Category Archives: Insects, Mites & Earthworms

Entomology: Insects, Mites & Earthworms

Eumerus figurans (Walker): Ginger Maggot

California Pest Rating for
Eumerus figurans (Walker): Ginger Maggot
Diptera: Syrphidae
Pest Rating: B

 


PEST RATING PROFILE
Initiating Event:

Eumerus figurans is occasionally intercepted by CDFA’s high risk programs and is presently assigned a temporary rating of “Q”. A pest rating proposal is required to assign a permanent pest rating.

History & Status:

Background: Eumerus figurans is a syrphid fly whose larvae feed on various bulbs, corm, and roots1. Female flies are attracted to and lay eggs on injured and rotting bulbs, corms and roots1,2. Larvae are gregarious and hollow out bulbs as they feed2. Damage by the larvae is considered secondary to bacterial and fungal rot organisms1. Known hosts include ginger roots, lily bulbs, narcissus bulbs, decomposing pineapple stumps, and rotting dry land taro1. Larvae of Eumerus figurans may be transported long distances when infested ginger roots or other plant parts are moved.

Worldwide Distribution: The native range of Eumerus figurans is probably the tropical forests of South-east Asia. Walker described the species from Celebes and there are undescribed sibling species present in Thailand, suggesting an evolutionary origin in that region. Eumerus figurans has spread throughout much of Asia and the Southwest Pacific1. It was first found in Hawaii in 19021.

Official Control: Eumerus figurans itself is not known to be under official control by any other states or nations3. However, all members of the genus Eumerus are considered harmful organisms by Bermuda3, Iceland3, and Japan3.

California Distribution: Eumerus figurans has never been found in the environment of California.

California Interceptions: Between January 1, 2000 and December 31, 2014 Eumerus figurans was intercepted 20 times by CDFA’s high risk programs. All interceptions for which data were recorded were on shipments of ginger root from Hawaii.

The risk Eumerus figurans (ginger maggot) would pose to California is evaluated below.

Consequences of Introduction:

1) Climate/Host Interaction: Ginger grows as a perennial plant in USDA zones 9 through 12. This corresponds with much of California. Eumerus figurans is likely capable of finding injured ginger roots to feed on throughout this area. However, the fly is typically found in humid tropical and subtropical environments. Ginger maggot receives a Medium (2) in this category.

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

– Low (1) Not likely to establish in California; or likely to establish in very limited areas.
– Medium (2) may be able to establish in a larger but limited part of California.
– High (3) likely to establish a widespread distribution in California.

2) Known Pest Host Range: Eumerus figurans is known to feed on injured ginger roots, lily bulbs, narcissus bulbs, decomposing pineapple stumps, and rotting dry land taro1. 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: Species of Eumerus are thought to have 3 generations per year in Israel3. Since California also has a Mediterranean climate Eumerus figurans is likely to have 3 generations per year here. Female flies lay eggs in groups of 10-20 per bulb3, giving them a high reproductive rate. The flies may be transported long distance through the movement of infested plants or plant parts. Eumerus figurans 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: Eumerus figurans is considered a secondary pest of ginger and there appears to be more literature published on the fly’s role as a pollinator than a pest. It is not expected to lower any crop yields in California. Ginger maggot is likely to be considered a quarantine pest by Iceland3, Bermuda3, and Japan3 and has the potential to disrupt exports of ginger, lily, or narcissus bulbs to those markets. However, Eumerus figurans is unlikely to establish in Iceland and is already present on Nansei Island in Japan. Lost markets may therefore be limited to exports of ginger, lily, and narcissus bulbs to Bermuda. The fly may also increase crop production costs if growers manage populations of the flies. Eumerus figurans is not expected to negatively change normal cultural practices, vector pestiferous organisms, injure animals, or interfere with water supplies. It receives a Medium (2) in this category.

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

A. The pest could lower crop yield.
B. The pest could lower crop value (includes increasing crop production costs).
C. The pest could trigger the loss of markets (includes quarantines).
D. The pest could negatively change normal cultural practices.
E. The pest can vector, or is vectored, by another pestiferous organism.
F. The organism is injurious or poisonous to agriculturally important animals.
G. The organism can interfere with the delivery or supply of water for agricultural uses.

– Low (1) causes 0 or 1 of these impacts.
– Medium (2) causes 2 of these impacts.
– High (3) causes 3 or more of these impacts.

5) Environmental Impact: If Eumerus figurans were to enter California it is not expected to lower biodiversity, disrupt natural communities, or change ecosystem processes. Ginger maggot is not expected to directly affect threatened or endangered species or disrupt critical habitats. It is possible that the flies could trigger new treatment programs in the nursery industry, ginger gardens, or by residents who consider flies a nuisance. Ginger maggot is not expected to significantly impact cultural practices, home/urban gardening, or ornamental plantings. Eumerus figurans receives a Medium (2) in this category.

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

A. The pest could have a significant environmental impact such as lowering biodiversity, disrupting natural communities, or changing ecosystem processes.
B. The pest could directly affect threatened or endangered species.
C. The pest could impact threatened or endangered species by disrupting critical habitats.
D. The pest could trigger additional official or private treatment programs.
E. The pest significantly impacts cultural practices, home/urban gardening or ornamental plantings.

Score the pest for Environmental Impact. Score:

– 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 Eumerus figurans (Ginger Maggot): 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: Eumerus figurans has never been found in the environment in California and receives a Not established (0) in this category.

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

– Not established (0) Pest never detected in California, or known only from incursions.
– Low (-1) Pest has a localized distribution in California, or is established in one suitable climate/host area (region).
– Medium (-2) Pest is widespread in California but not fully established in the endangered area, or pest established in two contiguous suitable climate/host areas.
– High (-3) Pest has fully established in the endangered area, or pest is reported in more than two contiguous or non-contiguous suitable climate/host areas.

Final Score:

The final score is the consequences of introduction score minus the post entry distribution and survey information score: Medium (10)

Uncertainty:

There is some speculation that Eumerus figurans might play a role in the spread of bacterial and fungal rot organisms between ginger plants1. If confirmed, this could increase its economic impact.

Conclusion and Rating Justification:

Eumerus figurans (ginger maggot) has never been found in California. It is expected to have limited economic and environmental impacts if it were to enter the state. A “B” rating is justified.

References:

1 Mau, R.F.L., J.L. Martin Kessing. 1992. Eumerus figurans (Walker). Hawaii Crop Knowledge Master. http://www.extento.hawaii.edu/kbase/crop/type/eumerus.htm

2 Hill, Dennis S. 1987. Agricultural Insect Pests of Temperate Regions and Their Control. CUP Archive. 659pp. https://books.google.com/books?id=3-w8AAAAIAAJ&dq=eumerus+figurans+ginger&source=gbs_navlinks_s

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

Responsible Party:

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


Comment Period:  CLOSED

The 45-day comment period opens on Tuesday, March 24, 2015 and closed on Friday, May 8, 2015.


Pest Rating:  B


Posted by ls

Dasineura mali (Kieffer): Apple Leaf Gall Midge

California Pest Rating for
Dasineura mali (Kieffer): Apple Leaf Gall Midge
Diptera: Cecidomyiidae
Pest Rating: A

 


PEST RATING PROFILE
Initiating Event:

In August 2014 USDA released a draft pest list for apples and pears from the European Union. Dasineura mali, which is present in Europe, is not on this list. Because the fly presently has a temporary rating of “Q” a pest rating proposal is needed to determine future direction.

History & Status:

Background: Dasineura mali is a small fly that feeds only on species of apples. Adult females lay eggs in leaf folds of immature apple leaves1. After eggs hatch, larval feeding causes the margins of leaves to curl1. Curled leaves become brittle and may fall from the tree1. Heavy infestations may reduce shoot growth, reducing photosynthetic leaf area5. This may stunt growth of nursery stock and newly planted trees. Larvae of the midge sometimes pupate in the calyx of fruit. They can therefore spread long distances by the movement of infested fruit, trees, or other apple plant material.

Worldwide Distribution: Dasineura mali is native to Europe1. It has spread to New Zealand, Argentina, and Canada2. In the United States it has been present in New York and Massachusetts since the 1960’s and was found in Washington State in 19941. The midge has since spread through much of western Washington, but it is not known if it occurs in the major apple production areas east of the Cascades.

Official Control: Dasineura mali is listed as a quarantine pest by China, Taiwan, Japan, Republic of Korea, and Peru3.

California Distribution: Dasineura mali has never been found in the environment of California.

California Interceptions: Dasineura mali has been intercepted by CDFA’s border stations 89 times since 2000, typically as pupae on apple fruit from New Zealand or the Pacific Northwest.

The risk Dasineura mali (apple leaf gall midge) would pose to California is evaluated below.

Consequences of Introduction:

1) Climate/Host Interaction: Apple trees are commonly grown as ornamentals throughout California and apples are produced commercially in nearly every county in the state4. Dasineura mali is likely to establish wherever apples are grown and 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: Dasineura mali is only known to feed on species of apple (Malus spp.). 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: Dasineura mali has high reproductive potential. There are 2-4 generations per year1, 5, and each female lays many eggs. Although midges are not strong fliers, they may be spread long distances by wind or commerce in infested fruit or plants. Dasineura mali 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 2nd largest exporter of apples in the United States and the 5th largest producer4.  California growers ship apples to 27 countries4.  14,000 acres are dedicated to apple production and yield a crop valued at over $105,000,0004. If Dasineura mali were to enter California it is probable that it would disrupt export markets due to its habit of pupating in the fruit calyx. It is also likely to increase production costs by triggering new chemical treatments since biological control is often not effective in commercial apple orchards due to the use of broad spectrum insecticides targeting other pests5. Dasineura mali larvae are protected from such applications inside leaf curls5. Fruit yield of mature orchards is usually not reduced by this midge, but they may sometimes have reduced fruit size and fruit bud formation5. Newly planted trees and nursery stock are vulnerable to reduced shoot growth5. Dasineura mali receives a High (3) in this category.

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

A. The pest could lower crop yield.
B. The pest could lower crop value (includes increasing crop production costs).
C. The pest could trigger the loss of markets (includes quarantines).
D. The pest could negatively change normal cultural practices.
E. The pest can vector, or is vectored, by another pestiferous organism.
F. The organism is injurious or poisonous to agriculturally important animals.
G. The organism can interfere with the delivery or supply of water for agricultural uses.

– Low (1) causes 0 or 1 of these impacts.
– Medium (2) causes 2 of these impacts.
– High (3) causes 3 or more of these impacts.

5) Environmental Impact: Dasineura mali is not expected to lower biodiversity, disrupt natural communities, or change ecosystem processes. It is not expected to directly affect threatened or endangered species or disrupt critical habitat. The midge may trigger additional treatment programs in nurseries, orchards, and residential settings. Apple trees are popular ornamentals and may be disfigured by the presence of this midge. Dasineura mali receives a High (3) in this category.

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

A. The pest could have a significant environmental impact such as lowering biodiversity, disrupting natural communities, or changing ecosystem processes.
B. The pest could directly affect threatened or endangered species.
C. The pest could impact threatened or endangered species by disrupting critical habitats.
D. The pest could trigger additional official or private treatment programs.
E. The pest significantly impacts cultural practices, home/urban gardening or ornamental plantings.

Score the pest for Environmental Impact. Score:

– 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 Dasineura mali (Apple Leaf Gall Midge): High (13)

Add up the total score and include it here.

– Low = 5-8 points
– Medium = 9-12 points
– High = 13-15 points

6) Post Entry Distribution and Survey Information: Dasineura mali has never been found in the environment of California and receives a Not established (0) in this category.

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

– Not established (0) Pest never detected in California, or known only from incursions.
– Low (-1) Pest has a localized distribution in California, or is established in one suitable climate/host area (region).
– Medium (-2) Pest is widespread in California but not fully established in the endangered area, or pest established in two contiguous suitable climate/host areas.
– High (-3) Pest has fully established in the endangered area, or pest is reported in more than two contiguous or non-contiguous suitable climate/host areas.

Final Score:

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

Uncertainty:

Dasineura mali was accidentally introduced into New Zealand in 1950 and was fortuitously controlled in orchards by existing treatments6. However, by the mid 1980’s midge populations and damage increased considerably to the point where new chemical treatments were required6. It is possible that damage to orchards in California will be limited until the species adapts to current integrated pest management practices.

Conclusion and Rating Justification:

Dasineura mali has never been found in California. Its entry to the state may have significant economic and environmental impacts to California’s apple industry and ornamental apple trees. An “A” rating is justified.

References:

1Antonelli, Art and Jenny Glass. 2005. Apple Leaf Curling Midge. WSU Puyallup Plant & Insect Diagnostic Laboratory. http://puyallup.wsu.edu/plantclinic/resources/pdf/pls18appleleafcurlingmidge.pdf

2CAB Direct. Distribution Maps of Plant Pests 2008. http://cabdirect.org/abstracts/20083279226.html;jsessionid=39C077A8B4AABFDE351642AF7450D0FD

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

4California Apple Commission website. http://www.calapple.org/faq.php?n=14&id=7#q3

5Apple Best Practice Guide, Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs, UK. Horticultural Development Company. http://apples.hdc.org.uk/apple-leaf-midge.asp

6Tomkins, A.R., D.J. Wilson, C. Thomson, S. Bradley, L. Cole, P. Shaw, A. Gibb, D.M. Suckling, R. Marshall, and C.H. Wearing. 2000. Emergence of apple leafcurling midge (Dasineura mali) and its parasitoid (Platygaster demades). New Zealand Plant Protection 53:179-184.

Responsible Party:

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


Comment Period:  CLOSED

The 45-day comment period opened on Tuesday, March 24, 2015 and closed on Friday, May 8, 2015.


Pest Rating:  A


Posted by ls

Delottococcus confusus (De Lotto): A Protea Mealybug

California Pest Rating for
Delottococcus confusus (De Lotto): A Protea Mealybug
Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae
Pest Rating: C

 


PEST RATING PROFILE
Initiating Event:

In association with a nursery regulatory inspection on November 20, 2012, San Luis Obispo County inspectors collected a sample of mealybugs from Protea trees in a residential neighborhood. On November 21, Dr. Natalia von Ellenrieder (CDFA) identified these mealybugs as Delottococcus confusus DeLotto (PDR 1599182).  This was the first time this species was found in an outdoor situation in California not on nursery stock.

History & Status:

Background:  Delottococcus confusus is primarily known as a pest of Proteaceae (Protea sp., P. caffra, P. cynarioides, Leucadendron sp. and Leucadendron argenteum). Other host records include Brunia and Berzelia lanuginose (Bruniaceae) (PDR 1267226), Canthium subovatum (Rubiaceae), Carissa sp. (Apocynaceae), Lycium sp. and Lycium tetrandrum (Solanaceae), Mimusops sp. and Mimusops caffra (Sapotaceae), Plectranthus sp. (Lamiaceae), Psidium guajava (Myrtaceae), Trichilia sp. and Trichilia emetica (Meliaceae), and Xymalos monospora (Monimiaceae)1.  Because the host plants (Proteaceae) are commonly grown for both cut flowers and landscape plants, Delottococcus confusus may be spread through international plant trade.

Worldwide Distribution:  Delottococcus confusus is native to South Africa2. The only other locality where the mealybug is known to be present is Hawaii1. Records from Portugal3 may be based on a species misidentification.

Official Control:  Delottococcus confusus is not known to be under official control anywhere.

California Distribution:  Delottococcus confusus was first found in the environment in November 2012 on protea trees in a residential neighborhood of Los Osos, San Luis Obispo County. Follow-up surveys for the mealybug found it in neighboring Morro Bay (PDRs FR0P06009404 and FR0P06009408) and Escondido, San Diego County (PDR SD0P06153483).

California Interceptions:  Delottococcus confusus was first found on cut protea flowers that originated from a nursery in San Diego County in April 2003 (PDR 1254887). In December 2003 the mealybugs were found on protea plants in a nursery in Monterey County (PDR 1402552).  In 2004 they were next found on protea plants and Berzelia lanuginose in two nurseries in Ventura County (PDRs 1267227, 1267226, 1267251, 1267252, 1267253) as well as protea plants in a nursery in San Luis Obispo County (PDRs 1334145, 1334146, 1334147, 1334148, 1334139, 1334401, 1334992, 1334993 1334998, 1334999, 1335000).  In 2005 the mealybug was found on protea plants in a nursery in Santa Cruz County (PDR 1289989) and on cut protea flowers that originated from a second nursery in San Diego County (PDR 1367761).  Then in November 2006 a heavy infestation of the mealybug was found outdoors on Leucadendron argenteum trees and to a lesser extent other protea at a nursery in Sonoma County4 (PDRs 1428445, 1428417).  In 2007 CDFA began to intercept the mealybugs on shipments of cut flowers and foliage from Hawaii (PDRs 1423774, 1354945, 1556872, 1556886, 1494189, 1649533, 1509569, 1544327, 1649626, 1555754, 1555768, 1631162, 300P06039982, 300P06039987, 1544072, 1544071, 1609382, 300P06040043, 450P06001871, 1641489, 190P06058445, 300P06040121). In 2008 Delottococcus confusus resurfaced on protea plants at the same nursery in San Luis Obispo County (PDRs 1458700, 1458708). In 2009 they were found on protea plants in a greenhouse and outside at a second nursery in San Luis Obispo County (PDRs 1459343, 1335105 ) as well as at a nursery in Santa Barbara County (PDR 1555084). In 2010 they were intercepted on protea plants from a 2nd nursery in Santa Barbara County (PDR 1645051), and in 2011 they were found on protea plants at a repeat nursery (PDR 1554851) and a new nursery (PDR 1658335) in Santa Barbara County. In 2012 they were found on protea plants at a nursery in Riverside County (PDR 1590378) and intercepted on a shipment of cut flowers from a nursery in Santa Barbara County (PDR 1576404). And in November 2012 they were found in a repeat nursery in San Luis Obispo County where they were found in 2009 (PDR 1599179), as well as in a residential neighborhood near that nursery (PDR 1599182).

The risk Delottococcus confusus poses to California is evaluated below.

Consequences of Introduction:

1)  Climate/Host Interaction:  Proteaceae are commonly grown as ornamental plants in California and are common in the nursery industry.  Delottococcus confusus is expected to be able to establish wherever these plants are grown.  D. confusus receives a High (3) rating 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)  Pest Host Range:  All of the Delottococcus confusus collected in the United States to date have been on Proteaceae except for one record on Berzelia lanuginose (Bruniaceae). However, there are records of the mealybug from South Africa, verified by a taxonomic expert, on a variety of other hosts in eight other plant families1.  D. confusus receives a Medium (2) 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:  Delottococcus confusus has demonstrated its ability to disperse long distances through the trade of ornamental plants and flowers. Mealybugs may also be dispersed by wind. They are capable of rapid reproduction and large infestations of the mealybug have appeared relatively rapidly in California4.  D. confusus 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:  Heavy infestations of Delottococcus confusus are capable of damaging nursery stock by causing necrosis of leaves and growing tips and may kill trees4. The mealybug may also cause significant problems for proteas grown for cut flowers4 by contaminating flowers by their presence, honeydew, and sooty mold5. Cut flowers are a $477 million industry in California and other states and nations may reject infested flowers. Furthermore, D. confusus has been recorded from guava (Psidium guajava)1. Guava is a very popular tree in the Southern California landscape and there is at least some commercial guava production in California that may be affected.  D. confusus could trigger a loss of markets and may increase production costs of nursery stock and cut flowers. The mealybug receives a Medium (2) rating in this category.

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

A.   The pest could lower crop yield.
B.   The pest could lower crop value (includes increasing crop production costs).
C.   The pest could trigger the loss of markets (includes quarantines).
D.   The pest could negatively change normal cultural practices.
E.   The pest can vector, or is vectored, by another pestiferous organism.
F.   The organism is injurious or poisonous to agriculturally important animals.
G.   The organism can interfere with the delivery or supply of water for agricultural uses.

Low (1) causes 0 or 1 of these impacts.
– Medium (2) causes 2 of these impacts.
High (3) causes 3 or more of these impacts.

5)  Environmental Impact:  There are no plants listed as threatened or endangered in California that are expected to be hosts of Delottococcus confusus. Populations of the mealybug have been found established in residential areas and outdoor nursery settings and do not appear to be triggering any additional treatment programs by residents or industry.  Furthermore there is no evidence that any residents are replacing infested plants with alternative species.  Protea plants supporting populations of D. confusus are still alive in an abandoned nursery setting in San Diego County, suggesting that unmanaged populations of D. confusus may not kill plants. D. confusus receives a Low (1) rating in this category.

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

A.   The pest could have a significant environmental impact such as lowering biodiversity, disrupting natural communities, or changing ecosystem processes.
B.   The pest could directly affect threatened or endangered species.
C.   The pest could impact threatened or endangered species by disrupting critical habitats.
D.   The pest could trigger additional official or private treatment programs.
E.   The pest significantly impacts cultural practices, home/urban gardening or ornamental plantings.

Score the pest for Environmental Impact. Score:

– 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 Delottococcus confusus: Medium (11)

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:  Delottococcus confusus has been found to be established by survey in San Luis Obispo County and San Diego County. The mealybug receives a High (-3) in this category.

Evaluate the known distribution of pest in California. Only official records and published records identified by a taxonomic expert and backed up 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 1 California ecoarea
(region)
– Medium (-2) Pest is widespread in California but has not fully established in the endangered area; or pest established in 2 contiguous ecoareas
– High (-3) Pest has fully established in the endangered area; or pest reported in more than 2 contiguous or non-contiguous ecoareas

Consequences of Introduction to California for Delottococcus confusus: Low (8)

Add up the total score and include it here.

Low = 5-8 points
Medium = 9-12 points
High = 13-17 points

Uncertainty:

Outside of the areas where Delottococcus confusus has been found in the environment, populations of the mealybug have been found in outdoor situations in other nurseries at distant locations, sometimes in large populations. It is probable that the mealybug has escaped into the environment from some of these nurseries or other undetected, similar situations. The mealybug may have a larger distribution in the state than is realized.

Under some circumstances, heavy infestations of the pest might trigger additional treatment programs in the nursery industry or by residents who find infested ornamental plants unacceptable. The mealybug could also cause minor alteration of urban landscaping as some residents and landscapers may replace infested plants with alternative species. This could lead to a moderate, albeit localized, environmental impact in some cases.

Conclusion and Rating Justification:

Delottococcus confusus has been appearing in California’s nursery system for a decade. Surveys have now revealed that the pest is established in San Luis Obispo County and San Diego County. There is no evidence that the mealybug is significantly impacting the environment or economy. The mealybug is probably present in other parts of California and is expected to establish a widespread distribution in the state. The Low (8) consequences of the mealybug in California justify an C rating.

References:

1Miller, D.R. and J.H. Giliomee. 2011. Systematic revision of the mealybug genus Delottococcus Cox & Ben-Dov (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae). African Entomology 19(3): 614–640. http://www.sel.barc.usda.gov/Coccoidea/Delottococcus.pdf

2Lotto, G. De. 1977. On some African mealybugs (Homoptera: Coccoidea: Pseudococcidae). Journal of the Entomological Society of Southern Africa. 40(1):13-36. http://www.cabdirect.org/abstracts/19770546873.html

3Leandro, M.J., Oliveira, M., Passarinho, A.M., Figueiredo, E., Franco, J.C., Neves-Martins, J. and Mexia, A. 2008. ASSESSMENT OF PARASITISM BY ANAGYRUS PSEUDOCOCCI AND LEPTOMASTIX DACTYLOPII ON MEALYBUGS FROM PROTEACEAE. Acta Hort. (ISHS) 805:121-126 http://www.actahort.org/books/805/805_14.htm

4Watson, Gillian. 2006. HEMIPTERA: STERNORRHYNCHA: NEW FEDERAL RECORDS. California Plant Pest and Disease Report 23(1):10. http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/plant/ppd/PDF/CPPDR_2006_23-1.pdf

5Mazzeo, G., J.C. Franco, and A. Russo. 2009. A new Paracoccus species from Palaearctic region (Hemiptera, Sternorrhyncha, Coccoidea, Pseudococcidae) . Zootaxa 2274: 62–68 http://www.mapress.com/zootaxa/2009/f/zt02274p068.pdf

6Sasa, A. 2011. Arthropods associated with commercial Proteaceae in the Western Cape Province, South Africa. http://scholar.sun.ac.za/handle/10019.1/6805

Responsible Party:

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


Comment Period: CLOSED

The 45-day comment period opened on Monday, March 16, 2015 and closed on Thursday, April 30, 2015.


 Pest Rating: C


Posted by ls

Brachypeplus basalis Erichson: A sap beetle

California Pest Rating for
Brachypeplus basalis Erichson: A sap beetle
Coleoptera: Nitidulidae
Pest Rating: B

 


PEST RATING PROFILE
Initiating Event:

Brachypeplus basalis has been found feeding on pollen and pollen substitutes inside beehives in California and other states several times since 2010 and is in need of a pest rating.

History & Status:

Background:  There is no information on the biology of Brachypeplus basalis.  Presumably, in Australia the beetle feeds on fungi and yeasts, but has also been found within beehives.  The species has now been found feeding on pollen in beehives in the United States several times.  Although pollen cannot be legally imported from foreign sources to feed bees, it can be imported for human consumption.  From 2002-2011 honeybees could also be imported from Australia.  It is likely that these beetles followed one of these pathways.

Worldwide Distribution:  Brachypeplus basalis is native to Australia and has never been recorded in the environment of any other nation.

Official Control:  Brachypeplus basalis is not known to be under official control in any other states or nations.

California Distribution:  Brachypeplus basalis has been detected in beehives in Solano, Orange (unofficial record), Tehama, and Shasta counties.  Brachypeplus basalis has never been collected outside beehives in California.

California Interceptions:  Brachypeplus basalis has not been intercepted at the border stations.

The risk Brachypeplus basalis would pose to California is evaluated below.

Consequences of Introduction:

1)  Climate/Host Interaction:  Beehives are found throughout California and are frequently moved. Brachypeplus basalis is likely to establish in beehives throughout the state. The beetle 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:  Brachypeplus basalis is currently only known to feed on pollen stores in beehives. The beetles receives a Low(1) in this category.

Low (1) has a very limited host range.
Medium (2) has a moderate host range.
High (3) has a wide host range.

3)  Pest Dispersal Potential:  The reproductive rate of Brachypeplus basalis is unknown; however, that of other Brachypeplus species indicates an average life cycle of 35 days (Cline et al. 2013) and suggests a multivoltine life cycle that is typical of other nitidulid species (Jelínek et al 2010). The beetles may travel long distances when beehives are moved, and are also capable of powered flight. The beetle receives a High (3) in this category.

Low (1) does not have high reproductive or dispersal potential.
Medium (2) has either high reproductive or dispersal potential.
High (3) has both high reproduction and dispersal potential.

4)  Economic Impact:  Brachypeplus basalis has the potential to lower yield in beehives by robbing pollen stores. If severe, this could reduce the availability of beehives and have further economic costs to industries that rely on pollination services.  The sap beetles may increase production costs in beehives as beekeepers may treat the pests.  The sap beetles may be injurious to agriculturally important animals (bees) by robbing pollen. Although the beetles are not under official control, their status as an emerging pest could lead to the establishment of quarantines in the future.  B. basalis receives a High (3) in this category.

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.
space
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:  Brachypeplus basalis may trigger additional treatment programs by beekeepers. The sap beetles receives a Medium (2) in this category.

A.   The pest could have a significant environmental impact such as lowering biodiversity, disrupting natural communities, or changing ecosystem processes.
B.   The pest could directly affect threatened or endangered species.
C.   The pest could impact threatened or endangered species by disrupting critical habitats.
D.   The pest could trigger additional official or private treatment programs.
E.   The pest significantly impacts cultural practices, home/urban gardening or ornamental plantings.

Score the pest for Environmental Impact. Score:

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 Brachypeplus basalis: Medium(12)

Add up the total score and include it here.

– Low = 5-8 points
Medium = 9-12 points
– High = 13-15 points

6)  Post Entry Distribution and Survey Information:  Brachypeplus basalis is only known from incursions in beehives; it has never been found in the environment.  However, there have been no formal surveys for the beetle.  The sap beetles receive a Not established (0) in this category.

Not established (0) Pest never detected in California, or known only from incursions.
Low (-1) Pest has a localized distribution in California, or is established in one suitable climate/host area (region).
Medium (-2) Pest is widespread in California but not fully established in the endangered area, or pest established in two contiguous suitable climate/host areas.
High (-3) Pest has fully established in the endangered area, or pest is reported in more than two contiguous or non-contiguous suitable climate/host areas.

Final Score:

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

Uncertainty:

It is possible that the presence of Brachypeplus basalis may affect the markets for queen bee exports from California. There are stingless bees in California that could be negatively affected by the introduction of these beetles. There have not been any formal surveys for the sap beetles so they are likely much more widespread, perhaps across the entire United States.  If this is the case, it is possible that the beetle is already successfully managed by beekeepers and of no economic significance.

Conclusion and Rating Justification:

Brachypeplus basalis may have significant economic impacts but environmental impacts are likely to be limited to chemical treatment of beehives.   A “B” rating is justified.

References:

Andy Cline (Andrew.Cline@cdfa.ca.gov)

Cline, A.R., P.E. Skelley, S.A. Kinnee, S. Rooney-Latham, and P. Audisio. 2013. Multi-trophic interactions between a sap beetle, Sabal palm, scale insect, fungi, and yeast, as well as discovery of a compound with antifungal properties. PLOS-One. [In Review: MS# PONE-D-13-37799]

Jelínek, J., C.E. Carlton, A.R. Cline, & R.A.B. Leschen. 2010. Nitidulidae Latrielle, 1802. Pp. 390-407. In Leschen, R.A.B., R.G. Beutel, & J.F. Lawrence (eds.) Handbook of Zoology. Volume IV. Arthropoda: Insecta. Part 38. Coleoptera, Beetles. 786pp.

Responsible Party:

Jason Leathers, 1220 “N” Street, Room 221, Sacramento, 95814, (916) 654-1211, plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov


 Comment Period: CLOSED

The 45-day comment period opened on Monday, March 16, 2015 and closed on Thursday, April 30, 2015.


 Pest Rating: B


Posted by ls

Paracoccus hakeae Williams: A Protea Mealybug – SYNONYM: Phenacoccus hakeae

California Pest Rating for
Paracoccus hakeae Williams: A Protea Mealybug
Synonym: Phenacoccus hakeae
Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae
Pest Rating: C

 


PEST RATING PROFILE
Initiating Event:

In March 2013, a visual delimitation survey was conducted in a 400m radius in Los Osos (San Luis Obispo County) following the first detection of the mealybug Delottococcus confusus in California. Mealybugs collected on 10 residential properties during this survey were identified as Phenacoccus hakeae by Drs. Gillian Watson and Natalia von Ellenrieder on March 29, 2012, a new continental record.

History & Status:

Background:  Phenacoccus hakeae was described from specimens collected on Hakea sericea (Proteaceae) in New South Wales, Australia1.  It has also been intercepted by USDA-APHIS on cut flowers (Persoonia sp., Leucospermum sp., and other Proteaceae) imported from Australia and also on cut flowers (presumably Proteaceae) in shipments from the Netherlands2.  In San Luis Obispo County, the mealybugs have been collected on Leucadendron sp. (PDRs FR0P06009425, FR0P06009426, and FR0P06009430), Protea sp. (PDRs FR0P06009383, FR0P06009384, FR0P06009386, FR0P06009387, FR0P06009389, FR0P06009400, FR0P06009401, FR0P06009421, FR0P06009423, FR0P06009427, FR0P06009429, FR0P06009431, FR0P06009433, and FR0P06009434), and Grevillea sp. (PDR FR0P06009428). Because the host plants (Proteaceae) are commonly grown for both cut flowers and landscape plants, Phenacoccus hakeae may be spread through international plant trade. The biology of the mealybug is unknown.

Worldwide Distribution:  Phenacoccus hakeae is native to New South Wales, Australia. Its presence in shipments from the Netherlands suggests that it may also be present in some other countries that trade in Proteaceae.

Official Control:  Phenacoccus hakeae is listed as an injurious animal on Japan’s plant pest quarantine list3.

California Distribution:  In California, Phenacoccus hakeae was first known from an incursion into the environment of Los Osos, San Luis Obispo County.  A follow-up survey indicates that the mealybug should be considered “established by survey” in San Luis Obispo County.  In addition to Los Osos, populations have been found in the cities of Morro Bay, Shell Beach, Arroyo Grande, San Luis Obispo, Grover Beach, Cayucos, and Pismo Beach.

California Interceptions: Phenacoccus hakeae has been found in nurseries in both San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara counties.

The risk Phenacoccus hakeae would pose to California is evaluated below.

Consequences of Introduction:

1)  Climate/Host Interaction:  Proteaceae are commonly grown as ornamental plants in California and are common in the nursery industry.  Phenacoccus hakeae is expected to be able to establish wherever these plants are grown. The mealybug receives a High (3) rating 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:  Phenacoccus hakeae is only known to feed on plants in the family Proteaceae.  P. hakeae 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:  Phenacoccus hakeae has demonstrated its ability to disperse long distances through the trade of ornamental plants and flowers. Mealybugs may also be dispersed by wind. They are capable of rapid reproduction.  Phenacoccus hakeae 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:  Phenacoccus hakeae is not documented as a pest anywhere in scientific literature. However, mealybugs may cause significant problems for protea grown for cut flowers by contaminating flowers by their presence, honeydew, and sooty mold4.  Cut flowers are a $477 million industry in California; other states and nations might reject infested flowers.  Since Phenacoccus hakeae may increase production costs and trigger the loss of markets for proteas, the mealybug receives a Medium (2) rating in this category.

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

A.   The pest could lower crop yield.
B.   The pest could lower crop value (includes increasing crop production costs).
C.   The pest could trigger the loss of markets (includes quarantines).
D.   The pest could negatively change normal cultural practices.
E.   The pest can vector, or is vectored, by another pestiferous organism.
F.   The organism is injurious or poisonous to agriculturally important animals.
G.   The organism can interfere with the delivery or supply of water for agricultural uses.

– Low (1) causes 0 or 1 of these impacts.
– Medium (2) causes 2 of these impacts.
– High (3) causes 3 or more of these impacts.

5)  Environmental Impact:  There are no plants listed as threatened or endangered in California that are expected to be hosts of Phenacoccus hakeae.  Populations of the mealybug have been found established in residential areas and a botanical garden and do not appear to be triggering any additional treatment programs. Furthermore there is no evidence that any residents are replacing infested plants with alternative species. Since Phenacoccus hakeae appears to be established in the environment and is not causing any significant environmental impacts it receives a Low (1) rating in this category.

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

A.   The pest could have a significant environmental impact such as lowering biodiversity, disrupting natural communities, or changing ecosystem processes.
B.   The pest could directly affect threatened or endangered species.
C.   The pest could impact threatened or endangered species by disrupting critical habitats.
D.   The pest could trigger additional official or private treatment programs.
E.   The pest significantly impacts cultural practices, home/urban gardening or ornamental plantings.

Score the pest for Environmental Impact. Score:

– 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 Phenacoccus hakeae: 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:  Phenacoccus hakeae is widely established in the environment of San Luis Opispo County. The mealybug receives a Medium (-2) in this category.

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

– Not established (0) Pest never detected in California, or known only from incursions.
– Low (-1) Pest has a localized distribution in California, or is established in one suitable climate/host area (region).
– Medium (-2) Pest is widespread in California but not fully established in the endangered area, or pest established in two contiguous suitable climate/host areas.
– High (-3) Pest has fully established in the endangered area, or pest is reported in more than two contiguous or non-contiguous suitable climate/host areas.

Final Score:

The final score is the consequences of introduction score minus the post entry distribution and survey information score: Low (8)

Uncertainty:

Several species of Hakea plants are considered invasive weeds in some places; Phenacoccus hakeae may be a valuable natural enemy of these weeds or an indicator of their presence.  Some mealybugs in one sample collected from Los Osos had been parasitized (PDR FR0P06009429).  It is possible that parasitoids, either native to California or introduced along with the mealybugs, are helping to mitigate impacts of this new pest. It is also possible that species present in additional nations may be junior synonyms of Phenacoccus hakeae, and that the worldwide distribution of the mealybug may be greater.

It is possible that the natural habitat of Phenacoccus hakeae is sufficiently remote that its host range is not well documented. It is possible that it could colonize many other plants. High populations of the mealybug might trigger additional treatment programs in the nursery industry or by residents who find infested ornamental plants unacceptable.  Large infestations of the mealybug could cause minor alterations of urban landscaping as residents and landscapers replace infested plants with alternative species.

Conclusion and Rating Justification:

Phenacoccus hakeae has established a widespread distribution on Proteaceae in San Luis Obispo County. It does not appear to be having any significant economic or environmental impacts. Therefore, a C rating is justified.

References:

1http://www.sel.barc.usda.gov/catalogs/pseudoco/Phenacoccushakeae.htm

2http://www.aphis.usda.gov/import_export/plants/plant_imports/federal_order/downloads/2010/NetherlandsCutFlowersRevised.pdf

3http://www.ippc.int/file_uploaded/1359088733_qp_list_25July2012.pdf

4Mazzeo, G., J. C. Franco, and A. Russo. 2009. A new Paracoccus species from Palaearctic region (Hemiptera, Sternorrhyncha, Coccoidea, Pseudococcidae) . Zootaxa 2274: 62–68 http://www.mapress.com/zootaxa/2009/f/zt02274p068.pdf

Responsible Party:

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


Comment Period: CLOSED

The 45-day comment period opened on Monday, March 16, 2015 and closed on Thursday, April 30, 2015.


 Pest Rating: C


Posted by ls

Oulema melanopus (Linnaeus): Cereal Leaf Beetle

California Pest Rating for
Adult Cereal Leaf Beetle (Oulema melanopus) Image Citation: Hania Berdys, bugwood.org
Adult Cereal Leaf Beetle (Oulema melanopus)
Image Citation: Hania Berdys, bugwood.org
Oulema melanopus  (Linnaeus): Cereal Leaf Beetle
Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae
Pest Rating: B

 


PEST RATING PROFILE
Initiating Event:

During late summer 2013, populations of Cereal Leaf Beetle (CLB) were found in Siskiyou and Modoc counties. Nick Condos recommended a new pest rating proposal for CLB to help determine the path forward.

History & Status:

Background: CLB is a pest of grain crops that commonly feeds on the leaves of oats, wheat, and barley. It is also reported to feed on rye, millet, corn, and many types of wild grasses. Rice is also sometimes listed as a host, but there is no evidence that CLB causes damage to rice in the scientific literature nor is CLB included in IPM guidelines for rice-producing states. Most of the damage is caused by larval beetles, known as “slugs”, feeding in the spring. Damage to leaves results in reduced photosynthetic ability in the plants and can significantly reduce grain yield. When ready to pupate, larvae drop into the soil. Adults emerge in the summer and feed briefly before entering summer aestivation. The beetles then seek out overwinter sites among the shelter of protected places such as debris and leaf litter. Historically CLB has sometimes caused severe crop losses; however, in most of the United States CLB populations are so effectively managed by introduced biological control agents, especially Tetrastichus julis, that chemical treatment is seldom required.

Worldwide Distribution:  CLB is native to Europe. It was detected in Michigan in 1962 and has since spread over much of the United States. It was detected in Oregon in 1999 and by 2013 had spread to within 11 miles of the California border.

Official Control:  CLB is listed as a regulated quarantine pest in New Zealand1, Japan2, and possibly other countries.

California Distribution:  CLB has been found in the environment of Siskiyou and Modoc counties.

California Interceptions:  CLB is commonly intercepted at California’s border stations on items such as beehives, potted plants, lumber, etc.

The risk CLB would pose to California is evaluated below.

Consequences of Introduction:

1)  Climate/Host Interaction:  In California, climate models suggest that CLB will only find favorable conditions in Del Norte County, Humboldt County, and a small portion of the central San Joaquin Valley4. Conditions in the southern half of California are predicted to be especially unfavorable to establishment of CLB.  CLB 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:  CLB feeds on six different varieties of field crops and wild grasses. It 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 Dispersal Potential:   CLB only has one generation per year, but is capable of reaching damaging populations relatively quickly, in the absence of biological control agents. With help from the wind the beetles are thought to spread up to 10 miles/year on their own. They may move longer distances as hitchhikers on items such as lumber or beehives; however, evidence indicates that they are not likely to establish populations through this movement.  According to NAPIS county records all CLB spread has been along the leading edge of the population from the original introduction, with the exception of one jump across the Dakotas3.  Furthermore, wheat producing states such as Arizona and Texas do not have exterior quarantines against CLB and do not have the pest. The fact that CLB typically do not mate until after overwintering may help explain this, as mated females are unlikely to be transported while overwintering.  CLB 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: Provided that biological control agents are introduced in California, CLB is not expected to significantly lower crop yield. CLB may increase crop production costs as fields will need to be scouted for the slugs to assess parasitism rates and growers may occasionally need to treat. CLB is considered a quarantine pest in some nations and could therefore, in some cases, trigger interruptions to trade or the implementation of new phytosanitary measures. CLB is not expected to negatively change normal cultural practices. CLB does not vector any other organisms, is not injurious or poisonous to agriculturally important animals, and does not interfere with water supplies. CLB receives a Medium (2) in this category.

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

A.  The pest could lower crop yield.
B.  The pest could lower crop value (includes increasing crop production costs).
C.  The pest could trigger the loss of markets (includes quarantines).
D.  The pest could negatively change normal cultural practices.
E.  The pest can vector, or is vectored, by another pestiferous organism.
F.  The organism is injurious or poisonous to agriculturally important animals.
G.  The organism can interfere with the delivery or supply of water for agricultural uses.

–  Low (1) causes 0 or 1 of these impacts.
–  Medium (2) causes 2 of these impacts.
–  High (3) causes 3 or more of these impacts.

5)  Environmental Impact:  CLB may require some new private treatment programs in California in the absence of biological control agents or in cases where the parasitism rate is found to be low.  CLB is not expected lower biodiversity, disrupt natural communities, or change ecosystem processes.  CLB is not expected to directly impact threatened or endangered species.  CLB is not expected to disrupt critical habitats.  CLB is not expected to significantly impact cultural practices, home/urban gardening, or ornamental plantings.  CLB receives a Medium (2) in this category.

A.  The pest could have a significant environmental impact such as lowering biodiversity, disrupting natural communities, or changing ecosystem processes.
B.  The pest could directly affect threatened or endangered species.
C.  The pest could impact threatened or endangered species by disrupting critical habitats.
D.  The pest could trigger additional official or private treatment programs.
E.  The pest significantly impacts cultural practices, home/urban gardening or ornamental plantings.

Score the pest for Environmental Impact. Score:

– 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 CLB: 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:  Well established populations of CLB have been found in Siskiyou and Modoc counties. CLB receives a Low (-1) in this category.

– Not established (0) Pest never detected in California, or known only from incursions.
– Low (-1) Pest has a localized distribution in California, or is established in one suitable climate/host area (region).
– Medium (-2) Pest is widespread in California but not fully established in the endangered area, or pest established in two contiguous suitable climate/host areas.
– High (-3) Pest has fully established in the endangered area, or pest is reported in more than two contiguous or non-contiguous suitable climate/host areas.

Final Score:

The final score is the consequences of introduction score minus the post entry distribution and survey information score:  Medium (9)

Uncertainty:

It is possible that CLB will attain a wider distribution within California than is predicted by climate models. It is also possible that several species of threatened and endangered native grasses could be favorable hosts for CLB, leading to additional environmental impacts. Furthermore, CLB populations may have established in other parts of California.

Conclusion and Rating Justification:

Provided that biological control agents are introduced to California, economic impacts from CLB are expected to be limited at most to additional pest scouting, occasional treatment, and possibly limited impacts on international trade.  Environmental impacts are expected to be limited to occasional chemical treatments in cases where CLB parasitism rates are found to be low.  CLB that are transported in trade nearly always fail to establish populations, showing that quarantines do not play much of a role in limiting CLB dispersal.  A “B” rating is justified.

References:

1 http://www.mpi.govt.nz/biosecurity-animal-welfare/pests-diseases/boric.aspx
2 http://www.pps.go.jp/english/law/list1.html
3 http://pest.ceris.purdue.edu/map.php?code=INAMCMA#
4 Risk assessment for cereal leaf beetle in California through the movement of small grains, Christmas trees, and farm equipment. USDA-APHIS. 2007.

Responsible Party:

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


Comment Period: CLOSED

The 45-day comment period opened on Monday, March 16, 2015 and closed on Thursday, April 30, 2015.


 Pest Rating: B


Posted by ls

Singhiella simplex (Singh): Ficus Whitefly

California Pest Rating for
Singhiella simplex (Singh): Ficus Whitefly
Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae
Pest Rating: B

 


PEST RATING PROFILE
Initiating Event:

On October 11, 2012, Los Angeles County entomologist Gevork Arakelian collected a large number of immature whiteflies on cuban laurel street trees (Ficus microcarpa) in the city of San Gabriel. He also observed large numbers of adults flying around and that five or six trees were infested. On October 16, 2012 Dr. Gillian Watson confirmed that the whiteflies were Singhiella simplex, ficus whitefly, a new state record.

History & Status:

Background: Singhiella simplex is most commonly found on weeping ficus (Ficus benjamina)1. It also feeds on cuban laurel (F. microcarpa), strangler ficus (F. aurea), banyan tree (F. benghalensis), fiddle leaf tree (F. lyrata), banana leaf ficus (F. maclellandii), false banyan tree or lofty ficus (F. altissima), cluster ficus or indian ficus (F. racemosa), and shortleaf ficus (F. citrifolia)1,2. Plants with severe infestations of Singhiella simplex exhibit yellowing of leaves, defoliation, branch dieback, and may be killed. Singhiella simplex may move long distances rapidly through commerce in infested plants.

Worldwide Distribution: Singhiella simplex is native to India, Burma, and China1,2. It was found in Florida in 2007 and had achieved a fairly widespread in distribution in the southern half of the state by 20093, presumably via the nursery industry (it was found in 20+ nurseries)4. It has recently been found in Brazil5.

Official Control: Singhiella simplex is not known to be under official control anywhere in the world8. However, it is listed as one of the whiteflies intercepted at Korean ports6, suggesting that it may be of concern to the Korean government.

California Distribution: In California, infestations of Singhiella simplex have been found on street trees in the environment of Los Angeles, Orange, and San Diego counties.

California Interceptions: Singhiella simplex has not been intercepted at California’s borders, but it has been found in nurseries in Los Angeles, San Bernardino, and San Diego counties.

The risk Singhiella simplex (ficus whitefly) would pose to California is evaluated below.

Consequences of Introduction:

1) Climate/Host Interaction: Ficus species are very commonly grown as ornamentals in California and Singhiella simplex is expected to establish wherever they are grown. Ficus whitefly receives a High (3) rating 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: Singhiella simplex is known to attack 10 species in the genus Ficus, not including commercial fig. Ficus whitefly receives a Low (1) rating 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: Singhiella simplex can reproduce rapidly. Over an 8 day adult lifespan female ficus whiteflies were found to produce 37.9-46.2 offspring1. An entire life cycle may be completed in less than a month. Although whiteflies are not especially strong fliers, they can be dispersed over longer distances by wind. They may be moved long distances on nursery stock. Ficus whitefly 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: Singhiella simplex has never been observed to attack commercial fig. However, it may increase the production costs of Ficus spp. nursery stock as growers are likely to treat to control infestations and insure clean nursery stock. Singhiella simplex receives a Low (1) in this category.

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

A. The pest could lower crop yield.
B. The pest could lower crop value (includes increasing crop production costs).
C. The pest could trigger the loss of markets (includes quarantines).
D. The pest could negatively change normal cultural practices.
E. The pest can vector, or is vectored, by another pestiferous organism.
F. The organism is injurious or poisonous to agriculturally important animals.
G. The organism can interfere with the delivery or supply of water for agricultural uses.

– Low (1) causes 0 or 1 of these impacts.
– Medium (2) causes 2 of these impacts.
– High (3) causes 3 or more of these impacts.

5) Environmental Impact: Singhiella simplex is not likely to lower biodiversity, disrupt natural communities, or change ecosystem processes. There are no threatened or endangered species in California that are likely to be directly affected by the whitefly. The whitefly is not expected to disrupt critical habitats. Ficus whitefly is likely to trigger additional treatment programs by the nursery industry and by residents who find infested plants unsightly. Furthermore, Ficus spp. are commonly grown as ornamentals in California and are likely to be significantly disfigured by infestations of the whitefly. Some homeowners in Florida spend as much as $1000 for annual control of the whitefly7. This may have a significant impact on urban environments as residents replace infested plants. Singhiella simplex receives a High (3) in this category.

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

A. The pest could have a significant environmental impact such as lowering biodiversity, disrupting natural communities, or changing ecosystem processes.
B. The pest could directly affect threatened or endangered species.
C. The pest could impact threatened or endangered species by disrupting critical habitats.
D. The pest could trigger additional official or private treatment programs.
E. The pest significantly impacts cultural practices, home/urban gardening or ornamental plantings.

Score the pest for Environmental Impact. Score:

– 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 Singhiella simplex (ficus whitely): Medium (11)

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: Singhiella simplex has established a widespread distribution in Southern California. It is known to be established in Los Angeles, Orange, and San Diego counties. Ficus whitefly receives a Medium (-2) in this category.

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

– Not established (0) Pest never detected in California, or known only from incursions.
– Low (-1) Pest has a localized distribution in California, or is established in one suitable climate/host area (region).
– Medium (-2) Pest is widespread in California but not fully established in the endangered area, or pest established in two contiguous suitable climate/host areas.
– High (-3) Pest has fully established in the endangered area, or pest is reported in more than two contiguous or non-contiguous suitable climate/host areas.

Final Score:

The final score is the consequences of introduction score minus the post entry distribution and survey information score: Medium (9)

Uncertainty:

There have not been any surveys for Singhiella simplex outside of southern California and it could have a much wider distribution than is currently known.

Conclusion and Rating Justification:

Singhiella simplex is established in the environment of southern California. There are no known trap or treatment technologies that would lend themselves to effective eradication of this pest. However, the whitefly is expected to have significant environmental consequences to California, especially to homeowners and the urban landscape. Therefore, a B-rating is justified.

References:

1Legaspi, J.C., C. Mannion, D. Amalin, and B.C. Legaspi, Jr. 2011. Life Table Analysis and Development of Singhiella simplex (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae) Under Different Constant Temperatures. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 104(3): 451-458.
http://www.ars.usda.gov/sp2userfiles/person/26446/life_table_analysis_2011a.pdf

2Hodges, Greg. The Ficus Whitefly Singhiella simplex (Singh) (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae): A New Exotic Whitefly Found on Ficus Species in South Florida. Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Pest Alert. http://www.freshfromflorida.com/pi/pest-alerts/singhiella-simplex.html

3Distribution map of Ficus Whitefly in Florida http://www.freshfromflorida.com/pi/maps/Ficus_whitefly/Singhiella-simplex-Tri-County.pdf

4Powerpoint presentation by Greg Hodges http://www.freshfromflorida.com/pi/enpp/ento/images/Ficus%20Whitefly%20Hodges%20and%20Mannion%20March%20082.ppt

5Velasco, G.D.N., R.G. Moura, E. Berti Filho, and H.T.do Couto. 2011. Evaluation of the infestation of Singhiella simplex (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae) on Ficus benjamina in São Paulo city, Brazil. Revista de Agricultura. 86(2): 134-141. http://agris.fao.org/agris-search/search/display.do?f=2012/BR/BR1201.xml;BR2011007660

6Soo-Jung, S., G.A. Evans, and S-M Oh. 2008. A checklist of intercepted whiteflies (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae) at the Republic of Korea ports of entry. Journal of Asia-Pacific Entomology. 11(1): 37-43. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1226861508000095

7Vasquez, D. 2008. Ficus Whitefly attacks homes and wallets. Sun Sentinel. http://blogs.sun-sentinel.com/consumerblog/2008/09/08/Ficus-whitefly-at/

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

Responsible Party:

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


 Comment Period: CLOSED

The 45-day comment period opened on Monday, March 16, 2015 and closed on Thursday, April 30, 2015.


 Pest Rating: B


Posted by ls

Gynaikothrips uzeli (Zimmermann): Weeping Ficus Thrips

California Pest Rating for
Gynaikothrips uzeli (Zimmermann): Weeping Ficus Thrips
Thysanoptera: Phlaeothripidae
Pest  Rating: B

 


PEST RATING PROFILE
Initiating Event:

On February 5, 2014 Dr. Gillian Watson confirmed the identification of a sample of thrips collected in Torrance, Los Angeles County as Gynaikothrips uzeli. This is a new state and county record and the species is in need of a pest rating.

History & Status:

Background: Gynaikothrips uzeli is a largely monophagous leaf-gall-forming thrips that feeds and reproduces on Ficus benjamina. The thrips forms galls on new growth1. The thrips has also been found on Ficus obtusa, F. pilosa, F. microcarpa, and Macaranga sp.; however, it is not known to reproduce on these alternative hosts4. The primary pathway for the spread of Gynaikothrips uzeli is likely F. benjamina nursery stock. Many of the records from the southeastern states are on nursery stock and the thrips has been intercepted on nursery stock from Florida eight times.

Worldwide Distribution: Gynaikothrips uzeli is native to Southeast Asia including China and India1. Over the last decade it has been invading North America. The thrips was first reported from North America in Florida in 20031 and has since been found in Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, and Louisiana1. It has also recently been reported from Hawaii2, Trinidad2, Costa Rica2, Belize3, Puerto Rico3, and Mexico3.

Official Control: Gynaikothrips uzeli is not known to be under official control in any states or nations5.

California Distribution: Gynaikothrips uzeli has only been officially collected in the cities of Torrance and Carson in Los Angeles County.
California Interceptions: Gynaikothrips uzeli has been intercepted 8 times since 2003 on nursery shipments of Ficus benjamina from Florida.

The risk Gynaikothrips uzeli (Weeping Ficus Thrips) would pose to California is evaluated below.

Consequences of Introduction:

1) Climate/Host Interaction: Ficus benjamina is a common landscape plant in California. Gynaikothrips uzeli is likely able to establish everywhere that these plants are grown. The thrips 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: Gynaikothrips uzeli is only known to complete its life cycle on Ficus benjamina. The thrips 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: Thrips are capable of rapid reproduction. Gynaikothrips uzeli has demonstrated its ability to move long distances on nursery stock. The thrips 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: Gynaikothrips uzeli may lower the nursery value of Ficus benjamina plants by disfiguring them with its leaf-galls and triggering chemical treatments. The thrips receives a Low (1) in this category.

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

A. The pest could lower crop yield.
B. The pest could lower crop value (includes increasing crop production costs).
C. The pest could trigger the loss of markets (includes quarantines).
D. The pest could negatively change normal cultural practices.
E. The pest can vector, or is vectored, by another pestiferous organism.
F. The organism is injurious or poisonous to agriculturally important animals.
G. The organism can interfere with the delivery or supply of water for agricultural uses.

– Low (1) causes 0 or 1 of these impacts.
– Medium (2) causes 2 of these impacts.
– High (3) causes 3 or more of these impacts.

5) Environmental Impact: The establishment of Gynaikothrips uzeli in California is expected to trigger additional chemical treatments in the nursery industry. The thrips may also have significant cultural impacts as Ficus benjamina is a common landscape plant. Residents are likely to treat plants, increase pruning4, and replace heavily infested F. benjamina with alternative plants. The thrips receives a High (3) in this category.

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

A. The pest could have a significant environmental impact such as lowering biodiversity, disrupting natural communities, or changing ecosystem processes.
B. The pest could directly affect threatened or endangered species.
C. The pest could impact threatened or endangered species by disrupting critical habitats.
D. The pest could trigger additional official or private treatment programs.
E. The pest significantly impacts cultural practices, home/urban gardening or ornamental plantings.

Score the pest for Environmental Impact. Score:

– 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 Gynaikothrips uzeli: Medium (11)

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: Gynaikothrips uzeli is only known from the cities of Torrance and Carson in Los Angeles County. The thrips receives a Low (-1) in this category.

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

– Not established (0) Pest never detected in California, or known only from incursions.
– Low (-1) Pest has a localized distribution in California, or is established in one suitable climate/host area (region).
– Medium (-2) Pest is widespread in California but not fully established in the endangered area, or pest established in two contiguous suitable climate/host areas.
– High (-3) Pest has fully established in the endangered area, or pest is reported in more than two contiguous or non-contiguous suitable climate/host areas.

Final Score:

The final score is the consequences of introduction score minus the post entry distribution and survey information score: Medium (10)

Uncertainty:

Significant pests that are not widespread in California have been observed inside the galls produced by Gynaikothrips uzeli. For example, pink hibiscus mealybug (Maconellicoccus hirsutus) has been found living hidden inside these galls1. It is possible that high risk exotic invasive species could travel into and spread within California inside the galls formed by G. uzeli.

There have been no surveys for Gynaikothrips uzeli within California, so it could be more widely distributed.

Conclusion and Rating Justification:

Although impacts of Gynaikothrips uzeli are expected to be limited to Ficus benjamina, this is a common landscape plant in California. Chemical treatments of hosts and changes to cultural practices as residents adapt to this pest are expected to have significant environmental impacts. Furthermore, there is the possibility that other invasive species may spread into and within California inside the galls produced by the thrips. A B-rating is justified.

References:

1Held, D.W., D. Boyd, T. Lockley, G.B. Edwards. 2005. Gynaikothrips uzeli (Thysanoptera: Phlaeothripidae) in the southeastern United States: Distribution and review of biology. Florida Entomologist 88(4): 538-540. http://www.fcla.edu/FlaEnt/fe88p538.pdf

2Held, D.W. and D.W. Boyd, Jr. 2007. Evaluation of sticky traps and insecticides to prevent gall induction by Gynaikothrips uzeli Zimmerman (Thysanoptera: Phlaeothripidae) on Ficus benjamina. Pest Management Science. 64(2): 133-140. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18069654

3Cambero-Campos, Jhonathan, Rita Valenzuela-García, Carlos Carvajal-Cazola, Claudio Rios-Velasco, and Oswaldo García-Martínez. 2010. New records for Mexico: Gynaikothrips uzeli, Androthrips ramachandrai (Thysanoptera: Phlaeothripidae) and Montanadoniola confusa (Hemiptera: Anthocoridae). Florida Entomologist 93(3): 470-472. http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.1653/024.093.0328

4 University of Florida Extension http://trec.ifas.ufl.edu/mannion/pdfs/WeepingFigThrips.pdf

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

Responsible Party:

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


Comment Period: CLOSED

The 45-day comment period opened on Monday, March 16, 2015 and closed on Thursday, April 30, 2015.


 Pest Rating: B


Posted by ls

Pagiocerus frontalis (Fabricius): A Scolytid Weevil

California Pest Rating for
Pagiocerus frontalis (Fabricius): A Scolytid Weevil
Coleoptera: Cucurlionidae
Pest Rating: B

 


PEST RATING PROFILE
Initiating Event:

On May 21, 2014 Dr. Andrew Cline identified a beetle collected in Escondido, San Diego County, as Pagiocerus frontalis (PDR SJ0P06003026). This beetle was also reported from San Diego County in 2010. The beetle presently has a temporary rating of Q, so Dr. Kevin Hoffman recommended a pest rating proposal to determine future direction.

History & Status:

Background: Pagiocerus frontalis feeds and reproduces on the seeds of fallen avocado fruit and both fresh and dry corn. The species is considered a major pest of stored corn in the highlands of the Andes1,2. Beetles infest corn cobs in the field before harvest and continue feeding in storage, destroying the corn within several months1. The beetles have also been found on several other plants including coffee; however, a laboratory experiment found that these other plants were not suitable hosts for reproduction and development1. Pagiocerus frontalis is not known to have ever been intercepted, but could presumably spread long distances when infested fresh or dry corn or ripe, damaged avocados are moved.

Worldwide Distribution: Pagiocerus frontalis is a Neotropical beetle whose range extends from South America, through Central America and Mexico, into the southeastern United States.

Official Control: Pagiocerus frontalis is listed as a quarantine pest by Japan4 and New Zealand5.

California Distribution: In California Pagiocerus frontalis has only been found in San Diego County.

California Interceptions: Pagiocerus frontalis has never been intercepted in any regulatory situations in California.

The risk Pagiocerus frontalis would pose to California is evaluated below.

Consequences of Introduction:

1) Climate/Host Interaction: Pagiocerus frontalis has a widespread distribution across a wide variety of climates from the Andes in South America to North Carolina. It can be expected to establish wherever it can find suitable host material in California. The beetle 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: Pagiocerus frontalis is only known to be able to complete its reproductive cycle on corn and the seeds of fallen avocados. 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: Pagiocerus frontalis has high reproductive potential; females lay many eggs and it can complete its entire life cycle in 3 to 4 weeks1. The beetles may theoretically disperse long distances through the movement of infested corn or inside the seeds of ripe, damaged avocados. The beetle 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: The value of corn produced in California was approximately $812.1 million in 2012. This includes $234.7 for grain, $454.4 for silage, and $123 million for sweet. Pagiocerus frontalis might increase production costs in these crops, especially organic sweet corn. The beetle is considered a quarantine pest by some nations. The beetle therefore has the potential to disrupt markets by contaminating corn or as a hitchhiker on other commodities. Pagiocerus frontalis receives a Medium (2) in this category.

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

A. The pest could lower crop yield.
B. The pest could lower crop value (includes increasing crop production costs).
C. The pest could trigger the loss of markets (includes quarantines).
D. The pest could negatively change normal cultural practices.
E. The pest can vector, or is vectored, by another pestiferous organism.
F. The organism is injurious or poisonous to agriculturally important animals.
G. The organism can interfere with the delivery or supply of water for agricultural uses.

– Low (1) causes 0 or 1 of these impacts.
– Medium (2) causes 2 of these impacts.
– High (3) causes 3 or more of these impacts.

5) Environmental Impact: Pagiocerus frontalis is not expected to lower biodiversity, disrupt natural communities, or change ecosystem processes. The beetle is not likely to directly affect threatened or endangered species or disrupt critical habitats. Large populations of the beetle might trigger new chemical treatments in corn when the crop is in the field or storage. Pagiocerus frontalis is not expected to significantly impact cultural practices, home/urban gardening, or ornamental plantings. The beetle receives a Medium (2) in this category.

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

A. The pest could have a significant environmental impact such as lowering biodiversity, disrupting natural communities, or changing ecosystem processes.
B. The pest could directly affect threatened or endangered species.
C. The pest could impact threatened or endangered species by disrupting critical habitats.
D. The pest could trigger additional official or private treatment programs.
E. The pest significantly impacts cultural practices, home/urban gardening or ornamental plantings.

Score the pest for Environmental Impact. Score:

– 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 Pagiocerus frontalis: Medium(11)

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: In California, Pagiocerus frontalis is only known to be established in San Diego County. The beetle receives a Low (-1) in this category.

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

– Not established (0) Pest never detected in California, or known only from incursions.
– Low (-1) Pest has a localized distribution in California, or is established in one suitable climate/host area (region).
– Medium (-2) Pest is widespread in California but not fully established in the endangered area, or pest established in two contiguous suitable climate/host areas.
– High (-3) Pest has fully established in the endangered area, or pest is reported in more than two contiguous or non-contiguous suitable climate/host areas.

The final score is the consequences of introduction score minus the post entry distribution and survey information score: Medium (10)

Uncertainty:

There are a wide variety of pests that feed on both fresh and dry corn. It is possible that existing treatments, cultural practices, and modified genes will preclude any economic damage from this pest in California.  Pagiocerus frontalis also feeds on the seed of fallen avocado. These avocados are not likely to be distributed commercially; nevertheless, the presence of this beetle might disrupt markets.

Conclusion and Rating Justification:

Pagiocerus frontalis is only known from San Diego County and has the potential to have limited economic and environmental impacts. A “B” rating is justified.

References:

1 Eidt-Wendt, J. and F.A. Schulz. Studies on the biology and ecology of Pagiocerus frontalis (Fabricius) (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) infesting stored maize in Ecuador. Technical University Berlin, Department of Phytomedicine, Berlin, FRG. http://spiru.cgahr.ksu.edu/proj/iwcspp/pdf2/5/61.pdf

2 Gianoli, E., I. Ramos, A. Alfaro-Tapia, Y. Valdéz, E.R. Echegaray, and E. Yábar. 2006. Benefits of a maize-bean-weeds mixed cropping system in Urubamba Valley, Peruvian Andes. International Journal of Pest Management. 52(4):283-289. http://www2.udec.cl/~egianoli/06gianintjpestman.pdf

4https://www.ippc.int/sites/default/files/documents/20130423/1309849796_qp_list_2013042321%3A18En.pdf

5 http://piorin.gov.pl/cms/upload/seed.pdf

Responsible Party:

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

Comment Period: CLOSED

The 45-day comment period opened on Monday, March 16, 2015 and closed on Thursday, April 30, 2015.


 Pest Rating: B


Posted by ls

Horidiplosis ficifolii Harris: An Ornamental Fig Pest

California Pest Rating for
Horidiplosis ficifolii: an ornamental fig pest
Horidiplosis ficifolii: an Ornamental Fig Pest
Image Citation: Jakub Beránek
Horidiplosis ficifolii Harris: An Ornamental Fig Pest
Diptera: Cecidomyiidae
Pest Rating: B

 


PEST RATING PROFILE
Initiating Event:

On November 14, 2014, Dr. Martin Hauser identified Horidiplosis ficifolii on ornamental shrubs in San Diego (PDR 370P06228129). This is the first time this pest has been found in California. A pest rating proposal is needed.

History & Status:

Background: Horidiplosis ficifolii is a gall midge that forms galls on the leaves of ornamental Ficus spp1. Known hosts include Ficus microcarpa1,2, F. retusa2, F. nitida2, and F. panda2. The gall midge may spread long distances when infested host plants are moved.

Worldwide Distribution: Horidiplosis ficifolii is native to China, Taiwan, and Japan. From there it has spread to Florida and greenhouses in Europe.

Official Control: Horidiplosis ficifolii is not known to be under official control in any other states or nations3.

California Distribution: Horidiplosis ficifolii has only been found in San Diego.

California Interceptions: Horidiplosis ficifolii has never been intercepted in regulatory situations in California.

The risk Horidiplosis ficifolii would pose to California is evaluated below.

Consequences of Introduction:

1) Climate/Host Interaction: Ficus plants are commonly grown in California and Horidiplosis ficifolii is likely to establish where they are grown. The gall midge 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: Horidiplosis ficifolii is only known to feed on four species of plants in the genus Ficus. 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: Gall midges can produce many offspring and may move long distances through commerce in infested host plants. They may also be dispersed locally by wind. Horidiplosis ficifolii 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: Horidiplosis ficifolii may increase the production cost of Ficus spp. nursery stock and lower the value of infested plants. It is not expected to lower crop yield, trigger lost markets, change cultural practices, vector pestiferous organisms, injure animals, or interfere with water supplies. The gall midge receives a Low (1) in this category.

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

A. The pest could lower crop yield.
B. The pest could lower crop value (includes increasing crop production costs).
C. The pest could trigger the loss of markets (includes quarantines).
D. The pest could negatively change normal cultural practices.
E. The pest can vector, or is vectored, by another pestiferous organism.
F. The organism is injurious or poisonous to agriculturally important animals.
G. The organism can interfere with the delivery or supply of water for agricultural uses.

– Low (1) causes 0 or 1 of these impacts.
– Medium (2) causes 2 of these impacts.
– High (3) causes 3 or more of these impacts.

5) Environmental Impact: Horidiplosis ficifolii is not expected to lower biodiversity, disrupt natural communities, or change ecosystem processes. The gall midge is not expected to affect threatened or endangered species or disrupt critical habitats. The gall midge may trigger new treatment programs in the nursery industry and by residents who find infested plants unsightly. Ficus spp. are commonly grown as ornamentals in California and may be significantly affected by this insect.  Horidiplosis ficifolii receives a High (3) in this category.

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

A. The pest could have a significant environmental impact such as lowering biodiversity, disrupting natural communities, or changing ecosystem processes.
B. The pest could directly affect threatened or endangered species.
C. The pest could impact threatened or endangered species by disrupting critical habitats.
D. The pest could trigger additional official or private treatment programs.
E. The pest significantly impacts cultural practices, home/urban gardening or ornamental plantings.

Score the pest for Environmental Impact. Score:

– 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 Horidiplosis ficifolii: Medium (11)

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: Horidiplosis ficifolii is only known from an incursion into San Diego. It receives a Not established (0) in this category.

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

– Not established (0) Pest never detected in California, or known only from incursions.
– Low (-1) Pest has a localized distribution in California, or is established in one suitable climate/host area (region).
– Medium (-2) Pest is widespread in California but not fully established in the endangered area, or pest established in two contiguous suitable climate/host areas.
– High (-3) Pest has fully established in the endangered area, or pest is reported in more than two contiguous or non-contiguous suitable climate/host areas.

Final Score:

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

Uncertainty:

There have been no formal surveys for Horidiplosis ficifolii in California. It is possible that the gall midge may be more widespread. However, the species is relatively new to science, it was just described in 2003. It is possible that it may emerge as a more serious pest as it expands its range.

Conclusion and Rating Justification:

Due to its narrow host range the entry of Horidiplosis ficifolii is expected to have limited economic consequences. However, it may have significant environmental impacts by triggering new chemical treatments in the nursery industry and by residents who find infested ornamental plants unsightly. A “B” rating is justified.

References:

1Steck, Gary J. and Scott Krueger. An Ornamental Fig Pest, Horidiplosis ficifolii Harris (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae), Genus and Species New to Florida and North America. Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. http://www.freshfromflorida.com/Divisions-Offices/Plant-Industry/Plant-Industry-Publications/Pest-Alerts/Pest-Alerts-An-Ornamental-Fig-Pest-Horidiplosis-Ficifolii-Harris-Diptera-Cecidomyiidae

2Beránek, Jakub and Ivana Šafránková. 2010. First record of Horidiplosis ficifolii Harris 2003 (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae) in the Czech Republic. Plant Protect. Sci. 46(4): 185-187. http://www.agriculturejournals.cz/publicFiles/31854.pdf

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

Responsible Party:

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

Comment Period: CLOSED

The 45-day comment period opened on Monday, March 16, 2015 and closed on Thursday, April 30, 2015.


 Pest Rating: B


Posted by ls

Pheidole megacephala (Bigheaded Ant)

California Pest Rating for
Pheidole megacephala (Bigheaded Ant)
Hymenoptera: Formicidae
Pest Rating: A

 


PEST RATING PROFILE
Initiating Event:

On April 18, 2014, Dr. Rosser Garrison identified samples of ants collected at a residence in Costa Mesa, CA as Pheidole megacephala, bigheaded ant. The species is currently Q-rated, so a pest rating proposal is needed to determine future direction.

History & Status:

Background: Pheidole megacephala is a “tramp ant” invasive species that has spread around much of the tropical, subtropical, and temperate world where it is typically associated with the disturbed environments created by human habitations. Bigheaded ant primarily nests in soil and is often found nesting in disturbed soil, lawns, flowerbeds, under objects like bricks or cement slabs, flower pots, around trees and water pipes, and along the bases of structures and walkways2. Unlike other ants in the genus Pheidole, bigheaded ant is a major nuisance pest which frequently invades homes in search of food. Like subterranean termites, the ants sometimes build covered foraging tubes on building foundations or shrubs2. Bigheaded ants are omnivorous. Outdoors, they typically feed on honeydew, insects, seeds, and small vertebrates such as bird hatchlings. Indoors they are often found feeding on meat, pet food, oily foods such as peanut butter, and grease on stoves, counters, walls, or dish cloths3. Bigheaded ant invades homes so frequently in southern Florida that it is now considered to be the most common ant that triggers residents to call pest control companies2. Colonies of bigheaded ant have multiple queens and often form “supercolonies” where groups of queens and workers move off to expand the colony2. These large interconnected colonies make control of the ants difficult, as colonies can extend between and across properties. Other ant species are excluded from these areas. The most likely pathway for the long distance spread of bigheaded ant is when colonies in potted plants are moved1,2.

Worldwide Distribution: Pheidole megacephala is believed to be native to Africa1. From there it has spread to parts of Asia, Oceania, Central America, South America, Europe, Hawaii, and the Caribbean1. In the continental United States, bigheaded ant has been present in Florida since before 19332.

Official Control: Pheidole megacephala is listed as a quarantine pest by French Polynesia, Japan, and the Republic of Korea14.

California Distribution: In April 2014, Pheidole megacephala was found at a residential property in Costa Mesa. CDFA conducted a visual and SPAM-bait survey of a 5-mile radius around this site. At this time the ants were found to be confined within a 400m radius within the single residential neighborhood and an adjacent golf course. As of December, 2014, bigheaded ants have not been found in the environment of California outside of this neighborhood.

California Interceptions: Pheidole megacephala is commonly intercepted by CDFA. There have been 1,514 interceptions since January 1, 2000.

The risk Pheidole megacephala (bigheaded ant) would pose to California is evaluated below.

Consequences of Introduction:

1) Climate/Host Interaction: Pheidole megacephala tends to favor cool areas with high humidity3. The ants are likely to do well in coastal California and in irrigated areas elsewhere. Bigheaded ant receives a Medium (2) in this category.

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

– Low (1) Not likely to establish in California; or likely to establish in very limited areas.
– Medium (2) may be able to establish in a larger but limited part of California.
– High (3) likely to establish a widespread distribution in California.

2) Known Pest Host Range: Pheidole megacephala is omnivorous and 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: Pheidole megacephala reproduces rapidly. Colonies have multiple queens and each queen lays up to 292 eggs each month2. Bigheaded ant spreads relatively slowly naturally, but colonies in potted plants can be transported long distances rapidly. Bigheaded ant 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: Pheidole megacephala is likely to injure agriculturally important animals when it tends honeydew producing insects in agricultural systems. The ants are known to tend economically important insects such as Asian citrus psyllid (ACP) (Diaphorina citri)9, green scale (Coccus viridis)4, grey pineapple mealybug (Dysmicoccus neobrevipes), and many others. While the ants are tending honeydew producers they consume predatory insects such as lady bugs and parasitic wasps including Tamarixia radiata9. This can disrupt the biological control component of existing IPM programs4 and allow honeydew producing pest insects to flourish, increasing crop damage and production costs. In southern Florida bigheaded ants are the primary ants that tend ACP9. In experiments they have been shown to greatly reduce the success of biological control with Tamarixia radiata9. For example, on Murraya paniculata bigheaded ants reduced the parasitism of ACP from 20.36% to 0.39%9. Furthermore, in their native range in Africa, bigheaded ants are known to use detritus and soil to build protective shelters over the psyllid Diaphorina enderleini10. These structures offer psyllids protection from environmental threats such as predators and contact insecticides. Bigheaded ants are listed as a quarantine pest by Japan, Korea, and French Polynesia14. The presence of these ants as hitchhikers on a wide variety of commodities may trigger disruptions to California exports. Bigheaded ants have also been documented chewing into drip irrigation systems, which may interfere with the delivery of water for agricultural uses5. Pheidole megacephala receives a High(3) in this category.

There may also be some positive economic impact from the entry of bigheaded ant to California. Bigheaded ants have been shown to help control pest insects in some circumstances by consuming damaging pest insects that do not produce honeydew and replacing them with less damaging honeydew-producing insects7. They also consume termites8.

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

A. The pest could lower crop yield.
B. The pest could lower crop value (includes increasing crop production costs).
C. The pest could trigger the loss of markets (includes quarantines).
D. The pest could negatively change normal cultural practices.
E. The pest can vector, or is vectored, by another pestiferous organism.
F. The organism is injurious or poisonous to agriculturally important animals.
G. The organism can interfere with the delivery or supply of water for agricultural uses.

– Low (1) causes 0 or 1 of these impacts.
– Medium (2) causes 2 of these impacts.
– High (3) causes 3 or more of these impacts.

5) Environmental Impact: Pheidole megacephala has the potential to cause massive, long-term alterations to natural communities and large-scale changes ecosystem processes. Although they are limited by the absence of water in dry areas, they can be expected to gradually invade most ecosystems and severely affect all native invertebrates. For example, they are well known to displace native ant fauna13. In an Australian rainforest, all insect larvae were found be absent from areas colonized by bigheaded ant12. Bigheaded ants can be expected to consume any threatened or endangered invertebrates that they encounter. The ants are also likely to facilitate the spread of noxious weeds through the environment by feeding on beneficial insects introduced for biological control6. Furthermore, bigheaded ant is also likely to trigger new treatments by residents as it invades homes in search of food and water. Many residents of Florida contact pest control companies to arrange chemical treatments due to infestations of homes by these ants2. Bigheaded ant receives a High (3) in this category.

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

A. The pest could have a significant environmental impact such as lowering biodiversity, disrupting natural communities, or changing ecosystem processes.
B. The pest could directly affect threatened or endangered species.
C. The pest could impact threatened or endangered species by disrupting critical habitats.
D. The pest could trigger additional official or private treatment programs.
E. The pest significantly impacts cultural practices, home/urban gardening or ornamental plantings.

Score the pest for Environmental Impact. Score:

– 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 Pheidole megacephala (bigheaded ant): High (14)

Add up the total score and include it here.

– Low = 5-8 points
– Medium = 9-12 points
– High = 13-15 points

6) Post Entry Distribution and Survey Information: Pheidole megacephala is only known from a single incursion into a neighborhood in Costa Mesa. It receives a Not established (0) in this category.

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

– Not established (0) Pest never detected in California, or known only from incursions.
– Low (-1) Pest has a localized distribution in California, or is established in one suitable climate/host area (region).
– Medium (-2) Pest is widespread in California but not fully established in the endangered area, or pest established in two contiguous suitable climate/host areas.
– High (-3) Pest has fully established in the endangered area, or pest is reported in more than two contiguous or non-contiguous suitable climate/host areas.

Final Score:

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

Uncertainty:

There is much uncertainty with the introduction of exotic ants to California. New species of ants may play a role in slow, long-term changes to our ecosystems that are difficult to observe on a short time scale. Alternatively, there are other species of ants already present in California and new species may have lesser effects. Argentine ant (Linepithema humile) occupies a similar niche to bigheaded ant and is already widely distributed in the state. It is possible that argentine ant may be able to outcompete bigheaded ant under some environmental conditions.

Bigheaded ant has not been observed building dirt shelters to protect ACP like it does closely related psyllids in its native range. However, most places where both ACP and bigheaded ant occur have frequent rainfall that may destroy any shelters. It is possible that the drier climate of California may be more favorable for this shelter-building behavior. If this occurs, it may complicate control of ACP by contact insecticides. If bigheaded ant were to both disrupt biological control of ACP by Tamarixia radiata and build shelters that protect ACP from contact insecticides, this may trigger additional management changes to organic citrus production in California.

Conclusion and Rating Justification:

Pheidole megacephala is likely to have significant economic impacts in California by disrupting biological control components of IPM programs and disrupting exports. This can be expected to increase production costs by triggering additional pest management. Bigheaded ant can also be expected to have significant long-term environmental impacts on the state and is under consideration for official control. An “A”-rating is justified.

References:

1CABI Invasive Species Compendium. http://www.cabi.org/isc/datasheet/40133

2Warner, John and Rudolph H. Scheffrahn. 2013. Featured creatures: big headed ant. http://entnemdept.ufl.edu/creatures/urban/ants/bigheaded_ant.htm

3Northern Territory Government. Big headed (or coastal brown) ant fact sheet. http://www.lrm.nt.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/11268/BigHAnt_Fact-Sheet.pdf

4Reimer, Neil J., Mei-li Cope, and George Yasuda. 1993. Interference of Pheidole megacephala (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) with biological control of Coccus viridis (Homoptera: Coccidae) in coffee. Environmental Entomology 22(2): 483-488. http://esa.publisher.ingentaconnect.com/search/article?option1=tka&value1=Interference+of+Pheidole+megacephala&operator9=AND&option9=publications&value9=esa&sortDescending=true&sortField=default&pageSize=10&index=1

5Chang, Vincent C.S., Asher K. Ota, and Deborra Sanders. 1980. Parallel ridge barrier to control ant damage to orifices of drip irrigation tubes. Journal of Economic Entomology 73: 403-406. http://esa.publisher.ingentaconnect.com/search/article?option1=tka&value1=Parallel+ridge+barrier+to+control&operator9=AND&option9=publications&value9=esa&sortDescending=true&sortField=default&pageSize=10&index=1

6Reimer, N.J. 1988. Predation on Liothrips urichi Karny (Thysanoptera: Phlaeothripidae): A case of biotic interference. Environmental Entomology 17(1): 132-134. http://esa.publisher.ingentaconnect.com/search/article?option1=tka&value1=Predation+on+Liothrips+urichi&operator9=AND&option9=publications&value9=esa&sortDescending=true&sortField=default&pageSize=10&index=1

7Jones, Vincent P., Daphne M. Westcott, Naomi N. Finson, and Roy K. Nishimoto. 2001. Relationship between community structure and southern green stink bug (Heteroptera: Pentatomidae) damage in macadamia nuts. Environmental Entomology 30(6): 1028-1035. http://esa.publisher.ingentaconnect.com/search/article?option1=tka&value1=Relationship+between+community+structure&operator9=AND&option9=publications&value9=esa&sortDescending=true&sortField=default&pageSize=10&index=4

8Cornelius, Mary L. and J.Kenneth Grace. 1996. Effect of two ant species (Hymeoptera: Formicidae) on the foraging and survival of the Formosan subterranean termite (Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae). Environmental Entomology 25(1): 85-89. http://esa.publisher.ingentaconnect.com/search/article?option1=tka&value1=Effect+of+two+ant+species&operator9=AND&option9=publications&value9=esa&sortDescending=true&sortField=default&pageSize=10&index=4

9Navarrete, Bernardo, Heather McAuslane , Mark Deyrup and Jorge E. Peña. 2013. Ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) Associated with Diaphorina citri (Hemiptera: Liviidae) and their Role in its Biological Control. Florida Entomologist, 96(2):590-597. http://swfrec.ifas.ufl.edu/hlb/database/pdf/21_Navarrete_13.pdf

10Alene, Desiree Chantal, Champlain Djieto-Lordon, and Daniel Burckhardt. 2011. Unusual behavior—unusual morphology: mutualistic relationships between ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) and Diaphorina enderleini (Hemiptera: Psylloidea), associated with Vernonia amygdalina (Asteraceae). African Invertebrates 52(2):353-361. http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.5733/afin.052.0210?journalCode=afin

11Jahn, Gary C. and John W. Beardsley. 1996. Effects of Pheidole megacephala (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) on survival and dispersal of Dysmicoccus neobrevipes (Homoptera: Pseudococcidae). Journal of Economic Entomology 89(5): 1124-1129. http://esa.publisher.ingentaconnect.com/search/article?option1=tka&value1=Effects+of+Pheidole+megacephala+%28+Hymenoptera%3a+Formicidae+%29+on+survival+and+dispersal+of+Dysmicoccus+neobrevipes&operator9=AND&option9=publications&value9=esa&sortDescending=true&sortField=default&pageSize=10&index=1

12Hoffmann, Benjamin D., Alan N. Andersen, and Greg J.E. Hill. 1999. Impact of an introduced ant on native rainforest invertebrates: Pheidole megacephala in monsoonal Australia. Oecologia 120: 595-604. http://www.issg.org/database/species/reference_files/phemeg/hoffmann1999.pdf

13Vanderwoude, C., L.A. Lobry De Bruyn, and A.P.N. House. 2001. Response of an open-forest ant community to invasion by the introduced ant, Pheidole megacephala. Austral Ecology 25(3): 253-259. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1442-9993.2000.01021.x/abstract?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false

14USDA Phytosanitary Certificate Issuance & Tracking System (PCIT) Phytosanitary Export Database (PExD). https://pcit.aphis.usda.gov/pcit/

Responsible Party:

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


Comment Period: CLOSED

The 45-day comment period opened on Monday, March 16, 2015 and closed on Thursday, April 30, 2015.


 Pest Rating: A


Posted by ls