Dysmicoccus grassii (Leonardi): Alazon Mealybug

California Pest Rating for
Dysmicoccus grassii (Leonardi): Alazon Mealybug
Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae
Pest Rating: A

PEST RATING PROFILE
Initiating Event:

Dysmicoccus grassii is frequently intercepted by CDFA and requires a pest rating proposal to support its pest rating.

History & Status:

BackgroundDysmicoccus grassii is a polyphagous mealybug that feeds on tropical and subtropical plants and where it is commonly found feeding around the peduncle of fruit1.  This feeding can cause yellowing and rot of green fruit1.  The mealybug is considered to be a pest of bananas in the Canary Islands and Nigeria1.  Known hosts include: Anacardiaceae: mango (Mangifera indica2) ; Annonaceae: sugar apple (Annona squamosa2); Asparagaceae: Mexican grass tree (Dasylirion longissimum2); Asteraceae: Eupatorium odoratum2; Bignoniaceae: calabash tree (Crescentia cujete2); Bromeliaceae: pineapple (Ananas comosus2), Andrea inermis2; Caricaceae: papaya (Carica papaya2) ; Combretaceae: tropical almond (Terminalia catappa2); Cucurbitaceae: chayote (Sechium edule2); Euphorbiaceae: Codiaeum spp.2; Fabaceae: Acacia spp.2; Lauraceae: Persea spp.2; Liliaceae: Asparagus spp.; Lythraceae: pomegranate (Punica granatum2); Malvaceae: Theobroma cacao1,2; Melastomataceae: Melastoma spp.2; Moraceae: Artocarpus spp.2, weeping fig (Ficus benjamina2); Musaceae: Musa acuminata2, Musa sapientum2, Musa spp.2; Passifloraceae: passion fruit (Passiflora edulis2); Polygonaceae: sea grape (Coccoloba uvifera2); Rubiaceae: coffee (Coffea arabica2), robusta coffee (Coffea canephora1); Verbenaceae: teak (Tectona grandis2).  Dysmicoccus grassii may be transported long distances when infested plants or fresh plant parts are moved.

Worldwide Distribution: Dysmicoccus grassii is considered to be native to Central and South America1.  From there it has spread to Malaysia, the Canary Islands, France, Italy, Sicily, and Nigeria2.

Official Control: Dysmicoccus grassii (including its synonym D. alazon) are listed as harmful organisms by China, Japan, the Republic of Korea, and Egypt3.

California DistributionDysmicoccus grassii has never been found in the environment of California.

California Interceptions:  Between January 1, 2000 and December 31, 2014 Dysmicoccus grassii was intercepted by CDFA’s dog teams, border stations, and high risk programs 134 times.  These interceptions are typically on fruit or plants from Florida and Mexico.  It was also found in one nursery in Los Angeles County on plants imported from Florida.

The risk Dysmicoccus grassii (alazon mealybug) would pose to California is evaluated below.

Consequences of Introduction: 

1) Climate/Host Interaction: Host plants of Dysmicoccus grassii are commonly grown in California and the mealybug is expected to be able to establish wherever these are grown. It receives a High (3) in this category.

Evaluate if the pest would have suitable hosts and climate to establish in California.  Score: 1

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

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

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

2) Known Pest Host Range: Dysmicoccus grassii is known to feed on at least 25 species of plants in 22 families.  However, many of these are tropical plants that are not commonly grown in California.  It receives a Medium (2) in this category.

Evaluate the host range of the pest. Score: 2

Low (1) has a very limited host range.

Medium (2) has a moderate host range.

High (3) has a wide host range.

3) Pest Dispersal Potential: Mealybugs are capable of rapid reproduction and can be transported long distances when infested plants or fresh plant parts are moved.  They may also disperse locally by crawling, wind, or by hitchhiking on clothing, equipment, or animals.  Dysmicoccus grassii receives a High (3) in this category.

Evaluate the natural and artificial dispersal potential of the pest. Score: 3

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

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

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

4) Economic Impact: Dysmicoccus grassii can disfigure unripe fruit when it feeds and might lower crop yields.  It may reduce the value of nursery stock by disfiguring plants with its presence.  The presence of the mealybug may disrupt markets for California agricultural commodities as several of California’s trading partners consider it a harmful organism.  Dysmicoccus grassii receives a High (3) in this category.

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

Economic Impact: A, B, C

A. The pest could lower crop yield.

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

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

D. The pest could negatively change normal cultural practices.

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

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

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

Economic Impact Score: 3

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

Medium (2) causes 2 of these impacts.

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

5) Environmental Impact: Dysmicoccus grassii is not expected to lower biodiversity, disrupt natural communities, or change ecosystem processes.  It is not expected to directly affect threatened or endangered species or disrupt critical habitats.  The mealybug could trigger additional private treatment programs in orchards, the nursery industry, and by residents who find infested plants or fruit damage unacceptable.  Many of the host plants of Dysmicoccus grassii are commonly grown as ornamentals and in home/urban gardens in California and may be significantly impacted.  The mealybug receives a High (3) in this category.

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

Environmental Impact: D, E

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

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

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

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

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

Score the pest for Environmental Impact.

Environmental Impact Score: 3

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

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

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

Consequences of Introduction to California for Dysmicoccus grassii (Alazon Mealybug):  High (14)

Add up the total score and include it here.

Low = 5-8 points

Medium = 9-12 points

High = 13-15 points

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

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

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

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

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

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

Final Score:

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

Uncertainty:

Dysmicoccus grassii is frequently intercepted by CDFA.  Presumably, it enters California at other times undetected.  It is possible that it has been introduced and is established in some localities.  Alternatively, it could be failing to establish.

Conclusion and Rating Justification:

Dysmicoccus grassii has never been found in the environment of California and is likely to have significant economic and environmental impacts.  An “A” rating is justified.

References:

1 Culik, Mark P., David dos Santos Martins, and Penny J. Gullan. 2006. First records of two mealybug species in Brazil and new potential pests of papaya and coffee. Journal of Insect Science 6(23): 1-6. http://jinsectscience.oxfordjournals.org/content/jis/6/1/23.full.pdf

2 Miller, Dug, Yair Ben-Dov, Gary Gibson, and Nate Hardy.  ScaleNet.  http://scalenet.info/validname/Dysmicoccus/grassii/

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


Responsible Party:

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


Comment Format:

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

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

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

♦  Comments may not be posted if they:

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

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

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

Violates agency regulations prohibiting workplace violence, including threats.

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

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


Pest Rating: A


Posted by ls

Chrysodeixis eriosoma (Doubleday): Green Garden Looper

California Pest Rating for
Chrysodeixis eriosoma (Doubleday): Green Garden Looper
Lepidoptera: Noctuidae
Pest Rating: A

PEST RATING PROFILE
Initiating Event:

Chrysodeixis eriosoma is frequently intercepted by CDFA.  A pest rating proposal is required to support its pest rating.

History & Status:

BackgroundChrysodeixis eriosoma is a polyphagous moth whose caterpillars feed on a wide variety of agricultural and ornamental plants1.  The moth has continuous overlapping generations throughout the year1,2.  Eggs are deposited singly on the underside of leaves and hatch in about 6 days1.  The young larvae consume one side of the leaf1.  As they grow larger they chew holes through the leaf and feed on the leaf margin, flowers, and fruits1.  Some of the known hosts include: Acanthaceae: acanthus (Acanthus mollis2), black-eyed susan (Thunbergia alata2); Amaranthaceae: redroot (Amaranthus hybridus2), beet (Beta vulgaris2); Araliaceae: paper plant (Fatsia japonica2); Asteraceae: Ageratum sp.2, Aster sp.2, rangiora (Brachyglottis repanda2), Chrysanthemum sp.2, scotch thistle (Cirsium vulgare2), Dahlia sp.2, sunflower (Helianthus annuus2), Jerusalem artichoke (Helianthus tuberosus2), lettuce (Lactuca sativa2), cineraria (Senecio cineraria2), Senecio petasitis2; Bignoniaceae: 3 kings vine (Tecomanthe speciosa2); Boraginaceae: borage (Borago officinalis2), Echium vulgare2, Chatham island lilies (Myosotidium hortensia2), forget-me-not (Myosotis spp.2); comfrey (Symphytum spp.2); Brassicaceae: horseradish (Armaracia rusticana2), cabbage and broccoli (Brassica oleracea2), Chinese cabbage (Brassica pekinensis2), turnip (Brassica rapa2), radish (Raphanus sativus2); Buddlejaceae: buddleja (Buddeia davidii2); Caricaceae: pawpaw (Carica pubescens2); Caryophyllaceae: carnation (Dianthus caryophyllus2); Chenopodiaceae: fathen (Chenopodium album2); Convulvulaceae: morning glory (Ipomoea acuminata2), kumara (Ipomoea batatas2); Cucurbitaceae: watermelon (Citrullus lanatus2), cucumber (Cucumis sativus2); rockmelon (Cucumis melo2), pumpkin and zucchini (Cucurbita pepo2); Fabaceae: lucerne (Medicago sativa2), beans (Phaseolus spp.2), pea (Pisum sativum2); Geraniaceae: geranium (Pelargonium sp.); Lamiaceae: coleus (Coleus x hybridus2), lemon balm (Melissa officinalis2), mint (Mentha spp.2), basil (Ocimum basilicum2), majoram (Origanum majorana2), sage (Salvia spp.2), thyme (Thymus vulgaris2); Liliaceae: Renga lilies (Arthropodium cirrhatum2); Malvaceae: hibiscus (Abelmoschus esculentus2), hollyhock (Althea rosea2); Mimosaceae: Acacia spp.2; Passifloraceae: passion-fruit (Passiflora edulis2), banana passionfruit (Passiflora mollissima); Plantaginaceae: plantain (Plantago sp.2); Poaceae: corn (Zea mays2); Polygonaceae: willow weed (Polygonum persicaria2), rhubarb (Rheum rhabarbarum2); Scrophulariaceae: foxglove (Digitalis purpurea2), mullein (Verbascum thapsus2); Solanaceae: bell pepper (Capsicum annum2), tree tomato (Cyphomandra betacea2), Datura candida2, tomato (Lycopersicon lycopersicum2), tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum2), cape gooseberry (Physalis peruviana2), poroporo (Solanum aviculare2), woolly nightshade (Solanum mauritianum2), eggplant (Solanum melongera2), black nightshade (Solanum nigrum2), potato (Solanum tuberosum2), blue potato vine (Solanum wendlandii2); Urticaceae: nettle (Urtica sp.2); Violaceae: Viola sp.2.  Eggs, caterpillars, or pupae of Chrysodeixis eriosoma may be transported long distances when infested plants or fresh plant parts are moved.

Worldwide Distribution: Chrysodeixis eriosoma is probably native to Australia or New Zealand.  It has spread through much of Asia, Africa, Southern Europe, and the Pacific1.  It was first found in Hawaii in 1877 and now occurs on all islands1.

Official Control: Chrysodeixis eriosoma is listed as a harmful organism by Costa Rica and Japan3.  All species of Chrysodeixis are listed as harmful by Japan and the Republic of Korea3.

California DistributionChrysodeixis eriosoma has never been found in the environment of California.

California InterceptionsChrysodeixis eriosoma has been intercepted 507 times by CDFA’s high risk programs and dog teams.  Interceptions have occurred on plants and fresh plant parts from Hawaii and Florida.

The risk Chrysodeixis eriosoma (green garden looper) would pose to California is evaluated below.

Consequences of Introduction: 

1) Climate/Host Interaction: Host plants of Chrysodeixis eriosoma are widely grown in California and the moth may be expected to establish wherever suitable hosts are available. Green garden looper is expected to establish a widespread distribution in the state and receives a High (3) in this category.

Evaluate if the pest would have suitable hosts and climate to establish in California.  Score: 3

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

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

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

2) Known Pest Host Range: Chrysodeixis eriosoma is polyphagous on a wide variety of plants in at least 27 families.  It receives a High (3) in this category.

Evaluate the host range of the pest. Score: 3

Low (1) has a very limited host range.

Medium (2) has a moderate host range.

High (3) has a wide host range.

3) Pest Dispersal Potential: Each female Chrysodeixis eriosoma can lay over 2000 eggs2 and can complete a generation in as little as 33-35 days1.  They are strong flyers and may be transported long distances on plants or fresh plant parts.  Green garden looper receives a High (3) in this category.

Evaluate the natural and artificial dispersal potential of the pest. Score: 3

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

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

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

4) Economic Impact: Although Chrysodeixis eriosoma may cause significant defoliation, it has never been documented to lower crop yields.  It may lower the value of nursery stock by disfiguring plants while feeding.  Several of California’s trading partners list green garden looper as a harmful organism.  Also, the moth has a limited distribution in North and South America.  If the moth were to establish in California there could be disruptions of markets for Californian agricultural commodities.  Chrysodeixis eriosoma receives a Medium (2) in this category.

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

Economic Impact: B, C

A. The pest could lower crop yield.

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

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

D. The pest could negatively change normal cultural practices.

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

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

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

Economic Impact Score: 2

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

Medium (2) causes 2 of these impacts.

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

5) Environmental Impact: Chrysodeixis eriosoma is not likely to lower biodiversity, disrupt natural communities, or change ecosystem processes.  It may feed on threatened or endangered plants including Ashland thistle (Cirsium ciliolatum), fountain thistle (Cirsium fontinale fontinale), chorro creek bog thistle (Cirsium fontinale var. obispoense), suisun thistle (Cirsium hydrophilum var. hydrophilum), La Graciosa thistle (Cirsium loncholepis), surf thistle (Cirsium rhothophilum), and scott’s valley polygonum (Polygonum hickmanii). The moth is not expected to disrupt critical habitats.  Green garden looper may trigger treatment programs in the nursery industry and by residents who find infested plants unsightly.  Chrysodeixis eriosoma is not expected to impact cultural practices, home/urban gardening, or ornamental plantings.  It receives a High (3) in this category.

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

Environmental Impact: B, D

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

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

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

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

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

Score the pest for Environmental Impact.

Environmental Impact Score: 3

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

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

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

Consequences of Introduction to California for Chrysodeixis eriosoma (Green Garden Looper):  High (14)

Add up the total score and include it here.

Low = 5-8 points

Medium = 9-12 points

High = 13-15 points

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

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

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

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

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

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

Final Score:

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

Uncertainty:

Chrysodeixis eriosoma is frequently intercepted by CDFA.  It presumably enters the state undetected at other times.  There have been no recent surveys for this moth.  It could be established in some localities.

Conclusion and Rating Justification:

Chrysodeixis eriosoma has never been found in California and is expected to have significant economic and environmental impacts if it were to establish.  An “A” rating is justified.

References:

1 University of Hawaii Crop Knowledge Master.  Chryssodeixis eriosoma (Doubleday).  Green Garden Looper.  http://www.extento.hawaii.edu/kbase/crop/type/chrysode.htm

2 Roberts, L.I.N. 1979. Biology of Chrysodeixis eriosoma (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in New Zealand. New Zealand Entomologist 7(1):52-58.  http://www.nhm.ac.uk/resources/research-curation/projects/chalcidoids/pdf_Y/Robert979.pdf

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


Responsible Party:

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


Comment Format:

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

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

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

♦  Comments may not be posted if they:

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

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

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

Violates agency regulations prohibiting workplace violence, including threats.

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

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


Pest Rating: A


Posted by ls

Ceroplastes rusci (L.): Fig wax scale

California Pest Rating for
Ceroplastes rusci (L.): Fig wax scale
Hemiptera:  Coccidae
Pest Rating:  A

PEST RATING PROFILE
Initiating Event:

February 26, 2014, USDA distributed a Deregulation Evaluation of Established Pests (DEEP) report proposing to change the status of Ceroplastes rusci, fig wax scale, from actionable to non-actionable for the continental United States.  The scale would remain actionable for Hawaii and the Pacific territories.  The insect is currently assigned a rating of “A” by CDFA, so a pest rating proposal is needed to determine future direction.

History & Status:

BackgroundCeroplastes rusci is considered a serious pest of fruit trees in many countries2.  Fig wax scale feeds by inserting its stylet into host leaves, shoots, and fruit2.  Heavy infestations of the scale cause yellowing, loss of foliage, and poor fruit set2.  The scale is polyphagous, feeding on a wide variety of plants in at least 48 families1.  Economically important hosts include almond, grape, citrus, pistachio, avocado, cotton, fig, palms, pear, and many ornamentals.  Ceroplastes rusci can move long distances through the shipment of infested palm trees as well as other host plants and plant parts.

Worldwide Distribution: Ceroplastes rusci is thought to be native to tropical Africa2.  From there it has spread to parts of the Caribbean, Europe, southwestern Asia, Vietnam, and southern South America1.  The scale has been known to be in Florida since 19941.

Official Control: Ceroplastes rusci is considered a quarantine pest by Australia2 and probably other nations.  The USDA proposal also recommends that it remain a quarantine pest for Hawaii.

California DistributionCeroplastes rusci has never been found in the environment of California.

California InterceptionsCeroplastes rusci is regularly intercepted by California, most often on palm nursery stock from Florida.

The risk Ceroplastes rusci (Fig wax scale) would pose to California is evaluated below.

Consequences of Introduction: 

1) Climate/Host Interaction: The present distribution of Ceroplastes rusci corresponds to USDA plant hardiness zones 8-13. This indicates that the scale would be able to establish a widespread distribution over most of California.  The polyphagous nature of the scale makes it likely to encounter suitable hosts throughout this area.  Ceroplastes rusci receives a High(3) in this category.

Evaluate if the pest would have suitable hosts and climate to establish in California.  Score: 3

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

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

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

2) Known Pest Host Range: Ceroplastes rusci feeds on a wide variety of plants in at least 48 families.  The scale receives a High(3) in this category.

Evaluate the host range of the pest. Score: 3

Low (1) has a very limited host range.

Medium (2) has a moderate host range.

High (3) has a wide host range.

3) Pest Dispersal Potential: Scale insects have high reproductive potential.  Fig wax scale frequently moves long distances in the trade of infested palm trees and other host plant products.  Ceroplastes rusci receives a High(3) in this category.

Evaluate the natural and artificial dispersal potential of the pest. Score: 3

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

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

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

4) Economic Impact: Ceroplastes rusci feeds on many economically important crops where it has the potential to reduce fruit set2, lowering crop yield.  The scale is likely to increase production costs in the nursery and fruit industries and lower the value of nursery stock by disfiguring plants with its presence.  Fig wax scale is treated as a quarantine pest by Australia and possibly other nations.  The USDA proposal also recommends that the scale remain actionable in Hawaii.  This has the potential to trigger a loss of markets, especially for California’s fresh fruit exports.  Fig wax scale can also vector plant viruses2Ceroplastes rusci receives a High(3) in this category.

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

Economic Impact: A, B, C, E

A. The pest could lower crop yield.

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

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

D. The pest could negatively change normal cultural practices.

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

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

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

Economic Impact Score: 3

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

Medium (2) causes 2 of these impacts.

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

5) Environmental Impact: Ceroplastes rusci is not expected to lower biodiversity, disrupt natural communities, or change ecosystem processes.  There are no threatened or endangered plants in California that are likely to be host species.  Fig wax scale is not expected to disrupt critical habitats.  The scale may trigger additional treatment programs in the nursery and fruit industries and by residents who find infested plants unsightly.  It is not expected to significantly impact cultural practices, home/urban gardening, or ornamental plantings.  Ceroplastes rusci receives a Medium(2) in this category.

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

Environmental Impact:  D

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

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

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

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

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

Score the pest for Environmental Impact.

Environmental Impact Score: 2

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

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

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

Consequences of Introduction to California for Ceroplastes rusci (Fig wax scale):  High(14).

Add up the total score and include it here.

Low = 5-8 points

Medium = 9-12 points

High = 13-15 points

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

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

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

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

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

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

Final Score:

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

Uncertainty:

There have been no formal surveys for Ceroplastes rusci and it is frequently intercepted on palms, so there could be localized populations of the scale within the state.

Conclusion and Rating Justification:

If Ceroplastes rusci were to enter and establish in California it would find many of our high-value crops to be suitable hosts including almond, grape, citrus, pistachio, avocado, cotton, fig, palms, pear, and many ornamentals.  The scale is likely to have significant impacts on these crops including lower yield, increased production costs, lost markets in Hawaii, Australia and other nations, and increased plant pathogen transmission.  Environmental impacts of the scale are expected to be limited to increased treatments by residents and in the nursery and fruit industries.  An A-rating is justified.

References:

1Culliney, T.W.  2014.  Deregulation Evaluation of Established Pests (DEEP); DEEP Report on Ceroplastes rusci (L.): Fig wax scale.

2Vu, Nga Thi, Rod Eastwood, Chat Thi Nguyen, and Lam Van Phan.  2006.  The fig wax scale Ceroplastes rusci (Linnaeus) (Homoptera: Coccidae) in south-east Vietnam:  Pest status, life history and biocontrol trials with Eublemma amabilis Moore (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae).  Entomological Research 36: 196-201.  http://www.oeb.harvard.edu/faculty/pierce/people/eastwood/resources/pdfs/Ceroplastes-2006.pdf


Responsible Party:

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


Comment Format:

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

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

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

♦  Comments may not be posted if they:

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

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

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

Violates agency regulations prohibiting workplace violence, including threats.

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

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


Pest Rating:  A


Posted by ls

Calonectria pseudonaviculata (Crous, J. Z. Groenew. & C. F. Hill) L. Lombard, M. J. Wingf. & Crous, 2010

California Pest Rating for
Calonectria pseudonaviculata (Crous, J. Z. Groenew. & C. F. Hill) L. Lombard, M. J. Wingf. & Crous, 2010
Pest Rating: B

PEST RATING PROFILE
Initiating Event:

On November 22, 2016, non-official samples of diseased boxwood plants collected by a landscaper from a private property in Hillsborough, San Mateo County, were sent through the San Mateo County Agricultural Commissioner’s office to the CDFA Plant Pathology Lab for diagnosis.  The samples were examined by Kathy Kosta CDFA plant pathologist, and the associated pathogen was cultured and identified by Cheryl Blomquist CDFA plant pathologist, as Calonectria pseudonaviculata (Kosta, 2016).  Subsequently, on November 29, 2016, official samples were collected from the same private property by Kathy Kosta (CDFA) and Fred Crowder (San Mateo County) and processed at the CDFA Plant Pathology Lab for pathogen diagnosis.  The official identification of Calonectria pseudonaviculata was made by Cheryl Blomquist on December 7, 2016.  This detection marked a first record of the pathogen in California.  Consequently, the pathogen was assigned a temporary ‘Q’ rating.   The risk of introduction and establishment of the pathogen is assessed here and a permanent rating is proposed.

History & Status:

Background:  Calonectria pseudonaviculata is the fungal pathogen that causes boxwood blight or box blight disease.  The pathogen is also known by its asexual (anamorph) stage as Cylindrocladium pseudonaviculatum.  The disease was first reported in the United Kingdom in the early to mid-1990s and the pathogen was given the name Cylindrocladium buxicola.  The origin of C. pseudonaviculatum is not known.  The pathogen was considered an exotic species that had been introduced to the UK and by 1998, it had spread to Europe and New Zealand.  (CABI, 2016; Crous et al., 2002; Dart et al., 2012).  While most published literature refers to the fungus as C. buxicola, this pathogen was not formally reported in the literature until 2002 as Cylindrocladium pseudonaviculatum which later became synonymous with Calonectria pseudonaviculata, the sexual (teleomorph) stage of the fungus (Lombard et al., 2010).  The current scientific name of the pathogen is Calonectria pseudonaviculata (CABI, 2016; Crous et al., 2002; Ivors & LeBude, 2011).

Disease cycle:  The pathogen infects host plants rapidly in warm (18-25°C) and humid conditions and has a life cycle that is completed in one week (Henricot, 2006; Henricot et al., 2008).  The primary inoculum of spores are sticky and therefore, are best transmitted to healthy host plants by water-splash or carried by insects, birds or infested plants.  Spores germinate three hours after inoculation and penetrate leaves in as little as five hours (Henricot, 2006).  Hyphae penetrate through stomata on lower surface of leaves, or directly through the cuticle on upper surface of leaves without appressorium formation (specialized attachment and penetration structure).  The fungus continues to grow intercellularly in the mesophyll layers of the plant (Henricot, 2006).  Two to three days after infection, the fungus produces conidiophores and conidia (asexual spores) through stomata and after seven days, these cover the lower surface of the leaf.  Leaves are eventually killed (Henricot, 2006).   The fungus can form resting structures (microsclerotia) which can survive on leaf material and in the soil in the absence of a susceptible host (Henricot, 2006).  However, in a 5-year study on the survival of the fungus on decomposing plant material, Henricot et al., (2008) did not detect the presence of microsclerotia.  Apparently, the pathogen is able to survive as mycelium within decomposing plant tissue.   No sexual stage structures have been observed in nature or in culture (CABI, 2016).

C. pseudonaviculata is a low temperature fungus that can grow below 10°C but is inhibited at 30°C and killed at 33°C (Henricot, 2006).

Dispersal and spread: The pathogen is spread by wind-driven rain and splashing water over short distances.  Long distance spread occurs by movement of infected plants/nursery stock, infested plant debris, soil, contaminated tools and equipment, insects or birds.  The pathogen can survive in leaf debris on or beneath the soil surface for up to 5 years (Dart et al., 2012; Henricot, 2006; Henricot et al., 2008).  The disease may also be spread is through the movement of asymptomatic (or with very limited outward symptoms) boxwood plants or plants treated with fungicides that suppress but do not kill or eliminate the inhabiting pathogen (Douglas, 2011).

Hosts: Buxaceae: Buxus microphylla (little-leaf box), B. microphylla var. japonica, B. sempervirens (syn. B. colchica; common boxwood), B. sinica (Chinese box), B. sinica var. insularis (Korean boxwood), Buxus sp. (box), Pachysandra procumbens, P. terminalis (Japanese spurge), Sarcococca sp. (sweet box) (CABI, 2016; EPPO, 2016; Farr & Rossman, 2016).

The full host range of this pathogen is not currently known however, none of the Buxus species are immune to boxwood blight and susceptibility to the pathogen may vary among cultivars (Henricot et al., 2008).  Sarcococca sp. (sweet box) and Pachysandra terminalis (Japanese spurge) are experimental hosts (Henricot et al., 2008; LaMondia et al., 2012).

Symptoms:  Infections by Calonectria pseudonaviculata result in the production of dark brown or lighter brown leaf spots surrounded by a dark border.  Stems are also infected exhibiting characteristic black streaks.  Eventually severe defoliation and dieback occur.  The fungus does not infect the roots.  Entire foliage typically becomes blighted causing the leaves to turn ‘straw’ to light brown in color and defoliate.  Stems of blighted plants may remain green under the outer bark until infected by secondary or opportunistic pathogens and diseases resulting in decline and eventual death of entire plants.  Young seedlings can be killed by this pathogen (Henricot, 2006; Henricot et al., 2008; USDA-NCSU).

Damage Potential:   The disease has been described as ‘devastating’ to boxwood plants (Henricot et al., 2008). Foliage of infected plant is eventually killed and blighted plants are predisposed to infections by secondary pathogens also resulting in their eventual death.  At particular risk are boxwood plants grown in nurseries, commercial landscapes, parks and gardens, and at private residences under warm and wet climates conducive for the development and spread of the pathogen.  Rapid and widespread infection including over 10,000 American boxwood plants and 150,000 plants in production nurseries in North Carolina and Connecticut were reported (Ivors et al., 2012).  Buxus spp. (boxwood) are not native to the United States, and are widely cultivated as ornamental plants.  In California, depending on plant species and cultivar, boxwood is commonly grown throughout the State except in cold, mountainous regions, and are likely to prefer cooler climates in the State (Sunset Western Garden Book, 1992).  Three main species are grown as ornamentals in the USA, B. sempervirens, B. microphylla, and B. sinica var. insularis, all which are known hosts of C. pseudonaviculata (USDA-NCSU).

Worldwide Distribution: Asia: Iran, Republic of Georgia, Turkey; North America: Canada (restricted distribution in British Columbia, few occurrences in Ontario and Quebec), USA; Europe: Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom; Oceania: New Zealand (CABI, 2016; EPPO, 2016; Farr & Rossman, 2016).

In the USA, C. pseudonaviculata has been reported from Alabama, Connecticut, Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Virginia (CABI, 2016; EPPO, 2016; Farr & Rossman, 2016), and by this report from California.

Official Control:  Cylindrocladium buxicola (synonym C. pseudonaviculata) is on the ‘Harmful Organism Lists’ for the Republic of Korea (USDA PCIT, 2016).  Presently, it has a temporary Q rating in California.

California Distribution:   San Mateo County.

California Interceptions None reported.

The risk Calonectria pseudonaviculata would pose to California is evaluated below.

Consequences of Introduction: 

1) Climate/Host Interaction: The boxwood blight pathogen, Calonectria pseudonaviculata rapidly infests host plants under humid and warm (18-25°C) climates – being inhibited at 30°C and killed at 33°C. Spores are transmitted to healthy host tissue under wet conditions, requiring wind-driven rains and water splash from overhead irrigation systems. Depending on species and cultivar selection, Buxus are grown throughout California, except in mountainous regions, and are likely to do best in cool climates, such as coastal regions of the State.  Plants grown in warm and humid climates are at possible risk of infection by the pathogen.  The pathogen may be able to establish in a larger but limited region in the State, suitable also to the growth of its host plants.  Therefore a ‘medium’ rating is given to this category.

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

Score: 2

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

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

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

2) Known Pest Host Range: The host range of Calonectria pseudonaviculata is currently limited to few Buxus species (boxwood) and several cultivars, as well as Sarcococca (sweet box) and Pachysandra spp. (Japanese spurge).

Evaluate the host range of the pest.

Score: 1

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

– Medium (2) has a moderate host range.

– High (3) has a wide host range.

3) Pest Dispersal Potential: Calonectria pseudonaviculata has high reproductive potential.  Although its dispersal and spread over short distances to non-infected plants depends on wind-driven rain and water-splash, long distance spread occurs by movement of infected plants/nursery stock, infested plant debris, soil, contaminated tools and equipment, insects or birds. The disease may also be spread through the movement of asymptomatic (or with very limited outward symptoms) boxwood plants or plants treated with fungicides that suppress but do not kill or eliminate the inhabiting pathogen.  These modes of spread, plus the ability of the pathogen to survive in leaf debris on or beneath the soil surface for up to 5 years, places it as a ‘high risk’ in this category.

Evaluate the natural and artificial dispersal potential of the pest.

Score: 3

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

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

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

4) Economic Impact: Boxwood blight disease could result in lower crop value, loss of foliage and plants, increased production costs, loss of markets, and changes in delivery of irrigation water so to avoid water splash and wetness of foliage.  Also, insects and birds could aid in spread of the pathogen to non-infected plants.  Therefore, economic impact, caused by the boxwood blight pathogen, is given a ‘High’ score.

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

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

A. The pest could lower crop yield.

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

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

D. The pest could negatively change normal cultural practices.

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

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

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

Economic Impact Score: 3

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

– Medium (2) causes 2 of these impacts.

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

5) Environmental Impact: Infections of Calonectria pseudonaviculata could significantly affect private and commercial plantings of boxwood plants commonly used as hedge and shrub ornamentals and result in additional treatments against the pathogen.  Therefore, risk on environmental impact is scored as ‘High’.

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

Environmental Impact: D, E.

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

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

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

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

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

Score the pest for Environmental Impact.

Environmental Impact Score: 2

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

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

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

Consequences of Introduction to California for Calonectria pseudonaviculata: Medium (11)

Add up the total score and include it here.

-Low = 5-8 points

Medium = 9-12 points

-High = 13-15 points

6) Post Entry Distribution and Survey Information: Presently, the boxwood blight pathogen has only been officially reported from one region, namely, San Mateo County. California.

Score: (-1)

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

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

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

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

Final Score:

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

Final Score:  Score of Consequences of Introduction – Score of Post Entry Distribution and Survey Information = Medium (10)

Uncertainty:  

None.                              

Conclusion and Rating Justification:

Based on the evidence provided above the proposed rating for Calonectria pseudonaviculata is B.

References:

CABI, 2016.  Calonectria pseudonaviculata (buxus blight) full datasheet. http://www.cabi.org/cpc/datasheet/17414.

Crous, P.W., J. Z. Groenewald, and C. F. Hill.  2002.  Cylindrocladium pseudonaviculatum sp. nov. from New Zealand, and new Cylindrocladium records from Vietnam. Sydowia 54: 23-34.

Dart, N., M. A. Hansen, E. Bush, and C. Hong.  2012.  Boxwood blight: a new disease of boxwood found in the eastern U.S.  Virginia Cooperative Extension, Virginia State University Publications and Educational Resources PPWS-4.  http://pubs.ext.vt.edu/PPWS/PPWS-4/PPWS-4.html

Douglas, S. M.  2011.  Boxwood blight – a new disease for Connecticut and the U. S.  The Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station.  www.ct.gov/caes .

Farr, D.F., and A. Y. Rossman.  2016.  Fungal Databases, Systematic Mycology and Microbiology Laboratory, ARS, USDA.  Retrieved December 1, 2016, from http://nt.ars-grin.gov/fungaldatabases/.

Henricot, B., C. Gorton, G. Denton, and J. Denton. 2008. Studies on the control of Cylindrocladium buxicola using fungicides and host resistance. Plant Disease, 92(9):1273-1279.  http://www.apsnet.org

Ivors, K. and A. LeBude.  2011.  A new pest to the U. S. ornamental industry: the “box blight” pathogen Cylindrocladium pseudonaviculatum = Cylindrocladium buxicola.  NC Pest Alert. http://plant-clinic.bpp.oregonstate.edu/files/plant_clinic/webfm/NC_pest_alert_box_blight1-1.pdf

Ivors, K. L., L. W. Lacey, D. C. Milks, S. M. Douglas, M. K. Inman, R. E. Marra, and J. A. LaMondia.  2012.  First report of boxwood blight caused by Cylindrocladium pseudonaviculatum in the United States.  Plant Disease.  96: 1070. http://dx.doi.org/10.1094/PDIS-03-12-0247-PDN.

Kosta, K.  2016.  Personal communication to J. Chitambar, CDFA Primary Plant Pathologist/Nematologist via email on November 30, 2016, 5:03:15 pm.

LaMondia, J. A., D. W. Li, R. E. Marra, and S. M. Douglas.  2012.  First report of Cylindrocladium pseudonaviculatum causing leaf spot of Pachysandra terminalis.  Plant Disease 96: 1069. http://dx.doi.org/10.1094/PDIS-03-12-0235-PDN.

Lombard, L., P. W. Crous, B. D. Wingfield, and M. J. Wingfield.  2010.  Phylogeny and systematics of the genus Calonectria.  Studies in Mycology. 66: 31-69.  www.studiesinmycology.org , doi:10.3114/sim.2010.66.03

USDA-NCSU.  (Date not known).  The ‘box blight’ pathogen: Cylindrocladium pseudonaviculatum = Cylindrocladium buxicola (Teleo.  Calonectria pseudonaviculata).  Datasheet developed by USDA-APHI-PPQ-CPHST and NCSU Department of Plant Pathology, Mountain Horticultural Crops Research and Extension Center (MHCREC) staff. caps.ceris.purdue.edu/dmm/1603

USDA PCIT.  2016.  USDA Phytosanitary Certificate Issuance & Tracking System.  https://pcit.aphis.usda.gov/PExD/faces/ReportHarmOrgs.jsp.

Responsible Party:

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


Comment Format:

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

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

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

♦  Comments may not be posted if they:

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

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

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

Violates agency regulations prohibiting workplace violence, including threats.

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

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


Pest Rating: B


Posted by ls

Diaprepes abbreviatus (Diaprepes Root Weevil)

California Pest Rating for
Diaprepes abbreviatus (Diaprepes Root Weevil)
Pest Rating: B

PEST RATING PROFILE
Initiating Event:

On October 9, 2013, Nick Condos recommended that we run Diaprepes abbreviatus through our pest rating process to review its pest rating.

History & Status:

Background:  Diaprepes root weevils are well documented as a serious pest of citrus that have been the subject of numerous research programs.  This is reflected by more than 3,200 papers on Google Scholar.  The adult weevils feed on the leaves of a wide variety of plants.  They lay eggs in clusters of 30-265 between leaves.  Larvae hatch from the eggs and drop into soil, where they feed on roots.  They sometimes girdle structural roots or the root crown, leading to the death of plants.  In addition, larval feeding provides infection sites for plant pathogens, especially Phytophthora spp2.  The weevil can spread to new areas as any life stage on nursery stock or as adult hitchhikers on landscaping equipment or similar conveyances.

Worldwide Distribution: Diaprepes abbreviatus is native to the Caribbean.  It was accidentally introduced to Florida in 1964, presumably on nursery stock from Puerto Rico.  The weevil has since spread over most of the southern and central portions of the state.  It has more recently spread to Texas, Louisiana, and California, presumably via nursery stock.

Official Control: Diaprepes abbreviatus is not known to be under official control by any states or nations.

California Distribution:  Diaprepes abbreviatus has established in coastal areas of San Diego, Orange, and southern Los Angeles County.

California Interceptions:  Diaprepes abbreviatus have been found in nurseries and are sometimes intercepted on nursery stock from Florida and Puerto Rico.

The risk Diaprepes abbreviatus would pose to California is evaluated below.

Consequences of Introduction: 

1) Climate/Host Interaction: Cool winter temperatures are expected to limit the establishment of Diaprepes abbreviatus in California to most of San Diego and Imperial counties, eastern Riverside County, and coastal Orange and Los Angeles Counties1.  Dry soils are expected to further restrict where the weevil can establish within this endangered area3Diaprepes abbreviatus receives a Low(1) in this category.

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

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

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

2) Known Pest Host Range: Diaprepes abbreviatus is highly polyphagous; it has been documented feeding on 270 plant species in 59 families4.  The weevil receives a High(3) in this category.

Low (1) has a very limited host range.

Medium (2) has a moderate host range.

High (3) has a wide host range.

3) Pest Dispersal Potential: Female Diaprepes abbreviatus have an extremely high reproductive potential, laying an average of 5,000 eggs4.  The weevils are strong fliers but usually stay on the first host plant they encounter.  They can move long distances on nursery stock.  The weevil receives a High(3) in this category.

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

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

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

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

4) Economic Impact: The weevil is well documented as a serious pest that feeds on a wide variety of agricultural crops including Citrus, strawberries, avocado, peach, pear, and vegetables5.  The weevil also feeds on a wide variety of ornamental plants that are popular in the nursery trade5.  Larval feeding damages roots and creates infection sites for plant pathogens such as Phytophthora spp2Diaprepes abbreviatus is not expected to lower crop value; however, it can be expected to increase production costs at farms and nurseries as growers are advised to use pesticide drenches for larvae and foliar sprays for adults and eggs4. Citrus growers in Florida spend up to $400/acre for combined Diaprepes and Phytophthora control6.  The weevil is not expected to trigger a loss of markets or significant changes to cultural practices.  The weevil is not known to vector another pestiferous organism, but larval feeding on roots does facilitate infection by plant pathogens such as Phytophthora spp..  The weevil is not injurious or poisonous to animals and is not expected to affect water supply.

Although Diaprepes abbreviatus has not been documented to have a significant economic impact in coastal southern California, these areas are considered marginal for the establishment of the species1.  Inland conditions of Imperial County are expected to be significantly more favorable to the species due to warmer winter soil temperatures1.  Nevertheless, the presence of the root weevil has already triggered some new treatments in San Diego County as at least one grove manager is Rancho Santa Fe is treating citrus with Imidacloprid7.  However, many growers in the area endangered by Diaprepes abbreviatus will already be treating with Imidacloprid to control Asian Citrus Psyllid, Diaphorina citri; they will therefore not be financially impacted by the weevil.  However, the root weevils are not expected to be controlled by the foliar treatments used by organic growers.  Additional chemical treatments can be expected in organic groves, increasing production costs.  Diaprepes abbreviatus receives a Medium(2) in this category.

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

Economic Impact:  B, E

A. The pest could lower crop yield.

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

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

D. The pest could negatively change normal cultural practices.

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

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

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

Economic Impact Score: 2

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

Medium (2) causes 2 of these impacts.

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

5) Environmental Impact: Environmental impacts of Diaprepes abbreviatus in California are likely to be limited by cold temperatures and dry weather.  It is not expected to lower biodiversity, disrupt natural communities, or change ecosystem processes.  Nor is it expected to directly affect threatened or endangered species or critical habitats.  Residents of the infested areas in southern California have not been reporting weevils or damage, indicating that abbreviatus is not triggering new chemical treatments in the urban landscape.  However, as it establishes in new areas the weevil is likely to trigger additional treatments by nurseries as they meet standards of cleanliness.  It is also likely to trigger additional treatments in agricultural areas of San Diego, Riverside, and especially Imperial counties.  In Florida, growers and nursery owners use pesticide drenches for larvae and foliar sprays for adults and eggs4Diaprepes abbreviatus receives a Medium(2) in this category.

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

Environmental Impact: D

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

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

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

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

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

Score the pest for Environmental Impact. Score:

Environmental Impact Score: 2

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

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

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

Consequences of Introduction to California for Diaprepes abbreviatus: Medium(11)

Add up the total score and include it here.

Low = 5-8 points

Medium = 9-12 points

High = 13-15 points

6) Post Entry Distribution and Survey Information: Diaprepes abbreviatus has established a widespread distribution in coastal areas of southern California (San Diego, Orange, and Los Angeles Counties). However, it has not fully established in the endangered area, particularly the agricultural production areas of San Diego, Riverside, and especially Imperial counties.  Diaprepes abbreviatus receives a Medium(-2) in this category.

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

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

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

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

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

Final Score:

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

Uncertainty:

D. abbreviatus may negatively change agricultural cultural practices as growers might alter irrigation and fertilization practices to promote root growth in root weevil infested areas.  Ants are believed to be major predators of Diaprepes root weevil larvae.  It is possible that future ant control practices to facilitate establishment of the ACP parasitoid Tamarixia radiata will increase the damage caused by Diaprepes abbreviatus in Southern California.  It is also possible that root-feeding by weevil larvae will help weaken citrus trees, making them more susceptible to HLB when it arrives in California, facilitating an epidemic of that disease in the state.

It is also possible that existing treatments for Asian citrus psyllid, Diaphorina citri, will help preclude the establishment of Diaprepes abbreviatus in citrus production.    It is also possible that soil moisture in the agricultural production areas of San Diego, Imperial, and Riverside counties may be too low to sustain populations of Diaprepes abbreviatus.

Conclusion and Rating Justification:

Diaprepes abbreviatus has been established in southern California for seven years and has not spread beyond heavily irrigated coastal areas.  However, Imperial County is expected to be much more favorable for the weevils due to higher winter soil temperatures.  The weevil is likely to be managed by existing systemic treatments for Asian citrus psyllid in some conventional groves, but root feeding may increase the susceptibility of trees to pathogens such as Phytophthora spp..  The economic and environmental impacts of Diaprepes abbreviatus are likely to be limited to new chemical treatments and increased production costs in citrus groves, particularly in Imperial County.  A ‘B’ rating is justified.

References:

1Lapointe, S.L., D.M. Borchert, and D.G. Hall.  2007.  Effect of Low Temperatures on Mortality and Oviposition in Conjunction With Climate Mapping to Predict Spread of the Root Weevil Diaprepes abbreviatus and Introduced Natural Enemies. Environmental Entomology 36(1):73-82. http://www.nappfast.org/pest%20reports/Diaprepes.pdf

2Lapointe, S.L. 2000.  Thermal requirements for Development of Diaprepes abbreviatus (Coleoptera: Curculionidae).  Environmental Entomology 29(2):150-156.  http://www.crec.ifas.ufl.edu/extension/diaprepes/bibliography/PDF/EnvEnt292.pdf

3Lapointe, S.L. and J.P. Shapiro. 1999.  Effect of soil moisture on development of Diaprepes abbreviatus (Coleoptera: Curculionidae).  Florida Entomologist 82(2): 291-299.  http://www.fcla.edu/FlaEnt/fe82p291.pdf

4Grafton-Cardwell, E.E., K.E. Godfrey, J.E. Pena, C.W. McCoy, and R.F. Luck.  2004. Diaprepes Root Weevil.  University of California Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources Publication 8131.  http://anrcatalog.ucdavis.edu/pdf/8131.pdf

5Knapp, J.L., S.E. Simpson, J.E. Pena, and H.N. Ngg.  2005.  Diaprepes Root Weevil Host List.  University of Florida ENY-641.  http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pdffiles/IN/IN11900.pdf

6University of California-Riverside Center for Invasive Species Research website:  http://cisr.ucr.edu/diaprepes_root_weevil.html

7Atkins, Robert and Tracy Ellis.  Personal communications.


Responsible Party:

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


Comment Format:

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

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

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

♦  Comments may not be posted if they:

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

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

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

Violates agency regulations prohibiting workplace violence, including threats.

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

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


Pest Rating: B


Posted by ls

Coco-Yam, Elephant Ear or Taro | Colocasia esculenta

California Pest Rating for
 Colocasia esculenta : Coco-Yam, Elephant Ear or Taro  
Family: Araceae
Pest Rating: D  |   Proposed Seed Rating: N/A

PEST RATING PROFILE
Initiating Event:

This plant has been rated as “Q” on the CDFA Plant Pest Rating since 2015.

History & Status:

Background: Colocasia esculenta is a tropical plant grown primarily for its edible corms. It is cultivated as a vegetable most commonly known as taro,Gabi and Abi or Avi. There are dozens of other common names used in other parts of the world including culcas from which the genus name Colocasia is derived; the descriptive anatomical name, elephant ear, eddo, imo, dasheen, coco-yam and malombo. It is believed to be one of the earliest cultivated plants2.

Plants have been in cultivation for over 2,800 years as a food crop in equatorial regions including India, China, Southeast Asia, Indonesia, Polynesia, the Mediterranean, Africa, and South America. All parts of the plant are edible if they are thoroughly steamed or boiled to first remove calcium oxalate crystals.The cooked leaves are used in Hawaiian luaus and the corms are mashed into poi1.

It was grown in Africa and was first brought to the Americas as a food crop for slaves. In 1910, Colocasia esculenta was promoted as an alternative crop to potatoes by the USDA5. There are more than 200 cultivars of taro, selected for their edible corms or cormels, or their tropical looking ornamental foliage2. It is cultivated commercially on a small scale in the Central valley and Sacramento valley of California6.

Official Control:    None at this time in California.

California Distribution: Colocasia esculenta is a perennial herb that is not native to California. It has been reported in the Delta in Sacramento, San Joaquin and Solano Counties. It also been found in Southern CA in Orange County3.

California Interceptions: Colocasia esculenta is occasionally sold in nurseries in CA. It is consumed as a vegetable in California and sold state-wide in produce markets.

United States: Colocasia esculenta is wide spread in the southeastern United States4. It is a most important source of food in the Hawaiian Islands.

Coco-Yam-US-Map

Worldwide Distribution: Colocasia esculenta is an ancient crop grown throughout the tropic and sub-tropics. Because Colocasia esculenta has been in cultivation for so long, no one knows  where it truly is native, but all evidence points to Southeast Asia. It is viewed as invasive in FL, HW, PR, Queensland, Cuba, Costa Rica and many of the Pacific Islands.

Consequences of Introduction: 

1) Climate/Host Interaction: Risk is Medium (2), as Colocasia esculenta is naturalized in the marshy and watershed areas throughout southeastern America and is spreading there. It is established in one area of the Delta in California.

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

Score: 2

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

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

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

2) Pest Host Range: Risk is High (3) as weeds do not require any one host, but grow wherever ecological conditions are favorable.

Evaluate the host range of the pest:

Low (1) has a very limited host range

Medium (2) has a moderate host range

High (3) has a wide host range

3) Pest Dispersal Potential: Risk is Medium (2) as the plant  spreads vegetatively through rhizomes, stolons, offshoot corms or vegetative fragments.It does not seem to produce seed in CA.

Evaluate the dispersal potential of the pest:

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

Medium (2) has either high reproductive or dispersal potential

High (3) has both high reproduction and dispersal potential

4) Economic Impact: Risk is Medium (2) as Colocasia produces 2.5′ wide by 3.5′ long leaves with up to 30″ tall patch that could lower the crop yield due to shading and changes in the cultural practices where it is established.

Evaluate the economic impact of the pest to California using these criteria:

Economic Impact:  A, D

A. The pest could lower crop yield

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

C. The pest could trigger the loss of markets (includes quarantines by other states or countries)

D. The pest could negatively change normal production cultural practices

Economic Impact Score: 2

Low (1) causes 0 or 1 of these impacts

Medium (2) causes 2 of these impacts

High (3) causes 3 or more of these impacts

5) Environmental Impact: Risk is High (3) as it invades wetland edges, swamps, blackwater streams, lakes and disrupt natural wetland communities of California. It is established in a state park where it forms a dense thicket at the wetland interface; this will encourage treatment for control. If it spreads, it could affect populations of sensitive species such as Mason’s lilaeopsis (Lilaeopsis masonii), CA Clapper rail (Rallus obsoletus), Suisun aster (Symphyotrichum lentum) and Delta tula pea (Lathyrus jepsonii).

Evaluate the environmental impact of the pest on California using the following criteria:

Economic Impact: A, C, D

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

B. The pest could directly affect threatened or endangered species

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

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

E. Significantly impacting cultural practices, home/urban gardening or ornamental plantings.

Score the pest for Environmental Impact:

Low (1) causes none of the above to occur

Medium (2) causes one of the above to occur

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

Consequences of Introduction to California for Colocasia esculenta :

Rating (Score): Add up the total score and include it here:

Low = 5-8 points

Medium = 9-12 points

High = 13-15 points

Total points based on above criteria, which does not take into account the pathogen’s already wide distribution in California: Medium (12).

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

Score: Low (–1)

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

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

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

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

Final Score:

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

Uncertainty:

This plant has been known in Southeastern America for over 100 years and spreading colonies have been detected.So, there is low uncertainty that it will continue to spread in wetlands of California.

Conclusion and Rating Justification:

Proposed Rating: based on the score listed above, the pest is Medium risk for further invasions of California. It has a potential  to invade the wet areas of California, and it is already reported in 4 counties. Nevertheless, as Colocasia esculenta is an agricultural commodity in California, a “D” rating is justified.


References:

1.    Avent Tony and Carey Dennis, (2016). Cool Colocasias; Plant Delights Nursery, Inc. Accessed  11-15-2016.

http://www.plantdelights.com/Article/Colocasia-Elephant-Ears

  1. Colocasia esculenta, Encyclopedia of Life.Eol community website .

http://www.eol.org/pages/1091931/overview

  1. Calflora: Information on California plants for education, research and conservation, with data contributed by public and private institutions and individuals, including the Consortium of California Herbaria.  2016. Berkeley, California. Accessed 11-15-2016.

http://www.calflora.org/cgi-bin/species_query.cgi?where-calrecnum=13042

  1. Federal database with information on identification and distribution, and links to websites in individual states. Accessed 11-15-2016.

http://plants.usda.gov/core/profile?symbol=COES

  1. Swearingen, J., C. Bargeron. 2016 Invasive Plant Atlas of the United States. University of Georgia Center for Invasive Species and Ecosystem Health

http://www.invasiveplantatlas.org/subject.html?sub=5369

  1. Taro root (colocasia esculenta) reported Naturalizing in ca;ifornia by CA State Parks.

http://www.cal-ipc.org/symposia/archive/pdf/2014/Poster2014_Robison.pdf


Responsible Party:

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

Comment Format:

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

Example Comment: 

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

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

♦  Comments may not be posted if they:

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

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

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

Violates agency regulations prohibiting workplace violence, including threats.

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

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


Pest Rating: D  |   Proposed Seed Rating: N/A


Posted by ls

Candidatus Liberibacter solanacearum Liefting, Perez-Egusquiza & Clover, 2009

California Pest Rating for
Candidatus Liberibacter solanacearum Liefting, Perez-Egusquiza & Clover, 2009 
Pest Rating: B

PEST RATING PROFILE
Initiating Event:

None.  The risk of entry and establishment of Ca. Liberibacter solanacearum in California is assessed and a permanent rating is proposed.

History & Status:

BackgroundCandidatus Liberibacter solanacearum was first identified in 2008 simultaneously in the United States and New Zealand. In New Zealand, Liefting et al., (2008, 2009), detected the bacterial pathogen first in tomato and pepper and then in potato and other solanaceous plants.  The pathogen was tentatively named Candidatus Liberibacter solanacearum.  In the United States, the pathogen was detected in tomato plants and the potato/tomato psyllid Bactericera cockerelli and tentatively named Candidatus Liberibacter psyllaurous because of its association with psyllid yellows (Hansen et al., 2008; CABI, 2016).  Ca. L. psyllaurous is now considered a synonym of Ca. L. solanacearum.  The pathogen is the cause of ‘Zebra chip disease’ in potatoes, named because of the presence of dark stripes and blotches that develop from the rapid oxidative darkening of freshly cut tubers and become more distinct after frying infected potato chips (Crosslin, 2009).  Zebra chip disease of potatoes was first observed in the 1990s in Mexico and parts of Central America.  Foliar symptoms resembled those caused by phytoplasmas.  The disease is now widespread in south-western, central, and north-western USA, Mexico, Central America, New Zealand and restricted regions within Europe (see “Worldwide Distribution’ below).

In the United States, zebra chip disease of potatoes was first identified in 2000 in commercial potato fields in Texas and by 2004-2005, was reported to cause serious economic damage in parts of Southern Texas.  By 2007, zebra chip disease was observed in Nebraska, Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, and California causing losses in the millions of dollars to potato producers and processors in affected regions.  Infested fields were often abandoned (Munyaneza et al., 2007b).

In California, while potato crops exhibiting symptoms of zebra chip disease were observed previously (Munyaneza et al., 2007b), the bacterium Ca. L. psyllaurous was first identified in 2009 from diseased potatoes grown in commercial fields in Lancaster, Los Angeles County (Crosslin, 2009; Crosslin et al., 2010).   Since then, the presence of Ca. L. solanacearum was also detected, in plant tissue and psyllid vector with real time PCR, in Riverside, Santa Barbara, Orange, and San Diego Counties (Trumble, 2015).  Substantial crop losses have occurred in southern California that resulted in abandonment of commercial fields, decline in potato and tomato productions, and significant increases in disease control costs (Trumble, 2015).  The pathogen is considered to be of rare occurrence and less of a problem in northern California (Nunez, 2015; Davis, 2015).   The psyllid can be found throughout southern California, in Kern County, on the coast up to Sacramento, and within the Sacramento Valley.  In the Sacramento area, dense psyllid populations have been reported on bell peppers.  For reasons not known, the peppers do not show symptoms of Ca. L. solanacearum (unlike peppers infested with psyllids in Utah, Arizona, New Mexico and New Zealand), and therefore, the presence of the bacterial pathogen in the populations cannot be definitely stated (Trumble, 2015).  Also, the psyllid vector is kept in control by growers, through routine insecticide applications primarily against aphid-vectored viruses (Nunez, 2015).

BiologyCandidatus Liberibacter solanacearum is a phloem-limited, insect hemolymph-limited, gram-negative, unculturable bacterium that is primarily spread from infected to healthy plants by psyllid insect vectors.  Presently, there are five known geographic haplotypes (a specific group of genes that are inherited together from a single parent) designated A, B, C, D, and EHaplotypes A and B are associated with Bactericera cockerelli and the diseases caused by this bacterium in potatoes and other solanaceous plants.  Haplotypes C and D are associated with diseased carrots, and Trioza apicalis and Bactericera trigonica respectively, and haplotype E is associated with diseased celery and carrot.  The five haplotypes are not yet known to elicit biological differences in plant or insect hosts.  Haplotype A has been found primarily from Central to North America (from Honduras and Guatemala through western Mexico to Arizona, California, the Pacific Northwest) and in New Zealand.  Haplotype B has been found in Mexico and North America (from eastern Mexico and northwards through central USA through Texas).  Some overlap of haplotypes A and B occurs in Texas, Kansas, and Nebraska.  Haplotype C occurs in Finland, Sweden, and Norway and is associated with T. apicalis. Haplotype ‘D’ was found in mainland Spain and the Canary Islands.  Haplotype E is present in mainland Spain, France, and Morocco (EPPO, 2013; Tahzima et al., 2014; Teresani et al., 2014, 2015).  Teresani et al., (2015) recently reported two additional new psyllid species, Bactericera tremblayi and B. nigricornis, as potential vectors of Ca. L. solanacearum that were detected with B. trigonica during surveys conducted from 2011 to 2014 in carrot, celery and potato plots in mainland Spain and the Canary Islands.

While there is not much known on the effects of environment on Ca. L. solanacearum, temperature is known to have a significant effect on the development of this bacterial pathogen.  Compared to the citrus greening Huanglongbing Liberibacter species, Ca. L. solanacearum appears to be heat sensitive and does not tolerate temperatures above 32°C

Dispersal and spread:  Ca. L. solanacearum is transmitted by its psyllid insect vector, Bactericera cockerelli, in a persistent (transovarially or vertically) way and during feeding on infected plant hosts (horizontally).  However, vertical transmission of the pathogen in the other psyllid species, Bactericera trigonica and Trioza apicalis, is currently not knownThe pathogen is also spread by grafting and infected plants, but not true seed (EPPO, 2013).  However, Bertolini et al., (2014) reported the detection of Ca. L. solanacearum in carrot seeds using real-time PCR thereby, indicating that seed transmission is involved in the natural spread of the bacterium via carrot seed in distant regions and countries in Europe.  Usually infected seed potatoes do not germinate but may occasionally produce infected plants which are often weak and short-lived and therefore, not a significant mode for spreading the disease (EPPO, 2013).

Hosts: Hosts are included in the plant families Apiaceae and Solanaceae.  Main hosts include, Capsicum annuum (bell pepper), Solanum lycopersicum (tomato), S. tuberosum (potato), and Datura stramonium (jimsonweed).  Other wild and incidental hosts include Solanum melongena (eggplant), S. pseudocapsicum (Jerusalem-cherry), S. dulcamara (climbing nightshade), Cyphomandra betacea (syn. Solanum betacea; tree tomato/tamarillo), Apium graveolens (celery), Daucus carota (carrot), Physalis peruviana (Cape gooseberry/tomatillo), and Nicotiana tabacum (tobacco) (CABI, 2016, EPPO, 2016).

Symptoms:  Characteristic above-ground symptoms in potato and other solanaceous host plants include stunting, erectness of new foliage, chlorosis and purpling of foliage with basal cupping of leaves through entire plant, resetting due to shortened and thickened terminal internodes, enlarged nodes, axillary branches or aerial tubers, leaf scorching, disruption of fruit set, and production of numerous small, misshaped and poor quality fruits. Below-ground symptoms in potato include collapsed stolons, browning of vascular tissue concomitant with necrotic flecking of internal tissues and streaking of the medullary ray tissues, all of which can affect the entire tuber.  These symptoms become more distinct upon frying and potato chips processed from affected tubers show very dark blotches, stripes or streaks thereby making them unacceptable for marketing.  It is due to the symptoms produced in potato tubers that the disease was named ‘zebra chip’ (EPPO, 2013).

Damage Potential: In potato, plant growth is affected.  Potato chips produced from zebra ship-infected tubers have dark stipes that are more distinct upon frying and therefore, not commercially acceptable. Infected tubers often do not sprout or produce hairy sprouts and weak plants.  Damage is also caused to other economically important solanaceous plants including tomato, pepper, eggplant, tamarillo, and tobacco.  Fields with infected crops may be rejected resulting in their abandonment (EPPO, 2013).  Ca. Liberibacter solanacearum can cause significant damage to crop quality and yield.  In the Americas and New Zealand, losses in millions of dollars have been caused by the pathogen and psyllid complex and to the carrot industry in Europe (Crosslin et al., 2010; Munyaneza 2007a, 2007b).  In Texas and New Zealand, annual potato yield losses at approximately US $22 million and US $40 million respectively were due to Ca L. solanacearum (Soliman, 2012 in CABI, 2016).  In Europe, up to 100% crop losses in carrot production due to Ca. L solanacearum – infected carrot psyllid were reported (CABI, 2016).

Worldwide Distribution: Africa: Morocco; North America: Mexico, USA; Europe (restricted distributions within): Finland, Germany (few occurrences), Norway, Spain, Spain – Canary Islands, Sweden; Central America:  Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua; Oceania: New Zealand (CABI, 2016; EPPO, 2013, 2016).

In Europe, Ca. L. solanacearum has not been detected in potato and tomato crops but has been detected mainly in carrot crops and to a lesser extent in celery in association with other psyllid species, Bactericera trigonica and Trioza apicalis (EPPO, 2013). Ca. L. solanacearum is considered “transient, under eradication” in Austria and France.

In the USA, the pathogen is present in Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, Texas, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming (CABI, 2016; EPPO, 2016).

Official Control: Candidatus Liberibacter solanacearum is on the Harmful Organisms Lists for Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras, Republic of Korea, Panama, and Taiwan (USDA PCIT, 2016).

California Distribution: Los Angeles, Riverside, Orange, San Diego, and Santa Barbara Counties.  The pathogen is considered to be of rare occurrence in northern California.

California Interceptions:  There are no reports of the detection of Ca. Liberibacter solanacearum in plant shipments imported to California.

The risk Ca. Liberibacter solanacearum would pose to California is evaluated below.

Consequences of Introduction: 

1) Climate/Host Interaction: Evaluate if the pest would have suitable hosts and climate to establish in California.

Score: 3

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

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

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

Risk is High (3): Ca. L. solanacearum appears to be heat sensitive and does not tolerate temperatures above 32°C.  Presently, its distribution has been confirmed in some counties in southern California, while its occurrence in northern California is rare.  While the potato/tomato psyllid vector can be found on Ca L. solanacearum host plants throughout southern California, in Kern County, on the coast up to Sacramento, and within the Sacramento Valley, the presence of the bacterial pathogen has only rarely been found in the northern regions.  Furthermore psyllid populations are kept in check by growers through insecticides routinely applied primarily to control aphid-vectored viruses. In the absence of vector control measures, the bacterial pathogen is expected to establish a widespread distribution on prime hosts including, tomatoes, potatoes, peppers and eggplant.

2) Known Pest Host Range:  Evaluate the host range of the pest.

Score: 2

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

– Medium (2) has a moderate host range.

– High (3) has a wide host range.

Risk is Medium (2)The pathogen has a medium host range that includes major host plants such as tomatoes, potatoes, and peppers, cultivated under significant acreage in California.

3) Pest Dispersal Potential:  Evaluate the natural and artificial dispersal potential of the pest.

Score: 3

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

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

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

Risk is High (3)Ca. L. solanacearum is primarily transmitted by its psyllid insect vector, Bactericera cockerelli.  The bacterium has high reproduction and is dependent primarily on its vector for short and long-distance spread. The bacterium is also spread by grafting and infected plants.  [Usually infected seed potatoes do not germinate but may occasionally produce infected plants which are often weak and short-lived and therefore, not a significant mode for spreading the disease.]

4) Economic Impact:  Evaluate the economic impact of the pest to California using the criteria below.

Score:

A. The pest could lower crop yield.

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

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

D. The pest could negatively change normal cultural practices.

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

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

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

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

– Medium (2) causes 2 of these impacts.

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

Risk is High (3): Ca. L. solanacearum causes zebra chip disease of potatoes and has resulted in significant crop damage and economic loss in production and marketability. Significant losses have also been caused in other economic host crops.  The pathogen is vectored by the potato/tomato psyllid vector in California. 

5) Environmental Impact:  Evaluate the environmental impact of the pest on California using the criteria below.

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

The pest could directly affect threatened or endangered species.

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

The pest could trigger additional official or private treatment programs.

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

Score the pest for Environmental Impact.

Score: 2

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

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

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

Risk is Medium (2): Infestations of the bacterial pathogen could significantly impact home/urban gardening.

Consequences of Introduction to California for Candidatus Liberibacter solanacearum:

Add up the total score and include it here. (Score)

-Low = 5-8 points

-Medium = 9-12 points

-High = 13-15 points

Total points obtained on evaluation of consequences of introduction to California = 13.

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

Score:  -1

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

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

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

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

Evaluation is Low (-1): Presently, Ca. L. solanacearum is distributed within few counties of southern California, namely, Los Angeles, Riverside, Orange, San Diego, and Santa Barbara Counties and is considered to be only of rare occurrence in northern California.

Final Score:

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

Final Score:  Score of Consequences of Introduction – Score of Post Entry Distribution and Survey Information = 12.

Uncertainty:  

Not much is known on the effects of environment on Ca. L. solanacearum.   Also, its presence in vector populations in northern California cannot be definitively stated.

Conclusion and Rating Justification:

Based on the evidence provided above the proposed rating for the zebra chip pathogen, Ca. Liberibacter solanacearum is B.

References:

Bertolini, E., G. R. Teresani, M. Loiseau, F. A. O. Tanaka, S. Barbé, C. Martínez, P. Gentit, M. M. López, and M. Cambra.  2014.  Transmission of ‘Candidatus Liberibacter solanacearum’ in carrot seeds.  Plant Pathology: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ppa.12245 .

Crosslin, J. M.  2009. First report of ‘Candidatus Liberibacter psyllaurous’ in zebra chip symptomatic potatoes from California.  Plant Disease 93: 551. http://dx.doi.org/10.1094/PDIS-93-5-0551B .

Crosslin, J. M., J. E. Munyaneza, J. K. Brown, and L. W. Liefting.  2010.  Potato zebra chip disease: A phytopathological tale. Online. Plant Health Progress doi: 10.1094/PHP-2010-0317-01-RV.

Davis, M.  2015.  Email from M. Davis, Professor Emeritus, Plant Pathology Department, UC Davis, to J. Chitambar, Primary Plant Pathologist/Nematologist, CDFA, sent Wednesday, November 11, 2015, 7:13:45 pm.

Farr, D.F., & A. Y. Rossman.  Fungal Databases, Systematic Mycology and Microbiology Laboratory, ARS, USDA.  Retrieved January 28, 2016, from http://nt.ars-grin.gov/fungaldatabases/.

EPPO.  2013.  Candidatus Liberibacter solanacearum.  EPPO Data Sheets on pests recommended for regulation, European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization.  Bulletin OEPP/EPPO Bulletin 43: 197-201.  DOI: 10.1111/epp.12043.

EPPO.  2016.  Liberibacter solanacearum (LIBEPS).  New PQR database.  Paris, France:  European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization.  http://newpqr.eppo.int

Hansen, A. K., J. T. Trumble, R. Stouthamer, and T. D. Paine.  2008.  A new huanglongbing species, “Candidatus Liberibacter psyllaurous,” found to infect tomato and potato, is vectored by the psyllid Bactericera cockerelli (Sulc). Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 74(18):5862-5865. http://aem.asm.org .

Liefting, L. W., Z. C. Perez-Egusquiza, G. R. G. Clover, and J. A. D. Anderson.  2008.  A new ‘Candidatus Liberibacter’ species in Solanum tuberosum in New Zealand. Plant Disease, 92(10):1474.

Liefting, L. W., B. S. Weir, S. R. Pennycook, and G. R. G. Clover.  2009.  ‘Candidatus Liberibacter solanacearum’, associated with plants in the family Solanaceae. International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology, 59(9):2274-2276.

Munyaneza, J. E.  2012.  Zebra chip disease of potato: biology, epidemiology and management.  American Journal of Potato Research 89: 329-350.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12230-012-9262-3.

Munyaneza, J. E., J. M. Crosslin, and J. E. Upton.  2007a. Association of Bactericera cockerelli (Homoptera: Psyllidae) with “zebra chip”, a new potato disease in southwestern United States and Mexico.  Journal of Economic Entomology 100, 656–663.

Munyaneza, J.E., J. A. Goolsby, J. M. Crosslin, and J. E. Upton.  2007b.  Further evidence that zebra chip potato disease in the lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas is associated with Bactericera cockerelli.  Subtropical Plant Science 59, 30–37.

Nunez, J.  2015.  Email from J. Nunez, Vegetable/Plant Pathology Farm Advisor, UC Cooperative Extension, to J. Chitambar, Primary Plant Pathologist/Nematologist, CDFA, sent Wednesday, November 11, 2015, 4:35 pm.

Tahzima, R., M. Maes, E. H. Achbani, K. D. Swisher, J. E. Munyaneza, and K. De Jonghe.  2014.  First Report of “Candidatus Liberibacter solanacearum’ on carrot in Africa.  Plant Disease 98: 1426.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1094/PDIS-05-14-0509-PDN .

Teresani, G. R., E. Bertolini, A. Alfaro-Fernández, C. Martinez, F. A. O. Tanaka, E. W. Kitajima, M. Roselló, S. Sanjuán, J. C. Ferrándiz, M. M. López, M. Cambra, and M. I. Font.  2014.  Association of ‘Candidatus Liberibacter solanacearum’ with a vegetative disorder of celery in Spain and development of a real-time PCR method for its detection.  Phytopathology 104: 804-811.

Teresani, G., R. Hernández, E. Bertolini, F. Siverio, C. Marroquin, J. Molina, A. Hermoso de Mendoza, and M. Cambra.  2015.  Search for potential vectors of ‘Candidatus Liberibacter solanacearum’: population dynamics in host crops.  Spanish Journal of Agricultural Research, 13 (1): e10-002. http://dx.doi.org/10.5424/sjar/2015131-6551 .

Trumble, J. T.  2015.  Email from J. T. Trumble, Distinguished Professor of Entomology, University of California, Riverside, to J. Chitambar, Primary Plant Pathologist/Nematologist, CDFA, sent Thursday, November 12, 2015, 5:28:41 pm.

USDA PCIT.  2016.  USDA Phytosanitary Certificate Issuance & Tracking System.  https://pcit.aphis.usda.gov/PExD/faces/ReportHarmOrgs.jsp.


Responsible Party:

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


Comment Format:

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

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

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

♦  Comments may not be posted if they:

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

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

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

Violates agency regulations prohibiting workplace violence, including threats.

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

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


Pest Rating: B


Posted by ls

Arctotheca calendula (L.) Levyns (Capeweed)

California Plant Pest Rating
Arctotheca calendula (L.) Levyns (Capeweed)
Asterales; Asteraceae
Pest Rating: A  |    Proposed Seed Rating: P

PEST RATING PROFILE
Initiating Event:

This plant was  listed as a noxious weed in California in 2010 (Invasive species compendium- CABI).

History & Status:

Capeweed is a Rosette-forming winter annual, up to 30 cm tall. It has typical daisy flowers heads with dark purple disk flowers and yellow ray flowers. Plants typically colonize open sites with exposed soils. Capeweed is introduced from South Africa, but it is also common in Australia, where it is an abundant pasture weed. Certain capeweed populations in Australia have developed resistance to bipyridylium herbicides. Handling plants can cause contact dermatitis in sensitive individuals. Capeweed has proven invasive in horse pastures and vineyards where taller, more palatable vegetation is removed. There has been much confusion between capeweed and prostrate capeweed (A. prostrata). Prostrate capeweed is a common groundcover perennial sold in flats in nurseries in mild areas of California. Prostrate capeweed can be locally invasive where it has been planted, as it actively spreads to form patches vegetatively. However, it does not form seeds in California; perhaps there is only one self-incompatible clone in cultivation at this time.

Official Control: Capeweed has been recognized as a harmful organism in Brazil, Colombia and Peru. It has naturalized in Australia, New Zealand and other countries in Asia, Africa, South America and Europe.        

California Distribution: Capeweed may have arrived in California in a shipment of grass seed from Australia, where it is a common weed.  Because of taxonomic confusion with prostrate capeweed, the range of capeweed is somewhat ambiguous. It has been reported in Alameda*, Amador, Humboldt*, Los Angeles, Mendocino, Monterey*, Marin*, Merced*, Sacramento, Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz*, San Francisco, San Luis Obispo, San Mateo*, Sonoma, Stanislaus* and Yolo Counties (Cal Flora Databse: Distribution by county: Arctotheca calendula  (L.) Levyns Cape weed). Asterixed county reports are supported by confirmed, identified vouchers.

California Interceptions: 11 vouchers have been submitted to CDFA for identification between 2000 and 2015 (Pest and Damage Report Database).

International: Capeweed  is native to South Africa. It is reported as naturalized in central Portugal and southwestern Spain, southern Portugal, New Zealand and as an environmental weed in Australia. (Lazarides and Hince, 1993 ). Capeweed has been raised as an ornamental in England since the mid-18th century (USDA APHIS Pest Risk Assessment).

Habitat: Capeweed prefers sandy, well drained soil, sand dunes,steam banks and rocky outcrops. It is used as a groundcover (Joffe, 2001). It does not thrive on soils low in potassium and high in salt. Areas on light textured soils devoid of vegetation during late summer /autumn are most likely to become infested with capeweed (Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environment , Tasmania, 2002). As it is avoided by livestock, it can spread quickly in horse pastures.

This risk capeweed would pose to California is evaluated below:

Consequences of Introduction:

1) Climate/Host Interaction: Risk is High (3), as this plant is naturalized along the coast of California and at five inland sites in the San Joaquin/Sacramento region. (Cal Flora Databse: Distribution by county: Arctotheca calendula (L.) Levyns: Cape weed).

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

Score: 3

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

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

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

2) Pest Host Range:  Risk is High (3) as weeds do not require any one host, but grow wherever ecological conditions are favorable.

Evaluate the host range of the pest:

Score: 3

– Low (1) has a very limited host range

– Medium (2) has a moderate host range

– High (3) has a wide host range

3) Pest Dispersal Potential: Risk is High (3). Capeweed has both high reproduction potential and highly mobile propagules. The plant reproduces via seeds. One plant can spawn a population spreading to cover up to 200 square feet in one to two years (Mathias, 1982; CDFA , 2002). Capeweed stem pieces with nodes can spread to new location by heavy equipment (Bossard, et al. 2002). Dispersal can be aided by wind or in contaminated soil. (Miles, 2002) Human activity and animals also aid in spread of seeds and rooted stolons (Wood 1994).

Evaluate the dispersal potential of the pest:

Score: 3

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

Medium (2) has either high reproductive or dispersal potential

High (3) has both high reproduction and dispersal potential

4) Economic Impact: Risk is High (3) as capeweed can become a troublesome weed in pastures, crops and home gardens in California. It can smother grasses and clover seedlings in newly sown pastures in the state. Capeweed can dominate overgrazed pastures in drier regions of California and can die off during summer, leaving bare areas vulnerable to invasion by other weeds.

It invades disturbed soil along roadsides and in crops. Capeweed can cause poisoning in livestock, if they consume it. Seeds can become embedded in wool. This can result in reduced yields. It reduces the value of stock by lowering their weight. Capeweed does not provide continous ground cover and feed value over summers  (APHIS Weed Risk Assesment).

Evaluate the economic impact of the pest to California using these criteria:

Economic Impact: A, B, F

A. The pest could lower crop yield

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

C. The pest could trigger the loss of markets (includes quarantines by other states or countries)

D. The pest could negatively change normal production cultural practices

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

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

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

Economic Impact Score: 3

Low (1) causes 0 or 1 of these impacts

Medium (2) causes 2 of these impacts

High (3) causes 3 or more of these impacts

5) Environmental Impact: Risk is High (3) in California. Capeweed disrupts natural grassland communities that are grazed, invades native habitat along the coast including coastal prairie, and triggers additional treatment to control it. In desert areas of California, Capeweed can increase the risk of soil erosion as its mature plants dry up and break quickly, leaving no cover over summer. It can also threaten native plant communities in Califorinia by crowding out grasses, herbs and small herbs (Bossard et al., 2000). Capeweed can cause hay fever and handling plants can cause contact dermatitis in sensitive people (CDFA 2002). It can escape into lawns and adjacent planting areas in California (Perry, 1992). Since there are no registered biological agents for Capeweed control, additional private or official treatments may be needed for its control ( CDFA 2002).

Evaluate the environmental impact of the pest on California using the following criteria:

Environmental Impact: A, C, D

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

B. The pest could directly affect threatened or endangered species

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

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

E. Significantly impacting cultural practices, home/urban gardening or ornamental plantings.

Score the pest for Environmental Impact:

Environmental Impact Score: 3

Low (1) causes none of the above to occur

Medium (2) causes one of the above to occur

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

Consequences of Introduction to California for capeweed:

Add up the total score and include it here:

Low = 5-8 points

Medium = 9-12 points

High = 13-15 points

Total points based on above criteria: High (15).

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

Score: Medium (–2)

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

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

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

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

Final Score:

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

Uncertainty:

Capeweed has naturalized in coastal and some inland areas of Northern California. There is confusion as to whether reports refer to capeweed or prostrate capeweed. Nevertheless, it has the potential to get widely established in desert areas and  grazed pastures. There is little uncertainty as to whether this plant can establish widely in CA, as it has establsihed in CA and has spread widely in silmilar habitats in Australia.

Conclusion and Rating Justification:

Proposed Rating: based on the score listed above the pest is a high risk. Because it has spread in certain areas of northern california and has a good potential to widely spread in the state, an A rating would be justifed. Because it can spread in grass seed, it should be prohibited from seed for planting.


References:

Baldwin, B. G., D. H. Goldman, D. J. Keil, R. Patterson, T. J. Rosatti, and D. H. Wilken, editors. 2012. The Jepson manual: vascular plants of California, second edition. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Bossard, C.C., J.M. Randall, and M.C. Hoshovsky. 2000. Invasive Plants of California Wildlands. pp.49-53. University of California Press.

California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) Encycloweedia Homepage. 2002. Notes on Identification, Biology, and Management of Plants defined as Noxious Weeds by California Law. http://pi.cdfa.ca.gov/weedinfo/.

Cal Flora Databse: Distribution by county: Arctotheca calendula  (L.) Levyns

Capeweed https://www.calflora.org/cgi-bin/county_taxon.cgi?where-calrecnum=634

Consortium of California Herbaria (ucjeps.berkeley.edu/consortium/). 2014.

Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environment, Tasmania website:

www.dpiwe.tas.gov.au. Weed Service Sheet 128 – Arctotheca calendula. 2002.

Environmental weeds of Australia for Biosecurity Queensland : Arctotheca Calendula– Factsheet http://keyserver.lucidcentral.org/weeds/data/media/Html/arctotheca_calendula.htm

Fairnie, I.J. Nitrite poisoning in sheep due to capeweed (Arctotheca calandula). Australian Veterinary Journal 1969, February; 45(2): 78-9.

Invasive species compendium: Arctotheca calendula (Capeweed): Accessed 11/9/2016 http://www.cabi.org/isc/datasheet/6729#20097200136

Lazarides, M. and B. Hince, editors. 1993. CSIRO handbook of economic plants of Australia. P. 24. CSIRO, Victoria, Australia

Lehtonen, Polly, USDA-APHIS PPQ Biological and Technical Services: Weed Risk Assesment  for Arctotheca calendula (L.) Levyns; Accessed 11/9/2016 https://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/plant_pest_info/weeds/downloads/wra/ArctothecacalendulaWRA.pdf

Mahoney, A. M. & R. J. McKenzie. 2008. Notes On Two Southern African Arctotis Species (Arctotideae: Asteraceae) Growing In California. Madroño 55: 244–247.

Mathias, M. E., editor. 1982. Flowering Plants in the Landscape. University of California Press. p. 139

Miles, J. 2002. Capeweed (Arctotheca calendula) weed fact sheet, Eurobodalla Shire Council, New South Wales, Australia, South Coast Weeds website. Accessed 11/9/2016 http://www.esc.nsw.gov.au

Perry, B. 1992. Landscape Plants for Western Regions, an illustrated guide to plants for water conservation. Claremont CA: Land Design Pub. pp. 94, 125-126.

Pest and Damage Record Database; Plant Health and Pest Prevention Services, California Department of Food and Agriculture. Accessed on 11/9/2016

Pethick D.W., Chapman, H.M. The effect of Arctotheca calendula (capeweed) on digestive function of sheep. Australian Veterinary Journal 1991 Nov.; 68(11): 361-3

Weed Identification in Australia: Capeweed http://www.weeds.org.au/cgi-bin/weedident.cgi?tpl=plant.tpl&state=&s=&ibra=all&card=H70

Wood, H. 1994. The introduction and spread of Capeweed, Arctotheca calendula (L.)Levyns (Asteraceae) in Australia. Plant Protection Quarterly 9, 2-8.


Responsible Party:

Raj Randhawa, Senior Environmental Scientist; Dean G. Kelch, Primary Botanist; California Department of Food and Agriculture; 1220 N Street, Sacramento, CA 95814; Tel. (916) 654-0312; plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov.

Comment Format:

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

Example Comment: 

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

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

♦  Comments may not be posted if they:

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

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

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

Violates agency regulations prohibiting workplace violence, including threats.

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

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


Pest Rating: A  |    Proposed Seed Rating: P


Posted by ls

Aromia bungii (Redneck Longhorn Beetle)

California Pest Rating for
Aromia bungii  (Redneck Longhorn Beetle)
Coleoptera:  Cerambycidae
Pest Rating: A

PEST RATING PROFILE
Initiating Event:  

The EPPO reporting service distributed a report by email on October 24, 2013.  The report included records of Aromia bungii (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) being found for the first time in Lombardia region, Italy and Aichi Prefecture, Japan.  The beetle was previously intercepted in Washington State and is a fruit tree pest that feeds on a variety of trees that are specialty crops of major economic importance in California.  Aromia bungii is an invasive pest that is currently spreading in international trade and in need of a pest rating.

History & Status:

BackgroundAromia bungii is a wood boring beetle that feeds on a variety of trees.  Adult beetles lay eggs in bark crevasses of healthy to slightly stressed trees.  The larvae bore galleries in the trunk and branches, leading to decreased fruit production and weakening of the trees1.  In China the main host plants are species of Prunus (Rosaceae), especially peach (Prunus persica) and apricot (P. armeniaca), and to a lesser extent plum (P. domestica) and cherry (P. avium)1.  Other hosts include damson plum (P. domestica spp. institia), Japanese apricot (P. mume), Korean cherry (P. japonica), neem (Azadirachta indica (Meliaceae)), weaver’s bamboo (Bambusa textilis (Poaceae)), persimmon (Diospyros virginiana (Ebenaceae)), olive (Olea europea (Oleaceae)), white poplar (Populus alba (Salicaeae)), Chinese white poplar (P. tomentosa), Chinese wingnut (Pterocarya stenoptera (Juglandaceae)), pomegranate (Punica granatum (Lythraceae)), and Schima superba (Theaceae)1.   In 2008 A. bungii was intercepted in a manufacturing plant in Seattle that imports products from China and Taiwan and in wooden pallets in a warehouse in the United Kingdom, demonstrating that it can move in international trade.

Worldwide Distribution: Aromia bungii is native to the temperate regions of China.  It has spread throughout China, North Korea, South Korea, Mongolia, Vietnam, and Taiwan.  Recently it has been found feeding on fruit trees in the environment of two European nations where it is under eradication:  Germany (2011) and Italy (2012).  In June 2013 the beetle was confirmed to be established in Aichi Prefecture, Japan.

Official Control: Aromia bungii is under official control in Europe.

California Distribution Aromia bungii has never been found in the environment of California.

California Interceptions:  Aromia bungii has never been found in any regulatory situations in California.

The risk Aromia bungii would pose to California is evaluated below.

Consequences of Introduction:  

1) Climate/Host Interaction: Plant Hardiness zones where Aromia bungii is known to be established range from approximately zones 4 through 11, indicating that the beetle is likely to find a favorable climate in California. Furthermore, host trees of the beetle are commonly grown commercially and as ornamentals in the state.  The beetle receives a High(3) in this category.

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

Score: 3

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

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

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

2) Known Pest Host Range: Aromia bungii is known to feed on 12 species of plants in nine plant families.  The beetle receives a Medium(2) in this category.

Evaluate the host range of the pest:

Score: 2

Low (1) has a very limited host range.

Medium (2) has a moderate host range.

High (3) has a wide host range.

3) Pest Dispersal Potential: The reproductive rate is not well known in China, but generations are said to take 2-3 years.  Adult beetles are relatively strong fliers and eggs, larvae, and pupae can be spread long distances by humans when wood or plants are moved.  Aromia bungii receives a Medium(2) in this category.

Evaluate the natural and artificial dispersal potential of the pest:

Score: 2

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

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

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

4) Economic Impact: If Aromia bungii were to establish in California it is expected to reduce crop yields, increase production costs, and possibly lead to quarantines.  It might also negatively change cultural practices.  The beetle receives a High(3) in this category.

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

Economic Impact: A, B, C, D

A. The pest could lower crop yield.

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

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

D. The pest could negatively change normal cultural practices.

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

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

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

Economic Impact Score: 3

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

Medium (2) causes 2 of these impacts.

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

5) Environmental Impact: If Aromia bungii were to establish in California it would be expected to trigger additional official and private treatment programs.  It would also significantly impact home/urban gardening and ornamental plantings as unmanaged host trees may be killed and many of the known host trees are common in the urban landscape.   The beetle receives a High(3) in this category.

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

Environmental Impact: D, E

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

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

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

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

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

Score the pest for Environmental Impact:

Environmental Impact Score: 3

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

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

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

Consequences of Introduction to California for Aromia bungiiHigh(13)

Add up the total score and include it here. (Score)

Low = 5-8 points

Medium = 9-12 points

High = 13-15 points

6) Post Entry Distribution and Survey Information: Aromia bungii has never been detected in California. It receives a Not established(0) in this category.

Score: 0

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

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

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

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

Final Score:

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

Uncertainty:

The host range of Aromia bungii may be much greater than is known.  It may have a higher reproductive potential (i.e. shorter generation time) in California than is reported in northern China.

Conclusion and Rating Justification:

Aromia bungii poses an economic threat to the stone fruit, persimmon, and pomegranate industries in California.  It also poses a threat to the environment as host trees are common in the urban landscape.  The arrival of the beetle is likely to trigger additional chemical treatments and/or the death of trees.  An “A” rating is justified.

References:

1EPPO Alert List.  http://www.eppo.int/QUARANTINE/Alert_List/insects/Aromia_bungii.htm

2The Food & Environment Research Agency.  Rapid Pest Risk Analysis for Aromia bungiihttp://www.fera.defra.gov.uk/plants/plantHealth/pestsDiseases/documents/aromiaBungii.pdf

Responsible Party:

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


Comment Format:

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

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

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

♦  Comments may not be posted if they:

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

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

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

Violates agency regulations prohibiting workplace violence, including threats.

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

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


Pest Rating: A


Posted by ls

Cacoecimorpha pronubana (Hübner): (Carnation tortrix)

California Pest Rating for
Cacoecimorpha pronubana (Hübner): (Carnation tortrix)
Lepidoptera:  Tortricidae
Pest Rating: A

PEST RATING PROFILE
Initiating Event:

In October 2013, USDA released a DEEP report proposing to deregulate Cacoecimorpha pronubana (carnation tortrix).  The insect is currently “Q”-rated by CDFA, so a pest rating proposal is needed to determine future direction.

History & Status:

Background Carnation tortrix is a highly polyphagous leaf-rolling tortricid moth.  First instar larvae mine leaves or buds and later instars roll or web leaves and terminals together2.  Larvae can damage fruit by webbing leaves to fruit or feeding between adjacent fruits2.  It has been documented feeding on more than 160 plant species in 42 families including many economically important crops such as grape, tomato, strawberry, cherry, citrus, pear, peach, apple, avocado, plum, blueberry, rose, and Brassicaceae.  The moth is most commonly encountered as a pest of flowers in greenhouses2.

Worldwide Distribution: Carnation tortrix is native to Northern Africa.  It is now widespread from western Europe through Asia.  It has been introduced into South Africa and the states of Oregon in 1964 and Washington in 19742.  There are also recent reports that the moths spread to a nursery in Colorado from which they infested the Denver Zoo.  There are also unconfirmed reports of the moth from a nursery in New York.

Official Control: Carnation tortrix is considered a quarantine pest in Europe3, China4, Japan5, and presumably additional nations.

California Distribution Carnation tortrix has never been found in the environment of California.

California Interceptions Carnation tortrix has been intercepted twice in 2010 and 2011 on holly and winter daphne plants shipped from nurseries in Oregon to California (PDR 1609360 and 1480160).

The risk carnation tortrix (Cacoecimorpha pronubana) would pose to California is evaluated below.

Consequences of Introduction: 

1) Climate/Host Interaction: The distribution of carnation tortrix indicates that it may establish in plant hardiness zones 7-9. The moth can be expected to establish throughout much of California, excluding high elevation and warm coastal areas of Southern California.  Carnation tortrix receives a Medium(2) in this category.

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

Score: 2

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

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

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

2) Known Pest Host Range: Carnation tortrix feeds on more than 160 species of plants in 42 families.  The moth receives a High(3) in this category.

Evaluate the host range of the pest:

Score: 3

Low (1) has a very limited host range.

Medium (2) has a moderate host range.

High (3) has a wide host range.

3) Pest Dispersal Potential: In warmer regions carnation tortrix has 4-6 generations per year and each female lays an average of 430 eggs.  Adults can fly, larvae can balloon by wind, and eggs and larvae can be transported long distances through trade in nursery stock.  Carnation tortrix receives a High(3) in this category.

Evaluate the natural and artificial dispersal potential of the pest:

Score: 3

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

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

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

4) Economic Impact: Carnation tortrix has not caused significant economic damage during the nearly 60 years that it has been present in the Pacific Northwest.  This may be due to the fact that the moth is likely managed by existing IPM programs in most commercial fruit production.  However, carnation tortrix is documented to have several additional generations per year in warmer climates and may have a more significant impact in California.  One impact could be to organic agriculture; for example, tortricid larvae can evade control beneath the calyx of organic strawberries.  In greenhouses the larvae can cause serious damage by penetrating flower buds and may require control3.  Floral products are a $487 million industry in California so the impact may be significant.  Carnation tortrix is considered a quarantine pest by several nations and its presence in California could lead to a loss of markets, particularly for nursery stock and flowers.  The moth receives a High(3) in this category.

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

Economic Impact: A, B, C

A. The pest could lower crop yield.

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

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

D. The pest could negatively change normal cultural practices.

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

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

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

Economic Impact Score: 3

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

Medium (2) causes 2 of these impacts.

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

5) Environmental Impact: Because there are already leaf-rolling moths with biologies similar to carnation tortrix in California, the moth is not expected to lower biodiversity, disrupt natural communities, or change ecosystem processes.  However, showy Indian clover (Trifolium amoenum), pacific grove clover (Trifolium polyodon), Monterey clover (Trifolium trichocalyx), and small-leaved rose (Rosa minutifolia) are listed as threatened or endangered plants in California and are potential hosts that could be directly affected by carnation tortrix.  The moth is not expected to disrupt critical habitats.  Carnation tortix may trigger some additional private treatment programs.  The moth is not expected to significantly impact cultural practices, home/urban gardening, or ornamental plantings.  Carnation tortrix receives a High(3) in this category.

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

Environmental Impact: B, D

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

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

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

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

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

Score the pest for Environmental Impact:

Environmental Impact Score: 3

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

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

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

Consequences of Introduction to California for Carnation Tortrix (Cacoecimorpha pronubana):  High(14)

Add up the total score and include it here.

Low = 5-8 points

Medium = 9-12 points

High = 13-15 points

6) Post Entry Distribution and Survey Information: Carnation tortrix has never been found in the environment of California. The record present on the internet and mentioned in the DEEP report refers to an interception on nursery stock shipped from Oregon.  Carnation tortrix receives a Not established(0) in this category.

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

Score: 0

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

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

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

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

Final Score:

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

Uncertainty:

There have been no formal surveys for carnation tortrix in California.  It could be present in some locations.

Conclusion and Rating Justification:

Carnation tortrix is an emerging pest of the nursery industry in the United States and is not known to be present in California.  Although it is likely to be managed by existing IPM programs in most fruit production, it has the potential to cause losses and trigger treatment in organic production, nurseries, and the flower industry.  Carnation tortrix is considered a quarantine pest in several nations and could lead to an interruption of markets for California agriculture.  The moth also has the potential to directly affect several threatened and endangered species and to trigger additional chemical treatments in some situations.  These economic environmental consequences justify an “A” rating for carnation tortrix (Cacoecimorpha pronubana).

References:

1Landry, Cynthia.  2013.  Deregulation Evaluation of Established Pests (DEEP); DEEP Report on Cacoecimorpha pronubana Hübner: Carnation Tortrix

2Gilligan, T.M. and M.E. Epstein. 2012.  Tortricids of Agricultural Importance: Cacoecimorpha pronubana. http://idtools.org/id/leps/tortai/Cacoecimorpha_pronubana.htm

3http://www.eppo.int/QUARANTINE/insects/Cacoecimorpha_pronubana/TORTPR_ds.pdf

4http://www.fas.usda.gov/ffpd/wto_sps_tbt_notifications/forest_products/CH97_pest_list.pdf

5 http://www.maff.go.jp/j/syouan/keneki/kikaku/pdf/qp_list.pdf


Responsible Party:

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


Comment Format:

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

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

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

♦  Comments may not be posted if they:

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

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

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

Violates agency regulations prohibiting workplace violence, including threats.

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

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


Pest Rating: A


Posted by ls

Dysmicoccus neobrevipes (Annona/Gray Pineapple Mealybug)

California Pest Rating for
Dysmicoccus neobrevipes (Annona/Gray Pineapple Mealybug)
Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae
Pest Rating: A

PEST RATING PROFILE
Initiating Event:

Dysmicoccus neobrevipes has an internal CDFA rating of “Q”. A permanent pest rating proposal is required to support an official pest rating.

History & Status:

Background: Dysmicoccus neobrevipes is a mealybug with pantropical distribution. It is a highly polyphagous mealybug presenting a host range of more than 40 families of plants, including among others Agave, Ananas, Annona, Brassica, Citrus, Cucurbita, Ficus, Mangifera, Musa, Solanum lycopersicum, and Yucca (4, 10). It vectors pineapple wilt and green spot disease (9) and due to this, it is considered the most economically important pest of pineapple and is the primary cause of pineapple crop failure in Hawaii (3). The Annona mealybug is ovoviviparous; the eggs hatch within the female resulting in live births of young nymphs. One female produces about 350 nymphs in 30 days. Adults are found on leaves, stems, aerial roots and fruit clusters (7).

Worldwide Distribution: Dysmicoccus neobrevipes is thought to be native to tropical America, with a few records from sub-tropical localities. It is found in 39 countries (see 10), including all pineapple growing areas of Fiji, Jamaica, Malaysia, Mexico, Micronesia, Philippines, and Taiwan (3). It is known to have been introduced in China, Japan, Sri Lanka and Lithuania (2).

U.S. Distribution: Dysmicoccus neobrevipes is present in Hawaii and Florida (1, 2, and 10).

U.S. Quarantine Interceptions: Dysmicoccus neobrevipes has been intercepted 3,600 times on a variety of hosts at U.S. ports of entry between 1995 and 2012. This species is commonly intercepted from southern Asia, particularly The Philippines, on a diversity of tropical fruits and from many areas of South America on agave and tropical fruits (4).

Official Control: Dysmicoccus neobrevipes has been listed as a harmful organism in Japan (8).

California Distribution:  Dysmicoccus neobrevipes has not been found in the natural environment in California (5).

California Interceptions:  Dysmicoccus neobrevipes has been intercepted multiple times through border station inspections, dog teams, high risk pest exclusion and through incoming quarantine shipments. Between January 2000 and August 2016, it has been intercepted 71 times (5). It has not yet been found in the natural or agricultural environment in California.

The risk Dysmicoccus neobrevipes (Annona/Gray Pineapple Mealybug) would pose to California is evaluated below.

Consequences of Introduction: 

1) Climate/Host Interaction: Hosts like beans, citrus, cotton, cowpeas, pumpkin and tomatoes are grown throughout California and this presents the possibility of rapid spread and establishment of this pest throughout the state (2). Pineapples and Banana are grown in coastal areas of California and Dysmicoccus neobrevipes could spread and get established in these areas (6). It receives a High (3) in this category.

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

Score: 3

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

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

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

2) Known Pest Host Range: Dysmicoccus neobrevipes is highly polyphagous and is found on 40 plant families (10). It receives a High (3) in this category.

Evaluate the host range of the pest:

Score: 3

Low (1) has a very limited host range.

Medium (2) has a moderate host range.

High (3) has a wide host range.

3) Pest Dispersal Potential: Dysmicoccus neobrevipes reproduces parentally. One female can give birth to 350 nymphs in 30 days. The life span averages about 90 days. Larvae, also known as crawlers, have flattened bodies and long hairs which aid in their dispersal by wind. (3). Certain species of caretaking ants aid the mealybugs in colonizing new plants by providing them shelter, protecting them from predators and keeping them clean from secreted honeydew.  It receives a High (3) in this category

Evaluate the natural and artificial dispersal potential of the pest:

Score: 3

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

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

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

4) Economic Impact: Since the ants aid mealybugs to colonize new plants, there can be significant costs associated with cultural and chemical control of ant species throughout the state on its many hosts. Dysmicoccus neobrevipes is a vector of mealybug wilt and green spot disease of pineapples. The wilt disease alone can cause yield loss of up to 35% in pineapples (9). It receives a High (3) in this category.

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

Economic Impact:  A, B, E

A. The pest could lower crop yield.

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

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

D. The pest could negatively change normal cultural practices.

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

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

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

Economic Impact Score: 3

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

Medium (2) causes 2 of these impacts.

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

5) Environmental Impact: Dysmicoccus neobrevipes is not likely to impact threatened or endangered species. However infestations could trigger additional private treatment by growers. Chemicals used for ant control may have detrimental environmental impacts because of their slow degradation (3). Pineapple and banana growing regions of southern California coast are likely to be impacted by this pest. It receives a High (3) in this category.

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

Environmental Impact:  A, D

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

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

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

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

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

Score the pest for Environmental Impact. Score:

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

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

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

Consequences of Introduction of Annona/Gray Pineapple Mealybug into California:  High (15)

Low = 5-8 points

Medium = 9-12 points

High = 13-15 points

6) Post Entry Distribution and Survey Information: Dysmicoccus neobrevipes has not been found in the natural or agricultural environment of California. Therefore, it receives a Not Established (0) in this category.

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

Score: 0

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

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

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

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

Final Score:

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

Uncertainty:

Dysmicoccus neobrevipes has been intercepted many times by CDFA through regulatory pathways. There are ample opportunities for this pest to be introduced into California through various ports of entry.  If it goes undetected, there is a good possibility that it can spread and get established based on its rapid dispersal potential and wide host range.

Conclusion and Rating Justification:

Dysmicoccus neobrevipes has not been found in the natural or agricultural environment in California. If this species were to become established in California, there could be significant economic and environmental impacts. Based on all the above evidence, an “A” rating is proposed at this time.

References:
  1. Egelie, Ashley A and Gillett-Kaufman, Jennifer L., University of Florida, Entomology and Nematology Department: Publication # EENY-635, September 2015 http://entnemdept.ufl.edu/creatures/FRUIT/MEALYBUGS/pineapple_mealybug.htm
  2. Invasive Species Compendium: Distribution maps for plant pests, Accessed 10/14/2016 http://www.cabi.org/isc/datasheet/20251
  3. Kessing JLM, Mau RFL, 2007. Dysmicoccus neobrevipes (Beardsley). Crop Knowledge Master. http://www.extento.hawaii.edu/kbase/crop/type/d_neobre.htm
  4. Miller, D., A. Rung, G. Parikh, G. Venable, A.J. Redford, G.A. Evans, and R.J. Gill. 2014. Scale Insects, Edition 2. USDA APHIS Identification Technology Program (ITP). Fort Collins, CO. [August 13 2016] <http://idtools.org/id/scales/>: Dysmicoccus brevipes (Cockerell) http://idtools.org/id/scales/factsheet.php?name=6966
  5. Pest and Damage Report Database: Plant Health and Pest Prevention Services, California Department of Food and Agriculture: Accessed 9/30/2016
  6. Pineapple fruit facts: California rare fruit Growers https://www.crfg.org/pubs/ff/pineapple.html
  7. Plant Health Australia: Exotic Threat: Pineapple Mealybug- Fact Sheet http://www.planthealthaustralia.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Grey-pineapple-mealy-bug-FS.pdf
  8. USDA Phytosanitary Certificate Issuance & Tracking System (PCIT): Phytosanitary Export Database (PExD), Accessed 10/13/2016  https://pcit.aphis.usda.gov/PExD/faces/ReportFormat.jsp
  9. Sether DM, Hu JS, 2002. Yield impact and spread of Pineapple mealybug wilt associated virus-2 and mealybug wilt of pineapple in Hawaii. Plant Disease, 86(8):867-874.
  10. ScaleNet: http://scalenet.info/catalogue/Dysmicoccus%20neobrevipes/ Accessed 10/13/2016

Responsible Party:

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


Comment Format:

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

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

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

♦  Comments may not be posted if they:

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

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

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

Violates agency regulations prohibiting workplace violence, including threats.

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

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


Pest Rating: A


Posted by ls

False Yellowhead | Dittrichia viscosa (L.) Greuter

California Pest Rating for
False Yellowhead | Dittrichia viscosa (L.) Greuter
Asteridae: Asteraceae
Pest Rating: A  |   Proposed Seed Rating: P

PEST RATING PROFILE
Initiating Event:

False yellowhead (Dittrichia viscosa) has been rated as “Q” on the CDFA Plant Pest Rating since 2014. This plant is on the “Alert list” for Environmental weeds in Australia. Recent reports of its presence in Solano County has prompted issuance of a permanent rating.

History & Status:

False yellowhead (Dittrichia viscosa) is an erect, perennial, soft-wooded shrub, 1–1.5 m tall and 1 m wide. Its leaves are greyish-green, partially clasping and elliptical. The yellow flowers are daisy-like and 10–20 mm across, with radiating petal-like flowers. The flowers are surrounded by narrow, triangular, sticky bracts. The seeds are approximately 2 mm long, with about 15–25 bristles at the base (Ratcliffe, 1976). The roots can be quite substantial, even in small plants. The young stems and leaves are covered with glandular hairs which exude a sticky foul-smelling oil. The oil can cause allergic reactions. It is native to Northern Africa, the Middle East, India, and southern Europe (Brullo & de Marco, 2000), but it  has expanded its range in response to human disturbance and proved tolerant of harsh water and mineral stress (Wacquant, 1990; Thompson, 2005; Murciego et al. 2007). False yellowhead inhabits disturbed places, roadsides, pastures, fields, riparian woodlands, levees, washes, and margins of tidal marshes. (Blanco 2011; Wacquant, 1990).  False yellowhead was first found in California in 2014 (Consortium of California Herbaria). False yellowhead’s ecology seems to be similar to its close relative stinkwort (D. graveolens), a serious weed in California (Ditomaso & Brownsey, 2013; Wacquant, 1990).

Official Control: False yellowhead has not been listed as a harmful organism (Phytosanitary export database- USDA Phytosanitary Certificate issuance and Tracking system (PExD). The Solano County Agricultural Commissioner’s staff has been controlling and monitoring this plant since it was first found.

California Distribution:  Known only from Solano County in California (Consortium of California Herbaria).

California Interceptions: It has been found growing along McGary Road in Solano County, as reported multiple times by the county agricultural commissioner’s office. (Pest and Damage Report Database). It has not yet been intercepted at CA borders.

United States: False yellowhead was collected in three states in the eastern U.S. (USDA Plants), but it is unlikely that it persisted beyond the late1800s. (FNA, 1993+).

International: False yellowhead is common throughout the Mediterranean. Its native range includes the coasts of southern Europe (including France, Spain, Greece, Italy, Bulgaria and Turkey), the Middle East (Israel, Jordan and Syria), as well as northern Africa (Algeria, Egypt and Libya) (Ratcliffe, 1976; Brullo & de Marco, 2000). It is spreading rapidly in Southeastern and Southwestern Australia (Baldwin et al., 2012).

The risk False yellowhead would pose to California is evaluated below:

Consequences of Introduction: 

1) Climate/Host Interaction: False yellowhead is a ruderal plant species adapted to areas disturbed and altered by human activity (Wacquant, 1990). The typical habitats of viscosa include arroyos, abandoned agricultural fields, roadsides, trails, and disturbed urban sites (Ratcliffe, 1976). It occurs on various soil types and is tolerant of high mineral soils (Wacquant, 1990). Although it is drought tolerant, it prefers the margins of wetlands (Warlop et al., 2010). Once established after disturbance, it can spread to less disturbed situations (Wurcquart, 1990). Therefore, false yellowhead receives a High (3) in this category.

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

 Score: 3

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

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

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

2) Host Range: Risk is High (3) as weeds do not require any one host, but grow wherever ecological conditions are favorable.

Evaluate the host range of the pest:

Score: 3

Low (1) has a very limited host range.

Medium (2) has a moderate host range.

High (3) has a wide host range.

3) Pest Dispersal Potential: False yellowhead spreads via seed. Seed dispersal is aided by an arrangement of bristles at the end of the seed (pappus) that catches the wind. (Australian Weed Management Guide). It produces prolific seed that secretes a sticky exudate causing seed to cling to clothing, animal fur and machinery. The seed bank of its close relative Stinkwort is moderately persistent (Cal-IPC). False yellowhead receives a High (3) in this category.

Evaluate the natural and artificial dispersal potential of the pest:

Score: 3

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

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

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

4) Economic Impact: False yellowhead can lower range productivity. It is unpalatable to livestock (Philbey and Morton, 2000). Furthermore, because of the barbs on the pappus of the seeds, it leads to enteritis and other gastrointestinal disease in livestock. As they are similar to those of Stinkwort, false yellow head is likely to have similar impacts on livestock. It is thought that false yellowhead would have similar impacts on grazing animals. Thirty years after introduction to South Australia, false yellowhead is a bad weeds of roadsides. Some people are allergic and develop severe dermatitis after contacting false yellowhead plants (Máñez et al., 1999; Hernández et al., 2001). It is also allelopathic to other plants and suppresses seed germination (Omezzine et al., 2011).  False yellowhead receives a Medium (2) in this category.

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

Economic Impact: D, F

A. The pest could lower crop yield.

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

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

D. The pest could negatively change normal cultural practices.

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

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

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

Economic Impact Score: 2

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

– Medium (2) causes 2 of these impacts.

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

5) Environmental Impact: False yellowhead is likely to trigger new chemical treatments by ranchers and land managers. The plant can dominate roadsides, disturbed grassland, and wetland margins, excluding native plants and lowering biodiversity (Australia Weed Management Guide). Rare taxa that might be affected in CA include grassland species such as showy Indian clover (Trifolium amoenum) and CA filaree (California macrophylla), and vernal pool species such as Burke’s goldfields (Lasthenia burkei) and CA tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense). The plant can disrupt natural communities and exclude cultural plants from a landscape. False yellowhead receives a High (3) in this category.

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

Environmental Impact:  A, C, D

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

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

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

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

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

Score the pest for Environmental Impact:

Environmental Impact Score: 3

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

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

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

Consequences of Introduction to California for False yellowhead: High (14)

Add up the total score and include it here:

Low = 5-8 points

Medium = 9-12 points

High = 13-15 points

6) Post Entry Distribution and Survey Information: False yellowhead has been found in one county in California. It receives a Low (-1) in this category.

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

Score: -1

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

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

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

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

Final Score:

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

Uncertainty:

Uncertainty is low, as the plant has spread widely in the Mediterranean and South Australia. It also shows signs of fast establishment in its one known occurrence in California.

Conclusion and Rating Justification:

An A rating is recommended, as the plant is invasive, but not yet widespread. There is still the chance to eradicate this plant from North America.

References:

Australian Weed Management Guide. False yellowhead. Accessed 10/11/2016:

https://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/invasive/weeds/publications/guidelines/alert/pubs/d-viscosa.pdf

Baldwin, B. G., D. H. Goldman, D. J. Keil, R. Patterson, T. J. Rosatti, and D. H. Wilken, editors. 2012. The Jepson manual: vascular plants of California, second edition. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Blanco G. 2011. Dittrichia in Claves de la Flora Vascular de Andalucía Oriental. G. Blanca, B. Cabezudo, M. Cueto, C. Morales Torres & C. Salazar, eds.  Servicio de Publicaciones de las Universidades de Almería, Granada, Jaén y Málaga. Universidad de Granada. Granada, Spain.

Brullo, S & de Marco, G. 2000. Taxonomical revision of the genus Dittrichia (Asteraceae), Portugaliae Acta Biol. 19: 341–354.

Consortium of California Herbaria. Accessed 10/11/2016: ucjeps.berkeley.edu/consortium/

Flora of North America Editorial Committee, eds (FNA).  1993+.  Flora of North America North of Mexico.  16+ vols.  New York and Oxford.

Hernández, V., R. M. del Carmen, S. Máñez, J. M. Prieto, R. M. Giner, & J. L. Ríos. 2001. A mechanistic approach to the in vivo anti-inflammatory activity of sesquiterpenoid compounds isolated from Inula viscosa. Planta Medica 67: 726-731.Máñez, S., M. C. Recio, I. Gil, C. Gómez, R. M. Giner, P. G. Waterman & J. L. Ríos 1999. A glycosyl analogue of diacylglycerol and other antiinflammatory constituents from Inula viscosa. Journal of Natural Products 62: 601-604.

Murciego, A. M., A. G. Sánchez, M. A. R. González, E. P. Gil, C. T. Gordillo, J. C. Fernández & T. B. Triguero 2007. Antimony distribution and mobility in topsoils and plants (Cytisus striatus, Cistus ladanifer and Dittrichia viscosa) from polluted Sb-mining areas in Extremadura (Spain). Environmental Pollution 145: 15-21.

Omezzine, F., A. Rinez, A. Ladhari, M. Farooq & R. Haouala. 2011. Allelopathic potential of Inula viscosa against crops and weeds. International Journal of Agriculture and Biology 13: 841-849.

Parolin P, M Ion Scotta, & C Bresch. 2014. Biología de Dittrichia viscosa, una planta ruderal del Mediterráneo. Phyton (Buenos Aires) vol.83.

Philbey A. & A.G. Morton 2000. Pyrogranulomatous enteritis in sheep due to penetrating seed head of Dittrichia graveolens. Australian Veterinary Journal 78: 858-860

Pest and Damage Record Database, Plant Health and Pest Prevention Services, CA Department of Food and Agriculture. Assessed Date: 10/18/2016

Phytosanitary Export Database- USDA Phytosanitary Certificate issuance and Tracking system (PExD), Date Assessed: 10/18/2016. https://pcit.aphis.usda.gov/PExD/faces/PExDReport.jsp

Ratcliffe, D. 1976. Dittrichia in Flora Europaea Vol. 4: Plantaginaceae to Compositae. T. G. Tutin, V. H. Heywood, N. A. Burges, D. H. Valentine, S. M. Walters, & D. A. Webb, eds. Cambridge University Press. United Kingdom.

Sinden J., R. Jones, S. Hester, D. Odom, C. Kalisch & R. James (2004). The economic impact of weeds in Australia. Report to the CRC for Australian Weed Management. Pp. 1-65.

Thompson, J. D. 2005. Plant Evolution in the Mediterranean. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

USDA Plants; Dittrichia viscosa. Accessed 10/11/2016: http://plants.usda.gov/core/profile?symbol=DIVI6

Wacquant, J. P. 1990. Biogeographical and physiological aspects of the invasion by Dittrichia (ex-Inula) viscosa W. Greuter, a ruderal species in the Mediterranean Basin. Pp. 353-364 in Biological Invasions in Europe and the Mediterranean Basin. F. di Castri, A.J. Hansen, and M. Debussche, eds. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht.


Responsible Party:

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


Pest Rating: A  |   Proposed Seed Rating: P


Posted by ls

The CDFA's Plant Health and Pest Prevention Services Division grants the public opportunities to comment on proposed pest ratings. The following type of proposals are available for comment: