## Importation of French Bean, Phaseolus vulgaris L., and Runner Bean, Phaseolus coccineus L

., from Kenya into the United States

A Qualitative, Pathway-initiated Risk Assessment

February 23, 2009

Rev. 004

Agency contact:

Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory Center for Plant Health Science and Technology

United States Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Plant Protection and Quarantine 1730 Varsity Drive, Suite 300 Raleigh, NC 27606Pest Risk Assessment for Kenya Beans

Rev. 004 February 23, 2009 ii 

### Executive Summary

This assessment documents risks associated wi th the importation of fresh French beans, Phaseolus vulgaris L., and runner beans, Phaseolus coccineus L., from the Republic of Kenya to all the United States (all 50 States plus Territories). For this ri sk assessment, we assumed that beans exported to the United States would unde rgo the “high care” post harvest processing as described in this document, which includes a di sinfectant wash and grad ing of each individual bean pod. A list of pests associated with fine beans in the Republic of Kenya was developed based on documents assembled by the Republic of Kenya, Kenya Plant Health Inspectorate Service (KEPHIS), USDA-APHIS Plant Protect ion and Quarantine (PPQ) records of port interceptions, and a search of bot h print and electronic sources of in formation. From this pest list, we identified and further analyzed ten quarantine pests as likely to follow the pathway of French beans and runner beans from Kenya. Quarantine pest s likely to follow the pathway and selected for further analysis include the arthropods:

Bactrocera cucurbitae Coquillett (Diptera: Tephritidae) Chrysodeixis chalcites (Esper) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) Dacus ciliatus Loew (Diptera: Tephritidae) Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) Lampides boeticus (Linnaeus) (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae) Liriomyza huidobrensis (Blanchard) (Diptera: Agromyzidae) Maruca vitrata Fabricius (Syn: Maruca testulalis Fabricius) (Lepidoptera: Crambidae) Maconellicoccus hirsutus (Green) (Syn: Phenacoccus hirsutus ) (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) Spodoptera littoralis (Boisduval) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) Thaumatotibia leucotreta Meyrick (Syn: Cryptophlebia leucotreta Meyrick) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae)

These quarantine pests were analyzed based on the PPQ Guidelines for Pathwa y-Initiated Pest Risk Assessments, Version 5.02 (PPQ, 2000). We determined that L. boeticus and M. vitrata posed a Medium risk, and eight pests— B. cucurbitae, C. chalcites, D. ciliatus, H. armigera, L. huidobrensis, M. hirsu tus, S. littoralis, and T. leucotreta —posed a High risk of establishing and threatening U.S. agriculture and natural plant res ources. The evidence available at this time is not sufficient to assume that the quality grading proc ess will address the risks posed by the species of quarantine concern. A list of potential quarantine treatments to mitigate pest risks is provided in this document. However, final phytosanitary measur es to mitigate pest risk along the commodity pathway will be determined during the developmen t of a detailed pest risk management document, which will supplement this baseline analysis.Pest Risk Assessment for Kenya Beans

Rev. 004 February 23, 2009 iii 

### Table of Contents

Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................... ii 1. Introduction

............................................................................................................................... 1 2. Risk Assessment ........................................................................................................................ 1 2.1. Initiating Event: Proposed Action.................................................................................1 2.2. Assessment of We ed Potential of Phaseolus vulgaris L and Phaseolus coccineus L..2 2.3. Previous Risk Assessments, and Pest Interceptions .....................................................2 2.4. Pest Categorization–Identification of Quar antine Pests and Quarantine Pests Likely to Follow the Pathway........................................................................................................3 2.5. Consequences of Introduction—Ec onomic/Environmental Importance ....................22 2.6. Likelihood of Introduction—Quantity Imported and Pest Opportunity .....................30 2.7. Conclusion—Pest Risk Potential and Pe sts Requiring Phytosanitary Measures........34 3. Contributors ............................................................................................................................ 35 4. Literature Cited ...................................................................................................................... 35 5. Appendices

............................................................................................................................... 45 Appendix A. Map of production areas of Fr ench beans and runner beans in Kenya ........45 Appendix B. Post harvest handling of Phaseolus vulgaris L. and Phaseolus coccineus L. in Kenya .......................................................................................................................... .46 Appendix C. Risk Mitigation Options ...............................................................................50 Appendix D. USDA Kenya TDY tr ip report (selected excerpts) ......................................51 Appendix E. Predicted distribution of Liriomyza huidobrensis in the conterminous United States......................................................................................................................... ...58 Appendix F. Predicted distribution of Maconellicoccus hirsutus in the conterminous United States......................................................................................................................... ...59Pest Risk Assessment for Kenya Beans

Rev. 004 February 23, 2009 1 

### 1. Introduction

This risk assessment was originally prepared by the Republic of Kenya, Kenya Plant Health Inspectorate Service (KEPHIS) to examine plant pe st risks associated with importation into the United States (all 50 States plus Territories) of fresh pods of French beans, Phaseolus vulgaris L and runner beans, P. coccineus L., from the Republic of Ke nya. The risk assessment was subsequently reviewed, updated an d finalized by the U.S. Depart ment of Agriculture (USDA)’s Animal and Plant Health Inspect ion Service (APHIS) Plant Protec tion and Quarantin e (PPQ). For this risk assessment, we assumed that beans exported to the United States would undergo the “high care” postharvest processi ng as described in Appendix 2 of this document, which includes a disinfectant wash and grading of each individual bean. Estimates of risk are expressed in the qualitative terms of high, me dium, or low. The risk assessment is “pathway -initiated” in that it is based on the potential pest risks associated with the co mmodity as it enters the United States.

International plant protection organizations, su ch as the North Amer ican Plant Protection Organization (NAPPO) and the Inte rnational Plant Protection Conven tion (IPPC) of the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Or ganization, provide standards for conducting pest risk analyses (IPPC, 2004, 2007a; NAPPO, 2004). The methods used to initiate, conduct, and report this plant pest risk assessment, as well as the use of biological and phytosanitary terms, are consistent with these standards. The IPPC standards describe three stages of pest risk anal ysis: Stage 1, Initiation; Stage 2, Risk Assessment; and Stage 3, Risk Management. This document satisfies the requirements of IPPC Stages 1 and 2. Details of the methodology and rating criteria can be found in the template document, Guide lines for Pathway-Initiated Pest Risk Assessments, Version 5.02 (PPQ, 2000).

IPPC (2007b) defines pest risk assessment as “evaluation of the proba bility of the introduction and spread of a pest and the magnitude of the associated potential economic consequences.” Quarantine pest is defined as “a pest of potential eco nomic importance to th e area endangered thereby and not yet present there, or present but not widely distributed and being officially controlled” (IPPC, 2007b). Thus, pest risk assess ments should consider bo th the consequences and likelihood of introduction of qu arantine pests. Both issues ar e addressed in this document.



### 2. Risk Assessment

2.1. Initiating Event: Proposed Action

This risk assessment was developed in support of a request by the Republ ic of Kenya for USDA authorization to permit im ports of French beans ( Phaseolus vulgaris L) and runner beans, ( Phaseolus coccineus L.) into the United States. Entry of this commodity into the United States presents a risk of introduction of exotic plant pests. Title 7, Part 319, Section 56 of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (7 CFR §319.56, 2008) provi des regulatory author ity for the importation of fruits and vegetables from fore ign countries into the United States.Pest Risk Assessment for Kenya Beans

Rev. 004 February 23, 2009 2 2.2. Assessment of Weed Potential of Phaseolus vulgaris L and Phaseolus coccineus L.

In this step we examined the potential of the commodity to b ecome a weed after it enters the United States (Table 1). If the assessment were to indicate significant weed potential, then a “pest-initiated” risk a ssessment would be conducted.

Table 1. Assessment of the Weed Potential of Phaseolus vulgaris L and Phaseolus coccineus L.

Commodity: French bean, Phaseolus vulgaris L and runner bean Phaseolus coccineus L.

Phase 1: Many varieties of Phaseolus vulgaris L and Phaseolus coccineus L. are widely cultivated in the United States Phase 2: Is the species listed in: No Geographical Atlas of World Weeds (Holm et al., 1979) No World's Worst Weeds: Distribution and Biology (Holm et al., 1997) No Report of the Technical Committee to Eval uate Noxious Weeds; Exotic Weeds for Federal Noxious Weed Act (Gunn and Ritchie, 1982) No Economically Important Foreign Weeds (Reed, 1977) No Weed Science Society of America list (WSSA, 1989) No Is there any literature reference indi cating weediness, e.g., AGRICOLA, CAB, Biological Abstracts, AGRIS; search on “species name” combined with “weed”. Such a search returns a prohibitive number of references, a sample of which do not indicate weediness, but th at there are weeds associated with cultivation of Phaseolus vulgaris L. and Phaseolus coccineus L.

Phase 3: The literature indicate that Phaseolus vulgaris L. and Phaseolus coccineus L are not likely to become weeds in the United St ates because of imports from Kenya.

2.3. Previous Risk Assessments, and Pest Interceptions

2.3.1. Decision History for Phaseolus vulgaris and Phaseolus coccineus from eastern and southern Africa

• 1990: P. vulgaris was denied entry from Kenya because of a lack of approved treatment for various fruit flies, including Dacus cucurbitae Coq. (syn: Bactrocera cucurbitae Coquillett) and Ceratitis capitata (Weid).

• 1989: P. vulgaris from South Africa was denied entr y because of a lack of approved treatment for a complex of pests including the insects Dacus ciliatus

, Maruca testulalis , and Lampides boeticus

.

• 1986: P. vulgaris was denied entry from Zimbabwe becau se of a lack of approved treatment for a complex of bean pod pests including Dacus ciliatus and Maruca testulalis , and the pathogen Elsinoe phaseoli

.

• 1992: Entomology findings recommended to permit entry of immature pods of P. vulgaris from Kenya with treatment for Cryptophlebia leucotreta

, Dacus ciliatus

, Dacus cucurbitae

, and Maruca testulalis . However, because there was no treatment for the pathogen Phakopsora pachrhizi , the commodity was denied entry.Pest Risk Assessment for Kenya Beans

Rev. 004 February 23, 2009 3 2.3.2. Pest interceptions Six different pest taxa have been inte rcepted from 1999 to 2005 at U.S. ports on P. vulgaris and P. coccineus (Table 2), while four diffe rent pest taxa have been intercepted from Kenya by the European Plant Protectio n Organization (EPPO) on P. vulgaris over the same period. No pest interceptions have been reported on runner beans by EPPO (KEPHIS, 2006).

Table 2. Pests intercepted at U.S. ports on two Phaseolus species (PestID, 2007). Pest Host Origin Year Agromyzidae spp. P. vulgaris Colombia 1997 Anycylostomia stercorea P. vulgaris Trinidad and Tobago 1997 Crocidosema aporema P. vulgaris Guatemala 2003 Helicoverpa armigera P. coccineus Germany 2006 Heliothis sp. P. vulgaris Unknown 1984 Maruca vitrata P. vulgaris Puerto Rico 1987 Maruca vitrata P. vulgaris Guatemala 2003 Maruca vitrata P. vulgaris Puerto Rico 1989 Maruca vitrata P. vulgaris Hawaii 1992 Maruca vitrata P. vulgaris Guatemala 2003

Table 3: Pests intercepted from Kenya by European Plant Protection Organization (EPPO) on Phaseolus vulgaris from 1999 to 2005. Pest Host Country(s) Year Interceptions Phaseolus vulgaris The Netherlands, UK 2002 5 Helicoverpa armigera Phaseolus sp Ireland, Netherlands 2003/04 2 Maruca vitrata Phaseolus sp. UK 2003 1 Deudrix antalas Phaseolus sp. UK 2003 1 Pyralidae Phaseolus sp. UK 2003 1

2.4. Pest Categorization–Identification of Quaran tine Pests and Quaranti ne Pests Likely to Follow the Pathway

Common pests associated with P. vulgaris and P. coccineus that occur in Kenya are listed below (Table 4). This list includes information on the presence or absence of these pests in the United States, the affected plant part(s ), the quarantine status of the pest with respect to the United States, an indication of the pest -host association, whether the pest is likely to follow the pathway and enter the United States on commercially export ed beans, and pertinen t references for pest distribution and biology.

Plant parts of the commodity include: infloresce nce, leaves, pods, root s, seeds, and stem. Analysis takes into consideration that the comm odities will be shipped as pods, and that pests associated with other life stages are not likely to follow the pathway. For this risk assessment, we assumed that beans exported to the United St ates would undergo the “high care” postharvestPest Risk Assessment for Kenya Beans

Rev. 004 February 23, 2009 4 processing as described in Appendix 2 of this document, which includes a disinfectant wash and grading of each individual bean.

Note: In the pest list, informa tion on plant part association and whether the pest is likely to follow the pathway is only provided for quarantin e pests, not for non-quarantine pests. Even if non-quarantine pests are able to follow the path way, phytosanitary measures against these pests would not be justified considering the pest al ready occurs in the United States; therefore, information on plant part association and whether th e pest is likely to follow the pathway is not needed for non-quarantine pests.

Table 4: Pests in Kenya associated with French beans, P. vulgaris L., and runner beans, Phaseolus coccineus L. Pests/ Diseases Distribution Part(s) affected 1 Quarantine status Follow pathway References

ARTHROPODS ARACHNIDA ACARI Prostigmata Tarsonemidae Polyphagotarsonemus latus Banks Kenya; USA N/A No N/A PestID, 2007; CABI 2006; CIE, 1986 Tenuipalpidae Brevipalpus obovatus (Geijskes) Kenya, USA N/A No N/A CABI, 2004; Le Pelley, 1959 Brevipalpus californicus (Banks) Kenya, USA N/A No N/A CABI & EPPO, 2005; CABI, 2004; Laycock & Templer, 1973 Tetranychidae Mononychellus tanajoa (Bondar) Kenya, USA N/A No N/A CABI 2004; Farrell et al., 1995; Mailu 1996 Tetranychus urticae (Koch) Kenya, USA N/A No N/A Allen et al., 1996; Anyango 2001; CABI 2004; Le Pelley 1959; Seif et al., 2001; Tetranychus cinnabarinus (Boisduval) (Syn : Tetranychus telarius ) Kenya, USA N/A No N/A Anyango, 2001; HCDA, MOA & JICA, 2003; Le Pelley, 1959

1 Plant part affected: I = Inflorescence/Flower, L = Leaf, P = Pod, R = Root, S = Stem, Sd = Seed, Sh = Shoot, WP = Whole plant. N/A = Not Applicable. Even if non-quarantine pests are able to follow the pathway, phytosanitary measures against these pests would not be justified considering the pest already occurs in the United States; th erefore, information on plant part association and whether the pest is likely to follow the pathway is not needed for non-quarantine pests.Pest Risk Assessment for Kenya Beans

Rev. 004 February 23, 2009 5 Pests/ Diseases Distribution Part(s) affected 1 Quarantine status Follow pathway References

INSECTA Coleoptera: Bruchidae Acanthoscelides obtectus (Say) Kenya, USA N/A No N/A Abate and Ampofo, 1996; Allen et al., 1996; CABI, 2004; Mailu 1996 Bruchidius atrolineatus (Pic) Kenya Sd Yes No 2 CABI, 2004; Warui, 1984 Callosobruchus analis (Fabricius) Kenya Sd Yes No 2 CABI, 2004; Warui 1984 Callosobruchus chinensis (Linnaeus) Kenya Sd Yes No 2 Abate and Ampofo, 1996; CABI, 2004; Mailu, 1996 Callosobruchus maculatus (Fabricius) Kenya, USA N/A No N/A Abate and Ampofo, 1996; CABI, 2004; Warui, 1984 Callosobruchus phaseoli (Gyllenhal) Kenya Sd Yes No 2 CABI, 2004; Warui, 1984 Callosobruchus rhodesianus (Pic) Kenya Sd Yes No 2 CABI, 2004; Warui, 1984 Zabrotes subfasciatus (Boheman) Kenya, USA N/A No N/A Abate and Ampofo, 1996; Allen et al., 1996; CABI, 2004 Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae Aulacophora foveicollis Lucas Kenya I, P, L, R, S Yes No 3 PestID, 2007; CABI, 2006; Berti, 1990. Monolepta spp. Kenya L Yes No Seif et al

., 2001 Ootheca spp. Kenya L Yes No Abate and Ampofo, 1996; Seif et al., 2001 Ootheca bennigseni (Weise) Kenya L, R, Sd, Sh Yes No 2 Abate and Ampofo, 1996; CABI, 2004; Muruli et al., 1980 Ootheca mutabilis Sahlberg Kenya L, R, Sh Yes No Abate and Ampofo, 1996; PestID, 2007; CABI, 2006; EPPO, 2006; Sief et al., 2001 Coleoptera: Curculionidae Alcidodes dentipes (Olivier) Kenya L, S Yes No CABI, 2004

2 Pests feed on stored products (dried). 3 Because of its size, mobility, or biology, the pest is not expected to remain with the commodity during processing.Pest Risk Assessment for Kenya Beans

Rev. 004 February 23, 2009 6 Pests/ Diseases Distribution Part(s) affected 1 Quarantine status Follow pathway References

Alcidodes leucogrammus (Erichson) Kenya L, S Yes No Allen, et al., 1996; Farrell et al., 1995; Mailu 1996; Seif et al., 2001 Sitona lineatus Linnaeus Uganda, USA N/A No N/A PestID, 2007; Baliddawa, 1988; CABI 2006; Williams et al., 1995 Systates pollinosus Gerst. Kenya L, R, S Yes No PestID, 2007; Hugo, 1995; Rathore, No Date; Rheenen et al., 1981 Coleoptera: Dryophthoridae Sitophilus zeamais (Motschulsky) Kenya, USA N/A No N/A CABI, 2004

Coleoptera: Meloidae Coryna spp. Kenya I Yes No Seif et al., 2001 Mylabris spp. Kenya, USA I Yes No Seif et al., 2001

Coleoptera: Nitidulidae Carpophilus hemipterus (Linnaeus) Kenya, USA N/A No N/A CABI, 2004, Noyes, 1982 Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae Tribolium castaneum (Herbst) Kenya, USA N/A No N/A CABI, 2004; Mailu 1996 Diptera: Agromyzidae Liriomyza huidobrensis (Blanchard) Kenya 4 L, P, S Yes Yes PestID, 2007; CABI, 2004, 2006; EPPO, 2005; Steck, 2004 Liriomyza sativae (Blanchard) Sudan, USA N/A No N/A CABI, 2004; Mau & Kessing, 1991 Liriomyza trifolii (Burgess in Comstock) Kenya, USA N/A No N/A CABI, 2004; Mailu, 1996

4 Liriomyza huidobrensis Blanchard is reported to be present in California and is not under official control; this is the only report within the continental United States (CABI, 2005). Records of L. huidobrensis within the United States, however, appear to refer to L. langei Frick, which is a cryptic species of L. huidobrensis (Scheffer, 2000; Scheffer 2004; Scheffer et al

., 2001). According to Reitz (2004), “there is no evidence that what is currently known as Liriomyza huidobrensis is established in the US.” Conseque ntly, we are treating this species as a quarantin e pest, but a final decision as to whether or not it is a quarantine pest is pending until surveys for this species in Oregon and Washington are completed (Colpetzer, 2007). Depending on that decision, this risk analysis may need to be revised.Pest Risk Assessment for Kenya Beans

Rev. 004 February 23, 2009 7 Pests/ Diseases Distribution Part(s) affected 1 Quarantine status Follow pathway References

Ophiomyia centrosematis (de Meijere) Kenya L, R, St Yes No Abate and Ampofo, 1996; Allen et al., 1996; CABI, 2004; Seif et al., 2001 Ophiomyia phaseoli (Tryon) Kenya, USA N/A No N/A Abate and Ampofo, 1996; Allen et al., 1996; Ampofo 1994; CABI, 2004; Farrell et al., 1995; HCDA, MOA & JICA 2003; Mailu, 1996; Seif et al., 2001 Ophiomyia spencerella Kenya R, S Yes No Abate and Ampofo, 1996; Allen et al., 1996; CABI, 2004; Farrell et al., 1995; Mailu 1996; Seif et al., 2001 Ophiomyia spp. Kenya, USA N/A No N/A CABI, 2006; EPPO, 2006; Ogecha et al., 2000; PestID, 2007 Diptera: Anthomyiidae Delia platura (Meigen) Kenya, USA N/A No N/A CABI, 2004; Seif, et al., 2001 Diptera: Tephritidae Bactrocera cucurbitae (Coquillett) Kenya, USA (HI) I, L, P, R, S Yes Yes Alwood, 1999; CABI, 2004; CIE, 1995; Kaneda et al., 1986; Tanaka et al., 1986 Ceratitis capitata (Wiedemann) Kenya, USA (HI) P Yes 5 No 6 PestID, 2007; CABI, 2006; CPHST, 2008A Dacus ciliatus Loew Kenya P Yes Yes PestID, 2007; CABI, 2006; Hancock, 1989; CPHST, 2008A Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae Bemisia tabaci (Genn) Kenya, USA N/A No N/A Allen et al., 1996; CABI, 2004; Mailu 1996; Seif et al., 2001

5 Quarantine significant species with a limited distribution in the United States (NIS, 2004, 2006; PestID, 2007). 6 A previous USDA pest risk assessment on P. vulgaris from Zambia provided scientific justification for C. capitata not following the pathway (CPHST, 2008b). Specifically they noted that: 1) none of the cited references in Liquido et al. (1998), which indicated that P. vulgaris was a host for C. capitata , included field or laboratory infestation data and 2) no interceptions of C. capitata occurred on P. vulgaris after 37 years of surveys (Liquido et al., 1990). Based on this precedent, we also do not expect C. capitata to follow the pathway.Pest Risk Assessment for Kenya Beans

Rev. 004 February 23, 2009 8 Pests/ Diseases Distribution Part(s) affected 1 Quarantine status Follow pathway References

Trialeurodes vaporarium (Westwood ) Kenya, USA N/A No N/A CABI, 2004; Seif et al., 2001 Hemiptera: Aphididae Acyrthosiphon pisum (Harris) Kenya, USA N/A No N/A CABI, 2004; Le Pelley, 1959 Aphis craccivora (Koch) Kenya, USA N/A No N/A Abate and Ampofo, 1996; Allen et al., 1996; CABI, 2004; Farrell et al., 1995; Mailu 1996; Millar 1994; Muruli et al., 1980; Seif et al., 2001 Aphis fabae (Scopoli) Kenya, USA N/A No N/A Abate and Ampofo, 1996; Allen et al., 1996 ; Ampofo 1994, CABI, 2004; Farrell et al., 1995; Mailu 1996; Millar 1994; Seif et al., 2001 Aphis gossypii (Glover) Kenya, USA N/A No N/A CABI, 2004; Le Pelley, 1959; Millar, 1994 Aphis spiraecola (Patch) Kenya, USA N/A No N/A CABI, 2004; Millar, 1994 Macrosiphum euphorbiae (Thomas) Kenya, USA N/A No N/A CABI, 2004; Le Pelley, 1959 Myzus persicae Sulzer Kenya, USA N/A No N/A PestID, 2007; CABI, 2006; Millar, 1994. CIE, 1979 Rhopalosiphum rufiabdominale (Sasaki) Kenya, USA N/A No N/A CABI, 2004

Hemiptera: Cicadellidae Empoasca spp. Kenya L Yes No Allen et al., 1996; Ampofo 1994; Farrell et al., 1995; Muruli et al., 1980 Jacobiasca lybica (de Bergevin) Kenya L S Yes No CABI, 2006; HYPPZ, 1998; KMA, 1989; Lentini et al., 2000; PestID, 2007 Hemiptera: Coreidae Acanathomia spp. Kenya I, P, Sd Yes No 3 PestID, 2007; CPHST, 2008APest Risk Assessment for Kenya Beans

Rev. 004 February 23, 2009 9 Pests/ Diseases Distribution Part(s) affected 1 Quarantine status Follow pathway References

Anoplocnemis curcipes L

. Kenya Sh Yes No Seif et al., 2001 Clavigralla elongata (Signoret) Kenya I, P, Sd Yes No 3 Allen et al., 1996; CABI, 2004; Mailu 1996 Clavigralla horrida (Germar) Kenya I, P, Sd Yes No 3 Farrell et al., 1995; Seif et al., 2001 Clavigralla tomentosicollis (Stål) Kenya I, P, Sd Yes No 3 Allen et al., 1996; CABI, 2004; Farrell et al., 1995; Mailu 1996; Seif et al., 2001 Fabrictilis australis (Fabricius) Kenya L, P, Sh, S Yes No 3 PestID, 2007; CABI, 2006; KMA, 1989 Leptoglossus gonagra (Fabricius) Kenya, USA P 7 No N/A PestID, 2007; CABI, 2006; EPPO, 2006; Fasulo and Stansly, 2007 Riptortus dentipes (Fabricius) Kenya P, Sd Yes No 3 Allen et al., 1996; CABI, 2004; Seif et al., 2001 Hemiptera: Diaspididae Pinnaspis buxi (Bouché) Tanzania L, S Yes No PestID, 2007; Lindinger, 1910; Tenbrink and Hara, 1992 Pinnaspis strachani (Cooley) Kenya, USA N/A No N/A CABI, 2004

Pseudaulacaspis pentagona (Targioni Tozzetti) MacGillivray Tanzania, USA N/A No N/A PestID, 2007; CABI, 2006; EPPO, 2006; IIE, 1996 Selenaspidus articulatus (Morgan) Kenya, USA N/A No N/A PestID, 2007; Ebeling, 1959; Greathead, 1976 Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae Ferrisia virgata Cockerell Kenya, USA N/A No N/A PestID, 2007; Ben-Dov, 1994; CABI 2006; CIE, 1966 Maconellicoccus hirsutus (Green) (syn. Phenacoccus hirsutus ) Kenya, USA I, L, P, S, Sh Yes 8 Yes CABI, 2007, 2006; Le Pelley, 1959

7 Leptoglossus gonagra attacks the fruit of citrus (Fasulo and Stansly, 2 007); therefore, we assumed it would also attack the pods of Phaseolus spp. 8 This pest has a limited distribution in California, Florida and is present in Hawaii (CABI, 2007). It is considered actionable by APHIS-PPQ (PestID, 2007).Pest Risk Assessment for Kenya Beans

Rev. 004 February 23, 2009 10 Pests/ Diseases Distribution Part(s) affected 1 Quarantine status Follow pathway References

Hemiptera: Pentatomidae
Acrosternum pallidoconspersum Kenya L Yes No CABI, 2004

Nezara viridula (Linnaeus) Kenya, USA N/A No N/A Allen et al., 1996; Farrell et al., 1995; Le Pelley, 1959; Seif et al., 2001 Hemiptera: Tettigometridae Hilda patruelis (Stål) Tanzania R 9 Yes No PestID, 2007; Bohlen, 1973; CABI, 2006 ; Gwekewerere, 1995 Lepidoptera: Arctiidae Alpenus (Spilosoma) investigatorum (Karsch) Kenya L Yes No Seif et al., 2001

Spilosoma ( Diacrisia ) jacksoni (Rothschild) Kenya L Yes No Seif et al., 2001

Lepidoptera: Crambidae Diaphania indica (Saunders) Kenya; USA (FL) L, P Yes 5 No 3 PestID, 2007; CABI 2006; EPPO, 2006; NHM Collection (as cited in CABI, 2006)
Maruca vitrata Fabricius [Syn: Maruca testtulalis (Geyer)] Kenya, USA (HI) I, L, P Yes 5 Yes Allen, et al., 1996; Ampofo, 1994; CABI, 2004, 2006; Farell, et al., 1995; Mailu, 1996; NHM, 2005 Spoladea recurvalis (Fabricius) Kenya, USA N/A No N/A PestID, 2007; CABI, 2006; IIE, 1991 Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae Lampides boeticus (Linnaeus) Kenya, USA (HI) I, P, Sd Yes 5 Yes CABI, 2004, 2006; CIE, 1995; NHM, 2005 Lepidoptera: Noctuidae Agrotis ipsilon (Hufnagel) Kenya, USA N/A No N/A Allen et al., 1996; CABI, 2004 ; HCDA, MOA & JICA, 2003; Le Pelley, 1959; Mailu, 1996; Muruli et al ,. 1980

9 Hilda patruelis attacks the underground plant parts, assumed to be roots, of the Bambara groundnut, Vigna subterranea (Gwekwerere, 1995). Therefore, we assu med it would also attack the roots of Phaseolus spp.Pest Risk Assessment for Kenya Beans

Rev. 004 February 23, 2009 11 Pests/ Diseases Distribution Part(s) affected 1 Quarantine status Follow pathway References

Agrotis segetum (Dennis and Schiffermuller) Kenya Stem base Yes No Seif, et al., 2001

Chrysodeixis chalcites (Esper) Kenya L, P Yes Yes CABI, 2004 Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner) Kenya I, L, P Yes Yes Allen, et al., 1996; Ampofo, 1994; CABI, 2004; Farrell, et al., 1995; HCDA, MOA & JICA, 2003, Mailu, 1996; Le Pelley, 1959; Seif, et al

., 2001 ; CABI, 2006 Heliothis sp. Kenya, USA I, L, P, Sh Yes Yes CABI, 2006; EPPO, 2006; PestID, 2007 Spodoptera exigua (Hübner) Kenya, USA N/A No N/A Allen, et al., 1996; CABI, 2004; Le Pelley, 1959 Spodoptera littoralis (Boisduval) Kenya L, P Yes Yes Allen, et al., 1996; CABI, 2004; Le Pelley, 1959; NHM, 2005 Thysanoplusia orichalcea (Fabricius) Kenya L, P Yes No 3 CABI, 2004, Khaemba & Mutinga, 1982 Trichoplusia ni (Hübner) Kenya, USA N/A No N/A CABI, 2004

Lepidoptera: Pyralidae Etiella zinckenella (Treitschke) Kenya, USA N/A No N/A CABI, 2004

Ostrinia nubilalis (Hübner) Kenya, USA N/A No N/A Ampofo et al., 1986; CABI, 2004 Lepidoptera: Sphingidae Agrius convolvuli (Linnaeus) Kenya Sh, L Yes No CABI, 2006; Carcasson, 1968; PestID, 2007 Lepidoptera: Tortrichidae Thaumatotibia leucotreta Meyrick (Syn: Cryptophlebia leucotreta Meyrick) Kenya L, P, Sd Yes Yes PestID, 2007; CABI, 2006; EPPO, 2006; PPQ, 2002; Venette et al., 2003 Orthoptera: Acrididae Diabolocatantops axillaris (Thunberg) Kenya L, P Yes No 3 PestID, 2007; CABI, 2006; Kevan, 1950Pest Risk Assessment for Kenya Beans

Rev. 004 February 23, 2009 12 Pests/ Diseases Distribution Part(s) affected 1 Quarantine status Follow pathway References

Locusta migratoria (Linnaeus) Kenya I, L, P, S, Sd, Sh, WP Yes No 3 PestID, 2007; CABI, 2006; Kevan, 1950

Schistocerca gregaria (Forskål) Kenya I, L, P, S, Sd, Sh, WP Yes No 3 PestID, 2007; CABI, 2006; Dirsh, 1974; KMA, 1989 Thysanoptera: Thripidae Frankliniella occidentalis (Pergande) Kenya, USA N/A No N/A CABI, 2004

Frankliniella schultzei (Trybom) Kenya, USA N/A No N/A CABI, 2004; Seif et al., 2001 Megalurothrips sjostedti (Trybom) Kenya L Yes No Allen, et al., 1996; Ampofo, 1994; CABI, 2004; Farrell, et al., 1995; Le Pelly, 1959; Mailu, 1996 Sericothrips spp Kenya L, S Yes No HCDA, MOA & JICA, 2003 Thrips palmi Karny Sudan, USA (FL, HI) L, P, Sh Yes 5 No 3 PestID, 2007; CABI, 2006; EPPO, 2006

Thrips tabaci Lindeman Kenya, USA N/A No N/A PestID, 2007; CABI, 2006; CIE, 1969 FUNGI ANAMORPHIC FUNGI Acremonium strictum (W. Gams) [Syn: Cephalosporium acremonium (auct. mult. pro. parte, non Corda)] Kenya, USA N/A No N/A CABI, 2004; Farr et al 2007; Farrell, et al, 1995; Kedera, 1996; Kung’u & Boa, 1997; Macdonald & Chapman, 1997 Alternaria alternata Kenya, USA N/A No N/A Careta, 1999; CABI, 2004; Farr et al 2003 Alternaria brassicicola (Schwein) Kenya, USA N/A No N/A PestID, 2007; CABI, 2006; Farr et al

. 2007 Alternaria cucumerina (Ell. & Ev.) Elliott Kenya, USA N/A No N/A Farr et al 2003; Kung’u & Boa, 1997 Ascochyta boltshauseri (Sacc.) Kenya, USA N/A No N/A Farrell, et al., 1995; Schwartz, 2003 Aspergillus flavipes Kenya, USA N/A No N/A Farr et al 2007; Kung’u & Boa, 1997Pest Risk Assessment for Kenya Beans

Rev. 004 February 23, 2009 13 Pests/ Diseases Distribution Part(s) affected 1 Quarantine status Follow pathway References

Aspergillus flavus (Link) Kenya, USA N/A No N/A CABI, 2004; Farr et al 2003; Ismail, 2001; Muriuki & Siboe, 1995 Aspergillus niger (Tiegh.) Kenya, USA N/A No N/A CABI, 2004; Farr et al 2003; Kedera, 1996; Kung’u & Boa, 1997 Aspergillus ochraceus (K. Wilhelm) Kenya, USA N/A No N/A CABI, 2004; Farr et al 2003 Aspergillus tamari (Kita) Kenya, USA N/A No N/A CABI, 2004; Farr et al., 2003; Natrass, 1961; Farr et al., 2007 Cercospora spp

. Kenya, USA L Yes No Kedera, 1996; Schwartz, 2003 Chalara elegans (Nag Raj & W.B. Kendr) [Syn: Thielaviopsis basicola (Berk, & Bloom) J.W. Carmichael] Kenya, USA N/A No N/A CABI, 2004; Farrell, et al., 1995

Cladosporium spp. Kenya, USA R Yes No Kedera, 1996

Colletotrichum lindemuthianum (Sacc. & Magnus) Briosi & Cavara Kenya, USA N/A No N/A Allen, et al., 1996; CABI, 2004; Farrell, et al., 1995; HCDA, MOA & JICA, 2003; Kedera, 1996; Kung’u & Boa, 1997 Colletotrichum truncatum (Schwein.) Andrus & W.D. Moore Kenya, USA N/A No N/A CABI, 2004; Farr et al 2003; Schwartz, 2003

Colletotrichum dematium (Pers.) Grove Kenya, USA N/A No N/A Farr et al 2003; Kedera, 1996 Lasiodiplodia theobromae (Pat.) Griffiths & Maubl. (Syn: Botryodiplodia theobromae Pat.) Kenya, USA N/A No N/A Farr et al 2003; Kedera, 1996

Macrophomina phaseoli (Tassi) Goid Kenya, USA N/A No N/A CABI, 2004; Farr et al 2003; Schwartz, 2003 Macrophomina phaseolina (Tassi) Goid Kenya, USA N/A No N/A Allen, et al., 1996; CABI, 2004; Farrell et al., 1995; Kedera, 1996; Kung’u & Boa, 1997; Schwartz, 2003Pest Risk Assessment for Kenya Beans

Rev. 004 February 23, 2009 14 Pests/ Diseases Distribution Part(s) affected 1 Quarantine status Follow pathway References

Mycovellosiella phaseoli (Drummond) Deighton Kenya L Yes No Allen et al., 1996; Kung’u & Boa, 1997 Myrothecium roridum (Tode) Kenya, USA N/A No N/A CABI, 2004; Farr et al 2003 Phaeoisariopsis griseola (Sacc.) Ferraris. (Syn: Isariopsis griseola ) Kenya, USA N/A No N/A Allen et al., 1996; CABI, 2004; Farrell et al., 1995; Kedera, 1996; Kung’u & Boa, 1997; Wagara et al,. 2004 Penicillium aurantiogriseum (Dierckx) Kenya, USA N/A No N/A Kedera, 1996; Kung’u & Boa 1997; Seif et al., 2001 Penicillium spp. Kenya N/A No 10 N/A Khare, 1985 Trichoderma harzianum Kenya, USA N/A No N/A CABI, 2004; Otieno et al., 2003 Verticillium dahliae (Kleb) Kenya, USA N/A No N/A Farr et al 2003; Kedera, 1996 ASCOMYCETES Diaporthales Phoma exigua var . exigua (Desm.) (Syn: Ascochyta phaseolorum ) Kenya, USA N/A No N/A Farr et al 2003; Farrell, 1995; Kung’u & Boa 1997 Phoma exigua var. Dispersispora (Boerema et al.) Kenya, USA N/A No N/A Allen et al., 1996; Kedera, 1996; Kung’u & Boa, 1997; Schwartz, 2003 Erysiphales Erysiphe pisi DC. var. pisi (Vanha) Weltzien [Syn: Erysiphe polygoni (DC. em. Salm)] Kenya, USA N/A No N/A Allen, et al., 1996CABI, 2004; HCDA, MOA & JICA; 2003; Farrell, et al., 1995; Schwartz, 2003 Leveillula taurica (Lév.) G. Arnaud Kenya, USA N/A No N/A CABI, 2004; Farr et al 2003; Kedera, 1996 Helotiales Botryotinia fuckeliana (de Bary) Whetzel [Syn: Botrytis cinerea (Pers; Fr)] Kenya, USA N/A No N/A CABI, 2004; Kung’u & Boa, 1997

10 Genus listed as a nonreportable organism (PestID, 2007).Pest Risk Assessment for Kenya Beans

Rev. 004 February 23, 2009 15 Pests/ Diseases Distribution Part(s) affected 1 Quarantine status Follow pathway References

Sclerotinia sclerotiorum (Lib.) de Bary Kenya, USA N/A No N/A Allen et al., 1996; CABI, 2004; Farrell, et al., 1995; Kung’u & Boa, 1997 Hypocreales Fusarium oxysporum (Schlechtendahl) Kenya, USA N/A No N/A CABI, 2004; Kimenju et al,. 2004 Fusarium pallidoroseum [Syn: Fusarium semitectum (Berk. & Rav)] Kenya, USA N/A No N/A Farr et al 2003; Kedera, 1996; Kung’u & Boa, 1997 Fusarium equisetin (Corda) Sacc [Syn Gibberella intricans (Wollenw)] Kenya, USA N/A No N/A Farr et al 2003; Kedera, 1996

Fusarium oxysporum f.sp.

phaseoli (J.B. Kendr. & W.C. Snyder) Kenya, USA N/A No N/A Allen et al., 1996; CABI, 2004; Kedera, 1996 Fusarium solani f. sp phaseoli ( Burk) Snyd & Hans Kenya, USA N/A No N/A Allen et al., 1996; CABI 2004; Farrell., et al 1995; Kedera, 1996; Khare 1985; Otsyula et al., 1998; Seif, 2001 Gibberella avenacea (R.J. Cook) Kenya, USA N/A No N/A CABI ,2004; Farr et al 2003 Gibberella fujikuroi (Sawada) S. Ito (Syn: Fusarium moniliforme ) Kenya, USA N/A No N/A Kedera, 1996; Macdonald & Chapman, 1997 Gibberella zeae (Schwein) Petch Kenya, USA N/A No N/A CABI, 2004

Glomerella cingulata (Stonem) Spauld. & Schrenk Kenya, USA N/A No N/A CABI, 2004

Myriangiales Elsinoe phaseoli (Jenk. in Bruner & Jenk.) Kenya, USA N/A No N/A Allen, et al., 1996; Farrell, et al., 1995 & 2004; Kedera, 1996; Kung’u & Boa, 1997 Pleosporales Cochliobolus sativus (S. Ito & Kurib) Drechsler ex Dastur Kenya, USA N/A No N/A CABI, 2004

Saccharomycetales Nematospora coryli (Peglion) Kenya, USA N/A No N/A CABI, 2004; Schwartz, 2003Pest Risk Assessment for Kenya Beans

Rev. 004 February 23, 2009 16 Pests/ Diseases Distribution Part(s) affected 1 Quarantine status Follow pathway References

Sordariales Chaetomium spirale Kenya, USA N/A No N/A Kung’u & Boa, 1997

BASIDIOMYCETES: Ceratobasidiales Thanatephorus cucumeris (Frank) Donk (Syn: Rhizoctonia solani ) Kenya, USA N/A No N/A Allen, et al., 1996; Farrell, et al 1995; Kedera, 1996; Kung’u & Boa, 1997; Otsyula et al ,. 1998 BASIDIOMYCETES: Polyporales Corticium rolfsii (Curzi) Kenya, USA N/A No N/A Allen et al., 1996; CABI, 2004; Farrell et al., 1995; Kedera, 1996; Kung’u & Boa, 1997 DOTHIDEOMYCDCETES: Pleosporales Cochliobolus sativus (S. Ito & Kurib.) Kenya, USA N/A No N/A PestID, 2007; CABI, 2006; Farr et al. 2007; OOMYCETES: Peronosporales Peronospora spp. Kenya, USA N/A No N/A HCDA, MOA & JICA, 2003 OOMYCETES: Saprolegniales Pythium aphanidermatum (Edson) Fitzp Kenya, USA N/A No N/A CABI, 2004; Farr et al 2003; Farrell, et al., 1995 Pythium spp

. Kenya R Yes No Otsyula et al ., 1998 UREDINIOMYCETES: Uredinales Phakopsora pachyrhizi (Syd. & P. Syd.) Kenya, USA N/A No N/A Caldwell, & Laing, 2002; CABI, 2004; Hall, 1991; Sinclar & Backman, 1989 Uromyces appendiculatus (Pers.) Unger Kenya, USA N/A No N/A Allen, et al., 1996; CABI, 2004; HCDA, MOA & JICA, 2003; Farrell, et al., 1995; Kedera, 1996; Kung’u & Boa, 1997; Seif, et al

. 2001; Schwartz, 2003 Uromyces viciae-fabae (Pers.)

J. Schröt. Kenya, USA N/A No N/A CABI, 2004; HCDA, MOA & JICA, 2003; Kung’u & Boa, 1997; Schwartz, 2003Pest Risk Assessment for Kenya Beans

Rev. 004 February 23, 2009 17 Pests/ Diseases Distribution Part(s) affected 1 Quarantine status Follow pathway References

ZYGOMYCETES: Mucorales Choanephora cucurbitarum (Berk. & Ravenel) Kenya, USA N/A No N/A PestID, 2007; CABI, 2006; Farr et al. 2007; Rhizopus spp. Kenya, USA L, S Yes No CABI, 2004; Kedera, 1996; Kung’u & Boa, 1997 BACTERIA GAMMAPROTEOBACTERIA ENTEROBACTERIALES: Enterobacteriaceae Serratia marcescens (Bizio) Kenya, USA N/A No N/A CABI, 2004 ; Kaaya et al., 1993 PSEUDOMONADALES: Pseudomonadaceae Pseudomonas aeruginosa (Schroeter) Migula Kenya, USA N/A No N/A CABI, 2004; Kaaya and Darji, 1989 Pseudomonas marginalis pv

. marginalis (Brown) Stevens Kenya, USA N/A No N/A CABI, 2004

Pseudomonas savastanoi pv.

phaseolicola (Burkholder) Gardan et al. [Syn: Pseudomonas syringae pv. phaseolicola (Burkholder) Young et al.] Kenya, USA N/A No N/A Allen et al

., 1996; CABI 2004; Farrell et al., 1995; Kedera, 1996; Kung’u & Boa, 1997; Seif et.al. , 2001; Schwartz, 2003 Pseudomonas syringae pv

. garcae (Amaral et al) Young et al. Kenya L, S, Sh Yes No CABI, 2004; Kung’u & Boa, 1997

Pseudomonas syringae (Van Hall) Kenya, USA N/A No N/A CABI, 2004,

Pseudomonas syringae pv

. syringae (Van Hall) Kenya, USA N/A No N/A CABI, 2004; Kung’u & Boa, 1997; Schwartz, 2003 Pseudomonas syringae pv. tabaci (Wolf & Foster) Young et al., Kenya, USA N/A No N/A CABI, 2004; Kung’u & Boa, 1997

Pseudomonas viridiflava (Burkholder) Dowson Kenya, USA N/A No N/A CABI, 2004

RHIZOBIALES: Rhizobiaceae Rhizobium radiobacter (Beijerinck & van Delden) Young Kenya, USA N/A No N/A CABI, 2004Pest Risk Assessment for Kenya Beans

Rev. 004 February 23, 2009 18 Pests/ Diseases Distribution Part(s) affected 1 Quarantine status Follow pathway References

XANTHOMONADALES: Xanthomonadaceae Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. glycines (Nakano) Vauterin et al. Kenya, USA N/A No N/A CABI, 2004; Schwartz, 2003

Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. phaseoli (Smith) Vauterin et al. Kenya, USA N/A No N/A Allen et al., 1996; CABI, 2004; Farrell et al 1995; Kedera, 1996 Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. vignicola (Burkholder) Vauterin et al. Kenya, USA N/A No N/A Kedera, 1996

Xanthomonas campestris pv. campestris (Pammel) Dowson Kenya, USA N/A No N/A CABI, 2004

SPHINGOBACTERIA SPHINGOBACTERIALES: Flexibacteraceae Bacillus cereus (Frankland & Frankland) Kenya, USA N/A No N/A CABI, 2004

Bacillus subtilis (Ehrenberg) Cohn Kenya, USA N/A No N/A CABI, 2004

VIRUSES BROMOVIRIDAE: Alfamovirus Alfalfa mosaic virus Kenya, USA N/A No N/A CABI, 2004;

BROMOVIRIDAE: Cucumovirus Cucumber mosaic virus Kenya, USA N/A No N/A CABI, 2004;

BUNYAVIRIDAE Potyvirus Bean common mosaic necrosis virus Kenya, USA N/A No N/A CABI, 2004; Guzmán et al., 1997; Spence & Walkey, 1995 Bean common mosaic virus: Kenya, USA N/A No N/A Allen et al., 1996; CABI, 2004; Farrell et al., 1995; Kedera, 1996; Seif et al., 2001 Bean yellow mosaic virus Kenya, USA N/A No N/A Bock et al., 1974; CABI, 2004 Peanut mottle virus Kenya, USA N/A No N/A Bock et al., 1974; CABI, 2004 TospovirusPest Risk Assessment for Kenya Beans

Rev. 004 February 23, 2009 19 Pests/ Diseases Distribution Part(s) affected 1 Quarantine status Follow pathway References

Tomato spotted wilt virus Kenya, USA N/A No N/A CABI, 2004

Carlavirus Cowpea mild mottle virus Kenya L, S Yes No CABI, 2004 UNASSIGNED VIRUS FAMILY Tobravirus Tobacco rattle virus Kenya, USA N/A No N/A CABI, 2004; Khurana &Garg, 2003 Tobacco Mosaic Virus Kenya, USA N/A No N/A CABI, 2004; Hollings et al,. 1981 NEMATODA ANGUINIDAE Ditylenchus dipsaci (Kühn,) Filip'ev Kenya, USA N/A No N/A CABI, 2004

APHELENCHIDA Aphelenchus spp Kenya L,S Yes No Kimenju et al., 1999 & 2004a CRICONEMATIDAE Criconemella (De Grisse & Loof) Kenya R, S Yes No CABI, 2004; Kimenju et al., 1999 & 2004a Hemicycliophora spp Kenya R Yes N o Kimenju et al., 1999 & 2004a DOLICHODORIDAE Tylenchorhynchus spp. Kenya L,R Yes No Hollis, 1962; Kimenju et al., 1999, 2004a; Schwartz, 2003 HETERODERIDAE Heterodera schachtii ( A. Schmidt) Kenya, USA N/A No N/A CABI Absracts, CABI, 2004 HOPLOLAIMIDAE Helicotylenchus dihystera (Cobb) Sher Kenya, USA N/A No N/A CABI, 2004; Kimenju et al., 2004a & b Helicotylenchus multicinctus (Cobb) Golden Kenya, USA N/A No N/A CABI, 2004

Helicotylenchus

pseudorobustus (Steiner) Golden Kenya, USA N/A No N/A CABI, 2004; Desaeger & Rao, 2001

Rotylenchulus parvus (Williams) Sher Kenya, USA N/A No N/A CABI, 2004

Rotylenchulus reniformis (Linford & Oliveira) Kenya, USA N/A No N/A CABI, 2004; Hollis, 1962Pest Risk Assessment for Kenya Beans

Rev. 004 February 23, 2009 20 Pests/ Diseases Distribution Part(s) affected 1 Quarantine status Follow pathway References

Scutellonema spp. Kenya R Yes No Kimenju et al., 1999 & 2004a Scutellonema brachyurus (Steiner) Andrássy Kenya, USA N/A No N/A Desaeger & Rao, 2001

MELOIDOGYNIDAE Meloidogyne arenaria (Neal, 1889) Chitwood Kenya, USA N/A No N/A CABI, 2004

Meloidogyne incognita ( Kofoid & White) Chitwood Kenya, USA N/A No N/A Allen et al., 1996; CABI, 2004; HCDA, MOA & JICA, 2003; Kedera, 1996; Kimenju et al., 2004a & b; Mailu, 1996 Meloidogyne javanica (Treub) Chitwood Kenya, USA N/A No N/A Allen et al., 1996; CABI, 2004; Desaeger & Rao, 2001; Kedera, 1996; Kimenju et al

. , 1999 & 2004a; Mailu, 1997 Meloidogyne hapla (Chitwood) Kenya, USA N/A No N/A Allen et al., 1996; CABI, 2004; Kedera, 1996; Kimenju et al

. , 1999 & 2004a; Sutherland & Kibata, 1993 Meloidogyne kikuyuensis (de Grisses) Kenya R Yes No Mailu, 1996

Meloidogyne acronea (Coetzee) Kenya L, R Yes No Allen et al., 1996; CABI, 2004; Mailu 1996 Meloidogyne africana Kenya L, R Yes No Mailu, 1996 PRATYLENCHIDAE Pratylenchus brachyurus (Godfrey) Filipjev & Schuurmans Stekhoven Kenya, USA N/A No N/A Allen et al., 1996; CABI, 2004; Kimenju et al., 1998; Kimenju et al., 2004a Pratylenchus goodeyi (Sher & Allen) Kenya, USA N/A No N/A CABI, 2004; SON, 1984 Pratylenchus penetrans (Cobb) Filipjev & Schuurmans Stekhoven Kenya, USA N/A No N/A Allen et al., 1996; CABI, 2004; Hollis 1962; Kimenju et al., 2004aPest Risk Assessment for Kenya Beans

Rev. 004 February 23, 2009 21 Pests/ Diseases Distribution Part(s) affected 1 Quarantine status Follow pathway References

Pratylenchus thornei (Sher & Allen) Kenya, USA N/A No N/A CABI, 2004; Desaeger & Rao 2001 Pratylenchus vulnus (Allen & Jensen) Kenya, USA N/A No N/A CABI, 2004

Radopholus similis (Cobb) Thorne Kenya, USA N/A No N/A Mailu, 1996; Ngundo & Taylor, 1973 TRICHODORIDAE Trichodorus spp Kenya L, R Yes No Kimenju et al., 1999 & 2004a

Below we summarized the quara ntine pests that are likely to follow the pathway on commercial shipments of French beans and runner beans fr om Kenya (Table 5). These pests are further analyzed in this risk assessment. Quarantine pe sts not included in Table 5 have the potential to be detrimental to U.S. agriculture or ecosystem s; however, they were not subjected to further analysis because they are mainly associated with plant parts other than the parts of the commodity being shipped, or they are unlikely to be associated with the commodity during transport or processing because of thei r size, biology, or inherent mobility.

Biological hazards associated with organisms not identified to the species level are not assessed if the genus (or broader taxon) is al ready present in the United States, because often there are many species within a genus, and we cannot know if the unidentified sp ecies occurs in the United States and, consequently, whether it meet s the definition of a quarantine pest for the United States. Lack of specific identification may indicate the limits of current taxonomic knowledge, the life stage, or the quality of the specimen submitted for identification. By necessity, pest risk assessments focus on organisms for which biologi cal information is available. Lack of specific identification doe s not rule out the possibility that a high risk quarantine pest was intercepted. Conversely, the development of detailed assessments for known pests that inhabit a variety of ecological niches, such as internal fruit feeders or foliage pests, allow effective mitigation measures to eliminate the known organisms as well as similar but incompletely identified organisms that inhabit the same niche. If pests identified to more specific levels (e.g., species) are intercepted in the future, then a re-evaluation of their risk may occur.Pest Risk Assessment for Kenya Beans

Rev. 004 February 23, 2009 22 Table 5. Quarantine Pests Selected for Further Analysis Insect scientific name Taxonomy Bactrocera cucurbitae Coquillett Insecta-Diptera-Tephritidae Chrysodeixis chalcites (Esper) Insecta-Lepidoptera-Noctuidae Dacus ciliatus Loew Insecta-Diptera-Tephritidae Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) Insecta-Lepidoptera-Noctuidae Lampides boeticus Linnaeus Insecta-Lepidoptera-Lycaenidae Liriomyza huidobrensis (Blanchard) Insecta-Diptera-Agromyzidae Maruca vitrata Fabricius a Insecta-Lepidoptera-Pyralidae Maconellicoccus hirsutus (Green) Insecta-Hemiptera-Pseudococcidae Spodoptera littoralis Boisduval Insecta-Lepidoptera-Noctuidae Thaumatotibia leucotreta Meyrick Insecta-Lepidoptera-Tortricidae

a Syn: M. testulalis Fabricius

2.5. Consequences of Introduction—Economic/Environmental Importance

Potential consequences of introduction are rated using five risk elements: 1. Climate-Host Interaction 2. Host Range 3. Dispersal Potential 4. Economic Impact 5. Environmental Impact

These elements reflect the biology, host ranges a nd climatic/geographic distributions of the pests. For each risk element, pests are a ssigned a rating of Low (1 point), Medium (2 points) or High (3 points) (PPQ, 2000). A Cumulative Risk Rating is then calculated by su mming all risk element values. The values determined fo r the Consequences of Introductio n for each pest are summarized below (Table 6).

The major sources of uncertainty in this risk assessment are similar to those in other risk assessments: the use of a developing process (PPQ, 2000; Orr, et al., 1993), the approach used to combine risk elements (Bier, 1999; Morgan a nd Henrion, 1990), and the evaluation of risk by comparisons to lists of factors within the gui delines (Kaplan, 1992; Orr et al., 1993). To address this last source of uncertainty, factor lists were interpreted as illustra tive and not exhaustive. Other traditionally recognized s ources of uncertainty are the qual ity of the biological information (Gallegos and Bonano, 1993), which includes uncertainty whenever biological information is lacking on the regional flora a nd fauna. Inherent bi ological variation within a population of organisms also introduces uncerta inty (Morgan and Henrion, 1990).

Bactrocera cucurbitae Coquillett Risk ratings Risk Element 1: Climate-Host Interaction The current distribution of B. cucurbitae indicates it could su rvive in USDA Plant Hardiness Zones 9 to 11 (C ABI, 2006; USDA- NA, 2003). There are hosts present within the United States th at overlap the at-risk plan t hardiness zones (USDA-NA, 2003; NASS, 2002; NRCS, 2007). Medium (2)Pest Risk Assessment for Kenya Beans

Rev. 004 February 23, 2009 23 Bactrocera cucurbitae Coquillett Risk ratings Risk Element 2: Host Range Bactrocera cucurbitae attacks multiple sp ecies in multiple plan t families (Allwood et al., 1999; CABI, 2006). High (3)

Risk Element 3: Dispersal Potential Bactrocera cucurbitae is capable of long distance flight, over 10 km, and can move long distances via human transport mechanisms (CABI, 2006; Fletcher, 1989). This species is multi voltine and highly fecund, wi th over 1,000 eggs/female (Fletcher, 1987). High (3)

Risk Element 4: Economic Impact Bactrocera cucurbitae larval feeding can reduce cr op yield, produce fruit lesions and decomposition and result in quarantines and a loss of markets (CABI, 2006). High (3)

Risk Element 5: Environmental Impact Bactrocera cucurbitae could impact species listed as Threatened and Endangered (USFWS, 2007) and cau se the implementation of chemical and/or biological control programs (CABI, 2006; Clausen, 1978). High (3)

Chrysodeixis chalcites (Esper) Risk ratings Risk Element 1: Climate-Host Interaction This insect occurs in southern Europe, Canary Islands, Africa, Mauritius, Cape Verde Islands, and the Middle East (CABI, 2004). We estimate that this pest can establish in USDA Plant Hardiness Zones 8-11, but since Zone 11 is so small we still consider this a Medium risk rating. Hosts are present in the United States in those plant hardiness zones (NASS, 2002; NRCS, 2007). Medium (2)

Risk Element 2: Host Range Chrysodeixis chalcites (Esper) is polyphagous. It is a major pest of Glycine max (soyabean), Gossypium herbaceum (Arabian cotton), Lycopersicon esculentum (tomato), Nicotiana tabacum (tobacco), Phaseolus (beans), P. vulgaris (common bean), Solanum tuberosum (potato). Other hosts include Arachis hypogaea (groundnut), Aster, Brassica oleracea var. botrytis (cauliflower), B. oleracea

var. capitata (cabbage), Brassicaceae (cruciferous crops), Capsicum annuum (bell pepper), Citrus, Cucumis sativus (cucumber), Lactuca sativa (lettuce), Lycopersicon pennellii

, Medicago sativa (lucerne), Musa (banana), Pelargonium (pelargoniums), Triticum aestivum (wheat), and Zea mays (maize) (CABI, 2003). High (3)

Risk Element 3: Dispersal Potential Chrysodeixis chalcites is a multivoltine species, with up to eight or nine generations per year (CABI 2004). Fema les lay from 14 to 281 eggs but are capable of laying more eggs, as repo rted by Gasim and Younis (1989) (i.e

., 385, 640 and 405 eggs at 20, 25 and 30°C, respectively). This organism can be carried long distances via human-mediated trade of plants an d plant products with fruits and/or leaves (CABI, 2006). High (3)

Risk Element 4: Economic Impact Chrysodeixis chalcites is a polyphagous multivoltine species that feeds on the High (3)Pest Risk Assessment for Kenya Beans

Rev. 004 February 23, 2009 24 Chrysodeixis chalcites (Esper) Risk ratings foliage and fruit of vegetable, fruit and ornamental crops (CABI, 2004). It is one of the most serious lepidopteran pe sts in many countries, although quantitative data measuring damage is lacking (CABI, 2004). It is one of the most important noctuid pests of fodder crops and also feeds on maize, potato and soybean (CABI, 2006). Markets can also be lost due to quarantine restrictions designed to keep the pest out (CABI, 2005). Risk Element 5: Environmental Impact This is a polyphagous insect, and is ca pable of attacking various Endangered and Threatened species, e.g

. , Solanum

, Trifolium spp. (USFWS, 2006). If this pest is introduced to the United States, ch emical and biological control are likely to be incorporated into agricultural programs. High (3)

Dacus ciliatus Loew Risk ratings Risk Element 1: Climate-Host Interaction The current distribution of D. ciliatus indicates it could survive in USDA Plant Hardiness Zones 9 to 11 (C ABI, 2006; USDA-NA, 2003), and hosts are present in those zones (USDA-NA, 2003; NASS, 2002; NRCS, 2007). Medium (2)

Risk Element 2: Host Range Dacus ciliatus attacks multiple species in multiple plant fami lies (CABI, 2006). High (3)

Risk Element 3: Dispersal Potential Dacus ciliatus is probably capable of long distance flight, i.e

. over 10 km, and can move long distances via human transport mechanisms (CABI, 2006; CABI and EPPO, 1997; Fletcher, 1987, 19 89). This species is multivoltine and highly fecund, i.e

. , over 1,000 eggs/femal e (Fletcher, 1987). High (3)

Risk Element 4: Economic Impact Dacus ciliatus larval feeding can redu ce crop yield, damage fruit and result in lost markets (CABI, 2006). High (3)

Risk Element 5: Environmental Impact Dacus ciliatus could impact species listed as Threatened and Endangered (USFWS, 2007) and cause the implementation of ch emical control programs if introduced (CABI, 2006). High (3)

Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) Risk ratings Risk Element 1: Climate-Host Interaction This insect is widely distributed and occurs throughout Europe, the Middle East, Central and South Asia, the Far East, Africa, Australia, and Oceania (CABI, 2004). Based on this distribution, we es timate establishment is possible in USDA Plant Hardiness Zones 5-11. There are hosts present in the United States in those plant hardiness zones (NASS, 2002; NRCS, 2007). High (3)

Risk Element 2: Host Range Helicoverpa armigera is polyphagous. It is a major pest of cotton ( Gossypium spp.), pigeonpea ( Cajanus cajan ), chickpea ( Cicer arietinum ), tomato High (3)Pest Risk Assessment for Kenya Beans

Rev. 004 February 23, 2009 25 Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) Risk ratings ( Lycopersicum esculentum ), sorghum ( Sorghum spp. ) and cowpea ( Vigna unguiculata ). Other hosts include groundnut ( Arachis hypogaea ), okra ( Abelmoschus esculentus ), peas ( Pisum sativum ), soybeans ( Glycine max) , other legumes, tobacco ( Nicotiana tabacum) , potatoes ( Solanum tuberosum ), maize ( Zea mays ), flax ( Linum usitatissimum ), a number of fruits ( Prunus spp. and Citrus spp.), forest trees and a range of vegetable crops (CABI, 2003). Risk Element 3: Dispersal Potential Females in south Africa lay an averag e of 730 eggs, with a maximum of 1,600 eggs over an oviposition period that ca n vary from 10-23 days (Matthews and Tunstall, 1994); females may produce up to 11 generations per year in tropical climates (Shanower et al

. , 1999). Larvae have limited mobility, but adults are capable of long distance flight (CABI, 2003; Farrow and Daly, 1987). High (3)

Risk Element 4: Economic Impact Helicoverpa armigera is a pest of major importan ce in agricultural settings where it occurs, damaging a wide variet y of food, fiber, oilseed, fodder and horticultural crops (CABI, 2003). Insectic ides routinely have been used for control (e.g., Ahmad, 1998), which incr eases costs of crop production. Because H. armigera is an A2 pest for Europe, its establishment in the Continental United States could lead to loss of export markets (EPPO, 2003). High (3)

Risk Element 5: Environmental Impact A wide range of wild plant specie s support larval development. As a polyphagous insect, it is capable of attacking various Endangered and Threatened species, e.g

. , Amaranthus spp. (CABI, 2003). If this pest is introduced to the United States, chemical and biological control are likely to be incorporated into ag ricultural programs. High (3)

Lampides boeticus Linnaeus Risk ratings Risk Element 1: Climate-Host Interaction This pest is widespread and has been recorded in southern Europe, Africa, Oceania, the Middle East and southern Asia. Based on this distribution, we estimate it could become established in USDA Plant Hardiness Zones 5-11. There are hosts present with in the United Stat es that overlap the at-risk plant hardiness zones (NASS, 2002; NRCS, 2007). High (3)

Risk Element 2: Host Range This insect feeds on multiple species in the genera: Cajanus, Canavalia, Cicer, Crotalaria, Glycine, La blab, Medicago, Phaseolus, Pisum, Psophocarpus, Pueraria, Sesbania, Vicia, and Vigna (CABI, 2004). All of these genera are in the family Fabaceae, therefore, we rated L. boeticus medium. Medium (2)

Risk Element 3: Dispersal Potential Lampides boeticus is a noted migrant, capable of long distance movement, often involving vast numbers of individuals (CABI, 2004). In the most optimal climates, the pest completes its life cycle in 20-53 days depending on the season, with females producing 30-120 eggs in 2-3 days (PPQ, 2002). High (3)Pest Risk Assessment for Kenya Beans

Rev. 004 February 23, 2009 26 Lampides boeticus Linnaeus Risk ratings Risk Element 4: Economic Impact Lampides boeticus is usually a minor pest, but potentially serious (CABI 2004). It is a major pest of garden beans and, if not controlled, can cause considerable damage to crops (CABI, 2006). Medium (2)

Risk Element 5: Environmental Impact Lampides boeticus feeds on species in the genera Crotalaria and Lupinus (CABI, 2006), which contain Endangered a nd Threatened specie s in areas of the United States outside Hawaii (USFWS, 2006), where L. boeticus is already established. Introduction of this pest into the United States could possibly lead to initiation of chemical and/or biological c ontrol programs. High (3)

Liriomyza huidobrensis (Blanchard) Risk ratings Risk Element 1: Climate-Host Interaction Liriomyza huidobrensis is polyphagous (CABI, 2006; Steck, 2004). Consequently, we assumed its United States distribution would be limited by climate and conducted a geospatial analysis that estimated areas at risk for its permanent establishment as a pest (A ppendix 5). We considered areas where L. huidobrensis could complete nine or more generations ( ≥ 2,520 DD at a base temperature of 7.2°C) and winter temper atures did not consistently reach its supercooling point (-19.55°C) to be at risk (Luo et al., 2002; PERAL/CIPM, 2008; Wang et al., 2000; Yue and Bao, 2006). Our geospatial analysis estimated that L. huidobrensis could establish in USDA Plant Hardiness Zones 5 to 10 in the conterminous United St ates (USDA-NA, 2003). High (3)

Risk Element 2: Host Range Liriomyza huidobrensis feeds on multiple plant species in multiple families (CABI, 2006, Steck, 2004). High (3)

Risk Element 3: Dispersal Potential Liriomyza huidobrensis can exhibit nine generati ons per year in greenhouse conditions (Yue and Bao, 2006), a fecundity of 100 eggs per female (Hincapie et al., 1993) and can be transported long distances in agricultural commodities (PestID, 2007; Steck, 2004). High (3)

Risk Element 4: Economic Impact Liriomyza huidobrensis is a major crop pest that mines leaves, pods and stems. This feeding causes aesthetic damage, reduced growth and host mortality (CABI, 2006; Steck, 2004). It is also a quarantine pest that could a loss of markets if introduced (PestID, 2007; CABI, 2006; Steck, 2004) High (3)

Risk Element 5: Environmental Impact Liriomyza huidobrensis feeds on species in the genera Amaranthus

, Cucurbita and Solanum (CABI, 2006; USFWS, 2007). Thes e genera contai n species listed as endangered or threatened in th e United States (USFWS, 2007). The introduction of L. huidobrensis could also cause the implementation of chemical and/or biological contro l programs (CABI, 2006). High (3)Pest Risk Assessment for Kenya Beans

Rev. 004 February 23, 2009 27 Maconellicoccus hirsutus (Green) Risk ratings Risk Element 1: Climate-Host Interaction Chong et al. (2008) generated a degr ee day model (Tmin = 14.5°C; Tmax = 35°C and 347 DD per generation) that predicted M. hirsutus could complete at least one generation thr oughout the conterminous United States (Appendix F). Based on this model, we estimated that M. hirsutus could establish in USDA plant hardiness zones 2 to 10 in the c onterminous United States. There are hosts present within the United States that ov erlap the at-risk plant hardiness zones (CABI, 2007; NASS, 2002). High (3)

Risk Element 2: Host Range Maconellicoccus hirsutus is highly polyphagous and feeds on multiple species in multiple plant families (CABI, 2007). High (3)

Risk Element 3: Dispersal Potential Maconellicoccus hirsutus exhibits up to 15 generations per year and females can lay up to 600 eggs (Hoy et al., 2006). It can also disperse long distance via human mediated transport (CAB I, 2007; Dale and Maddison, 1984). High (3)

Risk Element 4: Economic Impact Maconellicoccus hirsutus feeding can cause deformed fruits and shoots, stunted growth, sooty mold and crop mortalit y (CABI, 2007; Hoy et al., 2006). Its introduction could also result in quarantines (CABI, 2007). High (3)

Risk Element 5: Environmental Impact Maconellicoccus hirsutus can cause major ecological damage (CABI, 2007). It also feeds on plants in the genera: Abutilon, Clitoria, Helianthus, Hibiscus, Manihot, Prunus, Rhododendron and Ziziphus (CABI, 2007). These genera contain species listed as endangered or threatened in the United States (USFWS, 2008). The introduction of M. hirsutus could also cause the implementation of biological control programs (CABI, 2007; Hoy et al., 2006; Kairo et al., 2000). High (3)

Maruca vitrata Fabricius (Syn: Maruca testulalis Fabricius) Risk ratings Risk Element 1: Climate-Host Interaction Maruca vitrata is found associated with legumes throughout the tropics (CABI, 2003). Although the insect ha s been moved with legumes to other areas of the world, it does not survive in temperat e climates (CABI, 2003). The tropics represent USDA Plant Hardiness Zones 10-13, but because only zones 10-11 are present in the United States, and because Zone 11 is so small, we gave a Low rating for this risk element. There are host s present within the United States that overlap the at-risk plant hardines s zones (NASS, 2 002; NRCS, 2007). Low (1)

Risk Element 2: Host Range This insect feeds on multiple species in the genera: Caesalpinia, Cajanus, Canavalia, Crotalaria, Derris, Faba ceae, Glycine, Lablab, Phaseolus, Pueraria, Tephrosia , and Vigna (CABI, 2003)

. All of these genera are contained in the family Fabaceae, so M. vitrata is rated medium for host range. Medium (2)

Risk Element 3: Dispersal Potential Females can lay up to 400 eggs, in sma ll batches on flowers, buds, or pods of High (3)Pest Risk Assessment for Kenya Beans

Rev. 004 February 23, 2009 28 Maruca vitrata Fabricius (Syn: Maruca testulalis Fabricius) Risk ratings the host plant (Shanower et al

. , 1999). Adults live from fi ve to seven days (Karel and Autrique, 1989), but over several gene rations the insect is capable of migrating from the coastal savannah in th e south of Benin to the dry savannah in the north in one year (Tamo et al

. , 2002), a range of over 100 miles. Risk Element 4: Economic Impact This insect is considered one of the most injurious pests of beans in Hawaii (Ferguson, 1983). In conjunction wi th other pod-boring insects, M. vitrata reduced seed production in pigeonpea by 25.7 to 62.7 percent in Kenya (OkeyoOwour and Khamala, 1980) and was reported to cause up to 31 percent injury in P. vulgaris (Karel, 1985). The establishment of this pest in the United States could lead to the loss of export markets, particularly Europe. High (3)

Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact Maruca vitrata feeds on species in the genus Crotalaria (CABI, 2006), which has an Endangered species in Florida (USFWS, 2006). Its introduction into the United States could start chemical or biological control programs (CABI, 2007). High (3)

Spodoptera littoralis (Boisduval) Risk ratings Risk Element 1: Climate-Host Interaction The insect is recorded in Africa, sout hern Europe, and the Middle East (CABI, 2003). Therefore, we estimate it could become established in USDA Plant Hardiness Zones 8-11, but because Zone 11 is so small this equates to only a Medium risk. There are hosts present withinthe United States that overlap the atrisk plant hardiness zones (NASS, 2002; NRCS, 2007). Medium (2)

Risk Element 2: Host Range The host range of S. littoralis covers over 40 families, containing at least 87 species of plants of economic importance (CABI, 2003), among them cotton ( Gossypium spp .), tobacco ( Nicotiana tabacum ), potato ( Solanum tuberosum ), tomato ( Lycopersicum esculentum ), onion ( Allium cepa ), citrus ( Citrus spp.), beans ( Phaseolus spp.), carrots ( Daucus carota ), peppers ( Capsicum annuum ), grapes ( Vitis spp.), alfalfa ( Medicago sativa ) and various grasses (CABI, 2003). High (3)

Risk Element 3: Dispersal Potential Noctuids are well known for their long-dis persal capabilities . Adults fly at night. The flight range during a 4-hou r-period can be up to 1.5 km (CABI, 2003). In the most optimal climates, the pest can have up to 7 overlapping generations per year, with an averag e of 20-1000 eggs produced by each female (CABI, 2003). High (3)

Risk Element 4: Economic Impact This pest is one of the most destructiv e agricultural lepidopterans in its tropical/ subtropical range (CABI, 2003). It attack s several economically important crops throughout the year. Spodoptera littoralis lowers crop yield, increases production costs, and causes a loss of markets as a new quarantine pest. High (3)

Risk Element 5: Environmental Impact Spodoptera littoralis feeds on species in the following genera that also contain High (3)Pest Risk Assessment for Kenya Beans

Rev. 004 February 23, 2009 29 Spodoptera littoralis (Boisduval) Risk ratings Endangered and Threatened species: Allium

, Solanum

, Vigna

, Amaranthus

, Prunus
, Hibiscus

, Trifolium and Quercus (CABI, 2003; USFWS, 2002). Host shifts could occur, and S. littoralis could begin feeding on one or more of the Threatened or Endangered species. Intr oduction of this pest into the United States could lead to initiation of chem ical and/or biological control programs.

Thaumatotibia leucotreta Meyrick Risk ratings Risk Element 1: Climate-Host Interaction Thaumatotibia leucotreta’ s current distribution indicates that it could establish in USDA Plant Hardiness Zones 9 to 11 in the United States (CAB I, 2006; Maxwell, 2001; USDA-NA, 2003). Hosts are present in the United States in these zones (NASS, 2002; NRCS, 2007). Medium (2)

Risk Element 2: Host Range Thaumatotibia leucotreta attacks over 70 types of plant in multiple families (CABI, 2006). High (3)

Risk Element 3: Dispersal Potential Thaumatotibia leucotreta exhibits multiple generations per year and females can oviposit between 100 and 400 eggs (CABI, 2006; Daiber, 1980). It can also move in the fruit, pods and flowers of agri cultural commodities (CABI, 2006). High (3)

Risk Element 4: Economic Impact Thaumatotibia leucotreta has caused severe crop lo sses (CABI, 2006; Glas, 1991, Reed, 1974). Larval feedi ng can result in premature fruit ripening and external damage (CABI, 2006). If intro duced into the United States, T. leucotreta could cause a loss of domestic and/or foreign markets (PestID, 2006). High (3)

Risk Element 5: Environmental Impact Thaumatotibia leucotreta could: 1) directly impact species that are listed as Threatened and Endangered by U.S. federal agencies (USFWS, 2007) and 2) cause the implementation of chemical and/or biol ogical control programs (Moore et al., 2004; Newton, 1987). High (3)Pest Risk Assessment for Kenya Beans

Rev. 004 February 23, 2009 30 Table 6. Risk Ratings for Conseque nces of Introduction for P. vulgaris and P. coccineus from Kenya Risk element Pest Climate/ Host interaction Host
range Dispersal potential Economic impact Environmental impact Cumulative Risk Ratings a

Bactrocera cucurbitae Med (2) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (14) Chrysodeixis chalcites Med (2) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (14) Dacus ciliatus Loew Med (2) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (14) Helicoverpa armigera High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (15) Lampides boeticus High (3) Med (2) High (3) Med (2) High (3) High (13) Liriomyza huidobrensis High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (15) Maconellicoccus hirsutus High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (15)

Maruca vitrata Low (1) Med (2) High (3 ) High (3) High (3) Medium (12) Spodoptera littoralis Med (2) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (14) Thaumatotibia leucotreta Med (2) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (14)

a Low is 5-8 points, Medium is 9-12 points and High is 13-15 points

2.6. Likelihood of Introduction—Quant ity Imported and Pest Opportunity

Likelihood of Introduction is a func tion of the quantity of the co mmodity imported annually and pest opportunity, which consists of five criteria that consider the potential for pest survival along the pathway (PPQ, 2000) (Table 7).

2.6.1. Quantity annually imported The rating for the quantity annually imported is based on the amount reported by the exporting country, then converted into standard units of 40-foot-long shipping containers. The Kenyan government expects to import 800 to ns of French and runner beans into the United St ates annually. Assuming a capacity of r oughly 27.5 tons per sea container, this volume translates into 29 containers (KEPHIS, 2006), which is a Medium risk volume of import.

2.6.2. Survive postharvest treatment The Kenya government wants to ex port French and runner beans as pre-packs containing French beans only or as a mixture with other vegetable, ready-to-eat, individual meals. The quality standards are very high for this market. Accordin g to the Fresh Produce Ex porters Association of Kenya (FPEAK), the produce will be graded and must meet the following sp ecifications to be shipped: mid to dark green in color, firm, turg id, breaking with a snap, stringless, calyx present and pest and disease free. Fruit exhibiting the following quality defects are to be culled: mechanical damage, bruising & scarring, disease and pests on pods , pest and disease damaged pods, dehydration, excessive curvature, seediness, pinched or broken ti ps, or adjoined pods. (COLEACP/PIP, 2005). The pods are to be blast-cool ed for one hour on arriva l at intake, or longPest Risk Assessment for Kenya Beans

Rev. 004 February 23, 2009 31 enough to bring temperature down to 6°C. They will be put into cold storage immediately following cooling, and maintained at 6-8 o C (COLEACP/PIP, 2005).

Insects are reviewed below with sp ecial attention to how apparent is the damage that they cause.

Chrysodeixis chalcites excavates deep into pods, sometimes cutting them in two and the damage is borne externally and are visible to naked eye (CABI 2004) so it is rated Low to survive postharvest treatment.

Several of the pests produce obvious damage to bean pods, as described following, and so we rated them Low risk to survive postharvest treatment. Helicoverpa armigera produces brown or black lesions when it feeds inte rnally on bean pods (CABI, 2003). Lampides boeticus feeds on seeds in the pod and produces frass which is de posited at one end of the pod, where it may cause decay and show up as dark discoloration (CABI 2004). Liriomyza huidobrensis adult females produce punctures that are visible to the eye and the larva generate noti ceable leaf mines lined with frass (CABI, 2006; Steck, 2004). Maruca vitrata produces unsightly holes and masses of wet excrement (Ferguson, 1983).

Maconellicoccus hirsutus is an external feeder and can produce a woolly wax covering, honeydew, sooty mold and fruit deformities that c ould be detected by visual inspection (CABI, 2007). Small infestations may be difficult to detect without a light microsc ope but we considered the washing and culling process likely to rem ove them (CABI, 2007; Neeley, 2006). Because of this, we ranked M. hirsutus Low to survive post harvest treatment.

Spodoptera littoralis produces obvious exit holes and frass (CABI, 2003) [Note: Exited larvae will not follow the pathway]. This insect is rated Medium for this risk element because pods without exit holes may be more difficult to see.

Thaumatotibia leucotreta is an internal feeder and does not generally cause obvious symptoms (CABI, 2006). Bactrocera cucurbitae and Dacus ciliatus are also internal feeders and could be difficult to detect. Consequently we rated these pests High for this risk element.

2.6.3. Survive shipment Beans from Kenya would be transported under refrig eration and airfreighted to the United States (Appendix 2). The exact climatic conditions during shipment are not know n, however. For green beans, P. vulgaris , in the United States, McGregor (1987) recommends temperatures of 4-7 o C (40- 45 o F) and 95 percent relative humi dity to maintain the quality of the commod ity during transport and storage. If properly packag ed and held close to the reco mmended storage temperature and relative humidity, the time available for transit and storage is about 7-10 days (McGregor, 1987). Without detailed information on the transport of Kenyan beans, we assumed that the transport conditions would be close to those recommended by McGregor (1987). At temperatures of 4-7°C, we expect all the insects to surviv e; therefore we rated all insects High for this sub-element.Pest Risk Assessment for Kenya Beans

Rev. 004 February 23, 2009 32 2.6.4. Not detected at port-of-entry The postharvest procedures described above are basically inspections of the commodity to cull damaged or infested produce. The ratings for No t Detected at Port of Entry are, therefore, identical to those for Survive Postharvest Treatmen t for the internal feeders (see above; Table 7).

Maconellicoccus hirsutus is an external feeder and can produce a woolly wax covering, honeydew, sooty mold and fruit deformities that c ould be detected by visual inspection (CABI, 2007). However, small infestations may be difficu lt to detect without a li ght microscope (CABI, 2007; Neeley, 2006). Because of this, we ranked M. hirsutus Medium to not be detected at the port of entry.

2.6.5. Moved to suitable habitat The likelihood that a pest will be moved to an ar ea with a suitable environment for survival is dependent on the potential dist ribution of markets for the host commodity throughout the country and the presence of suitable habita ts for the pest. Because green beans are widely accepted across American society, we assumed they will be distributed throughout the entire United States. Consequently, evaluation of this sub-element fo cused on environmental/climate suitability, and the risk ratings for this sub-element were set to the same as the Climate-Host Interaction risk ratings in Consequences of Introduc tion (see above; Tables 6 and 7).

2.6.6. Contact with host material Even if the final destination of infested commoditie s is suitable for pest survival, pests must still come in contact with suitable host material. This process is depende nt on two factors, the presence of host material in the region, and the pest’s potent ial for dispersal.

Availability of hosts vari es among the arthropods in their potential geograp hic range in the United States. Hosts of the ve ry polyphagous species Bactrocera cucurbitae, Chry sodeixis chalcites, Dacus ciliatus, Helicoverpa ar migera, Liriomyza huidob rensis, Spodoptera littoralis , and Thaumatotibia leucotreta , include temperate-zone or widely cultivated plants that should be available throughout their potential United States range. The host ranges of Lampides boeticus and Maruca vitrata are more limited; therefore, these in sects would have less chance of encountering and colonizing hosts compared to the pol yphagous species.

The vegetables to be imported are for human consumption, and are, therefore, unlikely to come into direct, or near contact with susceptible hosts. The commodity will be refrigerated until it reaches the end-user. Pest insect s cannot come into contact with host material unless food is discarded. Uneaten food could be disposed of as garbage or in a compost pile outside of the home. Only if the commodity is exposed to the outside in garbage or compost would insects be able to find hosts assuming that they could co mplete their development in a decaying product.

Chrysodeixis chalcites, Helicoverpa armigera, Lampides boeticus

, Maruca vitrata , and Spodoptera littoralis have similar life histories. It is unknown whether they can complete their development on rotting fruit alone ; but all these species are mob ile as larvae and would likely leave the host plant to find a new host, especially as fifth and sixth instar larvae (CABI, 2003).Pest Risk Assessment for Kenya Beans

Rev. 004 February 23, 2009 33 Thaumatotibia leucotreta is an internal feeder and exits the host prior to pupation (CABI, 2006). If these Lepidoptera specie s survive to the adult stage and ma te, they can readily fly and could presumably find oviposition sites.

Liriomyza huidobrensis females can oviposit multiple eggs in the same area of the host plant and complete its lifecycle in plant debris or so il (Burgio et al., 2005; CABI, 2004; Steck, 2004). Liriomyza huidobrensis is also polyphagous, cold hardy and capable of flight (CABI, 2004; Vidal, 2005; Wang et al., 2000). These characteristic s indicate that multiple adults could emerge from discarded pods, mate and locate suitable hosts in climates that are conducive for establishment.

Bactrocera cucurbitae and Dacus ciliatus also have similar biologies. Multiple fruit flies often infest an individual fruit, so there is a potential for larvae to emerge as adults and find mates. They are capable of long distance travel via flight (CABI, 2006; Fletcher, 1989).

Maconellicoccus hirsutus is polyphagous (CABI, 2007). However, it naturally disperses passively by wind in the craw ler stage and may have a diffi cult time acquiring a host.

Based on this evidence (host ranges, host availability, biological attributes), we rated Lampides boeticus

, Maruca vitrata and Maconellicoccus hirsutus Medium ; and Bactrocera cucurbitae, Chrysodeixis chalcites, Dacus ciliatus, Helicoverpa armigera, Liriomyza huidobrensis, Spodoptera littoralis , and Thaumatotibia leucotreta High for their ability to make contact with host material.

Table 7 . Risk Ratings for Likelihood of Intr oduction. The rating for “Quantity Imported Annually” was Medium (2) for all pests. Pest Survive Postharvest Treatment SurviveShipment Not Detected at Port of Entry Moved to Suitable Habitat Contact with Host Material Cumulative Risk Ratings a

Bactrocera cucurbitae High (3) High (3) High (3) Med (2) High (3) High (16) Chrysodeixis chalcites Low (1) High (3) Low (1) Med (2) High (3) Medium (12)
Dacus ciliatus High (3) High (3) High (3) Med (2) High (3) High (16) Helicoverpa armigera Low (1) High (3) Low (1) High (3) High (3) Medium (13) Lampides boeticus Low (1) High (3) Low (1) High (3) Med (2) Medium (12) Liriomyza huidobrensis Low (1) High (3) Low (1) High (3) High (3) Medium (13)

Maruca vitrata Low (1) High (3) Low (1) Low (1) Med (2) Medium (10)
Maconellicoccus hirsutus Low (1) High (3) Med (2) High (3) Med (2) Medium (13) Spodoptera littoralis Med (2) High (3) Med (2) Med (2) High (3) Medium (14)
Thaumatotibia leucotreta High (3) High (3) High (3) Med (2) High (3) High (16)

a Low is 6-9 points, Medium is 10- 14 points, and High is 15-18 pointsPest Risk Assessment for Kenya Beans

Rev. 004 February 23, 2009 34 2.7. Conclusion—Pest Risk Potential and Pe sts Requiring Phytosanitary Measures

The summation of the values for the Conseque nces of Introduction and the Likelihood of Introduction yields Pest Risk Po tential values (Table 8). This is an estimate of the risks associated with this importation.

The risk assessment identified ten quarantine pe sts that are likely to follow the pathway of French beans and runner beans from Kenya into the United States: Bactrocera cucurbitae

, Chrysodeixis chalcites, Dacu s ciliatus, Helicoverpa armigera

, Lampides boeticus, Liriomyza huidobrensis, Maruca vitrata

, Maconellicoccus hirsutus

, Spodoptera littoralis, and Thaumatotibia leucotreta . We estimated that L. boeticus and M. vitrata have a Medium Pest Risk Potential, and that B. cucurbitae, D. ciliatus, C. chalcites, H. armigera, L. huidobrensis, M. hirsutus, S. littoralis, and T. leucotreta have a High Pest Risk Potential.

According to PPQ (2000), pests with a Low Pe st Risk Potential do not typically require mitigation measures, other than port-of-arriva l inspection. A value within the Medium range indicates that specific phytosanitary measures may be n ecessary. A rating in the High range indicates that specific phytosanitary measures, supplementa l to port-of-arriv al inspection, are strongly recommended. Risk mitigat ion options for the quarantine pests of concern associated with beans from Kenya are listed in Appendix 3. We note that whereas the evidence does suggest that current grading procedures (due to quality, not phytosanit ary considerations) are highly effective and do remove most of the pest of concern; they were not deemed sufficient by themselves to address all identified risks. We ag ree with the trip report (cited in the Appendix) that suggests supplementary mitigation measur es, including destructive sampling and others, may be necessary in addition to the system currently in place.

A detailed examination and choice of appropriate phytosanitary measures to mitigate pest risk is undertaken as part of the pest risk management phase and is not discusse d in this document.

Table 8. Pest Risk Potentials Pest Consequences of Introduction Likelihood of Introduction Pest Risk Potential a

Bactrocera cucurbitae High (14) High (16) High (30) Chrysodeixis chalcites High (14) Medium (12) High (26) Dacus ciliatus High (14) High (16) High (30) Helicoverpa armigera High (15) Medium (13) High (28) Lampides boeticus High (13) Medium (12) Medium (25) Liriomyza huidobrensis High (15) Medium (13) High (28)
Maruca vitrata High (13) Medium (10) Medium (23) Maconellicoccus hirsutus High (15) Medium (13) High (28) Spodoptera littoralis High (14) Medium (14) High (28) Thaumatotibia leucotreta High (14) High (16) High (30)

a Low is 11-18 points, Medium is 19- 26 points, and High is 27-33 pointsPest Risk Assessment for Kenya Beans

Rev. 004 February 23, 2009 35 

### 3. Contributors

Authors (original draft): Chagema J. Kedera (PhD), Managing Director, KEPHIS Esther Kimani (PhD), OIC Plan t Quarantine Station KEPHIS Philip Njoroge, KEPHIS Isaac Macharia, KEPHIS Samuel Muchemi, KEPHIS Benson Kuria, KEPHIS

Cooperator : Lloyd Garcia, USDA APHIS / USAID REDSO

Reviewers (also development of final draft): Glenn Fowler, USDA-APHIS-PPQ-CPHST-PERAL Charles Thayer, NCSU-CIPM Leah Millar, USDA-APHIS-PPQ-CPHST-PERAL Ron Sequeira, USDA-APHIS



### 4. Literature Cited

7 CFR § 319.56. 2008. U.S. Code of Federal Regul ations, Title 7, Part 319.56 (7 CFR § 319.56 – Notice of Quarantine). 7 CFR § 319.56-48. 2008. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 7, Part 319.56-48 (7 CFR § 319.56-48 – Conditions governing the entry of baby squash and baby courgettes from Zambia). Abate, T., and J.K.O. Ampofo. 1996. Insect pe sts of beans in Afri ca: their ecology and management. Annual Review of Entomology 41:45-73. Ahmad, F. 1998. Plant protection strategies for cotton in Paki stan. Pakistan Entomologist 20(1/2):110-115. Allen, D.J., J.K.O. Ampofo, and C.S. Wort mann. 1996. Pests, Diseases, and Nutritional Disorders of the Common Bean In Africa: A Field Guide. CIAT, Cali Colombia Allwood, A.J., A. Chinajariyawong, S. Kritsaneepaiboon, R.A.I. Drew, E.L. Hamacek, D.L. Hancock, C. Hengsawad, J.C. Jipanin, M. Jirasurat, C.K. Krong, C.T.S. Leong, S. Vijaysegaran. 1999. Host plant records for fru it flies (Diptera: Tephr itidae) in Southeast Asia. Raffles Bulletin of Zoology. 47(Supplement 7):1-92. Ampofo, K. 1994. Field Pests of Bean in Africa. CIAT, Cali Colombia. Ampofo, J.K.O., Z.T. Dabrowski, and F.O. Omolo. 1986. Registration of germplasm line in maize. Crop Science 26 (3):650. Anyango, J.J. 2001. A Management strategy for mites and the potential for biological control in flower production. Insect Science and Its Application 23 (1):9-13. Baliddawa, C.W. 1988. The effect of crop microenvironment on the pea leaf weevil's behaviour: an explanation for weevil departure from dive rse cropping systems. Insect Science and its Application. 9(4): 509-514.Pest Risk Assessment for Kenya Beans

Rev. 004 February 23, 2009 36 Ben-Dov, Y. 1994. A systematic catalogue of the mealybugs of the world (Insecta: Homoptera: Coccoidea: Pseudococcidae and Putoidae) wi th data on geographi cal distribution, host plants, biology and economic importance. 686 pp. Berti, N. 1990. Contribution to the study of Afrotropical Galeruci nae. IX. The genus Aulacophora Chevrolat, description of a new genus, Chosnia gen. Nov. (Coleoptera, Chrysomelidae). Journal of Af rican Zoology. 104(2): 109-126. Bier, V. M. 1999. Challenges to the acceptance of probabilistic risk analysis. Risk Analysis. 19(4): 703-710. Bock, K.R., L. Magua, E.J. Guthrie, H.Y. Kulkarni, and E.M. Gathuru. 1974. Annual Report East African Agriculture and Forestry Research Organizati on, Record of Research, for 1972. Bohlen, E. 1973. Crop pests in Tanzania and their control. Verlag, Berlin, Germany. 142 pp. Burgio, G.; A. Lanzon i, A. Masetti, and F. Manucci. 2005. Spatial patterns and sampling plan for Liriomyza huidobrensis (Diptera: Agromyzidae) and re lated parasitoids on lettuce. Environmental Entomology. 34(1): 178-183. CABI. 2003. Crop Protection Comp endium, 2003 ed. CAB Intern ational, Wallingford, U.K. CABI. 2004. Crop Protection Comp endium, 2004 ed. CAB Intern ational, Wallingford, U.K. CABI. 2005. Crop Protection Comp endium, 2005 ed. CAB Intern ational, Wallingford, U.K. CABI. 2006. Crop Protection Comp endium, 2006 ed. CAB Intern ational, Wallingford, U.K. CABI. 2007. Crop Protection Comp endium, 2007 ed. CAB Intern ational, Wallingford, U.K. CABI and EPPO. 1997. Quarantine Pests for Europe, Second Edition: Data sheets on quarantine pests for the European Union and for the Eu ropean and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization. CAB Internati onal (CABI) and the European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organizati on (EPPO), Oxon, UK. CABI and EPPO. 1997a. Data sh eets on quarantine pests: Dacus ciliatus . 4 pp. CABI and EPPO. 2005. Citrus le prosis ‘rhabdovirus’. Data sheet on quarantine pests. http://www. eppo.org/QUARANTINE/virus/ Citrus_leprosies_virus/CILV00_ds.pdf. Caldwell, P. and M. Laing. 2002. Soybean Rust- A new disease on the move. http:///www/saspp.org/archive d_articles/FeatureMarch.php. Carcasson, R.H. 1968. (Reprint 1976 by E.W. Classe y ltd, 2nd edition) Revi sed catalogue of the African Sphingidae (Lepidoptera) with descriptions of the Ea st African species. Journal of the East Africa Natural History So ciety and National Museum. 26(3): 1-115. Careta, G., E. Piontelli, A.P. Ma ria, and G. Delfrate. 1999. Some f ilamentious fungi on grassland vegetation from Kenya. My copathologia 145;155-169. Chong, J.H., A.L. Roda, and C.M. Manni on. 2008. Life history of the mealybug, Maconellicoccus hirsutus (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae), at constant temperatures. Environmental Entomology. 37(2): 323-332. CIE. 1966. Distribution Maps of Plant Pests. No. 219. Wallingford, UK: CAB International. CIE. 1969. Distribution maps of plant pests. No. 20. Wallingford, UK. CAB International CIE. 1979. Myzus persicae Sulzer. Distribution Maps of Pest s, Map 45. CAB International. CIE. 1986. Polyphagotarsonemus latus Banks. Distribution Maps of Pests, Map 191. CAB International. CIE. 1995. Lampides boeticus Linnaeus. Distribution Ma ps of Pests, Map 459. CAB International. CIE. 1995. Bactrocera ( Zeugodacus ) cucurbitae (Coquillett). Distributio n Maps of Pests, Map 64. CAB International.Pest Risk Assessment for Kenya Beans

Rev. 004 February 23, 2009 37 Clausen, C.P. 1978. Tephritidae (Trypetidae, Trupan eidae), In: Clausen, C.P. (ed.) Introduced Parasites and Predators of Arthropod Pests and Weeds: A World Review. Agricultural Handbook, United States Department of Agriculture. 480:320-335. COLEACP/ PIP 2005. French bean Technical itin erary. Pesticide Initia tive Programme (PIP) Colpetzer, K. 2007. Personal communication wi th Keith Colpetzer, USDA-APHIS-PPQ New Pest Advisory Group (NPAG) Executive Secretary, on September 21, 2007. CPHST. 2008a. Biological and Ta xonomic Support (BATS) Database. Center for Plant Health Science and Technology (CPHST), Plant Epid emiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory. https://www.peral.org/BATS/i ndex.cfm?CFID=928795&CFTOKEN=45278576. (Archived at PERAL). CPHST. 2008b. Importation of fine bean, Phaseolus vulgaris L., from Zambia into the Continental United States; A qualitative, pathway-initiated risk assessment Rev. 004. Center for Plant Health Science and Tec hnology (CPHST), Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory. 30 pp. Daiber, C.C. 1980. A study of the biology of the false codling moth Cryptophlebia leucotreta (Meyr.): the adult and generations du ring the year. Phytophylactica, 12(4):187-193. Dale, P.S. and Maddison, P.A. 1984. Transport services as an aid to insect dispersal in the South Pacific. Commerce and the spread of pests and disease vectors. pp: 225-256 Desaeger J., and M.R. Rao. 2001. Th e potential of mixed cover of Sesbania

, Tephrosia and Crotoralia to minimize nematode problems on s ubsequent crops. http://www.ncsu.edu Last accessed 26 th August 2005. Dirsh, V.M. 1974. Genus Schistocerca (Acridomorpha, Insecta). Series Entomologica. Volume 10. 238 pp. Ebeling, W. 1959. Subtropical fruit pests. Univ ersity of California. Los Angeles, USA. EPPO. 2005. Pest of Quarantine importance in Africa. http://www.defra.gov.uk/planth/interc/5mar05.pdf, EPPO. 2006. PQR database (version 4.5). Eur opean and Mediterran ean Plant Protection Organization (EPPO). Paris, France. Farr, D.F., A.Y. Rossman, M.E. Palm, and E.B. McCray. 2003. Fungal Databases. United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Servi ce, Systematic Mycology and Microbiology Laboratory. http://nt.ars-gri n.gov/fungaldatabases/. (Archived at PERAL) Farr, D.F., A.Y. Rossman, M.E. Palm, and E.B. McCray. 2007. Fungal Databases. United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Servi ce, Systematic Mycology and Microbiology Laboratory. http://nt.ars-gri n.gov/fungaldatabases/. (Archived at PERAL) Farrell, G., G.N. Kibata, and J.A. Sutherland, J.A., eds. 1995. A review of crop protection research in Kenya. KARI/ODA Crop Prot ection Project. Kenya Agricultural Research Institute, Nairobi, Kenya. 165 pp. Farrow, R.A., and J.C. Daly. 1987. Long-range movements as an adaptive strategy in the genus Heliothis (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae): a re view of its occurrence and detection in four pest species. Australian Journal of Zoology 35: 1-24. Fasulo, T.R. and P.A. Stansly. 2007. Plant bug pests of Florida citrus. University of Florida. The Institute of Food and Agricultural Scie nces. http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/CH042. Ferguson, D.C. 1983. Bean pod borer, Maruca testulalis Geyer. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Fletcher, B.S. 1987. The biology of Dacine fruit flies. Annual Review of Entomology 32:115-144.Pest Risk Assessment for Kenya Beans

Rev. 004 February 23, 2009 38 Fletcher, B.S. 1989. Ecology; life hist ory strategies of tephritid fru it flies, In: Robinson, A.S. and Hooper, G. (eds). Fruit Flies; their Biol ogy, Natural Enemies and Control. World Crop Pests. Amsterdam, Holland: Elsevier, 3(B):195-208. Gallegos, D.P., and E.J. Bonano. 1993. Consideration of uncerta inty in the performance assessment of radioactive waste disposal from an intern ational regulatory pers pective. Reliab. Eng. System Safety. 42: 111-123. Gasim, G.Y., and H.T. Younis. 1989. Bi ological studies on tomato leafworm Plusia chalcytes L. (Noctuidae: Lepidoptera) under e ffect of constant temperatur es. Mesopotamia Journal of Agriculture, 21(2):325-334. Glas, M. 1991. Tortricids in miscellaneous crops. In : van der Geest, van Luis, eds. Tortricid Pests, Their Biology, Natural Enemies and C ontrol. World Crop Pest s: 5. UK: Elsevier. Greathead, D.J. 1976. An Ea st African parasite ( Aphytis roseni DeBach and Gordh, Aphelinidae) for the control of Selenaspidus articulatus Morgen (Diaspididae) in Peru. East African Agricultural and Forestry Journal 41: 349. In Arthropods of Economic Importance: Diaspidae of the World. Database. Gunn, C.R., and C. Ritchie. 1982. Report of th e Technical Committee to Evaluate Noxious Weeds; Exotic Weeds for Federal Noxious Weed Act. USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Services (unpublished). Guzmán, P., M.R. Rojas, R.M. Davis, K. Kimble, R. Stewart, F.J. Sundstr om, and R.L. Gilbertson. 1997. First report of bean common mosaic n ecrosis potyvirus (BCM NV) infecting common bean in California. Plant Disease. 81(7):831. Gwekwerere, Y. 1995. Pests and diseases of ba mbara groundnut in Zimbabwe. Proceedings of the workshop on conservation and improvement of Bambara groundnut ( Vigna subterranea (L.) Verdc.). Begemann, J.H. and Mushonga, J. (eds.). November 14-16. Harare, Zimbabwe. Hall, R. 1991. Compendium of bean diseases. American Phytopathological Society, St. Paul, Minnesota; USA. pp. 73. Hancock, D. L. 1989. Southern Africa. Pages 51-58 in A. S. Robinson and G. Hooper, (eds.). Fruit flies their biology, natural enemies and control, Volume 3A. Elsevier, Amsterdam. Hincapie, C.M.C., H.M.E. Saavedra, and P.A.L. Trochez. 1993. Life cycle, behaviour and natural enemies of Liriomyza huidobrensis (Blanchard) on bulb onion ( Allium cepa L.). Revista Colombiana de En tomologia. 19(2): 51-57. Hollings, M., R.R. Pawley, and K. R. Bock. 1981. Virus diseases of French bean in Kenya. Annual Report of the Greenhouse Crop Research Institute pg 159. Hollis, J.P. 1962. A surv ey of Plant Parasitic Ne matodes and their Control. FAO Plant Protection Bulletin Vol. 10: 97-106. Holm, L., J.V. Pancho, J. P. Herberger, and D.L. Plucknett. 1979. A Geographical Atlas of World Weeds. New York: Jo hn Wiley & Sons. Holm, L.G. 1997. World weeds: natural historie s and distribution. John Wiley & Sons, N.Y. pp.1129. Hopper, B.E. [ed.]. 1995. NAPPO Compendium of Phytosanitary Terms. Nepean, Ontario, Canada: North American Pl ant Protection Organization. Horticultural Crops De velopment Authority (HCDA), Mini stry of Agriculture (MOA) in conjunction with Japan Intern ational Cooperation Agency (J ICA) 2003. Training Manual for Horticultural Crops- 2 nd Edition, Nairobi, Kenya.Pest Risk Assessment for Kenya Beans

Rev. 004 February 23, 2009 39 Hoy, M.A., Hamon, A. and Nguyen, R. 2006. Feat ured creatures: pink hibiscus mealybug - Maconellicoccus hirsutus (Green). University of Florida. 6 pp. Hugo, H.M. 1995. A review of insect pests attacking coffee roots, st ems, branches and leaves in Kenya. 60(708): 2095-2102. HYPPZ. 1998. Jacobiasca lybica (Berg. and Zanon). HYPP Z oologie (HYPPZ) Homepage. IIE. 1991. Distribution maps of plant pests. No. 527. Wallingford, UK. CAB International. IIE. 1996. Distribution Maps of Pests No. 58 (sec ond revision). International Institute of Entomology, London, UK. 5 pp. In Arthropods of Economic Im portance: Diaspidae of the World. Database. IPPC. 2004. International Standards for Phytosanit ary Measures, Publication No. 11: Pest risk analysis for quarantine pest s including analysis of environmental risks and living modified organisms. Secretariat of the Inte rnational Plant Protect ion Convention (IPPC), Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Last accessed August 3, 2007. https://www.ippc.int/servlet/BinaryDow nloaderServlet/34163_ISPM_11_E.pdf?filename =1146658377367_ISPM11.pdf&refID=34163. IPPC. 2007a. International Standards for Phytosan itary Measures, Public ation No. 2. Framework for Pest Risk Analysis. Secretariat of th e International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC), Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. La st accessed June 13, 2007, https://www.ippc.int/servlet/CDSServle t?status=ND0xMzM5OSY2PWVuJjMzPSomMz c9a29z. IPPC. 2007b. International Standards for Phytosanita ry Measures, Publication No. 5. Glossary of Phytosanitary Terms. Secretariat of the Inte rnational Plant Protect ion Convention (IPPC), Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Last accessed June 13, 2007, https://www.ippc.int/servlet/CDSServle t?status=ND0xMzM5OSY2PWVuJjMzPSomMz c9a29z. Ismal, M.A. 2001. Deterioration and spoilage of peanut and desiccated coconut from two subsahara tropical East African countries due to the asso ciated mycobiota and their degradative enzyme. Mycopa thologia 150 (2):67-84. Kaaya, GP., K.V. Seshu-Reddy, E.D. Kokwaro, and D.M. Munyinyi. 1993. Pathogenicity of Beauveria bassiana

, Metarhizium anisophilae and Serratia marcescens to banana weevil Cosmopolites sordidus . Biocontrol Science and Technology 3 (2):177-187. Kaaya, G.P., and N. Darji. 1989. Mortality of adult Tsetse, Glossina morsitans , caused by entomopathogenic bacteria. Journal of Invertebrate Pathology 54(1):32-38. Kairo, M.T.K, G.V. Pollard, D.D. Peterkin, a nd V.F. Lopez. 2000. Biological control of the hibiscus mealybug, Maconellicoccus hirsutus Green (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) in the Caribbean. Integrated Pest Mana gement Reviews. 5(4): 241-254. Kaneda, M., S. Sugimoto, and K. Okubo. 1986. Fumi gation of lower dosage ethylene dibromide against melon fly, Dacus cucurbitae Coquillett (Diptera: Tephritidae), in string beans. Research Bulletin of the Plant Protection Servi ce, Japan: 105. Kaplan, S. 1992. 'Expert information 'versus 'expert opinions.' Another approach to the problem of eliciting/combining/using expert knowledge in PRA. Re liab. Eng. System Safety. 35: 61-72. Karel, A.K. 1985. Yield losses from and cont rol of bean pod borers, Maruca testulalis (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) and Heliothis armigera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Journal of Economic Entomology 78: 1323-1326.Pest Risk Assessment for Kenya Beans

Rev. 004 February 23, 2009 40 Karel, A.K., and A. Autrique. 1989. Ins ects and other pests in Africa, pp. 455-504, In H. F. Schwartz and M. A. Pastor-Corrales [eds.] Bean production problems in the tropics. Centro Internacional de Agricult ura Tropical, Cali, Colombia. Kedera, C.J. 1996. Review of Kenyan Agricultural Research. Vol. 30: Plants Diseases. Kenyan Agricultural Research Institute, Nairobi, Kenya. KEPHIS. 2006. Importation of French bean, Phaseolus vulgaris L. and runner beans, Phaseolus coccineus L. from Kenya into the United States (Draft January 2006 submitted to USDAAPHIS). Kenya Plant Health Inspecto rate Service (KEPHIS), Nairobi. 48 pp. Kevan, D.K. McE. 1950. Orthoptera from the hills of south-east Kenya. Jour nal the East Africa Natural History Society. 19: 192-221. Khaemba, B.M, and M.J. Mutinga. 1982. Insect pest of sunflower ( Helianthus annuus L.) in Kenya. Insect Science and its application, 3(4): 281-286. Khare, K.B. 1985. Fungi associated with maize and bean grown as a mixture by small-scale farmers in Kenya and their co ntrol. Turrialba 35 (1):101-103. Khurana, S.M.P., and I.D. Garg. 2003. Potato in Wa rm climates. Virus and virus like diseases of major crops in developing countries 2003; 167-193 Kimenju, J.W., N.K. Karanja, a nd I. Macharia. 1999. Plant parasi tic nematodes associated with common bean in Kenya and the effect of Meloidogyne infection on bean nodulation. African Crop Science Journal. 7(4): 503-510 Kimenju, J.W., N.K. Karanj a, and M.W. Nyongesa. 2004a. Diversity and abundance of nematodes in agroecosystems of Kenya. J ournal of Tropical Mi crobiology 3:24-33 Kimenju, J.W., D.M. Muiru, N.K. Karanja, W. M. Nyongesa, D.W. Miano, and G.K. Mutua. 2004b. Assessing the role of organic soil am endments in management of rootknot nematodes on common beans, Phaseoulus vulgaris L. Journal of Tropical Microbiology 3:14-23 Kimenju, J.W., S.W. Waudo, A.W. Mwang’ombe, R.A. Sikora, and R.P. Schuster. 1998. distribution of lesion nematode associated with maize in Kenya and susceptibility of maize cultivars to Pratylenchus zeae . African Crop Science Journal. 6(4): 367-375. KMA. 1989. Information sheet dated September. Kenya Ministry of Agriculture (KMA). Nairobi, Kenya. Courtesy of D. N. Namu, Permanent Secretary. Kung'u, J.N. and E.R. Boa. 1997. Kenya checklist of fungi and bacteria on plants and other substrates. Kenyan Agricultural Re search Institute, Nairobi, Kenya. Laycock, D.H., and J.C. Templer. 1973. Pesticides for East Africa Tea. Pamphlet, Tea Research Institute of East Africa (23/73) 15 Le Pelley, R.H. 1959. Agricultural insects of East Africa. Nairobi, Kenya: East African High Commission. Lentini, A., G. Delrio, and G. Serra. 2000. Observations on the infestations of Jacobiasca lybica on grapevine in Sardinia. Bulle tin OILB/SROP. 23(4):127-129. Lindinger, L. 1910. Afrikanische Schildläuse. III. Cocciden des ostlichen Afrikas. Jahrbuch der Hamburgischen Wissenschaftlichen Anstalten. Ha mburg 27: 33-48a. as cited in ScaleNet. http://www.sel.barc.usda .gov/scalenet/query.htm Liquido, N.J., R.T. Cunningham, and S. Nakagawa . 1990. Host plants of Mediterranean Fruit Fly (Diptera: Tephritidae) on th e island of Hawaii (1949-1985 Survey). Journal of Economic Entomology. 83: 1863-1878.Pest Risk Assessment for Kenya Beans

Rev. 004 February 23, 2009 41 Liquido, N.J., P.G. Barr, and R.T. Cunni ngham. 1998. MEDHOST: An Encyclopedic Bibliography of the Host Plants of the Mediterranean Fruit Fly, Ceratits capitata (Wiedemann). USDA-ARS. ARS-144, Version 1.0. Luo, J.C., Y.Y. Liu, and Y.H. Wei. 2002. Thresh old temperature and effective temperature sum of Liriomyza huidobrensis . Entomological Knowledge. 39(2): 136-137. Macdonald, M.V., and R. Chapman. 1997. The incidence of Fusarium moniliforme on maize from Central America, Africa and As ia during 1992-1995. Plant Pathology 46:112-125. Mailu, A.M. 1996. Review of Kenya n agricultural resear ch, Vol. 29: Pests of Plants. Kenyan Agricultural Research Institute, Nairobi, Kenya Mau, R.F.L, and J.L.M. Kessing. 1991. Liriomyza trifolii (Burgess). Crop knowledge master, Celery leafminer

. http:/ www.extento.hawaii.edu/kbase/crop/Type/liriom_htm Maxwell, B. 2001. African Climate Zones. Map. McGregor, B.M. 1987. Tropical Products Tran sport Handbook (Agricultural Handbook Number 668). Office of Transportation, United States Department of Agriculture. viii + 1-148 pp. Millar, I.M. 1994. A Catalogue of the Aphids (Homoptera: Aphidoi dea) of sub-Saharan Africa: Plant Protection Research Institute Handbook No. 4. Agricultural Research Council of South Africa. Pretoria, South Africa. 130 pp. Moore, S., W. Kirkman, and P. Stephen. 2004. CRYPTOGRAN: a virus for the biological control of false codling moth. SA Fruit Journal. 3(6):35-39. Morgan, M.G. and M. Henrion. 1990. Uncertain ty. Cambridge Univ. Press, United Kingdom. 332 pp. Muriuki, G.K., and G.M. Siboe. 1995. Maize flou r contaminated with toxigenic fungi and mycotoxins in Kenya. African Jour nal of Health Science 2 (1):236-241. Muruli, B.I., R.S. Pathak, D.M. Mukunya, A.K. Karel, S.O. Keya, and H. Ssali. 1980. Cow pea research in Kenya. Tropical Grain Legum e Bulletin 19: 13-16.Nakahara, S. 1982. Checklist of the armored scales (Homoptera: Diaspididae) of the conterminous United States. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine, United States Department of Agricu lture, Washington, D.C., USA. 110 pp. In Arthropods of Economic Importance: Diaspi dae of the World. Database. NAPPO. 2004. North American Plant Protection Organization (NAPPO) Regional Standards for Phytosanitary Measures (RSPM): NAPPO glos sary of phytosanitary terms, Ontario, Canada. (RSPM No. 5). NASS. 2002. 2002 Census of Agriculture. United St ates Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). http://www.nass.usda.gov/census Natrass, R.M. 1961. Host list of Kenya fungi and bacteria. Mycol. Pap. 18:1-46. Neeley, A. 2006. Movement of cowpea, and its relatives ( Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp), as fresh immature fruit pods from Hawaii into the continental United States. United States Department of Agriculture. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. 64 pp. Newton, P.J. 1987. Efficacy of chitin synthesis inhibitors and synthetic pyrethroids against Cryptophlebia leucotreta (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) on citrus in South Africa. Phytophylactica. 19(1):95-97. Ngundo, B.W., and D.P. Taylor. 1973. The burrowing nematode, Radopholus similis from Tanzania and Kenya. East African Agricultu ral and Forestry Journal, 38(4):405-406. NHM. 2005. HOSTS: Host-Database of the World’ s Lepidopterans. Natural History Museum NHM) of UK, London, UK. http://www.nh m.ac.uk/entomology/hostplants.Pest Risk Assessment for Kenya Beans

Rev. 004 February 23, 2009 42 NIS. 2004. Quarantine Status Confirmations. Pe rsonal communication to A. Koop on July 21, 2004, from USDA-APHIS-PPQ Na tional Identification Servi ces (NIS). Archived at PERAL, Raleigh, NC. NIS. 2006. Quarantine Status Confirmations. Persona l communication to L. C. Millar on October 12, 2006 from USDA-APHIS-PPQ National Identific ation Services. Archived at PERAL, Raleigh, NC. Noyes, J.S. 1982. A new species of Zetecontis silvestri (Hymenoptera; Encyrtidae) from Israel and Kenya, a parasite of Carpophilus hemipterus (L) (Coleoptera; Nutidulidae). Bulletin of Entomological Research 72 (3):457-460. NRCS. 2007. The PLANTS Database. United Stat es Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), The National Plant Data Center. http://plants.usda.gov. (A rchived at PERAL) Ogecha, J., J.K.O. Ampofo, and J. Owuor. 2000. Deve lopment of an integrated pest management strategy for controlling bean stem maggot in South Western Kenya. Paper read at Proceedings of the 2nd Scientific Confer ence of the Soil Management and Legume Research Network Projects at Mombasa, Kenya. pp. 311-317. Okeyo-Owour, J.B.O., and C.P.M. Khamala. 1980. Insect podborer infestations and their influence on developing pods and final seed yields by pigeonpea ( Cajanus cajan ) in Kenya. Kenya Journal of Science and Technology, B 1: 79-86. Orr, R.L., S.D. Cohen, and R.L. Griffin. 1993. Generic non-indigenous pest risk assessment process: "The generic process" (For estimating pest risk a ssociated with the introduction of non-indigenous organisms). USDA-APHIS , Policy and Program Development, MD. 40 pp. Otieno, W., M. Jeger, and A. Termorshui zen. 2003. Effect of infecting soil with Trichoderma harzianum and amendment with coffee pulp on survival of Amillaria Biocontrol 26 (3): 293-301 Otsyula, R.M., S.I. Ajanga, R.A. Buruchara, and C.S. Wortmann. 1998. Development of an integrated bean root rot c ontrol strategy for western Kenya . African Crop Science Journal 6 (1) :61-67. PERAL/CIPM. 2008. NCSU-APHIS Plant Pest For ecasting System (NAPPFAST). 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); No rth Carolina State University, Center for Integrated Pest Management (CIPM) . Raleigh, NC. http://www.nappfast.org PestID. 2007. Agricultural Acti vity Quarantine Systems. Un ited States Department of Agriculture-Animal and Plant Health Inspect ion Service-Plant Prot ection and Quarantine. Database. PPQ. 2000. Guidelines for pathway-initiated pest ri sk assessments (Version 5.02). United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Serv ice, Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ), Riverdale, MD. 30 pp. PPQ. 2002. Electronic Files for Arthropods from Pest s Not Known to Occur in the United States or of Limited Distribution and Insects Not Known to Occur in the United States. United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ), Policy a nd Program Development, Risk Analysis Systems. 941 pp.Pest Risk Assessment for Kenya Beans

Rev. 004 February 23, 2009 43 PPQ. 2009. Treatment schedules: T100 – Schedules for fruit, nuts and vegetables. USDA Treatment Manual. 80 pp. http://www.aphis.usda.gov/import_export/pla nts/manuals/ports/downloads/treatment_pdf /05_02_t100schedules.pdf Rathore, M.P.S. No Date. Insect pests in agro forestry: Working paper no. 70. Report of the GTZ Fellowship. Nairobi, Kenya: International Cent re for Research in Agroforestry. 78 pp. Reed, W. 1974. The false codling moth, Cryptophlebia leucotreta Meyr. (Lepidoptera: Olethreutidae) as a pest of cotton in Uganda. Cotton Gr owing Review. 51(3):213-225. Reed, C.F. 1977. Economically important foreign weeds. USDA Agric. Handbook. 498. Reitz, S. 2004. Personal communication with Stua rt Reitz of USDA-ARS-CMAVE on April 8th, 2004. Rheenen, H.A. van, O.E. Hasselb ach, and S.G.S. Muigai. 1981. The effect of growing beans together with maize on the incidence of bean diseases and pests. Netherlands Journal of Plant Pathology. 87(5): 193-199. Scheffer, S.J. 2000. Molecular eviden ce of cryptic species within the Liriomyza huidobrensis (Diptera: Agromyzidae). Journal of Economic Entomology. Volume: 93, Issue: 4, Pages: 1146-1151. Scheffer, S.J. 2004. Personal communication with Sonja J. Scheffer, Ph. D., Systematic Entomology Laboratory, USDA. Beltsville, on April 2nd, 2004. Scheffer, S.J., and M.L. Lewis. 2001. Two nucl ear genes confirm mito chondrial evidence of cryptic species within Liriomyza huidobrensis (Diptera: Agromyzidae). Ann Entomol Soc Am Md.:Entomological Society of America. Scheffer, S.J., A. Wijesekara, D. Visser, a nd R.H. Hallett. 2001. Polymerase Chain Reactionrestriction fragment-length polymor phism method to distinguish Liriomyza huidobrensis from L. langei (Diptera: Agromyzidae) applied to three recent leafminer invasions. Horticultural Entomology. Journal of Economic Entomology 94(5): 1177-1182. Schwartz, H.F, 2003. Diseases of Bean ( Phaseolus vulgaris L.) The American Phytopathological Society. http://www.apsnet.org/online/common/ names/bean.asp . Last accessed 24 October 2005. Seif, A., A.M. Varela, S. Michalik, and B. Lohr. 2001. A guide to IPM in French Beans Production with emphasis on Keny a. ICIPE Science Pr ess. Nairobi, Kenya Shanower, T.G., J. Romeis, and E.M. Minja. 1999. Insect pests of pigeonpea and their management. Annual Review of Entomology 44: 77-96. Sinclar, J.B., and P.A. Backman. 1989. Compendium of soy bean diseases. Third edition. APS Press, Minnesota, USA. Spence, N.J., and D.G.A. Walkey. 1995. Variation for pathogenicity among isolates of bean common mosaic virus in Africa and a reinterp retation of the genetic relationship between cultivars of Phaseolus vulgaris and pat hotypes of BCMV. Plant Pathology, 44(3):527- 546; 26 ref. SON. 1984. Distribution of Plant- Parasitic Nematode Species in North America. Society of Nematologists (SON). 205 pp. Steck, G.J. 2004. Featured creatures: pea leafminer – Liriomyza huidobrensis . University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences/Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. http://creatures .ifas.ufl.edu/veg/leaf/pea_leafminer.htm Sutherland, J.A. and G.N. Kibata. 1993. KARI/ODA Crop protection project, Technical Report II, July 1992 – 1993. National Agricultural Research Laboratories. Pp 36 – 44.Pest Risk Assessment for Kenya Beans

Rev. 004 February 23, 2009 44 Tamo, M., D.Y. Arodokoun, N. Zenz, M. Ti ndo, C. Agboton, and R. Adeoti. 2002. The importance of alternative host plants for the biological control of two key cowpea insect pests, the pod borer Maruca vitratis (Fabricius) and the flower thrips Megalurothrips sjostedtj (Trybom), In : C.A. Fatokun, S.A. Tarawali, B.B. Singh, P.M. Kormawa and M. Tamo [eds.] Challenges and Opportuniti es for Enhancing Sustainable Cowpea Production. International Institute of Tr opical Agriculture, Ibadan, Nigeria. Tanaka, K., K. Sunagawa, Y. Oda, and T. H okama. 1986. Methyl bromide fumigation for control of melon fly ( Dacus cucurbitae Coquillett) in string beans. Research Bulletin of the Plant Protection Service, Japan: 67. Tenbrink, V.L., and A.H. Hara. 1992. Pinnaspis buxi (Bouche): Crop Knowledge Master. 5pp. USDA-NA. 2003. The 2003 U.S. National Arboret um "web version" of the USDA Plant Hardiness Zone Map. United States Depart ment of Agriculture (USDA), National Arboretum (NA). http://www.usna.usda.gov/ Hardzone/ushzmap.html. (Archived at PERAL) USFWS. 2002. Threatened and endangered specie s system (TESS). U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. <http://endangered.fws.gov/> last accessed October 24, 2005. USFWS. 2006. Threatened and endangered specie s system (TESS). U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. <http://endangered.fws.gov/> last accessed May 3, 2006. USFWS. 2007. Threatened and endangered specie s system (TESS). U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. <http://endangered.fws.gov/> last accessed April 2007. USFWS. 2008. Threatened and endangered specie s system (TESS). U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. <http://endangered.fws.gov/> last accessed December 2008. Venette, R.C., E.E. Davis, M. DaCosta, H. He isler, and M. Larson. 2003. Mini Risk Assessment: False codling moth, Thauatotibia (= Cryptophlebia ) leucotreta (Meyrick) [Lepidoptera: Tortrichidae]. St. Paul: University of Minnesota Department of Entomology. 30 pp. Vidal, S. 2005. Population dynamics a nd control of the pea leafminer, Liriomyza huidobrensis Blanchard in outdoor celery. Bu lletin OILB/SROP. 28(4): 1-6. Wagara, I.N., A.W. Mwang’ombe, J.W. Kimenju, R.A. Buruchara, R. JamnaDass, and P.A.O. Majiwa. 2004. Genetic diversity of Phaeoisariopsis griseola in Kenya as revealed by AFLP and group specific primers. J ournal of Phytopathology 152: 235-242. Wang, Y., Z.R. Lei, J.Z. Wen, F.Z. Sun, and K.M. Wu. 2000. On the overwintering and coldhardiness of the vegetable leafminer Liriomyza sativae . Acta Phytophylacica Sinica. 27(1): 32-36. Warui, C.W. 1984. Bruchid infestation of cowpea varieties in the field. Insect Science and Its Application 5 (4): 283-286. Williams, L., D.J. Schotzko, and L.E. O'Keefe. 1995. Pea leaf weevil herb ivory on pea seedlings: effects on growth response and yield. Entomo logia Experimentalis et Applicata. 76(3): 255-269. WSSA. 1989. Composite List of Weeds. Weed Science Society of America. Yue, D.C., and G.J. Bao, 2006. A primary investigatio n for population dynamic of Liriomyza huidobrensis on vegetable in screen house. Chines e Bulletin of Ento mology. 43(2): 239- 241.Pest Risk Assessment for Kenya Beans

Rev. 004 February 23, 2009 45 

### 5. Appendices

Appendix A. Map of production areas of French beans and runner beans in Kenya

Fig. A1 . Map of production areas of French beans and runner beans in Kenya (KEPHIS, 2006)

French bean p roduction

Runner bean p roduction areas

Bean production areasPest Risk Assessment for Kenya Beans

Rev. 004 February 23, 2009 46 Appendix B. Post harvest handling of Phaseolus vulgaris L. and Phaseolus coccineus L. in Kenya

[Following is anexcer pt from KEPHIS, 2006]

Harvesting. French beans and runner beans are hand-pi cked, collected in clean crates and transported to an on-farm storage house.

Packing. Beans are received at the pa ck house dock and assessed based on size, freshness, and freedom from pests, damage, and debris. From the dock, quality assessed beans are sent to be processed either by “standard care” or “high care ” procedures. In standard care, grading, sorting, and packing are done to the specifications of the client. The final standa rd care product requires further preparations, such as washing, before cooking and consumption. Sanitary practices as required to meet Euro-Retailer Pr oduce Working Group, EUREPGAP, (see http://www.eurepgap.org/Languages/English /index_html) requirements are maintained throughout standard care processi ng. Beans processed following hi gh care procedures are fully processed, meaning they have been hand cut to a predetermined size then sanitized. They are ready to cook and eat. High care processing is co nducted in self contai ned facilities with controlled environments and access points. French beans are separated according to diameter then topped and tailed by hand. Runner beans are sliced to a specific length and / or shredded according to each customer’s specifications. Please refer to the flow diagram for standard care and high care processing.

Storage. Beans are stored at 6 o to 8 o C and 95 to 100 percent RH for up to two days before shipping.

Transport and shipping. Transportation of beans from farm to pack house is in plastic crates that identify the beans’ origin by field and farm. Trucks are refrigerated. Beans in pre-packs or plastic bags are packed in cardboard boxes on pa llets for international shipment by air, see photograph 8.

Fig. B1 . Unprocessed beans Fig. B2 . Loading dock for from the field. standard care and high care processing.Pest Risk Assessment for Kenya Beans

Rev. 004 February 23, 2009 47 Pre-cooling & storage at 5-8 o C

Beans proceeds to standard care Beans proceed to high care facility

Beans are individually graded, cleaned, and trimmed 1 s t disinfectant wash, 5-8 o C and 50 ppm chlorine (bath changed every 100 k g s. )

Beans are packaged in plastic bags or pre-pack

Packaged beans are weighed, sealed, and labeled

Packaged beans are cooled to 5 o C Beans are hand trimmed/sliced/shredded

Beans are individually graded

2 n d disinfectant wash at 3-5 o C and 50 ppm chlorine (wash is changed every 100 kgs.)

Beans are spun dry

Beans are packaged in plastic bags or pre-packs, weighed, sealed, and labeled

Beans are blast chilled to 2-5 o C

Packaged and chilled beans are boxed and palletized for air transport Beans arrive at processing facility.

Beans receive a wash in potable waterPest Risk Assessment for Kenya Beans

Rev. 004 February 23, 2009 48 Fig. B3 . Standard care bean Fig. B4 . Standard care processed beans packhouse. for pre-pack.

Fig. B5 . Hi-care processing facility, Fig. B6 . Shredding runner runner beans. beans.Pest Risk Assessment for Kenya Beans

Rev. 004 February 23, 2009 49 Fig. B7 . Shredded runner beans. Fig. B8 . High care processed runner beans.

Fig. B9 . Cold storage facility.Pest Risk Assessment for Kenya Beans

Rev. 004 February 23, 2009 50 Appendix C. Risk Mitigation Options

C1. Pod Borers

A mitigation available for Maruca testulalis (Syn: Maruca vitrata ), exotic legume pod borers, and leafminers on green pod vegetables is fumi gation with methyl bromide (PPQ, 2009: T101-k2, T101-k-2-1). We suggest these mitigations for the lepidopteran pod borers analyzed in this
assessment: Chrysodeixis chalcites, Helicoverpa armigera, Lampides boeticus, Spodoptera littoralis and Thaumatotibia leucotreta and the dipteran agromizid, Liriomyza huidobrensis

. However, research is required to confirm efficacy of these treatments ag ainst these pest species.

C2. Mealybugs

The PPQ treatment manual recommends treatment schedule T104-a-2 (fumigation with tarpaulin or chamber at 70°F) for mealybugs on beans (PPQ, 2009). This mitigation could apply for Maconellicoccus hirsutus in this assessment.

C3. Fruit Flies

No specific mitigations were listed for fruit flies on beans ( Phaseolus ) (PPQ, 2009). We listed mitigation methods for Bactrocera cucurbitae and all other fruit flie s on other imported food commodities below (Table C1). For Dacus ciliatus , trapping and hot water treatment have also been suggested as mitigations (7 CFR § 319.56-48, 2009; CABI and EPPO, 1997a). Except for the irradiation treatment, research would be need ed to confirm the efficacy of these quarantine treatments for control of the fruit flies of concern.

Table C1 . Mitigation options for fruit flies on Kenya beans, by treatment schedule. Mitigation Method Treatment Schedule Methyl Bromide T101-c-1 High Temperature Forced Air T103-b-1, T103-d Irradiation T105-a-1, T-105-a-2, T105-a-3 Vapor Heat T-106-b, T106-c, T106-d Cold Treatment T107-h Methyl Bromide Plus Cold Treatment T108-a, T108-b Cold Treatment Plus Methyl Bromide T109-d-1Pest Risk Assessment for Kenya Beans

Rev. 004 February 23, 2009 51 Appendix D. USDA Kenya TDY trip report (selected excerpts)

Kenya TDY Trip Report 21 January - 2 February, 2007

TO: Allen Fleming, USAID / Kenya David Atteberry, USAID/East Africa Stephanie Wilcock, USAID/East Africa Kevin Smith, USDA / Kenya Megan Schildgen, USDA, Washington Linda Logan, USDA, Egypt Cheryl French, USDA, Senegal Robert Griffin, USDA, North Carolina Vic Harabin, USDA, North Carolina Ron Sequeira, US DA, North Carolina FROM: Michael K. Hennessey, USDA-CPHST , Keith Colpetzer, USDA-CPHST, Edward “Ned” Jones, USDA-CPHST, and Lloyd Garcia, USDA / USAID PASA, Uganda DATE: 2 March, 2007 RE: APHIS Phytosanitary evaluation of Kenya ’s commercial fresh vegetable and fruit production: A pest risk analysis activity

P URPOSE : The objectives of the TDY were to determine th e relative phytosanitary pest mitigation value of Kenya’s current horticultu ral practices from a U.S. perspective. The program was conducted at the request of, and in cooperati on with, Kenya’s Plant Health Inspectorate Service (KEPHIS), Fresh Producers’ Export Association of Kenya (FPEAK), and Kenya Horticultural Development Program (KHDP). The following activitie s were conducted to achieve the stated objective:

1. Determine phytosanitary value of field and packhouse sanitary and pest management procedures used in Kenya for fresh vegetables and fruits (especially vegetables soon to enter the United States) for commercial market s, primarily in the European Union (EU).

2. Evaluate Euro-Retailer Produce Working Group, Good Agricultural Practices (EurepGAP) and other EU export standards and determine whether they address and meet United States phytosanitary requirements.

3. Observe and evaluate field production methods a nd get an overall view of kinds of pests and baseline pest infestation rates for target commodities.

4. Record pest management methods that target quarantine and production pests.

5. Develop commercially viable and statistic ally sound pest sampling procedures for quarantine pests.

6. Evaluate whether risks associat ed with ready-to-cook and rea dy-to-eat vegetables shipped as multi-item packs are greater than vege tables shipped as single item packs.

7. Determine whether shipping conditions provi de additional phytos anitary safeguards.Pest Risk Assessment for Kenya Beans

Rev. 004 February 23, 2009 52 8. Obtain copies of documents detailing sanitary and integr ated pest management (IPM) practices for various commodities.

9. Obtain photographs of sanitary and IPM meas ures, pests, and commodities in the fields and packhouses.

B ACKGROUND Kenya produces a large volume of fruit and vegeta bles for export to the European Union (EU). Approximately 5 percent of the fruits and vegeta bles sold in United King dom (UK) supermarkets come from Kenya. About 95 percen t of fruits and vegetables grown in Kenya are consumed domestically. Exports to the EU must comply w ith sanitary, environmental, worker, and fair trade standards, such as the Euro-Retailer Pr oduce Working Group’s Good Ag ricultural Practices (EurepGAP), which is Hazard Analysis and Crit ical Control Point (HACCP) based, the British Retail Consortium (BRC) global standard fo r packhouse procedures, and ISO 14001, which protects the environment. Exports must also comply with standards developed by individual UK supermarkets ( e

. g ., Tesco “Nature’s Choice” and Marks a nd Spencer Field-to-Fork), which are even more strict than the above standards. The costs associated with compliance and air frei ght are large (estimated at $1.80/kg). If the EU collects tariffs on Kenyan commodities when th e Economic Partnership Agreements with African, Caribbean, and Pacific countries are renegotiated, compliance and shipping costs may exceed production costs. For these reasons, Kenya is searching for new markets. Kenya has submitted several commodity import requests and pest risk assessments to the USDA for evaluation.

I NFRASTRUCTURE Kenya relies mainly on mobile phones, having 6. 5 million mobile phone users. Kenya also has 13,274 internet hosts and over one million internet user s. A narrow gauge rail line that runs from the port of Kisumu on Lake Victoria to the port of Mombasa on the Indian Ocean services the country. This main line has several branches ( e

. g . Nanyuki and Kitale). Kenya has 5,588 mi of paved roads and 33,760 mi of unpaved roads that connect urban areas. The country has 15 airports with paved runways; two of them, Jo mo Kenyatta in Nairobi and Moi in Mombasa, provide international service. Kenya may build a new international airport in Eldoret to service the vast horticultural indu stry. In addition to good co mmunication and transportation infrastructure, Kenya has at least five universit ies that teach agricultural disciplines; they are Egerton University, Jomo Kenyatta University, Kenyatta University, Moi University, and the University of Nairobi (World Fact Book). Infr astructure that helps support the agricultural industry follows: The Kenya Plant Health Inspectorate Service (K EPHIS) is the government agency responsible for protecting Kenya’s agriculture from forei gn pests, diseases, and weeds. The agency encompasses the following laboratories and units: 1. a plant inspection unit that enforces quality st andards at entry and ex it points and issues phytosanitary certificates and plant import permits 2. an ISO 17025 certified analytical chemistry la boratory that tests pe sticide residues and heavy metal contamination of agricultural commodities 3. a laboratory that tests for gene tically modified organisms a nd has the ability to perform molecular pest identificationsPest Risk Assessment for Kenya Beans

Rev. 004 February 23, 2009 53 4. a plant quarantine station for post-entry observation of imported plant material 5. a seed testing and certifica tion laboratory that looks fo r fungi on imported seed 6. a virology laboratory th at also tests for Ralstonia and nematodes in potatoes 7. a tissue culture laboratory that prod uces clean propagative material The virology and tissue culture laboratories wo rk together and produce clean cassava, Irish potato, sisal, sweet potato, and pyrethrum for export to the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA). The clean stock pr ogram for sweet potato includes viral indexing of imported material, cleaning dur ing tissue culture, growing in a double door screen house, and a final check for disease prior to export. The Kenya Agricultural Research Institute (KAR I) is the government agency responsible for agricultural research and extensi on. The Horticulture and Industri al Crops program within this agency develops new plant varieties and pr ofitable crop protection programs. When new technologies are adequately developed, KARI tran sfers them to farmers throughout the country. The Horticultural Crops Development Author ity (HCDA) is another government agency involved in the production of fr esh Kenyan fruits and vegetabl es. The HCDA licenses exporters, provides extension in collaboration with other in stitutions, like KARI, facilitates trade by linking growers to markets, and provides marketing intelligence to the industry. They also help smallholders access markets by renting trucks and coolers in their modern packhouse, which is next to the airport, at a reduced rate. The Fresh Produce Exporters of Kenya (FPEAK) is a private organization that analyzes market trends, lobbies for the horticu ltural industry, and communicates sa nitary and phytosanitary (SPS) requirements, integrated pest management (IPM) , and best management practices (BMP) to its members. They communicate with their members through a website (www.fpeak.org/home/index.asp), mont hly electronic newsletters, conferences, and a quarterly publication, Horticultural Insight

. The International Center of In sect Physiology and Ecology (ICIPE ) is also located in Kenya. This institution, which is funded by public and pr ivate donors, conducts research, develops pest management strategies, and trains stakeholders in pest management practices. They employ taxonomic experts to help identify specific crop pest s, and they maintain fi ve different fruit fly colonies (i.e.

, Bactrocera invadens

, Ceratitis capitata

, C

. cosyra , C

. fasciventris , and C

. rosa ) on fruit or a carrot-based media. None of the above species are quarantine pests for Kenya. They also introduce and rear pa rasitoids under quarantine for eventual release to control the fruit flies. The fruit fly colonies are used, in part, to sust ain the parasitoids and could be used to develop postharvest treatments. Jan 24 - East African Growers Ltd., Jessy Farm We met Mr. Nicholas Ambanja, the general ma nager, and other staff at Jessy Farm. Mr. Ambanja told us that Jessy Farm is one of se ven farms that are owned and operated by East African Growers Limited. They produ ce six different vegetables (i.e.

, baby corn, broad bean, broccoli, French bean, sugar snaps, and runner bean) on their 85 ha farm in Naro Moru. Mr. Erick Ogumu, the farm’s agronomist and technical manager, told us that they practice IPM and follow EurepGAP and Tesco Nature’s Choice produc tion standards. He also told us that pest management strategies, which include chemical, cultural, and biological methods, are determined by a qualified, current, and informed farm manager. Our questions revealed that farm managers must have an agricultural degree and be trained in the British Agrochemical Standards InspectionPest Risk Assessment for Kenya Beans

Rev. 004 February 23, 2009 54 Scheme (BASIS) and the Fertilizer Advisors Ce rtification and Training Scheme (FACTS). The latter requirements (i.e., BASIS and FACTS) satisfy the environmental focus of their customers in the UK. Farm managers must also stay curren t in pest management by training at institutions like ICIPE and KARI. Mr. Ogumu concluded that pe st management strategies are largely based on the farm manager’s experience and expertise. For example, after a long period of rain, the manager will require a fungicide treatment for bean s to prevent rust development. This appeared to be effective because we did not observe rust in the runner bean fields th at we scouted. We also scouted courgettes; our observations are record ed under Findings. In addition to scouting these crops, we toured the farm’s bene ficial insect rearing facilities and packhouse (Fig. 4.1), where raw materials are prepared for processing in th e Nairobi packhouse. We witnessed an inspector administering truly systematic, skip samples of the harvest containers, where grab samples were taken and inspected from select ed containers, before the harv ested commodity was introduced into the field packhouse. Information from this inspection was recorded and fed forward to employees in the field pack house, where it helped focus the pack house inspection. The information was also fed back to the field to help improve field mitigations. We observed a few cultural practices during our tour that may influence pest popula tions, such as composting culls on site, planting trap crops, and preser ving refugia for beneficial insects.

Jan 29 - East African Growers Ltd. Packhouse We met Mr. Peeush Mahajan, the managing director , and Mr. Vijay Kumar, the general manager, along with other staff at the East African Grower s packhouse in Nairobi. They told us that the packhouse follows the BRC global standard. After a brief introduction, we toured their facility and observed product handling procedures. The firs t things we saw were courgettes and tender stem broccoli being offloaded. Every container ha d a sticker declaring that the vegetable was grown under EurepGAP and Tesco Nature’s Choi ce (TNC) production standards. The stickers also contained the farm’s name, production date, and the block where it was grown; this allows the packhouse to trace the product back to the exact area where it was grown. Next, we witnessed the first quality check, which occurr ed on the loading dock before the product was brought into the packhouse. The quality check consisted of systema tically subsampling 15 percent of the product for insects, disease, damage , and adherence to strict grade specifications. The raw product was rejected at this point if 50 percent or more of the subsample did not meet packhouse standards. If the product was accepted, the damage was qualitatively rated, as high, medium, or low, and the type of damage was re ported to the workers before the product was introduced into the packing line. This feed forward mechanism helps workers eliminate quality problems. Inspection results were recorded and tracked. Next, we visited the low, medium, and high care packing units. Even w ith “low” care, the product was handled with great care; low simply distinguished the unwashed product from product that was washed with either potable water (i.e. e . medium care) or water containi ng 60-90 ppm of chlorine (i.e. e ., high care). We witnessed a number of procedur es throughout low, medium, and hi gh care that would reduce pest and disease contamination. For example, worker s hand-packed French beans. They visually inspected each bean before it went into the pac k, and they visually insp ected the pack before it was sealed (Fig. 4.2). We observed other practices that would mitigate pest risk including: the sanitary agitated wash in medi um and high care (Fig. 4.3), passing sugar snaps over a light table , slicing runner beans (Fig. 4.4), and the final quality check, which occurred before the product was stored at 3 to 4oC. East African Growers also check shelf life by keeping product samples for 7 to 10 days. One practice that may influence pest populations on the farm is the practice of sending packhouse rejects back to the farm for composting.Pest Risk Assessment for Kenya Beans

Rev. 004 February 23, 2009 55 Jan 30 - Vegpro Packhouse We met Mr. Bharat Patel, the managing director , and Mr. Shawn Brunner, the general manager, at the Vegpro packhouse in Nair obi. Mr. Brunner told us that they follow EurepGAP and the BRC global standard. After a brie f introduction, we toured their facility and observed product handling procedures. It was sim ilar to the other packhouses, with an initial quality check at offloading, a feed forward mechanism to help eliminate potential quality problems, a low and high care unit, light tables for sugar snap inspec tions, a variety of slic ing techniques, a final quality check before cold storage, and shelf life monitoring. Mr. Brunner told us that they typically reject about 20 percent of the French beans that a rrive for quality reasons, but, right now, they are rejecting between 50 a nd 60 percent for caterpillar damage.

Jan 31 - International Ce ntre of Insect Physiology and Ecology (ICIPE) We met Dr. Bernhard Löhr, a Liriomyza expert, and Dr. Sunday Ekes ki, a fruit fly expert. We discussed irradiation and collabora tive research to develop alternative quarantine treatments for East African fruit flies. Dr. Ekeski told us that he has been working with French bean for five years and has not seen any eviden ce of fruit flies. He said chili pepper, passionfruit, eggplant, avocado, and mango are the major fruit fly hosts in Kenya. He also said that Bactrocera cucurbitae is most common on courgettes, but Dacus ciliatus can be found. He expressed

concern over Bactrocera latifrons , which has not yet been detect ed in Kenya. Dr. Ekeski also told us that Bactrocera invadens oviposits in green banana. Dr. Löhr told us that there are four species of Liriomyza in Kenya, one of which has not yet b een described. Dr. Löhr and Dr. Ekeski both expressed interest in working with vegeta ble pests. Apparently, they plan on studying western flower thrips ( Frankliniella occidentalis ) and red spider mite ( Tetranychus evansi ) in vegetables.

a. Interceptions and Rejections - We learned from Dr Kedera that KEPHIS inspected and issued phytosanitary certificates for 91,956 consignments between 01 January 2006 and 31 December 2006. Of these, only 71 were rejected at their final destination for failure to comply with importing country specific phyt osanitary requirements; that’s an annual rejection rate of less than 0.08 percent. We al so learned that none of the rejections were for consignments of French or runner b ean. KEPHIS, apparently, inspects about 25 consignments of vegetables for export ever y day and refuses to issue a phytosanitary certificate for about five consignments of French or runner bean each month.

b. French bean ( Phaseolus vulgaris ) - We did not observe a singl e internal boring insects or disease on French bean. We only saw some exte rnal damage that was most likely caused by surface feeding cate rpillars (Fig. 4.5).

c. Runner bean ( Phaseolus coccineus ) - We observed internal bo ring caterpillars that we suspect were the cotton bollworm ( Helicoverpa armigera ) at several farms (Fig. 4.6). These caterpillars were common in certain areas. For example, six out the 50 fruit sampled at Jumbi Farm contained a larva, wh ile none of the 50 fruit sampled at Longonot Farm contained a larva.Pest Risk Assessment for Kenya Beans

Rev. 004 February 23, 2009 56 Table D1. Some United States quarantine pests of French bean that occur in Kenya Scientific name References Agrotis segetum Varela et al

. , 1999 Alcidodes leucogrammus Varela et al

. , 1999 Anoplocnemis curvipes CABI, 2005; Varela et al

. , 1999 Bactrocera cucurbitae CABI, 2005 Chrysodeixis chalcites CABI, 2005 Clavigralla elongate CABI, 2005; Varela et al

. , 1999 Clavigralla tomentosicollis CABI, 2005; Varela et al

. , 1999 Cowpea mild mottle virus CABI, 2005 Frankliniella schultzei CABI, 2005; Varela et al

. , 1999 Helicoverpa armigera CABI, 2005; Varela et al

. , 1999 Maruca vitrata CABI, 2005; Varela et al

. , 1999 Megalurothrips sjostedti CABI, 2005; Varela et al

. , 1999 Ophiomyia centrosematis CABI, 2005; Varela et al

. , 1999 Ophiomyia phaseoli CABI, 2005; Varela et al

. , 1999 Ophiomyia spencerella Varela et al

. , 1999 Phakospora pachyrhizi CABI, 2005 Pseudomonas syringae pv. garcae CABI, 2005 Riptortus dentipes CABI, 2005; Varela et al

. , 1999 Spodoptera littoralis CABI, 2005 Thysanoplusia orichalcea CABI, 2005

C ONCLUSIONS AND R ECOMMENDATIONS

1. There are 18 control points (see flow ch art) which would count as phytosanitary measures. The field and high care packhouse pro cedures and measures that Kenya uses to meet UK supermarket (e.g

. , Marks and Spencer) export standards provide sufficient phytosanitary protection against the introduction of external and internal feeding plant pests. The measures also provi de sufficient phytosaniatry prot ection against diseases that produce obvious symptoms. The chlorine washes of high care are also effective against latent plant pathogens on the surface of the commodity. The above would apply to shelled garden pea, baby corn, baby carro t, French bean and other vegetables.

2. EurepGAP, the BRC global standard, and EU s upermarket standards meet United States regulatory requirements for certa in commodities (e.g. tender stem broccoli, French bean, baby leek, and baby onion). The United States may require additional measures (e.g. destructive sampling, commodity slicing as opposed to whole, or pest free production areas) for commodities with internal pests incl uding fruit flies or latent diseases (e.g. courgettes and chili peppers).Pest Risk Assessment for Kenya Beans

Rev. 004 February 23, 2009 57Pest Risk Assessment for Kenya Beans

Rev. 004 February 23, 2009 58 Appendix E. Predicted distribution of Liriomyza huidobrensis in the conterminous United States.

Fig. E1 . Predicted distribution. Results are reported in frequency of years (1997 to 2006) where enough degree days occurred for L. huidobrensis to complete nine or more generations.Pest Risk Assessment for Kenya Beans

Rev. 004 February 23, 2009 59 Appendix F. Predicted distribution of Maconellicoccus hirsutus in the conterminous United States.

Fig. F1. Predicted number of generations M. Hirsutus could complete in the conterminous United States. Our model results are based on average number of degree days from1998 to 2007, 347 degree days per generation, a lower develo pmental temperature of 14.5°C and an upper developmental threshold of 35°C (C hong et al., 2008; PERAL/CIPM, 2008).