Category Archives: A-Rated

“A”
A pest of known economic or environmental detriment and is either not known to be established in California or it is present in a limited distribution that allows for the possibility of eradication or successful containment. A-rated pests are prohibited from entering the state because, by virtue of their rating, they have been placed on the of Plant Health and Pest Prevention Services Director’s list of organisms “detrimental to agriculture” in accordance with the FAC Sections 5261 and 6461. The only exception is for organisms accompanied by an approved CDFA or USDA live organism permit for contained exhibit or research purposes. If found entering or established in the state, A-rated pests are subject to state (or commissioner when acting as a state agent) enforced action involving eradication, quarantine regulation, containment, rejection, or other holding action.

Longhorned Beetle | Arhopalus pinetorum (Wollaston)

California Pest Rating for
Arhopalus pinetorum (Wollaston) |  Longhorned Beetle
Coleoptera: Cerambycidae
Pest Rating: A

PEST RATING PROFILE

Initiating Event:

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

History & Status:

Background:  Arhopalus pinetorum is a reddish-brown beetle that is approximately 14 mm in length (Wollaston, 1863).  Like most other cerambycids, the larvae develop in wood.  This species is apparently restricted to dead pine trees with bark; it has been reported to develop in pines that are native to its area of distribution (including Canary Island pine, Pinus canariensis) as well as introduced pines (García, 2005; Vives, 2007).

Worldwide Distribution:  Arhopalus pinetorum is native to the Canary Islands of Spain and the Madeira archipelago of Portugal.  This beetle is rated as Near Threatened by the IUCN because of its small area of distribution, although it can be abundant where it occurs (Dodelin et al., 2017; Vives, 2007).

Official Control: Arhopalus pinetorum is not known to be under official control anywhere.

California Distribution:  This beetle is not known to be present in California, although it was found in Los Angeles County in 2001 (see California Interceptions, below) (Symbiota Collections of Arthropods Network).

California Interceptions:  This species was trapped in Los Angeles County in July 2001 (Duerr, 2005; Rabaglia et al., 2008).

The risk Arhopalus pinetorum would pose to California is evaluated below.

Consequences of Introduction:

1) Climate/Host Interaction: The distribution of pinetorum includes areas with Mediterranean, desert, and subtropical climates. The climate of a large portion of California could be suitable for the establishment of this species, but northern and high mountain areas may be too cold.  Pines are widely distributed in California, and A. pinetorum is not restricted to pine species that occur in its native range, so suitable host plants are likely to be present statewide.  Therefore, this species 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: This species is apparently limited to pines (Pinus species). It originally may have been restricted to the native Pinus canariensis, but has been reported to feed on other (unidentified) species as well.  Therefore, it 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: Other Arhopalus species fly, and it is presumed that pinetorum can as well (Pawson et al., 2010).  Arhopalus pinetorum may be artificially dispersed through the movement of wood products, including firewood.  Arhopalus is the most commonly-intercepted genus of cerambycid in wood products and wood packing materials at United States ports of entry (Eyre and Haack, 2017).  Therefore, it receives a Medium (2) in this category.

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

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

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

4) Economic Impact: This beetle is apparently restricted to dead pines.  No reports were found of any Arhopalus species attacking healthy, living trees.  Cerambycids that attack dead trees (trees that have been cut or killed by fire or other causes) reduce the value of the wood, both through their tunneling as well as from staining by fungi that invade through the beetle’s tunnels (Lowell et al., 2010).  More rapid harvesting of wood is one method used to avoid such damage.  Arhopalus species are capable of degrading fire-killed trees before they can be harvested (Bradbury, 1998; Eaton and Lyon, 1955; Hosking and Bain, 1977).  Arhopalus pinetorum could impact salvage harvesting of fire-killed timber in California.  Therefore, it receives a Medium (2) in this category.

Economic Impact:  B, D

A. The pest could lower crop yield.

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

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

D. The pest could negatively change normal cultural practices.

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

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

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

Economic Impact Score: 2

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

– Medium (2) causes 2 of these impacts.

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

5) Environmental Impact: Arhopalus pinetorum is only known to feed on dead pine trees. Therefore, it is not likely to threaten living trees.  However, it could compete with native wood-feeding insects, and may influence the degradation of dead pines in California.  Therefore, it receives a Medium (2) in this category.

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

Environmental Impact:  A

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

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

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

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

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

Environmental Impact Score: 2

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

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

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

Consequences of Introduction to California for Arhopalus pinetorum: Medium (9)

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: The 2001 detection in Los Angeles County represents the only known find of this species in this state.  For the purpose of this proposal, it is assumed that A. pinetorum is not established in California.  The species receives a Not established (0) in this category.

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

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

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

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

Final Score:

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

Uncertainty:

This beetle would possibly display broader feeding preferences in California.  There is some suggestion in the literature that Arhopalus species may sometimes attack trees that are living (but “sick” or otherwise compromised), but documented examples of such attacks were not found (Wang and Leschen, 2003).  If living (whether stressed or not) trees could be attacked in California by A. pinetorum, then the risk posed by this beetle has been underestimated in this proposal.

Conclusion and Rating Justification:

Arhopalus pinetorum is a beetle that feeds on dead pine trees.  This species could become established in a large portion of California, and if this occurred, it could have an impact on the timber industry and on the native decomposer fauna associated with dead pines.  For these reasons, an “A” rating is justified.


References:

Bradbury, P.M.  1998.  The effects of the burnt pine longhorn beetle and wood-staining fungi on fire damaged Pinus radiata in Canterbury.  New Zealand Forestry.  43: 28-31.

Dodelin, B., Alexander, K., Audisio, P., Jansson, N., Legakis, A., Liberto, A., Makris, C., and X. Vazquez.  2017. Arhopalus pinetorum. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.  Accessed February 20, 2018. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2017-3.RLTS.T86803993A87310373.en

Duerr, D.A. 2005. Early detection and rapid response pilot project.  In (K.W. Gottshalk, ed.)

Proceedings, 16th United States Department of Agriculture Interagency research forum on gypsy moth and other invasive species 2005.  USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station. (pp. 16-17)

Eaton, C.B. and R.L. Lyon.  1955.  Arhopalus productus (Lec.), a borer in new buildings.  United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service California Forest and Range Experiment Station Technical Paper.  11: 1-11.

Eyre, D. and R.A. Haack.  2017.  Invasive cerambycid pests and biosecurity measures.  In (Q. Wang, ed.) Cerambycidae of the World: Biology and Pest Management.  CRC Press.  (pp. 563-618).

García, R.  2005.  Distribución de la familia Cerambycidae (Coleoptera) en la isla de La Palma.  Revista de Estudios Generales de la Isla de La Palma.  1: 141-170.

Hosking, G.P. and J. Bain.  1977.  Arhopalus ferus (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae); its biology in New Zealand.  New Zealand Journal of Forestry Science.  7(1): 3-15.

Lowell, E.C., Rapp, V.A., Haynes, R.W., and C. Cray.  2010.  Effects of fire, insect, and pathogen damage on wood quality of dead and dying western conifers.  United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.  General Technical Report PNW-GTR-816.  73 pp.

Pawson, S., Watson, M., and A. Brin.  2010.  Relative attraction of Arhopalus ferus to white and yellow site lighting at Port Tauranga.  Scion.

Rabaglia, R., Duerr, D., Acciavatti, R., and I. Ragenovich.  2008.  Early detection and rapid response for non-native bark and ambrosia beetles.  United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Health Protection.

Symbiota Collections of Arthropods Network.  Accessed February 26, 2017. http://scan1.acis.ufl.edu

Vives, E.  2007.  Nuevo catálogo de los Cerambycidae (Coleoptera) de la Península Ibérica, islas Baleares e islas atlánticas: Canarias, Açores y Madeira.  Sociedad Entomológica Aragonesa.  Zaragoza.  211 pp.

Wang, Q. and R.A.B. Leschen.  2003.  Identification and distribution of Arhopalus species (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae: Aseminae) in Australia and New Zealand.  New Zealand Entomologist.  26: 53-59.

Wollaston, T.V.  1863.  On the Canarian longicorns.  Journal of Entomology.  2(8): 99-110.


Author:

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

Responsible Party:

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


Comment Period:* CLOSED

4/25/18 – 6/9/18


*NOTE:

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


Comment Format:

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

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

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

♦  Comments may not be posted if they:

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

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

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

Violates agency regulations prohibiting workplace violence, including threats.

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

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


Pest Rating: A

 


Posted by ls 

Jewel Beetle | Actenodes auronotatus (Gory & Laporte)

California Pest Rating for
Jewel Beetle | Actenodes auronotatus (Gory & Laporte)
Coleoptera: Buprestidae
Pest Rating: A

 


PEST RATING PROFILE

Initiating Event:

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

History & Status:

Background:  Adult Actenodes auronotatus are approximately 1.5 cm in length.  The upper surface is brown and slightly bronzy with metallic golden-green spots (Fisher, 1942).  The larvae of this beetle, like most buprestids, live in and feed on wood.  This beetle has been found inside (presumably having developed in) the wood of Avicennia germinans (Verbenaceae), Cajanus cajan (Fabaceae), and Taxodium distichum (Cupressaceae) (Fisher, 1942; Hanula,1993; MacRae and Basham, 2013).  When information on the condition of the wood was given, it was reported to be dead.  Actenodes auronotatus has also been associated with (but not necessarily feeding on) Casuarina equisetifolia (Casuarinaceae) (Capelouto, 1949).  Other Actenodes species are associated with Acacia (Fabaceae), Acer (Aceraceae), Carya (Juglandaceae), Gleditsia (Fabaceae), Prosopis (Fabaceae), Quercus (Fagaceae), Ulmus (Ulmaceae), and Zelkova (Ulmaceae) species (Camacho-Pantoja, 2009; Hansen et al., 2012; MacRae and Bellamy, 2013; Nelson and MacRae, 1990; Westcott, 1990; Westcott et al., 1989).  Some of these records were of beetles reared from, or collected from the inside of branches of live trees, but in these cases, it was not reported if the branches themselves were alive or dead.

Worldwide Distribution:  This species is reported from Cuba, Haiti, eastern Mexico, and the southeastern United States (Florida, Georgia, and Louisiana) (Cancino and Blanco, 2002; Carlton et al., 2014; Fisher, 1942; García et al., 2010; Hespenheide and Bellamy, 2004; Peck, 2005).  Blackwelder (1944) reported A. auronotatus from Chile, but more recent reports of this species in that country were not found.

Official Control: Actenodes auronotatus is not known to be under official control anywhere.

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

California Interceptions:  Actenodes auronotatus was intercepted in a trailer from Florida in May 2006 (California Department of Food and Agriculture).

The risk Actenodes auronotatus would pose to California is evaluated below.

Consequences of Introduction:

1) Climate/Host Interaction: Actenodes auronotatus is apparently restricted to areas with tropical or subtropical climates, and it seems likely that if it can establish in California, it would be restricted to a limited area. Therefore, it 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: This beetle has been found inside and presumably developed in the wood of at least three botanical families. Therefore, 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: Actenodes auronotatus presumably flies and can be moved in infested wood, including firewood.  Therefore, it receives a Medium (2) in this category.

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

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

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

4) Economic Impact: Actenodes auronotatus has not been reported to feed on living trees, and no reports were found of any species in this genus being a pest.  However, some species of Buprestidae that are known to primarily feed on injured or dead trees can attack apparently healthy (though possibly stressed, from drought, for example) trees (Fettig, 2016; Furniss and Carolin, 1977).  There is little information available on the biology of auronotatus or the genus Actenodes.  If A. auronotatus can attack living trees, it could lower yield of timber.   Even if A. auronotatus cannot attack living trees, it could damage cut timber, lowering its value.  Therefore, it receives a Medium (2) in this category.

Economic Impact:  A, B

A. The pest could lower crop yield.

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

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

D. The pest could negatively change normal cultural practices.

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

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

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

Economic Impact Score: 2

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

– Medium (2) causes 2 of these impacts.

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

4) Environmental Impact: If Actenodes auronotatus can attack living trees, it could impact forest ecosystems in California. Therefore, it receives a Medium (2) in this category.

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

Environmental Impact:  A

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

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

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

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

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

Environmental Impact Score: 2

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

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

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

Consequences of Introduction to California for Actenodes auronotatus: 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: Actenodes auronotatus is not known to be present in California.  It receives a Not established (0) in this category.

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

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

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

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

Final Score:

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

Uncertainty:

The limited biological information available on A. auronotatus means that there is significant uncertainty in this proposal.  The most significant uncertainty is that regarding the potential for A. auronotatus to attack living trees.  Some buprestids that normally live in dying or dead trees attack living trees in dry conditions (e.g., during droughts).  Climate change may result in greater drought stress in California, which could make trees more susceptible to beetles like this one.  There is also uncertainty regarding the size range of wood that A. auronotatus utilizes.  It may only use branches, in which case the economic impact on already-cut wood would likely be minimal.  This proposal has taken a cautious approach.  It is possible that this  beetle feeds only on dead branches, in which case it would likely not pose an economic threat to California (because living trees and cut timber of larger dimensions would not be attacked).  In this case, it could still pose an environmental threat, because it would likely compete with native beetles that live inside dead wood.

Conclusion and Rating Justification:

Actenodes auronotatus is a member of a beetle family that includes important forest pests.  Although this species is not known to attack living trees, little is known about the biology of this species to exclude that possibility.  There is evidence that other buprestids that normally live in dead or dying trees can sometimes attack live trees.  If A. auronotatus can attack living trees or cut timber, it could have economic and environmental impacts in California, where it is not yet known to be present.  For these reasons, an “A” rating is justified.


References:

Blackwelder, R.E.  1944.  Checklist of the coleopterous insects of Mexico, Central America, the West Indies, and South America.  Bulletin of the United States National Museum. 185(2): 189–341.

California Department of Food and Agriculture.  Pest and damage record database.  Accessed February 14, 2018. https://pdr.cdfa.ca.gov/PDR/pdrmainmenu.aspx

Camacho-Pantoja, A.  2009.  Árboles de importancia forestal hospedantes de Buprestidae (Coleoptera) en México.  In (A.E. Martínez, E.E. Venegas, J.A.A. Soto, and M.P.C. Grijalva, eds.): Memoria del XV Simposio Nacional de Parasitología Forestal (pp. 36-39).

Capelouto, R.  1949.  Notes on the Florida Buprestidae (Coleoptera).  The Florida Entomologist.  32(3): 109-114.

Carlton, C.E., Johnson, W., Allison, J.D., MacRae, T.C., Tishechkin, A., Virgets, W., Ferro, M.L., and J.-S. Park.  2014.  Buprestidae of Louisiana: From traditional faunistics to early detection of the Emerald Ash Borer (poster).

E.R. Cancino and J.M.C. Blanco.  2002.  Artrópodos terrestres de los estados de Tamaulipas y Nuevo León, México.  Universidad Autónoma de Tamaulipas.  377 pp.

Fettig, C.J.  2016.  Chapter 18: Native bark beetles and wood borers in Mediterranean forests of California.  In (T.D. Paine and F. Lieutier, eds.) Insects and Diseases of Mediterranean Forests (pp. 499-528).  Springer.  892 pp.

Fisher, W.S.  1942.  A revision of the North American species of buprestid beetles belonging to the tribe Chrysobothrini.  United States Department of Agriculture Miscellaneous Publication.  470: 1-275.

Furniss, R.L. and V.M. Carolin.  1977.  Western forest insects. USDA Forest Service Miscellaneous Publication, Washington, DC.

García, I.F., Reyes Sánchez, E.E., and A.D. Álvarez.  2010.  Colección entomológica “Juan C. Gundlach”: Serie Elateriformia (Coleoptera).  Poeyana.  499: 5-12.

Hansen, J.A., Basham, J.P., Oliver, J.B., Youseef, N.N., Klingeman, W.E., Moulton, J.K., and D.C. Fare.  2012.  New state and host plant records for metallic woodboring beetles (Coleoptera: Buprestidae) in Tennessee, U.S.A.  The Coleopterists Bulletin.  66(4): 337-343.

Hanula, J.L.  1993.  Relationship of wood-feeding insects and coarse woody debris.  In (J.W. McMinn and D.A. Crossley, Jr., eds.) Biodiversity and Coarse Woody Debris in Southern Forests (pp. 55-81).  United States Department of Agriculture.  146 pp.

Hespenheide, H.A. and C.L. Bellamy.  2004.  The first Antillean Pachyschelus, and a new Leiopleura, from Hispaniola (Coleoptera: Buprestidae).  Folia Heyrovskana.  12(2-3): 105-112.

MacRae, T.C. and J.P. Basham.  2013.  Distributional, biological, and nomenclatural notes on Buprestidae (Coleoptera) occurring in the U.S. and Canada.  Pan-Pacific Entomologist.  89(3): 125-142.

MacRae, T.C. and C.L. Bellamy.  2013.  Two new species of Actenodes Dejean (Coleoptera: Buprestidae) from southern Mexico, with distributional and biological notes on Buprestidae from Mexico and Central America.  Pan-Pacific Entomologist.  89(2): 102-119.

Nelson, G.H. and T.C. MacRae.  1990.  Additional notes on the biology and distribution of Buprestidae (Coleoptera) in North America.  The Coleopterists Bulletin.  44(3): 349-354.

Peck, S.B.  2005.  A checklist of the beetles of Cuba with data on distributions and bionomics.  Arthropods of Florida and Neighboring Land Areas.  Volume 18.  Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services.  241pp.

Symbiota Collections of Arthropods Network.  Accessed February 9, 2018. http://scan1.acis.ufl.edu

Westcott, R.L.  1990.  Distributional, biological and taxonomic notes on North American Buprestidae (Coleoptera).  Insecta Mundi.  4(1-4): 73-80.

Westcott, R.L., Atkinson, T.H., Hespenheide, H.A., and G.H. Nelson.  1989.  New country and state records, and other notes for Mexican Buprestidae (Coleoptera).  Insecta Mundi.  3(3): 217-232.


Author:

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

Responsible Party:

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


Comment Period:* CLOSED

4/25/18 – 6/9/18


*NOTE:

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


Comment Format:

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

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

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

♦  Comments may not be posted if they:

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

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

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

Violates agency regulations prohibiting workplace violence, including threats.

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

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


Pest Rating: A

 


Posted by ls 

Granulate Ambrosia Beetle | Xylosandrus crassiusculus Motschulsky

California Pest Rating for
Granulate Ambrosia Beetle  |  Xylosandrus crassiusculus Motschulsky
Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae
Pest Rating: A

 


PEST RATING PROFILE

Initiating Event:

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

History & Status:

Background:  Xylosandrus crassiusculus is a moderate-sized (adult females are 2-2.9 mm in length) ambrosia beetle that feeds on over 200 species of plants in 41 families, including alder, azalea, beech, cottonwood, elm, hickory, oaks, pines, maples, and carob (Sargent et al., 2008).  It attacks both stressed and apparently healthy trees, including seedlings, and is considered a pest of ornamental trees in the United States.  The beetle also utilizes freshly-cut wood (Sargent et al., 2008).  Like other ambrosia beetles, the adults and larvae feed on a symbiotic fungus rather than the wood itself.  Adult females mate with males before leaving their gallery, and they can also reproduce via arrhenotokous parthenogenesis (An unmated female lays unfertilized eggs that develop into males. The female mates with her male progeny and then deposits fertilized eggs, which develop into females) (Wood, 1982).

Worldwide Distribution:  Xylosandrus crassiusculus is thought to be native to Southeast Asia.  The species has been introduced to Europe, sub-Saharan Africa, Central America, South America, Hawaii, and the eastern United States (Flechtmann and Atkinson, 2016; United Kingdom Department for Environment Food & Rural Affairs, 2015).  Specimens were collected in 1999, 2000, and (in larger numbers) 2004 at a location in Oregon.  The source was apparently wood from the southeastern United States imported for use in railroad ties.  This led to an eradication effort that was reported to be successful in 2010.  In 2015 and 2016, however, more X. crassiusculus were found in the same area, which led to another eradication effort.  This beetle appears to have been successfully eradicated from the area by the end of 2016 (LaBonte, 2010; LaBonte, 2016; LaBonte et al., 2005).

Official Control:  Xylosandrus crassiusculus does not appear to be under official control anywhere, although it is on the EPPO Alert List, and it was the subject of eradication efforts in Oregon.

California Distribution:  Xylosandrus crassiusculus is not known to occur in California (Bright and Stark, 1973; Symbiota Collections of Arthropods Network).

California Interceptions:  Xylosandrus crassiusculus has been intercepted on plant material (including cut flowers and foliage) from Florida and Hawaii (PDR # 023370, 1396560, 1256568, 1251403, 1252446, 053195, and 150P06086553).  One interception was made from incense cedar boards that possibly originated in Louisiana (PDR # 1312482).

The risk Xylosandrus crassiusculus would pose to California is evaluated below.

Consequences of Introduction:

1) Climate/Host Interaction: Xylosandrus crassiusculus has become established in many areas of the world representing a wide variety of climates. The species may be limited to forests, as it feeds on wood and because the symbiotic fungus probably requires a certain range of humidity.  The range expansion in the eastern United States has been limited to approximately the distribution of the eastern deciduous forests, but the species apparently became established at a location in Oregon before it was eradicated there, which suggests that more humid areas on the west coast would be suitable for this species (Flechtmann and Atkinson, 2016).  The beetle feeds on many species of trees, including pines and oaks.  All of this suggests that it could become established over a wide portion of California.  Therefore, it receives a High (3) in this category.

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

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

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

2) Known Pest Host Range: Xylosandrus crassiusculus is known to feed on over 200 species of plants in 41 families. A wide host range is not unusual for an ambrosia beetle, probably because the fungal symbiosis releases the beetle from some of the constraints of a more typical bark beetle lifestyle (i.e., phloem feeding).  Therefore, it receives a High (3) in this category.

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

– Medium (2) has a moderate host range.

– High (3) has a wide host range.

3) Pest Dispersal Potential: Adult female Xylosandrus crassiusculus Sibling mating and arrhenotokous parthenogenesis mean a single female can found a population.  This species is evidently capable of being moved with wood shipments.  Therefore, it receives a High (3) in this category.

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

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

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

4) Economic Impact: Xylosandrus crassiusculus is a pest of ornamental and fruit trees in the United States.  The species causes wilting and death, especially in young trees.  In addition, as an ambrosia beetle, crassiusculus inoculates its galleries with a fungus that serves as food for adults and larvae.  This fungus may not be pathogenic, but other fungi are also carried by the beetles, including known plant pathogens.  In addition, beetle damage can allow other, opportunistic (and sometimes pathogenic) fungi to infect the tree.  This beetle also uses cut logs for development, and is known to damage them and lower their value.  Therefore, it receives a High (3) in this category.

Economic Impact: A, B, E

A. The pest could lower crop yield.

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

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

D. The pest could negatively change normal cultural practices.

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

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

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

Economic Impact Score: 3

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

– Medium (2) causes 2 of these impacts.

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

Environmental Impact: Xylosandrus crassiusculus has not been reported to have a significant impact on the environment anywhere it has been introduced. However, in tests, crassiusculus was attracted to California bay laurel (Umbellularia californica) and was apparently able to develop on this tree (Mayfield et al., 2013).  Therefore, it is possible that Xyleborus crassiusculus could pose a threat to California forests.  In addition, this beetle is known to cause damage to ornamental trees.  Therefore, it receives a High (3) in this category.

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

Environmental Impact: A, E

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

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

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

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

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

Environmental Impact Score: 3

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

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

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

Consequences of Introduction to California for Xylosandrus crassiusculus: High (15)

Add up the total score and include it here.

–Low = 5-8 points

–Medium = 9-12 points

–High = 13-15 points

6) Post Entry Distribution and Survey Information: Xylosandrus crassiusculus is not known to occur in California (Symbiota Collections of Arthropods Network).  It receives a Not established (0) in this category.

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

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

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

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

Final Score:

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

Uncertainty:

Lack of evidence for environmental impact may only reflect environmental impact receiving less attention and research than economic impact, so it is possible that this species has an impact on the environment in areas to which it has been introduced.

Conclusion and Rating Justification:

Xylosandrus crassiusculus is a highly polyphagous pest that has demonstrated an ability to become established over a wide area and has become a pest of ornamental trees.  The species is not known to be present in California, and its potential introduction to this state poses a risk of economic and environmental damage.  For these reasons, an “A” rating is justified.


References:

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

European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization.  2015.  EPPO Alert List.  Accessed February 14, 2018. http://www.eppo.int/DATABASES/pqr/pqr.htm

Flechtmann, C.A.H. and T.H. Atkinson.  2016.  First records of Xylosandrus crassiusculus (Motschulsky) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae) from South America, with notes on its distribution and spread in the New World.  The Coleopterists Bulletin.  70(1): 79-83.

LaBonte, J.R.  2010.  Eradication of an ambrosia beetle, Xylosandrus crassiusculus (Motschulsky), in Oregon.  In (K. McManus and K.W. Gottschalk, eds.) 2010 Research Forum on Invasive Species (pp. 41-43).

LaBonte, J.R.  2016.  Exotic wood boring insects program.  Oregon Department of Agriculture, Plant Protection & Conservation Programs, Annual Report.  2016: 24-25.

LaBonte, J.R., Mudge, A.D., and K.J.R. Johnson.  2005.  Nonindigenous woodboring Coleoptera (Cerambycidae, Curculionidae: Scolytinae) new to Oregon and Washington, 1999-2002: Consequences of the intracontinental movement of raw wood products and solid wood packing materials.  Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington.  107(3): 554-564.

Mayfield, A.E., MacKenzie, M., Cannon, P.G., Oak, S.W., Horn, S., Hwang, J., and P.E. Kendra.  2013.  Suitability of California bay laurel and other species as hosts for the non-native redbay ambrosia beetle and granulate ambrosia beetle.  Agricultural and Forest Entomology.  15: 227-235.

Sargent, C., Raupp, M., Sardanelli, S., Shrewsbury, P., Clement, D., and M.K. Malinoski.  2008.  Granulate ambrosia beetle; Xylosandrus crassiusculus Motschulsky (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae).  University of Maryland Entomology Bulletin.

Symbiota Collections of Arthropods Network.  Accessed February 14, 2018. http://scan1.acis.ufl.edu

United Kingdom Department for Environment Food & Rural Affairs.  2015.  Rapid pest risk analysis (PRA) for Xylosandrus crassiusculus. https://secure.fera.defra.gov.uk/phiw/riskRegister/downloadExternalPra.cfm?id=3939

Wood, S.L.  1982.  The bark and ambrosia beetles of North and Central America (Coleoptera: Scolytidae), a taxonomic monograph.  Brigham Young University.  1359 pp.


Author:

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

Responsible Party:

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


Comment Period:* CLOSED

4/24/18 – 6/8/18


*NOTE:

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


Comment Format:

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

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

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

♦  Comments may not be posted if they:

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

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

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

Violates agency regulations prohibiting workplace violence, including threats.

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

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


Pest Rating: A

 


Posted by ls

Xyleborus pfeilii (Ratzeburg)

California Pest Rating for
Xyleborus pfeilii (Ratzeburg)
Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae
Pest Rating: A

 


PEST RATING PROFILE

Initiating Event:

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

History & Status:

Background:  Xyleborus pfeilii is a moderate-sized ambrosia beetle.  Females are 3-3.6 mm in length; males are smaller, but rare (Vandenberg et al., 2010).  Reported host trees include alder, beech, elm, maple, oak, pawpaw (Asimina triloba), poplar, and some conifers (Vandenberg et al., 2010; Wood & Bright, 1992).  A broad range of hosts is characteristic of ambrosia beetles, in contrast to more “typical” phloeophagous (phloem-feeding) scolytines.  As in other ambrosia beetles, the larvae feed on fungus in galleries excavated by adult beetles.  Females mate with males prior to dispersing (Kirkendall & Faccoli, 2010).  Little information is available on the biology of this species, but there is nothing in the literature suggesting that it has a significant economic or environmental impact, even though it is widespread in Europe, where it was apparently introduced almost 200 years ago (Kirkendall & Faccoli, 2010).

Worldwide Distribution:  Xyleborus pfeilii has a wide distribution, and is reported from Africa, Asia, Europe, North America, and New Zealand (Wood & Bright, 1992).  Historically, this species was considered to be native to Europe, Asia, and northern Africa.  Recent work suggests that it is native to Asia but was introduced to Europe at an early date (before 1837) (Kirkendall & Faccoli, 2010).  The species has also been introduced to Canada and the United States, where it is now known to occur in Georgia, Maryland, New Jersey, and Oregon (Humble, 2001; Mudge et al., 2001; Vandenberg et al., 2000)).

Official Control:  Xyleborus pfeilii is apparently not under official control by any government.

California Distribution:  Although Xyleborus pfeilii was trapped multiple times in California, there is no information available to suggest that it is still present in the state.

California Interceptions:  Xyleborus pfeilii has been trapped in Sacramento in 2005 (PDR # 1294653) and Placer County in 2003 (1368629 and 1368628).

The risk Xyleborus pfeilii would pose to California is evaluated below.

Consequences of Introduction:

1) Climate/Host Interaction: Xyleborus pfeilii occurs in areas with temperate and Mediterranean climates (Kirkendall & Faccoli, 2010). The beetle is probably capable of becoming established in much of California.  This species has been reported to feed on many tree genera; members of these genera are distributed across California.  Therefore, it receives a High (3) in this category.

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

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

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

2) Known Pest Host Range: The reported hosts of Xyleborus pfeilii include multiple genera of broadleaf as well as coniferous trees. A broad host range is typical of ambrosia beetles.  Therefore, it receives a High (3) in this category.

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

– Medium (2) has a moderate host range.

– High (3) has a wide host range.

3) Pest Dispersal Potential: There is evidence suggesting that ambrosia beetles that have brother-sister mating, which is the case with pfeilii, have an enhanced ability to disperse and colonize new areas. A single female can found a new population, and she does not have to be fertilized.  She can produce sons from unfertilized eggs and mate with them.  Movement of infested firewood would achieve rapid, long-distance dispersal.  In addition, X. pfeilii flies (specimens have been caught with funnel traps) (Humble, 2001; Mudge et al., 2001).  Therefore, it receives a High (3) in this category.

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

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

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

4) Economic Impact: Xyleborus pfeilii does not appear to have any recognized economic impact, even though it was introduced to much of Europe and has been present there for almost 200 years.  There is some doubt that economically-important trees in California would be significantly impacted, considering that most such trees are probably members of genera well-represented in Europe, and this beetle is apparently not a significant pest there.  There is the chance that it could vector a plant-pathogenic fungus to economically-important trees.  Therefore, it receives a Low (1) in this category.

Economic Impact:  E

A. The pest could lower crop yield.

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

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

D. The pest could negatively change normal cultural practices.

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

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

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

Economic Impact Score: 1

– 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: Xyleborus pfeilii is not known to have had an environmental impact in Europe. There is a chance, however, that this species could have a different impact in the environment of California, where there are tree species not found in Europe.  Ambrosia beetles are less constrained in their host plant choices, and this makes it more difficult to predict what trees might be attacked in a new environment.  Therefore, it receives a High (3) in this category.

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

Environmental Impact: A, B

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

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

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

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

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

Environmental Impact Score: 3

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

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

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

Consequences of Introduction to California for Xyleborus pfeilii: High (13)

Add up the total score and include it here.

–Low = 5-8 points

–Medium = 9-12 points

–High = 13-15 points

6) Post Entry Distribution and Survey Information: Although there are a few trapping records of this beetle from more than ten years ago, there is no further evidence of its occurrence in the state of California.  It receives a Not established (0) in this category.

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

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

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

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

Final Score:

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

Uncertainty:

There is uncertainty regarding two components of this pest rating proposal.  First, there is uncertainty regarding the possible presence of this species in the state.  This beetle was trapped multiple times in two counties.  There do not appear to have been any collections of this species in California since the last of these trappings in 2005, and it is presumed that it is not established in the state.  Second, there is uncertainty regarding the possible impact of this species in California.  Lack of impact in Europe does not mean this species could not have economic and/or environmental impacts in California.  Part of this uncertainty is the possibility of X. pfeilii interacting with plant-pathogenic fungal species that are already present in California.

Conclusion and Rating Justification:

There is no evidence that Xyleborus pfeilii causes economic or environmental damage anywhere it is known to have been introduced.  This includes the large area it has invaded in Europe over the past two centuries.  However, it seems that a cautious approach is best with possible forest pests.  The behavior of this beetle may be very different in the environments of California.  At least one introduced species in the genus Xyleborus, X. glabratus, has become a serious pest species in the southeastern United States; it is having a significant impact on the environment and it threatens the avocado industry (Hughes et al., 2016).  The fungus symbiosis in this genus raises special concerns; X. pfeilii could bring with it new (to California) pathogenic fungi, or it could interact in a new way with fungi already here.  For these reasons, an “A” rating is justified.


References:

Kirkendall, L.R. & Faccoli, M.  2010.  Bark beetles and pinhole borers (Curculionidae, Scolytinae, Platypodinae) alien to Europe.  Zoo Keys.  56: 227-251.

Hughes, M.A., Smith, J.A., & Coyle, D.R.  2016.  Biology, ecology, and management of laurel wilt and the redbay ambrosia beetle.  Southern Regional Extension Forestry Forest Health.  November 2016: 1-6.

Humble, L.M.  2001.  Invasive bark and wood-boring beetles in British Columbia, Canada.  Pages 69-77 in R.I. Alfaro, K.R. Day, S.M. Salom, K.S.S Nair, H.F. Evans, A.M. Liebhold, F. Lieutier, M. Wagner, K. Futai, & K. Suzuki, editors. Protection of World Forests: Advances in Research, Proceedings: XXI IUFRO World Congress. August 7-12, 2001, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. IUFRO Secretariat, Vienna, IUFRO World Series Vol. 11. 253 p.

Mercado, J.E. 2010. Bark beetle genera of the United States. Colorado State University, USDA-APHIS-PPQ Center for Plant Health Science and Technology, and USDA-FS Rocky Mountain Research Station. http://idtools.org/id/wbb/bbgus

Mudge, A.D., LaBonte, J.R., Johnson, K.J.R., & LaGasa, E.H.  2001.  Exotic woodboring Coleoptera (Micromalthidae, Scolytidae) and Hymenoptera (Xiphyriidae) new to Oregon and Washington.  103(4): 1011-1019.

Vandenberg, N.J., Rabaglia, R.J., & Bright, D.E.  2000.  New records of two Xyleborus (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) in North America.  Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington.  102(1): 62-68.

Vega, F.E. & Hofstetter, R.W.  2014.  Bark beetles: Biology and ecology of native and invasive species.  Academic Press.  640 pp.


Author:

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

Responsible Party:

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


Comment Period:* CLOSED

4/24/18 – 6/8/18


*NOTE:

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


Comment Format:

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

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

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

♦  Comments may not be posted if they:

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

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

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

Violates agency regulations prohibiting workplace violence, including threats.

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

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


Pest Rating: A

 


Posted by ls 

Black Twig Borer | Xylosandrus compactus (Eichhoff)

California Pest Rating for
Black Twig Borer | Xylosandrus compactus (Eichhoff)
Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae
Pest Rating: A

 


PEST RATING PROFILE
Initiating Event:

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

History & Status:

Background: Xylosandrus compactus is a small (adult females are 1.4-1.7 mm long; males are flightless and smaller, 1-1.1 mm long) ambrosia beetle (Wood, 1982).  As in other ambrosia beetles, adults and larvae feed on fungus that grows in galleries excavated by the adult beetle.  Living twigs (less than 2 cm in diameter) of healthy trees and shrubs are attacked (Wood, 1982).  Affected branches wilt and die; the symbiotic fungus may be the cause of much of this damage. Apparently, this damage does not usually result in the death of an adult tree, but death has been reported in seedlings and young trees.  For example, seedlings of mahogany (Swietenia macrophylla) in Peru and soursop (Annona muricata) in Brazil were killed (Delgado and Couturier, 2010; Oliveira et al., 2008).  Non-lethal damage by this beetle still causes economic losses, for instance, in coffee (Bittenbender and Smith, 1999; Burbano et al., 2012).  Xylosandrus compactus is reported to attack hundreds of species (in 62 families) of shrubs and trees.  Hosts include crop and ornamental trees, for example, avocado, sycamore, magnolia, dogwood, coffee, and eucalyptus (Chong et al., 2009; Greco and Wright, 2015).  In Hawaii, a variety of native trees are attacked by this species, including seedlings of Acacia koa (Burbano et al., 2012).  Native trees in Italy were attacked over an area of 13 hectares, and some trees were killed.  Tree species affected include Quercus ilex and Viburnum tinus (Vannini et al., 2017).  Adult female X. compactus mate with males before leaving their developmental gallery, and they can also reproduce via arrhenotokous parthenogenesis (an unmated female lays unfertilized eggs that develop into males; the female mates with her male progeny and then deposits fertilized eggs, which develop into females).

Worldwide Distribution:  Xylosandrus compactus is reported from tropical Africa, Europe, southeast Asia, New Zealand, tropical Pacific islands (including Micronesia), the Caribbean, South America (including Brazil, Guyana, and Peru), and the United States (Hawaii and the southeastern United States) (Wood, 2007).  The species is native to Asia, and was presumably introduced to the other portions of its current distribution, including the United States (Burbano et al., 2012).

Official Control:  Xylosandrus compactus is listed as a quarantine pest by Brazil, Israel, and the European Union (EPPO, 2017).

California Distribution:  Xylosandrus compactus is not known to occur in California (Bright and Stark, 1973; Symbiota Collections of Arthropods Network).

California Interceptions:  Xylosandrus compactus has been intercepted at least six times in California on shipments of plants from Hawaii (PDR # 008573, 1238977, 1239464, 1335578, 1225854, and 053234).

The risk Xylosandrus compactus would pose to California is evaluated below.

Consequences of Introduction:

1) Climate/Host Interaction: Xylosandrus compactus has become established in many parts of the world, from Mediterranean Europe to tropical South America. This suggests that it has a wide climatic tolerance.  The beetle feeds on hundreds of species of plants in 62 families.  These facts suggest that compactus could become established over a wide portion of California.  Therefore, it receives a High (3) in this category.

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

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

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

2) Known Pest Host Range: Xylosandrus compactus is known to feed on hundreds of species of plants in 62 families. Therefore, it receives a High (3) in this category.

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

– Medium (2) has a moderate host range.

– High (3) has a wide host range.

3) Pest Dispersal Potential: Female Xylosandrus compactus Sibling mating and parthenogenesis means that a single adult female emerging from its gallery can establish a new population.  Therefore, it receives a High (3) in this category.

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

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

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

4) Economic Impact: Xylosandrus compactus is considered an economically-significant pest.  The species attacks hundreds of species of plants and poses a threat to economically-important trees, including avocado and coffee, both of which are currently grown in California.  Damage to these trees could lower crop yield and increase production costs.  The beetle can kill tree seedlings, so poses a problem for tree nurseries and the establishment of trees in forests.  In addition, like all ambrosia beetles, compactus carries fungi that may be pathogenic. If established in California, this beetle could develop an association with other species of pathogenic fungi already present in the state.  Therefore, it receives a High (3) in this category.

Economic Impact:  A, B, E

A. The pest could lower crop yield.

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

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

D. The pest could negatively change normal cultural practices.

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

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

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

Economic Impact Score: 3

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

– Medium (2) causes 2 of these impacts.

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

5) Environmental Impact: Xylosandrus compactus attacks a diversity of plants and would be expected to damage numerous species of plants in California if it became established here. The fact that it is known to attack such a wide variety of plants means it is likely that some endangered plants could also be at risk.  This risk is demonstrated by the fact that this beetle attacked native trees in Italy, including species of Quercus and Viburnum, genera which include native California species.  This beetle attacks ornamental trees, causing dieback of branches (Hayato, 2007).  Therefore, it receives a High (3) in this category.

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

Environmental Impact:  A, B, E

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

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

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

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

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

Environmental Impact Score: 3

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

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

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

Consequences of Introduction to California for Xylosandrus compactus: High (15)

Add up the total score and include it here.

–Low = 5-8 points

–Medium = 9-12 points

–High = 13-15 points

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

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

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

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

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

Final Score:

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

Uncertainty:

There is little uncertainty regarding the potential for Xylosandrus compactus to become established in California.  There also seems to be little uncertainty regarding the potential of this species to become a pest in this state, because it has done so in other areas to which it was introduced and it attacks such a wide variety of plants.

Conclusion and Rating Justification:

Xylosandrus compactus is a highly polyphagous pest that has demonstrated an ability to become established in many areas worldwide and impact crop, ornamental, and native plants.  The species is not known to be present in California, and its potential introduction to this state poses a risk of economic and environmental damage.  For these reasons, an “A” rating is justified.


References:

Bittenbender, H. C. and V. E. Smith. 1999. Growing coffee in Hawaii. College of tropical agriculture and human resources. University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu, HI.  40 pp.

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

Burbano, E.G., Wright, M.G., Gillette, N.E., Mori, S., Dudley, N., Jones, T., and M. Kaufmann.  2012.  Efficacy of traps, lures, and repellents for Xylosandrus compactus (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) and other ambrosia beetles on Coffea arabica plantations and Acacia koa nurseries in Hawaii.  Environmental Entomology.  41(1): 133-140.

Chong, J.-H., Reid, L., and M. Williamson.  2009.  Distribution, host plants, and damage of the black twig borer, Xylosandrus compactus (Eichhoff), in South Carolina.  Journal of Agricultural and Urban Entomology.  26(4): 199-208.

Delgado, C. and G. Couturier.  2010.  Xylosandrus compactus (Coleoptera: Curculionidae” Scolytinae), a new pest of Swietenia macrophylla in the Peruvian Amazon.  Boletin de la Sociedad Entomolόgica Aragonesa.  47: 441-443.

EPPO.  2017.  EPPO Global Database.  Accessed October 12, 2017. https://gd.eppo.int

Greco, E.B. and M.G. Wright.  2015.  Ecology, biology, and management of Xylosandrus compactus (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae) with emphasis on coffee in Hawaii.  Journal of Integrated Pest Management.  6(1): 1-8.

Hayato, M.  2007.  Note on the dieback of Cornus florida caused by Xylosandrus compactus.  Bulletin of the Department of Forest Microbiology, Forestry and Forest Products Research Institute.  6(1): 59-63.

Oliveira, C.M., Flechtmann, C.A.H., and M.R. Frizzas.  2008.  First record of Xylosandrus compactus (Eichhoff) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae) on soursop, Annona muricata L. (Annonaceae) in Brazil, with a list of host plants.  The Coleopterists Bulletin.  62(1): 45-48.

Symbiota Collections of Arthropods Network.  Accessed February 15, 2018. http://scan1.acis.ufl.edu

Vannini, A., Contarini, M., Faccoli, M., Della Valle, M., Rodriguez, C.M., Mazzetto, T., Guarneri, D., Vettraino, A.M., and S. Speranza.  2017.  First report of the ambrosia beetle Xylosandrus compactus and associated fungi in the Mediterranean maquis in Italy, and new host–pest

Associations.  EPPO Bulletin.  0(0): 1-4.

Wood, S.L.  1982.  The bark and ambrosia beetles of North and Central America (Coleoptera: Scolytidae), a taxonomic monograph.  Brigham Young University.  1359 pp.

Wood, S.L.  2007.  Bark and ambrosia beetles of South America.  Brigham Young University.  900 pp.


Author:

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

Responsible Party:

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


Comment Period:* CLOSED

4/24/18 – 6/8/18


*NOTE:

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


Comment Format:

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

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

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

♦  Comments may not be posted if they:

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

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

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

Violates agency regulations prohibiting workplace violence, including threats.

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

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


Pest Rating: A


Posted by ls 

Black Timber Bark Beetle | Xylosandrus germanus (Blandford)

California Pest Rating for
Black Timber Bark Beetle | Xylosandrus germanus (Blandford)
Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae
Pest Rating: A

 


 

PEST RATING PROFILE

Initiating Event:

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

History & Status:

Background: Xylosandrus germanus is a moderate-sized (2-2.3 mm in length), dark brown ambrosia beetle (Wood, 1982).  The beetle is reported to feed on over 200 species of broadleaved and coniferous trees, including species in the following genera: Acer, Carya, Cornus, Fagus, Fraxinus, Juglans, Malus, Myrica, Liriodendron, Pinus, Prunus, Pyrus, Quercus, and Ulmus. It feeds on live trees and cut wood (Wood, 1982).  This beetle has been reported to attack a variety of economically-important trees, including chestnut in Tennessee (Oliver and Mannion, 2001), flood-stressed flowering dogwood in Ohio (Ranger et al., 2015), walnut (Katovitch, 2014; Reed et al., 2015), and apple in New York (Agnello et al., 2016).  It has been suggested that this beetle may primarily attack trees that are stressed, even if this stress is not visually apparent (Ranger et al., 2015).  If this is the case, one possible explanation is that healthy trees resist the establishment of ambrosia fungus.  Besides the symbiotic ambrosia fungus, other fungi have been found in the galleries of X. germanus, including Fusarium species, which can be pathogenic (Ranger et al., 2016).  Thus, it is possible that X. germanus is involved with the spread of plant pathogenic fungi.   This beetle has also been reported to damage cut spruce and fir timber in Switzerland (Graf and Manser, 2000).  Adult females X. germanus mate with males before leaving their gallery, and they can also reproduce via arrhenotokous parthenogenesis: an unmated female lays unfertilized eggs that develop into males. The female mates with her male progeny and then deposits fertilized eggs, which develop into females (Wood, 1982).

Worldwide Distribution:  Xylosandrus germanus is native to Asia (Japan, Taiwan, Korea, China, and Vietnam).  It has been introduced to Europe, Canada (British Columbia), and the United States (Oregon, though possibly eradicated in that state, Hawaii, and the eastern United States) (LaBonte et al., 2005).

Official Control: Xylosandrus germanus does not appear to be under official control anywhere.

California Distribution:  Xylosandrus germanus is not known to be present in the state of California (Bright and Stark, 1973; Symbiota Collections of Arthropods Network).

California Interceptions: Xylosandrus germanus has apparently not been intercepted on incoming shipments in California, but was trapped in 2003 in Los Angeles County with a Lindgren funnel (PDR # 1368627).  This is the only available record for California, and the species is presumed to not be present in the state.

The risk Xylosandrus germanus would pose to California is evaluated below.

Consequences of Introduction:

1) Climate/Host Interaction: Xylosandrus germanus has demonstrated an ability to become established over a large area worldwide, and a large portion of California has a climate suitable for the establishment of this species. The list of reported hosts for germanus is extensive (>200 species) and includes genera that are broadly distributed across the state, both as native forest trees as well as ornamental and crop trees.  Therefore, it receives a High (3) in this category.

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

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

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

2) Known Pest Host Range: Xylosandrus germanus is reported to feed on over 200 species of plants in many genera. Therefore, it receives a High (3) in this category.

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

– Medium (2) has a moderate host range.

– High (3) has a wide host range.

3) Pest Dispersal Potential: Adult female Xylosandrus germanus Sibling mating and arrhenotokous parthenogenesis mean a single female is capable of founding a population.  Therefore, it receives a High (3) in this category.

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

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

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

4) Economic Impact: This species has been reported to attack a range of ornamental and fruit (e.g., apple) trees.  Even if attacks do not result in the death of the tree, growth and aesthetics are impacted.  This species causes damage to cut timber as well.  All ambrosia beetles carry fungi; besides the symbiotic fungus, germanus could vector other, potentially pathogenic fungi.  Therefore, it receives a Medium (2) in this category.

Economic Impact:  A, E

A. The pest could lower crop yield.

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

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

D. The pest could negatively change normal cultural practices.

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

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

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

Economic Impact Score: 2

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

– Medium (2) causes 2 of these impacts.

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

5) Environmental Impact: Although Xylosandrus germanus was introduced to large areas of Europe and the United States and has been present there for decades, environmental impact has been minimal. Therefore, it receives a Low (1) in this category.

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

Environmental Impact:

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

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

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

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

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

Environmental Impact Score: 1

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

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

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

Consequences of Introduction to California for Xylosandrus germanus: 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: Xylosandrus germanus is not known to be present in the state of California.  It receives a Not established (0) in this category.

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

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

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

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

Final Score:

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

Uncertainty:

There appears to be a degree of uncertainty regarding the ability of Xylosandrus germanus to attack healthy trees or if only trees that are stressed or compromised are attacked.  If this species only attacks weakened trees, then its potential economic impact may be limited in time and space, although extreme weather associated with climate change could lead to a greater impact.  The lack of evidence of environmental impacts resulting from this species may be an artefact of a lack of study in this area.  Therefore, environmental impact may have been underestimated in this proposal.  The ability of this species (and perhaps ambrosia beetles in general) to carry fungi other than the symbiotic ambrosia fungus means that X. germanus could play a role in the transmission of other tree diseases, perhaps ones that are already present in California.

Conclusion and Rating Justification:

Xylosandrus germanus is an ambrosia beetle that does not appear to be established in California, and it has a demonstrated ability to damage trees.  As already stated, there is uncertainty regarding the ability of X. germanus to attack completely healthy trees.  The author of this proposal is taking a cautious approach.  If significant numbers of trees, whether they be in an ornamental, fruit, or forest setting, are weakened by drought, for instance, and are ultimately killed as a result of ambrosia beetle attack, the economic or environmental impact would be no less important and the ambrosia beetles would have played a critical role in the damage.  For these reasons, an “A” rating is justified.

References:

Agnello, A., Breth, D., Davis, A., and E. Tee.  2016.  Ambrosia beetles (Xylosandrus germanus) infestations and management trials in high-density apple orchards.  Proceedings from the Empire State Producers Expo, Syracuse, N.Y. http://www.hort.cornell.edu/expo/2016proceedings.php

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

Graf, E. and P. Manser.  2000.  Beitrag zum eingeschleppten schwarzen nutzholzborkenkäfer

Xylosandrus germanus. Biologie und schadenpotential an im wald gelagertem rundholz im vergleich zu Xyloterus lineatus und Hylecoetus dermestoides.  Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Forstwesen.  151: 271-281.

Katovich, S.  2014.  Insects attacking black walnut in the Midwestern United States.  pp. 121-126.  In: (C.H. Michler, P.M. Pijut, J.W. Van Sambeek, M.V. Coggeshall, J. Seifert, K. Woeste, R. Overton, F. Ponser Jr., eds.) Black walnut in a new century, proceedings of the 6th Walnut Council research symposium; 2004 July 25-28; Lafayette, IN. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-243. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Research Station. 188 pp.

LaBonte, J.R., Mudge, A.D., and K.J.R. Johnson.  2005.  Nonindigenous woodboring Coleoptera (Cerambycidae, Curculionidae: Scolytinae) new to Oregon and Washington, 1999-2002: Consequences of the intracontinental movement of raw wood products and solid wood packing materials.  Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington.  107(3): 554-564.

Oliver, J.B. and C.M. Mannion.  2001.  Ambrosia beetle (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) species attacking chestnut and captured in ethanol-baited traps in middle Tennessee.  Environmental Entomology.  30(5): 909-918.

Ranger, C.M., Reding, M.E., Schultz, P.B., Oliver, J.B., Frank, S.D., Addesso, K.M., Chong, J.H., Sampson, B., Werle, C., Gill, S., and C. Krause.  2016.  Biology, ecology, and management of nonnative ambrosia beetles (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae) in ornamental plant nurseries.  Journal of Integrated Pest Management.  7(1): 1-23.

Ranger, C.M., Schultz, P.B., Frank, S.D., Chong, J.H., and M.E. Reding.  2015.  Non-native ambrosia beetles as opportunistic exploiters of living but weakened trees.  PLOS One.  1-21.

Reed, S.E., Juzwik, J., English, J.T., and M.D. Ginzel.  2015.  Colonization of artificially stressed black walnut trees by ambrosia beetle, bark beetle, and other weevil species (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) in Indiana and Missouri.  Environmental Entomology.  44(6): 1455-1464.

Symbiota Collections of Arthropods Network.  Accessed February 14, 2018. http://scan1.acis.ufl.edu

Wood, S.L.  1982.  The bark and ambrosia beetles of North and Central America (Coleoptera: Scolytidae), a taxonomic monograph.  Brigham Young University.  1359 pp.


Author:

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

Responsible Party:

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


Comment Period:* CLOSED

4/24/18 – 6/8/18


*NOTE:

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


Comment Format:

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

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

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

♦  Comments may not be posted if they:

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

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

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

Violates agency regulations prohibiting workplace violence, including threats.

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

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


Pest Rating: A

 


Posted by ls 

Trypodendron signatum (Fabricius)

California Pest Rating for 
Trypodendron signatum (Fabricius)
Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae
Pest Rating: A

 


PEST RATING PROFILE

Initiating Event:

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

History & Status:

Background: Trypodendron signatum is an ambrosia beetle that ranges in length from 3.2 to 3.5 mm and has distinctive yellow and black longitudinal stripes on the elytra (Oranen, 2013).  Like other ambrosia beetles, the adults excavate tunnels in wood, and the larvae feed on fungus that grows in these tunnels.  This species has been reported to live in deciduous trees, including Alnus spp., Fagus sylvatica, and Quercus spp. (Cebeci and Ayberk, 2010; Henin et al., 2003).  This beetle primarily utilizes dead trees, but this can still have an economic impact, as cut timber is damaged through the tunneling of this beetle and the staining by the associated ambrosia fungus (Oranen, 2013).  There are also reports of T. signatum attacking living trees.  For example, ambrosia beetles, including T. signatum, were reported to be responsible for large-scale death of beech (Fagus sylvatica) trees in Belgium in the early 2000s (Henin et al., 2003).  Research suggests that these trees were probably injured prior to beetle attack, and that this prior injury may have been the result of freezing damage.  However, later attacks appear to have taken place on healthy trees for unknown reasons (Henin et al., 2003).

Worldwide Distribution: Trypodendron signatum is broadly distributed across the Palearctic Region, from western Europe to south-eastern China (Balachowsky, 1949; Cebeci and Ayberk, 2010; Galko et al., 2014; Henin et al., 2003; Knizek, 2011;  Oranen, 2013; Ostrauskas and Tamutis, 2012).

Official Control: Trypodendron signatum is not known to be under official control anywhere.

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

California Interceptions: Trypodendron signatum has been intercepted on wood from Europe (PDR # 927924).

The risk Trypodendron signatum would pose to California is evaluated below.

Consequences of Introduction:

1) Climate/Host Interaction: Trypodendron signatum is widely distributed across Europe, from cold, northern areas to the Mediterranean. This beetle is known to feed on Alnus and Quercus species, which are widely distributed across California.  Based on this information, this beetle is likely capable of becoming established over a broad area in California.  Therefore, it receives a High (3) in this category.

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

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

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

2) Known Pest Host Range: Trypodendron signatum is known to feed on trees in three genera. Therefore, 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: Trypodendron signatum can fly (Gaubicher et al., 2002). Another species, lineatum (Olivier) was found to be capable of moving (presumably by flying) two and a half miles, and T. signatum may have similar dispersal ability (Dyer, 1961).  In addition, it has been intercepted multiple times on wood entering the United States from Europe, which demonstrates that it is capable of human-aided dispersal (Haack and Rabaglia, 2013).  Therefore, it receives a Medium (2) in this category.

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

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

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

3) Economic Impact: Trypodendron signatum appears to primarily feed and develop in dead or dying trees (including cut wood).  Other Trypodendron species that have been introduced to western Canada and the western United States have caused damage to logs and lumber, and it is possible that signatum could have the same impacts in California (Livingston, 2004; McLean, 1985).  There have been reports of T. signatum attacking and killing living (potentially injured) trees.  Injury to trees that could lead to attack by beetles can result from climate extremes, for instance, drought, or warm weather followed by extreme cold (Henin et al., 2003).  The resulting beetle damage could result in lower yield and high production costs for forest products.  Trypodendron signatum is an ambrosia beetle, so by definition it carries fungus that becomes established in the beetle galleries and is used as a larval food source.  There is evidence that the beetle-fungus relationship in a new area (after introduction) can be unpredictable and could include the beetle and its fungal associate being introduced simultaneously, possibly with the fungus developing into a more aggressive form in its new range, as well as the introduced fungus being carried by a native beetle or an introduced beetle becoming associated with (and vectoring) a fungus already present in the new area.  Therefore, Trypodendron signatum receives a High (3) in this category.

Economic Impact:  A, B, E

A. The pest could lower crop yield.

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

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

D. The pest could negatively change normal cultural practices.

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

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

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

Economic Impact Score: 3

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

– Medium (2) causes 2 of these impacts.

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

5) Environmental Impact: As already stated, Trypodendron signatum has the potential to kill trees, especially if the trees are stressed or injured. Oaks (Quercus) are an important component of many California ecosystems and this genus is known to be fed upon by this beetle.  Some of these oak species are rare.  Therefore, T. signatum receives a High (3) in this category.

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

Environmental Impact: A, B

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

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

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

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

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

Environmental Impact Score: 3

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

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

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

Consequences of Introduction to California for Trypodendron signatum: 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: Trypodendron signatum is not known to occur in California.  It receives a Not established (0) in this category.

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

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

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

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

Final Score:

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

Uncertainty:

There is some uncertainty regarding the possible economic and environmental impact of this species on California.  There are many examples that illustrate the unpredictability of bark and ambrosia beetles, and it is apparent that various factors including climate, tree species, and fungus species interact, and that significant economic and/or environmental damage could result.  Climate change could result in a higher frequency of extreme weather events, which could lead to tree stress and increased ambrosia beetle damage.

Conclusion and Rating Justification:

This beetle is one of many ambrosia beetles that are thought to feed mostly in dead or dying trees.  However, it seems that a cautious approach is best with possible forest pests, especially when there is evidence (as there is in this case) that living trees can be affected.  The behavior of this beetle may be very different in California than it is in Europe; it could be significantly worse.  The fungus symbiosis raises special concerns, because the beetle could bring with it possibly pathogenic fungi new to California, or it could interact in a new way with fungi already here.  For these reasons, an “A” rating is justified.


References:

Balachowsky, A.  1949.  Faune de France: Tome 50.  Coléoptères Scolytides.  P. Lechevalier, Paris.

Cebeci, H.H. and H. Ayberk.  2010.  Ambrosia beetles, hosts and distribution in Turkey with a study on the species of Istanbul province.  African Journal of Agricultural Research.  5(10): 1055-1059.

Dyer, E.D.A.  1961.  Flight capability of ambrosia beetle (Trypodendron).  Canadian Department of Agriculture and Forestry Biological Division Bi-Monthly Progress Report.  17(1): 4.

Galko, J., Nikolov, C., Kimoto, T., Kunca, A., Gubka, A., Vakula, J., Zúbrik, M., and M. Ostrihoň.  2014.  Attraction of ambrosia beetles to ethanol baited traps in a Slovakian oak forest.  69(10): 1376-1383.

Gaubicher, B., De Proft, M., and J.C. Gregoire.  2002.  Trypodendron domesticum and Trypodendron signatum: Two scolytid species involved in beech decline in Belgium.  In (McManus, M.L. and A.M. Liebhold, eds): Proceedings; Ecology, survey and management of forest insects.  (pp. 134-135).  United States Department of Agriculture.

Haack, R.A. and R.J. Rabaglia.  2013.  Exotic bark and ambrosia beetles in the USA: Potential and current invaders.  In (J. Peña, ed.): Potential pests of agricultural crops (pp. 48-74).  CAB International.

Henin, J-M., Huart, O., and J. Rondeux.  2003.  Biogeographical observations on four scolytids (Coleoptera, Scolytidae) and one lymexylonid (Coleoptera, Lymexylonidae) in Wallonia (Southern Belgium).  Belgian Journal of Zoology.  133(2): 175-180.

Knizek, M. 2011. Subfamily Scolytinae Latreille, 1804. In (I. Loebl and A. Smetana, eds.): Catalogue of Palaearctic Coleoptera. Volume 7. Cucrulinoidea I. (pp. 204-251). Apollo Books.

Livingston, L.  2004.  Management guide for ambrosia beetle.  United States Department of Agriculture, United States Forest Service, Forest Health Protection and State Forestry Organizations. https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5186823.pdf

McLean, J.A.  1985.  Ambrosia beetles: A multimillion dollar degrade problem of sawlogs in coastal British Columbia.  Forestry Chronicle.  61: 295-298.

Oranen, H.  2013.  The striped ambrosia beetle, Trypodendron lineatum (Olivier), and its fungal associates.  Thesis.  University of Helsinki. https://helda.helsinki.fi/bitstream/handle/10138/40117/Oranen_Heidi.pdf?sequence=1

Ostrauskas, H. and V. Tamutis.  2012.  Bark and longhorn beetles (Coleoptera: Curculionidae, Scolytinae et Cerambycidae) caught by multiple funnel traps at the temporary storages of timbers and wood in Lithuania.  18(2): 263-269.

Symbiota Collections of Arthropods Network.  Accessed February 6, 2018. http://scan1.acis.ufl.edu


Author:

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

Responsible Party:

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


Comment Period:* CLOSED

4/20/18 – 6/4/18


*NOTE:

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


Comment Format:

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

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

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

♦  Comments may not be posted if they:

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

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

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

Violates agency regulations prohibiting workplace violence, including threats.

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

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


Pest Rating: A

 


Posted by ls 

Gray Scale | Pseudoparlatoria ostreata

California Pest Rating for
Gray Scale | Pseudoparlatoria ostreata Cockerell
Hemiptera: Diaspididae
Pest Rating: A

 


PEST RATING PROFILE

Initiating Event:

Pseudoparlatoria ostreata was reported to be established on the island of Oahu, Hawaii (J. Matsunaga, pers. comm.).  It is currently Q-rated, and a permanent pest rating proposal is required to support an official pest rating.

History & Status:

Background:  The scale cover is thin and circular in adult female P. ostreata.  These scales can form dense aggregations on host plants.  Pseudoparlatoria ostreata is reported to feed on (apparently causing damage to plants, in some cases) plants in 39 families, including Agavaceae (Agave sp.), Arecaceae (various palms), Cactaceae, Caricaceae (Carica papaya), Euphorbiaceae (including Acalypha spp.), Fabaceae, Orchidaceae (various orchids), and Vitaceae (Vitis sp.).  (Malumphy & Redstone, 2012; Sweezey, 1945; Wolff, 2008).  In agricultural situations, this scale is reported to be a pest of papaya (J. Matsunaga, pers. comm.; Miskimen & Bond, 1970; Wolcott, 1948) avocado (McKenzie, 1935), and Acalypha species (Dekle, 1965; Wolcott, 1948).  It appears to be primarily tropical and subtropical, but it has managed to become a pest in greenhouses in temperate areas (in the United Kingdom, for example) (Malumphy & Redstone, 2012).

Worldwide Distribution:  Pseudoparlatoria ostreata is native to the Caribbean and has been introduced to North America (Mexico, Florida, and Texas), Central America (Guatemala), South America (Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Ecuador, and Venezuela), Hawaii, Africa, and Europe (indoor plantings only) (Claps et al., 2001; Claps et al., 2006; García et al., 2016; Malumphy & Redstone, 2012; J. Matsunaga, pers. comm.; Sweezey, 1945).

Official Control: Pseudoparlatoria ostreata is considered a prohibited, declared pest in Australia (Government of Western Australia).

California Distribution:  Pseudoparlatoria ostreata is not known to be present in California.

California Interceptions:  Pseudoparlatoria ostreata was intercepted in 2012 at a California border station on palms from Mexico (BL0P06030809).

The risk Pseudoparlatoria ostreata would pose to California is evaluated below.

Consequences of Introduction:

1) Climate/Host Interaction: Most of the areas where Pseudoparlatoria ostreata is known to occur have a subtropical or tropical climate. For example, in the United States, it is restricted to Florida, Texas, and Hawaii.  However, some locations (for example, in Argentina) have a more temperate climate (Claps et al., 2001).  This scale is highly polyphagous, and suitable host plants are probably present over much of California.  It appears possible that Pseudoparlatoria ostreata could become established in a significant portion of California.  Therefore, it 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: Pseudoparlatoria ostreata is highly polyphagous, and has been reported to feed on plants in 39 families. Therefore, it receives a High (3) in this category.

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

– Medium (2) has a moderate host range.

– High (3) has a wide host range.

3) Pest Dispersal Potential: It is apparent that Pseudoparlatoria ostreata is easily transported on infested plant material, as it has been introduced to many locations.  In addition, another species in this genus, parlatorioides (Comstock), has a high reproductive capacity (females lay up to 130 eggs) and is suspected to be parthenogenic, and this may apply P. ostreata as well (Miller & Davidson, 2005).   Therefore, it receives a High (3) in this category.

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

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

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

4) Economic Impact: If Pseudoparlatoria ostreata became established in California, it could become a pest of many different crops because it is so polyphagous.  Avocados and grapes are known hosts, but there could be many more.  Infestations of this scale could increase production costs and affect normal cultural practices.  As scales are easily transported with infested plant material, the presence of this scale in California could also result in the loss of markets because of the phytosanitary risk to an area importing California plants or plant products.  Therefore, it receives a High (3) in this category.

Economic Impact:  B, C, D

A. The pest could lower crop yield.

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

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

D. The pest could negatively change normal cultural practices.

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

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

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

Economic Impact Score: 3

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

– Medium (2) causes 2 of these impacts.

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

5) Environmental Impact: Pseudoparlatoria ostreata is a polyphagous scale insect that has been documented to cause damage to plants through its feeding. It is possible that this scale could directly affect rare plants.  There are rare California plants in some of the plant families that are hosts of this scale, for example, Shaw’s agave (Agave shawii), which occurs in southern, coastal California (Calflora).  If this scale becomes established in California, it is also likely to impact ornamental plantings and it could trigger treatments as well.  Therefore, it receives a High (3) in this category.

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

Environmental Impact:  B, D, E

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

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

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

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

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

Score the pest for Environmental Impact. Score:

Environmental Impact Score: 3

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

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

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

Consequences of Introduction to California for Pseudoparlatoria ostreata: 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: Pseudoparlatoria ostreata is not known to be present in California.  It receives a Not established (0) in this category.

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

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

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

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

Final Score:

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

Uncertainty:

The distribution of Pseudoparlatoria ostreata appears to be mostly limited to areas with a subtropical or tropical climate, although there are a few locations that suggest this scale could survive in a more temperate climate.  Therefore, there is some uncertainty regarding its ability to become established in a significant portion of California.  There is little uncertainty regarding the presence of suitable host plants in California, because this scale is highly polyphagous.

Conclusion and Rating Justification:

Pseudoparlatoria ostreata is a polyphagous scale that has a demonstrated ability to attack a wide variety of plants and cause damage.  It is not known to be present in California, and if it became established in this state, there is a significant possibility that it could have economic and environmental impacts.  For these reasons, an “A” rating is justified.


References:

Calflora: Information on California plants for education, research and conservation, with data contributed by public and private institutions and individuals, including the  Consortium of California Herbaria.  [web application].  2017. Berkeley, California: The Calflora Database [a non-profit organization].  Accessed 28 December 2017. http://www.calflora.org

Claps, L.E., Wolff, V.R.S, & González, R.H.  2001.  Catálogo de la Diaspididae (Hemiptera: Coccoidea) exόticas de la Argentina, Brazil, Brasil y Chile.  Revista de la Sociedad Entomológica Argentina.  60 (1-4): 9-34.

Claps, L.E., Zamudio, P., & Briz, L.D.  2006.  Las Dactylopiidae y Diaspididae (Hemiptera, Coccoidea) de la Colecciόn Kenneth Hayward, Tucumán, Argentina.  Revista Brasileira de Entomologia.  50 (1): 33-38.

Dekle, G.W.  1965.  Florida armored scale insects.  Arthropods of Florida and Neighboring Land Areas.  3:  1-265.

García, M.M., Denno, B.D., Miller, D.R., Miller, G.L., Ben-Dov, Y., & Hardy, N.B.  2016.  ScaleNet: A literature-based model of scale insect biology and systematics.  Database. doi: 10.1093/database/bav118.  Accessed 28 December 2017. http://scalenet.info.

Government of Western Australia.  Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development.  Pseudoparlatoria ostreata Cockerell, 1892.  Accessed: 27 December 2017. https://www.agric.wa.gov.au/organisms/128755

Malumphy, C. & Redstone, S.  2012.  Grey scale Pseudoparlatoria ostreata Cockerell (Hemiptera: Diaspididae), a pest of indoor plantings new to Britain.  Entomologist’s Gazette.  63: 107-114.

Miller, D.R. & Davidson, J.A.  2005.  Armored scale insect pests of trees and shrubs.  Comstock Publishing Associates.  Ithaca, NY.  442 pp.

McKenzie, H.L.  1935.  Biology and control of avocado insects and mites.  University of California Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin.  592: 1-48.

Miskimen, G.W. & Bond, R.M.  1970.  Scientific Survey of Porto Rico and the Virgin Islands.  Volume XIII – Part I.  The New York Academy of Sciences.  New York, NY.  114 pp.

Sweezey, O.H.  1945.  Insects associated with orchids.  Proceedings of the Hawaiian Entomological Society.  12(2): 343-403.

Symbiota Collections of Arthropods Network.  Accessed 20 November 2017. http://scan1.acis.ufl.edu

Wolcott, G.N.  1948.  The insects of Puerto Rico.  The Journal of Agriculture of the University of Puerto Rico.  20(1): 1-224.

Wolff, V.R.S.  2008.  Revisão de Pseudoparlatoria (Hemiptera, Diaspididae).  Iheringia Série Zoologia.  98(3): 291-307.


Author:

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

Responsible Party:

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


Comment Period:* CLOSED

4/19/18 – 6/3/18


*NOTE:

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


Comment Format:

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

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

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

♦  Comments may not be posted if they:

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

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

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

Violates agency regulations prohibiting workplace violence, including threats.

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

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


Pest Rating: A

 


Posted by ls 

Beetle | Anomala ausonia

California Pest Rating for
Beetle | Anomala ausonia Erichson
Coleoptera
Pest Rating: A

PEST RATING PROFILE

Initiating Event:

Anomala ausonia Erichson is currently Q-rated.  A permanent pest rating proposal is required to support an official pest rating.

History & Status:

Background:  Adult Anomala ausonia are metallic green beetles approximately one half of an inch in length.  They feed on the leaves and fruit.  The larvae are whitish, C-shaped grubs that live in the soil and feed on roots and possibly organic matter as well (Ritcher, 1958).  Adult feeding causes serious damage to grapevines in Spain.  Olive trees are also reported to be attacked by larvae, but this damage is apparently not as significant (Alvarado et al., 1996). This beetle is reported to be present in coastal and riparian areas in France and Italy, sometimes in abundance (Contarini, 1990; Paulian, 1941).

Worldwide Distribution:  Anomala ausonia is present in Mediterranean Europe (France, Italy, and Spain) (Alvarado et al., 1996; Contarini, 1990; Schaeffer, 1959).  This beetle is not known to have been introduced elsewhere.  A specimen was caught outside in New Jersey in 1964, but apparently this species did not become established in the United States (New Jersey Department of Agriculture, 1965).

Official Control: Anomala ausonia is not known to be under official control anywhere.

California Distribution:  Anomala ausonia is not known to be present in California.

California Interceptions:  One dead specimen was found in a trailer from Canada at a border station (PDR # 1214299).

The risk Anomala ausonia would pose to California is evaluated below.

Consequences of Introduction:

1) Climate/Host Interaction: Anomala ausonia is native to Mediterranean Europe. The species has been reported to feed on grapevines and olive, and it likely feeds on other plants as well.  The climate of California would be ideal for A. ausonia, and grapes, a major host plant of the species, are cultivated in a large portion of the state.  Anomala ausonia is likely capable of establishing a widespread distribution in California.  Therefore, this species 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: Anomala ausonia has been reported to feed on olive trees and grapevines, representing two families of plants. The beetle likely feeds on other plants as well in natural (non-agricultural) areas in its native range.  Therefore, 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: Anomala ausonia presumably flies, and could possibly be artificially dispersed through transport of infested, potted plants, which has been suggested as a possible mode of introduction for other Anomala species (CABI, 2017).  Therefore, it receives a Medium (2) in this category.

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

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

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

4) Economic Impact: Anomala ausonia has been reported to cause significant damage to grapes as a result of adults feeding on leaves.  Grapes are a major crop in California, and an infestation could be expected to lower crop yield and increase production costs.  It could also lead to a loss of markets.  Therefore, it receives a High (3) in this category.

Economic Impact:  A, B, C

A. The pest could lower crop yield.

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

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

D. The pest could negatively change normal cultural practices.

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

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

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

Economic Impact Score: 3

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

– Medium (2) causes 2 of these impacts.

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

5) Environmental Impact: If A. ausonia became established in California, it could become a pest in vineyards and possibly other situations, including olive groves and ornamental plantings, which could trigger treatment programs. This beetle could also impact vegetation (and disrupt natural communities) in California ecosystems, including riparian areas, where this species is known to occur in Europe.  Therefore, it receives a High (3) in this category.

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

Environmental Impact:  A, D, E

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

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

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

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

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

Score the pest for Environmental Impact.

Environmental Impact Score: 3

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

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

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

Consequences of Introduction to California for Anomala ausonia: Medium (13)

Add up the total score and include it here.

–Low = 5-8 points

–Medium = 9-12 points

–High = 13-15 points

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

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

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

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

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

Final Score:

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

Uncertainty:

While there is little doubt that A. ausonia could become established in California, no information was found suggesting that this species has been introduced anywhere, which makes it difficult to predict its pest potential.  There are plants and ecosystems in California that A. ausonia has not been exposed to in its native range, and the organisms that limit its population size in its native range are likely not present in California.  Thus, if this beetle was introduced to California, it could have significant impacts in certain areas.

Conclusion and Rating Justification:

Anomala ausonia is a plant-feeding scarab beetle that belongs to a genus with demonstrated pest potential.  California appears to be an ideal place for the establishment of this Mediterranean species.  If this beetle became established in California, it could impact agriculture (including grapes and olives), ornamental plantings, and the environment.   For these reasons, an “A” rating is justified.


References:

Alvarado, M., Serrano, A., & Durán y de La Rosa, J.M.  1996.  Problemática de los gusanos blancos (Coleoptera, Scarabaeidae) en el olivar de la provincia de Sevilla.  Boletín de Sanidad Vegetal Plagas.  22: 319-328.

CABI.  2017.  Invasive Species Compendium. Wallingford, UK: CAB International.  Accessed 2 January 2018. www.cabi.org/isc

Contarini, E.  1992.  Eco-profili D’Ambiente della Coleotterofauna di Romagna: 4-Arenile, duna e retroduna della costa Adriatica.  Bollettino del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Venezia.  41: 131-182.

New Jersey Department of Agriculture.  1965.  50th Annual Report of the New Jersey Department of Agriculture.  230 pp.

Paulian, R.  1941.  Faune de France.  38.  Coléoptères Scarabéides.  Paul Lechevalier et Fils.  Paris, France.  239 pp.

Ritcher, P.O.  1958.  Biology of Scarabaeidae.  Annual Review of Entomology.  3: 311-334.

Schaefer, L.  1959.  Contribution à la connaissance des coléoptères des Pyrénées-orientales.  Bulletin mensuel de la Société linnéenne de Lyon.  28(7): 222-235.

Symbiota Collections of Arthropods Network.  Accessed 3 January 2018. http://scan1.acis.ufl.edu


Author:

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

Responsible Party:

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


Comment Period:* CLOSED

4/19/18 – 6/3/18


*NOTE:

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


Comment Format:

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

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

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

♦  Comments may not be posted if they:

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

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

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

Violates agency regulations prohibiting workplace violence, including threats.

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

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


Pest Rating: A


Posted by ls 

Beetle | Dyscinetus dubius

California Pest Rating for
Beetle | Dyscinetus dubius (Olivier)
Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae
Pest Rating: A

PEST RATING PROFILE

Initiating Event:

Dyscinetus dubius (Olivier) is currently Q-rated.  A permanent pest rating proposal is required to support an official pest rating.

History & Status:

Background:  Dyscinetus dubius is a reddish-brown beetle approximately 1.5 to 2 cm in length.  The larvae are whitish C-shaped grubs that live underground and feed on roots.  This beetle is reported to be a pest (through larval feeding) of potato, rice, and soybeans in Brazil (Ferreira & Barrigossi, 2006; Ferreira & Martins, 1984), but it has also been associated with, and may feed on corn and elephant ear (Xanthosoma sagittifolium) (Araceae) (Joly & Escalona G., 2010).

Worldwide Distribution:  Dyscinetus dubius is widely distributed throughout Mexico, the Caribbean (including Cuba and Trinidad), Central America (including Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Panama), and South America (including Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Guyana, French Guiana, Paraguay, Suriname, and Venezuela) (Ferreira & Martins, 1984; Joly & Escalona G., 2010; Neita-Moreno & Yepes,  2011).

Official Control: Dyscinetus dubius is a prescribed pest in Guyana (Caribbean Invasive Alien Species Network).

California Distribution:  Dyscinetus dubius is not known to be present in California.

California Interceptions:  Dyscinetus dubius has been intercepted at a border station on bananas from Ecuador (1183969).

The risk Dyscinetus dubius would pose to California is evaluated below.

Consequences of Introduction:

1) Climate/Host Interaction: Dyscinetus dubius appears to be restricted to areas with a subtropical to tropical climate, and this may be expected to limit the potential distribution of this species in California. This beetle is reported to feed on at least four plant families, including Poaceae and Solanaceae, and would likely find suitable food plants over much of the state.    This beetle could possibly become established over a limited portion of California.  Therefore, Dyscinetus dubius 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: Dyscinetus dubius is a generalist and has been reported to feed on plants in the families Araceae, Fabaceae, Poaceae, and Solanaceae. Therefore, it receives a High (3) in this category.

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

– Medium (2) has a moderate host range.

– High (3) has a wide host range.

3) Pest Dispersal Potential: Dyscinetus dubius is collected at light, so it can fly.  It can be dispersed artificially through movement of infested plant material.  Therefore, it receives a Medium (2) in this category.

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

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

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

4) Economic Impact: Dyscinetus dubius is a recognized pest of several crops, among them rice.  California rice production in 2016 was valued at $649 million (USDA, 2018).  Potatoes and corn, which are also grown in California, could also be impacted.  If Dyscinetus dubius was established in California, it could lower crop yield and increase production costs of these crops.  It could also lead to a loss of markets.  Therefore, it receives a High (3) in this category.

Economic Impact:  A, B, C

A. The pest could lower crop yield.

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

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

D. The pest could negatively change normal cultural practices.

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

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

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

Economic Impact Score: 3

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

– Medium (2) causes 2 of these impacts.

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

5) Environmental Impact: If Dyscinetus dubius became established in California, it could trigger treatment programs if it became a crop pest. Therefore, it receives a Medium (2) in this category.

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

Environmental Impact:  D

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

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

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

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

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

Environmental Impact Score: 2

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

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

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

Consequences of Introduction to California for Dyscinetus dubius: 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: Dyscinetus dubius is not known to be present in California.  It receives a Not established (0) in this category.

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

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

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

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

Final Score:

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

Uncertainty:

Dyscinetus dubius appears to be currently limited to areas with a subtropical or tropical climate.   This beetle may not be capable of becoming established in California, and if it is, it could be limited to a very small area.  Rice in California is typically grown in flooded conditions, and this may reduce or eliminate the potential of D. dubius to impact this crop, although other crops, including corn and potatoes, could still be affected (California Rice Commission, 2018).  Other plants, including native California species that this beetle has not been previously exposed to, could also be attacked in California, which could result in additional impacts on the environment.

Conclusion and Rating Justification:

Dyscinetus dubius is a recognized pest in Latin America.  This beetle is not known to be present in California.  However, it affects crops that are grown in the state, including rice and potatoes.  If it became established in the state, it could have economic and environmental impacts.  For these reasons, an “A” rating is justified.


References:

California Rice Commission.  2018.  How rice grows.  Accessed 4 January 2018.  http://calrice.org/industry/how-rice-grows

Caribbean Invasive Alien Species Network.  Guyana.  Accessed 3 January 2018. http://www.ciasnet.org/countryprofiles/guyana

Ferreira, E. & Barrigossi, J.A.F.  2006.  Insetos Orizívoros da Parte Subterrânea.  San Antônio de Goiás, Goiás, Brazil.  52 pp.

Ferreira, E. & da S. Martins, J.F.  1984.  Insetos prejudiciais ao arroz no Brasil e seu controle.  EMBRAPA-CNPAF. Goiânia, Goiás, Brazil.  67 pp.

Joly, L.J. & Escalona G., H.E.  2010.  El género Dyscinetus Harold (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Dynastinae: Cyclocephalini) en Venezuela y la descripciόn de una nueva especie.  Papéis Avulsos de Zoologia.  50(14): 203-231.

Neita-Moreno, J.C. & Yepes, F.  2011.  Descripciόn de la larva y pupa de Dyscinetus dubius (Coleoptera: Melolonthidae: Dynastinae: Cyclocephalini).  Revista Colombiana de Entomología.  37(1): 152-156.

Symbiota Collections of Arthropods Network.  Accessed 20 November 2017. http://scan1.acis.ufl.edu

United States Department of Agriculture.  2016 State Agriculture Overview.  California.  Accessed 4 January 2018. https://www.nass.usda.gov/Quick_Stats/Ag_Overview/stateOverview.php?state=CALIFORNIA


Author:

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

Responsible Party:

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


Comment Period:* CLOSED

4/13/18 – 5/28/18


*NOTE:

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


Comment Format:

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

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

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

♦  Comments may not be posted if they:

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

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

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

Violates agency regulations prohibiting workplace violence, including threats.

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

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


Pest Rating: A


Posted by ls 

An Ant | Pheidole dentigula

California Pest Rating  for
An Ant | Pheidole dentigula
 Hymenoptera: Formicidae
Pest Rating: A

PEST RATING PROFILE

Initiating Event:

Pheidole dentigula was frequently intercepted in 2016 and 2017 by CDFA and requires a pest rating proposal to support an official pest rating.

History & Status:

Background: Pheidole dentigula is a common ant found in leaf litter and rotting stumps in mesic forests of the southeastern United States. They can be recognized in the field by the tendency of the major workers to have orange-colored gasters1.

Pheidole dentigula is associated with moisture-retentive microhabitats and nests in soil and rotten stumps3

map for Pheidole dentigula distribution

Worldwide Distribution: Pheidole dentigula is known from the United States and Central and South America. In the United States, it is reported from Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas3.   

Official Control: Pheidole dentigula is not known to be under official control in any states or nations, but the genus Pheidole is listed as a harmful organism in Japan and Republic of Korea5.

California Distribution: Pheidole dentigula has never been found in the environment of California.

California Interceptions: Pheidole dentigula was intercepted 18 times in 2015, 2016, and 2017 by CDFA’s border station and nursery regulatory inspections. Interceptions were typically on plants or plant material imported from the southeastern infested States4.

The risk Pheidole dentigula would pose to California is evaluated below.

Consequences of Introduction:

1) Climate/Host Interaction: Pheidole dentigula is found in moisture-retentive microhabitats, including rotten stumps and accumulations of leaf litter in forests. Riparian areas in California would be suitable for this ant and it could establish in a limited area in California. It receives a Low (1) in this category.

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

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

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

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

2) Known Pest Host Range: Pheidole dentigula feeds on dead insects, dead leaves, and decaying fruit. It receives a High (3) in this category.

Evaluate the host range of the pest.

Low (1) has a very limited host range.

Medium (2) has a moderate host range.

High (3) has a wide host range.

3) Pest Dispersal Potential: There is little information available on the biology of Pheidole dentigula. Other members of the genus are known to have multiple queens and are capable of producing large numbers of eggs. Because this may be true for this species, P. dentigula receives at High (3) in this category

Evaluate the natural and artificial dispersal potential of the pest.

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

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

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

4) Economic Impact: Pheidole dentigula is not expected to lower crop yields or increase crop production costs. It is not expected to disrupt any markets for Californian agricultural commodities. It is not expected to change cultural practices or vector other pestiferous organisms. These ants could injure livestock if established in California. It receives a Low (1) in this category.

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

Economic Impact:  F

A. The pest could lower crop yield.

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

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

D. The pest could negatively change normal cultural practices.

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

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

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

Economic Impact Score: 1

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 dentigula is not likely to disrupt natural communities, lower biodiversity, or change ecosystem processes in California. This species does not directly impact any threatened species. However, it is likely to trigger new treatments by residents if it invades homes in search of food and water. It receives a Medium (2) in this category

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

Environmental Impact: D

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

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

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

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

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

Environmental Impact: Score 2

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

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

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

Consequences of Introduction to California for Pheidole dentigulaMedium (10)

Low = 5-8 points

Medium = 9-12 points

 –High = 13-15 points

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

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

Score: 0

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

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

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

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

Final Score:

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

Uncertainty:

There have not been any formal surveys for Pheidole dentigula in California. This species has been intercepted through regulatory pathways multiple times and can be transported on commodities. It is possible that it might be present in certain areas of California, but if so, it has escaped detection.

Conclusion and Rating Justification:

Pheidole dentigula has never been found in the environment of California.  If it were to establish in the state, this ant may have an environmental impact in riparian and wetland areas of California. Other species of this genus have multiple queens and have proved invasive in areas where they are introduced. Given these considerations, an “A”-rating is justified, especially as there is a chance of excluding it.


References:
  1. Ants (Formicidae) of the Southeastern United states by Joe McGowan. Accessed November 4, 2017.      http://mississippientomologicalmuseum.org.msstate.edu/Researchtaxapages/Formicidaepages/genericpages/Pheidole.dentigula.html#.Wfn2_ltSzA4
  2. Ant web. Accessed November 4, 2017. https://www.antweb.org/description.do?name=dentigula&genus=pheidole&rank=species&project=allantwebants
  3. School of Ants. Accessed November 4, 2017.  http://www.schoolofants.org/species/2155
  4. Pest and Damage Record Database, California Department of Food and Agriculture, Plant Health and Pest Prevention Services. http://phpps.cdfa.ca.gov/user/frmLogon2.asp
  5. USDA Phytosanitary Certificate Issuance & Tracking System (PCIT) Phytosanitary Export Database (PExD). Accessed December 23, 2016  https://pcit.aphis.usda.gov/pcit/

Author:

Javaid Iqbal,  California Department of Food and Agriculture; 1220 N Street, Sacramento, CA 95814; Tel. (916) 403-6695; plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov.

Responsible Party:

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


Comment Period:* CLOSED

4/13/18 – 5/28/18


*NOTE:

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


Comment Format:

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

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

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

♦  Comments may not be posted if they:

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

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

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

Violates agency regulations prohibiting workplace violence, including threats.

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

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


Pest Rating: A


Posted by ls 

European Mistletoe | Viscum album L

figure 1 Viscum album

Figure 1:
Viscum album (2001 CDFA)
California Pest Rating for
Viscum album L: European mistletoe
Santalales: Viscaceae
Pest Rating: A | Proposed Seed Rating: R

PEST RATING PROFILE

Initiating Event:

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

History & Status:

BackgroundEuropean mistletoe (Viscum album) is a hemiparasite of broad-leaved trees and shrubs that can be found on its hosts stems. It depends on the host for water, mineral nutrients, and some carbohydrates. Depending on the health of the host plant and severity of infestation it weakens its host, leaving it susceptible to damage from insects, increasing host mortality rates. European mistletoe is spread by seed dispersal from birds eating its berries and expelling the viscin covered seeds.

Found natively in Eurasia and North Africa this plant was introduced to California in the early 1900s by noted plant breeder Luther Burbank at his experimental farm outside Sebastopol, where it still occurs.

European mistletoe (Fig. 1) is sometimes confused with the native California mistletoe (Phoradendron serotinum) (Fig. 2) that is common in the area where European mistletoe is adventive. Differences in leaf form are the easiest way to distinguish them; European mistletoe has narrow propeller-shaped leaves, while California mistletoe has widely ovate leaves. European mistletoe has dichotomously branched stems that diverge at >40%, while California mistletoe has branches that generally diverge at <45%. European mistletoe has only a few fruits per cluster (generally <5), while California mistletoe has many fruits per cluster (generally >5).

figure 2 Phoradendron serotinum Figure 2:
Phoradendron serotinum ©2011 Jorg & Mimi Fleige

Worldwide Distribution: European mistletoe has a native range from North Africa to southern England, southern Scandinavia, and western Russia. It can infect numerous species of broad-leaved trees and conifers in temperate to tropical regions.

Official Control: Viscum album is a prohibited plant in New Zealand.

California Distribution:  European mistletoe was introduced to the Sebastopol area of Sonoma County as an ornamental from Eurasia around 1900, but it was not until 1966 that the taxon was recorded as present in California (Howell 1966). Surveys performed in 1971 covered 16 square miles in Sebastopol and Graton, and found 310 infected trees in 21 species (Scharpf and McCartney 1975). Surveys performed in 1984 covered 63 square miles in Sebastopol, Graton, Forestville, Santa Rosa, and Cotati, and found 554 infected trees in 22 species (Hawksworth and Scharpf 1986). Surveys performed in 1984 covered 71 square miles across Occidental, Forestville, Fulton, Santa Rosa, and Cotati, and found 664 infected trees in 23 species (Hawksworth et al 1991).  Current specimen records show that it is present in Sebastopol and Santa Rosa. There is one recorded occurrence in Sacramento, but this record is most likely spurious.

California Interceptions: None

The risk European mistletoe would pose to California is evaluated below.

Consequences of Introduction:

1) Climate/Host Interaction: California has a climate suitable to European The area it has established in is surrounded by scattered oaks and conifers forests. while it has yet to be recorded expanding to these trees, there is potential as it has established itself on oaks and conifers forests in its native range. Therefore, it scores as 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: Risk is Medium (2) as European mistletoe can infect numerous species of broad-leaved trees and conifers in temperate to tropical regions, which are found throughout California. In California, it has been detected on native bigleaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), red alder (Alnus rubra) California buckeye (Aesculus californica), Fremont Cottonwood (Populus fremontii), and Pacific willow (Salix lasiandra). It has also been found on introduced species of birch (Betula), persimmon (Diospyros spp.), locust (Robinia spp.), hickory (Carya spp.), ash (Fraxinus spp.), hawthorn (Crataegus spp.) apple (Malus spp.), plum (Prunus spp.), pyracantha (Pyracantha spp.), mountain-ash (Sorbus spp.), Maple (Acer spp.), elm (Ulmus spp.), and poplar (Populus spp.) Therefore, it scores as 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: Viscum album is spread primarily by birds, which eat and carry the fruit to other trees. Since introduction to Sonoma County, spread has increased from point of origin to more than 71 square miles at last survey in 1991. The current distribution and pattern of infestation is not known. Therefore, it scores as Low (1) 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: Within its native range European mistletoe infects apple and other commercial fruit trees; however, it’s damage is limited as these hosts are pruned regularly, preventing further damage and slowing its spread. Therefore, it scores as High (3) in this category.

A, B, C, D

A. The pest could lower crop

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

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

F. The organism is injurious or poisonous to agriculturally important

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: European mistletoe has potential to find hosts in a variety of California trees and shrubs. Many of these hosts are found within riparian corridors, such as willows, and impacts to this environment could affect multiple special status species that depend on a riparian habitat. In Sonoma County riparian trees provide nesting habitat for a variety of birds, including Swanson hawk, and roots provide shelter for California freshwater shrimp. European mistletoe also impacts urban street trees and fruit orchards in Europe, leading to increased pruning to prevent damage to the trees. Therefore, it scores High (3) 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

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

D. The pest could trigger additional official or private treatment

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

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 European mistletoe:

Total score: 11

Low = 5-8 points

 Medium = 9-12 points

High = 13-15 points

6) Post Entry Distribution and Survey Information: Evaluate the known distribution in California. Only official records identified by a taxonomic expert and supported by voucher specimens deposited in natural history collections should be considered. Pest incursions that have been eradicated, are under eradication, or have been delimited with no further detections should not be included. -1

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

 -Low (-1) Pest has a localized distribution in California, or is established in one suitable climate/host area: Sebastopol area of Sonoma County.

-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: 10

Uncertainty:

Medium. This plant has had the opportunity to spread further in California, but it has not succeeded so far. This plant has hosts and dispersal techniques that are adaptable to California, but it has a history in the state with little impacts. It is known from younger street trees less than 15 years in place, so the reasons for its restriction are not known; it is possible that it is still in its lag phase and may increase its rate of spread once it becomes more prevalent.

Conclusion and Rating Justification:

European mistletoe currently is known from only Sonoma County in CA; it has the potential to move beyond its established area in California. As the current list of infected hosts shows, it could use riparian corridors to move throughout the state. If this plant does spread it might have significant impacts to native trees and commercial orchards. Despite its current slow rate of spread, an A rating is justified.


References

Calflora: Information on California plants for education, research and conservation. Berkeley, California: The Calflora Database: http://www.calflora.org/ (Accessed: March 20, 2018).

California Department of Food and Agriculture, Encycloweedia: Data Sheets:  https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/plant/IPC/encycloweedia/weedinfo/viscum.htm (Accessed: March 20, 2018).

Consortium of California Herbaria: ucjeps.berkeley.edu/consortium/ (Accessed: March 20, 2018).

Hawksworth, F.G., Scharpf, R.F., & Marosy, M. 1991. European mistletoe continues to spread in Sonoma County. California Agriculture. 45: 39-40.

Howell, J. T. 1966. Viscum album in California. Leaflets of Western Botany 10(13):244.

Scharpf, R., and F. Hawksworth. 1976. Luther Burbank introduced European mistletoe into California. Plant Disease Reporter 60(9):740-742.

Photo Sources:

Viscum album: ©2001 CDFA Used with Permission. Retrieved April 6, 2018 at

https://calphotos.berkeley.edu/cgi/img_query?enlarge=0175+3301+2364+0094

Phoradendron serotinum: ©2011 Jorg & Mimi Fleige, Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0. Retrieved April 6, 2018, at https://calphotos.berkeley.edu/cgi/img_query?enlarge=0000+0000+0211+1177


Author:

Rachel Avila, Environmental Scientist; California Department of Food and Agriculture; 1220 N Street, Sacramento, CA 95814; Tel. (916) 403-6813; plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov

Responsible Party:

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


Comment Period:* CLOSED

4/12/18 – 5/27/18


*NOTE:

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


Comment Format:

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

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

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

♦  Comments may not be posted if they:

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

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

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

Violates agency regulations prohibiting workplace violence, including threats.

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

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


Pest Rating: A | Proposed Seed Rating: R


Posted by ls