United States 

Department of 

Agriculture 

Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection 

Service 

July 2011 

Version 8 

Importation of Fresh Fruit of Cape 

Gooseberry, Physalis peruviana L., with 

Husks, from Chile into the Continental 

United States 

A Qualitative, Pathway-Initiated Risk Assessment

Agency Contact: 

Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory 

Center for Plant Health Science and Technology 

United States Department of Agriculture 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 

Plant Protection and Quarantine 

Raleigh, NC
Pest risk assessment for Cape gooseberry from Chile 

Ver. 8 July 13, 2011 ii

Executive Summary 

In this assessment we examined the risks associated with the importation of fresh, field-grown 

fruit of Cape gooseberry (Physalis peruviana L.) with the husk from the Republic of Chile into 

the continental United States. Our analysis did not reveal any quarantine pests that could follow 

this pathway. 

 
Pest risk assessment for Cape gooseberry from Chile 

Ver. 8 July 13, 2011 iii

Table of Contents 

Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................... ii

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

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

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

2.2. Assessment of Weediness Potential of Cape gooseberry .............................................2

2.3. Current Status, Decision History, and Pest Interceptions .............................................3

2.4. Pest Categorization–Identification of Pests of P. peruviana from Chile ......................4

2.5. Quarantine Pests Likely to Follow the Pathway .........................................................12

2.6. Quarantine Pests Not Considered for Further Mitigation ...........................................13

3. Author, Contributors, and Reviewers ................................................................................... 14

4. Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................. 14

5. Literature Cited ...................................................................................................................... 14

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

Appendix A. Additional information about the crop, Physalis peruviana L., Cape gooseberry.

......................................................................................................................................24

Appendix B. Pest interceptions on Physalis peruviana into the United States from 1985 to 

2008..............................................................................................................................27
Pest risk assessment for Cape gooseberry from Chile 

Ver. 8 July 13, 2011 1

1. Introduction 

This pest risk assessment (PRA) was prepared by the Center for Plant Health Science and 

Technology (CPHST) in Colombia for the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), 

Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ) of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) 

to examine potential pest risks associated with the importation of fresh fruits of Cape gooseberry 

(Physalis peruviana L.) with husks (Fig. 1), from the Republic of Chile (Fig. 2) into the 

continental United States. This pest risk assessment is pathway-initiated because it is based on 

the risks that may be associated with the importation of this commodity. It is qualitative and risk 

is expressed in descriptive terms (High, Medium, and Low) rather than as probabilities or 

frequencies. The methodology and rating criteria are explained in the Guidelines for PathwayInitiated Pest Risk Assessments, Version 5.02 (PPQ, 2000). 

International plant protection organizations such as the North American Plant Protection 

Organization (NAPPO) and the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) of the United 

Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) provide guidance for conducting pest risk 

analyses. The methods used in this PRA are consistent with this guidance and are in accordance 

with the Framework for Pest Risk Analysis, Stage 2 of the International Standards for 

Phytosanitary Measures No. 2 (IPPC, 2007). Biological and phytosanitary terms used in this 

document are in accordance with those in International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures 

No. 5: Glossary of Phytosanitary Terms (IPPC, 2007). The cited guidelines describe three stages 

of pest risk analysis: Stage 1 (initiation), Stage 2 (risk assessment), and Stage 3 (risk 

management). A pest risk assessment is a component of an overall pest risk analysis; this 

document satisfies the requirements of Stages 1 and 2. 

 

Figure 1: Figure 2: 

Physalis peruviana (mature, for exportation) Physalis peruviana crop in Ecuador. 

before packing, with opened husk. Source: Parfait, 2007

Source: Parfait, 2007 
Pest risk assessment for Cape gooseberry from Chile 

Ver. 8 July 13, 2011 2

2. Risk Assessment 

2.1. Initiating Event: Proposed Action 

We developed this commodity-based pathway-initiated assessment in response to a request made 

by the Chilean Animal and Plant Health Service (SAG, Chilean NPPO) to the USDA in order to 

authorize the importation of fresh Cape gooseberry (fruits with or without husk) grown in Chile 

into the continental United States (SAG, 2005a). [See Appendix A for more information about 

the commodity and its production.] In this case, the importation is a potential pathway for the 

introduction of plant pests. APHIS-PPQ has regulatory authority for the importation of fruits and 

vegetables from foreign sources (7 CFR § 319, 2006). 

2.2. Assessment of Weediness Potential of Cape gooseberry

The results of the weediness screening for Cape gooseberry did not prompt a weed-initiated risk 

assessment (Table 1). 

Table 1. Assessment of weediness potential of Cape gooseberry.

Commodity: 

Scientific name and author: Physalis peruviana L.. 

Synonyms: Alkekengi pubescens Moench, Boberella peruviana (L.) E.H.L. Krause, 

Boberella pubescens (L.) E. H. L. Krause in Sturm, Physalis chenopodifolia Lam., Physalis 

edulis Sims, Physalis esculenta Salisb., Physalis latifolia Lam., Physalis peruviana var. 

latifolia (Lam.) Dunal, and Physalis tomentosa Medik. (Missouri Botanical Garden, 2006). 

Plant family: Solanaceae. 

Common names: Aguaymanto, Alquequenje, Amor en bolsa, Andean cherry, Bate-testa, 

Camapú, Cape cherry, Cape gooseberry, Capulí, Capulli, Cereza del Perú, Chuchuva, 

Coqueret du Pérou, Goldenberry, Gooseberry, Gooseberry-tomato, Goudbes, Erva-noiva-doperu, Groselha-do-Peru, Guchuba, Husk cherry, Husk tomato, Judaskirsche, 

Kapstachelbeere, Motojobobo embolsado, Peruvian ground-cherry, Peruvian groundcherry, 

Physalis, Poha, Stachelbeeren, Topotopo, Uchuva, and Uvilla (Ligarreto et al., 2005; MAGIICA, 2001; NGRP, 2007; PFAF, 2007; PPQ, 2006). 

Phase 1:

Cape gooseberry is reported (as introduced) in six separate states of the continental United 

States: Alabama, Arkansas, California, Kentucky, Massachusetts, and New Jersey (USDANRCS, 2007), and so is considered to be widely distributed in the continental United States. 

Phase 2: 

Is the species listed in: 

YES Geographical Atlas of World Weeds (Holm et al., 1991a), A Global Compendium of 

Weeds (Randall, 2003), Alien Plant Invaders of Natural Areas (Swearingen, 2007) 

NO World’s Worst Weeds (Holm et al., 1991b), World Weeds: Natural Histories and 

Distribution (Holm et al., 1997), Weed Science Society of America List (WSSA, 

2006), Federal Noxious Weed List (PPQ, 2006), Economically Important Foreign 

Weeds (Reed, 1977), Identification of disseminules listed in the Federal Noxious 

Weed Act (Gunn and Ritchie, 1988), Global Invasive Species Database (ISSG, 
Pest risk assessment for Cape gooseberry from Chile 

Ver. 8 July 13, 2011 3

2007), Invasive Plant Species of the World (Weber, 2003), Noxious Weeds in the 

United States and Canada (Rice, 2007), State Regulated Noxious Weeds (APHIS, 

2007) 

Other Scientific literature, Internet sources, etc.: 

NO AGRICOLA (NAL, 2006), CAB (CABI, 2006), AGRIS (Angulo, 1988 ; FAO, 

2006); Florida's Invasive Species List, Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council (FLEPPC, 

2005) 

YES Pacific Island Ecosystems at Risk (USDA-Forest Service, 2007) 

Phase 3: 

Cape gooseberry is widely prevalent in the continental United States and the answers to four 

questions above were YES. Therefore, we are providing additional comments: 

● Cape gooseberry is a common weed in Hawaii, Indonesia, Kenya, and Rhodesia, and as a 

weed of unknown importance in Australia (EPPO, 2006), Fiji, India, New Zealand, Peru, 

West Polynesia, and the United States (Holm et al., 1991a) 

● It is considered a weed in Australia, Ecuador (Galapagos islands), New Zealand, Rhodesia, 

South Africa, and Tasmania (Randall, 2003) 

● Cape gooseberry is listed as a weed in the U.S. state of Hawaii (Swearingen, 2007) 

● Cape gooseberry can invade forests and forests edges, riparian habitats, and disturbed 

sites, forming dense thickets that crowd out native vegetation (Weber, 2003) 

● Its status is (USDA-Forest Service, 2007): 

• Hawaii: ‘naturalized in disturbed sites in mesic to wet forest, diverse mesic forest, and 

subalpine woodland 

• Niue: a common weed in some plantations 

• Tonga: an occasional plantation weed 

• New Caledonia: weedy and widespread 

Conclusion: The pest risk assessment should proceed for the following reasons: 

● Cape gooseberry is listed as a world economic plant and is widely naturalized and 

cultivated (Wiersema and León, 1999) 

● It was introduced to Florida a long time ago and good crops have been obtained there 

(Morton, 1987) 

● Frost is likely to limit the distribution of this plant in the United States (Silber and Silber, 

1996)

● This plant is not under official control in the continental United States 

2.3. Current Status, Decision History, and Pest Interceptions 

2.3.1. Current Status 

Currently, Cape gooseberry is authorized to enter into the United States through all U.S. portsof-entry from Colombia, as a fruit with or without calyx and with quarantine treatments, and 

from New Zealand, without any restrictions (PPQ, 2007). 

Over the past few decades, only one PRA has been done for the importation of Cape gooseberry 

into the United States, for fruit from Colombia (PPQ, 1997). 
Pest risk assessment for Cape gooseberry from Chile 

Ver. 8 July 13, 2011 4

2.3.2. Decision History 

The decision history on proposed imports of Cape gooseberry into the United States is described 

below (Table 2). Entries without clear information (particularly the date) were not included. 

2.3.3. Pest Interceptions 

From 1985 to 2008, numerous species of pests were intercepted on Cape gooseberry entering the 

United States (PestID, 2008; Appendix B). Of these, we did not include Asteraceae species in 

Section 2.4 because it is a plant/weed that will be removed during the selection and post-harvest 

processing of Cape gooseberry. Likewise, species of Agromyzidae, Chloropidae, Chrysomelidae, 

Cicadellidae, Diptera, Gelechiidae, Geometridae, Lonchaeidae, Lygaeoidae, Noctuidae, 

Pyralidae, Tephritidae, and Thripidae have been intercepted but we did not include them in 

Section 2.4 because the genus of the intercepted organisms could not be determined. In addition, 

we did not include the following genera because the interceptions were not from Chile:

Arhopalus sp., Chaectonema sp., Gryllus sp., Lema sp., Lineodes sp., Monoxia sp., Phomopsis

sp., Rhagoletis sp., Tarsonemus sp., Trichobaris sp., and Xestocephalus sp. 

2.4. Pest Categorization–Identification of Pests of P. peruviana from Chile 

Below we present information on pests associated with Cape gooseberry that occur in Chile 

(Table 3). Data includes (1) distribution in Chile and the continental United States, (2) citations 

supporting the association of the pest with Cape gooseberry, (3) the association of the pest with 

plant parts, (4) the quarantine status of the pest in the continental United States, and (5) whether 

or not the pest is likely to follow the pathway into the United States. Pests in shaded rows were 

analyzed further. 

Table 2. Prior decisions by the United States about proposed imports of Physalis peruviana, 

Cape gooseberry, or Physalis spp., Husk/Mil tomato (CPHST, 2008). 

Year(s) Country Decision Reasons/Conditions 

P. peruviana 

1980 New Zealand Allowed Inspection and freedom from plant pests, diseases, 

leaves, and twigs. 

1988, 1996, 

and 1997 

Colombia Denied No acceptable treatment for Ceratitis capitata

1988 Ecuador Denied No acceptable treatment for C. capitata

1989 Israel Denied Mediterranean fruit fly, for which no acceptable 

treatment exists 

1995 South Africa Denied No quarantine treatment 

1997 Colombia Denied No treatment 

2003 Colombia Allowed 7 CFR § 319 (2007); For treatments, see PPQ (2008c, 

2008d) 

P. peruviana and P. angulata

1924 Mexico Allowed Mexico border only 

1935 Guatemala Allowed 
Pest risk assessment for Cape gooseberry from Chile 

Ver. 8 July 13, 2011 5

Table 3. Pests reported on Cape gooseberry and present in Chile. 

Pest Scientific Name Distribution1 Host 

association

Plant part 

association2

Quarantine pest Follow 

pathway

ARTHROPODS 

ARACHNIDA 

Acari-Eriophyidae 

Aculops lycopersici (Tryon) CL (Klein and 

Waterhouse, 2000); 

US (CABI, 2006; 

EPPO, 2006) 

CABI, 2007; 

Saenz and 

Getiva de la 

Hoz, 2003 

N/A No N/A 

Acari-Tarsonemidae 

Phytonemus pallidus (Banks) CL (Klein and 

Waterhouse, 2000); 

US (CABI, 2006) 

Saenz and 

Getiva de la 

Hoz, 2003 

N/A No N/A 

Polyphagotarsonemus latus

Banks 

CL (Larraín, 2002); 

US (CABI, 2006) 

Chia et al., 

1997 

N/A No N/A 

Acari-Tetranychidae 

Tetranychus desertorum

Banks

CL (Klein and 

Waterhouse, 2000); 

US (FL) (Bolland et 

al., 1998; Halbert, 

2001; Jeppson et al., 

1975) 

Bolland et al., 

1998 

N/A No N/A 

Tetranychus ludeni Zacher CL (Klein and 

Waterhouse, 2000); 

US (Bolland et al., 

1998; Jeppson et al., 

1975) 

Bolland et al., 

1998 

N/A No N/A 

Tetranychus urticae Koch CL (González, 1989; 

Klein and 

Waterhouse, 2000); 

US (Bolland et al., 

1998) 

Bolland et al., 

1998 

N/A No N/A 

INSECTA 

Coleoptera-Chrysomelidae 

Lema bilineata (Germar) CL (SAG, 2007a) Bado et al., 

2000; Bado et 

al., 2005; SAG, 

2007a 

L (Bado et 

al., 2005; 

SAG, 

2007a) 

Yes No

 

1 We considered only geographic distribution in the continental United States and Chile: CL = Chile, US = United States. 2

 Abbreviations used for plant parts: Fruit=F; Leaf=L; R = Roots; Seeds=Se; Shoot=Sh; Stem=S; Sp=Sepals. 
Pest risk assessment for Cape gooseberry from Chile 

Ver. 8 July 13, 2011 6

Pest Scientific Name Distribution1 Host 

association

Plant part 

association2

Quarantine pest Follow 

pathway

Coleoptera-Tenebrionidae 

Blapstinus sp. CL (González, 

1980) 

PestID, 2008 F (PestID, 

2008) 

Yes3 Yes4

Diptera-Agromyzidae 

Liriomyza huidobrensis 

(Blanchard)

CL (CABI, 2006); 

US (CA)5

 (CABI, 

2006) 

Avila and 

Forero, 1989 

N/A Yes6 N/A 

Liriomyza quadrata (Malloch) CL (Spencer, 1973) Avila and 

Forero, 1989 

N/A No N/A 

Hemiptera-Aleyrodidae 

Trialeurodes vaporariorum 

(Westwood)

CL (Klein and 

Waterhouse, 2000); 

US (FL) (CABI, 

2006) 

Cano, 1999 N/A No N/A 

Hemiptera-Aphididae 

Aphis gossypii Glover CL (Klein and 

Waterhouse, 2000); 

US (CABI, 2006) 

Angulo, 2003 N/A No N/A 

Cavariella aegopodii 

(Scopoli)

CL (Klein and 

Waterhouse, 2000); 

US (Walker, 2007) 

Brito, 2002 N/A No N/A 

Macrosiphum euphorbiae 

(Thomas) 

CL (CABI, 2006; 

SAG, 2007a); US 

(CABI, 2006) 

Angulo, 2003; 

Avila and 

Forero, 1989; 

Bado et al., 

2005; SAG, 

2007a 

N/A No N/A 

Myzus persicae (Sulzer) EC (Klein and 

Waterhouse, 2000); 

US (CABI, 2006) 

Brito, 2002 N/A No N/A 

Hemiptera-Cicadellidae 

Xerophloea viridis (Fabricius) CL (SAG, 2007a); 

US (McKamey, 

2001) 

SAG, 2007a N/A No N/A 

 

3

 Although the species was not identified, the genus is not known to exist in the United States. 4

 This species attacks fruit and is a quarantine pest, but we did not analyze it further because it was identified only to genus

(IPPC, 2007a). If this pest is intercepted and identified more completely in the future, we may reevaluate the risk. 5

 Recent genetic analyses confirmed that flies identified as L. huidobrensis and collected from California and Hawaii are 

actually a cryptic species within the L. huidobrensis complex that should be referred to as L. langei Frick (Scheffer, 2000; 

Scheffer et al., 2001; Scheffer, 2004). 6

 USDA considers this species to be actionable (PestID, 2008). 
Pest risk assessment for Cape gooseberry from Chile 

Ver. 8 July 13, 2011 7

Pest Scientific Name Distribution1 Host 

association

Plant part 

association2

Quarantine pest Follow 

pathway

Hemiptera-Diaspididae 

Aspidiotus destructor Signoret CL (Klein and 

Waterhouse, 2000); 

US (Ben-Dov et al., 

2007) 

Ben-Dov et al., 

2007 

N/A No N/A 

Hemiptera-Miridae 

Dicyphus cucurbitaceus

(Spinola) 

Syn: Tupiocoris 

cucurbitaceus (Spinola) 

CL (Carvalho and 

Afonso, 1977); US 

(Carvalho, 1958) 

Bado et al., 

2005 

N/A No N/A 

Lepidoptera-Gelechiidae 

Phthorimaea operculella 

(Zeller) 

CL (Klein and 

Waterhouse, 2000); 

US (CABI, 2006) 

Brogle, 2004; 

CABI, 2006; 

Robinson et al., 

2008 

N/A No N/A 

Tuta absoluta (Meyrick) 

Povolny 

CL (Klein and 

Waterhouse, 2000) 

Angulo, 2003 L, Sh 

(Angulo, 

2003); F 

(EPPO, 

2005) 

Yes No7

Lepidoptera-Noctuidae 

Agrotis ipsilon (Hufnagel) CL (CABI, 2006); 

US (CABI, 2006) 

Avila and 

Forero, 1989 

N/A No N/A 

Copitarsia sp. CL (SAG, 2007a) SAG, 2007a L (SAG, 

2007a) 

Yes3 No 

Heliothis virescens (Fabricius) CL (CABI, 2006); 

US (CABI, 2006) 

Figueroa, 1977 N/A No N/A 

Helicoverpa zea (Boddie) CL (CABI, 2006); 

US (CABI, 2006) 

Robinson et al., 

2008 

N/A No N/A 

Spodoptera frugiperda J.E. 

Smith 

CL (CABI, 2006); 

US (CABI, 2006) 

Angulo, 2003; 

Condoy and 

Arteaga, 2006 

N/A No N/A 

 

7 Tuta absoluta is a pest of tomato fruit (EPPO, 2005), but it only attacks the foliage and buds of Cape gooseberry (Angulo, 

2003). Furthermore, it has not been intercepted on Cape gooseberries (PestID, 2008). If we find conclusive evidence that 

T. absoluta damages husks and fruits, we may analyze it. 
Pest risk assessment for Cape gooseberry from Chile 

Ver. 8 July 13, 2011 8

Pest Scientific Name Distribution1 Host 

association

Plant part 

association2

Quarantine pest Follow 

pathway

Lepidoptera-Pyralidae 

Lineodes integra Zeller CL (Klein and 

Waterhouse, 2000); 

US (CA, FL, TX) 

(Brown and Bash, 

1997; Halbert, 1996; 

Schappert, 2007) 

Robinson et al., 

2008 

N/A No N/A 

Lepidoptera-Sphingidae 

Manduca sexta (L.) CL (Klein and 

Waterhouse, 2000); 

US (CABI, 2006) 

Bado et al., 

2005 

N/A No N/A 

Orthoptera-Acrididae 

Dichroplus maculipennis 

(Blanchard) 

CL (Angulo, 2007) Bado, 2005 L (Angulo, 

2007, Bado, 

2005) 

Yes No 

Orthoptera-Grillidae 

Gryllus assimilis Fabricius CL (Insectos.cl, 

2007); US (CABI, 

2006) 

Avila and 

Forero, 1989 

N/A No N/A 

Thysanoptera-Thripidae 

Frankliniella occidentales 

(Pergande)

CL (CABI, 2006; 

SAG, 2007a) 

SAG, 2007a N/A No N/A 

Thrips tabaci Lindeman CH (CABI, 2006; 

SAG, 2007a); US 

(CABI, 2006) 

Bado et al., 

2005; SAG, 

2007a 

N/A No N/A 

BACTERIA 8

Ralstonia solanacearum race 3 

biovar 2 (Smith) Yabuuchi 

et al.9

 

Syn.: Pseudomonas 

solanacearum (Smith) 

Smith 

(Burkholderiales: 

CL (PPQ, 2004) Angulo, 2003; 

Bradbury, 

1986; 

Gonsalves and 

Ferreira, 1994; 

Zapata et al., 

200510

R, L, S, Sp 

(Martins, et 

al. 2005), 

F11 (rare) 

(SanchezPerez et al., 

2007) 

Yes Yes12

 

8

 Bacterial classification and nomenclature are written according to CABI (2006). 9 Pseudomonas solanacearum (Smith) Smith is synonymous with Ralstonia solanacearum (Smith) Yabuuchi (Euzéby, 2009) 

and the older references will refer to the former name P. solanacearum. The names will be used interchangeably in this 

analysis. 10 These articles all report on R. solanacearum without specification of the race or biovar. 11 Sanchez-Perez et al. (2007) detected very low rates of R. solanacearum R3B2 strains on tomato fruit collected from 

confirmed infected plants of selected susceptible varieties. 12 Although Ralstonia solanacearum race 3 biovar 2 may follow the pathway, it is unlikely to become established in the 

United States via the pathway of fruits and vegetable for consumption (PERAL, 2011). See below for further details. 
Pest risk assessment for Cape gooseberry from Chile 

Ver. 8 July 13, 2011 9

Pest Scientific Name Distribution1 Host 

association

Plant part 

association2

Quarantine pest Follow 

pathway

Ralstoniaceae) 

Xanthomonas vesicatoria (ex 

Doidge) Vauterin et al. 

(Xanthomonadales: 

Xanthomonadaceae) 

Syn.: X. campestris pv. 

vesicatoria (Doidge) Dye 

CL (CABI, 2006); 

US (CABI, 2006) 

Bradbury, 1986 N/A No N/A 

FUNGI 13

Alternaria alternata (Fries: 

Fries) Keissler 

(Dothideomycetes: 

Pleosporales) 

Syn.: A. tenuis Nees 

CL (Farr et al., 

2007); US (Farr et 

al., 2007) 

MAG-IICA, 

2001; SAG, 

2007a 

N/A No N/A 

Alternaria solani Sorauer 

(Dothideomycetes: 

Pleosporales) 

CL (Farr et al., 

2007; SAG, 2007a); 

US (Farr et al., 

2007) 

Buriticá, 1999; 

Farr et al., 

2007; MAGIICA, 2001; 

SAG, 2007a 

N/A No N/A 

Athelia rolfsii (Curzi) Tu & 

Kimbrough 

(Agaricomycetes: 

Atheliales) 

Anomorph = Sclerotium 

rolfsii Sacc. 

Syn.: Corticium rolfsii Curzi 

CL (Farr et al., 

2007); US (CABI, 

2006) 

Farr et al., 2007 N/A No N/A 

Botryotinia fuckeliana (de 

Bary) Whetzel 

(Leotiomycetes: Helotiales) 

Anamorph = Botrytis 

cinerea Pers.:Fr.

CL (Farr et al., 

2007; SAG, 2007a); 

US (Farr et al., 

2007) 

Buriticá, 1999; 

MAG-IICA, 

2001; SAG, 

2007a 

N/A No N/A 

Chondrostereum purpureum 

(Pers.:Fr.) Pouzar 

(Agaricomycetes: 

Agaricales)

CL (Farr et al., 

2007); US (Farr et 

al., 2007) 

Farr et al., 2007 N/A No N/A 

Cladosporium oxysporum

Berkeley and M.A. Curtis 

(Dothideomycetes: 

Capnodiales) 

CL (Farr et al., 

2007); US (Farr et 

al., 2007) 

PPQ, 1997 N/A No N/A 

 

13 Fungal taxonomy is written according to NCBI (National Library of Medicine, 2007) and fungal nomenclature is written 

according to Farr et al. (2007).
Pest risk assessment for Cape gooseberry from Chile 

Ver. 8 July 13, 2011 10

Pest Scientific Name Distribution1 Host 

association

Plant part 

association2

Quarantine pest Follow 

pathway

Fusarium equiseti (Corda) 

Sacc. 

(Sordariomycetes: 

Hypocreales)

CL (Piontelli et al., 

2002); US (Farr et 

al., 2007) 

Rao and 

Subramoniam, 

1976 

N/A No N/A 

Fusarium oxysporum

Schlechtendahl 

(Sordariomycetes: 

Hypocreales) 

CL (Farr et al., 

2007); US (Farr et 

al., 2007) 

Angulo, 1988; 

Angulo, 2003; 

Brito, 2002; 

MAG-IICA, 

2001 

N/A No N/A 

Glomerella acutata Guerber & 

J.C. Correll 

(Sordariomycetes: 

Phyllachorales) 

Syn.: Colletotrichum 

acutatum J.H. Simmonds

CL (CABI, 2007); 

US (CABI, 2006) 

Landcare 

Research, 2007

N/A No N/A 

Golovinomyces 

cichoracearum (DC.) V.P. 

Gelyuta (Leotiomycetes: 

Erysiphales) 

Syn.: Erysiphe 

cichoracearum DC. 

CL (Farr et al., 

2007); US (Farr et 

al., 2007) 

Farr et al., 2007 N/A No N/A 

Leveillula taurica (Lév.) G. 

Arnaud (Leotiomycetes: 

Erysiphales) 

CL (Farr et al., 

2007); US (CABI, 

2006) 

CABI, 2006; 

Farr et al., 2007

N/A No N/A 

Macrophomina phaseolina 

(Tassi) Goid. (Mitosporic 

Ascomycota) 

CL (Farr et al., 

2007); US (Farr et 

al., 2007) 

Farr et al., 2007 N/A No N/A 

Penicillium digitatum 

(Pers.:Fr.) Sacc. 

(Eurotiomycetes: Eurotiales)

CL (Farr et al., 

2007); US (Farr et 

al., 2007) 

Farr et al., 2007 N/A No N/A 

Phoma exigua f. sp. exigua

Malc. & E.G. Gray 

(Mitosporic Ascomycota) 

Syn.: P. exigua Desm., P. 

exigua var. exigua Desm. 

CL (Farr et al., 

2007); US (Farr et 

al., 2007) 

Landcare 

Research, 2007

N/A No N/A 

Phytophthora infestans 

(Mont.) de Bary 

(Oomycetes: 

Peronosporales)

CL (Farr et al., 

2007); US (Farr et 

al., 2007) 

Tobón and 

Vásquez, 1998; 

Vargas et al., 

2007; Wellman, 

1977 

N/A No N/A 
Pest risk assessment for Cape gooseberry from Chile 

Ver. 8 July 13, 2011 11

Pest Scientific Name Distribution1 Host 

association

Plant part 

association2

Quarantine pest Follow 

pathway

Podosphaera pannosa 

(Wallr.:Fr.) de Bary 

Syn.: Erysiphe pannosa

(Wallr.) Schlecht./Fr. 

(Leotiomycetes: 

Erysiphales) 

CL (CABI, 2006) ; 

US (CABI, 2006) 

Brito, 2002 N/A No N/A 

Pythium intermedium de Bary 

(Oomycetes: Pythiales) 

CL (Minter and 

López, 2006); US 

(Farr et al., 2007) 

Brito, 2002 N/A No N/A 

Rhizopus stolonifer (Ehrenb.: 

Fr.) Vuill. (Zygomycetes: 

Mucorales) 

CL (Farr et al., 

2007); US (Farr et 

al., 2007) 

MAG-IICA, 

2001 

N/A No N/A 

Sclerotinia sclerotiorum (Lib.) 

de Bary (Leotiomycetes: 

Helotiales)

CL (Farr et al., 

2007); US (Farr et 

al., 2007) 

Farr et al., 2007 N/A No N/A 

Spongospora subterranea f.sp. 

subterranea J.A. Toml. 

(Plasmodiophoromycetes: 

Plasmodiophorales) 

CL (CABI, 2006); 

US (CABI, 2006) 

CABI, 2006 N/A No N/A 

Thanatephorus cucumeris 

(A.B. Frank) Donk 

(Agaricomycetes: 

Ceratobasidiales) Anamorph 

= Rhizoctonia solani J.G. 

Kühn 

CL (Farr et al., 

2007); US (Farr et 

al., 2007) 

Buriticá, 1999; 

Farr et al., 

2007; MAGIICA, 2001 

N/A No N/A 

NEMATODES14

Meloidogyne hapla Chitwood 

(Meloidogynidae)

CL (CABI, 2006; 

SAG, 2007a); US 

(CABI, 2006) 

Ferris and 

Caswell-Chen, 

2006; SAG, 

2007a 

N/A No N/A 

Meloidogyne incognita 

(Kofoid & White) Chitwood 

(Meloidogynidae) 

CL (CABI, 2006); 

US (CABI, 2006) 

Ferris and 

Caswell-Chen, 

2006; MAGIICA, 2001 

N/A No N/A 

VIRUS15

Alfalfa mosaic virus (AMV) 

(Bromoviridae: 

Alfamovirus) 

CL (CABI, 2006; 

SAG, 2007a); US 

(CABI, 2006) 

BüchenOsmond et al., 

1987; SAG, 

2007a 

N/A No N/A 

 

14 Classification and nomenclature of nematodes are written according to CABI (2006). 15 Viral nomenclature is written according to NCBI (National Library of Medicine, 2007), and viral taxonomy and acronymy 

are written according to Van Regenmortel et al. (2000). 
Pest risk assessment for Cape gooseberry from Chile 

Ver. 8 July 13, 2011 12

Pest Scientific Name Distribution1 Host 

association

Plant part 

association2

Quarantine pest Follow 

pathway

Cucumber mosaic virus

(CMV) (Bromoviridae: 

Cucumovirus) 

CL (CABI, 2006; 

SAG, 2007a); US 

(CABI, 2006) 

BüchenOsmond et al., 

1987; SAG, 

2007a; USDA, 

1970 

N/A No N/A 

Pepino mosaic virus (PepMV) 

(Flexiviridae: Potexvirus) 

CL (CABI, 2006); 

US (CABI, 2006) 

Commonwealth

of Australia, 

2003 

N/A No N/A 

Potato leafroll virus (PLRV) 

(Luteoviridae: Polerovirus) 

CL (Apablaza, 

2006); US (CABI, 

2006) 

Blanco, 2000 N/A No N/A 

Potato virus X (PVX) 

(Flexiviridae: Potexvirus)

CL (Herrera and 

Madariaga, 2001); 

US (CABI, 2006) 

Zapata et al., 

2005 

N/A No N/A 

Potato virus Y (PVY) 

(Potyviridae: Potyvirus) 

CL (Apablaza, 2006; 

SAG, 2007a); US 

(CABI, 2006) 

Blanco, 2000; 

BüchenOsmond et al., 

1987; SAG, 

2007a 

N/A No N/A 

Tobacco mosaic virus (TMV) 

(Tobamovirus) 

CL (Apablaza, 

2001); US (CABI, 

2006) 

BüchenOsmond et al., 

1987; Thomas, 

2005 

N/A No N/A 

Tomato mosaic virus (ToMV) 

(Tobamovirus) 

CL (Sepúlveda et al., 

2005); US (CABI, 

2006) 

Singh et al., 

1975 

N/A No N/A 

Tomato spotted wilt virus

(TSWV) (Bunyaviridae: 

Tospovirus) 

CL (CABI, 2006); 

US (CABI, 2006) 

Brunt et al., 

1990; Kranz et 

al., 1977 

N/A No N/A 

2.5. Quarantine Pests Likely to Follow the Pathway 

We found only one quarantine pest likely to follow the pathway on commercial shipments of 

Cape gooseberry from Chile, Ralstonia solanacearum race 3 biovar 2 (R3B2). We did not further 

analyze that pathogen, however, because a recent pest specific risk analysis concluded that R. 

solanacearum R3B2 was highly unlikely to establish in the United States via the pathway of 

fruits and vegetables for consumption (PERAL, 2011). Analysts examined potential pathways 

for establishment of R3B2 via disposal of infected produce in landfill waste, treated wastewater, 

and compost. They did not find any likely pathways for R3B2-infected commodities imported 

for consumption to transfer to the environment, mostly because of the low likelihood of several 

required intermediate steps all happening within the proper timeframe (e.g., viable bacteria 

present in run-off flowing into a stream, uptake into an irrigation system, and contact with a 
Pest risk assessment for Cape gooseberry from Chile 

Ver. 8 July 13, 2011 13

susceptible host). 

2.6. Quarantine Pests Not Considered for Further Mitigation 

Some quarantine plant pests may be detrimental to U.S. ecosystems, but were not subjected to 

further analysis for a variety of reasons. For example, they may be associated mainly with plant 

parts other than the commodity; may be associated with the commodity, but would not 

reasonably remain with the commodity during processing; or may have been intercepted as 

biological contaminants of these commodities during U.S. agricultural port-of-entry inspection, 

but would not be present in commercial shipments. 

The biological hazard of organisms identified only to the genus level was not assessed if the 

genus already occurs in the United States. This lack of biological information on any given plant 

pest should not be equated with low risk. By necessity, pest assessments focus on those 

organisms for which biological information is available. This applied to Blapstinus sp. in this 

assessment. If these or other pests identified only to higher taxa are intercepted on Cape 

gooseberry, then we may reevaluate their risk. 

Ceratitis capitata, Mediterranean fruit fly (Medfly), has been reported once as a pest of Cape 

gooseberry (Liquido et al., 1991). Since 1965, Medfly has been present in the Arica and 

Tarapaca provinces of the Republic of Chile (CABI, 2007; González, 1980; Gonzalez and 

Troncoso, 2007, Roman, 2007). Recently, however, Chile instituted a national program to 

eradicate Medfly from these areas (SAG, 2005b; PPQ, 2008a; PPQ, 2008b; PPQ, 2010), and 

APHIS just recognized and approved that all regions of Chile are Medfly-free (PPQ, 2010). 

Consequently, we did not include Medfly in the pest list (Table 3). 

The Andean potato mottle virus (APMoV) (Comoviridae: Comovirus) is present in Chile 

(Büchen-Osmond, 2004) and has been reported on Cape gooseberry in Colombia (Blanco, 2000). 

We did not include it in the pest list, however, because the author clarified that this report 

corresponds to a laboratory inoculation only (Blanco, 2007). This is supported by another study 

in which the same pathogen was also reported on Cape gooseberry, but only with laboratory 

inoculation (Salazar and Harrison, 1977). 

The husks are expansions of the calyx after the flower falls (CRFG, 1997); those calices could be 

considered part of the foliage. We reviewed some quarantine phytophagous pests, such as Lema 

bilineata, Liriomyza huidobrensis, and Dichroplus maculipennis, and found no evidence that they 

attack Physalis peruviana fruits and husks (Bado et al., 2000; Bado et al., 2005; Bado, 2008; 

Benavides and Mora, 2005). 

Finally, during port-of-entry inspection PPQ officers may intercept pests that are biological 

contaminants of Cape gooseberries, but these contaminants are not expected to be present with 

every shipment. 
Pest risk assessment for Cape gooseberry from Chile 

Ver. 8 July 13, 2011 14

3. Author, Contributors, and Reviewers 

Authors 

Center for Plant Health Science and Technology: Colombia 

O. P. Parfait, Former APHIS Risk Analyst 

N. Arciniegas, Risk Analyst 

Contributors 

Center for Plant Health Science and Technology: Colombia 

G. Zambrano, Risk Analyst 

L.E. Forero, Risk Analyst 

Reviewers 

Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory 

C. Bertone, Entomologist 

L. M. Ferguson, Plant Pathologist 

W. Gutierrez, Plant Pathologist 

4. Acknowledgements 

We are grateful for the ongoing support and technical expertise of USDA-APHIS-PPQ-CPHSTPERAL, in particular Heather Hartzog, Leah Millar, and Lisa Ferguson. We also thank Elkin 

Florez, former employee and pest risk analyst with USDA-APHIS-CPHST Colombia, for his 

collaboration. 

5. Literature Cited

7 CFR § 319. 2007. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 7, Part 319 (7 CFR § 319 – Foreign 

Quarantine Notices). 

Angulo, R. 1988. Uchuva. Pages 110-112 in Course on fruit crops in temperate and moderately 

cold climates. Instituto Colombiano Agropecuario, Bogota (Colombia). Programa de 

Frutales. Bogota (Colombia), 1988. 

Angulo, R. 2003. Frutales exóticos de clima frío. Técnica Gráfica San Ltda. 136 pp. 

Angulo, A. O. 2007. Libro de entomología. Last accessed May 23, 2007, 

http://www2.udec.cl/entomologia/D-peruvianus.html. 

Apablaza, G. 2001. El marchitamiento manchado (TSWV): Enfermedad Virosa Importante en 

Producciones de Tomate y Pimiento. In Revista de Extensión de la Facultad de 

Agronomia e Ingeniería Forestal UC No. 12. Last accessed August 29, 2007, 

http://www.puc.cl/agronomia/c_extension/Revista/Ediciones/12/informe2.pdf. 

Apablaza, G. 2006. Enfermedades virosas de la papa en Chile. Pontificia Universidad Católica 

de Chile, Facultad de Agronomía e Ing. Forestal, Magíster en Ciencias Vegetales, Área 

Protección de Cultivos. Last accessed April 4, 2006, from 

http://cursos.puc.cl:82/agl211-1/almacen/1143729662_ciubilla_sec1_pos0.pdf. 
Pest risk assessment for Cape gooseberry from Chile 

Ver. 8 July 13, 2011 15

APHIS. 2007. State Regulated Noxious Weeds. National Plant Board. United States Department 

of Agriculture (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). Last 

accessed July 17, 2007, http://www.nationalplantboard.org/docs/statenwnew.pdf. 

Avila, M. A., and V. H. Forero. 1989. Reconocimiento e identification de entomofauna en el 

cultivo de la uchuva Physalis peruviana L. en Boyaca. Thesis. Univ. Pedagogica y 

Tecnologica de Colombia. 100 pp. 

Bado, S. G., A. M. Cerri, Vilella, F, and A. Molina. 2000. Aspectos morfologicos, biologicos y 

de ingestade Lema bilineata (Germ) (Coleoptera: Crysomelidae) sobre Physalis 

peruviana L. Boletín de Sanidad Vegetal, Plagas, 26: 5-10. 

Bado, S. G. 2008. Personal communication with Dr. Silvina Bado, Agronomist of the 

“Fruticultura group, Plant Health” of the EEAC (Estación Experimental Agropecuaria 

Chubut) pertaining to the INTA (Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria) on 2nd

of August, 2007. 

Bado, S. G., A. M. Cerri, and F. Vilella. 2005. Fauna insectil asociada a cultivos de dos especies 

de "Physalis" (Solanaceae) en Argentina. Boletín de Sanidad Vegetal, Plagas, 31(3):321-

334. 

Benavides, M., Mora, H. 2005. Los insectos-plaga limitantes en el cultivo de la uchuva y su 

manejo. Avances en cultivo, poscosecha y exportacion de la uchuva Physalis peruviana 

L. en Colombia. Ed. Fisher, G., Miranda, D., Piedrahita, W., Romero, J. Universidad 

Nacional de Colombia. Sede Bogota, Asohofrucol, and Fondo Nacional de fomento 

Hortifruticola. 

Ben-Dov, Y., D. R. Miller, and G. A. P. Gibson. 2007. ScaleNet: A Database of Scale Insects of 

the World. Last accessed February 8, 2007, from 

http://www.sel.barc.usda.gov/scalenet/scalenet.htm. 

Blanco, J. O. 2000. Manejo de enfermedades en el cultivo de la uchuva. In Víctor J. Flórez R., 

Gerhard Fischer, Ángel D. Sora R. (eds). Producción, poscosecha y exportación de la 

uchuva (Physalis peruviana L.). Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Facultad de 

Agronomía. 175 pp. UNIBIBLOS, Bogotá. 

Blanco, J. O. 2007. Personal communication with José Orlando Blanco Valbuena, 

Phytopathologist of the National University and ICA in Colombia, August 29, 2007. 

Bolland, H. R., J. Gutierrez, and C. H. W. Flechtmann. 1998. World catalogue of the spider mite 

family (Acari: Tetranychidae). Brill, Boston. 

Bradbury, J. F. 1986. Guide to plant pathogenic bacteria. CABI Mycological Institute. Ferry 

Lane, Kew, Surrey, England. 

Brito, D. 2002. Agroexportación de productos no tradicionales. Conferencia: Producción de 

uvilla para exportación. Fundación Añilambi. Fundación Ecuatoriana de Tecnologia 

Apropiada (FEDETA). Last accessed December 26, 2006, 

http://www.sica.gov.ec/agronegocios/productosparainvertir/frutas/uvilla/uvilla_para_X.p

df. 

Brogle, A. 2004. Evaluación de una formulación de thiacloprid más β-ciflutrina sobre la polilla 

de la papa, Phthorimaea operculella (Zeller) (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae). Thesis. 

Universidad de Chile, Facultad de Ciencias Agronómicas, Escuela de Agronomía

Last accessed April 3, 2007, from 

http://www.cybertesis.cl/tesis/uchile/2004/brogle_a/sources/brogle_a.pdf. 

Brown, J. W., and K. Bash. 1997. The Lepidoptera of Marine Corps Air Station Miramar: 

Calculating Faunal Similarity among Sampling Sites and Estimating Total Species 
Pest risk assessment for Cape gooseberry from Chile 

Ver. 8 July 13, 2011 16

Richness. Journal of Research on the Lepidoptera 36:45-78. Systematic Entomology 

Laboratory, U.S. Department of Agriculture, PSI, ARS, c/o National Museum of Natural 

History, Washington, D.C. Last accessed May 16, 2007, from 

http://www.doylegroup.harvard.edu/~carlo/JRL/36/PDF/36-045.pdf. 

Brunt, A., K. Crabtree, and A. Gibbs. 1990. Viruses of Tropical Plants: Descriptions and Lists 

from the VIDE Database. 707 pp. CABI, UK. 

Büchen-Osmond, C. 2004. Potato Andean mottle comovirus. Plant Viruses ONLINE; 

Descriptions and Lists from the VIDE Database. Last accessed August 29, 2007, from 

http://phene.cpmc.columbia.edu/ICTVdB/00.018.0.01.002.htm. 

Büchen-Osmond, C., K. J. Crabtree, A. J. Gibbs, and G. D. McLean. 1987. Virus of Plants in 

Australia; Description of Australian features of viruses. Aust. NAT Univ., Canberra. 

Last accessed August 13, 2007, 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ICTVdb/Aussi/ausidesc.htm. 

Buriticá, P. 1999. Directorio de Patógenos y Enfermedades de las Plantas de Importancia 

Económica en Colombia. Produmedios, Bogotá. 

CABI. 2006. Crop Protection Compendium. Global Module. Commonwealth Agricultural 

Bureau International. 2006 Edition. Wallingford, UK. 

CABI. 2007. Crop Protection Compendium. Global Module. Commonwealth Agricultural 

Bureau International. 2007 Edition. Wallingford, UK. 

Cano, V. 1999. Bioecología de la mosca blanca de los invernaderos Trialeurodes vaporariorum

(Westwood) (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae), plaga del fréjol. Resumen de tesis, Pontificia 

Universidad Católica del Ecuador. CATIE. Revista "Manejo Integrado de Plagas" No. 52. 

Last accessed February 25, 2008, from 

http://web.catie.ac.cr/informacion/RMIP/rmip52/nmb52.htm 

Carvalho, J. C. M. 1958. A catalogue of the Miridae of the world. Part II. Arq. Mus. Nac., Rio de 

Janeiro 45:216 pp. 

Carvalho, J., and C. R. Afonso, 1977. Mirideos neotropicais, CCVIII: Sobre uma coleiao enviada 

para estudo pela academia de ciencias da California (Hemiptera). Rev. Brasil. Biol., 

37(1):7-16. 

CCI. 2000. Perfil de producto No. 13: Uchuva. Inteligencia de mercados. Corporación Colombia 

Internacional (CCI). Last accessed August 16, 2007, from 

http://www.agronet.gov.co/www/docs_agronet/200511316613_UCHUVA-13.pdf. 

Chia, C. L., M. S. Nishina, and D. O. Evans. 1997. Poha. CTAHR Fact Sheet Horticultural 

Commodity no. 3, January 1997. University of Hawaii at Manoa. College of Tropical 

Agriculture & Human Resources (CTAHR); Cooperative Extension Service. Last 

accessed December 19, 2006, http://www.ctahr.hawaii.edu/oc/freepubs/pdf/HC-3.pdf. 

Commonwealth of Australia. 2003. Netherlands Truss Tomatoes Draft Import Policy. 

Biosecurity Australia. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, and Forestry, Australia. 

Last accessed August 13, 2007, from 

http://www.daffa.gov.au/__data/assets/word_doc/0016/25342/dft_neth_tomato.doc. 

Condoy, C. L., and G. P. Arteaga. 2006. Producción de uvilla Physalis peruviana L., var 

africana, con dos densidades de siembra y fertilización orgánica, en la hoya de Loja. 

Universidad Nacional de Loja, Área Agropecuaria y de Recursos Naturales Renovables. 

Tesis previa a la obtención del título de Ing. Agrónomo. Loja, Ecuador. 

CPHST. 2008. Biological and Taxonomic Support (BATS) Database. Center for Plant Health 

Science and Technology (CPHST), Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory. 
Pest risk assessment for Cape gooseberry from Chile 

Ver. 8 July 13, 2011 17

https://www.peral.org/BATS/index.cfm?CFID=928795&CFTOKEN=45278576. 

(Archived at PERAL) 

CRFG. 1997. Cape Gooseberry. California Rare Fruit Growers (CRFG). Last accessed 

December 18, 2006, from http://www.crfg.org/pubs/ff/cape-gooseberry.html. 

Elphinstone, J. 2007. Personal communication with Dr. John Elphinstone, Ph.D. of the Plant and 

Environmental Bacteriology GTN, Central Science Laboratory, York, UK, on August 

28th, 2007. 

EPPO, 2005. Data sheets on quarantine pests. Tuta absoluta. European and Mediterranean Plant 

Protection Organization (EPPO). Last accessed December 23, 2008, 

www.eppo.org/QUARANTINE/insects/Tuta_absoluta/DS_Tuta_absoluta.pdf - 

EPPO. 2006. Plant Quarantine Information Retrieval System (PQR) database. Version 4.5. 

European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization (EPPO). 

FAO. 2006. AGRIS – Information for International Agricultural Research. Food and Agriculture 

Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Last accessed December 7, 2006, 

http://www.fao.org/agris. 

Farr, D. F., A. Y. Rossman, M. E. Palm, and E. B. McCray. 2007. Fungal Databases. United 

States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Systematic Mycology 

and Microbiology Laboratory. http://nt.ars-grin.gov/fungaldatabases/. (Archived at 

PERAL) 

Ferris, H., and E. P. Caswell-Chen. 2006. Nemabase Nematode-Host Association Database. 

University of California, Department of Nematology, Davis. Last accessed December 19, 

2006, from http://169.237.162.27:591/KNOWL/NEMBASE/. 

Figueroa, A. 1977. Insectos y acarinos de Colombia. Universidad Nacional de Colombia. 

Bogotá. 685 pp. 

Fischer, G. 2000. Crecimiento y desarrollo de la uchuva. In V. J. Flórez R., G. Fischer, Á. D. 

Sora R (eds). Produccion, poscosecha y exportación de la uchuva (Physalis peruviana 

L.). Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Facultad de Agronomía. 175 pp. Printed by: 

Universidad Nacional de Colombia, UNIBIBLOS, Bogotá. Last accessed January 4, 

2008, from http://agronomia.unal.edu.co/uchuva.htm 

FLEPPC. 2005. List of Invasive Species. Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council (FLEPPC). Last 

accessed December 7, 2006, from http://www.fleppc.org/list/05List.htm 

Galvis, J. A., G. Fischer, and O. Goldillo. 2005. Cosecha y postcosecha d la uchuva. Pages 8-28 

in G. Fischer, W. Piedrahita, D. Miranda, and J. Romero (eds.). Avances en cultivo, 

postcosecha y exportación de la uchuva (Physalis peruviana L.) en Colombia. 

Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Facultad de Agronomía, Sede Bogotá. 

Gonsalves, A. K., and S. A. Ferreira. 1994. Pseudomonas Primer. Crop Knowledge Master. 

University of Hawaii at Manoa, Department of Plant Pathology, College of Tropical 

Agriculture and Human Resources. Last accessed December 20, 2006, 

http://www.extento.hawaii.edu/Kbase/crop/Type/pseudomo.htm 

González, R. H. 1980. Insectos y acaros de importancia cuarentenaria en fruta de exportacion. 

Asociacion de Exportadores de Chile, Corporacion privada para el Desarrollo de las 

Ciencias Agropecuarias de Chile. Santiago, Chile.

González, R. H. 1989. Insectos y Acaros de Importancia Agrícola y Cuarentenaria en Chile. Ed. 

Universidad de Chile. 310 p. 

González, J., and Troncoso. 2007. The Fruit Fly Exclusion Programme in Chile. In: Vreysen, 

M.J.E., A.S. Robinson, and J. Hendrichs (eds.), Area-Wide Control of Insect Pests. 641-
Pest risk assessment for Cape gooseberry from Chile 

Ver. 8 July 13, 2011 18

651 pp. IAEA. 

Gunn, C. R., and C. A. Ritchie. 1988. Identification of Disseminules Listed in the Federal 

Noxious Weed Act. Technical Bulletin No. 1719. Agricultural Research Service. United 

States Department of Agriculture. 

Halbert, S. 1996. Entomology section. TRI-OLOGY 35(6). Florida Department of Agriculture 

and Consumer Services, Division of Plant Industry. Last accessed May 16, 2007, 

http://www.doacs.state.fl.us/pi/enpp/96-11&12all.htm. 

Halbert, S. E. 2001. Botany section. TRI-OLOGY 40(6). Florida Department of Agriculture & 

Consumer Services. Division of Plant Industry. Last accessed August 14, 2007, 

http://www.doacs.state.fl.us/pi/enpp/01-nov-dec.htm. 

Herrera, G., and M. Madariaga. 2001. Presencia e incidencia de virus de la vid en la zona central 

de Chile. Agric. Téc. Oct. 2001, 61(4):393-400. Last accessed August 29, 2007, 

http://www.scielo.cl/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0365- 

Holm, L. G., J. V. Pancho, J. P. Herberger, and D. L. Plucknett. 1991a. A Geographical Atlas of 

World Weeds. John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY. 391 pp. 

Holm, L. G., D. L. Plucknett, J. V. Pancho, and J. P. Herberger. 1991b. The World’s Worst 

Weeds: distribution and biology. Univ. of Hawaii Press, Honolulu, HI. 608 pp. 

Holm, L. G., J. Doll, E. Holm, J. V. Pancho, and J. Herberger. 1997. World Weeds: Natural 

Histories and Distributions. John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY. 1129 pp. 

Insectos.cl. 2007. Insectos de Chile. Last accessed May 16, 2007, http://www.insectos.cl/. 

ISSG. 2007. Global invasive species database. Invasive Species Specialist Grou (ISSG). Last 

accessed March 30, 2007, from http://www.issg.org/database/welcome/. 

Jeppson, L. R., H. H. Keifer, and E. W. Baker. 1975. Mites Injurious to Economic Plants. 

University of California Press: Berkeley. 614 pp. 

Klein, C and D. F. Waterhouse. 2000. Distribution and importance of arthropods associated with 

agriculture and forestry in Chile. (Distribución e importancia de los artrópodos asociados 

a la agricultura y silvicultura en Chile). ACIAR (Canberra, Australia) Monograph No 68, 

231 p. 

Kranz, J., H. Schmutterer, and W. Koch (eds). 1977. Diseases, pests and weeds in tropical crops. 

Verlag Paul Parey. Berlin and Hamburg, Germany. 666 pp. 

Landcare Research. 2007. NZFUNGI database. Last accessed April 16, 2007, 

http://nzfungi.landcareresearch.co.nz/html/search_hosts.asp. 

Larraín, P. 2002. Insect and mite pest incidence on sweet pepinos (Solanum muricatum Ait.) 

cultivated in the IV Region, Chile. Agric. Téc. 62(1):15-26. Last accessed December 26, 

2006, http://www.scielo.cl/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0365-

28072002000100002& 

lng=en&nrm=iso. 

Ligarreto, G., M. Lobo, and A. Correa. 2005. Recursos genéticos del género Physalis en 

Colombia. Pages 8-28 in G. Fischer, W. Piedrahita, D. Miranda, and J. Romero (eds.). 

Avances en cultivo, postcosecha y exportación de la uchuva (Physalis peruviana L.) en 

Colombia. Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Facultad de Agronomía, Sede Bogotá. 

Liquido, N. J., L. A. Shinoda, and R. T. Cunningham. 1991. Host plants of the Mediterranean 

fruit fly, Diptera Tephritidae. An annotated world review. Ent. Soc. Am. Misc. Publ. 77. 

52 pp. 

MAG-IICA. 2001. Identificación de mercados y tecnologia para productos agricolas 

tradicionales de exportación. Convenio MAG/IICA: Subprograma de Cooperación 
Pest risk assessment for Cape gooseberry from Chile 

Ver. 8 July 13, 2011 19

Técnica. Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganaderia de Ecuador–Instituto Interamericano de 

Cooperación para la Agricultura (MAG-IICA). Last accessed December 8, 2006, 

http://www.sica.gov.ec/agronegocios/biblioteca/ConvenioMAGIICA/productos/uvilla_m

ag.pdf. 

Martins, O. M., F. Nabizadeh-Ardekani, and K. Rudolph. 2005. Seeds from infected tomato 

plants appear to be free from contamination by Ralstonia solanacearum when tested by 

PCR or microbiological assays. In Bacterial wilt disease and the Ralstonia solanacearum

species complex. Editors: Allen, C., Prior, P., and Hayward, A.C. APS Press, St Paul, 

MN. 

McKamey, S. 2001. Checklist of Leafhopper Species 1758-1955 (Hemiptera: Membracoidea: 

Cicadellidae and Myserslopiidae) with Synonymy and Distribution [Catalogue of the 

Homoptera, Fascicle 6, Abridged]. USDA Agricultural Research Service, Systematic 

Entomology Laboratory, National Museum of Natural History, MRC-168, Smithsonian 

Institution, Washington, D.C. 20560. Last accessed June 5, 2007, 

http://www.sel.barc.usda.gov/selhome/leafhoppers/PDF/checklist.pdf. 

Minter, D. W. and P. López. 2006. Hongos de Chile. Online database, version 1.00. Last 

accessed May 17, 2007, from http://www.cybertruffle.org.uk/chilfung. 

Missouri Botanical Garden. 2006. VAST (VAScular Tropicos) nomenclatural database 

(W3

TROPICOS). Last accessed December 14, 2006, http://mobot.mobot.org/cgibin/search_vast. 

Morton, J. 1987. Cape gooseberry. Purdue University. Center for New Crops & Plant Products. 

Pages 430-434 in Fruits of warm climates. Last accessed December 26, 2006, 

http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/morton/cape_gooseberry.html. 

NAL. 2006. AGRICultural OnLine Access (AGRICOLA). National Agricultural Library (NAL). 

Last accessed December 07, 2006, from http://agricola.nal.usda.gov/. 

National Library of Medicine. 2007. National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI). 

Taxonomy. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/taxonomy 

NGRP. 2007. Germplasm Resources Information Network (GRIN). United States Department of 

Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, National Germplasm Resources Laboratory 

(NGRP), Beltsville, Maryland. http://www.ars-grin.gov/cgibin/npgs/html/taxon.pl?102390. (Archived at PERAL) 

Novoa, R., M. Bojacá, J. A. Galvis, and G. Fischer. 2006. Fruit maturity and calyx drying 

influence post-harvest behavior of Cape gooseberry (Physalis peruviana L.) stored at 12 

oC. Agronomía Colombiana 24(1):77-86. Last accessed August 8, 2007, 

http://agronomia.unal.edu.co/revista/Agronomia24-1/Madurezfrutouchuva.pdf. 

Parfait, O. 2007. Trip report of a visit realized by Olivier P. Parfait on July, 6th to 9th, 2007 in 

Quito, Ecuador. 

PERAL. 2011. Risk of introduction of Ralstonia solanacearum Race 3 Biovar 2 to the United 

States associated with commodities for consumption from infested regions. Raleigh, NC. 

25 pp. 

PestID. 2008. Pest Identification (PestID) database. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and 

Plant Health Inspection Service, Riverdale, MD. 

PFAF. 2007. Plants For A Future: Database Search Results for Physalis peruviana. Plants For A 

Future (PFAF). Last accessed December 13, 2007, http://www.ibiblio.org/pfaf/cgibin/arr_html?Physalis+peruviana&PRINT 
Pest risk assessment for Cape gooseberry from Chile 

Ver. 8 July 13, 2011 20

Piontelli, E., M. A. Toro, G. Giusiano, and V. Vivar. 2002. Altitudinal distribution of 

keratinophilic, epiphytic and endophytic fungi from desertic soils in northern Chile (II 

Region 23°S.L. and 68°W L.). Boletín Micológico 17:33–49. Last accessed May 04, 

2007, 

http://www.uv.cl/servicios/externos/lab_micologia/boletines/micologia2002/3.2queratino

filicos_suelos_norte.pdf 

PPQ. 1997. Importation of Cape Gooseberry fruit, Physalis peruviana, from Colombia, into the 

United States. United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ). Riverdale, MD. 

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). Last accessed December 26, 2006, 

http://www.angrau.net/Workshop/ResourcePersonsPres/Jeanne/PRA%20guidelines%20version%205.02_10.2000.pdf. 

PPQ. 2004. New pest response guidelines: Ralstonia solanacearum race 3, biovar 2-southern 

wilt of geranium. United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ). 74 pp. 

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/plant_pest_info/ralstonia/downloads/rasltoniaacti

onplanv4web.pdf. 

PPQ. 2006. Federal Noxious Weed List. United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and 

Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ). 

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/plant_pest_info/weeds/downloads/weedlist2006.

pdf. 

PPQ. 2007. Regulating the Importation of Fresh Fruits and Vegetables. Nonpropagative Manual. 

United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 

Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ). Last accessed December 20, 2007, 

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/import_export/plants/manuals/ports/downloads/fv.pdf. 

PPQ. 2008a. Designated Pest(s) Free Areas That Meet APHIS Requirements for Pest-free Areas 

Listed in 7 CFR 319.56-5. Revision 20080609_002. United States Department of 

Agriculture; Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service; Plant Protection and 

Quarantine (PPQ). 

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/import_export/plants/manuals/ports/downloads/DesignatedPe

stFreeAreas.pdf 

PPQ. 2008b. Fresh Fruits and Vegetables Import Manual. United States Department of 

Agriculture; Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service; Plant Protection and 

Quarantine (PPQ). 618 pp. 

PPQ, 2010. Notice of Determination of Pest-Free Areas in the Republic of Chile. United States 

Department of Agriculture; Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service; Plant Protection 

and Quarantine. 

Randall, R. P. 2003. A Global Compendium of Weeds. Hawaiian Ecosystems at Risk and 

Department of Agriculture of Western Australia. Last accessed December 06, 2006, 

http://www.hear.org/gcw/. 

Rao, V. G., and V. Subramoniam. 1976. A new post-harvest disease of cape-gooseberry. Journal 

of the Univ. of Bombay, Science 45:58-61. 
Pest risk assessment for Cape gooseberry from Chile 

Ver. 8 July 13, 2011 21

Reed, C. F. 1977. Economically important foreign weeds: potential problems in the United States 

(Agriculture Handbook No. 498). United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, 

DC. 746 pp. 

Rice, P. M. 2007. Noxious weeds in the US and Canada. INVADERS Database System. Division 

of Biological Sciences, University of Montana, Missoula, MT 59812-4824. Last accessed 

March 30, 2007, http://invader.dbs.umt.edu/Noxious_Weeds/. 

Robinson, G. S., P. R. Ackery, I. J. Kitching, G. W. Beccaloni, and L. M. Hernández. 2008. 

HOSTS–A Database of the World’s Lepidopteran Hostplants. The Natural History 

Museum, Department of Entomology. Last accessed February 25, 2008, 

http://internt.nhm.ac.uk/jdsml/research-curation/projects/hostplants//index.dsml. 

Román, J. 2007. Personal communication to Christie Bertone from Juan A. (Tony) Román, 

Import Specialist of USDA, APHIS, PPQ, PRIM, Commodity Import Analysis and 

Operation for South and Central America, and the Caribbean, on December 10, 2007. 

Saenz, A., and J. C. Getiva de la Hoz. 2003. Acaros asociados al cultivo de uchuva en 

municipios productores de Cundinamarca y Boyacá. Asociación Hortifrutícola de 

Colombia (Asohofrucol), Fondo de Fomento Hortofrutícola, Instituto Colombiano 

Agropecuario (ICA). Editor: Grupo Transferencia de Tecnología, ICA. Produmedios, 

Bogota. 44 pp. 

SAG. 2005a. Initiating event letter No. 2157 dated August 04, 2005. Servicio Agrícola y 

Ganadero de Chile (SAG). 

SAG. 2005b. Plan de Emergencia de Mosca del Mediterraneo del Proyecto Moscas de la Fruta 

del SAG. Program of Servicio Agrícola y Ganadero de Chile (SAG). Revisado marzo 

2004. 

http://www.sag.gob.cl/pls/portal/url/ITEM/0F826E629997DFDCE040A8C0100112D7 

SAG. 2007a. Personal communication with Roberto Mir of the SAG-USDA Preshipment 

Program of Servicio Agrícola y Ganadero de Chile (SAG) on June 6, 2007. 

SAG. 2007b. Personal communication with Roberto Mir of the SAG-USDA Preshipment 

Program of Servicio Agrícola y Ganadero de Chile (SAG) on July 10, 2007. 

Salazar, L. F., and B. D. Harrison. 1977. Particle Properties and Strains of Andean Potato Mottle 

Virus.J. Gen. Virol. 39:171-178. 

Sanchez-Perez, A., L. Mejia, M. Fegan, and C. Allen. 2007. Diversity and distribution of 

Ralstonia solanacearum strains in Guatemala and rare occurrence of tomato fruit 

infection. Department of Plant Pathology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, 

WI; Facultad de Agronomia, Universidad de San Carlos de Guatemala, Ciudad 

Guatemala, Guatemala; and CRC for Tropical Plant Protection, University of 

Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. Plant Pathology 57(2):320-331 

Schappert, P. 2007. Personal communication with Dr. Phil Schappert, Ph.D. of the Stengl "Lost 

Pines" Biology Station, of the University of Texas at Austin, on May 17, 2007. 

Scheffer, S. J. 2000. Molecular evidence of cryptic species within the Liriomyza huidobrensis

(Diptera: Agromyzidae). Journal of Economic Entomology 93(4):1146-1151. 

Scheffer, S. J. 2004. Personal communication with Sonja J. Scheffer, Ph.D., Systematic 

Entomology Laboratory, USDA, Beltsville, on April 2, 2004. 

Scheffer, S. J., A. Wijesekara, D. Visser, and R. H. Hallett. 2001. Polymerase Chain Reactionrestriction fragment-length polymorphism method to distinguish Liriomyza huidobrensis

from L. langei (Diptera: Agromyzidae) applied to three recent leafminer invasions. 

Horticultural Entomology. Journal of Economic Entomology 94(5):1177-1182. 
Pest risk assessment for Cape gooseberry from Chile 

Ver. 8 July 13, 2011 22

Sepúlveda, P., P. Larraín, C. Quiroz, P. Rebufel, and F. Graña. 2005. Identification and incidence 

of pepper viruses in north central Chile and its association with vectors [abstract]. 

Instituto de Investigaciones Agropecuarias (INIA). Agricultura Técnica 65(3):235-245. 

Silber, D., and T. Silber. 1996. A Guide for Choosing Rare Fruit Trees for Your Yard. Last 

accessed August 23, 2007, from http://www.crfg.org/fg/1996/chooserft.html. 

Singh, S.J., K.S.M. Sastry, and K.S. Sastry. 1975. Investigations on a mosaic disease of cape 

gooseberry. Current Science 44(3): 95-96. 

Spencer, K. A. 1973. Agromyzidae (Diptera) of Economic Importance. W. Junk B. V. Pub. The 

Hague. 418 pp. 

Swanson, J., J. Yao, J. Tans-Kersten, and C. Allen. 2004. Behavior of Ralstonia solanacearum

race 3 biovar 2 During Latent and Active Infection of Geranium. Department of Plant 

Pathology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI; State Lab of Hygiene, 

Madison, WI. Last accessed December 21, 2007, 

http://www.plantpath.wisc.edu/CZA%20WS%20530/Swanson_.pdf. 

Swearingen, J. 2007. WeedUS database, Alien Plant Invaders of Natural Areas. Plant 

Conservation Alliance, Alien Plant Working Group. Last accessed January 4, 2008, 

http://www.nps.gov/plants/alien/list/WeedUS.xls. 

Thomas, P. 2005. Physalis peruviana Ground cherry, poha, Cape gooseberry (Solanaceae). 

USGS-PIERC Pathogens of plants of Hawaii website. Last accessed May 8, 2007, 

http://www.hear.org/pph/hosts/3252.htm. 

Tobón, J. H., and L. A. Vásquez. 1998. Factores asociados con la generación y adopción de 

tecnología en frutales exóticos. Corpoica, Sistemas de producción, Regional 4. Pronatta. 

Last accessed May 4, 2007, 

http://www.agronet.gov.co/www/docs_si2/2006112710401_Frutales exoticos - Higo.pdf. 

USDA. 1970. Index of plant diseases in the United States (Agriculture Handbook No. 165). 

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Washington, DC. 531 pp. 

USDA-Forest Service. 2007. Pacific Island Ecosystems at Risk (PIER). Plant threats to Pacific 

ecosystems. Institute of Pacific Islands Forestry. PIER website version 5.2. United States 

Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service. Last accessed December 20, 2007, 

from http://www.hear.org/pier/. 

USDA-NRCS. 2007. The PLANTS Database, Version 3.5. United States Department of 

Agriculture (USDA) National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) National Plant 

Data Center, Baton Rouge, LA. Last accessed December 20, 2007, http://plants.usda.gov 

Van Regenmortel, M. H. V., C. M. Fauquet, D. H. L. Bishop, E. Carstens, M. K. Estes, S. 

Lemon, J. Maniloff, M. A. Mayo, D. McGeoch, C. R. Pringle, and R. B. Wickner (eds). 

2000. Virus Taxonomy. Seventh Report of the International Committee on Taxonomy of 

Viruses. Academia Press, New York, 1162 pp. 

Vargas, A. M., A. Correa, D. C. Lozano, A. González, A. J. Bernal, and S. Restrepo. 2007. First 

Report of Late Blight Caused by Phytophthora infestans on Cape gooseberry (Physalis 

peruviana) in Colombia. Laboratorio de Micología y Fitopatología, Departamento de 

Ciencias Biológicas, Universidad de los Andes, Bogotá, Colombia; Laboratorio de 

Fitopatología, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad Militar Nueva Granada, Bogotá, 

Colombia. Plant Dis. 91:464. Last accessed May 11, 2007, 

http://www.apsnet.org/pd/searchnotes/2007/pdis-91-4-0464b.asp 

Villarroel, J. P. 2006a. Procedimiento de cosecha de Physalis peruviana: Protocolo realizado 

para la Empresa PEV Fruit Chile Limitada. 6 p. 
Pest risk assessment for Cape gooseberry from Chile 

Ver. 8 July 13, 2011 23

Villarroel, J. P. 2006b. Procedimiento de secado de Physalis peruviana: Protocolo realizado 

para la Empresa PEV Fruit Chile Limitada. 6 p. 

Villarroel, J. P. 2006c. Procedimiento de embalado de Physalis peruviana: Protocolo realizado 

para la Empresa PEV Fruit Chile Limitada. 6 p. 

Walker, K. 2007. Carrot aphid (Cavariella aegopodii). Pest and Diseases Image Library. 

Updated on 14/09/2007 12:33:02 PM. Last accessed February 1, 2008, 

http://www.padil.gov.au/viewPest.aspx?id=1015. 

Weber, E. 2003. Invasive plant species of the world: A reference guide to environmental weeds. 

CAB Publishing, Wallingford, UK. 548 p. 

Wellman, F. L. 1977. Dictionary of Tropical American Crops and Their Diseases. The 

Scarecrow Press, Inc. Metuchen, N. J. and London. 495 p. 

Wiersema, J. H., and B. León. 1999. World economic plants: A standard reference. CRC Press, 

Boca Raton, FL. 

WSSA. 2006. 2006 revision of the Composite List of Weeds as compiled by the Standardized 

Plant Names subcommittee. Weed Science Society of America (WSSA). Last accessed 

March 30, 2007, 

http://www.wssa.net/Weeds/ID/WeedNames/CompositeListOfWeedsMay2006_pdf.zip. 

Zapata, J. L., A. Saldarriaga, M. Londoño, and C. Díaz. 2005. Las enfermedades limitantes en 

cultivo y poscosecha de la uchuva y su control. In G. Fischer, D. Miranda, W. Piedrahita, 

and J. Romero (eds.). Avances en cultivo, poscosecha y exportación de la Uchuva

Physalis peruviana L. en Colombia. 221 pp. Universidad Nacional de Colombia; Fondo 

Nacional de Fomento Hortifrutícola; Asociación Hortifrutícola de Colombia. Bogotá. 
Pest risk assessment for Cape gooseberry from Chile 

Ver. 8 July 13, 2011 24

6. Appendices 

Appendix A. Additional information about the crop, Physalis peruviana L., Cape gooseberry.

Botany 

Physalis peruviana L. (Cape gooseberry) is an herbaceous or soft-wooded plant that usually 

reaches 0.6-0.9 m (2-3 ft) in height but occasionally may attain 1.8 m (6 ft) (Morton, 1987). The 

purplish, spreading branches are ribbed and covered with fine hairs. This plant has nearly 

opposite, velvety, heart-shaped, pointed, randomly-toothed leaves which are 6-15 cm (2.4- 5.9 

in) long and 4-10 cm (1.6-3.9 in) wide. Bell-shaped, nodding flowers are formed in the leaf axils. 

They are 2 cm (0.8 in) wide, yellow with five dark purple-brown spots in the throat, and cupped 

by a purplish-green, hairy calyx (CRFG, 1997). The flowers are hermaphroditic (having both 

male and female organs), pollinated by bees and wind (PFAF, 2007), or self-pollinated (CRFG, 

1997). After the flower falls, the calyx expands, forming a straw-colored husk much larger than 

the fruit enclosed, which takes 70 to 80 days to mature (CRFG, 1997). The fruit is a globose 

berry 1.25-2 cm (0.5-0.8 in) wide, weighing 4 to 10 g (0.141 to 0.353 oz), with smooth, waxy, 

glossy, orange-yellow skin and juicy pulp containing numerous very small, yellowish, edible 

seeds (Ligarreto et al., 2005; Morton, 1987). As the fruits ripen, they begin to drop to the ground, 

but will continue to mature and change from green to the golden-yellow of the mature fruit 

(CRFG, 1987). 

Origin and Distribution

Cape gooseberry is native to Brazil but long ago became naturalized in the highlands of 

Peru and Chile. It became identified with the region where the fruits are casually eaten and 

occasionally sold in markets but is still not an important crop. It has been widely introduced into 

cultivation in other tropical, subtropical, and even temperate areas (CRFG, 2007; Morton, 1987). 

In the region between Chile and Colombia, it has also been grown as a wild and semi-wild plant 

in highland zones (Ligarreto et al., 2005). Cape gooseberry was being grown in England in 1774 

and was cultivated by early settlers at the Cape of Good Hope (in South Africa) before 1807 

(CRFG, 1997). Soon after its adoption in the Cape of Good Hope it was carried to Australia and 

there acquired its common English name (Morton, 1987). In Zimbabwe it is commercially 

cultivated and commonly found as processed product, the jam and canned whole fruits are staple 

commodities that are often exported. It is also cultivated and naturalized in several regions of 

the world, including central Africa (Gabon and Kenya), Europe [e.g., the Czech Republic, Italy, 

Portugal (Açores islands), Spain], Hawaii, India, Israel, Micronesia, Malaysia, Melanesia, New 

Zealand, the Philippines (Luzon island), Polynesia, Tasmania (Northern regions), and the West 

Indies (EPPO; 2007; Ligarreto et al., 2005; Morton, 1987; Novoa et al., 2006; USDA-ARS, 

2007).

Worldwide Production 

South Africa produces and exports Cape gooseberry in the worldwide market from summer to 

early autumn. Zimbabwe exports to Europe during the whole year. Kenya exports irregularly 

during autumn. New Zealand exports principally to Europe between April and June. Colombia 

exports year-round, mainly to Europe and the United States. Production in England occurs 

during autumn and is directly for the country’s local market (MAG-IICA, 2001). Cape 

gooseberry has been grown occasionally in California, but generally only on a small scale from 
Pest risk assessment for Cape gooseberry from Chile 

Ver. 8 July 13, 2011 25

time to time; California markets have been supplied by imports from Mexico and other countries 

(CRFG, 2007). 

Habitat and Cultivation 

Cape gooseberry is an annual in temperate regions and a perennial in the tropics. In California, it 

is best grown as an annual, but will persist for several years in frost-free areas of southern 

California (CFRG, 1997). 

In Venezuela, Cape gooseberry grows wild in the Andes and the coastal range between 800 and 

3,000 m (2500 and 10000 ft) (Morton, 1987). In Colombia, crops prefer altitudes between 1,800 

and 2,800 m (5,906 and 9,186 ft) (Fischer, 2000). In Hawaii, the wild range is 300 to 2,400 m 

(1,000 to 8,000 ft) (CFRG, 1997). In northern India, it is not possible to cultivate it above 1,200 

m (4,000 ft), while in southern India, it thrives up to 1,800 m (6,000 ft) (Morton, 1987). 

Cape gooseberries are frost tender and are killed at temperatures of about -1.1°C (30°F) (CFRG, 

1987). In South Africa, plants were not tolerant and even failed to recover after a temperature 

drop to -0.75oC (30.5oF) (Morton, 1987). In Colombia, they do not resist low temperatures, but 

they can re-grow after a short frost (Fischer, 2000). Surprisingly, in England, the plants have 

been found undamaged at -3oC (26.6oF) (Morton, 1987). In Colombia and Ecuador, Cape 

gooseberry grows well at temperatures of 13 to 17oC (55.4 to 62.6oF) and 13 to 18oC (55.4 to 

64.4oF), respectively (Fischer, 2000; MAG-IICA, 2001). 

Ecophysiology 

In Colombia, the annual rainfall and relative humidity requirements for Cape gooseberry vary 

between 1,000 and 1,800 mm (39.4 and 70.9 in), and 70 and 80 percent, respectively, with a 

good drainage (Fischer, 2000). In Ecuador, it grows well with annual precipitations between 600 

and 1000 mm (23.6 and 39.4 in) and a relative humidity between 80 and 90 percent (MAG-IICA, 

2001). The soil requirements in the same country are sandy clay loam soils with a pH of 5.5 to 

7.0, rich in organic matter (6 to 8 percent), and easily drained (MAG-IICA, 2001).

Harvest and Post-Harvest 

Cape gooseberries can be harvested when the fruits are mature (when the husk is yellow, similar 

to rugous paper in texture, and easily unpinned) (Morton, 1987; Villarroel, 2006a). To avoid 

pathogen development later, it is recommended to pick the fruit when the plants are dry, in the 

cooler morning hours, avoiding rain (Galvis et al., 2005). The fruits are usually handpicked from 

the plants at the height of the peduncle near its insertion in the stem (2 cm maximum of peduncle 

is left with the husk). Each berry of 1.25 to 2 cm (0.49 to 0.79 in) has to have a smooth stainless 

surface without deformations or stings and must look fresh (Galvis et al., 2005; MAG-IICA, 

2001). Once transported to the packing place, every fruit is classified and the husks are opened to 

inspect the fruits and eliminate those affected by fungus, insect, and/or physical, physiological, 

or mechanical damage (Galvis et al., 2005). After the inspection, the fruits are left on a clean 

surface for approximately 30 hours at temperatures between 15 and 18oC (59 and 64.4oF) and a 

relative humidity of 60-70 percent. The fruit is considered sufficiently dry when the husk turns 

beige and has a lignified, brittle texture (Villarroel, 2006b). Later, the peduncles of the fruits are 

cut to a very short length, as are the apex of the husks. The drying process can also use forced 

air, by convection, and in Colombia’s case takes 6 to 9 hours at temperatures between 18 and 
Pest risk assessment for Cape gooseberry from Chile 

Ver. 8 July 13, 2011 26

24oC (64.4 and 75.2oF) (Galvis et al., 2005). The fruits are then put on tables to be sorted; fruits 

with imperfections in the husk, that are fractured, or that are not the minimum size (1.5 cm 

[0.591 in]) are rejected. Afterwards, fruits are packed (with or without the husk) in 12 small 

plastic baskets containing 125 g (4.41 oz) of fruit; these baskets are then arranged in cardboard 

boxes to be exported by plane (SAG, 2005a). 

Commercialization as Fresh Fruit 

The fruits can be stored at 4 to 8oC (39.2 to 46.4oF), with a relative humidity of 80 to 90 percent 

(MAG-IICA, 2001). In Colombia, the normal storage temperature is 12oC (53.6oF); under this 

condition, the fruit will reach its peak in approximately 12 days. Storage in a modified 

atmosphere, using microperforated polyester-polypropylene plastic film, increases the shelf life 

up to 30 days at 19oC and 60 percent relative humidity (66.2oF) (Galvis et al., 2005). The fruits 

can also be kept in a dry atmosphere in a scaled container for several months (Morton, 1987). If 

the fresh fruits are to be shipped for a long period of time, it is best to leave the husk on for 

protection against mechanical damage and abrupt changes of temperature and relative humidity 

(Galvis et al., 2005). 

Uses as Processed Product 

In addition to being canned whole and preserved as jam, the Cape gooseberry is made into sauce; 

used in pies, puddings, chutneys, and ice cream; and eaten fresh in fruit salads and fruit cocktails. 

In Colombia, the fruits are stewed with honey and eaten as dessert. The British use the husk as a 

handle for dipping the fruit in icing (Morton, 1987). 

Medicinal Properties 

Ripe Cape gooseberry fruits are a good source of vitamin C, provitamin A, phosphorus, and iron 

(CCI, 2000; Fischer, 2000) and are rich in pectin (Morton, 1987). It is mentioned that the Cape 

gooseberry fruit purifies blood, diminishes albumin in the kidneys, alleviates throat problems, 

strengthens the optic nerve, cleans cataracts, acts as a calcifier, and controls amoebiasis (CCI, 

2000). In Colombia, the leaf decoction is taken as a diuretic and antiasthmatic (Morton, 1987). In 

South Africa, the heated leaves are applied as poultices on inflammations, and the Zulus 

administer the leaf infusion as an enema to relieve abdominal ailments in children (Morton, 

1987). 

Production Zones in Chile 

The best zones for this crop in Chile are flat valleys with mainly drip irrigation (Region III to 

Region VII) (SAG, 2005a). The Chilean regions where the product is currently grown are 

Metropolitan Region, Region IV, Region V, Region VI, and Region VII (SAG, 2007b). 
Pest risk assessment for Cape gooseberry from Chile 

Ver. 8 July 13, 2011 27

Appendix B. Pest interceptions on Physalis peruviana into the United States from 1985 to 2008 

(PestID, 2008).

Pest identified Origin Intercpts.

(no.) 

Live 

stage(s) 

Where found Plant part 

Agromyzidae, Species of MX 1 I Permit cargo Fruit 

Aleurodicus dispersus HI 1 P Baggage Leaf 

Arhopalus sp. MX 1 I Permit cargo Fruit 

Asteraceae, Species of MX 1 - Mail Fruit 

Blapstinus sp. MX 1 A General cargo Fruit 

Chaectonema sp. MX 1 A Permit cargo Fruit 

Chloropidae, Species of MX 1 I Permit cargo Fruit 

Chrysomelidae, Species of MX 1 I Permit cargo Fruit 

Cicadellidae, Species of HI 1 I Baggage Leaf 

Copitarsia sp. MX 16 I Baggage, Permit cargo Fruit 

Diptera, Species of MX, 

NZ 

3 I Baggage, General 

cargo, Permit cargo 

Fruit 

Gelechiidae, Species of MX, 

NZ 

4 I Baggage, Permit cargo Fruit 

Geometridae, Species of MX 1 I Permit cargo Fruit 

Gryllus sp. MX 1 A Permit cargo Fruit 

Lema sp. MX 1 I Permit cargo Fruit 

Lineodes integra MX 1 I Permit cargo Fruit 

Lineodes sp. MX 1 I Permit cargo Fruit 

Lonchaeidae, Species of MX 1 I Permit cargo Fruit 

Lygaeoidae, Species of MX 2 I Permit cargo Fruit 

Monoxia sp. MX 1 A Permit cargo Fruit 

Noctuidae, Species of MX 4 I; P Permit cargo Fruit 

Phomopsis sp. NZ 1 - Permit cargo Fruit 

Psyllidae, Species of MX 1 I Permit cargo Fruit 

Pyralidae, Species of MX 3 I Baggage, Permit cargo Fruit 

Rhagoletis sp. MX 5 I Permit cargo Fruit 

Tarsonemus sp. MX 2 A Permit cargo Fruit 

Tephritidae, Species of MX 2 I Baggage Fruit 

Thripidae, Species of MX 1 A Permit cargo Fruit 

Trichobaris sp. MX 1 I Permit cargo Fruit 

Xestocephalus sp. MX 1 A Permit cargo Fruit a

 Origins: HI = Hawaii, MX = Mexico, NZ = New Zealand 

b

 I= Immature; A = Pupae; A = Adult