Importation of Fresh Leaves of Chipilin,

Crotalaria longirostrata, from El Salvador into the 

Continental United States

A Qualitative, Pathway-Initiated Risk Analysis

November 4, 2010

Ver. 5

Agency Contact:

Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory

Center for Plant Health Science and Technology

United States Department of Agriculture

Animal Plant Health Inspection Service

Plant Protection and Quarantine

1730 Varsity Drive, Suite 300

Raleigh, NC 27606
Pest Risk Assessment for Chipilin from El Salvador

Ver. 5 November 4, 2010 i

Executive Summary

In this document, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service (APHIS) assessed the pest risk associated with importing fresh leaves of 

chipilin, Crotalaria longirostrata, from El Salvador into the continental United States. Other 

than minimal post-harvest washing and sorting, we assumed that no specialized phytosanitary

treatments would be used to mitigate pest risk on this commodity. Thus, we estimated 

unmitigated risk of chipilin leaves from El Salvador. We assessed the risk for all species of 

Crotalaria in the chipilin-growing region near El Salvador, which includes Guatemala, Costa 

Rica, Nicaragua, Southern Mexico, and Honduras. We searched print and electronic sources of 

information and found two pests that are likely to follow the pathway: Phakopsora meibomiae

and Uromyces crotalariae.

We rated P. meibomiae High risk for the continental United States, while U. crotalariae was

Moderate risk, since it is unlikely to establish.

Using port-of-entry inspection as the sole mitigation measure for P. meibomiae is insufficient, 

but may be sufficient for U. crotalariae. Any required phytosanitary measures will be specified 

in the risk management phase of the analysis. We presented mitigation options in this document.

.
Pest Risk Assessment for Chipilin from El Salvador

Ver. 5 November 4, 2010 ii

Table of Contents

Executive Summary....................................................................................................................... i

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

1.1. Commodity Description....................................................................................................... 1

1.2. Standard Postharvest Processing ......................................................................................... 2

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

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

2.2. Assessment of Weed Potential............................................................................................. 2

2.3. Previous Risk Assessments, Current Status/Decision History, and Pest Interceptions....... 3

2.4. Pest Categorization: Identification of Quarantine Pests...................................................... 4

2.5. Quarantine Pests Likely to Follow the Pathway................................................................ 10

2.6. Analysis of Quarantine Pests............................................................................................. 11

2.7. Pest Risk Potential and Conclusion ................................................................................... 15

3. Risk Mitigation Options..........................................................................................................15

3.1. Introduction........................................................................................................................ 15

3.2. Risk Mitigation Options..................................................................................................... 16

3.4. Conclusions........................................................................................................................ 20

4. Authors and Reviewers............................................................................................................20

5. Literature Cited .......................................................................................................................20

6. Appendices................................................................................................................................24

Appendix A. Pests and pathogens intercepted on Crotalaria sp. and Crotalaria longirostrata.

........................................................................................................................................... 24
Pest Risk Assessment for Chipilin from El Salvador

Ver. 5 November 4, 2010 1

1. Introduction 

1.1. Commodity Description

In this document, the Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory (PERAL) of the United 

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

Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ) Center of Plant Health Science and Technology (CPHST) 

examined the unmitigated pest risks associated with the importation of foliage of chipilin, 

Crotalaria longirostrata Hook and Arn., into the continental United States from El Salvador. We 

assumed that chipilin leaves from El Salvador would not undergo any special post-harvest 

treatment or cleaning (i.e., unmitigated risk) (MAG, 2005). This is a qualitative pest risk 

assessment (PRA) in which risk was expressed in terms such as High, Medium, and Low rather 

than in numerical terms such as probabilities or frequencies. The details of the methodology and 

rating criteria can be found in Guidelines for Pathway-Initiated Risk Assessments, Version 5.02 

(PERAL, 2000).

International plant protection organizations such as the North American Plant Protection 

Organization (NAPPO) and the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) provide 

standards for conducting PRAs. The methods used to complete this assessment, as well as the 

use of biological and phytosanitary terms, are based on these standards (IPPC, 2004, 2006, 2007; 

NAPPO, 2004). The IPPC standards describe three stages of pest risk analysis: Stage 1, 

Initiation; Stage 2, Risk Assessment; and Stage 3, Risk Management. This document satisfies the 

requirements of Stages 1 and 2, and provides mitigation options for Stage 3.

Chipilin is a leguminous plant, indigenous to Southern Mexico, El Salvador, Honduras, 

Guatemala, and Northern Panama (FAO, 2005). The plant is perennial and grows anywhere 

between 0.05 m and 1.5 m (FAO, 2005). Stems have alternating arrangements of three leaves 

each. The leaves are ribbed and elliptical in shape, giving them an appearance similar to clover. 

The flowers are yellow and develop into brownish pods containing 4-6 seeds (Morton, 1994).

The primary edible product of chipilin is the leaves, which are mixed into other products such as 

soup and thick tortillas called pupusas (Morton, 1994). Chipilin is cultivated in gardens or small 

fields as part of traditional small-scale agriculture and has no history of large-scale cultivation. 

Production is usually below 1600 m in altitude in oak and pine forests (FAO, 2005).

Many Crotalaria spp. grow in Central America, but C. longirostrata and C. cajanifolia are the 

main ‘chipilin’ species consumed by humans (NRCS, 2007). The Salvadorian government has 

only requested market access for C. longirostrata. The other Crotalaria spp. are forages, 

ornamentals, or undomesticated. They include C. incana, C. longirostrata, C. micans, C. 

mollicula, C. pallida, C. pumila, C. retusa, C. sagittalis, C. setifera, C. trichotoma, and C. 

vitellina (Calderon and Stanley, 1941; GBIF, 2004). Due to the history of only small-scale 

cultivation, little has been published about the pests of Crotalaria spp. in Central America. For 

this reason, in the PRA we also considered pests for the other Crotalaria spp. cultivated in El 

Salvador, with the exception of C. juncea, because it is only under experimental cultivation in 

very limited acreage. Furthermore, we included pests distributed in the entire Crotalariagrowing region near El Salvador, which added pests known to be in Guatemala, Nicaragua, 
Pest Risk Assessment for Chipilin from El Salvador

Ver. 5 November 4, 2010 2

Honduras, southern Mexico, and Costa Rica to those in El Salvador. We thought these pests were 

likely to be present but undocumented in El Salvador.

1.2. Standard Postharvest Processing

Our risk assessment does not assume the following processes, as described by the exporters 

(MAG, 2005), that are standard and completed for all exported products. 

The product is harvested by hand. Then it is sorted (culled) for quality and pest absence, washed 

in a weak bleach solution, blown dry, and bundled in portions weighing about 250 g. Finally, the 

leaves are placed in plastic bags for shipping.

2. Risk Assessment 

2.1. Initiating Event: Proposed Action

This commodity-based, pathway-initiated assessment is in response to a request made by the 

Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock (MAG) (letter No. 285 dated 15 Oct. 2004 (MAG, 2005))

for USDA authorization to import a particular commodity that presents a potential plant pest 

risk. In this case, the importation of chipilin grown in El Salvador into the continental United 

States is a potential pathway for introduction of plant pests. Title 7 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations 319, Part 56 (7 CFR § 319.56, 2003) provides regulatory authority for the 

importation of fruits and vegetables from foreign sources into the United States. 

2.2. Assessment of Weed Potential

This PRA begins with identification of the initiating event, a weediness screening, and a review of 

the historical decision sheets. We then identify and characterize the pests present on chipilin in El 

Salvador. The quarantine pests that are likely to follow the pathway are then fully analyzed.

For this analysis, the first five risk elements form an assessment of the risk associated with the 

Consequences of Introduction. Six sub-elements are evaluated and combined for the sixth 

element, the Likelihood of Introduction, as described in the guidelines. The Consequences of 

Introduction and the Likelihood of Introduction values form an evaluation of the Pest Risk 

Potential. These science-based evaluations are designed to inform decision-makers on the pest 

risks associated with this importation.

Table 1. The weediness potential of chipilin (Crotalaria longirostrata) (Fabaceae).

Crotalaria longirostrata Hook & Arn.

Common Names: Chepil, Chipil, Chipilin, Chipilino, Empanadilla, Kurhinditu,

Longbeak Rattlebox, Parrajachel, Sonajilla, and Vaca (ARS, 2007).

Synonyms: None (ARS, 2007).

Phase 1: Distribution in the United States: Crotalaria longirostrata is 

restricted to Central America and parts of North America. This species 

has been introduced into the United States (Hawaii) from other 
Pest Risk Assessment for Chipilin from El Salvador

Ver. 5 November 4, 2010 3

countries (NRCS, 2007).

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

No (7 CFR § 360, 2006; Gunn and Ritchie, 1988; Holm et al., 1997; Holm 

et al., 1979; Holm et al., 1977; Reed, 1977; Skinner et al., 2005; 

Weber, 2003; WSSA, 2005)

No Alien plant invaders of natural areas (Swearingen, 2005)

Yes A Global Compendium of Weeds (Randall, 2007)

No Other (Allan Herbarium, 2000; Liogier and Martorell, 2000; NRCS, 

2007). 

Phase 3: Summary and Conclusions: Crotalaria longirostrata is an edible 

plant of economic importance for El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala, 

and Mexico. This species has not been classified as a weed in the 

literature of those countries. However, it has been reported in A 

Geographical Atlas of World Weeds as a weed. In Hawaii, it is a 

common weed, but its importance for the continental United States is 

unknown. In A Global Compendium of Weeds it is reported as a weed. 

Furthermore, this species does not meet the definition of a noxious 

weed in the Plant Protection Act (7 CFR § 360, 2007), and is not listed 

in the Federal Noxious Weed List. 

Chipilin is propagated through seeds and is not easily increased by

division or cutting methods. Furthermore, the commodity is unlikely to 

be contaminated with chipilin seeds, since the commodity consists of 

leaves with stems but without pods. Thus, the likelihood that chipilin 

exported from El Salvador could propagate is small.

Conclusion: The potential weediness of this commodity is negligible. 

2.3. Previous Risk Assessments, Current Status/Decision History, and Pest Interceptions

2.3.1. Previous Risk Assessments

APHIS has never conducted a pest risk assessment on any Crotalaria spp. for consumption.

2.3.2. Current Status and Decision History

Chipilin is not currently allowed to enter the United States from El Salvador or any other Central 

or North American country (PPQ, 2007).

2.3.3. U.S. Port-of-Entry Pest Interceptions

PPQ maintains a database of all the interceptions of pests and pathogens on commodities 

entering the United States (PestID, 2007). We determined that 375 pests and pathogens have 

been intercepted on Crotalaria sp. or C. longirostrata leaves from 1985 to 2007 (Appendix A). 

Because 99% of these interceptions were from the passenger baggage category, only data for this 

category were included below. Of the pests intercepted, four entries accounted for over half the 

total interceptions (Table 2).
Pest Risk Assessment for Chipilin from El Salvador

Ver. 5 November 4, 2010 4

Table 2. Pest taxa most frequently intercepted on Crotalaria sp. in passenger baggage at U.S. 

ports from 1985 to 2007. See Appendix A for the complete data set (n = 375 interceptions).

Pest Interceptions (no.)

Aphididae, Species Of 59

Noctuidae, Species Of 58

Agromyzidae, Species Of 57

Frankliniella sp. (Thripidae) 36

Total 210

2.4. Pest Categorization: Identification of Quarantine Pests 

We created a list of pests potentially associated with Crotalaria spp. in and around El Salvador

(Table 3). In the list we identify the following 1) presence or absence in the United States, 2) 

references supporting an association between the pest and Crotalaria spp., 3) plant parts where 

the pest can be found, 4) quarantine status of the pest in the United States, and 5) the likelihood 

that the pest would follow the pathway into the United States via commercial chipilin shipments. 

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, 2006). The possibility that a quarantine pest following the pathway could 

establish and spread throughout the United States depends on the presence of appropriate 

climatic and ecological conditions, including protected areas (such as greenhouses), where the 

presence of primary or alternative hosts and vectors are influential.

Table 3. Plant pests and pathogens reported on Crotalaria spp. and present in Central America.

Pest scientific name Distribution1 Host 

association 

Quarantine pestPlant part(s) 

association2

Follow 

pathway

ARTHROPODS

Acari: Tetranychidae

Eotetranychus lewisi 

McGregor

US, SV (EPPO, 

1990)

EPPO, 

1990

No N/A N/A

Oligonychus sp. SV (PestID, 2007) PestID, 

2007

Yes L (PestID, 

2007)

Yes3

Panonychus sp. SV (PestID, 2007) PestID, 

2007

Yes L (PestID, 

2007)

Yes3

 

1 Geographic Distribution: SV = El Salvador, NI = Nicaragua, HO = Honduras, CR = Costa Rica, MX = Mexico, GU = 

Guatemala, US = United States 

2

Plant Part Affected: F = Fruit, I = Flower (Inflorescence), L = Leaves, S = Stem, Sd = Seed, Sh = Shoots, R = Roots

3 Quarantine pests identified only to the order, family or generic levels are not further analyzed in this risk assessment.
Pest Risk Assessment for Chipilin from El Salvador

Ver. 5 November 4, 2010 5

Pest scientific name Distribution1 Host 

association 

Quarantine pestPlant part(s) 

association2

Follow 

pathway

Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae

Diabrotica balteata Leconte SV (Maes, 2004), US

(Capinera, 1999-

2005)

Maes, 2004 No N/A N/A

Psylliodes sp. SV (PestID, 2007) PestID, 

2007

Yes L (PestID, 

2007)

Yes3

Coleoptera: Curculionidae

Catolethrus sp. SV (PestID, 2007) PestID, 

2007

Yes L (PestID, 

2007)

Yes3

Coelosternus sp. SV (PestID, 2007) PestID, 

2007

Yes L, S (PestID, 

2007)

Yes3

Geraeus sp. SV (PestID, 2007) PestID, 

2007

Yes L (PestID, 

2007)

Yes3

Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae

Phyllophaga sp. SV (PestID, 2007) PestID, 

2007

Yes L (PestID, 

2007)

Yes3

Coleoptera: Scolytidae

Hypothenemus hampei 

Ferrari

NI, HO, GU (Maes, 

2004)

Maes, 2004 Yes F No

Xylosandrus morigerus 

Blandford

US, NI, HO (Maes, 

2004)

Maes, 2004 No N/A N/A

Diptera: Cecidomyiidae

Contarinia sp. SV (PestID, 2007) PestID, 

2007

Yes L (PestID, 

2007)

Yes3

Schizomyia sp. SV (PestID, 2007) PestID, 

2007

Yes L (PestID, 

2007)

Yes3

Diptera: Tephritidae

Bactrocera cucurbitae 

Coquillett4

SV (PestID, 2007) PestID, 

2007

Yes S (PestID, 

2007)

No

Heteroptera: Coriedae

Catorhintha guttula

Fabricius

US, SV (Maes, 2004) Maes, 2004 No N/A N/A

Heteroptera: Tingidae

Atheas fuscipes Champion SV (PestID, 2007) PestID, 

2007

Yes5L (PestID, 

2007)

Yes

 

4 We found no other reports of B. cucurbitae being present in Central America. Thus, the two reports in PestID probably 

represent insects that derived from another location, as can happen with the passenger baggage pathway.

5 We placed A. fuscipes on the pest list based on a single interception. We found no other evidence that Crotalaria spp. are a 

host for A. fuscipes, and therefore we did not further analyze the insect. If additional information becomes available, A. 

fuscipes could be considered for analysis.
Pest Risk Assessment for Chipilin from El Salvador

Ver. 5 November 4, 2010 6

Pest scientific name Distribution1 Host 

association 

Quarantine pestPlant part(s) 

association2

Follow 

pathway

Hemiptera: Aleyrodoidea

Bemisia tabaci Gennadius SV, US (Maes, 2004) Maes, 2004 No N/A N/A

Pealius sp. SV (PestID, 2007) PestID, 

2007

Yes L (PestID, 

2007)

Yes3

Hemiptera: Aphidae

Aphis craccivora Koch US, SV (Maes, 2004) Maes, 2004 No N/A N/A

Hemiptera: Cicadellidae

Hortensia similis Walker US, NI, MX (Maes, 

2004)

Maes, 2004 No N/A N/A

Oncometopia clarior Walker SV, US (Maes, 2004) Maes, 2004 No N/A N/A

Hemiptera: Coccidae

Parasaissetia nigra Nietner US, SV (Ben-Dov et 

al., 2001)

Ben-Dov et 

al., 2001

No N/A N/A

Planchonia stentae Brain US, SV (Ben-Dov et 

al., 2001)

Ben-Dov et 

al., 2001

No N/A N/A

Saissetia Miranda Cockerell 

& Parrott

US, SV (Ben-Dov et 

al., 2001)

Maes, 2004 No N/A N/A

Hemiptera: Diaspididae

Chrysomphalus aonidum

Linnaeus

US, NI, HO, GU 

(Maes, 2004)

Maes, 2004 No N/A N/A

Chrysomphalus dictyospermi 

Morgan

US, SV (Maes, 2004) Maes, 2004 No N/A N/A

Pinnaspis strachani Cooley US, NI (Maes, 2004) Maes, 2004 No N/A N/A

Pseudaulacaspis pentagona

Targioni

US, NI (Maes, 2004) Maes, 2004 No N/A N/A

Pseudaonidia trilobitiformis 

Green 

US, SV (Ben-Dov et 

al., 2001)

Ben-Dov et 

al., 2001

No N/A N/A

Hemiptera: Ortheziidae

Orthezia sp. SV (PestID, 2007) PestID, 

2007

Yes L (PestID, 

2007)

Yes3

Hemiptera: Pentatomidae

Nezara viridula Linneus US, SV (Maes, 2004) Maes, 2004 No N/A N/A

Piezodorus guildinii 

Westwood

NI, HO, GU, CR, MX 

(Maes, 2004), US

(Temple, 2007)

Maes, 2004 No N/A N/A

Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae

Paracoccus sp. SV (PestID, 2007) PestID, 

2007

Yes L, S (PestID, 

2007) 

Yes3

Lepidoptera: Arctiidae

Utetheisa sp. SV (PestID, 2007) PestID, 

2007

Yes L (PestID, 

2007)

Yes3
Pest Risk Assessment for Chipilin from El Salvador

Ver. 5 November 4, 2010 7

Pest scientific name Distribution1 Host 

association 

Quarantine pestPlant part(s) 

association2

Follow 

pathway

Utetheisa bella Linnaeus US, SV (Hall, 2005) Hall, 2005 No N/A N/A

Utetheisa ornatrix Linneus US, HO, GU, MX, 

NI, CR (Maes, 2004)

Maes, 2004 No N/A N/A

Lepidoptera: Geomitridae

Helicoverpa sp. SV (PestID, 2007) PestID, 

2007

Yes L (PestID, 

2007)

Yes3

Lepidoptera: Noctuidae

Spodoptera frugiperda J. E. 

Smith

US, SV (Maes, 2004) Maes, 2004 No N/A N/A

Trichoplusia ni Hubner US, MX, HO, NI 

(Maes, 2004)

Maes, 2004 No N/A N/A

Trichoplusia sp. SV (PestID, 2007) PestID, 

2007

Yes L, S (PestID, 

2007)

Yes3

Lepidoptera: Pyralidae

Etiella zinckenella

Treitschke

US, SV (Maes, 2004) Maes, 2004 No N/A N/A

Maruca vitrata Geyer US (TX), SV (CABI, 

2006)

Atachi and 

Djihou, 

1994

[Yes] L

6

(Atachi 

and Djihou, 

1994)

No

Lepidoptera: Tortricidae

Grapholita sp. SV (PestID, 2007) PestID, 

2007

Yes I (PestID, 

2007)

Yes3

Thysanoptera: Thripidae

Frankliniella sp. SV (PestID, 2007) PestID, 

2007

Yes L (PestID, 

2007)

Yes3

Thrips sp. SV (PestID, 2007) PestID, 

2007

Yes L (PestID, 

2007)

Yes3

FUNGI AND CHROMISTANS

Alternaria alternata (Fr.:Fr.) 

Keissl. 1912 

(Ascomycetes: 

Pleosporales)

GU, MX (Farr et al., 

2008), US (Farr et al.,

2008)

Farr et al.,

2008

No N/A N/A

Cephalosporium sp. SV (Farr et al., 2008 Farr et al.,

2008

Yes N/A Yes3

 

6 Crotalaria sp. is likely to be a host for M. virata. However, in the only study on the subject, Atachi and Djihou (1994) 

suggested that a chemical in Crotalaria sp. inhibits feeding by M. vitrata larvae. Since larvae cannot survive on the leaves, 

we concluded that they are highly unlikely to follow the pathway.
Pest Risk Assessment for Chipilin from El Salvador

Ver. 5 November 4, 2010 8

Pest scientific name Distribution1 Host 

association 

Quarantine pestPlant part(s) 

association2

Follow 

pathway

Cercosporiopsis canescens 

(Ellis & G. Martin) M. 

Muira (Syn. Cercospora 

canescens Ell. & Martin ) 

(Ascomycetes;

Mycosphaerellales)

SV (Farr et al., 2008), 

US (Alfieri et al., 

1993)

Alfieri et 

al., 1993; 

Farr et al., 

2008

No N/A N/A

Choanephora cucurbitarum 

(Berk. & Ravenel) Thaxt. 

(Zygomycetes: Mucorales)

SV (Acuña and 

Rivera, 1946), US

(Alfieri et al., 1993)

Farr et al., 

2006

No N/A N/A

Cochliobolus lunatus R.R. 

Nelson & Haasis 

(Anamorph): Curvularia 

lunata (Wakker) Boedijn 

(Ascomycetes, 

Pleosporales)

CR GU MX, US 

(Farr et al., 2008)

Farr et al., 

2008

No L (Farr et al., 

2008)

Yes

Corynespora cassiicola

(Berk. & M.A. Curtis) 

C.T. Wei (Ascomycetes, 

Pleosporales)

GU, US (Farr et al., 

2008)

Farr et al.,

2008

No L (Farr et al., 

2008)

Yes

Erysiphe pisi var. pisi DC. 

(Ascomycetes, 

Erysiphales)

SV, US (Farr et al., 

2008)

Farr et al., 

2008

No L (Farr et al., 

2008)

Yes

Glomerella cingulata

(Stoneman) Spauld. & H. 

Schrenk (Anamorph: 

Colletotrichum 

gloeosporioides (Penz.) 

Penz. & Sacc) 

(Ascomycetes, Incertae 

sedis) 

SV, US (Farr et al.,

2008)

Farr et al., 

2008

No L (Farr et al., 

2008)

Yes

Haematonectria 

haematococca (Berk. & 

Broome) Samuels & 

Rossman *1913 ref

(Anamorph: Fusarium 

solani (Mart.) Sacc. 

(Ascomycetes, 

Hypocreales)

CR, HO, NI, MX, US 

(Farr et al., 2008)

Farr et al.,

2008

No L (Farr et al.,

2008)

No
Pest Risk Assessment for Chipilin from El Salvador

Ver. 5 November 4, 2010 9

Pest scientific name Distribution1 Host 

association 

Quarantine pestPlant part(s) 

association2

Follow 

pathway

Lasiodiplodia theobromae

(Pat.) Griffon & Maubl. 

(Syn. Botryodiplodia

theobromae Pat.) 

(Ascomycetes: 

Dothideales)

SV (Farr et al., 2008), 

US (Woodward et al., 

1991)

Farr et al., 

2006

No L (Farr et al., 

2006)

Yes

Leptosphaerulina trifolii

(Rostr.) Petr. 

(Ascomycetes, 

Pleosporales)

CR, US (Farr et al.,

2008)

Farr et al., 

2008

No L (Farr et al., 

2008)

Yes

Mycena citricolor (Berk. & 

Curtis) Sacc. (Agaricales: 

Tricholomataceae)

SV (Suárez de Castro 

and Villanova, 1960), 

US (FL) (Wellman, 

1977)

Farr et al.,

2008

[Yes] F, L, S

(Wellman, 

1977)

No7

Nectria dodgei D. R. Heiser

(Sordariomycetes, 

Hypocreales)

SV (Lenne, 1990) Lenne, 

1990

Yes S (Heiser, 

1945)

No8

Parodiella hedysari 

(Schwein.) S. Hughes 

(Ascomycetes, 

Pleosporales)

CR, MX,SV, US 

(Farr et al., 2008) 

Farr et al.,

2008

No L (Farr et al.,

2008)

N/A

Phakospora meibomiae

(Arthur) (Anamorph: 

Malupa vignae (Bres.) Y. 

Ono, Buriticá & J.F. 

Hennen (Urediniomycetes, 

Uredinales)

CR, GU, MX (Farr et 

al., 2008; Ono et al., 

1992), US (PR only) 

(Farr et al., 2008)

Farr et al.,

2008; 

Lenne, 

1990; Ono 

et al., 1992

[Yes] L (Farr et al.,

2008; Ono et 

al., 1992)

Yes

Phakopsora pachyrhizi Syd. 

& P. Syd. (Anamorph: 

Malupa sojae (Henn.) Y. 

Ono, Buriticá & J.F. 

Hennen)

(Urediniomycetes, 

Uredinales)

CR, GU, MX (Farr et 

al., 2007; Lenne, 

1990), US (Farr et al., 

2008)

Farr et al.,

2008

No N/A N/A

 

7 The main host of M. citricolor is the coffee plant. Only one observation exists of M. citricolor infecting a Crotalaria

species, but that was not C. longirostrata, Thus, C. longirostrata does not appear to be a good host and the pathogen is 

highly unlikely to follow the pathway. 

8 Nectria dodgei (Heiser) is a quarantine pathogen, but it causes a stem canker on its main host genus, Coffea (Heiser, 1945), 

and is unlikely to be transmitted by leaves. Thus, N. dodgei is unlikely to follow the pathway.
Pest Risk Assessment for Chipilin from El Salvador

Ver. 5 November 4, 2010 10

Pest scientific name Distribution1 Host 

association 

Quarantine pestPlant part(s) 

association2

Follow 

pathway

Phanerochaete salmonicolor

(Berk. & Br.) Jülich Syn:

Corticium salmonicolor 

Berk. & Broome; 

Erythricium salmonicolor

(Berk. & Broome)

(Basidiomycetes: 

Aphyllophorales)

SV (Farr et al., 2008; 

FUSADES, 1992), 

US (Alfieri et al., 

1993)

Farr et al.,

2008

No N/A N/A

Phoma exigua var. exigua

Desm. (Ascomycetes; 

Pleosporales)

SV (Farr et al., 2008), 

US (Farr et al., 2008)

Farr et al., 

2008

No N/A N/A

Phytophthora palmivora var 

palmivora (E. J. Butler)

(E. J. Butler) (Oomycetes: 

Pythiales)

SV (CABI, 2006; 

Farr et al., 2008), US

(Farr et al., 2008)

CABI, 

2006; Farr 

et al., 2008

No N/A N/A

Phytophthora nicotianae

Breda de Haan (Dastur) G. 

M. Waterhouse Syn: 

Phytophthora parasitica 

Dastur (Oomycetes: 

Pythiales)

SV (Acuña and 

Rivera, 1946), US

(Alfieri et al., 1993)

Farr et al., 

2008

No N/A N/A

Thanatephorus cucumeris

(A.B. Frank) Donk 

(Anamorph: Rhizoctonia 

solani J.G. Kühn) 

(Basidiomycetes, 

Ceratobasidiales)

CR, HO, MX, SV, 

US (Farr et al., 2008)

Farr et al., 

2008

No N/A N/A

Uromyces crotalariae 

(Arthur) J. W. Baxter 

(Urediniomycetes, 

Uredinales)

GU (Cummins, 1978; 

Farr et al., 2008)

Cummins, 

1978; Farr 

et al., 2008

Yes L (Cummins, 

1978)

Yes

Uromyces decoratus Syd. & 

P. Syd. (Urediniomycetes, 

Uredinales) 

CR (Farr et al., 2008; 

Lenne et al., 1990);

US (CABI, 2006)

Farr et al., 

2008

No N/A N/A

Uromyces occidentalis

Dietel (Urediniomycetes, 

Uredinales)

MX, US (Farr et al.,

2008)

Farr et al.,

2008

No N/A N/A

2.5. Quarantine Pests Likely to Follow the Pathway

We found two quarantine pests likely to follow the pathway (Table 4), and analyzed those pests 

further. 
Pest Risk Assessment for Chipilin from El Salvador

Ver. 5 November 4, 2010 11

Quarantine plant pests in this assessment that were not chosen for further scrutiny may be 

detrimental to the agricultural production systems of the United States. Individual species within 

those taxonomic groups may be potential pests occuring within the United States, but we did not 

further analyze these pests because the IPPC guidelines do not require risk assessment of pests 

identified only by genus name (IPPC, 2007). By necessity, PRAs focus on those organisms for 

which adequate biological and taxonomic information is available. Genera often contain many 

species, and assuming that the biology of all organisms within a genus is identical is not 

reasonable. The lack of species identification may indicate the limits of current taxonomic 

knowledge, the life stage, or the quality of the specimen submitted for identification. This should 

not be equated with low risk, however, since imprecise taxonomic identifications can mask 

known or unknown quarantine pests. If the pests identified in this risk assessment at a genus, 

family, or order level are intercepted on chipilin from El Salvador in the future, species-specific 

identification should follow. Quarantine action can be taken where appropriate and a reevaluation of pest risk may be necessary. 

In an early draft of the risk analysis, Maruca vitrata was the only quarantine pest. It could not be 

conclusively associated with Crotalaria sp., but was present in El Salvador, and could exploit 

Fabaceae family members (Moreno and Zambrano, 2005). The only examination of the 

relationship between M. vitrata and Crotalaria found that Crotalaria spp. are actually 

insecticidal to M. vitrata larvae and that Crotalaria would be a trap crop rather than a host 

(Atachi and Djihou, 1994). For this reason, we did not analyze M. vitrata.

Similarly, we did not include Milesia crotalariae (Dietel) Y. Ono, Buriticá & J.F. Hennen in the 

pest list, because the host association is based on a single observation in a botanical specimen 

(Farr et al, 2008; Ono et al 1992). Milesia crotalariae has never been observed in the field and 

we found no information on virulence, host range, or preferred environmental conditions. This 

was insufficient information for a host association. If we later find more evidence, we may list 

and analyze the pest.

Table 4. Quarantine pests likely to follow the pathway and selected for further analysis.

Type Scientific name of pest Taxonomy

Fungi Phakopsora meibomiae (Arthur) Urediniomycetes: Uredinales

Uromyces crotalariae (Arthur) Urediniomycetes: Uredinales

2.6. Analysis of Quarantine Pests

The undesirable consequences that may occur from the introduction of quarantine pests are 

assessed within this section. For each quarantine pest, the potential consequences of introduction 

and likelihood of introduction are assessed. The pest risk potential is determined by summing the 

consequences of introduction and likelihood of introduction risk values. These ratings are 

determined using the criteria in the Guidelines for Pathway-Initiated Pest Risk Assessments, 

Version 5.02 (PERAL, 2008).
Pest Risk Assessment for Chipilin from El Salvador

Ver. 5 November 4, 2010 12

2.6.1. Consequences of Introduction

For each Risk Element, we assigned pests a rating of Low (1 point), Medium (2 points), or High 

(3 points) (PERAL, 2000). We then calculated a cumulative risk rating by summing the risk 

element values. We summarized ratings for the Consequences of Introduction for each pest 

below (Table 5). The following tables describe the basis for each rating.

Phakopsora meibomiae Risk Ratings

Risk Element 1: Climate-Host Interaction

Phakopsora meibomiae (Arthur) is a tropical to semi-tropical fungus with 

biology similar to P. pachyrhizi (Asian soybean rust) (Chalkley, 2010). Thus, we 

expect P. meibomiae to establish in the southern United States, which has

overwintering host material, and to infect leguminous crops in Midwest during 

the spring and summer (Chalkley, 2010). This corresponds to hardiness zones 5-

10 (Magarey et al, 2008). The wide area for both climate and host material 

warrant a High rating.

High (3)

Risk Element 2: Host Range

Aeschynomene america, Canavalia villosa, Crotalaria anagyroides, Glycine 

max, Lablab purpureus, Phaseolus lunatus, and P. vulgaris are the main hosts 

(CABI, 2006). However, the pest attacks an additional 50 species in 21 genera in 

the family Fabaceae. The host range is very wide so the rating is Medium.

Med (2)

Risk Element 3: Dispersal Potential

Urediniospores of P. meibomiae are likely to spread in the troposphere across 

continents, and a single infected plant can produce millions of infective spores

(Chalkley, 2010). In a single season, these spores could infect a large number of 

legumes throughout the United States, so the rating is High.

High (3)

Risk Element 4: Economic Impact

Phakopsora meibomiae infects soybean (Glycine max) and common bean 

(Phaseolus vulgaris) (Chalkley, 2010). These are both high-value commodities, 

and soybeans are one of the most cultivated crops in the United States. Although 

the level of virulence appears to be low in soybean (Bonde et al, 2006), even a 

low infection rate can result in significant economic damage because of the large 

areas cultivated. In addition, the pathogen may be significantly more virulent 

with common bean, would make leaves, and fresh beans in a pod unmarketable

(Grau, 2006),Finally, P. meibomiae is only known in the Americas (Chalkley, 

2010), so it could trade implications for soy and bean exports outside of the 

Americas. Since the pathogen can lower yield, affect bean quality or 

marketability, and could affect exports, the rating is High.

High (3)

Risk Element 5: Environmental Impact

Forty-eight Federally listed threatened or endangered species are potential hosts 

for P. meibomiae, comprising 24 genera and one member of the genus 

Crotalaria (USDA, 2007). The presence of P. meibomiae in the United States on 

common bean could stimulate new control beans to preserve both yield and 

marketability. Since both endangered species are affected and new control 

programs may be required the rating is High.

High (3)
Pest Risk Assessment for Chipilin from El Salvador

Ver. 5 November 4, 2010 13

Uromyces crotalariae Risk ratings

Risk Element 1: Climate-Host Interaction

Uromyces crotalariae (Arthur) is described as a tropical to semi-tropical fungus 

(Arthur, J.C. 1918, Farr et al, 2008) capable of at least survival at higher 

altitudes in Guatemala. This corresponds to hardiness zones 8-11 (Magarey et al, 

2008) and a Medium rating.

Medium (2)

Risk Element 2: Host Range

Uromyces crotalariae has only ever been observed directly on two species of 

Crotalaria in Latin America (Farr et al, 2008) which suggests a limited host 

range. This warrants a Low rating.

Low (1)

Risk Element 3: Dispersal Potential

Uromyces crotalariae disperses by airborne urediospores. The broad geographic 

area of this fungus (Farr et al ,2008) and the general ability of Uromyces spp to 

disperse on a continental scale (Agrios, 2004) both suggest that long-distance 

dispersal is possible. Therefore, we gave it a High rating.

High (3)

Risk Element 4: Economic Impact

We found no descriptions of damage from U. crotalariae in the field, which 

suggests that damage is minimal. Therefore, the rating is Low.

Low (1)

Risk Element 5: Environmental Impact

The continental United States has seven species of Crotalaria, of which one is 

endangered (USDA, 2007). Since we found no evidence that U. crotalariae can 

infect that species, and the likelihood that the effect of the pathogen on 

ecosystems is minimal, we rated it Low.

Low (1)

Table 5. Summary pest risk ratings for Consequences of Introduction.

Pest Risk elements Cumulative 

Risk

Ratings

Climate-Host

Interaction

Host 

Range

Dispersal

Potential

Economic

Impact

Environmental

Impact

Phakopsora 

meibomiae

High (3) Med (2) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (14)

Uromyces 

crotalariae

Med (2) Low (1) High (3) Low (1) Low (1) Low (8)

a

Low = 5-8 points; Medium = 9-12 points; High = 13-15 points.

2.6.2. Likelihood of Introduction

We rated each pest for the Likelihood of Introduction based on two components. First, we rated

the amount of commodity likely to be imported (sub-element 1). Secondly, we estimated “pest 

opportunity” using five biological features (sub-elements 2-6). Details of the rating criteria are 

explained in the Guidelines for Pathway-Initiated Risk Assessments (PERAL, 2000). Our subelement ratings and the overall values for the Likelihood of Introduction are summarized below 

(Table 6).
Pest Risk Assessment for Chipilin from El Salvador

Ver. 5 November 4, 2010 14

Quantity imported annually. The estimated import quantity is 4 metric tons (MAG, 2005). This 

quantity is less than 10 shipping containers, so we rated it Low.

Survive post-harvest treatment. Phakopsora meibomiae pustules (Chalkley, 2010) and U. 

crotalariae pustules (Cummins, 1978) are subdermal until they erupt While washing would 

probably remove most of the urediospores from an erupted pustule, un-erupted ones would 

survive washing unaffected. Given this, survival is likely and we rated this sub-element High for 

both pathogens.

Survive shipment. Urediospores of both P. meibomiae and U. crotalariae are believed to 

survive drying and cold temperatures in the upper atmosphere and transport in the troposphere

(Chalkley, 2010). Thus, typical conditions in transport are unlikely to cause significantly 

mortality of urediospores. For this reason, we rated both pathogens High for this sub-element.

Not be detected at the port-of-entry. Phakopsora meibomiae infection sites with signs of 

sporulation or leaf and stem lesions are easily identified at the port-of-entry (Agrios, 2004), but 

latent infections and the presence of spores adhering to the leaves or packing materials are likely to 

go undetected. The spores of P. meibomiae are likely to remain viable if present, since they are 

known to survive on clothes (Chalkley, 2010). For these reasons, we rated sub-element Medium.

Uromyces crotalariae infection sites with signs of sporulation are easily identified at the port-ofentry (Agrios, 2004), but latent infections and the presence of U. crotalariae uredospores adhering 

to leaves or packing materials are unlikely to be detected.. Consequently, we rated this sub-element 

Medium.

Imported or moved subsequently to an area with an environment suitable for survival. 

Phakopsora meibomiae is likely to be suited to hardiness zones 7-10 in the winter or 5-10 in the 

summer. Chipilin is likely to be imported, at least, directly to Miami, Florida, which is in zone 10

(Moreno and Zambrano, 2005). Based on the rational that the commodity will be shipped to a 

conducive environment, this risk sub-element is rated as High.

The conducive environmentfor Uromyces crotalariae is likely the hardiness zones 8-10 in the 

winter or 7-10 in the summer. Chipilin is likely to be imported directly to Miami, Florida, which 

is in zone 10 (Farr et al, 2008). Based on the rational that s the commodity will be shipped to a 

conducive environment, this risk sub-element is rated as High.

Come into contact with host material suitable for reproduction. Possible hosts of both 

pathogens are common throughout the US, in the form of a variety of native or landscaping 

legumes (NRCS, 2007). In addition, urediospores can travel long distances by aerial dispersal 

(Chalkley, 2010), so possibility of contact with a suitable, even in a limited area, is high. For this 

reason, we rated the likelihood of contact with suitable host material as High for both pathogens.
Pest Risk Assessment for Chipilin from El Salvador

Ver. 5 November 4, 2010 15

Table 6. Risk ratings for Likelihood of Introductiona.

Pest Quantity 

imported 

annually

Survive 

postharvest 

hreatment

Survive

shipment

Not 

Detected 

at Portof-Entry

Moved to 

Suitable 

Habitat

Contact 

with 

host 

material

Cumulative 

risk rating

Phakopsora 

meibomiae

Low (1) High (3) High

(3)

Med (2) High (3) High (3) High (15)

Uromyces 

crotalariae

Low (1) High (3) High

(3)

Med (2) High (3) High (3) High (15)

a

Low is 6-9 points, Medium is 10-14 points, and High is 15-18 points (PPQ, 2000a).

2.7. Pest Risk Potential and Conclusion

We summed the Consequences of Introduction and the Likelihood of Introduction values to 

produce the Pest Risk Potentials which are recorded below (Table 7). Pest Risk Potential is a 

baseline estimate of the risks associated with importation of the commodity in the absence of 

phytosanitary mitigation measures beyond standard post-harvest processing.

The appropriate risk management strategy for a particular pest depends on the risk posed by that 

pest. We estimated the pest risk potential as High for P. meibomiae and Medium for Uromyces 

crotalariae. 

APHIS-PPQ pest risk assessment guidelines (PERAL, 2000) suggest that, for quarantine pests 

given an overall High risk potential rating, specific phytosanitary measures beyond standard 

port-of-entry inspection are highly recommended to mitigate pest risk. Quarantine pests 

estimated to present a Medium risk typically may require specific mitigative measures. The 

choice of appropriate measures to mitigate risks is part of risk management within APHIS.

Table 7. Pest Risk Potentialsafor quarantine pests on Capsicum spp. from Central America.

Pest Consequences of 

Introduction

Likelihood of 

Introduction

Pest Risk Potential

Phakopsora meibomiae High (14) High (15) High (29)

Uromyces crotalariae Low(8) High (15) Med (23)

a

Low is 11-18 points, Medium is 19-26 points, and High is 27-33 points.

3. Risk Mitigation Options 

3.1. Introduction

In this section, we discuss mitigation options for the pests analyzed above. We described 

standard post-harvest processing measures above (1.2).

The International Plant Protection Convention recognizes that countries have the sovereign right 
Pest Risk Assessment for Chipilin from El Salvador

Ver. 5 November 4, 2010 16

to use risk mitigation strategies that minimize pest risks to a scientifically justified level (Article 

VII; IPPC, 1997). The appropriate level of protection for an imported commodity can be 

achieved by the application of a single phytosanitary measure, such as inspection or a quarantine 

treatment, or by a combination of measures through a systems approach (ISPM # 14, IPPC, 

2009). While developing mitigation strategies, it is important to understand that risk can never be 

eliminated, but it can be reduced and managed. Pest risk management is the “evaluation and 

selection of options to reduce the risk of introduction and spread of a pest.” (IPPC, 2009). 

Selection of those options must consider not only the efficacy of the various risk management 

strategies, but also the potential impact that such strategies would have on the importing and 

exporting countries. Risk management strategies must also minimize impacts on the international 

movement of people, commodities, and conveyances (ISPM#2, IPPC, 2009). IPPC standards 

outline two steps in risk management: 1) identification of risk management options and 2) 

analysis of the efficacy and impact of the different options (ISPM#2, IPPC, 2009). This section 

provides the first step in risk management, i.e., the identification of phytosanitary options to 

reduce and manage pest risk.

Pest risk management is the process of identifying ways to react to a perceived risk, evaluating 

the efficacy of these actions, and identifying the most appropriate options (ISPM # 11, IPPC, 

2009). Here we outline phytosanitary options and provide evidence of their efficacy in 

preventing the introduction of quarantine pests. The appropriate level of protection may be 

achieved through the application of a single phytosanitary measure, such as establishment of 

pest-free areas or a quarantine treatment, or a combination of measures in a systems approach.

3.2. Risk Mitigation Options

Many types of risk mitigation procedures may be used to minimize pest risk in the importing 

country. Specific measures may be selected from a range of pre-harvest and post-harvest options, 

including production practices, detection, and certification. If no single measure is likely to 

reduce the risk to an acceptable level, then a combination of mitigations may be needed. The 

Plant Protection Act defines a systems approach as “a defined set of phytosanitary procedures, at 

least two of which have an independent effect in mitigating pest risk associated with the 

movement of commodities” (7 U.S.C. §7702). Specific mitigations may be selected from a range 

of pre-harvest and post-harvest options, and may include other safeguarding measures. Measures 

may be added or the strength of measures increased to compensate for uncertainty. At a 

minimum, for a measure to be considered for use in a systems approach, it must be 1) clearly 

defined, 2) efficacious, 3) officially required (mandated), and 4) subject to monitoring and 

control by the responsible national plant protection organization (ISPM # 14, IPPC, 2009). 

We describe and summarize the most frequently used phytosanitary options below (Table 9). 

Quarantine treatments have been developed which may mitigate some of these pests on other 

commodities, such as Phakospora meibomiae on various fruits and vegetables; however, the 

efficacy of these treatments on fresh chipilin leaves and whether these treatments would 

adversely affect the leaves are unknown. A systems approach may also mitigate risk
Pest Risk Assessment for Chipilin from El Salvador

Ver. 5 November 4, 2010 17

3.3.1. Inspection & Monitoring and Phytosanitary Certification

Phytosanitary Inspection. Chipilin would be subject to inspection at the port-of-entry. There 

may be inspections in El Salvador for phytosanitary certification.

Phytosanitary Certificate. Each consignment of fruit should be accompanied by a phytosanitary

certificate issued by and providing an additional declaration stating that the fruit in the 

consignment meets the conditions of a systems approach to risk mitigation, and is free of pests.

3.3.2. Pest Freedom and Areas of Low Pest Prevalence

Production Site Registration. Chipilin would be grown in approved and registered production 

sites.

Pest-Free Areas. Establishment and maintenance of pest-free areas or pest-free production sites 

would be in accordance with international standards (e.g., ISPM #4, IPPC, 2009) or other, 

agreed-upon procedures.

Areas of Low Pest Prevalence. The same sampling procedures used to determine pest-free areas 

may be used in delimiting areas of low pest prevalence. Intensive pest monitoring within 

orchards must commence at least two months prior to harvest and be maintained throughout the 

harvest season. MAG must maintain an APHIS-approved quality control program to monitor or 

audit the sampling program. APHIS must be notified when a production site is removed from, or 

added to, the program. Certification of low prevalence must be renewed each harvest season.

Establishment of a Pest-Free Production Site. A pest-free place of production or production 

site is a “place of production in which a specific pest does not occur as demonstrated by 

scientific evidence and in which, where appropriate, this condition is being officially maintained 

for a defined period” (ISPM #10, IPPC, 2009). This definition is similar to the previous one for 

pest-free areas; however, they differ in degree of scale. A place of production is much more 

localized in scope and can only include places/sites that are being managed in the same way, 

usually by the producer. Pest-free areas are usually managed by the national plant protection 

organization and are maintained pest free over an extended period. In contrast, pest-free 

production sites are managed by the producer and may be maintained pest free for as little as one 

or two seasons. Pest-free production sites are established similarly to pest-free areas, but with the 

added requirement that all products are adequately labeled to identify the particular production 

site. Once a pest-free production site or place of production has been established, the producer 

must maintain the site pest free (ISPM #10, IPPC, 2009).

3.3.3. Suppression, Control, and Prevention

Cultural, chemical, or mechanical means (e.g., orchard sanitation, pruning of dead and diseased 

branches, pre-harvest application of pesticides, fruit bagging) may be used to prevent, reduce or 

suppress pest populations in crops. These techniques are useful in maintaining pest free areas and 

sites of production or suppressing pest populations to beneath certain levels (including for 

ALPPs).

Chemical Application. Some strobilurians are known to be effective against most rust fungi 

(Latin, 2010). However, they do not eliminate the disease. Chemical application could only be 
Pest Risk Assessment for Chipilin from El Salvador

Ver. 5 November 4, 2010 18

considered in the context of larger, systems approach.

3.3.4. Post-Harvest Safeguards and Packinghouse Procedures

No post-harvest procedures were stated or implied by the exporting country (MAG, 2005).

Culling could significantly reduce the quantity of infected material. However, the efficiency of 

inspection and culling for rusts on leaves has not yet been determined.

3.3.5. Quarantine Treatments

Cold Treatment. Cold treatment involves maintaining fruit near freezing conditions for an

extended period (USDA-APHIS, 2007). Temperature sensors placed in the storage compartment 

and within shipments insure that cold treatment procedures are precisely followed and that the 

shipment reaches the required temperature. However, there are no data to suggest that cold 

treatment has an effect against rust fungi as group or Phakopsora meibomiae.

Irradiation. Irradiation consists of exposing the commodity to gamma-emitting isotopes (such 

as Cobalt-60 or Cesium-137) or to electron beams (beta rays) produced by linear accelerators 

(USDA-APHIS, 2007). Irradiation has been demonstrated to be effective at sterilizing organisms 

that may contaminate commodities and yet pose no significant danger to human health or the 

environment (Hallman, 2000; USDA-APHIS, 1997). Because the object of irradiation is 

sterilization and not necessarily mortality, documentation of the dosage must accompany all 

irradiated shipments. However, there is no data to suggest that irradiation has an effect against 

rust fungi as group or Phakopsora meibomiae.

Methyl bromide fumigation. Methyl bromide (CH3Br) is a colorless, odorless fumigant with 

relatively low solubility in water (USDA-APHIS, 2007). As a fumigant, it is very effective at 

treating a wide variety of pests on a variety of hosts. It can also be used to devitalize plants at 

higher concentrations. Methyl bromide fumigation involves exposing the commodity to the 

fumigant in a somewhat enclosed space over a relatively short period of time (e.g., a few hours).

Following treatment, sufficient time is given to allow the fumigant to diffuse from the 

commodity (USDA-APHIS, 2007). However, there is no data to suggest that Methyl bromide 

funigation has an effect against rust fungi as group or Phakopsora meibomiae.

3.3.6. Efficacy of Risk Management Measures

Establishment of pest-free areas or pest-free places of production obviates the need for postharvest commodity treatments to achieve phytosanitary security (ISPM #4, 10, 22, IPPC, 2009), 

and has proven to be effective in practice (Table 9).

A systems approach can provide an alternative to single measures to meet the appropriate level 

of phytosanitary protection, or can be developed to provide phytosanitary protection in 

situations, in which no single measure is available (ISPM #14, IPPC, 2009).

Table 9. Risk mitigation options for fresh Crotalaria longirostrata from El Salvador.

Measures Pests Efficacy

Inspection & Monitoring and Phytosanitary Certification

Phytosanitary certification, Phakopsora A phytosanitary certificate guides inspection 
Pest Risk Assessment for Chipilin from El Salvador

Ver. 5 November 4, 2010 19

Measures Pests Efficacy

inspection and monitoring meibomiae

Uromyces 

crotalariae

efforts in El Salvador and alerts U.S. inspectors 

to pests of concern with this commodity. The 

effectiveness of this strategy is not known.

Pest Freedom and Areas of Low Pest Prevalence

Pest free areas or areas of low 

pest prevalence

Phakopsora 

meibomiae

Uromyces 

crotalariae

When conducted in compliance with 

international standards (e.g., IPPC, 2009) this 

method satisfies requirements for appropriate 

level of protection.

Pest free production sites or 

places of production

Phakopsora 

meibomiae,

Uromyces 

crotalariae

When conducted in compliance with 

international standards (e.g., IPPC, 2009) this 

method satisfies requirements for appropriate 

level of protection.

Suppression / Control/ Prevention

Suppression /control program Phakopsora 

meibomiae, 

Uromyces 

crotalariae

Methods must be used in combination with other 

measures. Research is needed on effectiveness of 

methods proposed. 

Post-Harvest Safeguards and Packinghouse Procedures

Culling Phakopsora 

meibomiae

Uromyces 

crotalariae

Culling may reduce the population of infected 

leaves. However, culling depends on the 

efficiency of infected leaf removal. 

Especially at lower levels of leaf infection or 

field incidence, there is no evidence 

concerning the efficiency of the personal 

doing the culling (i.e. the detection limits are 

unknown)

Quarantine Treatments

Methyl bromide fumigation Phakopsora 

meibomiae, 

Uromyces 

crotalariae

No methyl bromide treatments exist for rust 

fungi in general

Irradiation Phakopsora 

meibomiae, 

Uromyces 

crotalariae

Unknown effectiveness against fungi

Port-of-Entry Sampling, Inspection, and Port Location

Port-of-entry sampling and 

inspection

Appropriate for

Phakopsora 

meibomiae, but 

should be used 

in combination 

with other 

measures.

Uromyces 

Provides sufficient phytosanitary security for 

low-risk pests (PPQ, 2000b). However, P.

meibomiae is a high risk pest so inspection is 

not sufficient by itself.
Pest Risk Assessment for Chipilin from El Salvador

Ver. 5 November 4, 2010 20

Measures Pests Efficacy

crotalariae

Limits on distribution and transit 

within the United States

For use until other mitigation measures are 

determined to provide sufficient quarantine 

security. 

3.4. Conclusions

Due to its High pest risk potential, inspection and culling may be insufficient to manage the risk

of P. meibomiae in chipilin from El Salvador. Combining them with a verifiable strategy to limit

the prevalence of the disease in the field may be effective. 

Uromyces crotalariae may require additional risk mitigations but they are not obligatory. Since 

U. crotalariae is Medium risk, culling and inspection may be sufficient to manage the pathogen. 

Specific management requirements will be specified, as necessary, during the risk management 

phase of the risk analysis process.

4. Authors and Reviewers

Authors John Rogers (Final original)a

Helena Moreno, Pest risk analyst (Draft original)b

Guiovanni Zambrano, Pest risk analyst (Draft original)b

Reviewers James M. Smith, Entomologista

Betsy Randall-Schadel, Plant Pathologista

Ashley Jackson, Editorial Assistanta

a USDA-APHIS-PPQ-CPHST-PERAL

b Center for Phytosanitary Excellence, Bogota, Colombia

5. Literature Cited

7 CFR § 319.56. 2003. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 7, Part 319 (7 CFR §319.56 – Notice 

of Quarantine).

7 CFR § 360. 2006. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 7, Part 360, (7 CFR §360 - Noxious 

Weed Regulations).

7 CFR § 319.56. 2005. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 7, Part 319 (7 CFR §319.56 – Notice 

of Quarantine).Acuña, O., and H. Rivera. 1946. Manual de enfermedades de cultivos 

tropicales. Centro de Tecnología Agropecuaria CENTA.

Acuña, O., and H. Rivera. 1946. Manual de enfermedades de cultivos tropicales. Centro de 

Tecnología Agropecuaria CENTA.

Agrios, G. N. 2004. Plant Pathology. Fifth Edition. Department of Plant Pathology University of 

Florida, Elsevier Academic Press, San Diego. 922 pp
Pest Risk Assessment for Chipilin from El Salvador

Ver. 5 November 4, 2010 21

Alfieri, S.A., K.R. Langdon, J.W. Kimborough, N.E. El-Gholl, and C. Wehlburg. 1993. Diseases

and Disorders of Plants in Florida. Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer 

Services, Gainesville, Florida.

Allan Herbarium. 2000. Ngā Tipu o Aotearoa - New Zealand Plant Names Database. Landcare 

Research, New Zealand. http://nzflora.landcareresearch.co.nz/ 

Arthur, J.C. 1918. Uredinales of Costa Rica based on collections. Mycologia 10:111-154.

Atachi, P., and Z. Djihou. 1994. Record of host plants of Maruca testulalis (geyer) (Lepidoptera: 

Pyralidae) in the Republic of Benin. Ann. Soc. Entomol. Fr 30(2):169-174.

Ben-Dov, Y., D.R. Miller, and G.A.P. Gibson. 2001. ScaleNet, Life Histories. 

http://www.sel.barc.usda.gov/scalenet/lifehist.htm (Archived at PERAL)

Bonde, M. R., S. E. Nester, C. N. Austin, C. L. Stone, R. D. Frederick, and M. R. Miles. 2006. Evaluation 

of Virulence of Phakopsora pachyrhizi and P. meibomiae Isolates. Plant Disease 90:708-716

CABI. 2006. Crop Protection Compendium. CAB International, Wallingford, UK.

Calderon, S. and Stanley, P. 1941. Flora Salvadoreña. Lista Preliminar de Plantas de El Salvador. 

2 Edicion. Imprenta Nacional. San Salvador. El Salvador. 450 p.

Capinera, U. 1999-2005. Featured creatures. University of Florida Dept of Entomology and 

Nematology. Last accessed 10/22/2007, //creatures.ifas/ufl/edu.

Chalkley, D. 2010. Invasive Fungi. American soybean rust -Phakopsora meibomiae. . Systematic 

Mycology and Microbiology Laboratory, ARS, USDA, Beltsville, MD. http://nt.arsgrin.gov/sbmlweb/fungi/index.cfm

Cummins, G.B. 1978. Rust Fungi on Legumes and Composites in North America. University of 

Arizona Press, Tucson, AZ.

EPPO. 1990. Data Sheets on Quarantine Pests: Eotetrynchus lewisi. CAB International and 

European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization (EPPO), Wallingford, UK, 

and Paris, France.

Farr, D.F., A.Y. Rossman, M.E. Palm, and E.B. McCray. 2008. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Agricultural Research Service, Fungal Databases Systemic Botany and Mycology 

Laboratory. http://nt.ars-grin.gov/gunaldatabases. (Archived at PERAL)

FAO, 2005. Capitulo II. Hortalizas

<http://www.fao.org/Regional/LAmerica/prior/segalim/prodalim/prodveg/cdrom/conteni

do/libro11/cap2.htm#Top>

FUSADES. 1992. Control Integrado de las Enfermedades del Tomate. Fundacion Salvadorena 

para el Desarrollo Economico Social (FUSADES), San Salvador, El Salvador. Serie 

Tecnica. Guia Tecnica. 14.

GBIF, Prototipe Data Portal Global Biodiversity Information Facility Version 1.0. Approved by 

GB9 2004-10-05. This page updated 2004-11-08.

http://www.gbif.net/portal/ecat_browser.jsp?taxonKey=149976&countryKey=0&resourc

eKey=0

Grau, C. R. 2005. Soybean Rust

and Implications for Wisconsin Soybean Production. Pages 87 in. Univ of Wisc, 

Madison, Wisconsin

Gunn, C.R., and C.A. Ritchie. 1988. Identification of disseminules listed in the Federal Noxious 

Weed Act (Technical Bulletin Number 1719.). United States Department of Agriculture, 

Agricultural Research Service, U.S.A. 313 pp.

Hall, D. 2005. Bella moth, rattlebox moth, or calico moth, Utetheisa ornatrix (Linnaeus) 

(Insecta: Lepidoptera: Arctiidae: Arctiinae) (EENY358). University of Florida, Institute 

of Food and Agricultural Sciences, Gainesville, FL. http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/IN644
Pest Risk Assessment for Chipilin from El Salvador

Ver. 5 November 4, 2010 22

Heiser, D.G. 1945. A Nectria Disease of Coffee in Western Guatemala. Annals of the Missouri 

Botanical Garden 32(3): 287-294.

Holm, L., J. Doll, E. Holm, J. Rancho, and J. Herberger. 1997. World Weeds: Natural Histories 

and Distribution. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York. 1129 pp.

Holm, L.G., J.V. Pancho, J.P. Herberger, and D.L. Plucknett. 1979. A Geographical Atlas of 

World Weeds. Krieger Publishing Company, Malabar, Florida, U.S.A. 391 pp.

Holm, L.G., D.L. Plucknett, J.V. Pancho, and J.P. Herberger. 1977. The World's Worst Weeds: 

Distribution and Biology. Krieger Publishing Company, Malabar, Florida, U.S.A. 69 pp.

IPPC. 2004. International standards for phytosanitary measures (ISPM#11): Pest risk analysis for 

quarantine pests, including analysis of environmental risks and living modified 

organisms. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, International Plant 

Protection Convention (IPPC), Rome. 41 pp.

IPPC. 1997. 1997 - International Plant Protection Convention (New Revised Text). IPPC & Food 

and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 28 pp.

IPPC. 2006. International standards for phytosanitary measures (ISPM#5): Glossary of 

phytosanitary terms. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 

International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC), Rome. 23 pp.

IPPC. 2007. International standards for phytosanitary measures: Framework for pest risk analysis 

(ISPM#2). Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, International Plant 

Protection Convention (IPPC), Rome. 15 pp.

IPPC. 2009. International Standards For Phytosanitary Measures, 1 to 31 (2008 edition). Food 

and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Secretariat of the International Plant 

Protection Convention (IPPC), Rome. 419 pp.

Lenne, J.L. 1990. A World List of Fungal Disease of Tropical Pasture Species. CAB 

International, Wallingford, UK.

Liogier, H.A., and L.F. Martorell. 2000. Flora of Puerto Rico and adjacent islands: a systematic 

synopsis (2nd ed.). Editorial de la Universidad the Puerto Rico, San Juan, Puerto Rico.

Maes, J.M. 2004. Insectos associados a algunos cultivos tropicales en el Atlantico de Nicaragua. 

Revista Nicaraguense de Entomologia 64(Suplamento 1):75.

MAG. 2005. Informe tecnico sobre el cultivo Chipilin (Crotalaria longirostrata). Ministerio de 

Agricultura and Ganadera (MAG). Personal communication to Centre de Excellence 

Fitosanitaria, 2005.

Magarey, R. M., D.Borchert, and J. Schlegel. 2008. Global Plant Hardiness Zones for 

Phtyosanitary Risk Analysis. Scientia Agricola 31:1-19.

Moreno, H., and G. Zambrano. 2005. Importation of Fresh Foliage of Chipilin (Crotalaria 

longirostrata Hook. & Arn.) into the Continental United States from El Salvador. Center 

for Fitosaniary Excellence, Bogota, Colombia. 28 pp.

Morton, J. 1994. Pito (Erythinia bertoana) and Chipilin (Crotalaria longirostrata), (Fabaceae) 

two soporific vegetables of Central America. Journal of Economic Botany 48:130-138.

NAPPO. 2004. NAPPO regional standards for phytosanitary measures: RSPM#5: NAPPO 

glossary of phytosanitary terms. North American Plant Protection Organization

(NAPPO), Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. 9 pp.

NRCS. 2007. The PLANTS Database. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural 

Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), National Plant Data Center. 

http://plants.usda.gov/cgi_bin/. (Archived at PERAL)
Pest Risk Assessment for Chipilin from El Salvador

Ver. 5 November 4, 2010 23

Ono, Y., P. Buritica, and J. Hennen. 1992. Delimitation of Phakospora, Physopella, and 

Cerotelium and their species of Leguminosae. Mycological Research 96(10):825-850.

PERAL. 2000. Guidelines for pathway-initiated pest risk assessments (v. 5.02). 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). http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/pra/.

PestID. 2007. 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)

PPQ. 2007. Fresh fruits and vegetables import manual (July 19, 2007). United States Department 

of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and 

Quarantine (PPQ). Riverdale, MD. 650 pp.

Randall, R.P. 2007. A global compendium of weeds. Department of Agriculture of Western 

Australia. http://www.hear.org/gcw/. (Archived at PERAL)

Reed, C.F. 1977. Economically Important Foreign Weeds. United States Department of 

Agriculture Agricultural Research Service. Washington, D.C. 746 pp.

Skinner, K., L. Smith, and P. Rice. 2005. Noxious Weeds in the US and Canada, Online 

Database. University of Montana. http://invader.dbs.umt.edu/Noxious_Weeds/. 

(Archived at PERAL)

Suárez de Castro, F., and M.T. Villanova. 1960. Plagas y enfermedades del cafeto en el 

Salvador. Federación Cafetalera de América (El Salvador). No. 97. 47 pp.

Swearingen, J. 2005. Alien plant invaders of natural areas. U.S. Department of the Interior, 

National Park Service. Last accessed May 2, 2005, 

http://www.nps.gov/plants/alien/list/all.htm.

Temple, J. 2007. Red banded stink bug, Piezodorus guildinii (Westwood): An emerging pest in 

Louisiana soybean. Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA.

USDA-APHIS. 1997. Irradiation for phytosanitary regulatory treatment: Environmental 

assessment, October 1997.12.

USDA-APHIS. 2007. Treatment manual. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, United 

States Department of Agriculture. (Archived at PERAL).

Weber, E. 2003. Invasive Plant Species of the World: A Reference Guide to Environmental 

Weeds. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK. 548 pp.

Wellman, F. 1977. Dictionary of Tropical American Crops and Their Disease. Scarecrow Press, 

Metuchen, N.J& London.

Woodward, J.E., D.B. Langston, J.H. Brock, R.C. Kemerait, Jr, and T.B. Brenneman. 1991. First 

demonstration of Koch's postulates of Lasiodiploidia theobromae fruit spot on Eggplant 

(Solanum melongena). Plant Disease 89(6):687.

WSSA. 2005. Weed List. Weed Science Society of America (WSSA). 

http://www.wssa.net/weednames/common.asp.

Yepes, M. and Cespedes. P. 2008. Nuevas especies para la uredobiota neotropical. Rev. Fac. Nat. 

Agr. Medellin. 6. 4291-4301.

.
Pest Risk Assessment for Chipilin from El Salvador

Ver. 5 November 4, 2010 24

6. Appendices

Appendix A. Pests and pathogens intercepted on Crotalaria sp. and Crotalaria longirostrata.

Data are from 1986 to 2007 in passenger baggage, which accounted for 99 percent of all 

interceptions (PestID, 2007).

Pest Family (if appropriate) Interceptions (no.)

Aeolothripidae, Species of 2

Agromyzidae, Species of 57

Alternaria sp. Hyphomycetes 1

Aphididae, Species of 59

Arctiidae, Species of 11

Atheas fuscipes Champion Tingidae 1

Bactrocera cucurbitae Tephritidae 1

Catolethrus sp. Curculionidae 1

Cecidomyiidae, Species of 1

Cercospora sp. Hyphomycetes 4

Chaetanaphothrips signipennis Thripidae 1

Chrysomelidae, Species of 3

Cicadellidae, Species of 5

Cixiidae, Species of 1

Clinodiplosis sp.

a Cecidomyiidae 2

Coccidae, Species of 8

Coelosternus sp. Curculionidae 1

Coleoptera, Species of 1

Contarinia sp. Cecidomyiidae 6

Crambidae, Species of 1

Curculionidae, Species of 1

Diaspididae, Species of 2

Diptera, Species of 1

Echinothrips mexicanus Moulton Thripidae 2

Frankliniella sp. Thripidae 36

Galerucinae, Species of Chrysomelidae 3

Gelechiidae, Species of 5

Geometridae, Species of 1

Geraeus sp. Curculionidae 1

Grapholita sp. Tortricidae 1

Helicoverpa sp. Noctuidae 1

Homoptera, Species of 2

Insecta, Species of 5

Lepidoptera, Species of 2
Pest Risk Assessment for Chipilin from El Salvador

Ver. 5 November 4, 2010 25

Pest Family (if appropriate) Interceptions (no.)

Leptosphaerulina sp. Pleosporaceae 1

Lygaeoidea, Species of 1

Megalopygidae, Species of 1

Membracidae, Species of 3

Miridae, Species of 5

Neoleucinodes elegantalis Crambidae 1

Noctuidae, Species of 58

Oligonychus sp. Tetranychidae 3

Orthezia sp. Ortheziidae 1

Panonychus sp. Tetranychidae 1

Paracoccus sp. Pseudococcidae 1

Pealius sp. Aleyrodidae 1

Pentatomidae, Species of 1

Phlaeothripidae, Species of 6

Phyllophaga sp. Scarabaeidae 1

Phyllosticta sp. Coelomycetes 1

Pseudococcidae, Species of 20

Psylliodes sp. Chrysomelidae 1

Pterophoridae, Species of 3

Pyralidae, Species of 1

Pyraustinae, Species of Crambidae 1

Schizomyia sp. Cecidomyiidae 1

Sphacophilus sp. Argidae 3

Spissistilus festinus a Membracidae 2

Spodoptera albulaa Noctuidae 1

Spodoptera sp. Noctuidae 2

Spoladea recurvalisa Crambidae 1

Thripidae, Species of 17

Thrips sp. Thripidae 1

Trichoplusia sp. Noctuidae 1

Utetheisa ornatrix a Arctiidae 2

Utetheisa sp. Arctiidae 1

Zygaenidae, Species of 1

Total 375

a Non-reportable