<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
<meta name="cp:revision" content="3">
<meta name="meta:word-count" content="13492">
<meta name="extended-properties:Application" content="Microsoft Office Word">
<meta name="meta:last-author" content="jkessell">
<meta name="dc:creator" content="Russ Bulluck">
<meta name="extended-properties:Company" content="USDA APHIS">
<meta name="meta:print-date" content="2010-07-08T17:19:00Z">
<meta name="xmpTPg:NPages" content="39">
<meta name="dcterms:created" content="2010-07-08T17:19:00Z">
<meta name="dcterms:modified" content="2010-07-08T17:19:00Z">
<meta name="meta:character-count" content="76911">
<meta name="extended-properties:Template" content="Normal.dotm">
<meta name="X-TIKA:Parsed-By" content="org.apache.tika.parser.DefaultParser">
<meta name="X-TIKA:Parsed-By" content="org.apache.tika.parser.microsoft.OfficeParser">
<meta name="extended-properties:TotalTime" content="1200000000">
<meta name="Content-Length" content="462336">
<meta name="meta:page-count" content="39">
<meta name="Content-Type" content="application/msword">
<title></title>
</head>
<body><div class="header"><p class="header">Korean Shepherd’s purse Pest Risk Assessment
</p>
</div>
<p><div class="embedded" id="_1116735818"></div>
<img src="embedded:image1.png" alt="image1.png"></p>
<p>Importation of Shepherd’s purse 
</p>
<p>(<i>Capsella bursa-pastoris</i> (L.) Medik.) with roots</p>
<p>from the Republic of Korea into the United States</p>
<p>A Pathway-Initiated Risk Assessment
</p>
<p>October 15, 2007</p>
<p>Agency Contact:
</p>
<p>United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
</p>
<p>Animal Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)
</p>
<p>Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ)
</p>
<p>Center for Plant Health Science & Technology (CPHST)
</p>
<p>Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory (PERAL)
</p>
<p>1730 Varsity Dr., Ste. 300
</p>
<p>Raleigh, NC  27606-5205
</p>
<p>EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
</p>
<p>This pest risk assessment (PRA) document examines the risks associated with the importation of the stems, leaves and roots of Shepherd’s purse (<i>Capsella bursa-pastoris</i> (L.) Medik.) into the United States from Republic of Korea.  Information on pests affecting Shepherd’s purse production in the Americas is limited, so in this PRA the pests that affect Shepherd’s purse throughout the world are listed if, and only if, populations of that pest also are reported in Republic of Korea.  The table listing the pests should not be interpreted to infer that a direct association of a given pest on Shepherd’s purse within these countries was reported in the scientific literature, or that all pests known to affect Shepherd’s purse in the world are listed.
</p>
<p>In this PRA, pest interception data demonstrated that 11 quarantine pests of Shepherd’s purse are present in Republic of Korea, and that these pests can follow the pathway on shepherd’s purse leaves, stems and roots.  The 11 pests of quarantine concern include 4 Noctuid Lepidopteran insects (<i>Agrotis segetum</i>, <i>Helicoverpa armigera</i>, <i>Mamestra brassicae</i>, and <i>Spodoptera litura</i>); 3 other insects: <i>Athalia rosae,</i> <i>Chromatomyia horticola </i>and <i>Hellula undalis; </i>and<i> </i>4 nematodes of quarantine concern: <i>Hemicycliophora koreana</i>, <i>Paratylenchus pandus</i>, <i>Rotylenchus orientalis </i>and<i> Rotylenchus pini</i>.  
</p>
<p>These quarantine pests likely to follow the pathway have been qualitatively analyzed using the methodology described in the USDA-APHIS Pathway-Initiated Commodity Risk Assessment Guidelines 5.02, which examines pest biology in the context of the Consequences of Introduction and the Likelihood of Introduction and estimates the baseline Pest Risk Potential.  The four nematode pests of quarantine significance to the United States associated with <i>Capsella bursa-pastoris</i> roots (<i>Hemicycliophora koreana</i>, <i>Paratylenchus pandus,</i> <i>Rotylenchus orientalis, </i>and<i> Rotylenchus pini</i>) and the insect <i>Hellula undalis</i> are rated Medium.  <i>Athelia rosae,</i> <i>Agrotis segetum, Chromatomyia horticola, Helicoverpa armigera, Mamestra brassicae, and Spodoptera litura </i>are rated as having a high pest risk potential.  Based on this assessment, port-of-entry inspections may be insufficient to safeguard U.S. agriculture and phytosanitary measures should be implemented in order to reduce phytosanitary risk.</p>
<p><b>Table of Contents</b>......................................................iii</p>
<p class="tOC_1">ii<a href="_Toc150648260"><u>EXECUTIVE SUMMARY</u>
</a><u>
</u></p>
<p class="tOC_1">1<a href="_Toc150648261"><b><u>A.  Introduction</u></b>
</a><u>
</u></p>
<p class="tOC_1">1<a href="_Toc150648262"><b><u>B.  Risk Assessment</u></b>
</a><u>
</u></p>
<p class="tOC_2"><b>1</b><a href="_Toc150648263"><b><u>Step 1.  Initiating Event: Proposed Action</u>
</b></a><b><u>
</u></b></p>
<p class="tOC_2"><b>2</b><a href="_Toc150648264"><b><u>Step 2.  Assessment of Weed Potential</u>
</b></a><b><u>
</u></b></p>
<p class="tOC_3">2<a href="_Toc150648265"><b><u>Table 1.  Assessment of the Weediness Potential of Shepherd’s purse</u></b>
</a><u>
</u></p>
<p class="tOC_2"><b>2</b><a href="_Toc150648266"><b><u>Step 3.  Current Status, Previous Risk Assessments, Decision History, and Pest Interceptions</u>
</b></a><b><u>
</u></b></p>
<p class="tOC_2"><b>3</b><a href="_Toc150648267"><b><u>Step 4.  Pest Categorization</u>
</b></a><b><u>
</u></b></p>
<p class="tOC_3">3<a href="_Toc150648268"><b><u>Table 2.  Pests Associated with Shepherd’s purse (<i>Capsella bursa-pastoris</i>) in Republic of Korea and/or the United States.</u></b>
</a><u>
</u></p>
<p class="tOC_3">8<a href="_Toc150648269"><b><u>Table 3.  Quarantine pests on roots, stems and leaves of Shepherd’s purse from Republic of Korea for further analysis</u></b>
</a><u>
</u></p>
<p class="tOC_2"><b>8</b><a href="_Toc150648270"><b><u>Step 5.  Consequences of Introduction</u>
</b></a><b><u>
</u></b></p>
<p class="tOC_3">18<a href="_Toc150648271"><b><u>Table 4.  Summary of the Risk Ratings and the Value for the Consequences of Introduction</u></b>
</a><u>
</u></p>
<p class="tOC_2"><b>19</b><a href="_Toc150648272"><b><u>Step 6.  Likelihood of Introduction</u>
</b></a><b><u>
</u></b></p>
<p class="tOC_3">21<a href="_Toc150648273"><b><u>Table 5.  Summary of the Risk Ratings for the quantity annually imported, the pest opportunity, and the cumulative rating for the Likelihood of Introduction</u></b>
</a><u>
</u></p>
<p class="tOC_2"><b>21</b><a href="_Toc150648274"><b><u>Step 7.  Conclusion/Pest Risk Potential:</u>
</b></a><b><u>
</u></b></p>
<p class="tOC_3">22<a href="_Toc150648275"><b><u>Table 6.  Pest Risk Potential</u></b>
</a><u>
</u></p>
<p class="tOC_1">23<a href="_Toc150648276"><b><u>C. Authors</u></b>
</a><u>
</u></p>
<p class="tOC_1">24<a href="_Toc150648277"><b><u>D.  Literature Cited</u></b>
</a><u>
</u></p>
<p class="tOC_1">28<a href="_Toc150648278"><b><u>Appendix</u></b>
</a><u>
8</u></p>
<p><b>
</b></p>
<p><b>A.  Introduction
</b></p>
<p>This pest risk assessment (PRA) was prepared by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to evaluate the pest risks associated with the importation of roots leaves and stems of Shepherd’s purse (<i>Capsella bursa-pastoris</i> (L.) Medik.) from Republic of Korea into the United States.  This assessment does not include seed, flowers, or any flower parts of Shepherd’s purse because these parts are not part of the requested assessment and will not be allowed entry under any resultant permit.  This risk assessment was prepared by the APHIS of the USDA.  This PRA is qualitative, with risk being expressed in terms of high, medium or low rather than probabilities or frequencies.  The details of the methodology and rating criteria can be found in the <i>Pathway-Initiated Pest Risk Assessments: Guidelines for Qualitative Assessments, Version 5.02</i> (USDA, 2000).
</p>
<p>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 use of biological and phytosanitary terms are based on these standards.  The IPPC standards describe three stages of pest risk analysis: Stage 1, Initiation; Stage 2, Pest risk Assessment; and Stage 3, Pest Risk Management document (RMD).  This document satisfies the requirements of IPPC Stages 1 and 2, and provide mitigation options for stage 3 (Appendix).</p>
<p>The regional and international plant protection organizations—<i>e.g.,</i> the NAPPO and the IPPC administered by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations (UN)—provide guidance for conducting pest risk analyses.  The methods used to initiate, conduct, and report this PRA are consistent with guidelines provided by NAPPO and FAO. Our use of biological and phytosanitary terms conforms to “Definitions and Abbreviations” (Introduction Section) of International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures, Section 1—Import Regulations: Guidelines for Pest Risk Analysis (FAO, 1996, 1999, 2001, IPPC, 2004).
</p>
<p><b>B.  Risk Assessment
</b></p>
<p><b>Step 1.  Initiating Event: Proposed Action
</b></p>
<p>This commodity-based, pathway-initiated risk assessment is in response to a request for USDA authorization to allow the importation of Shepherd’s purse (<i>Capsella bursa-pastoris</i> (L.) Medik.) with roots from Republic of Korea into the United States, which is a potential pathway for the introduction of plant pests.  The regulatory authority for importation of fruits and vegetables from foreign sources into the United States is codified in Title 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations Section 319, Part 56 (7 CFR §319.56).
</p>
<p><b>Step 2.  Assessment of Weed Potential
</b></p>
<p>If the species considered for import poses a risk as a weed pest, then a “pest-initiated” risk assessment is conducted. The results of screening the leaves, stems and roots of Shepherd’s purse for weed potential did not prompt a pest-initiated risk assessment because Shepherd’s purse is a prevalent weed in the United States according to the evidence provided in Table 1.
</p>
<p><b>Table 1.  Assessment of the Weediness Potential of Shepherd’s purse
</b></p>
<p><b>Commodity:</b> Shepherd’s purse (<i>Capsella bursa-pastoris</i> (L.) Medik.) (Brassicaceae).
</p>
<p><b>Phase 1:</b> Shepherd’s purse is widely prevalent throughout the United States (NRSC, 2003).
</p>
<p><b>Phase 2:</b> Is the species listed in:
</p>
<p>
<u>Yes
</u><i>Geographical Atlas of World Weeds</i> (Holm <i>et al</i>., 1979)
</p>
<p><u>
Yes</u>
<i>World’s Worst Weeds</i> (Holm <i>et al</i>., 1977) or <i>World Weeds: Natural Histories</i> <i>and Distribution</i> (Holm <i>et al</i>., 1997)
</p>
<p>
<u>Yes</u>
<i>Report of the Technical Committee to Evaluate Noxious Weeds; Exotic Weeds for Federal Noxious Weed Act</i> (Gunn and Ritchie, 1982) 
</p>
<p>
<u>Yes</u>
<i>Economically Important Foreign Weeds</i> (Reed, 1977)
</p>
<p>
<u>No</u>
Weed Science Society of America Composite List of Weeds (WSSA, 2003)
</p>
<p>
<u>Yes</u>
Is there any literature reference indicating weediness (<i>e.</i>g., AGRICOLA, CAB, Biological Abstracts, AGRIS; search on “species name” combined with “weed.”
</p>
<p><b>Phase 3:</b> <i>Capsella bursa-pastoris</i> has naturalized and established permanent populations in the continental United States, Alaska and Hawaii; if it has been present in the United States for at least 200 years (Holm, <i>et al</i>. 1997).  <i>Capsella bursa-pastoris</i> is listed by Randall (2003) as a weed of the following statuses: <i>weed, noxious weed, naturalized</i>, <i>introduced</i>, <i>garden escape</i>, <i>environmental weed</i>; because this indicates a high weediness potential, it is listed as a noxious weed in Colorado (NCRS, 2003), crop pest and potential seed contaminants (Wiersema and León, 1999).  Shepherd’s purse is a weed found in cultivated fields of temperate climates, including higher altitudes in the tropics and sub-tropics (CABI, 2002).  The importation of the roots, stems, and leaves of shepherd’s purse (without flowers and seed and only for consumption) should not increase the risks of spreading this plant beyond its present range in the United States, due to its wide area of prevalence in the United States (NRSC, 2003).  A pest-initiated risk assessment for the species is therefore not necessary.</p>
<p><b>Step 3.  Current Status, Previous Risk Assessments, Decision History, and Pest Interceptions
</b></p>
<p>Currently, the leaves and stems of Shepherd’s purse, without roots, are allowed to be imported from Republic of Korea to all US ports since 1989, with inspection.  No pests have been recorded in the PIN309 database for <i>Capsella</i> from Republic of Korea, or prior to 1989 (USDA, 1974-1984).  Only two pests have ever been intercepted on <i>Capsella</i>; both of these pests were intercepted on <i>Capsella</i> in baggage from Mexico (PIN309 database, last accessed, June 2003).  No pests have been intercepted from Shepherd’s purse leaves and stems, without roots from Republic of Korea since imports of this commodity have been allowed entry.
</p>
<p><b>Step 4.  Pest Categorization
</b></p>
<p>Throughout most of the world, <i>Capsella bursa-pastoris</i> is considered a weed, but is cultivated in some Asian countries (including Republic of Korea).  Information on the pests of this crop in Republic of Korea is limited, and the extent that Shepherd’s purse is affected by endemic Korean pests populations is difficult to ascertain. In this risk assessment, Table 2 reports the pests that infect or infest Shepherd’s purse throughout the world if, and only if, populations of that pest also are reported in Republic of Korea. Table 2 should not be interpreted to infer all pests known to affect Shepherd’s purse in the world.  This table presents information about a pest’s prevalence as relative to the risks associated with the importation of Shepherd’s purse, along with the host associations and regulatory data used to select the quarantine pests given detailed biological analysis.  Pests of Shepherd’s purse have been reported at the genus or higher taxonomic levels; they are included in Table 2, but not further analyzed in this risk assessment to see if these taxa are present in the United States.  This applies to the following arthropods: <i>Phyllophaga</i> spp. and <i>Phyllotreta</i> spp.
</p>
<p>Table 2 lists all know pest associations with <i>Capsella bursa-pastoris</i> for the United States and Republic of Korea and quarantine pests are identified.
</p>
<p><b>Table 2.  Pests Associated with Shepherd’s purse (<i>Capsella bursa-pastoris</i>) in Republic of Korea and/or the United States.
</b></p>
<table><tbody><tr>	<td><p><b>Pest</b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Geographic
</b></p>
<p><b>Distribution1</b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Plant Part
</b></p>
<p><b>Affected2</b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Quarantine
</b></p>
<p><b>Pest</b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Likely to Follow Pathway</b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>References</b></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>ARTHROPODA</b></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Acyrothosiphon pisum</i> (Harris)
</p>
<p>(Homoptera:Aphididae)</p>
</td>	<td><p>KO, US</p>
</td>	<td><p>L, S, Fl</p>
</td>	<td><p>no</p>
</td>	<td><p>yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>KSPP, 1986; CABI, 2002</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Agrotis segetum</i> 
(Denis & Schiffermüller) 
(Lepidoptera:Noctuidae)<i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p>KO</p>
</td>	<td><p>L, S, Fr</p>
</td>	<td><p>yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2002; Zhang, 1994</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Athalia rosae</i> L.
</p>
<p>(Hymenoptera:Tenthredinidae)</p>
</td>	<td><p>KO</p>
</td>	<td><p>W</p>
</td>	<td><p>yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>KSPP, 1986; CABI, 2002</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Bemisia tabaci</i> (B biotype) 
Gennadius 
(Hemiptera:Aleyrodidae)<i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p>KO, US</p>
</td>	<td><p>L, S</p>
</td>	<td><p>no</p>
</td>	<td><p>yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2002; EPPO, 2002</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Brevicoryne brassicae</i> L. 
(Hemiptera:Aphididae)<i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p>KO, US</p>
</td>	<td><p>W</p>
</td>	<td><p>no</p>
</td>	<td><p>yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2002</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Chromatomyia horticola</i> 
Goureau 
(Diptera:Agromizidae)<i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p>KO</p>
</td>	<td><p>L</p>
</td>	<td><p>yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2002</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Delia radicum</i> L. 
(Diptera:Anthomyiidae)<i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p>KO, US</p>
</td>	<td><p>R</p>
</td>	<td><p>no</p>
</td>	<td><p>yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2002; Arnett, 1997</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Eurydema pulchrum</i> 
Westwood 
(Hemiptera:Pentatomidae)<i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p>KO, US</p>
</td>	<td><p>L,Fl,Fr,Sd</p>
</td>	<td><p>no</p>
</td>	<td><p>yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2002</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Eurydema rugosum</i> 
Motschulsky 
(Hemiptera:Pentatomidae)<i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p>KO, US</p>
</td>	<td><p>L,Fl,Fr,Sd</p>
</td>	<td><p>no</p>
</td>	<td><p>yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2002</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Helicoverpa armigera </i>Hübner 
(Lepidoptera:Noctuidae)<i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p>KO</p>
</td>	<td><p>L,Fr,S</p>
</td>	<td><p>yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2002; Zhang, 1994</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Hellula undalis</i> Fabricius 
(Lepidoptera:Pyralidae)<i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p>KO, HI</p>
</td>	<td><p>L</p>
</td>	<td><p>yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2002; Zhang, 1994</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Lipaphis erysimi</i> Kaltenbach 
(Hemiptera:Aphididae)<i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p>KO, US</p>
</td>	<td><p>W</p>
</td>	<td><p>no</p>
</td>	<td><p>yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>Arnett, 1997; Blackman & Eastop, 2000; CABI, 2002</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Liriomyza brassicae</i> (Riley) 
(Diptera:Agromyzidae)<i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p>KO, US</p>
</td>	<td><p>L</p>
</td>	<td><p>no</p>
</td>	<td><p>yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2002; Arnett, 1997</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Mamestra brassicae</i> (L.)
(Lepidoptera:Noctuidae)<i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p>KO</p>
</td>	<td><p>L</p>
</td>	<td><p>yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2002, Zhang, 1994</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Myzus persicae</i> Sulzer 
(Homoptera:Aphididae)<i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p>KO, US</p>
</td>	<td><p>W</p>
</td>	<td><p>no</p>
</td>	<td><p>yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>Arnett, 1997; Blackman & Eastop, 2000; CABI, 2002</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Parlatoria proteus </i>(Curtis)
</p>
<p>(Hemiptera:Diaspididae) </p>
</td>	<td><p>KO, US</p>
</td>	<td><p>W</p>
</td>	<td><p>no</p>
</td>	<td><p>yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2002; Arnett, 1997</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Pseudaulacaspis pentagona</i> (Targioni Tozzetti) (Hemiptera:Diaspididae)<i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p>KO, US</p>
</td>	<td><p>W</p>
</td>	<td><p>no</p>
</td>	<td><p>yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2002; Arnett, 1997</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Phyllophaga </i>spp. Harris 
(Coleoptera:Scarabaeidae)<i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p>KO, US</p>
</td>	<td><p>W</p>
</td>	<td><p>CBD3</p>
</td>	<td><p>yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2002; Arnett, 1997</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Phyllotreta</i> spp. 
(Coleoptera:Chrysomelidae)<i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p>KO, US</p>
</td>	<td><p>R</p>
</td>	<td><p>CBD</p>
</td>	<td><p>yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2002, Arnett, 1997</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Phyllotreta</i> <i>striolata </i>(Fabricius) 
(Coleoptera:Chrysomelidae)<i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p>KO, US</p>
</td>	<td><p>R</p>
</td>	<td><p>no</p>
</td>	<td><p>yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2002; Arnett, 1997</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Phyllotreta</i> <i>vittata</i> (Fabricius)
(Coleoptera:Chrysomelidae)<i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p>KO, US</p>
</td>	<td><p>R</p>
</td>	<td><p>no</p>
</td>	<td><p>yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2002; Arnett, 1997</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Plutella xylostella</i> L. 
(Lepidoptera:Plutellinae)<i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p>KO, US</p>
</td>	<td><p>L</p>
</td>	<td><p>no</p>
</td>	<td><p>yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2002; Zhang, 1994</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Pseudococcus calceolariae</i> 
(Maskell) 
(Coccoidea:Pseudococcidae)<i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p>KO, US</p>
</td>	<td><p>L,S,Fl</p>
</td>	<td><p>no</p>
</td>	<td><p>yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2002; Arnett, 1997</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Spodoptera exigua</i> (Hübner) 
(Lepidoptera:Noctuidae)<i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p>KO, US</p>
</td>	<td><p>L</p>
</td>	<td><p>no</p>
</td>	<td><p>yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2002; Zhang, 1994</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Spodoptera litura</i> Fabricius 
(Lepidoptera:Noctuidae)<i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p>KO, HI</p>
</td>	<td><p>L</p>
</td>	<td><p>yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2002; Zhang, 1994</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Trialeurodes vaporariorum</i> 
Westwood 
(Homoptera:Aleyrodidae)<i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p>KO, US</p>
</td>	<td><p>L</p>
</td>	<td><p>no</p>
</td>	<td><p>yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2002; Arnett, 1997</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Trichoplusia ni</i> Hübner 
(Lepidoptera:Noctuidae)<i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p>KO, US</p>
</td>	<td><p>L</p>
</td>	<td><p>no</p>
</td>	<td><p>yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2002; Zhang, 1994</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>BACTERIA</b></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Rhizobium radiobacter</i> 
(Beijerinck & van Delden) Young 
(Rhizobiales:Rhizobiaceae)<i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p>KO, US</p>
</td>	<td><p>S,R</p>
</td>	<td><p>no</p>
</td>	<td><p>yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2002</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Xanthomonas campestris</i> pv. <i>campestris
</i>(Pammel) Dowson
(Xanthomonadales:
</p>
<p>Xanthomonadaceae)<i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p>KO, US</p>
</td>	<td><p>L</p>
</td>	<td><p>no</p>
</td>	<td><p>yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2002</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>FUNGI</b></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Albugo candida </i>(Pers.) Kuntze
</p>
<p>(Peronosporales:Albyginaceae)<i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p>KO, US</p>
</td>	<td><p>L</p>
</td>	<td><p>no</p>
</td>	<td><p>yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>KSPP, 1998; Farr, <i>et al.</i>, 2003</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Alternaria brassicicola </i>(Schwein.) Wiltshire 
(Pleosporales:Pleosporaceae)<i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p>KO, US</p>
</td>	<td><p>L</p>
</td>	<td><p>no</p>
</td>	<td><p>yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2002; Farr <i>et al.</i>, 2003; Ainsworth and Bisby, 1995</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Erysiphe cichoracearum </i>DC
</p>
<p>(Erysiphales:Erysiphaceae)</p>
</td>	<td><p>KO, US</p>
</td>	<td><p>L</p>
</td>	<td><p>no</p>
</td>	<td><p>yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>KSPP, 1998; Farr <i>et al.</i>, 2003</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Leptosphaeria maculans</i> 
(Desm.) Ces. & De Not. 
(Pleosporales:Leptosphaeriaceae)<i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p>KO, US</p>
</td>	<td><p>S,L</p>
</td>	<td><p>no</p>
</td>	<td><p>yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2002; Farr<i> et al.</i>, 2003; Ainsworth and Bisby, 1995</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Macrophomina phaseolina</i> 
(Tassi) Goid 
(Deuteromycotina)<i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p>KO, US</p>
</td>	<td><p>R,S</p>
</td>	<td><p>no</p>
</td>	<td><p>yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2002; Farr <i>et al.</i>, 2003; Ainsworth and Bisby, 1995</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Mycosphaerella brassicicola</i> 
(Duby) Johanson ex Oudem. 
(Mycosphaerellales:
</p>
<p>Mycosphaerellaceae)<i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p>KO, US</p>
</td>	<td><p>L</p>
</td>	<td><p>no</p>
</td>	<td><p>yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2002; Farr <i>et al</i>., 2003; Ainsworth and Bisby, 1995</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Peronospora parasitica</i> 
(Pers.:Fr.) Fr. 
(Peronosporales:
</p>
<p>Peronosporaceae)<i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p>KO, US</p>
</td>	<td><p>L</p>
</td>	<td><p>no</p>
</td>	<td><p>yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2002; Farr <i>et al.</i>, 2003; Ainsworth and Bisby, 1995</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Pseudocercosporella capsellae </i>(Ellis & Everh.) Deighton
</p>
<p>(Hyphomycetales:Dematiaceae)<i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p>KO, US</p>
</td>	<td><p>L</p>
</td>	<td><p>no</p>
</td>	<td><p>yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>KSPP, 1998; Farr, <i>et al.</i> 2003</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Plasmodiophora brassicae</i> Woronin (Plasmodiophorales:
</p>
<p>Plasmodiophoraceae)<i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p>KO, US</p>
</td>	<td><p>R</p>
</td>	<td><p>no</p>
</td>	<td><p>yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2002; Farr <i>et al.</i>, 2003; Ainsworth and Bisby, 1995</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Pythium aphanidermatum</i> 
(Edson) Fitzp. 
(Pythiales:Pythiacae)<i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p>KO, US</p>
</td>	<td><p>R</p>
</td>	<td><p>no</p>
</td>	<td><p>yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2002; Farr <i>et al.</i>, 2003; Ainsworth and Bisby, 1995</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Pythium irregulare</i> Buisman 
(Pythiales:Pythiacae)<i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p>KO, US</p>
</td>	<td><p>R</p>
</td>	<td><p>no</p>
</td>	<td><p>yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2002; Farr <i>et al.</i>, 2003; Ainsworth and Bisby, 1995</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Pythium splendens </i>Braun 
(Pythiales:Pythiacae)<i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p>KO, US</p>
</td>	<td><p>R</p>
</td>	<td><p>no</p>
</td>	<td><p>yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2002; Farr <i>et al.</i>, 2003; Ainsworth and Bisby, 1995</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Pythium vexans </i>de Bary 
(Pythiales:Pythiacae)<i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p>KO, US</p>
</td>	<td><p>R</p>
</td>	<td><p>no</p>
</td>	<td><p>yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2002; Farr <i>et al.</i>, 2003; Ainsworth and Bisby, 1995</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Sclerotinia sclerotiorum</i>
(Lib.) de Bary 
(Leotiales:Sclerotiniaceae)<i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p>KO, US</p>
</td>	<td><p>R</p>
</td>	<td><p>no</p>
</td>	<td><p>yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2002; Farr <i>et al</i>., 2003; Ainsworth and Bisby, 1995</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>NEMATODA</b></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Belonolaimus longicaudatus</i> 
</p>
<p>Rau
</p>
<p>(Tylenchida:Belonolaimidae)<i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p>KO, US</p>
</td>	<td><p>R</p>
</td>	<td><p>no</p>
</td>	<td><p>yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2002; Mai, <i>et al.</i>, 1996; USDA, 2003</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Criconemella</i> spp.
</p>
<p>de Grisse and Loof 
</p>
<p>(Tylenchida:Criconematidae)<i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p>KO,US</p>
</td>	<td><p>R</p>
</td>	<td><p>CBD</p>
</td>	<td><p>yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2002; Mai, <i>et al.</i>, 1996; USDA, 2003</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Ditylenchus destructor </i>Thorne
</p>
<p>(Tylenchida:Anguinidae)<i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p>KO, AR, CA, HI, ID, IN, NJ, NC, OR, SC, VA, WA, WV, WI</p>
</td>	<td><p>R</p>
</td>	<td><p>no</p>
</td>	<td><p>yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2002; Goodey <i>et al</i>., 1965; Mai, <i>et al.</i>, 1996; USDA, 2003</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Ditylenchus dipsaci </i>Thorne
</p>
<p>(Tylenchida:Anguinidae<i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p>KO, AL, AR, CA, CO, FL, HI, ID, MI, MT, NY, NC, OR, SD, UT, VA, WA, WY</p>
</td>	<td><p>R, S</p>
</td>	<td><p>no</p>
</td>	<td><p>yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2002; Choi & Geraert, 1975; Goodey, <i>et al.</i>, 1965; Mai <i>et al.</i>, 1996; USDA, 2003</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Helicotylenchus dihystera</i> (Cobb) Sher 
</p>
<p>(Tylenchida:Hoplolaimidae)<i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p>KO, US</p>
</td>	<td><p>R</p>
</td>	<td><p>no</p>
</td>	<td><p>yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2002; Mai, <i>et al</i>., 1996; USDA, 2003</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Hemicycliophora koreana 
</i></p>
<p>Choi & Geraert 
</p>
<p>(Tylenchida:Criconematidae)<i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p>KO, FL</p>
</td>	<td><p>R</p>
</td>	<td><p>yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>Choi & Geraert, 1971. 
</p>
<p>Coile, 1999; Mai, <i>et al.</i>,1996; USDA, 2003 </p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Heterodera schactii</i> Schmidt
</p>
<p>(Tylenchida:Heteroderidae)</p>
</td>	<td><p>KO, US</p>
</td>	<td><p>R</p>
</td>	<td><p>no</p>
</td>	<td><p>yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2002; Choi & Geraert, 1975; USDA, 2003</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Meloidogyne hapla </i>Chitwood</p>
<p>(Tylenchida:Heteroderidae)</p>
</td>	<td><p>KO, US</p>
</td>	<td><p>R</p>
</td>	<td><p>no</p>
</td>	<td><p>yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>Choi & Geraert, 1975; USDA, 2003</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Meloidogyne incognita</i> (K&W) Chitwood
</p>
<p>(Tylenchida:Heteroderidae)<i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p>KO, US</p>
</td>	<td><p>R</p>
</td>	<td><p>no</p>
</td>	<td><p>yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>Choi & Geraert, 1975; USDA, 2003</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Meloidogyne</i> spp. Goeldi 
</p>
<p>(Tylenchida:Heteroderidae)<i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p>KO, US</p>
</td>	<td><p>R</p>
</td>	<td><p>CBD</p>
</td>	<td><p>yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2002; Mai, <i>et al.</i>, 1996; USDA, 2003<i></i></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Pratylenchus penetrans</i> (Cobb) Fil. & S.S.
</p>
<p>(Tylenchida:Pratylenchidae)</p>
</td>	<td><p>KO, US</p>
</td>	<td><p>R</p>
</td>	<td><p>no</p>
</td>	<td><p>yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>Choi & Geraert, 1975; Goodey, <i>et al.</i>, 1965; USDA, 2003</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Paratylenchus pandus 
</i></p>
<p>Pinochet & Raski 
</p>
<p>(Tylenchida:Tylenchulidae)<i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p>KO</p>
</td>	<td><p>R</p>
</td>	<td><p>yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2002; Mai, <i>et al.</i>, 1996; USDA, 2003</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Rotylenchus orientalis 
</i></p>
<p>Siddiqi & Husain 
</p>
<p>(Tylenchida:Hoplolaimidae)<i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p>KO</p>
</td>	<td><p>R</p>
</td>	<td><p>yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2002; Mai, <i>et al.</i>, 1996; USDA, 2003</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Rotylenchus pini</i> Mamiya
</p>
<p>(Tylenchida:Hoplolaimidae)</p>
</td>	<td><p>KO</p>
</td>	<td><p>R</p>
</td>	<td><p>yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>Choi & Geraert, 1975</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Tylenchorhynchus dubius</i> (Bütschli) Filipjev
</p>
<p>(Tylenchida:Belonolaimidae)</p>
</td>	<td><p>KO, US</p>
</td>	<td><p>R</p>
</td>	<td><p>no</p>
</td>	<td><p>yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>Choi & Geraert, 1975; USDA, 2003</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Xiphinema</i> spp. Cobb 
</p>
<p>(Dorylaimidae:
</p>
<p>Xiphinematidae)<i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p>KO, US</p>
</td>	<td><p>R</p>
</td>	<td><p>CBD</p>
</td>	<td><p>yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2002; Mai, <i>et al.</i>, 1996; USDA, 2003</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>VIRUSES</b></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Cabbage mosaic virus (Caulimoviridae)</p>
</td>	<td><p>KO, US</p>
</td>	<td><p>W</p>
</td>	<td><p>no</p>
</td>	<td><p>yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2002; Brunt, <i>et al.</i>, 2003; Dallwitz, 1980; Dallwitz,<i> et al</i>., 1993</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Turnip mosaic virus (Potyviridae)</p>
</td>	<td><p>KO, US</p>
</td>	<td><p>W</p>
</td>	<td><p>no</p>
</td>	<td><p>yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2002; Brunt, <i>et al.</i>, 2003; Dallwitz, 1980; Dallwitz, <i>et al.</i>, 1993</p>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<p>1Distribution (specific states are listed only if distribution is limited):, AL = Alabama, AZ = Arizona, AR = Arkansas, CA = California, CO = Colorado, FL = Florida, HI = Hawaii, ID = Idaho, IN = Indiana, KO = Republic of Korea, MI = Michigan, MT = Montana, NJ = New Jersey, NY = New York, NC = North Carolina, OR = Oregon, SC = South Carolina, SD = South Dakota, UT = Utah, VA = Virginia, WA = Washington, WV = West Virginia, WI = Wisconsin, WY = Wyoming, and US = continental United States (widespread)
</p>
<p>2Plant Parts: Fr = Fruit; Fl = Inflorescence or flowers; L = Leaf; R = Root; S = Stem; Sd = Seed, W = Whole Plant
</p>
<p>3Members of this genus are reported in the United States, but because the organism was not identified to the species level, the status as a quarantine pest cannot be determined (CBD). Port of entry interceptions of organisms identified only to the genus level are assumed to be interceptions of quarantine pests when quarantine pests exist within that genus.
</p>
<p>Eleven quarantine species follow the pathway and should be further studied (Table 3).  
</p>
<p><b>Table 3.  Quarantine pests on roots, stems and leaves of Shepherd’s purse from Republic of Korea for further analysis
</b></p>
<table><tbody><tr>	<td><p><b>Pest</b></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Agrotis segetum </i>(Denis & Schiffermüller)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Athalia rosae</i> L.</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Chromatomyia horticola </i>Goureau</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Helicoverpa armigera</i> Hübner</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Hellula undalis </i>Fabricius</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Hemicycliophora koreana </i>Choi & Geraert </p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Mamestra brassicae</i> (L.)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Paratylenchus pandus</i> Pinochet & Raski </p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Rotylenchus orientalis </i>Siddiqi & Husain</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Rotylenchus pini </i>Mamiya</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Spodoptera litura</i> Fabricius<i></i></p>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<p><b>Step 5.  Consequences of Introduction
</b></p>
<p>The conceptual model for this analysis is the USDA-APHIS-PPQ Guidelines for Pathway-Initiated Pest Risk Assessments (USDA, 2000 - v. 5.02). In this risk assessment, the first five risk elements combine to form an assessment of the risk associated with the Consequences of Introduction.  The value for the Consequences of Introduction is interpreted by using the USDA-APHIS-PPQ Guidelines for Pathway-Initiated Pest Risk Assessments (USDA, 2000 - v. 5.02).  The remaining risk element ratings are evaluated and combined as described in those guidelines to give a value related to the risk associated with the Likelihood of Introduction.  Together, the Consequences of Introduction and the Likelihood of Introduction values form an evaluation of the Pest Risk Potential.  These science-based evaluations of the risks associated with this importation of a commodity are designed to inform decision makers.  For additional information regarding the criteria used, please refer to the USDA-APHIS-PPQ Guidelines for Pathway-Initiated Pest Risk Assessments (USDA, 2000 - v. 5.02).
</p>
<p>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 process (APHIS, 2000; Orr, <i>et al</i>., 1993), 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 <i>et al</i>., 1993).  To address this last source of uncertainty, the lists of factors were interpreted as illustrative and non-exhaustive.  Other traditionally recognized sources of uncertainty include the quality of the biological information (Gallegos and Bonano, 1993), which includes uncertainty whenever biological information is lacking on the regional flora and fauna, and inherent biological variation within a population of organisms (Morgan and Henrion, 1990). 
</p>
<p>We rated the potential consequences for each pest with respect to five different elements.  The ranking considers pest potential in the absence of specific risk mitigation activities.  Criteria for estimating consequences were qualitative.  Numerical values (1, 2, or 3 points) were assigned to each element to assist in categorization. The sum of the five individual ratings provided an estimate of potential consequences for each pest.
</p>
<p>The qualitative pest risk analysis of the quarantine pests listed in Table 3 begins with a compilation and analysis of basic biological information about each pest.  Each risk element is examined individually in Table 4, where the risk ratings are summarized. 
</p>
<table><tbody><tr>	<td><p><b>Consequences of Introduction: <i>Agrotis segetum</i> (Denis & Schiffermüller) (Lepidoptera:Noctuidae)</b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Risk Value</b></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #1: Climate-Host Interaction
</b></p>
<p>Climatic conditions for these organisms exist throughout the host range of <i>Capsella</i> in the United States, which consists of more than 4 USDA Hardiness Zones (USDA, 1990).</p>
</td>	<td><p>High (3)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #2: Host Range
</b></p>
<p><i>Agrotis segetum</i> has a wide host range consisting of more than 20 different families, including Brassicaceae, Cucurbitaceae, and Solanaceae, as well as cereals, citrus and cotton (CABI, 2002).</p>
</td>	<td><p>High (3)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential
</b></p>
<p><i>Agrotis segetum</i> individuals are capable of flight and are strong fliers (CABI, 2002).  The family can complete several generations in a season and have a high fecundity rate (CABI, 2002).</p>
</td>	<td><p>High (3)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #4: Economic Impact
</b></p>
<p>Although populations of <i>Agrotis segetum</i> are not present in the United States, other members of the genera are present (Arnett, 1997; CABI, 2002; Zhang, 1994).  Economic impact of these insects would increase plant mortality, lower crop values, and potentially reduce export markets (CABI, 2002).</p>
</td>	<td><p>High (3)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact
</b></p>
<p>The genus <i>Capsella</i> has no species on the USDA Threatened and Endangered List, however (USFWS, 2001), 14 genera in the Brassicaceae family are listed as Threatened or Endangered, and could potentially be harmed by the introduction of this Noctuid.  This pest is polyphagous and host plants include species in <i>Solanum</i> and <i>Curcurbita</i>.</p>
</td>	<td><p>High (3)</p>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<table><tbody><tr>	<td><p><b>Consequences of Introduction: <i>Athalia rosae</i> L. (Hymenoptera:Tenthredinidae)</b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Risk Value</b></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #1: Climate-Host Interaction
</b></p>
<p>Climatic conditions for these organisms exist throughout the host range of <i>Capsella</i> in the United States, which consists of more than 4 USDA Hardiness Zones (USDA, 1990).  </p>
</td>	<td><p>High (3)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #2: Host Range
</b></p>
<p><i>Athalia rosae</i> has a wide host range within the Brassicaceae, including <i>Armoracia rusticana</i> (horseradish), <i>Beta vulgaris</i> var. <i>saccharifera</i> (sugarbeet), <i>Brassica rapa</i> subsp. <i>chinensis</i> (Chinese cabbage), <i>Brassica juncea</i> var. <i>juncea</i> (Brown mustard), <i>Brassica napus</i> var. <i>napus</i> (rape), <i>Brassica oleracea</i> var. <i>capitata</i> (cabbage), <i>Brassica rapa</i> subsp. <i>pekinensis</i> (Pe-tsai), <i>Brassica rapa</i> var. <i>glabra</i> (Japanese turnip), <i>Brassica rapa</i> ssp. <i>oleifera</i> (turnip), <i>Nasturtium officinale</i> (watercress), <i>Sinapis alba</i> (white mustard) and <i>Rorippa</i> <i>indica</i> (CABI, 2002).  </p>
</td>	<td><p>High (3)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential
</b></p>
<p><i>Athalia rosae</i> individuals are capable of flight and strong fliers, having crossed from the European continent to England (CABI, 2002).  The insects also can complete several generations in a season and have a high fecundity rate (CABI, 2002).  </p>
</td>	<td><p>High (3)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #4: Economic Impact
</b></p>
<p>Populations of <i>Athalia rosae</i> are not present in the United States (Arnett, 1997; CABI, 2002; Zhang, 1994).  The economic impact of these insects on the crops listed as host plants would increase plant mortality, lower crop value, or/and potentially reduce export markets (CABI, 2002).  </p>
</td>	<td><p>High (3)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact
</b></p>
<p>The genus <i>Capsella</i> has no species on the USDA Threatened and Endangered List (USFWS, 2001), however, there are 14 genera in the Brassicaceae family listed as Threatened or Endangered—this includes <i>Rorippa,</i> which is listed as a host for <i>Athalia rosae</i> (CABI, 2002).</p>
</td>	<td><p>High (3)</p>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<table><tbody><tr>	<td><p><b>Consequences of Introduction: <i>Chromatomyia horticola</i></b> <b>Goureau 
(Diptera:Agromizidae)</b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Risk Value</b></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #1: Climate-Host Interaction
</b></p>
<p>Climatic conditions for these organisms exist throughout the host range of <i>Capsella</i> in the United States, which consists of more than 4 USDA Hardiness Zones (USDA, 1990).  </p>
</td>	<td><p>High (3)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #2: Host Range
</b></p>
<p><i>Chromatomyia horticola</i> has a wide host range.  More than 260 plant species are hosts, including plant species in the families:  Alliaceae, Amaranthaceae, Anacardiaceae, Brassicaceae, Caryophyllaceae, Chenopodiaceae, Compositae, Convolvulaceae, Cucurbitaceae, Euphorbiaceae, Fabaceae, Malvaceae, Onagraceae, Ranunculaceae, Rutaceae, Solanaceae, and Umbelliferae.  </p>
</td>	<td><p>High (3)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential
</b></p>
<p><i>Chromatomyia horticola</i> individuals are capable of flight and but are not strong fliers and generally depend upon wind for dispersal (CABI, 2002).  The species can complete several generations in a season and they have a high fecundity rate (CABI, 2002).  </p>
</td>	<td><p>High (3)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #4: Economic Impact
</b></p>
<p>Populations of <i>Chromatomyia horticola</i> are not present in the United States (CABI, 2002; PIN309, 2003 - database).  Because of the wide host range, the economic impact of these insects would increase plant mortality, lower crop value, and potentially reduce export markets (CABI, 2002).  </p>
</td>	<td><p>High (3)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact
</b></p>
<p>The genus <i>Capsella</i> has no species on the USDA Threatened and Endangered List (USFWS, 2001), however, 14 genera in the Brassicaceae family are listed as Threatened or Endangered, and could potentially be harmed by the introduction of this leafminer.  Additional plant host species, such as <i>Allium</i>, <i>Amaranthus</i>, <i>Curcurbita</i>, <i>Solanum</i> and <i>Vicia,</i> are on the Endangered and Threatened List (USFWS, 2001).</p>
</td>	<td><p>High (3)</p>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<table><tbody><tr>	<td><p><b>Consequences of Introduction: <i>Helicoverpa armigera</i></b> <b>Hübner (Lepidoptera:Noctuidae)</b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Risk Value</b></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #1: Climate-Host Interaction
</b></p>
<p>Climatic conditions for these organisms exist throughout the host range of <i>Capsella</i> in the United States, which consists of more than 4 USDA Hardiness Zones (USDA, 1990).  </p>
</td>	<td><p>High (3)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #2: Host Range
</b></p>
<p><i>Helicoverpa armigera</i> has a wide host range consisting of more than 20 different families, including Brassicaceae, Cucurbitaceae, and Solanaceae, as well as cereals, citrus and cotton (CABI, 2002).  <i>Helicoverpa armigera</i> is polyphagous. It is a major pest of cotton (<i>Gossypium</i> spp.), pigeon pea (<i>Cajanus</i> <i>cajan</i>), chickpea (<i>Cicer</i> <i>arietinum</i>), tomato (<i>Lycopersicum esculentum</i>), sorghum (<i>Sorghum </i>spp.) and cowpea (<i>Vigna</i> <i>unguiculata</i>).  Other hosts include peanut (<i>Arachis hypogaea</i>), okra (<i>Abelmoschus esculentus</i>), peas (<i>Pisum</i> <i>sativum</i>), soybeans (<i>Glycine max)</i>, other legumes, tobacco (<i>Nicotiana tabacum)</i>, potatoes (<i>Solanum tuberosum</i>), maize (<i>Zea mays</i>), flax (<i>Linum usitatissimum</i>), a number of fruits (<i>Prunus </i>spp. and <i>Citrus </i>spp.), forest trees and a range of vegetable crops (CABI, 2002).  </p>
</td>	<td><p>High (3)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential
</b></p>
<p><i>Helicoverpa armigera</i> individuals are capable of flight and are strong fliers (CABI, 2002).  The family also can complete several generations in a season and have a high fecundity rate (CABI, 2002).  </p>
</td>	<td><p>High (3)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #4: Economic Impact
</b></p>
<p>Populations of <i>Helicoverpa armigera</i> are not present in the United States (CABI, 2002; PIN309, 2003 - database).  Because of its wide host range, the economic impact of these insects would likely increase plant mortality, lower crop value, and potentially reduce export markets of affected commodities (CABI, 2002).  </p>
</td>	<td><p>High (3)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact
</b></p>
<p>The genus <i>Capsella</i> has no species on the USDA Threatened and Endangered List (USFWS, 2001), however, 14 genera in the Brassicaceae family are listed as Threatened or Endangered, and could potentially be harmed by the introduction of this Noctuid.  Additional plant host species, such as <i>Allium</i>, <i>Amaranthus</i>, <i>Curcurbita</i>, <i>Prunus</i> and <i>Solanum,</i> are on the Endangered and Threatened List (USFWS, 2001).</p>
</td>	<td><p>High (3)</p>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<table><tbody><tr>	<td><p><b>Consequences of Introduction: <i>Hellula undalis</i></b> <b>Fabricius (Lepidoptera:Pyralidae)</b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Risk Value</b></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #1: Climate-Host Interaction
</b></p>
<p>Climatic conditions for these organisms exist throughout the host range of <i>Capsella</i> in the United States, which consists of more than 4 USDA Hardiness Zones (USDA, 1990).  </p>
</td>	<td><p>High (3)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #2: Host Range
</b></p>
<p><i>Hellula undalis</i> has a wide host range, consisting of members of the Capparidaceae, Brassicaceae families, including: <i>Brassica oleracea</i> var. <i>capitata</i> (cabbage), <i>Nasturtium officinale</i> (watercress), <i>Raphanus sativus</i> (radish) (CABI, 2002).  </p>
</td>	<td><p>High (3)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential
</b></p>
<p><i>Hellula undalis</i> individuals are capable of flight and are strong fliers (CABI, 2002).  The family can complete several generations in a season and they have a high fecundity rate (CABI, 2002).  </p>
</td>	<td><p>High (3)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #4: Economic Impact
</b></p>
<p>Populations of <i>Hellula undalis</i> are not present in the United States (CABI, 2002; PIN309, 2003 - database).  Because of is wide host range, the economic impact of these insects would likely increase plant mortality, lower crop value, and potentially reduce export markets of affected commodities (CABI, 2002).  </p>
</td>	<td><p>High (3)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact
</b></p>
<p>The genus <i>Capsella</i> has no species on the USDA Threatened and Endangered List (USFWS, 2001), however, 14 genera in the Brassicaceae family are listed as Threatened or Endangered, and could potentially be endangered by the introduction of these Pyralids.  Consequently, none of the current plant host genera for <i>Hellula undalis</i> have species on the Endangered and Threatened List (USFWS, 2001).  </p>
</td>	<td><p>Medium (2)</p>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<table><tbody><tr>	<td><p><b>Consequences of Introduction: <i>Hemicycliophora koreana</i></b> <b>Choi & Geraert 
</b></p>
<p><b>(Tylenchida:Criconematidae)</b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Risk Value</b></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #1: Climate-Host Interaction
</b></p>
<p>Climatic conditions for these organisms exist throughout the host range of <i>Capsella</i> in the United States, which consists of more than 4 USDA Hardiness Zones (USDA, 1990).  </p>
</td>	<td><p>High (3)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #2: Host Range
</b></p>
<p><i>Hemicycliophora koreana</i> has a host range of several plant species including apple, azalea, grape, oak and pine, according to Choi and Gereart (1975).  Other species within the genus <i>Hemicycliophora </i>are known to attack plants in the Brassicaceae family (USDA, 2003; Goodey <i>et al.</i>, 1965).  </p>
<p></p>
</td>	<td><p>High (3)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential
</b></p>
<p>These nematodes have a semi-endoparasitic lifecycle, with attachment to roots during feeding (Goodey <i>et al.</i>, 1965).  These nematodes are soilborne, moving with contaminated soil, plants or equipment.  The reproductive rate for this nematode is relatively high, with two or more generations occurring during the growing season.  (Note:  They do not form dauer-larvae (Bongers & Bongers, 1998)).  </p>
</td>	<td><p>Low (1)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #4: Economic Impact
</b></p>
<p>These nematodes are present in FL in the United States, but are limited in their distribution and are considered quarantine pests (EPPO, 2002; PIN309, 2003 - database).  Because of the wide host range, the economic impact of these nematodes would increase plant mortality, lower crop value, and potentially reduce available export markets (Choi and Gereart, 1975; Coile, 1999).  </p>
</td>	<td><p>High (3)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact
</b></p>
<p>The genus <i>Capsella</i> has no species on the USDA Threatened and Endangered List (USFWS, 2001), however, 14 genera in the Brassicaceae family are listed as Threatened or Endangered, and could potentially be harmed by the introduction of this nematode.  Additional potential plant host species, such as <i>Ambrosia</i>, <i>Quercus</i>, <i>Portulaca</i>, <i>Prunus</i> and <i>Solanum,</i> are on the Endangered and Threatened List (USFWS, 2001).  This nematode is polyphagous and may have additional hosts in the United States that are endangered, but they are currently unknown.</p>
</td>	<td><p>High (3)</p>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<table><tbody><tr>	<td><p><b>Consequences of Introduction: <i>Mamestra brassicae</i> (L.) (Lepidoptera:Noctuidae)</b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Risk Value</b></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #1: Climate-Host Interaction
</b></p>
<p>Climatic conditions for these organisms exist throughout the host range of <i>Capsella</i> in the United States, which consists of more than 4 USDA Hardiness Zones (USDA, 1990).  </p>
</td>	<td><p>High (3)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #2: Host Range
</b></p>
<p><i>Mamestra brassicae</i> has a wide host range consisting of more than 20 different families, including Brassicaceae, Cucurbitaceae, and Solanaceae, as well as cereals, citrus and cotton (CABI, 2002).  </p>
</td>	<td><p>High (3)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential
</b></p>
<p><i>Mamestra brassicae</i> individuals are capable of flight and are strong fliers (CABI, 2002).  The family can complete several generations in a season and they have a high fecundity rate (CABI, 2002).</p>
</td>	<td><p>High (3)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #4: Economic Impact
</b></p>
<p>Although populations of <i>Mamestra brassicae</i> are not present in the United States, there are other members of the genus present (CABI, 2002; PIN309, 2003 - database).  Because of its wide host range, the economic impact of these insects would increase plant mortality, lower crop value, and potentially reduce available export markets (CABI, 2002).  </p>
</td>	<td><p>High (3)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact
</b></p>
<p>The genus <i>Capsella</i> has no species on the USDA Threatened and Endangered List (USFWS, 2001), however, 14 genera in the Brassicaceae family are listed as Threatened or Endangered, and could potentially be harmed by the introduction of this Noctuid. <i> </i>Additional plant host species in this genera, such as <i>Allium</i>, <i>Amaranthus</i>, <i>Curcurbita</i>, <i>Prunus</i>, <i>Solanum</i> and <i>Vicia,</i> are on the Endangered and Threatened List (USFWS, 2001).</p>
</td>	<td><p>High (3)</p>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<table><tbody><tr>	<td><p><b>Consequences of Introduction: <i>Paratylenchus pandus</i> Pinochet & Raski (Tylenchida:Tylenchulidae)</b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Risk Value</b></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #1: Climate-Host Interaction
</b></p>
<p>Climatic conditions for these organisms exist throughout the host range of <i>Capsella</i> in the United States, which consists of more than 4 USDA Hardiness Zones (USDA, 1990).  </p>
</td>	<td><p>High (3)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #2: Host Range
</b></p>
<p><i>Paratylenchus pandus</i> has a wide host range of many different plant species, including a variety of weeds and members of the Brassicaceae family (Goodey <i>et al.</i>, 1965).</p>
</td>	<td><p>High (3)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential
</b></p>
<p>Nematodes are soilborne, moving with contaminated soil, plants or equipment.  The reproductive rate for this nematode is relatively high, with two or more generations occurring during the growing season.  (Note:  They do not form dauer-larvae (Bongers & Bongers, 1998)).</p>
</td>	<td><p>Low (1)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #4: Economic Impact
</b></p>
<p>These nematodes are not present in the United States (USDA, 2003).  Because of the wide host range, the economic impact of these nematodes would increase plant mortality, lower crop value, and potentially reduce available export markets (CABI, 2002).  </p>
</td>	<td><p>High (3)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact
</b></p>
<p>The genus <i>Capsella</i> has no species on the USDA Threatened and Endangered List (USFWS, 2001), however, 14 genera in the Brassicaceae family are listed as Threatened or Endangered, and could potentially be harmed by the introduction of this nematode.  Additional plant host species in this genera, such as <i>Atriplex</i>, <i>Buxus</i>, <i>Prunus</i>, <i>Quercus</i>, <i>Rhus</i>, <i>Solanum</i> and <i>Vicia</i>, are on the Endangered and Threatened List (USFWS, 2001).  This nematode is polyphagous and may have additional hosts in the United States that are endangered but currently unknown.</p>
</td>	<td><p>High (3)</p>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<table><tbody><tr>	<td><p><b>Consequences of Introduction: <i>Rotylenchus orientalis</i></b> <b>Siddiqi & Husain (Tylenchida:Hoplolaimidae)</b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Risk Value</b></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #1: Climate-Host Interaction
</b></p>
<p>Climatic conditions for these organisms exist throughout the host range of <i>Capsella</i> in the United States, which consists of more than 4 USDA Hardiness Zones (USDA, 1990).  </p>
</td>	<td><p>High (3)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #2: Host Range
</b></p>
<p><i>Rotylenchus orientalis</i> has a wide host range of more than 400 different plant species, including a variety of weeds and members of the Brassicaceae family (Goodey <i>et al</i>., 1965).  </p>
</td>	<td><p>High (3)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential
</b></p>
<p>Nematodes are soilborne, moving with contaminated soil, plants or equipment.  The reproductive rate for this nematode is relatively high, with two or more generations occurring during the growing season.  (Note:  They do not form dauer-larvae (Bongers & Bongers, 1998)).</p>
</td>	<td><p>Low (1)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #4: Economic Impact
</b></p>
<p>These nematodes are not present in the United States (USDA, 2003), although  other nematodes of this genus are present throughout the United States. Because of the wide host range, the economic impact of these nematodes would increase plant mortality, lower crop value, and potentially reduce the export market (CABI, 2002).  </p>
</td>	<td><p>High (3)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact
</b></p>
<p>The genus <i>Capsella</i> has no species on the USDA Threatened and Endangered List (USFWS, 2001), however, 14 genera in the Brassicaceae family are listed as Threatened or Endangered, and could potentially be harmed by the introduction of this nematode.<i> </i>Additional plant host species of this nematode in genera, such as <i>Allium</i>, <i>Buxus</i>, <i>Chamaesyce,</i> <i>Ilex</i>, <i>Manihot</i>, <i>Quercus</i>, <i>Senecio</i> and <i>Solanum,</i> are on the Endangered and Threatened List (USFWS, 2001).  This nematode is polyphagous and may have additional hosts in the United States that are endangered but they are currently unknown.</p>
</td>	<td><p>High (3)</p>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<table><tbody><tr>	<td><p><b>Consequences of Introduction: <i>Rotylenchus pini</i></b> <b>Mamiya (Tylenchida:Hoplolaimidae)</b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Risk Value</b></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #1: Climate-Host Interaction
</b></p>
<p>Climatic conditions for these organisms exist throughout the host range of <i>Capsella</i> in the United States, which consists of more than 4 USDA Hardiness Zones (USDA, 1990).  </p>
</td>	<td><p>High (3)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #2: Host Range
</b></p>
<p><i>Rotylenchus pini</i> has a wide host range of different plant species, including a number of weeds and members of the Brassicaceae family (Goodey <i>et al</i>., 1965).  </p>
</td>	<td><p>High (3)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential
</b></p>
<p>Nematodes are soilborne, moving with contaminated soil, plants or equipment.  The reproductive rate for this nematode is relatively high, with two or more generations occurring during the growing season.  (Note:  They can form dauer-larvae (Bongers & Bongers, 1998). Because of their soilborne nature, dispersal is rated low.  </p>
</td>	<td><p>Low (1)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #4: Economic Impact
</b></p>
<p>These nematodes are not present in the United States (USDA, 2003).  Because of the wide host range, the economic impact of these nematodes would increase plant mortality, lower crop value, and potentially reduce the export market (CABI, 2002).  </p>
</td>	<td><p>High (3)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact
</b></p>
<p>The genus <i>Capsella</i> has no species on the USDA Threatened and Endangered List (USFWS, 2001), however, 14 genera in the Brassicaceae family are listed as Threatened or Endangered, and could potentially be harmed by the introduction of this nematode.  Additional plant host species of this nematode in genera, such as <i>Allium</i>, <i>Buxus</i>, <i>Chamaesyce,</i> <i>Ilex</i>, <i>Manihot</i>, <i>Quercus</i>, <i>Senecio</i> and <i>Solanum,</i> are on the Endangered and Threatened List (USFWS, 2001).  This nematode is polyphagous and may have additional hosts in the United States that are endangered, but they are currently unknown.</p>
</td>	<td><p>High (3)</p>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<table><tbody><tr>	<td><p><b>Consequences of Introduction: <i>Spodoptera litura</i></b> <b>Fabricius (Lepidoptera:Noctuidae)</b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Risk Value</b></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #1: Climate-Host Interaction
</b></p>
<p>Climatic conditions for these organisms exist throughout the host range of <i>Capsella</i> in the United States, which consists of more than 4 USDA Hardiness Zones (USDA, 1990).  </p>
</td>	<td><p>High (3)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #2: Host Range
</b></p>
<p><i>Spodoptera litura</i> has a wide host range consisting of more than 20 different families, including Brassicaceae, Cucurbitaceae, and Solanaceae, as well as cereals, citrus and cotton (CABI, 2002).  </p>
</td>	<td><p>High (3)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential
</b></p>
<p><i>Spodoptera litura</i> individuals are capable of flight and are strong fliers (CABI, 2002).  The family can complete several generations in a season, and they have a high fecundity rate (CABI, 2002).  </p>
</td>	<td><p>High (3)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #4: Economic Impact
</b></p>
<p>Although populations of <i>Spodoptera litura</i> are not present in the United States, there are other members of the genus present in the United States (CABI, 2002; PIN309, 2003 - database).  Because of their polyphagous nature, populations of <i>Spodoptera litura</i> would increase plant mortality, lower value of crops, or potentially reduce export markets available (CABI, 2002).  </p>
</td>	<td><p>High (3)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact
</b></p>
<p>The genus <i>Capsella</i> has no species on the USDA Threatened and Endangered List (USFWS, 2001), however, 14 genera in the Brassicaceae family are listed as Threatened or Endangered, and could potentially be harmed by the introduction of this Noctuid. <i> </i> Additional plant host species in genera, such as <i>Allium</i>, <i>Amaranthus</i>, <i>Curcurbita</i>, <i>Prunus</i>, <i>Solanum</i> and <i>Vicia,</i> are on the Endangered and Threatened List (USFWS, 2001).</p>
</td>	<td><p>High (3)</p>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<p><b>Table 4.  Summary of the Risk Ratings and the Value for the Consequences of Introduction
</b></p>
<table><tbody><tr>	<td><p><b>Pest</b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Climate-Host a</b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Host-
</b></p>
<p><b>range b</b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Dispersal c<u></u></b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Economic Impact d</b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Environ-
</b></p>
<p><b>ment e</b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Value for the Consequences of Introduction</b></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Agrotis segetum</i></p>
</td>	<td><p>High
</p>
<p>(3)</p>
</td>	<td><p>High
</p>
<p>(3)</p>
</td>	<td><p>High
</p>
<p>(3)</p>
</td>	<td><p>High
</p>
<p>(3)</p>
</td>	<td><p>High
</p>
<p>(3)</p>
</td>	<td><p>High
</p>
<p>(15)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Athelia rosae</i></p>
</td>	<td><p>High
</p>
<p>(3)</p>
</td>	<td><p>High
</p>
<p>(3)</p>
</td>	<td><p>High
</p>
<p>(3)</p>
</td>	<td><p>High
</p>
<p>(3)</p>
</td>	<td><p>High
</p>
<p>(3)</p>
</td>	<td><p>High
</p>
<p>(15)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Chromatomyia horticola</i></p>
</td>	<td><p>High
</p>
<p>(3)</p>
</td>	<td><p>High
</p>
<p>(3)</p>
</td>	<td><p>High
</p>
<p>(3)</p>
</td>	<td><p>High
</p>
<p>(3)</p>
</td>	<td><p>High
</p>
<p>(3)</p>
</td>	<td><p>High
</p>
<p>(15)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Helicoverpa armigera</i></p>
</td>	<td><p>High
</p>
<p>(3)</p>
</td>	<td><p>High
</p>
<p>(3)</p>
</td>	<td><p>High
</p>
<p>(3)</p>
</td>	<td><p>High
</p>
<p>(3)</p>
</td>	<td><p>High
</p>
<p>(3)</p>
</td>	<td><p>High
</p>
<p>(15)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Hellula undalis</i></p>
</td>	<td><p>High
</p>
<p>(3)</p>
</td>	<td><p>High
</p>
<p>(3)</p>
</td>	<td><p>High
</p>
<p>(3)</p>
</td>	<td><p>High
</p>
<p>(3)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Medium
</p>
<p>(2)</p>
</td>	<td><p>High
</p>
<p>(14)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Hemicycliophora koreana</i></p>
</td>	<td><p>High
</p>
<p>(3)</p>
</td>	<td><p>High
</p>
<p>(3)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Low
</p>
<p>(1)</p>
</td>	<td><p>High
</p>
<p>(3)</p>
</td>	<td><p>High
</p>
<p>(3)</p>
</td>	<td><p>High
</p>
<p>(13)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Mamestra brassicae</i></p>
</td>	<td><p>High
</p>
<p>(3)</p>
</td>	<td><p>High
</p>
<p>(3)</p>
</td>	<td><p>High
</p>
<p>(3)</p>
</td>	<td><p>High
</p>
<p>(3)</p>
</td>	<td><p>High
</p>
<p>(3)</p>
</td>	<td><p>High
</p>
<p>(15)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Paratylenchus pandus</i></p>
</td>	<td><p>High
</p>
<p>(3)</p>
</td>	<td><p>High
</p>
<p>(3)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Low
</p>
<p>(1)</p>
</td>	<td><p>High
</p>
<p>(3)</p>
</td>	<td><p>High
</p>
<p>(3)</p>
</td>	<td><p>High
</p>
<p>(13)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Rotylenchus orientalis</i></p>
</td>	<td><p>High
</p>
<p>(3)</p>
</td>	<td><p>High
</p>
<p>(3)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Low
</p>
<p>(1)</p>
</td>	<td><p>High
</p>
<p>(3)</p>
</td>	<td><p>High
</p>
<p>(3)</p>
</td>	<td><p>High
</p>
<p>(13)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Rotylenchus pini</i></p>
</td>	<td><p>High
</p>
<p>(3)</p>
</td>	<td><p>High
</p>
<p>(3)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Low
</p>
<p>(1)</p>
</td>	<td><p>High
</p>
<p>(3)</p>
</td>	<td><p>High
</p>
<p>(3)</p>
</td>	<td><p>High
</p>
<p>(13)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Spodoptera litura</i> </p>
</td>	<td><p>High
</p>
<p>(3)</p>
</td>	<td><p>High
</p>
<p>(3)</p>
</td>	<td><p>High
</p>
<p>(3)</p>
</td>	<td><p>High
</p>
<p>(3)</p>
</td>	<td><p>High
</p>
<p>(3)</p>
</td>	<td><p>High
</p>
<p>(15)</p>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<p>a Climate/Host Interaction: High (3): In four or more plant hardiness zones. Medium (2): In two or three plant hardiness zones. Low (1): In only a single plant hardiness zone. None (0): In none of the plant hardiness zones.
</p>
<p>b Host range:  High (3): Pest attacks multiple species within multiple plant families. Medium (2): Pest attacks multiple species within a single plant family. Low (1): Pest attacks a single species/multiple species in a single genus.
</p>
<p>c Dispersal Potential:  High (3): Pest has high reproductive potential <i>AND </i>individuals are highly mobile.  Medium (2): Pest has either high reproductive potential <i>OR </i>the species is mobile. Low (1): Neither high reproductive potential nor highly mobile. 
</p>
<p>d Economic Impact:  capable of causing a variety of economic impacts:  yield loss, value loss, market loss.  High (3): Pest causes all three types of impacts. Medium (2): Pest causes any two of the impacts. Low (1): Pest causes any one of the impacts. 
</p>
<p>e Environmental Impact: cause significant, direct environmental impacts, directly affect federal or State agencies as endangered, threatened, or candidate, indirectly impact on species listed by Federal or State agencies as endangered, threatened, or candidate species, chemical or bio- control program. High (3): Two or more of the preceding, Medium (2):One or more of the preceding Low (1): None of the above.</p>
<p><b>Step 6.  Likelihood of Introduction
</b></p>
<p>For each pest, we considered six sub-elements (Table 5):
</p>
<p><b>(1) Quantity of commodity imported annually</b>:  The Korean National Plant Quarantine Service (KNPQS) estimates that if Shepherd’s purse with roots are permitted entry, Republic of Korea will possibly export 12-24 metric tons, or 1-2 containers, per year (Personal communication, Ray Miyamoto, on file).
  

</p>
<p><b>(2) Survive postharvest treatment</b>:  The Korean National Plant Quarantine Service (NPQS) has informed us, via e-mail, that <i>Capsella bursa-pastoris</i> are thoroughly washed after harvest to remove soil, then packaged in boxes either (a) between layers of newspaper, or (b) placed in small plastic bags prior to boxing (personal communication, email on file).  For these reasons, we assume that more than 10% of all potential pests will survive postharvest treatment for this analysis.  <i>The rating for postharvest survival is High for all pests </i>(Table 5).</p>
<p><b>(3) Survive shipment</b>:  After harvesting and packaging, the Shepherd’s purse is air freighted to the United States for sale in a matter of days (personal communication, email on file).  Reduction of some insect quarantine pests, through cold treatment, requires at least 7 days (Hansen, 2002).  For these reasons, we assume that more than 10% of all potential pests will survive shipment for this analysis. <i>The rating for shipment survival is High for all pests</i> (Table 5).<i> </i></p>
<p><b>(4) Not be detected at the port of entry</b>: Different pests have slightly different rates at which they are likely to be detected.  With the exception of one quarantine insect, all pests in this PRA produce visible signs of infestation.  Port inspectors are capable of identifying insect pests, plant pathogens and other exotic pests quite well, and most quarantine pests (including <i>Agrotis segetum</i>, <i>Athalia rosae</i>, <i>Chromatomyia horticola</i>, <i>Helicoverpa armigera</i>, <i>Hellula undalis</i>, <i>Mamestra brassicae</i> and <i>Spodoptera litura</i>) rarely escape detection.  <i>The likelihood of these pests escaping detection at ports of entry is rated </i>Low (Table 5).  
</p>
<p>Because of the small size and cryptic nature of the four nematodes (<i>Hemicycliophora koreana, Paratylenchus pandus, Rotylenchus orientalis, </i>and <i>Rotylenchus pini</i>), the <i>likelihood of these pests escaping detection at ports of entry is rated </i>High (Table 5).
</p>
<p><b>(5) Imported or subsequently moved to an area with an environment suitable for
</b></p>
<p><b>survival</b>: The likely markets for imported Shepherd’s purse with roots will be located in areas where Korean populations reside.  In the 2000 decennial census, Asian population centers were mainly located around New York City, Los Angeles, San Jose, San Francisco, Honolulu and San Diego, which accounted for more than 50% of the Asian population in the census (USCB, 2002).  <i>Capsella bursa-pastoris</i> can grow in most places within the continental United States; however, with the low volume of material to be imported, the likelihood of being in an area with a suitable habitat is between 0.1 and 10%<i>. The rating for move to s suitable area is Medium for all pests.</i></p>
<p><b>(6) Come into contact with host material suitable for reproduction</b>: For the motile insect pests listed, the likelihood that they would come into contact with suitable host material is likely be 5-10%, due to the fact that <i>Capsella bursa-pastoris</i> is a ubiquitous weed (NRCS, 2003).  Because nematodes are unable to disperse as the more mobile insects, they would have less than a 0.1% chance of contacting suitable host material.  Nematodes can move between 0.00000004-0.00724 cm2/sec, depending on the type of nematode, soil type, available soil moisture, and soil temperature (Hunt <i>et al.</i>, 2001).<i> The rating for contact with host material is Medium for all insects and low for all nematodes.</i></p>
<p><b>Table 5.  Summary of the Risk Ratings for the quantity annually imported, the pest opportunity, and the cumulative rating for the Likelihood of Introduction
</b></p>
<table><tbody><tr>	<td><p><b>Pest</b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Quantitya</b></p>
<p><b>Imported
</b></p>
<p><b>Annually</b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Risk Ratings for Pest Opportunityb</b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Likelihood of Introduction</b></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p><b></b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Survive postharvest treatment</b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Survive Shipment<u></u></b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Not detected at Port of Entry</b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Moved to Suitable Habitat</b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Contact with host material</b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b></b></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Agrotis segetum</i></p>
</td>	<td><p>Low
</p>
<p>(1)</p>
</td>	<td><p>High
</p>
<p>(3)</p>
</td>	<td><p>High
</p>
<p>(3)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Low
</p>
<p>(1)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Medium (2)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Medium (2)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Medium
</p>
<p>(12)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Athelia rosae</i></p>
</td>	<td><p>Low
</p>
<p>(1)</p>
</td>	<td><p>High
</p>
<p>(3)</p>
</td>	<td><p>High
</p>
<p>(3)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Low
</p>
<p>(1)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Medium (2)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Medium (2)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Medium
</p>
<p>(12)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Chromatomyia horticola</i></p>
</td>	<td><p>Low
</p>
<p>(1)</p>
</td>	<td><p>High
</p>
<p>(3)</p>
</td>	<td><p>High
</p>
<p>(3)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Low
</p>
<p>(1)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Medium (2)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Medium (2)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Medium
</p>
<p>(12)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Helicoverpa armigera</i></p>
</td>	<td><p>Low
</p>
<p>(1)</p>
</td>	<td><p>High
</p>
<p>(3)</p>
</td>	<td><p>High
</p>
<p>(3)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Low
</p>
<p>(1)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Medium (2)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Medium (2)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Medium
</p>
<p>(12)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Hellula undalis</i></p>
</td>	<td><p>Low
</p>
<p>(1)</p>
</td>	<td><p>High
</p>
<p>(3)</p>
</td>	<td><p>High
</p>
<p>(3)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Low
</p>
<p>(1)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Medium (2)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Medium (2)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Medium
</p>
<p>(12)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Hemicycliophora koreana</i></p>
</td>	<td><p>Low
</p>
<p>(1)</p>
</td>	<td><p>High
</p>
<p>(3)</p>
</td>	<td><p>High
</p>
<p>(3)</p>
</td>	<td><p>High
</p>
<p>(3)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Medium (2)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Low
</p>
<p> (1)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Medium
</p>
<p>(13)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Mamestra brassicae</i></p>
</td>	<td><p>Low
</p>
<p>(1)</p>
</td>	<td><p>High
</p>
<p>(3)</p>
</td>	<td><p>High
</p>
<p>(3)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Low
</p>
<p>(1)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Medium (2)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Medium (2)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Medium
</p>
<p>(12)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Paratylenchus pandus</i></p>
</td>	<td><p>Low
</p>
<p>(1)</p>
</td>	<td><p>High
</p>
<p>(3)</p>
</td>	<td><p>High
</p>
<p>(3)</p>
</td>	<td><p>High
</p>
<p>(3)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Medium (2)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Low
</p>
<p>(1)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Medium
</p>
<p>(13)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Rotylenchus orientalis</i></p>
</td>	<td><p>Low
</p>
<p>(1)</p>
</td>	<td><p>High
</p>
<p>(3)</p>
</td>	<td><p>High
</p>
<p>(3)</p>
</td>	<td><p>High
</p>
<p>(3)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Medium (2)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Low
</p>
<p>(1)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Medium
</p>
<p>(13)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Rotylenchus pini</i></p>
</td>	<td><p>Low
</p>
<p>(1)</p>
</td>	<td><p>High
</p>
<p>(3)</p>
</td>	<td><p>High
</p>
<p>(3)</p>
</td>	<td><p>High
</p>
<p>(3)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Medium (2)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Low
</p>
<p>(1)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Medium
</p>
<p>(13)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Spodoptera litura</i> </p>
</td>	<td><p>Low
</p>
<p>(1)</p>
</td>	<td><p>High
</p>
<p>(3)</p>
</td>	<td><p>High
</p>
<p>(3)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Low
</p>
<p>(1)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Medium (2)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Medium (2)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Medium
</p>
<p>(12)</p>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<p>a Scored as follows: High (3 points): > 100 containers/year; Medium (2 points): 10 - 100 containers/year; Low (1 point): < 10 containers/year
</p>
<p>b Scored as follows: High (3 points): > 10%; Medium (2 points): 0.1% - 10%; Low (1 point): < 0.1% 
</p>
<p><b>Step 7.  Conclusion/Pest Risk Potential: 
</b></p>
<p>Pests with a Pest Risk Potential value of Low do not require mitigation measures, whereas a value within the Medium range indicates that specific phytosanitary measures may be necessary. The PPQ Guidelines (USDA, 2000) state that a High Pest Risk Potential means that specific phytosanitary measures are strongly recommended, and that port-of-entry inspection is not considered sufficient to provide phytosanitary security. The choice of appropriate phytosanitary measures to mitigate risks is undertaken as part of Risk Management.
</p>
<p>The Pest Risk Potential for pests of Shepherd’s purse  that are of quarantine significance from Republic of Korea are listed in Table 6.  
</p>
<p><b>Table 6.  Pest Risk Potential
</b></p>
<table><tbody><tr>	<td><p><b>Pest</b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Consequences of Introduction Cumulative Risk Ratinga</b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Likelihood of Introduction Cumulative Risk Ratingb</b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Pest Risk Potentialc</b></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Agrotis segetum</i></p>
</td>	<td><p>High
</p>
<p>(15)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Medium
</p>
<p>(12)</p>
</td>	<td><p>High
</p>
<p>(27)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Athelia rosae</i></p>
</td>	<td><p>High
</p>
<p>(15)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Medium
</p>
<p>(12)</p>
</td>	<td><p>High
</p>
<p>(27)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Chromatomyia horticola</i></p>
</td>	<td><p>High
</p>
<p>(15)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Medium
</p>
<p>(12)</p>
</td>	<td><p>High
</p>
<p>(27)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Helicoverpa armigera</i></p>
</td>	<td><p>High
</p>
<p>(15)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Medium
</p>
<p>(12)</p>
</td>	<td><p>High
</p>
<p>(27)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Hellula undalis</i></p>
</td>	<td><p>High
</p>
<p>(14)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Medium
</p>
<p>(12)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Medium
</p>
<p>(26)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Hemicycliophora koreana</i></p>
</td>	<td><p>High
</p>
<p>(13)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Medium
</p>
<p>(13)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Medium
</p>
<p>(26)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Mamestra brassicae</i></p>
</td>	<td><p>High
</p>
<p>(15)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Medium
</p>
<p>(12)</p>
</td>	<td><p>High
</p>
<p>(27)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Paratylenchus pandus</i></p>
</td>	<td><p>High
</p>
<p>(13)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Medium
</p>
<p>(13)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Medium
</p>
<p>(26)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Rotylenchus orientalis</i></p>
</td>	<td><p>High
</p>
<p>(13)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Medium
</p>
<p>(13)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Medium
</p>
<p>(26)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Rotylenchus pini</i></p>
</td>	<td><p>High
</p>
<p>(13)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Medium
</p>
<p>(13)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Medium
</p>
<p>(26)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Spodoptera litura</i> </p>
</td>	<td><p>High
</p>
<p>(15)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Medium
</p>
<p>(12)</p>
</td>	<td><p>High
</p>
<p>(27)</p>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<p>a Low: 5-8 points; Medium: 9-12; High: 13-15
</p>
<p>b Low: 6 - 9 points; Medium: 10 - 14 points; High: 15 - 18 points
</p>
<p>c Low: 11 - 18 points; Medium: 19 - 26 points; High: 27 - 33 points
</p>
<p>The four nematode pests of quarantine significance to the United States associated with <i>Capsella bursa-pastoris</i> roots (<i>Hemicycliophora koreana</i>, <i>Paratylenchus pandus,</i> <i>Rotylenchus orientalis, </i>and<i> Rotylenchus pini</i>) and the insect <i>Hellula undalis</i> are rated as having a Medium Pest Risk Potential (Table 6).  <i>Athelia rosae,</i> <i>Agrotis segetum, Chromatomyia horticola, Helicoverpa armigera, Mamestra brassicae</i> <i>and Spodoptera litura </i>are rated as having a High Pest Risk Potential (Table 6).
</p>
<p>Precautionary mitigation measures outlined in a letter from Chong-Seo Park, Director of the National Quarantine Cooperation Division, National Plant Quarantine Service/ Ministry of Agriculuture & Forestry, Republic of Korea, dated 24 November, 2003, included the designation of export areas, field inspection before harvest, post-harvest washing and sorting, export inspection, phytosanitary certification, and export time limitation (November to April).  These measures may have a mitigative effect on arthropods, but do not have a known phytosanitary value, particularly against the quarantine nematodes identified in the above risk assessment.  Some measures may have relevance (<i>e.g</i>., limited export area), but are not described sufficiently for characterization of the phytosanitary value.  Additional information on the distribution of the quarantine significant pests is required to determine fully the mitigative potential of the options outlined in Mr. Park’s letter.  However, none of the arthropod pests listed above have been intercepted from Shepherd’s purse leaves and stems, without roots from Republic of Korea since imports of this commodity have been allowed entry.  </p>
<p><b>C. Authors
</b></p>
<p>Prepared by:  Russ Bulluck, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist and Nematologist (USDA APHIS PPQ CPHST PERAL, now with USDA APHIS PPQ EDP)
</p>
<p>Reviewed by A. V. Lemay, Plant Pathologist and K. R. Lakin, Entomologist (USDA APHIS PPQ CPHST PERAL, now with USDA APHIS PPD RAS)
</p>
<p>D. <b>Literature Cited
</b></p>
<p>Ainsworth and Bisby, 1995.  Dictionary of the Fungi. D.L. Hawksworth, P.M. Kirk, B.C. Sutton and D.N. Pegler, Eds. CAB International, 8th Edition.  616 pp.</p>
<p>APHIS.  2000. Guidelines for pathway-initiated pest risk assessments. 31 pp. <a href="http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/pra/commodity/cpraguide.pdf"><u>http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/pra/commodity/cpraguide.pdf</u></a>.  Accessed 12/3/03.
</p>
<p>Arnett, Jr., R. H. 1997. American Insects.  A Handbook of the insects of America North of Mexico.  Sandhill Crane Press, Gainesville, Fla.  850 pp.
</p>
<p>Bier, V.M.  1999. Challenges to the acceptance of probabilistic risk analysis.  Risk Analysis. 19(4): 703-710.
</p>
<p>Blackman & Eastop, 2000.  Aphids on the World’s Trees An Identification and Information Guide. CAB Int'l., United Kingdom, 987 pp. 
</p>
<p>Bongers, T., and M. Bongers. 1998. Functional diversity of nematodes. Appl. Soil Ecol. 10, 239-251
</p>
<p>Brunt, A.A., Crabtree, K., Dallwitz, M.J., Gibbs, A.J., Watson, L. and Zurcher, E.J. (eds.)  (1996 onwards). `Plant Viruses Online: Descriptions and Lists from the VIDE Database. Version: 20th August 1996.' URL  http://biology.anu.edu.au/Groups/ MES/vide/.
</p>
<p>CABI. 2002. Crop Protection Compendium, 2002 ed. CAB International, Wallingford, U.K. [CDROM].
</p>
<p>Choi, Y. E. and  Geraert, E. 1971.  Two new species of Tylenchida from Korea, with a list of other nematodes new for this country.  Nematologica. 17: 93-106.
</p>
<p>Choi, Y. E. and  Geraert, E. 1975.  Additional list of Tylenchida (Nematoda) from Korea with description of two new species. Nematologica 21: 26-34.
</p>
<p>Coile, N.C. 1999. TRI-OLOGY, Vol. 38.  Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. November-December, 1999.
</p>
<p>Dallwitz, M.J. 1980. A general system for coding taxonomic descriptions. Taxon 29: 41-46.
</p>
<p>Dallwitz, M. J., Paine, T. A., and Zurcher, E. J. 1993. User's Guide to the DELTA System: a general system for processing taxonomic descriptions. 4th edition. 136 pp. (CSIRO Division of Entomology: Canberra).
</p>
<p>EPPO, 2002. EPPO Standard PM1/2(11) A1 and A2 Quarantine Lists.  Available at http://www.eppo.org/QUARANTINE/lists.html  Last accessed July 2003.
</p>
<p>Farr, D.F., Rossman, A.Y., Palm, M.E., & McCray, E.B. (n.d.) Fungal Databases, Systematic Botany & Mycology Laboratory, ARS, USDA. Retrieved April 24, 2003, from <a href="http://nt.ars-grin.gov/fungaldatabases/"><u>http://nt.ars-grin.gov/fungaldatabases/</u></a></p>
<p>FAO.  1996.  International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures.  Part 1 -- Import Regulations:  Guidelines for Pest Risk Analysis. UN-FAO-IPPC, Italy.
</p>
<p>FAO.  1999.  International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures.  Glossary of Phytosanitary Terms, Publication No. 5. UN-FAO-IPPC, Italy.
</p>
<p>FAO.  2001.  International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures.  Pest Risk Analysis for Quarantine Pests, Pub. No. 11. UN-FAO-IPPC, Italy.
</p>
<p>Gallegos, D.P. and E. J. Bonano.  1993.  Consideration of uncertainty in the performance assessment of radioactive waste disposal from an international regulatory perspective.  Reliab. Eng. System Safety. 42: 111-123.
</p>
<p>Goodey J.B., Franklin M.T., Hooper D.J., 1965. T. Goodey's The Nematode Parasites of Plants Catalogued under their Hosts. 3rd. ed. Wallingford, UK: CAB International
</p>
<p>Gunn, C.R. and Ritchie, C. 1982. Report of the Technical Committee to Evaluate Noxious Weeds; Exotic Weeds for Federal Noxious Weed Act (unpublished).
</p>
<p>Hansen, J. D. 2002.  Effect of cold temperature treatments on the mortality of the oriental fruit moth.  Horticulture Technology 12: 203-205.</p>
<p>Holm, L.G.; Plucknett, D.L.; Pancho, J.V. and Herberger, J.P. 1977. World’s worst weeds.  Univ. Hawaii Press, HI.
</p>
<p>Holm, L.G.,  Pancho, J.V., Herberger, J.P. and Plucknett, D.L. 1979. Geographical atlas of  world weeds. John Wiley and Sons, NY.
</p>
<p>Holm, L.G., Doll, J., Holm, E.; Pancho, J. and Herberger, J. 1997. World weeds: Natural histories and distributions. John Wiley and Sons, NY.
</p>
<p>Hunt, H.W., Wall, D. H., DeCrappeo, N.M. and Brenner, J.S. 2001. A model for nematode locomotion in soil. Nematology 3: 705-716.
</p>
<p>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, Rome, Italy. <https://www.ippc.int/servlet/BinaryDownloaderServlet/34163_ISPM_11_E.pdf?filename=1146658377367_ISPM11.pdf&refID=34163>. 
</p>
<p>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, Rome, Italy. <https://www.ippc.int/servlet/BinaryDownloaderServlet/133607_ISPM05_2006_E.pdf?filename=1151504714760_ISPM05_2006_E.pdf&refID=133607>. 
</p>
<p>Kaplan, S.  1992.  'Expert information'versus 'expert opinions.'  Another approach to the problem of elicting/combining/using expert knowledge in PRA.  Reliab. Eng. System Safety, 35: 61-72. 
</p>
<p>KSPP.  1998.  List of plant diseases in Korea, 3rd ed.  Korean Soc. Plant Protec., 436 pp. 
</p>
<p>KSPP.  1986.  List of plant diseases, insect pests, and weeds in Korea, 2nd ed.  Korean Soc. Plant Protec., 633 pp. 
</p>
<p>Mai, W.F., Mullin, P.G., Lyon, H.H., and K. Loeffler.  1996.  Plant-parasitic nematodes — A pictorial key to genera.  Comstock Publishing, Ithaca. 277 pp.
</p>
<p>Morgan, M.G. and Henrion, M.  1990.  Uncertainty.  Cambridge Univ. Press, 332 pp.
</p>
<p>NAPPO. 2004. North American Plant Protection Organization (NAPPO) Regional Standards for Phytosanitary Measures (RSPM): NAPPO glossary of phytosanitary terms, Ontario, Canada. (RSPM No. 5). 
</p>
<p>NRCS.  2003.  National PLANTS database. USDA, Natural Resources Conserv. Serv. <u><http://plants.usda.gov/plants/plantmenu.html></u>, <i>last accessed</i> June 2003. 
</p>
<p>Orr, R.L.; Cohen, S.D. and Griffin, R.L.  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-PPD, Riverdale, MD, 40 pp. 
</p>
<p>PIN309.  2003.  Port Information Network database.  USDA-APHIS, Riverdale, MD.
</p>
<p>Randall, R.P. 2003. A Global Compendium of Weeds. Western Australia Dept. of Agric./Hawaii Ecosystems at Risk; http://www.hear.org/gcw/html/autogend /species/8709.HTM [accessed April 2003].
</p>
<p>Reed, C.F. 1977. Ecologically important foreign weeds. Agric. Handbk. No. 498.
</p>
<p>USCB. 2002. (United States Census Bureau) The Asian Population: 2000.  US Census Brief C2KBR/01-16.  Issued February, 2002.  
</p>
<p>USDA. 1990. Plant Hardiness Zone Map. US Dept. Agric., Agricultural Research Serv. Misc. Pub. No. 1475, DC (<i>http://www.usna.usda.gov/Hardzone/index.html </i>[last accessed April 2003].)
</p>
<p>USDA.  1974-1984.  List of Intercepted Plant Pests.  USDA-APHIS-PPQ, Riverdale, MD.
</p>
<p>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. <http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/pra/commodity/cpraguide.pdf>. 
</p>
<p>USDA.  2003. Nematode database. http://www.nem.barc.usda.gov/database/search.cfm         Last accessed July 2003.
</p>
<p>USFWS. 2001. Threatened and endangered species system (TESS). US Fish and Wildlife Serv. (http://ecos.fws.gov/webpage/ [last accessed April, 2003.)
</p>
<p>Wiersema, J.H. and León, B.  1999.  World economic plants.  CRC Press, Washington, DC, 749 pp. 
</p>
<p>WSSA.  1989.  Composite list of weeds. Weed Science Society of America.
</p>
<p>Zhang, B.C. 1994. Index of economically important Lepidoptera. CAB Int’l., United Kingdom.  599 pp.
</p>
<p><b>Appendix
</b></p>
<p><b>Risk Management Options for Importation of Shepherd’s purse with roots (Capsella bursa-pastoris (L.) Medik.) from Republic of Korea into the United States.</b></p>
<p><b>I.  Introduction
</b></p>
<p>The Republic of Korea requested permission to export fresh Shepherd’s purse, <i>Capsella bursa-pastoris</i>, whole plants with roots intact into the United States.  Currently, the leaves and stems of Shepherd’s purse, without roots, are allowed to be imported from Republic of Korea to all US ports.  Shepherd’s purse from Republic of Korea without roots has been enterable with inspection since 1989.  No pests have been recorded in the PIN309 database for <i>Capsella</i> from Republic of Korea, or prior to 1989.  Only two pests have ever been intercepted on <i>Capsella</i>; both of these pests were intercepted on <i>Capsella</i> in baggage from Mexico (PIN309 database, last accessed, June 2003).
</p>
<p>The PRA (USDA 2006) identified 11 quarantine pests (seven insects and four nematodes) with medium or high pest risk potential that could potentially be introduced into the United States through Shepherd’s purse importation from Republic of Korea: </p>
<table><tbody><tr>	<td><p><b>Pest</b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Pest Type</b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Pest Risk Potential</b></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Agrotis segetum </i>(Denis & Schiffermüller)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Lepidoptera
</p>
<p>Noctuid moth</p>
</td>	<td><p>High</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Athalia rosae</i> L.</p>
</td>	<td><p>Hymenoptera
</p>
<p>sawfly</p>
</td>	<td><p>High</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Chromatomyia horticola </i>Goureau</p>
</td>	<td><p>Diptera
</p>
<p>Agromyzid leaf miner</p>
</td>	<td><p>High</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Helicoverpa armigera</i> Hübner</p>
</td>	<td><p>Lepidoptera
</p>
<p>Noctuid moth</p>
</td>	<td><p>High</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Hellula undalis </i>Fabricius</p>
</td>	<td><p>Lepidoptera
</p>
<p>Pyralid moth</p>
</td>	<td><p>Medium</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Hemicycliophora koreana </i>Choi & Geraert </p>
</td>	<td><p>Nematode</p>
</td>	<td><p>Medium</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Mamestra brassicae</i> (L.)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Lepidoptera
</p>
<p>Noctuid moth</p>
</td>	<td><p>High</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Paratylenchus pandus</i> Pinochet & Raski </p>
</td>	<td><p>Nematode</p>
</td>	<td><p>Medium</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Rotylenchus orientalis </i>Siddiqi & Husain</p>
</td>	<td><p>Nematode</p>
</td>	<td><p>Medium</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Rotylenchus pini </i>Mamiya</p>
</td>	<td><p>Nematode</p>
</td>	<td><p>Medium</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Spodoptera litura</i> Fabricius<i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p>Lepidoptera
</p>
<p>Noctuid moth</p>
</td>	<td><p>High</p>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<p>These quarantine pests are likely to follow the pathway; they have been qualitatively analyzed in the PRA using the methodology described in the USDA-APHIS Pathway-Initiated Commodity Risk Assessment Guidelines 5.02, which examines pest biology in the context of the Consequences of Introduction and the Likelihood of Introduction and estimates the baseline Pest Risk Potential.   
</p>
<p>According to USDA (2000), pests with a low pest risk potential do not typically require mitigation measures, other than port-of-arrival inspection.  A value within the Medium range indicates that specific phytosanitary measures may be necessary.  A rating in the High range indicates that specific phytosanitary measures, supplemental to port-of-arrival inspection, are strongly recommended.  As an aid to the PPQ risk management decision makers, the present document was prepared.</p>
<p>The four nematode pests of quarantine significance to the United States associated with <i>Capsella bursa-pastoris</i> roots (<i>Hemicycliophora koreana</i>, <i>Paratylenchus pandus,</i> <i>Rotylenchus orientalis, </i>and<i> Rotylenchus pini</i>) and the insect <i>Hellula undalis</i> are rated medium.  Based on this assessment, port-of-entry inspections may be insufficient to safeguard U.S. agriculture, and phytosanitary measures should be implemented in order to reduce phytosanitary risk.  The other pests, five Lepidoptera (<i>Agrotis segetum, Helicoverpa armigera, Mamestra brassicae, and Spodoptera litura</i>), one Hymenoptera (<i>Athalia rosae</i>) and one Diptera, (<i>Chromatomyia horticola)</i> are all rated as having a high pest risk potential.    All of the Lepidoptera and Hymenoptera are surface feeders on the leaves of Shepherd’s purse and are detectable by inspection.  The Dipteran, <i>Chromatomyia horticola</i>, is a leaf miner on Shepherd’s purse, and may also be detected by inspection.  </p>
<p>The proposed importation of fresh Shepherd’s purse from Republic of Korea, if approved, would be regulated by amendment to existing fruits and vegetables regulations [7 CFR § 319.56].  This document outlines possible phytosanitary measures and provides evidence to conclude that these measures will effectively prevent the introduction of quarantine pests.  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.</p>
<p>The Plant Protection Act of 2000 (SEC. 401. 7 U.S.C. 7701) defines “Systems Approach” as  “...a defined set of phytosanitary procedures, at least two of which have an independent effect in mitigating pest risk associated with the movement of commodities.” Similarly, the FAO Standard for Integrated Measures for Pest Risk Management (June 2002) proposed that a Systems Approach be defined as, “The integration of different pest risk management measures, at least two of which act independently, and which cumulatively achieve the desired level of phytosanitary protection” (FAO, 2002.  Pest risk management is the decision-making process of reducing the risk of introduction of a quarantine pest (FAO, 1999)  Systems Approaches are employed by an importing country as an alternative to the use of single measures that achieve an appropriate level of phytosanitary protection when a single phytosanitary measure is nonexistent, infeasible or undesirable.  
</p>
<p>Combining specific mitigation measures in a way that provides overlapping or sequential safeguards is distinctly different from applying single mitigation methodologies such as fumigation or inspection.  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. PPQ uses systems approaches for the importation of many commodities including Unshu oranges from Japan (7 CFR § 319.28, U.S. Federal Register, 1997), tomatoes from Spain, France, Morocco, and Western Sahara (7 CFR § 319.56-2dd, U.S. Federal Register, 1997), and peppers from Israel (7 CFR § 319.56-2u U.S. Federal Register, 1997).  These programs have performed successfully for many years. </p>
<p><b>II.  Proposed Risk Mitigation Measures
</b></p>
<p><b>A.  Establishment of Pest-free Areas: </b>As a sole mitigative measure, the establishment of pest-free areas or pest-free places of production may be completely effective in satisfying an importing country’s appropriate level of phytosanitary protection (IPPC, 1996, 1999). This option has proven to be successful in practice, obviating the need for post-harvest commodity treatments to achieve probit-9-level security. Establishment and maintenance of pest-free areas or production sites should be in compliance with international standards (e.g., IPPC, 1996, 1999; NAPPO, 2004).   Fields can be certified free of the nematode pests by sampling and either culture or microscopic examination by the NPPO.  Shepherd’s purse can be grown in sterile media in pots on raised benches (either in the field or in a greenhouse).  
</p>
<p><b>B.  Establishment of Areas of Low Pest Prevalence: </b>According to the IPPC, 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 (FAO, 1999). Procedures for the establishment and maintenance of areas of low pest prevalence should comply with international standards (e.g., NAPPO, 2003; 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. The international standards recommend 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.
</p>
<p>Any protocol for establishing and maintaining a pest-free area or area of low pest prevalence also should 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; NAPPO, 2003, 2004).</p>
<p><b>C.  Phytosanitary certificates </b>may provide<b> </b>an acceptable level of protection when used as part of a systems approach.  The crop should be sampled and inspected periodically during the growing season and after harvest.  Survey results must be negative for issuance of a certificate.  Statistical procedures are available to verify the confidence in declaring an area pest-free based on negative survey results (<i>e</i>.<i>g</i>. Venette <i>et al.</i>, 2004; Barclay & Hargrove, 2005).  APHIS currently requires a phytosanitary certificate be issued by the Korean National Plant Protection Organization (NPPO) for each shipment to assure that the Shepherd’s purse without roots is free of pests.  </p>
<p>Sticky traps and water pan traps can be used to monitor a variety of pest species including Hymenoptera, Diptera, and Lepidoptera.  Plants can be carefully examined for presences of damage and visible pest stages.  Sampling plans can be developed to give precision on estimates of pest population levels.  Adhesive traps are by far the simplest and most inexpensive method of monitoring (Rosen, 1990).
</p>
<p>Visual inspection, light and pheromones traps are commonly used to monitor pest moth and butterfly populations (Dreistadt, 1994).  Moths are often attracted to light, so light traps can be used to detect the presence of pest species (Capinera, 2001).  In addition to light traps, pheromone traps are available for many of the pest Lepidoptera (Dreistadt, 1994).  Pheromones can also be used to disrupt communication and mating (Capinera, 2001).
</p>
<p>Nematodes can be monitored by taking plant and soil samples and doing extractions and microscopic counts of individuals (Evans <i>et al.</i>, 1993).
</p>
<p>Port-of-entry inspection<b> </b>may provide an acceptable level of protection against obvious pests or not so obvious pests when used as part of a systems approach.  A random sample from each consignment should be inspected to detect a pest infestation rate of 10% or greater (USDA, 2004b).  
</p>
<p>Currently leaves and stems of Shepherd’s purse, without roots, are allowed to be imported from Republic of Korea to all U.S. ports since 1989, with inspection.  The inspection has been sufficient to mitigate risks of all of the arthropod pests in this PRA.  No pests have ever been intercepted on commercial shipments (PIN309 database, last accessed, June 2003).    Inspection at the port of entry further reduces probability of pests remaining on the commodity.  Washing and post-harvest inspections and port of entry inspections will not be sufficient to remove the nematodes from the pathway for Shepherd’s purse with roots.  
</p>
<p><b>D.  Suppression/Control:  </b></p>
<p><b>Control programs</b> can eliminate pests from fields or prevent commodity infestation.  Successful control programs typically include monitoring, cultural, biological and chemical components (Dreistadt, 1994).  The components of the control program must be clearly defined for use in a systems approach (IPPC, 2002).  Most of the insect pests can be suppressed or controlled through good agricultural practices in the field.  Nematode populations have been controlled in the field by numerous methods including cultural methods like composting, solarization, chemicals, heat and methyl bromide (Bridge, 1996; Evans <i>et al</i>., 1993).
</p>
<p><b>E. Packinghouse procedures</b></p>
<p>Washing the commodity and removing obviously infected or infested material may reduce the likelihood of introducing quarantine organisms into the United States with a shipment.  Washing and post-harvest inspections and port of entry inspections will not be sufficient to remove the nematodes from the pathway for Shepherd’s purse with roots.  
</p>
<p><b>F. Quarantine treatments 
</b></p>
<p>Quarantine treatments normally<b> </b>provide probit-9 security by killing 99.9968% or more of the target organisms.  There are no treatments currently approved for nematodes in the PPQ treatment manual other than steam cleaning of durable equipment to remove soil.  
</p>
<p>Irradiation at 400 gy would eliminate all insect pests, except Lepidoptera pupae and adults (USDA 2004b; Hallman, 2000) which are not present on Shepherd’s purse. Irradiation may have some effect on nematode populations, but no treatments are listed in the treatment manual, and doses of up to 4 kGy were required to prevent gall formation and egg production in the root knot nematode, <i>Meloidogyne javanica</i> (Chinnasri <i>et al</i>., 1997, Hallman, 2000).  
</p>
<p>Hot water has been used to eliminate nematodes from some plants (Arcinas et al., 2005; Tsang et al. 2003, 2004).  In Vanda orchids, immersion in hot water at 46 degrees Centigrade for 15 minutes eliminated nematodes (Uchida and Sipes, 1998).  A hot water dip may potentially remove nematodes from the roots of Shepherd’s purse, however, no treatment is currently available, so research needed before this option would become viable.  Hot water treatments would also kill most insect pests as well (Gould and McGuire, 2000; Hara <i>et al.</i>, 1993; Hara <i>et al.</i>, 1994).
</p>
<p>Fumigation – Fumigation with methyl bromide or other fumigants may lower nematode populations in the soil, but may not remove all nematodes from the pathway.  There is no currently approved methyl bromide treatment available for nematodes in plant roots, so research would be needed.
</p>
<p>Methyl bromide fumigation (T104-a-1) is used as a quarantine treatment for hitchhikers and surface pests on commodities (USDA, 2004b).  It is expected to provide probit-9 security against the introduction of all of the insect pests.</p>
<table><tbody><tr>	<td><p><b>Table 1. Summary of risk mitigation options (shepherd’s purse, </b><i>Capsella bursora-pastoris </i><b>from Republic of Korea).</b></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Measure(s)</b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Pests</b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Efficacy</b></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Pest-free areas or places of production</p>
</td>	<td><p>All</p>
</td>	<td><p>Satisfies requirements for appropriate level of protection (IPPC 1996b, 1999).  For Nematodes, this could include greenhouse production of Shepherd’s purse using sterile soil, or field production on raised platforms in sterile soil.  For pest freedom, the plants grown in the soil must come from areas which have been sampled by a statistically and methodologically sound protocol and have been found free of nematodes.</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Inspections and monitoring</p>
</td>	<td><p>All, but must be used in combination with other measures </p>
</td>	<td><p class="default_Text">Regular inspections are recognized as an important part of a pest management program (Kahn and Mathur 1999).  The larger external feeders, and the leaf miner are relatively easy to identify and exclude through inspections.  The relatively small size of the nematodes would mean that detection of these pests is virtually impossible at the port of entry, unless the plant shows visible damage.</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Phytosanitary certification</p>
</td>	<td><p>All, but must be used in combination with other measures</p>
</td>	<td><p class="default_Text">Requiring a phytosanitary certificate specifically listing the pests of concern identified in the pest risk assessment effectively requires NPPO to inspect the Shepherd’s purse specifically for these pests.  Furthermore, listing these pests on the phytosanitary certificate raises the awareness of U.S. inspectors to the pests of concern with this commodity.</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Packinghouse procedures</p>
</td>	<td><p>All, but should be used in combination with other measures </p>
</td>	<td><p>Washing the plants in water with a nematicide may provide some protection against nematodes.   Visibly damaged or infested plants may be culled.</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Suppression/Control</p>
</td>	<td><p>All, but should be used in combination with other measures</p>
</td>	<td><p>Most of the insect pests can be suppressed or controlled through good agricultural practices in the field.  Nematode populations have been controlled in the field by numerous methods including cultural methods like composting, solarization, chemicals, heat and methyl bromide (Bridge, 1996; Evans et al. 1993).</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Irradiation</p>
</td>	<td><p>All Insect pests</p>
</td>	<td><p>Irradiation at 400 grays will eliminate all insect pests, but may not eliminate the 4 nematodes.   Treatment manual (USDA, 2004b).   </p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Hot water dip</p>
</td>	<td><p>All</p>
</td>	<td><p>No hot water treatment is currently approved for these nematodes.  A treatment may be possible, but research would have to be done.  (Arcinas et al., 2005, Gratwick and Southey, 1986).  A hot water treatment would also remove other pests from the commodity (Gould and McGuire, 2000; Hara et al., 1993; Hara et al., 1994).</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Methyl Bromide fumigation
</p>
<p></p>
</td>	<td><p>All</p>
</td>	<td><p>There is no Methyl bromide treatment currently approved for these nematodes (USDA, 2004b).    A treatment may be possible, but research would have to be done (Anon., 1977).  Methyl bromide fumigation T104-a-1 would also remove all insect pests from the commodity (USDA, 2004b).</p>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<p><b>G. Author
</b></p>
<p>Walter Gould, Entomologist (USDA APHIS PPQ CIAO)
</p>
<p><b>III.  References
</b></p>
<p>Anon.  1977.  Council directive of 21 Dec. 1976 on protective measures against the introduction into member states of organisms harmful to plant or plant products.  Official Journal of the European Communities No. L026, 31.01.77, p. 20.
</p>
<p>Arcinas, A., B.S. Sipes, A.H. Hara and M.M.C. Tsang. 2005.  Journal of Nematology 37: 250-253.
</p>
<p>Barclay, H.J. and J.W. Hargrove. 2005. Probability models to facilitate a declaration of pest-free status, with special reference to tsetse (Diptera: Glossinidae). Bulletin of Entomological Research. 95 (1): 1-11.
</p>
<p>Bridge, J. 1996.  Nematode management in sustainable and subsistence agriculture.  Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 34: 201-25.
</p>
<p>Capinera, J.L. 2001. Handbook of Vegetable Pests. Academic Press, San Diego, California.
</p>
<p>Chinnasri, B., J.H. Moy, B.S. Sipes and D.P. Schmitt. 1997.  Effect of gamma-irradiation and heat on root-knot nematode, <i>Meloidogyne javanica</i>.  J. of Nematology 29: 30-34.
</p>
<p>Dreistadt, S.H. 1994. Pests of Landscape Trees and Shrubs: An Integrated Pest Management Guide. University of California, Davis, California.
</p>
<p>Evans, K., D.L. Trudgill and J.M. Webster.  1993.  Plant parasitic nematodes in temperate agriculture.  CAB International.  Wallingford, UK.  648pp.
</p>
<p>FAO. 1999. 1997 International Plant Protection Convention (New Revised Text). Rome: Secretariat of the International Plant Protection Convention, United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization.
</p>
<p>FAO.  2002.  International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures.  Glossary of Phytosanitary Terms, Publication No. 5. UN-FAO-IPPC, Italy.</p>
<p>Gould, W.P., and R.G. McGuire.  2000.  Hot water treatment and insecticidal coatings for disinfesting limes of mealybugs (Homoptera: Pseudococcidae).  J. Econ. Entomol. 93: 1017-1020.
</p>
<p>Gratwick, M. and J.F. Southey.  1986.  Hot water treatment of plant material.  Reference book 201, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (3rd ed.), pp.  24-50. </p>
<p>Hallman, G.J. 2000. Expanding radiation quarantine treatments beyond fruit flies. Agric. For. Entomol. 2(2): 85-95.
</p>
<p>Hara, A.H., T.Y. Hata, B.K.S. Hu and V.L. Tenbrink.  1993.  Hot-water immersion as a potential quarantine treatment against Pseudaulacaspis cockerelli (Homoptera: Diaspididae).  J. Econ. Entomol. 86: 1167-1170.
</p>
<p>Hara, A.H., T.Y. Hata, B.K.S. Hu, R.T. Kaneko and V.L. Tenbrink.  1993.  Hot-water immersion of Cape Jasmine cuttings for disinfestations of green scale (Homoptera: Coccidae).  J. Econ. Entomol. 87: 1569-1573.
</p>
<p>IPPC. 1996b. Requirements for the establishment of pest free areas. International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures Publication No. 4. Rome: Secretariat of the International Plant Protection Convention, United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization.</p>
<p>IPPC. 1999. Requirements for the establishment of pest free places of production and pest free production sites. International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures Publication No. 10. Rome: Secretariat of the International Plant Protection Convention, United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization.</p>
<p>IPPC. 2002. The use of integrated measures in a systems approach for pest risk management. International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures Publication No. 14. Rome: Secretariat of the International Plant Protection Convention, United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization.</p>
<p>IPPC. 2005. Requirements for the establishment of areas of low pest prevalence. International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures Publication No. 22. Rome: Secretariat of the International Plant Protection Convention, United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization.</p>
<p>NAPPO. 2003. Guidelines for the establishment, maintenance and verification of areas of low pest prevalence for insects. NAPPO Regional Standards for Phytosanitary Measures No. 20. Ottawa: Secretariat of the North American Plant Protection Organization.</p>
<p>NAPPO. 2004. Guidelines for the establishment, maintenance and verification of fruit fly pest free areas in North America. NAPPO Regional Standards for Phytosanitary Measures No. 17. Ottawa: Secretariat of the North American Plant Protection Organization.</p>
<p>PIN309.  2003.  Port Information Network database. USDA-APHIS, Riverdale, MD.  [last accessed June 2003].</p>
<p>Rosen, D. 1990. Armoured Scale Insects: Their Biology, Natural Enemies and Control, Volume 4B. Elsevier, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
</p>
<p>Tsang, M.M.C., A.H. Hara and B. Sipes.  2003.  Hot-water treatments of potted palms to control the burrowing nematode, <i>Radopholus similis</i>.  Crop Prot. 22: 589-593.
</p>
<p>Tsang, M.M.C., A.H. Hara and B. Sipes.  2004.  Efficacy of hot-water drenches of Anthurium andraeanum against the burrowing nematode, <i>Radopholus similis</i>.  Ann. apl. Biol. 145: 305-316.
</p>
<p>USDA.  2000. Guidelines for Pathway-Initiated Pest Risk Assessments, Version 5.02. USDA, APHIS, PPQ; <a href="http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/pra/commodity/cpraguide.pdf"><u>http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/pra/commodity/cpraguide.pdf</u></a> (last accessed October 31, 2006).
</p>
<p>USDA. 2004b. Treatment Manual. USDA-APHIS, PPQ; <a href="http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/manuals/port/Treatment_Chapters.htm%20"><u>http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/manuals/port/Treatment_Chapters.htm</u></a> [accessed July 2006].
</p>
<p>USDA. 2004b. Agricultural Quarantine Inspection Monitoring (AQIM) Handbook. USDA-APHIS, PPQ; <a href="http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/manuals/pdf_files/AQIM_Handbook.pdf"><u>http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/manuals/pdf_files/AQIM_Handbook.pdf</u></a> [accessed October 2005].
</p>
<p>USDA. 2006.  Importation of Shepherd’s purse with roots (<i>Capsella bursa-pastoris</i> (L.) Medik.) from Republic of Korea into the United States.
</p>
<p>Venette, R. C. and E. E. Davis.  2004.  Chili thrips/yellow thrips, <i>Scirtothrips dorsalis</i> Hood (Thysanoptera: Thripidae) Mini Pest Risk Assessment. Univ. of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN.  31 pp. 
</p>
<div class="footer"><p class="footer">Rev. 03
October 15, 2007</p>
<p class="footer">PAGE  </p>
<p>Rev. 03
15 October 2007
iii</p>
</div>
<div class="package-entry"><h1>_1116735818.bin</h1>
</div>
</body></html>