United States Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Plant Protection and Quarantine

In order to prevent the introduction of quarantine pests into the United States, § 319.37

- 2a allows the APHIS Administrator to designate the importation of certain taxa of plants for planting as not authorized pending pest risk analysis (NAPPRA). APHIS has determined that the following plant taxa should be added to the NAPPRA category. In accordance with paragraph (b)(1) of that section, this data sheet details the scientific evidence APHIS evaluated in making the determination that the taxa are hosts of a quarantine pest.



## Plants for Planting Quarantine Pest Evaluation Data S heet s

Table of Contents

Click on a quarantine pest name below to view the corresponding data sheet:

Anoplophora glabripennis Celtis Cercidiphyllum

Koelreuteria

Tilia

Chrysanthemum stem Callistephus

necrosis virus (CSNV) Chrysanthemum (including syn. Dendranthema)

Eustoma

Dendroctonus micans Pseudotsuga

Moniliophthora perniciosa Arrabidaea

Bixa

Herrania

Theobroma

Monochamus alternatus Cedrus

Peanut clump virus and Arachis Indian peanut clump virus Eleusine

PennisetumSetaria

Triticum

Zea

Phytophthora kernoviae Annona

Camellia Drimys Fagus

Gevuina

Hedera

Ilex

Leucothoe

Liriodendron

Lomatia Magnolia (Michelia)

Pieris Podocarpus
Quercus

Rhododendron Sequoiadendron (Sequoia)

Vaccinium

Puccinia buxi BuxusUnited States Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Plant Protection and Quarantine



## Plants for Planting Quarantine Pest Evaluation Data S heet
January 9 th , 2013

In order to p revent the introduction of quarantine pests into the United States, § 319.37

- 2a allows the APHIS Administrator to designate the importation of certain taxa of plants for planting as not authorized pending pest risk analysis (NAPPRA). APHIS has determined that the following plant taxa should be added to the NAPPRA category. In accordance with paragraph (b)(1) of that section, this data sheet details the scientific evidence APHIS evaluated in making the determination that the taxa are hosts of a quarantine pest.

Quarantine Pest: Anoplophora glabripennis

Hosts: Acer spp., Aesculus spp., Albizia spp., Alnus spp., Betula spp., Carpinus

spp., Celtis spp., Cercidiphyllum spp., Elaeagnus spp., Fagus spp., Fraxinus

spp., Hibiscus spp., Koelreuteria spp ., Liquidambar spp., Malus spp., Melia

spp., Morus spp., Platanus spp., Populus spp., Prunus spp., Pyrus spp., Robinia spp., Salix spp., Sophora spp., Sorbus spp., Tilia spp., Toona spp., Ulmus spp.

Status: This pest and most of these h osts were regulated under a Federal Order dated

April 1 , 2011

. Cut flowers and greenery are also covered by the April 1, 2011 Federal Order, but are not included in this action under NAPPRA.

_________________________________________________________________ _________

Taxonomy and description of the pest:

Anoplophora glabripennis Motschulsky (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae)

Common name

– Asian longhorned beetle (ALB)

Known d istribution :

A

. glabripennis is native to China, 1 ,3, 6

, 8

, 9

, 10 ,1 3 the Republic of Kore a, 1 ,3, 6

, 8

, 10 and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea 1 ,3, 6

, 10It has been detected in Austria, France, Italy, Germany, 1 ,3, 6

, 7 Switzerland 5 , the

Netherlands 4 , and Canada 1

. Belgium has declared A

. glabripennis as eradicated 5

.

A. glabripennis has bee n detected in several U.S. states since 1996; however, current ALB infestations in New York, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Ohio are under official control

and eradication.

Biology of the pest:

A

. glabripennis generally takes one year to complete its life cycle, although two years is common as larvae must reach a critical weight before overwintering to induce pupation

the next summer. 6 Adult Asian longhorned beetles live for approximately a month 3 and have been observed from April to December, with peak ac tivity occurring from May to July. 6 Adult beetles feed on twigs, petioles, and veins of leaves for 10

– 15 days before initiating oviposition, typically on the upper trunk and main branches of host trees. 6

Female beetles chew a funnel

- shaped oviposition pit through the bark to oviposit a single egg, which will hatch after 1

– 2 weeks if laid during the summer months. 6 Females lay at least 32 eggs. 5 Developing larvae initially create a feeding gallery in the cambial region

and then an oval

- shaped tunnel in the s apwood and heartwood of host trees. 6 Frass is expelled from the tunnels near the original oviposition site. 6 Pupation occurs in late spring or early summer at the end of the larval tunnel. 6 Exit holes in the bark of host trees from emerging adult beetles u sually measure 10

– 15 mm in diameter 6 and adults typically remain on the tree from which they emerged or fly short distances to nearby trees. 5

Damage p otential of pest:

Except on fruit

- bearing trees, feeding activity of adult beetles on twigs and foliag e is considered of minor importance as most damage is associated with larval tunneling in the cambial and wood regions of host trees. 6 After years of attack, larval feeding can disrupt the vascular tissues, weaken structural integrity, and severely reduce the wood quality of

hosts. 6 Symptoms of infested trees may include early abscission of leaves, thinning crowns, limb die

- back, and breakage when subject to stress. 1 3 Both healthy and stressed trees of varying sizes are candidates for attack by the Asian lo nghorned beetle and tree

death is a common outcome of infestation. 6

In addition to natural forests, 35% of urban trees in the United States are considered at risk for infestation by A

. glabripennis

. 4 If every urban locale in the conterminous United

States were infected with the beetle, predicted consequences include a 34.9% loss of canopy cover, 30.3% total tree loss (1.2 billion trees), and $669 billion in lost value. 9 This estimate is likely to be low, as it does not include the threats to hardwood (lumb er and maple sugar) and recreational industries. 8

Control:Because larvae bore deep into the wood of host trees, biological or chemical pesticides

are not effective methods of control. 7 However, imidacloprid, a systemic neonicotinyl insecticide, inject ed into the soil or directly into host trees shows promise in controlling

the beetle. 7 Imidacloprid causes significant mortality of adult beetles feeding on tree foliage due to ingestion and contact toxicity and of all exposed life stages feeding within

th e tree. 10 ,1 3 Although its use does not provide complete control of A

. glabripennis , it is useful as part of an integrated eradication or management program. 10

Through movement of infested wood materials (pallets and crating from China, firewood), the po tential for movement to other areas is high for this pest. 7 Currently, the only proven effective method for limiting spread is an aggressive eradication program that involves regulatory activities, surveying, removing and properly disposing of all trees

wi th signs of beetle infestation or that are deemed susceptible to future infestation. 8,10,11 Since 1997, the USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service’s program to fight this beetle has cost approximately $421 million.

Known host range:

Acer spp., 1,2,12 Aesculus spp., 1,2,12 Albizia spp., 1,2,12 Alnus spp., 1,2,12 Betula spp., 1,2,12
Carpinus spp., 1,6 Celtis spp., 1,2,12 Cercidiphyllum spp., 1,2,12 Elaeagnus spp., 1,12 Fagus

spp., 1 Fraxinus spp., 1,2,12 Hibiscus spp., 1,10 Koelreuteria spp., 1,12 Liquidamb ar spp., 1

Malus spp., 1,12 Melia spp., 1,12 Morus spp., 1,12 Platanus spp., 1,2,12 Populus spp., 1,2,12 Prunus

spp., 1,12 Pyrus spp., 1,12 Robinia spp., 1,12 Salix spp., 1,2,12 Sophora spp., 1,3 Sorbus spp., 1,2,12

Tilia spp., 1 ,1 2 Toona spp., 1 Ulmus spp., 1,2,12

Ac tion under NAPPRA:

The importation of the following plants for planting genera, excluding seeds that are hosts

of A

. glabripennis , is not authorized pending a pest risk analysis (NAPPRA) from all

countries :

Koelreuteria

.

The importation of the follow ing plants for planting genera, excluding seeds that are hosts

of A

. glabripennis , is not authorized pending a pest risk analysis (NAPPRA) from all

countries , except Canada :

Celtis, Tilia

.

The importation of the following plants for planting genera, exc luding seeds that are hosts

of A

. glabripennis , is not authorized pending a pest risk analysis (NAPPRA) from all

countries , except Netherlands :

Cercidiphyllum

.The importation of the following plants for planting genera that are hosts of A.

glabripen nis is currently regulated under 7 CFR 319.37 and these genera are therefore not included, at this time, as potential candidates for listing on this NAPPRA data sheet :

Acer
, Aesculus
, Albizia
, Alnus
, Betula
, Carpinus
, Elaeagnus
, Fagus
, Fraxinus
, Hibiscus
, Liquidambar
, Malus
, Melia
, Morus
, Platanus
, Populus
, Prunus
, Pyrus
, Robinia
, Salix
, Sophora
, Sorbus
, Toona , and Ulmu s.

References :

1. Canadian Food Inspection Agency. D

- 11

- 01. "Phytosanitary Requirements for Plants for Planting and Fresh Decorative." 1 A pril 2011. Canadian Food Inspection Agency. 4 May 2012. http://members.wto.org/crnattachments/2011/sps/CAN/11_0373_00_e.pdf

. 2. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) . 7 §301.51

- 2( a) . Domestic quarantine notices, Asian Longhorned Beetle, Regulated articles. Accessed date: May 8, 2012. http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text

idx?c=ecfr&sid=e7c42c7b63be222072ed48aa4d40e7ab&rgn=div8&view=text&node

=7:5.1.1.1.2.8.5.2&idno=7

3. EPPO. Data Sheets on Quarantine Pests: Anoplophora glabripennis . European and

Mediterranean Plant Protection Or ganization. Accessed 16 December 2011. http://www.eppo.fr/QUARANTINE/insects/Anoplophora_glabripennis/ANOLGL_ds. pdf

4. EPPO. (2010). EPPO Reporting Service . Paris: Euro pean and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization. Published on 1 November 2010. Accessed on 8 May 2012

at: http://archives.eppo.int/EPPOReporting/2010/Rse

- 1011.pdf

5. EPPO. (2011). EPPO Reporting Service . Paris: European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization. Published on 1 September 2011. Accessed on 8 May 2012

at: http://archives.eppo.int/EPPOReportin g/2011/Rse

- 1109.pdf

6. Haack, R.A., Herard, F., Sun, J., and Turgeon, J.J. 2010. Managing invasive populations of Asian longhorned beetle and citrus longhorned beetle: a worldwide perspective. Annual Review of Entomology. 55 : 521

- 546.

7. Herard, F., Ciampitti , M., Maspero, M., Krehan, H., Benker, U., Boegel, C., Schrage, R.,

Bouhot

- Delduc, L., and P. Bialooki. 2006. Anoplophora species in Europe: infestations and management. Bulletin OEPP/EPPO Bulletin

. 36: 470

- 474.

8. Keena, M.A. 2006. Effects of temperature on Anoplophora glabripennis (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) adult survival, reproduction, and egg hatch. Environmental Entomology

. 35 (4): 912

- 921.

9. Nowak, D.J., Pasek, J.E., Sequeira, R.A., Crane, D.E., and V.C. Mastro. 2001. Potential

effect of Anoplophora glabri pennis (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) on urban trees in the United States. Journal of Economic Entomology

. 94 (1): 116

- 122.

10. Poland, T., Haack, R., Petrice, T., Miller, D., Bauer, L., and Gao, R. 2006. Fieldevaluations of systemic insectices for control of Anop lophora glabripennis (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) in China. Journal of Economic Entomology

. 99 (2): 383

- 392.

11. Poland, T.M., Haack, R.A., and T.R. Petrice. 1998. Chicago joins New York in battle with the Asian longhorned beetle. Newsletter of the Michigan Entom ological Society.

43 : 15

- 17.

12. Sawyer, A. 11 March 2011. Asian Longhorned Beetle: Annotated Host List. USDA

APHIS

- PPQ, Center for Plant Health Science and Technology, Otis Laboratory.

13. Wang, B., Gao, R., Mastro, V.C., and R.C. Reardon. Toxicity of four syste mic

neonicotinoids to adults of Anoplophora glabripennis (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae). Journal of Economic Entomology. 98 (6): 2292

- 230United States Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Plant Protection and Quarantine



## Pla nts for Planting Quarantine Pest Evaluation Data S heet
January 9 th , 2013

In order to prevent the introduction of quarantine pests into the United States, § 319.37

- 2a allows the APHIS Administrator to designate the importation of certain taxa of plants fo r planting as not authorized pending pest risk analysis (NAPPRA). APHIS has determined that the following plant taxa should be added to the NAPPRA category. In accordance with paragraph (b)(1) of that section, this data sheet details the scientific evide nce APHIS evaluated in making the determination that the taxa are hosts of a quarantine pest.

Quarantine Pest: Chrysanthemum stem necrosis virus (CSNV)

Hosts: Callistephus spp

. , Chrysanthemum spp

. (including syn. Dendranthema spp. )
,

Eustoma spp

. , Solan um spp. (including syn. = Lycopersicon spp.)

Status: Chrysanthemum spp. is regulated under 7 C FR 319.37 from all countries to

prevent the introduction and establishment of the causal agent of Chrysanthemum

white rust.

___________________________________ _______________________________________

Taxonomy and description of the pest:

Chrysanthemum stem necrosis virus (CSNV) is a single stranded RNA in the genus Tospovirus of the Bunyaviridae family.

Known d istribution :

Brazil 1, 5 , Japan 8

This pest is not known to occur in the United States.

Biology of the pest:

On chrysanthemum, CSNV may cause mild to severe necrotic streaks on the stem, wilting of leaves and stem, and chlorotic or necrotic spots and rings on leaves 13 . Peduncles and floral receptacles may also become necrotic 5 . Infection often leads to complete necrosis ofthe stem and wilting of sections of the plant 13

. CSNV symptoms on chrysanthem um are

similar to those of Tomato spotted wilt virus (TSWV); however, CSNV symptoms are generally more severe to the trained eye 6

.

CSNV is transmitted by thrips

– insects of the family Thripidae ( Thysanoptera ). The widespread thrips species Franklin iella occidentalis and Frankliniella schultzei are vectors of CSNV 1

. F. occidentalis (common name: Western flower thrips) atta cks a wide range of plants, including species susceptible to CSNV 1, 3, 9

. F. schultzei (common name: Common blossom thrips) is often found on plants in international trade 14

. Both F.
occidentalis and F. schultzei are common greenhouse pests and are present in the United

States 3, 7

. Seed transmission of CSNV is not known to occur.

Damage p otential of p est:

CSNV was first recognized in Brazil, where losses due to the virus have not been quantified to date 5, 6 . CSNV was subsequently discovered in the Netherlands, England, Slovenia, and Japan 2, 8, 10, 13

. Concerns about potential econo mic losses and environmental impacts led to successful eradication campaigns in Europe (Netherlands, Slovenia, and United Kingdom) 6, 10, 12, 13 . The potential impact if CSNV became established in the

United States is difficult to estimate but could be substantial.

Control:

Plants suspected of CSNV infection should be laboratory tested for reliable diagnosis 4

. Control measures for CSNV must be directed at exclusion of the thrips vectors. Control of thrips can be challenging and is best achieved through an integrated pest management strategy, which may include biological and chemical controls. Predatory insects and mites help to manage certain plant

- feeding thrips species with varying degrees of success 4

. Unfortunately

, chemical control s are minimally effective against thrips, and resistance is persistent 3, 6 . Proper cultural control and greenhouse hygiene may help to reduce t hrips populations and mitigate the spread of CSNV.

Known host range:

Callistephus spp

. 9

, Chrysanthemum spp

. (including syn. Dendranthema spp.) 6

, 10

, 13

, Eustoma spp

. 9

, Solanum spp. (including syn. = Lycopersicon spp.) 1, 6,9 ,11

.

Action under NAPPRA:

The importation of the following plants for planting genera, excluding seeds, which are hosts of CSNV, is not authorized pending pest risk analysis (NAPPRA) from all

countries :

Callistephus, Eustoma

.The importation of the following plants for planting genera, excluding seeds, which are

hosts of CSNV, are not authorized pending pest risk analysis (NAPPRA) from all

countri es, except Canada :

Chrysanthemum ( including syn. Dendranthema)

.

The importation of the following plants for planting that are hosts of CSNV is currently regulated under 7 CFR 319.37 and this genus is therefore not included, at this time, as a potential candidate for listing on this NAPPRA data sheet :

Solanum (including syn. = Lycopersicon )

.

References :

1. Bezerra, I. C., R. d. O. Resende, L. Pozzer, T. Nagata, R. Kormelink, and A. C. De Ávila.
1999. Increase of tospoviral diversi ty in Brazil with the identification of two new tospovirus species, one from chrysanthemum and one from zucchini. Phytopathology. 89 : 823

- 830

2. Boben, J., N. Mehle, M. Pirc, I. Mavrič Pleško, and M. Ravnikar. 2007. New molecular diagnostic methods for detecti on of Chrysanthemum stem necrosis virus (CSNV). Acta Biologica Slovenica. 50 : 41

- 51

3. Cloyd, R. A. 2009. Western flower thrips ( Frankliniella occidentalis ) management on ornamental crops grwon in greenhouses: Have we reached an impasse? Pest Technol.

3 : 1

- 9

4. Dr eistadt, S. H., P. A. Phillips, and C. A. O'Donnell. 2007. Thrips. U Calif Agricul ture
and Natural Resources Pest Notes. 7249 : 1

- 8

5. Duarte, L. M., E. B. Rivas, M. A. V. Alexandre, A. C. De Ávila, T. Nagata, and C. M.
Chagas. 1995. Chrysanthemum stem necrosis caused by a possible novel tospovirus. J. Phytopathol. 143 : 569

- 571

6. EPPO. 2005. Data sheets on quarantine pests: Chrysanthemum stem necrosis tospovirus

. EPPO Bulletin. 35 : 409

- 412

7. ITIS. Frankliniella schultzei (Trybom, 1910). Integrated Taxonomic Informatio n System. Accessed December 16, 2011 at http://www.itis.gov/servlet/SingleRpt/SingleRpt?search_topic=TSN&search_value=

695334

8. Matsuura, S., K. Kubota, and M. Okuda. 2007. First report of Chrysanthemum stem

necrosis virus on chrysanthemums in Japan. Plant Di s. 91 : 468

9. Momonoi, K., J. Moriwaki, and T. Morikawa. 2011. Stem necrosis of aster and Russell prairie gentian caused by Chrysanthemum stem necrosis virus. J. Gen. Plant Pathol.

77 : 142

- 146

10. Mumford, R. A., B. Jarvis, J. Morris, and A. Blockley. 2003. First r eport of Chrysanthemum stem necrosis virus (CSNV) in the UK. Plant Pathol. 52 : 77911. Nagata, T., R. d. O. Resende, E. W. Kitajima, H. Costa, A. K. Inoue

- Nagata, and A. C. De Ávila. 1998. First report of natural occurrence of zucchini lethal chlorosis
tospovir us on cucumber and chrysanthemum stem necrosis tospovirus on tomato in

Brazil. Plant Dis. 82 : 1403

12. Ravnikar, M., N. Vozelj, I. Mavriè, S. D. Švigelj, M. Zupanèiè, and N. Petroviè. 2003.

Detectio n of Chrysanthemum stem necrosis virus and Tomato spotted wilt virus in chrysanthemum. Abstracts 8th International Congress of Plant Pathology

13. Verhoeven, J. T. J., J. W. Roenhorst, I. Cortes, and D. Peters. 1996. Detection of a novel tospovirus in chrysanthemum. Acta Horticulturae. 432 : 44

- 53

14. Vierbergen, G., and W. P. Mantel. 1991. Contribution to the knowledge of Frankliniella
schultzei (Thysanoptera: Thripidae). Entomologische Berichten (Amsterdam). 51 : 7

- 12United States Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Plant Protection and Quarantine



## Plants for Planting Quarantine Pest Evaluation Data S heet
January 9 th , 2013

In order to prevent the introduction of quarantine pests into the United States, § 319.37

- 2a allows the APHIS Administrator to designate the importation of certain t axa of plants for planting as not authorized pending pest risk analysis (NAPPRA). APHIS has determined that the following plant taxa should be added to the NAPPRA category. In accordance with paragraph (b)(1) of that section, this data sheet details the scientific evidence APHIS evaluated in making the determination that the taxa are hosts of a quarantine pest.

Quarantine Pest: Dendro ctonus micans Kugelann, 1794

Hosts: Abies spp., Larix spp., Picea spp., Pinus spp., Pseudotsuga spp.

___________________ _______________________________________________________

Taxonomy and description of the pest:

Dendroctonus micans ( Coleoptera : Scolytidae)

Common name

– Great spruce bark beetle

Known d istribution :

Australia 11 , Austria 1 , Belarus 2 , Belgium 1 , Bosni a and Herzegovina 1, 2 , Bulgaria 5,9 , China 2,

7 , Croatia 1,5 , Czech Republic 5

, Denmark 1, 3

, Estonia 5,7

, Finland 2 , France 2, 8 , Georgia 7

, Germany 2 , Greece 2,7 , Hungary 5 , Ireland 9 , Italy 11 , Japan 10 , Latvia 1,5 , Lithuania 1,2

, Luxembourg 1,7 , Mongolia 2,9 , Montenegro 9 , N etherland 1 , Norway 1,7 , Poland 5,11 , Portugal 9

, Romania 11 , Russia 2,9 , Sakhalin 2 , Serbia and Montenegro 1 , Slovakia 1,5 , Slovenia 5,11

, Spain 2,7 , Sweden 11 , Switzerland 11 , Turkey 3,9 , Ukraine 3 , United Kingdom 1, 2

Biology of the pest:

D

. micans has a robust, cylin drical, black or dark brown body, covered with tiny yellowish hair. The time required to complete one generation in field ranges from 1 to 3 years, depending on the temperature of the environment 7 . The typical gender ratio is 1

male/10 females but can be a s high as 1 male/45 females 1 . Mating of the pest occursunder the bark. After mating, some adult females remain beneath the bark and simply

initiate new galleries nearby 2

. Egg galleries are constructed primarily in the inner bark tissue and females lay bet ween 100

- 150 eggs in a cluster 7 . Other females emerge and attach elsewhere on the same tree or fly to new host trees. Adult flight occurs through much of the summer when the threshold temperature of 20

- 23°C is met 7 . Mated females construct individual egg g alleries in living trees from April to November, depending on

local conditions 2

.

Damage p otential of pest:

D. micans normally occurs at low levels and causes little tree mortality. However, when several females oviposit close to each other and the indiv idual galleries coalesce, this can cause extensive injury to the tree 1 . Outbreaks can result in widespread tree mortality as a result of the girdling action of larval feeding and oviposition 1 . This can take place over a period of several years until the wh ole tree is destroyed. As D. micans extended its range westward into Europe and southwestern Asia during the late 1900s, outbreaks occurred in more than 200,000 ha of spruce forest 2 . Normally, D. micans only colonizes green standing trees, but it will atta ck trees that are stressed as a result of logging damage, frost, snow, wind, lightning, poor soil nutrition and drought 1

.

Known host range:

Abies spp
., 1, 3,7,9 Larix spp.
, 1, 3,7,9 Picea spp
., 1, 3,9 Pinus spp
., 1, 3,7,9 Pseudotsuga spp

. 1 ,3,7,9

Action under NAPPRA:

The importation of the following plants for planting gen us , excluding seed a host of D.

micans , is not authorized pending pest risk analysis (NAPPRA) from all countries, except Canada and India :

Pseudotsuga

.

The importation of the following p lants for planting genera that are hosts of D. micans is currently regulated under 7 CFR 319.37 and these genera are therefore not included, at this time, as potential candidates for listing on this NAPPRA data sheet :

Abies, Larix, Picea, and Pinus

.

Re ferences:

1. CABI (2006). Crop Protection Compendium (2006 ed.) [CD]. Wallingford, UK: CAB

International. Access Date: 28 July 2011. Current online version at http://www.cabi.org/cpc/2. EcoPort: Dendroctonus micans. (n. d.). EcoPort Foundation. Access Date: 28 July 2011. http://ecoport.org/ep?Arthropod=26421&entityType=AR****&entityDisplayCategor y=full

3. EPPO (n.d.). Data Shee ts on Quarantine Pests: Dendroctonus micans. European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization. Access Date: 28 July 2011. http://www.eppo.org/QUARANTINE/insects /Dendroctonus_micans/DENCMI_ds.p

df

4. European Nature Information System (EUNIS): Dendroctonus micans. (n.d.). Copenhagen, Denmark: European Environment Agency. Access Date: 28 July 2011. http://eunis.eea.europa.eu/species

factsheet.jsp?idSpecies=268554&idSpeciesLink=268554

5. Fauna Europaea: Dendroctonus micans. (2007, April 19). Access Date: 28 July 2011. http://www.faunaeur.org/full_results.php?id=250017

6. Great Britain Forestry Commission (2002, May). Dendroctonus micans

- a guide for Forest Managers on control techniques. Plant Health Leaflet , 9. Access Date: 28 July

2011. http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/ph9.pdf/$FILE/ph9.pdf

7. Haack, R. A. (2001, February 14). Exotic Forest Pest Information System for North

America: Dendroctonus micans. North American Forest Commission. Acce ss Date: 28 July 2011. http://spfnic.fs.fed.us/exfor/data/pestreports.cfm?pestidval=35&langdisplay=english

8. The Bugwood Network: Dendroctonus micans. (2006, January 17). University of Georgia. Access Date: 28 July 2011. http://www.forestryimages.org/search/action.cfm?q=Dendroctonus%20micans&Start

=1&results =30

9. USDA

- APHIS

- PPQ

- CPHST, CAPS. Venette, R. C. (Ed.) (2008, June (Updated 2010, July)). Pine Commodity

- based Survey Reference. 1

- 221. United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine, Cen ter for Plant Health Science and Technology, Cooperative Agriculture Pest Survey. Access Date: 28 July 2011. http://caps.ceris.purdue.edu/survey/manual/pine_reference

10. Walker, K. (200 7). Pests and Diseases Image Library (PaDIL): Dendroctonus micans. Access Date: 28 July 2011. http://www.padil.gov.au/viewPestDiagnosticImages.aspx?id=467

11. Zipcode Zoo: Dendroctonu s micans. (2007, December 28). BayScience Foundation. Access Date: 28 July 2011. http://zipcodezoo.com/Animals/D/Dendroctonus_micans/Default.aspUnited States Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Plant Protection and Quarantine



## Plants for Planting Quarantine Pest Evaluation Data S heet
January 9 th , 2013

In order to prevent the introduction of quarantine pests i nto the United States, § 319.37

- 2a allows the APHIS Administrator to designate the importation of certain taxa of plants for planting as not authorized pending pest risk analysis (NAPPRA). APHIS has determined that the following plant taxa should be added to the NAPPRA category. In accordance with paragraph (b)(1) of that section, this data sheet details the scientific evidence APHIS evaluated in making the determination that the taxa are hosts of a quarantine pest.

Quarantine Pest: Moniliophthora perni ciosa

Hosts: Arrabidaea spp., Bixa spp., Capsicum spp., Herrania spp

. , Solanum spp.,

Theobroma spp.

__________________________________________________________________________

Taxonomy and description of the pest:

Moniliophthora perniciosa is a bas idiomycete fungal pathogen in the Marasmiaceae family. The fungus is highly pathogenic to Theobroma cacao and is commonly referred to

as the “witches’ broom f

ungus ” due to the unusual appearance of shoots projecting from infected plants. M. pernici osa was first named Marasmius perniciosus 20 and has also been

called Crinipellis perniciosa 1

. Common names for witches’ broom disease of ca cao include “balai de sorcihre du cacaoyer” (French), “cacao witches’ broom disease,”

“ Crinipellis pod rot,” 13 “escoba de bruja del cacao” (Spanish), “hexenbesenkrankheit kakao” (German), “lagaratao,” 14 and “vassoura de bruxa” (Portuguese).

Known distribution:

Bolivia 11, 16 , Brazil 11, 16 , Colombia 11, 16 , Ecuador 11, 16 , Grenada 11, 16 , Guyana 11, 16

, Panama 16 , Peru 11, 16 , Saint Lucia 12, 16 , Saint Vincent 16 and Grenadines 12 , Suriname 16, 20

, Trinidad 3, 16 and Tobago 11

, Venezuela 11, 16

.

This pest is not known to occur in the United States.Biology of the pest:

The M. perniciosa disease cycle consists of two phases. In the biotrophic phase

, the pathogen invades young, growing tissue causing hypertrophy (enlargement) and hyperplasia (proliferation) of the plant ’s cells 11 . Symptoms of biotrophic infection include loss of apical dominance, proliferation of auxiliary shoots, and the formation of abnormal stems resulting in br oom

- like structures 14 . Infection of the cauliform flowers results in the formation of dry brooms and small parthenocarpic (seedless) fruits 14

. Under high humidity 7

, M. perniciosa basidiospores may infect any meristematic cacao tissues, including shoots, flowers, and developing fruits 6 . The basidiospores produce germ tubes,

which allow direct penetration of leaves or entry through stomatal openings or the bases of damaged trichomes 7, 19

. Infected pods may display black or brown lesions, ooze, and deformities such as scabbing, pitting, abnormal shape, and malformed skin 1 . Additionally, leaves may show necrosis and seeds may fuse together and display lesions 14

. Necrosis and death of the infected tissues eventually lead to the formation of dry broom structures, which remain attached to the plant 6

.

During the saprotrophic phase of its disease cycle, M. perniciosa proliferates and

colonizes necrotic or dead host tissue. Following alternating wet and dry periods 2 , small, pink basidiocarps (mushrooms) may form on any infected necrotic tissue and produce basidiospores, thus completing the disease cycle 14 . From a single dry broom, the formation of basidiocarps and production of basidiospores may occur repeatedly over

many years 14

.

Damage Potential of Pest:

Witches’ broom is one of the two most devastating diseases of cacao in tropical

America 1

. M. perniciosa is responsible for the failure of the cocoa industry in Suriname,
where it arrived in 1895 18, 20 . The pathogen subsequently spread through the northern parts of South America, where it catastrophically affected cocoa production with yield

reductions of 50

- 90% 14

. M. perniciosa arrived in Bahia, Brazil in 1989 and caused the

co untry to fall from the world’s third largest producer of cocoa to a net importer 14

.

In the United States, T. cacao is grown in Puerto Rico, Florida

, and Hawaii. While there are currently relatively few T. cacao plant ations in the U. S., significant efforts are underway to boost the cocoa industry in Hawaii . Analysts project that Hawaiian cacao farming could one day bring $2 to $34 million annually into the U. S. economy, making it

the third

- largest Hawaiian crop 8

. M. perniciosa must be prevented from entering the United States, especia lly Hawaii, where it could have serious consequences for the budding cacao industry.

Control:

Control of M. perniciosa in cacao is a formidable task. Four general control strategies

– phytosanitation, chemical control, genetic resistance, and biological control

– have beenutilized with varying success. Phytosanitation ( the removal and destruction of diseased

plant parts ) has remained the basis of witches’ broom control since the beginning of the twentieth century. Unfortunately , the strategy is tedious and expensive, and it may require up to 95% removal of infected tissue to achieve only 50% reduction in pod loss 15

. Chemical control is not widely practiced in cacao production due to the associated high

costs and environmental risks 14 . A number of cacao accessions carry genetic resistance to M. perniciosa , including two Peruvian clones that have been used extensively in breeding

programs 14

. However, while these clones showed resistance in Brazil and Trinidad, th ey were susceptible in Ecuador, indicating that geographical variations within the pathogen impact resistance 4

. T. cacao endophytes are being studied for th eir potential utility as agents of biocontrol against M. perniciosa . For example, commercial formulations of

Trichoderma stromaticum , a newly discovered T. cacao endophyte that parasitizes the saprophytic mycelia and basidiocarps of M. perniciosa , have bee n used in Brazil with

some success 14, 17 . Endophytes repres ent a promising strategy for the control of witches’ broom, but more work must be done to identify the optimal environmental conditions for their colonization and suppression of M. perniciosa in nature 14

.

Known host range:

Arrabidae a spp. 10

, Bixa spp. 9

, C apsicum spp. 5

, Herrania spp. 3, 21

, Solanum spp. 5

, Theobroma spp. 1, 21

.

Action under NAPPRA:

The importation of the following plants for planting gen era , excluding seed but i ncluding cut flowers and greenery, hosts of M. perniciosa , is not authorized pending pest risk analysis (NAPPRA) from all countries :

Arrabidaea, Bixa, Herrania, Theobroma

.

The importation of the following plants for planting genera, excluding seed but i ncluding cut flowers and greenery, that are hosts of M. perniciosa is currently regulated under 7 CFR 319.37 and these genera are therefore not included, at this time, as potential candidates for listing on this NAPPRA data sheet:

Capsicum, Solanum

.

Re ferences :

1. Aime, M. C., and W. Phillips

- Mora. 2005. The causal agents of witches' broom and frosty pod rot of cacao (chocolate, Theobroma cacao ) form a new lineage of Marasmiaceae. Mycologia. 97 : 1012

- 1022

2. Almeida, O. C., F. P. B. Chiacchio, and H. M. Rocha. 1997. Sobrevivência de Crinipellis perniciosa (Stahel) Singer em vassouras secas de cacaueiros ( Theobroma cacao L.) do estado da Bahia. Agrotrópico. 9 : 23

- 283. Baker, R. E. D., and H. P. 1957. Witches' broom disease of cocoa ( Ma rasmius perniciosus Stahel), Phytopathological Papers, vol. 2. Commonwealth Mycological Institute, Kew, U.K.

4. Bartley, B. G. D. 2001. The origin and compatibility relationships of the Scavina variety

of Theobroma cacao L. Ingenic Newsletter. 6 : 23

- 24

5. B astos, C. N., and H. C. Evans. 1985. A new pathotype of Crinipellis perniciosa (witches' broom disease) on solanaceous hosts. Plant Pathol. 34 : 306

- 312

6. Evans, H. C. 1980. Pleomorphism in Crinipellis perniciosa , causal agent of witches'

broom disease of c ocoa. Trans. Brit. Mycol. Soc. 74 : 515

- 526

7. Frias, G. A., L. H. Purdy, and R. A. Schmidt. 1991. Infection biology of Crinipellis perniciosa on vegetative flushes of cacao. Plant Dis. 75 : 552

- 556

8. Gomes, A. Hoping for a sweet harvest. The Honolulu Adverti ser. January 25, 2010

9. Griffith, G. W., and J. N. Hedger. 1994. The breeding biology of biotypes of the witches' broom pathogen of cocoa, Crinipellis perniciosa . Heredity. 72 : 278

- 289

10. Griffith, G. W., and J. N. Hedger. 1994. Spatial distribution of my celia of the liana (L

- ) biotype of the agaric Crinipellis perniciosa (Stahel) Singer in tropical forest. New Phytol. 127 : 243

- 259

11. Holliday, P. 1980. Fungus diseases of tropical crops. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 612 pp.

12. Kelly, P. L., R. R eeder, S. Rhodes, and N. Edwards. 2009. First confirmed report of witches' broom caused by Moniliophthora perniciosa on cacao, Theobroma cacao , in

Saint Lucia. Plant Pathol. 58 : 798

13. Maddison, A. C., G. Macias, C. Moreira, R. Arias, and R. Neira. 1995. C ocoa production in Ecuador in relation to dry

- season escape from pod rot caused by Crinipellis perniciosa and Moniliophthora roreri . Plant Pathol. 44 : 982

- 998

14. Meinhardt, L. W., J. Rincones, B. A. Bailey, M. C. Aime, G. W. Griffith, D. Zhang, and

G. A. G . Pereira. 2008. Moniliophthora perniciosa , the causal agent of witches'

broom disease of cacao: what's new from this old foe? Mol. Plant Pathol. 9 : 577

- 588

15. Rudgard, S. A., and D. R. Butler. 1987. Witches' broom disease in Rondonia, Brazil: pod

infectio n in relation to pod susceptibility, wetness, inoculum, and phytosanitiation.

Plant Pathol. 36 : 515

- 522

16. Rudgard, S. A., A. C. Maddison, and T. Andebrhan (ed.). 1993. Disease management in cocoa: comparative epidemiology of witches' broom. Chapman & Hall , London.

17. Samuels, G. J., R. Pardo

- Schultheiss, P. K. Hebbar, R. D. Lumsden, C. N. Bastos, J. C. Costa, and J. L. Bezerra. 2000. Trichoderma stromaticum , sp. nov., a parasite of cacao witches' broom pathogen. Mycol Res. 104 : 760

- 764

18. Singer, R. 1942. A monographic study of the genera Crinipellis and Chaetocalathus

. Lilloa. 8 : 441

- 534

19. Sreenivasan, T. N., and S. S. Dabydeen. 1989. Modes of penetration of young cocoa leaves by Crinipellis perniciosa . Plant Dis. 73 : 478

- 481

20. Stahel, G. 1915. Marasmiu s perniciosus nov. spec. Bulletin Departement van den

Landbouw in Suriname. 33 : 1

- 26

21. Wood, G. A. R., and R. A. Lass. Cocoa, Fourth ed. Blackwell Science Ltd., Oxford, 620

pp.United States Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspecti on Service Plant Protection and Quarantine



## Plants for Planting Quarantine Pest Evaluation Data S heet
January 9 th , 2013

In order to prevent the introduction of quarantine pests into the United States, § 319.37

- 2a allows the APHIS Administrator to design ate the importation of certain taxa of plants for planting as not authorized pending pest risk analysis (NAPPRA). APHIS has determined that the following plant taxa should be added to the NAPPRA category. In accordance with paragraph (b)(1) of that

secti on, this data sheet details the scientific evidence APHIS evaluated in making the determination that the taxa are hosts of a quarantine pest.

Quarantine Pest: Monochamus alternatus Hope , 1843

Hosts: Abies spp. , Acer spp.

, Cedrus spp.

, Cryptomeria spp.

, Fagus spp.

, Liquidambar

spp. , Malus spp.

, Picea spp.

, Pinus spp.

, Quercus spp.

__________________________________________________________________________
Taxonomy and description of the pest:

Monochamus alternatus Hope ( Coleoptera: Cerambycidae)

Synon ym: Monochammus tesserula

Common names: Japanese pine sawyer, pine sawyer beetle, rusty pine longhorn

Known d istribution :

China 7, 14 , Hong Kong 2, 7 , Japan 7 , Republic of Korea 2, 11 , Laos 7, 8 , Taiwan Island 2, 3 , Viet

Nam 3, 7

.

Biology of the pest:

Monoc hamus alternatus generally completes one generation per year 4 . Larva e overwinter within the tunnel, and begin to pupate in late March. Adults emerge in mid

- April, but stay

in host tree s for 6

- 8 days. Peak of adult activity occurs in May. Adults prefer to f eed on younger trees. Although most adults will not fly more than a few hundred meters they candisperse several kilometers 9 . Populations of M. alternatus can spread up to 20 km/yr

depending on the change in distribution of trees infested 9

.

Weakened or n ewly felled trees are preferred for oviposition 5 . The female beetle lays

white

, sickle shaped eggs under the bark and the young round

- headed borer larvae feed in

the softer inner bark tissues 4

, 10 . The larvae are white and opaque legless grubs averaging

43 mm in length 4 . After developing strong mandibles, the larvae start bor ing into the trunk. They continue to feed on trunk until maturity 10 . The mature larvae bore back to the sapwood area in the outer region of the trunk where they excavate a large chamber in which they pupate 10 . It is during the transformation to the adult stage when the pinewood nematode, which has been feeding and multiplying in the tree tissues, infests the tracheal system of the adult 1 0 . Adult maturation feeding consists of removal of t he bark from shoots of host trees. The shoots eventually die leaving dead tips on the trees 4

.

Damage p otential of pest:

Monochamus alternatus is known to be one of the most destructive pests associated with pines in Japan. Even though, M. alternates is primarily known as a pest of pine, it will feed on a number of other plants in the Pinaceae and Cupressaceae families 4 . Adults cause damage to hosts by feeding on shoots and creating ovipositor sites. The larvae disrupt phloem as they feed 10

. M

. alternatus is a vector of pinewood nematode, Bursaphelenchus xylophi l us , in China and Japan and is known to be capable of carrying an average of 18,000 individual nematodes 4 . The interaction between M. alternates and B. xylophilus causes heavy loss of timber and int ernational trade 2

.

Known host range:

Abies spp

. 3
, 6

, Acer spp

. 12

, Cedrus spp

. 1 3

, Cryptomeria spp

. 5

, Fagus spp

. 5

, Liquidambar

spp

. 1 2

, Malus spp

. 1 2

, Picea spp

. 3,6

, Pinus spp

. 5

, Quercus spp

. 2

Action under NAPPRA:

The importation of the following plants for planting genera, excluding seed that are hosts

of Monochamus alternates , is not authorized pending pest risk analysis (NAPPRA) from all countries, except Canada :

Cedrus

.

The importation of the following plants for planting genera that are hosts of Monochamus

alternates is currently regulated under 7 CFR 319.37 and these genera are therefore not included, at this time, as potential candidates for listing on this NAPPRA data sheet:

Abies, Acer, Cryptomeria, Fagus, Liquidambar, Malus, Picea, Pinus,Quercus

.

References :

1. Bark Beetles: Monochamus alternatus. (n.d.). Cooperative Agriculture Pest Survey Program. Retrieved August 1 st , 2011, from http://www.ceris.purdue.edu/napis/pes ts/barkb/monocfs.html

2. CAB I . 2005. Crop Protection Compendium. CAB International. Accessed online 1 st August 2011 from http://www.cabi.org/cpc/?compid=1&dsid =34719&loadmodule=datasheet&page=86

8&site=161

. 3. Chen YM, Chao JT, 1998. Three species of long

- horned beetles feeding on Taiwan red pine. Taiwan Journal of Forest Science, 13:373

- 376.

4. Ciesla, W. M. (2001, July 12). Exotic Forest Pest Information System for North America:

Monochamus alternatus. North American Forest Commission. Retrieved February 13, 2007, from http://spfnic.fs.fed.us/exfor/data/pestreports.cfm?p estidval=77&langdisplay=english

5. EcoPort: Monochamus alternatus. (n.d.). EcoPort Foundation. Retrieved February 13, 2007, from http://www.ecoport.org

6. EPPO (n.d.). Data Sheets on Quarantine Pests: Bursaphelenchus xylophi lus. 1

- 12. European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization. Retrieved February 13, 2007, from http://www.eppo.org/QUARANTINE/nematodes/Bursaphelenchus_x ylophilus/BUR SXY_ds.pdf

7. EPPO Global Database, 2012. Eurpean and Mediterranean Plant Protection organization.

Accessed December 27 th , 2012. Available from: http://gd3.eppo.int/organism.php/MONCAL

8. Gre ssitt JT, Rondon JA, von Breuning S, 1970. Cerambycid Beetles of Laos. Pacific Insects Monograph, 24:i

- vi.

9. Kishi, Y. 1995. The pine wood nematode and the Japanese pine sawyer. Thomas Company Limited, Tokyo.

10. McLean, J. A. (1996, August 12). Pinewood Nematod e in Jiangsu Province, People's Republic of China. University of British Columbia Forestry. Retrieved February 13, 2007, from http://www.forestry.ubc.ca/fetch21/chinapwn/china96.html

11. Pa rk NC, Moon YS, Lee SM, Yi CK, 1992. Distribution and oviposition activities of Monochamus alternatus Hope (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) in Korea. Research Reports of the Forestry Research Institute (Seoul), No.44:142

- 150; [With English figures and tables]; 1 6 ref.

12. USDA

- APHIS

- PPQ

- CPHST, CAPS. Venette, R. C. (Ed.) (2008, June (Updated 2010, July)). Pine Commodity

- based Survey Reference. 1

- 221. United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine, C enter for Plant Health Science and Technology, CooperativeAgriculture Pest Survey. Retrieved May 2, 2012, from http://caps.ceris.purdue.edu/survey/manual/pine_reference

13. Walker, K. (20 06). Pests and Diseases Image Library (PaDIL): Pine Sawyer beetle. Retrieved May 7, 2012, from http://www.padil.gov.au/pests

- and

diseases/Pest/Main/135562

14. Wang SF, 1983. Monochamu s alternatus Hope. In: Chinese Academy of Forestry, ed. Forest Insects in China. Beijing, China: Chinese Forestry Press, 284

- 285.United States Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Plant Protection and Quarantine



## Plant s for Planting Quarantine Pest Evaluation Data S heet
January 9 th , 2013

In order to prevent the introduction of quarantine pests into the United States, § 319.37

- 2a allows the APHIS Administrator to designate the importation of certain taxa of plants for planting as not authorized pending pest risk analysis (NAPPRA). APHIS has determined that the following plant taxa should be added to the NAPPRA category. In accordance with paragraph (b)(1) of that section, this data sheet details the scientific evidenc e APHIS evaluated in making the determination that the taxa are hosts of a quarantine pest.

Quarantine Pest s : Peanut clump virus

Indian peanut clump virus

Hosts: Peanut clump virus : Arachis spp., Pennisetum spp., Saccharum spp.,

Sorghum spp., Tr iticum spp.

Indian peanut clump virus : Arachis spp., Eleusine spp., Triticum spp., Hordeum spp., Pennisetum spp., Setaria spp., Sorghum spp., Zea spp.

Status: Arachis spp. seeds are currently prohibited from Burkina Faso, Cote d’lvoire

,

Senegal and India (7 CFR 319.37

- 2). All other plant parts from the genus Arachis are prohibited from all countries excluding Canada under the Fabaceae prohibition in 7 CFR 319.37

- 2.

__________________________________________________________________________

Taxonomy and description of the pest:

Peanut clump virus (PCV) and Indian peanut clump virus (IPCV) are single stranded

RNA viruses in the genus Pecluvirus of the family Virgaviridae [1]

.

Known distribution:

Peanut clump virus : Africa, Burkina Faso [2

- 4] , Chad [5]

, Congo [5] , Gabon [5] , Côte
d’Ivoire [3] , Mali [5] , Niger [3] , Senegal [2, 6]

, Sudan [5]Indian peanut clump virus : India [7] , Pakistan [8]

Th ese viruses are not known to occur in the United States.

Biology of the pest:

IPCV and PCV are thought to be cereal viruses that have coevolved as opportunistic path ogens of peanut when that crop was introduced to Africa and the Indian subcontinent.

The viruses cause a “clump” disease in peanuts characterized by dark green

- colored, miniaturized leaves, short internodes and dwarfing , [3, 5, 6]

. IPCV causes a similar disease in peanut on the Indian subcontinent. Though the viruses cause similar diseases and share other similarities they are serologically and genomically distinct [9

- 11] . B oth viruses may be transmitted through s eed , soil and/or vegetative propagation [5]

.

In the soil, the viruses are transmitted by the obligate root endoparasite Polymyxa gramini s [12, 13]

. P. graminis is a plasmodiophorid protist responsible for the transmission of several very important plant viruses [12

- 15]

. P. graminis heavily infests the roots of pearl m illet, sorghum and sugarcane [5, 15]

. These plant spec ies are well

- adapted to the P. graminis vector, and they support PCV multiplication [5] . Therefore, cultivation of pearl millet, sorghum and sugarcan e on PCV

- infested soils increases the virus inoculum. Resting P. graminis spores remain in the soil in the absence of plants, allowing PCV to persist between plantings. PCV

- infested P. graminis spores may be dispersed by soil tillage and irrigation practic es [5]

.

PCV and IPCV are regarded as high

- risk pathogens for germplasm exchange because they

are seed

- transmitted at a high frequency in peanut [16, 17] and at lowe r rates in cereal and grain crops [5, 16] . In addition, low levels of viral inoculum may be maintained in seed

stocks for several seasons [5]

. PCV can also be propagated vegetatively through sugarcane cuttings or the rhizomes of grass weeds [5]

.

Damage p otential of p est:

P CV is widely distributed in western Africa and is economically important in Niger, Burkina Faso, and Senegal [18] . Losses due to PCV can be significant, and the persistence of inoculum in the soil can lead to the abandonment of groundnut as a crop [19]

. Similarly, IPCV has been reported to be economically important in groundnut grown on the Indian

subcontinent [20] . In 1999, a nnual losses caused by clump disease in peanut globally were estimated to exceed US$ 38 million [21]

. Altogether, viral diseases on groundnut, chickpea, pigeonpea, sorghum and pearl millet in the semi

- arid tropics result in yield losses worth over $700 million per year [22] . Because of its widespread occurrence, endemic nature and debilitating impact on crop yield, PCV and IPCV are a main focus of research in the

semi

- arid tropics [22]

.Control:

Avoidance of peanut clump disease is best achieved through the use of clean seed. Likewise, groundnut seeds and sugarcane cuttings should be produced in disease

- free

area s. The pest may also be controlled by soil fumiga tion with nematicides that have fungicidal action [2]

.

The use of machinery for soil preparation and irrigation increases the impact and the spread of P. graminis and peanut clump dis ease . Therefore, machinery use should be

restricted in infested fields [5] . Pearl millet seeds should be collected from the lower third

of infloresce nce , and collecting groundnut seeds from PCV

- infected plots should be

avoided [5] . Alternative cropping methods, such as trap cropping or crop rotati ons using

non

- hosts of Polymyxa (e.g., sunflower or mustard) may limit the spread of the disease [5]

.

Known host range:

Peanut clump virus : Arachi s hypogaea [4, 12, 17]

, Pennisetum glaucum [5]

,

, Saccharum officinarum [23]

, Sorghum arundinaceum [12, 24]

, Triticum aestivum [12]

Indian peanut clump virus : Arachis hypogaea [11, 20]

, Eleusine coracana [16]

, Triticum

aestivum [25]

, Hordeum vulgare [25]

, Pennisetum glaucum [5]

,

, Setaria italica [16 ]

, Sorghum

bicolor [16]

, Zea mays [26]

Bold type indicates host with known seed transmission.

Action under NAPPRA:

The importation of seeds of the following plants for planting genera that are h osts of Peanut clump virus and/or Indian peanut clump virus , is not authorized pending a pest risk analysis (NAPPRA) from all countries :

Arachis, Eleusine

.

The importation of seeds of the following plants for planting genera that are hosts of

Peanut clu mp virus and/or Indian peanut clump virus , is not authorized pending a pest risk analysis (NAPPRA) from all countries , except those listed after the plant genus :

Pennisetum Australia, Germany

Setaria Netherland

Triticum Argentina, Canada, France, Ger many, Mexico, New

Zealand, United Kingdom,Zea Argentina, Austria, Brazil, C anada, Chile, Croatia, France, Germany, Guyana, Hungary, Italy, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Peru, Romania, Serbia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom

Peanut clump virus and/ or Indian peanut clump virus are not known to be seed transmitted in the following taxa, and therefore the seed of these taxa are not included, at this time, as potential candidates for listing on this NAPPRA data sheet, but are currently regulated under 7 CFR 319.37:

Hordeum, Saccharum, and Sorghum.

The importation of vegetative parts of the following plants for planting genera that are

hosts of Peanut clump virus and/or Indian peanut clump virus , is not authorized pending a pest risk analysis (NAPPRA) f rom all countries

Arachis, Eleusine , Pennisetum, Setaria

.

The importation of vegetative parts of the following plants for planting genera that are

hosts of Peanut clump virus and/or Indian peanut clump , is currently regulated under 7 CFR 319.37 and veg etative parts of these genera are therefore not included, at this time, as potential candidates for listing on this NAPPRA data sheet :

Triticum, Zea, Saccharum, Sorghum, Hordeum

.

References :

1. ICTV. International Congress of Virus Taxonomy . 2009 [cited 2012 May 29]; Available

from: http://ictvonline.org/virusTaxonomy.asp?version=2009&bhcp=1

. 2. Germani, G., J.

- C. Thouvenel, and M. Dhery, Le rabougrissement d e l'arachide: une maladie à virus au Sénégal et en Haute

- Volta. Oléagineux, 1975. 30 (6): p. 259

- 266.

3. Manohar, S.K., Dollet, M.

, Dubern, J.

, Gargani, D

, Studies on variability of peanut clump virus: symptomatology and serology. J. Phytopathol., 1995. 143 (4): p. 233

- 238.

4. Thouvenel, J.

- C., M. Dollet, and C. Fauquet, Some properties of peanut clump, a newly

discovered virus. Ann. Appl. Biol., 1976. 84 (3): p. 311

- 320.

5. Dieryck, B., et al., Seed, soil and vegetative transmission contribute to the spread o f pecluviruses in Western Africa and the Indian sub

- continent. Virus Res., 2009.

141 (2): p. 184

- 189.

6. Bouhot, D., Observations sur quelques affections des plantes cultivées au Sénégal. Agronomie Tropicale, 1967. 22 : p. 888

- 890.

7. Reddy, D.V.R., R. Rajes hwari

, N. Iisuka

, D.E. Lesemann

, B. L. Nolt and T. Goto

, The occurrence of Indian peanut clump, a soil

- borne virus disease of groundnuts (Arachis hypogaea) in India. Ann. Appl Biol., 1983. 102 : p. 305

- 310.8. Delfosse, P., M. Bashir

, S. N. Malik and A.S. R eddy

, Survey of groundnut virus diseases

in Pakistan. International Arachis Newsletter, 1995. 15 : p. 51

- 52.

9. ICTV. Index of Viruses

- Pecluvirus In: ICTVdB

- The Universal Virus Database,

version 4 . 2006 [cited 2012 May 29]; Available from:

, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ICTVdb/Ictv/fs_index.htm

. 10. Naidu, R.A., J. S.Miller

, M. A. Mayo and A. S. Reddy

, The nucleotide sequence of Indian peanut clump virus RNA 2 . in Third Symp. Int. Workin g Group on Plant Viruses with Fungal Vectors . 1996. Dundee, Scotland.

11. Nolt, B.L., R. Rajeshwar

, D.V.R. Reddy

, N. Bharathan and S.K. Manohar

, Indian peanut clump virus isolates: Host range,symptomatology, serological relationships,and some physical prop erties. Phytopathology, 1988. 78 : p. 310

- 313.

12. Thouvenel, J.

- C. and C. Fauquet, Further properties of peanut clump virus and studies on

its natural transmission. Ann. Appl. Biol., 1981. 97 : p. 99

- 107.

13. Ratna, A.S., A.S. Rao

, A.S. Reddy

, B. L. Nolt

, D .V.R. Reddy

, M. Vijayalakshmi and D.
McDonald

, Studies on transmission of Indian peanut clump virus disease by Polymyxa graminis. Ann. Appl.Biol., 1991. 118 : p. 71

- 78.

14. Kanyuka, K., E. Ward, and M.J. Adams, Polymyxa graminis and the cereal viruses it

tr ansmits: a research challenge. Mol. Plant Pathol., 2003. 4 (5): p. 393

- 406.

15. Legrève, A., Vanpee, B.

, Delfosse, P. and Maraite, H.

, Host range of tropical and sub

tropical isolates of Polymyxa graminis. Eur. J. Plant Pathol., 2000. 106 (4): p. 379

- 389.

16

. Reddy, A.S., Hobbs, H. A.

, Delfosse, P.

, Murthy, A. K. and Reddy, D. V. R.

, Seed transmission of Indian peanut clump virus (IPCV) in peanut and millets. Plant Dis.,

1998. 82 (3): p. 343

- 346.

17. Thouvenel, J.

- C., C. Fauquet, and D. Lamy, Transmission par la graine du virus du clump de l'arachide. Oléagineux, 1978. 33 : p. 503

- 504.

18. ICRISAT, Coordinated research on groundnut rosette virus disease: summary proceedings of the consultative group meeting, 8

- 10 March 1987, Lilongwe, Malawi.

1988.

19. Reddy, D. V.R., Delfosse, P.

, Lenne, J. M. and Subrahmanyam, P , eds. Groundnut virus diseases in Africa: summary and recommendations of the Sixth Meeting of the International Working Group, 18

- 19 Mar 1996, Agricultural Research Council,

Plant Protection Research Ins titute, Pretoria, South Africa. 1997. 64.

20. Reddy, D.V.R., B. L. Nolt

, H. A. Hobbs

, A. S. Reddy

, R. Rajeshwar

, A. S. Rao

, D.D.R. Reddy and D. McDonald

, Clump virus in India: Isolates, host range, transmission and management , in Viruses With Fungal Vector s , J.L. Cooper and M.J.C. Asher, Editors. 1988, Assoc. Appl. Biol.: Wellesbourne, UK. p. 239

- 246.

21. Reddy, D.V.R., M.A. Mayo, and P. Delfosse, Pecluviruses , in Encyclopedia of Virology,

2nd Ed. , R. Webster and A. Gramoff, Editors. 1999, Academic Press: N ew York.

22. ICRISAT. (International Crops Research Institute for the Semi

- Arid Tropics). Viral

Diseases . [cited 2012 February 17]; Available from: http://www.icrisat.org/bt

pathology

- viral.htm

. 23. Baudin, P. and M. Chatenet, Détection sérologieu du PCV isolat canne à sucre, agent de la marbrure rouge des feuilles. L'Agronomie Tropicale, 1988. 43 : p. 228

- 234.

24. Dollet, M., C. Fauquet, and J.

- C. Thouvenel, Sorghum arundinaceum, a natural host o fPeanut Clump Virus in Upper Volta. Plant Dis. Rep., 1976. 60 : p. 1076

- 1080.

25. Delfosse, P., A. S. Reddy

, A. Legreve

, P. S. Devi

, K. Thirumala Devi and H. Maraite D. V. R. Reddy

, Indian peanut clump virus (IPCV) infection on wheat and barley:

symptoms, yield loss and transmission through seed. Plant Pathology, 1999. 48 : p. 273

- 282.

26. Delfosse, P., A. S. Reddy

, K. Thirumala Devi

, A. Legrève

, J. Risopoulos

, D. Doucet

, P.
Shoba Devi

, H. Maraite

, D. V. R. Reddy

, Dynamics of Polymyxa graminis and Indian pe anut clump virus (IPCV) infection on various monocotyledonous crops and groundnut during the rainy season. Plant Pathology, 2002. 51 : p. 546

- 560.United States Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Plant Protection a nd Quarantine



## Plants for Planting Quarantine Pest Evaluation Data Sheet
January 9 th , 2013

In order to prevent the introduction of quarantine pests into the United States, § 319.37

- 2a allows the APHIS Administrator to designate the importation of certai n taxa of plants for planting as not authorized pending pest risk analysis (NAPPRA). APHIS has determined that the following plant taxa should be added to the NAPPRA category. In accordance with paragraph (b)(1) of that section, this data sheet details t he scientific evidence APHIS evaluated in making the determination that the taxa are hosts of a quarantine pest.

Quarantine Pest: Phytophthora kernoviae Brasier Beales & S.A Kirk, sp. Nov.

Hosts: Annona spp

. , Aesculus spp., Castanea spp., Camellia spp. , Drimys spp., Fagus

spp., Gevuina spp., Hedera spp., Ilex spp., Leucothoe spp., Liriodendron spp., Lomatia spp., Magnolia spp. (= Michelia spp. )
, Pieris spp., Pinus spp., Podocarpus spp., Prunus spp., Quercus spp., Rhododendron spp., Sequoiadendron spp

. (= Sequoia spp.), Vaccinium spp.

__________________________________________________________________________
Taxonomy and description of the pest:

Phytophthora kernoviae is a n oomycete pathogen in the Pythiaceae family. Synonyms of

P. kernoviae include Phytophthora kernovii 2, 13 and Phytophthora taxon C 12

. P. kernoviae causes “kernoviae bleeding canker,” “kernoviae dieback,” and “kernoviae leaf blight 5 .”

Known distribution:

Un ited Kingdom 1, 4 , Ireland 7 , New Zealand 11

.

This pest is not known to occur in the United States.

Biology of the pest:

Long distance spread of P. kernoviae is thought to occur primarily by movemen t of infected plant material (e.g., trade) 9 . Spread may also r esult from the movement ofgrowing media or soil carried on vehicles, machinery, footwear or animals 8

.

P. kernoviae zoospores are contained within sporangia, where they may be aerially or splash dispersed 4 . Mechanisms of zoospore transport from one plant to another i nclude

rain

- splash, wind

- driven rain, mist, irrigation or ground water. The infective, swimming zoospores penetrate susceptible host material via wounds or natural openings such as

stomata and lenticels 8

. After initial penetratio n, P. kernovia e grows through the plant tissue and kills plant cells, which results in visible necrosis. Under suitable conditions, asexual reproduction may produce new sporangia, completing P. kernoviae ’s life cycle. In naturally infected plants, P. kerno viae also produces sexual spores (oospores), which may serve as survival structures for the pathogen 8

.

On shrub hosts, P. kernoviae causes dieback and leaf blight diseases, with symptoms varying slightly among plant species. On Rhododendron spp., early leaf symptoms may include a blackening of the leaf tip, the leaf petiole or, in extreme cases, the whole leaf

could fall within a few weeks of infection. Frequently, shoot dieback and cankers occur, girdling the stem tissue and ca using wilting of the leaves above the lesion 8

. Infections may be found on leaves of any age and on leaves and stems at any height or position on the plant. Severe infections result in the death of the whole bush.

Similar leaf b light symptoms are seen on other shrub hosts. On Michelia doltsopa

, necrotic leaf tissue is characteristically a dark black

- brown color, and infection is characterized by drip tip lesions on the leaves that progress along the leaf margins and

into the tiss ue of the leaf blade 8 . Lesions on leaves of Pieris spp. are typically a light tan to rusty brown color, with necrosis progressing directly towards and along the midrib

vein 8 . Dark necrotic lesions are v isible on P. kernoviae

- infected leaves of Il ex aquifolium (variegated holly) and both leaf infection and stem dieback appear on Prunus
laurocerasus (cherry laurel) 8

. On Vaccinium myrtillus (bilberry)

, early symptoms include

necro tic black

- brown lesions on the leaves and green stems of plants 8

. Only stem

infection has been observed on Hedera helix (ivy) , to date 8

.

On tree hosts, P. kernoviae may cause bleeding canker , dieback a nd/or leaf blight

diseases. Initial symptoms on Fagus sylvatica (beech) are bleeding lesions on the trunk, which may be present from ground level up to 12 m above ground. The bleeding is usually dark brown to blue

- black, with orange

- pink to pink

- brown acti ve lesions in the

inner bark 8 . Older lesions on beech may appear sunken. Girdling of the entire trunk may occur, killing the tree

. On Quercus robur (English oak), bleeding lesions are more
difficult to see because of oak’s thick outer bark ridges and outer bark plates 8 . Bleeding occurs from cracks between the bark ridges, but the thickness of the bark prevents the sunken appearance of older cankers.

Disease symptoms may occur on the foliage, shoots and trunk of Liriodendron tulipifera (tulip tree). Internal lesions range from pale brown to blue

- black in col or , and m ultiplebleeding lesions may be present on the trunk from ground level up to 9 m above ground 8

.

Leaf lesions are mostly restricted to tips and margins and appear dark black in colo r. Shoot dieback also occurs

, and infected shoots are defoliated 8 . No evidence of sunken or bleeding cankers has been observed on Quercus ilex (holly oak), but P. kernoviae does

cause severe leaf necrosis and dieback of Q. ilex epicormic shoots 8

.

On Magnolia spp. , P. kernoviae infection occurs anywhere on the leaf surface. Multiple leaf infections may appear as numerous dark brown necrot ic patches, giving leaves a
spotty appearance 8 . The necrotic spots may merge and develop towards the leaf midrib.

Well

- developed lesions appear as mottling, which may have angular edges 8 . Uninfected

tis sue between ne crotic areas becomes chlorotic. Petioles may become infected leading to disease progression along the leaf base. Infected buds appear light khaki grey in color 8

.

Damage p otential of p est:

In England and Wales, be tween October 2003 and January 2008, there were 52 outbreaks

of P. kernoviae infection in non

- nursery locations 5

. All but one of these outbreaks are subject to ongoing eradication or containment action. In 2004, the damage potential of P.
kernoviae was considered suf ficient to warrant a statutory order in England that prohibits the removal of host plants or parts of host plants from a designated area without inspection and written authorization 2

. P. kernoviae has the potential to attack a wide range of important forest trees and could cause signif icant damage to U.S. agriculture and

the environment

.

Control:

At present, no specific control measures for P. kernoviae have been identified. The current management strategy is the utilization of good cultural practice s 8 . Sus ceptible plants should be monitored for symptoms. Shears and tools should be regularly cleaned with an appropriate product. Plants with wounded leaves should be handled carefully, as a wounded leaf may be more susceptible to infection 8 . Susceptible host plants should be pruned in dry weather. If possible, plants should be watered in the morning, and potted plants should not be subjected to standing in water for any length of time. Plants should be spaced appropriately to allow for good air movement.

Known host range:

Annona spp

. 3, 5

, Aesculus spp. 5

, Castanea spp. 5

, Camellia spp. 4

, Drimys spp. 5, 9

, Fagus

spp. 4, 5

, Gevuina spp. 4, 5

, Hedera spp. 5, 9

, Ilex spp. 5, 9

, Leucothoe spp. 5

, Liriodendron spp. 4, 5

, Lomatia spp. 9

, Magnolia spp. 5, 9 (= Michelia spp. 4, 5 )

, Pieris spp. 4,5,9

, Pinus spp. 5

, Podocarpus spp. 5, 9

, Prunus sp p. 5,9

, Quercus spp. 4 ,5, 6

, Rhododendron

spp. 4, 8 ,10

, Sequoiadendron spp. 9 (= Sequoia spp.)

, Vaccinium spp. 5, 9

.Action under NAPPRA:

The importation of the following genera of plants for planting, excluding seeds, that are

hosts of Phytophthora kernoviae , is not authorized pending a pest r isk analysis (NAPPRA) from all countries :

Camellia
, Drimys
, Gevuina
, Lomatia
, Sequoiadendron (Sequoia)

.

The importation of the following plants for planting genera, excluding seeds that are

hosts of Phytophthora kernoviae , are not authorized pending a pest risk analysis (NAPPRA) from all countries , except those listed after the plant genus :

Annona Costa Rica Fagus Canada

Hedera Canada, Colombia, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Israel, and Mexico

Ilex Canada

Leucothoe Canada
Liriodendron Canada

M agnolia (Michelia) Canada , China, and South Africa
Pieris Canada Podocarpus Canada, China Quercus Canada

Rhododendron Canada, Japan
Vaccinium Australia, Canada

.

The importation of the following plants for planting genera that are hosts of Phy tophthora

kernoviae is currently regulated under 7 CFR 319.37 and these genera are therefore not included, at this time, as potential candidates for listing on this NAPPRA data sheet :

Aesculus, Castanea

.

References :

1. Anonymous. Plant disease found in Scotland. The Scottish Government News. Accessed 10 Jan 2008 at http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2008/01/10144052

2. Anonymous. The plant health ( Phytophthora kernovii Management Zone)(England) order 2004. Statutory Instrume nt 2004 No. 3367.

3. Braithwaite, M., M. S. Bullians, J. M. Pay, G. S. C. Gill, and C. F. Hill. 2007. A disease survey of cherimoya orchards in Northland, New Zealand. Proceedings of the 16thBiennial Australasian Plant Pathology Conference, Adelaide: Aust ralasian Plant Pathology Society

4. Brasier, C. M., P. A. Beales, S. A. Kirk, S. Denman, and J. Rose. 2005. Phytophthora

kernoviae sp. nov., an invasive pathogen causing bleeding stem lesions on forest trees and foliar necrosis of ornamentals in the UK. My col Res. 109 : 853

- 859

5. CSL. Revised Summary Pest Risk Analysis for Phytophthora kernoviae . Accessed 24 Feb

2012 at http://www.fera.defra.gov.uk/plants/pla ntHealth/pestsDiseases/phytophthora/pKerno

viae/

6. Denman, S., S. A. Kirk, E. Moralejo, and J. F. Webber. 2009. Phytophthora ramorum

and Phytophthora kernoviae on naturally infected asymptomatic foliage. EPPO

Bulletin. 39 : 105

- 111

7. EPPO. First report of Phytophthora kernoviae in Ireland (2010/148). EPPO Reporting
Service. Vol. 9. Accessed 24 Feb 2012 at http://archives.eppo.org/EPPOReporting/2010/Rse

- 1009.pdf

8. FERA. A new threat to our trees and woodlands: Phytophthora kernoviae disease

factsheet. Acce ssed 25 Feb 2012 at www.fera.defra.gov.uk/pKernoviaeFactsheet

9. FERA. Phytophthora kernoviae

- FAQs. Accessed 24 Feb 2012 at http://www.fera.defra.gov.uk/plants/plantHealth/pestsDiseases/phytophthora/pKerno viae/faqs.cfm

10. Fichtner, E. J., D. M. Rizzo, S. A. Kirk, and J. F. Webber. 2011. Infectivity and sporulation potential of Phytophthora kernoviae to select North American native plants. Plant Pathol.10.1111/j.1365

- 3059.2011.02506.x

11. Goheen, E. M., and S. J. Frankel (ed.). 2009. Proceedings of the fourth meeting of the International Union of Forest Research Organizations (IUFRO) Working Party S07.02.09: Phytophthoras in forest and natural ecosystems. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW

GTR

- 221. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific

Sou thwest Research Station. pp. 47

- 53.

12. Hughes, K. J. D., R. Griffin, N. Boonham, and A. J. Inman. 2005. Development of molecular diagnostics for Phytophthora taxon C a new Phytophthora threatening UK trees, woodlands and ornamental plants. Sudden Oak Deat h Science Symposium II,

18

- 21 January 2005, Monterey, CA

13. Morton, C. Native oaks susceptible to new tree disease. Forestry Commission News. 9

Nov 2004United States Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

Plant Protect ion and Quarantine



## Plants for Planting Quarantine Pest Evaluation Data S heet
January 9 th , 2013

In order to prevent the introduction of quarantine pests into the United States, § 319.37

- 2a allows the APHIS Administrator to designate the importation of c ertain taxa of plants for planting as not authorized pending pest risk analysis (NAPPRA). APHIS has determined that the following plant taxa should be added to the NAPPRA category. In accordance with paragraph (b)(1) of that section, this data sheet deta ils the scientific evidence APHIS evaluated in making the determination that the taxa are hosts of a quarantine pest.

Quarantine Pest: Puccinia buxi Sowerby 1809

Hosts: Buxus spp

. 4, 5

__________________________________________________________________ ________
Taxonomy and description of the pest:

Puccinia buxi Sowerby 1809

Urediniomyces: Uredinales (Order: Family)

Common name of disease

– boxwood rust

Known d istribution :

Japan, China, France, Georgia

, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Pol and, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom 4

. On May 2006 boxwood plants at a facility in Pennsylvania where found infected with Puccinia buxi. These plants were earlier imported from Greece 8 . This infestation was subsequently eradicated.

B iology of the pest:

Puccinia buxi is a rust fungus with two spore forms which complet es i ts life cycle on one

host

, Buxus sp. 6, 9 . The teliospores, a natural resting stage, develop within host tissues during the winter and break through the plant’s epide rmis in the spring 10 . Teliosporesgerminate in spring and early summer to produce basidia, then infective basidiospores

which can infect new hosts or new leaves on the same host plant. Infections develop slowly, with lesions expanding in the late summer and fall, which appear initially as thickenings of the leaf 10

. Buxus spp. plants growing in shaded and moist conditions appear to be more susceptible (or conditions are more suitable for infection), than plants grown in full sun or on south

- facing slopes, and leaf age also appears to impact susceptibility 3

.

Damage p otential of pest:

Although not widespread by natural means, it does appear to be readily transported on nursery stock. It may be d ifficult to identify and detect during port of entry inspect ion and

therefore likely to be unintentionally transported internationall y . Infected Buxus spp. may show blister

- like pustules forming on infected leaves as the telia develop 8 , although there may also be a latent stage prior to symptom expression. Since 20 03, APHIS Plant Inspection Stations have recorded 10 interceptions of P. buxi on Buxus spp. for decorative purpose and 3 interceptions on Buxus spp. for propagation from various countries.

Control:

Cultural control measures, such as growing plant mate rial in a greenhouse using sanitary procedures, including inspections, can be useful to control Puccinia spp. in ornamental production . For example

, heat treatments can kill rust spores and eradicate the pathogen in plant material ; geranium rust (Puccinia pelargoni

- zonalis) can be eradicated by hot water treatment of cuttings, although damage to the host can occur 7 . For most rusts, water is necessary for infection, so overhead irrigation should be avoided. Infected leaves with teliospores should be removed, rapid composted, or buried to stop the life cycle, and prevent further infections. There are several fungicides that can be used to protect plants

from infection 7

.

Known host range:

Buxus spp. 4, 5

Action under NAPPRA:

The importation of Buxus spp. plants for planting, excluding seed but including cut flowers and greenery, hosts of Puccinia buxi

, is not authorized pen ding pest risk analysis (NAPPRA) from a ll countries except Canada

.References :

1. 7CFR § 319.37. 2011. Code of Federal Regulations, Ti tle 7, Part 319.37, (7 CFR §319

- Foreign quarantine notices: subpart

— Plants for Planting ). United States

Government.

2. Agriculture Quarantine Activity System Databases. 2011. Pest Identification Database (PestID).

3. Durrieu, G. (2001). More about box rust ( P uccinia buxi ). Mycologist, 15 (3), 144

- 145.

4. Farr, D.F., and Rossman, A.Y. 2011. Fungal Databases, Systematic Mycology and Microbiology Laboratory, ARS, USDA. Accessed March 5, 2012, online at

ht tp://nt.ars

- grin.gov/fungaldatabases/index.cfm

5. Germplasm Resources Information Network

- (GRIN) [Online Database]. USDA, ARS, National Genetic Resources Program. National Germplasm Resources Laboratory, Beltsville, Maryland. Last accessed March 5, 2012, o nline at http://www.ars

grin.gov/cgi

- bin/npgs/html/splist.pl?1826

6. Grove, W. B. (1913). The British rust fungi (Ure dinales): their biology and classification. Cambridge University Pres s, Cambridge.

7. Koike, S. T., Wilen, C. A.

, Raabe, R. D., McCain, A. H. and Grebus

, M. E. 2009. UC IPM Pest Management Guidelines: Floriculture and Ornamental Nurseries UC ANR
Publication 3392

8. Phytosanitary Alert System (PAS), NAPPO. 2006. Boxwood rust ( P uccinia buxi ) incident in Pennsylvania. Accessed March 5, 2012 online at http://www.pestalert.org/oprDetail.cfm?oprID=202

9. Preece, T. F. 2000. The strange story of box rust, Puccinia buxi , in Br itain. Mycologist, 14 (3), 104

- 106.

10. Wilson, M., and D. M. Henderson. (1966). British rust fungi. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

11. Yun, H.Y. Systematic Mycology and Microbiology Laboratory, ARS, USDA. Invasive Fungi. Box Rust or Boxwood Rust

- Pucci nia buxi . Retrieved March 5, 2012

, online

at http://nt.ars

- grin.gov/taxadescriptions/factsheets/index.cfm?thisapp=Pucciniabuxi