Category Archives: Ratings

A-Rated, Hemiptera, Insects, Mites & Earthworms

Mango Scale | Aulacaspis tubercularis Newstead

August 14, 2018 Javaid Iqbal

California Pest Rating for

Aulacaspis tubercularis Newstead: Mango scale

Hemiptera: Diaspididae

Pest Rating: A

PEST RATING PROFILE

Initiating Event:

Aulacaspis tubercularis is frequently intercepted by CDFA. It is currently rated Q, and a pest rating proposal is required to support a permanent pest rating.

History & Status:

Background: Aulacaspis tubercularis is commonly known as white mango scale, mango scale and Cinnamon scale. Immatures and adult females of this scale are covered by a white scale cover that is semi-circular in females and elongate in males. Immatures and adult females feed on plant fluids. Aulacaspis tubercularis is highly polyphagous and damages a wide range of perennials, ornamentals, and fruit trees.

Mango (Mangifera indica) is the preferred host of this pest, but it has been reported to feed on a wide variety of plants in at least 30 genera in 18 families including: Anacardiaceae, Annonaceae, Arecaceae, Burseraceae, Cucurbitaceae, Calophyllaceae, Iridaceae, Lauraceae, Loranthaceae, Meliaceae, Myrtaceae, Percidae, Pittosporaceae, Rhizophoraceae, Rosaceae, Rutaceae, Sapindacea and Zingiberaceae (García Morales et al. 2018).

Worldwide Distribution: Aulacaspis tubercularis is widely distributed in all tropical Africa, including Madagascar, Mauritius, Reunion, Rodriques Island, and South Africa, and most of the Neotropical region. In Asia it is reported from China, Japan, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan, Philippine, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, Thailand, Egypt, Iraq and Israel (Hodges & Hamon 2016).

In the United States, this scale was reported in Florida. Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands (García Morales et al. 2018).

Official Control: Aulacaspis tubercularis is listed as a harmful organism in Costa Rica, Korea, Seychelles, Guatemala, and Ecuador (PCIT, 2018).

California Distribution: Aulacaspis tubercularis has never been found in the environment in California.

California Interceptions: Aulacaspis tubercularis was intercepted 273 times in California since 2010. Most of these interceptions were on infested mangoes coming from South American countries (CDFA PDR database).

The risk Aulacaspis tubercularis (mango scale) would pose to California is evaluated below.

Consequences of Introduction:

1) Climate/Host Interaction: Hosts plants of Aulacaspis tubercularis are grown throughout California and southern coastal weather is quite favorable for this insect to spread and become established wherever its hosts are grown. It receives a Medium (2) 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: Aulacaspis tubercularis has been reported to feed on plants in at least 30 genera in 18 families. 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: Aulacaspis tubercularis has a high reproductive rate; adult females can lay up to 200 eggs. (Miller and Davidson, 2005). This scale can be spread by wind or by hitchhiking on animals or equipment. It may also be spread long distances through the movement of infested plants or fruit. Therefore, 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: There is little information available on the economic importance of this pest other than that it considered a major pest of mango in many parts of the world (Miller and Davidson, 1990). Known hosts also include cucurbits, citrus, Prunus, and avocado. The scale may lower yields in these crops and increase production costs by triggering new management programs. It is not expected to change cultural practices, vector other organisms, injure animals, or disrupt water supplies. 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: 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: Aulacaspis tubercularis is not expected to lower biodiversity, disrupt natural communities, or change ecosystem processes. No known hosts of the scale are listed as threatened or endangered species in California and the scale is not expected to affect critical habitats. It might trigger new chemical treatments in agriculture and by residents who find infested plants unsightly. It receives a Medium (2) in this category.

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

Environmental Impact: D

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

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

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

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

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

Environmental Impact: Score: 2

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

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

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

Consequences of Introduction to California for Aulacaspis tubercularis (mango scale): High (13)

–Low = 5-8 points

–Medium = 9-12 points

-High = 13-15 points

6) Post Entry Distribution and Survey Information: Aulacaspis tubercularis has never been found in the environment 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.

Final Score

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

Uncertainty:

Aulacaspis tubercularis is commonly intercepted on mango shipments coming from South America and presumably has remained undetected on other consignments. It is possible that it is present in some parts of California or may have failed to establish.

Conclusion and Rating Justification:

Aulacaspis tubercularis apparently is not present in California. If it became established here, it could cause significant economic and environmental impacts. An “A” rating is justified.

References:

García Morales, M., Denno, B. D., Miller, D. R., Miller, G. L., Ben-Dov, Y., and Hardy, N. B. 2016. Aulacaspis tubercularis. Scale Net: A literature-based model of scale insect biology and systematics. Accessed June 22, 2018: http://scalenet.info/catalogue/Aulacaspis%20tubercularis/

Hodges, G. and Hamon, A. 2016. Pest Alert Florida, FDACS-P-01697 Accessed June 22, 2018: https://www.freshfromflorida.com/layout/set/print/content/download/67879/1610662/version/1/file/Pest+Alert+-++Aulacaspis+tubercularis%2C+White+Mango+Scale.pdf

USDA Phytosanitary Certificate Issuance & Tracking System (PCIT). Phytosanitary Export Database (PExD). Harmful organism report: Aulacaspis tubercularis. Accessed June 22, 2018: https://pcit.aphis.usda.gov/pcit/

CDFA Pest and Damage Report Database, 2011. Aulacaspis tubercularis. Plant Health and Pest Prevention Services. CA Department of Food and Agriculture. Accessed June 22, 2018: http://phpps.cdfa.ca.gov/user/frmLogon2.asp

Author:

Javaid Iqbal, 1220 N Street, Sacramento, CA, 95814, (916) 654-1211, plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov.

Responsible Party:

Jason Leathers, 1220 N Street, Sacramento, CA, 95814, (916) 654-1211, plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov.

Comment Period:* CLOSED

8/14/18 – 9/28/18

*NOTE:

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

Comment Format:

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

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

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

♦ Comments may not be posted if they:

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

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

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

Violates agency regulations prohibiting workplace violence, including threats.

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

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

Pest Rating: A

Posted by ls

C-Rated, Nematodes

Ditylenchus dipsaci (Kühn, 1857) Filipjev, 1936

August 2, 2018 Admin

California Pest Rating for

Ditylenchus dipsaci (Kühn, 1857) Filipjev, 1936

Pest Rating: C

PEST RATING PROFILE

Initiating Event:

None. The current rating and status of Ditylenchus dipsaci in California are re-evaluated.

History & Status:

Background: During the 1920s, the stem and bulb nematode was one of the earliest nematodes known to affect garlic and narcissus production in California where it continues to be a major pest of garlic, onion and alfalfa (Siddiqui, 1973). In alfalfa, damage is most severe in moist, cool weather in cooler, sprinkler-irrigated inland valley and foggy coastal areas of California, and the nematode may be found as far south in the Central Valley as Madera County (Westerdahl, 2007). Ditylenchus dipsaci, the stem and bulb nematode, is one of the most devastating plant parasitic nematodes on a wide range of plants and is distributed worldwide especially in temperate regions. It is a migratory endoparasitic nematode that feeds and inhabits mostly aerial parts of host plants (stems, leaves, inflorescence, seeds) but also invades below ground modified parts (bulbs, tubers, stolons, rhizomes and rarely roots). Ditylenchus dipsaci has been documented in early reports as a complex containing several species (Sturhan and Brzeski, 1991). However, D. dipsaci sensu stricto can now be distinguished from other related species by host plant range, chromosome number, morphometric values and gene sequences (Subbotin et al., 2005).

Disease cycle: D. dipsaci completes a life cycle from egg to egg in about 21 days at 59°F and a female lays 200-500 eggs within garlic and onion tissue, and egg development occurs between 59 and 70°F (Becker and Westerdahl, 2018). Several generations can occur over one growing season. Under favorable moisture and temperature conditions, preadults become active, swim in films of water in soil or on wet plant surfaces, and attack a germinating seed or seedling entering near the root cap or within the seed. Nematodes remain intercellular and feed on parenchymatous tissue causing cell division and enlargement. In young plants, the nematodes enter leaves through stomata or directly through the epidermis in leaf bases – resulting in cell enlargement, disappearance of chloroplasts, and increase in intercellular spaces. As bulbs enlarge, the nematodes move down the leaves intercellularly or on the surface of leaves and re-entering at the outer sheaths of the stem or neck to infect the outer scales of bulbs. Middle lamellae of cells and cells break down forming large cavities and stems lose their rigidity and collapse. Nematodes continue to feed through the parenchymatous outer scales. The macerated tissue has a white mealy texture but soon turn brown due to secondary invasion. In early stages the nematodes remain within individual scales causing complete or incomplete rings of frosty white or brown tissue. Later, the nematodes infect more scales even after harvest and in storage usually resulting in totally infecting a bulb. When heavily infected bulbs decay, preadults exit and accumulate about the basal plates of dried bulbs as cottony masses called “nematodes wool” and can survive there for years (Agrios, 2005; Westerdahl and Becker, 2018). Survival: The pre-adults or fourth stage larvae can survive freezing or extreme dry conditions in anhydrous state for long periods in plant tissue, stems, leaves, bulbs, seeds or in soil (Agrios, 2005).

Dispersal and spread: Infested plant material including bulbs, stems, leaves, and seeds; infested soil, contaminated cultivation tools and equipment, contaminated irrigation and splash water.

Hosts: There are more than 500 plant species in over 40 angiosperm families that are known to be hosts of D. dipsaci. Many of the biological races of D. dipsaci have limited host ranges (EPPO, 2008). In California, D. dipsaci is an important nematode pest particularly of onion, garlic, and alfalfa.

Symptoms: Emergence of infected onion seedlings is retarded, with reduced stands, appearing pale green to yellow, twisted and arched and collapsed. Most infected seedlings die within three or more weeks. Developing plants exhibit stunting, light yellow or brown spots, swellings (spikkles) and open lesions, swollen and deformed stems, thickened, curled, distorted leaves, collapse of leaves and premature drying and defoliation; and bloated tissue with a spongy appearance, leaf tips often exhibit a gray to brown dieback. Older plants may also die before harvest.

Bulb tissue begins softening at the neck and gradually proceeds downwards. Young bulbs are soft, swollen and malformed, and exhibit a coarse-textured tissue beneath the outer scale. Bulb scales appear pale gray, soft, and loose. Bulb tissue underneath the loose outer scales is soft, puffy, mealy and frosty in appearance. Affected scales appear as discolored rings in cross sections of infected bulbs, and as irregular, discolored lines in longitudinal sections. Individual cloves or, in severe cases, larger areas of the bulb become affected. Bulbs may split, become malformed, or produce sprouts and double bulbs. Under dry conditions bulbs become desiccated, light in weight, odorless, and split at the base. Basal plate and roots of severely infested bulbs may also appear to a have a dry rot and can be easily separated from the bulbs, mimicking symptoms of Fusarium basal plate rot. Under moist conditions, secondary invaders set in and bulbs rots and decay. In storage, bulbs decay (EPPO, 2008).

Carrots and sugar beet: The plant is most affected at 2-4 cm below and above ground level. Early symptoms include straddled (collapsed on both sides) leaves, multi-bud plant crowns and light discoloration of taproot tops (EPPO, 2008).

Alfalfa: Nematodes enter bud tissue and developing buds. Infected stems are enlarged, discolored – later may turn black as nematode numbers increase, swollen nodes, shortened internodes (stunted). Infected plants have fewer shoots, and deformed buds. White or pale flags (destruction of chloroplasts) are formed as nematodes move to leaf tissue (EPPO, 2008).

Seeds: Small seed generally show no symptoms of infestation, but the skin of larger seeds, (Phaseolus vulgaris, Vicia faba), may be shrunken with discolored spots (EPPO, 2008).

Damage Potential: If not controlled, the stem and bulb nematode has the potential to affect host crop production by reducing yield and quality, increasing costs of nematode-free production, and management options. The seedborne capability of D. dipsaci would impact international trade of host seed and planting stock, if the latter were found infested with the nematode. However, California’s Seed Certification Program that ensures the use of clean, nematode-free seeds, has provided California garlic growers a strong preventive measure against the stem and bulb nematode.

Worldwide Distribution: Asia: Armenia, Azerbaijan, China, Republic of Georgia, India, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Republic of Korea, Kyrgyzstan, Oman, Pakistan, Syria, Taiwan, Turkey, Uzbekistan, Yemen; Africa: Algeria, Kenya, Morocco, Nigeria, Réunion, South Africa, Tunisia; Europe: Albania, Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Bosnia-Hercegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Czechoslovakia (former), Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Malta, Moldova, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, Ukraine, Yugoslavia; North America: Canada, Mexico, USA; Central America and Caribbean: Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Haiti; South America: Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay, Venezuela; Oceania: Australia, New Zealand (CABI, 2018).

In the USA it has been reported from several states including: Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Virginia, Washington, Wyoming (CABI, 2018).

Official Control: Currently, D. dipsaci is on the ‘Harmful Organism Lists’ for 50 countries including: Algeria, Antigua and Barbuda, Bangladesh, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Cook Islands, Costa Rica, Cuba, Egypt, El Salvador, European Union, French Polynesia, Georgia, Grenada, Guatemala, Holy See (Vatican City State), Honduras, India, Indonesia, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Madagascar, Mexico, Monaco, Morocco, Namibia, New Caledonia, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, San Marino, Serbia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, United Republic of Tanzania, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Uruguay, Viet Nam, and Yemen (USDA PCIT, 2018).

California Distribution: Ditylenchus dipsaci is widely distributed in California.

California Interceptions: None.

The risk Ditylenchus dipsaci would pose to California is evaluated below.

Consequences of Introduction:

1) Climate/Host Interaction: Ditylenchus dipsaci is already widespread within California. The state provides suitable hosts and climate for the establishment and spread of dipsaci to uninfected sites.

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: Ditylenchus dipsaci has a very wide host range comprising more than 500 plant species in over 40 angiosperm families. The species also has several biological races which have limited host ranges. In California, dipsaci is an important nematode pest particularly of onion, garlic, and alfalfa.

Evaluate the host range of the pest. 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: The nematode is dispersed artificially mainly through Infested plant material including bulbs, stems, leaves, and seeds; infested soil, contaminated cultivation tools and equipment, contaminated irrigation and splash water. The ability to survive anhydrously over adverse environmental conditions particularly within plant seed and infested planting stock enables dipsaci for long distance movement over extends periods of time.

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.

Economic Impact: If left unmanaged, the stem and bulb nematode has the potential to affect host crop production by reducing yield and quality, changing normal cultural practices including supply of irrigation water to field grown crops, and increasing costs of nematode-free production. The seedborne capability of dipsaci would impact international trade of host seed and planting stock, if the latter were found infested with the nematode. However, California’s Seed Certification Program that ensures the use of clean, nematode-free seeds, has provided California garlic growers a strong preventive measure against the stem and bulb nematode, and the use of resistant varieties is regarded the most effective control of D. dipsaci in alfalfa.

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: Ditylenchus dipsaci has not been reported to have significant environmental impact in California. Home gardening and ornamental plantings are usually protected against the nematode through use of nematode-free planting materials.

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

Environment Impact: None

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

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

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

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

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

Score the pest for Environmental Impact. Score:

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

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

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

**Consequences of Introduction to California for Ditylenchus dipsaci:** 11

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 = 11

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 in California.

Score: (-3)

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

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

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

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

Final Score:

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

Final Score: Score of Consequences of Introduction – Score of Post Entry Distribution and Survey Information = 8

Uncertainty:

None.

Conclusion and Rating Justification:

Based on the evidence provided above the proposed rating for Ditylenchus dipsaci is C.

References:

Agrios, G. N. 2005. Plant Pathology (Fifth Edition). Elsevier Academic Press, USA. 922 p.

Becker, J. O. and Westerdahl, B. B. 2018. Onion and garlic nematodes. UCIPM Statewide Integrated Pest Management Program, University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources. (Updated 2/07). http://ipm.ucanr.edu/PMG/r584200111.html

CABI. 2018. Ditylenchus dipsaci full datasheet. Crop Protection Compendium. https://www.cabi.org/cpc/datasheet/19287

EPPO. 2008. Ditylenchus destructor and Ditylenchus dipsaci Diagnostics. European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization. OEPP/EPPO Bulletin 38: 363-373.

Siddiqui, I. A., Sher, S. A., and French, A. M. 1973. Distribution of plant parasitic nematodes in California. State of California Department of Food and Agriculture, Division of Plant Industry, 324 p.

Sturhan, D., and Brzeski, M. W. 1991. Stem and bulb nematodes, Ditylenchus spp. In: Manual of Agricultural Nematology Ed. Nickle, W. R., pp.423–464. Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York (US).

Subbotin, S. A., Madani, M. Krall, E., Sturhan, D., and Moens, M. 2005. Molecular diagnostics, taxonomy, and phylogeny of the stem nematode Ditylenchus dipsaci species complex based on the sequences of the internal transcribed spacer-rDNA. Phytopathology 95: 1308-1315.

USDA PCIT. 2018. USDA Phytosanitary Certificate Issuance & Tracking System. Retrieved July 26, 2018, 1:20:45 pm CDT. https://pcit.aphis.usda.gov/PExD/faces/ReportHarmOrgs.jsp.

Westerdahl, B. B. 2007. Parasitic nematodes in alfalfa. In Irrigated Alfalfa Management for Mediterranean and Desert Zones. University of California Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources Publication 8297 Chapter 11.

Responsible Party:

John J. Chitambar, Primary Plant Pathologist/Nematologist, California Department of Food and Agriculture, 3294 Meadowview Road, Sacramento, CA 95832. Phone: 916-262-1110, plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov.

Comment Period:* CLOSED

8/2/18 – 9/16/18

*NOTE:

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

Comment Format:

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

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

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

♦ Comments may not be posted if they:

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

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

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

Violates agency regulations prohibiting workplace violence, including threats.

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

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

Pest Rating: C

Posted by ls

A-Rated, Hemiptera, Insects, Mites & Earthworms

Two-lined Spittlebug | Prosapia bicincta (Say)

July 30, 2018 Raj Randhawa

California Pest Rating for

Prosapia bicincta (Say): Two-lined spittlebug

Hemiptera-Cercopidae

Pest Rating: A

PEST RATING PROFILE

Initiating Event:

Prosapia bicincta Say is present in the Eastern United States. It has been intercepted by CDFA three times in 2017, with the most recent interception occurring at the Needles inspection station on a shipment of Citrus from Atlanta, Georgia. This species has a temporary Q rating pending risk analysis in California. A pest rating proposal is required to assign a permanent rating

History & Status:

Background: Prosapia bicincta are true bugs that occur from the states of Maine to Florida, and west to Iowa, Kansas and Oklahoma (Campbell, 2016). Nymphs and adults are xylem feeders and feed on any plants that provide fluid to meet its requirements (Pass and Reed, 1965). Its main hosts include grasses, ornamental plants, crops and weeds. Their damage is most noticeable when immature stages of the insect produce masses of frothy spittle while feeding on the host. This spittle encircles the twigs and young leaves of the hosts (Cornille 2005, Godwin, 2008).

Adults are 8-10 mm long and dark brown to black in color. They generally have two red-orange lines crossing the wings. However, adults can be marked sometimes. They are most active in early morning and hide near the soil surface or in the foliage for the rest of the day. At night, adults become active and are attracted to lights (Campbell, 2016).

Prosapia bicincta is an important pest of pasture grass in the south eastern United States. Both adults and nymphs absorb plant juices with their piercing & sucking mouth parts; with adults causing the most damage. Adults inject a poison at the feeding site and this poison causes loss of chlorophyll in the host, resulting in drying out and death of plants. (Campbell, 2016)

Worldwide Distribution:

Prosapia bicincta is native to North America and is present in Cuba, the United States and Canada (CABI 2017). In the United States, it ranges from Maine to Florida in the east and Iowa, Kansas and Oklahoma, Texas and Arkansas in the west.

Official Control: Prosapia bicincta has been listed as a harmful organism in Brazil, Colombia and Japan (PCIT, 2018).

California Distribution: Prosapia bicincta has never been found in the natural environment of California.

California Interceptions: Prosapia bicincta was intercepted 35 times between January 1990 and January 2018 by CDFA through detection surveys, border stations, and federal exterior quarantine activities (CDFA Pest and Damage Report Database, 2018)

The risk Prosapia bicincta (two lined spittlebug) would pose to California is evaluated below.

Consequences of Introduction:

1) Climate/Host Interaction: Prosapia bicincta needs a humid, moist environment and cannot survive in draught conditions. Nymphs camouflage by living in foam nest that they make by blowing bubbles through their abdomen into plant juices. More insects have been reported during the rainy years when more thatch is available. Nests usually occur near soil surface or in thatch. (Campbell, 2016) Since it is a native species and widely prevalent in south-eastern US and some western states, it is likely to be introduced and established in California during the moist and wet winter months. It receives a Medium (2) in this category.

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: Prosapia bicincta is known to feed on nine families of ornamental and crop plants (John Pickering, 2018). Nymphs primarily feed on centipede grass, coastal bermudagrass and other bermudagrass cultivars. Damage has been reported on other grasses such as pangolagrass, and St. Augustine grass. Other susceptible hosts include sweet corn, seashore paspalum, zoysiagrass, and tall fescue. Adults feed on ornamental hollies used in landscapes. (Nachappa, 2004). Most of these hosts are present throughout California. It receives a High (3) in this category.

Evaluate the host range of the pest:

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: Prosapia spp. females lay approximately 45 eggs on average. Eggs hatch in about two weeks. Nymphs undergo four instars within one month. Spittle bugs overwinter as eggs in hollow stems and in thatch at base of the grass. There are two generations in a year (Cornille 2005, Godwin, 2008). This species is most active from late spring through early fall. It receives a Medium (2) in this category.

Evaluate the natural and artificial dispersal potential of the pest:

Score: 2

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

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

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

4) Economic Impact: Prosapia spps. can reduce forage quality and availability, thereby competing with grazing animals. They are likely to causes huge losses to improved pastures. Prosapia bicincta feed on the underside of the leaves and inject poison that cause the plant to lose its chlorophyll. Nymphs remove a lot of fluid from the plants to continuously produce spittle (Campbell, 2016). Heavily infested pastures turn brown, become unproductive and may experience die back in large patches (Vendramini et al., 2015). Use of cultural practices such as burning of dense mats of infested pastures, stockpiling for grazing in the following season, killing eggs in spring and preventing thatch accumulation can add to production costs. 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, 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: Prosapia bicincta is not likely to lower biodiversity and disrupt natural communities. It is also not known to impact major endangered and threatened species in California. However, if this species is introduced and gets established, it may impact grassland species such asTrifolium amoenum, an endangered annual herb occurring in grassland areas of the San Francisco Bay area and the northern California (California Native Plant Society, 2018). Being an economic pest of grasses, this species is likely to trigger official treatments if it gets established in rangelands in the state. 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

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.

**Consequences of Introduction to California for Prosapia bicincta (two lined spittlebug): High (13)**

Add up the total score and include it here:

-Low = 5-8 points

-Medium = 9-12 points

–High = 13-15 points

6) Post Entry Distribution and Survey Information: Prosapia bicincta (two-legged spittle bug) has never been found in the environment in California and receives a Not Established (0) in this category.

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.

Final Score:

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

Uncertainty:

Prosapia bicincta is native to North America and is a most important pest of pastures in southeastern Unites States. This species has not yet been introduced to CA, possibly due to dry weather in most of the state during summer months. However, if it is introduced during rainy and winter months and get established, it could significantly impact the pastures in the state. Because this species is currently established in the southeastern states, any host material coming from those areas could potentially contain P. bicinta. Surveys of California wetlands and coastal areas could be helpful in early detection of this spittlebug. Because it is unable to establish in areas with hot and dry summers, its economic impacts may not be significant.

Conclusion and Rating Justification:

Prosapia bicincta has not been reported in the environment of California and based on weather conditions and time of the year, it is likely to have significant economic and environmental impacts if it were to enter the state. An “A”-rating is justified.

References:

California Native Plant Society, 2018. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California, online edition, v8-03 0.39. Accessed April 27, 2018:

http://www.rareplants.cnps.org

Campbell, D. 2016. Brief Summary- Prosapia bicincta (Say 1830). Encyclopedia of Life. Accessed 4/26/2017:

http://eol.org/pages/1079470/details

Cornille, S. 2005 and Goodwin, C. 2008. Two-lined Spittlebug. Texas Agrilife Extension Service. Dickinson, Texas. Accessed April 26, 2018:

https://aggie-horticulture.tamu.edu/galveston/Gardening_Handbook/PDF-files/GH-041–two-lined-spittlebug.pdf

Nachappa, Punya 2004. Biology and management of two lined spittlebug, Prosapia bicincta (Say) (Hempitera: Cercopidae) in turfgrass. MS Thesis. University of Georgia, Athens, GA. Accessed April 26, 2018:

https://getd.libs.uga.edu/pdfs/nachappa_punya_b_200412_ms.pdf

Pass, B. C., and Reed, J.K.1965. Biology and control of the spittlebug Prosapia bicincta in coastal Bermuda grass. J. Econ. Entomol. 58: 275-278:

Pickering, J. 2018. Prosapia bicinca (Say, 1830) Two-lined spittlebug. Discover Life. Accessed April 25, 2018:

http://www.discoverlife.org/20/q?search=Prosapia+bicincta#Hosts

Pest and Damage Record Database. Pest Prevention and Plant Health Services. California Department of Food and Agriculture. Accessed 4/24/2018:

http://phpps.cdfa.ca.gov/user/frmLogon2.asp

Vandramini, J, Debeux, J.C.B. Jr. and Buss, E. 2015. Management of Spittlebugs in Pasture. University of Florida, IFAS Extension. Accessed April 25, 2018:

http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/ag242

USDA Phytosanitary Certificate Issuance & Tracking System (PCIT) Phytosanitary Export Database (PExD). Accessed 4/24/18: https://pcit.aphis.usda.gov/PExD/faces/PExDReport.jsp

Author:

Raj Randhawa, 1220 ‘N’ Street, Room 221, Sacramento CA 95814, (916) 403-6617, plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov.

Responsible Party:

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

Comment Period:* CLOSED

7/30/18 – 9/13/18

*NOTE:

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

Comment Format:

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

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

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

♦ Comments may not be posted if they:

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

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

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

Violates agency regulations prohibiting workplace violence, including threats.

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

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

Pest Rating: A

Posted by ls

C-Rated, Insects, Mites & Earthworms, Lepidoptera

Azalea Leafminer | Caloptilia azaleella (Brants)

July 30, 2018 Raj Randhawa

California Pest Rating for

Caloptilia azaleella (Brants): Azalea leafminer

Lepidopetera: Gracillariidae

Pest Rating: C

PEST RATING PROFILE

Initiating Event:

Gracillariidae insects were recently intercepted by CDFA through high risk pest exclusion program on a shipment of azalea plants, originating from Kentucky. The most common Gracillariidae, intercepted on Azalea is Caloptilia azaleella. This insect has been previously rated C by CDFA. A pest rating proposal is required to evaluate the current rating for this species.

History & Status:

Background: Caloptilia azaleella are small, yellow moths with purplish markings on the wings. Leaf mining stage is a yellowish caterpillar about half inch long. Caloptilia azaleella is known to attack only azaleas (Rhododendron spp.) worldwide. The larvae mine the leaf tissue; as these mines age, they cause brown blisters on the leaves. The mature larvae emerge from leaf tissue, then roll and tie the edge of the leaves around themselves for protection. They can cause considerable damage to greenhouse grown azaleas in North Carolina (Frank, 2016). Maximum infestation in Florida nurseries was noted from early spring through summer (Dekle, 2007). In Oregon, where it has been introduced, there are three generations per year.

Worldwide Distribution:

Caloptilia azaleella is endemic to Japan but has been introduced to all azalea growing parts of the world including Europe (southern Britain), New Zealand and eastern Australia (T.E.R.R.A.I.N, 2018).

In the North America, it has been found in the Unites States and Canada from Florida to Texas, Long Island, West Virginia and Ohio, California, Washington and British Colombia (Johnson and Lyon, 1994).

Official Control: Caloptilia azaleella has been listed as harmful organism in Chile (USDA -PCIT).

California Distribution: Caloptilia azaleella was introduced to California in 1962 for the first time (Essig Museum Online Database, 2010) and more recently observed in Sonoma county (2017) and Shasta county (2014) (iNaturalist, 2016).

California Interceptions: Caloptilia azaleella has been intercepted through high risk pest exclusion and interior quarantine programs in California (Pest and Damage Report Database, 2018).

The risk Caloptilia azaleella ( azalea leaf miner) would pose to California is evaluated below.

Consequences of Introduction:

1) Climate/Host Interaction: Rhododendron spp. grow best in filtered shade and prefer acidic soils with high organic content and excellent drainage (Pests in garden and Landscapes, 2017). This type of climate is found in northern California and extends down the coast to San Francisco Bay (American Rhododendron Society, 2018). Some of the maddenii-type rhododendron can grow in southern California as well. Since C. azaleella is already introduced and present in Northern CA, its introduction and spread to the rest of the state is likely. It receives a Medium (2) in this category.

Score: 2

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

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

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

2) Known Pest Host Range: Caloptilia azaleella feeds only on Rhododendron spp. It receives a Low (1) in this category

Evaluate the host range of the pest:

Score: 1

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

– Medium (2) has a moderate host range.

– High (3) has a wide host range.

3) Pest Dispersal Potential: Caloptilia azaleella deposits 1-5 eggs on the undersurface of leaves during spring time. The life cycle is completed in one week. It overwinters as a last instar larva or pupa in a rolled leaf. Larva can be found on leaves all year around. There are three generations in western states and three to four generations in southern states. Because azaleella does not leave its host during the entire life cycle, it does not spread over large distances. However, movement of infected azalea nursery stock could likely disperse this species. It receives a Medium (2) in this category.

Evaluate the natural and artificial dispersal potential of the pest:

Score: 2

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

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

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

4) Economic Impact: Caloptilia azaleella is a pest of container and field grown nursery stock but can also attack landscape grown plants. Heavy infestation may not kill the plant, especially if it can be controlled during early stages of growth but the damage is likely to affect the appearance and quality of the plant. Increased cost of pruning of infested branches and release of parasitoids can add to production costs and decrease the value of the crop (Dekle, 2007). It receives a Medium (2) in this category.

Evaluate the economic impact of the pest to California using the criteria below:

Economic Impact: A, B, D

A. The pest could lower crop yield.

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

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

D. The pest could negatively change normal cultural practices.

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

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

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

Economic Impact Score: 3

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

– Medium (2) causes 2 of these impacts.

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

5) Environmental Impact: Caloptilia azaleella is not likely to lower biodiversity and disrupt any natural habitats. It has also not been reported to affect any endangered species, either directly or indirectly. It could attack native rhododendron and native azaleas but unlikely to cause significant damage. The infestations of azaleas would likely trigger chemical treatments by homeowners. It receives a Medium (2) in this category.

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

Environmental Impact: D

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

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

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

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

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

Score the pest for Environmental Impact:

Environmental Impact Score: 2

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

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

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

Consequences of Introduction to California for Caloptilia azaleella (azalea leaf miner): Medium (10)

Add up the total score and include it here:

–Low = 5-8 points

-Medium = 9-12 points

-High = 13-15 points

6) Post Entry Distribution and Survey Information: Caloptilia azaleella (azalea leafminer) has been found in the environment and receives a Low (-1) in this category.

Score: -1

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

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

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

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

Final Score:

The final score is the consequences of introduction score minus the post entry distribution and survey information score: Medium (9)

Uncertainty:

Caloptilia azaleella is present in azalea growing areas in Northern California and has also been detected by CDFA from time to time. However, it is not widespread in the state, possibly due to its inability to attack any other host plants. There are some varieties of Rhododendron, being grown in Southern CA and it may be present in large azalea growing areas than is currently known

Conclusion and Rating Justification:

Caloptilia azaleella has been reported in the environment of California. However, it is not likely to have significant economic and environmental impacts. A “C” rating is justified.

References:

American Rhododendron Society (ARS): California Chapter, 2018. Plant Culture and Care. P.O. Box 214, Great River, NY 11739. Accessed 6/14/2018: http://www.rhododendron.org/climate.htm http://www.calchapterars.org/

Dekle, G.W. 2007. Azalea Leaf miner: Featured Creatures. Entomology and Plant Pathology. Publication # EENY-379, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Plant Industry, University of Florida. Accessed 6/14/2018: http://entnemdept.ufl.edu/creatures/orn/shrubs/azalea_leafminer.htm

Essig Museum Online Database, 2010. California Moth Specimen Database. University of California, Berkeley. Accessed 6/21/2018 https://essigdb.berkeley.edu/calmoth.html

Frank, S. 2016. Azalea leafminer. Entomology Insect Notes. North Carolina State Extension Publications North Carolina State Extension. Accessed 6/14/2018: https://content.ces.ncsu.edu/azalea-leafminer

iNaturalist, 2016. Online crowdsourced species identification system and an organism occurrence recording tool. Gracillariidae of California. Caloptilia azaleella https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?locale=en-US&place_id=14&taxon_id=320764

Johnson WT and Lyon HH. 1994. Insects That Feed on Trees and Shrubs. 2nd ed. rev. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY.

Pest and Damage Report Database, 2018. Caloptilia azaleella. Plant Health and Pest Prevention Services. California Department of Food and Agriculture. Accessed 6/14/2018: http://phpps.cdfa.ca.gov/user/frmLogon2.asp

Pests in gardens and landscapes, 2017. Azalea-Rhododendron spp. Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of California. Statewide Integrated Pest Management Program. Accessed 6/15/2018: http://ipm.ucanr.edu/PMG/GARDEN/PLANTS/azalea.html

Reding, Tom. 2018. Caliptilia azaleella. Wikipedia- the free encyclopedia. Accessed 6/19/2018: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Caloptilia_azaleella&oldid=825762750#References

Richers, K. 1996. California Moth Specimens Database. Caloptilia azaleella. University of California, Berkeley. Accessed 6/21/018. https://essigdb.berkeley.edu/calmoth_about.html

Taranaki Educational Resource: Research, Analysis and Information Network. (T.E.R.R.A.I.N.), 2018. “Caloptilia azaleella (Azalea leafminer moth)”. The MAIN trust GIS community project. Government of New Zealand. Accessed 6/14/2018: http://www.terrain.net.nz/friends-of-te-henui-group/moths/caloptilia-azaleella-moth-azalea-leafminer-caloptilia-azaleella.html

USDA Phytosanitary Certificate Issuance & Tracking System (PCIT) Phytosanitary Export Database (PExD). Harmful organism report: Caloptilia azaleella. Accessed 6/14/2018. https://pcit.aphis.usda.gov/pcit/

Author:

Raj Randhawa, 1220 ‘N’ Street, Room 221, Sacramento CA 95814, (916) 403-6617, plant. health[@]cdfa.ca.gov

Responsible Party:

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

Comment Period:* CLOSED

7/30/18 – 9/13/18

*NOTE:

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

Comment Format:

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

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

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

♦ Comments may not be posted if they:

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

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

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

Violates agency regulations prohibiting workplace violence, including threats.

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

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

Pest Rating: C

Posted by ls

A-Rated, Nematodes

Meloidogyne floridensis Handoo et al., 2004

July 27, 2018 Admin

California Pest Rating for

Meloidogyne floridensis **Handoo et al., 2004**

Pest Rating: A

PEST RATING PROFILE

Initiating Event:

On March 8 and 29, and April 19, 2018, unidentified root knot nematode female and juvenile specimens and galled Prunus sp. roots were sent by A. Westpahl, University of California, Parlier, CA, to S. A. Subbotin, Nematology Lab, CDFA, for identification of the nematode species. After several molecular tests, S. A. Subbotin determined the identity of the species as M. floridensis – a root knot nematode species not known to be present in California and quarantine actionable. The root samples had been collected from an almond orchard in Merced County. Consequently, the field was visited by J. Chitambar, CDFA, S. A. Subbotin, A. Westpahl, and D. Doll, UC Cooperative Extension Merced County. Official root and rhizosphere soil samples from apparently stunted and non-stunted 2-3-year-old almond scion on Hansen and non-stunted 8-9-year-old Nemaguard rootstock plantings, were collected from an estimated 3-acres of the infested orchard by J. Chitambar and S. A. Subbotin. The samples were processed for nematode diagnosis at the CDFA Nematology Lab in Sacramento. On July 18, 2018, S. A. Subbotin identified the root knot nematode species, M. floridensis, in galled roots and associated rhizosphere soil samples collected from the stunted plants as well as the older plantings. The risk of infestation of M. floridensis in California is assessed and a permanent rating is herein proposed.

History & Status:

Background: Meloidogyne floridensis was first detected in 1966 in Gainesville, Florida, as an unnamed root knot nematode species parasitizing M. incognita and M. javanica – root knot nematode-resistant Nemaguard and Okinawa peach rootstocks (Sharpe et al., 1969) and later Nemared peach rootstock (Sherman et al., 1991). At that time, the unnamed species was referred to as the ‘Nemaguard type root knot nematode’, ‘a new nematode’ and a ‘biotype of root knot nematode’ (Sharpe et al., 1969; Sherman et al., 1981; Young and Sherman, 1977). Then in 1982, this nematode was characterized as race 3 of M. incognita (Sherman & Lyrene, 1983), however, subsequent morphological, molecular and host range studies proved this species to differ from M. incognita race 3 and other species (Nyczepir et al., 1998), and in 2004, Handoo et al. described it as a new species, M. floridensis and proposed the common name, ‘peach root knot nematode’.

The peach root knot nematode is one of the most important root knot nematode species because it can overcome resistance in plants by reproducing in high-value crops carrying genes for resistance against the main Meloidogyne spp., thereby causing substantial reduction in crop growth and yields. In 2005, M. floridensis was reported for the first time in field-grown tomato in Florida (Church, 2005).

Since its original detection, M. floridensis has only been reported in Florida, infecting different crops, peaches, and weed species in 12 counties (Brito et al., 2015). During 2015 to 2017, and in support of a survey conducted in Florida, Subbotin molecularly identified M. floridensis in nematode samples collected from nine peach orchards in six counties. These results added four new counties to the previously reported 12 counties, thereby indicating an increased distribution of the peach root knot nematode to 16 counties over a relatively short duration (S. A. Subbotin, Senior Plant Nematologist, CDFA: personal communication). The recent 2018 detection marks its first official and limited detection within California and outside the State of Florida. An earlier incident occurred in 2011 when M. floridensis was detected in a tomato soil and root sample submitted to, and diagnosed by a nematologist at the University of California, Davis. The sample had originated from a commercial tomato field in Kern County. However, on further investigation by CDFA, the crop had been destroyed by the grower and the field was left fallow without any vegetation before being planted to a non-host. Consequently, and after repeated sampling of the field, CDFA did not find any plant parasitic nematodes and the presence of M. floridensis was not substantiated nor has it ever been reported in California.

Development and life cycle: Meloidogyne floridensis is a root knot nematode species with a life cycle and feeding behavior similar to other root knot nematode species. It is an obligate, sedentary endoparasite that feeds within host plant roots. Adult females embedded in host roots produce eggs within a mass either on the surface of, or within roots. The first stage juvenile develops within the egg and molts to develop into the second stage. The second-stage juveniles (J2) are the infective stage that hatch from eggs, migrate in rhizosphere soil to host roots, re-infest the roots or are attracted to other nearby host roots which are then penetrated. Within roots, J2 establish a specialized feeding site or giant plant cells that are formed at the head end of the nematode in response to its feeding. The second stage juveniles become sedentary while feeding at the specialized site, increase in size and undergo two more molts and non-feeding stages before developing into mature adult females or males and completing the life cycle. Reproduction is by mitotic parthenogenesis. Generally, the life cycle for root knot nematodes may take about 30 days at 25-28°C and longer at lower temperatures.

Dispersal and spread: Infected roots, bare root propagative material, infested soils, root debris, and irrigation water.

Hosts: Meloidogyne floridensis infects peach (Prunus persica) as well as other agricultural and ornamental crops and weeds.

Agricultural crops include: basil (Ocimum basilicum cv. Genovese), common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris), corn (Zea mays cvs. Dixie 18 and Mp 710), crimson clover (Trifolium incarnatum), cucumber (Cucumis sativus), dill (Anethum graveolens), eggplant (Solanum melongena), gourd (Cucurbita pepo), green bean (Phaseolus vulgaris cvs. Fortex and Heavyweight II), lima bean (Phaseolus lunatus cv. Big Mama), mustard (Brassica juncea cv. Florida Broadleaf), pepper (Capsicum annuum cvs. California Wonder, Charleston Bell), snapbean (Phaseolus sp.), squash (Cucurbita moschata cv. Yellow Crookneck), sugar beet (Beta vulgaris cvs. Alota, Bobcat, Mandella and Trinita), tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum cv. NC 95), tomato (Solanum lycopersicon cvs. Florida 47, Rutgers, Solar Set, and tomato hybrid Crista), vetch (Vicia sativa), and watermelon (Citrullus lanatus) (Brito et al., 2008, 2010; Cetintas et al., 2007; Church, 2005; Esmenjaud, 2009; Mendes and Dickson, 2010a, 2010b; Kokalis-Burelle and Nyczepir, 2004; Stanley et al., 2006; 2009).

Ornamental plant hosts include: calendula (Calendula officinalis cv. Oktoberfest), dracaena (Dracaena sp.), hibiscus (Hibiscus sp.), impatiens (Impatiens wallerana), snapdragon (Phaseolus sp.), and verbena (Verbena rigida) (Brito et al., 2010; Mendes and Dickson, 2010b; Kokalis-Burelle and Nyczepir, 2004).

Weed hosts (under greenhouse conditions) include: amaranth (Amaranthus spinosus); American pokeweed (Phytolacca americana), barnyard grass (Echinochloa muricata), cyprusvine (Ipomoea quamoclit), dichondra (Dichondra repens), English watercress (Nasturtium officinale), molinillo (Leonotis nepetaefolia), morning glory (Ipomoea triloba and I. violacea), rape (Brassica napus), redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus), spurge nettle (Cnidoscolus stimulosus), velvet leaf (Abutilon theophrasti), wild mustard (Brassica kaber), wild cucumber (Cucumis anguria), and zebrina (Zebrina pendula) (Kaur et al., 2007, Stanley et al., 2006).

Symptoms: Symptoms in plants induced by M. floridensis are similar to those induced by other economically important root knot nematode species. Above ground symptoms include stunting, yellowing of leaves, wilting of plants, and canopy dieback. Field symptoms of affected plants may appear in patches, depending on the nematode population density. Below ground, swellings and galls are produced in young and major roots of infested plants. Root galls can harbor second to fourth stage juveniles, swollen adult females, and egg masses containing variable numbers of eggs. Second stage juveniles are the motile infective stage and can be found in roots and rhizosphere soil (Brito et al., 2015).

Damage Potential: Meloidogyne floridensis can break resistance in peach and other crops that are reported to be resistant to root knot nematodes namely tomato hybrid cv. Crista and corn cv. Mp 710 (Stanley et al., 2009). Peach rootstocks ‘Nemaguard, ‘Okinawa’, ‘Nemared’, and ‘Guardian’ with resistance to the southern root knot nematode, M. incognita, the Javanese root knot nematode, M. javanica, and the northern root knot nematode, M. hapla, are susceptible to the peach root knot nematode, M. floridensis (Brito et al., 2015; Sherman and Lyrene, 1983). Small numbers of M. floridensis have been found infecting root knot nematode resistant ‘Flordaguard in Florida’s commercial orchards (Brito and Stanley, 2011). Handoo et al., (2004) confirmed previous reports that none of the Amygdalus subgenus (grouping of peach and almond) of the genus Prunus provided suitable resistance to M. floridensis. In California, the introduction, establishment, and spread of M. floridensis is of concern as ninety percent of the peach industry in the state is planted on Nemaguard rootstock (Westerdahl and Duncan, 2015). Productions on hybrid rootstocks with parentage susceptible to M. floridensis such as Hansen 536 (almond – ‘Nemaguard’ hybrid rootstock) detected in California, are also threatened by the nematode (see ‘Initiating Event’). Furthermore, reproduction of M. floridensis on resistant peach cultivars and other host crops would challenge implementation of management strategies in infested regions especially with increased use of root knot resistance with the absence or restricted use of nematicides (Brito et al., 2015).

Worldwide Distribution: Since its original detection, M. floridensis has only been reported from Florida. The species has only recently been detected in an almond orchard in California (see ‘Initiating Event’).

Official Control: Presently, Meloidogyne floridensis is on the ‘Harmful Organism List’ for the Republic of Korea (USDA PCIT, 2018).

California Distribution: Merced County (limited distribution).

California Interceptions: There are no records of the detection of Meloidogyne floridensis in incoming shipments of plants and soil to California.

The risk Meloidogyne floridensis would pose to California is evaluated below.

Consequences of Introduction:

1) Climate/Host Interaction: California has suitable climate and hosts for the introduction, establishment and spread of floridensis. Already the detection of this species within a limited region of the State proves it ability to infest and establish in high-value crop production sites as for almond and peach. If left unchecked, other major crops, such as tomato, may also be affected.

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: Meloidogyne floridensis has a wide and diverse host range that includes peach, almond, several agricultural crops, ornamentals, and weed hosts.

Evaluate the host range of the pest.

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: Meloidogyne floridensis has high reproduction. A single female floridensis may produce several hundreds to over one thousand eggs in an egg mass, similar to other Meloidogyne species. Dispersal is mainly passive through the movement of infected roots, planting stock, infested soils and irrigation water. The potential for spread is high.

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: floridensis is able to break resistance in important crops carrying genes of resistance to the main Meloidogyne spp. thereby causing substantial reduction in crop yields, crop value, loss of markets, including the likely imposition of quarantines by other states and countries against California. Peach rootstocks ‘Nemaguard, ‘Okinawa’, ‘Nemared’, and ‘Guardian’ with resistance to the root knot nematode species widely distributed in California, are susceptible to M. floridensis. In California, the introduction, establishment, and spread of M. floridensis is of concern as ninety percent of the peach industry in the state is planted on Nemaguard rootstock. Productions on hybrid rootstocks with parentage susceptible to M. floridensis such as Hansen 536 (almond – ‘Nemaguard’ hybrid rootstock) are also threatened by the nematode. Reproduction of M. floridensis on resistant peach cultivars and other host crops would challenge implementation of management strategies in infested regions especially with increased use of root knot resistance with the absence or restricted use of nematicides.

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: Several ornamental plants are hosts of the peach root knot nematode. Home gardening and ornamental plantings may also be impacted and trigger additional official or private treatment programs.

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

Environment 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.

**Consequences of Introduction to California for Meloidogyne floridensis:** 15

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 = 15

Evaluation is Low (-1). Presently, M. floridensis has only been detected within a limited region of an almond orchard in Merced County.

Score: -1

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

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

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

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

Final Score:

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 = 14

Uncertainty:

The presence and true distribution of M. floridensis in California is not known. It is possible that the nematodes species may have entered the State undetected prior to 2005. This is largely because prior to 2005 Meloidogyne spp. were not always identified by the CDFA Nematology Laboratory to species level, when detected in samples that originated outside and within California. However, since 2005, M. floridensis has never been detected in regulatory samples generated through CDFA’s nematode control and phytosanitary certification programs or through statewide nematode surveys of host plants grown in agricultural production sites and nurseries in California. Also, except for one unsubstantiated record, M. floridensis has not been reported from California by other researchers/nematologists. The status of M. floridensis in non-cultivated and residential environments is not known. Those environments, as well as infested weed hosts, may serve as sources of inoculum for infestations of cultivated production sites. Identification to species level through DNA analysis is now essential for accurate identification of this species.

Conclusion and Rating Justification:

Based on the evidence provided above the proposed rating for Meloidogyne floridensis is A.

References:

Brito, JA, Kaur, R, Cetintas, R, Stanley, JD, Mendes, ML, McAvoy, EJ, Powers, TO, and Dickson, DW. 2008. Identification and isozyme characterization of Meloidogyne spp. infecting horticultural and agronomic crops and weed plants in Florida. Nematology 10: 757-766.

Brito, JA, Kaur, R, Cetintas, R, Stanley, JD, Mendes, ML, Powers, TO, and Dickson, DW. 2010. Meloidogyne spp. infecting ornamental plants in Florida. Nematropica 40: 87-103.

Brito, JA, and Stanley, JD. 2011. Nematology Section in Dixon, W. and Andson, P. (Eds.). Tri-ology, FDACS/DPI, Vol. 50. Number 1.

Cetintas, R, Kaur, R, Brito, JA, Mendes, ML, Nyczepir, AP, and Dickson, DW. 2007. Pathogenicity and reproductive potential of Meloidogyne mayaguensis and M. floridensis compare with three common Meloidogyne spp. Nematropica 37: 21-31.

Church, GT. 2005. First report of the root-knot nematode Meloidogyne floridensis on tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) in Florida. Plant Disease 89: 527.

Esmenjaud, D. 2009. Resistance to root knot nematodes in Prunus: Characterization of sources, marker-assisted selection and cloning strategy for the Ma gene from myrobalan plum. Acta Horticulturae 814: 707-714.

Handoo, ZA, Nyczepir, AP, Esmenjaud, D, Vander Beek, JG, Castagnone-Sereno, P, Carta, LK, Skantar, AM, and Higgins, JA. 2004. Morphological, molecular, and differential-host characterization of Meloidogyne floridensis n. sp. (Nematoda: Meloidogynidae), a root-knot nematode parasitizing peach in Florida. Journal of Nematology 36: 20-35

Kaur, R, Brito, JA, and Rich, JR. 2007. Host suitability of selected weed species to five Meloidogyne species. Nematropica 37: 107-120.

Kokalis-Burelle, N., and Nyczepir, AP. 2004. Host range studies for Meloidogyne floridensis. Journal of Nematology 36: 328

Mendes, ML, and Dickson, DW. 2010a. Reproduction of root-knot nematodes on four sugarbeat cultivars. Journal of Nematology 42: 258.

Mendes, ML, and Dickson, DW. 2010b. Suitability of some annual crops to three species of root-knot nematodes. Nematropica 40: 142.

Nyczepir, AP, Esmenjaud, D, and Eisenback, JD. 1998. Pathogenicity of Meloidogyne sp. (FL-isolate) on Prunus in the southeastern United States and France. Journal of Nematology 30: 509.

Sharp, RH, Hesse, CO, Lownsbery, BA, Perry, VG, and Hansen, CJ. 1969. Breeding peaches for root knot nematode resistance. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science 94: 209-212.

Sherman, WB, and Lyrene, PM. 1983. Improvement of peach rootstock resistant to root-knot nematodes. Proceedings of the Florida State Horticultural Society 96: 207-208.

Sherman, WB, Lyrene, PM, and Sharpe, RH. 1991. Flordaguard peach rootstock. HortScience 26: 427-428.

Sherman, WB, Lyrene, PM, and Hansche, PE. 1981. Breeding peach rootstocks resistant to root knot nematodes. HortScience 16: 523-524.

Stanley, JD, Kokalis-Burelle, N, and Dickson, DW. 2006. Host status of Meloidogyne floridensis on selected weeds and cover crops common to Florida. Nematropica 36:148 (Abstr.)

Stanley, JD, Brito, JA, Kokalis-Burelle, N, Frank, JH, and Dickson, DW. 2009. Biological evaluation and comparison of four Florida isolates of Meloidogyne floridensis. Nematropica 39: 255-271.

USDA PCIT. 2018. USDA Phytosanitary Certificate Issuance & Tracking System. Retrieved July 19, 2018, 1:47:12 pm CDT. https://pcit.aphis.usda.gov/PExD/faces/ReportHarmOrgs.jsp.

Westerdahl, BB, and Duncan, RA. Peach nematodes. UCIPM Pest Management Guidelines: Peach. UC ANR Publication 3454. http://ipm.ucanr.edu/PMG/r602200111.html

Young, MJ, and Sherman, WB. 1977. Evaluation of peach rootstocks for root knot and nematode resistance. Proceedings of the Florida State Horticultural Society 90:241-242.

Responsible Party:

John J. Chitambar, Primary Plant Pathologist/Nematologist, California Department of Food and Agriculture, 3294 Meadowview Road, Sacramento, CA 95832. Phone: 916-262-1110, plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov.

Comment Period:* CLOSED

7/27/18 – 9/10/18

*NOTE:

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

Comment Format:

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

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

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

♦ Comments may not be posted if they:

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

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

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

Violates agency regulations prohibiting workplace violence, including threats.

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

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

Pest Rating: A

Posted by ls

A-Rated, Coleoptera, Insects, Mites & Earthworms

Twobanded Japanese Weevil | Pseudocneorhinus bifasciatus

July 25, 2018 Karen Olmstead

California Pest Rating for

Name: Pseudocneorhinus bifasciatus Roelofs (twobanded Japanese weevil)

Synonym: Callirhopalus bifasciatus (Roelofs)

Order: Coleoptera

Family: Curculionidae

Pest Rating: A

PEST RATING PROFILE

Initiating Event:

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

History & Status:

Background: Pseudocneorhinus bifasciatus is a stout, convex, and pear-shaped weevil with a short, blunt snout, and elytra much broader than its pronotum. It is approximately 5 mm long, and is covered with brown and grey scales that form two bands across the elytra (Thomas, 2005). The elytra are fused, and the hind wings are absent, so this weevil cannot fly. The adult weevils feed during the day on leaves. They are easy to overlook due to their subdued brown coloration (Smith,1955). They can cause significant damage to plants when they are abundant. This weevil is highly polyphagous and is known to feed on over 100 species of plants. Recorded hosts include multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), rose, azalea (Rhododendron spp.), privet (Ligustrum spp.), azalea, forsythia, geranium, hemlock, mountain laurel, lilac, strawberry, flowering dogwood, and perennial phlox. In the northeastern United States, Pseudocneorhinus bifasciatus has one generation per year with egg laying taking place from the middle of May through October (Gyeltshen and Hodges, 2016). Eggs are laid on fallen leaves within leaf-folds, and the edges of the leaf is then sealed by the weevil to form a “pod” (Zepp, 1978). An egg “pod” contains one to nine eggs (Zepp, 1978). The eggs hatch in 14 to 18 days (Allen, 1959). The newly hatched larvae leave the “pod” and burrow into the soil. The larvae live in the soil and feed on the roots of host plants, but the extent of damage from their feeding is not well documented. Allen (1959) found as many as 150 larvae per square foot, at depths ranging from one to nine inches, underneath infested privet hedges in New Jersey. Larvae were found at depths ranging from one to nine inches (Allen, 1959). These larvae started to pupate by early May, and adults emerged in late June and early July (Allen, 1959). Although the weevil has a wide range of hosts, the Rosaceae family may be particularly vulnerable to this pest. For example, one study showed that this weevil had the greatest reproductive success when adults were fed on foliage of Rosa multiflora Thunb. (Rosaceae) compared with four other species of other ornamental plants in three other families (Maier, 1983). Another study found larvae of this weevil to cause damage to the roots of peach trees in Georgia (peaches are in the family Rosaceae; Cottrell and Horton, 2013).

Worldwide Distribution: Pseudocneorhinus bifasciatus is native to China, Japan, Korea, Mongolia, and eastern Siberia. It has been established on the east coast of the United States for more than 100 years and it is currently known to occur there from New England south to northern Florida and west to Illinois and Indiana (Thomas, 2005). It has also been found in Oklahoma, although the distribution of the weevil in that state is unknown (Rebek and Grantham, 2008).

Official Control: Pseudocneorhinus bifasciatus is not known to be under official control.

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

California Interceptions: Pseudocneorhinus bifasciatus was intercepted in a West Sacramento postal facility in an out-of-state shipment of crabapple in August 2015 (CDFA, 2015).

The risk Pseudocneorhinus bifasciatus would pose to California is evaluated below.

Consequences of Introduction:

1) Climate/Host Interaction: The weevil’s distribution extends from New England to Florida, indicating a wide temperature tolerance. It is not known if there are other climate limitations. This weevil is highly polyphagous, and it is presumed that suitable host plants are present throughout much of California. Therefore, it receives a High (3) in this category.

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

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

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

2) Known Pest Host Range: Pseudocneorhinus bifasciatus, has been reported to feed on more than 100 species of plants in more than 25 families. It is primarily known for damaging ornamental plants, but it has been found to also damage vegetable and field crops (Day, 2014; Thomas, 2005). Therefore, it receives a High (3) in this category.

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

– Medium (2) has a moderate host range.

– High (3) has a wide host range.

3) Pest Dispersal Potential: Pseudocneorhinus bifasciatus reproduces parthogenetically (Takenouchi et al, 1983). This high reproductive capacity is offset by a limited dispersal potential. The weevil’s wing covers are fused rendering it incapable of flight. It could be dispersed through the movement of infected nursery stock (Wheeler and Boyd, 2005). 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: As described previously, Pseudocneorhinus bifasciatus has a very wide range of hosts including field and vegetable crops (Thomas, 2005; Day, 2014). The weevil has the potential of lowering the value of nursery crops and the yield of agricultural crops. Therefore, it receives a Medium (2) in this category.

Economic Impact: A, B

A. The pest could lower crop yield.

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

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

D. The pest could negatively change normal cultural practices.

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

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

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

Economic Impact Score: 2

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

– Medium (2) causes 2 of these impacts.

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

5) Environmental Impact: If Pseudocneorhinus bifasciatus became established in California, it could attack a wide variety of ornamental and garden plants. The impact of the infestation could trigger treatment programs. This pest may also pose a threat to endangered species such as Rosa minutifolia and Potentilla hickmannii. Therefore, this beetle 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.

**Consequences of Introduction to California for Pseudocneorhinus bifasciatus: High (13)**

Add up the total score and include it here.

–Low = 5-8 points

–Medium = 9-12 points

–High = 13-15 points

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

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

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

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

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

Final Score:

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

Uncertainty:

There is significant uncertainty regarding the suitability of the California climate and the ability of Pseudocneorhinus bifasciatus to become established in California. It apparently can tolerate a wide range of temperatures, as shown by its broad distribution in the eastern United States, but the suitability of the drier climate of California is unknown. The weevil has been found in a relatively dry western state (Oklahoma), but the extent of its incursion there is unknown (Rebek and Grantham, 2008).

Conclusion and Rating Justification:

Pseudocneorhinus bifasciatus is a weevil that attacks a wide range of hosts. If it can become established in California, it poses an economic and environmental threat to the state. For these reasons, an “A” rating is justified.

References:

Allen, H.W. 1957. A Japanese weevil abundant in the Philadelphia area. Entomological News 68: 169-174.

Allen, H.W. 1959. The Japanese weevil Pseudocneorhinus bifasciatus Roelofs. Journal of Economic Entomology 52: 586-587.

CDFA. 2015. Detector dogs do it again! Planting Seeds – Food & Farming News from CDFA. Accessed: May 4, 2018 http://plantingseedsblog.cdfa.ca.gov/wordpress/?p=9310

Cottrell, T.T. and Horton, D.L. 2013. Emergence of root-feeding weevils (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) in central Georgia peach orchards. Journal of Entomological Sciences 48: 184-194.

Day, E.R. 2014. Japanese Weevil. 444-624 (ENTO-98NP). VCE Publications. Virginia Cooperative Extension, Virginia Tech, and Virginia State University.

Gayeltshen, J. and Hodges, A. 2016. Twobanded Japanese Weevil, Pseudocneorhinus bifasciatus Roelofs (Insecta: Coleoptera: Curculionidae). EENY361. Entomology and Nematology Department, University of Florida; IFAS Extension.

Maier, C.T. 1983. Influence of host plants on the reproductive success of the parthenogenetic Two-Banded Japanese Weevil, Callirhopalus bifasciatus (Roelofs) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Environmental Entomology 12: 1197-1203.

Rebek, E.J., and Grantham, R. 2008. New Oklahoma insect pest of woody ornamentals: Japanese weevil. Plant Disease and Insect Advisory. Oklahoma State University Extension. Vol. 7, No. 33.

Smith, F.F. 1955. Scientific Notes: Notes on the biology and control of Pseudocneorhinus bifasciatus. Journal of Economic Entomology 48:628-629.

Symbiota Collections of Arthropods Network. Accessed May 22, 2018. http://scan-bugs.org/portal/taxa/index.php?taxon=Pseudocneorhinus+bifasciatus&formsubmit=Search+Terms

Takenouchi, Y., Suomalainen, E., Saura, A., and Lokki, J. 1983. Genetic polymorphism and evolution in parthenogenetic animals. XII. Observations on Japanese polyploid Curculionidae (Coleoptera). Japanese Journal of Genetics 58:153-157.

Thomas, M.C. 2005. Pest Alert: The twobanded Japanese weevil (Pseudocneorhinus bifasciatus Roelofs), an invasive pest new to Florida (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. DACS-P-01673. Accessed: May 2, 2018. https://www.freshfromflorida.com/content/download/66258/1600078/Pseudocneorhinus_bifasciatus,_The_two_banded_Japanese_Weevil.pdf

Wheeler, A.G., Jr., and Boyd, D.W., Jr. 2005. Distribution of an invasive weevil, Pseudocneorhinus bifasciatus Roelofs, in the southeastern United States. Journal of

Entomological Science 40: 25-30.

Zepp, D.B. 1978. Egg pod formation by Callirhopalus (subg. Pseudocneorhinus) bifasciatus (Roelofs) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Eremninae). Coleopterists Bulletin 32: 311-313.

Photo: By Judy Gallagher [CC BY 2.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

Author:

Karen Olmstead, Environmental Scientist; California Department of Food and Agriculture; 1220 N Street, Sacramento, CA 95814; Tel. (916) 403-6879; plant.health@cdfa.gov

Responsible Party:

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

Comment Period:* CLOSED

7/25/18 – 9/08/18

*NOTE:

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

Comment Format:

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

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

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

♦ Comments may not be posted if they:

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

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

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

Violates agency regulations prohibiting workplace violence, including threats.

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

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

Pest Rating: A

Posted by ls

A-Rated, Hemiptera, Insects, Mites & Earthworms

Barber Giant Mealybug | Puto barberi (Cockerell)

July 23, 2018 Kyle Beucke

Barber Giant Mealybug or Cockerell — Alessandra Rung, Scale Insects, USDA APHIS ITP, Bugwood.org

California Pest Rating for

Barber Giant Mealybug | Puto barberi (Cockerell)

Hemiptera: Putoidae

Pest Rating: A

PEST RATING PROFILE

Initiating Event:

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

History & Status:

Background: Puto barberi is a common neotropical mealybug. Immatures and adult females are covered in a powdery, white wax. Adult females reach 4.3 mm in length. This polyphagous mealybug has been reported to feed on 37 families of plants, including Apocynaceae, Asteraceae, Bromeliaceae, Caprifoliaceae, Caryophyllaceae, Euphorbiaceae, Fabaceae, Geraniaceae, Lamiaceae, Lauraceae, Lomariopsidaceae, Lythraceae, Malvaceae, Nyctaginaceae, Oleaceae, Polygonaceae, Rosaceae, Rubiaceae, Rutaceae, Solanaceae, Sterculiaceae, Tamaricaceae, Thunbergiaceae, Umbelliferae, and Verbenaceae (Malumphy, 2014; Portilla and Cardona, 2004). It can be found on the foliage, fruit, and roots of plants (García Morales et al., 2016). It is a well-known pest of coffee; it feeds underground on the roots of that plant and has been reported to be the most significant mealybug pest of coffee in Colombia (Villegas-García and Benavides-Machado, 2011). The underground lifestyle makes insecticidal control challenging (Builes et al., 2014). It has also been reported from avocado, citrus, and strawberries, but no information was found regarding the damage inflicted (if any) (García et al., 2013; Kondo and Muñoz, 2016; Williams and Granara de Willink, 1992). Besides removing the phloem when feeding, an additional impact on plants that has been reported is the excretion of honeydew and resulting growth of mold on the plant. In addition to impacting the appearance of the plant, mold can reduce photosynthesis (Malumphy, 2010). Puto barberi has been shown to be parthenogenetic under laboratory conditions. It is not known if sexual reproduction occurs in the field (García et al., 2013).

Worldwide Distribution: Puto barberi appears to be restricted in distribution to the Neotropics, where it is apparently native, and the Canary Islands, where it is presumably introduced (Gavrilov-Zimin and Danzig, 2015; Malumphy, 2014). It is widespread in the Caribbean, including Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Dominican Republic, Jamaica, Puerto Rico, and Trinidad and Tobago (Portilla and Cardona, 2004; Miller, 2005; Williams and Granara de Willink, 1992). It is also reported from South America (Colombia and Venezuela) (Kondo et al., 2008; Urtiaga, 2017).

Official Control: Puto barberi is considered reportable by USDA-APHIS (USDA-APHIS).

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

California Interceptions: Puto barberi was intercepted on cut flowers of Alpinia sp. from Florida in 2018 (California Department of Food and Agriculture).

The risk Puto barberi would pose to California is evaluated below.

Consequences of Introduction:

1) Climate/Host Interaction: Puto barberi is reported to attack a wide variety of plants, and it is likely that it could find suitable host plants in much of California. Climate, however, is expected to limit the potential distribution of this species in California. This mealybug appears to currently be limited to areas with a tropical or (possibly) subtropical climate; this includes the areas it has been introduced to in the Canary Islands. It does not appear to have spread into the southeastern United States or Mexico or further south than Colombia or Venezuela in South America, which supports the idea that a tropical/subtropical climate is required by this species. If this mealybug was able to become established in California, it would likely be limited to a very small area, possibly on the coast in the southern part of the state. Therefore, Puto barberi receives a Low (1) in this category.

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

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

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

2) Known Pest Host Range: As stated above, Puto barberi is reported to feed on at least 37 families of plants. 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: Puto barberi has been shown to be parthenogenetic, which means a single female can establish a population. Immatures and adult females could be transported on infested plant material. Therefore, it receives a High (3) in this category.

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

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

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

4) Economic Impact: Coffee is now being grown in several California counties, including San Diego and Santa Barbara (Kan-Rice, 2017). Puto barberi is considered a significant pest of coffee. It is possible that if this mealybug became established in southern California, it could have an impact on coffee, including lowering yield and increasing production costs. As a highly polyphagous mealybug, it could attack other crops as well. The presence of this pest in California could result in quarantines because it is considered Reportable by the USDA. Therefore, it receives a High (3) in this category.

Economic Impact: A, B, C

A. The pest could lower crop yield.

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

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

D. The pest could negatively change normal cultural practices.

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

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

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

Economic Impact Score: 3

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

– Medium (2) causes 2 of these impacts.

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

5) Environmental Impact: Puto barberi is reported to attack a wide variety of plants. If this species became established in California, it could trigger treatments in cropland or gardens. Therefore, it receives a Medium (2) in this category.

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

Environmental Impact: D

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

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

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

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

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

Environmental Impact Score: 2

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

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

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

**Consequences of Introduction to California for Puto barberi: Medium (12)**

Add up the total score and include it here.

–Low = 5-8 points

–Medium = 9-12 points

–High = 13-15 points

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

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

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

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

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

Final Score:

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

Uncertainty:

The most significant uncertainty involved with this proposal is the climatic suitability of California for Puto barberi. The known distribution of this species strongly suggests that it might not be capable of becoming established in climates other than tropical/subtropical. Even if this mealybug is able to become established in California, there is uncertainty regarding its ability to impact crops in California. Information was not found regarding impacts of this species on any crops other than coffee.

Conclusion and Rating Justification:

Puto barberi is a polyphagous mealybug that is a recognized pest. If it was able to become established in California, it could attack a variety of crops and ornamental plants. It is not known to be present in California. For these reasons, an “A” rating is justified.

References:

Builes, V. H. R., Bustamante, Á. L. G., Machado, P. B., Chaure, L. M. C., Palacio, Z. N. G., Khalajabadi, S. S., and Osorio, H. G. 2014. Recomendaciones para la reducción del riesgo en la caficultura de Colombia ante un evento climático de El Niño. Gerencia Técnica 445:1-12.

California Department of Food and Agriculture. 2018. Pest and damage record database. Accessed July 3, 2018: https://pdr.cdfa.ca.gov/PDR/pdrmainmenu.aspx

García, C. V., Peña M., H. D., Muñoz H., R. I., Martínez C., H. E., and Machado, P. B. 2013. Aspectos del ciclo de vida de Puto barberi Cockerell (Hemiptera: Putoidae). Revista Cenicafé 64:31-41.

García Morales, 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. Accessed July 2, 2018: http://scalenet.info

Gavrilov-Zimon, I. A. and Danzig, E. M. 2015. Some additions to the mealybug fauna (Homoptera: Coccinea: Pseudococcidae) of the Canary Islands. Zoosystematica Rossica 24:94-98.

Kan-Rice, P. 2017. California’s nascent coffee industry to hold inaugural summit. Accessed July 3, 2018: http://ucfoodobserver.com/2017/12/12/californias-nascent-coffee-industry-to-hold-inaugural-summit/

Kondo, T. and Muñoz, J. A. 2016. Scale insects (Hemiptera: Coccoidea) associated with avocado crop, Persea americana Mill. (Lauraceae) in Valle del Cauca and neighboring departments of Colombia. Insecta Mundi 0465:1-24.

Kondo, T., Portilla, A. A. R., and Navarro, E. V. V. 2008. Updated list of mealybugs and putoids from Colombia (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae and Putoidae). Boletín del Museo de Entomología de la Universidad del Valle 9:29-53.

Malumphy, C. 2010. Barber giant mealybug Puto barberi (Cockerell) (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae), a neotropical pest of ornamental plants established in Gran Canaria, Spain. Entomologist’s Monthly Magazine 146:21-25.

Malumphy, C. 2014. An annotated checklist of scale insects (Hemiptera: Coccoidea) of Saint Lucia, Lesser Antilles. Zootaxa 3846:069-086.

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

Portilla, A. A. R. and Cardona, F. J. S. 2004. Coccoidea de Colombia, con énfasis en las cochinillas harinosas (Hemiptera: Pseucococcidae). Revista Facultad Nacional de Agronomía Medellín 57:2383-2412.

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

Urtiaga, R. 2017. Catálogo de insectos y acaros en plantas de Venezuela. Accessed June 29, 2018: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/315147441_Catalogo_de_Insectos_y_Acaros_en_Plantas_de_Venezuela

USDA-APHIS. U.S. regulated plant pest table. Accessed July 2, 2018: https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/planthealth/import-information/rppl/rppl-table

Villegas-García, C. and Benavides-Machado, P. 2011. Identificación de cochinillas harinosas en las raíces de café en departamentos cafeteros de Colombia. Revista Cenicafé 62:48-55.

Williams, D. J. and Granara de Willink, M. C. 1992. Mealybugs of Central and South America. CAB International, London, England.

Author:

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

Responsible Party:

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

Comment Period:* CLOSED

7/24/18 – 9/07/18

*NOTE:

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

Comment Format:

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

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

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

♦ Comments may not be posted if they:

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

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

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

Violates agency regulations prohibiting workplace violence, including threats.

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

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

Pest Rating: A

Posted by ls

A-Rated, Coleoptera, Insects, Mites & Earthworms

Longhorned Beetle | Plagionotus arcuatus (Linnaeus)

July 23, 2018 Kyle Beucke

California Pest Rating for

Longhorned Beetle | Plagionotus arcuatus (Linnaeus)

Coleoptera: Cerambycidae

Pest Rating: A

PEST RATING PROFILE

Initiating Event:

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

History & Status:

Background: Adult Plagionotus arcuatus (P. arcuatus) are 9-20 mm in length and black with yellow bands and spots (Lazarev, 2010). The biology of this species does not appear to be well-studied. The larvae live in dead (reports suggest the wood has usually been dead for only several months) wood of deciduous trees, including Carpinus, Castanea, Fagus, Prunus, Robinia, Salix, and Quercus spp. Reports suggest that this beetle attacks wood that is relatively fresh (i.e., dead, but recently-killed), perhaps several months old (Barševskis and Savenkov, 2013; Faggi et al., 2010; Ilić and Ćurčić, 2013; Jonsell, 2008; Sama et al., 2005; Vodka, 2007). Escherich (1916) reported that this damage lowers the value of oak timber. No evidence was found suggesting that P. arcuatus attacks living trees. Other species of Plagionotus also appear to be restricted to dead trees, although Moraal and Hilszczanski (2000) suggested that one or more species in the genus may have contributed to the death of oak trees in Poland.

Worldwide Distribution: Plagionotus arcuatus has been reported from northern Africa (including Libya), central Asia, the Caucasus (including Georgia and Armenia), Europe (including Bulgaria, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Macedonia, Spain, Serbia, and Sweden), Iran, Syria, and Turkey (Barševskis and Savenkov, 2013; Faggi et al., 2010; Georgiev and Hubenov, 2006; Ilić and Ćurčić, 2013; Jonsell, 2008; Keszthelyi, 2015; Özdikmen, 2014; Peña, 2002; Plewa et al., 2015).

Official Control: Plagionotus arcuatus is not known to be under official control anywhere.

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

California Interceptions: Plagionotus arcuatus was intercepted on dunnage that was suspected to have come from Europe in 1996 (CDFA Pest and Damage Report Database, 2018).

The risk Plagionotus arcuatus would pose to California is evaluated below.

Consequences of Introduction:

1) Climate/Host Interaction: Plagionotus arcuatus is widely distributed and is found in areas with a range of temperate climates, including Mediterranean. The species feeds on a variety of deciduous trees, including the genera Prunus and Quercus, which are widely distributed in California. The species is likely to become established over a large portion of California. Therefore, arcuatus 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: Plagionotus arcuatus is reported to feed on at least seven genera from five different families of deciduous trees. Therefore, it receives a High (3) in this category.

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

– Medium (2) has a moderate host range.

– High (3) has a wide host range.

3) Pest Dispersal Potential: Plagionotus arcuatus can presumably fly. This beetle can also disperse through movement of firewood, as shown by the interception of multiple living adults in firewood on the island of Majorca (Díaz-Calafut et al., 2017). 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: Plagionotus arcuatus attacks recently-cut wood and was reported to reduce the quality of oak timber. Avoiding damage from this beetle may require changes in the timing of timber harvest. Forest product (including timber) sales in California totaled $1.4 billion in 2012 (McIver et al., 2015). Therefore, it receives a Medium (2) in this category.

Economic Impact: B, D

A. The pest could lower crop yield.

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

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

D. The pest could negatively change normal cultural practices.

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

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

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

Economic Impact Score: 2

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

– Medium (2) causes 2 of these impacts.

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

5) Environmental Impact: If Plagionotus arcuatus became established in California, it could possibly compete with native beetles that live in and feed on recently-dead wood. Therefore, it receives a Medium (2) in this category.

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

Environmental Impact: A

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

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

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

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

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

Environmental Impact Score: 2

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

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

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

**Consequences of Introduction to California for Plagionotus arcuatus: Medium (11)**

–Low = 5-8 points

–Medium = 9-12 points

–High = 13-15 points

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

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

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

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

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

Final Score:

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

Uncertainty:

One report suggests that species in the genus Plagionotus may be capable of attacking living trees (Moraal and Hilszczanski, 2000). If so, P. arcuatus may be capable of attacking living trees and the potential impacts of it in California would be greater than considered in this proposal. However, if this species was capable of inflicting significant damage to living trees, it seems likely that this damage would have been recognized, considering its wide distribution and host range.

Conclusion and Rating Justification:

Plagionotus arcuatus is not known to be present in California. Although it is only known to attack dead trees, it could lower the value of cut timber and thus poses a threat to the timber industry of California. For these reasons, an “A” rating is justified.

References:

Barševskis A., and Savenkov, N. 2013. Contribution to the knowledge of long-horned beetles (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) in Latvia. Baltic Journal of Coleopterology 13:91-102.

CDFA Pest and Damage Report Database. 2018. Plagionotus arcuatus. Plant Health and Pest Prevention Services. CA Department of Food and Agriculture. Accessed March 19, 2018: https://pdr.cdfa.ca.gov/PDR/pdrmainmenu.aspx

Escherich, K. 1916. Clytus arcuatus L. (Cerambycide) als schlimmer technischer Eichenschädling. Naturwissenschaftliche Zeitschrift für Land- und Forstwirtschaft 14:272-273.

Faggi, M., Nappini, S., and Biscaccianti, A. B. 2010. Studies on longhorn beetles (Coleoptera Cerambycidae) of the Monte Ruffino Nature Reserve and Bosco del Sasseto Natural Monument (Lazio, Central Italy). Journal of Zoology 93:31-45.

Georgiev, G., and Hubenov, Z. 2006. Vertical Distribution and Zoogeographical Characteristics of Cerambycidae (Coleoptera) Family in Bulgaria. Acta Zoologica Bulgarica 58:315-343.

Ilić, N., and Ćurčić, S. 2013. The longhorn beetles (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) of Rtanj Mountain (Serbia). Acta Entomologica Serbica 18:69-04.

Jonsell, M. 2008. Saproxylic beetle species in logging residues: Which are they and which residues do they use? Norwegian Journal of Entomology 55:109-122.

Keszthelyi, S. 2015. Diversity and seasonal patterns of longhorn beetles (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) in the Zselic region, Hungary. North-Western Journal of Zoology 11:62-69.

Lazarev, M. A. 2010. New subspecies of Plagionotus arcuatus (Linnaeus, 1758) from Transcaucasia and Kyrgyzstan (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae). Studies and Reports, Taxonomical Series 6:149-164.

Moraal, L. G., and Hilszczanski, J. 2000. The oak buprestid beetle, Agrilus biguttatus (F.) (Col., Buprestidae), a recent factor in oak decline in Europe. Anzeiger für Schädlingskunde 73:134-138.

McIver, C. P., Meek, J. P., Scudder, M. G., Sorenson, C. B., Morgan, T. A., and Christensen, G. A. 2012. California’s Forest Products Industry and Timber Harvest, 2012. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, General Technical Report PNW-GTR-908.

Özdikmen, H. 2014. Turkish red list categories of longicorn beetles (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) Part VIII-Subfamily Cerambycinae: Anaglyptini and Clytini. Munis Entomology & Zoology Journal 9:687-712.

Peña, C. F. G. 2002. Catálogo de los Cerambícidos de Aragón. Catalogus de la Entomofauna Aragonesa 27:3-43.

Plewa, R., Marczak, D., Borowski, J., Mokrzycki, T., Jakubowski, M., and Górski, P. 2015. New Data on the Occurrence of Longhorn Beetles (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) in the Republic of Macedonia. Acta Zoologica Bulgarica 67:43-50.

Symbiota Collections of Arthropods Network. Accessed March 16, 2017: http://scan1.acis.ufl.edu

Author:

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

Responsible Party:

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

Comment Period:* CLOSED

7/24/18 – 9/07/18

*NOTE:

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

Comment Format:

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

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

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

♦ Comments may not be posted if they:

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

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

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

Violates agency regulations prohibiting workplace violence, including threats.

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

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

Pest Rating: A

Posted by ls

A-Rated, Diptera, Insects, Mites & Earthworms

Tomato Leaf Miner | Liriomyza bryoniae (Kaltenbach)

July 23, 2018 Kyle Beucke

California Pest Rating for

Tomato leaf miner | Liriomyza bryoniae (Kaltenbach)

Diptera: Agromyzidae

Pest Rating: A

PEST RATING PROFILE

Initiating Event:

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

History & Status:

Background: Adult Liriomyza bryoniae are small (approximately 2 mm in length) flies that are yellow, brown, and black in color. (Spencer, 1973). This fly is a pest in field crops and in greenhouses. An unusually broad range (for an agromyzid) of plant families are attacked, including Apiaceae, Asteraceae, Brassicaceae, Capparaceae, Caryophyllaceae, Chenopodaceae, Cucurbitaceae, Fabaceae, Malvaceae, and Solanaceae, among others (Spencer, 1990). Economically-significant host plants include tomato, cucumber, melons, beans, parsley, coriander, lettuce, squash, spinach, peppers, petunias, and chrysanthemum (Elkhouly et al., 2015; Masetti et al., 2004; Minkenberg and Van Lenteren, 1986; Shiao, 2004; Tran, 2009; Van Der Linden, 1993). Reproductive potential is high. Individual females have been reported to lay up to 183 eggs (Tokumaru and Abe, 2003). The eggs are laid in leaves that then serve as food for the larvae. The larvae are legless and cream to yellow-orange in color, and tunnel or “mine” between the upper and lower epidermal layers of the leaf. The mines are not associated with the leaf veins (as in some other agromyzid species), except sometimes the midrib, and sometimes form secondary blotch mines. The larvae exit the leaf to pupate, presumably in soil like most Liriomyza species (Collins and Anderson, 2016; Pitkin et al., 2017; Spencer, 1973). Larval feeding damage can kill the leaves and sometimes the entire plant, especially if it is young (Spencer, 1973). Some Liriomyza species are known to vector plant viruses, although it is not known if L. bryoniae does (Zitter and Tsai, 2013), and some agromyzids are known to vector plant pathogenic fungi (Mathew et al., 2015).

Worldwide Distribution: Liriomyza bryoniae is widely distributed and present from Europe and northern Africa east to East Asia. It is apparently native to southern Europe; the other areas it is found in (including northern Europe, where it is found mainly in greenhouses) are presumed to represent introductions (CABI, 2018; Minkenberg and Van Lenteren, 1986; Spencer, 1973).

Official Control: Liriomyza bryoniae is listed as a high priority pest in Australia and it is considered Reportable by the USDA-APHIS.

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

California Interceptions: Liriomyza bryoniae may have been intercepted on Polemonium sp. from Washington in September, 2002. This identification was tentative (California Department of Food and Agriculture).

The risk Liriomyza bryoniae would pose to California is evaluated below.

Consequences of Introduction:

1) Climate/Host Interaction: Liriomyza bryoniae is widely distributed, suggesting it is tolerant of a wide range of conditions. Although it does not tolerate the very cold temperatures found in northern Europe, as shown by its apparent restriction to greenhouses there, it has been shown to successfully overwinter and survive frost in the Netherlands (Van der Linden, 1993). It seems likely that the climate of a large portion of California would be suitable for this fly. This species is highly polyphagous, and known host plants occur over much of the state. Therefore, Liriomyza bryoniae 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: Liriomyza bryoniae is highly polyphagous and has been reported to feed on plants in at least 16 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: Liriomyza bryoniae, like other agromyzids is a strong flier, and the larvae could possibly be moved with infested plant material. The species has high reproductive potential, with individual females laying up to 183 eggs each. Therefore, it receives a High (3) in this category.

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

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

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

4) Economic Impact: Feeding by larvae of Liriomyza bryoniae impacts numerous vegetable crops, including tomato, peppers and cucumber. This damage could lower crop yield and increase production costs. The presence of this species in crop fields could trigger the loss of markets. Therefore, it receives a High (3) in this category.

Economic Impact: A, B, C

A. The pest could lower crop yield.

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

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

D. The pest could negatively change normal cultural practices.

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

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

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

Economic Impact Score: 3

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

– Medium (2) causes 2 of these impacts.

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

5) Environmental Impact: Liriomyza bryoniae is a pest of vegetables, including tomato, peppers and cucumber. Infestations of this fly could impact home gardens and trigger treatments. Therefore, it receives a High (3) in this category.

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

Environmental Impact: D, E

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

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

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

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

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

Environmental Impact Score: 3

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

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

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

**Consequences of Introduction to California for Liriomyza bryoniae: High (15)**

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: Liriomyza bryoniae is not known to be present in California. It receives a Not established (0) in this category.

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

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

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

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

Final Score:

7) The final score is the consequences of introduction score minus the post entry distribution and survey information score: High (15)

Uncertainty:

The most significant uncertainty in this proposal is the potential for Liriomyza bryoniae to significantly impact crop plants. Although death of seedlings is reported to occur, little quantitative information was found regarding the damage inflicted by this fly. It is possible that this fly would have a more significant impact in California than it does in the Old World, because it is presumably somewhat controlled by natural enemies that are present in Europe but not in California.

Conclusion and Rating Justification:

Liriomyza bryoniae is a polyphagous pest of vegetables and horticultural plants in fields and greenhouses. It is not known to be present in California. For these reasons, an “A” rating is justified.

References:

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

CABI. 2018. Liriomyza bryoniae. CAB International. Accessed May 23, 2018: https://www.cabi.org/cpc/datasheet/30950

California Department of Food and Agriculture. 2018. Pest and damage record database. Accessed April 18, 2018: https://pdr.cdfa.ca.gov/PDR/pdrmainmenu.aspx

Collins, D. and Anderson, H. 2016. Liriomyza species – leaf mining flies. Plant Pest Factsheet. Department for Environment Food & Rural Affairs.

Elkhouly, A. R., Albasha, M. O., and Hririg, A. L. 2015. Population abundance of the ectoparasitoid Diglyphus isaea Walker (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae) on tomato leaf miner Liriomyza bryonia. (Kaltenbach) (Diptera: Agromyzidae) on some winter host plants in Alejelat Region, Libya. Journal of Agricultural Engineering and Biotechnology 3:41-45.

Masetti, A., Lanzoni, A., Burgio, G., and Süss, L. 2004. Faunistic Study of the Agromyzidae (Diptera) on weeds of marginal areas in northern Italy agroecosystems. Annals of the Entomological Society of America 97:1252-1262.

Mathew, F. M., Prasifka, J. R., Gaimari, S. D., Shi, L., Markell, S. G. and Gulya, T. J. 2015. Rhizopus oryzae associated with Melanagromyza splendida and stem disease of sunflowers (Helianthus annuus) in California. Plant Health Progress 16:39–42.

Minkenberg, O. P. J. M. and Van Lenteren, J. C. 1986. The leafminers Liriomyza bryoniae and L. trifolii (Diptera: Agromyzidae), their parasites and host plants: A review. Agricultural University Wageningen Papers 86-2:1-50.

Pitkin, B., Ellis, W., Plant, C., and Edmunds, R. 2017. Liriomyza bryoniae (Kaltenbach, 1858). The leaf and stem mines of British flies and other insects. Accessed May 15, 2018: http://www.ukflymines.co.uk/Flies/Liriomyza_bryoniae.php

Shiao, S. -F. 2004. Morphological diagnosis of six Liriomyza species (Diptera: Agromyzidae) of quarantine importance in Taiwan. Applied Entomology and Zoology 39:27-39.

Spencer, K.A. 1973. Agromyzidae (Diptera) of Economic Importance. Springer.

Spencer, K.A. 1990. Host Specialization in the World Agromyzidae (Diptera). Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Netherlands.

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

Tokumaru, S., and Abe, Y. 2003. Effects of temperature and photoperiod on development and reproductive potential of Liriomyza sativae, L. trifolii, and L. bryoniae (Diptera: Agromyzidae). Japanese Journal of Applied Entomology and Zoology 47:143-152.

Tran, D. H. 2009. Agromyzid leafminers and their parasitoids on vegetables in central Vietnam. Journal of the International Society for Southeast Asian Agricultural Sciences 15:21-33.

Van der Linden, A. 1993. Overwintering of Liriomyza bryoniae and Liriomyza huidobrensis (Diptera: Agromyzidae) in the Netherlands. Proceedings of the section Experimental and Applied Entomology of the Netherlands Entomological Society 4:145-150.

Zitter, T. A. and Tsai, J. H. 2013. Flies. pp. 165-176 in K.F. Harris and K. Maramorosch (eds.), Vectors of Plant Pathogens. Academic Press, New York, NY.

Author:

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

Responsible Party:

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

Comment Period:* CLOSED

7/24/18 – 9/07/18

*NOTE:

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

Comment Format:

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

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

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

♦ Comments may not be posted if they:

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

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

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

Violates agency regulations prohibiting workplace violence, including threats.

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

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

Pest Rating: A

Posted by ls

A-Rated, Coleoptera, Insects, Mites & Earthworms

Palmetto Weevil | Rhynchophorus cruentatus (Fabricius)

July 3, 2018 Kyle Beucke

California Pest Rating for

Palmetto weevil | Rhynchophorus cruentatus (Fabricius)

Coleoptera: Dryophthoridae

Pest Rating: A

PEST RATING PROFILE

Initiating Event:

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

History & Status:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Consequences of Introduction:

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

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

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

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

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

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

– Medium (2) has a moderate host range.

– High (3) has a wide host range.

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

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

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

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

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

Economic Impact: A, E

A. The pest could lower crop yield.

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

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

D. The pest could negatively change normal cultural practices.

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

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

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

Economic Impact Score: 2

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

– Medium (2) causes 2 of these impacts.

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

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

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

Environmental Impact: A, D, E

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

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

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

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

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

Environmental Impact Score: 3

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

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

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

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

Add up the total score and include it here.

–Low = 5-8 points

–Medium = 9-12 points

–High = 13-15 points

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

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

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

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

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

Final Score:

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

Uncertainty:

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

Conclusion and Rating Justification:

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

References:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Author:

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

Responsible Party:

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

Comment Period:* CLOSED

7/3/18 – 8/17/18

*NOTE:

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

Comment Format:

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

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

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

♦ Comments may not be posted if they:

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

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

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

Violates agency regulations prohibiting workplace violence, including threats.

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

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

Pest Rating: A

Posted by ls

A-Rated, Coleoptera, Insects, Mites & Earthworms

New Guinea Sugarcane Weevil | Rhabdoscelus obscurus (Boisduval)

July 3, 2018 Kyle Beucke

California Pest Rating for

(New Guinea Sugarcane Weevil) | Rhabdoscelus obscurus (Boisduval)

Coleoptera: Curculionidae

Pest Rating: A

PEST RATING PROFILE

Initiating Event:

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

History & Status:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Consequences of Introduction:

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

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

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

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

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

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

– Medium (2) has a moderate host range.

– High (3) has a wide host range.

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

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

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

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

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

Economic Impact: A, C

A. The pest could lower crop yield.

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

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

D. The pest could negatively change normal cultural practices.

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

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

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

Economic Impact Score: 2

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

– Medium (2) causes 2 of these impacts.

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

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

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

Environmental Impact: A, E

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

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

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

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

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

Environmental Impact Score: 3

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

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

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

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

Add up the total score and include it here.

–Low = 5-8 points

–Medium = 9-12 points

–High = 13-15 points

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

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

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

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

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

Final Score:

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

Uncertainty:

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

Conclusion and Rating Justification:

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

References:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Author:

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

Responsible Party:

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

Comment Period:* CLOSED

7/3/18 – 8/17/18

*NOTE:

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

Comment Format:

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

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

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

♦ Comments may not be posted if they:

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

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

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

Violates agency regulations prohibiting workplace violence, including threats.

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

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

Pest Rating: A

Posted by ls

C-Rated, Coleoptera, Insects, Mites & Earthworms

Weevil | Oxydema longula (Boheman)

July 3, 2018 Kyle Beucke

California Pest Rating for

Weevil | Oxydema longula (Boheman)

Coleoptera: Curculionidae

Pest Rating: C

PEST RATING PROFILE

Initiating Event:

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

History & Status:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Consequences of Introduction:

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

Score: 2

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

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

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

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

Score: 3

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

– Medium (2) has a moderate host range.

– High (3) has a wide host range.

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

Score: 2

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

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

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

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

Economic Impact:

A. The pest could lower crop yield.

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

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

D. The pest could negatively change normal cultural practices.

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

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

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

Economic Impact Score: 1

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

– Medium (2) causes 2 of these impacts.

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

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

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

Environmental Impact: A

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

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

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

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

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

Score the pest for Environmental Impact. Score:

Environmental Impact Score: 2

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

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

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

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

Add up the total score and include it here.

–Low = 5-8 points

–Medium = 9-12 points

–High = 13-15 points

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

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

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

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

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

Final Score:

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

Uncertainty:

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

Conclusion and Rating Justification:

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

References:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Author:

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

Responsible Party:

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

Comment Period:* CLOSED

7/3/18 – 8/17/18

*NOTE:

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

Comment Format:

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

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

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

♦ Comments may not be posted if they:

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

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

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

Violates agency regulations prohibiting workplace violence, including threats.

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

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

Pest Rating: C

Posted by ls

The CDFA's Plant Health and Pest Prevention Services Division grants the public opportunities to comment on proposed pest ratings. The following type of proposals are available for comment:

California Pest Rating for

Aulacaspis tubercularis Newstead: Mango scale

Hemiptera: Diaspididae

Pest Rating: A

PEST RATING PROFILE

Initiating Event:

History & Status:

Consequences of Introduction:

Consequences of Introduction to California for Aulacaspis tubercularis (mango scale): High (13)

Final Score

Uncertainty:

Conclusion and Rating Justification:

References:

Author:

Responsible Party:

Comment Period:* CLOSED

*NOTE:

Comment Format:

Pest Rating: A

California Pest Rating for

Ditylenchus dipsaci (Kühn, 1857) Filipjev, 1936

Pest Rating: C

PEST RATING PROFILE

Initiating Event:

History & Status:

Consequences of Introduction:

Consequences of Introduction to California for Ditylenchus dipsaci: 11

Final Score:

Uncertainty:

Conclusion and Rating Justification:

References:

Responsible Party:

Comment Period:* CLOSED

*NOTE:

Comment Format:

Pest Rating: C

California Pest Rating for

Prosapia bicincta (Say): Two-lined spittlebug

Hemiptera-Cercopidae

Pest Rating: A

PEST RATING PROFILE

Initiating Event:

History & Status:

Consequences of Introduction to California for Prosapia bicincta (two lined spittlebug): High (13)

Final Score:

Uncertainty:

Conclusion and Rating Justification:

References:

Author:

Responsible Party:

Comment Period:* CLOSED

*NOTE:

Comment Format:

Pest Rating: A

California Pest Rating for

Caloptilia azaleella (Brants): Azalea leafminer

Lepidopetera: Gracillariidae

Pest Rating: C

PEST RATING PROFILE

Initiating Event:

History & Status:

Consequences of Introduction:

Final Score:

Uncertainty:

Conclusion and Rating Justification:

References:

Author:

Responsible Party:

Comment Period:* CLOSED

*NOTE:

Comment Format:

Pest Rating: C

California Pest Rating for

Meloidogyne floridensis Handoo et al., 2004

Pest Rating: A

PEST RATING PROFILE

Initiating Event:

History & Status:

Consequences of Introduction:

Consequences of Introduction to California for Meloidogyne floridensis: 15

**Consequences of Introduction to California for Ditylenchus dipsaci:** 11

**Consequences of Introduction to California for Prosapia bicincta (two lined spittlebug): High (13)**

Meloidogyne floridensis **Handoo et al., 2004**

**Consequences of Introduction to California for Meloidogyne floridensis:** 15

**Consequences of Introduction to California for Pseudocneorhinus bifasciatus: High (13)**

**Consequences of Introduction to California for Puto barberi: Medium (12)**

**Consequences of Introduction to California for Plagionotus arcuatus: Medium (11)**