Importation of Fresh Litchi, Litchi chinensis Sonn., Fruit

from the Republic of South Africa into the Continental 

United States

A Qualitative, Pathway-initiated Pest Risk Assessment

June 3, 2011

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 27606
Pest 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.

Insects:

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 (Meyrick) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae)

Nipaecoccus viridis (Newstead) (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae)

Thaumatotibia leucotreta (Meyrick) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae)

The quarantine pests were qualitatively analyzed 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 phytosanitary 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 phytosanitary 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 Contents

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

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

2. Risk Assessment .........................................................................................................................1

2.1. Initiating 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. Consequences 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 ............................................................................................35
Pest 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 APHIS PPQ CPHST) prepared this pest 

risk assessment to examine plant pest risks associated with the importation of fresh litchi fruit

(also known as lychee, 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 (“High,” “Medium” or “Low”), 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 analyses. The methods used to initiate, conduct, and report pest risk assessments are 

consistent with guidelines provided by IPPC and NAPPO. The use of biological and 

phytosanitary terms conforms to the Definitions and Abbreviations (Introduction Section) in the 

International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures, Section 1-Import Regulations Guidelines for 

Pest Risk Analysis (IPPC,2004), the Glossary of Phytosanitary Terms (IPPC, 2006) and the 

NAPPO Compendium of Phytosanitary Terms. These guidelines describe three stages of pest 

risk analysis: Stage 1, Initiation, Stage 2, Risk Assessment, and Stage 3, Risk Management. This 

document satisfies the requirements of IPPC Stages 1 and 2.

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 § 319.56) provides 

regulatory authority for the importation of fruits and vegetables from foreign sources into the 

United States.

2.2. Assessment of Weediness Potential of 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 “pestinitiated” risk assessment is conducted. The results of the weediness 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., 1977) or World Weeds: Natural 

Histories and Distribution (Holm et al., 1997)

No Report of the Technical committee to Evaluate Noxious Weeds:

Exotic weeds for Federal Noxious Weed Act (Gunn & Ritchie, 1982)

No Economically Important Foreign Weeds (Reed, 1977)

No Weed Science Society of America List (WSSA, 1989)

No Are there any literature references indicating weediness (e.g., 

AGRICOLA, CAB, Biological Abstracts, AGRIS; search on 

“species name” combined with “weed”)

Phase 3: Litchi chinensis occurs in the United States; there is 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 litchi: No treatment available for Thaumatotibia leucotreta.

1995 – Deny entry of litchi: No approved treatment for fruit flies [Ceratitis capitata and 

Pterandrus (Ceratitis) rosa]; existence of Cryptophlebia peltasica and Thaumatotibia 

leucotreta .

Table 2. Pest interceptions on Litchi chinensis from African countries from 1985 to 2003

(APHIS, 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 1
Pest 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” (IPPC, 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 commodity 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 assessed; 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, specifically, 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 quarantine 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) whether the pest is likely to follow the pathway to enter the United States on commercially 

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 completely 

as possible. It must be reasonable to assume these quarantine pests 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, for example, a pest may be associated only with plant parts other 

than the commodity or a pest may not be reasonably expected to remain with the commodity

during harvest and packing
Pest Risk Assessment for Litchi from the Republic of South Africa

Ver. 8 June 3, 2011 4

Pests 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 analyze 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. Should any pests be intercepted in shipments of the 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 chinensis in the Republic of South Africa.

Pest Scientific Name Geographic 

distribution1

Plant part 

affected

Quarantine pestFollow 

pathway

References

ARTHROPODS 

Acari: Tarsonemidae

Polyphagotarsonemus latus

(Banks)

RSA, US leaf, flower, 

fruit, stem

No Yes CABI, 2005; Waite & 

Hwang, 2002

Acari: Tenuipalpidae

Brevipalpus phoenicis

(Geijskes)

RSA, US leaf, stem,

fruit

No Yes CABI, 2005

Acari: Tetranychidae

Oligonychus coffeae

(Nietner)

RSA, US leaf No No CABI, 2005; Waite & 

Hwang, 2002

Oligonychus mangiferus

(Rahman & Sapra)

RSA, US (HI) leaf Yes No CABI, 2005; 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 we based 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 

distribution1

Plant part 

affected

Quarantine pestFollow 

pathway

References

Aphis spiraecola Patch RSA, US leaf, stem, 

flower, fruit

No No3 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 No4 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

No5 Yes CABI, 2005; Ben-Dov et 

al., 2005

Aulacaspis tubercularis 

Newstead

RSA leaf, stem, 

fruit

Yes No6 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 

distribution1

Plant part 

affected

Quarantine pestFollow 

pathway

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

No7 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 No8 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 was 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 because 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 

distribution1

Plant part 

affected

Quarantine pestFollow 

pathway

References

Lepidoptera: Pyralidae

Cadra cautella Walker RSA, US fruit, seed No No9 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 

transvaalensis

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 monohysterum

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, 2005).
Pest Risk Assessment for Litchi from the Republic of South Africa

Ver. 8 June 3, 2011 8

Pest Scientific Name Geographic 

distribution1

Plant part 

affected

Quarantine pestFollow 

pathway

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., 1989
Pest Risk Assessment for Litchi from the Republic of South Africa

Ver. 8 June 3, 2011 9

Pest Scientific Name Geographic 

distribution1

Plant part 

affected

Quarantine pestFollow 

pathway

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 (Zygomycetes: 

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 analyzed 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 present with every

shipment. In addition, the biological hazard of organisms identified only to the generic level is 

not assessed due to the lack of adequate biological taxonomic information; the 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 mitigation 
Pest 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 organisms 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 (Hemiptera: Coccidae)

Ceroplastes rusci (Linnaeus) (Hemiptera: Coccidae)

Coccus viridis (Green) (Hemiptera: Coccidae)

Cryptophlebia peltastica (Meyrick) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae)

Nipaecoccus viridis (Newstead) (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae)

Thaumatotibia leucotreta (Meyrick) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae)

2.5. Consequences of Introduction

After identifying those quarantine pests that could reasonably be expected to follow the pathway

(Table 2), the assessment of risk continues by considering the Consequences of Introduction 

(Table 3). For each of these quarantine pests, the potential Consequences of Introduction are 

rated using five Risk Elements 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 pest 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 values. The values determined for the Consequences of Introduction for each 

pest are summarized below (Table 5).

Ceratitis capitata Risk ratings

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), Myrtaceae (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 ratings

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 flying 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 by 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, especially 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)

Ceratitis rosa Risk ratings

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

Ceratitis rosa Risk ratings

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.), Myrtaceae (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

Ceratitis 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, eggs usually hatch within four days after oviposition (Weems,

2002). Larval and prepupal stages generally 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 10 generations per year (Weems & Fasulo,

2002). The two major ways of movement and dispersal to uninfested areas are 

flight 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). It is 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). In South 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 by C. rosa, C. capitata, 

and C. cosyra vary between 80 and 100% in South Africa in the absence of 

control measures (Barners, 2000). For example, in a South Africa locality one 

year, C. rosa infested 50 to 100% of plums, despite control measures (Weems, 

2002; Weems, 1966). In South 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). It even 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 fully 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 ratings

Risk Element #1: Climate – Host Interaction

Ceroplastes rubens is widely distributed throughout the Orient, southern Asia, 

Australia, India, the South Pacific, east 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

Primary host species include citrus (Citrus, C. deliciosa, C. limon, C. reticulata, 

C. sinensis, C. unshiu) (Rutaceae) and mango (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), Myristicaceae (Myristica, Myristica fragrans), 

Apocynaceae (Nerium), Oleaceae (Olea), Piperaceae (Piper), Pinaceae (Pinus, 

P. thunbergii, P. caribaea), Myrtaceae (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). Oviposition begins in midSeptember and ends in early December; it then begins again in mid-February, 

lasting until June (CABI, 2005). Females, on average, lay around 300 eggs, but 

can lay as little as five or as much as 1,178 eggs (CABI, 2005). The mortality 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, 2005). Primary dispersal is accomplished via infected plant parts, which 

is facilitated by a wide range of host species for this pest (CABI, 2005). 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 citrus species and mango. In 2002, CA, TX, and FL 

produced over $2250 million worth of citrus (NASS, 2003a). Hawaii produced 

$7 million of banana and $2 million of guava in 2002 (NASS, 2003c).

Ceroplastes rubens is a widespread pest of citrus, coffee, tea, Cinnamomum, 

mango, avocado and litchi (CABI, 2005). It is a major pest of citrus in Australia, 

Hawaii, Korea, China and Japan; direct economic damage is caused through 

phloem feeding, and indirectly through the promotion of sooty mold growth

(CABI, 2005).

High

(3)

Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact

The extreme polyphagy of this species increases the probability of it attacking 

plants in the US listed as Threatened or Endangered. It 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 ratings

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 ratings

Risk Element #1: Climate – Host Interaction

Ceroplastes rusci is present in Africa, the Middle East, southern Europe, the 

Caribbean, Brazil, and Uruguay (CABI 2005). 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

Ceroplastes rusci is polyphagous, attacking plants belonging to 45 genera placed 

in 42 families (CABI, 2005), 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), Myrtaceae (Myrtus communis, 

Psidium guajava), Lauraceae (Persea americana), Piperaceae (Piper nigrum), 

Platanaceae (Platanus), Salicaceae (Populus), Liliaceae (Ruscus), Vitaceae (Vitis 

vinifera), and Apocynaceae (Nerium oleander).

High

(3)

Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential

Ceroplates rusci is bisexual and has only one or two generations per year,

depending on climate (CABI, 2005). Females usually lay between 800 and 1500 

eggs; the duration of the egg, first- and second-instar nymphs, and the adult stage 

at 26 ̊C are 8-12, 4-7, and 28-32 days, respectively (CABI, 2005). Only first 

instar nymphs are capable of crawling and moving to suitable feeding sites.

Dispersal is aided by wind and other animals, although adult males have wings 

and are able to fly (CABI, 2005). 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 citrus and figs. In the United States, citrus

production is expanding in AZ, CA, FL, and TX. The total citrus production in 

2002 was over $2290 million (NASS, 2003a). Only CA produces figs in the 

United States. Forty-nine million tons of figs, valued at 16.9 million dollars,

were produced in 2002 (NASS, 2003c). In addition to those host species, C. 

rusci attacks several other crops grown in the United States, 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 Israel (CABI, 2005). This insect can also 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 ratings

the Mediterranean (Pellizzari, 1997). Attack by C. rusci weakens and kills leaves 

and shoots; its excreted honeydew provides a medium for the development of a 

sooty fungal film, which impairs photosynthesis (INRA, 2006).

Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact

As a polyphagous 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, especially when it is introduced to new 

geographical areas without natural enemies (CABI, 2005). Biological or 

chemical control is likely to be implemented upon introduction.

High

(3)

Coccus viridis Risk ratings

Risk Element #1: Climate – Host Interaction

Coccus viridis is found throughout Central America, northern South America, 

Africa, south 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 established in natural areas and artificial areas, such as 

greenhouses.

Medium

(2)

Risk Element #2: Host Range

This pest is associated with citrus species (Citrus deliciosa, Citrus limon, Citrus 

reticulata, Citrus sinensis) (Rutaceae); however, it has a wide host range.

Potential hosts include Moraceae (Artocarpus), Theaceae (Camellia sinensis), 

Rubiaceae (Coffea, Coffea Arabica, Ixora), Euphorbiaceae (Manihot esculenta), 

Anacardiaceae (Mangifera indica), Myrtaceae (Psidium guajava), Sterculiaceae 

(Theobroma cacao), Zingiberaceae (Alpinia purpurata), Asteraceae 

(Chrysanthemum), Sapotaceae (Manilkara zapota), and Apocynaceae (Nerium 

oleander, Plumeria rubra var. acutifolia).

High

(3)

Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential

Females can lay up to 500 eggs, which can hatch within a few hours (CABI,

2005). Life-cycle generations vary from one month to several, depending on 

temperatures and the availability of food (CABI, 2005). Although it has high 

reproductive rate, there is no evidence of long range dispersal by C. viridis

(CABI, 2005). In spite of its low natural movement capability, this species can 

spread by 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 Coccus 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, 2003a; NASS, 

2003c). Coffee production in Haiti (Aiken-Soux, 1985), India (Narasimham, 

1987) and New Guinea (Williams, 1986) showed significant yield loss due to C. 

virdis. In addition to coffee production, citrus 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 ratings

exhibiting reduced quality (Haleem, 1984).

Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact

Coccus viridis already occurs in Hawaii and Florida (CABI, 2005). The extreme 

polyphagy of C. viridis predisposes it to attack vulnerable native plants in the 

United States. 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 ratings

Risk Element #1: Climate – Host Interaction

We found little information about C. peltastica. The Acacia spp., host species of 

C. peltastica, are typically 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. Life 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 year (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 species 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 ratings

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 by 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.

Physical 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 yields 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. However, it is unlikely to cause 

significant economic impacts in the continental United States since host species 

are not commercially grown in the continental United States. 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 ecosystems 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 ratings

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 2005). Primary hosts are species of Citrus (Rutaceae), Coffea

(Rubiaceae), and Gossypium (Malvaceae). Other hosts include, among others, 

Leucaena leucocephala (Fabaceae), Nerium oleander (Apocynaceae), Punica

granatum (Punicaceae), Artocarpus heterophyllus (Moraceae), Corchorus 

capsularis (Tiliaceae), Asparagus officinalis (Liliaceae), Euphorbia hirta

(Euphorbiaceae), Mangifera indica (Anacardiaceae), Jacaranda mimosifolia

(Bignoniaceae), Vitis vinifera (Vitaceae), Clerodendrum infortunatum

(Verbenaceae), Solanum tuberosum (Solanaceae) (CABI 2005), and Dimocarpus

High

(3)
Pest Risk Assessment for Litchi from the Republic of South Africa

Ver. 8 June 3, 2011 18

Nipaecoccus viridis Risk ratings

longan (Sapindaceae) (China 1997).

Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential

Fecundity ranges from 90 to 138 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 Element #4: Economic Impact

This insect causes bulbous outgrowths on young twigs, and heavy infestations may

severely stunt growth of young trees (CABI 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 vineyards 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 mealybug 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 ratings

Risk Element #1: Climate – Host Interaction

Thaumatotibia leucotreta is distributed throughout 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, Sorghum), Euphorbiaceae (Ricinus communis), Theaceae 

(Camellia sinensis), Lauraceae (Persea Americana), Myrtaceae (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 ratings

Rosaceae (Prunus persica), Punicaceae (Punica granatum), and Proteaceae 

(Macadamia spp., Macadamia ternifolia).

Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential

Females 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 (low winter 

temperatures can be lethal) (Bedford et al., 1998). The life-cycle varies with the

season, although T. leucotreta typically has 2-3 generations per year (Bedford et 

al., 1998). Adults are attracted to light (CABI, 2005). Larvae can be

internationally transported via fruit, pods, inflorescence and cones (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 States. In 2002, U.S. cotton production was worth more than $3593 

million (NASS, 2003b). In addition to cotton species, citrus and corn production 

for the year 2002 in U.S. Plant Hardiness Zones 9-12 were valued at $2605 

million and $1040 million, respectively (NASS, 2003a; 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 (Texas) (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 ratings 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

Ratingsa

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

Low: 5-8 points, Medium: 9-12 points, High: 13-15 points
Pest 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 likely to be 

imported (Risk Element #6). Second, pest opportunity (Risk Element #7) is estimated using five 

biological features. Details of these two Risk Elements and their rating criteria are provided in 

APHIS (2000); the ratings and the cumulative score for Risk Elements #6 and #7, i.e., the 

“Likelihood of Introduction Risk Rating,” are shown in Table 6.

2.7.1. Quantity of commodity imported annually

The likelihood that an exotic pest will be introduced depends on the amount of the potentiallyinfested commodity that is imported. For qualitative pest risk assessments, the amount of 

commodity imported is estimated in units of standard 40-foot long shipping 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-feet 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 treatment

For this sub-element, post-harvest treatment refers to any manipulation, handling, or specific 

phytosanitary treatment to which the commodity is subjected. Examples of post-harvest 

treatments include culling, washing, chemical treatment, cold storage, etc. If there is no postharvest treatment, the estimate the likelihood of this sub-element is High.

Post-harvest treatments for litchi from South Africa include sulphur treatment, inspection at 

packinghouse, size grading and hand 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, especially if the infestation of the fruit is not obvious. Post-harvest

cold treatment is effective in controlling all stages of T. leucotreta; however, cold temperatures 

are likely 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 easily controlled by post-harvest treatments. (These insects have been 

intercepted by 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 shipment

To estimate the survival of pests during shipment, assume standard shipping conditions.

The specific means by which Litchi chinensis will be transported from the Republic of South 

Africa to the United States are unknown. We do know, though, that litchis 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 study 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 nonclimacteric 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 Mauritius) 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 High (3) survival rate. The scale species, Ceroplastes 

rubens, Ceroplastes rusci, Coccus viridis, and Nipaecoccus viridis were also given a High (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 High.

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 destructively sampled. 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 easy to detect. Ceroplastes rubens, Ceroplastes rusci, Coccus 

viridis and Nipaecoccus viridis are rated as Medium (2). Ceroplastes 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

males are hemispherical in shape and covered by a thick layer of oily wax, while females 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 environment suitable for survival

Consider the geographic location of likely markets and the proportion of the commodity that is 

likely to move to locations 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 States, 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 by 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. In 1964, 93% of litchi produced in Florida was shipped outside 

of the state, with one-third of it being sent to New York City (Tatton et al., 1966); as a result,

suitable regions for all arthropods species comprise 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 highly 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 polyphagous, and is very likely to contact host material once 

it is introduced to the United States. The rating for T. leucotreta is High (3).

Cryptophlebia 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 ecosystems 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 ratings for Likelihood of Introduction. The risk ratings for ‘Quantity imported 

annually’ were High for all pests.

Pest Survive 

Post-harvest

Treatment

Survive 

shipment

Not 

detected 

at portof-entry

Move to 

suitable 

habitat

Contact 

host 

material

Cumulative 

risk ratingsa

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

Low: 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 briefly 

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 typically 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.

High: Specific phytosanitary measures are strongly recommended. Port of entry inspection 

is not considered sufficient to provide phytosanitary security.

Below we provide information on possible mitigation options for the pests analyzed (Appendix 

A). Identification and selection of appropriate sanitary and phytosanitary 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. APHIS 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 Potentials

Pest Consequences of Likelihood of Pest Risk Potentiala

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

Reviewers

Heather Hartzog – Plant Pathologista

Jim Smith – Entomologista

Christie Hurt – Entomologista

a USDA-APHIS-PPQ-CPHST, Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory, 

4. Literature Cited

Aitken-Soux, P. 1985. Some pests and diseases generally 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.

Anonymous. 1965. A host list of the insects of Thailand. Thailand Department of Agriculture 

and the US Operations Mission to Thailand. 149 pp.

APHIS. 1997. Medfly Cooperative Eradication Program, Central Florida: Environmental 

Assessment. United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service (APHIS), Riverdale, Maryland.

APHIS. 1998. Mediterranean Fruit Fly Cooperative Eradication Program, Lake Forest, 

California: Environmental Assessment. United States Department of Agriculture, Animal 

and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), Riverdale, Maryland.

ARC ITSC. 2003. 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.

Barners, B. N. 2000. Fruit flies of economic importance in South Africa: an overview. 

Proceedings of the Indian Ocean Commission, Regional Fruit Fly Symposium, 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. ScaleNet. 

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. 2005. 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 Holderness, 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 by China (cited in the USDA, APHIS, PPQ 

Commodity Risk Assessment for Longans from China, May 1999).

Cordell, C.E., R.L. Anderson, W.H. Hoffard, T.D. Landis, 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/orn/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 Crops (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 (ed). 2005. Fungal Databases, 

Systematic Botany & Mycology Laboratory, USDA. <http://nt.arsgrin.gov/fungaldatabases/> last accessed: February, 2006.

FAS. 2003. Glossary. United States Department 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. 1997. 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 COMBRODELTA (LEPIDOPTERA, TORTRICIDAE) 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 (hypermédia 

en protection des plantes, partie zoologie).

IPPC. 2004. International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures, Publication No. 11: Pest risk 

analysis 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_ISPM11.pdf&refID=34163

IPPC. 2006. International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures, Publication No. 5. Glossary of 

Phytosanitary Terms. Rome, 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_ISPM05_2006_E.pdf&refID=133607

Kleynhans, 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 by 

Cryptophlebia peltastica (Meyrick) (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.hawaii.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.

Myburghm, 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 Statistics 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. United 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-APHIS 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. Cryptophlebia 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 mealybugs 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 Litchi chinensis by Cryptophlebia species 

(Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). Phytophylatica. 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/type/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. 323-331. 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 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. 2010. 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. Identification Tools for Species of Quarantine Significance. United 

States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Systematic 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). Phytophylactica 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/type/i_longin.htm.

Timm, A. E., H. Geertsema, and L. Warnich. (Article). 2006. Analysis of population genetic 

structure of two closely related tortricid species of economic importance 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.

van 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 Subtropical Crops, 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 (WSSA).

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 Fly (Ceratitis rosa Karsch) (Diptera: Tephritidae). 

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 

Identification 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 examined the risks associated with the importation of litchi (Litchi 

chinensis) into the United States. Information 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 analyzed 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 phytosanitary 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 phytosanitary 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 Meyrick (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae)

Cryptophlebia peltastica (Meyrick) (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 North American Ports10

Peoples Republic of China (fruits, including 

clusters of fruit attached to a stem) with T105-

b-1

11,12 or T107-h13,14 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 China16 (fruit, including 

clusters of fruits attached to a stem) with T105-

b-1

2,3 or T107-h17,18

 

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 Carolina (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 work 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 operational);

 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-Tacoma 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 Israel to All ports19,20

 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 Israel 

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: T104-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 mealybugs.

All insects

 FIFRA 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 

phytosanitary 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, 

especially 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, Tennessee, 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 work plan agreement and met 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 mealybugs 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.

 Cold 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 by methyl bromide (FIFRA Section 18).

 Cold Treatment and Methyl Bromide

Fumigation is 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 development. 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 

prevalence

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 False 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 by PPQ to treat all pests associated 

with litchi (FIFRA Section 18).

Hot Water Treatment Fruit fly (Ceratitis 

capitata)

Approved by 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).

Literature 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/hb66/085litchi.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.pd
Pest Risk Assessment for Litchi from the Republic of South Africa

Ver. 8 June 3, 2011 35

Appendix B. Treatment Schedules

FIFRA Section 18: FIFRA Section 18 Fumigated Commodities

Treatment: MB

FIFRA 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 Temperature 

(F)

Dosage Rate

(lbs/1000 ft3)

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 2
Pest 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 thoroughly examined at the packinghouse by an inspector and found 

free of Cryptophlebia spp. (Lychee fruit moth) and other plant pest1

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 effectively detected by inspection, and 

would not be effectively 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.

Treatment: 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 ft3)

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 38
Pest 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 only 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 ft3):

Apple, apricot, asparagus, banana, blackberry, cabbage, cactus fruit 

(tuna), cantaloupe, celery, chayote, cherry, chestnut, chicory, cipolini, 

cucumber, Dasheen, endive, fava bean (dried), fresh herbs1, grape, 

honeydew melon, kiwi, leafy vegetables, muskmelon, nectarine, peach, 

pear, pepper, pineapple, plantain, plum, raspberry, snow peas2, 

squash (summer, winter), stone fruit, sweet potato, watermelon, yam.

50 F or above (maximum dosage, 3 pounds/1000 ft3):

Bean, beet, carrot, citron (ethrog), coconut, Corn-on-the-cob (sweet 

corn), eggplant, garlic, ginger, grapefruit, green pod vegetables, 

horseradish, Jerusalem 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 ft3):

Pimento, pumpkin, zucchini

70 F or above (maximum dosage, 2 pounds/1000 ft3):

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 ft3)

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 only 

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 Health Director (SPHD):

60 F or above (maximum dosage, 4 pounds/1000 ft3):

Apple, apricot, asparagus, banana, blackberry, cabbage, cantaloupe, 

celery, chayote, cherry, chestnut, chicory, cipolini, cucumber, 

dasheen, endive, fava bean (dried), grape, fresh herbs1, 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/1000ft3):

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 ft3):

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 shall 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 by a Limited Permit (PPQ Form 530).

When designing the facility’s dosimetry system 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 APHIS.

(American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) publication, 

51261-2002 (E), “Standard Guide 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.

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, or VA)

– At the maritime ports of Gulfport, MS; or Wilmington, 

NC; or the airport of Atlanta, GA if the conditions of 

7CFR 305.2 (b) are met.

When designing the facility’s dosimetry system and procedures 

for its operation, the facility operator must address guidance and 

principles from American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) 

standards or equivalent standard recognized by the administrator 

of APHIS.

(American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) publication, 

51261-2002 (E), “Standard Guide 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
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, 

Pummelo, 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 below1

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 nullified. 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