Entomology: Insects, Mites & Earthworms
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.
Posted by ka
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.
Posted by ka
Kyle Beucke, 2800 Gateway Oaks Dr, Sacramento, CA, 95833, 916-403-6741, plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov
Updated by ls
In 2018, this scale was found in Solano County on Ligustrum sp. bonsai that had been purchased in Fresno County. This scale currently has a Q-rating. A permanent pest rating proposal is required to support an official pest rating.
Background: Pseudaulacaspis prunicola is a polyphagous scale that is reported to feed on plants in 15 families. Among the recorded hosts are fruit and ornamental trees, including Carica, Malus, and Prunus species (Agnello et al., 2015; Follett, 2000; Miller and Davidson, 2005). Death of trees can result from feeding by this scale (Miller and Davidson, 2005).
There is some uncertainty regarding the species identity of P. prunicola. This scale was considered a synonym of P. pentagona until 1980. Kreiter et al. (1999) reported individuals in a single population that could be identified morphologically as either species. Pseudaulacaspis pentagona is an A-rated (by CDFA) pest that is highly polyphagous and is reported to cause damage to a wide variety of plants, including peaches in the southeastern United States and papaya in Hawaii (Branscome, 1999; Follett, 2000).
Worldwide Distribution: Pseudaulacaspis prunicola is thought to be native to temperate China or Japan (Miller and Davidson, 2005). It has been introduced to Europe, the eastern United States, and Hawaii. In the eastern United States, it is reported from Florida north to Massachusetts (Miller and Davidson, 2005).
Official Control: Pseudaulacaspis prunicola does not appear to be under official control in any country. However, P. pentagona, which has been considered by some to be a senior synonym of P. prunicola, is a regulated pest in some countries (EPPO Global Database, 2018).
California Distribution: Although P. prunicola has been collected at times in the state, this species does not appear to be established in California.
California Interceptions: The P. prunicola found on Ligustrum sp. bonsai in Solano County in 2018 represents the only interception of this species in California.
The risk Pseudaulacaspis prunicola would pose to California is evaluated below.
Consequences of Introduction:
1) Climate/Host Interaction: Pseudaulacaspis prunicola has proven itself capable of becoming established in a variety of climates, and it is highly polyphagous. It could probably establish a widespread distribution in California. Therefore, prunicola receives a High (3) in this category.
– Low (1) Not likely to establish in California; or likely to establish in very limited areas.
– Medium (2) may be able to establish in a larger but limited part of California.
– High (3) likely to establish a widespread distribution in California.
2) Known Pest Host Range: Pseudaulacaspis prunicola is reported to feed on plants in at least 15 families. Therefore, it receives a High (3) in this category.
– Low (1) has a very limited host range.
– Medium (2) has a moderate host range.
– High (3) has a wide host range.
3) Pest Reproductive and Dispersal Potential: Pseudaulacaspis prunicola is likely to be transported via movement of infested plants. Therefore, it receives a Medium (2) in this category.
– Low (1) does not have high reproductive or dispersal potential.
– Medium (2) has either high reproductive or dispersal potential.
– High (3) has both high reproduction and dispersal potential.
4) Economic Impact: Pseudaulacaspis prunicola is reported to attack fruit and ornamental trees. Feeding damage is reported to cause death of trees. Infestations of this scale could lower crop yield and increase production costs. Therefore, it receives a Medium (2) in this category.
Economic Impact: A, B
A. The pest could lower crop yield.
B. The pest could lower crop value (includes increasing crop production costs).
C. The pest could trigger the loss of markets (includes quarantines).
D. The pest could negatively change normal cultural practices.
E. The pest can vector, or is vectored, by another pestiferous organism.
F. The organism is injurious or poisonous to agriculturally important animals.
G. The organism can interfere with the delivery or supply of water for agricultural uses.
Economic Impact Score: 2
– Low (1) causes 0 or 1 of these impacts.
– Medium (2) causes 2 of these impacts.
– High (3) causes 3 or more of these impacts.
5) Environmental Impact: This scale is reported to kill ornamental trees. Infestations could trigger treatment programs. Therefore, it receives a High (3) in this category.
Evaluate the environmental impact of the pest on California using the criteria below.
Environmental Impact: D, E
A. The pest could have a significant environmental impact such as lowering biodiversity, disrupting natural communities, or changing ecosystem processes.
B. The pest could directly affect threatened or endangered species.
C. The pest could impact threatened or endangered species by disrupting critical habitats.
D. The pest could trigger additional official or private treatment programs.
E. The pest significantly impacts cultural practices, home/urban gardening or ornamental plantings.
Environmental Impact Score: 3
– Low (1) causes none of the above to occur.
– Medium (2) causes one of the above to occur.
– High (3) causes two or more of the above to occur.
Add up the total score and include it here.
–Low = 5-8 points
–Medium = 9-12 points
–High = 13-15 points
6) Post Entry Distribution and Survey Information: Pseudaulacaspis prunicola is not known to be present in California. It receives a Not Established (0) in this category.
–Not established (0) Pest never detected in California, or known only from incursions.
–Low (-1) Pest has a localized distribution in California, or is established in one suitable climate/host area (region).
–Medium (-2) Pest is widespread in California but not fully established in the endangered area, or pest established in two contiguous suitable climate/host areas.
–High (-3) Pest has fully established in the endangered area, or pest is reported in more than two contiguous or non-contiguous suitable climate/host areas.
7) The final score is the consequences of introduction score minus the post entry distribution and survey information score: High (13)
There is taxonomic uncertainty regarding P. prunicola and P. pentagona; they have been considered to be the same species. As P. pentagona is A-rated and is also not known to be present in California, the main implication of this uncertainty appears to be that the potential impact of P. prunicola could be greater than that considered in this PRP because there are additional hosts and additional climatic niche space reported for P. pentagona.
Pseudaulacaspis prunicola is a highly polyphagous scale that is not known to be present in California. It has the potential to cause economic and environmental impacts in the state if it was to become established. For these reasons, an “A” rating is justified.
Agnello, A., Jentsch, P., and Kain, D. 2015. Prebloom problemas. Scaffolds Fruit Journal 24:1-3.
Branscome, D. 1999. Pseudaulacaspis pentagona. Accessed October 2, 2018: http://entnemdept.ufl.edu/creatures/orn/scales/white_peach_scale.htm
California Department of Food and Agriculture. Pest and damage record database. Accessed September 28, 2018:
https://pdr.cdfa.ca.gov/PDR/pdrmainmenu.aspx
EPPO Global Database. 2018. Accessed October 4, 2018: https://gd.eppo.int/
Follett, P. A. 2000. Arthropod pests of papaya in Hawaii. Chronica Horticulturae 40:7-10.
Kreiter, P., Panis, A., and Tourniaire, R. 1999. Variabilite morphologique chez Pseudaulacaspis pentagona Targioni Tozzetti dans une population du sud-est de la France (Hemiptera: Diaspididae). Annales de la Société Entomologique de France 35:33-36.
Symbiota Collections of Arthropods Network. Accessed September 27, 2018:
http://scan1.acis.ufl.edu
Miller, D. R. and Davidson, J. A. 2005. Armored scale insect pests of trees and shrubs (Hemiptera: Diaspididae). Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY.
Kyle Beucke, 1220 N Street, Room 221, Sacramento, CA, 95814, 916-403-6741, plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov
12/6/2018 – 1/20/2019
You must be registered and logged in to post a comment. If you have registered and have not received the registration confirmation, please contact us at plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov.
♦ Comments should refer to the appropriate California Pest Rating Proposal Form subsection(s) being commented on, as shown below.
Example Comment:
Consequences of Introduction: 1. Climate/Host Interaction: [Your comment that relates to “Climate/Host Interaction” here.]
♦ Posted comments will not be able to be viewed immediately.
♦ Comments may not be posted if they:
Contain inappropriate language which is not germane to the pest rating proposal;
Contains defamatory, false, inaccurate, abusive, obscene, pornographic, sexually oriented, threatening, racially offensive, discriminatory or illegal material;
Violates agency regulations prohibiting sexual harassment or other forms of discrimination;
Violates agency regulations prohibiting workplace violence, including threats.
♦ Comments may be edited prior to posting to ensure they are entirely germane.
♦ Posted comments shall be those which have been approved in content and posted to the website to be viewed, not just submitted.
Posted by ls
An infestation of Hypogeococcus pungens was discovered on cacti in a recreation area in Orange County in September 2018. This mealybug currently has a Q-rating. A permanent pest rating proposal is required to support an official pest rating.
Background: Hypogeococcus pungens is a mealybug that has been reported to attack at least six genera of cacti as well as plants in the families Amaranthaceae, Polygonaceae, and Portulaceae (Hodges, 2009; Zimmermann et al., 2010). Cactus feeding is concentrated on portions of the plant that are actively growing. This results in distorted growth, including curling branches and growth of new, deformed branches that are sometimes referred to as galls (Le Quay-Velázquez et al., 2015). Death can take years, especially in older plants, but feeding has an immediate impact of fruit production because the mealybugs are concentrated on developing flowers. Therefore, this mealybug can have a severe impact on cactus reproduction (Patterson et al., 2011).
Natural dispersal appears to be limited but may include wind dispersal in the first instar (Zimmermann et al., 2010). Movement of plants is probably the most effective means of spread of this mealybug.
In the 1970s and 1980s, this mealybug was introduced to Australia and South Africa as part of biological control programs targeting introduced cacti, including Harrisia spp. This mealybug was credited as an effective biological control agent, helping to clear cacti from thousands of hectares.
Aguirre et al. (2016) provided evidence that more than one species may be currently identified as H. pungens. Specimens collected from the type host plant (Amaranthaceae) did not produce viable offspring or did not survive at all on cacti. The cactus-feeding H. pungens introduced to Australia for biological control of cacti had been collected from cacti in Argentina. Significantly, the H. pungens in Australia have not been found on Amaranthaceae, even though this family of plants is common in Australia. The mealybug in Florida rarely attacks cacti but it is common on Alternanthera (Polygonaceae) and Portulaca (Portulaceae) species. In addition, the Amaranthaceae-feeding H. pungens are reported to be parthenogenetic, whereas the cactus-feeding mealybug is not. This evidence suggests there are likely at least two species currently recognized as H. pungens; one that feeds on cacti (native to South America and introduced to Australia, South Africa, the Caribbean, and possibly California) and one that feeds on Amaranthaceae and other plant families (also native to South America and introduced to Florida).
In addition, H. pungens has been misidentified as H. festerianus in the past (CABI, 2018).
In areas with native cacti but where H. pungens is not native to, there is concern that the mealybug could have an impact on native cacti. Hypogeococcus pungens was reported to cause severe damage to native cacti in Puerto Rico, including reducing the density of cactus stems (Weaver, 2011).
Worldwide Distribution: Hypogeococcus pungens is native to South America (northern Argentina, western Brazil, Paraguay, and Peru). It has been introduced to Australia, the Caribbean (including the Dominican Republic and Puerto Rico), Europe (France, Greece, and Italy), South Africa, and the United States (Florida and Hawaii) (German-Ramirez et al., 2014; Hodges, 2009; Milonas et al., 2008; Pellizzari and Sacco, 2010; Segarra-Carmona et al., 2010). As of 2009, it was reported from 26 counties in Florida (Hodges, 2009).
Official Control: Hypogeococcus pungens is considered Reportable by the USDA (USDA-APHIS).
California Distribution: Hypogeococcus pungens was found in California in Beverly Hills in 2010, 2012, 2014, and 2018 and in a recreation area in Orange County in 2018. Both of these infestations are now under eradication, and this species is not known to be present anywhere else in the state.
California Interceptions: Hypogeococcus pungens was found on cacti at one residence in Beverly Hills (in 2010, 2012, 2014, and 2018), in a recreation area in Orange County in 2018, and in nurseries in Riverside, Orange, San Diego, and San Mateo County in 2004, 2011, 2012, and 2018. It was intercepted on alternanthera and ludwigia plants from Florida in 2002 and 2004 (see comment on host breadth and taxonomic uncertainty, above).
The risk Hypogeococcus pungens would pose to California is evaluated below.
1) Climate/Host Interaction: Hypogeococcus pungens has been reported from areas that vary in climate from temperate to semi-arid to tropical. It has been reported to feed on plants in four families. It could possibly establish a widespread distribution in California. Therefore, pungens receives a High (3) in this category.
– Low (1) Not likely to establish in California; or likely to establish in very limited areas.
– Medium (2) may be able to establish in a larger but limited part of California.
– High (3) likely to establish a widespread distribution in California.
2) Known Pest Host Range: Four plant families are reported to be attacked by mealybugs that were identified as pungens. Although it is possible that multiple species with different feeding habits are being lumped together in this PRP (see Background, above, and Uncertainty, below), it is necessary to consider characteristics of what has been (and are likely to be) identified as H. pungens. Therefore, H. pungens receives a Medium (2) in this category.
– Low (1) has a very limited host range.
– Medium (2) has a moderate host range.
– High (3) has a wide host range.
3) Pest Reproductive and Dispersal Potential: Some pungens are reported to be parthenogenetic, but see Background, above. Natural dispersal ability appears to be limited, with wind-dispersal of first instar nymphs being reported as likely. Movement of infested cactus plants is another likely mode of dispersal. Therefore, it receives a Medium (2) in this category.
– Low (1) does not have high reproductive or dispersal potential.
– Medium (2) has either high reproductive or dispersal potential.
– High (3) has both high reproduction and dispersal potential.
4) Economic Impact: Hypogeococcus pungens is likely to infest cacti in nurseries if it became established in California. This could lead to higher costs of production. Additionally, the presence of this mealybug could lead to a loss in cactus markets, as this pest threatens native cacti in other countries, including Mexico. Therefore, it receives a Medium (2) in this category.
Economic Impact: B, C
A. The pest could lower crop yield.
B. The pest could lower crop value (includes increasing crop production costs).
C. The pest could trigger the loss of markets (includes quarantines).
D. The pest could negatively change normal cultural practices.
E. The pest can vector, or is vectored, by another pestiferous organism.
F. The organism is injurious or poisonous to agriculturally important animals.
G. The organism can interfere with the delivery or supply of water for agricultural uses.
Economic Impact Score: 2
– Low (1) causes 0 or 1 of these impacts.
– Medium (2) causes 2 of these impacts.
– High (3) causes 3 or more of these impacts.
5) Environmental Impact: There are 38 native cacti in California, including 8 endemic species (Jepson Herbarium, 2018), that could be threatened by this mealybug, including the rare golden-spined cereus (Bergerocactus emoryi (Engelm.) Britton & Rose) and the San Diego barrel cactus (Ferocactus viridescens (Torr. & A. Gray) Britton & Rose). Infestations of this mealybug could trigger treatments and could impact ornamental cactus plantings. Therefore, it receives a High (3) in this category.
Evaluate the environmental impact of the pest on California using the criteria below.
Environmental Impact: B, D, E
A. The pest could have a significant environmental impact such as lowering biodiversity, disrupting natural communities, or changing ecosystem processes.
B. The pest could directly affect threatened or endangered species.
C. The pest could impact threatened or endangered species by disrupting critical habitats.
D. The pest could trigger additional official or private treatment programs.
E. The pest significantly impacts cultural practices, home/urban gardening or ornamental plantings.
Environmental Impact Score: 3
– Low (1) causes none of the above to occur.
– Medium (2) causes one of the above to occur.
– High (3) causes two or more of the above to occur.
Add up the total score and include it here.
–Low = 5-8 points
–Medium = 9-12 points
–High = 13-15 points
6) Post Entry Distribution and Survey Information: Hypogeococcus pungens is not known to be established in California. It receives a Not established (0) in this category.
–Not established (0) Pest never detected in California, or known only from incursions.
–Low (-1) Pest has a localized distribution in California, or is established in one suitable climate/host area (region).
–Medium (-2) Pest is widespread in California but not fully established in the endangered area, or pest established in two contiguous suitable climate/host areas.
–High (-3) Pest has fully established in the endangered area, or pest is reported in more than two contiguous or non-contiguous suitable climate/host areas.
7) The final score is the consequences of introduction score minus the post entry distribution and survey information score: Medium (12)
There is significant uncertainty regarding the identity of the mealybugs identified as H. pungens. As described in the Background (above), there may be at least two species that are currently identified as H. pungens; one that feeds on cacti and one that feeds on other plants, including Amaranthaceae. This makes it difficult to extrapolate impacts of H. pungens observed in other places to California. For example, H. pungens is reported to be widely distributed in Florida, but this does not appear to be the cactus-feeding form. In this PRP, characteristics and possible impacts of the mealybugs identified as H. pungens were considered because, in the absence of further systematic work on these mealybugs, they are likely to be similarly identified as H. pungens if intercepted in California.
Hypogeococcus pungens or a cryptic species that is currently identified as H. pungens attacks cacti and poses a threat to cacti in California, both rare, native species as well as those cultivated as ornamentals in nurseries. Besides the infestations that are under eradication, this mealybug is not known to be established in California. For these reasons, an “A” rating is justified.
Aguirre, M. B., Diaz-Soltero, H., Claps, L. E., Saracho Bottero, A., Triapitsyn, S., Hasson, E., and Logarzo, G. A. 2016. Studies on the biology of Hypogeococcus pungens (sensu stricto) (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) in Argentina to aid the identification of the mealybug pest of Cactaceae in Puerto Rico. Journal of Insect Science 16:1-7.
California Department of Food and Agriculture. Pest and damage record database. Accessed October 5, 2018: https://pdr.cdfa.ca.gov/PDR/pdrmainmenu.aspx
CABI. 2018. Invasive Species Compendium. Hypogeococcus pungens (cactus mealybug) datasheet. Accessed October 5, 2018: https://www.cabi.org/isc/datasheet/110614
German-Ramirez, E., Kairo, M. T. K., Stocks, I., Haseeb, M., and Serra, C. A. 2014. New record of Hypogeococcus pungens (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) in the Dominican Republic with comments on specific characters. Florida Entomologist 97:320-321.
Hodges, A. 2009. Hypogeococcus pungens Granara de Willink (Insects: Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae). Accessed September 24, 2018: http://entnemdept.ufl.edu/creatures/orn/mealybug/hypogeococcus_pungens.htm
Jepson Herbarium. 2018. Jepson eFLora. Accessed October 5, 2018:
http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/IJM_stats.html.
Le Quay-Velázquez, G., Ciomperlik, M., and Rodrigues, J. C. V. 2015. Gall formation on the endangered cactus, Leptocereus quadricostatus caused by the invasive mealybug, Hypogeococcus pungens (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae). Proceedings of the Caribbean Food Crops Society 51:174-180.
Milonas, P. G., Kozár, F., and Kontodimas, D. C. 2008. List of scale insects of Greece. pp. 143-147 in Branco M., Franco J.C., and Hodgson C. (eds.), Proceedings of the XI International Symposium on Scale Insect Studies. ISA Press, Lisbon, Portugal.
Paterson, I. D., Hoffmann, J. H., Klein, H., Mathenge, C. W., Neser, S., and Zimmermann, H. G. 2011. Biological control of Cactaceae in South Africa 19:230-246.
Pellizzari, G., and Sacco, M. 2010. Le cocciniglie delle piante ornamentali in Liguria. Protezione delle Colture 4:27-36.
Segarra-Carmona, A. E., Ramírez-Lluch, A., Cabrera-Asencio, I., and Jiménez-López, A. N. 2010. First report of a new invasive mealybug, the Harrisia cactus Hypogeococcus pungens (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae). The Journal of Agriculture of the University of Puerto Rico 94:183-187.
USDA-APHIS. U.S. regulated plant pest table. Accessed September 26, 2018:
https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/planthealth/import-information/rppl/rppl-table
Weaver, P. L. 2011. Early recovery of subtropical dry forest in south-western Puerto Rico. Bois et Forêts de Tropiques 310:12-23.
Zimmermann, H. G., Pérez, M., Cuen, S., Mandujano, M. C., and Golubov, J. 2010. The South American mealybug that threatens North American cacti. Cactus and Succulent Journal 82:105-107.
Kyle Beucke, 1220 N Street, Room 221, Sacramento, CA, 95814, 916-403-6741, plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov
12/6/2018 – 1/20/2019
You must be registered and logged in to post a comment. If you have registered and have not received the registration confirmation, please contact us at plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov.
♦ Comments should refer to the appropriate California Pest Rating Proposal Form subsection(s) being commented on, as shown below.
Example Comment:
Consequences of Introduction: 1. Climate/Host Interaction: [Your comment that relates to “Climate/Host Interaction” here.]
♦ Posted comments will not be able to be viewed immediately.
♦ Comments may not be posted if they:
Contain inappropriate language which is not germane to the pest rating proposal;
Contains defamatory, false, inaccurate, abusive, obscene, pornographic, sexually oriented, threatening, racially offensive, discriminatory or illegal material;
Violates agency regulations prohibiting sexual harassment or other forms of discrimination;
Violates agency regulations prohibiting workplace violence, including threats.
♦ Comments may be edited prior to posting to ensure they are entirely germane.
♦ Posted comments shall be those which have been approved in content and posted to the website to be viewed, not just submitted.
Posted by ls
Helicoverpa armigera was recently intercepted in a cut flower shipment in Los Angeles. A pest rating proposal is required to assign a permanent pest rating.
Background: Helicoverpa armigera is a highly polyphagous pest of many economically significant crops in Africa, Asia, Australia, and Europe (King, 1994). Helicoverpa armigera pupae overwinter in the soil. Adults emerge in May – June and lay eggs, usually on or near flowers. The larvae primarily feed on reproductive parts of hosts (flowers and fruits), but they can also feed on foliage. There are from two to six generations/year, depending on the climate. This species has been reported to cause serious losses throughout its range, in particular to tomatoes, corn, and cotton (Lammers and Ma cLeod, 2007).
Worldwide Distribution: Helicoverpa armigera is widely distributed. It has been reported from the following places: Asia: Afghanistan, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Brunei, Cambodia, China, Cocos Islands, Republic of Georgia, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Korea, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Lebanon, Malaysia, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan, Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Syria, Taiwan, Tajikistan, Thailand, Turkey, Turkmenistan, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, Vietnam, and Yemen.
Europe: Albania, Andorra, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Gibraltar, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Macedonia, Malta, Moldova, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and Ukraine.
Africa: Algeria, Angola, Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Cote d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Kenya, Lesotho, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mayotte, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Republic of Congo, Reunion, Rwanda, Saint Helena, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Africa, Sudan, Swaziland, Tanzania, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.
Oceania: American Samoa, Australia, Belau, Christmas Island, Cook Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Guam, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, New Caledonia, New Zealand, Norfolk Island, Northern Mariana Islands, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, and Vanuatu.
South America: Argentina, Brazil, and Paraguay (CABI, 2007; Fibiger and Skule, 2011; EPPO, 2012; Sugayama, 2013; Senave, 2013; Murúa et al., 2014).
Official Control: Helicoverpa armigera is listed as a harmful organism in Costa Rica, Bermuda, French Polynesia, Honduras, Paraguay, Turkey, Chile, Ecuador, Guatemala, Monaco, San Marino, Uruguay, Colombia, European Union, Norway, and Serbia (USDA PCIT).
California Distribution: Helicoverpa armigera has never been found in the environment of California.
California Interceptions: There was only one specimen reported in the Pest and Damage Record Database by CDFA. This specimen was found (2017) in Los Angeles County on a cut flower shipment from India (California Department of Food and Agriculture).
The risk Helicoverpa armigera (cotton bollworm) would pose to California is evaluated below.
1) Climate/Host Interaction: Helicoverpa armigera can feed on a wide variety of plants that grow in California. It is expected to be capable of establishing a widespread distribution and receives a High (3) in this category.
Evaluate if the pest would have suitable hosts and climate to establish in California:
– Low (1) Not likely to establish in California; or likely to establish in very limited areas.
– Medium (2) may be able to establish in a larger but limited part of California.
– High (3) likely to establish a widespread distribution in California.
2) Known Pest Host Range: Helicoverpa armigera is a polyphagous moth and a major insect pest of both field and horticultural crops in many parts of the world (Fitt, 1989). It has been reported on over 180 species of plants, including many crops, in at least 45 plant families (Venette et al., 2003). It receives a High (3) in this category.
Evaluate the host range of the pest.
– Low (1) has a very limited host range.
– Medium (2) has a moderate host range.
– High (3) has a wide host range.
3) Pest Dispersal Potential: Helicoverpa armigera exhibits overlapping generations, typically two to five generations per year in subtropical and temperate regions. Up to 11 generations per year can occur under optimal conditions (Tripathi and Singh, 1991; King, 1994; Fowler and Lakin, 2001). The female lays up to 1000 eggs in clusters or singly on fruits, stems, and growing points. It receives a High (3) in this category.
Evaluate the natural and artificial dispersal potential of the pest.
– Low (1) does not have high reproductive or dispersal potential.
– Medium (2) has either high reproductive or dispersal potential.
– High (3) has both high reproduction and dispersal potential.
4) Economic Impact: Helicoverpa armigera is considered to be among the most damaging agricultural pests in Australia, costing approximately $225.2 million per year to control (Clearly et al., 2006). This moth has the potential to lower crop yields and increase production costs in California. If Helicoverpa armigera were to establish in California it is also likely to disrupt markets for California fresh fruit and plants because this pest is regulated by many countries. It receives a High (3) in this category.
Evaluate the economic impact of the pest to California using the criteria below.
Economic Impact: A, B, C
A. The pest could lower crop yield.
B. The pest could lower crop value (includes increasing crop production costs).
C. The pest could trigger the loss of markets (includes quarantines).
D. The pest could negatively change normal cultural practices.
E. The pest can vector, or is vectored, by another pestiferous organism.
F. The organism is injurious or poisonous to agriculturally important animals.
G. The organism can interfere with the delivery or supply of water for agricultural uses.
Economic Impact Score: 3
– Low (1) causes 0 or 1 of these impacts.
– Medium (2) causes 2 of these impacts.
– High (3) causes 3 or more of these impacts.
5) Environmental Impact: Helicoverpa armigera is not expected to lower biodiversity, disrupt natural communities, or change ecosystem processes. It might trigger new chemical treatments by residents who find infestations in gardens. It is not expected to significantly impact cultural practices, home/urban gardening, or ornamental plantings. It receives a Medium (2) in this category.
Evaluate the environmental impact of the pest on California using the criteria below.
Environmental Impact: D
A. The pest could have a significant environmental impact such as lowering biodiversity, disrupting natural communities, or changing ecosystem processes.
B. The pest could directly affect threatened or endangered species.
C. The pest could impact threatened or endangered species by disrupting critical habitats.
D. The pest could trigger additional official or private treatment programs.
E. The pest significantly impacts cultural practices, home/urban gardening or ornamental plantings.
Environmental Impact: Score: 2
– Low (1) causes none of the above to occur.
– Medium (2) causes one of the above to occur.
– High (3) causes two or more of the above to occur.
–Low = 5-8 points
–Medium = 9-12 points
-High = 13-15 points
6) Post Entry Distribution and Survey Information: Helicoverpa armigera has never been found in California and receives a Not established (0) in this category.
Evaluate the known distribution in California. Only official records identified by a taxonomic expert and supported by voucher specimens deposited in natural history collections should be considered. Pest incursions that have been eradicated, are under eradication, or have been delimited with no further detections should not be included.
-Not established (0) Pest never detected in California, or known only from incursions.
–Low (-1) Pest has a localized distribution in California, or is established in one suitable climate/host area (region).
–Medium (-2) Pest is widespread in California but not fully established in the endangered area, or pest established in two contiguous suitable climate/host areas.
–High (-3) Pest has fully established in the endangered area, or pest is reported in more than two contiguous or non-contiguous suitable climate/host areas.
The final score is the consequences of introduction score minus the post entry distribution and survey information score: High (14)
Only one interception record was found in CDFA database, there would be chances that it presumably enters the state undetected at other times. Therefore, it is possible that it may be present in some areas of California. There is little uncertainty that H. armigera could become widely established in California, as there are numerous host plants grown throughout the state.
Helicoverpa armigera has not been found in California and is expected to have significant economic and environmental impacts if it establishes in the state. An “A” rating is justified.
CABI. 2018. Helicoverpa armigera. CAB International. Accessed August 9, 2018: https://www.cabi.org/isc/datasheet/26757
CDFA Pest and Damage Report Database. 2011. Aulacaspis tubercularis. Plant Health and Pest Prevention Services. CA Department of Food and Agriculture. Accessed August 9, 2018: http://phpps.cdfa.ca.gov/user/frmLogon2.asp
Cleary, A. J., Cribb, B. W., and Murray, D. A. H. 2006. Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner): can wheat stubble protect cotton from attack. Australian Journal of Entomology 45:10-15.
Fitt, G. P. 1989. The ecology of Heliothis spp. in relation to agroecosystems. Annual Review of Entomology 34:17-52.
Fowler, G. A. and Lakin, K. R. 2001. Risk Assessment: The Old-World bollworm, Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner), (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae).
USDA-APHIS-PPQ-CPHST-PERAL
Smith E. 2015. Old World bollworm management program. Environmental Assessment USDA. Accessed August 9, 2018:
https://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/ea/downloads/2015/owb-pr-ea.pdf
King, A. B. S. 1994. Heliothis /Helicoverpa (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) pp. 39-106 in Matthews, G. A. and Tunstall, J. P. (eds.), Insect Pests of Cotton. CAB International, Wallingford, UK.
Lammers, J. W. and MacLeod, A. 2007. Report of a Pest Risk Analysis: Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner, 1808). Plant Protection Service and Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Central Science Laboratory.
Sullivan, M. and Molet, T. 2007. CPHST Pest Datasheet for Helicoverpa armigera. USDA-APHIS-PPQ-CPHST. Revised April 2014. Accessed August 9, 2018:
http://download.ceris.purdue.edu/file/3068
Tripathi, S. and Singh, R. 1991. Population dynamics of Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Insect Science Applications 12:367-374.
USDA Phytosanitary Certificate Issuance & Tracking System (PCIT). Phytosanitary
Export Database (PExD). Harmful organism report: Helicoverpa armigera.
Accessed August 9, 2018: https://pcit.aphis.usda.gov/pcit/
Javaid Iqbal, 1220 N Street, Sacramento, CA, 95814, (916) 654-1211, plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov.
Kyle Beucke, 1220 ‘N’ Street, Room 221, Sacramento CA 95814, (916) 654-1211, plant.health[@] cdfa.ca.gov.
11/29/2018 – 1/13/2019
You must be registered and logged in to post a comment. If you have registered and have not received the registration confirmation, please contact us at plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov.
♦ Comments should refer to the appropriate California Pest Rating Proposal Form subsection(s) being commented on, as shown below.
Example Comment:
Consequences of Introduction: 1. Climate/Host Interaction: [Your comment that relates to “Climate/Host Interaction” here.]
♦ Posted comments will not be able to be viewed immediately.
♦ Comments may not be posted if they:
Contain inappropriate language which is not germane to the pest rating proposal;
Contains defamatory, false, inaccurate, abusive, obscene, pornographic, sexually oriented, threatening, racially offensive, discriminatory or illegal material;
Violates agency regulations prohibiting sexual harassment or other forms of discrimination;
Violates agency regulations prohibiting workplace violence, including threats.
♦ Comments may be edited prior to posting to ensure they are entirely germane.
♦ Posted comments shall be those which have been approved in content and posted to the website to be viewed, not just submitted.
Posted by ls
In March 2018, an infestation of Fiorinia phantasma was discovered on 27 roadside palm trees in Miami, Florida (Ahmad and Miller, 2018). This species is already present in Hawaii where it is a significant pest of ornamentals. During May 2018, Fiorinia phantasma was intercepted on a shipment of unidentified leaves from American Samoa. This species has a Q rating. A pest rating proposal is required to assign a permanent rating to this species.
Background: Fiorinia phantasma is a polyphagous armored scale and is considered a significant pest of nursery plants particularly ornamental palms (Arecaceae). It has been transported worldwide by movement of live nursery plants (Brooks, 2012 and Watson et-al., 2015). Female scales inconsistently show red stripes, running the width of the scale covering. Male and females can be found intermingled on the undersides of leaves. Eggs are large and can reach more than 1/5 of the body size of females. Crawlers begin to colonize the top side of leaves when populations reach high densities (Garcia and Hara, 2011).
Fiorinia phantasma causes yellow blotches on the upper leaf surface of host plants. Intense feeding damage is caused due to heavy infestations, resulting in leaf drop. In Hawaii, this scale impacts local nursery and landscape industry and poses an additional quarantine problem for exporters (Garcia and Hara, 2011).
In addition to palms, Fiorinia phantasma also feeds on shower tree (Cassia spp.), lobster claw (Heliconia caribaea), weeping fig (Ficus benjamina), naio (Myoporum sandwichense), mock orange (Murraya peniculata), pittosporum (Pittosporum tobira), wax leaf privet (Ligustrum japonicum), and bread fruit (Artocarpus altilis) (NPDN- Pacific pest detector news).
Worldwide Distribution: Fiorinia phantasma was first found in the Philippine islands in 1915. It is currently known in American Samoa, France, French Polynesia, Grenada, Guam, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Malaysia, Maldives, Nauru, Netherlands, New Caledonia, Papua New Guinea, Reunion, Saint Martin and St. Barthelemy, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Taiwan, Thailand and Vietnam (Watson et- al., 2015).
The first report of F. phantasma from the continental Unites States was recorded from a Canary island date palm on March 1, 2018 in Miami- Dade county, Florida. Heavy infestations have also been reported on palms in Hawaii (Garcia and Hara 2011 & Watson et-al., 2015).
Official Control: Fiorinia phantasma is listed as a harmful organism in the Republic of Korea (USDA PCIT).
California Distribution: Fiorinia phantasma is not present in the natural environment of California.
California Interceptions: Fiorinia phantasma has been intercepted 11 times by CDFA between 2010 and 2018 through regulatory pathways mainly through high risk pest exclusion activities and dog program inspections (CDFA PDR Database).
The risk Fiorinia phantasma (tea scale of camellia) would pose to California is evaluated below.
1) Climate/Host Interaction: Tropical and subtropical climate in the south coast of California is suitable for growing many palm trees. Other hosts plants including oleander, plumeria, cassia, weeping fig, pittosporum, podocarpus and murraya are grown throughout California. Fiorinia phantasma is likely to survive where these host plants are grown. It receives a High (3) in this category.
Evaluate if the pest would have suitable hosts and climate to establish in California. Score:
– Low (1) Not likely to establish in California; or likely to establish in very limited areas.
– Medium (2) may be able to establish in a larger but limited part of California.
– High (3) likely to establish a widespread distribution in California.
2) Known Pest Host Range: Fiorinina phantasma is known to feed on a wide range of host plants in 44 genera in 24 families. It has preference for Arecaceae (palm trees). Other families include Araceae, Apocynaceae, Calophyllaceae, Commilinaceae, Cycadaceae, Euphorbiaceae, Fabaceae, Heliconiacaea, Lauracaea, Malvaceae, Melicaceae, Moraceae, Oleaceae, Orchidaceae, Pandanaceae, Pittosporaceae, Poaceae, Rutaceae, Sapindaceae, Scrophulariaceae, Strelitziaceae (García Morales et al., 2016). It receives a High (3) in this category.
Evaluate the host range of the pest. Score:
– Low (1) has a very limited host range.
– Medium (2) has a moderate host range.
– High (3) has a wide host range.
3) Pest Dispersal Potential: Fiorinina phantasma remains active throughout the year in warmer climates. Female lays approximately 10-15 eggs under its armor. Crawlers hatch in 10 days. The infestation actively spreads in crawler phase. Life cycle is completed in 1.5 – 2 months. It is spread in Hawaii by inter- island transport of nursery plants (Garcia and Hara, 2011, Watson et al., 2015). In California, if Fiorinia phantasma gets introduced and established, it is likely to move long distances through movement of infested nursery and landscape plants especially palm trees. It receives a High (3) in this category.
Evaluate the natural and artificial dispersal potential of the pest. Score:
– Low (1) does not have high reproductive or dispersal potential.
– Medium (2) has either high reproductive or dispersal potential.
– High (3) has both high reproduction and dispersal potential.
4) Economic Impact: Fiorinina phantasma is known to cause serious damage on areca palms in landscapes. Feeding by this species results in yellowing of leaves, leaf drop, loss of plant vigor, stunting of the host and even death of the plant. It is reported to have infested 6000 palm trees in the republic of Maldives (Watson et-al., 2015). If this species is introduced and gets established in palm growing and landscapes of south coast, it is likely to impact trade, including palms grown in nurseries. Possible use of horticultural oils and systemic insecticides for its control can increase production costs (García Morales et al., 2016). It receives a High (3) in this category.
Evaluate the economic impact of the pest to California using the criteria below.
Economic Impact: A, B, C
A. The pest could lower crop yield.
B. The pest could lower crop value (includes increasing crop production costs).
C. The pest could trigger the loss of markets (includes quarantines).
D. The pest could negatively change normal cultural practices.
E. The pest can vector, or is vectored, by another pestiferous organism.
F. The organism is injurious or poisonous to agriculturally important animals.
G. The organism can interfere with the delivery or supply of water for agricultural uses.
Economic Impact Score: 3
– Low (1) causes 0 or 1 of these impacts.
– Medium (2) causes 2 of these impacts.
– High (3) causes 3 or more of these impacts.
5) Environmental Impact: The establishment of Fiorinina phantasma in California is likely to impact nursery and landscape plants as it can spread through transport of nursery plants. This species is not expected to lower biodiversity, change ecosystems and affect any threatened or endangered species. Since camellias, palms and other hosts are planted in home gardens, infestations would likely trigger chemical treatments by homeowners. It receives a Medium (2) in this category.
Evaluate the environmental impacts of the pest on California using the following criterion:
Environmental Impact: D
A. The pest could have a significant environmental impact such as lowering biodiversity, disrupting natural communities, or changing ecosystem processes.
B. The pest could directly affect threatened or endangered species.
C. The pest could impact threatened or endangered species by disrupting critical habitats.
D. The pest could trigger additional official or private treatment programs.
E. The pest significantly impacts cultural practices, home/urban gardening or ornamental plantings.
Score the pest for Environmental Impact: 2
– Low (1) causes none of the above to occur.
– Medium (2) causes one of the above to occur.
– High (3) causes two or more of the above to occur.
Add up the total score and include it here.
-Low = 5-8 points
-Medium = 9-12 points
-High = 13-15 points
6) Post Entry Distribution and Survey Information: Fiorinia phantasma has not been detected in the natural environment of California. It receives Not established (0) in this category
Evaluate the known distribution in California. Only official records of specimens identified by a taxonomic expert and supported by voucher specimens deposited in natural history collections should be considered. Pest incursions that have been eradicated, are under eradication, or have been delimited with no further detections should not be included.
–Not established (0) Pest never detected in California or known only from incursions.
-Low (-1) Pest has a localized distribution in California or is established in one suitable climate/host area (region).
–Medium (-2) Pest is widespread in California but not fully established in the endangered area, or pest established in two contiguous suitable climate/host areas.
–High (-3) Pest has fully established in the endangered area, or pest is reported in more than two contiguous or non-contiguous suitable climate/host areas.
The final score is the consequences of introduction score minus the post entry distribution and survey information score: High (14)
Fiorinia phantasma has been intercepted by CDFA in shipments of leucodendron, Psidium guajava, Annona muricata, boxwood and podocarpus. There are many nurseries in southern and central California that specialize in these hosts and different kinds of palm trees, the main hosts of this scale. Therefore, nursery and landscape plants may potentially be significantly impacted. There have not been any recent formal surveys of nurseries and palm growing areas for the presence of this species. It is possible that this scale could be present in some parts of California.
Fiorinia phantasma has never been found in the environment of California. Since there are several of its hosts plants being grown and propagated in CA, it would likely have significant economic and environmental impacts if this scale become established in California. An “A” rating is justified.
Ahmad, M, and Miller, D. 2018. First U.S. Continental Record of Fiorinia phantasma Cockerell & Robinson (Hemiptera: Diaspididae), Phantasma Scale, Potential Pest of Palms and Ornamentals Plants. Pest Alert. Publication: FDACS-P-01880. Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer resources. Division of Plant Industry. Accessed 8/3/2018 https://www.freshfromflorida.com/content/download/79840/2332158/Pest_Alert_-_Fiorinia_phantasma.pdf
Brooks, F. 2012. Pacific Pest Detector News. A Quarterly Newsletter for First Detectors. March- May 2012, Number 9. National Plant Diagnostics Network. Accessed 8/6/2018 https://www.npdn.org/system/files/WPDN%20PacPestDetectNews_Mar-May2012.pdf
Cockerell, T. D. A., and Robinson E. 1915. — Descriptions and records of Coccidae. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 34: 105–113
Garcia, J., and Hara, A. 2011. Fiorinia phantasma Cockerell & Robinson (Hemiptera: Diaspididae). New Pest Advisory, Plant Pest Control Branch, Division of Plant Industry, Department of Agriculture, State of Hawaii 1: 1-2. Accessed 8/6/2018 https://hdoa.hawaii.gov/pi/files/2013/01/Fiorinia-phantasma-NPA.pdf
Morales, G.M. Denno, B.D., Miller, D.R., Miller, G.L., Ben-Dov, Y., and Hardy, N.B. 2016. ScaleNet: A literature-based model of scale insect biology and systematics. Database. Accessed 8/3/2018 http://scalenet.info. http://scalenet.info/catalogue/Fiorinia%20phantasma/
Pest and Damage Record Database. 2018. Fiorinia phantasma. Plant Health and Pest Prevention Services. California Department of Food and Agriculture. Accessed 8/2/2018 http://phpps.cdfa.ca.gov/user/frmLogon2.asp
USDA Phytosanitary Certificate Issuance & Tracking System (PCIT) Phytosanitary Export Database (PExD). Harmful organism report: Fiorinia phantasma. Accessed: 8/2/2018 https://pcit.aphis.usda.gov/pcit/
Watson, G.W., Williams, D.J., and Miller, D.R. 2015. The identity and distribution of Fiorinia phantasma (Cockerell & Robinson) (Hemiptera: Coccomorpha: Diaspididae), with a new synonym. Zootaxa 4048: 291-300.
Raj Randhawa, 1220 ‘N’ Street, Room 221, Sacramento CA 95814, (916) 403-6617, raj.randhawa@cdfa.ca.gov
Kyle Beucke, 1220 ‘N’ Street, Room 221, Sacramento CA 95814, (916) 654-1211, plant.health[@] cdfa.ca.gov.
11/26/2018 – 1/10/2019
You must be registered and logged in to post a comment. If you have registered and have not received the registration confirmation, please contact us at plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov.
♦ Comments should refer to the appropriate California Pest Rating Proposal Form subsection(s) being commented on, as shown below.
Example Comment:
Consequences of Introduction: 1. Climate/Host Interaction: [Your comment that relates to “Climate/Host Interaction” here.]
♦ Posted comments will not be able to be viewed immediately.
♦ Comments may not be posted if they:
Contain inappropriate language which is not germane to the pest rating proposal;
Contains defamatory, false, inaccurate, abusive, obscene, pornographic, sexually oriented, threatening, racially offensive, discriminatory or illegal material;
Violates agency regulations prohibiting sexual harassment or other forms of discrimination;
Violates agency regulations prohibiting workplace violence, including threats.
♦ Comments may be edited prior to posting to ensure they are entirely germane.
♦ Posted comments shall be those which have been approved in content and posted to the website to be viewed, not just submitted.
Posted by ls
On July 3, 2018 USDA released a New Pest Advisory Group (NPAG) report proposing to change the status of Acrolepiopsis assectella (leek moth) to non-actionable within the continental United States. A pest rating proposal is required to determine future direction.
Background: Leek moth is a leaf-mining moth that feeds on plants in the genus Allium1. Preferred hosts of the moth are garlic, leek, and onion1. Over-wintering adults become active when temperatures reach 15ºC1. Female moths lay eggs on leaves which larvae mine1. Mature larvae emerge from the leaf tissue and pupate on the external surface of the plant1. When adults emerge they either begin another generation or overwinter1, depending on the time of year. Leek moth can rapidly spread long distances when infested plant material is moved.
Worldwide Distribution: Leek moth is presumably native to Eurasia. It was first found in North America in Ontario in 19931. Leek moth was first detected in the United States in New York in 2009 and has since spread to New Hampshire, Maine, and Vermont1.
Official Control: Leek moth is listed as a harmful organism by Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, French Polynesia, Honduras, Israel, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Mexico, New Caledonia, Nicaragua, Peru, and Taiwan3.
California Distribution: Leek moth has not been found in the environment of California.
California Interceptions: Leek moth has never been intercepted in California.
The risk Acrolepiopsis assectella (leek moth) would pose to California is evaluated below.
1) Climate/Host Interaction: Leek moth is expected to be able to establish a widespread distribution in California wherever Allium plants grow. Based on its current widespread distribution in Europe and northern Africa it is not expected to be limited by climate in California. It receives a High (3) in this category.
Evaluate if the pest would have suitable hosts and climate to establish in California. Score:
– Low (1) Not likely to establish in California; or likely to establish in very limited areas.
– Medium (2) may be able to establish in a larger but limited part of California.
– High (3) likely to establish a widespread distribution in California.
2) Known Pest Host Range: Leek moth is only known to feed on plants in the genus Allium. It receives a Low (1) in this category.
Evaluate the host range of the pest. Score:
– Low (1) has a very limited host range.
– Medium (2) has a moderate host range.
– High (3) has a wide host range.
3) Pest Dispersal Potential: Leek moth has a high reproductive rate with each female laying an average of 100 eggs and the population completing as many as 8 generations per year1, depending on climate. The moth can rapidly spread long distances when eggs, larvae, or pupae on plants or harvested plant parts are moved. Adults can also fly. Leek moth receives a High (3) in this category.
Evaluate the natural and artificial dispersal potential of the pest. Score:
– Low (1) does not have high reproductive or dispersal potential.
– Medium (2) has either high reproductive or dispersal potential.
– High (3) has both high reproduction and dispersal potential.
4) Economic Impact: California is the largest producing state in the U.S. of garlic, onions, and green onions. The state produces 90%+ of the commercial garlic, is the largest producer of processing onions, and is one of the top fresh market onion producers in the nation2. Both garlic and onion crops are valued at $150-$300 million each annually2. California also leads the nation in the production of green onions with a 2009 crop value of $28 million in Monterey and Riverside county alone4. If leek moth were to establish in California it is expected to lower crop yields and increase production costs of these crops, especially on organic farms. Leek moth causes damage of economic importance in Allium Yield reductions can be as high as 50 percent and have the potential to reach 100 percent for organic growers who do not implement sufficient control measures1. Its presence in the state would likely affect markets for fresh garlic and onions. Growers in other places infested with leek moth have changed cultural practices including crop row netting, crop rotation, delayed planting, removal of old and infested leaves, destruction of pupae or larvae, early harvesting, avoidance of planting crops near known infestations, and destruction of plant debris following harvesting1. The moth is not expected to vector other organisms, injure animals, or interfere with water supplies. Leek moth receives a High (3) in this category.
Evaluate the economic impact of the pest to California using the criteria below.
Economic Impact: A, B, C, D
A. The pest could lower crop yield.
B. The pest could lower crop value (includes increasing crop production costs).
C. The pest could trigger the loss of markets (includes quarantines).
D. The pest could negatively change normal cultural practices.
E. The pest can vector, or is vectored, by another pestiferous organism.
F. The organism is injurious or poisonous to agriculturally important animals.
G. The organism can interfere with the delivery or supply of water for agricultural uses.
Economic Impact Score: 3
– Low (1) causes 0 or 1 of these impacts.
– Medium (2) causes 2 of these impacts.
– High (3) causes 3 or more of these impacts.
5) Environmental Impact: If leek moth were to establish in California it is not expected to lower biodiversity, disrupt natural communities, or change ecosystem processes. It is likely to affect threatened and endangered species such as Munz’s onion (Allium munzii) and Yosemite onion (Allium yosemitense). Leek moth would not be expected to disrupt critical habitats. It is likely to trigger additional treatment programs in agriculture and in residential gardens. Species of Allium are grown in home/urban gardens and would be significantly affected by this pest. Leek moth receives a High (3) in this category.
Evaluate the environmental impact of the pest on California using the criteria below.
Economic Impact: B, D, E
A. The pest could have a significant environmental impact such as lowering biodiversity, disrupting natural communities, or changing ecosystem processes.
B. The pest could directly affect threatened or endangered species.
C. The pest could impact threatened or endangered species by disrupting critical habitats.
D. The pest could trigger additional official or private treatment programs.
E. The pest significantly impacts cultural practices, home/urban gardening or ornamental plantings.
Score the pest for Environmental Impact.
Environmental Impact Score: 3
– Low (1) causes none of the above to occur.
– Medium (2) causes one of the above to occur.
– High (3) causes two or more of the above to occur.
Add up the total score and include it here.
–Low = 5-8 points
–Medium = 9-12 points
–High = 13-15 points
6) Post Entry Distribution and Survey Information: Leek moth has never been found in California and receives a Not established (0) in this category.
Evaluate the known distribution in California. Only official records identified by a taxonomic expert and supported by voucher specimens deposited in natural history collections should be considered. Pest incursions that have been eradicated, are under eradication, or have been delimited with no further detections should not be included.
–Not established (0) Pest never detected in California, or known only from incursions.
–Low (-1) Pest has a localized distribution in California, or is established in one suitable climate/host area (region).
–Medium (-2) Pest is widespread in California but not fully established in the endangered area, or pest established in two contiguous suitable climate/host areas.
–High (-3) Pest has fully established in the endangered area, or pest is reported in more than two contiguous or non-contiguous suitable climate/host areas.
The final score is the consequences of introduction score minus the post entry distribution and survey information score: High (13)
Leek moth causes significant damage to plants in the genus Allium. Its presence in California would rapidly come to the attention of garlic and onion growers, so there is little uncertainty regarding its absence from the state. There is low uncertainty with this pest.
If leek moth were to become established in California it would have significant economic and environmental impacts. An “A” rating is justified.
1 USDA New Pest Advisory Group: NPAG Report Acrolepiopsis assectella (Zeller): Leek moth. June 29, 2018.
2 California Garlic & Onion Research Advisory Board. http://www.cagarlicandonion.com/
3 USDA Phytosanitary Certificate Issuance & Tracking System (PCIT) Phytosanitary Export Database (PExD). https://pcit.aphis.usda.gov/pcit/
4 Smith, Richard, Michael Cahn, Marita Cantwell, Steven Koike, Eric Natwick, and Etaferahu Takele. 2011. Green Onion Production in California. UC Vegetable Research & Information Center Vegetable Production Series. http://anrcatalog.ucanr.edu/pdf/7243.pdf
Jason Leathers, 1220 ‘N’ Street, Sacramento CA 95814, (916) 654-0312, plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov
Kyle Beucke, 1220 N Street, Room 221, Sacramento, CA, 95814, 916-403-6741, plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov
9/24/18 – 11/8/18
You must be registered and logged in to post a comment. If you have registered and have not received the registration confirmation, please contact us at plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov.
♦ Comments should refer to the appropriate California Pest Rating Proposal Form subsection(s) being commented on, as shown below.
Example Comment:
Consequences of Introduction: 1. Climate/Host Interaction: [Your comment that relates to “Climate/Host Interaction” here.]
♦ Posted comments will not be able to be viewed immediately.
♦ Comments may not be posted if they:
Contain inappropriate language which is not germane to the pest rating proposal;
Contains defamatory, false, inaccurate, abusive, obscene, pornographic, sexually oriented, threatening, racially offensive, discriminatory or illegal material;
Violates agency regulations prohibiting sexual harassment or other forms of discrimination;
Violates agency regulations prohibiting workplace violence, including threats.
♦ Comments may be edited prior to posting to ensure they are entirely germane.
♦ Posted comments shall be those which have been approved in content and posted to the website to be viewed, not just submitted.
Posted by ls
A permanent pest rating proposal is required to support an official pest rating.
Background: Hemiberlesia palmae is a widely-distributed armored scale. This highly polyphagous species has been reported to feed on plants in at least 92 genera in 53 families. Reported hosts include avocado, banana, bromeliads, cactus, citrus, coffee, mango, olive, palms (including coconut), and at least one species of fern (Agricultural Research Service, 1969; García Morales et al., 2016; Kondo and Muñoz, 2016; McKenzie, 1956; Santos and Wolff, 2015; Sepúlveda et al., 2010; Thuy et al., 2011). Although it is a widespread species and feeds on many economically-important plants, no information was found suggesting that it is a significant pest (Dekle, 1976; Granara De Willink and Claps, 2003; Nuñez, 2008). Feeding is reported to cause yellow spots on leaves (Schmutterer, 1971). Hemiberlesia palmae is reported to be parthenogenetic (Brown, 1965).
Worldwide Distribution: Hemiberlesia palmae is apparently of neotropical origin, but it has been established over a wide area. It has been reported from Europe (including Spain, Portugal, and in greenhouses in the United Kingdom), Africa (including Angola, Cameroon, Ghana, Kenya, South Africa, Tanzania, and Zaire), Asia (including China, India, Indonesia, Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam), Australia, the Caribbean (including Antigua and Barbuda, Cuba, and Jamaica), Central America (including Guatemala and Panama), New Guinea, numerous Pacific islands, South America (including Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru), and North America (Mexico and the United States, where it is reported from Alabama, Florida, and Puerto Rico) (Amún and Claps, 2015; Ben-Dov and Sánchez-García, 2015; Culik et al., 2011; De Lotto, 1967; Franco et al., 2011; García Morales et al., 2016; Germain et al., 2008; González and Charlín, 1968; Granara De Willink and Claps, 2003; Kondo and Muñoz, 2016; Malumphy, 2012; Malumphy, 2014; Miller, 2005; Ponsonby, 1994; Szent-Ivany and Catley, 1960; Thuy et al., 2011; Vasquez et al., 2002; Waltman et al., 2016; Williams, 1973). Some (possibly most) of the records from more temperate areas (e.g., Europe) were associated with greenhouses.
Official Control: Hemiberlesia palmae is regulated in New Zealand and is a controlled pest in Korea (Food and Agriculture Organization, 2016).
California Distribution: Although Hemiberlesia palmae has been found at various times in nurseries in California, it is not currently known to be established in the state.
California Interceptions: Hemiberlesia palmae has been intercepted numerous times on plant material from various origins, including Florida, Central America, and South America (California Department of Food and Agriculture).
The risk Hemiberlesia palmae would pose to California is evaluated below.
1) Climate/Host Interaction: Hemiberlesia palmae is highly polyphagous and availability of host plants is not likely to limit its potential distribution in California. The known distribution of this species includes many tropical and subtropical areas, but some records are from desert areas as well, for example, the Azapa Valley in Chile (González and Charlín, 1968). It seems likely that climate would limit the potential distribution of this scale to the warmer southern portions of the state. Therefore, Hemiberlesia palmae receives a Medium (2) in this category.
– Low (1) Not likely to establish in California; or likely to establish in very limited areas.
– Medium (2) may be able to establish in a larger but limited part of California.
– High (3) likely to establish a widespread distribution in California.
2) Known Pest Host Range: Hemiberlesia palmae is highly polyphagous and has been reported to feed on plants in at least 53 families. Therefore, it receives a High (3) in this category.
– Low (1) has a very limited host range.
– Medium (2) has a moderate host range.
– High (3) has a wide host range.
3) Pest Reproductive and Dispersal Potential: Hemiberlesia palmae apparently has high reproductive and dispersal potential. It is parthenogenetic, so a female does not have to mate to produce viable offspring. The frequent interceptions on plant material indicate that it could be spread through that pathway. 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.
Economic Impact: Hemiberlesia palmae is regulated by some countries, and if it became established in California, this could lead to the loss of markets. If control measures were taken by growers to control this scale, it would likely increase production costs. Therefore, it receives a Medium (2) in this category.
Economic Impact: B, C
A. The pest could lower crop yield.
B. The pest could lower crop value (includes increasing crop production costs).
C. The pest could trigger the loss of markets (includes quarantines).
D. The pest could negatively change normal cultural practices.
E. The pest can vector, or is vectored, by another pestiferous organism.
F. The organism is injurious or poisonous to agriculturally important animals.
G. The organism can interfere with the delivery or supply of water for agricultural uses.
Economic Impact Score: 2
– Low (1) causes 0 or 1 of these impacts.
– Medium (2) causes 2 of these impacts.
– High (3) causes 3 or more of these impacts.
5) Environmental Impact: If Hemiberlesia palmae became established in California, it would likely attack a wide variety of crop and ornamental plants, and this could trigger treatments. Therefore, it receives a Medium (2) in this category.
Evaluate the environmental impact of the pest on California using the criteria below.
Environmental Impact: D
A. The pest could have a significant environmental impact such as lowering biodiversity, disrupting natural communities, or changing ecosystem processes.
B. The pest could directly affect threatened or endangered species.
C. The pest could impact threatened or endangered species by disrupting critical habitats.
D. The pest could trigger additional official or private treatment programs.
E. The pest significantly impacts cultural practices, home/urban gardening or ornamental plantings.
Environmental Impact Score: 2
– Low (1) causes none of the above to occur.
– Medium (2) causes one of the above to occur.
– High (3) causes two or more of the above to occur.
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 Hemiberlesia palmae has been found in various nurseries in California, it has apparently been eradicated whenever found and is not considered to be established in the state. It receives a Not established (0) in this category.
–Not established (0) Pest never detected in California, or known only from incursions.
–Low (-1) Pest has a localized distribution in California, or is established in one suitable climate/host area (region).
–Medium (-2) Pest is widespread in California but not fully established in the endangered area, or pest established in two contiguous suitable climate/host areas.
–High (-3) Pest has fully established in the endangered area, or pest is reported in more than two contiguous or non-contiguous suitable climate/host areas.
7) The final score is the consequences of introduction score minus the post entry distribution and survey information score: Medium (12)
There is significant uncertainty regarding the ability of this scale to inflict significant damage on plants in California. Although this scale is widespread and feeds on a wide diversity of plants, including many economically important ones, no information was found quantifying damage caused by this feeding.
Hemiberlesia palmae is a highly polyphagous scale that could become a pest in California if it became established here. In addition, it is regulated by some countries and its presence in the state could impact trade. It is not known to be present in California. For these reasons, an “A” rating is justified.
Agricultural Research Service. 1969. Cooperative economic insect report 19. United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Plant Pest Control Division, Survey and Detection Operations.
Amún, C. and Claps, L. E. 2015. Listado actualizado de diaspídidos sobre frutos tropicales y primer registro de Pseudaulacaspis cockerelli (Cooley) (Hemiptera: Diaspididae) para la Argentina. Insecta Mundi 0449:1-11.
Ben-Dov, Y. and Sánchez-García, I. 2015. New data on several species of scale insect (Hemiptera: Coccoidea) from southern Spain. Boletín de la Sociedad Entomológica Aragonesa 56:313-317.
Brown, S.W. 1965. Chromosomal survey of the armored and palm scale insects (Coccoidea: Diaspididae and Phoenicoccidae). Hilgardia 36:189-294.
California Department of Food and Agriculture. Pest and damage record database. Accessed July 3, 2018:
https://pdr.cdfa.ca.gov/PDR/pdrmainmenu.aspx
Culik, M. P., Wolff, V. R. S., Peronti, A. L. B. G., Ben-Dov, Y., and Ventura, J. A. 2011. Hemiptera, Coccoidea: Distribution extension and new records for the states of Espírito Santo, Ceará, and Pernambuco, Brazil. Check List 7:567-570.
Dekle, G. W. 1976. Florida Armored Scale Insects. Florida Department of Agriculture, Division of Plant Industry, Gainesville, Florida.
De Lotto, G. 1967. A contribution to the knowledge of the African Coccoidea (Homoptera). Journal of the Entomological Society of South Africa 29:109-120.
Food and Agriculture Organization. 2016. List of quarantine pests in Korea. Accessed July 6, 2018:
https://www.ippc.int/en/countries/republic-of-korea/reportingobligation/2014/04/the-list-of-quarantine-pest-2013/
Franco, J. C., Russo, A., and Marotta, S. 2011. An annotated checklist of scale insects (Hemiptera: Coccoidea) of Portugal, including Madeira and Azores Archipelagos. Zootaxa 3004:1-32.
García Morales, M., Denno, B. D., Miller, D. R., Miller, G. L., Ben-Dov, Y., and Hardy, N. B. 2016. ScaleNet: A literature-based model of scale insect biology and systematics. Accessed July 20, 2018:
http://scalenet.info
Germain, J. F., Attie, M., Barbet, A., Franck, A., and Quilici, S. 2008. New scale insects recorded for the Comoros and Seychelles Islands. pp. 129–135. In Branco, M., J. C. Franco, and C. J. Hodgson. [Eds.]. Proceedings of the XI International Symposium on Scale Insect Studies, Oeiras, Portugal, 24–27 September 2007. ISA Press. Lisbon, Portugal. 322 pp.
González, R. H. and Charlín, R. 1968. Nota preliminar sobre los insectos coccoideos de Chile. Revista Chilena de Entomología 6:109-113.
Granara De Willink, M. C. and Claps, L. E. 2003. Cochinillas (Hemiptera: Coccoidea) presents en plantas ornamentals de la Argentina. Neotropical Entomology 32:625-637.
Kondo, T. and Muñoz, J. A. 2016. Scale insects (Hemiptera: Coccoidea) associated with avocado crop, Persea americana Mill. (Lauraceae) in Valle del Cauca and neighboring departments of Colombia. Insecta Mundi 0465:1-24.
Malumphy, C. 2012. Arthropods intercepted on air plants (Tillandsia spp.) imported from Guatemala into England and Wales. Entomologist’s Gazette 63:54-62.
Malumphy, C. 2014. An annotated checklist of scale insects (Hemiptera: Coccoidea) of Saint Lucia, Lesser Antilles. Zootaxa 3846:069-086.
McKenzie, H. L. 1956. The Armored Scale Insects of California. University of California Press, Berkeley, California.
Miller, D. R. 2005. Selected scale insect groups (Hemiptera: Coccoidea) in the southern region of the United States. Florida Entomologist 88:482-501.
Nuñez, E. 2008. Plagas de paltos y cítricos en Perú. 324-344 in Ripa, R. and Larral, P. (eds.) Manejo de Plagas en Paltos y Cítricos. Instituto de Investigaciones Agropecuarias, La Cruz, Chile.
Ponsonby, D. J. 1994. Biological control of glasshouse scale insects using the coccinellid predator, Chilocorus nigritus. Ph.D. thesis. University of London.
Santos, M. G. and dos Santos Wolff, V. R. 2015. Two species of armored scale insects (Hemiptera: Diaspididae) associated with sori of ferns. EntomoBrasilis 8:232-234.
Schmutterer, H. 1971. Contribution to the knowledge of the crop pest fauna in Ethiopia. Zeitschrift für Angewandte Entomologie 67:371-389.
Sepúlveda C., G., Vargas C., H., Bobadilla G., D., Cajías A., E., and Gallo D., P. 2010. Protocolos de manejo de plagas bajo criterios de producción limpia en olivo. pp. 83-105 in A. Villavicencio and F. Tapia (eds.), Formulación de sistemas de producción limpia para los principales cultivos del valle de Azapa. Proyecto Innova Chile de Corfo, Arica, Chile.
Szent-Ivany, J. J. H. and Catley, A. 1960. Host plant and distribution records of some insects in New Guinea and adjacent islands. Pacific Insects 2:255-261.
Symbiota Collections of Arthropods Network. Accessed July 20, 2018:
http://scan1.acis.ufl.edu
Thuy, N. T., Vuong, P. T., and Hung, H. Q. 2011. Composition of scale insects on coffee in Daklak, Vietnam and reproductive biology of Japanese mealybug, Planococcus kraunhiae Kuwana (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae). Journal of the International Society for Southeast Asian Agricultural Sciences 17:29-37.
Vasquez, J., Delgado, C., Couturier, G., and Ferrero, D. M. 2002. Les insectes nuisibles au goyavier (Psidium guajava L.: Myrtaceae) en Amazonie péruvienne. Fruits 57:323-334.
Waltman, K. G., Ray, C. H., and Williams, M. L. 2016. The armored scale insects (Hemiptera Diaspididae) of Alabama, USA. REDIA 99:229-231.
Williams, D. J. 1973. Scale insects (Homoptera: Coccoidea) on macadamia. Journal of the Australian Entomological Society 12:81-91.
Kyle Beucke, 1220 N Street, Room 221, Sacramento, CA, 95814, 916-403-6741, plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov
8/22/18 – 10/6/18
You must be registered and logged in to post a comment. If you have registered and have not received the registration confirmation, please contact us at plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov.
♦ Comments should refer to the appropriate California Pest Rating Proposal Form subsection(s) being commented on, as shown below.
Example Comment:
Consequences of Introduction: 1. Climate/Host Interaction: [Your comment that relates to “Climate/Host Interaction” here.]
♦ Posted comments will not be able to be viewed immediately.
♦ Comments may not be posted if they:
Contain inappropriate language which is not germane to the pest rating proposal;
Contains defamatory, false, inaccurate, abusive, obscene, pornographic, sexually oriented, threatening, racially offensive, discriminatory or illegal material;
Violates agency regulations prohibiting sexual harassment or other forms of discrimination;
Violates agency regulations prohibiting workplace violence, including threats.
♦ Comments may be edited prior to posting to ensure they are entirely germane.
♦ Posted comments shall be those which have been approved in content and posted to the website to be viewed, not just submitted.
Posted by ls
Aulacaspis tubercularis is frequently intercepted by CDFA. It is currently rated Q, and a pest rating proposal is required to support a permanent pest rating.
Background: Aulacaspis tubercularis is commonly known as white mango scale, mango scale and Cinnamon scale. Immatures and adult females of this scale are covered by a white scale cover that is semi-circular in females and elongate in males. Immatures and adult females feed on plant fluids. Aulacaspis tubercularis is highly polyphagous and damages a wide range of perennials, ornamentals, and fruit trees.
Mango (Mangifera indica) is the preferred host of this pest, but it has been reported to feed on a wide variety of plants in at least 30 genera in 18 families including: Anacardiaceae, Annonaceae, Arecaceae, Burseraceae, Cucurbitaceae, Calophyllaceae, Iridaceae, Lauraceae, Loranthaceae, Meliaceae, Myrtaceae, Percidae, Pittosporaceae, Rhizophoraceae, Rosaceae, Rutaceae, Sapindacea and Zingiberaceae (García Morales et al. 2018).
Worldwide Distribution: Aulacaspis tubercularis is widely distributed in all tropical Africa, including Madagascar, Mauritius, Reunion, Rodriques Island, and South Africa, and most of the Neotropical region. In Asia it is reported from China, Japan, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan, Philippine, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, Thailand, Egypt, Iraq and Israel (Hodges & Hamon 2016).
In the United States, this scale was reported in Florida. Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands (García Morales et al. 2018).
Official Control: Aulacaspis tubercularis is listed as a harmful organism in Costa Rica, Korea, Seychelles, Guatemala, and Ecuador (PCIT, 2018).
California Distribution: Aulacaspis tubercularis has never been found in the environment in California.
California Interceptions: Aulacaspis tubercularis was intercepted 273 times in California since 2010. Most of these interceptions were on infested mangoes coming from South American countries (CDFA PDR database).
The risk Aulacaspis tubercularis (mango scale) would pose to California is evaluated below.
1) Climate/Host Interaction: Hosts plants of Aulacaspis tubercularis are grown throughout California and southern coastal weather is quite favorable for this insect to spread and become established wherever its hosts are grown. It receives a Medium (2) in this category.
Evaluate if the pest would have suitable hosts and climate to establish in California:
– Low (1) Not likely to establish in California; or likely to establish in very limited areas.
– Medium (2) may be able to establish in a larger but limited part of California.
– High (3) likely to establish a widespread distribution in California.
2) Known Pest Host Range: Aulacaspis tubercularis has been reported to feed on plants in at least 30 genera in 18 families. It receives a High (3) in this category.
Evaluate the host range of the pest.
– Low (1) has a very limited host range.
– Medium (2) has a moderate host range.
– High (3) has a wide host range.
3) Pest Dispersal Potential: Aulacaspis tubercularis has a high reproductive rate; adult females can lay up to 200 eggs. (Miller and Davidson, 2005). This scale can be spread by wind or by hitchhiking on animals or equipment. It may also be spread long distances through the movement of infested plants or fruit. Therefore, it receives a High (3) in this category.
Evaluate the natural and artificial dispersal potential of the pest.
– Low (1) does not have high reproductive or dispersal potential.
– Medium (2) has either high reproductive or dispersal potential.
– High (3) has both high reproduction and dispersal potential.
4) Economic Impact: There is little information available on the economic importance of this pest other than that it considered a major pest of mango in many parts of the world (Miller and Davidson, 1990). Known hosts also include cucurbits, citrus, Prunus, and avocado. The scale may lower yields in these crops and increase production costs by triggering new management programs. It is not expected to change cultural practices, vector other organisms, injure animals, or disrupt water supplies. It receives a High (3) in this category.
Evaluate the economic impact of the pest to California using the criteria below.
Economic Impact: A, B, C
A. The pest could lower crop yield.
B. The pest could lower crop value (includes increasing crop production costs).
C. The pest could trigger the loss of markets (includes quarantines).
D. The pest could negatively change normal cultural practices.
E. The pest can vector, or is vectored, by another pestiferous organism.
F. The organism is injurious or poisonous to agriculturally important animals.
G. The organism can interfere with the delivery or supply of water for agricultural uses.
Economic Impact Score: 2
– Low (1) causes 0 or 1 of these impacts.
– Medium (2) causes 2 of these impacts.
– High (3) causes 3 or more of these impacts.
5) Environmental Impact: Aulacaspis tubercularis is not expected to lower biodiversity, disrupt natural communities, or change ecosystem processes. No known hosts of the scale are listed as threatened or endangered species in California and the scale is not expected to affect critical habitats. It might trigger new chemical treatments in agriculture and by residents who find infested plants unsightly. It receives a Medium (2) in this category.
Evaluate the environmental impact of the pest on California using the criteria below.
Environmental Impact: D
A. The pest could have a significant environmental impact such as lowering biodiversity, disrupting natural communities, or changing ecosystem processes.
B. The pest could directly affect threatened or endangered species.
C. The pest could impact threatened or endangered species by disrupting critical habitats.
D. The pest could trigger additional official or private treatment programs.
E. The pest significantly impacts cultural practices, home/urban gardening or ornamental plantings.
Environmental Impact: Score: 2
– Low (1) causes none of the above to occur.
– Medium (2) causes one of the above to occur.
– High (3) causes two or more of the above to occur.
–Low = 5-8 points
–Medium = 9-12 points
-High = 13-15 points
6) Post Entry Distribution and Survey Information: Aulacaspis tubercularis has never been found in the environment in California and receives a Not Established (0) in this category
Evaluate the known distribution in California. Only official records identified by a taxonomic expert and supported by voucher specimens deposited in natural history collections should be considered. Pest incursions that have been eradicated, are under eradication, or have been delimited with no further detections should not be included.
-Not established (0) Pest never detected in California, or known only from incursions.
–Low (-1) Pest has a localized distribution in California, or is established in one suitable climate/host area (region).
–Medium (-2) Pest is widespread in California but not fully established in the endangered area, or pest established in two contiguous suitable climate/host areas.
–High (-3) Pest has fully established in the endangered area, or pest is reported in more than two contiguous or non-contiguous suitable climate/host areas.
The final score is the consequences of introduction score minus the post entry distribution and survey information score: High (13)
Aulacaspis tubercularis is commonly intercepted on mango shipments coming from South America and presumably has remained undetected on other consignments. It is possible that it is present in some parts of California or may have failed to establish.
Aulacaspis tubercularis apparently is not present in California. If it became established here, it could cause significant economic and environmental impacts. An “A” rating is justified.
García Morales, M., Denno, B. D., Miller, D. R., Miller, G. L., Ben-Dov, Y., and Hardy, N. B. 2016. Aulacaspis tubercularis. Scale Net: A literature-based model of scale insect biology and systematics. Accessed June 22, 2018: http://scalenet.info/catalogue/Aulacaspis%20tubercularis/
Hodges, G. and Hamon, A. 2016. Pest Alert Florida, FDACS-P-01697 Accessed June 22, 2018: https://www.freshfromflorida.com/layout/set/print/content/download/67879/1610662/version/1/file/Pest+Alert+-++Aulacaspis+tubercularis%2C+White+Mango+Scale.pdf
USDA Phytosanitary Certificate Issuance & Tracking System (PCIT). Phytosanitary Export Database (PExD). Harmful organism report: Aulacaspis tubercularis. Accessed June 22, 2018: https://pcit.aphis.usda.gov/pcit/
CDFA Pest and Damage Report Database, 2011. Aulacaspis tubercularis. Plant Health and Pest Prevention Services. CA Department of Food and Agriculture. Accessed June 22, 2018: http://phpps.cdfa.ca.gov/user/frmLogon2.asp
Javaid Iqbal, 1220 N Street, Sacramento, CA, 95814, (916) 654-1211, plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov.
Jason Leathers, 1220 N Street, Sacramento, CA, 95814, (916) 654-1211, plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov.
8/14/18 – 9/28/18
You must be registered and logged in to post a comment. If you have registered and have not received the registration confirmation, please contact us at plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov.
♦ Comments should refer to the appropriate California Pest Rating Proposal Form subsection(s) being commented on, as shown below.
Example Comment:
Consequences of Introduction: 1. Climate/Host Interaction: [Your comment that relates to “Climate/Host Interaction” here.]
♦ Posted comments will not be able to be viewed immediately.
♦ Comments may not be posted if they:
Contain inappropriate language which is not germane to the pest rating proposal;
Contains defamatory, false, inaccurate, abusive, obscene, pornographic, sexually oriented, threatening, racially offensive, discriminatory or illegal material;
Violates agency regulations prohibiting sexual harassment or other forms of discrimination;
Violates agency regulations prohibiting workplace violence, including threats.
♦ Comments may be edited prior to posting to ensure they are entirely germane.
♦ Posted comments shall be those which have been approved in content and posted to the website to be viewed, not just submitted.
Posted by ls
Prosapia bicincta Say is present in the Eastern United States. It has been intercepted by CDFA three times in 2017, with the most recent interception occurring at the Needles inspection station on a shipment of Citrus from Atlanta, Georgia. This species has a temporary Q rating pending risk analysis in California. A pest rating proposal is required to assign a permanent rating
Background: Prosapia bicincta are true bugs that occur from the states of Maine to Florida, and west to Iowa, Kansas and Oklahoma (Campbell, 2016). Nymphs and adults are xylem feeders and feed on any plants that provide fluid to meet its requirements (Pass and Reed, 1965). Its main hosts include grasses, ornamental plants, crops and weeds. Their damage is most noticeable when immature stages of the insect produce masses of frothy spittle while feeding on the host. This spittle encircles the twigs and young leaves of the hosts (Cornille 2005, Godwin, 2008).
Adults are 8-10 mm long and dark brown to black in color. They generally have two red-orange lines crossing the wings. However, adults can be marked sometimes. They are most active in early morning and hide near the soil surface or in the foliage for the rest of the day. At night, adults become active and are attracted to lights (Campbell, 2016).
Prosapia bicincta is an important pest of pasture grass in the south eastern United States. Both adults and nymphs absorb plant juices with their piercing & sucking mouth parts; with adults causing the most damage. Adults inject a poison at the feeding site and this poison causes loss of chlorophyll in the host, resulting in drying out and death of plants. (Campbell, 2016)
Worldwide Distribution:
Prosapia bicincta is native to North America and is present in Cuba, the United States and Canada (CABI 2017). In the United States, it ranges from Maine to Florida in the east and Iowa, Kansas and Oklahoma, Texas and Arkansas in the west.
Official Control: Prosapia bicincta has been listed as a harmful organism in Brazil, Colombia and Japan (PCIT, 2018).
California Distribution: Prosapia bicincta has never been found in the natural environment of California.
California Interceptions: Prosapia bicincta was intercepted 35 times between January 1990 and January 2018 by CDFA through detection surveys, border stations, and federal exterior quarantine activities (CDFA Pest and Damage Report Database, 2018)
The risk Prosapia bicincta (two lined spittlebug) would pose to California is evaluated below.
Consequences of Introduction:
1) Climate/Host Interaction: Prosapia bicincta needs a humid, moist environment and cannot survive in draught conditions. Nymphs camouflage by living in foam nest that they make by blowing bubbles through their abdomen into plant juices. More insects have been reported during the rainy years when more thatch is available. Nests usually occur near soil surface or in thatch. (Campbell, 2016) Since it is a native species and widely prevalent in south-eastern US and some western states, it is likely to be introduced and established in California during the moist and wet winter months. It receives a Medium (2) in this category.
Evaluate if the pest would have suitable hosts and climate to establish in California:
Score: 2
– Low (1) Not likely to establish in California; or likely to establish in very limited areas.
– Medium (2) may be able to establish in a larger but limited part of California.
– High (3) likely to establish a widespread distribution in California.
2) Known Pest Host Range: Prosapia bicincta is known to feed on nine families of ornamental and crop plants (John Pickering, 2018). Nymphs primarily feed on centipede grass, coastal bermudagrass and other bermudagrass cultivars. Damage has been reported on other grasses such as pangolagrass, and St. Augustine grass. Other susceptible hosts include sweet corn, seashore paspalum, zoysiagrass, and tall fescue. Adults feed on ornamental hollies used in landscapes. (Nachappa, 2004). Most of these hosts are present throughout California. It receives a High (3) in this category.
Evaluate the host range of the pest:
Score: 3
– Low (1) has a very limited host range.
– Medium (2) has a moderate host range.
– High (3) has a wide host range.
3) Pest Dispersal Potential: Prosapia spp. females lay approximately 45 eggs on average. Eggs hatch in about two weeks. Nymphs undergo four instars within one month. Spittle bugs overwinter as eggs in hollow stems and in thatch at base of the grass. There are two generations in a year (Cornille 2005, Godwin, 2008). This species is most active from late spring through early fall. It receives a Medium (2) in this category.
Evaluate the natural and artificial dispersal potential of the pest:
Score: 2
– Low (1) does not have high reproductive or dispersal potential.
– Medium (2) has either high reproductive or dispersal potential.
– High (3) has both high reproduction and dispersal potential.
4) Economic Impact: Prosapia spps. can reduce forage quality and availability, thereby competing with grazing animals. They are likely to causes huge losses to improved pastures. Prosapia bicincta feed on the underside of the leaves and inject poison that cause the plant to lose its chlorophyll. Nymphs remove a lot of fluid from the plants to continuously produce spittle (Campbell, 2016). Heavily infested pastures turn brown, become unproductive and may experience die back in large patches (Vendramini et al., 2015). Use of cultural practices such as burning of dense mats of infested pastures, stockpiling for grazing in the following season, killing eggs in spring and preventing thatch accumulation can add to production costs. It receives a High (3) in this category.
Evaluate the economic impact of the pest to California using the criteria below:
Economic Impact: A, B, D
A. The pest could lower crop yield.
B. The pest could lower crop value (includes increasing crop production costs).
C. The pest could trigger the loss of markets (includes quarantines).
D. The pest could negatively change normal cultural practices.
E. The pest can vector, or is vectored, by another pestiferous organism.
F. The organism is injurious or poisonous to agriculturally important animals.
G. The organism can interfere with the delivery or supply of water for agricultural uses.
Economic Impact Score: 3
– Low (1) causes 0 or 1 of these impacts.
– Medium (2) causes 2 of these impacts.
– High (3) causes 3 or more of these impacts.
5) Environmental Impact: Prosapia bicincta is not likely to lower biodiversity and disrupt natural communities. It is also not known to impact major endangered and threatened species in California. However, if this species is introduced and gets established, it may impact grassland species such asTrifolium amoenum, an endangered annual herb occurring in grassland areas of the San Francisco Bay area and the northern California (California Native Plant Society, 2018). Being an economic pest of grasses, this species is likely to trigger official treatments if it gets established in rangelands in the state. It receives a High (3) in this category.
Evaluate the environmental impact of the pest on California using the criteria below:
Environmental Impact: B, D
A. The pest could have a significant environmental impact such as lowering biodiversity, disrupting natural communities, or changing ecosystem processes.
B. The pest could directly affect threatened or endangered species.
C. The pest could impact threatened or endangered species by disrupting critical habitats.
D. The pest could trigger additional official or private treatment programs.
E. The pest significantly impacts cultural practices, home/urban gardening or ornamental plantings.
Score the pest for Environmental Impact:
Environmental Impact Score: 3
– Low (1) causes none of the above to occur.
– Medium (2) causes one of the above to occur.
– High (3) causes two or more of the above to occur.
Add up the total score and include it here:
-Low = 5-8 points
-Medium = 9-12 points
–High = 13-15 points
6) Post Entry Distribution and Survey Information: Prosapia bicincta (two-legged spittle bug) has never been found in the environment in California and receives a Not Established (0) in this category.
Evaluate the known distribution in California. Only official records identified by a taxonomic expert and supported by voucher specimens deposited in natural history collections should be considered. Pest incursions that have been eradicated, are under eradication, or have been delimited with no further detections should not be included:
Score: 0
–Not established (0) Pest never detected in California, or known only from incursions.
-Low (-1) Pest has a localized distribution in California, or is established in one suitable climate/host area (region).
-Medium (-2) Pest is widespread in California but not fully established in the endangered area, or pest established in two contiguous suitable climate/host areas.
-High (-3) Pest has fully established in the endangered area, or pest is reported in more than two contiguous or non-contiguous suitable climate/host areas.
The final score is the consequences of introduction score minus the post entry distribution and survey information score: High (13)
Prosapia bicincta is native to North America and is a most important pest of pastures in southeastern Unites States. This species has not yet been introduced to CA, possibly due to dry weather in most of the state during summer months. However, if it is introduced during rainy and winter months and get established, it could significantly impact the pastures in the state. Because this species is currently established in the southeastern states, any host material coming from those areas could potentially contain P. bicinta. Surveys of California wetlands and coastal areas could be helpful in early detection of this spittlebug. Because it is unable to establish in areas with hot and dry summers, its economic impacts may not be significant.
Prosapia bicincta has not been reported in the environment of California and based on weather conditions and time of the year, it is likely to have significant economic and environmental impacts if it were to enter the state. An “A”-rating is justified.
California Native Plant Society, 2018. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California, online edition, v8-03 0.39. Accessed April 27, 2018:
http://www.rareplants.cnps.org
Campbell, D. 2016. Brief Summary- Prosapia bicincta (Say 1830). Encyclopedia of Life. Accessed 4/26/2017:
http://eol.org/pages/1079470/details
Cornille, S. 2005 and Goodwin, C. 2008. Two-lined Spittlebug. Texas Agrilife Extension Service. Dickinson, Texas. Accessed April 26, 2018:
Nachappa, Punya 2004. Biology and management of two lined spittlebug, Prosapia bicincta (Say) (Hempitera: Cercopidae) in turfgrass. MS Thesis. University of Georgia, Athens, GA. Accessed April 26, 2018:
https://getd.libs.uga.edu/pdfs/nachappa_punya_b_200412_ms.pdf
Pass, B. C., and Reed, J.K.1965. Biology and control of the spittlebug Prosapia bicincta in coastal Bermuda grass. J. Econ. Entomol. 58: 275-278:
Pickering, J. 2018. Prosapia bicinca (Say, 1830) Two-lined spittlebug. Discover Life. Accessed April 25, 2018:
http://www.discoverlife.org/20/q?search=Prosapia+bicincta#Hosts
Pest and Damage Record Database. Pest Prevention and Plant Health Services. California Department of Food and Agriculture. Accessed 4/24/2018:
http://phpps.cdfa.ca.gov/user/frmLogon2.asp
Vandramini, J, Debeux, J.C.B. Jr. and Buss, E. 2015. Management of Spittlebugs in Pasture. University of Florida, IFAS Extension. Accessed April 25, 2018:
http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/ag242
USDA Phytosanitary Certificate Issuance & Tracking System (PCIT) Phytosanitary Export Database (PExD). Accessed 4/24/18: https://pcit.aphis.usda.gov/PExD/faces/PExDReport.jsp
Raj Randhawa, 1220 ‘N’ Street, Room 221, Sacramento CA 95814, (916) 403-6617, plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov.
Jason Leathers, 2800 Gateway Oaks, Sacramento CA 95833, (916) 654-1211, plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov
7/30/18 – 9/13/18
You must be registered and logged in to post a comment. If you have registered and have not received the registration confirmation, please contact us at plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov.
♦ Comments should refer to the appropriate California Pest Rating Proposal Form subsection(s) being commented on, as shown below.
Example Comment:
Consequences of Introduction: 1. Climate/Host Interaction: [Your comment that relates to “Climate/Host Interaction” here.]
♦ Posted comments will not be able to be viewed immediately.
♦ Comments may not be posted if they:
Contain inappropriate language which is not germane to the pest rating proposal;
Contains defamatory, false, inaccurate, abusive, obscene, pornographic, sexually oriented, threatening, racially offensive, discriminatory or illegal material;
Violates agency regulations prohibiting sexual harassment or other forms of discrimination;
Violates agency regulations prohibiting workplace violence, including threats.
♦ Comments may be edited prior to posting to ensure they are entirely germane.
♦ Posted comments shall be those which have been approved in content and posted to the website to be viewed, not just submitted.
Posted by ls
Gracillariidae insects were recently intercepted by CDFA through high risk pest exclusion program on a shipment of azalea plants, originating from Kentucky. The most common Gracillariidae, intercepted on Azalea is Caloptilia azaleella. This insect has been previously rated C by CDFA. A pest rating proposal is required to evaluate the current rating for this species.
Background: Caloptilia azaleella are small, yellow moths with purplish markings on the wings. Leaf mining stage is a yellowish caterpillar about half inch long. Caloptilia azaleella is known to attack only azaleas (Rhododendron spp.) worldwide. The larvae mine the leaf tissue; as these mines age, they cause brown blisters on the leaves. The mature larvae emerge from leaf tissue, then roll and tie the edge of the leaves around themselves for protection. They can cause considerable damage to greenhouse grown azaleas in North Carolina (Frank, 2016). Maximum infestation in Florida nurseries was noted from early spring through summer (Dekle, 2007). In Oregon, where it has been introduced, there are three generations per year.
Worldwide Distribution:
Caloptilia azaleella is endemic to Japan but has been introduced to all azalea growing parts of the world including Europe (southern Britain), New Zealand and eastern Australia (T.E.R.R.A.I.N, 2018).
In the North America, it has been found in the Unites States and Canada from Florida to Texas, Long Island, West Virginia and Ohio, California, Washington and British Colombia (Johnson and Lyon, 1994).
Official Control: Caloptilia azaleella has been listed as harmful organism in Chile (USDA -PCIT).
California Distribution: Caloptilia azaleella was introduced to California in 1962 for the first time (Essig Museum Online Database, 2010) and more recently observed in Sonoma county (2017) and Shasta county (2014) (iNaturalist, 2016).
California Interceptions: Caloptilia azaleella has been intercepted through high risk pest exclusion and interior quarantine programs in California (Pest and Damage Report Database, 2018).
The risk Caloptilia azaleella ( azalea leaf miner) would pose to California is evaluated below.
1) Climate/Host Interaction: Rhododendron spp. grow best in filtered shade and prefer acidic soils with high organic content and excellent drainage (Pests in garden and Landscapes, 2017). This type of climate is found in northern California and extends down the coast to San Francisco Bay (American Rhododendron Society, 2018). Some of the maddenii-type rhododendron can grow in southern California as well. Since C. azaleella is already introduced and present in Northern CA, its introduction and spread to the rest of the state is likely. It receives a Medium (2) in this category.
Score: 2
– Low (1) Not likely to establish in California; or likely to establish in very limited areas.
– Medium (2) may be able to establish in a larger but limited part of California.
– High (3) likely to establish a widespread distribution in California.
2) Known Pest Host Range: Caloptilia azaleella feeds only on Rhododendron spp. It receives a Low (1) in this category
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: Caloptilia azaleella deposits 1-5 eggs on the undersurface of leaves during spring time. The life cycle is completed in one week. It overwinters as a last instar larva or pupa in a rolled leaf. Larva can be found on leaves all year around. There are three generations in western states and three to four generations in southern states. Because azaleella does not leave its host during the entire life cycle, it does not spread over large distances. However, movement of infected azalea nursery stock could likely disperse this species. It receives a Medium (2) in this category.
Evaluate the natural and artificial dispersal potential of the pest:
Score: 2
– Low (1) does not have high reproductive or dispersal potential.
– Medium (2) has either high reproductive or dispersal potential.
– High (3) has both high reproduction and dispersal potential.
4) Economic Impact: Caloptilia azaleella is a pest of container and field grown nursery stock but can also attack landscape grown plants. Heavy infestation may not kill the plant, especially if it can be controlled during early stages of growth but the damage is likely to affect the appearance and quality of the plant. Increased cost of pruning of infested branches and release of parasitoids can add to production costs and decrease the value of the crop (Dekle, 2007). It receives a Medium (2) in this category.
Evaluate the economic impact of the pest to California using the criteria below:
Economic Impact: A, B, D
A. The pest could lower crop yield.
B. The pest could lower crop value (includes increasing crop production costs).
C. The pest could trigger the loss of markets (includes quarantines).
D. The pest could negatively change normal cultural practices.
E. The pest can vector, or is vectored, by another pestiferous organism.
F. The organism is injurious or poisonous to agriculturally important animals.
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: Caloptilia azaleella is not likely to lower biodiversity and disrupt any natural habitats. It has also not been reported to affect any endangered species, either directly or indirectly. It could attack native rhododendron and native azaleas but unlikely to cause significant damage. The infestations of azaleas would likely trigger chemical treatments by homeowners. It receives a Medium (2) in this category.
Evaluate the environmental impact of the pest on California using the criteria below:
Environmental Impact: D
A. The pest could have a significant environmental impact such as lowering biodiversity, disrupting natural communities, or changing ecosystem processes.
B. The pest could directly affect threatened or endangered species.
C. The pest could impact threatened or endangered species by disrupting critical habitats.
D. The pest could trigger additional official or private treatment programs.
E. The pest significantly impacts cultural practices, home/urban gardening or ornamental plantings.
Score the pest for Environmental Impact:
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 Caloptilia azaleella (azalea leaf miner): Medium (10)
Add up the total score and include it here:
–Low = 5-8 points
-Medium = 9-12 points
-High = 13-15 points
6) Post Entry Distribution and Survey Information: Caloptilia azaleella (azalea leafminer) has been found in the environment 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:
Score: -1
-Not established (0) Pest never detected in California, or known only from incursions.
-Low (-1) Pest has a localized distribution in California, or is established in one suitable climate/host area (region).
-Medium (-2) Pest is widespread in California but not fully established in the endangered area, or pest established in two contiguous suitable climate/host areas.
-High (-3) Pest has fully established in the endangered area, or pest is reported in more than two contiguous or non-contiguous suitable climate/host areas.
The final score is the consequences of introduction score minus the post entry distribution and survey information score: Medium (9)
Caloptilia azaleella is present in azalea growing areas in Northern California and has also been detected by CDFA from time to time. However, it is not widespread in the state, possibly due to its inability to attack any other host plants. There are some varieties of Rhododendron, being grown in Southern CA and it may be present in large azalea growing areas than is currently known
Caloptilia azaleella has been reported in the environment of California. However, it is not likely to have significant economic and environmental impacts. A “C” rating is justified.
American Rhododendron Society (ARS): California Chapter, 2018. Plant Culture and Care. P.O. Box 214, Great River, NY 11739. Accessed 6/14/2018: http://www.rhododendron.org/climate.htm http://www.calchapterars.org/
Dekle, G.W. 2007. Azalea Leaf miner: Featured Creatures. Entomology and Plant Pathology. Publication # EENY-379, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Plant Industry, University of Florida. Accessed 6/14/2018: http://entnemdept.ufl.edu/creatures/orn/shrubs/azalea_leafminer.htm
Essig Museum Online Database, 2010. California Moth Specimen Database. University of California, Berkeley. Accessed 6/21/2018 https://essigdb.berkeley.edu/calmoth.html
Frank, S. 2016. Azalea leafminer. Entomology Insect Notes. North Carolina State Extension Publications North Carolina State Extension. Accessed 6/14/2018: https://content.ces.ncsu.edu/azalea-leafminer
iNaturalist, 2016. Online crowdsourced species identification system and an organism occurrence recording tool. Gracillariidae of California. Caloptilia azaleella https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?locale=en-US&place_id=14&taxon_id=320764
Johnson WT and Lyon HH. 1994. Insects That Feed on Trees and Shrubs. 2nd ed. rev. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY.
Pest and Damage Report Database, 2018. Caloptilia azaleella. Plant Health and Pest Prevention Services. California Department of Food and Agriculture. Accessed 6/14/2018: http://phpps.cdfa.ca.gov/user/frmLogon2.asp
Pests in gardens and landscapes, 2017. Azalea-Rhododendron spp. Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of California. Statewide Integrated Pest Management Program. Accessed 6/15/2018: http://ipm.ucanr.edu/PMG/GARDEN/PLANTS/azalea.html
Reding, Tom. 2018. Caliptilia azaleella. Wikipedia- the free encyclopedia. Accessed 6/19/2018: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Caloptilia_azaleella&oldid=825762750#References
Richers, K. 1996. California Moth Specimens Database. Caloptilia azaleella. University of California, Berkeley. Accessed 6/21/018. https://essigdb.berkeley.edu/calmoth_about.html
Taranaki Educational Resource: Research, Analysis and Information Network. (T.E.R.R.A.I.N.), 2018. “Caloptilia azaleella (Azalea leafminer moth)”. The MAIN trust GIS community project. Government of New Zealand. Accessed 6/14/2018: http://www.terrain.net.nz/friends-of-te-henui-group/moths/caloptilia-azaleella-moth-azalea-leafminer-caloptilia-azaleella.html
USDA Phytosanitary Certificate Issuance & Tracking System (PCIT) Phytosanitary Export Database (PExD). Harmful organism report: Caloptilia azaleella. Accessed 6/14/2018. https://pcit.aphis.usda.gov/pcit/
Raj Randhawa, 1220 ‘N’ Street, Room 221, Sacramento CA 95814, (916) 403-6617, plant. health[@]cdfa.ca.gov
Jason Leathers, 2800 Gateway Oaks, Sacramento CA 95833, (916) 654-1211, plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov
7/30/18 – 9/13/18
You must be registered and logged in to post a comment. If you have registered and have not received the registration confirmation, please contact us at plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov.
♦ Comments should refer to the appropriate California Pest Rating Proposal Form subsection(s) being commented on, as shown below.
Example Comment:
Consequences of Introduction: 1. Climate/Host Interaction: [Your comment that relates to “Climate/Host Interaction” here.]
♦ Posted comments will not be able to be viewed immediately.
♦ Comments may not be posted if they:
Contain inappropriate language which is not germane to the pest rating proposal;
Contains defamatory, false, inaccurate, abusive, obscene, pornographic, sexually oriented, threatening, racially offensive, discriminatory or illegal material;
Violates agency regulations prohibiting sexual harassment or other forms of discrimination;
Violates agency regulations prohibiting workplace violence, including threats.
♦ Comments may be edited prior to posting to ensure they are entirely germane.
♦ Posted comments shall be those which have been approved in content and posted to the website to be viewed, not just submitted.
Posted by ls
You must be logged in to post a comment.