## Importation of **Pouteria sapota (Jacq.) H. E. Moore & Stearn** 

**from Puerto Rico**  **into the Continental United**  **States A Qualitative, Pathway**  **- Initiated Pest Risk Assessment** 

**Septembe r**  **2 1**  **, 2012** 
**Version 1** 

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

Ver. 01 August 08, 2012 ii 

### Executive Summ **ary** The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHI S) of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) prepared this risk assessment document to examine plant pest risks associated with importing commerciall y produced fruit of sapote, Pouteria s apota (Sapotaceae), for consumption from Puerto Rico into the continental United States. Based on the market access request from Puerto Rico, we considered the pathway to include the following processes and conditions: we considered the pathway to include commerciall y produced sapote fruit, cultivars ‘Magaña’, ‘Key

West’, and ‘Patin’ with minimum fruit quality standards for shipping. The commodity

excludes fruit that is over
- mature or overripe, damaged, rotted, spotted, or misshapen. Fruit not commerciall y grown or packed accordingly are beyond th e scope of this risk assessment . All processes and conditions considered during the risk assessment process become mandatory

conditions for entry

of the commodity
. Based on the scientific literature, port
- of
- entry pest interception data, and information from the government of Puerto Rico , we developed a list of all potential pests with actionable regulatory status for the continental United States that are known to occur in Puerto Rico and that are known to be asso ciated with the commodity plant species anywh ere in the world. From this list, we did not identify any organisms that have a reasonable likelihood of being associated with the commodity

following harvesting from the field and prior to any post - harvest proc essing.Pest Ris k Assessment for Pouteria sapota from Puerto Rico

Ver. 1 (Original) September 21, 2012 ii 

### Table of Contents **Executive Summary ................................**  **................................ ................................**  **...................... ii**  **1. Introduction ................................**  **................................ ................................**  **............................... 1**  1.1. Background
................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 1 1.2. Initiating event
................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 1 1.3. Determination of the necessity of a weediness assessment for the commodity
................... 2 1.4. Description of the pathway
................................ ................................ ................................ ... 2 **2. Pest List and Pest Categorization ................................**  **................................ ............................**  **4** 2.1. Pests considered but not included on the pest list
................................ ................................ 4 2.2. Pest list
................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ . 6 2.3. Pests selected for further anal ys is
................................ ................................ ........................ 7 **3. Acknowledgements ................................**  **................................ ................................**  **................... 7**  **4. Literature Cited ................................**  **................................ ................................**  **........................ 7**  **5. Appendices ................................**  **................................ ................................**  **............................... 10**  Appendix 1. Pests with non
- actionable regulatory status
................................ ......................... 10Ver. 1 (Original) September 2 1 , 2012 1



### 1. Introduction **1.1. Background** This document was prepared b y the Plant Epidemiology and Risk Anal ys is L aboratory of the Center for Plant Health Science and Technology , USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHI S), Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ), to evaluate the risks associated with the importation of commerciall y produced Pouteria sapota (Jacq.) H.E. M oore & Stearn fruit for consumption from Puerto Rico into the continental United States . Based on the market access request from Puerto Rico , we considered the pathway to include commercially

produced sapote fruit, cultivars ‘Magaña’, ‘Key West’, and ‘Patin’ ( Goenaga , 2011 ). The commodity exclude s fruit that is over
- mature or overripe, damaged, rotted, spotted, or misshapen. Fruit not commerciall y grown or packed accordingl y are beyond the scope of this risk assessment. The International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) provides guidance for c onducting pest risk anal ys es. The methods used here are consistent with guidelines provided b y the IPPC, specificall y the International Standard for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPM) on ‘Pest Risk Analysis for Quarantine Pests, Including Analysis of Environmental Risks and Living Modified Organisms’ ( IPPC, 2011 ). The use of biological and phy tosanitary terms is consistent with the ‘Glossary of Phy tosanitary Terms’ ( IPPC , 2012 ). 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 satisfies the requirements of Stages 1 and 2. This is a qualitative risk assessment
. W e express the risk based on qualitative ratings for the likelihood and consequences of pest introduction via the imported Pouteria sapota fruit from the Puerto Rico . The details of the methodology and rating criteria are found in the Guidelines for Plant Pest Risk Assessment of Imported Fruit and Vegetable Commodities, Version 6.0 ( PPQ, 2012 ). The appropriate risk management strategy for a particular pest depends on the risk posed by that pest. Identification of appropriate phy tosanitary measures to m itigate pest risk is undertaken in Stage 3 (Risk Management) and is not covered in this risk assessment . Risk management will be specified in a separate document. **1.2. Initiating e** **vent** The importation of fruits and vegetables for consumption into the United States is regulated under Title 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 319.56 ( 7 CFR § 319.56., 2012 ). O ne previous record exists of this commodity being imported from Chile into the continental United S tates from Chile (FAV IR , 2012 ). I f they are precleared, the consignment must be accompanied b y a PPQ Form 203 signed b y the APHI S inspector. Maritime vessels carryingVer. 1 (Original) September 2 1 , 2012 2

precleared consignments may be validated by

a vessel report from APHI S; and subject to inspection at the port of entry and all general requirements of 7 CFR 319.56
- 3 (FAVIR, 2012 ). Pouteria sapota is allow ed into the U.S. Virgin Islands from Anguilla (United Kingdom), Antigua and Barbuda , Bahamas, Barbados, Cay man Islands (United Kingdom), Curacao (Netherlands), Dominica, Dominican Republic, Grenada, Guadeloupe, Haiti, Jamaica, Martinique, Montserrat (United Kingdom), Netherlands Antilles, Saint Barthelemy , Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Martin, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Turks an d Caicos Islands (United Kingdom), Virgin Islands, British, subject to inspection at the port of entry and all general requirements of 7 CFR 319.56
- 3 ( FAVIR, 2012 ). **1.3. Determination of the necessity of a weed iness**  **assessment for the commodity** Weediness assessments do not need to be conducted for this plant species that is already enterable into the United States from Chile
. **1. 4**  **. Description of the p**  **athway** The IPPC (201 1 ) defines a pathway as “any means that allows the entry or spread of a pest.” In the context of commodity pest risk assessments, the path way is the commodity to be imported, together with all the processes the commodity undergoes that may

have an impact on pest risk. In this risk assessment, the specific pathway of concern is the importation of fresh fruit of sapote , Pouteria sapota, for co nsumption from Puerto Rico into the continental United States . The movement of this commodity provides a potential pathway for the introduction and/or spread of plant pests. The following description of this pathway focuses on the conditions that may aff ect plant pest risk, including morphological and phys iological characteristics of the commodity, as well processes the commodity will undergo from production in Puerto Rico through importation and distribution in continental United States
. These conditions provided the basis for creating the pest list and assessing the likelihood of introduction of the pests selected for further anal ys is; therefore, all components of the pathway , as they are described below, should be considered mandatory

conditions for imp ortation of the commodity
. 1.4.1. Description of the Commodity S apote (or zapote ) has long been utilized as a common name for Pouteria sapota (sy n ony ms P. mammosa (L.) Cronquist, Lucuma mammosa auct ., Achras lucuma Blanco ) (GRIN, 2012)
. Sapote fruit are round, ovoid or elliptic, often bluntly pointed at the apex , it varies from 3 to 9 in (7.5
- 22.8 cm) long, and ranges in weight from 1/2 lb. to 5 lbs. (227 g
- 2.3 kg) (Fig. 1)
. The fruit has rough, dark
- brown, firm, leathery , semiwoody skin or rind to 1/16 in (1.5 mm) thick, and salmon
-pink to deep
- red, soft flesh, sweet and pumpkin
- like in flavor . The fruit enclose a 1 to 4 large, slick, spindle
- shaped, pointed seeds, hard, glossy
- brown, with a whitish, slightly rough hilum on the ventral side. The large ker nel is oil y, bitter, and has a strong bitter
- almond odor ( Morton, 1987 ).Ver. 1 (Original) September 2 1 , 2012 3

**Figure 1** 
. Pou teria sapota fruit
. Source ( Morton, 1987 ) 1.4.2. Production and harvest procedures in the exporting area Based on the market access request from Puerto Rico, we considered the pathway to include commerciall y produced sapote fruit, cultivars ‘Magaña’, ‘Key West’, and ‘Patin’
. The production and harvest procedures in Puerto Rico have not been specified and therefore are not being considered as part of the assessment
. 1.4.3. Post
- harvest procedures in the exporting area The postharvest procedures for sapote fruit have not been specified
. W e are considering to include in the pathway c ommercially produced sapote fruit, that will be at least cleaned to eliminate dirt, debris from the fruit, and selected to eliminate damaged, off shape, and size fruit to comply

with minimum fruit quality standards for shipping ( Goenaga , 2011 ). The commodity excludes fruit that is over
- mature or ov erripe, damaged, rotted, spotted, or misshapen. 1.4.4. Shipping and storage conditions About 500 metric tons (MT) of fruit divided into 250 MT of the cultivar Magana, 150 MT of Key West, and 100 MT of Pantin. Consignments will be sent b y sea in 40 foot c ontainers and by air with LD3 or any other air container
. The approximately 500 metric ton s will be sent in a bout 4000 boxes per container ; each container holding about 15 metric tons. Consignments will originate in the port of San Juan and will be sent to the ports of Miami, Jacksonville, and P hiladelphia all year round ( Goenaga, 2011)
. 1.4.5. Summary

of the pathway The figure below summarizes the pathway of concern (Fig. 2) : the importation of fresh sapote fruit for consumption from Puerto Rico into th e continental United States.Ver. 1 (Original) September 2 1 , 2012 4

**Figure 2**
. Diagrammatic summary of the pathway

being assessed: importation of sapote fruit from Puerto Rico into the continental United States. 

### 2. Pest List and Pest Categorization In this section, we identify the plant pests with actionable regulatory status for the continental United States that could potentially become established in the continental United States as a result of the importation of sapote fruit from the Puerto Rico, and we determine which of these pests meet the criteria for further anal ys is. Pests are considered to be of regulatory significance if they are actionable at U.S. ports
- of
- entry . Actionable pests include quarantine pests, regulated non - quarantine pests, pests considered for or under official control, and pests that require evaluation for regulatory

action. **2.1. Pests considered but not included on the pest list** 2.1.1. Pests with weak evidence for association with the commodity or for presence in the export area Anastrepha suspensa (Loew) is present in Puerto Rico, but we did not include it in the list below because we did not find sufficient evidence of a host association with P. sapota

. Evidence does exist that this pest affect s the congeneric specie s , P. campechiana (White and Elson
- Harris, 1992 ) , but we did not assume that applied to sapote as well
. Additionally , m amey (P. sapota ) is a not a host ( Gould and Hallman, 2001 ). Anastrepha obliqua (Macquart) is present in Puerto Rico
. One report indicates that A. obliqua occasionall y infect s sapote (Vásquez et al
. , 1999), but Jenkins ( 2007 ) concluded that in Puerto Rico sapote is only

rarel y infest ed by Tephritidae fruit flies
. Therefore we did not considered P. sapota to be a host of A. obliqua and was not included in this pest list. Nasutitermes costalis Holmgren is also present in Puerto Rico (Azurdia, 2006). We did not list i t below because although it was reported feeding on dead branches and occasionally on live stem tissue of sapote, N. costalis is not considered a plant pest (Azurdia, 2006)
.Ver. 1 (Original) September 2 1 , 2012 5

2.1.2. Organisms with non
- actionable regulatory status We found ev idence of the organisms listed in Appendix 1 being associated with the commodity and being present in the export area . B ecause these organisms have non
- actionable regulatory status for the PRA area we did not list them in Table 2 of this risk assessment. 2.1.3. Organisms identified only to the genus level In commodity

import risk assessments, the taxonomic unit for pests selected for evaluation beyond the pest categorization stage is usuall y the species ( IPPC, 2011 ), as assessments focus on organisms for which biological information is available. Therefore, generally , we do not assess risk for organisms identified only to the genus level, in particular if the genus in question is reported in the import area. Often there are many s pecies within a genus, and we cannot know if the unidentified species occurs in the import area and, consequentl y, whether it has actionable regulatory

status for the import area. On the other hand, if the genus in question is absent from the import area, any unidentified organisms in the genus can have actionable status; however, because such an organism has not been full y identified, we cannot properly anal yz e its likelihood and consequences o f introduction. In light of these issues, we usually do not include organisms identified only to the genus level in the main pest list. In stead, we address them separately in this sub
- section (Table 1)
. The information here can be used by risk managers to determine if measures beyond those intended to mitigate fully

identified pests are warranted. Often, however, the development of detailed assessments for known pests that inhabit a variety of ecological niches, such as internal fruit feeders or foliage p ests, allows effective mitigation measures to eliminate the known organisms as well as similar but incompletely identified organisms that inhabit the same niche.
**Table 1.** Organisms identified to the genus level that are reported on Pouteria sapota in Pu erto Rico and that have actionable or undetermined regulatory status. **Pest Name Evidence of** 

**presence on sapote**  **in Puerto Rico**  **Genus present in**

**Continental united states**  **? Regula**  ****

**tory status**  **1 Plant part(s)** 

**association 2**  **On**

**harvested plant**  **part(s)? 3**  **Remarks**
Botryosphaeria sp. Azurdia, 2006 Yes (Farr and Rossman , 2012) U L, St ( Farr and Rossman, 2012 ) No Pythum sp. CABI, 2012 Yes ( CABI, 2012 ; Farr and Rossman, 2012 ) U R ( CABI, 2012 ; Farr and Rossman, 2012 ) No Septoria sp. Azurdia, 2006 Yes ( CABI , 2012 ; Farr and Rossman, 2012 ) U L ( CABI, 2012 ; Farr and Rossman, 2012 ) No

1 A= Actionable, U=Undetermined. If the genus does not occur in the Continental United States , the organism has actionable status. If the genus occurs in the Continental United States , the organism has undetermined regulatory status, because we cannot know if the unidentified species is one that occurs i n the c ontinental United States
. 2 The plant part(s) listed are those for the plant species under analysis. If the information is extrapolated, such as from plant part association on other plant species, this is noted. 3 “Yes” indicates the pest has a reas onable likelihood of being associated with the harvested plant part(s).Ver. 1 (Original) September 2 1 , 2012 6

**2.2. Pest l** **ist** Below we list the actionable pests associated with sapote that occur in Puerto Rico (Ta ble 2 ). The list comprises those actionable pests that occur in Puerto Rico on any host and are reported to be associated with sapote fruit whether in Puerto Rico or elsewhere in the world. For each pest , we indicate 1) the part of the imported plant speci es with which the pest is generall y associated, and 2) whether the pest has a reasonable likelihood of being associated, in viable form, with the commodity following harvesting from the field and prior to any post - harvest processing. We developed this pest list based on the scientific literature, port
- of
- entry pest interception data, and information provided by the government of Puerto Rico
. **Table 2**
. A ctionable pests reported on Pouteria sapota (in any country) and present in Puerto Rico (on any host) **Pest Name Evidence of** 

**presence in Puerto Rico**  **Host status 4**  **Plant part(s) association**  **5 On harvested** 

**plant part(s)?**  **6 Remarks** 
**ARTHROPODS Coleoptera: Curculionidae**  Diaprepes abbreviatus (Linnaeus) CABI, 2012 Type 1 ( Balerdi et al., 1966 ) L, R ( Balerdi et

al., 1966 ; CABI, 2012 ) No This pest is present in the United States (FL: Balerdi et al., 1966 ; Simpsom e t al., 2011 ; TX: Skaria and French, 2001 ; Quinn, 2009 ; under eradication in CA: Jetter and Godfrey, 2009 ; CDFA, 2012 )
. **Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae** Phyllophaga vandinei Smyth Goenaga ,

2011 Type 1

( Goenaga , 2011 ; Jenkins and Goenaga , 2010 ; Morton, 1987 ) L, R, Sd ( Jenkins

and Goenaga , 2010 ; Wolcott, 1948 ) No

4 T ype 1 is a natural host, i.e., a plant species that becomes infested or infected by a plant pest in nature under natural conditions (e.g., natural, cultivated and/or unmanaged plant s) , and the plant pest is sustained on that plant species. Ty pe 2 is a conditional host, i.e. a plant species that is only a host or a non
- host under certain conditions . Ty pe 4 refers to situations when the plant is not a food source but serves as a fomite , which is an object or material (including a harvested plant part) that may be contaminated with a pest and that could transmit that pest from one place to another
. 5 The plant part(s) listed are those for the plant species under analysis. If the information is extrapolated, such as from plant part association on other plant species, this is noted. 6 “Yes” indicates simply that the pest has a reasonable likelihood of being associated with the harvested commodity ; the level of pest prevalence on the harvest ed commodity (low , medium, or high) is qualitatively assessed in risk element A1 as part of the likelihood of introduction assessment.Ver. 1 (Original) September 2 1 , 2012 7

**Coleoptera: Scolytidae** Xylosandrus morigerus (Blandford) CABI, 2012 ;

Cognato, 2008 Type 1

( CABI, 2012 ) R, St, Brk, ( CABI,

2012 ) No
**FUNGI** Phyllosticta sapotae Sacc. Farr and

Rossman, 2012 ; Morton, 1987 Type 1 ( Farr

and Rossman, 2012; Morton, 1987 ) L ( Farr and

Rossman, 2012; Morton, 1987 ; Lodge et al., 1996 ) No There is no record of this pest infecting fruit.
**NEMATODE** Meloidogyne mayaguensis Rammah & Hirschmann CABI, 2012 ;

Brito et al., 2007 Type 1

( Ferris, 2005 , Brito et al., 2007 ) R ( Ferris, 2005 ;

Brito et al., 2007 ) No This pest is present in the United States (FL: Brito et al., 2007 )
.
**2.3 .**  **P ests selected for further analysis**  We identified no pests for further anal ys is (T able 2 )
. None of the pest s listed are likel y to remain with the co mmodity

after harvesting , therefore they are unlikel y to follow the pathway on sapote fruit for consumption. 

### 3 **. Ack nowledgements**  **Authors** Gary Cave , Entomologist/Risk Analyst a Walter Gutierrez , Plant Pathologist/Risk Analyst a **Reviewers** Cy nthia Landry , Ecologist/ Risk Analyst a Feridoon Mehdizadegan, Plant Pathologist/Risk Analyst a

a Plant Epidemiology

and Risk Analysis Laboratory , USDA
- APHIS
- PPQ 

### 4 **. Literature Cited** 7 CFR § 319.56. 2012. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 7, Part 319 (7 CFR § 319.56
- Fruits and Vegetables). Azurdia, C. 2006. Tres especies de zapote en América tropical: ( Pouteria campechiana, P. sapota y P. vridis ). Southampton Centre for Underutilised Crops, Universidad de Southampton. Southampton, UK 216p. Balerdi, C. F., J. H. Crane, and C. W. Campbell. 1966. El mamey sapote en Florida. FC
- 30. Departamento de Ciencias Hortícolas, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida. Balerdi, C. F. , J. H. Crane, and A. Maguire. 2008. Mamey sapote growing in the Florida home landscape. FC
- 30 Horticultural Sciences Department, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida.Ver. 1 (Original) September 2 1 , 2012 8

Ben
- Dov, Y. 2001. S caleNet, Palinaspis quohogiformis. 27 June 2001. http://www.sel.barc.usda.gov/catalogs/diaspidi/PalinaspisAll.htm Last Accessed July 11. Brito, J., R. Inserra, P. Lehman, and W . Dixon. 2007. The root
- knot nematode, Meloidogyne mayaguensis Rammah and Hirschmann, 1988 (Nematoda: Tylenchida) Pest Alert. CABI. 2012. Crop Protection Compendium. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureau International (CABI). http://www.cabi.org/cpc/ . (Archived at PERAL). CDFA. 2012. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking:Title 3 of the California Code of Regulations pertaining to the Diaprepes abbreviatus Eradication Area. in C. D. o. F. a. Agriculture, ed., Sacramento, CA. Cognato, A. 2008. HI SL
- PEET: Xylosandrus morigerus (Blandford, 1894) species page. HISL (Holistic Insect Systematics Laboratory); PEET program (Partnerships for Enhancing Expertise in Taxonomy

) http://xyleborini.tamu.edu/public/site/scoly tinae/home/show_taxon/3444 . (Archived at PERAL). Farr, D. F., and A. Y. Rossman. 2012. Fungal Databases, S ys tematic M yco logy and Microbiology

L aboratory, ARS, USDA. Retrieved March 1, 2012, from http://nt.ars
grin.gov/fungaldatabases/
. FAVIR. 2012. Fruits and Vegetables Import Requirements (FAVIR) : Pouteria sapota. United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspectio n Service (APHIS). https://epermits.aphis.usda.gov/manual/index.cfm?action=commSummCountryP& COM MO... Accessed August 2, 2012 Ferris, H. 2005. Nemaplex: Meloidogy ne mayaguensis. University of California, Davis. Retrieved February

9, 2007, from http://plpnemweb.ucdavis.edu/nemaplex/Taxadata/G076S70.htm
. Goenaga , R. 2011. Letter requesting market access and commodity risk assessment for the importation of Pourteria sapota from Puerto Rico. ARS, Tropical Agriculture Research Station Mayaguez, Puerto Rico. Gould, W. P., and G. Hallman. 2001. Host status of mamey sapote to Caribbean fruit fl y (Diptera: Tephritidae). Florida Entomologist 84:370
- 375. IPPC. 2011. International Standards For P hy tosanitary Measures, Publication No. 11: Pest Risk Analysis for Quarantine Pests Including Analysis of Environmental Risks and Living Modified Organisms. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Secretariat of the International Plant Prot ection Convention (IPPC), Rome, Ital y. 30 pp. IPPC. 2012. International Standards For Phytosanitary Measures, Publication No. 5: Glossary of Phy tosanitary Terms. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Secretariat of the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC), Rome, Ital y. 36 pp. Jenkins, D. A., and R. Goenaga. 2007. Host status of mamey sapote, Pouteria sapota (Sapotaceae), to the west indian fruit fly Anastrepha obliqua (Diptera:Tephritidae) in Puerto Rico. Florida Entomologist 90(2):384
- 388. Jenkins, D. A., and R. Goenaga . 2010. Spatial distribution of Phyllophaga Vandinai (Coleoptera: Scarabidae) Emergence within and around a mamey sapote orchard. Florida Entomologist 93(2):323
- 324. Jetter, K. M., and K. Godfrey . 2009. Diaprepes root weevil, a new California pest, will raise costs for pest control and trigger quarantines. California Agriculture 63(3):121
- 126. Lodge, D. J., P. J. Fisher, and B. C. Sutton. 1996. Endophy tic fungi of Manilkara bidentata leaves in Puerto Rico. Mycolo gia 88:733
- 738.Ver. 1 (Original) September 2 1 , 2012 9

Malumphy , C. 2009. First interception in Europe of Philephedra tuberculosa Nakahara & Gill (Hemiptera: Coccidae), a neotropical pest of ornamental plants and fruit crops. Entomologisk Tidskrift 30(2):109
- 112. Martorel, L. F. 1976. Annotated food plant catalog of the insects of Puerto Rico. Agriculture Experiment Station. Department of entomology . University of Puerto Rico. Pp 304. Miller, D. R. 2005. Selected scale insect groups (Hemiptera: Coccidae) in the southern region of the United Stat es. Florida Entomologist 84(4):482
- 501. Morton, J. 1987. Sapote: Pouteria sapota (Jacq.) H.E. Moore & Stearn. In: Fruits of warm climates.398
- 402. PestID. 2012. 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 in USDA
- APHIS
- PPQ, ed., Raleigh, NC. PPQ. 2012. Guidelines for Plant Pest Risk Assessment of Imported Fruit and Vegetable Commodities (Version 6.0). United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ), Raleigh, NC. Quinn, M. 2009. Citrus Root Weevil: Diaprepes abbreviatus (Linnaeus, 1758). Texas Beetle In formation. Texas Entomology
. http://www.texasento.net/abbreviatus.html
. Simpsom, S. E., H. N. Nigg, and J. L . Knapp. 2011. Host Plants of Diaprepes Root Weevil and Their Implications to the Regulatory Process. Short Course & Workshop Proceedings. diaprepes short course. http://irrec.ifas.ufl.edu/flcitrus/short_course_and_workshop/diaprepes/host_plants.shtml
. Skaria, M., and J. V. French. 2001. Phy tophthora disease of citrus associated with root weevils in Texas. . Phy

topathology

91(6):S203. White, I . M., and M. M. Elson
- Harris. 1992. Fruit Flies of Economic Significance: Their identification and bionomics. CAB International, Wallingford, UK. 601 pp. Wolcott, G. N. 1948. The insects of Puerto Rico. Coleoptera. J ournal of Agriculture of the University

of Puerto Rico 32(2):225
- 385.Ver. 1 (Original) September 2 1 , 2012 10



### 5 **. Appendices Appendix**  **1. Pests with non**  **- actionable regulatory status**  We found some evidenc e of the below listed organisms being associated with Pouteria sapota and being present in the Puerto Rico; however, because these organisms have non
- actionable regulatory

status for Puerto Rico we did not list them in Table 2 of this risk assessment. Be low we list these organisms along with the references supporting their potential association with P. sapota , their presence in Puerto Rico (if applicable), and their regulatory status for the continental United States
. For organisms not present in the continental United States , we also provide justification for their non
- actionable status. **Organism Evidence and/or other notes**  **ARTHROPODS Acari:**  **Tetranichidae** Tetranychus urticae Koch = Tetranychus bimaculatus Harvey Present in PR (Evans 2008); reported in sapote (Balerdi et al, 1996); present in the US (Evans, 2008)
. **Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae** Phyllophaga bruneri Chapin Present in PR ( Balerdi et al., 1966 ); reported in sapote (Balerdi et al, 1996); present in the US [FL] Buss 2006. **Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae** Aleurotrachelus trachoides (Back) Present in PR (CABI, 1991; CABI, 2012 ); reported in sapote (Evans, 2007); present in the US, non
- actionable ( PestID, 2012 ). Tetraleurode mori (Quaintance) Present in PR (Evans 2008); reported in sapote intercepted from Mexico (Evans, 2007); present in the US (Evans, 2008). **Hemiptera: Coccidae** Ceroplastes floridensis Comstock Present in PR (Balerdi et al, 19 96; Azurdia, 2006 ); reported in sapote ( Balerdi et al., 1966 ; Azurdia, 2006 ); present in the US, non - actionable ( PestID, 2012 ). Ceroplastes rubens Maskell Present in PR (Ben
- Dov, 2012); reported in sapote (Ben
- Dov, 2012); present in the US, non
- actionable (Ben
- Dov, 2012). Coccus viridis (Green) Present in PR ( CABI, 2012 ); reported in sapote ( Balerdi et al., 1966 ); present in the US ( CABI, 2012 ; PestID, 2012 ). Eucalymnatus tessellatus (Signoret) PR, US (Ben
- Dov, 2012), Sapote ( Balerdi et al., 2008 ) Philephedra tuberculosa Nakahara & Gill PR ( PestID, 2012 ; Malumphy, 2009 ); US (Ben
- Dov, 2012, Malumphy, 2009 ); Sapote (Ben
- Dov, 2012; Malumphy, 2009 ) Pseudaulacaspis pentagona (Targioni Tozzetti) MacGillivray Present in PR ( CABI, 2012 ); reported in sapote ( Balerdi et al., 1966 ; Azurdia, 2006 ); present in the US ( CABI, 2012 ). **Hemiptera: Diaspididae** Hemiberlesia lataniae (Signoret) Present in PR (Martorel, 1976 ); reported in sapote (Martorel, 1976 ); present in the US ( CABI, 2012 ; PestID, 2012 ).Ver. 1 (Original) September 2 1 , 2012 11

**Organism Evidence and/or other notes**  Howardia biclavis (Comstock) Present in PR (Ben
- Dov, 2012); reported in sapote (Ben
- Dov, 2012); present in the US ( CABI, 2012 ; Ben
- Dov, 2012; PestID, 2012 ). Melanaspis odontoglossi (Cockerell) PR (Ben
- Dov, 2012), US [FL] (Ben
- Dov, 2001; Miller, 2005 ); Sapote (Ben
- Dov, 2012). Listed as reportable, but armored scales not actionable on fruit imported for consumption. Palinaspis quohogiformis (Merril) Present in PR ( Ben
- Dov, 2001 ); reported in sapote ( Balerdi et al., 1966 ); present in the US [FL] (Ben
- Dov, 2001; PestID, 2012 ). Pulvinaria psidii Maskell, Present in PR (CABI, 2 012); reported in sapote (Balerdi et al, 1996; CABI, 2012 ); present in the US ( CABI, 2012 ). **FUNGI** Glomerella cingulata (Stoneman) Spauld. & H. Schrenk (Anamorph: Colletotrichum gloeosporioides (Penz.) Penz. & Sacc) Present in PR ( CABI, 2012 ); reported in sapote (CABI, 2012; Balerdi et al., 1966 ); present in the US, non
- actionable ( C ABI, 2012 ; PestID, 2012 ). Lasiodiplodia theobromae (Pat.) Griffiths & Maubl (= Diplodia theobromae (Pat.) W. Nowell) Present in PR ( CABI, 2012 ; PestID, 2012 ); reported in sapote ( Farr and Rossman, 2012 ); present in the US ( CABI, 2012 ) Phytophthora palmivora (E.J. Butler) E.J. Butler Present in PR( CABI, 2012 ); reported in sapote (Salunkhe and Kadam. 1995); present in the US ( CABI, 2012 , Farr and Rossman, 2012). **PLANTAE** Cephaleuros virescens Kunzey Present in PR (CABI, 1991; CABI, 2012 ); reported in sapote ( Balerdi et al., 1966 ; Azurdia, 2006 ); present in the US, non
actionable ( PestID, 2012 ).