<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
<meta name="cp:revision" content="2">
<meta name="meta:word-count" content="9415">
<meta name="extended-properties:Application" content="Microsoft Office Word">
<meta name="meta:last-author" content="Sarah Stella">
<meta name="dc:creator" content="IICA CEF">
<meta name="extended-properties:Company" content="IICA CEF">
<meta name="meta:print-date" content="2010-12-23T15:45:00Z">
<meta name="xmpTPg:NPages" content="27">
<meta name="dcterms:created" content="2010-12-23T15:48:00Z">
<meta name="dcterms:modified" content="2010-12-23T15:48:00Z">
<meta name="meta:character-count" content="53670">
<meta name="extended-properties:Template" content="Normal.dotm">
<meta name="X-TIKA:Parsed-By" content="org.apache.tika.parser.DefaultParser">
<meta name="X-TIKA:Parsed-By" content="org.apache.tika.parser.microsoft.OfficeParser">
<meta name="dc:title" content="Table 1">
<meta name="extended-properties:TotalTime" content="600000000">
<meta name="Content-Length" content="2271744">
<meta name="meta:page-count" content="27">
<meta name="Content-Type" content="application/msword">
<title>Table 1</title>
</head>
<body><div class="header"><p class="header"><i>Pest Risk Assessment for Izote from El Salvador
</i></p>
</div>
<p><b>Importation of fresh edible flowers of Izote (<i>Yucca guatemalensis </i>Baker) into the Continental United States from El Salvador
</b></p>
<p><b>A Pathway-Initiated Risk Assessment
</b></p>
<p><b>Rev. 03
</b></p>
<p><b>April 6, 2010</b></p>
<p><b>Agency Contact
</b></p>
<p>Center for Plant Health Science and Technology
</p>
<p>Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory
</p>
<p>United States Department of Agriculture
</p>
<p>Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
</p>
<p>Plant Protection and Quarantine
</p>
<p>1730 Varsity Drive, Suite 300
</p>
<p>Raleigh, NC 27606
</p>
<h1>Executive Summary
</h1>
<p>The Republic of El Salvador, Central America, requested authorization to export fresh flowers of the Izote (<i>Yucca guatemalensis </i>Baker) into the Continental United States. A list of pests associated with izote in El Salvador was prepared based on documentation submitted by the Ministry for Agriculture and Livestock of El Salvador, scientific literature, records of intercepted pests at ports-of-entry, as well as the opinion of experts in the field on Izote production. One pest likely to follow the Izote commodity pathway into the United States was identified. </p>
<p>This pest risk assessment identified the gray pineapple mealybug<i> </i>(<i>Dysmicoccus neobrevipes</i> Beardsley) as a quarantine pest that may follow the pathway and be introduced with negative consequences if not mitigated with specific phytosanitary measures. The rating for <i>Dysmicoccus neobrevipes</i> regarding the Consequences of Introduction was High, the Likelihood of Introduction was Medium, and the Overall Pest Risk Potential was Medium.</p>
<p>Identification and selection of appropriate sanitary and phytosanitary measures to mitigate risk for pests with particular Pest Risk Potential ratings are undertaken as part of the risk-management phase and is not discussed in this document. </p>
<p><b>TABLE OF CONTENTS</b></p>
<p class="tOC_1"><b>iiExecutive Summary
</b></p>
<p class="tOC_1"><b>1. Introduction
1</b></p>
<p class="tOC_2">1.1. Background
1</p>
<p class="tOC_2">1.2. Commodity information
1</p>
<p class="tOC_1"><b>2. Risk Assessment
3</b></p>
<p class="tOC_2">2.1. Initiating Event: Proposed Action
3</p>
<p class="tOC_2">2.2. Assessment of Weed Potential of <i>Yucca guatemalensis</i>.
3</p>
<p class="tOC_2">2.3. Current Status, Decision History and Pest Interceptions
4</p>
<p class="tOC_2">2.4. Pest Categorization - Identification of Pests of Izote in El Salvador
4</p>
<p class="tOC_2">2.5. Quarantine Pests Likely to Follow the Pathway
9</p>
<p class="tOC_2">2.6 Consequences of Introduction
9</p>
<p class="tOC_2">2.7 Likelihood of Introduction
12</p>
<p class="tOC_2">2.8. Pest Risk Potential and Conclusion
14</p>
<p class="tOC_1"><b>3. Literature Cited
14</b></p>
<p class="tOC_1"><b>4. Preparers and Reviewers
19</b></p>
<p class="tOC_1"><b>5. Appendices
20</b></p>
<p class="tOC_2">Appendix A. Pests intercepted on <i>Yucca guatemalensis </i>from 1985 to 2004.
20</p>
<p class="tOC_2">Appendix B. Plant species related to families of hosts of <i>Dysmicoccus neobrevipes </i>listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service considered as endangered or threatened.
21</p>
<p class="tOC_2">Appendix C: Mitigations of Quarantine Pests of Concern
23</p>
<p><b>
</b></p>
<h1>1. Introduction</h1>
<h2>1.1. Background
</h2>
<p>This risk assessment was prepared by USDA APHIS PPQ, in response to a request submitted by the Ministry for Agriculture and Livestock of El Salvador. This assessment examines pest risks associated with the importation into the continental United States of fresh izote flowers (<i>Yucca guatemalensis </i>Baker) from El Salvador. 
</p>
<p> This pest risk assessment is called pathway-initiated because it is based on the risks that may be associated with the importation of this commodity. This analysis records its findings in descriptive terms (high, medium, and low) rather than in probabilities or frequencies. The methodology and rating criteria are explained in Pathway-Initiated Pest Risk Assessments: Guidelines for Qualitative Assessments, version 5.02 (PPQ, 2000).</p>
<p>International plant protection organizations such as the North American Plant Protection Organization (NAPPO) and the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) of the United Nations, and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) provide guidance for conducting pest risk analyses. The methods used in this plant pest risk assessment are consistent with these guidelines and are based upon the Guidelines version 5.02 (PPQ, 2000), and are in accordance with the International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures (IPPC, 2009: ISPM #s 2 and 5). The cited guidelines describe three stages for pest risk analysis: Stage 1 (initiation), Stage 2 (risk assessment), and Stage 3 (risk management). The present document satisfies the requirements of Stages 1 and 2. Additionally, known phytosanitary measures are described.
</p>
<h2>1.2. Commodity information
</h2>
<p><i>Yucca guatemalensis </i>Baker (Class: Monocotyledonae, Order: Asparagales, Family: Agavaceae) is native to the Southwestern United Sates, Puerto Rico, Mexico, and Guatemala (Bartolomaus et al., 1990; Gardening Australia, 2000; Sanchez de Lorenzo, 2003; USDA and NRCS, 2002). Izote belongs to the <i>Yucca</i> genus which includes approximately 40 species, distributed mainly in United States, Mexico, Central America, and Cuba (Nuñez, 1994).</p>
<p><i>Yucca guatemalensis </i>is known as <i>izote</i> in El Salvador and is also called spineless or giant yucca. Its leaves are pliable and lack the sharp spines on the tips that are characteristic of most yuccas. The plant may reach a height of 9.1m (30ft). With age the stem becomes rough and thick, and when mature it develops a swollen base and often branches a few feet off the ground. The leaves, which grow in a spiral rosette, are shiny green, reaching 1.2m (4ft) in length, close to 7.6cm (3in.) in width, and have serrated margins (Bailey and Bailey, 1976; Christman, 2002). </p>
<p>The inflorescence is an erect panicle 60-70cm (23.62-27.56in.) long, with white fragrant flowers with 1 to 2 bracts and a perianto with eucapetals 2.5-4cm (0.98-1.57in.) in size, and are distinct. The stamens are attached right under the ovary. The flowers are white or pale yellow and correspond to a clustered inflorescence (Grayum, 2003; Nuñez, 1994). In El Salvador budding occurs when the plant reaches 4 to 7 years of age when the inflorescences appear at the beginning of the rainy season (April, May) and, in general terms, one inflorescence per stem is formed (MAG, 2005a).</p>
<p>Izote grows in arid regions of southern Mexico and Central America. It is a popular landscaping plant in southern Florida (Christman, 2002). Izote will tolerate low temperatures and humidity, but when placed indoors, they should be kept in bright light. Izote is easily propagated from fresh healthy canes (Cubías, 1992). This species is not demanding with regard to weather and precipitation; the development of the plant occurs between 12 and 40oC (53.6 and 104oF); it needs an annual rainfall between 1,000mm and 1,200mm and grows between 400 and 2,900 m (1,312 and 9,514ft) above sea level (Bartolomaus et al., 1990; Nuñez, 1994).</p>
<p>The flowers of izote are edible and, in El Salvador, are consumed cooked or stewed with eggs or pickled. These flowers contain: calcium, iron, thiamine, niacin, phosphorus, carotene, and ascorbic acid (Nuñez, 1994). </p>
<p>Outside of the traditional use of its flowers for food, the plant of izote is also utilized as a live barrier against soil erosion as well as plant material for perimeter fencing around agricultural premises. The main use of this species is ornamental (Cubías, 1992). Thus, its most important market consists in exports of stem stalks or canes (for propagation) for interior decorating (Clark et al., 1988). </p>
<p>It is important to clarify that the synonym <i>Yucca elephantipes</i> is commonly cited for this species in several documents and in databases in El Salvador and Central America.</p>
<p><img src="embedded:image1.jpg" alt="image1.jpg"> </p>
<p><b> Figure 1.</b> Izote plantation (MOGO, 2005).</p>
<p><img src="embedded:image2.jpg" alt="image2.jpg"><b> Figure 2</b>. (a) Izote Inflorescence (CEF, 2005); (b) Packed izote flowers (CEF, 2005).</p>
<h1>2. Risk Assessment</h1>
<p>In this risk assessment, the first five Risk Elements considered are combined to form an assessment of the risk associated with the Consequences of Introduction. Six Sub-Elements are evaluated and combined for value that estimate the risk associated with the Likelihood of Introduction. Together, the Consequences of Introduction and the Likelihood of Introduction values form an assessment of the Pest Risk Potential. 
</p>
<h2>2.1. Initiating Event: Proposed Action</h2>
<p>This commodity-based, pathway-initiated assessment is in response to a request made by the Ministry for Agriculture and Livestock (MAG) of El Salvador (letter No. 285-2004 dated October 15, 2004) to the USDA for authorization to allow the importation of izote. In this case, the importation into the continental United States of izote flowers, grown in El Salvador, is a potential pathway for the introduction of plant pests. Title 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations 319, Part 56 (7 CFR § 319.56) provides regulatory authority for the importation of fruits and vegetables from foreign sources into the United States.</p>
<h2>2.2. Assessment of Weed Potential of Yucca guatemalensis.</h2>
<p>The results of the screening for izote’s potential as a weed<i> </i>did not prompt a weed-initiated risk assessment (Table 1).
</p>
<p><b>Table 1</b>. Assessment of Weed Potential of <i>Yucca guatemalensis</i></p>
<table><tbody><tr>	<td><p><b>Scientific name and author</b>:<i> Yucca guatemalensis </i>Baker</p>
<p><b>Plant family</b>: Agavaceae
</p>
<p><b>Synonyms</b>: <i>Yucca elephantipes </i>Regel;<i> Y. gigantea </i>Baker; <i>Y. ghiesbreghtii</i> Baker; <i>Y. lenneana</i> Baker; <i>Y. mazelii</i> Hort. ex Watson; <i>Y. mooreana</i> Hort. Peacock ex Baker; <i>Y. roezlii</i> Hort. ex Baker. (Etter and Kristen, 1997-2004; FACTOPIA, 2005; Moller, 1998-2003).</p>
<p><b>Common names</b>: Bayoneta, Bluestem yucca, Elephant yucca, Flor de itabo, Hitavo, Izote, Palmito, Soft-Tip Yucca, Spineless yucca (CABI, 2006; Gilman and Watson, 1994; Randall et al<i>.</i>, 2002; Grayum, 2003; World Agroforestry Centre, 2005)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Phase 1:</b></p>
<p>This plant is native to the Southwest of the United Sates (Bartolomaus et al., 1990). This species is reported occurring in Belize, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Guatemala, Mexico, Nicaragua, and the United States (GDIF, 2005).</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Phase 2:</b></p>
<p><u>NO</u>
Geographical Atlas of World Weeds (Holm et al<i>.,</i> 1991a).
</p>
<p><u>NO</u>
The World’s Worst Weeds (Holm<i> </i>et al<i>.,</i> 1991b).
</p>
<p><u>NO</u>
Report of the Technical Committee to Evaluate Noxious Weeds; Exotic Weeds for the Federal Noxious Weed Act (APHIS – USDA 2000).
</p>
<p><u>NO</u>
Economically Important Foreign Weeds (Reed, 1977).
</p>
<p><u>NO</u>
Weed Science Society of America, 2005.</p>
<p><u>NO</u>
AGRICOLA (AGRIS/CARIS, 2005).
</p>
<p><u>NO</u>
Alien Plant Invaders of Natural Areas (Swearingen, 2003).</p>
<p>Other literature and database search indicating weediness:
</p>
<p><u>NO</u>
World weeds: natural histories and distributions (Holm<i> </i>et al<i>.,</i> 1997).
</p>
<p><u>NO</u>
World Economic Plants (Wiersema and León, 1999).
</p>
<p><u>NO</u>
Florida’s Invasive Species List, Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council (FLEPPC, 2003).
</p>
<p><u>NO</u>
CABI, 2006. Crop Protection Compendium. Search on Weed.</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Phase 3: 
</b></p>
<p>A weed-initiated risk assessment is not initiated for <i>Yucca guatemalensis</i> because there is no evidence of invasive behavior by this plant within the literature and due to the fact that the responses to the above were negative.</p>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<h2>2.3. Current Status, Decision History and Pest Interceptions 
</h2>
<p>Currently, the exportation of flowers of izote for fresh consumption into the United States from any country is not permitted (USDA, 2005).
</p>
<p>A number of pests have been intercepted on izote entering the U.S., but most were not identified to species level (See Appendix A).
</p>
<h2>2.4. Pest Categorization - Identification of Pests of Izote in El Salvador
</h2>
<p>Below we present information on the geographic distribution, host associations, and regulatory data for izote from El Salvador (Table 2). We listed: (1) the presence of pests in El Salvador relative to their presence within the United States, (2) the generally affected plant part or parts, (3) the quarantine status of the pest in the United States, (4) whether or not the pest is likely to follow the pathway into the United States on izote, and (5) pertinent citations for either the distribution or the biology of the pest. Many organisms are not sources of phytosanitary risk on izote from El Salvador because they do not satisfy the definition of a quarantine pest. A quarantine pest is defined as, “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, 2009: ISPM #5). </p>
<p>This Pest Risk Assessment presents the worldwide information regarding the pests associated with <i>Yucca guatemalensis</i> but we did not list some records of pests for two reasons. </p>
<p>First, some species were reported on <i>Yucca guatemalensis</i> in countries other than El Salvador and were not listed because we found no evidence that these pests occur in El Salvador on any host.<b> </b>That applied to the following arthropods: <i>Caulotops distanti</i>, <i>Cecidophyopsis hendersoni</i>,<i> Phytocoptella yuccae</i>, <i>Produxus intricatus</i>,<i> Pseudococcus landoi, Xyleus mexicanus. </i>It also applied to the bacterium, <i>Pantoea chrysanthemi</i>, and the following fungi: <i>Anthostomella nigro-annulata, Botryosphaeria agave, Cryptovalsa yuccae, Cylindrosporium angustifoliae, Diaporthe arctii, Didymosphaeria yuccae</i>, <i>Diplodia circinans, D. yuccae, Discochora yuccae, Kellermannia anomala, Kutilakesopsis macalpineae, Leptosphaeria setosa, Microsphaeropsis concentrica</i>, <i>Nettiospora yuccifolia, Paraphaeosphaeria obtusispora</i>, <i>Pestalozziella yuccae</i>, <i>Phaeosphaeria setosa</i>, <i>Phomatospora agyrostima</i>,<i> Phyllacora yuccae</i>,<i> Phyllosticta yuccae</i>, <i>P. yuccaegena</i>, <i>Pleospora parvula, Plowrightia circumscissa, Septoria yuccae</i>, <i>Thielaviopsis basicola</i>, and <i>Torula maculans</i>, Finally, it also applied to the mollusk, <i>Ovachlamys fulgens</i>, and to the following viruses: <i>Badnavirus-like</i>, <i>Bacilliform virus</i>, <i>Yucca badnavirus</i>, and <i>Yucca bacilliform</i>. </p>
<p>Second, although some genera or high taxonomic levels (i.e., not described to the species level)of the following pests are present in El Salvador, and they have been reported on <i>Yucca guatemalensis</i> in other countries; these are not considered in Table 2 because there is no clear evidence that species of these taxa are attacking <i>Yucca guatemalensis</i> in El Salvador or the taxon already occurs in the United States. This applies to the following arthropods: <i>Amphiacusta </i>sp., <i>Anomala </i>sp., <i>Bagnalliella </i>sp., <i>Batrachedra</i> sp., Cicadellidae, Coccidae, <i>Crytpotermes</i> sp., <i>Dyscinetus </i>sp., <i>Dysmicoccus</i> sp., Elateridae, Gryllidae, <i>Gryllus</i> sp., Hepialidae, Heteroptera, <i>Melenaspis</i> sp., <i>Montezumina </i>sp., Noctuidae, <i>Phyllophaga </i>sp., Scolytidae, Scythrididae, Tettigoniidae; and to the fungi: <i>Anthostomella </i>sp<i>.</i>,<i> Cladosporium </i>sp., <i>Curvularia </i>sp., <i>Gloeosporium </i>sp., <i>Macrophoma</i> sp., <i>Mycosphaerella </i>sp., <i>Pestalotia </i>sp.,<i> Phoma </i>sp., <i>Phyllosticta</i> sp., <i>Physalospora </i>sp., <i>Phytophthora</i> sp., <i>Pythium</i> sp., and <i>Septoria </i>sp. </p>
<p><b>Table 2. </b>Pests of <i>Yucca guatemalensis </i>in El Salvador</p>
<table><tbody><tr>	<td><p><b>Pest Scientific Name and Taxonomy</b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Geographic distribution
</b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Plant part affected
</b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Quaran-tine pest</b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Follow pathway</b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>References</b></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>ARTHROPODA</b></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Insecta</b></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Coleoptera: Curculionidae</b></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Scyphophorus acupunctatus </i>Gyllenhal  <i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p>SV, US</p>
</td>	<td><p>R, S</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>Berry, 1959; CABI<i>, </i>2006; Nearctica, 1998</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Hemiptera: Diaspididae</b></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Chrysomphalus dictyospermi </i>(Mogan)<i> </i></p>
</td>	<td><p>SV, US</p>
</td>	<td><p>F, L, S, Sh</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>Ben-Dov et al., 2005; CABI, 2006; HYPPZ, 2005</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae</b></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Dysmicoccus neobrevipes</i> Beardsley<i> </i></p>
</td>	<td><p>SV</p>
</td>	<td><p>F, Fl, L, R</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>Ben-Dov et al., 2005; Kessing and Mau, 1992; OIRSA, 2005; Williams and Granara, 1992</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Nipaecoccus nipae </i>(Maskell) </p>
</td>	<td><p>SV, US</p>
</td>	<td><p>F, L, S, Sh</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>Ben-Dov et al., 2005; CAB <i>Internaciotal</i>,2004; Howard et al., 2001; Williams and Granara, 1992</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Orthoptera: Gryllidae</b></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Paroecanthus niger </i>Saussure</p>
</td>	<td><p>SV</p>
</td>	<td><p>S</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>Enns Entomology Museum, 2005; González et al<i>.</i>, 2001</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>BACTERIA</b></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Erwinia</i> spp.  Enterobacteriales</p>
</td>	<td><p>SV</p>
</td>	<td><p>S, Sd</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>Bonilla and Merino, 1988; Clark, 1990; FUSADES, 2005</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>FUNGI</b>
</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Alternaria alternata </i>(Fr.:Fr.) Keissl<i> </i> Syn<i>: Alternaria tenuis</i> Nees <i> </i>(Mitosporic fungi: Hyphomycetes)</p>
</td>	<td><p>SV, US</p>
</td>	<td><p>L</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>Escobar, 2003; Farr et al., 1989; Villalobos and Cárdenas, 2002</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Alternaria</i> sp.  (Mitosporic fungi: Hyphomycetes)</p>
</td>	<td><p>SV, US</p>
</td>	<td><p>L,Sd</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>Acuña and Rivera, 1976; Farr et al., 1989; McGuire and Crandall, 1967; Padilla and Palma, 1985</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Apodothina pringlei</i> (Peck)<i>  </i>Syn:<i> Sphaerodothis pringlei </i>(Peck) Thiss & Syd  (Loculoascomycetes: Dothideales)<i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p>SV, US </p>
</td>	<td><p>L</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>Farr et al., 1989; Wellman, 1977</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Curvularia </i>sp<i>. </i> (Mitosporic fungi: Hyphomycetes)<i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p>SV</p>
</td>	<td><p>L</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>Acuña and Rivera, 1976; Alfieri<i> </i>et al., 1994; Escobar, 2003; Bonilla and Merino, 1988; Farr et al., 1989; Solis, 1989; Villalobos and Cárdenas, 2002</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Cytosporina </i>sp.  (Mitosporic fungi: Coelomycetes)<i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p>SV</p>
</td>	<td><p>L</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>Anonymous, undated; Farr et al., 1989; Villalobos and Cárdenas, 2002</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Didymosphaeria clementsii  </i>Sacc. & D. Sacc.  (Loculoascomycetes: Dothideales)<i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p>SV, US </p>
</td>	<td><p>L</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>Farr et al., 1989; Wellman, 1977</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Fusarium lateritium </i>Nees; Fr.<i> </i>(Mitosporic fungi: Hyphomycetes)</p>
</td>	<td><p>SV, US</p>
</td>	<td><p>L</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2006; Farr et al., 1989; Farr et al., 2005</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Fusarium </i>sp.  (Mitosporic fungi: Hyphomycetes)<i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p>SV</p>
</td>	<td><p>L, S, Sd</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>Clark, et al., 1988; Farr et al., 1989; Farr et al., 2005; Padilla and Palma, 1985; González et al<i>.</i>, 2001</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Glomerella cingulata </i>(Stoneman) Spauld. & H. Screnk. (Anamorph: <i>Colletotrichum gloesporoides </i>(Penz.) Penz.& Sacc. In Penz)  (Pyrenomycetes: Phyllachorales)<i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p>SV, US</p>
</td>	<td><p>Fl, L </p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>Acuña and Rivera, 1976; Farr et al., 1989; MAG, 1995; McGuire and Crandall, 1967; Rodríguez, 2003; Villalobos and Cárdenas, 2002; Wellman, 1977</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Leptosphaeria filamentosa</i> Ellis & Everh  (Loculoascomycetes: Dothideales)<i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p>SV, US</p>
</td>	<td><p>L</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>Farr et al., 1989; Farr et al., 2005; Wellman, 1977</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Nigrospora </i>sp.<i>  </i>(Mitosporic fungi: Hyphomycetes)</p>
</td>	<td><p>SV</p>
</td>	<td><p>L</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>Farr et al., 1989; Wellman, 1977</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Paraphaeosphaeria obtusispora </i> (Speg.) O.E. Erikss<i>  </i>Syn: <i>Leptosphaeria obtusispora </i>Speg.<i>  </i>(Anamorph<i>: Microsphaeropsis concentrica </i>(Desmaz.) Morgan – Jones<i> </i>Syn:<i> Coniothyrium concentricum </i>(Demaz.) Sacc<i>.</i>)  (Loculoascomycetes: Dothideales)</p>
</td>	<td><p>SV, US</p>
</td>	<td><p>L</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>Farr et al., 1989; Farr et al., 2005; Nuñez, 1994; Villalobos and Cárdenas, 2002</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Physolospora </i>sp<u>. </u>(Pyrenomycetes)</p>
</td>	<td><p>CA</p>
</td>	<td><p>S</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>Wellman, 1977</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i> Sclerotium rolfsii </i>Sacc. <i>  </i>(Mitosporic fungi: Agonomycetes)<i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p>SV, US</p>
</td>	<td><p>R</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>Acuña and Rivera, 1976; Alfieri<i> </i>et al., 1994; Farr et al., 1989; FUSADES, 2005 ; Villalobos and Cárdenas, 2002</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Stigmina concentrica </i>(Cooke & Ellis) Deighton   Syn:<i> Cercospora concentrica  </i>Cooke & Ellis  (Hyphomycetes)<i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p>SV, US</p>
</td>	<td><p>L</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>Farr et al., 1989; Farr, et al. 2005; Villalobos and Cárdenas, 2002; Wellman, 1977</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Thielaviopsis </i>sp.   (Mitosporic fungi: Hyphomycetes)<i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p>SV</p>
</td>	<td><p>R, S</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>Anonymous, undated; Clark et al., 1988; Farr et al., 1989</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>NEMATODA</b>
</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Helicotylenchus </i>spp.  (Hoplolaimidae)</p>
</td>	<td><p>SV</p>
</td>	<td><p>R</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>Fernandez et al., 2002; Ferris, 2001; Padilla and Palma, 1985</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Meloidogyne </i>spp.  (Heteroderidae)</p>
</td>	<td><p>SV</p>
</td>	<td><p>R</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2006; Fernandez et al., 2002; Ferris, 2001; Padilla and Palma, 1985; González et al<i>.</i>, 2001</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Rotylenchulus reniformis  </i>Linford & Oliveira  (Hoplolaimidae)<i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p>SV, US</p>
</td>	<td><p>R</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2006; Ferreira and Boley, 1991; Ferris, 2001</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Pratylenchus </i>spp.  (Pratylenchidae)<i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p>SV</p>
</td>	<td><p>R</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>Fernandez et al., 2002; Ferris, 2001; Padilla and Palma, 1985; Torres, 1984</p>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<h2>2.5. Quarantine Pests Likely to Follow the Pathway
</h2>
<p>We found one quarantine pest that would follow the pathway, i.e. be included in commercial shipments of izote flowers from El Salvador, <i>Dysmicoccus neobrevipes</i> Beardsley (Homoptera: Pseudococcidae). We analyzed this pest in detail.
</p>
<p>Other quarantine plant pests in this assessment, not chosen for further scrutiny, may also be detrimental to the agricultural production systems of the United States. We did not further analyze them, however, because the primary association of the pest was with plant parts other than flowers. This was true for <i>Paroecanthus niger </i> and <i>Didymosphaeria clementsii</i>,; </p>
<p>In addition, the following pests were identified only to genera: <i>Erwinia</i> sp., <i>Alternaria</i> sp., <i>Curvularia </i>sp., <i>Cytosporina </i>sp.<i> Fusarium </i>sp., <i>Helicotylenchus </i>spp., <i>Meloidogyne </i>spp., <i>Nigrospora </i>sp., <i>Pratylenchus </i>spp.,<i> </i>and <i>Thielaviopsis </i>sp. Lack of species identification may indicate limited taxonomic knowledge about that group, inappropriate life stage for full identification, or poor quality of the specimen. This lack of biological information on any given insect or pathogen should not be equated with low risk. By necessity, pest risk assessments focus on those organisms for which biological information is available and for which effective mitigation procedures may be developed (IPPC, 2009: ISPM #11). Agricultural inspectors at the port of entry will continue to take action against pests not identified to the species level if other species in the same genus are quarantine pests. Furthermore, if pests identified to only higher taxa are intercepted in the future, the USDA may re-evaluate their risk.</p>
<p>Should any of these pests be intercepted in shipments of flowers of izote, quarantine action will be taken and additional risk analyses will be conducted.</p>
<h2>2.6 Consequences of Introduction
</h2>
<p>The potential consequences of introduction for <i>Dysmicoccus neobrevipes </i>are rated using five Risk Elements: Climate-Host Interaction, Host Range, Dispersal Potential, Economic Impact, and Environmental Impact. For each Risk Element, pest is assigned a rating of Low (1 point), Medium (2 points) or High (3 points). A Cumulative Risk Rating is then calculated by adding up all of the Risk Element values. The ratings for <i>Dysmicoccus neobrevipes </i>for the five risk elements are shown below (Table 3).</p>
<p><b><i>Dysmicoccus neobrevipes </i>Beardsley
</b></p>
<p>There is no report of this insect on flowers of izote in the worldwide literature but this insect is analysed in detail in this risk assessment because it is reported on <i>Yucca elephantipes</i> and because biological information about this insect shows its association with flowers of other species.</p>
<h3>2.6.1. Climate – Host Interaction
</h3>
<p><i>Dysmicoccus neobrevipes</i> is widespread in the following tropical countries: Bahamas, Barbados, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico, Panama, Peru, Puerto Rico, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago, and the Virgin Islands (in Central and South America) (Ben-Dov et al., 2005; Williams and Granara, 1992). In the Asian Pacific basin, this species is reported in: American Samoa, Fiji, Guam, the Hawaiian Islands, Kiribati, the Marshall Islands, Northern Mariana Island, and Western Samoa. In East Asian countries: India, China, Malaysia, Pakistan, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam and within the Paleartic region: Sicily (Ben-Dov et al., 2005; CABI, 2006; Kessing and Mau, 1992). Some of the aforementioned regions are located at latitudes corresponding to hardiness zones 8 to 10 of the United States (USDA-ARS, 2003). Thus, this species may become established within these areas thanks to environmental conditions. Furthermore, within the United States, in the States of: Florida, Louisiana, Missouri, Arkansas, Colorado, New Mexico, and Tennessee, among others; there are cultivated areas of different species that can be host of this pest such as: <i>Ananas comosus</i>, <i>Citrus aurantifolia</i>, <i>Citrus limon</i>,<i> Citrus sinensis</i>, <i>Lycopersicum sculentum</i>, <i>Musa</i> sp., and <i>Zea mays</i> (Ben-Dov et al., 2005; USDA and NRCS, 2002). Consequently, the risk rating for Climate-Host interaction for <i>Dysmicoccus neobrevipes </i>is Medium. 
</p>
<h3>2.6.2. Host Range
</h3>
<p>The main host for <i>Dysmicoccus neobrevipes</i> is pineapple (<i>Ananas comosus</i>) (Ben-Dov et al., 2005; CABI, 2006). Nonetheless, several authors report this pest on more than 45 species and 18 genera of plants (DAFF, 2004; Kessing and Mau, 1992; Williams and Granara, 1992,). On the other hand, Ben-Dov et al., 2005 reports this insect to be on 44 different plant families, 9 genera, and 67 species, within which are highlighted: <i>Aglaonema treubii</i>, <i>Allium cepa</i>,<i> Annona muricata</i>,<i> Annona reticulata</i>,<i> Annona squamosa</i>, <i>Citrus aurantifolia</i>, <i>Citrus limon, Citrus sinensis</i>,<i> Cocos nucifera</i>,<i> Coffea arabica</i>, <i>Coffea canephora</i>,<i> Guettarda speciosa, Lycopersicon esculentum</i>,<i> Mangifera indica</i>,<i> Musa paradisiaca</i>,<i> Nephelium lappaceum</i>,<i> Plumeria acuminata</i>,<i> Samanea saman</i>,<i> Solanum melongena</i>,<i> Tectona grandis</i>,<i> Theobroma cacao</i>,<i> Vigna sesquipedalis, </i>and <i>Zea mays</i>. Many of these species are widely cultivated in the United States (USDA and NRCS, 2002). Consequently, the risk rating for Host Range is High.</p>
<h3>2.6.3. Dispersal Potential
</h3>
<p>The immature status of this species may move for a short period of time, no more than one day, but may be dispersed to other plants several yards due to wind and insects as is the case with three ant species: <i>Iridomyrmex humilis</i>,<i> Solenopsis germinata</i> var. <i>rufa</i>, and <i>Pheidole megacephala</i> (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) (DAFF, 2004; Kessing and Mau, 1992 PERAL, 2001;). The last species may aid in dispersing individuals of <i>Dysmicoccus neobrevipes</i> carrying them up to a distance of 27.5m (90.223ft) in 3 months (PERAL, 2001).
</p>
<p>Females go through three larval stages before reaching maturity. These stages last 11-23 days, 6-20 days, and 7-28 days, respectively. Thus, the larval period lasts between 26 and 52 days and, on the average, approximately 35 days (Kessing and Mau, 1992). Additionally, females have an average longevity of 61 days (DAFF, 2004). Thus, the complete lifecycle for this insect has an average duration of 96 days for females. This means that this species may, in one year, under adequate weather conditions and the presence of hosts, have 3 generations per year. The female may likewise produce 350 larvae although reports are known of females that have produced more than 1000 larvae (Kessing and Mau, 1992).
</p>
<p>In accordance with PERAL (2001), the dispersion of this insect over large distances may be feasible due to the shipment of different products containing insects of this species since more than 1300 interceptions have been reported in 40 different countries. Consequently, the risk rating for Dispersal Potential is High.</p>
<h3>2.6.4. Economic Impact
</h3>
<p><i>Dysmicoccus neobrevipes</i> is considered to be one of the more significant pests for pineapple crops along with <i>D. brevipes</i>. These insects may cause problems to plant growth and development as well as a reduction in the size of the pineapple fruit (Johnson, 2002). The disease known as <i>Mealybug wilt of pineapple</i> (MWP) is a significant disease for this crop and is found associated with <i>Dysmicoccus neobrevipes</i> and <i>D. brevipes</i>. Moreover, it was proven that the larvae in their second and third instars are efficient in the transmission of the <i>Pineapple mealybug wilt-associated virus </i>(PMWaV) (Sether et al., 1998).
</p>
<p>These insects cause significant losses upon the pineapple crop, which have caused, in some countries where this insect is present, carrying out chemical, cultural, and biological controls, mainly with regard to the Big-head ant (<i>Pheidole megacephala</i>) which is the one that protects the pest from its predators and parasitoids. Consequently, this leads to an increase in the production costs of the crops affected by this pest (Kessing and Mau, 1992).</p>
<p>It is likely that if <i>Dysmicoccus neobrevipes</i> enters the United States it will cause a yield loss upon cultivated areas of crops, such as: <i>Ananas comosus</i>, <i>Citrus aurantifolia</i>, <i>Citrus limon</i>,<i> Citrus sinensis</i>, <i>Lycopersicum sculentum</i>,<i> Musa</i> sp., and<i> Zea mays</i> which are present in the States of: Florida, Louisiana, Missouri, Arkansas, Colorado, New Mexico, Tennessee, among others (USDA and NRCS, 2002).</p>
<p>In addition to reducing yield, the establishment of <i>Dysmicoccus neobrevipes</i> in the United States is likely to cause the loss of international trade since this pest would be considered a quarantine pest by other countries, resulting in the loss of international and interstate markets. The risk rating for Economic Impact is High.
</p>
<h3>2.6.5. Environmental Impact
</h3>
<p><i>Dysmicoccus neobrevipes</i> is reported to be found in 44 plant families. From these, the following families: Agavaceae, Annonaceae, Anacardiaceae, Apocynaceae, Cucurbitaceae, Liliaceae, Orchidaceae, Polygonaceae, Sterculiaceae, and Verbenaceae contain species that are listed as threatened or endangered (USFWS, 2005) and that are found within the continental United States wherein this insect may suitably develop. There are species belonging to the above families that are considered to be threatened and endangered in the continental United States, <i>i.e. Agave arizonica</i> and <i>Nolina brittoniana</i> from the Agavaceae family (see Appendix B) (USFWS, 2005).
</p>
<p>The establishment of this pest leads to the implementation of chemical and biological control programs in order to control the populations of the same as well as the populations of the ants that protect it. The Risk rating for Environmental Impact is High.</p>
<p><b>Table 3. </b>Risk rating for Consequences of Introduction </p>
<table><tbody><tr>	<td><p><b>Pest</b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Risk elements</b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Cumulative Risk Rating</b></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Climate/Host
</b></p>
<p><b>Interaction</b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Host
</b></p>
<p><b>Range</b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Dispersal
</b></p>
<p><b>Potential</b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Economic
</b></p>
<p><b>Impact</b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Environmental Impact</b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b></b></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Dysmicoccus neobrevipes</i> </p>
</td>	<td><p>Medium (2)</p>
</td>	<td><p>High (3)</p>
</td>	<td><p>High (3)</p>
</td>	<td><p>High (3)</p>
</td>	<td><p>High (3)</p>
</td>	<td><p>High (14)</p>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<p><b>2.7 Likelihood of Introduction
</b></p>
<p>The Likelihood of Introduction is based upon two separate components. First, an estimate is made of the amount of commodity likely to be imported (Sub-Element #1). The rating for the quantity annually imported is based on the amount reported by the country of the proposed export and is converted into standard units of 40ft shipping containers. Second, pest opportunity is estimated using five biological features (Sub-Elements #2-6). Details of the rating criteria are explained in USDA (2000). These ratings are summarized below along with the value for the Likelihood of Introduction (Table 4). 
</p>
<h3>2.7.1. Quantity of commodity annually imported
</h3>
<p>Currently, the izote flower production in El Salvador is of small proportion since, in the majority of the cases, this plant is utilized as a live barrier against erosion (Clark et al., 1988) and grown commercially for flower production in small scale. Izote plants are mainly harvested as cane for ornamental use to export to different countries (Cubías, 1992; Nuñez, 1994).
</p>
<p>The Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock of El Salvador (MAG, 2005a) reports that there are currently 173 acres (70ha) seeded with izote for flower production, which are mainly associated with coffee crops (MAG, 2005a). Thus, the quantity of commodity initially exported annually is expected be Low (1 point): thus exports will not reach more than 10 containers (40cu ft) per year, if the market is opened.
</p>
<h3>2.7.2. Survival of Post-Harvest Treatment
</h3>
<p>The flowers of izote are cut from inflorescences and washed with hypochlorite at a concentration of 50ppm. Afterwards the flowers are immersed in cold water at 5oC (41oF). A heat treatment is also used [62oC (140oF) during 10 seconds]. The product is then dried using forced air or centrifugation (MAG, 2005a).
</p>
<p>It is likely that the presence of <i>Dysmicoccus neobrevipes</i> on flowers of izote should be reduced if these are subjected to the above post-harvest treatment. However, there is no research confirming this. Since there is no defined, standard post-harvest treatment for this product, the likelihood of these pests surviving is High (3). It is noted that many elements of post-harvest processing as described above may be highly effective against surface feeders, including mealybugs. Given that such processing is not described as a requirement and given the lack of information on specific effectiveness, this rating will remain in place until such information is made available. </p>
<h3>2.7.3. Survive shipment
</h3>
<p><i>Dysmicoccus neobrevipes</i> was intercepted more than 1300 times on shipments of different products, coming from 40 different countries (PERAL, 2001). It is likely that <i>D. neobrevipes</i> infesting flowers of izote may survive the shipment period if mitigation measures are not used. The risk associated with this pest surviving during shipment is High (3).</p>
<h3>2.7.4. Not detected at the port of entry
</h3>
<p>Adults are 0.15cm (1/17in.) in length and 0.01cm (1/25in.) in width. Adults of this pest are brown to grayish-orange, taking a grayish appearance in combination with the waxy exudation that covers them (Kessing and Mau, 1992). The larvae are likely to be seen as they move. There are coloration differences between the pests and the flowers of izote that should facilitate their detection at ports of entry. This pest has been intercepted by trained inspectors (more than 1300 times, from 40 different countries) on shipments of different products. The post-harvest process includes a visual selection where it is expected that izote flowers with presence of insects will be rejected. The risk of not detecting this pest at the port of entry is Medium (2).</p>
<h3>2.7.5. Imported or moved to an area environmentally suitable for survival
</h3>
<p>The main markets for this product are located in the Southwestern United States (California and Texas) where there exists a considerable concentration of colonies of Salvadorians (Batres et al., 2001). Because the demand for product is so specific, we do not anticipate that it will be sold outside of ethnic markets. This pest grows within areas with tropical and sub-tropical characteristics which makes it very feasible that the appropriate conditions for its development are found in different ports of entry in the United States, where this pest has favorable conditions for its development. Considering destination market within the area suitable for survival, the probability of risk is Low (1).
</p>
<h3>2.7.6. Come into contact with host material suitable for reproduction
</h3>
<p><i>Dysmicoccus neobrevipes</i> could be transported long distances on infested plant material, and it is likely that, if this pest enters the United States, it will find hosts available for reproduction due to having an ample range of hosts (more than 60 species within 44 families) (Ben-Dov et al., 2005; DAFF, 2004). Nonetheless, assessment of the probability a plant pest will come into contact with host material takes into account not only the availability of its host plants, in time and space, and of the particular plant parts fed upon or used for reproduction, but also the pest’s inherent powers of movement allowing it to find and colonize hosts successfully. </p>
<p><i>D. neobrevipes</i> (crawlers) has limited inherent abilities to move long distances; mobile stage (crawlers) may move for a short period of time (no more than one day), and short distances on the same plant or to neighboring plants (DAFF, 2004; Kessing and Mau, 1992, PERAL, 2001). It is expected, that izote flowers importations, from El Salvador occurs only during the season from May to October, when the izote budding occurs in El Salvador (MAG, 2005a). The rating for the risk that <i>D. neobrevipes</i> can find host material suitable for reproduction is Low (1).
</p>
<p>The likelihood that a particular pest will be introduced is reflected in the value for the Cumulative Risk Rating. The Cumulative Risk Rating is Medium (14 points) for <i>Dysmicoccus neobrevipes</i> (Table 4).
</p>
<p><b>Table 4. Risk Rating for Likelihood of Introduction</b></p>
<table><tbody><tr>	<td><p><b>Pest</b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Sub-Element</b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Cumulative Risk Ratinga</b></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b></b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Quantity Imported Annually</b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Survive Post-Harvest Treatment</b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>SSurvive Shipment</b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Not Detected at Port of Entry</b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Moved to Suitable Habitat</b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Contact with Host Material</b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b></b></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Dysmicoccus neobrevipes</i> <i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p>Low (1)</p>
</td>	<td><p>High (3)</p>
</td>	<td><p>High (3)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Medium (2)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Low (1)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Low (1)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Medium (11)</p>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<p>a Low is 6-9 points, Medium is 10-14 points, and High is 15-18 points.</p>
<h2>2.8. Pest Risk Potential and Conclusion
</h2>
<p>Summation of the Consequences of Introduction and the Likelihood of Introduction values produce the Pest Risk Potential (Table 5). Pest Risk Potential is a baseline estimate of the risks associated with importation of the commodity in the absence of mitigation measures. <i>Dysmicoccus neobrevipes</i> has a Medium Pest Risk Potential.</p>
<p>If mitigation measures for <i>Dysmicoccus neobrevipes</i> are developed, then entry of izote flowers from El Salvador into all ports of the United States may be possible. These potential mitigation measures may include quarantine treatments, or the development of a systems approach with pre-clearance/ inspections. A list possible risk mitigation option is presented in the Appendix C.
</p>
<p>Identification and selection of appropriate phytosanitary measures to mitigate the risk from pests with particular Pest Risk Potential ratings is undertaken as part of the risk-management phase within APHIS and is not finalized 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 upon the availability of appropriate mitigation methods. 
</p>
<p><b>Table 5. </b>Pest Risk Potential</p>
<table><tbody><tr>	<td><p><b>Pest</b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Consequences of Introduction</b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Likelihood of Introduction</b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Pest Risk Potentiala</b></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Dysmicoccus neobrevipes</i></p>
</td>	<td><p>High (14)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Medium (11)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Medium (25)</p>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<p>a Low is 11-18 points; Medium is 19-26 points and High is 27-33 points.</p>
<h1>3. Literature Cited</h1>
<p>Acuña, E; Rivera, S. 1976. Plagas y Enfermedades Identificadas durante 1976. Centro Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria -CENTA-.</p>
<p>AGRIS/CARIS. 2005. FAO. AGRIS Database, 1975-2003. Search terms: <i>Yucca elephantipes </i>and Weed. <http://www.fao.org/agris>. Last accessed: April 8 of 2005.</p>
<p>Alfieri, S.A. JR., Langdon, K.R., Kimbrough, J.W., EL-Gholl, N.E., and C. Wehlburg. 1994. Diseases and Disorders of Plants in Florida. Division of Plant Industry. Bulletin 14, FL.</p>
<p>Anonymous, undated; Cultivo comercial del Izote.</p>
<p>APHIS. 2000. FNWA, Federal Noxious Weed Act. APHIS <http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/weeds></p>
<p>Bartolomaus, A, De La Rosa, A.; Santos, J.; Acero, L.; Moosbrugger, W. 1990. El Manto de la Tierra. Flora de los Andes. Corporación Autónoma Regional de las Cuencas de los Ríos Bogotá, Ubaté y Suárez. CAR. GTZ. KFW. 332 p.</p>
<p>Batres, P; Jensen, H. and Brester G. 2001. Salvadoran Consumption of ethnic foods in the United States. Working Paper 01-WP 289. Center for Agriculture and Rural Development. Iowa State University.
</p>
<p>Bailey, L.H. and E.Z. Bailey. 1976. Hortus Third. Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc. New York. 1290p.</p>
<p>Ben-Dov, Y., Miller, D. and Gibson, G. 2005. ScaleNet, Scales on a Host, Natural Enemies and Associates of a Scale Query. http://www.sel.barc.usda.gov/scalenet/scalenet.htm</p>
<p>Berry, P. 1959. Entomología Económica de El Salvador. Servicio Cooperativo Agrícola Salvadoreño Americano. Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganadería Santa Tecla. El Salvador. C. A. 255 p.</p>
<p>Bonilla, P.; Merino, F. 1988. Incidencia y severidad de las principales enfermedades del Maíz (<i>Zea mays</i>) en le zona costera de El Salvador. In: Memorias de Resúmenes del II Seminario Nacional de Manejo Integrado de Plagas. CENTA – CATIE. Proyecto Manejo Integrado de Plagas. San Salvador, El Salvador. 5 al 7 de Julio de 1988.</p>
<p>CABI. 2006. Crop Protection Compendium. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureau International (CABI), Wallingford, UK.</p>
<p>CEF. 2005. Center for Phytosanitary Excellence (CEF), Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ), Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), United States Department of Agriculture. Bogota, Colombia.</p>
<p>Clark, A., Guevara, R., Vallejo, E., Alvarenga, R. 1988. Cultivo y Proceso del Izote para El Salvador. MICE, OEA, CENTA. San Salvador, El Salvador. 18 p</p>
<p>Clark, A. 1990. Manual sobre el cultivo y exportación de Izote (<i>Yucca guatemalensis</i>). Dirección de Promoción de Exportaciones e Inversiones. Proyecto MEC – OEA. Fomento a la Exportación de Plantas Ornamentales, Follajes y Flores. </p>
<p>Cubías, J. 1992. El Izote. Cultivo no tradicional de exportación. In: La Prensa Gráfica. Suplemento Campo. Jueves 22 de Octubre de 1992.</p>
<p>Christman, S. 2002.<i>Yucca elephantipes</i>. Floridata. Market Place. Consulted in april of 2005. <http://www.floridata.com/ref/Y/yucc_ela.cfm> </p>
<p>DAFF (Department of Agriculture, fisheries and Forestry ) 2004. Mangosteen fruit from Thailand Final Import Risk Analysis Report http://www.daff.gov.au/corporate_docs/publications/pdf/market_access/biosecurity/plant/mgsteen_final_ira.pdf  
</p>
<p>Enns Entomology Museum. 2005. University of Missouri – Columbia http://www.museum.insecta.missouri.edu/taxa/Orthopter/gryllidae.html</p>
<p>Escobar, J.C. 2003.. Manejo Integrado de Plagas de Cultivos Hortícolas. Manual del Capacitador. Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganadería MAG.; Centro Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria y Forestal CENTA; Proyecto CENTA – FAO. San Salvador, El Salvador.</p>
<p>Etter, J. and Kristen, M. 1997-2004. <i>Yucca elephantipes</i> Regel. <http://www.globetrotters.ch> Last access: April 18, 2005.</p>
<p>FACTOPIA, 2005. Yucca. Consulted April /2005. http://www.factopia.com/gardening-vol4/yucca.htm</p>
<p>Farr, D.F., Bills, G.F., Chamuris, G.P. and Rossman, A.Y. 1989. 2d Ed. Fungi on Plants and Plant Products in the United States. American Phytopathological Society, St. Paul, MN.</p>
<p>Farr, D.F., Rossman, A.Y., Palm, M.E., & McCray, E.B. (n.d.) Fungal Databases, Systematic Botany & Mycology Laboratory, ARS, USDA. Retrieved January 25, 2005, from <http://nt.ars-grin.gov/fungaldatabases/></p>
<p>Ferreira, S. and Boley, R.1991.<i> Rotylenchulus reniformis</i>. University of Hawaii at Manoa. In: Crop Knowledge Master. <http://www.extento.hawaii.edu/kbase/crop/Type/r_renif.htm></p>
<p>Ferris, H. 2001. The Nematode-Plant Expert Information System NEMAPLEX. The Virtual Encyclopedia on Soil and Plant Nematodes. University of California, Department of Nematology.  http://plpnemweb.ucdavis.edu/nemaplex/Uppermnus/Classifmnu.htm </p>
<p>Fernández, O., Perlaza, F. and Quesada A. 2002. Nemátodos Asociados a los Cultivos Agrícolas de Costa Rica. Ministerio De Agricultura y Ganadería –MAG-. </p>
<p>FLEPPC. 2003. List of Florida's Invasive Species. Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council. http://www.fleppc.org/03list.htm</p>
<p>FUSADES. 2005. Fundación Salvadoreňa para el Desarrollo Económico y Social (FUSADES) [Salvadorian Foundation for Economic and Social Development]. http://www.civil-society.oas.org/accredited%20organizations/FUSADES/FUSADES%20-%20Eng.doc (Accessed August 8, 2007).</p>
<p>Gardening Australia. 2000. Plant Diary: <i>Yucca elephantipes.</i> http://www.abc.net.au/gardening/stories/s115396.htm#</p>
<p>GDIF. 2005. Annual Report. Global Diversity Information Facility (GDIF). http://circa.gbif.net/irc/DownLoad/k4e_AQJ_muGDI3gl-kSskDDjYv4G88vM/v/ar2005.pdf (Accessed August 8, 2007).</p>
<p>Gilman, E. and Watson, D. 1994. <i>Yucca elephantipes</i>. Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences. University of Florida. <http://hort.ifas.ufl.edu/trees/YUCELEA.pdf></p>
<p>González, O., Bautista, F. and Hernandez, A. 2001. Combate integrado de Plagas, Enfermedades, nemátodos y malezas del Cafeto. Fundación Salvadoreña para Investigaciones del Café -PROCAFE-, San Salvador, El Salvador.</p>
<p>Grayum, M. 2003. AGAVACEAE. Manual de Plantas de Costa Rica. Missouri Botanical Garden. Consulted 19 de Abril de 2005. http://www.mobot.org/MOBOT/research/treat/agavac.shtml#Yucca</p>
<p>Holm, L. G., D. L. Plucknett, J. V. Pancho and J. P. Herberger.. 1991a. The World’s Worst Weeds: distribution and biology .University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu</p>
<p>Holm, L. G., D. L. Plucknett, J. V. Pancho and J. P. Herberger. 1991b. A Geographical Atlas of World Weeds. John Wiley and Sons.New York </p>
<p>Holm, L.G., Doll, J., Holm, E., Pancho, J.V. and Herberger, J. 1997. World Weeds: Natural Histories and Distributions. John Wiley and Sons, New York.</p>
<p>Howard, F. W.; Moore, D.; Giblin-Davis, R. M. and Abad, R. G. 2001. Insects on Palms. CABI<i>.</i></p>
<p>HYPPZ. 2005. French National Institute for Agricultural Research, HYPPZ Pest Encyclopaedia. http://www.inra.fr/hyppz/RAVAGEUR/6chrdic.htm (Accessed August 8, 2007).</p>
<p>IPPC. 2009. International Standards For Phytosanitary Measures, 1 to 29 (2009 edition). Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Secretariat of the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC), Rome, Italy. 434 pp.</p>
<p>Johnson, Marshall. 2002. Sustainable Pineapple Mealybug Managment via Augmentative Biological Control. T-Star a special grant of the USDA, CSREES. Tropical & Subtropical Agriculture Reserch. Consulted May-05 < http://www2.ctahr.hawaii.edu/t-star/mealybug.htm></p>
<p>Kessing, J. and Mau, R. 1992. <i>Dysmicoccus neobrevipes</i> (Beardsley). Gray Pineapple Mealybug. Crop Knowledge Master. Retrieved 26 April de 2005. <http://www.extento.hawaii.edu/kbase/crop/Type/d_neobre.htm></p>
<p>MAG (Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock of El Salvador). 1995. Principales plagas y Enfermedades de los Cítricos. Día de Campo. San Juan Opico, El Salvador. Mayo de 1995.</p>
<p>MAG (Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock of El Salvador). 2005a. Tecnical information of Chufle, Chipile, Izote, y Pacaya. Official communication Ing Helmer Esquivel. Jefe de División de Sanidad Vegetal. San Salvador, 20 de Junio de 2005. </p>
<p>McGuire, J., and B. Crandall. 1967. Survey of insect pest and plant diseases of selected food crops of Mexico, Central America a Panama. International Agricultural Development Service. USA. 157 p.</p>
<p>MOGO, 2005. MOGO S.A. http://www.mogo.com.gt</p>
<p>Moller, B. 1998-2003. Yucca Names. Consultada 19 de abril de 2005. http://www.bennyskaktus.dk/Y_names_UK.htm</p>
<p>Nearctica, 1998. Nomina Insecta Nearctica. A check List of the Insects of North America. <http://www.nearctica.com/nomina></p>
<p>Nuñez Retana, Guillermo. 1994. Evaluación de cinco sustratos en la propagación del Izote (<i>Yucca guatemalensis</i>) utilizando la hoja y su yema auxiliar. Tesis, Universidad de San Salvador. Facultad de Ciencias Agronómicas. San Salvador, mayo, 1994.</p>
<p>OIRSA, 2005. Plagas importantes en el cultivo de piña. Retrieved April 26, 2005. http://www.oirsa.org/Publicaciones/VIFINEX/Manuales/Manuales-1999/Manual-07/VII-plagas.htm</p>
<p>Padilla, F.A. and M. Palma. 1985. Diagnóstico parasitológico preliminar de los principales cultivos de El Salvador. MIP/CENTA/CATIE/ES-Octubre/002 23p.</p>
<p>PERAL. 2001. Importation of Rambutan Fruit (<i>Nephelium lappaceum</i> L.) from Central America and Mexico into the Continental United States. United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine, Center for Plant Health Science and Technology, Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory (PERAL), Raleigh, NC.</p>
<p>PestID. 2004. Pest Identification Database (PestID). United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine. </p>
<p>Plant diseases and pests in Denmark 1980, 97th annual report Research Centre for Plant Protection. 1981. Lyngby: Statens Planteavls forsog, 1981 62 pp. Note: See RPP 61, 990</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>Randall, R. P., Richardson, R. G., and Richardson, F. J. 2002. A Global Compendium of Weeds. Missouri Botanical Garden Press, St. Louis, MO. xxxii + 905 pp.</p>
<p>Reed, C.F. 1977. Economically Important Foreign Weeds, Potential problems in the United States. US Government Printing Office. Agriculture Handbook No. 498.</p>
<p>Rodríguez, M. 2003. Cultivo del Aguacate. Guía Técnica. Centro Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria y Forestal -CENTA-.</p>
<p>Sanchez de Lorenzo, 2003. Las plantas del género Yucca cultivadas en España. Retrieved April 19, 2005. http://www.arbolesornamentales.com/Yucca.htm</p>
<p>Sether, D. M., Ullman, D. E., and Hu, J. S. 1998. Transmission of pineapple mealybug wilt–associated virus by two species of mealybug (<i>Dysmicoccus </i>spp.). Phytopathology 88:1224-1230. Retrieved May 2005. http://www.apsnet.org/phyto/PDFS/1998/0925-01R.pdf</p>
<p>Solis, V. 1989. Indice de Enfermedades de los Cultivos Agrícolas de Costa Rica. Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganadería.- Dirección de Sanidad Vegetal. Convenio Costarricense Alemán de Sanidad Vegetal. MAG-GTZ. Costa Rica.</p>
<p>Swearingen, J. 2003. Alien Plant Invaders of Natural Areas. National Park Service. Web site: http://www.nps.gov/plants/alien/list/all.htm</p>
<p>The Global Compendium of Weeds. 2001. http://www.hear.org/gcw/html/autogend/species/20505.HTM  </p>
<p>Torres, G. 1984. Situación Fitosanitaria de los cultivos de El Salvador. In: Memorias Curso “Manejo Integrado de Plagas Agrícolas”. San Salvador, 28 – 30 de Agosto de 1984. Dirección de Defensa Agropecuaria del MAG</p>
<p>USDA and NRCS, 2002. The PLANTS Database, Version 3.5 National Plant Data Center, Baton Rouge, LA 70874-4490 USA. http://plants.usda.gov</p>
<p>USDA-ARS. 2003. USDA-ARS Plant Hardiness Zone Map. USDA miscellaneous publication 1475, issued January 1990. http://www.usna.usda.gov/Hardzone/ushzmap.html (Accessed October 19, 2007).</p>
<p>USDA. 2000. Regulated Plant Pest List. U.S. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. USDA-APHIS-PPQ. <http://www.invasivespecies.org/RegulatedPestList.pdf></p>
<p>USDA. 2005. Online Manuals. Regulating the Importation of Fresh Fruits and Vegetables. Nonpropagative Manual. USDA, MRP, APHIS, PPQ. www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/manuals</p>
<p>USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), 2005 Threatened and Endangered Species System (TESS).</p>
<p>Villalobos Calderón, J.; Cárdenas F.<i> </i>2002. Lista de Enfermedades de los Cultivos Agrícolas de Costa Rica. Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganadería. Servicio Fitosanitario del Estado Diagnóstico Fitosanitario</p>
<p>Weed Science Society of America (WSSA). 2005. Weed List. Weed Science Society of America. <http://www.wssa.net/weednames/common.asp></p>
<p>Wellman, Frederick L. 1977. Dictionary of Tropical American Crops and Their Diseases. The Scarecrow Press, Inc. Metuchen, N. J. & London.</p>
<p>Wiersema, J. and Leόn, B. 1999. World economic plants. CRC Press, Washington, D.C.</p>
<p>Williams, D. and Granara, M.; 1992. Mealybugs of Central and South America. CABI. Wallingford. UK.</p>
<p>World Agroforestry Centre. 2005. Botanic Nomenclature. <i>Yucca elephantipes</i>. <http://www.worldagroforestry.org/Sites/TreeDBS/Botanic/SpeciesInfo.cfm?SpID=8840
</p>
<h1>4. Preparers and Reviewers </h1>
<p><b>Preparers:
</b></p>
<p>Helena Moreno Beltran, CEF Colombia
</p>
<p>Luis Ernesto Forero, USDA APHIS PPQ-CPHST , Bogota, Colombia
</p>
<p><b>Reviewer</b>:
</p>
<p>Alcides Navarro, Agronomist, M.Sc. Entomologist
</p>
<p>Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganaderia (MAG) of El Salvador </p>
<p>Marina Zlotina, USDA APHIS PPQ-CPHST</p>
<p><b>Acknowledgements</b>:
</p>
<p>We are also thankful for the contributions of:
</p>
<p>Helmer Alonso Esquivel, Agronomist
</p>
<p>Plant Health Division Manager
</p>
<p>Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganaderia (MAG) of El Salvador 
</p>
<p>Francisco Salvador Fuentes, Agronomist
</p>
<p>Pest Risk Analyst
</p>
<p>Rafael Antonio Menjivar, Agronomist
</p>
<p>Jose Miguel Sermeño, Agronomist, M.Sc.
</p>
<p>Leopoldo Serrano Cervantes, Agronomist
</p>
<p>Andres Wilfredo Rivas, Agronomist, M.Sc.
</p>
<p>Professors from the “Facultad de Ciencias Agronomicas” [Faculty for Agronomic Sciences], Universidad de El Salvador (UES).
</p>
<p>Centro Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria y Forestal (CENTA).
</p>
<h1>5. Appendices</h1>
<h2>Appendix A. Pests intercepted on Yucca guatemalensis from 1985 to 2004.</h2>
<p><b>(PestID, 2009)</b></p>
<table><tbody><tr>	<td><p><b>Pest</b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Origin</b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Plant part affected</b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Interceptions (no.)</b></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Amphiacusta</i> sp </p>
</td>	<td><p>Honduras </p>
</td>	<td><p>Plant</p>
</td>	<td><p>1</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Anomala</i> sp</p>
</td>	<td><p>Honduras</p>
</td>	<td><p>Plant</p>
</td>	<td><p>1</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Anthostomella</i> sp</p>
</td>	<td><p>Dominican Republic </p>
</td>	<td><p>Stem</p>
</td>	<td><p>1</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Anurogryllus</i> sp<i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p>Honduras</p>
</td>	<td><p>Plant</p>
</td>	<td><p>1</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Bagnalliella</i> sp</p>
</td>	<td><p>Costa Rica, Honduras</p>
</td>	<td><p>Cutting, Plant</p>
</td>	<td><p>11</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Batrachedra</i> sp</p>
</td>	<td><p>Mexico </p>
</td>	<td><p>Cutting</p>
</td>	<td><p>1</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Cicadellidae, species of </p>
</td>	<td><p>Costa Rica </p>
</td>	<td><p>Cutting, Plant</p>
</td>	<td><p>4</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Cladosporium</i> sp. </p>
</td>	<td><p>Costa Rica </p>
</td>	<td><p>Cutting</p>
</td>	<td><p>1</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Coccidae, species of </p>
</td>	<td><p>Costa Rica </p>
</td>	<td><p>Cutting</p>
</td>	<td><p>1</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Diaprepes abbreviatus</i></p>
</td>	<td><p>Honduras </p>
</td>	<td><p>Plant</p>
</td>	<td><p>1</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Discochora yuccae </i></p>
</td>	<td><p>Costa Rica </p>
</td>	<td><p>Plant</p>
</td>	<td><p>1</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Dyscinetus</i> sp</p>
</td>	<td><p>Honduras </p>
</td>	<td><p>Cutting</p>
</td>	<td><p>1</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Dysmicoccus neobrevipes </i></p>
</td>	<td><p>Dominican Republic </p>
</td>	<td><p>Cutting, Plant</p>
</td>	<td><p>2</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Elateridae, species of </p>
</td>	<td><p>Honduras </p>
</td>	<td><p>Cutting</p>
</td>	<td><p>1</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Gryllidae, species of </p>
</td>	<td><p>Honduras </p>
</td>	<td><p>Cutting</p>
</td>	<td><p>1</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Gryllus</i> sp. </p>
</td>	<td><p>Honduras </p>
</td>	<td><p>Cutting, Plant</p>
</td>	<td><p>3</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Hepialidae, species of </p>
</td>	<td><p>Honduras </p>
</td>	<td><p>Cutting</p>
</td>	<td><p>1</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Heteroptera, species of </p>
</td>	<td><p>Costa Rica </p>
</td>	<td><p>Cutting</p>
</td>	<td><p>1</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Insecta, species of </p>
</td>	<td><p>Costa Rica, Honduras </p>
</td>	<td><p>Cutting, Plant</p>
</td>	<td><p>5</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Lepidoptera, species of </p>
</td>	<td><p>Honduras </p>
</td>	<td><p>Cutting</p>
</td>	<td><p>2</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Luzara rufipennis </i></p>
</td>	<td><p>Honduras </p>
</td>	<td><p>Plant</p>
</td>	<td><p>1</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Montezumina</i> sp</p>
</td>	<td><p>Guatemala</p>
</td>	<td><p>Leaf</p>
</td>	<td><p>1</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Noctuidae, species of </p>
</td>	<td><p>Costa Rica </p>
</td>	<td><p>Plant</p>
</td>	<td><p>1</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Orthoptera, species of </p>
</td>	<td><p>Costa Rica </p>
</td>	<td><p>Cutting</p>
</td>	<td><p>1</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Pentatomidae, species of </p>
</td>	<td><p>Honduras </p>
</td>	<td><p>Cutting</p>
</td>	<td><p>1</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Phlaeothripidae, species of </p>
</td>	<td><p>Honduras </p>
</td>	<td><p>Cutting, Plant</p>
</td>	<td><p>3</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Phoma</i> sp</p>
</td>	<td><p>Costa Rica </p>
</td>	<td><p>Cutting</p>
</td>	<td><p>2</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Phyllophaga</i> sp.</p>
</td>	<td><p>Honduras </p>
</td>	<td><p>Cutting, Plant</p>
</td>	<td><p>2</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Phyllosticta</i> sp</p>
</td>	<td><p>Costa Rica </p>
</td>	<td><p>Plant</p>
</td>	<td><p>1</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Phyllosticta yuccae </i></p>
</td>	<td><p>Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras,</p>
</td>	<td><p>Cutting, Plant</p>
</td>	<td><p>51</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Prodoxus</i> sp</p>
</td>	<td><p>Mexico </p>
</td>	<td><p>Cutting, Stem</p>
</td>	<td><p>4</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Scolytidae, species of </p>
</td>	<td><p>Guatemala</p>
</td>	<td><p>Stem</p>
</td>	<td><p>1</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Scythrididae, species of </p>
</td>	<td><p>Mexico </p>
</td>	<td><p>Cutting</p>
</td>	<td><p>1</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Tettigoniidae, species of </p>
</td>	<td><p>Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras </p>
</td>	<td><p>Cutting, Plant, Stem</p>
</td>	<td><p>8</p>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<h2>Appendix B. Plant species related to families of hosts of Dysmicoccus neobrevipes listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service considered as endangered or threatened.
</h2>
<p>AGAVACEAE
</p>
<p><i>Agave arizonica 
</i></p>
<p><a href="http://ecos.fws.gov/SpeciesProfile?spcode=Q2E9"><i>Nolina brittoniana</i></a></p>
<p>ANNONACEAE
</p>
<p><a href="http://ecos.fws.gov/SpeciesProfile?spcode=Q1T7"><i>Asimina tetramera</i></a></p>
<p>Anacardiaceae
</p>
<p><a href="http://ecos.fws.gov/SpeciesProfile?spcode=Q28P"><i>Deeringothamnus rugelii</i></a></p>
<p><a href="http://ecos.fws.gov/SpeciesProfile?spcode=Q2HH"><i>Rhus michauxii</i></a></p>
<p>APOCYNACEAE
</p>
<p><a href="http://ecos.fws.gov/SpeciesProfile?spcode=Q24Z"><i>Amsonia kearneyana</i></a></p>
<p><a href="http://ecos.fws.gov/SpeciesProfile?spcode=Q1V7"><i>Cycladenia jonesii </i></a></p>
<p><a href="http://ecos.fws.gov/SpeciesProfile?spcode=Q20Y"><i>Pteralyxia kauaiensis</i></a></p>
<p>CUCURBITACEAE
</p>
<p><a href="http://ecos.fws.gov/SpeciesProfile?spcode=Q280"><i>Cucurbita okeechobeensis</i> ssp. <i>okeechobeensis</i></a></p>
<p>LILIACEAE
</p>
<p><a href="http://ecos.fws.gov/SpeciesProfile?spcode=Q2X0"><i>Allium munzii</i></a></p>
<p><a href="http://ecos.fws.gov/SpeciesProfile?spcode=Q09H"><i>Brodiaea filifolia</i></a></p>
<p><a href="http://ecos.fws.gov/SpeciesProfile?spcode=Q09J"><i>Brodiaea pallida</i></a></p>
<p><a href="http://ecos.fws.gov/SpeciesProfile?spcode=Q1TU"><i>Calochortus tiburonensis</i></a></p>
<p><a href="http://ecos.fws.gov/SpeciesProfile?spcode=Q0ET"><i>Chlorogalum purpureum</i></a></p>
<p><a href="http://ecos.fws.gov/SpeciesProfile?spcode=Q2A1"><i>Erythronium propullans</i></a></p>
<p><a href="http://ecos.fws.gov/SpeciesProfile?spcode=Q0V6"><i>Fritillaria gentneri</i></a></p>
<p><a href="http://ecos.fws.gov/SpeciesProfile?spcode=Q1WX"><i>Harperocallis flava</i></a></p>
<p><a href="http://ecos.fws.gov/SpeciesProfile?spcode=Q2B8"><i>Helonias bullata</i></a></p>
<p><a href="http://ecos.fws.gov/SpeciesProfile?spcode=Q1Y0"><i>Lilium occidentale</i></a></p>
<p><a href="http://ecos.fws.gov/SpeciesProfile?spcode=Q141"><i>Lilium pardalinum </i>ssp. </a></p>
<p><a href="http://ecos.fws.gov/SpeciesProfile?spcode=Q23D"><i>Trillium persistens</i></a></p>
<p><a href="http://ecos.fws.gov/SpeciesProfile?spcode=Q2RG"><i>Trillium reliquum</i></a></p>
<p>ORQUIDIACEAE
</p>
<p><a href="http://ecos.fws.gov/SpeciesProfile?spcode=Q1XL"><i>Isotria medeoloides</i></a></p>
<p><a href="http://ecos.fws.gov/SpeciesProfile?spcode=Q21X"><i>Spiranthes parksii</i></a></p>
<p><a href="http://ecos.fws.gov/SpeciesProfile?spcode=Q3FS"><i>Spiranthes delitescens</i></a></p>
<p><a href="http://ecos.fws.gov/SpeciesProfile?spcode=Q2YD"><i>Platanthera praeclara</i></a></p>
<p><a href="http://ecos.fws.gov/SpeciesProfile?spcode=Q2GG"><i>Platanthera leucophaea</i></a></p>
<p><a href="http://ecos.fws.gov/SpeciesProfile?spcode=Q3FA"><i>Piperia yadonii</i></a></p>
<p>POLYGONACEAE
</p>
<p><a href="http://ecos.fws.gov/SpeciesProfile?spcode=Q270"><i>Chorizanthe howellii</i></a></p>
<p><a href="http://ecos.fws.gov/SpeciesProfile?spcode=Q0EY"><i>Chorizanthe orcuttiana</i></a></p>
<p><a href="http://ecos.fws.gov/SpeciesProfile?spcode=Q30Y"><i>Chorizanthe pungens</i> var. <i>hartwegiana</i></a></p>
<p><a href="http://ecos.fws.gov/SpeciesProfile?spcode=Q271"><i>Chorizanthe pungens</i> var. <i>pungens</i></a></p>
<p><a href="http://ecos.fws.gov/SpeciesProfile?spcode=Q3A9"><i>Chorizanthe robusta</i> (incl. vars. <i>robusta</i> and <i>hartwegii</i>)</a></p>
<p><a href="http://ecos.fws.gov/SpeciesProfile?spcode=Q1UF"><i>Chorizanthe valida</i></a></p>
<p><a href="http://ecos.fws.gov/SpeciesProfile?spcode=Q2T6"><i>Dodecahema leptoceras</i></a></p>
<p><a href="http://ecos.fws.gov/SpeciesProfile?spcode=Q0QW"><i>Eriogonum apricum</i> (incl. var. <i>prostratum</i>)</a></p>
<p><a href="http://ecos.fws.gov/SpeciesProfile?spcode=Q1W7"><i>Eriogonum gypsophilum</i></a></p>
<p><a href="http://ecos.fws.gov/SpeciesProfile?spcode=Q0S7"><i>Eriogonum kennedyi</i> var. <i>austromontanum</i></a></p>
<p><a href="http://ecos.fws.gov/SpeciesProfile?spcode=Q29N"><i>Eriogonum longifolium</i> var. <i>gnaphalifolium</i></a></p>
<p><a href="http://ecos.fws.gov/SpeciesProfile?spcode=Q1W8"><i>Eriogonum ovalifolium</i> var. <i>vineum</i></a></p>
<p><a href="http://ecos.fws.gov/SpeciesProfile?spcode=Q2OR"><i>Eriogonum ovalifolium</i> var. <i>williamsiae</i></a></p>
<p><a href="http://ecos.fws.gov/SpeciesProfile?spcode=Q29P"><i>Eriogonum pelinophilum</i></a></p>
<p><a href="http://ecos.fws.gov/SpeciesProfile?spcode=Q36L"><i>Oxytheca parishii</i> var. <i>goodmaniana</i></a></p>
<p><a href="http://ecos.fws.gov/SpeciesProfile?spcode=Q20R"><i>Polygonella basiramia</i></a></p>
<p><a href="http://ecos.fws.gov/SpeciesProfile?spcode=Q20S"><i>Polygonella myriophylla</i></a></p>
<p><a href="http://ecos.fws.gov/SpeciesProfile?spcode=Q3HV"><i>Polygonum hickmanii</i></a></p>
<p>STERCULIACEAE
</p>
<p><a href="http://ecos.fws.gov/SpeciesProfile?spcode=Q2XW"><i>Ayenia limitaris</i></a></p>
<p><a href="http://ecos.fws.gov/SpeciesProfile?spcode=Q0V1"><i>Fremontodendron </i></a></p>
<p><a href="http://ecos.fws.gov/SpeciesProfile?spcode=Q0V1"><i>Fremontodendron californicum</i> ssp. <i>decumbens</i></a></p>
<p><a href="http://ecos.fws.gov/SpeciesProfile?spcode=Q2OZ"><i>Fremontodendron mexicanum</i></a></p>
<p>VERBENACEAE
</p>
<p><a href="http://ecos.fws.gov/SpeciesProfile?spcode=Q3GY"><i>Nesogenes rotensis</i></a></p>
<p><a href="http://ecos.fws.gov/SpeciesProfile?spcode=Q2LO"><i>Verbena californica</i></a></p>
<h2>Appendix C: Mitigations of Quarantine Pests of Concern
</h2>
<h3>Introduction
</h3>
<p>Entry of fresh flowers of Izote, or <i>Yucca guatemalensis</i> Baker, was requested into the United States by the Republic of El Salvador, Central America. The Center for Phytosanitary Excellence (CEF) in Bogota, Colombia; of theUnited States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ) performed a commodity-specific pest risk analysis of the flowers of <i>Yucca guatemalensis</i> Baker based on intercepted pests, scientific literature, and expert opinion to determine pests most likely to follow the Izote flower commodity pathway into the United States. That pest risk assessment identified the gray pineapple mealybug, <i>Dysmicoccus neobrevipes</i> Beardsley, as a quarantine pest likely to follow fresh flowers of <i>Y. guatemalensis</i> into the United States. The ratings for <i>D. neobrevipes</i> for Consequences of Introduction was High, for Likelihood of Introduction Medium, and the Overall Pest Risk Potential Medium (IPPC, 2009: ISPM #2). Therefore, mitigations in addition to port of entry inspection may be necessary to provide phytosanitary protection against importation of the quarantine pests (IPPC, 2009: ISPM #5).
</p>
<h3>Mitigation</h3>
<p>Several mitigations have been proposed for <i>Dysmicoccus neobrevipes</i>. These include radiation treatment, systems approaches, and port inspection with phytosanitary certification. </p>
<p>The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has determined that homopteran pests in general, and <i>Dysmicoccus neobrevipes</i> (Hemiptera/Homoptera: Pseudococcidae) in particular are susceptible to and are approved to be treated by a radiation dose of 400 gray (USDA-APHIS, 2006b). This treatment may be used for commodities that can withstand the radiation, and experimentation may be necessary to determine its utility on Izote flowers.
</p>
<p>Certain commodities have been imported without additional phytosanitary measures when produced under a systems approach. Production must be certified to be in an approved site designated as free from the pest, production facilities would have to consist of pest-exclusionary greenhouses, packed within 24 hours of harvest in a pest-exclusionary packinghouse, safeguarded by insect-proof screening while in transit, and the shipping box labeled with the identity of the production site (USDA-APHIS, 2006a). Additional sanitation may be provided by chemical treatments that are designed to reduce or eliminate insect pests and remove them from the pathway (PERAL, 2004). The exporting country’s National Plant Protection Organization (NPPO) is responsible for the export certification for the systems approach production (USDA-APHIS, 2006a) 
</p>
<p>If the quarantine pest is easily detectable via visual inspection, then inspection may serve as the primary mitigation measure (USDA-APHIS, 2006a). It is believed that <i>Dysmicoccus neobrevipes</i> can be effectively detected by visual inspection as an external pest visible to an unaided eye (FRO, 2005). Izote must be inspected and found to be free of <i>D. neobrevipes</i>, and a phytosanitary certificate shall be issued by an inspector of the NPPO of the originating country. The phytosanitary certificate must state: “Upon inspection, these articles were found free of <i>Dysmicoccus neobrevipes</i>.” (USDA-APHIS, 2006c; FRO, 2006; FRO, 2007). One of the above mitigations should prove to be suitable for importation of fresh Izote flowers from El Salvador into the continental United States.
</p>
<h3>References Cited</h3>
<p>FRO. 2005. Federal Register Online via GPO Access. Federal Register 70(111): 33857 – 33873. DOCID: fr10jn05-19.
</p>
<p>FRO. 2006. Federal Register Online via GPO Access. Federal Register 71(81): 25009 – 25057. OCID: fr27ap06-17.</p>
<p>FRO. 2007. Federal Register Online via GPO Access. Federal Register 72(137): 39481 – 39528. DOCID: fr18jy07-10. </p>
<p>IPPC. 2009. International Standards For Phytosanitary Measures, 1 to 29 (2009 edition). Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Secretariat of the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC), Rome, Italy. 434 pp.</p>
<p>PERAL. 2004. Importation of Christmas Cactus, <i>Schlumbergera</i> spp. and Easter Cactus, <i>Rhipsalidopsis</i> spp., in APHIS Approved Growing Media, into the United States, from Denmark. Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory, Raleigh, North Carolina. December 2004. 
</p>
<p>USDA-APHIS. 2006a. 7 CFR Part 319. Docket No. APHIS-2006-0009. Importation of Tomatoes from Certain Central American Countries. Federal Register 71(24): 6011 – 6016. </p>
<p>USDA-APHIS. 2006b. 7 CFR Parts 305 and 319. Docket No. APHIS-2006-0040. Importation of Fruit from Thailand. Federal Register 71(143): 42319 – 42326.</p>
<p>USDA-APHIS. 2006c. Treatments for Fruits and Vegetables. 7 CFR Parts 301, 305, 318, and 319. Docket No. 03-077-2. Federal Register 71(18): 4451 – 4464.
</p>
<p>� Geographic Distribution: CA = Central America, SV = El Salvador, US = United States.
</p>
<p>� Plant Part Affected: Branch= B, Flower= Fl, Fruit= F, Leaf= L, Root= R, Seeds= Se, Seedling= Sd, Shoot= Sh, Stem= S, Tuber= T.
</p>
<p>� Fungal taxonomic classification as in Farr et al., 1989.
</p>
<p>� Nematode taxonomic classification as in Ferris, 2001.
</p>
<p>
</p>
<div class="footer"><p class="footer"><b>43</b></p>
<p class="footer"><b>Importation of fresh flowers of izote from El Salvador into the Continental United States Page 1 of 27</b></p>
</div>
<img src="embedded:image3.jpg" alt="image3.jpg"></body></html>