated in five areas called “Risk Elements”. They

are Climate
- Host Interaction, Host Range, Dispersal Potential, Economic Impact, and Environmental Impact. These Risk Elements reflect the biology , host range, and climatic/geographic distribution of each pest and are supported b y biological information on each of the anal yz ed pests that is summarized in this section. **Ceratitis capitata Risk ratings**  **Risk Element #1: Climate/Host Interaction** Ceratitis capitata (Medfly) is native to Africa and has spread throughout the Mediterranean region, Southern Europe (e.g., Spain, Ital y, C yprus), the Middle East, Western Australia, South and Central America (e.g., Argentina, Ecuador, Peru, Colombia), and Hawaii (Fletcher, 1989 ; White and Elson
- Harris, 1992 ). The species can establish in California, Florida, and Texas, where it has been recorded intermittently and subsequently eradicated (CABI, 20 11)
. Based on a comparison of this reported distribution with a global map of USDA Plant Hardiness Zones (Magarey et al., 2008) , we estimate that Medfl y could become established in the areas of the continental United States corresponding to USDA Medium ( 2 )Pest Risk Assessment for Blueberry from Morocco

Ver. 2 March 23, 2012 16 **Ceratitis capitata Risk ratings**  Plant Hardiness Zones 8
- 11 . Multiple hosts of Medfly are present in those zones (e.g., Citrus spp., Malus spp., Prunus spp., Pyrus communis , P. calleryana , Solanum lycopersicum ) ( Kartesz , 2011 ). Because Zone 11 only comprises approximately

0.1 percent of the United States (PERAL , 2008), we do not count it toward the total number of zones for determining the Climate
- Host Interaction risk rating. Therefore, we rate this element **Medium** (taken from PERALPest Notes). **Risk Element #2: Host Range** Medfly is a poly

phagous species that has been recorded from cultivated and wild hosts belonging to at least 51 genera among at least 30 plant families , including Anacardiaceae ( Anacardium, Mangifera, Spondias ) , Annonaceae ( Annona ) , Cactaceae ( Opuntia ) , Malpighiaceae ( Malpighia ) , Moraceae ( Artocarpus, Ficus, Morus ), My rtaceae (Eugenia, Feijoa, Psidium, Syzygium ), Punicaceae (

Punica ) , Rosaceae (

Malus, Mespilus, Prunus ) , Rutaceae ( Citrus ) , Sapindaceae, (

Blighia, Euphoria, Litchi), Sapotaceae ( Chrysophyllum, Manilkara, Mimusops, Pouteria ) , Solanaceae ( Capsicum, Solanum ), and Vitaceae ( Vitis ) ( CABI, 2011 ; Li quido et al., 1991 ; Thomas et al., 2010 ; White and Elson
- Harris, 1992 ). High (3)

**Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential** A Medfl y female may

lay up to 800 eggs (22 per day) during her lifetime ( Thomas et al., 2010 ). The life cycle under favorable conditions [21.1
- 32.2°C (70
- 90°F)] may

be completed in three weeks; however , under the climatic conditions in Florida ( i.e., at the latitude of Orlando) , 10 generations could develop under normal ye ar- round conditions (Knapp, 1998 ). Adult Medfl ies can fly as far as 32.2 km (20 miles) ( Christenson and Foote, 1960 ; Steiner et al., 1962 ). Movement of infested commodities is the major means of dispersal to previously

uninfested areas (CAB I, 20 11 ). Since 1984, inspectors at U.S. ports
of
- entry have intercepted Medfly over 3,000 times (PestID, 201 1 ). Medfl y may also be dispersed via puparia in soil or growing medi a accompanying plants (CABI, 20 11 ). High (3)

**Risk Element #4: Economic Impact** Because of its wide distribution and its wide host range, Medfly is the most important of the economically important fruit flies ( CABI, 2011 ; Weems, 1981 ) . It reduc es crop y

ield s ( Steck, 2006 ) and may transmit fruit
-rotting fungi ( CABI , 2011 ). Additionally, c osts would be incurred to minimize the impact of Medfly on crop production, because the presence of larvae in the fruit may make the fruit unmarketable (Andrew et al., 1977 )
. The species is of quarantine significance for many

countries ( Steck, 2006 ). It s 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 Medfl y in an area (to maintain pest
- free status) can be very costl y and resource intensive ( Cayol et al., 2002 ; Steck, 2006 ). High (3)

**Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact** Because of its broad host range, Medfl y may affect numerous Federal Threatened and Endangered (T&E) plant species in the continental United States Medium ( 2 )Pest Risk Assessment for Blueberry from Morocco

Ver. 2 March 23, 2012 17 **Ceratitis capitata Risk ratings**  [e.g., Argemone pleiacantha ssp. pinnatisecta (E), Asimina tetramera (E), Berberis nevivii (E) , Euphorbia telephioides (T) , Prunus geniculata (E), Ribes echinellum (T)] (USFWS, 2011). However, Medfly only affects the fruit of its hosts. We found no evidence that Medfly damages the seeds or other non
- fruit parts of its hosts; therefore, we assume this fruit fly would have little, if any, direct effect on the population health of threatened or endangered plant species. A potential and indirect effect of the establishment of Medfl y is the continuance and possible increase in exotic fruit
- fly control programs , which would probably include chemical and bio logical control (APHIS, 2001 ; APHI S. 2011; CABI , 2011; Purcell, 1998; Ovruski et al., 2000; Wharton, 1989). Based on the potential indirect effects of control programs , as opposed to direct damage caused by Medfly , we rate this risk element **Medium** . Risk Elements #1
- #5 are consistent with riskratings for Ceratitis capitata from blueberries from South Africa and Uraguay (USDA, 2007a, 2007b). **Monilinia fructigena Risk Ratings**  **Risk Element #1: Climate/Host Interaction** M onilinia fructigena is found throughout western and southern Europe and extends into the Scandinavian countries, eastern Europe, the former Soviet Union, the Middle East, India, and North Africa (CABI, 2011) High (3) **Risk Element #2: Host Range** Monilinia fructigena, under suitable environmental conditions, will infect not only all cultivated drupaceous and pomaceous species, but also many other species including Amelanchier spp. (servi c eberry), Capsicum spp. (peppers), Diospyros kaki (persimmon), Fragaria ananassa (strawberry), Malus domestica (apple), Malus sylvestris (crabapple), Prunus spp. (apricot, peach, and plum), Pyrus communis (pear), Solanum lycopersicum (tomato), and Vitis vinifera (grape) (CABI, 2011). High (3)

**Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential** The conidia of M. fructigena are “dry air” spores that are set free by air currents and wind. The conidiophores elevate the spore chains above the infected tissues and thus provide better exposure to air currents. Infected fruits and peduncles are in positions on the tree that are suitable for efficient take
- off and aerial dispersal of spores. The c onidia of M. fructigena are disseminated b y wind when temperatures are high, when relative humidity is low, and often at high UV light intensities. Rain splashes are important as a means of liberating spores (CABI, 2011). Almost any insect attracted to rotting flowers or fruit has the potential to pick up and carry spores from sporulating mycelium to healthy, susceptible tissues, but those that create new wounds provide the necessary sites of infection for M. fructigena . The most important animal vectors are birds, wasps ( Vespula spp.), beetles, especially the nitidulid beetles ( Carpophilus spp.), flies (Diptera) including Drosophila spp., and L epidoptera (CABI, 2011). High (3)

**Risk Element #4: Economic Impact** M onilina fructigena causes significant losses both before and after harvest, but Medium (2)Pest Risk Assessment for Blueberry from Morocco

Ver. 2 March 23, 2012 18 **Monilinia fructigena Risk Ratings**  it is not easy

to assess the overall losses because they are highl y visible but are rarel y worth the implementation of specific control measures. Early
- maturing cultivars are most affected, but the majority of diseased fruits are those that would be rejected for other reasons such as bruising or bird and insect damage. M onilinia fructigena is less damaging than Monilinia fructicola or Monilinia laxa , although it occasionally causes economically

important losses of apple [Malus domestica ] and plum [Prunus domestica ] fruits, particularl y in hot and humid summers (CABI, 2011). **Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact** The ability to spread to widely distributed species of Amelanchier serviceb erry and Malus crabapple species (USDA, NRCS 2011) places the whole of the North American continent at risk. There is a threatened and endangered species of Prunus present in Florida that would also be at risk (USFWS, 2011). High (3)

**Table 5.** Summary

of the risk ratings and values for the Consequences of Introduction **Pest Climate**  **- Host** 

**interaction Host** 

**Range Dispersal** 

**Potential Economic** 

**Impact Environmen**  ****

**tal Impact Cumulative** 

**rating a**  Ceratitis capitata Med ( 2 ) High (3) High (3) High (3) Med ( 2 ) High (1 3 ) Monilinia fructigena High ( 3 ) High (3) High (3) Med ( 2 ) High (3) High (14) a Lo w = 5 - 8 points , Medium = 9
- 12 pts , High = 13
- 15 points 2.5.2 . Likelihood of Introduction Likelihood of I

ntroduction 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 (PPQ, 2000). We summarized the ratings below (Table 6 ). **Quantity Imported Annually** . Volume imported is asses sed in terms of the expected number of 40 - foot long sea shipping containers (approximately 40,000 pounds each). Since the production of blueberries in Morocco is new and about 200 hectares, we project onl y a small volume for exportation (Hilali, 2010) . Bas ed on this estimate, we rated the Quantity Imported Annually **Low** . **Survive Post -**  **harvest Treatment.** In this risk element, we evaluate the efficacy of standard post
harvest treatments in terms of the mortality of pests exposed to the treatments. As noted in section 1.2 of this risk assessment, we assumed that the commodity would undergo hand
-picking , h and
grading, and cold storage for shipment. Cold treatment can kill Ceratitis capitata if done to PPQ standards, but Morocco’s cold treatment has no t been certified to meet that standard
. Impact s of net house production , hand
-picking, and routine fungicide treatments on the pest are unknown
. C. capitata is an internal feeder, and M. fructigena has a latent period , creating considerable uncertainty about any observable effects; therefore we rate Survive Post
- harvest Treatment **High** . **Survive Shipment** . Morocco proposes that cold storage and shipment will be followed that can be certified to meet PPQ T107
- a (Hilali, 2010). Shipping trays will be clear plastic boxes labeled toPest Risk Assessment for Blueberry from Morocco

Ver. 2 March 23, 2012 19 meet USDA specifications, and because they are clear, in
- shipment spoilage will be readily apparent. However, shipping conditons are unlikely to mitigate C. capitata; and M. fructigena is known from environments that experience sub
- freezing temperatures. For these reason s , we rate Survive Shipment **High Not Detected at Port** **- of** 

**- Entry**  . Ceratitis capitata produces oviposition scars but eggs are laid below the skin of the fruit and larvae are internal feeders; therefore Medfly may be overlooked during inspection (CABI , 2011). Egg hatch and larval feeding under the storage and shipment conditions stated by

Morocco (Hilali, 2010) may take as long as 29 days , and fruits must be destructively

sampled to find internal feeders (CABI, 2011). Not Detected at Port of Entry is therefore rated **High** for Medfly
. The United States already imports a number of host plant commodities from other countries where M. fructigena occurs (7CFR § 319.56
- 2r) without requiring measures beyond normal port of entry inspection; but due to latency of infection Monilinia fructigena may not be readily

detected by visual inspection of the fruit at ports of entry so Not Detected at Port of Entry is rated **High** (Podleckis and Usnick, 2005) **. Moved**  **to Suitable Habitat** . Initial shipments will arrive in JFK Airport in Jamaica, NY (Hilali, 2010). Once a successful importation record is established, future shipments are anticipated to be to New York and to Philadelphia, PA (Hilali, 2010). Shipping is anticipated to take place from February to August (Hilali, 2010). Because moderately warm temperatures and breezes are required to move Monilinia fructigena , and because the ports of entry may be suitable for Medfly, a highly mobile pest as an adult, during the summer months, we rate Moved to Suitable Habitat **High** for M. fructigena and C. capitata . **Contact with Host Material.** These shipments will be consumed in metropolitan areas, and the chance of being discarded in municipal trash or recycling containers in proximity to production orchards is negligible. H owever, at least 46 states in the conterminous U. S. have species of Vaccinium that may

serve as hosts to C. capitata , and M. fructigena can infect at least 20 gen era in 10 plant families, we rate Contact with Host Material **High** for both pests. These ratings are consistent with prior ratings of M. fructigena on apricots from Spain, sand pears from China, and peppers from Korea (USDA, 2005, 2009, 2010); and ratings of C. capitata on blueberries from South Africa and Uruguay (USDA, 2007a, b). **Table 6**  **.** Summary

of the ratings for the quantity i mported annuall y, pest opportunity , and the overall Likelihood of Introduction. **Pest Quantity** 

**imported annually**  **Ratings for Pest Opportunity Overall**  **rating (value)**  **a Survive**  **post -**  **harvest treatment**  **Survive**

**shipment Not detected** 

**at port(s) -**  **of**

  ** entry** **Moved to**

**suitable habitat**  **Contact**

**with Host Material**  Ceratitis capitata Low ( 1 ) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (16) Monilinia fructigena Low (1) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (16) a Lo w = 6 - 9 points , Medium = 10
- 14 p ts , High = 15
- 18 p tsPest Risk Assessment for Blueberry from Morocco

Ver. 2 March 23, 2012 20 

### 3. Pest Risk

**Potential and Conclusions** We identified three quarantine pests that could follow the pathway of commerciall y imported blueberry fruit from Morocco, one of which

— Diaspidiotus xonatus

—is highly likel y to be mitigated b y the standard post
- harvest processing measures for blueberries in Morocco (Hilali, 2010) , and which we did not assess here. We assessed two pests that may require additional mitigation: Ceratitis capitata , and Monilinia fructigena
. Pest risk p otential is the sum of the Consequences of Introduction and the Likelihood of Introduction values. Pest risk potential is a baseline estimate of the risks associated with the importation of the commodity in the absence of phy

tosanitary measures specific for the pests of concern. We rated Monilinia fructigena High risk overall, and rated Ceratitis capitata High overall (Table 7)
. Those ratings were despite the following production, harvest , and post
- harvest procedures (section 1.2) : 1) growth in an area not yet certifie d as a Medfly
- free area, 2) growth in net houses, 3) regular application of fungicides, 4) hand
-picking and hand
- grading, and 5) cold storage that has not been certified to meet or exceed PPQ T107
- a . Low risk p ests do not ty

pically require mitigation meas ures, other than port
- of
- arrival inspection (PPQ, 2000). A rating of Medium indicates that specific phytosanitary measures may

be necessary . A rating of High indicates that specific phy tosanitary measures, supplemental to port
of
- arrival inspection, are strongl y recommended. 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. **Table 7**  **.** Pest Risk Potentials (PRP) for pests on blueberry from Morocco **Pest Consequences of**  **Introduction rating Likelihood of** 

**Introduction rating Pest Risk Potential**  **a** Ceratitis capitata High (1 3 ) High (16) High (29) Monilinia fructigena High (14) High (16) High (30) aLo w is 11
- 18 points, Medium is 19
- 26 points, and High is 27
- 33 points 

### 4 **. Authors and Reviewers Authors**  J. W . Smith (entomology, primary contact) a S. C. Redlin (plant pathology) a **Reviewers** L. P. Newton (entomology) a

N. D. Arciniegas (plant pathology) b

a USDA - APHI S - PPQ - CPHST - PERAL b USDA - APHI S - PPQ - CPHST - PERAL - ColombiaPest Risk Assessment for Blueberry from Morocco

Ver. 2 March 23, 2012 21 

### 5 **. Literature Cited** AgMRC. 2011. Agricultural Marketing Resource Center. htt p://www.agmrc.org/commodities__products/fruits/citrus/citrus_profile.cfm (archived at PERAL). Andrew, C. O., J. C. Cato, and F. J. Prochaska. 1977. Potential economic impact of a fruit fly infestation on the U.S. citrus industry . Florida State Horticultural Society 90:29 - 32. APHI S. 2001. Fruitfl y Cooperative Control Program, Final Environmental Impact Statement
- 2001. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), Riverdale, MD. 256 pp. APHI S . 2011 a . Fruits and Vegetables Import Requirements (FAVIR). United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHI S). https://epermits.aphis.usda.gov/manual/index.cfm?action=pubHome. (Archived at PERAL). APHI S. 2011 b . Exo tic Fruit Fly Strategic Plan, FY 2011
- 2015. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), Fruit Fl y Exclusion and Detection Programs, Riverdale, MD. 24 pp. Arnett, R. H., Jr. 1985. AMERI CA INSECTS : A handbook of the insects of America north of Mexico. Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., New York, NY. 850 pp. Australian Weeds Committee
. 2010. Noxious Weed List for Australian States and Territories. http://www.weeds.org.au/awc.htm (Archived at PERAL). Ben - Dov, Y., Miller, D.R. & Gibson, G.A.P. 2001. ScaleNet, Life Histories. 27 June 2001. http://www.sel.barc.usda.gov/scalenet/lifehist.htm Blackman, R. L. and V. F. Eastop. 2000. APHIDS ON THE WORLD”S CROPS : An Id entification and Information Guide, 2 nd ed. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Chichester, West Sussex, UK. 466 pp. Blackman, R. L. and V. F. Eastop. 2006. APHIDS ON THE WORLD’S HERBACEOUS PLANTS AND SHRUBS : Volume 1, Host Lists and Keys. John Wiley & Son s, Ltd. Chichester, West Sussex, UK. 1024 pp. CABI. 1990. Distribution Maps of Pests, Series A (Agricultural), Map no. 72. Aulacorthum circumflexum (Buckton). CAB International Institute of Entomology
. London, UK. 3 pp. C ABI . 2011. Crop Pest Compendium , CAB International
. Wallingford, Oxon, UK. Last accessed September 29, 2011. http://www.cabicompendium.org/cpc/findadatasheet.asp Caruso, F. L. and D. C. Ramsdell. 1995. C OMPENDIUM OF BLUEBERRY AND CRANBERRY DI SEASES . American Phytopathological Society, St. Paul, MN. 87 pp. Cayol, J. P., Y. Rössler, M. Weiss, M. Bahdousheh, M. Omari, M. Hamalawi, and A. Almughayyar. 2002. Fruit fly control and monitoring in the Near East: shared concern in a regional transboundary

problem. Proceedings of 6th International Fruit Fly Sy mposium 6 - 10 May 2002, Stellenbosch, South Africa. CI SEH. 2011. Invasive plant atlas of the United States. The University of Georgia, Center for Invasive Species and Ecosys tem Health (CI SEH) and the National Park Service. http://www.bugwood.org/ . (Archived at PERAL). Christenson, L . D., and R. H. Foote. 1960. Biology of Fruit Flies. Annual Review of Entomology 5:171 - 192 . Farr, D. F., A. Y. Rossman, M. E. Palm, and E. B. McCray . 2011. Fungal Databases. United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, S ys tematic MycologyPest Risk Assessment for Blueberry from Morocco

Ver. 2 March 23, 2012 22 and Microbiology

L aboratory
. http://nt.ars
- grin.gov/fungaldatabases/ . (Archived at PERAL) FLEPP C. 2009. List of Invasive Species. Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council (FLEPPC)
. http://www.fleppc.org/list/List
- WW - F09 - final.pdf. (Archived at PERAL). Fletcher, B. S. 1989. 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
. Follett, P. A., F. T. Zee, R. T. Hamasaki, K. Hummer, and S. T. Nakamato. 2011. Susceptibility of Lo w - Chill Blu eberry

Cultivars to Mediterranean Fruit Fly , Oriental Fruit Fly , and Melon Fl y (Diptera: Tephritidae). 2011. Journal of Economic Entomology 104(2): 566
- 570. Gunn, C. R., and C. A. Ritchie. 1988. I dentification of disseminules listed in the federal Noxious Weed Act (Technical Bulletin Number 1719.). United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service. 313 pp. Hilali, A. 2010. Request to Amend Regulation 7CFR, part 319: Add blueberries and raspberries to the USDA Approved List for importati on to the United States from Morocco. Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, Rabat, Morocco. 15 pp. Holm, L . G., J. V. Pancho, J. P. Herberger, and D. L . Plucknett. 1991a. A GEOGRAPHICAL ATLAS OF WORLD WEEDS . Krieger Publishing Company, Malabar, Florida. 3 30 pp. Holm, L . G., D. L. Plucknett, J. V. Pancho, and J. P. Herberger. 1991b. T HE WORLD’S WORST WEEDS : D istribution and biology . Krieger Publishing Company, Malabar, Florida. 609 pp. Holm, L . G., J. Doll, E. Holm, J. V. Pancho, and J. P. Herberger. 1997. W ORLD WEEDS : N atural histories and distribution. John Wiley & Sons, New York. 1129 pp. Hummer, K.E., R. Williams, and J. Mota. 2009. Pests of Blueberries on Sao Miguel, Azores, Portugal. ISHS Acta Horticulturae. 810: 287 - 292. IPPC. 2009. International Stan dards For Phytosanitary Measures, 1 to 32 (2009 edition). Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Secretariat of the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC), Rome, Italy . 432 pp. Is aacs, R. and J. A. T. Woodford. 2007. IPM Case Studies: Berry Crops. In: H. F. van Emden and R. Harrington (eds.). APHIDS AS CROP PESTS . CAB International. Wallingford, Oxfordshire, UK. pp. 561 - 572. ISSG. 2010. Global Invasive Species Database. The World Conservation Union Species Survival Commission, Invasive Species Specialist Group (ISSG). http://www.issg.org/database/welcome/ (Archived at PERAL). Kartesz, J. T. 2011. The Biota of North America Program (BONAP). North American Plant Atlas [maps gen erated from Kartesz, J.T. 2010. Floristic Sy nthesis of North America, Version 1.0. Biota of North America Program (BONAP). (in press)]. http://www.bonap.org/MapSwitchboard.html. (Archived at PERAL). Knapp, J. L . 1998. The Mediterranean Fruit Fl y ( Ceratitis capitata ). Entomology Circular No. 809. Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Plant Industry . 3 pp. Liquido, N. J., L . A. Shinoda, and R. T. Cunningham. 1991. Host plants of the Mediterranean fruit fly (Diptera : Tephritidae ) : An annotated world review. Miscellaneous Publications of the Entomological Society of America (77). 52 pp.Pest Risk Assessment for Blueberry from Morocco

Ver. 2 March 23, 2012 23 Magarey , R. D., D. M. Borchert, and J. W. Schlegel. 2008. Global plant hardiness zones for phy tosanitary risk anal ys is. Scientia Agricola 65:54
- 59. Mau, R. F. L. and J. L . M. Kessing. 2007. Crop Knowledge Master: Neomyzus circumflexus (Buckton). http://www.extento.hawaii.edu/kbase/crop/ty pe/neomyzus.htm (Accessed May 23, 2011)
. Milholland, R. D. and J. R. Meyer. 1984. D ISEASES AND ARTHROPODS OF BLUEBERRIES . North Carolina Agricultural Research Service, Raleigh, NC. 33 pp. Miller, D. R., V. L . Blackburn, J. A. Davidson, and W. F. Gimpel, Jr. 1985. Pest risk assessment of armored scales on certain fruit [report submitted to USDA, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine]. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Agricultural Research Service (ARS), Beltsville, MD. 35 pp. Mimuer, J.
- M. 1934 . Aphididae du Maroc
. Mémoires de la Société des Sciences Naturelles du Maroc (Old Series XL) 40: 1 - 72; Myzus circumplexus on p. 38 . NGRP. 2011 . Germplasm Resources Information Network (GRIN). United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, National Genetic Resources Program (NGRP). http://www.ars
- grin.gov/cgi
-bin/npgs/html/index.pl?language=en. (Archived at PERAL) NRCS. 2011. The PLANTS Database, National Plant Data Center, Baton Rouge, LA. http://plants.usda.gov (Accessed May 24, 2011). Ovruski, S., M. n. Aluja, J. Sivinski, and R. Wharton. 2000. Hy menopteran Parasitoids on Fruit
infesting Tephritidae (Diptera) in Latin America and the Southern United States: Diversity , Distribution, Taxonomic Status and their use in Fruit Fly Biological Control. Integrated Pest Management Reviews 5(2):81
- 107. PERAL . 2007. Phy

tosanitary risks associated with armored scales in commercial shipments of fruit for co nsumption 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 La

boratory (PERAL), Raleigh, NC. 24 pp. PERAL . 2008. Plant Hardiness Zones of the United States: Area and Population Analysis. United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine, Center for Pl ant Health Science and Technology , Plant Epidemiology

and Risk Analysis Laboratory (PERAL). 6 pp
. PestID. 2011. Pest Identification Database (PestID). United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine. PIER. 2010. Plant Threats to Pacific Ecos ys tems: PIER species listed by scientific name beginning with the letter V. http://www.hear.org/pier/scientificnames/scinamev.htm (Accessed April 27, 2011). Podleckis, E. V. and S. J. Usnick. 2005. Information memo for the Record, Fragrant Pear from Peoples Republic of China. (Archived at PERAL). PPQ. 2000. Guidelines for pathway
- initiated pest risk assessments (Version 5.02). Unite d States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ), Riverdale, MD. 30 pp. PPQ. 2010. Federal Noxious Weed List. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Animal and Plant Health Inspe ction Service (APHIS), Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ).Pest Risk Assessment for Blueberry from Morocco

Ver. 2 March 23, 2012 24 http://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/plant_pest_info/weeds/downloads/weedlist
2010do c.pdf

. Purcell, M. F. 1998. Contribution of Biological Control to Integrated Pest Management of Tephritid Fruit Flies in the Tropics and Subtropics. Integrated Pest Management Reviews 3(2):63
- 83. Randall, R. P. 20 07 . A Global Compendium of Weeds. Hawaiian Ecos ys tems at Risk and Department of Agriculture of Western Australia. http://www.hear.org/gcw/. Reed, C. F. 1977. Economically important foreign weeds (Agriculture Handbook No. 498). United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service. 746 pp. Rice. 2010. Noxious weeds in the US and Canada. INVADERS Database System Division of Biological Sciences, University of Montana, Missoula, MT
. http://invader.dbs.umt.edu/Noxious_Weeds/. (Archived at PERAL). Rieuf, P. 1969 - 1971. Parasites et saprophyt es des plantes au Maroc (Parasites and saprophyt es of plants in Morocco). Cahiers de la Recherche Agronomique 27: 1
- 178; 28: 179 - 357; 29: 362 - 463; 30: 469 - 570. Steck, G. J. 2006. Pest Alert. The Mediterranean fruit fly , Ceratitis capitata (Wiedemann) (Diptera: Tephritidae). Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Plant Industry . L ast accessed July 18, 2011, http://www.freshfromflorida.com/pi/enpp/ento/medfly .html
. Steiner, L . F., W. C. Mitchell, and A. H. Baumhover. 1962. Progress of Fruit
- Fly Control by Irradiation Sterilization in Hawaii and the Marianas Islands. International Journal of Applied Radiation and Isotopes 13:427
- 434. Thomas, M. C., J. B. Heppner, R. E. Woodruff, H. V. Weems, G. J. Steck, and T. R. Fasulo. 2010. Featured Creatures: Ceratitis capitata - Mediterranean fruitfl y. University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences. L ast accessed July 18, 2011, http://entnemdept.ifas.ufl.edu/creatures/
. USDA. 2005. Importation of Fresh Paprika Pepper Fruit ( Capsicum annuu m L. var. annuum ) from the Republic of Korea into the Continental United States. USDA - APHIS - PPQ CPHST, Raleigh, NC. 50 pp. USDA. 2007a. Qualitative Pathway
- Initiated Risk Assessment of the Importation of Blueberry Fruits ( Vaccinium species) from the Republic of South Africa into the United States. USDA - APHIS - PPQ - CPHST, Raleigh, NC. 29 pp. USDA. 2007b. Importation of fresh highbush and rabbit
- eye blueberry ( Vaccinium corymbosum L. & V. virgatum Aiton) fruit into the Continental United States from Uruguay
. USDA APHI S - PPQ - CPHST, Raleigh, NC. 56 pp. USDA. 2009. Importation of Fresh Fruit of Chinese Sand Pear, Pyrus pyrifolia , from China, including the Special Administrative Regions of Hong Kong and Macau, into the Entire United States, Inclduing all Territories. USDA - APHI S - PPQ - CPHST, Raleigh, NC. 79 pp. USDA. 2010. Importation of Fresh Apricot, Prunus armeniaca (L.) Fruit from Continental Spain into the United St ates, including Hawaii and U. S. Territories. USDA - APHIS - PPQ CPHST, Raleigh, NC. 50 pp. USDA. 2011. USDA Treatment Manual: United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine. http://www.aphis.usda.gov/import_export/plants/manuals/ports/downloads/treatment.pdf (Accessed May

26, 2011).Pest Risk Assessment for Blueberry from Morocco

Ver. 2 March 23, 2012 25 USDA, NRCS. 2011. The PLANTS Database. National Plant Data Team, Greensboro, NC, USA. http://plants.usda.gov , 27 January 2012 (Archived at PERAL). USFWS. 2011. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Environmental Conservation Online System. http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/pub/listedPlants.jsp (Archived at PERAL). Weber, E. 2003. I

NVASIVE PLANT SPECIES OF THE WORLD : A reference guide to environmental weeds. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK. 548 pp. Weems, H. V. 198 1. Mediterranean Fruit Fl y Ceratitis capitata (Wiedemann) (Entomology Circular No. 230). Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Plant Industry
. Wharton, R. 1989. Biological control of fruit
- infesting Tephritidae. in R. Cavallo ro, (ed.). Fruit Flies of Economic Importance 87. Commission of the European Communities. Coordination of Agricultural Research, International Organization for Biological Control. West Palaeartic Regional Section. Balkema Publishers, Brookfield, VT, USA. 6 29 pp. White, I . M., and M. M. Elson
- Harris. 1992. Fruit flies of economic significance: their identification and bionomics. CAB International in association with ACIAR, Wallingford, UK. 601 pp. WSSA. 2011. Composite list of weeds. Weed Science Society of America. https://www.gpdd.info/search.cfm?search=pestList . (Archived in GPDD; PERAL). WSSA. 20 10 . Composite list of weeds. Weed Science Society of America (WSSA). https://www.gpdd.info/search.cfm?search=pestList . (Archived at PERAL).