{"id":2762,"date":"2016-10-26T15:07:33","date_gmt":"2016-10-26T22:07:33","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.cdfa.ca.gov\/Section3162\/?p=2762"},"modified":"2024-04-26T11:02:35","modified_gmt":"2024-04-26T18:02:35","slug":"phakopsora-phyllanthi-dietel-1910","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cdfa.ca.gov\/Section3162\/?p=2762","title":{"rendered":"Phakopsora phyllanthi Dietel 1910"},"content":{"rendered":"
California Pest Rating for<\/strong><\/h5>\n
Phakopsora phyllanthi <\/em><\/strong>Dietel 1910<\/strong><\/h5>\n
Pest Rating: C<\/strong><\/h5>\n
\n
PEST RATING PROFILE<\/strong><\/h5>\n
Initiating Event: <\/strong><\/h5>\n

On December 4, 2015, a shipment of cut foliage of an unidentified plant species was intercepted at the USPS West Sacramento Distribution Center by the CDFA Dog Team.\u00a0 The shipment had originated in Florida and was destined to a private owner in Merced County, California.\u00a0 A sample of the symptomatic foliage was collected from the shipment and sent to the CDFA Plant Pathology Laboratory for pathogen diagnosis.\u00a0 On January 20, 2016, Suzanne Latham, CDFA plant pathologist, identified the rust fungal pathogen, Phakopsora phyllanthi<\/em> associated with the diseased leaves and confirmed the identification by PCR sequencings.\u00a0 Subsequently, the shipment was destroyed (Martyn, 2016).\u00a0 On further investigation, USDA APHIS PPQ and Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services communicated to Suzanne Latham, CDFA, that P. phyllanthi<\/em> had been detected in three locations in Florida on February 18, 2016 (Latham, 2016).\u00a0 The risk of introduction and establishment of this pathogen in California is assessed and a permanent rating is proposed.<\/p>\n

History & Status:<\/strong><\/h5>\n

Background<\/u><\/strong>:\u00a0 Phakopsora phyllanthi<\/em> is a fungal pathogen that causes rust disease in Phyllanthus<\/em> spp. (\u2018gooseberry\u2019).\u00a0 The pathogen has only been detected on certain species of the plant genus primarily grown in tropical and subtropical regions of the globe.\u00a0 In 2015, Phakopsora phyllanthi<\/em> was first reported in the USA from Hawaii (Dietrich & Ko, 2015), and later in 2016, from Florida (Latham, 2016).\u00a0 The pathogen is not known to be present in California and was detected for the first time in an intercepted shipment of cut foliage from Florida, which was subsequently destroyed (see \u2018Initiating Event\u2019).\u00a0 The plant genus, Phyllanthus<\/em> (Phyllanthaceae) contains several hundred species, however, only one species, P. caroliniensis<\/em> subsp. caroliniensis<\/em> (Carolina leaf-flower) native to the eastern United States, is known to be present in San Diego County as an introduced annual plant (Calflora, 2016).<\/p>\n

Disease cycle<\/u>: \u00a0<\/strong>The life cycle of Phakopsora phyllanthi<\/em> is not fully known.\u00a0 Teliospores (the sexual, overwintering stage of the fungus), have not been observed nor is it known if the pathogen needs an alternate host to complete its life cycle (Dietrich & Ko, 2015).\u00a0 It is likely, but not proven, that P. phyllanthi<\/em> is spread to non-infected hosts via production of urediniospores only.<\/p>\n

Dispersal and spread<\/em>: Urediniospores are spread by wind and splashing rain.\u00a0 Insects, animals, and humans may also aid in spreading spores to non-infected plants. Infected nursery plants also aid in introducing and spreading the pathogen.<\/p>\n

Hosts:<\/em>\u00a0 Phyllanthus acidus<\/em> (synonyms: Cicca acida, P. distichus; <\/em>Tahitian gooseberry), P.benguetensis, P. emblica <\/em>(Indian gooseberry), P. niruri<\/em> (gale of the wind), P. phyllanthi, Phyllanthus sp. <\/em>(Dietrich & Ko, 2015; Farr & Rossman, 2016).\u00a0 Some Phyllanthus<\/em> species such as, P. emblica<\/em> and P. acidus<\/em> are cultivated for fruit in warm climates, while other species are pantropical weeds or grown for medicinal uses \u2013 but these species are not present in California.<\/p>\n

Symptoms:<\/em>\u00a0 Rust-infected Phyllanthus acidus<\/em> (Tahitian gooseberry) trees may exhibit a general unthrifty appearance with thinning canopy, and barren branches or twigs.\u00a0 Leaves exhibit discolored chlorotic or necrotic spots on upper and lower surfaces.\u00a0 Small white-brownish raised spots or pustules containing numerous powdery urediniospores are produced on lower leaf surfaces.\u00a0 Affected leaves eventually drop off.\u00a0 Rust pustules and lesions are also formed on the surface of fruit (Dietrich & Ko, 2015).<\/p>\n

Disease Potential<\/em>:\u00a0 Phyllanthus<\/em> species, such as P. acidua<\/em> (Tahitian gooseberry) and P. emblic<\/em>a (Indian gooseberry) grown for their fruit in tropical climates, are not commercially cultivated in California, but are probably sold by rare fruit nurseries within the State.\u00a0 Infections of this rust pathogen could negatively impact production and value of plants.\u00a0 In general, severe infestation of rust can result in defoliation and reduction in plant growth, vigor and stand.\u00a0 Containment and management of the rust pathogen can be difficult as masses of air-borne spores produced can spread over long distances.\u00a0 Backyard growers, other small, rare fruit production growers, hobbyists, and rare plant nurseries in warm and wet climates of southern California may be at particular risk.<\/p>\n

Worldwide Distribution<\/u>:<\/strong> Asia<\/em>: China, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand; North America<\/em>: USA (Florida, Hawaii); South America:<\/em> Brazil, Ecuador, French Guyana, Venezuela (Dietrich & Ko, 2015; Farr & Rossman, 2016).<\/p>\n

Official Control<\/u>:<\/strong> None reported.\u00a0 Presently, Phakopsora phyllanthi<\/em> has a temporary Q rating in California.<\/p>\n

California Distribution<\/u>:\u00a0<\/strong> The gooseberry rust pathogen, Phakopsora phyllanthi<\/em> is not established in California.<\/p>\n

California Interceptions<\/u>:\u00a0<\/strong> The pathogen has only been detected once in a single intercepted quarantine shipment of unidentified cut foliage that originated in Florida (see \u201cInitiating Event\u201d).<\/p>\n

The risk Phakopsora phyllanthi<\/em> would pose to California is evaluated below.<\/p>\n

Consequences of Introduction:\u00a0 <\/strong><\/h5>\n

1) Climate\/Host Interaction:<\/strong> Evaluate if the pest would have suitable hosts and climate to establish in California. Score:<\/p>\n

– Low (1)<\/strong> Not likely to establish in California; or likely to establish in very limited areas.<\/span><\/p>\n

– Medium (2) may be able to establish in a larger but limited part of California.<\/p>\n

– High (3) likely to establish a widespread distribution in California.<\/p>\n

Risk is Low (1): \u00a0<\/em><\/strong>Phakopsora phyllanthi may establish in very limited areas within southern California that have warm and wet climates where the tropical host, <\/em>Phyllanthus spp. is able to grow.\u00a0 Presently, only one species, <\/em>Phyllanthus caroliniensis subsp<\/em>. caroliniensis (Carolina leaf-flower) native to the eastern United States, is known to be present in San Diego County\u2019s coastal region as an introduced annual plant.\u00a0<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

2) Known Pest Host Range:<\/strong> Evaluate the host range of the pest. Score:<\/p>\n

– Low (1)<\/strong> has a very limited host range.<\/span><\/p>\n

– Medium (2) has a moderate host range.<\/p>\n

– High (3) has a wide host range.<\/p>\n

Risk is Low (1):\u00a0 <\/em><\/strong>The host range for the pathogen is very limited and comprises of some species non-native, tropical plants belonging to the genus <\/em>Phyllanthus.<\/span><\/p>\n

3) Pest Dispersal Potential:<\/strong> Evaluate the natural and artificial dispersal potential of the pest. Score:<\/p>\n

– Low (1) does not have high reproductive or dispersal potential.<\/p>\n

– Medium (2) has either high reproductive or dispersal potential.<\/p>\n

– High (3)<\/strong> has both high reproduction and dispersal potential.<\/span><\/p>\n

Risk is High (3): <\/em><\/strong>Phakopsora phyllanthi has high reproduction and dispersal potential.<\/em>\u00a0 Spores are spread by wind and splashing rain.\u00a0 Insects, animals, and humans may also aid in spreading spores to non-infected plants. Infected nursery plants also aid in introducing and spreading the pathogen.<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

4) Economic Impact:<\/strong> Evaluate the economic impact of the pest to California using the criteria below. Score:<\/p>\n

A. The pest could lower crop yield.<\/p>\n

B. The pest could lower crop value (includes increasing crop production costs).<\/p>\n

C. The pest could trigger the loss of markets (includes quarantines).<\/p>\n

D. The pest could negatively change normal cultural practices.<\/p>\n

E. The pest can vector, or is vectored, by another pestiferous organism.<\/p>\n

F. The organism is injurious or poisonous to agriculturally important animals.<\/p>\n

G. The organism can interfere with the delivery or supply of water for agricultural uses.<\/p>\n

– Low (1)<\/strong> causes 0 or 1 of these impacts.<\/span><\/p>\n

– Medium (2) causes 2 of these impacts.<\/p>\n

– High (3) causes 3 or more of these impacts.<\/p>\n

Risk is Low (1): <\/em><\/strong>Reported hosts of the gooseberry rust pathogen are not to be present in California and therefore, no major economic impact of this pathogen is expect within California.\u00a0 However, if the pathogen was introduced, growers of rare, imported fruit plants, such as backyard growers, hobbyists, and rare plant nurseries in warm and wet climates of southern California may be at particular risk of reduced crop value.\u00a0 The economic impact is evaluated to be low.<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

5) Environmental Impact:<\/strong> Evaluate the environmental impact of the pest on California using the criteria below.<\/p>\n

A. The pest could have a significant environmental impact such as lowering biodiversity, disrupting natural communities, or changing ecosystem processes.<\/p>\n

B. The pest could directly affect threatened or endangered species.<\/p>\n

C. The pest could impact threatened or endangered species by disrupting critical habitats.<\/p>\n

D. The pest could trigger additional official or private treatment programs.<\/p>\n

E. The pest significantly impacts cultural practices, home\/urban gardening or ornamental plantings.<\/p>\n

Score the pest for Environmental Impact. Score:<\/p>\n

– Low (1) causes none of the above to occur.<\/p>\n

– Medium (2)<\/strong> causes one of the above to occur.<\/span><\/p>\n

– High (3) causes two or more of the above to occur.<\/p>\n

Risk is <\/em><\/strong>Medium (2):<\/em><\/strong>\u00a0 <\/em><\/strong>Backyard growers, other small, rare fruit production growers, hobbyists, and rare plant nurseries in warm and wet climates of southern California may be at particular risk, if the pathogen were introduced into the State.<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

Consequences of Introduction to California for Myrtle Rust:<\/strong><\/h5>\n

Add up the total score and include it here. (Score)<\/p>\n

–Low<\/strong> = 5-8 points<\/span><\/p>\n

-Medium = 9-12 points<\/p>\n

-High = 13-15 points<\/p>\n

Total points obtained on evaluation of consequences of introduction to California = 8 (Low).<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

6) Post Entry Distribution and Survey Information:<\/strong> 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)<\/p>\n

–Not established (0)<\/strong> Pest never detected in California, or known only from incursions.<\/span><\/p>\n

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

-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.<\/p>\n

-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.<\/p>\n

Evaluation is \u2018Not established\u2019 (0).<\/span> \u00a0<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

Final Score:<\/h5>\n

7) The final score is<\/strong> the consequences of introduction score minus the post entry distribution and survey information score: (Score)<\/p>\n

Final Score: <\/em><\/strong>\u00a0Score of Consequences of Introduction \u2013 Score of Post Entry Distribution and Survey Information =<\/strong> 8.<\/strong><\/span><\/em><\/p>\n

Uncertainty: <\/strong><\/h5>\n

Details of the pathogen\u2019s complete life cycle including the need of an alternate host to complete its life cycle are not presently known<\/em>.\u00a0 However, it is unlikely that this information will alter the proposed rating for the pathogen. <\/em><\/p>\n

Conclusion and Rating Justification: <\/strong><\/h5>\n

Based on the evidence provided above the proposed rating for gooseberry rust pathogen, Phakopsora phyllanthi<\/em> is C.<\/strong><\/p>\n

References:<\/strong><\/h5>\n

C<\/strong>alflora.\u00a0 2016.\u00a0 Calflora: Information on California plants for education, research and conservation [web application].\u00a0 Berkeley, California: The Calflora Database [a non-profit organization].\u00a0 http:\/\/www.calflora.org\/<\/a><\/p>\n

D<\/strong>ietrich, B., and M. Ko.\u00a0 2015.\u00a0 Phyllanthus Rust Phakopsora phyllanthi<\/em> Dietel.\u00a0 New Pest Advisory No. 15-02 October 2015, State of Hawaii Department of Agriculture.<\/p>\n

F<\/strong>arr, D. F. and A. Y. Rossman.\u00a0 2016.\u00a0 \u00a0Fungal databases, Systematic Mycology and Microbiology Laboratory, ARS, USDA.\u00a0 Retrieved October 17, 2016 from http:\/\/nt.ars-grin.gov\/fungaldatabases\/<\/a>.<\/p>\n

K<\/strong>han, S.\u00a0 2016.\u00a0 Email from K. Martyn, Yolo County, to S. Khan, CDFA, subject: \u201cRE: Information request for A\/Q\/W reports\u201d, dated February 11, 2016, forwarded to J. Chitambar, CDFA, by T. Walber, CDFA on October 18, 2016.<\/p>\n

L<\/strong>atham, S.\u00a0 2016.\u00a0 Email from S. Latham (CDFA) to J. Chitambar (CDFA), subject: \u201cFW: confirmed ID: Positive for gooseberry rust (Phakopsora phyllanthi<\/em>) from St. Petersburg, Pinellas Co., FL.\u201d, sent October 17, 2016.<\/p>\n

U<\/strong>SDA-PCIT.\u00a0 2016.\u00a0 United States Department of Agriculture, Phytosanitary Certificate Issuance & Tracking System (PCIT). https:\/\/pcit.aphis.usda.gov\/PExD\/faces\/ViewPExD.jsp<\/a> .<\/p>\n

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

\n
Comment Format:<\/h5>\n

\u2666 \u00a0Comments should refer to the appropriate California Pest Rating Proposal Form subsection(s)\u00a0being commented on, as shown below.<\/p>\n

Example Comment:\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

Consequences of Introduction: \u00a01. Climate\/Host Interaction:\u00a0[Your comment that relates to \u201cClimate\/Host Interaction\u201d here.<\/em>]<\/p>\n

\u2666 \u00a0Posted comments will not be able to be viewed immediately.<\/p>\n

\u2666 \u00a0Comments may not be posted if they:<\/p>\n

Contain inappropriate language which is not germane to\u00a0the pest rating proposal;<\/p>\n

Contains defamatory, false, inaccurate, abusive, obscene, pornographic,\u00a0sexually oriented, threatening, racially offensive, discriminatory or illegal\u00a0material;<\/p>\n

Violates agency regulations prohibiting sexual harassment or other forms\u00a0of discrimination;<\/p>\n

Violates agency regulations prohibiting workplace violence, including threats.<\/p>\n

\u2666 \u00a0Comments may be edited prior to posting to ensure they are entirely germane.<\/p>\n

\u2666 \u00a0Posted comments shall be those which have been approved in content and posted to the\u00a0website to be viewed, not just submitted.<\/p>\n

\n

Pest Rating: C<\/strong><\/h3>\n
\n

Posted by ls<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

California Pest Rating for Phakopsora phyllanthi Dietel 1910 Pest Rating: C PEST RATING PROFILE Initiating Event: On December 4, 2015, a shipment of cut foliage of an unidentified plant species was intercepted at the USPS West Sacramento Distribution Center by the CDFA Dog Team.\u00a0 The shipment had originated in Florida and was destined to a … Continue reading Phakopsora phyllanthi Dietel 1910<\/span> →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1117,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[8,4],"tags":[46,434,41],"class_list":["post-2762","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-fungi","category-plant-pathology","tag-fungi-2","tag-phakopsora-phyllanthi","tag-plant-pathogens"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p5l8vQ-Iy","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":7834,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cdfa.ca.gov\/Section3162\/?p=7834","url_meta":{"origin":2762,"position":0},"title":"Phakopsora cherimoliae (Lagerh.) Cummins 1941 Annona rust","author":"Heather.Martin","date":"December 7, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"California Pest Rating for Phakopsora cherimoliae (Lagerh.) Cummins 1941 Annona rustPest Rating: A DOWNLOAD PEST RATING *NOTE\u00a0 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 permits[@]cdfa.ca.gov. Posted by ta","rel":"","context":"In "A-Rated"","block_context":{"text":"A-Rated","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cdfa.ca.gov\/Section3162\/?cat=669"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":14186,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cdfa.ca.gov\/Section3162\/?p=14186","url_meta":{"origin":2762,"position":1},"title":"Gymnotelium blasdaleanum (Dietel & Holway) Arthur 1934 Pacific Coast pear rust","author":"Heather.Martin","date":"October 17, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"California Pest Rating Profile for Gymnotelium blasdaleanum (Dietel & Holway) Arthur 1934 Pacific Coast pear rust Pest Rating: C Comment Period: 10\/17\/2025 \u2013 12\/01\/2025 Download Pest Rating Profile *NOTE You must be registered and logged in to post a comment. If you have registered and have not received the registration\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "C-Rated"","block_context":{"text":"C-Rated","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cdfa.ca.gov\/Section3162\/?cat=671"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":3285,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cdfa.ca.gov\/Section3162\/?p=3285","url_meta":{"origin":2762,"position":2},"title":"Diaporthe pseudomangiferae","author":"Admin","date":"January 31, 2017","format":false,"excerpt":"\u00a0California Pest Rating for Diaporthe pseudomangiferae R. R. Gomes, C. Glienke & Crous Pest Rating: C PEST RATING PROFILE Initiating Event: On December 15, 2016, a shipment of Cacao seed pods with symptoms of necrotic spotting and rot and destined to a private citizen in Contra Costa County, was intercepted\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Fungi"","block_context":{"text":"Fungi","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cdfa.ca.gov\/Section3162\/?cat=8"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":6246,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cdfa.ca.gov\/Section3162\/?p=6246","url_meta":{"origin":2762,"position":3},"title":"Septocyta ruborum (Lib.) Petrak. 1967","author":"Heather.Martin","date":"July 24, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"California Pest Rating for Septocyta ruborum (Lib.) Petrak. 1967(syn. Rhabdospora ramealis (Roberge ex Desm.) Sacc.)Pest Rating: C download pest rating Responsible Party: Heather J. Scheck, CDFA Primary Plant Pathologist\/Nematologist. 204 West Oak Ave, Lompoc, CA93463. 805-736-8050. plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov. *NOTE: You must be registered and logged in to post a comment. If\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "C-Rated"","block_context":{"text":"C-Rated","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cdfa.ca.gov\/Section3162\/?cat=671"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":2975,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cdfa.ca.gov\/Section3162\/?p=2975","url_meta":{"origin":2762,"position":4},"title":"Coleophoma empetri (Rostr,) Petr. 1929","author":"Admin","date":"December 1, 2016","format":false,"excerpt":"California Pest Rating for Coleophoma empetri (Rostr,) Petr. 1929 Pest Rating: B PEST RATING PROFILE Initiating Event: On April 27, 2016 a mail shipment containing cut foliage of Galax sp. was intercepted by the Santa Barbara County Dog Team, at the FedEx Service Center in Goleta, Santa Barbara County.\u00a0 The\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Fungi"","block_context":{"text":"Fungi","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cdfa.ca.gov\/Section3162\/?cat=8"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":4307,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cdfa.ca.gov\/Section3162\/?p=4307","url_meta":{"origin":2762,"position":5},"title":"Diaporthe pseudophoenicicola R. R. Gomes, C. Glienke & Crous 2013","author":"Admin","date":"December 29, 2017","format":false,"excerpt":"California Pest Rating for Diaporthe pseudophoenicicola R. R. Gomes, C. Glienke & Crous 2013 Pest Rating: C PEST RATING PROFILE Initiating Event: On June 15, 2017, a shipment of an unknown plant, exhibiting symptoms of leaf spotting and destined to a commercial florist in Los Angeles County, was intercepted by\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Fungi"","block_context":{"text":"Fungi","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cdfa.ca.gov\/Section3162\/?cat=8"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cdfa.ca.gov\/Section3162\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2762","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cdfa.ca.gov\/Section3162\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cdfa.ca.gov\/Section3162\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cdfa.ca.gov\/Section3162\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1117"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cdfa.ca.gov\/Section3162\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=2762"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cdfa.ca.gov\/Section3162\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2762\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":10530,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cdfa.ca.gov\/Section3162\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2762\/revisions\/10530"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cdfa.ca.gov\/Section3162\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2762"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cdfa.ca.gov\/Section3162\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=2762"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cdfa.ca.gov\/Section3162\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=2762"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}