# Importation of **Fresh Leaves of Chipilin ,**  **Crotalaria longirostrata ,**  **from El Salvador into the**

**Continental United States**
**A Qualitative, Pathway -**  **Initiated Risk Analysis**

**Novem ber 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 27606Pest R isk A ssessment for C hipilin 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) assesse d 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 phy tosanitary 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 c hipilin
- 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 likel y t o follow the pathway : Phakopsora meibomiae and Uromyces crotalariae
. We rated P
. meibomiae High risk f o r the continental United States , while U
. crotalariae was Moderate risk , since it is unlikely to establish
. U s ing port - of

- entry inspection as the sole mitigation measure for P. meibomiae is insufficient, but may be sufficient for U
. crotalariae
. Any

required phy

tosanitary measures will be specified in the ris k management phase of the anal ys is. We presented mitigation options in this document.

.Pest R isk A ssessment for C hipilin 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. Analy sis 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
.

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 24Pest R isk A ssessment for C hipilin from El Salvador

Ver. 5 November 4, 2010 1 

### 1. Introduction **1.1 .**  **Commodity Description** In this document, the Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analy sis 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 longirostra ta Hook and Arn. , into the continental United States from El Salvador. W e 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 a ssessment ( P RA) in which risk was expressed in terms such as H igh, M edium, and L ow 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 any where 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 c lover. The flowers are ye llow 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). M any 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 th e P RA 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 Crotalaria
growing region near El Salvador, which added pests known to be in Guatemala, Nicaragua,Pest R isk A ssessment for C hipilin 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 Posth arvest 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 pl ant 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 his torical decision sheets. We then identify and characterize the pests present on chipilin in El Salvador. The quarantine pests that are likel y to follow the pathway are then fully

analyzed. For this anal ys is, the first five risk e lements form an assessment of the risk associated with the Consequences of Introduction. Six s ub
- e lements are evaluated and combined for the sixth e lement, 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 w eediness p otential of c hipilin ( 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 otherPest R isk A ssessment for C hipilin 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 W eeds (Randall, 2007) No Other (Allan Herbarium, 2000; Li ogier 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 W eeds 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 Ac t (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 unlikel y to be contaminated with chipilin seeds, sin ce 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 Assessment s**  **, Current Status /** **Decision History ,**  **and Pest Interceptions**  2.3.1. Previous Risk Assessments APHI S 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

allow ed to enter the United States from El Salvador or any other Central or North American country (PPQ, 2007). 2.3.3
. U.S. P ort - of

- Entry P est 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 , onl y data for this category were included below. Of the pests intercepted, four entries accounted for over half the total interceptions (Table 2).Pest R isk A ssessment for C hipilin from El Salvador

Ver. 5 November 4, 2010 4 **Table 2.** Pest t ax a m ost frequentl y intercepted on Crotalaria sp . in passenger baggage at U.S. p orts 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 **T otal**  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) ref erences supporting an association between the pest and C rotalaria 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 thereb y and not yet present there, or present but not widely distributed and being officiall y 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 p ests and p athogens reported on Crotalaria spp. and p resent in Central America. **Pest scientific name Distribution**  **1 H**  **ost association**  **Quaran**  

** tine pest** **Plant part(s)**

**association 2**  **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) Yes 3 Panonychus sp . SV (PestID, 2007) PestID, 2007 Yes L (PestID,

2007) Yes 3

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 = Root s 3 Quarantine pests identified only to the order, family or generic levels are not further analyzed in this risk assessment
.Pest R isk A ssessment for C hipilin from El Salvador

Ver. 5 November 4, 2010 5 **Pest scientific name Distribution**  **1 H**  **ost association**  **Quaran**  

** tine pest** **Plant part(s)**

**association 2**  **Follow**

**pathway Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae**  Diabrotica balteata Le conte 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) Yes 3 **Coleoptera: Curculionidae**  Catolethrus sp. SV (PestID, 2007) PestID, 2007 Yes L (PestID,

2007) Yes 3 Coelosternus sp. SV (PestID, 2007) PestID, 2007 Yes L , S (PestID,

2007) Yes 3 Geraeus sp. SV (PestID, 2007) PestID, 2007 Yes L (PestID,

2007) Yes 3 **Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae** Phyllophaga sp. SV (PestID, 2007) PestID, 2007 Yes L (PestID,

2007) Yes 3 **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) Yes 3 Schizomyia sp. SV (PestID, 2007) PestID, 2007 Yes L (PestID,

2007) Yes 3 **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 Yes 5 L (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 wedid not further analyze the insect. If additional information becomes available, A. fuscipes could be considered for analysis.Pest R isk A ssessment for C hipilin from El Salvador

Ver. 5 November 4, 2010 6 **Pest scientific name Distribution**  **1 H**  **ost association**  **Quaran**  

** tine pest** **Plant part(s)**

**association 2**  **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) Yes 3 **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) Yes 3 **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) Yes 3 **Lepidoptera: Arctiidae** Utetheisa sp. SV (PestID, 2007) PestID, 2007 Yes L (PestID,

2007) Yes 3Pest R isk A ssessment for C hipilin from El Salvador

Ver. 5 November 4, 2010 7 **Pest scientific name Distribution**  **1 H**  **ost association**  **Quaran**  

** tine pest** **Plant part(s)**

**association 2**  **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) Yes 3 **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) Yes 3 **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) Yes 3 **Thysanoptera: Thripidae**  Frankliniella sp. SV (PestID, 2007) PestID, 2007 Yes L (PestID,

2007) Yes 3 Thrips sp. SV (PestID, 2007) PestID, 2007 Yes L (PestID,

2007) Yes 3 **FUNGI AND CHROMISTANS** Alternaria alternata (Fr.:Fr.) Keissl. 1912 (Ascomycet es: 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 Yes 3

6 Crotalaria sp. is likely to be a host for M. virata . However, in the only study on the subject, Atachi and Djihou (1 994 ) su ggested 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 R isk A ssessment for C hipilin from El Salvador

Ver. 5 November 4, 2010 8 **Pest scientific name Distribution**  **1 H**  **ost association**  **Quaran**  

** tine pest** **Plant part(s)**

**association 2**  **Follow**

**pathway** Cercosporiopsis canescens (Ellis & G. Martin) M. Muira (Sy

n. Cercospora canescens Ell. & Martin ) (Ascomycet es; 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. (Zygomyc etes: 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 (Ascomycet es, 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. (Ascomycet es, Ery siphales) 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) (Ascomycet es, 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. (Ascomycet es, Hy pocreales) CR, HO, NI , MX, US (Farr et al ., 2008) Farr et al .,

2008 No L (Farr et al .,

2008) NoPest R isk A ssessment for C hipilin from El Salvador

Ver. 5 November 4, 2010 9 **Pest scientific name Distribution**  **1 H**  **ost association**  **Quaran**  

** tine pest** **Plant part(s)**

**association 2**  **Follow**

**pathway** Lasiodiplodia theobromae (Pat.) Griffon & Maubl. (Sy n. Botryodiplodia theobromae Pat.) (Ascomycet es: 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. (Ascomycet es, 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) No 7
Nectria dodgei D. R. Heiser (Sordariomycetes, Hy pocreales) SV (Lenne, 1990) Lenne, 1990 Yes S (Heiser,

1945) No 8 Parodiella hedysari (Schwein.) S. Hughes (Ascomycet es, Pleosporales) CR, MX,SV, US (Farr et al., 2008) Farr et al .,

2008 No L (Farr et al .,

2008) N/A
Phakos p ora meibomiae (Arthur) (Anamorph: Malupa vignae (

Bres.) Y. Ono, Buriticá & J.F. Hennen (Urediniomycet es, 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) (Urediniomycet es, Uredinales) CR, GU, MX (Farr et al
. , 2007; L enne, 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 obs ervation 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 quaranti ne 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 R isk A ssessment for C hipilin from El Salvador

Ver. 5 November 4, 2010 10 **Pest scientific name Distribution**  **1 H**  **ost association**  **Quaran**  

** tine pest** **Plant part(s)**

**association 2**  **Follow**

**pathway** Phanerochaete salmonicolor (Berk. & Br.) Jülich Sy

n: Corticium salmonicolor Berk. & Broome; Erythricium salmonicolor (Berk. & Broome) (Basidiomycet es: 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. (Ascomyc etes; 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) (Oomyc etes: Py thiales) 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 Sy

n: Phytophthora parasitica Dastur (Oomyc etes: Py thiales) 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) (Basidiomycet es, 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 (Urediniomycet es, Uredinales) GU ( Cummins, 1978; Farr et al
. , 2008) Cummins,

1978; Farr et al
. , 2008 Yes L (Cummins,

1978) Yes Uromyces decoratus Syd. & P. Syd. (Urediniomyc etes, Uredinales) CR (Farr et al., 2008; Lenne et al
. , 1990) ; US (CABI, 2 006 ) 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 R isk A ssessment for C hipilin from El Salvador

Ver. 5 November 4, 2010 11 Q uarantine 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 anal yz e 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 av ailable. 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 qual ity 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 , o r 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 re
evaluation of pest risk may be necessary
. In an earl y draft of the risk analysis, Maruca vitrata was the onl y 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 onl y examination of the relationship between M. vitrata and Crotalaria found that Crotalaria spp. are actuall y 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 ob served 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 anal yz e the pest. **Table 4**  **.** Quarantin e pests likely to follow the pathway

and selected for further anal ys is. **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, 20 08 ).Pest R isk A ssessment for C hipilin 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 c umulative risk rating b y s umming the risk e lement values. We summarized ratings for the Consequences of Introduction for each pest below ( Table 5) . The following tables des cribe the basis for each rating
. **Phakopsora meibomiae Risk**  **Ratings Risk Element 1: Climate**  **- Host Interaction**  Phakopsora me ibomiae (Arthur) is a tropical to semi
- tropical fungus with biology similar to P. pachyrhizi (Asian soy bean rust) ( Chalkley , 2010 )
. Thus, we expect P. meibomiae to establish in the s outhern 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 likel y to spread in the troposphere across continents , and a single infected plant can produce millions of infective spores ( Chalkley , 2010 )
. In a single season, the s e spores c ould infect a large number of legumes throughout the United S tates, so the rating is High
. High (3)
**Risk Element 4: Economic Impact** Phakopsora meibomiae infects soy bean ( Glycin e max) and common bean ( Phaseolus vulgaris ) ( Chalkley , 2010 ). These are both high
- value commodities , and soy beans are one of the most cultivated crops in the United States. Although the level of virulence appears to be low in soy be an (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 significantl y more virulent with common bean , would make leaves, and fresh beans in a pod unmarketable (Grau , 2006 ) , Finall y, P. meibomiae is only known in the Americas ( Chalkley , 2010 ) , so it could trade implications for soy and bean expo rts outside of the Americas
. Since the pathogen can lower yield, affect bean quality or marketab ility , and could affect exports , the rating is High
. High (3)

**Risk Element 5: Environmental Impact** Forty- eight Federall y 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 S tates on common bean could stimulate new control beans to preserve both yi eld and marketabil ity
. Since both endangered species are affected and new control programs may

be required the rating is High
. High (3)Pest R isk A ssessment for C hipilin 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
- 1 1 ( 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 b y airborne urediospores. The broad geographic area of this fungus (Farr et al ,2008) and the general ability of Uromyces spp to dispers e on a continental scale (Agri o s , 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 n o 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 s even 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 ecos ys tems 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 ( 1 4 ) Uromyces crotalariae Med (2) Low (1) High (3) Low (1) Low (1) Low (8)

a Lo w = 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 rat ed the amount of commodity likel y 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 sub
element ratings and the overall values for the Likelihood of Introduction are summarized below (Table 6 ).Pest R isk A ssessment for C hipilin 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 rat ed i t 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 rat ed this sub
- element High for both pathogens
. **Survive shipment .**  Urediospores of b oth 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, ty pical conditions in transport are unlikel y to cause significantl y mortality of urediospores. For this reason, we rat ed both pathogens High for thi s sub
- element
. **Not be detected at the port -**  **of -**  **entry .**  Phakopsora meibomiae infection s ites 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 ma terials 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 sp orulation are easily identified at the port
- of

entry (Agrios, 2004 ) , but latent infections and the presence of U. crotalariae uredo spores 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 environment for Uromyces crotalariae is likely the hardiness zones 8
- 10 in the winter or 7
- 10 in the summer. Chipilin is l ikely to be imported directl y 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 suitabl e 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 R isk A ssessment for C hipilin from El Salvador

Ver. 5 November 4, 2010 15 **Table 6**  **.** Risk ratings for Likelihood of Introduction a
. **Pest Quantity** 

**imported a**  **nnually Survive** 

**post****** **harvest h**  **reatment Survive** 

**s hip**  **** **ment Not**  **Detected at Port** **** **of -**  **Entry Moved to**  **Suitable Habitat**  **Contact**

**with host**  **m aterial**  **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 Lo w 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 phy tosanitary 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
. APHI S
- PPQ pest risk assessment guidelines ( PERAL , 2000) suggest that, for quarantine pests given an overall H igh risk potential rating, specific phy tosanitary measures beyond standard port - of
- entry inspection are highl y recommended to mitigate pest risk. Quarantine pests estimated to present a Medium risk ty picall y may require specific mitigative measures. The choice of appropriate measures to mitigate risks is part of risk m anagement within APHI S
. **Table 7**  **.** Pest Risk Potentials a for quarantine pests on Capsicum spp. from Central America
. **Pest Consequences of**  **Introduction Likelihood of** 

**Introduction Pest Risk Potential**  Phakopsora meibomiae High ( 1 4 ) High ( 15 ) High ( 29 ) U ro myces crotalariae Low(8) High (15) Med (23) a Lo w 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 anal yz ed above. We described s tandard post
- harvest processing measures above (1.2). The Internatio nal Plant Protection Convention recognizes that countries have the sovereign rightPest R isk A ssessment for C hipilin from El Salvador

Ver. 5 November 4, 2010 16 to use risk mitigation strategies that minimize pest risks to a scientificall y justified level (Article VII; IPPC, 1997 ). The appropriate level of protection for an imported commodity can be achieved b y the application of a single phytosanitary measure, such as inspection or a quarantine treatment, or by a combination of measures through a s ys tems approach ( ISPM # 14, IP PC, 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 “evalu ation and selection of options to reduce the risk of introduction and spread of a pest.” (IPPC, 2009). Selection of th ose options must consider not only the efficacy

of the various risk management strategies, but also the potential impact that such strateg ies 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, IP PC, 2009 )
. IP PC standards outline two steps in risk management: 1) identification of risk management options and 2) anal ys is of the efficacy

and impact of the different options (I SPM#2, IP PC, 2009 )
. This section provides the first step in risk management, i.e., the identification of phy tosanitary options to reduce and manage pest risk
. Pest risk management is the process of identifying way s to react to a perceived risk, evaluating the efficacy

of these actions, and identifying the most appropriate options ( IS PM # 11, IPPC, 2009 ). Here we outline phy tosanitary 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 establi shment of pest - free areas or a quarantine treatment, or a combination of measures in a systems approach. **3.2 .**  **Risk Mitigation Options** Many typ es 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 sy stems 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 m ay 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 us e in a sy stems approach, it must be 1) clearl y defined , 2) efficacious , 3) officiall y required (mandated) , and 4) subject to monitoring and control by

the responsible national plant protection organization ( IS PM # 14, IP PC, 2009 ). We describe and summarize the most frequently used phy tosanitary options below (Table 9). Quarantine treatments have been developed which may mitigate some of these pests on other co mmodities, such as Phakospora meibomiae on various fruits and vegetables; however, the efficacy of these treatments on fresh chipilin leaves and whether these treatments would adversel y affect the leaves are unknown. A s ys tems approach may also mitigate ri skPest R isk A ssessment for C hipilin from El Salvador

Ver. 5 November 4, 2010 17 3.3.1. Inspection & Monitoring and Phy tosanitary Certification **Phytosanitary Inspection**
. Chipilin would be subject to in spection at the port
- of
- entry . There may be inspections in El Salvador for phy tosanitary certification. **Phytosanitary Certificate**
. Each consignment of fruit should be accompanied by a phy tosanitary certificate issued b y and providing an additional declaration stating that the fruit in the consignment meets the conditions of a sy stems 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, IP PC, 2009 ) or other, agreed
- upon procedures. **Areas of Low Pest Prevalence**
. The same sampling p rocedures 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 maint ain an APHI S
- approved quality control program to monitor or audit the sampling program. APHI S 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 officiall y maintained fo r a defined period” (ISPM #10, IP PC, 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 b y 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 (I SPM #1 0 , 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 s trobilurians are known to be effective against most rust fungi ( Latin, 2010 ). However, they do not eliminate the disease. Chemical application could only bePest R isk A ssessment for C hipilin from El Salvador

Ver. 5 November 4, 2010 18 considered in the context of larger, sy stems approach. 3.3.4. Post
- Harvest Safeguards and Packinghouse Procedures N o 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
- APHI S, 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 demonstrate d 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
- APHI S, 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 (CH 3 Br) is a colorless, odorless fumigant with relativel y 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. Itcan also be used to devitalize plants at higher concentrations. Methyl brom ide 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 post
harvest commodity

treatments to achieve phy tosanitary security ( ISPM #4, 10, 22, IP PC, 2009 ), and has proven to be effective in practice (Table 9 ). A sy stems approach can provide an alternative to single measures to meet the appropriate level of phy tosanitary prot ection, or can be developed to provide phy tosanitary protection in situations, in which no single measure is available ( IS PM #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 inspectionPest R isk A ssessment for C hipilin 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. , IP PC, 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. , IP PC, 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. Especiall y 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 R isk A ssessment for C hipilin 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 H igh pest risk potential , inspection and culling may be in sufficient 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 M edium 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 anal ys is process. 

### 4 **. Authors and Reviewers Autho**  **rs** John Rogers (Final original) a

Helena Moreno, P est risk anal ys t ( Draft original) b Guiovanni Zambrano, P est risk analyst ( Draft original) b **Reviewers** James M. Smith, Entomologista

Bets y Randall
- Schadel , Plant Pathologist a Ashl ey Jackson, Editorial Assistant a

a USDA
- APHI S
- PPQ
- C PHST
- PERAL b Center for Phy

tosanitary 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 ppPest R isk A ssessment for C hipilin 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. Disease s and D isorders of P lants 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: Py ralidae) 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 so ybean rust
- Phakopsora meibomiae. . Sy stematic Mycology

and Microbiology

L aboratory , ARS, USDA, Beltsville, MD. http://nt.ars
grin.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. Mc Cray . 2008
. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Fungal Databases Sy stemic Botany and M ycology 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, Prot o tipe Data Portal Global Biodiversity Information Facility Version 1.0. Approved b y 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. Soy

bean Rust and Implications for Wisconsin Soy bean 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 , Gainesvil le, FL. http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/IN644Pest R isk A ssessment for C hipilin 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 Wee ds. 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 analy sis for quarantine pests, including anal ys is of environmental risks and living modified organisms. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, International Plant Prot ection 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 phy tosanitary 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 analy sis (I SPM#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 sy stematic sy nopsis (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 Analy sis. 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 veget ables of Central America. Journal of Economic Botany 48:130
- 138. NAPPO. 2004. NAPPO regional standards for phytosanitary measures: RSPM#5: NAPPO glossary of phy tosanitary 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 R isk A ssessment for C hipilin from El Salvador

Ver. 5 November 4, 2010 23 Ono, Y., P. Buritica, and J. Hennen. 1992. Deli mitation 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 Analy sis 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 (P PQ)
. 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 gu ildinii (Westwood): An emerging pest in Louisiana so yb ean. Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA. USDA
- APHIS. 1997. Irradiation for phy tosanitary 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 R isk A ssessment for C hipilin 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 Fa**  **mily (if appropriate) Interceptions (no.)**  Aeolothripidae, Species of 2 Agromyzidae, Species of 57 Alternaria sp . Hy phomyc etes 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 . Hy phomyc etes 4 Chaetanaphothrips signipennis Thripidae 1 Chry somelidae, 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 Chry somelidae 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 2Pest R isk A ssessment for C hipilin from El Salvador

Ver. 5 November 4, 2010 25 **Pest Fa**  **mily (if appropriate) Interceptions (no.)**  Leptosphaerulina sp . Pleosporaceae 1 Lygaeoidea, Species of 1 Megalop ygidae, 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 . Aley rodidae 1 Pentatomidae, Species of 1 Phlaeothripidae, Species of 6 Phyllophaga sp . Scarabaeidae 1 Phyllosticta sp . Coelomycetes 1 Pseudococcidae, Species of 20 Psylliodes sp . Chry somelidae 1 Pterophoridae, Species of 3 Py ralidae, Species of 1 Py raustinae, Species of Crambidae 1 Schizomyia sp . Cecidomyiidae 1 Sphacophilus sp . Argidae 3 Spissistilus festinus a Membracidae 2 Spodoptera albula a Noctuidae 1 Spodoptera sp . Noctuidae 2 Spoladea recurvalis a 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