John J. Chitambar, Primary PlantPathologist/Nematologist, California Department of Food and Agriculture, plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov.
Updated on 7/10/2019 by ls
In 2018, this scale was found in Solano County on Ligustrum sp. bonsai that had been purchased in Fresno County. This scale currently has a Q-rating. A permanent pest rating proposal is required to support an official pest rating.
Background: Pseudaulacaspis prunicola is a polyphagous scale that is reported to feed on plants in 15 families. Among the recorded hosts are fruit and ornamental trees, including Carica, Malus, and Prunus species (Agnello et al., 2015; Follett, 2000; Miller and Davidson, 2005). Death of trees can result from feeding by this scale (Miller and Davidson, 2005).
There is some uncertainty regarding the species identity of P. prunicola. This scale was considered a synonym of P. pentagona until 1980. Kreiter et al. (1999) reported individuals in a single population that could be identified morphologically as either species. Pseudaulacaspis pentagona is an A-rated (by CDFA) pest that is highly polyphagous and is reported to cause damage to a wide variety of plants, including peaches in the southeastern United States and papaya in Hawaii (Branscome, 1999; Follett, 2000).
Worldwide Distribution: Pseudaulacaspis prunicola is thought to be native to temperate China or Japan (Miller and Davidson, 2005). It has been introduced to Europe, the eastern United States, and Hawaii. In the eastern United States, it is reported from Florida north to Massachusetts (Miller and Davidson, 2005).
Official Control: Pseudaulacaspis prunicola does not appear to be under official control in any country. However, P. pentagona, which has been considered by some to be a senior synonym of P. prunicola, is a regulated pest in some countries (EPPO Global Database, 2018).
California Distribution: Although P. prunicola has been collected at times in the state, this species does not appear to be established in California.
California Interceptions: The P. prunicola found on Ligustrum sp. bonsai in Solano County in 2018 represents the only interception of this species in California.
The risk Pseudaulacaspis prunicola would pose to California is evaluated below.
Consequences of Introduction:
1) Climate/Host Interaction: Pseudaulacaspis prunicola has proven itself capable of becoming established in a variety of climates, and it is highly polyphagous. It could probably establish a widespread distribution in California. Therefore, prunicola 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: Pseudaulacaspis prunicola is reported to feed on plants in at least 15 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 Reproductive and Dispersal Potential: Pseudaulacaspis prunicola is likely to be transported via movement of 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: Pseudaulacaspis prunicola is reported to attack fruit and ornamental trees. Feeding damage is reported to cause death of trees. Infestations of this scale 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: This scale is reported to kill ornamental trees. Infestations 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: 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.
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: Pseudaulacaspis prunicola 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.
7) The final score is the consequences of introduction score minus the post entry distribution and survey information score: High (13)
There is taxonomic uncertainty regarding P. prunicola and P. pentagona; they have been considered to be the same species. As P. pentagona is A-rated and is also not known to be present in California, the main implication of this uncertainty appears to be that the potential impact of P. prunicola could be greater than that considered in this PRP because there are additional hosts and additional climatic niche space reported for P. pentagona.
Pseudaulacaspis prunicola is a highly polyphagous scale that is not known to be present in California. It has the potential to cause economic and environmental impacts in the state if it was to become established. For these reasons, an “A” rating is justified.
Agnello, A., Jentsch, P., and Kain, D. 2015. Prebloom problemas. Scaffolds Fruit Journal 24:1-3.
Branscome, D. 1999. Pseudaulacaspis pentagona. Accessed October 2, 2018: http://entnemdept.ufl.edu/creatures/orn/scales/white_peach_scale.htm
California Department of Food and Agriculture. Pest and damage record database. Accessed September 28, 2018:
https://pdr.cdfa.ca.gov/PDR/pdrmainmenu.aspx
EPPO Global Database. 2018. Accessed October 4, 2018: https://gd.eppo.int/
Follett, P. A. 2000. Arthropod pests of papaya in Hawaii. Chronica Horticulturae 40:7-10.
Kreiter, P., Panis, A., and Tourniaire, R. 1999. Variabilite morphologique chez Pseudaulacaspis pentagona Targioni Tozzetti dans une population du sud-est de la France (Hemiptera: Diaspididae). Annales de la Société Entomologique de France 35:33-36.
Symbiota Collections of Arthropods Network. Accessed September 27, 2018:
http://scan1.acis.ufl.edu
Miller, D. R. and Davidson, J. A. 2005. Armored scale insect pests of trees and shrubs (Hemiptera: Diaspididae). Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY.
Kyle Beucke, 1220 N Street, Room 221, Sacramento, CA, 95814, 916-403-6741, plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov
12/6/2018 – 1/20/2019
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
An infestation of Hypogeococcus pungens was discovered on cacti in a recreation area in Orange County in September 2018. This mealybug currently has a Q-rating. A permanent pest rating proposal is required to support an official pest rating.
Background: Hypogeococcus pungens is a mealybug that has been reported to attack at least six genera of cacti as well as plants in the families Amaranthaceae, Polygonaceae, and Portulaceae (Hodges, 2009; Zimmermann et al., 2010). Cactus feeding is concentrated on portions of the plant that are actively growing. This results in distorted growth, including curling branches and growth of new, deformed branches that are sometimes referred to as galls (Le Quay-Velázquez et al., 2015). Death can take years, especially in older plants, but feeding has an immediate impact of fruit production because the mealybugs are concentrated on developing flowers. Therefore, this mealybug can have a severe impact on cactus reproduction (Patterson et al., 2011).
Natural dispersal appears to be limited but may include wind dispersal in the first instar (Zimmermann et al., 2010). Movement of plants is probably the most effective means of spread of this mealybug.
In the 1970s and 1980s, this mealybug was introduced to Australia and South Africa as part of biological control programs targeting introduced cacti, including Harrisia spp. This mealybug was credited as an effective biological control agent, helping to clear cacti from thousands of hectares.
Aguirre et al. (2016) provided evidence that more than one species may be currently identified as H. pungens. Specimens collected from the type host plant (Amaranthaceae) did not produce viable offspring or did not survive at all on cacti. The cactus-feeding H. pungens introduced to Australia for biological control of cacti had been collected from cacti in Argentina. Significantly, the H. pungens in Australia have not been found on Amaranthaceae, even though this family of plants is common in Australia. The mealybug in Florida rarely attacks cacti but it is common on Alternanthera (Polygonaceae) and Portulaca (Portulaceae) species. In addition, the Amaranthaceae-feeding H. pungens are reported to be parthenogenetic, whereas the cactus-feeding mealybug is not. This evidence suggests there are likely at least two species currently recognized as H. pungens; one that feeds on cacti (native to South America and introduced to Australia, South Africa, the Caribbean, and possibly California) and one that feeds on Amaranthaceae and other plant families (also native to South America and introduced to Florida).
In addition, H. pungens has been misidentified as H. festerianus in the past (CABI, 2018).
In areas with native cacti but where H. pungens is not native to, there is concern that the mealybug could have an impact on native cacti. Hypogeococcus pungens was reported to cause severe damage to native cacti in Puerto Rico, including reducing the density of cactus stems (Weaver, 2011).
Worldwide Distribution: Hypogeococcus pungens is native to South America (northern Argentina, western Brazil, Paraguay, and Peru). It has been introduced to Australia, the Caribbean (including the Dominican Republic and Puerto Rico), Europe (France, Greece, and Italy), South Africa, and the United States (Florida and Hawaii) (German-Ramirez et al., 2014; Hodges, 2009; Milonas et al., 2008; Pellizzari and Sacco, 2010; Segarra-Carmona et al., 2010). As of 2009, it was reported from 26 counties in Florida (Hodges, 2009).
Official Control: Hypogeococcus pungens is considered Reportable by the USDA (USDA-APHIS).
California Distribution: Hypogeococcus pungens was found in California in Beverly Hills in 2010, 2012, 2014, and 2018 and in a recreation area in Orange County in 2018. Both of these infestations are now under eradication, and this species is not known to be present anywhere else in the state.
California Interceptions: Hypogeococcus pungens was found on cacti at one residence in Beverly Hills (in 2010, 2012, 2014, and 2018), in a recreation area in Orange County in 2018, and in nurseries in Riverside, Orange, San Diego, and San Mateo County in 2004, 2011, 2012, and 2018. It was intercepted on alternanthera and ludwigia plants from Florida in 2002 and 2004 (see comment on host breadth and taxonomic uncertainty, above).
The risk Hypogeococcus pungens would pose to California is evaluated below.
1) Climate/Host Interaction: Hypogeococcus pungens has been reported from areas that vary in climate from temperate to semi-arid to tropical. It has been reported to feed on plants in four families. It could possibly establish a widespread distribution in California. Therefore, pungens 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: Four plant families are reported to be attacked by mealybugs that were identified as pungens. Although it is possible that multiple species with different feeding habits are being lumped together in this PRP (see Background, above, and Uncertainty, below), it is necessary to consider characteristics of what has been (and are likely to be) identified as H. pungens. Therefore, H. pungens 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: Some pungens are reported to be parthenogenetic, but see Background, above. Natural dispersal ability appears to be limited, with wind-dispersal of first instar nymphs being reported as likely. Movement of infested cactus plants is another likely mode of dispersal. 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: Hypogeococcus pungens is likely to infest cacti in nurseries if it became established in California. This could lead to higher costs of production. Additionally, the presence of this mealybug could lead to a loss in cactus markets, as this pest threatens native cacti in other countries, including Mexico. Therefore, it receives a Medium (2) in this category.
Economic Impact: 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: 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 38 native cacti in California, including 8 endemic species (Jepson Herbarium, 2018), that could be threatened by this mealybug, including the rare golden-spined cereus (Bergerocactus emoryi (Engelm.) Britton & Rose) and the San Diego barrel cactus (Ferocactus viridescens (Torr. & A. Gray) Britton & Rose). Infestations of this mealybug could trigger treatments and could impact ornamental cactus 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, 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.
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: Hypogeococcus pungens is not known to be established 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 (12)
There is significant uncertainty regarding the identity of the mealybugs identified as H. pungens. As described in the Background (above), there may be at least two species that are currently identified as H. pungens; one that feeds on cacti and one that feeds on other plants, including Amaranthaceae. This makes it difficult to extrapolate impacts of H. pungens observed in other places to California. For example, H. pungens is reported to be widely distributed in Florida, but this does not appear to be the cactus-feeding form. In this PRP, characteristics and possible impacts of the mealybugs identified as H. pungens were considered because, in the absence of further systematic work on these mealybugs, they are likely to be similarly identified as H. pungens if intercepted in California.
Hypogeococcus pungens or a cryptic species that is currently identified as H. pungens attacks cacti and poses a threat to cacti in California, both rare, native species as well as those cultivated as ornamentals in nurseries. Besides the infestations that are under eradication, this mealybug is not known to be established in California. For these reasons, an “A” rating is justified.
Aguirre, M. B., Diaz-Soltero, H., Claps, L. E., Saracho Bottero, A., Triapitsyn, S., Hasson, E., and Logarzo, G. A. 2016. Studies on the biology of Hypogeococcus pungens (sensu stricto) (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) in Argentina to aid the identification of the mealybug pest of Cactaceae in Puerto Rico. Journal of Insect Science 16:1-7.
California Department of Food and Agriculture. Pest and damage record database. Accessed October 5, 2018: https://pdr.cdfa.ca.gov/PDR/pdrmainmenu.aspx
CABI. 2018. Invasive Species Compendium. Hypogeococcus pungens (cactus mealybug) datasheet. Accessed October 5, 2018: https://www.cabi.org/isc/datasheet/110614
German-Ramirez, E., Kairo, M. T. K., Stocks, I., Haseeb, M., and Serra, C. A. 2014. New record of Hypogeococcus pungens (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) in the Dominican Republic with comments on specific characters. Florida Entomologist 97:320-321.
Hodges, A. 2009. Hypogeococcus pungens Granara de Willink (Insects: Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae). Accessed September 24, 2018: http://entnemdept.ufl.edu/creatures/orn/mealybug/hypogeococcus_pungens.htm
Jepson Herbarium. 2018. Jepson eFLora. Accessed October 5, 2018:
http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/IJM_stats.html.
Le Quay-Velázquez, G., Ciomperlik, M., and Rodrigues, J. C. V. 2015. Gall formation on the endangered cactus, Leptocereus quadricostatus caused by the invasive mealybug, Hypogeococcus pungens (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae). Proceedings of the Caribbean Food Crops Society 51:174-180.
Milonas, P. G., Kozár, F., and Kontodimas, D. C. 2008. List of scale insects of Greece. pp. 143-147 in Branco M., Franco J.C., and Hodgson C. (eds.), Proceedings of the XI International Symposium on Scale Insect Studies. ISA Press, Lisbon, Portugal.
Paterson, I. D., Hoffmann, J. H., Klein, H., Mathenge, C. W., Neser, S., and Zimmermann, H. G. 2011. Biological control of Cactaceae in South Africa 19:230-246.
Pellizzari, G., and Sacco, M. 2010. Le cocciniglie delle piante ornamentali in Liguria. Protezione delle Colture 4:27-36.
Segarra-Carmona, A. E., Ramírez-Lluch, A., Cabrera-Asencio, I., and Jiménez-López, A. N. 2010. First report of a new invasive mealybug, the Harrisia cactus Hypogeococcus pungens (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae). The Journal of Agriculture of the University of Puerto Rico 94:183-187.
USDA-APHIS. U.S. regulated plant pest table. Accessed September 26, 2018:
https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/planthealth/import-information/rppl/rppl-table
Weaver, P. L. 2011. Early recovery of subtropical dry forest in south-western Puerto Rico. Bois et Forêts de Tropiques 310:12-23.
Zimmermann, H. G., Pérez, M., Cuen, S., Mandujano, M. C., and Golubov, J. 2010. The South American mealybug that threatens North American cacti. Cactus and Succulent Journal 82:105-107.
Kyle Beucke, 1220 N Street, Room 221, Sacramento, CA, 95814, 916-403-6741, plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov
12/6/2018 – 1/20/2019
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
Convolvulus arvensis is currently C-rated. A pest rating proposal is required to support an official pest rating based on current information.
Background: Convolvulus arvensis is a deep-rooted perennial herb with prostrate stems. The leaves are hairless and obovate with a notched base, and they reach up to 7.5 cm long and 3 cm wide. The flowers are trumpet shaped, white to pink in color, and 2.5 cm to 3.8 cm inches wide. Reports indicate that seeds of this species can persist in soil for up to 60 years and the roots are reported to grow up to 30 feet deep (Appleby, 1999). It is a highly invasive garden and agricultural weed that difficult to eradicate. It is also found in other habitats, including wooded areas.
Worldwide Distribution: Convolvulus arvensis is native to Eurasia and has been introduced widely to temperate and tropical regions throughout the world. It may be found between 60°N and 45°S latitude (Discover Life, 2016).
Official Control: Convolvulus arvensis is listed as a harmful organism in Australia, Ecuador, Honduras, Nauru, Nicaragua, and Taiwan. It is listed as a noxious weed in Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Wisconsin, Wyoming, California, Colorado, New Mexico, and Oregon.
California Distribution: Convolvulus arvensis was first reported in California in 1850 in San Diego (CalFlora 2018, CCH 2018). It has since spread, and it is documented from all counties in California except Del Norte.
California Interceptions: Convolvulus arvensis has been intercepted 123 times from 2003 through September 2018 by CDFA. These interceptions were mostly through seed certification program and general botany surveys (PHPPS- PDR Database).
The risk Convolvulus arvensis (field bindweed) would pose to California is evaluated below.
1) Climate/Host Interaction: Convolvulus arvensis has become widely established throughout California, so it has demonstrated that the climates and habitats found in the state are conducive to its establishment. This plant can grow in nurseries, crops, vineyards, and range land. Therefore, it 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: Convolvulus arvensis does not require any one host, but grows wherever ecological conditions are favorable. 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: Convolvulus arvensis spreads by seed and sprouted rhizomes and roots. Each plant produces up to 500 seeds that can be viable in the soil for up to 20 or more years. These seeds can be dispersed by birds, water, and contaminated farm vehicles. The most common dispersal method of this weed is the use of contaminated seed stocks in Commerce. 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.
Evaluate the economic impact of the pest to California using the criteria below.
Economic Impact: A, B, C, D, F
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: Convolvulus arvensis can compete with native vegetation for nutrients, moisture, space, and light, which could decrease the biodiversity of infested areas in California. Infestations of this plant could trigger additional private treatment programs in infested areas. 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.
–Low = 5-8 points
-Medium = 9-12 points
-High = 13-15 points
6) Post Entry Distribution and Survey Information: Convolvulus arvensis is fully established and widespread in California. It receives a High (-3) 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 (12)
Convolvulus arvensis has been in California for over 120 years and it has become established in every county except Del Norte, although in limited areas. Therefore, it is little uncertainty associated with this assessment.
Based on the score listed above, Convulvulus arvensis is medium risk. It will continue to spread, but it is already widespread through the state. Because it is so widespread in California, a “C” rating is recommended.
Appleby, A. 1999. Field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis). Accessed September 19, 2018.
http://www.css.orst.edu/newsnotes/9903/weed.html#Field Bindweed
CABI Crop Protection Compendium online data sheet. Convolvulus arvensis (bindweed). CABI Publishing 2011. Accessed September 18, 2018
https://www.cabi.org/isc/datasheet/15101
CalFlora: Information on California plants for education, research and conservation. Accessed September 18, 2018.
http://www.calflora.org/
Consortium of California Herbaria [CCH], 2018. Data provided by the participants of the Consortium of California Herbaria. Regents of the University of California. Accessed September 2018. http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/consortium/.
Phillips, W. and Timmons, F. 1954. Bindweed – how to control it. Bulletin 366, Fort Hays Branch, Kansas Agricultural Experimental Station, Manhattan, Kansas, USA.
Pest and Damage Record Database, California Department of Food and Agriculture, Plant Health and Pest Prevention Services. Accessed September 18, 2018. http://phpps.cdfa.ca.gov/user/frmLogon2.asp
University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources. Accessed September 18, 2018.
http://ipm.ucanr.edu/PMG/PESTNOTES/pn7462.html
USDA Phytosanitary Certificate Issuance & Tracking System (PCIT) Phytosanitary Export Database (PExD). Accessed September 19, 2018.
https://pcit.aphis.usda.gov/pcit/
Javaid Iqbal; California Department of Food and Agriculture; 1220 N Street, Sacramento, CA 95814; Tel. (916) 403-6695
Dean Kelch, Primary State Botanist, California Department of Food and Agriculture; 1220 N Street, Sacramento, CA 95814; Tel. (916) 403-6650; plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov.
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
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
In March 2018, an infestation of Fiorinia phantasma was discovered on 27 roadside palm trees in Miami, Florida (Ahmad and Miller, 2018). This species is already present in Hawaii where it is a significant pest of ornamentals. During May 2018, Fiorinia phantasma was intercepted on a shipment of unidentified leaves from American Samoa. This species has a Q rating. A pest rating proposal is required to assign a permanent rating to this species.
Background: Fiorinia phantasma is a polyphagous armored scale and is considered a significant pest of nursery plants particularly ornamental palms (Arecaceae). It has been transported worldwide by movement of live nursery plants (Brooks, 2012 and Watson et-al., 2015). Female scales inconsistently show red stripes, running the width of the scale covering. Male and females can be found intermingled on the undersides of leaves. Eggs are large and can reach more than 1/5 of the body size of females. Crawlers begin to colonize the top side of leaves when populations reach high densities (Garcia and Hara, 2011).
Fiorinia phantasma causes yellow blotches on the upper leaf surface of host plants. Intense feeding damage is caused due to heavy infestations, resulting in leaf drop. In Hawaii, this scale impacts local nursery and landscape industry and poses an additional quarantine problem for exporters (Garcia and Hara, 2011).
In addition to palms, Fiorinia phantasma also feeds on shower tree (Cassia spp.), lobster claw (Heliconia caribaea), weeping fig (Ficus benjamina), naio (Myoporum sandwichense), mock orange (Murraya peniculata), pittosporum (Pittosporum tobira), wax leaf privet (Ligustrum japonicum), and bread fruit (Artocarpus altilis) (NPDN- Pacific pest detector news).
Worldwide Distribution: Fiorinia phantasma was first found in the Philippine islands in 1915. It is currently known in American Samoa, France, French Polynesia, Grenada, Guam, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Malaysia, Maldives, Nauru, Netherlands, New Caledonia, Papua New Guinea, Reunion, Saint Martin and St. Barthelemy, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Taiwan, Thailand and Vietnam (Watson et- al., 2015).
The first report of F. phantasma from the continental Unites States was recorded from a Canary island date palm on March 1, 2018 in Miami- Dade county, Florida. Heavy infestations have also been reported on palms in Hawaii (Garcia and Hara 2011 & Watson et-al., 2015).
Official Control: Fiorinia phantasma is listed as a harmful organism in the Republic of Korea (USDA PCIT).
California Distribution: Fiorinia phantasma is not present in the natural environment of California.
California Interceptions: Fiorinia phantasma has been intercepted 11 times by CDFA between 2010 and 2018 through regulatory pathways mainly through high risk pest exclusion activities and dog program inspections (CDFA PDR Database).
The risk Fiorinia phantasma (tea scale of camellia) would pose to California is evaluated below.
1) Climate/Host Interaction: Tropical and subtropical climate in the south coast of California is suitable for growing many palm trees. Other hosts plants including oleander, plumeria, cassia, weeping fig, pittosporum, podocarpus and murraya are grown throughout California. Fiorinia phantasma is likely to survive where these host plants are grown. 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: Fiorinina phantasma is known to feed on a wide range of host plants in 44 genera in 24 families. It has preference for Arecaceae (palm trees). Other families include Araceae, Apocynaceae, Calophyllaceae, Commilinaceae, Cycadaceae, Euphorbiaceae, Fabaceae, Heliconiacaea, Lauracaea, Malvaceae, Melicaceae, Moraceae, Oleaceae, Orchidaceae, Pandanaceae, Pittosporaceae, Poaceae, Rutaceae, Sapindaceae, Scrophulariaceae, Strelitziaceae (García Morales et al., 2016). 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: Fiorinina phantasma remains active throughout the year in warmer climates. Female lays approximately 10-15 eggs under its armor. Crawlers hatch in 10 days. The infestation actively spreads in crawler phase. Life cycle is completed in 1.5 – 2 months. It is spread in Hawaii by inter- island transport of nursery plants (Garcia and Hara, 2011, Watson et al., 2015). In California, if Fiorinia phantasma gets introduced and established, it is likely to move long distances through movement of infested nursery and landscape plants especially palm trees. It 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: Fiorinina phantasma is known to cause serious damage on areca palms in landscapes. Feeding by this species results in yellowing of leaves, leaf drop, loss of plant vigor, stunting of the host and even death of the plant. It is reported to have infested 6000 palm trees in the republic of Maldives (Watson et-al., 2015). If this species is introduced and gets established in palm growing and landscapes of south coast, it is likely to impact trade, including palms grown in nurseries. Possible use of horticultural oils and systemic insecticides for its control can increase production costs (García Morales et al., 2016). 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: The establishment of Fiorinina phantasma in California is likely to impact nursery and landscape plants as it can spread through transport of nursery plants. This species is not expected to lower biodiversity, change ecosystems and affect any threatened or endangered species. Since camellias, palms and other hosts are planted in home gardens, infestations would likely trigger chemical treatments by homeowners. It receives a Medium (2) in this category.
Evaluate the environmental impacts of the pest on California using the following criterion:
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: 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: Fiorinia phantasma has not been detected in the natural environment of California. It receives Not established (0) in this category
Evaluate the known distribution in California. Only official records of specimens 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)
Fiorinia phantasma has been intercepted by CDFA in shipments of leucodendron, Psidium guajava, Annona muricata, boxwood and podocarpus. There are many nurseries in southern and central California that specialize in these hosts and different kinds of palm trees, the main hosts of this scale. Therefore, nursery and landscape plants may potentially be significantly impacted. There have not been any recent formal surveys of nurseries and palm growing areas for the presence of this species. It is possible that this scale could be present in some parts of California.
Fiorinia phantasma has never been found in the environment of California. Since there are several of its hosts plants being grown and propagated in CA, it would likely have significant economic and environmental impacts if this scale become established in California. An “A” rating is justified.
Ahmad, M, and Miller, D. 2018. First U.S. Continental Record of Fiorinia phantasma Cockerell & Robinson (Hemiptera: Diaspididae), Phantasma Scale, Potential Pest of Palms and Ornamentals Plants. Pest Alert. Publication: FDACS-P-01880. Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer resources. Division of Plant Industry. Accessed 8/3/2018 https://www.freshfromflorida.com/content/download/79840/2332158/Pest_Alert_-_Fiorinia_phantasma.pdf
Brooks, F. 2012. Pacific Pest Detector News. A Quarterly Newsletter for First Detectors. March- May 2012, Number 9. National Plant Diagnostics Network. Accessed 8/6/2018 https://www.npdn.org/system/files/WPDN%20PacPestDetectNews_Mar-May2012.pdf
Cockerell, T. D. A., and Robinson E. 1915. — Descriptions and records of Coccidae. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 34: 105–113
Garcia, J., and Hara, A. 2011. Fiorinia phantasma Cockerell & Robinson (Hemiptera: Diaspididae). New Pest Advisory, Plant Pest Control Branch, Division of Plant Industry, Department of Agriculture, State of Hawaii 1: 1-2. Accessed 8/6/2018 https://hdoa.hawaii.gov/pi/files/2013/01/Fiorinia-phantasma-NPA.pdf
Morales, G.M. Denno, B.D., Miller, D.R., Miller, G.L., Ben-Dov, Y., and Hardy, N.B. 2016. ScaleNet: A literature-based model of scale insect biology and systematics. Database. Accessed 8/3/2018 http://scalenet.info. http://scalenet.info/catalogue/Fiorinia%20phantasma/
Pest and Damage Record Database. 2018. Fiorinia phantasma. Plant Health and Pest Prevention Services. California Department of Food and Agriculture. Accessed 8/2/2018 http://phpps.cdfa.ca.gov/user/frmLogon2.asp
USDA Phytosanitary Certificate Issuance & Tracking System (PCIT) Phytosanitary Export Database (PExD). Harmful organism report: Fiorinia phantasma. Accessed: 8/2/2018 https://pcit.aphis.usda.gov/pcit/
Watson, G.W., Williams, D.J., and Miller, D.R. 2015. The identity and distribution of Fiorinia phantasma (Cockerell & Robinson) (Hemiptera: Coccomorpha: Diaspididae), with a new synonym. Zootaxa 4048: 291-300.
Raj Randhawa, 1220 ‘N’ Street, Room 221, Sacramento CA 95814, (916) 403-6617, raj.randhawa@cdfa.ca.gov
Kyle Beucke, 1220 ‘N’ Street, Room 221, Sacramento CA 95814, (916) 654-1211, plant.health[@] cdfa.ca.gov.
11/26/2018 – 1/10/2019
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 September 25, 2018, Tongyan Tian, CDFA Plant Pathologist, was notified by Kai-Shu Ling, Plant Pathologist, USDA ARS, Charleston, South Carolina, of his detection of Tomato brown rugose fruit virus (ToBRFV) in a tomato plant tissue sample sent to him by a private company in California. The sample had been collected from tomato plants grown in the company’s greenhouse in Santa Barbara County. On September 13, 2018, the company had also sent an unofficial symptomatic tomato leaf sample to CDFA for diagnosis of the associated pathogen. On November 2, 2018, Tongyan Tian, CDFA, identified the associated pathogen as Tomato brown rugose fruit virus. On further investigation of the situation in California, CDFA was notified by the company that all ToBRFV-infested and symptomatic plant material had been voluntarily destroyed, thereby preventing the collection of an official sample. Nevertheless, the risk associated with the possible introduction of ToBRFV and a proposed rating for this pathogen is documented here.
Background: Tomato brown rugose fruit virus is a relatively new Tobamovirus – the genus that bears other economically important and contagious pathogens that infect Solanaceae, such as Tobacco mosaic virus (TMV) and Tomato mosaic virus (ToMV). ToBRFV was initially isolated from tomato plants grown in greenhouses in Jordan in 2015 (Salem et al., 2016). Prior to this, in 2014, an outbreak of a new disease infecting resistant tomato cultivars grown in net houses was observed in Southern Israel and was determined to be caused by the Israeli isolate of ToBRFV with high genomic sequence identity to the Jordan isolate (Luria et al., 2017). Most recently, ToBRFV was detected in tomato and chili pepper plants growing in nurseries in Yurecuaro, Michoacan, Mexico (NAPPO, 2018). There have been no previous reports of ToBRFV from the USA. The recent detection in greenhouse tomato plants in California that subsequently resulted in the destruction of all infested plants, does not verify the establishment of ToBRFV in the country (see ‘Initiating Event’).
Tobamoviruses infecting tomato are of great concern, but ToBRFV is of special concern because of its ability to overcome resistance of the TM-22 resistance gene which is genetically bred into tomato plants for resistance against Tobamoviruses (Luria et al., 2017). The Israeli isolate of ToBRFV was found to infect pepper (Capsicum annuum) plants harboring the L resistance genes, when cultivated in contaminated soil from previous grown infected tomato plants, especially in hot temperatures above 30°C (Luria et al., 2017). Disease caused by ToBRFV is infectious and local spread can occur rapidly through mechanical means (see ‘Dispersal and spread’).
Hosts: Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) and pepper (Capsicum annuum) are the main hosts (Salem et al., 2016; Luria et al., 2017; NAPPO, 2018). Petunia (Petunia hybrida) and certain weeds like black nightshade (S. nigrum) were shown to be asymptomatic hosts in experiments (Luria et al., 2017).
Symptoms: The Jordan isolate of ToBRFV in tomato caused mild foliar symptoms and strong brown rugose symptoms on fruit thereby affecting market value of the crop. Mechanically inoculated plants exhibited a range of local and systemic symptoms (Salem et al., 2016). Symptoms caused by the Israeli isolate of ToBRFV were mild and severe mosaic of leaves with occasional narrowing of the leaves. Yellow spots on fruit affected 10-15% of the total number of fruit produced on symptomatic plants (Luria et al., 2017).
In pepper plants cultivated in ToBRFV-contaminated soil from previously grown infected tomato plants, especially in temperatures above 30°C, the hypersensitivity response included necrotic lesions on roots and stems resulting in inhibited plant growth and possibly plant collapse. Petunia and certain weeds are symptomless hosts, while eggplant and potatoes are non-hosts for the virus (Luria et al., 2017).
Dispersal and spread: ToBRFV is transmitted mechanically (plant to plant) via externally contaminated seed (over long distances), common cultural practices (worker’s hand, clothes), tools, equipment and circulating water (Salem et al., 2016). Tobamoviruses are capable of preserving infectivity in seeds and contaminated soil (Broadbent, 1976; Luria et al., 2017). Weed hosts can serve as reservoirs of inoculum for infection of the main hosts.
Damage Potential: Tobamoviruses are of main concern in tomato crops, especially when cultivated in protected environments such as greenhouses, where conditions favor rapid spread of the pathogen. The ability of ToBRFV to break resistance in tomato plants harboring the TM-22 resistance gene and, under certain conditions also pepper plants harboring the L resistance genes, makes the potential for damage a main concern. The stability and infectious nature of this Tobamovirus via mechanical transmission by workers, tools and equipment during the handling of plants, with infection most likely occurring when seedlings are thinned in nurseries or transplanted, plus transmission through contaminated seed, soil and circulating water, render a high potential for damage in tomato and pepper. Crop production and quality of ToBRFV-consumable tomato and pepper fruit can be affected thereby significantly impacting their market value.
Worldwide Distribution: Asia: Jordan (Salem et al., 2016), Israel (Luria et al., 2017); North America: Mexico (NAPPO, 2018).
Official Control: None reported.
California Distribution: Tomato brown rugose fruit virus is not present in California. The detection of ToBRFV in greenhouse tomato plants in Santa Barbara County resulted in the destruction of the plants (see ‘Initiating Event’).
California Interceptions: None reported.
The risk Tomato brown rugose fruit virus would pose to California is evaluated below.
1) Climate/Host Interaction: It is likely that Tomato brown rugose fruit virus can establish a widespread distribution in California wherever tomato and pepper plants are cultivated.
Evaluate if the pest would have suitable hosts and climate to establish in California.
Score: 3
– 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 main hosts of ToBRFV are tomato and pepper cultivars. Experimentally, petunia and few weeds have been proven to be asymptomatic hosts and weeds may serve as reservoirs of inoculum for subsequent infections of main cultivated hosts.
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: Tomato brown rugose fruit virus is a stable and readily infectious virus plant pathogen. It is easily transmitted from plant to plant by mechanical means which include common cultural practices, contaminated tools, equipment, hands, clothes, soil, and infected plants, and seed. Infections most likely occur in protected environments, where favorable conditions for pathogen spread exist, as when seedlings are thinned in nurseries or transplanted. Transmission of ToBRFV by insect vectors has not been reported.
Evaluate the natural and artificial dispersal potential of the pest.
Score: 3
– 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: ToBRFV can break resistance in tomato plants harboring the TM-22 resistance gene and under certain conditions, also pepper plants harboring the L resistance genes. The stability and infectious nature of this Tobamovirus render a high potential for damage in tomato and pepper particularly under protected environments such as greenhouses. Crop production and quality of ToBRFV consumable tomato and pepper fruit can be affected thereby significantly impacting their market value.
Evaluate the economic impact of the pest to California using the criteria below.
Economic Impact: A, B, C, D, G.
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: The natural host range is limited to tomato and pepper which are cultivated crops. Home/urban gardening of these host plants may be impacted if infected with ToBRFV. Consequently, the establishment of this resistance-breaking Tobamovirus species in California could trigger additional official or private treatment programs.
Evaluate the environmental impact of the pest on California using the criteria below.
Environmental Impact: 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.
Add up the total score and include it here. 13
-Low = 5-8 points
-Medium = 9-12 points
–High = 13-15 points
6) Post Entry Distribution and Survey Information: 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.
Evaluation is ‘0’. ToBRFV is not established in California.
Score: 0
–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: (Score)
Final Score: Score of Consequences of Introduction – Score of Post Entry Distribution and Survey Information = 13
The potential for weed plants, especially those commonly found in tomato and pepper fields in California, to serve as hosts and inoculum reservoirs of the pathogen is not known.
Based on the evidence provided above the proposed rating for Tomato brown rugose fruit virus is A.
Broadbent, L. 1976. Epidemiology and control of Tomato mosaic virus. Annual Review of Phytopathology, 14:75-96.
Luria, N. Smith, E., Reingold, V., Bekelman, I., Lapidot, M., Levin, I., Elad, N., Tam., Y., Sela, Abu-Ras, A., Ezra, N., Haberman, A., Yitzhak, L., Lachman, O. and Dombrovsky, A. 2017. A new Israeli Tobamovirus isolate infects tomato plants harboring Tm-22 resistance genes. PLoS ONE 12 (1):e0170429. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0170429
NAPPO. 2018. Tomato Brown Rugose Fruit Virus: detected in the municipality of Yurecuaro, Michoacan. North American Plant Protection Organization (NAPPO) Phytosanitary Alert System. September 17, 2018. https://www.pestalerts.org/oprDetail.cfm?oprID=765.
Salem, N., Mansour, A., Ciuffo, M., Falk, B. W., and Turina, M. 2016. A new Tobamovirus infecting tomato crops in Jordan. Archives of Virology, 161:503-506.
John J. Chitambar, Primary Plant Pathologist/Nematologist, California Department of Food and Agriculture, 3294 Meadowview Road, Sacramento, CA 95832. Phone: 916-738-6693, plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov.
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
Vallisneria americana was observed growing in water district pond in Shasta county in 2007. Vallisneria species have been intercepted by county and at CDFA border stations in 2011, 2016 and 2018. This species is introduced to California. It has been given a temporary rating of Q by CDFA. A pest rating proposal is required to assign a permanent rating.
Synonyms: Vallisneria neotropicalis (ITIS Database)
Background: Vallisneria americana is a submersed perennial plant that is common in both still and fast flowing waters. It is a popular aquarium plant. It needs 5 cm thick of rich soil, full light and water temperature of 18-20 degrees Celsius for cultivation (Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center 2016).
Vallisneria americana grows from underground runners, and forms tall underwater meadows. Its leaves are approximately one-inch wide and several feet long and arise in clusters from the roots. The leaves have rounded tips and raised veins. The upper leaf parts often float on the water surface. This species produces separate male and female flowers. Female flowers are more conspicuous. Mature flowers detach and float on the surface of water. The fruit is a banana-like capsule and contains tiny seeds (University of Florida, 2018).
The native range of Vallisneria americana incudes Asia, Australia, North America, Central America, and South America. It prefers slow moving water and is mainly found in lakes, ponds and streams at least 10 feet deep. Fishes and invertebrates use this species as a refuge. This plant also grows in brackish water and in rivers with various salinity levels (Brand, 2015).
Worldwide Distribution: Vallisneria americana is widely distributed in eastern North America and is present in Canada, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico and the United States. (IUCN Red List of Threatened Species).
In the Unites States, Vallisneria americana is present in the eastern states and specimens have been collected from Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Louisiana, Minnesota, North Carolina, Ohio, Vermont, Virginia and Wisconsin (Wunderlin et-al., 2018) and spreading towards the west coast, being reported in Washington, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Nebraska (Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center 2016).
Official Control: Vallisneria americana has been reported as a harmful organism in Indonesia and Timor-Leste and is under official control (USDA- APHIS- PCIT).
California Distribution: Vallisneria americana has been observed occurring naturally in Shasta county and a voucher specimen has been confirmed by the CDFA Plant Pest Diagnostics Center (Consortium of California Herbaria, 2018).
California Interceptions: Vallisneria species have been intercepted few times by CDFA, through border station inspections and through weed and vertebrate surveys (Pest and Damage Report Database, 2018).
The risk Vallisneria americana (American eelgrass) would pose to California is evaluated below.
1) Climate/Host Interaction: Vallisneria americana grows in lakes and slow-moving rivers, primarily in neutral to basic waters (IUCN). It grows from stoloniferous clumps submerged under water. In shallow waters, its leaves can float the on surface of the water. It can grow well in wetland gardens and habitats. It is likely to grow in lakes, ponds, reservoirs and rivers in California. (Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center 2016) 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: Vallisneria americana do not require one host but can occur wherever environmental conditions are favorable for its growth and establishment. It receives a Medium (2) 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: Vallisneria americana reproduces through seeds in its natural habitat, but flowering is rare and most reproduction is through vegetative spread via runners in aquariums. These runners root and form a new plant. It is likely to disperse through water and humans. As it is dioecious with male and female flowers on different plants, it is unlikely to produce seed in an introduced population. Therefore, only vegetative reproduction is likely. It receives Low (-1) 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: Vallisneria americana is good source of turtles and other aquatic wild life. It is also good for wetland gardens and habitats. This species is most likely to be introduced through aquarium plants that are discarded. If established, Vallisneria americana could impede water flow in irrigation canals and storage ponds. It could affect drainage of water bodies and can impact their agricultural and recreational use (CABI 2018). Once this species is well established, it can be difficult to remove. Vallisneria americana can serve as a nursery for fishery species. It can also stabilize shorelines and improve water quality by filtering. It receives a Low (1) in this category.
Evaluate the economic impact of the pest to California using the criteria below.
Economic Impact: G
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: Vallisneria americana is an important food to canvasback ducks. Its dense underwater structures provide a great habitat for fish and invertebrates (New England Wild Flower Society 2011-2018). Vallisneria americana provides both food and refuge for many aquatic species. Like Vallisneria spiralis, this species may form dense beds resulting in displacement of native aquatic plants (MAF Biosecurity New Zealand 2010). Because Vallisneria americana is a common species of submerged aquatic vegetation in low salinity estuarine areas, it seems likely to become established in wetlands in California (Rozas and Minello, 2006). It receives a Medium (2) in this category.
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.
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: Vallisneria americana has been found growing in a settling pond in northern California but has not fully established in the state 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.
–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: Low (7)
Vallisneria americana has been observed growing in a man-made pond in a very limited area of California. Suitable aquatic habitats exist for this species in parts of CA. However, despite the widespread use of this species as an aquarium plant for over a century and its ability to spread vegetatively in open waters, it has not yet established in California.
Vallisneria americana has been only observed in California in 2007 and has not caused any significant impacts to state agriculture and the natural environment. Though it is popular in the aquarium trade, it is not established in CA except for a small area in Shasta county despite its widespread distribution in North America and elsewhere. Therefore, a “D” rating is justified.
Brand, R. 2015. Jungle Val – How to Grow and Take Care for Jungle Vallisneria. Aquarium Tidings. Your source for aquarium information since 2010. Retreived 7/17/2018. https://aquariumtidings.com/jungle-val-vallisneria/
CABI. 2018. Invasive species compendium. Vallisneria spiralis (eel weed). Retrieved 7/23/2018. https://www.cabi.org/isc/datasheet/56573
CDFA Pest and Damage Report Database. 2018. Vallisneria americana. Plant Health and Pest Prevention Services. CA Department of Food and Agriculture. Retrieved 07/18/2018. http://phpps.cdfa.ca.gov/user/frmLogon2.asp
Center for Aquatic and Invasive Plants. 2018. University of Florida. Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences. Retrieved 7/18/2018. http://plants.ifas.ufl.edu/plant-directory/vallisneria-americana/
Consortium of California Herbaria. 2018. Data provided by the participants of the CCH. University of California. Retrieved 7/23/2018. http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/get_consort.pl
Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS) on-line database. ITIS Report. Vallisneria americana Michx. Taxonomic Serial No. 38591. Retrieved 07/23/2018. http://www.itis.gov/citation.html
IUCN. 2016. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2016-1. Retrieved 7/28/2018. www.iucnredlist.org.
Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center. 2016. Inspiring the conservation of native plants. Vallisneria americana Michx. University of Texas, Austin. Retrieved 7/18/2018. https://www.wildflower.org/plants/result.php?id_plant=VAAM3
MAF Biosecurity New Zealand. 2010. Eelgrass: Vallisneria spiralis. Eelgrass: Vallisneria spiralis. Retrieved 7/24/2018. http://www.biosecurity.govt.nz/pests/vallisneria-spiralis
New England Wild Flower Society, 2011-2018. Vallisneria americana Michx. 180 Hemenway Road, Framingham, MA 01701. Retrieved 7/24/2018. https://gobotany.newenglandwild.org/species/vallisneria/americana/
Rozas, L. P. and Minello, T.J. 2006. Nekton use of Vallisneria americana Michx. (wild celery) beds and adjacent habitats in coastal Louisiana. Estuaries and Coasts 29:297-310. Retrieved 07/23/2018. http://www.galvestonlab.sefsc.noaa.gov/research/fishery_ecology/recentresearch/wildcelery/index.html
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2018. PLANTS Profile. Vallisneria americana Michx. USDA NRCS National Plant Data Team. Retrieved 7/24/2018. https://plants.usda.gov/core/profile?symbol=VAAM3
USDA Phytosanitary Certificate Issuance & Tracking System (PCIT), Phytosanitary Export Database (PExD). Harmful organism report: Vallisneria americana. Accessed 07/17/2018. https://pcit.aphis.usda.gov/PExD/faces/ReportFormat.jsp
Wunderlin, R. P., Hansen, B.F., Franck, A. R., and Essig, F.B., 2018. Atlas of Florida Plants [S. M. Landry and K. N. Campbell, USF Water Institute.] Institute for Systematic Botany, University of South Florida, Tampa. Retrieved 07/24/2018. http://florida.plantatlas.usf.edu/
Raj Randhawa, 1220 ‘N’ Street, Room 221, Sacramento CA 95814, (916) 654-0317, plant.health@cdfa.ca.gov.
Dean G. Kelch, Primary Botanist; California Department of Food and Agriculture; 1220 N Street, Sacramento, CA 95814; Tel. (916) 403-6650; plant.health@cdfa.ca.gov.
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
This plant has been rated as “Q” on the CDFA Plant Pest Rating list for 2 years.
The genus Volutaria comprises plants in the thistle tribe (Cardueae) of the daisy family (Asteracaeae). Many of the 17 species in this genus were originally described in the genus Centaurea, the genus that includes star-thistles, knapweeds, and bachelor’s buttons; the two genera are closely related. Volutaria differs from Centaurea in lacking a terminal spine shield on the tips of the inflorescence bracts and in having flowers subtended by scales rather than bristles. Desert knapweed is a pink-flowered (sometimes white-flowered in Southeastern Morocco), annual or short-lived perennial species. It was collected from a naturalized population near Anza Borrego in San Diego County, California. At this spot, it was tentatively identified as Canary Island knapweed (Volutaria canariensis), a closely related species endemic to the Canary Islands. Desert knapweed seems to be spreading steadily in the Anza Borrego Area. Another species, Volutaria muricata, was introduced to limited localities in three counties in Southern California along the coast. We have no current information on its range and persistence. However, several species within the Centaurea group are known noxious weeds in California, including purple starthistle (Centaurea calcitrapa), diffuse knapweed (Centaurea diffusa), Iberian starthistle (Centaurea iberica), spotted knapweed (Centaurea stoebe), Malta starthistle (Centaurea melitensis), meadow knapweed (Centaurea jacea s.l.), yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis), and squarrose knapweed (Centaurea squarrosa).
Desert knapweed has the largest native range of any species of Volutaria. It is widespread across northern Africa, as well as in other areas of the Region, where it inhabits drier localities and desert transition zones. Its expansion into some of these areas may be recent. It prefers nitrogen enriched soils and therefore has proven to spread rapidly along roadsides, as well as in dry farming areas and irrigated fields.
The San Diego County Agricultural Commissioner’s office initiated control measures against this plant. They are part of a coordinated effort to eradicate this plant from North America by County, State, and city staff, as well as by the non-profit organization CalIPC and private volunteers.
Worldwide Distribution: Desert knapweed occurs throughout North Africa from Morocco to Egypt, in southern Europe (Spain, Sicily, and Turkey), the Canary Islands, and in Arabia. There is a recent report of it being detected in Chile. In North America the only known populations of Desert knapweed are in southern California.
Official Control: Desert knapweed is currently listed on the California noxious weed list (under the name Volutaria canariensis; Canary Island knapweed). Desert knapweed has been recently (8/2018) as a Category A noxious weed in the state of Nevada.
California Interceptions: Desert knapweed was found after it had established along a road in the Anza Borrego Desert in 2009 (San Diego County). A new detection of a small colony along Newport Bay in Orange County was reported in 2015 and the Chula Vista plants in 2016 (San Diego County).
1) Climate/Host Interaction: Evaluate if the pest would have suitable hosts and climate to establish in California.
Risk is High (3), as the plant is naturalized on roadsides in the desert, where it is spreading rapidly. Two more recent finds in Orange and San Diego counties indicate that it may invade southern coastal areas in California as well.
Score: 3
-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: Evaluate the host range of the pest.
Risk is high (3) as weeds do not require any one host, but grow wherever ecological conditions are favorable.
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: Evaluate the natural and artificial dispersal potential of the pest.
Risk is Medium (2). The plant produces a moderate number of seeds that spread along roads, although large plants may produce thousands of seeds. Its appearance via some unknown pathway in such a remote area attests to its ability to spread under the right circumstances. During the 5 years that it has been detected, it has slowly increased its range in the Anza Borrego Desert. It was in Newport Bay since at least 1987, where it is currently known from seven spots. The seed lasts at least 3 years in the seed bank.
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 Score: Evaluate the economic impact of the pest to California using the criteria below.
The presence of this plant in the Anza Borrego desert may in the future impact the spring wildflower tourist industry if the plant behaves like another noxious desert weed, Sahara mustard (Brassica tournefortii). If it infests row crops or irrigated areas, it could lower crop value or crop yield.
Score: 3 (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.
-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 Score: Evaluate the environmental impact of the pest on California using the criteria below.
Risk is high (3) as the plant might be able to dominate desert and dry coastal areas that are home to sensitive species such as desert tortoise, blunt-nosed leopard lizard, and many rare native plants.
Score: 3 (A, C, 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 could significantly impact cultural practices, home/urban gardening or ornamental plantings.
Score the pest for 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: 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.
Desert knapweed has been found in three counties in California. Its range at this time is limited. It receives a Low (-1) 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.
The final score is the consequences of introduction score minus the post entry distribution and survey information score: High (13)
Given that the weed history of Desert knapweed is just being deciphered, it is difficult to assess potential risk. Nevertheless, given its rapid spread in Anza Borrego it seems likely to be a major invasive. Given its long distance dispersal, its noxious relatives, and the effects of other introduced annuals such as Sahara mustard on desert ecosystems, it seems best to attempt eradication of the currently small populations.
Although Desert knapweed may be limited in its spread by its environmental tolerance, it may nevertheless become a severe pest within the desert and along the southern California coast in disturbed areas. This is based on its ecology in the Old World. As the species currently is highly restricted in its range in North America and eradication may be possible, we recommend that Desert knapweed be rated as A.
Calleja, J. A., Garcia-Jacas, N., Roquet, C., & Susanna de la Serna, A. 2016. Beyond the Rand Flora pattern: Phylogeny and biogeographical history of Volutaria (Compositae). Taxon 65: 315-332.
Consortium of California Herbaria. Accessed 1/31/2017: http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/consortium/
Devesa, J. A. & Martinez, J. L. 2014. Volutaria Cass. In Devesa, J.A., Quintanar, A. & Garcia, M. A. (eds.). Flora iberica XVI: 272-278. Real Jardín Botánico, CSIC, Madrid.
Teillier, S., Macaya, J., Sisanna, A. & Calleja, J. A. 2014. Volutaria tubuliflora (Murb.) Sennen (Asteraceae), nueva especie alóctona asilvestrada para Chile. Gayana Bot. 71: 276-279.
Wagenitz, G. 1991. Volutaria canariensis Wagenitz, Candollea 46: 408.
Volutaria, a new invasive knapweed. Accessed 1/28/2017:
http://tchester.org/bd/species/asteraceae/volutaria_canariensis.html
Dean G. Kelch, Primary Botanist; California Department of Food and Agriculture; 1220 N Street, Sacramento, CA 95814; Tel. (916) 403-6650; plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov.
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
On May 11, 2018 a postal shipment of statice dried flowers showing symptoms of leaf spots was intercepted by the CDFA at a Federal Express (FedEx) office. The shipment was destined to a private owner in Alameda County and had originated in Hawaii. A sample of the symptomatic flowers was sent to the CDFA Plant Pathology Lab for disease diagnoses. On May 17, 2018 Cheryl Blomquist, CDFA plant pathologist, identified the fungus, Cercospora insulana associated with the leaf spots. The present status and rating of C. insulana is reevaluated here.
Background: Cercospora insulana is a fungal plant pathogen in the Mycosphaerellaceae family, that causes leaf spot of statice and other host plants.
The pathogen is globally widespread. In the USA, Cercospora insulana has only been reported from Florida and California (Farr & Rossman, 2018). In California, prior to its most recent detection, the pathogen has been reported on Armeria sp. and Limonium spp. in northern and southern coastal region of California (French, 1989).
Disease cycle: In general, plants infected with Cercospora species produce conidiophores (specialized hypha) that arise from the plant surface in clusters through stomata and form conidia (asexual spores) successively. Conidia are easily detached and blown by wind often over long distances. On landing on surfaces of a plant host, conidia require water or heavy dew to germinate and penetrate the host. Substomatal stroma (compact mycelial structure) may form from which conidiophores develop. Development of the pathogen is favored by high temperatures and the disease is most destructive during summer months and warmer climates. High relative humidity is necessary for conidial germination and plant infection. The pathogen can overwinter in or on seed and as mycelium (stromata) in old infected leaves (Agrios, 2005).
Dispersal and spread: Dispersal and spread: air-currents, infected nursery plants, infected leaves, seeds (Agrios, 2005).
Hosts: Armeria sp., A. maritima (thrift seapink), Limonium sp., L. bonducellii (Algerian statice), L. californicum (California sea lavender/marsh rosemary), L. gmelinii (syn. Statice gmelinii; Siberian statice), L. sinuatum (syn. Statice sinuata; statice/wavyleaf sea lavender), L. vulgare (common sea lavender) (CABI, 2018; French, 1989); Nerium indicum (Indian oleander) (XueWen et al., 2017)
Symptoms: Leaf spot symptoms caused by Cercospora insulana in field-grown statice were reported from Italy as circular, brown lesions with a darker edge, 3-6 mm in diameter and surrounded by an orange or reddish halo. Old lesions enlarged and coalesced, causing yellowing and senescence of leaves. Heavy infections resulted in severe defoliation and retarded growth or death in panicles. Lesions were also present on the wings of the flower scapes, while scapes proper were not involved (Nicoletti et al., 2003).
Damage Potential: Quantitative losses due to Cercospora insulana have not been reported. If left uncontrolled, leaf spotting may lead to disease outbreaks under favorable conditions, wherein photosynthetic areas can be reduced. Heavy infections may result in severe defoliation, retarded plant growth and death of flowers in statice, and likely, in other ornamental host plants. Nursery productions of ornamental hosts under controlled and conducive conditions for pathogen development would also be of concern in California. However, damage potential due to this pathogen is likely to be similar to other Cercospora diseases which is usually low (Agrios, 2005). Furthermore, fungicide applications and sanitary measures including the use of clean seed have been used to successfully control Cercospora diseases (Agrios, 2005).
Worldwide Distribution: Asia: China (XueWen et al., 2017), India, Myanmar; Africa: Kenya, Malta, South Africa, Zimbabwe; Europe: Caucasus, Italy, Portugal, Russia: North America: USA (California, Florida), Haiti; Oceania: Australia, New Zealand (Farr & Rossman, 2018)
Official Control: Presently, Cercospora insulana is on the ‘Harmful Organism’ list for Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador and Israel (USDA PCIT, 2018).
California Distribution: Cercospora insulana is distributed in northern and southern coastal areas of the State (French, 1989).
California Interceptions: To date, the recent detection of C. insulana (see ‘initiating event’) has been the only interception reported.
The risk Cercospora insulana would pose to California is evaluated below.
1) Climate/Host Interaction: Cercospora insulana has only been detected in northern and southern coastal regions in California. These limited regions provide adequate moisture that favor development of the pathogen in host plants like statice.
Evaluate if the pest would have suitable hosts and climate to establish in California. 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: The known host range is limited to statice, thrift seapink and Indian oleander in the genera Limonium, Armeria and Neria.
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: Cercospora insulana has high reproductive potential resulting in the successive production of conidia which primarily depend on air currents, infected plants and seed for dispersal and spread.
Evaluate the natural and artificial dispersal potential of the pest.
Score: 3
– 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: Quantitative losses due to Cercospora insulana have not been reported. However, for nurseries particularly, infected host plants with leaf spots could result in lowered value resulting in use of fungicidal treatments thereby increasing production costs, and loss of markets.
Evaluate the economic impact of the pest to California using the criteria below.
Economic Impact: 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: 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: Home garden plantings of statice species may be impacted if the pathogen was to establish under favorable environmental conditions and in the absence of adequate disease control. The pathogen has not been detected in oleander in California.
Evaluate the environmental impact of the pest on California using the criteria below.
Environment 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.
Add up the total score and include it here. (Score)
-Low = 5-8 points
–Medium = 9-12 points
-High = 13-15 points
Total points obtained on evaluation of consequences of introduction to California = 10
6) Post Entry Distribution and Survey Information: 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.
Evaluation is ‘Medium’ in California.
Score: (-2)
-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: (Score)
Final Score: Score of Consequences of Introduction – Score of Post Entry Distribution and Survey Information = 8
None.
Based on the evidence provided above the proposed rating for Cercospora insulana is to continue as C.
Agrios, G. N. 2005. Plant Pathology (Fifth Edition). Elsevier Academic Press, USA. 922 p.
Farr, D.F., & A. Y. Rossman. 2016. Fungal Databases, Systematic Mycology and Microbiology Laboratory, ARS, USDA. Retrieved May 18, 2018, from http://nt.ars-grin.gov/fungaldatabases/
French, A. M. 1989. California Plant Disease Host Index. California Department of Food and Agriculture, Sacramento (Updated online version by T. Tidwell, May 2, 2017).
Nicoletti, R., F. Raimo, C. Pasini, and F. D’Aquila. 2003. Occurrence of Cercospora insulana on statice (Limonium sinuatum) in Italy. Plant Pathology 52: 418. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-3059.2003.00840.x
USDA PCIT. 2018. USDA Phytosanitary Certificate Issuance & Tracking System. Retrieved May 18, 2018. 12:45:06 pm CDT. https://pcit.aphis.usda.gov/PExD/faces/ReportHarmOrgs.jsp.
XueWen, X., Z. Qian and G. YingLan. 2017. New records of Cercospora and Pseudocercospora in China. Mycosystema 36: 1164-1167.
John J. Chitambar, Primary Plant Pathologist/Nematologist, California Department of Food and Agriculture, 3294 Meadowview Road, Sacramento, CA 95832. Phone: 916-738-6693, plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov.
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
The risk of infestation of Citrus viroid V (CVd-V) in California is evaluated and a permanent rating is herein proposed.
Background: The origin of Citrus viroid V (CVd-V) is uncertain (Serra et al., 2008a). In a study in Spain on the response of Citrus species and citrus-related genera to viroid infections, Serra and other researchers (2008a) originally detected CVd-V in Atalantia citroides, a citrus relative plant propagated on rough lemon rootstock and graft-inoculated with artificial mixtures of different viroids. The viroid source was provided to them by a researcher at the University of California, Riverside and purified preparations were shown to be infectious in Etrog citron (Citrus medica), a classical indicator plant of citrus viroids. Subsequently, CVd-V was considered a new species of the genus Apscaviroid in the family Pospiviroidae (Serra et al., 2008a). Viroids are classified within two families: Pospiviroidae and Avsunviroidae. Citrus are natural hosts of several viroid species that belong to the family Pospiviroidae. Therefore, A. citroides was identified as an unusual viroid host since it was resistant to all previously known citrus viroids, yet capable of replicating CVd-V (Serra et al., 2008b). Infectious assays conducted by Sierra et al. (2008) showed that CVd-V in Etrog citron exhibited mild symptoms, however, co-infections with either Citrus bent leaf viroid (CBLVd) or Citrus dwarfing viroid (CDVd, previously Citrus viroid III), also belonging to the genus Apscaviroid, showed synergistic effects in contrast to single infections of CVd-V or the other two viroids, however, titers of the viroids remained the same in singly or doubly infected plants (Serra et al., 2008a).
While the origin of CVd-V is not known, Pakistan may be one of the geographic origins of the viroid (Serra et al., 2008a, b; Parakh et al., 2017). Serra et al. (2008a) suggested that the viroid was present, but overlooked or unnoticed, in field sources containing Hop stunt Viroid or Citrus dwarfing viroid – both of which have electrophoretic mobilities similar to CVd-V. CVd-V has been found with some variations in its nucleotide sequence, in several countries in Africa, Asia, Europe, and North America (see ‘Worldwide Distribution).
In June 2016, the Citrus Clonal Protection Program-National Clean Plant Network (CCPP-NCPN), University of California, Riverside, California detected Citrus Viroid V in citrus budwood samples submitted by the CDFA for virus and viroid testing under the mandatory California (CA 3701) Citrus Nursery Stock Pest Cleanliness Program. These budwood samples were taken from asymptomatic redblush grapefruit (Citrus paradisi) and variegated calamondin (C. madurensis) from a nursery in Tulare County. This find marked the natural occurrence of CVd-V in California and corroborated the earlier report of CVd-VCA variant in the State (Dang et al., 2018; Serra et al., 2008b).
Hosts: Citrus spp. including ‘Sanguinelli’, Salustiana’, and ‘Ricart navelina’ sweet oranges (Citrus x sinensis), ‘Oroval’ and ‘Hernandina clementines (C. clementina), ‘Fino’ and ‘Verna’ lemons (C. limon), ‘Sevilano’ and ‘Cajel’ sour orange (C. aurantium), ‘Clausellina’ satsuma (C. unshiu), Temple mandarin (C. temple), Tahiti lime, Palestine sweet lime (C. limettioides), calamondin (C. madurensis), ‘Calabria’ bergamot (C. bergamia), ‘Orlando’ tangelo (C. paradisi x C. tangerina), ‘Page’ mandarin [(C. paradisi x C. tangerina) x C. clementina], and ‘Nagami’ kumquat (Fortunella margarita), and Etrog citrus (Atlantia citroides) (Serra et al., 2008); ‘Shiranui’ [(C. unshiu x C. sinensis) x C. reticulata] (Ito and Ohta, 2010); ‘Moro blood’ sweet orange (Citrus x sinensis) (Bani Hashemian et al., 2013); redblush grapefruit (C. paradisi) (Dang et al., 2018).
Symptoms: Citrus viroid V induced mild characteristic symptoms of very small necrotic lesions and cracks, sometimes filled with gum, in the stems of the viroid indicator plant, Etrog citron. However, CVd-V reacted synergistically when Etrog citrus was co-infected with either citrus bent leaf viroid (CBLVd) or Citrus dwarfing viroid (CDVd), and showed severe stunting and epinasty with multiple lesions in the midvein. Plants co-infected with CBLVd and CVd-V exhibited severe stem cracking characteristic of CBLVd, but without gum exudates, whereas plant co-infected with CDVd showed necrotic lesions (Serra et al., 2008a). Symptoms induced by CVd-V alone in commercial species and varieties are presently not known since commercial trees may be co-infected with several viroids (Ito and Ohta, 2010; Serra et al., 2008a). Citrus viroid V may be present in asymptomatic citrus plant tissue – as recently evidenced by its detection in asymptomatic budwood collected from Tulare County, California.
Damage Potential: The effect of CVd-V in commercial citrus rootstock-scion combinations, alone and in combination with other viroids, is yet unknown, however, Serra et al. (2008b) suggested that CVd-V could reduce tree size and yield as has been reported for clementine trees grafted on trifoliate orange co-infected with several viroids. Therefore, the need for nursery planting stock free of CVd-V is important.
Transmission: Similar to other citrus viroids, CVd-V is graft-transmitted and is spread mainly through the propagation of infested material.
Worldwide Distribution: Africa: Oman (Serra et al., 2008), Tunisia (Hamdi et al., 2015); Asia: China, Japan, Nepal, Pakistan (Cao et al., 2013), Iran (Bani Hashemian et al., 2010), Turkey (Önelge and Yurtmen, 2012); Europe: Spain (Serra et al., 2008); North America: USA (Serra et al., 2008).
Official Control: Citrus viroid V is a disease agent of concern that is tested for in the CDFA Citrus Nursery Stock Pest Cleanliness Program (3 CCR §§ 3701, et seq.).
California Distribution: Tulare County (Dang et al., 2018).
California Interceptions: None reported.
The risk Citrus viroid V would pose to California is evaluated below.
1) Climate/Host Interaction: Citrus viroid V is likely to establish within infested propagative citrus materials in all citrus-growing regions of California.
Evaluate if the pest would have suitable hosts and climate to establish in California.
Score: 3
– 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: Citrus viroid V has a moderate host range that is limited to several species and varieties of Citrus.
Evaluate the host range of the pest.
Score: 2
– 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: Citrus viroid V replicates autonomously within infested plants and is spread mainly through the propagation and movement of infested planting materials to non-infested regions.
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: The effect of CVd-V in commercial citrus rootstock-scion combinations, alone and in combination with other viroids, is yet unknown, however, it has been suggested by Serra et al. (2008b) that CVd-V could reduce tree size and yield.
Evaluate the economic impact of the pest to California using the criteria below.
Score: 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: It is probable that home, urban, public garden and landscape plantings of CVd-V-infested citrus plantings may be significantly impacted by the viroid singly or in combination with other viroids.
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.
Add up the total score and include it here. (Score)
-Low = 5-8 points
–Medium = 9-12 points
-High = 13-15 points
Total points obtained on evaluation of consequences of introduction of CVd-V to California = 12.
6) Post Entry Distribution and Survey Information: 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)
-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.
Evaluation is Low (-1). Currently, Citrus viroid V has only been detected in a nursery in Tulare County.
7) The final score is the consequences of introduction score minus the post entry distribution and survey information score: (Score)
Final Score: Score of Consequences of Introduction – Score of Post Entry Distribution and Survey Information = 11.
The effect of CVd-V in commercial citrus rootstock-scion combinations, alone and in combination with other viroids, is yet unknown.
Based on the evidence provided above the proposed rating for Citrus viroid V is B.
Bani Hashemian, SM, Taheri, H, Duran-Vila, N, and Serr, P. 2010. First report of Citrus viroid V in Moro blood sweet orange in Iran. Plant Disease 94: 129.
Cao, M. J., Liu, Y. Q., Wang, X. F., Yang, F. Y., and Zhou, C. Y. 2010. First report of Citrus bark cracking viroid and Citrus viroid V infecting Citrus in China. Plant Disease 94: 922. https://doi.org/10.1094/PDIS-94-7-0922C
Dang, T., Tan, S. H., Bodaghi, S., Greer, G., Lavagi, I., Osman, F., Ramirez, B., Kress, J., Goodson, T., Weber, K., Zhang, Y. P., Vidalakis, G. First report of Citrus Viroid V naturally infecting grapefruit and calamondin trees in California. Plant Disease, Posted online on August 10, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1094/PDIS-01-18-0100-PDN
Hamdi, I., Elleuch, A., Bessaies, N., Grubb, C. D., and Fakhfakh, H. 2015. First report of Citrus viroid V in North Africa. Journal of General Plant Pathology 81, 87
Ito, T., and Ohta, S. 2010. First report of Citrus viroid V in Japan. Journal of General Plant Pathology 76: 348-350.
Önelge, N., and Yurtmen, M. 2012. First report of Citrus viroid V in Turkey. Journal of Plant Patholology 94 (Suppl. 4), 88.
Parakh, D. B., Zhu, S., and Sano, T. 2017. Geographical distribution of viroids in South, Southeast, and East Asia. In: Apscaviroids Infecting Citrus Trees by Tessitori, M, Viroids and Satellites, Edited by Hadidi, A, Flores, R, Randles, JW, and Palukaitis, P, Academic Press Ltd-Elsevier Science Ltd, Pages 243-249
Serra, P., Barbosa, C. J, Daros, J. A., Flores, R., Duran-Vila, N. 2008a. Citrus viroid V: molecular characterization and synergistic interactions with other members of the genus Apscaviroid. Virology 370, 102112.
Serra, P., Eiras, M., Bani-Hashemian, S. M., Murcia, N., Kitajima, E.W., Daro`s, J. A., et al., 2008b. Citrus viroid V: occurrence, host range, diagnosis, and identification of new variants. Phytopathology 98, 11991204.
John J. Chitambar, Primary Plant Pathologist/Nematologist, California Department of Food and Agriculture, 3294 Meadowview Road, Sacramento, CA 95832. Phone: 916-738-6693, plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov.
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.