Movement of Fresh Fruit of Achachairú (Garcinia 

gardneriana) into the Continental United States

from Puerto Rico

A Qualitative, Pathway-Initiated Pest Risk Assessment

November 21, 2013

Version 2

Agency Contact:

Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory

Center for Plant Health Science and Technology

United States Department of Agriculture

Animal Plant Health Inspection Service

Plant Protection and Quarantine

1730 Varsity Drive, Suite 300

Raleigh, NC 27606
Pest Risk Assessment for Garcinia gardneriana from Puerto Rico

Ver. 2 November 21, 2013 ii

Executive Summary

In this risk assessment, we characterize the risks of plant pest introduction associated with the 

movement fresh achachairú fruit, Garcinia gardneriana (Clusiaceae), from Puerto Rico into the 

continental United States. To characterize these risks, we used the USDA guidelines for 

pathway-initiated pest risk assessments (PPQ, 2000).

We first generated a list of species that are present in Puerto Rico and that could potentially

attack achachairú using a variety of sources, including scientific literature, internet records, 

interception data at U.S. ports-of-entry and information provided by exporters and researchers in 

Puerto Rico. Based on that work, we identified one insect pest (see below) that likely follows the 

commodity pathway of fresh achachairú fruit from Puerto Rico. We then assessed the Pest Risk 

Potential the pest poses to the continental United States.

Taxonomy Pest Scientific Name

Hemiptera: Coccidae Ceroplastes rubens Maskell

We found that Ceroplastes rubens has Medium Pest Risk Potential. Detailed examination and 

choice of appropriate phytosanitary measures to mitigate pest risk are part of the pest risk 

management phase within APHIS and are not addressed in this document. 
Pest Risk Assessment for Garcinia gardneriana from Puerto Rico

Ver. 2 November 21, 2013 iii

Table of Contents

Executive Summary...................................................................................................................... ii

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

1.1. Background........................................................................................................................ 1

1.2. Standard Post-Harvest Processing ..................................................................................... 1

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

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

2.2. Assessment of the Weed Potential of Achachairú ............................................................. 2

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

2.4. Pest Categorization ............................................................................................................ 2

2.5. Analysis of Quarantine Pests............................................................................................. 5

3. Conclusion/Pest Risk Potential .................................................................................................7

4. Authors and Reviewers..............................................................................................................8

5. References...................................................................................................................................8

6. Appendix...................................................................................................................................12

Appendix A. Quarantine pests that could attack achachairú, Garcinia gardneriana, and are 

present in Puerto Rico............................................................................................................. 12
Pest Risk Assessment for Garcinia gardneriana from Puerto Rico

Ver. 2 November 21, 2013 1

1. Introduction 

1.1. Background 

This document was prepared by the Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory of the 

Center for Plant Health Science and Technology, USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service (APHIS), Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ), in response to a request to evaluate the 

risks associated with the movement of commercially produced fresh achachairú fruit (Garcinia 

gardneriana) from Puerto Rico into the continental United States.

The International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) provides guidance for conducting pest risk 

analyses. The methods used here are consistent with guidelines provided by the IPPC, 

specifically the International Standard for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPM) on ‘Pest Risk 

Analysis for Quarantine Pests, Including Analysis of Environmental Risks and Living Modified 

Organisms’ (IPPC, 2009: ISPM #11). The use of biological and phytosanitary terms is consistent 

with the ‘Glossary of Phytosanitary Terms’ (IPPC, 2009: ISPM #5). 

Three stages of pest risk analysis are described in international standards: Stage 1, Initiation;

Stage 2, Risk Assessment; and Stage 3, Risk Management. This document satisfies the 

requirements of Stages 1 and 2. 

This is a qualitative risk analysis; estimates of risk are expressed in terms of High, Medium, and 

Low pest risk potentials based on the combined ratings for specified risk elements (PPQ, 2000) 

related to the probability and consequences of importing this achachairú commodity from Puerto 

Rico. For the purposes of this assessment, High, Medium, and Low probabilities will be defined 

as:

High: More likely to occur than not to occur

Medium: As likely to occur as not to occur

Low: More likely not to occur than to occur

The appropriate risk management strategy for a particular pest depends on the risk posed by that 

pest. Identification of appropriate sanitary and phytosanitary measures to mitigate the risk, if any, 

for this pest is undertaken as part of Stage 3 (Risk Management). We did not discuss risk 

management in this document.

1.2. Standard Post-Harvest Processing 

After harvest, the achachairú fruit will be washed and soaked with water for approximately five 

minutes (Shea, 2010).

2. Risk Assessment

2.1. Initiating Event: Proposed Action 

We prepared this commodity-based, pathway-initiated pest risk assessment in response to a 

request by Puerto Rico for authorization to import fresh achachairú fruit for consumption into the 
Pest Risk Assessment for Garcinia gardneriana from Puerto Rico

Ver. 2 November 21, 2013 2

continental United States. The movement of fruits and vegetables from Puerto Rico into the 

United States is regulated in 7 CFR §318.13 (7 CFR § 318, 2013), and the importation of fresh 

achachairú fruit from Puerto Rico into the continental United States is not currently permitted. 

2.2. Assessment of the Weed Potential of Achachairú

If achachairú had the potential to be a weed pest, then a “pest-initiated” risk assessment would be

conducted. The results of the weed potential screening for achachairú did not prompt a 

pest-initiated risk assessment (Table 1).

Table 1. Assessment of the weed potential of achachairú.

Commodities scientific names: Garcinia gardneriana (NGRP, 2011)

Common names: Achachairú, Achacha (NGRP, 2011)

Phase 1: Distribution in the United States

Garcinia gardneriana doesn’t occur in the continental United States (NRCS, 2011)

Phase 2: Invasive/Weed Status: Listing as Weed

The species is listed in

NO Geographical Atlas of World Weeds (Holm et al., 1991)

NO A Global Compendium of Weeds (Randall, 2008)

NO World’s Worst Weeds (Holm et al., 1977)

NO World Weeds: Natural Histories and Distribution (Holm et al., 1997)

NO Weed Science Society of America (NRCS, 2011)

NO Federal Noxious Weed List (PPQ, 2010)

NO Economically Important Foreign Weeds (Reed, 1977)

NO Identification of Disseminules Listed in the Federal Noxious Weed Act (Gunn and 

Ritchie, 1988)

NO The Introduced Flora of Australia and its Weed Status (Randall, 2007)

Phase 3: Summary and Conclusions

Garcinia gardneriana is not present in the continental United States and was not listed 

as a weed in the references above. Consequently, a pest initiated risk assessment for G. 

gardneriana is not required.

2.3. Current Status and Pest Interceptions

The entry of fresh achachairú fruit from Puerto Rico into the United States is currently not 

authorized under 7 CFR §318 (7 CFR § 318, 2013). To date there have been no plant pest 

interceptions on achachairú at U.S. ports-of-entry (PestID, 2011).

2.4. Pest Categorization

2.4.1 Pests associated with Garcinia sp.

In this pest list (Table 2) we included pests reported on Garcinia sp. and present in Puerto Rico. 

We did not find pests that were specific to achachairú, G. gardneriana. For each pest we 

determined its presence in the continental United States, its quarantine status, and if necessary, 
Pest Risk Assessment for Garcinia gardneriana from Puerto Rico

Ver. 2 November 21, 2013 3

the plant parts it attacks and if it would be likely to follow the fruit pathway. Shaded rows 

indicate quarantine pests likely to follow the commodity pathway and that are candidates for 

further mitigation (Table 3).

Table 2. Pests associated with Garcinia sp. and present in Puerto Rico.

Pest Reported on 

Garcinia sp.

Distribution1 Quarantine 

pest status

Plant Part(s) 

Affected

Follow 

pathway

ARTHROPODS

Diptera: Tephritidae

Anastrepha suspensa Loew Garcinia spp.

(Norrbom, No Date)

PR, US (FL) 

(CABI, 2007)

[Yes ]

2

(NIS, 

2011; PestID, 

2011)

fruit (CABI, 

2007)

No3

Hemiptera: Coccidae

Ceroplastes rubens 

Maskell

Garcinia sp. 

(Williams and 

Watson, 1990)

PR, US (FL, HI) 

(Ben-Dov et al., 

2011; CABI, 2007)

[Yes]

2

(NIS, 

2010; PestID, 

2011)

fruit, leaf, 

stem (CABI, 

2007)

Yes 

Pulvinaria psidii Maskell Garcinia sp. (BenDov et al., 2011)PR, US (Ben-Dov 

et al., 2011)

No N/A N/A

Saissetia coffeae (Walker) Garcinia sp. (BenDov et al., 2011)PR, US (Ben-Dov 

et al., 2011)

No N/A N/A

Vinsonia stellifera

(Westwood)

Garcinia sp. (BenDov et al., 2011)PR, US [AL, FL, 

GA (Hodges, No 

Date), HI (von 

Ellenrieder, 2003)]

[Yes]

2

(NIS, 

2009)

fruit, leaf, 

stem (Peña et 

al., 2002; 

PestID, 2011)

No4

Hemiptera: Diaspididae

Fiorinia fioriniae (Targioni 

Tozzetti)

Garcinia sp. (BenDov et al., 2011)PR, US (Ben-Dov 

et al., 2011)

No N/A N/A

Parlatoria pergandii

Comstock

Garcinia sp. (BenDov et al., 2011)PR, US (Ben-Dov 

et al., 2011)

No N/A N/A

FUNGI5and STRAMENOPILES

Ceramothyrium griseolum 

(L.R. Fraser) Bat.

Garcinia sp. (APNE, 

2011)

PR (Farr et al., 

2011)

Yes leaf 

(Reynolds 

and Gilbert, 

2005)

No

 

N/A = Not Applicable. The species is not a quarantine pest for the continental United States. Therefore further 

characterization of plant parts attacked or its ability to follow the pathway is not necessary. 

1

PR=Puerto Rico; US = United States; AL = Alabama; CA = California; FL = Florida; GA = Georgia; HI = Hawaii. We did 

not list the U.S. distribution for non-quarantine pests.

2 Brackets indicate that the species has a limited distribution in the continental United States, is under official control or under 

consideration for official control, and is classified as a quarantine pest.

3

Jenkins (2013) conducted field and laboratory trials on Garcinia gardneriana fruit that yielded no Anastrepha suspensa and 

concluded there was a “very low probability” of the fruit being a host. Based on that evidence we concluded that A. 

suspensa is highly unlikely to follow the pathway.

4 Vinsoia stellifera primarily attacks leaves (EcoPort, No Date; PestID, 2011; Williams and Watson, 1990). Consequently, we 

considered it unlikely to follow the achachairú fruit pathway.

5

Fungi are listed by the sexual stage first (if known). Taxonomy is written according to Farr and Rossman (Farr et al., 2011).
Pest Risk Assessment for Garcinia gardneriana from Puerto Rico

Ver. 2 November 21, 2013 4

Pest Reported on 

Garcinia sp.

Distribution1 Quarantine 

pest status

Plant Part(s) 

Affected

Follow 

pathway

Glomerella cingulata

(Stoneman) Spauld. & 

H. Schrenk

[anamorph: 

Colletotrichum 

gloeosporioides (Penz.) 

Penz. & Sacc.]

Garcinia spp. (Farr 

et al., 1996)

PR, US (Farr et al., 

2011)

No N/A N/A

Phellinus noxius (Corner) 

G. Cunn.

(syn.: Fomes noxius

Corner)

Garcinia sp. 

(Ramsden et al., 

2002)

PR (Farr et al., 

2011; CABI, 1980)

Yes roots, stem 

(Farr et al., 

2011)

No

Triposporium elegans

Corda

Garcinia sp. (APNE, 

2011)

PR (Polishook et 

al., 1996), US (Farr 

et al., 2011)

No6 N/A N/A

Table 3. Quarantine pests likely to follow the pathway on Garcinia gardneriana fruit.

Pest Classification Pest Scientific Name

Hemiptera: Coccidae Ceroplastes rubens 

 

6

Triposporium elegans occurs mainly on decaying plant material (Polishook et al., 1996; Farr et al., 2011) and is unlikely to 

be found on living plant tissue.
Pest Risk Assessment for Garcinia gardneriana from Puerto Rico

Ver. 2 November 21, 2013 5

2.4.2. Pest list discussion

Although we did not list them above for lack of evidence, we suspect that the fungi Erythricium 

salmonicolor (synonym: Corticium salmonicolor), Lasiodiplodia theobromae, and Pellicularia 

koleroga and the nematodes Meloidogyne arenaria, M. incognita, M. javanica, and Tylenchulus 

semipenetrans could infect G. gardneriana in Puerto Rico because these pathogens infect the 

related species G. mangostana there. We were not able to confirm this in the literature, however.

2.5. Analysis of Quarantine Pests

We identified one quarantine insect pest that is likely to follow the achachairú fruit pathway

from Puerto Rico (Table 3). 

2.5.1 Consequences of Introduction

In this section, we characterize the potential negative effects that could result from the 

introduction of the quarantine pest listed in Table 3. For this quarantine pest, we rated the 

potential consequences of introduction using five Risk Elements: 1) climate-host interaction; 2) 

host range; 3) dispersal potential; 4) economic impact; and 5) environmental impact. For each 

Risk Element, pests are assigned a rating of Low (1 point), Medium (2 points) or High (3 points)

based on the criteria listed in the USDA Guidelines for Pathway-Initiated Pest Risk Assessments 

(PPQ, 2000). We then calculated a Cumulative Risk Rating for the pest by summing all Risk 

Element values (Table 4).

Ceroplastes rubens Risk Ratings

Risk Element #1: Climate-Host Interaction

Ceroplastes rubens has a broad geographic distribution and is found in

parts of Asia, Africa, North America, Oceania, Central America, and the 

Caribbean (CABI, 2007). Its geographic distribution potentially includes

USDA Plant Hardiness Zones 6 to 11 in the continental United States 

(PERAL/CIPM, 2007). Multiple hosts of this scale occur in these zones 

(CABI, 2007; Kartesz, 2011; PERAL/CIPM, 2007).

High (3)

Risk Element #2: Host Range

Ceroplastes rubens is highly polyphagous, attacking numerous wild and 

cultivated hosts, including Calophyllum inophyllum, C. tomentosum,

Garcinia myrtifolia, G. spicata, G. subelliptica (Clusiaceae), Citrus spp. 

(Rutaceae), Mangifera indica (Anacardiaceae), Artocarpus altilis

(Moraceae), Cinnamomum verum (Lauraceae), Camellia sinensis

(Theaceae), Psidium guajava (Myrtaceae), Coffee sp. (Rubiaceae), 

Euphorbia heterophylla, E. pulcherrima (Euphorbiaceae), Alpinia 

purpurata (Zingiberaceae), Myristica fragrans (Myristicaceae), Annona

sp. (Annonaceae), Artemisia sp. (Asteraceae), Prunus spp. (Rosaceae), 

Pinus spp. (Pinaceae), Cocos nucifera (Arecaceae), Dimocarpus longa,

Litchi chinensis, and Nephelium lappaceum (Sapindaceae) (Ben-Dov et 

al., 2011; CABI, 2007).

High (3)
Pest Risk Assessment for Garcinia gardneriana from Puerto Rico

Ver. 2 November 21, 2013 6

Ceroplastes rubens Risk Ratings

Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential

Ceroplastes rubens can complete two generations per year and a single 

female can produce over 1,000 eggs (Loch and Zalucki, 1997; Smith, 

1976). Ceroplastes rubens can move on plant material (CABI, 2007) and 

was intercepted 4,900 times at U.S. ports-of-entry between January 18, 

1984 and June 6, 2011 (PestID, 2011).

High (3)

Risk Element #4: Economic Impact

Ceroplastes rubens is a pest of citrus and other crops and its feeding 

directly damages the plant (CABI, 2007). In addition, sooty mould can 

develop on the fruit as a result of the scale’s presence, which can reduce 

crop value (CABI, 2007; Sabine, 1969). Ceroplastes rubens is also 

considered to be a quarantine pest for other countries (CABI, 2007; NIS, 

2010; PestID, 2011); therefore, its wider establishment in the continental 

United States could cause restrictions on foreign or domestic markets.

High (3)

Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact

Ceroplastes rubens attacks Pinus spp. and has caused crown damage, 

sooty mould formation on the foliage and reduced tree vigor on P. 

caribaea (Merrifield and Howcroft, 1975; Ramsden et al., 2002). 

Ceroplastes rubens could attack Federal Endangered or Threatened 

species in the following genera: Aspenium, Buxus, Eugenia, Euphorbia, 

Gardenia, Helianthus, Hibiscus, Ilex, Lindera, Pittosporum, Prunus, 

Rhododendron, Rhus, Spiraea, and Ternstroemia (CABI, 2007; USFWS, 

2011). Lastly, the wider establishment of C. rubens in the continental 

United States could result in the implementation of new chemical and/or 

biological control programs (Noda et al., 1982; Sabine, 1969; Smith, 

1976, 1986).

High (3)

Table 4. Summary of the risk ratings and values for the Consequences of Introduction.

Pest Climate-Host 

Interaction

Host 

Range

Dispersal 

Potential

Economic 

impact

Environmental impactCumulative 

Risk Ratinga

Ceroplastes rubens High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (15)

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

2.5.2 Likelihood of Introduction

In this section, we rate the potential likelihood of introduction for quarantine pests likely to

follow the pathway using six risk sub-elements (PPQ, 2000): 1) quantity of commodity imported 

annually, 2) survive post-harvest treatment, 3) survive shipment, 4) not detected at the port-ofentry, 5) imported or moved subsequently to an area with an environment suitable for survival,

and 6) come into contact with host material suitable for reproduction. We consider the events 

described in risk sub-elements 2-6 to be independent (i.e., the estimates for one element should 

not affect estimates for other elements) (PPQ, 2000). For each pest, the six risk sub-elements are 

summed to produce a Cumulative Risk Rating for the Likelihood of Introduction (Table 5). 
Pest Risk Assessment for Garcinia gardneriana from Puerto Rico

Ver. 2 November 21, 2013 7

Quantity imported annually. The exporter anticipates shipping 6,000 lbs of fruit per year by 

2020 (Shea, 2010). This volume is less than the capacity of one standard 40-foot container (FAS, 

2011). Consequently, the rating is Low for C. rubens.

Survive post-harvest treatment. 

Ceroplastes rubens is an external feeder that could be washed off if present on the fruit. 

However, it was intercepted 36 times on fruit at U.S. ports-of-entry between January 18, 1984, 

and June 6, 2011 (PestID, 2011), suggesting that it is possible, though unlikely, for the scale to 

remain present on fruit after standard postharvest processing. We rated it Low.

Survive shipment. The achachairú fruit will be shipped in U.S. Postal Service flat rate boxes via 

maritime or air conveyances (Shea, 2010) and we assumed environmental conditions during the 

shipment would typically be suitable for pest survival.

C. rubens has been intercepted 105 times at U.S. ports-of-entry, and 94 percent of these 

specimens were viable (PestID, 2011). We rated it High.

Not detected at port of entry.

Ceroplastes rubens is an external feeder that is often associated with sooty mould formation 

(CABI, 2007). Between 1984 and 2011, it was intercepted 4,900 times at U.S. ports-of-entry

(PestID, 2011) indicating that it is noticeable by inspectors. Therefore, we rated it Low.

Moved to suitable habitat. Ceroplastes rubens could establish in Plant Hardiness Zones 6 to 11

(see above), which contains most of the U.S. population. Consequently, we rated it high High.

Come into contact with host material.

Ceroplastes rubens is polyphagous (see above), but is only mobile during the crawler stage when 

it can be wind dispersed (Loch and Zalucki, 1997). Consequently, it is unlikely to reach hosts 

that are not close by (Loch and Zalucki, 1997). We rated it Medium.

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

Pest Quantity 

Imported 

Annually

Survive 

PostHarvest 

Treatment

Survive 

Shipment

Not 

detected at 

port of 

entry

Moved 

to 

suitable 

habitat

Contact 

with Host 

Material

Cumulative 

risk ratinga

Ceroplastes rubens Low (1) Low (1) High (3) Low (1) High (3) Med (2) Medium (11)

aLow is 6-9 points, Medium is 10-14 points, and High is 15-18 points

3. Conclusion/Pest Risk Potential

To estimate the Pest Risk Potential for C. rubens, the Cumulative Risk Ratings for the

Consequences of Introduction (Table 4) and the Likelihood of Introduction (Table 5) are 

summed to give the Pest Risk Potential (Table 6). We found that C. rubens had a Medium pest 

risk potential.
Pest Risk Assessment for Garcinia gardneriana from Puerto Rico

Ver. 2 November 21, 2013 8

The USDA Guidelines for Pathway-Initiated Pest Risk Assessments suggest the following 

interpretations of the qualitative Pest Risk Potential ratings (PPQ, 2000):

Low: The pest will probably not require specific mitigations. 

Medium: The pest may require specific mitigations.

High: It is highly recommended that specific mitigations be implemented for the pest.

A detailed examination and choice of appropriate phytosanitary measures to mitigate pest risk is 

undertaken as part of the pest risk management phase and is not discussed in this document.

Table 6. Pest risk potential.

Pest Consequences of 

Introduction

Likelihood of 

Introduction

Pest Risk Potentiala

Ceroplastes rubens High (15) Medium (11) Medium (26)

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

4. Authors and Reviewers

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

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

Authors

Glenn Fowler, Entomologist

Lisa Kohl, Nematologist/Plant Pathologist

Larry Fowler, Botanist

Reviewers

Leah Millar, Entomologist

Kayimbi Tubajika, Plant Pathologist

5. References

7 CFR § 318. 2013. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 7, Part 318 (7 CFR § 318 – State of 

Hawaii and Territories Quarantine Notices).

APNE. 2011. Collection URM. Mycological reference collection of the Herbarium Camille 

Torrand collection. Associação Plantas do Nordeste (APNE), Recife, Brazil. Last 

accessed June 22, 2011, 

http://www.plantasdonordeste.org/herbarios/relatorios/URM_html_5.html.

Ben-Dov, Y., D. R. Miller, and G. A. P. Gibson. 2011. ScaleNet. 

http://www.sel.barc.usda.gov/scalenet/scalenet.htm. (Archived at PERAL).

CABI. 1980. Phellinus noxius. Distribution Maps of Plant Diseases. Map 104. Commonwealth 

Agricultural Bureau International (CABI).

CABI. 2007. Crop Protection Compendium. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureau International 

(CABI), Wallingford, United Kingdom.

EcoPort. No Date. Vinsonia stellifera. Last accessed January 26, 2005, http://ecoport.org.
Pest Risk Assessment for Garcinia gardneriana from Puerto Rico

Ver. 2 November 21, 2013 9

Farr, D., H. B. Esteban, and M. E. Palm. 1996. Fungi on rhododendron: A world reference. 

Parkway Publishers, Inc, Boone, NC. 193 pp.

Farr, D. F., A. Y. Rossman, M. E. Palm, and E. B. McCray. 2011. Fungal Databases. United 

States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Systematic Mycology

and Microbiology Laboratory. http://nt.ars-grin.gov/fungaldatabases/. (Archived at 

PERAL).

FAS. 2011. Glossary. United States Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service 

(FAS), Washington, D.C. Last accessed September 13, 2011, 

http://www.fas.usda.gov/agexport/export_plan/glossary.htm#C.

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

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

Agricultural Research Service, U.S.A. 313 pp.

Hodges, G. No Date. Pest Alert: Stellate scale, Vinsonia stellifera (Westwood) Coccoidea: 

Coccidae. Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Plant 

Industry.

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.

Holm, L. G., J. V. Pancho, J. P. Herberger, and D. L. Plucknett. 1991. A geographical atlas of 

world weeds. Krieger Publishing Company, Malabar, Florida. 330 pp.

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.

IPPC. 2009. International Standards For Phytosanitary Measures, 1 to 32 (2009 edition). Food 

and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Secretariat of the International Plant 

Protection Convention (IPPC), Rome, Italy. 432 pp.

Jenkins, D. A. 2013. Report of host status of Garcinia gardneriana (Clusiaceae) in Puerto Rico. 

USDA-ARS Tropical Agriculture Research Station, Mayaguez, PR. 1 pp.

Kartesz, J. T. 2011. North American Plant Atlas [maps generated from Kartesz, J.T. 2010. 

Floristic Synthesis of North America, Version 1.0. Biota of North America Program 

(BONAP). (in press)]. The Biota of North America Program (BONAP), Chapel Hill, N.C. 

http://www.bonap.org/MapSwitchboard.html. (Archived at PERAL).

Loch, A. D., and M. P. Zalucki. 1997. Variation in Length, Fecundity and Survival of Pink Wax 

Scale, Ceroplastes rubens Maskell (Hemiptera: Coccidae), on Umbrella Trees. Australian 

Journal of Zoology 45(4):399-407.

Merrifield, L. E., and N. S. Howcroft. 1975. Ceroplastes rubens Maskell damage of Pinus 

caribaea Morelet with notes on the scale's preference of certain clones as host material 

(Hemiptera : Coccidae). Silvae Genetica 24(4):110-113.

NGRP. 2011. Germplasm Resources Information Network (GRIN). United States Department of 

Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, National Genetic Resources Program 

(NGRP). http://www.ars-grin.gov/cgi-bin/npgs/html/index.pl?language=en. (Archived at 

PERAL).

NIS. 2009. Quarantine Status Confirmations. Personal communication to L. Millar on June 18, 

2009, from United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine, National Identification Services (NIS).

NIS. 2010. Quarantine Status Confirmations. Personal communication to L. Millar on July 12, 

1010, from United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine, National Identification Services (NIS).
Pest Risk Assessment for Garcinia gardneriana from Puerto Rico

Ver. 2 November 21, 2013 10

NIS. 2011. Quarantine Status Confirmations. Personal communication to G. Fowler on August 

24, 2011, from United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine, National Identification Services 

(NIS).

Noda, T., C. Kitamura, S. Takahashi, K. Takagi, T. Kashio, and M. Tanaka. 1982. Host selection 

behaviour of Anicetus beneficus Ishii et Yasumatsu (Hymenoptera: Encyrtidae) I. 

Ovipositional behavior for the natural host Ceroplastes rubens Maskell (Hemiptera: 

Coccidae). Applied Entomology and Zoology 17(3):350-357.

Norrbom, A. E. No Date. Fruit Fly (Diptera: Tephritidae) Host Plant Database: Anastrepha 

suspensa. United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, 

Systematic Entomology Laboratory, The Diptera Site. 

http://www.sel.barc.usda.gov:591/diptera/tephritidae/TephHosts/FMPro?-db=anhost.

fp5&-format=results.html&-lay=web&Original%20Fly%20Name=Anastrepha%20suspensa&-

max=100&-sortfield=Pl

ant%20Name&sortorder=ascending&-find Hosts. (Archived at PERAL).

NRCS. 2011. The PLANTS Database. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural 

Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), The National Plant Data Center. 

http://plants.usda.gov. (Archived at PERAL).

Peña, J. E., J. L. Sharp, and M. E. Wysoki. 2002. Tropical Fruit Pests and Pollinators: Biology, 

Economic Importance, Natural Enemies and Control. CAB International, Wallingford, 

UK. 430 pp.

PERAL/CIPM. 2007. Weather based probability maps generated using NAPPFAST system. 

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) and North Carolina State 

University, Center for Integrated Pest Management (CIPM), Raleigh, North Carolina.

PestID. 2011. 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).

Polishook, J. D., G. F. Bills, and D. J. Lodge. 1996. Microfungi from decaying leaves of two rain 

forest trees in Puerto Rico. Journal of Industrial Microbiology 17:284-294.

PPQ. 2000. Guidelines for pathway-initiated pest risk assessments (Version 5.02). United States 

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

and Quarantine (PPQ), Riverdale, Maryland. 30 pp.

PPQ. 2010. Federal Noxious Weed List. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), Plant Protection and Quarantine 

(PPQ). Last accessed April 13, 2011, 

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/plant_pest_info/weeds/downloads/weedlist2010doc.pdf. (Archived at PERAL).

Ramsden, M., J. McDonald, and F. R. Wylie. 2002. Forest pests in the South Pacific region: A 

review of the major causal agents of tree disorders (ACIAR Project FST/2001/045: 

Development of Forest Health Surveillance Systems for South Pacific Countries and 

Australia). Department of Primary Industries, Agency for Food and Fibre Sciences, 

Forestry Research, Queensland, Australia. 30 pp.
Pest Risk Assessment for Garcinia gardneriana from Puerto Rico

Ver. 2 November 21, 2013 11

Randall, J. M. 2007. The introduced flora of Australia and its weed status. CRC for Australian 

Weed Management, Department of Agriculture and Food, Western Australia, Australia. 

528 pp.

Randall, R. P. 2008. A Global Compendium of Weeds. Department of Agriculture of Western 

Australia. http://www.hear.org/gcw/. (Archived at PERAL).

Reed, C. F. 1977. Economically Important Foreign Weeds. Pages 746 in Agriculture Handbook 

No. 498. Agricultural Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture., U.S.A.

Reynolds, D. R., and G. S. Gilbert. 2005. Epifoliar fungi from Queensland, Australia. Australian 

Systematic Botany 18:265-289.

Sabine, B. N. E. 1969. Insecticidal control of citrus pests in coastal central Queensland. 

Queensland Journal of Agriculture and Animal Science 26:83-88.

Shea, F. O. 2010. Pre-requisite requirements for commodity risk assessments, Las Marias, Puerto 

Rico. 19 pp.

Smith, D. 1976. The seasonal history and control of Ceroplastes rubens Maskell on citrus in 

south-east Queensland. Queensland Journal of Agricultural and Animal Sciences 

33(1):23-30.

Smith, D. 1986. Biological control of Ceroplastes rubens Maskell, by the introduced parasitoid 

Anicetus beneficus Ishii and Yasumatsu. Queensland Journal of Agricultural and Animal 

Sciences 43(2):101-105.

USFWS. 2011. Threatened and endangered species system (TESS). United States Fish and 

Wildlife Service (USFWS). http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/pub/listedPlants.jsp

(Archived at PERAL).

von Ellenrieder, N. 2003. Soft scales - Stellate scale (SS-03-03). Los Angeles County

Agricultural Commissioner's Office/Weights and Measures Department. 1 pp.

Williams, D. J., and G. W. Watson. 1990. The scale insects of the tropcial south Pacific region 

Part 3. The scale insects (Coccidae) and other families

CAB International, Wallingford, Oxon, UK. 267 pp.
Pest Risk Assessment for Garcinia gardneriana from Puerto Rico

Ver. 2 November 21, 2013 12

6. Appendix

Appendix A. Quarantine pests that could attack achachairú, Garcinia gardneriana, and are 

present in Puerto Rico.

Pest Reported on Garcinia

sp.

Puerto Rico and 

U.S. Distribution

Plant Part(s) Affected

Hemiptera: Coccidae

Ceroplastes rubens 

Maskell

Garcinia sp. (Williams 

and Watson, 1990)

PR, US (FL, HI) 

(CABI, 2007)

fruit, leaf, stem (CABI, 

2007)

Vinsonia stellifera

(Westwood)

Garcinia sp. (Ben-Dov 

et al., 2011)

PR, US [AL, FL, 

GA (Hodges, No 

Date), HI (von 

Ellenrieder, 2003)]

fruit, leaf, stem (Peña 

et al., 2002; PestID, 

2011)

FUNGI and STRAMENOPILES

Ceramothyrium 

griseolum (L.R. Fraser) 

Bat.

Garcinia sp. (APNE, 

2011)

PR (Farr et al., 

2011)

leaf (Reynolds and 

Gilbert, 2005)

Phellinus noxius (Corner) 

G. Cunn.

Garcinia sp. (Ramsden 

et al., 2002)

PR (Farr et al., 

2011; CABI, 1980)

roots, stem (Farr et al., 

2011)