## Movement **of Fresh Fruit**  **of Achachair**  **ú (**  **Garcinia**

**gardneriana )**  **into the Continental United States** 

**from Puerto Rico**  **A Qualitative, Pathway -**  **I nitiated Pest Risk Assessment** 

**Novem ber 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 27606Pest 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 a chachair ú 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 gen erated 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 follow s 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 phy tosanitary measures to mitigate pest risk are part of the pest risk management phase within APHI S 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 Potenti al of Achachairú
................................ ............................. 2 2.3. Current Status and Pest Interceptions
................................ ................................ ................ 2 2.4. Pest Categorization
................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 2 2.5. Analy sis 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, an d are present in Puerto Rico.
................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 12Pest Risk Assessment for Garcinia gardneriana from Puerto Rico

Ver. 2 November 21, 2013 1 

### 1 **. Introduction**  **1.1. Background** This document was prepared b y the Plant Epidemiology and Risk Anal ys is L aboratory of the Center for Plant Health Science and Technology , USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHI S), Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ), in response to a request to evaluate the risks associated with the 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 anal ys es. The methods used here are consistent with guidelines provided b y the IPPC, specificall y the International Standard for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPM) o n ‘Pest Risk Analy sis for Quarantine Pests, Including Analysis of Environmental Risks and Living Modified Organisms’ ( IPPC, 2009 : I SPM #11). The use of biological and phy tosanitary terms is consistent with the ‘Glossary

of Phy tosani tary Terms ’ ( IP PC, 2009 : I SPM #5). Three stages of pest risk anal ys is are described in international standards: Stage 1, Initiation ; Stage 2, Risk Assessment ; and Stage 3, Risk Management. This document satisfi es the requirements of Stages 1 and 2. This is a qualitative risk anal ys is; estimates of risk are expressed in terms of High, Medium, and Low pest risk potentials based on the combined ratings for specified risk elements (PPQ, 2000 ) related to the probability

and consequences of importing this achachairú commodity from Puerto Rico. For the purposes of this assessment , High, Medium, and L ow probabilities will be defined as: High: More likel y to occur than not to occur Medium: As likely

to occur as not to occur Low: More likely not to occur than to occur The appropriate risk management strategy for a particular pest depends on the risk posed by that pest. Identification of appropriate sanitary and phy tosanitary measures to mitigate the risk, if any, for this pest is undertaken as part of Stage 3 (Risk Management). W e did not discuss risk management in this document. **1.2. Standard Post -**  **H arvest Processing**  After harvest, the achachairú fruit will be washed and soaked with water for approxim ately 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 reque st by Puerto Rico for authorization to import fresh achachairú fruit for consumption into thePest Risk Assessment for Garcinia gardneriana from Puerto Rico

Ver. 2 November 21, 2013 2 continental United States. The movement of fruits and v egetables from Puerto Rico into the United Stat es 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 currentl y permitted. **2. 2**  **. Assessment of the Wee**  **d Potential of Achachairú**  If achachairú had the potential to be a weed pest, then a “pe st - 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 name**  **s :**  Garcinia gardnerian a (NGRP, 2011 ) **Common name s**  **:** Achachairú , Achac ha (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 Econom icall y 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 currentl y not authorized under 7 CFR §318 ( 7 CFR § 318, 2013 )
. To dat e 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 include d 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).
**T able 2**  **.** Pests a ssociated with Garcinia sp. and present in Puerto Rico
. **Pest Reported on**  **Garcinia sp.**  **Distribution 1**  **Quarantine p**  **est status**  **Plant Part(s)**

**Affected Follow** 

**p athway**  **A RTHROPODS**  **Diptera: Tephritidae** Anastrepha suspensa Loew Garcinia spp. (Norrbom, No Date ) PR, US (FL)

( CABI, 2007 ) [ Yes ] 2 (NIS,

2011 ; PestID, 2011 ) f

ruit ( CABI, 2007 ) No 3 **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. ( Ben
Dov et al., 2011 ) PR, US ( Ben
- Dov

et al., 2011 ) No N/A N/A Saissetia coffeae (Walker) Garcinia sp. ( Ben
Dov et al., 2011 ) PR, US ( Ben
- Dov

et al., 2011 ) No N/A N/A Vins onia stellifera (Westwood) Garcinia sp. ( Ben
Dov 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 ) No 4
**Hemiptera: Diaspididae** Fiorinia fioriniae (Targioni Tozzetti) Garcinia sp. ( Ben
Dov et al., 2011 ) PR, US ( Ben
- Dov

et al., 2011 ) No N/A N/A Parlatoria pergandii Comstock Garcinia sp. ( Ben
Dov et al., 2011 ) PR, US ( Ben
- Dov

et al., 2011 ) No N/A N/A **FUNGI 5**  **and 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 = Alab ama; 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 th e 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.**  **Distribution 1**  **Quarantine p**  **est status**  **Plant Part(s)**

**Affected Follow** 

**p athway**  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 ) No 6 N/A N/A

**Table 3 .**  Quarantine pests likely to follow the pathway

on Garcinia gardneriana fruit. **Pest Classification P**  **est Scientific Name**  Hemiptera: Coccidae Ceroplastes rubens

6 Triposporium elegans o ccurs 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 (sy

nony m: 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. W e were not able to confirm this in the literature , h owever . **2.5 .**  **Analysis of Quaran tine 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 P athway
- Initiated P est Risk A ssessments ( 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 C aribbean ( CABI, 2007 ). It s geographic distribution potentially include s USDA Plant Hardiness Z ones 6 to 1 1 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 pol yphagous, attacking numerous wild and cultivated hosts, including Calophyllum inophyllum , C. tomentosum, Garcinia myrtifolia, G

. spicata, G

. subelliptic a ( Clusiaceae), Citrus spp. (Rutaceae), Mangifera indica (Anacardiaceae), Artocarpus altilis (Moraceae), Cinnamomum verum (L auraceae), Camellia sinensis ( Theaceae), Psidium guajava (My rtaceae), Coffee sp. (Rubiaceae), Euphorbia heterophylla , E. pulcherrima ( Euphorbiaceae), Alpinia purpurata (Zingiberaceae), Myristica fragrans (My risticaceae), Annona sp. (Annonaceae), Artemisia sp. (Asteraceae), Prunus spp. (Rosaceae), Pinus spp. (Pinaceae), Cocos nucifera (Arecaceae), Dimocarpus longa, L itchi chinensi

s, 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 ). Hi gh (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 ; NI S, 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 , Pittosporu m , 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** 

**i mpact**  **Environment******

**al i**  **mpact Cumulative** 

**Risk Rating a**  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 c ommodity

imported annually , 2) s urvive post
- harvest treatment, 3) survive shipment, 4) not detected at the port
- of
entry , 5) imported or moved subsequentl y to an area with an environment suitable for sur vival , 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 ye ar b y 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 possib le, 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 ( She a, 2010 ) and we assumed environmental conditions during the shipment would ty

picall y 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 2 011, it was interc epted 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 .**  C eroplastes rubens could establish in P lant H ardiness Z ones 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 poly phagous (see above), but is only mobile during the crawler stage when it can be wind dispersed ( Lo ch and Zalucki, 1997 ). Consequently , it is unlikely to reach hosts that are not close b y ( Loch and Zalucki, 1997 ). W e rated it **Medium .**  **Table 5 .**  Summary

of the risk ratings and values for the Likelihood of Introduction. **Pest Quantity** 

**Imported Annually**  **Survive**

**Post**   ** Harvest** **Treatment Survive** 

**Shipment Not** 

**d etected at**  **p ort of**  **e ntry**  **Moved**

**to s**  **uitable h**  **abitat Contact** 

**with Host Material**  **Cumulative**

**r isk**  **r ating**  **a** 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 Ri sk Potential for C. rubens , the Cumulative Risk Rating s 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 P athway
- Initiat ed P est Risk A ssessments 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 highl y recommended that specific mitigations b e implemented for the pest. A detailed examination and choice of appropriate phy tosanitary 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 Potential**  **a** 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 Mil l ar, 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. M ycological reference collection of the Herbarium Camille Torrand collection. Associação Plantas do Nordeste (APNE), Recife, Brazil. L ast 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, S ys tematic Mycology and Microbiology

L aboratory
. http://nt.ars
- grin.gov/fungaldatabases/ . (Archived at PERAL). FAS. 2011. Glossary . United States Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS), Washington, D.C. L ast accessed September 13, 2011, http://www.fas.usda.gov/agexport/export_plan/glossary .htm#C
. Gunn, C. R., and C. A. Ritchie. 1988. I dentification of disseminules listed in the Federal Noxious Weed Act (Technical Bulletin Number 1719.). United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, 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., N ew 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 W orld'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 Sy

nthesis 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 L ength, Fecundity and Survival of Pink Wax Scale, Ceroplastes rubens Maskell (Hemiptera: Coc cidae), 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 (Hemipt era : 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). NI S. 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 (NI S). NI S. 2010. Quarantine Status Confirmations. Personal communication to L. Millar on July 12, 1010, from United States Dep artment of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine, National Identification Services (NI S).Pest Risk Assessment for Garcinia gardneriana from Puerto Rico

Ver. 2 November 21, 2013 10 NI S. 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 (NI S). Noda, T., C. Kitamura, S. Takahashi, K. Takagi, T. Kashio, and M. Tanaka. 1982. Host selection behaviour of Anicetus beneficus Is hii et Yasumatsu (Hy menoptera: Ency

rtidae) 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 Fl y (Diptera: Tephritidae) Host Plant Database: Anastrepha suspensa . United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Sy stematic Entomology

L aboratory , 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 sy stem. 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 Uni versity , 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. L odge. 1996. Microfungi from decayingleaves of two rain forest trees in Puerto Rico. Journal of Industrial Microbiology 17:284
- 294. PPQ. 2000. Guidelin es 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. Uni ted 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/weedlist
2010doc.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 S ys tems 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 o f 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. Rey nolds, D. R., and G. S. Gilbert. 2005. Epifoliar fungi from Queensland, Australia. Australian Sy stematic Botany 18:265
- 289. Sabine, B. N. E. 1969. In secticidal 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, L as Marias, Puerto Rico. 19 pp. Smith, D. 1976. The seasonal history and control of Ceroplastes rubens M askell 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 sy stem (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, lea f, stem ( CABI,

2007 ) Vinsonia stellifera (Westwood) Garcinia sp. ( Ben
- Dov et al., 2011 ) PR, US [ AL , FL,

GA ( Hodges, No Date ) , H I (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 ( Rey nolds 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 )