The Importation of Fresh Spinach [Spinacia oleracea 

Linnaeus] from Colombia into the Continental United States

A Pathway-Initiated Risk Assessment

December 2007

United States Department of Agriculture

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

Plant Protection and Quarantine

Center of Plant Health Science and Technology

Plant Epidemiology and Risk and Analysis Laboratory

1730 Varsity Drive, Suite 300

Raleigh, NC 27606
Spinach from Colombia

Rev. 02 December 4, 2007 ii

Executive Summary

The Republic of Colombia, South America requested the authorization to export fresh spinach 

(Spinacia oleracea L.) into the continental United States. A list of spinach pests in Colombia was 

prepared based on documentation submitted by the Agricultural and Rural Development Ministry 

of Colombia, the Instituto Colombiano Agropecario (ICA), and the USDA-APHIS-PPQ records 

on intercepted pests at ports of entry, scientific literature, and the opinions of experts in the field 

of spinach production. 

This pest risk assessment identified the following quarantine pests in the pathway:

Copitarsia incommoda Walker (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae)

Diabrotica speciosa (Germar) (Coleoptera: 

Chrysomelidae)

Liriomyza huidobrensis Blanchard (Diptera: Agromyzidae)

For these species, the ratings for the Consequences of Introduction, the Likelihood of

Introduction, and the overall Pest Risk Potential were estimated to be High. Specific 

phytosanitary measures are strongly recommended for pests rated High. Risk mitigation options

are described in Appendix 2 at the end of the risk assessment.
Spinach from Colombia

Rev. 02 December 4, 2007 iii

Table of Contents

I. Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1

II. Risk Assessment...................................................................................................................... 1

2.1 Initiating Event: Proposed Action.........................................................................................2

2.2 Assessment of Weed Potential of Spinacia oleracea L. .......................................................2

2.3 Current Status, Decision History and Pest Interceptions ......................................................3

2.4 Pest Categorization - Identification of Pests of Spinacia oleracea L. in Colombia..............3

2.5 Quarantine Pests Likely to Follow the Pathway .................................................................14

2.6 Consequences of Introduction.............................................................................................15

Copitarsia incommoda Walker ..............................................................................................15

Diabrotica speciosa (Germar)................................................................................................17

Liriomyza huidobrensis Blanchard.........................................................................................18

2.7 Likelihood of Introduction ...................................................................................................20

2.8 Pest Risk Potential and Conclusion.....................................................................................23

III. Literature Cited ....................................................................................................................... 24

IV. Preparers and Reviewers......................................................................................................... 30

Appendix 1. Port Information Network PIN (1985-2007) Interceptions on Spinacia oleracea .. 31

Appendix 2. Mitigation of Quarantine Pests of Spinach from Colombia .................................... 35
Spinach from Colombia

Rev.02 December 4, 2007 1

I. Introduction

This risk assessment was prepared by the Center for Phytosanitary Excellence (CEF) in Bogota, 

Colombia, the Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ), and the Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service (APHIS) of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). It was prepared in order to 

examine potential pest risks associated with the importation of fresh spinach (Spinacia oleracea L.) 

from Colombia into the continental United States. This pest risk assessment is called pathway-initiated 

because it is based on the risks that may be associated with the importation of this commodity. This 

risk assessment is qualitative; risk is expressed in the descriptive terms of High, Medium, and Low,

rather than probabilities or frequencies. The methodology and rating criteria are explained in PathwayInitiated Pest Risk Assessments: Guidelines for Qualitative Assessments, Version 5.02 (USDA, 2000).

International plant protection organizations, such as the North American Plant Protection Organization 

(NAPPO), the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) of the United Nations, and the Food 

and Agriculture Organization (FAO), provide guidance for conducting pest risk analyses. The methods 

used to initiate, conduct, and report this plant pest risk assessment are consistent with the guidelines 

provided by NAPPO and the IPPC. The use of biological and phytosanitary terms conforms to the 

Glossary of Phytosanitary Terms ISPM, No. 5 (IPPC, 2007b). The IPPC guidelines describe three 

stages of pest risk analysis: Stage 1 (initiation), Stage 2 (risk assessment), and Stage 3 (risk 

management) (IPPC, 2007a). This document satisfies the requirements of IPPC Stages 1 and 2.

The plant Spinacia oleracea L. (Class: Dicotyledonae, Order: Caryophyllales, Family: 

Chenopodiaceae) is not known in a wild state. Spinach is believed to be native to the Middle East in the 

general area of Iran, Afghanistan, and Turkmenistan (CAB International, 2006; Hochmuth et al., 2003; 

and Perez, 1990). It is closely related to beets (Beta vulgaris L ). While originiated in a warm climate, 

it is grown in temperate and cool tropical areas to prevent bolting (the rapid growth of the seed stalk) 

which makes the spinach unmarketable (CAB International, 2006).

Spinach is a dicotyledonous annual with a tap-root that extends 15-25 cm into the soil (Mills, 2001). 

The leaves are hairless, broad, and tender. They may be wrinkled (Savoy), smooth (flat), or in-between 

(Semi-Savoy). Savoy types are primarily used for fresh market purposes, while smooth types are 

preferable for processing. Semi-savoy types are grown for either market (LeStrange et al., 2004). The 

first growth stage is vegetative which is followed by a rosette stage. Spinach leaves are harvested 

during the rosette stage at 30-45 days (Mills, 2001). 

After harvest, the leaves should be stored at 0 C and 95-100% Rel. Hum.( Mills, 2001). Spinach can 

last 10-14 days in storage before it becomes marketable(Mills, 2001). It is frequently packed in plastic 

bags to prevent injury. The average yield of spinach in Colombia for the year 2002 was 15 ton/ha and 

the production was 1,600 tons in 262 acres (Ministerio de Agricultura y Desarrollo Rural, 2003).

II. Risk Assessment

This pest risk assessment identifies the initiating event, a weediness screening, and discussion of the 

decision history. The pests reported as attacking spinach in Colombia were identified and 

characterized. The quarantine pests likely to follow the pathway were then analyzed. For this 

assessment, the first five Risk Elements considered are combined to form an assessment of the risk 
Spinach from Colombia

Rev.02 December 4, 2007 2

associated with the Consequences of Introduction. Six Sub-Elements were evaluated and combined to 

create a value that estimates the risk associated with the Likelihood of Introduction. Together, the 

Consequences of Introduction and the Likelihood of Introduction values form an evaluation of the Pest 

Risk Potential.

2.1 Initiating Event: Proposed Action

This commodity-based, pathway-initiated assessment is in response to a request made by the Instituto 

Colombiano Agropecario (ICA) (letter No. 04840 dated June 3, 2003) to the USDA for authorization to 

allow imports of spinach. In this case, the importation to all ports into the continental United States of 

fresh spinach, grown in Colombia, is not authorized and is a potential pathway for introduction of 

exotic plant pests. Title 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations 319, Part 56 (7 CFR § 319.56) provides 

regulatory authority for the importation of fruits and vegetables from foreign sources into the United 

States.

2.2 Assessment of Weed Potential of Spinacia oleracea L.

The results of the weed screening for spinach did not prompt a weed-initiated risk assessment (Table 

1).

Table 1. Assessment of Weed Potential of Spinacia oleracea L.

Commodity:

 Scientific name and author: Spinacia oleracea Linnaeus.

 Plant family: Chenopodiaceae

 Common name: Spinach (English), Espinaca (Spanish)

Phase 1:

Spinach was introduced to the United States from another country. The species, Spinacia 

oleracea, is widely prevalent in the United States, as it is cultivated in 18 states (USDA and 

NRCS, 2002).

Phase 2:

Is the species listed in:

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

NO World’s Worst Weeds (Holm et al., 1991a).

NO Report of the Technical Committee to Evaluate Noxious Weeds; Exotic Weeds

 for the Federal Noxious Weed Act (APHIS – USDA, 2000).

NO Economically Important Foreign Weeds (Reed, 1977).

NO Composite List of Weeds (WSSA. 2006).

NO AGRIS (AGRIS/CARIS, 2004); AGRICOLA (NAL, 2004)

NO Crop Protection Compendium (CAB International, 2006).

Other literature and database search indicating weediness:

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

NO World Economic Plants (Wiersema and León, 1999).

NO Florida's Invasive Species List, Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council (FLEPPC, 2001).

Phase 3:

A weed-initiated risk assessment is not needed for S. oleracea because this plant does not 

exhibit invasive behaviour according to literature searches.
Spinach from Colombia

Rev.02 December 4, 2007 3

2.3 Current Status, Decision History and Pest Interceptions 

Several countries have requested the ability to import spinach into the United States. Only France has 

ever been denied the entry into the U.S. for spinach, due to the presence of an exotic rust. All enterable 

spinach is subject to inspection for pests and soil. Only Nigerian is restricted to any specific port 

(North Atlantic) in the continental U.S.

Table 2. Prior Decisions the United States Has Made Regarding Requests to Import 

Spinacia oleracea

Year Country Decision Reasons / Conditions

1926 Cuba Approved No interceptions of pests on spinach from Cuba

1926 Mexico Approved No pest interceptions related to spinach

1939 Netherlands Approved No record of injurious insects attacking spinach

1947 Bahamas Approved No record of any exotic spinach pests

1952 West Indies Approved No significant pest interceptions on spinach

1967 Korea Approved No significant pest interceptions on spinach

1967 Japan Approved No significant pest interceptions on spinach

1972 France Denied The presence of an exotic rust (Puccinia isiacae

(Thuem))

1974 Nigeria Approved No significant pest interceptions or literature on Spinach

Restricted to north Atlantic ports only1

1981 Trinidad Approved No significant pests recorded 

1999 Nicaragua Approved No significant pests recorded

Currently, spinach is authorized to enter all U.S. ports from the following countries: Belgium, Belize, 

Bermuda, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Japan, Korea, Mexico, 

Netherlands, Nicaragua, Panama and Surinam. Nigeria imports are only authorized to enter through 

North Atlantic ports (USDA, 2002a).

Pest species intercepted between 1985-2007 on spinach entering the U.S. are listed in the Appendix 1..

2.4 Pest Categorization - Identification of Pests of Spinacia oleracea L. in Colombia

Table 3 presents information about the geographic distribution, host associations and regulatory data 

for spinach from Colombia. The table includes (1) the presence of pests in Colombia relative to their 

presence in the United States, (2) the generally affected plant part or parts, (3) the quarantine status of 

the pest in the United States, (4) whether the pest is likely to follow the pathway into the United States 

on spinach, and (5) pertinent citations for either the distribution or the biology of the pest. Many 

organisms are not sources of phytosanitary risk on spinach from Colombia because they do not satisfy 

the definition of a quarantine pest (IPPC, 2007a). A quarantine pest is defined as, “a pest of potential 

economic importance to the area endangered thereby and not yet present there, or present but not 

widely distributed and being officially controlled” (IPPC, 2007a).
Spinach from Colombia

Rev.02 December 4, 2007 4

Table 3: Pests of Spinacia oleracea L. in Colombia

Pest Scientific Name

and Taxonomic 

Classification

Geographic 

Distribution 1 Plant Part 

Affected 2

Quarantine 

Pest

Follow 

Pathway References

Arthropods

Agromyzidae, species of

(Diptera)

CO L 5 Yes Yes AQAS, 2007

Agrotis ipsilon 

(Hufnagel)

(Lepidoptera: Noctuidae)

CO, US L, S No Yes Arnett, 2000; 

CAB 

International, 

2006; 

Figueroa, 

1977; Posada, 

1989; 

Santiago, 2000

Agrotis spp.

(Lepidoptera: Noctuidae)

CO L, S, Sd Yes Yes Arnett, 2000; 

Figueroa, 

1977; 

Sigueñas, 1995

Anasa sp.

(Hemiptera: Coreidae)

CO L Yes Yes Arnett, 2000; 

Brailovsky, 

1985; Neartica, 

1998; Posada, 

1989

Anthomyiidae, species of 4

(Diptera)

CO L, R, S 5 Yes Yes AQAS, 2007

Aphididae, species of

(Homoptera)

CO L 5 Yes Yes AQAS, 2007

Aphis gossypii

Glover

(Homoptera: Aphididae)

CO, US Fl, L, S, Sh No No Arnett, 2000; 

Bustillo and 

Sanchez, 1977;

Figueroa, 

1977; CAB 

International, 

2006; Posada, 

1989

Aphis sp. 4

(Homoptera: Aphididae)

CO Fl, L, S 5 Yes Yes Arnett, 2000,

AQAS, 2007; 

Santiago, 2000

Brachycerinae, species of 4

(Coleoptera: Curculionidae)

CO L, S 5 Yes Yes AQAS, 2007

Bryobia praetiosa Koch

(Acari: Tetranychidae)

CO, US L No No Bolland et al., 

1998

Cercopidae, species of 4

(Homoptera)

CO Fl, L, S 5 Yes Yes AQAS, 2007
Spinach from Colombia

Rev.02 December 4, 2007 5

Table 3: Pests of Spinacia oleracea L. in Colombia

Pest Scientific Name

and Taxonomic 

Classification

Geographic 

Distribution 1 Plant Part 

Affected 2

Quarantine 

Pest

Follow 

Pathway References

Chrysodeixis includens

(Walker)

(Lepidoptera: Noctuidae)

CO, US F, Fl, L No Yes CAB 

International, 

2006; 

Robinson et 

al., 2007

Chrysomelidae, species of 4

(Coleoptera)

CO Fl, L, S 5 Yes Yes AQAS, 2007

Cicadellidae, species of 4

(Homoptera)

CO F, Fl, L, S 5 Yes Yes AQAS, 2007

Coccidae, species of 4

(Homoptera)

CO Fl, L, S 5 Yes Yes AQAS, 2007

Conotrachelus sp. 4

(Coleoptera: Curculionidae)

CO Fl, L, S, Se 5 Yes Yes AQAS, 2007; 

Poole and 

Gentili, 1996a; 

Posada, 1989

Copitarsia sp.

(Lepidoptera: Noctuidae)

CO L Yes Yes AQAS, 2007

Copitarsia incommoda

Walker

[Syn: Copitarsia consueta

(Walker)]

(Lepidoptera: Noctuidae)

CO, MX L Yes Yes Bautista et al., 

2003; Rojas et 

al., 1993; 

Santiago, 2000

Coreidae, species of 4

(Hemiptera)

CO Fl, L, S 5 Yes Yes AQAS, 2007

Crambidae, species of 4

(Lepidoptera)

CO Fl, L, S 5 Yes Yes AQAS, 2007

Curculionidae, species of 4

(Coleoptera)

CO Fl, L, R, S 5 Yes Yes AQAS, 2007

Delia sp.

(Diptera: Anthomyiidae)

CO R, S Yes Yes Arnett, 2000; 

Martínez et al., 

1999; 

Santiago, 2000

Delia platura

(Meigen)

(Diptera: Anthomyiidae)

CO, US Fl, L, S, Sh No No CAB 

International, 

2006; Mau and 

Kessing, 2004

Diabrotica sp. 4 

(Coleoptera: 

Chrysomelidae)

CO Fl, L, S 5 Yes Yes Arnett, 2000; 

AQAS, 2007, 

Poole and 

Gentili, 1996

Diabrotica speciosa

(Germar)

(Coleoptera: 

Chrysomelidae)

CO R, L, S, Fl, 

F

Yes Yes4 CAB 

International, 

2006; Walsh, 

2003
Spinach from Colombia

Rev.02 December 4, 2007 6

Table 3: Pests of Spinacia oleracea L. in Colombia

Pest Scientific Name

and Taxonomic 

Classification

Geographic 

Distribution 1 Plant Part 

Affected 2

Quarantine 

Pest

Follow 

Pathway References

Diaprepes sp. 4

(Coleoptera: Curculionidae)

CO Fl, L, S 5 Yes Yes AQAS, 2007; 

Poole and 

Gentili, 1996

Diaspididae, species of 4

(Homoptera)

CO Fl, L, S 5 Yes Yes AQAS, 2007

Disonycha sp. 4

(Coleoptera: 

Chrysomelidae)

CO Fl, L, S 5 Yes Yes AQAS, 2007; 

Poole and 

Gentili, 1996

Feltia spp.

(Lepidoptera: Noctuidae)

CO L, S, Sd Yes Yes Arnett, 2000; 

Sigueñas, 1995

Frankliniella sp. 4 

(Thysanoptera: Thripidae)

CO Fl, L, S 5 Yes Yes AQAS, 2007

Gelechiidae, species of 4

(Lepidoptera)

CO Fl, L, R 5 Yes Yes AQAS, 2007

Geometridae, species of 4

(Lepidoptera)

CO Fl, L, S 5 Yes Yes AQAS, 2007

Gracillariidae, species of 4

(Lepidoptera)

CO Fl, L, S 5 Yes Yes AQAS, 2007

Gryllidae, species of 4

(Orthoptera)

CO Fl, L, S, R 5 Yes Yes AQAS, 2007

Helicoverpa zea (Boddie)

(Lepidoptera: Noctuidae)

CO, US F, Fl, L, Sd No Yes CAB 

International, 

2006; 

Robinson et 

al., 2004

Hellula phidilealis (Walker)

(Lepidoptera: Crambidae)

CO, US L, S No No7 CAB 

International, 

2006; 

Robinson et 

al., 2004

Hypothenemus sp. 4

(Coleoptera: Curculionidae)

CO Fl, L, S 5 Yes Yes Atkinson and 

Peck, 1994; 

Figueroa, 

1977; AQAS,

2007

Isonychus sp. 4

(Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae)

CO Fl, L, S 5 Yes Yes AQAS, 2007

Leucinodes sp. 4

(Lepidoptera: Pyralidae)

CO F 5 Yes No AQAS, 2007
Spinach from Colombia

Rev.02 December 4, 2007 7

Table 3: Pests of Spinacia oleracea L. in Colombia

Pest Scientific Name

and Taxonomic 

Classification

Geographic 

Distribution 1 Plant Part 

Affected 2

Quarantine 

Pest

Follow 

Pathway References

Liriomyza huidobrensis

(Blanchard)

(Diptera: Agromyzidae)

CO, US L Yes 6 Yes Arnett, 2000; 

CAB 

International, 

2006; 

Figueroa, 

1977; Posada, 

1989; 

Santiago, 

2000; 

Sigueñas, 1995

Liriomyza sativae 

Blanchard

(Diptera: Agromyzidae)

CO, US L No Yes CAB 

International, 

2006;

Figueroa, 

1977; Posada, 

1989

Liriomyza trifolii

Burgess in Comstock

(Diptera: Agromyzidae)

CO, US L No Yes CAB 

International, 

2006; Posada, 

1989

Listroderes sp. 4

(Coleoptera: Curculionidae)

CO Fl, L, S 5 Yes Yes AQAS, 2007

Macrosiphum euphorbiae

(Thomas)

(Homoptera: Aphididae)

CO, US L No Yes CAB 

International, 

2006; Posada, 

1989

Margarodidae, species of 4

(Homoptera)

CO Fl, L, S 5 Yes Yes AQAS, 2007

Miridae, species of 4 

(Hemiptera)

CO Fl, L, S 5 Yes Yes AQAS, 2007

Myochrous sp. 4

(Coleoptera: 

Chrysomelidae)

CO L 5 Yes Yes AQAS, 2007

Myzus persicae 

(Sulzer)

(Homoptera: Aphididae)

CO, US Fl, L, S, Sh No No Arnett, 2000; 

Bustillo and 

Sanchez, 1977; 

CAB 

International, 

2006; 

Figueroa, 

1977; Posada, 

1989; 

Santiago, 

2000;
Spinach from Colombia

Rev.02 December 4, 2007 8

Table 3: Pests of Spinacia oleracea L. in Colombia

Pest Scientific Name

and Taxonomic 

Classification

Geographic 

Distribution 1 Plant Part 

Affected 2

Quarantine 

Pest

Follow 

Pathway References

Noctuidae, species of

(Lepidoptera)

CO L Yes Yes AQAS, 2007

Nysius sp. 4 

(Hemiptera: Lygaeidae)

CO Fl, L, S, Se 5 Yes Yes Neartica, 1998; 

AQAS, 2007

Olethreutinae, species of 4

(Lepidoptera)

CO Fl, L, S, Se 5 Yes Yes AQAS, 2007

Orthezia sp. 4

(Homoptera: Ortheziidae)

CO L, S 5 Yes Yes Neartica, 1998; 

AQAS, 2007

Ortheziidae, species of 4

(Homoptera)

CO L, S 5 Yes Yes AQAS, 2007

Pentatomidae, species of 4

(Hemiptera)

CO Fl, L, S 5 Yes Yes AQAS, 2007

Peridroma saucia 

(Hübner)

Lepidoptera: Noctuidae

CO, US Fl, L, S, Sh No No Arnett, 2000;

CAB 

International, 

2006; Poole 

and Gentili, 

1996c

Pheidole sp. 4

(Hymenoptera: Formicidae)

CO Fl, L, S 5 Yes Yes Poole and 

Gentili, 1996b;

AQAS, 2007

Phlaeothripidae, species of 

4

(Thysanoptera)

CO Fl, L, S 5 Yes Yes AQAS, 2007

Pieridae, species of 4

(Lepidoptera)

CO L 5 Yes Yes AQAS, 2007

Plutella xylostella Linnaeus

(Lepidoptera: 

Yponomeutidae)

CO, US No No7 CAB 

International, 

2006; 

Robinson et 

al., 2007

Plusiinae, species of 4

(Lepidoptera)

CO Fl, L, S 5 Yes Yes AQAS, 2007

Pseudococcidae, species of 

4

(Homoptera)

CO Fl, L, S, Se 5 Yes Yes AQAS, 2007

Psyllidae, species of 4

(Homoptera)

CO Fl, L, S 5 Yes Yes AQAS, 2007

Pyralidae, species of 4

(Lepidoptera)

CO Fl, L, S, Se 5 Yes Yes Neartica, 1998;

AQAS, 2007

Pyrausta sp. 4 

(Lepidoptera: Pyralidae)

CO L 5 Yes Yes AQAS, 2007
Spinach from Colombia

Rev.02 December 4, 2007 9

Table 3: Pests of Spinacia oleracea L. in Colombia

Pest Scientific Name

and Taxonomic 

Classification

Geographic 

Distribution 1 Plant Part 

Affected 2

Quarantine 

Pest

Follow 

Pathway References

Rhinacloa sp. 4 

(Hemiptera: Miridae)

CO Fl, L, S 5 Yes Yes AQAS, 2007

Saissetia coffeae (Walker)

(Hemiptera: Coccidae)

CO, U.S N/A No N/A Ben-Dov et al., 

2001

Spodoptera frugiperda

J.E. Smith

(Lepidoptera: Noctuidae)

CO, US Fl, L, S No Yes Arnett, 2000; 

CAB 

International, 

2006; 

Figueroa, 

1977; Gallego 

and Vélez, 

1992; Posada, 

1989

Spodoptera sp. 4 

(Lepidoptera: Noctuidae)

CO Fl, L, S 5 Yes Yes AQAS, 2007; 

Posada, 1989

Spoladea recurvalis 

(Fabricius)

(Lepidoptera: Pyralidae)

CO, US Fl, L, R, Sh No Yes CAB 

International, 

2006; Perez, 

2003

Systena sp. 4 

(Coleoptera: 

Chrysomelidae)

CO Fl, L, S 5 Yes Yes AQAS, 2007

Tetranychus sp.

(Acari: Tetranichidae)

CO L Yes Yes Posada, 1989; 

Santiago, 

2000;

Tetranychus cinnabarinus

(Boisduval)

(Acari: Tetranichidae)

CO, US L No No CAB 

International, 

2006; Mau 

and Kessing, 

2004; Posada, 

1989

Tetranychus ludeni Zaher

(Acari: Tetranichidae)

CO, US L No No Bolland et al.,

1998

Tetranychus urticae Koch

(Acari: Tetranichidae)

CO, US L No No Bolland et al.,

1998

Tephritidae, species of 4

(Diptera)

CO F 5 Yes No AQAS, 2007

Thripidae, species of 4

(Thysanoptera)

CO Fl, L, S 5 Yes Yes AQAS, 2007

Trichoplusia ni 

(Hübner)

(Lepidoptera: Noctuidae)

CO, US L No Yes CAB 

International, 

2006; Mau and 

Kessing, 2004
Spinach from Colombia

Rev.02 December 4, 2007 10

Table 3: Pests of Spinacia oleracea L. in Colombia

Pest Scientific Name

and Taxonomic 

Classification

Geographic 

Distribution 1 Plant Part 

Affected 2

Quarantine 

Pest

Follow 

Pathway References

Bacteria

Rhodococcus fascians 

(Tilford) Goodfellow

(Actinomycetales)

CO, US L, S No Yes CAB 

International, 

2006; Euzéby, 

2004

Fungi 3

Alternaria sp.

Ness

(Mitosporic Fungi: 

Hyphomycetes)

CO F, L Yes Yes Alfieri et al.

1994; Buriticá, 

1999; 

Santiago, 2000

Cercospora sp

(Mitosporic Fungi: 

Hyphomycetes)

CO Fl, L, S 5 Yes Yes Caicedo and 

Ruiz, 1995; 

Farr et al.,

1989

Cercospora beticola

Sacc 

(Mitosporic Fungi:

Hyphomycetes)

CO, U.S. N/A No N/A Alfieri et al.

1994; CAB 

International, 

2006; Farr et 

al., 1989

Choanephora 

cucurbitarum (Berk. & 

Ravenel) Thaxt.

(Zygomycetes: Mucorales)

CO, U.S. N/A No N/A Alfieri et al.

1994; CAB 

International, 

2006; Farr et 

al., 1989

Cladosporium sp.

(Mitosporic Fungi: 

Hyphomycetes)

CO L Yes Yes Alfieri et al.,

1994; Buriticá, 

1999; Farr et 

al., 1989; 

Santiago, 2000

Cladosporium variabile 

( Cooke) de Vries

[Synonym:

Heterosporum variabile 

Cooke]

CO, U.S. N/A No N/A CAB 

International, 

2006

Fusarium oxysproum

Schlechtend.:Fr.f.sp. 

spinaciae Anamorph, 

Gibberella sp. 

[Sordariomycetes, 

Hypocreales],

CO, U.S. N/A No N/A CAB 

International, 

2006

Olpidium brassicae 

(Woronin) P.A. Dang.

(Chytridiomycetes: 

Chytridiales)

CO, U.S. N/A No N/A Farr et al.,

1989; CAB 

International, 

2006;
Spinach from Colombia

Rev.02 December 4, 2007 11

Table 3: Pests of Spinacia oleracea L. in Colombia

Pest Scientific Name

and Taxonomic 

Classification

Geographic 

Distribution 1 Plant Part 

Affected 2

Quarantine 

Pest

Follow 

Pathway References

Peronospora farinose f.sp

spinacia Byford

[Synonym: Pernospora 

effuse (Grave) Rabenh. 

[Oomycetes; 

Peronosporales]

CO, U.S. N/A No N/A Buriticá, 1999; 

Farr et al.,

1989; 

Santiago, 

2000; 

Sigueñas, 1995

Peronospora sp.

(Oomycetes: 

Peronosporales)

CO L Yes Yes Alfieri et al.,

1994; Caicedo 

and Ruiz, 

1995; Farr et 

al., 1989

Phoma sp. 

(Mitosporic Fungi: 

Coelomycetes)

CO Fl, L, R, S 5 Yes Yes Alfieri et al.

1994; Caicedo 

and Ruiz, 

1995; Farr et 

al., 1989

Phoma spinaciae Bubak 

&Krieg

Anamorph:

Pleospora betae (Berl.) 

Nevodovsky

[Dothideomycetes, 

Pleosporales]

[Synonym:

Phoma betae A.B.Frank 

(Dothideomycetes, 

Pleosporales)

CO , U.S. N/A No N/A Buritica, 1999

CAB 

International, 

2006

Pythium sp.

(Mitosporic Fungi: 

Oomycetes)

CO R, Sd Yes Yes Alfieri et al.,

1994; Buriticá, 

1999; Caicedo 

and Ruiz, 

1995; Farr et 

al., 1989

Pythium aphanidermatum 

Edson (Fitz.) [Oomycetes

Peronsporales]

CO, U.S. N/A No N/A CAB 

International, 

2006, Farr et 

al, 2006

Rhizoctonia solani Kuhn; 

Teleomorph:Thanatephorus 

cucmeris (A.B. Frank) Donk 

[Basidiomycetes, 

Corticiales]

CO, U.S. N/A No N/A CAB 

International, 

2006
Spinach from Colombia

Rev.02 December 4, 2007 12

Table 3: Pests of Spinacia oleracea L. in Colombia

Pest Scientific Name

and Taxonomic 

Classification

Geographic 

Distribution 1 Plant Part 

Affected 2

Quarantine 

Pest

Follow 

Pathway References

Sclerotinia sclerotiorum

(Lib.) de Bary

(Discomycetes: Helotiales)

CO, U.S. N/A No N/A Alfieri et al.,

1994;

Buriticá, 1999; 

Farr et al.,

1989

Sclerotinia sp.

(Discomycetes: Helotiales)

CO L, S Yes Yes Alfieri et al.,

1994; Caicedo 

and Ruiz, 

1995; Farr et 

al., 1989

Molluscs

Deroceras sp.

(Limacidae)

CO L, S Yes Yes CAB 

International, 

2006; 

Santiago, 

2000;

Helix aspersa 4

Muller

[Syn: Cryptomphalus 

aspersus

4

(Muller)]

(Helicidae)

CO, U.S. Fl, L, S 5 No Yes CAB 

International, 

2006; AQAS, 

2007

Milax gagatex

(Draparnaud)

(Milacidae)

CO, U.S. L, S No Yes Fernández, 

1982; 

Santiago, 

2000;

Veronicella sloanei

(Cuvier)

(Veronicellidae)

CO8, U.S.8 Yes No8 Thome et al., 

1997

Nematodes 

Ditylenchus dipsaci (Kühn) 

Filip'ev

CO, U.S. L, S, Bl No Yes? CAB 

International, 

2006; 

Diekmann, 

1997

Helicotylenchus dihystera 

(Cobb) Sher

(Hoplolaimidae)

CO, U.S. R No No Baujard. and 

Martiny. 1995; 

CAB 

International, 

2006

Phytoplasm

aster yellows phytoplasma 

group 

CO, U.S. N/A No N/A CAB 

International,

2006
Spinach from Colombia

Rev.02 December 4, 2007 13

Table 3: Pests of Spinacia oleracea L. in Colombia

Pest Scientific Name

and Taxonomic 

Classification

Geographic 

Distribution 1 Plant Part 

Affected 2

Quarantine 

Pest

Follow 

Pathway References

Virus

Beet western yellows 

luteovirus

Luteoviridae

U.S., CO 

(Brunt et al., 

1996 )

N/A No N/A Brunt et al., 

1996 

Cucumber mosaic 

cucumovirus

CMV

(Bromoviridae)

CO, U.S. N/A No N/A Alfieri et al.,

1994; Brunt et 

al., 1996; CAB 

International, 

2006

Potato T trichovirus

(Flexiviridae)

CO9 L , Se, S, R Yes Yes Brunt et al., 

1996 

Potato U nepovirus

(Comoviridae)

PE10 R, L, Se, S Yes Yes11 Brunt et al., 

1996 

1 Geographic Distribution: CO = Colombia,, US = United States. 2 Branch= B, Flower= Fl, Fruit= F, Leaf= L, Peduncle= P, Root= R, Seeds= Se, Seedling= Sd, Shoot= Sh, Stem= S, 

Tuber= T, Bulb=Bl.. 3 Biological hazards associated with organisms not identified to the species level are not assessed because often there are 

many species within a genus, and we cannot know if the unidentified species occurs in the United States and, consequently, 

whether it meets the definition of a quarantine pest for the United States. This is not the case if the entire genus (or higher 

order taxonomic groupin) is absent from the US in which case the quarantine classification would apply In this risk 

assessment, the above statement applies to the fungi Alternaria sp., Cercospora sp., Cladosproium sp.., Pernospora sp., 

Phoma sp., Pythium sp., and Sclerotinia sp. All eleven genera are known to occur in the United States (Farr et al., 2006). 

The inability to specifically identify these specimens may indicate limits of current taxonomic knowledge, the life stage, or 

the quality of the specimen submitted for identification. By necessity, pest risk assessments focus on organisms for which 

biological information is available. Lack of specific identification does not rule out the possibility that a high risk 

quarantine pest was intercepted. Conversely, the development of detailed assessments for known pests that inhabit a variety 

of ecological niches, allow effective mitigation measures to eliminate the known organisms as well as similar but 

incompletely identified organisms that inhabit the same niche. If pests identified to higher taxa are intercepted in the future, 

then a reevaluation of their risk may occur.

4 This pest was intercepted or reported on spinach from other countries other than Colombia; it was also intercepted on other 

fresh products other than spinach from Colombia (AQAS, 2007). 5 Affected plant part(s) correspond to the record in AQAS (2007) on other products from Colombia other than from spinach. 6 This pest is present in California, which is the only place of its existence within the continental United States (CAB 

International, 2006). Preliminary studies by Scheffer (Scheffer, 2000; Scheffer et al., 2001; Scheffer, 2004) suggest that the 

records on Liriomyza huidobrensis Blanchard within the U.S. really refer to Liriomyza langei Frick (that is a cryptic species 

within the Liriomyza huidobrensis). This pest is considered to be a quarantine pest because it is present in only one State of

the continental United States (Reitz, 2004) and is being reviewed as part of official control plans 7 Hellula phidilealis (Walker) listed in Robinson et al. (2007) as intercepted at a USA port on Spinacia oleracea. There are no 

more records of association with this host. Known hosts include plants from the family Cruciferae 8 Restricted distribution: Colombia - Isla de Providencia, United States: Massachusetts (Thome et al., 1997). 9 Potato T trichovirus has been detected in Peru and Bolivia and probably occurs throughout the Andes, including Colombia

(EPPO/OEPPO, 2007). The virus has a broad host range that includes many native Solanaceae (Lizarraga et al., 2000) 

species, native Chenopodaceae (Brunt et al., 1996 ) species and spinach (Spinacea oleracea L.) (Brunt et al., 1996 ). The 

virus is transmitted by grafting, seed, and pollen. It is not transmitted by direct contact between plants (Brunt et al., 1996 ). 

Although the precise nature of the infection in spinach is not known, the infection is systemic in other Chenopodiaceae 

which suggests that it could follow the pathway to the United States. Spinach leaves are washed prior to shipment (2007) 

which removes pollen and attached seeds. Also, the shipments should be inspected to prevent contamination by seeds from 

other plants, whether weeds or volunteers, since they may carry the virus. These treatments should remove the potential for
Spinach from Colombia

Rev.02 December 4, 2007 14

the virus to be vectored by a nematode or dispersed by seed, upon arrival in United States. Inspection at Points-of-Entry 

(POE) should verify that any seed, including non-Federal Noxious Weeds species, is absent from the shipments. If these 

procedures are followed, the potential for the virus to disperse in United States is minimal and no further analysis is 

required. However, if seeds or soils are found to be present in shipments of spinach, then there is a potential for dispersal 

and the risk of this commodity entering the United States should be reevaluated.

10 The known distribution of both Potato U virus includes the neighboring country of Peru. Based on the host range that 

includes Solanum tuberosum and Chenopodium quinoa, there is a reasonable suspicion that both pathogens exist 

throughout the Andes, including Colombia(EPPO/OEPPO, 2007) . In addition, spinach has not been cultivated on a large 

scale in the Andes. Thus, there may be other viruses with broad host ranges in the Solanaceae and Chenopodiaceae may be 

able to infect spinach when they are challenged by the virus for the first time. One potential spinach pathogen is Potato 

Ringspot nepovirus (Brunt et al., 1996 ). 11 Potato U nepovirus has been identified in the Andean regions of Peru and Bolivia (Brunt et al., 1996 ) and is likely to be 

present in the Andean region of Colombia in both Solanaceae (Jones, 1983)and Chenopodiaceae (Jones, 1983) species. The 

cultivation of spinach (Spinacea oleracea L.) in the same areas as other hosts for the virus combined with sandy soils 

(Castro, 2003, Selvaradjou et al., 2005, Volveras et al., 2007) that facilitate the vectoring of the virus by an unknown 

Longidorus sp. (Jones, 1983) suggests that spinach in Colombia could be infected. Since the virus is systemic (i.e. found 

throughout the plant) in spinach (Jones, 1983), it is likely to be present in the leaves that would be imported into the United 

States (thus, it follows the pathway). The virus is spread by the nematode vector, grafting, and seed but not direct contact 

between plants (Jones, 1983). Spinach leaves are washed prior to shipment (2007) which removes nematode laden soil and 

attached seeds. Also, the shipments should be inspected to prevent contamination by seeds from other plants, whether 

weeds or volunteers, since they may carry the virus. These treatments should remove the potential for the virus to be 

vectored by a nematode or dispersed by seed, upon arrival in United States. Inspection at Points-of-Entry (POE) should 

verify that any seed, including non-Federal Noxious Weeds species, is absent from the shipments. If these procedures are 

followed, the potential for the virus to disperse in United States is minimal and no further analysis is required. However, if 

seeds or soils are found to be present in shipments of spinach, then there is a potential for dispersal and the risk of this 

commodity entering the United States should be reevaluated.

2.5 Quarantine Pests Likely to Follow the Pathway

Quarantine pests that would reasonably be expected to follow the pathway, i.e., be included in 

commercial shipments of spinach (Table 4), will be analyzed in detail in this risk assessment [Steps 5-7 

(USDA, 2000)].

Table 4. Quarantine Pests Likely to Follow the Pathway and Selected for 

Further Analysis

Copitarsia incommoda Walker (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae)

Liriomyza huidobrensis Blanchard (Diptera: Agromyzidae)

Diabrotica speciosa (Germar) (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae)

Other quarantine plant pests in this assessment that were not chosen for further scrutiny, may be 

potentially detrimental to the agricultural production systems of the United States. These pests were 

not subjected to further analysis because organisms identified only to the genus or less detailed

taxonomic level are not analyzed further, even though individual species within those taxonomic 

groups are potential pests that may or may not occur within the United States. The IPPC guidelines do 

not require risk assessment of pests identified only by genus name (IPPC, 2007a). By necessity, pest 

risk assessments focus on those organisms for which adequate biological and taxonomic information is 

available. Often there are many species within a genus, and it is not reasonable to assume that the 

biology of all organisms within a genus is identical. The lack of species identification may indicate the 

limits of current taxonomic knowledge, the life stage or the quality of the specimen submitted for 
Spinach from Colombia

Rev.02 December 4, 2007 15

identification. The lack of identification at the specific level does not rule out the possibility that either 

a high-risk quarantine pest was intercepted or that the intercepted pest was not a quarantine pest.

Pests for spinach that are likely to follow the pathway, but reported only at the genus or less detailed

taxonomic level that already occur in the United States are included in Table 3, but not further analyzed 

in this risk assessment, including arthropods: Agromyzidae, spp., Agrotis spp., Anasa sp., 

Anthomyiidae, spp., Aphididae, spp., Aphis sp., Brachycerinae, spp., Cercopidae, spp., Chrysomelidae, 

spp., Cicadellidae, spp., Coccidae, spp., Conotrachelus sp., Coreidae, spp., Crambidae, spp., 

Curculionidae, spp., Delia sp., Diabrotica sp., Diaprepes sp., Diaspididae, spp., Disonycha sp., Feltia 

spp., Frankliniella sp., Gelechiidae, spp., Geometridae, spp., Gracillariidae, spp., Gryllidae, spp., 

Hypothenemus sp., Isonychus sp., Leucinodes sp., Listroderes sp., Margarodidae, spp., Miridae, spp., 

Myochrous sp., Noctuidae, spp., Nysius sp., Olethreutinae, spp., Orthezia sp., Ortheziidae, spp., 

Pentatomidae, spp., Pheidole sp., Phlaeothripidae, spp., Pieridae, spp., Plusiinae, spp., Pseudococcidae, 

spp., Psyllidae, spp., Pyralidae, spp., Pyrausta sp., Rhinacloa sp., Spodoptera sp., Systena sp., 

Tephritidae, spp., Tetranychus sp., Thripidae, spp.; the fungi: Alternaria sp., Ascochyta sp., Cercospora

sp., Cladosporium sp., Colletotrichum sp., Fusarium sp., Peronospora sp., Phoma sp., Pythium sp., 

Rhizoctonia sp., Sclerotinia sp.; and the mollusk, Deroceras sp.

The lack of biological information on any given organism should not be equated with low risk, since 

vague taxonomic identifications can hide the occurrence of known or unknown quarantine pests. If the 

pests identified in this risk assessment at a genus, family, or order level are intercepted on spinach from 

Colombia in the future, their species specific determination should follow. Quarantine action can be 

taken where appropriate and a re-evaluation of their risk may be necessary. The analyses of Copitarsia 

incommoda and Diabrotica speciosa reasonably encompass the Copitarsia and Diabrotica species 

identified only to the genus level.

2.6 Consequences of Introduction

For each of the quarantine pests listed in Table 4, the potential Consequences of Introduction are rated 

using five Risk Elements: Climate-Host Interaction, Host Range, Dispersal Potential, Economic Impact 

and Environmental Impact. For each Risk Element, pests are assigned a rating of Low (1 point), 

Medium (2 points) or High (3 points). A Cumulative Risk Rating is then calculated by summing all 

Risk Element values. The values determined for the Consequences of Introduction for each pest are 

summarized in Table 5.

Copitarsia incommoda Walker 

Copitarsia consueta was found to be a taxonomically invalid name and designated a replacement name of 

C. incommoda. (Angulo and Olivares, 2003; Gould et al., 2000; Simmons and Pogue, 2004).

Risk Element #1: Climate - Host Interaction

Laboratory studies have indicated that C. incommoda is capable of completing its life-cycle between 9 

and 34 C (Gould et al, 2005). The development time is longer at lower temperatures (9-14 C) and 

decreases with increasing temperature until 34 C (Gould et al, 2005). The developmental time required 

for an egg to mature to an adult at 20.1 C is 41-50 days (Flores-Perez et al, 2004 Gould et al, 2005), . 

Many states such as Iowa and Minnesota in zone 5 are capable of sustaining that temperature range or 

higher for sufficient time during the spring and summer months that an egg could develop into an adult
Spinach from Colombia

Rev.02 December 4, 2007 16

(USDA-NA., 2003). States in warmer climates would facilitate more rapid development. In addition, C. 

decolora, which is sometimes misclassified as C. incommmoda (Simmons, R. B., and M. G. Pogue. 

2004), requires only 38 days to develop from an egg to an adult at 23.9 C (Urra and Apalblaza, 2005)

This time suggests a similar climatic range to C. incommoda. Thus, C. incommoda would be capable of 

developing in at least four hardiness zones based during the spring and summer growing months which 

merits a Climate-Host interaction rating of High (3).

Risk Element #2: Host Range

Copitarsia incommoda has been reported feeding on different species in several families: alfalfa, 

artichoke, asparagus, cabbage, cauliflower, broccoli, coriander, cut flowers (Limonium spp. and 

Alstroemeria spp), garlic, jojoba, onion, potato, rapeseed, swiss chard, and spinach (Angulo and Olivares, 

2003; Bautista, et al., 2003). The risk rating for Host Range is High (3).

Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential

A study of C. decolora found that it could survive for a week on deteriorating asparagus (Gould and 

Maldaonado, 2006). Since C. incommoda is closely related to and confused with C. decolora (Simmons 

and Pogue, 2004), a reasonable inference would be that C. incommoda could do the same. This ability to 

survive in garbage or waste plant material could give it the opportunity to be transported by humans or to 

complete its life-cycle in factorable environment such as a warehouse. The ability to disperse with 

humans could facilitate long-range transport. In the field, C. incommoda completed development in 62 

days on potato Copitarsia incommoda females are reported to lay 1,638 eggs per female on artificial diet; 

in Colombia, Copitarsia is reported to lay 550 eggs per female (Cardona, et al., 2002; Cardona, et al.,

2003). The risk rating for Dispersal Potential is High (3).

Risk Element #4: Economic Impact

The ability of Copitarsia to disperse or migrate has implications pertaining to its ability to become a 

serious pest in the U.S. Copitarsia directly damages crops by reducing the marketability of fruits and 

vegetables and indirectly by reducing overall yields. In South America, Copitarsia reduced marketability 

of certain vegetables by 24% and yields of grains by 80-90% and, in Colombia alone, by 33% (Cardona et 

al., 2003). Copitarsia has the potential to affect the U.S. export markets as well. We assume that countries 

where Copitarsia is not established would reject commodities from the U.S. with Copitarsia larvae. The 

risk rating for Economic Impact is High (3).

Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact

Once established, Copitarsia would have the potential to damage the environment both directly, 

through feeding on native plants, and indirectly, because of environmentally harsh methods used to 

control pest populations. Nearly 700 plants native to the U.S. are in the genera known to be attacked 

by Copitarsia larvae. Several of the native species at risk from Copitarsia are listed as threatened or 

endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Allium munzii (CA), three species of Trifolium (CA, 

AR, IN, KY, WV, MO, OH), two species of Helianthus (NM, TX, NC, SC) (USFWS, 2007). Indirect 

environmental damage could be caused by initiation of new biological or chemical control programs 

that may potentially affect non-target organisms in the ecosystem (Cardona et al., 2003). It is not 

known, however, if such new programs would be necessary since Copitarsia incommoda might be 

effectively controlled by the measures already in place against other pests on host commodities. The 

risk rating for Environmental Impact is Medium (2). 
Spinach from Colombia

Rev.02 December 4, 2007 17

Diabrotica speciosa (Germar)

Risk Element #1: Climate - Host Interaction

Distribution of Diabrotica speciosa is known in Central and South America. The pest is recorded in the 

north, from countries with the tropical climate (e.g. Costa Rica, Panama, Colombia, Brazil) and in the 

south (Argentina) where climate is warm temperate to temperate. This distribution pattern corresponds to 

US plant hardiness zones 8-10 (USDA-NA., 2003). The risk rating is Medium (2).

Risk Element #2: Host Range

Diabrotica speciosa is highly polyphagous as an adult, with more than 70 host species recorded (CAB 

International, 2006). The root-feeding larva is also polyphagous, but its known host range is narrower and 

includes maize, wheat, groundnut, soy beans and potato (CAB International, 2006). Among major hosts are 

Arachis hypogaea Glycine max (Fabaceae), Capsicum spp., Solanum tuberosum (Solanaceae), Cucurbita 

maxima and C. pepo (Cucurbitaceae), Triticum and Zea mays (Poaceae) (CAB International, 2006). Other 

hosts of agricultural importance include plants from the families Chenopodiaceae (Beta vulgaris), 

Brassicaceae (cruciferous crops), Rutaceae (Citrus spp.), Malvaceae (Gossypium spp.), Astraceae 

(Helianthus annuus, Lactuca sativa), Rosaceae (Prunus persica) (CAB International, 2006). Known wild 

hosts are Amaranthus quitensis (Amaranthaceae) and Cynara cardunculus (Cucurbitaceae) (CAB 

International, 2006). The risk rating is High (3), 

Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential

Diabrotica speciosa is a multivoltine, polyphagous species, which overwinters as an adult and is fairly 

tolerant to cold (EPPO, 2005). The species undergoes three larval instars. Duration of the larval stage is 

23-25 days (including pre-pupal period of 2-3 days) (CAB International, 2006). The pupal stage lasts 6 

days, and is followed by a period of 3-5 days during which the recently moulted adults remain in the 

pupal case before eclosion. In laboratory conditions, mating has been observed between 4 and 6 days 

after emergence, and some females were observed mating again at day 35 (CAB International, 2006). 

Each female laid an average of 1164 eggs during her lifetime with peak oviposition from days 16 to 56. 

The number of overlapping generations is conditioned to the climate, being continuous in tropical 

areas. In the Buenos Aires area in Argentina, observations indicate there are about three generations per 

year (CAB International, 2006). Diabrotica speciosa can move locally by adult flight, and probably by

movement of eggs, larvae or pupae in soil contaminating vehicles or farm machinery. Adults are active 

and are not likely to stay with the trade commodity. The risk rating is High (3).

Risk Element #4: Economic Impact

Significant damage to agricultural crops is caused by both adults and larvae which reduces the yield 

and the commodity value. Pesticides are often applied to control this pest leading to the increased cost 

of production. Diabrotica speciosa is on EPPO A1 action list of pests (EPPO, 2005) and is absent 

from most of the worlds regions (e.g. Africa, Asia, Australia). Thus, introduction of D. speciosa into 

the United States will cause loss of potential foreign and domestic markets. The risk rating is High.

Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact

The following species are listed as Threatened or Endamgered in the Continental United States:

Cucurbita okeechobeensis ssp. okeechobeensis (FL), Helianthus paradoxus (NM, TX), H. schweinitzii 

(NC, SC), Prunus geniculata (FL), Amaranthus pumilus (DE, MD, NJ, NY, NC, SC, VI) (USFWS, 

2007). Although some natural enemies of D. speciosa are known, no biocontrol programs have been 

implemented so far for this insect (CAB International, 2006). Stimulation of new chemical control 
Spinach from Colombia

Rev.02 December 4, 2007 18

programs, however, is likely upon introduction of D. speciosa into the United States since soil and 

foliar pesticides are commonly used against this pest in the areas of its current establishment (EPPO, 

2005). The hypogeal habitat of the larvae requires intensive and copious use of insecticides in order to 

achieve control (CABI, 2006). Risk rating is High. 

Liriomyza huidobrensis Blanchard

Risk Element #1: Climate - Host Interaction

The hosts for Liriomyza huidobrensis belong to fifteen families (CAB International, 2006; Braun and 

Shephard, 1997; DEFRA, 2001; EPPO 2003; Parrella, 1982; Posada, 1989; Saldarriaga et al., 1987; 

Steck, 1999) and are present in plant hardiness zones 8-10 of the Continental United States (ARS, 

1990).where the pest has the potential to establish a breeding colony. Liriomyza huidobrensis is a pest 

in tropical to warm temperate regions; it has also been found at altitudes of up to 3000m (9,842,52ft.) 

above sea level. The pest is able to survive a freeze of -18.7°C (-65.66°F) (CAB International, 2006). 

The behaviour of L. huidobrensis gives it a greater climatic range for survival (CAB International, 

2006). In some parts of Europe, it has the ability to become a major pest of a wide variety of 

ornamental or vegetable crops grown under glass (CAB International, 2006). Chen and Kang (2004) 

showed that in China, winter temperatures below -4o

C and -6oC were limiting establishment of 

breeding populations of L. huidobrensis. The risk rating for Climate-Host interaction is Medium (2).

Risk Element #2: Host Range

The primary hosts for Liriomyza huidobrensis are Abelmoschus esculentus, Allium cepa, Allium 

porrum, Allium sativum, Apium graveolens, Capsicum frutescens, Chrysanthemum x morifolium, 

Cichorium sp., Cineraria sp., Cucurbita maxima, Cucurbita moschata, Cucurbita pepo, Cynara 

scolymus, Daucus carota, Delilia sp., Dendranthema sp., Dendranthema x grandiflorum, Galinsoga 

sp., Hordeum vulgare, the Inulae family, Lactuca sativa, Matthiola incana, Parthenium argentatum,

Pastinaca sativa, Phaseolus vulgaris, Phaseolus vulgaris var. humilis, Phlox sp., Piper nigrum, Pisum 

sativum, Pisum sativum var. arvense, Pterocaulon sp., Taraxacum officinale, and Senecio vulgaris 

(Braun and Shephard, 1997; CAB International, 2006; DEFRA, 2001; EPPO 2003; Parrella, 1982; 

Posada, 1989; Saldarriaga et al., 1987; Steck, 1999). The secondary hosts for L. huidobrensis are 

Amaranthus sp., Amaranthus retroflexus, Aster sp., Beta vulgaris, Beta vulgaris var. cicla, Beta 

vulgaris var. saccharifera, Calendula sp., Cannabis sativa subsp. sativa, Capsicum annuum, Citrullus 

lanatus, Cucumis sp., Cucumis melo, the Cruciferae family, Cucumis sativus, Dahlia sp., Datura sp., 

Dianthus caryophyllus, Gerbera sp., Gypsophila paniculata, Lathyrus sp., Lathyrus odoratus, Linum 

sp., Linum usitatissimum, Lisianthus russelianus, Lycopersicon esculentum, Medicago sp., Medicago 

sativa, Melilotus sp., Petunia sp., Primula polyanthus, Raphanus sativus, Solanum melongena, 

Solanum tuberosum, Solanum tuberosum ssp. andigena, Spinacia oleracea, Tagetes sp., Tropaeolum 

sp., Tropaeolum majus, Valerianella locust, Verbena sp., Vicia faba, Viola sp., Zinnia sp., and Zinnia 

elegans. The wild hosts for L. huidobrensis are Oxalis sp., Bidens pilosa, Emilia sonchifolia, Galinsoga 

parviflora, Portulaca oleracea, Sonchus sp., and Sonchus oleraceus (CAB International, 2006; Braun 

and Shephard, 1997; DEFRA, 2001; DEFRA, 2004; Parrella, 1982; Posada, 1989; Saldarriaga et al., 

1987; Spencer, 1984; Steck, 1999). Liriomyza huidobrensis was found in consignments on 

Dendranthema morifolium, Eryngium sp., and Gypsophila sp. (EPPO, 2003). In Guatemala, L. 

huidobrensis attacks Cichorium intybus (MacVean and Pérez, 1996). Weeds, such as Trianthema 

portulacastrum, Stachys arvensis, Chenopodium murale, C. album, Datura stramonium, Bidens pilosa,

Galinsoga parviflora, Diplotaxis muralis, Malva parviflora, Ricinus communis, and Stellaria media,
Spinach from Colombia

Rev.02 December 4, 2007 19

are other hosts for L. huidobrensis (Mujica and Cisneros, 1996). In Colombia, L. huidobrensis has been 

found on the following hosts: Allium cepa, Alstroemeria sp., Amaranthus spinosus, Beta vulgaris, Beta 

vulgaris var. cicla, Beta vulgaris var. crassa, Brassica oleracea var. capitata, Capsella bursa-pastoris, 

Capsicum sp., Chrysanthemum sp., Cucumis sativus, Dendranthema grandiflora, Galinsoga 

caracasana, Galinsoga parviflora, Gazania sp., Gypsophila elegans, Hordeum vulgare, Petunia sp., 

Pisum sativum, Phaseolus vulgaris, Phaseolus vulgaris var. humilis, Portulaca oleracea, Sechium 

edule, Solanum tuberosum ssp. andigena, Solanum melongena, Spinacia oleracea and Vicia faba

(Figueroa, 1977; Gallego and Vélez, 1992; Hincapie et al., 1991; Posada, 1989; Santiago, 2000; 

Sigueñas, 1995; Spencer, 1984). Furthermore, the list of hosts increases as L. huidobrensis invades new 

countries (Tømmerås et al., 2002). Liriomyza huidobrensis attacks multiple species among multiple 

plant families; consequently, the risk rating for Host Range is High (3).

Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential

The plant parts liable to carry Liriomyza huidobrensis in trade or transport are leaves and seedlings;

transport pathways for long distance movement are conveyances (road and air transport), travellers and 

baggage (land, sea and air) (CAB International, 2005). Dispersal over long distances is on plant 

material, cut flowers and soil. The pest may also be dispersed on equipment and containers that have 

not been properly cleaned (Tømmerås et al., 2002).

The L. huidobrensis mating process takes place 24 hours after emergence; a single mating is sufficient 

to fertilize all eggs left. In Peru, the mean number of eggs laid per female is 117 in winter, and 161 in 

spring (CAB International, 2006). The duration of its life-cycle depends on temperature: egg stage (2.9 

to 6 days), larval stage (6 to 13 days), and pupal stage (7.4 to 21.1 days). The longevity of the females 

and males depends on temperatures and food availability: 3.5 to 32.6 days for females and 2.1 to 15.1 

days for males (Braun and Shepard, 1997). In Colombia, the duration of the life-cycle of L. 

huidobrensis reared on Allium cepa at 24oC (75.2oF), with a relative humidity of 75% are the 

following: egg stage (1.5 days), larval stage (7 days), and pupal stage (8.2 days). The longevity of the 

females in this case was 15 days (Hincapie et al., 1991). Successful emergence to the adult stage is 

highly dependent on the host plant, ranging from 36% to 74% (Steck, 1999). The risk rating for 

Dispersal Potential is High (3).

Risk Element #4: Economic Impact

Liriomyza leafminers impact crops by destroying young seedlings, causing reductions in crop yields, 

reducing the aesthetic value of ornamental plants, and causing some plant species to be quarantined 

(Parrella, 1982). Adult sting and larval mining of leaves reduce photosynthetic capacity, render leaves 

unmarketable, and provide an entrance for disease organisms (Mou and Ryder, 2003).

Liriomyza huidobrensis damage is caused by larvae mining into leaves and petioles. Severely infested 

leaves may fall, exposing plant stems to wind action. The presence of unsightly larval mines and adult 

punctures in the leaf palisade of ornamental plants can further reduce crop value. In young plants and 

seedlings, mining may cause considerable delay in plant development, leading to plant loss. Liriomyza 

huidobrensis is a major quarantine pest and is officially listed in many areas of the world (CAB 

International, 2006). The risk rating for Economic Impact for Liriomyza huidobrensis is High (3).
Spinach from Colombia

Rev.02 December 4, 2007 20

Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact

Liriomyza huidobrensis is reported on different plant species. Some of the genera of these species are 

included in plants listed as endangered and threatened in the Continental U.S.: Allium, Amaranthus, 

Cucurbita, Eryngium, Phlox, Primula, Taraxacum, Senecio, and Verbena (USFWS, 2007). These 

plants may be potential hosts, although no specific data are reported in the literature to date.

Liriomyza huidobrensis has spread to other continents where established populations are growing and 

more difficult to control. This is at least partly due to a shift in the susceptibility of this pest to 

insecticides (Steck, 1999). New control programs might be initiated if its introduction occurs. The risk

rating on Environmental Impact for L. huidobrensis is High (3).

The Consequences of Introduction are summarized in the Table 5*.

*Rating interpretation: Low: 5-8, Medium: 9-12, High: 13-15.

2.7 Likelihood of Introduction

These pests are rated for the Likelihood of Introduction based on two separate components. First, an 

estimate is made concerning the amount of commodity likely to be imported (Sub-Element #1). Then pest 

opportunity is estimated by using five biological features (Sub-Elements #2-6) (USDA, 2000). These 

ratings and the value for the Likelihood of Introduction are summarized in Table 6.

Risk Element #6: Pest Opportunity

Sub-Element #1: Quantity of commodity imported annually

The average production of spinach in Colombia in 2002 was 1,600 tons for 106 hectares (Ministerio de 

Agricultura y Desarrollo Rural, 2003). Spinach is mainly destined for local consumption. Initially, it is 

expected that only a portion of all produced spinach will be exported to the United States.

Table 5. Risk Rating for Consequences of Introduction

Pest

Risk 

Element

#1

Risk 

Element

#2

Risk 

Element 

#3

Risk 

Element

#4

Risk 

Element

#5

Cumulative 

Risk

Climate/Host Rating

Interaction

Host 

Range

Dispersal

Potential

Economic

Impact

Environmen

tal Impact

Copitarsia 

incommoda High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) Medium (2) High (14)

Diabrotica 

speciosa Medium (2) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (14)

Liriomyza 

huidobrensis Medium (2) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (14)
Spinach from Colombia

Rev.02 December 4, 2007 21

If we consider, however, that all of the spinach will be exported to the United States and that a shipping 

container (40 cubic feet) can transport an average of 20 tons of commodity, the total number of containers 

will be 80. Thus, the quantity initially exported annually is Medium (2 points): 10-100 shipping 

containers (40 cubic foot) per year.

Sub-Element #2: Survive post-harvest treatment

Once the spinach is harvested, it is recommended that it be stored at a relative humidity of 90% to 95%

and at a temperature between 0oC to 5oC (Saltveit, 2001). At the beginning of the post-harvest season,

the product is rated and washed. At this point, the external feeders are removed from the leaf surface;

leaves with leafminers are rejected. Leaves that are affected by pests, diseases, and other foreign 

substances are discarded.

Although Copitarsia incommoda and Liriomyza huidobrensis could be visually detected, the above

described post-harvest procedure does not ensure that these pests will be successfully removed from

the commodity in each shipment, as records of interceptions indicate. The risk associated with this 

sub-element for both pests is High (3). Only adults of Diabrotica speciosa feed on spinach leaves. 

This stage is mobile and is likely to be removed during washing process. The visual detection of adults 

is easy, with the feeding period spanning from dawn until dusk (CAB International, 2006). The risk 

rating is Medium (2) for D. speciosa.

Sub-Element #3: Survive shipment

Since species of Copitarsia, Diabrotica, and Liriomyza were intercepted at U.S. ports-of-entry multiple 

times on different commodities including spinach (AQAS, 2007), this risk factor is rated High (3).

Sub-Element #4: Not detected at the port of entry

Colombia does not have a point-of-origin protocol for vegetable inspection. PPQ officers at ports-of-entry 

are instructed to inspect 2% of a given shipment arriving at a U.S. port. PPQ officers consider that more 

than 10% of the viable larvae of Copitarsia that arrive at a port are not be detected by routine inspections

(Gould et al., 2000). Consequently, the risk rating for this sub-element is High (3).

In the case of Liriomyza huidobrensis, the feeding punctures appear as white speckles between 0.13 and 

0.15 mm in diameter. Oviposition punctures are smaller (0.05 mm) and are more uniformly round. The 

larva is primarily a leaf miner. Mines are usually white with dampened black and dried brown areas, and 

are usually associated with the midrib and lateral leaf veins. Mines are typically serpentine, tightly coiled 

and of irregular shape, increasing in width as larvae mature. Several larvae feeding on a single leaf may 

produce a secondary 'blotch' mine type and leaf wilt may occur (CAB International, 2006). Since leaves 

attacked by Liriomyza huidobrensis can be visually detected, the risk associated with the inability to 

detect these pests is Medium (2).

There are multiple interceptions of Diabrotica species at ports-of-entry. Because only adults are expected 

to be with the spinach leaves, they are external feeders and are easily detected (CAB International, 2006), 

we rate D. speciosa Medium (2) for this risk factor. 

Sub-Element #5: Imported or moved to area with environment suitable for survival

The consumption and demand for spinach is not likely to be concentrated in certain areas of the United 

States and associated with certain ethnic market demands. The risk associated with this sub-element will 
Spinach from Colombia

Rev.02 December 4, 2007 22

likely dependent on the proportion of the United States having suitable habitat (i.e., climate and hosts) for 

the quarantine pests.

After Copitarsia larvae or eggs enter the U.S., they must undergo further rigors of shipment, and not all 

final destinations will have climates suitable for survival. It is considered that some viable insects that 

were not detected at a port-of-entry would be transported to this climatically suitable habitat. The 

proportion of shipments arriving to areas with suitable environmental conditions will mainly depend on 

the number of people living in those areas which is approximately 39% (Venette and Gould, 2006), 

Consequently, the risk rating for this sub-element is High (3).

Leafminers represent an important problem for spinach and other leafy commodities in vegetable growing 

regions. Climatic requirements for establishment of L. huidobrensis indicate that a suitable habitat will 

comprise at least three plant hardiness zones which is more than 30% of the territory of the Continental 

United States (Venette and Gould, 2006). The risk potential is High (3).

Diabrotica speciosa is widely distributed through Central and South America, from tropical climates to 

warm temperate, such as Argentina. The pest is anticipated to be able to establish at least in three plants 

hardiness zones, or more than 30% of the area of the Continental United States (Venette and Gould, 2006. 

The risk rating is High (3).

Sub-Element #6: Come into contact with host material suitable for reproduction

Numerous hosts of Copitarsia incommoda, Diabrotica speciosa, and Liriomyza huidobrensis are present

and highly cultivated in the continental United States. All three species possess natural mechanisms for 

successful dispersal toward potential hosts; the rating for this risk factor is High (3).

The likelihood of introduction is presented in Table 6*

.. 

Table 6. Risk Rating for Likelihood of Introduction

Pest

SubElement

#1

SubElement

#2

SubElement

#3

SubElement

#4

SubElement

#5

SubElement

#6 Cumulative

Risk

Rating

Quantity 

Imported 

Annually

Survive 

PostHarvest 

Treatment

Survive

Shipment

Not 

Detected at 

Port of 

Entry

Moved to 

Suitable 

Habitat

Contact 

with Host 

Material

Copitarsia 

incommoda Medium (2) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (17)

Diabrotica 

speciosa Medium (2) Medium (2) High (3) Medium (2) High (3) High (3) High (15)

Liriomyza 

huidobrensis Medium (2) High (3) High (3) Medium (2) High (3) High (3) High (16)

*Rating interpretation: Low: 6-9, Medium: 10-14, High: 15-18.
Spinach from Colombia

Rev.02 December 4, 2007 23

2.8 Pest Risk Potential and Conclusion

The sum of the Cumulative Risk Rating for the Consequences of Introduction and the Cumulative Risk 

Rating for the Likelihood of Introduction of Liriomyza huidobrensis and Copitarsia incommoda, shown 

in Table 7, clearly indicate that these species pose a High Pest Risk Potential (30 and 31 points,

respectively).

Table 7. Pest Risk Potential

Pest

Consequences of 

Introduction Cumulative 

Risk Rating

Likelihood of 

Introduction 

Cumulative Risk 

Rating

Pest Risk Potential

Copitarsia 

incommoda High (14) High (17) High (31)

Diabrotica 

speciosa High (14) High (15) High (29)

Liriomyza 

huidobrensis High (14) High (16) High (30)

Cumulative rating interpretation: Low: 5-18, Medium: 19-26, High: 27-33.

High risk rating of 29-30 is a baseline estimate of the risks associated with this importation, and 

reduction of risk occurs through the use of mitigation measures. The guidelines state that a High Pest 

Risk Potential means that specific phytosanitary measures are strongly recommended, and that port-ofentry inspection is not considered sufficient to provide phytosanitary security. 

Copitarsia incommoda, Diabrotica speciosa, and Liriomyza huidobrensis can be detected during portof-entry visual inspections. This measure could be used in order to reduce the risk associated with the 

introduction of these pests but, only in combination with other measures. The Risk Mitigation Options 

Section is presented in the Appendix 2, however, selection of the specific measures is a part of the risk 

management document and is not addressed here. 
Spinach from Colombia

Rev.02 December 4, 2007 24

III. Literature Cited

AGRIS/CARIS. 2004. AGRIS Database, 1975-2004. Search terms: spinacia&oleracea&weed.

<http://www.fao.org/agris/> 

Alfieri, S.A. Jr., Langdon, K.R., Kimbrough, J.W., El-Gholl, N.E. and C., Wehlburg. 1994. Diseases 

and Disorders of Plants in Florida FL. Div. of Plant Ind. Bulletin 14.

Angulo, A. and Olivares, T. 2003. Taxonomic update of the species of Copitarsia Hampson 1906, 

(Lepidoptera: Noctuidae: Cuculliinae). Gayana (Concepc.), vol.67, no.1, p.33-38. ISSN 0717-

6538.

APHIS – USDA. 2000. FNWA, Federal Noxius Weed Act. APHIS <ww.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/weeds>

AQAS. 2007. Agriculture Quarantine Activity Systems (AQAS) Database. United States Department 

of Agriculture - Plant Protection and Quarantine. Last accessed May 7, 2007, 

https://mokcs14.aphis.usda.gov/aqas/login.jsp.

Arnett, R.H., Jr. 2000. American Insects. A handbook of the insects of America north of Mexico. The 

Sandhill Crane Press, Inc., Gainesville, FL.

ARS, 1990. USDA plant hardiness zone map. USDA, Agric. Research Serv. Misc. Publ. No. 1475. 

Washington, DC.<http://usna.usda.gov/Hardzone/ushzmap.html>

Atkinson, T.H. and S.B. Peck. 1994. Annotated checklist of the bark and ambrosia beetles (Coleoptera: 

Platypodidae and Scolytidae) of tropical southern Florida. Entomology and Nematology 

Department, University of Florida. Gainesville, FL USA 32611. Department of Biology, 

Carleton University. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1S 5B6. Florida Entomologist Online, Vol. 77, 

No. 3 (1994). <http://www.fcla.edu/FlaEnt/fe77p313.pdf>

Baujard, P. and B. Martiny. 1995. Ecology and pathogenicity of the Hoplolaimidae (Nemata) from the 

sahelian zone of West Africa: 7. Helicotylenchus dihystera (Cobb, 1893) Sher, 1961 and 

comparison with Helicotylenchus multicinctus (Cobb, 1893) Golden, 1956. Fundamental and 

Applied Nematology 18: 503-511.

Bautista, N., Hernandez, L., Llanderal, C., 2003. Insectos de importancia agrícola poco conocidos en 

Mexico. Instituto de fitosanidad. Colegio de Postgraduados. Ed. Cromocolor S.A. Mexico.

Ben-Dov, Y., D. R. Miller, and G. A. P. Gibson. 2006. ScaleNet, Life Histories. 

http://www.sel.barc.usda.gov/catalogs/coccidae/Saissetiacoffeae.htm>. Last accessed 29 Jun. 

2007.

Bolland, H. R., Gutierrez, J. and Flechtmann C. H. W. 1998. World Catalogue of the Spider Mite 

Family (Acari: Tetranychidae). Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. 392 Pp.

Brailovsky, A. H. 1985. Revision of the genus Anasa Amyot-Serville (Hemiptera -Heteroptera -

Coreidae - Coreinae - Coreini) / Revision del genero Anasa Amyot-Serville (Hemiptera -

Heteroptera -Coreidae - Coreinae - Coreini). Monografias del Instituto de Biologia, Universidad 

Nacional Autonoma de Mexico (2). Mexico D.F.:Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, 

266 pp.

Braun, A.R. and M. Shepard. 1997. Leafminer Fly: Liriomyza huidobrensis. Technical Bulletin. The 

International Potato Center and The Clemson University Palawija IPM Project. <http:// 

www.eseap.cipotato.org/MF-ESEAP/Fl-Library/Lirio-Incl-Figure.pdf>

Brunt, A.A., Crabtree, K., Dallwitz, M.J., Gibbs, A.J., Watson, L. and Zurcher, E.J. (eds.) (1996 

onwards). `Plant Viruses Online: Descriptions and Lists from the VIDE Database. Version: 20th

August 1996.' URL <http://biology.anu.edu.au/Groups/MES/vide/>

Buriticá, P.1999. Directorio Patógenos y Enfermedades de las Plantas de Importancia Económica en 

Colombia. Produmedios, Bogotá, Colombia.
Spinach from Colombia

Rev.02 December 4, 2007 25

Bustillo, A. and Sánchez, G. 1977. Los áfidos en Colombia plagas que afectan los cultivos agrícolas de 

importancia económica. Instituto Colombiano Agropecuario y el Fondo Colombiano de 

Investigaciones Científicas y Proyectos Especiales Francisco José de Caldas”. Bogotá.

CAB International. 2006. Crop Protection Compendium, Commonwealth Agricultural Bureau 

International, 2002 Edition. Wallingford, United Kingdom.

Caicedo, G. and Ruiz, A. 1995. Analisis de Crecimiento y Desarrollo para Dos Genotipos de Espinaca 

(Spinacia oleracea L.) en la Variedad Monstruosa de Viroflay y el Hibrido 424. Facultad de 

Agronomía. Universidad Nacional de Colombia. Bogota, Colombia.

Cardona, D., M. Londoño, and J. Jaramillo. 2002. Estudios Biologicos de Copitarsia sp. Pos. Consueta 

(Walker) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) bajo condiciones de insectario. Resumenes Sociedad 

Colombiana de Entomologia. Socolen. XXXIX Congreso Monteria, Colombia.

Cardona, D., M. Londoño, and J. Jaramillo. 2003. Propuesta de manejo integrado de Copitarsia sp. 

(Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) en Cruciferas. V Memorias Seminario Nacional. Aconteceres 

Entomlogicos. Alternativas amables con el ambiente para el manejo de plagas. Medellin.

 Castro, D. M. 2003. Ensayo sobre tipologia de suelos colombianos-enfasis en genesis y 

aspectos ambientales. Revista de la Academia Colombiana de Ciencia 27(104).

Chen, B., and L. Kang. 2004. Variation in cold hardiness of Liriomyza huidobrensis (Diptera: 

Agromyzidae) along latitudinal gradients. Environ. Entomol. 33(2): 155-164.

Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). 2001. Quarantine Pests and Diseases. 

EC Checklist for Plant Passporting. United Kingdom Government. <http://www.defra.gov.uk/ 

planth/checklst/>

Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). 2004. Plant Health Interception & 

Outbreak Chart. United Kingdom Government. <http://www.defra.gov.uk/planth/interc/ 

14feb04.pdf>

Diekmann, M. 1997. FAO/IPGRI Technical Guidelines for the Safe Movement of Germplasm. No. 18. 

Allium spp. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome/International Plant 

Genetic Resources Institute, Rome.

<https://www.gpdd.info/onlinerefs/Ditylenchus_dipsaci_2726.pdf> Last accessed 29 Jun. 2007.

El-Nozahy, A. M., S. M. M. S. Ahmed, M. H. Abdel-Kader, and I. A. Khalifa. 2007. Biological 

Studies on the Effects of Laser Radiation of Khapra Beetle, Trogoderma granarium

(Coleoptera: Dermiestidae). AIP Conference Proceedings 888: 220 – 224.

EPPO. 2005. Diabrotica speciosa. Data Sheets on Quarantine Pest. OEPP/EPPO Bull. 35:,374–376. 

<http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1365-2338.2005.00904.x> Last 

accessed 13 Jul. 2007.

EPPO/OEPPO. 2007. Potato T trichovirus. Data Sheets on Quarantine Pests. Last accessed 2007.

Euzéby, J. P., 2004. List of Bacterial Names with Standing in Nomenclature. Society for Systematic 

and Veterinary Bacteriology. Online Database < http://www.bacterio.cict.fr/index.html> 

FAO. 2002. International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures. Glossary of Phytosanitary Terms, 

Publication No. 5. Rome, Italy. 

Farr, D.F., Bills, G.F., Chamuris, G.P. and Rossman, A.Y. 1989. 2d Ed. Fungi on Plants and Plant 

Products in the United States. American Phytopathological Society, St. Paul, MN.

Farr, D. F., A. Y. Rossman, M. E. Palm, and E. B. McCray. 2006. Fungal Databases, Systematic 

Botany & Mycology Laboratory. ARS, USDA. Last accessed June 19, 2007, http://nt.arsgrin.gov/fungaldatabases/

Fernández de V., J. 1982. Contribución al conocimiento de las babosas y sietecueros (Mollusca: 

Gastropoda) que causan daños a la agricultura en Venezuela. Rev. Fac. Agron. (Maracay), XII 

(3-4). 353-386. <http://www.redpav-fpolar.info.ve/fagro/v12_34/v124m010.html>
Spinach from Colombia

Rev.02 December 4, 2007 26

Figeroa, A. 1977. Insectos y acarinos de Colombia. Graficas Fénix. Cali, Colombia.

FLEPPC. 2001. List of Florida's Invasive Species. Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council. Html. 

www.fleppc.org/01list.htm

Flores-Pererz, L., Bautista-Martinez, N., Vera-Graziano, J., Valdez-Carrasco, J., and A. Angulo. 2004. 

Ciclo de vida y tasas de supervivencia y reproduccion de Copitarsia incommoda Walker 

(Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) en tres cultivares de Brassica oleracea L. Agrociencia 38: 517-523.

Gallego, F. and Velez, R. 1992. Lista de insectos que afectan los principales cultivos, plantas forestales, 

animales domesticos y al hombre en Colombia. Universidad Nacional de Colombia. Facultad de 

Ciencias. Departamento de Biología. Area de Entomología. Seccional Medellín. Colombia.

Gould, J. and M. Madaondado. 2006. Copitarsia declora (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) Larvae escaping 

from discarded Asparagus: Data in support of a pathway risk analysis. Journal of Economic 

Entolomology 99:1605-1609.

Gould, J., Venette, R., Davidson, J., and P. Kingsley. 2000. A Pest Risk Assessment for Copitarsia

Species: A Case Study in Support of a Risk Based Resource Allocation Model. Plant Protection 

Center, Phoenix, AZ; Raleigh Plant Protection Center, St. Paul, MN; State Plant Health 

Director, Auston, TX; Otis Plant Protection Center, Falmouth, MA.

GPO. 2005a. Interstate Movement of Sweet Potatoes. Federal Register 70(111): 33857 – 33873.

GPO. 2005b. Importation of Fruits and Vegetables. Federal Register 70(245): 75967 – 75981.

GPO. 2006a. Rules and Regulations: Federal Register 71(24): 6011-6015.

GPO. 2006b. Rules and Regulations: Federal Register 71(242): 75659.

GPO. 2006c. Revision of Fruit and Vegetables Import Regulations. Federal Register 71(81): 25009 –

25057.

GPO. 2006d. Importation of Fruit from Thailand. Federal Register 71(143): 42319 – 42326.

GPO. 2007. Revision of Fruits and Vegetables Import Regulations. Federal Register 72(137): 39481 

– 39528.

Gould, J., Venette, R., Davidson, J., and P. Kingsley. 2000. A Pest Risk Assessment for Copitarsia

Species: A Case Study in Support of a Risk Based Resource Allocation Model. Plant Protection 

Center, Phoenix, AZ; Raleigh Plant Protection Center, St. Paul, MN; State Plant Health 

Director, Auston, TX; Otis Plant Protection Center, Falmouth, MA.

Gould, J., Venette, R., and D. Winograd. 2005 Effect of temperature on development and population

parameters of Copitarsia decolora (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Environmental Entolomology 

34:548-556.

Hallman, G. J. 1998. Radiation Quarantine Treatment for Blueberries to Replace Methyl Bromide. 

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/mbr/airc/1998/080hallman.pdf (Accessed August 17, 2007).

Hallman, G. J. 2005. Hypoxia Reduces Reproductive Susceptibility of Plum Curculio (Coleoptera: 

Curculionidae) to Ionizing Radiation. Florida Entomologist 88(2): 208 – 210.

Hincapie, M.C., Saavedra, M.E., and A.L. Trochez. 1991. Ciclo de vida, hábitos y enemigos naturales 

de Liriomyza huidobrensis (Blanchard) (Diptera: Agromyzidae) en cebolla bulbo (Allium cepa 

L.). Resúmenes XVIII Congreso. Sociedad Colombiana de Entomología SOCOLEN. p. 22.

Holm, L. G., Plucknett, D. L., Pancho, J. V. and J. P. Herberger. 1991a. The World's Worst Weeds: 

distribution and biology .University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu, HI.

Holm, L. G., Plucknett, D. L., Pancho, J. V. and J. P. Herberger. 1991. A Geographical Atlas of World 

Weeds. John Wiley and Sons. New York, NY.

Holm, L.G., Doll, J., Holm, E., Pancho, J.V. and J., Herberger. 1997. World Weeds: Natural Histories 

and Distributions. John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY.
Spinach from Colombia

Rev.02 December 4, 2007 27

Hochmuth, G., Vavrina, C., Stall,W. and Kucharek, T. 2003. The Vegetable Production Guide for 

Florida was updated in September 2003. <http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pdffiles/CV/CV13300.pdf.> 

(Accessed August 17, 2007)

Hostetler, K. 2002. Purdue professor responds to accusations of U. S. agroterrorism. Purdue News, 

December 2002. http://www.purdue.edu/UNS/html4ever/021210.Edwards.rootworm.html

(Accessed August 16, 2007).

IPPC. 2007a. International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures. Publication No. 2. Framework for 

Pest Risk Analysis. Secretariat of the International Plant Protection Convention of the Food and 

Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Rome, Italy. <https://www.ippc.int/servlet

/CDSServlet?status=ND0zMjU0OCY3PWVuJjYxPSomNjU9a29z>

IPPC. 2007b. International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures, Publication No. 5. Glossary of 

Phytosanitary Terms 2002 <http://www.ippc.int/servlet/BinaryDownloaderServlet/13703

_ISPM_05_En_Fr_Sp.pdf> (last accessed June 29, 2004). Rome, Italy: Secretariat of the International 

Plant Protection Convention (IPPC), Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

Jones, R., Fribourg, C., Koenig, R. 1983. A previously undescribed nepovirus isolated from potato in 

Peru. Phytopathology 73(2):195-198

LeStrange, M., Koike, S., Valencia, J. and C. William., 2004 Spinach Production in California. 

University of California Cooperative Extension Farm Advisors, Tulare/Kings, Monterey, 

Stanislaus, and Monterey/Santa Cruz Counties, respectively <http://anrcatalog.ucdavis.edu/>

 Lizarraga, C., M. Querci, M. S. Cruz, I. Bartolini, and L. F. Salazar. 2000. Other natural hosts 

of Potato virus T. Plant Disease 84(7):736-738.

Loaharanu, P. 1998. Irradiation as a Phytosanitary Treatment of Fresh Horticultural Commodities. 

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/mbr/airc/1998/083/oaharanu.pdf (Accessed August 17, 2007).

MacVean, C. and R. Pérez. 1996. Effects of refrigeration at 1°C on the pea leafminer Liriomyza 

huidobrensis (Blanchard) (Diptera: Agromyzidae). Universidad del Valle de Guatemala. 

Institute of Research. Applied Entomology Laboratory. <http://www.uvg.edu.gt/backupfiles/EV/facs/ boletines_ii/cea1ing.htm>

Martínez, P., Rodríguez, D. F. and Borrero. 1999. Manejo de plagas en hortalizas de clima frió. ICA. 

Boletín de sanidad vegetal 28.

Mau, R., and Kessing, M. 2004. Knowledge Master. Trichoplusia ni (Hubner). Department of 

Entomology, University of Hawaii, College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources, and 

Hawaii Department of Agriculture. Honolulu, Hawaii. 

<http://www.extento.hawaii.edu/kbase/crop/Type/trichopl.htm>

Mills, H. A. 2001. Spinach (Spinacia oleracea). University of Georgia. Last accessed July 19, 2007, 

http://www.uga.edu/vegetable/spinach.html

Ministerio de Agricultura y Desarrollo Rural, 2003. Secretaría de Agricultura, URPAS - UMATAS. 

Grupo de Sistemas de Información. Bogotá Colombia.

Mou, B. and E. Ryder. 2003. Screening and breeding for resistance to leafminer (Liriomyza langei) in 

lettuce and spinach. Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, 1636 East Alisal 

Street, Salinas, CA 93905, USA. CGN 2003. Eucarpia Leafy Vegetables 2003. <http://www. 

leafyvegetables.nl>

Mujica, N. and F. Cisneros. 1996. Developing IPM Components for Leafminer Fly in the Cañete 

Valley of Peru. Program Report 95-96. Program 4: Integrated Pest Management. <http://www. 

cipotato.org/market/PgmRprts/pr95-96/program4/prog44.htm>

National Agricultural Library (NAL). 2004. AGRICultural OnLine Access (AGRICOLA). 

<http://www. nal.usda.gov>. Last accessed, 21 November 2004.
Spinach from Colombia

Rev.02 December 4, 2007 28

Neartica, 1998. Nomina Insecta Neartica. A check List of the Insects of North America. 

<http://www.nearctica.com/nomina>

Olivares, T. and A. Angulo. 2004. Descriptcion de los huevos de Copitarsia incommode (Walker) y 

Copitarsia turbata (Herrich-Schaeffer) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae: cuclliinae) Gatana. 68: 112-

116.

Parrella, M.P. 1982. A Review of the history and taxonomy of economically important serpentine 

leafminers (Liriomyza spp.) in California (Diptera: Agromyzidae). Pan-Pacific Entomologist 

58(4): 302-308. <http://www.potatonews.com/leafminers/database/a171.pdf>

Perez, E. 1990. Plantas Útiles de Colombia. Ed. Victor Hugo. Medellín. Colombia.

Pérez, L. 2003. Dinámica Poblacional de Spoladea Recurvalis (F.) (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) y sus 

Relaciones Tritróficas con Variaciones en la Densidad Poblacional de la Peseta Trianthema 

portulacastrum (L.). Tesis sometida en cumplimiento parcial Universidad de Puerto Rico. 

Recinto Universitario de Mayagüez.

Poole R. W. and Gentili, P. (eds.). 1996a. Nomina Insecta Neartica. A check List of the Insects of 

North America. Volume 1: Coleoptera, Strepsiptera. Entomological Information Services, 

Rockville, Maryland

Poole R. W. and Gentili, P. (eds.). 1996b. Nomina Insecta Neartica. A check List of the Insects of 

North America. Volume 2: Hymenoptera, Mecoptera, Megaloptera, Neuroptera, Raphidioptera, 

Trichoptera. Entomological Information Services, Rockville, Maryland

Poole R. W. and Gentili, P. (eds.). 1996c. Nomina Insecta Neartica. A check List of the Insects of 

North America. Volume 3: Diptera, Lepidoptera, Siphonaptera. Entomological Information 

Services, Rockville, Maryland

Posada, L. 1989. Lista de insectos dañinos y otras plagas en Colombia. Boletín Técnico No. 43. 

Instituto Colombiano Agropecuario ICA. Bogotá, Colombia.

PPQ. 2004. Plant Protection and Quarantine Treatment Manual, Revision 10/2002-04, updated May 

17, 2004: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/manuals/pdf_files/TM.pdf: USDA-APHIS Plant 

Protection and Quarantine.

Reed, C.F. 1977. Economically Important Foreign Weeds, Potential problems in the United States. US 

Government Printing Office. Agriculture Handbook No. 498.

Robinson, G.S., P.R. Ackery, I.J. Kitching, G.W. Beccaloni and L.M. Hernandez. 2004. HOSTS - A 

database of the hostplants of the world's Lepidoptera. The Natural History Museum. London, 

United Kingdom. <http://www.nhm.ac.uk/ entomology/hostplants/>. Last accessed 28 Jun.

2007.

Rojas J.C., Cibrian-Tovar J., Valdez-Carrazco J. and Nieto-Hernandez R. 1993. Analisis de la conducta 

de cortejo de Copitarsia consueta y aislamiento de la feromona. Agrociencia Proteccion 

Vegetal. 4(1):23-39.

Reitz, S. 2004. Personal communication with Stuart Reitz of USDA-ARS-CMAVE on April 8th, 2004.

Saldarriaga, A., Zenner De Polonia, I., Cardenas, R., Posada, L., and F. Garcia. 1987. Guía para el 

control de plagas. Manual de asistencia técnica No.1 Cuarta edición. ICA.

Saltveit, M.A. 2001. A summary of CA requirements and recommendations for vegetables. pp 71-

94.Postharvest Horticulture Series No. 22A, University of California, Davis.

Santiago, J. 2000. Diagnostico del Uso y Manejo de Plaguicidas en Tres Cultivos Horticolas en la 

Sabana de Bogotá y Propuesta de un Indice de Predicción de Residuos de Plaguicidas. Facultad 

de Agronomía. Universidad Nacional de Colombia. Bogota, Colombia.

Scheffer, S. J. 2000. Molecular evidence of cryptic species within the Liriomyza huidobrensis (Diptera: 

Agromyzidae). Journal of Economic Entomology. Volume: 93, Issue: 4, Pages: 1146-1151.
Spinach from Colombia

Rev.02 December 4, 2007 29

Scheffer, S.J., Wijesekara, A., Visser, D. and R. H. Hallett. 2001. Polymerase Chain Reactionrestriction fragment-length polymorphism method to distinguish Liriomyza huidobrensis from 

L. langei (Diptera: Agromyzidae) applied to three recent leafminer invasions. Horticultural 

Entomology. Journal of Economic Entomology 94(5): 1177-1182. <http://esa.edoc.com/ 

economic/v94n5/v94n5p1177.pdf>

Scheffer, S. J. 2004. Personal communication with Sonja J. Scheffer, Ph. D., Systematic Entomology 

Laboratory, USDA. Beltsville, on April 2nd, 2004.

 Selvaradjou, S.-K., L. Montanarella, O. Spaargaren, and D. Dent. 2005. Soil Maps of Latin 

America and Caribbean Islands. European Digigtal Archive of Soil Maps.

Sigueñas, S. 1995. El Cultivo de la Espinaca. Instituto Nacional de Investigación Agraria. Programa 

Nacional de Investigación en Hortalizas. Proyecto Sistema Nacional de De Investigación y 

Transferencia de Tecnología Agraria. Lima Perú.

Simmons, R. B., and M. G. Pogue. 2004. Redescription of Two Often-Confused Noctuid Pests,

Copitarsia decolora and Copitarsia incommode (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae: Cuculliinae). Ann. 

Entomol. Soc. Am. 97(6): 1159-1164.

Spencer, K.A. 1984. The Agromyzidae (Diptera) of Colombia, including a new species attacking 

potato in Bolivia. Department of Biological Sciences, University of Exeter, England. Revista 

Colombiana de Entomología. Vol. 10 Nos. 1-2, 1984. p. 3.33.

Steck, G.J. 1999. Pea Leafminer, Liriomyza huidobrensis (Blanchard) (Insecta: Diptera: Agromyzidae). 

EENY-111 (originally published as DPI Entomology Circular No. 378). Featured Creatures. 

Entomology and Nematology Department, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of 

Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida. http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/ 

pdffiles/IN/IN26800.pdf

Thome, J.W., P.H. dos Santos, and L. Pedott (1997). Annotated list of Veronicellidae from the 

collections of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia and the National Museum of 

Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., U.S.A. (Mollusca: Gastropoda: 

Soleolifera). Proc. Bio. Soc. Wash.: 520-536. 

Tømmerås, B.A., Jelmert, A., Rafoss, T., Sundheim, L., Ødegaard F., and B. Økland. 2002. Report no. 

15. Globalisation and Invasive Alien Species. Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA). 

Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. <http://odin.dep.no/archive/ 

udvedlegg/01/04/glob1064.pdf>

Tunçbilek, A. S., A. Ayvaz, F. Öztürk, and B. Kaplan. 2003. Gamma radiation sensitivity of larvae 

and adults of the red flour beetle, Tribolium castaneum Herbst. Anzeiger fur 

Schadlingskunde/Journal of Pest Science 76: 129 – 132.

Urra, F. and J. Apablaza. 2005. Threshold temperature and thermal constant for the development of 

Copitarsia decolora (Lepdioptera: Noctuidae). Ciencia y Investigacion Agraaria. 32: 16-23.

USDA and NRCS, 2002. The PLANTS Database, Version 3.5 <http://plants.usda.gov> National Plant 

Data Center, Baton Rouge, LA 70874-4490 USA. 

USDA. 2000. Guidelines for pathway-initiated pest risk assessments (version 5.02), USDA-APHISPPQ, MD. <www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/pra/active>

USDA. 2002a. Online Manuals. Regulating the Importation of Fresh Fruits and Vegetables. 

Nonpropagative Manual. USDA, MRP, APHIS, PPQ. www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/manuals

USDA-NA. 2003. The 2003 US National Arboretum "web version" of the USDA Plant Hardiness Zone 

Map. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), National Arboretum (NA). Last 

accessed October 20, 2006, http://www.usna.usda.gov/Hardzone/ushzmap.html.

USDA. 2007. Electronic Code of Federal Regulations. Title 7: Agriculture. Part 330: Federal Plant

Pest Regulations; General; Plant Pests; Soil, Stone and Quarry Products; Garbage. 
Spinach from Colombia

Rev.02 December 4, 2007 30

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/textidx?c=ecfr&sid=64938ae67d906f1fc8ba68b478241a07

&rgn=div5&view=text&node=7:5.1.1.1.8&idno=7 (Accessed August 17, 2007).

USEPA. 2006. Environmental Protection Agency: Irradiation for Postharvest and Quarantine Control. 

http://www.epa.gov/Ozone/mbr/casestudies/volume2/irad2.html (Accessed Augsut 17, 2007).

USFWS. 2007. USFWS Threatened and Endangered Species System (TESS). U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 

<http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/SpeciesReport.do?groups=Q&listingType=L&mapstatus=1 >

Last accessed 09 Jul. 2007.

Venette, R. C. and J. R. Gould. 2006. A pest risk assessment for Copitarsia spp., Insects associated 

with importation of commodities into the United States. Euphytica 148: 165–183.

 Volveras, B., E. Amezquita, and H. Tafur. 2007. Efecto del tiempo de uso en las condiciones 

fisicas del suelo andino en el departamento de Narino, Colombia. Acta Agronomia 56(1).

Walsh, G. C. 2003. Host range and reproductive traits of Diabrotica speciosa (Germar) and Diabrotica 

viridula (F.) (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae), two species of South American pest rootworms, with 

notes on other Species of Diabroticina. Envir.Entomol. 32(2): 276-285.

WSSA. 2006. Weed List. Weed Science Society of America (WSSA). Last accessed November 28, 

2006, http://www.wssa.net/weednames/common.asp.

Wiersema, J. and Leόn, B. 1999. World economic plants. CRC Press, Washington, D.C.

IV. Preparers and Reviewers

Preparer:

Luis Ernesto Forero, Agronomist, Risk Analyst

Center for Phytosanitary Excellence, CEF

Pest Risk Assessment Staff, Center for Phytosanitary Excellence, CEF:

Boris Orduz, Entomologist, Risk Analyst

Elkin Florez, M. Sc. Phytosanitary Protection, Risk Analyst

Guiovanni Zambrano, Risk Analyst

Olivier Parfait, Biologist, Risk Analyst

Reviewers:

Hernan Arango, M. Sc. Phytosanitary Protection, Risk Analyst

Colombian Agricultural Institute (ICA), Risks Analysis Group

Agricultural and Rural Development Ministry, Colombia

Marina Zlotina, Entomologist, Risk Analyst

John Rogers, Plant Pathologist, Risk Analyst, 

USDA-APHIS-PPQ-CPHST- PERAL, Raleigh, NC

Acknowledgements 

We are especially grateful for the ongoing support and technical expertise of the USDA-APHIS-PPQCPHST Unit, in particular, Heather Hartzog, Kenneth R. Lakin, Leah Millar, and Marina Zlotina.
Spinach from Colombia

Rev.02 December 4, 2007 31

Appendix 1. Port Information Network PIN (1985-2007) Interceptions on Spinacia oleracea

Pest Origin Location of 

Interception

Number of 

Interceptions

Acarina, species of Japan Ships Stores 2

Agromyzidae, species of

Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, 

Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican 

Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, 

France, Guatemala, Hawaii, India, 

Italia, Japan, Jordan, Lebanon, 

Mexico, Netherlands, Peru , Spain, 

St. Kitts and Nevis, Syria, 

Venezuela

Baggage, 

Permit 

Cargo, Ships 

Stores 

45

Anthomyiidae, species of Mexico Permit Cargo 1

Aphididae, species of

Belgium, Brazil, Colombia, 

Dominica, El Salvador, Greece, 

Jamaica, Japan, Korea, Mexico, 

Netherlands, Nigeria, Panama, 

Peoples ́ Republic of China, Spain, 

Korea, West Germany

Baggage, 

Permit 

Cargo, Ships 

Stores 

36

Aphis sp. Dominica General 

Cargo 1

Artipus sp. Jamaica General 

Cargo 1

Ascochyta sp. United Kingdom General 

Cargo 1

Athalia sp. Japan Baggage 1

Auchenorrhyncha, 

species of Dominica

Permit 

Cargo, Ships 

Stores

7

Brachycerinae, species of Dominica Baggage 1

Cercopidae, species of Mexico Permit Cargo 1

Cercospora sp. Asia (country) Baggage 1

Charidotella trisignata

(Boh.) Guayana Baggage 1

Chrysomelidae, species of Dominica, Mexico Ships Stores, 

Permit Cargo 2

Cicadellidae, species of Dominica, Mexico Baggage, 

Permit Cargo 5

Coccidae, species of India, St. Lucia Baggage 2

Colletotrichum sp. Vietnam Baggage 1

Conotrachelus sp. Mexico Ships Stores 1

Copitarsia sp. Colombia, Mexico

Permit 

Cargo, Ships 

Stores

16
Spinach from Colombia

Rev.02 December 4, 2007 32

Pest Origin Location of 

Interception

Number of 

Interceptions

Coreidae, species of Jamaica Baggage 1

Crambidae, species of Dominica Baggage 1

Cryptomphalus aspersus Mexico Ships Stores 1

Curculionidae, species of Mexico Baggage 1

Delia sp. United Kingdom Ships Stores 1

Diabrotica sp. Mexico Permit Cargo 1

Diabrotica 

undecimpunctata, 

Diabrotica 

duodecimnotata Harold

Mexico Permit Cargo 7

Diaphania sp. Nigeria, Trinidad and Tobago Baggage 3

Diaprepes sp. St. Kitts and Nevis Baggage 1

Diaspididae, species of Dominica Baggage 1

Diptera, species of Korea, United Kingdom Ships Stores 2

Discula sp. Dominica Permit Cargo 1

Disonycha sp. Mexico

Permit 

Cargo, 

Baggage

2

Empoasca sp. Mexico Baggage, 

Permit Cargo 3

Frankliniella sp. Unknown Ships Stores 1

Gelechiidae, species of Dominica, Ghana, Nigeria Baggage, 

Permit Cargo 14

Geometridae, species of Japan, Lebanon Baggage, 

Permit Cargo 2

Gracillariidae, species of Dominica General 

Cargo 1

Gryllidae, species of Dominica Permit Cargo 1

Hypera sp. Jordan Baggage 1

Hypothenemus sp. Jamaica Baggage 1

Isonychus sp. Venezuela Ships Stores 1

Lachnopus sp. Dominican Republic Permit Cargo 1

Lepidoptera, species of Dominica, Guyana, Nigeria, St. 

Croix 

Baggage, 

General 

Cargo, 

Permit Cargo

8

Leptinotarsa sp. Jordan Baggage 1

Leucinodes sp. Nigeria Baggage 1

Listroderes sp. Japan, Mexico Baggage 2

Lobometopon metallicum Mexico Permit Cargo 1

Lygaeoidea, species of Mexico Ships Stores 1

Lygocoris sp. Belgium Ships Stores 1

Margarodidae, species of Nigeria Baggage 1
Spinach from Colombia

Rev.02 December 4, 2007 33

Pest Origin Location of 

Interception

Number of 

Interceptions

Miridae, species of Dominica, Haiti, Mexico

Baggage, 

General 

Cargo, 

Permit Cargo

8

Myochrous sp. Haiti Baggage 1

Noctuidae, species of 

Antigua and Barbuda, Belgium, 

Colombia, Dominica, Ecuador, 

Guatemala, Haiti, Jamaica, Japan, 

Korea, Mexico, Panama, Puerto 

Rico, Republic of China, Spain, St. 

Christopher, St. Kitts and Nevis, 

Venezuela

Baggage, 

General 

Cargo, 

Permit 

Cargo, 

Quarters, 

Ships Stores

58

Nysius sp. Mexico, Nigeria Baggage, 

Permit Cargo 5

Olethreutinae, species of Dominica, Venezuela, 

Permit 

Cargo, Ships 

Stores

2

Orthezia sp. Dominica Permit Cargo 1

Ortheziidae, species of Dominica Baggage 1

Oxycarenus pallens India Baggage 1

Pachybrachis sp. Mexico Permit Cargo 1

Pegomya sp. Mexico Quarters 1

Pentatomidae, species of Haiti, Dominica, Dominican 

Republic

Baggage, 

Permit Cargo

4

Phaedon sp. Republic of China Permit Cargo 1

Pheidole sp. Nigeria Baggage 1

Phlaeothripidae, species 

of Jordan Baggage 1

Phoma sp. Netherlands Permit Cargo 1

Pieridae, species of St. Kitts and Nevis Baggage 1

Planococcus minor Dominica

General 

Cargo, 

Permit Cargo

2

Plusiinae, species of Nigeria Baggage 1

Pseudococcidae, species 

of

Antigua and Barbuda, Dominica, 

Nigeria, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. 

Thomas

Baggage, 

Permit Cargo 8

Psyllidae, species of El Salvador Baggage 1

Pyralidae, species of Dominica, Guyana Baggage, 

Permit Cargo 3

Pyrausta sp. Antigua and Barbuda, Dominica, 

Mexico 

Baggage, 

General 

Cargo, 

9
Spinach from Colombia

Rev.02 December 4, 2007 34

Pest Origin Location of 

Interception

Number of 

Interceptions

Permit Cargo

Pyraustinae, species of

Antigua and Barbuda, Dominica, 

Dominican Republic, Haiti, 

Jamaica, Mexico, Nigeria, Peru, 

Venezuela

Baggage, 

Permit 

Cargo, Ships 

Stores 

22

Rhinacloa sp. Dominica Permit Cargo 1

Sitona crinita Ecuador Ships Stores 1

Spodoptera sp. Haiti, Japan, Mexico, Republic of 

China, Yugoslavia

Baggage, 

General 

Cargo, 

Permit 

Cargo, 

Quarters

7

Steiarrhinus sp. Dominica Permit Cargo 2

Systena sp. Mexico General 

Cargo 1

Tephritidae, species of Jordan Baggage 1

Thripidae, species of Mexico, Nigeria Baggage, 

Quarters 3

Tortricinae, species of Dominica Baggage, 

Permit Cargo 3

Toxoptera citricida Antigua and Barbuda Baggage 1

Veronicella sp. Dominica General 

Cargo 1
Spinach from Colombia

Rev.02 December 4, 2007 35

Appendix 2. Mitigation of Quarantine Pests of Spinach from Colombia

A risk assessment for Spinach, Spinacea oleracea L., exported from Colombia to the coterminous 

United States determined that three quarantine pests would reasonably be expected to follow the 

pathway. They are: Copitarsia incommoda Walker (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), Liriomyza huidobrensis

Blanchard (Diptera: Agromyzidae), and Diabrotica speciosa (Germar) (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). 

The stage of C. incommoda associated with spinach would most likely be larvae; L. huidobrensis larvae 

are leaf miners and would remain in the leaves; and Diabrotica speciosa adults only would likely be 

associated with the host. Diabrotica speciosa eggs, larvae, and pupae are associated with roots and soil 

which are not permitted into U. S. ports of entry, and only adult D. speciosa use spinach as a host ( 

USDA, 2007; Walsh, 2003).

Mitigations for these pests may include inspection at the point of origin, systems approach production 

and harvesting, and radiation. Liriomyza huidobrensis spends most of its lifecycle in larval form, 

mining leaves especially along the midrib, and so are readily detectable via visual inspection (GPO, 

2006a). Pupae of L. huidobrensis are found in the soil and so would not be imported, and adults are 

active and not likely to remain with the host (GPO, 2006b; USDA, 2007). Visual inspection may be 

required as a condition of movement, and the exporting country’s National Plant Protection 

Organization (NPPO) is responsible for export certification, inspection, and issuance of phytosanitary 

certificates stating that such inspection was done (GPO, 2005a; GPO, 2006c). The phytosanitary 

certificate must be signed by an official of the NPPO and bear the declaration “the shipment has been 

inspected and found free of the pests listed in the export requirements; and all damaged produce was 

removed from the shipment prior to export” (GPO, 2006a; GPO, 2006c; GPO, 2007). The shipping 

box must be labeled with the identity of the production site (GPO, 2006a).

The main potential pathway for D. speciosa is soil (EPPO, 2005). Soil and underground parts of 

Colombian spinach are prohibited and are unlikely to be moved; and spinach is not a larval host for D. 

speciosa (Walsh, 2003; USDA, 2007). A similar rootworm, D. virgifera, was likely carried from the 

United States to Europe via aircraft and a similar pathway could conceivably operate for D. speciosa, 

but D. speciosa does not have a history of international movement and the active adults would likely 

not remain on the host during inspection of the commodity (Hostetler, 2002; EPPO, 2005; USDA, 

2007).

A second mitigation would be production, packing, and shipping under a systems approach. The Plant 

Protection Act of 2000 [7 USC §§ 319.37-8] defines a systems approach as a defined set of 

phytosanitary procedures, at least two of which have independent effects mitigating pest risk. The 

Food and Agricultural Organization standards define systems approach as the integration of different 

pest risk management measures, at least two of which act independently and cumulatively achieve the 

desired level of phytosanitary protection (FAO, 2002). A suitable systems approach for commodity 

production consists of: 1) all production sites approved and registered with the exporting country’s 

NPPO; 2) production sites visited, inspected, and certified by officials of the exporting country’s 

NPPO; 3) the NPPO and APHIS agree that pest risk mitigation has been achieved; 4) inspections for 

visible damage are conducted regularly, and if a pest outbreak occurs, exports of the commodity are 

immediately cancelled until pest risk mitigation has again been achieved; 5) commodity is packed with 

pest-proof screening that remains intact until arrival at a U. S. port of entry; and 7) commodity is 

accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate (PC) issued by the exporting country’s NPPO stating: 
Spinach from Colombia

Rev.02 December 4, 2007 36

“grown in an approved production site; the shipment has been inspected; and shipment has been found 

free of the pests listed on the PC” (GPO, 2005b). 

Third, the commodity may be irradiated to sterilize or kill pests that remain following inspection. 

Irradiation is used as a pest mitigation tool in over 40 countries (USEPA, 2006). The unit of absorbed 

dose is the gray (Gy) where 1 gray is equivalent to 1 Joule per kilogram (USEPA, 2006). Life stages of 

Lepidoptera that are successfully treated by irradiation are eggs and larvae, and of Coleoptera adults; 

and a dose of 400 gray is approved to treat all insect pests (Hallman, 1998; Loaharanu, 1998; GPO, 

2006d). Leafy vegetables’ tolerance to irradiation of a dose of 1,000 Gy has been determined to be 

Low, so additional testing to determine the specific tolerance of spinach may be necessary (USEPA, 

2006). Studies of other Lepidoptera, e. g.: Grapholita molesta; and Coleoptera, e. g.: Conotrachelus 

nenuphar, Cryptorhynchus mangiferae, Tribolium castaneum, and Trogoderma granarium; have 

demonstrated effectiveness of lower doses of iradiation ranging from 80 to 300 Gy (Hallman, 1998; 

Tunçbilek et al., 2003; Hallman, 2005; El-Nozahy et al., 2007).

Therefore, inspection has been determined to remove Liriomyza huidobrensis leafminers, processing of 

the spinach leaves will remove the active adults of Diabrotica speciosa, and radiation will sterilize or 

kill any Copitarsia incommoda larvae that remain following inspection.