Importation of Fresh Apricot (Prunus armeniaca

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

Plumcot (Prunus domestica x Prunus armeniaca)

Fruit from South Africa into the Continental United 

States

A Qualitative, Pathway-Initiated Risk Assessment

With Risk Mitigation Options

April 26, 2010

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 27606-5202
PRA for Prunus from the Republic of South Africa

Rev. 06 April 26, 2010 ii

Executive Summary

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, P. domestica x P. armeniaca, from South Africa into the continental United States. The 

request included pluots (Prunus armeniaca x P. domestica x P. domestica) but because pluots 

are considered interspecific plums (because 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, 2006). Plumcots are a relatively new hybrid species of plum and

apricot. Consequently, we found little information about the susceptibility 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 developed the 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 country. Some pests are 

only associated with certain Prunus host species. The pest list reflects the species of Prunus that 

the pests attack. We found the following five pests of quarantine significance to the United States 

likely to follow the pathway:

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

C. quinaria (Bezzi)

C. rosa (Karsch) 

Chinch bug (Heteroptera: Lygaeidae): Macchiademus diplopterus (Distant) 

Moth (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae): Thaumatotibia leucotreta (Meyrick)

The host associations for the pests we analyzed were as follows:

Organism Prunus armeniaca 

(apricot)

P. avium 

(cherry)

P. domestica x P. armeniaca

(plumcot)

Ceratitis capitata   

C. quinaria 

C. rosa  

Macchiademus diplopterus  

Thaumatotibia leucotreta  

We analyzed 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. quinaria, C. rosa, and

Thaumatotibia leucotreta, and Medium for Macchiademus diplopterus.

Specific phytosanitary measures may be necessary for pests with Medium Pest Risk Potentials, 

and are strongly recommended for those with High Pest Risk Potentials. We list risk mitigation 

options by pest, but the choice of appropriate measures to mitigate risk is part of risk 

management 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 Contents

Executive Summary...................................................................................................................... ii

1. Introduction............................................................................................................................... 1

2. Risk Assessment ........................................................................................................................ 2

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

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

2.3. Previous Risk Assessments, 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—Quantity 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 ...............................................54
Risk 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 High, Medium or 

Low 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 5.02 (PPQ, 2000).

The International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC), provides standards for conducting pest 

risk analyses (IPPC, 2004, IPPC 2006a). The methods used to initiate, conduct, 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 temperate regions; however, some have been 

found in sub-tropical and tropical regions (Bortiri, 2001; INBIO, 2004; Mabberley, 1987). This

genus originated 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 single 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 west 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 about1700 (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 this commodity-based, pathway-initiated assessment in response to a request for 

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

risk. The 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 pests. 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 plumcots 

are recent hybrid 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 susceptibility in South Africa. Plum can 

already enter 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 (Prunus

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 this 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). No evidence indicates that it is an aggressive invader that can 

adversely impact native and/or agricultural ecosystems. Reports of this species as a naturalized 

or casual alien likely represents 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). It is grown in several other states, including the private 

backyards of fruit enthusiasts. Apricot is grown in U.S. Plant Hardiness Zones 5b to 7b,

preferring mild Mediterranean climates, where the danger of spring frosts is low (Rieger, 2002).

The development 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; 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.
Risk Assessment for Prunus from the Republic of South Africa

Rev. 06 April 26, 2010 3

Pests and pathogens associated with apricot may harm federally endangered P. geniculata (scrub 

plum; (USFWS, 2005)), which occurs at only a few sites in central 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 naturalized 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 habitats

(NPSO, 2002). Cherry forms monocultures that shade out forest understories (NPSO, 2002); this 

type of impact poses a serious threat to the long-term diversity of native species communities 

because it interferes with forest regeneration. The city 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 invasive species capable of 

establishing in natural areas and displacing native vegetation; it 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 of 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 no other information on the biology or the invasive impacts of cherry. This 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. cerasus (sour cherry) are closely related (Bortiri, 

2001). Prunus cerasus may originate from hybrids of cherry and P. fruticosa (ground cherry)

(Hancock, 1988; Hillig, 1988). The hybrid cross between cherry and P. cerasus (Duke cherries), 

cherry 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 rootstocks for cherry (Lang, 1997).

Current and Potential Distribution of Cherry in the United States. Cherry occurs in 26 

states, and is restricted to the western and northeastern portions of the United States (USDANRCS, 2005). It is commercially 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 development of new adapted cultivars may 

further increase its range in the United States.

Potential Impact from 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 (scrub plum) (USFWS, 2005), which occurs 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 Compendium 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); its frequency in natural areas 

has increased 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 noxious 
Risk 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 considered for import to all U.S. 

states and territories, following an appropriate 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 invasive 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 1936 in Washington, where it 

invaded prairies and river banks (Rice, 2004). It colonizes 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 the 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; however, as small trees (similar 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).

Current 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 Zones 

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, Michigan and Idaho (USDA-NASS, 2003). In 2002, 200,000 tons of 

plums, and 158,000 tons of dried 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 threaten 

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 Zones 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 Invaders of Natural Areas (Swearingen, 2003)

Yes Other scientific literature (see below). 

Phase 3: Summary and Conclusions:

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

including the United States, where it is naturalized in five states (Brooklyn

Botanical Garden, 2004; McAvoy, 2003; Rice, 2004; Swearingen, 2003); however, 

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 appropriate 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 decision sheets on file)

1929 - Deny entry of Apricot

1929 - Deny entry of Apricot
Risk Assessment for Prunus from the Republic of South Africa

Rev. 06 April 26, 2010 7

Table 4. Interceptions from South Africa for FY 1985-2007 for Prunus spp. (USDA, 2007)

Pest Host 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. 1998/02 Fruit Baggage Airport

Thaumatotibia leucotreta Prunus sp. 1998/03 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 develop 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 associated with the plant species (IPPC, 2004). 

Below is the pest list for apricot, cherry and plum from South Africa (Table 5). This pest list 

contains: (1) geographic distribution of the pests in the exporting country 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 

phytosanitary 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

Table 5. Pests reported on three hosts, Apricot (A), Cherry (C) or Plum (P), in any country, and present 

in South Africa on any host. 

Pest Host plant Geog.

distrib.

1

Plant parts 

affected2

Quarantine pest3Follow 

pathway

References

A C P

ARTHROPODS

ACARI

Eriophyidae

Aculus fockeui Nalepa 

& Trouessart

(=Aculus cornutus 

Banks)

X X SA, US 

(CA, FL, 

WA)

L No4 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, 1998; 

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 No4 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; 

CABI, 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.

distrib.

1

Plant parts 

affected2

Quarantine pest3Follow 

pathway

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 No6(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; 

Oudtshoorn, 

2005)

Coleoptera - Curculionidae

Eremnus atratus 

Sparness

X SA F, L, S Yes No7(Annecke, 1982; 

BATS, 1992; 

Myburgh, 1973; 

Rhodes, 2000)

Eremnus cerealis

Marshall

X SA F, L, S Yes No7(Annecke, 1982; 

BATS, 1992; 

Myburgh, 1973; 

Rhodes, 2000; 

Van den Berg, 

1972)

Eremnus setulosus 

Boheman

X SA F, L, S Yes No7(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.

distrib.

1

Plant parts 

affected2

Quarantine pest3Follow 

pathway

References

A C P

Phlyctinus callosus

Schoenherr

X X SA F,I, L,S Yes No8(Annecke, 1982; 

Agriculture WA, 

2002; Barnes, 

1977; BATS, 

1992; CABI, 

2003; Elliot, 

2002; PNKTO, 

1986; Rhodes, 

2000; Schwartz, 

1988; USDA, 

2007; Van den 

Berg, 1971)

Coleoptera - Nitidulidae

Carpophilus 

dimidiatus (F.)

X SA, US F No No9(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 (Anon., 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 No10(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.

distrib.

1

Plant parts 

affected2

Quarantine pest3Follow 

pathway

References

A C P

Hemiptera - 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, 2003)

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)

Hemiptera - 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] No17(Ben-Dov, 2005; 

CABI, 2004; 

Hamon, 1984; 

Sabelis, 1997)
Risk Assessment for Prunus from the Republic of South Africa

Rev. 06 April 26, 2010 12

Pest Host plant Geog.

distrib.

1

Plant parts 

affected2

Quarantine pest3Follow 

pathway

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 Yes18(CABI, 2004; 

Hamon, 1984; 

Sabelis, 1997)

Saissetia oleae

(Olivier)

X X SA, US F, L, R, S No No19 (Annecke, 1982; 

CABI, 2004; 

Hamon, 1984; 

INRA, 1997; 

Johnson, 1991)

Hemiptera - Diaspididae

Aonidiella aurantii

(Maskell)

X X SA, US 

(AZ, CA, 

FL, TX)

F, L, S No4 Yes (Annecke, 1982; 

Anon., 1970; 

CABI, 2004; 

Nakahara, 1982)

Aonidiella orientalis

(Newstead)

X SA, US 

(FL)

L No4 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.

distrib.

1

Plant parts 

affected2

Quarantine pest3Follow 

pathway

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] No29 (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)

Hemiptera - Margarodidae

Icerya purchasi

Maskell

X X SA, US L, S No No (Annecke, 1982; 

CABI, 2003; Gill, 

1993)

Hemiptera - Pseudococcidae

Pseudococcus 

calceolariae

(Maskell)

X SA, US 

(CA, 

LA)

S No4 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 No4 Yes (Annecke, 1982)

Heteroptera - Coreidae

Leptoglossus australis

(F.)

X SA F Yes No11(Sweet, 2000; Van 

den Berg, 2001)

Heteroptera - Lygaeidae

Macchiademus 

diplopterus

(Distant)

X X SA F

12 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.

distrib.

1

Plant parts 

affected2

Quarantine pest3Follow 

pathway

References

A C P

Oxycarenus exitiosus

Distant

X SA F, Se Yes No13(Annecke, 1982; 

Sweet, 2000)

Oxycarenus

hyalinipennis 

(Costa)

X SA F, Se Yes No13(Annecke, 1982; 

Avidov, 1969; 

CABI, 2004; 

PNKTO, 1982a)

Spilostethus pandurus

(Scopoli)

X SA F, I, L, S, 

Se

Yes No14(Sweet, 2000)

Heteroptera - Pentatomidae

Antestiopsis orbitalis

(Westwood)

X X SA I, F, S Yes No15(Annecke, 1982; 

Myburgh, 1973)

Nezara viridula (L.) X SA, US F, L No No16(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

20 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 No21(Annecke, 1982)

Calpe provocans

Walker

X X SA adults on 

fruit

Yes No21(Annecke, 1982)

Dugaria scandulata

Walker

X X SA adults on 

fruit

Yes No21(Annecke, 1982)
Risk Assessment for Prunus from the Republic of South Africa

Rev. 06 April 26, 2010 15

Pest Host plant Geog.

distrib.

1

Plant parts 

affected2

Quarantine pest3Follow 

pathway

References

A C P

Helicoverpa armigera

(Hubner)

X X X SA B, I, F, L Yes No22(Annecke, 1982; 

CABI, 2003, 

2004; Hely, 1982; 

Herbison-Evan, 

2003; Myburgh, 

1973)

Serrodes partita (F.) X X SA adults on 

fruit

Yes No21(Annecke, 1982; 

Whitehead, 1972; 

Whitehead, 1971)

Spodoptera littoralis 

(Boisduval)

X SA F, L Yes No23(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 No24(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, 2003; 

Matthew, 1975)

Cacoecimorpha 

pronubana

(Hübner)

X SA (few 

occurren

ces), US 

(OR)

F, I, L [Yes] No25(CABI, 2003; 

CABI-EPPO, 

1997; Courneya, 

2003; 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 No26(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.

distrib.

1

Plant parts 

affected2

Quarantine pest3Follow 

pathway

References

A C P

Grapholita molesta

(Busck)

X X X SA, US F, S No Yes (Blomefield, 

1990; EPPO, 

1999; Metcalf, 

1993)

Thaumatotibia 

leucotreta30

(Meyrick)

Syn: Cryptophlebia 

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 No27(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 morsprunorum [= 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. 

syringae 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.

distrib.

1

Plant parts 

affected2

Quarantine pest3Follow 

pathway

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.

distrib.

1

Plant parts 

affected2

Quarantine pest3Follow 

pathway

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 No4 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 No4 No (CABI, 2003; 

Crous, 2000; 

Doidge, 1953; 

Gorter, 1977; 

Horst, 2001; 

Ogawa, 1995; 

USDA, 2007)
Risk Assessment for Prunus from the Republic of South Africa

Rev. 06 April 26, 2010 19

Pest Host plant Geog.

distrib.

1

Plant parts 

affected2

Quarantine pest3Follow 

pathway

References

A C P

Diaporthe ambigua 

Nitschke

(Ascomycetes: 

Diaporthales)

X SA S Yes No (CABI, 2002; 

Crous, 2000; 

Gorter, 1977; 

Smit, 1996)

Eutypa lata (Pers.) 

Tul. & 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.

distrib.

1

Plant parts 

affected2

Quarantine pest3Follow 

pathway

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.

distrib.

1

Plant parts 

affected2

Quarantine pest3Follow 

pathway

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.

distrib.

1

Plant parts 

affected2

Quarantine pest3Follow 

pathway

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 prunispinosae 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.

distrib.

1

Plant parts 

affected2

Quarantine pest3Follow 

pathway

References

A C P

Taphrina deformans 

(Berk.) Tul.

(Taphrinomycetes: 

Taphrinales)

X SA, US I, F, L, S No No28(CABI, 2003)

Taphrina mume Nish.

(Taphrinomycetes: 

Taphrinales)

X SA F, L, S Yes No28 (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, 2003; 

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 No25 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.

distrib.

1

Plant parts 

affected2

Quarantine pest3Follow 

pathway

References

A C P

Valsaria eucalypti 

(Kalchbr, & Cooke) 

Sacc.

(Ascomycetes: 

Diaporthales)

X SA, US 

(CA)

S No25 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; 

Gorter, 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.

distrib.

1

Plant parts 

affected2

Quarantine pest3Follow 

pathway

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; 

Kleynhans, 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.

distrib.

1

Plant parts 

affected2

Quarantine pest3Follow 

pathway

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 (Keetch, 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 (Brunt, 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, 2003)
Risk Assessment for Prunus from the Republic of South Africa

Rev. 06 April 26, 2010 27

Pest Host plant Geog.

distrib.

1

Plant parts 

affected2

Quarantine pest3Follow 

pathway

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 distribution: AZ = Arizona, CA = California, 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 official 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 

symptoms 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 commodity 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 intended 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.

10

Species is restricted to Olea europaea L. (olive) (White, 1992). The single record of this species on Prunus 

domestica (USDA, 2007) is an anomaly.
Risk Assessment for Prunus from the Republic of South Africa

Rev. 06 April 26, 2010 28

11 Adults are large (1.8-2.4 cm), dark-colored, externally-feeding insects, and nymphs are gregarious (Sweet, 2000). 

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

12

The 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 apricot, among other stone and pome fruits from South Africa 

at U.S. and U.K. ports (Sweet, 2000). It is not likely associated with cherry since the stem cavities are not as 

large/deep as apricots and plumcots.

13

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

for the completion of development. 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 processing.

14 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.

15 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).

16 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.

17 Reported 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 introduction of this scale insect.

18 Leaves 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; Kosztarab, 1997a; Swirski, 1997). Fruits are used for rearing it 

in the laboratory (Rose, 1997).

19 Fruits are attacked (CABI, 2004) and may be colonized by the first-instar ―crawlers‖ (Kosztarab, 1997a, 1997b), 

but the typical sites of infestation by adults appear to be leaves and stems (Avidov, 1969; Hill, 1983, 1987; 

Kosztarab, 1997a, 1997b).

20

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

21 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).

22 Helicoverpa armigera larvae 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 (Bedford, 1978). In some fruits, like mango, the larvae can only insert 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.

23 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 remain with fruit through harvest and processing.

24

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

25

Pest is known to externally feed on citrus fruit; fruit is not a pathway for international movement in trade (CABIEPPO, 1997). 

26

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).

27 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.

28

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 Moore, 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, we only 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 potential 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 that host-pest combination. 

2.4.1. Quarantine Pests Likely To Follow The Pathway

The five pests we identified were as follows: Ceratitis capitata, C. quinaria, 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 vectors 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 proximity 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 the 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 quantities 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 represented 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 

consumption, 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 immature 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 distance 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 as 
Risk 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 analyze 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 Consequences of Introduction using five Risk 

Elements. These elements reflect the biologies, host ranges and climatic/geographic distributions 

of the pests. For each risk element, pests are assigned a rating of Low (1 point), Medium (2 

points) or High (3 points). We calculated a cumulative risk rating by summing all Risk Element 

values. Table 5 summarizes the values for the Consequences of Introduction 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, western 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 (Sapotaceae), 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 adult‘s flight range is 20 km or 

more (Fletcher, 1989b). Transportation of infested 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 continents,

becoming 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 caused by larvae tunneling through host fruit, which is often accompanied 

by fruit-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). This species is of quarantine significance worldwide, 

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 temperate 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 Federal Regulations (50 CFR §17.12). As close relatives of known hosts, 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 establishment 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 9-10.

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. (Rutaceae), Psidium guajava (Myrtaceae) (CABI/EPPO, 

1997b), Ziziphus spina-christi (Rhamnaceae), and possibly Ficus sp. (Moraceae) 

(White, 1992).

High (3)

Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential

Information on 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. port interception records (PIN 

309), suggests 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 Medium.

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 Floridian

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 

(Stibick, 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 9-10.

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 arabica (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 climatic conditions, there may be as many as 12 generations per year (Hill, 1983).

Adult flight and the transport of infested 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 Medium.

Risk Element #4: Economic Impact

Ceratitis rosa is a major pest of mango (Joubert, 2000) and avocado in South Africa, 

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 shared hosts (Fitt, 1989), and a similar 

phenomenon may have occurred in Zimbabwe (INKTO, 1963); as a result, this

suggests 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

could 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 would 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 exhibits cold-hardiness (Herring, 1973; Sweet, 2000). Based upon this 

information (and the range of hardiness zones in South Africa (see Fig. 1), this insect 

could establish in United States Plant Hardiness Zones 8-10.

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 

(Herring, 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, 

impairing 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, 

necessitating 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 pest 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

listed as Endangered in California. As a pest of economically important grains, such 

as wheat, oats, and barley, its establishment would 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 United 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. 

(Fagaceae), Juglans sp. (Juglandaceae), Macadamia integrifolia (Proteaceae), Vitis 

vinifera (Vitaceae) (Annecke, 1982), Bequaertiodendron magalismontanum

(Sapotaceae), Calotropis procera (Asclepiadaceae), Capparis tomentosa

(Capparaceae), Catha edulis (Celastraceae), Cola nitida (Sterculiaceae), 

Combretum spp. (Combretaceae), Diospyros spp. (Ebenaceae), Eugenia 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 afra (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 of kilometers beyond the natural range of the 

species (Svensson, 2002). Long distance dispersal occurs when fruit infested with 

larvae are transported (CABI, 2004). Species interception at U.S. ports occurred on 

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

associated with the reproductive and dispersal 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).

Opportunistic 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 foreign 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://www.backyardgardener.com/zone/africa.html)

Table 6. Risk Ratings for Consequences of Introduction

Pest Risk Element Cumulative 

risk rating a

Climate/

Host 

Interaction

Host 

Range

Dispersal 

potential

Economic 

impact

Enviro. 

impact

Ceratitis capitata Med (2) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (14)

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 points
Risk 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 ratings for Likelihood of Introduction below (Table 6).

2.6.1. Quantity of commodity imported annually

The anticipated estimated volume of sweet cherries, apricots and plumcots 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 are 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 survive post-harvest treatments. This arthropod might find 

shelter on fruit, particularly within the stem cavity or in packing materials. Adult 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 probability between 0.1 and 10 percent (i.e., in the medium range) of 

surviving post-harvest treatment (USDA, 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, 1997). 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 populations. The 

internal feeders, Ceratitis spp. and T. leucotreta, are protected from adverse environmental 

conditions by the plant part tissue, while the other pest takes 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

Estimating the risk that pests will not be detected at a port-of-entry involves the consideration of 

pest size, mobility, and degree of concealment. Among the insects, again depending on the age 

of infestation, Ceratitis species, 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 shows little external signs of attack (Carter, 1984). This 

moth was first recorded in England in 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 High.

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 risk 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. Not all regions of the United States market concentration will be conducive 

to pest survival. According to the latest census data (US Census Bureau, 2004), 30 percent of the 

population resides in states wholly or partly within Plant Hardiness Zones 9 or 10 and 46 percent

of the population resides in states wholly or partly within Plant Hardiness Zones 8, 9, or 10.

Three of the most populous states, California, Florida, and Texas, contain areas within Plant 

Hardiness Zones 8-10, 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 suitable habitats for survival; 

this 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) 

comprising 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 takes

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 species include temperate-zone or widely 

cultivated plants, such as Prunus and Citrus spp. (USDA-NRCS, 2005). In addition 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 establishment in the 

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

Table 7. Risk ratingsadetermined for the Likelihood of Introduction

Pest Quantity 

imported 

annually

Survive 

post-harvest 

treatment

Survive 

shipment

Not detected 

at port-ofentry

Moved to 

suitable 

habitat

Contact 

with host 

material

Cumulative 

risk rating 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 points
Risk 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 Introduction and the Likelihood of 

Introduction for each pest yields a Pest Risk Potential (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 Potentials

a

Pest Consequences of 

Introduction

Likelihood of 

Introduction

Pest Risk 

Potential

Ceratitis capitata High (14) High (16) High (30)

Ceratitis quinaria Medium (11) High (16) High (27)

Ceratitis rosa High (13) High (16) High (29)

Macchiademus diplopterus Medium (12) Medium (14) Medium (26)

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)

Thomas W. Culliney, Entomologist (review)

Shawn Robertson, Entomologist (review)

Christina Devorshak, Entomologist (review)

U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Plant Protection and Quarantine,

Center for Plant Health Science and Technology

Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory
Risk 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, 

Western Australia (WA). Cited June 2005. Available from 

http://agspsrv34.agric.wa.gov.au/programs/hort/viticulture/pests/gardenweevil.pdf.

Agrios, G.N. 1997. Plant 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/.

Annecke, 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. Diseases 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 Publications, 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. Available from http://www.arsgrin.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 weevil, 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.

Bedford, 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. Cited May 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 International, 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, Leiden.

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.

Cited 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. 

Plant 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 marianum 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. 2004. 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 capitata. 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: Ceratitis 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 quarantine 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 pronubana. 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 Europe 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 International,

Wallingford, 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.

Cited 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-APHISPPQ National Identification Services, to Leah Millar, Entomologist, USDA-APHIS-PPQCPHST Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory (on file with USDA-APHISPPQ-CPHST-PERAL) stating that "Organisms currently recorded 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 Curl Factsheet. Cornell Plant Disease Diagnosic Clinic (CPDDC), 

Cornell University, Cornell, NY. Available from 

http://plantclinic.cornell.edu/FactSheets/peachleafcurl/peachleafcurl.htm.

Crous, P.W., Phillips, A.J.L. and A.P. Baxter. 2000. Phytopathological Fungi from South Africa 

Department of Plant Pathology Press. Cited January 03, 2005. Available from 

http://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 strawberries. 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 avocado 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 van 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. and G.D. Pauer. 1953. A revised list of plant 

diseases in South Africa. In Sci. Bull. No.346.

Donaldson, J.M.I. 1985. 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 

Australia. Cited March 26, 2003. Available from 

http://agspsrv34.agric.wa.gov.au/programs/hort/viticulture/pests/gardenweevil.pdf.

EPPO. 1992. Quarantine Pests for Europe. 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. Phytophthora Diseases Worldwide. APS Press, St. Paul, 

MN.

Eugene Parks and Open Space Department. 2004. Invasive species prohibited plant list. Cited 

February 12, 2004. Available from 

http://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. McCray. (n.d.). 2005. Fungal Databases. U.S. 

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

Botany and Mycology Laboratory. Cited January 03, 2005. Available from http://nt.arsgrin.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 Netherlands.

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 Books, 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. Raychaudhuri. 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 Noncitrus Subtropical Crops in South Africa, edited by M.A. van den Berg, E.A. de Villiers, 

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. (unpublished).

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 of Northern Ireland and Environment and Heritage Service. Cited February 25, 

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

Hamon, A.B. and M.L. Williams. 1984. The Soft Scale Insects 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 species. HortScience 23:381-383.
Risk Assessment for Prunus from the Republic of South Africa

Rev. 06 April 26, 2010 45

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) University of 

Sydney, Australia. Available from 

https://www.gpdd.info/onlinerefs/Helicoverpa_armigera_114.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 Press, Berkeley, 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. 2004. 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.consulteco.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). Pan-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 

Agriculture. 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 of 

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 Press 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 Biodiversidad (INBIO). Cited 

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). Cited 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. 2006a. Phytosanitary principles for the protection of plants and the application of 

phytosanitary measures 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 phytosanitary 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 Conservation Union (IUCN). Cited February 24, 2004. Available from 

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

Jeppson, L.R., Keifer, H.H. and E.W. Baker. 1975. 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., Subhadrabandhu, 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, 

THAUMATOTIBIA (=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, Pretoria, South Africa.

Knoll, M., Weilguni, 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 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
Risk 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 Washington Pheromone Trap Delimiting Survey for Carnation Tortrix, 

Cacoecimorpha pronubana (Hubner) WA State Dept. Agric, 1999 cited. Available from 

http://entomology.wsu.edu/news/ProjectReport/tortrix_larvae/carnationTortrix.html.

Lang, G., W. Howell, D. Ophardt, G. Mink, B.H. Barritt, and F. Kappel. 1997. Biotic and abiotic 

stress responses of interspecific hybrid cherry rootstocks. Acta Horticulturae:217-224.

Latorre, 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. Genetic 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. 

Cited December 10, 2004. Available from

http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/Crops/Apricot.html.

Marais, P.G. 1980. Fungi associated with decline and death of nursery grapevines in the Western 

Cape. Phytophylactica 12 (1):9-13.

Matthew, J., H.J.R. Durr, J.H. Giliomee, 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. Cited 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 

Tortricidae. Zoological Museum Amsterdam, University of Amsterdam, The 

Netherlands. Cited 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. Sucr. 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. Cited January 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 other 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, MD..

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 Phytosanitary 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. Cited February 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 Chapter. Cited 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 Fruit 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 Agropecuaria (OIRSA). Cited June 2005. Available from 

http://www.oirsa.org/DTSV/Modelo-deReglamentacion/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.oudtshoorninfo.com/fauna.php?id=31&category=40.

Owen, S.J. 1996. Ecological weeds on conservation land in New Zealand: a database.

Department of Conservation. Cited 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 States 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. Cited 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 Qualitative, PathwayInitiated 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 

Montana. Cited 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. Cited 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, and 

G. Hooper, 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. Cited 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. Efficacy 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. Cited February 24, 2004. Available from 

http://invader.dbs.umt.edu/Noxious_Weeds/.

Smit, W.A., C.D. Viljoen, B.D. Wingfield, M.J. Wingfield, 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 State Agric. Exp. Sta. Tech. Bull. No. 255.

SON. 2003. Xiphinema italiae. Society of Nematologists (SON). Cited 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 Flies (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/ppq/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/nprgfcm.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.

Swearingen, J. 2003. Alien Plant Invaders of Natural Areas. National Park Service. Cited 

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 Control. (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 Michigan 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, Blumeriella jaapii West Va. 

Univ. Kearneysville Tree Fruit Res. & Edu. Center. Cited August 04, 2004. Available 

from http://www.caf.wvu.edu/kearneysville/disease_descriptions/omchlfsp.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.

Cited 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, University of California The Regents of the University of California, 

Cited October 12, 2005. Available from http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/NEMABASE/.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2004. 2000 Census. United States Census Bureau. 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. Cited 

February 24, 2004. Available from http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/permits/fnwsbycate.PDF.

USDA. 2006. Regulating the Importation of Fresh Fruits and Vegetables. U.S. Dept. of 

Agriculture (USDA), Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant 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). Cited 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). Cited 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). Cited 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 codling 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.: ARCInstitute 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: ARCInstitute for Tropical and Subtropical Crops.

Van der Geest, L. P. S. and H. H. Evenhuis. 1991. Tortricid 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. Handbook 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, Ceratitis 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. Hooper. 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. World 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 plants University of South 

Florida. Cited February 11, 2004. Available from 

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. Appendices

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

apricot, cherry, 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. Plumcots are relatively new hybrid 

species of plum and apricot; as a result there is little information available pertaining to their pest 

susceptibilities. Plumcot 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, 2006) and has been coming into the 

United States successfully since 1992. Since some of the pests are only associated with certain 

host species therefore the pest list included distinctions to reflect which Prunus species the pest 

attacks. 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 (Meyrick) (Synonym: Cryptophlebia leucotreta (Meyrick)

(Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) 

Host associations for the analyzed pests:

Prunus armeniaca 

(apricot)

P. avium 

(cherry)

P. domestica x P. armeniaca

(plumcot)

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 estimates 

are then summarized to conclude a qualitative Pest Risk Potential. The fruit flies and moth were 

found to have High Pest Risk Potential, while M. diplopterus had Medium Pest Risk Potential.

Specific phytosanitary measures may be necessary for pests with Medium Pest Risk Potentials, 

and are strongly recommended for those with High Pest Risk Potentials. 
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 

provides an overlapping, or redundant, safeguarding 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 desired 

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 compensate 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 protection 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, 2006a). As a sole mitigative measure, the 

establishment of pest-free areas, or pest-free places of production, 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 achieve probit-9-level security (TDOA, 2003). The establishment and 

maintenance of pest-free areas or production sites are to be in compliance with international 

standards (IPPC, 1996, 1999; NAPPO, 2004, IPPC, 2006b).

The establishment and maintenance of pest free areas are also to include survey plans. Orchard 

surveys detect internal and external Prunus pests, and may be aided by the use of APHISapproved unbaited, active or passive traps. Ceratitis capitata are typically monitored via male 

attractant pheromones 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 commercially available traps (Newton and Mastro, 1989). In 

addition to surveillance activities, work 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, 2006b). 

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 sp., Hordeum sp., Avena spp., Poa 

annua, Ehrharta spp. Bromus spp., and Lolium multiflorum. The 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 (IPPC, 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 might 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 requirements 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 low 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 mechanical 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 to 

form a bait spray to attract male and female tephritids. Bait sprays attract the insects to the 

insecticide. They 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  ̳CryptogranTM‘, 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, CryptogranTM has 

also shown to be effective when used in combination with the T. leucotreta egg parasitoid,

Trichogrammatoidea cryptophlebiae (Moore, 2003). Sterile insect release has also been studied 

and significantly reduces fertile T. leucotreta populations (Hofmeyr 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. Results of surveys must be negative for larvae of 

fruit flies, T. leucotreta, and M. diplopterus. 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 each 
Risk Assessment for Prunus from the Republic of South Africa

Rev. 06 April 26, 2010 57

consignment; this 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; likewise 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 undergo mechanical brushing or other treatments, 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 treatments. 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, 2007).

a. External Pests. For general external pests of apricots, plums, and plumcots, Treatment 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 only 

stipulation is the temperature has to be 40°F or above (max. dosage 4lbs./1000ft3).
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 more 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 temperature is allowed to drop below 29.5°F (this varies with the commodity)‖ (USDA, 

2007).

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 

States are susceptible to chilling injury.

No specific approved treatments exist for C. quinaria, but because of similar biology, C. capitata

treatments could be effective for C. quinaria.

Irradiation treatment T105-d (IR at various dose levels) is a PPQ 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 Lepidoptera. 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 development, rendering a higher quality, without the issue of fruit 

damage following treatment (Hallman and Loaharanu, 2002). Irradiation 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 larvae. 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 populations in production zones 

below the specified densities (e.g., 0.01 fruit fly trap-1day-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 inspection. If a preclearance program is not implemented, then 

inspection at ports-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 includes 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 states that are major commercial producers 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 imports 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 approach 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. Inspection, 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 procedures. 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).

Provisions 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. Requirement: cherry, P. armeniaca, 

and 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 operational work plan, is beyond the scope of this document.

Summary of Risk Mitigation Options 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 standards 
Risk 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 

Inspection 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 and 

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-r1; 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 Treatment 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 

Treatment

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 exemption 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 International (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 

(Cryptophlebia leucotreta) on citrus in the Trasvaal. Phytophylactica. 6:31-38.

Citrus from Peru. 2005. Federal Register 70(189): 65053-65067 (September 30, 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 (CABI). 

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/fruitfly/plant_quarant_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 Consultative 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 Fruits 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 Organization,

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 the 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 Agriculture 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 (IPPC), 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 International 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. 1st edition. NSW 

Agriculture, National Wine and Grape 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 (Biochemistry 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. Stephen. 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 Standards 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 treatment. J. Econ. Entomol. 96(2): 300-310. 

River Bioscience. 2005. CryptogranTM . Walmer, South Africa. 

http://www.riverbioscience.co.za/product.html [accessed December 2005].

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.

TDOA. 2003. Texas Rio Grande Valley Mexican Fruit Fly, Anastrepha ludens (Loew) [sic] 

Protocol—2003/2004. Texas Department of Agriculture (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. Department 

of Agriculture (USDA), Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection 

and Quarantine. Riverdale, MD. 

USDA. 2003. Guidelines for Fruit Fly Systems Approach to Support the Movement of Regulated 

Articles between Mexico and the United States (Draft Document). U.S. Department of 

Agriculture (USDA), Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and 

Quarantine, Riverdale, MD.

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/manuals/pdf_files/FF%20Guidelines.pdf.

USDA. 2004. Agricultural Quarantine Inspection Monitoring (AQIM) Handbook. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture (USDA), Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant 

Protection and Quarantine, Riverdale, MD. 

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/manuals/port/AQIM_Chapters.htm.

USDA. 2007. Treatment Manual. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine, 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. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine, Riverdale, MD. 

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/manuals/port/FV_Chapters.htm [accessed January 2006]

Venette, R.C., R.D. Moon, 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 published 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.