Category Archives: A-Rated

“A”
A pest of known economic or environmental detriment and is either not known to be established in California or it is present in a limited distribution that allows for the possibility of eradication or successful containment. A-rated pests are prohibited from entering the state because, by virtue of their rating, they have been placed on the of Plant Health and Pest Prevention Services Director’s list of organisms “detrimental to agriculture” in accordance with the FAC Sections 5261 and 6461. The only exception is for organisms accompanied by an approved CDFA or USDA live organism permit for contained exhibit or research purposes. If found entering or established in the state, A-rated pests are subject to state (or commissioner when acting as a state agent) enforced action involving eradication, quarantine regulation, containment, rejection, or other holding action.

Chrysanthemum white rust – Puccinia horiana (Hennings 1901)

California Pest Rating Proposal for

Chrysanthemum white rust | Puccinia horiana (Hennings 1901)
Current Rating: Q
Proposed Rating: A

Comment Period: 6/6/2019 through 7/21/2019


Author/Responsible Party:

Dr. Heather J. Scheck, Primary State Plant Pathologist/Nematologist, California Department of Food and Agriculture, 204 West Oak Ave, Lompoc, CA 805-736-8050 email: 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.


Proposed Pest Rating: A


Posted by ls

Lethal yellowing of palm phytoplasma | CANDIDATUS PHYTOPLASMA PALMAE

California Pest Rating Proposal for

Candidatus Phytoplasma palmae (Lethal yellowing of palm phytoplasma)
[syn. Coconut lethal yellowing pathogen (Nutman & Roberts, 1955)]
Current Rating: A
Proposed Rating: A

Comment Period: 6/6/2019 through 7/21/2019


Author/Responsible Party:

Dr. Heather J. Scheck, Primary State Plant Pathologist/Nematologist, California Department of Food and Agriculture, 204 West Oak Ave, Lompoc, CA 805-736-8050 email: 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.


Proposed Pest Rating: A


Posted by ls

Hygrophila polysperma (Roxb.) T. Anderson

California Pest Rating Profile for

Hygrophila polysperma (Roxb.) T. Anderson: Indian swampweed
Lamiales- Acanthaceae
Pest Rating: A | Proposed Seed Rating: P


Comment Period CLOSED: 4/10/2019 – 5/25/2019
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.


Pest Rating: A | Proposed Seed Rating: P


Updated on 7/12/2019 by ls

Alstroemeria necrotic streak virus

California Pest Rating Profile for

Alstroemeria necrotic streak virus
Pest Rating: A

Comment Period CLOSED: 4/3/2019 – 5/18/2019


Author/Responsible Party:

John J. Chitambar, Primary Plant Pathologist/Nematologist, California Department of Food and Agriculture, Phone: 916-738-6693, plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov.


Pest Rating: A


Updated on 7/10/2019 by ls

White Prunicola Scale | Pseudaulacaspis prunicola

California Pest Rating for
Pseudaulacaspis prunicola (Maskell) | White prunicola scale
Hemiptera: Diaspididae
Pest Rating: A

PEST RATING PROFILE

Initiating Event:

In 2018, this scale was found in Solano County on Ligustrum sp. bonsai that had been purchased in Fresno County.  This scale currently has a Q-rating.  A permanent pest rating proposal is required to support an official pest rating.

History & Status:

Background:  Pseudaulacaspis prunicola is a polyphagous scale that is reported to feed on plants in 15 families.  Among the recorded hosts are fruit and ornamental trees, including Carica, Malus, and Prunus species (Agnello et al., 2015; Follett, 2000; Miller and Davidson, 2005).  Death of trees can result from feeding by this scale (Miller and Davidson, 2005).

There is some uncertainty regarding the species identity of P. prunicola.  This scale was considered a synonym of P. pentagona until 1980.  Kreiter et al. (1999) reported individuals in a single population that could be identified morphologically as either species.  Pseudaulacaspis pentagona is an A-rated (by CDFA) pest that is highly polyphagous and is reported to cause damage to a wide variety of plants, including peaches in the southeastern United States and papaya in Hawaii (Branscome, 1999; Follett, 2000).

Worldwide Distribution:  Pseudaulacaspis prunicola is thought to be native to temperate China or Japan (Miller and Davidson, 2005).  It has been introduced to Europe, the eastern United States, and Hawaii.  In the eastern United States, it is reported from Florida north to Massachusetts (Miller and Davidson, 2005).

Official Control: Pseudaulacaspis prunicola does not appear to be under official control in any country.  However, P. pentagona, which has been considered by some to be a senior synonym of P. prunicola, is a regulated pest in some countries (EPPO Global Database, 2018).

California Distribution:  Although P. prunicola has been collected at times in the state, this species does not appear to be established in California.

California Interceptions:  The P. prunicola found on Ligustrum sp. bonsai in Solano County in 2018 represents the only interception of this species in California.

The risk Pseudaulacaspis prunicola would pose to California is evaluated below.

Consequences of Introduction:

1) Climate/Host Interaction: Pseudaulacaspis prunicola has proven itself capable of becoming established in a variety of climates, and it is highly polyphagous.  It could probably establish a widespread distribution in California.  Therefore, prunicola receives a High (3) in this category.

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

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

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

2) Known Pest Host Range: Pseudaulacaspis prunicola is reported to feed on plants in at least 15 families.  Therefore, it receives a High (3) in this category.

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

– Medium (2) has a moderate host range.

– High (3) has a wide host range.

3) Pest Reproductive and Dispersal Potential: Pseudaulacaspis prunicola is likely to be transported via movement of infested plants.  Therefore, it receives a Medium (2) in this category.

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

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

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

4) Economic Impact: Pseudaulacaspis prunicola is reported to attack fruit and ornamental trees.  Feeding damage is reported to cause death of trees.  Infestations of this scale could lower crop yield and increase production costs.  Therefore, it receives a Medium (2) in this category.

Economic Impact: A, B

A. The pest could lower crop yield.

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

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

D. The pest could negatively change normal cultural practices.

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

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

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

Economic Impact Score: 2

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

– Medium (2) causes 2 of these impacts.

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

5) Environmental Impact: This scale is reported to kill ornamental trees.  Infestations could trigger treatment programs.  Therefore, it receives a High (3) in this category.

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

Environmental Impact: D, E

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

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

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

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

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

Environmental Impact Score: 3

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

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

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

Consequences of Introduction to California for Pseudaulacaspis prunicola: 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: Pseudaulacaspis prunicola is not known to be present in California.  It receives a Not Established (0) in this category.

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

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

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

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

Final Score:

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

Uncertainty:

There is taxonomic uncertainty regarding P. prunicola and P. pentagona; they have been considered to be the same species.  As P. pentagona is A-rated and is also not known to be present in California, the main implication of this uncertainty appears to be that the potential impact of P. prunicola could be greater than that considered in this PRP because there are additional hosts and additional climatic niche space reported for P. pentagona.

Conclusion and Rating Justification:

Pseudaulacaspis prunicola is a highly polyphagous scale that is not known to be present in California.  It has the potential to cause economic and environmental impacts in the state if it was to become established.  For these reasons, an “A” rating is justified.


References:

Agnello, A., Jentsch, P., and Kain, D.  2015.  Prebloom problemas.  Scaffolds Fruit Journal 24:1-3.

Branscome, D.  1999.  Pseudaulacaspis pentagona.  Accessed October 2, 2018: http://entnemdept.ufl.edu/creatures/orn/scales/white_peach_scale.htm

California Department of Food and Agriculture.  Pest and damage record database.  Accessed September 28, 2018:
https://pdr.cdfa.ca.gov/PDR/pdrmainmenu.aspx

EPPO Global Database.  2018.  Accessed October 4, 2018: https://gd.eppo.int/

Follett, P. A.  2000.  Arthropod pests of papaya in Hawaii.  Chronica Horticulturae 40:7-10.

Kreiter, P., Panis, A., and Tourniaire, R.  1999.  Variabilite morphologique chez Pseudaulacaspis pentagona Targioni Tozzetti dans une population du sud-est de la France (Hemiptera: Diaspididae).  Annales de la Société Entomologique de France 35:33-36.

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

Miller, D. R. and Davidson, J. A.  2005.  Armored scale insect pests of trees and shrubs (Hemiptera: Diaspididae).  Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY.


Responsible Party:

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


Comment Period:* CLOSED

12/6/2018 – 1/20/2019


*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 

Harrisia Cactus Mealybug | Hypogeococcus pungens

California Pest Rating for
Hypogeococcus pungens Granara de Willink | Harrisia cactus mealybug
Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae
Pest Rating: A

PEST RATING PROFILE

Initiating Event:

An infestation of Hypogeococcus pungens was discovered on cacti in a recreation area in Orange County in September 2018.  This mealybug currently has a Q-rating.  A permanent pest rating proposal is required to support an official pest rating.

History & Status:

Background:   Hypogeococcus pungens is a mealybug that has been reported to attack at least six genera of cacti as well as plants in the families Amaranthaceae, Polygonaceae, and Portulaceae (Hodges, 2009; Zimmermann et al., 2010).  Cactus feeding is concentrated on portions of the plant that are actively growing.  This results in distorted growth, including curling branches and growth of new, deformed branches that are sometimes referred to as galls (Le Quay-Velázquez et al., 2015).  Death can take years, especially in older plants, but feeding has an immediate impact of fruit production because the mealybugs are concentrated on developing flowers.  Therefore, this mealybug can have a severe impact on cactus reproduction (Patterson et al., 2011).

Natural dispersal appears to be limited but may include wind dispersal in the first instar (Zimmermann et al., 2010).  Movement of plants is probably the most effective means of spread of this mealybug.

In the 1970s and 1980s, this mealybug was introduced to Australia and South Africa as part of biological control programs targeting introduced cacti, including Harrisia spp. This mealybug was credited as an effective biological control agent, helping to clear cacti from thousands of hectares.

Aguirre et al. (2016) provided evidence that more than one species may be currently identified as H. pungens.  Specimens collected from the type host plant (Amaranthaceae) did not produce viable offspring or did not survive at all on cacti.  The cactus-feeding H. pungens introduced to Australia for biological control of cacti had been collected from cacti in Argentina.  Significantly, the H. pungens in Australia have not been found on Amaranthaceae, even though this family of plants is common in Australia.  The mealybug in Florida rarely attacks cacti but it is common on Alternanthera (Polygonaceae) and Portulaca (Portulaceae) species.  In addition, the Amaranthaceae-feeding H. pungens are reported to be parthenogenetic, whereas the cactus-feeding mealybug is not.  This evidence suggests there are likely at least two species currently recognized as H. pungens; one that feeds on cacti (native to South America and introduced to Australia, South Africa, the Caribbean, and possibly California) and one that feeds on Amaranthaceae and other plant families (also native to South America and introduced to Florida).

In addition, H. pungens has been misidentified as H. festerianus in the past (CABI, 2018).

In areas with native cacti but where H. pungens is not native to, there is concern that the mealybug could have an impact on native cacti.  Hypogeococcus pungens was reported to cause severe damage to native cacti in Puerto Rico, including reducing the density of cactus stems (Weaver, 2011).

Worldwide Distribution:  Hypogeococcus pungens is native to South America (northern Argentina, western Brazil, Paraguay, and Peru).  It has been introduced to Australia, the Caribbean (including the Dominican Republic and Puerto Rico), Europe (France, Greece, and Italy), South Africa, and the United States (Florida and Hawaii) (German-Ramirez et al., 2014; Hodges, 2009; Milonas et al., 2008; Pellizzari and Sacco, 2010; Segarra-Carmona et al., 2010).  As of 2009, it was reported from 26 counties in Florida (Hodges, 2009).

Official Control: Hypogeococcus pungens is considered Reportable by the USDA (USDA-APHIS).

California Distribution:  Hypogeococcus pungens was found in California in Beverly Hills in 2010, 2012, 2014, and 2018 and in a recreation area in Orange County in 2018.  Both of these infestations are now under eradication, and this species is not known to be present anywhere else in the state.

California Interceptions:  Hypogeococcus pungens was found on cacti at one residence in Beverly Hills (in 2010, 2012, 2014, and 2018), in a recreation area in Orange County in 2018, and in nurseries in Riverside, Orange, San Diego, and San Mateo County in 2004, 2011, 2012, and 2018.  It was intercepted on alternanthera and ludwigia plants from Florida in 2002 and 2004 (see comment on host breadth and taxonomic uncertainty, above).

The risk Hypogeococcus pungens would pose to California is evaluated below.

Consequences of Introduction:

1) Climate/Host Interaction: Hypogeococcus pungens has been reported from areas that vary in climate from temperate to semi-arid to tropical.  It has been reported to feed on plants in four families.  It could possibly establish a widespread distribution in California.  Therefore, pungens receives a High (3) in this category.

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

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

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

2) Known Pest Host Range: Four plant families are reported to be attacked by mealybugs that were identified as pungens.  Although it is possible that multiple species with different feeding habits are being lumped together in this PRP (see Background, above, and Uncertainty, below), it is necessary to consider characteristics of what has been (and are likely to be) identified as H. pungens.  Therefore, H. pungens receives a Medium (2) in this category.

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

– Medium (2) has a moderate host range.

– High (3) has a wide host range.

3) Pest Reproductive and Dispersal Potential: Some pungens are reported to be parthenogenetic, but see Background, above.  Natural dispersal ability appears to be limited, with wind-dispersal of first instar nymphs being reported as likely.  Movement of infested cactus plants is another likely mode of dispersal.  Therefore, it receives a Medium (2) in this category.

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

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

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

4) Economic Impact: Hypogeococcus pungens is likely to infest cacti in nurseries if it became established in California.  This could lead to higher costs of production.  Additionally, the presence of this mealybug could lead to a loss in cactus markets, as this pest threatens native cacti in other countries, including Mexico.  Therefore, it receives a Medium (2) in this category.

Economic Impact:  B, C

A. The pest could lower crop yield.

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

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

D. The pest could negatively change normal cultural practices.

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

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

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

Economic Impact Score: 2

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

– Medium (2) causes 2 of these impacts.

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

5) Environmental Impact: There are 38 native cacti in California, including 8 endemic species (Jepson Herbarium, 2018), that could be threatened by this mealybug, including the rare golden-spined cereus (Bergerocactus emoryi (Engelm.) Britton & Rose) and the San Diego barrel cactus (Ferocactus viridescens (Torr. & A. Gray) Britton & Rose). Infestations of this mealybug could trigger treatments and could impact ornamental cactus plantings.  Therefore, it receives a High (3) in this category.

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

Environmental Impact: B, D, E

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

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

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

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

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

Environmental Impact Score: 3

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

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

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

Consequences of Introduction to California for Hypogeococcus pungens: 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: Hypogeococcus pungens is not known to be established in California.  It receives a Not established (0) in this category.

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

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

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

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

Final Score:

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

Uncertainty:

There is significant uncertainty regarding the identity of the mealybugs identified as H. pungens.  As described in the Background (above), there may be at least two species that are currently identified as H. pungens; one that feeds on cacti and one that feeds on other plants, including Amaranthaceae.  This makes it difficult to extrapolate impacts of H. pungens observed in other places to California.  For example, H. pungens is reported to be widely distributed in Florida, but this does not appear to be the cactus-feeding form.  In this PRP, characteristics and possible impacts of the mealybugs identified as H. pungens were considered because, in the absence of further systematic work on these mealybugs, they are likely to be similarly identified as H. pungens if intercepted in California.

Conclusion and Rating Justification:

Hypogeococcus pungens or a cryptic species that is currently identified as H. pungens attacks cacti and poses a threat to cacti in California, both rare, native species as well as those cultivated as ornamentals in nurseries.  Besides the infestations that are under eradication, this mealybug is not known to be established in California.  For these reasons, an “A” rating is justified.


References:

Aguirre, M. B., Diaz-Soltero, H., Claps, L. E., Saracho Bottero, A., Triapitsyn, S., Hasson, E., and Logarzo, G. A.  2016.  Studies on the biology of Hypogeococcus pungens (sensu stricto) (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) in Argentina to aid the identification of the mealybug pest of Cactaceae in Puerto Rico.  Journal of Insect Science 16:1-7.

California Department of Food and Agriculture.  Pest and damage record database.  Accessed October 5, 2018: https://pdr.cdfa.ca.gov/PDR/pdrmainmenu.aspx

CABI.  2018. Invasive Species Compendium. Hypogeococcus pungens (cactus mealybug) datasheet.  Accessed October 5, 2018:  https://www.cabi.org/isc/datasheet/110614

German-Ramirez, E., Kairo, M. T. K., Stocks, I., Haseeb, M., and Serra, C. A.  2014.  New record of Hypogeococcus pungens (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) in the Dominican Republic with comments on specific characters.  Florida Entomologist 97:320-321.

Hodges, A.  2009.  Hypogeococcus pungens Granara de Willink (Insects: Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae). Accessed September 24, 2018: http://entnemdept.ufl.edu/creatures/orn/mealybug/hypogeococcus_pungens.htm

Jepson Herbarium.  2018.  Jepson eFLora.  Accessed October 5, 2018:
http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/IJM_stats.html.

Le Quay-Velázquez, G., Ciomperlik, M., and Rodrigues, J. C. V.  2015.  Gall formation on the endangered cactus, Leptocereus quadricostatus caused by the invasive mealybug, Hypogeococcus pungens (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae).  Proceedings of the Caribbean Food Crops Society 51:174-180.

Milonas, P. G., Kozár, F., and Kontodimas, D. C.  2008.  List of scale insects of Greece.  pp. 143-147 in Branco M., Franco J.C., and Hodgson C. (eds.), Proceedings of the XI International Symposium on Scale Insect Studies.   ISA Press, Lisbon, Portugal.

Paterson, I. D., Hoffmann, J. H., Klein, H., Mathenge, C. W., Neser, S., and Zimmermann, H. G.  2011.  Biological control of Cactaceae in South Africa 19:230-246.

Pellizzari, G., and Sacco, M.  2010.  Le cocciniglie delle piante ornamentali in Liguria.  Protezione delle Colture 4:27-36.

Segarra-Carmona, A. E., Ramírez-Lluch, A., Cabrera-Asencio, I., and Jiménez-López, A. N.  2010.  First report of a new invasive mealybug, the Harrisia cactus Hypogeococcus pungens (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae).  The Journal of Agriculture of the University of Puerto Rico 94:183-187.

USDA-APHIS.  U.S. regulated plant pest table.  Accessed September 26, 2018:
https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/planthealth/import-information/rppl/rppl-table

Weaver, P. L.  2011.  Early recovery of subtropical dry forest in south-western Puerto Rico.  Bois et Forêts de Tropiques 310:12-23.

Zimmermann, H. G., Pérez, M., Cuen, S., Mandujano, M. C., and Golubov, J.  2010.  The South American mealybug that threatens North American cacti.  Cactus and Succulent Journal 82:105-107.


Responsible Party:

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


Comment Period:* CLOSED

12/6/2018 – 1/20/2019


*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 

Cotton Bollworm | Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner)

California Pest Rating for
Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner)Cotton bollworm
Lepidoptera: Noctuidae
Pest Rating: A

 


PEST RATING PROFILE

Initiating Event:

Helicoverpa armigera was recently intercepted in a cut flower shipment in Los Angeles. A pest rating proposal is required to assign a permanent pest rating.

History & Status:

Background:  Helicoverpa armigera is a highly polyphagous pest of many economically significant crops in Africa, Asia, Australia, and Europe (King, 1994). Helicoverpa armigera pupae overwinter in the soil. Adults emerge in May – June and lay eggs, usually on or near flowers. The larvae primarily feed on reproductive parts of hosts (flowers and fruits), but they can also feed on foliage. There are from two to six generations/year, depending on the climate. This species has been reported to cause serious losses throughout its range, in particular to tomatoes, corn, and cotton (Lammers and Ma cLeod, 2007).

Worldwide Distribution:  Helicoverpa armigera is widely distributed. It has been reported from the following places: Asia: Afghanistan, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Brunei, Cambodia, China, Cocos Islands, Republic of Georgia, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Korea, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Lebanon, Malaysia, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan, Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Syria, Taiwan, Tajikistan, Thailand, Turkey, Turkmenistan, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, Vietnam, and Yemen.

Europe: Albania, Andorra, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Gibraltar, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Macedonia, Malta, Moldova, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and Ukraine.

Africa: Algeria, Angola, Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Cote d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Kenya, Lesotho, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mayotte, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Republic of Congo, Reunion, Rwanda, Saint Helena, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Africa, Sudan, Swaziland, Tanzania, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.

Oceania: American Samoa, Australia, Belau, Christmas Island, Cook Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Guam, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, New Caledonia, New Zealand, Norfolk Island, Northern Mariana Islands, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, and Vanuatu.

South America: Argentina, Brazil, and Paraguay (CABI, 2007; Fibiger and Skule, 2011; EPPO, 2012; Sugayama, 2013; Senave, 2013; Murúa et al., 2014).

Official Control: Helicoverpa armigera is listed as a harmful organism in Costa Rica, Bermuda, French Polynesia, Honduras, Paraguay, Turkey, Chile, Ecuador, Guatemala, Monaco, San Marino, Uruguay, Colombia, European Union, Norway, and Serbia (USDA PCIT).

California Distribution: Helicoverpa armigera has never been found in the environment of California.

California Interceptions: There was only one specimen reported in the Pest and Damage Record Database by CDFA. This specimen was found (2017) in Los Angeles County on a cut flower shipment from India (California Department of Food and Agriculture).

The risk Helicoverpa armigera (cotton bollworm) would pose to California is evaluated below.

Consequences of Introduction:

1) Climate/Host Interaction: Helicoverpa armigera can feed on a wide variety of plants that grow in California. It is expected to be capable of establishing a widespread distribution and receives a High (3) in this category.

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

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

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

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

2) Known Pest Host Range: Helicoverpa armigera is a polyphagous moth and a major insect pest of both field and horticultural crops in many parts of the world (Fitt, 1989). It has been reported on over 180 species of plants, including many crops, in at least 45 plant families (Venette et al., 2003). It receives a High (3) in this category.

Evaluate the host range of the pest.

Low (1) has a very limited host range.

Medium (2) has a moderate host range.

– High (3) has a wide host range.

3) Pest Dispersal Potential: Helicoverpa armigera exhibits overlapping generations, typically two to five generations per year in subtropical and temperate regions. Up to 11 generations per year can occur under optimal conditions (Tripathi and Singh, 1991; King, 1994; Fowler and Lakin, 2001).  The female lays up to 1000 eggs in clusters or singly on fruits, stems, and growing points. It receives a High (3) in this category.

Evaluate the natural and artificial dispersal potential of the pest.

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

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

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

4) Economic Impact: Helicoverpa armigera is considered to be among the most damaging agricultural pests in Australia, costing approximately $225.2 million per year to control (Clearly et al., 2006). This moth has the potential to lower crop yields and increase production costs in California. If Helicoverpa armigera were to establish in California it is also likely to disrupt markets for California fresh fruit and plants because this pest is regulated by many countries.  It receives a High (3) in this category.

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

Economic Impact: A, B, C

A. The pest could lower crop yield.

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

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

D. The pest could negatively change normal cultural practices.

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

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

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

Economic Impact Score: 3

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

Medium (2) causes 2 of these impacts.

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

5) Environmental Impact: Helicoverpa armigera is not expected to lower biodiversity, disrupt natural communities, or change ecosystem processes. It might trigger new chemical treatments by residents who find infestations in gardens. It is not expected to significantly impact cultural practices, home/urban gardening, or ornamental plantings. It receives a Medium (2) in this category.

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

Environmental Impact: D

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

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

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

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

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

Environmental Impact: Score: 2

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

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

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

Consequences of Introduction to California for Helicoverpa armigera (Cotton Bollworm):  High (14)

Low = 5-8 points

Medium = 9-12 points

-High = 13-15 points

6) Post Entry Distribution and Survey Information: Helicoverpa armigera has never been found in California and receives a Not established (0) in this category.

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

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

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

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

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

Final Score:

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

Uncertainty:

Only one interception record was found in CDFA database, there would be chances that it presumably enters the state undetected at other times. Therefore, it is possible that it may be present in some areas of California. There is little uncertainty that H. armigera could become widely established in California, as there are numerous host plants grown throughout the state.

Conclusion and Rating Justification:

Helicoverpa armigera has not been found in California and is expected to have significant economic and environmental impacts if it establishes in the state.  An “A” rating is justified.


References:

CABI. 2018.  Helicoverpa armigera.  CAB International.  Accessed August 9, 2018:  https://www.cabi.org/isc/datasheet/26757

CDFA Pest and Damage Report Database. 2011. Aulacaspis tubercularis. Plant Health and Pest Prevention Services. CA Department of Food and Agriculture. Accessed August 9, 2018:  http://phpps.cdfa.ca.gov/user/frmLogon2.asp

Cleary, A. J., Cribb, B. W., and Murray, D. A. H. 2006. Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner): can wheat stubble protect cotton from attack. Australian Journal of Entomology 45:10-15.

Fitt, G. P. 1989. The ecology of Heliothis spp. in relation to agroecosystems. Annual Review of Entomology 34:17-52.

Fowler, G. A. and Lakin, K. R. 2001. Risk Assessment: The Old-World bollworm, Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner), (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae).

USDA-APHIS-PPQ-CPHST-PERAL

Smith E. 2015.  Old World bollworm management program.  Environmental Assessment USDA. Accessed August 9, 2018:
https://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/ea/downloads/2015/owb-pr-ea.pdf

King, A. B. S. 1994. Heliothis /Helicoverpa (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) pp. 39-106 in Matthews, G. A. and Tunstall, J. P. (eds.), Insect Pests of Cotton. CAB International, Wallingford, UK.

Lammers, J. W. and MacLeod, A. 2007. Report of a Pest Risk Analysis: Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner, 1808). Plant Protection Service and Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Central Science Laboratory.

Sullivan, M. and Molet, T. 2007. CPHST Pest Datasheet for Helicoverpa armigera. USDA-APHIS-PPQ-CPHST. Revised April 2014.  Accessed August 9, 2018:
http://download.ceris.purdue.edu/file/3068

Tripathi, S. and Singh, R. 1991. Population dynamics of Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Insect Science Applications 12:367-374.

USDA Phytosanitary Certificate Issuance & Tracking System (PCIT). Phytosanitary

Export Database (PExD). Harmful organism report: Helicoverpa armigera.
Accessed August 9, 2018: https://pcit.aphis.usda.gov/pcit/


Author:

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

Responsible Party:

Kyle Beucke, 1220 ‘N’ Street, Room 221, Sacramento CA 95814, (916) 654-1211, plant.health[@] cdfa.ca.gov.


Comment Period:*CLOSED

11/29/2018 – 1/13/2019


*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