Tag Archives: A-Rated Pest

Chrysanthemum white rust – Puccinia horiana (Hennings 1901)

California Pest Rating Proposal for

Chrysanthemum white rust | Puccinia horiana (Hennings 1901)
Current Rating: Q
Proposed Rating: A

Comment Period: 6/6/2019 through 7/21/2019


Author/Responsible Party:

Dr. Heather J. Scheck, Primary State Plant Pathologist/Nematologist, California Department of Food and Agriculture, 204 West Oak Ave, Lompoc, CA 805-736-8050 email: plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov.

*NOTE:

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

Comment Format:

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

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

Posted comments will not be able to be viewed immediately.

Comments may not be posted if they:

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

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

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


Proposed Pest Rating: A


Posted by ls

Lethal yellowing of palm phytoplasma | CANDIDATUS PHYTOPLASMA PALMAE

California Pest Rating Proposal for

Candidatus Phytoplasma palmae (Lethal yellowing of palm phytoplasma)
[syn. Coconut lethal yellowing pathogen (Nutman & Roberts, 1955)]
Current Rating: A
Proposed Rating: A

Comment Period: 6/6/2019 through 7/21/2019


Author/Responsible Party:

Dr. Heather J. Scheck, Primary State Plant Pathologist/Nematologist, California Department of Food and Agriculture, 204 West Oak Ave, Lompoc, CA 805-736-8050 email: plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov.

*NOTE:

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

Comment Format:

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

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

Posted comments will not be able to be viewed immediately.

Comments may not be posted if they:

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

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

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


Proposed Pest Rating: A


Posted by ls

Hygrophila polysperma (Roxb.) T. Anderson

California Pest Rating Profile for

Hygrophila polysperma (Roxb.) T. Anderson: Indian swampweed
Lamiales- Acanthaceae
Pest Rating: A | Proposed Seed Rating: P


Comment Period CLOSED: 4/10/2019 – 5/25/2019
Author:

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

Responsible Party:

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


Pest Rating: A | Proposed Seed Rating: P


Updated on 7/12/2019 by ls

Alstroemeria necrotic streak virus

California Pest Rating Profile for

Alstroemeria necrotic streak virus
Pest Rating: A

Comment Period CLOSED: 4/3/2019 – 5/18/2019


Author/Responsible Party:

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


Pest Rating: A


Updated on 7/10/2019 by ls

White Prunicola Scale | Pseudaulacaspis prunicola

California Pest Rating for
Pseudaulacaspis prunicola (Maskell) | White prunicola scale
Hemiptera: Diaspididae
Pest Rating: A

PEST RATING PROFILE

Initiating Event:

In 2018, this scale was found in Solano County on Ligustrum sp. bonsai that had been purchased in Fresno County.  This scale currently has a Q-rating.  A permanent pest rating proposal is required to support an official pest rating.

History & Status:

Background:  Pseudaulacaspis prunicola is a polyphagous scale that is reported to feed on plants in 15 families.  Among the recorded hosts are fruit and ornamental trees, including Carica, Malus, and Prunus species (Agnello et al., 2015; Follett, 2000; Miller and Davidson, 2005).  Death of trees can result from feeding by this scale (Miller and Davidson, 2005).

There is some uncertainty regarding the species identity of P. prunicola.  This scale was considered a synonym of P. pentagona until 1980.  Kreiter et al. (1999) reported individuals in a single population that could be identified morphologically as either species.  Pseudaulacaspis pentagona is an A-rated (by CDFA) pest that is highly polyphagous and is reported to cause damage to a wide variety of plants, including peaches in the southeastern United States and papaya in Hawaii (Branscome, 1999; Follett, 2000).

Worldwide Distribution:  Pseudaulacaspis prunicola is thought to be native to temperate China or Japan (Miller and Davidson, 2005).  It has been introduced to Europe, the eastern United States, and Hawaii.  In the eastern United States, it is reported from Florida north to Massachusetts (Miller and Davidson, 2005).

Official Control: Pseudaulacaspis prunicola does not appear to be under official control in any country.  However, P. pentagona, which has been considered by some to be a senior synonym of P. prunicola, is a regulated pest in some countries (EPPO Global Database, 2018).

California Distribution:  Although P. prunicola has been collected at times in the state, this species does not appear to be established in California.

California Interceptions:  The P. prunicola found on Ligustrum sp. bonsai in Solano County in 2018 represents the only interception of this species in California.

The risk Pseudaulacaspis prunicola would pose to California is evaluated below.

Consequences of Introduction:

1) Climate/Host Interaction: Pseudaulacaspis prunicola has proven itself capable of becoming established in a variety of climates, and it is highly polyphagous.  It could probably establish a widespread distribution in California.  Therefore, prunicola receives a High (3) in this category.

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

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

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

2) Known Pest Host Range: Pseudaulacaspis prunicola is reported to feed on plants in at least 15 families.  Therefore, it receives a High (3) in this category.

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

– Medium (2) has a moderate host range.

– High (3) has a wide host range.

3) Pest Reproductive and Dispersal Potential: Pseudaulacaspis prunicola is likely to be transported via movement of infested plants.  Therefore, it receives a Medium (2) in this category.

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

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

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

4) Economic Impact: Pseudaulacaspis prunicola is reported to attack fruit and ornamental trees.  Feeding damage is reported to cause death of trees.  Infestations of this scale could lower crop yield and increase production costs.  Therefore, it receives a Medium (2) in this category.

Economic Impact: A, B

A. The pest could lower crop yield.

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

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

D. The pest could negatively change normal cultural practices.

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

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

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

Economic Impact Score: 2

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

– Medium (2) causes 2 of these impacts.

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

5) Environmental Impact: This scale is reported to kill ornamental trees.  Infestations could trigger treatment programs.  Therefore, it receives a High (3) in this category.

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

Environmental Impact: D, E

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

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

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

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

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

Environmental Impact Score: 3

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

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

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

Consequences of Introduction to California for Pseudaulacaspis prunicola: 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: Pseudaulacaspis prunicola is not known to be present in California.  It receives a Not Established (0) in this category.

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

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

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

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

Final Score:

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

Uncertainty:

There is taxonomic uncertainty regarding P. prunicola and P. pentagona; they have been considered to be the same species.  As P. pentagona is A-rated and is also not known to be present in California, the main implication of this uncertainty appears to be that the potential impact of P. prunicola could be greater than that considered in this PRP because there are additional hosts and additional climatic niche space reported for P. pentagona.

Conclusion and Rating Justification:

Pseudaulacaspis prunicola is a highly polyphagous scale that is not known to be present in California.  It has the potential to cause economic and environmental impacts in the state if it was to become established.  For these reasons, an “A” rating is justified.


References:

Agnello, A., Jentsch, P., and Kain, D.  2015.  Prebloom problemas.  Scaffolds Fruit Journal 24:1-3.

Branscome, D.  1999.  Pseudaulacaspis pentagona.  Accessed October 2, 2018: http://entnemdept.ufl.edu/creatures/orn/scales/white_peach_scale.htm

California Department of Food and Agriculture.  Pest and damage record database.  Accessed September 28, 2018:
https://pdr.cdfa.ca.gov/PDR/pdrmainmenu.aspx

EPPO Global Database.  2018.  Accessed October 4, 2018: https://gd.eppo.int/

Follett, P. A.  2000.  Arthropod pests of papaya in Hawaii.  Chronica Horticulturae 40:7-10.

Kreiter, P., Panis, A., and Tourniaire, R.  1999.  Variabilite morphologique chez Pseudaulacaspis pentagona Targioni Tozzetti dans une population du sud-est de la France (Hemiptera: Diaspididae).  Annales de la Société Entomologique de France 35:33-36.

Symbiota Collections of Arthropods Network.  Accessed September 27, 2018:
http://scan1.acis.ufl.edu

Miller, D. R. and Davidson, J. A.  2005.  Armored scale insect pests of trees and shrubs (Hemiptera: Diaspididae).  Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY.


Responsible Party:

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


Comment Period:* CLOSED

12/6/2018 – 1/20/2019


*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 

Harrisia Cactus Mealybug | Hypogeococcus pungens

California Pest Rating for
Hypogeococcus pungens Granara de Willink | Harrisia cactus mealybug
Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae
Pest Rating: A

PEST RATING PROFILE

Initiating Event:

An infestation of Hypogeococcus pungens was discovered on cacti in a recreation area in Orange County in September 2018.  This mealybug currently has a Q-rating.  A permanent pest rating proposal is required to support an official pest rating.

History & Status:

Background:   Hypogeococcus pungens is a mealybug that has been reported to attack at least six genera of cacti as well as plants in the families Amaranthaceae, Polygonaceae, and Portulaceae (Hodges, 2009; Zimmermann et al., 2010).  Cactus feeding is concentrated on portions of the plant that are actively growing.  This results in distorted growth, including curling branches and growth of new, deformed branches that are sometimes referred to as galls (Le Quay-Velázquez et al., 2015).  Death can take years, especially in older plants, but feeding has an immediate impact of fruit production because the mealybugs are concentrated on developing flowers.  Therefore, this mealybug can have a severe impact on cactus reproduction (Patterson et al., 2011).

Natural dispersal appears to be limited but may include wind dispersal in the first instar (Zimmermann et al., 2010).  Movement of plants is probably the most effective means of spread of this mealybug.

In the 1970s and 1980s, this mealybug was introduced to Australia and South Africa as part of biological control programs targeting introduced cacti, including Harrisia spp. This mealybug was credited as an effective biological control agent, helping to clear cacti from thousands of hectares.

Aguirre et al. (2016) provided evidence that more than one species may be currently identified as H. pungens.  Specimens collected from the type host plant (Amaranthaceae) did not produce viable offspring or did not survive at all on cacti.  The cactus-feeding H. pungens introduced to Australia for biological control of cacti had been collected from cacti in Argentina.  Significantly, the H. pungens in Australia have not been found on Amaranthaceae, even though this family of plants is common in Australia.  The mealybug in Florida rarely attacks cacti but it is common on Alternanthera (Polygonaceae) and Portulaca (Portulaceae) species.  In addition, the Amaranthaceae-feeding H. pungens are reported to be parthenogenetic, whereas the cactus-feeding mealybug is not.  This evidence suggests there are likely at least two species currently recognized as H. pungens; one that feeds on cacti (native to South America and introduced to Australia, South Africa, the Caribbean, and possibly California) and one that feeds on Amaranthaceae and other plant families (also native to South America and introduced to Florida).

In addition, H. pungens has been misidentified as H. festerianus in the past (CABI, 2018).

In areas with native cacti but where H. pungens is not native to, there is concern that the mealybug could have an impact on native cacti.  Hypogeococcus pungens was reported to cause severe damage to native cacti in Puerto Rico, including reducing the density of cactus stems (Weaver, 2011).

Worldwide Distribution:  Hypogeococcus pungens is native to South America (northern Argentina, western Brazil, Paraguay, and Peru).  It has been introduced to Australia, the Caribbean (including the Dominican Republic and Puerto Rico), Europe (France, Greece, and Italy), South Africa, and the United States (Florida and Hawaii) (German-Ramirez et al., 2014; Hodges, 2009; Milonas et al., 2008; Pellizzari and Sacco, 2010; Segarra-Carmona et al., 2010).  As of 2009, it was reported from 26 counties in Florida (Hodges, 2009).

Official Control: Hypogeococcus pungens is considered Reportable by the USDA (USDA-APHIS).

California Distribution:  Hypogeococcus pungens was found in California in Beverly Hills in 2010, 2012, 2014, and 2018 and in a recreation area in Orange County in 2018.  Both of these infestations are now under eradication, and this species is not known to be present anywhere else in the state.

California Interceptions:  Hypogeococcus pungens was found on cacti at one residence in Beverly Hills (in 2010, 2012, 2014, and 2018), in a recreation area in Orange County in 2018, and in nurseries in Riverside, Orange, San Diego, and San Mateo County in 2004, 2011, 2012, and 2018.  It was intercepted on alternanthera and ludwigia plants from Florida in 2002 and 2004 (see comment on host breadth and taxonomic uncertainty, above).

The risk Hypogeococcus pungens would pose to California is evaluated below.

Consequences of Introduction:

1) Climate/Host Interaction: Hypogeococcus pungens has been reported from areas that vary in climate from temperate to semi-arid to tropical.  It has been reported to feed on plants in four families.  It could possibly establish a widespread distribution in California.  Therefore, pungens receives a High (3) in this category.

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

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

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

2) Known Pest Host Range: Four plant families are reported to be attacked by mealybugs that were identified as pungens.  Although it is possible that multiple species with different feeding habits are being lumped together in this PRP (see Background, above, and Uncertainty, below), it is necessary to consider characteristics of what has been (and are likely to be) identified as H. pungens.  Therefore, H. pungens receives a Medium (2) in this category.

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

– Medium (2) has a moderate host range.

– High (3) has a wide host range.

3) Pest Reproductive and Dispersal Potential: Some pungens are reported to be parthenogenetic, but see Background, above.  Natural dispersal ability appears to be limited, with wind-dispersal of first instar nymphs being reported as likely.  Movement of infested cactus plants is another likely mode of dispersal.  Therefore, it receives a Medium (2) in this category.

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

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

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

4) Economic Impact: Hypogeococcus pungens is likely to infest cacti in nurseries if it became established in California.  This could lead to higher costs of production.  Additionally, the presence of this mealybug could lead to a loss in cactus markets, as this pest threatens native cacti in other countries, including Mexico.  Therefore, it receives a Medium (2) in this category.

Economic Impact:  B, C

A. The pest could lower crop yield.

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

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

D. The pest could negatively change normal cultural practices.

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

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

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

Economic Impact Score: 2

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

– Medium (2) causes 2 of these impacts.

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

5) Environmental Impact: There are 38 native cacti in California, including 8 endemic species (Jepson Herbarium, 2018), that could be threatened by this mealybug, including the rare golden-spined cereus (Bergerocactus emoryi (Engelm.) Britton & Rose) and the San Diego barrel cactus (Ferocactus viridescens (Torr. & A. Gray) Britton & Rose). Infestations of this mealybug could trigger treatments and could impact ornamental cactus plantings.  Therefore, it receives a High (3) in this category.

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

Environmental Impact: B, D, E

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

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

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

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

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

Environmental Impact Score: 3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 significant uncertainty regarding the identity of the mealybugs identified as H. pungens.  As described in the Background (above), there may be at least two species that are currently identified as H. pungens; one that feeds on cacti and one that feeds on other plants, including Amaranthaceae.  This makes it difficult to extrapolate impacts of H. pungens observed in other places to California.  For example, H. pungens is reported to be widely distributed in Florida, but this does not appear to be the cactus-feeding form.  In this PRP, characteristics and possible impacts of the mealybugs identified as H. pungens were considered because, in the absence of further systematic work on these mealybugs, they are likely to be similarly identified as H. pungens if intercepted in California.

Conclusion and Rating Justification:

Hypogeococcus pungens or a cryptic species that is currently identified as H. pungens attacks cacti and poses a threat to cacti in California, both rare, native species as well as those cultivated as ornamentals in nurseries.  Besides the infestations that are under eradication, this mealybug is not known to be established in California.  For these reasons, an “A” rating is justified.


References:

Aguirre, M. B., Diaz-Soltero, H., Claps, L. E., Saracho Bottero, A., Triapitsyn, S., Hasson, E., and Logarzo, G. A.  2016.  Studies on the biology of Hypogeococcus pungens (sensu stricto) (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) in Argentina to aid the identification of the mealybug pest of Cactaceae in Puerto Rico.  Journal of Insect Science 16:1-7.

California Department of Food and Agriculture.  Pest and damage record database.  Accessed October 5, 2018: https://pdr.cdfa.ca.gov/PDR/pdrmainmenu.aspx

CABI.  2018. Invasive Species Compendium. Hypogeococcus pungens (cactus mealybug) datasheet.  Accessed October 5, 2018:  https://www.cabi.org/isc/datasheet/110614

German-Ramirez, E., Kairo, M. T. K., Stocks, I., Haseeb, M., and Serra, C. A.  2014.  New record of Hypogeococcus pungens (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) in the Dominican Republic with comments on specific characters.  Florida Entomologist 97:320-321.

Hodges, A.  2009.  Hypogeococcus pungens Granara de Willink (Insects: Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae). Accessed September 24, 2018: http://entnemdept.ufl.edu/creatures/orn/mealybug/hypogeococcus_pungens.htm

Jepson Herbarium.  2018.  Jepson eFLora.  Accessed October 5, 2018:
http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/IJM_stats.html.

Le Quay-Velázquez, G., Ciomperlik, M., and Rodrigues, J. C. V.  2015.  Gall formation on the endangered cactus, Leptocereus quadricostatus caused by the invasive mealybug, Hypogeococcus pungens (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae).  Proceedings of the Caribbean Food Crops Society 51:174-180.

Milonas, P. G., Kozár, F., and Kontodimas, D. C.  2008.  List of scale insects of Greece.  pp. 143-147 in Branco M., Franco J.C., and Hodgson C. (eds.), Proceedings of the XI International Symposium on Scale Insect Studies.   ISA Press, Lisbon, Portugal.

Paterson, I. D., Hoffmann, J. H., Klein, H., Mathenge, C. W., Neser, S., and Zimmermann, H. G.  2011.  Biological control of Cactaceae in South Africa 19:230-246.

Pellizzari, G., and Sacco, M.  2010.  Le cocciniglie delle piante ornamentali in Liguria.  Protezione delle Colture 4:27-36.

Segarra-Carmona, A. E., Ramírez-Lluch, A., Cabrera-Asencio, I., and Jiménez-López, A. N.  2010.  First report of a new invasive mealybug, the Harrisia cactus Hypogeococcus pungens (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae).  The Journal of Agriculture of the University of Puerto Rico 94:183-187.

USDA-APHIS.  U.S. regulated plant pest table.  Accessed September 26, 2018:
https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/planthealth/import-information/rppl/rppl-table

Weaver, P. L.  2011.  Early recovery of subtropical dry forest in south-western Puerto Rico.  Bois et Forêts de Tropiques 310:12-23.

Zimmermann, H. G., Pérez, M., Cuen, S., Mandujano, M. C., and Golubov, J.  2010.  The South American mealybug that threatens North American cacti.  Cactus and Succulent Journal 82:105-107.


Responsible Party:

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


Comment Period:* CLOSED

12/6/2018 – 1/20/2019


*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 

Cotton Bollworm | Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner)

California Pest Rating for
Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner)Cotton bollworm
Lepidoptera: Noctuidae
Pest Rating: A

 


PEST RATING PROFILE

Initiating Event:

Helicoverpa armigera was recently intercepted in a cut flower shipment in Los Angeles. A pest rating proposal is required to assign a permanent pest rating.

History & Status:

Background:  Helicoverpa armigera is a highly polyphagous pest of many economically significant crops in Africa, Asia, Australia, and Europe (King, 1994). Helicoverpa armigera pupae overwinter in the soil. Adults emerge in May – June and lay eggs, usually on or near flowers. The larvae primarily feed on reproductive parts of hosts (flowers and fruits), but they can also feed on foliage. There are from two to six generations/year, depending on the climate. This species has been reported to cause serious losses throughout its range, in particular to tomatoes, corn, and cotton (Lammers and Ma cLeod, 2007).

Worldwide Distribution:  Helicoverpa armigera is widely distributed. It has been reported from the following places: Asia: Afghanistan, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Brunei, Cambodia, China, Cocos Islands, Republic of Georgia, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Korea, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Lebanon, Malaysia, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan, Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Syria, Taiwan, Tajikistan, Thailand, Turkey, Turkmenistan, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, Vietnam, and Yemen.

Europe: Albania, Andorra, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Gibraltar, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Macedonia, Malta, Moldova, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and Ukraine.

Africa: Algeria, Angola, Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Cote d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Kenya, Lesotho, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mayotte, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Republic of Congo, Reunion, Rwanda, Saint Helena, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Africa, Sudan, Swaziland, Tanzania, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.

Oceania: American Samoa, Australia, Belau, Christmas Island, Cook Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Guam, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, New Caledonia, New Zealand, Norfolk Island, Northern Mariana Islands, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, and Vanuatu.

South America: Argentina, Brazil, and Paraguay (CABI, 2007; Fibiger and Skule, 2011; EPPO, 2012; Sugayama, 2013; Senave, 2013; Murúa et al., 2014).

Official Control: Helicoverpa armigera is listed as a harmful organism in Costa Rica, Bermuda, French Polynesia, Honduras, Paraguay, Turkey, Chile, Ecuador, Guatemala, Monaco, San Marino, Uruguay, Colombia, European Union, Norway, and Serbia (USDA PCIT).

California Distribution: Helicoverpa armigera has never been found in the environment of California.

California Interceptions: There was only one specimen reported in the Pest and Damage Record Database by CDFA. This specimen was found (2017) in Los Angeles County on a cut flower shipment from India (California Department of Food and Agriculture).

The risk Helicoverpa armigera (cotton bollworm) would pose to California is evaluated below.

Consequences of Introduction:

1) Climate/Host Interaction: Helicoverpa armigera can feed on a wide variety of plants that grow in California. It is expected to be capable of establishing a widespread distribution and receives a High (3) in this category.

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

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

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

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

2) Known Pest Host Range: Helicoverpa armigera is a polyphagous moth and a major insect pest of both field and horticultural crops in many parts of the world (Fitt, 1989). It has been reported on over 180 species of plants, including many crops, in at least 45 plant families (Venette et al., 2003). It receives a High (3) in this category.

Evaluate the host range of the pest.

Low (1) has a very limited host range.

Medium (2) has a moderate host range.

– High (3) has a wide host range.

3) Pest Dispersal Potential: Helicoverpa armigera exhibits overlapping generations, typically two to five generations per year in subtropical and temperate regions. Up to 11 generations per year can occur under optimal conditions (Tripathi and Singh, 1991; King, 1994; Fowler and Lakin, 2001).  The female lays up to 1000 eggs in clusters or singly on fruits, stems, and growing points. It receives a High (3) in this category.

Evaluate the natural and artificial dispersal potential of the pest.

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

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

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

4) Economic Impact: Helicoverpa armigera is considered to be among the most damaging agricultural pests in Australia, costing approximately $225.2 million per year to control (Clearly et al., 2006). This moth has the potential to lower crop yields and increase production costs in California. If Helicoverpa armigera were to establish in California it is also likely to disrupt markets for California fresh fruit and plants because this pest is regulated by many countries.  It receives a High (3) in this category.

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

Economic Impact: A, B, C

A. The pest could lower crop yield.

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

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

D. The pest could negatively change normal cultural practices.

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

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

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

Economic Impact Score: 3

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

Medium (2) causes 2 of these impacts.

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

5) Environmental Impact: Helicoverpa armigera is not expected to lower biodiversity, disrupt natural communities, or change ecosystem processes. It might trigger new chemical treatments by residents who find infestations in gardens. It is not expected to significantly impact cultural practices, home/urban gardening, or ornamental plantings. It receives a Medium (2) in this category.

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

Environmental Impact: D

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

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

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

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

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

Environmental Impact: Score: 2

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

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

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

Consequences of Introduction to California for Helicoverpa armigera (Cotton Bollworm):  High (14)

Low = 5-8 points

Medium = 9-12 points

-High = 13-15 points

6) Post Entry Distribution and Survey Information: Helicoverpa armigera has never been found in California and receives a Not established (0) in this category.

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

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

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

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

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

Final Score:

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

Uncertainty:

Only one interception record was found in CDFA database, there would be chances that it presumably enters the state undetected at other times. Therefore, it is possible that it may be present in some areas of California. There is little uncertainty that H. armigera could become widely established in California, as there are numerous host plants grown throughout the state.

Conclusion and Rating Justification:

Helicoverpa armigera has not been found in California and is expected to have significant economic and environmental impacts if it establishes in the state.  An “A” rating is justified.


References:

CABI. 2018.  Helicoverpa armigera.  CAB International.  Accessed August 9, 2018:  https://www.cabi.org/isc/datasheet/26757

CDFA Pest and Damage Report Database. 2011. Aulacaspis tubercularis. Plant Health and Pest Prevention Services. CA Department of Food and Agriculture. Accessed August 9, 2018:  http://phpps.cdfa.ca.gov/user/frmLogon2.asp

Cleary, A. J., Cribb, B. W., and Murray, D. A. H. 2006. Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner): can wheat stubble protect cotton from attack. Australian Journal of Entomology 45:10-15.

Fitt, G. P. 1989. The ecology of Heliothis spp. in relation to agroecosystems. Annual Review of Entomology 34:17-52.

Fowler, G. A. and Lakin, K. R. 2001. Risk Assessment: The Old-World bollworm, Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner), (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae).

USDA-APHIS-PPQ-CPHST-PERAL

Smith E. 2015.  Old World bollworm management program.  Environmental Assessment USDA. Accessed August 9, 2018:
https://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/ea/downloads/2015/owb-pr-ea.pdf

King, A. B. S. 1994. Heliothis /Helicoverpa (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) pp. 39-106 in Matthews, G. A. and Tunstall, J. P. (eds.), Insect Pests of Cotton. CAB International, Wallingford, UK.

Lammers, J. W. and MacLeod, A. 2007. Report of a Pest Risk Analysis: Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner, 1808). Plant Protection Service and Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Central Science Laboratory.

Sullivan, M. and Molet, T. 2007. CPHST Pest Datasheet for Helicoverpa armigera. USDA-APHIS-PPQ-CPHST. Revised April 2014.  Accessed August 9, 2018:
http://download.ceris.purdue.edu/file/3068

Tripathi, S. and Singh, R. 1991. Population dynamics of Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Insect Science Applications 12:367-374.

USDA Phytosanitary Certificate Issuance & Tracking System (PCIT). Phytosanitary

Export Database (PExD). Harmful organism report: Helicoverpa armigera.
Accessed August 9, 2018: https://pcit.aphis.usda.gov/pcit/


Author:

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

Responsible Party:

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


Comment Period:*CLOSED

11/29/2018 – 1/13/2019


*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 

Tea Scale of Camellia | Fiorinia phantasma

California Pest Rating for
Fiorinia phantasma Cockerell & Robinson: tea scale of camellia
Hemiptera: Diaspididae
Pest Rating: A

PEST RATING PROFILE

Initiating Event:

In March 2018, an infestation of Fiorinia phantasma was discovered on 27 roadside palm trees in Miami, Florida (Ahmad and Miller, 2018). This species is already present in Hawaii where it is a significant pest of ornamentals. During May 2018, Fiorinia phantasma was intercepted on a shipment of unidentified leaves from American Samoa.  This species has a Q rating. A pest rating proposal is required to assign a permanent rating to this species.

History & Status:

BackgroundFiorinia phantasma is a polyphagous armored scale and is considered a significant pest of nursery plants particularly ornamental palms (Arecaceae). It has been transported worldwide by movement of live nursery plants (Brooks, 2012 and Watson et-al., 2015). Female scales inconsistently show red stripes, running the width of the scale covering. Male and females can be found intermingled on the undersides of leaves. Eggs are large and can reach more than 1/5 of the body size of females. Crawlers begin to colonize the top side of leaves when populations reach high densities (Garcia and Hara, 2011).

Fiorinia phantasma causes yellow blotches on the upper leaf surface of host plants. Intense feeding damage is caused due to heavy infestations, resulting in leaf drop. In Hawaii, this scale impacts local nursery and landscape industry and poses an additional quarantine problem for exporters (Garcia and Hara, 2011).

In addition to palms, Fiorinia phantasma also feeds on shower tree (Cassia spp.), lobster claw (Heliconia caribaea), weeping fig (Ficus benjamina), naio (Myoporum sandwichense), mock orange (Murraya peniculata), pittosporum (Pittosporum tobira), wax leaf privet (Ligustrum japonicum), and bread fruit (Artocarpus altilis) (NPDN- Pacific pest detector news).

Worldwide Distribution: Fiorinia phantasma was first found in the Philippine islands in 1915. It is currently known in American Samoa, France, French Polynesia, Grenada, Guam, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Malaysia, Maldives, Nauru, Netherlands, New Caledonia, Papua New Guinea, Reunion, Saint Martin and St. Barthelemy, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Taiwan, Thailand and Vietnam (Watson et- al., 2015).

The first report of F. phantasma from the continental Unites States was recorded from a Canary island date palm on March 1, 2018 in Miami- Dade county, Florida. Heavy infestations have also been reported on palms in Hawaii (Garcia and Hara 2011 & Watson et-al., 2015).

Official Control: Fiorinia phantasma is listed as a harmful organism in the Republic of Korea (USDA PCIT).

California DistributionFiorinia phantasma is not present in the natural environment of California.

California Interceptions: Fiorinia phantasma has been intercepted 11 times by CDFA between 2010 and 2018 through regulatory pathways mainly through high risk pest exclusion activities and dog program inspections (CDFA PDR Database).

The risk Fiorinia phantasma (tea scale of camellia) would pose to California is evaluated below.

Consequences of Introduction: 

1) Climate/Host Interaction: Tropical and subtropical climate in the south coast of California is suitable for growing many palm trees. Other hosts plants including oleander, plumeria, cassia, weeping fig, pittosporum, podocarpus and murraya are grown throughout California. Fiorinia phantasma is likely to survive where these host plants are grown. It receives a High (3) in this category.

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

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

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

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

2) Known Pest Host Range: Fiorinina phantasma is known to feed on a wide range of host plants in 44 genera in 24 families. It has preference for Arecaceae (palm trees). Other families include Araceae, Apocynaceae, Calophyllaceae, Commilinaceae, Cycadaceae, Euphorbiaceae, Fabaceae, Heliconiacaea, Lauracaea, Malvaceae, Melicaceae, Moraceae, Oleaceae, Orchidaceae, Pandanaceae, Pittosporaceae, Poaceae, Rutaceae, Sapindaceae, Scrophulariaceae, Strelitziaceae (García Morales et al., 2016). It receives a High (3) in this category.

Evaluate the host range of the pest. Score:

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

– Medium (2) has a moderate host range.

High (3) has a wide host range.

3) Pest Dispersal Potential: Fiorinina phantasma remains active throughout the year in warmer climates.  Female lays approximately 10-15 eggs under its armor. Crawlers hatch in 10 days. The infestation actively spreads in crawler phase. Life cycle is completed in 1.5 – 2 months. It is spread in Hawaii by inter- island transport of nursery plants (Garcia and Hara, 2011, Watson et al., 2015). In California, if Fiorinia phantasma gets introduced and established, it is likely to move long distances through movement of infested nursery and landscape plants especially palm trees. It receives a High (3) in this category.

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

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

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

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

4) Economic Impact: Fiorinina phantasma is known to cause serious damage on areca palms in landscapes. Feeding by this species results in yellowing of leaves, leaf drop, loss of plant vigor, stunting of the host and even death of the plant. It is reported to have infested 6000 palm trees in the republic of Maldives (Watson et-al., 2015). If this species is introduced and gets established in palm growing and landscapes of south coast, it is likely to impact trade, including palms grown in nurseries. Possible use of horticultural oils and systemic insecticides for its control can increase production costs (García Morales et al., 2016). It receives a High (3) in this category.

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

Economic Impact: A, B, C

A. The pest could lower crop yield.

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

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

D. The pest could negatively change normal cultural practices.

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

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

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

Economic Impact Score: 3

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

– Medium (2) causes 2 of these impacts.

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

5) Environmental Impact: The establishment of Fiorinina phantasma in California is likely to impact nursery and landscape plants as it can spread through transport of nursery plants. This species is not expected to lower biodiversity, change ecosystems and affect any threatened or endangered species. Since camellias, palms and other hosts are planted in home gardens, infestations would likely trigger chemical treatments by homeowners. It receives a Medium (2) in this category.

Evaluate the environmental impacts of the pest on California using the following criterion:

Environmental Impact: D

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

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

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

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

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

Score the pest for Environmental Impact: 2

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

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

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

Consequences of Introduction to California for Fiorinia phantasma (tea scale of camellia): 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: Fiorinia phantasma has not been detected in the natural environment of California. It receives Not established (0) in this category

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

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

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

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

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

Final Score:

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

Uncertainty:

Fiorinia phantasma has been intercepted by CDFA in shipments of leucodendron, Psidium guajava, Annona muricata, boxwood and podocarpus. There are many nurseries in southern and central California that specialize in these hosts and different kinds of palm trees, the main hosts of this scale. Therefore, nursery and landscape plants may potentially be significantly impacted. There have not been any recent formal surveys of nurseries and palm growing areas for the presence of this species. It is possible that this scale could be present in some parts of California.

Conclusion and Rating Justification:

Fiorinia phantasma has never been found in the environment of California. Since there are several of its hosts plants being grown and propagated in CA, it would likely have significant economic and environmental impacts if this scale become established in California. An “A” rating is justified.


References:

Ahmad, M, and Miller, D. 2018. First U.S. Continental Record of Fiorinia phantasma Cockerell & Robinson (Hemiptera: Diaspididae), Phantasma Scale, Potential Pest of Palms and Ornamentals Plants. Pest Alert. Publication: FDACS-P-01880. Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer resources. Division of Plant Industry. Accessed 8/3/2018  https://www.freshfromflorida.com/content/download/79840/2332158/Pest_Alert_-_Fiorinia_phantasma.pdf

Brooks, F. 2012. Pacific Pest Detector News. A Quarterly Newsletter for First Detectors. March- May 2012, Number 9. National Plant Diagnostics Network. Accessed 8/6/2018  https://www.npdn.org/system/files/WPDN%20PacPestDetectNews_Mar-May2012.pdf

Cockerell, T. D. A., and Robinson E.  1915. — Descriptions and records of Coccidae. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 34: 105–113

Garcia, J., and Hara, A. 2011. Fiorinia phantasma Cockerell & Robinson (Hemiptera: Diaspididae). New Pest Advisory, Plant Pest Control Branch, Division of Plant Industry, Department of Agriculture, State of Hawaii 1: 1-2. Accessed 8/6/2018 https://hdoa.hawaii.gov/pi/files/2013/01/Fiorinia-phantasma-NPA.pdf

Morales, G.M.  Denno, B.D., Miller, D.R., Miller, G.L., Ben-Dov, Y., and Hardy, N.B. 2016. ScaleNet: A literature-based model of scale insect biology and systematics. Database. Accessed 8/3/2018 http://scalenet.info.  http://scalenet.info/catalogue/Fiorinia%20phantasma/

Pest and Damage Record Database. 2018. Fiorinia phantasma. Plant Health and Pest Prevention Services. California Department of Food and Agriculture. Accessed 8/2/2018  http://phpps.cdfa.ca.gov/user/frmLogon2.asp

USDA Phytosanitary Certificate Issuance & Tracking System (PCIT) Phytosanitary Export Database (PExD). Harmful organism report: Fiorinia phantasma.  Accessed: 8/2/2018  https://pcit.aphis.usda.gov/pcit/

Watson, G.W., Williams, D.J., and Miller, D.R. 2015. The identity and distribution of Fiorinia phantasma (Cockerell & Robinson) (Hemiptera: Coccomorpha: Diaspididae), with a new synonym. Zootaxa 4048: 291-300.


Author:

Raj Randhawa, 1220 ‘N’ Street, Room 221, Sacramento CA 95814, (916) 403-6617, raj.randhawa@cdfa.ca.gov


Responsible Party:

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


Comment Period:*CLOSED

11/26/2018 – 1/10/2019


*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 

Tomato Brown Rugose Fruit Virus

California Pest Rating for
Tomato Brown Rugose Fruit Virus
Pest Rating:      A

PEST RATING PROFILE

Initiating Event:

On September 25, 2018, Tongyan Tian, CDFA Plant Pathologist, was notified by Kai-Shu Ling, Plant Pathologist, USDA ARS, Charleston, South Carolina, of his detection of Tomato brown rugose fruit virus (ToBRFV) in a tomato plant tissue sample sent to him by a private company in California.   The sample had been collected from tomato plants grown in the company’s greenhouse in Santa Barbara County.  On September 13, 2018, the company had also sent an unofficial symptomatic tomato leaf sample to CDFA for diagnosis of the associated pathogen. On November 2, 2018, Tongyan Tian, CDFA, identified the associated pathogen as Tomato brown rugose fruit virus. On further investigation of the situation in California, CDFA was notified by the company that all ToBRFV-infested and symptomatic plant material had been voluntarily destroyed, thereby preventing the collection of an official sample. Nevertheless, the risk associated with the possible introduction of ToBRFV and a proposed rating for this pathogen is documented here.

History & Status:

Background:  Tomato brown rugose fruit virus is a relatively new Tobamovirus – the genus that bears other economically important and contagious pathogens that infect Solanaceae, such as Tobacco mosaic virus (TMV) and Tomato mosaic virus (ToMV). ToBRFV was initially isolated from tomato plants grown in greenhouses in Jordan in 2015 (Salem et al., 2016).  Prior to this, in 2014, an outbreak of a new disease infecting resistant tomato cultivars grown in net houses was observed in Southern Israel and was determined to be caused by the Israeli isolate of ToBRFV with high genomic sequence identity to the Jordan isolate (Luria et al., 2017).  Most recently, ToBRFV was detected in tomato and chili pepper plants growing in nurseries in Yurecuaro, Michoacan, Mexico (NAPPO, 2018).  There have been no previous reports of ToBRFV from the USA. The recent detection in greenhouse tomato plants in California that subsequently resulted in the destruction of all infested plants, does not verify the establishment of ToBRFV in the country (see ‘Initiating Event’).

Tobamoviruses infecting tomato are of great concern, but ToBRFV is of special concern because of its ability to overcome resistance of the TM-22 resistance gene which is genetically bred into tomato plants for resistance against Tobamoviruses (Luria et al., 2017).  The Israeli isolate of ToBRFV was found to infect pepper (Capsicum annuum) plants harboring the L resistance genes, when cultivated in contaminated soil from previous grown infected tomato plants, especially in hot temperatures above 30°C (Luria et al., 2017).  Disease caused by ToBRFV is infectious and local spread can occur rapidly through mechanical means (see ‘Dispersal and spread’).

Hosts:  Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) and pepper (Capsicum annuum) are the main hosts (Salem et al., 2016; Luria et al., 2017; NAPPO, 2018).  Petunia (Petunia hybrida) and certain weeds like black nightshade (S. nigrum) were shown to be asymptomatic hosts in experiments (Luria et al., 2017).

Symptoms:  The Jordan isolate of ToBRFV in tomato caused mild foliar symptoms and strong brown rugose symptoms on fruit thereby affecting market value of the crop.   Mechanically inoculated plants exhibited a range of local and systemic symptoms (Salem et al., 2016).  Symptoms caused by the Israeli isolate of ToBRFV were mild and severe mosaic of leaves with occasional narrowing of the leaves.  Yellow spots on fruit affected 10-15% of the total number of fruit produced on symptomatic plants (Luria et al., 2017).

In pepper plants cultivated in ToBRFV-contaminated soil from previously grown infected tomato plants, especially in temperatures above 30°C, the hypersensitivity response included necrotic lesions on roots and stems resulting in inhibited plant growth and possibly plant collapse.  Petunia and certain weeds are symptomless hosts, while eggplant and potatoes are non-hosts for the virus (Luria et al., 2017).

Dispersal and spread: ToBRFV is transmitted mechanically (plant to plant) via externally contaminated seed (over long distances), common cultural practices (worker’s hand, clothes), tools, equipment and circulating water (Salem et al., 2016).  Tobamoviruses are capable of preserving infectivity in seeds and contaminated soil (Broadbent, 1976; Luria et al., 2017).  Weed hosts can serve as reservoirs of inoculum for infection of the main hosts.

Damage Potential: Tobamoviruses are of main concern in tomato crops, especially when cultivated in protected environments such as greenhouses, where conditions favor rapid spread of the pathogen.  The ability of ToBRFV to break resistance in tomato plants harboring the TM-22 resistance gene and, under certain conditions also pepper plants harboring the L resistance genes, makes the potential for damage a main concern. The stability and infectious nature of this Tobamovirus via mechanical transmission by workers, tools and equipment during the handling of plants, with infection most likely occurring when seedlings are thinned in nurseries or transplanted, plus transmission through contaminated seed, soil and circulating water, render a high potential for damage in tomato and pepper.  Crop production and quality of ToBRFV-consumable tomato and pepper fruit can be affected thereby significantly impacting their market value.

Worldwide Distribution: Asia: Jordan (Salem et al., 2016), Israel (Luria et al., 2017); North America: Mexico (NAPPO, 2018).

Official Control: None reported.

California Distribution: Tomato brown rugose fruit virus is not present in California.  The detection of ToBRFV in greenhouse tomato plants in Santa Barbara County resulted in the destruction of the plants (see ‘Initiating Event’).

California Interceptions: None reported.

The risk Tomato brown rugose fruit virus would pose to California is evaluated below.

Consequences of Introduction: 

1) Climate/Host Interaction: It is likely that Tomato brown rugose fruit virus can establish a widespread distribution in California wherever tomato and pepper plants are cultivated.

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

Score: 3

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

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

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

2) Known Pest Host Range: The main hosts of ToBRFV are tomato and pepper cultivars.  Experimentally, petunia and few weeds have been proven to be asymptomatic hosts and weeds may serve as reservoirs of inoculum for subsequent infections of main cultivated hosts.

Evaluate the host range of the pest.

Score: 1

Low (1) has a very limited host range.

– Medium (2) has a moderate host range.

– High (3) has a wide host range.

3) Pest Dispersal Potential: Tomato brown rugose fruit virus is a stable and readily infectious virus plant pathogen. It is easily transmitted from plant to plant by mechanical means which include common cultural practices, contaminated tools, equipment, hands, clothes, soil, and infected plants, and seed. Infections most likely occur in protected environments, where favorable conditions for pathogen spread exist, as when seedlings are thinned in nurseries or transplanted. Transmission of ToBRFV by insect vectors has not been reported.

Evaluate the natural and artificial dispersal potential of the pest.

Score: 3

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

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

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

4) Economic Impact: ToBRFV can break resistance in tomato plants harboring the TM-22 resistance gene and under certain conditions, also pepper plants harboring the L resistance genes. The stability and infectious nature of this Tobamovirus render a high potential for damage in tomato and pepper particularly under protected environments such as greenhouses.  Crop production and quality of ToBRFV consumable tomato and pepper fruit can be affected thereby significantly impacting their market value.

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

Economic Impact: A, B, C, D, G.

A. The pest could lower crop yield.

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

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

D. The pest could negatively change normal cultural practices.

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

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

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

Economic Impact Score: 3

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

– Medium (2) causes 2 of these impacts.

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

5) Environmental Impact: The natural host range is limited to tomato and pepper which are cultivated crops.  Home/urban gardening of these host plants may be impacted if infected with ToBRFV. Consequently, the establishment of this resistance-breaking Tobamovirus species in California could trigger additional official or private treatment programs.

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

Environmental Impact: D, E

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

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

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

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

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

Environmental Impact Score: 3

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

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

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

Consequences of Introduction to California for Tomato brown rugose fruit virus:

Add up the total score and include it here. 13

-Low = 5-8 points

-Medium = 9-12 points

High = 13-15 points

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

Evaluation is ‘0’.  ToBRFV is not established in California.

Score: 0

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

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

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

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

Final Score:

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

Final Score:  Score of Consequences of Introduction – Score of Post Entry Distribution and Survey Information = 13

Uncertainty:  

The potential for weed plants, especially those commonly found in tomato and pepper fields in California, to serve as hosts and inoculum reservoirs of the pathogen is not known.

Conclusion and Rating Justification:

Based on the evidence provided above the proposed rating for Tomato brown rugose fruit virus is A.


References:

Broadbent, L.  1976.  Epidemiology and control of Tomato mosaic virus.  Annual Review of Phytopathology, 14:75-96.

Luria, N. Smith, E., Reingold, V., Bekelman, I., Lapidot, M., Levin, I., Elad, N., Tam., Y., Sela, Abu-Ras, A., Ezra, N., Haberman, A., Yitzhak, L., Lachman, O. and Dombrovsky, A.  2017.  A new Israeli Tobamovirus isolate infects tomato plants harboring Tm-22 resistance genes.  PLoS ONE 12 (1):e0170429.  doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0170429

NAPPO. 2018. Tomato Brown Rugose Fruit Virus: detected in the municipality of Yurecuaro, Michoacan. North American Plant Protection Organization (NAPPO) Phytosanitary Alert System.  September 17, 2018. https://www.pestalerts.org/oprDetail.cfm?oprID=765.

Salem, N., Mansour, A., Ciuffo, M., Falk, B. W., and Turina, M.  2016.  A new Tobamovirus infecting tomato crops in Jordan.  Archives of Virology, 161:503-506.


Responsible Party:

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


Comment Period:* CLOSED

11/07/18 – 12/22/18


*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