*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 permits[@]cdfa.ca.gov.
Posted by tn
*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 permits[@]cdfa.ca.gov.
Posted by tn
*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 permits[@]cdfa.ca.gov.
Posted by tn
*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 permits[@]cdfa.ca.gov.
Posted by tn
*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 permits[@]cdfa.ca.gov.
Posted by tn
*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 permits[@]cdfa.ca.gov.
Posted by tn
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.
Posted by ka
Helicoverpa armigera was recently intercepted in a cut flower shipment in Los Angeles. A pest rating proposal is required to assign a permanent pest rating.
Background: Helicoverpa armigera is a highly polyphagous pest of many economically significant crops in Africa, Asia, Australia, and Europe (King, 1994). Helicoverpa armigera pupae overwinter in the soil. Adults emerge in May – June and lay eggs, usually on or near flowers. The larvae primarily feed on reproductive parts of hosts (flowers and fruits), but they can also feed on foliage. There are from two to six generations/year, depending on the climate. This species has been reported to cause serious losses throughout its range, in particular to tomatoes, corn, and cotton (Lammers and Ma cLeod, 2007).
Worldwide Distribution: Helicoverpa armigera is widely distributed. It has been reported from the following places: Asia: Afghanistan, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Brunei, Cambodia, China, Cocos Islands, Republic of Georgia, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Korea, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Lebanon, Malaysia, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan, Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Syria, Taiwan, Tajikistan, Thailand, Turkey, Turkmenistan, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, Vietnam, and Yemen.
Europe: Albania, Andorra, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Gibraltar, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Macedonia, Malta, Moldova, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and Ukraine.
Africa: Algeria, Angola, Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Cote d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Kenya, Lesotho, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mayotte, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Republic of Congo, Reunion, Rwanda, Saint Helena, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Africa, Sudan, Swaziland, Tanzania, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.
Oceania: American Samoa, Australia, Belau, Christmas Island, Cook Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Guam, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, New Caledonia, New Zealand, Norfolk Island, Northern Mariana Islands, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, and Vanuatu.
South America: Argentina, Brazil, and Paraguay (CABI, 2007; Fibiger and Skule, 2011; EPPO, 2012; Sugayama, 2013; Senave, 2013; Murúa et al., 2014).
Official Control: Helicoverpa armigera is listed as a harmful organism in Costa Rica, Bermuda, French Polynesia, Honduras, Paraguay, Turkey, Chile, Ecuador, Guatemala, Monaco, San Marino, Uruguay, Colombia, European Union, Norway, and Serbia (USDA PCIT).
California Distribution: Helicoverpa armigera has never been found in the environment of California.
California Interceptions: There was only one specimen reported in the Pest and Damage Record Database by CDFA. This specimen was found (2017) in Los Angeles County on a cut flower shipment from India (California Department of Food and Agriculture).
The risk Helicoverpa armigera (cotton bollworm) would pose to California is evaluated below.
1) Climate/Host Interaction: Helicoverpa armigera can feed on a wide variety of plants that grow in California. It is expected to be capable of establishing a widespread distribution and receives a High (3) in this category.
Evaluate if the pest would have suitable hosts and climate to establish in California:
– 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: Helicoverpa armigera is a polyphagous moth and a major insect pest of both field and horticultural crops in many parts of the world (Fitt, 1989). It has been reported on over 180 species of plants, including many crops, in at least 45 plant families (Venette et al., 2003). It receives a High (3) in this category.
Evaluate the host range of the pest.
– 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: Helicoverpa armigera exhibits overlapping generations, typically two to five generations per year in subtropical and temperate regions. Up to 11 generations per year can occur under optimal conditions (Tripathi and Singh, 1991; King, 1994; Fowler and Lakin, 2001). The female lays up to 1000 eggs in clusters or singly on fruits, stems, and growing points. It receives a High (3) in this category.
Evaluate the natural and artificial dispersal potential of the pest.
– 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: Helicoverpa armigera is considered to be among the most damaging agricultural pests in Australia, costing approximately $225.2 million per year to control (Clearly et al., 2006). This moth has the potential to lower crop yields and increase production costs in California. If Helicoverpa armigera were to establish in California it is also likely to disrupt markets for California fresh fruit and plants because this pest is regulated by many countries. It receives a High (3) in this category.
Evaluate the economic impact of the pest to California using the criteria below.
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: Helicoverpa armigera is not expected to lower biodiversity, disrupt natural communities, or change ecosystem processes. It might trigger new chemical treatments by residents who find infestations in gardens. It is not expected to significantly impact cultural practices, home/urban gardening, or ornamental plantings. 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.
–Low = 5-8 points
–Medium = 9-12 points
-High = 13-15 points
6) Post Entry Distribution and Survey Information: Helicoverpa armigera has never been found in California and 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.
The final score is the consequences of introduction score minus the post entry distribution and survey information score: High (14)
Only one interception record was found in CDFA database, there would be chances that it presumably enters the state undetected at other times. Therefore, it is possible that it may be present in some areas of California. There is little uncertainty that H. armigera could become widely established in California, as there are numerous host plants grown throughout the state.
Helicoverpa armigera has not been found in California and is expected to have significant economic and environmental impacts if it establishes in the state. An “A” rating is justified.
CABI. 2018. Helicoverpa armigera. CAB International. Accessed August 9, 2018: https://www.cabi.org/isc/datasheet/26757
CDFA Pest and Damage Report Database. 2011. Aulacaspis tubercularis. Plant Health and Pest Prevention Services. CA Department of Food and Agriculture. Accessed August 9, 2018: http://phpps.cdfa.ca.gov/user/frmLogon2.asp
Cleary, A. J., Cribb, B. W., and Murray, D. A. H. 2006. Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner): can wheat stubble protect cotton from attack. Australian Journal of Entomology 45:10-15.
Fitt, G. P. 1989. The ecology of Heliothis spp. in relation to agroecosystems. Annual Review of Entomology 34:17-52.
Fowler, G. A. and Lakin, K. R. 2001. Risk Assessment: The Old-World bollworm, Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner), (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae).
USDA-APHIS-PPQ-CPHST-PERAL
Smith E. 2015. Old World bollworm management program. Environmental Assessment USDA. Accessed August 9, 2018:
https://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/ea/downloads/2015/owb-pr-ea.pdf
King, A. B. S. 1994. Heliothis /Helicoverpa (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) pp. 39-106 in Matthews, G. A. and Tunstall, J. P. (eds.), Insect Pests of Cotton. CAB International, Wallingford, UK.
Lammers, J. W. and MacLeod, A. 2007. Report of a Pest Risk Analysis: Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner, 1808). Plant Protection Service and Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Central Science Laboratory.
Sullivan, M. and Molet, T. 2007. CPHST Pest Datasheet for Helicoverpa armigera. USDA-APHIS-PPQ-CPHST. Revised April 2014. Accessed August 9, 2018:
http://download.ceris.purdue.edu/file/3068
Tripathi, S. and Singh, R. 1991. Population dynamics of Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Insect Science Applications 12:367-374.
USDA Phytosanitary Certificate Issuance & Tracking System (PCIT). Phytosanitary
Export Database (PExD). Harmful organism report: Helicoverpa armigera.
Accessed August 9, 2018: https://pcit.aphis.usda.gov/pcit/
Javaid Iqbal, 1220 N Street, Sacramento, CA, 95814, (916) 654-1211, plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov.
Kyle Beucke, 1220 ‘N’ Street, Room 221, Sacramento CA 95814, (916) 654-1211, plant.health[@] cdfa.ca.gov.
11/29/2018 – 1/13/2019
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.
♦ 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
On July 3, 2018 USDA released a New Pest Advisory Group (NPAG) report proposing to change the status of Acrolepiopsis assectella (leek moth) to non-actionable within the continental United States. A pest rating proposal is required to determine future direction.
Background: Leek moth is a leaf-mining moth that feeds on plants in the genus Allium1. Preferred hosts of the moth are garlic, leek, and onion1. Over-wintering adults become active when temperatures reach 15ºC1. Female moths lay eggs on leaves which larvae mine1. Mature larvae emerge from the leaf tissue and pupate on the external surface of the plant1. When adults emerge they either begin another generation or overwinter1, depending on the time of year. Leek moth can rapidly spread long distances when infested plant material is moved.
Worldwide Distribution: Leek moth is presumably native to Eurasia. It was first found in North America in Ontario in 19931. Leek moth was first detected in the United States in New York in 2009 and has since spread to New Hampshire, Maine, and Vermont1.
Official Control: Leek moth is listed as a harmful organism by Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, French Polynesia, Honduras, Israel, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Mexico, New Caledonia, Nicaragua, Peru, and Taiwan3.
California Distribution: Leek moth has not been found in the environment of California.
California Interceptions: Leek moth has never been intercepted in California.
The risk Acrolepiopsis assectella (leek moth) would pose to California is evaluated below.
1) Climate/Host Interaction: Leek moth is expected to be able to establish a widespread distribution in California wherever Allium plants grow. Based on its current widespread distribution in Europe and northern Africa it is not expected to be limited by climate in California. It receives a High (3) in this category.
Evaluate if the pest would have suitable hosts and climate to establish in California. Score:
– 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: Leek moth is only known to feed on plants in the genus Allium. It receives a Low (1) in this category.
Evaluate the host range of the pest. Score:
– 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: Leek moth has a high reproductive rate with each female laying an average of 100 eggs and the population completing as many as 8 generations per year1, depending on climate. The moth can rapidly spread long distances when eggs, larvae, or pupae on plants or harvested plant parts are moved. Adults can also fly. Leek moth receives a High (3) in this category.
Evaluate the natural and artificial dispersal potential of the pest. Score:
– 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: California is the largest producing state in the U.S. of garlic, onions, and green onions. The state produces 90%+ of the commercial garlic, is the largest producer of processing onions, and is one of the top fresh market onion producers in the nation2. Both garlic and onion crops are valued at $150-$300 million each annually2. California also leads the nation in the production of green onions with a 2009 crop value of $28 million in Monterey and Riverside county alone4. If leek moth were to establish in California it is expected to lower crop yields and increase production costs of these crops, especially on organic farms. Leek moth causes damage of economic importance in Allium Yield reductions can be as high as 50 percent and have the potential to reach 100 percent for organic growers who do not implement sufficient control measures1. Its presence in the state would likely affect markets for fresh garlic and onions. Growers in other places infested with leek moth have changed cultural practices including crop row netting, crop rotation, delayed planting, removal of old and infested leaves, destruction of pupae or larvae, early harvesting, avoidance of planting crops near known infestations, and destruction of plant debris following harvesting1. The moth is not expected to vector other organisms, injure animals, or interfere with water supplies. Leek moth receives a High (3) in this category.
Evaluate the economic impact of the pest to California using the criteria below.
Economic Impact: A, B, C, 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 leek moth were to establish in California it is not expected to lower biodiversity, disrupt natural communities, or change ecosystem processes. It is likely to affect threatened and endangered species such as Munz’s onion (Allium munzii) and Yosemite onion (Allium yosemitense). Leek moth would not be expected to disrupt critical habitats. It is likely to trigger additional treatment programs in agriculture and in residential gardens. Species of Allium are grown in home/urban gardens and would be significantly affected by this pest. Leek moth receives a High (3) in this category.
Evaluate the environmental impact of the pest on California using the criteria below.
Economic Impact: B, 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.
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.
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: Leek moth has never been found in California and 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.
The final score is the consequences of introduction score minus the post entry distribution and survey information score: High (13)
Leek moth causes significant damage to plants in the genus Allium. Its presence in California would rapidly come to the attention of garlic and onion growers, so there is little uncertainty regarding its absence from the state. There is low uncertainty with this pest.
If leek moth were to become established in California it would have significant economic and environmental impacts. An “A” rating is justified.
1 USDA New Pest Advisory Group: NPAG Report Acrolepiopsis assectella (Zeller): Leek moth. June 29, 2018.
2 California Garlic & Onion Research Advisory Board. http://www.cagarlicandonion.com/
3 USDA Phytosanitary Certificate Issuance & Tracking System (PCIT) Phytosanitary Export Database (PExD). https://pcit.aphis.usda.gov/pcit/
4 Smith, Richard, Michael Cahn, Marita Cantwell, Steven Koike, Eric Natwick, and Etaferahu Takele. 2011. Green Onion Production in California. UC Vegetable Research & Information Center Vegetable Production Series. http://anrcatalog.ucanr.edu/pdf/7243.pdf
Jason Leathers, 1220 ‘N’ Street, Sacramento CA 95814, (916) 654-0312, plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov
Kyle Beucke, 1220 N Street, Room 221, Sacramento, CA, 95814, 916-403-6741, plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov
9/24/18 – 11/8/18
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.
♦ 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
Gracillariidae insects were recently intercepted by CDFA through high risk pest exclusion program on a shipment of azalea plants, originating from Kentucky. The most common Gracillariidae, intercepted on Azalea is Caloptilia azaleella. This insect has been previously rated C by CDFA. A pest rating proposal is required to evaluate the current rating for this species.
Background: Caloptilia azaleella are small, yellow moths with purplish markings on the wings. Leaf mining stage is a yellowish caterpillar about half inch long. Caloptilia azaleella is known to attack only azaleas (Rhododendron spp.) worldwide. The larvae mine the leaf tissue; as these mines age, they cause brown blisters on the leaves. The mature larvae emerge from leaf tissue, then roll and tie the edge of the leaves around themselves for protection. They can cause considerable damage to greenhouse grown azaleas in North Carolina (Frank, 2016). Maximum infestation in Florida nurseries was noted from early spring through summer (Dekle, 2007). In Oregon, where it has been introduced, there are three generations per year.
Worldwide Distribution:
Caloptilia azaleella is endemic to Japan but has been introduced to all azalea growing parts of the world including Europe (southern Britain), New Zealand and eastern Australia (T.E.R.R.A.I.N, 2018).
In the North America, it has been found in the Unites States and Canada from Florida to Texas, Long Island, West Virginia and Ohio, California, Washington and British Colombia (Johnson and Lyon, 1994).
Official Control: Caloptilia azaleella has been listed as harmful organism in Chile (USDA -PCIT).
California Distribution: Caloptilia azaleella was introduced to California in 1962 for the first time (Essig Museum Online Database, 2010) and more recently observed in Sonoma county (2017) and Shasta county (2014) (iNaturalist, 2016).
California Interceptions: Caloptilia azaleella has been intercepted through high risk pest exclusion and interior quarantine programs in California (Pest and Damage Report Database, 2018).
The risk Caloptilia azaleella ( azalea leaf miner) would pose to California is evaluated below.
1) Climate/Host Interaction: Rhododendron spp. grow best in filtered shade and prefer acidic soils with high organic content and excellent drainage (Pests in garden and Landscapes, 2017). This type of climate is found in northern California and extends down the coast to San Francisco Bay (American Rhododendron Society, 2018). Some of the maddenii-type rhododendron can grow in southern California as well. Since C. azaleella is already introduced and present in Northern CA, its introduction and spread to the rest of the state is likely. It 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: Caloptilia azaleella feeds only on Rhododendron spp. It receives a Low (1) in this category
Evaluate the host range of the pest:
Score: 1
– 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: Caloptilia azaleella deposits 1-5 eggs on the undersurface of leaves during spring time. The life cycle is completed in one week. It overwinters as a last instar larva or pupa in a rolled leaf. Larva can be found on leaves all year around. There are three generations in western states and three to four generations in southern states. Because azaleella does not leave its host during the entire life cycle, it does not spread over large distances. However, movement of infected azalea nursery stock could likely disperse this species. It receives a Medium (2) in this category.
Evaluate the natural and artificial dispersal potential of the pest:
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: Caloptilia azaleella is a pest of container and field grown nursery stock but can also attack landscape grown plants. Heavy infestation may not kill the plant, especially if it can be controlled during early stages of growth but the damage is likely to affect the appearance and quality of the plant. Increased cost of pruning of infested branches and release of parasitoids can add to production costs and decrease the value of the crop (Dekle, 2007). It receives a Medium (2) in this category.
Evaluate the economic impact of the pest to California using the criteria below:
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.
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: Caloptilia azaleella is not likely to lower biodiversity and disrupt any natural habitats. It has also not been reported to affect any endangered species, either directly or indirectly. It could attack native rhododendron and native azaleas but unlikely to cause significant damage. The infestations of azaleas would likely trigger chemical treatments by homeowners. 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.
Score the pest for Environmental Impact:
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 Caloptilia azaleella (azalea leaf miner): 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: Caloptilia azaleella (azalea leafminer) has been found in the environment and receives a Low (-1) 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:
Score: -1
-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.
The final score is the consequences of introduction score minus the post entry distribution and survey information score: Medium (9)
Caloptilia azaleella is present in azalea growing areas in Northern California and has also been detected by CDFA from time to time. However, it is not widespread in the state, possibly due to its inability to attack any other host plants. There are some varieties of Rhododendron, being grown in Southern CA and it may be present in large azalea growing areas than is currently known
Caloptilia azaleella has been reported in the environment of California. However, it is not likely to have significant economic and environmental impacts. A “C” rating is justified.
American Rhododendron Society (ARS): California Chapter, 2018. Plant Culture and Care. P.O. Box 214, Great River, NY 11739. Accessed 6/14/2018: http://www.rhododendron.org/climate.htm http://www.calchapterars.org/
Dekle, G.W. 2007. Azalea Leaf miner: Featured Creatures. Entomology and Plant Pathology. Publication # EENY-379, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Plant Industry, University of Florida. Accessed 6/14/2018: http://entnemdept.ufl.edu/creatures/orn/shrubs/azalea_leafminer.htm
Essig Museum Online Database, 2010. California Moth Specimen Database. University of California, Berkeley. Accessed 6/21/2018 https://essigdb.berkeley.edu/calmoth.html
Frank, S. 2016. Azalea leafminer. Entomology Insect Notes. North Carolina State Extension Publications North Carolina State Extension. Accessed 6/14/2018: https://content.ces.ncsu.edu/azalea-leafminer
iNaturalist, 2016. Online crowdsourced species identification system and an organism occurrence recording tool. Gracillariidae of California. Caloptilia azaleella https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?locale=en-US&place_id=14&taxon_id=320764
Johnson WT and Lyon HH. 1994. Insects That Feed on Trees and Shrubs. 2nd ed. rev. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY.
Pest and Damage Report Database, 2018. Caloptilia azaleella. Plant Health and Pest Prevention Services. California Department of Food and Agriculture. Accessed 6/14/2018: http://phpps.cdfa.ca.gov/user/frmLogon2.asp
Pests in gardens and landscapes, 2017. Azalea-Rhododendron spp. Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of California. Statewide Integrated Pest Management Program. Accessed 6/15/2018: http://ipm.ucanr.edu/PMG/GARDEN/PLANTS/azalea.html
Reding, Tom. 2018. Caliptilia azaleella. Wikipedia- the free encyclopedia. Accessed 6/19/2018: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Caloptilia_azaleella&oldid=825762750#References
Richers, K. 1996. California Moth Specimens Database. Caloptilia azaleella. University of California, Berkeley. Accessed 6/21/018. https://essigdb.berkeley.edu/calmoth_about.html
Taranaki Educational Resource: Research, Analysis and Information Network. (T.E.R.R.A.I.N.), 2018. “Caloptilia azaleella (Azalea leafminer moth)”. The MAIN trust GIS community project. Government of New Zealand. Accessed 6/14/2018: http://www.terrain.net.nz/friends-of-te-henui-group/moths/caloptilia-azaleella-moth-azalea-leafminer-caloptilia-azaleella.html
USDA Phytosanitary Certificate Issuance & Tracking System (PCIT) Phytosanitary Export Database (PExD). Harmful organism report: Caloptilia azaleella. Accessed 6/14/2018. https://pcit.aphis.usda.gov/pcit/
Raj Randhawa, 1220 ‘N’ Street, Room 221, Sacramento CA 95814, (916) 403-6617, plant. health[@]cdfa.ca.gov
Jason Leathers, 2800 Gateway Oaks, Sacramento CA 95833, (916) 654-1211, plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov
7/30/18 – 9/13/18
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.
♦ 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
Diaphania indica is currently Q-rated. A permanent pest rating proposal is required to support an official pest rating.
Background: Diaphania indica is a pest of cucurbit crops, including cucumber, melon, and watermelon. It has also been reported to feed on plants in the families Fabaceae and Malvaceae (Arcaya et al., 2004; Ganehiarachchi, 1997; MacLeod, 2005). Adults have a wingspan of 24-33 mm. The hind and forewings have solid white centers and thick, brown margins (Evaratt et al., 2015). Eggs are laid on the undersides of leaves. The larvae feed on leaves as well as flowers and fruits (Ganehiarachchi, 1997; Kinjo and Arakaki, 2002). This moth is mostly restricted to tropical and subtropical climates. For example, in the United States, it is only found in Florida. However, it has become a pest in greenhouses in Japan and Korea, and it may be capable of living in more temperate climates in these situations (Kinjo and Arakaki, 2002; MacLeod, 2008).
Worldwide Distribution: Diaphania indica is native to the Old World tropics (Waterhouse, 1993). It is reported from tropical and subtropical areas in Africa, Australia, the Middle East, Asia, Pacific islands, Central America, South America, and the southeastern United States (only in Florida) (Clavijo A., 1990). There are a few records from Alabama and Texas, but these may not represent established populations (Symbiota Collections of Arthropods Network).
Official Control: Diaphania indica is considered reportable by the United States Department of Agriculture.
California Distribution: Diaphania indica is not known to occur in California.
California Interceptions: Diaphania indica has been intercepted on mango fruit from Florida (PDR # 430P06135915).
The risk Diaphania indica would pose to California is evaluated below.
1) Climate/Host Interaction: The distribution of Diaphania indica appears to be largely restricted to areas with a tropical or subtropical climate. It is possible that it could become established in a limited portion of California. Therefore, Diaphania indica 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: Diaphania indica feeds on a variety of crop plants in three families. 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: Diaphania indica Eggs or larvae could be moved with infested plants. 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: Diaphania indica feeds on a variety of crops in the family Cucurbitaceae, causing loss of fruit and plant mortality. This species has achieved pest status both in fields as well as in greenhouses. 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: There are native California plants in the family Cucurbitaceae. It is possible that, if established, Diaphania indica could disrupt natural communities where these plants occur. Crop infestations 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.
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: Diaphania indica is not known to occur 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.
7) The final score is the consequences of introduction score minus the post entry distribution and survey information score: Medium (10)
There is no uncertainty regarding the potential of Diaphania indica to be a pest in the right environment. However, there is significant uncertainty regarding its ability to become established in California, as this species is apparently restricted to tropical/subtropical climates (except for greenhouses).
Diaphania indica is a pest of cucurbit crops and it is not known to occur in California. It is possible that it could become established over a limited portion of the state, and if this occurred, this species could have economic and environmental impacts. For these reasons, an “A” rating is justified.
Arcaya S., E., Díaz B., F., and Paz L., R. 2004. Primer registro de Diaphania indica (Saunders, 1851) (Lepidoptera: Crambidae) en el cultivo de pepino en Venezuela. Bioagro. 16(1): 73-74.
Clavijo A., J.A. 1990. Systematics of black and white species of the genus Diaphania Hubner (1818) (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae: Pyraustinae). Ph.D. thesis. McGill University. 215 pp.
Evaratt, M., Korycinska, A., and C. Malumphy. 2015. Plant pest factsheet; cucurbit moths; Diaphania species. Department for Environment Food & Rural Affairs.
Ganehiarachchi, G.A.S.M. 1997. Aspects of the biology of Diaphania indica (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae). Journal of the National Science Council of Sri Lanka. 25(4): 203-209.
Kinjo, K. and N. Arakaki. 2002. Effect of temperature on development and reproductive characteristics of Diaphania indica (Saunders) (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae). Applied Entomology and Zoology. 37(1): 141-145.
MacLeod, A. 2005 (revised). Pest risk analysis for Diaphania indica. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs: Central Science Laboratory.
Symbiota Collections of Arthropods Network (SCAN). Accessed March 6, 2018. http://symbiota4.acis.ufl.edu
Waterhouse, D.F. 1993. The Major Arthropod Pests and Weeds of Agriculture in Southeast Asia: Distribution, Importance and Origin. Australian Center for International Agricultural Research. 141 pp.
Kyle Beucke, 1220 N Street, Room 221, Sacramento, CA, 95814, 916-403-6741, plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov
Jason Leathers, 2800 Gateway Oaks, Sacramento CA 95833, (916) 654-1211, plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov
3/15/18 – 4/29/18
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.
♦ 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
In August 2015, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) distributed a New Pest Advisory Group (NPAG) report that proposed to establish a non-reportable/non-actionable policy for Cnephasia stephensiana1. An updated version of the report was distributed in August 2017. A pest rating proposal is required to assign a permanent rating to this pest.
Background: Cnephasia stephensiana is a polyphagous moth that feeds on the leaves of more than 120 species of plants1. First instar caterpillars mine leaves; later instars live externally within spun leaves1. Caterpillars may also feed on flowers1. As caterpillars identified as Cnephasia sp. have only been intercepted by USDA five times1, it is presumed that members of this genus are rarely moved in trade. The moth is thought to disperse primarily through flight1.
Worldwide Distribution: Cnephasia stephensiana is native to Europe and Russia1. It has been found in Japan1. It was first found in Canada (in Nova Scotia) in 19542 and has since spread across that country1. In the United States, it has been collected in Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and the state of Washington1.
Official Control: Cnephasia stephensiana is not known to be under official control in any other states or nations. However, Cnephasia jactatana is listed as a harmful organism by Japan and Korea and Cnephasia longana is listed as a harmful organism by Chile, Ecuador, Korea, and South Africa3. The entire family Tortricidae is considered harmful by Japan3.
California Distribution: Cnephasia stephensiana has never been found in the environment of California.
California Interceptions: Cnephasia stephensiana has never been intercepted by CDFA or the County Agricultural Commissioners.
The risk Cnephasia stephensiana (grey tortrix) would pose to California is evaluated below.
1) Climate/Host Interaction: The present range of Cnephasia stephensiana overlaps with USDA plant hardiness zones 4-81. This corresponds with northern and high-elevation regions of California. Due to its polyphagous nature, the moth is likely to encounter suitable host plants in California. It receives a Medium (2) in this category.
Evaluate if the pest would have suitable hosts and climate to establish in California. Score:
– 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: Cnephasia stephensiana is polyphagous and known to feed on more than 120 species of plants. It receives a High (3) in this category.
Evaluate the host range of the pest. Score:
– 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: Each female Cnephasia stephensiana can lay 300-400 eggs, indicating a high reproductive rate. It rarely moves in trade and disperses locally by flying. Grey tortrix receives a Medium (2) in this category.
Evaluate the natural and artificial dispersal potential of the pest. Score:
– 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: Cnephasia stephensiana is not considered to be a pest in locations where it is abundant and is therefore not expected to lower crop yields or reduce crop values. The moth rarely moves in trade and is not under official control in any states or nations, indicating that trade disruptions should be minimal. It is not expected to change cultural practices, vector other organisms, injure animals, or interfere with water supplies. It receives a Low (1) in this category.
Evaluate the economic impact of the pest to California using the criteria below.
Economic Impact: None
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: If Cnephasia stephensiana were to establish in California, it is not likely to lower biodiversity, disrupt natural communities, or change ecosystem processes. Due to its polyphagous nature, it is likely to feed on threatened or endangered species. The moth is not expected to disrupt critical habitats, nor is it expected to trigger new treatment programs. It is also not expected to significantly impact cultural practices, home/urban gardens, or ornamental plants. Cnephasia stephensiana receives a Medium (2) in this category.
Evaluate the environmental impact of the pest on California using the criteria below.
Environmental Impact: C
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: 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.
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: Cnephasia stephensiana has not been found in California and 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.
The final score is the consequences of introduction score minus the post entry distribution and survey information score: Medium (10)
Because of its large host range, there is a lot of uncertainty with this moth in California. It could encounter specialty crops in the state that it has not encountered in other states. If this were to occur, there could be disruptions to markets for California’s fresh fruit exports, such as strawberries to Mexico. There have not been any recent formal surveys for Cnephasia stephensiana in California. It is possible that it is present in some localities in California.
Cnephasia stephensiana has never been found in California. If it were to establish in the state, it is likely to have some economic and environmental impacts. An “A” rating is justified.
1 Landry, Cynthia 2014. NPAG Report Cnephasia stephensiana Doubleday: Grey tortrix. New Pest Advisory Group (NPAG). Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory. Center for Plant Health Science & Technology. Contact npag@aphis.usda.gov for this report.
2 Mutuura, Akira. 1982. Cnephasia stephensiana, a species newly recorded from Canada and compared with the previously recorded C. interjectana (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). The Canadian Entomologist 114(08):667-671. http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=8552795&fileId=S0008347X00039225
3 USDA Phytosanitary Certificate Issuance & Tracking System (PCIT) Phytosanitary Export Database (PExD). https://pcit.aphis.usda.gov/pcit/
Jason Leathers, 1220 N Street, Sacramento, CA, 95814, (916) 654-1211, plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov.
9/18/2017 – 11/2/2017*
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.
♦ 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
You must be logged in to post a comment.