# Importation of Fresh Apricot ( Prunus armeniaca

L.), Sweet Cherry ( Prunus avium (L.) L.)

, and
Plumcot ( P runus domestica x Prunus armeniaca )

F ruit from South Africa into the Continental United

States

A Qualitative, Pathway

- Initiated Risk Assessment

W ith Risk Mitigation Options

April 26, 20 10

Rev. 06

Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory

Center for Plant Health Science and Technology

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

1730 Varsity Drive Suite 300 Raleigh, NC 2760 6

- 5202PRA for Prunus from the Republic of South Africa

Rev. 06 April 26, 2010 ii 

### Executive Sum mary

The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) prepared this pest risk assessment to examine plant pest risks associated with the importation of fresh apricot, Prunus armeniaca L. ; s weet cherry

, P

. avium (L.) L. ; and plumcot

, P. domestica x P. armeniaca

, from South Africa into the continental United States

. The request included pluots ( P runus armeniaca x P

. domestica x P

. domestica ) but because pluots are considered interspecific plums (be cause the parentage of this commodity is primarily P.

domestica ) we treated them as plums ( P. domestica ), which have been imported from South

Africa since 1992 (USDA, 200 6 )

. P lu mcots are a relatively new hybrid species of plum and apricot . Consequently, we found little information about the susceptibilit y of plumcots to pests

,

so we based our analysis for plumcot on information for the parent species

. Throughout this document, ―United States‖ refers specifically to the continental United States.

We devel oped t he list of pests that attack Prunus species and are present in South Africa by searching scientific literature, previous APHIS risk assessments ( for similar commodities ) , U.S. port interception records, and information provided by the exporting count ry

. Some pests are only associated with certain Prunus host species. The pest list reflect s the species of Prunus that the pests attack. We found the following five pests of quarantine significan c e to the United States likely to follow the pathway:

Fruit Flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) : Ceratitis capitata (Wiedmann)

C. quinaria (Bezzi)

C

. rosa (Karsch)

C hinch bug (Heteroptera: Lygaeidae) : Macchiademus diplopterus (Distant)

M oth (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) : Thaumatotibia leucotreta (Meyrick)

The h ost a ssociations for the pests we analyzed were as follows : Organism Prunus armeniaca ( a pricot) P. avium

( c herry) P. domestica x P. armeniaca

( p lumcot)

Ceratitis capitata   

C. quinaria 

C. rosa  

Macchiademus diplopterus  

Thaumatotibia leucotreta  

We a naly zed these pests for Consequences and the Likelihood of Introduction using our standard guidelines for pests risk assessment. We then summarized these ratings to find the overall qualitative Pest Risk Potential , which were High for Ceratitis capitata

, C. q uinaria , C. rosa
, and

Thaumatotibia leucotreta

, and Medium for Macchiademus diplopterus

.

Specific phytosanitary measures may be necessary for pests with M edium Pest Risk Potentials

, and are strongly recommended for those with H igh Pest Risk Potentials. We list risk mitigation options by pest, but t he choice of appropriate measures to mitigate risk is part of r isk

m anagement within APHIS

, and is not finalized in this document.PRA for Prunus from the Republic of South Africa

Rev. 06 April 26, 2010 iii 

### Table of Conte nts

Executive Summary

................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... ii

1. Introduction

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 1

2. Risk Assessment

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

................................ ................................ ................. 2 2.2. Assessment of Weediness Potential of Apricot, Cherry, and Plum

.............................. 2

2.3. Previous Risk Assessme nts, Current Status and Pest Interceptions

............................. 6 2.4. Pest Categorization

- Identification of Quarantine Pests and Quarantine Pests Likely to Follow the Pathway

................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 7 2.5. Consequences of Introduction

................................ ................................ ..................... 30

2.6. Likelihood of Introduction

— Qua ntity Imported and Pest Opportunity

..................... 37

2.7. Conclusion

— Pest Risk Potential and Pests Requiring Phytosanitary Measures

........ 39

3. Authors and Reviewers:

................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 39

4. Literature Cited

................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 40

5. Appendices

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 54 Appendix A. Risk mitigation options for quarantine pests associated with imports of fresh apricot

, cherry

, and plumcot fruit from South Africa

................................ ............... 54Risk Assessment for Prunus from the Republic of South Africa

Rev. 06 April 26, 2010 1 

### 1

. Introduction

The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) prepared this pest risk assessment to examine plant pest risks associated with the importation of fresh apricot, Prunus armeniaca L.; sweet cherry

, P

. avium (L.) L. ; and plumcot fruit

, P. domestica x P. armeniaca

, from South Africa into the continental United States. This is a qualitative risk assessment, i.e

., we rate risk in qualitative terms of H igh

, M edium or

L ow rather than as probabilities or frequencies. The details of methodology and rating criteria can be found in the template document: Pathway

- Initiated Pest Risk Assessment: Guidelines for Qualitative Assessments , version 5.0 2 ( PPQ, 2000 )

.

T he International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC)

, provide s standards for conducting pest risk analyses (IPPC, 2004, IPPC 2006 a ). The methods used to initiate, cond uct, and report this assessment, as well as the use of biological and phytosanitary terms

, are based on these

standards. IPPC standards describe three stages of pest risk analysis: Stage 1, Initiation; Stage 2, Risk Assessment; and Stage 3, Risk Management

. This document satisfies the requirements of IPPC Stages 1 and 2.

Between 200 to 400 species of Prunus are found in te m perate regions ; however, some have been

found in sub

- tropical and tropical regions (Bortiri, 200 1; INBIO, 2004; Mabberley, 1987)

. Th is

genus originate d in Asia, and then spread throughout Europe and North America. Historically,

the genus Prunus has been divided into five different genera, but recent taxonomic and phylogenetic studies support a sin gle genus (Bortiri, 2001)

. Overall, Prunus is economically important , with fruits ( e.g ., apricots, plums, cherries, almonds), ornamental trees ( e.g ., bush cherry, garden plum, black cherry), food additives (European plum, blackthorn)

, and wood products ( e.g ., cherry wood, oriental cherry )

. Many of these species have been hybridized and developed as cultivars for a variety of reasons (Pinochet, 1999)

.

Apricot is native to western Asia, but is widely distributed as a cultivated fruit crop (Wierseman, 1999)

. In the United States it is cultivated in nine states (USDA

- NRCS, 2005) and is rarely reported to escape from cultivation (Gleason, 1991)

. Apricot fruit is subject to cracking in humid

climates ; therefore

, most commercial production is limited to states w est of the U.S. Rocky

Mountains (Magness, 1971)

. In South Africa , apricot production was about 15,000 acres in 2003 (CABI, 2004)

.

Cherry is native to Eurasia (Bortiri, 2001) , but has been widely distributed throughout the temperate regions of the northern and southern hemisphere (CABI , 2004)

. It was first introduced into the United States as a fruit crop during the colonial period , in about 1700 (CABI, 2004)

. Currently

, cherry occurs in 26 states (USDA

- NRCS, 2005)

, and is an important fruit crop. In

South Africa , cherry production was about 600 acres in 2003 (CABI, 2004)

.

Plumcot is a relatively new hybrid. They are first generation (F1) hybrids between plum and apricot, where the plum acts as the female parent. The skin of these fruits resemble the skin of an apricot; however, the flavor is that of both apricot and plum, with a sugar content much higher than in the standard plum or apricot varieties.Risk Assessment for Prunus from the Republic of South Africa

Rev. 06 April 26, 2010 2 

### 2 . Risk Assessment

2.1

. Initiating Event: Proposed Action

We developed t his commodity

- based, pathway

- initiated assessment in respons e to a request for

USDA autho rization to allow imports of a particular commodity posing a potential plant pest

risk. T he importation of fresh apricot, plumcot, and sweet cherry fruit grown in South Africa into

the United States is a potential pathway for the introduction of plant pest s. Title 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations 319, Part 56 (7CFR §319.56) provides regulatory authority for the importation of fruits and vegetables from foreign sources into the United States. Since plumcot s

are recent h ybrid species of apricot and plum

, very little information about them is available; pest

information for plum will be added to the document and used with the P. armeniaca information

to provide the best available picture of plumcot ‘s pest susceptibilit y in South Africa. Plum can already ent er the United States from South Africa (USDA, 2006 ) and has been coming into the United States successfully since 1992. The request from South Africa included pluots ( P runus armeniaca x P

. domestica x P

. domestica ) but because pluots are considered interspecific plums (being that the parentage of this commodity is primarily P. domestica ) they are treated as plums

and are already enterable as such.

2.2

. Assessment of Weediness Potential of Apricot, Cherry, and Plum

In t h is step we examine the potential of the commodity to become a weed after it enters the

United States

. A pest

- initiated risk assessment was not necessary here because the commodities

did not have significant weediness potentials.

2.2.1. Apricot Weediness Potential

Weed Status and Invasiveness

. Apricot is a naturalized or casual alien species in a few countries, i.e

., the United States, New Zealand, South Africa and Australia (Connolly, 2000; Herbarium, 2004; Randall, 2002)

. N o evidence indicates that it is an aggressive i nvader that can adversely impact native and/ or agricultural ecosystems. Reports of this species as a naturalized or casual alien likely represent s individuals that have persisted following cultivation (Hickman, 1993)

, or species established following casual disposal of seeds by humans. Apricot is unlikely to become a problematic species and should be considered for import following appropriate pest

risk assessments.

Current and Potential Distribution of Apricot in the United States

. Apricot is commercially produced in the states of Washington , California and Utah (USDA

- NASS, 2003) ; it occurs in at

least ten states (USDA

- NRCS, 2005)

. I t is grown in several other states

, including the private backyard s of fruit enthusiasts. Apricot is grown in U .S. Plant Hardiness Z ones 5b to 7b

, prefer ring mild Mediterranean climates

, where the danger of spring frosts is low (Rieger, 2 002)

. The d evelopment of cold resistant or late blooming varieties will most likely increase the distribution and frequency of apricot in the United States.

Potential Impact from Importation of Apricot. There is risk of importing pests and pathogens

associated with commodities and products ; t hese pests and pathogens may pose a threat to U.S. agriculture, forestry and/or the environment if similar or suitable hosts occur in the United States.Risk Assessment for Prunus from the Republic of South Africa

Rev. 06 April 26, 2010 3 Pests and pathogens associated with apricot may harm federa lly endangered P. geniculata ( s crub

p lum; (USFWS, 2005) )

, which occurs at only a few sites in ce ntral Florida (Wunderlin, 2004)

.

Table 1. Determining the Weediness Potential of Apricot

Scientific Name : Prunus armeniaca L.
Synonyms : Amygdalus armeniaca (L.) Dumort.; Armeniaca vulgaris Lam.; Prunus armeniaca

var. vulgaris Zabel. Source: ( ARS , 2004)

Phase 1: Distribution in the United States:

Apricot is found in ten states (USDA

- NRCS, 2005) , in addition to being present in the private yards of backyard fruit enthusiasts. Apricots are commercially produced in the states of Washington, California and Utah (NAFEX, 2005)

. Phase 2: Invasive / Weed Status: Listing as weed

No (Gunn, 1982; Holm, 1997, 1979, 1977 ; ISSG, 2004; Reed, 1977; USDA, 2004b;

Weber, 2003; WSSA, 1989) and various EPPC lists.

Yes A Global Compendium of Weeds (Randall, 2002)

. Yes Other scientific literature

Phase 3: Summary and Conclusions:

Although P. armeniaca is a naturalized and casual alien species, we found no evidence that it is, or will, become an aggressive invasive species.

Conclusion Proceed with the pest risk assessment.

2.2.2. Cherry Weediness Potential

Weed Status and Invasiveness of Cherry. Cherry is established and invasive in four countries: the United States, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa (Owen, 1996; Randall, 2002)

. In the

United States

, it is categorized as a self

- sustaining n aturalized species in old fields, fencerows, waterways and natural environments in the northwest and northeast portions of the country (National

- Park

- Service, 2004; Skinner, 2004)

. In Oregon, it is a highly invasive species that shades out forest understories, frequently forms monocultures

, and modifies native habitat s (NPSO, 2002)

. Cherry forms monocultures that shade out forest understories (NPSO, 2002) ; this type of impact poses a serious threat t o the long

- term diversity of native species communities because it interferes with forest regeneration. The c ity of Eugene

, Oregon has prohibited planting Cherry in city parks and projects (Eugene

- Parks

- and

- Open

- Space

- Department, 2004)

. The Department of Natural Resources ( Maryland ) lists cherry as an invasi ve species capable of establishing in natural areas and displacing native vegetation ; i t recommends the removal of this species from all natural areas. A study of the distribution of exotic plants in 30 forests in New

York state showed that the frequency o f occurrence of cherry increased from 20 to 80 percent
between 1938 and 1999 (Hunter, 2002)

. Despite reports of invasiveness, cherry is not officially listed as a noxious weed in any U.S. state or Canadian territory (Skinner, 2004) ; however, it is listed by the Weed Science Society of America (WSSA, 1989)

.

We found n o other information on the biology or the invasive impacts of cherry

. T his is not surprising

, considering that often little ecological information exists about invasive exotic species.Risk Assessment for Prunus from the Republic of South Africa

Rev. 06 April 26, 2010 4 Relevant Biology of Cherry

. Cherry and P. cerasu s ( s our cherry) are closely related (Bortiri, 2001)

. P runus cerasus may originate from hybrids of cherry and P. fruticosa (ground cherry) (Hancock, 1988; Hillig, 1988)

. The h ybrid cross between cherry and P. cerasus (Duke cherries),

c herry and P. fruticosa , and P. fruticosa and P. cerasus

, are cultivated and sold as sour cherries. Today, the cherry industry is experimenting with hybrids of different Prunus species, including the previous three, as well as rootstock s for cherry (Lang, 1997)

.

Current and Potential Distribution of Cherry in the United States

. Cherry occurs in 26

states

, and is restrict ed to the western and northeastern portions of the United States (USDA

NRCS, 2005)

. It is com mercially grown in California, Idaho, Michigan, Montana, New York, Oregon, Utah, Washington and Pennsylvania (USDA

- NASS, 2003)

. In a study of 30 parks and natural areas in New York, researchers Hunter and Mattice (Hunter, 2002) noted that in the last 60 years the frequency of cherry has increased

. The d evelopment of new adapted cultivars may

further increase its range in the United States.

Potential Impact f

rom Importation of Cherry

. There is risk of importing pests and pathogens associated with imported commodities and products. These pests and pathogens may pose a threat to U.S. agriculture, forestry

, and/or the environment

, if similar or suitable hosts occur in

the United States. Pests and pathogens associated with P. armeniaca may harm the federally endangered P. geniculata ( s crub plum ) (USFWS, 2005)

, which occur s in central Florida (Wunderlin, 2004)

.

Table 2. Process for Determining the Weediness Potential of Cherry

Scientific name : Prunus avium (L.) L. (Rosaceae) Synonyms: Cerasus avium (L.) Moench; Cerasus avium var. aspleniifolia G. Kirchn.; Prunus

cerasus var. avium L.; Prunus macrophylla Poir. ( ARS , 2004; USDA

- NRCS, 2005)

Common Names: Sweet cheery, Mazzard cherry, Gean, Bird cherry, Cereso (Spanish)

Phase 1: Distribution in the United States:

Cherry is found in 26 states, and cultivated in nine. Its distribution is restricted to the western and northeastern portions of the United States (USDA

- NRCS, 2005)

. Phase 2: Invasive / Weed Status: Listing as weed

No (Gunn, 1982; Holm, 1997, 1979, 1977; ISSG, 2004; Reed, 1977; Skinner, 2004; USDA, 2004b; Weber, 2003)

Yes Geographical Atlas of World Weeds (Holm, 1991)

Yes Alien Plant Invaders of Natural Areas (Swearingen, 2003)

Yes Weed Science Society of America (WSSA, 1989)

Yes A Global Compen dium of Weeds (Randall, 2002)

Yes Other scientific literature

Phase 3: Summary and Conclusions:

Cherry is an exotic species in four countries, including the United States (Randall, 2002)

. In the United States, it invades old fields and natural areas

, shading forest understories and forming monocultures (NPSO, 2002) ; i ts frequency in natural areas

has increas ed over the last few decades (Hunter, 2002)

. Despite the numerous groups

and states that list cherry as an invasive species, it is not officially listed as a noxiousRisk Assessment for Prunus from the Republic of South Africa

Rev. 06 April 26, 2010 5

weed by any state

, or the federal government. Because it is widely prevalent and cultivated in the United States, and not under official control, it is recommended that

fresh cherry fruits destined for consumption be cons idered for import to all U.S.

states and territorie s, following an a ppropriate pest risk assessment

. Conclusion Proceed with the pest risk assessment.

2.2.3. Plum Weediness Potential

Weed Status and Invasiveness of Plum

. Plum is native to Eurasia (Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh, 2004; ARS , 2004) and evolved in an area surrounding the Caspian Sea (Rieger, 2002)

. It is i nvasive in three countries: Australia, United States and Finland (Randall, 2002)

. In the United States, plum has naturalized in Washington, Oregon, Indiana, Michigan, New York

and Delaware (Brooklyn Botanical Garden, 2004; McAvoy, 2003; Rice, 2004; Swearingen, 2003)

. In the northwestern United States, it was first recorded in 193 6 in Washington

, where it

invaded prairies and river banks (Rice, 2004)

. It colonize s disturbed areas

, such as waste grounds and hedgerows in Northern Ireland (Hackney, 2004)

. Eugene, Oregon has recognized the invasive potential of plum

, and discourages its use in city projects (Eugene Parks and Open Space Department, 2004)

. Plum is not listed as a noxious weed by any state or federal authority (Skinner, 2004)

. Thirty

- two other species of Prunus are weeds

, including cherry ( sweet cherry ) (Randall, 2002)

. All members of t h e genus Prunus require close scrutiny and careful consideration when determining their invasive potential.

Relevant Biology of Plum

. No information or data is available regarding the impacts of plum on native communities ; h owever, as small trees ( simila r to cherry ) , it may shade forest understories (NPSO, 2002) and diminish forest regeneration. As a human snack fruit, plum may be dispersed by people who casually dispose of seeds following consumption of the fruits. Human mediated dispersal has been implicated in the distribution of plum in Northern Ireland (Hackney, 2004)

, and may explain its presence along Michigan roadsides (Rabeler, 1998)

.

Cur rent and Potential Distribution of Plum in the United States

. Vouchered herbarium specimens confirm plum in 16 U.S. states (USDA

- NRCS, 2005) ; it likely grows in many private gardens of backyard fruit enthusiasts. Prunus domestica flourishes in U.S. Plant Hardiness Z ones 5

– 9 (Page, 2001)

. Because of its popularity as a fruit tree, it may have reached the limit of its spatial distribution in the United States. Plum is commercially produced in California, Washington, Oregon, Michi gan and Idaho (USDA

- NASS, 2003)

. In 2002, 200,000 tons of plums

, and 158,000 tons of drie d prunes were produced ; these fresh and dried plums were exported to Canada

, Mexico, Europe, Asia, and the Middle East (USDA

- NASS, 2003)

.

Potential Impact from Importation of Plum

. There is risk of importing pests and pathogens associated with imported commodities and products

. These pests and pathogens may threat en closely related native species

, or U.S. agriculture and forestry

, if similar or suitable hosts occur

in the United States. Pests and pathogens associated with plum may harm the federally endangered P. geniculata (USFWS, 2005)

, which occurs in central Florida (Wunderlin, 2004)

.Risk Assessment for Prunus from the Republic of South Africa

Rev. 06 April 26, 2010 6 Table 3

. Weediness Potential of Plum

Scientific Name : Prunus domestica L. (Rosaceae) Synonyms: Prunus insititia L.; Prunus italica Borkh.; ( Royal

- Botanic

- Garden Edinburgh, 2004; ARS, 2004; USDA

- NRCS, 2005)

. Common Names : Plum; Garden plum; European plum; Prune plum; Bullace plum; Damson

plum.

Phase 1: Distribution in the United States:

Plum is present in 16 states (USDA

- NRCS, 2005)

. It is likely present in many private gardens , and can be grown in U.S. Plant Hardiness Z ones 5

– 9 (2001)

. Because of its popularity as a fruit tree, it may have reached the limit of its spatial distribution in the United States.

Phase 2: Invasive / Weed Status: Listing as weed

No (Gunn, 1982; Holm, 1997, 1979, 1977; ISSG, 2004; Reed, 1977; Skinner, 2004; Swearingen, 2003; USDA, 2004b; Weber, 2003; WSSA, 1989)

Yes A Global Compendium of Weeds (Randall, 2002)

Yes Alien Plant Inv aders of Natural Areas (Swearingen, 2003)

Yes Other scientific literature (se e below).

Phase 3: Summary and Conclusions:

Prunus domestica is an invasive species in three countries (Randall, 2002)

, including the United Sta tes

, where it is naturalized in five states (Brooklyn

Botanical Garden, 2004; McAvoy, 2003; Rice, 2004; Swearingen, 2003) ; h owever, it is not listed as a noxious weed by any state or federal authority (Skinner, 2004)

. Because it is already widely distributed and commercially produced in the United States, plum fruits should be considered for import to all U.S. states and territories

, following an a ppropriate pest risk assessment

. Conclusion Proceed with the pest risk assessment.

2.3

. Previous Risk Assessments, Current Status and Pest Interceptions Pest interceptions are summarized below (Table 4).

2.3.1. Decision History for Prunus spp. from South Africa:

1994

- Permit entry of Prunus persica fruit subject to cold treatment, T107(e)

1992

- Permit entry of plum fruit subject to cold treatment, T107(a) and inspection

1986

- Deny entry of Prunus spp. (embargo due to Comprehensive Antiapartheid Act of

1986 and Public Law 99

- 440)

1978

- Deny entry of Prunus spp. (cherry)

- no commodity tolerance data

19??

- Permit entry of Prunus persica (date uncertain

- no d ecision s heets on file)

1929

- D eny entry of Apricot

1929

- Deny entry of ApricotRisk Assessment for Prunus from the Republic of South Africa

Rev. 06 April 26, 2010 7 Table 4

. Interceptions from South Africa for FY 1985

- 20 0 7 for Prunus spp. (USDA, 2007 )

Pest Hos t Date As From Activity
Apion sp. Prunus sp. (dried) 1985/12 Fruit Baggage Airport
Ceratitis capitata Prunus persica 1994/04 Fruit Stores Airport
Ceratitis capitata P. persica 2007/10 Fruit Baggage Airport
Grapholita sp. Prunus persica 1996/04 Fruit Stores Airport
Quadraspidiotus perniciosus Prunus sp. 1998/07 Fruit Baggage Airport
Tephritidae sp. Prunus persica 1999/03 Fruit Baggage Airport
Tephritidae sp. Prunus sp. 1999/04 Fruit Baggage Airport

Tortricidae sp. Prunus sp. 1998/0 2 Fruit Baggage Airport

Thaumatotibia leucotreta Prunus sp. 1998/0 3 Fruit Baggage Airport

2.4

. Pest Categorization

- Identification of Quarantine Pests and Quarantine Pests Likely to Follow the Pathway

The first step in identifying quarantine pests is to develo p a comprehensive list of pests associated with parent species proposed for export

. These species occur in the country or region from which the commodity is to be exported. All pests on the list are ―of potential economic importance‖ because they are assoc iated with the plant species (IPPC, 2004 )

.

Below is the pest list for a pricot

, cherry and plum from Sout h Africa ( Table 5)

. Thi s pest list

contains : (1) geographic distribution of the pests in the exporting countr y and the United States, (2) generally affected plant part (s) , (3) quarantine status of each pest with respect to the United States, (4) whether the pest is likely to follow the pathway and enter the United States on commercially exported fruit, and (5) pertinent citations for the distribution and biology of the pest. Many of the organisms were eliminated from further consideration as sources of ph ytosanitary risk because they did not satisfy the definition of a quarantine pest

, and/or they were unlikely to follow the pathway.Risk Assessment for Prunus from the Republic of South Africa

Rev. 06 April 26, 2010 8 T able 5

. Pests reported on three hosts, Apric ot (A ), Cherry (C ) or P lum (P), in any country

, and present

in South Africa on any host

. Pest Host plant Geog

. d istrib

. 1 Plant p arts

a ffected 2 Quaran

tine p est 3 Follow

p athway References

A C P

ARTHROPODS

ACARI
Eriophyidae
Aculus fockeui Nalepa

& Trouessart (= Aculus cornutus Banks) X X SA, US (CA, FL, WA) L No 4 No (CABI, 2003; EPPO, 1999; Gonzalez, 1996; Greber, 1992; Nakahara, 1997)
Eriophyes pyri (Pagenstecher) X SA, US B, L No No (Annecke, 1982; Metcalf, 1993)
Tetranychidae
Bryobia praetiosa

Koch X X X SA, US I, L No No (Bolland, 1998; Jeppson, 1975)
Bryobia rubrioculus (Scheuten) X X X SA, US B, L, S No No (Annecke, 1982; CABI, 2003; Jeppson, 1975; USDA, 2007 )
Eotetranychus edi Meyer X SA L 5 Yes No (Bolland, 1998)

Eutetranychus africanus (Tucker) X SA L Yes No (Bolland, 199 8; Jeppson, 1975)
Eutetranychus

orientalis (Klein) X SA L Yes No (Bolland, 1998; CABI, 2004)
Oligonychus bicolor (Banks) X SA, US L, S No No (Bolland, 1998; Jeppson, 1975)
Oligonychus coffeae (Nietner) X SA, US (FL) L No 4 No (Bolland, 1998; Jeppson, 1975)
Panonychus ulmi (Koch) X X X SA, US L No No (Annecke, 1982; CABI, 2003; Jeppson, 1975)
Tetranychus

cinnabarinus (Boisduval) X X X SA, US F, L No Yes (Annecke, 1982; Bolland, 1998;

CA BI, 2003; Jeppson, 1975)
Tetranychus kanzawai

Kishida [= T. hydrangeae Pritchard & Baker] X SA, US L, S No No (Bolland, 1998; CABI, 2003)

Tetranychus ludeni

Zacher X X X SA, US L No No (Bolland, 1998; Jeppson, 1975)Risk Assessment for Prunus from the Republic of South Africa

Rev. 06 April 26, 2010 9 Pest Host plant Geog

. d istrib

. 1 Plant p arts

a ffected 2 Quaran

tine p est 3 Follow

p athway References

A C P
Tetranychus

turkestani (Ugarov & Nikolskii) X X SA, US L No No (Bolland, 1998; Jeppson, 1975)

Tetranychus urticae

Koch X X SA, US L No No (Annecke, 1982; CABI, 2003; Jeppson, 1975)
Coleoptera

- Chrysomelidae
Chaetocnema confinis

Crotch X X SA, US L No No (CABI, 2003)

Prasoidea sericea Gyllenhal X X SA F, I, L, S Yes No 6 (Annecke, 1982; Arnett, 1983 ; Myburgh, 1973)

Pachnoda sinuata flaviventris (Gory & Perch.) X X SA I, L Yes No (Arnett, 1983; Donaldson, 1985; Hill, 1983; Myburgh, 1973;

Oudtshoor n
, 2005)
Coleoptera

- Curculionidae

Eremnus atratus Sparness X SA F, L, S Yes No 7 (Annecke, 1982; BATS, 1992; Myburgh, 1973;

Rhod es, 2000)

Eremnus cerealis

Marshall X SA F, L, S Yes No 7 (Annecke, 1982; BATS, 1992; Myburgh, 1973; Rhodes, 2000; Van den Berg,

1972 )

Eremnus setulosus

Boheman X SA F, L, S Yes No 7 (Annecke, 1982; BATS, 1992; Myburgh, 1973; Rhodes, 2000; Van den Berg, 1972)Risk Assessment for Prunus from the Republic of South Africa

Rev. 06 April 26, 2010 10 Pest Host plant Geog

. d istrib

. 1 Plant p arts

a ffected 2 Quaran

tine p est 3 Follow

p athway References

A C P
Phlyctinus callosus

Schoenherr X X SA F,I, L,S Yes No 8 (Annecke, 1982; Agriculture WA

, 2002; Barnes, 1977; BATS, 1992; CABI, 2003; Elliot, 2002; PNKTO, 1986; Rhodes, 2000; Schwartz, 1988; USDA,

2007 ; Van den Berg, 197 1)
Coleoptera

- Nitidulidae
Carpophilus

dimidiatus (F.) X SA, US F No No 9 (Avidov, 1969; CABI, 2004)
Coleoptera

- Scarabaeidae

Adoretus cribrosus

Harold X SA L Yes No (Anon., 1970)

Adoretus tessulatus

Burmeister X X SA L Yes No (A non., 1970)

Monochelus

calcaratus

Burmeister X SA L Yes No (Anon., 1970)

Coleoptera

- Scolytidae
Xyleborus xylographus (Say) X SA, US S No No (Annecke, 1982; Hobson, 1994; Roling, 1975; Weber, 1991; Wertz, 1971)
Diptera

- Tephritidae

Bactrocera oleae (Gmelin) X SA F Yes No 1 0 (CABI, 2004; USDA, 2007 )
Ceratitis capitata (Wiedmann) X X X SA F Yes Yes (Annecke, 1982; CABI, 2004; White, 1992)
Ceratitis quinaria (Bezzi) [= Pardalaspis quinaria Bezzi] X SA F Yes Yes (CABI, 2003; White, 1992)

Ceratitis rosa (Karsch) X X SA F Yes Yes (Annecke, 1982; CABI, 2004)Risk Assessment for Prunus from the Republic of South Africa

Rev. 06 April 26, 2010 11 Pest Host plant Geog

. d istrib

. 1 Plant p arts

a ffected 2 Quaran

tine p est 3 Follow

p athway References

A C P

Hemi ptera

- Aphididae
Aphis gossypii Glover X X X SA, US L, S No No (CABI, 2003; Gosh, 1981)
Aphis pomi de Geer X SA, US L, S No No (Annecke, 1982; Hill, 1987; Smith, 1978)
Aphis spiraecola

Patch X X X SA, US L, S No No (CABI, 2003; Gosh, 1981)
Brachycaudus persicae (Passerini) X X X SA, US B, S No No (Annecke, 1982; Smith, 1978)
Chaetosiphon fragaefolii (Cockerell) X SA, US B, L, S No No (Annecke, 1982; CABI, 2 003)

Eriosoma lanigerum (Hausmann) X SA, US R, S No No (CABI, 2004)

Hysteroneura setariae (Thomas) X SA, US L, S No No (Blackman, 1994; Stoetzel, 1998; Van Heerden, 1969)
Macrosiphum euphorbiae (Thomas) X SA, US L No No (Blackman, 1994; CABI, 2004; Hill, 1987)
Macrosiphum rosae (L.) X SA, US L No No (Blackman, 2000; Brown, 1972; CABI, 2004; Hill, 1987)
Myzus persicae Sulzer X SA, US B, L, S No No (Blackman, 1994; CABI, 2003)
Rhopalosiphum padi (L.) X SA, US L No No (CABI, 2004; Knoll, 2004)

Hemi ptera

- Coccidae
Ceroplastes destructor

Crotch X SA L, S Yes No (Ben

- Dov, 2005; CABI, 2003, 2004)
Ceroplastes floridensis

Comstock X SA, US L, S No No (Ben

- Dov, 2005; CABI, 2004)

Ceroplastes rubens (Maskell) X SA, US (FL) F, L, S [Yes] No 1 7 (Ben

- Dov, 2005; CABI, 2004;

H amon, 1984; Sabelis, 1997)Risk Assessment for Prunus from the Republic of South Africa

Rev. 06 April 26, 2010 12 Pest Host plant Geog

. d istrib

. 1 Plant p arts

a ffected 2 Quaran

tine p est 3 Follow

p athway References

A C P
Coccus hesperidum

Linnaeus X SA, US F, L, S No Yes (Anon., 1970; CABI, 2003)
Parasaissetia nigra (Nietner) X SA, US F, L, S No Yes (Ben

- Dov, 2005; CABI, 2004)
Saissetia coffeae (Walker) X SA, US F, L, S No Yes 1 8 (CABI, 2004; Hamon, 1984; Sabelis, 1997)

Saissetia oleae (Olivier) X X SA, US F, L, R, S No No 19 (Annecke, 1982; CABI, 2004; Hamon, 1984; INRA, 1997; Johnson, 1991)

Hemi ptera

- Diaspididae

Aonidiella aurantii (Maskell) X X SA, US (AZ, CA, FL, TX) F, L, S No 4 Yes (An necke, 1982; Anon., 1970; CABI, 2004; Nakahara, 1982)

Aonidiella orientalis (Newstead) X SA, US (FL) L No 4 No (Ben

- Dov, 2005)

Aspidiotus nerii

Bouché X SA, US F, L, S No Yes (Ben

- Dov, 2005; CABI, 2004)
Chrysomphalus

aonidum (L.) X X SA, US F, L No Yes (Annecke, 1982; Nakahara, 1982)
Chrysomphalus dictyospermi (Morgan) X SA, US F, L, S No Yes (Anon., 1970;

Ben

- Dov, 2005; CABI, 2004)
Diaspidiotus africanus (Marlatt) X X SA L, S Yes No (Annecke, 1982)

Diaspidiotus ancylus (Putnam) X SA, US F, L, S No Yes (Ben

- Dov, 2005)

Diaspidiotus forbesi (Johnson) X SA, US S No No (Ben

- Dov, 2005)

Hemiberlesia lataniae (Signoret) X X SA, US F, L, S No Yes Ben

- Dov, 2005; CABI, 2004
Hemiberlesia rapax (Comstock) X SA, US L, S No No (Ben

- Dov, 2005)

Ischnaspis longirostris (Signoret) X SA, US F, L, S No Yes (Ben

- Dov, 2005; Kosztarab, 1996)
Lepidosaphes conchiformis (Gmelin) X SA, US F, S No Yes (Ben

- Dov, 2005; Kosztarab, 1996)Risk Assessment for Prunus from the Republic of South Africa

Rev. 06 April 26, 2010 13 Pest Host plant Geog

. d istrib

. 1 Plant p arts

a ffected 2 Quaran

tine p est 3 Follow

p athway References

A C P
Lepidosaphes ulmi (L.) X X X SA, US F, L, S No Yes (Ben

- Dov, 2005; CABI, 2004; Hill, 1987)
Melanaspis corticosa (Brain) X SA S Yes No (Anon., 1970;

Ben

- Dov, 2003)
Parlatoria pergandii

Comstock X SA, US F, L, S No Yes (CABI, 2004)

Parlatoria proteus (Curtis) X SA, US F, L, S No Yes (Ben

- Dov, 2005; Kosztarab, 1996)
Pseudaulacaspis

pentagona (Targioni

- Tozzetti) X X SA, US F, L, R, S No Yes (CABI, 2003; EPPO, 1999; Kosztarab, 1996)

Pseudaonidia trilobitiformis (Green) X SA, US (FL) F, L, S [Yes] No 29 (Ben

- Dov, 2005; Hill, 1983)

Quadraspidiotus perniciosus (Comstock) [= Diaspidiotus perniciosus (Comstock, 1881)] X X X SA, US L, S No No (Annecke, 1982; CABI, 2003; Nakahara, 1982)

Hemi ptera

- Margarodidae
Icerya purchasi

Maskell X X SA, US L, S No No (Annecke, 1982; CABI, 2003; Gill, 1993)

Hemi ptera

- Ps e u dococcidae

Pseudococcus

calceolariae (Maskell) X SA, US (CA, LA) S No 4 No (Annecke, 1982; CABI, 2003)

Pseudococcus longispinus (Targioni

- Tozzetti) X X SA, US F, S No Yes (Annecke, 1982; CABI, 2003)

Pseudococcus

obscurus Essig X X SA, US (CA) F, S No 4 Yes (Annecke, 1982)

Heteroptera

- Coreidae
Leptoglossus australis (F.) X SA F Yes No 1 1 (Sweet, 2000; Van den Berg, 2001)
Heteroptera

- Lygaeidae

Macchiademus diplopterus (Distant) X X SA F 1 2 Yes Yes (Annecke, 1982; Sweet, 2000)Risk Assessment for Prunus from the Republic of South Africa

Rev. 06 April 26, 2010 14 Pest Host plant Geog

. d istrib

. 1 Plant p arts

a ffected 2 Quaran

tine p est 3 Follow

p athway References

A C P
Oxycarenus exitiosus

Distant X SA F, Se Yes No 1 3 (Annecke, 1982; Sweet, 2000)
Oxycarenus hyalinipennis (Costa) X SA F, Se Yes No 1 3 (Annecke, 1982; Avidov, 1969; CABI, 2004; PNKTO, 1982a)
Spilostethus pandurus (Scopoli) X SA F, I, L, S,

Se Yes No 1 4 (Sweet, 2000)

Heteroptera

- Pentatomidae
Antestiopsis orbitalis (Westwood) X X SA I, F, S Yes No 1 5 (Annecke, 1982; Myburgh, 1973)

Nezara viridula (L.) X SA, US F, L No No 1 6 (Avidov, 1969; Van den Berg, 2001)
Hymenoptera

- Tenthredinidae

Caliroa cerasi (L.) X X SA, US L No No (Annecke, 1982; CABI, 2003)
Lepidoptera

- Arctiidae
Dionychopus amasis (Cramer) X SA L Yes No (Anon., 1970; Pinhey, 1975)
Rhodogastria similis (Möschler) X SA L 2 0 Yes No (Goodger, 1995)

Lepidoptera

- Limacodidae
Latoia latistriga (Walker) X X SA L Yes No (Annecke, 1982; Anon., 1970; Hodges, 1983)
Parasa johannes

Distant X SA L Yes No (Brain, 1929)

Parasa vivida (Walker) X SA L Yes No (de Villiers, 2001)

Lepidoptera

- Noctuidae
Agrotis ipsilon (Hufnagel) X SA, US Seedlings No No (CABI, 2004)

Calpe emarginata (F.) X X SA adults on

fruit Yes No 2 1 (Annecke, 1982)

Calpe provocans

Walker X X SA adults on

fruit Yes No 2 1 (Annecke, 1982)

Dugaria scandulata

Walker X X SA adults on

fruit Yes No 2 1 (Annecke, 1982)Risk Assessment for Prunus from the Republic of South Africa

Rev. 06 April 26, 2010 15 Pest Host plant Geog

. d istrib

. 1 Plant p arts

a ffected 2 Quaran

tine p est 3 Follow

p athway References

A C P
Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) X X X SA B, I, F, L Yes No 2 2 (Annecke, 1982; CABI, 2003, 2004; Hely, 1982;

Herbison

- Evan, 2003; Myburgh, 1973)
Serrodes partita (F.) X X SA adults on

fruit Yes No 2 1 (Annecke, 1982; Whitehead, 1972; Whitehead, 1971)
Spodoptera littoralis (Boisduval) X SA F, L Yes No 2 3 (Avidov, 1969; CABI, 2004) Lepidoptera

- Nymphalidae

Acraea horta (L) X SA L Yes No (Anon., 1970)
Lepidoptera

- Pyralidae

Cadra cautella

Walker X SA, US F No No 2 4 (CABI, 2004)

Lepidoptera

- Saturniidae

Gonimbrasia (=

Nudaurelia )
zambesina (Walker) X SA L Yes No (Anon., 1970)

Lepidoptera

- Tortricidae
Argyrotaenia citrana (Fernald) X SA, US I, F, L, S No Yes (Anon., 1970; CABI, 20 03; Matthew, 1975)
Cacoecimorpha pronubana (Hübner) X SA (few

occurren ces), US (OR) F, I, L [Yes] No 2 5 (CABI, 2003;

CABI

- EPPO, 1997; Courneya,

2 003; Dickler, 1991; EPPO, 1992; LaGasa, 1999; Meijerman, 2000; Van der

Geest L.P.S.a.H.H.E., 1991)
Cydia pomonella (L.) X X SA, US F No Yes (Annecke, 1982; Metcalf, 1993; Myburgh, 1973)
Epichoristodes

acerbella (Walker) X SA F, I, L, S Yes No 2 6 (CABI, 2003, 2004; CIE, 1975; Myburgh, 1973)Risk Assessment for Prunus from the Republic of South Africa

Rev. 06 April 26, 2010 16 Pest Host plant Geog

. d istrib

. 1 Plant p arts

a ffected 2 Quaran

tine p est 3 Follow

p athway References

A C P
Grapholita molesta (Busck) X X X SA, US F, S No Yes (Blomefield, 1990; EPPO, 1999; Metcalf, 1993)

Thaumatotibia

leucotreta 30 (Meyrick) Syn : Cry p tophlebia

leucotreta (Meyrick) X X SA F (internal) Yes Yes (Blomefield, 1989; Bradley, 1979; Daiber, 1979; INKTO, 1984; Karvonen, 1983)
Tortrix capensana (Walker) X X SA F, I, L Yes No 2 7 (Annecke, 1982; Myburgh, 1973)
Thysanoptera

- Thripidae

Frankliniella

occidentalis (Pergande) X X X SA, US L No No (EPPO, 1999; Gonzalez, 1996; Greber, 1992; Nakahara, 1997)
Thrips australis (Bagnall) X SA, US I No No (Annecke, 1982; Mound, 1998; Nakahara, 1994)

PLANT PATHOGENS

BACTERIA
Agrobacterium tumefaciens (Smith & Towns.) Conn. [= Rhizobium

radiobacter ] (Rhizobiales) X X X SA, US R, S No No (Doidge, 1953; Gorter, 1977)

Pseudomonas mors

prunorum [= P. syringae pv.

morsprunorum ] (Wormald) Young (Pseudomonadales) X X SA, US I, F, L, S No Yes (CABI, 2003; Gorter, 1977; Hattingh, 1989; Latorre, 1979; Little, 1998; Ogawa, 1995; Thornton, 2003)

Pseudomonas syringae pv.

s yringae van Hall [= P. syringae, P. syringae pv. prunicola ] (Pseudomonadales) X X X SA, US I, B, F, L, S No Yes (CABI, 2003; Doidge, 1953; Gorter, 1977; Ogawa, 1995)Risk Assessment for Prunus from the Republic of South Africa

Rev. 06 April 26, 2010 17 Pest Host plant Geog

. d istrib

. 1 Plant p arts

a ffected 2 Quaran

tine p est 3 Follow

p athway References

A C P
Rhizobium rhizogenes

Riker et al ) Young

et al

. (Rhizobiales) X X X SA, US R, S, So No No (CABI, 2003)

Xanthomonas

arboricola pv. pruni (Smith) Vauterin [= X. pruni (Smith) Dowson] (Xanthomonadales) X X X SA, US F, L, S No Yes (CABI, 2003; Doidge, 1953; Gorter, 1977)

FUNGI AND CHROMISTA

Alternaria alternata (Fr.:Fr.) Keissl. (Mitosporic fungi: Hyphomycetes) X X X SA, US F No Yes (CABI, 2003; Ogawa, 1995)

Armillaria heimii Pegler (Basidiomycetes: Agaricales) X X X SA R, S Yes No (CABI, 2003, 2004)

Armillaria mellea (Vahl) P. Kumm. (Basidiomycetes: Agaricales) X SA, US R, S No No (CABI, 2004; Coetzee, 2001)

Aspergillus niger Tiegh. (Mitosporic fungi: Hyphomycetes) X X SA, US I, F, R, S,

Se No Yes (CABI, 2003;

Crous , 2000)

Aureobasidium pullulans de Bary [= Pullularia pullulans (de Bary) Berkhout] (Mitosporic fungi: Hyphomycetes) X SA, US L, S No No (CABI, 2003; Crous, 2000)

Blumeriella jaapii (Rehm) Arx [= Cylindrosporium padi or Phloeosporella padi ] (Ascomycetes: Helotiales) X X X SA, US F, L, S No Yes (CABI, 2003; Crous, 2000; Doidge, 1953; Gorter, 1977; Travis, 2002)Risk Assessment for Prunus from the Republic of South Africa

Rev. 06 April 26, 2010 18 Pest Host plant Geog

. d istrib

. 1 Plant p arts

a ffected 2 Quaran

tine p est 3 Follow

p athway References

A C P
Botryosphaeria

dothidea (Moug.)

Ces. & de Not. (Ascomycetes: Dothideales) X SA, US F, S No Yes (CABI, 2003; Ogawa, 1995)

Botryotinia fuckeliana (de Bary) Whetzel [anamorph: Botrytis

cinerea Pers.: Fr] (Ascomycetes: Helotiales) X X Worldwi

de F No Yes (CABI, 2003)

Ceratocystis fimbriata

Ellis & Halst. (Ascomycetes:

Microascales ) X SA, US F, L, R, S No Yes (CABI , 2003)

Chondrostereum

purpureum (Pers.)

Pouzar [ = Stereum

purpurpeum ] (Basidiomycetes: Aphyllophorales) X X X SA, US L, S No No (CABI, 2002; Crous, 2000; Doidge, 1953; Farr, 1989; Gorter, 1977; Ogawa, 1995)

Colletotrichum

acutatum Simmonds (Mitosporic fungi: Coelomycetes) X X X SA, US F, I, L, R, St No Yes (Farr, 2005)

Cylindrocarpon

destructans (Zinssmeister)

Scholten [teleomorph:

Nectria radicicola ] (Mitosporic fungi: Hyphomycetes) X X X SA, US (CA) R, S, So No 4 No (CABI, 2003; Deflorio, 2001; Farr, 2005; Traquair, 1992)

Cytospora leucostoma (Pers.) Sacc. [ =Valsa leucostoma

or Leucostoma persoonii ] (Mitosporic fungi: Coelomycetes ) X X X SA, US (CA, MI, WA) S No 4 No (CABI, 2003; Crous, 2000; Doidge, 1953; Gorter, 1977; Horst, 2001; Ogaw a, 1995; USDA, 2007 )Risk Assessment for Prunus from the Republic of South Africa

Rev. 06 April 26, 2010 19 Pest Host plant Geog

. d istrib

. 1 Plant p arts

a ffected 2 Quaran

tine p est 3 Follow

p athway References

A C P
Diaporthe ambigua

Nitschke (Ascomycetes: Diaporthales) X SA S Yes No (CABI, 2002; Crous, 2000; Gorter, 1977; Smit, 1 996)
Eutypa lata (Pers.)

T ul. & c. Tul. [= Cytosporina lata

, Eutypa armeniacae ] (Ascomycetes: Xylariales ) X X X SA, US S No No (CABI, 2003; Crous, 2000; Gorter, 1977)

Glomerella cingulata (Stonem.) [anamorph:

Colletotrichum gloeosporioides ] (Ascomycetes: Incertae sedis) X SA, US I, F, L, S,

Se No Yes (CABI, 2003; Farr, 1989)

Macrophomina phaseolina (Tassi)

Goid. (Mitosporic fungi: Coelomycetes) X SA, US I, F, L, R, S,

Se No Yes (CABI, 2003)

Monilia cinerea Bonord [= Monilia

laxa ; teleomorph:

Monilinia laxa ] (Mitosporic fungi: Hyphomycetes ) X X X SA, US I, F, L, S No Yes (CABI, 2003; Crous, 2000; Farr, 2005; Gorter, 1977)

Mycosphaerella

cerasella Aderhold [anamorph: Cercospora

circumscissa Sacc,

Passalora

circumscissa (Sacc.) Braun] (Ascomycetes: Mycosphaerellales ) X X SA, US L No No (CABI, 2003; Crous, 2000; Doidge, 1953; Farr, 1989; Gorter, 1977; USDA, 2007 )Risk Assessment for Prunus from the Republic of South Africa

Rev. 06 April 26, 2010 20 Pest Host plant Geog

. d istrib

. 1 Plant p arts

a ffected 2 Quaran

tine p est 3 Follow

p athway References

A C P

Oidium leucoconium

Desm. var. persicae

Woron. [= Sphaerotheca

pannosa var. persicae or Podosphaera

pannosa ] ( Mitosporic fungi: Hyphomycetes) X SA, US B, F, I, L, S No Yes (CABI, 2003; Crous, 2000; Doidge, 1953; Gorter, 1977)

Penicillium digitatum (Pers.: Fr.) Sacc. (Mitosporic fungi: Hypohomycetes) X SA, US F No Yes (CABI, 2004)

Penicillium expansum

Link (Mitosporic fungi: Hypohomycetes) X X X SA, US F No Yes (CABI, 2003; Vismer, 1996)

Penicillium italicum

Stoll. (Mitosporic fungi: Hypohomycetes) X SA, US F No Yes (APS, 2003)

Phialophora parasitica Ajello, Georg. & Wang (Mitosporic fungi: Hyphomycetes) X SA, US S No No (CABI, 2003; Ogawa, 1995)

Phoma pomorum

Thüm. [= Phyllosticta prunicola ] (Mitosporic fungi: Coelomycetes ) X X X SA, US F, L No Yes (CABI, 2003; Crous, 2000; Doidge, 1953; Farr, 1989, 2005; Ogawa, 1995)

Phytophthora

cactorum (Lebert & Cohn) J. Schröt (Kingdom

Chromista: Oomycetes: Pythiales) X X SA, US R, S, So No No (APS, 2003, 2005; CABI, 2003)Risk Assessment for Prunus from the Republic of South Africa

Rev. 06 April 26, 2010 21 Pest Host plant Geog

. d istrib

. 1 Plant p arts

a ffected 2 Quaran

tine p est 3 Follow

p athway References

A C P
Phytophthora

cambivora (Petri)

Buisman (Kingdom

Chromista: Oomycetes: Pythiales) X X X SA, US R, S, So No No (Erwin, 1996; French, 1987, 1989)

Phytophthora

cinnamomi Rands. (Kingdom

Chromista: Oomycetes: Pythiales) X SA, US R, S, So No No (Farr, 2005)

Phytophthora citricola

Sawada (Kingdom

Chromista: Oomycetes: Pythiales) X X SA, US R, S, So No No (Crous, 2000; Erwin, 1996; French, 1987, 1989; Gorter, 1977)
Phytophthora

cryptogea Pethybr. & Lafferty (Oomycetes: Pythiales) X X SA, US R, S, So No No (CABI, 2003)

Phytophthora

drechsleri Tucker (Kingdom

Chromista: Oomycetes: Pythiales) X X X SA, US R, S, So No No (Farr, 2005)

Phytophthora

megasperma Drechsler (Oomycetes: Pythiales) X SA, US R, S, So No No (CABI, 2004; Marais, 1980)

Phytophthora syringae (Kleb.)

Kleb. (Kingdom

Chromista: Oomycetes: Pythiales) X X SA, US R, S, So No No (Crous, 2000; Farr, 2005; French, 1987, 1989; Gorter, 1977)Risk Assessment for Prunus from the Republic of South Africa

Rev. 06 April 26, 2010 22 Pest Host plant Geog

. d istrib

. 1 Plant p arts

a ffected 2 Quaran

tine p est 3 Follow

p athway References

A C P
Podosphaera tridactyla (Wallr.) de Bary (Ascomycetes: Erysiphales) X X X SA, US F, L, S No Yes (CABI, 2003; Crous, 2000; Farr, 2005; Ogawa, 1995)

Polyporus gilvus (Schwein.:Fr) Fr. [= Phellinus gilvus ] (Basidiomycetes: Polyporales ) X SA, US R, S No No (Farr, 2005)

Puccinia pruni

spinosae Pers.:Pers. [= Tranzschelia pruni

- spinosae or Aecidium

punctatum ] (Urediniomycetes: Uredinales) X X SA, US F, L, S No Yes (CABI, 2003; Doidge, 1953; Farr, 1989, 2005; Ogawa, 1995)

Pythium irregulare

Buisman (Kingdom:

Chromista: Oomycetes: Pythiales) X SA, US R, S, So No No (CABI, 2003)

Rhizopus stolonifer (Ehrenb.) Lind. [= Rhizopus nigricans ] (Zygomycetes: Mucorales) X X X SA, US F No Yes (CABI, 2004; Crous, 2000; Doidge, 1953)

Rosellinia necatrix

Prill. (Ascomycetes: Xylariales) X X X SA, US R, S No No (CABI, 2003; Farr, 2005)

Schizophyllum

commune Fr. Fr. (Basidiomycetes: Agaricales) X X X SA, US S No No (CABI, 2003; Doidge, 1953; Farr, 1989; Gorter, 1977)

Sclerotinia

sclerotiorum (Lib.) de Bary (Ascomycetes: Heliotiales) X SA, US W No Yes (CABI, 2003; Doidge, 1953; Gorter, 1977)Risk Assessment for Prunus from the Republic of South Africa

Rev. 06 April 26, 2010 23 Pest Host plant Geog

. d istrib

. 1 Plant p arts

a ffected 2 Quaran

tine p est 3 Follow

p athway References

A C P Taphrina deformans (Berk.) Tul. (Taphrinomycetes: Taphrinales) X SA, US I, F, L, S No No 2 8 (CABI, 2003)

Taphrina mume Nish. (Taphrinomycetes: Taphrinales) X SA F, L, S Yes No 28 (Doidge, 1953; Farr, 2005; Gorter, 1977; Mix, 1949; Ogawa, 1995; Watson, 1971)
Thielaviopsis basicola (Berk. & Bromme)

Ferraris [= Chalara elegans Nag et al

. ] (Mitosporic fungi: Hyphomycetes) X X X SA, US R, S, So No No (Agrios, 1997; CABI, 20 03; Trebilco, 1999)

Thyrostroma carpophilum (Lév.)

B. Sutton [= Stigmina carpophilum, Wilsonomyces carpophilus, Clasterosporium carpophilus ] (Mitosporic fungi: Hyphomycetes) X X SA, US B, F, L No Yes (CABI, 2003; Crous, 2000; Doidge, 1953; Farr, 2005; Gorter, 1977; Ogawa, 1995)

Trametes cingulata

Berk. (Basidiomycetes: Polyporales ) X SA S No 2 5 No (Farr, 2005; USDA, 2007 )

Trametes versicolor (L.) Lloyd (Basidiomycetes: Polyporales) X X X SA, US S, So No No (Farr, 2005)

Tranzschelia discolor (Fuck.) Tranz. &

Litv. (Urediniomycetes:

Uredinales ) X X SA, US F, L, S No Yes (CABI, 2002; Farr, 1989; Gorter, 1977; Ogawa, 1995)Risk Assessment for Prunus from the Republic of South Africa

Rev. 06 April 26, 2010 24 Pest Host plant Geog

. d istrib

. 1 Plant p arts

a ffected 2 Quaran

tine p est 3 Follow

p athway References

A C P
Valsaria eucalypti (Kalchbr, & Cooke)

Sacc. (Ascomycetes: Diaporthales) X SA, US (CA) S No 2 5 No (Farr, 1989, 2005)

Venturia carpophila

E. Fisher [anamorph: Cladosporium carpophilum,=

Fusicladium carpophilum ] (Ascomycetes: Pleosporales) X X SA, US F, L, S No Yes (Crous, 2000; Doidge, 1953; Gorter, 1977; Ogawa, 1995)

Verticillium dahliae

Kleb. (Mitosporic fungi: Hyphomycetes) X X X SA, US F, I, L, R, S No Yes (CABI, 2003;

Gorte r, 1977)

NEMATODES

Criconemella xenoplax Raski (Criconematidae) X X SA, US R, So No No (CABI, 2003; Keetch, 1984)

Helicotylenchus dihystera (Cobb)

Ster. (Hoplolaimidae) X X SA, US R, So No No (CABI, 2003; Kleynhans, 1996)

Hemicriconemoides mangiferae Siddiqi (Criconematidae) X X X SA, US (CA, FL) R, So [Yes] No (CABI, 2003; Courneya, 2003; Kleynhans, 1996)
Hemicycliophora halophila Yeates (Criconematidae) X SA R, So Yes No (CABI, 2003; Kleynhans, 1996)

Meloidogyne arenaria (Neal) Chitwood (Heteroderidae) X SA, US R, So No No (APS, 2003; Nematology, 2003)
Meloidogyne incognita (Kofoid & White) Chitwood

, M. javanica ( Treub)

Chitwood (Heteroderidae) X X X SA, US R, So No No (CABI, 2003; Keetch, 1984)Risk Assessment for Prunus from the Republic of South Africa

Rev. 06 April 26, 2010 25 Pest Host plant Geog

. d istrib

. 1 Plant p arts

a ffected 2 Quaran

tine p est 3 Follow

p athway References

A C P
M. javanica ( Treub)

Chitwood (Tylenchida: Heteroderidae) X SA, US R, So No No (APS, 2003; CABI, 2004)

Merlinius brevidens (Allen) Siddiqi [= Tylenchorhynchus

brevidens Allen] (Belonolaimidae) X X SA, US R, So No No (Keetch, 1984)

Paratrichodorus

porosus (Allen) Siddiqi (Trichodoridae) X X SA, US R, So No No (CABI, 2003; Kleynhan s, 1996)

Pratylenchus

penetrans (Cobb) Filipjev &

Schuurmans

Stekhoven (Pratylenchidae) X X X SA, US R, So No No (CABI, 2003; Kleynhans, 1996)

Pratylenchus vulnus

Allen & Jenson (Pratylenchidae) X X X SA, US R, So No No (CABI, 2003; Kleynhans, 1996)

Rotylenchulus reniformis Linford

& Oliveira Hoplolaimidae X X SA, US R, So No No (CABI, 2003)

Scutellonema brachyurus Steiner, Andrassy (Hoplolaimidae) X SA, US R, So No No (CABI, 2003; Kleynhans, 1996)

Tylenchorhynchus

clarus Alien (Dolichodoridae) X SA, US R, So No No (CABI, 2003; Keetch, 1984)

Xiphinema

americanum Cobb (Xiphinematidae) X X X SA, US R, So No No (CABI, 2003; Kleynhans, 1996)

Xiphinema brevicolle (Xiphinematidae) X SA R, So Yes No (Keetch, 1984)

Xiphinema

diversicaudatum (Micoletzky)

Thorne X SA, US R, So No No (CABI, 2004)Risk Assessment for Prunus from the Republic of South Africa

Rev. 06 April 26, 2010 26 Pest Host plant Geog

. d istrib

. 1 Plant p arts

a ffected 2 Quaran

tine p est 3 Follow

p athway References

A C P
Xiphinema index

Thorn & Allen (Xiphinematidae) X X X SA, US R, So No No (CABI, 2003; Kleynhans, 1996)

Xiphinema italiae Meyl (Xiphinematidae) X X SA R, So Yes No (SON, 2003)

Xiphinema malutiensis Heynes (Xiphinematidae) X X SA R, So Yes No (CABI, 2003; Keetch, 1984; Kleynhans, 1996)
Xiphinema vitis Heyns (Xiphinematidae) X X SA, US R, So No No (Keetc h, 1984; Kleynhans, 1996)

PHYTOPLASMAS Apple rubbery wood (Acholeplasmatales) X SA, US R, S No No (CABI, 2003)

Aster yellows phytoplasma group (Acholeplasmatales) X X SA, US W No Yes (CABI, 2003 )

VIRUSES Apple chlorotic leaf spot virus

Tricovirus (Flexiviridae) X X X SA, US W No Yes (Brunt, 1996; CABI, 2003; Ogawa, 1995)

Apple mosaic

Ilarvirus (Bromoviridae) X X X SA, US F, I, R, S No Yes (Brunt, 1996; CABI, 2003)

Apple stem grooving virus Capillovirus (Flexiviridae) X X SA, US I, L, R, S,

Se No No (Brun t, 1996; CABI, 2003)

Arabis mosaic Nepovirus (Comoviridae) X X SA, US W No Yes (Brunt, 1996; CABI, 2003)

Cherry green ring

mottle Foveavirus (Flexiviridae) X SA, US L, F No Yes (CABI, 2004)

Cherry mottle leaf

Trichovirus (Trichoviridae) X X SA, US W No Yes (Brunt, 1996)

Cherry rasp leaf Nepovirus (Comoviridae) X SA, US W No Yes (Brunt, 1996; CABI, 200 3)Risk Assessment for Prunus from the Republic of South Africa

Rev. 06 April 26, 2010 27 Pest Host plant Geog

. d istrib

. 1 Plant p arts

a ffected 2 Quaran

tine p est 3 Follow

p athway References

A C P Cherry rusty mottle disease (American) Unassigned X X X SA, US L, S No No (CABI, 2003; Ogawa, 1995)

Prune dwarf virus

Ilarvirus (Bromoviridae) X X SA, US W No Yes (Africander, 1999; Brunt, 1996; CABI, 2004)

Peach latent mosaic viroid (American mosaic of peach)

Pelamoviroid (Avsunviroidae) X X X SA, US W No Yes (CABI, 2003)

Prunus necrotic ringspot virus (Syn: Cherry line pattern virus) Ilarvirus (Bromoviridae) X X X Worldwi

de I, L, R, S,

Se No No (CABI, 2003; Gorter, 1977; Ogawa, 1995)

Prunus necrotic ringspot virus +

Prunus dwarf

Ilarviruses (Bromoviridae) X X X SA, US W No Yes (Gorter, 1977; Ogawa, 1995)

Tobacco necrosis

Necrovirus (Tombusviridae) X SA, US W No Yes (CABI, 2004)

1 Geographic d istribution: AZ = Arizon a , CA = Calif ornia, FL = Florida, LA = Louisiana, MI = Michigan, OR = Oregon, SA = South Africa, TX = Texas, US = United States, and WA = Washington

2 Plant part abbreviations: B = bud, I = inflorescence, F = fruit, L = leaves, S = stem, Se = seed, So = soil, R = root,

and W = whole plant

3 Brackets around the quarantine status designation [Yes/No] indicate that the species is in limited distribution in the

United States and is either under official control or under review for off icial control

. 4 Listed as Non

- Reportable in PIN 309 Database

5 Feeding site typical of Eotetranychus (Jeppson, 1975)

. 6 Pest feeding on fruit is apparently restricted entirely or predominantly to young fruitlets, often causing premature fruit drop (Myburgh, 1973) . Feeding is superficial. The skin of fruits that is chewed away , and results in
symptom s of corking and other malformations (Barnes, 1978)

. 7 Adult is nocturnally active

, and externally feeds on fruits, producing superficial lesions (Annecke, 1982; Myburgh, 1973) . This pest is not expected to remain with the comm odity through harvest and processing.

8 Eggs of P. callosus are laid in the soil and larvae feed on the roots of host plants (CABI, 2006). Adults are night feeders and seek shelter on the ground or under the host‘s bark during the daylight hours (CABI, 2006). The commodity inten d ed for export does not offer a calyx for the pest to hide under during the the daytime when harvesting would occur, therefore it is considered not likely to follow the pathway with this commodity.

9 Species infest overripe fruit (Avidov, 1969) , and, thus, is not likely to be present in consignments of export

- grade

fruit.

1 0 Species is restricted to Olea europaea L. (olive) (White, 1992)

. The single record of this species on Pr unus domestica (USDA, 2007 ) is an anomaly.Risk Assessment for Prunus from the Republic of South Africa

Rev. 06 April 26, 2010 28 1 1 Adults are large (1.8

- 2.4 cm), dark

- colored, externally

- feeding insects

, and nymphs ar e gregarious (Sweet, 2000)

. Because of this conspicuousness, they are not likely to remain with the commodity through harvest and shipment.

1 2 T he species is restricted to hosts within Poaceae (grasses), but individuals may take shelter in cavities of fruit prior

to aestivation. The species have been intercepted on a pricot , among other stone and pome fruits from South Africa at U.S. and U.K. ports (Sweet, 2000)

. I t is n ot likely associated with cherry since the stem cavities are not as large/deep as apricots and plumcots

. 1 3 Species are restricted to hosts in Malvales (Malvaceae, Sterculiaceae, and Tiliaceae), which appear to be essential

for the completion of developmen t. This species externally feeds on fruits in other families ( e.g ., Rosaceae), which may be an incidental, means for acquiring water (Sweet, 2000) . The pest is unlikely to remain on fruit through harvest and processi ng.

1 4 Adults are large (1.2 cm), bright red, externally

- feeding insects (Sweet, 2000) , and are unlikely to remain with the commodity through harvest and processing.

1 5 Antestiopsis orbitalis can feed on the fruit, but is not expected to remain with the commodity during harvesting and processing for shipment (CABI, 2004)

. With coffee, the primary host of this pest, feeding by larvae often leads to premature fruit drop (CABI, 2004)

. 1 6 Adults are large (1.2 cm), externally

- feeding insects ; nymphs are gregarious (Panizzi, 2000)

. Because of this conspicuousness, they are not likely to remain with the commodity through harvest and shipping.

1 7 R eported to feed on the fruit of citrus (CABI, 2004)

, but this species colonizes leaves and stems of hosts (Hamon, 1984; Hill, 1983) . There are no reported interceptions on Prunus fruit at U.S. ports (USDA, 2007 )

. Prunus fruit is unlikely to be a pathway for int roduction of this scale insect.

1 8 L eaves and stems appear to be the usual feeding sites (Avidov, 1969; Hill, 1987)

, but the insect is also found on

fruit of various hosts (CABI, 2004; Hamon, 1984; Kosztar ab, 1997a; Swirski, 1997)

. Fruits are used for rearing it in the laboratory (Rose, 1997)

. 19 F ruits are attacked (CABI, 2004) and may be colonized by the first

- instar ―crawlers‖ (Kosztarab, 1997a, 1997b)

, but the typical sites of infestation by adults ap pear to be leaves and stems (Avidov, 1969; Hill, 1983, 1987; Kosztarab, 1997a, 1997b)

. 2 0 Feeding site typical of species of Arctiidae (Metcalf, 1993)

. 2 1 Only adult moths are associated with feeding on fruit. Typically, feeding occurs when insects first arrive in orchards; it is unlikely the moths will stay with the commodity until harvesting (Bosch, 1971; Rhodes, 2000)

. 2 2 Helicoverpa armigera l arvae may feed on immature or developing fruit of host crops ( Bedford, 1978; Butani, 1993; Hely, 1982; Van den Berg, 2001a)

. Larvae can cause the immature fruit to abort

, or cause damage that

would render the fruit unmarketable (Bed f ord, 1978)

. In some fruits, like mango, the larvae can only inser t its head and thorax into fruit leaving a portion of its body visible on the exterior of the fruit (Butani, 1993). Since

1985

, there has only been one port interception of H. armigera on Prunus sp. (from baggage/Asia) (USDA, 2007 ).

The larvae are unlikely to be associated with commercial fruit destined for the United States.

2 3 Larvae may externally feed on fruit ( e.g ., apple, pear) in deciduous orchards, causing serious, although superficial, damage (Avidov, 1969)

. The larvae are unlikely to remai n with fruit through harvest and processing.

2 4 Species is a stored

- product pest (CABI, 2004) that is not associated with fresh fruit.

2 5 Pest is known to externally feed on citrus fruit; fruit is not a pathway for international movement in trade (CABI

EPPO, 1997)

. 2 6 Pest is an external feeder (Myburgh, 1973) . Feeding damage to fruit is superficial, with a depth seldom exceeding

3 .2 mm (PNKTO, 1985)

. Damaged fruit becomes malformed and unmarketable (Annecke, 1982) . Infested fruit does not constitute a likely means of dispersal in commerce (CABI, 2004)

. 2 7 Larvae superficially feed on fruit, causing it to be downgraded or culled (Annecke, 1982; Myburgh, 1973) . The
pest would not be expected to remain on fruit through harvest and processing.

2 8 Taphrina mume is closely related and may even be a variety of T. deformans (Mix, 1949)

. Morphologically, it is not distinguishable from T. deformans (Mix, 1949)

. With little mention of T. mume in recent literature, it suggests specimens of T. mume are identified as T. deformans , a species well

- established in the United States. Taphrina species are typically leaf pathogens (Ogawa, 1995)

. Occasionally fruit infections occur, but they occur early in the production season, deform the fruit (reducing marketable) and typically lead to fruit drop (CPDDC, 2005) . For

these reasons T. deformans and T. mume are unlikely to follow the pathway.

29 The armored scale Pseudaonidia trilobitiformis may enter on commercial fruit for consumption ; however, it is not expected to become established via this pathway . Please see discussion below 5 for a detailed explanation

. 30 Thaumatotibia leucotreta , or false codling moth ( FCM ), is an important pest of stone fruit in South Africa (Kirkman and Moor e, 2007), in particular on peaches (Blomefield, 1989; Daiber, 1975) and plums (Blomefield,Risk Assessment for Prunus from the Republic of South Africa

Rev. 06 April 26, 2010 29 1989). FCM has also been reported on nectarines (Blomefield, 1989) and apricots (Gunn, 1921) as well as many other temperate and tropical fruit crops (Couilloud, 1994). However, w e o nly found secondary literature or genus level citations to support an association of T

. leucotreta with cherry ( P

. avium ) (Hoffman, 2008; Stibick, 2006)

. Because we found no primary literature citations, we considered cherry to be a pot ential host for FCM but did not analyze it, and it will not require mitigation measures on that commodity . In the future, if associations of FCM with cherry are reported, the risk may be evaluated for th at host

- pest combination

.

2.4.1. Quarantine Pests Likely To Follow The Pathway

The five pests we identified were as follows: Ceratitis capitata

, C. qu inaria

, C

. rosa , Macchiademus diplopterus

, and Thaumatotibia leucotreta

.

2.4.2. Discussion of Quarantine Pests Not Selected for Further Analysis Quarantine pests reasonably expected to follow the pathway, i.e

. , likely to be included in commercial shipments of apricot, cherry

, or plumcot fruit are analyzed in detail below (Steps 5

- 7 ) ( PPQ, 2000 ) . Other plant pests not chosen for further scrutiny may be detrimental to the agricultural production systems of the United States; however, a variety of reasons existed for not subjecting them to further analysis. For example, they may have been associated with plant parts other than the commodity; associated with the commodity, but not likely to remain with it during processing; or intercepted as biological contaminants of these commodities during inspection

, but not expected to be present with every shipment.

Viruses are considered to follow the pathway since they are commonly systemic within the host plant ; however

, transmission between plants generally occurs by vec tors or grafting (Agrios, 1997)

. It is unlikely that apricots, sweet cherries, or plumcots imported for consumption will be exposed to the vectors necessary for transmission

, or will be discarded in close proxim ity to commercial productions sites

. We do not expect that the quarantine significant viruses mentioned

here will follow the pathway and establish in the United States

.

We did not further analyze t he armored scale

, Pseudaonidia trilobitiformis (Hemiptera: Diaspididae), because armored scales may enter on commercial fruit for consumption but are not expected to become established, and therefore introduced, via this pathway (Miller, 1985; Zlotina and Hennessey, 2007). A recent critical review of the literature, APHIS

- PPQ operational data, and expert opinion conclude that, even assuming high qu antities of imported fruit infested with armored scale species that could be parthenogenic, highly fecund, polyphagous, invasive, theoretically able to survive in most of the United States, and cause high level consequences, the specific pathway represente d by commercially produced fruit shipped without leaves, stems or contaminants constitutes an extremely low risk (Zlotina and Hennessey, 2007). This low risk is explained by poor ability of armored scales to disperse to new host plants from fruits for

cons umption, and consequently, by their low probability of establishment (Zlotina and Hennessey, 2007). The following characteristics of armored scales contribute to their poor dispersal capabilities:

 Legs and wings are absent in females and in feeding immatur e forms. Males possess wings

but are short

- lived, do not feed, and tend to mate with nearby females

 Self

- dispersal of armored scales occurs by immature forms, or ―crawlers‖. They are the most vulnerable life stage, survival of which decreases with long dis tance wind dispersal. Crawlers can be passively dispersed by wind from one plant to another only during a time period of approximately 24 hours. No further dispersal is possible after the crawlers start feeding asRisk Assessment for Prunus from the Republic of South Africa

Rev. 06 April 26, 2010 30 they lose their legs during the first molt and the mouth parts are deeply inserted in the host, anchoring them firmly to the substrate.

 Dispersal from fruit discarded in the environment is considered very unlikely because of low wind speeds at ground level and low survival rate of crawlers on the ground or on decaying fruit or fruit peel. There is a low probability of active dispersal of crawlers by walking from their natal host since they are not capable of rapid movement over bare soil or rough

surfaces.

An additional reason why we did not analy z e the armored scales is that commercially produced

stone fruit is highly likely to have a low infestation rate of armored scales

, due to requirements of industry quality standards. Processing, culling, and inspection of fruit infested with armored

scales can further reduce the prevalence and survival of this group of pests.

2. 5

. Consequences of Introduction

For each quarantine pest, we rated the potential C onsequences of I nt roduction using five R isk

E lements. These elements reflect the biologies, host ra nges and climatic/geographic distrib utions of the pests. For each r isk e lement, pests are assigned a rating of L ow ( 1 point), M edium (2 points) or H igh ( 3 points). We calculated a cumulative risk r ating by summing all R isk E lement

values. T able 5 summarizes t he values for the C onsequences of I ntroduction for each pest

.

Ceratitis capitata Risk rating

Risk Element #1: Climate

- Host Interaction

The Mediterranean fruit fly, C

. capitata

, is found in regions surrounding the Mediterranean basin, southern Europe

, west ern Asia

, Africa

, South and Central America, the Caribbean, the Hawaiian and northern Mariana Islands, and in parts of

Australia (CABI/EPPO, 1997a) . This species tolerates colder climates better than most other species of Tephritidae (Papadopoulos, 1996; Weems, 1981) ; we estimate

that C

. capitata could establish in United States Plant Hardiness Zones 8

- 10

. Medium ( 2 )

Risk Element #2: Host Range This pest has been recorded from a wide variety of host plant families. A small sampling of hosts includes Coffea arabica (Rubiaceae)

, Solanum pseudocapsicum (Solanaceae), Citrus spp. (Rutaceae), Malus pumila

, Prunus spp. (Rosaceae), Ficus

carica (Moraceae ), Eugenia uniflora and Psidium spp. (Myrtaceae), Litchi chinensis (Sapindaceae), Theobroma cacao (Sterculiaceae), Phoenix dactylifera (Arecaceae), Mangifera indica (Anacardiaceae), Vitis vinifera (Vitaceae), Garcinia mangostana (Clusiaceae), Carica papaya (Caricaceae), Juglans regia (Juglandaceae), Persea

americana (Lauraceae), Malpighia glabra (Malpighiaceae), Diospyros kaki (Ebenaceae), Opuntia tuna (Cactaceae), Cucurbita sp. ( Cucurbitaceae), Terminalia

catappa (Combretaceae), Chrysophyllum cainito (Sapo taceae), Annona reticulata (Annonaceae), Santalum album (Santalaceae), Chrysobalanaceae, Loganiaceae, Meliaceae, Oleaceae, and Podocarpaceae (White, 1992)

. High (3)

Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential Females may deposit as many as 800 eggs in a lifetime, although 300 is more typical (Weems, 1981) . The species is multivoltine

, with the number of generations per year High (3)Risk Assessment for Prunus from the Republic of South Africa

Rev. 06 April 26, 2010 31 Ceratitis capitata Risk rating

determined by temperature (Fletcher, 1989a)

. The a dult ‘s flight range is 20 km or

more (Fletcher, 1989b)

. T ransport ation of infe sted fruit is the major means of movement and dispersal to uninfested areas ( CABI/EPPO, 1997a)

. Risk Element #4: Economic Impact Ceratitis capitata is an important pest in Africa

, and has spread to many continent s, becom ing one of the most important pest species in its family (CABI/EPPO, 1997a)

. In Mediterranean countries, it is particularly damaging to citrus and peach crops. Damage is caus ed by larvae tunneling through host fruit, which is often accompanied by f ruit

- rotting fungi and bacteria that can cause premature fruit drop (Hill, 1983)

. Infestation rates of 100 percent

, and yield losses of 50 percent

, occur in some fruit

crops (PNKTO, 1982b)

. Th is species is of quarantine significance world wide

, especially in Japan and the United States. Its presence, even as temporary adventive populations, can lead to severe constraints for the export of fruits to uninfested areas in other parts of the world (CABI/EPPO, 1997a)

. Ceratitis capitata constantly

threatens to invade ( or reinvade ) new areas (Yuval, 2000)

. Ceratitis capitata is one of the most significant quarantine pests for any tropical or warm temp erate areas in which it is not yet established (CABI, 2004)

. High (3)

Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact This species is highly polyphagous , with the potential to attack plants listed as Threatened or Endangered in Title 50, Part 17, Section 12 of the United States Code

of Feder al Regulations (50 CFR §17.12). As close relatives of known h ost s
, Opuntia

treleasei

, Prunus geniculata , and Cucurbita okeechobeensis ssp. okeechobeensis are at risk of attack from C. capitata if it is introduced into the United States. Since it is a significant threat to citrus and peach production, the establishme nt of C. capitata in the continental United States would trigger the initiation of chemical or biological control programs

. High (3)

Ceratitis quinaria Risk rating

Risk Element #1: Climate

- Host Interaction Ceratitis quinaria is found in the subtropics and tropics of Africa (Botswana, Malawi, Mali, Namibia, South Africa, Sudan, and Zimbabwe) and west Asia (Yemen) (CABI/EPPO, 1997b; EPPO, 2005) . Given this geographic distribution, the species

could establish in Plant Hardiness Zones 9

- 1 0

. Medium (2)

Risk Element #2: Host Range This fruit fly has been recorded on host plants in at least five families: Mangifera

indica (Anacardiaceae) (EPPO, 2005)

, Prunus armeniaca and P

. persica (Rosaceae)

, Citrus spp. (Ru taceae)

, Psidium guajava (Myrtaceae) (CABI/EPPO, 1997b)

, Ziziphus spina

- ch risti (Rhamnaceae)

, and possibly Ficus sp. (Moraceae) (White, 1992 )

. High (3)

Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential

I nformation o n the reproductive biology of C

. quinaria is lacking. Presumably, it is

similar to that of C

. capitata , which varies its clutch size according to the size of host

fruit available (Fletcher, 1989a)

. Long

- distance dispersal is accomplished by adult Medium (2)Risk Assessment for Prunus from the Republic of South Africa

Rev. 06 April 26, 2010 32 Ceratitis quinaria Risk rating flight and the transport of fruit infested with larvae (CABI/EPPO, 1997b)

. The species‘ restricted distribution

, and its lack of U.S. po rt interception records (PIN 309)

, suggest s it is not spread via human agency. Assuming the biology of C

. quinaria is similar to that of other Ceratitis spp., risk associated with its dispersal potential is M edium.

Risk Element #4: Economic Impact Despite its association with economically important fruit crops ( e.g

. , Prunus

, Citrus ),

C

. quinaria is not considered to be a significant pest outside its native range

. Vayssières et al

. (2004) reported the fly to be a minor pest of mango in Mali, infesting

fewer than 5 percent of fruit sampled. Evidence suggests that risk associated with the potential economic impact of this pest is Low

. Low (1)

Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact This pest represents a potential threat to native U.S. plants, such as the Florid i a n species Prunus geniculata and Ziziphus celata , both listed as Endangered in 50 CFR §17.12

. Its introduction into the United States would result in the initiation of a chemical control program employing a broad

- spectrum insecticide, such as

malathion (CABI/EPPO, 1997b)

. A biological control program targeting this pest is less likely, at least in the near term. A recent report concerning natural enemies of fruit flies indicated that predators and parasitoids of C

. quinaria are unknown (St ibick, 2003)

. High (3)

Ceratitis rosa Risk rating

Risk Element #1: Climate

- Host Interaction

The distribution of C

. rosa is restricted to subtropical and tropical Africa, the species apparently being less tolerant of cold temperatures than the related species

, C

. capitata (CABI/EPPO, 1997c)

. The estimated range it could establish in the United

States is Plant Hardiness Zones 9

- 1 0

. Medium (2)

Risk Element #2: Host Range This polyphagous species has been recorded on Prunus spp. (Rosaceae), Persea

americana (Lauraceae), Citrus spp. (Rutaceae), Ficus carica (Moraceae), Vitis vinifera (Vitaceae), Litchi chinensis (Sapindaceae), Mangifera indica (Anacardiaceae), Carica papaya (Caricaceae) (CABI/EPPO, 1997c)

, Averrhoa

carambola (Oxalidaceae), Coffea arab ica (Rubiaceae), Annona reticulata (Annonaceae), Passiflora sp. (Passifloraceae), Manilkara zapota (Sapotaceae), Eugenia uniflora and Psidium spp. (Myrtaceae) (Grové, 2001)

, Strychnos spinosa ( Loganiaceae) (Weems, 1966)

, Carissa macrocarpa (Apocynaceae), Ziziphus zizyphus (Rhamnaceae), Theobroma cacao (Sterculiaceae), Garcinia mangostana (Clusiaceae), Musa sp. (Musaceae), Diospyros virginiana (Ebenaceae), Opuntia spp. (Cactaceae), Dovyalis caffra (Flacourtiaceae), Lycopersicon esculentum and

Solanum auriculatum (Solanaceae), Cecropiaceae, Euphorbiaceae, and Podocarpaceae (White, 1992)

. High (3)

Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential In the laboratory, fecundity averaged 520 eggs per female (Monty, 1973)

. Depending Medium (2)Risk Assessment for Prunus from the Republic of South Africa

Rev. 06 April 26, 2010 33 Ceratitis rosa Risk rating

on climat ic conditions, there may be as many as 12 generations per year (Hill, 1983)

. Adult flight and the transport of i nfested fruit are the primary means of long

- distance dispersal and spread to previously uninfested areas (CABI/EPPO, 1997c)

. The species‘ restricted, Afrotropical distribution and an almost complete lack of U.S. port interception records (USDA, 2007 ; Weems, 1966) suggest that it is not spread widely via human agency. Based on available evidence, risk associated with the dispersal potential of C

. rosa is M edium.
Risk Element #4: Economic Impact

Ceratitis rosa is a major pest of mango (Joubert, 2000) and avocado in South Afric a, resulting in a cull rate of the latter of 1.9 percent (Dennill, 1992)

. Lychee fruit, although a poor host, is damaged by organisms of decay introduced by ovipositing

females (de Villiers, 1990)

. In South Africa, infestation rates of 50

- 100 percent have been reported in plum (Weems, 1966)

. After its introduction into Mauritius, C

. rosa displaced C

. capitata from many of their sha red hosts (Fitt, 1989) , and a similar phenomenon may have occurred in Zimbabwe (INKTO, 1963) ; as a result, this
suggest s the potential for C

. rosa to become as serious a pest as C

. capitata

. Control is achieved by the application of insecticides (de Villiers, 1978) , which increases production costs. Like C

. capitata

, C

. rosa is an international quarantine pest with the potential to restrict international trade in fruit (Barnes, 2000)

. For example, the fly is an A1 quarantine pest for Europe, and considered by EPPO to be the most important

of all Ceratitis species (CABI/EPPO, 1997c)

. Its establishment in the United States

c ould result in a loss of foreign markets for various U.S.

- produced commodities. High (3)

Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact This pest is a potential threat to plants listed as Threatened or Endangered ( e.g
., Opuntia treleasei

, Prunus geniculata

, Ziziphus celata ) (USFWS, 2005)

. Its

introduction into the United States w ould result in the initiation of chemical or biological control programs, as has occurred in response to entry of other tephritid species (Roessler, 1989; Wharton, 1989)

. High (3)

Macchiademus diplopterus Risk rating

Risk Element #1: Climate

- Host Interaction Macchiademus diplopterus is known only from South Africa (Herring, 1973) . The species exhibit s cold

- hardiness (Herring, 1973; Sweet, 2000) . Based upon this

infor mation ( and the range of hardiness zones in South Africa (see Fig. 1 )

, this insect

c ould establish in United States Plant Hardiness Zones 8

- 1 0

. Medium ( 2 )

Risk Element #2: Host Range This species feeds primarily on grasses (Poaceae), including Triticum sp., Hordeum

spp., Avena spp., Poa annua

, Ehrharta spp., Bromus spp., and Lolium multiflorum

. It is a hitchhiker in the fruit cavities of various Rosacease ( Prunus

, Malus

, Pyrus )

hosts , demonstrated by interceptions at U.S. and U.K ports

- of

- entry (Sweet, 2000)

. Medium (2)

Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential Fecundity ranges from 50

- 150 eggs per female; there is only one generation per year (Her ring, 1973)

. Adults are known to make flights of ―several kilometres‖ to sites of Medium (2)Risk Assessment for Prunus from the Republic of South Africa

Rev. 06 April 26, 2010 34 Macchiademus diplopterus Risk rating refuge in late spring and summer (Annecke, 1982)

. Longer

- distance, rapid dispersal is achieved as stowaways in exports of pome and stone fruits, wheat, and grass seed (Addison, 2005; Herring, 1973; Sweet, 2000)

. Risk Element #4: Economic Impact Macchiademus diplopterus is one of the more important pests of small grains in South

Africa (Herring, 1973)

. Feeding causes sap depletion in the stems of grasses, impair ing growth ; this results in the stunting and drying of leaves , and plants often die before producing ears of grain (Sweet, 2000)

. In pear crops, the pest starts to infest

fruit soon after it moves into orchards ( November ) , and remains on fruit until harvest,

necessitat ing monitoring and the development of management strategies (Addison, 2004)

. Insecticidal control is considered necessary, but risky, as the size of a crop may not justify the expense of control (Annecke, 1982)

. Post

- harvest controls are applied to ensure that packed fruit cartons destined for export are free of the pes t and acceptable to international quarantine standards (Addison, 2005) . The insect is a quarantine pest for New Zealand (MAF, 2004) , suggesting that its establishment in

the United States could result in the loss of foreign markets for domestically produced grains and, perhaps, fruits. High (3)

Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact This pest can attack native plants in the United States, such as the species of Poa

lis ted as Endangered in California

. As a pest of economically important grains, such as wheat, oats, and barley, its establishment w ould stimulate the initiation of chemical control programs comparable to the one used in South Africa (Annecke, 1982)

. High (3)

Thaumatotibia leucotreta Risk rating

Risk Element #1: Climate

- Host Interaction

The distribution of T

. leucotreta is restricted to subtropical and tropical Africa (CABI, 2004) . This moth could establish in the Uni ted States Plant Hardiness Zones 9

- 10. Medium (2)

Risk Element #2: Host Range This pest attacks host plants in numerous families, including Ananas comosus (Bromeliaceae), Camellia sinensis (Theaceae), Citrus spp. (Rutaceae), Annona

muricata (Annonaceae), Averrhoa carambola (Oxalidaceae), Ceiba pentandra (Bombacaceae), Coffea arabica (Rubiaceae), Litchi chinensis (Sapindaceae), Mangifera indica (Anacardiaceae), Olea europaea (Oleaceae), Persea americana (Lauraceae), Punica granatum (Punicaceae), Ricinus communis (Euphorbiaceae), Zea mays (Poaceae) (CABI, 2004)

, Prunus spp. (Rosaceae), Quercus sp. (Faga ceae), Juglans sp. (Juglandaceae), Macadamia integrifolia (Proteaceae), Vitis vinifera (Vitaceae) (Ann ecke, 1982)

, Bequaertiodendron magalismontanum (Sapotaceae), Calotropis procera (Asclepiadaceae), Capparis tomentosa (Capparaceae), Catha edulis (Celastraceae), Cola nitida (Sterculiaceae),

Combretum spp. (Combretaceae), Diospyros spp. (Ebenaceae), Euge nia uniflora

and Psidium guajava (Myrtaceae), Ficus capensis (Moraceae), Garcinia

mangostana (Clusiaceae), Abutilon spp. and Hibiscus spp. (Malvaceae), Musa x paradisiaca (Musaceae), Phaseolus spp. (Fabaceae), Podocarpus falcatus High (3)Risk Assessment for Prunus from the Republic of South Africa

Rev. 06 April 26, 2010 35 Thaumatotibia leucotreta Risk rating
(Podocarpaceae), Schotia a fra ( Caesalpiniaceae), Triumfetta spp. (Tiliaceae), Ximenia caffra (Olacaceae), and Ziziphus spp. (Rhamnaceae) (Whittle, 1984)

. Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential Depending on temperature, average fecundity ranges from 87 to 456 eggs per female (Daiber, 1980). There may be as many as five generations per year (Van den Berg, 2001b)

. The capacity for long

- distance flight by adults is indicated by records of migrants found in Sweden, thousands o f kilometers beyond the natural range of the species (Svensson, 2002)

. Long distance d ispersal occurs when fruit infested with larvae are transported (CABI, 2004)

. Species interception a t U.S. ports occurred on

various fruits on more than 166 occasions (USDA, 2007 ; Whittle, 1984)

. Risk associated with the reproductive and disp ersal potentials of this pest is High. High (3)

Risk Element #4: Economic Impact In South Africa, T

. leucotreta is a major pest of citrus, guava, lychee, and avocado; crop losses may reach 80 percent (Van den Berg, 2001b)

. The moth occasionally is an important pest of cotton (Whittle, 1984) , causing yield losses as high as 90 percent (CABI, 2004)

. Losses of up to 28 percent in peach crops also have been reported (CABI, 2004)

. Primary damage is caused by larvae boring into fruits (Hill, 1983)

. Opportuni stic secondary fungal and bacterial rots may cause further damage to fruits (Van der Geest L.P.S., Wearing, C.H. and J.S. Dugdale, 1991)

. Larvae attacking the young, green fruits of guava are unable to penetrate the skin, but produce blemishes (Van den Berg, 2001b) that are likely to lower market value. The moth is a quarantine pest for Korea, Paraguay, Uruguay, Argentina, Brazil, Chile, New Zealand, and

Indonesia (PRF, 2005) ; its introduction could result in a loss of for eign markets for

various U.S.

- grown commodities ( i.e ., citrus, stone fruits, and grapes). High (3)

Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact Introduction of this pest into the United States poses a potential threat to native plants listed as Threatened or Endangered, such as Prunus geniculata

, Quercus hinckleyi

, and Ziziphus celata (USFWS, 2005 )

. Its introduction is unlikely to result in the initiation of chemical or biological control programs. Chemical control is

ineffective or uneconomical (Annecke, 1982; Hill, 1983) due to the large number of plants available to serve as reservoir hosts and sources of reinfestation (Van der Geest L.P.S., Wearing, C.H. and J.S. Dugdale, 1991)

. Prospects for classical biological control are considered poor (Van den Berg, 2001b) . Control of the pest occurs through orchard sanitation (Annecke, 1982; Hill, 1983; Whittle, 1984)

. Medium (2)Risk Assessment for Prunus from the Republic of South Africa

Rev. 06 April 26, 2010 36 Figure 1. Plant Hardiness Zones for Africa ( http://ww w.backyardgardener.com/zone/africa.html )

Table 6

. Risk Rating s for Consequences of Introduction

Pest Risk Element Cumulative

r isk r ating a Climate/

Host

Interaction Host

Range Dispersal

p otential Economic

i mpact Enviro.

i mpact

Ceratitis capitata Med ( 2 ) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (1 4 )
Ceratitis quinaria Med (2) High (3) Med (2) Low (1) High (3) Medium (11)

Ceratitis rosa Med (2) High (3) Med (2) High (3) High (3) High (13)
Macchiademus diplopterus Med (2) Med (2) Med (2) High (3) High (3) Medium (12 )

Thaumatotibia leucotreta Med (2) High (3) High (3) High (3) Med (2) High (13)

a Low = 5

- 8 points , Medium = 9

- 12 points , High = 13

- 15 pointsRisk Assessment for Prunus from the Republic of South Africa

Rev. 06 April 26, 2010 37 2. 6

. Likelihood of Introduction

— Quantity Imported and Pest Opportunity

We summarized r atings for Likelihood of Introduction below (Table 6).

2.6.1. Quantity of commodity imported annually The anticipat ed estimated volume of sweet cherries, apricots and plu mc ots exported from South Africa is between 10 and 100 containers per year ; therefore

, this element rank is Medium

.

2.6.2. Survive post

- harvest treatment

All Ceratitis species and T. leucotreta a re internal feeders, with a high probability > 10 percent of surviving minimal post

- harvest treatment, such as washing and culling, especially if it was an early infestation of fruit and damage was not yet obvious (USDA, 2000) . These pests present a High risk of introduction.

The remaining arthropod M. diplopterus would be externally present on fruit, either as a feeder or stowaway, and is less likely to surviv e post

- harvest treatments. Th is arthropod might find shelter on fruit, particularly within the stem cavi ty or in packing materials. A dult M

. diplopterus

, which are fairly small in size ( 4 mm (Herring, 1973)

, can take shelter within the stem cavity of

various fruits (Sweet, 2000) , and can survive post

- harvest treatment, such as a clear water bath.

External pests have a probabilit y between 0.1 and 10 percent ( i.e

., in the medium range) of surviving post

- harvest treatment (US DA, 2000)

.

2.6.3. Survive shipment The shipping conditions of stone fruit from South Africa are unknown ; however

, many stonefruit

cultivars are susceptible to injury when held at low temperatures for extended periods of time (Burmeister and Harman, 199 7). Fruit shipped by airfreight makes delivery time short, and may or may not be refrigerated. APHIS

- PPQ believes that temperature and time frame associated with unrefrigerated air or sea transport are insufficient to reduce the level of pest population s

. The

internal feeders

, Ceratitis spp. and T. leucotreta

, are protected from adverse environmental conditions by the plant part tissue, while the other pest take s shelter in the fruit‘s stem cavity

. All pests are rated High (3) for their ability to survive shipment conditions from South Africa.

2.6.4. Not detected at a port

- of

- entry
E stimating the risk that pests will not be detected at a port

- of

- entry involves the consideration of pest size, mobili ty, and degree of concealment. Among the insects, again depending on the age of infestation, Ceratitis s pecies , as internal feeders, have a high probability of escaping detection
at a port

- of

- entry (White, 1992)

. Thaumatotibia leucotreta , an internal pest, similarly could evade detection, as infested fruit often show s little external sign s of attack (Carter, 1984)

. This

moth was first recorded in England i n 2003 when an adult was found in a residence ; it presumably entered the country via infested fruit (Hind, 2004)

. Risk of these pests evading

detection is estimated H igh.

Because M. diplopterus is an external pest and potentially visible on the fruit‘s surface, there might be a lower, although significant, likelihood of their escaping detection. As noted, insects in

the stem cavity most likely evade detection. The r isk of this external pest not being detected is

estimated to be Medium

.Risk Assessment for Prunus from the Republic of South Africa

Rev. 06 April 26, 2010 38 2.6.5. Moved to a habitat suitable for survival Apricots, sweet cherries, and plumcots from South Africa are likely to be sold in every U.S.

state. It is assumed that demand for fruit is proportional to the size of the consumer population in potential markets ; therefore, imports might be more concentrated in some regions of the United

States than in others. N ot all regions of the United States market concentration will be conducive to pest survival. According to the late st census data ( US Census Bureau , 2004), 30 percent of the population resides in states wholly or partly within Plant Hardiness Zon es 9 or 10 and 46 percent of the population resides in states wholly or partly within Plant Hardiness Zones 8, 9, or 10

. Thre e of the most populous states

, California, Florida, and Texas

, contain areas within Plant

Hardiness Zones 8

- 1 0 , and will likely constitute large markets for the South African fruit. All of the pests are estimated to present a Medium risk of movement to sui table habitats for survival ;

t his is based on the assumption that pest infestations will be randomly distributed among shipments, and that pests are capable of surviving in a range of states (Zones 8 or 9, and above) compris ing a moderately high percentage of markets for South African Prunus

.

2.6.6. Come into contact with host material suitable for reproduction Assessment of the probability that a plant pest will come into contact with host material take s into account the availability of host plants ( in time and space ), the particular plant parts fed upon or used for reproduction, and the pest‘s inherent powers of movement , which allow it to find and successfully colonize hosts.

Hosts of the polyphagous and highly mobile Ceratitis s pecies include tempera te

- zone or widely cultivated plants, such as Prunus and Citrus spp. (USDA

- NRCS, 2005)

. In a dd ition to these and other cultivated crops, T. leucotreta attacks a wide range of weeds (Van der Geest L.P.S., Wearing, C.H. and J.S. Dugdale, 1991) , and M

. diplopterus feeds on various grasses (Sweet, 2000)

. These hosts may be readily available throughout the potential area of establishm ent in the

United States . The l ikelihood that these pests will encounter suitable host material is High

.

Table 7

. Risk ratings a d etermined for the Likelihood of Introduction

Pest Quantity

i mported

a nnually Survive

p ost

- harvest

t reatment Survive

s hip

ment Not d etected

at p ort

- of

e ntry Moved to

suitable

h abitat Contact

with host

m aterial Cumulative

r isk r ating a

Ceratitis capitata Med (2) High (3) High (3) High (3) Med (2) High (3) High ( 16 )
Ceratitis quinaria Med (2) High (3) High (3) High (3) Med (2) High (3) High ( 16 )

Ceratitis rosa Med (2) High (3) High (3) High (3) Med (2) High (3) High ( 16 )

Macchiademus diplopterus Med (2) Med (2) High (3) Med (2) Med (2) High (3) Medium ( 14 )

Thaumatotibia

leucotreta Med (2) High (3) High (3) High (3) Med (2) High (3) High (16)

a Low: 6

- 9 points ; Medium: 10

- 14 points ; and High: 15

- 18 pointsRisk Assessment for Prunus from the Republic of South Africa

Rev. 06 April 26, 2010 39 2. 7

. Conclusion

— Pest Risk Potential and Pests Requiring Phytosanitary Measures

The summation of the values for the Consequences of I ntroduction and the L ikelihood of

I ntroduction for each pest yields a Pest R isk P otential (USDA, 2000) (Table 7 ). This is an estimate of the unmitigated risk associated with importation.

Pests with a Medium Pest Risk Potential indicate that specific phytosanitary measures may be necessary. The Guidelines (USDA, 2000) state that a High Pest Risk Potential means that specific phytosanitary measures are strongly recommended, and that port

- of

- entry inspection is insufficient to provide phytosanitary security.

Table 8

. Pest Risk Potential s a

Pest Consequences of

Introduction Likelihood of

Introduction Pest Risk

Potential
Ceratitis capitata High (1 4 ) High (16) High (30 )
Ceratitis quinaria Medium (11) High (16) High (27)

Ceratitis rosa High (13) High (16) High (29)
Macchiademus diplopterus Medium (1 2 ) Medium (14) Medium (2 6 )

Thaumatotibia leucotreta High (13) High (16) High (29)

a Low: 11

- 18 points ; Medium: 19

- 26 points ; and High: 27

- 33 points



### 3. Authors and Reviewers:

Heather M. Hartzog

, Plant Pathologist Gary Cave

, Entomologist Anthony Koop

, Botanist (weediness assessments)

Lisa Ferguson

, Plant Pathologist (review)

T h om as W. Culliney

, Entomologist (review)

Shawn Robertson

, Entomologist (review)

Christina Devorshak

, Entomologist (review )

U

. S

. D epartment of A griculture

, Plant Protection and Quarantine,

C enter for Plant Health Science and Technology Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis LaboratoryRisk Assessment for Prunus from the Republic of South Africa

Rev. 06 April 26, 2010 40 

### 4 . Literature Cited

Addison, P. 2004. Seasonal occurrence and monitoring of grain chinch bug on pears. S.A. Fruit J. 3 (5):16

- 18, 20

- 21. Addison, P. 2005. Post

- harvest control of the grain chinch bug Macchiademus diplopterus (Heteroptera: Lygaeidae) on pears in the Western Cape Province. South Africa. Acta

Hort. 671:549

- 553. Africander, N.L. and V.Z. Siebert. 1999. The effects of viruses on the quality of susceptible fruit cultivars. Decid. Fruit Grow. 49 (4):18

- 20. Agriculture WA. 2002. Garden weevil ( Phlyctinus callosus )

. Department of Agriculture

, We stern Australia (WA) . Cited June 2005. Available from http://agspsrv34.agric.wa.gov.au/programs/hort/viticulture/pests/gardenweevil.pdf

. Agrios, G. N. 1997. Plan t Pathology. 4th ed. ed. CA: Academic Press.

Allan Herbarium. 2004. New Zealand Plant Names Database Landcare Research. Cited February 11, 2004. Available from http://nzflora.landcareresearch.co.nz/

. Ann ecke, D.P. and V. C. Moran. 1982. Insects and Mites of Cultivated Plants in South Africa.

Durban and Pretoria: Butterworths.

Anon. 1970. Check

- List of Insects on Forest Trees and Shrubs in South Africa: Dept. Agric. Tech. Services, Entomol.

APS. 2003. Disea ses of Apricot ( Prunus armeniaca L.). In Common Names of Plant Diseases, edited by Ogawa, J.M., Uyemoto, J.K. and B. A. Jaffee: American Phytopathological Society (APS)

. APS. 2005. Diseases of Sweet Cherry ( Prunus avium L.) and Sour Cherry ( P. cerasus L.). In Common Names of Plant Diseases, edited by Uyemoto, J.K., Ogawa, J.M. and Jaffee, B.A.: American Phytopathological Society (APS)

. Arnett, R. H., Jr. (ed.). 1983. Checklist of the Beetles of North and Central America and the West

Indies. Flora and Fauna P ublications, Inc.

, Gainesville , FL. ARS. 2004. Germplasm Resources Information Network (GRIN) Online Database United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service; Systematic Botany and Mycology Laboratory. Cited February 24, 2004. Availa ble from http://www.ars

grin.gov/cgi

- bin/npgs/html/paper.pl

. Avidov, Z. and I. Harpaz. 1969. Plant Pests of Israel. Israel Univ. Press

, Jerusalem

. Barnes, B.N. and P. L. Swart. 1977. A new look at snoutbeetles on apples. Decid. Fruit Grow. 27 (8):258

- 263. Barnes, B.N. 1978. Insects causing malformed fruit on pome and stone fruit trees. Decid. Fruit Grow. 28 (7):232

- 237. Barnes, B.N. 1989. Different life and seasonal cycles of banded fruit we evil, Phlyctinus callosus (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), in apple orchards in the south

- western Cape. Phytophylactica 21 (2):147

- 157. Barnes, B.N. and J.H. Giliomee. 1992. Fruit

- feeding behaviour of banded fruit weevil, Phlyctinus callosus (Schönherr) (Col., Curculionidae), in apple orchards. J. Appl. Entomol. 113 (4):407

- 415. Barnes, B.N., Price, N.S., and I. Seewooruthun. 2000. Monitoring and control of fruit flies in South African fruit orchards. Proc. Ind. Ocean Comm. Region. Fruit Fly Symp.:147

- 152.

Bedf ord, E. C. G. 1978. Citrus Pests in the Republic of South Africa. Department of Agricultural Technical Services, Republic of South Africa. 253 pp.Risk Assessment for Prunus from the Republic of South Africa

Rev. 06 April 26, 2010 41 Ben

- Dov, Y., Miller, D.R. and G.P. Gibson. 2005. ScaleNet: A database of Scale Insects of the

World . C ited Ma y 2005. Available from http://www.sel.barc.usda.gov/scalenet/scalenet.htm

. Blackman, R.L and V. F. Eastop. 1994. Aphids on the World's Trees: An Identification and

Information Guide. CAB Inter national

, Wallingford, UK

. Blackman, R.L. and V.F. Eastop. 2000. Aphids on the World's Crops: An Identification and Information Guide 2nd ed. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd

, Chichester, U.K

. Blomefield, T. L. 1989. Economic importance of false codling moth, Cryptophlebia leucotreta

, and codling moth, Cydia pomonella , on peaches, nectarines and plums. Phytophylactica

21:435

- 436. Blomefield, T. L. and H. Geertsema. 1990. First record of the Oriental fruit moth, Cydia molesta Busck (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae: Oletheutinae) a serious pest of peaches in South Africa. Phytophylactica 22:355

- 357. Bolland, H.R., Gutierrez, J., and C.H.W. Flechtmann. 1998. World Catalogue of the Spider Mite Family (Acari: Tetranychidae). Brill, Leide n. Bortiri, E., Oh, S.H., Jiang, J. G., Baggett, S., Granger, A., Weeks, C., Buckingham, M., Potter, D. and D.E. Parfitt. 2001. Phylogeny and systematics of Prunus (Rosaceae) as determined by sequence analysis of ITS and the chloroplast trnL

- trnF spacer DNA . Syst.

Bot. 26:797

- 807. Bosch, J. E. 1971. Fruit piercing moth research. Rhodesia Agricultural Journal 68 (1):19

- 21. Butani, D. K. 1993. Mango: Pest Problems. Periodical Expert Book Agency, Delhi, India. 290

pp. Bradley, J. D., Tremewan, W.G. and A. Smith. 1979. The British Tortricoid Moths. Tortricidae: Olethreutinae. London, UK: Ray Society. Brain, C.K. 1929. Insect Pests and Their Control in South Africa. Die Nasionale Pers Beperk

, Cape Town

. Brooklyn Botanical Garden. 2004. The Worst Invasives in the New York Metropolitan Area

. C ited February 24, 2003. Available from http://www.bbg.org/gar2/pestalerts/invasives/worst_nym.html#3

. Brown, H.D. 1972. Predacious behaviour of four species of Coccinellidae (Coleoptera) associated with wheat aphid, Schizaphis graminum (Rondani), in South Africa. Trans. R. Entomol. Soc. 124 (1):21

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

Plan t Viruses Online: Descriptions and Lists from the VIDE Database (20th August 1996). Available from http://image.fs.uidaho.edu/vide/refs.htm

. Bruzzese, E. 1996. Ecology of Cirsium vulgare and Silybum ma rianum in relation to biological control. Plant Protect. Quart. 11 (Suppl. 2):245

- 249. Burmeister, D.M. and J.E. Harman. 1997. Effect of fruit maturity on the success of controlled atmosphere storage of 'Fantasia' nectarines. HortResearch Publication. Mt. Albert

Research Centre. Available from http://www.hortnet.co.nz/publications/science/b/burmeister/stornec.htm. CABI. Crop Protection Compendium

. 2002

. CAB International (CABI) . Wallingford, UK. CABI. Crop Protection Compendium

. 2003

. CAB International (CABI) . Wallingford, UK. CABI. Crop Protection Compendium . 2 004

. CAB International (CABI) . Wallingford, UK. CABI. Crop Protection Compendium. 2006. CAB International (CABI) . Wallingford, UK.Risk Assessment for Prunus from the Republic of South Africa

Rev. 06 April 26, 2010 42 CABI/EPPO. 1997a. Data sheets on quarantine pests: Ceratitis cap itata . In Quarantine Pests for Europe, edited by Smith, I.M., McNamara, D.G., Scott, P.R. and M. Holderness. CAB

International (CABI) and European Plant Protection Organization (EPPO), Wallingford,

U.K. CABI/EPPO. 1997b. Data sheets on quarantine pests: Ce ratitis quinaria . In Quarantine Pests for Europe, edited by Smith, I.M., McNamara, D.G., Scott, P.R. and M. Holderness. CAB

International (CABI) and European Plant Protection Organization (EPPO), Wallingford,

U.K. CABI/EPPO. 1997c. Data sheets on quarantin e pests: Ceratitis rosa . In Quarantine Pests for Europe, edited by Smith, I.M., McNamara, D.G., Scott, P.R. and M. Holderness. CAB

International (CABI) and European Plant Protection Organization (EPPO), Wallingford,

U.K.

CABI

- EPPO. 1997. Cacoecimorpha pron ubana . In EPPO Data Sheets for Quarantine Pests, edited by Smith, I.M., McNamara, D.G., Scott, P.R. and M. Holderness. CAB

International (CABI) and European Plant Protection Organization (EPPO), Wallingford,

U.K. Carter, D.J. 1984. Pest Lepidoptera of Euro pe with Special Reference to the British Isles. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Dr. W. Junk Publ.

CIE. 1975. Epichoristodes acerbella (Wlk.) (Lep., Tortricidae) No. 350. In Commonwealth Institute of Entomology (CIE) Distribution Maps of Pests. CAB Internationa l,

W allingford, U.K

. Coetzee, M.P.A., Wingfield, B.D., Harrington, T.C., Steimel, J., Coutinho, T.A. and M.J. Wingfield. 2001. The root rot fungus Armillaria mellea introduced into South Africa by early Dutch settlers. Molec. Ecol. 10 (2):387

- 396. Connolly, N. 2000. Issues of non

- native species in public preserves. Pima County, Arizona

. C ited February 11, 2004. Available from http://www.co.pima.az.us/cmo/sdcp/reports/non_nat/pdfs/rpt_all.pdf

. Couilloud, R. (1994). Chapter 7. Cryptophlebia leucotreta (Meyrick) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). Insect Pests of Cotton , 207

- 213. Wallingford. Courneya, P. 2003. Email (August 4, 2003) from Paul Courneya, Entomologist, USDA

- APHIS

PPQ National Identification Services, to Leah Millar, Entomologist, USDA

- APHIS

- PPQ

CPHST Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory (on file with USDA

- APHIS

PPQ

- CPHST

- PERAL) stating that "Organisms currently r ecorded in PIN

- 309 as REPORTABLE will continue to maintain their quarantine significant status until the USDA defines, and develops procedures for following official control of pests with

limited distribution in the United States.

CPDDC. 2005. Peach Leaf C url Factsheet

. Cornell Plant Disease Diagnosic Clinic (CPDDC), Cornell University, Cornell, NY

. Available from http://plantclinic.cornell.edu/FactSheets/peachleafcurl/p eachleafcurl.htm

. Crous, P.W., Phillips, A. J. L. and A. P. Baxter. 2000. Phytopathological Fungi from South Africa Depa rtment of Plant Pathology Press. C ited January 03, 2005. Available from

h ttp://nt.ars

- grin.gov/fungaldatabases/southafrica/

. Curran, J. and V. Patel. 1988. Use of a trickle irrigation system to distribute entomopathogenic nematodes (Nematoda: Heterorhabditidae) for the control of weevil pests (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) of stra wberries. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 28 (5):639

- 643.Risk Assessment for Prunus from the Republic of South Africa

Rev. 06 April 26, 2010 43 Daiber, C. C. (1975). The false codling moth ( Cryptophlebia leucotreta Meyr.) in peaches. Proc. 1st Congr. Ent. Soc. Southern Africa , 11

- 17. Daiber, C. C. 1979. A study of the biology of the false codling moth ( Cryptophlebia leucotreta (Meyr. ) : the larva. Phytophylactica 11:141

- 144. de Villiers, E.A. 1978. Guava pests. Farming in South Africa No. H.1. de Villiers, E.A. 1990. The control of fruit flies on litchi. S. Afr. Litchi Grow. Assoc. Litchi

Yearbk. 3:29

- 30

. de Villiers, E.A. 2001. Family Limacodidae. In Pests and Beneficial Arthropods of Tropical and

Non

- citrus Subtropical Crops in South Africa, edited by van den Berg, M.A., de Villiers, E.A. and P.H. Joubert. Nelspruit, S.A.: ARC

- Institute for Tropical and Subtropical Crops. Deflorio, G., Sicoli, G., Lerario, P., and N. Luisi. 2001. Assessment of plant health conditions in young forest plantations of southern Italy. Monti

- e

- Boschi 52 (5):37

- 44. Dennill, G.B. and M.J. Erasmus. 1992. The insect pests of avoca do fruits

- increasing pest complex and changing pest status. J. Entomol. Soc. South. Afr. 55 (1):51

- 57. Dickler, E. 1991. Tortricid pests of pome and stone fruits, Eurasian species. In Tortricid Pests: Their Biology, Natural Enemies and Control, edited by v an der Geest, L.P.S., Evenhuis

H.H. Elsevier Sci. Publ. B.V.

, Amsterdam , The Netherlands. Doidge, E.M., Bottomley, A.M., van der Plank, J. E. a nd G. D. Pauer. 1953. A revised list of plant

diseases in South Africa. In Sci. Bull. No.346. Donaldson, J.M.I. 198 5. The life cycle and biology of Pachnoda sinuata flaviventris (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) under laboratory conditions, with field notes. Phytophylactica

17:89

- 94. Elliot, J. 2002. Garden weevil ( Phlyctinus callosus ) Department of Agriculture , Western

Austr alia . C ited March 26, 2003. Available from http://agspsrv34.agric.wa.gov.au/programs/hort/viticulture/pests/gardenweevil.pdf

. EPPO. 1992. Quarantine Pests for E urope. In Data Sheets on Quarantine Pests for the European Communities and for the European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization (EPPO) . CAB International, University Press

, Cambridge

. EPPO. 1999. Plant Quarantine Data Retrieval System

. European Plant Protection Organization (EPPO)

. EPPO. 2005. New data on quarantine pests and pests of the EPPO Alert List. In EPPO Reporting Service 2005/032: European & Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization (EPPO)

. Erwin, D.D. and O.K. Ribeiro. 1996. Phytop hthora Diseases Worldwide. APS Press

, St. Paul,

MN

. Eugene Parks and Open Space Department. 2004. Invasive species prohibited plant list . C ited February 12, 2004. Available from

h ttp://www.ci.eugene.or.us/parks/volunteer/invasive_prohib.htm

. Farr, D.F., Bills, G.F., Chamuris, G.P. and A.Y. Rossman. 1989. Fungi on plants and plant products in the United States. APS Press St. Paul, MN

. Farr, D.F., Rossman, A.Y., Palm, M.E. and E.B. M cCray. (n.d.). 2005. Fungal Databases

. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture (USDA) , Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

, Systematic Botany and Mycology Laboratory. C ited January 03, 2005. Available from http://nt.ars

grin.gov/fungaldatabases/index.cfm

. Fisher, D. 2004. Garden weevil in vineyards. In Farm Note No. 60/2003: Western Australia Department of Agriculture.Risk Assessment for Prunus from the Republic of South Africa

Rev. 06 April 26, 2010 44 Fitt, G.P. 1989. The role of interspecific interactions in the dynamics of tephritid populations. In Fruit Flies: Their Biology, Natural Enemies and Control. (World Crop Pests), edited by A.S. Robinson and G.H.S. Hooper. Elsevier

, Amsterdam , The Netherland s

. Fletcher, B.S. 1989a. Life history strategies of tephritid fruit flies. In Fruit Flies: Their Biology, Natural Enemies and Control. (World Crop Pests), edited by A.S. Robinson and G.H.S. Hooper. Elsevier

, Amsterdam , The Netherlands

. Fletcher, B.S. 1989b . Movements of tephritid fruit flies. In Fruit Flies: Their Biology, Natural Enemies and Control. (World Crop Pests), edited by A.S. Robinson and G.H.S. Hooper.

Elsevier

, Amsterdam , The Netherlands

. French, A.M. 1987. Part 1: Fruit and nuts. In California plant disease host index. California Dept. of Food and Agriculture

, Sacramento, CA

. French, A.M. 1989. California Plant Disease Host Index. California Dept. of Food and Agriculture

, Sacramento, CA. Gill, R.J. 1993. The Scale Insects of California, Part 2, The Minor Families (Homoptera: Coccoidea). In Cal. Dept. Food Agric. Tech. Series, Agricultural Biosystematics and Plant Pathology No. 2. Gleason, H.A. and A. Cronquist. 1991. Manual of Vascular Plants of Northeastern United Staes and adjacent Canada. The New York Botanical Garden

, Bronx, New York

. Gonzalez, R.H. 1996. Injury behavior of the western flower thrips, Frankliniella occidentalis (Pergande), on deciduous fruit trees in Chile. Revista

- Fruticola 17 (2):65

- 72. Goodger, D.T. and A. Watson. 1995. The Afrotropical Tiger

- Moths. Apollo Book s, Stenstrup,

Denmark

. Gorter, G. J. M.A. 1977. Index of Plant Pathogens and the Diseases they cause in Cultivated Plants in South Africa. Plant Protection Research Institute. Sci. Bull. 392:177 pp. Gosh, M.R. and D.N. Ra ychaudhuri. 1981. Aphididae Infesting Rosaceous Fruit Plants In Darjeeling District of West Bengal and Sikkim India. Entomology 6 (1):61

- 68. Greber, R.S., Teakle, D.S. and G.I. Mink. 1992. Thrips

- facilitated transmission of prune dwarf and prunus necrotic ringspot viruses from cherry pollen to cucumber. Plant Dis. 76 (10):1039

- 1041. Grové, T. 2001. Family Tephritidae. In Pests and Beneficial Arthropods of Tropical and Non

citrus Subtropical Crops in South Africa, edited by M.A. van den Berg, E.A. de Villier s
, and P.H. Joubert. ARC

- Institute for Tropical and Subtropical Crops, Pretoria, South Africa. 525 pp. Gunn, C.R. and C. Ritchie. 1982. 1982 Report of the Technical Committee to Evaluate Noxious Weeds. In Exotic Weeds for Federal Noxious Weed Act. (unpubli shed). Gunn, D. 1921. The False Codling

- Moth ( Argyroploce leucotreta Meyr.). Union of South Africa Department of Agriculture Science Bulletin 21:1

- 28. Hackney, P., Maitland, F. and B. Picton. 2004. Flora of Northern Ireland National Museums and

Galleries o f Northern Ireland and Environment and Heritage Service . C ited February 25,

2004. Available from http://www.habitas.org.uk/flora/index.html

. Hamon, A.B. and M.L. Williams. 1984. The Soft Scale Insect s of Florida (Homoptera: Coccoidea: Coccidae). In Arthropods of Florida and Neighboring Land Areas: Fla. Dept. Agric. Consumer Services, Div. Plant Industry. Hancock, A.M., and A.F. Lezzoni. 1988. Malate dehydrogenase isozyme patterns in seven Prunus speci es. HortScience 23:381

- 383.Risk Assessment for Prunus from the Republic of South Africa

Rev. 06 April 26, 2010 4 5 Hattingh, M.J., Roos, I.M.M. and E. Lucienne Mansvelt. 1989. Infection of Systemic Invasion of Deciduous Fruit Trees by Pseudomonas syringae in South Africa. Plant Dis. 73:784

- 789. Heaton, D.D. 1997. Nature's Harvest: A Produce Reference Guide to Fruits and Vegetables from

Around the World. Food Products Press

, Binghamton, NY

. Hely, P.C., Pasfield, G. and J.G. Gellatley. 1982. Insect Pests of Fruit and Vegetables in NSW.

Inkata Press

, Melbourne, Australia

. Herbison

- Evan, D. and S. Crossley. 2003. Helicoverpa amerigera (Hubner, 1805) Uni versity of Sydney, Australia. Available from https:// www.gpdd.info/onlinerefs/Helicoverpa_armigera_1 14.pdf

. Herring, J.L. 1973. South African grain bug ( Macchiademus diplopterus [Distant]). In Insects Not Known to Occur in the United States: Cooperative Economic Insect Report No. 196. Hickman, J.C. ed. 1993. The Jepson Manual: Higher plants of California . University of

California Pres s, Berkel e y , CA

. Hill, D.S. 1983. Agricultural Insect Pests of the Tropics and Their Control. Cambridge University Press

, Cambridge , MA

. Hill, D.S. 1987. Agricultural Insect Pests of Temperate Regions and Their Control. Cambridge University Press

, Cambridge , MA

. Hillig, K.W. and A.F. Lezzoni. 1988. Multivariate Analysis of a Sour Cherry Germplasm

Collection. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science 113:928

- 934. Hind, S.H., Shaw, B.T. and S.P. Farrell. 200 4. Lepidoptera in Cheshire 2003: A Report Detailing

Records Received for the Micro

- moths, Butterflies and Macro

- moths of Vice

- county 58 (Cheshire) . Cited June 2005. Available from http://www.consult

eco.ndirect.co.uk/lrc/cmg/downloads/2003%20vc58%20%20lepidoptera%20report.pdf

. Hobson, K.R. and D.E. Bright. 1994. A key to the Xyleborus of California, with faunal comments (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). Pa n

- Pac. Entomol. 70 (4):267

- 268. Hodges, R.W., T. Dominick, D.R. Davis, D.C. Ferguson, J.G. Franclemont, E.G. Munroe

, and J.A. Powell. 1983. Check List of the Lepidoptera of America North of Mexico. E. W. Classey Limited and the Wedge Entomological Research Foundation London , UK

. Hoffman, K. 2008. False Codling Moth Pest Profile. California Department of Food and Agricul ture. Last accessed September 2009 at: http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/phpps/PDEP/target_pest_disease_profiles/FCM_PestProfile.html Holm, L.G., J. Doll, E. Holm, J. Pancho, and J. Herberger. 1997. World Weeds: Natural Histories and Distribution..J. Wiley and Sons

, New York

. Holm, L.G., J.V. Pancho, J.P. Herberger, and D.L. Plucknett. 1991. A Geographical Atlas of World Weeds. Malabar, Florida, U.S.A: Krieger Publishing Company. Holm, L.G., J.V. Pancho, J.P. Herberger, and D.L. Plucknett. 1979. A Geographical Atlas o f World Weeds. New York.: John Wiley and Sons. Holm, L.G., D.L. Plucknett, J.V. Pancho, and J.P. Herberger. 1977. The World's Worst Weeds. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
Horst, K. R. 2001. Westcott's Plant Disease Handbook. 6th ed. Kluwer Academic Pr ess Boston

, MA

. Hunter, J.C. and J. A. Mattice. 2002. The spread of woody exotics into the forests of a northeastern landscape, 1938

- 1999. Journal of the Torrey Botanical Society 129:220

- 227.

INBIO. 2004. Base de datos biodiversidad. Instituto Nacional de B iodiversidad (INBIO) . C ited February 11, 2004. Available from http://www.inbio.ac.cr/atta/index.htm

.Risk Assessment for Prunus from the Republic of South Africa

Rev. 06 April 26, 2010 46 INKTO. 1963. Natal fruit fly ( Ceratitis rosa Karsch) No. 155. In Insects Not Known to Occur (INKTO) in the United States: Cooperative Economic Insect Report. INKTO. 1984. False Codling Moth ( Cyptophlebia leucotreta Meyrick). In Insects Not Known

To Occur (INKTO) in the United States or of Limited Distribution: USDA.

INRA. 1997. Black Scale: Saissetia oleae Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA) . C ited August 06, 2004.

IPPC. 2004. Pest risk analysis for quarantine pests including analysis of environmental risks and living modified organisms. International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures Publication No. 11. Rome: Secretariat of the International Plant

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

IPPC. 2006 a

. Phytosanitary principles for the protection of plants and the application of phytosanitary measu res in international trade . International Standards for Phytosanitary

Measures Publication No. 1. Rome: Secretariat of the International Plant Protection

Convention (IPPC) , United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization. IPPC. 2006b. Glossary of phytosa nitary terms. International Standards for Phytosanitary

Measures Publication No. 5. Rome: Secretariat of the International Plant Protection

Convention (IPPC) , United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization.

ISSG. 2004. Global Invasive Species Database

. Invasive Species Specialist Group (ISSG), The

World Conse rvation Union (IUCN). C ited February 24, 2004

. Available from http://www.issg.org/database/welcome/

. Jeppson, L.R., Keifer, H.H. and E. W. Baker. 1 975. Mites Injurious to Economic Plants. University of California Press

, Berkeley , CA

. Johnson, W.T. and H.H. Lyon. 1991. Insects that Feed on Trees and Shrubs 2nd ed., rev.

Comstock Publ. Assoc.

, Ithaca, NY Joubert, P.H., Daneel, M.S., Grove, T., Subhadra bandhu, S. and A. Pichakum. 2000. Progress towards integrated pest management (IPM) on mangoes in South Africa. Acta Hort.

509:811

- 817. Karvonen, J. 1983. Cryptophlebia leucotreta imported into Finland (Lepidoptera, Tortricidae). Notulae Entomologicae 63 ( 2):94. Keetch, D.P. and N. H. Buckley. 1984. A Check

- List of Plant

- Parasitic Nematodes of Southern Africa. In Tech. Commun. Dep. Agric. Repub. S. Afr. No. 195. Kirkman, W. and S. Moore. 2007. A study of alternative hosts for the false codling moth,

THAUMATO TIBIA (=CRYPTOPHLEBIA) LEUCOTRETA in the Eastern Cape. South African Fruit Journal 6(2): 33

- 37. Kleynhans, K.P. N., Van den Berg, E ., Swart, A., Marais, M. and N. H. Buckley. 1996. Plant

nematodes in South Africa. Plant Protection Research Institute

, Pretor ia, South Africa

. Knoll, M., Weilg uni, S., Koschier, E.H., Redl, H. and S. Steinkellner. 2004. Seasonal fluctuation in the flight activity of potential PPV

- vector aphids (Homoptera: Aphididae) in Austrian apricot tree orchards. Z. Pflanzenkr. Pflanzensch. 111 (4):408

- 415. Kosztarab, M. 1996. Scale Insects of Northeastern North America. Identification, Biology, and Distribution. In Special Publ. No. 3. Virginia Museum of Natural History

, Martinsville

. Kosztarab, M. 1997a. Deciduous forest trees. In Soft Scal e Insects: Their Biology, Natural Enemies and Control. (World Crop Pests), edited by Y. Ben

- Dov, a nd C.J. Hodgson

. Elsevier Sci. Publ. B.V.

, Amsterdam , The NetherlandsRisk Assessment for Prunus from the Republic of South Africa

Rev. 06 April 26, 2010 47 Kosztarab, M. 1997b. Ornamental and house plants. In Soft Scale Insects: Their Biology, Natural Enemies and Control. (World Crop Pests), edited by Y. Ben

- Dov

, and C

. J

. Hodgson

. Elsevier Sci. Publ. B.V.

, Amsterdam , The Netherlands LaGasa, E. 1998 Western W ashington Pheromone Trap Delimiting Survey for Carnation Tortrix, Cacoecimorpha pronubana (Hubner) WA State Dept. Agric, 1999 cited. Available from http://entom ology.wsu.edu/news/ProjectReport/tortrix_larvae/carnationTortrix.html

. Lang, G., W. Howell, D. O phardt, G. Mink, B.H. Barritt, and F. Kappel. 1997. Biotic and abiotic stress responses of interspecific hybrid cherry rootstocks. Acta Horticulturae:217

- 224.

L atorre, B.A. and A.L. Jones. 1979. Pseudomonas morsprunorum , the cause of bacterial canker of sour cherry in Michigan, and its epiphytic association with P. syringae

. Phytopathology 69:335

- 339. Little, E.L., R.M. Bostock, and B.C. Kirkpatrick. 1998. Geneti c Characterization of Pseudomonas syringae pv. syringae from Stone Fruits in California. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 64 (10):3818

- 3823. Mabberley, D. J. 1987. The plant

- book: A portable dictionary of the higher plants. Cambridge University Press

, New York, USA

. MAF. 2004. Prunus Import Health Schedule

- Nursery Stock: Ministry of Agriculture & Forestry Biosecurity New Zealand. Magness, J.R., G.M. Markle, and C.C. Compton. 1971. Food and feed crops of the United States

. C ited December 10, 2004. Available from http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/Crops/Apricot.html

. Marais, P.G. 1980. Fungi associated with de c line and death of nursery grapevines in the Western Cape. Phytophylactica 12 (1):9

- 13. Matthew, J., H.J.R. Durr, J.H. Gil iomee, and S. Neser. 1975. The orange tortrix, Tortrix

capensana Wlk. (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae), as a pest of Citrus, with special reference to its significance in orchards under integrated biological control. In Entomol. Soc. of S. Africa: Proc. of the First Congress of the Entomol. Soc. of S. Africa. Pretoria, South

Africa. McAvoy, W.A. 2003. Nonnative plants of Delaware

. Delaware Department of Natural Resources

and Environmental Control , Division of Fish and Wildlife. C ited February 24, 2004.

Available from http://www.dnrec.state.de.us/fw/nonnative%20plants03.pdf

. Meijerman, L. and S.A. Ulenberg. 2000. Arthropods of Economic Importance: Eurasian

Tortr icidae

. Zoological Museum Amsterdam

, University of Amsterdam , The

Netherlands . C ited May 2005. Available from http://ip30.eti. uva.nl/bis/tortricidae.php?selected=beschrijving&menuentry=soorten&reco rd=Cacoecimorpha%20pronubana

. Metcalf, R.L. and R.A. Metcalf. 1993. Destructive and Useful Insects. Their Habits and Control.

McGraw

- Hill, Inc.

, New York

. Miller, D. R. 1985. Pest risk assessment of armored scales on certain fruit (USDA

- ARS Report

submitted to USDA

- APHIS

- PPQ). USDA Agricultural Research Service, Beltsville, MD. Miller, D.R., G.L. Miller, and G.W. Watson. 2002. Invasive species of mealybugs (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) and their threat to U.S. agriculture. Proc. Entomol. Soc. Wash. 104 (4):825

- 836. Miller, D.R., G.L. Miller, G.S. Hodges, and J.A. Davidson. 2005. Introduced scale insects (Hemiptera: Coccoidea) of the United States and their impact on U.S. agriculture. Proc. Entomol. Soc. Wash. 107 (1):123

- 158.Risk Assessment for Prunus from the Republic of South Africa

Rev. 06 April 26, 2010 48 Mix, A. J. 1949. A Monograph of the Genus Taphrina . Bibliotheca Mycologia Band 18:24. Monty, J. 1973. Rearing the Natal fruit

- fly Ceratitis ( Pterandrus ) rosa Karsch (Diptera, Trypetidae) in the laboratory. Rev. Agric. S ucr. Ile Maurice 52 (3):133

- 135. Mound, L.A. and G. Kibby. 1998. Thysanoptera: An Identification Guide 2nd ed. CAB

International

, Wallingford, U.K.

. MWVP. 2003. Flavorella Plumcots Melissa's/World Variety Produce Inc. C ited J anuary 13,

2005. Available from http://www.melissas.com/catalog/index.cfm?product_ID=2167&info=No

. Myburgh, A.C., V.B. Whitehead, and C. C. Daiber. 1973. Pests of deciduous fruit, grapes and

miscellaneous oth er horticultural crops in South Africa. Entomol. Memoir Dept. Agric.

Tech. Serv.

, Republic of South Africa

NAFEX. 2005. Apricot Interest Group

. North American Fruit Explorers, Inc (NAFEX)

. Available from http: //www.nafex.org/apricot.htm

. Nakahara, S. 1982. Checklist of the Armored Scales (Homoptera: Diaspididae) of the

Conterminous United States. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service , Plant Protection and Quarantine, Riverdale, M D.

. Nakahara, S. 1994. The genus Thrips Linnaeus (Thysanoptera: Thripidae) of the New World. In

USDA Tech. Bull. 1822. Nakahara, S. 1997. Annotated list of the Frankliniella species of the world (Thysanoptera: Thripidae). Contributions on Entomology, International 2:353

- 389.

NAPPO. 2004. NAPPO glossary of phytosanitary terms (RSPM No. 5)

. North American Plant Protection Organization (NAPPO)

, Regional Standards for Phytosanit ary Measures (RSPM), Ontario, Canada.

National Park Service. 2004. Exotic plant species list: Scientific and common names of known exotic plant species in the Redwood National and State Parks

. U.S. Department of Interior, National Park Service. C ited Febr uary 12, 2004. Available from http://www.nps.gov/redw/epsplist.htm

. NPSO. 2002. Invasive Gardening and Landscaping Plants of the Southern Willamette Valley Native Plant Society of Oregon (NPSO) , Emerald Ch apter . C ited February 24, 2004.

Available from http://www.emeraldnpso.org/inv_ornmtls.html

. Ogawa, J. M., E.I. Zehr, G.W. Bird, D.F. Ritchie, K. Uriu, and J. K. Uyemoto. 1995. Compendium of Stone Fru it Diseases. Amer. Phytopathol. Soc. Press

, St. Paul, Minn

. OIRSA. 2002. Plagas asociadas con la vid ( Vitis spp.), su situación en algunos países y criterios de decisión para incluirlas en un análisis de riesgo de plagas (ARP) para importaciones de uva a El Salvador procedentes y originarias de un país exportador

. Sistema Integrado de Información en Sanidad Agr opecuaria (OIRSA). C ited June 2005. Available from http://www.oirsa.org/DTSV/Modelo

- de

Reglamentacion/Lista_general_de_plagas_de_uva.pdf

. Opatowski, D. 2001 . EPPO panel on pest risk analysis. EPPO Bull. 31 (3):371

- 374.

Oudtshoorn . 2005. Fruit Beetles South African Cape College, 2005 cited July 2005. Available

from http://www.oudtshoorninf o.com/fauna.php?id=31&category=40

. Owen, S. J. 1996. Ecological weeds on conservation land in New Zealand: a data base

. Department of Conservation. C ited February 25, 2004. Available from http://www.hear.org/weedlists/other_areas/nz/nzecoweeds.htm#weedsofconcern

. Page, S. and M. Olds, editors. 2001. The Plant Book: The world of plants in a single volume. Mynah, Hong Kong.Risk Assessment for Prunus from the Republic of South Africa

Rev. 06 April 26, 2010 49 Panizzi, A.R., J.E. McPherson, D.G. James, M. Javahery, and R.M. McPherson. 2000. Stink bugs (Pentatomidae). In Heteroptera of Economic Importance, edited by C.W. Schaefer

and A.R. Panizzi. CRC Press

, Boca Raton, FL

. Papadopoulos, N.T., J.R. Carey, B.I. Katsoyannos, and N.A. Kouloussis. 1996. Overwintering of the Mediterranean fruit fly (Diptera: Tephritidae) in northern Greece. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 89 (4):526

- 534. Pinhey, E.C. G. 1975. Moths of Southern Africa: Tafelberg Publishers Ltd. Pinochet, J., C. Calvet, A. Hernandez Dorrego, A. Bonet, A. Felipe, and M. Moreno. 1999. Resistance of peach and plum rootstocks from Spain, France, and Italy to root

- knot

nematode Meloidogyne javanica . HortScience 34:1259

- 1262. PNKTO. 1982a. Cotton Seed Bug Oxycarenus hyalinipennis (Costa). In Pests Not Known To

Occur (PNKTO) in the United St ates or of Limited Distribution. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service , Plant Protection and Quarantine, Riverdale, MD

. PNKTO. 1982b. Mediterranean fruit fly: Ceratitis capitata (Wiedemann). In Pests Not Known to

Occur (PNKTO) in the United States or of Limited Distribution No. 26

. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service , Plant Protection and Quarantine, Riverdale, MD

. PNKTO. 1985. South African carnation tortrix: Epichoristodes acerbella (Walker). In Pests Not

Known to Occur (PNKTO) in the United States or of Limited Distribution

. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service , Plant Protection and Quarantine, Riverdale, MD

. PNKTO. 1986. Garden Weevil Phlyctinus callosus Boheman. In Pests Not Known To Occur (PNKTO) in the United States or of Limited Distribution. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service , Plant Protection and Quarantine, Riverdale,

MD PPQ . 2000. Guidelines for Pathway

- Initiated Pest Risk Assessments ver. 5.0. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service , Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ)

, Riverdale, MD. Prestidge, R.A. and B. Willoughby. 1990. Control of the garden weevil ( Phlyctinus callosus ) larvae and pupae with a parasitic nematode and a fungal pathogen. Paper read at N.Z.

Weed Pest Contr. Conf. PRF. 2005. Export Certification Project (EXCERPT) Database: Purdue Research Foundation (PRF)

. Rabeler, R.K. 1998. Gleason's plants of Michigan: A field guide., Oakleaf Press

, Ann Arbor, Michigan

. Randall, R.P. A 2002. Global compendium of weeds Department of Agriculture of Western

Australia . C ited February 24, 2004. Available from http://www.hear.org/gcw/

. Reed, C. F. 1977. Economically Important Foreign Weeds, Agriculture Handbook No. 498. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service. Rhodes, G. C. (Head of Plant Quarantine). 2000. Information towards a Qualit ative, Pathway

Initiated Pest Risk Assessment for table grapes ( Vitis vinifera ) from Namibia into the Continental United States. Ministry of Agric. for Namibia. Rice, P. M. 2004. INVADERS Database System Division of Biological Sciences, University of

Montan a . C ited February 25, 2004. Available from http://invader.dbs.umt.edu

.Risk Assessment for Prunus from the Republic of South Africa

Rev. 06 April 26, 2010 50 Rieger, M. 2002. Mark's fruit crops . C ited February 11, 2004. Available from http://www.uga.edu/fruit/

. Roessler, Y. 1989. Insecticidal bait and cover sprays. In Fruit Flies: Their Biology, Natural Enemies and Control (World Crop Pests , Vols 3a and 3b ), edited by A.S. Robinson, a nd

G. H ooper, Elsevier

, Amsterdam , The Netherlands

. Roling, M.P. and W.H. Kearby . 1975. Seasonal flight and vertical distribution of Scolytidae

attracted to ethanol in an oak

- hickory forest in Missouri. Can. Entomol. 107 (12):1315

- 1320. Rose, M. and S. Stauffer. 1997. Laboratory and mass rearing. In Soft Scale Insects: Their Biology, Natural Enemies and Control. (World Crop Pests), edited by Y. Ben

- Dov and C.J. Hodgson. Elsevier

, Amsterdam , The Netherlands

. Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh. 2004. Flora Europea database . C ited February 12, 2004.

Available from http://www.rbge.org.uk/rbge/web/index.jsp

. Sabelis, M.W. 1997. Soft Scale Insects: Their Biology, Natural Enemies and Control. edited by

Y. Ben

- Dov and C.J. Hodgson. Elsevier

, Amsterdam , The Netherlands

. Schwartz, A. 1988. Effic acy of trunk barriers for the control of key pests on trellised grapevines. South African Journal for Ecology and Viticulture 9 (1):16

- 18. Skinner, K., Smith, L. and P. Rice. 2004. Noxious weeds in the US and Canada

. University of

Montana . C ited February 2 4, 2004. Available from http://invader.dbs.umt.edu/Noxious_Weeds/

. Smit, W.A., C.D. Viljoen, B.D

. Wingfield, M.J. Wingf ield, and F. J. Calitz. 1996. A new canker disease of apple, pear, and plum rootstocks caused by Diaporthe ambigua in South

Africa. Plant Dis. 80:1331

- 1335. Smith, C.F. and C. S. Parron. 1978. An Annotated List of Aphididae (Homoptera) of North

America. North Carolina S tate Agric. Exp. Sta. Tech. Bull. No. 255.

SON. 2003. Xiphinema italiae . Society of Nematologists (SON) . C ited May 2005. Available

from http://nematode.unl.edu/pest34.htm

. Spooner

- Hart, R. 2005. Sustainable pest and disease management in Australian olive production. Rural Industries Research & Development Corporation

, Barton, Australia

. Stibick, J.N.L. 2003. Natural Enemies of True Fruit Flie s (Tephritidae). U.S. Dept. of Agriculture (USDA) , Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service , Plant Protection and Quarantine

. Cited June 2005. Available from http://www.aphis.usda.gov/pp q/manuals/pdf_files/Natural%20Enemies%20of%20True%

20Fruit%20Flies%20

- %20July%208,%202003.pdf

. Stibick, J. 2006. New Pest Response Guidelines: False Codling Moth Thaumatotibia leucotreta

. USDA

– APHIS

– PPQ

– Emergency and Domestic Programs, Riverdale, Maryland. Last accessed September 2009 at: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/import_export/plants/manuals/emergency/downloads/nprg

fcm.pdf Stoetzel, M.B. and G.L. Miller. 1998. Aphids (Homoptera: Aphididae) colonizing peach in the United States or with potential for introduction. Fla. Entomol. 81 (3):325

- 345. Svensson, I. 2002. Remarkable records of Microlepidoptera in Sweden during 2001. Entomol. Tidsk. 123 (1/2):1

- 11.

Swe aringen, J. 2003. Alien Plant Invaders of Natural Areas. National Park Service . C ited February 24, 2004. Available from http://www.nps.gov/plants/alien/list/all.htm

.Risk Assessment for Prunus from the Republic of South Africa

Rev. 06 April 26, 2010 51 Sweet, M.H. II. 2000. Seed and chinch bugs (Lygaeoidea). In Heteroptera of Economic Importance, edited by C.W Schaefer

. CRC Press

, Boca Raton, FL

. Swirski, E., Y. Ben

- Dov, and M. Wysoki. 1997. Other subtropical fruit trees. In Soft Scale Insects: Their Biology, Natural Enemies and Contr ol. (World Crop Pests), edited by Y.

Ben

- Dov and C.J. Hodgson. Elsevier Sci. Publ. B.V. Amsterdam , The Netherlands Thornton, G., Sundin, G.W. and J. Nugent. 2003. Bacterial Canker Management With Copper. In Northern Michigan FruitNet Weekly Update. NW Mich igan Horticultural Research

Station

, Traverse City, MI

. Traquair, J.A. and G.P. White. 1992. Cylindrocarpon rot of fruit trees in cold storage. Can. J. Plant Pathol. 14 (4):310

- 314. Travis, J.W., J.L. Rytter, and A.R. Biggs. 2002. Cherry leaf spot, Blumeri ella jaapii West Va. Univ. Kearneysville Tree Fruit Res. & Edu. Center . C ited August 04, 2004. Available

from http://www.caf.wvu.edu/kearneysville/disease_descriptions/om chlfsp.html

. Trebilco, E, Howell, J., Forsberg, L. and K. Bodman. 1999. Beware of Chalara elegans Black

root rot

. The Nursery Papers, Nursery Industry Association of Australia. Issue 1999/13.

C ited August 04, 2004. http://www.ngia.com.au/publication_resources/NP_Pdf/NP_1999

- 13.pdf

. U

. C

. Davis Dept of Nematology. 2003. Nemabase Statewide IPM Program, Agriculture and Natural Resources, Unive rsity of California The Regents of the University of California, Cited October 12, 2005. Available from http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/NEMABASE/

. U

. S

. C ensus B ureau . 2004. 2000 Census. United States Census Bur eau. Available from http://www.census.gov/

. USDA . 1992. Decision Histories for Importation of Grapes ( Vitis spp.) fruit from South Africa into the United States. In on Entry Status of Fruits and Vegetables Under Quarantine No. 56. Riverdale, MD 20737: U.S. Dept. of Agriculture (USDA) , Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.

USDA. 2004b. Federal noxious weed list

. United States Department of Agriculture . C ited February 24, 2004. Available from http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/permits/fnwsbycat

e.PDF

. USDA. 200 6

. Regulating the Importation of Fresh Fruits and Vegetables

. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture (USDA) , Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service , P lant Protection and Quarantine

. Available from http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/manuals/pdf_files/20Fruits_and_Vegetables.pdf

. USDA. 2007

. Pest Identification database ( PestID; formerly PIN

- 309)

. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture (USDA).

USDA

- NASS. 2003. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) , National Agricultural

Statistics Service (NASS) . C ited February 11, 2004. Available from http://www.usda.gov/nass/pubs/agstats.htm

. USDA

- NRCS. 2005. Plants Database

, United States Department of Agriculture ( USDA ), Natural

Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) . C ited January 05, 2005. Available from http://plants.usda.gov/cgi_bin/topics.cgi

. USFWS. 2005. Threatened and endangered species system (TESS) U

. S

. Fish and Wildlife

Services (USFWS) . C ited January 04, 2005. Available from http://ecos.fws.gov/webpage

. Van den Berg, H.C. 1971. The biology and control of vine snout beetles. Decid. Fruit Grow.

21:83

- 85.Risk Assessment for Prunus from the Republic of South Africa

Rev. 06 April 26, 2010 52 Van den Berg, H.C. and J.H. Giliomee. 1972. Aspects of the ecology and behaviour of Eremnus

cerealis Marshall (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). I. The emergence and distribution of the adults and the distribution of the larvae in the vineyard. J. Entomol. Soc. Southern Africa 35 (1):171

- 176. Van den Berg, M.A. 2001a. Family Noctuidae. In Pests and Beneficial Arthropods of Tropical

and Non

- citrus Subtropical Crops in South Africa, edited by van den Berg, M.A., de Villiers, E.A. and P.H. Joubert. Nelspruit, S.A.: ARC

- Institute for Tropical and Subtropical Crops. Van den Berg, M.A. 2001b. Cryptophlebia leucotreta (Meyrick): false codli ng moth. In Pests and Beneficial Arthropods of Tropical and Non

- citrus Subtropical Crops in South Africa, edited by van den Berg, M.A., de Villiers, E.A. and P.H. Joubert. Nelspruit, S.A.: ARC

Institute for Tropical and Subtropical Crops. Van den Berg, M.A

., E.A. de Villiers, and P.H. Joubert. 2001. Pests and Beneficial Arthropods of Tropical and Non

- citrus Subtropical Crops in South Africa. South Africa: ARC

Institute for Tropical and Subtropical Crops. Van der Geest, L. P. S. and H. H. Evenhuis. 1991. Tor tricid Pests Their Biology, Natural Enemies and Control. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishing Co, Inc. Van der Geest, L.P.S., C.H. Wearing, and J.S. Dugdale. 1991. Tortricids in miscellaneous crops. In Tortricid Pests: Their Biology, Natural Enemies and Control. (World Crop Pests), edited by L.P.S.

, Van Der Geest and H. H. Evenhuis . Elsevier Sci. Publ. B.V.

, Amsterdam , The Netherlands. Van Heerden, H.P. 1969. Previously unrecorded aphid species from South Africa. Phytophylactica 1 (3/4):177

- 184. Vayssières , J.F., F. Sanogo, and M. Noussourou. 2004. Inventaire des espèces de mouches des fruits (Diptera: Tephritidae) inféodées au manguier au Mali et essais de lutte raisonnée. Fruits 59 (1):3

- 16. Vismer, H.F., E.W. Sydenham, M. Schlechter, N.L. Brown, A.D. Hocking,

, J.P. Rheeder, and

W.F.O. Marasas. 1996. Patulin

- producing Penicillium species isolated from naturally infected apples in South Africa. S. Afr. J. of Sci. 92 (11

- 12):530

- 534. Walker, P.L. 1981. Laboratory rearing of the garden weevil, Phlyctinus callosus Boheman (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), and the effect of temperature on its growth and survival. Aust. J. Zool. 29 (1):25

- 32. Watson, A.J. 1971. Foreign bacterial and fungus diseases of food, forage, and fiber crops: An

annotated list

. Agric. Handbo ok No. 418. Weber, B.C. and J.E. McPherson. 1991. Seasonal flight patterns of Scolytidae (Coleoptera) in black walnut plantations in North Carolina and Illinois. Coleopt. Bull. 45 (1):45

- 56. Weber, E. 2003. Invasive plant species of the world: A reference guide to environmental weeds. CABI Publishing

, Wallingford, UK

. Weems, H.V., Jr. 1966. Natal fruit fly ( Ceratitis rosa Karsch) (Diptera: Tephritidae). Fla. Dept. Agric. Div. Plant Ind. Entomol. Circ. 51. Weems, H.V. Jr. 1981. Mediterranean fruit fly, Cerat itis capitata (Wiedemann) (Diptera: Tephritidae). In Entomology Circular. No. 230: Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Plant Industry

. Wertz, H.W., J.M. Skelly, and W. Merrill. 1971. Ceratocystis fagacearum not transmitted by ambrosia beetles. Phytopathology 61 (10):1185

- 1187.Risk Assessment for Prunus from the Republic of South Africa

Rev. 06 April 26, 2010 53 Wharton, R.A. 1989. Classical biological control of fruit

- infesting Tephritidae. In Fruit Flies: Their Biology, Natural Enemies and Control. (World Crop Pests), edited by A.S. Robinson and G.H.S. Hoope r. Elsevier

, Amsterdam , The Netherlands

. White, I. and M.M. Elson

- Harris. 1992. Fruit Flies of Economic Significance: Their Identification and Bionomics. CAB International, Redwood Press, Ltd

, Melksham

. Whitehead, V.B. and D. J. Rust. 1972. Control of the fruit

- piercing moth Serrodes partitus (F.) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Phytophylactica 4:9

- 12. Whitehead, V.B. and D.J. Rust. 1971. Control of the fruit

- piercing moth. Decid. Fruit Grow.

21:111

- 113. Whittle, K. 1984. False codling moth: Cryptophlebia leucotreta (Meyrick) No. 48. In Pests Not

Known to Occur in the United States or of Limited Distribution

, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture (USDA) , Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service , Plant Protection and Quarantine

. Wierseman, J.H. and B. Leon. 1999. Worl d Economic Plants: A Standalone Reference: CRC. WSSA. 1989. Composite List of Weeds: Weed Science Society of America. Wunderlin, R.P. and P. F. Hansen. 2004. Atlas of Florida vascular plan ts University of South

Florida. C ited February 11, 2004. Available fr om http://www.plantatlas.usf.edu/browse.asp

. Yuval, B. and J. Hendrichs. 2000. Behavior of flies in the genus Ceratitis (Dacinae: Ceratitidini). In Fruit Flies (Tephritidae): Phylogeny and Evolution of Behavior, edited by M.A. Norrbom and M.A. Condon. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. Zlotina, M., and M. K. Hennessey. 2007. Phytosanitary Risks Associated with Armored Scales in Commercial Shipments of Fruit for Consumption to the United States. U.S. Dept. 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, Raleigh, NC.Risk Assessment for Prunus from the Republic of South Africa

Rev. 06 April 26, 2010 54 

### 5

. Appendi ces

Appendix A. R isk m itigation options for quarantine pests associated with imports of fresh

a pricot

, c herry

, and plumcot fruit from South Africa

A.1. Introduction The list of quarantine significant pests that attack apricot

, Prunus armeniaca ; cherry, P. avium ;

or plumcot, P. domestica x P. armeniaca

, and are present in South Africa

, was developed by searching scientific literature, APHIS commodity risk assessments, U.S. port interception records, and information provided by the exporting country. Plu mcots are relatively new h ybrid species of plum and apricot; as a result there is little information available pertaining to their pest susceptibilities. P lumcot is a relatively new hybrid of plum and P. armeniaca ; as a result

, there is

little information available, and so pest information for the parent species, plum and P.
armeniaca, will be used to provide plumcot‘s pest susceptibilities in South Africa. Plum can already enter the United States from South Africa (USDA, 200 6 ) and has been coming into the United States successfully s ince 1992. S ince some of the pests are only associated with certain host species therefore the pest list included distinctions to reflect which Prunus species the pest
attack s

. The pests of quarantine significance to the United States and likely to follow the pathway

are :

Fruit Flies: Ceratitis capitata (Wiedmann), C. quinaria (Bezzi), and C. rosa (Karsch) (Diptera: Tephritidae) Chinch bug: Macchiademus diplopterus (Distant) (Heteroptera: Lygaeidae)

Moth: Thaumatotibia leucotreta (Meyric k) (Synonym: Cryptophlebia leucotreta (Meyrick) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae)

Host a ssociations for the analyzed pests : Prunus armeniaca ( a pricot) P. avium

( c herry) P. domestica x P. armeniaca

( p lumcot)

Ceratitis capitata   

C. quinaria 

C. rosa  

Macchiademus diplopterus  

Thaumatotibia leucotreta  

Analysis involves estimating the Consequences of Introduction and the Likelihood of Introduction by using methodology and rating criteria detailed in the Pathway

- Initiated Pest Risk Assessment: Guidelines for Qualitative Assessments

, version 5.02 (USDA, 2000)

. The e stimates

are then summarized to co nclude a qualitative P est R isk P otential. The fruit flies and moth were found to have High Pest Risk Potential, while M

. diplopterus had Medium Pest Risk Potential.

S pecific phytosanitary measures may be necessary for pests with M edium P est R isk P otentials, and are strongly recommended for those with H igh P est R isk P otentials.Risk Assessment for Prunus from the Republic of South Africa

Rev. 06 April 26, 2010 55 A.2 . Measures for Pest Risk Reduction The appropriate level of protection for an importing country can be achieved by the application of a single phytosanitary measure, such as inspection

, quarantine treatment, or a combination of measures. If no single measure is likely to reduce pest risk to an acceptable level, then a

combination of measures are necessary . The combination of specific phytosanitary measures provide s an over lapping

, or redundant

, safeguard ing method called a ―systems approach

. ‖ Systems approaches vary in complexity; however, all require the integration of two or more measures that act independently of each other, with the cumulative effect achieving the desir ed level of phytosanitary protection (IPPC, 2002). Specific mitigations may be selected from a range of pre

- harvest and post

- harvest options, and may include other safeguarding measures. Measures may be added or the strength of measures increased to compen sate for uncertainty. At a minimum, for a measure to be considered for use in a systems approach, it must be 1) clearly defined; 2) efficacious; 3) officially required (mandated); and 4) subject to monitoring and control by the responsible national plant p rotection organization (IPPC, 2002).

A.3 . Phytosanitary Options This section describes risk mitigation options in relation to efficacy, if known, and application.

Pest

- free areas

. A pest free area is defined as ― an area in which a specific pest does not occur as demonstrated by scientific evidence and in which, where appropriate, this condition is being officially maintained‖ (IPPC, 1995; IPPC, 2006 a ). As a sole mitigative measure, the establishment of pest

- free areas

, or pest

- free places of prod uction

, may be completely effective in satisfying an importing country‘s appropriate level of phytosanitary protection (IPPC, 1996, 1999). This option has proven to be successful in practice, obviating the need for post

- harvest commodity treatments to achi eve probit

- 9

- level security (TDOA, 2003). The e stablishment and maintenance of pest

- free areas or production sites are to be in compliance with international standards (IPPC, 1996, 1999; NAPPO, 2004, IPPC, 2006 b ).

The e stablishment and maintenance of pes t free areas are also to include survey plans. Orchard

survey s detect internal and external Prunus pests , and may be aid ed by the use of APHIS

approved unbaited, active or passive traps. Ceratitis capitata are typically monitored via male attractant pherom ones such as Trimedlure or terpinyl acetate (Carrol et al

. , 2002). Trimedlure is commonly used for C. capitata (EPPO/CABI, 2005a)

, but since C. rosa and C. quinaria are also of concern, using terpinyl acetate as a lure would be efficient , as all three species are attracted to it (EPPO/CABI, 2005a; EPPO/CABI, 2005b; Weems, 2002; White and Elson

- Harris 1994). Sex pheromones are available to monitor populations of the false codling moth ( T. leucotreta )

, and can be effectively used within commerc ially available traps (Newton and Mastro, 1989). In addition to surveillance activities, w ork plans for the establishment, recognition and maintenance of pest free areas for fruit flies ( C. capitata, C. rosa and C. quinara ) are to include requirements

for the establishment of buffer zones

, as well as requirements for fruit sampling (IPPC, 2006 b ).

Declaration of a M. diplopterus free area could be facilitated by ensuring Prunus crops intended for export are not planted adjacent to Poaceae hosts ( Triticum s p., Hordeum sp., Avena spp., Poa

annua , Ehrharta spp. Bromus spp., and Lolium multiflorum

. T he insect will typically feed on and use nearby Prunus fruit for shelter (Sweet, 2000).Risk Assessment for Prunus from the Republic of South Africa

Rev. 06 April 26, 2010 56 Areas of low pest prevalence

. According to the IPPC, an area of low pest prevalence may comprise all of a country, part of a country, or all or parts of several countries in which a particular pest species occurs at low population densities

, and which is subject to effective surveillance and control or eradication measures (IPP C, 1999). Procedures for the establishment and maintenance of areas of low pest prevalence are to comply with international standards (NAPPO, 2003; IPPC, 2005). For example, elements of an operational plan for establishment

and maintenance of such areas mi ght include a geographic description to delimit the area; specification of an upper limit to pest densities; means to document and verify all necessary procedures and maintain records; specification of phytosanitary procedures ( e.g
., survey, pest control); and movement controls to prevent pest entry

, or re

- entry

, into the area. The international standards recommend that the exporting country consult with the importing country in the early stages of implementation to ensure that importing country requirement s are met. In particular, target or threshold population densities that define an area of low pest prevalence are

to be established in consultation with the importing country.

Any protocol for establishing and maintaining a pest

- free area

, or an area of l ow pest prevalence

, are to also include a pest

- reporting procedure and emergency action plan to address target pest detections in the pest

- free or low prevalence zones (IPPC , 1999, 2005; NAPPO, 2003, 2004 ).

Control program

. Cultural, chemical, or mechani cal controls ( e.g ., orchard sanitation, biocontrol, pre

- harvest application of pesticides, traps, and fruit bagging) may be used to suppress or eliminate pests from orchards or prevent fruit infestation. For fruit flies, sterile insect

release ( and other controls ) may be employed as prophylactic measures

, or in response to pest detection, following USDA guidelines (2003). Insecticides

, such as Malathion

, are effective (EPPO/CABI, 2005b) , but this insecticide is sometimes combined with protein hydrolysate t o form a bait spray to attract male and female tephritids. Bait sprays attract the insects to the

insecticide

. T hey can be applied as spot treatments to cause minimal impact on natural enemies (EPPO/CABI, 2005b)

Chemical control options are available for T. leucotreta ; however

, this moth continuously lays eggs during the fruiting season

. Larvae bore into fruits making the chemical applications

numerous and difficult to reach developing larvae (Catling and Aschenborn, 1974). A variety of biocontrol options have been studied for control of T . leucotreta

. A granulovirus preparation (CrleGV

- SA)

, under the name  ̳Cryptogran TM ‘

, is registered for use on South African citrus (River Bioscience, 2005). Reductions of T . leucotreta populations up to 70 percent have been recorded in field trials (Moore et al ., 2004). Unlike typical chemical sprays

, Cryptogran TM has

also shown to be effective when used in combination with the T . leucotreta egg parasitoid

, Trichogrammatoidea cryptophlebia e (Moore, 2003). Sterile i nsect release has also been studied and significantly reduce s fertile T . leucotreta populations (Hofm ey r et al

. , 2005).

Phytosanitary certification inspections and monitoring

. Fruit are periodically sampled and inspected during the growing season and after harvest. Active or passive traps for the quarantine significant pests will help support certification. R esults of surveys must be negative for larvae of fruit flies, T. leucotreta

, and M. diplopter us

. Production areas may also be subject to periodic, unannounced inspections by certified inspectors from PPQ

. South Africa must ensure that they meet stipulated requirements for the issuance of a phytosanitary certificate required for eachRisk Assessment for Prunus from the Republic of South Africa

Rev. 06 April 26, 2010 57 consignment ; t his measure is useful for detecting pests present in the field that may be more difficult to detect post

- harvest ; however, it must be combined with other measures to ensure the absence of pests of concern. Statistical procedures are available to verify, to a specified confidence level, the pest

- free status of an area, given negative survey or trapping results (Venette et al ., 2002; Barclay & Hargrove, 2005).

Post

- harvest handling, safeguards and packinghouse procedures

. Containers of harvested

fruit are to be covered with tarpaulins ( or other covers ) and moved to the packinghouse in a fruit fly

- proof conveyance in a timely manner ( e.g . within three hours of harvest). Packinghouses are to be equipped with insect traps that are monitored on a regular basis; l ikewise packinghouses are to take measures to exclude insect pests. Upon arrival at the packinghouse, a random sample of fruit per lot is to be taken for inspection of external pests and cut to reveal internal pests. In the packinghouse, fruit is to underg o mechanical brushing or other treatment s , such as a water bath with a surface sterilant, to remove external pests. External pests

, as well as fruit flies

, may also be controlled by using the insecticidal dips that use dimethoate or fenthion ( where the fruit

is immersed for at least one minute in the insecticidal solution ) (Gov‘t. of South Australia, 2006).

All fruit is to be inspected prior to packing. Fruit intended for export is to be securely stored, free

of debris and culled fruit.

Quarantine t reatments

. The APHIS PPQ Treatment Manual lists a range of treatment options for the internal and external pests of the apricot, cherry, plum and plumcot (USDA, 200 7 ).

a. External Pests

. For general external pests of apricots

, plums , and plumcots , Treatm ent 101

- a

- 3 is approved. This treatment employs methyl bromide at a normal atmospheric pressure (NAP) under tarpaulin (or chamber) for one of the following regimes:

Temperature ( °F) Dosage Rate (lbs) Minimum Concentration (oz.)

0.5 hrs 2 hrs

80 or above 1.5 19 14

70

- 79 2 .0 26 19

60

- 69 2.5 32 24

50

- 59 3 .0 38 29

40

- 49 4 .0 48 38

For cherry insects (other than fruit flies), the treatment option T 101

- r

- 1 is approved (involves same regime options as T

- 101

- a

- 3).

There is also a treatment regime listed for ―various commodities‖ to handle hitchhiking pests and surface pests, such as lygaeid bugs ( e.g., M. diplopterus ), surface feeding caterpillars, or scale

insects. The treatment is T

- 104

- a

- 1, and the regime options are the same as T

- 101

- a

- 3. The o nly stipulation is the temperature has to be 40°F or above (max. dosage 4lbs./1000ft 3 ).Risk Assessment for Prunus from the Republic of South Africa

Rev. 06 April 26, 2010 58 b. Thaumatotibia leucotreta and Ceratitis rosa . The cold treatment of T

- 107

- e is approved for apricot, plum, and plumcot to treat against T. leucotreta and C. rosa

. Treatment is 31°F or below for 22 days. ―The treatment shall not commence until all sensors are reading 31°F or below. If the temperature exceeds 31.5°F, the treatment shall be extended one

- third of a day for each day or part of a day the temperature is mo re than 31.5°F. If the exposure period is extended, the temperature during the extension period must be 34°F or below. If the temperature exceeds 35°F at any time, the treatment is nullified. Also, some freeze damage to the fruit may occur if the pulp temp erature is allowed to drop below 29.5°F (this varies with the commodity)‖ (USDA,

200 7 ).

c. Ceratitis capitata and Ceratitis rosa

. The cold treatment of T

- 107

- a is approved for use on apricots, cherries

, plums and plumcots to treat against C. capitata and C. rosa

. The regime options are as follows : 34°F or below for 14 days ; 35°F or below for 16 days ; OR 36°F or below for 18 days

.

Treatment 108

- a is also approved for use on apricots, cherries , plums and plumcots, but only for

C

. capitata. This treatment employs both methyl bromide fumigation and cold treatment. It has three possible schedules. The time lapse between fumigation and cooling is not to exceed 24

hours. Tests should be conducted to determine if the cultivars intended for export to the United

S tates are susceptible to chilling injury.

N o specific approved treatments exist for C

. quinaria , but because of similar biology, C. capitata

treatments could be effective for C

. quinaria

.

Irr a dia tion treatment T105

- d (IR at various dose levels) is a PP Q approved treatment that covers various insects (for ―various commodities from foreign countries‖). In this treatment series specific regimes are set for fruit flies. For C. capitata

, 150Gy is the minimum absorbed dosage required. T

- 105

- d also permits 150 Gy as a minimum absorbed dosage for the other Ceratitis species of concern. Outside of fruit fly treatment, a standard of 400 Gy is approved for plant pests of the class Insecta, except for the pupae and adults of the Order Lepidop tera. Irradiation is less damaging to fruits at levels lethal to target pests

, and can be used in conjunction with other

treatments

, such as hot water dips (Hallman and Loaharanu

, 2002). Irradiation also allows fruits to be picked at later stages of develo pment , rendering a higher quality

, without the issue of fruit damage following treatment (Hallman and Loaharanu, 2002). I rradiation is cheaper than cold

treatment

, and is competitive with fumigation (ICGFI, 1991). If irradiation is used, measures are to be implemented to ensure the phytosanitary security of consignments after treatment , in order to prevent reinfestation. Irradiation may not kill all internal insects; the endpoint of treatment may be inactivation, sterilization or preventing maturation of la rvae. The presence of live larvae in a treated consignment would not necessarily result in its rejection, provided appropriate safeguarding measures had been used (IPPC, 2003).

The probit

- 9

- level security afforded by a quarantine treatment may be overwhelmed by a large volume of infested fruit (Powell, 2003). For this reason, adoption of a particular quarantine

treatment is used in conjunction with efforts to maintain pest popula tions in production zones

below the specified densities ( e.g ., 0.01 fruit fly trap - 1 day - 1 ( APHIS, 2005) ; as a result, this would satisfy requirements for the establishment of areas of low pest prevalence (IPPC, 2005).Risk Assessment for Prunus from the Republic of South Africa

Rev. 06 April 26, 2010 59 Point

- of

- entry sampling and inspectio n

. If a preclearance program is not implemented, then inspection at port s

- of

- entry is necessary. Upon arrival in the United States, consignments are to
be inspected, with particular attention given to paperwork and vehicle seals ; this ensures the

chain of custody is intact. Each consignment is inspected to detect if the pest infestation rate is

10 percent or greater. In the case of internal feeding insects

, such as fruit flies and false codling moth, inspection include s fruit cutting (USDA, 2004).

Limits on distribution and transit within the United States

. For the first two years,

distribution of South African Prunus commodities is limited to northern tier states and transit is

restricted ; as a result, the risk to sta tes that are major commercial producer s of common fruit fly hosts, such as citrus and pome fruits, or commercial producers of stone fruits is limited . During this period, the following states are not considered as destinations for cherry , P. armeniaca

, and

P. domestica x P. armeniaca fruit imp orts from South Africa: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, and the U.S. territories. If a systems app roach is adopted, this stipulation will allow sufficient time for the gathering and analysis of field and packinghouse survey and port interception data to determine if the appropriate level of quarantine security has been achieved.

A.4 . Oversight

Pre

- shipment programs

. I nspection, treatment, or other risk mitigation measures performed in the orchard and packinghouse are under the direct supervision of qualified APHIS and South African personnel, and in accordance with specified phytosanitary proced ures. Such programs require monitoring all aspects of the application of any required phytosanitary measures , in addition to identifying shortcomings or opportunities for program modifications (IPPC, 2002).

Provision s are made for the formal recognition of approved areas, sites, or producers, as well as the specification of conditions for revoking approvals or refusing certification for export to the

United States.

Shipments traceable to place of origin in South Africa

. R equirement : cherry , P. armeniaca

,

a nd P. domestica x P. armeniaca are packed in containers with identification labels

, indicating the specific place of origin , in order to ensure traceability to each production site.

A.5

. Summary of Options This document does not purport to establish specific work plans, or to evaluate the quality of a specific program or systems approach. It identifies risks and provides information regarding known mitigative measures. The specification and implementation of measures, as would be present in an operati onal work plan, is beyond the scope of this document.

Summary of Ri sk M itigation O ptions for Cherry

, Apricot

, and Plumcot fruit from South

Africa.
Measure(s) Pests Efficacy

Pest

- free areas or areas of low pest prevalence All When conducted in compliance with

international standardsRisk Assessment for Prunus from the Republic of South Africa

Rev. 06 April 26, 2010 60 Measure(s) Pests Efficacy
(IPPC, 1996, 1999; NAPPO, 2004), this method satisfies requirements for appropriate level of protection
Control program All the pests of concern could be managed

with a control program, whether it be cultural, chemical, or mechanical means, but the program should include monitoring and inspection to verify program effectiveness. Research required to

demonstrate effectiveness. Some options for each pest

listed above.

Phytosanitary

Certification

Ins pection and Monitoring All but must be used in combination with

other measures. A phytosanitary certificate guides inspection efforts in

South Africa and at the same time alerts U.S. inspectors to the pests of concern with this commodity.

Post

- harvest an d packing house procedures The external pest Macchiademus diplopterus ;

Ceratitis spp. may be treated effectively with cold storage or insecticidal dips. Research required to demonstrate efficacy and sensitivity of Prunus fruit.
Methyl Bromide

T101

- a

- 3; T101

- r

1; T104

- a

- 1 (same regime for

different hosts or pests) T101

- a

- 3 can be used on apricot

, plum , and

plumcot for external feeders such as Macchiademus diplopterus ; T101

- r

- 1 can be

used on cherries for insects other than fruit flies; and Treatment 104

- a

- 1 can be used for apricots, cherries

, plums , and plumcots (―various commodities‖) to handle surface pests such as Macchiademus diplopterus

, (stipulation that fruit must be held at 40°F or above for the treatment). PPQ approved (USDA, 2007) 1

Cold Treatme nt Treatment 107

- e for Thaumatotibia leucotreta

and Ceratitis rosa on apricot, plum, and plumcot; Treatment 107

- a for Ceratitis capitata and Ceratitis rosa on apricots, cherries, plums and plumcots PPQ approved (USDA, 2007)

Methyl Bromide plus Cold

Trea tment Treatment 108

- a for C. capitata on apricots,

cherries, plums and plumcots. There are three possible treatment schedules listed in the manual (T108

- a

- 1, T108

- a

- 2, T108

- a

- 3) PPQ approved (USDA, 2007).

Irradiation All insects

, except for the pupae and adults of

Thaumatotibia leucotreta PPQ approved (USDA, 2007) T

- 105

- d (150 Gy for

1 At the time the mitigation options were being written methyl bromide treatments for plumcot were under a FIFRA Section 18 exemptio n but anticipated to be written into the PPQ Treatment Manual as an approved treatment for plumcots before rule making.Risk Assessment for Prunus from the Republic of South Africa

Rev. 06 April 26, 2010 61 Measure(s) Pests Efficacy
the fruit flies, 400 Gy for all other insects)

Port

- of

- entry sampling and inspection All, but are to be used in combination with

other measures

Limits on

distribution and

transit within the

United States All For use until other mitigation

measures are determined to provide sufficient quarantine security.

A.6

. Literature Cited

Barclay, H.J. and J.W. Hargrove. 2005. Probability models to facilitate a declaration of pest

- free status, with special reference to tsetse (Diptera: Glossinidae). Bull. Entomol. Res. 95(1):

1

- 11.

Ben

- Dov, Y., D.R. Miller, and G.P. Gibson. 2005. ScaleNet: A database of Scale Insects of the

World. http://www.sel.barc.usda.gov/scalenet/scalenet.htm [accessed December 2005]. CABI, 2004. Crop Protection Compendium. CAB Internationa l (CABI), Wallingford, UK. Carrol, L.E., I.M. White, A. Friedberg, A.L. Norrbom, M.J. Dallwitz, and F.C. Thompson (2002 onwards). Pest Fruit Flies of the World: Descriptions, Illustrations, Identification, and Information Retrieval. Version: 8th August 2002

. http://www.sel.barc.usda.gov/Diptera/tephriti/pests/adults/ ‘ [accessed December 2005]. Catling, H.D. and H. Aschenborn. 1974. Population Studies on false codling moth ( Cryptophlebi a leucotreta ) on citrus in the Trasvaal. Phytophylactica. 6:31

- 38.

Citrus from Peru. 2005

. Federal Register 70(189 ): 65053

- 65067 ( September 3 0 , 2005 ). http://intranet.asoex.cl/Archivos/Bajar.asp?Archivo=fr.aphis.peru_citrus.050930.pdf& Dir

ectorio=Archivos%5CDocumentoConsulta EPPO/CABI. 2005a. Datasheet for Quarantine Pests: Ceratitis capitata

. European Plant Protection Organization (EPPO) and CAB International (CABI)

. http://www.eppo.org/QUARANTINE/insects/Ceratitis_capitata/CERTCA_ds.pdf [accessed December 2005]. EPPO/CABI. 2005b. Datasheet for Quarantine Pests: Ceratitis quinaria

. European Plant Protection Organization (EPPO) and CAB International (CAB I)

. http://www.eppo.org/QUARANTINE/insects/Ceratitis_quinaria/CERTQU_ds.pdf [accessed December 2005].

Government of South Australia. 2006. Plant Quarantine Standard

— South Australia. Government of South Australia, Primary Industries and Resources, SA. www.pir.sa.gov.au/pages/agriculture/horticulture/f ruitfly/ plant _quaran t_ stand.pdf

. Hallman, G.J. and P. Loaharanu. 2002. Generic Ionizing Radiation Quarantine Treatments against Fruit Flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) Proposed. J. of Econ. Entomol. 95(5): 893

- 901. Hofmeyr, J.H., J.E. Carpenter, and S. Bloem. 2005. Developing the Sterile Insect Technique for Cryptophlebia leucotreta (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae): Influence of Radiation Dose and Release Ratio on Fruit Damage and Population Growth in Field Cages. J. of Econ. Entomol. 98(6): 1924

- 1929. Full article available at:Risk Assessment for Prunus from the Republic of South Africa

Rev. 06 April 26, 2010 62 http://www.bioone.org/bioone/?request=get

- document&issn=0022

- 0493&volume=098&issue=06&page=1924 or pdf http://www.bioone.org/pdfserv/i0022

- 0493

- 098

- 06

- 1924.pdf [accessed December 2005]. ICGFI. 1991. Irradiation as a Quarantine Treatment of Fresh Fruits and Vegetables. Report of a

Task Force for the International Con sultative Group on Food Irradiation (ICGFI)

. No. 13. Vienna, Austria. http://www.iaea.org/icgfi/programmes.htm [accessed December 2005].

ICGFI. 1994. Irradiation as a Quarantine Treatment of Fresh Frui ts and Vegetables. Report of a Task Force for the International Consultative Group on Food Irradiation (ICGFI) . No. 17. Vienna, Austria. http://www.iaea.org/icgfi/programmes.htm [accessed December 2005]. IPPC. 1996. Requirements for the establishment of pest free areas. International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures Publication No. 4. Secretariat of the International Plant

Protection Convention (IPPC) , United Nations Food and Agriculture Organiz ation

, Rome , Italy

. IPPC. 1997. International Plant Protection Convention (New Revised Text). Secretariat of the

International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) , United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization

, Rome , Italy. IPPC. 1999. Requirements for t he establishment of pest free places of production and pest free production sites. International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures Publication No. 10.

Secretariat of the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) , United Nations Food and Agricultu re Organization

, Rome , Italy

. IPPC. 2002. The use of integrated measures in a systems approach for pest risk management. International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures Publication No. 14. Secretariat of the

International Plant Protection Convention (IP PC) , United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization

, Rome , Italy

. IPPC. 2003. Guidelines for the use of irradiation as a phytosanitary measure. International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures Publication No. 18. Secretariat of the International

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

, Rome , Italy

. IPPC. 2005. Requirements for the establishment of areas of low pest prevalence. International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures Publication No. 22. Secretariat of the International

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

, Rome , Italy

. IPPC. 2006a. Glossary of phytosanitary terms. International Standards for Phytosanitary

Measures Publication No. 5. Secretariat of the I nternational Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) , United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization

, Rome , Italy

. IPPC. 2006b. Establishment of pest free areas for fruit flies (Tephritidae). International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures Publication No. 26. Secretariat of the International

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

, Rome , Italy

. Loch, A. 2003. Grapevine pests and their management. AGFACTS H7.3.9. 1 st edition. NSW Agriculture, National Wine and Gra pe Industry Centre, Wagga Wagga. Moore, S.D. 2003. The development and evaluation of Cryptophlebia leucotreta granulovirus (CrleGV) as a biological control agent for the management of false codling moth, Cryptophlebia leucotreta

, on citrus. PhD (Biochemis try and Microbiology) thesis. Rhodes University, South Africa. Abstract available at: http://www.ru.ac.za/library/theses/2003/moore/ [accessed December 2005].Risk Assessment for Prunus from the Republic of South Africa

Rev. 06 April 26, 2010 63 Moore, S., W. Kirkman, , and P. Step hen. 2004. CRYPTOGRAN: a virus for the biological control of false codling moth. SA Fruit Journal. 3(6): 35

- 39. NAPPO. 2003. Guidelines for the establishment, maintenance and verification of areas of low pest prevalence for insects. NAPPO Regional Standar ds for Phytosanitary Measures No. 20. Secretariat of the North American Plant Protection Organization (NAPPO)

, Ottawa , Canada

. NAPPO. 2004. Guidelines for the establishment, maintenance and verification of fruit fly pest free

areas in North America. NAPPO Regional Standards for Phytosanitary Measures No. 17. Secretariat of the North American Plant Protection Organization (NAPPO)

, Ottawa , Canada

. Newton, P.J and V.C. Mastro. 1989. Field evaluations of commercially available traps and synthetic sex pheromone lures of the false codling moth, Cryptophlebia leucotreta (Meyr.) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). Tropical Pest Management. 35(1): 100

- 104. [ abstract ] Powell, M.R. 2003. Modeling the response of the Mediterranean fruit fly (Diptera: Tephritidae)

to cold treatm ent. J. Econ. Entomol. 96(2): 300

- 310. River Bioscience. 2005. Cryptogran TM . Walmer, South Africa. http://www.riverbioscience.co.za/product.html [accessed December 2005]. Sweet, M.H. II. 2000. S eed and chinch bugs (Lygaeoidea). In Heteroptera of Economic Importance, edited by C.W. Schaefer

. CRC Press

, Boca Raton, FL

. TDOA. 2003. Texas Rio Grande Valley Mexican Fruit Fly, Anastrepha ludens (Loew) [sic]

Protocol

— 2003/2004. Texas Department of Agric ulture (TDOA) . Available from http://www.agr.state.tx.us/border/protected/documents/tx.mex.fruit.fly.protocol.htm

. USDA. 2000. Guidelines for Pathway

- Initiated Pest Risk Assessments v5.02. U

. S

. D epartment
of A griculture (USDA) , A nimal and P lant H ealth I nspection S ervice , P lant P rotection

and Q uarantine . Riverdale, MD. USDA. 2003. Guidelines for Fruit Fly Systems Approach to Suppo rt the Movement of Regulated Articles between Mexico and the United States (Draft Document). U

. S

. D epartment of

A griculture (USDA) , A nimal and P lant H ealth I nspection S ervice , P lant P rotection and Q uarantine , Riverdale, MD

. http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/manuals/pdf_files/FF%20Guidelines.pdf

. USDA. 2004. Agricultural Quarantine Inspection Monitoring (AQIM) Handbook. U

. S

. D epartment of A griculture (USDA) , A nimal and P lant H ealth I nspection S ervice , P lant

P rotection and Q uarantine , Riverdale, MD

. http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/manuals/port/AQIM_Chapters.htm.

USDA. 200 7 . Treatment Manual. U

. S

. D epartment of A griculture (USDA) , A nimal and P lant

H ealth I nspection S ervice , P lant P rotection and Q uarantine , Riverdale, MD

. http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/manuals/port/Treatment_Chapters.htm.

USDA. 2006. Regulating the Importation of Fresh Fruits and Vegetables. Nonpropagative

Manual. U

. S

. D epartment of A griculture (USDA) , A nimal and P lan t H ealth I nspection

S ervice , P lant P rotection and Q uarantine , Riverdale, MD

. http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/manuals/port/FV_Chapters.htm [accessed January 2006] Venette, R.C., R.D. Moo n, and W.D. Hutchison. 2002. Strategies and statistics of sampling for

rare individuals. Annual Rev. Entomol. 47: 143

- 174. Weems, H.V. and T. R. Fasulo. 2002. Natal Fruit Fly, Ceratitis rosa Karsch (Insecta: Diptera: Tephritidae). Univ. of Florida. IFAS Extension. Pub.EENY

- 257 (originally publishe d as DPI Entomology Circular 51) http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/IN538#footnotes

. White, I.M. and M.M. Elson

- Harris. 1994. Fruit Flies of Economic Significance: Their Identification and Bionomics. CAB International. Oxon, UK. 601 p.