importation of passion fruit (passiflora spp.) from ... · importation of passion fruit (passiflora...
TRANSCRIPT
Importation of Passion fruit (Passiflora spp.) from Ecuador
into the continental United States
A Qualitative, Pathway-Initiated Pest Risk Assessment
December 2, 2014
Version 2
Agency Contact:
Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory
Center for Plant Health Science and Technology
United States Department of Agriculture
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Plant Protection and Quarantine
1730 Varsity Drive, Suite 300
Raleigh, NC 27606
Pest Risk Assessment for Passiflora spp. from Ecuador
Ver. 2 December 2, 2014 i
Executive Summary
The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA) prepared this risk assessment document to examine plant pest risks
associated with importing commercially produced fruit of passion fruit, Passiflora spp.
(Passifloraceae), for consumption from Ecuador into the continental United States. Based on the
market access request from Ecuador, we considered the pathway to include the following
processes and conditions: harvest by hand and culling in the packinghouse. No washing or other
post-harvest treatments are indicated. All processes and conditions considered during the risk
assessment process become mandatory conditions for entry of the commodity.
Based on the scientific literature, port-of-entry pest interception data, and information from the
government of Ecuador, we developed a list of all potential pests with actionable regulatory
status for the continental United States that are known to occur in Ecuador and that are known to
be associated with the commodity plant species anywhere in the world. From this list, we
identified and further analyzed six organisms that have a reasonable likelihood of being
associated with the commodity following harvesting from the field and prior to any post-harvest
processing.
Of the pests selected for further analysis, we determined that the following are not candidates for
risk management, because there is no endangered area within the continental United States:
Anastrepha curitis and A. dissimilis (Diptera: Tephritidae).
We determined that the following pests are candidates for risk management, because they met
the threshold to likely cause unacceptable consequences of introduction, and they received
an overall likelihood of introduction risk rating above Negligible:
Pest type Taxonomy Scientific name Likelihood of Introduction
overall rating
Arthropods Diptera: Anastrepha fraterculus (Wiedemann) High
Tephritidae Anastrepha pseudoparallela Loew Medium
Anastrepha striata Schiner High
Ceratitis capitata (Wiedemann) Medium
Detailed examination and choice of appropriate phytosanitary measures to mitigate pest risk are
part of the pest risk management phase within APHIS and are not addressed in this document.
Pest Risk Assessment for Passiflora spp. from Ecuador
Ver. 2 December 2, 2014 ii
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................... i
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1 1.1. Background .......................................................................................................................... 1 1.2. Initiating event ...................................................................................................................... 1 1.3. Determination of the necessity of a weed risk assessment for the commodity .................... 2 1.4. Description of the pathway................................................................................................... 2
2. Pest List and Pest Categorization ............................................................................................ 3 2.1. Pests considered but not included on the pest list ................................................................ 4 2.2. Pest list ................................................................................................................................. 7
2.3. Pests selected for further analysis ...................................................................................... 15
3. Assessing Pest Risk Potential ................................................................................................. 16 3.1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 16
3.2. Assessment results .............................................................................................................. 17
4. Summary and Conclusions of Risk Assessment ................................................................... 31
5. Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................. 32
6. Literature Cited ...................................................................................................................... 32
7. Appendix A. Pests with non-actionable regulatory status .................................................. 41
Pest Risk Assessment for Passiflora spp. from Ecuador
Ver. 2 December 2, 2014 1
1. Introduction
1.1. Background
This document was prepared by the Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory of the
Center for Plant Health Science and Technology, USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service (APHIS), Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ), to evaluate the risks associated with
the importation of commercially produced fresh fruit of passion fruit (Passiflora spp. L.) for
consumption from Ecuador into the continental United States.
The International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) provides guidance for conducting pest risk
analyses. The methods used here are consistent with guidelines provided by the IPPC,
specifically the International Standard for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPM) on “Pest Risk
Analysis for Quarantine Pests, Including Analysis of Environmental Risks and Living Modified
Organisms” (IPPC, 2013). The use of biological and phytosanitary terms is consistent with the
“Glossary of Phytosanitary Terms” (IPPC, 2012).
Three stages of pest risk analysis are described in international standards: Stage 1, Initiation;
Stage 2, Risk Assessment; and Stage 3, Risk Management. This document satisfies the
requirements of Stages 1 and 2.
This is a qualitative risk assessment. We express the risk based on qualitative ratings for the
likelihood and consequences of pest introduction via imported passion fruit (granadilla) from
Ecuador. The details of the methodology and rating criteria are found in the Guidelines for Plant
Pest Risk Assessment of Imported Fruit and Vegetable Commodities, Version 6.0 (PPQ, 2012).
The appropriate risk management strategy for a particular pest depends on the risk posed by that
pest. Identification of appropriate phytosanitary measures to mitigate pest risk is undertaken in
Stage 3 (Risk Management) and is not covered in this risk assessment. Risk management will be
specified in a separate document.
1.2. Initiating event
The importation of fruits and vegetables for consumption into the United States is regulated
under Title 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 319.56 (7 CFR §319.56) (2012).
Currently, under this regulation, the entry of granadilla from Ecuador into the continental United
States is not authorized. This assessment was prepared in response to a request from Dr.
Francisco A. Jácome Robalino (Agencia Ecuatoriana de Aseguramiento de la Calidad del Agro –
AGROCALIDAD) to change the Federal Regulation to allow entry of Passiflora ligularis
(Robalino, 2009). Further consideration by APHIS and AGROCALIDAD resulted in an
expansion of this pest risk assessment to include all Passiflora species that may be exported
(Cabezas, 2013).
Pest Risk Assessment for Passiflora spp. from Ecuador
Ver. 2 December 2, 2014 2
1.3. Determination of the necessity of a weed risk assessment for the commodity
In some cases, the imported commodity may have the potential of becoming invasive in the pest
risk analysis (PRA) area. The likelihood that this may happen is evaluated in a weed risk
assessment, conducted separately from the commodity risk assessment.
We determined that a weed risk assessment is not needed for granadilla because it is already
enterable into the PRA area from other countries. Passion fruit (Passiflora spp.) is authorized for
entry into the United States from Bermuda, from Tasmania in Australia (prohibited entry into
Hawaii), and from New Zealand (prohibited entry into Hawaii). Passion fruit is accepted from
Chile with treatment T102-b-2, a soapy water and wax treatment for the Chilean mite,
Brevipalpus chilensis (APHIS, 2013).
1.4. Description of the pathway
The IPPC (2011) defines a pathway as “any means that allows the entry or spread of a pest.” In
the context of commodity pest risk assessments, the pathway is the commodity to be imported,
together with all the processes the commodity undergoes that may have an impact on pest risk. In
this risk assessment, the specific pathway of concern is the importation of fresh fruit of passion
fruit (Passiflora spp. L.) for consumption from Ecuador into the continental United States; the
movement of this commodity provides a potential pathway for the introduction and/or spread of
plant pests.
The following description of this pathway focuses on the conditions that may affect plant pest
risk, including morphological and physiological characteristics of the commodity, as well
processes the commodity will undergo from production in Ecuador through importation and
distribution in the continental United States. These conditions provided the basis for creating the
pest list and assessing the likelihood of introduction of the pests selected for further analysis;
therefore, all components of the pathway, as they are described below, should be considered
mandatory conditions for importation of the commodity.
1.4.1. Description of the commodity
The granadilla plant is a vine. Its leaves are 8 to 16 cm in length, cordiform, glabrous, and
slightly purple on the underside (Leon, 1987). In the Andes, it is usually grown between 1600
and 2200 meters above sea level. Commercial-size plantations exist in the countries where it is
grown (Bernal, 1994). It is very well known and liked, and quite common and popular in the
Andean countries, but with few exceptions, it is not grown outside of this region.
The fruit is 6-7.5 cm long, broad-elliptic, green with purple tint and has tiny whitish dots when
unripe. When ripe, the fruit is orange-yellow with white specks (Morton, 1987). The exterior is a
little hard and brittle, and the interior of the mesocarp is cottony soft (Leon, 1987). The pulp is
mucilaginous, whitish, translucent, and juicy and has within it 200 to 250 blackish seeds per fruit
(CRFG, 2009).
Pest Risk Assessment for Passiflora spp. from Ecuador
Ver. 2 December 2, 2014 3
1.4.2. Production and harvest procedures in the exporting area
Outside of harvesting of fruit by hand (Rodas, 2012), no information regarding production and
harvesting procedures in Ecuador was specified.
1.4.3. Post-harvest procedures in the exporting area
In the packinghouse, fruit is culled and classified according to size, weight, ripeness, and
external physical appearance (Rodas, 2012). No washing is performed, in an effort to reduce fruit
damage (Rodas, 2012). Fruits are packed in cardboard boxes for shipment (Rodas, 2012).
1.4.4. Shipping and storage conditions
Shipping and storage conditions were not specified by Ecuador. However, according to
McGregor (1987), passion fruit is typically shipped at 7-10°C (45-50°F) at 95 percent relative
humidity. In these conditions, transit and storage life for passion fruit is expected to be 3-5 weeks
(McGregor, 1987).
1.4.5. Summary of the pathway
The figure below summarizes the pathway of concern: the importation of fresh fruit of passion
fruit (Passiflora spp.) for consumption from Ecuador into the continental United States.
Figure 1. Pathway diagram for imports of Passiflora spp. from Ecuador into the continental
United States.
2. Pest List and Pest Categorization
In this section, we identify the plant pests with actionable regulatory status for the continental
United States that could potentially become established in the continental United States as a
result of the importation of passion fruit (Passiflora spp.) from Ecuador, and we determine which
of these pests meet the criteria for further analysis. Pests are considered to be of regulatory
significance if they are actionable at U.S. ports-of-entry. Actionable pests include quarantine
pests, pests considered for or under official control, and pests that require evaluation for
regulatory action.
Pest Risk Assessment for Passiflora spp. from Ecuador
Ver. 2 December 2, 2014 4
2.1. Pests considered but not included on the pest list
2.1.1. Pests with weak evidence for association with the commodity or for presence in the export
area
Anastrepha grandis: This insect is listed as a pest of Passiflora alata with no references
provided (Weems, 1990). A few other sources indicate that this host association may be
considered doubtful (e.g., Norrbom et al., 2012; USDA Fruit Fly Host Plant Database). No other
indication of host association could be found; therefore, this species is not included on the pest
list.
Anastrepha obliqua: This insect is listed as a pest of Passiflora quadrangularis with no
references provided (CABI, 2013; Maes, 2004). Weems and Steck (2012) state that A. obliqua
has been reared experimentally from P. quadrangularis. Anastrepha obliqua is a major pest,
widespread in Mexico, Central and South America, and the West Indies (CABI, 2013). Research
regarding the host range and impact for this species is abundant. Despite this, no field host
associations could be found, and this species is not included on the pest list.
Ascochyta passiflorae: Ascochyta passiflorae was intercepted with fruit of Passiflora species in
baggage or store from Ecuador 113 times between 1984 and 1998 (PestID, 2013), with no
records more recent than 1998. Based on a thorough literature review, including review of
specific recent Passiflora diseases reports (e.g., Fischer and Rezende, 2008; Joy and Sherin,
2012; Liberato and Zerbini, n.d.; Lozano et al., 2007), we were unable to find any information
indicating that A. passiflorae is considered to be a pest in Passiflora production. The lack of field
evidence suggests that this is a post-harvest disease potentially associated with Passiflora. There
is no information available regarding the pathogenicity of A. passiflorae. Additionally, there
appears to be some taxonomic confusion, as indicated by the following note in the Fungal
Databases: “This species was excluded by Melnik (1977) from Ascochyta, but its generic affinity
is unknown” (Farr and Rossman, 2013). For these reasons, A. passiflorae is not considered to be
a pest in commercial production of Passiflora and is not included on the list.
Dasiops brenneri: This species is described as a pest of Passiflora flowers in Ecuador (García,
2011). However, no describing authority could be determined, and the name may not be valid.
For this reason, it is not included on the pest list.
2.1.2. Organisms with non-actionable regulatory status
We found evidence of the organisms listed in Appendix A being associated with passion fruit
and being present in the Ecuador; however, because these organisms have non-actionable
regulatory status for the continental United States, we did not include them in Table 2 of this risk
assessment.
2.1.3. Organisms identified only to the genus level
In commodity import risk assessments, the taxonomic unit for pests selected for evaluation
beyond the pest categorization stage is usually the species (IPPC, 2011), as assessments focus on
organisms for which biological information is available. Therefore, generally, we do not assess
risk for organisms identified only to the genus level, in particular if the genus in question is
reported in the import area. Often there are many species within a genus, and we cannot know if
Pest Risk Assessment for Passiflora spp. from Ecuador
Ver. 2 December 2, 2014 5
the unidentified species occurs in the import area and, consequently, whether it has actionable
regulatory status for the import area. On the other hand, if the genus in question is absent from
the import area, any unidentified organisms in the genus can have actionable status; however,
because such an organism has not been fully identified, we cannot properly analyze its likelihood
and consequences of introduction.
In light of these issues, we usually do not include organisms identified only to the genus level in
the main pest list. Instead, we address them separately in this sub-section. The information here
can be used by risk managers to determine if measures beyond those intended to mitigate fully
identified pests are warranted. Often, however, the development of detailed assessments for
known pests that inhabit a variety of ecological niches, such as internal fruit feeders or foliage
pests, allows effective mitigation measures to eliminate the known organisms as well as similar
but incompletely identified organisms that inhabit the same niche.
Table 1. Organisms identified to the genus level that are reported on Passiflora spp. in Ecuador and that
have actionable or undetermined regulatory status.
Pest name Evidence of
presence on
Passiflora spp.
in Ecuador
Genus
present in
continental
United
States?
Regulatory
status1
Plant part(s)
association2
On harvested
plant
part(s)?3
Remarks
ARTHROPODS
Acari: Tetranychidae
Tetranychus
spp.
Rogg, 2000 Yes (CABI,
2013)
U Leaves (Rogg,
2000)
No
Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae
Epitrix sp. Friesen et al.,
2008
Yes (CABI,
2013)
U Leaves (Friesen
et al., 2008)
No
Lactica sp. Friesen et al.,
2008
Yes (Furth,
2006)
U Flowers, leaves
(Friesen et al.,
2008)
No
Paralactica sp. Friesen et al.,
2008
No A Flowers, leaves
(Friesen et al.,
2008)
No
Coleoptera: Curculionidae
Naupactus sp. Rogg, 2000 Yes (Dixon,
2008)
U Stem (Rogg,
2000)
No
1 A=Actionable, U=Undetermined. If the genus does not occur in the continental United States, the organism has actionable
status. If the genus occurs in the continental United States, the organism has undetermined regulatory status, because we
cannot know if the unidentified species is one that occurs in the continental United States. 2 The plant part(s) listed are those for the plant species under analysis. If the information is extrapolated, such as from plant
part association on other plant species, this is noted. 3 “Yes” indicates the pest has a reasonable likelihood of being associated with the harvested plant part(s).
Pest Risk Assessment for Passiflora spp. from Ecuador
Ver. 2 December 2, 2014 6
Pest name Evidence of
presence on
Passiflora spp.
in Ecuador
Genus
present in
continental
United
States?
Regulatory
status1
Plant part(s)
association2
On harvested
plant
part(s)?3
Remarks
Diptera: Lonchaeidae
Dasiops spp. Rogg, 2000 Yes
(MacGowan
, 2013)
U Flower buds
(Aguiar-
Menezes et al.,
2002)
No
Neosilba sp. Friesen et al.,
2008
Yes
(MacGowan
, 2013)
U Immature fruit
(Friesen et al.,
2008)
No
Diptera: Mycetophilidae
Mycetophila
spp.
Friesen et al.,
2008
Yes
(Cresswell,
2009)
U Flower buds
(Friesen et al.,
2008)
No
Diptera: Tephritidae
Anastrepha spp. Rogg, 2000;
MAG-IICA,
2001
Yes (CABI,
2013)
U Fruit (CABI,
2013)
Yes
Hemiptera: Cicadellidae
Empoasca spp. García, 2011 Yes (CABI,
2013)
U Leaves (García,
2011)
No
Hymenoptera: Apidae
Trigona sp. Rogg, 2000 No A Flowers (Rogg,
2000)
No
Hymenoptera: Formicidae
Solenopsis spp. Rogg, 2000 Yes (CABI,
2013)
U Flowers, roots
(Rogg, 2000)
No
Lepidoptera: Noctuidae
Copitarsia sp. Friesen et al.,
2008
No A Flower buds,
leaves (Friesen
et al., 2008)
No
Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae
Agraulis spp. García, 2011 Yes (CABI,
2013)
U Leaves (García,
2011)
No
Heliconius sp. Rogg, 2000 Yes (Beltrán
et al., 2010)
U Leaves (Aguiar-
Menezes et al.,
2002)
No
BACTERIA
Xanthomonas
sp.
MAG-IICA,
2001
Yes (CABI,
2013)
U Leaves, fruit
(Goncalves and
Rosato, 2000)
Yes
FUNGI
Ascochyta sp. García, 2011 Yes (CABI,
2013)
U Leaves (García,
2011)
No
Pest Risk Assessment for Passiflora spp. from Ecuador
Ver. 2 December 2, 2014 7
Pest name Evidence of
presence on
Passiflora spp.
in Ecuador
Genus
present in
continental
United
States?
Regulatory
status1
Plant part(s)
association2
On harvested
plant
part(s)?3
Remarks
Botrytis sp. MAG, 1986;
MAG-IICA,
2001; Rogg,
2000
Yes (CABI,
2013)
U Immature fruit
(Kagiwata,
1990)
No Affected fruit
fall from the
tree
(Kagiwata,
1990) and are
not likely to
be harvested.
Colletotrichum
sp.
MAG, 1986;
MAG-IICA,
2001
Yes (CABI,
2013)
U Leaf, flowers,
immature fruit,
stem (Fischer
and Rezende,
2008)
No Symptoms on
fruit are
conspicuous
(Fischer and
Rezende,
2008), and
infested fruit
are not likely
to remain
with the
consignment.
Fusarium sp. MAG-IICA,
2001
Yes (CABI,
2013)
U Leaves (Fischer
and Rezende,
2008)
No
Mycosphaerella
sp.
García, 2011 Yes (CABI,
2013)
U Stem (García,
2011)
No
Phomopsis sp. MAG, 1986 Yes (CABI,
2013)
U Leaves, stems,
fruit (Fischer
and Rezende,
2008)
Yes
Pseudomonas
sp.
MAG-IICA,
2001
Yes (CABI,
2013)
U Leaves
(Manicom et al.,
2003)
No
NEMATODES
Helicotylenchus
sp.
García, 2011 Yes (CABI,
2013)
U Roots (García,
2011)
No
Meloidogyne sp. García, 2011;
MAG, 1986;
Rogg, 2000
Yes (CABI,
2013)
U Roots (CABI,
2013)
No
2.2. Pest list
In Table 2, we list the actionable pests associated with passion fruit that occur in Ecuador. The
list comprises those actionable pests that occur in Ecuador on any host and are reported to be
associated with Passiflora spp. whether in Ecuador or elsewhere in the world. For each pest, we
Pest Risk Assessment for Passiflora spp. from Ecuador
Ver. 2 December 2, 2014 8
indicate 1) the part of the imported plant species with which the pest is generally associated, and
2) whether the pest has a reasonable likelihood of being associated, in viable form, with the
commodity following harvesting from the field and prior to any post-harvest processing. We
developed this pest list based on the scientific literature, port-of-entry pest interception data, and
information provided by the government of Ecuador. Pests in shaded rows are pests identified for
further evaluation, as we consider them reasonably likely to be associated with the harvested
commodity; we summarize these pests in a separate table (Table 3).
Table 2. Actionable pests reported on Passiflora spp. (in any country) and present in Ecuador (on any
host).
Pest name Evidence of
presence in
Ecuador
Host status Plant part(s)
association4
On
harvested
plant
part(s)?5
Remarks
ARTHROPODS
Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae
Diabrotica
speciosa (Germar)
MAG, 1986 Walsh, 2003 Flowers, roots of
various host plants
(Walsh, 2003)
No
Coleoptera: Curculionidae
Philonis
passiflorae O'Brien
Rogg, 2000 Aguiar-Menezes et
al., 2002; Rogg,
2000
Stem (Aguiar-
Menezes et al.,
2002; Rogg, 2000)
No
Coleoptera: Meloidae
Epicauta atomaria
(Germar)
Rogg, 2000 Aguiar-Menezes et
al., 2002
Leaf (Aguiar-
Menezes et al.,
2002)
No
Diptera: Drosophilidae
Zapriothrica nr
salebrosa Wheeler
Friesen et al.,
2008
Aguiar-Menezes et
al., 2002; Friesen
et al., 2008
Flower buds
(Aguiar-Menezes et
al., 2002; Friesen et
al., 2008)
No
4 The plant part(s) listed are those for the plant species under analysis. If the information is extrapolated, such as from plant
part association on other plant species, this is noted. 5 “Yes” indicates simply that the pest has a reasonable likelihood of being associated with the harvested commodity; the level
of pest prevalence on the harvested commodity (low, medium, or high) is qualitatively assessed in Risk Element A1 as part of
the likelihood of introduction assessment (section 3).
Pest Risk Assessment for Passiflora spp. from Ecuador
Ver. 2 December 2, 2014 9
Pest name Evidence of
presence in
Ecuador
Host status Plant part(s)
association4
On
harvested
plant
part(s)?5
Remarks
Zapriothrica nr
nudiseta Wheeler
Friesen et al.,
2008
Friesen et al., 2008 Flower buds,
immature fruit
(Friesen et al., 2008)
No This pest may be
found associated
with immature
fruit (Friesen et
al., 2008);
however, it is
primarily
associated with
host flowers
(Casanas-Arango
et al., 1996) and
is not expected
to be associated
with mature fruit
at harvest.
Diptera: Lonchaeidae
Dasiops caustonae
Norrbom and
McAlpine
Friesen et al.,
2008
Ávila et al., 2012;
Friesen et al., 2008
Immature fruit
(Friesen et al., 2008)
No This is an
external pest
(Friesen et al.,
2008) not
expected to be
associated with
mature fruit at
harvest.
Dasiops curubae
Steyskal
Friesen et al.,
2008
Aguiar-Menezes et
al., 2002; Ávila et
al., 2012; Friesen
et al., 2008;
Gallego and
Velez, 1992
Flower buds
(Friesen et al., 2008)
No
Neosilba pendula
(Bezzi) (= Silba
pendula (Bez.))
Rogg, 2000 Aguiar-Menezes et
al., 2002
Flower buds
(Aguiar-Menezes et
al., 2002)
No
Diptera: Tephritidae
Anastrepha curitis
Stone
García, 2011 Aguiar-Menezes et
al., 2002; Gallego
and Velez, 1992;
García, 2011;
Zucchi and
Moraes, 2008
Fruit (García, 2011) Yes
Anastrepha
dissimilis Stone
Tigrero and
Salas, 2009
Aguiar-Menezes et
al., 2002; Zucchi
and Moraes, 2008
Fruit (Aguiar-
Menezes et al.,
2002)
Yes
Pest Risk Assessment for Passiflora spp. from Ecuador
Ver. 2 December 2, 2014 10
Pest name Evidence of
presence in
Ecuador
Host status Plant part(s)
association4
On
harvested
plant
part(s)?5
Remarks
Anastrepha
fraterculus
(Wiedemann)
Rogg, 2000;
Uchôa, 2012
Aguiar-Menezes et
al., 2002; Pirovani
et al., 2010;
Uramoto et al.,
2004; Zucchi and
Moraes, 2008
Fruit (Aguiar-
Menezes et al.,
2002)
Yes
Anastrepha
pseudoparallela
(Loew)
Tigrero and
Salas, 2009;
Uchôa, 2012
Aguiar-Menezes et
al., 2002; Raga et
al., 2011; Uchôa,
2012; Uramoto et
al., 2004; Zucchi
and Moraes, 2008
Fruit (Aguiar-
Menezes et al.,
2002)
Yes
Anastrepha striata
Schiner
CABI, 2013;
Carrejo and
González, 1994;
Uchôa, 2012
Aguiar-Menezes et
al., 2002; da Silva
et al., 2009;
Uchôa, 2012;
Zucchi and
Moraes, 2008
Fruit (Aguiar-
Menezes et al.,
2002)
Yes
Ceratitis capitata
(Wiedemann)
CABI, 2013;
Uchôa, 2012;
Rogg, 2000
Aguiar-Menezes et
al., 2002; CABI,
2013; Hill, 1983;
Liquido et al.,
1991; Raga et al.,
2011; Rogg, 2000
Fruit (Hill, 1983) Yes
Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae
Aleurocanthus
woglumi Ashby
Mound and
Halsey, 1978
CABI, 2013;
Evans, 2008;
Maes, 2004;
Mound and
Halsey, 1978
Leaves and stems of
various host plants
(CABI, 2013).
No This pest is
present in
Florida, Hawaii,
and Texas
(CABI, 2013).
Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae
Pseudococcus
landoi
(Balachowsky)
Ben-Dov et al.,
2013
Ben-Dov et al.,
2013
Leaves of various
host plants (Gimpel
and Miller, 1996)
No
Heteroptera: Coreidae
Anisoscelis
foliacea marginella
(Dallas)
Rogg, 2000 Aguiar-Menezes et
al., 2002;
Rodrigues et al.,
2007; Rogg, 2000
Flowers and
immature fruit
(Rodrigues et al.,
2007; Rogg, 2000)
No This is an
external pest
(Aguiar-
Menezes et al.,
2002) not
expected to be
associated with
mature fruit at
harvest.
Pest Risk Assessment for Passiflora spp. from Ecuador
Ver. 2 December 2, 2014 11
Pest name Evidence of
presence in
Ecuador
Host status Plant part(s)
association4
On
harvested
plant
part(s)?5
Remarks
Diactor bilineatus
(Fabricius)
Rogg, 2000 Aguiar-Menezes et
al., 2002; Rogg,
2000
Flowers and
immature fruit
(Rogg, 2000)
No This is an
external pest
(Aguiar-
Menezes et al.,
2002) not
expected to be
associated with
mature fruit at
harvest.
Holymenia
clavigera (Herbst)
Rogg, 2000 Rodrigues et al.,
2007; Rogg, 2000
Flowers and
immature fruit
(Rodrigues et al.,
2007; Rogg, 2000)
No This is an
external pest
(Aguiar-
Menezes et al.,
2002) not
expected to be
associated with
mature fruit at
harvest.
Heteroptera: Tingidae
Corythaica
cyathicollis (Costa)
Rogg, 2000 Schaefer and
Panizzi, 2000
Leaves of various
host plants (Schaefer
and Panizzi, 2000)
No
Gargaphia
lunulata (Mayr)
Rogg, 2000 Gallego and
Velez, 1992;
Rogg, 2000
Leaves (Rogg, 2000) No
Heteroptera: Isoptera
Microcerotermes
arboreus Emerson
Bahder et al.,
2009
Dominguez-Gil
and McPheron,
1992
Roots, stems
(Dominguez-Gil and
McPheron, 1992)
No
Lepidoptera: Arctiidae
Turuptiana
sanguinipectus
Seitz
Friesen et al.,
2008
Friesen et al., 2008 Leaves (Friesen et
al., 2008)
No
Lepidoptera: Gracillariidae
Acrocercops sp.
near pylonias
Friesen et al.,
2008
Friesen et al., 2008 Leaves (Friesen et
al., 2008)
No
Lepidoptera: Noctuidae
Copitarsia
consueta (Walker)
Rogg, 2000 Aguiar-Menezes et
al., 2002; Gallego
and Velez, 1992
Flowers (Aguiar-
Menezes et al.,
2002)
No
Spodoptera litura
Fabricius
Rogg, 2000 Robinson et al.,
2001
Leaves of various
host plants (CABI,
2013)
No
Pest Risk Assessment for Passiflora spp. from Ecuador
Ver. 2 December 2, 2014 12
Pest name Evidence of
presence in
Ecuador
Host status Plant part(s)
association4
On
harvested
plant
part(s)?5
Remarks
Lepidoptera: Notodontidae
Cyanotricha
necyria Felder
Friesen et al.,
2008; MAG,
1986
Friesen et al.,
2008; MAG, 1986
Leaves (Friesen et
al., 2008)
No
Josia fluonia Druce Friesen et al.,
2008
Friesen et al., 2008 Leaves (Friesen et
al., 2008)
No
Josia ligata group Friesen et al.,
2008
Friesen et al., 2008 Leaves (Friesen et
al., 2008)
No
Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae
Dione glycera C &
R Felder
Friesen et al.,
2008; MAG,
1986
Aguiar-Menezes et
al., 2002; Friesen
et al., 2008;
Gallego and
Velez, 1992;
MAG, 1986
Leaves (Friesen et
al., 2008)
No
Eueides aliphera
(Godart)
Willmott and
Hall, 2013
Aguiar-Menezes et
al., 2002; Young,
1978
Leaves (Aguiar-
Menezes et al.,
2002)
No
Eueides isabella
(Stoll)
Rogg, 2000;
Willmott and
Hall, 2013
Aguiar-Menezes et
al., 2002; Rogg,
2000; Young,
1978
Leaves (Aguiar-
Menezes et al.,
2002)
No
Eueides lybia
(Fabricius)
Willmott and
Hall, 2013
Brown, 1981;
Young, 1978
Leaves (Young,
1978)
No
Eueides procula
Doubleday (=
Heliconius
procula)
Willmott and
Hall, 2013
Causton et al.,
2000
Leaves (Causton et
al., 2000)
No
Eueides vibilia
Godart
Willmott and
Hall, 2013
Mallet and
Longino, 1982
Leaves (Mallet and
Longino, 1982)
No
Heliconius
clysonymus
Latreille
Willmott and
Hall, 2013
Brown, 1981 Leaves (Brown,
1981)
No
Heliconius cydno
Doubleday
Beltrán and
Brower, 2008;
Willmott and
Hall, 2013
Beltrán and
Brower, 2008
Leaves (Aguiar-
Menezes et al.,
2002)
No
Heliconius erato
(Linnaeus)
Willmott and
Hall, 2013
Aguiar-Menezes et
al., 2002
Leaves (Aguiar-
Menezes et al.,
2002)
No
Heliconius hecale
Fabricius (=
Papilio hecale)
Willmott and
Hall, 2013
Brown, 1981 Leaves (Brown,
1981)
No
Pest Risk Assessment for Passiflora spp. from Ecuador
Ver. 2 December 2, 2014 13
Pest name Evidence of
presence in
Ecuador
Host status Plant part(s)
association4
On
harvested
plant
part(s)?5
Remarks
Heliconius
hecalesia Hewitson
Willmott and
Hall, 2013
Brown, 1981 Leaves (Brown,
1981)
No
Heliconius
ismenius Latreille
Willmott and
Hall, 2013
Brown, 1981 Leaves (Brown,
1981)
No
Heliconius
melpomene
(Linnaeus)
Willmott and
Hall, 2013
Brown, 1981 Leaves (Brown,
1981)
No
Heliconius sapho
(Drury) Syn:
Papilio sapho
Willmott and
Hall, 2013
Brown, 1981 Leaves (Brown,
1981)
No
Heliconius sara
Fabricius (=
Papilio sara)
Willmott and
Hall, 2013
Aguiar-Menezes et
al., 2002; Brown,
1981
Leaves (Aguiar-
Menezes et al.,
2002)
No
Heliconius
telesiphe
Doubleday
Willmott and
Hall, 2013
Brown, 1981 Leaves (Brown,
1981)
No
Philaethria dido
(Linnaeus)
Constantino and
Salazar, 2010;
Willmott and
Hall, 2013
Aguiar-Menezes et
al., 2002
Leaves (Aguiar-
Menezes et al.,
2002)
No
Lepidoptera: Pyralidae
Pyrausta
perelegans
Hampson
Friesen et al.,
2008
Aguiar-Menezes et
al., 2002; Friesen
et al., 2008;
Gallego and
Velez, 1992
Flower buds, young
fruit, stem tips
(larvae) (Aguiar-
Menezes et al.,
2002; Friesen et al.,
2008)
No This is an
external pest
(Aguiar-
Menezes et al.,
2002) not
expected to be
associated with
mature fruit at
harvest. This
pest was also
introduced and
released into
Hawaii as a
biological
control agent for
Passiflora weed
species.
Pest Risk Assessment for Passiflora spp. from Ecuador
Ver. 2 December 2, 2014 14
Pest name Evidence of
presence in
Ecuador
Host status Plant part(s)
association4
On
harvested
plant
part(s)?5
Remarks
BACTERIA
Xanthomonas
axonopodis pv.
passiflorae
(Pereira)
Gonçalves &
Rosato (= X.
campestris pv.
passiflorae
(Pereira) Dye)
Rogg, 2000 Joy and Sherin,
2012; Manicom et
al., 2003; Rogg,
2000
Leaves, seeds
(Manicom et al.,
2003), fruit (Fischer
and Rezende, 2008;
Goncalves and
Rosato, 2000)
No Infection of the
fruit by X.
axonopodis pv.
passiflorae
causes fruit to
fall prior to
maturation or
causes lesions
that are
conspicuous
(Fischer and
Rezende, 2008).
Infected fruit are
not likely to
remain with the
consignment.
FUNGI
Alternaria
passiflorae J.H.
Simmonds
MAG-IICA, 2001 Fischer and
Rezende, 2008;
MAG-IICA, 2001;
Manicom et al.,
2003
Leaves, fruit, stem
(Fischer and
Rezende, 2008)
No This pest is
present in
Florida and
Hawaii (Farr and
Rossman, 2013).
Spots on fruit are
conspicuous
(Fischer and
Rezende, 2008)
and infected fruit
are not likely to
remain with the
consignment.
Asterina
megalospora Berk.
& M.A. Curtis
Wellman, 1977 Farr and Rossman,
2013; Wellman,
1977
Leaves (Farr and
Rossman, 2013)
No
Asterina tacsoniae
Pat.
Wellman, 1977 Farr and Rossman,
2013; Wellman,
1977
Leaves (based on
affected plant parts
for other Asterina
species on various
hosts) (Farr and
Rossman, 2013)
No
Pest Risk Assessment for Passiflora spp. from Ecuador
Ver. 2 December 2, 2014 15
Pest name Evidence of
presence in
Ecuador
Host status Plant part(s)
association4
On
harvested
plant
part(s)?5
Remarks
Irenopsis
passiflorae Hansf.
Farr and
Rossman, 2013
Farr and Rossman,
2013
Leaves (based on
affected plant parts
for other Irenopsis
species on various
hosts) (e.g., Faria et
al., 2008;
Hosagoudar and
Sabeena, 2010)
No
Mycena citricolor
(Berk. & M.A.
Curtis) Sacc.
CABI, 2013 Wellman, 1977 Leaves (Wellman,
1977)
No This pest is
present in
Florida (CABI,
2013).
Pseudocercospora
calospilea (Syd.)
Deighton (=
Cercospora
calospilea Syd.)
Farr and
Rossman, 2013
Farr and Rossman,
2013; Wellman,
1977
Leaf spot (Wellman,
1977)
No
MOLLUSK
Lissachatina fulica
(Bowdich)
Borrero et al.,
2009
Raut and Barker,
2002
Whole plant (Raut
and Barker, 2002)
No This pest is
present in
Florida (PAS,
2013a).
Lissachatina
fulica is a large
mollusk. It is
highly unlikely
to remain with
fruit through
hand-harvesting
and culling as
described in
section 1.4.
2.3. Pests selected for further analysis
We identified six pests for further analysis (Table 3). All of these organisms are actionable pests
for the continental United States and have a reasonable likelihood of being associated with the
fruit at the time of harvest and remaining with the commodity, in viable form, throughout the
harvesting process.
Pest Risk Assessment for Passiflora spp. from Ecuador
Ver. 2 December 2, 2014 16
Table 3. Pests selected for further analysis.
Pest type Taxonomy Scientific name
Arthropod Diptera: Tephritidae Anastrepha curitis
Anastrepha dissimilis
Anastrepha fraterculus
Anastrepha pseudoparallela
Anastrepha striata
Ceratitis capitata
3. Assessing Pest Risk Potential
3.1. Introduction
For each pest selected for further analysis, we estimate its overall pest risk potential. Risk is
described by the likelihood of an adverse event, the magnitude of the consequences, and
uncertainty. In this risk assessment, we first determine for each pest if there is an endangered
area within the import area. The endangered area is defined as the portion of the import area
where ecological factors favor the establishment of the pest and where the presence of the pest
will result in economically important losses. Once an endangered area has been determined, the
overall risk of each pest is then determined by two separate components: 1) the likelihood of its
introduction into the endangered area on the imported commodity (i.e., the likelihood of an
adverse event), and 2) the consequences of its introduction (i.e., the magnitude of the
consequences). In general, we assess both of these components for each pest. However, if we
determine that the risk of either of these components is negligible, it is not necessary to assess
the other, as the overall pest risk potential would be negligible regardless of the result of the
second component. In other words, if we determine that the introduction of a pest is unlikely to
have unacceptable consequences, we do not assess its likelihood of being introduced. Likewise,
if we determine there is negligible likelihood of a pest being introduced, we do not assess its
consequences of introduction.
The likelihood and consequences of introduction are assessed using different approaches.
For the consequences of introduction, we determine if the pest meets the threshold (Yes/No) of
likely causing unacceptable consequences of introduction. This determination is based on
estimating the potential consequences of introduction in terms of physical losses (rather than
monetary losses). The threshold is based on a proportion of damage rather than an absolute value
or amount. Pests that are like to impact at least 10 percent of the production of one or more hosts
are deemed “threshold pests.”
For likelihood of introduction, which is based on the likelihoods of entry and establishment, we
qualitatively assess risk using the ratings Negligible, Low, Medium, and High. The risk factors
comprising the model for likelihood of introduction are interdependent and, therefore, the model
is multiplicative rather than additive. Thus, if any one risk factor is rated as Negligible, then the
overall likelihood will be Negligible. For the overall likelihood of introduction risk rating, we
define the different categories as follows:
Pest Risk Assessment for Passiflora spp. from Ecuador
Ver. 2 December 2, 2014 17
High: Pest introduction is highly likely to occur.
Medium: Pest introduction is possible, but for that to happen, the exact combination of
required events needs to occur.
Low: Pest introduction is unlikely to occur because one or more of the required events
are unlikely to happen, or the full combination of required events is unlikely to
align properly in time and space.
Negligible: Pest introduction is highly unlikely to occur given the exact combination of
events required for successful introduction.
3.2. Assessment results
3.2.1. Anastrepha curitis
A full pest analysis for A. curitis is not needed because the endangered area is negligible.
We present the results of this assessment in the table below.
Determination of the portion of the continental United States endangered by Anastrepha
curitis
Climatic suitability Anastrepha curitis is known only from Amazonas and Para, Brazil (Dutra
et al., 2013) and Ecuador (García, 2011). Based on a comparison with
USDA Plant Hardiness Zones (Magarey et al., 2008), establishment
would only occur in Plant Hardiness Zones 12 and 13. We conclude that
suitable environmental conditions would only exist within protected areas
(e.g., glasshouses) in the continental United States.
Defined
Endangered Area
We determined that no portion of the continental United States is likely
to be endangered by Anastrepha curitis because no portion of the PRA
area is likely to be climatically suitable for the pest’s continued survival.
3.2.2. Anastrepha dissimilis
A full pest analysis for A. dissimilis is not needed because the endangered area is negligible.
We present the results of this assessment in the table below.
Determination of the portion of the continental United States endangered by Anastrepha
dissimilis
Climatic suitability Anastrepha dissimilis is present throughout Brazil (Zucchi and Moraes,
2008) and in Ecuador (Tigrero and Salas, 2009). A comparison with the
USDA Plant Hardiness Zones (Magarey et al., 2008) indicates that
establishment may occur in Plant Hardiness Zones 10-13, inclusive of
Florida and some limited portions of southern Texas and Louisiana.
Potential hosts at
risk in PRA Area
The only known host plants for A. dissimilis are Passiflora species
(Aguiar-Menezes et al., 2002; Zucchi and Moraes, 2008). Passiflora
species may be found throughout the southern United States (NRCS,
2013).
Economically
important hosts at
riska
Anastrepha dissimilis has been reported on a number of Passiflora
species (Aguiar-Menezes et al., 2002; Zucchi and Moraes, 2008). In the
continental United States, Passiflora species may be grown for fruit
Pest Risk Assessment for Passiflora spp. from Ecuador
Ver. 2 December 2, 2014 18
(limited production), as ornamentals, or as a groundcover (CABI, 2013;
CRFG, 2009; McGuire, 1999).
Pest potential on
economically
important hosts at
risk
The pest potential of A. dissimilis on Passiflora species in the continental
United States is considered negligible. Records indicate that it has not
been recorded from commercially important Passiflora species, and the
pest is therefore not considered economically significant (Norrbom et al.,
2012).
Defined
Endangered Area
We determined that no portion of the continental United States is likely
to be endangered by Anastrepha dissimilis because the pest does not pose
a threat to any hosts of economic, environmental, or social importance in
the PRA area. a As defined by ISPM No. 11, supplement 2, “economically” important hosts refers to both commercial and non-
market (environmental) plants (IPPC, 2011).
3.2.3. Anastrepha fraterculus
We determined the overall likelihood of introduction to be High. We present the results of this
assessment in the table below.
We determined that the establishment of Anastrepha fraterculus in the continental United States
is likely to cause unacceptable impacts. We present the results of this assessment in the table
below.
Determination of the portion of the continental United States endangered by Anastrepha
fraterculus
Climatic suitability Anastrepha fraterculus occurs in North, Central, and South America and
the Caribbean, ranging from southern Texas to Argentina (Alberti et al.,
2008; CABI, 2013; Foote et al., 1993). More specifically, it occurs in
southern Texas (Rio Grande Valley), Mexico (restricted distribution),
Belize, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua,
Panama, Trinidad and Tobago, Argentina (restricted distribution),
Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Guyana, Paraguay, Peru, Suriname,
Uruguay, and Venezuela (CABI, 2013). This distribution covers a
temperature range corresponding to USDA Plant Hardiness Zones 8-11
(Magarey et al., 2008).
Potential hosts at
risk in PRA Area
Anastrepha fraterculus feeds on multiple genera in multiple plant
families, including Actinidiaceae (Actinidia), Anacardiaceae (Mangifera,
Spondias), Annonaceae (Annona), Combretaceae (Terminalia),
Ebenaceae (Diospyros), Juglandaceae (Juglans), Lauraceae (Persea),
Moraceae (Ficus), Myrtaceae (Eugenia, Psidium, Syzygium), Oleaceae
(Olea), Punicaceae (Punica), Rosaceae (Cydonia, Eriobotrya, Fragaria,
Malus, Prunus, Pyrus, Rubus), Rutaceae (Citrus, Fortunella), Sapotaceae
(Manilkara, Pouteria), Solanaceae (Solanum), and Vitaceae (Vitis)
(CABI, 2013; White and Elson-Harris, 1992).
Economically
important hosts at
riska
The A. fraterculus species complex may infest economically important
crops as apple, citrus, guava, and peaches (CABI, 2013; Weems, 2006).
Pest Risk Assessment for Passiflora spp. from Ecuador
Ver. 2 December 2, 2014 19
Pest potential on
economically
important hosts at
risk
The A. fraterculus species complex damages economically important
plants (Weems, 2006). In Argentina and Mexico, A. fraterculus is
considered one of the most economically important fruit fly species
(Alberti et al., 2008; Aluja et al., 1987). The oviposition punctures
(“stings”) alone may render fruit unmarketable (Gould and Raga, 2002).
In Brazil, it is considered a major apple pest that requires chemical
control measures in commercial orchards (Sugayama et al., 1997). Yield
loss in organic peach production ranges from 40-98.3 percent (Rupp et
al., 2012).
Defined
Endangered Area
The area endangered by A. fraterculus comprises Plant Hardiness Zones
8-11, as this area is both climatically suitable and contains economically
important hosts. a As defined by ISPM No. 11, supplement 2, “economically” important hosts refers to both commercial and non-
market (environmental) plants (IPPC, 2011).
Assessment of the likelihood of introduction of Anastrepha fraterculus into the endangered
area via the importation of passion fruit from Ecuador
Risk Element Risk Rating Uncertainty
Ratinga
Justification for rating and
explanation of uncertainty (and
other notes as necessary)
Likelihood of Entry
Risk Element A1: Pest
prevalence on the harvested
commodity (= the baseline
rating for entry)
High MC Anastrepha fraterculus is one of
the most common fruit flies
associated with passion fruit
(Aguiar-Menezes et al., 2002).
Eggs are laid within fruit and
larvae feed internally during
development (Aguiar-Menezes et
al., 2002). No standard industry
field practices beyond minimal
handling during harvest are known
(see section 1.4: Description of
pathway).
Risk Element A2: Likelihood
of surviving post-harvest
processing before shipment
High MC Fruit infested with fruit flies are
highly likely to escape detection
during culling (White and Elson-
Harris, 1992).
Risk Element A3: Likelihood
of surviving transport and
storage conditions of the
consignment
High MU No transport or storage conditions
have been provided that may
reduce the prevalence of A.
fraterculus on the fruit (see section
1.4: Description of pathway).
Typical shipping conditions for
passion fruit seem unlikely to
affect the pest population.
Pest Risk Assessment for Passiflora spp. from Ecuador
Ver. 2 December 2, 2014 20
Risk Element Risk Rating Uncertainty
Ratinga
Justification for rating and
explanation of uncertainty (and
other notes as necessary)
Risk Element A: Overall risk
rating for likelihood of entry
High N/A
Likelihood of Establishment
Risk Element B1: Likelihood
of coming into contact with
host material in the
endangered area
High C Anastrepha fraterculus feeds on
multiple genera in multiple plant
families (CABI, 2013; White and
Elson-Harris, 1992). Suitable hosts
are widely and regularly distributed
throughout the entire endangered
area.
Risk Element B2: Likelihood
of arriving in the endangered
area
High C More than 25 percent of the U.S.
population lives in the endangered
area.
Risk Element B: Combined
likelihood of establishment
High N/A
Overall Likelihood of Introduction
Combined likelihoods of
entry and establishment
High N/A
aC=Certain, MC=Moderately Certain, MU=Moderately Uncertain, U=Uncertain
Assessment of the consequences of introduction of Anastrepha fraterculus into the
continental United States (i.e., the PRA area)
Criteria Meets
criteria?
(Y/N)
Uncertainty
Ratinga
Justification for rating and
explanation of uncertainty (and
other notes as necessary)
Direct Impacts
Risk Element C1: Damage
potential in the endangered
area
Yes MC Management strategies for the
different Anastrepha species vary
accordingly (Miller et al., 2013),
and current management
techniques in the United States
may not be sufficient for A.
fraterculus. Yield losses due to
infestations of A. fraterculus in
organic fruit production are
especially high, ranging from 40-
98.3 percent (Rupp et al., 2012). It
is likely that introduction of A.
fraterculus into the United States
would initiate additional specific
control programs that are likely to
Pest Risk Assessment for Passiflora spp. from Ecuador
Ver. 2 December 2, 2014 21
Criteria Meets
criteria?
(Y/N)
Uncertainty
Ratinga
Justification for rating and
explanation of uncertainty (and
other notes as necessary)
significantly increase the costs of
production.
Risk Element C2: Spread
potential
Yes C Anastrepha fraterculus has been
shown to successfully colonize
multiple new important crops, such
as apples when they were
introduced into Brazil (Sugayama
et al., 1998). Adults of A.
fraterculus can fly relatively long
distances in short periods
(Kovaleski et al., 1999). The
primary mode of international
spread is through the movement of
infested fruit (Botha et al., 2004;
CABI, 2013).
Risk Element C: Pest
introduction is likely to cause
unacceptable direct impacts
Yes
N/A
Trade Impacts
Risk Element D1: Export
markets at risk
N/A N/A
Risk Element D2: Likelihood
of trading partners imposing
additional phytosanitary
requirements
N/A N/A
Risk Element D: Pest is likely
to cause significant trade
impacts
N/A N/A
Conclusion
Is the pest likely to cause
unacceptable consequences in
the PRA area?
Yes N/A
aC=Certain, MC=Moderately Certain, MU=Moderately Uncertain, U=Uncertain
3.2.4. Anastrepha pseudoparallela
We determined the overall likelihood of introduction to be Medium. We present the results of
this assessment in the table below.
We determined that the establishment of Anastrepha pseudoparallela in the continental United
States is likely to cause unacceptable impacts. We present the results of this assessment in the
table below.
Pest Risk Assessment for Passiflora spp. from Ecuador
Ver. 2 December 2, 2014 22
Determination of the portion of the continental United States endangered by Anastrepha
pseudoparallela
Climatic suitability Anastrepha pseudoparallela is present in Argentina, Brazil, Ecuador, and
Peru (Carroll et al., 2006; Uchôa, 2012). A comparison with the USDA
Plant Hardiness Zones (Magarey et al., 2008) indicates that establishment
may occur in Plant Hardiness Zones 10-13, inclusive of Florida and some
limited portions of southern Texas and Louisiana.
Potential hosts at
risk in PRA Area
Potential hosts for A. pseudoparallela include mango (Mangifera indica),
guava (Psidium guajava), and passion fruit (Passiflora spp.) (Uchôa,
2012), all of which may be found in Plant Hardiness Zones 10-13
(NRCS, 2013).
Economically
important hosts at
riska
Mango and guava are considered to be economically important crops
grown in the continental United States, specifically in Florida (Mossler
and Crane, 2012; Mossler and Crane, 2013).
Pest potential on
economically
important hosts at
risk
Anastrepha pseudoparallela is considered to be a fruit fly with “real
economic importance” on mango, guava, and passion fruit (Aguiar, 2012;
Uchôa, 2012). The lack of specific quantification of damage increases the
uncertainty of this conclusion.
Defined
Endangered Area
The area of the continental United States endangered by A.
pseudoparallela includes mango and guava in Plant Hardiness Zones 10-
11. a As defined by ISPM No. 11, supplement 2, “economically” important hosts refers to both commercial and non-
market (environmental) plants (IPPC, 2011).
Assessment of the likelihood of introduction of Anastrepha pseudoparallela into the
endangered area via the importation of passion fruit from Ecuador
Risk Element Risk Rating Uncertainty
Ratinga
Justification for rating and
explanation of uncertainty (and
other notes as necessary)
Likelihood of Entry
Risk Element A1: Pest
prevalence on the harvested
commodity (= the baseline
rating for entry)
High MC Anastrepha pseudoparallela is
considered to be a pest of various
Passiflora species in Ecuador
(Aguiar-Menezes et al., 2002;
Uchôa, 2012). Eggs are laid within
fruit and larvae feed internally
during development (Aguiar-
Menezes et al., 2002). No standard
industry field practices beyond
minimal handling during harvest
are known (see section 1.4:
Description of pathway).
Risk Element A2: Likelihood
of surviving post-harvest
processing before shipment
High MC Fruit infested with fruit flies are
highly likely to escape detection
during culling (White and Elson-
Pest Risk Assessment for Passiflora spp. from Ecuador
Ver. 2 December 2, 2014 23
Risk Element Risk Rating Uncertainty
Ratinga
Justification for rating and
explanation of uncertainty (and
other notes as necessary)
Harris, 1992).
Risk Element A3: Likelihood
of surviving transport and
storage conditions of the
consignment
High MU No transport or storage conditions
have been provided that may
reduce the prevalence of A.
pseudoparallela on the fruit (see
section 1.4: Description of
pathway). Typical shipping
conditions for passion fruit seem
unlikely to affect the pest
population.
Risk Element A: Overall risk
rating for likelihood of entry
High N/A
Likelihood of Establishment
Risk Element B1: Likelihood
of coming into contact with
host material in the
endangered area
Medium C Anastrepha pseudoparallela is a
pest of Passiflora spp., mango, and
guava (Uchôa, 2012), and suitable
hosts are widely established in only
a limited portion of the endangered
area.
Risk Element B2: Likelihood
of arriving in the endangered
area
Low C Less than 10 percent of the U.S.
population lives in the endangered
area.
Risk Element B: Combined
likelihood of establishment
Medium N/A
Overall Likelihood of Introduction
Combined likelihoods of
entry and establishment
Medium N/A
aC=Certain, MC=Moderately Certain, MU=Moderately Uncertain, U=Uncertain
Assessment of the consequences of introduction of Anastrepha pseudoparallela into the
continental United States (i.e., the PRA area)
Criteria Meets
criteria?
(Y/N)
Uncertainty
Ratinga
Justification for rating and
explanation of uncertainty (and
other notes as necessary)
Direct Impacts
Risk Element C1: Damage
potential in the endangered
area
Yes MU Management strategies for the
different Anastrepha species vary
accordingly (Miller et al., 2013), and
current management techniques in the
United States may not be sufficient
for A. pseudoparallela. General
Pest Risk Assessment for Passiflora spp. from Ecuador
Ver. 2 December 2, 2014 24
Criteria Meets
criteria?
(Y/N)
Uncertainty
Ratinga
Justification for rating and
explanation of uncertainty (and
other notes as necessary)
control practices for mango and guava
production in Florida do not indicate
specific fruit fly control measures
(Mossler and Crane, 2012, 2013).
While specific yield losses
attributable to infestations of A.
pseudoparallela could not be found, it
is considered to be a pest species in
South America (Aguiar, 2012; Uchôa,
2012). For these reasons, we estimate
that there is potential for significant
damage to occur in the endangered
area, but with moderate levels of
uncertainty.
Risk Element C2: Spread
potential
Yes MU There do not appear to be any
biological factors that may reduce the
spread potential of A. pseudoparallela
in the United States. As with other
Anastrepha species, the primary mode
of spread is likely through the
movement of infested fruit (Botha et
al., 2004; CABI, 2013).
Risk Element C: Pest
introduction is likely to cause
unacceptable direct impacts
Yes
N/A
Trade Impacts
Risk Element D1: Export
markets at risk
N/A N/A
Risk Element D2: Likelihood
of trading partners imposing
additional phytosanitary
requirements
N/A N/A
Risk Element D: Pest is likely
to cause significant trade
impacts
N/A N/A
Conclusion
Is the pest likely to cause
unacceptable consequences in
the PRA area?
Yes N/A
aC=Certain, MC=Moderately Certain, MU=Moderately Uncertain, U=Uncertain
Pest Risk Assessment for Passiflora spp. from Ecuador
Ver. 2 December 2, 2014 25
3.2.5. Anastrepha striata
We determined the overall likelihood of introduction to be High. We present the results of this
assessment in the table below.
We determined that the establishment of A. striata in the continental United States is likely to
cause unacceptable impacts. We present the results of this assessment in the table below.
Determination of the portion of the continental United States endangered by Anastrepha
striata
Climatic suitability Anastrepha striata is present in southern Mexico, most of Central
America, through South America to Peru, Bolivia, and Brazil (CABI,
2013; Hernández-Ortiz, 1992; Weems and Fasulo, 2012). A comparison
with the USDA Plant Hardiness Zones (Magarey et al., 2008) indicates
that establishment may occur in Plant Hardiness Zones 9-13.
Potential hosts at
risk in PRA Area
The primary host of Anastrepha striata is guava (Psidium guajava)
(Hernández-Ortiz, 1992), though it may also infest fruits of lime (Citrus
aurantifolia) and orange (Citrus sinensis) (Condor, 1973), Spondias
purpurea, and other Psidium species (Zucchi and Moraes, 2008), all of
which may be found in Plant Hardiness Zones 9-13 (NRCS, 2013).
Economically
important hosts at
riska
Guava and citrus are considered to be economically important hosts in
the United States (Mossler and Crane, 2012; NASS, 2011).
Pest potential on
economically
important hosts at
risk
Anastrepha striata is considered to be an important agricultural pest in
guava, limes, and oranges (Aluja et al., 1987; Condor, 1973; Weems and
Fasulo, 2012). In general, A. striata does not appear to be considered a
pest of primary economic importance (Weems and Fasulo, 2012), though
significant damage may occur in dooryard plantings or other plants in the
environment. Anastrepha species are considered to be the most serious
fruit fly pests in Central and South America (CABI, 2013); therefore, we
consider it likely that A. striata would have significant economic impacts
on potential host species in the continental United States.
Defined
Endangered Area
The endangered area encompasses areas where guava and citrus are
grown in Plant Hardiness Zones 9-11. a As defined by ISPM No. 11, supplement 2, “economically” important hosts refers to both commercial and non-
market (environmental) plants (IPPC, 2011).
Assessment of the likelihood of introduction of Anastrepha striata into the endangered area
via the importation of passion fruit from Ecuador
Risk Element Risk Rating Uncertainty
Ratinga
Justification for rating and
explanation of uncertainty (and
other notes as necessary)
Likelihood of Entry
Risk Element A1: Pest
prevalence on the harvested
commodity (= the baseline
High MC Anastrepha striata may be found
commonly associated with various
Passiflora species (Aguiar-
Pest Risk Assessment for Passiflora spp. from Ecuador
Ver. 2 December 2, 2014 26
Risk Element Risk Rating Uncertainty
Ratinga
Justification for rating and
explanation of uncertainty (and
other notes as necessary)
rating for entry) Menezes et al., 2002). Eggs are
laid within fruit, and larvae feed
internally during development
(Aguiar-Menezes et al., 2002). No
standard industry field practices
beyond minimal handling during
harvest are known (see section 1.4:
Description of pathway).
Risk Element A2: Likelihood
of surviving post-harvest
processing before shipment
High MC Fruit infested with fruit flies are
highly likely to escape detection
during culling (White and Elson-
Harris, 1992).
Risk Element A3: Likelihood
of surviving transport and
storage conditions of the
consignment
High MU No transport or storage conditions
have been provided that may
reduce the prevalence of A. striata
on the fruit (see section 1.4:
Description of pathway). Typical
shipping conditions for passion
fruit seem unlikely to affect the
pest population.
Risk Element A: Overall risk
rating for likelihood of entry
High N/A
Likelihood of Establishment
Risk Element B1: Likelihood
of coming into contact with
host material in the
endangered area
High MC Anastrepha striata feeds on
multiple genera in multiple plant
families (CABI, 2013; Weems and
Fasulo, 2012). Suitable hosts are
widely and regularly distributed
throughout the entire endangered
area.
Risk Element B2: Likelihood
of arriving in the endangered
area
High C More than 25 percent of the U.S.
population lives in the endangered
area.
Risk Element B: Combined
likelihood of establishment
High N/A
Overall Likelihood of Introduction
Combined likelihoods of
entry and establishment
High N/A
aC=Certain, MC=Moderately Certain, MU=Moderately Uncertain, U=Uncertain
Pest Risk Assessment for Passiflora spp. from Ecuador
Ver. 2 December 2, 2014 27
Assessment of the consequences of introduction of Anastrepha striata into the continental
United States (i.e., the PRA area)
Criteria Meets
criteria?
(Y/N)
Uncertainty
Ratinga
Justification for rating and
explanation of uncertainty (and
other notes as necessary)
Direct Impacts
Risk Element C1: Damage
potential in the endangered
area
Yes MU Management strategies of the
different Anastrepha species vary
accordingly (Miller et al., 2013), and
current management techniques in the
United States may not be sufficient
for A. striata. General control
practices for guava production in
Florida do not indicate specific fruit
fly control measures (Mossler and
Crane, 2012). While specific yield
losses attributable to infestations of A.
striata could not be found, it is
considered to be a pest species in
South America (Aguiar-Menezes et
al., 2002; CABI, 2013). For these
reasons, we estimate that there is
potential for significant damage to
occur in the endangered area, but with
moderate levels of uncertainty.
Risk Element C2: Spread
potential
Yes MU There do not appear to be any
biological factors that may reduce the
spread potential of A. striata in the
United States. As with other
Anastrepha species, the primary mode
of spread is likely through the
movement of infested fruit (Botha et
al., 2004; CABI, 2013).
Risk Element C: Pest
introduction is likely to cause
unacceptable direct impacts
Yes N/A
Trade Impacts
Risk Element D1: Export
markets at risk
N/A N/A
Risk Element D2: Likelihood
of trading partners imposing
additional phytosanitary
requirements
N/A N/A
Risk Element D: Pest is likely
to cause significant trade
N/A N/A
Pest Risk Assessment for Passiflora spp. from Ecuador
Ver. 2 December 2, 2014 28
Criteria Meets
criteria?
(Y/N)
Uncertainty
Ratinga
Justification for rating and
explanation of uncertainty (and
other notes as necessary)
impacts
Conclusion
Is the pest likely to cause
unacceptable consequences in
the PRA area?
Yes N/A
aC=Certain, MC=Moderately Certain, MU=Moderately Uncertain, U=Uncertain
3.2.6. Ceratitis capitata
We determined the overall likelihood of introduction to be Medium. We present the results of
this assessment in the table below.
We determined that the establishment of Ceratitis capitata in the continental United States is
likely to cause unacceptable impacts. We present the results of this assessment in the table
below.
Determination of the portion of the continental United States endangered by Ceratitis
capitata
Climatic suitability Ceratitis capitata (Medfly) is widely distributed in the Mediterranean
region, South and Central America, west Asia, and Australia (CABI,
2013). Based on its current distribution, we estimate that Medfly could
establish in areas of the continental United States corresponding to Plant
Hardiness Zones 8-11 (Magarey et al., 2008).
Potential hosts at
risk in PRA Area
Medfly feeds on over 400 hosts (CABI, 2013), many of which are
common within Plant Hardiness Zones 8-11 in the United States.
Economically
important hosts at
riska
Economically important hosts widely present in the area of concern
include Capsicum annuum, Citrus spp., Ficus carica, Morus nigra,
Prunus domestica, and P. persica (CABI, 2013).
Pest potential on
economically
important hosts at
risk
Medfly is a serious pest on Citrus spp., Ficus carica, Mangifera indica,
and Prunus persica; damage to fruit crops may reach 100 percent (CABI,
2013). Medfly therefore could impact several of the economically
important hosts listed above.
Defined
Endangered Area
The area endangered by Medfly comprises Plant Hardiness Zones 8-11,
as this area is both climatically suitable and contains economically
important hosts. a As defined by ISPM No. 11, supplement 2, “economically” important hosts refers to both commercial and non-
market (environmental) plants (IPPC, 2011).
Pest Risk Assessment for Passiflora spp. from Ecuador
Ver. 2 December 2, 2014 29
Assessment of the likelihood of introduction of Ceratitis capitata into the endangered area
via the importation of passion fruit from Ecuador
Risk Element Risk Rating Uncertainty
Ratinga
Justification for rating and
explanation of uncertainty (and
other notes as necessary)
Likelihood of Entry
Risk Element A1: Pest
prevalence on the harvested
commodity (= the baseline
rating for entry)
Low MU Even though C. capitata is widely
reported as a major pest of passion
fruit (e.g., Aguiar-Menezes et al.,
2002; CABI, 2013; Hill, 1983;
Liquido et al., 1991; Rogg, 2000),
multiple studies (e,.g. da Silva et
al., 2009; Pirovani et al., 2010;
Uramoto et al., 2004) researching
the species of fruit flies that
emerge from Passiflora fruit
collected in the field did not find C.
capitata. However, both male and
female adults emerged from fruit
collected from unsprayed P. alata
(Raga et al., 2011), indicating some
level of susceptibility within the
Passiflora genus. Eggs are laid
within fruit and larvae feed
internally during development
(Aguiar-Menezes et al., 2002). No
standard industry field practices
beyond minimal handling during
harvest are known (see section 1.4:
Description of pathway).
Risk Element A2: Likelihood
of surviving post-harvest
processing before shipment
Low MC Fruit infested with fruit flies are
highly likely to escape detection
during culling (White and Elson-
Harris, 1992).
Risk Element A3: Likelihood
of surviving transport and
storage conditions of the
consignment
Low MU No transport or storage conditions
have been provided that may
reduce the prevalence of C.
capitata in the fruit (see section
1.4: Description of pathway).
Typical shipping conditions for
passion fruit seem unlikely to
affect the pest population.
Risk Element A: Overall risk
rating for likelihood of entry
Low N/A
Pest Risk Assessment for Passiflora spp. from Ecuador
Ver. 2 December 2, 2014 30
Risk Element Risk Rating Uncertainty
Ratinga
Justification for rating and
explanation of uncertainty (and
other notes as necessary)
Likelihood of Establishment
Risk Element B1: Likelihood
of coming into contact with
host material in the
endangered area
High C Ceratitis capitata is a widely
polyphagous species (CABI,
2013). Suitable hosts are widely
and regularly distributed
throughout the entire endangered
area.
Risk Element B2: Likelihood
of arriving in the endangered
area
High C More than 25 percent of the U.S.
population lives within the
endangered area.
Risk Element B: Combined
likelihood of establishment
High N/A
Overall Likelihood of Introduction
Combined likelihoods of
entry and establishment
Medium N/A
aC=Certain, MC=Moderately Certain, MU=Moderately Uncertain, U=Uncertain
Assessment of the consequences of introduction of Ceratitis capitata into the continental
United States (i.e., the PRA area)
Criteria Meets
criteria?
(Y/N)
Uncertainty
Ratinga
Justification for rating and
explanation of uncertainty (and
other notes as necessary)
Direct Impacts
Risk Element C1: Damage
potential in the endangered
area
Yes
C Ceratitis capitata is a serious pest
on numerous hosts, including
Citrus spp., Ficus carica, and
Prunus persica; damage to fruit
crops may reach 100 percent
(CABI, 2013). In the continental
United States, C. capitata is
considered a quarantine pest, and
eradication measures are
immediately activated when
populations are detected (PAS,
2013b).
Risk Element C2: Spread
potential
Yes C Ceratitis capitata has spread in the
Mediterranean area and Central
and South America (CABI, 2013),
and has repeatedly entered the
United States (PAS, 2013b).
Pest Risk Assessment for Passiflora spp. from Ecuador
Ver. 2 December 2, 2014 31
Criteria Meets
criteria?
(Y/N)
Uncertainty
Ratinga
Justification for rating and
explanation of uncertainty (and
other notes as necessary)
Risk Element C: Pest
introduction is likely to cause
unacceptable direct impacts
Yes
N/A
Trade Impacts
Risk Element D1: Export
markets at risk
N/A N/A
Risk Element D2: Likelihood
of trading partners imposing
additional phytosanitary
requirements
N/A N/A
Risk Element D: Pest is likely
to cause significant trade
impacts
N/A N/A
Conclusion
Is the pest likely to cause
unacceptable consequences in
the PRA area?
Yes N/A
aC=Certain, MC=Moderately Certain, MU=Moderately Uncertain, U=Uncertain
4. Summary and Conclusions of Risk Assessment
Of the organisms associated with Passiflora spp. worldwide and reported in Ecuador, we
identified organisms that are actionable pests for the continental United States and have a
reasonable likelihood of being associated with the commodity following harvesting from the
field and prior to any post-harvest processing. We further evaluated these organisms for their
likelihood of introduction (i.e., entry plus establishment) and their potential consequences of
introduction. Pests that meet the threshold to likely cause unacceptable consequences of
introduction and receive an overall likelihood of introduction risk rating above Negligible are
candidates for risk management. The results of this risk assessment represent a baseline estimate
of the risks associated with the import commodity pathway as described in section 1.4.
Of the pests selected for further analysis, we determined that those identified in Table 4 are not
candidates for risk management, because no portion of the continental United States is likely to
be endangered by the pest. We summarize the results for each pest in Table 4.
All the other pests selected for further analysis are candidates for risk management, because they
meet the threshold to likely cause unacceptable consequences of introduction, and they received
an overall likelihood of introduction risk rating above Negligible. We summarize the results for
each pest in Table 5.
Detailed examination and choice of appropriate phytosanitary measures to mitigate pest risk are
part of the pest risk management phase within APHIS and are not addressed in this document.
Pest Risk Assessment for Passiflora spp. from Ecuador
Ver. 2 December 2, 2014 32
Table 4. Summary for pests selected for further evaluation and determined not to be candidates
for risk management.
Pest Reason the pest is not a
candidate for risk management
Uncertainty statement
(optional)a
Anastrepha curitis No endangered area within the
PRA area.
Anastrepha dissimilis No endangered area within the
PRA area.
aThe uncertainty statement, if included, identifies the most important source(s) of uncertainty.
Table 5. Summary for pests selected for further evaluation and determined to be candidates for
risk management. All of these pests meet the threshold for unacceptable consequences of
introduction.
Pest Likelihood of Introduction
overall rating
Uncertainty statement
(optional)a
Anastrepha fraterculus High
Anastrepha pseudoparallela Medium
Anastrepha striata High
Ceratitis capitata Medium aThe uncertainty statement, if included, identifies the most important source(s) of uncertainty.
5. Acknowledgements
Authors Cynthia Landry, Ecologista
Reviewers Christina Devorshak, Entomologista
John Rogers, Plant Pathologista
a Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory, USDA-APHIS-PPQ
6. Literature Cited
7 CFR § 319.56. 2012. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 7, Part 319 (7 CFR § 319.56 -
Fruits and Vegetables).
Aguiar-Menezes, E. L., E. B. Menezes, P. C. R. Cassino, and M. A. Soares. 2002. Passion Fruit.
Pages 361-390 in J. Peña, J. L. Sharp, and M. Wysoki, (eds.). Tropical Fruit Pests and
Pollinators. CAB International.
Aguiar-Menezes, E. L., R. J. Nascimento, and E. B. Menezes. 2004. Diversity of fly species
(Diptera: Tephritoidea) from Passiflora spp. and their hymenopterous parasitoids in two
municipalities of the southeastern Brazil. Neotropical Entomology. vol.33 no.1
Aguiar, W. M. M. 2012. Moscas das frutas de importância econômica no estado da Bahia:
biodiversidade e perfil do consumidor de mango no mercado interno. Universidade
Estadual do Sudoeste da Bahia.
Pest Risk Assessment for Passiflora spp. from Ecuador
Ver. 2 December 2, 2014 33
Alberti, A. C., V. A. Confalonieri, R. O. Zandomeni, and J. C. Vilardi. 2008. Phylogeographic
studies on natural populations of the South American fruit fly, Anastrepha fraterculus
(Diptera: Tephritidae). Genetica 132:1-8.
Aluja, M., J. Guillen, G. de la Rosa, M. Cabrera, H. Celedonio, P. Liedo, and J. Hendrichs. 1987.
Natural host plant survey of the economically important fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae)
of Chiapas, Mexico. Florida Entomologist 70(3):329-338.
APHIS. 2013. Fruits and Vegetables Import Requirements (FAVIR) Database. United States
Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS).
https://epermits.aphis.usda.gov/manual/index.cfm?ACTION=pubHome. (Archived at
PERAL).
Ávila, Á. P. C., C. Korytkowski, E. E. E. Ravelo, M. Y. S. Galindo, and H. L. M. Brochero.
2012. New Records of Dasiops spp (Diptera: Lonchaeidae) Associated with Pasiflora
Grown in Colombia. Rev. Fac. Nal. Agr. Medellín 65(2):6687-6696.
Bahder, B. W., R. H. Scheffrahn, J. Křeček, C. Keil, and S. Whitney-King. 2009. Termites
(Isoptera: Kalotermitidae, Rhinotermitidae, Termitidae) of Ecuador. Annales de la
Société entomologique de France (N.S.): International Journal of Entomology 45(4):529-
536.
Bauernfeind, R. J. 2001. Distribution of Cyclocephala spp. (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) in
Kansas. Environmental Entomology 30(5):899-902.
Beltrán, M., and A. V. Z. Brower. 2008. The Tree of Life Web Project: Heliconius cydno
Doubleday. Last accessed August 15, 2013, http://tolweb.org/Heliconius_cydno/72251.
Beltrán, M., A. V. Z. Brower, and C. Jiggins. 2010. Tree of Life: Heliconius. Last accessed
August 21, 2013, http://tolweb.org/Heliconius/72231.
Ben-Dov, Y. 1994. A Systematic Catalogue of the Mealybugs of the World (Insecta: Homoptera:
Coccoidea: Pseudococcidae and Putoidae) with Data on Geographical Distribution, Host
Plants, Biology and Economic Importance. Pages 1-686 in. Intercept Limited, Andover,
UK.
Ben-Dov, Y., D. R. Miller, and G. A. P. Gibson. 2013. ScaleNet.
http://www.sel.barc.usda.gov/SCALENET/scalenet.htm. (Archived at PERAL).
Benscher, D., S. S. Pappu, C. L. Niblett, F. Varon de Agudelo, F. Morales, E. Hodson, E.
Alvarez, O. Acosta, and R. F. Lee. 1996. A strain of soybean mosaic virus infecting
Passiflora spp. in Colombia. Plant Disease 80:258-262.
Bernal, J. A. 1994. El Cultivo de la Granadilla (Passiflora ligularis) In: Memorias del Curso
regional de actualizacion en frutas tropicales, Plan de Capacitacion a Extensioninstas,
Frutas Tropicales. ICA & Pronatta. Espinal Tomila, Colombia.
Blackman, R. L., and V. F. Eastop. 2000. Aphids on the World's Crops: An Identification and
Information Guide (Second). John Wiley & Sons Ltd., West Sussex, England. 466 pp.
Bolland, H. R., J. Gutierrez, and C. H. W. Flechtmann. 1998. World catalogue of the spider mite
family (Acari: Tetranychidae). Brill, Leiden - Boston - Koln. 392 pp.
Borrero, F. J., A. S. H. Breure, C. C. Christensen, M. Correoso, and V. M. Avila. 2009. Into the
Andes: Three new introductions of Lissachatina fulica (Gastropoda, Achatinidae) and its
potential distribution in South America. Tentacle 17:6-8.
Botha, J., D. Hardie, and A. Reeves. 2004. Exotic threat to Western Australia - South American
fruit flies not present in Western Australia: Anastrepha fraterculus and related species
(No. 9/2004). Factsheet. Government of Western Australia, Department of Agriculture.
Pest Risk Assessment for Passiflora spp. from Ecuador
Ver. 2 December 2, 2014 34
Brown, K. S. 1981. The biology of Heliconius and related genera. Annual Review of
Entomology 26:427-456.
Cabezas, D. A. V. 2013. Memorandum No. MAGAP-DE/AGROCALIDAD-2013-000776-OF
Quito, D.M. Personal communication to A. K. Dowdy on August 1, 2013, from Diego
Alfonso Vizaino Cabezas (AGROCALIDAD, Director Ejecutivo). Archived at PERAL
library, Raleigh, NC.
CABI. 2013. Crop Protection Compendium. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureau International
(CABI). http://www.cabi.org/cpc/. (Archived at PERAL).
Carrejo, N. S., and R. González. 1994. Lista preliminar de las moscas de la fruta del genero
Anastrepha (Dip.: Tephritidae) en el departamento del Valle del Cauca Cali, Colombia.
Bol. Mus. Ent. Univ. Valle. 2(1, 2):85-93.
Carroll, L. E., I. M. White, A. Freidberg, A. L. Norrbom, M. J. Dallwitz, and F. C. Thompson.
2006. Pest fruit flies of the world: Anastrepha pseudoparallela (Loew). http://delta-
intkey.com/ffa/www/ana_pseu.htm. (Archived at PERAL).
Casanas-Arango, A. D., E. E. Trujillo, R. D. Friesen, and A. M. R. d. Hernandez. 1996. Field
biology of Zapriufhrica sp. Wheeler (Dipt., Drosophilidae), a pest of Passiflora spp. of
high elevation possessing long tubular flowers. Journal of Applied Entomology 120:111-
114.
Causton, C. E., G. P. Markin, and R. Friesen. 2000. Exploratory Survey in Venezuela for
Biological Control Agents of Passiflora mollissima in Hawaii. Biological Control
18:110–119.
Condor, J. A. 1973. Cultivos Fruticolas. Pages 43-47, 50, 56 Manual: No. 38. Lista de insectos y
otros animales daninos a la agricultura en el Peru. Ministerio de Agricultura, Direccion
General de Investigacion Agraria, La Molina, Peru.
Constantino, L. M., and J. A. Salazar. 2010. A review of the Philaethria dido species complex
(Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae: Heliconiinae) and description of three new sibling species
from Colombia and Venezuela. Zootaxa 2720:1-27.
Cox, J. M. 1989. The mealybug genus Planococcus (Homoptera: Pseudococcidae). Bulletin of
the British Museum (Natural History) 58(1):1-78.
Cresswell, S. 2009. American Insects: Fungus knats. Family Mycetophilidae. Last accessed
August 21, 2013, http://www.americaninsects.net/f/mycetophilidae.html.
CRFG. 2009. Passion Fruit: Passiflora edulis / P. edulis flavicarpa. California Rare Fruit
Growers (CRFG). Last accessed August 12, 2013,
http://www.crfg.org/pubs/ff/passionfruit.html.
Da Silva, R. A., J. D. B. Pereira, L. N. Lemos, C. R. Jesus, A. L. Lima, and C. R. Lima. 2009.
Novos registros de hospedeiros de Anastrepha striata Schiner (Diptera: Tephritidae) no
estado do Amapa, Brasil. Brasil. 22a. RAIB. O Biológico, vol. 7, n. 2., p. 137.
de Moraes, G. J., J. A. McMurtry, and H. A. Denmark. 1986. A Catalog of the Mite Family
Phytoseiidae: References to taxonomy, synonymy, distribution and habitat. EMBRAPA-
DDT, Brasilia. 353 pp.
De Moraes, G. J., A. N. Moreira, and I. Delalibera. 1995. Growth of the Mite Mononychellus
tanajoa (Acari: Tetranychidae) on Alternative Plant Hosts in Northeastern Brazil. The
Florida Entomologist 78(2):350-354.
Denmark, H. A. 1970. The mariana mite, Tetranychus marianae McGregor, in Florida
(Tetranychidae: Acarina) (Entomology Circular No. 99). Florida Department of
Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Plant Industry.
Pest Risk Assessment for Passiflora spp. from Ecuador
Ver. 2 December 2, 2014 35
Dixon, W. N. 2008. Whitefringed Beetles, Naupactus (= Graphognathus) spp. (Insecta:
Coleoptera: Curculionidae) (EENY294). University of Florida, Institute of Food and
Agricultural Sciences, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Entomology and
Nematology Department. 4 pp.
Dominguez-Gil, O. E., and B. A. McPheron. 1992. Arthropods Associated with Passion Fruit in
Western Venezuela. The Florida Entomologist 75(4):607-612.
Dutra, V. S., B. Ronchi-Teles, G. J. Steck, and J. G. Silva. 2013. Description of Eggs of
Anastrepha curitis and Anastrepha leptozona (Diptera: Tephritidae) using SEM
[abstract]. Annals of the Entomological Society of America 106(1):13-17.
Evans, G. A. 2008. The Whiteflies (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae) of the World and Their Host Plants
and Natural Enemies (Version 2008-09-23). United States Department of Agriculture,
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
Faria, A. B. V., R. W. Barreto, and J. P. Cuda. 2008. Fungal pathogens of Schinus
terebinthifolius from Brazil as potential classical biological control agents. XII
International Symposium on Biological Control of Weeds:270-278.
Farr, D. F., and A. Y. Rossman. 2013. Fungal Databases. United States Department of
Agriculture, Agricultural Research Services, Systematic Mycology and Microbiology
Laboratory. http://nt.ars-grin.gov/fungaldatabases/. (Archived at PERAL).
Fischer, I. H., and J. A. M. Rezende. 2008. Diseases of Passion Flower (Passiflora spp.). Pest
Technology 2(1):1-19.
Foote, R. H., F. L. Blanc, and A. L. Norrobom. 1993. Handbook of the Fruit Flies (Diptera:
Tephritidae) of America North of Mexico. Comstock Publishing Associates, Ithaca, NY.
571 pp.
Friesen, R. D., C. E. Causton, and G. P. Markin. 2008. Status of the biological control of banana
poka, Passiflora mollissima (aka P. tarminiana) in Hawaii. Proceedings of the XII
International Symposium on Biological Control of Weeds:669-675.
Froeschner, R. C. 1981. Heteroptera or True Bugs of Ecuador: A Partial Catalog (Number 322).
Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, Washington. 158 pp.
Furth, D. G. 2006. The Current Status of Knowledge of the Alticinae of Mexico (Coleoptera:
Chrysomelidae). Bonner zoologische Beiträge 54(4):209-237.
Gallego, F., and R. Velez. 1992. Lista de Insectos que Afectan los Principales Cultivos, Plantas
Forestales, Animales Domesticos y al Hombre en Colombia. Universidad Nacional de
Colombia, Facultad de Ciencias, Medellín, Colombia. 142 pp.
García, V. 2011. Granadilla, un cultivo alternativo rentable. Revista Tierra Adentro.
Gil, O. E. D. 1998. Fauna fitófaga de parchita maracuyá (Passiflora edulis F. flavicarpa) en las
regiones Oriental y Suroriental de la Cuenca del Lago de Maracaibo, Venezuela:
características morfológicas. Boletín del Centro de Investigaciones Biológicas 32(1):13-
44.
Gilbert, L. E. 1969. On the ecology of natural dispersal: Dione moneta poeyii in Texas
(Nymphalidae). Journal of the Lepidopterists' Society 23(3):177-185.
Gillis, I. M., and D. A. Glawe. 2008. Characterization of Seuratia millardetii on Camellia
species and in artificial culture. North American Fungi 3(7):215-229.
Gimpel, W. F., and D. R. Miller. 1996. Systematic Analysis of the Mealybugs in the
Pseudococcus maritimus complex (Homoptera: Pseudococcidae). Contributions on
Entomology, International 2(1).
Pest Risk Assessment for Passiflora spp. from Ecuador
Ver. 2 December 2, 2014 36
Goncalves, E. R., and Y. B. Rosato. 2000. Genotypic characterization of xanthomonad strains
isolated from passion fruit plants (Passiflora spp.) and their relatedness to different
Xanthomonas species. International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary
Microbiology 50:811-821.
Gould, W. P., and A. Raga. 2002. Pests of Guava. Pages 295-313 in J. Peña, J. L. Sharp, and M.
Wysoki, (eds.). Tropical Fruit Pests and Pollinators. CAB International.
Guiry, M. D., and G. M. Guiry. 2013. AlgaeBase. World-wide electronic publication.
Cephaleuros virescens. National University of Ireland, Galway.
http://www.algaebase.org. (Archived at PERAL).
Halbert, S. 2003. Tri-ology: Entomology Section. 42(3).
Hernández-Ortiz, V. 1992. El género Anastrepha en México. Taxonomia, distribución y sus
plantas huéspedes. Instituto de Ecologfa, Xalapa, Mexico.
Hill, D. S. 1983. Agricultural insect pests of the tropics and their control. Cambridge University
Press. 746 pp.
Hill, D. S. 2008. Pests of Crops in Warmer Climates and Their Control. Springer. 704 pp.
Hosagoudar, V. B., and A. Sabeena. 2010. New and Less Known Fungi From Kerala, India.
Taiwania 55(3):249-253.
IPPC. 2013. International Standards For Phytosanitary Measures, Publication No. 11: Pest Risk
Analysis for Quarantine Pests Including Analysis of Environmental Risks and Living
Modified Organisms. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations,
Secretariat of the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC), Rome, Italy. 36 pp.
IPPC. 2012. International Standards For Phytosanitary Measures, Publication No. 5: Glossary of
Phytosanitary Terms. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations,
Secretariat of the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC), Rome, Italy. 38 pp.
Joy, P. P., and C. G. Sherin. 2012. Diseases of Passion fruit (Passiflora edulis): Pathogen,
symptoms, infection, spread and management. Kerala Agricultural University, Pineapple
Research Station, Kerala, India. 18 pp.
Kagiwata, T. 1990. Fruit rot of Passion Fruit Caused by Botrytis cinerea and Sclerotinia
sclerotiorum [abstract]. Japanese Journal of Tropical Agriculture 34(1):35-39.
Kovaleski, A., R. L. Sugayama, and A. Malavasi. 1999. Movement of Anastrepha fraterculus
from native breeding sites into apple orchards in Southern Brazil. Entomologia
Experimentalis et Applicata 91:457–463.
Leon, J. 1987. Botanica de los Cultivos Tropicales. Instituto Interamericano de Cooperacion para
la Agricultura, IICA. Costa Rica.
Liberato, J. R., and F. M. Zerbini. n.d. Common Names of Plant Diseases: Diseases of
Passionfruit (Passiflora spp.). The American Phytopathological Society (APSnet).
https://www.apsnet.org/publications/commonnames/Pages/Passionfruit.aspx. (Archived
at PERAL).
Liquido, N. J., L. A. Shinoda, and R. T. Cunningham. 1991. Host Plants of the Mediterranean
Fruit Fly (Diptera: Tephritidae): An Annotated World Review. Miscellaneous
Publications of the Entomological Society of America 77.
Lozano, J. G., L. E. Chamorro, J. A. Floriano, L. F. Vera, and J. D. Segura. 2007. Enfermedades
y Plagas en el Cultivo de Granadilla (Passiflora ligularis) en el Departamento del Huila.
Corpoica. 24 pp.
MacGowan, I. 2013. Lonchaeidae Online. Last accessed August 21, 2013,
http://lonchaeidae.myspecies.info/.
Pest Risk Assessment for Passiflora spp. from Ecuador
Ver. 2 December 2, 2014 37
Maes, J.-M. 2004. Catalogo de Insectos y Artropodos Terrestres de Nicaragua. Last accessed
September 10, 2004, http://www.insectariumvirtual.com/termitero/nicaragua.htm.
MAG-IICA. 2001. Maracuya, Passion Fruit, Passiflora edulis Sims. Convenio MAG-IICA,
Subprograma de Cooperación Técnica, Quito, Ecuador. 33 pp.
MAG. 1986. Inventario de plagas, enfermedades y malezas del Ecuador. Ministerio de
Agricultura y Ganadería del Ecuador (MAG), Programa Nacional de Sanidad Vegetal,
Quito, Ecuador. 186 pp.
Magarey, R. D., D. M. Borchert, and J. Schlegel. 2008. Global plant hardiness zones for
phytosanitary risk analysis. Scientia Agricola (Piracicaba, Brazil) 65:54-59.
Mallet, J. L. B., and J. T. Longino. 1982. Hostplant records and descriptions of juvenile stages
for two rare species of Eueides (Nymphalidae). Journal of the Lepidopterists' Society
36(2):136-144.
Manicom, B., C. Ruggiero, R. C. Ploetz, and A. de Goes. 2003. Diseases of Passion Fruit. in R.
C. Ploetz, (ed.). Diseases of Tropical Fruit Crops. CAB International.
Martorell, L. F. 1976. Annotated Food Plant Catalog of the Insects of Puerto Rico. Agricultural
Experiment Station, University of Puerto Rico, Department of Entomology. 303 pp.
McGregor, B. M. 1987. Tropical Products Transport Handbook (668). USDA, Washington, D.C.
1-148 pp.
McGuire, C. M. 1999. Passiflora incarnata (Passifloraceae): A New Fruit Crop. Economic
Botany 53(2):161-176.
Miller, J. G. d. S., K. M. Lima, B. McPheron, G. Steck, R. A. Zucchi, N. Barr, and R. Ruiz-Arce.
2013. Annual Progress Report: Use of mtDNA and nuclear markers for examining the
genetic variation among Brazilian collections of the species complex Anastrepha
fraterculus (Contract number 16059). 13 pp.
Morton, J. F. 1987. Fruits of warm climates. Julia F. Morton, Miami, FL. 505 pp.
Mossler, M. A., and J. Crane. 2012. Florida Crop/Pest Management Profile: Guava and Wax
Jambu (CIR 1415). University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences,
Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Horticultural Sciences Department. 5 pp.
Mossler, M. A., and J. Crane. 2013. Florida Crop/Pest Management Profile: Mango (CIR 1401).
University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, Florida Cooperative
Extension Service, Horticultural Sciences Department. 7 pp.
Mound, L. A., and S. H. Halsey. 1978. Whitefly of the world: A systematic catalogue of the
Aleyrodidae (Homoptera) with host plant and natural enemy data. Trustees of the British
Museum (Natural History). 340 pp.
NASS. 2011. Commercial Citrus Inventory: Preliminary Report. United States Department of
Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). 6 pp.
NIS. 2008. Change in action status for armored scales (Hemiptera: Diaspididae) on material for
consumption (NIS action policy, March 25, 2008). United States Department of
Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and
Quarantine, National Identification Services (NIS).
Norrbom, A. L., C. A. Korytkowski, R. A. Zucchi, K. Uramoto, G. L. Venable, J. McCormick,
and M. J. Dallwitz. 2012. Anastrepha and Toxotrypana: descriptions, illustrations, and
interactive keys. http://delta-intkey.com. (Archived at PERAL).
NRCS. 2013. The PLANTS Database. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), The National Plant Data Center.
http://plants.usda.gov. (Archived at PERAL).
Pest Risk Assessment for Passiflora spp. from Ecuador
Ver. 2 December 2, 2014 38
Opler, P. A., K. Lotts, and T. Naberhaus. 2013. Butterflies and Moths of North America.
http://www.butterfliesandmoths.org/ (Version 09112013). (Archived at PERAL).
Pacin, A. M., H. H. L. González, M. Etcheverry, S. L. Resnik, L. Vivas, and S. Espin. 2002.
Fungi associated with food and feed commodities from Ecuador. Mycopathologia
156:87-92.
PAS. 2013a. Giant African Snail (Lissachatina fulica, formerly Achatina fulica): Two additional
regulated areas in Florida established. North American Plant Protection Organization,
Phytosanitary Alert System (PAS).
http://www.pestalert.org/oprDetail.cfm?oprID=553&keyword=Lissachatina%20fulica.
(Archived at PERAL).
PAS. 2013b. Official Pest Reports: Ceratitis capitata. North America Plant Protection
Organization, Phytosanitary Alert System (PAS).
http://www.pestalert.org/byKeyword.cfm. (Archived at PERAL).
Pemberton, R. W. 1989. Insects Attacking Passiflora mollissima and Other Passiflora Species;
Field Survey in the Andes. Proceedings, Hawaiian Entomological Society 29:71-84.
Peregrine, W. T. H., and K. B. Ahmad. 1982. Brunei: A first annotated list of plant diseases and
associated organisms. Commonwealth Mycological Institute, Kew, England. 87 pp.
PestID. 2013. Pest Identification Database (PestID). United States Department of Agriculture,
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine.
https://mokcs14.aphis.usda.gov/aqas/login.jsp. (Archived at PERAL).
Pirovani, V. D., D.S. Martins, S.A.S. Souza, K. Uramoto, and P.S.F. Ferreira. 2010. Moscas-das-
frutas (Diptera: Tephritidae), seus parasitoides e hospedeiros em Viçosa, Zona da Mata
Mineira. Arq. Inst. Biol., São Paulo, v.77, n.4, p.727-733
PPQ. 2012. Guidelines for Plant Pest Risk Assessment of Imported Fruit and Vegetable
Commodities (Version 6.0). United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ), Raleigh, NC.
Raga, A., M. F. De Souza-Filho, R. A. Machado, M. E. Sato, and R. C. Siloto. 2011. Host
Ranges and Infestation Indices of Fruit Flies (Tephritidae) and Lance Flies (Lonchaeidae)
in São Paulo State, Brazil. Florida Entomologist, 94(4):787-794.
Raut, S. K., and G. M. Barker. 2002. Achatina fulica Bowditch and Other Achatinidae as Pests in
Tropical Agriculture. Pages 55-114 in G. M. Barker, (ed.). Molluscs as Crop Pests. CAB
International.
Robalino, F. A. J. 2009. Ecuador Granadilla Market Access Request. Personal communication to
Murali Bandla (PPQ Phytisanitary Issues Management) on May 8, 2009, from Dr.
Francisco A. Jácome Robalino (Agencia Ecuatoriana de Aseguramiento de la Calidad del
Agro – AGROCALIDAD).
Robinson, G. S., P. R. Ackery, I. J. Kitching, G. W. Beccaloni, and L. M. Hernandez. 2001.
Hostplants of the moth and butterfly caterpillars of the Oriental Region. Southdene Sdn
Bhd & The Natural History Museum, Kuala Lumpur & London. 744 pp.
Rodas, J. M. V. 2012. SUBJECT: Response to APHIS on additional information about
Granadilla fresh fruit. Personal communication to Murali Bandla (PPQ Phytisanitary
Issues Management) on March 30, 2012, from Jose Mauricio Velasco Rodas (Director
Ejecutivo Encargado: Agrocalidad).
Rodrigues, D., L. S. Duarte, and G. R. P. Moreira. 2007. Performance consequences of food
mixing in two passion vine leaf-footed bugs, Holymenia clavigera (Herbst, 1784) and
Pest Risk Assessment for Passiflora spp. from Ecuador
Ver. 2 December 2, 2014 39
Anisoscelis foliacea marginella (Dallas, 1852) (Hemiptera; Coreidae) [abstract].
Brazilian Journal of Biology 67(1):91-99.
Rogg, H. W. 2000. Manual de Entomologia Agricola de Ecuador. Ediciones ABYA-AYALA,
Quito, Ecuador. 664 pp.
Rooney-Latham, S., C. L. Blomquist, and H. J. Scheck. 2011. First Report of Fusarium Wilt
Caused by Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. passiflorae on Passion Fruit in North America.
Plant Disease 95(11):1478.
Rupp, L. C. D., M. I. C. Boff, P. Boff, P. A. Goncalves, and M. Botton. 2012. High dilution of
Staphysagria and fruit fly biotherapic preparations to manage South American fruit fly,
Anastrepha fraterculus, in organic peach orchards. Biological Agriculture &
Horticulture: An International Journal for Sustainable Production Systems 28(1):41-48.
Schaefer, C. W., and A. R. Panizzi. 2000. Heteroptera of Economic Importance. CRC Press,
Boca Raton. 828 pp.
Sugayama, R. L., E. S. Branco, A. Malavasi, A. Kovaleski, and I. Nora. 1997. Oviposition
behavior of Anastrepha fraterculus in apple and diel pattern of activities in an apple
orchard in Brazil. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 83:239–245.
Sugayama, R. L., A. Kovaleski, P. Liedo, and A. Malavasi. 1998. Colonization of a New Fruit
Crop by Anastrepha fraterculus (Diptera: Tephritidae) in Brazil: a Demographic
Analysis. Environmental Entomology 27(3):642-648.
Tigrero, J. O., and F. D. Salas. 2009. Descripción de una nueva especie del género Anastrepha
(Diptera: Tephritidae), grupo pseudoparallela, presente en Ecuador. Boletín Técnico 8(4-
5):101-106.
Uchôa-Fernandes, M. A., I. De Oliveira, R. M. S. Molina, and R. A. Zucchi. 2002. Species
Diversity of Frugivorous Flies (Diptera: Tephritoidea) from Hosts in the Cerrado of the
State of Mato Grosso do Sul, Brazil. Neotropical Entomology 31(4):515-524.
Uchôa, M. A. 2012. Fruit Flies (Diptera: Tephritoidea): Biology, Host Plants, Natural Enemies,
and the Implications to Their Natural Control. Pages 271-300 in S. Soloneski, (ed.).
Integrated Pest Management and Pest Control – Current and Future Tactics.
Uramoto, K., J. M. M. Walder, and R. A. Zucchi. 2004. Biodiversidade de moscas-das-frutas do
gênero Anastrepha (Diptera, Tephritidae) no campus da ESALQ-USP, Piracicaba, São
Paulo. Revista Brasileira de Entomologia. vol.48 no.3
Walsh, G. C. 2003. Host Range and Reproductive Traits of Diabrotica speciosa (Germar) and
Diabrotica viridula (F.) (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae), Two Species of South American
Pest Rootworms, with Notes on Other Species of Diabroticina. Environmental
Entomology 32(2):276-285.
Weems, H. V. 1990. Anastrepha grandis (Macquart) (Diptera: Tephritidae) (Entomology
Circular No. 334). Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division
of Plant Industry.
Weems, H. V. 2006. South American Fruit Fly, Anastrepha fraterculus (Wiedemann) (Insecta:
Diptera: Tephritidae) (EENY-266). University of Florida, Institute of Food and
Agricultural Sciences. 6 pp.
Weems, H. V., and T. R. Fasulo. 2012. Featured Creatures: guava fruit fly, Anastrepha striata
Schiner (Insecta: Diptera: Tephritidae) University of Florida.
http://entnemdept.ufl.edu/creatures/fruit/tropical/a_striata.htm. (Archived at PERAL).
Weems, H. V., and G. J. Steck. 2012. Featured Creatures: West Indian fruit fly, Anastrepha
obliqua (Macquart). University of Florida.
Pest Risk Assessment for Passiflora spp. from Ecuador
Ver. 2 December 2, 2014 40
http://entnemdept.ufl.edu/creatures/fruit/tropical/west_indian_fruit_fly.htm. (Archived at
PERAL).
Wellman, F. L. 1977. Dictionary of Tropical American Crops and Their Diseases. The
Scarecrow Press, Metuchen, NJ & London. 495 pp.
White, I. M., and M. M. Elson-Harris. 1992. Fruit flies of economic significance: their
identification and bionomics. CAB International, Wallingford, UK. 601 pp.
Williams, D. J., and M. C. Granara de Willink. 1992. Mealybugs of Central and South America.
CAB International, Wallingford, UK. 635 pp.
Williams, D. J., and G. W. Watson. 1988. The Scale Insects of the Tropical South Pacific
Region: Part 1. The armoured scales (Diaspididae). CAB International, Wallingford,
Oxon, UK. 290 pp.
Willmott, K. R., and J. P. W. Hall. 2013. Butterflies of Ecuador. www.butterfliesofecuador.com.
(Archived at PERAL).
Wyckhuys, K. A. G., C. Korytkowski, J. Martinez, B. Herrera, M. Rojas, and J. Ocampo. 2012.
Species composition and seasonal occurrence of Diptera associated with passionfruit
crops in Colombia. Crop Protection 32 90-98
Young, A. M. 1978. Spatial Properties of Niche Separation among Eueides and Dryas Butterflies
(Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae: Heliconiinae) in Costa Rica. Journal of the New York
Entomological Society 86(1):2-19.
Zucchi, R. A., and R. C. Moraes. 2008. Fruit Flies (Dipera: Tephritidae) in Brazil: Anastrepha
species their host plants and parasitoids.
http://www.lea.esalq.usp.br/anastrepha/edita_ssp_i.php. (Archived at PERAL).
Pest Risk Assessment for Passiflora spp. from Ecuador
Ver. 2 December 2, 2014 41
7. Appendix A. Pests with non-actionable regulatory status We found some evidence of the below listed organisms being associated with Passiflora spp. and
being present in the Ecuador; however, because these organisms have non-actionable regulatory
status for the continental United States, we did not list them in Table 2 of this risk assessment.
Below we list these organisms along with the references supporting their potential association
with Passiflora spp., their potential presence in Ecuador, their presence in the continental United
States (if applicable), and their regulatory status for the continental United States. For organisms
not present in the continental United States, we also provide justification for their non-actionable
status.
Organism Evidence and/or other notes
ARTHROPODS
Acari: Phytoseiidae
Typhlodromalus limonicus
(Garman & McGregor)
de Moraes et al., 1986. Genus is nonreportable (PestID,
2013).
Typhlodromalus peregrinus
(Muma)
de Moraes et al., 1986. Genus is nonreportable (PestID,
2013).
Acari: Tarsonemidae
Polyphagotarsonemus latus
(Banks)
Aguiar-Menezes et al., 2002; Rogg, 2000. Nonreportable
(PestID, 2013).
Acari: Tenuipalpidae
Brevipalpus phoenicis (Geijskes) Hill, 2008; Maes, 2004; Rogg, 2000. Nonreportable
(PestID, 2013).
Acari: Tetranychidae
Mononychellus tanajoa (Bondar) CABI, 2013; De Moraes et al., 1995
Oligonychus coffeae (Nietner) Bolland et al., 1998. Nonreportable (PestID, 2013).
Tetranychus marianae McGregor Denmark, 1970; Hill, 2008; Maes, 2004; Rogg, 2000
Tetranychus mexicanus
(McGregor)
Aguiar-Menezes et al., 2002; García, 2011; Gil, 1998.
Nonreportable (PestID, 2013).
Tetranychus urticae Koch Aguiar-Menezes et al., 2002; Bolland et al., 1998; MAG-
IICA, 2001. Nonreportable (PestID, 2013).
Tetranychus yusti McGregor Bolland et al., 1998. Nonreportable (PestID, 2013).
Coleoptera: Anthribidae
Araecerus fasciculatus (De Geer) Aguiar-Menezes et al., 2002; CABI, 2013; Rogg, 2000.
Nonreportable (PestID, 2013).
Coleoptera: Curculionidae
Hypothenemus crudiae (Panzer) Maes, 2004. Nonreportable (PestID, 2013).
Pantomorus cervinus Boheman Rogg, 2000. Nonreportable (PestID, 2013).
Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae
Cyclocephala melanocephala
Fabricius
Aguiar-Menezes et al., 2002; Bauernfeind, 2001; Rogg,
2000
Diptera: Agromyzidae
Liriomyza sativae Blanchard Maes, 2004; Rogg, 2000. Nonreportable (PestID, 2013).
Pest Risk Assessment for Passiflora spp. from Ecuador
Ver. 2 December 2, 2014 42
Organism Evidence and/or other notes
Diptera: Lonchaeidae
Lonchaea sp. Rogg, 2000. Genus is nonreportable (PestID, 2013).
Diptera: Otitidae
Notogramma cimiciforme Loew Uchôa-Fernandes et al., 2002. Nonreportable (PestID,
2013).
Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae
Bemisia tabaci (Gennadius) Maes, 2004; Rogg, 2000. Nonreportable (PestID, 2013).
Trialeurodes vaprariorum
(Westwood)
Mound and Halsey, 1978
Hemiptera: Aphididae
Aphis gossypii Glover Aguiar-Menezes et al., 2002; Blackman and Eastop, 2000;
CABI, 2013; Hill, 2008; Rogg, 2000
Aphis spiraecola Patch CABI, 2013
Aulacorthum solani Kaltenbach Blackman and Eastop, 2000; Rogg, 2000. Nonreportable
(PestID, 2013).
Brachycaudus helichrysi
Kaltenbach
Blackman and Eastop, 2000; Rogg, 2000. Nonreportable
(PestID, 2013).
Macrosiphum euphorbiae
Thomas
Aguiar-Menezes et al., 2002; Blackman and Eastop, 2000;
CABI, 2013; Hill, 2008
Myzus persicae Sulzer Aguiar-Menezes et al., 2002; Blackman and Eastop, 2000;
CABI, 2013
Toxoptera aurantii Boyer de
Fonscolombe
Blackman and Eastop, 2000; CABI, 2013; Rogg, 2000
Hemiptera: Asterolecaniidae
Russellaspis pustulans pustulans
(Cockerell)
Ben-Dov et al., 2013
Hemiptera: Coccidae
Ceroplastes cirripediformis
Comstock
García, 2011; Martorell, 1976. Nonreportable (PestID,
2013).
Coccus hesperidum Linnaeus Aguiar-Menezes et al., 2002; CABI, 2013; Hill, 2008
Parasaissetia nigra (Nietner) Ben-Dov et al., 2013; CABI, 2013
Saissetia coffeae (Walker) CABI, 2013; Maes, 2004
Hemiptera: Coreidae
Dallacoris pictus (Drury) (=
Phthia picta (Drury))
Maes, 2004; Rogg, 2000
Leptoglossus gonagra Fabricius Aguiar-Menezes et al., 2002; Froeschner, 1981; Maes,
2004. Nonreportable (PestID, 2013).
Leptoglossus zonatus (Dallas) Froeschner, 1981; MAG, 1986; Rogg, 2000. Nonreportable
(PestID, 2013).
Hemiptera: Diaspididae Non-actionable status for Diaspididae on commodities for
consumption (NIS, 2008).
Aonidiella aurantii (Maskell) Aguiar-Menezes et al., 2002; CABI, 2013; Hill, 2008;
Rogg, 2000
Aspidiotus destructor Signoret Ben-Dov et al., 2013; CABI, 2013
Pest Risk Assessment for Passiflora spp. from Ecuador
Ver. 2 December 2, 2014 43
Organism Evidence and/or other notes
Chrysomphalus dictyospermi
(Morgan)
CABI, 2013
Hemiberlesia lataniae (Signoret) Ben-Dov et al., 2013; CABI, 2013; Maes, 2004; Williams
and Watson, 1988
Hemiberlesia palmae (Cockerell) Ben-Dov et al., 2013; Williams and Watson, 1988
Howardia biclavis (Comstock) Ben-Dov et al., 2013; Martorell, 1976
Lepidosaphes beckii (Newman) Ben-Dov et al., 2013; Maes, 2004
Lopholeucaspis cockerelli
(Grandpré & Charmoy)
Ben-Dov et al., 2013
Parlatoria proteus (Curtis) Ben-Dov et al., 2013
Pinnaspis strachani (Cooley) Ben-Dov et al., 2013; Maes, 2004
Pseudaonidia trilobitiformis
(Green)
Ben-Dov et al., 2013; Hill, 1983; Hill, 2008; Rogg, 2000;
Williams and Watson, 1988
Pseudaulacaspis pentagona
(Targioni)
Rogg, 2000; Williams and Watson, 1988
Pseudischnaspis bowreyi
(Cockerell)
Ben-Dov et al., 2013; Maes, 2004
Pseudoparlatoria ostreata
Cockerell
Ben-Dov et al., 2013; Martorell, 1976
Selenaspidus articulatus
(Morgan)
Aguiar-Menezes et al., 2002; Ben-Dov et al., 2013; CABI,
2013
Hemiptera: Monophlebidae
Icerya purchasi Maskell Ben-Dov et al., 2013
Hemiptera: Pentatomidae
Nezara viridula (Linnaeus) CABI, 2013; Hill, 2008. Nonreportable (PestID, 2013).
Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae
Dysmicoccus brevipes
(Cockerell)
Ben-Dov, 1994; Halbert, 2003. Nonreportable (PestID,
2013).
Dysmicoccus grassii (Leonardi)
(= D. alazon Williams)
Ben-Dov et al., 2013; Ben-Dov, 1994; Williams and
Granara de Willink, 1992. Nonreportable (PestID, 2013).
Planococcus citri (Risso) Aguiar-Menezes et al., 2002; Ben-Dov, 1994; Ben-Dov et
al., 2013; Hill, 2008. Nonreportable (PestID, 2013).
Planococcus minor (Maskell) (=
P. pacificus Cox)
Aguiar-Menezes et al., 2002; CABI, 2013; Cox, 1989
Pseudococcus viburni (Signoret)
(= P. affinis (Maskell))
Ben-Dov et al., 2013; Ben-Dov, 1994. Nonreportable
(PestID, 2013).
Lepidoptera: Noctuidae
Agrotis ipsilon (Hufnagel) García, 2011; MAG, 1986. Nonreportable (PestID, 2013).
Peridroma saucia (Hübner) Aguiar-Menezes et al., 2002; CABI, 2013; Gallego and
Velez, 1992
Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae
Agraulis vanillae (Linnaeus) Aguiar-Menezes et al., 2002; Friesen et al., 2008; Gilbert,
1969; Rogg, 2000. Nonreportable (PestID, 2013).
Pest Risk Assessment for Passiflora spp. from Ecuador
Ver. 2 December 2, 2014 44
Organism Evidence and/or other notes
Dione juno Cramer Aguiar-Menezes et al., 2002; Dominguez-Gil and
McPheron, 1992; Friesen et al., 2008; MAG, 1986; MAG-
IICA, 2001; Rogg, 2000
Dione moneta Hübner Gilbert, 1969; Pemberton, 1989; Willmott and Hall, 2013
Dryadula phaetusa Linnaeus Opler et al., 2013; Willmott and Hall, 2013
Dryas iulia Fabricius Opler et al., 2013; Willmott and Hall, 2013; Young, 1978
Heliconius charithonia Linnaeus Opler et al., 2013; Willmott and Hall, 2013
Thysanoptera: Thripidae
Chaetanaphothrips orchidii
(Moulton)
CABI, 2013
Heliothrips haemorrhoidalis
Bouché
CABI, 2013; Hill, 2008
BACTERIA
Ralstonia solanacearum (Smith)
Yabuuchi et al.
CABI, 2013; Fischer and Rezende, 2008; Manicom et al.,
2003
Rhizobium radiobacter
(Beijerinck & van Delden)
Young et al. (= Agrobacterium
tumefaciens (Smith &
Townsend) Conn)
CABI, 2013; Manicom et al., 2003; Rogg, 2000
FUNGI AND CHROMISTANS
Alternaria alternata (Fr. : Fr.)
Keissl.
Farr and Rossman, 2013; Joy and Sherin, 2012; Manicom
et al., 2003; Pacin et al., 2002. Nonreportable (PestID,
2013).
Alternaria brassicae (Berk.)
Sacc. (= A. macrospora (Sacc.)
Sawada)
Farr and Rossman, 2013; Manicom et al., 2003; Rogg,
2000. Nonreportable (PestID, 2013).
Aspergillus niger Tiegh. Farr and Rossman, 2013; Peregrine and Ahmad, 1982;
Rogg, 2000
Botryotinia fuckeliana (de Bary)
Whetzel (=Botrytis cinerea Pers.
: Fr.)
Farr and Rossman, 2013; Rogg, 2000; Wellman, 1977
Cephaleuros virescens Künze Farr and Rossman, 2013; Guiry and Guiry, 2013
Cladosporium herbarum Farr and Rossman, 2013; Manicom et al., 2003; Rogg,
2000
Cladosporium oxysporum Berk.
& M.A. Curtis
Farr and Rossman, 2013; Fischer and Rezende, 2008; Joy
and Sherin, 2012; Manicom et al., 2003
Colletotrichum acutatum J.H.
Simmonds
CABI, 2013; Farr and Rossman, 2013
Colletotrichum truncatum
(Schwein.) Andrus & W.D.
Moore
Farr and Rossman, 2013
Erysiphe polygoni DC. Farr and Rossman, 2013; Rogg, 2000
Fusarium lateritium Nees : Fr. Farr and Rossman, 2013
Pest Risk Assessment for Passiflora spp. from Ecuador
Ver. 2 December 2, 2014 45
Organism Evidence and/or other notes
Fusarium moniliforme J. Sheld. Farr and Rossman, 2013; Peregrine and Ahmad, 1982;
Rogg, 2000
Fusarium oxysporum f. sp.
passiflorae W.L. Gordon
Rogg, 2000; Rooney-Latham et al., 2011
Fusarium oxysporum Schltdl. :
Fr.
Farr and Rossman, 2013; Joy and Sherin, 2012; Wellman,
1977
Fusarium solani (Mart.) Sacc. Farr and Rossman, 2013; Fischer and Rezende, 2008; Joy
and Sherin, 2012
Gibberella baccata (Wallr.)
Sacc.
Farr and Rossman, 2013
Glomerella cingulata (Stoneman)
Spauld. & H. Schrenk
Anamorph: Colletotrichum
gloeosporioides (Penz.) Penz. &
Sacc.
Farr and Rossman, 2013; Fischer and Rezende, 2008; Joy
and Sherin, 2012; Pacin et al., 2002; Rogg, 2000
Haematonectria haematococca
(Berk. & Broome) Samuels &
Rossman (= Nectria
haematococca Berk. & Broome)
Farr and Rossman, 2013; Fischer and Rezende, 2008;
García, 2011; Joy and Sherin, 2012; Lozano et al., 2007
Lasiodiplodia theobromae (Pat.)
Griffiths & Maubl.
CABI, 2013; Fischer and Rezende, 2008; Peregrine and
Ahmad, 1982
Phytophthora cinnamomi Rands CABI, 2013; Joy and Sherin, 2012; MAG-IICA, 2001;
Rogg, 2000
Rhizoctonia solani J.G. Kühn Farr and Rossman, 2013; Fischer and Rezende, 2008
Septoria passiflorae Syd. Farr and Rossman, 2013; Fischer and Rezende, 2008; Joy
and Sherin, 2012; Wellman, 1977
Seuratia millardetii (Racib.)
Meeker
Farr and Rossman, 2013; Gillis and Glawe, 2008
Thanatephorus cucumeris (A.B.
Frank) Donk
Farr and Rossman, 2013
Trichoderma hamatum Rifai Farr and Rossman, 2013
NEMATODES
Meloidogyne arenaria (Neal)
Chitwood
CABI, 2013; Fischer and Rezende, 2008; Manicom et al.,
2003
Meloidogyne incognita (Kofoid
& White) Chitwood
CABI, 2013; Fischer and Rezende, 2008; MAG-IICA,
2001; Manicom et al., 2003
Meloidogyne javanica (Treub)
Chitwood
CABI, 2013; Fischer and Rezende, 2008; Joy and Sherin,
2012; Manicom et al., 2003
VIRUS
Cucumber mosaic virus CABI, 2013; Fischer and Rezende, 2008
Soybean mosaic virus Benscher et al., 1996; CABI, 2013; MAG, 1986