<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
<meta name="cp:revision" content="2">
<meta name="extended-properties:AppVersion" content="12.0000">
<meta name="meta:paragraph-count" content="182">
<meta name="meta:word-count" content="8919">
<meta name="dc:creator" content="Barney Caton">
<meta name="extended-properties:Company" content="USDA APHIS">
<meta name="meta:print-date" content="2010-10-15T17:22:00Z">
<meta name="dcterms:created" content="2011-01-11T11:49:00Z">
<meta name="meta:line-count" content="689">
<meta name="dcterms:modified" content="2011-01-11T11:49:00Z">
<meta name="meta:character-count" content="82742">
<meta name="meta:character-count-with-spaces" content="91479">
<meta name="dc:title" content=" El Salvador Chipilin RA RMO">
<meta name="extended-properties:TotalTime" content="3">
<meta name="Content-Length" content="113982">
<meta name="Content-Type" content="application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document">
<meta name="custom:ContentTypeId" content="0x0101000CB7AD05AE3FB4488C3FC17D21BAB60C009C8E16A4B003054E9D3F093AE8F44F0D">
<meta name="extended-properties:Application" content="Microsoft Office Word">
<meta name="meta:last-author" content="pgrove">
<meta name="xmpTPg:NPages" content="28">
<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.ooxml.OOXMLParser">
<meta name="extended-properties:DocSecurityString" content="None">
<meta name="meta:page-count" content="28">
<meta name="dc:publisher" content="USDA APHIS">
<title> El Salvador Chipilin RA RMO</title>
</head>
<body><p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p><b>Importation of Fresh Leaves of Chipilin, <i>Crotalaria longirostrata</i>, from El Salvador into the Continental United States</b></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p><b>A Qualitative, Pathway-Initiated Risk Analysis</b></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p><b>November 4, 2010</b></p>
<p></p>
<p><b>Ver. 5</b></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p class="normal_(Web)"><b>Agency Contact:</b> 
</p>
<p class="normal_(Web)">Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory
Center for Plant Health Science and Technology
</p>
<p class="normal_(Web)">United States Department of Agriculture
Animal Plant Health Inspection Service
Plant Protection and Quarantine
1730 Varsity Drive, Suite 300
Raleigh, NC 27606</p>
<p></p>
<p class="header"><i>Pest Risk Assessment for Chipilin from El Salvador</i></p>
<p></p>
<p class="footer"></p>
<p class="footer"></p>
<p class="footer">i</p>
<p class="footer">Ver. 5	November 4, 2010</p>
<p><a name="_Toc276647166"></a><b>Executive Summary</b></p>
<p class="plain_Text"></p>
<p>In this document, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) assessed the pest risk associated with importing fresh leaves of chipilin, <i>Crotalaria longirostrata</i>, from El Salvador into the continental United States. Other than minimal post-harvest washing and sorting, we assumed that no specialized phytosanitary treatments would be used to mitigate pest risk on this commodity. Thus, we estimated unmitigated risk of chipilin leaves from El Salvador. We assessed the risk for all species of <i>Crotalaria</i> in the chipilin-growing region near El Salvador, which includes Guatemala, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Southern Mexico, and Honduras. We searched print and electronic sources of information and found two pests that are likely to follow the pathway: <i>Phakopsora meibomiae </i>and <i>Uromyces crotalariae.</i></p>
<p></p>
<p>We rated<i> P. meibomiae </i>High risk for the continental United States, while <i>U. crotalariae</i> was Moderate risk, since it is unlikely to establish. </p>
<p></p>
<p>Using port-of-entry inspection as the sole mitigation measure for <i>P. meibomiae</i> is insufficient, but may be sufficient for <i>U. crotalariae.</i> Any required phytosanitary measures will be specified  in the risk management phase of the analysis. We presented mitigation options in this document.</p>
<p class="plain_Text"></p>
<p class="plain_Text">.</p>
<p></p>
<p class="plain_Text"></p>
<p class="plain_Text"></p>
<p class="plain_Text"></p>
<p class="plain_Text"><b>Table of Contents</b></p>
<p class="plain_Text"></p>
<p class="toc_1">Executive Summary	i</p>
<p class="toc_1">1. Introduction	1</p>
<p class="toc_2">1.1. Commodity Description	1</p>
<p class="toc_2">1.2. Standard Postharvest Processing	2</p>
<p class="toc_1">2. Risk Assessment	2</p>
<p class="toc_2">2.1. Initiating Event: Proposed Action	2</p>
<p class="toc_2">2.2. Assessment of Weed Potential	2</p>
<p class="toc_2">2.3. Previous Risk Assessments, Current Status/Decision History, and Pest Interceptions	3</p>
<p class="toc_2">2.4. Pest Categorization: Identification of Quarantine Pests	4</p>
<p class="toc_2">2.5. Quarantine Pests Likely to Follow the Pathway	10</p>
<p class="toc_2">2.6. Analysis of Quarantine Pests	11</p>
<p class="toc_2">2.7. Pest Risk Potential and Conclusion	15</p>
<p class="toc_1">3. Risk Mitigation Options	15</p>
<p class="toc_2">3.1. Introduction	15</p>
<p class="toc_2">3.2. Risk Mitigation Options	16</p>
<p class="toc_2">3.4. Conclusions	20</p>
<p class="toc_1">4. Authors and Reviewers	20</p>
<p class="toc_1">5. Literature Cited	20</p>
<p class="toc_1">6. Appendices	24</p>
<p class="toc_2">Appendix A. Pests and pathogens intercepted on <i>Crotalaria</i> sp. and <i>Crotalaria longirostrata</i>.	24</p>
<p><b></b></p>
<h1><a name="_Toc276647167"></a>1. Introduction </h1>
<p></p>
<h2><a name="_Toc276647168"></a>1.1. Commodity Description</h2>
<p></p>
<p>In this document, the Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory (PERAL) of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ) Center of Plant Health Science and Technology (CPHST) examined the unmitigated pest risks associated with the importation of<i> </i>foliage of chipilin, <i>Crotalaria longirostrata </i>Hook and Arn., into the continental United States from El Salvador. We assumed that chipilin leaves from El Salvador would not undergo any special post-harvest treatment or cleaning (i.e., unmitigated risk) (MAG, 2005). This is a qualitative pest risk assessment (PRA) in which risk was expressed in terms such as High, Medium, and Low rather than in numerical terms such as probabilities or frequencies. The details of the methodology and rating criteria can be found in <i>Guidelines for Pathway-Initiated Risk Assessments, Version 5.02 </i>(PERAL, 2000).</p>
<p></p>
<p>International plant protection organizations such as the North American Plant Protection Organization (NAPPO) and the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) provide standards for conducting PRAs. The methods used to complete this assessment, as well as the use of biological and phytosanitary terms, are based on these standards (IPPC, 2004, 2006, 2007; NAPPO, 2004). The IPPC standards describe three stages of pest risk analysis: Stage 1, Initiation; Stage 2, Risk Assessment; and Stage 3, Risk Management. This document satisfies the requirements of Stages 1 and 2, and provides mitigation options for Stage 3.</p>
<p></p>
<p>Chipilin is a leguminous plant, indigenous to Southern Mexico, El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala, and Northern Panama (FAO, 2005). The plant is perennial and grows anywhere between 0.05 m and 1.5 m (FAO, 2005). Stems have alternating arrangements<b><i> </i></b>of three leaves each. The leaves are ribbed and elliptical in shape, giving them an appearance similar to clover. The flowers are yellow and develop into brownish pods containing 4-6 seeds (Morton, 1994).</p>
<p></p>
<p>The primary edible product of chipilin is the leaves, which are mixed into other products such as soup and thick tortillas called <i>pupusas</i> (Morton, 1994). Chipilin is cultivated in gardens or small fields as part of traditional small-scale agriculture and has no history of large-scale cultivation. Production is usually below 1600 m in altitude in oak and pine forests (FAO, 2005). </p>
<p></p>
<p>Many <i>Crotalaria</i> spp. grow in Central America, but <i>C. longirostrata</i> and <i>C. cajanifolia </i>are the main ‘chipilin’ species consumed by humans (NRCS, 2007). The Salvadorian government has only requested market access for <i>C. longirostrata</i>. The other <i>Crotalaria</i> spp. are forages, ornamentals, or undomesticated. They include <i>C. incana</i>, <i>C. longirostrata</i>, <i>C. micans</i>, <i>C. mollicula</i>, <i>C. pallida</i>, <i>C. pumila, C. retusa</i>, <i>C. sagittalis</i>,<i> C. setifera</i>, <i>C. trichotoma</i>,<i> </i>and <i>C. vitellina </i>(Calderon and Stanley, 1941; GBIF, 2004). Due to the history of only small-scale cultivation, little has been published about the pests of <i>Crotalaria </i>spp. in Central America. For this reason, in the PRA we also considered pests for the other <i>Crotalaria </i>spp. cultivated in El Salvador, with the exception of <i>C. juncea,</i> because it is only under experimental cultivation in very limited acreage. Furthermore, we included pests distributed in the entire <i>Crotalaria</i>-growing region near El Salvador, which added pests known to be in Guatemala, Nicaragua, Honduras, southern Mexico, and Costa Rica to those in El Salvador. We thought these pests were likely to be present but undocumented in El Salvador.</p>
<h2></h2>
<h2><a name="_Toc276647169"></a>1.2. Standard Postharvest Processing</h2>
<p></p>
<p>Our risk assessment does not assume the following processes, as described by the exporters (MAG, 2005), that are standard and completed for all exported products. </p>
<p></p>
<p>The product is harvested by hand. Then it is sorted (culled) for quality and pest absence, washed in a weak bleach solution, blown dry, and bundled in portions weighing about 250 g. Finally, the leaves are placed in plastic bags for shipping. </p>
<p></p>
<h1><a name="_Toc180202908"></a><a name="_Toc276647170"></a>2. Risk Assessment </h1>
<h2><a name="_Toc180202909"></a></h2>
<h2><a name="_Toc276647171"></a>2.1. Initiating Event: Proposed Action</h2>
<p></p>
<p>This commodity-based, pathway-initiated assessment is in response to a request made by the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock (MAG) (letter No. 285 dated 15 Oct. 2004 (MAG, 2005)) for USDA authorization to import a particular commodity that presents a potential plant pest risk. In this case, the importation of chipilin grown in El Salvador into the continental United States<b><i> </i></b>is a potential pathway for introduction of plant pests. Title 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations 319, Part 56 (7 CFR § 319.56, 2003) provides regulatory authority for the importation of fruits and vegetables from foreign sources into the United States. </p>
<p></p>
<h2><a name="_Toc180202910"></a><a name="_Toc276647172"></a>2.2. Assessment of Weed Potential</h2>
<p></p>
<p>This PRA begins with identification of the initiating event, a weediness screening, and a review of the historical decision sheets. We then identify and characterize the pests present on chipilin in El Salvador. The quarantine pests that are likely to follow the pathway are then fully analyzed.</p>
<p></p>
<p>For this analysis, the first five risk elements form an assessment of the risk associated with the Consequences of Introduction. Six sub-elements are evaluated and combined for the sixth element, the Likelihood of Introduction, as described in the guidelines. The Consequences of Introduction and the Likelihood of Introduction values form an evaluation of the Pest Risk Potential. These science-based evaluations are designed to inform decision-makers<b><i> </i></b>on the pest risks associated with this importation.</p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p><b>Table 1.</b> The weediness potential of chipilin (<i>Crotalaria longirostrata</i>) (Fabaceae).</p>
<table><tbody><tr>	<td><p><b><i>Crotalaria longirostrata </i></b>Hook & Arn.</p>
<p><b>Common Names: </b>Chepil, Chipil, Chipilin, Chipilino, Empanadilla, Kurhinditu, Longbeak Rattlebox, Parrajachel, Sonajilla, and Vaca (ARS, 2007).</p>
<p><b>Synonyms:</b> None (ARS, 2007).</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Phase 1:</b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Distribution in the United States: </b><i>Crotalaria longirostrata</i> is restricted to Central America and parts of North America. This species has been introduced into the United States (Hawaii) from other countries (NRCS, 2007). </p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Phase 2:</b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Invasive/Weed Status:</b> Listing as weed. </p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><u>No</u></p>
</td>	<td><p>(7 CFR § 360, 2006; Gunn and Ritchie, 1988; Holm et al., 1997; Holm et al., 1979; Holm et al., 1977; Reed, 1977; Skinner et al., 2005; Weber, 2003; WSSA, 2005)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><u>No</u></p>
</td>	<td><p>Alien plant invaders of natural areas<i> </i>(Swearingen, 2005)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><u>Yes</u></p>
</td>	<td><p><i>A Global Compendium of Weeds</i> (Randall, 2007)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><u>No</u></p>
</td>	<td><p>Other (Allan Herbarium, 2000; Liogier and Martorell, 2000; NRCS, 2007). </p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Phase 3:</b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Summary and Conclusions: </b><i>Crotalaria longirostrata</i> is an edible plant of economic importance for El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala, and Mexico. This species has not been classified as a weed in the literature of those countries. However, it has been reported in <i>A Geographical Atlas of World Weeds</i> as a weed. In Hawaii, it is a common weed, but its importance for the continental United States is unknown. In <i>A Global Compendium of Weeds</i> it is reported as a weed. Furthermore, this species does not meet the definition of a noxious weed in the Plant Protection Act (7 CFR § 360, 2007), and is not listed in the Federal Noxious Weed List. </p>
<p></p>
<p>Chipilin is propagated through seeds and is not easily increased by division or cutting methods. Furthermore, the commodity is unlikely to be contaminated with chipilin seeds, since the commodity consists of leaves with stems but without pods. Thus, the likelihood that chipilin exported from El Salvador could propagate is small.</p>
<p></p>
<p><b>Conclusion: </b>The potential weediness of this commodity is negligible. </p>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<h2><a name="_Toc180202911"></a></h2>
<h2></h2>
<h2><a name="_Toc276647173"></a>2.3. Previous Risk Assessments, Current Status/Decision History, and Pest Interceptions</h2>
<h3><a name="_Toc180202912"></a><a name="_Toc195672976"></a><a name="_Toc195675379"></a><a name="_Toc195680875"></a><a name="_Toc195681959"></a></h3>
<h3>2.3.1. Previous Risk Assessments</h3>
<p class="plain_Text">APHIS has never conducted a pest risk assessment on any <i>Crotalaria</i> spp. for consumption.</p>
<h3></h3>
<h3>2.3.2. Current Status and Decision History</h3>
<p class="plain_Text">Chipilin is not currently allowed to enter the United States from El Salvador or any other Central or North American country (PPQ, 2007).</p>
<h3><a name="_Toc195672978"></a><a name="_Toc195675381"></a><a name="_Toc195680877"></a><a name="_Toc195681961"></a></h3>
<h3>2.3.3. U.S. Port-of-Entry Pest Interceptions</h3>
<p class="plain_Text">PPQ maintains a database of all the interceptions of pests and pathogens on commodities entering the United States (PestID, 2007). We determined that 375 pests and pathogens have been intercepted on <i>Crotalaria</i> sp<i>. </i>or<i> C. longirostrata </i>leaves from 1985 to 2007<b> </b>(Appendix A). Because 99% of these interceptions were from the passenger baggage category, only data for this category were included below.<b> </b>Of the pests intercepted, four entries accounted for over half the total interceptions (Table 2).</p>
<p class="plain_Text"></p>
<p class="plain_Text"><b>
Table 2. </b>Pest taxa most frequently intercepted on <i>Crotalaria</i> sp<i>.</i> in passenger baggage at U.S. ports from 1985 to 2007. See Appendix A for the complete data set (n = 375 interceptions).</p>
<table><tbody><tr>	<td><p><b>Pest </b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Interceptions (no.)</b></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Aphididae, Species Of</p>
</td>	<td><p>59</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Noctuidae, Species Of</p>
</td>	<td><p>58</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Agromyzidae, Species Of</p>
</td>	<td><p>57</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Frankliniella</i> sp. (Thripidae)</p>
</td>	<td><p>36</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Total</b></p>
</td>	<td><p>210</p>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<h2></h2>
<h2></h2>
<h2><a name="_Toc276647174"></a>2.4. Pest Categorization: Identification of Quarantine Pests </h2>
<p></p>
<p class="plain_Text">We created a list of pests potentially associated with <i>Crotalaria </i>spp.<i> </i>in and around El Salvador<b> </b>(Table 3). In the list we identify the following 1) presence or absence in the United States, 2) references supporting an association between the pest and C<i>rotalaria </i>spp., 3) plant parts where the pest can be found, 4) quarantine status of the pest in the United States, and 5) the likelihood that the pest would follow the pathway into the United States via commercial chipilin shipments. </p>
<p class="plain_Text"></p>
<p class="plain_Text">A quarantine pest is defined as “a pest of potential economic importance to the area endangered thereby and not yet present there, or present but not widely distributed and being officially controlled” (IPPC, 2006). The possibility that a quarantine pest following the pathway could establish and spread throughout the United States depends on the presence of appropriate climatic and ecological conditions, including protected areas (such as greenhouses), where the presence of primary or alternative hosts and vectors are influential.</p>
<p></p>
<p class="footer">1</p>
<p class="footer">Ver. 5	November 4, 2010</p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p><b>Table 3.</b> Plant pests and pathogens reported on <i>Crotalaria </i>spp. and present in Central America.</p>
<table><tbody><tr>	<td><p><b>Pest scientific name</b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Distribution[footnoteRef:1]</b> [1:  Geographic Distribution: SV = El Salvador, NI = Nicaragua, HO = Honduras, CR = Costa Rica, MX = Mexico, GU = Guatemala, US = United States ] 
</p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Host association </b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Quaran-tine pest</b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Plant part(s) association[footnoteRef:2]</b> [2:  Plant Part Affected: F = Fruit, I = Flower (Inflorescence), L = Leaves, S = Stem, Sd = Seed, Sh = Shoots, R = Roots] 
</p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Follow pathway</b></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>ARTHROPODS</b></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Acari: Tetranychidae</b></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Eotetranychus lewisi </i>McGregor</p>
</td>	<td><p>US, SV (EPPO, 1990)</p>
</td>	<td><p>EPPO, 1990</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>N/A</p>
</td>	<td><p>N/A</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Oligonychus </i>sp.</p>
</td>	<td><p>SV (PestID, 2007)</p>
</td>	<td><p>PestID, 2007</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>L (PestID, 2007)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes[footnoteRef:3] [3:  Quarantine pests identified only to the order, family or generic levels are not further analyzed in this risk assessment.] 
</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Panonychus </i>sp<i>.</i></p>
</td>	<td><p>SV (PestID, 2007)</p>
</td>	<td><p>PestID, 2007</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>L (PestID, 2007)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes3</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae</b></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Diabrotica balteata</i> Leconte</p>
</td>	<td><p>SV (Maes, 2004), US (Capinera, 1999-2005)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Maes, 2004</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>N/A</p>
</td>	<td><p>N/A</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Psylliodes </i>sp.</p>
</td>	<td><p>SV (PestID, 2007)</p>
</td>	<td><p>PestID, 2007</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>L (PestID, 2007)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes3</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Coleoptera: Curculionidae</b></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Catolethrus </i>sp.</p>
</td>	<td><p>SV (PestID, 2007)</p>
</td>	<td><p>PestID, 2007</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>L (PestID, 2007)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes3</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Coelosternus </i>sp.</p>
</td>	<td><p>SV (PestID, 2007)</p>
</td>	<td><p>PestID, 2007</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>L, S (PestID, 2007)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes3</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Geraeus </i>sp.</p>
</td>	<td><p>SV (PestID, 2007)</p>
</td>	<td><p>PestID, 2007</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>L (PestID, 2007)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes3</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae</b></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Phyllophaga </i>sp.</p>
</td>	<td><p>SV (PestID, 2007)</p>
</td>	<td><p>PestID, 2007</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>L (PestID, 2007)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes3</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Coleoptera: Scolytidae</b></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Hypothenemus hampei </i>Ferrari</p>
</td>	<td><p>NI, HO, GU (Maes, 2004)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Maes, 2004</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>F</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Xylosandrus morigerus </i>Blandford</p>
</td>	<td><p>US, NI, HO (Maes, 2004)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Maes, 2004</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>N/A</p>
</td>	<td><p>N/A</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Diptera: Cecidomyiidae</b></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Contarinia </i>sp.</p>
</td>	<td><p>SV (PestID, 2007)</p>
</td>	<td><p>PestID, 2007</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>L (PestID, 2007)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes3</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Schizomyia </i>sp.</p>
</td>	<td><p>SV (PestID, 2007)</p>
</td>	<td><p>PestID, 2007</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>L (PestID, 2007)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes3</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Diptera: Tephritidae</b></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Bactrocera cucurbitae </i>Coquillett[footnoteRef:4] [4:  We found no other reports of B. cucurbitae being present in Central America. Thus, the two reports in PestID probably represent insects that derived from another location, as can happen with the passenger baggage pathway.] 
</p>
</td>	<td><p>SV (PestID, 2007)</p>
</td>	<td><p>PestID, 2007</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>S (PestID, 2007)</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Heteroptera: Coriedae</b></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Catorhintha guttula</i> Fabricius</p>
</td>	<td><p>US, SV (Maes, 2004)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Maes, 2004</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>N/A</p>
</td>	<td><p>N/A</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Heteroptera: Tingidae</b></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Atheas fuscipes </i>Champion</p>
</td>	<td><p>SV (PestID, 2007)</p>
</td>	<td><p>PestID, 2007</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes[footnoteRef:5] [5:  We placed A. fuscipes on the pest list based on a single interception. We found no other evidence that Crotalaria spp. are a host for A. fuscipes, and therefore we did not further analyze the insect. If additional information becomes available, A. fuscipes could be considered for analysis.] 
</p>
</td>	<td><p>L (PestID, 2007)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Hemiptera: Aleyrodoidea</b></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Bemisia tabaci </i>Gennadius</p>
</td>	<td><p>SV, US (Maes, 2004)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Maes, 2004</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>N/A</p>
</td>	<td><p>N/A</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Pealius </i>sp.</p>
</td>	<td><p>SV (PestID, 2007)</p>
</td>	<td><p>PestID, 2007</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>L (PestID, 2007)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes3</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Hemiptera: Aphidae</b></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Aphis craccivora</i> Koch</p>
</td>	<td><p>US, SV (Maes, 2004)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Maes, 2004</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>N/A</p>
</td>	<td><p>N/A</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Hemiptera: Cicadellidae</b></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Hortensia similis</i> Walker</p>
</td>	<td><p>US, NI, MX (Maes, 2004)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Maes, 2004</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>N/A</p>
</td>	<td><p>N/A</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Oncometopia clarior</i> Walker</p>
</td>	<td><p>SV, US (Maes, 2004)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Maes, 2004</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>N/A</p>
</td>	<td><p>N/A</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Hemiptera: Coccidae</b></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Parasaissetia nigra</i> Nietner</p>
</td>	<td><p>US, SV (Ben-Dov et al., 2001)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Ben-Dov et al., 2001</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>N/A</p>
</td>	<td><p>N/A</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Planchonia stentae</i> Brain</p>
</td>	<td><p>US, SV (Ben-Dov et al., 2001)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Ben-Dov et al., 2001</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>N/A</p>
</td>	<td><p>N/A</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Saissetia Miranda</i> Cockerell & Parrott</p>
</td>	<td><p>US, SV (Ben-Dov et al., 2001)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Maes, 2004</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>N/A</p>
</td>	<td><p>N/A</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Hemiptera: Diaspididae</b></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Chrysomphalus aonidum</i> Linnaeus</p>
</td>	<td><p>US, NI, HO, GU (Maes, 2004)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Maes, 2004</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>N/A</p>
</td>	<td><p>N/A</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Chrysomphalus dictyospermi </i>Morgan</p>
</td>	<td><p>US, SV (Maes, 2004)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Maes, 2004</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>N/A</p>
</td>	<td><p>N/A</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Pinnaspis strachani </i>Cooley</p>
</td>	<td><p>US, NI (Maes, 2004)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Maes, 2004</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>N/A</p>
</td>	<td><p>N/A</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Pseudaulacaspis pentagona</i> Targioni</p>
</td>	<td><p>US, NI (Maes, 2004)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Maes, 2004</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>N/A</p>
</td>	<td><p>N/A</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Pseudaonidia trilobitiformis </i>Green </p>
</td>	<td><p>US, SV (Ben-Dov et al., 2001)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Ben-Dov et al., 2001</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>N/A</p>
</td>	<td><p>N/A</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Hemiptera: Ortheziidae</b></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Orthezia</i> sp.</p>
</td>	<td><p>SV (PestID, 2007)</p>
</td>	<td><p>PestID, 2007</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>L (PestID, 2007)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes3</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Hemiptera: Pentatomidae</b></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Nezara viridula </i>Linneus</p>
</td>	<td><p>US, SV (Maes, 2004)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Maes, 2004</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>N/A</p>
</td>	<td><p>N/A</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Piezodorus guildinii </i>Westwood</p>
</td>	<td><p>NI, HO, GU, CR, MX (Maes, 2004), US (Temple, 2007)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Maes, 2004</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>N/A</p>
</td>	<td><p>N/A</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae</b></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Paracoccus </i>sp.</p>
</td>	<td><p>SV (PestID, 2007)</p>
</td>	<td><p>PestID, 2007</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>L, S (PestID, 2007) </p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes3</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Lepidoptera: Arctiidae</b></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Utetheisa </i>sp.</p>
</td>	<td><p>SV (PestID, 2007)</p>
</td>	<td><p>PestID, 2007</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>L (PestID, 2007)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes3</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Utetheisa bella</i> Linnaeus</p>
</td>	<td><p>US, SV (Hall, 2005)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Hall, 2005</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>N/A</p>
</td>	<td><p>N/A</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Utetheisa ornatrix</i> Linneus</p>
</td>	<td><p>US, HO, GU, MX, NI, CR (Maes, 2004)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Maes, 2004</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>N/A</p>
</td>	<td><p>N/A</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Lepidoptera: Geomitridae</b></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Helicoverpa </i>sp.</p>
</td>	<td><p>SV (PestID, 2007)</p>
</td>	<td><p>PestID, 2007<b><i> </i></b></p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>L (PestID, 2007)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes3</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Lepidoptera: Noctuidae</b></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Spodoptera frugiperda </i>J. E. Smith</p>
</td>	<td><p>US, SV (Maes, 2004)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Maes, 2004</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>N/A</p>
</td>	<td><p>N/A</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Trichoplusia ni </i>Hubner</p>
</td>	<td><p>US, MX, HO, NI (Maes, 2004)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Maes, 2004</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>N/A</p>
</td>	<td><p>N/A</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Trichoplusia </i>sp.</p>
</td>	<td><p>SV (PestID, 2007) </p>
</td>	<td><p>PestID, 2007</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>L, S (PestID, 2007)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes3</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Lepidoptera: Pyralidae</b></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Etiella zinckenella</i> Treitschke</p>
</td>	<td><p>US, SV (Maes, 2004)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Maes, 2004</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>N/A</p>
</td>	<td><p>N/A</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Maruca vitrata </i>Geyer</p>
</td>	<td><p>US (TX), SV (CABI, 2006)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Atachi and Djihou, 1994</p>
</td>	<td><p>[Yes]</p>
</td>	<td><p>L[footnoteRef:6] (Atachi and Djihou, 1994) [6:  Crotalaria sp. is likely to be a host for M. virata. However, in the only study on the subject, Atachi and Djihou (1994) suggested that a chemical in Crotalaria sp. inhibits feeding by M. vitrata larvae. Since larvae cannot survive on the leaves, we concluded that they are highly unlikely to follow the pathway.] 
</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Lepidoptera: Tortricidae</b></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Grapholita </i>sp.</p>
</td>	<td><p>SV (PestID, 2007)</p>
</td>	<td><p>PestID, 2007</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>I (PestID, 2007)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes3</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Thysanoptera: Thripidae</b></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Frankliniella </i>sp.</p>
</td>	<td><p>SV (PestID, 2007)</p>
</td>	<td><p>PestID, 2007</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>L (PestID, 2007)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes3</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Thrips </i>sp.</p>
</td>	<td><p>SV (PestID, 2007)</p>
</td>	<td><p>PestID, 2007</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>L (PestID, 2007)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes3</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>FUNGI AND CHROMISTANS</b></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Alternaria alternata</i> (Fr.:Fr.) Keissl. 1912 (Ascomycetes: Pleosporales)</p>
</td>	<td><p>GU, MX (Farr et al., 2008), US (Farr et al<i>.,</i> 2008)</p>
</td>	<td><p><i> </i>Farr et al<i>.,</i> 2008</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>N/A</p>
</td>	<td><p>N/A</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Cephalosporium </i>sp.</p>
</td>	<td><p>SV (Farr et al<i>.,</i> 2008</p>
</td>	<td><p>Farr et al<i>.,</i> 2008</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>N/A</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes3</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Cercosporiopsis canescens </i>(Ellis & G. Martin) M. Muira<i> </i>(Syn. <i>Cercospora canescens </i>Ell. & Martin ) (Ascomycetes; Mycosphaerellales)</p>
</td>	<td><p>SV (Farr et al., 2008), US (Alfieri et al., 1993)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Alfieri et al., 1993; Farr et al<i>.</i>, 2008</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>N/A</p>
</td>	<td><p>N/A</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Choanephora cucurbitarum </i>(Berk. & Ravenel) Thaxt. (Zygomycetes: Mucorales)<i> </i></p>
</td>	<td><p>SV (Acuña and Rivera, 1946), US (Alfieri et al., 1993)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Farr et al., 2006</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>N/A</p>
</td>	<td><p>N/A</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Cochliobolus lunatus </i>R.R. Nelson & Haasis (Anamorph): <i>Curvularia lunata</i> (Wakker) Boedijn (Ascomycetes, Pleosporales)</p>
</td>	<td><p>CR GU MX, US (Farr et al<i>.</i>, 2008)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Farr et al<i>.</i>, 2008</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>L (Farr et al<i>.</i>, 2008)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Corynespora cassiicola</i> (Berk. & M.A. Curtis) C.T. Wei (Ascomycetes, Pleosporales)</p>
</td>	<td><p>GU, US (Farr et al., 2008)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Farr<i> </i>et al<i>.,<b> </b></i>2008</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>L (Farr et al., 2008)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Erysiphe pisi </i>var.<i> pisi</i> DC. (Ascomycetes, Erysiphales)</p>
</td>	<td><p>SV, US (Farr et al<i>., </i>2008)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Farr<i> </i>et al., 2008</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>L (Farr et al., 2008)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Glomerella cingulata</i> (Stoneman) Spauld. & H. Schrenk (Anamorph: <i>Colletotrichum gloeosporioides </i>(Penz.) Penz. & Sacc) (Ascomycetes, Incertae sedis) </p>
</td>	<td><p>SV, US (Farr et al<i>.,</i> 2008)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Farr et al<i>.</i>, 2008</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>L (Farr et al., 2008) </p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Haematonectria haematococca</i> (Berk. & Broome) Samuels & Rossman *1913 ref (Anamorph: <i>Fusarium solani </i>(Mart.) Sacc. (Ascomycetes, Hypocreales)</p>
</td>	<td><p>CR, HO, NI, MX, US (Farr et al<i>.,</i> 2008)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Farr et al<i>.,</i> 2008</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>L (Farr et al<i>.,</i> 2008)</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Lasiodiplodia theobromae</i> (Pat.) Griffon & Maubl. (Syn. <a href="http://www.indexfungorum.org/Names/GenusRecord.asp?RecordID=635"><i>Botryodiplodia</i> </a><i>theobromae </i>Pat.) (Ascomycetes: Dothideales)</p>
</td>	<td><p>SV (Farr et al<i>.,</i> 2008), US (Woodward et al., 1991)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Farr et al., 2006</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>L (Farr et al., 2006)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Leptosphaerulina trifolii</i> (Rostr.) Petr. (Ascomycetes, Pleosporales)</p>
</td>	<td><p>CR, US (Farr et al<i>.,</i> 2008)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Farr<i> </i>et al., 2008</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>L (Farr et al., 2008)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Mycena citricolor</i> (Berk. & Curtis) Sacc. (Agaricales: Tricholomataceae)</p>
</td>	<td><p>SV (Suárez de Castro and Villanova, 1960), US (FL) (Wellman, 1977)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Farr et al<i>.,</i> 2008</p>
</td>	<td><p>[Yes]<b> </b></p>
</td>	<td><p>F, L, S (Wellman, 1977)</p>
</td>	<td><p>No[footnoteRef:7] [7:  The main host of M. citricolor is the coffee plant. Only one observation exists of M. citricolor infecting a Crotalaria species, but that was not C. longirostrata, Thus, C. longirostrata does not appear to be a good host and the pathogen is highly unlikely to follow the pathway. ] 
</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Nectria dodgei </i>D. R. Heiser (Sordariomycetes, Hypocreales)</p>
</td>	<td><p>SV (Lenne, 1990)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Lenne, 1990</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>S (Heiser, 1945)</p>
</td>	<td><p>No[footnoteRef:8] [8:  Nectria dodgei (Heiser) is a quarantine pathogen, but it causes a stem canker on its main host genus, Coffea (Heiser, 1945), and is unlikely to be transmitted by leaves. Thus, N. dodgei is unlikely to follow the pathway.] 
</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Parodiella hedysari </i>(Schwein.) S. Hughes (Ascomycetes, Pleosporales)</p>
</td>	<td><p>CR, MX,SV, US (Farr<i> </i>et al., 2008) </p>
</td>	<td><p>Farr<i> </i>et al<i>.,</i> 2008</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>L (Farr<i> </i>et al<i>.,</i> 2008)</p>
</td>	<td><p>N/A</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Phakospora meibomiae</i> (Arthur) (Anamorph: <i>Malupa vignae (</i>Bres.) Y. Ono, Buriticá & J.F. Hennen (Urediniomycetes, Uredinales)</p>
</td>	<td><p>CR, GU, MX (Farr et al<i>.,</i> 2008; Ono et al<i>.</i>, 1992), US (PR only) (Farr et al<i>.</i>, 2008)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Farr et al<i>.,</i> 2008; Lenne, 1990; Ono et al<i>.</i>, 1992</p>
</td>	<td><p>[Yes]</p>
</td>	<td><p>L (Farr et al<i>.,</i> 2008; Ono et al<i>.</i>, 1992)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Phakopsora pachyrhizi</i> Syd. & P. Syd. (Anamorph: <i>Malupa sojae</i> (Henn.) Y. Ono, Buriticá & J.F. Hennen) (Urediniomycetes, Uredinales)</p>
</td>	<td><p>CR, GU, MX (Farr et al<i>.</i>, 2007; Lenne, 1990), US (Farr et al., 2008)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Farr et al<i>.,</i> 2008</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>N/A</p>
</td>	<td><p>N/A</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Phanerochaete salmonicolor</i> (Berk. & Br.) Jülich Syn:<i> Corticium salmonicolor </i>Berk. & Broome; <i>Erythricium salmonicolor</i> (Berk. & Broome) (Basidiomycetes: Aphyllophorales)</p>
</td>	<td><p>SV (Farr et al<i>.,</i> 2008; FUSADES, 1992), US (Alfieri et al., 1993)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Farr et al<i>.,</i> 2008</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>N/A</p>
</td>	<td><p>N/A</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Phoma exigua var. exigua</i> Desm. (Ascomycetes; Pleosporales)</p>
</td>	<td><p>SV (Farr et al., 2008), US (Farr et al<i>.</i>, 2008)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Farr<i> </i>et al<i>., </i>2008</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>N/A</p>
</td>	<td><p>N/A</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Phytophthora palmivora var palmivora </i>(E. J. Butler) (E. J. Butler) (Oomycetes: Pythiales)</p>
</td>	<td><p>SV (CABI, 2006; Farr et al<i>.,</i> 2008), US (Farr<i> </i>et al<i>.</i>, 2008)</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2006; Farr et al., 2008</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>N/A</p>
</td>	<td><p>N/A</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Phytophthora nicotianae</i> Breda de Haan (Dastur) G. M. Waterhouse Syn: <i>Phytophthora parasitica </i>Dastur (Oomycetes: Pythiales)</p>
</td>	<td><p>SV (Acuña and Rivera, 1946), US (Alfieri et al., 1993)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Farr et al., 2008</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>N/A</p>
</td>	<td><p>N/A</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Thanatephorus cucumeris</i> (A.B. Frank) Donk (Anamorph: <i>Rhizoctonia solani </i>J.G. Kühn) (Basidiomycetes, Ceratobasidiales)</p>
</td>	<td><p>CR, HO, MX, SV, US (Farr et al<i>., </i>2008)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Farr et al<i>., </i>2008</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>N/A</p>
</td>	<td><p>N/A</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Uromyces crotalariae </i>(Arthur) J. W. Baxter (Urediniomycetes, Uredinales)</p>
</td>	<td><p>GU (Cummins, 1978; Farr et al<i>.</i>, 2008) </p>
</td>	<td><p>Cummins, 1978; Farr et al<i>.</i>, 2008</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>L (Cummins, 1978)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Uromyces decoratus </i>Syd. & P. Syd. (Urediniomycetes, Uredinales) </p>
</td>	<td><p>CR (Farr et al., 2008; Lenne et al<i>.</i>, 1990); US (CABI, 2006) </p>
</td>	<td><p>Farr et al<i>.</i>, 2008</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>N/A</p>
</td>	<td><p>N/A</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Uromyces occidentalis</i> Dietel (Urediniomycetes, Uredinales)</p>
</td>	<td><p>MX, US (Farr et al<i>.,</i> 2008)</p>
</td>	<td><p> Farr<i> </i>et al<i>.,</i> 2008</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>N/A</p>
</td>	<td><p>N/A</p>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<p></p>
<h2></h2>
<h2></h2>
<h2><a name="_Toc276647175"></a>2.5. Quarantine Pests Likely to Follow the Pathway</h2>
<p></p>
<p><a name="_Toc207596392"></a>We found two quarantine pests likely to follow the pathway (Table 4), and analyzed those pests further. </p>
<p>Quarantine plant pests in this assessment that were not chosen for further scrutiny may be detrimental to the agricultural production systems of the United States. Individual species within those taxonomic groups may be potential pests occuring within the United States, but we did not further analyze these pests because the IPPC guidelines do not require risk assessment of pests identified only by genus name (IPPC, 2007). By necessity, PRAs focus on those organisms for which adequate biological and taxonomic information is available. Genera often contain many species, and assuming that the biology of all organisms within a genus is identical is not reasonable. The lack of species identification may indicate the limits of current taxonomic knowledge, the life stage, or the quality of the specimen submitted for identification. This should not be equated with low risk, however, since imprecise taxonomic identifications can mask known or unknown quarantine pests. If the pests identified in this risk assessment at a genus, family, or order level are intercepted on chipilin from El Salvador in the future, species-specific identification should follow. Quarantine action can be taken where appropriate and a re-evaluation of pest risk may be necessary. </p>
<p></p>
<p>In an early draft of the risk analysis, <i>Maruca vitrata</i> was the only quarantine pest. It could not be conclusively associated with <i>Crotalaria</i> sp., but was present in El Salvador, and could exploit Fabaceae family members (Moreno and Zambrano, 2005). The only examination of the relationship between <i>M. vitrata </i>and <i>Crotalaria</i> found that <i>Crotalaria</i> spp. are actually insecticidal to<i> M. vitrata</i> larvae and that <i>Crotalaria</i> would be a trap crop rather than a host (Atachi and Djihou, 1994). For this reason, we did not analyze <i>M. vitrata</i>.</p>
<p></p>
<p>Similarly, we did not include <i>Milesia crotalariae</i> (Dietel) Y. Ono, Buriticá & J.F. Hennen in the pest list, because the host association is based on a single observation in a botanical specimen (Farr et al, 2008; Ono et al 1992). <i>Milesia crotalariae</i> has never been observed in the field and we found no information on virulence, host range, or preferred environmental conditions. This was insufficient information for a host association. If we later find more evidence, we may list and analyze the pest.</p>
<p class="caption"></p>
<p><b>Table 4. </b>Quarantine pests likely to follow the pathway and selected for further analysis.</p>
<table><tbody><tr>	<td><p><b>Type</b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Scientific name of pest</b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Taxonomy</b></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Fungi</p>
</td>	<td><p><i>Phakopsora meibomiae</i> (Arthur)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Urediniomycetes: Uredinales</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p><i>Uromyces crotalariae </i>(Arthur)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Urediniomycetes: Uredinales</p>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<p><a name="_Toc206822867"></a></p>
<p></p>
<h2><a name="_Toc195337349"></a><a name="_Toc219553424"></a><a name="_Toc276647176"></a>2.6. Analysis of Quarantine Pests</h2>
<p></p>
<p>The undesirable consequences that may occur from the introduction of quarantine pests are assessed within this section. For each quarantine pest, the potential consequences of introduction and likelihood of introduction are assessed. The pest risk potential is determined by summing the consequences of introduction and likelihood of introduction risk values. These ratings are determined using the criteria in the Guidelines for Pathway-Initiated Pest Risk Assessments, Version 5.02 (PERAL, 2008).</p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<h3><a name="_Toc219553425"></a>2.6.1. Consequences of Introduction</h3>
<p class="list_Number_2"></p>
<p class="list_Number_2">For each Risk Element, we assigned pests a rating of Low (1 point), Medium (2 points), or High (3 points) (PERAL, 2000). We then calculated a cumulative risk rating by summing the risk element values. We summarized ratings for the Consequences of Introduction for each pest below (Table 5). The following tables describe the basis for each rating.</p>
<p class="list_Number_2"></p>
<p class="list_Number_2"></p>
<table><tbody><tr>	<td><p><b>

<i>Phakopsora meibomiae</i> </b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Risk Ratings</b></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element 1: Climate-Host Interaction</b></p>
<p><i>Phakopsora meibomiae</i> (Arthur) is a tropical to semi-tropical fungus with biology similar to <i>P. pachyrhizi</i> (Asian soybean rust) (Chalkley, 2010). Thus, we expect <i>P. meibomiae</i> to establish in the southern United States, which has overwintering host material, and to infect leguminous crops in Midwest during the spring and summer (Chalkley, 2010). This corresponds to hardiness zones 5-10 (Magarey et al, 2008. The wide area for both climate and host material warrant a High rating.</p>
</td>	<td><p>High (3)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element 2: Host Range</b></p>
<p><i>Aeschynomene america, Canavalia villosa, Crotalaria anagyroides, Glycine max, Lablab purpureus, Phaseolus lunatus</i>, and <i>P. vulgaris</i> are the main hosts (CABI, 2006). However, the pest attacks an additional 50 species in 21 genera in the family Fabaceae. The host range is very wide so the rating is Medium</p>
</td>	<td><p>Med (2)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element 3: Dispersal Potential</b></p>
<p>Urediniospores of <i>P. meibomiae </i>are likely to spread in the troposphere across continents, and a single infected plant can produce millions of infective spores (Chalkley, 2010).  In a single season, these spores could infect a large number of legumes throughout the United States, so the rating is High</p>
</td>	<td><p>High (3)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element 4: Economic Impact</b></p>
<p><i>Phakopsora meibomiae</i> infects soybean (<i>Glycine max</i>) and common bean (<i>Phaseolus vulgaris</i>) (Chalkley, 2010). These are both high-value commodities, and soybeans are one of the most cultivated crops in the United States. Although the level of virulence appears to be low in soybean (Bonde et al, 2006), even a low infection rate can result in significant economic damage because of the large areas cultivated. In addition, the pathogen may be significantly more virulent with common bean, would make leaves, and fresh beans in a pod unmarketable (Grau, 2006),Finally, <i>P. meibomiae</i> is only known in the Americas (Chalkley, 2010), so it could trade implications for soy and bean exports outside of the Americas  Since the pathogen can lower yield, affect bean quality or marketability, and could affect exports, the rating is High.</p>
</td>	<td><p><a name="OLE_LINK2"></a>High (3)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element 5: Environmental Impact</b></p>
<p>Forty-eight Federally listed threatened or endangered species are potential hosts for <i>P. meibomiae</i>, comprising 24 genera and one member of the genus <i>Crotalaria </i>(USDA, 2007). The presence of <i>P. meibomiae</i> in the US on common bean could stimulate new control beans to preserve both yield and marketability.  Since both endangered speciesare affected and new control programs may be required the rating is High.</p>
</td>	<td><p>High (3)</p>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<table><tbody><tr>	<td><p><b>

<i>Uromyces crotalariae</i> </b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Risk ratings</b></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element 1: Climate-Host Interaction</b></p>
<p><i>Uromyces crotalariae </i>(Arthur) is described as a tropical to semi-tropical fungus (Arthur, J.C. 1918, Farr et al, 2008) capable of at least survival at higher altitudes in Guatemala. This corresponds to hardiness zones 8-11 (Magarey et al, 2008 ) and a Medium rating.</p>
</td>	<td><p>Medium (2)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element 2: Host Range</b></p>
<p><i>Uromyces crotalariae </i>has only ever been observed directly on two species of Crotalaria in Latin America (Farr et al, 2008) which suggests a limited host range. This warrants a Low rating.</p>
</td>	<td><p>Low (1)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element 3: Dispersal Potential</b></p>
<p> <i>Uromyces crotalariae </i>disperses by airborne urediospores. The broad geographic area of this fungus (Farr et al ,2008) and the general ability of <i>Uromyces</i> spp to disperse on a continental scale (Agrios, 2004) both suggest that long-distance dispersal is possible. Therefore, we gave it a High rating.</p>
</td>	<td><p>High (3)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element 4: Economic Impact</b></p>
<p>We found no descriptions of damage from <i>U. crotalariae</i> in the field, which suggests that damage is minimal. Therefore, the rating is Low.</p>
</td>	<td><p>Low (1)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element 5: Environmental Impact</b></p>
<p>The continental United States has seven species of <i>Crotalaria</i>, of which one is endangered (USDA, 2007). Since we found no evidence that <i>U. crotalariae</i> can infect that species, and the likelihood that the effect of the pathogen on ecosystems is minimal, we rated it Low.</p>
</td>	<td><p>Low (1)</p>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p><b>Table 5. </b>Summary pest risk ratings for Consequences of Introduction.</p>
<table><tbody><tr>	<td><p><b>Pest</b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Risk elements</b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Cumulative Risk</b></p>
<p><b>Ratings</b></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Climate-Host Interaction</b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Host Range</b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Dispersal</b></p>
<p><b>Potential</b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Economic</b></p>
<p><b>Impact</b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Environmental</b></p>
<p><b>Impact</b></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Phakopsora meibomiae</i></p>
</td>	<td><p>High (3)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Med (2)</p>
</td>	<td><p>High (3)</p>
</td>	<td><p>High (3)</p>
</td>	<td><p>High (3)</p>
</td>	<td><p>High (14)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Uromyces crotalariae</i></p>
</td>	<td><p>Med (2)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Low (1)</p>
</td>	<td><p>High (3)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Low (1)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Low (1)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Low (8)</p>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<p>a Low = 5-8 points; Medium = 9-12 points; High = 13-15 points.</p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<h3><a name="_Toc219553426"></a><a name="_Toc206822869"></a>2.6.2. Likelihood of Introduction</h3>
<p>We rated each pest for the Likelihood of Introduction based on two components. First, we rated the amount of commodity likely to be imported (sub-element 1). Secondly, we estimated “pest opportunity” using five biological features (sub-elements 2-6). Details of the rating criteria are explained in the Guidelines for Pathway-Initiated Risk Assessments (PERAL, 2000). Our sub-element ratings and the overall values for the Likelihood of Introduction are summarized below (Table 6).</p>
<p></p>
<p><b>Quantity imported annually. </b>The estimated import quantity is 4 metric tons (MAG, 2005). This quantity is less than 10 shipping containers, so we rated it Low.</p>
<p></p>
<p><b>Survive post-harvest treatment. </b><i>Phakopsora meibomiae </i>pustules (Chalkley, 2010) and <i>U. crotalariae </i>pustules (Cummins, 1978) are subdermal until they erupt  While washing would probably remove most of the urediospores from an erupted pustule, un-erupted ones would survive washing unaffected. Given this, survival is likely and we rated this sub-element High for both pathogens.</p>
<p></p>
<p><b>Survive shipment. </b>Urediospores of both<b> </b><i>P. meibomiae </i>and <i>U. crotalariae </i>are believed to survive drying and cold temperatures in the upper atmosphere and transport in the troposphere (Chalkley, 2010). Thus, typical conditions in transport are unlikely to cause significantly mortality of urediospores. For this reason, we rated both pathogens High for this sub-element.</p>
<p></p>
<p><b>Not be detected at the port-of-entry. </b><i>Phakopsora meibomiae </i>infection sites with signs of sporulation or leaf and stem lesions are easily identified at the port-of-entry (Agrios, 2004), but latent infections and the presence of spores adhering to the leaves or packing materials are likely to go undetected. The spores of <i>P. meibomiae </i>are likely to remain viable if present, since they are known to survive on clothes (Chalkley, 2010). For these reasons, we rated sub-element Medium.</p>
<p></p>
<p><i>Uromyces crotalariae</i> infection sites with signs of sporulation are easily identified at the port-of-entry (Agrios, 2004), but latent infections and the presence of <i>U. crotalariae</i> uredospores adhering to leaves or packing materials are unlikely to be detected.. Consequently, we rated this sub-element Medium.</p>
<p></p>
<p><b>Imported or moved subsequently to an area with an environment suitable for survival. </b><i>Phakopsora meibomiae </i>is likely to be suited to hardiness zones 7-10 in the winter or 5-10 in the summer. Chipilin is likely to be imported, at least, directly to Miami, Florida, which is in zone 10 (Moreno and Zambrano, 2005). Based on the rational that the commodity will be shipped to a conducive environment, this risk sub-element is rated as High.</p>
<p></p>
<p>The conducive environmentfor <i>Uromyces crotalariae</i> is likely the hardiness zones 8-10 in the winter or 7-10 in the summer. Chipilin is likely to be imported directly to Miami, Florida, which is in zone 10 (Farr et al, 2008). Based on the rational that s the commodity will be shipped to a conducive environment, this risk sub-element is rated as High.</p>
<p></p>
<p><b>Come into contact with host material suitable for reproduction. </b>Possible hosts of both pathogens are common throughout the US, in the form of a variety of native or landscaping legumes (NRCS, 2007). In addition, urediospores can travel long distances by aerial dispersal (Chalkley, 2010), so possibility of contact with a suitable, even in a limited area, is high. For this reason, we rated the likelihood of contact with suitable host material as High for both pathogens. </p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p>
</p>
<p><b>Table 6. </b>Risk ratings for Likelihood of Introductiona.</p>
<table><tbody><tr>	<td><p><b>Pest</b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Quantity imported annually</b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Survive post-harvest hreatment</b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Survive</b></p>
<p><b>ship-ment</b></p>
<p></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>Cumulative risk rating</b></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Phakopsora meibomiae</i></p>
</td>	<td><p>Low (1)</p>
</td>	<td><p>High (3)</p>
</td>	<td><p>High (3)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Med (2)</p>
</td>	<td><p>High (3)</p>
</td>	<td><p>High (3)</p>
</td>	<td><p>High (15)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Uromyces crotalariae</i></p>
</td>	<td><p>Low (1)</p>
</td>	<td><p>High (3)</p>
</td>	<td><p>High (3)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Med (2)</p>
</td>	<td><p>High (3)</p>
</td>	<td><p>High (3)</p>
</td>	<td><p>High (15)</p>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<p>a Low is 6-9 points, Medium is 10-14 points, and High is 15-18 points (PPQ, 2000a).</p>
<p><a name="_Toc206822870"></a></p>
<p></p>
<h2><a name="_Toc219553427"></a><a name="_Toc276647177"></a>2.7. Pest Risk Potential and Conclusion</h2>
<p></p>
<p>We summed the Consequences of Introduction and the Likelihood of Introduction values to produce the Pest Risk Potentials which are recorded below (Table 7). Pest Risk Potential is a baseline estimate of the risks associated with importation of the commodity in the absence of phytosanitary mitigation measures beyond standard post-harvest processing.</p>
<p></p>
<p>The appropriate risk management strategy for a particular pest depends on the risk posed by that pest. We estimated the pest risk potential as High for <i>P. meibomiae</i> and Medium for <i>Uromyces crotalariae. </i></p>
<p></p>
<p>APHIS-PPQ pest risk assessment guidelines (PERAL, 2000) suggest that, for quarantine pests given an overall High risk potential rating, specific phytosanitary measures beyond standard port-of-entry inspection are highly recommended to mitigate pest risk. Quarantine pests estimated to present a Medium risk typically may require specific mitigative measures. The choice of appropriate measures to mitigate risks is part of risk management within APHIS.</p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p><b>Table 7. </b>Pest Risk Potentialsa for quarantine pests on <i>Capsicum</i> spp. from Central America.</p>
<table><tbody><tr>	<td><p><b>Pest</b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Consequences of Introduction</b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Likelihood of Introduction</b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Pest Risk Potential</b></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Phakopsora meibomiae</i></p>
</td>	<td><p>High (14)</p>
</td>	<td><p>High (15)</p>
</td>	<td><p>High (29)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Uromyces crotalariae</i></p>
</td>	<td><p>Low(8)</p>
</td>	<td><p>High (15)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Med (23)</p>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<p>a Low is 11-18 points, Medium is 19-26 points, and High is 27-33 points.</p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<h1><a name="_Toc276647178"></a><a name="_Toc242265770"></a>3. Risk Mitigation Options </h1>
<h2><a name="_Toc242265771"></a></h2>
<h2><a name="_Toc276647179"></a>3.1. Introduction</h2>
<p></p>
<p>In this section, we discuss mitigation options for the pests analyzed above. We described standard post-harvest processing measures above (1.2).</p>
<p></p>
<p><a name="_Toc242265772"></a>The International Plant Protection Convention recognizes that countries have the sovereign right to use risk mitigation strategies that minimize pest risks to a scientifically justified level (Article VII; IPPC, 1997). The appropriate level of protection for an imported commodity can be achieved by the application of a single phytosanitary measure, such as inspection or a quarantine treatment, or by a combination of measures through a systems approach (ISPM # 14, IPPC, 2009). While developing mitigation strategies, it is important to understand that risk can never be eliminated, but it can be reduced and managed. Pest risk management is the “evaluation and selection of options to reduce the risk of introduction and spread of a pest.” (IPPC, 2009). Selection of those options must consider not only the efficacy of the various risk management strategies, but also the potential impact that such strategies would have on the importing and exporting countries. Risk management strategies must also minimize impacts on the international movement of people, commodities, and conveyances (ISPM#2, IPPC, 2009). IPPC standards outline two steps in risk management: 1) identification of risk management options and 2) analysis of the efficacy and impact of the different options (ISPM#2, IPPC, 2009). This section provides the first step in risk management, i.e., the identification of phytosanitary options to reduce and manage pest risk. </p>
<p></p>
<p>Pest risk management is the process of identifying ways to react to a perceived risk, evaluating the efficacy of these actions, and identifying the most appropriate options (ISPM # 11, IPPC, 2009). Here we outline phytosanitary options and provide evidence of their efficacy in preventing the introduction of quarantine pests. The appropriate level of protection may be achieved through the application of a single phytosanitary measure, such as establishment of pest-free areas or a quarantine treatment, or a combination of measures in a systems approach.</p>
<p></p>
<h2><a name="_Toc242265773"></a><a name="_Toc276647180"></a>3.2. Risk Mitigation Options</h2>
<p></p>
<p>Many types of risk mitigation procedures may be used to minimize pest risk in the importing country. Specific measures may be selected from a range of pre-harvest and post-harvest options, including production practices, detection, and certification. If no single measure is likely to reduce the risk to an acceptable level, then a combination of mitigations may be needed. The Plant Protection Act defines a 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” (7 U.S.C. §7702). Specific mitigations may be selected from a range of pre-harvest and post-harvest options, and may include other safeguarding measures. Measures may be added or the strength of measures increased to compensate for uncertainty. At a minimum, for a measure to be considered for use in a systems approach, it must be 1) clearly defined, 2) efficacious, 3) officially required (mandated), and 4) subject to monitoring and control by the responsible national plant protection organization (ISPM # 14, IPPC, 2009). </p>
<p></p>
<p>We describe and summarize the most frequently used phytosanitary options below (Table 9). Quarantine treatments have been developed which may mitigate some of these pests on other commodities, such as <i>Phakospora meibomiae</i> on various fruits and vegetables; however, the efficacy of these treatments on fresh chipilin leaves and whether these treatments would adversely affect the leaves are unknown. A systems approach may also mitigate risk</p>
<p></p>
<h3>3.3.1. Inspection & Monitoring and Phytosanitary Certification</h3>
<p><b>Phytosanitary Inspection</b>. Chipilin would be subject to inspection at the port-of-entry. There may be inspections in El Salvador for phytosanitary certification. </p>
<p></p>
<p><b>Phytosanitary Certificate</b>. Each consignment of fruit should be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate issued by and providing an additional declaration stating that the fruit in the consignment meets the conditions of a systems approach to risk mitigation, and is free of pests.</p>
<p></p>
<h3>3.3.2. Pest Freedom and Areas of Low Pest Prevalence</h3>
<p><b>Production Site Registration</b>. Chipilin would be grown in approved and registered production sites.</p>
<p></p>
<p><b>Pest-Free Areas</b>. Establishment and maintenance of pest-free areas or pest-free production sites would be in accordance with international standards (e.g., ISPM #4, IPPC, 2009) or other, agreed-upon procedures.</p>
<p></p>
<p><b>Areas of Low Pest Prevalence</b>. The same sampling procedures used to determine pest-free areas may be used in delimiting areas of low pest prevalence. Intensive pest monitoring within orchards must commence at least two months prior to harvest and be maintained throughout the harvest season. MAG must maintain an APHIS-approved quality control program to monitor or audit the sampling program. APHIS must be notified when a production site is removed from, or added to, the program. Certification of low prevalence must be renewed each harvest season.</p>
<p></p>
<p><b>Establishment of a Pest-Free Production Site</b>. A pest-free place of production or production site is a “place of production in which a specific pest does not occur as demonstrated by scientific evidence and in which, where appropriate, this condition is being officially maintained for a defined period” (ISPM #10, IPPC, 2009). This definition is similar to the previous one for pest-free areas; however, they differ in degree of scale. A place of production is much more localized in scope and can only include places/sites that are being managed in the same way, usually by the producer. Pest-free areas are usually managed by the national plant protection organization and are maintained pest free over an extended period. In contrast, pest-free production sites are managed by the producer and may be maintained pest free for as little as one or two seasons. Pest-free production sites are established similarly to pest-free areas, but with the added requirement that all products are adequately labeled to identify the particular production site. Once a pest-free production site or place of production has been established, the producer must maintain the site pest free (ISPM #10, IPPC, 2009). </p>
<p></p>
<h3>3.3.3. Suppression, Control, and Prevention</h3>
<p>Cultural, chemical, or mechanical means (e.g<i>.</i>, orchard sanitation, pruning of dead and diseased branches, pre-harvest application of pesticides, fruit bagging) may be used to prevent, reduce or suppress pest populations in crops. These techniques are useful in maintaining pest free areas and sites of production or suppressing pest populations to beneath certain levels (including for ALPPs). </p>
<p></p>
<p><b>Chemical Application</b>. Some strobilurians are known to be effective against most rust fungi (Latin, 2010). However, they do not eliminate the disease. Chemical application could only be considered in the context of larger, systems approach.</p>
<p></p>
<h3>3.3.4. Post-Harvest Safeguards and Packinghouse Procedures</h3>
<p>No post-harvest procedures were stated or implied by the exporting country (MAG, 2005). Culling could significantly reduce the quantity of infected material. However, the efficiency of inspection and culling for rusts on leaves has not yet been determined. </p>
<p></p>
<h3>3.3.5. Quarantine Treatments</h3>
<p><b>Cold Treatment</b>. Cold treatment involves maintaining fruit near freezing conditions for an extended period (USDA-APHIS, 2007). Temperature sensors placed in the storage compartment and within shipments insure that cold treatment procedures are precisely followed and that the shipment reaches the required temperature. However, there are no data to suggest that cold treatment has an effect against rust fungi as group or<i> Phakopsora meibomiae.</i> </p>
<p></p>
<p><b>Irradiation</b>. Irradiation consists of exposing the commodity to gamma-emitting isotopes (such as Cobalt-60 or Cesium-137) or to electron beams (beta rays) produced by linear accelerators (USDA-APHIS, 2007). Irradiation has been demonstrated to be effective at sterilizing organisms that may contaminate commodities and yet pose no significant danger to human health or the environment (Hallman, 2000; USDA-APHIS, 1997). Because the object of irradiation is sterilization and not necessarily mortality, documentation of the dosage must accompany all irradiated shipments. However, there is no data to suggest that irradiation has an effect against rust fungi as group or<i> Phakopsora meibomiae</i>.</p>
<p></p>
<p><b>Methyl bromide fumigation</b>. Methyl bromide (CH3Br) is a colorless, odorless fumigant with relatively low solubility in water (USDA-APHIS, 2007). As a fumigant, it is very effective at treating a wide variety of pests on a variety of hosts. It can also be used to devitalize plants at higher concentrations. Methyl bromide fumigation involves exposing the commodity to the fumigant in a somewhat enclosed space over a relatively short period of time (e.g., a few hours). Following treatment, sufficient time is given to allow the fumigant to diffuse from the commodity (USDA-APHIS, 2007). However, there is no data to suggest that Methyl bromide funigation has an effect against rust fungi as group or<i> Phakopsora meibomiae</i>.</p>
<p></p>
<h3>3.3.6. Efficacy of Risk Management Measures</h3>
<p>Establishment of pest-free areas or pest-free places of production obviates the need for post-harvest commodity treatments to achieve phytosanitary security (ISPM #4, 10, 22, IPPC, 2009), and has proven to be effective in practice (Table 9).</p>
<p></p>
<p>A systems approach can provide an alternative to single measures to meet the appropriate level of phytosanitary protection, or can be developed to provide phytosanitary protection in situations, in which no single measure is available (ISPM #14, IPPC, 2009).</p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p><b>Table 9. </b>Risk mitigation options for fresh <i>Crotalaria longirostrata </i>from El Salvador.</p>
<table><tbody><tr>	<td><p><b>Measures</b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Pests</b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Efficacy</b></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Inspection & Monitoring and Phytosanitary Certification</b></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Phytosanitary certification, inspection and monitoring</p>
</td>	<td><p><i>Phakopsora meibomiae </i></p>
<p><i>Uromyces crotalariae</i></p>
</td>	<td><p>A phytosanitary certificate guides inspection efforts in El Salvador and alerts U.S. inspectors to pests of concern with this commodity. The effectiveness of this strategy is not known.</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Pest Freedom and Areas of Low Pest Prevalence</b></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Pest free areas or areas of low pest prevalence</p>
</td>	<td><p><i>Phakopsora meibomiae</i></p>
<p><i> Uromyces crotalariae</i></p>
</td>	<td><p>When conducted in compliance with international standards (e.g., IPPC, 2009) this method satisfies requirements for appropriate level of protection.</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Pest free production sites or places of production</p>
</td>	<td><p><i>Phakopsora meibomiae,</i></p>
<p><i>Uromyces crotalariae</i></p>
</td>	<td><p>When conducted in compliance with international standards (e.g., IPPC, 2009) this method satisfies requirements for appropriate level of protection.</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Suppression / Control/ Prevention</b></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Suppression /control program</p>
</td>	<td><p><i>Phakopsora meibomiae, </i></p>
<p><i>Uromyces crotalariae</i></p>
</td>	<td><p>Methods must be used in combination with other measures. Research is needed on effectiveness of methods proposed. </p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Post-Harvest Safeguards and Packinghouse Procedures</b></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Culling</p>
</td>	<td><p><i>Phakopsora meibomiae </i></p>
<p><i>Uromyces crotalariae</i></p>
</td>	<td><p>Culling may reduce the population of infected leaves. However, culling depends on the efficiency of infected leaf removal. Especially at lower levels of leaf infection or field incidence, there is no evidence concerning the efficiency of the personal doing the culling (i.e. the detection limits are unknown)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Quarantine Treatments</b></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Methyl bromide fumigation</p>
</td>	<td><p><i>Phakopsora meibomiae, </i></p>
<p><i>Uromyces crotalariae</i></p>
</td>	<td><p>No methyl bromide treatments exist for rust fungi in general</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Irradiation</p>
</td>	<td><p><i>Phakopsora meibomiae, </i></p>
<p><i>Uromyces crotalariae</i></p>
</td>	<td><p>Unknown effectiveness against fungi</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Port-of-Entry Sampling, Inspection, and Port Location</b></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Port-of-entry sampling and inspection</p>
</td>	<td><p>Appropriate for<i> Phakopsora meibomiae</i>, but should be used in combination with other measures. </p>
<p><i>Uromyces crotalariae</i></p>
</td>	<td><p>Provides sufficient phytosanitary security for low-risk pests (PPQ, 2000b). However, <i>P. meibomiae </i>is a high risk pest so inspection is not sufficient by itself.</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Limits on distribution and transit within the United States</p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p>For use until other mitigation measures are determined to provide sufficient quarantine security. </p>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<h2><a name="_Toc276647181"></a>3.4. Conclusions</h2>
<p></p>
<p>Due to its High pest risk potential, inspection and culling may be insufficient to manage the risk of <i>P. meibomiae </i>in chipilin from El Salvador. Combining them with a verifiable strategy to limit the prevalence of the disease in the field may be effective. </p>
<p></p>
<p><i>Uromyces crotalariae</i> may require additional risk mitigations but they are not obligatory. Since <i>U. crotalariae</i> is Medium risk, culling and inspection may be sufficient to manage the pathogen. </p>
<p></p>
<p>Specific management requirements will be specified, as necessary, during the risk management phase of the risk analysis process.</p>
<p></p>
<h1><a name="_Toc138744439"></a><a name="_Toc180202921"></a><a name="_Toc276647182"></a>4. Authors and Reviewers</h1>
<p></p>
<p><b>Authors		</b>John Rogers (Final original)a</p>
<p>Helena Moreno, Pest risk analyst (Draft original)b</p>
<p>Guiovanni Zambrano, Pest risk analyst (Draft original)b</p>
<p></p>
<p><b>Reviewers</b>		James M. Smith, Entomologista</p>
<p>Betsy Randall-Schadel, Plant Pathologista</p>
<p>Ashley Jackson, Editorial Assistanta</p>
<p></p>
<p>a USDA-APHIS-PPQ-CPHST-PERAL</p>
<p>b Center for Phytosanitary Excellence, Bogota, Colombia</p>
<p></p>
<h1><a name="_Toc276647183"></a>5. Literature Cited</h1>
<p></p>
<p>7 CFR § 319.56. 2003. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 7, Part 319 (7 CFR §319.56 – Notice of Quarantine).</p>
<p>7 CFR § 360. 2006. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 7, Part 360, (7 CFR §360 - Noxious Weed Regulations).</p>
<p>7 CFR § 319.56. 2005. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 7, Part 319 (7 CFR §319.56 – Notice of Quarantine).Acuña, O., and H. Rivera. 1946. Manual de enfermedades de cultivos tropicales. Centro de Tecnología Agropecuaria CENTA.</p>
<p>Acuña, O., and H. Rivera. 1946. Manual de enfermedades de cultivos tropicales. Centro de Tecnología Agropecuaria CENTA.</p>
<p>Agrios, G. N. 2004. Plant Pathology. Fifth Edition. Department of Plant Pathology University of Florida, Elsevier Academic Press, San Diego. 922 pp</p>
<p>Alfieri, S.A., K.R. Langdon, J.W. Kimborough, N.E. El-Gholl, and C. Wehlburg. 1993. Diseases and Disorders of Plants in Florida. Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Gainesville, Florida.</p>
<p>Allan Herbarium. 2000. Ngā Tipu o Aotearoa - New Zealand Plant Names Database. Landcare Research, New Zealand. http://nzflora.landcareresearch.co.nz/ </p>
<p>Arthur, J.C. 1918. Uredinales of Costa Rica based on collections. Mycologia 10:111-154.</p>
<p>Atachi, P., and Z. Djihou. 1994. Record of host plants of <i>Maruca testulalis</i> (geyer) (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) in the Republic of Benin. Ann. Soc. Entomol. Fr 30(2):169-174.</p>
<p>Ben-Dov, Y., D.R. Miller, and G.A.P. Gibson. 2001. ScaleNet, Life Histories. http://www.sel.barc.usda.gov/scalenet/lifehist.htm (Archived at PERAL)</p>
<p>Bonde, M. R., S. E. Nester, C. N. Austin, C. L. Stone, R. D. Frederick, and M. R. Miles. 2006. Evaluation of Virulence of Phakopsora pachyrhizi and P. meibomiae Isolates. Plant Disease 90:708-716</p>
<p>CABI. 2006. Crop Protection Compendium. CAB International, Wallingford, UK.</p>
<p>Calderon, S. and Stanley, P. 1941. Flora Salvadoreña. Lista Preliminar de Plantas de El Salvador. </p>
<p>2 Edicion. Imprenta Nacional. San Salvador. El Salvador. 450 p.</p>
<p>Capinera, U. 1999-2005. Featured creatures. University of Florida Dept of Entomology and Nematology. Last accessed 10/22/2007, //creatures.ifas/ufl/edu.</p>
<p>Chalkley, D. 2010. Invasive Fungi. American soybean rust -Phakopsora meibomiae. . Systematic Mycology and Microbiology Laboratory, ARS, USDA, Beltsville, MD. http://nt.ars-grin.gov/sbmlweb/fungi/index.cfm</p>
<p>Cummins, G.B. 1978. Rust Fungi on Legumes and Composites in North America. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, AZ.</p>
<p>EPPO. 1990. Data Sheets on Quarantine Pests: <i>Eotetrynchus lewisi</i>. CAB International and European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization (EPPO), Wallingford, UK, and Paris, France.</p>
<p>Farr, D.F., A.Y. Rossman, M.E. Palm, and E.B. McCray. 2008. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Fungal Databases Systemic Botany and Mycology Laboratory. http://nt.ars-grin.gov/gunaldatabases. (Archived at PERAL)</p>
<p>FAO, 2005. Capitulo II. Hortalizas </p>
<p><http://www.fao.org/Regional/LAmerica/prior/segalim/prodalim/prodveg/cdrom/conteni</p>
<p>do/libro11/cap2.htm#Top></p>
<p>FUSADES. 1992. Control Integrado de las Enfermedades del Tomate. Fundacion Salvadorena para el Desarrollo Economico Social (FUSADES), San Salvador, El Salvador. Serie Tecnica. Guia Tecnica. 14.</p>
<p>GBIF, Prototipe Data Portal Global Biodiversity Information Facility Version 1.0. Approved by </p>
<p>GB9 2004-10-05. This page updated 2004-11-08. </p>
<p>http://www.gbif.net/portal/ecat_browser.jsp?taxonKey=149976&countryKey=0&resourceKey=0</p>
<p>Grau, C. R. 2005. Soybean Rust
and Implications for Wisconsin Soybean Production. Pages 87 <i>in</i>. Univ of Wisc, Madison, Wisconsin</p>
<p>Gunn, C.R., and C.A. Ritchie. 1988. Identification of disseminules listed in the Federal Noxious </p>
<p>Weed Act (Technical Bulletin Number 1719.). United States Department of Agriculture, </p>
<p>Agricultural Research Service, U.S.A. 313 pp.</p>
<p>Hall, D. 2005. Bella moth, rattlebox moth, or calico moth, <i>Utetheisa ornatrix</i> (Linnaeus) (Insecta: Lepidoptera: Arctiidae: Arctiinae) (EENY358)<i>. </i>University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, Gainesville, FL. http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/IN644</p>
<p>Heiser, D.G. 1945. A Nectria Disease of Coffee in Western Guatemala. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 32(3): 287-294.</p>
<p>Holm, L., J. Doll, E. Holm, J. Rancho, and J. Herberger. 1997. World Weeds: Natural Histories and Distribution. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York. 1129 pp.</p>
<p>Holm, L.G., J.V. Pancho, J.P. Herberger, and D.L. Plucknett. 1979. A Geographical Atlas of World Weeds. Krieger Publishing Company, Malabar, Florida, U.S.A. 391 pp.</p>
<p>Holm, L.G., D.L. Plucknett, J.V. Pancho, and J.P. Herberger. 1977. The World's Worst Weeds: Distribution and Biology. Krieger Publishing Company, Malabar, Florida, U.S.A. 69 pp.</p>
<p>IPPC. 2004. International standards for phytosanitary measures (ISPM#11): Pest risk analysis for quarantine pests, including analysis of environmental risks and living modified organisms. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC), Rome. 41 pp.</p>
<p>IPPC. 1997. 1997 - International Plant Protection Convention (New Revised Text). IPPC & Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 28 pp.</p>
<p>IPPC. 2006. International standards for phytosanitary measures (ISPM#5): Glossary of phytosanitary terms. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC), Rome. 23 pp.</p>
<p>IPPC. 2007. International standards for phytosanitary measures: Framework for pest risk analysis (ISPM#2). Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC), Rome. 15 pp.</p>
<p>IPPC. 2009. International Standards For Phytosanitary Measures, 1 to 31 (2008 edition). Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Secretariat of the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC), Rome. 419 pp.</p>
<p>Lenne, J.L. 1990. A World List of Fungal Disease of Tropical Pasture Species. CAB International, Wallingford, UK.</p>
<p>Liogier, H.A., and L.F. Martorell. 2000. Flora of Puerto Rico and adjacent islands: a systematic synopsis (2nd ed.). Editorial de la Universidad the Puerto Rico, San Juan, Puerto Rico.</p>
<p>Maes, J.M. 2004. Insectos associados a algunos cultivos tropicales en el Atlantico de Nicaragua. Revista Nicaraguense de Entomologia 64(Suplamento 1):75.</p>
<p>MAG. 2005. Informe tecnico sobre el cultivo Chipilin (<i>Crotalaria longirostrata</i>). Ministerio de Agricultura and Ganadera (MAG). Personal communication to Centre de Excellence Fitosanitaria, 2005.</p>
<p>Magarey, R. M., D.Borchert, and J. Schlegel. 2008. Global Plant Hardiness Zones for Phtyosanitary Risk Analysis. Scientia Agricola 31:1-19.</p>
<p>Moreno, H., and G. Zambrano. 2005. Importation of Fresh Foliage of Chipilin (<i>Crotalaria </i></p>
<p><i>longirostrata</i> Hook. & Arn.) into the Continental United States from El Salvador. Center </p>
<p>for Fitosaniary Excellence, Bogota, Colombia. 28 pp.</p>
<p>Morton, J. 1994. Pito (<i>Erythinia bertoana</i>) and Chipilin (<i>Crotalaria longirostrata</i>), (Fabaceae) two soporific vegetables of Central America. Journal of Economic Botany 48:130-138.</p>
<p>NAPPO. 2004. NAPPO regional standards for phytosanitary measures: RSPM#5: NAPPO glossary of phytosanitary terms. North American Plant Protection Organization (NAPPO), Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. 9 pp.</p>
<p>NRCS. 2007. The PLANTS Database. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), National Plant Data Center. http://plants.usda.gov/cgi_bin/. (Archived at PERAL)</p>
<p>Ono, Y., P. Buritica, and J. Hennen. 1992. Delimitation of <i>Phakospora</i>, <i>Physopella</i>, and <i>Cerotelium</i> and their species of Leguminosae. Mycological Research 96(10):825-850.</p>
<p>PERAL. 2000. Guidelines for pathway-initiated pest risk assessments (v. 5.02). United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine, Center for Plant Health Science and Technology, Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory (PERAL). http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/pra/.</p>
<p>PestID. 2007. Pest Identification Database (PestID). United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine. https://mokcs14.aphis.usda.gov/aqas/login.jsp. (Archived at PERAL)</p>
<p>PPQ. 2007. Fresh fruits and vegetables import manual (July 19, 2007). United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ). Riverdale, MD. 650 pp.</p>
<p>Randall, R.P. 2007. A global compendium of weeds. Department of Agriculture of Western Australia. http://www.hear.org/gcw/. (Archived at PERAL)</p>
<p>Reed, C.F. 1977. Economically Important Foreign Weeds. United States Department of Agriculture Agricultural Research Service. Washington, D.C. 746 pp.</p>
<p>Skinner, K., L. Smith, and P. Rice. 2005. Noxious Weeds in the US and Canada, Online Database. University of Montana. http://invader.dbs.umt.edu/Noxious_Weeds/. (Archived at PERAL)</p>
<p>Suárez de Castro, F., and M.T. Villanova. 1960. Plagas y enfermedades del cafeto en el Salvador. Federación Cafetalera de América (El Salvador). No. 97. 47 pp.</p>
<p>Swearingen, J. 2005. Alien plant invaders of natural areas. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. Last accessed May 2, 2005, http://www.nps.gov/plants/alien/list/all.htm.</p>
<p>Temple, J. 2007. Red banded stink bug,<i> Piezodorus guildinii</i> (Westwood): An emerging pest in Louisiana soybean. Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA.</p>
<p>USDA-APHIS. 1997. Irradiation for phytosanitary regulatory treatment: Environmental assessment, October 1997.12.</p>
<p>USDA-APHIS. 2007. Treatment manual. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, United States Department of Agriculture. (Archived at PERAL).</p>
<p>Weber, E. 2003. Invasive Plant Species of the World: A Reference Guide to Environmental Weeds. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK. 548 pp.</p>
<p>Wellman, F. 1977. Dictionary of Tropical American Crops and Their Disease. Scarecrow Press, Metuchen, N.J& London.</p>
<p>Woodward, J.E., D.B. Langston, J.H. Brock, R.C. Kemerait, Jr, and T.B. Brenneman. 1991. First demonstration of Koch's postulates of <i>Lasiodiploidia theobromae</i> fruit spot on Eggplant (<i>Solanum melongena</i>). Plant Disease 89(6):687.</p>
<p>WSSA. 2005. Weed List. Weed Science Society of America (WSSA). http://www.wssa.net/weednames/common.asp.</p>
<p>Yepes, M. and Cespedes. P. 2008. Nuevas especies para la uredobiota neotropical. Rev. Fac. Nat. Agr. Medellin. 6. 4291-4301.</p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p><a name="_Toc138744440"></a><a name="_Toc180202923"></a>.</p>
<p>
</p>
<h1><a name="_Toc276647184"></a>6. Appendices</h1>
<p class="plain_Text"><a name="_Toc180202924"></a></p>
<h2><a name="_Toc276647185"></a>Appendix A. Pests and pathogens intercepted on <i>Crotalaria</i> sp. and <i>Crotalaria longirostrata</i>.</h2>
<p>Data are from 1986 to 2007 in passenger baggage, which accounted for 99 percent of all interceptions (PestID, 2007).</p>
<table><tbody><tr>	<td><p><a name="_Toc180202928"></a><b>Pest </b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Family (if appropriate)</b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b> Interceptions (no.)</b></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Aeolothripidae, Species of</p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p>2</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Agromyzidae, Species of</p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p>57</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Alternaria </i>sp<i>. </i></p>
</td>	<td><p>Hyphomycetes</p>
</td>	<td><p>1</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Aphididae, Species of</p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p>59</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Arctiidae, Species of</p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p>11</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Atheas fuscipes</i> Champion </p>
</td>	<td><p>Tingidae</p>
</td>	<td><p>1</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Bactrocera cucurbitae </i></p>
</td>	<td><p>Tephritidae</p>
</td>	<td><p>1</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Catolethrus </i>sp<i>. </i></p>
</td>	<td><p>Curculionidae</p>
</td>	<td><p>1</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Cecidomyiidae, Species of</p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p>1</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Cercospora </i>sp<i>. </i></p>
</td>	<td><p>Hyphomycetes</p>
</td>	<td><p>4</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Chaetanaphothrips signipennis </i></p>
</td>	<td><p>Thripidae</p>
</td>	<td><p>1</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Chrysomelidae, Species of</p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p>3</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Cicadellidae, Species of</p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p>5</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Cixiidae, Species of</p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p>1</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Clinodiplosis </i>sp.a</p>
</td>	<td><p>Cecidomyiidae</p>
</td>	<td><p>2</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Coccidae, Species of</p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p>8</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Coelosternus </i>sp<i>. </i></p>
</td>	<td><p>Curculionidae</p>
</td>	<td><p>1</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Coleoptera, Species of</p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p>1</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Contarinia </i>sp<i>.</i></p>
</td>	<td><p>Cecidomyiidae</p>
</td>	<td><p>6</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Crambidae, Species of</p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p>1</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Curculionidae, Species of</p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p>1</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Diaspididae, Species of</p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p>2</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Diptera, Species of</p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p>1</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Echinothrips mexicanus </i>Moulton<i> </i></p>
</td>	<td><p>Thripidae</p>
</td>	<td><p>2</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Frankliniella </i>sp<i>. </i></p>
</td>	<td><p>Thripidae</p>
</td>	<td><p>36</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Galerucinae, Species of </p>
</td>	<td><p>Chrysomelidae</p>
</td>	<td><p>3</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Gelechiidae, Species of</p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p>5</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Geometridae, Species of</p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p>1</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Geraeus </i>sp<i>. </i></p>
</td>	<td><p>Curculionidae</p>
</td>	<td><p>1</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Grapholita </i>sp<i>. </i></p>
</td>	<td><p>Tortricidae</p>
</td>	<td><p>1</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Helicoverpa </i>sp<i>. </i></p>
</td>	<td><p>Noctuidae</p>
</td>	<td><p>1</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Homoptera, Species of</p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p>2</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Insecta, Species of</p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p>5</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Lepidoptera, Species of</p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p>2</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Leptosphaerulina </i>sp<i>. </i></p>
</td>	<td><p>Pleosporaceae</p>
</td>	<td><p>1</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Lygaeoidea, Species of</p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p>1</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Megalopygidae, Species of</p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p>1</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Membracidae, Species of</p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p>3</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Miridae, Species of</p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p>5</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Neoleucinodes elegantalis </i></p>
</td>	<td><p>Crambidae</p>
</td>	<td><p>1</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Noctuidae, Species of</p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p>58</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Oligonychus </i>sp<i>. </i></p>
</td>	<td><p>Tetranychidae</p>
</td>	<td><p>3</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Orthezia </i>sp<i>. </i></p>
</td>	<td><p>Ortheziidae</p>
</td>	<td><p>1</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Panonychus </i>sp<i>. </i></p>
</td>	<td><p>Tetranychidae</p>
</td>	<td><p>1</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Paracoccus </i>sp<i>. </i></p>
</td>	<td><p>Pseudococcidae</p>
</td>	<td><p>1</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Pealius </i>sp<i>. </i></p>
</td>	<td><p>Aleyrodidae</p>
</td>	<td><p>1</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Pentatomidae, Species of</p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p>1</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Phlaeothripidae, Species of</p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p>6</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Phyllophaga </i>sp<i>. </i></p>
</td>	<td><p>Scarabaeidae</p>
</td>	<td><p>1</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Phyllosticta </i>sp<i>. </i></p>
</td>	<td><p>Coelomycetes</p>
</td>	<td><p>1</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Pseudococcidae, Species of</p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p>20</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Psylliodes </i>sp<i>. </i></p>
</td>	<td><p>Chrysomelidae</p>
</td>	<td><p>1</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Pterophoridae, Species of</p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p>3</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Pyralidae, Species of</p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p>1</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Pyraustinae, Species of </p>
</td>	<td><p>Crambidae</p>
</td>	<td><p>1</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Schizomyia </i>sp<i>. </i></p>
</td>	<td><p>Cecidomyiidae</p>
</td>	<td><p>1</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Sphacophilus </i>sp<i>. </i></p>
</td>	<td><p>Argidae</p>
</td>	<td><p>3</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Spissistilus festinus </i>a</p>
</td>	<td><p>Membracidae</p>
</td>	<td><p>2</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Spodoptera albula</i>a</p>
</td>	<td><p>Noctuidae</p>
</td>	<td><p>1</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Spodoptera </i>sp<i>. </i></p>
</td>	<td><p>Noctuidae</p>
</td>	<td><p>2</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Spoladea recurvalis</i>a</p>
</td>	<td><p>Crambidae</p>
</td>	<td><p>1</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Thripidae, Species of</p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p>17</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Thrips </i>sp<i>. </i></p>
</td>	<td><p>Thripidae</p>
</td>	<td><p>1</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Trichoplusia </i>sp<i>. </i></p>
</td>	<td><p>Noctuidae</p>
</td>	<td><p>1</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Utetheisa ornatrix </i>a</p>
</td>	<td><p>Arctiidae</p>
</td>	<td><p>2</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Utetheisa </i>sp<i>. </i></p>
</td>	<td><p>Arctiidae</p>
</td>	<td><p>1</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Zygaenidae, Species of</p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p>1</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Total</b></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>375</b></p>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<p>a Non-reportable</p>
<h2></h2>
<h2></h2>
<h2></h2>
</body></html>