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

from Puerto Rico into the Continental United States

A Qualitative, Pathway-Initiated Pest Risk Assessment

September 21, 2012

Version 1

Agency Contact:

Plant Epidemiology and 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 27606
Pest Risk Assessment for Pouteria sapota from Puerto Rico

Ver.01 August 08, 2012 ii

Executive Summary

The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the United States Department of 

Agriculture (USDA) prepared this risk assessment document to examine plant pest risks 

associated with importing commercially produced fruit of sapote, Pouteria sapota (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 commercially 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 commercially grown or packed accordingly are beyond the 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 associated with the commodity plant species anywhere 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 processing. 
Pest Risk 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 analysis ........................................................................................ 7

3. Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................... 7

4. Literature Cited ........................................................................................................................ 7

5. Appendices............................................................................................................................... 10

Appendix 1. Pests with non-actionable regulatory status ......................................................... 10
Ver. 1 (Original) September 21, 2012 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), to evaluate the risks associated with 

the importation of commercially produced Pouteria sapota (Jacq.) H.E. Moore & 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 excludes 

fruit that is over-mature or overripe, damaged, rotted, spotted, or misshapen. Fruit not 

commercially grown or packed accordingly are beyond the scope of this risk assessment. 

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, 2011). The use of biological and phytosanitary terms is consistent with the 

‘Glossary of Phytosanitary Terms’ (IPPC, 2012). 

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 assessment. We 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 phytosanitary measures to mitigate 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 event

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).

One previous record exists of this commodity being imported from Chile into the continental 

United States from Chile (FAVIR, 2012). If they are precleared, the consignment must be 

accompanied by a PPQ Form 203 signed by the APHIS inspector. Maritime vessels carrying 
Ver. 1 (Original) September 21, 2012 2

precleared consignments may be validated by a vessel report from APHIS; and subject to 

inspection at the port of entry and all general requirements of 7 CFR 319.56-3 (FAVIR, 2012). 

Pouteria sapota is allowed into the U.S. Virgin Islands from Anguilla (United Kingdom), 

Antigua and Barbuda , Bahamas, Barbados, Cayman 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 and 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 weediness 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 pathway

The IPPC (2011) defines a pathway as “any means that allows the entry or spread of a pest.” In 

the context of commodity pest risk assessments, the pathway 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 consumption 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 affect plant pest 

risk, including morphological and physiological 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 analysis; 

therefore, all components of the pathway, as they are described below, should be considered 

mandatory conditions for importation of the commodity.

1.4.1. Description of the Commodity

Sapote (or zapote) has long been utilized as a common name for Pouteria sapota (synonyms 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 kernel is oily, bitter, and has a strong bitter-almond odor 

(Morton, 1987).
Ver. 1 (Original) September 21, 2012 3

Figure 1. Pouteria 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 

commercially 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. We are considering to

include in the pathway commercially 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 overripe, 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 by sea in 40 foot containers and by

air with LD3 or any other air container. The approximately 500 metric tons will be sent in about 

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 

Philadelphia 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 the continental United States.
Ver. 1 (Original) September 21, 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 analysis. 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 affects the congeneric species, P. campechiana (White and Elson-Harris, 

1992), but we did not assume that applied to sapote as well. Additionally, mamey (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

occasionally infects sapote (Vásquez et al., 1999), but Jenkins (2007) concluded that in Puerto 

Rico sapote is only rarely infested 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 it

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 21, 2012 5

2.1.2. Organisms with non-actionable regulatory status

We found evidence of the organisms listed in Appendix 1 being associated with the commodity

and being present in the export area. Because 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 usually 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 species within a genus, and we cannot know if 

the unidentified species occurs in the import area and, consequently, 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 fully identified, we cannot properly analyze its likelihood 

and consequences of introduction.

In light of these issues, we usually do not include organisms identified only to the genus level in 

the main pest list. Instead, 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 pests, 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 Puerto 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?

Regulatory 

status1

Plant part(s) 

association2

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 in the continental 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 reasonable likelihood of being associated with the harvested plant part(s).
Ver. 1 (Original) September 21, 2012 6

2.2. Pest list

Below we list the actionable pests associated with sapote that occur in Puerto Rico (Table 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 species with which the pest is generally 

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. Actionable 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 status4 Plant part(s) 

association5

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 et 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 Type 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 plants), and the plant pest is sustained on that plant species. Type 2 

is a conditional host, i.e. a plant species that is only a host or a non-host under certain conditions. Type 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 harvested commodity (low, medium, or high) is qualitatively assessed in risk element A1 as part 

of the likelihood of introduction assessment.
Ver. 1 (Original) September 21, 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. Pests selected for further analysis 

We identified no pests for further analysis (Table 2). None of the pests listed are likely to remain 

with the commodity after harvesting, therefore they are unlikely to follow the pathway on sapote 

fruit for consumption. 

3. Acknowledgements 

Authors Gary Cave, Entomologist/Risk Analysta

Walter Gutierrez, Plant Pathologist/Risk Analysta

Reviewers Cynthia Landry, Ecologist/ Risk Analysta

Feridoon Mehdizadegan, Plant Pathologist/Risk Analysta

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 21, 2012 8

Ben-Dov, Y. 2001. ScaleNet, Palinaspis quohogiformis. 27 June 2001. 

http://www.sel.barc.usda.gov/catalogs/diaspidi/PalinaspisAll.htm Last Accessed July11.

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. HISL-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/scolytinae/home/show_taxon/3444. (Archived at 

PERAL).

Farr, D. F., and A. Y. Rossman. 2012. Fungal Databases, Systematic Mycology and 

Microbiology Laboratory, ARS, USDA. Retrieved March 1, 2012, from http://nt.arsgrin.gov/fungaldatabases/.

FAVIR. 2012. Fruits and Vegetables Import Requirements (FAVIR) : Pouteria sapota. United 

States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). 

https://epermits.aphis.usda.gov/manual/index.cfm?action=commSummCountryP&COM

MO... Accessed August 2, 2012 

Ferris, H. 2005. Nemaplex: Meloidogyne 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 fly 

(Diptera: Tephritidae). Florida Entomologist 84:370-375.

IPPC. 2011. International Standards For Phytosanitary 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 Protection Convention (IPPC), Rome, Italy. 30 pp.

IPPC. 2012. International Standards For Phytosanitary Measures, Publication No. 5: Glossary of 

Phytosanitary Terms. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 

Secretariat of the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC), Rome, Italy. 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. Endophytic fungi of Manilkara bidentata

leaves in Puerto Rico. Mycologia 88:733-738.
Ver. 1 (Original) September 21, 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 States. 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 

Information. 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. Phytophthora disease of citrus associated with root weevils in 

Texas. . Phytopathology 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. Journal of Agriculture of the 

University of Puerto Rico 32(2):225-385.
Ver. 1 (Original) September 21, 2012 10

5. Appendices

Appendix 1. Pests with non-actionable regulatory status

We found some evidence 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.

Below 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, 1996; 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 21, 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, 2012); 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 (CABI, 

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, nonactionable (PestID, 2012).