Importation of Fresh Chufle, Calathea macrosepala K. 

Schum., immature inflorescences into the Continental 

United States from El Salvador

A Pathway-initiated Pest Risk Assessment

April 5, 2010

Revision 03

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 27606
Pest Risk Assessment for Chufle 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 

phytosanitary 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 Risk Assessment for Chufle 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, Decision History, and Pest Interceptions........................................ 3

2.4. Pest Categorization: Identification of Quarantine Pests ...................................................... 3

2.5. Pest Categorization: Quarantine Pests Likely to 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 ports. ............ 20
Pest Risk Assessment for Chufle from El Salvador

Rev. 03 April 5, 2010 1

1. Introduction 

This risk assessment was prepared by Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ), Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service (APHIS), U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), in response to a 

request by 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 

continental 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 probabilities 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 by 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 used 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—commonly 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 by hand 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 analysis to import chufle into the United States, we faced two 

difficulties, 1) taxonomic confusion about the identity of chufle, and 2) a lack of information 

about pests affecting the crop in Central America. Chufle 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). Its 

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 references difficult to use. 

Secondly, since it has never been cultivated on a large scale, C. macrosepala has rarely been 

researched. Most research on Calathea spp. is on ornamentals in greenhouse production. 

Moreover, the only large scale presence of Calathea spp. in the United States is in greenhouse 
Pest Risk Assessment for Chufle 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 unreliable.

To deal with those challenges, we chose to expand the analysis 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 part 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 analysis can 

describe all conceivable risks, and expanding the geographic and taxonomic range of the analysis 

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 focused on risks associated with 

the immature inflorescence of C. macrosepala, and assumed that only those inflorescences will 

be imported. 

2. Risk Assessment

A Pest Risk Assessment is a component of an overall Pest Risk Analysis. The Guidelines for 

Pest Risk Analysis (IPPC, 1997: ISPM #2) describe three stages in pest risk analysis. 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 analyze in more 

detail the quarantine pests likely to follow the pathway with the imported commodity. In that 

analysis, we assess five risk elements associated with the Consequences of Introduction of pests 

into the United States. Likewise, we combine six sub-elements to assess the Likelihood of 

Introduction into the United States. 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 Weediness Potential of Calathea macrosepala

The results of screening for weed potential for chufle did not prompt a weed-initiated risk 

assessment (Table 1).
Pest Risk Assessment for Chufle from El Salvador

Rev. 03 April 5, 2010 3

Table 1. Weediness potential 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 only 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 Weeds (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 by this plant, and the answers to the above questions are negative. The 

immature inflorescence is unlikely to lead to plant establishment. This commodity

does not meet the IPPC definition of a quarantine pest (IPPC, 2007: ISPM #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 States.

2.3.2. Current Import Status

Chufle immature inflorescences cannot enter the United States as a fresh market commodity

pending an analysis 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 that country. Only 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 analysis 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 Risk Assessment for Chufle 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 could 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 

thereby, but not yet present, or present, but not widely distributed and being officially 

controlled” (IPPC, 2007: 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 Distribution1 Host reference Plant part(s) 

association

Quarantine PestFollow 

pathway

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 consumption of leaves upon information about the genus, not species-specific information.
Pest Risk Assessment for Chufle from El Salvador

Rev. 03 April 5, 2010 5

Pest Scientific Name Distribution1 Host reference Plant part(s) 

association

Quarantine PestFollow 

pathway

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 (BenDov 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 (BenDov 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 No
Pest Risk Assessment for Chufle from El Salvador

Rev. 03 April 5, 2010 6

Pest Scientific Name Distribution1 Host reference Plant part(s) 

association

Quarantine PestFollow 

pathway

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 No3

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 No3

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 No3

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 Risk Assessment for Chufle from El Salvador

Rev. 03 April 5, 2010 7

Pest Scientific Name Distribution1 Host reference Plant part(s) 

association

Quarantine PestFollow 

pathway

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 NA
Pest Risk Assessment for Chufle from El Salvador

Rev. 03 April 5, 2010 8

Pest Scientific Name Distribution1 Host reference Plant part(s) 

association

Quarantine PestFollow 

pathway

Colletotrichum 

gloeosporioides (Penz.) 

Penz. & Sacc.

Syn: C. agaves 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; UNLNematology, 

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 NA
Pest Risk Assessment for Chufle from El Salvador

Rev. 03 April 5, 2010 9

Pest Scientific Name Distribution1 Host reference Plant part(s) 

association

Quarantine PestFollow 

pathway

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)

UNLNematology, 

2000

N/A No N/A
Pest Risk Assessment for Chufle from El Salvador

Rev. 03 April 5, 2010 10

Pest Scientific Name Distribution1 Host reference Plant part(s) 

association

Quarantine PestFollow 

pathway

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 analyzed 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 agricultural production systems of the United States or the natural 

environment. Pests identified only at the genus level or higher were not analyzed 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: ISPM 

#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 reasonably 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 likely 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 

analyzed 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, family, 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 a 
Pest Risk Assessment for Chufle 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 analyzed 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 analyzed 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. patrona, and E. unxia) Risk ratings

Risk Element 1: Climate-Host Interaction

All four lepidopteran are limited to tropical rain forest habitats (Devries, 1997).

The only climate zone in the continental United States that corresponds to the 

area is zone 11 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 only been observed on Marantaceae and Zinigiberacaceae 

(Devries, 1997).

Medium (2)

Risk Element 3: Dispersal Potential

The flying abilities of the four lepidopteran are limited by their small size. The 

largest butterfly of the four has a 30-35 mm wingspan and is described as a rapid 

flyer (Devries, 1997). These characteristics suggest that long-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 severely 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 unlikely.

Low (1)
Pest Risk Assessment for Chufle 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 Ratinga

Eurybia elvina Low (1) Medium (2) Low (1) Low (1) Low (1) Low (6) 

Eurybia lycisca 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

Low = 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 moved 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 

spoils. 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 likely number of containers is less than 10 (Hernández et al., 2003) and the risk 

associated 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 spp. from Costa Rica,on flower shipments, Their 

presence does 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 easy visual detections. Especially if damage to the fruit is slight, inspectors may

not take the time required for a close visual inspection to find freshly hatched lepidopteran. Since 
Pest Risk Assessment for Chufle from El Salvador

Rev. 03 April 5, 2010 13

Eurybia spp. may be small, they are more likely to escape detection. However, most larval stages 

are visually 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 

highly likely to be imported into South Florida (Hernández et al., 2003). The risk associated with 

importation into a suitable area is 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 phytosanitary 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 Ratings

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 

shipment

Not 

detected 

Moved to 

suitable 

habitat

Contact 

host 

material

Cumulative 

Risk Ratinga

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

Low = 6–9 points; Medium = 10–14 points; High = 15–18 points

3. Conclusion: Pest Risk Potentials

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 phytosanitary security for pests 

assigned Low pest risk potentials, while specific phytosanitary measures may be necessary for 

Medium pest risk potentials and are strongly recommended for High pest risk potentials. With a 
Pest Risk Assessment for Chufle from El Salvador

Rev. 03 April 5, 2010 15

Consequence of Introduction score of 6 and a Likelihood 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 Potentials

Pest Consequences of 

Introduction

Likelihood of 

Introduction

Cumulative 

Risk Ratinga

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

Low =11-18 points; Medium = 19-26 points; High = 27-33 point

4. Authors and Reviewers

Prepared by:

John Rogers, Risk Analyst1

Reviewers:

Dan Borchert, Entomologist1

Lisa Ferguson, Plant Pathologist1

Ashley Jackson, Editorial Assistant1

1 USDA-APHIS-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. 2007. 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. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureau 

(CABI).Wallingford, UK.
Pest Risk Assessment for Chufle 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 Butterflies 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, Systematic 

Mycology and Microbiology Laboratory. Last accessed 14 February 2008, http://nt.arsgrin.gov/fungaldatabases/.

Fasulo, T. R. 2007. Tetranychus urticae Koch (Arachnida: Acari: Tetranychidae) University of 

Florida. Last accessed August 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).

Ferris, 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. Fernández 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 accessed 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.

15
Pest Risk Assessment for Chufle 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. Ministerio 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 Publishing 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 Organization of the United Nations, Secretariat of the International Plant 

Protection Convention (IPPC), Rome, Italy. 376 pp.

Janzen, D. H., and W. Hallwachs. 2005. Dynamic 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. Systematics 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, 2007.

Leahy, R. M. 1991. Bacterial Leaf Spot of Calathea spp. Florida Dept of Ag. and Consumer 

Services, Gainesville, FL.

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 

synopsis (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 Mexico, 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 Risk Assessment for Chufle 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/ANR0943.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 (Calathea allouia). 

FAO, Rome, Italy.

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. Pyricularia leaf spot: A new disease of ornamental 

plants of the family Marantaceae. Plant Disease 82(5):465-469.

Penz, C., A. Aiello, and R. Srygley. 1999. Early stages of Caligo illioneus and C. idomeneus

(Nymphalidae, Brassolinae) from Panama with remarks on larval food 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 Health 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 Risk Assessment for Chufle 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 Risk Assessment for Chufle from El Salvador

Rev. 03 April 5, 2010 20

6. Appendices

Appendix 1. Pests 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

Glyphipterigidae, 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

Megathymidae, 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

Pyralidae, Species Of Costa Rica

Pyraloidea, 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

Thyrididae, Species Of Costa Rica

Tineidae, Species Of Costa Rica

Tortricidae, Species Of Costa Rica