Category Archives: B-Rated

“B”
An pest of known economic or environmental detriment and, if present in California, it is of limited distribution. B-rated pests are eligible to enter the state if the receiving county has agreed to accept them. If found in the state, they are subject to state endorsed holding action and eradication only to provide for containment, as when found in a nursery. At the discretion of the individual county agricultural commissioner they are subject to eradication, containment, suppression, control, or other holding action.

Youngia japonica (L.) DC. (Japanese hawkweed)

California Pest Rating Proposal for

Youngia japonica (L.) DC. (Japanese hawkweed)
Synonym: Crepis japonica (L.) Benth.
Family: Asteraceae
Current Rating:  Q
Proposed Rating: B | Proposed Seed Rating: R

*Comment Period: 5/22/2019 through 7/6/2019

Author:

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

Responsible Party:

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

*NOTE:

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

Comment Format:

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

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

Posted comments will not be able to be viewed immediately.

Comments may not be posted if they:

  • Contain inappropriate language which is not germane to the
    pest rating proposal;
  • Contains defamatory, false, inaccurate, abusive, obscene,
    pornographic, sexually oriented, threatening, racially offensive,
    discriminatory or illegal material;
  • Violates agency regulations prohibiting sexual harassment or
    other forms of discrimination;
  • Violates agency regulations prohibiting workplace violence,
    including threats.

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

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


Proposed Rating: B | Proposed Seed Rating: R


Posted by ls

Gypsophila paniculata L. (Baby’s breath)

California Pest Rating Proposal for

Gypsophila paniculata L. (Baby’s breath)
Synonym: Saponaria paniculata (L.) H. Neumayer
Family: Caryophyllaceae
Current Pest Rating: B
Proposed Pest Rating: B | Proposed Seed Rating: N/A


*Comment Period: 4/22/2019 through 6/6/2019


Author:

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

Responsible Party:

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


*NOTE:

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


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

EXAMPLE COMMENT:

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

Posted comments will not be able to be viewed immediately.

Comments may not be posted if they:

  • Contain inappropriate language which is not germane to the pest rating proposal;
  • Contains defamatory, false, inaccurate, abusive, obscene, pornographic, sexually oriented, threatening, racially offensive, discriminatory or illegal material;
  • Violates agency regulations prohibiting sexual harassment or other forms of discrimination;
  • Violates agency regulations prohibiting workplace violence, including threats.

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

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


Proposed Pest Rating: B | Proposed Seed Rating: N/A

Posted by ls

Colletotrichum fioriniae

California Pest Rating Proposal for

Colletotrichum fioriniae (Marcelino & Gouli) Pennycook 2017
Current Pest Rating: Z
Proposed Pest Rating: B


*Comment Period: 4/17/2019 through 6/1/2019


Author/Responsible Party:

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


*NOTE:

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


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

EXAMPLE COMMENT:

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

Posted comments will not be able to be viewed immediately.

Comments may not be posted if they:

  • Contain inappropriate language which is not germane to the pest rating proposal;
  • Contains defamatory, false, inaccurate, abusive, obscene, pornographic, sexually oriented, threatening, racially offensive, discriminatory or illegal material;
  • Violates agency regulations prohibiting sexual harassment or other forms of discrimination;
  • Violates agency regulations prohibiting workplace violence, including threats.

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

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


Proposed Pest Rating: B


Posted by ls

Erysiphe peckii (U. Braun) U. Braun & S. Takam. 2000

California Pest Rating Proposal for

Erysiphe peckii (U. Braun) U. Braun & S. Takam. 2000
Current Pest Rating: Q

Proposed Pest Rating: B
*Comment Period: 4/4/2019 – 5/19/2019

Author/Responsible Party:

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


*NOTE:

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


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

EXAMPLE COMMENT:

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

Posted comments will not be able to be viewed immediately.

Comments may not be posted if they:

  • Contain inappropriate language which is not germane to the pest rating proposal;
  • Contains defamatory, false, inaccurate, abusive, obscene, pornographic, sexually oriented, threatening, racially offensive, discriminatory or illegal material;
  • Violates agency regulations prohibiting sexual harassment or other forms of discrimination;
  • Violates agency regulations prohibiting workplace violence, including threats.

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

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


Proposed Pest Rating: B

Posted by ls

Neocercosporidium smilacis (Thüm.) U. Braun, C. Nakash., Videira & Crous 2017

California Pest Rating Proposal

Neocercosporidium smilacis (Thüm.) U. Braun, C. Nakash., Videira & Crous 2017
Current Pest Rating: Q
Proposed Pest Rating: B


Comment Period: 2/22/2019 – 4/8/2019*

Author/Responsible Party:

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


*NOTE:

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


Comment Format:

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

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


Posted comments will not be able to be viewed immediately.


Comments may not be posted if they:

  • Contain inappropriate language which is not germane to the
    pest rating proposal;
  • Contains defamatory, false, inaccurate, abusive, obscene,
    pornographic, sexually oriented, threatening, racially offensive,
    discriminatory or illegal material;
  • Violates agency regulations prohibiting sexual harassment or
    other forms of discrimination;
  • Violates agency regulations prohibiting workplace violence,
    including threats.

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


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


Proposed Pest Rating: B


Posted by ls 


Cucurbit Chlorotic Yellows Virus

California Pest Rating Proposal

Cucurbit chlorotic yellows virus
Current Pest Rating: Not Rated
Proposed Pest Rating: B


Comment Period: 2/20/2019 – 4/6/2019*


Author/Responsible Party:

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


*NOTE:

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


Comment Format:

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

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


Posted comments will not be able to be viewed immediately.


Comments may not be posted if they:

  • Contain inappropriate language which is not germane to the
    pest rating proposal;
  • Contains defamatory, false, inaccurate, abusive, obscene,
    pornographic, sexually oriented, threatening, racially offensive,
    discriminatory or illegal material;
  • Violates agency regulations prohibiting sexual harassment or
    other forms of discrimination;
  • Violates agency regulations prohibiting workplace violence,
    including threats.

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


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


Proposed Pest Rating: B


Posted by ls 

Citrus Viroid V

California Pest Rating  for
Citrus viroid V
Pest Rating: B

PEST RATING PROFILE

Initiating Event:  

The risk of infestation of Citrus viroid V (CVd-V) in California is evaluated and a permanent rating is herein proposed. 

History & Status:

Background: The origin of Citrus viroid V (CVd-V) is uncertain (Serra et al., 2008a).  In a study in Spain on the response of Citrus species and citrus-related genera to viroid infections, Serra and other researchers (2008a) originally detected CVd-V in Atalantia citroides, a citrus relative plant propagated on rough lemon rootstock and graft-inoculated with artificial mixtures of different viroids.  The viroid source was provided to them by a researcher at the University of California, Riverside and purified preparations were shown to be infectious in Etrog citron (Citrus medica), a classical indicator plant of citrus viroids.  Subsequently, CVd-V was considered a new species of the genus Apscaviroid in the family Pospiviroidae (Serra et al., 2008a).  Viroids are classified within two families: Pospiviroidae and Avsunviroidae.  Citrus are natural hosts of several viroid species that belong to the family Pospiviroidae.  Therefore, A. citroides was identified as an unusual viroid host since it was resistant to all previously known citrus viroids, yet capable of replicating CVd-V (Serra et al., 2008b).  Infectious assays conducted by Sierra et al. (2008) showed that CVd-V in Etrog citron exhibited mild symptoms, however, co-infections with either Citrus bent leaf viroid (CBLVd) or Citrus dwarfing viroid (CDVd, previously Citrus viroid III), also belonging to the genus Apscaviroid, showed synergistic effects in contrast to single infections of CVd-V or the other two viroids, however, titers of the viroids remained the same in singly or doubly infected plants (Serra et al., 2008a).

While the origin of CVd-V is not known, Pakistan may be one of the geographic origins of the viroid (Serra et al., 2008a, b; Parakh et al., 2017).  Serra et al. (2008a) suggested that the viroid was present, but overlooked or unnoticed, in field sources containing Hop stunt Viroid or Citrus dwarfing viroid – both of which have electrophoretic mobilities similar to CVd-V.  CVd-V has been found with some variations in its nucleotide sequence, in several countries in Africa, Asia, Europe, and North America (see ‘Worldwide Distribution).

In June 2016, the Citrus Clonal Protection Program-National Clean Plant Network (CCPP-NCPN), University of California, Riverside, California detected Citrus Viroid V in citrus budwood samples submitted by the CDFA for virus and viroid testing under the mandatory California (CA 3701) Citrus Nursery Stock Pest Cleanliness Program.  These budwood samples were taken from asymptomatic redblush grapefruit (Citrus paradisi) and variegated calamondin (C. madurensis) from a nursery in Tulare County.  This find marked the natural occurrence of CVd-V in California and corroborated the earlier report of CVd-VCA variant in the State (Dang et al., 2018; Serra et al., 2008b).

Hosts: Citrus spp.  including ‘Sanguinelli’, Salustiana’, and ‘Ricart navelina’ sweet oranges (Citrus x sinensis),  ‘Oroval’ and ‘Hernandina clementines (C. clementina), ‘Fino’ and ‘Verna’ lemons (C. limon), ‘Sevilano’ and ‘Cajel’ sour orange (C. aurantium), ‘Clausellina’ satsuma (C. unshiu), Temple mandarin (C. temple), Tahiti lime, Palestine sweet lime (C. limettioides), calamondin (C. madurensis), ‘Calabria’ bergamot (C. bergamia), ‘Orlando’ tangelo (C. paradisi x C. tangerina), ‘Page’ mandarin [(C. paradisi x C. tangerina) x C. clementina], and ‘Nagami’ kumquat (Fortunella margarita),  and Etrog citrus (Atlantia citroides) (Serra et al., 2008); ‘Shiranui’ [(C. unshiu x C. sinensis) x C. reticulata] (Ito and Ohta, 2010); ‘Moro blood’ sweet orange (Citrus x sinensis) (Bani Hashemian et al., 2013); redblush grapefruit (C. paradisi) (Dang et al., 2018).

Symptoms:   Citrus viroid V induced mild characteristic symptoms of very small necrotic lesions and cracks, sometimes filled with gum, in the stems of the viroid indicator plant, Etrog citron.  However, CVd-V reacted synergistically when Etrog citrus was co-infected with either citrus bent leaf viroid (CBLVd) or Citrus dwarfing viroid (CDVd), and showed severe stunting and epinasty with multiple lesions in the midvein.  Plants co-infected with CBLVd and CVd-V exhibited severe stem cracking characteristic of CBLVd, but without gum exudates, whereas plant co-infected with CDVd showed necrotic lesions (Serra et al., 2008a). Symptoms induced by CVd-V alone in commercial species and varieties are presently not known since commercial trees may be co-infected with several viroids (Ito and Ohta, 2010; Serra et al., 2008a).  Citrus viroid V may be present in asymptomatic citrus plant tissue – as recently evidenced by its detection in asymptomatic budwood collected from Tulare County, California.

Damage Potential:  The effect of CVd-V in commercial citrus rootstock-scion combinations, alone and in combination with other viroids, is yet unknown, however, Serra et al. (2008b) suggested that CVd-V could reduce tree size and yield as has been reported for clementine trees grafted on trifoliate orange co-infected with several viroids. Therefore, the need for nursery planting stock free of CVd-V is important.

Transmission:  Similar to other citrus viroids, CVd-V is graft-transmitted and is spread mainly through the propagation of infested material.

Worldwide Distribution:  Africa: Oman (Serra et al., 2008), Tunisia (Hamdi et al., 2015); Asia: China, Japan, Nepal, Pakistan (Cao et al., 2013), Iran (Bani Hashemian et al., 2010), Turkey (Önelge and Yurtmen, 2012); Europe: Spain (Serra et al., 2008); North America: USA (Serra et al., 2008).

Official Control: Citrus viroid V is a disease agent of concern that is tested for in the CDFA Citrus Nursery Stock Pest Cleanliness Program (3 CCR §§ 3701, et seq.).

California Distribution Tulare County (Dang et al., 2018).

California Interceptions: None reported.

The risk Citrus viroid V would pose to California is evaluated below.

Consequences of Introduction: 

1) Climate/Host Interaction: Citrus viroid V is likely to establish within infested propagative citrus materials in all citrus-growing regions of California.

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: Citrus viroid V has a moderate host range that is limited to several species and varieties of Citrus.

Evaluate the host range of the pest.

Score: 2

– 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: Citrus viroid V replicates autonomously within infested plants and is spread mainly through the propagation and movement of infested planting materials to non-infested regions.

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: The effect of CVd-V in commercial citrus rootstock-scion combinations, alone and in combination with other viroids, is yet unknown, however, it has been suggested by Serra et al. (2008b) that CVd-V could reduce tree size and yield.

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

Score: 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: It is probable that home, urban, public garden and landscape plantings of CVd-V-infested citrus plantings may be significantly impacted by the viroid singly or in combination with other viroids.

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

Environmental Impact: 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: 2

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

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

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

Consequences of Introduction to California for Citrus Viroid V

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

-Low = 5-8 points

Medium = 9-12 points

-High = 13-15 points

Total points obtained on evaluation of consequences of introduction of CVd-V to California = 12.

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

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

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

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

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

Evaluation is Low (-1)Currently, Citrus viroid V has only been detected in a nursery in Tulare County.

Final Score:

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

Final Score:  Score of Consequences of Introduction – Score of Post Entry Distribution and Survey Information = 11.                                                                             

Uncertainty: 

The effect of CVd-V in commercial citrus rootstock-scion combinations, alone and in combination with other viroids, is yet unknown.

Conclusion and Rating Justification:

Based on the evidence provided above the proposed rating for Citrus viroid V is B.


References:

Bani Hashemian, SM, Taheri, H, Duran-Vila, N, and Serr, P.  2010.  First report of Citrus viroid V in Moro blood sweet orange in Iran.  Plant Disease 94: 129.

Cao, M. J., Liu, Y. Q., Wang, X. F., Yang, F. Y., and Zhou, C. Y.  2010.  First report of Citrus bark cracking viroid and Citrus viroid V infecting Citrus in China.  Plant Disease 94: 922. https://doi.org/10.1094/PDIS-94-7-0922C

Dang, T., Tan, S. H., Bodaghi, S., Greer, G., Lavagi, I., Osman, F., Ramirez, B., Kress, J., Goodson, T., Weber, K., Zhang, Y. P., Vidalakis, G.  First report of Citrus Viroid V naturally infecting grapefruit and calamondin trees in California.  Plant Disease, Posted online on August 10, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1094/PDIS-01-18-0100-PDN

Hamdi, I., Elleuch, A., Bessaies, N., Grubb, C. D., and Fakhfakh, H. 2015. First report of Citrus viroid V in North Africa. Journal of General Plant Pathology 81, 87

Ito, T., and Ohta, S.  2010.  First report of Citrus viroid V in Japan.  Journal of General Plant Pathology 76: 348-350.

Önelge, N., and Yurtmen, M. 2012. First report of Citrus viroid V in Turkey. Journal of Plant Patholology 94 (Suppl. 4), 88.

Parakh, D. B., Zhu, S., and Sano, T.  2017.  Geographical distribution of viroids in South, Southeast, and East Asia.  In: Apscaviroids Infecting Citrus Trees by Tessitori, M, Viroids and Satellites, Edited by Hadidi, A, Flores, R, Randles, JW, and Palukaitis, P, Academic Press Ltd-Elsevier Science Ltd, Pages 243-249

Serra, P., Barbosa, C. J, Daros, J. A., Flores, R., Duran-Vila, N. 2008a. Citrus viroid V: molecular characterization and synergistic interactions with other members of the genus Apscaviroid. Virology 370, 102112.

Serra, P., Eiras, M., Bani-Hashemian, S. M., Murcia, N., Kitajima, E.W., Daro`s, J. A., et al., 2008b. Citrus viroid V: occurrence, host range, diagnosis, and identification of new variants. Phytopathology 98, 11991204.


Responsible Party:

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


Comment Period:* CLOSED

9/13/18 – 10/28/18


*NOTE:

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


Comment Format:

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

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

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

♦  Comments may not be posted if they:

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

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

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

Violates agency regulations prohibiting workplace violence, including threats.

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

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


Pest Rating: B


Posted by ls 

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

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

 


PEST RATING PROFILE

Initiating Event: 

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

History & Status:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Consequences of Introduction: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Evaluate the host range of the pest.

Score: 3

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

– Medium (2) has a moderate host range.

High (3) has a wide host range.

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

Evaluate the natural and artificial dispersal potential of the pest.

Score: 3

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

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

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

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

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

Economic Impact: A, B

A. The pest could lower crop yield.

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

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

D. The pest could negatively change normal cultural practices.

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

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

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

Economic Impact Score: 2

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

Medium (2) causes 2 of these impacts.

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

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

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

Environment Impact:  None

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

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

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

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

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

Environmental Impact Score: 1

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

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

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

Consequences of Introduction to California for Corynespora cassiicola:

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

-Low = 5-8 points

Medium = 9-12 points

-High = 13-15 points

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

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

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

Score: (0)

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

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

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

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

Final Score

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

Final Score:  Score of Consequences of Introduction – Score of Post Entry Distribution and Survey Information = 10

Uncertainty:

None.

Conclusion and Rating Justification:

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


References:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Responsible Party:

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


Comment Period:* CLOSED

5/31/18 – 7/15/18


*NOTE:

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


Comment Format:

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

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

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

♦  Comments may not be posted if they:

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

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

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

Violates agency regulations prohibiting workplace violence, including threats.

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

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


Pest Rating: B

 


Posted by ls 

 

 

Grapevine Pinot gris Virus (GPGV)

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

 


PEST RATING PROFILE

Initiating Event:   

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

History & Status:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Official Control: None reported.

California Distribution:  Napa County.

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

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

Consequences of Introduction: 

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

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

Score: 3

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

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

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

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

Evaluate the host range of the pest.

Score: 1

Low (1) has a very limited host range.

– Medium (2) has a moderate host range.

– High (3) has a wide host range.

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

Evaluate the natural and artificial dispersal potential of the pest.

Score: 3

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

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

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

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

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

Score: A, B

A. The pest could lower crop yield.

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

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

D. The pest could negatively change normal cultural practices.

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

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

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

Economic Impact Score: 2

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

Medium (2) causes 2 of these impacts.

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

5) Environmental Impact: No impact to the environment is expected.

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

Environmental Impact: None

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

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

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

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

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

Environmental Impact Score: 1

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

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

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

Consequences of Introduction to California for Grapevine Pinot gris virus

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

-Low = 5-8 points

Medium = 9-12 points

-High = 13-15 points

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Final Score

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

Final Score:  Score of Consequences of Introduction – Score of Post Entry Distribution and Survey Information = 9. 

Uncertainty: 

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

Conclusion and Rating Justification:

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


References:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Responsible Party:

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


Comment Period:* CLOSED

5/22/18 – 7/06/18


*NOTE:

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


Comment Format:

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

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

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

♦  Comments may not be posted if they:

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

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

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

Violates agency regulations prohibiting workplace violence, including threats.

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

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


Pest Rating: B

 


Posted by ls 

 

 

Wall Fumitory | Fumaria muralis

California Pest Rating Proposal for
Fumaria muralis Sand W.D. J. Koch  |  Wall Fumitory
Ranunculales: Papaveraceae
Current Pest Rating:  N
Proposed Pest Rating: B | Proposed Seed Rating: R

Comment Period: 4/27/18 – 6/11/18


Initiating Event:

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

History & Status:

Background:

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

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

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

Worldwide Distribution:

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

Official Control:

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

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

California InterceptionsFumaria muralis has not been intercepted by CDFA through any regulatory pathways.

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

Consequences of Introduction: 

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

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

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

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

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

2) Known Pest Host Range: Fumaria muralis do not require one host but can occur where environmental conditions are favorable for its growth and establishment. It receives a High (3) in this category

Evaluate the host range of the pest.

Low (1) has a very limited host range.

Medium (2) has a moderate host range.

High (3) has a wide host range.

3) Pest Dispersal Potential:  Fumaria reproduces seeds can remain viable in in the ground for up to 20 years. Seeds can germinate throughout the year and the plant can grow actively for half the year. Dispersal is through contaminated seed, soil movement and water runoff. Long and short range dispersal can also be aided by human and ant activity. It receives a High (3) in this category

Evaluate the natural and artificial dispersal potential of the pest.

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

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

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

4) Economic Impact: Fumaria muralis may compete strongly with crops, particularly cereals, vegetable and legume crops. The impacts of Fumaria sp. depends on the affected crop, time of emergence and density of infestation (Norton 2003). Fumaria species can reduce wheat yields by up to 40% and canola yields by up to 36% (Best management practices for dryland cropping systems, 2008). If this species were to establish in California, cultural practices such as cultivation, crop rotation, grazing, burning crop residues, use of competitive crops and seed cleaning would likely to be modified to reduce its growth and establishment. It receives a High (3) in this category.

Evaluate the economic impact of the pest to California using the criteria below: A, B, D

A. The pest could lower crop yield.

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

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

D. The pest could negatively change normal cultural practices.

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

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

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

Economic Impact Score: 3

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

Medium (2) causes 2 of these impacts.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Score the pest for Environmental Impact. Score: 2

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

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

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

Consequences of Introduction to California for Fumaria muralis (wall fumitory) Medium (13)

Add up the total score and include it here.

Low = 5-8 points

Medium = 9-12 points

High = 13-15 points

6) Post Entry Distribution and Survey Information:  Fumaria muralis has been found occurring naturally in limited part of California but has not established fully in the state and receives a Low (-1) in this category.

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

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

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

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

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

Final Score:

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

Uncertainty:

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

Conclusion and Rating Justification:

Fumaria muralis has only been observed in California in 2018 but it has not caused any significant economic and environment impacts to the state’s agriculture and urban environment yet. However, it may be more widespread than recognized. If it acts as other weedy species of Fumaria, it would do little more than they do and its impacts would be modest.   An “B” rating is justified.

References:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Author:

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

Responsible Party:

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


Comment Period:*

4/27/18 – 6/11/18


*NOTE:

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


Comment Format:

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

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

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

♦  Comments may not be posted if they:

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

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

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

Violates agency regulations prohibiting workplace violence, including threats.

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

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


Posted by ls 

Hypothenemus eruditus Westwood

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

 


PEST RATING PROFILE
Initiating Event:

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

History & Status:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Consequences of Introduction:

1) Climate/Host Interaction: Hypothenemus eruditus occurs widely in the United States.  The species occurs in California and on the east coast, from New Hampshire to Florida and west to Illinois and Texas.  This suggests that eruditus could become established over a significant portion of California.  The list of hosts includes hundreds of species of plants and fungi.  Therefore, it receives a High (3) in this category.

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

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

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

2) Known Pest Host Range: Hypothenemus eruditus is known to feed on hundreds of species of plants, as well as fungi. Therefore, it receives a High (3) in this category.

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

– Medium (2) has a moderate host range.

– High (3) has a wide host range.

3) Pest Dispersal Potential: Hypothenemus eruditus is capable of sustained flight. Females mate with their flightless male siblings, so they leave their development site ready to colonize new host material (Huang, 2016).  The beetle can also be transported in wood and wood products. Therefore, it receives a High (3) in this category.

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

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

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

4) Economic Impact: Hypothenemus eruditus is not known to be an economically-significant pest (Huang, 2016).  The species already occurs in California and the eastern United States and it has a widespread world distribution.  However, no reports have been found suggesting that it has an economic impact.  However, there is the possibility that other species, including cryptic ones, could be identified at eruditus.  Such species could pose a threat to California agriculture, for example, lowering crop yield and increasing crop production costs.  Therefore, it receives a Medium (2) in this category.

Economic Impact: A, B

A. The pest could lower crop yield.

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

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

D. The pest could negatively change normal cultural practices.

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

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

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

Economic Impact Score: Medium (2)

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

– Medium (2) causes 2 of these impacts.

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

5) Environmental Impact: Hypothenemus eruditus is not known to have an environmental impact anywhere. The beetle already occurs in California and the eastern United States and no reports were found of it having an environmental impact.  However, this could reflect a lack of research rather than a lack of impact.  In addition, there is the possibility that other species of Hypothenemus, including cryptic ones, could be identified at eruditus.  Such species could pose a threat to the environment, for example, by disrupting natural communities.  Therefore, it receives a Medium (2) in this category.

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

Environmental Impact: A

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

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

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

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

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

Environmental Impact Score: Medium (2)

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

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

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

Consequences of Introduction to California for Hypothenemus eruditus: High (13)

Add up the total score and include it here.

–Low = 5-8 points

–Medium = 9-12 points

–High = 13-15 points

6) Post Entry Distribution and Survey Information: Although this species is likely present in additional areas of California, Hypothenemus eruditus has been reported from outdoor, non-nursery localities in Santa Barbara and San Diego Counties.  It receives a Low (-1) in this category.

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

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

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

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

Final Score:

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

Uncertainty:

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

Conclusion and Rating Justification:

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


References:

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

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

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

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

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

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


Author:

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

Responsible Party:

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


Comment Period:* CLOSED

4/25/18 – 6/9/18


*NOTE:

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


Comment Format:

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

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

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

♦  Comments may not be posted if they:

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

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

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

Violates agency regulations prohibiting workplace violence, including threats.

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

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


Pest Rating: B


Posted by ls 

Pink Hibiscus Mealybug | Maconellicoccus hirsutus (Green)

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

 


PEST RATING PROFILE

Initiating Event:

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

History & Status:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Consequences of Introduction: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Evaluate the host range of the pest. Score:

Low (1) has a very limited host range.

Medium (2) has a moderate host range.

High (3) has a wide host range.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A. The pest could lower crop yield.

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

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

D. The pest could negatively change normal cultural practices.

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

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

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

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

Medium (2) causes 2 of these impacts.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Score the pest for Environmental Impact. Score: 3

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

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

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

Consequences of Introduction to California for Maconellicoccus hirsutus (pink hibiscus mealybug):  High(14)

Add up the total score and include it here.

Low = 5-8 points

Medium = 9-12 points

High = 13-15 points

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

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

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

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

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

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

Final Score:

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

Uncertainty:

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

Conclusion and Rating Justification:

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


References:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Responsible Party:

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


Comment Period:* CLOSED

4/25/18 – 6/9/18


*NOTE:

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


Comment Format:

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

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

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

♦  Comments may not be posted if they:

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

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

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

Violates agency regulations prohibiting workplace violence, including threats.

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

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


Pest Rating:  A

 


Posted by ls