### 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, NCPest risk assessment for Cape gooseberry from Chile

Ver. 8 July 13, 2011 ii 

### Executive Summary

In this assessment we examined the risks asso ciated with the importati on 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 Po tential of Cape gooseberry .............................................2 2.3. Current Status, Deci sion History, and Pest Interceptions .............................................3 2.4. Pest Categorization–Iden tification 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 in formation about the crop, Physalis peruviana L.

, Cape gooseberry.

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

2008........................................................................................................................... ...27Pest 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 Un ited States Department of Agriculture (USDA) to examine potential pest risks associated with the importation of fresh fr uits of Cape gooseberry ( Physalis peruviana L.) with husks (Fig. 1), from the Re public of Chile (Fig. 2) into the continental United States. This pest risk assessm ent is pathway-initiate d because it is based on the risks that may be associated with the importa tion of this commodity. It is qualitative and risk is expressed in descriptive te rms (High, Medium, and Low) rath er than as probabilities or frequencies. The methodology and rati ng criteria are explained in the Guidelines for PathwayInitiated Pest Risk Assessments, Version 5.02 (PPQ, 2000).

International plant protection organizations su ch as the North American Plant Protection Organization (NAPPO) and the In ternational Plant Protection C onvention (IPPC) of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (F AO) provide guidance for conducting pest risk analyses. The methods used in this PRA are consis tent 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 phytos anitary terms used in this
document are in accordance with those in Intern ational Standards for Phytosanitary Measures No. 5: Glossary of Phytosanitary Terms (IPPC, 2 007). 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 compon ent 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, 2007Pest 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-initi ated 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 regulat ory 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 po tential 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, Ca pulí, 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, Per uvian 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), Alie n Plant Invaders of Natu ral Areas (Swearingen, 2007)

NO World’s Worst Weeds (Holm et al., 1991b), World Weeds: Natural Histories and
Distribution (Holm et al., 1997), Weed Science Soci ety of America List (WSSA, 2006), Federal Noxious Weed List (PPQ , 2006), Economically Important Foreign Weeds (Reed, 1977), Identification of disse minules listed in the Federal Noxious Weed Act (Gunn and Ritchie, 1988), Globa l Invasive Species Database (ISSG,Pest risk assessment for Cape gooseberry from Chile

Ver. 8 July 13, 2011 3 2007), Invasive Plant Species of the Wo rld (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, Fl orida 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 con tinental United States a nd the answers to four

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

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

weed of unknown importance in Australia (EPPO, 2006), Fiji, India, New Zealand, Peru, West Polynesia, and the Unite d States (Holm et al., 1991a)

● It is considered a weed in Australia, Ecua dor (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 fore sts edges, riparian ha bitats, 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 me sic 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 ec onomic plant and is widely naturalized and cultivated (Wiersema and León, 1999)

● It was introduced to Flor ida a long time ago and good crop s have been obtained there (Morton, 1987)

● Frost is likely to limit the distribution of this plant in the United Stat es (Silber and Silber, 1996)

● This plant is not under official cont rol in the continen tal United States

2.3. Current Status, Decision History, and Pest Interceptions

2.3.1. Current Status Currently, Cape gooseberry is authorized to ente r 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 a ny restrictions (PPQ, 2007).

Over the past few decades, only one PRA has b een done for the importation of Cape gooseberry into the United States, for fr uit 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 informa tion (particularly the da te) 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, Geometrida e, Lonchaeidae, Lygaeoidae, Noctuidae, Pyralidae, Tephritidae, and Thripi dae 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 beca use 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 associat ion of the pest with plant parts, (4) the quarantine stat us of the pest in the continenta l United States, and (5) whether or not the pest is likely to follow the pathway in to the United States. Pests in shaded rows were analyzed further.

Table 2. Prior decisions by the United Stat es 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 fr eedom 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 Mediterranea n 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 AllowedPest risk assessment for Cape gooseberry from Chile

Ver. 8 July 13, 2011 5 Table 3. Pests reported on Cape gooseb erry and present in Chile.

Pest Scientific Name Distribution 1 Host
association Plant part
association 2 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 continenta l 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 Distribution 1 Host
association Plant part
association 2 Quarantine pest Follow pathway Coleoptera-Tenebrionidae Blapstinus sp. CL (González, 1980) PestID, 2008 F (PestID, 2008) Yes 3 Yes 4

Diptera-Agromyzidae
Liriomyza huidobrensis (Blanchard) CL (CABI, 2006); US (CA) 5 (CABI, 2006) Avila and Forero, 1989 N/A Yes 6 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 ge nus 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 mo re completely in the future, we may reevaluate the risk.

5 Recent genetic analyses confir med 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 Distribution 1 Host
association Plant part
association 2 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 No 7

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) Yes 3 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 Distribution 1 Host
association Plant part
association 2 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.,

2005 10 R, L, S, Sp (Martins, et al. 2005),

F 11 (rare)(SanchezPerez et al., 2007) Yes Yes 12

8 Bacterial classification and nomenclatu re 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 se lected 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 Distribution 1 Host
association Plant part
association 2 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 Li brary 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 Distribution 1 Host
association Plant part
association 2 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/APest risk assessment for Cape gooseberry from Chile

Ver. 8 July 13, 2011 11

Pest Scientific Name Distribution 1 Host
association Plant part
association 2 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

NEMATODES 14

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

VIRUS 15

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 nemat odes are written accordin g 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 Distribution 1 Host
association Plant part
association 2 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 inf ected 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 syst em, and contact with aPest risk assessment for Cape gooseberry from Chile

Ver. 8 July 13, 2011 13 susceptible host).

2.6. Quarantine Pests Not Consid ered 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 exam ple, they may be associ ated mainly with plant parts other than the commodity; may be asso ciated with the commodity, but would not reasonably remain with the commodity during pr ocessing; or may have been intercepted as biological contaminants of these commodities du ring 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 w ith low risk. By necessity, pe st assessments focus on those organisms for which biological informa tion is available. This applied to Blapstinus sp. in this assessment. If these or other pests identifie d only to higher taxa are intercepted on Cape gooseberry, then we may reevaluate their risk.

Ceratitis capitata , Mediterranean fruit fly (Medfly), has be en reported once as a pest of Cape gooseberry (Liquido et al., 1991). Since 1965, Medf ly 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 (S AG, 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 Medf ly 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 pe st list, however, because the aut hor clarified that this report corresponds to a laborato ry inoculation only (Blanco, 2007). Th is 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 fl ower 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 in spection PPQ officers may inter cept pests that are biological contaminants of Cape gooseberries, but these cont aminants 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 Sc ience and Technology: Colombia O. P. Parfait, Former APHIS Risk Analyst N. Arciniegas, Risk Analyst

Contributors
Center for Plant Health Sc ience 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 t echnical 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 analys t with USDA-APHIS-CPHST Colombia, for his
collaboration.



### 5. Literature Cited

7 CFR § 319. 2007. U.S. Code of Federal Regulati ons, 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 Agr opecuario, Bogota (Colombia). Programa de Frutales. Bogota (Colombia), 1988. Angulo, R. 2003. Frutales exóticos de clim a frío. Técnica Gráfica San Ltda. 136 pp. Angulo, A. O. 2007. Libro de ento mología. Last accessed May 23, 2007, http://www2.udec.cl/entomologi a/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_extensi on/Revista/Ediciones/12/informe2.pdf. Apablaza, G. 2006. Enfermedades virosas de la pa pa en Chile. Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Facultad de Agronomía e Ing. Forestal , Magíster en Cienci as Vegetales, Área

Protección de Cultivos. Last accessed April 4, 2006, from http://cursos.puc.cl:82/agl211-1/al macen/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. Na tional Plant Board. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Serv ice (APHIS). Last accessed July 17, 2007, http://www.nationalp lantboard.org/docs/statenwnew.pdf. Avila, M. A., and V. H. Forero. 1989. Reconocim iento 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 w ith Dr. Silvina Bado, Agronomist of the “Fruticultura group, Plant Health” of the EEA C (Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Chubut) pertaining to the INTA (Instituto N acional de Tecnología Agropecuaria) on 2 nd
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, As ohofrucol, and Fondo Nacional de fomento
Hortifruticola. Ben-Dov, Y., D. R. Miller, and G. A. P. Gibs on. 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 Univer sity and ICA in Colombia, August 29, 2007. Bolland, H. R., J. Gutierrez, and C. H. W. Flech tmann. 1998. World catalogue of the spider mite family (Acari: Tetranychi dae). 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/agronegoc ios/productosparainvertir/fr utas/uvilla/uvilla_para_X.p
df. Brogle, A. 2004. Evaluación de una formulaci ón de thiacloprid más β -ciflutrina sobre la polilla de la papa, Phthorimaea operculella (Zeller) (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae). Thesis. Universidad de Chile, Facultad de Cienci as Agronómicas, Escuela de Agronomía Last accessed April 3, 2007, from http://www.cybertesis.cl/tesis/uchi le/2004/brogle_a/sour ces/brogle_a.pdf. Brown, J. W., and K. Bash. 1997. The Lepidopter a of Marine Corps Air Station Miramar: Calculating Faunal Similarity among Samp ling Sites and Estimating Total SpeciesPest 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.e du/~carlo/JRL/36/PDF/36-045.pdf. Brunt, A., K. Crabtree, and A. Gibbs. 1990. Viruse s of Tropical Plants: De scriptions 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 Da tabase. Last accessed August 29, 2007, from http://phene.cpmc.colu mbia.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 feat ures 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 En fermedades de las Plantas de Importancia Económica en Colombia. Produmedios, Bogotá. CABI. 2006. Crop Protection Compendium. Gl obal Module. Commonwealth Agricultural
Bureau International. 20 06 Edition. Wallingford, UK. CABI. 2007. Crop Protection Compendium. Gl obal Module. Commonwealth Agricultural
Bureau International. 20 07 Edition. Wallingford, UK. Cano, V. 1999. Bioecología de la mosca blanca de los invernaderos Trialeurodes vaporariorum (Westwood) (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae), plaga de l fréjol. Resumen de tesis, Pontificia
Universidad Católica del Ecuador. CATIE. Re vista "Manejo Integra do de Plagas" No. 52. Last accessed February 25, 2008, from http://web.catie.ac.cr/in formacion/RMIP/rmip52/nmb52.htm Carvalho, J. C. M. 1958. A catalogue of the Miridae of the world. Pa rt II. Arq. Mus. Nac., Rio de Janeiro 45:216 pp. Carvalho, J., and C. R. Afonso, 1977. Mirideos neot ropicais, CCVIII: Sobre uma coleiao enviada para estudo pela academia de ci encias da California (Hemiptera). Rev. Brasil. Biol., 37(1):7-16. CCI. 2000. Perfil de producto No. 13: Uchuva. Inteli gencia 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. Ev ans. 1997. Poha. CTAHR Fact Sheet Horticultural Commodity no. 3, January 1997. University of Hawaii at Manoa. College of Tropical Agriculture & Human Resour ces (CTAHR); Cooperative Extension Service. Last accessed December 19, 2006, http://www.ctahr.ha waii.edu/oc/freepubs/pdf/HC-3.pdf.
Commonwealth of Australia. 2003. Netherlands Truss Tomatoes Draft Import Policy. Biosecurity Australia. Ministry of Agricu lture, 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. Art eaga. 2006. Producción de uvilla Physalis peruviana L., var africana , con dos densidades de si embra y fertilización orgáni ca, en la hoya de Loja. Universidad Nacional de Loja, Área Agropecu aria y de Recursos Naturales Renovables. Tesis previa a la obtención del títu lo de Ing. Agrónomo. Loja, Ecuador. CPHST. 2008. Biological and Taxonomic Support (B ATS) Database. Center for Plant Health Science and Technology (CPHST), Plant Epid emiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory.Pest risk assessment for Cape gooseberry from Chile

Ver. 8 July 13, 2011 17 https://www.peral.org/BATS/i ndex.cfm?CFID=928795&CFTOKEN=45278576. (Archived at PERAL) CRFG. 1997. Cape Gooseberry. California Ra re 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, Centra l 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_a bsoluta/DS_Tuta_absoluta.pdf - EPPO. 2006. Plant Quarantine Information Retr ieval System (PQR) database. Version 4.5. European and Mediterranean Plan t Protection Organization (EPPO).
FAO. 2006. AGRIS – Information for Internationa l 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, a nd E. B. McCray. 2007. Fungal Databases. United States Department of Agricu lture, 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. Nema base 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 Co lombia. 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, UNIBI BLOS, Bogotá. Last accessed January 4, 2008, from http://agronom ia.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, a nd J. Romero (eds.). Avances en cultivo, postcosecha y exportación de la uchuva ( Physalis peruviana L.) en Colombia. Universidad Nacional de Colombia, F acultad 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 impor tancia cuarentenaria en fruta de exportacion. Asociacion de Exportadores de Chile, Corpor acion privada para el Desarrollo de las Ciencias Agropecuarias de Chile. Santiago, Chile. González, R. H. 1989. Insectos y Acaros de Impor tancia 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. Identifi cation 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 Departme nt of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Pl ant 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 Plan t 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, a nd 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 Wi ley 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. In vasive 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. Ba ker. 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. (Distribuc ión e importancia de lo s artrópodos asociados a la agricultura y si lvicultura en Chile). ACIAR (C anberra, Australia) Monograph No 68, 231 p. Kranz, J., H. Schmutterer, and W. Koch (eds). 1977. Diseases, pests and w eeds in tropical crops. Verlag Paul Parey. Berlin and Hamburg, Germany. 666 pp.
Landcare Research. 2007. NZFUNGI database. Last accessed April 16, 2007, http://nzfungi.landcareresear ch.co.nz/html/search_hosts.asp. Larraín, P. 2002. Insect and mite pe st 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. Cunni ngham. 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 CooperaciónPest risk assessment for Cape gooseberry from Chile

Ver. 8 July 13, 2011 19 Técnica. Ministerio de Agricu ltura y Ganaderia de Ecuador–I nstituto Interamericano de Cooperación para la Agricultura (M AG-IICA). Last accessed December 8, 2006, http://www.sica.gov.ec/agrone gocios/biblioteca/ConvenioM AGIICA/productos/uvilla_m ag.pdf. Martins, O. M., F. Nabizadeh-Ardekani, a nd 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 Synony my and Distribution [Catalogue of the Homoptera, Fascicle 6, Abridged]. USDA Ag ricultural 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 (VAScu lar Tropicos) nomenclatural database (W 3 TROPICOS). Last accessed December 14, 2006, http://mobot.mobot.org/cgibin/search_vast. Morton, J. 1987. Cape gooseberry. Purdue Univer sity. Center for New Crops & Plant Products. Pages 430-434 in Fruits of warm climates. Last accessed December 26, 2006, http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcro p/morton/cape_gooseberry.html. NAL. 2006. AGRICultural OnLine Access (AGRICOL A). National Agricultural Library (NAL). Last accessed December 07, 2006, from http://agricola.nal.usda.gov/. National Library of Medicine. 2007. National Ce nter for Biotechnology Information (NCBI). Taxonomy. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/taxonomy NGRP. 2007. Germplasm Resources Information Ne twork (GRIN). United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Servic e, National Germplasm Resources Laboratory (NGRP), Beltsville, Maryla nd. 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/Ag ronomia24-1/Madurezfrutouchuva.pdf. Parfait, O. 2007. Trip report of a visit realized by Oliv ier P. Parfait on Jul y, 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 consum ption from infested regions. Raleigh, NC. 25 pp. PestID. 2008. Pest Identification (P estID) database. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Se rvice, Riverdale, MD.
PFAF. 2007. Plants For A Future: Database Search Results for Physalis peruviana . Plants For AFuture (PFAF). Last accessed December 13, 2007, http://www.ibiblio.org/pfaf/cgibin/arr_html?Physa lis+peruviana&PRINTPest 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/e xternos/lab_micologia/bole tines/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 a nd Quarantine (PPQ). Riverdale, MD. PPQ. 2000. Guidelines for pathway-initiated pest ri sk assessments (version 5.02). United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Serv ice, Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ). La st 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 Protec tion and Quarantine (PPQ). 74 pp. http://www.aphis.usda.gov/plan t_health/plant_pest_info/ral stonia/downloads/rasltoniaacti onplanv4web.pdf. PPQ. 2006. Federal Noxious Weed List. United Stat es Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Pl ant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ). http://www.aphis.usda.gov/plan t_health/plant_pest_info/w eeds/downloads/weedlist2006. pdf. PPQ. 2007. Regulating the Importation of Fresh Fr uits and Vegetables. Nonpropagative Manual. United States Department of Agriculture, An imal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine (P PQ). Last accessed December 20, 2007, http://www.aphis.usda.gov/import_export/p lants/manuals/ports/downloads/fv.pdf. PPQ. 2008a. Designated Pest(s) Free Areas That Meet APHIS Requi rements for Pest-free Areas
Listed in 7 CFR 319.56- 5. Revision 20080609_002. United St ates Department of Agriculture; Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service; Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ). http://www.aphis.usda.gov/import_export/plant s/manuals/ports/downloads/DesignatedPe stFreeAreas.pdf PPQ. 2008b. Fresh Fruits and Vegetables Impor t 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 Ar eas 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 diseas e 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 w eeds: 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 Databa se System. Division of Biological Sciences, Univ ersity 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. Kitchi ng, G. W. Beccaloni, and L. M. Hernández. 2008. HOSTS–A Database of the World’s Lepidopt eran Hostplants. The Natural History Museum, Department of Entomology. Last accessed February 25, 2008, http://internt.nhm.ac.uk/jdsml/research-cura tion/projects/hostplants//index.dsml. Román, J. 2007. Personal communication to Chri stie 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 Foment o Hortofrutícola, In stituto Colombiano Agropecuario (ICA). Editor: Grupo Transfer encia 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/ur l/ITEM/0F826E629997DFDCE040A8C0100112D7
SAG. 2007a. Personal communication with R oberto Mir of the SAG-USDA Preshipment Program of Servicio Agrícola y Ga nadero de Chile (SAG) on June 6, 2007.
SAG. 2007b. Personal communication with R oberto Mir of the SAG-USDA Preshipment Program of Servicio Agrícola y Gana dero 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, Un iversity of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI; Facultad de Agronomia, Universidad de San Carlos de Guatemala, Ciudad Guatemala, Guatemala; and CRC for Tropi cal Plant Protection, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Aust ralia. 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 Univer sity of Texas at Austin, on May 17, 2007. Scheffer, S. J. 2000. Molecular eviden ce of cryptic species within the Liriomyza huidobrensis (Diptera: Agromyzidae). Journal of Economic Entomology 93(4):1146-1151. Scheffer, S. J. 2004. Personal communication wi th Sonja J. Scheffer, Ph.D., Systematic Entomology Laboratory, USDA, Beltsville, on April 2, 2004. Scheffer, S. J., A. Wijesekara, D. Visser, a nd R. H. Hallett. 2001. Polymerase Chain Reactionrestriction fragment-length polymor phism method to distinguish Liriomyza huidobrensis
from L. langei (Diptera: Agromyzidae) applied to three recent leafminer invasions. Horticultural Entomology. Journal of Economic Entomology 94(5):1177-1182.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 cen tral Chile and its association with vectors [abstract]. Instituto de Investigaciones Agropecuaria s (INIA). Agricultura Técnica 65(3):235-245. Silber, D., and T. Silber. 1996. A Guide for Choos ing 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 Inf ection of Geranium. Department of Plant Pathology, University of Wisconsin-Madis on, 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 Wo rking 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 exó ticos. 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 (Agric ulture Handbook No. 165). United States Department of Agricu lture (USDA), Washington, DC. 531 pp.
USDA-Forest Service. 2007. Pacifi c Island Ecosystems at Risk (P IER). Plant threats to Pacific ecosystems. Institute of Pacific Islands Fore stry. PIER website version 5.2. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service. Last acc essed December 20, 2007, from http://www.hear.org/pier/. USDA-NRCS. 2007. The PLANTS Database, Vers ion 3.5. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Resources C onservation Service (NRCS) National Plant Data Center, Baton Rouge, LA. Last acces sed 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. G onzález, 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, Co lombia; Laboratorio de Fitopatología, Facultad de Ciencias, Universida d Militar Nueva Granada, Bogotá, Colombia. Plant Dis. 91:464. Last accessed May 11, 2007, http://www.apsnet.org/pd/searc hnotes/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. La st accessed February 1, 2008, http://www.padil.gov.au/viewPest.aspx?id=1015. Weber, E. 2003. Invasive plant species of the worl d: 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 Co mposite List of Weeds as compiled by the Standardized
Plant Names subcommittee. Weed Science So ciety of America (WSSA). Last accessed March 30, 2007, http://www.wssa.net/Weeds/ID/WeedName s/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 cul tivo, poscosecha y exportación de la Uchuva Physalis peruviana L. en Colombia. 221 pp. Universidad Nacional de Colombia; Fondo
Nacional de Fomento Hortifru tícola; Asociación Hortifrutí cola 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 occasiona lly 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-shape d, 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). Th e flowers are hermaphroditic (having both male and female organs), pollinated by bees a nd wind (PFAF, 2007), or se lf-pollinated (CRFG, 1997). After the flower falls, the calyx expands, fo rming 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 cont aining numerous very small, yellowish, edible seeds (Ligarreto et al., 2005; Morton, 1987). As th e fruits ripen, they begin to drop to the ground, but will continue to mature and change from gr een 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 impor tant 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 (Lig arreto et al., 2005). Cape gooseberry was being grown in England in 1774 and was cultivated by early sett lers 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 car ried to Australia and there acquired its common English name (Mor ton, 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 Ke nya), Europe [e.g., the Czech Republic, Italy, Portugal (Açores islands), Spain], Hawaii, India, Israel, Micronesia, Ma laysia, 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 dur ing the whole year. Kenya exports irregularly during autumn. New Zealand export s principally to Europe betw een 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 Califor nia, but generally only on a small scale fromPest risk assessment for Cape gooseberry from Chile

Ver. 8 July 13, 2011 25 time to time; California markets have been suppl ied 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 tr opics. In California, it is best grown as an annual, but will persist fo r 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 th rives 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 rec over 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, 200 0). Surprisingly, in England, the plants have been found undamaged at -3oC (26.6oF) (Morton, 1987). In Co lombia 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), a nd 70 and 80 percent, respectively, with a good drainage (Fischer, 2000). In Ecuador, it grows well with a nnual 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 ar e sandy clay loam soils with a pH of 5.5 to 7.0, rich in organic matter (6 to 8 per cent), and easily drained (MAG-IICA, 2001).

Harvest and Post-Harvest Cape gooseberries can be harvested when the fru its 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 wh en the plants are dry, in the cooler morning hours, avoiding ra in (Galvis et al., 2005). The fru its 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 mu st look fresh (Galvis et al., 2005; MAG-IICA, 2001). Once transported to the packing place, every fr uit 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). Afte r the inspection, the fruits are left on a clean surface for approximately 30 hours at temperatur es 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, th e 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 take s 6 to 9 hours at temper atures between 18 andPest risk assessment for Cape gooseberry from Chile

Ver. 8 July 13, 2011 26 24oC (64.4 and 75.2oF) (G alvis et al., 2005). The fruits are then put on tables to be sorted; fruits with imperfections in the husk, that are fractu red, or that are not the minimum size (1.5 cm [0.591 in]) are rejected. Afterwar ds, 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 46.4o F), with a relative humid ity of 80 to 90 percent (MAG-IICA, 2001). In Colombia, the normal storag e temperature is 12oC (53.6oF); under this condition, the fruit will reach its peak in a pproximately 12 days. Storage in a modified atmosphere, using microperforated polyester-pol ypropylene plastic film, in creases the shelf life up to 30 days at 19oC and 60 per cent relative humidity (66.2oF) (G alvis et al., 2005). The fruits can also be kept in a dry atmosphere in a scal ed container for several months (Morton, 1987). If
the fresh fruits are to be shi pped 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 c ontrols 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 va lleys 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