Importation of Aechmea, Cryptanthus, Guzmania, Hohenbergia, 

Neoregelia, Tillandsia and Vriesea (Bromeliaceae) in Growing 

Media, into the United States from 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 Carolina
Pest Risk Assessment for European Bromeliads

Rev. 004 July 6, 2009 ii

Executive Summary

In this 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 the analytical 

methodology described in the USDA, APHIS, PPQ Guidelines, version 5.02, which describes 

how we examine pest biology in the context of the Consequences of Introduction and Likelihood 

of Introduction, and estimate Pest Risk Potential.

We found only one quarantine pest that can follow the pathway, Fusarium oxysporum

Schlechtend.:Fr. f. sp. aechmeae (Saut. & Gerlach) Gordon (Fungi Imperfecti: Hyphomycetes),

from Belgium. We gave this organism a Low Pest Risk Potential. All 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 these

mitigation measures to substantially reduce the likelihood 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. 004 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 Categorization .............................................................................................................. 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. Management of ―Fusariose‖ via Genetic Resistance ......................................................... 15

4. Literature Cited ...................................................................................................................... 15
Pest Risk Assessment for European Bromeliads

Rev. 004 July 6, 2009 iv

List of Tables

Table 1. Assessment of Weediness Potential of Aechmea, Cryptanthus, Guzmania, Hohenbergia,

Neoregelia, Tillandsia, and Vriesea....................................................................................3

Table 2. Quarantine Pest Interceptions on Aechmea, Cryptanthus, Guzmania, Hohenbergia, 

Neoregelia, Tillandsia, and Vriesea as permit cargo from Belgium, and the Netherlands, 

1985-2008. ..........................................................................................................................4

Table 3. Pests Associated With Aechmea, Cryptanthus, Guzmania, Hohenbergia, Neoregelia, 

Tillandsia, and Vriesea from Belgium, Denmark, and Netherlands...................................5

Table 4. Quarantine Pests Associated With Aechmea, Cryptanthus, Guzmania, Hohenbergia,

Neoregelia, Tillandsia, and Vriesea from Belgium, Denmark, and Netherlands...............7

Table 5. Risk Ratings for the Consequences of Introduction ........................................................10

Table 6. Risk Ratings for the Likelihood of Introduction .............................................................12

Table 7. Pest Risk Potential ...........................................................................................................12

List of Figures

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

Schlechtend.:Fr. f. sp. aechmeae (Saut. & Gerlach) Gordon...............................................9
Pest Risk Assessment for European Bromeliads

Rev. 004 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 associated 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 growing 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 criteria 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 Bromeliaceae 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 these 

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, 1997).

1.2.2. Bare Root Plants

For qualification to ship ornamental plants/propagative plants to the United States, 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 plants” (versus larger “finished plants” at or near the

“flowering stage” generating 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 essentially pest free plants grown in an APHIS-approved medium allows larger 
Pest Risk Assessment for European Bromeliads

Rev. 004 July 6, 2009 2

plants to be produced. The risk associated with container grown/established plants is the 

possibility that the additional or larger plant parts, including leaves or roots, might create 

additional 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 grown for a substantial 

period of time without root disturbance. European bromeliad growers are concerned that reduced 

growth of bare root plants, caused by the desiccation of root systems, lack of nutrients, damage 

caused by shaking out, or washing, extends the time required to produce “finished” or mature 

flowering plants. Consequently, such plants may exhibit stunted or poor growth, and reduced 

flowering. Shipping established plants in media minimizes or eliminates these growth reductions.

1.2.4. Movement of Plants

Because the European Union (EU) has a single market system with no border controls, 

commercial plant consignments can move from one country to another without phytosanitary 

certificates. These certificates have been replaced by the  ̳plant passport‘ (e.g., DAFF, 2009; 

MRAE, 2003), which similarly certifies that certain phytosanitary requirements have been met. 

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

In addition to plant passport requirements, plants and plant propagating material of certain genera 

which host significant (quality) pests and diseases must be accompanied by a  ̳suppliers 

document, which confirms that the material being traded is substantially free of these organisms

(e.g., DAFF, 2009; MRAE, 2003). The suppliers document will usually contain the same 

information as the plant passport. 

In addition, plant passports 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). The plant passport can also be used to certify that the A2 

pest, if subject 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 legally 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 assessment 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 (Bromeliaceae), established in seedling trays, in APHISapproved 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 as 
Pest Risk Assessment for European Bromeliads

Rev. 004 July 6, 2009 3

bare-root plants under 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 entry, 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 plants.

These 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 Weediness Potential of Aechmea, Cryptanthus, Guzmania, Hohenbergia, 

Neoregelia, 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). The 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 

likelihood 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 Aechmea, 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. Most are grown

ornamentally in the home 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 species
Pest Risk Assessment for European Bromeliads

Rev. 004 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 to 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 references indicate 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 trees 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). 

Conclusion: 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, 

Tillandsia, and Vriesea as permit cargo (bare root plants) from Belgium (BE), and Netherlands (NL), 

1985-2008 (PestID, 2008).

a

Host Origin Pest Year Part Proximityb As ForcInterceptions (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 1
Pest Risk Assessment for European Bromeliads

Rev. 004 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.) 

(Phlaeothripidae)

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 No pests were intercepted on Cryptanthus, Hohenbergia, or Neoregelia, or on any plants from 

Denmark.

b

―On‖ means that the 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 from Belgium, Denmark, and Netherlands.

Pest Quarantine PestReference

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 et al., 2006

Parasaissetia nigra (Nietner) No Ben-Dov et al., 2006
Pest Risk Assessment for European Bromeliads

Rev. 004 July 6, 2009 6

Pest Quarantine PestReference

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 et 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: Miridae

Bryocorinae 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, 1994
Pest Risk Assessment for European Bromeliads

Rev. 004 July 6, 2009 7

Pest Quarantine PestReference

Phoma sp. Yes PestID, 2008

Table 4. Quarantine Pests Associated With Aechmea, Cryptanthus, Guzmania, Hohenbergia, 

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

Pest Geographic 

Distribution

Host Genera Plant Parts 

Affected

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: Sminthuridae

Sminthuridae sp. Belgium, Netherlands Guzmania, Vriesea Leaf Yes PestID, 2008

Hemiptera: Miridae

Bryocorinae sp. Netherlands Guzmania Leaf Yes PestID, 2008

Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae

Pseudococcidae sp. Netherlands Tillandsia Leaf, Stem Yes PestID, 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 PestID, 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

Schlechtend.:Fr. f. sp. 

aechmeae (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 is 
Pest Risk Assessment for European Bromeliads

Rev. 004 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 quarantine pest that is scientifically associated with these bromeliads, is Fusarium 

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

Therefore, this is the only organism that will be analyzed.

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 information (Gallegos and Bonano, 1993); 

and the inherent, natural biological variation within a population of organisms (Morgan and 

Henrion, 1990). To address these uncertainties, the lists of factors were interpreted as illustrative 

and not exhaustive. This implies 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 summed the values for 

Consequences of Introduction and Likelihood of Introduction to estimate Pest Risk Potential 

(Table 7). This estimates the risks associated with this commodity.

2.6. Consequences of Introduction

In this portion of the analysis, we consider negative outcomes that may occur when the 

quarantine pest identified associated with Aechmea, Cryptanthus, Guzmania, Hohenbergia, 

Neoregelia, Tillandsia, and Vriesea, in growing media follows the importation pathway into the 

United States. 

We evaluated the 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. 004 July 6, 2009 9

These reflect the biology, host range and climatic and geographic distribution of each pest, and 

are 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 oxysporum 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 correspond 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 oxysporum 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. tinctoria (Mart.) Mez.

were hosts. However Samyn and Thomas (1997) stated that only A. fasciata was a host of this 
Pest Risk Assessment for European Bromeliads

Rev. 004 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. Dispersal 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 are 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 the 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, leaf 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 Impact as Low.

2.6.5. Environmental Impact

No 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 Aechmea 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.

Table 5. Risk Ratings for the Consequences of Introduction 

Pest Climate/

Host

Host 

Range

Dispersal 

Potential

Economic 

Impact

Environ.

Impact

Cumulative 

risk ratinga

Fusarium 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 the 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; surviving normal shipping procedures; the likelihood of the 

pest not being detected at a port; 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. 004 July 6, 2009 11

Fusarium 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). It is 

assumed that overall less than10 containers/ year will enter the U.S. For this reason, we rated this 

element Low.

2.7.2. Survive Postharvest Treatment

Producers of plants in Belgium, Denmark, and Netherlands, cull infected plants and adjacent 

plants during production. After plants are selected, postharvest treatments may include the 

application of fungicidal drenches of the growing medium or foliar sprays of plants. These are 

effective 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 likely to spend only a few hours or days 

in air or maritime transit to the U. S. (Cargo Systems, 2001; APHIS, 2008a). Direct air shipments 

are expected to be the fastest mode of transport. Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. aechmeae, 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 element High. 

2.7.4. Not Detected at Port of Entry

Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. aechmeae may escape detection at low population levels. Careful 

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 rated 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. Thus, the 

pathogen likely can only become established in greenhouses or in regions with tropical climates 

(Hawaii, Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands). Plants for planting that arrive in the United States

are distributed according to market demand. Therefore, we rated this subelement Low.

2.7.6. Contact with Host Material

Lack of suitable hosts restricts 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 suitable 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 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 is 
Pest Risk Assessment for European Bromeliads

Rev. 004 July 6, 2009 12

likely to be more limited than for fungi which can continuously and directly release aerial spores 

(Agrios, 1997). We rated the pest Low for this subelement because (1) Aechmea spp. will be 

grown either in interiorscapes or outside only in tropical or subtropical regions, and (2) the

pathogen has relatively limited 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 

shipment

Not detected 

at port-ofentry

Moved to 

suitable 

habitat

Contact 

host 

material

Cumulative 

risk ratinga

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 Potentiala

Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. aechmeae Low (5) Low (8) Low (13)

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 presence of biological contaminants may not be 

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

be discernable. These risks of importing propagative materials in growing media have been 

addressed by the USDA and 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, peat, 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 combination of these media. Growing 

media must not have been previously used.
Pest Risk Assessment for European Bromeliads

Rev. 004 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 

conditions, 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 defines a Systems Approach as ―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 three components (analysis, management, and 

communication) of the decision-making process of reducing the risk of introduction of 

quarantine pests (IPPC, 2008: ISPM #11). These mitigations effectively remove the pests from 

the pathway prior to importation into the United 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 of 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 tailored 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 §

319.56-28, 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 pest-free propagative material, pest-exclusionary 

greenhouses and inspection. Ensuring pest-free propagative material requires monitoring and 

testing of mother stock and descendant plants (Agrios, 1997; Jarvis, 1992; Kahn, 1977) and the 

use of pest-free mother 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 pests 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 materials, (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. 004 July 6, 2009 14

Kahn and Mathur, 1999; Pirone, 1978; van der Plank, 1963); and use of approved growing 

media. 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 ethyl 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 preparation (Jones and Benson, 2001). Studies on APHISapproved 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 captured in a bilateral workplan.

Pest management of ornamentals often includes 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 leafminers.

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 bacteria (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 crawling 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). 

The 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 the 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 (Hartman 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 Mathur, 1999).

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

Rev. 004 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 the 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 resistance 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 pathogens 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 § 7701-7786.

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

APHIS. 2008a. Agricultural Quarantine Inspection Monitoring (AQIM) Database. United States 

Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). 

https://mokcs14.aphis.usda.gov/aqas/login.jsp. (Archived at PERAL)

APHIS. 2008b. PPQ280 (Cargo Shipments) 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 Ecology 
Pest Risk Assessment for European Bromeliads

Rev. 004 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 Cooperative 

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 Plants. Department of Primary Industries, Information

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 Diseases. 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 

Institute 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 in 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 of 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://www.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, Florida 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.ars-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 Systems Safety, 42: 111-123.

Gordon, W. L. 1965. Pathogenic strains of Fusarium oxysporum. Canadian Journal of Botany 43:

1309-1318.

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

FS640. The State University of New Jersey, 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. 004 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-Quarantine 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 Phytosanitary 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 Treatments For Pests of Food 

Pants. Westview Press, Boulder. 

Janick, J. 1986. Horticultural Science, 4th ed. W. H. Freeman and Company, New York.

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

St. Paul. 

Jones, R.K. and D.M. Benson. 2001. Diseases 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 of 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. 1992. 'Expert information' versus 'expert opinions.' Another approach to the problem 

of eliciting/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 Insects, 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. University of Florida, Florida Cooperative 

Extension Service. 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 Passports. 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 United States.
Pest Risk Assessment for European Bromeliads

Rev. 004 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. 

Osborne, L.S., E.A. Buss, C.M. Mannion, and J.F. Price. 2001. Commercial Foliage and Woody 

Ornamental Arthropod Pest Management. University 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 Botanical 

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 Health Science and Technology, Plant 

Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory (PERAL), Raleigh, NC. 6 pp.

PestID. 2008. Pest Identification Database (PestID). United States Department of Agriculture, 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine. 

https://mokcs14.aphis.usda.gov/aqas/login.jsp. (Archived at PERAL)

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 (Version 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 Agricultural Handbook 498, Washington, DC.

Reinert, J.A. 1981. Evaluation of Miticides for Control of Paracalacarus podocarpi on 

Podocarpus. Journal of Economic Entomology 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 breeding at the Research Station of 

Ornamental Plant Growing (Melle, Belgium). Journal of the Bromeliad Society 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 Biologische 

Wetenschappen (Belgium) 59: 1047-1057.

Santacroce, N.G. 1991. An Evaluation of Pests Associated With Packaged Peat, Rockwool and

Expanded 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. 004 July 6, 2009 19

333,Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division 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/TESSWebpage. (Archived at 

PERAL)

van der Plank, J.E. 1963. Plant Diseases: Epidemics and Control. Academic Press, New York.

Vanluchene, T.F. 1974. Bestrijding van Fusarium oxysporum op Aechmea fasciata Bak. met 

systemische fungicide. Medel. Rijkssta. Sierplantenteelt 32:1-16 

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

CAB International. Wallingford.