## Importation **of F**  **resh Chufle ,**  **Calathea macrosepala K.** 

**Schum .**  **, immature**  **inflorescences into the Continental** 

**United States from El Salvador**  **A Pathway -**  **initiated Pest**  **Risk Assessm ent** 

**April 5, 2010 Revision 0**  **3**

**Agency Contact:** Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory Center for Plant Health Science and Technology United States Department of Agriculture Animal Plant Health Inspection Services Plant Protection and Quarantine 1730 Varsity Drive, Suite 300 Raleigh, NC 27606Pest R isk A ssessment for C hufle from El Salvador

Rev. 03 April 5, 2010 ii 

### Executive Summary In this document we assessed the risk associated with the importation of fresh chufle, Calathea macrosepala K. Schum
. , immature inflorescences from El Salvador into the continental United States. Other than postharvest washing, drying, and sorting, we assumed no specialized phy tosanitary treatments would be done

. Several Lepidoptera species were found to be both quarantine species and likely to follow the pathway
. We assessed these species and found that the Consequences of Introduction were negligible because the pests were unsuited for the climates in the continental United States , except in Southern Florida , and no Calathea spp . exist there
. Since the lepidopteran had a Pest Risk Potential of Low, we did not list any risk mitigation options
.Pest R isk A ssessment for C hufle from El Salvador

Rev. 03 April 5, 2010 iii 

### Table of **Contents Executive Summary**  **................................ ................................**  **................................ ......................**  **ii 1. Introduction**  **................................ ................................**  **................................ ...............................**  **1 2. Risk Assessment**  **................................ ................................**  **................................ ........................**  **2** 2.1. Initiating Event: Proposed Action
................................ ................................ ........................ 2 2.2. Assessment of Weediness Potential of Calathea macrosepala
................................ ........... 2 2.3. Current Import Status, Decis ion History , and Pest Interceptions
................................ ........ 3 2.4. Pest Categorization: Identification of Quarantine Pests
................................ ...................... 3 2.5. Pest Categorization: Quarantine Pests Likel y t o Follow the Pathway
............................... 10 2.6. Consequences of Introduction
................................ ................................ ............................ 11 2.7. Likelihood of Introduction
................................ ................................ ................................ . 12 **3. Conclusion: Pest Risk Potentials ................................**  **................................ ...........................**  **13 4. Authors and Reviewers**  **................................ ................................**  **................................ ...........**  **15 5. Literature Cited**  **................................ ................................**  **................................ ......................**  **15 6. Appendices**  **................................ ................................**  **................................ ...............................**  **20** Appendix 1. Pests and pathogens intercepted on Calathea sp. at United States port s. ............ 20Pest R isk A ssessment for C hufle from El Salvador

Rev. 03 April 5, 2010 1 

### 1 **. Introduction** This risk assessment was prepared b y Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ), Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS ) , U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), in response to a request b y the government of El Salvador to examine potential pest risks associated with the importation of fresh immature inflorescences of chufle, Calathea macrosepala K. Schum
. , into the co ntinental United States. This pest risk assessment is pathway
- initiated because it is based on risks associated with the importation of the commodity . This risk assessment is qualitative: we express risk as High, Medium, and Low , rather than in probabiliti es or frequencies. The methodology

and rating criteria are explained in Pathway
- initiated Pest Risk Assessments: Guidelines for Qualitative Assessments , Version 5.02 (PPQ, 2000). Calathea macrosepala is a member of a large, perennial genus (250+ species ) , which grows throughoutLatin America. Members of the genus are distinguished b y large oval leaves, 20
- 90 cm long, with thick ribs , which gave it the common name, “prayer plant”
. Because of the attractive arrangement and size of the leaves , Calathea is use d as an ornamental. Calathea macrosepala is drought tolerant, grows between sea level and 2000 m, and its distribution is limited to Central America. Its nearest relatives are C. latifolia and C. soconuscum (Kennedy, 1978). The immature inflorescence

—comm onl y called “chufle” (Calderon and Vasquez, 2005)

—is harvested for consumption in Central (San Salvador Department) and Occidental (Ahuachapan and Morazan) El Salvador. The inflorescence is between 5 and 10 cm tall (Kennedy, 1978)
. Chufle is harvested b y h and and then washed in diluted bleach, rinsed in cold water, and packed for shipment (Esquivel, 2005). The Salvadoran government wishes to export chufle to the United States to take advantage of the expatriate and immigrant Salvadoran community in the U.S , marketing chufle especially in New York, Los Angeles, Miami, Houston, San Francisco, Washington D.C., Santa Ana, Chicago, Boston, Dallas, and New Orleans (Beatres
- Marques et al
. , 2001; Hernández et al
. , 2003). The Salvadoran government estimates annual production of chufle at 5
- 10 tons , on 25
- 30 ha (Esquivel, 2005). In creating the required pest risk anal ys is to import chufle into the United States , we faced two difficulties , 1) taxonomic confusion about the i dentity of chufle , and 2) a lack of information about pests affecting the crop in Central America. C hufle was identified as C. allouia in a few older references (Bernal and Correa, 1994 Esquivel, 2005) and in the original request to import chufle (Medrano, 2004) , but C. macrosepala is the actual chufle plant. Calathea allouia is native to Northern South America and cultivated in Brazil for its starchy rhizome (Kennedy , 2007). It s native range does not extend Northward beyond Panama and does not overlap with C. macrosepala (Kennedy, 1978, 2007), the actual chufle plant. Other references contain a mixture of information about C. allouia and C. macrosepala (Bernal and Correa, 1994) or about C. allouia alone (Noda et al
. , 1994). Unfortunately , this made such ref erences difficult to use. Secondly, since it has never been cultivated on a large scale, C. macrosepala ha s rare ly been researched . Most research on Calathea spp. is on ornamental s in greenhouse production. Moreover, the only

large scale presence of Calath ea spp. in the United S tates is in greenhousePest R isk A ssessment for C hufle from El Salvador

Rev. 03 April 5, 2010 2 production in Florida (Chase, 1982), which is agronomically very different from field cultivation in Central America (Chase, 1982, 1990; Leahy, 1991; Pappas and Paplomatas, 1998; Simone and Brunk, 1983). These difficulties suggest that a general risk assessment may be necessary

because very little information exists about chufle , and some of that information is unreliab le. To deal with those challenges, we chose to expand the anal ys is to include information for the genus Calathea in El Salvador and the neighboring countries of Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Belize, and Southern Mexico which covers p art of the natural range of C. macrosepala. We expected this would also provide relevant information about other Calathea species whose pests might interact with C. macrosepala . Although no pest risk anal ys is can describe all conceivable risks, and expanding the geographic and taxonomic range of the anal ys is should improve the likelihood of characterizing relevant hazards, even if it includes a few pests with no significant association to chufle. In this document , we focuse d on risks associated with the imm ature inflorescence of C. macrosepala , and assume d that only thos e inflorescences will be imported. 

### 2 **. Risk Assessment**  A Pest Risk Assessment is a component of an overall Pest Risk Analysis. The Guidelines for P est Risk Analysis (IPPC, 1997: I SPM #2 ) describe three stages in pest risk anal ys is. This document satisfies the requirements of FAO Stages 1 (initiation) and 2 (risk assessment), by separately considering each area of inquiry , as well as PestID Guidelines version 5.02 (PPQ, 2000 ). We begin this Pest Risk Assessment by identifying the initiating event, conducting a weediness screening, and discussing past decisions on the commodity
. We then identify and characterize the pests likely

to be associated with C. macrosepala in El Salvador. Finally, we anal yz e in more detail the q

uarantine pests likely

to follow the pathway

with the imported commodity
. In that anal ys is , we assess five risk elements associated with the Consequences of Introduction of pests into the United States
. Li kewise, we combine s ix sub
- elements to assess the Likelihood of Introduction into the United S tates . 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** Importation into the continental United States of fresh chufle inflorescences grown in El Salvador is a potential pathway for the introduction of plant pests as indicated in MAG letter No. 285
- 2004 dated 15 October 2004 (MAG, 2004) . 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 W**  **eediness P**  **otential of Calathea macrosepala**  The results of screening for weed potential for chufle did not prompt a weed
- initiated risk assessment (Table 1).Pest R isk A ssessment for C hufle from El Salvador

Rev. 03 April 5, 2010 3 **Table 1.** Weediness p otential of Calathea macrosepala **Calathea macrosepala K. Schum**  **. Common Names:**  Chufle (Kennedy, 1978, 2007). **Synonyms:** None (NGRP , 2007). **Phase 1** Calathea macrosepala is not included in the forty- one species of Calathea

distributed in the United States (NGRP , 2007). Consequently, C. macrosepala is not widely distributed in the United States. Calathea spp. are onl y produced as ornamentals in the US (Chase, 1990). **Phase 2** Invasive / Weediness Status: No Various sources (7 CFR § 360, 2007; Gunn and Ritchie, 1988; Holm et al
. , 1997; Holm et al
. , 1979; Holm et al
. , 1977; Reed, 1977; Skinner et al
. , 2005; Weber, 2003; WSSA, 2006). No Alien plant invaders of natural areas (Swearingen, 2005). No A Global Compendium of W eeds (Randall, 2007). No Other: (Liogier and Martorell, 2000; Landcare Research, 2005; NRCS, 2007)
. **Phase 3** Summary

and Conclusions: A weed
- initiated risk assessment was not initiated for C. macrosepala because there is no evidence in the worldwide literature of invasive behavior b y this plant, and the answers to the above questions are negative. The immature in florescence is unlikely to lead to plant establishment. This commodity does not meet the IPPC definition of a quarantine pest ( IP PC, 2007: I SPM #5 ). Thus, this pest risk assessment continues. **2.3. Current Import Status, Decision History, and Pest**  **Interceptions** 2.3.1
. Decision History and Current Status We found no recorded proposals to import chufle into the United S tates . 2.3.2
. Current Import Status Chufle immature inflorescences cannot enter the United S tates as a fresh market commodity pending an anal ys is of risks. 2.3.3. Pest Interceptions Since El Salvador is the only country where C. macrosepala is cultivated for consumption, we only examined interception records from th at country . Onl y three interceptions have been made on C
. macrosepala entering United States ports , for species of Arctiidae and Riodinidae, and Plesiothrips sp. (Thripidae) on Calathea “ flowers ” in passenger baggage ( PestID, 2008 )
. All other interceptions are for Calathea spp. , C. macrosepala , and pests were reported at the genus level or above. This less detailed taxonomy did not inform the anal ys is and therefore was not included in the pest list. **2.4 .**  **Pest Categorization: Identification of Quarantine Pests** We developed a list of pests potentially associated with C. macrosepala or Calathea sp . , and present in El Salvador and neighboring countries (Table 2 )
. In the list we identify the following :Pest R isk A ssessment for C hufle from El Salvador

Rev. 03 April 5, 2010 4 (1) the presence or absence of the pests in El Salvador and neighboring countries and in the United States; (2) the references supporting an association between the pest and host; (3) the plant organs where the pest can be found where applicable ; (4) the United States quarantine status of the pests; and (5) if the pest c ould follow the pathway into the continental United States via commercial shipments of chufle inflorescences
. A quarantine pest is defined as “a pest of potential economic importance to the area endangered thereb y, but not yet present, or present, but not widely distributed and being officiall y controlled” (IPPC, 200 7 : ISPM #5 ). A pest is likely to follow the pathway

for chufle if the pest is present in El Salvador , is associated with the immature inflorescence at the time of harvest, and remains viable with the immature inflorescence during harvesting, packing, and shipping. The possibility

that a quarantine pest following the pathway could establish and spread throughout the United States depends on the presence of appropriate climatic and ecological conditions, including protected areas (such as greenhouses), where the presence of primary or alternative hosts and vectors are influential. **Table 2**  **.** Plant pests associated with Calathea sp. in El Salvador and neighboring countries **Pest Scientific Name Distribution**  **1 Host**  **r eference**  **Plant part(s) a**  **ssociation Quaran**  ****

**tine Pest Follow** 

**p athway**  **ARTHROPODS Acari:**  **Tetranychidae** Tetranychus urticae (Koch) SV (Calderon, 2005); U.S. (Fasulo, 2007) Calderon and

Vasquez, 2005 N/A No N/A **Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae**  Cephaloleia dilaticollis (Baly) PA (McKenna and Ferrell, 2005) McKenna and

Ferrell, 2005 Leaf 2 (McKenna

and Ferrell, 2005) Yes No Cephaloleia erichsonii (Baly) CR (McKenna and Ferrell, 2005) McKenna and

Ferrell, 2005 Leaf (McKenna

and Ferrell, 2005) Yes No Cephaloleia heliconiae (Uhmann) CR (McKenna and Ferrell, 2005) McKenna and

Ferrell, 2005 Leaf (McKenna

and Ferrell, 2005) Yes No Cephaloleia histronica (Baly) CR (McKenna and Ferrell, 2005) McKenna and

Ferrell, 2005 Leaf (McKenna

and Ferrell, 2005) Yes No Cephaloleia trivittata (Baly) NI(McKenna, 2005), CR (McKenna and Ferrell, 2005) McKenna,

2005 Leaf (McKenna

and Ferrell, 2005) Yes No Cephaloleia stevensi (Baly) NI(McKenna, 2005) McKenna, 2005 Leaf (McKenna,

2005) Yes No **Diptera: Agromyzidae**  Liriomyza spp. SV (Calderon and Vasquez, 2005) Calderon and

Vasquez, 2005 Leaf (Calderon

and Vasquez, 2005) Yes Yes

1 The countries are abbreviated as follows: SV= El Salvador, BE= Belize , CR=Costa Rica, GU=Guatemala, HO: Honduras, NI= Nicaragua, PA=Panama, U.S. =United States 2 We based species consum ption of leaves up on information about the genus , not species
- specific information.Pest R isk A ssessment for C hufle from El Salvador

Rev. 03 April 5, 2010 5 **Pest Scientific Name Distribution**  **1 Host**  **r eference**  **Plant part(s) a**  **ssociation Quaran**  ****

**tine Pest Follow** 

**p athway**  **Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae**  Bemisia tabaci ( Gennadius) SV (Calderon and Vasquez, 2005) U.S. (CABI, 2007) Calderon and

Vasquez, 2005 N/A No N/A **Hemiptera: Diaspididae**  Abgrallaspis cyanophilli (Signoret) PA (Ben
-Dov et al
. , 2001) , U.S. (CABI, 2007) Ben
-Dov, et al.,

2001 N/A No N/A Chrysomphalus dictyospermi (Morgan) SV (Ben
-Dov et al
. , 2001) , U.S. (CABI, 2007) Ben
-Dov et al
. ,

2001 N/A No N/A Dysmicoccus brevipes (Cockerell) SV, GU, HO, PA (Ben
-Dov et al
. , 2001) , U.S. (CABI, 2007) Ben
-Dov et al
. ,

2001 N/A No N/A Ischnaspis longirostris (Signoret) SV, CR, PA (Ben
Dov et al
. , 2001) , U.S. (CABI, 2007) Ben
-Dov et al
. ,

2001 N/A No N/A Pinnaspis strachani (Cooley) NI , U.S. (Maes, 2004), SV, PA (Ben
Dov et al
. , 2001) Maes, 2004 N/A No N/A **Lepidoptera: Arctiidae**  Selenaspidus articulatus (Morgan) HO, CR (CABI, 2006); PA, SV, NI (Ben Dov et al., 2001), U.S. (CABI, 2006) CABI, 2006 N/A No N/A
**Lepidoptera: Hesperiidae**  Calpodes ethlius GU (Janzen and Hallwachs, 2005) U.S. ({McAuslane, 2007 #37}) Janzen and

Hallwachs, 2005) N/A No N/A

Neoxeniades molion GU (Janzen and Hallwachs, 2005) Janzen and

Hallwachs, 2005) Leaf (Janzen and

Hallwachs, 2005) Yes No Quinta cannae GU (Janzen and Hallwachs, 2005) Janzen and

Hallwachs, 2005) Leaf (Janzen and

Hallwachs, 2005) Yes No Rhinthon cubana GU (Janzen and Hallwachs, 2005) Janzen and

Hallwachs, 2005) Leaf (Janzen and

Hallwachs, 2005) Yes No Saliana fusta GU (Janzen and Hallwachs, 2005) Janzen and

Hallwachs, 2005) Leaf (Janzen and

Hallwachs, 2005) Yes NoPest R isk A ssessment for C hufle from El Salvador

Rev. 03 April 5, 2010 6 **Pest Scientific Name Distribution**  **1 Host**  **r eference**  **Plant part(s) a**  **ssociation Quaran**  ****

**tine Pest Follow** 

**p athway**  Saliana triangularis GU (Janzen and Hallwachs, 2005) Janzen and

Hallwachs, 2005) Leaf (Janzen and

Hallwachs, 2005) Yes No **Lepidoptera: Noctuiidae**  Rivula leucosticta GU (Janzen and Hallwachs, 2005) Janzen and

Hallwachs, 2005) Leaf (Janzen and

Hallwachs, 2005) Yes No Spodoptera spp. SV( PestID, 2008 ) PestID, 2008 Leaf ( PestID, 2008 ) Yes Yes **Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae**  Caligo atreus (Kollar) PA (Penz et al
. , 1999); GU (Janzen and Hallwachs, 2005) Penz et al
. ,

1999 Leaf (Penz et al
. ,

1999) Yes No Caligo eurilochus sulanus (Fruhstorfer) PA(Penz et al
. , 1999) Penz et al
. , 1999 Leaf (Penz et al
. ,

1999) Yes No Caligo illioneus oberon (Butler) CR (Devries, 1997a) Penz et al
. , 1999 Leaf (Devries,

1997a) Yes No Caligo memnon (C and R Felder) SV (Penz et al
. , 1999) Penz et al
. , 1999 Leaf (Penz et al
. ,

1999) Yes No Caligo telamonius GU (Janzen and Hallwachs, 2005) Janzen and

Hallwachs, 2005 Leaf (Janzen and

Hallwachs, 2005) Yes No Cissia confusa (Staudinger) SV (Devries, 1997a); CR (Robinson et al., 2007) Devries, 1997a Leaf, flower (Devries, 1997a) Yes No 3 Megeuptychia antonoe Cramer SV (Devries, 1997a) Devries, 1997a Leaf (Devries, 1997a) Yes No Opsiphanes bogotanus Distant CR (Devries, 1997a) Devries, 1997a Leaf, flower, (Devries, 1997a) Yes No 3 Opsiphanes tamarindi GU (Janzen and Hallwachs, 2005) Janzen and

Hallwachs, 2005 Leaf (Janzen and

Hallwachs, 2005) Yes No Pierella helvetia helvetia (Godman and Salvin) SV (Devries, 1997a); GU (Janzen and Hallwachs, 2005) Devries, 1997a Leaf, flower, (Devries, 1997a) Yes No 3 **Lepidoptera: Riodinidae** Eurybia elvina (Stichel) SV(Devries, 1997b); GU (Janzen and Hallwachs, 2005) Devries, 1997b Inflorescence, leaf, flower (Devries, 1997a) Yes Yes Eurybia lycisca (Westwood) SV (Devries, 1997b) Devries, 1997b Inflorescence, leaf, flower (Devries, 1997a) Yes Yes

3 The pests are associated with flowers, but Devries (1997a) specifically indicated that no association existed with immature inflorescences.Pest R isk A ssessment for C hufle from El Salvador

Rev. 03 April 5, 2010 7 **Pest Scientific Name Distribution**  **1 Host**  **r eference**  **Plant part(s) a**  **ssociation Quaran**  ****

**tine Pest Follow** 

**p athway**  Eurybia patrona (Weymer) SV (Devries, 1997b) Devries, 1997b Leaf, stem, inflorescence (Devries, 1997a) Yes Yes Eurybia unxia (Godman and Salvin) CR (Devries, 1997b) Devries, 1997b Leaf, flower (Devries, 1997a) Yes Yes Riodinidae spp . SV ( PestID, 2008 ) Devries, 1997b; PestID, 2008 Leaf, stem

( PestID, 2008 ) Yes Yes **Lepidoptera: Saturniidae** Automeris banus GU (Janzen and Hallwachs, 2005) Janzen and

Hallwachs, 2005 Leaf (Janzen and

Hallwachs, 2005) Yes No **Thysanoptera: Thripidae**  Plesiothrips spp . SV ( PestID, 2008 ) PestID, 2008 Leaf, stem, flower ( PestID, 2008 ) Yes Yes **BACTERIA** Psuedomonas cichorii SV (Calderon and Vasquez, 2005); U.S (Leahy, 1991). Calderon and

Vasquez, 2005 N/A No N/A
**FUNGI and CHROMISTANS** Alternaria alternata (Fr.:Fr.) Keissl. (Ascomycetes: Pleosporales) SV (Escobar, 2003), GT, HN, MX, PA, U.S. (Farr et al
. , 2008) Chase, 1990;

Farr et al
. , 2008 NA No NA

Alternaria sp. Ness ( Dothideomycetes: Pleosporales) SV (Calderon and Vasquez, 2005), U.S. (Chase, 1990) Calderon and

Vasquez, 2005 N/A No N/A Botrytis cinerea Pers.: Fr. (Teleomorph: Botryotinia fuckeliana (de Bary) Whetzel (Ascomycetes: Helotiales) SV (Farr et al
. , 2008); U.S. (Alfieri et al
. , 1993) Calderon and

Vasquez, 2005; Farr et al
. , 2008 NA No NA
Cercospora calatheae Viégas & Chupp (Ascomycetes: Mycosphaerellales) PA (Farr et al
. , 2007); U.S. (FL) (Alfieri et al
. , 1993) Farr et al
. , 2007 N/A No N/A Cochliobolus lunatus R.R. Nelson & Haasis [Anamorph: Curvularia lunata (Wakker) Boedjin] (Ascomycetes: Pleosporales) SV (Acuña, 1976; McGuire Jr. and Crandall, 1967), U.S. (Farr et al
. , 2008) PestID, 2008 ;

Lins and Coelho, 2004 NA No NA

Colletotrichum dematium (Pers.:Fr.) Grove (Ascomycetes: Phyllachorales) NI , GT, MX, U.S. (Farr et al
. , 2008) Farr et al
. ,

2007, 2008 NA No NAPest R isk A ssessment for C hufle from El Salvador

Rev. 03 April 5, 2010 8 **Pest Scientific Name Distribution**  **1 Host**  **r eference**  **Plant part(s) a**  **ssociation Quaran**  ****

**tine Pest Follow** 

**p athway**  Colletotrichum gloeosporioides (Penz.) Penz. & Sacc. Syn : C. agave**s** Cavara (Teleomorph: Glomerella cingulata (Stoneman) Spauld. & H. Schrenk) Ascomycetes: Incertae sedis SV, U.S. (Farr et al
. , 2008) Farr et al
. ,

2008; Pappas and Paplomatas, 1998 NA No NA

Deightoniella torulosa (Syd.) M.B. Ellis Syn: Helminthosporium torulosum (Syd.) S.F. Ashby (Ascomycetes, Incertae sedis) NI , PA (Farr et al
. , 2008), U.S. (limited to FL, PR, HI, and VI) (Farr et al
. , 2008) Lins and

Coelho, 2004 NA No NA

Fusarium moniliforme J. Sheld. Syn: F. verticillioides (Sacc.) Nirenberg (Teleomorph: Gibberella moniliformis Wineland (Ascomycetes: Hypocreales) CR, GT, HN, NI, U.S. (Farr et al
. , 2008) Farr et al
. ,

2008; UNL
Nematology, 2000 NA No NA

Fusarium oxysporum Schltdl.: Fr. (Ascomycetes: Hypocreales) SV (Farr et al
. , 2008; MAG, 2005; McGuire Jr. and Crandall, 1967), U.S. (CABI, 2007; Farr et al
. , 2008) Miller, 1994

Chase, 1990 NA No NA

Fusarium solani (Mart.) Sacc. [Teleomorph: Haematonectria hematococca (Berk. and Broome) Samuels and Rossman] (Ascomycetes: Hypocreales) CR, HN, MX, NI (Farr et al
. , 2008), U.S. (Farr et al
. , 2008) Calderon and

Vasquez, 2005; Miller, 1994 NA No NA

Mycena citricolor (Berk. and M.A. Curtis) Sacc. (Basidiomycetes: Agaricales) SV (CABI, 2007; FEDECAME, 1960; González et al
. , 2001), U.S. (PR, VI, FL) (CABI, 2006; Farr et al
. , 2008) Wellman, 1977 Leaf (FEDECAME, 1960; Wellman, 1977), Stems, and Fruits (González et al
. , 2001) Yes No

Myrothecium roridum Tode: Fr. (Ascomycetes: Hypocreales) SV, GT, CR, U.S. (Farr et al
. , 2008) Farr et al
. ,

2008, Henny et al
. , 1991 NA No NAPest R isk A ssessment for C hufle from El Salvador

Rev. 03 April 5, 2010 9 **Pest Scientific Name Distribution**  **1 Host**  **r eference**  **Plant part(s) a**  **ssociation Quaran**  ****

**tine Pest Follow** 

**p athway**  Periconia byssoides Pers. Syn: P. pycnospora Fresen (Ascomycetes: Incertae sedis) SV, PA, U.S. (Farr et al
. , 2008) Farr et al
. , 2008 NA No NA

Puccinia sp . (Urediniomycetes, Uredinales) CR ( PestID, 2008 ) PestID, 2008 Leaf ( PestID, 2008 ) Yes Yes Puccinia thaliae Dietel Syn: P. cannae (G. Winter) Henn., Uredo cannae G. Winter (Urediniomycetes: Uredinales) CR, GT, PA (Farr et al
. , 2008), U.S. (Sivanesan, 1970) Farr et al
. , 2007 N/A No N/A
Pyricularia oryzae Cavara Anamorph: Magnaporthe ( Sordariomycetes, Incertae sedis) SV, U.S. (CABI, 2006) Pappas and

Paplomatas, 1998 NA No NA

Rhizoctonia solani J.G. Kühn Teleomorph: Thanatephorus cucumeris (A.B. Frank) Donk (Basidiomycetes: Ceratobasidiales) SV, NI, HN, PA, CR, GT, BZ, US (Farr et al
. , 2008) Farr et al
. , 2008 NA No NA

Rosellinia bunodes (Berk. & Broome) Sacc. (Ascomycetes: Xylariales) SV (Farr et al
. , 2008; MAG, 2005), U.S. (Farr et al
. , 2008, Hoopen and Krauss, 2006) Farr et al
. , 2008 NA No NA

**NEMATODES** Aphelenchoides besseyi Christie SV (CABI, 2007), U.S. (CABI, 2007; Ferris, 2007) de Oliveira and

Kubo, 2001 NA No NA Helicotylenchus dihystera (Cobb) Sher SV, U.S. (CABI, 2007) Gandarilla

Basterrechea and Fernández Gonzálvez, 2002 NA No NA
Meloidogyne incognita (Kofoid & White) Chitwood SV, U.S. (CABI, 2007) de Oliveira and

Kubo, 2001 NA No NA Radopholus similis (Cobb) Thorne SV (Calderon and Vasquez, 2005), U.S. (EPPO, 1990) UNL
Nematology, 2000 N/A No N/APest R isk A ssessment for C hufle from El Salvador

Rev. 03 April 5, 2010 10 **Pest Scientific Name Distribution**  **1 Host**  **r eference**  **Plant part(s) a**  **ssociation Quaran**  ****

**tine Pest Follow** 

**p athway**  Xiphinema americanum Cobb SV, U.S. (CABI, 2007) Gandarilla

Basterrechea and Fernández Gonzálvez, 2002 NA No NA

**VIRUSES and VIROIDS** Cucumber mosaic virus SV, U.S. (CABI, 2007) Chase, 1990;

Henley et al
. , 2007 N/A No N/A
**ALGAE** Cephaleuros virescens Kűnze Trentepohliaceae SV (Acuña, 1976), U.S. (Holcomb, 1986; Mullen and Hagan, 2003) Wellman, 1977 NA No NA

**2.5 .**  **Pest Categorization: Quarantine Pests Likely to Follow the Pathway**  Quarantine pests expected to follow the pathway, i.e
. , be included in commercial shipments of chufle (Table 4), will be anal yz ed in detail in this risk assessment [Steps 5
- 7 (PPQ , 2000)]. Other quarantine plant pests in this assessment which were not further scrutinized may be potentially

detrimental to agri cultural production systems of the United States or the natural environment. Pests identified only at the genus level or higher were not analy zed if the group already occurs in the United States. However, we recognize that individual species within those taxonomic groups are potential pests that may not occur in the United States. The IPPC guidelines do not require risk assessment of pests identified only by genus (IPPC, 2007 : I SPM #2 ). By necessity, pest risk assessments focus on those organisms for which adequate biological and taxonomic information is available. There may be many species within a genus, and we cannot reasonabl y assume identical biology for all organisms within a genus. The lack of species identification may

indicate the limits of current taxonomic knowledge, or inadequacy of the life stage or quality of the specimen submitted for species identification. The lack of identification at the specific level does not allow clear identification of quarantine status. Pests of chufle likel y to follow the pathway , but reported at the genus or less detailed taxonomic level which already occur in the United States are included in Table 3. However, they are not anal yz ed in this risk assessment. Pests reported only by genus are: Liriomyza spp . , Plesiothrips spp ., Spodoptera spp . , Alternaria sp . , and Puccinia sp . The lack of specific 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, famil y, or order level are intercepted on chufle from El Salvador 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
. None of these arthropods has a geographic range that includes the United States which implies that they are quarantine pests and that they can be treated as such, if they are discovered during aPest R isk A ssessment for C hufle from El Salvador

Rev. 03 April 5, 2010 11 port of entry

inspection. If more information becomes available concerning these pests in the future, they

can be anal yzed to determine their potential ability to colonize and cause damage. We found four quarantine pests that could follow the pathway : E. elvina, E. lycisca, E. patrona , and E. unxia , which are all Lepidoptera: Riodinidae
. We found only very limited information for E. unxia
. Because of this, and because of the similarities in behavior and distribution of all four species, we anal yz ed them together , and noted any exceptions for particular species
. **2. 6**  **. Consequences of Introduction**  USDA estimates the Consequences of Introduction using five risk elements: climate
- host interaction, host range, dispersal potential, economic impact, and environmental impact. They assign a Low (1 point), Medium (2 points), or High (3 points) to each Risk Element and add the Risk Elements to produce a Cumulative Risk Rating for each pest analyzed (PPQ, 2000 ). Table 3 summarizes the Consequences of Introduction values. **Eurybia spp** **. (** 

**Eurybia elvina, E. lycisca, E. p atrona,**  **and E. unxia** **) Risk**  **ratings Risk Element 1: Climate**  **- Host Interaction**  All four lepidopteran are limited to tropical rain forest habitat s (Devries, 1997 )
. The only climate zone in the continental United States that corresponds to the area is zone 1 1 in Southern Florida (PERAL , 2008 )
. Low (1)
**Risk Element 2: Host Range** All four lepidopteran have only been observed feeding on Calathea spp. The genus Eurybia has onl y been observed on Marantaceae and Zinigiberacaceae (Devries, 1997 ). Medium (2)

**Risk Element 3: Dispersal Potential**  The fl ying abilities of the four lepidopteran are limited by their small size. The largest butterfl y of the four has a 30
- 35 mm wingspan and is described as a rapid flyer (Devries, 1997 ). These characteristics suggest that l ong - distance flight is not likely
. No member of the family Riodinidae (“metalmarks”) is reported as being a strong flier. The limited area in which each member of the genus is found and its limited flying ability suggests limited ability

to disperse
. Low ( 1)

**Risk Element 4: Economic Impact** Eurybia elvina is known to be a prodigious consumer of Calathea flowers and seeds (Devries, 1997 ). The other three species may also severel y damage the ability of chufle to reproduce, as they all consume the inflorescence. However, damage appears limited to lowering chufle production
. Low (1)
**Risk Element 5: Environmental Impact** No members of Calathea are listed as endangered in the United States. The genus appears restricted to Calathea so effects on other plant or animal species appear unlikel y . Low (1)Pest R isk A ssessment for C hufle from El Salvador

Rev. 03 April 5, 2010 12 **Table 3**  **.** Summary

of Risk Ratings for Consequences of Introduction **Pest Climate/**  **Host**

**Interaction Host Range**  **Dispersal Potential**  **Economic**

**Impact Environ.** 

**Impact Cumulative** 

**Risk Rating a**  Eurybia elvina Low (1) Medium (2) Low (1) Low (1) Low (1) Low (6) Eurybia lyci

sca Low (1) Medium (2) Low (1) Low (1) Low (1) Low (6) Eurybia patrona Low (1) Medium (2) Low (1) Low (1) Low (1) Low (6) Eurybia uxnia Low (1) Medium (2) Low (1) Low (1) Low (1) Low (6) a Lo w = 5
- 8 points; Medium = 9
- 12 points; High = 13
- 15 points. **2. 7**  **. Likelihood of Introduction** The likelihood of a pest being introduced and establishing a reproductive population is dependent on a series of six independent events: 1) the quantity of the commodity

imported, 2) the ability

of the pest to survive post
- harvest treatment , 3) the ability of the pest to survive shipment, 4) the probability the pest will not be detected at the port of entry, 5) the likelihood that it will be m oved to a suitable habitat, and 6) the probability that it will come into contact with suitable host material (PPQ, 2000 ). We evaluated these six elements below. 2. 7.1. Quantity of product imported annually The market for chufle in the United States is limited. The primary intended consumers are Salvadoran ex -patriots and recent immigrants. Chufle could only be marketed in communities with sufficient size to justify the costs of shipping and to quickly consume the product before it spoil s . Only

a few areas in the United States meet those criteria (Hernández et al
. , 2003 ). The quantities to be shipped to the United States are likely to be small until these markets are developed so the likel y number of containers is less than 10 (Hernández et al
. , 2003 ) and the risk asso ciated with the quantity being imported is Low
. 2. 7
. 2
. Survive postharvest treatment The most likely

postharvest treatments are washing and culling damaged inflorescences ( Esquivel, 2005 ) . Washing would remove large larvae and culling could remove visibly damaged inflorescences and further address visible arthropods. Recently hatched lepidopteran could easily escape visual detection and washing. Thus the risk associated with surviving post harvest treatment is Medium
. 2. 7
. 3
. Survive shipment Lepidoptera have been intercepted on Calathea sp p. from Costa Rica,on flower shipments, Their presence doe s demonstrate that lepidoptera can survive transport on flowers. The shipping time is so short, a few hours by air (the most likely method of entry), that it should not be significant source of lepidopteran mortality compared to post harvest treatment or the climate at the exporting or receiving port. The risk of surviving the shipment is High
. 2. 7.4. Not detected at port of entry Small lepidoterans or microlepidopterans are frequently missed at ports
- of

- entry because they are too small for eas y visual detections. Especially if damage to the fruit is slight, inspectors may not take the time required for a close visual inspection to find freshl y hatched lepidopteran
. SincePest R isk A ssessment for C hufle from El Salvador

Rev. 03 April 5, 2010 13 Eurybia spp . may

be small, they

are more likel y to escape detection. However, most lar val stages are visuall y detectable, so there is a chance that inspection can intercept Eurybia sp. larva. Thus, the risk is Medium
. 2. 7.5. Imported or moved to an area with an environment suitable for survival The only environment suitable for the Eurybia spp . in the United States is South Florida. Since the Salvadoran government has targeted Miami as a market for Salvadoran products, chufle is highl y likely to be imported into South Florida (Hernández et al
. , 2003 )
. The risk associated with importation into a suitable area i s High
. 2. 7.6. Come into contact with host material suitable for reproduction Calathea spp. are not native to the continental United States: Calathea is only found in greenhouse production and as an ornamental in gardens ( Chase, 1990; Leahy , 1991; Poole et al
. , 1991 ). The quantity of ornamental plants and their wide dispersal would prevent the growth of a successful colony. Normal phy tosanitary measures in U.S. greenhouse production would probably prevent Eurybia from entering and colonizing a greenhouse. Even if Eurybia could enter a greenhouse in the United States , it would probably be detected and eliminated easily
. The risk associated with finding suitable host material is Low . 2. 7.7. Cumulative Risk Rating s A Cumulative Risk Rating for the Likelihood of Introduction was obtained by summing the six sub
- elements together (Table 4). Overall, the three Eurybia spp. have a Medium likelihood (12), of introduction and establishment in the United States. **Table 4**  **.** Summary

of Risk Ratings for Likelihood of Introduction **Pest Quantity** 

**imported Survive** 

**post -**  **harvest treatment**  **Survive**

**ship**   ** ment** **Not**

**detected Moved to** 

**suitable habitat**  **Contact**

**host ma**  **terial Cumulative** 

**Risk Rating a**  Eurybia elvina Low (1) Med (2) High (3) Med (2) High (3) Low (1) Medium (12) Eurybia lycisca Low (1) Med (2) High (3) Med (2) High (3) Low (1) Medium (12) Eurybia patrona Low (1) Med (2) High (3) Med (2) High (3) Low (1) Medium (12) Eurybia uxnia Low (1) Med (2) High (3) Med (2) High (3) Low (1) Medium (12) a Lo w = 6

–9 points; Medium = 10

– 14 points; High = 15

– 18 points 

### 3. **Conclusion: Pest**  **Risk Potential**  **s** We summarize Pest Risk Potential by summing the two cumulative risk ratings for Consequences of Introduction and Likelihood of Introduction (PPQ, 2000 ). The Pest Risk Potential of a pest is a qualitative estimation of risk that is expressed in terms of Low, Medium, or High. According to the Guidelines for Pathway
-Initiated Pest Risk Assessments, Version 5
. 02 (PPQ, 2000 ), port of entry inspection provides sufficient phy tosanitary se curity for pests assigned Low pest risk potentials, while specific phy tosanitary measures may

be necessary

for Medium pest risk potentials and are strongly recommended for High pest risk potentials. With aPest R isk A ssessment for C hufle from El Salvador

Rev. 03 April 5, 2010 15 Consequence of Introduction score of 6 and a Likel ihood of Introduction score of 12, the overall Pest Risk Potential for Eurybia spp. is Low (18) (Table 5 ). No specific phytosanitary measures, beyond port inspection, are required since the ability of these Eurybia spp . to colonize the United States and do damage is very limited. **Table 5**  **.** Pest Risk Potential s **Pest Consequences of** 

**Introduction Likelihood of** 

**Introduction Cumulative** 

**Risk Rating a**  Eurybia elvina Low (6) Medium (12) Low (18) Eurybia lycisca Low (6) Medium (12) Low (18) Eurybia patrona Low (6) Medium (12) Low (18) Eurybia uxnia Low (6) Medium (12) Low (18) a Lo w =11
- 18 points; Medium = 19
- 26 points; High = 27
- 33 point 

### 4. Authors and Reviewers **Prepared by** : John Rogers, Risk Analyst 1 **Reviewers:** Dan Borchert, Entomologist 1 Lisa Ferguson, Plant Pathologist 1 Ashley Jackson, Editorial Assistant 1 1 USDA
- APHI S
- PPQ
- CPHST
- PERAL 

### 5 **. Literature Cited** 7 CFR § 360. 2007. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 7, Part 360 (7 CFR §360
- Noxious Weed Regulations). Acuña, L. E. 1976. Manual de enfermedades de cultivos tropicales Pages 77. Centro Nacional de Tecnologia Agropecuaria, Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganaderia, Santa Tecla, El Salvador. Alfieri, S. A., K. R. Langdon, J. W. Kimboroough, N. E. El
- Gholl, and C. Wehlburg. 1993. Disease and disorders of plants in Florida
. Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Gainesville, Florida. 628
- 629 pp. Beatres
- Marques, S., H. Jensen, and G. Brester. 2001. Salvadorian Consumption of Ethnic Food in the United States. Iowa State University , Ames, Iowa. 24 pp. Ben
- Dov, Y., D. R. Miller, and G. A. P. Gibson. 200 7 . ScaleNet. Last accessed October 22, 2007, http://www.sel.barc.usda.gov/scalenet/lifehist.htm Bernal, H., and J. Correa. 1994. Especies Vegetales Promisorias de los países del Convenio Andrés Bello. Talleres de Editora Guada1upeLtda., Santa Fe de bogota, Colombia. CABI. 2007. Crop Protection Compendium. C ommonwealth Agricultural Bureau (CABI)
. Wallingford, UK.Pest R isk A ssessment for C hufle from El Salvador

Rev. 03 April 5, 2010 16 Calderon, G. R., and R. G. Vasquez. 2005. Manual Tecnico Para el Control de Plagas. PROSAIA
- USAID, Santa Tecla, El Salvador. 63 pp. Chase, A. R. 1982. Alternaria leaf spot of Calathea spp. Plant Disease 66(10):953
- 954. Chase, A. R. 1990. Diseases of Potted Foliage Plants
- 1990 Listing. University of Florida, Apopka, FL. 1
- 21 pp
. de Oliveira, C. M. G., and R. K. Kubo. 2001. Nematodes parasitos de plantas ornamentais (Parasitic nematodes of ornamental plants). Last accessed 18 March, 2008, http://www.biologico.sp.gov.br/rifib/XIVRifib/oliveira.PDF. Devries, P. 1997a. The Butterfli es of Costa Rica and Their Natural History , Volume I. Princeton University

Press, Princeton, NJ. 288 pp. Devries, P. 1997b. The Butterflies of Costa Rica and Their Natural History, Volume II. Princeton University

Press, Princeton, NJ. 288 pp. EPPO. 1990. Radophilus citrophilus and Radopholus similis
. European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization (EPPO)
. Last accessed August 27, 2007, www.eppo.org. Escobar, J. C. 2003. Manejo integrado de plagas de cultivos hortícolas Proyecto Agricultura Sostenible en Zonas de Ladera, Centro Nacional de Tecnologia Agropecuaria y Forestal (CENTA)
- FAO
- HOLANDA, El Salvador. 123 pp. Esquivel, H. 2005. Informe Tecnico sobre el Cultivo Chufle. Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganaderia, San Salvador, El Salvador. 4 pp. Farr, D. F., A. Y. Rossman, M. E. Palm, and E. B. McCray . 2008. Fungal Databases, S ys tematic Mycology

and Microbiology

L aboratory . Last accessed 14 February 2008, http://nt.ars
grin.gov/fungaldatabases/. Fasulo, T. R. 2007. Tetranychus urticae Koch (Arachnida: Acari: Tetranyc hidae) University of Florida. Last accessed Augu s t 27, 2007, http://creatures.ifas.ufl.edu/orn/twospotted_mite.htm. FEDECAME. 1960. Plagas y enfermedades del cafeto en El Salvador. Federación Cafetalera de América (FEDECAME). F erris, H. 2007. NEMAPLEX: the Nematode plant expert information system. Department of Nematology , University of California, Davis, California. Last accessed 19 March 2008, http://plpnemweb.ucdavis.edu/nemaplex/. Gandarilla Basterrechea, H., and E. Fernánde z Gonzálvez. 2002. Registro actualizado de fitonemátodos en plantas ornamentales de Cuba. Fitosanidad 6(3):9
- 27. González, O., F. Bautista, A. Hernández, A. Rivera, and R. Ramírez. 2001. Combate integrado de plagas enfermedades, nematodos y malezas del cafeto. Fundación Salvadoreña para investigaciones del café. PROCAFE San Salvador, El Salvador. 118 pp. Gunn, C. R., and C. A. Ritchie. 1988. Identification of disseminules listed in the Federal Noxious Weed Act (Technical Bulletin Number 1719.). United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, U.S.A. 313 pp. Henley, R. W., A. R. Chase, and L. S. Osborne. 2007. Maranta Production Guide. Commercial Foliage Crop Production Notes CFREC
- A Foliage Plant Research Note RH
- 91
- 22:11. Last access ed 7 August 2007, http://mrec.ifas.ufl.edu/Foliage/folnotes/maranta.htm. Henny, R. J., A. R. Chase, and L. S. Osborne. 1991. Dieffenbachia Production Guide. CFREC (Central Florida Research and Education Center), University of Florida IFAS Research Report
- R H 91
- 13 1
- 10. Last accessed 16 April 2005, http://mrec.ifas.ufl.edu/Foliage/folnotes/dieffenb.htm. 15Pest R isk A ssessment for C hufle from El Salvador

Rev. 03 April 5, 2010 17 Hernández, E. L ., J. E. Alfaro, E. F. Fagoaga, A. M. Vásquez, A. M. Carillo, and D. A. Carballo. 2003. Estudio de Mercado de Productos Etnicos in EE.UU. M inisterio de Economia de El Salvador, San Salvador, El Salvador. Holcomb, G. E. 1986. Hosts of the parasitic alga Cephaleuros virescens in Louisiana and new host records for the continental United States. Plant Disease 70(11):1080
- 1083. Holm, L ., J. Doll, E. Holm, J. Rancho, and J. Herberger. 1997. World Weeds: Natural Histories and Distribution. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York. 1129 pp. Holm, L . G., J. V. Pancho, J. P. Herberger, and D. L . Plucknett. 1979. A Geographical Atlas of World Weeds. Krieger Pub lishing Company, Malabar, Florida, U.S.A. 391 pp. Holm, L . G., D. L. Plucknett, J. V. Pancho, and J. P. Herberger. 1977. The World's Worst Weeds: Distribution and Biology . Krieger Publishing Company , Malabar, Florida, U.S.A. 69 pp. Hoopen, G. M. t., and U. Krauss. 2006. Biology and control of Rosellinia bunodes , Rosellinia necatrix and Rosellinia pepo : A Review. Crop Protection 25:89
- 107. IPPC. 2007. International Standards For Phytosanitary Measures, 1 to 29 (2007 edition). Food and Agriculture Organizatio n of the United Nations, Secretariat of the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC), Rome, Italy . 376 pp. Janzen, D. H., and W. Hallwachs. 2005. Dy namic database for an inventory of the macrocaterpillar fauna, and its food plants and parasitoids, of Area de Conservacion Guanacaste (ACG), northwestern Costa Rica University of Pennsylvania. Last accessed http://janzen.sas.upenn.edu
. Kennedy, H. 1978. S ys tematics and pollination of the "closed
- flowered" species of Calathea (Marantaceae). University California Press, Berkely , Cal. Kennedy, H. 2007 Calathea macrosepala not C. allouia . Personal communication to J. Rogers on August 1, 200 7
. Leahy, R. M. 1991. Bacterial Leaf Spot of Calathea spp. Florida Dept of Ag. and Consumer Services, Gainesville, F L
. Lins, S. R. O., and R. S. B. Coelho. 2004. Ocorrência de doenças em plantas ornamentais tropicais no Estado de Pernambuco (Occurrence of diseases on tropical ornamental plants in the State of Pernambuco). Fitopatologia Brasileira 29:332
- 335. Liogier, H. A. , and L. F. Martorell. 2000. Flora of Puerto Rico and adjacent islands: a systematic sy nopsis (2nd ed.). Editorial de la Universidad the Puerto Rico, San Juan, Puerto Rico. Landcare Research . 2005. Ngā Tipu o Aotearoa
- New Zealand Plants. Landcare Research . Last accessed June 25, 2007, http://nzflora.landcareresearch.co.nz/. Maes, J. M. 2004. Insectos associados a algunos cultivos tropicales en el Atlantico de Nicaragua. Revista Nicaraguense de Entomologia 64 (Suplamento 1):75. MAG. 2005. List of pests in El Salvador. Personal communication to O. Parfait (CEF) on 27 April 2005, from Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganaderia De El Salvador (MAG). McGuire Jr., J. U., and B. S. Crandall. 1967. Survey of insect pests and plant diseases of selected food crops of Mex ico, Central America, and Panama. USDA. 159 pp. McKenna, D. 2005. Entomological adventures in the Southern Atlantic Autonomous Region of Nicaragua. Chrysomela newsletter (45):7
- 8. McKenna, D., and B. Ferrell. 2005. Molecular phylogenetics and evolution of host plant use in the Neotropical rolled leaf 'hispine' beetle genus Cephaloleia (Chevrolat) (Chrysomelidae: Cassidinae). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 37:117
- 131.Pest R isk A ssessment for C hufle from El Salvador

Rev. 03 April 5, 2010 18 Medrano, P. 2004. Initiating Event. Ministerio de Agricultura Y Ganaderia, San Salvador, El Salvador. pp. 1. Miller, J. W. 1994. Plant Pathology Section. Ornamentals and foliage plants Tri
- ology 33(3). Last accessed 16 April 2005, http://www.doacs.state.fl.us/pi/enpp/94
- 7&8all.htm. Mullen, J., and S. Hagan. 2003. Algal leaf spot The Alabama Cooperative Extension System - Plant Disease Notes. Last accessed 28 February 2008, http://www.aces.edu/pubs/docs/A/ANR
- 0943/ANR
0943.pdf?PHPSESSID=cfb81b04ea5243430d9795daeb807558. Naeve, L. 2003. Owl Butterflies at the Christina Reiman Butterfly Wing. Pages 1
- 3 in ISU Extension News Release. Iowa State University
. NGRP. Year
- a. Germplasm Resources Information Network (GRIN). United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, National Genetic Resources Program (NGRP). http://www.ars
- grin.gov/cgi
-bin/npgs/html/index.pl?language=en. (Archived at PERAL) Noda, H., C. R. Bueno, and D. F. S. Filho (eds.). 1994. Guinea Arrowroot (Cala thea allouia ). FAO, Rome, Ital y. NRCS. 2007. The PLANTS Database. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), The National Plant Data Center. http://plants.usda.gov. (Archived at PERAL) Pappas, A. C., and E. J. Paplomatas. 1998. Py ricularia leaf spot: A new disease of ornamental plants of the family

Marantaceae. Plant Disease 82(5):465
- 469. Penz, C., A. Aiello, and R. Srygl ey . 1999. Early stages of Caligo illioneus and C. idomeneus (Nymphalidae, Brassolinae) from Panama with remarks on larval foo d plants for subfamily . Journal of Lepidopteran Society 53(4):142
- 152. PERAL . 2008. Plant Hardiness Zones of the United States: Area and Population Analysis. United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine, Center for Plant Health Science and Technology, Plant Epidemiology

and Risk Analysis Laboratory (PERAL), Raleigh, NC. 6 pp. PestID. 2008. Pest Identification Database (PestID). United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant H ealth Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine. https://mokcs14.aphis.usda.gov/aqas/login.jsp. (Archived at PERAL) PPQ. 2000. Guidelines for pathway
- initiated pest risk assessments (Version 5.02). United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ), Riverdale, MD. 30 pp. Randall, R. P. 2007. A Global Compendium of Weeds, Online Database. Department of Agriculture of Western Australia. Last accessed January 12, 2007, http://www .hear.org/gcw/. Reed, C. F. 1977. Economically Important Foreign Weeds. United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Washington, D.C . 746 pp. Robinson, G.S., P. R. Ackery, I. J. Kitching, G.W. Beccaloni, and L. M. Hernández. 2007. HOSTS

- a Database of the World's Lepidopteran Hostplants. Natural History Museum. http://www.nhm.ac.uk/research
- curation/projects/hostplants/. (Archived at PERAL) Simone, G. W., and D.D. Brunk. 1983. New leaf spot disease of Calathea and Maranta spp. incited by Drechslera setariae . Plant Disease 67(10):1160
- 1161. Sivanesan, A. 1970. IMI Descriptions of Fungi and Bacteria. CABI bioscience. Last accessed August, 27, 2007, www.cababstractplus.org.Pest R isk A ssessment for C hufle from El Salvador

Rev. 03 April 5, 2010 19 Skinner, K., L . Smith, and P. Rice. 2005. Noxious Weeds in the US and Canada, Online Database. University of Montana. Last accessed February 25, 2005, http://invader.dbs.umt.edu/Noxious_Weeds/. Swearingen, J. 2005. Alien plant invaders of natural areas. National Park Service. Last accessed May 2, 2005, http://www.nps. gov/plants/alien/list/all.htm. UNL
-Nematology . 2000. Radopholus similis . University of Nebraska
. Last accessed August 27, 2007, nematode.unl.edu. Weber, E. 2003. Invasive Plant Species of the World: A Reference Guide to Environmental Weeds. CABI Publishing , Wallingford, UK. 548 pp. Wellman, F. L . 1977. Dictionary of Tropical American Crops and Their Diseases. The Scarecrow Press, Inc., Metuchen, NJ, USA. WSSA. 2006. Weed List. Weed Science Society of America (WSSA). Last accessed November 28, 2006, http://www.wssa.net/weednames/common.asp.Pest R isk A ssessment for C hufle from El Salvador

Rev. 03 April 5, 2010 20 

### 6 **. Appendices Appendix 1**  **. Pest**  **s and pathogens intercepted on**  **Calathea sp**  **. at**  **United States ports**  **.** Data are from 1985 to 2007 (PestID, 2008). **Pest Origin**  Arctiidae, Species Of El Salvador Cephalalges Sp. (Curculionidae) Costa Rica Cephaloleia Sp. (Chrysomelidae) Costa Rica Cerichrestus Sp. (Chrysomelidae) Costa Rica Cicadellidae, Species Of Costa Rica Cochliobolus Sp. Mexico Crambidae, Species Of Costa Rica Deroceras laeve (Müller) (Agriolimacidae) *Non
- Rep* Costa Rica Dysmicoccus Sp. (Pseudococcidae) Costa Rica Eleodes Sp. (Tenebrionidae) Mexico Epermeniidae, Species Of Costa Rica Gelechiidae, Species Of Costa Rica Gly phipterigidae, Species Of Costa Rica Helicarionidae, Species Of Costa Rica Hesperiidae, Species Of Costa Rica Lepidoptera, Species Of Costa Rica Listroderes Sp. (Curculionidae) Mexico Lycaenidae, Species Of Costa Rica Margarodidae, Species Of Costa Rica Megathy midae, Species Of Costa Rica Microlepidoptera, Species Of Costa Rica Pallifera costaricensis (Mörch) (Philomycidae) Costa Rica Plesiothrips Sp. (Thripidae) El Salvador Pseudococcidae, Species Of Costa Rica Pterophoridae, Species Of Costa Rica Py ralidae, Species Of Costa Rica Py raloidea, Species Of Nicaragua Riodinidae, Species Of El Salvador Sarasinula plebeia (Fischer) (Veronicellidae) Costa Rica Succinea costaricana Von Martens (Succineidae) Costa Rica Tettigoniidae, Species Of Costa Rica Thy rididae, Species Of Costa Rica Tineidae, Species Of Costa Rica Tortricidae, Species Of Costa Rica