Category Archives: Ratings

Palmetto Weevil | Rhynchophorus cruentatus (Fabricius)

California Pest Rating Proposal for
Palmetto weevil | Rhynchophorus cruentatus (Fabricius)
Coleoptera: Dryophthoridae
Current Pest Rating: Q
Proposed Pest Rating: A

 


Comment Period: 7/3/18 – 8/17/18


Initiating Event:

Rhynchophorus cruentatus is currently Q-rated.  A permanent pest rating proposal is required to support an official pest rating.

History & Status:

Background:  Adult R. cruentatus are large weevils that measure 2.7 to 3.3 centimeters in length (Wattanapongsiri, 1966).  They are dull to shining and reddish-brown to black (or a pattern of both) in color (Giblin-Davis et al., 1994).  This species attacks palms.  Eggs are laid in petiole bases or wounds in the palm.  The larvae feed on the tissue internally and form a cocoon made from plant fiber, in which they pupate.  The feeding damage can compromise the structural integrity of the palm to the extent that the crown falls over (Giblin-Davis and Howard, 1988).  The larval feeding damage is cryptic because it occurs inside the palm, and it is often not apparent until death of the tree is inevitable (Hunsberger et al., 2000).  In the case of Sabal palmetto, which is native in the beetle’s area of distribution, R. cruentatus apparently only attacks stressed trees.  However, in the case of introduced palm species, including Phoenix canariensis, apparently healthy trees are attacked and killed, sometimes in large numbers.  For example, 97% of the Phoenix canariensis in one Florida nursery were killed; the damage was estimated at $285,000-$380,000 (Hunsberger et al., 2000).  Besides Phoenix and Sabal, other genera of palms reported to be attacked include Caryota, Cocos, Latania, Pritchardia, Roystonea, Thrinax, and Washingtonia (Hunsberger et al., 2000; Weissling and Broschat, 1999).  Other non-palm plants may also be utilized by this beetle, but little information is available regarding this (Wattanapongsiri, 1966).

Other Rhynchophorus species are important palm pests, for example R. ferrugineus and R. palmarumRhynchophorus palmarum is a vector of the nematode Bursaphelenchus cocophilus, which causes red ring disease of palms.  This nematode is not yet known to occur in the United States.  The disease affects Phoenix dactylifera and P. canariensis, which are important crop and ornamental trees in California (Hodel, 2016).  If this nematode was introduced to the United States, R. cruentatus could possibly vector it (Griffith, 1987).

Worldwide Distribution:  Rhynchophorus cruentatus is native to the southeastern United States and is found from South Carolina south to Florida (including the Florida Keys) and west to Texas.  The species has also been reported from the Bahamas (Andros Island), which may represent an introduction (Turnbow and Thomas, 2008; Wattanapongsiri, 1966).

Official Control: Rhynchophorus cruentatus is not known to be under official control anywhere.

California Distribution:  Rhynchophorus cruentatus is not known to be present in California (Symbiota Collections of Arthropods Network).

California Interceptions:  Rhynchophorus cruentatus was intercepted at a border station on palm fronds from Florida in 2011 (CDFA Pest and Damage Report Database, 2018).

The risk Rhynchophorus cruentatus would pose to California is evaluated below.

Consequences of Introduction:

1) Climate/Host Interaction: Two other Rhynchophorus species that are native to the tropics, ferrugineus and R. vulneratus, have become established in areas that do not have tropical climates, including Mediterranean Europe and southern California. Rhynchophorus cruentatus is found in the temperate to subtropical southeastern United States.  Considering the climatic flexibility of other species in the genus, it seems likely that a significant portion of California could offer a suitable climate for R. cruentatus.  Regarding host plants, palms (including known host species, such as Phoenix canariensis) are planted widely in California.  Therefore, Rhynchophorus cruentatus receives a Medium (2) in this category.

– Low (1) Not likely to establish in California; or likely to establish in very limited areas.

– Medium (2) may be able to establish in a larger but limited part of California.

– High (3) likely to establish a widespread distribution in California.

2) Known Pest Host Range: Rhynchophorus cruentatus is reported to feed on eight genera of palms. Therefore, it receives a Medium (2) in this category.

– Low (1) has a very limited host range.

– Medium (2) has a moderate host range.

– High (3) has a wide host range.

3) Pest Dispersal Potential: Rhynchophorus cruentatus fly (Weissling et al., 1994).  The species could also possibly be moved with palms, both whole plants as well as fronds.  Therefore, it receives a Medium (2) in this category.

– Low (1) does not have high reproductive or dispersal potential.

– Medium (2) has either high reproductive or dispersal potential.

– High (3) has both high reproduction and dispersal potential.

4) Economic Impact: Rhynchophorus cruentatus attacks palms, including the genera Phoenix and Washingtonia.  If this beetle became established in California, it would threaten the date industry in southeastern California and (in a much larger area) ornamental palms.  Ornamental palms are a $70 million industry in California and date production in the state was approximately $47 million in 2016 (Hoddle).  By killing trees, cruentatus would lower yield in both industries.  As mentioned above, in Background, R. cruentatus could possibly vector the nematode that causes red ring disease in palms.  Therefore, it receives a Medium (2) in this category.

Economic Impact:  A, E

A. The pest could lower crop yield.

B. The pest could lower crop value (includes increasing crop production costs).

C. The pest could trigger the loss of markets (includes quarantines).

D. The pest could negatively change normal cultural practices.

E. The pest can vector, or is vectored, by another pestiferous organism.

F. The organism is injurious or poisonous to agriculturally important animals.

G. The organism can interfere with the delivery or supply of water for agricultural uses.

Economic Impact Score:  2

– Low (1) causes 0 or 1 of these impacts.

– Medium (2) causes 2 of these impacts.

– High (3) causes 3 or more of these impacts.

5) Environmental Impact: Rhynchophorus cruentatus is reported to attack Washingtonia Groves of the native W. filifera are present in the deserts of southern California, and they could be threatened by the establishment of R. cruentatus.  Palms that are known hosts of R. cruentatus, including Phoenix and Washingtonia species, are widely planted in California.  If R. cruentatus became established in the state, it could impact home and urban plantings of these trees, and this could trigger treatment programs.  Therefore, it receives a High (3) in this category.

Evaluate the environmental impact of the pest on California using the criteria below.

Environmental Impact:  A, D, E

A. The pest could have a significant environmental impact such as lowering biodiversity, disrupting natural communities, or changing ecosystem processes.

B. The pest could directly affect threatened or endangered species.

C. The pest could impact threatened or endangered species by disrupting critical habitats.

D. The pest could trigger additional official or private treatment programs.

E. The pest significantly impacts cultural practices, home/urban gardening or ornamental plantings.

Environmental Impact Score:  3

– Low (1) causes none of the above to occur.

– Medium (2) causes one of the above to occur.

– High (3) causes two or more of the above to occur.

Consequences of Introduction to California for Rhynchophorus cruentatus: Medium (11)

Add up the total score and include it here.

–Low = 5-8 points

–Medium = 9-12 points

–High = 13-15 points

6) Post Entry Distribution and Survey Information: Rhynchophorus cruentatus is not known to be present in California.  It receives a Not established (0) in this category.

–Not established (0) Pest never detected in California, or known only from incursions.

–Low (-1) Pest has a localized distribution in California, or is established in one suitable climate/host area (region).

–Medium (-2) Pest is widespread in California but not fully established in the endangered area, or pest established in two contiguous suitable climate/host areas.

–High (-3) Pest has fully established in the endangered area, or pest is reported in more than two contiguous or non-contiguous suitable climate/host areas.

Final Score:

7) The final score is the consequences of introduction score minus the post entry distribution and survey information score: Medium (11)

Uncertainty:

The demonstrated ability for other Rhynchophorus species that are native to tropical areas to invade temperate areas (e.g., Europe) is considered to be evidence that R. cruentatus could possibly become established in California, even though this species is currently known to occur in areas with a subtropical or tropical climate.  Rhynchophorus cruentatus has not been proven to vector the nematode B. cocophilus.  The desert areas where the native groves of Washingtonia filifera occur may not have a suitable climate for the establishment of R. cruentatus.  If so, these native palm groves are not at risk from this beetle.

Conclusion and Rating Justification:

Rhynchophorus cruentatus feeds on and kills palm trees, and it is not known to be present in California.  This species poses a threat to the economy and environment of the state.  For these reasons, a “A” rating is justified.


References:

CDFA Pest and Damage Report Database.  2018.  Rhynchophorus cruentatus.  Plant Health and Pest Prevention Services. CA Department of Food and Agriculture.  Accessed April 11, 2018: https://pdr.cdfa.ca.gov/PDR/pdrmainmenu.aspx

Giblin-Davis, R. M. and Howard, F. W.  1988.  Notes on the palmetto weevil, Rhynchophorus cruentatus (Coleoptera: Curculionidae).  Proceedings of the Florida State Horticultural Society 101:101-107.

Giblin-Davis, R. M., Weissling, T. J., Oehlschlager, A. C., and Gonzalez, L. M.  1994.  Field response of Rhynchophorus cruentatus (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) to its aggregation pheromone and fermenting plant volatiles.  Florida Entomologist 77:164-172.

Griffith, R.  1987.  Red ring disease of coconut palm.  Plant Disease 71:193-196.

Hoddle, M.  Has the South American palm weevil, Rhynchophorus palmarum, established in southern California?  University of California, Riverside, Center for Invasive Species Research. Accessed November 17, 2017: http://cisr.ucr.edu/palmarum.html

Hodel, D. R., Marika, M. A., and Ohara, L. M.  2016.  The South American palm weevil.  PalmArbor 2016-3:1-27.

Hunsberger, A. G. B., Giblin-Davis, R. M., and Weissling, T. J.  2000.  Symptoms and population dynamics of Rhynchophorus cruentatus (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) in Canary Island date palms.  Florida Entomologist 83:290-303.

Symbiota Collections of Arthropods Network.  Accessed April 11, 2018. http://scan1.acis.ufl.edu

Turnbow, R. H. and Thomas, M. C.  2008.  An annotated checklist of the Coleoptera (Insecta) of the Bahamas.  Insecta Mundi 34:1-64.

Wattanapongsiri, A.  1966.  A Revision of the Genera Rhynchophorus and Dynamis (Coleoptera: Curculionidae).  Ph.D. thesis.  Oregon State University.

Weissling, T. J. and Broschat, T. K.  1999.  Integrated management of palm pests.  Proceedings of the Florida State Horticultural Society 112:247-250.

Weissling, T. J., Giblin-Davis, R. M., Center, B. J., and Hiyakawa, T.  1994.  Flight behavior and seasonal trapping of Rhynchophorus cruentatus (Coleoptera: Curculionidae).  Annals of the Entomological Society of America 87:641-647.


Author:

Kyle Beucke, 1220 N Street, Room 221, Sacramento, CA, 95814, 916-403-6741; plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov.

Responsible Party:

Jason Leathers, 2800 Gateway Oaks, Sacramento CA 95833, (916) 654-1211, plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov


Comment Period:*

7/3/18 – 8/17/18


*NOTE:

You must be registered and logged in to post a comment.  If you have registered and have not received the registration confirmation, please contact us at plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov.


Comment Format:

♦  Comments should refer to the appropriate California Pest Rating Proposal Form subsection(s) being commented on, as shown below.

Example Comment:
Consequences of Introduction:  1. Climate/Host Interaction: [Your comment that relates to “Climate/Host Interaction” here.]

♦  Posted comments will not be able to be viewed immediately.

♦  Comments may not be posted if they:

Contain inappropriate language which is not germane to the pest rating proposal;

Contains defamatory, false, inaccurate, abusive, obscene, pornographic, sexually oriented, threatening, racially offensive, discriminatory or illegal material;

Violates agency regulations prohibiting sexual harassment or other forms of discrimination;

Violates agency regulations prohibiting workplace violence, including threats.

♦  Comments may be edited prior to posting to ensure they are entirely germane.

♦  Posted comments shall be those which have been approved in content and posted to the website to be viewed, not just submitted.


Posted by ls 

New Guinea Sugarcane Weevil | Rhabdoscelus obscurus (Boisduval)

California Pest Rating Proposal for 
(New Guinea Sugarcane Weevil) | Rhabdoscelus obscurus (Boisduval) 
Coleoptera: Curculionidae
Current Pest Rating:  Q
Proposed Pest Rating: A

Comment Period: 7/3/18 – 8/17/18


Initiating Event:

This weevil was recently intercepted on cut ginger flowers from Hawaii (190P06619908).  The species is currently Q-rated, and a permanent pest rating proposal is required to support an official pest rating.

History & Status:

Background: Adult Rhabdoscelus obscurus are 12-14 mm in length and reddish-brown with a longitudinal black stripe on the pronotum.  The larvae are white, legless grubs with a dark head capsule and are approximately 15 mm in length (Molet, 2013).  This weevil is a pest of sugarcane and palms.  The larvae tunnel and feed inside stalks, which leads to stalk breakage.  Prior to pupating, they build a fibrous cocoon.  This species appears to currently be restricted to tropical and subtropical areas.

Worldwide Distribution: Rhabdoscelus obscurus is native to New Guinea and has been introduced to much of the tropical western Pacific, including Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Taiwan, and numerous Pacific islands (Beardsley et al., 1995; Molet, 2013; Zimmerman, 1968).  It has also been introduced to Australia (Reddy et al., 2012).  In the United States, it has been present in Hawaii since the mid-1800s (Waggy and Beardsley, 1974).  The species is not known to occur in the continental United States.

Official Control: Rhabdoscelus obscurus is listed as a quarantine pest by the EPPO, and is considered reportable by USDA-APHIS-PPQ (EPPO, 2017).  The species has been controlled in Hawaii through the introduction of a tachinid fly parasitoid (Waggy and Beardsley, 1974; Beardsley et al., 1995).

California Distribution: Rhabdoscelus obscurus is not known to be present in California.

California Interceptions: Rhabdoscelus obscurus has been intercepted in California twice, once on cut ginger flowers from Hawaii in 2017 and once on a shipment of pineapple from Hawaii in 2004 (CDFA Pest and Damage Report Database, 2017).

The risk Rhabdoscelus obscurus would pose to California is evaluated below.

Consequences of Introduction:

1)  Climate/Host Interaction: Rhabdoscelus obscurus is currently restricted to tropical and subtropical areas.  It could become established in a limited portion of southern California.  Therefore, it receives a Low (1) in this category.

– Low (1) Not likely to establish in California; or likely to establish in very limited areas.

– Medium (2) may be able to establish in a larger but limited part of California.

– High (3) likely to establish a widespread distribution in California.

2)  Known Pest Host Range: Rhabdoscelus obscurus is a major pest of sugarcane and also feeds on other monocots, including numerous palms as well as bananas, some grasses, and corn (Beardsley et al., 1995; EPPO, 2017; Molet, 2013).  Therefore, it receives a High (3) in this category.

– Low (1) has a very limited host range.

– Medium (2) has a moderate host range.

– High (3) has a wide host range.

3)  Pest Dispersal Potential: Rhabdoscelus obscurus flies and it is capable of being introduced to new locations; much of its present distribution is due to such introductions.  The species has been intercepted 19 times (as of 2012) at United States ports of entry on infested plant material, so can be artificially dispersed that way (Molet, 2013).  Therefore, it receives a Medium (2) in this category.

– Low (1) does not have high reproductive or dispersal potential.

– Medium (2) has either high reproductive or dispersal potential.

– High (3) has both high reproduction and dispersal potential.

4)  Economic Impact: Rhabdoscelus obscurus is a significant pest of sugarcane and palms.  The species causes significant mortality of palms in the Pacific, and it is a palm nursery pest in Australia (Reddy et al., 2012).  If established in California, it could impact palm nurseries, lowering yield.  Ornamental palms are a $70 million industry in California (Hoddle).  The other California industry that could be impacted by this pest is sugarcane.  Sugarcane is either currently being grown in, or is planned to be grown in the Imperial Valley, where a sugarcane-based sugar and biofuels initiative is underway.  If R. obscurus was able to become established in the Imperial Valley, which may not be likely, it could lower yield of sugarcane there.  An extensive sugarcane industry exists in the southeastern United States, and the climate in that region would likely be more favorable for the establishment of this pest.  The possibility of the spread of R. obscurus to the southeastern United States and other countries could lead to a loss of markets for ornamental palms from California.  Rhabdoscelus obscurus receives a Medium (2) in this category.

Economic Impact:  A, C

A. The pest could lower crop yield.

B. The pest could lower crop value (includes increasing crop production costs).

C. The pest could trigger the loss of markets (includes quarantines).

D. The pest could negatively change normal cultural practices.

E. The pest can vector, or is vectored, by another pestiferous organism.

F. The organism is injurious or poisonous to agriculturally important animals.

G. The organism can interfere with the delivery or supply of water for agricultural uses.

Economic Impact Score:  2

– Low (1) causes 0 or 1 of these impacts.

– Medium (2) causes 2 of these impacts.

– High (3) causes 3 or more of these impacts.

5)  Environmental Impact: If R. obscurus became established in California, it could impact ornamental plantings of palms, which are an important part of the California landscape.  The species could also potentially spread to groves of the only species of palm native to California, Washingtonia filifera, although this is somewhat unlikely, considering that this weevil is restricted to wet tropical and sub-tropical climates and these palms occur in the desert.  Therefore, Rhabdoscelus obscurus receives a High (3) in this category.

Evaluate the environmental impact of the pest on California using the criteria below.

Environmental Impact:  A, E

A. The pest could have a significant environmental impact such as lowering biodiversity, disrupting natural communities, or changing ecosystem processes.

B. The pest could directly affect threatened or endangered species.

C. The pest could impact threatened or endangered species by disrupting critical habitats.

D. The pest could trigger additional official or private treatment programs.

E. The pest significantly impacts cultural practices, home/urban gardening or ornamental plantings.

Environmental Impact Score:  3

– Low (1) causes none of the above to occur.

– Medium (2) causes one of the above to occur.

– High (3) causes two or more of the above to occur.

Consequences of Introduction to California for Rhabdoscelus obscurus: Medium (11)

Add up the total score and include it here.

–Low = 5-8 points

–Medium = 9-12 points

–High = 13-15 points

6)  Post Entry Distribution and Survey Information: Rhabdoscelus obscurus is not known to occur in California.  It receives a Not established (0) in this category.

Evaluate the known distribution in California. Only official records identified by a taxonomic expert and supported by voucher specimens deposited in natural history collections should be considered. Pest incursions that have been eradicated, are under eradication, or have been delimited with no further detections should not be included.

–Not established (0) Pest never detected in California, or known only from incursions.

–Low (-1) Pest has a localized distribution in California, or is established in one suitable climate/host area (region).

–Medium (-2) Pest is widespread in California but not fully established in the endangered area, or pest established in two contiguous suitable climate/host areas.

–High (-3) Pest has fully established in the endangered area, or pest is reported in more than two contiguous or non-contiguous suitable climate/host areas.

Final Score:

7)  The final score is the consequences of introduction score minus the post entry distribution and survey information score: Medium (11)

Uncertainty:

Rhabdoscelus obscurus clearly has the potential to become established in new areas and cause great harm to sugarcane and palms, because it has already done so in much of the Pacific.  However, it is possible that the climate in California will not be suitable for the establishment of this species.

Conclusion and Rating Justification:

Rhabdoscelus obscurus is a weevil pest of sugarcane and palms that is not known to be present in California.  It could become established in restricted areas of California.  If this happened, it could cause damage to ornamental palms (and possibly the one native species).  The planned sugarcane-based industries in the Imperial Valley would also be threatened.  An “A” rating is justified.


References:

Beardsley, J. W., Leeper, J. R., Topham, M., and Waggy, S. L.  1995.  New Guinea sugarcane weevil.  pp. 183-184 in (Nechols, J.R., Andres, L.A., Beardsley, J.W., Goeden, R.D., and Jackson, C.G., Biological control in the western United States.  University of California Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Oakland, California.

CDFA Pest and Damage Report Database.  2017.  Rhabdoscelus obscurus.  Plant Health and Pest Prevention Services. CA Department of Food and Agriculture.  Accessed November 28, 2017: https://pdr.cdfa.ca.gov/PDR/pdrmainmenu.aspx

EPPO.  2017.  EPPO Global Database (available online).  Accessed September 7, 2017: https://gd.eppo.int

Hoddle, M.  Has the South American palm weevil, Rhynchophorus palmarum, established in southern California?  University of California, Riverside, Center for Invasive Species Research. Accessed November 17, 2017: http://cisr.ucr.edu/palmarum.html

Molet, T.  2013.  CPHST pest datasheet for Rhabdoscelus obscurus.  USDA-APHIS-PPQ-CPHST.  Accessed September 7, 2017: http://download.ceris.purdue.edu/file/3061

Reddy, G. V. P., Shi, P., Mann, C. R., Mantanona, D. M. H., and Dong, Z.  2012.  Can a semiochemical-based trapping method diminish damage level caused by Rhabdoscelus obscurus (Coleoptera: Curculionidae)?  Annals of the Entomological Society of America 105:693-700.

Symbiota Collections of Arthropods Network.  Accessed November 28, 2017: http://scan1.acis.ufl.edu

Waggy, S. L. and Beardsley, J. W.  1974.  Biological studies on two sibling species of Lixophaga (Diptera: Tachinidae), parasites of the New Guinea sugarcane weevil, Rhabdoscelus obscurus (Boisduval).  Proceedings of the Hawaiian Entomological Society 21:485-494.

Zimmerman, E. C.  1968.  Rhynchophorinae of southeastern Polynesia.  Pacific Insects 10:47-77.


Author:

Kyle Beucke, 1220 N Street, Room 221, Sacramento, CA, 95814, 916-403-6741; plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov.

Responsible Party:

Jason Leathers, 2800 Gateway Oaks, Sacramento CA 95833, (916) 654-1211, plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov


Comment Period:*

7/3/18 – 8/17/18


*NOTE:

You must be registered and logged in to post a comment.  If you have registered and have not received the registration confirmation, please contact us at plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov.


Comment Format:

♦  Comments should refer to the appropriate California Pest Rating Proposal Form subsection(s) being commented on, as shown below.

Example Comment:
Consequences of Introduction:  1. Climate/Host Interaction: [Your comment that relates to “Climate/Host Interaction” here.]

♦  Posted comments will not be able to be viewed immediately.

♦  Comments may not be posted if they:

Contain inappropriate language which is not germane to the pest rating proposal;

Contains defamatory, false, inaccurate, abusive, obscene, pornographic, sexually oriented, threatening, racially offensive, discriminatory or illegal material;

Violates agency regulations prohibiting sexual harassment or other forms of discrimination;

Violates agency regulations prohibiting workplace violence, including threats.

♦  Comments may be edited prior to posting to ensure they are entirely germane.

♦  Posted comments shall be those which have been approved in content and posted to the website to be viewed, not just submitted.


Posted by ls 

Weevil | Oxydema longula (Boheman)

California Pest Rating Proposal for
Weevil | Oxydema longula (Boheman)
Coleoptera: Curculionidae
Current Pest Rating: Q
Proposed Pest Rating: C

 


Comment Period: 7/3/18 – 8/17/18


Initiating Event:

Oxydema longula is currently Q-rated.  A permanent pest rating proposal is required to support an official pest rating.

History & Status:

Background:  Oxydema longula is a weevil that measure 5-5.5 mm in length and is black and shining (Boheman, 1859).  The species occurs in a variety of dead and decaying plant material, and the larvae are reported to feed in dead ferns and bamboo and rotting wood (Blackburn and Sharp, 1887; Swezey, 1922; Swezey, 1925; Swezey, 1954).  This weevil has been reported to be associated with living plants as well.  For example, it bored into rubber trees and “matured” sisal plants and “riddled” a papaya tree in Hawaii (Kuhns, 1908; Smith and Bradford, 1908; Van Dine, 1906).  The species has also been intercepted on cordyline (Hunt, 1954).  These records do not necessarily indicate that this weevil attacks living plant tissue.  The boring in rubber trees occurred in rubber tapping injuries.  Regarding the sisal plant records, this plant is harvested via removal of older leaves, so the burrowing of the weevil could have exploited dead tissue resulting from harvesting injuries.  The weevil(s) intercepted on cordyline could simply have been using the plant as shelter, or it could have been feeding on a dead portion of the plant.

Little information was found on the biology of the genus Oxydema, but Oxydema fusiforme Wollaston is reported to feed on rotting plant material, including rotting wood and boards and dead morning glory vines (Hawaiian Entomological Society, 1922; Hawaiian Entomological Society, 1935; Loschiavo and Okumura, 1979).

Synonyms of Oxydema longula include Oxydema longulum (Boheman), Oxydema longulus (Boheman), Pseudolus longulus (Boheman), and Rhyncolus longulus Boheman.  Information reported for these synonyms was considered in this proposal.

Worldwide Distribution:  Oxydema longula is reported from Hawaii (all islands), Midway Atoll, and Saipan Island (Konishi, 1956; Suehiro, 1960; Zimmerman, 1940).  It may be native to Hawaii and introduced to the other areas.

Official Control: Oxydema longula is not known to be under official control anywhere.

California Distribution:  Oxydema longula is not known to be present in California.

California Interceptions:  Oxydema longula has been intercepted 12 times on various plant products from Hawaii, including cut flowers (CDFA Pest and Damage Report Database, 2018).

The risk Oxydema longula would pose to California is evaluated below.

Consequences of Introduction:

1) Climate/Host Interaction: Oxydema longula is found in areas with a tropical to subtropical climate. Climate may limit this weevil’s potential distribution in California.  This weevil apparently feeds on a wide variety of decaying plant material.  Presence of food is not expected to be a limiting factor in its potential distribution in California. Therefore, Oxydema longula receives a Medium (2) in this category.

Score: 2

– Low (1) Not likely to establish in California; or likely to establish in very limited areas.

– Medium (2) may be able to establish in a larger but limited part of California.

– High (3) likely to establish a widespread distribution in California.

2) Known Pest Host Range: Oxydema longula is reported to feed on a wide variety of rotting plant material. Therefore, it receives a High (3) in this category.

Score: 3

– Low (1) has a very limited host range.

– Medium (2) has a moderate host range.

– High (3) has a wide host range.

3) Pest Dispersal Potential: Another species of Oxydema, fusiforme, was collected at light in Hawaii, so it presumably flies (Browne, 1942).  Oxydema longula is presumed to fly as well.  Therefore, it receives a Medium (2) in this category.

Score: 2

– Low (1) does not have high reproductive or dispersal potential.

– Medium (2) has either high reproductive or dispersal potential.

– High (3) has both high reproduction and dispersal potential.

4) Economic Impact: Oxydema longula has not been reported to cause economic damage.  The available evidence strongly suggests that it feeds on dead, rotting plant material.  Therefore, it receives a Low (1) in this category.

Economic Impact:

A. The pest could lower crop yield.

B. The pest could lower crop value (includes increasing crop production costs).

C. The pest could trigger the loss of markets (includes quarantines).

D. The pest could negatively change normal cultural practices.

E. The pest can vector, or is vectored, by another pestiferous organism.

F. The organism is injurious or poisonous to agriculturally important animals.

G. The organism can interfere with the delivery or supply of water for agricultural uses.

Economic Impact Score:  1

– Low (1) causes 0 or 1 of these impacts.

– Medium (2) causes 2 of these impacts.

– High (3) causes 3 or more of these impacts.

5) Environmental Impact: Oxydema longula apparently feeds on dead plant material. The species is therefore not expected to threaten living plants.  However, it could compete with native insects that also feed on dead plant material.  Therefore, it receives a Medium (2) in this category.

Evaluate the environmental impact of the pest on California using the criteria below.

Environmental Impact:  A

A. The pest could have a significant environmental impact such as lowering biodiversity, disrupting natural communities, or changing ecosystem processes.

B. The pest could directly affect threatened or endangered species.

C. The pest could impact threatened or endangered species by disrupting critical habitats.

D. The pest could trigger additional official or private treatment programs.

E. The pest significantly impacts cultural practices, home/urban gardening or ornamental plantings.

Score the pest for Environmental Impact. Score:

Environmental Impact Score:  2

– Low (1) causes none of the above to occur.

– Medium (2) causes one of the above to occur.

– High (3) causes two or more of the above to occur.

Consequences of Introduction to California for Oxydema longula: Medium (10)

Add up the total score and include it here.

–Low = 5-8 points

–Medium = 9-12 points

–High = 13-15 points

6) Post Entry Distribution and Survey Information: Oxydema longula is not known to be present in California.  It receives a Not established (0) in this category.

–Not established (0) Pest never detected in California, or known only from incursions.

–Low (-1) Pest has a localized distribution in California, or is established in one suitable climate/host area (region).

–Medium (-2) Pest is widespread in California but not fully established in the endangered area, or pest established in two contiguous suitable climate/host areas.

–High (-3) Pest has fully established in the endangered area, or pest is reported in more than two contiguous or non-contiguous suitable climate/host areas.

Final Score:

7) The final score is the consequences of introduction score minus the post entry distribution and survey information score: Medium (10)

Uncertainty:

There is a possibility that O. longula may feed on living plant tissue, although the available reports generally state dead (often rotting) plant material as the food.

Conclusion and Rating Justification:

Oxydema longula is a weevil that is reported to feed on dead plant material.  This saprophagous lifestyle suggests that it does not pose an economic or environmental risk to California.  For these reasons, a “C” rating is justified.


References:

Blackburn, T. and Sharp, D.  1885.  Memoirs on the Coleoptera of the Hawaiian Islands.  The Scientific Transactions of the Royal Dublin Society 3:119-300.

Boheman, C. H.  1859.  Coleoptera.  pp. 113-218 in Kongliga Svenska Fregatten Eugenies.  P.A. Norstedt & Söner, Stockholm.

Browne, A. C.  1942.  Insects taken at light at Kalawahine Place, Honolulu.  Proceedings of the Hawaiian Entomological Society 11:151-152.

CDFA Pest and Damage Report Database.  2018.  Oxydema longula.  Plant Health and Pest Prevention Services. CA Department of Food and Agriculture.  Accessed April 16, 2018: https://pdr.cdfa.ca.gov/PDR/pdrmainmenu.aspx

Hawaiian Entomological Society.  1922.  November 3, 1921.  Proceedings of the Hawaiian Entomological Society 5:32-35.

Hawaiian Entomological Society.  1935.  April 5, 1934.  Proceedings of the Hawaiian Entomological Society 5:12-16.

Hunt, J.  1954.  List of intercepted plant pests, 1954.  United States Department of Agriculture.

Konishi, M.  1955.  Cossoninae of Marcus Island.  Insecta Matsumurana 19:64.

Kuhns, D. B.  Noted on Maui insects.  Proceedings of the Hawaiian Entomological Society 2:93.

Loschiavo, S. R. and Okumura, G. T.  1979.  A survey of stored product insects in Hawaii.  Proceedings of the Hawaiian Entomological Society 13:95-118.

Smith, J. G. and Bradford, Q. Q.  1908.  The ceara rubber tree in Hawaii.  Bulletin of the Hawaii Agricultural Station 16:1-30.

Suehiro, A.  1960.  Insects and other arthropods from Midway Atoll.  Proceedings of the Hawaiian Entomological Society 17:289-298.

Swezey, O. H.  1922.  Insects attacking ferns in the Hawaiian Islands.  Proceedings of the Hawaiian Entomological Society 5:57-65.

Swezey, O. H.  1925.  The insect fauna of trees and plants as an index of their endemicity and relative antiquity in the Hawaiian Islands.  Proceedings of the Hawaiian Entomological Society 6:195-209.

Swezey, O. H.  1954.  Forest entomology in Hawaii.  Bernice Bishop Museum Special Publication 44:1-265.

Symbiota Collections of Arthropods Network.  Accessed April 27, 2018. http://scan1.acis.ufl.edu

Van Dine, D. L.  1906.  Report of the entomologist.  Report on Agricultural Investigations in Hawaii 1906:38-59.

Zimmerman, E. C.  1940.  Synopsis of the genera of Hawaiian Cossoninae with notes on their origin and distribution.  Occasional Papers of Bernice P. Bishop Museum, Honolulu, Hawaii 15:271-293.


Author:

Kyle Beucke, 1220 N Street, Room 221, Sacramento, CA, 95814, 916-403-6741; plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov.

Responsible Party:

Jason Leathers, 2800 Gateway Oaks, Sacramento CA 95833, (916) 654-1211, plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov


Comment Period:*

7/3/18 – 8/17/18


*NOTE:

You must be registered and logged in to post a comment.  If you have registered and have not received the registration confirmation, please contact us at plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov.


Comment Format:

♦  Comments should refer to the appropriate California Pest Rating Proposal Form subsection(s) being commented on, as shown below.

Example Comment:
Consequences of Introduction:  1. Climate/Host Interaction: [Your comment that relates to “Climate/Host Interaction” here.]

♦  Posted comments will not be able to be viewed immediately.

♦  Comments may not be posted if they:

Contain inappropriate language which is not germane to the pest rating proposal;

Contains defamatory, false, inaccurate, abusive, obscene, pornographic, sexually oriented, threatening, racially offensive, discriminatory or illegal material;

Violates agency regulations prohibiting sexual harassment or other forms of discrimination;

Violates agency regulations prohibiting workplace violence, including threats.

♦  Comments may be edited prior to posting to ensure they are entirely germane.

♦  Posted comments shall be those which have been approved in content and posted to the website to be viewed, not just submitted.


Posted by ls 

Garden Chafer | Phyllopertha horticola (L.)

California Pest Rating Proposal for
Garden Chafer | Phyllopertha horticola (L.)
Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Rutelinae
Current Pest Rating: Q
Proposed Pest Rating: A

 


Comment Period: 7/3/18 – 8/17/18


Initiating Event:

Phyllopertha horticola is currently Q-rated.  A permanent pest rating proposal is required to support an official pest rating.

History & Status:

Background:  Adult Phyllopertha horticola measure 8.5 to 12 mm in length and have red-brown elytra, a metallic blue or green pronotum, and a hairy lower (ventral) surface (Agricultural Research Service, 1957).  They have a one-year life cycle (Hann et al., 2015).  Both adults and larvae feed on living plant tissue and cause economic damage (Ruther and Mayer, 2005).  The adults feed on leaves of many different plants, including fruit trees, and they also feed on fruit, including apples, and flowers (Agricultural Research Service, 1957; Hill, 1987). They have been shown to be attracted strongly to plant volatiles, which could explain why this beetle tends to occur in dense aggregations near damaged (chewed) plant tissue (Jackson, 2006; Ruther and Mayer, 2005). The larvae live underground and feed on roots, including those of apple and grasses (Agricultural Research Service, 1957).  They are reported to be the most important white grub damaging agricultural grassland in the Austrian alps (Hann et al., 2015), and they were also reported to be a significant pest in turf grass in the United Kingdom (Mabbett, 2009).  This beetle is reported to be a pest of strawberry and sea buckthorn in Latvia, although the life stage responsible for damage was not reported (Petrova et al., 2013; Stalažs, 2015).  Damage in Europe has been estimated to be on the order of hundreds of millions of Euros each year, and the damage is apparently increasing (Pernfuss et al., 2005). When this beetle is abundant, predators, including birds and mammals, are attracted and this can create problems.  For example: Gulls attracted to flying adult P. horticola created an aviation hazard in Norway, and birds feeding on the larvae of this beetle damage turfgrass (Aas et al., 2008; Mabbett, 2009).

Worldwide Distribution:  Phyllopertha horticola is found in Europe (including Austria, Latvia, Norway, and the United Kingdom), Russia, and Tibet (Aas et al., 2008; Agricultural Research Service, 1957; Hann et al., 2015; Petrova et al., 2013; Stalažs, 2015).

Official Control: Phyllopertha horticola is not known to be under official control anywhere.

California Distribution:  Phyllopertha horticola is not known to occur in California.

California Interceptions:  Phyllopertha horticola has been intercepted in an unidentified shipment and in the cargo area of a plane, both from Tennessee, in 2010 and 2011 (CDFA Pest and Damage Report Database, 2018).

The risk Phyllopertha horticola would pose to California is evaluated below.

Consequences of Introduction:

1) Climate/Host Interaction: Phyllopertha horticola is distributed across a wide area, and it is likely that the climate present in much of California would suit this species. This beetle feeds on a wide variety of plants, and it would probably find suitable host plants in much of California.  This species is likely capable of establishing a widespread distribution in the state. Therefore, Phyllopertha horticola receives a High (3) in this category.

– Low (1) Not likely to establish in California; or likely to establish in very limited areas.

– Medium (2) may be able to establish in a larger but limited part of California.

– High (3) likely to establish a widespread distribution in California.

2) Known Pest Host Range: Phyllopertha horticola adults and larvae feed on living plant tissue, but they differ in that the larvae live underground and feed on roots of grasses and possibly (anecdotal information) other plants as well. The adults feed on leaves, fruit, and flowers of plants in at least two families, the Rosaceae and the Elaeagnaceae.  Therefore, it receives a Medium (2) in this category.

– Low (1) has a very limited host range.

– Medium (2) has a moderate host range.

– High (3) has a wide host range.

3) Pest Dispersal Potential: Adult Phyllopertha horticola   It is possible that larvae could be dispersed via movement of infested, potted plants, although evidence of such dispersal has not been found.  Therefore, it receives a Medium (2) in this category.

– Low (1) does not have high reproductive or dispersal potential.

– Medium (2) has either high reproductive or dispersal potential.

– High (3) has both high reproduction and dispersal potential.

4) Economic Impact: Phyllopertha horticola is a recognized pest, both in the larval as well as in the adult stage.  If this beetle became established in California, it could become a pest in agricultural situations, for example, in orchards, tree nurseries, or pastures. Therefore, it receives a Medium (2) in this category.

Economic Impact:  A, B

A. The pest could lower crop yield.

B. The pest could lower crop value (includes increasing crop production costs).

C. The pest could trigger the loss of markets (includes quarantines).

D. The pest could negatively change normal cultural practices.

E. The pest can vector, or is vectored, by another pestiferous organism.

F. The organism is injurious or poisonous to agriculturally important animals.

G. The organism can interfere with the delivery or supply of water for agricultural uses.

Economic Impact Score:  2

– Low (1) causes 0 or 1 of these impacts.

– Medium (2) causes 2 of these impacts.

– High (3) causes 3 or more of these impacts.

5) Environmental Impact: If Phyllopertha horticola became established in California, it could invade a variety of ecosystems, including prairie and grassland, where feeding by the larvae could disrupt native plant communities. This beetle could become a pest of trees and lawns in California, which could lead to treatment programs.  Therefore, it receives a High (3) in this category.

Evaluate the environmental impact of the pest on California using the criteria below.

Environmental Impact:  A, D, E

A. The pest could have a significant environmental impact such as lowering biodiversity, disrupting natural communities, or changing ecosystem processes.

 B. The pest could directly affect threatened or endangered species.

C. The pest could impact threatened or endangered species by disrupting critical habitats.

D. The pest could trigger additional official or private treatment programs.

E. The pest significantly impacts cultural practices, home/urban gardening or ornamental plantings.

 Score the pest for Environmental Impact. Score:

Environmental Impact Score:  3

– Low (1) causes none of the above to occur.

– Medium (2) causes one of the above to occur.

– High (3) causes two or more of the above to occur.

Consequences of Introduction to California for Phyllopertha horticola: Medium (12)

Add up the total score and include it here.

–Low = 5-8 points

–Medium = 9-12 points

–High = 13-15 points

6) Post Entry Distribution and Survey Information: Phyllopertha horticola is not known to be present in California.  It receives a Not established (0) in this category.

–Not established (0) Pest never detected in California, or known only from incursions.

–Low (-1) Pest has a localized distribution in California, or is established in one suitable climate/host area (region).

–Medium (-2) Pest is widespread in California but not fully established in the endangered area, or pest established in two contiguous suitable climate/host areas.

–High (-3) Pest has fully established in the endangered area, or pest is reported in more than two contiguous or non-contiguous suitable climate/host areas.

Final Score:

7) The final score is the consequences of introduction score minus the post entry distribution and survey information score: Medium (12)

Uncertainty:

There appears to be little uncertainty regarding the potential of Phyllopertha horticola to become an established pest in California.  The climate appears to be suitable, host plants are presumably widespread in the state, and this beetle is already a recognized pest in Europe.

Conclusion and Rating Justification:

Phyllopertha horticola is a serious pest of fruit trees, grass, and other plants in its native Europe, and it poses the same threat to California, where it is not yet known to occur.  For these reasons, an “A” rating is justified.


References:

Aas, C. K., Olstad, T., Drageset, O.- M., Haukeland, S., Kleppestø, O., and Rukke, B. A.  2008.  A biological battle against the thousands of garden chafers (Phyllopertha horticola) that attract large numbers of gulls (Larus sp.) during the summer season at Rygge Air Station, Norway.  International Bird Strike Committee.  Accessed February 2, 2018:
http://www.int-birdstrike.org/Brasil_Papers/IBSC28%20WP15.pdf

Agricultural Research Service.  1957.  Insects not known to occur in the United States.  Cooperative Economic Insect Report 7:1-67.

CDFA Pest and Damage Report Database.  2018.  Phyllopertha horticola.  Plant Health and Pest Prevention Services. CA Department of Food and Agriculture.  Accessed February 2, 2018: https://pdr.cdfa.ca.gov/PDR/pdrmainmenu.aspx

Hann, P., Trska, C., Wechselberger, K. F., Eitzinger, J., and Kromp, B.  2015.  Phyllopertha horticola (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) larvae in eastern Austrian mountainous grasslands and the associated damage risk related to soil, topography and management.  SpringerPlus 4:139: 1-15.

Hill, D. S.  1987.  Agricultural Insect Pests of Temperate Regions and Their Control.  Cambridge University Press, New York, NY

Jackson, T. A.  2006.  Scarabs as pests: A continuing problem.  Coleopterists Society Monograph 5:102-119.

Mabbett, T.  2009.  Chafer grub, the pre-eminent insect pest of UK turf.  Greenkeeper International, May, 2009: 21-23.

Pernfuss, B., Zelger, R., Kron-Morelli, R., and Strasser, H.  2005.  Control of the garden chafer Phyllopertha horticola with GranMet-P, a new product made of Metarhizium anisopliae.  Insect Pathogens and Insect Parasitic Nematodes: Melolontha.  International Organization for Biological and Integrated Control of Noxious Animals and Plants, West Palearctic Regional Section Bulletin 28:9-12.

Petrova, V., Jankevica, L., and Samsone, I.  2013.  Species of phytophagous insects associated with strawberries in Latvia.  Proceedings of the Latvian Academy of Sciences, Section B, 67:124-129.

Ruther, J. and Mayer, C. J.  2005.  Response of garden chafer, Phyllopertha horticola, to plant volatiles: from screening to application.  Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 115:51–59.

Stalažs, A.  2015.  Review of sea buckthorn pests in Latvia.  p. 88 in Sanna, K. and Ekaterina, P. (eds.), Producing Sea Buckthorn of High Quality, Proceedings of the 3rd European Workshop on Sea Buckthorn.  Natural Resources Institute Finland, Helsinki, Finland.

Symbiota Collections of Arthropods Network.  Accessed February 2, 2018: http://scan1.acis.ufl.edu

 


Author:

Kyle Beucke, 1220 N Street, Room 221, Sacramento, CA, 95814, 916-403-6741; plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov.

Responsible Party:

Jason Leathers, 2800 Gateway Oaks, Sacramento CA 95833, (916) 654-1211, plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov


Comment Period:*

7/3/18 – 8/17/18


*NOTE:

You must be registered and logged in to post a comment.  If you have registered and have not received the registration confirmation, please contact us at plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov.


Comment Format:

♦  Comments should refer to the appropriate California Pest Rating Proposal Form subsection(s) being commented on, as shown below.

Example Comment:
Consequences of Introduction:  1. Climate/Host Interaction: [Your comment that relates to “Climate/Host Interaction” here.]

♦  Posted comments will not be able to be viewed immediately.

♦  Comments may not be posted if they:

Contain inappropriate language which is not germane to the pest rating proposal;

Contains defamatory, false, inaccurate, abusive, obscene, pornographic, sexually oriented, threatening, racially offensive, discriminatory or illegal material;

Violates agency regulations prohibiting sexual harassment or other forms of discrimination;

Violates agency regulations prohibiting workplace violence, including threats.

♦  Comments may be edited prior to posting to ensure they are entirely germane.

♦  Posted comments shall be those which have been approved in content and posted to the website to be viewed, not just submitted.


Posted by ls 

Ambrosia Beetle | Euwallacea similis (Ferrari)

California Pest Rating Proposal for
Ambrosia Beetle | Euwallacea similis (Ferrari)
Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae
Current Pest Rating: Q
Proposed Pest Rating: A

 


Comment Period: 6/28/18 – 8/12/18


 Initiating Event:

Euwallacea similis is currently Q-rated.  A permanent pest rating proposal is required to support an official pest rating.

History & Status:

Background:  Adult female Euwallacea similis measure approximately 2.5 mm in length.  Males are smaller, approximately 1.8 mm long.  Body color is reddish-brown (Kalshoven, 1964).  Like other ambrosia beetles, this species excavates galleries in wood.  Ambrosia fungus becomes established in these galleries and provides the primary food source for the larvae.  This beetle is common in stressed and dead (including cut) trees in the tropics; it is not known to attack healthy trees (Browne, 1961; CABI, 2018; Kalshoven, 1964; Maiti and Saha, 1986).  Some ambrosia beetles directly damage cut timber via tunneling behavior and stain the wood with the ambrosia fungus.  Browne (1961) reported E. similis to attack cut trees, and Sittichaya and Beaver (2009) reported damage to sawn rubber tree wood.  Reported host plants of E. similis include 62 genera in 29 families (Kalshoven, 1964; Maiti and Saha, 1986; Wood and Bright, 1992).

Worldwide Distribution:  Ambrosia beetles are easily introduced to new localities via movement of infested wood.  This is likely the reason that the native distribution of E. similis is uncertain.  However, this beetle is thought to be native to Asia and the Pacific from Pakistan to the Solomon Islands (CABI, 2017).  Countries included in the presumed native distribution are Australia, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Cambodia, China, India, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam (CABI, 2017; Mathew et al., 2005; Rabaglia et al., 2006; Schedle, 1968).  This beetle has been introduced to Cameroon, Egypt, Jordan, Kenya, Mauritania, Mauritius, Pacific Islands (including Christmas Island, Cocos Island, Fiji, French Polynesia, Guam, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, New Caledonia, Northern Mariana Islands, Palau, and Samoa), Seychelles, South Africa, Tanzania, and the United States (Florida, Mississippi, and Texas) (Atkinson, 2018; CABI, 2017; K. Fairbanks, pers. comm.; Halbert, 2012; Halbert, 2014; Symbiota Collections of Arthropods Network).

Official Control: Euwallacea similis is a Controlled Pest in the Republic of Korea (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2016).

California Distribution:  Euwallacea similis is not known to occur in California (Symbiota Collections of Arthropods Network).

California Interceptions:  Euwallacea similis was intercepted on Limnophila chinensis cuttings from Hawaii in 2004 (CDFA Pest and Damage Report Database, 2018).

The risk Euwallacea similis would pose to California is evaluated below.

Consequences of Introduction:

1) Climate/Host Interaction: Euwallacea similis is apparently restricted to tropical and subtropical areas, so climate could limit the distribution of this species in California. This beetle has been reported to utilize numerous species of trees in at least 29 families.  Most or all of California has trees from many of these families (Calflora, 2018).  Fungus, which is the food of all life stages of similis, is carried by the adult female and would therefore be introduced to any new places this beetle inhabits.  Therefore, Euwallacea similis receives a Medium (2) in this category.

– Low (1) Not likely to establish in California; or likely to establish in very limited areas.

– Medium (2) may be able to establish in a larger but limited part of California.

– High (3) likely to establish a widespread distribution in California.

2) Known Pest Host Range: Euwallacea similis feeds on fungi in galleries that are excavated in trees. Trees in at least 29 families are used by this beetle.  A broad host range is typical of ambrosia beetles.  Therefore, it receives a High (3) in this category.

– Low (1) has a very limited host range.

– Medium (2) has a moderate host range.

– High (3) has a wide host range.

3) Pest Reproductive and Dispersal Potential: There is evidence suggesting that ambrosia beetles that have brother-sister mating, which is the case with similis, have an enhanced ability to disperse and colonize new areas.  A single female, whether fertilized or not, can start a new population.  If she is unfertilized, she can produce sons from unfertilized eggs and mate with them.  Euwallacea similis flies (specimens have been caught with funnel traps).  Rapid, long-distance dispersal could result from movement of infested firewood (Wood, 2007).  Therefore, it receives a High (3) in this category.

– Low (1) does not have high reproductive or dispersal potential.

– Medium (2) has either high reproductive or dispersal potential.

– High (3) has both high reproduction and dispersal potential.

4) Economic Impact: Euwallacea similis is reported to only attack stressed, dead, or dying trees; it is not reported to attack healthy trees (CABI, Kalshoven, 1964).  However, this species is reported to attack sawn timber, and it could therefore damage cut timber through gallery excavation and staining caused by the ambrosia fungus (Sittichaya and Beaver, 2009).  Avoidance of this damage could require a change in normal cultural practices.  There is also the chance that this beetle could vector a plant-pathogenic fungus to economically-important trees.  Therefore, it receives a Medium  (2) in this category.

Economic Impact:  D, E

A. The pest could lower crop yield.

B. The pest could lower crop value (includes increasing crop production costs).

C. The pest could trigger the loss of markets (includes quarantines).

D. The pest could negatively change normal cultural practices.

E. The pest can vector, or is vectored, by another pestiferous organism.

F. The organism is injurious or poisonous to agriculturally important animals.

G. The organism can interfere with the delivery or supply of water for agricultural uses.

Economic Impact Score:  2

– Low (1) causes 0 or 1 of these impacts.

– Medium (2) causes 2 of these impacts.

– High (3) causes 3 or more of these impacts.

5) Environmental Impact: Euwallacea similis has not been reported to have an environmental impact anywhere it has been introduced. This does not mean that this beetle is not capable of having an impact in California.  Ambrosia beetles are less constrained than other scolytines in their host plant choices, and this makes it more difficult to predict what trees might be attacked in a new environment.  Therefore, it receives a High (3) in this category.

Evaluate the environmental impact of the pest on California using the criteria below.

Environmental Impact: A, B

A. The pest could have a significant environmental impact such as lowering biodiversity, disrupting natural communities, or changing ecosystem processes.

B. The pest could directly affect threatened or endangered species.

C. The pest could impact threatened or endangered species by disrupting critical habitats.

D. The pest could trigger additional official or private treatment programs.

E. The pest significantly impacts cultural practices, home/urban gardening or ornamental plantings.

Score the pest for Environmental Impact. Score:

Environmental Impact Score:  3

– Low (1) causes none of the above to occur.

– Medium (2) causes one of the above to occur.

– High (3) causes two or more of the above to occur.

Consequences of Introduction to California for Euwallacea similis: High (13)

Add up the total score and include it here.

–Low = 5-8 points

–Medium = 9-12 points

–High = 13-15 points

6) Post Entry Distribution and Survey Information: Euwallacea similis is not known to be present in California.  It receives a Not established (0) in this category.

–Not established (0) Pest never detected in California, or known only from incursions.

–Low (-1) Pest has a localized distribution in California, or is established in one suitable climate/host area (region).

–Medium (-2) Pest is widespread in California but not fully established in the endangered area, or pest established in two contiguous suitable climate/host areas.

–High (-3) Pest has fully established in the endangered area, or pest is reported in more than two contiguous or non-contiguous suitable climate/host areas.

Final Score:

The final score is the consequences of introduction score minus the post entry distribution and survey information score: High (13)

Uncertainty:

There is a lack of evidence that E. similis is having economic or environmental impacts in the United States, where this species is apparently established in Florida, Mississippi, and Texas.  Therefore, the possible economic impacts considered in this proposal may be pessimistic.  There do not appear to be any reports of E. similis having an environmental impact anywhere in the world.  However, this may simply reflect a lack of research rather than an actual lack of impact.  Ambrosia beetles depend on ambrosia fungi, which have their own environmental requirements, including temperature and humidity (Kirisits, 2007).  The climate of California may not be suitable for these fungi, which may preclude the establishment of E. similis.  Drought-stressed trees could be more susceptible to attack by ambrosia beetles, including E. similis.  Therefore, an increase in drought resulting from climate change could make California’s trees more vulnerable to this and other ambrosia beetles.  There is also uncertainty regarding the possibility of E. similis (and other ambrosia beetles) interacting with plant-pathogenic fungal species that are already present in California.

Conclusion and Rating Justification:

There is no evidence that Euwallacea similis causes economic or environmental damage anywhere it is known to have been introduced.  However, it seems that a cautious approach is best with possible forest pests.  The behavior of this beetle may be different in the environments of California.  At least one introduced ambrosia beetle, Xyleborus glabratus, has become a serious pest species in the southeastern United States; it is having a significant impact on the environment as well as threatening the avocado industry.  The fungus symbiosis with ambrosia beetles raises special concerns, because the beetle could bring with it possibly pathogenic fungi new to California, or it could develop a new relationship with fungi already here.  For these reasons, an “A” rating is justified.


References:

Atkinson, T. H.  2018.  Bark and ambrosia beetles.  Accessed: February 16, 2018: http://www.barkbeetles.info/about.php

Browne, F. G.  1961.  The biology of Malayan Scolytidae and Platypodidae.  Malayan Forest Records 22:1-255.

CABI.  2017.  Invasive Species Compendium.  Accessed February 2, 2018: www.cabi.org/isc

Calflora.  2018.  Information on California plants for education, research and conservation, with data contributed by public and private institutions and individuals.  Accessed February 6, 2018: http://www.calflora.org

CDFA Pest and Damage Report Database.  2018.  Euwallacea similis.  Plant Health and Pest Prevention Services. CA Department of Food and Agriculture.  Accessed April 25, 2018: https://pdr.cdfa.ca.gov/PDR/pdrmainmenu.aspx

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.  2016.  List of quarantine pests in Korea.  Accessed February 2, 2018: https://www.ippc.int/en/countries/republic-of-korea/reportingobligation/2014/04/the-list-of-quarantine-pest-2013/

Halbert, S. E.  2012.  Entomology section.  Tri-ology 51:7-9.

Halbert, S. E.  2014.  Entomology section.  Tri-ology 53: 6-9.

Kalshoven, L. G. E.  1964.  The occurrence of Xyleborus perforans (Woll.) and X. similis in Java (Coleoptera, Scolytidae).  Beaufortia 11:131-142.

Kirisits, T.  2007.  Fungal associates of European bark beetles with special emphasis on the ophiostomatoid fungi.  pp. 181-235 in Lieutier, F., Day, K.R., Battisti, A., Grégoire, J-C., and H.F. Evans, H.F. (eds.), Bark and wood boring insects in living trees in Europe, a synthesis.  Springer.

Maiti, P. K. and Saha, N.  1986.  A contribution to the knowledge of the bark and timber beetles (Scolytidae: Coleoptera) of the islands of Andaman and Nicobar, India.  Records of the Zoological Survey of India Miscellaneous Publication Occasional Paper 86:1-182.

Mathew, G., Shamsudeen, R. S. M., and Chandran, R.  2005.  Insect fauna of Peechi-Vazhani Wildlife Sanctuary, Kerala, India.  ZOO’s Print Journal 20:1955-1960.

Rabaglia, R. J., Dole, S. A., and Cognato, A. I.  2006.  Review of American Xyleborina (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae) occurring north of Mexico, with an illustrated key.  Annals of the Entomological Society of America 99:1034-1056.

Schedl, K. E.  1968.  On some Scolytidae and Platypodidae of economic importance from the territory of Papua and New Guinea.  Pacific Insects 10:261-270.

Sittichaya, W. and Beaver, R.  2009.  Rubberwood-destroying beetles in the eastern and gulf areas of Thailand (Coleoptera: Bostrichidae, Curculionidae: Scolytinae and Platypodinae).  Songklanakarin Journal of Science and Technology 31:381-387.

Symbiota Collections of Arthropods Network.  Accessed February 16, 2018: http://scan1.acis.ufl.edu

Wood, S. L.  2007.  Bark and ambrosia beetles of South America.  Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah.


Author:

Kyle Beucke, 1220 N Street, Room 221, Sacramento, CA, 95814, 916-403-6741; plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov.

Responsible Party:

Jason Leathers, 2800 Gateway Oaks, Sacramento CA 95833, (916) 654-1211, plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov


Comment Period:*

6/28/18 – 8/12/18


*NOTE:

You must be registered and logged in to post a comment.  If you have registered and have not received the registration confirmation, please contact us at plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov.


Comment Format:

♦  Comments should refer to the appropriate California Pest Rating Proposal Form subsection(s) being commented on, as shown below.

Example Comment:
Consequences of Introduction:  1. Climate/Host Interaction: [Your comment that relates to “Climate/Host Interaction” here.]

♦  Posted comments will not be able to be viewed immediately.

♦  Comments may not be posted if they:

Contain inappropriate language which is not germane to the pest rating proposal;

Contains defamatory, false, inaccurate, abusive, obscene, pornographic, sexually oriented, threatening, racially offensive, discriminatory or illegal material;

Violates agency regulations prohibiting sexual harassment or other forms of discrimination;

Violates agency regulations prohibiting workplace violence, including threats.

♦  Comments may be edited prior to posting to ensure they are entirely germane.

♦  Posted comments shall be those which have been approved in content and posted to the website to be viewed, not just submitted.


Posted by ls 

Japanese Pine Sawyer | Monochamus alternatus (Hope)

California Pest Rating Proposal for
Japanese Pine Sawyer | Monochamus alternatus (Hope)
Coleoptera: Cerambycidae
Current Pest Rating: Q
Proposed Pest Rating: A

 


Comment Period: 6/28/18 – 8/12/18


Initiating Event:

Monochamus alternatus is currently Q-rated.  A permanent pest rating proposal is required to support an official pest rating.

History & Status:

Background:  Monochamus alternatus is a large (1.5-3 cm in length) beetle that is orange-brown with gray and black markings on the elytra and black stripes on the pronotum (Benker, 2012).  The eggs are laid in dead or dying coniferous trees, primarily Pinus species but also Abies, Cedrus, Larix, and Picea species (Benker, 2012).  The larvae feed on the wood and pupate inside the host.  Adults feed on living branches of healthy pines before mating.  This pre-reproduction feeding is common in Cerambycidae and is referred to as maturation feeding (Shibata, 1984).  Monochamus alternatus is a vector of the pine wood nematode or pine wilt nematode, Bursaphelenchus xylophilus (Steiner and Buhrer), which causes pine wilt disease, a deadly disease of pines (Kwon et al., 2006; Shibata, 1984).  The nematode is transmitted to healthy trees during maturation feeding, and if the tree is susceptible, pine wilt disease ensues.  The nematodes are also transferred to dead trees during oviposition.  Nematodes that are present in the dead trees while the beetle is developing are then dispersed with the emerging adult beetle to be transmitted to healthy trees during maturation feeding.  This nematode is native to North America and appears to cause little damage there, although exotic pines are also attacked (Donald et al., 2016).  The nematode has been introduced to the Old World and has had a severe impact in Asia.

Cerambycids that feed on dead wood, including Monochamus species, can damage cut timber through the tunneling and feeding of the larvae and the staining of the wood by fungi that enter the wood through feeding damage (Raske, 1972).  Monochamus species were reported to be some of the most common pests of wood in mill yards in British Columbia, and the tunneling of their larvae significantly degraded the value of timber (Carlson, 1997).

Worldwide Distribution:  Monochamus alternatus is present in China, Korea, Japan, Laos, Taiwan, and Vietnam (Kwon et al., 2006).

Official Control: Monochamus alternatus is categorized as an “A1” pest by the EPPO, a quarantine pest by Canada and Norway, and reportable by the USDA-APHIS (EPPO, 2018; USDA-APHIS).

California Distribution:  Monochamus alternatus is not known to be present in California (Symbiota Collections of Arthropods Network).

California Interceptions:  Monochamus alternatus was found in a store in Sacramento County, apparently having emerged from wood crates from China, in 2005.  The species was also found on wood crates from China in Santa Clara County in 1995, although this identification was tentative (CDFA Pest and Damage Report Database, 2018).

The risk Monochamus alternatus would pose to California is evaluated below.

Consequences of Introduction:

1) Climate/Host Interaction: The climates represented by the distribution of Monochamus alternatus apparently range from tropical to temperate. In one experiment, the survival of the beetle at low temperatures led the authors to suggest -10°C January mean air temperature as the lower limit of survival (Ma et al., 2006).  The majority of California has higher mean January temperatures than this (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2018).  This beetle is reported to feed on trees in the genera Pinus, Abies, Cedrus, Larix, and Picea.  Except for Larix, there are numerous native and introduced species from these genera in California, and they are distributed widely within the state.  Monochamus alternatus could become established in a large portion of California.  Therefore, Monochamus alternatus receives a High (3) in this category.

– Low (1) Not likely to establish in California; or likely to establish in very limited areas.

– Medium (2) may be able to establish in a larger but limited part of California.

– High (3) likely to establish a widespread distribution in California.

2) Known Pest Host Range: Monochamus alternatus is reported to feed on five genera in the family Pinaceae. Therefore, it receives a Medium (2) in this category.

– Low (1) has a very limited host range.

– Medium (2) has a moderate host range.

– High (3) has a wide host range.

3) Pest Dispersal Potential: Monochamus alternatus can fly (Ito, 1982), and is also capable of being dispersed through movement of wood, as shown by the interception of this species in wood packing material.  Therefore, it receives a Medium (2) in this category.

– Low (1) does not have high reproductive or dispersal potential.

– Medium (2) has either high reproductive or dispersal potential.

– High (3) has both high reproduction and dispersal potential.

4) Economic Impact: If alternatus became established in California, it could damage cut timber, which would reduce the value of the timber.  The timing of timber harvest may be changed in response to this.  This beetle is a known vector of the pine wood nematode, which is present in California and damages and kills introduced pines.  Therefore, it receives a High (3) in this category.

Economic Impact:  B, D, E

A. The pest could lower crop yield.

B. The pest could lower crop value (includes increasing crop production costs).

C. The pest could trigger the loss of markets (includes quarantines).

D. The pest could negatively change normal cultural practices.

E. The pest can vector, or is vectored, by another pestiferous organism.

F. The organism is injurious or poisonous to agriculturally important animals.

G. The organism can interfere with the delivery or supply of water for agricultural uses.

Economic Impact Score:  3

– Low (1) causes 0 or 1 of these impacts.

– Medium (2) causes 2 of these impacts.

– High (3) causes 3 or more of these impacts.

5) Environmental Impact: Monochamus alternatus is a known vector of pine wood nematode, which is present in California. This nematode apparently does not impact native pines, but it damages and kills introduced pines, so plantings of introduced pines in California would be threatened by the establishment of this beetle.  Therefore, it receives a Medium (2) in this category.

Evaluate the environmental impact of the pest on California using the criteria below.

Environmental Impact:  E

A. The pest could have a significant environmental impact such as lowering biodiversity, disrupting natural communities, or changing ecosystem processes.

B. The pest could directly affect threatened or endangered species.

C. The pest could impact threatened or endangered species by disrupting critical habitats.

D. The pest could trigger additional official or private treatment programs.

E. The pest significantly impacts cultural practices, home/urban gardening or ornamental plantings.

Environmental Impact Score:  2

– Low (1) causes none of the above to occur.

– Medium (2) causes one of the above to occur.

– High (3) causes two or more of the above to occur.

Consequences of Introduction to California for Monochamus alternatus: Medium (12)

Add up the total score and include it here.

–Low = 5-8 points

–Medium = 9-12 points

–High = 13-15 points

6) Post Entry Distribution and Survey Information: Monochamus alternatus is not known to be present in California.  It receives a Not established (0) in this category.

–Not established (0) Pest never detected in California, or known only from incursions.

–Low (-1) Pest has a localized distribution in California, or is established in one suitable climate/host area (region).

–Medium (-2) Pest is widespread in California but not fully established in the endangered area, or pest established in two contiguous suitable climate/host areas.

–High (-3) Pest has fully established in the endangered area, or pest is reported in more than two contiguous or non-contiguous suitable climate/host areas.

Final Score:

7) The final score is the consequences of introduction score minus the post entry distribution and survey information score: Medium (12)

Uncertainty:

There is some uncertainty regarding the potential for M. alternatus to impact living trees.  Such concerns, however, are based on the biology reported for other Monochamus species, and may not apply to M. alternatus.  Maturation feeding by other Monochamus species is reported to injure trees and make them susceptible to other pests (Ethington, 2015; Ross et al., 1991).  Other Monochamus species are also reported to lay eggs on living trees, although this often occurred during field experiments that involved attracting the beetles to trees with pheromones, so the conditions may not have been realistic.  In addition, larval survival in such cases appears to be low, apparently because the living trees resisted the attacks with resin flow (Ethington, 2015; Ethington et al., 2015).  Lastly, there is the possibility that M. alternatus could bring other pests with it to California and transmit them to living trees during maturation feeding.  For example, there is a native Asian species of Bursaphelenchus that occurs in pines.  This nematode could have a more significant impact on pines in North America if it became established here, similar to how the pine wood nematode is a serious problem in Asia but not in North America (where it is native) (Van Driesche et al., 2013).  Any one of these (potential for adult or larval feeding to impact living trees and potential for carrying and vectoring nematodes or other plant pathogens not present in California) could increase the risk that M. alternatus poses to California.

Conclusion and Rating Justification:

Monochamus alternatus is a wood-boring beetle that is not known to be present in California.  The species belongs to a genus that is known to cause significant damage to timber.  In addition, M. alternatus vectors an important pine pest, pine wood nematode, and although this nematode is already present in California, this beetle could possibly carry with it other plant pathogens (including nematodes) not yet present in California.  This beetle poses an economic and environmental threat to California.  For these reasons, an “A” rating is justified.


References:

Benker, U.  2012.  Monochamus alternatus – The next alien causing trouble.  Forstschutz Aktuell 55:34-37.

CDFA Pest and Damage Report Database.  2018.  Monochamus alternatus.  Plant Health and Pest Prevention Services. CA Department of Food and Agriculture.  Accessed April 18, 2018: https://pdr.cdfa.ca.gov/PDR/pdrmainmenu.aspx

Carlson, J. A.  1997.  Damage assessment of wood borers in the interior of B.C.  Forest Renewal BC Research Program.

Donald, P. A., Stamps, W. T., Linit, M. J., and Todd, T. C.  2016.  Pine wilt disease.  Accessed April 18, 2018: https://www.apsnet.org/edcenter/intropp/lessons/Nematodes/Pages/PineWilt.aspx

EPPO.  2018.  EPPO global database.  Accessed April 23, 2018:  https://gd.eppo.int/taxon/MONCAL/categorization

Ethington, M.  2015.  Southeastern Monochamus and their interactions with healthy shortleaf pine trees and associated Ips grandicollis bark beetles.  M.S. thesis. University of Arkansas.

Ethington, M., Galligan, L., Wakarchuk, D., and Stephen, F.  2015.  Can pheromones and host volatiles induce Monochamus species (Cerambycidae: Lamiinae) to colonize healthy shortleaf pines?  Accessed April 24, 2018: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275273308_Can_pheromones_and_host_volatiles_induce_Monochamus_species_Cerambycidae_Lamiinae_to_colonize_healthy_shortleaf_pines

Ito, K.  1982.  The tethered flight of the Japanese pine sawyer, Monochamus alternatus Hope (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae).  Journal of the Japanese Forest Society 64:395-397.

Kwon, T.- S., Lim, J.- H., Sim, S.- J., Kwon, Y.- D., Son, S.- K., Lee, K.- Y., Kim, Y.- T., Park, J.- W., Shin, C.- H., Ryu, S.- B., Lee, C.- K., Shin, S.- C., Chung, Y.- J., and Park, Y.- S.  2006.  Distribution patterns of Monochamus alternatus and M. saltuarius (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) in Korea.  Journal of Korean Forest Society 95:543-550.

Ma, R.- Y., Hao, S.- G., Kong, W.- N., Sun, J.- H., and Kang, L.  2006.  Cold hardiness as a factor for assessing the potential distribution of the Japanese pine sawyer Monochamus alternatus (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) in China.  Annals of Forest Science 63:449-456.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.  2018.  National Centers for Environmental Information.  Accessed April 20, 2018: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/

Raske, A. G.  1972.  Biology and control of Monochamus and Tetropium, the economic wood borers of Alberta (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae).  Northern Forest Research Centre Internal Report NOR-9:1-48.

Ross, D., Johnson, K., and Hilburn, D.  1991.  Siberian forest pests of concern in wood.  pp. I-50-I-54 in U.S.D.A. Forest Service (ed.), Pest Risk Assessment of the Importation of Larch from Siberia and the Soviet Far East. United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service.

Shibata, E.  1984.  Spatial distribution pattern of the Japanese pine sawyer, Monochamus alternatus Hope (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae), on dead pine trees.  Applied Entomology and Zoology 19:361-366.

Symbiota Collections of Arthropods Network.  Accessed April 18, 2018: http://scan1.acis.ufl.edu

USDA-APHIS.  2018.  U.S. regulated plant pest table.  Accessed April 23, 2018:  https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/planthealth/import-information/rppl/rppl-table

Van Driesche, R. G., LaForest, J. H., Bargeron, C. T., Reardon, R. C., and Herlihy, M.  2013.  Forest Pest Insects in North America: A Photographic Guide.  Accessed: June 7, 2018 https://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/technology/pdfs/Forest_Pest_Insects_Photo_Guide_508.pdf


Author:

Kyle Beucke, 1220 N Street, Room 221, Sacramento, CA, 95814, 916-403-6741; plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov.

Responsible Party:

Jason Leathers, 2800 Gateway Oaks, Sacramento CA 95833, (916) 654-1211, plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov


Comment Period:*

6/28/18 – 8/12/18


*NOTE:

You must be registered and logged in to post a comment.  If you have registered and have not received the registration confirmation, please contact us at plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov.


Comment Format:

♦  Comments should refer to the appropriate California Pest Rating Proposal Form subsection(s) being commented on, as shown below.

Example Comment:
Consequences of Introduction:  1. Climate/Host Interaction: [Your comment that relates to “Climate/Host Interaction” here.]

♦  Posted comments will not be able to be viewed immediately.

♦  Comments may not be posted if they:

Contain inappropriate language which is not germane to the pest rating proposal;

Contains defamatory, false, inaccurate, abusive, obscene, pornographic, sexually oriented, threatening, racially offensive, discriminatory or illegal material;

Violates agency regulations prohibiting sexual harassment or other forms of discrimination;

Violates agency regulations prohibiting workplace violence, including threats.

♦  Comments may be edited prior to posting to ensure they are entirely germane.

♦  Posted comments shall be those which have been approved in content and posted to the website to be viewed, not just submitted.


Posted by ls 

Beetle | Semanotus sinoauster Gressitt

California Pest Rating Proposal for
Beetle | Semanotus sinoauster Gressitt
Coleoptera: Cerambycidae
Current Pest Rating: Q
Proposed Pest Rating: A

 


Comment Period: 6/28/18 – 8/12/18


Initiating Event:

Semanotus sinoauster is currently Q-rated.  A permanent pest rating proposal is required to support an official pest rating.

History & Status:

Background:  Semanotus sinoauster is a beetle that measure 1.3 to 2 cm in length and is black to reddish-brown with black and yellow bands on the elytra (Niisato, 2004).  The larvae feed in the wood of Chinese fir (Cunninghamia lanceolata) (Cupressaceae).  This beetle is reported to be a pest of this tree, which suggests that living trees are attacked, but definite information has not been found regarding the condition of the trees attacked (e.g., healthy, dead, or compromised).  This beetle may also attack Fokienia hodginsii (Cupressaceae) (Niisato, 2004).  Other Semanotus species are reported to attack living trees as well as recently-killed trees, for example, those brought down by wind.  For example, Semanotus laurasii was introduced to Europe from Africa and it is reported to attack, injure, and kill cypress trees in Spain, and Semanotus japonicus is reported to attack live Japanese cedar and cypress trees (Martínez-Blay et al., 2014; Togashi, 1985).  Experiments with S. japonicus larvae demonstrated that larvae can only develop in fresh wood, likely because of the higher nutritional content, but they can be killed with resin flow by healthy trees.  This suggests that Semanotus species in general (including S. sinoauster) could take advantage of living trees that are weakened or otherwise unable to mount a successful defense of resin flow (Shibata, 1995).

Even if S. sinoauster only attacks dead or dying trees, it could still cause losses to timber.  Other Semanotus species are reported to cause such damage.  For example, S. litogiosus was reported to be the most important source of borer-induced timber deterioration in wind-thrown firs in California (Wickman, 1965).

Other Semanotus species are reported not to require maturation feeding (pre-reproductive feeding by adults, typically on living tissues of trees), and S. sinoauster is presumed to be similar (Blay, 2014; Cherepanov, 1988).

Semanotus bifasciatus sinoauster Gressitt is a synonym of S. sinoauster.  Information reported for this synonym was considered in this proposal.

Worldwide Distribution:  Semanotus sinoauster is reported from and presumably native to southern China and northeast Laos (Belokobylskij et al., 2013; Niisato, 2004; Wickham et al., 2016).

Official Control: Semanotus sinoauster is considered reportable by the USDA-APHIS.

California Distribution:  Semanotus sinoauster is not known to be present in California (Symbiota Collections of Arthropods Network).

California Interceptions:  Semanotus sinoauster has not been intercepted in California (CDFA Pest and Damage Report Database, 2018).

The risk Semanotus sinoauster would pose to California is evaluated below.

Consequences of Introduction:

1) Climate/Host Interaction: Semanotus sinoauster may be presently limited to areas with a subtropical climate. The available evidence suggests it may feed on two species of Cupressaceae.  Climate may limit the potential distribution of this species in California.  If it is capable of feeding on additional species of Cupressaceae, it may be able to become established in a limited part of California. Therefore, sinoauster receives a Medium (2) in this category.

– Low (1) Not likely to establish in California; or likely to establish in very limited areas.

– Medium (2) may be able to establish in a larger but limited part of California.

– High (3) likely to establish a widespread distribution in California.

2) Known Pest Host Range: Semanotus sinoauster is reported to feed on one species of tree, Cunninghamia lanceolata. It has been tentatively reported to feed on another species in this family as well.  Therefore, it receives a Low (1) in this category.

– Low (1) has a very limited host range.

– Medium (2) has a moderate host range.

– High (3) has a wide host range.

3) Pest Reproductive and Dispersal Potential: Semanotus sinoauster presumably flies, and it could probably be dispersed through movement of infested wood.  Therefore, it receives a Medium (2) in this category.

– Low (1) does not have high reproductive or dispersal potential.

– Medium (2) has either high reproductive or dispersal potential.

– High (3) has both high reproduction and dispersal potential.

3) Economic Impact: Other Semanotus species are reported to attack freshly-killed trees and degrade timber quality.  If sinoauster displays a broader host range in California than it does in its native range, it is possible that it could attack other members of Cupressaceae in CA, including incense cedar (Calocedrus decurrens).  There is no data describing if living or dead trees are attacked by S. sinoauster in its native range.  If living or freshly-killed trees are attacked, this could lower timber crop yield.  If only freshly-killed trees are attacked, this could lower crop quality and could also change normal cultural practices, because the timing of the harvest of timber may have to be changed.  Therefore, it receives a High (3) in this category.

Economic Impact:  A, B, D

A. The pest could lower crop yield.

B. The pest could lower crop value (includes increasing crop production costs).

C. The pest could trigger the loss of markets (includes quarantines).

D. The pest could negatively change normal cultural practices.

E. The pest can vector, or is vectored, by another pestiferous organism.

F. The organism is injurious or poisonous to agriculturally important animals.

G. The organism can interfere with the delivery or supply of water for agricultural uses.

Economic Impact Score:  3

– Low (1) causes 0 or 1 of these impacts.

– Medium (2) causes 2 of these impacts.

– High (3) causes 3 or more of these impacts.

5) Environmental Impact: If Semanotus sinoauster becomes established in California, it will encounter species of trees that are presumably not present in its current area of distribution. If this beetle (1) can attack living trees and (2) is capable of attacking a broader range of hosts than it is currently known to, it could attack other trees in California.  There are rare species of Hesperocyparis in California, for example, the Endangered Santa Cruz cypress (Hesperocyparis abramsiana (C. B. Wolf) Bartel) and the Threatened Tecate cypress (Hesperocyparis forbesii (Jeps.) Bartel) (Calflora).  Trees in the family Cupressaceae are used in ornamental plantings, so if this beetle can attack living trees, it could impact such plantings.    Therefore, it receives a High (3) in this category.

Evaluate the environmental impact of the pest on California using the criteria below.

Environmental Impact:  B, E

A. The pest could have a significant environmental impact such as lowering biodiversity, disrupting natural communities, or changing ecosystem processes.

B. The pest could directly affect threatened or endangered species.

C. The pest could impact threatened or endangered species by disrupting critical habitats.

D. The pest could trigger additional official or private treatment programs.

E. The pest significantly impacts cultural practices, home/urban gardening or ornamental plantings.

Environmental Impact Score:  3

– Low (1) causes none of the above to occur.

– Medium (2) causes one of the above to occur.

– High (3) causes two or more of the above to occur.

Consequences of Introduction to California for Semanotus sinoauster: (11)

Add up the total score and include it here.

–Low = 5-8 points

–Medium = 9-12 points

–High = 13-15 points

6) Post Entry Distribution and Survey Information: Semanotus sinoauster is not known to be present in California.  It receives a Not established (0) in this category.

–Not established (0) Pest never detected in California, or known only from incursions.

–Low (-1) Pest has a localized distribution in California, or is established in one suitable climate/host area (region).

–Medium (-2) Pest is widespread in California but not fully established in the endangered area, or pest established in two contiguous suitable climate/host areas.

–High (-3) Pest has fully established in the endangered area, or pest is reported in more than two contiguous or non-contiguous suitable climate/host areas.

Final Score:

7) The final score is the consequences of introduction score minus the post entry distribution and survey information score: Medium (11)

Uncertainty:

There is significant uncertainty involved with this proposal.  There is some uncertainty regarding the suitability of California’s climate for Semanotus sinoauster.  This beetle appears to be currently limited to areas with a subtropical climate.  There is also significant uncertainty regarding the possibility of this beetle to attack trees in California.  Most of the possible threats considered in this proposal depend on the possibility of this beetle displaying a broader host range in California than it does in its native range.  If it is indeed restricted to the species it is reported to attack in its native range, it will almost certainly have, at most, a minor impact in the state.  Lastly, there is uncertainty regarding whether or not this beetle attacks living trees.  If it only attacks trees that are already dead, this beetle poses much less of a risk than is reflected in this proposal.

Conclusion and Rating Justification:

Semanotus sinoauster belongs to a genus with species that are reported to attack living trees and also to damage timber.  If this beetle becomes established in California and displays a broader host range here, it would pose an economic and environmental threat to the state.  For these reasons, an “A” rating is justified.

References:

Belokobylskij, S. A., Tang, P., and Chen, X.  2013.  Chinese species of the genus Neurocrassus Šnoflak, 1945 (Hymenoptera: Braconidae: Doryctinae), with a key to Asian species.  Annales Zoologici 63:235-249.

Blay, V. M.  2014.  Estudio de características físicas, biológicas y de movilidad de Semanotus laurasii (Lucas, 1851) (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae).  Masters thesis.  Universitat Politécnica de València.

Calflora. 2018. Information on California plants for education, research and conservation, with data contributed by public and private institutions and individuals.  Accessed May 11, 2018:  http://www.calflora.org

CDFA Pest and Damage Report Database.  2018.  Semanotus sinoauster.  Plant Health and Pest Prevention Services. CA Department of Food and Agriculture.  Accessed May 11, 2018: https://pdr.cdfa.ca.gov/PDR/pdrmainmenu.aspx

Cherepanov, A. I.  1988.  Cerambycidae of Northern Asia.  Volume 2, Part 1.  Amerind Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi.

Martínez-Blay, V., Martínez-Asensio, O., and Soto, A.  2014.  Dinámica estacional, biología y daños ocasionados por Semanotus laurasii (Lucas, 1851) (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) en cupresáceas de la ciudad de Valencia.  Actas de Horticultura 68:84-89.

Niisato, T.  2004.  Semanotus sinoauster (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae) firstly recorded from Laos.  Elytra 32:437-441.

Shibata, E.  1995.  Reproductive strategy of the Sugi bark borer, Semanotus japonicus

(Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) on Japanese cedar, Cryptomeria japonica.  Researches on Population Ecology 37:229-237.

Symbiota Collections of Arthropods Network.  Accessed May 11, 2018; http://scan1.acis.ufl.edu

Togashi, K.  1985.  Larval size variation of the Cryptomeria bark borer, Semanotus japonicus (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae, in standing trees.  Journal of the Japanese Forestry Society 67:461-463.

Wickham, J. D., Lu, W., Zhang, L. -W., Chen, Y., Zou, Y., Hanks, L. M., and Millar, J. G.  2016.  Likely aggregation-sex pheromones of the invasive beetle Callidiellum villosulum, and the related Asian species Allotraeus asiaticus, Semanotus bifasciatus, and Xylotrechus buqueti (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae).  Journal of Economic Entomology 2016:1-4.

Wickman, B. E.  1965.  Insect-caused deterioration of windthrown timber in northern California, 1963-1964.  Pacific Southwest Forest & Range Experiment Station Research Paper PSW-RP-20:1-14.


Author:

Kyle Beucke, 1220 N Street, Room 221, Sacramento, CA, 95814, 916-403-6741; plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov.

Responsible Party:

Jason Leathers, 2800 Gateway Oaks, Sacramento CA 95833, (916) 654-1211, plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov


Comment Period:*

6/28/18 – 8/12/18


*NOTE:

You must be registered and logged in to post a comment.  If you have registered and have not received the registration confirmation, please contact us at plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov.


Comment Format:

♦  Comments should refer to the appropriate California Pest Rating Proposal Form subsection(s) being commented on, as shown below.

Example Comment:
Consequences of Introduction:  1. Climate/Host Interaction: [Your comment that relates to “Climate/Host Interaction” here.]

♦  Posted comments will not be able to be viewed immediately.

♦  Comments may not be posted if they:

Contain inappropriate language which is not germane to the pest rating proposal;

Contains defamatory, false, inaccurate, abusive, obscene, pornographic, sexually oriented, threatening, racially offensive, discriminatory or illegal material;

Violates agency regulations prohibiting sexual harassment or other forms of discrimination;

Violates agency regulations prohibiting workplace violence, including threats.

♦  Comments may be edited prior to posting to ensure they are entirely germane.

♦  Posted comments shall be those which have been approved in content and posted to the website to be viewed, not just submitted.


Posted by ls 

European Pine Resin Midge | Cecidomyia pini (DeGeer)

California Pest Rating Proposal for
European Pine Resin Midge | Cecidomyia pini (DeGeer)
Diptera: Cecidomyiidae
Current Pest Rating: Q
Proposed Pest Rating: A

 


Comment Period: 6/27/18 – 8/11/18


Initiating Event:

Cecidomyia pini is currently Q-rated.  A permanent pest rating proposal is required to support an official pest rating.

History & Status:

Background:  Adult Cecidomyia pini are delicate flies with a brown-black color (DeGeer, 1776).  The size was not found by the author of this proposal, but adults of other Cecidomyia species are 2-5 mm in length.  The larvae of C. pini are yellow-red in color and are found on needles of Abies (fir), Picea (spruce), and Pinus (pine) species.  The larvae apparently feed on accumulations of resin on the needles (Barnes, 1951).  Gagné (1978) stated that Cecidomyia species are “primary feeders and cause extensive damage to pines.”  However, the literature is equivocal regarding the impact of C. pini on host trees.  Barnes (1951) considered C. pini not to be economically significant.  It is possible that C. pini feeds on resin that is released from pre-existing injuries, for example, feeding damage caused by another insect (Barnes, 1951; Felt, 1906).  Two sources suggest that C. pini causes damage to pine cones, including the death of cones and the loss of seeds (Dormont et al.; 1996; Roques et al., 2017).  Other species of Cecidomyia are reported to cause damage to pines, including gall-like deformities (California Forest Pest Control Action Council, 1968; Ferrell et al., 1987; Gagné, 1978; Reeks, 1960).    The larvae of Cecidomyia pini build cocoons on the needles and pupate in them.

Worldwide Distribution:  Cecidomyia pini is found in northern and central Europe (Gagné and Jaschhof, 2017).

Official Control: Cecidomyia pini is not known to be under official control anywhere.

California Distribution:  Cecidomyia pini is not known to be present in California (Symbiota Collections of Arthropods Network).

California Interceptions:  Cecidomyia pini may have been intercepted on conifer wood dunnage intercepted in San Francisco in 1987 (CDFA Pest and Damage Report Database, 2018).

The risk Cecidomyia pini would pose to California is evaluated below.

Consequences of Introduction:

1) Climate/Host Interaction: Cecidomyia pini is reported from a large area, including much of Europe. This suggests that the climate of much of California would be suitable for the species.  Cecidomyia pini is known to feed on at least three conifer genera, including Pinus, and there may be suitable host trees throughout California.  It is likely that pini could become established over a large portion of California.  Therefore, C. pini receives a High (3) in this category.

– Low (1) Not likely to establish in California; or likely to establish in very limited areas.

– Medium (2) may be able to establish in a larger but limited part of California.

– High (3) likely to establish a widespread distribution in California.

2) Known Pest Host Range: Cecidomyia pini is known to feed on at least three genera of coniferous trees. Therefore, it receives a Medium (2) in this category.

– Low (1) has a very limited host range.

– Medium (2) has a moderate host range.

– High (3) has a wide host range.

3) Pest Reproductive and Dispersal Potential: Adult pini presumably fly, although it is not known how far they are capable of flying.  Therefore, it receives a Medium (2) in this category.

– Low (1) does not have high reproductive or dispersal potential.

– Medium (2) has either high reproductive or dispersal potential.

– High (3) has both high reproduction and dispersal potential.

4) Economic Impact: Cecidomyia pini has been reported to impact pine seed production (but see Uncertainty, below).  If this species became established in California, it could impact regeneration of pine trees, which could impact timber yield. Therefore, it receives a Low (1) in this category.

Economic Impact:  A

A. The pest could lower crop yield.

B. The pest could lower crop value (includes increasing crop production costs).

C. The pest could trigger the loss of markets (includes quarantines).

D. The pest could negatively change normal cultural practices.

E. The pest can vector, or is vectored, by another pestiferous organism.

F. The organism is injurious or poisonous to agriculturally important animals.

G. The organism can interfere with the delivery or supply of water for agricultural uses.

Economic Impact Score: 1

– Low (1) causes 0 or 1 of these impacts.

– Medium (2) causes 2 of these impacts.

– High (3) causes 3 or more of these impacts.

5) Environmental Impact: Cecidomyia pini is reported to impact pine seed production (but see Uncertainty, below). If this species became established in California, it could threaten rare pines, including Bolander’s beach pine (Pinus contorta bolanderi) and Torrey pine (Pinus torreyana torreyana) (Calflora).  Therefore, it receives a Medium (2) in this category.

Evaluate the environmental impact of the pest on California using the criteria below.

Environmental Impact:  B

A. The pest could have a significant environmental impact such as lowering biodiversity, disrupting natural communities, or changing ecosystem processes.

B. The pest could directly affect threatened or endangered species.

C. The pest could impact threatened or endangered species by disrupting critical habitats.

D. The pest could trigger additional official or private treatment programs.

E. The pest significantly impacts cultural practices, home/urban gardening or ornamental plantings.

Environmental Impact Score: 2

– Low (1) causes none of the above to occur.

– Medium (2) causes one of the above to occur.

– High (3) causes two or more of the above to occur.

Consequences of Introduction to California for Cecidomyia pini: Medium (10)

Add up the total score and include it here.

–Low = 5-8 points

–Medium = 9-12 points

–High = 13-15 points

6) Post Entry Distribution and Survey Information: Cecidomyia pini is not known to be present in California.  It receives a Not established (0) in this category.

–Not established (0) Pest never detected in California, or known only from incursions.

–Low (-1) Pest has a localized distribution in California, or is established in one suitable climate/host area (region).

–Medium (-2) Pest is widespread in California but not fully established in the endangered area, or pest established in two contiguous suitable climate/host areas.

–High (-3) Pest has fully established in the endangered area, or pest is reported in more than two contiguous or non-contiguous suitable climate/host areas.

Final Score:

7) The final score is the consequences of introduction score minus the post entry distribution and survey information score: Medium (10)

Uncertainty:

The most important uncertainty in this proposal is the potential for C. pini to impact plants.  The biology of this species does not appear to be well-known.  Two sources (cited above) suggest that this species causes damage to pine cones, resulting in loss of seeds.  This species is very widely distributed, and it seems likely that it is not causing significant damage in its current range if only for the fact that there are so few reports of damage.  It is not known if natural enemies in its native range (which may not be present in California) regulate the amount of damage inflicted by C. pini.  It is possible that the damage to the pine cones in the reported cases was caused by another insect and this damage was blamed on the C. pini, which could have simply taken advantage of the release of resin.  It is possible that C. pini poses no threat, economic or environmental, to California.

Conclusion and Rating Justification:

Cecidomyia pini is a widespread European fly that is not known to occur in California.  It feeds on conifer resin on living trees, and reports suggest that it causes damage to trees.  Because of the possibility of damage to living conifers in California, this species may pose an economic and environmental threat to this state.  For these reasons, an “A” rating is justified.


References:

Barnes, H. F.  1951.  Gall midges of economic importance, Volume V: Gall midges of trees.  Crosby Lockwood & Son Ltd., London.

Calflora: Information on California plants for education, research and conservation, with data contributed by public and private institutions and individuals, including the Consortium of California Herbaria.  Accessed March 26, 2017: http://www.calflora.org

California Forest Pest Control Action Council.  1968.  Forest pest conditions on California – 1967.  California Division of Forestry.

DeGeer, C.  1776.  Memoires pour server a l’histoire des insectes, Volume 6.  Pierre Hesselberg, Stockholm.

Ferrell, G. T., Bedard, W. D., and Jenkinson, J. L.  1987.  Gouty pitch midge damage to ponderosa pines planted on fertile and infertile soils in the western Sierra Nevada.  United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Research Note PSW-390.

Gagné, R. J.  1978.  A systematic analysis of the pine pitch midges, Cecidomyia spp. (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae).  United States Department of Agriculture Technical Bulletin 1575:1-18.

Gagné, R. J. and Jaschhof, M.  2017.  A catalog of Cecidomyiidae (Diptera) of the world, 4th edition.  Accessed April 25, 2018: https://www.ars.usda.gov/ARSUserFiles/80420580/Gagne_2017_World_Cat_4th_ed.pdf

Reeks, W. A.  1960.  Observations on the life history, distribution, and abundance of two species of Cecidomyia (Diptera, Cecidomyiidae) on jack pine in Manitoba and Saskatchewan.  The Canadian Entomologist 92:154-160.

Roques, A., Talgø, V., Fan, J. -T., and Auger-Rozenberg, M. -A.  2017.  Damage to flowers, cones and seeds of coniferous woody plants.  Pp. 89-223 in Roques, A., Cleary, M., Matsiakh, I., and Eschen, R. (eds.), Field Guide for the Identification of Damage on Woody Sentinel Plants.  CABI, Oxfordshire, United Kingdom.

Symbiota Collections of Arthropods Network.  Accessed March 26, 2017: http://scan1.acis.ufl.edu

 


Author:

Kyle Beucke, 1220 N Street, Room 221, Sacramento, CA, 95814, 916-403-6741; plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov.

Responsible Party:

Jason Leathers, 2800 Gateway Oaks, Sacramento CA 95833, (916) 654-1211, plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov


Comment Period:*

6/27/18 – 8/11/18


*NOTE:

You must be registered and logged in to post a comment.  If you have registered and have not received the registration confirmation, please contact us at plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov.


Comment Format:

♦  Comments should refer to the appropriate California Pest Rating Proposal Form subsection(s) being commented on, as shown below.

Example Comment:
Consequences of Introduction:  1. Climate/Host Interaction: [Your comment that relates to “Climate/Host Interaction” here.]

♦  Posted comments will not be able to be viewed immediately.

♦  Comments may not be posted if they:

Contain inappropriate language which is not germane to the pest rating proposal;

Contains defamatory, false, inaccurate, abusive, obscene, pornographic, sexually oriented, threatening, racially offensive, discriminatory or illegal material;

Violates agency regulations prohibiting sexual harassment or other forms of discrimination;

Violates agency regulations prohibiting workplace violence, including threats.

♦  Comments may be edited prior to posting to ensure they are entirely germane.

♦  Posted comments shall be those which have been approved in content and posted to the website to be viewed, not just submitted.


Posted by ls 

Thrips | Trichromothrips priesneri (Bhatti)

California Pest Rating Proposal for
Thrips | Trichromothrips priesneri (Bhatti)
Thysanoptera: Thripidae
Current Pest Rating: Q
Proposed Pest Rating: A

 


Comment Period: 6/26/18 – 8/10/18


Initiating Event:   

Trichromothrips priesneri was tentatively reported to be established on the island of Maui, Hawaii (Mound et al., 2017).  It is currently Q-rated, and a permanent pest rating proposal is required to support an official pest rating.

History & Status:

Background:  Adult T. priesneri are bicolored, with a dark brown abdomen and wings and white (with brown markings) thorax and head (Mound et al., 2017).  The size is probably similar to that of other Trichromothrips species: 1-1.5 mm (Nakahara, 1993).  Very little information is available on this species.  In Taiwan, T. priesneri has been collected from unidentified grass and Ipomoea nil (Wang, 2008).  In Hawaii, it was found in a coastal, wetland area with dodder and Cyperaceae (Mound et al., 2017).  It is not known if these plants are fed upon by the thrips.  Other species of Trichromothrips have been reported to feed on ferns, bamboo, orchids, and other plants (Goldarazena et al., 2012; Mound and Masumoto, 2004; Ng and Mound, 2015), although again, it is possible that some of these records do not represent feeding but rather plants that the thrips happened to be resting on.  One species of Trichromothrips was reported to be a pest on orchids and various greenhouse plants, but no further information was found to support this (Mound et al., 2016).

Worldwide Distribution:  Trichromothrips priesneri is found in, and is presumably native to India (Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, and Uttar Pradesh states) (Rachana and Varatharaja, 2017; Tyagi and Kumar, 2016).  It is also reported from Taiwan and Hawaii; these reports are presumed to represent introductions, although the identification of the Hawaii specimens appears to have been tentative (Mound et al., 2017; Wang, 2008).

Official Control: Trichromothrips priesneri is not known to be under official control anywhere.

California Distribution:  Trichromothrips priesneri is not known to be present in California (Symbiota Collections of Arthropods Network).

California Interceptions:  Trichromothrips priesneri has not been intercepted in California (CDFA Pest and Damage Report Database, 2017).

The risk Trichromothrips priesneri would pose to California is evaluated below.

Consequences of Introduction:

1) Climate/Host Interaction: The areas that priesneri occurs in have a tropical or subtropical climate, suggesting that this species requires such climates. This is expected to limit the potential distribution of this species in California to a limited area.  Not enough is known about the feeding habits of T. priesneri to consider the presence of host plants in the potential distribution of this species in California.  Therefore, T. priesneri receives a Medium (2) in this category.

– Low (1) Not likely to establish in California; or likely to establish in very limited areas.

– Medium (2) may be able to establish in a larger but limited part of California.

– High (3) likely to establish a widespread distribution in California.

2) Known Pest Host Range: Although the collection of specimens in Taiwan from grass and Ipomoea nil suggests that these may be host plants, too little is known about the biology of priesneri to assess its host range. To account for uncertainty, the host range will be assumed to be moderate.  Therefore, T. priesneri receives a Medium (2) in this category.

– Low (1) has a very limited host range.

– Medium (2) has a moderate host range.

– High (3) has a wide host range.

3) Pest Reproductive and Dispersal Potential: Trichromothrips priesneri has wings and presumably flies.  Therefore, it receives a Medium (2) in this category.

– Low (1) does not have high reproductive or dispersal potential.

– Medium (2) has either high reproductive or dispersal potential.

– High (3) has both high reproduction and dispersal potential.

4) Economic Impact: Little is known about the biology of priesneri, but it presumably feeds on living plants.  At least one species of Trichromothrips is reported to be a pest.  It is possible that T. priesneri could become a pest if it became established in California.  If this happened, lower crop yields and increased crop production costs could result.  Therefore, it receives a Medium (2) in this category.

Economic Impact:  A, B

A. The pest could lower crop yield.

 B. The pest could lower crop value (includes increasing crop production costs).

C. The pest could trigger the loss of markets (includes quarantines).

D. The pest could negatively change normal cultural practices.

E. The pest can vector, or is vectored, by another pestiferous organism.

F. The organism is injurious or poisonous to agriculturally important animals.

G. The organism can interfere with the delivery or supply of water for agricultural uses.

Economic Impact Score: 2

– Low (1) causes 0 or 1 of these impacts.

– Medium (2) causes 2 of these impacts.

– High (3) causes 3 or more of these impacts.

5) Environmental Impact: If priesneri became established in California and it became a pest, this could result in official or private treatment programs. Therefore, it receives a Medium (2) in this category.

Evaluate the environmental impact of the pest on California using the criteria below.

Environmental Impact:  D

A. The pest could have a significant environmental impact such as lowering biodiversity, disrupting natural communities, or changing ecosystem processes.

B. The pest could directly affect threatened or endangered species.

C. The pest could impact threatened or endangered species by disrupting critical habitats.

D. The pest could trigger additional official or private treatment programs.

E. The pest significantly impacts cultural practices, home/urban gardening or ornamental plantings.

Environmental Impact Score: 2

– Low (1) causes none of the above to occur.

– Medium (2) causes one of the above to occur.

– High (3) causes two or more of the above to occur.

Consequences of Introduction to California for Trichromothrips priesneri: Medium (10)

Add up the total score and include it here.

–Low = 5-8 points

–Medium = 9-12 points

–High = 13-15 points

6) Post Entry Distribution and Survey Information: Trichromothrips priesneri is not known to be present in California.  It receives a Not established (0) in this category.

–Not established (0) Pest never detected in California, or known only from incursions.

–Low (-1) Pest has a localized distribution in California, or is established in one suitable climate/host area (region).

–Medium (-2) Pest is widespread in California but not fully established in the endangered area, or pest established in two contiguous suitable climate/host areas.

–High (-3) Pest has fully established in the endangered area, or pest is reported in more than two contiguous or non-contiguous suitable climate/host areas.

Final Score:

7) The final score is the consequences of introduction score minus the post entry distribution and survey information score: Medium (10)

Uncertainty:

There is a great deal of uncertainty in this proposal.  The biology of T. priesneri is poorly known.  It is not known for certain what plants it feeds on.  The potential of this thrips to cause damage to the plants it feeds on is also not known.  Finally, it is not known how large of an area in California this species could become established in.  It appears to require a tropical or subtropical climate, and this could prevent its establishment in California or limit establishment to a very small area.

Conclusion and Rating Justification:

Trichromothrips priesneri is a thrips that apparently feeds on living plants.  It is not known to occur in California, and it may pose an economic and environmental threat to the state.  For these reasons, a “A” rating is justified.


References:

Goldarazena, A., Gattesco, F., Atencio, R., and Korytowski, C.  2012.  An updated checklist of the Thysanoptera of Panama with comments on host associations.  Check List 8:1232-1247.

Mound, L. and Masumoto, M.  2004.  Trichromothrips veversae sp. n. (Insecta, Thysanoptera), and the Botanical Significance of Insects Host-specific to Austral Bracken Fern (Pteridium esculentum).  Proceedings of the Linnaean Society of New South Wales 125:67-71.

Mound, L. A., Matsunaga, J. N., Bushe, B., Hoddle, M. S., and Wells, A.  2017.  Adventive Thysanoptera species in the Hawaiian Islands: New records and putative host associations.  Proceedings of the Hawaiian Entomological Society 49:17-28.

Mound, L., Nakahara, S., and Tsuda, D. M.  2016.  Thysanoptera-Terebrantia of the Hawaiian Islands: an identification manual.  ZooKeys 549:71-126.

Nakahara, S.  1993.  The genus Dorcadothrips (Thysanoptera: Thripidae) in Hawaii and North America with a description of a new species.  Journal of the New York Entomological Society 101:399-409.

Ng, Y. F., and Mound, L. A.  2015.  Species of Thripinae (Thysanoptera) from bamboo in Malaysia, with one new species and six new records.  Zootaxa 3918:492-502.

Rachana, R. and Varatharaja, R.  2017.  Checklist of terebrantian thrips (Insecta: Thysanoptera) recorded from India.  Journal of Threatened Taxa 9:9748-9755.

Symbiota Collections of Arthropods Network.  Accessed March 27, 2017: http://scan1.acis.ufl.edu

Tyagi, K. and Kumar, V.  2016.  Thrips (Insecta: Thysanoptera) of India – An updated checklist.  Halteres 7:64-98.

Wang, C -L.  2008.  A new synonym and two new records for Taiwan of Thripidae related to Trichromatothrips (Thysanoptera).  Zootaxa 1941:67-68.


Author:

Kyle Beucke, 1220 N Street, Room 221, Sacramento, CA, 95814, 916-403-6741; plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov.

Responsible Party:

Jason Leathers, 2800 Gateway Oaks, Sacramento CA 95833, (916) 654-1211, plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov


Comment Period:*

6/26/18 – 8/10/18


*NOTE:

You must be registered and logged in to post a comment.  If you have registered and have not received the registration confirmation, please contact us at plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov.


Comment Format:

♦  Comments should refer to the appropriate California Pest Rating Proposal Form subsection(s) being commented on, as shown below.

Example Comment:
Consequences of Introduction:  1. Climate/Host Interaction: [Your comment that relates to “Climate/Host Interaction” here.]

♦  Posted comments will not be able to be viewed immediately.

♦  Comments may not be posted if they:

Contain inappropriate language which is not germane to the pest rating proposal;

Contains defamatory, false, inaccurate, abusive, obscene, pornographic, sexually oriented, threatening, racially offensive, discriminatory or illegal material;

Violates agency regulations prohibiting sexual harassment or other forms of discrimination;

Violates agency regulations prohibiting workplace violence, including threats.

♦  Comments may be edited prior to posting to ensure they are entirely germane.

♦  Posted comments shall be those which have been approved in content and posted to the website to be viewed, not just submitted.


Posted by ls 

Scarab Beetle | Gymnetis stellata (Latreille)

California Pest Rating Proposal for
Scarab Beetle | Gymnetis stellata (Latreille)
Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Cetoniinae
Current Pest Rating: Q
Proposed Pest Rating: A

 


Comment Period: 6/25/18 – 8/09/18


Initiating Event:

Gymnetis stellata is currently Q-rated.  A permanent pest rating proposal is required to support an official pest rating.

History & Status:

Background:  Gymnetis stellata is a beetle that measures approximately 20 mm in length and 13 mm in width.  It is dark and velvety with a distinctive pattern of red-orange stripes that radiate from the center of its body.  It occurs in tropical forests at low elevations (below 1600 meters above sea level).  Adults are reported to feed on fruit, including banana, lemon, and guava (Juárez and González, 2015; Maes and Orozco, 2017; Oliveros-Guzmán, 2017).  Adults of other Gymnetis species are reported to feed on fruit, leaves, and flowers; feeding damage is reported to result in the loss of fruit (García, 2005; Montero and Seta, 2015; Segarra et al., 2014).  The larvae of Gymnetis stellata feed on decomposing organic matter.  Numerous larvae, pupal cells, and adults of this species were found in an accumulation of insectivorous bat guano in an unfinished building in Tabasco, Mexico.  It is likely other types of organic matter are used for development more frequently (Sánchez Soto et al., 2017).  The larvae of other species of Gymnetis are reported to feed on decomposing organic matter, including rotting logs (Montero and Seta, 2015; Neita et al., 2006).

Worldwide Distribution:  Gymnetis stellata has been reported from Mexico, Central America (Guatemala, Nicaragua, and Panamá), and South America (Colombia and Peru) (Duque and Cabrera, 2013; Juárez and González, 2015; Maes and Orozco, 2017; Oliveros-Guzmán et al., 2017; Ríos and Gómez, 2011; Sánchez Soto et al., 2017).

Official Control: Gymnetis stellata is not known to be under official control anywhere.

California Distribution:  Gymnetis stellata is not known to be present in California.

California Interceptions:  Gymnetis stellata was found outside of a produce terminal in San Francisco County in 2007 (CDFA Pest and Damage Report Database, 2018).

The risk Gymnetis stellata would pose to California is evaluated below.

Consequences of Introduction:

1) Climate/Host Interaction: Gymnetis stellata appears to be restricted to warmer climates. It is likely that this beetle would be limited to the southern, coastal portion of California if it became established here.  Gymnetis stellata is presumed to be capable of feeding on a wide variety of fruit (and possibly flowers as well), and the larvae are known to feed on decomposing organic matter.  Presence of adult and larval food is not expected to be a significant limiting factor of the potential distribution of this species in California.  Therefore, Gymnetis stellata receives a Medium (2) in this category.

– Low (1) Not likely to establish in California; or likely to establish in very limited areas.

– Medium (2) may be able to establish in a larger but limited part of California.

– High (3) likely to establish a widespread distribution in California.

2) Known Pest Host Range: Gymnetis stellata apparently feeds on decomposing organic matter as a larva and a variety of fruits as an adult. Based on the known feeding habits of this species and others in the genus, it appears likely that a very wide variety of fruits could be fed upon by the adults.  Therefore, it receives a High (3) in this category.

– Low (1) has a very limited host range.

– Medium (2) has a moderate host range.

– High (3) has a wide host range.

3) Pest Reproductive and Dispersal Potential: Cetoniines are typically strong fliers.  All life stages of stellata appear unlikely to be dispersed artificially, because the larvae live in rotting organic matter and the adults are large and mobile.  Therefore, it receives a Medium (2) in this category.

– Low (1) does not have high reproductive or dispersal potential.

– Medium (2) has either high reproductive or dispersal potential.

– High (3) has both high reproduction and dispersal potential.

4) Economic Impact: Adult Gymnetis stellata are reported to feed on fruit.  Other Gymnetis species have been reported to cause damage to fruit as a result of adult feeding.  For example, adult feeding by two species of Gymnetis has damaged peach, apricot, and tomato fruit in Argentina (Montero and Seta, 2015).  It is possible that stellata could feed on and damage a variety of fruits, especially soft-skinned ones.  Some Gymnetis species feed on other plant parts, including leaves and flowers, as well as fruit.  It is possible that G. stellata may share such broad feeding habits, and if it does, it could damage crops other than fruit.  Damage to crops could lower yield and increase production costs.  Therefore, it receives a Medium (2) in this category.

Economic Impact:  A, B

A. The pest could lower crop yield.

B. The pest could lower crop value (includes increasing crop production costs).

C. The pest could trigger the loss of markets (includes quarantines).

D. The pest could negatively change normal cultural practices.

E. The pest can vector, or is vectored, by another pestiferous organism.

F. The organism is injurious or poisonous to agriculturally important animals.

G. The organism can interfere with the delivery or supply of water for agricultural uses.

Economic Impact Score:  2

– Low (1) causes 0 or 1 of these impacts.

– Medium (2) causes 2 of these impacts.

– High (3) causes 3 or more of these impacts.

5) Environmental Impact: Adult Gymnetis stellata feed on fruit, and they may also be capable of feeding on other plant parts, including flowers and leaves. If this beetle became established in California, it could attack native plants, which could disrupt natural communities.  In addition, if it was a pest in agricultural situations, it could trigger treatments.  Therefore, it receives a High (3) in this category.

Evaluate the environmental impact of the pest on California using the criteria below.

Environmental Impact:  A, D

A. The pest could have a significant environmental impact such as lowering biodiversity, disrupting natural communities, or changing ecosystem processes.

 B. The pest could directly affect threatened or endangered species.

C. The pest could impact threatened or endangered species by disrupting critical habitats.

D. The pest could trigger additional official or private treatment programs.

E. The pest significantly impacts cultural practices, home/urban gardening or ornamental plantings.

Score the pest for Environmental Impact. Score:

Environmental Impact Score:  3

– Low (1) causes none of the above to occur.

– Medium (2) causes one of the above to occur.

– High (3) causes two or more of the above to occur.

Consequences of Introduction to California for Gymnetis stellata: Medium (12)

Add up the total score and include it here.

–Low = 5-8 points

–Medium = 9-12 points

–High = 13-15 points

6) Post Entry Distribution and Survey Information: Gymnetis stellata is not known to be present in California.  It receives a Not established (0) in this category.

–Not established (0) Pest never detected in California, or known only from incursions.

–Low (-1) Pest has a localized distribution in California, or is established in one suitable climate/host area (region).

–Medium (-2) Pest is widespread in California but not fully established in the endangered area, or pest established in two contiguous suitable climate/host areas.

–High (-3) Pest has fully established in the endangered area, or pest is reported in more than two contiguous or non-contiguous suitable climate/host areas.

Final Score:

7) The final score is the consequences of introduction score minus the post entry distribution and survey information score: Medium (12)

Uncertainty:

It is possible that the climate of California may not be conducive to the establishment of G. stellata.  It is also possible that this beetle would not have significant economic or environmental impacts even if it did become established in the state. Although adult feeding is capable of causing damage to, and loss of fruit, there appears to be little mention of Gymnetis species as significant pests in the literature.

Conclusion and Rating Justification:

Gymnetis stellata is a plant-feeding insect that has the potential to damage fruit and possibly other crops, and it could have environmental impacts as well.  It is not known to be present in California.  For these reasons, an “A” rating is justified.


References:

CDFA Pest and Damage Report Database.  2018.  Gymnetis stellata.  Plant Health and Pest Prevention Services. CA Department of Food and Agriculture.  Accessed April 25, 2018: https://pdr.cdfa.ca.gov/PDR/pdrmainmenu.aspx

Duque, M. E. T. and Cabrera, S. G.  2013.  Reporte de los fondos del MEFLG: Melolόntidos del Museo Entomolόgico Francisco Luís Gallego.  Boletin del Museo Entomolόgico Francisco Luís Gallego 5:27-56.

García, C. V.  2005.  Reconocimiento fitosanitario en cinco variedades cultivadas de macadamia (Macadamia integrifolia Maiden et Betche) en la zona cafetera colombiana.  Manejo Integrado de Plagas y Agroecología 74:69-76.

Maes, J- M. and Orozco, J.  2017.  Catalogo ilustrado de los Cetoniinae y Trichiinae (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) de Nicaragua.  Revista Nicaraguense de Entomologia 120:1-111.

Montero, G. A. and Seta, S. A.  2015.  Daños producidos por dos especies de Gymnetis (Cetoniinae: Scarabaeidae) en frutos de tomate, damasco y durazno en el sudeste de Santa Fe.  Agromensajes 41:18-22.

Neita, J. C., Orozco A., J., and Ratcliffe, B.  2006.  Escarabajos (Scarabaeidae: Pleurosticti) de la selva baja del bosque pluvial tropical <<BP-T>>, Chocό, Colombia.  Acta Zoológica Mexicana (n.s.) 22:1-32.

Oliveros-Guzmán, E., Ponce-Saavedra, J., and Niño-Maldonado, S.  2017.  Nuevos registros de Gymnetis stellata (Latreille, 1833) (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Cetoniinae) para los estados de Michoacán y Tamaulipas, México.  Folia Entomológica Mexicana (nueva serie) 3:9−11.

Ríos, M. A. M. and Rojas-Gómez, C. V.  2011.  Escarabajos de mayo y mayates (Insecta: Coleoptera: Melolonthidae).  pp. 391-397 in Angón, A.C. (ed.), La Biodiversidad en Veracruz.  Volumen II.  Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad, Gobierno del Estado de Veracruz, Universidad Veracruzana, Instituto de Ecología, A.C. México.

Sánchez Soto, S., Jiménez, M. M., Gόmez, W. S. S., Aguilar, J. D. L., and Méndez, A. D. J.  2017.  Sitio de reproducciόn de Gymnetis stellata en Tabasco, México.  Boletín del Museo de Entomología de la Universidad del Valle 17:16-20.

Segarra, A. E., Morales-Pérez, A, Franqui, R. A., and Ratcliffe, B. C.  2014.  First report of a South American cetoniine beetle, Gymnetis strigosa (Olivier, 1789) (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Cetoniinae), in Puerto Rico.  The Coleopterists Bulletin 68:217-218.

Symbiota Collections of Arthropods Network.  Accessed January 12, 2018: http://scan1.acis.ufl.edu


Author:

Kyle Beucke, 1220 N Street, Room 221, Sacramento, CA, 95814, 916-403-6741; plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov.

Responsible Party:

Jason Leathers, 2800 Gateway Oaks, Sacramento CA 95833, (916) 654-1211, plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov


Comment Period:*

6/25/18 – 8/09/18


*NOTE:

You must be registered and logged in to post a comment.  If you have registered and have not received the registration confirmation, please contact us at plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov.


Comment Format:

♦  Comments should refer to the appropriate California Pest Rating Proposal Form subsection(s) being commented on, as shown below.

Example Comment:
Consequences of Introduction:  1. Climate/Host Interaction: [Your comment that relates to “Climate/Host Interaction” here.]

♦  Posted comments will not be able to be viewed immediately.

♦  Comments may not be posted if they:

Contain inappropriate language which is not germane to the pest rating proposal;

Contains defamatory, false, inaccurate, abusive, obscene, pornographic, sexually oriented, threatening, racially offensive, discriminatory or illegal material;

Violates agency regulations prohibiting sexual harassment or other forms of discrimination;

Violates agency regulations prohibiting workplace violence, including threats.

♦  Comments may be edited prior to posting to ensure they are entirely germane.

♦  Posted comments shall be those which have been approved in content and posted to the website to be viewed, not just submitted.


Posted by ls 

Rice Beetle | Dyscinetus morator (Fabricius)

California Pest Rating Proposal for
Rice Beetle | Dyscinetus morator (Fabricius)
Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae
Current Pest Rating: Q
Proposed Pest Rating: A

 


Comment Period: 6/25/18 – 8/09/18


Initiating Event:

Dyscinetus morator is currently Q-rated.  A permanent pest rating proposal is required to support an official pest rating.

History & Status:

Background:  Adult Dyscinetus morator are beetles that measure ½ to ¾ of an inch in length.  They are black and shining with a slightly greenish sheen (Woodruff, 1999).  Adults feed on plant material aboveground, underground, and even under water.  They have been reported to feed on, burrow into, and cause significant damage (including crop losses up to 30%) to carrots and radishes in Florida (Foster et al., 1986).  Ornamental plants are also affected.  For example, tubers of caladium were attacked by D. morator adults in Florida (Price and Kring, 1991).   Adults were also reported to feed on leaves of a variety of crop species in the laboratory, including lettuce, peas, squash, and tomato. They apparently thrive in aquatic habitats and can spend several hours submerged under water while feeding on aquatic plants, including the aquatic weed Salvinia minima (Jäch and Balke, 2008; Parys et al., 2013).  Dyscinetus morator larvae are C-shaped, whitish grubs that live underground.  They are reported to feed on roots, including those of azalea (Rhododendron spp.) and juniper (Juniperus sp.) (Price and Kring, 1991; Staines, 1990).  The larvae may also feed on accumulations of decomposing organic matter, including compost (Richter, 1958).

Worldwide Distribution:  Dyscinetus morator is reported from the Caribbean (Bahamas, Cuba, and Puerto Rico) and the eastern United States (from Florida north to New York and west to Texas) (Ratcliffe and Cave, 2008; Staines, 1990).  This species is apparently native to the eastern United States, and the Caribbean records may represent introductions (Ratcliffe and Cave, 2008).

Official Control: Dyscinetus morator is not known to be under official control anywhere.

California Distribution:  Dyscinetus morator is not known to occur in California.

California Interceptions:  Dyscinetus morator has been intercepted on a variety of items, including nursery stock, from Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and possibly other states.  This beetle was found inside a warehouse in Alameda County in 1999 (CDFA Pest and Damage Report Database, 2018).

The risk Dyscinetus morator would pose to California is evaluated below.

Consequences of Introduction:

1) Climate/Host Interaction: Dyscinetus morator is widely distributed in the eastern United States and the Caribbean, which suggests it has broad climatic tolerances and could establish over a large portion of California. This beetle is reported to feed on a wide variety of plants, including many crops and ornamentals, and would likely find suitable host plants over a large portion of California.  Therefore, Dyscinetus morator receives a High (3) in this category.

– Low (1) Not likely to establish in California; or likely to establish in very limited areas.

– Medium (2) may be able to establish in a larger but limited part of California.

– High (3) likely to establish a widespread distribution in California.

2) Known Pest Host Range: Dyscinetus morator has been reported to feed on a wide variety of plants in at least eight families. Therefore, it receives a High (3) in this category.

– Low (1) has a very limited host range.

– Medium (2) has a moderate host range.

– High (3) has a wide host range.

3) Pest Dispersal Potential: Dyscinetus morator flies to light in large numbers (Woodruff, 1999).  Larvae of morator have been found in potted juniper plants, so it is possible that this beetle could be artificially dispersed through movement of potted nursery plants (Price and Kring, 1991).  Therefore, it receives a Medium (2) in this category.

– Low (1) does not have high reproductive or dispersal potential.

– Medium (2) has either high reproductive or dispersal potential.

– High (3) has both high reproduction and dispersal potential.

4) Economic Impact: Dyscinetus morator is known to cause significant damage to crop plants in certain situations.  If this beetle became established in California, it could reduce yield and increase production costs of many different crops.  The presence of this species in nurseries could trigger the loss of markets, as the larvae could occur in soil in potted plants.  Therefore, it receives a High (3) in this category.

Economic Impact:  A, B, C

A. The pest could lower crop yield.

B. The pest could lower crop value (includes increasing crop production costs).

C. The pest could trigger the loss of markets (includes quarantines).

D. The pest could negatively change normal cultural practices.

E. The pest can vector, or is vectored, by another pestiferous organism.

F. The organism is injurious or poisonous to agriculturally important animals.

G. The organism can interfere with the delivery or supply of water for agricultural uses.

Economic Impact Score: 3

– Low (1) causes 0 or 1 of these impacts.

– Medium (2) causes 2 of these impacts.

– High (3) causes 3 or more of these impacts.

5) Environmental Impact: Dyscinetus morator is reported to attack crop and ornamental plants. If this species became established in California, it could trigger treatment programs in agricultural settings as well as in ornamental settings, including nurseries and gardens.  This species feeds on a wide variety of plants and can tolerate a wide range of conditions.  This beetle could invade natural California ecosystems and attack native plants. Therefore, it receives a High (3) in this category.

Evaluate the environmental impact of the pest on California using the criteria below.

Environmental Impact:  A, D, E

A. The pest could have a significant environmental impact such as lowering biodiversity, disrupting natural communities, or changing ecosystem processes.

B. The pest could directly affect threatened or endangered species.

C. The pest could impact threatened or endangered species by disrupting critical habitats.

D. The pest could trigger additional official or private treatment programs.

E. The pest significantly impacts cultural practices, home/urban gardening or ornamental plantings.

Score the pest for Environmental Impact. Score:

Environmental Impact Score: 3

– Low (1) causes none of the above to occur.

– Medium (2) causes one of the above to occur.

– High (3) causes two or more of the above to occur.

Consequences of Introduction to California for Dyscinetus morator: High (14)

Add up the total score and include it here.

–Low = 5-8 points

–Medium = 9-12 points

–High = 13-15 points

Post Entry Distribution and Survey Information: Dyscinetus morator is not known to be present in California. It receives a Not established (0) in this category.

–Not established (0) Pest never detected in California, or known only from incursions.

–Low (-1) Pest has a localized distribution in California, or is established in one suitable climate/host area (region).

–Medium (-2) Pest is widespread in California but not fully established in the endangered area, or pest established in two contiguous suitable climate/host areas.

–High (-3) Pest has fully established in the endangered area, or pest is reported in more than two contiguous or non-contiguous suitable climate/host areas.

Final Score:

The final score is the consequences of introduction score minus the post entry distribution and survey information score: High (14)

Uncertainty:

There appears to be little uncertainty regarding the potential for this beetle to become established in California.  Even though this beetle is often very abundant and has been reported to feed on and cause significant damage to a wide variety of crop and ornamental plants in certain situations, its significance as a pest seems to be restricted in time and space.  This could be because this species is native to most of the area that it is known to occur in and is being controlled by natural enemies (predators and parasitoids).  If this species was introduced to California, it may escape the natural enemies present in the eastern United States.

Conclusion and Rating Justification:

Dyscinetus morator is a highly polyphagous plant-feeding beetle that is not known to occur in California.  If it became established in California, it could have severe economic and environmental impacts.  For these reasons, an “A” rating is justified.


References:

CDFA Pest and Damage Report Database. 2018.  Dyscinetus morator. Plant Health and Pest Prevention Services. CA Department of Food and Agriculture. Accessed April 6, 2018: http://phpps.cdfa.ca.gov/user/frmLogon2.asp

Foster, R. E., Smith, J. P., Cherry, R. H., and Hall, D.G.  1986.  Dyscinetus morator (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) as a pest of carrots and radishes in Florida 69:431-432.

Jäch, M. A. and Balke, M.  2008.  Global diversity of water beetles (Coleoptera) in freshwater.  Hydrobiologia 595:419-442.

Parys, K. A., Gimmel, M. L., and Johnson, S. J.  2013.  Checklist of insects associated with Salvinia minima Baker in Louisiana, USA.  CheckList 9:1488-1495.

Price, J. F. and Kring, J. B.  1991.  Dyscinetus morator (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) flight activity, food plant acceptance, damage and control in caladium.  Florida Entomologist 74:415-421.

Ratcliffe, B. C. and Cave, R. D.  2008.  The Dynastinae (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) of the Bahamas with a description of a new species of Cyclocephala from Great Inagua Island.  Papers in Entomology 105:1-10.

Ritcher, P. O.  1958.  Biology of Scarabaeidae.  Annual Review of Entomology 3:311-334.

Staines, C. L.  1990.  Dyscinetus morator (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) feeding on roots of azaleas (Rhododendron spp.) 101:98.

Symbiota Collections of Arthropods Network.  Accessed April 6, 2018: http://scan1.acis.ufl.edu

Woodruff, R. E.  1999.  Rice beetle, Dyscinetus morator (Fabricius) (Insecta: Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae).  EENY-102.  Entomology and Nematology Department, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida.


Author:

Kyle Beucke, 1220 N Street, Room 221, Sacramento, CA, 95814, 916-403-6741; plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov.

Responsible Party:

Jason Leathers, 2800 Gateway Oaks, Sacramento CA 95833, (916) 654-1211, plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov


Comment Period:*

6/25/18 – 8/09/18


*NOTE:

You must be registered and logged in to post a comment.  If you have registered and have not received the registration confirmation, please contact us at plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov.


Comment Format:

♦  Comments should refer to the appropriate California Pest Rating Proposal Form subsection(s) being commented on, as shown below.

Example Comment:
Consequences of Introduction:  1. Climate/Host Interaction: [Your comment that relates to “Climate/Host Interaction” here.]

♦  Posted comments will not be able to be viewed immediately.

♦  Comments may not be posted if they:

Contain inappropriate language which is not germane to the pest rating proposal;

Contains defamatory, false, inaccurate, abusive, obscene, pornographic, sexually oriented, threatening, racially offensive, discriminatory or illegal material;

Violates agency regulations prohibiting sexual harassment or other forms of discrimination;

Violates agency regulations prohibiting workplace violence, including threats.

♦  Comments may be edited prior to posting to ensure they are entirely germane.

♦  Posted comments shall be those which have been approved in content and posted to the website to be viewed, not just submitted.


Posted by ls 

Sugarcane Beetle | Euetheola humilis rugiceps (LeConte)

California Pest Rating Proposal for

Sugarcane Beetle | Euetheola humilis rugiceps (LeConte)
Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae
Current Pest Rating: Q
Proposed Pest Rating: A

 


Comment Period: 6/25/18 – 8/09/18


Initiating Event:

Euetheola humilis rugiceps is currently Q-rated.  A permanent pest rating proposal is required to support an official pest rating.

History & Status:

Background:  Adult sugarcane beetles are black and approximately 1.5 cm in length.  Larvae are white, C-shaped grubs that live underground (Hammond, 2002).  Adults feed underground on roots and stems of a variety of plants, including corn, sorghum, sugarcane, sweet potatoes, rice, and turfgrass.  This causes significant economic damage to these crops, especially sweet potato and corn (Billeisen and Brandenburg, 2014; Guagliumi, 1960; Smith et al., 2015).  For example, losses of up to 30% of corn plants have been reported, and damage to sweet potatoes in Louisiana was over $1 million in 2010 (Smith et al., 2015).  Adult beetles were reported to attack the trunks of young eucalyptus trees in Brazil, resulting in the death of some trees (Bernardi et al., 2008).  The larvae are suspected to feed on decomposing organic matter and roots.  Damage to the roots of rice plants was reported, but some have suggested that damage to live roots is incidental to feeding on decomposing organic matter (Buntin, 2012; Fritz et al., 2008; Hammond, 2000).  Adult feeding is considered more economically-significant than larval feeding (Catchot, 2013).

The taxonomic history of this beetle is complex (Billeisen and Brandenburg, 2014).  Ratcliffe and Cave (2006) recognized Euetheola humilis (Burmeister) as a valid species and Ligyrus rugiceps LeConte as a synonym.  The sugarcane beetle has been referred to by several names, including Eutheola rugiceps (LeConte), Eutheola humilus (Burmeister), and Euetheola humilis (Burmeister) (note the difference in the spelling of the genus).  Some workers have recognized two separate entities: the subspecies E. humilis Burmeister, in Arizona, Mexico, Central America, and South America, and E. humilis rugiceps LeConte, in the southeastern United States (Hardy, 1991; Smith, 2008).  In this proposal, biological information that was attributed in references to beetles referred to by the names Euetheola humilis and E. rugiceps, (including any subspecies recognized in such references) was considered.

Worldwide Distribution:  The origin of the sugarcane beetle is not known.  However, it was found in the United States as early as 1856, and it is possible that it is native to the entirety of its current distribution (Billeisen and Brandenburg, 2014).  The sugarcane beetle is present in the southeastern United States, southeastern Mexico, Central America (including Panama), and South America (including Argentina, Brazil, and Venezuela) (Billeisen and Brandenburg, 2014).

Official Control: Euetheola humilis rugiceps is not known to be under official control anywhere.

California Distribution:  Euetheola humilis rugiceps is not known to be present in California (Symbiota Collections of Arthropods Network).

California Interceptions:  Euetheola humilis rugiceps was intercepted at border stations on squash and in a trailer from Arkansas and Georgia (CDFA Pest and Damage Report Database, 2018).

The risk Euetheola humilis rugiceps would pose to California is evaluated below.

Consequences of Introduction:

1) Climate/Host Interaction: The sugarcane beetle has a broad climatic tolerance. It occurs from the southeastern United States south to Argentina, where it is exposed to temperate, subtropical, and tropical climates.  This beetle feeds on a wide variety of plants, including grasses.  The species could become established over a large portion of California, although probably not in colder, mountainous or northern areas.  Therefore, it receives a High (3) in this category.

– Low (1) Not likely to establish in California; or likely to establish in very limited areas.

– Medium (2) may be able to establish in a larger but limited part of California.

– High (3) likely to establish a widespread distribution in California.

2) Known Pest Host Range: The sugarcane beetle is reported to feed on at least three families of plants. Therefore, it receives a Medium (2) in this category.

– Low (1) has a very limited host range.

– Medium (2) has a moderate host range.

– High (3) has a wide host range.

3) Pest Reproductive and Dispersal Potential: The sugarcane beetle flies.  Therefore, it receives a Medium (2) in this category.

– Low (1) does not have high reproductive or dispersal potential.

– Medium (2) has either high reproductive or dispersal potential.

– High (3) has both high reproduction and dispersal potential.

4) Economic Impact: The sugarcane beetle is a pest of many different crops, including corn and sweet potatoes, which are grown in California.  If this beetle became established in California, it could attack these crops, which could lower crop yield and increase production costs.  Therefore, it receives a Medium (2) in this category.

Economic Impact:  A, B

A. The pest could lower crop yield.

B. The pest could lower crop value (includes increasing crop production costs).

C. The pest could trigger the loss of markets (includes quarantines).

D. The pest could negatively change normal cultural practices.

E. The pest can vector, or is vectored, by another pestiferous organism.

F. The organism is injurious or poisonous to agriculturally important animals.

G. The organism can interfere with the delivery or supply of water for agricultural uses.

Economic Impact Score: 2

– Low (1) causes 0 or 1 of these impacts.

– Medium (2) causes 2 of these impacts.

– High (3) causes 3 or more of these impacts.

5) Environmental Impact: The sugarcane beetle damages a wide variety of plants through adult and larval feeding. The species could impact native California plants, and as a result, disrupt natural communities.  The feeding on eucalyptus trees by adult sugarcane beetles, reported by Bernardi et al. (2008), demonstrates that trees, and not only food crops and grasses, can be impacted by this beetle.  In addition, if this beetle became a pest in agricultural, ornamental, or residential settings, it could trigger treatments.  Therefore, it receives a High (3) in this category.

Evaluate the environmental impact of the pest on California using the criteria below.

Environmental Impact: A, D

A. The pest could have a significant environmental impact such as lowering biodiversity, disrupting natural communities, or changing ecosystem processes.

B. The pest could directly affect threatened or endangered species.

C. The pest could impact threatened or endangered species by disrupting critical habitats.

D. The pest could trigger additional official or private treatment programs.

E. The pest significantly impacts cultural practices, home/urban gardening or ornamental plantings.

Environmental Impact Score: 3

– Low (1) causes none of the above to occur.

– Medium (2) causes one of the above to occur.

– High (3) causes two or more of the above to occur.

Consequences of Introduction to California for sugarcane beetle: Medium (12)

Add up the total score and include it here.

–Low = 5-8 points

–Medium = 9-12 points

–High = 13-15 points

6) Post Entry Distribution and Survey Information: The sugarcane beetle is not known to be present in California.  It receives a Not established (0) in this category.

–Not established (0) Pest never detected in California, or known only from incursions.

–Low (-1) Pest has a localized distribution in California, or is established in one suitable climate/host area (region).

–Medium (-2) Pest is widespread in California but not fully established in the endangered area, or pest established in two contiguous suitable climate/host areas.

–High (-3) Pest has fully established in the endangered area, or pest is reported in more than two contiguous or non-contiguous suitable climate/host areas.

Final Score:

7) The final score is the consequences of introduction score minus the post entry distribution and survey information score: Medium (12)

Uncertainty:

The sugarcane beetle is widely distributed in the southeastern United States.  Yet, it has not yet become established in California.  This may indicate that the climate of California is not appropriate for this species.  There are native plants in California to which the sugarcane beetle has not been exposed yet in its current range.  The establishment of this beetle in California could have significant environmental impacts in the state not seen in its current range.

Conclusion and Rating Justification:

The sugarcane beetle is a reported pest of many crops, some of which are grown in California.  It is not known to be present in California, but it appears that the climate in this state would be conducive to the establishment of this beetle.  If it became established here, the sugarcane beetle could have economic and environmental impacts.  For these reasons, an “A” rating is justified.


References:

Bernardi, O., Garcia, M. S., Da Cunha, U. S., Back, E. C. U., Bernardi, D., Ramiro, G. A., and Finkenauer, E.  2008.  Ocorrência de Euetheola humilis (Burmeister) (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) em Eucalyptus saligna Smith (Myrtaceae), no Rio Grande do Sul.  Neotropical Entomology 37:100-103.

Billeisen, T. L. and Brandenburg, R. L.  2014.  Biology and management of the sugarcane beetle (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) in turfgrass.  Journal of Integrated Pest Management 5:1-5.

Buntin, G. D.  2012.  Grain sorghum insect pests and their management.  University of Georgia Cooperative Extension Bulletin no. 1283.

Catchot, A.  2013.  Have a plan for managing sugarcane beetles in field corn.  Mississippi State University Extension.  Accessed January 12, 2018:

Have a Plan for Managing Sugarcane Beetles in Field Corn

Fritz, L. L., Heinrichs, E. A., Pandolfo, M., Martins de Salles, S., Vargas de Oliveira, J., and Fiuza, L. M.  2008.  Agroecossistemas orizícolas irrigados: Insetos-praga, inmigos naturais e manejo integrado.  Oecologia Brasiliensis 12:720-732.

Guagliumi, P.  1960.  Actual situation of entomology of sugar cane in Venezuela. Proceedings of the International Society of Sugarcane Technologists (10th Congress, Hawaii, 1959):1000-1010.

Hammond, A. M.  2002. Sugarcane beetle, Euetheola rugiceps (LeConte), Scarabaeidae, Coleoptera.  Publication 2892.  Louisiana State University Agricultural Center.

Smith, A. B. T.  2008.  Checklist of the Scarabaeoidea of the Nearctic Realm. Version 3.

The University of Nebraska State Museum.  Accessed: March 29, 2018:  http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/entomologypapers/3

Smith, T. P., Beuzelin, J. M., Catchot, A. L., Murillo, A. C., and Kerns, D. L.  2015.  Biology, ecology, and management of the sugarcane beetle (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) in sweetpotato and corn.  Journal of Integrated Pest Management 6:1-6.

Symbiota Collections of Arthropods Network.  Accessed March 29, 2018: http://scan1.acis.ufl.edu


Author:

Kyle Beucke, 1220 N Street, Room 221, Sacramento, CA, 95814, 916-403-6741; plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov.

Responsible Party:

Jason Leathers, 2800 Gateway Oaks, Sacramento CA 95833, (916) 654-1211, plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov


Comment Period:*

6/25/18 – 8/09/18


*NOTE:

You must be registered and logged in to post a comment.  If you have registered and have not received the registration confirmation, please contact us at plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov.


Comment Format:

♦  Comments should refer to the appropriate California Pest Rating Proposal Form subsection(s) being commented on, as shown below.

Example Comment:
Consequences of Introduction:  1. Climate/Host Interaction: [Your comment that relates to “Climate/Host Interaction” here.]

♦  Posted comments will not be able to be viewed immediately.

♦  Comments may not be posted if they:

Contain inappropriate language which is not germane to the pest rating proposal;

Contains defamatory, false, inaccurate, abusive, obscene, pornographic, sexually oriented, threatening, racially offensive, discriminatory or illegal material;

Violates agency regulations prohibiting sexual harassment or other forms of discrimination;

Violates agency regulations prohibiting workplace violence, including threats.

♦  Comments may be edited prior to posting to ensure they are entirely germane.

♦  Posted comments shall be those which have been approved in content and posted to the website to be viewed, not just submitted.


Posted by ls