<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
<meta name="cp:revision" content="2">
<meta name="extended-properties:AppVersion" content="12.0000">
<meta name="meta:paragraph-count" content="214">
<meta name="meta:word-count" content="14524">
<meta name="dc:creator" content="ytakeuchi">
<meta name="extended-properties:Company" content="USDA APHIS">
<meta name="meta:print-date" content="2009-03-05T21:35:00Z">
<meta name="dcterms:created" content="2011-01-05T20:09:00Z">
<meta name="meta:line-count" content="774">
<meta name="dcterms:modified" content="2011-01-05T20:09:00Z">
<meta name="meta:character-count" content="92943">
<meta name="meta:character-count-with-spaces" content="107253">
<meta name="dc:title" content="Qualitative Pathway-Initiated Risk Assessment of the Importation of Litchi Litchi chinensis from Republic of South Africa into">
<meta name="extended-properties:TotalTime" content="1">
<meta name="Content-Length" content="156225">
<meta name="Content-Type" content="application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document">
<meta name="custom:ContentTypeId" content="0x0101000CB7AD05AE3FB4488C3FC17D21BAB60C009C8E16A4B003054E9D3F093AE8F44F0D">
<meta name="extended-properties:Application" content="Microsoft Office Word">
<meta name="meta:last-author" content="mephillips">
<meta name="xmpTPg:NPages" content="44">
<meta name="extended-properties:Template" content="Normal.dotm">
<meta name="X-TIKA:Parsed-By" content="org.apache.tika.parser.DefaultParser">
<meta name="X-TIKA:Parsed-By" content="org.apache.tika.parser.microsoft.ooxml.OOXMLParser">
<meta name="extended-properties:DocSecurityString" content="None">
<meta name="meta:page-count" content="44">
<meta name="dc:publisher" content="USDA APHIS">
<title>Qualitative Pathway-Initiated Risk Assessment of the Importation of Litchi Litchi chinensis from Republic of South Africa into</title>
</head>
<body><p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p><b>Importation of Fresh Litchi, <i>Litchi chinensis </i>Sonn., Fruit from the Republic of South Africa into the Continental United States</b></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p><b>A Qualitative, Pathway-initiated Pest Risk Assessment</b></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p><b>January 4, 2011</b></p>
<p></p>
<p><b>Revision 06</b></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p><b>Agency Contact:</b></p>
<p></p>
<p>Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory</p>
<p>Center for Plant Health Science and Technology</p>
<p></p>
<p>United States Department of Agriculture</p>
<p>Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service</p>
<p>Plant Protection and Quarantine</p>
<p>1730 Varsity Drive </p>
<p>Suite 300</p>
<p>Raleigh, NC 27606</p>
<h1><a name="_Toc111860318"></a><a name="_Toc188265667"></a><a name="_Toc188265759"></a><a name="_Toc223857321"></a><a name="_Toc224030462"></a>
Executive Summary</h1>
<p></p>
<p>This risk assessment document examines the risks associated with the importation of litchi (<i>Litchi chinensis</i>) into the continental United States. Information on pests associated with litchi from the Republic of South Africa revealed that eight <b>High</b> risk quarantine pests exist and could be introduced into the United States via this pathway. The <b>High</b> risk quarantine pests likely to follow the pathway were all insects.</p>
<p></p>
<p><b>Insects:</b></p>
<p><i>Ceratitis capitata</i> Wiedemann (Diptera: Tephritidae)</p>
<p><i>Ceratitis rosa</i> Karsch (Diptera: Tephritidae)</p>
<p><i>Ceroplastes rubens</i> Maskell (Hemiptera: Coccidae)</p>
<p><i>Ceroplastes rusci</i> (Linnaeus) (Hemiptera: Coccidae)</p>
<p><i>Coccus viridis</i> (Green) (Hemiptera: Coccidae)</p>
<p><i>Cryptophlebia peltastica</i> (Meyrick) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae)</p>
<p><i>Nipaecoccus viridis </i>(Newstead) (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae)</p>
<p><i>Thaumatotibia leucotreta </i>(Meyrick) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae)</p>
<p></p>
<p>The quarantine pests were qualitatively analyzed based on international principles and internal guidelines as described in the PPQ Guidelines for Pathway-Initiated Pest Risk Assessments, Version 5.02 (PPQ, 2000), which examines pest biology in the context of Consequences of Introduction and Likelihood of Introduction. These elements help estimate the Pest Risk Potential. All of the listed pests pose phytosanitary risks to American agriculture and received High risk ratings. Port-of-entry inspections, as a sole mitigative measure, are considered insufficient to safeguard U.S. agriculture from these pests. Additional phytosanitary measures are necessary to reduce risks to acceptable levels.</p>
<p><b>
Table of Contents</b></p>
<p></p>
<p class="toc_1">Executive Summary	ii</p>
<p class="toc_1">1. Introduction	1</p>
<p class="toc_1">2. Risk Assessment	1</p>
<p class="toc_2">2.1 Initiating Event: Proposed Action	1</p>
<p class="toc_2">2.2 Assessment of Weediness Potential of litchi, <a href="#_Toc224030466"><i>Litchi chinensis</i></a>	1</p>
<p class="toc_2">2.3 Previous Risk Assessment, Current Status and Pest Interceptions, and Decision History	2</p>
<p class="toc_2">2.4 Pest Categorization	3</p>
<p class="toc_2">2.5 Consequences of Introduction	10</p>
<p class="toc_2">2.6 Introduction Potential	19</p>
<p class="toc_2">2.7 Conclusion – Pest Risk Potential and Pests Requiring Phytosanitary Measures	22</p>
<p class="toc_1">3. Author & Reviewers	23</p>
<p class="toc_1">4. Literature Cited	24</p>
<p class="toc_1">5. Appendices	29</p>
<p class="toc_2">Appendix A. Risk Mitigation Options	29</p>
<p class="toc_2">Appendix B. Treatment Schedules	34</p>
<p><b></b></p>
<p class="header"></p>
<p class="header"><i>Pest risk assessment for Litchi from the Republic of South Africa</i></p>
<p></p>
<p class="footer"></p>
<p class="footer"></p>
<p class="footer">ii</p>
<p class="footer">Rev. 06	January 4, 2011</p>
<h1><a name="_Toc188265668"></a><a name="_Toc188265760"></a><a name="_Toc223857322"></a><a name="_Toc224030463"></a>1. Introduction</h1>
<p></p>
<p>The Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory of the United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine, Center of Plant Health Science and Technology (USDA APHIS PPQ CPHST) prepared this pest risk assessment to examine plant pest risks associated with the importation of fresh litchi fruit (also known as lychee, leechee or lechee nut), <i>Litchi chinensis, </i>from the Republic of South Africa into the United States. This is a qualitative risk assessment, i.e<i>.</i>, estimates of risk are expressed in qualitative terms (“High,” “Medium” or “Low”), rather than probabilities or frequencies. Details of the methodology and rating criteria can be found in the template document, Guidelines for Pathway-Initiated Pest Risk Assessments, Version 5.02 (APHIS, 2002: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/pra/commodity/cpraguide.pdf).</p>
<p></p>
<p>International plant protection organizations, such as the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) of the United Nations, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the North American Plant Protection Organization (NAPPO), provide guidance for conducting pest risk analyses. The methods used to initiate, conduct, and report pest risk assessments are consistent with guidelines provided by IPPC and NAPPO. The use of biological and phytosanitary terms conforms to the Definitions and Abbreviations (Introduction Section) in the International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures, Section 1-Import Regulations Guidelines for Pest Risk Analysis (IPPC,2004), the Glossary of Phytosanitary Terms (IPPC, 2006) and the NAPPO Compendium of Phytosanitary Terms. These guidelines describe three stages of pest risk analysis: Stage 1, Initiation, Stage 2, Risk Assessment, and Stage 3, Risk Management. This document satisfies the requirements of IPPC Stages 1 and 2.</p>
<p></p>
<h1><a name="_Toc188265670"></a><a name="_Toc188265762"></a><a name="_Toc223857323"></a><a name="_Toc224030464"></a>2. Risk Assessment</h1>
<p><a name="_Toc188265672"></a><a name="_Toc188265764"></a></p>
<h2><a name="_Toc223857324"></a><a name="_Toc224030465"></a>2.1 Initiating Event: Proposed Action</h2>
<p></p>
<p>This commodity-based, pathway-initiated assessment is in response to a request for USDA authorization to allow the importation of litchi, <i>Litchi chinensis</i>, from the Republic of South Africa into the continental United States, even though it is a potential pathway for exotic plant pests. Title 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations 319, Part 56 (7CFR § 319.56) provides regulatory authority for the importation of fruits and vegetables from foreign sources into the United States.</p>
<p></p>
<h2><a name="_Toc188265674"></a><a name="_Toc188265766"></a><a name="_Toc223857325"></a><a name="_Toc224030466"></a>2.2 Assessment of Weediness Potential of litchi, <i>Litchi chinensis</i></h2>
<p></p>
<p>This step examines the potential of the commodity to become a weed after it enters the United States (Table 1). If the assessment indicates a significant weediness potential, then a “pest-initiated” risk assessment is conducted. The results of the weediness screening for <i>Litchi chinensis</i> did not prompt a pest-initiated risk assessment (Table 1).</p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p><b>Table 1. </b>Assessment of weediness potential of <i>Litchi chinensis</i></p>
<table><tbody><tr>	<td><p><b>Commodity:</b> Fruits of <i>Litchi chinensis</i> Sonn.</p>
<p><b>Phase 1: </b>Litchi is grown in Florida and Hawaii.</p>
<p><b>Phase 2:</b> Answer Yes or No to the following questions:</p>
<p>No	Geographical Atlas of World Weeds (Holm et al<i>.</i>, 1979)</p>
<p>No	World’s Worst Weeds (Holm et al., 1977) or World Weeds: Natural Histories and Distribution (Holm et al<i>.</i>, 1997)</p>
<p>No 	Report of the Technical committee to Evaluate Noxious Weeds: Exotic weeds for Federal Noxious Weed Act (Gunn & Ritchie, 1982)</p>
<p>No	Economically Important Foreign Weeds (Reed, 1977)</p>
<p>No 	Weed Science Society of America List (WSSA, 1989)</p>
<p>No	Are there any literature references indicating weediness (e.g<i>.</i>, AGRICOLA, CAB, Biological Abstracts, AGRIS; search on “species name” combined with “weed”)</p>
<p><b>Phase 3: </b><i>Litchi chinensis</i> occurs in the United States; there is no indication of weediness in scientific literature. </p>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<h2><a name="_Toc188265676"></a><a name="_Toc188265768"></a><a name="_Toc223857326"></a><a name="_Toc224030467"></a>2.3 Previous Risk Assessment, Current Status and Pest Interceptions, and Decision History</h2>
<p></p>
<p>We found no previous pest risk assessments for this commodity from the same country/region, but some decisions had been made, as follows:</p>
<p></p>
<p>1980 – Deny entry of litchi: No treatment available for <i>Thaumatotibia leucotreta</i>.</p>
<p>1995 – Deny entry of litchi: No approved treatment for fruit flies [<i>Ceratitis capitata</i> and <i>Pterandrus</i> (<i>Ceratitis</i>) <i>rosa</i>]; existence of <i>Cryptophlebia peltasica</i> and <i>Thaumatotibia leucotreta </i>.</p>
<p></p>
<p>	</p>
<p><b>Table 2. </b>Pest interceptions on <i>Litchi chinensis</i> from African countries from 1985 to 2003 (APHIS, 2005).</p>
<table><tbody><tr>	<td><p><b>Organism</b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Country</b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Intercepted</b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Interceptions (no.)</b></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Acari sp.</p>
</td>	<td><p>Mauritius</p>
</td>	<td><p>Cargo</p>
</td>	<td><p>1</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Aulacaspis tubercularis</i></p>
</td>	<td><p>Tanzania</p>
</td>	<td><p>Baggage</p>
</td>	<td><p>1</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Ceratitis</i> sp.</p>
</td>	<td><p>Mauritius</p>
</td>	<td><p>Baggage</p>
</td>	<td><p>1</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Coccidae sp.</p>
</td>	<td><p>Madagascar</p>
</td>	<td><p>Baggage</p>
</td>	<td><p>1</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Cryptophlebia</i> sp.</p>
</td>	<td><p>Mauritius</p>
</td>	<td><p>Cargo</p>
</td>	<td><p>1</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Diaspididae sp.</p>
</td>	<td><p>Madagascar</p>
</td>	<td><p>Baggage</p>
</td>	<td><p>2</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Hemiberlesia</i> sp.</p>
</td>	<td><p>South Africa</p>
</td>	<td><p>Baggage</p>
</td>	<td><p>1</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Pseudococcidae sp.</p>
</td>	<td><p>Madagascar</p>
</td>	<td><p>Baggage</p>
</td>	<td><p>2</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Tephritidae sp.</p>
</td>	<td><p>South Africa</p>
</td>	<td><p>Baggage</p>
</td>	<td><p>1</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Thaumatotibia leucotreta </i></p>
</td>	<td><p>South Africa</p>
</td>	<td><p>Baggage</p>
</td>	<td><p>1</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Thripidae sp.</p>
</td>	<td><p>South Africa</p>
</td>	<td><p>Baggage</p>
</td>	<td><p>1</p>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<h2><a name="_Toc188265678"></a><a name="_Toc188265770"></a><a name="_Toc223857327"></a><a name="_Toc224030468"></a>2.4 Pest Categorization</h2>
<p></p>
<p>PPQ adheres to accepted international definitions of quarantine pest: “a pest of potential economic importance to the area endangered thereby and not yet present there, or present but not widely distributed and being officially controlled” (IPPC, 2006). The first step in identifying quarantine pests is to present a comprehensive pest list of potential quarantine pests known to occur in the country or region from which the commodity is to be exported. The list includes all pests in the exporting country associated with the parent species of the proposed export commodity. Because all pests on the list are associated with the plant species, they are considered to be “of potential economic importance” (IPPC, 2006). The listed pests may or may not occur in the United States.</p>
<p></p>
<p>There are two primary components to the definition of quarantine pest (IPPC, 2006). First, a pest must be “of potential economic importance” to be included on the comprehensive list of potential quarantine pests. An organism is considered to be of potential economic importance if scientific evidence, as indicated in the literature, demonstrates that an organism has an association with the plant species being assessed; as a result, all of the listed organisms are potential quarantine pests. Second, to be considered a quarantine pest, an organism must satisfy geographic and regulatory criteria, specifically, the pest must be “not yet present there or present but not widely distributed and being officially controlled” (IPPC, 2006). </p>
<p></p>
<p>The information collected in the risk assessment documents how each organism satisfies these criteria. Pertinent geographic and regulatory information, i.e<i>.</i>, with respect to the exporting country and the United States, is provided on the comprehensive pest list. If none of the potential quarantine pests satisfy the geographic and regulatory criteria as a quarantine pest, the PRA stops. Table 3 shows the pest list for <i>Litchi chinensis</i> from the Republic of South Africa. This pest list identifies: (1) the presence or absence of these pests in the United States, (2) the generally affected plant part or parts, (3) the quarantine status of the pest with respect to the United States, (4) whether the pest is likely to follow the pathway to enter the United States on commercially exported litchi, and (5) pertinent citations for either the distribution or the biology of the pest. A pest is considered to follow the pathway if it is associated with the fruit. </p>
<p></p>
<h3><a name="_Toc188265680"></a><a name="_Toc188265772"></a><a name="_Toc223857328"></a>2.4.1. Identify Quarantine Pests Likely to Follow the Pathway</h3>
<p>Quarantine pests identified as likely to be associated with the potential export commodity are subject to steps 5-7. The biology and pest potential for these pests is documented as completely as possible. It must be reasonable to assume these quarantine pests will:</p>
<p>· Be present in the exporting country</p>
<p>· Be associated with the commodity at the time of harvest</p>
<p>· Remain with the commodity in viable form during harvesting, packing and shipping procedures</p>
<p></p>
<p>Because pests associated with the parent species are listed, there will be quarantine pests not expected to follow the pathway, for example, a pest may be associated only with plant parts other than the commodity or a pest may not be reasonably expected to remain with the commodity during harvest and packing</p>
<p></p>
<p>Pests not expected to follow the pathway are not further considered. Supporting information must be documented on the pest list or in the text. The decision to not further analyze a particular pest only applies to the current PRA; a pest may pose a different level of risk for the same commodity from a different country or from a different commodity from the same host plant species. Should any pests be intercepted in shipments of the commodity, quarantine action may be taken at the port-of-entry and additional risk analyses may be conducted.</p>
<p></p>
<p><b>If no potential quarantine pests are identified, the PRA stops at this point.</b></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p><b>Table 3. </b>Pests associated with <i>Litchi chinensis</i> in the Republic of South Africa.</p>
<table><tbody><tr>	<td><p><b>Pest Scientific Name</b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Geographic distribution1</b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Plant part affected</b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Quaran-tine pest</b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Follow pathway</b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>References</b></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>ARTHROPODS </b></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Acari:</b> <b>Tarsonemidae</b></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Polyphagotarsonemus latus</i> (Banks)</p>
</td>	<td><p>RSA, US</p>
</td>	<td><p>leaf, flower, fruit, stem</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2005; Waite & Hwang, 2002</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Acari:</b> <b>Tenuipalpidae</b></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Brevipalpus phoenicis</i> (Geijskes)</p>
</td>	<td><p>RSA, US</p>
</td>	<td><p>leaf, stem, fruit</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2005</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Acari:</b> <b>Tetranychidae</b></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Oligonychus coffeae</i> (Nietner)</p>
</td>	<td><p>RSA, US</p>
</td>	<td><p>leaf</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2005; Waite & Hwang, 2002</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Oligonychus mangiferus</i> (Rahman & Sapra)</p>
</td>	<td><p>RSA, US (HI)</p>
</td>	<td><p>leaf</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2005; Jeppson, et al<i>.</i>, 1975</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Insecta</b></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Coleoptera: Curculionidae</b></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Sciobius brevicollis</i></p>
</td>	<td><p>RSA</p>
</td>	<td><p>Root2</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>Annecke & Moran, 1982</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Diptera: Tephritidae</b></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Ceratitis capitata</i> Wiedemann</p>
</td>	<td><p>RSA</p>
</td>	<td><p>fruit</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2005;</p>
<p>Annecke & Moran, 1982</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Ceratitis rosa</i> Karsch <i>Pterandrus rosa</i></p>
</td>	<td><p>RSA</p>
</td>	<td><p>fruit</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2005;</p>
<p>Annecke & Moran, 1982</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae</b></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Aleurocanthus woglumi</i> Ashby</p>
</td>	<td><p>RSA,</p>
<p>US (FL,HI,TX)</p>
</td>	<td><p>leaf</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2005</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Hemiptera:</b> <b>Aphididae</b></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Aphis gossypii</i> Glover  </p>
</td>	<td><p>RSA, US</p>
</td>	<td><p>leaf, stem, shoot, flower</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2005</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Aphis spiraecola</i> Patch  </p>
</td>	<td><p>RSA, US</p>
</td>	<td><p>leaf, stem, flower, fruit</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>No3</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2005</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Toxoptera aurantii</i> Boyer de Fonscolombe </p>
</td>	<td><p>RSA, US</p>
</td>	<td><p>leaf</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2005</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Hemiptera:</b> <b>Coccidae</b></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Ceroplastes rubens</i> Maskell </p>
</td>	<td><p>RSA, </p>
<p>US (FL, HI)</p>
</td>	<td><p>leaf, stem, fruit</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2005; Ben-Dov et al., 2005</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Ceroplastes rusci</i> (Linnaeus) </p>
</td>	<td><p>RSA, </p>
<p>US (FL,HI)</p>
</td>	<td><p>leaf, stem, shoot, fruit</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2005; Ben-Dov et al., 2005</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Ceroplastes sinensis</i> (Del Guercio)</p>
</td>	<td><p>RSA, US</p>
</td>	<td><p>leaf, stem, fruit4</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>Ben-Dov et al., 2005</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Coccus hesperidum</i> Linnaeus </p>
</td>	<td><p>RSA, US</p>
</td>	<td><p>leaf, stem</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>Ben-Dov et al., 2005</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Coccus longulus (Douglas) </p>
</td>	<td><p>RSA, US</p>
</td>	<td><p>stem, leaf, twig</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>Ben-Dov et al., 2005; Mau & Martin Kessing, 1992a</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Coccus viridis</i> (Green) </p>
</td>	<td><p>RSA, </p>
<p>US (FL, HI)</p>
</td>	<td><p>leaf, stem, fruit</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>Ben-Dov et al., 2005</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Eucalymnatus tessellatus</i> (Signoret) </p>
</td>	<td><p>RSA, US</p>
</td>	<td><p>leaf</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>Ben-Dov et al., 2005; Dekle, 1999</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Parasaissetia nigra</i> (Nietner) </p>
</td>	<td><p>RSA, US</p>
</td>	<td><p>wood, leaf, twig</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>Ben-Dov et al., 2005; Mau & Martin Kessing, 1992b</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Pulvinaria psidii</i> Maskell </p>
</td>	<td><p>RSA, US</p>
</td>	<td><p>leaf, stem, flower, fruit</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2005; Ben-Dov et al., 2005</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Saissetia coffeae</i></p>
</td>	<td><p>RSA, </p>
<p>US </p>
</td>	<td><p>leaf, stem</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2005; Ben-Dov et al., 2005</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Saissetia oleae</i></p>
</td>	<td><p>RSA, US</p>
</td>	<td><p>leaf, stem</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2005; Ben-Dov et al., 2005</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Hemiptera:</b> <b>Coreidae</b></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Leptoglossus membranaceus</i> (Fabricius)</p>
</td>	<td><p>RSA</p>
</td>	<td><p>fruit</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>No5</p>
</td>	<td><p>Anonymous, 1965; CABI, 2005</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Hemiptera: Diaspididae</b></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Andaspis hawaiiensis</i> (Maskell)</p>
</td>	<td><p>RSA, US (HI, FL)</p>
</td>	<td><p>wood</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>Ben-Dov et al., 2005</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Aonidiella orientalis</i> (Newstead) </p>
</td>	<td><p>RSA, </p>
<p>US (FL)</p>
</td>	<td><p>leaf, stem, fruit</p>
</td>	<td><p>No6</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2005; Ben-Dov et al., 2005</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Aulacaspis tubercularis </i>Newstead </p>
</td>	<td><p>RSA</p>
</td>	<td><p>leaf, stem, fruit</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>No7</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2005; PestID, 2005</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Chrysomphalus aonidium</i> (Linnaeus) </p>
</td>	<td><p>RSA, US</p>
</td>	<td><p>leaf, fruit, stem, trunk</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2005; </p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Hemiberlesia lataniae</i> (Signoret) </p>
</td>	<td><p>RSA, US</p>
</td>	<td><p>leaf, fruit, stem, twig, </p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2005; Ben-Dov et al., 2005; Waite & Hwang, 2002</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Ischnaspis longirostris</i> (Signoret) </p>
</td>	<td><p>RSA, US</p>
</td>	<td><p>leaf, stem, fruit</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>Ben-Dov et al., 2005; Tenbrink & Hara, 1992a</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Pinnaspis strachani</i> (Cooley) </p>
</td>	<td><p>RSA, US</p>
</td>	<td><p>leaf, fruit, stem</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>Ben-Dov et al., 2005; Tenbrink & Hara, 1992b</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Pseudaulacaspis pentagona</i> (Tarioni Tozzetti) MacGillivray </p>
</td>	<td><p>RSA, US</p>
</td>	<td><p>root, trunk, twig</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2005; Ben-Dov et al., 2005</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Selenaspidus articulatus</i> (Morgan)</p>
</td>	<td><p>RSA, US (CA, FL)</p>
</td>	<td><p>fruit, shoot, leaf, stem</p>
</td>	<td><p>No8</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2005; Ben-Dov et al., 2005</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Hemiptera:</b> <b>Margarodidae</b></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Icerya seychellarum</i> (Westwood)</p>
</td>	<td><p>RSA</p>
</td>	<td><p>leaf, stem,</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2005; Ben-Dov et al., 2005</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Hemiptera:</b> <b>Pentatomidae</b></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Nezara viridula</i> (Linnaeus) </p>
</td>	<td><p>RSA, US</p>
</td>	<td><p>leaf, stem, shoot, fruit</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>No9</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2005</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae</b></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Ferrisia virgata</i> (Cockerell) </p>
</td>	<td><p>RSA, US</p>
</td>	<td><p>leaf, stem, shoot, fruit</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2005</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><a name="OLE_LINK1"></a><i>Nipaecoccus viridis</i> (Newstead) </p>
</td>	<td><p>RSA, US (HI)</p>
</td>	<td><p>flower, fruit, leaf, twig</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2005; Ben-Dov et al., 2005</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Planococcus citri</i> (Rissso) </p>
</td>	<td><p>RSA, US</p>
</td>	<td><p>leaf, flower, fruit, shoot, stem</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2005; Ben-Dov et al., 2005; Waite & Hwang, 2002</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Lepidoptera: Metarbelidae</b></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Salagena obsolescens</i> Hampsom</p>
</td>	<td><p>RSA</p>
</td>	<td><p>wood</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>Annecke & Moran, 1982</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Lepidoptera:</b> <b>Noctuidae</b></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Chlumetia transversa</i> (Walker) (synonym: <i>Salagena transversa</i>)</p>
</td>	<td><p>RSA</p>
</td>	<td><p>wood</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>Annecke & Moran, 1982</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Lepidoptera:</b> <b>Pyralidae</b></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Cadra cautella</i> Walker</p>
</td>	<td><p>RSA, US</p>
</td>	<td><p>fruit, seed</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>No10</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2005; Lall, 1977</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Lepidoptera:</b> <b>Saturniidae</b></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Gonimbrasia belina</i> Westwood</p>
</td>	<td><p>RSA</p>
</td>	<td><p>leaf</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2005</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Lepidoptera:</b> <b>Tortricidae</b></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Cryptophlebia peltastica</i> (Meyrick) </p>
</td>	<td><p>RSA</p>
</td>	<td><p>fruits, seed</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>Annecke & Moran, 1982; Lall, 1977</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><a name="OLE_LINK2"></a><a name="OLE_LINK3"></a><i>Thaumatotibia leucotreta</i> Meyrick (synonym: <i>Cryptophlebia leucotreta</i>)</p>
</td>	<td><p>RSA</p>
</td>	<td><p>leaf, fruit, seed</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2005</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Thysanoptera: Thripidae</b></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Scirtothrips dorsalis </i>Hood</p>
</td>	<td><p>RSA, US (HI)</p>
</td>	<td><p>flower, leaf, shoot</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2005; Waite & Hwang, 2002</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>NEMATODES </b></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Criconematidae</b></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Criconema hlagum</i></p>
</td>	<td><p>RSA</p>
</td>	<td><p>root</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>Kleynhans et al<i>.</i>, 1996</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Criconema</i> spp. </p>
</td>	<td><p>RSA</p>
</td>	<td><p>root</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>ARC-PPRI, 2003</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Hemicriconemoides strictathecatus </i></p>
</td>	<td><p>RSA</p>
</td>	<td><p>root</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>ARC-PPRI, 2003</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Hemicycliophora transcaalensis </i></p>
</td>	<td><p>RSA</p>
</td>	<td><p>root</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>Kleynhans et al<i>.</i>, 1996</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Hemicycliophora typical </i></p>
</td>	<td><p>RSA</p>
</td>	<td><p>root</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>ARC-PPRI, 2003;</p>
<p>Kleynhans et al<i>.</i>, 1996</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Hoplolaimidae</b></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Helicotylenchus microcephalus </i></p>
</td>	<td><p>RSA</p>
</td>	<td><p>root</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>Kleynhans et al<i>.</i>, 1996</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Rotylenchulus reniformis</i> Linford & oliveira </p>
</td>	<td><p>RSA, US</p>
</td>	<td><p>root, leaf</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2005</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Trichodoridae</b></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Trichodorus</i> spp.</p>
</td>	<td><p>RSA, US</p>
</td>	<td><p>leaf, root</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2005</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Dorylaimida: Longidoridae</b></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Xiphinema americanum</i> Cobb </p>
</td>	<td><p>RSA, US</p>
</td>	<td><p>root</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2005;</p>
<p>Kleynhans et al<i>.</i>, 1996</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Xiphinema brevicolle </i></p>
</td>	<td><p>RSA</p>
</td>	<td><p>root</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>Myburghm, 1987</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Dorylaimida: Xiphinematidae</b></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Xiphinema diffusum</i></p>
</td>	<td><p>RSA</p>
</td>	<td><p>root</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>ARC-PPRI, 2003</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Xiphinema monhysterum</i> Brown</p>
</td>	<td><p>RSA</p>
</td>	<td><p>root</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>Kleynhans et al<i>.</i>, 1996</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Triplonchida:</b> <b>Trichodoridae</b></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Paratrichodorus minor</i> (Colbran) Siddiqi</p>
</td>	<td><p>RSA, US</p>
</td>	<td><p>root</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>ARC-PPRI, 2003;</p>
<p>Kleynhans et al<i>.</i>, 1996</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Tylenchida: Belonolaimidae</b></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Tylenchorhynchus claytoni</i> Steiner</p>
</td>	<td><p>RSA, US</p>
</td>	<td><p>root</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2005</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Tylenchida:</b> <b>Criconematidae</b></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Hemicriconemoides mangiferae</i> Siddiqi </p>
</td>	<td><p>RSA, US</p>
</td>	<td><p>root</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2005;</p>
<p>Myburghm, 1987;</p>
<p>Kleynhans et al<i>.</i>, 1996</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Ogma civellae civellae</i></p>
</td>	<td><p>RSA</p>
</td>	<td><p>root</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>ARC-PPRI, 2003</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Tylenchida:</b> <b>Hoplolaimidae</b></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Helicotylenchus</i> spp.</p>
</td>	<td><p>RSA</p>
</td>	<td><p>root</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>ARC-PPRI, 2003</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Tylenchida:</b> <b>Meloidogynidae</b></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Meloidogyne incognita</i> (Kofoid & White) Chitwood </p>
</td>	<td><p>RSA, US</p>
</td>	<td><p>root</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>ARC-PPRI, 2003</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Meloidogyne javanica</i> (Treub.) Chitwood </p>
</td>	<td><p>RSA, US,</p>
</td>	<td><p>root,</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>Kleynhans et al<i>.</i>, 1996</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>PLANT PATHOGENS</b></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Bacteria</b></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Bacillus subtilis</i> (Ehrenberg) Cohn (Bacillales)</p>
</td>	<td><p>RSA, US</p>
</td>	<td><p>fruit</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2005</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Fungi</b></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Alternaria alternata</i> (Fr.:Fr.) Keissl. (Ascomycetes: Pleosporales) </p>
</td>	<td><p>RSA, US</p>
</td>	<td><p>fruit</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2005</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Armillaria spp. </i>(Basidiomycetes: Agaricales)</p>
</td>	<td><p>RSA</p>
</td>	<td><p>wood, trunk</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>Farr, et al<i>.</i>, 2005</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Aspergillus flavus </i>Link (Ascomycetes: Eurotiales)</p>
</td>	<td><p>RSA, US</p>
</td>	<td><p>leaf, stem, root, flower, fruit, seed</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2005;</p>
<p>Farr, et al<i>.</i>, 2005</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Aspergillus glaucus </i>Link:Fr. (Ascomycetes: Eurotiales)</p>
</td>	<td><p>RSA, US</p>
</td>	<td><p>leaf, stem, root, flower, fruit, seed </p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>Farr, et al<i>.</i>, 2005</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Aspergillus niger</i> Teigh  (Ascomycetes: Eurotiales)</p>
</td>	<td><p>RSA, US</p>
</td>	<td><p>leaf, stem, root, flower, fruit, seed</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2005;</p>
<p>Farr, et al<i>.</i>, 2005</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Corticium salmonicolor</i> Berk. & Broome (Basidiomycetes: Polyporales)</p>
</td>	<td><p>RSA, US</p>
</td>	<td><p>leaf, stem</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2005</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Cylindrocladium scoparium</i> Morgan (Ascomycetes: Hypocreales)</p>
</td>	<td><p>RSA, US</p>
</td>	<td><p>root</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>Farr, et al<i>.</i>, 2005; Cordell, et al., 1989</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Geotrichum candidum </i>Link (Saccharomycetes: Saccharomycetales)</p>
</td>	<td><p>RSA, US</p>
</td>	<td><p>fruit</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>Farr, et al<i>.</i>, 2005; Brown, 2003</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Glomerella cingulata</i> (Stonem.) Spauld. & Schrenk (Ascomycetes)</p>
</td>	<td><p>RSA, US</p>
</td>	<td><p>leaf, stem, fruit, flower</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2005;</p>
<p>Farr, et al<i>.</i>, 2005</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Lasiodiplodia theobromae </i>(Pat.) Griffiths & Maubl<i>. </i>ana: <i>Botryodiplodia theobromae   = Diplodia natalensis </i>(Ascomycetes: Dothideales)</p>
</td>	<td><p>RSA, US</p>
</td>	<td><p>fruit, shoot, flower, leaf, root, seed, stem</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2005;</p>
<p>Farr, et al<i>.</i>, 2005</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Penicillium spp. </i>(Ascomycetes: Eurotiales)</p>
</td>	<td><p>RSA</p>
</td>	<td><p>fruit</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>Farr, et al<i>.</i>, 2005</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Pestalotia spp. </i>(Ascomycetes: Xylariales)</p>
</td>	<td><p>RSA</p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p>Farr, et al<i>.</i>, 2005</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Pestalotiopsis disseminate</i> (Thüm.) Steyaert (Ascomycetes: Xylariales)</p>
</td>	<td><p>RSA, US</p>
</td>	<td><p>leaf</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>Farr, et al<i>.</i>, 2005</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Rhizopus stolonifer </i>(Ehrenb.) Lind (Zygomycetes: Mucorales)</p>
</td>	<td><p>RSA, US</p>
</td>	<td><p>fruit</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>Farr, et al<i>.</i>, 2005; Nishijima, 1993</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Thanatephorus cucumeris </i>(Frank) Donk ana: <i>Rhizoctonia solani </i>(Basidiomycetes: Ceratobasidiales)</p>
</td>	<td><p>RSA, US</p>
</td>	<td><p>fruit, shoot, flower, leaf, root, seed, stem</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>Farr, et al<i>.</i>, 2005</p>
<p>CABI, 2005</p>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<p></p>
<p>1 Geographic Distribution: RSA – Republic of South Africa, US – United States, FL – Florida, HI – Hawaii, TX – Texas</p>
<p>2 No specific biological information on <i>Sciobius brevicollis</i> was available so this determination was made on the basis of the biology of <i>S. horni</i>. The larvae of <i>S</i>. <i>horni</i> are legless, and pupation occurs in the soil (Schoeman, 1980). <i>Sciobius</i> <i>horni</i> Marshall is a serious pest of potato in the Republic of South Africa, causing significant damage to potato tubers (Schoeman, 1980). </p>
<p>3 Although Aphididae species feed from fruits occasionally, they are generally leaf and stem feeders (Borrer, 1989). Also, since 1985, aphids in the genus <i>Aphis </i>have never been intercepted by agricultural specialists at the U.S. ports-of-entry on stems associated with commercial fruit. Thus they are not expected to follow the pathway on commercial litchi fruit.</p>
<p>4 No specific information on <i>Ceroplastes sinensis</i> was available. <i>Ceroplastes</i> species attack leaf, stem, and fruit (Bedford et al., 1998).</p>
<p>5 Because Coreids are generally larger and nymphs are gregarious (Borrer, 1989), these pests should be readily seen during harvest and eliminated from the pathway.</p>
<p>6 <i>Aonidiella orientalis</i> has only a limited distribution in the United States, but is a non-reportable pest (PestID, 2010).  Therefore, it is not a quarantine pest and we will not further analyze it.</p>
<p>7 <i>Aulacaspis tubercularis </i>was only found on three interceptions of <i>Litchi chinensis </i>in passenger baggage (PestID, 2005). This is considered insufficient evidence that this scale species would regularly follow the pathway of commercial shipments of litchi and associated fruit pedicels. No other source has documented an association with litchi.</p>
<p>8 <i>Selenaspidus articulates</i> has a limited distribution in the United States, but is a non-reportable pest (PestID, 2010).  Therefore, it is not a quarantine pest and we will not further analyze it.</p>
<p>9 Because it only feeds externally on the fruit (CABI, 2005) and because of its size and mobility, this pest is highly unlikely to stay on the commodity through harvest and standard handling and processing.</p>
<p>10 <i>Cadra cautella </i>is a post-harvest pest that would not likely follow the pathway for fresh litchi fruit (CABI, 2005).</p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<h3>2.4.2. Quarantine pests likely to follow the pathway</h3>
<p>Quarantine pests that were expected to follow the pathway (Table 4), i.e<i>.</i>, be included in commercial shipments of <i>Litchi chinensis</i> fruit, were analyzed in detail  (Step 5-7, PPQ, 2000). Other plant pests, not chosen for further scrutiny, may be potentially detrimental to the agricultural production systems of the United States; however, there were a variety of reasons for not subjecting them to further analysis. For example, these pests were mainly associated with plant parts other than the commodity; they were associated with the commodity, but it was not considered reasonable to expect these pests to remain with the commodity during processing; or they were intercepted as biological contaminants of these commodities during inspection by Plant Protection and Quarantine Officers, but would not be expected to be present with every shipment. In addition, the biological hazard of organisms identified only to the generic level is not assessed due to the lack of adequate biological taxonomic information; the lack of biological information on any given insect or pathogen should not be equated with low risk. By necessity, pest assessments focus on those organisms for which biological information is available. By developing detailed assessments for known pests that inhabit a variety of niches on the parent species, e.g<i>.</i>, on the surface of or within the bark/wood, on the foliage, etc<i>.</i>, effective mitigation measures may be developed to eliminate the known organism and any similar unknown ones that inhabit the same niches. The organisms in this risk assessment that were only identified to genus level were the nematodes <i>Criconema</i> spp., <i>Trichodorus</i> spp., and <i>Helicotylenchus</i> spp.</p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p><b>Table 4. </b>Quarantine pests likely to be associated with litchi imported from Republic of South Africa</p>
<table><tbody><tr>	<td><p><b>Arthropoda:</b></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Ceratitis capitata</i> Wiedemann (Diptera: Tephritidae)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Cetatitis rosa</i> Karsch (Diptera: Tephritidae)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Ceroplastes rubens</i> Maskell (Hemiptera: Coccidae)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Ceroplastes rusci</i> (Linnaeus) (Hemiptera: Coccidae)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Coccus viridis</i> (Green) (Hemiptera: Coccidae)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Cryptophlebia peltastica</i> (Meyrick) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Nipaecoccus viridis </i>(Newstead) (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Thaumatotibia leucotreta </i>(Meyrick) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae)</p>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<h2><a name="_Toc188265682"></a><a name="_Toc188265774"></a><a name="_Toc223857329"></a><a name="_Toc224030469"></a>2.5 Consequences of Introduction</h2>
<p></p>
<p>After identifying those quarantine pests that could reasonably be expected to follow the pathway (Table 2), the assessment of risk continues by considering the Consequences of Introduction (Table 3). For each of these quarantine pests, the potential Consequences of Introduction are rated using five Risk Elements which reflect the biology, host range and climatic/geographic distribution of the pests (PPQ, 2000). For each Risk Element, pests are assigned a rating of Low (1 point), Medium (2 points), or High (3 points). A Cumulative Risk Rating is then calculated by summing all Risk Element values. The values determined for the Consequences of Introduction for each pest are summarized in Table 5.</p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<table><tbody><tr>	<td><p><b><i>Ceratitis capitata</i> Wiedemann (Diptera: Tephritidae)</b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Risk ratings</b></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #1: Climate – Host Interaction</b></p>
<p><i>Ceratitis capitata</i> is found in Africa, southern Europe, west Asia, South and Central America, and northern Australia (CABI, 2005). Its distribution corresponds to USDA Plant Hardiness Zones 8-10.</p>
</td>	<td><p>Medium</p>
<p>(2)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #2: Host Range</b></p>
<p>This pest has a wide range of host species and attacks over 400 different species (Capinera, 2001). Those species include Rubiaceae (<i>Coffee</i> spp.), Solanaceae (<i>Capsicum annuum</i>), Rutaceae (<i>Citrus</i> spp.), Rosaceae (<i>Malus pumila</i>, <i>Prunus</i> spp.), Moraceae (<i>Ficus carica</i>), Myrtaceae (<i>Psidium guajava</i>), Sterculiaceae (<i>Theobroma cacao</i>), Arecaceae (<i>Phoenix dactylifera</i>), and Anacardiaceae (<i>Mangifera indica</i>) (CABI, 2005).</p>
</td>	<td><p>High</p>
<p>(3)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential</b></p>
<p>Eggs are deposited on fruits in clusters of 3-9 eggs, with an average of 300 eggs laid per female (Capinera, 2001). Under ideal conditions, it only takes 18 days to complete a generation; however, 30-40 days is common (Capinera, 2001). Up to 15 generations can be observed per year (Bedford, et al., 1998). In the adult stage, <i>C. capitata</i> is highly mobile flying distances of two kilometers or more when associated with wind (Capinera, 2001). (There is evidence that it can fly at least 20 kilometers (CABI, 2005).) The transportation of infested fruits is a major means of movement and dispersal to previously uninfested areas (CABI, 2005).</p>
</td>	<td><p>High</p>
<p>(3)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #4: Economic Impact</b></p>
<p>This species is a serious pest of <i>Prunus</i> and <i>Citrus</i>. In 2002, CA, TX, and FL produced over $2,250 million worth of <i>Citrus</i> and $333 million worth of <i>Prunus</i> (NASS, 2003a; NASS, 2003c). In Mediterranean countries, it is particularly damaging to citrus and peach crops (CABI, 2005). <i>Ceratitis capitata</i> is one of the most significant quarantine pests for any tropical or warm temperate zones in which it is not yet established (CABI, 2005). Bedford et al<i>.</i> (1998) stated that susceptible deciduous fruit crops can suffer losses of up to 80% when control measures are not applied. Damage is caused by larvae tunneling through host fruit, often accompanied by fruit-rotting fungi and bacteria; infested fruit may drop prematurely (Hill, 1983). The species is of quarantine significance throughout the world, especially for Japan and the United States; its presence, even as temporary adventive populations, can lead to severe additional constraints for export of fruits to uninfested areas in other parts of the world (CABI/EPPO, 1997). It constantly threatens to invade or reinvade new areas (Yuval and Hendrichs, 2000). In this respect, <i>C. capitata</i> is one of the most significant quarantine pests for any tropical or warm temperate areas in which it is not yet established (CABI, 2006). Introduction of <i>C. capitata</i> will result in domestic and foreign market loss.</p>
</td>	<td><p>High</p>
<p>(3)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact</b></p>
<p>Introduction and establishment of <i>C. capitata</i> would stimulate chemical or biological control programs. <i>Ceratitis capitata</i> has the potential to damage Endangered/Threatened species, such as <i>Prunus genuclata</i> (FL), <i>Argemone pleiacantha</i> (NM), <i>Asimina tetramera</i> (FL), <i>Berberis nevivii</i> (CA), <i>B. pinnata</i> (CA), <i>B. sonnei</i> (CA), <i>Cucurbita okeechobeensis</i> (FL), <i>Echinocereus chisoensis</i> (TX), <i>E. reichenbachii</i> (TX), <i>E iridiflorus</i> (TX), <i>E. fendleri</i> (NM), <i>E. triglochidiatus</i> (AZ), <i>E. telephioides</i> (FL), <i>Opuntia treleasei</i> (CA), <i>Ribes echinellum</i> (FL, SC), and <i>Ziziphus celata</i> (FL) (USFWS, 2002).</p>
</td>	<td><p>High</p>
<p>(3)</p>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<table><tbody><tr>	<td><p><b><i>Ceratitis rosa</i> Karsch (Diptera: Tephritidae)</b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Risk ratings</b></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #1: Climate – Host Interaction</b></p>
<p><i>Ceratitis rosa</i> is native to tropical rainforests, savannahs, and deserts in Africa (CABI, 2005). It has the potential to establish in USDA Plant Hardiness Zones 9-10 (ARS, 1990).</p>
</td>	<td><p>Medium</p>
<p>(2)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #2: Host Range</b></p>
<p>Primary hosts are <i>Coffee</i> spp. (Rubiaceae) and <i>Citrus</i> spp. (Rutaceae) (CABI, 2005). This fly will also attack numerous species, including Rosaceae (<i>Malus</i> spp., <i>Pyrus</i> spp., <i>Prunus</i> spp., <i>Rubus</i> spp.), Solanaceae (<i>Lycopersicum esculentum</i>, <i>Capsicum annuum</i>), Vitaceae (<i>Vitis</i> spp.), Myrtaceae (<i>Psidium guajava</i>), Lauraceae (<i>Persea Americana</i>), Moraceae (<i>Ficus carica</i>), Caricaeae (<i>Carica papaya</i>), and Anacardiaceae (<i>Mangifera indica</i>) (CABI, 2005; Weems & Fasulo, 2002).   </p>
</td>	<td><p>High</p>
<p>(3)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential</b></p>
<p><i>Ceratitis rosa</i> tolerates temperatures as low as 20 ̊F; however, food, water, and shelter are more important factors for overwintering rather than temperature (Weems, 2002). Females lay 10-20 eggs at a time on host fruits. Depending on the temperature, eggs usually hatch within four days after oviposition (Weems, 2002). Larval and prepupal stages generally last 12 days, and the pupal stage can range from 10-20 days (Weems & Fasulo, 2002). Under the conditions of central Florida, <i>C. rosa</i> is estimated to have 10 generations per year (Weems & Fasulo, 2002). The two major ways of movement and dispersal to uninfested areas are flight in adult stage and via the transportation of infested fruits (CABI, 2005).   </p>
</td>	<td><p>High</p>
<p>(3)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #4: Economic Impact</b></p>
<p>Like <i>C. capitata</i>, this species can cause tremendous loss to fruit and vegetable production (Duyck & Quilici, 2002). It is an important fruit pest in sub-Saharan Africa (Hill, 1983). Compared to <i>C. capitata</i>, <i>C. rosa</i> is able to reproduce in harder and greener fruit and has more wild hosts (Hill, 1983). In South Africa, <i>C. rosa</i> is one of the three most important fruit fly pests (Barners, 2000). Yield losses in stone fruits and some subtropical fruits caused by <i>C. rosa</i>, <i>C. capitata</i>, and <i>C. cosyra</i> vary between 80 and 100% in South Africa in the absence of control measures (Barners, 2000). For example, in a South Africa locality one year, <i>C. rosa</i> infested 50 to 100% of plums, despite control measures (Weems, 2002; Weems, 1966). In South Africa, yield losses caused by these fruit flies in pome fruits (especially pears), citrus, and table grapes vary between 30 to 50 % (Barners, 2000). In South Africa, <i>C. rosa</i>, is at times, a more serious pest than <i>C. capitata</i> (Weems, 2002; Weems, 1966). It even has a tendency to replace <i>C. capitata</i> in some areas where they co-occur, such as in Mauritius, where it has become a more significant pest when compared with <i>C. capitata</i> (CABI, 2006). This evidence suggests that <i>C. rosa</i> could become an important threat (CABI, 2006). If introduced, it “could prove to be fully as serious a menace as the Mediterranean fruit fly” (Weems, 2002; Weems, 1966). In addition, as a quarantine pest for many countries (Barners, 2000; CABI, 2006), it has the potential to restrict international fruit trade (Barners, 2000). Control methods used against this pest include cover sprays, bait application, bait attractants, and sterile insect technique (Barners, 2000), which increase production costs.</p>
</td>	<td><p>High</p>
<p>(3)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact</b></p>
<p><i>Ceratitis rosa</i> has potential to attack species listed by Federal agencies as Threatened or Endangered, such as <i>Prunus geniculata</i> (FL), and <i>Ziziphus celata</i> (FL) (USFWS, 2002). The introduction and establishment of <i>C. rosa</i> in the United States would stimulate chemical or biological control programs.</p>
</td>	<td><p>High</p>
<p>(3)</p>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<p></p>
<table><tbody><tr>	<td><p><b><i>Ceroplastes rubens</i> Maskell (Homiptera: Coccidae)</b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Risk ratings</b></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #1: Climate – Host Interaction</b></p>
<p><i>Ceroplastes rubens</i> is widely distributed throughout the Orient, southern Asia, Australia, India, the South Pacific, east Africa, and the West Indies. This insect has become established in Florida and Hawaii; it has potential to establish in U.S. Plant Hardiness Zones 7 - 10 (ARS, 1990). </p>
</td>	<td><p>High</p>
<p>(3)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #2: Host Range</b></p>
<p>Primary host species include citrus (<i>Citrus</i>, <i>C. deliciosa</i>, <i>C. limon</i>, <i>C. reticulata</i>, <i>C. sinensis</i>, <i>C. unshiu</i>) (Rutaceae) and mango (<i>Mangifera indica</i>) (Anacardiaceae) (CABI, 2005). Other host species of <i>C. rubens</i> are Moraceae (<i>Artocarpus</i>, <i>Ficus</i>, <i>Morus alba</i>, <i>Artocarpus altilis</i>), Zingiberaceae (<i>Alpinia purpurata</i>), Annonaceae (<i>Annona</i>), Asteraceae (<i>Artemisia</i>, <i>Chrysanthemum</i>, <i>Helianthus</i>), Theaceae (<i>Camellia sinensis</i>), Arecaceae (<i>Cocos nucifera</i>), Lauraceae, (<i>Cinnamomum</i>, <i>C. verum</i>, <i>Laurus nobilis</i>, <i>Persea</i>, <i>P. americana</i>), Rubiaceae (<i>Coffea</i>, <i>Eugenia</i>), Malvaceae (<i>Hibiscus</i>), Sapindaceae (<i>Litchi chinensis</i>), Rosaceae (<i>Malus</i>, <i>Prunus</i>, <i>P. domestica</i>, <i>P. mume</i>, <i>Pyrus</i>, <i>P. communis</i>), Musaceae (<i>Musa</i>), Myristicaceae (<i>Myristica</i>, <i>Myristica fragrans</i>), Apocynaceae (<i>Nerium</i>), Oleaceae (<i>Olea</i>), Piperaceae (<i>Piper</i>), Pinaceae (<i>Pinus</i>, <i>P. thunbergii</i>, <i>P. caribaea</i>), Myrtaceae (<i>Pimenta dioica</i>, <i>Psidium</i>, <i>P. guajava</i>, <i>Syzygium</i>), and Zingiberaceae (<i>Zingiber officinale</i>) (CABI, 2005).</p>
</td>	<td><p>High</p>
<p>(3)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential</b></p>
<p>In Australia, where <i>Ceroplastes rubens</i> was accidentally introduced, this species<i> </i>has two generations per year (CABI, 2005). Oviposition begins in mid-September and ends in early December; it then begins again in mid-February, lasting until June (CABI, 2005). Females, on average, lay around 300 eggs, but can lay as little as five or as much as 1,178 eggs (CABI, 2005). The mortality of <i>C. rubens</i> is related to the quality of the food source rather than natural enemies (CABI, 2005). In Australian studies, the mortality rate was highest in the first 24 hours after hatching, when approximately 50% of the hatchings were lost (CABI, 2005). Primary dispersal is accomplished via infected plant parts, which is facilitated by a wide range of host species for this pest (CABI, 2005). Only first-instar Coccoidea insects are dispersed by wind, but the distances carried by wind can be several kilometers to hundreds of kilometers, although mortality rates are high at longer distances (Gullan & Kosztarab, 1997).</p>
</td>	<td><p>High</p>
<p>(3)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #4: Economic Impact</b></p>
<p>This is a serious pest of citrus species and mango. In 2002, CA, TX, and FL produced over $2250 million worth of citrus (NASS, 2003a). Hawaii produced $7 million of banana and $2 million of guava in 2002 (NASS, 2003c). <i>Ceroplastes rubens</i> is a widespread pest of citrus, coffee, tea, <i>Cinnamomum</i>, mango, avocado and litchi (CABI, 2005). It is a major pest of citrus in Australia, Hawaii, Korea, China and Japan; direct economic damage is caused through phloem feeding, and indirectly through the promotion of sooty mold growth (CABI, 2005).</p>
</td>	<td><p>High</p>
<p>(3)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact</b></p>
<p>The extreme polyphagy of this species increases the probability of it attacking plants in the US listed as Threatened or Endangered. It has been recorded from species of <i>Euphorbia</i>, <i>Lindera</i>, and <i>Rhus</i> (CABI 2001), which have congeners (<i>E. telephioides</i> (FL), <i>L. melissifolia</i>, and <i>R</i>. <i>michauxii</i>) listed in 50 CFR §17.12 (USFWS, 2002). </p>
</td>	<td><p>High</p>
<p>(3)</p>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<table><tbody><tr>	<td><p><b>
</b> <b><i>Ceroplastes rusci</i> (Linnaeus) (Hemiptera: Coccidae)</b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Risk ratings</b></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #1: Climate – Host Interaction</b></p>
<p><i>Ceroplastes rusci</i> is present in Africa, the Middle East, southern Europe, the Caribbean, Brazil, and Uruguay (CABI 2005). In the United States, it has been found in Florida. Its distribution corresponds to U.S. Plant Hardiness Zones 8 – 10 (ARS, 1990). </p>
</td>	<td><p>Medium</p>
<p>(2)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #2: Host Range</b></p>
<p><i>Ceroplastes rusci</i> is polyphagous, attacking plants belonging to 45 genera placed in 42 families (CABI, 2005), including Annonaceae (<i>Annona</i>, <i>Annona cherimola</i>, <i>Annona muricata</i>, <i>Annona reticulata</i>, <i>Annona squamosa</i>), Rutaceae (<i>Citrus</i>, <i>Citrus aurantium</i>, <i>Citrus limon</i>, <i>Citrus x paradise</i>), Moraceae (<i>Ficus carica, Ficus, Morus</i>), Actinidiaceae (<i>Actinidia chinensis</i>), Rosaceae (<i>Crataegus</i>, <i>Cydonia</i>, <i>Mespilus germanica</i>, <i>Prunus</i>, <i>Pyrus communis</i>), Euphorbiaceae (<i>Euphorbia longana</i>), Malvaceae (<i>Gossypium</i>), Araliaceae (<i>Hedera helix</i>), Aquifoliaceae (<i>Ilex aquifolium</i>), Convolvulaceae (<i>Ipomoea batatas</i>), Juncaceae (<i>Juncus</i>), Sapindaceae (<i>Litchi chinensis</i>, <i>Nephelium lappaceum</i>), Anacardiaceae (<i>Mangifera indica</i>, <i>Pistacia</i>), Musaceae (<i>Musa</i>), Myrtaceae (<i>Myrtus communis</i>, <i>Psidium guajava</i>), Lauraceae (<i>Persea americana</i>), Piperaceae (<i>Piper nigrum</i>), Platanaceae (<i>Platanus</i>), Salicaceae (<i>Populus</i>), Liliaceae (<i>Ruscus</i>), Vitaceae (Vitis vinifera), and Apocynaceae (<i>Nerium oleander</i>).</p>
</td>	<td><p>High</p>
<p>(3)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential</b></p>
<p><i>Ceroplates rusci</i> is bisexual and has only one or two generations per year, depending on climate (CABI, 2005). Females usually lay between 800 and 1500 eggs; the duration of the egg, first- and second-instar nymphs, and the adult stage at 26 ̊C are 8-12, 4-7, and 28-32 days, respectively (CABI, 2005). Only first instar nymphs are capable of crawling and moving to suitable feeding sites. Dispersal is aided by wind and other animals, although adult males have wings and are able to fly (CABI, 2005). The mortality of the first-instar is high; Coccoidae scales can be transferred several kilometers, even hundreds of kilometers, from the original plant (Gullan & Kosztarab, 1997).</p>
</td>	<td><p>High</p>
<p>(3)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #4: Economic Impact</b></p>
<p>This insect is a serious pest of citrus and figs. In the United States, citrus production is expanding in AZ, CA, FL, and TX. The total citrus production in 2002 was over $2290 million (NASS, 2003a). Only CA produces figs in the United States. Forty-nine million tons of figs, valued at 16.9 million dollars, were produced in 2002 (NASS, 2003c). In addition to those host species, <i>C. rusci</i> attacks several other crops grown in the United States, such as cotton, sweet potato, banana, <i>Prunus</i> species, and grapes. <i>Ceroplates rusci</i> is a major pest of citrus and figs in Mediterranean countries and, occasionally, is a pest of citrus in Israel (CABI, 2005). This insect can also be a serious pest of grape in the Mediterranean (Pellizzari, 1997). Attack by <i>C. rusci</i> weakens and kills leaves and shoots; its excreted honeydew provides a medium for the development of a sooty fungal film, which impairs photosynthesis (INRA, 2006).</p>
</td>	<td><p>High</p>
<p>(3)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact</b></p>
<p>As a polyphagous species, <i>C. rusci</i> has the potential to attack species of <i>Euphorbia</i>, and <i>Prunus</i>, some of which are listed by Federal agencies as Threatened or Endangered species (USFWS, 2002). This insect is often injurious to crops and ornamental plants, especially when it is introduced to new geographical areas without natural enemies (CABI, 2005). Biological or chemical control is likely to be implemented upon introduction.</p>
</td>	<td><p>High</p>
<p>(3)</p>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<table><tbody><tr>	<td><p><b><i>Coccus viridis</i> (Green) (Hemiptera: Coccidae)</b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Risk ratings</b></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #1: Climate – Host Interaction</b></p>
<p><i>Coccus viridis</i> is found throughout Central America, northern South America, Africa, south Asia, the South Pacific, and Australia. This distribution corresponds to U.S. Plant Hardiness Zones 9 - 10 (ARS, 1990); however, this species is able to survive and become established in natural areas and artificial areas, such as greenhouses.</p>
</td>	<td><p>Medium</p>
<p>(2)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #2: Host Range</b></p>
<p>This pest is associated with citrus species (<i>Citrus deliciosa</i>, <i>Citrus limon</i>, <i>Citrus reticulata</i>, <i>Citrus sinensis</i>) (Rutaceae); however, it has a wide host range. Potential hosts include Moraceae (<i>Artocarpus</i>), Theaceae (<i>Camellia sinensis</i>), Rubiaceae (<i>Coffea</i>, <i>Coffea Arabica, Ixora</i>), Euphorbiaceae (<i>Manihot esculenta</i>), Anacardiaceae (<i>Mangifera indica</i>), Myrtaceae (<i>Psidium guajava</i>), Sterculiaceae (<i>Theobroma cacao</i>), Zingiberaceae (<i>Alpinia purpurata</i>), Asteraceae (<i>Chrysanthemum</i>), Sapotaceae (<i>Manilkara zapota</i>), and Apocynaceae (<i>Nerium oleander</i>, <i>Plumeria rubra</i> var. <i>acutifolia</i>).</p>
</td>	<td><p>High</p>
<p>(3)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential</b></p>
<p>Females can lay up to 500 eggs, which can hatch within a few hours (CABI, 2005). Life-cycle generations vary from one month to several, depending on temperatures and the availability of food (CABI, 2005). Although it has high reproductive rate, there is no evidence of long range dispersal by <i>C. viridis</i> (CABI, 2005). In spite of its low natural movement capability, this species can spread by infested plant materials; it has been intercepted numerous times by PPQ on a variety of plants from other countries (PestID, 2005). </p>
</td>	<td><p>High</p>
<p>(3)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #4: Economic Impact</b></p>
<p>Although<i> Coccus viridis</i> is a small insect, its damage can be devastating, depending on the crop, place, and population size (CABI, 2005). In the U.S. Plant Hardiness Zones where this species could become established, $2550 million of citrus and $2 million of guava were produced in 2002 (NASS, 2003a; NASS, 2003c). Coffee production in Haiti (Aiken-Soux, 1985), India (Narasimham, 1987) and New Guinea (Williams, 1986) showed significant yield loss due to <i>C. virdis</i>. In addition to coffee production, citrus species in India were attacked, exhibiting reduced quality (Haleem, 1984).</p>
</td>	<td><p>High</p>
<p>(3)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact</b></p>
<p><i>Coccus viridis</i> already occurs in Hawaii and Florida (CABI, 2005). The extreme polyphagy of <i>C</i>. <i>viridis</i> predisposes it to attack vulnerable native plants in the United States. The potential host <i>Manihot walkerae </i>(Euphorbiaceae), which is present in Texas, is listed as Endangered in 50 CFR §17.12 (USFWS, 2002). The wider establishment of this species could have a negative impact on the citrus industry in areas, such as Arizona and Texas, and stimulate the initiation of chemical or biological control programs. </p>
</td>	<td><p>High</p>
<p>(3)</p>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<table><tbody><tr>	<td><p><b><i>Cryptophlebia peltastica</i> (Meyrick) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae)</b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Risk ratings</b></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #1: Climate – Host Interaction</b></p>
<p>Little information is available with regard to <i>Cryptophlebia peltastica</i>. The <i>Acacia</i> spp., host species of <i>C. pelrastica</i>, are typically grown in tropical regions; therefore, the distribution of <i>C. peltastica</i> is estimated to be U.S. Plant Hardiness Zones 9 – 10 (ARS, 1990).</p>
</td>	<td><p>Medium</p>
<p>(2)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #2: Host Range</b></p>
<p><i>Cryptophlebia peltastica</i> attacks Sapindaceae (<i>Litchi chinensis</i>), Proteaceae (<i>Macadamia integrifolia</i>), Mimosoideae (<i>Acacia</i> spp.), Caesalpinioideae (<i>Bauhinia</i> <i>galpinii</i>), Fabaceae (<i>Caesalpinia pulcherima</i>, <i>Delonix regia</i>), and some legume trees (van den Berg, 1995).</p>
</td>	<td><p>High</p>
<p>(3)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential</b></p>
<p><i>Cryptophlebia peltastica</i> lays eggs on the skin of the fruit (ARC ITSC, 2003). The larva eats through the skin and into the seed where pupation occurs (ARC ITSC, 2003). Physical damage from <i>C. peltastica </i>includes susceptibility to fungal colonization. Although damage is not noticeable at harvesting, decaying will begin to occur while in transit or at market (ARC ITSC, 2003). Due to the lack of information, the risk element is High (PPQ, 2000).</p>
</td>	<td><p>High</p>
<p>(3)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #4: Economic Impact</b></p>
<p><i>Thaumatotibia leucotreta </i>and <i>C. peltastica</i> attack litchi fruit; however, the majority of litchi fruit losses are caused by <i>C. peltastica</i>, 15% (Newton & Crause, 1990). <i>Cryptophlebia peltastica</i> is also a pest of macadamia nuts in the Republic of South Africa (van den Berg, 1995). <i>C. peltastica</i> reduces plant yields and increases cost of production, however, is unlikely to cause economic impacts in the continental United States.</p>
</td>	<td><p>Medium</p>
<p>(2)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact</b></p>
<p><i>Cryptophebia peltastica</i> attacks members of six plant families, not all of which are tropical, e.g. legumes and mimosa, both of which are important components of the ecosystems in the Southwestern regions of the United States although the threatened and endangered species listed in Title 50, Part 17, Section 12 of the United States Code of Federal Regulations (50 CFR §17.12) are unlikely to be attached by <i>C. peltastica</i>. Introduction of <i>C. peltastica</i> may stimulate the need for chemical and biological controls in the continental United States. </p>
</td>	<td><p>Medium</p>
<p>(2)</p>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<p></p>
<table><tbody><tr>	<td><p><b><i>Nipaecoccus viridis</i> (Newstead) (Homoptera: Pseudococcidae)</b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Risk ratings</b></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #1: Climate-Host Interaction</b></p>
<p>This species is widespread in tropical and subtropical Asia, Africa and in parts of Oceania (CABI 2005). It should only be able to survive in the warmer, southern parts of the US (Plant Hardiness Zones 9-10). One or more of its potential hosts occur in these zones (NRCS, 2003).</p>
</td>	<td><p>Medium</p>
<p>(2)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #2: Host Range</b></p>
<p><i>Nipaecoccus viridis</i> has been recorded on hosts distributed among 18 different plant families (CABI 2005). Primary hosts are species of <i>Citrus</i> (Rutaceae), <i>Coffea</i> (Rubiaceae), and <i>Gossypium</i> (Malvaceae). Other hosts include, among others, <i>Leucaena leucocephala</i> (Fabaceae), <i>Nerium oleander</i> (Apocynaceae), <i>Punica</i> <i>granatum</i> (Punicaceae), <i>Artocarpus heterophyllus</i> (Moraceae), <i>Corchorus capsularis</i> (Tiliaceae), <i>Asparagus officinalis</i> (Liliaceae), <i>Euphorbia hirta</i> (Euphorbiaceae), <i>Mangifera indica</i> (Anacardiaceae), <i>Jacaranda mimosifolia</i> (Bignoniaceae), <i>Vitis vinifera</i> (Vitaceae), <i>Clerodendrum infortunatum</i> (Verbenaceae), <i>Solanum tuberosum</i> (Solanaceae) (CABI 2005), and <i>Dimocarpus</i> <i>longan</i> (Sapindaceae) (China 1997)<i>.</i></p>
</td>	<td><p>High</p>
<p>(3)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential</b></p>
<p>Fecundity ranges from 90 to 138 eggs per female, and as many as three generations occur per year (CABI 2005). Local dispersal is done by crawlers, which often settle in protected areas (e.g<i>.</i>, under the sepals of fruitlets); this behavior predisposes them to dissemination on exported plants or plant products (CABI 2005).</p>
</td>	<td><p>High</p>
<p>(3)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #4: Economic Impact</b></p>
<p>This insect causes bulbous outgrowths on young twigs, and heavy infestations may severely stunt growth of young trees (CABI 2005). Infested fruits often become yellow and then partly black around the stem, eventually dropping off the tree, and infested citrus fruit can develop “lumpy outgrowths or raised shoulders” near the stem end (CABI 2005). Copious quantities of honeydew may contaminate fruit and other plant parts, which can serve as a medium for the growth of sooty molds (CABI 2005). This mealybug was responsible for losses up to 5% in vineyards in India (CABI 2005). Losses in citrus orchards are due firstly to fruit drop caused by large infestations of mealybugs; in South Africa, 50% or more of the navel orange crop has been lost in this way (CABI 2005). Secondly, fruits with deformities caused by mealybug feeding are culled in the packinghouse, resulting in the further loss of production (CABI 2005). Based on this evidence, the establishment of this insect in the US would likely cause a loss of foreign and domestic markets and would likely stimulate chemical and/or biological control programs, which would lower the value of the commodity by increasing production costs.</p>
</td>	<td><p>High</p>
<p>(3)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact</b></p>
<p>This pest represents a potential threat to plants listed as Threatened and Endangered in 50 CFR § 17.12. (e.g<i>.</i>, <i>Euphorbia</i>) (USFWS, 2002). The widespread establishment of <i>Nipaecoccus viridis</i> in the United States is likely to stimulate chemical and/or biological control programs because it is a pest of the economically important citrus crop.</p>
</td>	<td><p>High</p>
<p>(3)</p>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<p></p>
<table><tbody><tr>	<td><p>
<b><i>Thaumatotibia leucotreta </i>(Meyrick) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae)</b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Risk ratings</b></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #1: Climate – Host Interaction</b></p>
<p><i>Thaumatotibia leucotreta </i>is distributed throughout Africa (CABI, 2005), which corresponds with U.S. Plant Hardiness Zones 9-10 (ARS, 1990).</p>
</td>	<td><p>Medium</p>
<p>(2)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #2: Host Range</b></p>
<p>There are more than 70 species identified as host species to <i>T. leucotreta </i>(CABI, 2005). Primary species include Rutaceae (<i>Citrus</i> spp., <i>Citrus sinensis</i>), Malvaceae (<i>Gossypium</i> spp., <i>Abelmoschus esculentus</i>, <i>Abutilon hybridum</i>), Poaceae (<i>Zea mays</i>, <i>Sorghum</i>), Euphorbiaceae (<i>Ricinus communis</i>), Theaceae (<i>Camellia sinensis</i>), Lauraceae (<i>Persea Americana</i>), Myrtaceae (<i>Psidium guajava</i>), Oxalidaceae (<i>Averrhoa carambola</i>), Bromeliaceae (<i>Ananas comosus</i>), Annonaceae (<i>Annona muricata</i>), Bombacaceae (<i>Ceiba pentandra</i>), Rubiaceae (<i>Coffea Arabica</i>), Solanaceae (<i>Capsicum</i>), Sapindaceae (<i>Litchi chinensis</i>), Anacardiacea (<i>Mangifera indica</i>), Oleaceae (<i>Olea europaea </i>subsp. <i>europaea</i>), Rosaceae (<i>Prunus persica</i>), Punicaceae (<i>Punica granatum</i>), and Proteaceae (<i>Macadamia </i>spp., <i>Macadamia ternifolia</i>).</p>
</td>	<td><p>High</p>
<p>(3)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential</b></p>
<p>Females can lay between 100–400 eggs overnight (CABI, 2005), with about 12 eggs per fruit (Bedford et al<i>.</i>, 1998). It is rare for them to lay more than 20 eggs per fruit; however, 65 eggs have been observed on a single fruit (Bedford et al<i>.</i>. 1998). Survival of the first instar is temperature dependent (low winter temperatures can be lethal) (Bedford et al<i>.</i>, 1998). The life-cycle varies with the season, although <i>T. leucotreta </i>typically has 2-3 generations per year (Bedford et al<i>.</i>, 1998). Adults are attracted to light (CABI, 2005). Larvae can be internationally transported via fruit, pods, inflorescence and cones (CABI, 2005).</p>
</td>	<td><p>High</p>
<p>(3)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #4: Economic Impact</b></p>
<p><i>Thaumatotibia leucotreta </i>is a serious pest of citrus in the Republic of South Africa. Host species include several important crops. The damages caused by <i>T. leucotreta </i>would be high if it should be introduced and become established in the United States. In 2002, U.S. cotton production was worth more than $3593 million (NASS, 2003b). In addition to cotton species, citrus and corn production for the year 2002 in U.S. Plant Hardiness Zones 9-12 were valued at $2605 million and $1040 million, respectively (NASS, 2003a; NASS, 2003c). In South Africa, crop damage can be as high as 50% on citrus species (Bedford et al<i>.</i>., 1998).</p>
</td>	<td><p>High</p>
<p>(3)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact</b></p>
<p>This species has the potential to attack Endangered and Threatened species, such as <i>Quercus hinckleyi</i> (Texas) (USFWS, 2002). The introduction and establishment of <i>T. leucotreta </i>in the United States would stimulate chemical or biological control programs. </p>
</td>	<td><p>High</p>
<p>(3)</p>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p>For each pest, the sum of the five Risk Elements gives a Cumulative Risk Rating. This Cumulative Risk Rating is considered to be a biological indicator of the potential of the pest to establish, spread, and cause economic and environmental impacts. The summary of risk ratings for Consequences of Introduction is shown in Table 5.</p>
<p><b>Table 5. </b>Risk ratings for Consequences of Introduction of <i>Litchi chinensis</i> from the Republic of South Africa.<b> </b>The ratings for ‘Host Range,’ and ‘Dispersal Potential’ were High for all pests.</p>
<table><tbody><tr>	<td><p><b>Pest</b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Risk elements</b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Cumulative Risk</b></p>
<p><b>Ratingsa</b></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Climate/</b></p>
<p><b>Host Interaction</b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Economic Impact</b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Environmental </b></p>
<p><b>Impact</b></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Ceratitis capitata</i></p>
</td>	<td><p>Medium</p>
</td>	<td><p>High</p>
</td>	<td><p>High</p>
</td>	<td><p>High (14)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Ceratitis rosa</i></p>
</td>	<td><p>Medium</p>
</td>	<td><p>High</p>
</td>	<td><p>High</p>
</td>	<td><p>High (14)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Ceroplastes rubens</i></p>
</td>	<td><p>High</p>
</td>	<td><p>High</p>
</td>	<td><p>High</p>
</td>	<td><p>High (15)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Ceroplastes rusci</i></p>
</td>	<td><p>Medium</p>
</td>	<td><p>High</p>
</td>	<td><p>High</p>
</td>	<td><p>High (14)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Coccus viridis</i></p>
</td>	<td><p>Medium</p>
</td>	<td><p>High</p>
</td>	<td><p>High</p>
</td>	<td><p>High (14)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Cryptophlebia peltastica</i></p>
</td>	<td><p>Medium</p>
</td>	<td><p>Medium</p>
</td>	<td><p>Medium</p>
</td>	<td><p>Medium (12)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Nipaecoccus viridis</i></p>
</td>	<td><p>Medium</p>
</td>	<td><p>High</p>
</td>	<td><p>High</p>
</td>	<td><p>High (14)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Thaumatotibia leucotreta </i></p>
</td>	<td><p>Medium</p>
</td>	<td><p>High</p>
</td>	<td><p>High</p>
</td>	<td><p>High (14)</p>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<p>a Low: 5-8 points, Medium: 9-12 points, High: 13-15 points</p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<h2><a name="_Toc111860195"></a><a name="_Toc111860319"></a><a name="_Toc188265684"></a><a name="_Toc188265776"></a><a name="_Toc223857330"></a><a name="_Toc224030470"></a>2.6 Introduction Potential</h2>
<p></p>
<p>Each pest is rated with respect to its Likelihood of Introduction, which is based on two separate components. First, an estimate is made concerning the quantity of the commodity likely to be imported (Risk Element #6). Second, pest opportunity (Risk Element #7) is estimated using five biological features. Details of these two Risk Elements and their rating criteria are provided in APHIS (2000); the ratings and the cumulative score for Risk Elements #6 and #7, i.e<i>.</i>, the “Likelihood of Introduction Risk Rating,” are shown in Table 6.</p>
<p></p>
<h3>2.7.1. Quantity of commodity imported annually</h3>
<p>The likelihood that an exotic pest will be introduced depends on the amount of the potentially-infested commodity that is imported. For qualitative pest risk assessments, the amount of commodity imported is estimated in units of standard 40-foot long shipping containers. </p>
<p></p>
<p>The Republic of South Africa produces about 6272 U.S. tons of litchi (annually) (NDA, 2000), exporting approximately 2240 U.S. tons to European countries (CABI, 2005). FAS (2003) states that sea shipping containers are 40-feet in length, and hold approximately 40,000 pounds (20 U.S. tons); this is used for various estimates of commodity shipments.  The anticipated volume of fresh litchi to be exported from the Republic of South Africa is estimated to be over 100 containers (High).</p>
<p></p>
<h3>2.7.2. Survive post-harvest treatment</h3>
<p>For this sub-element, post-harvest treatment refers to any manipulation, handling, or specific phytosanitary treatment to which the commodity is subjected. Examples of post-harvest treatments include culling, washing, chemical treatment, cold storage, etc<i>.</i> If there is no post-harvest treatment, the estimate the likelihood of this sub-element is High. </p>
<p></p>
<p>Post-harvest treatments for litchi from South Africa include sulphur treatment, inspection at packinghouse, size grading and hand sorting, culling, and minimum of a 2% sample inspection after packing (de Villiers, 2002; NDA, 2007).</p>
<p></p>
<p>Fruit flies and moths (<i>Ceratitis capitata</i>, <i>Ceratitis rosa</i>, <i>Thaumatotibia leucotreta</i>, and <i>Cryptophlebia peltastica</i>) are ranked High (3) for their ability to survive post-harvest treatment; this is due to internal feeding, as they are not likely to be affected by post-harvest treatments, such as washing and culling, especially if the infestation of the fruit is not obvious. Post-harvest cold treatment is effective in controlling all stages of <i>T. leucotreta</i>; however, cold temperatures are likely to damage the fruit (Bedford et al<i>.</i>, 1998). </p>
<p></p>
<p>The scale insects (<i>Ceroplastes rubens</i>, <i>Ceroplastes rusci</i>, <i>Coccus viridis </i>and <i>Nipaecoccus viridis</i>) are rated Medium (2) for their ability to survive post-harvest treatment. They are external feeders and can be easily controlled by post-harvest treatments. (These insects have been intercepted by PPQ (PestID, 2005)).  The Coccoidea have sessile stages that firmly adhere to plant surfaces, often appearing as colorless. This posture and their water-repellent, waxy cuticles can make them difficult to see or dislodge, especially if sheltered at the stem end of the fruit.</p>
<p></p>
<h3>2.7.3. Survive shipment</h3>
<p>To estimate the survival of pests during shipment, assume standard shipping conditions.</p>
<p></p>
<p>The specific means by which <i>Litchi chinensis</i> will be transported from the Republic of South Africa to the United States are unknown. We do know, though, that litchis are shipped from South Africa to the EU and UK over a period of approximately 26 days from harvesting to consumers, with approximately 16 days spent on vessels while being kept at 1 – 2 °C (de Villiers, 2002).  </p>
<p></p>
<p>A study by Hatton et al. (1966) showed that high quality fresh litchi can be maintained for 5 to 7 days, if the fruit is shipped/stored at 50 °F (10 °C), or as low as 35 °F (1.67 °C). Litchi is a non-climacteric fruit; its flavor and sweetness do not improve after harvest (Shaw et al<i>.</i>, 1998).</p>
<p></p>
<p>The USDA requires cold treatment at 32 °F (0 °C) or below for 12 days in order to mitigate fruit flies on apples, grapes, and pears imported from the Republic of South Africa (PPECB, 2002). Peaches, plums, and nectarines are cold treated at 31°F (-0.55 °C) or below for 22 days for <i>Thaumatotibia leucotreta </i>(PPECB, 2002). </p>
<p></p>
<p><i>Ceratitis</i> species were intercepted on litchi twice (<i>Ceratitis capitata</i> from France and <i>Ceratitis</i> species from Mauritius) between 1985 and 2003 (PestID, 2005). <i>Thaumatotibia leucotreta </i>and other <i>Cryptophlebia</i> spp. were intercepted on litchi from the Republic of South Africa on several occasions between 1985 and 2003 (PestID, 2005). Coccidae species have also been intercepted numerous times on litchi by PPQ officers (PestID, 2005). </p>
<p> </p>
<p>As a perishable fruit, the shipment of litchi must be refrigerated and occur within a certain time period; as a result, <i>Ceratitis capitata</i>, <i>Ceratitis rosa</i>, <i>Thaumatotibia leucotreta </i>, and <i>Cryptophlebia peltastica</i> were given a High (3) survival rate. The scale species, <i>Ceroplastes rubens</i>, <i>Ceroplastes rusci</i>, <i>Coccus viridis</i>, and <i>Nipaecoccus viridis</i> were also given a High (3) potential to survive shipment due to numerous PPQ interceptions.</p>
<p> </p>
<h3>2.7.4. Not be detected at the port-of-entry</h3>
<p>Unless there are specific protocols for special inspection of the commodity, standard inspection protocols are assumed. If no inspection is planned, this sub-element is estimated to be High.</p>
<p></p>
<p>Internal feeders (<i>Ceratitis capitata</i>, <i>Ceratitis rosa</i>, <i>Thaumatotibia leucotreta </i>, and <i>Cryptophlebia peltastica</i>) have a High (3) potential to escape detection at the port-of-entry; these insects will not be detected unless litchi are destructively sampled. White and Elson-Harris (1992) stated that fruit flies had a high probability of escaping detection at a port-of-entry, allowing infested fruit to go unrecognized. </p>
<p></p>
<p>Scales are external feeders that are easy to detect. <i>Ceroplastes rubens</i>, <i>Ceroplastes rusci</i>, <i>Coccus viridis</i> and <i>Nipaecoccus viridis</i> are rated as Medium (2). <i>Ceroplastes rubens</i> is pink to reddish brown with two conspicuous pairs of white bands (Dekle, 2001, USDA ARS SEL, 2009). It produces honeydew (van den Berg, et al., 2001), which is also visible. Mature <i>Ceroplastes rusci</i> males are hemispherical in shape and covered by a thick layer of oily wax, while females are oval, grayish to pinkish-white and up to 4.0 mm in length and 3.5 mm in width (CABI, 2005). <i>Coccus viridis</i> is a 3 x 2 mm oval shape and green in color with black spots through the middle of the dorsum (CABI, 2005). </p>
<p></p>
<h3>2.7.5. Imported or moved subsequently to an area with an environment suitable for survival</h3>
<p>Consider the geographic location of likely markets and the proportion of the commodity that is likely to move to locations suitable for pest survival. Even if infested commodities enter the country, not all final destinations will have suitable climatic conditions for pest survival.</p>
<p></p>
<p>All arthropods species are tropical and/or subtropical, and are rated Medium (2), due to their need to survive in specific climate conditions. In the United States, those regions are limited to the South, the West Coast, and Hawaii. Hawaii is the only critical region since tropical and subtropical crops, which are attacked by those arthropods, have commercially grown commodities. The environments of the United States are unsuitable for growing litchi, and the fruit’s demand of litchi is limited. In 1964, 93% of litchi produced in Florida was shipped outside of the state, with one-third of it being sent to New York City (Tatton et al<i>.</i>, 1966); as a result, suitable regions for all arthropods species comprise only 10 – 12% of the U.S. land area.  </p>
<p></p>
<h3>2.7.6. Come into contact with host material suitable for reproduction</h3>
<p>Even if the final destination of infested commodities is conducive for pest survival, suitable host material must be available in order for the pest to survive. Consider the complete host range of the pest species.</p>
<p></p>
<p>Fruit flies (<i>Ceratitis capitata</i> and <i>C. rosa</i>) are rated as High (3). Three fruits flies have a wide range of host species that inhabit, not only subtropical and tropical zones, but also temperate zones. <i>Ceratitis capitata</i> has already established populations in the continental United States. It has been officially controlled in the United States; however, there are high probabilities of coming into contact with host material suitable for reproduction due to insect records.</p>
<p>Several of the arthropods have limited powers of dispersal because they cannot fly (i.e., females of the scale insects (<i>Ceroplastes rubens, Ceroplastes rusci, Coccus viridis</i> and <i>Nipaecoccus viridis</i>) (Gullan & Kosztarab, 1997), and thus cannoty to locate hosts quickly. For these insects, successful establishment in a new environment is contingent on the likelihood of at least two necessary conditions occurring: close proximity of susceptible hosts and presence on the imported fruit of crawlers or other mobile forms to transfer to new hosts (e.g., Miller, 1985; Blank et al., 1993), circumstances that are highly unlikely to co-occur. Thus they are considered to have a Low risk of coming into contact with host material suitable for reproduction.</p>
<p></p>
<p><i>Cryptophlebia leucotreta</i> is highly polyphagous, and is very likely to contact host material once it is introduced to the United States. The rating for <i>T. leucotreta </i>is High (3).</p>
<p></p>
<p><i>Cryptophlebia peltastica</i> attacks members of six plant families, not all of which are tropical, e.g. legumes and mimosa, both of which are important components of the ecosystems in the Southwestern regions of the United States. Additionally, the insect has the ability to fly, thus it is being rated High. </p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p><b>Table 6. </b>Risk ratings for Likelihood of Introduction. The risk ratings for ‘Quantity imported annually’ were High for all pests.</p>
<table><tbody><tr>	<td><p><b>Pest</b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Survive Post-harvest Treatment</b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Survive ship-ment</b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Not detected at port-of-entry</b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Move to suitable habitat</b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Contact host material</b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Cumulative risk ratings</b>a</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Ceratitis capitata</i></p>
</td>	<td><p>High (3)</p>
</td>	<td><p>High (3)</p>
</td>	<td><p>High (3)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Med (2)</p>
</td>	<td><p>High (3)</p>
</td>	<td><p>High (17)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Ceratitis rosa</i></p>
</td>	<td><p>High (3)</p>
</td>	<td><p>High (3)</p>
</td>	<td><p>High (3)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Med (2)</p>
</td>	<td><p>High (3)</p>
</td>	<td><p>High (17)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Ceroplastes rubens</i></p>
</td>	<td><p>Med (2)</p>
</td>	<td><p>High (3)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Med (2)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Med (2)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Low (1)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Medium (13)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Ceroplastes rusci</i></p>
</td>	<td><p>Med (2)</p>
</td>	<td><p>High (3)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Med (2)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Med (2)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Low (1)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Medium (13)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Coccus viridis</i></p>
</td>	<td><p>Med (2)</p>
</td>	<td><p>High (3)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Med (2)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Med (2)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Low (1)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Medium (13)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Nipaecoccus viridis</i></p>
</td>	<td><p>Med (2)</p>
</td>	<td><p>High (3)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Med (2)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Med (2)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Low (1)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Medium (13)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Thaumatotibia leucotreta </i></p>
</td>	<td><p>High (3)</p>
</td>	<td><p>High (3)</p>
</td>	<td><p>High (3)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Med (2)</p>
</td>	<td><p>High (3)</p>
</td>	<td><p>High (17)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Cryptophlebia peltastica</i></p>
</td>	<td><p>High (3)</p>
</td>	<td><p>High (3)</p>
</td>	<td><p>High (3)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Med (2)</p>
</td>	<td><p>High (3)</p>
</td>	<td><p>High (17)</p>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<p>a Low: 6 – 9 points; Medium: 10 – 14 points; High: 15 – 18 points </p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<h2><a name="_Toc111860197"></a><a name="_Toc111860320"></a><a name="_Toc188265686"></a><a name="_Toc188265778"></a><a name="_Toc223857331"></a><a name="_Toc224030471"></a>2.7 Conclusion – Pest Risk Potential and Pests Requiring Phytosanitary Measures</h2>
<p></p>
<p>To estimate the Pest Risk Potential for each pest, the Cumulative Risk Rating for the Consequences of Introduction and the Cumulative Risk Rating for the Likelihood of Introduction are summed in Table 7. 	</p>
<p></p>
<p>Following the assignment of the Pest Risk Potential for each pest, the risk assessor may briefly comment on risk management options associated with importations of the requested commodity. The following guidelines are offered as an interpretation of the Low, Medium, and High Pest Risk Potential Ratings:</p>
<p>Low: 	Pest will typically not require specific mitigation measures; the port-of entry inspection to which all imported commodities are subjected can be expected to provide sufficient phytosanitary security.</p>
<p>Medium:	Specific phytosanitary measure may be necessary.</p>
<p>High:	Specific phytosanitary measures are strongly recommended. Port of entry inspection is not considered sufficient to provide phytosanitary security.</p>
<p></p>
<p>Below we provide information on possible mitigation options for the pests analyzed (Appendix A). Identification and selection of appropriate sanitary and phytosanitary measures to mitigate risk for pests with particular Pest Risk Potential ratings is undertaken as part of the risk management phase and is not discussed in this document. The appropriate risk management strategy for a particular pest depends on the risk posed by that pest. APHIS risk management programs are risk-based and dependent on the availability of appropriate mitigation methods. Details of APHIS risk management program are published, primarily, in the Federal Register as quarantine notices.</p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p><b>Table 7. </b>Pest Risk Potentials</p>
<table><tbody><tr>	<td><p><b>Pest</b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Consequences of </b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Likelihood of </b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Pest Risk Potential</b>a</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Introduction</b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Introduction</b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Score</b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Rating</b></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Ceratitis capitata</i></p>
</td>	<td><p>High (14)</p>
</td>	<td><p>High (17)</p>
</td>	<td><p>31</p>
</td>	<td><p>High</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Ceratitis rosa</i></p>
</td>	<td><p>High (14)</p>
</td>	<td><p>High (17)</p>
</td>	<td><p>31</p>
</td>	<td><p>High</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Ceroplastes rubens</i></p>
</td>	<td><p>High (15)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Medium (13)</p>
</td>	<td><p>28</p>
</td>	<td><p>High</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Ceroplastes rusci</i></p>
</td>	<td><p>High (14)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Medium (13)</p>
</td>	<td><p>27</p>
</td>	<td><p>High</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Coccus viridis</i></p>
</td>	<td><p>High (14)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Medium (13)</p>
</td>	<td><p>27</p>
</td>	<td><p>High</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Cryptophlebia peltastica</i></p>
</td>	<td><p>Medium (12)</p>
</td>	<td><p>High (17)</p>
</td>	<td><p>29</p>
</td>	<td><p>High</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Nipaecoccus viridis</i></p>
</td>	<td><p>High (14)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Medium (13)</p>
</td>	<td><p>27</p>
</td>	<td><p>High</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Thaumatotibia leucotreta</i></p>
</td>	<td><p>High (14)</p>
</td>	<td><p>High (17)</p>
</td>	<td><p>31</p>
</td>	<td><p>High</p>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<p>a Scores = Low: 11 – 18 points; Medium: 19 – 26 points; High: 27 – 33 points</p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p><a name="_Toc111860200"></a><a name="_Toc111860321"></a><a name="_Toc188265689"></a><a name="_Toc188265781"></a><a name="_Toc223857332"></a><a name="_Toc224030472"></a><b>3. Author & Reviewers</b></p>
<p></p>
<p><b>Author</b></p>
<p>Yu Takeuchi – Plant Physiologista</p>
<p></p>
<p><b>Reviewers</b> </p>
<p>Heather Hartzog – Plant Pathologista</p>
<p>Jim Smith – Entomologista</p>
<p>Christie Hurt – Entomologista</p>
<p></p>
<p>a USDA-APHIS-PPQ-CPHST, Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory, </p>
<p></p>
<p><a name="_Toc111860202"></a><a name="_Toc111860322"></a><a name="_Toc188265691"></a><a name="_Toc188265783"></a><a name="_Toc223857333"></a><a name="_Toc224030473"></a><b>4. Literature Cited</b></p>
<p></p>
<p>Aitken-Soux, P. 1985. Some pests and diseases generally encountered in coffee nurseries. Feuille Extens. 53: 1-5.</p>
<p>Annecke, D. P. and V. C. Moran. 1982. Insects and Mites of Cultivated Plants in South Africa. Butterworths, Durban and Pretoria, South Africa.</p>
<p>Anonymous. 1965. A host list of the insects of Thailand. Thailand Department of Agriculture and the US Operations Mission to Thailand. 149 pp. </p>
<p>APHIS. 1997. Medfly Cooperative Eradication Program, Central Florida: Environmental Assessment. United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), Riverdale, Maryland.</p>
<p>APHIS. 1998. Mediterranean Fruit Fly Cooperative Eradication Program, Lake Forest, California: Environmental Assessment. United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), Riverdale, Maryland.</p>
<p>ARC ITSC. 2003. Litchi Moth. Agricultural Research Council, Institute for Tropical and Subtropical Crops (ARC ITSC). http://www/arc.agric.za/institutes/itsc/main/litchi/moth.htm.</p>
<p>ARC-PPRI. 2003. South African Plant-Parasitic Nematode Survey database. Nematology Unit, ARC-Plant Protection Research Institute (ARC-PPRI), Queenswood, South Africa.</p>
<p>ARS. 1990. USDA Plant Hardiness Zone Map, Miscellaneous Publication Number 1475. United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service (ARS). Washington, D.C.</p>
<p>Barners, B. N. 2000. Fruit flies of economic importance in South Africa: an overview. Proceedings of the Indian Ocean Commission, Regional Fruit Fly Symposium, Flic en Flac, Mauritius, 5th-9th June, 2000:1001-1107 (Abstract).</p>
<p>Bedford, E. C. G., van den Berg, M. A. and E. A. de Villiers. 1998. Citrus Pests in the Republic of South Africa, second edition. Agricultural Research Council, Institute for Tropical and Subtropical Crops, Nelspruit, South Africa.</p>
<p>Ben-Dov, Y., D.R. Miller, and G.A.P. Gibson. 2005. ScaleNet. http://www.sel.barc.usda.gov/scalenet/scalenet.htm. (Archived at PERAL)</p>
<p>Blank, R.H., M.H. Olson, and G.S.C. Gill. 1993. An assessment of the quarantine risk of armoured scale (Hemiptera: Diaspididae) fruit infestations on kiwifruit. N.Z. J. Crop Hort. Sci. 21(2): 139-145.</p>
<p>Borrer, D. J., C. A. Triplehorn, and N. F. Johnson. 1989. An Introduction to the Study of Insects. 6th Edition. Harcourt Brace College Publishers. 875 pp.</p>
<p>Brown, G.E. 2003. Sour Rot. University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (UF/IFAS). <http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/ch113> last accessed: June, 2005.</p>
<p>CABI. 2005. Crop Protection Compendium. CAB International (CABI). Wallingford, U.K.</p>
<p>CABI. 2006. Crop Protection Compendium. CAB International (CABI). Wallingford, U.K. </p>
<p>CABI/EPPO. 1997. Data sheets on quarantine pests: <i>Ceratitis capitata</i>. In: Smith, I.M., McNamara, D.G., Scott, P.R., and Holderness, M., editors. Quarantine Pests for Europe. second ed. Wallingford, U.K.: CAB International. p 146-152.</p>
<p>Capinera, J. L. 2001. Handbook of Vegetable Pests. Academic Press, San Diego, California.</p>
<p>China. 1997. Pest list of longan provided by China (cited in the USDA, APHIS, PPQ Commodity Risk Assessment for Longans from China, May 1999).</p>
<p>Cordell, C.E., R.L. Anderson, W.H. Hoffard, T.D. Landis, R.S. Smith Jr., H.V. Toko. 1989. Forest Nursery Pests. USDA Forest Service, Agriculture Handbook No. 680, 184pp.</p>
<p>Dekle, G.W. 1999. Featured Creatures: <i>Eucalymnatus tessellates</i> (Signoret) (Insecta: Hemiptera: Coccidae). University of Florida. http://creatures.ifas.ufl.edu/orn/scales/tessellated_scale.htm</p>
<p>Dekle, G.W.  2001.  Featured Creatures: <i>Ceroplastes rubens</i> Maskell (Insecta: Hemiptera: Coccidae).  University of Florida. http://entnem.ifas.ufl.edu/creatures/orn/scales/red_wax_scale.htm </p>
<p>de Villiers, E.A.  2002.  The Cultivation of Litchi.  Agricultural Research Council, Institute for Tropical and Subtropical Crops (ARC-ITSC), Nelspruit, South Africa. pp. 214.</p>
<p>Duyck, P. F. and S. Quilici. 2002. Survival and development of different life stages of three Ceratitis spp. (Diptera: Tephritidae) reared at five constant temperatures. Bulletin of Entomological Research. 92: 461 – 469.</p>
<p>Farr, D. F., A. Y. Rossman, M. E. Palm, and E. B. McCray (ed). 2005. Fungal Databases, Systematic Botany & Mycology Laboratory, USDA. <http://nt.ars-grin.gov/fungaldatabases/> last accessed: February, 2006.</p>
<p>FAS. 2003. Glossary. United States Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS), Washington D.C.</p>
<p>Gullan, P. J. and M. Kosztarab. 1997. Adaptations in scale insects. Annual Review of Entomology. 42: 23-50.</p>
<p>Haleem, S. A. 1984. Studies on fruit quality of sweet orange as affected by soft green scale and sooty mould. South Indian Horticulture. 32(5): 267-269.</p>
<p>Hatton, T. T., Reeder, W. M. F. and J. Kaufman. 1966. Maintaining Market Quality of Fresh Lychees During Storage and Transit. Marketing Research Report No. 770. USDA, Agricultural Research Service, Washington D.C. </p>
<p>Hill, D. S. 1983. Agricultural insect pests of the tropics and their control. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 746 p.</p>
<p>Holm, L. G., Plucknett, D. L., Pancho, J. V. and J. P. Herberger. 1977. The World’s Worst Weeds. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu.</p>
<p>Holm, L. G., Pancho, J. V., Herberger, J. P. and D. L. Plucknett. 1979. A Geographical Atlas of World Weeds. John Wiley and Sons, New York.</p>
<p>Holm, L. G., Doll, J., Holm, E., Pancho, J. and J. Herberger. 1997. World Weeds: Natural Histories and Distribution. John Wiley and Sons, New York. </p>
<p>Jeppson, L. R., H. H. Keifer, and E. W. Baker. 1975. Mites injurious to economic plants. University of California Press, Berkeley, California. </p>
<p>INRA. 2006. <i>Ceroplastes rusci</i> L. http://inra.fr/Internet/Produits/HYPPZ/RAVAGEUR/6cerrus.htm. HYPPZ (hypermédia en protection des plantes, partie zoologie).</p>
<p>IPPC. 2004. International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures, Publication No. 11: Pest risk analysis for quarantine pests including analysis of environmental risks and living modified organisms. Rome, Italy: Secretariat of the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC), Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.https://www.ippc.int/servlet/BinaryDownloaderServlet/34163_ISPM_11_E.pdf?filename=1146658377367_ISPM11.pdf&refID=34163</p>
<p>IPPC. 2006. International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures, Publication No. 5. Glossary of Phytosanitary Terms. Rome, Italy: Secretariat of the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC), Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.https://www.ippc.int/servlet/BinaryDownloaderServlet/133607_ISPM05_2006_E.pdf?filename=1151504714760_ISPM05_2006_E.pdf&refID=133607</p>
<p>Kleynhans, K. P. N., van den Berg, E., Swart, A., Marais, M. and N. H. Buckley. 1996. Plant Nematodes in South Africa. Agricultural Research Council, Pretoria, South Africa.</p>
<p>Lall, B. S. 1977. Monograph on litchi pests; Part 1 – Litchi leaf-feeders. Univ. of Bihar, L. S. College, Dept. of Zoology. Bihar, India.</p>
<p>Mau, R.F.L. and J.L. Martin Kessing. 1992a. <i>Coccus longulus </i>(Douglas). Crop Knowledge Master, College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources, University of Hawaii and Hawaii Department of Agriculture. <http://www.extento.hawaii.edu/kbase/crop/type/c_longul.htm> last accessed: June, 2005.</p>
<p>Mau, R.F.L. and J.L. Martin Kessing. 1992b. <i>Parasaissetia nigra </i>(Nietner). Crop Knowledge Master, College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources, University of Hawaii and Hawaii Department of Agriculture. <http://www.extento.hawaii.edu/kbase/crop/type/p_nigra.htm> last accessed: June, 2005.</p>
<p>Miller, D.R. 1985. Pest Risk Assessment of Armored Scales on Certain Fruit. Unpublished report. USDA Agric. Res. Serv.</p>
<p>Myburghm, A. C. 1986. Crop Pest in South Africa: Vol. 1 Deciduous Fruit, Grapes and Berries. Bulletin 407. Plant Protection Research Institute, Pretoria South Africa.</p>
<p>NDA. 2000. Subtropical Fruit. In Trends in the Agriculture Sector 2002. National Department of Agriculture (NDA), Pretoria, South Africa. http://www.nda.agric.za/docs/trends2000/subtropical_fruit.htm.</p>
<p>NDA.  2007.  South Africa’s acceptance of USDA-APHIS proposed irradiation quarantine treatment and South Africa’s proposal for alternative mitigation measures for litchi fruit exports from South Africa to the United States. National Department of Agriculture (NDA), Pretoria, South Africa. Received by Craig Fedchock, USDA APHIS. October 26, 2007.  </p>
<p>Narasimham, A. U. 1987. Scale insects and mealybugs on coffee, tea and cardamom and their natural enemies. Journal of Coffee Research. 17(1): 7-13.</p>
<p>NASS. 2003a. Citrus Fruits: 2003 Summary. United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), Washington D.C. </p>
<p>NASS. 2003b. Crop Values: 2002 Summary. United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), Washington D.C. </p>
<p>NASS. 2003c. Noncitrus Fruits and Nuts: 2002 Preliminary Summary. United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), Washington D.C. </p>
<p>Newton, P. J. and C. Crause. 1990. Oviposition on <i>Litchi chinensis</i> by <i>Cryptophlebia</i> species (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). Phytophylatica. 22: 365-367.</p>
<p>Nishijima, W. 1993. <i>Rhizopus stolonifer</i>. Crop Knowledge Master, College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources, University of Hawaii and Hawaii Department of Agriculture. http://www.extento.hawaii.edu/kbase/crop/type/r_stolo.htm.</p>
<p>NRCS. 2003. Plants Database. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). http://plants.usda.gov.</p>
<p>Pellizzari, G. 1997. Grapevine, Pp. 323-331. In: Y. Ben-Dov and C. J. Hofgson [Eds], Soft Scale Insects – Their Biology, Natural Enemies and Control (7B). Elsevier Science B. V., Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 442pp.</p>
<p>PestID. 2005. Pest Identification Database (PestID). United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine. https://mokcs14.aphis.usda.gov/aqas/login.jsp. (Archived at PERAL)</p>
<p>PestID. 2010. Pest Identification Database (PestID). United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine. https://mokcs14.aphis.usda.gov/aqas/login.jsp. (Archived at PERAL)</p>
<p>PPECB. 2002. Work Plan for the USDA: Pre-Export Inspection and Cold Treatment of South African Deciduous Fruit Designated for Export to the United States of America. Perishable Products Export Control Board (PPECB), Panorama, South Africa.</p>
<p>PPQ. 2000. Guidelines for pathway-initiated pest risk assessments (Version 5.02). United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ), Riverdale, MD. 30 pp.</p>
<p>Reed, C.F. 1977. Economically Important Foreign Weeds. Agriculture Handbook No. 498.</p>
<p>Schoeman, A.S. 1980. The potato snout beetle, <i>Sciobius horni</i> Marshall (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Phytophylactica 12: 221-228.</p>
<p>Shaw, P.E., H.T. Chan, Jr., and S. Nagy. 1998. Tropical and Subtropical Fruits. Agscience, Inc, Auburndale, Florida.</p>
<p>Tenbrink, V.L. and A.H. Hara. 1992. <i>Ischnaspis longirostris</i> (Signoret). Crop Knowledge Master, College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources, University of Hawaii and Hawaii Department of Agriculture. http://www.extento.hawaii.edu/kbase/crop/type/i_longin.htm.</p>
<p>SEL. 2009. Scale Insects.  Identification Tools for Species of Quarantine Significance. United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Systematic Entomology Laboratory (SEL).  http://www.sel.barc.usda.gov/ScaleKeys/SoftScales/key/Soft_scales/Media/Html/SpeciesListFset.html.</p>
<p>USFWS. 2002. Threatened and Endangered Species System (TESS). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). http://ecos.fws.gov/webpage.</p>
<p>van den Berg, M. A. 1995. Pests Attacking Macadamia in South Africa. The Sixth Conference of the Australasian Council on Tree and Nut Crops, Inc. Kismore, NSW, Australia. http://www.newcrops.uq.edu.au/acotanc/papers/vanden2.htm.</p>
<p>van den Berg, M.A., E.A. de Villiers, and P.H. Joubert. 2001. Pests and Beneficial Arthropods of Tropical and Non-Citrus Subtropical Crops in South Africa. ARC, Institute for Tropical and Subtropical Crops, Nelspruit, South Africa.</p>
<p>Waite, G. K., and J. S. Hwang. 2002. Pests of litchi and longan, pp. 331-359. <i>In </i>J. E. Peña, J. L. Sharp and M. Wysoki [eds.], Tropical fruit pests and pollinators: biology, economic importance, natural enemies and control. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK. </p>
<p>WSSA. 1989. Composite List of Weeds. Weed Science Society of America (WSSA).  	</p>
<p>Weems, H. V. and T. R. Fasulo. 2002. Natal Fruit Fly. University of Florida. http://creatures.ifas.ufl.edu/fruit/tropical/natal_fruit_fly.htm; last accessed: November, 2003. </p>
<p>Weems, H. V. J. 1966. Natal Fruit Fly (<i>Ceratitis rosa</i> Karsch) (Diptera: Tephritidae). Entomology Circular No 91: Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Plant Industry</p>
<p>White, J. M. and M. M. Elson-Harris. 1992. Fruitflies of Economic Significance: Their Identification and Bionomics. CAB International, Aciar. Oxon, U.K. 601 Pp.</p>
<p>Williams, D. J. 1986. Scale insects (Homoptera: Coccoidea) on coffee in Papua New Guinea. Papua New Guinea Journal of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries. 34: 1-7.</p>
<p>Yuval, B., and Hendrichs, J. 2000. Behavior of flies in the genus <i>Ceratitis</i> (Dacinae: Ceratitidini). In: Aluja, M., and Norrbom, A.L., editors. Fruit Flies (Tephritidae): Phylogeny and Evolution of Behavior. Boca Raton, Florida.: CRC Press. p 429-457.</p>
<h1><a name="_Toc224030474"></a><a name="_Toc188268312"></a><a name="_Toc223857334"></a><a name="_Toc188265693"></a><a name="_Toc188265785"></a>
5. Appendices</h1>
<h2></h2>
<h2><a name="_Toc224030475"></a>Appendix A. Risk Mitigation Options</h2>
<p></p>
<p><b>Mitigations for plant pests identified as quarantine pests likely to follow the pathway in the draft PRA for litchi (<i>Litchi chinensis</i>) from Republic of South Africa into Continental United States.</b></p>
<p></p>
<p>In this risk assessment we examined the risks associated with the importation of litchi (<i>Litchi chinensis</i>) into the United States. Information on pests associated with litchi from the Republic of South Africa revealed that eight quarantine pests exist and could be introduced into the United States via this pathway. The quarantine pests likely to follow the pathway were all insects.</p>
<p></p>
<p>The quarantine pests were qualitatively analyzed based on international principles and internal guidelines as described in the PPQ Guidelines for Pathway-Initiated Pest Risk Assessments, Version 5.02 (PPQ, 2000), which examines pest biology in the context of Consequences of Introduction and Likelihood of Introduction. These elements help estimate the Pest Risk Potential. All of the listed pests pose phytosanitary risks to American agriculture, and all received High risk ratings. Port-of-entry inspections, as a sole mitigative measure, are considered insufficient to safeguard U.S. agriculture from these pests. Additional phytosanitary measures are necessary to reduce risks to acceptable levels.</p>
<p></p>
<p>For more details on particular treatments see Appendix B.</p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<table><tbody><tr>	<td><p><b>Quarantine Pests likely to follow the pathway</b></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Ceratitis capitata</i> Wiedemann (Diptera: Tephritidae)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Cetatitis rosa</i> Karsch (Diptera: Tephritidae)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Ceroplastes rubens</i> Maskell (Homiptera: Coccidae)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Ceroplastes rusci</i> (Linnaeus) (Hemiptera: Coccidae)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Coccus viridis</i> (Green) (Hemiptera: Coccidae)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Nipaecoccus viridis</i> (Newstead) (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Thaumatotibia leucotreta </i>Meyrick (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Cryptophlebia peltastica</i> (Meyrick) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae)</p>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<p>
Currently, litchi is imported into the United States from the following countries. </p>
<table><tbody><tr>	<td><p><b>All Ports</b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>North American Ports</b>[footnoteRef:1] [1:  NA ports (North Atlantic ports): Atlantic ports north of and including Baltimore, MD; ports on Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway; Canadian border ports east of and including North Dakota; Washington, DC. (including Dulles for air shipments). [All the area north of 39 and east of 104]] 
</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Peoples Republic of China</b> (fruits, including clusters of fruit attached to a stem) with T105-b-1[footnoteRef:2],[footnoteRef:3] or T107-h[footnoteRef:4],[footnoteRef:5] treatment [2:  Fruits irradiated in the country of origin and accompanied by a PPQ Form 203 to confirm irradiation may enter any State. However, untreated fruits and vegetables, intended to be irradiated for quarantine pests, cannot be treated within nor transit through the following States: Alabama, Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia (except for treatment in Atlanta, GA), Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi (except for treatment in Gulfport, MS), Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina (except for treatment in Wilmington, NC), South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas (except untreated products to be irradiated may transit through Dallas/Ft Worth) and Virginia.]  [3:  Irradiation as an optional treatment is available only after an exporting country has entered into a framework equivalency work plan agreement and met other requirements as specified in 7CFR 305.2. Currently, this country has not entered into a work plan agreement.]  [4:  If treatment has not been completed before entry, the fruits or vegetables may arrive in the United States only at the following ports:
Any port located north of 39 latitude and east of 104 longitude;
At one of the following maritime ports: Wilmington, NC; Seattle, WA; Corpus Christi, TX; and Gulfport, MS (not currently operational);
Seattle-Tacoma International, Seattle, WA (not currently operational);
Hartsfield-Atlanta International Airport, Atlanta, GA; and
Washington Dulles International Airport, Chantilly, VA]  [5:  All boxes must be stamped, “Not for distribution in FL.”] 
</p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Bahamas</b> (fruit, including clusters of fruit attached to a stem)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Grenada</b> (fruits, including clusters of fruit attached to a stem)</p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Dominican Republic</b> (fruit, including clusters of fruit attached to a stem)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>India</b> (fruits, including clusters of fruit attached to a stem) with T105-b-12,3 or T107-f4,[footnoteRef:6] treatment [6:  Boxes must be stamped, “Not for importation into or distributed within FL.”] 
</p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Haiti</b> (fruit, including clusters of fruit attached to a stem)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Israel</b> (fruits, including clusters of fruit attached to a stem) with T105-b-22,3 or T107-a4 treatment</p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Jamaica</b> (fruit, including clusters of fruit attached to a stem)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Mexico</b> from all areas (fruits, including clusters of fruit attach to a stem)</p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Taiwan</b>, Province of China[footnoteRef:7] (fruit, including clusters of fruits attached to a stem) with T105-b-12,3 or T107-h[footnoteRef:8],[footnoteRef:9] [7:  Prohibited into Florida]  [8:  Shipments are prohibited into Florida even if treated.  If treatment has not been completed before entry, the fruits or vegetables may arrive in the United States only at the following ports:
Any port located north of 39 latitude and east of 104 longitude;
At one of the following maritime ports: Wilmington, NC; Seattle, WA; Corpus Christi, TX; and Gulfport, MS (not currently operational);
Seattle-Tacoma International, Seattle, WA (not currently operational);
Hartsfield-Atlanta International Airport, Atlanta, GA; and
Washington Dulles International Airport, Chantilly, VA]  [9:  Cartons must be stamped, “Not for distribution in FL.”] 
</p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<p><b>Current treatments for <i>Litchi chinensis </i></b></p>
<p><b>PPQ Treatment Manual (1/29/2006):</b></p>
<p><b><i>Ceratitis capitata</i></b></p>
<p>· <b>T105-b-2: T105-b-2 Irradiation </b></p>
<p>This treatment is applied to litchi fruits from Israel to All ports[footnoteRef:10],[footnoteRef:11] [10:  Fruits irradiated in the country of origin and accompanied by a PPQ Form 203 to confirm irradiation may enter any State. However, untreated fruits and vegetables, intended to be irradiated for quarantine pests, cannot be treated within nor transit through the following States: Alabama, Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia (except for treatment in Atlanta, GA), Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi (except for treatment in Gulfport, MS), Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina (except for treatment in Wilmington, NC), South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas (except untreated products to be irradiated may transit through Dallas/Ft Worth) and Virginia.]  [11:  Irradiation as an optional treatment is available only after an exporting country has entered into a framework equivalency work plan agreement and met other requirements as specified in 7CFR 305.2. Currently, this country has not entered into a work plan agreement.] 
</p>
<p>· <b>T102-d: T102-d Hot water immersion</b></p>
<p>This treatment is applied to litchi from Hawaii to treat <i>C. capitata</i> and <i>Bactrocera dorsalis</i>.</p>
<p><b><i>Ceratitis capitata</i> and <i>C. rosa</i></b></p>
<p>· <b>T107-a: T107-a Cold Treatment</b></p>
<p>This treatment is applied litchi from Israel </p>
<p><b><i>Thaumatotibia leucotreta </i>and <i>Ceratitis rosa</i></b></p>
<p>· <b>T107-e: T107-e Cold Treatment</b></p>
<p>This treatment is not applied to litchi, but it is very similar to treatment T107-a. This treatment is used for apricot, citrus, nectarine, peach, and plum.</p>
<p><b>Scale insects</b></p>
<p>· <b>T104-a-1: T104-a-1 MB at NAP – tarpaulin or chamber</b></p>
<p>This treatment is applied to various commodities, including litchi to mitigate scale insects and other surface pests.</p>
<p><b>Mealybugs (Pseudococcidae)</b></p>
<p>· <b>T104-a-2: T104-a-2 MB at NAP – tarpaulin or chamber</b></p>
<p>This treatment is applied to various commodities, including litchi to mitigate mealybugs. </p>
<p><b>All insects</b></p>
<p>· <b>FIFRA Section 18: Methyl Bromide</b></p>
<p>FIFRA section 18 includes litchi fruit and several other fruits. </p>
<p></p>
<p><b>Possible treatments for <i>Litchi chinensis</i> from South Africa	</b></p>
<p>· <b>Establishment of Pest-Free Areas or Production Sites</b></p>
<p>As a sole mitigative measure, the establishment of pest-free areas, or pest-free places of production, may be effective in satisfying an importing country’s appropriate level of phytosanitary protection (IPPC, 1999). The establishment and maintenance of pest-free areas or production sites must be in compliance with international standards (e.g<i>.</i>, IPPC, 1999). </p>
<p>· <b>Pre-harvest Control Program: inspections and monitoring</b></p>
<p>Inspection in the field during harvest period and at packing house could eliminate pests, especially external feeders such as scales and mealybugs and plant pathogens. (Miller<i> </i>et al<i>.</i>, 1985) stated that the sessile nature of armored scales and their inability to disperse long distances under their own powers severely limits their ability of coming into contact with potential hosts. Since scales and mealybugs have limited natural dispersal means, inspection would be an efficient mitigation measure.</p>
<p>· <b>Irradiation</b></p>
<p>Irradiation is used for variety of foods. Irradiation treatment is currently used for litchi from Hawaii, China, India, Israel, and Taiwan.</p>
<p>· <b>Cold Treatment</b></p>
<p>Cold treatment is commonly used to treat fruit flies and false codling moth. Litchi has low sensitivity to chilling temperatures; however, it might damage skins and color of skins due to dehydration during storage (Paull, et al., 2006).  Optimum storage for litchi is at 2 to 5 °C (36 to 41 °F) with 90 to 95% RH for 3 to 5 weeks (Paull, et al., 2006).</p>
<p>· <b>Methyl Bromide</b></p>
<p>All pests associated with litchi can be treated by methyl bromide (FIFRA Section 18).</p>
<p>· <b>Cold Treatment and Methyl Bromide</b></p>
<p>Fumigation is used for external feeders. Combination of cold treatment and methyl bromide is commonly used to treat external feeders as well as internal feeders such as fruit flies and moths. </p>
<p></p>
<p>Hot water treatment is used for litchi fruits from Hawaii; however, this treatment may not be suitable for litchi fruits from South Africa. Hot water treatment for litchi states that fruits must be free of <i>Cryptophlebia</i> spp. which have been identified as quarantine pests on litchi fruits from South Africa.</p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p><b>Summary of Risk Mitigation Options for Litchi, <i>Litchi chinensis</i>, from Republic of South Africa</b></p>
<table><tbody><tr>	<td><p>Measure(s)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Pests</p>
</td>	<td><p>Efficacy</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Pest-free areas or places of production</p>
</td>	<td><p>All</p>
<p>(<i>Ceratitis</i> <i>capitata</i>, <i>C</i>. <i>rosa</i>, <i>Ceroplastes</i> <i>rubens</i>, <i>C</i>. <i>Rusci</i>, <i>Coccus</i> <i>viridis</i>, <i>Nipaecoccus</i> <i>viridis</i>, <i>Thaumatotibia leucotreta </i>, <i>C</i>. <i>peltastica</i>)</p>
</td>	<td><p><a name="_Toc156100916"></a>Satisfies requirements for appropriate level of protection</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Inspections and Monitoring</p>
</td>	<td><p>All; must be used in combination with other measures</p>
</td>	<td><p><a name="_Toc156100928"></a>External pests could be detected during some stages of their development. Some fruits which are damaged by internal pest could be culled by inspections if fruits have surface damages. </p>
<p></p>
<p>The efficacy of the elimination of pests is unknown and would require additional research.</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Irradiation combined with low pest prevalence</p>
</td>	<td><p>All</p>
</td>	<td><p>PPQ-recognized generic dose (400 Gray) for quarantine treatment on all regulated plant articles for all insect pests, except for Lepidopteran pupae and adults (USDA-APHIS-PPQ, 2006).</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Cold Treatment</p>
</td>	<td><p>Fruit Flies (<i>Ceratitis capitata</i> and <i>C. rosa</i>) and False Codling Moth (<i>Thaumatotibia leucotreta </i>)</p>
<p></p>
</td>	<td><p>PPQ approves cold treatment for litchi to treat <i>Ceratitis capitata</i> and <i>C. rosa</i>. Cold treatment is not currently used for litchi to treat <i>Thaumatotibia leucotreta </i>, however, is an approved treatment to treat <i>T. leucotreta </i>for other deciduous fruits. </p>
<p></p>
<p>The efficacy of the elimination of certain pests on litchi is unknown and would require additional research.</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Methyl Bromide</p>
</td>	<td><p>All</p>
</td>	<td><p>Approved by PPQ to treat all pests associated with litchi (FIFRA Section 18).</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Hot Water Treatment</p>
</td>	<td><p>Fruit fly (<i>Ceratitis capitata</i>)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Approved by PPQ to treat <i>Ceratitis capitata</i> and <i>Bactrocera dorsalis</i> for litchi. However, treatment manual states that litchi must be free of <i>Cryptophlebia</i> species and other pest (e.g., <i>Eriophyes litchii</i>).</p>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<p></p>
<p><b>Literature cited:</b></p>
<p></p>
<p>Paull, R.E., C.C. Chen, and N,J. Chen. Litchi. Department of Tropical Plant and Soil Sciences, Univ. of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu, HI. <http://usna.usda.gov/hb66/085litchi.pdf > last accessed: February, 2006.</p>
<p>USDA-APHIS-PPQ. 2006. Treatment Manual. USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine. 798 p. http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/manuals/port/pdf_files/TM.pd</p>
<h2><a name="_Toc224030476"></a>
Appendix B. Treatment Schedules</h2>
<p></p>
<table><tbody><tr>	<td><p><b>FIFRA Section 18: FIFRA Section 18 Fumigated Commodities</b></p>
<p><b>Treatment: MB</b></p>
<p><b>FIFRA Section 18 Exemptions For Use on Food or Feed Commodities Not Listed on the Methyl Bromide Label, OR, For use on Labeled Commodities at Rates or Exposure Times that may Differ from the Methyl Bromide Label.</b></p>
<p><b>Pests: All Pests Identified by Treatment Schedule Approved for these Commodities Treatment: The list below provides treatments, temperatures and exposure times approved by the United States EPA under section 18 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act.  </b></p>
<p></p>
<table><tbody><tr>	<td><p><b>Commodity</b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Temperature (F)</b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Dosage Rate</b></p>
<p><b>(lbs/1000 ft3)</b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Exposure Period (hours)</b></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Avocados</p>
</td>	<td><p>70</p>
</td>	<td><p>2</p>
</td>	<td><p>4</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Bananas & Plantains</p>
</td>	<td><p>40</p>
</td>	<td><p>4</p>
</td>	<td><p>2</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Blackberries & Raspberries</p>
</td>	<td><p>40</p>
</td>	<td><p>4</p>
</td>	<td><p>2</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Cucurbit seeds, edible (shelled & unshelled)</p>
</td>	<td><p>40</p>
</td>	<td><p>9</p>
</td>	<td><p>12</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Cottonseed for use as food or feed</p>
</td>	<td><p>40</p>
</td>	<td><p>7</p>
</td>	<td><p>24</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Cucurbit vegetables (except gherkins, including chayote)</p>
</td>	<td><p>40</p>
</td>	<td><p>4</p>
</td>	<td><p>2</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Gherkins (cucurbit 50)</p>
</td>	<td><p>50</p>
</td>	<td><p>3</p>
</td>	<td><p>2</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Ginger tops, fresh</p>
</td>	<td><p>40</p>
</td>	<td><p>4</p>
</td>	<td><p>2</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Herbs and spices, fresh</p>
</td>	<td><p>40</p>
</td>	<td><p>4</p>
</td>	<td><p>2</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Kiwi fruit</p>
</td>	<td><p>40</p>
</td>	<td><p>4</p>
</td>	<td><p>4</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Leafy vegetables not on the Q label (including Brassica leafies)1</p>
</td>	<td><p>40</p>
</td>	<td><p>4</p>
</td>	<td><p>2</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Longan</p>
</td>	<td><p>60</p>
</td>	<td><p>4</p>
</td>	<td><p>2</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Lychee fruit</p>
</td>	<td><p>60</p>
</td>	<td><p>4</p>
</td>	<td><p>2</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Mint, dried</p>
</td>	<td><p>40</p>
</td>	<td><p>3</p>
</td>	<td><p>24</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Mint, fresh</p>
</td>	<td><p>40</p>
</td>	<td><p>4</p>
</td>	<td><p>2</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Opuntia</p>
</td>	<td><p>40</p>
</td>	<td><p>4</p>
</td>	<td><p>3.5</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Rambutan</p>
</td>	<td><p>60</p>
</td>	<td><p>4</p>
</td>	<td><p>2</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Root and tubers not on Q label, such as cassava or chayote (other than desheen)</p>
</td>	<td><p>60</p>
</td>	<td><p>3</p>
</td>	<td><p>3.5</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Dasheen (root or tuber)</p>
</td>	<td><p>40</p>
</td>	<td><p>3</p>
</td>	<td><p>4</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Snow peas and Sugar snaps</p>
</td>	<td><p>40</p>
</td>	<td><p>4</p>
</td>	<td><p>2</p>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<p>1 Leafy vegetables, EPA Crop Group 4, (Except Brassica Vegetables) are restricted to amaranth (leafy amaranth, Chinese spinach, tampala) (Amaranthus spp.); arugula (Roquette) (Eruca sativa); cardoon (Cyanara cardunculus); celery (Apium graveolens var. dulcea); celery, Chinese (Apium graveolens var. secalinum); celtuce (Lactuca sativa var. angustana); chervil (Anthriscus cerefolium); chrysanthemum, edible-leaved (Chrysanthemum coronanium var. coronanium); chrysanthemum, garland (Chrysanthemum coronarium var. spatiosum); corn salad (Valerianella locusta); cress garden (Lepidium sativum); cress upland (yellow rocket, winter cress) (Barbarea vulgaris); dandelion (Taraxacum officinale); dock (sorrel) (Rumex spp.); endive (escarole) (Cichorium endivia); fennel, Florence (finochio) (Foeniculum vulgare Azoricum Group); lettuce, head and leaf (Lactuca sativa); Orach (Atriplex hortensis); parsley (Petroselinum crispum); purslane, garden (Portulaca oleracea); purslane, winter (Montia perfoliata); radicchio (red chicory) (Cichorium intybus); rhubarb (Rheum rhabarbarum); spinach (Spinacia oleracea); spinach, New Zealand (Tetragonia tetragonioides, T. Expansa); spinach, vine (Malabar spinach, Indian spinach) (Basella alba); swiss chard (Beta vulgaris var. cicia). Reference 40 CFR 180.34 (f)(a)(iv)(A)</p>
<p></p>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<p></p>
<table><tbody><tr>	<td><p><b>T102-d Lychee (litchi) fruit from Hawaii</b></p>
<p><b>Pest: <i>Ceratitis capitata</i> (Mediterranean fruit fly) and <i>Bactrocera dorsalis</i> (Oriental fruit fly)</b></p>
<p><b>Treatment: T102-d Hot Water Immersion</b></p>
<p></p>
<p>1. Lychees must be thoroughly examined at the packinghouse by an inspector and found free of <i>Cryptophlebia</i> spp. (Lychee fruit moth) and other plant pest1</p>
<p>2. Fruit must be grown and treated in Hawaii, under monitoring of an inspector, in a certified hot water immersion treatment tank.2</p>
<p>A. Fruit must be submerged at least 4 inches below the water’s surface.</p>
<p>B. Water must circulate constantly, and be kept at 120.2 F (or above) for 20 minutes. Treatment time begins when the water temperature reaches at least 120.2 F in all locations throughout the tank.</p>
<p>Temperatures exceeding 121.1 F can cause phytotoxic damage.</p>
<p>3. Hydrocooling for 20 minutes at 75.2 F is recommended, though not required to prevent injury to the fruit from the hot water treatment.</p>
<p></p>
<p>1 Because Eriophyes litchi (lychee mite) cannot be effectively detected by inspection, and would not be effectively eliminated by hot water immersion, the lychee may not be shipped into Florida. Each carton must be stamped “Not for Importation into of distribution in Florida.”</p>
<p>2 Use of Treatment T102D is at the risk of the shipper. Limited research on fruit quality after treatment application indicated that fruit quality varies among cultivars. ‘Kaimana’ and ‘Kwai Mi’ (‘Tai so’) tolerate the treatment better than ‘Brewster’ and ‘Groff’; no other cultivars were tested.</p>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<table><tbody><tr>	<td><p><b>T104-a-1 Various Commodities*</b></p>
<p><b>Pest: Hitchhikers and surface pests such as: thrips, aphids, scale insects, leafminers, spider mites, lygaeid bugs, ants, earwigs, and surface feeding caterpillars.</b></p>
<p><b>Treatment: T104-a-1 MB at NAP – tarpaulin or chamber</b></p>
<p>Comments: Section 18 for Lychee, min temperature 60 F; Longan, min temp. 60 F; Rambutan, min temp. 60 F. Treatment should not be used on Chinese pear, Japanese pear, Asian pear and sand pear since sever fruit damage will occur when treated with methyl bromide.</p>
<p></p>
<table><tbody><tr>	<td><p>Temperature</p>
</td>	<td><p>Dosage Rate</p>
<p>(lbs/1000 ft3)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Minimum Concentration Readings (ounces) at:</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p>0.5 hr</p>
</td>	<td><p>2 hrs</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>80 F or above</p>
</td>	<td><p>1.5 lbs</p>
</td>	<td><p>19</p>
</td>	<td><p>14</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>70 – 79 F </p>
</td>	<td><p>2 lbs</p>
</td>	<td><p>26</p>
</td>	<td><p>19</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>60 – 69 F</p>
</td>	<td><p>2.5 lbs</p>
</td>	<td><p>32</p>
</td>	<td><p>24</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>50 – 59 F</p>
</td>	<td><p>3 lbs</p>
</td>	<td><p>38</p>
</td>	<td><p>29</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>40 – 49 F</p>
</td>	<td><p>4 lbs</p>
</td>	<td><p>48</p>
</td>	<td><p>38</p>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<p></p>
<table><tbody><tr>	<td><p><b><img src="embedded:image1.emf" alt="important"></b>* To comply with dosage restrictions imposed by the methyl bromide “Q” label, the following fruits and vegetables may be fumigated only at the following temperatures (the items bolded are under FIFRA Section 18 Exemption. For the current exemption status, call your local State Plant Health Director (SPHD):</p>
<p></p>
<p><u>40 F or above</u> (maximum dosage, 4 pounds/1000 ft3):</p>
<p>Apple, apricot, asparagus, <b>banana</b>, <b>blackberry</b>, cabbage, <b>cactus fruit (tuna)</b>, cantaloupe, <b>celery</b>, chayote, cherry, chestnut, <b>chicory</b>, cipolini, cucumber, <b>Dasheen</b>, <b>endive</b>, fava bean (dried), <b>fresh herbs</b>1, grape, honeydew melon, <b>kiwi</b>, <b>leafy vegetables</b>, muskmelon, nectarine, peach, <b>pear</b>, pepper, pineapple, <b>plantain</b>, plum, <b>raspberry</b>, <b>snow peas</b>2, squash (summer, winter), stone fruit, sweet potato, watermelon, yam.</p>
<p></p>
<p><u>50 F or above</u> (maximum dosage, 3 pounds/1000 ft3):</p>
<p>Bean, beet, carrot, citron (ethrog), coconut, Corn-on-the-cob (sweet corn), eggplant, garlic, <b>ginger</b>, grapefruit, green pod vegetables, horseradish, Jerusalem artichoke, kumquat, lemon, lime, okra, onion, orange, parsnip. Pea, potato, radish, rutabaga, salsify, strawberry, sugar beet, tangelo, tangerine, tomato, turnip.</p>
<p></p>
<p><u>60 F or above</u> (maximum dosage, 2.5 pounds/1000 ft3):</p>
<p>Pimento, pumpkin, zucchini</p>
<p></p>
<p><u>70 F or above</u> (maximum dosage, 2 pounds/1000 ft3):</p>
<p><b>Avocado</b>, blueberry, cocoa bean.</p>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<p>1 Fresh herbs must be on the approved list shown under T101-n-2, Herbs, fresh (includes all the plant parts except seeds). </p>
<p>2 Snow pea may be damaged at dosage higher than 3 lbs/1000 cu. ft., and the dosage used in the <u>40 F or above</u> temperature range, 4 lbs/1000 cu. ft., should be used only at the importer’s request. </p>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<table><tbody><tr>	<td><p><b>T104-a-2 Various commodities*</b></p>
<p><b>Pests: Mealybugs (Pseudococcidae)</b></p>
<p><b>Treatment: T104-a-2 MB at NAP – tarpaulin or chamber</b></p>
<p></p>
<table><tbody><tr>	<td><p>Temperature</p>
</td>	<td><p>Dosage Rate</p>
<p>(lb/1000 ft3)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Minimum concentration readings (ounces) at:</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p>0.5 hr</p>
</td>	<td><p>2 hr</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>80 F or above</p>
</td>	<td><p>2.5 lbs</p>
</td>	<td><p>32</p>
</td>	<td><p>24</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>70 – 79 F</p>
</td>	<td><p>3 lbs</p>
</td>	<td><p>38</p>
</td>	<td><p>29</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>60 – 69 F</p>
</td>	<td><p>4 lbs</p>
</td>	<td><p>48</p>
</td>	<td><p>38</p>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<p></p>
<p><b><img src="embedded:image1.emf" alt="important"></b></p>
<table><tbody><tr>	<td><p>* To comply with dosage restrictions imposed by the methyl bromide “Q” label, the following fruits and vegetables may be fumigated only at the following temperatures (the items bolded are under Section 18 Exemption, FIFRA Section 18 Exemption. For the current exemption status, call your local State Plant Health Director (SPHD):</p>
<p></p>
<p><u>60 F or above</u> (maximum dosage, 4 pounds/1000 ft3):</p>
<p>Apple, apricot, asparagus, <b>banana</b>, <b>blackberry</b>, cabbage, cantaloupe, <b>celery</b>, chayote, cherry, chestnut, <b>chicory</b>, cipolini, cucumber, <b>dasheen</b>, <b>endive</b>, fava bean (dried), grape, <b>fresh herbs</b>1, honeydew melon, <b>kiwi</b>, <b>leafy vegetables</b>, <b>lychee (litchi)</b>, muskmelon, nectarine, peach, <b>pear</b>, pepper, pineapple, <b>plantain</b>, plum, <b>raspberry</b>, <b>snow peas</b>, squash (summer, winter), stone fruit, sweet potato, water melon.</p>
<p></p>
<p><u>70 F or above<b> </b></u>(maximum dosage, 3 pounds/1000ft3):</p>
<p>Bean, beet, carrot, citron (ethrog), coconut, corn-on-the-cob (sweet corn), eggplant, garlic, <b>ginger root</b>, grapefruit, green pod vegetables, horseradish, Jerusalem artichoke, kumquat, lemon, lime, okra, onion, orange, parsnip, potato, radish, rutabaga, salsify, scallion, shallot, strawberry, sugar beet, tangelo, tangerine, tomato, turnip.</p>
<p></p>
<p><u>80 F or above</u> (maximum dosage, 2.5 pounds/1000 ft3):</p>
<p>Peppers, pimento, pumpkin, zucchini.</p>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<p></p>
<p>1 Fresh herbs must be on the approved list shown under T101-n-2, Herbs, fresh (includes all fresh plant parts except seeds.</p>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<table><tbody><tr>	<td><p><b>T105-a-3 Lychee (Litchi) fruit from Hawaii</b></p>
<p><b>(Use T105-a-1 Schedule)
Pests: Ceratitis capitata, Bactrocera cucurbitae, B. dorsalis</b></p>
<p><b><img src="embedded:image1.emf" alt="important">Treatment: T105-a-1 Irradiation</b></p>
<p></p>
<table><tbody><tr>	<td><p>Lychee (litchi) fruit from Hawaii is prohibited into Florida. All cartons in which the litchi or logan is packed must be stamped, “Not for Importation or Distribution in FL.”</p>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<p></p>
<p>T105-a-1 Papaya from Hawaii</p>
<p>The minimum absorbed dose of gamma irradiation shall be 250 Gray (25 krad), but shall not exceed the 1000-Gray (100 krad) limit imposed by Food and Drug Administration regulations. Documentation of the dosage shall accompany the shipment.</p>
<p></p>
<p>Dose mapping is required for each commodity and/or size. Different configurations, packaging, and/or mixed commodities should also be dose mapped.</p>
<p><img src="embedded:image1.emf" alt="important"></p>
<table><tbody><tr>	<td><p>The treatment shall be conducted only on Hawaiian-grown produce, and treated at an approved facility, which may be located in any of the following</p>
<p>· Hawaii</p>
<p>· In areas of the mainland United States that do <b>not</b> support fruit flies (any States except AL, AZ, CA, FL, GA, KY, LA, MS, NV, NM, NC, SC, TN, TX, and VA) </p>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<p></p>
<p><b>Notice </b></p>
<table><tbody><tr>	<td><p>The papayas, carambolas and lychees destined for irradiation treatment may arrive in the same container, but must not be commingled with other fruits and vegetables.</p>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<p></p>
<p>These shipments must be accompanied by a Limited Permit (PPQ Form 530).</p>
<p><img src="embedded:image1.emf" alt="important"></p>
<table><tbody><tr>	<td><p>When designing the facility’s dosimetry system and procedures for its operation, the facility operator must address guidance and principles from American Society for Testing materials (ASTM) standards or an equivalent standard recognized by the Administrator of APHIS.</p>
<p></p>
<p>(American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) publication, 51261-2002 (E), “Standard Guide for Selection and Calibration of Dosimetry Systems for Radiation Processing” is available from: ASTM 100 Barr Harbor Dr. West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania USA 19428-2959).</p>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<p>  </p>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<p></p>
<table><tbody><tr>	<td><p><b>T105-b-2 Fruits and Vegetables</b></p>
<p><b>Pest: <i>Ceratitis capitata</i></b></p>
<p><b>Treatment: T105-b-2 Irradiation</b></p>
<p></p>
<p>The minimum absorbed dose of gamma irradiation shall be 225 Gray (22.5 krad), but shall not exceed the 1000-Gray (100 krad) limit imposed by Food and Drug Administration regulations. Documentation of the dosage shall accompany the shipment.</p>
<p></p>
<p>Dose mapping is required for each commodity and/or size. Different configurations, packaging, and/or mixed commodities should also be dose mapped. </p>
<p></p>
<table><tbody><tr>	<td><p><img src="embedded:image1.emf" alt="important">The treatment shall be conducted only on Hawaiian-grown produce, and treated at an approved facility, which may be located in any of the following </p>
<p>· Hawaii</p>
<p>· In areas of the mainland United States that do not support fruit flies (any States except AL, AZ, CA, FL, GA, KY, LA, MS, NV, NM, NC, SC, TN, TX, or VA)</p>
<p>· At the maritime ports of Gulfport, MS; or Wilmington, NC; or the airport of Atlanta, GA if the conditions of 7CFR 305.2 (b) are met.</p>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<p></p>
<table><tbody><tr>	<td><p><b><img src="embedded:image1.emf" alt="important"></b>When designing the facility’s dosimetry system and procedures for its operation, the facility operator must address guidance and principles from American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) standards or equivalent standard recognized by the administrator of APHIS.</p>
<p></p>
<p>(American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) publication, 51261-2002 (E), “Standard Guide for Selection and Calibration of Dosimetry Systems for Radiation Processing” is available from: ASTM 100 Barr Harbor Dr. West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania USA 19428-2959). </p>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<p> </p>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<p></p>
<table><tbody><tr>	<td><p><b>T107-a Apple, Apricot, Avocado, Cape gooseberry cherry, Cherry, Ethrog, Grapefruit, Grapes, Kiwi, Litchi (Lychee), Loquat, Nectarines, Orange, Ortanique, Peach, Pear, Persimmon, Plum, Plumcot, Pomegranate, Pummelo, Quince, Sand pear, Tangerine (includes Clementine)</b></p>
<p><b>Pest: <i>Ceratitis capitata</i> and <i>Ceratitis rosa</i></b></p>
<p><b>Treatment: 107-a Cold Treatment</b></p>
<p></p>
<table><tbody><tr>	<td><p><b>Temperature</b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Exposure Period</b></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>34 F (1.11 C) or below </p>
</td>	<td><p>14 days</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>35 F (1.67 C) or below</p>
</td>	<td><p>16 days</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>36 F (2.22 C) or below</p>
</td>	<td><p>18 days</p>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<p> </p>
<table><tbody><tr>	<td><p><img src="embedded:image1.emf" alt="important">Pretreatment conditioning for avocado (heat shock or 100.4 F (38.0 C) for 10 to 12 hours) is optional and is the responsibility of the shipper. The pretreatment conditioning, which may improve fruit quality, is described in Hort Science 29(10): 1166-1168. 1994. and 30(5): 1052-1053 (1995).</p>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<p> </p>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<p></p>
<table><tbody><tr>	<td><p><b>T107-e Apricot, Citrus, Nectarine, Peach, Plum</b></p>
<p><b>Pest: <i>Thaumatotibia leucotreta</i> and <i>Ceraititis rosa</i></b></p>
<p><b>Treatment: T107-e Cold Treatment</b></p>
<p></p>
<table><tbody><tr>	<td><p><b>Temperature</b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Exposure Period</b></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>31 F (-0.55 C) or below1</p>
</td>	<td><p>22 days</p>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<p></p>
<p>1 The treatment shall not commence until all sensors are reading 31F (-0.55C) or below. If the temperature exceeds 31.5F (-0.27C), the treatment shall be extended one-third of a day for each day or part of a day the temperature is above 31.5F (-0.27C). If the exposure period is extended, the temperature during the extension period must be 34F (1.11C) or below. If the temperature exceeds 34F (1.11C) at any time, the treatment is nullified. Also, some freeze damage to the fruit may occur if the pulp temperature is allowed to drop below approximately 29.5F (-1.38C) (This varies with the commodity).</p>
<p></p>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<div class="package-entry"><h1>image1.emf</h1>
</div>
</body></html>