## Importation of Aechmea, Cryptanthus, Guzmania, Hohenbergia,

Neoregelia, Tillandsia and Vriesea (Bromeliaceae) in Growing Media, i nto the United States f rom Belgium, Denmark
, and the

Netherlands

A Pathway

- Initiated Pest Risk Assessment

July 6 , 2009

Rev. 004

Agency contacts:

Gary L. Cave, Ph.D., Entomologist Scott C. Redlin, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist

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 Raleigh, North CarolinaPest Risk Assessment for European Bromeliads

Rev. 00 4 July 6, 2009 ii 

### Executive Summary

In t his pathway

- initiated commodity risk analysis , we examine the risks associated with the proposed importation of Bromeliaceae in the genera Aechmea, Cryptanthus, Guzmania, Hohenbergia, Neoregelia, Tillandsia

, and Vriesea

, in APHIS

- approved growing media, from Belgium, Denmark, and Netherlands into the United States. We followed t he analytical methodology described in the USDA, APHIS, PP Q Guidelines, version 5.02, which describes

how we examine pest biology in the context of the Consequences of Introduction and Likeliho od of Introduction, and estimate Pest Risk Potential.

We found only one quarantine pest that can follow the pathway, Fu sarium oxysporum Schlechtend.:Fr. f. sp. aechmeae (Saut. & Gerlach) Gordon (Fungi Imperfecti: Hyphomycetes)

, from Belgium. We gave t his organism a Low Pest Risk Potential. A ll imported propagative materials, however, must meet the requirements specified in 7 CFR § 319.37.

We discuss pest risk mitigation options, and measures applied by the existing regulations on the importation of plants in APHIS

- approved growing media (7 CFR § 319.37

- 8). We expect the se mitigation measures to substantially reduce the lik elihood of introduction of any quarantine pests that may be associated with these plants, and as such, the overall pest risk potential would be low because these pests are effectively removed from the pathway.Pest Risk Assessment for European Bromeliads

Rev. 00 4 July 6, 2009 iii 

### Table of Contents

Executive Summary

................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... ii

List of Tables

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ iv
List of Figures

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... iv

1. Introduction

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 1 1.1. Background

................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 1

1.2. Production Conditions

................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 1

2. Risk Assessment

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

................................ ................................ ........................ 2

2.2. Assessment of Weediness Potential of Aechmea, Cryptanthus, Guzmania, Hohenbergia, Neoregelia, Tillandsia , and Vriesea

. ................................ ................................ ........................... 3 2.3. Pest Interceptions

................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 3 2.4. Pest Categ orization

................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 3 2.5. Analysis of Quarantine Pests

................................ ................................ ............................... 8 2.6. Consequences of Introduction

................................ ................................ .............................. 8

2.7. Likelihood of Introduction

................................ ................................ ................................ . 10

2.8. Conclusion: Pest Risk Potential

................................ ................................ ......................... 12
3. Risk Mitigation Options

................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 12 3.1. Approved Growing Media

................................ ................................ ................................ . 12 3.2. Systems Approaches

................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 13

3.3. Mana gement of ―Fusariose‖ via Genetic Resistance

................................ ......................... 15

4. Literature Cited

................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 15Pest Risk Assessment for European Bromeliads

Rev. 00 4 July 6, 2009 iv 

### List o f Tables

Table 1. Assessment of Weediness Potential of Aechmea

, Cryptanthus

, Guz mania

, Hohenbergia

, Neoregelia

, Tillandsia , and Vriesea

................................ ................................ .................... 3

Table 2. Quarantine Pest Interceptions on Aechmea

, Cryptanthus

, Guzmania

, Hohenbergia

, Neoregelia

, Tillandsia , and Vriesea as permit cargo fr om Belgium, and the Netherlands,

1985

- 200 8

. ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 4

T able 3. Pests Associated With Aechmea

, Cryptanthus

, Guzmania

, Hohenbergia

, Neoregelia

, Tillandsia , and Vriesea f

rom Belgium, Denmark

, and Netherlands

................................ ... 5

Table 4. Quarantine Pests Associated With Aechmea

, Cryptanthus

, Guzmania

, Hohenbergia

, Neoregelia

, Tillandsia , and Vriesea f rom Belgium, Denmark

, and Netherlands

............... 7

Table 5. Risk Ratings for the Consequences of Introduction

................................ ........................ 1 0

Table 6

. Risk Ratings for the Likelihood of Introduction

................................ ............................. 1 2

Table 7

. Pest Risk Potential

................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 1 2



### List o f Figures

Fig. 1. Plan t Hardiness Zones potentially suitable for establishment by Fusarium oxysporum Schlechtend.:Fr. f. sp. aechmeae (Saut. & Gerlach) Gordon

................................ ............... 9Pest Risk Assessment for European Bromeliads

Rev. 00 4 July 6, 2009 1 

### 1. Introduction

1.1. Background

This pest risk analysis (PRA) was conducted by the 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 (USDA, APHIS, PPQ, CPHST, PERAL) to examine the plant pest risks asso ciated with the importation, into the United States, from Belgium, Denmark, and Netherlands, of propagative nursery stock in the genera Aechmea, Cryptanthus, Guzmania, Hohenbergia, Neoregelia, Tillandsia and Vriesea (Bromeliaceae ), in APHIS

- approved growin g media.

Authority for APHIS to regulate plant pests/plant products is derived from the Plant Protection Act of 2000 ( 7 U.S.C. § 7701

- 7786, 2000 ) and the Code of Federal Regulations, 7 CFR § 319.37 (2008)

. The risk assessment methodology and rating criter ia and the use of biological and phytosanitary terms is consistent with international guidelines, e.g

. , IPPC, 2001

, 2004, 2005, 2008, and current Agency guidelines ( PPQ, 2000 ).

1.2

. Production Conditions

1.2 .1

. Asexually Propagated Plants

The Bromeliacea e family is composed of about 59 genera native to the Western Hemisphere, specifically tropical America (Bailey and Bailey, 1976). In Belgium, Denmark, and Netherlands, these plants are propagated and cultivated exclusively as greenhouse plants. Under thes e conditions, Bromeliads are generally increased by seedlings (sexual or asexual) or tissue culture. The majority of production of the analyzed genera is done by four businesses, two in Netherlands

and two in Belgium

. The market for bromeliads is dominated by the patented hybrids of Deroose Plants (propagated by in vitro methods) and Corn.Bak B.V. (primarily propagated by seed) (Samyn and Thomas , 199 7 ).

1.2 .2

. Bare Root Plants For qualification to ship ornamental plants/propagative plants to the United Sta tes, plant producers must adhere to the procedures listed in 7 CFR § 319.37 (2008)

. For bromeliads, plants are currently grown in APHIS

- approved growing media and are subject to washing of the root system with clean, potable water, to remove growing media from the root system. Regulatory officials inspect above

- and below

- ground plant parts for the presence of plant pests. Plants that are washed free of media facilitate visual inspection and the removal of symptomatic plants from the pathway or rejection of infested plant lots.

European bromeliad growers state that the APHIS requirement for washing of the roots is

detrimental because it: 1) increases the number of plant losses, 2) limits the size of the plant to be exported to the United States as “ young pl ants ” (versus larger “ finished plants ” at or near the

“ flowering stage ” generati ng increased revenue)

, and 3) results in temporary plant growth

reductions

. There is some concern regarding a perceived increase in pest risk because a

combination of essential ly pest free plants grown in an APHIS

- approved medium allows largerPest Risk Assessment for European Bromeliads

Rev. 00 4 July 6, 2009 2 plants to be produced. The r isk associated with container grown/established plants is the possibility that the additional or large r plant parts

, including leaves or roots, might create
add itional locations for pests to be hidden

, or increase the difficulty of visual inspection.

1. 2 .3

. Container Grown (Established) vs. Bare Root Plants (Susceptibility to Reduced Growth) Container grown plants have established root systems because they are g rown for a substantial period of time without root disturbance. European bromeliad growers are conc erned that reduced

g rowth of bare root plants, caused by the desiccation of root systems

, lack of nutrients

, damage caused by shaking out, or washing

, extend s the time required to produce “ finished ” or mature flowering plants

. Consequently

, such plant s may exhibit stunted or poor growth

, and reduced flowering. Shipping e stablish ed plants in media minimizes or eliminates these growth reductions

.

1. 2 .4

. Moveme nt of Plants

Because the European Union (EU) has a s ingle m arket system with no border controls,

commercial plant consignments can mov e from one country to another without phytosanitary

certificate s

. These certificates have been replaced by the  ̳p lant p ass port ‘ (e.g., DAFF, 2009; MRAE, 2003), which similarly certifies that certain phytosanitary requirements have been met

. N urseries producing plants that require a plant passport are subject to registration and inspection.

In addition to p lant p assport requi rements, plants and plant propagating material of certain genera which host significant (quality) pests and diseases must be accompanied by a  ̳s uppliers

d ocument , which confirms that the material being traded is substantially free of these organisms (e.g., DAFF, 2009; MRAE, 2003)

. T he suppliers document will usually contain the same

information as the p lant p assport

.

In addition, p lant passport s can certify official control. To receive a plant passport, domestic consignments in the EU should be free from A2 quarantine pests, which ensure both suppression and containment (an A2 pest is a quarantine pest present in an area but not widely distributed there and being officially controlled). T he plant passport can also be used to certify that the A2 pest, if su bject to other requirements, e.g . place of production freedom, has met those requirements. This requirement is also equivalent to that of a phytosanitary certificate. Supplementally, plant consignments recognized as hosts of A2 quarantine pests cannot lega lly be moved without a plant passport, and non

- compliance can be subject to enforcement and penalties as with a phytosanitary certificate.



### 2. Risk Assessment

2.1. Initiating Event: Proposed Action

This commodity

- based, pathway

- initiated pest risk assess ment was prepared in response to a request from the Governments of Belgium, Denmark, and the Netherlands to change current regulations to allow the importations of Aechmea

, Cryptanthus

, Guzmania

, Hohenbergia

, Neoregelia

, Tillandsia , and Vriesea (Bromeliace ae ), established in seedling trays, in APHIS

approved growing media, or as bare

- root plants with small amounts of APHIS

- approved growing

media attached to the roots. These plants are currently permitted entry into the United States asPest Risk Assessment for European Bromeliads

Rev. 00 4 July 6, 2009 3 bare

- root plants unde r 7 CFR § 319.37 (2008)

.

There are special concerns associated with propagative material established in growing media: the presence of pests or biological contaminants may not be discernable by visual inspection, either pre

- shipment or at the port of ent ry, and this infeasibility of complete inspection increases the potential of the introduction of exotic organisms; the treatment(s) of the growing media may not be entirely efficacious; the continual hazard of pest infestation/re

- infestation of clean plant s. The se potential risks of importing propagative materials in growing media have been addressed and mitigated in regulations outlined in 7 CFR § 319.37

- 8 (2008)

.

2.2. Assessment of Weed iness Potential of Aechmea, Cryptanthus, Guzmania, Hohenbergia,

Neore gelia, Tillandsia

, and Vriesea

.

We determined the potential weed threat posed by Aechmea

, Cryptanthus

, Guzmania

, Hohenbergia

, Neoregelia

, Tillandsia and Vriesea

, or the existence of a previous characterization of these genera as weeds , below ( Table 1 )

. Th e results of this weed screening for these genera did
not prompt a pest

- initiated risk assessment.

2.3

. Pest Interceptions

We listed pests intercepted on the relevant species below (Table 2).

2.4. Pest Categorization

Below we list pests associated with the relevant bromeliad species from Belgium, Denmark, and Netherlands, whether or not they are quarantine pests, and references (Table 3). Then, for quarantine pests, we list information on distribution, host genus/genera, plant parts affected, the

likeli hood of following the pathway, and references (Table 4).

Table 1

. Assessment of Weediness Potential of Aechmea

, Cryptanthus

, Guzmania

, Hohenbergia

, Neoregelia

, Tillandsia , and Vriesea from Belgium, Denmark, and Netherlands

. Commodity: We considered Aechm ea , Cryptanthus

, Guzmania

, Hohenbergia

, Neoregelia

, Tillandsia and Vriesea

. The family Bromeliaceae contains about 46 genera of tropical and subtropical, terrestrial, xeromorphic pachycauls to stemless epiphytic herbs. M ost are grown ornamentally in the ho me or greenhouse, or outdoors in warm areas.

Phase 1: No species of Cryptanthus or Neoregelia have naturalized in the United States (NRCS, 2009). Other genera are present as follows:

• Aechmea is represented by two Puerto Rican species

• Four species of Guzmania are in Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Florida

• Hohenbergia has three Puerto Rican species

• Twenty Tillandsia species are in Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands and several southern

states

• Vriesea is represented by three Puerto Rican speciesPest Risk Assessment for European Bromeliads

Rev. 00 4 July 6, 2009 4 Phase 2: Is the species listed in:

Yes Geographical Atlas of World Weeds (Holm et al ., 1979)

No World's Worst Weeds (Holm et al ., 1977) or World Weeds: Natural Histories and

Distribution (Holm et al ., 1997)

No 1982 Report of the Technical Committee t o Evaluate 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, 2006)

No Do any literature reference s indicat e weediness ( e. g., AGRICOLA, CAB Abstracts, Biological Abstracts, AGRIS)

Phase 3: Tillandsia landbecki Phil. is listed as a weed of unknown importance in Chile (Holm

et al ., 1979)

. Tillandsia recurvata L. and T. aeranthos (Loisel) L.B. Smith are weedy epiphytes

of t rees and bushes in Argentina. When present in large numbers in host trees, these species compete, with their hosts, for light and release a growth inhibitor causing leaf abscission ( Claver et al., 1983; Bartoli et al., 1993). When epiphytic bromeliads are associated with a supporting host in poor health, the presence of epiphytes is typically coincidental, not causal (Schubert, 1990)

. However, T. recurvata is native to the U. S. and does not meet the IPPC definition of a quarantine pest , and T. aeranthos is also likely already present in the United States (Kaplan, 1999)

. Despite this, we found no reported distributions or evidence of harm (e.g., NRCS, 2009), which likely indicates the plants have either not escaped, or had little or no adverse impacts. Only twice have any introduced ornamental Tillandsia spp. successfully

naturalized world

- wide (Pembertone and Liu, 2007). Likewise, Tillandsia bandensis and Hohenbergia penduliflora could be problematic, but the evidence of harm is weak (Randall, 2002).

Concl usion : For all of the genera considered above, only a few species exhibited even minor

weediness. A pest

- initiated risk assessment is not necessary.

Table 2

. Quarantine Pest Interceptions on Aechmea

, Cryptanthus

, Guzmania

, Hohenbergia

, Neoregelia

, Till andsia , and Vriesea as permit cargo (bare root plants) from Belgium (BE)

, and Netherlands (NL)

, 1985

- 2008 (PestID, 2008)

. a

Host Origin Pest Year Part Proximity b As For c Intercep

tions (no.)

Aechmea NL Bradybaena sp. (Bradybaenidae) 1987 Leaf On Plant P 1

NL Microsphaeropsis sp.

(Coelomycetes) 1993

- On Leaf P 1

Guzmania BE Phoma sp. (Coelomycetes) 1996 Leaf On Plant P 1

BE Pyrenochaeta sp. (Coelomycetes) 1998 Leaf On Plant P 1

BE Sminthuridae 2000

- With Plant P 2

BE Sminthuridae 2001

- With Plant C 1

NL Bryocorinae (Miridae) 2000

- On Plant P 1

NL Insecta 1998

- On Cut

Flower C 1

NL Noctuidae 1994

- On Plant P 1

NL Orchidophilus aterrimus 2005

- With Plant P 1Pest Risk Assessment for European Bromeliads

Rev. 00 4 July 6, 2009 5

(Waterhouse) (Curculionidae)

NL Sminthuridae 1997 Leaf With Cutting P 1

NL Sminthuridae 2000

- With Plant P 4

NL Sminthuridae 2001

- With Plant P 1

NL Tortricidae 2001

- With Plant P 1

Tillandsia NL Arion sp. (Arionidae) 2007 Leaf On Leaf C 1

NL Cecidomyiidae 2007 Leaf On Leaf C 1

NL Haplothrips aculeatus (F.)

(Phla eothripidae) 2007 Leaf On Leaf C 1

NL Microsphaeropsis sp.

(Coelomycetes) 1996 Leaf On Plant P 1

Vriesea BE Microsphaeropsis sp.

(Coelomycetes) 1994

- On Plant P 1

BE Sminthuridae 2002

- With Cutting P 1

NL Pseudococcidae 1990 Leaf On Plant P 1

NL Agriotes lineatus (L.) (Elateridae) 1994

- With Plant P 1

NL Pyrenochaeta sp. (Coelomycetes) 1994

- On Leaf P 1

Total 27

a N o pests were intercepted on Cryptanth us , Hohenbergia , or Neoregelia , or on any plants from

Denmark

. b ―On‖ means that t he pest was intercepted on the plants; ―With‖ means that the pest was intercepted as a hitchhiker associated with the crates, cartons or boxes containing the bromeliads, not on the plants.

c C = Consumption, P = Propagation

Table 3

. Pests Associated With Aechmea

, Cryptanthus

, Guzmania

, Hohenbergia

, Neoregelia

, Tillandsia

, and Vriesea f

rom Belgium, Denmark

, and Netherlands.

Pest Quaran

tine Pest Reference

INSECTA
Coleoptera : Curculionidae
Orchidophilus aterrimus (Waterhouse) Yes PestID, 2008

Coleoptera : Elateridae
Agriotes lineatus (L.) Yes PestID, 2008

Collembola : Sminthuridae
Sminthuridae sp. Yes PestID, 2008
Hemiptera : Aclerdidae

Aclerda tillandsiae Howell No Ben

- Dov et al., 2006
Hemiptera : Coccidae
Coccus hesperidum L. No CIE, 1972; Ben

- Dov e t al., 2006

Parasaissetia nigra (Nietner) No Ben

- Dov et al., 2006Pest Risk Assessment for European Bromeliads

Rev. 00 4 July 6, 2009 6 Pest Quaran

tine Pest Reference

Hemiptera : Diaspididae
Chrysomphalus aonidum (L.) No CIE, 1988; Dekle, 1965; Nakahara, 1982
Diaspis boisduvalii Signoret No Ben

- Dov et al., 2006
Diaspis bromeliae (Kerner) No Ben

- Dov e t al., 2006
Gymnaspis aechmeae Newstead No Ben

- Dov et al., 2006
Mycetaspis personata (Comstock) No Ben

- Dov et al., 2006
Parlatoria pergandii Comstock No Ben

- Dov et al., 2006
Pinnaspis buxi (Bouché) No Ben

- Dov et al., 2006
Hemiptera : M iridae
Bryocorin ae sp. Yes PestID, 2008
Hemiptera : Pseudococcidae
Nipaecoccus nipae (Maskell) No Ben

- Dov et al., 2006
Pseudococcidae sp. Yes PestID, 2008

Pseudoccocus viburni (Signoret) No Ben

- Dov et al., 2006

Rhizoecus cacticans (Hambleton) No Ben

- Dov, et al., 2006 ; Williams and Granara de Willink, 1992
Lepidoptera : Noctuidae
Noctuidae sp. Yes PestID, 2008
Lepidoptera : Tortricidae
Tortricidae sp. Yes PestID, 2008

MOLLUSCA
Bradybaenidae
Bradybaena sp. Yes PestID, 2008

FUNGI
Ascomycetes

Cochliobolus sativus ( Ito & Kuribayashi) Drechs. ex Dastur [Loculoascomycetes: Dothideales] No Crepel et al ., 2006

Fungi Imperfecti: Coelomycetes
Microsphaeropsis sp. Yes PestID, 2008
Pyrenochaeta sp. Yes PestID, 2008
Fungi Imperfecti: Hyphomycetes
Fusarium moniliforme J. Sheldon No Farr et al ., (n.d.); Rattink, 1973
Fusarium oxysporum Schlectend.:

Fr. No Farr et al ., (n.d.); Rattink, 1973

Fusarium oxysporum Schlechtend.:Fr. f. sp. aechmeae (Saut. & Gerl.) Gordon Yes Gordon, 1965; Rattink, 1973; Samyn and Wojdyla, 1994Pest Risk Assessment for European Bromeliads

Rev. 00 4 July 6, 2009 7 Pest Quaran

tine Pest Reference

Phoma sp. Yes PestID, 2008

Table 4

. Quarantine Pests Associated With Aechmea

, Cryptanthus

, Guzmania

, Hohenbergia

, Neoregelia

, Tillandsia

, and Vriesea f rom Belgium, Denmark

, and Netherlands.

Pest Geographic

Distribution Host Genera Plant Parts

Affecte d Follow

Pathway References

ARTHROPODS
Coleoptera : Curculionidae
Orchidophilus aterrimus (Waterhouse) Netherlands Guzmania Leaf Yes PestID, 2008

Coleoptera : Elateridae
Agriotes lineatus (L.) Netherlands Vriesea Leaf Yes PestID, 2008

Collembola : Smint huridae
Sminthuridae sp. Belgium, Netherlands Guzmania

, Vriesea Leaf Yes PestID, 2008
Hemiptera: M iridae
Bryocorinae sp. Netherlands Guzmania Leaf Yes PestID, 2008
Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae
Pseudococcidae sp. Netherlands Tillandsia Leaf, Stem Yes Pest ID, 2008
Lepidoptera : Noctuidae
Noctuidae sp. Netherlands Guzmania Leaf Yes PestID, 2008
Lepidoptera : Tortricidae
Tortricidae sp. Netherlands Guzmania Leaf Yes PestID, 2008

MOLLUSCA
Bradybaenidae
Bradybaena sp. Netherlands Aechmea Leaf Yes Pest ID, 2008

FUNGI
Fungi Imperfecti: Coelomycetes
Microsphaeropsis sp. Belgium, Netherlands Aechmea

, Tillandsia

, Vriesea Leaf Yes PestID, 2008

Pyrenochaeta sp. Netherlands Vriesea Leaf Yes PestID, 2008
Fungi Imperfecti: Hyphomycetes
Fusarium oxysporum

Sc hlechtend.:Fr. f. sp.

aechmea e (Saut. & Gerl.)

Gordon Belgium Aechmea Leaf, root Yes Gordon, 1965; Rattink, 1973; Samyn and Wojdyla, 1994

Phoma sp. Belgium Guzmania Leaf Yes PestID, 2008

Although the taxa in Table 4 are listed as quarantine pests, we did not analyze all of them

. This isPest Risk Assessment for European Bromeliads

Rev. 00 4 July 6, 2009 8 based on a number of factors: First, incomplete identifications, which may be due to the state of the taxonomy or the condition or the stage of the specimen submitted for identification . Second,

these organisms are not associated, in the scientific literature, with Aechmea

, Cryptanthus

, Guzmania

, Hohenbergia

, Neoregelia

, Tillandsia , and Vriesea

, and were intercepted, as biological contaminants during port

- of

- entry inspections

, and would not be expected to be found with every shipment (this contamination may occur sometime during the loading procedures).

Additionally, Aechmea spp

. and other Bromeliaceae are relatively disease

- resistant taxa, e.g
., there are no species of Microsphaeropsis

, Pyrenochaeta , or Phoma recorded as pathogens from Aechmea, Tillandsia or any other Bromeliaceae in the scientific literature (Chase, 1987). Although several plant pathogenic species exist within the genera Microsphaeropsis

, Pyrenochaeta , and Phoma , many are opportunistic or saprophytic fungi (Stevens, 1974)

, and we cannot assume that the fungi intercepted on the plants were pathogenic

.

The only q uarantine p est that i s scientifically a ssociated w ith these bromeliads, is Fusarium

oxysporum f. sp. aechmeae (see above) ; this species is spe cific and exclusive only to Aechmea

. Therefore

, this is the only organism t hat w ill be a nalyzed

.

2.5

. Analysis of Quarantine Pests

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

assessed within this section. For each quarantine pest, the Pest Risk Potential is calculated by summing the values for the Consequences of Introduction and the Likelihood of Introduction.

The major sources of uncertainty present in this risk assessment are similar to those in other risk

assessments. They include : the approach used to combine risk elements (Bier, 1999; Morgan and Henrion, 1990) ; the evaluation of risk by comparisons to lists of factors within the guidelines (Kaplan, 1992) ; the quality of the available biological informati on (Gallegos and Bonano, 1993) ; and the inherent, natural biological variation within a population of organisms (Morgan and Henrion, 1990). To address these uncertaint ies , the lists of factors were interpreted as illustrative

and not exhaustive. This impli es that additional biological information, even if not explicitly part of the criteria, can be used when it informs a rating. For each Risk Element, pests are assigned a rating of Low (1 point), Medium (2 points), or High (3 points). We summ ed the values f or Consequences of Introduction and Likelihood of Introduction to estimate Pest Risk Potential (Table 7 ). This estimate s the risks associated with this commodity.

2.6

. Consequences of Introduction

In t his portion of the analysis , we consider negative out comes that may occur when the quarantine pest identified associated with Aechmea

, Cryptanthus

, Guzmania

, Hohenbergia

, Neoregelia

, Tillandsia , and Vriesea , in growing media follow s the importation pathway into the

United States.

We evaluated t he potential consequences of introduction using five Risk Elements: Climate

- Host Interaction, Host Range, Dispersal Potential, Economic Impact, and Environmental Impact.Pest Risk Assessment for European Bromeliads

Rev. 00 4 July 6, 2009 9 These reflect the biology, host range and climatic and geographic distribution of each pest, and

a re supported by biological information on the analyzed pest

. We summed the values for each element to find the overall rating for the Consequences of Introduction (Table 5).

Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. aechmeae

2.6. 1

. Climate/Host Interaction Fusarium oxys

porum f. sp. aechmeae has only been reported in greenhouses in Belgium (Gordon 1965; Rattink, 1973; Samyn and Wojdyla, 1994) and Germany (Farr et al

. , 2008; O'Donnell et

al

. , 1998). Aechmea are native to Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands , these areas corr espond only

to U. S. Plant Hardiness Zone 11 (Fig. 1) (PERAL, 2008) . Therefore, we gave a risk rating of

Low

.

Fig. 1 . Plant Hardiness Zones potentially suitable for establishment by Fusarium oxysporum f.

sp. aechmeae

2.6. 2

. Host Range Fusarium oxysp orum f. sp. aechmeae is pathogenic only on Aechmea (Farr et al

. , 2008 ; Gordon,

1965 ). For example, Gordon (1965) stated that A. fasciata (Lindl.) Bak., A. bromeliifolia (Rudge) Bak., A. coerulescens (Reg.) Bak., A. pineliana (Brongn.) Bak., and A. tinctori a (Mart.) Mez. were hosts. However Samyn and Thomas (1997) stated that only A. fasciata was a host of thisPest Risk Assessment for European Bromeliads

Rev. 00 4 July 6, 2009 10 pathogen and that other species of Aechmea were resistant or non

- hosts. This very narrow host

range warrants a Low rating for Host Range

.

2.6. 3

. Dis persal Potential Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. aechmeae, is a hyphomycetous fungus that produces mycelia and phialides from single to complex conidiophores or aggregated into mycelia, sporodochia. The phialides exude infectious asexual spores, conidia, which a re aggregated into slimy masses. Conidia are dispersed for short distances by water splash onto infected plants; the distance and direction being relative to the volume, direction and intensity of the water. For that reason, dispersal, inside or outside th e greenhouse, is likely to be more limited than for fungi which can continuously and directly release aerial spores (Agrios, 1997 ). For these reasons, we rated the Dispersal Potential for this fungus Low

.

2.6. 4

. Economic Impact

Presence of leaf spots, lea f death, crown rot, and ―fusariose‖ are noticeable disease symptoms
which reduce the foliage quality , and therefore the value of the potted plants. The disease is unlikely to affect yield or have market impacts. Therefore

, we rated Economic I mpact as Low

.

2.6. 5

. Environmental Impact

N o species of Aechmea

, Cryptanthus

, Guzmania

, Hohenbergia

, Neoregelia

, Tillandsia , and

Vriesea are Federally Listed as ―Threatened and Endangered‖ (USFWS, 2008) . Because F.

oxysporum f. sp. aechmeae is only pathogenic to Aechme a spp., its presence is unlikely to stimulate the need for additional chemical or biological control programs because current production systems already control Fusarium diseases (Agrios, 1997; Pirone, 1978). Therefore,

we gave a risk rating of Low

.

Tabl e 5 . Risk Ratings for the Consequences of Introduction

Pest Climate/

Host Host

Range Dispersal

Potential Economic

Impact Environ

.

Impact C umulative

risk rating a

F usarium oxysporum f.

sp. aechmeae Low (1) Low (1) Low (1) Low (1) Low (1) Low (5)

a Low is 6

- 9 points; Medium is 10

- 14 points and High is 15

- 18 points.

2.7

. Likelihood of Introduction

We rated t he Likelihood of Introduction for a pest based on six biological factors for the pest ‘ s interaction with the commodity. These areas represent a series of independent events that must all take place before a pest outbreak occurs , as follows : the quantity of the material imported; surviving post

- harvest treatments; surviv ing normal shipping procedures; the likelihood of the
pest not be ing detected at a por t; the likelihood that the pest will be imported or moved into a suitable environment; and the likelihood that the pest will contact suitable hosts. The overall rating value for Likelihood of Introduction was the sum of these subelements (Table 6).Pest Risk Assessment for European Bromeliads

Rev. 00 4 July 6, 2009 11 Fusari um oxysporum f. sp. aechmeae

2.7. 1

. Quantity Imported Annually The quantity of Aechmea spp. in growing media to be shipped from Belgium, Denmark, and

Netherlands is unknown

. However, in fiscal year 2007, 406,622 bare

- root plant units and 71,220

flasks of Aechmea were imported from Belgium and the Netherlands (APHIS, 2008b)

. I t is

assumed that overall less than 10 containers/ year will enter the U.S. For this reason, we rated this

e lement Low

.

2.7. 2

. Survive Postharvest Treatment Producers of plants in Bel gium, Denmark, and Netherlands, cull infected plants and adjacent plants during production. After plants are selected, postharvest treatments may incl ude the application of fungicidal drenches of the growing medium or foliar sprays of plants

. These are eff ective controls of plant diseases caused by Fusarium spp. (Chase, 1987 ; Vanluchene, 1974). Therefore, our risk rating is Low

.

2.7. 3

. Survive Shipment Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. aechmeae has never been intercepted on bare root Aechmea from Europe (PestID, 2008)

. Shipments of Aechmea spp. are li kely to spend only a few hours or days

in air or maritime transit to the U. S. (Cargo Systems, 2001; A PHIS , 200 8a ). Direct air shipments are expected to be the fastest mode of transport. Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. aech meae, is highly likely to survive shipment because the host tissue provides a food source and protected site for growth (Agrios, 1997). Therefore, we rated this e lement High

.

2.7. 4

. Not Detected at Port of Entry Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. aechmeae may esc ape detection at low population levels. C areful inspection can generally detect infected plants , however, because symptoms (above) are readily

visible (Rattink, 1973; Samyn and Wojdyla, 1994)

. Because this pathogen can be eliminated based on symptoms we ra ted this as Low

.

2.7. 5

. Imported or Moved To An Area Suitable for Survival

Aechmea spp. will not grow well outdoors except in tropical or subtropical areas. T hus, t he pathogen likely can only become established in greenhouses or in regions with tropical c limates (Hawaii, Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands). Plants for planting that arrive in the U nited S tates are distributed according to market demand

. Therefore, we rat ed this subelement Low

.

2.7. 6

. Contact with Host Material

Lack of suitable hosts restric ts the opportunities for this pest to establish populations (in natural or greenhouse environments)

. Even though passive factors such as wind, water, or animals may aid in the dispersal of stages of pathogens, the key element is the availability of suitabl e hosts to sustain a pest population. Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. aechmeae, produces mycelia and phialides from single to complex conidiophores or aggregated into mycelia, sporodochia. The phialides exude infectious asexual spores, conidia, which are aggrega ted into slimy masses. Conidia are dispersed for short distances by water splash onto infected plants ; th e distance and direction being relat ive to the volume, direction and intensity of the water. For that reason, dispersal isPest Risk Assessment for European Bromeliads

Rev. 00 4 July 6, 2009 12 likely to be more limited th an for fungi which can continuously and directly release aerial spores (Agrios, 1997 ). We rated t h e pest Low for this subelement because (1) Aechmea spp. will be grown either in interiorscapes or outside only in t ropical or subtropical regions, and (2) the pathogen has relative ly l imited dispersal capabilities

.

2.8. Conclusion: Pest Risk Potential

For the single pest analyzed, Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. aechmeae, the overall Pest Risk

Potential was Low (Table 7).

Table 6

. Risk Ratings for the Likelihood of Introduction

. Pest Quantity

imported Survive

postharvest

treatment Survive

ship

ment Not detected

at port

- of

entry Moved to

suitable

habitat Contact

host

material Cumulative

risk rating a

Fusarium

oxysporum f. sp.

aechmeae Low (1) Low (1) High ( 3 ) Low ( 1) Low (1) Low (1) Low ( 8 )

a Low, 6

- 9 points; Medium, 10

- 14 points and High, 15

- 18 points.

Table 7

. Pest Risk Potential

Pest Consequences

of Introduction Likelihood of

Introduction Pest Risk Potential a

Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. aechmeae Low (5) Low ( 8 ) Low (1 3 )

a Low is 11

- 18 points; Medium is 19

- 26 points; and High is 27

- 33 points



### 3. Risk Mitigation Options

There are special concerns associated with non

- destructive inspections of propagative material established in growing media. For example, the p resence of biological contaminants may not be

d iscernable by visual inspection ; and the efficacy of treatment(s) of the growing media may not

be discernable

. The se risks of importing propagative materials in growing media have been addressed by the USDA an d mitigated in regulations outlined in 7 CFR § 319.37

- 8 (2008)

.

3.1. Approved Growing Media

Growing media approved by APHIS in 7 CFR § 319.37

- 8 (2008) are baked expanded clay pellets, coal cinder, coir, cork, glass wool, organic and inorganic fibers, pea t, perlite, phenol formaldehyde, plastic particles, polyethylene, polymer stabilized starch , polystyrene, polyurethane, rock wool, sphagnum moss, ureaformaldehyde, stockosorb superabsorbent polymer, vermiculite, volcanic rock, or zeolite, or any combinati on of these media. Growing media must not have been previously used.Pest Risk Assessment for European Bromeliads

Rev. 00 4 July 6, 2009 13 The proposed importation of Aechmea, Cryptanthus, Guzmania, Hohenbergia, Neoregelia,

Tillandsia

, and Vriesea plants in APHIS

- approved growing media and under greenhouse growing

condition s, if approved, will be managed by existing regulations ( 7 CFR § 319.37

- 8 , 2008 )

. The mitigation measures described comprise a ―Systems Approach‖ designed to establish and maintain a pest

- free production environment. The Plant Protection Act of 2000 ( 7 U.S .C. § 7701

- 7786, 2000 ) defines a ―Systems Approach‖ as ―...a defined set of phytosanitary procedures, at least two of which have an independent effect in mitigating pest risk associated with the
movement of commodities.‖ The IPPC defin es a Systems Approach a s ―The integration of different risk management measures, at least two of which act independently, and which cumulatively achieve the appropriate level of protection against regulated pests ‖ (IPPC, 2008 : ISPM #5 ). Pest risk management is one of th re e compo nents (analysis, management, and communication) of the decision

- making process of reducing the risk of introduction of quarantine pest s (IPPC, 2008 : ISPM #11 ). These mitigations effectively remove the pests from the pathway prior to importation into the Un ited States.

3.2. Systems Approaches

Systems Approaches are established by an importing country as an alternative to the use of single quarantine measures when a single phytosanitary measure is nonexistent, not feasible or

undesirable. The combinations o f specific mitigation measures that provide overlapping or sequential safeguards are distinctly different from single mitigation methodologies such as fumigation or inspection (Jang and Moffitt, 1994). Systems Approaches vary in complexity and

are often ta ilored to specific commodity

- pest

- origin combinations (IPPC, 2008 : ISPM #5 ). Options for specific measures may be selected from a range of pre

- harvest and post

- harvest

measures, e

. g ., surveys, inspections, sanitation, chemical treatments, etc ; and include mitigation measures to compensate for uncertainty. PPQ uses systems approaches for the importation of many commodities (e.g., tomatoes from Spain, France, Morocco, and Western Sahara ; 7 CFR §

319.56

- 2 8 , 2008 ). These programs have performed successfully for many years as evidenced by the very low numbers of interceptions over the years the programs have been active.

The three main categories of mitigation measures specifically required by 7 CFR § 319.37

- 8 (e) (2008) for propagative materials are: use of pes t

- free propagative material, pest

- exclusionary greenhouses and inspection. Ensuring pest

- free propagative material requires monitoring and testing o f mother stock and descendant plants (Agrios, 1997; Jarvis, 1992; Kahn, 197 7) and the use of pest

- free mothe r stock plants.

The use of clean mother stock is an essential component of ornamental plant production (Agrios, 1997; Bodman et al ., 1996; Jarvis, 1992; Jones and Benson, 2001; Metcalf and Metcalf, 1993; Mizell and Short, 1999). This practice excludes pe sts from being introduced into the plant production environment ( Jones and Benson, 2001; Kahn and Mathur, 1999; Metcalf and Metcalf,

1993 ).

Pest

- exclusionary greenhouses employ treatments, good sanitation, e.g
., surface disinfection of tools and plant mat erials, (Agrios, 1997; Barry, 1996; Bessin, 2001; Jarvis, 1992; Jones and Benson, 2001; Kahn and Mathur, 1999) ; clean water sources (Bodman et al ., 1996; Jarvis, 1992;Pest Risk Assessment for European Bromeliads

Rev. 00 4 July 6, 2009 14 Kahn and Mathur, 1999; Pirone, 1978; van der Plank, 1963) ; a nd use of approved growing

m edia. Sanitation is the general cleanliness and pathogen

- free condition of the nursery operation, aimed at reducing the overall inoculum level in the nursery (Jones and Benson, 2001). Surface disinfection may be achieved with isopropyl alcohol, denatured e thyl alcohol, sodium hypochlorite, and calcium hypochlorite. Surface disinfection of bare roots is achieved by dipping

in a solution of n

- alkyl ammonium chloride prior to propagation. These solutions are most effective if used within 30 minutes of preparat ion (Jones and Benson, 2001). Studies on APHIS

approved growing media found that pathogens are not present (Santacroce, 1991). Approved growing media is defined in 7 CFR 319.37

- 8(e)(1) and 319.37

- 8(f)(3)(iv) (2008)

. Improper nursery practices (the primary means by which pathogens are introduced and spread in the nursery according to Jones and Benson, 2001) are avoided by oversight and quality assurance required by USDA APHIS and ca ptured in a bilateral workplan.

Pest management of ornamentals often include s chemical pest control (Osborne, et. al ., 2001). Chemical controls are supplemental and used in combination with other mitigation measures, such as pest exclusionary greenhouses (Ghidiu and Roberts, 2003 ; Reinert, 1981 ). Physical pest

control measures are effective mitigations in greenhouses. Such measures include washing with a hose and water and spraying inert soap sprays for aphids; spraying with horticultural oils for mealybugs, scale insects, and whiteflies; and physical removal and destruction for le afminers.

Well

- water is the preferred source for irrigation, since well water is generally pathogen

- free, while pond water is a major source of water mold pathogens. If water must be re

- circulated, a bromine treatment will eradicate plant

- pathogenic bact eria (Jones and Benson, 2001).

The United States import restrictions barring soil carried with propagative horticultural plants effectively prevent the introduction of many mollusks (Robinson, 2002). Screens and doors exclude the entry of flying or crawli ng pests that cannot fit through screens (Bessin, 2001; Metcalf and Metcalf, 1993). The greenhouse enclosure provides a physical barrier to plants‘ exposure to fungal spores that are rain splashed or windborne (Agrios, 1997; Barry, 1996 ; Pirone,

1978 ).

T he mitigations detailed above emphasize the use of pest free sources of growing media and pest free commodity proper. There are then several mitigations aimed at ensuring that the pest free status is maintained throughout the production process and along t he transportation pathway. A series of inspections are also incorporated to assure quality control and phytosanitary rigor.

While not specifically required under 7 CFR § 319.37

- 8(e) (2008) , standard industry practices help to further ensure that the pests of concern do not follow the pathway. These include sanitation and chemical treatments designed to reduce or eliminate insects (Bessin, 2001; Mizell and Short, 1998) and fungi (Jones and Benson, 2001), and in vitro or aseptic vegetative propagation (Hartm an et al

. , 2002). Other cultural practices, such as proper lighting, nutrition, sanitation, temperature and watering, enhance plant vigor so that pests are less able to infest or infect mother stock (Bodman et al ., 1996; Jones and Benson, 2001; Kahn and Ma thur, 1999).

Because of potential phytosanitary concerns, mitigating factors for the importation of BromeliadsPest Risk Assessment for European Bromeliads

Rev. 00 4 July 6, 2009 15 from Belgium, Denmark, and Netherlands must include those conditions specified in 7 CFR §

319.37

- 8 (2008)

. Concomitantly, Aechmea

, Cryptanthus

, Guzmania

, Hohenbergia

, Neoregelia

, Tillandsia

, and Vriesea must be artificially propagated and cannot be collected from the wild in accordance with CITES regulations (CITES, 1998). The use of these mitigation measures is expected to substantially reduce th e Likelihood of Introduction, and as such, the overall pest risk potential would be rated low because the known pests effectively are removed from the pathway.

3.3. Management of “Fusariose” via Genetic Resistance

The incorporation of disease resistance is a major goal of plant breeders (Agrios, 1997; Briggs and Knowles, 1967; Janick, 1986; Jarvis, 1992). Bromeliad breeders have introduced several cultivars within Bromeliaceae, e.g ., Guzmania , some of which possess disease resistance. The European Union offers attractive financial incentives for members of the agricultural industry to reduce pesticide use to obtain better ecological ratings through standards and letter grades (Redlin, 2003). Research efforts in Belgium include artificial inoculation for r esistance breeding for this fungus taxon on Aechmea (Samyn and Wojdyla, 1994). Aechmea fasciata may be the most sensitive to infection by Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. achmeae

. In Belgium, breeding for resistance to ―fusariose‖ disease‖ is targeted at the path ogens F. oxysporum and F. moniliforme (Samyn and Thomas, 1997). In the Netherlands, natural genetic resistance combined with systemic fungicides is used to control diseases caused by F. oxysporum on A. fasciata (Vanluchene, 1974).



### 4

. Literature Cited

7 CFR § 319.37. 2008. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 7, Part 319.37 (7 CFR § 319.37

– Subpart

— Nursery Stock, Plants, Roots, Bulbs, Seeds, and Other Plant Products ). 7 CFR § 319.37

- 8. 2008. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 7, Part 319.37

- 8 (7 CFR §

319.37

- 8

– Growing Media). 7 CFR § 319.56

- 28 . 2008. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 7, Part 319.56

- 28 (7 CFR §

319.56

- 28

– Tomatoes from certain countries). 7 U.S.C. § 7701

- 7786. 2000. Plant Protection Act, Title 7 United States Code § 7701

- 7 786. Agrios, G. N. 1997. Plant Pathology, 4 th ed. Academic Press, New York.

APHIS. 200 8a . Agricultural Quarantine Inspection Monitoring (AQIM) Database. United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). https://mo kcs14.aphis.usda.gov/aqas/login.jsp. (Archived at PERAL) APHIS. 2008b. PPQ280 (Cargo S hipments) Database. United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). https://mokcs14.aphis.usda.gov/aqas/login.jsp. (Archived at PERAL) Bailey, L. H., and E. Z. Bailey. 1976. Hortus Third. Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., New York. Barry, D. W. (ed.). 1996. Greenhouse Pesticide Management. Section 10

– Management of

Greenhouse Diseases. http://www.ag.ndsu.nodak.edu/aginfo/pesticid/ publications/GreenH/gpm

- 1.htm. Bartoli, C.G., J. Beltrano, L.V. Fernandez, and D. O. Caldiz. 1993. Control of the epiphytic weeds

Tillandsia recurvata and Tillandsia aeranthos with different herbicides. Forest EcologyPest Risk Assessment for European Bromeliads

Rev. 00 4 July 6, 2009 16 and Management 59: 289

- 294.

Ben

- Dov, Y ., D. R. Miller, and G. A. P. Gibson. 2006. ScaleNet. http://www.sel.barc.usda.gov/scalenet/scalenet.htm. (Archived at PERAL) Bessin, R. 2001. Controls for greenhouse ornamental insect pests. Univ. Kentucky Coop erative

Extension Service. http://www.uky.edu /Agriculture/Entomology/entfacts. Bier, V. M. 1999. Challenges to the acceptance of probabilistic risk analysis. Risk Analysis 19:

703

- 710. Bodman, K.; C. Carson, L. Forsberg, N. Gough, I. Hughes, R. Parker, M. Ramsey and M.

Waterhouse. 1996. Ornamental Pl ants. Dep ar t ment of Primary Industries, Info rmation Series QI 96001, Australia. Briggs, F.N., and P. F. Knowles. 1967. Introduction to Plant Breeding. Reinhold Publishing Corporation, New York. Chase, A. R. 1987. Compendium of Ornamental Foliage Plant Diseas es. American Phytopathological Society, St. Paul. Chase, A. R. 2001. Diseases of Cacti and Succulents. Chase Research Gardens, Inc. http://www.hortworld.com/cacti.htm.

CIE. 1972. Distribution Maps of Pests. Number 92. Coccus hesperidum L. Commonwealth

Insti tute of Entomology (CIE)

CIE. 1988. Distribution Maps of Pests. Number 4. Chrysomphalus aonidum (Linnaeus). Commonwealth Institute of Entomology (CIE)

CITES. 1998. Convention on International Trade i n Endangered Species of Wild Flora and

Fauna. http://www. wcmc.org.uk/CITES/english/index.html. Claver, F. K., J.R. Alaniz, and D. O. Caldíz. 1983. Tillandsia spp. epiphytic weeds of trees and bushes. Forest Ecology and Management 6: 367

- 372. Crepel, C., S. Inghelbrecht, S. Baeyen, and M. Maes. 2006. First report o f Cochliobolus sativus

on Guzmania sp in Belgium. Plant Disease 90: 1361.

DAFF. 2009. Guide to EC Plant Passport System . Horticulture and Plant Health Division, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (DAFF). Maynooth, Co. Kildare, Ireland. http://ww w.agriculture.gov.ie/media/agricultureie/farmingsectors/planthealth/Movementp lantswithinEC(PlantPassportSystem).doc

. Dekle, G. W. 1965. Florida Armored Scale Insects. Arthropods of Florida and Neighboring Land Areas, vol. 3, Division of Plant Industry, Flor ida Department of Agriculture, Gainesville. Farr, D. F., A.Y. Rossman, M.E. Palm, and E.B. McCray. 2006. Fungal Databases. United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Systematic Mycology and Microbiology Laboratory. http://nt.ar s

- grin.gov/fungaldatabases/ . (Archived at PERAL) Gallegos, D. P. and E. J. Bonano. 1993. Consideration of uncertainty in the performance assessment of radioactive waste disposal from an international regulatory perspective. Reliability Engineering and Syst ems Safety, 42: 111

- 123. Gordon, W. L. 1965. Pathogenic strains of Fusarium oxysporum

. Can adian J ournal of Bot any 43:

1309

- 1318. Ghidiu, G. M. and W. J. Roberts. 2003. Greenhouse Screening for Insect Control, Factsheet

FS640. The State University of New Je rsey, Rutgers Cooperative Extension. www.rce.rutgers.edu/pubs/pdfs/fs640.pdf. Gunn, C. R. and C. Ritchie. 1982. Report of the Technical Committee to Evaluate Noxious Weeds; Exotic Weeds for Federal Noxious Weed Act. (unpublished).Pest Risk Assessment for European Bromeliads

Rev. 00 4 July 6, 2009 17 Hartmann, H. T., Kester, D. E., Davies, Jr., F. T, and R. L. Geneve. 2002. Hartmann and Kester's Plant Propagation Principles and Practices

, 7 th ed., Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River. Holm, L. G., Plucknett D. L., Pancho., J. V. and J. P. Herberger. 1977. The World‘s Worst

Weeds. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu. Holm, L. G., Pancho., J. V., Herberger, J. P. and D. L. Plucknett. 1979. A Geographical Atlas of

World Weeds. John Wiley and Sons, New York. Holm, L., Doll, J., Holm, E., Pancho, J. and J. Herberger. 1997. World Weeds : Natural Histories

and Distribution. John Wiley and Sons, New York.

IPPC. 2001. International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures. Pest Risk Analysis for Quarantine Pests, Publication. No. 11. FAO, Rome.

IPPC. 2004. Pest Risk Analysis for Regulated Non

- Q uarantine Pests, Publication No. 21. FAO,

Rome.

IPPC. 2005. Pest Risk Analysis For Quarantine Pests, Including Analysis Of Environmental Risks And Living Modified Organisms, Publication No. 11. FAO, Rome. IPPC. 2008. International Standards for Phytosanita ry Measures. Glossary of Phytosanitary Terms, Publication No. 5. Rome, Italy. Jang, E. B. and H. R. Moffitt. 1994. Systems approaches to achieving quarantine security, in Sharp, J. L. and G. J. Hallman (eds.). 1994. Quarantine T reatments F or P ests of F ood

P a nts. Westview Press, Boulder. Janick, J. 1986. Horticultural Science, 4 th ed. W. H. Freeman and Company, New York.

Jarv is, W. R. 1992. Managing Diseases in Greenhouse Crops. American Phytopathology Society,

St. Paul. Jones, R.K. and D. M. Benson. 2001. Dis eases of Woody Ornamentals and Trees in Nurseries. APS Press, St. Paul. Kahn, R. P. 1977. Plant quarantine: Principles, methodology, and suggested approaches, in : Hewitt, W. B. and L. Chiarappa (eds

. ). Plant Health and Quarantine in International

Transfer o f Genetic Resources. CRC Press, Boca Raton. Kahn, R.P. and S. B. Mathur. 1999. Containment Facilities and Safeguards. APS Press, St. Paul. Kaplan, J. 1999. Herbicidal composition for the control of epiphytic weeds

. United States Patent

5981434

. Kaplan, S. 1 992. 'Expert information ' versus 'expert opinions.' Another approach to the problem

of elic i ting/combining/using expert knowledge in PRA. Reliability and Engineering System Safety 35: 61

- 72. Metcalf, R.L. and R. A. Metcalf. 1993. Destructive and Useful Inse cts, Their Habits and Control,

5 th ed. McGraw

- Hill, Inc., New York. Mizell, R.F. and D. E. Short. 1999. Integrated pest management in the commercial ornamental nursery, 1999 Insect Management Guide. Univ ersity of Florida, F lorida Cooperative

Extension Servi ce. http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu. Morgan, M. G., and M. Henrion. 1990. Uncertainty: A Guide to Dealing with Uncertainty in Quantitative Risk and Policy Analysis. Cambridge University Press, New York

. MRAE. 2003. Guide To Marketing Requirements And Plant Passpor ts

. Plant Health Department Surveillance And Inspectorate Unit

, Ministry For Rural Affairs And The Environment (MRAE), Plant Biotechnology Centre

. Lija , Malta Nakahara, S. 1982. Checklist of the Armored Scale (Homoptera: Diaspididae) of the

Conterminous Un ited States.Pest Risk Assessment for European Bromeliads

Rev. 00 4 July 6, 2009 18 NRCS. 2009. The PLANTS Database. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), The National Plant Data Center. http://plants.usda.gov . (Archived at PERAL) O'Donnell, K., E. Cigelnik, and H.I. Nirenberg

. 1998. Molecular systematics and phylogeography

of the Gibberella fujikuroi species complex. Mycologia 90: 465

- 493.

Osbor ne, L. S., E.A. Buss, C.M. Mannion, and J. F. Price. 2001. Commercial Foliage and Woody Ornamental Arthropod Pest Management. Universit y of Florida Cooperative Extension Service, document ENY

- 311. http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu.

Pemberton

, R ., and H. Liu. 2007. Rare Naturalization of an Ornamental Tillandsia

, Tillandsia

ionantha

, in Southern Florida

. Selbyana, The Journal of the Marie Selby Bo tanical

Gardens , 28( 2 ):150

- 153 PERAL. 2008. Plant Hardiness Zones of the United States: Area and Population Analysis. United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine, Center for Plant Hea lth Science and Technology, Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory (PERAL), Raleigh, NC. 6 pp.

PestID. 200 8 . Pest Identification Database (PestID). United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protecti on and Quarantine. https://mokcs14.aphis.usda.gov/aqas/login.jsp. (Archived at PERAL) Pirone, P. P. 1978. Diseases and Pests of Ornamental Plants, 5th ed. John Wiley and Sons, New

York. PPQ. 2000. Guidelines for pathway

- initiated pest risk assessments (Vers ion 5.02). United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ), Riverdale, MD. 30 pp. Randall, R. P. 2002. A Global Compendium of Weeds. R. G. and F. J. Richardson, Meredith

. Rattink, H. 1973. Fusarium infections in Aechmea fasciata

. Mededelingen van de Faculteit Landbouwwetenschappen, Rijksuniversiteit Gent. 38: 1417

- 1425 Redlin, S. C. 2003. PPQ Trip Report for Travel related to Greenhouse Plants ( Schlumbergera and Bromeliads) in Approved Growing Media (Netherlands and Denmark). Reed, C. F. 1977. Economically important foreign weeds: Potential Problems in the United

States. USDA Agric ultural Handbook 498, Washington, DC. Reinert, J. A. 1981. Evaluation of Miticides for Control of Paracalacar us podocarpi on Podocarpus

. J ournal of Economic Entomol ogy 74: 85

- 87. Robinson, D. 2002. USDA, APHIS, National Malacology Specialist. 2002. E

- mail communication with M. Hennessey, April 2, 2002. Samyn, G.

, and F. Thomas. 1997. Thirty years of bromeliad b reeding at the Research Station of Ornamental Plant Growing (Melle, Belgium). J ournal of the Bromeliad Soc iety 47 : 120

- 124. Samyn, G. and A. T. Wojdyla. 1994. Different methods for artificial in vivo inoculation of young bromeliads with Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. aechmea in function of resistance breeding. Mededelingen van de Faculteit Landbouwkundge en Toegepaste Biologis che Wetenschappen (Belgium) 59 : 1047

- 1057. Santacroce, N. G. 1991. An Evaluation of Pests Associated With Packaged Peat, Rockwool and Expan ded Clay and Their Association With Media in Greenhouse Production. USDA, APHIS, PPQ, Riverdale MD. Schubert, T. S. 1990. Epiphytic bromeliads on Florida trees. Plant Pathology Circular No.Pest Risk Assessment for European Bromeliads

Rev. 00 4 July 6, 2009 19 333,Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Divis ion of Plant Industry. Stevens, R. B. (ed.). 1974. Mycology Guidebook. University of Washington Press, Seattle. USFWS. 2008. Threatened and endangered species system (TESS). United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/TE SSWebpage . (Archived at PERAL) van der Plank, J. E. 1963. Plant Diseases: Epidemics and Control. Academic Press, New York.

Va nluchene, T. F. 1974. Bestrijding van Fusarium oxysporum op Aechmea fasciata Bak. met systemische fungicide. Medel. Rijkssta. Sierpla ntenteelt 32:1

- 16 Williams, D.J. and C. M. Granara de Willink, 1992. Mealybugs of Central and South America.

CAB International. Wallingford.