Plants for Planting Quarantine Pest Evaluation Data Sheets

United States Department of Agriculture

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

Plant Protection and Quarantine

In order to prevent the introduction of quarantine pests into the United States, § 319.37-2a allows

the APHIS Administrator to designate the importation of certain taxa of plants for planting as not

authorized pending pest risk analysis (NAPPRA). APHIS has determined that the following

plant taxa should be added to the NAPPRA category. In accordance with paragraph (b)(1) of that

section, this data sheet details the scientific evidence APHIS evaluated in making the

determination that the taxa are hosts of a quarantine pest.

Plants for Planting Quarantine Pest Evaluation Data Sheets

Table of Contents

Click on a quarantine pest name below to view the corresponding data sheet:

Anoplophora glabripennis Celtis

Cercidiphyllum

Koelreuteria

Tilia

Chrysanthemum stem Callistephus

necrosis virus (CSNV) Chrysanthemum (including syn. Dendranthema)

Eustoma

Dendroctonus micans Pseudotsuga

Moniliophthora perniciosa Arrabidaea

Bixa

Herrania

Theobroma

Monochamus alternatus Cedrus

Peanut clump virus and Arachis

Indian peanut clump virus Eleusine

Pennisetum

Setaria

Triticum

Zea

Phytophthora kernoviae Annona

Camellia

Drimys

Fagus

Gevuina

Hedera

Ilex

Leucothoe

Liriodendron

Lomatia

Magnolia (Michelia)

Pieris

Podocarpus

Quercus

Rhododendron

Sequoiadendron (Sequoia)

Vaccinium

Puccinia buxi Buxus




Plants for Planting Quarantine Pest Evaluation Data Sheet January 9

th, 2013







Quarantine Pest: Anoplophora glabripennis

Hosts: Acer spp., Aesculus spp.,

Albizia spp., Alnus spp.,

Betula spp., Carpinus

spp., Celtis spp., Cercidiphyllum spp., Elaeagnus spp., Fagus spp.,

Fraxinus

spp., Hibiscus spp., Koelreuteria spp., Liquidambar spp., Malus spp., Melia

spp., Morus spp.,

Platanus spp.,

Populus spp.,

Prunus spp.,

Pyrus spp.,

Robinia spp., Salix spp., Sophora spp.,

Sorbus spp.,

Tilia spp.,

Toona spp.,

Ulmus spp.

Status: This pest and most of these hosts were regulated under a Federal Order dated

April 1, 2011. Cut flowers and greenery are also covered by the April 1, 2011

Federal Order, but are not included in this action under NAPPRA. __________________________________________________________________________

Taxonomy and description of the pest:

Anoplophora glabripennis Motschulsky (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae)

Common name – Asian longhorned beetle (ALB)

Known distribution:

A. glabripennis is native to China,1,3,6,8,9,10,13

the Republic of Korea,1,3,6,8,10

and the

Democratic People’s Republic of Korea1,3,6,10

It has been detected in Austria, France, Italy, Germany, 1,3,6,7

Switzerland5, the

Netherlands4, and Canada

1. Belgium has declared A. glabripennis as eradicated

5.

A.glabripennis has been detected in several U.S. states since 1996; however, current ALB

infestations in New York, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Ohio are under official control

and eradication.

Biology of the pest:

A. glabripennis generally takes one year to complete its life cycle, although two years is

common as larvae must reach a critical weight before overwintering to induce pupation

the next summer.6 Adult Asian longhorned beetles live for approximately a month

3 and

have been observed from April to December, with peak activity occurring from May to

July.6 Adult beetles feed on twigs, petioles, and veins of leaves for 10–15 days before

initiating oviposition, typically on the upper trunk and main branches of host trees.6

Female beetles chew a funnel-shaped oviposition pit through the bark to oviposit a single

egg, which will hatch after 1–2 weeks if laid during the summer months.6 Females lay at

least 32 eggs.5 Developing larvae initially create a feeding gallery in the cambial region

and then an oval-shaped tunnel in the sapwood and heartwood of host trees.6 Frass is

expelled from the tunnels near the original oviposition site.6 Pupation occurs in late

spring or early summer at the end of the larval tunnel.6 Exit holes in the bark of host trees

from emerging adult beetles usually measure 10–15 mm in diameter6

and adults typically

remain on the tree from which they emerged or fly short distances to nearby trees.5

Damage potential of pest:

Except on fruit-bearing trees, feeding activity of adult beetles on twigs and foliage is

considered of minor importance as most damage is associated with larval tunneling in the

cambial and wood regions of host trees.6 After years of attack, larval feeding can disrupt

the vascular tissues, weaken structural integrity, and severely reduce the wood quality of

hosts.6 Symptoms of infested trees may include early abscission of leaves, thinning

crowns, limb die-back, and breakage when subject to stress.13

Both healthy and stressed

trees of varying sizes are candidates for attack by the Asian longhorned beetle and tree

death is a common outcome of infestation.6

In addition to natural forests, 35% of urban trees in the United States are considered at

risk for infestation by A. glabripennis.4 If every urban locale in the conterminous United

States were infected with the beetle, predicted consequences include a 34.9% loss of

canopy cover, 30.3% total tree loss (1.2 billion trees), and $669 billion in lost value.9 This

estimate is likely to be low, as it does not include the threats to hardwood (lumber and

maple sugar) and recreational industries.8

Control:

Because larvae bore deep into the wood of host trees, biological or chemical pesticides

are not effective methods of control.7 However, imidacloprid, a systemic neonicotinyl

insecticide, injected into the soil or directly into host trees shows promise in controlling

the beetle.7 Imidacloprid causes significant mortality of adult beetles feeding on tree

foliage due to ingestion and contact toxicity and of all exposed life stages feeding within

the tree.10,13

Although its use does not provide complete control of A. glabripennis, it is

useful as part of an integrated eradication or management program.10

Through movement of infested wood materials (pallets and crating from China,

firewood), the potential for movement to other areas is high for this pest.7 Currently, the

only proven effective method for limiting spread is an aggressive eradication program

that involves regulatory activities, surveying, removing and properly disposing of all trees

with signs of beetle infestation or that are deemed susceptible to future infestation.8,10,11

Since 1997, the USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service’s program to fight

this beetle has cost approximately $421 million.

Known host range:

Acer spp.,1,2,12

Aesculus spp.,1,2,12

Albizia spp.,1,2,12

Alnus spp.,1,2,12

Betula spp.,1,2,12

Carpinus spp.,1,6

Celtis spp.,1,2,12

Cercidiphyllum spp.,1,2,12

Elaeagnus spp.,1,12

Fagus

spp.,1 Fraxinus spp.,

1,2,12 Hibiscus spp.,

1,10 Koelreuteria spp.,

1,12 Liquidambar spp.,

1

Malus spp.,1,12

Melia spp.,1,12

Morus spp.,1,12

Platanus spp.,1,2,12

Populus spp.,1,2,12

Prunus

spp.,1,12

Pyrus spp.,1,12

Robinia spp.,1,12

Salix spp.,1,2,12

Sophora spp.,1,3

Sorbus spp.,1,2,12

Tilia spp.,1,12

Toona spp.,1 Ulmus spp.,

1,2,12

Action under NAPPRA:

The importation of the following plants for planting genera, excluding seeds that are hosts

of A. glabripennis, is not authorized pending a pest risk analysis (NAPPRA) from all

countries:

Koelreuteria.



countries, except Canada:

Celtis, Tilia.



countries, except Netherlands:

Cercidiphyllum.

The importation of the following plants for planting genera that are hosts of A.

glabripennis is currently regulated under 7 CFR 319.37 and these genera are therefore

not included, at this time, as potential candidates for listing on this NAPPRA data sheet:

Acer, Aesculus, Albizia, Alnus, Betula, Carpinus, Elaeagnus, Fagus,

Fraxinus, Hibiscus, Liquidambar, Malus, Melia, Morus, Platanus, Populus,

Prunus, Pyrus, Robinia, Salix, Sophora, Sorbus, Toona, and Ulmus.

References:

1. Canadian Food Inspection Agency. D-11-01. "Phytosanitary Requirements for Plants for

Planting and Fresh Decorative." 1 April 2011. Canadian Food Inspection Agency. 4

May 2012.

http://members.wto.org/crnattachments/2011/sps/CAN/11_0373_00_e.pdf.

2. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). 7§301.51-2(a). Domestic quarantine notices, Asian

Longhorned Beetle, Regulated articles. Accessed date: May 8, 2012.

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-

idx?c=ecfr&sid=e7c42c7b63be222072ed48aa4d40e7ab&rgn=div8&view=text&node

=7:5.1.1.1.2.8.5.2&idno=7

3. EPPO. Data Sheets on Quarantine Pests: Anoplophora glabripennis. European and

Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization. Accessed 16 December 2011.

http://www.eppo.fr/QUARANTINE/insects/Anoplophora_glabripennis/ANOLGL_ds.

pdf

4. EPPO. (2010). EPPO Reporting Service. Paris: European and Mediterranean Plant

Protection Organization. Published on 1 November 2010. Accessed on 8 May 2012

at: http://archives.eppo.int/EPPOReporting/2010/Rse-1011.pdf

5. EPPO. (2011). EPPO Reporting Service. Paris: European and Mediterranean Plant

Protection Organization. Published on 1 September 2011. Accessed on 8 May 2012

at: http://archives.eppo.int/EPPOReporting/2011/Rse-1109.pdf

6. Haack, R.A., Herard, F., Sun, J., and Turgeon, J.J. 2010. Managing invasive populations

of Asian longhorned beetle and citrus longhorned beetle: a worldwide perspective.

Annual Review of Entomology. 55: 521-546.

7. Herard, F., Ciampitti, M., Maspero, M., Krehan, H., Benker, U., Boegel, C., Schrage, R.,

Bouhot-Delduc, L., and P. Bialooki. 2006. Anoplophora species in Europe:

infestations and management. Bulletin OEPP/EPPO Bulletin. 36: 470-474.

8. Keena, M.A. 2006. Effects of temperature on Anoplophora glabripennis (Coleoptera:

Cerambycidae) adult survival, reproduction, and egg hatch. Environmental

Entomology. 35 (4): 912-921.

9. Nowak, D.J., Pasek, J.E., Sequeira, R.A., Crane, D.E., and V.C. Mastro. 2001. Potential

effect of Anoplophora glabripennis (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) on urban trees in the

United States. Journal of Economic Entomology. 94(1): 116-122.

10. Poland, T., Haack, R., Petrice, T., Miller, D., Bauer, L., and Gao, R. 2006. Field

http://members.wto.org/crnattachments/2011/sps/CAN/11_0373_00_e.pdf

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=e7c42c7b63be222072ed48aa4d40e7ab&rgn=div8&view=text&node=7:5.1.1.1.2.8.5.2&idno=7



http://www.eppo.fr/QUARANTINE/insects/Anoplophora_glabripennis/ANOLGL_ds.pdf

http://www.eppo.fr/QUARANTINE/insects/Anoplophora_glabripennis/ANOLGL_ds.pdf

http://archives.eppo.int/EPPOReporting/2010/Rse-1011.pdf

http://archives.eppo.int/EPPOReporting/2011/Rse-1109.pdf

evaluations of systemic insectices for control of Anoplophora glabripennis

(Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) in China. Journal of Economic Entomology. 99(2): 383-

392.

11. Poland, T.M., Haack, R.A., and T.R. Petrice. 1998. Chicago joins New York in battle

with the Asian longhorned beetle. Newsletter of the Michigan Entomological Society.

43: 15-17.

12. Sawyer, A. 11 March 2011. Asian Longhorned Beetle: Annotated Host List. USDA-

APHIS-PPQ, Center for Plant Health Science and Technology, Otis Laboratory.

13. Wang, B., Gao, R., Mastro, V.C., and R.C. Reardon. Toxicity of four systemic

neonicotinoids to adults of Anoplophora glabripennis (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae).

Journal of Economic Entomology. 98(6): 2292-230





th, 2013







Quarantine Pest: Chrysanthemum stem necrosis virus (CSNV)

Hosts: Callistephus spp., Chrysanthemum spp. (including syn. Dendranthema spp.),

Eustoma spp., Solanum spp. (including syn. = Lycopersicon spp.)

Status: Chrysanthemum spp. is regulated under 7 CFR 319.37 from all countries to

prevent the introduction and establishment of the causal agent of Chrysanthemum

white rust. __________________________________________________________________________


Chrysanthemum stem necrosis virus (CSNV) is a single stranded RNA in the genus

Tospovirus of the Bunyaviridae family.

Known distribution:

Brazil1, 5

, Japan8

This pest is not known to occur in the United States.


On chrysanthemum, CSNV may cause mild to severe necrotic streaks on the stem, wilting

of leaves and stem, and chlorotic or necrotic spots and rings on leaves13

. Peduncles and

floral receptacles may also become necrotic5. Infection often leads to complete necrosis of

the stem and wilting of sections of the plant13

. CSNV symptoms on chrysanthemum are

similar to those of Tomato spotted wilt virus (TSWV); however, CSNV symptoms are

generally more severe to the trained eye6.

CSNV is transmitted by thrips – insects of the family Thripidae (Thysanoptera). The

widespread thrips species Frankliniella occidentalis and Frankliniella schultzei are

vectors of CSNV1. F. occidentalis (common name: Western flower thrips) attacks a wide

range of plants, including species susceptible to CSNV1, 3, 9

. F. schultzei (common name:

Common blossom thrips) is often found on plants in international trade14

. Both F.

occidentalis and F. schultzei are common greenhouse pests and are present in the United

States3, 7

. Seed transmission of CSNV is not known to occur.


CSNV was first recognized in Brazil, where losses due to the virus have not been

quantified to date5, 6

. CSNV was subsequently discovered in the Netherlands, England,

Slovenia, and Japan2, 8, 10, 13

. Concerns about potential economic losses and environmental

impacts led to successful eradication campaigns in Europe (Netherlands, Slovenia, and

United Kingdom)6, 10, 12, 13

. The potential impact if CSNV became established in the

United States is difficult to estimate but could be substantial.

Control:

Plants suspected of CSNV infection should be laboratory tested for reliable diagnosis4.

Control measures for CSNV must be directed at exclusion of the thrips vectors. Control

of thrips can be challenging and is best achieved through an integrated pest management

strategy, which may include biological and chemical controls. Predatory insects and mites

help to manage certain plant-feeding thrips species with varying degrees of success4.

Unfortunately, chemical controls are minimally effective against thrips, and resistance is

persistent3, 6

. Proper cultural control and greenhouse hygiene may help to reduce thrips

populations and mitigate the spread of CSNV.

Known host range:

Callistephus spp.9, Chrysanthemum spp. (including syn. Dendranthema spp.)

6,10,13,

Eustoma spp.9, Solanum spp. (including syn. = Lycopersicon spp.)

1,6,9,11 .


The importation of the following plants for planting genera, excluding seeds, which are

hosts of CSNV, is not authorized pending pest risk analysis (NAPPRA) from all

countries:

Callistephus, Eustoma.

The importation of the following plants for planting genera, excluding seeds, which are

hosts of CSNV, are not authorized pending pest risk analysis (NAPPRA) from all

countries, except Canada:

Chrysanthemum (including syn. Dendranthema).

The importation of the following plants for planting that are hosts of CSNV is currently

regulated under 7 CFR 319.37 and this genus is therefore not included, at this time, as a

potential candidate for listing on this NAPPRA data sheet:

Solanum (including syn. = Lycopersicon).

References:

1. Bezerra, I. C., R. d. O. Resende, L. Pozzer, T. Nagata, R. Kormelink, and A. C. De Ávila.

1999. Increase of tospoviral diversity in Brazil with the identification of two new

tospovirus species, one from chrysanthemum and one from zucchini.

Phytopathology. 89:823-830

2. Boben, J., N. Mehle, M. Pirc, I. Mavrič Pleško, and M. Ravnikar. 2007. New molecular

diagnostic methods for detection of Chrysanthemum stem necrosis virus (CSNV).

Acta Biologica Slovenica. 50:41-51

3. Cloyd, R. A. 2009. Western flower thrips (Frankliniella occidentalis) management on

ornamental crops grwon in greenhouses: Have we reached an impasse? Pest Technol.

3:1-9

4. Dreistadt, S. H., P. A. Phillips, and C. A. O'Donnell. 2007. Thrips. U Calif Agriculture

and Natural Resources Pest Notes. 7249:1-8

5. Duarte, L. M., E. B. Rivas, M. A. V. Alexandre, A. C. De Ávila, T. Nagata, and C. M.

Chagas. 1995. Chrysanthemum stem necrosis caused by a possible novel tospovirus.

J. Phytopathol. 143:569-571

6. EPPO. 2005. Data sheets on quarantine pests: Chrysanthemum stem necrosis tospovirus.

EPPO Bulletin. 35:409-412

7. ITIS. Frankliniella schultzei (Trybom, 1910). Integrated Taxonomic Information System.

Accessed December 16, 2011 at

http://www.itis.gov/servlet/SingleRpt/SingleRpt?search_topic=TSN&search_value=

695334

8. Matsuura, S., K. Kubota, and M. Okuda. 2007. First report of Chrysanthemum stem

necrosis virus on chrysanthemums in Japan. Plant Dis. 91:468

9. Momonoi, K., J. Moriwaki, and T. Morikawa. 2011. Stem necrosis of aster and Russell

prairie gentian caused by Chrysanthemum stem necrosis virus. J. Gen. Plant Pathol.

77:142-146

10. Mumford, R. A., B. Jarvis, J. Morris, and A. Blockley. 2003. First report of

Chrysanthemum stem necrosis virus (CSNV) in the UK. Plant Pathol. 52:779

11. Nagata, T., R. d. O. Resende, E. W. Kitajima, H. Costa, A. K. Inoue-Nagata, and A. C.

De Ávila. 1998. First report of natural occurrence of zucchini lethal chlorosis

tospovirus on cucumber and chrysanthemum stem necrosis tospovirus on tomato in

Brazil. Plant Dis. 82:1403

12. Ravnikar, M., N. Vozelj, I. Mavriè, S. D. Švigelj, M. Zupanèiè, and N. Petroviè. 2003.

Detection of Chrysanthemum stem necrosis virus and Tomato spotted wilt virus in

chrysanthemum. Abstracts 8th International Congress of Plant Pathology

13. Verhoeven, J. T. J., J. W. Roenhorst, I. Cortes, and D. Peters. 1996. Detection of a novel

tospovirus in chrysanthemum. Acta Horticulturae. 432:44-53

14. Vierbergen, G., and W. P. Mantel. 1991. Contribution to the knowledge of Frankliniella

schultzei (Thysanoptera: Thripidae). Entomologische Berichten (Amsterdam). 51:7-

12





th, 2013







Quarantine Pest: Dendroctonus micans Kugelann, 1794

Hosts: Abies spp., Larix spp., Picea spp., Pinus spp., Pseudotsuga spp. __________________________________________________________________________


Dendroctonus micans (Coleoptera: Scolytidae)

Common name – Great spruce bark beetle

Known distribution:

Australia11

, Austria1, Belarus

2, Belgium

1, Bosnia and Herzegovina

1,2, Bulgaria

5,9, China

2,

7, Croatia

1,5, Czech Republic

5, Denmark

1,3, Estonia

5,7, Finland

2, France

2,8, Georgia

7,

Germany2, Greece

2,7, Hungary

5, Ireland

9, Italy

11, Japan

10, Latvia

1,5, Lithuania

1,2,

Luxembourg1,7

, Mongolia2,9

, Montenegro9, Netherland

1, Norway

1,7, Poland

5,11, Portugal

9,

Romania11

, Russia2,9

, Sakhalin2, Serbia and Montenegro

1, Slovakia

1,5, Slovenia

5,11,

Spain2,7

, Sweden11

, Switzerland11

, Turkey3,9

, Ukraine3, United Kingdom

1,2


D. micans has a robust, cylindrical, black or dark brown body, covered with tiny

yellowish hair. The time required to complete one generation in field ranges from 1 to 3

years, depending on the temperature of the environment7. The typical gender ratio is 1

male/10 females but can be as high as 1 male/45 females1. Mating of the pest occurs

under the bark. After mating, some adult females remain beneath the bark and simply

initiate new galleries nearby2. Egg galleries are constructed primarily in the inner bark

tissue and females lay between 100-150 eggs in a cluster7. Other females emerge and

attach elsewhere on the same tree or fly to new host trees. Adult flight occurs through

much of the summer when the threshold temperature of 20-23°C is met7. Mated females

construct individual egg galleries in living trees from April to November, depending on

local conditions2.


D. micans normally occurs at low levels and causes little tree mortality. However, when

several females oviposit close to each other and the individual galleries coalesce, this can

cause extensive injury to the tree1. Outbreaks can result in widespread tree mortality as a

result of the girdling action of larval feeding and oviposition1. This can take place over a

period of several years until the whole tree is destroyed. As D. micans extended its range

westward into Europe and southwestern Asia during the late 1900s, outbreaks occurred in

more than 200,000 ha of spruce forest2. Normally, D. micans only colonizes green

standing trees, but it will attack trees that are stressed as a result of logging damage, frost,

snow, wind, lightning, poor soil nutrition and drought1.

Known host range:

Abies spp.,1,3,7,9

Larix spp.,1,3,7,9

Picea spp.,1,3,9

Pinus spp.,1,3,7,9

Pseudotsuga spp.1,3,7,9


The importation of the following plants for planting genus, excluding seed a host of D.

micans, is not authorized pending pest risk analysis (NAPPRA) from all countries,

except Canada and India:

Pseudotsuga.

The importation of the following plants for planting genera that are hosts of D. micans is

currently regulated under 7 CFR 319.37 and these genera are therefore not included, at

this time, as potential candidates for listing on this NAPPRA data sheet:

Abies, Larix, Picea, and Pinus.

References:

1. CABI (2006). Crop Protection Compendium (2006 ed.) [CD]. Wallingford, UK: CAB

International. Access Date: 28 July 2011. Current online version at

http://www.cabi.org/cpc/

http://www.cabi.org/cpc/

2. EcoPort: Dendroctonus micans. (n.d.). EcoPort Foundation. Access Date: 28 July 2011.

http://ecoport.org/ep?Arthropod=26421&entityType=AR****&entityDisplayCategor

y=full

3. EPPO (n.d.). Data Sheets on Quarantine Pests: Dendroctonus micans. European and

Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization. Access Date: 28 July 2011.

http://www.eppo.org/QUARANTINE/insects/Dendroctonus_micans/DENCMI_ds.p

df

4. European Nature Information System (EUNIS): Dendroctonus micans. (n.d.).

Copenhagen, Denmark: European Environment Agency. Access Date: 28 July 2011.

http://eunis.eea.europa.eu/species-

factsheet.jsp?idSpecies=268554&idSpeciesLink=268554

5. Fauna Europaea: Dendroctonus micans. (2007, April 19). Access Date: 28 July 2011.

http://www.faunaeur.org/full_results.php?id=250017

6. Great Britain Forestry Commission (2002, May). Dendroctonus micans - a guide for

Forest Managers on control techniques. Plant Health Leaflet, 9. Access Date: 28 July

2011. http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/ph9.pdf/$FILE/ph9.pdf

7. Haack, R. A. (2001, February 14). Exotic Forest Pest Information System for North

America: Dendroctonus micans. North American Forest Commission. Access Date:

28 July 2011.

http://spfnic.fs.fed.us/exfor/data/pestreports.cfm?pestidval=35&langdisplay=english

8. The Bugwood Network: Dendroctonus micans. (2006, January 17). University of

Georgia. Access Date: 28 July 2011.

http://www.forestryimages.org/search/action.cfm?q=Dendroctonus%20micans&Start

=1&results=30

9. USDA-APHIS-PPQ-CPHST, CAPS. Venette, R. C. (Ed.) (2008, June (Updated 2010,

July)). Pine Commodity-based Survey Reference. 1-221. United States Department

of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and

Quarantine, Center for Plant Health Science and Technology, Cooperative

Agriculture Pest Survey. Access Date: 28 July 2011.

http://caps.ceris.purdue.edu/survey/manual/pine_reference

10. Walker, K. (2007). Pests and Diseases Image Library (PaDIL): Dendroctonus micans.

Access Date: 28 July 2011.

http://www.padil.gov.au/viewPestDiagnosticImages.aspx?id=467

11. Zipcode Zoo: Dendroctonus micans. (2007, December 28). BayScience Foundation.

Access Date: 28 July 2011.

http://zipcodezoo.com/Animals/D/Dendroctonus_micans/Default.asp

http://ecoport.org/ep?Arthropod=26421&entityType=AR****&entityDisplayCategory=full

http://ecoport.org/ep?Arthropod=26421&entityType=AR****&entityDisplayCategory=full

http://www.eppo.org/QUARANTINE/insects/Dendroctonus_micans/DENCMI_ds.pdf

http://www.eppo.org/QUARANTINE/insects/Dendroctonus_micans/DENCMI_ds.pdf

http://eunis.eea.europa.eu/species-factsheet.jsp?idSpecies=268554&idSpeciesLink=268554

http://eunis.eea.europa.eu/species-factsheet.jsp?idSpecies=268554&idSpeciesLink=268554

http://www.faunaeur.org/full_results.php?id=250017

http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/ph9.pdf/$FILE/ph9.pdf


http://www.forestryimages.org/search/action.cfm?q=Dendroctonus%20micans&Start=1&results=30

http://www.forestryimages.org/search/action.cfm?q=Dendroctonus%20micans&Start=1&results=30


http://www.padil.gov.au/viewPestDiagnosticImages.aspx?id=467

http://zipcodezoo.com/Animals/D/Dendroctonus_micans/Default.asp





th, 2013







Quarantine Pest: Moniliophthora perniciosa

Hosts: Arrabidaea spp., Bixa spp., Capsicum spp., Herrania spp., Solanum spp.,

Theobroma spp.

__________________________________________________________________________


Moniliophthora perniciosa is a basidiomycete fungal pathogen in the Marasmiaceae

family. The fungus is highly pathogenic to Theobroma cacao and is commonly referred to

as the “witches’ broom fungus” due to the unusual appearance of shoots projecting from

infected plants. M. perniciosa was first named Marasmius perniciosus20

and has also been

called Crinipellis perniciosa1. Common names for witches’ broom disease of cacao

include “balai de sorcihre du cacaoyer” (French), “cacao witches’ broom disease,”

“Crinipellis pod rot,”13

“escoba de bruja del cacao” (Spanish), “hexenbesenkrankheit

kakao” (German), “lagaratao,”14

and “vassoura de bruxa” (Portuguese).

Known distribution:

Bolivia11, 16

, Brazil11, 16

, Colombia11, 16

, Ecuador11, 16

, Grenada11, 16

, Guyana11, 16

,

Panama16

, Peru11, 16

, Saint Lucia12, 16

, Saint Vincent16

and Grenadines12

, Suriname16, 20

,

Trinidad3, 16

and Tobago11

, Venezuela11, 16

.



The M. perniciosa disease cycle consists of two phases. In the biotrophic phase, the

pathogen invades young, growing tissue causing hypertrophy (enlargement) and

hyperplasia (proliferation) of the plant’s cells11

. Symptoms of biotrophic infection include

loss of apical dominance, proliferation of auxiliary shoots, and the formation of abnormal

stems resulting in broom-like structures14

. Infection of the cauliform flowers results in the

formation of dry brooms and small parthenocarpic (seedless) fruits14

. Under high

humidity7, M. perniciosa basidiospores may infect any meristematic cacao tissues,

including shoots, flowers, and developing fruits6. The basidiospores produce germ tubes,

which allow direct penetration of leaves or entry through stomatal openings or the bases

of damaged trichomes7, 19

. Infected pods may display black or brown lesions, ooze, and

deformities such as scabbing, pitting, abnormal shape, and malformed skin1. Additionally,

leaves may show necrosis and seeds may fuse together and display lesions14

. Necrosis and

death of the infected tissues eventually lead to the formation of dry broom structures,

which remain attached to the plant6.

During the saprotrophic phase of its disease cycle, M. perniciosa proliferates and

colonizes necrotic or dead host tissue. Following alternating wet and dry periods2, small,

pink basidiocarps (mushrooms) may form on any infected necrotic tissue and produce

basidiospores, thus completing the disease cycle14

. From a single dry broom, the

formation of basidiocarps and production of basidiospores may occur repeatedly over

many years14

.

Damage Potential of Pest:

Witches’ broom is one of the two most devastating diseases of cacao in tropical

America1. M. perniciosa is responsible for the failure of the cocoa industry in Suriname,

where it arrived in 189518, 20

. The pathogen subsequently spread through the northern

parts of South America, where it catastrophically affected cocoa production with yield

reductions of 50-90%14

. M. perniciosa arrived in Bahia, Brazil in 1989 and caused the

country to fall from the world’s third largest producer of cocoa to a net importer14

.

In the United States, T. cacao is grown in Puerto Rico, Florida, and Hawaii. While there

are currently relatively few T. cacao plantations in the U. S., significant efforts are

underway to boost the cocoa industry in Hawaii. Analysts project that Hawaiian cacao

farming could one day bring $2 to $34 million annually into the U. S. economy, making it

the third-largest Hawaiian crop8. M. perniciosa must be prevented from entering the

United States, especially Hawaii, where it could have serious consequences for the

budding cacao industry.

Control:

Control of M. perniciosa in cacao is a formidable task. Four general control strategies –

phytosanitation, chemical control, genetic resistance, and biological control – have been

utilized with varying success. Phytosanitation (the removal and destruction of diseased

plant parts) has remained the basis of witches’ broom control since the beginning of the

twentieth century. Unfortunately, the strategy is tedious and expensive, and it may require

up to 95% removal of infected tissue to achieve only 50% reduction in pod loss15

.

Chemical control is not widely practiced in cacao production due to the associated high

costs and environmental risks14

. A number of cacao accessions carry genetic resistance to

M. perniciosa, including two Peruvian clones that have been used extensively in breeding

programs14

. However, while these clones showed resistance in Brazil and Trinidad, they

were susceptible in Ecuador, indicating that geographical variations within the pathogen

impact resistance4. T. cacao endophytes are being studied for their potential utility as

agents of biocontrol against M. perniciosa. For example, commercial formulations of

Trichoderma stromaticum, a newly discovered T. cacao endophyte that parasitizes the

saprophytic mycelia and basidiocarps of M. perniciosa, have been used in Brazil with

some success14, 17

. Endophytes represent a promising strategy for the control of witches’

broom, but more work must be done to identify the optimal environmental conditions for

their colonization and suppression of M. perniciosa in nature14

.

Known host range:

Arrabidaea spp.10

, Bixa spp.9, Capsicum spp.

5, Herrania spp.

3, 21, Solanum spp.

5,

Theobroma spp.1, 21

.


The importation of the following plants for planting genera, excluding seed but including

cut flowers and greenery, hosts of M. perniciosa, is not authorized pending pest risk

analysis (NAPPRA) from all countries:

Arrabidaea, Bixa, Herrania, Theobroma.

The importation of the following plants for planting genera, excluding seed but including

cut flowers and greenery, that are hosts of M. perniciosa is currently regulated under 7

CFR 319.37 and these genera are therefore not included, at this time, as potential

candidates for listing on this NAPPRA data sheet:

Capsicum, Solanum.

References:

1. Aime, M. C., and W. Phillips-Mora. 2005. The causal agents of witches' broom and frosty

pod rot of cacao (chocolate, Theobroma cacao) form a new lineage of

Marasmiaceae. Mycologia. 97:1012-1022

2. Almeida, O. C., F. P. B. Chiacchio, and H. M. Rocha. 1997. Sobrevivência de Crinipellis

perniciosa (Stahel) Singer em vassouras secas de cacaueiros (Theobroma cacao L.)

do estado da Bahia. Agrotrópico. 9:23-28

3. Baker, R. E. D., and H. P. 1957. Witches' broom disease of cocoa (Marasmius

perniciosus Stahel), Phytopathological Papers, vol. 2. Commonwealth Mycological

Institute, Kew, U.K.

4. Bartley, B. G. D. 2001. The origin and compatibility relationships of the Scavina variety

of Theobroma cacao L. Ingenic Newsletter. 6:23-24

5. Bastos, C. N., and H. C. Evans. 1985. A new pathotype of Crinipellis perniciosa (witches'

broom disease) on solanaceous hosts. Plant Pathol. 34:306-312

6. Evans, H. C. 1980. Pleomorphism in Crinipellis perniciosa, causal agent of witches'

broom disease of cocoa. Trans. Brit. Mycol. Soc. 74:515-526

7. Frias, G. A., L. H. Purdy, and R. A. Schmidt. 1991. Infection biology of Crinipellis

perniciosa on vegetative flushes of cacao. Plant Dis. 75:552-556

8. Gomes, A. Hoping for a sweet harvest. The Honolulu Advertiser. January 25, 2010

9. Griffith, G. W., and J. N. Hedger. 1994. The breeding biology of biotypes of the witches'

broom pathogen of cocoa, Crinipellis perniciosa. Heredity. 72:278-289

10. Griffith, G. W., and J. N. Hedger. 1994. Spatial distribution of mycelia of the liana (L-)

biotype of the agaric Crinipellis perniciosa (Stahel) Singer in tropical forest. New

Phytol. 127:243-259

11. Holliday, P. 1980. Fungus diseases of tropical crops. Cambridge University Press,

Cambridge, 612 pp.

12. Kelly, P. L., R. Reeder, S. Rhodes, and N. Edwards. 2009. First confirmed report of

witches' broom caused by Moniliophthora perniciosa on cacao, Theobroma cacao, in

Saint Lucia. Plant Pathol. 58:798

13. Maddison, A. C., G. Macias, C. Moreira, R. Arias, and R. Neira. 1995. Cocoa production

in Ecuador in relation to dry-season escape from pod rot caused by Crinipellis

perniciosa and Moniliophthora roreri. Plant Pathol. 44:982-998

14. Meinhardt, L. W., J. Rincones, B. A. Bailey, M. C. Aime, G. W. Griffith, D. Zhang, and

G. A. G. Pereira. 2008. Moniliophthora perniciosa, the causal agent of witches'

broom disease of cacao: what's new from this old foe? Mol. Plant Pathol. 9:577-588

15. Rudgard, S. A., and D. R. Butler. 1987. Witches' broom disease in Rondonia, Brazil: pod

infection in relation to pod susceptibility, wetness, inoculum, and phytosanitiation.

Plant Pathol. 36:515-522

16. Rudgard, S. A., A. C. Maddison, and T. Andebrhan (ed.). 1993. Disease management in

cocoa: comparative epidemiology of witches' broom. Chapman & Hall, London.

17. Samuels, G. J., R. Pardo-Schultheiss, P. K. Hebbar, R. D. Lumsden, C. N. Bastos, J. C.

Costa, and J. L. Bezerra. 2000. Trichoderma stromaticum, sp. nov., a parasite of

cacao witches' broom pathogen. Mycol Res. 104:760-764

18. Singer, R. 1942. A monographic study of the genera Crinipellis and Chaetocalathus.

Lilloa. 8:441-534

19. Sreenivasan, T. N., and S. S. Dabydeen. 1989. Modes of penetration of young cocoa

leaves by Crinipellis perniciosa. Plant Dis. 73:478-481

20. Stahel, G. 1915. Marasmius perniciosus nov. spec. Bulletin Departement van den

Landbouw in Suriname. 33:1-26

21. Wood, G. A. R., and R. A. Lass. Cocoa, Fourth ed. Blackwell Science Ltd., Oxford, 620

pp.





th, 2013







Quarantine Pest: Monochamus alternatus Hope, 1843

Hosts: Abies spp., Acer spp., Cedrus spp., Cryptomeria spp., Fagus spp., Liquidambar

spp., Malus spp., Picea spp., Pinus spp., Quercus spp. __________________________________________________________________________


Monochamus alternatus Hope (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae)

Synonym: Monochammus tesserula

Common names: Japanese pine sawyer, pine sawyer beetle, rusty pine longhorn

Known distribution:

China 7, 14

, Hong Kong2, 7

, Japan7, Republic of Korea

2, 11

, Laos7, 8

, Taiwan Island2, 3

, Viet

Nam3, 7

.


Monochamus alternatus generally completes one generation per year4. Larvae overwinter

within the tunnel, and begin to pupate in late March. Adults emerge in mid-April, but stay

in host trees for 6-8 days. Peak of adult activity occurs in May. Adults prefer to feed on

younger trees. Although most adults will not fly more than a few hundred meters they can

disperse several kilometers9. Populations of M. alternatus can spread up to 20 km/yr

depending on the change in distribution of trees infested9.

Weakened or newly felled trees are preferred for oviposition5. The female beetle lays

white, sickle shaped eggs under the bark and the young round-headed borer larvae feed in

the softer inner bark tissues4, 10

. The larvae are white and opaque legless grubs averaging

43mm in length4. After developing strong mandibles, the larvae start boring into the

trunk. They continue to feed on trunk until maturity10

. The mature larvae bore back to the

sapwood area in the outer region of the trunk where they excavate a large chamber in

which they pupate10

. It is during the transformation to the adult stage when the pinewood

nematode, which has been feeding and multiplying in the tree tissues, infests the tracheal

system of the adult10

. Adult maturation feeding consists of removal of the bark from

shoots of host trees. The shoots eventually die leaving dead tips on the trees4.


Monochamus alternatus is known to be one of the most destructive pests associated with

pines in Japan. Even though, M. alternates is primarily known as a pest of pine, it will

feed on a number of other plants in the Pinaceae and Cupressaceae families4. Adults

cause damage to hosts by feeding on shoots and creating ovipositor sites. The larvae

disrupt phloem as they feed10

. M. alternatus is a vector of pinewood nematode,

Bursaphelenchus xylophilus, in China and Japan and is known to be capable of carrying

an average of 18,000 individual nematodes4. The interaction between M. alternates and

B. xylophilus causes heavy loss of timber and international trade2.

Known host range:

Abies spp.3, 6, Acer spp.

12, Cedrus spp.

13, Cryptomeria spp.

5, Fagus spp.

5, Liquidambar

spp.12

, Malus spp.12

, Picea spp.3,6

, Pinus spp.5, Quercus spp.

2


The importation of the following plants for planting genera, excluding seed that are hosts

of Monochamus alternates, is not authorized pending pest risk analysis (NAPPRA) from

all countries, except Canada:

Cedrus.

The importation of the following plants for planting genera that are hosts of Monochamus

alternates is currently regulated under 7 CFR 319.37 and these genera are therefore not

included, at this time, as potential candidates for listing on this NAPPRA data sheet:

Abies, Acer, Cryptomeria, Fagus, Liquidambar, Malus, Picea, Pinus,

Quercus.

References:

1. Bark Beetles: Monochamus alternatus. (n.d.). Cooperative Agriculture Pest Survey

Program. Retrieved August 1st, 2011, from

http://www.ceris.purdue.edu/napis/pests/barkb/monocfs.html

2. CABI. 2005. Crop Protection Compendium. CAB International. Accessed online 1st

August 2011 from

http://www.cabi.org/cpc/?compid=1&dsid=34719&loadmodule=datasheet&page=86

8&site=161.

3. Chen YM, Chao JT, 1998. Three species of long-horned beetles feeding on Taiwan red

pine. Taiwan Journal of Forest Science, 13:373-376.

4. Ciesla, W. M. (2001, July 12). Exotic Forest Pest Information System for North America:

Monochamus alternatus. North American Forest Commission. Retrieved February

13, 2007, from


5. EcoPort: Monochamus alternatus. (n.d.). EcoPort Foundation. Retrieved February 13,

2007, from http://www.ecoport.org

6. EPPO (n.d.). Data Sheets on Quarantine Pests: Bursaphelenchus xylophilus. 1-12.

European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization. Retrieved February 13,

2007, from

http://www.eppo.org/QUARANTINE/nematodes/Bursaphelenchus_xylophilus/BUR

SXY_ds.pdf

7. EPPO Global Database, 2012. Eurpean and Mediterranean Plant Protection organization.

Accessed December 27th

, 2012. Available from:

http://gd3.eppo.int/organism.php/MONCAL

8. Gressitt JT, Rondon JA, von Breuning S, 1970. Cerambycid Beetles of Laos. Pacific

Insects Monograph, 24:i-vi.

9. Kishi, Y. 1995. The pine wood nematode and the Japanese pine sawyer. Thomas

Company Limited, Tokyo.

10. McLean, J. A. (1996, August 12). Pinewood Nematode in Jiangsu Province, People's

Republic of China. University of British Columbia Forestry. Retrieved February 13,

2007, from http://www.forestry.ubc.ca/fetch21/chinapwn/china96.html

11. Park NC, Moon YS, Lee SM, Yi CK, 1992. Distribution and oviposition activities of

Monochamus alternatus Hope (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) in Korea. Research

Reports of the Forestry Research Institute (Seoul), No.44:142-150; [With English

figures and tables]; 16 ref.

12. USDA-APHIS-PPQ-CPHST, CAPS. Venette, R. C. (Ed.) (2008, June (Updated 2010,

July)). Pine Commodity-based Survey Reference. 1-221. United States Department

of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and

Quarantine, Center for Plant Health Science and Technology, Cooperative

http://www.ceris.purdue.edu/napis/pests/barkb/monocfs.html

http://www.cabi.org/cpc/?compid=1&dsid=34719&loadmodule=datasheet&page=868&site=161

http://www.cabi.org/cpc/?compid=1&dsid=34719&loadmodule=datasheet&page=868&site=161


http://www.ecoport.org/

http://www.eppo.org/QUARANTINE/nematodes/Bursaphelenchus_xylophilus/BURSXY_ds.pdf

http://www.eppo.org/QUARANTINE/nematodes/Bursaphelenchus_xylophilus/BURSXY_ds.pdf

http://gd3.eppo.int/organism.php/MONCAL

http://www.forestry.ubc.ca/fetch21/chinapwn/china96.html

Agriculture Pest Survey. Retrieved May 2, 2012, from


13. Walker, K. (2006). Pests and Diseases Image Library (PaDIL): Pine Sawyer beetle.

Retrieved May 7, 2012, from http://www.padil.gov.au/pests-and-

diseases/Pest/Main/135562

14. Wang SF, 1983. Monochamus alternatus Hope. In: Chinese Academy of Forestry, ed.

Forest Insects in China. Beijing, China: Chinese Forestry Press, 284-285.


http://www.padil.gov.au/pests-and-diseases/Pest/Main/135562

http://www.padil.gov.au/pests-and-diseases/Pest/Main/135562





th, 2013







Quarantine Pests: Peanut clump virus

Indian peanut clump virus

Hosts: Peanut clump virus: Arachis spp., Pennisetum spp., Saccharum spp.,

Sorghum spp., Triticum spp.

Indian peanut clump virus: Arachis spp., Eleusine spp., Triticum spp.,

Hordeum spp., Pennisetum spp., Setaria spp., Sorghum spp., Zea spp.

Status: Arachis spp. seeds are currently prohibited from Burkina Faso, Cote d’lvoire,

Senegal and India (7 CFR 319.37-2). All other plant parts from the genus Arachis

are prohibited from all countries excluding Canada under the Fabaceae

prohibition in 7 CFR 319.37-2.

__________________________________________________________________________


Peanut clump virus (PCV) and Indian peanut clump virus (IPCV) are single stranded

RNA viruses in the genus Pecluvirus of the family Virgaviridae[1]

.

Known distribution:

Peanut clump virus: Africa, Burkina Faso[2-4]

, Chad[5]

, Congo[5]

, Gabon[5]

, Côte

d’Ivoire[3]

, Mali[5]

, Niger[3]

, Senegal[2, 6]

, Sudan[5]

Indian peanut clump virus: India[7]

, Pakistan[8]

These viruses are not known to occur in the United States.


IPCV and PCV are thought to be cereal viruses that have coevolved as opportunistic

pathogens of peanut when that crop was introduced to Africa and the Indian subcontinent.

The viruses cause a “clump” disease in peanuts characterized by dark green-colored,

miniaturized leaves, short internodes and dwarfing,[3, 5, 6]

. IPCV causes a similar disease

in peanut on the Indian subcontinent. Though the viruses cause similar diseases and share

other similarities they are serologically and genomically distinct [9-11]

. Both viruses may

be transmitted through seed, soil and/or vegetative propagation [5]

.

In the soil, the viruses are transmitted by the obligate root endoparasite Polymyxa

graminis[12, 13]

. P. graminis is a plasmodiophorid protist responsible for the transmission

of several very important plant viruses [12-15]

. P. graminis heavily infests the roots of

pearl millet, sorghum and sugarcane[5, 15]

. These plant species are well-adapted to the P.

graminis vector, and they support PCV multiplication[5]

. Therefore, cultivation of pearl

millet, sorghum and sugarcane on PCV-infested soils increases the virus inoculum.

Resting P. graminis spores remain in the soil in the absence of plants, allowing PCV to

persist between plantings. PCV-infested P. graminis spores may be dispersed by soil

tillage and irrigation practices[5]

.

PCV and IPCV are regarded as high-risk pathogens for germplasm exchange because they

are seed-transmitted at a high frequency in peanut[16, 17]

and at lower rates in cereal and

grain crops[5, 16]

. In addition, low levels of viral inoculum may be maintained in seed

stocks for several seasons[5]

. PCV can also be propagated vegetatively through sugarcane

cuttings or the rhizomes of grass weeds[5]

.


PCV is widely distributed in western Africa and is economically important in Niger,

Burkina Faso, and Senegal[18]

. Losses due to PCV can be significant, and the persistence

of inoculum in the soil can lead to the abandonment of groundnut as a crop[19]

. Similarly,

IPCV has been reported to be economically important in groundnut grown on the Indian

subcontinent[20]

. In 1999, annual losses caused by clump disease in peanut globally were

estimated to exceed US$ 38 million[21]

. Altogether, viral diseases on groundnut, chickpea,

pigeonpea, sorghum and pearl millet in the semi-arid tropics result in yield losses worth

over $700 million per year[22]

. Because of its widespread occurrence, endemic nature and

debilitating impact on crop yield, PCV and IPCV are a main focus of research in the

semi-arid tropics[22]

.

Control:

Avoidance of peanut clump disease is best achieved through the use of clean seed.

Likewise, groundnut seeds and sugarcane cuttings should be produced in disease-free

areas. The pest may also be controlled by soil fumigation with nematicides that have

fungicidal action[2]

.

The use of machinery for soil preparation and irrigation increases the impact and the

spread of P. graminis and peanut clump disease. Therefore, machinery use should be

restricted in infested fields[5]

. Pearl millet seeds should be collected from the lower third

of inflorescence, and collecting groundnut seeds from PCV-infected plots should be

avoided[5]

. Alternative cropping methods, such as trap cropping or crop rotations using

non-hosts of Polymyxa (e.g., sunflower or mustard) may limit the spread of the disease[5]

.

Known host range:

Peanut clump virus: Arachis hypogaea[4, 12, 17]

, Pennisetum glaucum[5],

, Saccharum

officinarum[23]

, Sorghum arundinaceum[12, 24]

, Triticum aestivum[12]

Indian peanut clump virus: Arachis hypogaea[11, 20]

, Eleusine coracana[16]

,Triticum

aestivum[25]

, Hordeum vulgare[25]

, Pennisetum glaucum[5],

, Setaria italica[16]

, Sorghum

bicolor[16]

, Zea mays[26]

Bold type indicates host with known seed transmission.


The importation of seeds of the following plants for planting genera that are hosts of

Peanut clump virus and/or Indian peanut clump virus, is not authorized pending a pest

risk analysis (NAPPRA) from all countries:

Arachis, Eleusine.

The importation of seeds of the following plants for planting genera that are hosts of

Peanut clump virus and/or Indian peanut clump virus, is not authorized pending a pest

risk analysis (NAPPRA) from all countries, except those listed after the plant genus:

Pennisetum Australia, Germany

Setaria Netherland

Triticum Argentina, Canada, France, Germany, Mexico, New

Zealand, United Kingdom,

Zea Argentina, Austria, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Croatia,

France, Germany, Guyana, Hungary, Italy, Mexico,

Netherlands, New Zealand, Peru, Romania, Serbia,

Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom

Peanut clump virus and/or Indian peanut clump virus are not known to be seed

transmitted in the following taxa, and therefore the seed of these taxa are not included, at

this time, as potential candidates for listing on this NAPPRA data sheet, but are currently

regulated under 7 CFR 319.37:

Hordeum, Saccharum, and Sorghum.

The importation of vegetative parts of the following plants for planting genera that are

hosts of Peanut clump virus and/or Indian peanut clump virus, is not authorized pending

a pest risk analysis (NAPPRA) from all countries

Arachis, Eleusine, Pennisetum, Setaria.

The importation of vegetative parts of the following plants for planting genera that are

hosts of Peanut clump virus and/or Indian peanut clump, is currently regulated under 7

CFR 319.37 and vegetative parts of these genera are therefore not included, at this time,

as potential candidates for listing on this NAPPRA data sheet:

Triticum, Zea, Saccharum, Sorghum, Hordeum.

References:

1. ICTV. International Congress of Virus Taxonomy. 2009 [cited 2012 May 29]; Available

from: http://ictvonline.org/virusTaxonomy.asp?version=2009&bhcp=1.

2. Germani, G., J.-C. Thouvenel, and M. Dhery, Le rabougrissement de l'arachide: une

maladie à virus au Sénégal et en Haute-Volta. Oléagineux, 1975. 30(6): p. 259-266.

3. Manohar, S.K., Dollet, M., Dubern, J., Gargani, D, Studies on variability of peanut clump

virus: symptomatology and serology. J. Phytopathol., 1995. 143(4): p. 233-238.

4. Thouvenel, J.-C., M. Dollet, and C. Fauquet, Some properties of peanut clump, a newly

discovered virus. Ann. Appl. Biol., 1976. 84(3): p. 311-320.

5. Dieryck, B., et al., Seed, soil and vegetative transmission contribute to the spread of

pecluviruses in Western Africa and the Indian sub-continent. Virus Res., 2009.

141(2): p. 184-189.

6. Bouhot, D., Observations sur quelques affections des plantes cultivées au Sénégal.

Agronomie Tropicale, 1967. 22: p. 888-890.

7. Reddy, D.V.R., R. Rajeshwari, N. Iisuka, D.E. Lesemann, B. L. Nolt and T. Goto, The

occurrence of Indian peanut clump, a soil-borne virus disease of groundnuts

(Arachis hypogaea) in India. Ann. Appl Biol., 1983. 102: p. 305-310.

http://ictvonline.org/virusTaxonomy.asp?version=2009&bhcp=1

8. Delfosse, P., M. Bashir, S. N. Malik and A.S. Reddy, Survey of groundnut virus diseases

in Pakistan. International Arachis Newsletter, 1995. 15: p. 51-52.

9. ICTV. Index of Viruses - Pecluvirus In: ICTVdB - The Universal Virus Database,

version 4. 2006 [cited 2012 May 29]; Available from:

,http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ICTVdb/Ictv/fs_index.htm.

10. Naidu, R.A., J. S.Miller, M. A. Mayo and A. S. Reddy, The nucleotide sequence of Indian

peanut clump virus RNA 2. in Third Symp. Int. Working Group on Plant Viruses with

Fungal Vectors. 1996. Dundee, Scotland.

11. Nolt, B.L., R. Rajeshwar, D.V.R. Reddy, N. Bharathan and S.K. Manohar, Indian peanut

clump virus isolates: Host range,symptomatology, serological relationships,and

some physical properties. Phytopathology, 1988. 78: p. 310-313.

12. Thouvenel, J.-C. and C. Fauquet, Further properties of peanut clump virus and studies on

its natural transmission. Ann. Appl. Biol., 1981. 97: p. 99-107.

13. Ratna, A.S., A.S. Rao, A.S. Reddy, B. L. Nolt, D.V.R. Reddy, M. Vijayalakshmi and D.

McDonald, Studies on transmission of Indian peanut clump virus disease by

Polymyxa graminis. Ann. Appl.Biol., 1991. 118: p. 71-78.

14. Kanyuka, K., E. Ward, and M.J. Adams, Polymyxa graminis and the cereal viruses it

transmits: a research challenge. Mol. Plant Pathol., 2003. 4(5): p. 393-406.

15. Legrève, A., Vanpee, B., Delfosse, P. and Maraite, H., Host range of tropical and sub-

tropical isolates of Polymyxa graminis. Eur. J. Plant Pathol., 2000. 106(4): p. 379-

389.

16. Reddy, A.S., Hobbs, H. A., Delfosse, P., Murthy, A. K. and Reddy, D. V. R., Seed

transmission of Indian peanut clump virus (IPCV) in peanut and millets. Plant Dis.,

1998. 82(3): p. 343-346.

17. Thouvenel, J.-C., C. Fauquet, and D. Lamy, Transmission par la graine du virus du

clump de l'arachide. Oléagineux, 1978. 33: p. 503-504.

18. ICRISAT, Coordinated research on groundnut rosette virus disease: summary

proceedings of the consultative group meeting, 8-10 March 1987, Lilongwe, Malawi.

1988.

19. Reddy, D.V.R., Delfosse, P., Lenne, J. M. and Subrahmanyam, P, eds. Groundnut virus

diseases in Africa: summary and recommendations of the Sixth Meeting of the

International Working Group, 18-19 Mar 1996, Agricultural Research Council,

Plant Protection Research Institute, Pretoria, South Africa. 1997. 64.

20. Reddy, D.V.R., B. L. Nolt, H. A. Hobbs, A. S. Reddy, R. Rajeshwar, A. S. Rao, D.D.R.

Reddy and D. McDonald, Clump virus in India: Isolates, host range, transmission

and management, in Viruses With Fungal Vectors, J.L. Cooper and M.J.C. Asher,

Editors. 1988, Assoc. Appl. Biol.: Wellesbourne, UK. p. 239-246.

21. Reddy, D.V.R., M.A. Mayo, and P. Delfosse, Pecluviruses, in Encyclopedia of Virology,

2nd Ed., R. Webster and A. Gramoff, Editors. 1999, Academic Press: New York.

22. ICRISAT. (International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics). Viral

Diseases. [cited 2012 February 17]; Available from: http://www.icrisat.org/bt-

pathology-viral.htm.

23. Baudin, P. and M. Chatenet, Détection sérologieu du PCV isolat canne à sucre, agent de

la marbrure rouge des feuilles. L'Agronomie Tropicale, 1988. 43: p. 228-234.

24. Dollet, M., C. Fauquet, and J.-C. Thouvenel, Sorghum arundinaceum, a natural host of

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ICTVdb/Ictv/fs_index.htm

http://www.icrisat.org/bt-pathology-viral.htm

http://www.icrisat.org/bt-pathology-viral.htm

Peanut Clump Virus in Upper Volta. Plant Dis. Rep., 1976. 60: p. 1076-1080.

25. Delfosse, P., A. S. Reddy, A. Legreve, P. S. Devi, K. Thirumala Devi and H. Maraite

D. V. R. Reddy, Indian peanut clump virus (IPCV) infection on wheat and barley:

symptoms, yield loss and transmission through seed. Plant Pathology, 1999. 48: p.

273-282.

26. Delfosse, P., A. S. Reddy, K. Thirumala Devi, A. Legrève, J. Risopoulos, D. Doucet, P.

Shoba Devi, H. Maraite, D. V. R. Reddy, Dynamics of Polymyxa graminis and

Indian peanut clump virus (IPCV) infection on various monocotyledonous crops and

groundnut during the rainy season. Plant Pathology, 2002. 51: p. 546-560.





th, 2013







Quarantine Pest: Phytophthora kernoviae Brasier Beales & S.A Kirk, sp. Nov.

Hosts: Annona spp., Aesculus spp., Castanea spp., Camellia spp., Drimys spp., Fagus

spp., Gevuina spp., Hedera spp., Ilex spp., Leucothoe spp., Liriodendron spp.,

Lomatia spp., Magnolia spp. (=Michelia spp.), Pieris spp., Pinus spp.,

Podocarpus spp., Prunus spp., Quercus spp., Rhododendron spp.,

Sequoiadendron spp. (=Sequoia spp.), Vaccinium spp. __________________________________________________________________________


Phytophthora kernoviae is an oomycete pathogen in the Pythiaceae family. Synonyms of

P. kernoviae include Phytophthora kernovii2, 13

and Phytophthora taxon C12

. P. kernoviae

causes “kernoviae bleeding canker,” “kernoviae dieback,” and “kernoviae leaf blight5.”

Known distribution:

United Kingdom1,4

, Ireland7, New Zealand

11.



Long distance spread of P. kernoviae is thought to occur primarily by movement of

infected plant material (e.g., trade)9. Spread may also result from the movement of

growing media or soil carried on vehicles, machinery, footwear or animals8.

P. kernoviae zoospores are contained within sporangia, where they may be aerially or

splash dispersed4. Mechanisms of zoospore transport from one plant to another include

rain-splash, wind-driven rain, mist, irrigation or ground water. The infective, swimming

zoospores penetrate susceptible host material via wounds or natural openings such as

stomata and lenticels8. After initial penetration, P. kernoviae grows through the plant

tissue and kills plant cells, which results in visible necrosis. Under suitable conditions,

asexual reproduction may produce new sporangia, completing P. kernoviae’s life cycle. In

naturally infected plants, P. kernoviae also produces sexual spores (oospores), which may

serve as survival structures for the pathogen8.

On shrub hosts, P. kernoviae causes dieback and leaf blight diseases, with symptoms

varying slightly among plant species. On Rhododendron spp., early leaf symptoms may

include a blackening of the leaf tip, the leaf petiole or, in extreme cases, the whole leaf

could fall within a few weeks of infection. Frequently, shoot dieback and cankers occur,

girdling the stem tissue and causing wilting of the leaves above the lesion8. Infections

may be found on leaves of any age and on leaves and stems at any height or position on

the plant. Severe infections result in the death of the whole bush.

Similar leaf blight symptoms are seen on other shrub hosts. On Michelia doltsopa,

necrotic leaf tissue is characteristically a dark black-brown color, and infection is

characterized by drip tip lesions on the leaves that progress along the leaf margins and

into the tissue of the leaf blade8. Lesions on leaves of Pieris spp. are typically a light tan

to rusty brown color, with necrosis progressing directly towards and along the midrib

vein8. Dark necrotic lesions are visible on P. kernoviae-infected leaves of Ilex aquifolium

(variegated holly) and both leaf infection and stem dieback appear on Prunus

laurocerasus (cherry laurel)8. On Vaccinium myrtillus (bilberry), early symptoms include

necrotic black-brown lesions on the leaves and green stems of plants8. Only stem

infection has been observed on Hedera helix (ivy), to date8.

On tree hosts, P. kernoviae may cause bleeding canker, dieback and/or leaf blight

diseases. Initial symptoms on Fagus sylvatica (beech) are bleeding lesions on the trunk,

which may be present from ground level up to 12 m above ground. The bleeding is

usually dark brown to blue-black, with orange-pink to pink-brown active lesions in the

inner bark8. Older lesions on beech may appear sunken. Girdling of the entire trunk may

occur, killing the tree. On Quercus robur (English oak), bleeding lesions are more

difficult to see because of oak’s thick outer bark ridges and outer bark plates8. Bleeding

occurs from cracks between the bark ridges, but the thickness of the bark prevents the

sunken appearance of older cankers.

Disease symptoms may occur on the foliage, shoots and trunk of Liriodendron tulipifera

(tulip tree). Internal lesions range from pale brown to blue-black in color, and multiple

bleeding lesions may be present on the trunk from ground level up to 9 m above ground8.

Leaf lesions are mostly restricted to tips and margins and appear dark black in color.

Shoot dieback also occurs, and infected shoots are defoliated8. No evidence of sunken or

bleeding cankers has been observed on Quercus ilex (holly oak), but P. kernoviae does

cause severe leaf necrosis and dieback of Q. ilex epicormic shoots8.

On Magnolia spp., P. kernoviae infection occurs anywhere on the leaf surface. Multiple

leaf infections may appear as numerous dark brown necrotic patches, giving leaves a

spotty appearance8. The necrotic spots may merge and develop towards the leaf midrib.

Well-developed lesions appear as mottling, which may have angular edges8. Uninfected

tissue between necrotic areas becomes chlorotic. Petioles may become infected leading to

disease progression along the leaf base. Infected buds appear light khaki grey in color8.


In England and Wales, between October 2003 and January 2008, there were 52 outbreaks

of P. kernoviae infection in non-nursery locations5. All but one of these outbreaks are

subject to ongoing eradication or containment action. In 2004, the damage potential of P.

kernoviae was considered sufficient to warrant a statutory order in England that prohibits

the removal of host plants or parts of host plants from a designated area without

inspection and written authorization2. P. kernoviae has the potential to attack a wide

range of important forest trees and could cause significant damage to U.S. agriculture and

the environment.

Control:

At present, no specific control measures for P. kernoviae have been identified. The

current management strategy is the utilization of good cultural practices8. Susceptible

plants should be monitored for symptoms. Shears and tools should be regularly cleaned

with an appropriate product. Plants with wounded leaves should be handled carefully, as a

wounded leaf may be more susceptible to infection8. Susceptible host plants should be

pruned in dry weather. If possible, plants should be watered in the morning, and potted

plants should not be subjected to standing in water for any length of time. Plants should

be spaced appropriately to allow for good air movement.

Known host range:

Annona spp.3, 5

, Aesculus spp.5, Castanea spp.

5, Camellia spp.

4, Drimys spp.

5, 9, Fagus

spp.4, 5

, Gevuina spp.4, 5

, Hedera spp.5, 9

, Ilex spp.5, 9

, Leucothoe spp.5,

Liriodendron spp.4, 5

, Lomatia spp.9, Magnolia spp.

5, 9 (=Michelia spp.

4, 5) , Pieris spp.

4,5,9, Pinus spp.

5, Podocarpus spp.

5, 9, Prunus spp.

5,9, Quercus spp.

4,5,6, Rhododendron

spp.4, 8,10

, Sequoiadendron spp.9 (=Sequoia spp.), Vaccinium spp.

5, 9.


The importation of the following genera of plants for planting, excluding seeds, that are

hosts of Phytophthora kernoviae, is not authorized pending a pest risk analysis

(NAPPRA) from all countries:

Camellia, Drimys, Gevuina, Lomatia, Sequoiadendron (Sequoia).

The importation of the following plants for planting genera, excluding seeds that are

hosts of Phytophthora kernoviae, are not authorized pending a pest risk analysis

(NAPPRA) from all countries, except those listed after the plant genus:

Annona Costa Rica

Fagus Canada

Hedera Canada, Colombia, Costa Rica, Guatemala,

Israel, and Mexico

Ilex Canada

Leucothoe Canada

Liriodendron Canada

Magnolia (Michelia) Canada, China, and South Africa

Pieris Canada

Podocarpus Canada, China

Quercus Canada

Rhododendron Canada, Japan

Vaccinium Australia, Canada.

The importation of the following plants for planting genera that are hosts of Phytophthora

kernoviae is currently regulated under 7 CFR 319.37 and these genera are therefore not

included, at this time, as potential candidates for listing on this NAPPRA data sheet:

Aesculus, Castanea.

References:

1. Anonymous. Plant disease found in Scotland. The Scottish Government News. Accessed

10 Jan 2008 at http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2008/01/10144052

2. Anonymous. The plant health (Phytophthora kernovii Management Zone)(England) order

2004. Statutory Instrument 2004 No. 3367.

3. Braithwaite, M., M. S. Bullians, J. M. Pay, G. S. C. Gill, and C. F. Hill. 2007. A disease

survey of cherimoya orchards in Northland, New Zealand. Proceedings of the 16th

Biennial Australasian Plant Pathology Conference, Adelaide: Australasian Plant

Pathology Society

4. Brasier, C. M., P. A. Beales, S. A. Kirk, S. Denman, and J. Rose. 2005. Phytophthora

kernoviae sp. nov., an invasive pathogen causing bleeding stem lesions on forest

trees and foliar necrosis of ornamentals in the UK. Mycol Res. 109:853-859

5. CSL. Revised Summary Pest Risk Analysis for Phytophthora kernoviae. Accessed 24 Feb

2012 at

http://www.fera.defra.gov.uk/plants/plantHealth/pestsDiseases/phytophthora/pKerno

viae/

6. Denman, S., S. A. Kirk, E. Moralejo, and J. F. Webber. 2009. Phytophthora ramorum

and Phytophthora kernoviae on naturally infected asymptomatic foliage. EPPO

Bulletin. 39:105-111

7. EPPO. First report of Phytophthora kernoviae in Ireland (2010/148). EPPO Reporting

Service. Vol. 9. Accessed 24 Feb 2012 at

http://archives.eppo.org/EPPOReporting/2010/Rse-1009.pdf

8. FERA. A new threat to our trees and woodlands: Phytophthora kernoviae disease

factsheet. Accessed 25 Feb 2012 at www.fera.defra.gov.uk/pKernoviaeFactsheet

9. FERA. Phytophthora kernoviae - FAQs. Accessed 24 Feb 2012 at

http://www.fera.defra.gov.uk/plants/plantHealth/pestsDiseases/phytophthora/pKerno

viae/faqs.cfm

10. Fichtner, E. J., D. M. Rizzo, S. A. Kirk, and J. F. Webber. 2011. Infectivity and

sporulation potential of Phytophthora kernoviae to select North American native

plants. Plant Pathol.10.1111/j.1365-3059.2011.02506.x

11. Goheen, E. M., and S. J. Frankel (ed.). 2009. Proceedings of the fourth meeting of the

International Union of Forest Research Organizations (IUFRO) Working Party

S07.02.09: Phytophthoras in forest and natural ecosystems. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-

GTR-221. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific

Southwest Research Station. pp. 47-53.

12. Hughes, K. J. D., R. Griffin, N. Boonham, and A. J. Inman. 2005. Development of

molecular diagnostics for Phytophthora taxon C a new Phytophthora threatening UK

trees, woodlands and ornamental plants. Sudden Oak Death Science Symposium II,

18-21 January 2005, Monterey, CA

13. Morton, C. Native oaks susceptible to new tree disease. Forestry Commission News. 9

Nov 2004

http://www.fera.defra.gov.uk/plants/plantHealth/pestsDiseases/phytophthora/pKernoviae/

http://www.fera.defra.gov.uk/plants/plantHealth/pestsDiseases/phytophthora/pKernoviae/





th, 2013







Quarantine Pest: Puccinia buxi Sowerby 1809

Hosts: Buxus spp.4, 5

__________________________________________________________________________


Puccinia buxi Sowerby 1809

Urediniomyces: Uredinales (Order: Family)

Common name of disease – boxwood rust

Known distribution:

Japan, China, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Poland, Portugal,

Spain, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom4. On May 2006 boxwood plants at a

facility in Pennsylvania where found infected with Puccinia buxi. These plants

were earlier imported from Greece8. This infestation was subsequently eradicated.


Puccinia buxi is a rust fungus with two spore forms which completes its life cycle on one

host, Buxus sp.6, 9

. The teliospores, a natural resting stage, develop within host tissues

during the winter and break through the plant’s epidermis in the spring10

. Teliospores

germinate in spring and early summer to produce basidia, then infective basidiospores

which can infect new hosts or new leaves on the same host plant. Infections develop

slowly, with lesions expanding in the late summer and fall, which appear initially as

thickenings of the leaf10

. Buxus spp. plants growing in shaded and moist conditions

appear to be more susceptible (or conditions are more suitable for infection), than plants

grown in full sun or on south-facing slopes, and leaf age also appears to impact

susceptibility3.


Although not widespread by natural means, it does appear to be readily transported on

nursery stock. It may be difficult to identify and detect during port of entry inspection and

therefore likely to be unintentionally transported internationally. Infected Buxus spp. may

show blister-like pustules forming on infected leaves as the telia develop8, although there

may also be a latent stage prior to symptom expression. Since 2003, APHIS Plant

Inspection Stations have recorded 10 interceptions of P. buxi on Buxus spp. for decorative

purpose and 3 interceptions on Buxus spp. for propagation from various countries.

Control:

Cultural control measures, such as growing plant material in a greenhouse using sanitary

procedures, including inspections, can be useful to control Puccinia spp. in ornamental

production. For example, heat treatments can kill rust spores and eradicate the pathogen

in plant material; geranium rust (Puccinia pelargoni-zonalis) can be eradicated by hot

water treatment of cuttings, although damage to the host can occur7. For most rusts, water

is necessary for infection, so overhead irrigation should be avoided. Infected leaves with

teliospores should be removed, rapid composted, or buried to stop the life cycle, and

prevent further infections. There are several fungicides that can be used to protect plants

from infection7.

Known host range:

Buxus spp.4, 5


The importation of Buxus spp. plants for planting, excluding seed but including cut

flowers and greenery, hosts of Puccinia buxi, is not authorized pending pest risk analysis

(NAPPRA) from all countries except Canada.

References:

1. 7CFR § 319.37. 2011. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 7, Part 319.37, (7 CFR §319 -

Foreign quarantine notices: subpart—Plants for Planting). United States

Government.

2. Agriculture Quarantine Activity System Databases. 2011. Pest Identification Database

(PestID).

3. Durrieu, G. (2001). More about box rust (Puccinia buxi). Mycologist, 15 (3), 144-145.

4. Farr, D.F., and Rossman, A.Y. 2011. Fungal Databases, Systematic Mycology and

Microbiology Laboratory, ARS, USDA. Accessed March 5, 2012, online at

http://nt.ars-grin.gov/fungaldatabases/index.cfm

5. Germplasm Resources Information Network - (GRIN) [Online Database]. USDA, ARS,

National Genetic Resources Program. National Germplasm Resources Laboratory,

Beltsville, Maryland. Last accessed March 5, 2012, online at http://www.ars-

grin.gov/cgi-bin/npgs/html/splist.pl?1826

6. Grove, W. B. (1913). The British rust fungi (Uredinales): their biology and classification.

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

7. Koike, S. T., Wilen, C. A., Raabe, R. D., McCain, A. H. and Grebus, M. E. 2009. UC

IPM Pest Management Guidelines: Floriculture and Ornamental Nurseries UC ANR

Publication 3392

8. Phytosanitary Alert System (PAS), NAPPO. 2006. Boxwood rust (Puccinia buxi)

incident in Pennsylvania. Accessed March 5, 2012 online at

http://www.pestalert.org/oprDetail.cfm?oprID=202

9. Preece, T. F. 2000. The strange story of box rust, Puccinia buxi, in Britain. Mycologist,

14 (3), 104-106.

10. Wilson, M., and D. M. Henderson. (1966). British rust fungi. Cambridge University

Press, Cambridge.

11. Yun, H.Y. Systematic Mycology and Microbiology Laboratory, ARS, USDA. Invasive

Fungi. Box Rust or Boxwood Rust - Puccinia buxi. Retrieved March 5, 2012 , online

at http://nt.ars-grin.gov/taxadescriptions/factsheets/index.cfm?thisapp=Pucciniabuxi

http://nt.ars-grin.gov/fungaldatabases/index.cfm

http://www.ars-grin.gov/cgi-bin/npgs/html/splist.pl?1826

http://www.ars-grin.gov/cgi-bin/npgs/html/splist.pl?1826

http://www.pestalert.org/oprDetail.cfm?oprID=202

http://nt.ars-grin.gov/taxadescriptions/factsheets/index.cfm?thisapp=Pucciniabuxi

Documents

Plants for Planting Quarantine Pest Evaluation Data Sheets