Category Archives: Ratings

B-Rated, Fungi, Plant Pathogens

Corynespora cassiicola (Berk. & M. A. Curtis) C. T. Wei 1950

California Pest Rating for
Corynespora cassiicola (Berk. & M. A. Curtis) C. T. Wei 1950
Pest Rating: B

PEST RATING PROFILE

Initiating Event: 

On September 27, 2017, a shipment of desert rose (Adenium obesum) plants showing symptoms of leaf spot disease was intercepted by San Diego Agricultural County inspectors.  The shipment had originated in Florida and was destined to a private company in San Diego County.  A sample of symptomatic plant leaves was collected by the San Diego Agriculture County and sent to the CDFA Plant Pathology Laboratory in Sacramento.  On October 18, 2017, the fungus, Corynespora cassiicola, was identified by CDFA plant pathologist, Suzanne Latham, to be associated with the leaf spot symptoms. A temporary ‘Q’ rating was assigned to the pathogen and consequently, the shipment was destroyed.  Corynespora cassiicola was previously detected on May 7, 2008, in an intercepted shipment of Mandevilla plants that originated in Florida and was destined to a nursery in San Diego County.  This detection marked the first report of the pathogen in California and resulted in the destruction of the shipment.  The current rating and consequences of introduction of C. cassiicola in California are assessed here and a permanent rating is proposed.

History & Status:

Background:  Corynespora cassiicola is a fungal plant pathogen that attacks a wide range of plants from tropical and subtropical countries causing leaf spot disease in several economically important crops under different common names such as Corynespora leaf spot of cucumber and several other hosts, blotch disease of cucurbits, stem and fruit spot of eggplant, papaya and target spot of tomato and cotton.  The fungus has been found in plant leaves, stems, fruit, roots, nematode cysts, and human skin and comprises many isolates.  Majority of isolates reported have been obtained from lesions or from fulfilled Koch postulate trials and are known to be plant pathogens.  However, isolates have also been reported from dead organic matter and non-symptomatic plant tissue and some can be both depending on the host substrate (Dixon et al., 2009).  Isolates may vary in virulence in host specificity.  Some isolates that specifically parasitize weed hosts without affecting agricultural crops may serve as potential bioherbicides agents (Smith & Schlub, 2005).  In South-east Asia, C. cassiicola causes leaf fall disease of rubber, which is one of the most serious leaf diseases of rubber in that region.

The pathogen was first described as Helminthosporium cassiicola by Berkeley and Curtis in 1868, and subsequently underwent several taxonomic changes to now be known as Corynespora cassiicola (Farr & Rossman, 2018). This pathogen is ubiquitous and has been reported to cause major economic losses in more than 70 countries (Dixon et al., 2009).

Disease cycle:  The pathogen survives in infested plant materials for more than two years.  High humidity, warm temperature (25-32°C) and long days are necessary for conidia production, infection and disease development.  Fluctuating day and night temperatures favor disease development (Williams, 1996).  The disease develops in tomatoes at favorable temperatures of 20-28°C and infection can occur at 16-32°C.  Extended periods of 16 to 44 hours of high moisture are necessary for optimum disease development (Pernezney et al., 2014).

Dispersal and spread: Infested planting stock, plant material, plant debris.  Conidia (spores) are airborne and seedborne (Daughtrey et al., 1995).

Hosts: More than 530 plant species from 380 genera including monocots, dicots, ferns, and one cycad have been reported to support growth of C. cassiicola (Dixon et al., 2009). Economically important host crops for California include Cucumis sativus (cucumber), Cucurbita moschata (pumpkin), C. moschata (pumpkin), C. pepo (marrow), cucurbits, Gossypium sp. (cotton), Solanum lycopersicum (tomato), S. melongena (eggplant) and ornamentals (CABI, 2018; Farr & Rossman, 2018).  Ornamental hosts include Aeschyanthus pulcher (lipstick vine), Aphelandra squarrosa (zebra plant), Catharnathus roseus (Madagascar periwinkle), Begonia, Hydrangea macrophylla (bigleaf hydrangea), Euphorbia pulcherrima (poinsettia), Saintpaulia ionantha (African violet) and Salvia splendens (scarlet sage) (Daughtrey et al., 1995)

Symptoms:  The initial symptoms of target spot in tomato are pinpoint-size, water-soaked lesions on the upper surfaces of leaves. These lesions increase in size, turn circular and pale brown with individual yellow halos.  Over time lesions coalesce and tissue may collapse while the leaflet remains attached to the petiole. Similar lesions may develop on petioles and stems resulting in rapid collapse of affected leaflets.  Lesions can develop on young fruit and resemble those caused by abiotic factors. These lesions are initially dark, sunken, pinpoint and brown and may later develop into craters. On ripe fruit, large, circular lesions develop with pale brown centers that crack and over time create avenues for secondary invading pathogens (Pernezny et al., 2014).  In infected cucurbits, initial lesions are angular yellow spots with light brown centers and dark brown borders.  As these lesion age, they drop out. Young and green fruit are not susceptible however, early infection of the blossom end of fruit may result in shriveling and darkening of the infected area with dark sporulation (Williams, 1996).  On ornamental plants such as poinsettia, lesions may be irregular, large and brown on bracts and primarily at the tips and margins of leaves; on hydrangea lesions may be small, reddish purple, circular with tan centers and reddish-purple margins; on African violets lesions are irregular and brown (Daughtrey et al., 1995).

Damage Potential: In the USA, reports of losses from target spot of field tomatoes are restricted to the Southeast which is frequented with high humidity and warm temperature climate (Pernezny et al., 2014). In California, if left uncontrolled, Corynespora disease development is likely to occur in greenhouses under favorable temperature and high humidity conditions. Impact of disease caused by this pathogen may be mitigated through proper sanitation, use of resistant varieties and regular applications of fungicidal treatments.

Worldwide Distribution: Asia: Bangladesh, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, China, India, Indonesia, Japan, Republic of Korea, Laos, Malaysia, Maldives, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan, Philippines, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, Thailand, Vietnam, Yemen; Africa: Benin, Cameroon, Congo, Democratic Republic of Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Egypt, Ethiopia, Gabon, Ghana, Guinea, Liberia, Mauritius, Nigeria, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Sudan, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda, Zambia; Central America and Caribbean:  Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Belize, British Virgin Islands, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominica, El Salvador, Guadeloupe, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Nicaragua, Puerto Rico, Trinidad and Tobago, United States Virgin Islands; Europe: Austria, Bulgaria, Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Romania, Russian Federation, United Kingdom, Ukraine; North America: Canada, Mexico, USA; Oceania: American Samoa, Australia, Fiji, Guam, Micronesia, New Zealand, northern Mariana Islands, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Vanuatu; South America: Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, French Guiana, Guyana, Venezuela (CABI, 2018).

In the United States, C. cassiicola has been reported from Alabama, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and Wisconsin (CABI, 2018).

Official Control: Corynespora cassiicola is on the ‘Harmful Organism Lists” for Israel, Namibia, South Africa and Vietnam (USDA PCIT, 2018).

California Distribution: Corynespora cassiicola has not been reported from California.  The pathogen is not known to be established in California.

California Interceptions:  There have been two interceptions of plants infected with Corynespora cassiicola (see: ‘Initiating Event’).

The risk Corynespora cassiicola would pose to California is evaluated below.

Consequences of Introduction: 

1) Climate/Host Interaction: Corynespora cassiicola requires prolonged periods of high humidity (16-44 hours) and warm temperature (25-32°C) for disease development. These climatic conditions would limit the ability of the pathogen to establish and spread within California.

Evaluate if the pest would have suitable hosts and climate to establish in California.  Score: 1

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

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

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

2) Known Pest Host Range: The pathogen has a very wide and diverse host range that comprises more than 530 plant species from 380 genera including monocots, dicots, ferns, and one cycad. Economically important host crops for California include cucurbits, cotton, tomato, eggplant and ornamentals.

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: Conidia are produced in abundance and are dispersed by air currents, infected seeds, host plant material and debris. Therefore, a high score is given to this category.

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: Plant damage caused by cassiicola is more likely under prolonged periods of high humidity and warm temperatures found in greenhouse cultivation than in open field environments of the state. If left uncontrolled, infections by the pathogen could result in lower crop yield and value resulting in the loss of markets. However, the administration of proper control measures may mitigate impact of damage caused by this pathogen.  Therefore, a medium score is given to this category.

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

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:  No significant impact to the environment is likely as the requirements of prolonged, high humidity and warm temperatures would considerably limit the ability of cassiicola to establish within the state.  

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.

Environmental Impact Score: 1

– 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 Corynespora cassiicola:

Add up the total score and include it here. (Score)

-Low = 5-8 points

–Medium = 9-12 points

-High = 13-15 points

Total points obtained on evaluation of consequences of introduction to California = 10

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

Evaluation is ‘Not established’ in California and has only been detected in intercepted plant shipments to the State.

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

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 = 10

Uncertainty:

None.

Conclusion and Rating Justification:

Based on the evidence provided above the proposed rating for Corynespora cassiicola is B.

References:

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

Daughtrey, M. L., Wick, R. L., and Peterson, J. L.  1995.Corynespora leaf spot of Catharanthus, Hydrangea, Poinsettia, and Saintpaulia.  In, Compendium of Flowering Potted Plant Diseases. APS Press, The American Phytopathological Society 90p.

Dixon, L. J., Schlub, R. L., Pernezny, K., and Datnoff, L. E.  2009.  Host specialization and phylogenetic diversity of Corynespora cassiicola.  Phytopathology 99: 1015-1027.

Farr, D.F., and Rossman, A. Y.  2016.  Fungal Databases, Systematic Mycology and Microbiology Laboratory, ARS, USDA.  Retrieved August 1, 2016, from http://nt.ars-grin.gov/fungaldatabases/

Pernezny, K. L., Blazquez, C. H., Smith, L. J., and Schlub, R. L.  2014).  Target spot.  In, Compendium of Tomato Disease and Pests Second Edition, Edited by J. B. Jones, T. A. Zitter, T. M. Momol, and S. A. Miller. 44-46p.

Smith, L. J., and Schlub, R. L. 2005. Foliar fungi on weeds of Guam and the potential for Corynespora cassiicola as a bioherbicide for   Stachytarpheta jamaicensis. (Abstr.) Phytopathology 95: S93.

USDA PCIT.  2017.  USDA Phytosanitary Certificate Issuance & Tracking System. Retrieved May 23, 2018. 11:53:45 am CDT.  https://pcit.aphis.usda.gov/PExD/faces/ReportHarmOrgs.jsp.

Williams, P. H.  1996.  Target leaf spot.  In, Compendium of Cucurbit Diseases, Ed. T. A. Zitter, D. L. Hopkins, and C. E. Thomas.  APS Press, The American Phytopathological Society p 31-32.

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.

*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: B

Posted by ls 

B-Rated, Plant Pathogens, Viruses and viroids

Grapevine Pinot gris Virus (GPGV)

California Pest Rating  for
Grapevine Pinot gris Virus (GPGV)
Pest Rating: B

PEST RATING PROFILE

Initiating Event:   

A pest risk assessment and rating for Grapevine pinot gris virus (GPGV) was recently requested by Joshua Kress, CDFA Pest Exclusion Branch, in response to notification received on January 24, 2018, from Foundation Plant Service (FPS), on the detection of GPGV in their Foundation grapevine plants.  The risk of infestation of GPGV in California is evaluated and a permanent rating is herein proposed. 

History & Status:

Background: Although symptoms of stunting, chlorotic mottling, and leaf deformation had been observed on V. vinifera ‘Pinot gris’, in Trentino, North Italy since 2003, it was not until 2012 that Grapevine pinot gris was first detected by deep sequencing in one symptomatic and one symptomless grapevine, Vitis vinifera cv. Pinot gris in Northern Italy. In this initial study, GPGV was associated with field symptoms of chlorotic mottling and leaf deformation, reduced yield and low quality of berries, however the plant was also associated with several other viruses and viroids.  Furthermore, since GPGV was found in both symptomatic and symptomless plants from three different grape cultivars in a limited field survey, the virus could not be directly associated with the observed symptoms (Giampetruzzi et al., 2012; Glasa et al., 2014). This was further confirmed by Saldarelli et al. (2013) who reported 70% of GPGV-infected asymptomatic veins in cultivars Traminer and Pinot gris vineyards in Italy.  Bianchi et al. (2015) also detected GPGV in symptomatic and asymptomatic plants over a 3-year period in a field survey of productive vineyards and scion mother plant nurseries in Italy, however, the mean quantity of the virus was significantly higher in symptomatic vines than in asymptomatic plants. Consequently, a critical level or quantity of virus could not be associated with symptom expression.  Scientists in Italy determined that GPGV isolates that produce symptoms can be genetically differentiated from those that are asymptomatic (Saldarelli et al., 2015).

Grapevine pinot gris virus belongs to the genus Trichovirus in the family Betaflexiviridae.  Its full-length sequence was described and shown to be phylogenetically closely related to, yet molecularly different from Grapevine berry inner necrosis virus, another Trichovirus which was found in Japan and is transmitted by eriophyid mites (Giampetruzzi et al., 2012).  Since its original description in Italy, GPGV has been detected from symptomatic and asymptomatic grapevine cultivars in several countries in Europe and Asia, and few in North America, South America and Australia (see: ‘Worldwide Distribution’).

Grapevine Pinot gris virus (GPGV) was detected in California grapevine in Napa Valley and diagnosed by a testing service lab in Yolo County.  An informal report of this detection was made in 2015 (Rieger, 2015) and in a ‘list of pathogens report’ submitted by a testing service lab to the CDFA.  A formal first report of GPGV infecting grapevine was made in 2016 (Rwahnih et al., 2016) and marked a first detection of GPGV in the United States.  In 2016, Rwahnih and other scientists at the Foundation Plant Services screened 2,014 vines, including 23 vines of Pinot gris for the possible presence and prevalence of GPGV in the collections of FPS, which are the source of all certified grapevine plants produced in California.  Of all the vines tested, only one relatively rare, asymptomatic vine variety ‘Touriga Nacional” was found positive for GPGV. This vine had been imported from Portugal in 1981.  The risk of GPGV spread in commercial vineyards was considered low, given the very low prevalence of the pathogen in the FPS collection, however, the need for a large-scale survey of commercial vineyards in California was emphasized, as well as, the need for research to evaluate the effect of the virus on grapevine performance and wine quality.  Since cv ‘Touriga Nacional’ is rarely used in commercial vineyards, Angelini et al., (2016) molecularly surveyed 96 grapevine samples from four commercial wine grape vineyards in Napa Valley, California and reported the presence of GPGV in three cultivars, ‘Chardonnay’, ‘Cabernet Sauvignon’, and ‘Cabernet Franc’.

Grapevine pinot gris virus was recently detected in Foundation grapevine plants at FPS (see ‘Initiating Event’).  Subsequently, FPS removed all source vines from the Foundation vineyard and initiated monitoring of the site with additional testing implemented to detect and destroy any further detection and contain possible spread of the pathogen (personal communication: M. Al Rwahnih, Foundation Plant Services).

Hosts:  Grapevine pinot gris virus has been found in at least 28 wine and table grape varieties of Vitis vinifera and hybrids. including Pinot gris, Pinot noir, Traminer, Chardonnay, Merlot, Chardonnay, Cabernet Franc, Cabernet Sauvignon, Carmenere Glera (Prosecco), Sauvignon Blanc and Shiraz (AWRI, 2018).

Symptoms:   Grapevines infected with GPGV may be symptomatic or asymptomatic.    Furthermore, specific symptoms caused by GPGV have been difficult to assign as GPGV-infected grapevines were infected with other viruses. Because of this, definitive symptoms have not been attributed to GPGV alone.  Symptoms putatively associated with GPGV include chlorotic mottling, leaf deformation, delayed bud-burst, stunted growth, reduced yields and low quality of berries with increased acidity (Saldarelli et al., 2015; AWRI, 2018).

Damage Potential:  The complete impact of GPGV on grapevine health is currently unknown and further research is need in this area (AWRI, 2018).  In Europe and Asia, GPGV and other concomitant viruses infesting grapevines have been associated with field observations of reduced yield, poor fruit set, poor quality and inner necrosis of berries (Giampetruzzi et al., 2012).  In Slovenia, the disease was reported to cause considerable economic losses (Mavrič Pleško et al., 2014).  Presently, the risk of spread of GPGV is considered low and the distribution of the virus has only been reported from commercial vineyards within Napa County (Al Rwahnih et al., 2016; Angelini et al., 2016).

Transmission:  Grapevine Pinot gris virus is spread through movement of infected plant propagative material and by graft transmission.  There is the possibility of GPGV transmission by the eriophyid mite Colomerus vitus, like the other grapevine-infecting Trichovirus, Grapevine berry inner necrosis virus, however, this has not been confirmed.  Colomerus vitus commonly infests grapevine and has been reported in California.

Worldwide Distribution: Asia: China, South Korea, Georgia, Pakistan; Europe: Bosnia, Croatia, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Portugal, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, Ukraine; North America: Canada, USA (California); South America: Brazil; Oceania: Australia. (Al Rwahnih et al., 2016; Angelini et al., 2016; Beuve et al., 2015; CABI, 2018; Casati et al., 2015; EPPO, 2018; Fan et al., 2016; Gazel et al., 2016; Lou et al., 2016; Mavrič Pleško et al., 2014; Rasool et al., 2017; Reynard, et al., 2016; Rius-Garcia & Olmos, 2017; Wu et al., 2017; Xiao et al., 2016).

Official Control: None reported.

California Distribution:  Napa County.

California Interceptions: There are no CDFA records of detection of GPGV in quarantine shipments of plant material intercepted in California.

The risk Grapevine Pinot gris virus would pose to California is evaluated below.

Consequences of Introduction: 

1) Climate/Host Interaction: Grapevine pinot gris virus is expected to be able to establish wherever wine and table grape varieties are cultivated in California, and therefore, is likely to establish a wide spread distribution.

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: Grapevine pinot gris virus has been found in at least 28 wine and table grape varieties of Vitis vinifera and hybrids. including Pinot gris, Pinot noir, Traminer, Chardonnay, Merlot, Chardonnay, Cabernet Franc, Cabernet Sauvignon, Carmenere Glera (Prosecco), Sauvignon Blanc and Shiraz. It’s known pest host range is evaluated as very limited.

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: GPGV is transmitted artificially through grafting and infested planting stock.  The involvement of a vector, an eriophyid mite Colomerus vitus, although likely, has not been confirmed. The virus has high reproduction within symptomatic and asymptomatic plants.  Therefore, a ‘High’ rating is given to this category.

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: The economic impact of GPGV is not currently known and requires further research.  This is mainly due to evidence that the virus is present in both symptomatic and symptomless grape plants, and that other viruses and viroids may be present within the same plant infested by GPGV.  Nevertheless, putative symptoms of chlorotic mottling, leaf deformation, stunted growth, reduced yields and low quality of berries, have been associated with GPGV infestations.  This may relate to potentially lowering crop value and yield in production.  While the virus may be present in commercial vineyards of Chardonnay and Cabernet Sauvignon in California (Angelini et al., 2016), its risk of spread is considered low and its general impact on production is presently unknown.  Nursery production of grapevines may be affected.

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

Score: 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: No impact to the environment is expected.

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

Environmental 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.

Environmental Impact Score: 1

– 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 Grapevine Pinot gris virus

Add up the total score and include it here. (Score)

-Low = 5-8 points

–Medium = 9-12 points

-High = 13-15 points

Total points obtained on evaluation of consequences of introduction of GPGV to California = Medium (10).

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

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

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

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

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

Evaluation is Low (-1). Presently, Grapevine pinot gris virus has been reported only from Napa County.

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 = 9. 

Uncertainty: 

Several aspects of Grapevine pinot gris virus are yet not known and require further research. In general, the impact of the virus on grape production, symptoms, prevalence and distribution within California are not fully known.

Conclusion and Rating Justification:

Based on the evidence provided above the proposed rating for Grapevine Pinot gris virus is B.

References:

AWRI.  2018.  Grapevine pinot gris virus. Fact Sheet, Viticulture.  The Australian Wine Research Institute.  Updated February 2018.

Al Rwahnih, M., D. Golino, and A. Rowhani.  2016.  First report of Grapevine Pinot gris virus infecting grapevine in the United States.  Plant Disease (Posted online on March 4, 2016).  http://dx.doi.org/10.1094/PDIS-10-15-1235-PDN.

Angelini, E., N. Bertazzon, J. Montgomery, X. Wang, A. Zinkl, J. Stamp, and A. Wei.  2016.  Occurrence of Grapevine Pinot gris virus in commercial vineyards in the United States.  Plant Disease (Posted online on March 23, 2016): http://dx.doi.org/10.1094/PDIS-01-16-0055-PDN.

Beuve, M., T. Candresse, M. Tannières, and O. Lemaire.  2015.  First report of Grapevine Pinot gris virus (GPGV) in grapevine in France.  Plant Disease 99:293. http://dx.doi.org/10.1094/PDIS-10-14-1008-PDN.

Bianchi, G. L., F. De Amicis, L. De Sabbata, N. Di Bernardo, G. Governatori, F. Nonino, G. Prete, T. Marrazzo, S. Versolatto and C. Frausin.  2015.  Occurrence of Grapevine Pinot gris virus in Friuli Venezia Giulia (Italy): Field monitoring and virus quantification by real-time RT-PCR.  EPPO Bulletin 45:22-32.   DOI: 10.1111/epp.12196.

Casati, P., D. Maghradze, F. Ouaglino, A. Ravasio, O. Failla and P. A. Bianco.  First report of Grapevine pinot gris virus in Georgia.  Journal of Plant Pathology 1 (1). DOI: 10.4454/JPP.V98I1.003

EPPO.  2018.  Grapevine Pinot gris virus (GPGV00).  EPPO Global Database. https://gd.eppo.int/taxon/GPGV00/distribution

Fan, X. D., Y. F. Dong, Z. P. Zhang, F. Ren, G. J. Hu, Z.N. Li, and J. Zhou.  2016.  First report of Grapevine Pinot gris virus in Grapevines in China.  Plant Disease 100:540. http://dx.doi.org/10.1094/PDIS-08-15-0913-PDN.

Gazel, M., K. Caǧlayan, E. Elci, and L. Ozturk.  2016.  First Report of Grapevine Pinot gris virus in Grapevine in Turkey.  Plant Disease 100:657. http://dx.doi.org/10.1094/PDIS-05-15-0596-PDN.

Glasa, M., L. Predajňa, P. Komínek, A. Nagyová, T. Candresse and A. Olmos.  2014.  Molecular characterization of divergent grapevine Pinot gris virus isolated and their detection in Slovak and Czech grapevines.  Archives of Virology 159: 2103-2107.

Giampetruzzi, A., V. Roumia, R. Roberto, U. Malossinib, N. Yoshikawac, P. La Notte, F. Terlizzi, R. Credid, and P. Saldarelli.  A new grapevine virus discovered by deep sequencing of virus- and viroid-derived small RNAs in cv Pinot gris.  Virus Research 163:262-268.

Lou, B. H., Y. Q. Song, A. J. Chen, X. J. Bai, B. Wang, M. Z., Wang, P. Liu and J. J. He.  2016.  First report of Grapevine pinot gris virus in commercial grapevines in Southern China.  Journal of Plant Pathology 98: 677-697.

Mavrič Pleško, I., M. Viršček Marn, G. Seljak, and I. Žežlina.  2014.  First report of Grapevine Pinot gris virus infecting grapevine in Slovenia.  Plant Disease 98:1014.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1094/PDIS-11-13-1137-PDN.

Rasool, S., S. Naz, A. Rowhani, D. A. Golino, N. M. Westrick, K. D. Farrar and M. Al Rwahnih.  2017.  First report of Grapevine pinot gris virus infecting grapevine in Pakistan.  Plant Disease 101: 1958.

Rieger, T.  2015.  New grapevine virus detected in California: Grapevine Pinot Gris Virus discussed at UCD FPS meeting.  http://www.winebusiness.com/news/?go=getArticle&dataid=160912.

Reynard, J. -S, S. Schumacher, W. Menzel, J. Fuchs, P. Bohnert, M. Glasa, T. Wetzel and R. Fuchs.  2016.  First report of Grapevine pinot gris virus in German vineyards.  Plant Disease 100: 2545.

Ruiz-García, A. B., and A. Olmos.  2017.  First report of Grapevine pinot gris virus in Grapevine in Spain.  Plant Disease 101: 1070.

Saldarelli, P., A. Giampetruzzi, M. Morelli, U. Malossini, C. Pirolo, P. Bianchedi, and V. Gualandri.  2015.  Genetic variability of Grapevine Pinot gris virus and its association with grapevine leaf mottling and deformation.  Phytopathology 105:555-563. http://dx.doi.org/10.1094/PHYTO-09-14-0241-R.

Xiao, H., M. Shabanian, W. McFadden-Smith, and B. Meng.  2016.  First report of Grapevine Pinot gris virus in commercial grapes in Canada.  Plant Disease (Posted online on February 29, 2016). http://dx.doi.org/10.1094/PDIS-12-15-1405-PDN.

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.

*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: B

Posted by ls 

A-Rated, Hemiptera, Insects, Mites & Earthworms

A Mealybug | Trionymus sasae (Kanda)

California Pest Rating for
Trionymus sasae (Kanda): a mealybug
Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae
Pest Rating: A

 

PEST RATING PROFILE
Initiating Event:

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

History & Status:

Background:  Trionymus sasae is only known to occur in Japan and it is associated with (and presumably feeds on) bamboo (García Morales et al., 2016).  The localities it is reported from in Japan have a subtropical climate (Kawai, 1980).  Other species of Trionymus are also associated with grasses (Poaceae), and some are pests of crop (e.g., barley and sugarcane) or ornamental (e.g., bamboo) plants (Alvarez, 2004; Jansen, 2009; Portilla and Cardona, 2004).

Worldwide Distribution:  Trionymus sasae is only known from Japan.  It was reportedly intercepted in California on bamboo from Oregon in 1995, so it is possible that this mealybug may be established in other areas (possibly Oregon), but if so, this has not been reported (Gill, 1995).  Alternatively, this bamboo may have originally been shipped from Japan.

Official Control: Trionymus sasae is not known to be under official control anywhere.

California Distribution:  Trionymus sasae is not known to be present in California.

California Interceptions:  Trionymus sasae has been intercepted on bamboo from Japan and Oregon (California Department of Food and Agriculture; Gill, 1995).

The risk Trionymus sasae would pose to California is evaluated below.

Consequences of Introduction:

1) Climate/Host Interaction: The areas in Japan where sasae is reported to occur have a subtropical climate. If this mealybug became established in California, it might be limited to warmer areas, for example, the southern coast.  Therefore, T. sasae 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: Trionymus sasae has been associated with two genera of bamboo. Therefore, it receives a Low (1) in this category.

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

– Medium (2) has a moderate host range.

– High (3) has a wide host range.

3) Pest Dispersal Potential: Trionymus sasae has been intercepted on bamboo, so it is apparently capable of being dispersed through shipment of plant material.  Bamboo is a popular plant and is presumably moved frequently throughout the state.  Therefore, sasae 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: Trionymus sasae lives on bamboo plants, which are popular ornamentals in California.  If this mealybug became established in California, it could attack bamboo plants in nurseries, impacting their health or at least detracting from their appearance and value.  This could increase production costs.  Therefore, sasae receives a Low (1) in this category.

Economic Impact:  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: 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: There are many rare species in the family Poaceae in California (Calflora). If sasae became established in California, it could threaten some of these species.  This mealybug could also impact ornamental bamboo plantings, and this could trigger treatments.  Therefore, it receives a High (3) in this category.

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

Environmental Impact:  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 Trionymus sasae: Medium (9)

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: Trionymus sasae 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 (9)

Uncertainty:

The known distribution of this species suggests it may be limited to warmer (subtropical) climates.  If so, it may not be capable of establishment in California, or its area of potential distribution in the state could be quite limited.  The potential of T. sasae to damage plants is also not known.  Little information is available on this species, so the pest significance of other Trionymus species was considered in this proposal.  The potential of this mealybug to impact native grasses in California would require that this species not be limited to bamboo.

Conclusion and Rating Justification:

Very little information is available regarding the biology of Trionymus sasae.  This mealybug is not known to be present in California and it attacks bamboo (an important ornamental plant in the state).  For these reasons, an “A” rating is justified.

References:

Alvarez, J.M.  2004.  Trionymus haancheni McKenzie: A new pest of barley in Idaho.  Plant Management Network.  5 pp.

Calflora: Information on California plants for education, research and conservation, with data contributed by public and private institutions and individuals, including the Consortium of California Herbaria.  Accessed March 30, 2017 http://www.calflora.org

California Department of Food and Agriculture.  Pest and damage record database.  Accessed March 30, 2018. https://pdr.cdfa.ca.gov/PDR/pdrmainmenu.aspx

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 March 28, 2018  http://scalenet.info

Gill, R.J.  1995.  Exclusion.  California Plant Pest and Disease Report.  14: 8-12.

Jansen, M.  2009.  New and less observed scale insect species for the Dutch fauna (Hemiptera: Coccoidea).  Entomologische Berichten.  69: 162-168.

Kawai, S.  1980.  Scale Insects of Japan in Colors.  National Agricultural Education Association.  Tokyo.  455 pp.

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

Symbiota Collections of Arthropods Network.  Accessed March 30, 2018. http://scan1.acis.ufl.edu

Author:

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

Responsible Party:

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

Comment Period:* CLOSED

4/30/18 – 6/14/18

*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, Insects, Mites & Earthworms, Thysanoptera

A Thrips | Coremothrips pallidus Hood

California Pest Rating for
Coremothrips pallidus Hood: a thrips
Thysanoptera: Thripidae
Pest Rating: A

 

PEST RATING PROFILE
Initiating Event:

Coremothrips pallidus was recently reported to be established in Hawaii (Mound et al., 2017).  It is currently Q-rated, and a permanent pest rating proposal is required to support an official pest rating.

History & Status:

Background:  Coremothrips pallidus is a tiny (~1 mm in length), pale yellowish-white thrips (Hood, 1925).  It has been found feeding on avocado leaves in Hawaii (Mound et al., 2017).  Adults and larvae were found on Guettarda scabra (Rubiaceae) in Guadeloupe, which suggests that this plant was being fed upon (Etienne et al., 2015).  It has also been found on leaves of other plants in the families Bixaceae, Combretaceae, Sterculiaceae, and Ulmaceae, but it is not known if these records represent feeding (Cavalleri, 2015; Etienne et al., 2015; Goldarazena et al., 2012; Hood, 1925).

Worldwide Distribution:  Coremothrips pallidus has been reported from Central America (Panama), South America (Brazil), and the Caribbean (Guadeloupe, Saint Vincent, and Trinidad) (Cavalleri, 2005; Etienne et al., 2015; Monteiro, 2002; Symbiota Collections of Arthropods Network).  It was recently reported to be established on the islands of Hawaii and Oahu in Hawaii (Mound et al., 2017).

Official Control: Coremothrips pallidus is not known to be under official control anywhere.

California Distribution:  Coremothrips pallidus is not known to be present in California.

California Interceptions:  Coremothrips pallidus has not been intercepted in California.

The risk Coremothrips pallidus would pose to California is evaluated below.

Consequences of Introduction:

1) Climate/Host Interaction: Coremothrips pallidus appears to feed on at least two species of plants, including avocado. Avocado is widely planted in southern California.  However, this thrips is apparently restricted to tropical or subtropical areas.  It is possible that it could become established in a limited portion of California.  Therefore, Coremothrips pallidus receives a Medium (2) in this category.

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

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

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

2) Known Pest Host Range: Although pallidus has been reported from several plants species, only two of these plants are considered verified hosts here: Avocado (because the report specified that feeding had occurred) and Guettarda scabra (because adults and larvae were found on this plant), representing two families. It is likely that some of the other plants in the families listed above (under Background) were also fed upon.  Therefore, C. pallidus 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: Coremothrips pallidus has wings and presumably flies.  It could also be dispersed artificially via transport of infested plant material.  Lastly, it may be capable of wind-aided dispersal.  Therefore, it receives a Medium (2) in this category.

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

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

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

4) Economic Impact: Coremothrips pallidus has been reported to feed on avocado, which is an important crop in California.  If this species was established in California, it is possible that it could lower the value of avocados.  Therefore, it receives a Low (1) in this category.

Economic Impact: 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: 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: Coremothrips pallidus feeds on plants in at least two families. If this species became established in California, it would encounter plants that are not present in the area of its current distribution.  If it fed on these plants, it is possible that this thrips could have an impact on natural communities.    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 Coremothrips pallidus: Medium (9)

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: Coremothrips pallidus 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 (9)

Uncertainty:

Coremothrips pallidus is fairly widely distributed, and yet there do not appear to be any reports of this species being a pest.  It is therefore possible that this proposal is overly pessimistic and this thrips may not become a problem even if it was established in California. Some thrips are vectors of plant viruses, and it is possible (though no reports were found of C. pallidus vectoring diseases) that this species could transmit virus diseases of avocado if it was established in California.

Conclusion and Rating Justification:

Coremothrips pallidus is a plant-feeding thrips that attacks avocado and is not known to be present in California.  If it became established in this state, it could impact avocado cultivation and could also have environmental impacts.  For these reasons, an “A” rating is justified.

References:

Cavalleri, A.  2005.  Comunidades de tripes (Insecta: Thysanoptera) em flores e ramos, com ênfase em Asteraceae, no Parque Estadual de Itapuã, Vlamão, RS.  Ph.D. dissertation.  Instituto de Biociências da Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre.

Etienne, J., Ryckewaert, P., and B. Michel.  2015.  Thrips (Insecta: Thysanoptera) of Guadeloupe and Martinique: Updated check-list with new information on their ecology and natural enemies.  Florida Entomologist.  98(1): 298-304.

Goldarazena, A., Gattesco, F., Atencio, R., and C. Korytowski.  2012.  An updated checklist of the Thysanoptera of Panama with comments on host associations.  Check List.  8(6): 1232-1247.

Hood, J.D.  1925.  New neotropical Thysanoptera collected by C.B. Williams.  1925.  Psyche.  32: 48-69.

Monteiro, R.  2002.  The Thysanoptera fauna of Brazil.  Pages 325-340 in R. Marullo and L. Mound, editors.  Thrips and Tospoviruses: Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on Thysanoptera.  Australian National Insect Collection, Canberra.  390 pp.

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

Symbiota Collections of Arthropods Network.  Accessed 13 November 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

4/30/18 – 6/14/18

*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, Insects, Mites & Earthworms, Thysanoptera

Thrips | Indusiothrips seshadrii Priesner

California Pest Rating  for
Indusiothrips seshadrii Priesner: thrips
Thysanoptera: Thripidae
Pest Rating: A

 

PEST RATING PROFILE
Initiating Event:

A specimen of Indusiothrips seshadrii was recently found on Oahu Island, Hawaii (Mound et al., 2017).  It is currently Q-rated, and a permanent pest rating proposal is required to support an official pest rating.

History & Status:

Background:  Indusiothrips seshadrii is a small (~1 mm in length), whitish-yellow thrips (Priesner, 1952).  It has been reported from unidentified ferns in India and Hawaii (Mound et al., 2017; Priesner, 1952).  This species appears to be rarely collected, and little additional information is available regarding its biology.

Worldwide Distribution:  Indusiothrips seshadrii is known from, and is presumed native to India and Malaysia (Kudô, 1992; Priesner, 1952).  It has been introduced to Oahu, Hawaii (Mound et al., 2017).

Official Control: Indusiothrips seshadrii is not known to be under official control anywhere.

California Distribution:  Indusiothrips seshadrii is not known to occur in California.

California Interceptions:  Indusiothrips seshadrii has not been intercepted in California.

The risk Indusiothrips seshadrii would pose to California is evaluated below.

Consequences of Introduction:

1) Climate/Host Interaction: Although seshadrii is presumed to feed on ferns, the species it feeds on are not known. California has many species of native ferns, and it is possible that I. seshadrii could find suitable host plants over much of the state.  However, this thrips is currently known to be limited to areas with a tropical climate.  For this reason, I. seshadrii is not expected to be capable of establishing over more than a very limited area.  Therefore, Indusiothrips seshadrii 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: Indusiothrips seshadrii may feed on ferns. However, it is not known what species in particular act as hosts.  The fact that it is known from India, Malaysia, and Hawaii suggests that more than a single species of fern is involved.  To incorporate this uncertainty, host range will be considered to be moderate.  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: This species has wings and presumably flies (Priesner, 1952).  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: Indusiothrips seshadrii is presumed to feed on ferns.  It has not been reported to be a pest, and it does not appear to pose an economic threat to California.  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: Indusiothrips seshadrii is presumed to feed on ferns. No reports were found indicating the extent, if any, of damage inflicted by these thrips on ferns.  However, this could simply be because the host plants are not economically significant.  There are many rare, native ferns in California.  If this thrips became established in California, it could feed on and impact our native ferns.  Therefore, it receives a Medium (2) in this category.

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

Environmental Impact:  B

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

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

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

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

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

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 Indusiothrips seshadrii: Low (8)

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: Indusiothrips seshadrii 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: Low (8)

Uncertainty:

No reports were found indicating that I. seshadrii has any economic or environmental impact, although this could simply reflect a lack of study of the biology of this species because it does not feed on economically-significant plants.  It is possible that I. seshadrii may not be capable of becoming established in California because it requires a tropical climate.

Conclusion and Rating Justification:

Indusiothrips seshadrii is a thrips that apparently feeds on ferns and is not known to be present in California.  It poses a risk to the environment, including rare fern species, of which there are many in California.  For these reasons, an “A” rating is justified.

References:

Kudô, I.  1992.  A new Malaysian thrips with notes on some species of Dendrothripoides and Indusiothrips (Thysanoptera, Thripidae).  Insecta Matsumurana.  47: 91-101.

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

Priesner, H.  1952.  On some new genera and species of Thysanoptera from the Oriental region.  Indian Journal of Entomology.  13: 183-200.

Symbiota Collections of Arthropods Network.  Accessed 18 December 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

4/30/18 – 6/14/18

*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 | Dryophthorus homoeorhynchus Perkins

California Pest Rating for 
Dryophthorus homoeorhynchus Perkins: weevil
Coleoptera: Dryopthoridae
Pest Rating: C

 

PEST RATING PROFILE
Initiating Event:

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

History & Status:

Background:  This beetle is black in color, elongate, and 4.5-6 mm in length.  The species has a short rostrum (“beak”) (Perkins, 1900).  Larvae of all species of Dryophthorus, including D. homoeorhynchus, apparently feed on rotting plant material, primarily wood.  Dryophthorus homoeorhynchus is reported to feed on decomposing Chrysodracon species (Dracaenaceae) in Hawaii (Swezey, 1931; Swezey, 1954; Wagner et al., 2005).  Other species in the genus are reported to feed on rotting hardwood and conifer wood, and at least one species has been reported to feed on rotting tree fern fronds (Hawaiian Entomological Society, 1928; O’Brien, 1997).

Worldwide Distribution:  This beetle is native to, and is only known to occur in Hawaii.  The species has been reported from Hawaii, Oahu, Maui, and Molokai islands (Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2009; Swezey, 1954).

Official Control: This beetle is not known to be under official control anywhere.

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

California Interceptions:  This beetle was intercepted on pineapple from Hawaii in February 2004 (California Department of Food and Agriculture).

The risk Dryophthorus homoeorhynchus would pose to California is evaluated below.

Consequences of Introduction:

1) Climate/Host Interaction: Dryophthorus homoeorhynchus is only known to occur in Hawaii. If this beetle requires the climate found in its current area of distribution, then only a small portion of California would offer a similar suitable climate.   At least one species in the family Dracaenaceae, Dracaena draco, is grown as an outdoor plant in California and could possibly serve as a host plant for homoeorhynchus.  Due to the apparent climate restrictions, it appears unlikely that this beetle could become established in more than a small portion of California.  Therefore, D. homoeorhynchus 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: Dryophthorus homoeorhynchus is only known to feed on the genus Chrysodracon. Therefore, it receives a Low (1) in this category.

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

– Medium (2) has a moderate host range.

– High (3) has a wide host range.

3) Pest Dispersal Potential: The biology of homoeorhynchus is poorly known.  The beetle is assumed to fly.  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: This beetle is only known to feed on dead plant material, as are all other members of the genus.  Negative economic impacts are unlikely if this beetle became established in California.  The species apparently feeds on decomposing plant material, not freshly-cut wood, and is known to be restricted to plants in the family Dracaenaceae, therefore there is little risk to timber. 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: Negative environmental impacts of this species if it became established in California appear minimal. The species feeds on dead plant material, and it appears to be restricted to a family of plants, the Dracaenaceae, that do not include any native California species.  Therefore, it receives a Low (1) in this category.

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

Environmental Impact:

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: 1

– 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 Dryophthorus homoeorhynchus: Low (6)

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: Dryophthorus homoeorhynchus 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: Low (6)

Uncertainty:

Dryophthorus homoeorhynchus may be able to tolerate cooler temperatures than are present in its native distribution.  If this is the case, the species could become established over a greater portion of California if suitable plant material is present.  The beetle may also be able to feed on plants in families other than Dracaenaceae.  Feeding on living plant tissue, however, has not been reported in Hawaii and apparently all species in the genus Dryophthorus feed on dead, rotting plant tissue.

Conclusion and Rating Justification:

Dryophthorus homoeorhynchus is a tropical/subtropical beetle that feeds on dead plants in the family Dracaenaceae, and it is a member of a genus that is apparently restricted to dead, rotting plant material.  This beetle appears to pose no threat, economic or environmental, to California.  For these reasons, a “C” rating is justified.

References:

California Department of Food and Agriculture.  Pest and damage record database.  Accessed March 22, 2018. https://pdr.cdfa.ca.gov/PDR/pdrmainmenu.aspx

Hawaiian Entomological Society.  1928.  January 6, 1927; notes and exhibitions.  Proceedings of the Hawaiian Entomological Society.  7: 1-31.

Natural Resources Conservation Service.  2009.  At-risk species and habitats lists.  Biology Technical Note.  22: 1-403.

O’Brien, C.W.  1997.  A catalog of the Coleoptera of America north of Mexico.  Family: Curculionidae.  Subfamilies: Acicnemidinae, Cossoninae, Rhytirrhininae, Molytinae, Petalochilinae, Trypetidinae, Dryophthorinae, Tachygoninae, Thecesterninae.  United States Department of Agriculture.  48 pp.

Perkins, R.C.L.  1900.  II.  Coleoptera Rhyncophora, Proterhinidae, Heteromera and Cioidae.  117-270 in   (D. Sharp, ed.) Fauna Hawaiiensis.  Cambridge University Press.  London.  579 pp.

Swezey, O.H.  1931.  Some new records of insects on Molokai.  Proceedings of the Hawaiian Entomological Society.  7: 485-488.

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

Symbiota Collections of Arthropods Network.  Accessed March 20, 2018. http://scan1.acis.ufl.edu

Wagner, W.L., Herbst, D.R., and Lorence, D.H.  2005.  Flora of the Hawaiian Islands.  Accessed March 20, 2018. http://botany.si.edu/pacificislandbiodiversity/hawaiianflora/index.htm

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

4/30/18 – 6/14/18

*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

A Leafhopper | Paraulacizes irrorata (Fabricus)

California Pest Rating for
Paraulacizes irrorata (Fabricius): a leafhopper
Hemiptera: Cicadellidae
Pest Rating: A

 

PEST RATING PROFILE
Initiating Event:

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

History & Status:

Background:  This is a large (~14 mm in length) leafhopper that is dark with numerous tiny, yellow spots (Overall and Rebek, 2017; Young, 1968).  It is reported to feed on a variety of plants, including thistles (Cirsium spp.) (Asteraceae), crape myrtle (Lagerstroemia indica) (Lythraceae), Virginia wildrye (Elymus virginicus) (Poaceae), horseweed (Conyza canadensis) (Asteraceae), prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola) (Asteraceae), wholeleaf rosinweed (Silphium integrifolium) (Asteraceae), and sorghum (Sorghum sp.) (Poaceae).  It is found in vineyards, fruit orchards, and tree nurseries, so it is possible that it feeds on grapevines and trees (Ma et al., 2010; Myers et al., 2007; Overall, 2013).  Eggs are laid inside twigs and woody/hardened stems and leaf petioles (Tipping et al., 2006).  In a study in North Carolina vineyards, P. irrorata was shown to carry Xylella fastidiosa, the bacteria that causes Pierce’s disease and almond leaf scorch (Myers et al., 2007; Sisterson et al., 2010).  However, P. irrorata has not yet been shown to transmit the disease (Overall and Rebek, 2017).

Worldwide Distribution:  Paraulacizes irrorata is reported from the central, northeastern, and southeastern United States, Canada (Ontario), and northern Mexico (Maw et al., 2000; Pajero et al., 2008).

Official Control: Paraulacizes irrorata is not known to be under official control anywhere.

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

California Interceptions:  Paraulacizes irrorata has been intercepted on plants from Arkansas, West Virginia, Louisiana, and Oklahoma in 1992, 2000, and 2007, in a trailer from Arkansas in 2017, on aircraft from Tennessee in 2000 and 2002, and on a FedEx shipment from Florida in 2017 (California Department of Food and Agriculture).

The risk Paraulacizes irrorata would pose to California is evaluated below.

Consequences of Introduction:

1) Climate/Host Interaction: The distribution of Paraulacizes irrorata extends from northern Mexico to Ontario, Canada.  This suggests that it could become established over a wide area in California.  This leafhopper feeds on a wide variety of plants, and there are likely suitable host plants in much of the state.  Therefore, Paraulacizes irrorata 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: Paraulacizes irrorata has been reported to feed on at least seven genera of plants in three families, but it probably has a much broader host range than this. 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: Paraulacizes irrorata presumably flies.  Therefore, it receives a Medium (2) in this category.

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

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

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

4) Economic Impact: Paraulacizes irrorata feeds on a broad range of plants.  The feeding damage could possibly lower crop yield, but a more serious concern, and a general one for the family Cicadellidae, is the potential for vectoring plant diseases.  It is not known if irrorata can vector plant diseases, but it has been confirmed as a carrier of Xylella fastidiosa, the bacteria that causes Pierce’s disease and almond leaf scorch.  If it was introduced to California, P. irrorata could potentially vector such pathogens and impact crops, including grapes and almonds.  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: The presence of Praulacizes irrorata could trigger treatment programs. Therefore, it receives a Medium (2) in this category.

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

Environmental Impact:  D

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

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

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

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

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

Environmental Impact Score: 2

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

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

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

Consequences of Introduction to California for Paraulacizes irrorata: 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: Paraulacizes irrorata 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 possible impact of Paraulacizes irrorata is somewhat speculative and it is based on demonstrated examples of impact from other cicadellid species and the possibility of this leafhopper vectoring Pierce’s disease (or other diseases) in crops, including grapes.  This leafhopper has not been proven to transmit any plant diseases.

Conclusion and Rating Justification:

Paraulacizes irrorata is a plant-feeding insect that is potentially capable of vectoring plant diseases, including the causative agent of Pierce’s disease, Xylella fastidiosa.  There is little evidence that P. irrorata has a significant economic or environmental impact in its current range.  However, if it was established in California, this insect would be exposed to a new combination of variables, including new host plants and plant diseases; it is difficult to predict what impacts could result.  For these reasons, an “A” rating is justified.

References:

California Department of Food and Agriculture.  Pest and damage record database.  Accessed April 2, 2018. https://pdr.cdfa.ca.gov/PDR/pdrmainmenu.aspx

Maw, H.E.L., Foottit, R.G., Hamilton, K.G.A., and Scudder, G.G.E.  2000.  Checklist of the Hemiptera of Canada and Alaska.  National Research Council, Canada.  220 pp.

Myers, A.L., Sutton, T.B., Abad, J.A., and Kennedy, G.G.  2007.  Pierce’s disease of grapevines; Identification of the primary vectors in North Carolina.  Phytopathology.  97: 1440-1450.

Overall, L.M.  2013.  Incidence of Xylella fastidiosa in Oklahoma, survey of potential insect vectors, and identification of potential plant reservoir hosts.  Ph.D. Dissertation.  Oklahoma State University.  155 pp.

Overall, L.M. and Rebek, E.J.  2017.  Insect vectors and current management strategies for diseases caused by Xylella fastidiosa in the southern United States.  Journal of Integrated Pest Management.  8: 1-12.

Paiero, S.M., Marshall, S.A., Pratt, P.D., and Buck, M.  2008.  The insects of Ojibway Prairie, a southern Ontario tallgrass prairie.

Sisterson, M.S., Thammiraju, S.R., Lynn-Patterson, K., Groves, R.L., and Daane, K.M.  2010.  Epidemiology of diseases caused by Xylella fastidiosa in California: Evaluation of alfalfa as a source of vectors and inocula. Plant Disease. 94: 827-834.

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

Tipping, C., Triapitsyn, S.V., and Mizell III, R.F.  2006.  First record of an egg parasitoid for the North American proconiine sharpshooter Paraulacacizes irrorata (Hemiptera: Cicadellidae), with notes on rearing techniques.  Florida Entomologist.  89(2): 288-289.

Young, D.A.  1968.  Taxonomic study of the Cicadellinae (Homoptera: Cicadellidae); Part 1: Proconiini.  United States National Museum Bulletin.  261.  287 pp.

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

4/30/18 – 6/14/18

*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 | Arhopalus pinetorum (Wollaston)

California Pest Rating for
Arhopalus pinetorum (Wollaston) |  Longhorned Beetle
Coleoptera: Cerambycidae
Pest Rating: A

PEST RATING PROFILE

Initiating Event:

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

History & Status:

Background:  Arhopalus pinetorum is a reddish-brown beetle that is approximately 14 mm in length (Wollaston, 1863).  Like most other cerambycids, the larvae develop in wood.  This species is apparently restricted to dead pine trees with bark; it has been reported to develop in pines that are native to its area of distribution (including Canary Island pine, Pinus canariensis) as well as introduced pines (García, 2005; Vives, 2007).

Worldwide Distribution:  Arhopalus pinetorum is native to the Canary Islands of Spain and the Madeira archipelago of Portugal.  This beetle is rated as Near Threatened by the IUCN because of its small area of distribution, although it can be abundant where it occurs (Dodelin et al., 2017; Vives, 2007).

Official Control: Arhopalus pinetorum is not known to be under official control anywhere.

California Distribution:  This beetle is not known to be present in California, although it was found in Los Angeles County in 2001 (see California Interceptions, below) (Symbiota Collections of Arthropods Network).

California Interceptions:  This species was trapped in Los Angeles County in July 2001 (Duerr, 2005; Rabaglia et al., 2008).

The risk Arhopalus pinetorum would pose to California is evaluated below.

Consequences of Introduction:

1) Climate/Host Interaction: The distribution of pinetorum includes areas with Mediterranean, desert, and subtropical climates. The climate of a large portion of California could be suitable for the establishment of this species, but northern and high mountain areas may be too cold.  Pines are widely distributed in California, and A. pinetorum is not restricted to pine species that occur in its native range, so suitable host plants are likely to be present statewide.  Therefore, this species 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: This species is apparently limited to pines (Pinus species). It originally may have been restricted to the native Pinus canariensis, but has been reported to feed on other (unidentified) species as well.  Therefore, it receives a Low (1) in this category.

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

– Medium (2) has a moderate host range.

– High (3) has a wide host range.

3) Pest Dispersal Potential: Other Arhopalus species fly, and it is presumed that pinetorum can as well (Pawson et al., 2010).  Arhopalus pinetorum may be artificially dispersed through the movement of wood products, including firewood.  Arhopalus is the most commonly-intercepted genus of cerambycid in wood products and wood packing materials at United States ports of entry (Eyre and Haack, 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: This beetle is apparently restricted to dead pines.  No reports were found of any Arhopalus species attacking healthy, living trees.  Cerambycids that attack dead trees (trees that have been cut or killed by fire or other causes) reduce the value of the wood, both through their tunneling as well as from staining by fungi that invade through the beetle’s tunnels (Lowell et al., 2010).  More rapid harvesting of wood is one method used to avoid such damage.  Arhopalus species are capable of degrading fire-killed trees before they can be harvested (Bradbury, 1998; Eaton and Lyon, 1955; Hosking and Bain, 1977).  Arhopalus pinetorum could impact salvage harvesting of fire-killed timber in California.  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: Arhopalus pinetorum is only known to feed on dead pine trees. Therefore, it is not likely to threaten living trees.  However, it could compete with native wood-feeding insects, and may influence the degradation of dead pines in California.  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 Arhopalus pinetorum: Medium (9)

Add up the total score and include it here.

–Low = 5-8 points

–Medium = 9-12 points

–High = 13-15 points

6) Post Entry Distribution and Survey Information: The 2001 detection in Los Angeles County represents the only known find of this species in this state.  For the purpose of this proposal, it is assumed that A. pinetorum is not established in California.  The species 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 (9)

Uncertainty:

This beetle would possibly display broader feeding preferences in California.  There is some suggestion in the literature that Arhopalus species may sometimes attack trees that are living (but “sick” or otherwise compromised), but documented examples of such attacks were not found (Wang and Leschen, 2003).  If living (whether stressed or not) trees could be attacked in California by A. pinetorum, then the risk posed by this beetle has been underestimated in this proposal.

Conclusion and Rating Justification:

Arhopalus pinetorum is a beetle that feeds on dead pine trees.  This species could become established in a large portion of California, and if this occurred, it could have an impact on the timber industry and on the native decomposer fauna associated with dead pines.  For these reasons, an “A” rating is justified.

References:

Bradbury, P.M.  1998.  The effects of the burnt pine longhorn beetle and wood-staining fungi on fire damaged Pinus radiata in Canterbury.  New Zealand Forestry.  43: 28-31.

Dodelin, B., Alexander, K., Audisio, P., Jansson, N., Legakis, A., Liberto, A., Makris, C., and X. Vazquez.  2017. Arhopalus pinetorum. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.  Accessed February 20, 2018. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2017-3.RLTS.T86803993A87310373.en

Duerr, D.A. 2005. Early detection and rapid response pilot project.  In (K.W. Gottshalk, ed.)

Proceedings, 16th United States Department of Agriculture Interagency research forum on gypsy moth and other invasive species 2005.  USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station. (pp. 16-17)

Eaton, C.B. and R.L. Lyon.  1955.  Arhopalus productus (Lec.), a borer in new buildings.  United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service California Forest and Range Experiment Station Technical Paper.  11: 1-11.

Eyre, D. and R.A. Haack.  2017.  Invasive cerambycid pests and biosecurity measures.  In (Q. Wang, ed.) Cerambycidae of the World: Biology and Pest Management.  CRC Press.  (pp. 563-618).

García, R.  2005.  Distribución de la familia Cerambycidae (Coleoptera) en la isla de La Palma.  Revista de Estudios Generales de la Isla de La Palma.  1: 141-170.

Hosking, G.P. and J. Bain.  1977.  Arhopalus ferus (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae); its biology in New Zealand.  New Zealand Journal of Forestry Science.  7(1): 3-15.

Lowell, E.C., Rapp, V.A., Haynes, R.W., and C. Cray.  2010.  Effects of fire, insect, and pathogen damage on wood quality of dead and dying western conifers.  United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.  General Technical Report PNW-GTR-816.  73 pp.

Pawson, S., Watson, M., and A. Brin.  2010.  Relative attraction of Arhopalus ferus to white and yellow site lighting at Port Tauranga.  Scion.

Rabaglia, R., Duerr, D., Acciavatti, R., and I. Ragenovich.  2008.  Early detection and rapid response for non-native bark and ambrosia beetles.  United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Health Protection.

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

Vives, E.  2007.  Nuevo catálogo de los Cerambycidae (Coleoptera) de la Península Ibérica, islas Baleares e islas atlánticas: Canarias, Açores y Madeira.  Sociedad Entomológica Aragonesa.  Zaragoza.  211 pp.

Wang, Q. and R.A.B. Leschen.  2003.  Identification and distribution of Arhopalus species (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae: Aseminae) in Australia and New Zealand.  New Zealand Entomologist.  26: 53-59.

Wollaston, T.V.  1863.  On the Canarian longicorns.  Journal of Entomology.  2(8): 99-110.

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

4/25/18 – 6/9/18

*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 

B-Rated, Weeds

Wall Fumitory | Fumaria muralis

California Pest Rating Profile

Fumaria muralis Sand W.D. J. Koch  |  Wall Fumitory
Ranunculales: Papaveraceae
Pest Rating: C | Seed Rating: Not Rated
Initiating Event:

Fumaria muralis has been observed growing naturally in Santa Clara county in February 2018 by Italian botanist Valerio Lazzeri. This species is thought to be new to California. CDFA has not intercepted this species via any regulatory means to date and no rating has been assigned to this species. A pest rating proposal is required to assign a permanent rating.

History & Status:

Background:

Fumaria muralis is a sprawling annual herb that is delicate, hairless, branched and dull green in color. Its stems are weak, angular and are 10-50cm long. The leaves are finely divided down to midrib, lance to pear shaped, and form a rosette on young plants. Flowers are small, tubular and narrow with a red to pink to purple coloring and darker tips (Global Net Academy, 2018). Fumaria muralis can be distinguished from other related species by its larger flowers that have pink petals with a dirty red color at the tips. Flowering time is from June to December. It has less than 15 flowers per flowerhead and the fruit stems are erect (International Environmental Weed Foundation, 2005).

Fumaria muralis is native to Europe and north Africa (Western Australia Herbarium, 2017). It occurs commonly in crops, pastures, roadsides, home gardens and waste places (Tamar Natural Resource Management, 2015). Any soil disturbance can cause mass emergence of seedlings. Naturalized populations are found in agricultural fields but it has also been found on pond margins, in coastal dunes, on rough grounds and in dumps (Groom, 2013)

Fumaria muralis can germinate throughout the year but the main flush occurs from April to October. It grows actively from May to November. It can be difficult to control due to a persistent soil seed bank. Herbicide treatment may or may not be effective because various fumaria species can be resistant to herbicides (Western Australia Herbarium, 2017).

Worldwide Distribution:

Fumaria muralis is native in Europe and North Africa. It is widely naturalized outside its native range. Naturized populations occur in southern Australia (Western Australia Herbarium, 2017), Tasmania (Global Net Academy, 2018), and Canada (Brouillet et al. 2010)

Official Control:

Fumaria muralis has been reported as a harmful organism in Brazil and is under official control (USDA- APHIS- PCIT).

California Distribution: Fumaria muralis has been recently (February 2018) observed occurring naturally in Santa Clara county and a voucher specimen has been confirmed by a botanist in Italy, Valerio Lazzeri.

California Interceptions:  Fumaria muralis has not been intercepted by CDFA through any regulatory pathways.

The risk Fumaria muralis (wall fumitory) would pose to California is evaluated below.

Consequences of Introduction: 

1) Climate/Host Interaction: Fumaria muralis grows in plant hardiness zone of 5 -9 in Europe. It prefers heavy soils and high April rainfall (Murrumbidgee Catchment Management Authority, 2008). Fumaria muralis is growing naturally in limited areas of California, near habitats like creek, trails and parks. It is also likely to grow in pastures, roadsides, home gardens and waste lands.  It receives a Medium (2) in this category.

Evaluate if the pest would have suitable hosts and climate to establish in California.  Score:

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

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

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

2) Known Pest Host Range: Fumaria muralis do not require one host but can occur where environmental conditions are favorable for its growth and establishment. 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:  Fumaria reproduces seeds can remain viable in in the ground for up to 20 years. Seeds can germinate throughout the year and the plant can grow actively for half the year. Dispersal is through contaminated seed, soil movement and water runoff. Long and short range dispersal can also be aided by human and ant activity. 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: Fumaria muralis may compete strongly with crops, particularly cereals, vegetable and legume crops. The impacts of Fumaria sp. depends on the affected crop, time of emergence and density of infestation (Norton 2003). Fumaria species can reduce wheat yields by up to 40% and canola yields by up to 36% (Best management practices for dryland cropping systems, 2008). If this species were to establish in California, cultural practices such as cultivation, crop rotation, grazing, burning crop residues, use of competitive crops and seed cleaning would likely to be modified to reduce its growth and establishment. It receives a High (3) in this category.

Evaluate the economic impact of the pest to California using the criteria below: 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: Fumaria muralis is not likely to lower biodiversity and change ecosystems. Fumaria spps. can be weeds of gardens, roadsides and disturbed areas and are not likely to affect endangered and threatened species in California. Because it is a likely garden weed, it could impact home and urban gardening.  It receives a Medium (2) in this category.

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

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

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

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

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

Score the pest for Environmental Impact. Score: 2

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

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

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

Consequences of Introduction to California for Fumaria muralis (wall fumitory) Medium (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:  Fumaria muralis has been found occurring naturally in limited part of California but has not established fully in the state and receives a Low (-1) in this category.

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

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

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

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

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

Final Score:

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

Uncertainty:

Fumaria muralis has been observed growing naturally but in very limited areas. Since it is like other weedy Fumaria spps, it could be more widespread than currently reported. Further sampling and examining other Fumaria specimens may reduce uncertainty regarding current distribution of this species

Conclusion and Rating Justification:

Fumaria muralis has been verified in California in 2018, but it has not caused any significant economic and environment impacts to the State’s agriculture and urban environment yet. However, recent credible reports indicate that is more widespread than recognized and occupies areas where other fumitory species might be expected. According to reports from Europe, it acts as other weedy species of Fumaria, so it would likely have no more impact than they do; therefore, its impacts would be modest.  A “C” rating is justified.

References:

Brouillet et al. 2010+. Fumaria muralis Sonder ex W.D.J. Koch in VASCAN, the Database of Vascular Plants of Canada. Accessed 03/05/2018: https://www.gbif.org/species/100018818
http://data.canadensys.net/vascan/taxon/29050

Cal Flora 2018. Information on wild California plants for conservation, education and appreciation. Fumaria muralis. Accessed 03/01/2018:  https://www.calflora.org/entry/observ.html#srch=t&obs=parsons&cols=b

GlobalNet Academy 2018. Training and Consultancy Organization. Australia. Accessed  03/01/2018:  https://www.globalnetacademy.edu.au/what-weed-is-that-fumaria/

Groom, Q. 2013. Manual of the Alien plants of Belgium. Accessed 03/16/2018: http://alienplantsbelgium.be/content/fumaria-muralis

International Environmental Weed Foundation (IEWF) 2005. Common Invasive plants in Australia. Fumaria muralis. Accessed 03/06/2018: http://www.iewf.org/weedid/Fumaria_muralis.htm

Murrumbidgee Catchment Management Authority, 2008. Best management practices     for dryland cropping systems Fumaria species. New South Wales Government.  Department of Primary Industries. Accessed 03/05/2018:  http://archive.lls.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/495349/archive-fumitory.pdf

Phytosanitary Certificate Issuance & Tracking System (PCIT), Phytosanitary Export Database (PExD), USDA, APHIS. Accessed 03/01/2018: https://pcit.aphis.usda.gov/PExD/faces/ReportFormat.jsp

Tamar Natural Resource Management 2015. Tamar Valley Weed Strategy- Fumitory.  Tasmania, Australia. Accessed 03/06/2018:  http://www.weeds.asn.au/tasmanian-weeds/view-by-common-name/fumitory/

Western Australia Herbarium 2017. Flora base-The Western Australia Flora 2017.  Accessed 03/01/2018:  https://florabase.dpaw.wa.gov.au/browse/profile/2971

Author:

Raj Randhawa, 1220 ‘N’ Street, Room 221, Sacramento CA 95814, (916) 654-0317, plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov

Responsible Party:

Dean G. Kelch, Primary Botanist; California Department of Food and Agriculture; 1220 N Street, Sacramento, CA 95814; Tel. (916) 403-6650;  plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov.

Updated on 7/11/2019 by ls 

A-Rated, Coleoptera, Insects, Mites & Earthworms

Jewel Beetle | Actenodes auronotatus (Gory & Laporte)

California Pest Rating for
Jewel Beetle | Actenodes auronotatus (Gory & Laporte)
Coleoptera: Buprestidae
Pest Rating: A

 

PEST RATING PROFILE

Initiating Event:

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

History & Status:

Background:  Adult Actenodes auronotatus are approximately 1.5 cm in length.  The upper surface is brown and slightly bronzy with metallic golden-green spots (Fisher, 1942).  The larvae of this beetle, like most buprestids, live in and feed on wood.  This beetle has been found inside (presumably having developed in) the wood of Avicennia germinans (Verbenaceae), Cajanus cajan (Fabaceae), and Taxodium distichum (Cupressaceae) (Fisher, 1942; Hanula,1993; MacRae and Basham, 2013).  When information on the condition of the wood was given, it was reported to be dead.  Actenodes auronotatus has also been associated with (but not necessarily feeding on) Casuarina equisetifolia (Casuarinaceae) (Capelouto, 1949).  Other Actenodes species are associated with Acacia (Fabaceae), Acer (Aceraceae), Carya (Juglandaceae), Gleditsia (Fabaceae), Prosopis (Fabaceae), Quercus (Fagaceae), Ulmus (Ulmaceae), and Zelkova (Ulmaceae) species (Camacho-Pantoja, 2009; Hansen et al., 2012; MacRae and Bellamy, 2013; Nelson and MacRae, 1990; Westcott, 1990; Westcott et al., 1989).  Some of these records were of beetles reared from, or collected from the inside of branches of live trees, but in these cases, it was not reported if the branches themselves were alive or dead.

Worldwide Distribution:  This species is reported from Cuba, Haiti, eastern Mexico, and the southeastern United States (Florida, Georgia, and Louisiana) (Cancino and Blanco, 2002; Carlton et al., 2014; Fisher, 1942; García et al., 2010; Hespenheide and Bellamy, 2004; Peck, 2005).  Blackwelder (1944) reported A. auronotatus from Chile, but more recent reports of this species in that country were not found.

Official Control: Actenodes auronotatus is not known to be under official control anywhere.

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

California Interceptions:  Actenodes auronotatus was intercepted in a trailer from Florida in May 2006 (California Department of Food and Agriculture).

The risk Actenodes auronotatus would pose to California is evaluated below.

Consequences of Introduction:

1) Climate/Host Interaction: Actenodes auronotatus is apparently restricted to areas with tropical or subtropical climates, and it seems likely that if it can establish in California, it would be restricted to a limited area. Therefore, it 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: This beetle has been found inside and presumably developed in the wood of at least three botanical families. Therefore, it receives a Medium (2) in this category.

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

– Medium (2) has a moderate host range.

– High (3) has a wide host range.

3) Pest Dispersal Potential: Actenodes auronotatus presumably flies and can be moved in infested wood, including firewood.  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: Actenodes auronotatus has not been reported to feed on living trees, and no reports were found of any species in this genus being a pest.  However, some species of Buprestidae that are known to primarily feed on injured or dead trees can attack apparently healthy (though possibly stressed, from drought, for example) trees (Fettig, 2016; Furniss and Carolin, 1977).  There is little information available on the biology of auronotatus or the genus Actenodes.  If A. auronotatus can attack living trees, it could lower yield of timber.   Even if A. auronotatus cannot attack living trees, it could damage cut timber, lowering its value.  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.

4) Environmental Impact: If Actenodes auronotatus can attack living trees, it could impact forest ecosystems in California. 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 Actenodes auronotatus: 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: Actenodes auronotatus is not known to be present in California.  It receives a Not established (0) in this category.

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

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

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

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

Final Score:

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

Uncertainty:

The limited biological information available on A. auronotatus means that there is significant uncertainty in this proposal.  The most significant uncertainty is that regarding the potential for A. auronotatus to attack living trees.  Some buprestids that normally live in dying or dead trees attack living trees in dry conditions (e.g., during droughts).  Climate change may result in greater drought stress in California, which could make trees more susceptible to beetles like this one.  There is also uncertainty regarding the size range of wood that A. auronotatus utilizes.  It may only use branches, in which case the economic impact on already-cut wood would likely be minimal.  This proposal has taken a cautious approach.  It is possible that this  beetle feeds only on dead branches, in which case it would likely not pose an economic threat to California (because living trees and cut timber of larger dimensions would not be attacked).  In this case, it could still pose an environmental threat, because it would likely compete with native beetles that live inside dead wood.

Conclusion and Rating Justification:

Actenodes auronotatus is a member of a beetle family that includes important forest pests.  Although this species is not known to attack living trees, little is known about the biology of this species to exclude that possibility.  There is evidence that other buprestids that normally live in dead or dying trees can sometimes attack live trees.  If A. auronotatus can attack living trees or cut timber, it could have economic and environmental impacts in California, where it is not yet known to be present.  For these reasons, an “A” rating is justified.

References:

Blackwelder, R.E.  1944.  Checklist of the coleopterous insects of Mexico, Central America, the West Indies, and South America.  Bulletin of the United States National Museum. 185(2): 189–341.

California Department of Food and Agriculture.  Pest and damage record database.  Accessed February 14, 2018. https://pdr.cdfa.ca.gov/PDR/pdrmainmenu.aspx

Camacho-Pantoja, A.  2009.  Árboles de importancia forestal hospedantes de Buprestidae (Coleoptera) en México.  In (A.E. Martínez, E.E. Venegas, J.A.A. Soto, and M.P.C. Grijalva, eds.): Memoria del XV Simposio Nacional de Parasitología Forestal (pp. 36-39).

Capelouto, R.  1949.  Notes on the Florida Buprestidae (Coleoptera).  The Florida Entomologist.  32(3): 109-114.

Carlton, C.E., Johnson, W., Allison, J.D., MacRae, T.C., Tishechkin, A., Virgets, W., Ferro, M.L., and J.-S. Park.  2014.  Buprestidae of Louisiana: From traditional faunistics to early detection of the Emerald Ash Borer (poster).

E.R. Cancino and J.M.C. Blanco.  2002.  Artrópodos terrestres de los estados de Tamaulipas y Nuevo León, México.  Universidad Autónoma de Tamaulipas.  377 pp.

Fettig, C.J.  2016.  Chapter 18: Native bark beetles and wood borers in Mediterranean forests of California.  In (T.D. Paine and F. Lieutier, eds.) Insects and Diseases of Mediterranean Forests (pp. 499-528).  Springer.  892 pp.

Fisher, W.S.  1942.  A revision of the North American species of buprestid beetles belonging to the tribe Chrysobothrini.  United States Department of Agriculture Miscellaneous Publication.  470: 1-275.

Furniss, R.L. and V.M. Carolin.  1977.  Western forest insects. USDA Forest Service Miscellaneous Publication, Washington, DC.

García, I.F., Reyes Sánchez, E.E., and A.D. Álvarez.  2010.  Colección entomológica “Juan C. Gundlach”: Serie Elateriformia (Coleoptera).  Poeyana.  499: 5-12.

Hansen, J.A., Basham, J.P., Oliver, J.B., Youseef, N.N., Klingeman, W.E., Moulton, J.K., and D.C. Fare.  2012.  New state and host plant records for metallic woodboring beetles (Coleoptera: Buprestidae) in Tennessee, U.S.A.  The Coleopterists Bulletin.  66(4): 337-343.

Hanula, J.L.  1993.  Relationship of wood-feeding insects and coarse woody debris.  In (J.W. McMinn and D.A. Crossley, Jr., eds.) Biodiversity and Coarse Woody Debris in Southern Forests (pp. 55-81).  United States Department of Agriculture.  146 pp.

Hespenheide, H.A. and C.L. Bellamy.  2004.  The first Antillean Pachyschelus, and a new Leiopleura, from Hispaniola (Coleoptera: Buprestidae).  Folia Heyrovskana.  12(2-3): 105-112.

MacRae, T.C. and J.P. Basham.  2013.  Distributional, biological, and nomenclatural notes on Buprestidae (Coleoptera) occurring in the U.S. and Canada.  Pan-Pacific Entomologist.  89(3): 125-142.

MacRae, T.C. and C.L. Bellamy.  2013.  Two new species of Actenodes Dejean (Coleoptera: Buprestidae) from southern Mexico, with distributional and biological notes on Buprestidae from Mexico and Central America.  Pan-Pacific Entomologist.  89(2): 102-119.

Nelson, G.H. and T.C. MacRae.  1990.  Additional notes on the biology and distribution of Buprestidae (Coleoptera) in North America.  The Coleopterists Bulletin.  44(3): 349-354.

Peck, S.B.  2005.  A checklist of the beetles of Cuba with data on distributions and bionomics.  Arthropods of Florida and Neighboring Land Areas.  Volume 18.  Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services.  241pp.

Symbiota Collections of Arthropods Network.  Accessed February 9, 2018. http://scan1.acis.ufl.edu

Westcott, R.L.  1990.  Distributional, biological and taxonomic notes on North American Buprestidae (Coleoptera).  Insecta Mundi.  4(1-4): 73-80.

Westcott, R.L., Atkinson, T.H., Hespenheide, H.A., and G.H. Nelson.  1989.  New country and state records, and other notes for Mexican Buprestidae (Coleoptera).  Insecta Mundi.  3(3): 217-232.

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

4/25/18 – 6/9/18

*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 

B-Rated, Coleoptera, Insects, Mites & Earthworms

Hypothenemus eruditus Westwood

California Pest Rating for
Hypothenemus eruditus Westwood
Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae
Pest Rating: B

 

PEST RATING PROFILE
Initiating Event:

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

History & Status:

Background: This tiny (1-1.2 mm in length) bark beetle is one of the most widely-distributed and variable species in the genus Hypothenemus (Bright and Stark, 1973).  The beetle has been reported to feed on hundreds of species of plants and other materials as well, including fungus and even the cover of a book (evidently the reason for the choice of the name eruditus) (Huang, 2016; Turner and Beaver, 2015; Wood, 1982).  In plants, it is reported to feed in dying twigs and branches (Bright and Stark, 1973).  Females mate with their flightless male siblings before leaving the gallery.  Hypothenemus eruditus does not appear to cause any recognized economic or environmental impact (Huang, 2016; Turner and Beaver, 2015).  Recent work suggest that there may be multiple (>10) cryptic species that are currently identified as Hypothenemus eruditus; this is perhaps not surprising, given the many synonyms listed for it, its minute size, and its morphological variability (Huang, 2016; Kirkendall and Jordal, 2006).

Worldwide Distribution: Hypothenemus eruditus is widely distributed.  The species occurs in Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia, North America, Central America, and South America.  In the United States, it occurs in the eastern United States and in California (Bright and Stark, 1973; Wood, 1982.

Official Control: Hypothenemus eruditus is not known to be under any official control.

California Distribution:  Hypothenemus eruditus has been reported from Los Angeles, Orange, San Diego, and Santa Barbara counties.  Records representing collections exclusive of nurseries were found for the following localities: Santa Barbara County: Arroyo Hondo Preserve (2002); Santa Rosa Island, Cherry Canyon, Torrey pines grove, and Windmill Canyon (2008); San Diego County: Santee (2012) (PDR# 1316740) (Bright and Stark, 1973; CDFA Pest and Damage Record; Symbiota Collections of Arthropods Network).

California Interceptions: Hypothenemus eruditus has been intercepted twice on shipments entering California: Once on dried twigs from Laos (PDR# 050455) and once on Polyscias fruticosa from Florida (PDR# 063283).  As mentioned above, this beetle was also found on avocado in a residential garden in Santee, San Diego County, California (PDR# 1316740).

The risk Hypothenemus eruditus would pose to California is evaluated below.

Consequences of Introduction:

1) Climate/Host Interaction: Hypothenemus eruditus occurs widely in the United States.  The species occurs in California and on the east coast, from New Hampshire to Florida and west to Illinois and Texas.  This suggests that eruditus could become established over a significant portion of California.  The list of hosts includes hundreds of species of plants and fungi.  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: Hypothenemus eruditus is known to feed on hundreds of species of plants, as well as fungi. 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: Hypothenemus eruditus is capable of sustained flight. Females mate with their flightless male siblings, so they leave their development site ready to colonize new host material (Huang, 2016).  The beetle can also be transported in wood and wood products. 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: Hypothenemus eruditus is not known to be an economically-significant pest (Huang, 2016).  The species already occurs in California and the eastern United States and it has a widespread world distribution.  However, no reports have been found suggesting that it has an economic impact.  However, there is the possibility that other species, including cryptic ones, could be identified at eruditus.  Such species could pose a threat to California agriculture, for example, lowering crop yield and increasing crop production costs.  Therefore, it receives a Medium (2) in this category.

Economic Impact: A, B

A. The pest could lower crop yield.

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

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

D. The pest could negatively change normal cultural practices.

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

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

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

Economic Impact Score: Medium (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: Hypothenemus eruditus is not known to have an environmental impact anywhere. The beetle already occurs in California and the eastern United States and no reports were found of it having an environmental impact.  However, this could reflect a lack of research rather than a lack of impact.  In addition, there is the possibility that other species of Hypothenemus, including cryptic ones, could be identified at eruditus.  Such species could pose a threat to the environment, for example, by disrupting natural communities.  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: Medium (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 Hypothenemus eruditus: 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: Although this species is likely present in additional areas of California, Hypothenemus eruditus has been reported from outdoor, non-nursery localities in Santa Barbara and San Diego Counties.  It receives a Low (-1) in this category.

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

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

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

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

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 regarding Hypothenemus eruditus is the species identity itself.  There is evidence that there are actually multiple (>10) species that are currently recognized as H. eruditus.  There is a risk that a species with biological characteristics differing from those considered for H. eruditus could be intercepted and not be regulated because it is identified as that species.  Such a cryptic species could have greater (than is recognized for H. eruditus) potential for economic and/or environmental impact.  Systematic research on Hypothenemus is needed.  There is also a significant likelihood that H. eruditus is more widespread in California than is currently known.  It is a tiny beetle and is not easy to identify.

Conclusion and Rating Justification:

Hypothenemus eruditus is widely distributed and is not known to have any economic or environmental impacts.  However, there is evidence that multiple cryptic species of Hypothenemus may be currently identified as H. eruditus.  A cautious approach has been taken and a “B” rating is justified.

References:

Bright Jr., D.E. and R.W. Stark.  1973.  The Bark and Ambrosia Beetles of California.  University of California Press.  169 pp.

Huang, Y.T.  2016.  Featured creatures: Hypothenemus eruditus Westwood.  University of Florida. http://entnemdept.ufl.edu/creatures/trees/beetles/Hypothenemus_eruditus.htm

Kirkendall, L. R. and B.H. Jordal.  2006.  The bark and ambrosia beetles (Curculionidae, Scolytinae) of Cocos Island, Costa Rica and the role of mating systems in island zoogeography.  Biological Journal of the Linnean Society.  89: 729-743.

Symbiota Collections of Arthropods Network.  Accessed 5 February 2018. http://scan1.acis.ufl.edu

Turner, C.R. and R.A. Beaver.  2015.  Hypothenemus eruditus Westwood and Hypothenemus seriatus (Eichhoff) (Curculionidae: Scolytinae: Cryphalini) in Britain.  The Coleopterist.  24(1): 12-15.

Wood, S.L.  1982.  The bark and ambrosia beetles of North and Central America (Coleoptera: Scolytidae), a taxonomic monograph.  Great Basin Naturalist Memoirs.  6: 1-1356.

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

4/25/18 – 6/9/18

*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: B

Posted by ls 

B-Rated, Hemiptera, Insects, Mites & Earthworms

Pink Hibiscus Mealybug | Maconellicoccus hirsutus (Green)

4 Comments
California Pest Rating for
Pink Hibiscus Mealybug | Maconellicoccus hirsutus (Green)
Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae
Pest Rating:  A

 

PEST RATING PROFILE

Initiating Event:

August 26, 2014, Dr. Gillian Watson identified Maconellicoccus hirsutus from a sample collected on 100 heavily infested silk oak trees at a golf course in Rancho Mirage, Riverside County.  The mealybug was previously eradicated from Riverside County in 2011.  Follow-up surveys have revealed that the pest is now widespread and abundant in Riverside County.  An updated pest rating proposal is needed to determine future direction.

History & Status:

Background:  Maconellicoccus hirsutus is a highly polyphagous mealybug that feeds on the stems, leaves, buds, fruit, and roots of plants in more than 200 genera in 77 plant families1,2.  Economically important hosts include grapes, citrus, avocado, cotton, Prunus spp., Solanum spp., and ornamentals.  While feeding, the mealybug injects toxic saliva into plants that inhibits cell enlargement, causing stunting of new growth and curling and contortion of leaves7.  Entire plants may be stunted and deformed7.  High populations can lead to the death of plants7.  The mealybug can spread long distances through the trade in host plants and fruit.

Worldwide Distribution: Maconellicoccus hirsutus is considered to be native to southern Asia1,2 and has invaded much of the Caribbean, Africa, Asia, Australia, Oceania, and South America.  In North America it has been found in Mexico, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Texas, and Imperial and Riverside counties, California3.  It has recently been detected and is under eradication in Tennessee6.

Official Control: Maconellicoccus hirsutus is listed as a quarantine pest by many nations including Antigua and Barbuda4, Bermuda4, Brazil4, Cayman Islands4, Chile4, Colombia4, Costa Rica4, Ecuador4, El Salvador4, Guatemala4, Honduras4, Israel4, Jamaica4, Japan4, Republic of Korea4, Mexico4, Morocco4, Nicaragua4, Panama4, Paraguay4, Peru4, South Africa4, Turkey4, Uruguay4, and the European Union2.

California Distribution:  Maconellicoccus hirsutus has been present in Imperial County since 1999.  The mealybug was detected in Riverside County in 2011 and successfully eradicated by the county.  The mealybug was detected again in Riverside County in 2014 infesting 100 silk oak trees at a golf course.

California Interceptions:  Maconellicoccus hirsutus is occasionally intercepted on fruit or plants headed for destinations within California, most often on longan fruits.

The risk Maconellicoccus hirsutus (pink hibiscus mealybug) would pose to California is evaluated below.

Consequences of Introduction: 

1) Climate/Host Interaction: Maconellicoccus hirsutus, due to its polyphagous nature, is likely to encounter suitable hosts throughout California. The present distribution of the mealybug corresponds to USDA plant hardiness zones 9-131, which encompasses much of California.  Pink hibiscus mealybug receives a High (3) in this category.

Evaluate if the pest would have suitable hosts and climate to establish in California.  Score:

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

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

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

2) Known Pest Host Range: Maconellicoccus hirsutus is known to feed on plants in more than 200 genera in 77 plant families.  The mealybug receives a High(3) in this category.

Evaluate the host range of the pest. Score:

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

– Medium (2) has a moderate host range.

– High (3) has a wide host range.

3) Pest Dispersal Potential: Pink hibiscus mealybug has a high reproductive rate.  Each female lays 150-600 eggs and there can be up to 15 generations per year2.  The crawlers of this mealybug are reported to be very active and are capable of spreading to nearby plants; furthermore, they may be dispersed by wind or by hitchhiking on clothing, equipment, or animals.  The mealybugs may also be spread long distances through the movement of infested plants or fruit.  Maconellicoccus hirsutus receives a High (3) in this category.

Evaluate the natural and artificial dispersal potential of the pest. Score:

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

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

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

4) Economic Impact: Maconellicoccus hirsutus has been present in Imperial County since 1999, where it has been successfully controlled by biological control agents.  No economic damages in California are presently attributed to this pest.  In the presence of effective biological control, the mealybug is not expected to lower crop yields.  In the absence of effective biological control, yields are likely to be reduced (see uncertainty section below).  As it feeds on a wide variety of ornamentals, the mealybug may increase crop production costs in nurseries by triggering new chemical treatments to ensure clean nursery stock.  The mealybug is listed as a quarantine pest by many nations and its presence is likely to disrupt markets for California fresh fruit.  Pink hibiscus mealybug is not expected change cultural practices, vector pestiferous organisms, injure agriculturally important animals, or interfere with the delivery or supply of water for agricultural uses.  Maconellicoccus hirsutus receives a Medium (2) in this category.

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

A. The pest could lower crop yield.

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

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

D. The pest could negatively change normal cultural practices.

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

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

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

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

– Medium (2) causes 2 of these impacts.

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

5) Environmental Impact: Maconellicoccus hirsutus is not expected to lower biodiversity, disrupt natural communities, or change ecosystem processes.  Algodones Dunes sunflower (Helianthus niveus tephrodes), Bakersfield cactus (Opuntia basilaris var. treleasei), and small-leaved rose (Rosa minutifolia) are listed as threatened or endangered plants in California and are potential hosts of this mealybug.  An infestation of the mealybug in Riverside County in 2011 was eradicated by the county, indicating that the presence of this pest may trigger additional official treatment programs.  Additional treatments are also likely in the nursery industry and by residents who find infested plants unsightly.  In some cases, the mealybug is likely to be managed by biological control programs such that it does not significantly impact cultural practices, home/urban gardening, or ornamental plantings.  However, due to its extremely high reproductive rate and broad host range it is likely to sometimes cause significant damage to ornamental plants as it encounters them before biological control agents.  Maconellicoccus hirsutus receives a High (3) in this category.

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

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: 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 Maconellicoccus hirsutus (pink hibiscus mealybug):  High(14)

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: Maconellicoccus hirsutus is only known to be established in Imperial and Riverside counties. The mealybug receives a Low (-1) in this category.

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

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

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

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

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

Final Score:

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

Uncertainty:

There have been no recent statewide surveys for the mealybug, so it may have a larger distribution within California.  In the absence of surveys or official control, trading partners are likely to regulate the entire state, so range expansions of pink hibiscus mealybug may not trigger new impacts on fruit exports.  Pheidole megacephala (bigheaded ant) has recently been detected in California.  This is an aggressive ant that is likely to tend pink hibiscus mealybug and consume all parasites and predators it encounters, reducing the effectiveness of biological control5.  As bigheaded ant expands its range through southern California it is likely to facilitate the invasion of Maconellicoccus hirsutus and may disrupt the presently successful biological control program.  If this were to occur, yield of economically important crops such as almonds, peaches, pistachios, walnuts, olives, and citrus may be reduced.  Crop quality and production costs by increase in the long term.  This may elevate the economic impact of the pest to High (3).

Conclusion and Rating Justification:

Maconellicoccus hirsutus is a highly polyphagous mealybug with a limited distribution within California at present.  If it enters commercial fruit groves and vineyards the presence of the mealybug is likely to close or restrict export markets for fresh fruit.  If found outside of its present distribution, it will likely trigger treatment or biological control programs.  Although pink hibiscus mealybug has been known to be present in California since 1999 it remains under official active management programs including survey and biological control.  The “A” rating is supported while these remain in effect.

References:

1Culliney, T.W.  2014.  Deregulation Evaluation of Established Pests (DEEP); DEEP Report on Maconellicoccus hirsutus (Green): Egyptian hibiscus mealybug, pink hibiscus mealybug.

2Data sheets on quarantine pests:  Maconellicoccus hirsutus.  2005.  European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization.  OEPP/EPPO Bulletin 35, 413-415.  http://www.eppo.int/QUARANTINE/insects/Maconellicoccus_hirsutus/DS_Maconellicoccus_hirsutus.pdf

3Ben-Dov, Y. 2014. ScaleNet, Maconellicoccus hirsutus. Available online at http://www.sel.barc.usda.gov/catalogs/pseudoco/Maconellicoccushirsutus.htm  Accessed on 9 April 2014.

4USDA Phytosanitary Certificate Issuance & Tracking System (PCIT) Phytosanitary Export Database (PExD).  https://pcit.aphis.usda.gov/pcit/

5Buckley, Ralf and Penny Gullan.  1991.  More aggressive ant species (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) provide better protection for soft scales and mealybugs (Homoptera: Coccidae, Pseudococcidae).  Biotropica 23(3): 282-286. http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2388205?uid=3739560&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21104122016081

6NAPIS; Email updated dated September 2, 2014.  http://pest.ceris.purdue.edu/capsreview.php?code=IRAWBIA

7Hoy, Marjorie A., Avas Hamon, and Ru Nguyen. 2006. Common name: pink hibiscus mealybug. University of Florida Featured Creatures. http://entnemdept.ufl.edu/creatures/orn/mealybug/mealybug.htm

Responsible Party:

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

Comment Period:* CLOSED

4/25/18 – 6/9/18

*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