## Importation of **Fresh Litchi**  **, Litchi chinensis**  **Sonn., Fruit**

**from the**  **Republic of South Africa into the C**  **ontinental**

**United States A Qualitative, Pathway** **- initiated Pest Risk Assessment** 

**June 3 , 201**  **1 Version 8** 

**Agency Contact :**  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 27606Pest Risk Assessment for Litchi from the Republic of South Africa

Ver. 8 June 3, 2011 ii 

### Executive Summary This risk assessment document examines the risks associated with the importation of litchi ( Litchi chinensis ) into the continental United States. Information on pests associated with litchi from the Republic of South Africa revealed that eight **High** risk quarantine pests exist and could be introduced into the United States via this pathway
. The **High** risk quarantine pests likely to follow the pathway

were all insects
. **In sects:**  Ceratitis capitata Wiedemann (Diptera: Tephritidae) Ceratitis rosa Karsch (Diptera: Tephritidae) Ceroplastes rubens Maskell (Hemiptera: Coccidae) Ceroplastes rusci (Linnaeus) (Hemiptera: Coccidae) Coccus viridis (Green) (Hemiptera: Coccidae) Cryptophlebia peltastica (Mey rick) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) Nipaecoccus viridis (Newstead) (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) Thaumatotibia leucotreta (Mey rick) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) The quarantine pests were qualitatively anal yz ed based on international principles and internal guidelines as described in the PPQ Guidelines for Pathway
- Initiated Pest Risk Assessments, Version 5.02 (PPQ, 2000 ) , which examine s pest biology in the context of Consequences of Introduction and Likelihood of Introduction. These el ements help estimate the Pest Risk Potential. All of the listed pests pose phy tosanitary risks to American agriculture and received High risk ratings
. Port
- of
- entry inspections, as a sole mitigative measure, are considered insufficient to safeguard U.S. agriculture from these pests
. Additional phy tosanitary measures are necessary to reduce risks to acceptable levels.Pest Risk Assessment for Litchi from the Republic of South Africa

Ver. 8 June 3, 2011 iii 

### Table of Content **s Executive Summary**  **................................ ................................**  **................................ ......................**  **ii 1. Introduction**  **................................ ................................**  **................................ ................................**  **1 2. Risk Assessment**  **................................ ................................**  **................................ .........................**  **1** 2.1. Initiatin g Event: Proposed Action
................................ ................................ ......................... 1 2.2. Assessment of Weediness Potential of litchi, Litchi chinensis
................................ ............. 1 2.3. Previous Risk Assessment, Current Status and Pest Interceptions, and Decision History
... 2 2.4. Pest Categorization
................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 3 2.5. Con sequences of Introduction
................................ ................................ ............................. 10 2.6. Introduction Potential
................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 20 2.7. Conclusion

– Pest Risk Potential and Pests Requiring Phytosanitary Measures
................ 23 **3. Author & Reviewers ................................**  **................................ ................................**  **................ 24**  **4. Literature Cited ................................**  **................................ ................................**  **....................... 24**  **5. Appendices ................................**  **................................ ................................**  **................................ 30**  Appendix A. Risk Mitigation Options
................................ ................................ ....................... 30 Appendix B. Treatment Schedules
................................ ................................ ............................ 35Pest Risk Assessment for Litchi from the Republic of South Africa

Ver. 8 June 3, 2011 1 

### 1 **. Introduction**  The Plant Epidemiology

and Risk Analysis Laboratory of the United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine, Center of Plant Health Science and Technology (USDA APHI S PPQ CPHST) prepared this pest risk assessment to examine plant pest risks associated with the importation of fresh l itchi fruit (also known as l ych ee, leechee or lechee nut) , Litchi chinensis, from the Republic of South Africa into the United States. This is a qualitative risk assessment, i.e

. , estimates of risk are expressed in qualitative terms (“H igh , ” “ M edium” or “ L ow”) , rather than probabilities or frequencies. Details of the methodology and rating criteria can be found in the template document, Guidelines for Pathway
- Initiated Pest Risk Assessments, Version 5.02 (APHIS , 2002: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/pra/commodity /cpraguide.pdf

). International plant protection organizations , such as the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) of the United Nations , the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the North American Plant Protection Organization (NAPPO) , provide guidance for conducting pest risk anal ys es. The methods used to initiate, conduct, and report pest risk assessment s are consi stent with guidelines provided by IP PC and NAPPO. The use of biological and phy tosanitary terms conforms to the Definitions and Abbreviations (Introduction Section) in the International Standards for Phy tosanitary Measures, Section 1
- Import Regulations Gui delines for Pest Risk Analysis ( IP PC , 2004 ) , the Glossary of Phy tosanitary Terms ( IPPC , 2006 ) and the NAPPO Compendium of Phy tosanitary T erms. These guidelines describe three stages of pest risk anal ys is: Stage 1 , Initiation, Stage 2 , Risk Assessment , and Stage 3, Risk Management
. This document satisfies the requirements of IPPC Stages 1 and 2. 

### 2 **. Risk Assessment**  **2.1 .**  **Initiating Event:**  **Proposed Action** This commodity
-based, pathway
- initiated assessment is in response to a request for USDA authorization to allow the importation of litchi, Litchi chinensis , from the Republic of South Africa into the continental United States, even though it is a potential pathway for exotic plant pests. Title 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations 319, Part 56 (7CFR § 31 9.56) provides regulatory

authority for the importation of fruits and vegetables from foreign sources into the United States. **2.2 .**  **Assessment of Weediness Potential of litchi,**  **Litchi chinensis** This step examines the potential of the commodity to become a weed after it enters the United States (Table 1). If the assessment indicates a significant weediness potential, then a “pest
initiated” risk assessment is conducted. The results of the weedines s screening for Litchi chinensis did not prompt a pest
- initiated risk assessment (Table 1).Pest Risk Assessment for Litchi from the Republic of South Africa

Ver. 8 June 3, 2011 2 **Table 1.** Assessment of weediness potential of Litchi chinensis **Commodity:** Fruits of Litchi chinensis Sonn. **Phase 1:** Litchi is grown in Florida and Hawaii. **Phase 2:**  Answer Yes or No to the following questions: No Geographical Atlas of World Weeds (Holm et al

. , 1979) No World’s Worst Weeds (Holm et al
. , 197 7) or World Weeds: Natural

Histories and Distribution (Holm et al

. , 1997) No Report of the Technical committe e to Evaluate Noxious Weeds:

Exotic weeds for Federal Noxious Weed Act (Gunn & Ritchie, 1982) No Economically Important Foreign Weeds (Reed, 197 7 ) No Weed Science Society of America List (WSSA, 1989) No Are there any literature references indicating weediness ( e.g . ,

AGRICOLA, CAB, Biological Abstracts, AGRI S; search on “species name” combined with “weed”) **Phase 3:** Litchi chinensis occurs in the United States ; there i s no indication of weediness in scientific literature.
**2.3 .**  **Previous Risk Assessment, Current Status and Pest Interceptions, and Decision History**  We found no previous pest risk assessments for this commodity from the same country /region , but some decisions had been made, as follows: 1980

– Deny entry of l itchi: No treatm ent available for Thaumatotibia leucotreta
. 1995

– Deny entry of litchi: N o approved treatment for fruit flies [ Ceratitis capitata and Pterandrus ( Ceratitis ) rosa ] ; ex istence of Cryptophlebia peltasica and Thaumatotibia leucotreta
. **Table 2.** Pest interceptions on Litchi chinensis from African c ountries from 1985 to 2003 (APHI S , 2005 )
. **Organism Country**  **Intercepted Interceptions (no.)**  Acari sp. Mauritius Cargo 1 Aulacaspis tubercularis Tanzania Baggage 1 Ceratitis sp. Mauritius Baggage 1 Coccidae sp. Madagascar Baggage 1 Cryptophlebia sp. Mauritius Cargo 1 Diaspididae sp. Madagascar Baggage 2 Hemiberlesia sp. South Africa Baggage 1 Pseudococcidae sp. Madagascar Baggage 2 Tephritidae sp. South Africa Baggage 1 Thaumatotibia leucotreta South Africa Baggage 1 Thripidae sp. South Africa Baggage 1Pest Risk Assessment for Litchi from the Republic of South Africa

Ver. 8 June 3, 2011 3 **2.4 .**  **Pest Categorization**  PPQ adheres to accepted international definitions of quarantine pest: “ a pest of potential economic importance to the area endangered thereby and not yet present there, or present but not widely distributed and being officially controlled” ( IP PC , 2006 ). The first step in identifying quarantine pests is to present a comprehensive pest list of potential quarantine pests known to occur in the country

or region from which the co mmodity is to be exported. The list includes all pests in the exporting country associated with the parent species of the proposed export commodity
. Because all pests on the list are associated with the plant species, they are considered to be “of potential economic importance” ( IPPC , 2006 ). The listed pests may or may not occur in the United States. There are two primary

components to the definition of quarantine pest ( IPPC , 2006 ). First, a pest must be “of potential economic importance” to be included on the comprehensive list of potential quarantine pests
. An organism is considered to be of potential economic importance if scientific evidence, as indicated in the literature, demonstrates that an organism has an association with the plant species being as sessed ; as a result, all of the listed organisms are potential quarantine pests. Second, to be considered a quarantine pest, an organism must satisfy geographic and regulatory criteria, speci fic all y, the pest must be “not yet present there or present but not widely distributed and being officially

controlled” ( IPPC , 2006 ). The information collected in the risk assessment documents how each organism satisfies these criteria. Pertinent geographic and regulatory information, i.e

. , with respect to the exporting country and the United States , is provided on the comprehensive pest list. If none of the potential quarantine pests satisfy

the geographic and regulatory criteria as a quaranti ne pest, the PRA stops. Table 3 shows the pest list for Litchi chinensis from the Republic of South Africa. This pest list identifies: (1) the presence or absence of these pests in the United States, (2) the generally affected plant part or parts, (3) the quarantine status of the pest with respect to the United States, (4) whethe r the pest is likely to follow the pathway to enter the United States on commerciall y exported litchi , and (5) pertinent citations for either the distribution or the biology of the pest. A pest is considered to follow the pathway if it is associated with the fruit. 2.4.1. Identify Quarantine Pests Likely to Follow the Pathway Quarantine pests identified as likely to be associated with the potential export commodity are subject to steps 5
- 7. The biology and pest potential for these pests is documented as c ompletel y as possible. Itmust be reasonable to assume these quarantine pest s will:

 Be present in the exporting country

 Be associated with the commodity at the time of harvest

 Remain with the commodity in viable form during harvesting, packing and shipping procedures Because pests associated with the parent species are listed, there will be quarantine pests not expected to follow the pathway , f or example , a pest may

be associated onl y with plant parts other than the commodity or a pest may not be reasonably

expected to remain with the commodity during harvest and packingPest Risk Assessment for Litchi from the Republic of South Africa

Ver. 8 June 3, 2011 4 Pest s not expected to follow the pathway are not further considered. Supporting information must be documented on the pest list or in the text. The decision to not further anal yz e a particular pest only applies to the current PRA; a pest may pose a different level of risk for the same commodity

from a different country

or from a different commodity from the same host plant species. S hould any pests be intercepted in shipments of th e commodity, quarantine action may be taken at the port
- of

- entry and additional risk analyses may be conducted. **If no potential quarantine pests are identified, the PRA stops at this point.**
**Table 3**  **.** Pests associated with Litchi chinensi s in the Republic of South Africa. **Pest Scientific Name Geographic**  **d istribution**  **1 Plant part** 

**a ffected**  **Quaran**  

** tine p** **est Follow** 

**p athway**  **References ARTHROPODS**  **Acari :**  **Tarsonemidae** Polyphagotarsonemus latus (Banks) RSA, US leaf, flower, fruit, stem No Yes CABI, 200 5 ; Waite & Hwang, 2002 **Acari: Tenuipalpidae**  Brevipalpus phoenicis (Geijskes) RSA, US leaf, stem, fruit No Yes CABI , 200 5 **Acari: Tetranychidae**  Oligonychus coffeae (Nietner) RSA, US leaf No No CABI, 200 5 ; Waite & Hwang, 2002 Oligonychus mangiferus (Rahman & Sapra) RSA, US (HI) leaf Yes No CABI, 200 5 ; Jeppson, et al

. , 1975 **Insecta Coleoptera:**  **Curculionidae** Sciobius brevicollis RSA Root2 Yes No Annecke & Moran, 1982 **Diptera :**  **Tephritidae** Ceratitis capitata Wiedemann RSA fruit Yes Yes CABI, 2005; Annecke & Moran, 1982 Ceratitis rosa Karsch Pterandrus rosa RSA fruit Yes Yes CABI, 2005; Annecke & Moran, 1982 **Hemiptera :**  **Aleyrodidae** Aleurocanthus woglumi Ashby RSA, US (FL,HI,TX) leaf Yes No CABI, 2005 **Hemiptera: Aphididae**  Aphis gossypii Glover RSA, US leaf, stem, shoot, flower No No CABI, 2005

1 Geographic Distribution: RSA

– Republic of South Africa, US

– United States, FL

– Florida, HI

– Hawaii, TX

– Texas 2 We found no specific biological information about Sciobius brevicollis, so webased this determination on the biology of S. horni . The larvae of S
. horni are legless, and pupation occurs in the soil (Schoeman, 1980). Sciobius horni Marshall is a serious pest of potato in the Republic of South Africa, causing significant damage to potato tubers (Schoeman, 1980).Pest Risk Assessment for Litchi from the Republic of South Africa

Ver. 8 June 3, 2011 5 **Pest Scientific Name Geographic**  **d istribution**  **1 Plant part** 

**a ffected**  **Quaran**  

** tine p** **est Follow** 

**p athway**  **References** Aphis spiraecola Patch RSA, US leaf, stem, flower, fruit No No 3 CABI, 2005 Toxoptera aurantii Boyer de Fonscolombe RSA, US leaf No No CABI, 2005 **Hemiptera: Coccidae**  Ceroplastes rubens Maskell RSA, US (FL, HI) leaf, stem,

fruit Yes Yes CABI, 2005; Ben
-Dov et al. , 2005 Ceroplastes rusci (Linnaeus) RSA, US (FL,HI) leaf, stem,

shoot, fruit Yes Yes CABI, 2005; Ben
-Dov et al. , 2005 Coccus hesperidum Linnaeus RSA, US leaf, stem No No Ben
-Dov et al. , 2005 Coccus longulus (Douglas) RSA, US stem, leaf, twig No No Ben
-Dov et al. , 2005; Mau & Martin Kessing, 1992a Coccus viridis (Green) RSA, US (FL, HI) leaf, stem,

fruit Yes Yes Ben
-Dov et al. , 2005 Eucalymnatus tessellatus (Signoret) RSA, US leaf No No Ben
-Dov et al. , 2005; Dekle, 1999 Parasaissetia nigra (Nietner) RSA, US wood, leaf, twig No No Ben
-Dov et al. , 2005; Mau & Martin Kessing, 1992b Pulvinaria psidii Maskell RSA, US leaf, stem, flower, fruit No Yes CABI, 2005; Ben
-Dov et al. , 2005 Saissetia coffeae RSA, US leaf, stem No No CABI, 2005; Ben
-Dov et al. , 2005 Saissetia oleae RSA, US leaf, stem No No CABI, 2005; Ben
-Dov et al. , 2005 **Hemiptera: Coreidae**  Leptoglossus membranaceus (Fabricius) RSA fruit Yes No 4 Anonymous, 1965; CABI, 2005 **Hemiptera: Diaspididae**  Andaspis hawaiiensis (Maskell) RSA, US (HI, FL) wood Yes No Ben
-Dov et al. , 2005 Aonidiella orientalis (Newstead) RSA, US (FL) leaf, stem,

fruit No 5 Yes CABI, 2005; Ben
-Dov et al., 2005 Aulacaspis tubercularis Newstead RSA leaf, stem, fruit Yes No 6 CABI, 2005; PestID, 2005

3 Although Aphididae species feed on fruits occasionally, they are generally leaf and stem feeders (Borrer, 1989). Also, since 1985, Aphis species have never been intercepted at U.S. ports
- of
- entry on stems associated with commercial fruit. Thus they are highly unlikely to follow the pathway on commercial litchi fruit. 4 Because Coreids are generally larger and nymphs are gregarious (Borrer, 1989), these pests should be readily seen during harvest and are highly likely to be eliminated from the pathway. 5 Aonidiella orientalis has only a limited distribution in the United States, but is a non
-reportable pest (PestID, 2010). Therefore, it is not a quarantine pest and we will not further analyze it.Pest Risk Assessment for Litchi from the Republic of South Africa

Ver. 8 June 3, 2011 6 **Pest Scientific Name Geographic**  **d istribution**  **1 Plant part** 

**a ffected**  **Quaran**  

** tine p** **est Follow** 

**p athway**  **References** Chrysomphalus aonidium (Linnaeus) RSA, US leaf, fruit, stem, trunk No Yes CABI, 2005; Hemiberlesia lataniae (Signoret) RSA, US leaf, fruit, stem, twig, No Yes CABI, 2005; Ben
-Dov et al. , 2005; Waite & Hwang, 2002 Ischnaspis longirostris (Signoret) RSA, US leaf, stem, fruit No Yes Ben
-Dov et al. , 2005; Tenbrink & Hara, 1992a Pinnaspis strachani (Cooley) RSA, US leaf, fruit, stem No Yes Ben
-Dov et al. , 2005; Tenbrink & Hara, 1992b Pseudaulacaspis pentagona (Tarioni Tozzetti) MacGillivray RSA, US root, trunk, twig No No CABI, 2005; Ben
-Dov et al. , 2005 Selenaspidus articulatus (Morgan) RSA, US (CA, FL) fruit, shoot,

leaf, stem No 7 Yes CABI, 2005; Ben
-Dov et al. , 2005 **Hemiptera: Margarodidae**  Icerya seychellarum (Westwood) RSA leaf, stem, Yes No CABI, 2005; Ben
-Dov et al. , 2005 **Hemiptera: Pentatomidae**  Nezara viridula (Linnaeus) RSA, US leaf, stem, shoot, fruit No No 8 CABI, 2005 **Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae**  Ferrisia virgata (Cockerell) RSA, US leaf, stem, shoot, fruit No Yes CABI, 2005 Nipaecoccus viridis (Newstead) RSA, US (HI) flower, fruit, leaf, twig Yes Yes CABI, 2005; Ben
-Dov et al. , 2005 Planococcus citri (Rissso) RSA, US leaf, flower, fruit, shoot, stem No Yes CABI, 2005; Ben
-Dov et al. , 2005; Waite & Hwang, 2002 ; Menzel and Waite , 2005 **Lepidoptera: Metarbelidae**  Salagena obsolescens Hampsom RSA wood Yes No Annecke & Moran, 1982 **Lepidoptera: Noctuidae**  Chlumetia transversa (Walker) (synonym: Salagena transversa ) RSA wood Yes No Annecke & Moran, 1982

6 Aulacaspis tubercularis wa s only found on three interceptions of Litchi chinensis in passenger baggage (PestID, 2005). This is considered insufficient evidence that this scale species would regularly follow the pathway of commercial shipments of litchi and associated fruit pedicels. No other source has documented an association with litchi. 7 Selenaspidus articulates has a limited distribution in the United States, but is a non
-reportable pest (PestID, 2010). Therefore, it is not a quarantine pest and we will not further analyze it. 8 Because it only feeds externally on the fruit (CABI, 2005) and bec ause of its size and mobility, this pest is highly unlikely to stay on the commodity through harvest and standard handling and processing.Pest Risk Assessment for Litchi from the Republic of South Africa

Ver. 8 June 3, 2011 7 **Pest Scientific Name Geographic**  **d istribution**  **1 Plant part** 

**a ffected**  **Quaran**  

** tine p** **est Follow** 

**p athway**  **References Lepidoptera:**  **Pyralidae** Cadra cautella Walker RSA, US fruit, seed No No 9 CABI, 2005; Lall, 1977 **Lepidoptera: Saturniidae**  Gonimbrasia belina Westwood RSA leaf Yes No CABI, 2005 **Lepidoptera: Tortricidae**  Cryptophlebia peltastica (Meyrick) RSA fruits, seed Yes Yes Annecke & Moran, 1982; Lall, 1977 Thaumatotibia leucotreta Meyrick (synonym: Cryptophlebia leucotreta ) RSA leaf, fruit, seed Yes Yes CABI, 2005
**NEMATODES Criconematidae**  Criconema hlagum RSA root Yes No Kleynhans et al

. , 1996 Criconema spp. RSA root Yes No ARC
- PPRI , 2003 Hemicriconemoides strictathecatus RSA root Yes No ARC
- PPRI , 2003 Hemicycliophora trans vaalensis RSA root Yes No Kleynhans et al

. , 1996 Hemicycliophora typica RSA root Yes No ARC
- PPRI , 2003; Kleynhans et al

. , 1996 **Hoplolaimidae** Helicotylenchus microcephalus RSA root Yes No Kleynhans et al

. , 1996 Rotylenchulus reniformis Linford & oliveira RSA, US root, leaf No No CABI, 2005 **Trichodoridae** Trichodorus spp. RSA, US leaf, root No No CABI, 2005 **Dorylaimida :**  **Longidoridae** Xiphinema americanum Cobb RSA, US root No No CABI, 2005; Kleynhans et al

. , 1996 Xiphinema brevicolle RSA root Yes No Myburghm, 1987 **Dorylaimida: Xiphinematidae**  Xiphinema diffusum RSA root Yes No ARC
- PPRI , 2003 Xiphinema mon o hysterum Brown RSA root Yes No Kleynhans et al

. , 1996 **Triplonchida: Trichodoridae**  Paratrichodorus minor (Colbran) Siddiqi RSA, US root No No ARC
- PPRI , 2003; Kleynhans et al

. , 1996

9 Cadra cautella is a post
-harvest pest that is highly unlikely to follow the pathway for fresh litchi fruit (CABI, 2 005).Pest Risk Assessment for Litchi from the Republic of South Africa

Ver. 8 June 3, 2011 8 **Pest Scientific Name Geographic**  **d istribution**  **1 Plant part** 

**a ffected**  **Quaran**  

** tine p** **est Follow** 

**p athway**  **References Tylenchida**  **: Belonolaimidae**  Tylenchorhynchus claytoni Steiner RSA, US root No No CABI, 2005 **Tylenchida: Criconematidae**  Hemicriconemoides mangiferae Siddiqi RSA, US root Yes No CABI, 2005; Myburghm, 1987; Kleynhans et al

. , 1996 Ogma civellae civellae RSA root Yes No ARC
- PPRI , 2003 **Tylenchida: Hoplolaimidae**  Helicotylenchus spp. RSA root Yes No ARC
- PPRI , 2003 **Tylenchida: Meloidogynidae**  Meloidogyne incognita (Kofoid & White) Chitwood RSA, US root No No ARC
- PPRI , 2003 Meloidogyne javanica (Treub.) Chitwood RSA, US, root, No No Kleynhans et al

. , 1996 **PLANT PATHOGENS Bacteria**  Bacillus subtilis (Ehrenberg) Cohn (Bacillales) RSA, US fruit No Yes CABI, 2005 **Fungi** Alternaria alternata (Fr.:Fr.) Keissl. (Ascomycetes: Pleosporales) RSA, US fruit No Yes CABI, 2005 Armillaria spp. ( Basidiomycetes : Agaricales ) RSA wood, trunk Yes No Farr, et al

. , 2005 Aspergillus flavus Link (Ascomycetes: Eurotiales) RSA, US leaf, stem, root, flower, fruit, seed No Yes CABI, 2005; Farr, et al

. , 2005 Aspergillus glaucus Link:Fr. (Ascomycetes: Eurotiales) RSA, US leaf, stem, root, flower, fruit, seed No Yes Farr, et al

. , 2005 Aspergillus niger Teigh (Ascomycetes: Eurotiales) RSA, US leaf, stem, root, flower, fruit, seed No Yes CABI, 2005; Farr, et al

. , 2005 Corticium salmonicolor Berk. & Broome (Basidiomycetes: Polyporales) RSA, US leaf, stem No No CABI, 2005
Cylindrocladium scoparium Morgan (Ascomycetes: Hypocreales) RSA, US root No No Farr, et al

. , 2005; Cordell, et al ., 1989Pest Risk Assessment for Litchi from the Republic of South Africa

Ver. 8 June 3, 2011 9 **Pest Scientific Name Geographic**  **d istribution**  **1 Plant part** 

**a ffected**  **Quaran**  

** tine p** **est Follow** 

**p athway**  **References** Geotrichum candidum Link ( Saccharomycetes: Saccharomycetales) RSA, US fruit No Yes Farr, et al

. , 2005; Brown, 2003 Glomerella cingulata (Stonem.) Spauld. & Schrenk (Ascomycetes) RSA, US leaf, stem, fruit, flower No Yes CABI, 2005; Farr, et al

. , 2005 Lasiodiplodia theobromae (Pat.) Griffiths & Maubl

. ana: Botryodiplodia theobromae = Diplodia natalensis (Ascomycetes: Dothideales) RSA, US fruit, shoot, flower, leaf, root, seed, stem No Yes CABI, 2005; Farr, et al

. , 2005

Penicillium spp. (Ascomycetes: Eurotiales) RSA fruit Yes Yes Farr, et al

. , 2005 Pestalotia spp. (Ascomycetes: Xylariales) RSA Yes Farr, et al

. , 2005 Pestalotiopsis disseminata (Thüm.) Steyaert (Ascomycetes: Xylariales) RSA, US leaf No No Farr, et al

. , 2005 Rhizopus stolonifer (Ehrenb.) Lind (Zygo mycetes : Mucorales ) RSA, US fruit No Yes Farr, et al

. , 2005; Nishijima, 1993 Thanatephorus cucumeris (Frank) Donk ana: Rhizoctonia solani ( Basidiomycetes: Ceratobasidiales) RSA, US fruit, shoot, flower, leaf, root, seed, stem No Yes Farr, et al

. , 2005 CABI, 2005

2.4.2. Quarantine pests likely to follow the pathway Quarantine pests that were expected to follow the pathway (Table 4) , i.e

. , be included in commercial shipments of Litchi chinensis fruit, were anal yz ed in detail (Step 5
- 7, PPQ, 2000 ). Other plant pests, not chosen for further scrutiny , may be potentially

detrimental to the agricultural production systems of the United States; however, there were a variety of reasons for not subjecting them to further analysis. For example, these pests were mainly associated with plant parts other than the commodity ; they were associated with the commodity , but it was not considered reasonable to expect these pests to remain with the commodity during processing ; or they were intercepted as biological contaminants of these commodities during inspection by Plant Protection and Quarantine Officers , but would not be expected to be pre sent with every shipment. In addition, the biological hazard of organisms identified onl y t o the generic level is not assessed due to the lack of adequate biological taxonomic information ; th e lack of biological information on any given insect or pathogen should not be equated with low risk. By necessity, pest assessments focus on those organisms for which biological information is available. By developing detailed assessments for known pests that inhabit a variety of niches on the parent species, e.g . , on the surface of or within the bark/wood, on the foliage, etc
. , effective mitigationPest Risk Assessment for Litchi from the Republic of South Africa

Ver. 8 June 3, 2011 10 measures may

be developed to eliminate the known organism and any similar unknown ones that inhabit the same niches. The organism s in this risk assessment that were only identified to genus level were the nematodes Criconema spp . , Trichodorus spp., and Helicotylenchus spp. **Table 4.** Quarantine pests likely to be associated with litchi imported from Republic of South Africa **Arthropoda:** Ceratitis capitata Wiedemann (Diptera: Tephritidae) Cetatitis rosa Karsch (Diptera: Tephritidae) Ceroplastes rubens Maskell (H emiptera: Coccidae) Ceroplastes rusci (Linnaeus) (Hemiptera: Coccidae) Coccus viridis (Green) (Hemiptera: Coccidae) Cryptophlebia peltastica (Mey rick) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) Nipaecoccus viridis (Newstead) (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) Thaumatotibia leucotreta (Mey rick) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae)
**2.5 .**  **Consequences of Introduction**  After identifying those quarantine pests that could reasonabl y be expected to follow the pathway (Table 2), the assessment of risk continues b y considering the C onsequences of Introduction (Table 3). For each of these quarantine pests, the potential C onsequences of Introduction are rated using five Risk Element s which reflect the biology , host range and climatic/geographic distribution of the pests (PPQ, 2000)
. This Cumulative Risk Rating is considered to be a biological indicator of the potential of the pe st to establish, spread, and cause economic and environmental impacts. For each Risk Element , pests are assigned a rating of Low (1 point), Medium (2 points), or High (3 points). A Cumulative Risk Rating is then calculated by summing all Risk Element value s. The values determined for the Consequences of Introduction for each pest are summarized below ( Table 5 )
. **Ceratitis capitata Risk**  **r ating**  **s Risk Element #1: Climate** 

**– Host Interaction**  Ceratitis capitata is found in Africa, southern Europe, west Asia, South and Central America, and northern Australia (CABI, 2005). Its distribution corresponds to USDA Plant Hardiness Zones 8
- 10. Medium (2) **Risk Element #2: Host Range** This pest has a wide range of host species and attacks over 400 different species (Capinera, 2001). Those species include Rubiaceae ( Coffee spp.), Solanaceae ( Capsicum annuum ), Rutaceae ( Citrus spp.), Rosaceae ( Malus pumila , Prunus spp.), Moraceae (

Ficus carica ), My

rtaceae ( Psidium guajava ) , Sterculiaceae ( Theobroma cacao ), Arecaceae ( Phoenix dactylifera ), and Anacardiaceae ( Mangifera indica ) (CABI, 2005). High (3)

**Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential** Eggs are deposited on fruits in clusters of 3
- 9 eggs, with an average of 300 eggs High (3)Pest Risk Assessment for Litchi from the Republic of South Africa

Ver. 8 June 3, 2011 11 **Ceratitis capitata Risk**  **r ating**  **s** laid per female (Capinera, 2001). Under ideal conditions, it only takes 18 days to complete a generation; however, 30
- 40 days is common (Capinera, 2001). Up to 15 generations can be observed per year (Bedford, et al ., 1998). In the adult stage, C. capitata is highly mobile fl ying distances of two kilometers or more when associated with wind (Capinera, 2001). (There is evidence that it can fly at least 20 kilometers (CABI, 2005).) The transportation of infested fruits is a major means of movement and dispersal to previously uninfested areas (CABI, 2005). **Risk Element #4: Economic Impact** This species is a serious pest of Prunus and Citrus . In 2002, CA, TX, and FL produced over $2,250 million worth of Citrus and $333 million worth of Prunus (NASS , 2003a; NASS , 2003c). In Mediterranean countries, it is particularly damaging to citrus and peach crops (CABI, 2005). Ceratitis capitata is one of the most significant quarantine pests for any tropical or warm temperate zones in which it is not yet established (CABI, 2005). Bedford et al

. (1998) stated that susceptible deciduous fruit crops can suffer losses of up to 80% when control measures are not applied. Damage is caused b y larvae tunneling through host fruit, often accompanied by fruit
- rotting fungi and bacteria; infested fruit may drop prematurely

(Hill, 1983). The species is of quarantine significance throughout the world, especiall y for Japan and the United States; its presence, even as temporary

adventive populations, can lead to severe additional constraints for export of fruits to uninfested areas in other parts of the world (CABI/EPPO, 1997). It constantly threatens to invade or reinvade new areas (Yuval and Hendrichs, 2000). In this respect, C. capitata is one of the most significant quarantine pests for any tropical or warm temperate areas in which it is not yet established (CABI, 2006). Introduction of C. capitata will result in domestic and foreign market loss. High (3)

**Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact** Introduction and establishment of C. capitata would stimulate chemical or biological control programs. Ceratitis capitata has the potential to damage Endangered/Threatened species, such as Prunus genuclata (FL), Argemone pleiacantha (NM), Asimina tetramera (FL), Berberis nevivii (CA), B. pinnata (CA), B. sonnei (CA), Cucurbita okeechobeensis (FL), Echinocereus chisoensis (TX), E. reichenbachii (TX), E iridiflorus (TX), E. fendleri (NM), E. triglochidiatus (AZ), E. telephioides (FL), Opuntia treleasei (CA), Ribes echinellum (FL, SC), and Ziziphus celata (FL) (USFWS, 2002). High (3)

**Cer atitis rosa**  **Risk r**  **ating s**  **Risk Element #1:**  **Climate**

**– Host Interaction**  Ceratitis rosa is native to tropical rainforests, savannahs, and deserts in Africa (CABI , 2005 ). It has the potential to establish in USDA Plant Hardiness Zones 9
- 10 (ARS, 1990 ). Medium (2)
**Risk Element #2: Host Range**  Primary hosts are Coffee spp. (Rubiaceae) and Citrus spp. (Rutaceae) (CABI , High (3)Pest Risk Assessment for Litchi from the Republic of South Africa

Ver. 8 June 3, 2011 12 **Cer atitis rosa**  **Risk r**  **ating s**  2005 ). This fly will also attack numerous species , including Rosaceae ( Malus spp., Pyrus spp., Prunus spp., Rubus spp.), Solanaceae ( Lycopersicum esculentum , Capsicum annuum ), Vitaceae ( Vitis spp.), My rtaceae ( Psidium guajava ), Lauraceae (

Persea Americana ), Moraceae ( Ficus carica ), Caricaeae ( Carica papaya ), and Anacardiaceae ( Mangifera indica ) (CABI , 2005 ; Weems & Fasulo, 2002). **Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential**  C eratitis rosa tolerates temperatures as low as 20  ̊ F; however, food, water, and shelter are more important factors for overwintering rather than temperature (Weems , 2002). Females lay 10
- 20 eggs at a time on host fruits. Depending on the temperature , e gg s usually hatch within four days after oviposition (Weems , 2002). Larval and prepupal stages generall y last 12 days, and the pupal stage can range from 10
- 20 days (Weems & Fasulo , 2002 ). Under the conditions of central Florida, C. rosa is estimated to have 1 0 generations per year (Weems & Fasulo , 2002). The two major ways of movement and dispersal to uninfested areas are f light in adult stage and via the transportation of infested fruits (CABI , 2005 ). High (3)

**Risk Element #4: Economic Impact**  Like C. capitata , this species can cause tremendous loss to fruit and vegetable production (Duyck & Quilici, 2002 )
. Itis an important fruit pest in sub
- Saharan Africa (Hill, 1983). Compared to C. capitata , C. rosa is able to reproduce in harder and greener fruit and has more wild hosts (Hill, 1983). InSouth Africa, C. rosa is one of the three most important fruit fly pests (Barners, 2000). Yield losses in stone fruits and some subtropical fruits caused b y C. rosa , C. capitata , and C. cosyra vary

between 80 and 10 0% in South Africa in the absence of control measures (Barners, 2000). For example, in a South Africa locality one ye ar, C. rosa infested 50 to 100% of plums, despite control measures (Weems, 2002; Weems, 1966). InSouth Africa, yield losses caused by these fruit flies in pome fruits (especially

pears), citrus, and table grapes vary between 30 to 50 % (Barners, 2000). In South Africa, C. rosa , is at times, a more serious pest than C. capitata (Weems, 2002; Weems, 1966). Iteven has a tendency to replace C. capitata in some areas where they co - occur, such as in Mauritius, where it has become a more significant pest when compared with C. capitata (CABI , 2006). This evidence suggests that C. rosa could become an important threat (CABI, 2006). If introduced, it “could prove to be full y as serious a menace as the Mediterranean fruit fly” (Weems, 2002; Weems, 1966). In addition, as a quarantine pest for many countries (Barners, 2000; CABI, 2006), it has the potential to restrict international fruit trade (Barners, 2000). Control methods used against this pest include cover sprays, bait application, bait attractants, and sterile insect technique (Barners, 2000), which increase production costs. High (3)

**Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact**  Ceratitis rosa has potential to attack species listed by Federal agencies as Threatened or Endangered, such as Prunus geniculata (FL), and Ziziphus celata (FL) (USFWS, 2002)
. The introduction and establishment of C. rosa in the United States would stimulate chemical or biological control programs. High (3)Pest Risk Assessment for Litchi from the Republic of South Africa

Ver. 8 June 3, 2011 13 **Ceroplastes rubens Risk**  **rating s**  **Risk Element #1: Climate** 

**– Host Interaction**  C eroplastes rubens is widely distributed throughout the Orient, s outhern Asia, Australia, India, the South Pacific, e ast Africa, and the West Indies. This insect has become established in Florida and Hawaii ; it has potential to establish in U.S. Plant Hardiness Zones 7
- 10 (ARS, 1990 ). High (3)

**Risk Element #2: Host Range**  P rimary host species include c itrus ( Citrus , C. deliciosa , C. limon , C. reticulata , C. sinensis , C. unshiu ) (Rutaceae) and m ango ( Mangifera indica ) (Anacardiaceae) (CABI , 2005 )
. Other host species of C. rubens are Moraceae ( Artocarpus , Ficus , Morus alba , Artocarpus altilis ), Zingiberaceae ( Alpinia purpurata ), Annonaceae ( Annona ) , Asteraceae (

Artemisia , Chrysanthemum , Helianthus ) , Theaceae ( Camellia sinensis ) , Arecaceae ( Cocos nucifera ) , Lauraceae, ( Cinnamomum , C. verum , Laurus nobilis , Persea , P. americana ), Rubiaceae ( Coffea , Eugenia ) , Malvaceae (Hibiscus ) , Sapindaceae ( Litchi chinensis ) , Rosaceae (

Malus , Prunus , P. domestica , P. mume , Pyrus , P. communis ) , Musaceae (

Musa ) , My

risticaceae (

Myristica , Myristica fragrans ) , Apocy naceae ( Nerium ) , Oleaceae ( Olea ) , Piperaceae (Piper) , Pinaceae ( Pinus , P. thunbergii , P. caribaea ) , My rtaceae ( Pimenta dioica , Psidium , P. guajava , Syzygium ), and Zingiberaceae (Zingiber officinale) (CABI, 2005 )
. High (3)

**Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential**  In Australia, where Ceroplastes rubens was accidentally introduced, this species has two generations per year (CABI , 2005 ). O viposition begins in mid
September and ends in early December; it then begins again in mid
- February , lasting until June (CABI , 2005 ). Female s , on average , lay around 300 eggs , but can lay as little as five or as much as 1 , 178 eggs (CABI , 2005 ). The m ortality of C. rubens is related to the quality of the food source rather than natural enemies (CABI , 2005 ). In Australian studies , the mortality rate was highest in the first 24 hours after hatching , when approximately 50% of the hatchings were lost (CABI , 200 5 ). Primary dispersal is accomplished via infected plant parts , which is facilitated b y a wide range of host species for this pest (CABI , 200 5 ). Only first
- instar Coccoidea insects are dispersed by wind, but the distances carried by wind can be several kilometers to hundreds of kilometers , although mortality rates are high at longer distances ( Gullan & Kosztarab, 1997). High ( 3 )

**Risk Element #4: Economic Impact**  This is a serious pest of c itrus species and m ango. In 2002 , CA , TX, and FL produced over $22 50 million worth of c itrus (NASS , 2003 a)
. Hawaii produced $7 million of banana and $2 million of guava in 2002 (NASS , 2003 c ). C eroplastes rubens is a widespread pest of c itrus, coffee, tea, Cinnamomum , mango, avocado and litchi (CABI , 2005 ). Itis a major pest of c itrus in Australia, Hawaii, Korea, China and Japan ; direct economic damage is caused through phloem feeding , and indirectl y through the promotion of sooty mo l d growth ( CABI, 200 5 )
. High (3)

**Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact**  The extreme poly

phagy of this species increases the probability of it attacking plants in the US listed as Threatened or Endangered. I t has been recorded from High ( 3 )Pest Risk Assessment for Litchi from the Republic of South Africa

Ver. 8 June 3, 2011 14 **Ceroplastes rubens Risk**  **rating s**  species of Euphorbia , Lindera , and Rhus (CABI 2001) , which have congeners ( E. telephioides (FL) , L. melissifolia , and R
. michauxii) listed in 50 CFR §17.12 (USFWS, 2002)
. **Ceroplastes rusci Risk**  **rating s**  **Risk Element #1: Climate** 

**– Host Interaction**  C eroplastes rusci is present in Africa, the Middle East, s outhern Europe, the Caribbean, Brazil, and Uruguay (CABI 200 5 ). In the United States , it has been found in Florida. Its distribution corresponds to U.S. Plant Hardiness Zones 8

– 10 (ARS, 1990 )
. Medium (2)

**Risk Element #2: Host Range**  C eroplastes rusci is poly

phagous, attacking plants belonging to 45 genera placed in 42 families (CABI , 200 5 ) , including Annonaceae ( Annona , Annona cherimola , Annona muricata , Annona reticulata , Annona squamosa ) , Rutaceae ( Citrus , Citrus aurantium , Citrus limon , Citrus x paradise) , Moraceae ( Ficus carica, Ficus, Morus ) , Actinidiaceae ( Actinidia chinensis ), Rosaceae ( Crataegus , Cydonia , Mespilus germanica , Prunus , Pyrus communis ), Euphorbiaceae ( Euphorbia longana ) , Malvaceae ( Gossypium ), Araliaceae ( Hedera helix) , Aquifoliaceae (

Ilex aquifolium ) , Convolvulaceae ( Ipomoea batatas ) , Juncaceae ( Juncus ) , Sapindaceae (

Litchi chinensis , Nephelium lappaceum ) , Anacardiaceae ( Mangifera indica , Pistacia ), Musaceae ( Musa ) , My

rtaceae ( Myrtus communis , Psidium guajava ) , Lauraceae ( Persea americana ) , Piperaceae ( Piper nigrum ) , Platanaceae (

Platanus ) , Salicaceae (

Populus ), Liliaceae (

Ruscus ) , Vitaceae (Vitis vinifera) , and Apocy

naceae ( Nerium oleander)
. High (3)

**Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential**  C eroplates rusci is bisexual and has onl y one or two generations per ye ar , depending on climate (CABI , 200 5 ). Female s usually lay between 800 and 1500 eggs ; the duration of the egg, first
- and second
- instar ny mphs , and the adult stage at 26  ̊ C are 8
- 12, 4
- 7, and 28
- 32 days , respectively (CABI , 2005 ). Onl y first instar ny mphs are capable of crawl ing and moving to suitable feeding sites
. D ispersal is aided b y wind and other animals , although adult males have wings and are able to fl y (CABI, 200 5 ). The mortality of the first
- instar is high ; Coccoidae scales can be transferred several kilometers, even hundreds of kilometers, from the original plant (Gullan & Kosztarab, 1997). High ( 3 )

**Risk Element #4: Economic Impact**  This insect is a serious pest of c itrus and figs. In the United S tates , c itrus production is expanding in AZ, CA, FL, and TX
. The total citrus production in 2002 was over $2290 million (NASS , 2003 a). Only CA produces f ig s in the United States. Forty- nine million tons of figs , value d at 16.9 million dollars , were produced in 2002 (NASS , 2003 c ). In addition to those host species, C. rusci attacks several other crops grown in the United S tates , such as cotton, sweet potato, banana, Prunus species, and grapes. Ceroplates rusci is a major pest of citrus and figs in Mediterranean countries and , occasionally , is a pest of citrus in I srael (CABI, 200 5 )
. This insect can als o be a serious pest of grape in High ( 3 )Pest Risk Assessment for Litchi from the Republic of South Africa

Ver. 8 June 3, 2011 15 **Ceroplastes rusci Risk**  **rating s**  the Mediterranean (Pellizzari, 1997 )
. Attack b y C. rusci weakens and kills leaves and shoots; its excreted honeydew provides a medium for the development of a sooty fungal film, which impairs photosy nthesis (INRA, 2006). **Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact**  As a poly phagous species, C. rusci has the potential to attack species of Euphorbia , and Prunus , some of which are listed by Federal agencies as Threatened or Endangered species (USFWS, 2002)
. This insect is often injurious to crops and ornamental plants, especiall y when it is introduced to new geographical areas without natural enemies (CABI , 2005 ). Biological or chemical control is likel y to be implemented upon introduction. High (3)

**Coccus viridis Risk**  **rating s**  **Risk Element #1: Climate** 

**– Host Interaction**  C occus viridis is found throughout Central America, northern South America, Africa, s outh Asia, the South Pacific, and Australia. This distribution corresponds to U.S. Plant Hardiness Zones 9
- 10 (ARS, 1990 ) ; however, this species is able to survive and become establish ed in natural areas and artificial areas , such as greenhouses. Medium ( 2 )

**Risk Element #2: Host Range**  This pest is associated with c itrus species ( Citrus deliciosa , Citrus limon , Citrus reticulata , Citrus sinensis ) (Rutaceae); however, it has a wide host range . Potential host s include Moraceae ( Artocarpus ), Theaceae ( Camellia sinensis ), Rubiaceae ( Coffea , Coffea Arabica, Ixora ), Euphorbiaceae ( Manihot esculenta ), Anacardiaceae (

Mangifera indica ), My

rtaceae ( Psidium guajava ), Sterculiaceae ( Theobroma cacao ), Zingiberaceae ( Alpinia purpurata ) , Asteraceae ( Chrysanthemum ), Sapotaceae ( Manilkara zapota ) , and Apocy naceae ( Nerium oleander, Plumeria rubra var. acutifolia ). High (3)

**Risk Element #3:**  **Dispersal Potential** Female s can lay

up to 500 eggs, which can hatch within a few hours (CABI , 2005 ). Li fe
- cycle g eneration s vary from one month to several , depending on temperature s and the availab ility of food (CABI , 2005 ). Although it has high reproductive rate, there is no evidence of long range dispersal b y C. viridis (CABI , 2005 ). In spite of its low natural movement capability , this species can spread b y infested plant materials ; it has been intercepted numerous times by PPQ on a variety of plants from other countries (PestID, 2005 ). High (3 )

**Risk Element #4: Economic Impact**  Although C

occus viridis is a small insect , its damage can be devastating , depending on the crop, place, and population size ( CABI, 2005 )
. In the U.S. Plant Hardiness Zones where this species could become established , $2550 million of citrus and $2 million of guava were produced in 2002 (NASS , 2003 a; NASS , 2003c ). Coffee production in Haiti (Aiken
- Soux, 1985), India (Narasimham, 1987) and New Guinea (Williams, 1986) showed significant yi eld loss due to C. virdis
. Inaddition to coffee production , c itrus species in India were attacked , High (3)Pest Risk Assessment for Litchi from the Republic of South Africa

Ver. 8 June 3, 2011 16 **Coccus viridis Risk**  **rating s**  exhibiting reduced quality (Haleem, 1984). **Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact**  C occus viridis already occurs in Hawaii and Florida (CABI, 2005 )
. The extreme poly phagy of C
. viridis predisposes it to attack vulnerable native plants in the United S tates . The potential host Manihot walkerae (Euphorbiaceae), which is present in Texas, is listed as Endangered in 50 CFR §17.12 (USFWS, 2002)
. The wider establishment of this species could have a negative impact on the citrus industry in areas, such as Arizona and Texas, and stimulate the initiation of chemical or biological control programs. High (3)

**Cryptophlebia peltastica Risk**  **rating s**  **Risk Element #1: Climate**

**– Host Interaction**  We found l ittle information about C

. peltastica . The Acacia spp., host species of C. peltastica , are ty

pically grown in tropical regions; therefore, the distribution of C. peltastica is estimated to be U.S. Plant Hardiness Zones 9

– 10 (ARS, 1990 ). Medium (2) **Risk Element #2: Host Range** Cryptophlebia peltastica attacks Sapindaceae ( Litchi chinensis ), Proteaceae ( Macadamia integrifolia ), Mimosoideae ( Acacia spp.), Caesalpinioideae ( Bauhinia galpinii), Fabaceae ( Caesalpinia pulcherima , Delonix regia ), and some legume trees (van den Berg, 1995). High (3)
**Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential** Cryptophlebia peltastica lays eggs on the skin of the fruit (ARC ITSC , 2003 ; Timm et al., 2006 ). The newly emerged larva eats through the skin and into the seed (ARC ITSC, 2003 ; Timm et al., 2006 ). The oviposition frequency increases as litchi fruit size increases (Manrankhan et al, 2008). Similar behavior was reported on C

. ombrodelta in Hawaii (Jones, 1994). Pupation normally occurs in the soil, however, also takes place in and on fruits (ARC ITSC, 2003; Timm et al, 2006). We found no specific information on the reproductive capacity of C. peltastica , but did find information for the similar species C

. illepida and C. ombodelta
. Li fe cycle of C. illepida varies with temperature and completes in 122 days at 14.4°C and 31 days at 29.6°C (CABI, 2011). In Hawaii, C. illepida can have 4.8 to 10.2 generations per ye ar (CABI, 2011 ). Namba (1957) observed females of C. illepida ovipositioning for up to six days; the maximum number of egges laid per female was 367. C. ombrodelta may lay up to 250 eggs during their life (Waite and Hwang, 2002). Cryptophlebia illepida is considered to migrate extensively between hosts (CABI, 2011). C. peltastica is an internal pest boring into the seed (Waite and Hwang, 2002; Timm et al., 2006); therefore, this pest could be transported over long distances with infested fruits. Also, Cryptophlebia spec ies have been intercepted 1892 times at U.S. ports
- of
- entry on fruits; it has been intercepted on litchi fruits 83 times (PestID, 2011). High (3)Pest Risk Assessment for Litchi from the Republic of South Africa

Ver. 8 June 3, 2011 17 **Cryptophlebia peltastica Risk**  **rating s**  **Risk Element #4: Economic Impact** Cryptophlebia peltastica is a pest of litchi and macadamia nuts in the Republic of South Africa (van den Berg, 1995). Thaumatotibia leucotreta and C. peltastica attack litchi fruit and can cause damages up to 15% to litchi fruits ; however, the majority of litchi fruit losses are caused by C. peltastica (Newton & Crause, 1990). Litchi damage levels caused b y C. peltastica were up to 14.5 percent at harvest on Reunion island (Manrakhan, et al., 2008). Manrankhan et al (2008) reported that C. peltastica can damage up to 20 percent at harvest if unattended. P hysical damage from C. peltastica includes boring into fruits and susceptibility to fungal colonization (Waite and Hwang, 2002; ARC ITSC, 2003; Timm et al., 2006)
. C. peltastica forms galls of Uromycladium macowiana on Acacia karroo and galls of Uromycladium tepperianum (Timm et al., 2006). Although damage may not noticeable at harvesting, decaying can occur while in transit or at market (ARC ITSC, 2003). C. peltastica reduces plant yi elds and increases cost of production due to required pest control measures (e.g. monitoring with traps, use of pesticides) in areas where C. peltastica occurs . H owever, it is unlikely to cause significant economic impacts in the continental United States since host species are not commerciall y grown in the continental United S tates. Therefore, we rated it Medium
. Medium (2)

**Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact** Cryptophebia peltastica attacks members of six plant families, not all of which are tropical, e.g. legumes and mimosa, both of which are important components of the ecos ys tems in the Southwestern regions of the United States although the threatened and endangered species listed in Title 50, Part 17, Section 12 of the United States Code of Federal Regulations (50 CFR §17.12) are unlikely to be attached by C. peltastica . Introduction of C. peltastica may stimulate the need for chemical and biological controls in the continental United States. Medium (2)

**Nipaecoccus viridis Risk**  **rating s**  **Risk Element #1: Climate -**  **Host Interaction** This species is widespread in tropical and subtropical Asia, Africa and in parts of Oceania (CABI

2005). It should only

be able to survive in the warmer, southern parts of the US (Plant Hardiness Zones 9
- 10 ). One or more of its potential hosts occur in these zones (

NRCS, 2003)
. Medium (2)
**Risk Element #2: Host Range** Nipaecoccus viridis has been recorded on hosts distributed among 18 different plant families (CABI

200 5 ) . Primary

hosts are species of Citrus (Rutaceae), Coffea (Rubiaceae), and Gossypium (Malvaceae). Other hosts include, among others, Leucaena leucocephala (Fabaceae), Nerium oleander (Apocy naceae), Punica granatum (Punicaceae), Artocarpus heterophyllus (Moraceae), Corchorus capsularis (Tiliaceae), Asparagus officinalis (Liliaceae), Euphorbia hirta (Euphorbiaceae), Mangifera indica (Anacardiaceae), Jacaranda mimosifolia (Bignoniac eae), Vitis vinifera (Vitaceae), Clerodendrum infortunatum (Verbenaceae), Solanum tuberosum (Solanaceae) (CABI 200 5 ) , and Dimocarpus High (3)Pest Risk Assessment for Litchi from the Republic of South Africa

Ver. 8 June 3, 2011 18 **Nipaecoccus viridis Risk**  **rating s**  longan (Sap indaceae ) (China 1997)

. **Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential** Fecundity ranges from 90 to 13 8 eggs per female, and as many as three generations occur per year (CABI 2005) . Local dispersal is done by crawlers, which often settle in protected areas ( e.g. , under the sepals of fruitlets); this behavior predisposes them to dissemination on exported plants or plant products (CABI 2005)
. High

(3)

**Risk Ele ment #4: Economic Impact**  This insect causes bulbous outgrowths on y oung twigs, and heavy

infestations may severely stunt growth of young trees (CAB I 2005) . Infested fruits often become yellow and then partly

black around the stem, eventually dropping off the tree, and infested citrus fruit can develop “lumpy outgrowths or raised shoulders” near the stem end (CABI

2005)
. Copious quantities of honeydew may contaminate fruit and other plant parts, which can serve as a medium for the growth of sooty molds (CABI 2005) . This mealybug was responsible for losses up to 5% in viney ards in India (CABI

2005) . Losses in citrus orchards are due firstly to fruit drop caused by large infestations of mealybugs; in South Africa, 50% or more of the navel orange crop has been lost in this way (CABI 2005) . Secondly, fruits with deformities caused by mealy bug feeding are culled in the packinghouse, resulting in the further loss of production (CABI

2005)
. Based on this evidence, the establishment of this insect in the US would likely cause a loss of foreign and domestic markets and would likely stimulate chemical and/or biological control programs, which would lower the value of the commodity by increasing production costs. High (3)

**Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact** This pest represents a potential threat to plants listed as Threatened and Endangered in 50 CFR § 17.12. ( e.g. , Euphorbia ) (USFWS, 2002)
. The widespread establishment of Nipaecoccus viridis in the United States is likely to stimulate chemical and/or biological control programs because it is a pest of the economically

important citrus crop. High (3)

**Thaumatotibia leucotreta Risk**  **rating s**  **Risk Element #1: Climate** 

**– Host Interaction**  Thaumatotibia leucotreta is distributed through out Africa (CABI , 2005 ) , which corresponds with U .S. Plant Hardiness Zones 9
- 10 (ARS, 1990 ). Medium (2) **Risk Element #2: Host Range**  There are more than 70 species identified as host species to T. leucotreta (CABI, 2005 ). Primary

species include Rutaceae ( Citrus spp., Citrus sinensis ), Malvaceae ( Gossypium spp., Abelmoschus esculentus , Abutilon hybridum ), Poaceae (Zea mays , S

orghum ), Euphorbiaceae ( Ricinus communis ), Theaceae ( Camellia sinensis ), Lauraceae ( Persea Americana ), My

rtaceae ( Psidium guajava ), Oxalidaceae (

Averrhoa carambola ), Bromeliaceae ( Ananas comosus ), Annonaceae (

Annona muricata ), Bombacaceae ( Ceiba pentandra ), Rubiaceae ( Coffea Arabica ), Solanaceae ( Capsicum ), Sapindaceae ( Litchi chinensis ), Anacardiacea (

Mangifera indica ), Oleaceae ( Olea europaea subsp. europaea ), High (3)Pest Risk Assessment for Litchi from the Republic of South Africa

Ver. 8 June 3, 2011 19 **Thaumatotibia leucotreta Risk**  **rating s**  Rosaceae (

Prunus persica ), Punicaceae ( Punica granatum ), and Proteaceae ( Macadamia spp., Macada mia ternifolia ). **Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential**  Female s can lay between 100

–400 eggs overnight (CABI , 2005 ) , with about 12 eggs per fruit (Bedford et al

. , 1998). It is rare for them to lay more than 20 eggs per fruit; however, 65 eggs have been observed on a single fruit (Bedford et al

. . 1998). Survival of the first instar is temperature dependent ( l ow winter temperature s can be l ethal ) (Bedford et al

. , 1998). The l ife
- cycle varies with the season, although T. leucotreta ty picall y has 2
- 3 generations per year (Bedford et al

. , 1998). Adults are attracted to light (CABI , 2005 ). L arvae can be internationally transported via fr uit, pods, inflorescence and co n e s (CABI , 2005 ). High (3)

**Risk Element #4: Economic Impact**  Thaumatotibia leucotreta is a serious pest of citrus in the Republic of South Africa
. Host species include several important crops
. The damages caused by T. leucotreta would be high if it should be introduced and become established in the United S tates . In2002, U.S. cotton produc tion was worth more than $3593 million (NASS , 2003 b ). In addition to cotton species, citrus and corn production for the ye ar 2002 in U.S. Plant Hardiness Zone s 9
- 12 were valued at $2605 million and $1040 million, respectivel y (NASS , 2003 a; NASS , 2003c ). In South Africa, crop damage can be as high as 50% on citrus species (Bedford et al

. ., 1998). High (3)

**Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact**  This species has the potential to attack Endangered and Threatened species, such as Quercus hinckleyi (T exas ) (USFWS, 2002)
. The introduction and establishment of T. leucotreta in the United States would stimulate chemical or biological control programs. High (3)

**Table 5.** Risk rating s for Consequences of Introduction of Litchi chinensis from the Republic of South Africa. The ratings for ‘Host Range,’ and ‘Dispersal Potential’ were High for all pests. **Pest Risk elements**  **Cumulative Risk Ratings**  **a Climate/**  **Host Interaction Economic** 

**Impact Environmental** 

**Impact** Ceratitis capitata Medium High High High (14) Ceratitis rosa Medium High High High (14) Ceroplastes rubens High High High High (15) Ceroplastes rusci Medium High High High (14) Coccus viridis Medium High High High (14) Cryptophlebia peltastica Medium Medium Medium Medium (12) Nipaecoccus viridis Medium High High High (14) Thaumatotibia leucotreta Medium High High High (14) a Lo w: 5
- 8 points, Medium: 9
- 12 points, High: 13
- 15 pointsPest Risk Assessment for Litchi from the Republic of South Africa

Ver. 8 June 3, 2011 20 **2.6 .**  **Introduction Potential**  Each pest is rated with respect to its Likelihood of Introduction , which is based on two separate components. First, an estimate is made concerning the quantity of the commodity likel y to be imported (Risk Element #6). Second, pest opportunity (Risk Element #7) is estimated using five biological features. Details of the se two Ris k Elements and the ir rating criteria are provided in APHI S (2000) ; the ratings and the cumulative score for Risk Element s #6 and #7, i.e

. , the “Likelihood of Introduction Risk Rating , ” are shown in Table 6
. 2.7. 1. Quantity of commodity imported annua lly The likelihood that an exotic pest will be introduced depends on the amount of the potentially
infested commodity

that is imported. For qualitative pest risk assessments, the amount of commodity

imported is estimated in units of standard 40
- foot long shipp ing containers. The Republic of South Africa produces about 6272 U.S. tons of litchi ( annually) (NDA , 2000) , exporting approximately

2240 U.S. tons to European countries (CABI , 2005 ). FAS (2003) states that sea shipping containers are 40
- f eet in length , and hold approximately 40,000 pounds (20 U.S. tons) ; this is used for various estimates of commodity shipments. The anticipated volume of fresh litchi to be exported from the Republic of South Africa is estimated to be over 100 containers (High). 2.7. 2. Survive post

- harvest treatm ent For this sub
- element, post
- harvest treatment refers to any manipulation, handl ing, or specific phy tosanitary treatment to which the commodity is subjected. Examples of post
- harvest treatments include culling, washing, chemical treatment, cold storage, etc
. If there is no post
harvest treatment, the estimate the likelihood of this sub
- element i s High. Post
- harvest treatments for litchi from South Africa include sulphur treatment, inspection at packinghouse, size grading and h and sorting, culling, and minimum of a 2% sample inspection after packing (de Villiers, 2002; NDA, 2007)
. Fruit flies and moths ( Ceratitis capitata , Ceratitis rosa , Thaumatotibia leucotreta , and Cryptophlebia peltastica ) are ranked High (3) for their ability to survive post
- harvest treatment ; this is due to internal feeding , as they are not likely to be affected by

post - harvest treatments, such as washing and culling, especiall y if the infestation of the fruit i s not obvious. Post
- harvest co ld treatment is effective in control ling all stages of T

. leucotreta ; however, cold temperatures are likel y to damage the fruit (Bedford et al

. , 1998). The scale insects ( Ceroplastes rubens , Ceroplastes rusci , Coccus viridis and Nipaecoccus viridis ) are rated Medium (2) for their ability to survive post
- harvest treatment. They are external feeders and can be easil y controlled by post
- harvest treatments. (These insects have been intercepted b y PPQ (PestID, 2005 )). The Coccoidea have sessile stages that firmly adhere to plant surfaces, often appearing as colorless. This posture and their water
- repellent, waxy cuticles can make them difficult to see or dislodge, especially if sheltered at the stem end of the fruit.Pest Risk Assessment for Litchi from the Republic of South Africa

Ver. 8 June 3, 2011 21 2.7. 3. Survive s hipm ent To e stimate the survival of pests during shipment , a ssume standard shipping conditions. The specific means b y which Litchi chinensis will be transported from the Republic of South Africa to the United States are unknown. We do know, though, that l itchis are shipped from South Africa to the EU and UK over a period of approximately 26 days from harvesting to consumers, with approximately 16 days spent on vessels while being kept at 1

– 2 °C ( de Villiers, 2002 )
. A s tudy by Hatton et al
. (1966) showed that high quality fresh litchi can be maintained for 5 to 7 days , if the fruit is shipped / stored at 50 °F (10 °C) , or as low as 35 °F (1.67 °C)
. Litchi is a non
climacteric fruit; its flavor and sweetness do not improve after harvest (Shaw et al

. , 1998). The USDA requires cold treatment at 32 °F (0 °C) or below for 12 days in order to mitigate fruit flies on apples, grapes, and pears imported from the Republic of South Africa (PPECB, 2002)
. Peaches, plums, and nectarines are cold treated at 31°F (
- 0.55 °C) or below for 22 days for Thaumatotibia leucotreta (PPECB, 2002)
. Ceratitis species were intercepted on litchi twice ( Ceratitis capitata from France and Ceratitis species from Mauritiu s) between 1985 and 2003 ( PestID, 2005 ). Thaumatotibia leucotreta and other Cryptophlebia spp. were intercepted on litchi from the Republic of South Africa on several occasions between 1985 and 2003 (PestID, 2005 ). Coccidae species have also been intercepted numerous times on litchi by PPQ officers (PestID, 2005 ). As a perishable fruit, the shipment of litchi must be refrigerated and occur within a certain time period ; as a result, Ceratitis capitata , Ceratitis rosa , Thaumatotibia leucotreta , and Cryptophlebia peltastica were given a H igh (3) survival rate. The scale species , Ceroplastes rubens , Ceroplastes rusci , Coccus viridis , and Nipaecoccus viridis were also given a H igh (3) potential to survive shipment due to numerous PPQ interceptions. 2.7. 4. Not be detected at the port

- of

- entry Unless there are specific protocols for special inspection of the commodity , standard inspection protocols are assumed. If no inspection is planned, this sub
- element is estimated to be H igh. Internal feeders ( Ceratitis capitata , Ceratitis rosa , Thaumatotibia leucotreta , and Cryptophlebia peltastica ) have a High (3) potential to escape detection at the port
- of
- entry ; these insects will not be detected unless litchi are destructive ly sampl ed
. White and Elson
- Harris (1992) stated that fruit flies had a high probability of escaping detection at a port - of
- entry , allowing infested fruit to go unrecognized. Scales are external feeders that are eas y to detect
. Ceroplastes rubens , Ceroplastes rusci , Coccus viridis and Nipaecoccus viridis are rated as Medium (2). C eroplastes rubens is pink to reddish brown with two conspicuous pairs of white bands (Dekle, 2001 , USDA ARS SEL , 2009 )
. It produces honeydew (van den Berg, et al., 2001), which is also visible
. Mature Ceroplastes rusci male s are hemispherical in shape and covered by a thick layer of oil y wax, while female s are oval, grayish to pinkish
- white and up to 4.0 mm in length and 3.5 mm in width (CABI , 2005 ).Pest Risk Assessment for Litchi from the Republic of South Africa

Ver. 8 June 3, 2011 22 Coccus viridis is a 3 x 2 mm oval shape and green in color with black spots through the middle of the dorsum (CABI , 2005 ). 2.7. 5. Imported or moved subsequently to an area with an en vironment suitable for survival Consider the geographic location of likely markets and the proportion of the commodity that is likely to move to locatio ns suitable for pest survival. Even if infested commodities enter the country , not all final destinations will have suitable climatic conditions for pest survival. All arthropods species are tropical and /or subtropical , and are rated Medium (2) , due to their need to survive in specific climate conditions
. In the United S tates , those regions are limited to the South, the West Coast , and Hawaii
. Hawaii is the only critical region since tropical and subtropical crops, which are attacked b y those arthropods, have commercially grown commodities
. The environments of the United States are unsuitable for growing litchi, and the fruit’s demand of litchi is limited. In1964, 93% of litchi produced in Florida was shipped outside of the s tate , with one - third of it being sent to New York City (Tatton et al

. , 1966) ; as a result, suitable regions for all arthropods species c omprise only 10

– 12% of the U
. S
. land area. 2.7. 6. Come into contact with host material suitable for reproduction Even if the final destination of infested commodities is conducive for pest survival, suitable host material must be available in order for the pest to survive. Consider the complete host range of the pest species. Fruit flies ( Ceratitis capitata and C. rosa ) are rated as High (3). Three fruits flies have a wide range of host species that inhabit, not only subtropical and tropical zones , but also temperate zones. Ceratitis capitata has already established populations in the continental United States. It has been officially

controlled in the United States; however, there are high probabilities of coming into contact with host material suitable for reproduction due to insect records. Several of the arthropods have limited powers of dispersal because they cannot fly (i.e., females of the scale insects ( Ceroplastes rubens, Ceroplastes rusci, Coccus viridis and Nipaecoccus viridis ) (Gullan & Kosztarab, 1997), and thus cannoty to locate hosts quickly. For these insects, successful establishment in a new environment is contingent on the likelihood of at least two necessary conditions occurring: close proximity of susceptible hosts and presence on the imported fruit of crawlers or other mobile forms to transfer to new hosts (e.g., Miller, 1985; Blank et al ., 1993), circumstances that are highl y unlikely to co - occur. Thus they

are considered to have a Low risk of coming into contact with host material suitable for reproduction. Thaumatotibia leucotreta is highly pol yphagous , and is very likel y to contact host material once it is introduced to the United States. The rating for T. leucotreta is High (3). Cryptoph lebia peltastica attacks members of six plant families, not all of which are tropical, e.g. legumes and mimosa, both of which are important components of the ecosystem s in the Southwestern regions of the United States
. Additionally , the insect has the ability to fly , thus it is being rated High
.Pest Risk Assessment for Litchi from the Republic of South Africa

Ver. 8 June 3, 2011 23 **Table 6.** Risk rating s for Likelihood of Introduction . The risk ratings for ‘Quantity imported annually ’ were High for all pests. **Pest Survive** 

**Post -** **harvest Treatment**  **Survive**

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

**detected at port** **** **of -**  **entry Move to**  **suitable habitat**  **Contact**

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

**risk ratings** a Ceratitis capitata High (3) High (3) High (3) Med (2) High (3) High (17) Ceratitis rosa High (3) High (3) High (3) Med (2) High (3) High (17) Ceroplastes rubens Med (2) High (3) Med (2) Med (2) Low (1) Medium (13) Ceroplastes rusci Med (2) High (3) Med (2) Med (2) Low (1) Medium (13) Coccus viridis Med (2) High (3) Med (2) Med (2) Low (1) Medium (13) Nipaecoccus viridis Med (2) High (3) Med (2) Med (2) Low (1) Medium (13) Thaumatotibia leucotreta High (3) High (3) High (3) Med (2) High (3) High (17) Cryptophlebia peltastica High (3) High (3) High (3) Med (2) High (3) High (17)

a Lo w: 6

– 9 points; Medium: 10

– 14 points; High: 15

– 18 points
**2.7 .**  **Conclusion**

**– Pest Risk Potential and Pests Requiring Phytosanitary Measures**  To estimate the Pest Risk Potential for each pest, the Cumulative Risk Rating for the Consequences of Introduction and the Cumulative Risk Rating for the Likelihood of Introduction are summed in Table 7. Following the assignment of the Pest Risk Potential for each pest, the risk assessor may briefl y comment on risk management options associated with importations of the requested commodity. The following guidelines are offered as an interpretation of the Low, Medium, and High Pest Risk Potential Ratings: Low: Pest will ty

pically not require specific mitigation measures; the port
- of entry inspection to which all imported commodities are subjected can be expected to provide sufficient phytosanitary security
. Medium: Specific phytosanitary measure may

be necessary
. Hi gh: Specific phytosanitary measures are strongl y recommended. Port of entry inspection is not considered sufficient to provide phy tosanitary security. Below we provide information on possible mitigation options for the pests analyzed (Appendix A). Identif

ication and selection of appropriate sanitary and phy tosanitary measures to mitigate risk for pests with particular Pest Risk Potential ratings is undertaken as part of the risk management phase and is not discussed in this document. The appropriate risk management strategy for a particular pest depends on the risk posed by that pest. APHI S risk management programs are risk
-based and dependent on the availability of appropriate mitigation methods. Details of APHIS risk management program are published, primarily , in the Federal Register as quarantine notices.Pest Risk Assessment for Litchi from the Republic of South Africa

Ver. 8 June 3, 2011 24 **Table 7.** Pest Risk Potential s **Pest Consequences of**  **Likelihood of Pest Risk Potential**  a **Introduction Introduction**  **Score Rating**  Ceratitis capitata High (14) High (17) 31 High Ceratitis rosa High (14) High (17) 31 High Ceroplastes rubens High (15) Medium (13) 28 High Ceroplastes rusci High (14) Medium (13) 27 High Coccus viridis High (14) Medium (13) 27 High Cryptophlebia peltastica Medium (12) High (17) 29 High Nipaecoccus viridis High (14) Medium (13) 27 High Thaumatotibia leucotreta High (14) High (17) 31 High a Scores = Low: 11

– 18 points; Medium: 19

– 26 points; High: 27

– 33 points
**3 . Author**  **& Reviewers Author**  Yu Takeuchi

– Plant Physiologista **Reviewer s**  Heather Hartzog

– Plant Pathologista Jim Smith

– Entomologista Christie Hurt

– Entomologista

a USDA
- APHI S
- PPQ
- CPHST, Plant Epidemiology and Risk Anal ys is Laboratory , **4 . Literature**  **Cited** Aitken
- Soux, P. 1985. Some pests and diseases g enerall y encountered in coffee nurseries. Feuille Extens. 53: 1
- 5. Annecke, D. P. and V. C. Moran. 1982. Insects and Mites of Cultivated Plants in South Africa. Butterworths, Durban and Pretoria , South Africa
. Anony mous. 1965. A host list of the insects of Thailand. Thailand Department of Agricult ure and the US Operations Mission to Thailand. 149 pp. APHI S. 1997. Medfly

Cooperative Eradication Program, Central Florida: Environmental Assessment. United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), Riverdale, Maryland. APHI S. 1998. Mediterranean Fruit Fl y Cooperative Eradication Program, Lake Forest, California: Environmental Assessment. United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHI S), Riverdale, Maryland. ARC ITSC. 2 003. Litchi Moth. Agricultural Research Council, Institute for Tropical and Subtropical Crops (ARC ITSC). http://www/arc.agric.za/institutes/itsc/main/litchi/moth.htm. ARC
- PPRI . 2003. South African Plant
- Parasitic Nematode Survey database. Nematology

Unit, ARC
- Plant Protection Research Institute (ARC
- PPRI), Queenswood, South Africa.Pest Risk Assessment for Litchi from the Republic of South Africa

Ver. 8 June 3, 2011 25 ARS. 1990. USDA Plant Hardiness Zone Map, Miscellaneous Publication Number 1475. United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service (ARS). Washington, D.C. B arners, B. N. 2000. Fruit flies of economic importance in South Africa: an overview. Proceedings of the Indian Ocean Commission, Regional Fruit Fl y S ymposium, Flic en Flac, Mauritius, 5th
- 9th June, 2000:1001
- 1107 (Abstract). Bedford, E. C. G., van den Berg , M. A. and E. A. de Villiers. 1998. Citrus Pests in the Republic of South Africa, second edition. Agricultural Research Council, Institute for Tropical and Subtropical Crops, Nelspruit, South Africa. Ben
- Dov, Y., D.R. Miller, and G.A.P. Gibson. 2005. Scal eNet. http://www.sel.barc.usda.gov/scalenet/scalenet.htm. (Archived at PERAL) Blank, R.H., M.H. Olson, and G.S.C. Gill. 1993. An assessment of the quarantine risk of armoured scale (Hemiptera: Diaspididae) fruit infestations on kiwifruit. N.Z. J. Crop Hort
. Sci. 21(2): 139
- 145. Borrer, D. J., C. A. Triplehorn, and N. F. Johnson. 1989. An Introduction to the Study of Insects. 6 th Edition. Harcourt Brace College Publishers. 875 pp. Brown, G.E. 2003. Sour Rot. University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (UF/IFAS). <http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/ch113> last accessed: June, 2005. CABI
. 200 5
. Crop Protection Compendium. CAB International (CABI). Wallingford, U.K
. CABI. 2006. Crop Protection Compendium. CAB International (CABI). Wallingford, U.K. CABI. 2011. Crop Protection Compendium. CAB International (CABI). Wallingford, U.K. CABI/EPPO. 1997. Data sheets on quarantine pests: Ceratitis capitata . In: Smith, I .M., McNamara, D.G., Scott, P.R., and H olderness, M., editors. Quarantine Pests for Europe. second ed. Wallingford, U.K.: CAB International. p 146
- 152. Capinera, J. L . 2001. Handbook of Vegetable Pests. Academic Press, San Diego, California. China. 1997. Pest list of longan provided b y China (c ited in the USDA, APHI S, PPQ Commodity

Risk Assessment for Longans from China, May 1999). Cordell, C.E., R.L . Anderson, W.H. Hoffard, T.D. L andis, R.S. Smith Jr., H.V. Toko. 1989. Forest Nursery

Pests. USDA Forest Service, Agriculture Handbook No. 680, 184pp. Dekle, G.W. 1999. Featured Creatures: Eucalymnatus tessellates (Signoret) (Insecta: Hemiptera: Coccidae). University of Florida. http://creatures.ifas.ufl.edu/or n/scales/tessellated_scale.htm Dekle, G.W. 2001. Featured Creatures: Ceroplastes rubens Maskell (Insecta: Hemiptera: Coccidae). University of Florida. http://entnem.ifas.ufl.edu/creatures/orn/scales/red_wax_scale.htm de Villiers, E.A. 2002. The Cultivation of Litchi. Agricultural Research Council, Institute for Tropical and Subtropical Crop s (ARC
- ITSC), Nelspruit, South Africa. pp. 214. Duyck, P. F. and S. Quilici. 2002. Survival and development of different life stages of three Ceratitis spp. (Diptera: Tephritidae) reared at five constant temperatures. Bulletin of Entomological Research. 92 : 461

– 469. Farr, D. F., A. Y. Rossman, M. E. Palm, and E. B. McCray ( e d). 2005. Fungal Databases, Systematic Botany & Mycology L aboratory , USDA. <http://nt.ars
grin.gov/fungaldatabases/> last accessed: February, 2006. FAS. 2003. Glossary . United States D epartment of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS), Washington D.C.Pest Risk Assessment for Litchi from the Republic of South Africa

Ver. 8 June 3, 2011 26 Gullan, P. J. and M. Kosztarab. 1997. Adaptations in scale insects. Annual Review of Entomology
. 42: 23
- 50. Haleem, S. A. 1984. Studies on fruit quality of sweet orange as affected by soft green scale and sooty mould. South Indian Horticulture. 32(5): 267
- 269. Hatton, T. T., Reeder, W. M. F. and J. Kaufman. 1966. Maintaining Market Quality of Fresh Lychees During Storage and Transit. Marketing Research Report No. 770. USDA, Agricultural Research Service, Washington D.C. Hill, D. S. 1983. Agricultural insect pests of the tropics and their control. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press. 746 p. Holm, L
. G., Plucknett, D. L. , Pancho, J. V. and J. P. Herberger. 1977. The World’s Worst Weeds. University

of Hawaii Press, Honolulu. Holm, L . G., Pancho, J. V., Herberger, J. P. and D. L . Plucknett. 1979. A Geographical Atlas of World Weeds. John Wiley and Sons, New York. Holm, L . G., Doll, J., Holm, E., Pancho, J. and J. Herberger. 199 7. World Weeds: Natural Histories and Distribution. John Wiley and Sons, New York. Jeppson, L . R., H. H. Keifer, and E. W. Baker. 1975. Mites injurious to economic plants. University

of California Press, Berkeley , California. Jones, V. P. (Article). 1994. FEEDING BY CRYPTOPHLEBIA
- ILLEPIDA AND C
OMBRODELTA (LEPIDOPTERA, TORTRI CIDAE) ON MACADAMIA NUT ABORTION. Journal of Economic Entomology 87(3):781
- 786. INRA. 2006. Ceroplastes rusci L. http://inra.fr/Internet/Produits/HYPPZ/RAVAGEUR/6cerrus.htm
. HYPPZ (hy permédia en protection des plantes, partie zoologie). IPPC. 2004. International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures, Publication No. 11: Pest risk anal ys is for quarantine pests including analysis of environmental risks and living modified organisms. Rome, Italy : Secretariat of the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC), Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.https://www.ippc.int/servlet/BinaryDownloaderServlet/34163_ISPM_11_E.pdf?f ilename=1146658377367_I SPM11.pdf&refID=34163 IPPC. 2006. International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures, Publication No. 5. Glossary of Phy tosanitary Terms. Ro me, Italy : Secretariat of the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC), Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.https://www.ippc.int/servlet/BinaryDownloaderServlet/133607_ISPM05_2006_ E.pdf?filename=1151504714760_I SPM05_2006_E.pdf&r efID=133607 Kley nhans, K. P. N., van den Berg, E., Swart, A., Marais, M. and N. H. Buckley
. 1996. Plant Nematodes in South Africa. Agricultural Research Council, Pretoria, South Africa. Lall, B. S. 1977. Monograph on litchi pests; Part 1

– Litchi leaf
- feeders. Univ. of Bihar, L. S. College, Dept. of Zoology
. Bihar, India. Manrakhan, A., D. Abeeluck, and A. Gokool. (Article). 2008. Assessment of damage b y Cry ptophlebia peltastica (Mey rick) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) in litchi orchards in Mauritius. African Entomology 16(2):203
- 208. Mau, R.F.L. and J.L
. Martin Kessing. 1992a. Coccus longulus (Douglas). Crop Knowledge Master, College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources, University of Hawaii and Hawaii Department of Agriculture. <http://www.extento.hawai i.edu/kbase/crop/type/c_longul.htm> last accessed: June, 2005.Pest Risk Assessment for Litchi from the Republic of South Africa

Ver. 8 June 3, 2011 27 Mau, R.F.L. and J.L
. Martin Kessing. 1992b. Parasaissetia nigra (Nietner). Crop Knowledge Master, College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources, University of Hawaii and Hawaii Department of Agriculture. <http://www.extento.hawaii.edu/kbase/crop/type/p_nigra.htm> last accessed: June, 2005. Miller, D.R. 1985. Pest Risk Assessment of Armored Scales on Certain Fruit. Unpublished report. USDA Agric. Res. Serv. My burghm, A. C. 1986. Crop Pest in South Africa: Vol. 1 Deciduous Fruit, Grapes and Berries. Bulletin 407. Plant Protection Research Institute, Pretoria South Africa. NASS. 2003a. Citrus Fruits: 2003 Summary . United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statis tics Service (NASS), Washington D.C. NASS. 2003b. Crop Values: 2002 Summary . United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), Washington D.C. NASS. 2003c. Noncitrus Fruits and Nuts: 2002 Preliminary Summary . Unite d States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), Washington D.C. NDA
. 2000. Subtropical Fruit. In Trends in the Agriculture Sector 2002. National Department of Agriculture (NDA) , Pretoria, South Africa. http://www.nda.agric.za/docs/trends2000/subtropical_fruit.htm. NDA
. 2007. South Africa’s acceptance of USDA
- APHI S proposed irradiation quarantine treatment and South Africa’s proposal for alternative mitigation measures for litchi fruit exports from South Africa to the United States . National Department of Agriculture (NDA), Pretoria, South Africa. Received by Craig Fedchock, USDA APHIS. October 26, 2007. Namba, R. 1957. Cry

ptophlebia illepida (Butler) (Lepidoptera: Eucosmidae) and other insect pests of the macadamia nut in Hawaii. Hawaiian Entomological Society 16:284
- 297. Narasimham, A. U. 1987. Scale insects and mealy bugs on coffee, tea and cardamom and their natural enemies. Journal of Coffee Research. 17(1): 7
- 13. Newton, P. J. and C. Crause. 1990. Oviposition on Litch i chinensis by Cryptophlebia species (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). Phy tophylatica. 22: 365
- 367. Nishijima, W. 1993. Rhizopus stolonifer
. Crop Knowledge Master, College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources, University of Hawaii and Hawaii Department of Agriculture. http://www.extento.hawaii.edu/kbase/crop/ty pe/r_stolo.htm. NRCS. 2003. Plants Database. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). http://plants.usda.gov. Pellizzari, G. 1997. Grapevine, Pp. 323
- 33 1. In: Y. Ben
- Dov and C. J. Hofgson [Eds], Soft Scale Insects

– Their Biology , Natural Enemies and Control (7B). Elsevier Science B. V., Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 442pp. PestID. 2005. Pest Id entification Database (PestID). United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine. https://mokcs14.aphis.usda.gov/aqas/login.jsp. (Archived at PERAL) PestID. 20 10 . Pest Identification Database (PestID). United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine. https://mokcs14.aphis.usda.gov/aqas/login.jsp. (Archived at PERAL) PestID. 2011. Pest Identification Database (PestID). United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine. https://mokcs14.aphis.usda.gov/aqas/login.jsp. (Archived at PERAL)Pest Risk Assessment for Litchi from the Republic of South Africa

Ver. 8 June 3, 2011 28 PPECB. 2002. Work Plan for the USDA: Pre
- Export Inspection and Cold Treatment of South African Deciduous Fruit Designated for Export to the United States of America. Perishable Products Export Control Board (PPECB), Panorama, South Africa. PPQ. 2000. Guidelines for pathway
- initiated pest risk assessments (Version 5.02). United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ), Riverdale, MD. 30 pp. Reed, C. F. 1977. Economically Important Foreign Weeds. Agriculture Handbook No. 498. SEL . 2009. Scale Insects. Id entification Tools for Species of Quarantine Significance. United States Department of Agriculture , Agricultural Research Service, S ys tematic Entomology Laboratory (SEL)
. http://www.sel.barc.usda.gov/ScaleKeys/SoftScales/key /Soft_scales/Media/Html/Species ListFset.html. Schoeman, A. S. 1980. The potato snout beetle, Sciobius horni Marshall (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Phy

tophylactica 12: 221
- 228. Shaw, P. E., H.T. Chan, Jr., and S. Nagy
. 1998. Tropical and Subtropical Fruits. Agscience, Inc, Auburndale, Florida. Tenbrink, V.L. and A.H. Hara. 1992. Ischnaspis longirostris (Signoret). Crop Knowledge Master, College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources, University of Hawaii and Hawaii Department of Agriculture. http://www.extento.hawaii.edu/kbase/crop/ty pe/i_longin.htm. Timm, A. E., H. Geertsema, and L. Warnich. (Article). 2006. Anal ys is of population genetic structure of two closely

related tortricid species of economic imp ortance on macadamias and litchis in South Africa. Agricultural and Forest Entomology 8(2):113
- 119. USFWS
. 2002. Threatened and Endangered Species System (TESS). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
. http://ecos.fws.gov/webpage. v an den Berg, M. A. 1995. Pests Attacking Macadamia in South Africa. The Sixth Conference of the Australasian Council on Tree and Nut Crops, Inc. Kismore, NSW, Australia. http://www.newcrops.uq.edu.au/acotanc/papers/vanden2.htm. 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. ARC, Institute for Tropical and S ubtropical C rops, Nelspruit, South Africa. Waite, G. K., and J. S. Hwang. 2002. Pests of litchi and longan, pp. 331
- 359
. In J. E. Peña, J. L
. Sharp and M. Wysoki [eds.], Tropical fruit pests and pollinators: biology, economic importance, natural enemies and control. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK. WSSA
. 1989. Composite List of Weeds. Weed Science Society of America (WSS A)
. Weems, H. V. and T. R. Fasulo. 2002. Natal Fruit Fly
. University of Florida
. http://creatures.ifas.ufl.edu/fruit/tropical/natal_fruit_fly .htm; last accessed: November, 2003. Weems, H. V. J. 1966. Natal Fruit Fl y ( Ceratitis rosa Karsch) (Diptera: Tep hritidae). Entomology

Circular No 91: Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Plant Industry White, J. M. and M. M. Elson
- Harris. 1992. Fruitflies of Economic Significance: Their Id entification and Bionomics. CAB International, Aciar. Oxon, U.K. 601 Pp. Williams, D. J. 1986. Scale insects (Homoptera: Coccoidea) on coffee in Papua New Guinea. Papua New Guinea Journal of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries. 34: 1
- 7.Pest Risk Assessment for Litchi from the Republic of South Africa

Ver. 8 June 3, 2011 29 Yuval, B., and Hendrichs, J. 2000. Behavior of flies in the genus Ceratitis (Dacinae: Ceratitidini). In: Aluja, M., and Norrbom, A.L ., editors. Fruit Flies (Tephritidae): Phylogeny and Evolution of Behavior. Boca Raton, Florida.: CRC Press. p 429
- 457.Pest Risk Assessment for Litchi from the Republic of South Africa

Ver. 8 June 3, 2011 30 

### 5. **Appendices Appendix**  **A . Risk Mitigation Options**  **Mitigations for plant pests identified as quarantine pests likely to follow the pathway in the draft PRA for litchi (** 

**Litchi chinensis ) from Republic of South Africa into Continental**  **United States.** In this risk assessment we examine d the risks associated with the importation of litchi ( Litchi chinensis ) into the United States. In formation on pests associated with litchi from the Republic of South Africa revealed that eight quarantine pests exist and could be introduced into the United States via this pathway
. The quarantine pests likely to follow the pathway

were all insects. The quarantine pests were qualitatively anal yz ed based on international principles and internal guidelines as described in the PPQ Guidelines for Pathway
- Initiated Pest Risk Assessments, Version 5.02 (PPQ, 2000 ), which examines pest biology in the context of Consequences of Introduction and Likelihood of Introduction. These elements help estimate the Pest Risk Potential. All of the listed pests pose phy tosanitary risks to American agriculture, and all received High risk ratings. Port
- of
- entry inspections, as a sole mitigative measure, are considered insufficient to safeguard U.S. agriculture from these pests. Additional phyt osanitary measures are necessary to reduce risks to acceptable levels. For more details on particular treatments see Appendix B. **Quarantine Pests likely to follow the pathway** Ceratitis capitata Wiedemann (Diptera: Tephritidae) Cetatitis rosa Karsch (Diptera: Tephritidae) Ceroplastes rubens Maskell (Homiptera: Coccidae) Ceroplastes rusci (Linnaeus) (Hemiptera: Coccidae) Coccus viridis (Green) (Hemiptera: Coccidae) Nipaecoccus viridis (Newstead) (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) Thaumatotibia leucotreta Mey rick (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) Cryptophlebia peltastica (Mey rick) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae)Pest Risk Assessment for Litchi from the Republic of South Africa

Ver. 8 June 3, 2011 31 Currently , litchi is imported into the United States from the following countries. **All Ports N**  **orth American Ports**  10 **Peoples Republic of China** (fruits, including clusters of fruit attached to a stem) with T105
- b
- 1 11 , 12 or T107
- h 13 , 14 treatment **Bahamas** (fruit, including clusters of fruit attached to a stem) **Grenada** (fruits, including clusters of fruit attached to a stem) **Dominican Republic** (fruit, including clusters of fruit attached to a stem) **India** (fruits, including clusters of fruit attached to a stem) with T105
-b
- 1 2,3 or T107
- f 4, 15 treatment **Haiti** (fruit, including clusters of fruit attached to a stem) **Israel** (fruits, including clusters of fruit attached to a stem) with T105
-b
- 2 2,3 or T107
- a4 treatment **Jamaica** (fruit, including clusters of fruit attached to a stem) **Mexico** from all areas (fruits, including clusters of fruit attach to a stem) **Taiwan** , Province of China 16 (fruit, including cluster s of fruits attached to a stem) with T105
- b
- 1 2,3 or T107
- h 17 , 18

10 NA ports (North Atlantic ports): Atlantic ports north of and including Baltimore, MD; ports on Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway; Canadian border ports east of and including North Dakota; Washington, DC. (including Dulles for air shipments). [All the area north of 39  and east of 104  ] 11 Fruits irradiated in the country of origin and accompanied by a PPQ Form 203 to confirm irradiation may enter any State. However, untreated fruits and vegetables, intended to be irradiated for quarantine pests, cannot be treated within nor transit through the following States: Alabama, Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia (except for treatment in Atlanta, GA), Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi (except for treatment in Gulfport, MS), Nevada, New Mexico, North Caroli na (except for treatment in Wilmington, NC), South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas (except untreated products to be irradiated may transit through Dallas/Ft Worth) and Virginia. 12 Irradiation as an optional treatment is available only after an exporting country has entered into a framework equivalency wo rk plan agreement and met other requirements as specified in 7CFR 305.2. Currently, this country has **not** entered into a work plan agreement. 13 If treatment has not been completed before entry, the fruits or vegetables may arrive in the United States only at the following ports:  Any port located north of 39  latitude and east of 104  longitude;  At one of the following maritime ports: Wilmington, NC; Seattle, WA; Corpus Christi, TX; and Gulfport, MS (not currently o perational);  Seattle
- Tacoma International, Seattle, WA (not currently operational);  Hartsfield
- Atlanta International Airport, Atlanta, GA; and  Washington Dulles International Airport, Chantilly, VA 14 All boxes must be stamped, “Not for distribution in FL.” 15 Boxes must be stamped, “Not for importation into or distributed within FL.” 16 Prohibited into Florida 17 Shipments are prohibited into Florida even if treated. If treatment has not been completed before entry, the fruits or vegetables may arrive in the United States only at the following ports:  Any port located north of 39  latitude and east of 104  longitude;  At one of the following maritime ports: Wilmington, NC; Seattle, WA; Corpus Christi, TX; and Gulfport, MS (not currently operational);  Seattle
- Tac oma International, Seattle, WA (not currently operational);  Hartsfield
- Atlanta International Airport, Atlanta, GA; and  Washington Dulles International Airport, Chantilly, VA 18 Cartons must be stamped, “Not for distribution in FL.”Pest Risk Assessment for Litchi from the Republic of South Africa

Ver. 8 June 3, 2011 32 **Current treatments for Litchi chinensis**  **PPQ Treatment Manual (1/29/2006): Ceratitis capitata**   **T105 -**  **b -**  **2: T105 -**  **b -**  **2 Irradiation** This treatment is applied to litchi fruits from I srael to All ports 19 , 20
 **T102 -**  **d: T102**  **- d Hot water immersion**  This treatment is applied to litchi from Hawaii to treat C. capitata and Bactrocera dorsalis
. **Ceratitis capitata and**  **C. rosa**  **T107 -**  **a: T107**  **- a Cold Treatment**  This treatment is applied litchi from I srael **Thaumatotibia leucotreta and**  **Ceratitis rosa**  **T107 -**  **e: T107**  **- e Cold Treatment**  This treatment is not applied to litchi, but it is very similar to treatment T107
- a. This treatment is used for apricot, citrus, nectarine, peach, and plum. **Scale insects**  **T104 -**  **a -**  **1: T**  **104 -**  **a -**  **1 MB at NAP**

**– tarpaulin or chamber**  This treatment is applied to various commodities, including litchi to mitigate scale insects and other surface pests. **Mealybugs (Pseudococcidae)**  **T104 -**  **a -**  **2: T104**  **- a**  **- 2 MB at NAP** 

**– tarpaulin or chamber**  This treatment is applied to various commodities, including litchi to mitigate meal ybugs. **All insects**  **FI FRA Section 18:**  **Methyl Bromide** FIFRA section 18 includes litchi fruit and several other fruits. **Possible treatments for Litchi chinensis**  **from South Africa**  **Establishment of Pest -**  **Free Areas or Production Sites** As a sole mitigative measure, the establishment of pest
- free areas, or pest
- free places of production, may

be effective in satisfying an importing country ’s appropriate level of phy tosanitary protection (IPPC, 1999)
. The establishment and maintenance of pest
- free areas or production sites must be in compliance with international standards ( e.g . , IPPC, 1999)
.  **Pre -**  **harvest Control Program: inspections and monitoring** Inspection in the field during harvest period and at packing house could eliminate pests, especiall y external feeders such as scales and mealybugs and plant pathogens. (Miller et al

. , 1985) stated that the sessile nature of armored scales and their inability to disperse long

19 Fruits irradiated in the country of origin and accompanied by a PPQ Form 203 to confirm irradiation may enter any State. However, untreated fruits and vegetables, intended to be irradiated for quarantine pests, cannot be treated within nor transit through the following States: Alabama, Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia (except for treatment in Atlanta, GA), Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi (except for treatment in Gulfport, MS), Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina (except for treatment in Wilmington, NC), South Carolina, Tenne ssee, Texas (except untreated products to be irradiated may transit through Dallas/Ft Worth) and Virginia. 20 Irradiation as an optional treatment is available only after an exporting country has entered into a framework equivalency wo rk plan agreement and me t other requirements as specified in 7CFR 305.2. Currently, this country has **not** entered into a work plan agreement.Pest Risk Assessment for Litchi from the Republic of South Africa

Ver. 8 June 3, 2011 33 distances under their own powers severely limits their ability

of coming into contact with potential hosts. Since scales and mealy bugs have limited natural dispersal means, inspection would be an efficient mitigation measure.  **Irradiation** Irradiation is used for variety of foods. Irradiation treatment is currently used for litchi from Hawaii, China, India, Israel, and Taiwan.  **Co ld Treatment**  Cold treatment is commonly used to treat fruit flies and false codling moth. Litchi has low sensitivity

to chilling temperatures; however, it might damage skins and color of skins due to dehydration during storage (Paull, et al ., 2006). Optimum storage for litchi is at 2 to 5 °C (36 to 41 °F) with 90 to 95% RH for 3 to 5 weeks (Paull, et al ., 2006).  **Methyl Bromide** All pests associated with litchi can be treated b y m ethyl bromide (FIFRA Section 18).  **Cold Treatment and Methyl Bromide** Fumigation i s used for external feeders. Combination of cold treatment and methyl bromide is commonly

used to treat external feeders as well as internal feeders such as fruit flies and moths. Hot water treatment is used for litchi fruits from Hawaii; however, this treatment may not be suitable for litchi fruits from South Africa. Hot water treatment for litchi states that fruits must be free of Cryptophlebia spp. which have been identified as quarantine pests on litchi fruits from South Africa. **Summary of Risk Mitigation Options for Litchi, Litchi chinensis**  **, from Republic of South Africa**  Measure(s) Pests Efficacy Pest
- free areas or places of production All

( Ceratitis capitata , C
. rosa , Ceroplastes rubens , C
. Rusci , Coccus viridis , Nipaecoccus viridis , Thaumatotibia leucotreta , C
. peltastica ) Satisfies requirements for appropriate level of protection

Inspections and Monitoring All; must be used in

combination with other measures External pests could be detected during some stages of their deve lopment. Some fruits which are damaged by internal pest could be culled by inspections if fruits have surface damages. The efficacy of the elimination of pests is unknown and would require additional research. Irradiation combined with low pest prevalen ce All PPQ
-recognized generic dose (400 Gray) for quarantine treatment on all regulated plant articles for all insect pests, except for Lepidopteran pupae and adults (USDA
-APHIS
- PPQ, 2006).Pest Risk Assessment for Litchi from the Republic of South Africa

Ver. 8 June 3, 2011 34 Cold Treatment Fruit Flies ( Ceratitis

capitata and C. rosa ) and F alse Codling Moth ( Thaumatotibia leucotreta ) PPQ approves cold treatment for litchi to treat

Ceratitis capitata and C. rosa
. Cold treatment is not currently

used for litchi to treat Thaumatotibia leucotreta , however, is an approved treatment to treat T. leucotreta for other deciduous fruits. The efficacy of the elimination of certain pests on litchi is unknown and would require additional research. Methyl Bromide All Approved b y PPQ to treat all pests associated with litchi (FIFRA Section 18). Hot Water Treatment Fruit fl y ( Ceratitis

capitata ) Approved b y PPQ to treat Ceratitis capitata

and Bactrocera dorsalis for litchi. However, treatment manual states that litchi must be free of Cryptophlebia species and other pest (e.g., Eriophyes litchii). **Li terature cited**  **:** Paull, R.E., C.C. Chen, and N,J. Chen. Litchi. Department of Tropical Plant and Soil Sciences, Univ. of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu, HI. <http://usna.usda.gov/hb66/085 litchi .pdf > last accessed: February , 2006. USDA
- APHIS
- PPQ. 2006. Treatment Manual. USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine. 798 p. http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/manuals/port/pdf_files/TM.pdPest Risk Assessment for Litchi from the Republic of South Africa

Ver. 8 June 3, 2011 35 **Appendix B . Treatment Schedules**  **FI FRA Section 18: FIFRA Section 18 Fumigated Commodities**  **Treatment: MB**  **FI FRA Section 18 Exemptions For Use on Food or Feed Commodities Not Listed on**  **the Methyl Bromide Label, OR, For use on Labeled Commodities at Rates or Exposure Times that may Differ from the Methyl Bromide Label.**  **Pests: All Pests Identified**  **by Treatment Schedule Approved for these Commodities Treatment:**  **The list below provides treatments, temperatures and exposure times approved by the United States EPA under section 18 of the Federal Insecticide,**  **Fungicide and Rodenticide Act. Commodity**  **Te mperature**  **(**  **F) Dosage Rate** 

**(lbs/1000 ft 3**  **) Exposure** 

**Period (hours)** Avocados 70  2 4 Bananas & Plantains 40  4 2 Blackberries & Raspberries 40  4 2 Cucurbit seeds, edible (shelled & unshelled) 40  9 12 Cottonseed for use as food or feed 40  7 24 Cucurbit vegetables (except gherkins, including chayote) 40  4 2 Gherkins (cucurbit 50) 50  3 2 Ginger tops, fresh 40  4 2 Herbs and spices, fresh 40  4 2 Kiwi fruit 40  4 4 Leafy vegetables not on the Q label (including Brassica leafies) 1 40  4 2 Longan 60  4 2 Lychee fruit 60  4 2 Mint, dried 40  3 24 Mint, fresh 40  4 2Pest Risk Assessment for Litchi from the Republic of South Africa

Ver. 8 June 3, 2011 36 Opuntia 40  4 3.5 Rambutan 60  4 2 Root and tubers not on Q label, such as cassava or chayote (other than desheen) 60  3 3.5 Dasheen (root or tuber) 40  3 4 Snow peas and Sugar snaps 40  4 2 1 Leafy vegetables, EPA Crop Group 4, (Except Brassica Vegetables) are restricted to amaranth (leafy amaranth, Chinese spinach, tampala) (Amaranthus spp.); arugula (Roquette) (Eruca sativa); cardoon (Cyanara cardunculus); celery (Apium graveolens var. dulcea); celery, Chinese (Apium graveolens var. secalinum); celtuce (Lactuca sativa var. angustana); chervil (Anthriscus cerefolium); chrysanthemum, edible
- leaved (Chrysanthemum coronanium var. coronanium); chrysanthemum, garland (Chrysanthemum coronarium var. spatiosum); corn salad (Valerianella locusta); cress garden (Lepidium sativum); cress upland (yellow rocket, winter cress) (Barbarea vulgaris); dandelion (Taraxacum officinale); dock (sorrel) (Rumex spp.); endive (escarole) (Cichorium endivia); fennel, Florence (finochio) (Foeniculum vulgare Azoricum Group); lettuce, head and leaf (Lactuca sativa); Orach (Atriplex hortensis); parsley (Petroselinum crispum); purslane, garden (Portulaca oleracea); purslane, winter (Montia perfoliata); radicchio (red chicory) (Cichorium intybus); rhubarb (Rheum rhabarbarum); spinach (Spinacia oleracea); spinach, New Zealand (Tetragonia tetragonioides, T. Expansa); spinach, vine (Malabar spinach, Indian spinach) (Basella alba); swiss chard (Beta vulgaris var. cicia). Reference 40 CFR 180.34 (f)(a)(iv)(A)Pest Risk Assessment for Litchi from the Republic of South Africa

Ver. 8 June 3, 2011 37 **T102 -**  **d Lychee (litchi) fruit from Hawaii**  **Pest: Ceratitis capitata**  **(Mediterranean fruit fly) and Bactrocera dorsalis**  **(Oriental fruit fly)**  **Treatment: T102**  **- d Hot Water Immersion**  1. Lychees must be thoroughl y examined at the packinghouse b y an inspector and found free of Cryptophlebia spp. (Lychee fruit moth) and other plant pest 1 2. Fruit must be grown and treated in Hawaii, under monitoring of an inspector, in a certified hot water immersion treatment tank. 2 A. Fruit must be submerged at least 4 inches below the water’s surface. B. Water must circulate constantly, and be kept at 120.2  F (or above) for 20 minutes. Treatment time begins when the water temperature reaches at least 120. 2  F in all locations throughout the tank. Temperatures exceeding 121.1  F can cause phytotoxic damage. 3. Hydrocooling for 20 minutes at 75.2  F is recommended, though not required to prevent injury

to the fruit from the hot water treatment. 1 Because Eriophyes litchi (lychee mite) cannot be effectivel y detected b y inspection, and would not be effectivel y eliminated by hot water immersion, the lychee may not be shipped into Florida. Each carton must be stamped “Not for Importation into of distribution in Florida.” 2 Use of Treatment T102D is at the risk of the shipper. Limited research on fruit quality after treatment application indicated that fruit quality varies among cultivars. ‘Kaimana’ and ‘Kwai Mi’ (‘Tai so’) tolerate the treatment better than ‘Brewster’ and ‘Groff’; no other cultivars were tested.
**T104 -**  **a -**  **1 Various Commodities** * **Pest: Hitchhikers and surface pests such as: thrips, aphids, scale insects, leafminers,**  **spider mites, lygaeid bugs, ants, earwigs, and surface feeding caterpillars. Tr**  **eatment: T104**  **- a**  **- 1 MB at NAP** 

**– tarpaulin or chamber**  Comments: Section 18 for Lychee, min temperature 60  F; Longan, min temp. 60  F; Rambutan, min temp. 60  F. Treatment should not be used on Chinese pear, Japanese pear, Asian pear and sand pear since sever fruit damage will occur when treated with methyl bromide. Temperature Dosage Rate

(lbs/1000 ft 3 ) Minimum Concentration Readings (ounces) at: 0.5 hr 2 hrs 80  F or above 1.5 lbs 19 14 70

– 79  F 2 lbs 26 19 60

– 69  F 2.5 lbs 32 24 50

– 59  F 3 lbs 38 29 40

– 49  F 4 lbs 48 38Pest Risk Assessment for Litchi from the Republic of South Africa

Ver. 8 June 3, 2011 38

* To comply

with dosage restrictions imposed by the methyl bromide “Q” label, the following fruits and vegetables may be fumigated onl y at the following temperatures (the items bolded are under FIFRA Section 18 Exemption. For the current exemption status, call your local State Plant Health Director (SPHD): 40  F or above (maximum dosage, 4 pounds/1000 ft 3 ): Apple, apricot, asparagus, **banana** , **blackberry** , cabbage, **cactus fruit (tuna)**  , cantaloupe, **celery** , chayote, cherry , chestnut, **chicory** , cipolini, cucumber, **Dasheen** , **endive** , fava bean (dried), **fresh herbs** 1 , grape, honeydew melon, **kiwi** , **leafy vegetables** , muskmelon, nectarine, peach, **pear** , pepper, pineapple, **plantain** , plum, **raspberry** , **snow peas** 2 , squash (summer, winter), stone fruit, sweet potato, watermelon, yam. 50  F or above (maximum dosage, 3 pounds/1000 ft 3 ): Bean, beet, carrot, citron (ethrog), coconut, Corn
- on - the
- cob (sweet corn), eggplant, garlic, **ginger** , grapefruit, green pod vegetables, horseradish, J erusalem artichoke, kumquat, lemon, lime, okra, onion, orange, parsnip. Pea, potato, radish, rutabaga, salsify , strawberry , sugar beet, tangelo, tangerine, tomato, turnip. 60  F or above (maximum dosage, 2.5 pounds/1000 ft 3 ): Pimento, pumpkin, zucchini 70  F or above (maximum dosage, 2 pounds/1000 ft 3 ): **Avocado** , blueberry , cocoa bean. 1 Fresh herbs must be on the approved list shown under T101
- n - 2, Herbs, fresh (includes all the plant parts except seeds). 2 Snow pea may

be damaged at dosage higher than 3 lbs/1000 cu. ft., and the dosage used in the 40  F or above temperature range, 4 lbs/1000 cu. ft., should be used only at the importer’s request. 

# ! **Important**Pest Risk Assessment for Litchi from the Republic of South Africa

Ver. 8 June 3, 2011 39 **T104 -**  **a -**  **2 Various commodities** * **Pests: Mealybugs (Pseudococcidae)**  **Treatment: T104**  **- a**  **- 2 MB at NAP** 

**– tarpaulin or chamber**  Temperature Dosage Rate

(lb/1000 ft 3 ) Minimum concentration readings (ounces) at: 0.5 hr 2 hr 80  F or above 2.5 lbs 32 24 70

– 79  F 3 lbs 38 29 60

– 69  F 4 lbs 48 38

* To comply

with dosage restrictions imposed by the methyl bromide “Q” label, the following fruits and vegetables may be fumigated onl y at the following temperatures (the items bolded are under Section 18 Exemption, FIFRA Section 18 Exemption. For the current exemption status, call your local State Plant He alth Director (SPHD): 60  F or above (maximum dosage, 4 pounds/1000 ft 3 ): Apple, apricot, asparagus, **banana** , **blackberry** , cabbage, cantaloupe, **celery** , chayote, cherry , chestnut, **chicory** , cipolini, cucumber, **dasheen** , **endive** , fava bean (dried), grape, **fresh herbs**  1 , honeydew melon, **kiwi** , **leafy vegetables** , **lychee (litchi)** , muskmelon, nectarine, peach, **pear** , pepper, pineapple, **plantain** , plum, **raspberry** , **snow peas**  , squash (summer, winter), stone fruit, sweet potato, water melon. 70  F or above (maximum dosage, 3 pounds/1000ft 3 ): Bean, beet, carrot, citron (ethrog), coconut, corn
- on - the
- cob (sweet corn), eggplant, garlic, **ginger root** , grapefruit, green pod vegetables, horseradish, Jerusalem artichoke, kumquat, lemon, lime, okra, onion, orange, parsnip, potato, radish, rutabaga, salsify , scallion, shallot, strawberry , sugar beet, tangelo, tangerine, tomato, turnip. 80  F or above (maximum dosage, 2.5 pounds/1000 ft 3 ): Peppers, pimento, pumpkin, zucchini. 1 Fresh herbs must be on the approved list shown under T101
- n - 2, Herbs, fresh (includes all fresh plant parts except seeds. 

# ! **Important**Pest Risk Assessment for Litchi from the Republic of South Africa

Ver. 8 June 3, 2011 40 **T105 -**  **a -** **3 Lychee (Litchi) fruit from Hawaii (Use T105**  **- a**  **- 1 Schedule)**  **Pests: Ceratitis capitata, Bactrocera cucurbitae, B. dorsalis**  **Treatment: T105**  **- a**  **- 1 Irradiation** 

Lychee (litchi) fruit from Hawaii is prohibited into Florida. All cartons in which the litchi or logan is packed must be stamped, “Not for Importation or Distribution in FL .” T105
- a- 1 Papaya from Hawaii The minimum absorbed dose of gamma irradiation shal l be 250 Gray (25 krad), but shall not exceed the 1000
- Gray (100 krad) limit imposed by Food and Drug Administration regulations. Documentation of the dosage shall accompany the shipment. Dose mapping is required for each commodity and/or size. Different configurations, packaging, and/or mixed commodities should also be dose mapped.

The treatment shall be conducted only on Hawaiian
- grown produce, and treated at an approved facility , which may be located in any of the following  Hawaii  In areas of the mainland United States that do **not** support fruit flies (any States except AL , AZ, CA, FL, GA, KY, LA, MS, NV, NM, NC, SC, TN, TX, and VA) **Notice** The papayas, carambolas and lychees destined for irradiation

treatment may

arrive in the same container, but must not be commingled with other fruits and vegetables. These shipments must be accompanied b y a Limited Permit (PPQ Form 530).

When designing the facility ’s dosimetry s ys tem and procedures for its operation, the facility operator must address guidance and principles from American Society for Testing materials (ASTM) standards or an equivalent standard recognized by the Administrator of APHI S. (American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) publication, 51261
- 2002 (E), “Standard Gui de for Selection and Calibration of Dosimetry

Systems for Radiation Processing” is available from: ASTM 100 Barr Harbor Dr. West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania USA 19428
- 2959). 

# ! **Important**


# ! **Important**


# ! **Important**Pest Risk Assessment for Litchi from the Republic of South Africa

Ver. 8 June 3, 2011 41 **T105 -**  **b -**  **2 Fruits and Vegetables**  **Pest: Ceratitis capitata**  **Treatment: T105**  **- b**  **- 2**  **Irradiation** The minimum absorbed dose of gamma irradiation shall be 225 Gray (22.5 krad), but shall not exceed the 1000
- Gray (100 krad) limit imposed by Food and Drug Administration regulations. Documentation of the dosage shall accompany the shipment. D ose mapping is required for each commodity and/or size. Different configurations, packaging, and/or mixed commodities should also be dose mapped.

The treatment shall be conducted only on Hawaiian
- grown produce, and treated at an approved facility , which may be located in any of the following

– Hawaii

– In areas of the mainland United States that do not support fruit flies (any States except AL , AZ, CA, FL, GA, KY, LA, MS, NV, NM, NC, SC, TN, TX, or VA)

– At the maritime ports of Gulfport, MS; or Wilmington, N C; or the airport of Atlanta, GA if the conditions of 7CFR 305.2 (b) are met. When designing the facility ’s dosimetry s ys tem and procedures for its operation, the facility operator must address guidance and principles from American Society for Testing M aterials (ASTM) standards or equivalent standard recognized b y the administrator of APHI S. (American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) publication, 51261
- 2002 (E), “Standard Guide for Selection and Calibration of Dosimetry

Systems for Radiation Process ing” is available from: ASTM 100 Barr Harbor Dr. West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania USA 19428
- 2959). 

# ! **Important** 

# ! **Important**Pest Risk Assessment for Litchi from the Republic of South Africa

Ver. 8 June 3, 2011 42 **T107 -**  **a Apple, Apricot, Avocado, Cape gooseberry cherry, Cherry, Ethrog,**  **Grapefruit, Grapes, Kiwi, Litchi (Lychee), Loquat, Nectarines, Orange, Ortanique, Peach, Pear, Persimmon, Plum, Plumcot, Pomegranate,**  **Pu mmelo, Quince, Sand pear, Tangerine (includes Clementine)**  **Pest: Ceratitis capitata**  **and Ceratitis rosa**  **Treatment: 107**  **- a Cold Treatment**  **Temperature Exposure Period**  34  F (1.11  C) or below 14 days 35  F (1.67  C) or below 16 days 36  F (2.22  C) or below 18 days

Pretreatment conditioning for avocado (heat shock or 100.4  F (38.0  C) for 10 to 12 hours) is optional and is the responsibility of the shipper. The pretreatment conditioning, which may improve fruit quality , is described in Hort Science 29(10): 1166
- 1168. 1994. and 30(5): 1052
- 1053 (1995).
**T107 -**  **e Apricot, Citrus, Nectarine, Peach, Plum**  **Pest: Thaumatotibia leucotreta**  **and Ceraititis rosa**  **Treatment: T107**  **- e Cold Treatment**  **Temperature Exposure Period**  31  F (
- 0.55  C) or below 1 22 days 1 The treatment shall not commence until all sensors are reading 31  F (
- 0.55  C) or below. If the temperature exceeds 31.5  F (
- 0.27  C), the treatment shall be extended one
- third of a day for each day

or part of a day

the temperature is above 31.5  F (
- 0.27  C). If the exposure period is extended, the temperature during the extension period must be 34  F (1.11  C) or below. If the temperature exceeds 34  F (1.11  C) at any time, the treatment is null ified. Also, some freeze damage to the fruit may

occur if the pulp temperature is allowed to drop below approximately

29.5  F (
- 1.38  C) (This varies with the commodity). 

# ! **Important**