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.

A-Rated, Insects, Mites & Earthworms, Lepidoptera

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 

A-Rated, Hemiptera, Insects, Mites & Earthworms

Tea Scale of Camellia | Fiorinia phantasma

California Pest Rating for
Fiorinia phantasma Cockerell & Robinson: tea scale of camellia
Hemiptera: Diaspididae
Pest Rating: A

PEST RATING PROFILE

Initiating Event:

In March 2018, an infestation of Fiorinia phantasma was discovered on 27 roadside palm trees in Miami, Florida (Ahmad and Miller, 2018). This species is already present in Hawaii where it is a significant pest of ornamentals. During May 2018, Fiorinia phantasma was intercepted on a shipment of unidentified leaves from American Samoa.  This species has a Q rating. A pest rating proposal is required to assign a permanent rating to this species.

History & Status:

Background: Fiorinia phantasma is a polyphagous armored scale and is considered a significant pest of nursery plants particularly ornamental palms (Arecaceae). It has been transported worldwide by movement of live nursery plants (Brooks, 2012 and Watson et-al., 2015). Female scales inconsistently show red stripes, running the width of the scale covering. Male and females can be found intermingled on the undersides of leaves. Eggs are large and can reach more than 1/5 of the body size of females. Crawlers begin to colonize the top side of leaves when populations reach high densities (Garcia and Hara, 2011).

Fiorinia phantasma causes yellow blotches on the upper leaf surface of host plants. Intense feeding damage is caused due to heavy infestations, resulting in leaf drop. In Hawaii, this scale impacts local nursery and landscape industry and poses an additional quarantine problem for exporters (Garcia and Hara, 2011).

In addition to palms, Fiorinia phantasma also feeds on shower tree (Cassia spp.), lobster claw (Heliconia caribaea), weeping fig (Ficus benjamina), naio (Myoporum sandwichense), mock orange (Murraya peniculata), pittosporum (Pittosporum tobira), wax leaf privet (Ligustrum japonicum), and bread fruit (Artocarpus altilis) (NPDN- Pacific pest detector news).

Worldwide Distribution: Fiorinia phantasma was first found in the Philippine islands in 1915. It is currently known in American Samoa, France, French Polynesia, Grenada, Guam, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Malaysia, Maldives, Nauru, Netherlands, New Caledonia, Papua New Guinea, Reunion, Saint Martin and St. Barthelemy, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Taiwan, Thailand and Vietnam (Watson et- al., 2015).

The first report of F. phantasma from the continental Unites States was recorded from a Canary island date palm on March 1, 2018 in Miami- Dade county, Florida. Heavy infestations have also been reported on palms in Hawaii (Garcia and Hara 2011 & Watson et-al., 2015).

Official Control: Fiorinia phantasma is listed as a harmful organism in the Republic of Korea (USDA PCIT).

California Distribution:  Fiorinia phantasma is not present in the natural environment of California.

California Interceptions: Fiorinia phantasma has been intercepted 11 times by CDFA between 2010 and 2018 through regulatory pathways mainly through high risk pest exclusion activities and dog program inspections (CDFA PDR Database).

The risk Fiorinia phantasma (tea scale of camellia) would pose to California is evaluated below.

Consequences of Introduction: 

1) Climate/Host Interaction: Tropical and subtropical climate in the south coast of California is suitable for growing many palm trees. Other hosts plants including oleander, plumeria, cassia, weeping fig, pittosporum, podocarpus and murraya are grown throughout California. Fiorinia phantasma is likely to survive where these host plants are grown. It receives a High (3) in this category.

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

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

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

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

2) Known Pest Host Range: Fiorinina phantasma is known to feed on a wide range of host plants in 44 genera in 24 families. It has preference for Arecaceae (palm trees). Other families include Araceae, Apocynaceae, Calophyllaceae, Commilinaceae, Cycadaceae, Euphorbiaceae, Fabaceae, Heliconiacaea, Lauracaea, Malvaceae, Melicaceae, Moraceae, Oleaceae, Orchidaceae, Pandanaceae, Pittosporaceae, Poaceae, Rutaceae, Sapindaceae, Scrophulariaceae, Strelitziaceae (García Morales et al., 2016). It receives a High (3) in this category.

Evaluate the host range of the pest. Score:

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

– Medium (2) has a moderate host range.

– High (3) has a wide host range.

3) Pest Dispersal Potential: Fiorinina phantasma remains active throughout the year in warmer climates.  Female lays approximately 10-15 eggs under its armor. Crawlers hatch in 10 days. The infestation actively spreads in crawler phase. Life cycle is completed in 1.5 – 2 months. It is spread in Hawaii by inter- island transport of nursery plants (Garcia and Hara, 2011, Watson et al., 2015). In California, if Fiorinia phantasma gets introduced and established, it is likely to move long distances through movement of infested nursery and landscape plants especially palm trees. It receives a High (3) in this category.

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

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

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

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

4) Economic Impact: Fiorinina phantasma is known to cause serious damage on areca palms in landscapes. Feeding by this species results in yellowing of leaves, leaf drop, loss of plant vigor, stunting of the host and even death of the plant. It is reported to have infested 6000 palm trees in the republic of Maldives (Watson et-al., 2015). If this species is introduced and gets established in palm growing and landscapes of south coast, it is likely to impact trade, including palms grown in nurseries. Possible use of horticultural oils and systemic insecticides for its control can increase production costs (García Morales et al., 2016). It receives a High (3) in this category.

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

Economic Impact: A, B, C

A. The pest could lower crop yield.

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

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

D. The pest could negatively change normal cultural practices.

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

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

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

Economic Impact Score: 3

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

– Medium (2) causes 2 of these impacts.

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

5) Environmental Impact: The establishment of Fiorinina phantasma in California is likely to impact nursery and landscape plants as it can spread through transport of nursery plants. This species is not expected to lower biodiversity, change ecosystems and affect any threatened or endangered species. Since camellias, palms and other hosts are planted in home gardens, infestations would likely trigger chemical treatments by homeowners. It receives a Medium (2) in this category.

Evaluate the environmental impacts of the pest on California using the following criterion:

Environmental Impact: D

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

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

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

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

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

Score the pest for Environmental Impact: 2

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

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

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

Consequences of Introduction to California for Fiorinia phantasma (tea scale of camellia): 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: Fiorinia phantasma has not been detected in the natural environment of California. It receives Not established (0) in this category

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

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

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

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

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

Final Score:

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

Uncertainty:

Fiorinia phantasma has been intercepted by CDFA in shipments of leucodendron, Psidium guajava, Annona muricata, boxwood and podocarpus. There are many nurseries in southern and central California that specialize in these hosts and different kinds of palm trees, the main hosts of this scale. Therefore, nursery and landscape plants may potentially be significantly impacted. There have not been any recent formal surveys of nurseries and palm growing areas for the presence of this species. It is possible that this scale could be present in some parts of California.

Conclusion and Rating Justification:

Fiorinia phantasma has never been found in the environment of California. Since there are several of its hosts plants being grown and propagated in CA, it would likely have significant economic and environmental impacts if this scale become established in California. An “A” rating is justified.

References:

Ahmad, M, and Miller, D. 2018. First U.S. Continental Record of Fiorinia phantasma Cockerell & Robinson (Hemiptera: Diaspididae), Phantasma Scale, Potential Pest of Palms and Ornamentals Plants. Pest Alert. Publication: FDACS-P-01880. Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer resources. Division of Plant Industry. Accessed 8/3/2018  https://www.freshfromflorida.com/content/download/79840/2332158/Pest_Alert_-_Fiorinia_phantasma.pdf

Brooks, F. 2012. Pacific Pest Detector News. A Quarterly Newsletter for First Detectors. March- May 2012, Number 9. National Plant Diagnostics Network. Accessed 8/6/2018  https://www.npdn.org/system/files/WPDN%20PacPestDetectNews_Mar-May2012.pdf

Cockerell, T. D. A., and Robinson E.  1915. — Descriptions and records of Coccidae. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 34: 105–113

Garcia, J., and Hara, A. 2011. Fiorinia phantasma Cockerell & Robinson (Hemiptera: Diaspididae). New Pest Advisory, Plant Pest Control Branch, Division of Plant Industry, Department of Agriculture, State of Hawaii 1: 1-2. Accessed 8/6/2018 https://hdoa.hawaii.gov/pi/files/2013/01/Fiorinia-phantasma-NPA.pdf

Morales, G.M.  Denno, B.D., Miller, D.R., Miller, G.L., Ben-Dov, Y., and Hardy, N.B. 2016. ScaleNet: A literature-based model of scale insect biology and systematics. Database. Accessed 8/3/2018 http://scalenet.info.  http://scalenet.info/catalogue/Fiorinia%20phantasma/

Pest and Damage Record Database. 2018. Fiorinia phantasma. Plant Health and Pest Prevention Services. California Department of Food and Agriculture. Accessed 8/2/2018  http://phpps.cdfa.ca.gov/user/frmLogon2.asp

USDA Phytosanitary Certificate Issuance & Tracking System (PCIT) Phytosanitary Export Database (PExD). Harmful organism report: Fiorinia phantasma.  Accessed: 8/2/2018  https://pcit.aphis.usda.gov/pcit/

Watson, G.W., Williams, D.J., and Miller, D.R. 2015. The identity and distribution of Fiorinia phantasma (Cockerell & Robinson) (Hemiptera: Coccomorpha: Diaspididae), with a new synonym. Zootaxa 4048: 291-300.

Author:

Raj Randhawa, 1220 ‘N’ Street, Room 221, Sacramento CA 95814, (916) 403-6617, raj.randhawa@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

11/26/2018 – 1/10/2019

*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 

A-Rated, Plant Pathogens, Viruses and viroids

Tomato Brown Rugose Fruit Virus

California Pest Rating for
Tomato Brown Rugose Fruit Virus
Pest Rating:      A

PEST RATING PROFILE

Initiating Event:

On September 25, 2018, Tongyan Tian, CDFA Plant Pathologist, was notified by Kai-Shu Ling, Plant Pathologist, USDA ARS, Charleston, South Carolina, of his detection of Tomato brown rugose fruit virus (ToBRFV) in a tomato plant tissue sample sent to him by a private company in California.   The sample had been collected from tomato plants grown in the company’s greenhouse in Santa Barbara County.  On September 13, 2018, the company had also sent an unofficial symptomatic tomato leaf sample to CDFA for diagnosis of the associated pathogen. On November 2, 2018, Tongyan Tian, CDFA, identified the associated pathogen as Tomato brown rugose fruit virus. On further investigation of the situation in California, CDFA was notified by the company that all ToBRFV-infested and symptomatic plant material had been voluntarily destroyed, thereby preventing the collection of an official sample. Nevertheless, the risk associated with the possible introduction of ToBRFV and a proposed rating for this pathogen is documented here.

History & Status:

Background:  Tomato brown rugose fruit virus is a relatively new Tobamovirus – the genus that bears other economically important and contagious pathogens that infect Solanaceae, such as Tobacco mosaic virus (TMV) and Tomato mosaic virus (ToMV). ToBRFV was initially isolated from tomato plants grown in greenhouses in Jordan in 2015 (Salem et al., 2016).  Prior to this, in 2014, an outbreak of a new disease infecting resistant tomato cultivars grown in net houses was observed in Southern Israel and was determined to be caused by the Israeli isolate of ToBRFV with high genomic sequence identity to the Jordan isolate (Luria et al., 2017).  Most recently, ToBRFV was detected in tomato and chili pepper plants growing in nurseries in Yurecuaro, Michoacan, Mexico (NAPPO, 2018).  There have been no previous reports of ToBRFV from the USA. The recent detection in greenhouse tomato plants in California that subsequently resulted in the destruction of all infested plants, does not verify the establishment of ToBRFV in the country (see ‘Initiating Event’).

Tobamoviruses infecting tomato are of great concern, but ToBRFV is of special concern because of its ability to overcome resistance of the TM-22 resistance gene which is genetically bred into tomato plants for resistance against Tobamoviruses (Luria et al., 2017).  The Israeli isolate of ToBRFV was found to infect pepper (Capsicum annuum) plants harboring the L resistance genes, when cultivated in contaminated soil from previous grown infected tomato plants, especially in hot temperatures above 30°C (Luria et al., 2017).  Disease caused by ToBRFV is infectious and local spread can occur rapidly through mechanical means (see ‘Dispersal and spread’).

Hosts:  Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) and pepper (Capsicum annuum) are the main hosts (Salem et al., 2016; Luria et al., 2017; NAPPO, 2018).  Petunia (Petunia hybrida) and certain weeds like black nightshade (S. nigrum) were shown to be asymptomatic hosts in experiments (Luria et al., 2017).

Symptoms:  The Jordan isolate of ToBRFV in tomato caused mild foliar symptoms and strong brown rugose symptoms on fruit thereby affecting market value of the crop.   Mechanically inoculated plants exhibited a range of local and systemic symptoms (Salem et al., 2016).  Symptoms caused by the Israeli isolate of ToBRFV were mild and severe mosaic of leaves with occasional narrowing of the leaves.  Yellow spots on fruit affected 10-15% of the total number of fruit produced on symptomatic plants (Luria et al., 2017).

In pepper plants cultivated in ToBRFV-contaminated soil from previously grown infected tomato plants, especially in temperatures above 30°C, the hypersensitivity response included necrotic lesions on roots and stems resulting in inhibited plant growth and possibly plant collapse.  Petunia and certain weeds are symptomless hosts, while eggplant and potatoes are non-hosts for the virus (Luria et al., 2017).

Dispersal and spread: ToBRFV is transmitted mechanically (plant to plant) via externally contaminated seed (over long distances), common cultural practices (worker’s hand, clothes), tools, equipment and circulating water (Salem et al., 2016).  Tobamoviruses are capable of preserving infectivity in seeds and contaminated soil (Broadbent, 1976; Luria et al., 2017).  Weed hosts can serve as reservoirs of inoculum for infection of the main hosts.

Damage Potential: Tobamoviruses are of main concern in tomato crops, especially when cultivated in protected environments such as greenhouses, where conditions favor rapid spread of the pathogen.  The ability of ToBRFV to break resistance in tomato plants harboring the TM-22 resistance gene and, under certain conditions also pepper plants harboring the L resistance genes, makes the potential for damage a main concern. The stability and infectious nature of this Tobamovirus via mechanical transmission by workers, tools and equipment during the handling of plants, with infection most likely occurring when seedlings are thinned in nurseries or transplanted, plus transmission through contaminated seed, soil and circulating water, render a high potential for damage in tomato and pepper.  Crop production and quality of ToBRFV-consumable tomato and pepper fruit can be affected thereby significantly impacting their market value.

Worldwide Distribution: Asia: Jordan (Salem et al., 2016), Israel (Luria et al., 2017); North America: Mexico (NAPPO, 2018).

Official Control: None reported.

California Distribution: Tomato brown rugose fruit virus is not present in California.  The detection of ToBRFV in greenhouse tomato plants in Santa Barbara County resulted in the destruction of the plants (see ‘Initiating Event’).

California Interceptions: None reported.

The risk Tomato brown rugose fruit virus would pose to California is evaluated below.

Consequences of Introduction: 

1) Climate/Host Interaction: It is likely that Tomato brown rugose fruit virus can establish a widespread distribution in California wherever tomato and pepper plants are cultivated.

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

Score: 3

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

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

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

2) Known Pest Host Range: The main hosts of ToBRFV are tomato and pepper cultivars.  Experimentally, petunia and few weeds have been proven to be asymptomatic hosts and weeds may serve as reservoirs of inoculum for subsequent infections of main cultivated hosts.

Evaluate the host range of the pest.

Score: 1

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

– Medium (2) has a moderate host range.

– High (3) has a wide host range.

3) Pest Dispersal Potential: Tomato brown rugose fruit virus is a stable and readily infectious virus plant pathogen. It is easily transmitted from plant to plant by mechanical means which include common cultural practices, contaminated tools, equipment, hands, clothes, soil, and infected plants, and seed. Infections most likely occur in protected environments, where favorable conditions for pathogen spread exist, as when seedlings are thinned in nurseries or transplanted. Transmission of ToBRFV by insect vectors has not been reported.

Evaluate the natural and artificial dispersal potential of the pest.

Score: 3

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

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

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

4) Economic Impact: ToBRFV can break resistance in tomato plants harboring the TM-22 resistance gene and under certain conditions, also pepper plants harboring the L resistance genes. The stability and infectious nature of this Tobamovirus render a high potential for damage in tomato and pepper particularly under protected environments such as greenhouses.  Crop production and quality of ToBRFV consumable tomato and pepper fruit can be affected thereby significantly impacting their market value.

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

Economic Impact: A, B, C, D, G.

A. The pest could lower crop yield.

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

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

D. The pest could negatively change normal cultural practices.

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

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

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

Economic Impact Score: 3

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

– Medium (2) causes 2 of these impacts.

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

5) Environmental Impact: The natural host range is limited to tomato and pepper which are cultivated crops.  Home/urban gardening of these host plants may be impacted if infected with ToBRFV. Consequently, the establishment of this resistance-breaking Tobamovirus species in California could trigger additional official or private treatment programs.

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

Environmental Impact: D, E

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

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

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

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

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

Environmental Impact Score: 3

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

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

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

Consequences of Introduction to California for Tomato brown rugose fruit virus:

Add up the total score and include it here. 13

-Low = 5-8 points

-Medium = 9-12 points

–High = 13-15 points

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

Evaluation is ‘0’.  ToBRFV is not established in California.

Score: 0

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

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

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

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

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 = 13

Uncertainty:  

The potential for weed plants, especially those commonly found in tomato and pepper fields in California, to serve as hosts and inoculum reservoirs of the pathogen is not known.

Conclusion and Rating Justification:

Based on the evidence provided above the proposed rating for Tomato brown rugose fruit virus is A.

References:

Broadbent, L.  1976.  Epidemiology and control of Tomato mosaic virus.  Annual Review of Phytopathology, 14:75-96.

Luria, N. Smith, E., Reingold, V., Bekelman, I., Lapidot, M., Levin, I., Elad, N., Tam., Y., Sela, Abu-Ras, A., Ezra, N., Haberman, A., Yitzhak, L., Lachman, O. and Dombrovsky, A.  2017.  A new Israeli Tobamovirus isolate infects tomato plants harboring Tm-22 resistance genes.  PLoS ONE 12 (1):e0170429.  doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0170429

NAPPO. 2018. Tomato Brown Rugose Fruit Virus: detected in the municipality of Yurecuaro, Michoacan. North American Plant Protection Organization (NAPPO) Phytosanitary Alert System.  September 17, 2018. https://www.pestalerts.org/oprDetail.cfm?oprID=765.

Salem, N., Mansour, A., Ciuffo, M., Falk, B. W., and Turina, M.  2016.  A new Tobamovirus infecting tomato crops in Jordan.  Archives of Virology, 161:503-506.

Responsible Party:

John J. Chitambar, Primary Plant Pathologist/Nematologist, California Department of Food and Agriculture, 3294 Meadowview Road, Sacramento, CA 95832. Phone: 916-738-6693, plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov.

*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, Ratings, Weeds

desert knapweed: Volutaria tubuliflora

2 Comments
California Pest Rating for
Desert knapweed: Volutaria tubuliflora (Murb.) Sennen
Family: Asteraceae
Pest Rating: A | Seed Rating: R

 

PEST RATING PROFILE

Initiating Event:

This plant has been rated as “Q” on the CDFA Plant Pest Rating list for 2 years. 

History & Status:

The genus Volutaria comprises plants in the thistle tribe (Cardueae) of the daisy family (Asteracaeae). Many of the 17 species in this genus were originally described in the genus Centaurea, the genus that includes star-thistles, knapweeds, and bachelor’s buttons; the two genera are closely related. Volutaria differs from Centaurea in lacking a terminal spine shield on the tips of the inflorescence bracts and in having flowers subtended by scales rather than bristles. Desert knapweed is a pink-flowered (sometimes white-flowered in Southeastern Morocco), annual or short-lived perennial species. It was collected from a naturalized population near Anza Borrego in San Diego County, California. At this spot, it was tentatively identified as Canary Island knapweed (Volutaria canariensis), a closely related species endemic to the Canary Islands.  Desert knapweed seems to be spreading steadily in the Anza Borrego Area. Another species, Volutaria muricata, was introduced to limited localities in three counties in Southern California along the coast.  We have no current information on its range and persistence. However, several species within the Centaurea group are known noxious weeds in California, including purple starthistle (Centaurea calcitrapa), diffuse knapweed (Centaurea diffusa), Iberian starthistle (Centaurea iberica), spotted knapweed (Centaurea stoebe), Malta starthistle (Centaurea melitensis), meadow knapweed (Centaurea jacea s.l.), yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis), and squarrose knapweed (Centaurea squarrosa).

Desert knapweed has the largest native range of any species of Volutaria. It is widespread across northern Africa, as well as in other areas of the Region, where it inhabits drier localities and desert transition zones. Its expansion into some of these areas may be recent. It prefers nitrogen enriched soils and therefore has proven to spread rapidly along roadsides, as well as in dry farming areas and irrigated fields.

The San Diego County Agricultural Commissioner’s office initiated control measures against this plant. They are part of a coordinated effort to eradicate this plant from North America by County, State, and city staff, as well as by the non-profit organization CalIPC and private volunteers.

Worldwide Distribution:  Desert knapweed occurs throughout North Africa from Morocco to Egypt, in southern Europe (Spain, Sicily, and Turkey), the Canary Islands, and in Arabia. There is a recent report of it being detected in Chile.  In North America the only known populations of Desert knapweed are in southern California.

Official Control:  Desert knapweed is currently listed on the California noxious weed list (under the name Volutaria canariensis; Canary Island knapweed).   Desert knapweed has been recently (8/2018) as a Category A noxious weed in the state of Nevada.

California Interceptions: Desert knapweed was found after it had established along a road in the Anza Borrego Desert in 2009 (San Diego County). A new detection of a small colony along Newport Bay in Orange County was reported in 2015 and the Chula Vista plants in 2016 (San Diego County).

Consequences of Introduction: 

1) Climate/Host Interaction: Evaluate if the pest would have suitable hosts and climate to establish in California.

Risk is High (3), as the plant is naturalized on roadsides in the desert, where it is spreading rapidly. Two more recent finds in Orange and San Diego counties indicate that it may invade southern coastal areas in California as well.

Score: 3

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

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

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

2) Known Pest Host Range: Evaluate the host range of the pest.

Risk is high (3) as weeds do not require any one host, but grow wherever ecological conditions are favorable.

Score: 3

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

-Medium (2) has a moderate host range.

-High (3) has a wide host range.

3) Pest Dispersal Potential: Evaluate the natural and artificial dispersal potential of the pest.

Risk is Medium (2). The plant produces a moderate number of seeds that spread along roads, although large plants may produce thousands of seeds. Its appearance via some unknown pathway in such a remote area attests to its ability to spread under the right circumstances. During the 5 years that it has been detected, it has slowly increased its range in the Anza Borrego Desert. It was in Newport Bay since at least 1987, where it is currently known from seven spots. The seed lasts at least 3 years in the seed bank.

Score: 2

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

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

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

4) Economic Impact Score: Evaluate the economic impact of the pest to California using the criteria below.

The presence of this plant in the Anza Borrego desert may in the future impact the spring wildflower tourist industry if the plant behaves like another noxious desert weed, Sahara mustard (Brassica tournefortii). If it infests row crops or irrigated areas, it could lower crop value or crop yield.

Score: 3 (A, B, C)

A. The pest could lower crop yield.

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

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

D. The pest could negatively change normal cultural practices.

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

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

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

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

-Medium (2) causes 2 of these impacts.

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

5) Environmental Impact Score: Evaluate the environmental impact of the pest on California using the criteria below.

Risk is high (3) as the plant might be able to dominate desert and dry coastal areas that are home to sensitive species such as desert tortoise, blunt-nosed leopard lizard, and many rare native plants.

Score: 3 (A, C, D)

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

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

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

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

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

Score the pest for Environmental Impact. Score: 3

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

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

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

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

Desert knapweed has been found in three counties in California. Its range at this time is limited. It receives a Low (-1) in this category.

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

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

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

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

Final Score:

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

Uncertainty:

Given that the weed history of Desert knapweed is just being deciphered, it is difficult to assess potential risk. Nevertheless, given its rapid spread in Anza Borrego it seems likely to be a major invasive. Given its long distance dispersal, its noxious relatives, and the effects of other introduced annuals such as Sahara mustard on desert ecosystems, it seems best to attempt eradication of the currently small populations.

Conclusion and Rating Justification:

Although Desert knapweed may be limited in its spread by its environmental tolerance, it may nevertheless become a severe pest within the desert and along the southern California coast in disturbed areas. This is based on its ecology in the Old World. As the species currently is highly restricted in its range in North America and eradication may be possible, we recommend that Desert knapweed be rated as A.

References:

Calleja, J. A., Garcia-Jacas, N., Roquet, C., & Susanna de la Serna, A. 2016. Beyond the Rand Flora pattern: Phylogeny and biogeographical history of Volutaria (Compositae). Taxon 65: 315-332.

Consortium of California Herbaria. Accessed 1/31/2017: http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/consortium/

Devesa, J. A. & Martinez, J. L. 2014. Volutaria Cass. In Devesa, J.A., Quintanar, A. & Garcia, M. A. (eds.). Flora iberica XVI: 272-278. Real Jardín Botánico, CSIC, Madrid.

Teillier, S., Macaya, J., Sisanna, A. & Calleja, J. A. 2014. Volutaria tubuliflora (Murb.) Sennen (Asteraceae), nueva especie alóctona asilvestrada para Chile. Gayana Bot. 71: 276-279.

Wagenitz, G. 1991. Volutaria canariensis Wagenitz, Candollea 46: 408.

Volutaria, a new invasive knapweed. Accessed 1/28/2017:

http://tchester.org/bd/species/asteraceae/volutaria_canariensis.html

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.

*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 | Proposed Seed Rating: R

Posted by ls

A-Rated, Insects, Mites & Earthworms, Lepidoptera, Ratings

Leek Moth | Acrolepiopsis assectella (Zeller)

California Pest Rating for 
Leek Moth | Acrolepiopsis assectella (Zeller)
Lepidoptera: Acrolepiidae
Pest Rating: A

 

PEST RATING PROFILE

Initiating Event:

On July 3, 2018 USDA released a New Pest Advisory Group (NPAG) report proposing to change the status of Acrolepiopsis assectella (leek moth) to non-actionable within the continental United States.  A pest rating proposal is required to determine future direction.

History & Status:

Background:  Leek moth is a leaf-mining moth that feeds on plants in the genus Allium1. Preferred hosts of the moth are garlic, leek, and onion1. Over-wintering adults become active when temperatures reach 15ºC1.  Female moths lay eggs on leaves which larvae mine1.  Mature larvae emerge from the leaf tissue and pupate on the external surface of the plant1.  When adults emerge they either begin another generation or overwinter1, depending on the time of year.  Leek moth can rapidly spread long distances when infested plant material is moved.

Worldwide Distribution: Leek moth is presumably native to Eurasia. It was first found in North America in Ontario in 19931.  Leek moth was first detected in the United States in New York in 2009 and has since spread to New Hampshire, Maine, and Vermont1.

Official Control: Leek moth is listed as a harmful organism by Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, French Polynesia, Honduras, Israel, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Mexico, New Caledonia, Nicaragua, Peru, and Taiwan3.

California Distribution:  Leek moth has not been found in the environment of California.

California Interceptions:  Leek moth has never been intercepted in California.

The risk Acrolepiopsis assectella (leek moth) would pose to California is evaluated below.

Consequences of Introduction: 

1) Climate/Host Interaction: Leek moth is expected to be able to establish a widespread distribution in California wherever Allium plants grow. Based on its current widespread distribution in Europe and northern Africa it is not expected to be limited by climate in California.  It receives a High (3) in this category.

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

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

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

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

2) Known Pest Host Range: Leek moth is only known to feed on plants in the genus Allium.  It receives a Low (1) in this category.

Evaluate the host range of the pest. Score:

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

– Medium (2) has a moderate host range.

– High (3) has a wide host range.

3) Pest Dispersal Potential: Leek moth has a high reproductive rate with each female laying an average of 100 eggs and the population completing as many as 8 generations per year1, depending on climate.  The moth can rapidly spread long distances when eggs, larvae, or pupae on plants or harvested plant parts are moved.  Adults can also fly.  Leek moth receives a High (3) in this category.

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

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

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

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

4) Economic Impact: California is the largest producing state in the U.S. of garlic, onions, and green onions.  The state produces 90%+ of the commercial garlic, is the largest producer of processing onions, and is one of the top fresh market onion producers in the nation2.  Both garlic and onion crops are valued at $150-$300 million each annually2.  California also leads the nation in the production of green onions with a 2009 crop value of $28 million in Monterey and Riverside county alone4.  If leek moth were to establish in California it is expected to lower crop yields and increase production costs of these crops, especially on organic farms.  Leek moth causes damage of economic importance in Allium  Yield reductions can be as high as 50 percent and have the potential to reach 100 percent for organic growers who do not implement sufficient control measures1.  Its presence in the state would likely affect markets for fresh garlic and onions.  Growers in other places infested with leek moth have changed cultural practices including crop row netting, crop rotation, delayed planting, removal of old and infested leaves, destruction of pupae or larvae, early harvesting, avoidance of planting crops near known infestations, and destruction of plant debris following harvesting1.  The moth is not expected to vector other organisms, injure animals, or interfere with water supplies.  Leek moth receives a High (3) in this category.

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

Economic Impact: A, B, C, D

A. The pest could lower crop yield.

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

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

D. The pest could negatively change normal cultural practices.

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

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

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

Economic Impact Score: 3

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

– Medium (2) causes 2 of these impacts.

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

5) Environmental Impact: If leek moth were to establish in California it is not expected to lower biodiversity, disrupt natural communities, or change ecosystem processes.  It is likely to affect threatened and endangered species such as Munz’s onion (Allium munzii) and Yosemite onion (Allium yosemitense).  Leek moth would not be expected to disrupt critical habitats.  It is likely to trigger additional treatment programs in agriculture and in residential gardens.  Species of Allium are grown in home/urban gardens and would be significantly affected by this pest.  Leek moth receives a High (3) in this category.

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

Economic Impact: B, D, E

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

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

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

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

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

Score the pest for Environmental Impact.

Environmental Impact Score: 3

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

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

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

Consequences of Introduction to California for Acrolepiopsis assectella (leek moth):  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: Leek moth has never been found in California and receives a Not established (0) in this category.

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

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

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

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

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

Final Score:

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

Uncertainty:

Leek moth causes significant damage to plants in the genus Allium.  Its presence in California would rapidly come to the attention of garlic and onion growers, so there is little uncertainty regarding its absence from the state.  There is low uncertainty with this pest.

Conclusion and Rating Justification:

If leek moth were to become established in California it would have significant economic and environmental impacts.  An “A” rating is justified.

References:

1 USDA New Pest Advisory Group:  NPAG Report Acrolepiopsis assectella (Zeller): Leek moth.  June 29, 2018.

2 California Garlic & Onion Research Advisory Board.  http://www.cagarlicandonion.com/

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

4 Smith, Richard, Michael Cahn, Marita Cantwell, Steven Koike, Eric Natwick, and Etaferahu Takele. 2011.  Green Onion Production in California.  UC Vegetable Research & Information Center Vegetable Production Series.  http://anrcatalog.ucanr.edu/pdf/7243.pdf

Author:

Jason Leathers, 1220 ‘N’ Street, Sacramento CA 95814, (916) 654-0312, plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov

Responsible Party:

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

Comment Period:* CLOSED

9/24/18 – 11/8/18

*NOTE:

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

Comment Format:

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

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

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

♦  Comments may not be posted if they:

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

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

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

Violates agency regulations prohibiting workplace violence, including threats.

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

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

Pest Rating: A

 

Posted by ls

A-Rated, Hemiptera, Insects, Mites & Earthworms

Mango Scale | Aulacaspis tubercularis Newstead

California Pest Rating for
Aulacaspis tubercularis Newstead: Mango scale
Hemiptera: Diaspididae
Pest Rating: A

PEST RATING PROFILE

Initiating Event:

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

History & Status:

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

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

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

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

Distribution Map by CABI
Distribution Map by CABI

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

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

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

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

Consequences of Introduction:

1) Climate/Host Interaction: Hosts plants of Aulacaspis tubercularis are grown throughout California and southern coastal weather is quite favorable for this insect to spread and become established wherever its hosts are grown. It receives a Medium (2) in this category.

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

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

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

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

2) Known Pest Host Range: Aulacaspis tubercularis has been reported to feed on plants in at least 30 genera in 18 families. It receives a High (3) in this category.

Evaluate the host range of the pest.

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

– Medium (2) has a moderate host range.

– High (3) has a wide host range.

3) Pest Dispersal Potential: Aulacaspis tubercularis has a high reproductive rate; adult females can lay up to 200 eggs. (Miller and Davidson, 2005). This scale can be spread by wind or by hitchhiking on animals or equipment. It may also be spread long distances through the movement of infested plants or fruit. Therefore, it receives a High (3) in this category.

 Evaluate the natural and artificial dispersal potential of the pest.

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

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

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

4) Economic Impact: There is little information available on the economic importance of this pest other than that it considered a major pest of mango in many parts of the world (Miller and Davidson, 1990). Known hosts also include cucurbits, citrus, Prunus, and avocado.  The scale may lower yields in these crops and increase production costs by triggering new management programs. It is not expected to change cultural practices, vector other organisms, injure animals, or disrupt water supplies. It receives a High (3) in this category.

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

Economic Impact: A, B, C

A. The pest could lower crop yield.

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

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

D. The pest could negatively change normal cultural practices.

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

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

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

Economic Impact Score: 2

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

– Medium (2) causes 2 of these impacts.

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

5) Environmental Impact: Aulacaspis tubercularis is not expected to lower biodiversity, disrupt natural communities, or change ecosystem processes. No known hosts of the scale are listed as threatened or endangered species in California and the scale is not expected to affect critical habitats. It might trigger new chemical treatments in agriculture and by residents who find infested plants unsightly. It receives a Medium (2) in this category.

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

Environmental Impact:  D

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

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

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

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

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

Environmental Impact: Score: 2

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

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

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

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

–Low = 5-8 points

–Medium = 9-12 points

-High = 13-15 points

6) Post Entry Distribution and Survey Information: Aulacaspis tubercularis has never been found in the environment in California and receives a Not Established (0) in this category

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

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

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

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

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

Final Score

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

Uncertainty:

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

Conclusion and Rating Justification:

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

References:

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

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

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

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

Author:

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

Responsible Party:

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

Comment Period:* CLOSED

8/14/18 – 9/28/18

*NOTE:

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

Comment Format:

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

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

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

♦  Comments may not be posted if they:

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

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

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

Violates agency regulations prohibiting workplace violence, including threats.

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

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

Pest Rating: A

Posted by ls 

 

A-Rated, Hemiptera, Insects, Mites & Earthworms

Two-lined Spittlebug | Prosapia bicincta (Say)

California Pest Rating for
Prosapia bicincta (Say): Two-lined spittlebug
Hemiptera-Cercopidae
Pest Rating: A

 

PEST RATING PROFILE

Initiating Event:

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

History & Status:

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

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

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

Worldwide Distribution:

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

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

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

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

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

Consequences of Introduction: 

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

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

Score: 2

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

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

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

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

Evaluate the host range of the pest:

Score: 3

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

– Medium (2) has a moderate host range.

– High (3) has a wide host range.

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

Evaluate the natural and artificial dispersal potential of the pest:

Score: 2

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

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

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

4) Economic Impact: Prosapia spps. can reduce forage quality and availability, thereby competing with grazing animals. They are likely to causes huge losses to improved pastures. Prosapia bicincta feed on the underside of the leaves and inject poison that cause the plant to lose its chlorophyll. Nymphs remove a lot of fluid from the plants to continuously produce spittle (Campbell, 2016). Heavily infested pastures turn brown, become unproductive and may experience die back in large patches (Vendramini et al., 2015). Use of cultural practices such as burning of dense mats of infested pastures, stockpiling for grazing in the following season, killing eggs in spring and preventing thatch accumulation can add to production costs. It receives a High (3) in this category.

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

Economic Impact: A, B, D

A. The pest could lower crop yield.

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

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

D. The pest could negatively change normal cultural practices.

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

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

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

Economic Impact Score: 3

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

– Medium (2) causes 2 of these impacts.

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

5) Environmental Impact: Prosapia bicincta is not likely to lower biodiversity and disrupt natural communities. It is also not known to impact major endangered and threatened species in California. However, if this species is introduced and gets established, it may impact grassland species such asTrifolium amoenum, an endangered annual herb occurring in grassland areas of the San Francisco Bay area and the northern California (California Native Plant Society, 2018). Being an economic pest of grasses, this species is likely to trigger official treatments if it gets established in rangelands in the state.  It receives a High (3) in this category.

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

Environmental Impact:  B, D

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

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

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

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

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

Score the pest for Environmental Impact:

Environmental Impact Score: 3

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

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

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

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

Add up the total score and include it here:

-Low = 5-8 points

-Medium = 9-12 points

–High = 13-15 points

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

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: 0

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

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

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

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

Final Score:

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

Uncertainty:

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

Conclusion and Rating Justification:

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

References:

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

http://www.rareplants.cnps.org

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Author:

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

 

Responsible Party:

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

Comment Period:* CLOSED

7/30/18 – 9/13/18

*NOTE:

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

Comment Format:

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

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

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

♦  Comments may not be posted if they:

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

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

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

Violates agency regulations prohibiting workplace violence, including threats.

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

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

Pest Rating: A

 

Posted by ls 

A-Rated, Nematodes

Meloidogyne floridensis Handoo et al., 2004

California Pest Rating for 
Meloidogyne floridensis Handoo et al., 2004
Pest Rating: A

 

PEST RATING PROFILE

Initiating Event: 

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

History & Status:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

California Distribution: Merced County (limited distribution).

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

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

Consequences of Introduction: 

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

Evaluate if the pest would have suitable hosts and climate to establish in California.  Score: 3

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

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

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

2) Known Pest Host Range: Meloidogyne floridensis has a wide and diverse host range that includes peach, almond, several agricultural crops, ornamentals, and weed hosts.

Evaluate the host range of the pest.

Score: 3

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

– Medium (2) has a moderate host range.

– High (3) has a wide host range.

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

Evaluate the natural and artificial dispersal potential of the pest.

Score: 3

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

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

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

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

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

Economic Impact: A, B, C, D, G

A. The pest could lower crop yield.

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

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

D. The pest could negatively change normal cultural practices.

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

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

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

Economic Impact Score: 3

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

– Medium (2) causes 2 of these impacts.

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

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

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

Environment Impact: D, E 

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

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

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

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

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

Environmental Impact Score: 3

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

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

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

Consequences of Introduction to California for Meloidogyne floridensis: 15

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

-Low = 5-8 points

-Medium = 9-12 points

–High = 13-15 points

Total points obtained on evaluation of consequences of introduction to California = 15

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

Score: -1

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

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

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

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

Final Score:

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

Final Score:  Score of Consequences of Introduction – Score of Post Entry Distribution and Survey Information = 14

Uncertainty:  

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

Conclusion and Rating Justification:

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

References:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Responsible Party:

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

Comment Period:* CLOSED

7/27/18 – 9/10/18

*NOTE:

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

Comment Format:

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

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

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

♦  Comments may not be posted if they:

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

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

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

Violates agency regulations prohibiting workplace violence, including threats.

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

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

Pest Rating: A

 

Posted by ls

 

A-Rated, Coleoptera, Insects, Mites & Earthworms

Twobanded Japanese Weevil | Pseudocneorhinus bifasciatus

Twobanded Japanese Weevil
Figure 1: Pseudcneorhinus bifasciatus (Photo: Judy Gallagher)
California Pest Rating for
Name: Pseudocneorhinus bifasciatus Roelofs (twobanded Japanese weevil)
Synonym: Callirhopalus bifasciatus (Roelofs)
Order: Coleoptera
Family: Curculionidae
Pest Rating: A

PEST RATING PROFILE

Initiating Event:

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

History & Status:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Consequences of Introduction:

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

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

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

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

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

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

– Medium (2) has a moderate host range.

– High (3) has a wide host range.

3) Pest Dispersal Potential: Pseudocneorhinus bifasciatus reproduces parthogenetically (Takenouchi et al, 1983).  This high reproductive capacity is offset by a limited dispersal potential.  The weevil’s wing covers are fused rendering it incapable of flight.  It could be dispersed through the movement of infected nursery stock (Wheeler and Boyd, 2005).  Therefore, it receives a Medium (2) in this category.

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

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

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

4) Economic Impact: As described previously, Pseudocneorhinus bifasciatus has a very wide range of hosts including field and vegetable crops (Thomas, 2005; Day, 2014).  The weevil has the potential of lowering the value of nursery crops and the yield of agricultural crops.  Therefore, it receives a Medium (2) in this category.

Economic Impact:  A, B

A. The pest could lower crop yield.

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

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

D. The pest could negatively change normal cultural practices.

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

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

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

Economic Impact Score: 2

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

– Medium (2) causes 2 of these impacts.

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

5) Environmental Impact: If Pseudocneorhinus bifasciatus became established in California, it could attack a wide variety of ornamental and garden plants. The impact of the infestation could trigger treatment programs.  This pest may also pose a threat to endangered species such as Rosa minutifolia and Potentilla hickmannii.  Therefore, this beetle receives a High (3) in this category.

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

Environmental Impact: B, D, E

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

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

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

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

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

Environmental Impact Score: 3

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

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

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

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

Add up the total score and include it here.

–Low = 5-8 points

–Medium = 9-12 points

–High = 13-15 points

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

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

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

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

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

Final Score:

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

Uncertainty:

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

Conclusion and Rating Justification:

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

References:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Entomological Science 40: 25-30.

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

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

Author:

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

Responsible Party:

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

Comment Period:* CLOSED

7/25/18 – 9/08/18

*NOTE:

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

Comment Format:

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

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

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

♦  Comments may not be posted if they:

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

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

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

Violates agency regulations prohibiting workplace violence, including threats.

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

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

Pest Rating: A

Posted by ls 

A-Rated, Hemiptera, Insects, Mites & Earthworms

Barber Giant Mealybug | Puto barberi (Cockerell)

Barber Giant Mealybug or Cockerell
Alessandra Rung, Scale Insects, USDA APHIS ITP, Bugwood.org
California Pest Rating for
Barber Giant Mealybug | Puto barberi (Cockerell) 
Hemiptera: Putoidae
Pest Rating: A

PEST RATING PROFILE

Initiating Event:

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

History & Status:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Consequences of Introduction:

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

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

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

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

2) Known Pest Host Range: As stated above, Puto barberi is reported to feed on at least 37 families of plants.  Therefore, it receives a High (3) in this category.

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

– Medium (2) has a moderate host range.

– High (3) has a wide host range.

3) Pest Reproductive and Dispersal Potential: Puto barberi has been shown to be parthenogenetic, which means a single female can establish a population.  Immatures and adult females could be transported on infested plant material.  Therefore, it receives a High (3) in this category.

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

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

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

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

Economic Impact:  A, B, C

A. The pest could lower crop yield.

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

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

D. The pest could negatively change normal cultural practices.

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

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

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

Economic Impact Score: 3

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

– Medium (2) causes 2 of these impacts.

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

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

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

Environmental Impact:  D

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

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

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

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

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

Environmental Impact Score: 2

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

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

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

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

Add up the total score and include it here.

–Low = 5-8 points

–Medium = 9-12 points

–High = 13-15 points

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

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

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

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

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

Final Score:

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

Uncertainty:

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

Conclusion and Rating Justification:

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

References:

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

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

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

García Morales, M., Denno, B. D., Miller, D. R., Miller, G. L., Ben-Dov, Y., and Hardy, N. B. 2016.  ScaleNet: A literature-based model of scale insect biology and systematics.  Accessed July 2, 2018: http://scalenet.info

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Author:

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

Responsible Party:

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

Comment Period:* CLOSED

7/24/18 – 9/07/18

*NOTE:

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

Comment Format:

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

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

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

♦  Comments may not be posted if they:

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

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

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

Violates agency regulations prohibiting workplace violence, including threats.

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

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

Pest Rating: A

Posted by ls 

A-Rated, Coleoptera, Insects, Mites & Earthworms

Longhorned Beetle | Plagionotus arcuatus (Linnaeus)

Longhorned Beetle | Plagionotus arcuatus
Giedrius Markevicius, Lithuanian Entomological Society, Bugwood.org

California Pest Rating for
Longhorned Beetle | Plagionotus arcuatus (Linnaeus)
Coleoptera: Cerambycidae
Pest Rating: A

 

 

PEST RATING PROFILE

Initiating Event:

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

History & Status:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Consequences of Introduction:

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

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

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

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

2) Known Pest Host Range: Plagionotus arcuatus is reported to feed on at least seven genera from five different families of deciduous trees. Therefore, it receives a High (3) in this category.

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

– Medium (2) has a moderate host range.

– High (3) has a wide host range.

3) Pest Dispersal Potential: Plagionotus arcuatus can presumably fly.  This beetle can also disperse through movement of firewood, as shown by the interception of multiple living adults in firewood on the island of Majorca (Díaz-Calafut et al., 2017).  Therefore, it receives a Medium (2) in this category.

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

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

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

4) Economic Impact: Plagionotus arcuatus attacks recently-cut wood and was reported to reduce the quality of oak timber.  Avoiding damage from this beetle may require changes in the timing of timber harvest.  Forest product (including timber) sales in California totaled $1.4 billion in 2012 (McIver et al., 2015).  Therefore, it receives a Medium (2) in this category.

Economic Impact:  B, D

A. The pest could lower crop yield.

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

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

D. The pest could negatively change normal cultural practices.

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

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

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

Economic Impact Score:  2

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

– Medium (2) causes 2 of these impacts.

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

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

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

Environmental Impact: A

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

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

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

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

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

Environmental Impact Score:  2

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

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

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

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

–Low = 5-8 points

–Medium = 9-12 points

–High = 13-15 points

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

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

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

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

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

Final Score:

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

Uncertainty:

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

Conclusion and Rating Justification:

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

References:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Author:

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

Responsible Party:

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

Comment Period:* CLOSED

7/24/18 – 9/07/18

*NOTE:

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

Comment Format:

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

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

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

♦  Comments may not be posted if they:

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

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

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

Violates agency regulations prohibiting workplace violence, including threats.

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

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

Pest Rating: A

 

Posted by ls 

A-Rated, Diptera, Insects, Mites & Earthworms

Tomato Leaf Miner | Liriomyza bryoniae (Kaltenbach)

Tomato Leaf Miner (Liriomyza bryoniae)
W. Billen, Pflanzenbeschaustelle, Weil am Rhein, Bugwood.org

California Pest Rating for
Tomato leaf miner | Liriomyza bryoniae (Kaltenbach)
Diptera: Agromyzidae
Pest Rating: A

 

PEST RATING PROFILE

Initiating Event:

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

History & Status:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Consequences of Introduction:

1) Climate/Host Interaction: Liriomyza bryoniae is widely distributed, suggesting it is tolerant of a wide range of conditions. Although it does not tolerate the very cold temperatures found in northern Europe, as shown by its apparent restriction to greenhouses there, it has been shown to successfully overwinter and survive frost in the Netherlands (Van der Linden, 1993).  It seems likely that the climate of a large portion of California would be suitable for this fly.  This species is highly polyphagous, and known host plants occur over much of the state.  Therefore, Liriomyza bryoniae receives a High (3) in this category.

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

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

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

2) Known Pest Host Range: Liriomyza bryoniae is highly polyphagous and has been reported to feed on plants in at least 16 families. Therefore, it receives a High (3) in this category.

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

– Medium (2) has a moderate host range.

– High (3) has a wide host range.

3) Pest Reproductive and Dispersal Potential: Liriomyza bryoniae, like other agromyzids is a strong flier, and the larvae could possibly be moved with infested plant material. The species has high reproductive potential, with individual females laying up to 183 eggs each. Therefore, it receives a High (3) in this category.

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

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

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

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

Economic Impact:  A, B, C

A. The pest could lower crop yield.

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

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

D. The pest could negatively change normal cultural practices.

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

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

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

Economic Impact Score: 3

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

– Medium (2) causes 2 of these impacts.

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

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

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

Environmental Impact:  D, E

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

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

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

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

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

Environmental Impact Score:  3

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

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

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

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

Add up the total score and include it here.

–Low = 5-8 points

–Medium = 9-12 points

–High = 13-15 points

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

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

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

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

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

Final Score:

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

Uncertainty:

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

Conclusion and Rating Justification:

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

References:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Author:

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

Responsible Party:

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

Comment Period:* CLOSED

7/24/18 – 9/07/18

*NOTE:

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

Comment Format:

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

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

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

♦  Comments may not be posted if they:

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

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

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

Violates agency regulations prohibiting workplace violence, including threats.

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

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

Pest Rating: A

 

Posted by ls