Importation of Ananas comosus (Pineapple) fruit from ...

United States Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service April 10, 2019 Version 1.0

Importation of Ananas comosus (Pineapple) fruit from Indonesia into the United States and Territories

A Qualitative, Pathway-Initiated Pest Risk Assessment Agency Contact: Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory Science and Technology Plant Protection and Quarantine Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service United States Department of Agriculture 1730 Varsity Drive, Suite 300 Raleigh, NC 27606

Pest Risk Assessment for Ananas comosus from Indonesia

Ver. 1.0 April 10, 2019 1

Executive Summary The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) prepared this risk assessment to examine plant pest risks associated with importing commercially-produced fruit of pineapple, Ananas comosus (Bromeliaceae), for consumption from Indonesia into the United States and Territories. Based on the market access request submitted by Indonesia, we considered the pathway to include the following processes and conditions: whole pineapple fruit with or without the crown that has been washed, wax-coated, and manually dried. The pineapple fruit will be shipped year-round in pre-cooled containers at 7-9 °C. The risk ratings in this assessment are contingent upon the application of all components of the pathway as described in this document. Based on the scientific literature, port-of-entry pest interception data, and information from the government of Indonesia, we developed a list of quarantine pests that are known to occur in Indonesia (on any host) and to be associated with A. comosus (anywhere in the world). Of these, we found nine organisms that have a reasonable likelihood of being associated with the commodity following harvesting from the field and prior to any post-harvest processing and thus are potentially able to follow the pathway. We assessed the pest risk potential of these organisms and determined that Dolichotetranychus floridanus (Acari: Tenuipalpidae) and Eutetranychus orientalis (Acari: Tetranychidae) are not candidates for risk management because they do not meet the threshold to likely cause unacceptable consequences of introduction. The remaining seven organisms met the threshold for unacceptable consequences of introduction and had a non-negligible likelihood of introduction. We therefore consider these pests to be candidates for risk management: Pest type Taxonomy Scientific name Likelihood of

Introduction overall rating

Arthropods Coleoptera: Curculionidae Rhabdoscelus obscurus (Boisduval)

Medium

Diptera: Tephritidae Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel) High Lepidoptera: Limacodidae Darna pallivitta Moore Low

Darna trima Moore Medium Parasa lepida Cramer Medium Setothosea asigna (van

Eecke) Medium

Lepidoptera: Noctuidae Spodoptera litura (Fabricius) Medium Detailed examination and choice of appropriate phytosanitary measures to mitigate pest risk are part of the pest risk management phase within APHIS and are not addressed in this document.


Ver. 1.0 April 10, 2019 2

Table of Contents Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................... 1

1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 3 1.1. Background .......................................................................................................................... 3 1.2. Initiating event ...................................................................................................................... 3 1.3. Determination of the necessity of a weed risk assessment for the commodity .................... 3 1.4. Description of the pathway .................................................................................................. 3

2. Pest List and Pest Categorization ............................................................................................ 4 2.1. Pests considered but not included on the pest list ................................................................ 4 2.2. Pest list ................................................................................................................................. 6 2.3. Pests selected for further analysis ...................................................................................... 12

3. Assessing Pest Risk Potential ................................................................................................. 12 3.1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 12 3.2. Assessment results .............................................................................................................. 13

4. Summary and Conclusions of Risk Assessment ................................................................... 47

5. Literature Cited ...................................................................................................................... 48

6. Appendix .................................................................................................................................. 61


Ver. 1.0 April 10, 2019 3

1. Introduction 1.1. Background This document was prepared by the Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory of Science and Technology, USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ), to evaluate the pest risk associated with the importation of commercially-produced fresh fruit of Ananas comosus (L.) Merr. (pineapple) for consumption from Indonesia into the United States and Territories (hereafter referred to as the PRA area). This is a qualitative risk assessment, meaning that the likelihood and consequences of pest introduction are expressed as qualitative ratings rather than in numerical terms. Methodology and rating criteria used are detailed in the Guidelines for Plant Pest Risk Assessment of Imported Fruit and Vegetable Commodities (PPQ, 2012). This methodology is consistent with guidelines provided by the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) in the International Standard for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPM) No. 11, “Pest Risk Analysis for Quarantine Pests, Including Analysis of Environmental Risks and Living Modified Organisms” (IPPC, 2017). The use of biological and phytosanitary terms is consistent with ISPM No. 5, “Glossary of Phytosanitary Terms” (IPPC, 2018). As defined in ISPM No. 11, this document comprises Stage 1 (Initiation) and Stage 2 (Risk Assessment) of risk analysis. Stage 3 (Risk Management) will be covered in a separate document. 1.2. Initiating event The importation of fruits and vegetables for consumption into the United States is regulated under Title 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 319.56 (7 CFR §319.56). Under this regulation, the entry of pineapple from Indonesia into the PRA area is not authorized. This commodity risk assessment was initiated due to a request by the Indonesian Agricultural Quarantine Agency, Ministry of Agriculture to change the Federal regulation to allow entry (IAQA, 2017). 1.3. Determination of the necessity of a weed risk assessment for the commodity We determined that a weed risk assessment is not needed for Ananas comosus, pineapple because it is already enterable into the United States from other countries (FAVIR, 2019). 1.4. Description of the pathway A pathway is “any means that allows the entry or spread of a pest” (IPPC, 2018). In the context of this risk assessment, the pathway is the commodity to be imported, together with all the processes the commodity undergoes, from production through importation and distribution, that may have an impact on pest risk. In this risk assessment, the specific pathway of concern is the importation of fresh A. comosus fruit for consumption from Indonesia into the PRA area. The movement of this commodity provides a potential pathway for the introduction and spread of plant pests. The following description of this pathway focuses on the conditions that may affect plant pest risk, including morphological and physiological characteristics of the commodity, as well as processes that the


Ver. 1.0 April 10, 2019 4

commodity will undergo from production in Indonesia through importation and distribution in the PRA area. These conditions provided the basis for creating the pest list and assessing the likelihood of introduction of the pests selected for further analysis. Hence, the risk ratings in this risk assessment are contingent upon the application of all components of the pathway as described. 1.4.1. Description of the commodity Whole fresh pineapple fruit with or without the crown (IAQA, 2016). 1.4.2. Production and harvest procedures in the exporting area Harvest will occur approximately five months after the forcing stage, during which flowering is induced in the plant using ethylene or ethephon (IAQA, 2016). The fruits will be harvested when the pineapple eyes at the bottom of the fruits start to turn yellow, stems start to wrinkle, and the distinctive fruit aroma is present (IAQA, 2016). Harvesting will be done either by hand or mechanically (IAQA, 2016). 1.4.3. Post-harvest procedures in the exporting area Pineapple fruits will be assessed for ripeness and appearance, including cleanliness, absence of blemishes or damage, and absence of pests. Fruits will be washed, wax-coated, and manually dried, then graded and sorted (IAQA, 2016). 1.4.4. Shipping and storage conditions Pineapple fruits will be shipped in containers pre-cooled to between 7 and 9 °C (IAQA, 2016). 2. Pest List and Pest Categorization The pest list is a compilation of all quarantine pests for the PRA area that are present in Indonesia (on any host) and associated with A. comosus (anywhere in the world). Species on the pest list with a reasonable likelihood of being present on pineapple fruit at the time of harvest could follow the pathway into the PRA area and are therefore assessed in more detail to determine their pest risk potential. Pests are considered to be of regulatory significance if they are actionable at U.S. ports of entry. 2.1. Pests considered but not included on the pest list 2.1.1. Pests with weak evidence for association with the commodity or presence in the export area Arthropods: Cryptoblabes gnidiella (Milliere) (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) was listed as associated with pineapple on U.S. interception records prior to 2000 (Yehuda et al., 1992). We found no other information in the literature associating C. gnidiella with pineapple, so we did not include C. gnidiella on the pest list. Metamasius dimidiatipennis (Jekel) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) was labeled as a synonymized genus (Sphenophorus sp.) in a British museum collection, with the location of collection indicated as Java (Vaurie, 1966). We found no further information in the literature indicating that M. dimidiatipennis is present in Indonesia, so we did not include M. dimidiatipennis on the pest list.


Ver. 1.0 April 10, 2019 5

Pseudococcus cryptus Hempel (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) was associated with pineapple in a single interception record in India (Williams, 2004). We found no other information in the literature associating P. cryptus with pineapple, so we did not include P. cryptus on the pest list. Scapanes australis (Boisduval) (Coleoptera: Dynastidae) is reported to infest pineapple in a reference from Smee (1965) (reviewed in CABI, 2019). The association of S. australis with pineapple is based on the general life history of Oryctes rhinoceros, and the host range is attributed to rhinoceros beetles in general (Smee, 1965). We found no further evidence in the literature for this host association, so we did not include S. australis on the pest list. Spodoptera exempta Walker (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) was associated with pineapple in an Australian risk assessment for the importation of fresh pineapple (AFFA, 2002). We found no further evidence in the literature for this host association, so we did not include S. exempta on the pest list. Stenocatantops splendens (Thunberg) (Orthoptera: Acrididae) was reported as a pest of pineapple (Nafus and Schreiner, 1999), but no other information was provided. We found no further evidence in the literature for this host association, so we did not include S. splendens on the pest list. Nematodes: Hoplolaimus seinhorsti Luc was reported as a pest of pineapple (CABI, 2019). We were unable to find primary evidence supporting the association of this nematode with pineapple, so we did not assess it any further. Fungi: Annellolacinia dinemasporioides Sutton has been reported to be associated with pineapple (Frohlich et al., 1993; Sutton, 1964.) We found no evidence of pathogenicity or damage caused by this fungus. Furthermore, A. dinemasporioides has been found on decaying leaves of pineapple (Whitton et al., 2012), which suggests that this fungus may be a saprophyte. Due to the uncertainty about the pathogenic status of this fungus, we did not consider it for further assessment. Fusarium polyphialidicum Marasas, P.E. Nelson, Toussoun & P.S. van Wyk has been isolated from vanilla in Indonesia (Farr and Rossman, 2019) and from pineapple fruit (Stępień et al., 2013). It has also been isolated from plant debris in soil (Marasas et al., 1988). We found no evidence that this fungus is a plant pathogen. Abbas and Ocamb (1995) and Stępień (2013) suggest it is most likely a saprophyte. As a result, we did not include this fungus on the pest list. Marasmius palmivorus Sharples (Desjardin) (comb. prov.) can be a plant-parasitic or a saprophytic fungus (Dutta and Acharya, 2018). We found concrete evidence of this species parasitizing Elaies guineensis (oil palm) (Pong et al., 2012) and Lagerstroemia speciosa (Dutta and Acharya, 2018). Ananas comosus is listed as a host of this fungus in CABI (2019) and Farr and Rossman (2019). We were unable, however, to find primary literature describing pineapple disease caused by this fungus, so we did not assess it further. Bacteria: Acetobacter aceti (Pasteur) Beijerinck and Gluconobacter oxydans (Henneberg) DeLey are reported to be associated with pineapple fruit (IAQA, 2016). Their roles as pathogens,


Ver. 1.0 April 10, 2019 6

however, have not been proven (Kado, 2003; Cha et al, 1997), so we did not assess these bacteria any further. 2.1.2. Organisms with non-quarantine status We found evidence of the organisms listed in the Appendix being associated with A. comosus and present in Indonesia; however, because these organisms are not quarantine pests for the United States, we did not include them in Table 1 of this risk assessment. Armored scales (Hemiptera: Diaspididae) are highly unlikely to establish via the pathway of fruits and vegetables for consumption due to their very limited ability to disperse to new host plants (Miller et al., 1985; PERAL, 2007). For this reason, armored scales are considered non-actionable when intercepted at U.S. ports of entry on fruits and vegetables for consumption (NIS, 2008) and are not included in Table 1. Instead, these insects are listed in the appendix. 2.1.3. Organisms identified only to the genus level In commodity import risk assessments, the taxonomic unit for pests selected for evaluation beyond the pest categorization stage is usually the species (IPPC, 2017), as we focus assessments on organisms for which biological information is available. Therefore, generally, we do not assess risk for organisms identified only to the genus level, in particular if the genus in question is reported in the import area. Many genera contain several or more species, and we cannot know if the unidentified species occurs in the import area and, consequently, whether it has actionable regulatory status for the import area. On the other hand, if the genus in question is absent from the import area, any unidentified organisms in the genus can have actionable status; however, because such an organism has not been fully identified, we cannot properly analyze its likelihood and consequences of introduction. In light of these issues, we usually do not include organisms identified only to the genus level in the main pest list. Instead, we address them separately in this sub-section. The information here can be used by risk managers to determine if measures beyond those intended to mitigate fully identified pests are warranted. Often, mitigation measures developed for identified pests will be effective against the pests for which we have little information, but only risk managers can make this judgement. For this risk assessment, we identified the following organisms identified only to the genus level that are reported on Ananas comosus in Indonesia. They include Atherigona sp. (Diptera: Muscidae), Dolichotetranychus sp. (Acari: Tenuipalpidae), Erwinia sp., Phytophthora spp. (Oomycetes, Pythiales), and Pseudomonas sp. (IAQA, 2016). 2.2. Pest list In Table 1, we list the quarantine pests that occur in Indonesia on any host and are associated with pineapple fruit, whether in Indonesia or elsewhere in the world. For each pest, we indicate 1) the part of the imported plant species with which the pest is generally associated and 2) whether the pest has a reasonable likelihood of being associated, in viable form, with the commodity following harvesting from the field and prior to any post-harvest processing. We developed this pest list based on the scientific literature, port-of-entry pest interception data, and information provided by the government of Indonesia. Pests in shaded rows are pests identified


Ver. 1.0 April 10, 2019 7

for further evaluation, as we consider them reasonably likely to be associated with the harvested commodity; we summarize these pests in a separate table (Table 2). Table 1. Quarantine pests associated with Ananas comosus (in any country) and present in Indonesia (on any host). Pest name Evidence of

presence in Indonesia

Association with Ananas comosus

Plant part(s) association1

On harvested plant part(s)?2

Remarks

ARTHROPODS ACARI Tenuipalpidae Dolichotetranychus floridanus (Banks)

Jeppson et al., 1975; Joy et al., 2016; Petty et al., 2002

Jeppson et al., 1975; Petty et al., 2002

Leaf (Petty et al., 2002)

Yes Present in Florida, Hawaii (Jeppson et al., 1975), and Puerto Rico (Joy et al. 2016).

Tetranychidae Eutetranychus orientalis (Klein)

Ehara, 2004 Meyer, 1987 Leaf (Walter et al., 1995)

Yes Present in Hawaii (Heu, 2007). Plant part based on its association with other hosts.

INSECTA COLEOPTERA Curculionidae Rhabdoscelus obscurus (Boisduval)

CABI, 2019; Desmier de Chenon et al., 2001

Petty et al., 2002

Fruit (Petty et al., 2002)

Yes Present in Guam and Hawaii (Muniappan et al. 2004).

Xylotrupes gideon (Linnaeus)

Waterhouse, 1993

Waite and Elder, 2004

Fruit (Waite and Elder, 2004)

No Adult beetles are large and conspicuous. Therefore, they are unlikely to remain on the fruit through the harvesting process. Plant part based on its association with other hosts.

Melolonthidae

1 The plant parts listed are those for the plant species under analysis. If the information has been extrapolated, such

as from plant part association on other plant species, we note that. 2 “Yes” indicates simply that the pest has a reasonable likelihood of being associated with the harvested commodity.

; The level of pest prevalence on the harvested commodity (low, medium, or high) is qualitatively assessed in Risk Element A1 as part of the Likelihood of Introduction Assessment (Section 3).


Ver. 1.0 April 10, 2019 8

Pest name Evidence of presence in Indonesia




Remarks

Lepidiota stigma (Fabricius)

APPPC, 1987; Petty et al., 2002

Petty et al., 2002

Root (Petty et al., 2002)

No

Scarabaeidae Oryctes rhinoceros (Linnaeus)

Hallett et al., 1995

Catley, 1969; Gressitt, 1953

Leaf and crown (Catley, 1969)

No Larvae feed on roots and are not associated with fruit. Adult beetles are large and conspicuous. Therefore, they are unlikely to remain on the fruit through the harvesting process.

Rutelidae Adoretus sinicus Burmeister

Hua, 2002 Illingworth, 1929; Petty et al., 2002

Leaf and root (Illingworth, 1929; Petty et al., 2002)

No Present in Hawaii (CABI, 2019; Petty et al., 2002). Larvae feed on roots and are not associated with fruit. Adult beetles are large and conspicuous. Therefore, they are unlikely to remain on the fruit through the harvesting process.

DIPTERA Tephritidae Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel) syn.: B. papayae Drew & Hancock

Schutze et al., 2012

Hui, 2001 Fruit (CABI, 2019)

No Plant part based on its association with other hosts.

HEMIPTERA Alydidae


Ver. 1.0 April 10, 2019 9





Remarks

Leptocorisa acuta (Thunberg)

APPPC, 1987; Litsinger et al., 2015; Siwi and Van Doesburg, 1984

Litsinger et al., 2015

Leaf (CABI, 2019)

No Leptocorisa acuta seeks refuge in Ananas plantations during the day, returning to grasses at night (Litsinger et al., 2015). Adults are relatively large, mobile external feeders, so they are unlikely to remain with the fruit when disturbed. We found no evidence of eggs or nymphs being associated with pineapple.

Pseudococcidae Geococcus coffeae Green

Ben-Dov, 1994

Ben-Dov, 1994 Root (Hara et al., 2001)

No Present in Florida, Hawaii (García Morales et al., 2016), and Puerto Rico (Miller, 2005). Plant part based on association with other hosts.

LEPIDOPTERA Limacodidae Darna pallivitta (Moore)

Hara et al., 2013; Holloway et al., 1987

Hara et al., 2013 Leaf (Hara et al., 2013)

Yes Present in Hawaii (Hara et al. 2013; Jang et al., 2009).

Darna trima Moore Waterhouse, 1993

Li et al., 1997 Leaf (CABI, 2019)

Yes Plant part based on association with other hosts.

Parasa lepida (Cramer)

Waterhouse, 1993

Butani, 1975 Leaf (Butani, 1975)

Yes

Setothosea asigna (van Eecke)

Angerilli et al., 1998; CABI, 2019

Li et al., 1997; Petty et al., 2002


Yes

Noctuidae


Ver. 1.0 April 10, 2019 10





Remarks

Eudocima phalonia (L.)

CABI, 2019; Waterhouse, 1993

CABI, 2019; Denton et al., 1989

Fruit (Denton et al., 1989)

No Present in Hawaii (CABI, 2019). Species in this genus are fruit-piercing moths (Ngampongsai et al., 2005; CABI, 2019). Only adults attack fruit, and they feed externally. This very mobile moth generally feeds at night and is unlikely to remain with the fruit during the harvesting process.

Ischyja manlia Cramer

Gurule et al., 2010

Robinson et al., 2001

Fruit (Ngampongsai et al., 2005)

No Species in this genus are fruit-piercing moths (Ngampongsai et al., 2005). Only adults attack fruit, and they feed externally. This very mobile moth generally feeds at night and is unlikely to remain with the fruit during the harvesting process.

Spodoptera litura (Fabricius)

APPPC, 1987; Suharto and Manwan, 1993

Petty et al. 2002 Leaf (Petty et al. 2002)

Yes

ORTHOPTERA Acrididae Locusta migratoria (Linnaeus)

APPPC; 1987; Petty et al., 2002

Bernays et al., 1976; Petty et al., 2002


No Pest is a large, mobile external feeder. It is unlikely to remain with the fruit during the harvesting process.


Ver. 1.0 April 10, 2019 11





Remarks

Oxya chinensis (Thunberg)

CABI, 2019 Petty et al., 2002



Valanga nigricornis (Burmeister)

Waterhouse, 1993

Waterhouse, 1993

Leaf (Waterhouse, 1993)


MOLLUSKS Lissachatina fulica (Bowdich) syn.: Achatina fulica

Rappard, 1950; CABI, 2019; Raut and Barker, 2002

Raut and Barker, 2002; CABI, 2019; Goldyn et al., 2016

Fruit, leaf, stem, and root (CABI, 2019)

No Plant part association is based on the general biology of the pest. This species is a large external feeder, unlikely to remain with the fruit during the harvesting process.

PATHOGENS NEMATODES Hemicriconemoides mangiferae Siddiqi

CABI, 2019 CABI, 2019 Root (Inserra et al., 2014)

No Reportable / actionable when destined to Hawaii, Puerto Rico, or the U.S. Virgin Islands (PestID, 2019).

Radopholus similis (Cobb) Thorne Pratylenchidae

O’Bannon, 1977; Elbadri et al., 2002

O’Bannon, 1977; Guerout, 1975

Root (Elbadri et al., 2002; Haegeman et al., 2010)

No Radopholus similis has been reported in the United States (O’Bannon, 1977). This nematode is primarily a pest of banana, citrus, and black pepper (Haegeman et al., 2010).


Ver. 1.0 April 10, 2019 12

2.3. Pests selected for further analysis We identified nine pests for further analysis (Table 2). All of these organisms are quarantine pests for the United States and have a reasonable likelihood of being associated with pineapple fruit at the time of harvest and remaining with the fruit, in viable form, throughout the harvesting process. Table 2. Pests selected for further analysis. Pest type Taxonomy Scientific name Arthropods Acari: Tenuipalpidae Dolichotetranychus floridanus Acari: Tetranychidae Eutetranychus orientalis Coleoptera: Curculionidae Rhabdoscelus obscurus Diptera: Tephritidae Bactrocera dorsalis Lepidoptera: Limacodidae Darna pallivitta Darna trima

Parasa lepida Setothosea asigna

Lepidoptera: Noctuidae Spodoptera litura 3. Assessing Pest Risk Potential 3.1. Introduction For each pest selected for further analysis, we estimate its overall pest risk potential. Risk is described by the likelihood of an adverse event, the magnitude of the consequences, and uncertainty. In this risk assessment, we first determine for each pest if there is an endangered area within the PRA area. The endangered area is defined as the portion of the import area where ecological factors favor the establishment of the pest and where the presence of the pest will result in economically important losses. Once an endangered area has been determined, the overall risk of each pest is then determined with two separate components: 1) the likelihood of its introduction into the endangered area on the imported commodity (i.e., the likelihood of an adverse event) and 2) the consequences of its introduction (i.e., the magnitude of the consequences). In general, we assess both of these components for each pest. If we determine that the risk of either component is negligible, however, assessing the other is not necessary because the overall pest risk potential will be negligible regardless of the result of the second component. For example, if we determine that pest introduction is highly unlikely, we do not assess the consequences of it being introduced. The likelihood and consequences of introduction are assessed using different approaches. For the consequences of introduction, we determine if the pest meets the threshold (Yes/No) of being likely to cause unacceptable losses. We base that determination on the physical damage the pest is likely to cause and/or the proportion of exports likely to be disrupted, rather than on an absolute value or amount of monetary loss. The likelihood of introduction is based on the likelihoods of entry and establishment. We qualitatively assess risk using the ratings Negligible, Low, Medium, and High. The risk factors comprising the model for likelihood of introduction are interdependent and, therefore, the model is multiplicative rather than additive. Thus, if any one risk element is rated as Negligible, then


Ver. 1.0 April 10, 2019 13

the overall likelihood will be Negligible. For the overall likelihood of introduction risk rating, we define the different categories as follows:

High: Pest introduction is highly likely to occur. Medium: Pest introduction is possible, but for that to happen, the exact combination of

required events needs to occur. Low: Pest introduction is unlikely to occur because one or more of the required events

are unlikely to happen, or the full combination of required events is unlikely to align properly in time and space.

Negligible: Pest introduction is highly unlikely to occur given the exact combination of events required for successful introduction.

3.2. Assessment results 3.2.1. Bactrocera dorsalis We determined the overall likelihood of introduction of B. dorsalis to be High and that its establishment in the PRA area is likely to cause unacceptable impacts. We present the results of this assessment in the following tables. Determination of the portion of the United States and Territories endangered by B. dorsalis Climatic suitability Bactrocera dorsalis has been reported from Bhutan, Cambodia, China,

India, Indonesia, Myanmar, Nepal, Singapore, Taiwan, Vietnam, Italy, and the United States (Hawaii), as well as from various countries in Africa and Oceania (CABI, 2019; Wan et al., 2012; Nugnes, 2018). Based on a comparison of the distribution of B. dorsalis with a global map of Plant Hardiness Zones (Magarey et al., 2008), we estimated that this fruit fly could establish in Plant Hardiness Zones 9-13 in the United States.

Potential hosts at risk in PRA Area

Bactrocera dorsalis has been recorded on more than 150 plant species, including Citrus spp., Psidium guajava (guava), Mangifera indica (mango), Carica papaya (papaya), Persea americana (avocado), Solanum lycopersicum (tomato), Prunus armeniaca (apricot), Prunus persica (peach), Pyrus spp. (pear), and Ficus spp. (fig), all of which occur in the PRA area (Weems, 1964).

Economically important hosts at riska

Economically important hosts at risk from this pest include citrus, peach, pear, and tomato (Weems, 1964).

Pest potential on economically important hosts at risk

Damage caused by B. dorsalis consists of punctures from adults laying eggs and damage to the fruit pulp from larvae feeding and tunneling (Ye and Liu, 2005). Heavy infestations can cause major losses in fruit production (Drew and Hancock, 1994; White and Elson-Harris, 1992).

Defined Endangered Area

Based on its current distribution and the distribution of its host plants in the PRA area, we define the area endangered by Bactrocera dorsalis as those areas of the United States and Territories within Plant Hardiness Zones 9-13 where it does not already occur.

a As defined by ISPM No. 11, supplement 2, “economically important hosts” refers to both commercial and non-market (environmental) plants (IPPC, 2017).


Ver. 1.0 April 10, 2019 14

Assessment of the likelihood of introduction of Bactrocera dorsalis into the endangered area via the importation of Ananas comosus from Indonesia Risk Element Risk Rating Uncertainty

Ratinga Justification for rating and explanation of uncertainty (and other notes as necessary)

Likelihood of Entry Risk Element A1: Pest prevalence on the harvested commodity (= the baseline rating for entry)

High MC Bactrocera dorsalis has been reported as a pest of pineapple (Lin et al., 2013; Hui, 2001). We found no information on any factors that would limit its prevalence on the commodity.

Risk Element A2: Likelihood of surviving post-harvest processing before shipment

High

MC Bactrocera dorsalis larvae feed inside of the fruit (Steiner, 1957). Although puncture marks produced from laying eggs may be visible on the fruit surface, it is often impossible to recognize fruit fly-infested fruit (White and Elson-Harris, 1992). For these reasons, we did not change the rating.

Risk Element A3: Likelihood of surviving transport and storage conditions of the consignment

High MU Fresh pineapple fruits from Indonesia will be shipped in precooled containers at 7-9 °C (IAQA, 2016). We found no evidence suggesting that the population would decrease or be eliminated at this temperature range. Therefore, the rating remains unchanged.

Risk Element A: Overall risk rating for likelihood of entry

High N/A

Likelihood of Establishment Risk Element B1: Likelihood of coming into contact with host material in the endangered area

High

MC Bactrocera dorsalis adults can fly long distances (Chen et al., 2015), and hosts are widely distributed in the endangered area (NRCS, 2019).

Risk Element B2: Likelihood of arriving in the endangered area

High

MC More than 25 percent of the U.S. population lives in the area expected to be endangered by B. dorsalis (PERAL, 2015). Assuming that demand is tied to population size, we believe the likelihood of B. dorsalis arriving in the endangered area is high.


Ver. 1.0 April 10, 2019 15

Risk Element Risk Rating Uncertainty Ratinga

Justification for rating and explanation of uncertainty (and other notes as necessary)

Risk Element B: Combined likelihood of establishment

High

N/A

Overall Likelihood of Introduction Combined likelihoods of entry and establishment

High N/A

aC=Certain, MC=Moderately Certain, MU=Moderately Uncertain, U=Uncertain Assessment of the consequences of introduction of Bactrocera dorsalis into the United States and Territories Criteria Meets

criteria? (Y/N)

Uncertainty Ratinga


Direct Impacts Risk Element C1: Damage potential in the endangered area

Yes

C No dacine fruit flies are present in the continental United States. Bactrocera dorsalis is a major pest of a number of important commodities. Therefore, we predict that production costs (via control efforts) are highly likely to increase should B. dorsalis become established in the United States.

Risk Element C2: Spread potential

Yes

MC Bactrocera adults may live for several months, depending on the species (White and Elson-Harris, 1992). Bactrocera dorsalis adults can fly long distances (Chen et al., 2015) and have become established in new areas, such as Africa and the United States (Hawaii).

Risk Element C: Pest introduction is likely to cause unacceptable direct impacts

Yes

N/A

Conclusion Is the pest likely to cause unacceptable consequences in the PRA area?

Yes N/A


Ver. 1.0 April 10, 2019 16

3.2.2. Darna pallivitta We determined the overall likelihood of introduction of D. pallivitta to be Low and we determined that its establishment in the PRA area is likely to cause unacceptable impacts. We present the results of this assessment in the following tables. Determination of the portion of the United States and Territories endangered by Darna pallivitta Climatic suitability Darna pallivitta is native to parts of Asia (Nagamine and Epstein,

2007) and is invasive in Japan (Mito and Uesugi, 2004) and the United States (Hawaii) (Nagamine and Epstein, 2007). It has been reported from China, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Taiwan (Holloway et al., 1987). Based on a comparison of the distribution of D. pallivitta with a global map of Plant Hardiness Zones (Magarey et al., 2008), we estimated that this moth could establish in Plant Hardiness Zones 10-13 in the United States.


Darna pallivitta feeds on over 40 species of plants. Hosts include Adenostemma spp., Averrhoa carambola (starfruit), Breynia spp., Caryota sp., Cocos nucifera (coconut), Coffea arabica (coffee), Elaeis guineensis (African oil palm), Ficus spp., Phoenix spp., Zea mays (corn), and members of the Poaceae (Chun et al., 2005; Hara et al., 2013; Holloway et al., 1987).


Economically important hosts at risk from this pest include fig and corn and other grasses (Hara et al., 2013; Holloway et al., 1987).


Darna pallivitta larvae feed on the leaves of its host. In its native range, it is considered a minor pest of palms and of corn and other grasses (Hara et al., 2013). In Hawaii, D. pallivitta established rapidly and has caused extensive damage to agricultural and nursery crops and ornamental plants (Chun et al., 2005; Hara et al., 2013).


Based on its current distribution and the distribution of its host plants in the PRA area, we define the area endangered by Darna pallivitta to be those areas of the United States within Plant Hardiness Zones 10-13 where it does not already occur. This corresponds to parts of California, Florida, southern Texas and the U.S. Territories.


Assessment of the likelihood of introduction of Darna pallivitta into the endangered area via the importation of Ananas comosus from Indonesia Risk Element Risk Rating Uncertainty


Likelihood of Entry


Ver. 1.0 April 10, 2019 17



Risk Element A1: Pest prevalence on the harvested commodity (= the baseline rating for entry)

High

MU Darna pallivitta has been reported to feed on the leaves of pineapple plants in Hawaii (Hara et al., 2013).


Medium

MC Darna pallivitta larvae feed on the leaves of host plants (Nagamine and Epstein, 2007). Late instar larvae and feeding damage would be noticeable during harvest and post-harvest processing (Hara et al., 2013). The eggs, however, are laid singly or in masses on the undersides of leaves and are transparent (Chun et al., 2005; Nagamine and Epstein, 2007), so they may not be noticed. The rating is lowered to Medium from the previous risk element since populations will be significantly reduced during post-harvest processing.


Medium

MU Fresh pineapple fruits from Indonesia will be shipped in precooled containers at 7-9 °C (IAQA, 2016). We found no evidence suggesting that the population would decrease or be eliminated at this temperature range. Therefore, the rating remains unchanged.


Medium

N/A


Ver. 1.0 April 10, 2019 18




Low MC Darna pallivitta larvae can move from plant to plant, and adults can fly (Kishimoto, 2006). This moth develops on weedy, ornamental, and agricultural hosts (Nagamine and Epstein, 2007). Only eggs and early instar larvae are likely to remain with the commodity post-harvest. Caterpillars are not likely to be able to travel far to new hosts. For establishment to occur, multiple individuals of the pest would have to successfully develop to the late larval instar stage on the leaves of the crowns discarded into the environment, pupate in the soil, emerge as an adult, and find a mate and a suitable host plant to lay eggs. Considering the low likelihood of all these conditions being met, we rated this risk element Low.


Low

MU Less than 10 percent of the U.S. population lives in the area expected to be endangered by D. pallivitta (PERAL, 2015). Assuming that demand is tied to population, we believe the likelihood of D. pallivitta arriving in the endangered area is low.


Low

N/A


Low N/A

aC=Certain, MC=Moderately Certain, MU=Moderately Uncertain, U=Uncertain


Ver. 1.0 April 10, 2019 19

Assessment of the consequences of introduction of Darna pallivitta into the United States and Territories Criteria Meets

criteria? (Y/N)

Uncertainty Ratinga



Yes

MC Darna pallivitta is a pest of agricultural and nursery plants, and the larvae damage leaves by feeding on them (Hara et al., 2013). Feeding damage significantly reduces the value of ornamental and landscape plants in Hawaii (Chun et al., 2005). Additionally, this species presents a health and safety concern for agricultural and nursery workers due to the possibility for painful stings from the spines of the larvae upon contact (Hara et al., 2013). The presence of this species in nurseries and agriculture would likely increase production costs.


Yes

MU Darna pallivitta larvae can move from plant to plant, and the adults can fly (Kishimoto, 2006). We found no information, however, on their flight distance.


Yes

N/A


Yes N/A

aC=Certain, MC=Moderately Certain, MU=Moderately Uncertain, U=Uncertain 3.2.3. Darna trima We determined the overall likelihood of introduction of D. trima to be Medium and that its establishment in the PRA area is likely to cause unacceptable impacts. We present the results of this assessment in the following tables. Determination of the portion of the United States and Territories endangered by Darna trima


Ver. 1.0 April 10, 2019 20

Climatic suitability Darna trima has been reported from China (Fujian, Guangdong, Guangxi Zhuang, Hainan, and Yunnan) (Li et al., 1997), Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand (Waterhouse, 1993). Based on a comparison of the distribution of D. trima with a global map of Plant Hardiness Zones (Magarey et al., 2008), we estimated that this moth could establish in Plant Hardiness Zones 9-13 in the United States.


Hosts of D. trima include Ananas sp. (pineapple) (Li et al., 1997), Camellia sinensis (tea), Canna sp., Citrus sp. (CABI, 2019), Cocos nucifera (coconut), Coffea sp. (coffee), Elaeis guineensis (African oil palm) (Li et al.,1997), Eugenia sp. (stopper), Imperata cylindrica (cogon grass), Mangifera indica (mango), Metroxylon sagu (sago palm), Musa sp. (banana), and Theobroma cacao (cocoa) (CABI, 2019).


Economically important hosts at risk from this pest include citrus and mango (Li et al., 1997; CABI, 2019).


Darna trima is most likely the species involved in outbreaks in oil palm plantations in Malaysia and Indonesia (Borneo) (Holloway et al., 1987). At populations of over 2,000 larvae per frond, young plants are severely damaged, and mature plants can be defoliated (Holloway et al., 1987). Other palm species are infested to a lesser extent, including coconut and sago palms (CABI, 2019).


Based on its current distribution and the distribution of its host plants in the PRA area, we define the area endangered by Darna trima to be Plant Hardiness Zones 9-13 in the United States, which corresponds to parts of Alabama, Arizona, California, Florida, Hawaii, Louisiana, Mississippi, New Mexico, Texas, and the U.S. Territories.


Assessment of the likelihood of introduction of Darna trima into the endangered area via the importation of Ananas comosus from Indonesia Risk Element Risk Rating Uncertainty



High

MU Pineapple is listed as the main crop affected by D. trima in China (Li et al., 1997; Petty et al., 2002). Darna trima defoliates its host plants and lays eggs on the leaves, where the larvae then feed (CABI, 2019).


Ver. 1.0 April 10, 2019 21




Medium

MC Darna trima defoliates its host plants (Holloway et al., 1987), eating all leaf tissue and leaving only the midribs (GPAS, 2006). Larvae and their damage would be visible during post-harvest processing (GPAS, 2006), but the eggs are small and translucent (Holloway et al., 1987) and may escape detection.


Medium



Medium N/A


Ver. 1.0 April 10, 2019 22




Low MC Darna trima is polyphagous (CABI, 2019; Holloway et al., 1987) and can fly (Kishimoto, 2006; Sasaerila et al., 2000). Adults would likely fly away during harvest, so only eggs and early instar larvae would be likely to remain with the commodity post-harvest. Caterpillars are not likely to travel far to new hosts. For establishment to occur, multiple individuals of the pest would have to successfully develop to the late larval instar stage on the leaves of the crowns discarded into the environment, pupate in the soil, emerge as an adult, and find a mate and a suitable host plant to lay eggs. Considering the low likelihood of all these conditions being met, we rated this risk element Low.


High

MC More than 25 percent of the U.S. population lives in the area endangered by D. trima (PERAL, 2015). Assuming that demand is tied to population size, we believe the likelihood of D. trima arriving in the endangered area is high.


Medium

N/A


Medium N/A



Ver. 1.0 April 10, 2019 23

Assessment of the consequences of introduction of Darna trima into the United States and Territories Criteria Meets

criteria? (Y/N)

Uncertainty Ratinga



Yes

MC Darna trima defoliates its hosts (CABI, 2019). The leaf area of some palms has been reduced up to 60 percent by D. trima outbreaks (CABI, 2019). The larvae are covered in stinging spines (CABI, 2019), as is common in the Limacodidae family (Murphy et al., 2009). These stings would affect workers in nurseries and in agriculture.


Yes MU Darna trima adults can fly (Kishimoto, 2006; Sasaerila et al., 2000), but we found no information on their flight distances.


Yes

N/A


Yes N/A

aC=Certain, MC=Moderately Certain, MU=Moderately Uncertain, U=Uncertain 3.2.4. Dolichotetranychus floridanus We determined the overall likelihood of introduction of D. floridanus to be Medium and that it is unlikely to cause unacceptable impacts. We present the results of this assessment in the following tables. Determination of the portion of the United States and Territories endangered by Dolichotetranychus floridanus


Ver. 1.0 April 10, 2019 24

Climatic suitability Dolichotetranychus floridanus has been reported in Australia (Poli, 1991), Indonesia, Japan, the Philippines, Mexico, Honduras, Panama, Cuba, the United States (Florida, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico) (Jeppson et al., 1975), Brazil, South Africa (Petty et al., 2002), Egypt, India, Taiwan, Thailand, and Belize (Ghai and Shenhmar, 1984). Based on a comparison of the current distribution of D. floridanus with a global map of Plant Hardiness Zones (Magarey et al., 2008), we estimated that this mite could establish in Plant Hardiness Zones 8-13 in the United States.


Dolichotetranychus floridanus is primarily a pest of pineapple (Jeppson et al., 1975) but has also been reported from Arundo donax (giant reed) (Ghai and Shenhmar, 1984), Elettaria cardamomum (cardamom), bamboo, and grasses (Petty et al., 2002).


Pineapple is the only economically important host at risk from this pest. It cultivated in Plant Hardiness Zones 9-13 in Hawaii, where the mite already occurs, and in the Northern Mariana Islands (SIPMC, 2017).


Dolichotetranychus floridanus is a pest of pineapple and generally feeds on the tender tissue of basal leaves, particularly on the crown (Rohrbach and Johnson, 2003). Feeding damage caused by D. floridanus appears to be insignificant, but injuries could allow entrance of pathogens (Jeppson et al., 1975). Damage to the leaves can result in brown to black necrotic lesions, dehydration, or orange patches at the base of the leaves (Petty et al., 2002). We found no evidence of D. floridanus being a pest of any other plants.


Based on its current distribution and the distribution of its host plants in the PRA area, we define the area endangered by D. floridanus to be those regions of the United States within Plant Hardiness Zones 9-13 where it does not already occur. This corresponds to parts of California, the southern United States, and the U.S. Territories.


Assessment of the likelihood of introduction of Dolichotetranychus floridanus into the endangered area via the importation of Ananas comosus from Indonesia Risk Element Risk Rating Uncertainty


Likelihood of Entry


Ver. 1.0 April 10, 2019 25




High

MC Dolichotetranychus floridanus is a pest of pineapple (Jeppson et al., 1975). It feeds on the basal portion of the leaves, particularly on the crown (Rohrbach and Johnson, 2003). Plants of all ages may be infested, but D. floridanus is most damaging to young plants because it curtails their growth (Petty et al., 2002).


Medium

MU Dolichotetranychus floridanus is an external feeder that is conspicuous in large numbers because of its bright orange color (Rohrbach and Johnson, 2003). Mites and their damage are generally visible upon inspection, especially with large infestations, although they may escape detection depending upon developmental stage (Avidov and Harpaz, 1969). Dolichotetranychus floridanus populations would likely be significantly reduced during post-harvest processing, so we decreased the risk rating.


Medium

MU Fresh pineapple fruits from Indonesia will be shipped in precooled containers at 7-9 °C (IAQA, 2016). We found no evidence suggesting that the population would decrease or be eliminated at this temperature range. Therefore the rating remains unchanged.


Medium N/A


Ver. 1.0 April 10, 2019 26




Low MC The biology of D. floridanus influences the chance of finding hosts and successfully establishing in the United States. Tenuipalpid mites are slow-moving and disperse by crawling, limiting the range of dispersal (Singh and Raghuraman, 2011). Establishment can only occur when the imported fruit is in close proximity to a host plant. Because the commodity is fruit for consumption, this is unlikely to occur. Therefore, the chance of this mite coming into contact with host material is low.


Low

MU Dolichotetranychus floridanus is a pest of pineapple (Jeppson et al., 1975), which is cultivated in Hawaii and the Northern Mariana Islands (SIPMC, 2017). The pest, however, already occurs in Florida, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico, significantly reducing the endangered area.


Low N/A


Low N/A



Ver. 1.0 April 10, 2019 27

Assessment of the consequences of introduction of Dolichotetranychus floridanus into the United States and Territories Criteria Meets

criteria? (Y/N)

Uncertainty Ratinga



Yes

MC As mentioned, D. floridanus is primarily a pest of pineapple and occurs in Florida, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico (Jeppson et al., 1975). Pineapple is also grown in the Northern Mariana Islands (SIPMC, 2017), where this mite does not occur.


No MU Tenuipalpid mites are slow-moving and disperse by crawling, limiting the range of dispersal (Singh and Raghuraman, 2011).


No N/A

Trade Impacts Risk Element D1: Export markets at risk

No

MC Dolichotetranychus floridanus is already present in most of the countries where U.S. pineapple is exported (USDA-FAS, 2018). It is established in most regions where pineapple is grown in the United States (Florida, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico) (Jeppson et al., 1975). We determined that the value of pineapple exported to countries where the pest is likely to be able to establish is less than 10 percent of the total export value of the commodity.

Risk Element D2: Likelihood of trading partners imposing additional phytosanitary requirements

N/A

N/A

Risk Element D: Pest is likely to cause significant trade impacts

No

N/A


Ver. 1.0 April 10, 2019 28

Criteria Meets criteria? (Y/N)

Uncertainty Ratinga



No N/A

aC=Certain, MC=Moderately Certain, MU=Moderately Uncertain, U=Uncertain 3.2.5. Eutetranychus orientalis We determined the overall likelihood of introduction of E. orientalis to be Low and that the establishment of E. orientalis in the PRA is unlikely to cause unacceptable impacts. We present the results of this assessment in the following tables. Determination of the portion of the United States and Territories endangered by Eutetranychus orientalis Climatic suitability Eutetranychus orientalis has been reported in Afghanistan, Australia,

Cape Verde, China, Cyprus, Egypt, Ethiopia, Hong Kong, India (Bolland et al., 1998), Indonesia (Ehara, 2004), Iran, Iraq, Israel, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lebanon, Malawi (Bolland et al., 1998), Malaysia (Ehara, 2004), Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Nigeria, Pakistan, the Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Africa (Bolland et al., 1998), Spain (Gonzalez-Zamora et al, 2011), Sudan (Bolland et al., 1998), Syria (Zriki et al. 2015), Taiwan, Thailand, Tunisia, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, Vietnam, and Yemen (Bolland et al., 1998). Based on a comparison of the distribution of E. orientalis with a global map of Plant Hardiness Zones (Magarey et al., 2008), we estimated that this spider mite could establish in Plant Hardiness Zones 9-13 in the United States.


Eutetranychus orientalis is primarily a pest of citrus (Jeppson et al., 1975) but has over 200 hosts in families such as Euphorbiaceae (Euphorbia spp.), Fabaceae (Acacia spp., Bauhinia spp., Cassia spp., Erythrina spp., etc.), Lauraceae [Persea americana (avocado)], Moraceae (Artocarpus spp., Ficus spp.), Myrtaceae [Psidium guajava (common guava)], Punicaceae [Punica granatum (pomegranate)], Rosaceae (Prunus spp., Rosa spp., Pyrus spp.), Rutaceae (Citrus sp.), and Vitaceae [Vitis vinifera (common grapevine)] (Bolland et al., 1998).


Economically important hosts at risk from this pest include avocado, citrus, and stone fruit (Bolland et al., 1998).


Eutetranychus orientalis is an important pest of citrus and generally feeds on the upper surface of leaves, producing gray spots and giving leaves a chlorotic appearance (Jeppson et al., 1975). Heavy infestations of E. orientalis can cause leaf drop and shoot dieback (Vacante, 2010).


Ver. 1.0 April 10, 2019 29


Based on its current distribution and the distribution of its host plants in the PRA area, we define the area endangered by Eutetranychus orientalis as Plant Hardiness Zones 9-13 in the United States.


Assessment of the likelihood of introduction of Eutetranychus orientalis into the endangered area via the importation of Ananas comosus from Indonesia Risk Element Risk Rating Uncertainty



Low

U Eutetranychus orientalis is primarily a pest of citrus species (Jeppson et al., 1975). It damages the upper surface of fully grown leaves on its host plants and produces webbing that gives the leaves a dirty appearance (Singh and Raghuraman, 2011). Eutetranychus orientalis is associated with A. comosus from a collection record in South Africa (Meyer, 1987), but evidence is lacking about its effects on pineapple.


Low

MC Eutetranychus orientalis is an external feeder that is likely to become dislodged by washing (Vincent et al., 2004). Mites are generally visible, particularly in large infestations. Large infestations can cause visible damage, but individuals may escape detection depending upon developmental stage. (Avidov and Harpaz, 1969).


Low



Ver. 1.0 April 10, 2019 30




Low N/A


Low MC The biology of E. orientalis influences the chance of finding hosts and establishing in the United States. Tetranychid mites disperse through crawling and on the wind (Huffaker et al. 1969), which affects the range of dispersal. Establishment can only occur when the imported fruit is in close proximity to a host plant. Because the commodity is fruit for consumption, this is unlikely to occur. Therefore, the chance of this mite coming into contact with host material is low.


High

MU Slightly more than 25 percent of the U.S. population lives in the area expected to be endangered by E. orientalis (PERAL, 2015). Assuming that demand is tied to population size, we believe the likely hood of E. orientalis arriving in the endangered area is high.


Medium N/A


Medium N/A



Ver. 1.0 April 10, 2019 31

Assessment of the consequences of introduction of Eutetranychus orientalis into the United States and Territories Criteria Meets

criteria? (Y/N)

Uncertainty Ratinga



No

MC As mentioned, E. orientalis is an important pest of citrus. Severe damage, such as defoliation and prevention of fruit set, however, appears to be very rare. It occurs only with severe infestations and dry environmental conditions (USDA-APHIS, 1983). Typical damage from this pest is minor, such as the appearance of gray leaf spots and chlorotic leaves (Jeppson et al., 1975). It is very similar to damage by other mites already present in the United States. Additionally, this mite is likely to be controlled by practices already in place for other mites in the United States. We conclude that the introduction of E. orientalis in the endangered area is unlikely to result in 10 percent or greater yield losses in any commodity, including citrus. Its presence in the United States is not likely to cause significant increases in costs of production.


N/A N/A


N/A N/A


Ver. 1.0 April 10, 2019 32


Uncertainty Ratinga


Trade Impacts Risk Element D1: Export markets at risk

No

MC Eutetranychus orientalis is primarily a pest of citrus. It is already present in most of the countries where U.S. citrus is exported, except Canada, where it is unlikely to be able to establish (USDA-FAS, 2018). We determined that the value of exported commodities likely to carry this pest to countries where this pest does not occur and could potentially establish is less than 10 percent of the total export value of the commodity.

Risk Element D2: Likelihood of trading partners imposing additional phytosanitary requirements

No

MU According to CABI (2019), the European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization (EPPO) is considering listing E. orientalis on the A2 quarantine pest list. Some countries that import citrus from the United States, already require an additional declaration that the commodity be free from mites such as Brevipalpus lewisi and B. phoenicis (USDA-APHIS, 2018). We suspect that E. orientalis would be handled similarly if it were to establish in the continental United States.

Risk Element D: Pest is likely to cause significant trade impacts

No

N/A


No N/A



Ver. 1.0 April 10, 2019 33

3.2.6. Parasa lepida We determined the overall likelihood of introduction of P. lepida to be Medium and its establishment in the PRA area is likely to cause unacceptable impacts. We present the results of this assessment in the following tables. Determination of the portion of the United States and Territories endangered by Parasa lepida Climatic suitability Parasa lepida is occurs in Bangladesh (CABI, 2019), China, India,

Indonesia (Desmier de Chenon, 1982), Japan (Yamazaki et al., 2013), Laos (CABI, 2019), Malaysia (Desmier de Chenon, 1982), Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan (CABI, 2019), Papua New Guinea, Sri Lanka (Desmier de Chenon, 1982), Thailand (CABI, 2019), and Vietnam (Desmier de Chenon, 1982). Based on a comparison of the distribution of P. lepida with a global map of Plant Hardiness Zones (Magarey et al., 2008), we estimated that this moth could establish in Plant Hardiness Zones 8-13 in the United States.


Parasa lepida is most harmful to Cocos nucifera (coconut) (Demier de Chenon, 1982). Other host plants include Camellia sinensis (tea), Cassia spp., Coffea spp. (coffee), Eugenia spp. (stopper), Gardenia spp., Mangifera spp. (mango), Metroxylon spp., Musa spp. (banana), Nephelium spp., Nypa spp., Rosa spp. (rose), and Theobroma cacao (cocoa) (Desmier de Chenon, 1982). In Japan, where P. lepida is invasive, it has also been reported to feed on Acer spp. (maple), Diospyros kaki (Japanese persimmon), Ginkgo biloba (ginkgo), Liquidambar spp. (sweetgum), Magnolia kobus (Kobus magnolia), Morella rubra (red bayberry), Robinia pseudoacacia (black locust), Triadica sebifera (Chinese tallow), and Zelkova serrata (Japanese elm) (Yamazaki et al., 2013).


Economically important hosts at risk from this pest include coconut, other palms, tea, rose, and maple (Yamazaki et al., 2013).


In Indonesia, P. lepida larvae severely infest leaves of coconut, causing complete defoliation of individual trees (Desmier de Chenon, 1982). In Japan, it has increased its host range to include tree species found in residential neighborhoods, parks, and gardens (Yamamzaki et al. 2013). Up to 80 percent of individual host tree species in Japan were found to have cocoons of P. lepida on them (Yamazaki et al. 2013).


Based on its current distribution and the distribution of its host plants in the PRA area, we define the area endangered by P. lepida to be Plant Hardiness Zones 8-13 in the United States, which corresponds to parts of Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Louisiana, Mississippi, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, South Carolina, Texas, Washington, and the U.S. Territories.



Ver. 1.0 April 10, 2019 34

Assessment of the likelihood of introduction of Parasa lepida into the endangered area via the importation of Ananas comosus from Indonesia Risk Element Risk Rating Uncertainty



High MU In India, P. lepida is reported to cause damage in pineapple plantations by feeding on the foliage and pupating in folds of leaves (Butani, 1975). Because P. lepida adults lay many eggs and larvae feed in large groups, critical damage thresholds are often reached (CABI, 2019).


Medium

MC Eggs of P. lepida are small, flat, and translucent and are laid side by side in groups of up to 40 on the undersides of leaves (Desmier de Chenon, 1982), which may escape detection during post-harvest processing. The larvae feed on pineapple foliage (Butani, 1975). On other hosts, P. lepida feeds and pupates gregariously and early outbreaks are often localized on individual plants (Desmier de Chenon, 1982). This behavior would make it easier to notice the pest and its damage during culling. Therefore, we reduced the rating to Medium.


Medium



Medium N/A


Ver. 1.0 April 10, 2019 35




Low MC Parasa lepida is polyphagous and feeds on the leaves of its hosts, and adults can fly (Desmier de Chenon, 1982). Adults would likely fly away during harvest processes, so only eggs and early instar larvae would likely to remain with the commodity post-harvest. Caterpillars are not likely to be able to travel far to new hosts. For establishment to occur, multiple individuals of the pest would have to successfully develop to the late instar larval stage on the leaves of the crowns discarded into the environment, pupate in the soil, emerge as an adult, and find a mate and a suitable host plant to lay eggs. Considering the low likelihood of all these conditions being met, we rated this risk element Low.


High

MC More than 25 percent of the U.S. population lives in the area expected to be endangered by P. lepida (PERAL, 2015). Assuming that demand is tied to population size, we believe the likelihood of P. lepida arriving in the endangered area is high.


Medium

N/A


Medium N/A



Ver. 1.0 April 10, 2019 36

Assessment of the consequences of introduction of Parasa lepida into the United States and Territories Criteria Meets

criteria? (Y/N)

Uncertainty Ratinga



Yes

MC Parasa lepida defoliates mature coconut trees, which leads to reduced production (Desmier de Chenon, 1982). The caterpillars can sting (Hossler, 2010), which would affect agriculture and nursery workers. Both of these factors could initiate control efforts, leading to increased production costs.


Yes MU Parasa lepida adults can fly and have an average lifespan of seven days (Pillai and Ayyar, 1968). Eggs, larvae, and pupae are found on hosts (Desmier de Chenon, 1982, Holloway et al., 1987), so they may be transported with host plants.


Yes

N/A


Yes N/A

aC=Certain, MC=Moderately Certain, MU=Moderately Uncertain, U=Uncertain 3.2.7. Rhabdoscelus obscurus We determined the overall likelihood of introduction of R. obscurus to be Medium and that its establishment in the PRA area would likely to cause unacceptable impacts. We present the results of this assessment in the following tables. Determination of the portion of the United States and Territories endangered by R. obscurus


Ver. 1.0 April 10, 2019 37

Climatic suitability Rhabdoscelus obscurus occurs in Australia (Halfpapp and Storey, 1991), Cook Islands (CABI, 2019), Fiji (Tamanikaiyaroi, 1997), French Polynesia (APPPC, 1987), the United States (Guam and Hawaii) (Muniappan et al., 2004), Indonesia, Micronesia, New Caledonia, Palau (CABI, 2019), Papua New Guinea, (Halfpapp and Storey, 1991), Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, and Vanuatu (CABI, 2019). Based on a comparison of the distribution of R. obscurus with a global map of Plant Hardiness Zones (Magarey et al., 2008), we estimated that this species could establish in Plant Hardiness Zones 10-13 in the United States.


Rhabdoscelus obscurus is primarily a pest of sugarcane and palms and has been reported on the following species: Archontophoenix alexandrae (king palm), Areca catechu (areca palm) (Halfpapp and Storey, 1991), Carica papaya (papaya) (Muniappan et al., 2004), Caryota urens (fishtail palm), Cocos nucifera (coconut) (Halfpapp and Storey, 1991), Elaeis guineensis (oil palm) (Desmier de Chenon et al., 2001), Metroxylon sagu (sago palm) (Halfpapp and Storey, 1991), Musa sp. (Terry, 1907), Phoenix canariensis (Canary date palm) (Muniappan et al., 2004), Ptychosperma elegans (cabbage palm), Roystonea elata (royal palm), Sabal palmetto (cabbage palm) (Halfpapp and Storey, 1991) and Zea mays (corn) (Muniappan et al., 2004).


Economically important hosts at risk from this pest include sugarcane, corn, and various palms (Halfpapp and Storey, 1991; Muniappan et al., 2004).


Rhabdoscelus obscurus was considered a serious pest of sugarcane in Hawaii as early as 1865 (Williams, 1931). Control was achieved, however, by the introduction of the fly, Lixophaga sphenophori, for biocontrol (Napompeth et al., 1972). Palms and papaya have been reported to be infested, but the damage is less severe since R. obscurus is attracted to decaying portions of these hosts (Williams, 1931).


Based on its current distribution and the distribution of its host plants in the PRA area, we define the area endangered by R. obscurus to be those areas of the United States within Plant Hardiness Zones 10-13 where it does not already occur. This corresponds to parts of California, Florida, southern Texas, and the U.S. Territories.


Assessment of the likelihood of introduction of Rhabdoscelus obscurus into the endangered area via the importation of Ananas comosus from Indonesia Risk Element Risk Rating Uncertainty


Likelihood of Entry


Ver. 1.0 April 10, 2019 38




Low MU Rhabdoscelus obscurus is primarily a pest of sugarcane and palms (Haddpapp and Storey, 1991), though it is also reported as a minor pest of pineapple (Petty et al., 2002). We found no reports of pineapple as a reproductive host; only externally feeding adults are associated with the fruit.


Low

MU Rhabdoscelus obscurus adults are large (12-15 mm) and would have a low likelihood of remaining with the fruit during post-harvest washing.


Low MU Fresh pineapple fruits from Indonesia will be shipped in precooled containers at 7-9 °C (IAQA, 2016). We found no evidence suggesting that the population would decrease or be eliminated at this temperature range. Therefore, the rating remains unchanged.


Low N/A


Medium

MU Host of R. obscurus are available in the endangered area. Corn and other grasses have been reported as occasional hosts of R. obscurus (Zimmerman, 1993) and are present in large portions of the endangered area. Rhabdoscelus obscurus adults would be able to fly to suitable hosts (Van Zwaluwenburg and Rosa, 1940).


Ver. 1.0 April 10, 2019 39




Low

MC Less than 10 percent of the U.S. population lives in the area expected to be endangered by R. obscurus (PERAL, 2015). Assuming that demand is tied to population size, we believe the likelihood of R. obscurus arriving in the endangered area is low.


Medium

N/A


Medium N/A

aC=Certain, MC=Moderately Certain, MU=Moderately Uncertain, U=Uncertain Assessment of the consequences of introduction of Rhabdoscelus obscurus into the United States and Territories Criteria Meets

criteria? (Y/N)

Uncertainty Ratinga



Yes

MU Rhabdoscelus obscurus has caused damage to sugarcane and palms in Australia (Sallam et al., 2001; Halfpapp and Storey, 1991). It is also a major pest of palms and sugarcane in Guam, and research on mass trapping with pheromone-baited lures is being conducted there (Muniappan, 2004). In Hawaii, successful control was achieved by the introduction of the biocontrol agent Lixophaga sphenophori (Napompeth et al., 1972). Production costs are likely to increase due to the need for control of this pest if it is introduced to new areas of the United States.


Ver. 1.0 April 10, 2019 40


Uncertainty Ratinga



Yes

MU Spread by the flight of adult beetles is possible; however, they are reported to be infrequent fliers (Halfpapp and Storey, 1991).


Yes

N/A


Yes N/A

aC=Certain, MC=Moderately Certain, MU=Moderately Uncertain, U=Uncertain 3.2.8. Setothosea asigna We determined the overall likelihood of introduction of S. asigna to be Medium and that its establishment in the PRA area is likely to cause unacceptable impacts. We present the results of this assessment in the following tables. Determination of the portion of the United States and Territories endangered by Setothosea asigna Climatic suitability Setothosea asigna occurs in China (Fujian, Guangdong, Guangxi

Zhuang, Hainan, and Yunnan) (Li et al., 1997), Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines (Holloway et al., 1987), and Taiwan (Li et al., 1997). Based on a comparison of the distribution of S. asigna with a global map of Plant Hardiness Zones (Magarey et al., 2008), we estimated that this moth could establish in Plant Hardiness Zones 9-13 in the United States.


Setothosea asigna feeds on Ananas comosus (pineapple) (Li et al., 1997), Cocos nucifera (coconut) (Holloway et al., 1987), Coffea spp. (coffee) (Li et al., 1997), Elaeis guineensis (African oil palm), and Erechtites valerianifolia (tropical burnweed) (Holloway et al., 1987).


Economically important hosts at risk from this pest include coconut, oil palm, pineapple, and coffee (Holloway et al., 1987). These hosts have a limited distribution in Plant Hardiness Zones 9-13 in the United States (NRCS, 2019).


Setothosea asigna is reported as a defoliating pest of oil palm plantations in Indonesia and Malaysia (Holloway et al., 1987) and as a pest of coffee, pineapple, and coconut in China (Li et al., 1997). When populations are high, S. asigna can rapidly defoliate oil palms, causing more than 78 percent losses in the first year and 40 percent losses in the second year (Suparman et al., 2014).


Ver. 1.0 April 10, 2019 41


Based on its current distribution and the distribution of its host plants in the PRA area, we define the area endangered by S. asigna to be Plant Hardiness Zones 9-13 in the United States, which corresponds to parts of Arizona, Florida, Hawaii, Texas, and the U.S. Territories.


Assessment of the likelihood of introduction of Setothosea asigna into the endangered area via the importation of Ananas comosus from Indonesia Risk Element Risk Rating Uncertainty



Low

MU Pineapple is an occasional host of S. asigna in China (Li et al., 1997; Petty et al., 2002). We found no other reports of pineapple as a host of S. asigna.


Low

MU Setothosea asigna defoliates its hosts (Holloway et al., 1987), and the damage by the larvae would be visible during post-harvest processing. Eggs are small and translucent but are laid in batches of about 40 in 10-cm-long rows (Holloway et al., 1987). Large egg masses may be detected during washing and post-harvest handling, but smaller egg masses may escape detection. Because egg masses and some newly hatched larvae may go undetected and survive post-harvest processing we did not change the risk rating.


Low

U Fresh pineapple fruits from Indonesia will be shipped in precooled containers at 7-9 °C (IAQA, 2016). We found no evidence suggesting that the population would decrease or be eliminated at this temperature range. Therefore, the rating remains unchanged.


Low N/A


Ver. 1.0 April 10, 2019 42




Low

MC Adults would likely fly away during harvest processes, so only eggs and caterpillars would be left on the commodity after post-harvest. Caterpillars would not likely be able to travel far to a new host. For establishment to occur, multiple individuals would have to successfully develop to the late larval instar stage on the leaves of the crowns discarded into the environment, pupate, emerge as an adult, and find a mate and a suitable host plant to lay eggs. Considering the low likelihood of all these conditions being met, we rated this risk element Low.


High

MC More than 25 percent of the U.S. population lives in the area expected to be endangered by S. asigna (PERAL, 2015). Assuming that demand is tied to population size, we believed the likelihood of S. asigna arriving in the endangered area is high.


Medium

N/A


Medium N/A



Ver. 1.0 April 10, 2019 43

Assessment of the consequences of introduction of Setothosea asigna into the United States and Territories Criteria Meets

criteria? (Y/N)

Uncertainty Ratinga



Yes

MC Setothosea asigna is a pest of oil palm, coconut (Holloway et al., 1987), pineapple, and coffee (Li et al., 1997). High populations can rapidly defoliate oil palms, causing more than 78 percent losses in the first year and 40 percent losses in the second year (Suparman et al., 2014). Limacodidae often have stinging spines (Murphy et al., 2009). These stings would affect workers in nurseries and agriculture. Both direct damage from feeding and the human health aspect could initiate control efforts and increase production costs.


Yes

MU Setothosea asigna adults can fly (Howard et al., 2001), but we found no information on their flight distance.


Yes

N/A


Yes N/A

aC=Certain, MC=Moderately Certain, MU=Moderately Uncertain, U=Uncertain 3.2.9. Spodoptera litura We determined the overall likelihood of introduction of S. litura to be Medium and that its establishment in the PRA area is likely to cause unacceptable impacts. We present the results of this assessment in the following tables.


Ver. 1.0 April 10, 2019 44

Determination of the portion of the United States and Territories endangered by Spodoptera litura Climatic suitability Spodoptera litura occurs in Afghanistan, China, India, Japan, Pakistan,

South Korea, southeastern Asia, and Oceania (CABI, 2019). Based on a comparison of the distribution of S. litura with a global map of Plant Hardiness Zones (Magarey et al., 2008), we estimated that this moth could establish in Plant Hardiness Zones 8-13 in the United States.


Spodoptera litura has a wide host range and infests over 40 economically important plants. Hosts include Abelmoschus esculentus (okra) (Ahmad et al., 2013), Arachis hypogaea (peanut) (Tuan et al., 2014), Brassica oleracea (cabbage), Colocasia esculenta (taro), Gossypium hirsutum (cotton), Ricinus communis (castor bean), Zea mays (corn) (Ahmad et al., 2013), Solanum tuberosum (potato), and Glycine max (CABI, 2019).


Economically important hosts at risk from this pest include cotton, corn, potato, soybean, and brassica vegetables (Ahmad et al., 2013; CABI, 2019).


Spodoptera litura is one of the most destructive plant pests in Asia due to its high reproductive rate, gregarious feeding behavior of the larvae, and dispersal ability (Ahmad et al., 2013). It is a major pest of field crops grown for food and fiber (CABI, 2019). Further, S. litura has developed varying levels of resistance to some insecticides [e.g., cotton crops in Pakistan (Ahmad et al., 2007)].


Based on its current distribution and the distribution of its hosts in the PRA area, we define the area endangered by S. litura to be Plant Hardiness Zones 8-13 in the United States, which corresponds to parts of Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Louisiana, Mississippi, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, South Carolina, Texas, Washington, and the U.S. Territories.


Assessment of the likelihood of introduction of Spodoptera litura into the endangered area via the importation of Ananas comosus from Indonesia Risk Element Risk Rating Uncertainty



Low MC Spodoptera litura is considered only an occasional pest of pineapple (Petty et al., 2002). We found no other reports of pineapple as a host of S. litura.


Ver. 1.0 April 10, 2019 45




Low

MU Spodoptera litura larvae feed gregariously (Ahmad et al., 2013), and feeding damage would likely be noticeable during post-harvest processing and inspection. Furthermore, eggs are noticeable as they are laid in batches and covered in hair scales (EPPO, n.d.). However, because egg masses and some newly hatched larvae may go undetected and survive post-harvest processing we did not change the risk rating.


Low

MC Fresh pineapple fruits from Indonesia will be shipped in precooled containers at 7-9 °C (IAQA, 2016). We found no evidence suggesting that the population would decrease or be eliminated at this temperature range. Therefore, the rating remains unchanged.


Low N/A


Ver. 1.0 April 10, 2019 46




Low

MC Spodoptera litura is highly polyphagous on cultivated and wild hosts (CABI, 2019). Adults would likely fly away during harvest processes, so only eggs and caterpillars would be left on the commodity after post-harvest processing. Caterpillars would not likely travel far to a new host. For establishment to occur, multiple individuals would have to successfully develop to the late larval instar stage on the leaves of pineapple crowns discarded into the environment, pupate, emerge as an adult, and find a mate and a suitable host plant to lay eggs. Considering the low likelihood of all these conditions being met, we rated this risk element Low.


High

MC More than 25 percent of the U.S. population lives in the area expected to be endangered by S. litura (PERAL, 2015). Assuming that demand is tied to population size, we believed the likelihood of S. litura arriving in the endangered area is high.


Medium

N/A


Medium N/A


Ver. 1.0 April 10, 2019 47

Assessment of the consequences of introduction of Spodoptera litura into the continental United States and U.S. territories Criteria Meets

criteria? (Y/N)

Uncertainty Ratinga



Yes

MU Spodoptera litura has caused damage to peanuts in Taiwan (Tuan et al., 2014) and to cotton crops in Pakistan (Ahmad et al., 2007). While growers in the endangered area routinely control similar pests, such has Helicoverpa zea (Brickle et al., 2001) and Heliothis virescens (Luttrell, 1994). The altered application timing needed for certain insecticides and the possibility of resistance could result in higher production costs from this insect.


Yes MU Male S. litura adults have been documented as flying up to 5.9 km in a single night (Wakamura et al., 1990).


Yes N/A


Yes N/A

aC=Certain, MC=Moderately Certain, MU=Moderately Uncertain, U=Uncertain 4. Summary and Conclusions of Risk Assessment Of the organisms associated with A. comosus (pineapple) worldwide and present in Indonesia, we identified nine that are quarantine pests for all or part of the United States and Territories and have a reasonable likelihood of being associated with the commodity following harvesting from the field and prior to any post-harvest processing. We further evaluated these organisms for their likelihood of introduction (i.e., entry plus establishment) and their potential consequences of introduction. Of the pests selected for further analysis, we determined that two are not candidates for risk management because they are unlikely to cause unacceptable consequences of introduction. We summarize the results for these pests in Table 3. All the other pests selected for further analysis are candidates for risk management because they are likely to cause


Ver. 1.0 April 10, 2019 48

unacceptable consequences of introduction, and they received a likelihood of introduction risk rating above Negligible. We summarize the results for these pests in Table 4. Detailed examination and choice of appropriate phytosanitary measures to mitigate pest risk are part of the pest risk management phase within APHIS and are not addressed in this document. Table 3. Summary for pests selected for further evaluation and determined not to be candidates for risk management. Pest Reason the pest is not a candidate for risk management

Dolichotetranychus floridanus

Does not meet the threshold to likely cause unacceptable direct economic impacts

Eutetranychus orientalis Does not meet the threshold to likely cause unacceptable direct economic impacts

Table 4. Summary for pests selected for further evaluation and determined to be candidates for risk management. All of these pests meet the threshold for unacceptable consequences of introduction. Pest Likelihood of Introduction overall rating

Rhabdoscelus obscurus Medium Bactrocera dorsalis High Darna pallivitta Low Darna trima Medium Parasa lepida Medium Setothosea asigna Medium Spodoptera litura Medium 5. Literature Cited Abbas, H. K., and C. M. Ocamb. 1995. First report of production of fumonisin B1 by Fusarium

polyphialidicum collected from seeds of Pinus strobus. Plant Disease 79:642. AFFA. 2002. Import Risk Analysis (IRA) for the Importation of Fresh Pineapple Fruit (Final

IRA Report). Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Australia. Ahmad, M., A. Ghaffar, and M. Rafiq. 2013. Host plants of leaf worm, Spodoptera litura

(Fabricius) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in Pakistain. Asian Journal of Agriculture and Biology 1(1):23-28.

Ahmad, M., M. Iqbal Arif, and M. Ahmad. 2007. Occurrence of insecticide resistance in field populations of Spodoptera litura (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in Pakistan. Crop Protection 26(6):809-817.

Angerilli, N. P. D., A. D. Permana, Y. Sasaerila, R. Hallett, R. Zilahi-Balogh, and R. Edmonds. 1998. Prospecting for insect pheromones in Indonesia: finds, failures, and the future. Journal of Asia-Pacific Entomology 1(1):25-33.


Ver. 1.0 April 10, 2019 49

APPPC. 1987. Insect pests of economic significance affecting major crops of countries in Asia and the Pacific region. in. FAO, Bangkok, Thailand.

Arbogast, R. T., and S. R. Chini. 2005. Abundance of Plodia interpunctella (Hubner) and Cadra cautella (Walker) infesting maize stored on South Carolina farms: seasonal and non-seasonal variation. Journal of Stored Products Research 41:528-243.

Archibald, R. D., and I. Chalmers. 1983. Stored product Coleoptera in New Zealand. New Zealand Entomologist 7(4):371-397.

Avidov, Z., and I. Harpaz. 1969. Plant Pests of Israel. Israel Universities Press, Jerusalem. 1-549 pp.

Ben-Dov, Y. 1993. A Systematic Catalogue of the Soft Scale Insects of the World. Pages 1-536 in Flora and Fauna Handbook: No. 9. Sandhill Crane Press, Gainesville, FL.

Ben-Dov, Y. 1994. A Systematic Catalogue of the Mealybugs of the World (Insecta: Homoptera: Coccoidea: Pseudococcidae and Putoidae) with Data on Geographical Distribution, Host Plants, Biology and Economic Importance. Intercept Limited, Andover, U.K. 686 pp.

Ben-Dov, Y., M. L. Williams, and C. H. Ray. 1975. Taxonomy of the mango shield scale Protopulvinaria mangiferae (Green) (Hopotera: Coccidae). Israel Journal of Entomology 10:1-17.

Bernays, E. A., R. F. Chapman, J. Macdonald, and J. E. R. Salter. 1976. The degree of oligophagy in Locusta migratoria (L.). Ecological Entomology 1(223-230).

Bolland, H. R., J. Gutierrez, and C. H. Flechtmann. 1998. World catalogue of the spider mite family (Acari:Tetranychidae). Pages 1-392 in. Brill Academic Publishers, Incorporated.

Brickle, D. S., S. G. Turnipseed, and M. J. Sullivan. 2001. Efficacy of insecticides of different chemistries against Helicoverpa zea (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in transgenic Bacillus thuringiensis and conventional cotton. Journal of Economic Entomology 94(1):86-92.

Brown, S. D. J., K. F. Armstrong, and R. H. Cruickshank. 2012. Molecular phylogenetics of a South Pacific sap beetle species complex (Carpophilus spp., Coleoptera: Nitidulidae). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 64:428-440.

Bruton, B. D., J. M. Wells, G. E. Lester, and C. L. Patterson. 1991. Pathogenicity and characterization of Erwinia ananas causing a postharvest disease of cantaloup fruit. Plant Disease 75:180-183.

Butani, D. K. 1975. Insect pests of fruit crops and their control: Pine-apple. Pesticides 9(1):21-22.

CABI. 2019. Crop Protection Compendium. CAB International. https://www.cabi.org/cpc/contact-us/. (Archived at PERAL).

Carter, W. 1967. Insects and Related Pests of Pineapple in Hawaii. Pineapple Research Institute of Hawaii, Honolulu. 105 pp.

Cating, R. A., J. C. Hong, A. J. Palmateer, C. M. Stiles, and E. R. Dickstein. 2008. First report of bacterial soft rot on Vanda orchids, caused by Dickeya chrysanthemi (Erwinia chrysanthemi) in the United States. Plant Disease 92:977.

Catley, A. 1969. The Coconut Rhinoceros Beetle Oryctes rhinoceros (L) [Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Dynastinae]. PANS Pest Articles & News Summaries 15(1):18-30.

CDFA. 1996. California plant pest and disease report. California Department of Food and Agriculture.

Cha, J. S., C. Pujol, A. R. Ducusin, E. A. Macion, C. H. Hubbard, and C. I. Kado. 1997. Studies on Pantoea citrea, the causal agent of pink disease of pineapple. Journal of Phytopathology 145:313-319.

https://www.cabi.org/cpc/contact-us/


Ver. 1.0 April 10, 2019 50

Chen, M., P. Chen, H. Ye, R. Yuan, X. Wang, and J. Xu. 2015. Flight capacity of Bactrocera dorsalis (Diptera: Tephritidae) adult females based on flight mill studies and flight muscle ultrastructure. Journal of Insect Science 15(1):141-147.

Chen, H., A. Ota, and G. Fonsah. 2000. Infestation of Sybra alternans, (Cerambycidae: Coleoptera), a Long-Horned Beetle in a Hawaii Banana Plantation. Tropical Fruit Report 4:1-7. Last accessed 2000, August, http://www.harc-hspa.com/Publications/TF4.pdf.

Chun, S., A. Hara, R. Niino-DuPonte, W. Nagamine, P. Conant, and C. Hirayama. 2005. Stinging nettle catepillar, Darna pallivitta: pest alert. in UHM Cooperative Extension Service, ed., Manoa, Hawaii.

Cohic, F. 1958. Contribution à l'étude des cochenilles d'interet economique de Nouvelle-Calédonie et dependances. Commission du Pacifique Sud, New Caldonia. 46 pp.

Coile, N. C., and W. N. Dixon. 2000. Entomology: Ornamentals, Foliage Plants/Ornamentals, Flowering Plants. in Tri-ology. Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Plant Industry, Bureau of Entomology, Nematology & Plant Pathology.

CTAHR. 2018. Pineapple. Crop Knowledge Master. College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources (CTAHR). Integrated Pest Management Program. http://www.extento.hawaii.edu/kbase/crop/crops/pineappl.htm (Archived at PERAL).

Culik, M. P., J. A. Ventura, and D. dos S. Martins. 2007. Scale insects (Hemiptera: Coccidae) of pineapple in the state of Espirito Santo, Brazil. VI International Pineapple Symposium. November 18-23, 2007, Paraiba, Brazil. 2007.

Dasgupta, J., T. K. Pal, and V. D. Hegde. 2016. On Epuraea Erichson of Assam, India (Coleoptera: Nitidulidae: Epuraeinae). Halteres 7:5-28.

Davis, R. I., Y. Arocha, P. Jones, and A. Malau. 2005. First report of the association of phytoplasmas with plant diseases in the territory of Wallis and Futuna. Australasian Plant Pathology 34:417-418.

de Araujo, B. C., S. Schmidt, O. Schmidt, T. von Rintelen, A. Kilmaskossu, R. Panjaitan, and M. Balke. 2018. From field courses to DNA barcoding data release for West Papua- making specimens and identifications from university courses more sustainable. Biodiversity Data Journal 6:1-12.

Denton, G. R. W., R. Muniappan, M. Marutani, J. MacConnell, and T. S. Lali. 1989. Biology and natural enemies of the fruit-piercing moth Othreis fullonia (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) from Guam. ADAP Crop Protection Conference, Mangilao, Guam. 1989.

Desmier de Chenon, R. 1982. Latoia (Parasa) lepida (Cramer) Lepidoptera Limacodidae, ravageur du cocotier en Indonésie. Oléagineux 37(4):177-182.

Desmier de Chenon, R., R. Purnomo, and P. R. Sudharto. 2001. A new pest borer on oil palm bunches in Indonesia (Rhabdoscelus obscurus Boisduval, Coleoptera Curculionidae). Agriculture conference: Proceedings of the 2001 PIPOC International palm oil congress, Mutiara Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

Dharmaputra, O. S. 1999. The occurrence of insects and moulds in stored cocoa beans at South Sulawesi. Biotropia 12(1-18).

Drew, R. A. I., and D. L. Hancock. 1994. The Bactrocera dorsalis complex of fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae: Dacinae) in Asia. Bulletin of Entomological Research: Supplement Series 2(Suppl. 2):1-68.

Duke, J. A. 1983. Ananas comosus (L.) Merr. Pages 6 in Handbook of Energy Crops. Purdue University, Center for New Crops & Plants Products West Lafayette, IN.


Ver. 1.0 April 10, 2019 51

Dutta, A. K., and K. Acharya. 2018. A new host for the parasitic macrofungus Marasmius palmivorus Sharples (Marasmiaceae). Current Science 114:1400-1402.

Ehara, S. 2004. A collection of spider mites (Arachnida: Acari: Tetranychidae) from Sumatra. Species Diversity 9:67-76.

Elbadri, G. A. A., P. De Ley, L. Waeyenberge, A. Vierstraete, M. Moens, and J. Vanfleteren. 2002. Intraspecific variation in Radopholus similis isolates assessed with restriction fragment length polymorphism and DNA sequencing of the internal transcribed spacer region of the ribosomal RNA cistron. International Journal for Parasitology 32:199-205.

El Sayed, M. T. 1935. On the biology of Araecerus fasciculatus De Geer (Co., Anthribidae), with special reference to the effects of variations in the nature and water content of the food. Annals of Applied Biology 22(3):557-577.

EPPO. n.d. Data Sheets on Quarantine Pests: Spodoptera littoralis and Spodoptera litura. European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization. 1-7 pp.

Ewing, C. P., and A. R. Cline. 2005. Key to Adventive Sap Beetles (Coleoptera: Nitidulidae) in Hawaii, with Notes on Records and Habits. The Coleopterist Bulletin 55(2):167-183.

Farr, D. F., and A. Y. Rossman. 2019. Fungal Databaes, U.S. National Fungus Collections. ARS, USDA. https://nt.ars-grin.gov/fungaldatabases/. (Archived at PERAL).

FAVIR. 2019. Fruits and vegetables import requirements. United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine. https://epermits.aphis.usda.gov/manual/index.cfm?action=pubHome. (Archived at PERAL).

Floyd, E. H., and L. D. Newsome. 1959. Biological study of the rice weevil complex. Annals of the Entomological Society of America 52:687-695.

Fredrick, J. M. 1943. Some Preliminary Investigations of the Green Scale, Coccus viridis (Green), in South Florida. The Florida Entomologist 26(1):12-15.

Frohlich, J., N. Raga, E. Philemon, and K. D. Hyde. 1993. Annellolacinia pandanicola sp. nov. with notes A. dinemasporioides from pineapple. Mycological Research 97:1433-1436.

García Morales, M., B. D. Denno, D. R. Miller, G. L. Miller, Y. Ben-Dov, and N. B. Hardy. 2016. ScaleNet: A literature-based model of scale insect biology and systematics. USDA. http://scalenet.info. (Archived at PERAL).

Gavrilov-Zimin, I. A. 2013. New scale insects (Homoptera: Coccinea) from Sulawesi and New Guinea, with some other additions to the Indonesian fauna. Tropical Zoology 26(2):64-68.

Gavrilov-Zimin, I. A. 2017. Taxonomic and faunistic notes on scale insects (Hemiptera: Coccinea) of Bali, Flores and New Guinea (Indonesia). Pages 141-149 in D. Telnov, (ed.). Biodiversity, Biogeography and Nature Conservation in Wallacea and New Guinea. Entomological Society of Latvia, Latvia.

Ghai, S., and M. Shenhmar. 1984. A review of the world fauna of Tenuipalpidae (Acarina: Tetranychoidea). Oriental Insects 18(1):99-172.

Gimpel Jr., W. F., and D. R. Miller. 1996. Systematic analysis of the mealybugs in the Pseudococcus maritimus complex (Homoptera: Pseudococcidae). Contributions on Entomology, International 2(1):1-163.

Goldyn, B., P. R. Guayasamin, K. A. Sanchez, and L. Hepting. 2016. Notes on the distribution and invasion potential of Achatina fulica Bowdich, 1822 (Gastropoda: Pulmonata: Achatinidae) in Ecuador. Folia Malacologica 24(2):85-90.

https://nt.ars-grin.gov/fungaldatabases/


Ver. 1.0 April 10, 2019 52

Gonzalez-Zamora, J. E., C. Lopez, and C. Avilla. 2011. Population studies of arthropods on Melia azedarach in Seville (Spain), with special reference to Eutetranychus orientalis (Acari: Tetranychidae) and its natural enemies. Experimental & Applied Acarology 55:389-400.

GPAS. 2006. Common leaf eating pests of oil palm and their control. Pages 4 in. Gurthrie Plantation and Agricultural Services (GPAS), Malaysia.

Gressitt, J. L. 1953. The Coconut Rhinoceros Beetle (Oryctes rhinoceros) with particular Reference to the Palau Islands [Abstract].1-157.

Gressitt, J. L. 1956. Insects of Micronesia Coleoptera: Cerambycidae. Insects of Micronesia 17(2):1-127.

Guerout, R. 1975. Nematodes of pineapple: A review PANS Pest Articles and News Summaries 21:123-140.

Gurule, S. A., S. M. Nikam, A. J. Kharat, and J. H. Gangurde. 2010. Checklist of owlet and underwing moths (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae from Nashik district, (MS) India. Flora and Funa 16(2):295-304.

Haegeman, A., A. Elsen, D. De Waele, and G. Gheysen. 2010. Emerging molecular knowledge on Radopholus similis, an important nematode pest of banana. Molecular Plant Pathology 11:315-323.

Halfpapp, K. H., and R. I. Storey. 1991. Cane weevil borer, Rhabdoscelus obscurus (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), a pest of palms in Northern Queensland Australia. Journal of the International Palm Society 35(4):199-207.

Hallett, R. H., A. L. Perez, G. Gries, R. P. Gries, H. D. , J. Yue, A. C. Oehlschlager, L. M. Gonzalez, and J. H. Borden. 1995. Aggregation pheromone of coconut rhinoceros beetle, Oryctes rhinoceros (L.) (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae). Journal of Chemical Ecology 21(10):1549-1570.

Hamon, A., and M. L. Williams. 1984. The soft scale insects of Florida (Homoptera: Coccoidea: Coccidae) (Contribution No. 600. Bureau of Entomology). Florida Department of Agricultural and Consumer Services, Division of Plant Industry. 194 pp.

Hara, A. H., R. Y. Niino-DuPonte, and C. M. Jacobsen. 2001. Root Mealybugs of Quarantine Significance in Hawaii. National Agricultural Pest Information System. 1-4 pp.

Hara, A. H., K. C. M., and N.-D. R. Y. 2013. Host Range of the Nettle Caterpillar Darna pallivitta (Moore) (Lepidoptera: Limacodidae) in Hawai'i. Pages 183-191 in J. E. Peña, (ed.). Potential Invasive Pests of Agricultural Crops. CABI International, Wallingford, U.K.

Heu, R. 2007. Distribution and host records of agricultural pests and other organisms in Hawaii. Pages 1-71 in. State of Hawaii Department of Agriculture, Plant Industry Division, Plant Pest Control Branch, Survey Program, Honolulu, HI.

Hodgson, C. J., and B. Lagowska. 2011. New scale insect (Hemiptera: Sternorrhyncha: Coccoidea) records from Fiji: Three new species, records of several new invasive species and an updated checklist of Coccoidea. Zootaxa 2766:1-29.

Holloway, J. D., M. J. W. Cock, and R. Desmier de Chenon. 1987. Systematic account of South-east Asian pest Limacodidae. Slug and Nettle Caterpillars: The biology, taxonomy and control of the Limacodidae of economic importance on palms in South-East Asia. Pages 15-177 in M. J. W. Cock, H. C. J. Godfray, and J. D. Holloway, (eds.). Slug and Nettle Caterpillars. CAB International, Wallingford, U. K. .


Ver. 1.0 April 10, 2019 53

Hossler, E. W. 2010. Caterpillars and moths: Part II. Dermatologic manifestations of encounters with Lepidoptera. Journal of American Academy of Dermatology 62(1):13-18.

Howard, F. W., D. Moore, R. M. Giblin-Davis, and R. G. Abad. 2001. Insects on Palms. CABI Publishing, New York. 400 pp.

Hu, M., J. Li, R. Chen, W. Li, L. Feng, L. Shi, Y. Xue, X. Feng, L. Zhang, and J. Zhou. 2018. Dickeya zeae strains isolated from rice, banana and clivia rot plants show great virulence differentials. BMC Microbiology 18:1-15.

Hua, L. Z. 2002. List of Chinese insects Zhongshan University Press, Guangzhou, China. Huffaker, C. B., M. Van de Vrie, and J. A. McMurtry. 1969. The ecology of tetranychid mites

and their control. Annual Review of Entomology 14(1):125-174. Hui, Y. 2001. Distribution of the oriental fruit fly (Diptera: Tephritidae) in Yunnan Province.

Entomolgia Sinica 8(2):175-182. IAQA. 2017. Proposal for fresh pineapple fruits from Indonesia to USA. Pages 1 in. Republic of

Indonesia Ministry of Agriculture, Agency for Agricultural Quarantine, Ragunan, Jakarta Selatan.

IAQA. 2016. Techniqal Information Handbook: Indonesian Pineapple Fruit. in IAQA, ed., Indonesia.

Illingworth, J. F. 1929. Pest of pineapple in Hawaii. Proceedings of the Hawaiian Entomological Society 7(2):254-256.

IPPC. 2017. International Standards For Phytosanitary Measures, Publication No. 11: Pest Risk Analysis for Quarantine Pests. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Secretariat of the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC), Rome, Italy. 36 pp.

IPPC. 2018. International Standards For Phytosanitary Measures, Publication No. 5: Glossary of Phytosanitary Terms. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Secretariat of the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC), Rome, Italy. 38 pp.

Inserra, R. N., J. D. Stanley, A. Ochoa, T. S. Schubert, S. A. Subbotin, W. T. Crow, and R. McSorley. 2014. Hemicriconemoides species as crop damaging parasitic nematodes in Florida Pages 6 in DPI Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, ed. Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Plant Industry, Gainesville, FL.

ISSCT. 1965. Sugarcane diseases and their world distribution. Pathology:1245-1269. Jang, E. B., M. S. Siderhurst, P. Contant, and L. A. Siderhurst. 2009. Phenology and population

radiation of the nettle caterpillar, Darna pallivitta (Moore) (Lepidoptera: Limacodidae) in Hawai'i. Chemoecology 19(1):7-12.

Jeppson, L. R., H. H. Keifer, and E. W. Baker. 1975. Mites Injurious to Economic Plants. University of California Press, Los Angeles. 1-679 pp.

Jihan, Suharto, and S. Prastowo. 2014. Studi biologi dan preferensi Carpophilus dimidiatus F. (Coleoptera: Nitidulidae) pada beberapa jenis kacang-kacangan. Berkala Ilmiah Pertanian 1(4):73-76.

Jouvenaz, D. P., G. E. Allen, B. W. A., and D. P. Wojcik. 1977. A survey for pathogens of fire ants Solenopsis spp. in the Southeastern United States. The Florida Entomologist 60(4):275-279.

Joy, P. P., R. Anjana, and K. K. Soumya. 2016. Insect pests of pineapple and their management. in A. K. Pandey and P. Mall, (eds.). Insect pest management of fruit crops. Biotech, India.


Ver. 1.0 April 10, 2019 54

Joy, P. P., and G. Sindhu. 2012. Diseases of pineapple (Ananas comosus): pathogen, symptoms, infection, spread and management. Pineapple Research Station, Kerala Agricultural University, Kerala, India. 15 pp.

Kado, C. I. 2003. Pink disease of pineapple. APSnet: 1-5. Kimura, M. T., and A. Suwito. 2012. Diversity and abundance of frugivorous drosophilids and

their parasitoids in Bogor, Indonesia. Journal of Natural History 46:31-32. Kishimoto, C. M. 2006. The stinging nettle caterpillar, Darna pallivitta (Moore) (Lepidoptera:

Limacodidae) in Hawaii, Its current host range, biology and population dynamics. University of Hawaii, Hawaii.

Knight, D., and M. J. Bangs. 2007. Cutaneoud allergic vasculitis due to Solenopsis geminata (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) envenomation in Indonesia. Southeast Asian Journal of Tropical Medicine and Public Health 38(5):808-813.

Leindgren, D. L., and L. E. Vincent. 1953. Nitidulid beetles infesting California dates. Hilgardia 22(2):97-118.

Lever, R. J. A. W. 1947. Insect pests of some economic crops in Fiji No. 2. Bulletin of Entomological Research 38(1):137-143.

Li, L. y., R. Wang, and D. F. Waterhouse. 1997. The Distribution and Importance of Arthropod Pests and Weeds of Agriculture and Forestry Plantations in Southern China. Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Guangdong Entomological Institute, Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research, Canberra, Australia. 1-185 pp.

Lim, W. H., and P. H. Lowing. 1977. Insects associated with collapsed pineapple fruit, heart rot plants and inflorescences. MADRIS Research Bulletin 5(2):153-157.

Lin, M. G., X. Wang, L. Zeng, Y. Zhang, and B. Cai. 2013. Survey of species, geographical distribution and damage of fruit flies in Hainan, China. Plant Quarantine 27(5):85-89.

Litsinger, J. A., A. T. Barrion, B. L. Canapi, E. M. Libetario, P. C. Pantua, R. F. Apostol, M. D. Lumaban, and R. F. Macatula. 2015. Leptocorisa rice seed bugs (Hemiptera: Alydidae) in Asia: a review. The Phillippine Entomologist 29(1):1-103.

Luckmann, W. H., J. T. Shaw, D. W. Sherrod, and W. G. Ruesink. 1976. Development rate of the black cutworm. Journal of Economic Entomology 69(3):386-388.

Luo, Z., H. Fan, X. Li, Y. Liu, M. Hua, X. Wang, N. Yu, W. Zhou, and F. He. 2012. Study on several fungal leaf diseases of pineapple of Hainan. Southwest China Journal of Agricultural Sciences 25:1703-1707.

Luttrell, R. G. 1994. Cotton pest management: Part 2. A US perspective. Annual Review of Entomology 39:527-542.

Magarey, R. D., D. M. Borchert, and J. W. Schlegel. 2008. Global plant hardiness zones for phytosanitary risk analysis. Scientia Agricola 65:54-59.

Marlatt, C. L. 1908. The genus Pseudaonidia. Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington 9:131-141.

Martinez, M. A., M. Suris, and I. Perez. 2000. Paracoccus marginatus in Cuba. Biocontrol News and Information 21(2).

Marasas, W. F. O., L. W. Burgess, R. Y. Anelich, S. C. Lamprecht, and D. J. van Schalkwyk. 1988. Survey of Fusarium species associated with plant debris in South African soils. South African Journal of Botany 54:63-71.

Meyer, M. K. P. 1987. African Tetranychidae (Acari: Prostigmata) - with reference to the world genera: Eutetranychus orientalis. Plant Protection Research Institute, Pretoria, South Africa.


Ver. 1.0 April 10, 2019 55

Mille, C., R. C. Hendereson, S. Cazeres, and H. Jourdan. 2016. Checklist of the scale insects (Hemiptera:Sternorrhyncha: Coccomorpha) of New Caldonia. Zoosystema 38(2):129-176.

Miller, D. R., V. L. Blackburn, J. A. Davidson, and W. F. Gimpel Jr. 1985. Pest risk assessment of armored scales on certain fruit [report submitted to USDA, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine]. Pages 35 in A. R. S. A. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), ed., Beltsville, MD.

Miller, D. R. 2005. Selected scale insect groups (Hemiptera: Coccoidea) in the southern region of the United States. Florida Entomologist 88(4):482-501.

Miller, D. R., G. L. Miller, G. S. Hodges, and J. A. Davidson. 2005. Introduced scale insects (Hemiptera: Coccoidea) of the United States adn their impact on U. S. Agriculture. Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington 107(1):123-158.

Miller, D. R., D. J. Williams, and A. B. Hamon. 1999. Notes on a New Mealybug (Hemiptera: Coccoidea: Pseudococcidae) Pest in Florida and the Caribbean: the Papaya mealybug, Paracoccus marginatus Williams and Granara de Willink. Insecta Mundi 13(3-4):179-181.

Mito, T., T. Uesugi, and 2004. Invasive alien species in Japan: the status quo and the new regulation for prevention of their adverse effects. Global Environmental Research 8(2):171-193.

Muniappan, R., J. Bamba, J. Cruz, and G. V. P. Reddy. 2004. Field response of Guam populations of the New Guinea sugarcane weevil, Rhabdoscelus obscurus (Biosduval) (Coleoptera: Curcukionidae), to aggregation pheromones and food volatiles. Micronesica 317(1):57-68.

Muniappan, R., M. B. Shepard, G. R. Carner, and P. A.-C. Ooi. 2012. Arthropod pest in horticulture crops in tropical Asia. CABI, Malta.

Murphy, S. M., S. M. Leahy, L. S. Williams, and J. T. Lill. 2009. Stinging spines protect slug caterpillars (Limacodidae) from multiple generalist predators. Behavioral Ecology 21(1):153-160.

Nafus, D., and I. Schreiner. 1999. Insect Pests of Micronesia: Crop List. Northern Marianas College, Cooperative Research Extension and Education Service. (Archived at PERAL).

Nagamine, W. T., and M. E. Epstein. 2007. Chronicles of Darna pallivitta (Moore 1877) (Lepidoptera: Limacodidae): biology and larval morphology of a new pest in Hawaii. The Pan-Pacific Entomologist 83(2):120-135.

Nakahara, S. 1982. Checklist of the armored scales (Homoptera: Diaspididae) of the conterminous United States. United States Department of Agriculture, USA.

Nakahara, S. 1994. The Genus Thrips Linnaeus (Thysanoptera: Thripidae) of the New World. Pages 1-148 in Technical Bulletin: No. 1822. United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Beltsville, MD.

Nansen, C., T. W. Phillips, and W. Palmer. 2004. Analysis of the insect community in a stored-maize facility. Ecological Research 19:197-207.

Napompeth, B., T. Nishida, and W. C. Mitchell. 1972. Biology and rearing methods of the New Guinea sugarcane weevil, Rhabdoscelus obscurus. Pages 53 in H. A. E. Station, ed., Hawaii.

Ngampongsai, A., B. Barrett, S. Permkam, N. Suthapradit, and R. Nilla-or. 2005. A preliminary study on some ecological aspects of the fruit piercing moths in Songkhla Province of Southern Thailand. Songklanakarin Journal of Science and Technology 27(6):1135-1145.


Ver. 1.0 April 10, 2019 56

NIS. 2008. Change in action status for armored scales (Hemiptera: Diaspididae) on material for consumption (NIS action policy, March 25, 2008). Pages 2 in APHIS. United States Department of Agriculture, Plant Protection and Quarantine, National Identification Services (NIS), ed.

Noordam, D. 2004. Aphids of Java. Part V: Aphidini (Homoptera: Aphididae). Zoologische Verhandelingen Leiden 346:7-83.

NRCS. 2019. The PLANTS Database United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). http://plants.usda.gov. (Archived at PERAL).

Nugnes, F., E. Russo, G. Viggiani, and U. Bernardo. 2018. First Record of an Invasive Fruit Fly Belonging to Bactrocera dorsalis Complex (Diptera: Tephritidae) in Europe. Insects 9(4):182;.

O'Bannon, J. H. 1977. Worldwide dissemination of Radopholus similis and its importance in crop production. Journal of Nematology 9:16.

PERAL. 2015. Plant Hardiness Zones of the United States: Area and Population Analysis (Rev.Original). Pages 8 in APHIS, United States Department of Agriculture, Plant Protection and Quarantine, Center for Plant Health Science and Technology, Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory (PERAL), ed., Raleigh, NC.

PERAL. 2007. Phytosanitary risks associated with armored scales in commercial shipments of fruit for consumption to the United States, Revision Original. Pages 24 in APHIS, United States Department of Agriculture, Plant Protection and Quarantine, Center for Plant Health Science and Technology, Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory (PERAL), ed., Raleigh, NC.

PestID. 2019. Pest Identification Database. United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine. https://aqas.aphis.usda.gov/aqas/HomePageInit.do (Archived at PERAL).

Petty, G. J., G. R. Stirling, and D. P. Bartholomew. 2002. Pests of pineapple. Pages 157-195 in J. E. Pena, J. L. Sharp, and M. Wysoki, (eds.). Tropical Fruit Pests and Pollinators: Biology, Economic Importance, Natural Enemies and Control. CAB International, Wallingford U. K. .

Pillai, K. S., and G. R. Ayyar. 1968. Biology of Parasa lepida Cram., a pest of coconut in Kerala. Agricultural Research Journal of Kerala 6(2):101-104.

Poli, R. C. D. 1991. The biology of the false spider mite Dolichotetranychus floridanus: a pest of pineapple in central Queensland, Universtiy of Central Queensland, Queensland, Australia.

Pong, V. M., Z. Abidin, B. S. A. Almaliky, J. Kadir, and M.-Y. Wong. 2012. Isolation, fruiting and pathogenicity of Marasmiellus palmivorus (Sharples) Desjardin (comb. prov.) in oil palm plantations in West Malaysia. Pertanika Journal of Tropical Agricultural Science: 38-48.

PPQ. 2012. Guidelines for Plant Pest Risk Assessment of Imported Fruit and Vegetable Commodities, Version 6.0. United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ), Raleigh, NC.

Prasetyo, J., and T. N. Aeny. 2014. Pineapple fruit collapse: newly emerging disease of pineapple fruit in Lampung, Indonesia. Journal of HPT Tropika 14:96-99.

Rappard, F. W. 1950. The snail Achatina fulica, a danger to young teak plantations [Abstract]. Tectona 10(3/4):365-366.


Ver. 1.0 April 10, 2019 57

Raut, S. K., and G. M. Barker. 2002. Achatina fulica Bowdich and Other Achatinidae as Pests in Tropical Agriculture. Pages 55-114 in G. M. Barker, (ed.). Molluscs as Crop Pests. CABI Publishing, Hamilton, New Zealand.

Robinson, G. S., P. R. Ackery, I. J. Kitching, G. W. Beccaloni, and L. M. Hernandez. 2001. Hostplants of the Moth and Butterfly Caterpillars of the Oriental Region. The National History Museum, London. 1-744 pp.

Rohrbach, K. G., and M. W. Johnson. 2003. Pests, diseases and weeds. in D. P. Bartholomew, R. E. Paull, and K. G. Rohrbach, (eds.). The pineapple: Botany, productions and uses. CABI, Wallingford U. K. .

Roth, L. M. 1967. Sexual isolation in parthenogenetic Pycnoscelus surinamensis and application of the name Pycnoscelus indicus to its bisexual relative (Dictyoptera: Blattaria: Blaberidae: Pycnoscelinae). Annals of the Entomological Society of America 60(4):774-779.

Sakimura, K., and M. B. Linford. 1940. An annotated list of insects from Lanai. Proceedings of the Hawaiian Entomological Society 10(3):451-454.

Sallam, M. N., and S. W. Garrad. 2001. Distribution and sampling of adults of Rhabdoscelus obscurus (Boisduval) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) and their damage in sugarcane. Australian Journal of Entomology 40(281-285).

Sanches, N. F., and C. H. W. Fletchman. 1982. Acarofauna do abacaxizeiro na Bahia. Anaias da Sociedade Entomologica do Brasil 11(1):147-155.

Santoso, P. J., I. N. P. Aryantha, A. Pancoro, and S. Suhandono. 2015. Identification of Pythium and Phytophthora associated with durian (Durio sp.) in Indonesia: their molecular and morphological characteristics and distribution. Asian Journal of Plant Pathology 9:59-71.

Sasaerila, Y., G. Gries, R. Gries, and T. C. Boo. 2000. Specificity of communication channels in four limacodid moths: Darna bradleyi, Darna trima, Setothosea asigna, and Setora nitens (Lepidoptera: Limacodidae). Chemoecology 10:193-199.

Schaad, N. W., and D. Brenner. 1977. A bacterial wilt and root rot of sweet potato caused by Erwinia chrysanthemi. Phytopathology 67:302-308.

Schmidt, C. T. 1935. Biological studies on the nitidulid beetles found in pineapple fields. Annals of the Entomological Society of America 28:475-511.

Schutze, M. K., M. N. Krosch, K. F. Armstrong, T. A. Chapman, A. Englezou, A. Chomic, S. L. Cameron, D. Hailstones, and A. R. Clarke. 2012. Population structure of Bactrocera dorsalis ss, B. papayae and B. philippinensis (Diptera: Tephritidae) in southeast Asia: evidence for a single species hypothesis using mitochondrial DNA and wing-shape data. BMC Evolutionary Biology 12(130):1-15.

Selvaraj, S., D. Adiroubane, V. Ramesh, and A. L. Narayanan. 2010. Impact of ecological factors on incidence and development of tobacco cut worm, Spodoptera litura Fabricius on cotton. Journal of Biopesticides 3(SI):43-46.

Shivas, R. G., S. Suyoko, N. Raga, and K. D. Hyde. 1996. Some disease-associated microorganisms on plants in Irian Jaya, Indonesia. Australasian Plant Pathology 25:36-49.

Sidik, M., H. Halid, and R. I. Pranata. 1985. Pest porblems and the use of pesticides in grain storage in Indonesia. Pages 37-44 in B. R. Champ and E. Highley, (eds.). Proceedings of an international seminar. ACIAR, Manila, Philippines.

Singh, J., and M. Raghuraman. 2011. Emerging scenario of important mite pests in north India. Zoosymposia 6:170-179.


Ver. 1.0 April 10, 2019 58

SIPMC. 2017. National IPM database: crop profiles. Southern Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Center (SIPMC). (Archived at PERAL).

Siwi, S. S., and P. H. Van Doesburg. 1984. Leptocorisa Latreille in Indonesia (Heteroptera, Coreidae, Alydinae). Zoologische Mededelingen 58(7):117-129.

Smee, L. 1965. Insect pests of Cocos nucifera in the territory of Papua and New Guinea: their habits and control. The Papau and New Guinea Agricultural Journal 17(2):51-64.

Solis, M. A. 2006. Key to selected Pyraloidea (lepidoptera) larvae intercepted at U. S. ports of entery: revision of Pyraloidea in 'keys to some frequently intercepted lepidopterous larvae" by Weisman 1986. in U. S. E. Laboratory, ed.

Spodek, M., Y. Ben-Dov, L. Mondaca, A. Protasov, E. Erel, and Z. Mendel. 2018. The cotton mealybug, Phenacoccus solenopsis Tinsley (Hempitera: Pseudococcidae) in Israel: pest status, host plants and natural enemies. Phytoparasitica 46:45-55.

Steiner, L. F. 1957. Field evaluation of oriental fruit fly insecticides in Hawaii1. Journal of Economic Entomology 50(1):16-24.

Stępień, Ł., G. Koczyk, and A. Waśkiewicz. 2013. Diversity of Fusarium species and mycotoxins contaminating pineapple. Journal of Applied Genetics 54:367-380.

Stocks, I. C., and A. Roda. 2011. The passionvine mealybug, Planococcus minor (Maskell), a new exotic mealybug in south Florida (Hemiptera: Pseudococcus). Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Service, Division of Plant Industry.

Stone, A., C. W. Sabrosky, W. W. Wirth, R. H. Foote, and J. R. Coulson. 1965. A Catalog of the Diptera of America north of Mexico (Agriculture Handbook No. 276). USDA, Washington, D.C. 1669 pp.

Suh, S.-J. 2016. Armoured scale insects (Hemiptera: Diaspididae) intercepted at the ports of entry in the Republic of Korea over the last 20 years. Bulletin OEPP/EPPO Bulletin 46(2):313-331.

Suharto, H., and I. Manwan. 1993. The synthetic sex pheromone for studying distribution, fluctuation and monitoring the army worm Spodoptera litura F. (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) on soybean. Pages 284-290 in International Organization for Biological and Integrated Control for Noxious Animals and Plants.

Suparman, Y. Pujiastuti, H. Bando, and S.-I. Asano. 2014. Serial dilution of nettle caterpillar viruses applied as bioinsecticide against Setothosea asigna van Eecke (Lepidoptera: Limacodidae) the important pest of oil palm. Journal of Advanced Agricultural Technologies 1(3):136-140.

Suputa, Y. A. Trisyono, E. Martono, and S. S. Diwi. 2010. Update on the host range of different species of fruit flies from Indonesia. Jurnal Perlindungan Tanaman Indonesia 16(2):62-75.

Sutton, B. C. 1964. Coelomycetes III. Annellolacinia Gen. nov., Aristastoma, Phaeocytostroma, Seimatosporium, etc. Mycological Papers 97:1-23.

Tamanikaiyaroi, R. 1997. Cane Weevil Borer (Rhabdoscelus obscurus Boisd.) Damage on Mana Cane in Western Vitilevu. Journal of South Pacific Agriculture 4(1/2):49-54.

Terry, F. W. 1907. The sugar cane borer (Sphenophorus obscurus) in the Hawaiian Islands. Department of Entomology, Experiment Station, Hawaiian Sugar Planters' Association, Honolulu, Hawaii. 1-22 pp.

Tuan, S.-J., C.-C. Lee, and H. Chi. 2014. Population and damage projection of Spodoptera litura (F.) on peanuts (Arachis hypogaea L.) under different conditions using the age-stage, two-sex life table. Pest Management Science 70(5):805-813.


Ver. 1.0 April 10, 2019 59

Tuyet, N. T., H. HuuNhI, I. Van den Bergh, A. Elsen, and D. De Waele. 2008. Occurrence of Pratylenchus coffeae on agricultural crops in Vietnam. International Journal of Nematology 18:174-180.

USDA-APHIS. 1983. Pests not known to occur in the United States or of limited distribution, No. 41: Oriental red mite. Pages 6 in USDA, ed. United State Department of Agriculture (USDA), Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS).

USDA-APHIS. 2018. Phytosanitary Certificate Issuance & Tracking System (PCIT). https://pcit.aphis.usda.gov/. (Archived at PERAL).

USDA-FAS. 2018. Global Agricultural Trade Service (GATS) Online. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) http://apps.fas.usda.gov/gats/. (Archived at PERAL).

Vacante, V. 2010. Review of the Phytophagous Mites Collected on Citrus in the World. Acarologia 50(2):221-241.

Van Zwaluwenburg, R. H., and J. S. Rosa. 1940. Field Movement of Sugar Cane Beetle Borer Adults. Hawaiian Planters' Record 44(1):3-6.

Vaurie, P. 1966. A revision of the neotropical genus Metamasius (Coleoptera, Curculionidae, Rhynchophorinae) species groups I and II. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 131:211-338.

Vincent, C., G. Hallman, B. Panneton, and F. Fleurat-Lessard. 2004. Management of agricultural insects with physical control methods. Annual Review of Entomology 48:261-281.

Waite, G., and R. Elder. 2004. Elephant Beetles in Lychees & Longans. Wakamura, S., S. Kozai, K. Kegasawa, and H. Inoue. 1990. Population dynamics of adult

Spodoptera litura (Fabricius) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae): dispersal distance of male moths and its seasonal change. Applied Entomology and Zoology 25(4):447-456.

Walter, D. E., R. B. Halliday, and D. Smith. 1995. The Oriental Red Mite, Eutetranychus orientalis (Klein) (Acarina: Tetranychidae), in Australia Journal of the Australian Entomological Society 34:307-308.

Wan, X., Y. Liu, and B. Zhang. 2012. Invasion History of the Oriental Fruit Fly, Bactrocera dorsalis, in the Pacific-Asia Region: Two Main Invasion Routes. PLoS ONE 7(5):e36176.

Waterhouse, D. F. 1993. The major arthropod pests and weeds of agriculture in Southeast Asia: distribution, importance, and origin. Australian Center for International Agricultural Research, Australia.

Weems, H. V. 1964. Oriental fruit fly (Dacus dorsalis Hendel) (Diptera: Tephritidae). Entomology Circular 21.

White, I. M., and M. M. Elson-Harris. 1992. Fruit Flies of Economic Significance: Their Identification and Bionomics. CAB International, Wallingford, UK. 1-601 pp.

Whitton, S. R., E. H. C. McKenzie, and K. D. Hyde. 2012. Anamorphic fungi associated with Pandanaceae. Pages 125-338 in Fungi associated with Pandanaceae. Springer, New York.

Williams, D. J. 2004. Mealybugs of Southern Asia. The Natural History Museum, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. 896 pp.

Williams, D. J., and G. W. Watson. 1990. The Scale Insects of the Tropical South Pacific Region: The Soft Scales (Coccidae) and Other Families (Part 3). CAB International, Wallingford, UK. 1-267 pp.

Williams, F. X. 1931. The insects and other invertebrates of Hawaiian sugar cane fields. Hawaiian Sugar planters' Association, Hawaii.


Ver. 1.0 April 10, 2019 60

Williams, R. N., D. S. Fickle, M. Kehat, D. Blumberg, and M. G. Klein. 1983. Bibliography of the genus Carpophilus Stephens (Coleoptera: Nitidulidae) (Research Circular 278). Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center. 1-100 pp.

Wood, S. L., and D. E. Bright. 1992. A Catalog of Scolytidae and Platypodidae (Coleoptera), Part 2: Taxonomic Index (Vol. A). Brigham Young University, Provo, UT. 1-833 pp.

Yamaziki, K., K. Nakanishi, and H. Sawada. 2013. Ecology of the blue-striped grub moth Parasa lepida (Lepidoptera: Limacodidae) in Japan. in E. Guerritore and J. DeSare, (eds.). Lepidotera: classification, behavior, and ecology. Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Ye, H., and J. H. Liu. 2005. Population dynamics of the oriental fruit fly, Bactrocera dorsalis (Diptera: Tephritidae) in the Kunming area, southwestern China. Insect Science 12(5):387-392.

Yehuda, S. B., M. Wysoki, and D. Rosen. 1992. Phenology of the honeydew moth, Cryptoblabes gnidiella (Milliere) (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae), on avocado in Israel. Israel Journal of Entomology 25/26:149-160.

Yunus, A., and T. H. Ho. 1980. List of economic pests, host plants, parasites and predators in West Malaysia (1920-1978). Pages 539 in MoA. Malaysia, ed., Malaysia.

Zhang, N., X. Zhang, and M. Ren. 2009. The pineapple disease and pests in China and their control South China fruit 3:52-55.

Zhu, D.-H., S.-S. Cui, Y.-S. Fan, and Z. Liu. 2013. Adaptive strategies of overwintering adults: Reproductive diapause and mating behavior in a grasshopper, Stenocatantops splendens (Orthoptera: Catantopidae). Insect Science 20(235-244).

Zimmerman, E. C. 1993. Family Rhynchophoridae Schoenherr. Pages 41-131. In Australian Weevils (Coleoptera: Curculionoidea), Volume III Nanophyidae, Rhynchophoridae, Erirhinidae, Curculionidae: Amycterinae, Literature Consulted.

Zriki, G., A. Shaabo, and A. Boubou. 2015. A preliminary survey of the spider mites (Acari: Tetranychidae) in Latakia governorate of Syria. Acarologia 55(3):303-309.


Ver. 1.0 April 10, 2019 61

6. Appendix The listed organisms are potentially associated with pineapple and present in Indonesia. Because these organisms are not quarantine pests for the United States, we did not list them in Table 1 of this risk assessment, and we did not evaluate the strength of the evidence for their association with pineapple fruit or their presence in Indonesia. Organism Evidence and/or other notes ARTHROPODS ACARI Acaridae Tyrophagus putrescentiae (Schrank)

Presence in the U.S. and Indonesia (CABI, 2019). Association with A. comosus (Sanches and Flechtmann, 1982).

Tarsonemidae Steneotarsonemus ananas (Tryon)

Presence in the U.S. (Carter, 1967). Presence in Indonesia and association with A. comosus (Petty et al., 2002).

INSECTA BLATTODEA Blaberidae Pycnoscelus surinamensis (Linnaeus)

Presence in the U.S. and Indonesia (Roth, 1967). Association with A. comosus (Lever, 1947).

COLEOPTERA Anthribidae Araecerus fasciculatus (DeGeer) Presence in the U.S. (Carter, 1967; CDFA, 1996; El Sayed,

1935) and Indonesia (APPPC, 1987; Waterhouse, 1993). Association with A. comosus (Carter, 1967).

Cerambycidae Sybra alternans Wiedemann Presence in the U.S. (Chen et al., 2000; Sakimura and

Linford, 1940) and Indonesia (Gressitt, 1956). Association with A. comosus (Chen et al., 2000).

Curculionidae Sitophilus oryzae Schoenherr Presence in the U.S. (Floyd and Newsome, 1959) and

Indonesia (Sidik et al., 1985). Association with A. comosus (Pest ID, 2019).

Sitophilus zeamais Motschulsky Presence in the U.S. (Nansen et al., 2004) and Indonesia (APPPC, 1987; Sidik et al., 1985). Association with A. comosus (Pest ID, 2019).

Nitidulidae Carpophilus dimidiatus (Fabricius)

Presence in the U.S. (Leindgren and Vincent, 1953) and Indonesia (Jihan et al., 2014). Association with A. comosus (Schmidt, 1935).

Carpophilus hemipterus (Linnaeus)

Presence in the U.S. (Ewing and Cline, 2005) and Indonesia (Waterhouse, 1993). Association with A. comosus (Ewing and Cline, 2005).


Ver. 1.0 April 10, 2019 62

Organism Evidence and/or other notes Carpophilus maculatus Murray Presence in the U.S. (Ewing and Cline, 2005) and

Indonesia (Brown et al., 2012). Association with A. comosus (Lim and Lowing, 1977).

Carpophilus obsoletus Erichson Presence in the U.S. and Indonesia (CABI, 2019). Association with A. comosus (Archibald and Chalmers, 1983).

Epuraea luteola Erichson Presence in the U.S. (Ewing and Cline, 2005) and Indonesia (Dasgupta et al., 2016). Association with A. comosus (Lim and Lowing, 1977).

Epuraea ocularis Fairmaire syn.: Haptoncus ocularis (Fairmaire)

Presence in the U.S. (Ewing and Cline, 2005) and Indonesia (de Araujo et al., 2018). Association with A. comosus (Ewing and Cline, 2005; Yunus and Ho, 1980).

Urophorus humeralis (Fabricius) Presence in the U.S. (Ewing and Cline, 2005; Leindgren and Vincent, 1953) and Indonesia (Williams et al., 1983). Association with A. comosus (Ewing and Cline, 2005).

Scolytidae Xyleborus volvulus (Fabricius) Presence in the U.S. and Indonesia (CABI, 2019; Wood

and Bright, 1992). Association with A. comosus (Pest ID, 2019).

Silvanidae Ahasverus advena (Waltl) Presence in the U.S. (Nansen et al., 2004) and Indonesia

(Dharmaputra, 1999). Association with A. comosus (Archibald and Chalmers, 1983).

DIPTERA Drosophila Drosophila ananassae Doleschall

Presence in the U.S. (Stone et al., 1965) and Indonesia (Kimura and Suwito, 2012). Association with A. comosus (Yunus and Ho, 1980).

Muscidae Atherigona orientalis Schiner Presence in the U.S. and Indonesia and association with A.

comosus (CABI, 2019; Suputa et al., 2010). HEMIPTERA Aphididae Rhopalosiphum rufiabdominale (Sasaki)

Presence in the U.S. and Indonesia (CABI, 2019; Noordam, 2004). Association with A. comosus (CTAHR, 2018).

Coccidae Coccus viridis (Green) Presence in the U.S. (Fredrick, 1943) and Indonesia

(Gavrilov-Zimin, 2017), and association with A. comosus (Williams and Watson, 1990).

Milviscutulus mangiferae (Green)

Presence in the U.S. (Ben-Dov et al., 1975), Indonesia (Gavrilov-Zimin, 2017). Association with A. comosus (Williams and Watson, 1990).

Parasaissetia nigra (Neitner) Presence in the U.S. and Indonesia and association with A. comosus (CABI, 2019).


Ver. 1.0 April 10, 2019 63

Organism Evidence and/or other notes Pseudaonidia trilobitiformis (Green)

Presence in the U.S. (Coile and Dixon, 2000; Marlatt, 1908) and Indonesia (Heu, 2007). Association with A. comosus (Culik et al., 2007; Petty et al., 2002; Heu, 2007).

Pulvinaria urbicola Cockerell Presence in the U.S. (Hamon and Williams, 1984). Presence in Indonesia, and association with A. comosus (Williams and Watson, 1990).

Diaspididae Aspidiotus excisus Green, syn.: Temnaspidiotus excisus Green

Presence in the U.S. and Indonesia (Nakahara, 1982). Association with A. comosus (Suh, 2016).

Aspidiotus nerii Bouche, syn.: A. hederae Vallot

Presence in the U.S. and Indonesia (Suh, 2016). Association with A. comosus (Cohic, 1958).

Diaspis boisduvalii Signoret Presence in the U.S. (Miller et al., 2005). Presence in Indonesia and association with A. comosus (Suh, 2016).

Diaspis bromeliae (Kerner) Presence in the U.S. (Miller et al., 2005) and Indonesia (Suh, 2016). Association with A. comosus (Mille et al, 2016).

Lepidosaphes beckii (Newman) Presence in the U.S. (Miller et al., 2005) and Indonesia (Suh, 2016). Association with A. comosus (Miller et al., 2005).

Pinnaspis strachani (Cooley) Presence in the U.S. (Ben-Dov, 1993) and Indonesia (Williams, 2004). Association with A. comosus (Yunus and Ho, 1980).

Unaspis citri (Comstock) Presence in the U.S. (Miller et al., 2005) and Indonesia (García Morales et al., 2016). Association with A. comosus (Miller et al., 2005).

Pseudococcidae Dysmicoccus boninsis (Kuwana) Presence in the U.S. (Ben-Dov, 1994) and Indonesia

(Williams, 2004). Association with A. comosus (Zhang et al., 2009).

Dysmicoccus brevipes (Cockerell)

Presence in the U.S. and Indonesia and association with A. comosus (Ben-Dov, 1994).

Dysmicoccus neobrevipes Beardsley

Presence in the U.S. (Ben-Dov, 1994), Indonesia (Gavrilov-Zimin, 2017), and association with A. comosus (Ben-Dov, 1994).

Ferrisia virgata (Cockerell) Presence in the U.S. (Ben-Dov, 1994) and Indonesia (Waterhouse, 1993). Association with A. comosus (Ben-Dov, 1994).

Maconellicoccus hirsutus (Green)

Presence in the U.S. and Indonesia (CABI, 2019). Association with A. comosus (Hodgson and Lagowska, 2011).

Nipaecoccus nipae (Maskell) Presence in the U.S. (Ben-Dov, 1994) and Indonesia (Williams, 2004). Association with A. comosus (Ben-Dov, 1994).


Ver. 1.0 April 10, 2019 64

Organism Evidence and/or other notes Paracoccus marginatus Williams and Granara de Willink

Presence in the U.S. (Miller et al., 1999) and Indonesia (Muniappan et al., 2012). Association with A. comosus (Martinez et al., 2000).

Phenacoccus solenopsis Tinsley Presence in the U.S. (Ben-Dov, 1994) and Indonesia (Gavrilov-Zimin, 2013; Gavrilov-Zimin, 2017). Association with A. comosus (Spodek et al., 2018).

Planococcus citri (Risso) Presence in the U.S. (Ben-Dov, 1994) and Indonesia (Williams, 2004). Association with A. comosus (Ben-Dov, 1994).

Planococcus minor (Maskell) Presence in the U.S. (Stocks and Roda, 2011). Presence in Indonesia and association with A. comosus (Ben-Dov, 1994).

Pseudococcus jackbeardsleyi Gimpel and Miller

Presence in the U.S. (Gimpel Jr. and Miller, 1996) and Indonesia (Gavrilov-Zimin, 2013; Gavrilov-Zimin, 2017). Association with A. comosus (Gimpel Jr. and Miller, 1996).

Pseudococcus longispinus (Targioni Tozzetti)

Presence in the U.S. and Indonesia and association with A. comosus (Ben-Dov, 1994).

Pseudococcus viburni (Signoret) Presence in the U.S. (Gimpel Jr. and Miller, 1996) and Indonesia (Williams, 2004). Association with A. comosus (Gimpel Jr. and Miller, 1996).

Saccharicoccus sacchari (Cockerell)

Presence in the U.S. (CABI, 2019) and Indonesia (Waterhouse, 1993). Association with A. comosus (CABI, 2019).

HYMENOPTERA Formicidae Solenopsis geminata (Fabricius) Presence in the U.S. (Jouvenaz et al., 1977) and Indonesia

(Knight and Bangs, 2007). Association with A. comosus (Pest ID, 2019).

LEPIDOPTERA Noctuidae Agrotis ipsilon (Hufnagel) Presence in the U.S. (Luckmann et al.,, 1976) and

Indonesia (APPPC, 1987; Waterhouse, 1993). Association with A. comosus (Petty et al., 2002).

Spodoptera exigua Hübner Presence in the U.S. and Indonesia (CABI, 2019). Association with A. comosus (Petty et al., 2002).

Pyralidae Cadra cautella (Walker) Presence in the U.S. (Arbogast and Chini, 2005) and

Indonesia (CABI, 2019). Association with A. comosus (Solis, 2006).

Spoladea recurvalis (Fabricius) Presence in the U.S. and Indonesia (CABI, 2019). Association with A. comosus (Pest ID, 2019).

THYSANOPTERA Thripidae


Ver. 1.0 April 10, 2019 65

Organism Evidence and/or other notes Frankliniella schultzei (Trybom) Presence in the U.S. and Indonesia (Nakahara, 1994).

Association with A. comosus (CABI, 2019). Thrips hawaiiensis (Morgan) Presence in the U.S. and Indonesia (Nakahara, 1994).

Association with A. comosus (Rohrbach and Johnson, 2003).

PLANT PATHOGENS NEMATODES Helicotylenchus dihystera (Cobb) Sher

Presence in the U.S. and Indonesia and association with Ananas comosus (CABI, 2019).

Meloidogyne arenaria (Neal) Chitwood

Presence in the U.S. and Indonesia (CABI, 2019). Association with A. comosus (Duke, 1983).

Meloidogyne incognita (Kofoid & White) Chitwood

Presence in the U.S. and Indonesia and association with A. comosus (CABI, 2019).

Meloidogyne javanica (Treub) Chitwood


Pratylenchus brachyurus (Godfrey) Filipjev & Schuurmans-Stekhoven


Pratylenchus coffeae (Zimmermann) Filipjev & Schuurmans Stekhoven

Presence in the U.S. and Indonesia (CABI, 2019). Association with A. comosus (Tuyet et al., 2008).

Rotylenchulus reniformis Linford & Oliveira


FUNGI Alternaria alternata (Fr.: Fr.) Keissl. (Ascomycetes: Pleosporales)

Presence in the U.S. (Farr and Rossman, 2019) and Indonesia (Shivas et al., 1996). Association with Ananas comosus (Farr and Rossman, 2019).

Aspergillus flavus Link : Fr. (Ascomycetes: Eurotiales)

Presence in the U.S. (Farr and Rossman, 2019) and Indonesia (CABI, 2019). Association with A. comosus (Rohrbach and Johnson, 2003).

Aspergillus niger Tiegh. Presence in the U.S. (Farr and Rossman, 2019) and Indonesia (CABI, 2019). Association with A. comosus (Duke, 1983).

Athelia rolfsii (Curzi) C. C. Tu & Kimbr. (Basidiomycetes: Polyporales)

Presence in the U.S. and Indonesia and association with A. comosus (Farr and Rossman, 2019).

Colletotrichum gloeosporioides (Penz.) Penz. & Sacc. (Ascomycetes: Phyllachorales)

Presence in the U.S. (Farr and Rossman, 2019) and Indonesia (Shivas et al., 1996). Association with A. comosus (Farr and Rossman, 2019).

Colletotrichum truncatum (Schwein.) Andrus & W.D. Moore, syn.: C. capsici (Syd.) E.J. Butler & Bisby



Ver. 1.0 April 10, 2019 66

Organism Evidence and/or other notes Corynespora cassiicola (Berk. & M.A. Curtis) C.T. Wei

Presence in the U.S. (Farr and Rossman, 2019) and Indonesia (CABI, 2019). Association with A. comosus (CABI, 2019; Farr and Rossman, 2019).

Curvularia eragrostidis (Henn.) J.A. Mey. (Ascomycetes: Pleosporales) syn.: C. maculans (C.K. Bancr.) Boedijn


Globisporangium debaryanum (R. Hesse) Uzuhashi, Tojo & Kakish. syn.: Pythium debaryanum R. Hesse

Presence in the U.S. (Farr and Rossman, 2019) and Indonesia (CABI, 2019). Association with A. comosus (CABI, 2019; Farr and Rossman, 2019).

Fusarium haematococcum Nalim, Samuels & Geiser, syn.: Haematonectria haematococca (Berk. & Broome) Samuels & Rossman (Ascomycetes: Hypocreales)


Fusarium incarnatum (Desm.) Sacc. syn.: F. semitectum Berk. & Ravenel

Presence in the U.S. and Indonesia (Farr and Rossman, 2019). Association with A. comosus (Stępień et al., 2013).

Fusarium oxysporum Schltdl. : Fr.


Fusarium proliferatum (Matsush.) Nirenberg ex Gerlach & Nirenberg

Presence in the U.S. and Indonesia (Farr and Rossman, 2019). Association with A. comosus (Stępień et al., 2013).

Fusarium subglutinans (Wollenw. & Reinking) P.E. Nelson, Toussoun & Marasas syn.: F. moniliforme var. subglutinans Wollenw. & Reinking


Lasiodiplodia theobromae (Pat.) Griffon & Maubl. (Ascomycetes: Dothideales) syn.: Botryodiplodia theobromae Pat.


Macrophomina phaseolina (Tassi) Goid. syn.: M. phaseoli (Maubl.) S.F. Ashby


Marasmius sacchari Wakker (Basidiomycetes: Agaricales)

Presence in the U.S. (Farr and Rossman, 2019) and Indonesia (ISSCT, 1965). Association with A. comosus (Farr and Rossman, 2019).

Penicillium funiculosum Thom (Ascomycetes: Eurotiales)

Presence in the U.S. (Farr and Rossman, 2019) and Indonesia (IAQA, 2016). Association with A. comosus (Farr and Rossman, 2019).


Ver. 1.0 April 10, 2019 67

Organism Evidence and/or other notes Pestalotiopsis palmarum (Cooke) Steyaert (Ascomycetes: Xylariales)

Presence in the U.S. and Indonesia (Farr and Rossman, 2019). Association with A. comosus (Luo et al., 2012).

Phytophthora cinnamomi Rands (Oomycetes: Pythiales)

Presence in the U.S. and Indonesia (Farr and Rossman, 2019). Association with A. comosus (Farr and Rossman, 2019; Duke, 1983).

Phytophthora nicotianae Breda de Haan, syn.: P. parasitica Dastur

Presence in the U.S. and Indonesia and association with A. comosus (CABI, 2019; Farr and Rossman, 2019).

Phytophthora palmivora (E.J. Butler) E.J. Butler


Pythium aphanidermatum (Edson) Fitzp. syn.: P. butleri Subraman


Pythium myriotylum Drechsler Presence in the U.S., and Indonesia (Farr and Rossman, 2019). Association with A. comosus (CABI, 2019).

Phytopythium vexans (de Bary) Abad, de Cock, Bala, Robideau, Lodhi & Levesque, syn.: Pythium vexans de Bary

Presence in the U.S. (Farr and Rossman, 2019) and Indonesia (Santoso et al., 2015). Association with A. comosus (Farr and Rossman, 2019).

Thielaviopsis paradoxa (De Seynes) Hohn (Ascomycetes: Microascales) syn.: Ceratocystis paradoxa (de Seynes) C. Moreau


BACTERIA AND PHYTOPLASMAS

ꞌCandidatus Phytoplasma asterisꞌ Presence in the U.S. and Indonesia (CABI, 2019). Association with Ananas comosus (Davis et al., 2005).

Dickeya chrysanthemi (Burkholder et al.) Samson et al. syn.: Erwinia chrysanthemi Burkholder et al.

Presence in the U.S. (Cating et al., 2008; Schaad and Brenner, 1977). Presence in Indonesia and association with A. comosus (Prasetyo and Aeny, 2014).

Dickeya zeae Samson et al. Presence in the U.S. (CABI, 2019) and Indonesia (Hu et al., 2018). Association with A. comosus (CABI, 2019).

Pantoea ananatis pv. ananatis (Serrano) Mergaert et al. syn.: Erwinia ananas Serrano

Presence in the U.S. (Bruton et al., 1991). Presence in Indonesia and association with A. comosus (IAQA, 2016).

Tatumella citrea (Kageyama et al.,) Brady et al., syn:. Pantoea citrea Kageyama et al.

Presence in the U.S. (CABI, 2019) and Indonesia (IAQA, 2016). Association with A. comosus (CABI, 2019).

Pseudomonas marginalis pv. marginalis (Brown) Stevens


VIRUSES Closterovirus Pineapple mealybug wilt-associated virus

Presence in the U.S. and Indonesia (CABI, 2019). Association with A. comosus (Joy and Sindhu, 2012).


Ver. 1.0 April 10, 2019 68

Organism Evidence and/or other notes Tospovirus Tomato spotted wilt virus

Presence in the U.S. and Indonesia (IAQA, 2016). Association with A. comosus (Joy and Sindhu, 2012).

Importation of Ananas comosus (Pineapple) fruit from ...

Documents

Transcript of Importation of Ananas comosus (Pineapple) fruit from ...