“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.
John J. Chitambar, Primary Plant Pathologist/Nematologist, California Department of Food and Agriculture, Phone: 916-738-6693, plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov.
Updated on 7/10/2019 by ls
John J. Chitambar, Primary PlantPathologist/Nematologist, California Department of Food and Agriculture, plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov.
Updated on 7/10/2019 by ls
In 2018, this scale was found in Solano County on Ligustrum sp. bonsai that had been purchased in Fresno County. This scale currently has a Q-rating. A permanent pest rating proposal is required to support an official pest rating.
Background: Pseudaulacaspis prunicola is a polyphagous scale that is reported to feed on plants in 15 families. Among the recorded hosts are fruit and ornamental trees, including Carica, Malus, and Prunus species (Agnello et al., 2015; Follett, 2000; Miller and Davidson, 2005). Death of trees can result from feeding by this scale (Miller and Davidson, 2005).
There is some uncertainty regarding the species identity of P. prunicola. This scale was considered a synonym of P. pentagona until 1980. Kreiter et al. (1999) reported individuals in a single population that could be identified morphologically as either species. Pseudaulacaspis pentagona is an A-rated (by CDFA) pest that is highly polyphagous and is reported to cause damage to a wide variety of plants, including peaches in the southeastern United States and papaya in Hawaii (Branscome, 1999; Follett, 2000).
Worldwide Distribution: Pseudaulacaspis prunicola is thought to be native to temperate China or Japan (Miller and Davidson, 2005). It has been introduced to Europe, the eastern United States, and Hawaii. In the eastern United States, it is reported from Florida north to Massachusetts (Miller and Davidson, 2005).
Official Control: Pseudaulacaspis prunicola does not appear to be under official control in any country. However, P. pentagona, which has been considered by some to be a senior synonym of P. prunicola, is a regulated pest in some countries (EPPO Global Database, 2018).
California Distribution: Although P. prunicola has been collected at times in the state, this species does not appear to be established in California.
California Interceptions: The P. prunicola found on Ligustrum sp. bonsai in Solano County in 2018 represents the only interception of this species in California.
The risk Pseudaulacaspis prunicola would pose to California is evaluated below.
Consequences of Introduction:
1) Climate/Host Interaction: Pseudaulacaspis prunicola has proven itself capable of becoming established in a variety of climates, and it is highly polyphagous. It could probably establish a widespread distribution in California. Therefore, prunicola receives a High (3) in this category.
– Low (1) Not likely to establish in California; or likely to establish in very limited areas.
– Medium (2) may be able to establish in a larger but limited part of California.
– High (3) likely to establish a widespread distribution in California.
2) Known Pest Host Range: Pseudaulacaspis prunicola is reported to feed on plants in at least 15 families. Therefore, it receives a High (3) in this category.
– Low (1) has a very limited host range.
– Medium (2) has a moderate host range.
– High (3) has a wide host range.
3) Pest Reproductive and Dispersal Potential: Pseudaulacaspis prunicola is likely to be transported via movement of infested plants. Therefore, it receives a Medium (2) in this category.
– Low (1) does not have high reproductive or dispersal potential.
– Medium (2) has either high reproductive or dispersal potential.
– High (3) has both high reproduction and dispersal potential.
4) Economic Impact: Pseudaulacaspis prunicola is reported to attack fruit and ornamental trees. Feeding damage is reported to cause death of trees. Infestations of this scale could lower crop yield and increase production costs. Therefore, it receives a Medium (2) in this category.
Economic Impact: A, B
A. The pest could lower crop yield.
B. The pest could lower crop value (includes increasing crop production costs).
C. The pest could trigger the loss of markets (includes quarantines).
D. The pest could negatively change normal cultural practices.
E. The pest can vector, or is vectored, by another pestiferous organism.
F. The organism is injurious or poisonous to agriculturally important animals.
G. The organism can interfere with the delivery or supply of water for agricultural uses.
Economic Impact Score: 2
– Low (1) causes 0 or 1 of these impacts.
– Medium (2) causes 2 of these impacts.
– High (3) causes 3 or more of these impacts.
5) Environmental Impact: This scale is reported to kill ornamental trees. Infestations could trigger treatment programs. Therefore, it receives a High (3) in this category.
Evaluate the environmental impact of the pest on California using the criteria below.
Environmental Impact: D, E
A. The pest could have a significant environmental impact such as lowering biodiversity, disrupting natural communities, or changing ecosystem processes.
B. The pest could directly affect threatened or endangered species.
C. The pest could impact threatened or endangered species by disrupting critical habitats.
D. The pest could trigger additional official or private treatment programs.
E. The pest significantly impacts cultural practices, home/urban gardening or ornamental plantings.
Environmental Impact Score: 3
– Low (1) causes none of the above to occur.
– Medium (2) causes one of the above to occur.
– High (3) causes two or more of the above to occur.
Add up the total score and include it here.
–Low = 5-8 points
–Medium = 9-12 points
–High = 13-15 points
6) Post Entry Distribution and Survey Information: Pseudaulacaspis prunicola is not known to be present in California. It receives a Not Established (0) in this category.
–Not established (0) Pest never detected in California, or known only from incursions.
–Low (-1) Pest has a localized distribution in California, or is established in one suitable climate/host area (region).
–Medium (-2) Pest is widespread in California but not fully established in the endangered area, or pest established in two contiguous suitable climate/host areas.
–High (-3) Pest has fully established in the endangered area, or pest is reported in more than two contiguous or non-contiguous suitable climate/host areas.
7) The final score is the consequences of introduction score minus the post entry distribution and survey information score: High (13)
There is taxonomic uncertainty regarding P. prunicola and P. pentagona; they have been considered to be the same species. As P. pentagona is A-rated and is also not known to be present in California, the main implication of this uncertainty appears to be that the potential impact of P. prunicola could be greater than that considered in this PRP because there are additional hosts and additional climatic niche space reported for P. pentagona.
Pseudaulacaspis prunicola is a highly polyphagous scale that is not known to be present in California. It has the potential to cause economic and environmental impacts in the state if it was to become established. For these reasons, an “A” rating is justified.
Agnello, A., Jentsch, P., and Kain, D. 2015. Prebloom problemas. Scaffolds Fruit Journal 24:1-3.
Branscome, D. 1999. Pseudaulacaspis pentagona. Accessed October 2, 2018: http://entnemdept.ufl.edu/creatures/orn/scales/white_peach_scale.htm
California Department of Food and Agriculture. Pest and damage record database. Accessed September 28, 2018:
https://pdr.cdfa.ca.gov/PDR/pdrmainmenu.aspx
EPPO Global Database. 2018. Accessed October 4, 2018: https://gd.eppo.int/
Follett, P. A. 2000. Arthropod pests of papaya in Hawaii. Chronica Horticulturae 40:7-10.
Kreiter, P., Panis, A., and Tourniaire, R. 1999. Variabilite morphologique chez Pseudaulacaspis pentagona Targioni Tozzetti dans une population du sud-est de la France (Hemiptera: Diaspididae). Annales de la Société Entomologique de France 35:33-36.
Symbiota Collections of Arthropods Network. Accessed September 27, 2018:
http://scan1.acis.ufl.edu
Miller, D. R. and Davidson, J. A. 2005. Armored scale insect pests of trees and shrubs (Hemiptera: Diaspididae). Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY.
Kyle Beucke, 1220 N Street, Room 221, Sacramento, CA, 95814, 916-403-6741, plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov
12/6/2018 – 1/20/2019
You must be registered and logged in to post a comment. If you have registered and have not received the registration confirmation, please contact us at plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov.
♦ Comments should refer to the appropriate California Pest Rating Proposal Form subsection(s) being commented on, as shown below.
Example Comment:
Consequences of Introduction: 1. Climate/Host Interaction: [Your comment that relates to “Climate/Host Interaction” here.]
♦ Posted comments will not be able to be viewed immediately.
♦ Comments may not be posted if they:
Contain inappropriate language which is not germane to the pest rating proposal;
Contains defamatory, false, inaccurate, abusive, obscene, pornographic, sexually oriented, threatening, racially offensive, discriminatory or illegal material;
Violates agency regulations prohibiting sexual harassment or other forms of discrimination;
Violates agency regulations prohibiting workplace violence, including threats.
♦ Comments may be edited prior to posting to ensure they are entirely germane.
♦ Posted comments shall be those which have been approved in content and posted to the website to be viewed, not just submitted.
Posted by ls
An infestation of Hypogeococcus pungens was discovered on cacti in a recreation area in Orange County in September 2018. This mealybug currently has a Q-rating. A permanent pest rating proposal is required to support an official pest rating.
Background: Hypogeococcus pungens is a mealybug that has been reported to attack at least six genera of cacti as well as plants in the families Amaranthaceae, Polygonaceae, and Portulaceae (Hodges, 2009; Zimmermann et al., 2010). Cactus feeding is concentrated on portions of the plant that are actively growing. This results in distorted growth, including curling branches and growth of new, deformed branches that are sometimes referred to as galls (Le Quay-Velázquez et al., 2015). Death can take years, especially in older plants, but feeding has an immediate impact of fruit production because the mealybugs are concentrated on developing flowers. Therefore, this mealybug can have a severe impact on cactus reproduction (Patterson et al., 2011).
Natural dispersal appears to be limited but may include wind dispersal in the first instar (Zimmermann et al., 2010). Movement of plants is probably the most effective means of spread of this mealybug.
In the 1970s and 1980s, this mealybug was introduced to Australia and South Africa as part of biological control programs targeting introduced cacti, including Harrisia spp. This mealybug was credited as an effective biological control agent, helping to clear cacti from thousands of hectares.
Aguirre et al. (2016) provided evidence that more than one species may be currently identified as H. pungens. Specimens collected from the type host plant (Amaranthaceae) did not produce viable offspring or did not survive at all on cacti. The cactus-feeding H. pungens introduced to Australia for biological control of cacti had been collected from cacti in Argentina. Significantly, the H. pungens in Australia have not been found on Amaranthaceae, even though this family of plants is common in Australia. The mealybug in Florida rarely attacks cacti but it is common on Alternanthera (Polygonaceae) and Portulaca (Portulaceae) species. In addition, the Amaranthaceae-feeding H. pungens are reported to be parthenogenetic, whereas the cactus-feeding mealybug is not. This evidence suggests there are likely at least two species currently recognized as H. pungens; one that feeds on cacti (native to South America and introduced to Australia, South Africa, the Caribbean, and possibly California) and one that feeds on Amaranthaceae and other plant families (also native to South America and introduced to Florida).
In addition, H. pungens has been misidentified as H. festerianus in the past (CABI, 2018).
In areas with native cacti but where H. pungens is not native to, there is concern that the mealybug could have an impact on native cacti. Hypogeococcus pungens was reported to cause severe damage to native cacti in Puerto Rico, including reducing the density of cactus stems (Weaver, 2011).
Worldwide Distribution: Hypogeococcus pungens is native to South America (northern Argentina, western Brazil, Paraguay, and Peru). It has been introduced to Australia, the Caribbean (including the Dominican Republic and Puerto Rico), Europe (France, Greece, and Italy), South Africa, and the United States (Florida and Hawaii) (German-Ramirez et al., 2014; Hodges, 2009; Milonas et al., 2008; Pellizzari and Sacco, 2010; Segarra-Carmona et al., 2010). As of 2009, it was reported from 26 counties in Florida (Hodges, 2009).
Official Control: Hypogeococcus pungens is considered Reportable by the USDA (USDA-APHIS).
California Distribution: Hypogeococcus pungens was found in California in Beverly Hills in 2010, 2012, 2014, and 2018 and in a recreation area in Orange County in 2018. Both of these infestations are now under eradication, and this species is not known to be present anywhere else in the state.
California Interceptions: Hypogeococcus pungens was found on cacti at one residence in Beverly Hills (in 2010, 2012, 2014, and 2018), in a recreation area in Orange County in 2018, and in nurseries in Riverside, Orange, San Diego, and San Mateo County in 2004, 2011, 2012, and 2018. It was intercepted on alternanthera and ludwigia plants from Florida in 2002 and 2004 (see comment on host breadth and taxonomic uncertainty, above).
The risk Hypogeococcus pungens would pose to California is evaluated below.
1) Climate/Host Interaction: Hypogeococcus pungens has been reported from areas that vary in climate from temperate to semi-arid to tropical. It has been reported to feed on plants in four families. It could possibly establish a widespread distribution in California. Therefore, pungens receives a High (3) in this category.
– Low (1) Not likely to establish in California; or likely to establish in very limited areas.
– Medium (2) may be able to establish in a larger but limited part of California.
– High (3) likely to establish a widespread distribution in California.
2) Known Pest Host Range: Four plant families are reported to be attacked by mealybugs that were identified as pungens. Although it is possible that multiple species with different feeding habits are being lumped together in this PRP (see Background, above, and Uncertainty, below), it is necessary to consider characteristics of what has been (and are likely to be) identified as H. pungens. Therefore, H. pungens receives a Medium (2) in this category.
– Low (1) has a very limited host range.
– Medium (2) has a moderate host range.
– High (3) has a wide host range.
3) Pest Reproductive and Dispersal Potential: Some pungens are reported to be parthenogenetic, but see Background, above. Natural dispersal ability appears to be limited, with wind-dispersal of first instar nymphs being reported as likely. Movement of infested cactus plants is another likely mode of dispersal. Therefore, it receives a Medium (2) in this category.
– Low (1) does not have high reproductive or dispersal potential.
– Medium (2) has either high reproductive or dispersal potential.
– High (3) has both high reproduction and dispersal potential.
4) Economic Impact: Hypogeococcus pungens is likely to infest cacti in nurseries if it became established in California. This could lead to higher costs of production. Additionally, the presence of this mealybug could lead to a loss in cactus markets, as this pest threatens native cacti in other countries, including Mexico. Therefore, it receives a Medium (2) in this category.
Economic Impact: B, C
A. The pest could lower crop yield.
B. The pest could lower crop value (includes increasing crop production costs).
C. The pest could trigger the loss of markets (includes quarantines).
D. The pest could negatively change normal cultural practices.
E. The pest can vector, or is vectored, by another pestiferous organism.
F. The organism is injurious or poisonous to agriculturally important animals.
G. The organism can interfere with the delivery or supply of water for agricultural uses.
Economic Impact Score: 2
– Low (1) causes 0 or 1 of these impacts.
– Medium (2) causes 2 of these impacts.
– High (3) causes 3 or more of these impacts.
5) Environmental Impact: There are 38 native cacti in California, including 8 endemic species (Jepson Herbarium, 2018), that could be threatened by this mealybug, including the rare golden-spined cereus (Bergerocactus emoryi (Engelm.) Britton & Rose) and the San Diego barrel cactus (Ferocactus viridescens (Torr. & A. Gray) Britton & Rose). Infestations of this mealybug could trigger treatments and could impact ornamental cactus plantings. Therefore, it receives a High (3) in this category.
Evaluate the environmental impact of the pest on California using the criteria below.
Environmental Impact: B, D, E
A. The pest could have a significant environmental impact such as lowering biodiversity, disrupting natural communities, or changing ecosystem processes.
B. The pest could directly affect threatened or endangered species.
C. The pest could impact threatened or endangered species by disrupting critical habitats.
D. The pest could trigger additional official or private treatment programs.
E. The pest significantly impacts cultural practices, home/urban gardening or ornamental plantings.
Environmental Impact Score: 3
– Low (1) causes none of the above to occur.
– Medium (2) causes one of the above to occur.
– High (3) causes two or more of the above to occur.
Add up the total score and include it here.
–Low = 5-8 points
–Medium = 9-12 points
–High = 13-15 points
6) Post Entry Distribution and Survey Information: Hypogeococcus pungens is not known to be established in California. It receives a Not established (0) in this category.
–Not established (0) Pest never detected in California, or known only from incursions.
–Low (-1) Pest has a localized distribution in California, or is established in one suitable climate/host area (region).
–Medium (-2) Pest is widespread in California but not fully established in the endangered area, or pest established in two contiguous suitable climate/host areas.
–High (-3) Pest has fully established in the endangered area, or pest is reported in more than two contiguous or non-contiguous suitable climate/host areas.
7) The final score is the consequences of introduction score minus the post entry distribution and survey information score: Medium (12)
There is significant uncertainty regarding the identity of the mealybugs identified as H. pungens. As described in the Background (above), there may be at least two species that are currently identified as H. pungens; one that feeds on cacti and one that feeds on other plants, including Amaranthaceae. This makes it difficult to extrapolate impacts of H. pungens observed in other places to California. For example, H. pungens is reported to be widely distributed in Florida, but this does not appear to be the cactus-feeding form. In this PRP, characteristics and possible impacts of the mealybugs identified as H. pungens were considered because, in the absence of further systematic work on these mealybugs, they are likely to be similarly identified as H. pungens if intercepted in California.
Hypogeococcus pungens or a cryptic species that is currently identified as H. pungens attacks cacti and poses a threat to cacti in California, both rare, native species as well as those cultivated as ornamentals in nurseries. Besides the infestations that are under eradication, this mealybug is not known to be established in California. For these reasons, an “A” rating is justified.
Aguirre, M. B., Diaz-Soltero, H., Claps, L. E., Saracho Bottero, A., Triapitsyn, S., Hasson, E., and Logarzo, G. A. 2016. Studies on the biology of Hypogeococcus pungens (sensu stricto) (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) in Argentina to aid the identification of the mealybug pest of Cactaceae in Puerto Rico. Journal of Insect Science 16:1-7.
California Department of Food and Agriculture. Pest and damage record database. Accessed October 5, 2018: https://pdr.cdfa.ca.gov/PDR/pdrmainmenu.aspx
CABI. 2018. Invasive Species Compendium. Hypogeococcus pungens (cactus mealybug) datasheet. Accessed October 5, 2018: https://www.cabi.org/isc/datasheet/110614
German-Ramirez, E., Kairo, M. T. K., Stocks, I., Haseeb, M., and Serra, C. A. 2014. New record of Hypogeococcus pungens (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) in the Dominican Republic with comments on specific characters. Florida Entomologist 97:320-321.
Hodges, A. 2009. Hypogeococcus pungens Granara de Willink (Insects: Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae). Accessed September 24, 2018: http://entnemdept.ufl.edu/creatures/orn/mealybug/hypogeococcus_pungens.htm
Jepson Herbarium. 2018. Jepson eFLora. Accessed October 5, 2018:
http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/IJM_stats.html.
Le Quay-Velázquez, G., Ciomperlik, M., and Rodrigues, J. C. V. 2015. Gall formation on the endangered cactus, Leptocereus quadricostatus caused by the invasive mealybug, Hypogeococcus pungens (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae). Proceedings of the Caribbean Food Crops Society 51:174-180.
Milonas, P. G., Kozár, F., and Kontodimas, D. C. 2008. List of scale insects of Greece. pp. 143-147 in Branco M., Franco J.C., and Hodgson C. (eds.), Proceedings of the XI International Symposium on Scale Insect Studies. ISA Press, Lisbon, Portugal.
Paterson, I. D., Hoffmann, J. H., Klein, H., Mathenge, C. W., Neser, S., and Zimmermann, H. G. 2011. Biological control of Cactaceae in South Africa 19:230-246.
Pellizzari, G., and Sacco, M. 2010. Le cocciniglie delle piante ornamentali in Liguria. Protezione delle Colture 4:27-36.
Segarra-Carmona, A. E., Ramírez-Lluch, A., Cabrera-Asencio, I., and Jiménez-López, A. N. 2010. First report of a new invasive mealybug, the Harrisia cactus Hypogeococcus pungens (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae). The Journal of Agriculture of the University of Puerto Rico 94:183-187.
USDA-APHIS. U.S. regulated plant pest table. Accessed September 26, 2018:
https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/planthealth/import-information/rppl/rppl-table
Weaver, P. L. 2011. Early recovery of subtropical dry forest in south-western Puerto Rico. Bois et Forêts de Tropiques 310:12-23.
Zimmermann, H. G., Pérez, M., Cuen, S., Mandujano, M. C., and Golubov, J. 2010. The South American mealybug that threatens North American cacti. Cactus and Succulent Journal 82:105-107.
Kyle Beucke, 1220 N Street, Room 221, Sacramento, CA, 95814, 916-403-6741, plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov
12/6/2018 – 1/20/2019
You must be registered and logged in to post a comment. If you have registered and have not received the registration confirmation, please contact us at plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov.
♦ Comments should refer to the appropriate California Pest Rating Proposal Form subsection(s) being commented on, as shown below.
Example Comment:
Consequences of Introduction: 1. Climate/Host Interaction: [Your comment that relates to “Climate/Host Interaction” here.]
♦ Posted comments will not be able to be viewed immediately.
♦ Comments may not be posted if they:
Contain inappropriate language which is not germane to the pest rating proposal;
Contains defamatory, false, inaccurate, abusive, obscene, pornographic, sexually oriented, threatening, racially offensive, discriminatory or illegal material;
Violates agency regulations prohibiting sexual harassment or other forms of discrimination;
Violates agency regulations prohibiting workplace violence, including threats.
♦ Comments may be edited prior to posting to ensure they are entirely germane.
♦ Posted comments shall be those which have been approved in content and posted to the website to be viewed, not just submitted.
Posted by ls
Helicoverpa armigera was recently intercepted in a cut flower shipment in Los Angeles. A pest rating proposal is required to assign a permanent pest rating.
Background: Helicoverpa armigera is a highly polyphagous pest of many economically significant crops in Africa, Asia, Australia, and Europe (King, 1994). Helicoverpa armigera pupae overwinter in the soil. Adults emerge in May – June and lay eggs, usually on or near flowers. The larvae primarily feed on reproductive parts of hosts (flowers and fruits), but they can also feed on foliage. There are from two to six generations/year, depending on the climate. This species has been reported to cause serious losses throughout its range, in particular to tomatoes, corn, and cotton (Lammers and Ma cLeod, 2007).
Worldwide Distribution: Helicoverpa armigera is widely distributed. It has been reported from the following places: Asia: Afghanistan, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Brunei, Cambodia, China, Cocos Islands, Republic of Georgia, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Korea, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Lebanon, Malaysia, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan, Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Syria, Taiwan, Tajikistan, Thailand, Turkey, Turkmenistan, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, Vietnam, and Yemen.
Europe: Albania, Andorra, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Gibraltar, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Macedonia, Malta, Moldova, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and Ukraine.
Africa: Algeria, Angola, Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Cote d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Kenya, Lesotho, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mayotte, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Republic of Congo, Reunion, Rwanda, Saint Helena, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Africa, Sudan, Swaziland, Tanzania, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.
Oceania: American Samoa, Australia, Belau, Christmas Island, Cook Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Guam, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, New Caledonia, New Zealand, Norfolk Island, Northern Mariana Islands, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, and Vanuatu.
South America: Argentina, Brazil, and Paraguay (CABI, 2007; Fibiger and Skule, 2011; EPPO, 2012; Sugayama, 2013; Senave, 2013; Murúa et al., 2014).
Official Control: Helicoverpa armigera is listed as a harmful organism in Costa Rica, Bermuda, French Polynesia, Honduras, Paraguay, Turkey, Chile, Ecuador, Guatemala, Monaco, San Marino, Uruguay, Colombia, European Union, Norway, and Serbia (USDA PCIT).
California Distribution: Helicoverpa armigera has never been found in the environment of California.
California Interceptions: There was only one specimen reported in the Pest and Damage Record Database by CDFA. This specimen was found (2017) in Los Angeles County on a cut flower shipment from India (California Department of Food and Agriculture).
The risk Helicoverpa armigera (cotton bollworm) would pose to California is evaluated below.
1) Climate/Host Interaction: Helicoverpa armigera can feed on a wide variety of plants that grow in California. It is expected to be capable of establishing a widespread distribution and receives a High (3) in this category.
Evaluate if the pest would have suitable hosts and climate to establish in California:
– Low (1) Not likely to establish in California; or likely to establish in very limited areas.
– Medium (2) may be able to establish in a larger but limited part of California.
– High (3) likely to establish a widespread distribution in California.
2) Known Pest Host Range: Helicoverpa armigera is a polyphagous moth and a major insect pest of both field and horticultural crops in many parts of the world (Fitt, 1989). It has been reported on over 180 species of plants, including many crops, in at least 45 plant families (Venette et al., 2003). It receives a High (3) in this category.
Evaluate the host range of the pest.
– Low (1) has a very limited host range.
– Medium (2) has a moderate host range.
– High (3) has a wide host range.
3) Pest Dispersal Potential: Helicoverpa armigera exhibits overlapping generations, typically two to five generations per year in subtropical and temperate regions. Up to 11 generations per year can occur under optimal conditions (Tripathi and Singh, 1991; King, 1994; Fowler and Lakin, 2001). The female lays up to 1000 eggs in clusters or singly on fruits, stems, and growing points. It receives a High (3) in this category.
Evaluate the natural and artificial dispersal potential of the pest.
– Low (1) does not have high reproductive or dispersal potential.
– Medium (2) has either high reproductive or dispersal potential.
– High (3) has both high reproduction and dispersal potential.
4) Economic Impact: Helicoverpa armigera is considered to be among the most damaging agricultural pests in Australia, costing approximately $225.2 million per year to control (Clearly et al., 2006). This moth has the potential to lower crop yields and increase production costs in California. If Helicoverpa armigera were to establish in California it is also likely to disrupt markets for California fresh fruit and plants because this pest is regulated by many countries. It receives a High (3) in this category.
Evaluate the economic impact of the pest to California using the criteria below.
Economic Impact: A, B, C
A. The pest could lower crop yield.
B. The pest could lower crop value (includes increasing crop production costs).
C. The pest could trigger the loss of markets (includes quarantines).
D. The pest could negatively change normal cultural practices.
E. The pest can vector, or is vectored, by another pestiferous organism.
F. The organism is injurious or poisonous to agriculturally important animals.
G. The organism can interfere with the delivery or supply of water for agricultural uses.
Economic Impact Score: 3
– Low (1) causes 0 or 1 of these impacts.
– Medium (2) causes 2 of these impacts.
– High (3) causes 3 or more of these impacts.
5) Environmental Impact: Helicoverpa armigera is not expected to lower biodiversity, disrupt natural communities, or change ecosystem processes. It might trigger new chemical treatments by residents who find infestations in gardens. It is not expected to significantly impact cultural practices, home/urban gardening, or ornamental plantings. It receives a Medium (2) in this category.
Evaluate the environmental impact of the pest on California using the criteria below.
Environmental Impact: D
A. The pest could have a significant environmental impact such as lowering biodiversity, disrupting natural communities, or changing ecosystem processes.
B. The pest could directly affect threatened or endangered species.
C. The pest could impact threatened or endangered species by disrupting critical habitats.
D. The pest could trigger additional official or private treatment programs.
E. The pest significantly impacts cultural practices, home/urban gardening or ornamental plantings.
Environmental Impact: Score: 2
– Low (1) causes none of the above to occur.
– Medium (2) causes one of the above to occur.
– High (3) causes two or more of the above to occur.
–Low = 5-8 points
–Medium = 9-12 points
-High = 13-15 points
6) Post Entry Distribution and Survey Information: Helicoverpa armigera has never been found in California and receives a Not established (0) in this category.
Evaluate the known distribution in California. Only official records identified by a taxonomic expert and supported by voucher specimens deposited in natural history collections should be considered. Pest incursions that have been eradicated, are under eradication, or have been delimited with no further detections should not be included.
-Not established (0) Pest never detected in California, or known only from incursions.
–Low (-1) Pest has a localized distribution in California, or is established in one suitable climate/host area (region).
–Medium (-2) Pest is widespread in California but not fully established in the endangered area, or pest established in two contiguous suitable climate/host areas.
–High (-3) Pest has fully established in the endangered area, or pest is reported in more than two contiguous or non-contiguous suitable climate/host areas.
The final score is the consequences of introduction score minus the post entry distribution and survey information score: High (14)
Only one interception record was found in CDFA database, there would be chances that it presumably enters the state undetected at other times. Therefore, it is possible that it may be present in some areas of California. There is little uncertainty that H. armigera could become widely established in California, as there are numerous host plants grown throughout the state.
Helicoverpa armigera has not been found in California and is expected to have significant economic and environmental impacts if it establishes in the state. An “A” rating is justified.
CABI. 2018. Helicoverpa armigera. CAB International. Accessed August 9, 2018: https://www.cabi.org/isc/datasheet/26757
CDFA Pest and Damage Report Database. 2011. Aulacaspis tubercularis. Plant Health and Pest Prevention Services. CA Department of Food and Agriculture. Accessed August 9, 2018: http://phpps.cdfa.ca.gov/user/frmLogon2.asp
Cleary, A. J., Cribb, B. W., and Murray, D. A. H. 2006. Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner): can wheat stubble protect cotton from attack. Australian Journal of Entomology 45:10-15.
Fitt, G. P. 1989. The ecology of Heliothis spp. in relation to agroecosystems. Annual Review of Entomology 34:17-52.
Fowler, G. A. and Lakin, K. R. 2001. Risk Assessment: The Old-World bollworm, Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner), (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae).
USDA-APHIS-PPQ-CPHST-PERAL
Smith E. 2015. Old World bollworm management program. Environmental Assessment USDA. Accessed August 9, 2018:
https://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/ea/downloads/2015/owb-pr-ea.pdf
King, A. B. S. 1994. Heliothis /Helicoverpa (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) pp. 39-106 in Matthews, G. A. and Tunstall, J. P. (eds.), Insect Pests of Cotton. CAB International, Wallingford, UK.
Lammers, J. W. and MacLeod, A. 2007. Report of a Pest Risk Analysis: Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner, 1808). Plant Protection Service and Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Central Science Laboratory.
Sullivan, M. and Molet, T. 2007. CPHST Pest Datasheet for Helicoverpa armigera. USDA-APHIS-PPQ-CPHST. Revised April 2014. Accessed August 9, 2018:
http://download.ceris.purdue.edu/file/3068
Tripathi, S. and Singh, R. 1991. Population dynamics of Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Insect Science Applications 12:367-374.
USDA Phytosanitary Certificate Issuance & Tracking System (PCIT). Phytosanitary
Export Database (PExD). Harmful organism report: Helicoverpa armigera.
Accessed August 9, 2018: https://pcit.aphis.usda.gov/pcit/
Javaid Iqbal, 1220 N Street, Sacramento, CA, 95814, (916) 654-1211, plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov.
Kyle Beucke, 1220 ‘N’ Street, Room 221, Sacramento CA 95814, (916) 654-1211, plant.health[@] cdfa.ca.gov.
11/29/2018 – 1/13/2019
You must be registered and logged in to post a comment. If you have registered and have not received the registration confirmation, please contact us at plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov.
♦ Comments should refer to the appropriate California Pest Rating Proposal Form subsection(s) being commented on, as shown below.
Example Comment:
Consequences of Introduction: 1. Climate/Host Interaction: [Your comment that relates to “Climate/Host Interaction” here.]
♦ Posted comments will not be able to be viewed immediately.
♦ Comments may not be posted if they:
Contain inappropriate language which is not germane to the pest rating proposal;
Contains defamatory, false, inaccurate, abusive, obscene, pornographic, sexually oriented, threatening, racially offensive, discriminatory or illegal material;
Violates agency regulations prohibiting sexual harassment or other forms of discrimination;
Violates agency regulations prohibiting workplace violence, including threats.
♦ Comments may be edited prior to posting to ensure they are entirely germane.
♦ Posted comments shall be those which have been approved in content and posted to the website to be viewed, not just submitted.
Posted by ls
In March 2018, an infestation of Fiorinia phantasma was discovered on 27 roadside palm trees in Miami, Florida (Ahmad and Miller, 2018). This species is already present in Hawaii where it is a significant pest of ornamentals. During May 2018, Fiorinia phantasma was intercepted on a shipment of unidentified leaves from American Samoa. This species has a Q rating. A pest rating proposal is required to assign a permanent rating to this species.
Background: Fiorinia phantasma is a polyphagous armored scale and is considered a significant pest of nursery plants particularly ornamental palms (Arecaceae). It has been transported worldwide by movement of live nursery plants (Brooks, 2012 and Watson et-al., 2015). Female scales inconsistently show red stripes, running the width of the scale covering. Male and females can be found intermingled on the undersides of leaves. Eggs are large and can reach more than 1/5 of the body size of females. Crawlers begin to colonize the top side of leaves when populations reach high densities (Garcia and Hara, 2011).
Fiorinia phantasma causes yellow blotches on the upper leaf surface of host plants. Intense feeding damage is caused due to heavy infestations, resulting in leaf drop. In Hawaii, this scale impacts local nursery and landscape industry and poses an additional quarantine problem for exporters (Garcia and Hara, 2011).
In addition to palms, Fiorinia phantasma also feeds on shower tree (Cassia spp.), lobster claw (Heliconia caribaea), weeping fig (Ficus benjamina), naio (Myoporum sandwichense), mock orange (Murraya peniculata), pittosporum (Pittosporum tobira), wax leaf privet (Ligustrum japonicum), and bread fruit (Artocarpus altilis) (NPDN- Pacific pest detector news).
Worldwide Distribution: Fiorinia phantasma was first found in the Philippine islands in 1915. It is currently known in American Samoa, France, French Polynesia, Grenada, Guam, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Malaysia, Maldives, Nauru, Netherlands, New Caledonia, Papua New Guinea, Reunion, Saint Martin and St. Barthelemy, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Taiwan, Thailand and Vietnam (Watson et- al., 2015).
The first report of F. phantasma from the continental Unites States was recorded from a Canary island date palm on March 1, 2018 in Miami- Dade county, Florida. Heavy infestations have also been reported on palms in Hawaii (Garcia and Hara 2011 & Watson et-al., 2015).
Official Control: Fiorinia phantasma is listed as a harmful organism in the Republic of Korea (USDA PCIT).
California Distribution: Fiorinia phantasma is not present in the natural environment of California.
California Interceptions: Fiorinia phantasma has been intercepted 11 times by CDFA between 2010 and 2018 through regulatory pathways mainly through high risk pest exclusion activities and dog program inspections (CDFA PDR Database).
The risk Fiorinia phantasma (tea scale of camellia) would pose to California is evaluated below.
1) Climate/Host Interaction: Tropical and subtropical climate in the south coast of California is suitable for growing many palm trees. Other hosts plants including oleander, plumeria, cassia, weeping fig, pittosporum, podocarpus and murraya are grown throughout California. Fiorinia phantasma is likely to survive where these host plants are grown. It receives a High (3) in this category.
Evaluate if the pest would have suitable hosts and climate to establish in California. Score:
– Low (1) Not likely to establish in California; or likely to establish in very limited areas.
– Medium (2) may be able to establish in a larger but limited part of California.
– High (3) likely to establish a widespread distribution in California.
2) Known Pest Host Range: Fiorinina phantasma is known to feed on a wide range of host plants in 44 genera in 24 families. It has preference for Arecaceae (palm trees). Other families include Araceae, Apocynaceae, Calophyllaceae, Commilinaceae, Cycadaceae, Euphorbiaceae, Fabaceae, Heliconiacaea, Lauracaea, Malvaceae, Melicaceae, Moraceae, Oleaceae, Orchidaceae, Pandanaceae, Pittosporaceae, Poaceae, Rutaceae, Sapindaceae, Scrophulariaceae, Strelitziaceae (García Morales et al., 2016). It receives a High (3) in this category.
Evaluate the host range of the pest. Score:
– Low (1) has a very limited host range.
– Medium (2) has a moderate host range.
– High (3) has a wide host range.
3) Pest Dispersal Potential: Fiorinina phantasma remains active throughout the year in warmer climates. Female lays approximately 10-15 eggs under its armor. Crawlers hatch in 10 days. The infestation actively spreads in crawler phase. Life cycle is completed in 1.5 – 2 months. It is spread in Hawaii by inter- island transport of nursery plants (Garcia and Hara, 2011, Watson et al., 2015). In California, if Fiorinia phantasma gets introduced and established, it is likely to move long distances through movement of infested nursery and landscape plants especially palm trees. It receives a High (3) in this category.
Evaluate the natural and artificial dispersal potential of the pest. Score:
– Low (1) does not have high reproductive or dispersal potential.
– Medium (2) has either high reproductive or dispersal potential.
– High (3) has both high reproduction and dispersal potential.
4) Economic Impact: Fiorinina phantasma is known to cause serious damage on areca palms in landscapes. Feeding by this species results in yellowing of leaves, leaf drop, loss of plant vigor, stunting of the host and even death of the plant. It is reported to have infested 6000 palm trees in the republic of Maldives (Watson et-al., 2015). If this species is introduced and gets established in palm growing and landscapes of south coast, it is likely to impact trade, including palms grown in nurseries. Possible use of horticultural oils and systemic insecticides for its control can increase production costs (García Morales et al., 2016). It receives a High (3) in this category.
Evaluate the economic impact of the pest to California using the criteria below.
Economic Impact: A, B, C
A. The pest could lower crop yield.
B. The pest could lower crop value (includes increasing crop production costs).
C. The pest could trigger the loss of markets (includes quarantines).
D. The pest could negatively change normal cultural practices.
E. The pest can vector, or is vectored, by another pestiferous organism.
F. The organism is injurious or poisonous to agriculturally important animals.
G. The organism can interfere with the delivery or supply of water for agricultural uses.
Economic Impact Score: 3
– Low (1) causes 0 or 1 of these impacts.
– Medium (2) causes 2 of these impacts.
– High (3) causes 3 or more of these impacts.
5) Environmental Impact: The establishment of Fiorinina phantasma in California is likely to impact nursery and landscape plants as it can spread through transport of nursery plants. This species is not expected to lower biodiversity, change ecosystems and affect any threatened or endangered species. Since camellias, palms and other hosts are planted in home gardens, infestations would likely trigger chemical treatments by homeowners. It receives a Medium (2) in this category.
Evaluate the environmental impacts of the pest on California using the following criterion:
Environmental Impact: D
A. The pest could have a significant environmental impact such as lowering biodiversity, disrupting natural communities, or changing ecosystem processes.
B. The pest could directly affect threatened or endangered species.
C. The pest could impact threatened or endangered species by disrupting critical habitats.
D. The pest could trigger additional official or private treatment programs.
E. The pest significantly impacts cultural practices, home/urban gardening or ornamental plantings.
Score the pest for Environmental Impact: 2
– Low (1) causes none of the above to occur.
– Medium (2) causes one of the above to occur.
– High (3) causes two or more of the above to occur.
Add up the total score and include it here.
-Low = 5-8 points
-Medium = 9-12 points
-High = 13-15 points
6) Post Entry Distribution and Survey Information: Fiorinia phantasma has not been detected in the natural environment of California. It receives Not established (0) in this category
Evaluate the known distribution in California. Only official records of specimens identified by a taxonomic expert and supported by voucher specimens deposited in natural history collections should be considered. Pest incursions that have been eradicated, are under eradication, or have been delimited with no further detections should not be included.
–Not established (0) Pest never detected in California or known only from incursions.
-Low (-1) Pest has a localized distribution in California or is established in one suitable climate/host area (region).
–Medium (-2) Pest is widespread in California but not fully established in the endangered area, or pest established in two contiguous suitable climate/host areas.
–High (-3) Pest has fully established in the endangered area, or pest is reported in more than two contiguous or non-contiguous suitable climate/host areas.
The final score is the consequences of introduction score minus the post entry distribution and survey information score: High (14)
Fiorinia phantasma has been intercepted by CDFA in shipments of leucodendron, Psidium guajava, Annona muricata, boxwood and podocarpus. There are many nurseries in southern and central California that specialize in these hosts and different kinds of palm trees, the main hosts of this scale. Therefore, nursery and landscape plants may potentially be significantly impacted. There have not been any recent formal surveys of nurseries and palm growing areas for the presence of this species. It is possible that this scale could be present in some parts of California.
Fiorinia phantasma has never been found in the environment of California. Since there are several of its hosts plants being grown and propagated in CA, it would likely have significant economic and environmental impacts if this scale become established in California. An “A” rating is justified.
Ahmad, M, and Miller, D. 2018. First U.S. Continental Record of Fiorinia phantasma Cockerell & Robinson (Hemiptera: Diaspididae), Phantasma Scale, Potential Pest of Palms and Ornamentals Plants. Pest Alert. Publication: FDACS-P-01880. Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer resources. Division of Plant Industry. Accessed 8/3/2018 https://www.freshfromflorida.com/content/download/79840/2332158/Pest_Alert_-_Fiorinia_phantasma.pdf
Brooks, F. 2012. Pacific Pest Detector News. A Quarterly Newsletter for First Detectors. March- May 2012, Number 9. National Plant Diagnostics Network. Accessed 8/6/2018 https://www.npdn.org/system/files/WPDN%20PacPestDetectNews_Mar-May2012.pdf
Cockerell, T. D. A., and Robinson E. 1915. — Descriptions and records of Coccidae. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 34: 105–113
Garcia, J., and Hara, A. 2011. Fiorinia phantasma Cockerell & Robinson (Hemiptera: Diaspididae). New Pest Advisory, Plant Pest Control Branch, Division of Plant Industry, Department of Agriculture, State of Hawaii 1: 1-2. Accessed 8/6/2018 https://hdoa.hawaii.gov/pi/files/2013/01/Fiorinia-phantasma-NPA.pdf
Morales, G.M. Denno, B.D., Miller, D.R., Miller, G.L., Ben-Dov, Y., and Hardy, N.B. 2016. ScaleNet: A literature-based model of scale insect biology and systematics. Database. Accessed 8/3/2018 http://scalenet.info. http://scalenet.info/catalogue/Fiorinia%20phantasma/
Pest and Damage Record Database. 2018. Fiorinia phantasma. Plant Health and Pest Prevention Services. California Department of Food and Agriculture. Accessed 8/2/2018 http://phpps.cdfa.ca.gov/user/frmLogon2.asp
USDA Phytosanitary Certificate Issuance & Tracking System (PCIT) Phytosanitary Export Database (PExD). Harmful organism report: Fiorinia phantasma. Accessed: 8/2/2018 https://pcit.aphis.usda.gov/pcit/
Watson, G.W., Williams, D.J., and Miller, D.R. 2015. The identity and distribution of Fiorinia phantasma (Cockerell & Robinson) (Hemiptera: Coccomorpha: Diaspididae), with a new synonym. Zootaxa 4048: 291-300.
Raj Randhawa, 1220 ‘N’ Street, Room 221, Sacramento CA 95814, (916) 403-6617, raj.randhawa@cdfa.ca.gov
Kyle Beucke, 1220 ‘N’ Street, Room 221, Sacramento CA 95814, (916) 654-1211, plant.health[@] cdfa.ca.gov.
11/26/2018 – 1/10/2019
You must be registered and logged in to post a comment. If you have registered and have not received the registration confirmation, please contact us at plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov.
♦ Comments should refer to the appropriate California Pest Rating Proposal Form subsection(s) being commented on, as shown below.
Example Comment:
Consequences of Introduction: 1. Climate/Host Interaction: [Your comment that relates to “Climate/Host Interaction” here.]
♦ Posted comments will not be able to be viewed immediately.
♦ Comments may not be posted if they:
Contain inappropriate language which is not germane to the pest rating proposal;
Contains defamatory, false, inaccurate, abusive, obscene, pornographic, sexually oriented, threatening, racially offensive, discriminatory or illegal material;
Violates agency regulations prohibiting sexual harassment or other forms of discrimination;
Violates agency regulations prohibiting workplace violence, including threats.
♦ Comments may be edited prior to posting to ensure they are entirely germane.
♦ Posted comments shall be those which have been approved in content and posted to the website to be viewed, not just submitted.
Posted by ls
On September 25, 2018, Tongyan Tian, CDFA Plant Pathologist, was notified by Kai-Shu Ling, Plant Pathologist, USDA ARS, Charleston, South Carolina, of his detection of Tomato brown rugose fruit virus (ToBRFV) in a tomato plant tissue sample sent to him by a private company in California. The sample had been collected from tomato plants grown in the company’s greenhouse in Santa Barbara County. On September 13, 2018, the company had also sent an unofficial symptomatic tomato leaf sample to CDFA for diagnosis of the associated pathogen. On November 2, 2018, Tongyan Tian, CDFA, identified the associated pathogen as Tomato brown rugose fruit virus. On further investigation of the situation in California, CDFA was notified by the company that all ToBRFV-infested and symptomatic plant material had been voluntarily destroyed, thereby preventing the collection of an official sample. Nevertheless, the risk associated with the possible introduction of ToBRFV and a proposed rating for this pathogen is documented here.
Background: Tomato brown rugose fruit virus is a relatively new Tobamovirus – the genus that bears other economically important and contagious pathogens that infect Solanaceae, such as Tobacco mosaic virus (TMV) and Tomato mosaic virus (ToMV). ToBRFV was initially isolated from tomato plants grown in greenhouses in Jordan in 2015 (Salem et al., 2016). Prior to this, in 2014, an outbreak of a new disease infecting resistant tomato cultivars grown in net houses was observed in Southern Israel and was determined to be caused by the Israeli isolate of ToBRFV with high genomic sequence identity to the Jordan isolate (Luria et al., 2017). Most recently, ToBRFV was detected in tomato and chili pepper plants growing in nurseries in Yurecuaro, Michoacan, Mexico (NAPPO, 2018). There have been no previous reports of ToBRFV from the USA. The recent detection in greenhouse tomato plants in California that subsequently resulted in the destruction of all infested plants, does not verify the establishment of ToBRFV in the country (see ‘Initiating Event’).
Tobamoviruses infecting tomato are of great concern, but ToBRFV is of special concern because of its ability to overcome resistance of the TM-22 resistance gene which is genetically bred into tomato plants for resistance against Tobamoviruses (Luria et al., 2017). The Israeli isolate of ToBRFV was found to infect pepper (Capsicum annuum) plants harboring the L resistance genes, when cultivated in contaminated soil from previous grown infected tomato plants, especially in hot temperatures above 30°C (Luria et al., 2017). Disease caused by ToBRFV is infectious and local spread can occur rapidly through mechanical means (see ‘Dispersal and spread’).
Hosts: Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) and pepper (Capsicum annuum) are the main hosts (Salem et al., 2016; Luria et al., 2017; NAPPO, 2018). Petunia (Petunia hybrida) and certain weeds like black nightshade (S. nigrum) were shown to be asymptomatic hosts in experiments (Luria et al., 2017).
Symptoms: The Jordan isolate of ToBRFV in tomato caused mild foliar symptoms and strong brown rugose symptoms on fruit thereby affecting market value of the crop. Mechanically inoculated plants exhibited a range of local and systemic symptoms (Salem et al., 2016). Symptoms caused by the Israeli isolate of ToBRFV were mild and severe mosaic of leaves with occasional narrowing of the leaves. Yellow spots on fruit affected 10-15% of the total number of fruit produced on symptomatic plants (Luria et al., 2017).
In pepper plants cultivated in ToBRFV-contaminated soil from previously grown infected tomato plants, especially in temperatures above 30°C, the hypersensitivity response included necrotic lesions on roots and stems resulting in inhibited plant growth and possibly plant collapse. Petunia and certain weeds are symptomless hosts, while eggplant and potatoes are non-hosts for the virus (Luria et al., 2017).
Dispersal and spread: ToBRFV is transmitted mechanically (plant to plant) via externally contaminated seed (over long distances), common cultural practices (worker’s hand, clothes), tools, equipment and circulating water (Salem et al., 2016). Tobamoviruses are capable of preserving infectivity in seeds and contaminated soil (Broadbent, 1976; Luria et al., 2017). Weed hosts can serve as reservoirs of inoculum for infection of the main hosts.
Damage Potential: Tobamoviruses are of main concern in tomato crops, especially when cultivated in protected environments such as greenhouses, where conditions favor rapid spread of the pathogen. The ability of ToBRFV to break resistance in tomato plants harboring the TM-22 resistance gene and, under certain conditions also pepper plants harboring the L resistance genes, makes the potential for damage a main concern. The stability and infectious nature of this Tobamovirus via mechanical transmission by workers, tools and equipment during the handling of plants, with infection most likely occurring when seedlings are thinned in nurseries or transplanted, plus transmission through contaminated seed, soil and circulating water, render a high potential for damage in tomato and pepper. Crop production and quality of ToBRFV-consumable tomato and pepper fruit can be affected thereby significantly impacting their market value.
Worldwide Distribution: Asia: Jordan (Salem et al., 2016), Israel (Luria et al., 2017); North America: Mexico (NAPPO, 2018).
Official Control: None reported.
California Distribution: Tomato brown rugose fruit virus is not present in California. The detection of ToBRFV in greenhouse tomato plants in Santa Barbara County resulted in the destruction of the plants (see ‘Initiating Event’).
California Interceptions: None reported.
The risk Tomato brown rugose fruit virus would pose to California is evaluated below.
1) Climate/Host Interaction: It is likely that Tomato brown rugose fruit virus can establish a widespread distribution in California wherever tomato and pepper plants are cultivated.
Evaluate if the pest would have suitable hosts and climate to establish in California.
Score: 3
– Low (1) Not likely to establish in California; or likely to establish in very limited areas.
– Medium (2) may be able to establish in a larger but limited part of California.
– High (3) likely to establish a widespread distribution in California.
2) Known Pest Host Range: The main hosts of ToBRFV are tomato and pepper cultivars. Experimentally, petunia and few weeds have been proven to be asymptomatic hosts and weeds may serve as reservoirs of inoculum for subsequent infections of main cultivated hosts.
Evaluate the host range of the pest.
Score: 1
– Low (1) has a very limited host range.
– Medium (2) has a moderate host range.
– High (3) has a wide host range.
3) Pest Dispersal Potential: Tomato brown rugose fruit virus is a stable and readily infectious virus plant pathogen. It is easily transmitted from plant to plant by mechanical means which include common cultural practices, contaminated tools, equipment, hands, clothes, soil, and infected plants, and seed. Infections most likely occur in protected environments, where favorable conditions for pathogen spread exist, as when seedlings are thinned in nurseries or transplanted. Transmission of ToBRFV by insect vectors has not been reported.
Evaluate the natural and artificial dispersal potential of the pest.
Score: 3
– Low (1) does not have high reproductive or dispersal potential.
– Medium (2) has either high reproductive or dispersal potential.
– High (3) has both high reproduction and dispersal potential.
4) Economic Impact: ToBRFV can break resistance in tomato plants harboring the TM-22 resistance gene and under certain conditions, also pepper plants harboring the L resistance genes. The stability and infectious nature of this Tobamovirus render a high potential for damage in tomato and pepper particularly under protected environments such as greenhouses. Crop production and quality of ToBRFV consumable tomato and pepper fruit can be affected thereby significantly impacting their market value.
Evaluate the economic impact of the pest to California using the criteria below.
Economic Impact: A, B, C, D, G.
A. The pest could lower crop yield.
B. The pest could lower crop value (includes increasing crop production costs).
C. The pest could trigger the loss of markets (includes quarantines).
D. The pest could negatively change normal cultural practices.
E. The pest can vector, or is vectored, by another pestiferous organism.
F. The organism is injurious or poisonous to agriculturally important animals.
G. The organism can interfere with the delivery or supply of water for agricultural uses.
Economic Impact Score: 3
– Low (1) causes 0 or 1 of these impacts.
– Medium (2) causes 2 of these impacts.
– High (3) causes 3 or more of these impacts.
5) Environmental Impact: The natural host range is limited to tomato and pepper which are cultivated crops. Home/urban gardening of these host plants may be impacted if infected with ToBRFV. Consequently, the establishment of this resistance-breaking Tobamovirus species in California could trigger additional official or private treatment programs.
Evaluate the environmental impact of the pest on California using the criteria below.
Environmental Impact: D, E
A. The pest could have a significant environmental impact such as lowering biodiversity, disrupting natural communities, or changing ecosystem processes.
B. The pest could directly affect threatened or endangered species.
C. The pest could impact threatened or endangered species by disrupting critical habitats.
D. The pest could trigger additional official or private treatment programs.
E. The pest significantly impacts cultural practices, home/urban gardening or ornamental plantings.
Environmental Impact Score: 3
– Low (1) causes none of the above to occur.
– Medium (2) causes one of the above to occur.
– High (3) causes two or more of the above to occur.
Add up the total score and include it here. 13
-Low = 5-8 points
-Medium = 9-12 points
–High = 13-15 points
6) Post Entry Distribution and Survey Information: Evaluate the known distribution in California. Only official records identified by a taxonomic expert and supported by voucher specimens deposited in natural history collections should be considered. Pest incursions that have been eradicated, are under eradication, or have been delimited with no further detections should not be included.
Evaluation is ‘0’. ToBRFV is not established in California.
Score: 0
–Not established (0) Pest never detected in California or known only from incursions.
-Low (-1) Pest has a localized distribution in California or is established in one suitable climate/host area (region).
-Medium (-2) Pest is widespread in California but not fully established in the endangered area, or pest established in two contiguous suitable climate/host areas.
-High (-3) Pest has fully established in the endangered area, or pest is reported in more than two contiguous or non-contiguous suitable climate/host areas.
7) The final score is the consequences of introduction score minus the post entry distribution and survey information score: (Score)
Final Score: Score of Consequences of Introduction – Score of Post Entry Distribution and Survey Information = 13
The potential for weed plants, especially those commonly found in tomato and pepper fields in California, to serve as hosts and inoculum reservoirs of the pathogen is not known.
Based on the evidence provided above the proposed rating for Tomato brown rugose fruit virus is A.
Broadbent, L. 1976. Epidemiology and control of Tomato mosaic virus. Annual Review of Phytopathology, 14:75-96.
Luria, N. Smith, E., Reingold, V., Bekelman, I., Lapidot, M., Levin, I., Elad, N., Tam., Y., Sela, Abu-Ras, A., Ezra, N., Haberman, A., Yitzhak, L., Lachman, O. and Dombrovsky, A. 2017. A new Israeli Tobamovirus isolate infects tomato plants harboring Tm-22 resistance genes. PLoS ONE 12 (1):e0170429. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0170429
NAPPO. 2018. Tomato Brown Rugose Fruit Virus: detected in the municipality of Yurecuaro, Michoacan. North American Plant Protection Organization (NAPPO) Phytosanitary Alert System. September 17, 2018. https://www.pestalerts.org/oprDetail.cfm?oprID=765.
Salem, N., Mansour, A., Ciuffo, M., Falk, B. W., and Turina, M. 2016. A new Tobamovirus infecting tomato crops in Jordan. Archives of Virology, 161:503-506.
John J. Chitambar, Primary Plant Pathologist/Nematologist, California Department of Food and Agriculture, 3294 Meadowview Road, Sacramento, CA 95832. Phone: 916-738-6693, plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov.
You must be registered and logged in to post a comment. If you have registered and have not received the registration confirmation, please contact us at plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov.
♦ Comments should refer to the appropriate California Pest Rating Proposal Form subsection(s) being commented on, as shown below.
Example Comment:
Consequences of Introduction: 1. Climate/Host Interaction: [Your comment that relates to “Climate/Host Interaction” here.]
♦ Posted comments will not be able to be viewed immediately.
♦ Comments may not be posted if they:
Contain inappropriate language which is not germane to the pest rating proposal;
Contains defamatory, false, inaccurate, abusive, obscene, pornographic, sexually oriented, threatening, racially offensive, discriminatory or illegal material;
Violates agency regulations prohibiting sexual harassment or other forms of discrimination;
Violates agency regulations prohibiting workplace violence, including threats.
♦ Comments may be edited prior to posting to ensure they are entirely germane.
♦ Posted comments shall be those which have been approved in content and posted to the website to be viewed, not just submitted.
Posted by ls
This plant has been rated as “Q” on the CDFA Plant Pest Rating list for 2 years.
The genus Volutaria comprises plants in the thistle tribe (Cardueae) of the daisy family (Asteracaeae). Many of the 17 species in this genus were originally described in the genus Centaurea, the genus that includes star-thistles, knapweeds, and bachelor’s buttons; the two genera are closely related. Volutaria differs from Centaurea in lacking a terminal spine shield on the tips of the inflorescence bracts and in having flowers subtended by scales rather than bristles. Desert knapweed is a pink-flowered (sometimes white-flowered in Southeastern Morocco), annual or short-lived perennial species. It was collected from a naturalized population near Anza Borrego in San Diego County, California. At this spot, it was tentatively identified as Canary Island knapweed (Volutaria canariensis), a closely related species endemic to the Canary Islands. Desert knapweed seems to be spreading steadily in the Anza Borrego Area. Another species, Volutaria muricata, was introduced to limited localities in three counties in Southern California along the coast. We have no current information on its range and persistence. However, several species within the Centaurea group are known noxious weeds in California, including purple starthistle (Centaurea calcitrapa), diffuse knapweed (Centaurea diffusa), Iberian starthistle (Centaurea iberica), spotted knapweed (Centaurea stoebe), Malta starthistle (Centaurea melitensis), meadow knapweed (Centaurea jacea s.l.), yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis), and squarrose knapweed (Centaurea squarrosa).
Desert knapweed has the largest native range of any species of Volutaria. It is widespread across northern Africa, as well as in other areas of the Region, where it inhabits drier localities and desert transition zones. Its expansion into some of these areas may be recent. It prefers nitrogen enriched soils and therefore has proven to spread rapidly along roadsides, as well as in dry farming areas and irrigated fields.
The San Diego County Agricultural Commissioner’s office initiated control measures against this plant. They are part of a coordinated effort to eradicate this plant from North America by County, State, and city staff, as well as by the non-profit organization CalIPC and private volunteers.
Worldwide Distribution: Desert knapweed occurs throughout North Africa from Morocco to Egypt, in southern Europe (Spain, Sicily, and Turkey), the Canary Islands, and in Arabia. There is a recent report of it being detected in Chile. In North America the only known populations of Desert knapweed are in southern California.
Official Control: Desert knapweed is currently listed on the California noxious weed list (under the name Volutaria canariensis; Canary Island knapweed). Desert knapweed has been recently (8/2018) as a Category A noxious weed in the state of Nevada.
California Interceptions: Desert knapweed was found after it had established along a road in the Anza Borrego Desert in 2009 (San Diego County). A new detection of a small colony along Newport Bay in Orange County was reported in 2015 and the Chula Vista plants in 2016 (San Diego County).
1) Climate/Host Interaction: Evaluate if the pest would have suitable hosts and climate to establish in California.
Risk is High (3), as the plant is naturalized on roadsides in the desert, where it is spreading rapidly. Two more recent finds in Orange and San Diego counties indicate that it may invade southern coastal areas in California as well.
Score: 3
-Low (1) Not likely to establish in California; or likely to establish in very limited areas.
-Medium (2) may be able to establish in a larger but limited part of California.
-High (3) likely to establish a widespread distribution in California.
2) Known Pest Host Range: Evaluate the host range of the pest.
Risk is high (3) as weeds do not require any one host, but grow wherever ecological conditions are favorable.
Score: 3
-Low (1) has a very limited host range.
-Medium (2) has a moderate host range.
-High (3) has a wide host range.
3) Pest Dispersal Potential: Evaluate the natural and artificial dispersal potential of the pest.
Risk is Medium (2). The plant produces a moderate number of seeds that spread along roads, although large plants may produce thousands of seeds. Its appearance via some unknown pathway in such a remote area attests to its ability to spread under the right circumstances. During the 5 years that it has been detected, it has slowly increased its range in the Anza Borrego Desert. It was in Newport Bay since at least 1987, where it is currently known from seven spots. The seed lasts at least 3 years in the seed bank.
Score: 2
-Low (1) does not have high reproductive or dispersal potential.
-Medium (2) has either high reproductive or dispersal potential.
-High (3) has both high reproduction and dispersal potential.
4) Economic Impact Score: Evaluate the economic impact of the pest to California using the criteria below.
The presence of this plant in the Anza Borrego desert may in the future impact the spring wildflower tourist industry if the plant behaves like another noxious desert weed, Sahara mustard (Brassica tournefortii). If it infests row crops or irrigated areas, it could lower crop value or crop yield.
Score: 3 (A, B, C)
A. The pest could lower crop yield.
B. The pest could lower crop value (includes increasing crop production costs).
C. The pest could trigger the loss of markets (includes quarantines).
D. The pest could negatively change normal cultural practices.
E. The pest can vector, or is vectored, by another pestiferous organism.
F. The organism is injurious or poisonous to agriculturally important animals.
G. The organism can interfere with the delivery or supply of water for agricultural uses.
-Low (1) causes 0 or 1 of these impacts.
-Medium (2) causes 2 of these impacts.
-High (3) causes 3 or more of these impacts.
5) Environmental Impact Score: Evaluate the environmental impact of the pest on California using the criteria below.
Risk is high (3) as the plant might be able to dominate desert and dry coastal areas that are home to sensitive species such as desert tortoise, blunt-nosed leopard lizard, and many rare native plants.
Score: 3 (A, C, D)
A. The pest could have a significant environmental impact such as lowering biodiversity, disrupting natural communities, or changing ecosystem processes.
B. The pest could directly affect threatened or endangered species.
C. The pest could impact threatened or endangered species by disrupting critical habitats.
D. The pest could trigger additional official or private treatment programs.
E. The pest could significantly impact cultural practices, home/urban gardening or ornamental plantings.
Score the pest for Environmental Impact. Score: 3
Low (1) causes none of the above to occur.
Medium (2) causes one of the above to occur.
High (3) causes two or more of the above to occur.
Add up the total score and include it here.
–Low = 5-8 points
–Medium = 9-12 points
–High = 13-15 points
6) Post Entry Distribution and Survey Information: Evaluate the known distribution in California. Only official records identified by a taxonomic expert and supported by voucher specimens deposited in natural history collections should be considered. Pest incursions that have been eradicated, are under eradication, or have been delimited with no further detections should not be included.
Desert knapweed has been found in three counties in California. Its range at this time is limited. It receives a Low (-1) in this category.
Not established (0) Pest never detected in California, or known only from incursions.
Low (-1) Pest has a localized distribution in California, or is established in one suitable climate/host area (region).
Medium (-2) Pest is widespread in California but not fully established in the endangered area, or pest established in two contiguous suitable climate/host areas.
High (-3) Pest has fully established in the endangered area, or pest is reported in more than two contiguous or non-contiguous suitable climate/host areas.
The final score is the consequences of introduction score minus the post entry distribution and survey information score: High (13)
Given that the weed history of Desert knapweed is just being deciphered, it is difficult to assess potential risk. Nevertheless, given its rapid spread in Anza Borrego it seems likely to be a major invasive. Given its long distance dispersal, its noxious relatives, and the effects of other introduced annuals such as Sahara mustard on desert ecosystems, it seems best to attempt eradication of the currently small populations.
Although Desert knapweed may be limited in its spread by its environmental tolerance, it may nevertheless become a severe pest within the desert and along the southern California coast in disturbed areas. This is based on its ecology in the Old World. As the species currently is highly restricted in its range in North America and eradication may be possible, we recommend that Desert knapweed be rated as A.
Calleja, J. A., Garcia-Jacas, N., Roquet, C., & Susanna de la Serna, A. 2016. Beyond the Rand Flora pattern: Phylogeny and biogeographical history of Volutaria (Compositae). Taxon 65: 315-332.
Consortium of California Herbaria. Accessed 1/31/2017: http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/consortium/
Devesa, J. A. & Martinez, J. L. 2014. Volutaria Cass. In Devesa, J.A., Quintanar, A. & Garcia, M. A. (eds.). Flora iberica XVI: 272-278. Real Jardín Botánico, CSIC, Madrid.
Teillier, S., Macaya, J., Sisanna, A. & Calleja, J. A. 2014. Volutaria tubuliflora (Murb.) Sennen (Asteraceae), nueva especie alóctona asilvestrada para Chile. Gayana Bot. 71: 276-279.
Wagenitz, G. 1991. Volutaria canariensis Wagenitz, Candollea 46: 408.
Volutaria, a new invasive knapweed. Accessed 1/28/2017:
http://tchester.org/bd/species/asteraceae/volutaria_canariensis.html
Dean G. Kelch, Primary Botanist; California Department of Food and Agriculture; 1220 N Street, Sacramento, CA 95814; Tel. (916) 403-6650; plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov.
You must be registered and logged in to post a comment. If you have registered and have not received the registration confirmation, please contact us at plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov.
♦ Comments should refer to the appropriate California Pest Rating Proposal Form subsection(s) being commented on, as shown below.
Example Comment:
Consequences of Introduction: 1. Climate/Host Interaction: [Your comment that relates to “Climate/Host Interaction” here.]
♦ Posted comments will not be able to be viewed immediately.
♦ Comments may not be posted if they:
Contain inappropriate language which is not germane to the pest rating proposal;
Contains defamatory, false, inaccurate, abusive, obscene, pornographic, sexually oriented, threatening, racially offensive, discriminatory or illegal material;
Violates agency regulations prohibiting sexual harassment or other forms of discrimination;
Violates agency regulations prohibiting workplace violence, including threats.
♦ Comments may be edited prior to posting to ensure they are entirely germane.
♦ Posted comments shall be those which have been approved in content and posted to the website to be viewed, not just submitted.
Posted by ls
On July 3, 2018 USDA released a New Pest Advisory Group (NPAG) report proposing to change the status of Acrolepiopsis assectella (leek moth) to non-actionable within the continental United States. A pest rating proposal is required to determine future direction.
Background: Leek moth is a leaf-mining moth that feeds on plants in the genus Allium1. Preferred hosts of the moth are garlic, leek, and onion1. Over-wintering adults become active when temperatures reach 15ºC1. Female moths lay eggs on leaves which larvae mine1. Mature larvae emerge from the leaf tissue and pupate on the external surface of the plant1. When adults emerge they either begin another generation or overwinter1, depending on the time of year. Leek moth can rapidly spread long distances when infested plant material is moved.
Worldwide Distribution: Leek moth is presumably native to Eurasia. It was first found in North America in Ontario in 19931. Leek moth was first detected in the United States in New York in 2009 and has since spread to New Hampshire, Maine, and Vermont1.
Official Control: Leek moth is listed as a harmful organism by Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, French Polynesia, Honduras, Israel, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Mexico, New Caledonia, Nicaragua, Peru, and Taiwan3.
California Distribution: Leek moth has not been found in the environment of California.
California Interceptions: Leek moth has never been intercepted in California.
The risk Acrolepiopsis assectella (leek moth) would pose to California is evaluated below.
1) Climate/Host Interaction: Leek moth is expected to be able to establish a widespread distribution in California wherever Allium plants grow. Based on its current widespread distribution in Europe and northern Africa it is not expected to be limited by climate in California. It receives a High (3) in this category.
Evaluate if the pest would have suitable hosts and climate to establish in California. Score:
– Low (1) Not likely to establish in California; or likely to establish in very limited areas.
– Medium (2) may be able to establish in a larger but limited part of California.
– High (3) likely to establish a widespread distribution in California.
2) Known Pest Host Range: Leek moth is only known to feed on plants in the genus Allium. It receives a Low (1) in this category.
Evaluate the host range of the pest. Score:
– Low (1) has a very limited host range.
– Medium (2) has a moderate host range.
– High (3) has a wide host range.
3) Pest Dispersal Potential: Leek moth has a high reproductive rate with each female laying an average of 100 eggs and the population completing as many as 8 generations per year1, depending on climate. The moth can rapidly spread long distances when eggs, larvae, or pupae on plants or harvested plant parts are moved. Adults can also fly. Leek moth receives a High (3) in this category.
Evaluate the natural and artificial dispersal potential of the pest. Score:
– Low (1) does not have high reproductive or dispersal potential.
– Medium (2) has either high reproductive or dispersal potential.
– High (3) has both high reproduction and dispersal potential.
4) Economic Impact: California is the largest producing state in the U.S. of garlic, onions, and green onions. The state produces 90%+ of the commercial garlic, is the largest producer of processing onions, and is one of the top fresh market onion producers in the nation2. Both garlic and onion crops are valued at $150-$300 million each annually2. California also leads the nation in the production of green onions with a 2009 crop value of $28 million in Monterey and Riverside county alone4. If leek moth were to establish in California it is expected to lower crop yields and increase production costs of these crops, especially on organic farms. Leek moth causes damage of economic importance in Allium Yield reductions can be as high as 50 percent and have the potential to reach 100 percent for organic growers who do not implement sufficient control measures1. Its presence in the state would likely affect markets for fresh garlic and onions. Growers in other places infested with leek moth have changed cultural practices including crop row netting, crop rotation, delayed planting, removal of old and infested leaves, destruction of pupae or larvae, early harvesting, avoidance of planting crops near known infestations, and destruction of plant debris following harvesting1. The moth is not expected to vector other organisms, injure animals, or interfere with water supplies. Leek moth receives a High (3) in this category.
Evaluate the economic impact of the pest to California using the criteria below.
Economic Impact: A, B, C, D
A. The pest could lower crop yield.
B. The pest could lower crop value (includes increasing crop production costs).
C. The pest could trigger the loss of markets (includes quarantines).
D. The pest could negatively change normal cultural practices.
E. The pest can vector, or is vectored, by another pestiferous organism.
F. The organism is injurious or poisonous to agriculturally important animals.
G. The organism can interfere with the delivery or supply of water for agricultural uses.
Economic Impact Score: 3
– Low (1) causes 0 or 1 of these impacts.
– Medium (2) causes 2 of these impacts.
– High (3) causes 3 or more of these impacts.
5) Environmental Impact: If leek moth were to establish in California it is not expected to lower biodiversity, disrupt natural communities, or change ecosystem processes. It is likely to affect threatened and endangered species such as Munz’s onion (Allium munzii) and Yosemite onion (Allium yosemitense). Leek moth would not be expected to disrupt critical habitats. It is likely to trigger additional treatment programs in agriculture and in residential gardens. Species of Allium are grown in home/urban gardens and would be significantly affected by this pest. Leek moth receives a High (3) in this category.
Evaluate the environmental impact of the pest on California using the criteria below.
Economic Impact: B, D, E
A. The pest could have a significant environmental impact such as lowering biodiversity, disrupting natural communities, or changing ecosystem processes.
B. The pest could directly affect threatened or endangered species.
C. The pest could impact threatened or endangered species by disrupting critical habitats.
D. The pest could trigger additional official or private treatment programs.
E. The pest significantly impacts cultural practices, home/urban gardening or ornamental plantings.
Score the pest for Environmental Impact.
Environmental Impact Score: 3
– Low (1) causes none of the above to occur.
– Medium (2) causes one of the above to occur.
– High (3) causes two or more of the above to occur.
Add up the total score and include it here.
–Low = 5-8 points
–Medium = 9-12 points
–High = 13-15 points
6) Post Entry Distribution and Survey Information: Leek moth has never been found in California and receives a Not established (0) in this category.
Evaluate the known distribution in California. Only official records identified by a taxonomic expert and supported by voucher specimens deposited in natural history collections should be considered. Pest incursions that have been eradicated, are under eradication, or have been delimited with no further detections should not be included.
–Not established (0) Pest never detected in California, or known only from incursions.
–Low (-1) Pest has a localized distribution in California, or is established in one suitable climate/host area (region).
–Medium (-2) Pest is widespread in California but not fully established in the endangered area, or pest established in two contiguous suitable climate/host areas.
–High (-3) Pest has fully established in the endangered area, or pest is reported in more than two contiguous or non-contiguous suitable climate/host areas.
The final score is the consequences of introduction score minus the post entry distribution and survey information score: High (13)
Leek moth causes significant damage to plants in the genus Allium. Its presence in California would rapidly come to the attention of garlic and onion growers, so there is little uncertainty regarding its absence from the state. There is low uncertainty with this pest.
If leek moth were to become established in California it would have significant economic and environmental impacts. An “A” rating is justified.
1 USDA New Pest Advisory Group: NPAG Report Acrolepiopsis assectella (Zeller): Leek moth. June 29, 2018.
2 California Garlic & Onion Research Advisory Board. http://www.cagarlicandonion.com/
3 USDA Phytosanitary Certificate Issuance & Tracking System (PCIT) Phytosanitary Export Database (PExD). https://pcit.aphis.usda.gov/pcit/
4 Smith, Richard, Michael Cahn, Marita Cantwell, Steven Koike, Eric Natwick, and Etaferahu Takele. 2011. Green Onion Production in California. UC Vegetable Research & Information Center Vegetable Production Series. http://anrcatalog.ucanr.edu/pdf/7243.pdf
Jason Leathers, 1220 ‘N’ Street, Sacramento CA 95814, (916) 654-0312, plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov
Kyle Beucke, 1220 N Street, Room 221, Sacramento, CA, 95814, 916-403-6741, plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov
9/24/18 – 11/8/18
You must be registered and logged in to post a comment. If you have registered and have not received the registration confirmation, please contact us at plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov.
♦ Comments should refer to the appropriate California Pest Rating Proposal Form subsection(s) being commented on, as shown below.
Example Comment:
Consequences of Introduction: 1. Climate/Host Interaction: [Your comment that relates to “Climate/Host Interaction” here.]
♦ Posted comments will not be able to be viewed immediately.
♦ Comments may not be posted if they:
Contain inappropriate language which is not germane to the pest rating proposal;
Contains defamatory, false, inaccurate, abusive, obscene, pornographic, sexually oriented, threatening, racially offensive, discriminatory or illegal material;
Violates agency regulations prohibiting sexual harassment or other forms of discrimination;
Violates agency regulations prohibiting workplace violence, including threats.
♦ Comments may be edited prior to posting to ensure they are entirely germane.
♦ Posted comments shall be those which have been approved in content and posted to the website to be viewed, not just submitted.
Posted by ls
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.
Background: Aulacaspis tubercularis is commonly known as white mango scale, mango scale and Cinnamon scale. Immatures and adult females of this scale are covered by a white scale cover that is semi-circular in females and elongate in males. Immatures and adult females feed on plant fluids. Aulacaspis tubercularis is highly polyphagous and damages a wide range of perennials, ornamentals, and fruit trees.
Mango (Mangifera indica) is the preferred host of this pest, but it has been reported to feed on a wide variety of plants in at least 30 genera in 18 families including: Anacardiaceae, Annonaceae, Arecaceae, Burseraceae, Cucurbitaceae, Calophyllaceae, Iridaceae, Lauraceae, Loranthaceae, Meliaceae, Myrtaceae, Percidae, Pittosporaceae, Rhizophoraceae, Rosaceae, Rutaceae, Sapindacea and Zingiberaceae (García Morales et al. 2018).
Worldwide Distribution: Aulacaspis tubercularis is widely distributed in all tropical Africa, including Madagascar, Mauritius, Reunion, Rodriques Island, and South Africa, and most of the Neotropical region. In Asia it is reported from China, Japan, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan, Philippine, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, Thailand, Egypt, Iraq and Israel (Hodges & Hamon 2016).
In the United States, this scale was reported in Florida. Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands (García Morales et al. 2018).
Official Control: Aulacaspis tubercularis is listed as a harmful organism in Costa Rica, Korea, Seychelles, Guatemala, and Ecuador (PCIT, 2018).
California Distribution: Aulacaspis tubercularis has never been found in the environment in California.
California Interceptions: Aulacaspis tubercularis was intercepted 273 times in California since 2010. Most of these interceptions were on infested mangoes coming from South American countries (CDFA PDR database).
The risk Aulacaspis tubercularis (mango scale) would pose to California is evaluated below.
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.
–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.
The final score is the consequences of introduction score minus the post entry distribution and survey information score: High (13)
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.
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.
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
Javaid Iqbal, 1220 N Street, Sacramento, CA, 95814, (916) 654-1211, plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov.
Jason Leathers, 1220 N Street, Sacramento, CA, 95814, (916) 654-1211, plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov.
8/14/18 – 9/28/18
You must be registered and logged in to post a comment. If you have registered and have not received the registration confirmation, please contact us at plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov.
♦ Comments should refer to the appropriate California Pest Rating Proposal Form subsection(s) being commented on, as shown below.
Example Comment:
Consequences of Introduction: 1. Climate/Host Interaction: [Your comment that relates to “Climate/Host Interaction” here.]
♦ Posted comments will not be able to be viewed immediately.
♦ Comments may not be posted if they:
Contain inappropriate language which is not germane to the pest rating proposal;
Contains defamatory, false, inaccurate, abusive, obscene, pornographic, sexually oriented, threatening, racially offensive, discriminatory or illegal material;
Violates agency regulations prohibiting sexual harassment or other forms of discrimination;
Violates agency regulations prohibiting workplace violence, including threats.
♦ Comments may be edited prior to posting to ensure they are entirely germane.
♦ Posted comments shall be those which have been approved in content and posted to the website to be viewed, not just submitted.
Posted by ls
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
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.
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.
The final score is the consequences of introduction score minus the post entry distribution and survey information score: High (13)
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.
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.
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:
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
Raj Randhawa, 1220 ‘N’ Street, Room 221, Sacramento CA 95814, (916) 403-6617, plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov.
Jason Leathers, 2800 Gateway Oaks, Sacramento CA 95833, (916) 654-1211, plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov
7/30/18 – 9/13/18
You must be registered and logged in to post a comment. If you have registered and have not received the registration confirmation, please contact us at plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov.
♦ Comments should refer to the appropriate California Pest Rating Proposal Form subsection(s) being commented on, as shown below.
Example Comment:
Consequences of Introduction: 1. Climate/Host Interaction: [Your comment that relates to “Climate/Host Interaction” here.]
♦ Posted comments will not be able to be viewed immediately.
♦ Comments may not be posted if they:
Contain inappropriate language which is not germane to the pest rating proposal;
Contains defamatory, false, inaccurate, abusive, obscene, pornographic, sexually oriented, threatening, racially offensive, discriminatory or illegal material;
Violates agency regulations prohibiting sexual harassment or other forms of discrimination;
Violates agency regulations prohibiting workplace violence, including threats.
♦ Comments may be edited prior to posting to ensure they are entirely germane.
♦ Posted comments shall be those which have been approved in content and posted to the website to be viewed, not just submitted.
Posted by ls
On 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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Based on the evidence provided above the proposed rating for Meloidogyne floridensis is A.
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.
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.
7/27/18 – 9/10/18
You must be registered and logged in to post a comment. If you have registered and have not received the registration confirmation, please contact us at plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov.
♦ Comments should refer to the appropriate California Pest Rating Proposal Form subsection(s) being commented on, as shown below.
Example Comment:
Consequences of Introduction: 1. Climate/Host Interaction: [Your comment that relates to “Climate/Host Interaction” here.]
♦ Posted comments will not be able to be viewed immediately.
♦ Comments may not be posted if they:
Contain inappropriate language which is not germane to the pest rating proposal;
Contains defamatory, false, inaccurate, abusive, obscene, pornographic, sexually oriented, threatening, racially offensive, discriminatory or illegal material;
Violates agency regulations prohibiting sexual harassment or other forms of discrimination;
Violates agency regulations prohibiting workplace violence, including threats.
♦ Comments may be edited prior to posting to ensure they are entirely germane.
♦ Posted comments shall be those which have been approved in content and posted to the website to be viewed, not just submitted.
Posted by ls
You must be logged in to post a comment.