Importation of Cherry [ avium

United States (L.) L.] from Continental Spain into Department of Agriculture the Continental United States

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service A Qualitative, Pathway-Initiated Pest

March 12, 2015 Risk Assessment

Version 3

Agency Contact:

Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory Center for Plant Health Science and Technology

Plant Protection and Quarantine and Plant Health Inspection Service United States Department of Agriculture 1730 Varsity Drive, Suite 300 Raleigh, NC 27606

Pest Risk Assessment for Cherries from Continental Spain

Executive Summary

The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) prepared this risk assessment document to examine plant pest risks associated with importing commercially produced fresh fruit of cherry [ (L.) L. (Rosaceae)] for consumption from continental Spain into the continental United States.

Based on the scientific literature, port-of-entry pest interception data, and information from the government of Spain, we developed a list of all potential pests with actionable regulatory status for the continental United States that are known to occur in continental Spain and that are known to be associated with the commodity plant anywhere in the world. From this list, we identified and further analyzed 9 organisms that have a reasonable likelihood of being associated with the commodity following harvesting from the field and prior to any post-harvest processing.

Of the pests selected for further analysis, we determined that the following are not candidates for risk management, either because there is no endangered area within the continental United States, they did not meet the threshold to likely cause unacceptable consequences of introduction, or they received a Negligible overall risk rating for likelihood of introduction (i.e., entry plus establishment) into the endangered area via the import pathway: ‘Candidatus Phytoplasma mali’ Seemüller and Schneider, ‘Candidatus Phytoplasma prunorum’ Seemüller and Schneider, Strawberry latent ringspot nepovirus, and Raspberry ringspot nepovirus.

We determined that the following pests are candidates for risk management, because they met the threshold to likely cause unacceptable consequences of introduction, and they received an overall likelihood of introduction risk rating above Negligible:

Pest type Scientific name Likelihood of Introduction overall rating Diptera: Tephritidae Ceratitis capitata (Wiedmann) Medium Rhagoletis cerasi (L.) High : Cydia funebrana (Treitschke) Medium Tortricidae Fungi Apiognomonia erythrostoma Medium (Pers.) Höhnel fructigena Honey High

Detailed examination and choice of appropriate phytosanitary measures to mitigate pest risk are part of the pest risk management phase within APHIS and are not addressed in this document.

Ver. 3 March 12, 2015 ii Pest Risk Assessment for Cherries from Continental Spain

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ...... ii 1. Introduction ...... 2 1.1. Background ...... 2 1.2. Initiating event ...... 2 1.3. Determination of the necessity of a weed risk assessment for the commodity ...... 2 1.4. Description of the pathway...... 3 2. Pest List and Pest Categorization ...... 5 2.1. Pests considered but not included on the pest list ...... 5 2.2. Pest list ...... 7 2.3. Pests to be selected for further analysis ...... 13 3. Assessing Pest Risk Potential ...... 13 3.1. Introduction ...... 13 3.2. Assessment results ...... 14 4. Summary and Conclusions of Risk Assessment ...... 37 5. Acknowledgements ...... 39 6. References ...... 39 6. Appendix A. Pests with non-actionable regulator status ...... 50

Ver. 3 March 12, 2015 1 Pest Risk Assessment for Cherries from Continental Spain

1. Introduction

1.1. Background

This document was prepared by the Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory of the Center for Plant Health Science and Technology, USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ), to evaluate the risks associated with the importation of commercially produced fresh fruit of cherry [Prunus avium (L.) L.] for consumption from continental Spain into the continental United States.

The International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) provides guidance for conducting pest risk analyses. The methods used here are consistent with guidelines provided by the IPPC, specifically the International Standard for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPM) on “Pest Risk Analysis for Quarantine Pests, Including Analysis of Environmental Risks and Living Modified Organisms” (IPPC, 2011). The use of biological and phytosanitary terms is consistent with the “Glossary of Phytosanitary Terms” (IPPC, 2012).

Three stages of pest risk analysis are described in international standards: Stage 1, Initiation; Stage 2, Risk Assessment; and Stage 3, Risk Management. This document satisfies the requirements of Stages 1 and 2.

This is a qualitative risk assessment. We express the risk based on qualitative ratings for the likelihood and consequences of pest introduction via the imported commodity [Prunus avium (L.) L.] from continental Spain. The details of the methodology and rating criteria are found in the Guidelines for Plant Pest Risk Assessment of Imported Fruit and Vegetable Commodities (PPQ, 2012).

The appropriate risk management strategy for a particular pest depends on the risk posed by that pest. Identification of appropriate phytosanitary measures to mitigate pest risk is undertaken in Stage 3 (Risk Management) and is not covered in this risk assessment. Risk management will be specified in a separate document.

1.2. Initiating event

The importation of fruits and vegetables for consumption into the United States is regulated under Title 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 319.56 (7 CFR §319.56) (2012). Currently, under this regulation, the entry of cherry [Prunus avium (L.) L.] from continental Spain into the continental United States is not authorized. This assessment was prepared in response to a request from the Embassy of Spain, Office of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to change the Federal Regulation to allow entry (Embassy of Spain, 2001).

1.3. Determination of the necessity of a weed risk assessment for the commodity

In some cases, the imported commodity may have the potential of becoming invasive in the pest risk analysis (PRA) area. The likelihood that this may happen is evaluated in a weed risk assessment, conducted separately from the commodity risk assessment.

Ver. 3 March 12, 2015 2 Pest Risk Assessment for Cherries from Continental Spain

Weed risk assessments do not need to be conducted for plant species that are widely established (native or naturalized) or cultivated in the PRA area, for commodities that are already enterable into the PRA area from other countries, or when the plant part(s) cannot easily propagate on their own or be propagated. We determined that a weed risk assessment is not needed for cherry because it is widely cultivated and grown in many areas of the continental United States (Kartesz, 2013; NRCS, 2013).

1.4. Description of the pathway

The IPPC (2011) defines a pathway as “any means that allows the entry or spread of a pest.” In the context of commodity pest risk assessments, the pathway is the commodity to be imported, together with all the processes the commodity undergoes that may have an impact on pest risk. In this risk assessment, the specific pathway of concern is the importation of fresh fruit of cherry for consumption from continental Spain into the continental United States; the movement of this commodity provides a potential pathway for the introduction and/or spread of plant pests. The following description of this pathway focuses on the conditions that may affect plant pest risk, including morphological and physiological characteristics of the commodity, as well as processes the commodity will undergo from production in continental Spain through importation and distribution in the continental United States. These conditions provided the basis for creating the pest list and assessing the likelihood of introduction of the pests selected for further analysis; we assumed the components of the pathway, as they are described below, would occur when we determined the risk ratings for each element.

1.4.1. Description of the commodity The commodity is fresh cherry, Prunus avium, with or without stems (stemless varieties).

1.4.2. Production and harvest procedures in the exporting area Spain provided a brief summary of standard production measures (thinning, fertilization, irrigation, and general Integrated Pest Management techniques) used for cherries; including production, harvesting, and exportation time frames (MARM, 2009)

Spain also provided the following description of harvesting practices: On cherries, the minimum maturity and ripeness accepted requires a minimum of light red coloration of the complete surface of the fruit and/or 14 to 16 percent of soluble solids, depending on the variety. Brix indicator and cherry color charts are used. Brix values must be 11º and 14º for early and medium season varieties, respectively. Concerning color charts, from one up to six, colors numbered three, four, and five are suitable to export.

Table 1. Production, harvesting and export time frames for cherries in Spain Prunus avium Significant Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec crop periods 15 31 15 28 15 31 15 30 15 31 15 30 15 31 15 31 15 30 15 31 15 30 15 31 Production Harvesting Exportation

Ver. 3 March 12, 2015 3 Pest Risk Assessment for Cherries from Continental Spain

Table 2. Characteristics of cherry fruit Attribute Value Unit/Index Skin color Dark red/Mahogany [No. 4] CTIFL Sugar content > 15º Brix Firmness* 75% Durofel

1.4.3. Post-harvest procedures in the exporting area Post-harvest practices include reception (receiving), pre-cooling, storage, dry cleaning (brushing) or washing with chlorinated water (water containing 50 ppm of chlorine), sizing, grading, packing, labelling, cooling, storage, and expedition (NPPO Spain, 2013).

1.4.4. Shipping and storage conditions Generally, sea transport of fruit is the most common; however, some cherry varieties are fragile and must be transported by air only. As an example, see the sea transport duration for the following two ports of arrival: 1. East Coast (New York): 8 days 2. Texas: 15 days

Regarding period of export, information is as follows: Specific months of shipment: March to August Means: air and sea freight Air freight: Aluminum thermal insulation sheet and ice Sea freight: 2° C (controlled by thermographs). Relative Humidity: 90-98 percent

USDA sensors are generally used to monitor temperatures. Three devices might be placed at different locations in the container. They are usually placed at high, medium, and low height and at the first, middle, and last pallet. Final fruit pulp temperatures are checked before departure.

1.4.5. Summary of the pathway Figure 3 summarizes the pathway of concern: the importation of fresh fruit of cherry [Prunus avium (L.) L.] for consumption from continental Spain into the continental United States.

Figure 3. Summary of the pathway for imported cherry from continental Spain.

Ver. 3 March 12, 2015 4 Pest Risk Assessment for Cherries from Continental Spain

2. Pest List and Pest Categorization

In this section, we identify the plant pests with actionable regulatory status for the continental United States that could potentially become established in the continental United States as a result of the importation of cherries from continental Spain, and we determine which of these pests meet the criteria for further analysis. Pests are considered to be of regulatory significance if they are actionable at U.S. ports-of-entry. Actionable pests include quarantine pests, pests considered for, or under, official control, and pests that require evaluation for regulatory action.

2.1. Pests considered but not included on the pest list

2.1.1. Pests with weak evidence for association with the commodities and/or presence in the export area Plum pox virus. The strain that infects cherry has never been observed in natural infections in Spain (Melgaregjo-Nardiz et al., 2010). Other plum pox strains are present in Spain (Capote et al., 2010) but they are not known to infect cherry. In the United States, Plum pox virus is present in some areas but is under official control (7 CFR § 301.74, 2012). Fruit for consumption is not considered a vector for the pathogen and therefore is not regulated from quarantine areas in the United States (7 CFR § 301.74, 2012). Only trees, seedlings, root stock, budwood, branches, twigs, and leaves are regulated (7 CFR § 301.74, 2012). IPPC standards require equivalence in domestic regulations and import restrictions; therefore, cherry fruit for consumption from Spain would not be actionable for Plum pox virus.

2.1.2. Organisms with non-actionable regulatory status We found evidence of the organisms listed in Appendix A being associated with cherries and present in continental Spain; however, because these organisms have non-actionable regulatory status for the continental United States, we did not include them in Table 4 of this risk assessment.

2.1.3. Organisms identified only to In commodity import risk assessments, the taxonomic unit for pests selected for evaluation beyond the pest categorization stage is usually the species (IPPC, 2011), as assessments focus on organisms for which biological information is available. Therefore, generally, we do not assess risk for organisms identified only to genus, in particular if the genus in question is reported from the import area. Often there are many species within a genus, and we cannot know if the unidentified species occurs in the import area and, consequently, whether it has actionable regulatory status for the import area. On the other hand, if the genus in question is absent from the import area, any unidentified member of the genus can have actionable status; however, because such an organism has not been fully identified, we cannot properly analyze its likelihood and consequences of introduction.

In light of these issues, we usually do not include organisms identified only to genus in the main pest list. Instead, we address them separately in this sub-section. The information here can be used by risk managers to determine if measures beyond those intended to mitigate risks of fully identified pests are warranted. Often, however, the development of detailed assessments for known pests, such as internal fruit feeders or foliage pests, allows effective mitigation measures

Ver. 3 March 12, 2015 5 Pest Risk Assessment for Cherries from Continental Spain

to eliminate the known organisms as well as similar, but incompletely identified, organisms that inhabit the same niche.

Table 3. Organisms identified to genus that are reported on cherry (Prunus avium (L.) L.) in Spain and that have actionable or undetermined regulatory status. Pest name Evidence of Genus Regulator Plant part(s) On harvested Remarks presence on present in y status1 association2 plant part(s)?3 cherry in continental continental United Spain States? ARTHROPODS Archips sp. MAFF, 2012a Yes (CABI, U Leaves (CABI, No 2013) 2013) Brachycaudus Nieto Nafria et Yes (CABI, U Leaves (CABI, No spp. al., 1984 2013) 2013)

1 A=Actionable, U=Undetermined. If the genus does not occur in continental United States, the organism has actionable status. If the genus occurs in the continental United States, the organism has undetermined regulatory status because the distribution of the unidentified species is uncertain. 2 The plant part(s) listed are those for the plant species under analysis. If the information is extrapolated, such as from a plant part association on other plant species, this is noted. 3 “Yes” indicates the pest has a reasonable likelihood of being associated with the harvested plant part(s).

Ver. 3 March 12, 2015 6 Pest Risk Assessment for Cherries from Continental Spain

2.2. Pest list

In Table 4, we list the actionable pests associated with cherries that occur in continental Spain. The list comprises those actionable pests that occur in Spain on any host and are reported to be associated with cherries whether in Spain or elsewhere in the world. For each pest, we indicate 1) the part of the imported plant species with which the pest is generally associated, and 2) whether the pest has a reasonable likelihood of being associated, in viable form, with the commodity following harvesting from the field and prior to any post-harvest processing. We developed this pest list based on the scientific literature, port-of-entry pest interception data, and information provided by the government of Spain. Pests in shaded rows are pests identified for further evaluation, as we consider them reasonably likely to be associated with the harvested commodity; we summarize these pests in a separate table (Table 5).

Table 4. Actionable pests recorded on cherry (Prunus avium (L.) L.) (in any country) and present in continental Spain (on any host). Pest name Evidence of Host status Plant part(s) On Remarks presence in associationa harvested continental plant Spain part(s)?b Arthropods Acari: Tetranychidae Amphitetranychus [= Bolland et Childers et al, Leaves (Evans No Tetranychus] al.,1998; 2006; Bolland, et al., 1961) viennensis (Zacher) Ferragut and 1998; Ehara Santonja, 1989 and Gotch, 1990; collected from cherry trees (Lee and Lee, 1997) Coleoptera: Buprestidae Capnodis tenebrionis del Mar del Mar Roots, Stems No (L.) Martinez de Martinez de (del Mar Altube et al., Altube et al., Martinez de 2008; Garcia, 2008; Garcia, Altube et al, 1996 1996 2008) Coleoptera: Hylobius abietis (L.) CABI, 2003 Lof et al., 2004 Bark, Branches, No Leaves, roots, Stems (CABI, 2013; Lof et al.., 2004)

a The plant part(s) listed are those for the plant species under analysis. If the information is extrapolated, such as from a plant part association on other plant species, this is noted. b “Yes” indicates simply that the pest has a reasonable likelihood of being associated with the harvested commodity; the level of pest prevalence on the harvested commodity (low, medium, or high) is qualitatively assessed in risk element A1 as part of the likelihood of introduction assessment (section 3).

Ver. 3 March 12, 2015 7 Pest Risk Assessment for Cherries from Continental Spain

Pest name Evidence of Host status Plant part(s) On Remarks presence in associationa harvested continental plant Spain part(s)?b Scolytus kirsch Wood and Bright and Stems (Bright No Skalitzky, K. Bright, 1992 Skidmore, 1997 and Skidmore, 1997) Trypodendron Wood and Bright and Stems (Bright No domesticum (L.) Bright, 1992 Skidmore, 1997 and Skidmore, 1997) Trypodendron Wood and Bright and Stems (Bright No signatum (F.) Bright, 1992 Skidmore, 1997 and Skidmore, 1997) Diptera: Tephritidae Ceratitis capitata White and Liquido, 1990; Fruit (EPPO, Yes (Wiedemann) Elson-Harris, Henning et al., 1983) 1992 1972 Rhagoletis cerasi (L.) Southern race MAFF, 2012a; Fruit (APHIS, Yes found in Spain APHIS, 1983; 1983) (White and White et al., Elson-Harris, 1992 1992; MAFF, 2012a; APHIS, 1983) : Aleyrodidae Parabemisia myricae CABI, 2013 Mound and Leaves, Stems No Present in the United (Kuwana) Halsey, 1978 (CABI, 2013) States (CA, FL, HI) (CABI, 2013). Lepidoptera: Geometridae Erannis defoliaria Zhang, 1994 Zhang, 1994; Leaves (Carter, No Clercks Carter, 1984 1984) albiceps Zhang, 1994 Zhang, 1994 Buds (Carter, No Zeller 1984) Lepidoptera: Lasiocampidae Malacosoma neustria MAFF, 2012a MAFF, 2012a Leaves (CABI, No (L.) 2013) Lepidoptera: malifoliella MAFF, 2012a MAFF, 2012a Leaves (Chang, No Feeds on fruit, but (Costa) 1985) pupae are found on fruit. Lepidoptera: Acronicta psi (L.) Karsholt and Zhang, 1994 Flowers, No van Leaves (Carter, Nieukerken, 1984) 2007

Ver. 3 March 12, 2015 8 Pest Risk Assessment for Cherries from Continental Spain

Pest name Evidence of Host status Plant part(s) On Remarks presence in associationa harvested continental plant Spain part(s)?b Diloba De Vrieze, Avidov and Fruit, Leaves No Species is unlikely to caeruleocephala 2003 Harpaz, 1969; (Avidov and (fruitlets) be with harvested fruit Zhang, 1994 Harpaz, 1969) because its larvae are primarily leaf feeders that only occasionally attack immature fruit (Carter, 1984). Helicoverpa armigera CABI, 2013 Hely et al., Fruit, Flowers, No (see Larvae may feed on Hübner 1982 Leaves (Hely et remarks) immature or al., 1982) developing fruit of host crops (Bedford, 1978; Butani, 1993; Hely, 1982) but they typically cause the immature fruit to abort, or damage the fruit so much it is unmarketable (Bedford, 1978). Therefore, it is unlikely to be associated with commercial cherries. Furthermore, despite many interceptions on other commodities, H. armigera has never been intercepted on cherry. Phlogophora Dionisio et al., Carter, 1984 Flowers, No meticulosa (L.) 2003 Leaves (Carter, 1984) Lepidoptera: Pieridae Aporia crataegi L. Zhang, 1994; CABI, 2013 Leaves (CABI, No [=Papilio crataegi CABI, 2013 2008; Carter, L.] 1984) Lepidoptera: Saturniidae Saturnia pyri (Denis & CIE, 1983 Zhang, 1994 Leaves (Avidov No Schiffermuller) and Harpaz, 1969)

Ver. 3 March 12, 2015 9 Pest Risk Assessment for Cherries from Continental Spain

Pest name Evidence of Host status Plant part(s) On Remarks presence in associationa harvested continental plant Spain part(s)?b Lepidoptera: Tortricidae Adoxophyes orana CABI, 2013 CABI, 2013; Leaves, Fruit No Evidence indicates a (Fischer von (restricted CIE, 1982 (CABI, 2013) low association with Röeslerstamm) distribution) fruit. Hill (1983) suggests that although eggs are generally laid on leaves, they may be present on fruit. However, that seems to be rare: since 1984, lepidopteran eggs have never been intercepted on cherry at U.S. ports-of-entry (PestID, 2012). Larvae may feed externally on fruit skin (Hill, 1983), but are highly unlikely to be associated with harvested fruit. Archips podana Hiernaux et CABI, 2013; Flower buds, No Present in the United Scopoli al., 2010 Zhang, 1994 Leaves, Fruit States (WA) (LaGasa (external et al., 2003). feeding) (Carter, 1984; Because this pest Alford, 2014) primarily feeds on leaves and buds and only attacks young fruit, causing them to drop prematurely (Van der Geest and Evenhuis, 1991) it is highly unlikely to be on harvested fruit. Archips xylosteana (L.) CABI, 2013 Zhang, 1994 Flower buds, No, feeds Present in the United Leaves, Young only on the States (WA) (Hoebeke Fruit (Byun et surface of et al., 2008). al., 2003; young Hoebeke et al., fruitlets Because this pest 2008; Alford, primarily feeds on 2014) leaves and buds and only attacks young fruit, causing them to drop prematurely, it is highly unlikely to be on harvested fruit.

Ver. 3 March 12, 2015 10 Pest Risk Assessment for Cherries from Continental Spain

Pest name Evidence of Host status Plant part(s) On Remarks presence in associationa harvested continental plant Spain part(s)?b Cydia funebrana MAFF, 2012b Carter, 1984 Fruit (Hill, Yes Bores into fruit and is (Treitschke) 1987; Molinari visible during [= Grapholita 1995; MAFF, inspection (Zhang, funebrana] 2012b) 1994; CABI, 2013; Carter, 1984; Hill, 1987). Thysanoptera: Thripidae Thrips meridionalis Vierbergen, INRA, n.d Flowers, Fruit No Attacks young fruits Priesner 2004 (INRA, n.d.; (INRA, n.d.) so highly [= Taeniothrips Lewis, 1997) unlikely to be meridionalis associated with (Priesner)] mature, harvested fruit. PATHOGENS Fungi and Chromistans Apiognomonia Melgaregjo- Melgaregjo- Leaves Yes Primarily a leaf erythrostoma (Pers.) Nardiz et al., Nardiz et al., (Melgaregjo- pathogen but can infect Höhnel 2010 2010 Nardiz et al., fruit (Diekmann and 2010); Fruit Putter, 1996; Ogawa et (Hecht and al., 1995). Zinkernagel, 2006; Ogawa et al., 1995) Monilinia fructigena Leeuwen et MAFF, 2012a; Fruit (MAFF, Yes Honey al., 2002; Melgaregjo- 2012a; MAFF, 2012a; Nardiz et al., Melgaregjo- Esteruelas, 2010– as Nardiz et al., 2001 Prunus spp. 2010) Thekopsora areolata Farr et al., CABI, 2013; Leaves (Farr et No (Fr.:Fr.) Magnus 2013 Farr et al., 2013 al., 2013) Bacteria and Phytoplasmas ‘Candidatus Lavina et al., Mehle et al., Systemic, Yes Phytoplasma mali’ 2011 2007 whole plant Seemüller and (Osler et al., Schneider 2001) ‘Candidatus Batlle et al., Landi et al., Resides in Yes Phytoplasma 2012; MAFF, 2007 phloem prunorum’ Seemüller 2012c; Torres systemic, and Schneider et al., 2004 whole plant (Yvon et al., 2009)

Ver. 3 March 12, 2015 11 Pest Risk Assessment for Cherries from Continental Spain

Pest name Evidence of Host status Plant part(s) On Remarks presence in associationa harvested continental plant Spain part(s)?b Viruses and Viroids Strawberry latent Melgaregjo- Melgaregjo- Whole plant Yes This virus is present in ringspot nepovirus Nardiz et al., Nardiz et al., (Brunt et al., parts of the United 2010; CABI, 2010; Ogawa et 1996 onwards; States and its 2013 al., 1995 CABI, 2013) regulatory status is under review (Martin, 2004; Postman et al., 2004). Currently this is a regulated pest (APHIS, 2000).

Nematode and seed transmitted (Brunt et al., 1996 onwards; CABI, 2013). Raspberry ringspot CABI/EPPO, CABI/EPPO, Whole plant, Yes nepovirus 2004b; CABI, 2004b; CABI, nematode and 2013 2013; Ogawa et seed (restricted al., 1995 transmitted distribution) (CABI, 2013)

Ver. 3 March 12, 2015 12 Pest Risk Assessment for Cherries from Continental Spain

2.3. Pests to be selected for further analysis

We identified 9 pests for further analysis (Table 5). All of these organisms are actionable pests for the continental United States and have a reasonable likelihood of being associated with the commodity at the time of harvest and remaining with the commodity, in viable form, throughout the harvesting process.

Table 5. Pests selected for further analysis. Pest type Taxonomy Scientific name Arthropods Diptera: Tephritidae Ceratitis capitata Rhagoletis cerasi Lepidoptera: Tortricidae Cydia funebrana Fungi Ascomycetes: Diaporthales Apiognomonia erythrostoma Ascomycetes: Monilinia fructigena Phytoplasmas ‘Candidatus Phytoplasma mali’ ‘Candidatus Phytoplasma prunorum’ Viruses Secoviridae Strawberry latent ringspot nepovirus Raspberry ringspot nepovirus

3. Assessing Pest Risk Potential

3.1. Introduction

For each pest selected for further analysis, we estimate its overall pest risk potential. Risk is described by the likelihood of an adverse event, the magnitude of the consequences, and uncertainty. In this risk assessment, we first determine for each pest if there is an endangered area within the import area. The endangered area is defined as the portion of the import area where ecological factors favor the establishment of the pest and where the presence of the pest will result in economically important losses. Once an endangered area has been determined, the overall risk of each pest is then determined by two separate components: 1) the likelihood of its introduction into the endangered area on the imported commodity (i.e., the likelihood of an adverse event), and 2) the consequences of its introduction (i.e., the magnitude of the consequences). In general, we assess both of these components for each pest. However, if we determine that the risk of either of these components is negligible, it is not necessary to assess the other, as the overall pest risk potential would be negligible regardless of the result of the second component. In other words, if we determine that the introduction of a pest is unlikely to have unacceptable consequences, we do not assess its likelihood of being introduced. Likewise, if we determine there is negligible likelihood of a pest being introduced, we do not assess its consequences of introduction.

The likelihood and consequences of introduction are assessed using different approaches. For the consequences of introduction, we determine if the pest meets the threshold (Yes/No) of likely causing unacceptable consequences of introduction. This determination is based on estimating

Ver. 3 March 12, 2015 13 Pest Risk Assessment for Cherries from Continental Spain the potential consequences of introduction in terms of physical losses (rather than monetary losses). The threshold is based on a proportion of damage rather than an absolute value or amount. Pests that are like to impact at least 10 percent of the production of one or more hosts are deemed “threshold pests.”

For likelihood of introduction, which is based on the likelihoods of entry and establishment, we qualitatively assess risk using the ratings Negligible, Low, Medium, and High. The risk factors comprising the model for likelihood of introduction are interdependent and, therefore, the model is multiplicative rather than additive. Thus, if any one risk factor is rated as Negligible, then the overall likelihood will be Negligible. For the overall likelihood of introduction risk rating, we define the different categories as follows: High: Pest introduction is highly likely to occur. Medium: Pest introduction is possible, but for that to happen, the exact combination of required events needs to occur. Low: Pest introduction is unlikely to occur because one or more of the required events are unlikely to happen, or the full combination of required events is unlikely to align properly in time and space. Negligible: Pest introduction is highly unlikely to occur given the exact combination of events required for successful introduction.

3.2. Assessment results

3.2.1. Apiognomonia erythrostoma We determined the overall likelihood of introduction to be Medium. We present the results of this assessment in the table below.

We determined that the establishment of Apiognomonia erythrostoma in the United States is likely to cause unacceptable impacts. We present the results of this assessment in the table below.

Determination of the portion of the continental United States endangered by Apiognomonia erythrostoma (Pers.) Höhnel Climatic suitability Apiognomonia erythrostoma occurs in Europe [Belgium, Bulgaria, former Czechoslovakia, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Norway, Romania, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, Yugoslavia (CABI, 1969); the Netherlands (Bronckers, 2003)] and parts of Asia [China, Japan (only the anamorph (Phomopsis stipata (Lib.)) B. Sutton), Korea, and Turkey] (CABI, 2013). Based on this distribution, we estimate this could establish in areas of the United States corresponding to USDA Plant Hardiness Zones 5-10 (Magarey et al., 2008; PERAL/CIPM, 2008). Potential hosts at Apiognomonia erythrostoma infects plants in the genus Prunus; hosts risk in PRA Area include (P. armeniaca), sweet cherry (P. avium), and sour cherry (P. cerasus) (CABI, 2013; Diekmann and Putter, 1996; EPPO, 2004). These hosts are widely distributed throughout Hardiness Zones 5-10 in the continental United States (Kartesz, 2013; NASS, 2013; NRCS, 2013).

Ver. 3 March 12, 2015 14 Pest Risk Assessment for Cherries from Continental Spain

Economically Cherries and are economically important fruit crops. For important hosts at example, production of fresh market sweet cherries in 2012 was worth riska nearly $800 million and production of apricots was worth $26 million (NASS, 2013). Pest potential on Apiognomonia erythrostoma causes reddish leaf spots that expand and economically turn brown as the disease progresses (Diekmann and Putter, 1996; EPPO, important hosts at 1993; Ogawa et al., 1995). In some cases, infected trees may lose their riska leaves and fruit may show symptoms that range from superficial blemishes to necrosis and premature drop (Diekmann and Putter, 1996; Ogawa et al., 1995). Three to five fungicide applications are usually required each year to control this disease (Ogawa et al., 1995). Defined The area endangered by A. erythrostoma includes areas in the United Endangered Area States within Hardiness Zones 5-10 where apricots and cherries are grown. a As defined by ISPM No. 11, supplement 2, “economically” important hosts refers to both commercial and non- market (environmental) plants (IPPC, 2011).

Assessment of the likelihood of introduction of Apiognomonia erythrostoma (Pers.) Höhnel into the continental United States via the importation of Prunus avium from Spain Risk Element Risk Uncertainty Justification for rating and Rating Ratinga explanation of uncertainty (and other notes as necessary) Likelihood of Entry Risk Element A1: Pest Medium MC Apiognomonia erythrostoma is prevalence on the harvested typically considered a leaf pathogen commodity (= the baseline that causes leaf scorch symptoms rating for entry) (Ogawa et al., 1995) but fruit infections sometimes occur. Fruit symptoms range from superficial blemishes to complete necrosis (Diekmann and Putter, 1996; Ogawa et al., 1995). Premature fruit drop may occur with severe infections where defoliation occurs before harvest (Diekmann and Putter, 1996). A conflicting report suggests infected fruit remain on the branches for long periods of time (Ponti and Laffi, 1988). Because fruit is not the preferred infection site of the tree we gave A. erythrostoma a Medium risk rating. Risk Element A2: Likelihood Medium MU Reddish spots from the fungal of surviving post-harvest infection can sometimes become processing before shipment masked with fruit maturity (Sanchez and Becedas, 2007). These infections

Ver. 3 March 12, 2015 15 Pest Risk Assessment for Cherries from Continental Spain

Risk Element Risk Uncertainty Justification for rating and Rating Ratinga explanation of uncertainty (and other notes as necessary) may go undetected during post-harvest culling. Hence, we did not change the previous risk rating. Risk Element A3: Likelihood Medium MC Spain will ship by air (thermal of surviving transport and insulation sheet and ice) or sea freight storage conditions of the (2°C, thermograph controlled) (NPPO consignment Spain, 2013). Growth of the fungus may be slowed, however the pest is likely to survive transport and storage conditions. We did not change the previous risk rating (A2). Risk Element A: Overall risk Medium N/A rating for likelihood of entry Likelihood of Establishment Risk Element B1: Likelihood Medium MU Fungal can be dispersed over of coming into contact with long distances by (including host material in the man), wind, and water (Agrios, endangered area 1997).The hosts for this fungus are stonefruit (see above), which are grown throughout the endangered area (Kartesz, 2013) and would be available in the anticipated export season. Because A. erythrostoma is primarily a leaf pathogen, though, it is not clear how heavily sporulation could occur on fruit/stem tissues. Therefore we rated the risk as Medium. Risk Element B2: Likelihood High MC Hardiness Zones 5-10 contain about 94 of arriving in the endangered percent of the U.S. population area (PERAL/CIPM, 2008). Risk Element B: Combined Medium N/A likelihood of establishment Overall Likelihood of Introduction Combined likelihoods of Medium N/A entry and establishment a C=Certain, MC=Moderately Certain, MU=Moderately Uncertain, U=Uncertain

Ver. 3 March 12, 2015 16 Pest Risk Assessment for Cherries from Continental Spain

Assessment of the consequences of introduction of Apiognomonia erythrostoma into the continental United States via the importation of Prunus avium from Spain (i.e., the PRA area) Criteria Meets Uncertainty Justification for rating and criteria? Ratinga explanation of uncertainty (and (Yes/No) other notes as necessary) Direct Impacts Risk Element C1: Damage No MU Conflicting reports exist about the potential in the endangered damage caused by this pathogen. Some area authors report severe damage and yield loss (not quantified) depending on weather patterns, regions, and perhaps susceptibility of hosts (Chalkley et al., 2010; Hecht and Zinkernagel, 2006) while other sources suggest severe economic losses are not typical (Ogawa et al., 1995) and that the disease only causes modest damage (Ponti and Laffi, 1988). Fruit symptoms can range from superficial blemishes to necrosis and deformations (Diekmann and Putter, 1996; Ogawa et al., 1995; Ponti and Laffi, 1988). In cherries, there also is an increased incidence of fruit splitting (Perez et al., 1992; Sanchez and Becedas, 2007).

Three to five fungicide applications are usually required each year to control this disease (Ogawa et al., 1995). The fungicides already employed for prevention of existing U.S. fungal stonefruit pathogens, such as Blumeriella jaapii and Wilsonomyces carpophilus, would likely be effective against A. erythrostoma (Chalkley et al., 2010; EPPO, 2004). We concluded that the pathogen does not meet the criteria for damage potential in the endangered area, but with high uncertainty. Risk Element C2: Spread N/A N/A potential Risk Element C: Pest No N/A introduction is likely to cause unacceptable direct impacts

Ver. 3 March 12, 2015 17 Pest Risk Assessment for Cherries from Continental Spain

Criteria Meets Uncertainty Justification for rating and criteria? Ratinga explanation of uncertainty (and (Yes/No) other notes as necessary) Trade Impacts Risk Element D1: Export Yes MC Apiognomonia erythrostoma is listed markets at risk as a harmful organism by Canada, Israel, and Ecuador (PExD, 2013). In 2012, nearly 30 percent of exported cherries went to Canada (the largest receiver of U.S. cherries), where the pathogen does not occur (FAS, 2013). The United States also exports cherries to Australia, where the pathogen is listed as an organism of threat to the Summerfruit Industry (PHA, 2011). Risk Element D2: Likelihood Yes MC Canada and Australia both consider A. of trading partners imposing erythrostoma a pest of concern (PExD, additional phytosanitary 2013; PHA, 2011) and both receive requirements cherries from the United States. It is likely additional phytosanitary requirements on hosts, for consumption or propagation, from the United States would be subject to additional phytosanitary requirements were A. erythrostoma to become established in the United States. Risk Element D: Pest is likely Yes N/A to cause significant trade impacts Conclusion Is the pest likely to cause Yes N/A unacceptable consequences in the PRA area? aC=Certain, MC=Moderately Certain, MU=Moderately Uncertain, U=Uncertain

3.2.2. ‘Candidatus Phytoplasma mali’ We determined the overall likelihood of introduction to be Negligible. We present the results of this assessment in a table below. Because the likelihood of introduction was Negligible we did not assess the consequences of introduction.

Ver. 3 March 12, 2015 18 Pest Risk Assessment for Cherries from Continental Spain

Assessment of the likelihood of introduction of ‘Candidatus Phytoplasma mali’ into the continental United States via the importation of Prunus avium from Spain Risk Element Risk Rating Uncertainty Justification for rating and Ratinga explanation of uncertainty (and other notes as necessary) Likelihood of Entry Risk Element A1: Pest N/A N/A prevalence on the harvested commodity (= the baseline rating for entry) Risk Element A2: Likelihood N/A N/A of surviving post-harvest processing before shipment Risk Element A3: Likelihood N/A N/A of surviving transport and storage conditions of the consignment Risk Element A: Overall risk N/A N/A rating for likelihood of entry Likelihood of Establishment Risk Element B1: Likelihood Negligible C The pathogen resides within the of coming into contact with phloem elements of the host and is host material in the transmitted primarily through root endangered area grafts/fusions (Baric et al., 2008; CABI, 2013; Ciccotti et al., 2008). The pathogen is not known to be seed or pollen transmitted (Seidl and Komarkova, 1974). Certain leafhoppers and psyllids are reported as vectors of the disease (CABI, 2013; Seemuller, 1990) but those primarily feed on the leaves/stems of hosts and are unlikely to be associated with cherry fruit. Because the pathogen is highly unlikely to move on its own from fruit to nearby hosts, infested fruit for consumption is a Negligible risk here. Risk Element B2: Likelihood N/A N/A of arriving in the endangered area Risk Element B: Combined Negligible N/A Outcome of Risk Element B1 likelihood of establishment

Ver. 3 March 12, 2015 19 Pest Risk Assessment for Cherries from Continental Spain

Risk Element Risk Rating Uncertainty Justification for rating and Ratinga explanation of uncertainty (and other notes as necessary) Overall Likelihood of Introduction Combined likelihoods of Negligible N/A entry and establishment aC=Certain, MC=Moderately Certain, MU=Moderately Uncertain, U=Uncertain

3.2.3. ‘Candidatus Phytoplasma prunorum’ We determined the overall likelihood of introduction to be Negligible. We present the results of this assessment in a table below. Because the likelihood of introduction was Negligible we did not assess the consequences of introduction.

Assessment of the likelihood of introduction of ‘Candidatus Phytoplasma prunorum’ into the continental United States via the importation of Prunus avium from Spain Risk Element Risk Rating Uncertainty Justification for rating and Ratinga explanation of uncertainty (and other notes as necessary) Likelihood of Entry Risk Element A1: Pest N/A N/A prevalence on the harvested commodity (= the baseline rating for entry) Risk Element A2: Likelihood N/A N/A of surviving post-harvest processing before shipment Risk Element A3: Likelihood N/A N/A of surviving transport and storage conditions of the consignment Risk Element A: Overall risk N/A N/A rating for likelihood of entry Likelihood of Establishment Risk Element B1: Likelihood Negligible C The pathogen resides within the of coming into contact with phloem elements of the host and is host material in the transmitted through grafting endangered area (CABI, 2013). It is also transmitted by cicadellid and psyllid vectors (CABI, 2013; Carraro et al., 1998; Steffek et al., 2012) but those insects primarily feed on the leaves/stems of hosts and are not likely to be associated with cherry fruit. Because the pathogen is

Ver. 3 March 12, 2015 20 Pest Risk Assessment for Cherries from Continental Spain

Risk Element Risk Rating Uncertainty Justification for rating and Ratinga explanation of uncertainty (and other notes as necessary) highly unlikely to move on its own from fruit to nearby hosts, infested fruit for consumption is a negligible risk. Risk Element B2: Likelihood N/A N/A of arriving in the endangered area Risk Element B: Combined Negligible N/A Outcome of Risk Element B1 likelihood of establishment Overall Likelihood of Introduction Combined likelihoods of entry Negligible N/A and establishment aC=Certain, MC=Moderately Certain, MU=Moderately Uncertain, U=Uncertain

3.2.4. Ceratitis capitata We determined the overall likelihood of introduction to be Medium. We present the results of this assessment in the table below.

We determined that the establishment of Ceratitis capitata in the continental United States is likely to cause unacceptable impacts. We also present the results of this assessment in a table below.

Determination of the portion of the continental U. S. endangered by Ceratitis capitata Climatic suitability Ceratitis capitata (Medfly) is native to Africa and has spread throughout the Mediterranean region, southern Europe (e.g., Spain, Italy, Cyprus), the Middle East, western Australia, South and Central America (e.g., Argentina, Ecuador, Peru, Colombia), and the United States in Hawaii (Fletcher, 1989; White and Elson-Harris, 1992). The species can establish in California, Florida, and Texas, where it has been recorded intermittently and subsequently eradicated (CABI, 2013). Based on this reported distribution, we estimate that Medfly could establish in areas of the continental United States corresponding to USDA Plant Hardiness Zones 8-11 (Magarey et al., 2008). Potential hosts at Medfly is a polyphagous species that has been recorded from cultivated risk in PRA Area and wild hosts belonging to at least 51 genera among at least 30 plant families. Common hosts in the PRA area include Cactaceae (Opuntia), Moraceae (Artocarpus, Ficus, ), Punicaceae (Punica), Rosaceae (Malus, Mespilus, Prunus), Rutaceae (Citrus), Solanaceae (Capsicum, Solanum), and Vitaceae (Vitis) (CABI, 2013; Liquido et al., 1990; Thomas et al., 2007; White and Elson-Harris, 1992). Several other tropical and subtropical hosts [e.g., Anacardiaceae (Mangifera), Annonaceae (), Myrtaceae (Eugenia, Feijoa, Psidium, Syzygium)]

Ver. 3 March 12, 2015 21 Pest Risk Assessment for Cherries from Continental Spain

have a limited distribution in the PRA area (McLean, 1929; NRCS, 2012). Economically In the United States, the four stonefruit crops, Prunus avium (cherry), P. important hosts at domestica (plum), P. persica (), P. persica var. nucipersica riska (nectarine), are produced within USDA Plant Hardiness Zones 8-11 (NRCS, 2012). Other cultivated host plants of economic or environmental importance that grow in these zones include cactus (Opuntia), citrus, peppers, and grapes. Pest potential on Because of its wide distribution and its wide host range, Medfly is the most economically important of the economically important fruit flies (CABI, 2013; Weems, important hosts at 1981). It reduces crop yields (Steck, 2006) and may transmit fruit-rotting riska fungi (CABI, 2013). Additionally, costs would be incurred to minimize the impact of Medfly on crop production, because the presence of larvae in the fruit may make the fruit unmarketable (Andrew et al., 1977). The species is of quarantine significance for many countries (Steck, 2006). Its presence, even as temporary adventive populations, can lead to severe constraints for the export of fruits to uninfested areas in other parts of the world; eradication of recurring populations of Medfly in an area (to maintain pest-free status) can be very costly and resource intensive (Cayol et al., 2002; Steck, 2006). In some of the Mediterranean countries, some areas have had almost 100 percent infestation in stone fruits. Although Ceratitis capitata may be a major pest of citrus, often it is a more serious pest of a few deciduous fruits, such as peach, pear, and . Infested orchards have the expense of control measures and costly sorting processes. Fresh fruit markets could be jeopardized due to quarantine regulations of importing countries (Thomas et al., 2007). Defined The endangered area of Medfly is stonefruit crops, citrus, pepper, and Endangered Area grape in Plant Hardiness Zones 8-11. a As defined by ISPM No. 11, supplement 2, “economically” important hosts refers to both commercial and non- market (environmental) plants (IPPC, 2011).

Assessment of the likelihood of introduction of Ceratitis capitata into the endangered area via the importation of cherries from continental Spain Risk Element Risk Uncertainty Justification for rating and Rating Ratinga explanation of uncertainty (and other notes as necessary) Likelihood of Entry Risk Element A1: Pest Low MC Medfly has been reported on cherry, but prevalence on the harvested percent infestation or damage is commodity (= the baseline unknown (Liquido et al., 1998), and it rating for entry) did not infest cherry in mixed plantings in northern Greece (Papodopoulos et al., 2001). Thus, prevalence on the harvested commodity is likely to be low.

Ver. 3 March 12, 2015 22 Pest Risk Assessment for Cherries from Continental Spain

Risk Element Risk Uncertainty Justification for rating and Rating Ratinga explanation of uncertainty (and other notes as necessary) Risk Element A2: Likelihood Low MU Post-harvest handling procedures are of surviving post-harvest unlikely to affect the survivorship of processing before shipment internal feeders such as C. capitata. We did not change the previous risk rating (A1). Risk Element A3: Likelihood Low MU Spain will ship by air (thermal insulation of surviving transport and sheet and ice) or sea freight (2°C, storage conditions of the thermograph controlled) (NPPO Spain, consignment 2013). Cold temperature storage of the fruit would not be likely to kill Medfly larvae within the fruit during transport and storage (McGregor, 1987). We did not change the previous risk rating. (A2). Risk Element A: Overall risk Low rating for likelihood of entry Likelihood of Establishment Risk Element B1: Likelihood High C Commercially produced hosts of of coming into contact with Medfly, such as Citrus, Prunus, Malus, host material in the and Vitis are available over a wide area endangered area (NASS, 2013). In addition, wild hosts are present in PRA area (NRCS, 2012). Risk Element B2: Likelihood High MC We assume in the absence of specific of arriving in the endangered evidence that cherries will move into the area PRA area in proportion to the size of the consumer population. Greater than 25 percent of the U.S. population lives within the area endangered by Medfly; therefore, this risk element is rated High. Risk Element B: Combined High N/A likelihood of establishment Overall Likelihood of Introduction Combined likelihoods of Medium N/A entry and establishment aC=Certain, MC=Moderately Certain, MU=Moderately Uncertain, U=Uncertain

Ver. 3 March 12, 2015 23 Pest Risk Assessment for Cherries from Continental Spain

Assessment of the consequences of introduction of Ceratitis capitata into continental United States Criteria Meets Uncertainty Justification for rating and criteria? Ratinga explanation of uncertainty (and (Yes/No) other notes as necessary Direct Impacts Risk Element C1: Damage Yes C This pest is likely to cause significant potential in the endangered damage in the endangered area. area Medfly is a major pest of citrus, and other deciduous fruits, such as peach, pear, and apple It feeds directly on the fruit, rendering it unmarketable (CABI, 2013). No comparable pests exist in the endangered area; therefore, in addition to reduction of crop yield, infested areas will have additional expenses related to the application of control measures and costly sorting processes. Risk Element C2: Spread Yes C Medfly has spread from Africa to potential almost every other continent. Adult flight and the transport of infested fruits are the major means of movement and dispersal (EPPO, 1983). Long-distance flights of adults have been recorded when fruit is unavailable in an area (Fletcher, 1989). Risk Element C: Pest Yes N/A introduction is likely to cause unacceptable direct impacts Trade Impacts Risk Element D1: Export N/A N/A markets at risk Risk Element D2: Likelihood N/A N/A of trading partners imposing additional phytosanitary requirements Risk Element D: Pest is likely N/A N/A to cause significant trade impacts Conclusion Is the pest likely to cause Yes N/A unacceptable consequences in the PRA area? aC=Certain, MC=Moderately Certain, MU=Moderately Uncertain, U=Uncertain

Ver. 3 March 12, 2015 24 Pest Risk Assessment for Cherries from Continental Spain

3.2.5. Cydia funebrana We determined the overall likelihood of introduction to be Medium. We present the results of this assessment in the table below.

We determined that the establishment of Cydia funebrana the Continental United States is likely to cause unacceptable impacts. We present the results of this assessment in the table below.

Determination of the portion of the continental United States endangered by Cydia funebrana Climatic suitability Cydia funebrana occurs throughout the Palearctic regions including Europe, Russia, northwestern Africa, and Asia (Whittle, 1984; Zhang, 1994). Cydia funebrana is common in England and Wales, occurs in Scotland, and is not recorded from Ireland (Carter, 1984). Based on its distribution records it is estimated that C. funebrana could establish in USDA Plant Hardiness Zones 2-11, which encompasses all of the continental United States. Potential hosts at Cydia funebrana feeds primarily on stone fruits (Prunus); many species risk in PRA Area and cultivars are present in U.S. fruit production areas. Primary hosts include apricot (P. armeniaca), cherry (P. avium), cherry or myrobalan plum/Asian (P. cerasifera), plum or wild bullace (P. insititia), Japanese cherry or Japanese plum (P. japonica), peach (P. persica), plum (P. domestica), sour cherry (P. cerasus), and wild blackthorn or sloe (P. spinosa) (CABI, 2013; Popova, 1971; Whittle, 1984; Venette et al., 2003; Zhang, 1994). Secondary hosts include apple (Malus domestica, M. sylvestris), bitter almond (P. dulcis), English walnut ( regia), European (Castanea sativa), and pear () (APHIS, 2012a; Whittle, 1984). Many potentially suitable wild hosts are also available throughout the United States (NASS, 2013). Economically As stated above, C. funebrana attacks economically important U.S. fruit important hosts at and nut crops such as apricot, cherry, Japanese plum, plum, peach, sour riska cherry, walnut, pear, and apple (APHIS, 2012a; Venette et al., 2003). Pest potential on Considerable economic damage occurs on plum in several countries, economically including Australia, West Germany, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Romania, important hosts at Switzerland, and the former Soviet Union (Arnaoudov and Andreev, riska 2002; Popova, 1971; Venette et al., 2003). In those countries, damage due to Cydia funebrana ranges from 40 percent to as high as 100 percent crop loss. Defined Endangered The endangered area of Cydia funebrana is the many crops listed above Area that are grown in Zones 2-11 (i.e., all of the continental United States). a As defined by ISPM No. 11, supplement 2, “economically” important hosts refers to both commercial and non- market (environmental) plants (IPPC, 2011).

Ver. 3 March 12, 2015 25 Pest Risk Assessment for Cherries from Continental Spain

Assessment of the likelihood of introduction of Cydia funebrana into the endangered area via the importation of cherries from continental Spain Risk Element Risk Uncertainty Justification for rating and Rating Ratinga explanation of uncertainty (and other notes as necessary) Likelihood of Entry Risk Element A1: Pest Low MC Cydia funebrana feeds primarily on prevalence on the harvested peach and plum, with very limited commodity (= the baseline association with sweet cherry (Carter, rating for entry) 1984). Fruit damaged by feeding often exhibit premature ripening (Van der Geest and Evenhuis, 1991). Risk Element A2: Likelihood Low MU Post-harvest handling procedures are of surviving post-harvest unlikely to affect the survivability of processing before shipment internal feeders such as C. funebrana. We did not change the previous risk rating (A1). Risk Element A3: Likelihood Low MU Spain will ship by air (thermal of surviving transport and insulation sheet and ice) or sea freight storage conditions of the (2°C, thermograph controlled) (NPPO consignment Spain, 2013). Commercial storage conditions are unlikely cause mortality of the larvae in fruit (McGregor, 1987); therefore, we assume that the pest would survive transport and storage conditions. We did not change the previous risk rating (A2). Risk Element A: Overall risk Low N/A rating for likelihood of entry Likelihood of Establishment Risk Element B1: Likelihood Medium MC Fruit is likely to be consumed. If not of coming into contact with consumed, full grown larvae need to host material in the move from the fruit to pupate. endangered area Pupation occurs at the base of tree, in bark crevices, or in the soil (Popova, 1971; Van der Geest and Evenhuis, 1991). Larvae would also need to move from fruit to an overwintering/pupation site (Alford, 2014). Risk Element B2: Likelihood High C Cherries are likely move into areas in of arriving in the endangered proportion to the sizes of the consumer area populations. Greater than 25 percent of the U.S. population lives within the endangered area.

Ver. 3 March 12, 2015 26 Pest Risk Assessment for Cherries from Continental Spain

Risk Element Risk Uncertainty Justification for rating and Rating Ratinga explanation of uncertainty (and other notes as necessary) Risk Element B: Combined Medium MC likelihood of establishment Overall Likelihood of Introduction Combined likelihoods of Medium N/A entry and establishment aC=Certain, MC=Moderately Certain, MU=Moderately Uncertain, U=Uncertain

Assessment of the consequences of introduction of Cydia funebrana into continental United States (i.e., the PRA area) Criteria Meets Uncertainty Justification for rating and criteria? Ratinga explanation of uncertainty (and (Yes/No) other notes as necessary) Direct Impacts Risk Element C1: Damage Yes C Cydia funebrana is one of the potential in the endangered largest economic threats to fruit area production in central Europe (Van der Geest and Evenhuis, 1991). Estimates of field loss range widely from 15-30 percent (Andreev and Kutinkova, 2008) to as much as 90 percent damage in plum crops (Popova, 1971). Risk Element C2: Spread Yes C Spread potential of Cydia potential funebrana is significant because it can fly (CABI, 2013). Risk Element C: Pest Yes N/A introduction is likely to cause unacceptable direct impacts Trade Impacts Risk Element D1: Export N/A markets at risk Risk Element D2: Likelihood N/A of trading partners imposing additional phytosanitary requirements Risk Element D: Pest is likely N/A to cause significant trade impacts

Ver. 3 March 12, 2015 27 Pest Risk Assessment for Cherries from Continental Spain

Criteria Meets Uncertainty Justification for rating and criteria? Ratinga explanation of uncertainty (and (Yes/No) other notes as necessary) Conclusion Is the pest likely to cause Yes N/A unacceptable consequences in the PRA area? aC=Certain, MC=Moderately Certain, MU=Moderately Uncertain, U=Uncertain

3.2.6. Monilinia fructigena We determined the overall likelihood of introduction to be High. We present the results of this assessment in the table below.

We determined that the establishment of Monilinia fructigena in the United States is likely to cause unacceptable impacts. We present the results of this assessment in the table below. Monilinia fructigena may not cause any unacceptable direct economic impacts in the United States because this species is not considered as economically damaging as M. fructicola, which is already widely distributed throughout the United States (Byrde and Willetts, 1977; Jones and Aldwinckle, 1990). Furthermore, M. fructigena is likely to be controlled by the same control practices (Chalkley, 2010; Jones and Aldwinckle, 1990) that are already used to control foliar and fruit disease of fruit trees. Despite that, M. fructigena is regulated by Canada (CFIA, 2012), so U.S. exports could be subjected to additional phytosanitary regulations if M. fructigena became established in the United States.

Determination of the portion of the continental United States endangered by Monilinia fructigena Climatic suitability Monilinia fructigena occurs in Europe, Egypt, Morocco, parts of the Middle East, Russia, Taiwan, Korea, and China (CABI, 2013; Cline, 2005; Farr et al., 2013). In the past, this fungus infected hosts within the United States, causing a minor outbreak in Maryland that was subsequently eradicated (Jones and Aldwinckle, 1990). Reports of this fungus from South America are likely misidentifications (CABI, 2013). Based on that information, we estimate that this fungus could become established in areas of the United States corresponding to USDA Plant Hardiness Zones 5-9 (Magarey et al., 2008; PERAL/CIPM, 2008), and possibly Zones 4 and 10. Potential hosts at Monilinia fructigena primarily infects Prunus (stone fruit), Malus risk in PRA Area (apple), and Pyrus (pear), but it is also associated with Cydonia oblonga (), Vitis vinifera (grape), Cotoneaster sp., and (common filbert) (Cline, 2005; Farr et al., 2013; Jones and Aldwinckle, 1990). These hosts are widely distributed throughout USDA Plant Hardiness Zones 5-9 in the continental United States (Kartesz, 2013; NASS, 2013; NRCS, 2013). Economically , pears, stone fruit, grapes, quince, and filberts are economically important hosts at important fruit crops (NASS, 2013).

Ver. 3 March 12, 2015 28 Pest Risk Assessment for Cherries from Continental Spain riska Pest potential on Monilinia fructigena causes a brown rot of mature pome and stone fruit economically (CABI, 2013; Byrde and Willetts, 1977). It also can cause wilting and important hosts at collapse of floral parts as well as cankers on shoots and branches (Byrde riska and Willetts, 1977; CABI, 2013; Jones and Aldwinckle, 1990). Defined The area endangered by M. fructigena includes areas in the United States Endangered Area within Zones 5-9 where apples, pears, stonefruit, grapes, quince, and filberts are grown. a As defined by ISPM No. 11, supplement 2, “economically” important hosts refers to both commercial and non- market (environmental) plants (IPPC, 2011).

Assessment of the likelihood of introduction of Monilinia fructigena into the continental United States via the importation of Prunus avium from Spain Risk Element Risk Uncertainty Justification for rating and Rating Ratinga explanation of uncertainty (and other notes as necessary) Likelihood of Entry Risk Element A1: Pest High C Monilinia fructigena causes a brown prevalence on the harvested fruit rot of stone fruit (Byrde and commodity (= the baseline Willetts, 1977; Ritchie, 2000). Fruit is rating for entry) a typical infection point for this pathogen (Ogawa et al., 1995). Risk Element A2: Likelihood Medium MC Monilinia fructigena causes a circular of surviving post-harvest brown rot of ripening or mature fruit processing before shipment that gradually extends outwards (Byrde and Willetts, 1977). Eventually, the entire fruit surface can become covered with conidial tufts and fungal , and the fruit becomes shriveled and “mummified” (Byrde and Willetts, 1977). Thus, late stage infections are highly likely to be observed (CABI, 2013) and removed during post-harvest grading and selection. Latent infections (symptomless infections) may not be detected, but based on this evidence; we decreased the previous rating by one level. Risk Element A3: Likelihood Medium MC Spain will ship by air (thermal of surviving transport and insulation sheet and ice) or sea freight storage conditions of the (2°C, thermograph controlled) (NPPO consignment Spain, 2013). Temperatures below 5°C slow the growth of M. fructigena (Chalkley, 2010) but the pest would

Ver. 3 March 12, 2015 29 Pest Risk Assessment for Cherries from Continental Spain

Risk Element Risk Uncertainty Justification for rating and Rating Ratinga explanation of uncertainty (and other notes as necessary) likely survive those conditions. We did not change the previous risk rating (A2). Risk Element A: Overall risk Medium N/A rating for likelihood of entry Likelihood of Establishment Risk Element B1: Likelihood High C The spores of Monilinia species of coming into contact with primarily move to new areas via wind host material in the and air currents (Byrde and Willetts, endangered area 1977). Animals can be important vectors for this pathogen (Chalkley, 2010). Birds, wasps, , flies, and certain Lepidoptera that are attracted to rotting discarded fruit can pick up spores and move them to new hosts (Byrd and Willetts, 1977; Chalkley, 2010). The primary hosts for this fungus (apples, stone fruits, and pears) are grown throughout the endangered area (Kartesz, 2013), so we rated this risk element High. Risk Element B2: Likelihood High C Zones 5-9 contain about 90 percent of of arriving in the endangered the U.S. population. area

Risk Element B: Combined High N/A likelihood of establishment

Overall Likelihood of Introduction Combined likelihoods of High N/A entry and establishment aC=Certain, MC=Moderately Certain, MU=Moderately Uncertain, U=Uncertain

Assessment of the consequences of introduction of Monilinia fructigena into the continental United States via the importation of Prunus avium from Spain (i.e., the PRA area) Criteria Meets Uncertainty Justification for rating and criteria? Ratinga explanation of uncertainty (and (Yes/No) other notes as necessary) Direct Impacts Risk Element C1: Damage No MU Losses from M. fructigena rarely potential in the endangered warrant specific control measures

Ver. 3 March 12, 2015 30 Pest Risk Assessment for Cherries from Continental Spain

Criteria Meets Uncertainty Justification for rating and criteria? Ratinga explanation of uncertainty (and (Yes/No) other notes as necessary) area (Chalkley, 2010). In managed systems, yield loss is typically below 10 percent (van Leeuwen, 2000). Pre-harvest losses from M. fructigena are difficult to estimate, as infected fruit are usually predisposed to the pathogen from bird and damage (van Leeuwen, 2000) and would likely be culled.

Monilinia fructigena is closely related to two other widespread brown rot fungi, M. fructicola and M. laxa (Chalkley, 2010). Monilinia fructigena is not considered as damaging as M. fructicola, which is already widely distributed and managed throughout the United States (Byrde and Willetts, 1977; Jones and Aldwinckle, 1990; Ritchie, 2000). Pome and stonefruit growers in the United States employ chemical and/or cultural control practices against a variety of foliar and fruit pathogens that would likely help prevention/control of M. fructigena (Chalkley, 2010; Jones and Aldwinckle, 1990). Resistance to commonly used fungicides for the prevention of brown rot fungi can occur (Meissner and Stammler, 2010; Ogawa et al., 1995; Chalkley, 2010), however, which increases our uncertainty about the damage potential. Risk Element C2: Spread N/A N/A potential Risk Element C: Pest No N/A introduction is likely to cause unacceptable direct impacts Trade Impacts Risk Element D1: Export Yes MC Twenty percent of exported U.S. markets at risk apples and 34 percent of exported U.S. go to Canada (FAS, 2012), where M. fructigena does not occur

Ver. 3 March 12, 2015 31 Pest Risk Assessment for Cherries from Continental Spain

Criteria Meets Uncertainty Justification for rating and criteria? Ratinga explanation of uncertainty (and (Yes/No) other notes as necessary) (CABI, 2013; Jones and Aldwinckle, 1990). Canada lists M. fructigena as a harmful organism (APHIS, 2012b). Risk Element D2: Likelihood Yes C Canada requires apples from China, of trading partners imposing Japan, and Korea and stone fruits from additional phytosanitary Spain to be free of M. fructigena as a requirements condition of entry (CFIA, 2012), so if M. fructigena established here, U.S. apples and stonefruit exported to Canada would likely be subject to similar phytosanitary requirements. Risk Element D: Pest is likely Yes N/A to cause significant trade impacts Conclusion Is the pest likely to cause Yes N/A unacceptable consequences in the PRA area? a C=Certain, MC=Moderately Certain, MU=Moderately Uncertain, U=Uncertain

3.2.7. Raspberry ringspot nepovirus We determined the overall likelihood of introduction to be Negligible. We present the results of this assessment in a table below. Because the likelihood of introduction was Negligible we did not assess the consequences of introduction.

Assessment of the likelihood of introduction of Raspberry ringspot nepovirus into the continental United States via the importation of Prunus avium from Spain Risk Element Risk Uncertainty Justification for rating and Rating Ratinga explanation of uncertainty (and other notes as necessary) Likelihood of Entry Risk Element A1: Pest N/A N/A prevalence on the harvested commodity (= the baseline rating for entry) Risk Element A2: Likelihood of N/A N/A surviving post-harvest processing before shipment Risk Element A3: Likelihood of N/A N/A surviving transport and storage conditions of the consignment

Ver. 3 March 12, 2015 32 Pest Risk Assessment for Cherries from Continental Spain

Risk Element Risk Uncertainty Justification for rating and Rating Ratinga explanation of uncertainty (and other notes as necessary) Risk Element A: Overall risk N/A N/A rating for likelihood of entry Likelihood of Establishment Risk Element B1: Likelihood of Negligible C This pathogen is a nepovirus, coming into contact with host which are transmitted by free- material in the endangered area living, soil-inhabiting nematodes (CABI, 2013; Ogawa et al., 1995). Those nematodes feed on below- ground plant parts and would not accompany infested fruit.

The virus is seed transmitted in some hosts (CABI, 2013). Fruit trees are generally vegetatively propagated to retain clonal characteristics. Discarded seed from fruit for consumption is highly unlikely to germinate and produce fruit-bearing trees. Moreover, any trees that did grow would probably lack the tolerances/disease resistance often gained through grafting onto rootstocks (Gough, 1996; Lerner, 2006). Finally, the pathogen would still need to move from an infected host plant by nematodes or by mechanical transmission. We concluded that the virus has a Negligible likelihood of coming into contact with host material in the continental United States via fruit for consumption. Risk Element B2: Likelihood of N/A N/A arriving in the endangered area Risk Element B: Combined Negligible N/A Outcome of Risk Element B1. likelihood of establishment Overall Likelihood of Introduction Combined likelihoods of entry Negligible N/A and establishment aC=Certain, MC=Moderately Certain, MU=Moderately Uncertain, U=Uncertain

Ver. 3 March 12, 2015 33 Pest Risk Assessment for Cherries from Continental Spain

3.2.8. Rhagoletis cerasi We determined the overall likelihood of introduction for Rhagoletis cerasi to be High. We present the results of this assessment in a table below.

We determined that the establishment potential of R. cerasi in the United States is likely to cause unacceptable impacts. We present the results of this assessment in a table below.

Determination of the portion of the continental U.S. endangered by Rhagoletis cerasi Climatic suitability Rhagoletis cerasi is found throughout mainland Europe and Turkey. This corresponds to Plant Hardiness Zones 5-9 (Magarey et al., 2008). Potential hosts at risk Sweet cherry (Prunus avium) and sour cherry (P. cerasus) are hosts of in PRA Area R. cerasi and are grown in Zones 5-9 (NASS, 2013; NRCS, 2012). Economically Sweet and sour cherry are economically important. important hosts at riska Pest potential on Rhagoletis cerasi causes extensive damage on cherries if not managed economically (Kovanci and Kovanci, 2006). important hosts at riska Defined Endangered The endangered area for Rhagoletis cerasi consists of cherry Area production areas in Zones 5-9. a As defined by ISPM No. 11, supplement 2, “economically” important hosts refers to both commercial and non- market (environmental) plants (IPPC, 2011).

Assessment of the likelihood of introduction of Rhagoletis cerasi into the endangered area via the importation of cherries from Spain Risk Element Risk Uncertainty Justification for rating and Rating Ratinga explanation of uncertainty (and other notes as necessary) Likelihood of Entry Risk Element A1: Pest Medium MC The infestation rate for this pest in prevalence on the harvested commercial cherries is reportedly low commodity (= the baseline (Kovanci and Kovanci, 2006), but rating for entry) rates in poorly managed orchards can be high. Risk Element A2: Likelihood Medium MU We found no evidence that processing of surviving post-harvest is likely to affect pest survival. processing before shipment Risk Element A3: Likelihood Medium MC Cold temperature storage of the fruit is of surviving transport and unlikely to kill the larvae or pupae of storage conditions of the this pest within the fruit during consignment transport and storage because R. cerasi can survive long storage at 1-4°C (Daniel and Wyss, 2009). Risk Element A: Overall risk Medium N/A rating for likelihood of entry

Ver. 3 March 12, 2015 34 Pest Risk Assessment for Cherries from Continental Spain

Risk Element Risk Uncertainty Justification for rating and Rating Ratinga explanation of uncertainty (and other notes as necessary) Likelihood of Establishment Risk Element B1: Likelihood Medium MC Host material is relatively widespread of coming into contact with within the endangered area as host material in the commercially grown commodity endangered area (NASS, 2013). Risk Element B2: Likelihood High C More than 25 percent of the population of arriving in the endangered is within the endangered area. area Risk Element B: Combined High N/A likelihood of establishment Overall Likelihood of Introduction Combined likelihoods of High N/A entry and establishment aC=Certain, MC=Moderately Certain, MU=Moderately Uncertain, U=Uncertain

Assessment of the consequences of introduction of Rhagoletis cerasi into the continental United States (i.e., the PRA area) Criteria Meets Uncertainty Justification for rating and criteria? Ratinga explanation of uncertainty (and (Yes/No) other notes as necessary) Direct Impacts Risk Element C1: Damage Yes MC Rhagoletis cerasi is a significant pest potential in the endangered in its native range (Alford, 2014). area Eighty percent of the fruits of some cultivars of sweet cherry may be attacked if not adequately controlled (Stamenkovic et al., 1996). Risk Element C2: Spread Yes MC Rhagoletis cerasi can fly and move on potential infested fruit (CABI, 2013). Risk Element C: Pest Yes N/A introduction is likely to cause unacceptable direct impacts Trade Impacts Risk Element D1: Export N/A N/A markets at risk Risk Element D2: Likelihood N/A N/A of trading partners imposing additional phytosanitary requirements

Ver. 3 March 12, 2015 35 Pest Risk Assessment for Cherries from Continental Spain

Criteria Meets Uncertainty Justification for rating and criteria? Ratinga explanation of uncertainty (and (Yes/No) other notes as necessary) Risk Element D: Pest is likely N/A N/A to cause significant trade impacts Conclusion Is the pest likely to cause Yes N/A unacceptable consequences in the PRA area? aC=Certain, MC=Moderately Certain, MU=Moderately Uncertain, U=Uncertain

3.2.9. Strawberry latent ringspot nepovirus This virus is present in parts of the United States and its regulatory status is under review (Martin, 2004; Postman et al., 2004). Currently this is a regulated pest (APHIS, 2000).

We determined the overall likelihood of introduction to be Negligible. We present the results of this assessment in a table below. Because the likelihood of introduction was Negligible we did not assess the consequences of introduction.

Assessment of the likelihood of introduction of Strawberry latent ringspot nepovirus into the continental United States via the importation of Prunus avium from Spain Risk Element Risk Rating Uncertainty Justification for rating and Ratinga explanation of uncertainty (and other notes as necessary) Likelihood of Entry Risk Element A1: Pest N/A N/A prevalence on the harvested commodity (= the baseline rating for entry) Risk Element A2: Likelihood N/A N/A of surviving post-harvest processing before shipment Risk Element A3: Likelihood N/A N/A of surviving transport and storage conditions of the consignment Risk Element A: Overall risk N/A N/A rating for likelihood of entry Likelihood of Establishment Risk Element B1: Likelihood Negligible C This pathogen is a nepovirus, of coming into contact with which are transmitted by free- host material in the living, soil-inhabiting nematodes

Ver. 3 March 12, 2015 36 Pest Risk Assessment for Cherries from Continental Spain

Risk Element Risk Rating Uncertainty Justification for rating and Ratinga explanation of uncertainty (and other notes as necessary) endangered area (CABI, 2013; Ogawa et al., 1995). Those nematodes feed on below- ground plant parts and would not accompany infested fruit.

The virus is seed transmitted in some hosts (CABI, 2013). Fruit trees are generally vegetatively propagated to retain clonal characteristics. Discarded seed from fruit for consumption is highly unlikely to germinate and produce fruit-bearing trees. Moreover, any trees that did grow would probably lack the tolerances/disease resistance often gained through grafting onto rootstocks (Gough, 1996; Lerner, 2006). Finally, the pathogen would still need to move from an infected host plant by nematodes or by mechanical transmission. We concluded that the virus has a Negligible likelihood of coming into contact with host material in the continental United States via fruit for consumption. Risk Element B2: Likelihood N/A N/A of arriving in the endangered area Risk Element B: Combined Negligible N/A Outcome of Risk Element B1. likelihood of establishment Overall Likelihood of Introduction Combined likelihoods of Negligible N/A entry and establishment aC=Certain, MC=Moderately Certain, MU=Moderately Uncertain, U=Uncertain

4. Summary and Conclusions of Risk Assessment

Of the organisms associated with Prunus avium worldwide and reported in Spain, we identified organisms that are actionable pests for continental United States and have a reasonable likelihood of being associated with the commodity following harvesting from the field and prior

Ver. 3 March 12, 2015 37 Pest Risk Assessment for Cherries from Continental Spain to any post-harvest processing. We further evaluated these organisms for their likelihood of introduction (i.e., entry plus establishment) and their potential consequences of introduction. Pests that meet the threshold to likely cause unacceptable consequences of introduction and receive an overall likelihood of introduction risk rating above Negligible are candidates for risk management. The results of this risk assessment represent a baseline estimate of the risks associated with the import commodity pathway as described in section 1.4: the importation of fresh cherries from continental Spain into the continental United States.

Of the pests selected for further analysis, we determined that those identified in Table 6 are not candidates for risk management, either because no portion of continental United States is likely to be endangered by the pest, they do not meet the threshold to likely cause unacceptable consequences of introduction, and/or because they received a Negligible overall risk rating for likelihood of introduction into the endangered area via the import pathway. We summarize the results for each pest in Table 6.

All the other pests selected for further analysis are candidates for risk management, because they meet the threshold to likely cause unacceptable consequences of introduction, and they received an overall likelihood of introduction risk rating above Negligible. We summarize the results for each pest in Table 7.

Detailed examination and choice of appropriate phytosanitary measures to mitigate pest risk are part of the pest risk management phase within APHIS and are not addressed in this document.

Table 6. Summary for pests selected for further evaluation and determined not to be candidates for risk management. Pest Reason the pest is not a candidate for Uncertainty risk management statement (optional)a ‘Candidatus Phytoplasma mali’ Negligible Likelihood of Introduction ‘Candidatus Phytoplasma prunorum’ Negligible Likelihood of Introduction Raspberry ringspot nepovirus Negligible Likelihood of Introduction Strawberry latent ringspot nepovirus Negligible Likelihood of Introduction aThe uncertainty statement, if included, identifies the most important source(s) of uncertainty.

Table 7. Summary for pests selected for further evaluation and determined to be candidates for risk management. All of these pests meet the threshold for unacceptable consequences of introduction. Pest Likelihood of Introduction Uncertainty statement overall rating (optional)a Apiognomonia erythrostoma Medium Ceratitis capitata Medium Uncertainty about infestation rate on cherry Cydia funebrana Medium Primarily a pest of plum

Ver. 3 March 12, 2015 38 Pest Risk Assessment for Cherries from Continental Spain

Pest Likelihood of Introduction Uncertainty statement overall rating (optional)a Monilinia fructigena High Uncertainty about the damage potential in the United States Rhagoletis cerasi High Management of other Rhagoletis species in the United States may control this pest. a The uncertainty statement, if included, identifies the most important source(s) of uncertainty.

5. Acknowledgements

Authors Heather Hartzog, Plant Pathologista Alison Neeley, Entomologist a

Reviewers Dan Borchert, Entomologist a Feridoon Mehdizadegana a Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory, USDA-APHIS-PPQ

6. References

7 CFR § 301.74. 2012. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 7, Part 301, Subpart 74 (7 CFR § 301.74 – Domestic Quarantine Notices, Plum pox virus). Agrios, G.N. 1997. . 4th Ed. Academic Press. San Diego, California. Afonin, A. N., S. L. Greene, N. I. Dzyubenko, and A. N. Frolov. 2008. Interactive Agricultural Ecological Atlas of Russia and Neighboring Countries. Economic Plants and their Diseases, Pests and Weeds[Online]. Available at: http://www.agroatlas.ru. (Archived at PERAL). Alford, D. V. 2007. Pests of Fruit Crops, A Color Handbook, Second Edition. CRC Press. Boca Raton, FL, 462 pp. Andreev, R., and H. Kutinkova. 2008. Possibility of reducing chemical treatments aimed at control of plum insect pests. ISHS Acta Horticulturae, IX International Symposium on Plum and Prune Genetics, Breeding and Pomology 874:215-220. Andreev, R., and H. Kutinkova. 2008. Possibility of reducing chemical treatments aimed at control of plum insect pests. ISHS Acta Horticulturae, IX International Symposium on Plum and Prune Genetics, Breeding and Pomology 874:215-220. Andrew, C. O., J. C. Cato, and F. J. Prochaska. 1977. Potential economic impact of a fruit fly infestation on the U.S. citrus industry. Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc. 90:29-32. APHIS. 1983. Pests Not Known to Occur in the United States or of Limited Distribution, No. 34: European Cherry Fruit Fly. USDA, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. Hyattsville, MD. APHIS. 2000. USDA Animal Plant Health Inspection Service Regulated Plant Pest List. USDA, Animal Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine.

Ver. 3 March 12, 2015 39 Pest Risk Assessment for Cherries from Continental Spain

APHIS. 2012a. New Pest Response Guidelines: Plum Fruit (Cydia funebrana). USDA, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine,Center for Plant Health Science and Technology, Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory, Riverdale, Maryland. 1-125 pp. APHIS. 2012b. Phytosanitary Certificate Issurance & Tracking System (PCIT). United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). https://pcit.aphis.usda.gov/pcit/faces/index.jsp. Arnaoudov, V., and R. Andreev. 2002. A study on carpophagus Hymenoptera and Lepidoptera of plums in the Plovdiv fruit-growing region. Acta Horticulturae 577:247-253. Avidov, Z., and I. Harpaz. 1969. Plant pests of Israel. Israel Universities Press,Jerusalem. 549 pp. Barclay, M. V. L. 2003. (S. Str.) armadillo (Rossi, 1792) and Otiorhynchus salicicola Heyden, 1908 (Curculionidae: : Otiorhynchini) - two European vine weevils established in Britain. The Coleopterist 12(2):41-56. Baric, S., C. Kerschbamer, J. Vigl, and J. D. Via. 2008. Translocation of apple proliferation phytoplasma via natural root grafts - a case study. European Journal of Plant Pathology 121:207-211. Batlle, A., J. Sabate, I. Iglesias, and A. Lavina. 2012. Identification and Epidemiology of Candidatus Phytoplasma prunorum in Spanish Peach Orchards. Susceptibility of Different Rootstocks to the Disease. Proceedings of the 7th International Peach Symposium, Acta Horticulturae 962:443-448. Bedford, E. C. G., M. A. Van den Berg, and E. A. De Villiers. 1998. Citrus pests in the Republic of South Africa. 2nd edition. Nelspruit, S.A. : ARC - Institute for Tropical and Subtropical Crops ; Hennopsmeer : Outspan International, 288pp. Ben-Dov, Y. 1994. A systematic catalogue of the mealybugs of the world (Insecta: Homoptera: Coccoidea: Pseudococcidae and Putoidae): with data on geographical distribution, host plants, biology and economic importance. Intercept Ltd, Andover, UK. 686 pp. Blackman, R. L., and V. F. Eastop. 2000. on the world's crops: An identification and information guide (2nd ed.). John Wiley & Sons Ltd., West Sussex, England. 466 pp. Bolland, H. R., J. Gutierrez, and C. H. W. Flechtmann. 1998. World catalogue of the spider mite family (Acari: Tetranychidae). E.J. Brill, Leiden, Netherlands. 392 pp. Bradbury, J. F. 1986. Guide to Plant Pathogenic Bacteria. CAB International Mycological Institute, Kew, Surrey, England. 329 pp. Bright, D. E., and R. E. Skidmore. 1997. A catalog of Scolytidae and Platypodidae (Coleoptera), supplement 1 (1990-1994). NRC Research Press, Ontario, Canada. 368 pp. Bronckers, R. (2003). Apiognomonia erythrostoma (Pers.: Fr.) Höhn., an interesting pyrenomycete in a leaf of wild cherry (Prunus avium) [Abstract]. AMK Mededelingen, 2, 36-38. Brunt, A. A., K. Crabtree, M. J. Dallwitz, A. J. Gibbs, L. Watson, and E. J. Zurcher (eds.). 1996 onwards. Plant Viruses Online: Descriptions and Lists from the VIDE Database, 20th Version. University of Idaho Environmental, Biotechnology Institute. Last accessed August 30, 2010, http://www.agls.uidaho.edu/ebi/vdie/sppindex.htm. Butani, D. K. 1993. Mango: Pest problems. Periodical Expert Book Agency, Delhi, India. 290 pp.

Ver. 3 March 12, 2015 40 Pest Risk Assessment for Cherries from Continental Spain

Byrde, R. J. W., and H. J. Willetts. 1977. The brown rot fungi of fruit. Their biology and control. Pergamon Press, Oxford, United Kingdom. 171 pp. Byun, B.-K., S.-C. Yan, and C.-D. Li. 2003. Revision of Tribe Archipini (Tortricidae: Tortricinae) in northeast China. Journal of Forestry Research 14(2):93-102. CABI. 1969. Distribution Maps of Pests: Gnomonia erythrostoma (Map No. 455). CAB International. Wallingford, UK. 1-2 pp. CABI. 2003. Distribution Map of Pests: Hylobius abietis (Map No. 643 Ed.1). CAB International. Wallingford, UK. 1-2 pp. CABI. 2008. Crop Protection Compendium: Aporia crataegi. CAB International. Wallingford, UK. http://www.cabi.org/cpc. (Archived at PERAL). CABI. 2013. Crop Protection Compendium. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureau International (CABI). Wallingford, UK. http://www.cabi.org/cpc. (Archived at PERAL). CABI/EPPO. 2004a. Datasheets on Quarantine Pests: Cherry little cherry virus. CAB International and European Plant Protection Organization. http://www.eppo.int/QUARANTINE/virus/Little_cherry/LCHV00_ds.pdf CABI/EPPO. 2004b. Datasheets on Quarantine Pests: Raspberry ringspot nepovirus. CAB International and European Plant Protection Organization. https://www.eppo.int/QUARANTINE/virus/Raspberry_ringspot_virus/RPRSV0_ds.pdf Canizares, M.C., J. F. Marcos, and V. Pallas. 1998. Studies on the Incidence of Hop Stunt Viroid in Apricot Trees (Prunus armeniaca) by Using an Easy and Short Extraction Method to Analyze a Large Number of Samples. Acta Horticulturae 472 (1): 581-587. Capote, N., M. A. Cambra, P. Botella, M. T. Gorris, M. C. Martinez, A. Lopez-Quilez, and M. Cambra. 2010. Detection, Characterization, Epidemiology and Eradication of Plum Pox Virus Marcus Type in Spain. Journal of Plant Pathology 92(3):619-628. CAPS. 2013. Priority Pest List for 2013: Pests of Economic and Environmental Importance (Appendix G-2). United States Department of Agriculture, Cooperative Agricultural Pest Survey (CAPS). Carraro, L., R. Osler, N. Loi, P. Ermacora, and E. Refatti. 1998. Transmission of the European stone fruit yellows phytoplasma by Cacopsylla pruni. Journal of Plant Pathology 80(3):233-239. Carter, D. J. 1984. Pest Lepidoptera of Europe with special reference to the British Isles. Dr. W. Junk Publishers, Dordrecht, and the Trustees of the British Museum (Natural History), London. 431 pp. Cayol, J. P., Y. Rössler, M. Weiss, M. Bahdousheh, M. Omari, M. Hamalawi, and A. Almughayyar. 2002. Fruit fly control and monitoring in the Near East: shared concern in a regional transboundary problem. Proceedings of 6th International Fruit Fly Symposium 6-10 May 2002, Stellenbosch, South Africa. CFIA. 2012. Appendix 1: Summary of plant health import requirements for temperate fresh fruit approved for entry into Canada. Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA), Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. Last accessed December 7, 2012, http://www.inspection.gc.ca/plants/plant-protection/directives/horticulture/d-95- 08/appendix-1/eng/1322423173660/1322423886642 Chalkley, D. 2010. Invasive Fungi: Asian/European brown rot of rosaceae - Monilinia fructigena. Systematic Mycology and Microbiology Laboratory, ARS, USDA.

Ver. 3 March 12, 2015 41 Pest Risk Assessment for Cherries from Continental Spain

Chalkley, D., Carrieri, R., Alioto, D. 2010. Invasive and Emerging Fungal Pathogens: Diagnostic Fact Sheets: Cherry leaf scorch - Apiognomonia erythrostoma. Systematic Mycology and Microbiology Laboratory, ARS, USDA. Chang, L.W.H. 1985. Pests Not Known to Occur in the United States or of Limited Distribution (PNKTO), No. 63: Pear Leaf Blister Moth. United States Department of Agriculture, Animal Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quaratine, Policy and Program Development, Risk Analysis Systems. 1-12 pp. Childers, C. C., W. C. Welbourn, and N. J. Fashing. 2006. Ranking model and list to identify foreign Tetranychoidea pests of agricultural and environmental significance to the United States. Acaralogical Society of America; USDA-APHIS. 509 pp. Ciccotti, A. M., P. L. Bianchedi, P. Bragagna, M. Deromedi, M. Filippi, F. Forno, and L. Mattedi. 2008. Natural and experimental transmission of Candidatus Phytoplasma mali by root bridges. Acta Horticulturae 781:459-464. CIE. 1963a. Distribution Maps of Plant Pests: Hoplocampa flava (L.) (Map No. 168). Commonwealth Institute of Entomology, London. 2 pp. CIE. 1963b. Distribution Maps of Plant Pests: Hoplocampa minuta (L.) (Map No. 167). Commonwealth Institute of Entomology. 1-2 pp. CIE. 1982. Distribution Maps of Plant Pests: Adoxophyes orana (Map No. 442). Commonwealth Institute of Entomology, London. 2 pp. CIE. 1983. Distribution Maps of Plant Pests: Stephanitis piri (Map No. 454). Commonwealth Institute of Entomology, London. 2 pp. Cline, E. 2005. Systematic Mycology and Microbiology Laboratory - Nomenclature Fact Sheets: Monilinia fructigena and related brown fruit rots. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Research Service. Cuthbertson, A.G.S. and A.K. Murchie. 2005. Environmental monitoring of Archips podana (fruit tree tortrix moth) in Bramley apple orchards in Northern Ireland. International Journal of Environmental Science Technology 2(2): 101-104. Curkovic, T., Brunner, J. F. and Landolt, P. J. 2006. Courtship behavior in Choristoneura rosaceana and Pandemis pyrusana (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). Annals of the Entomological Society of America. 99(3): 617-624. Daniel, C., and E. Wyss. 2009. Susceptibility of different life stages of the European cherry fruit fly, Rhagoletis cerasi, to entomopathogenic fungi. Journal of Applied Entomology. 133:473-483. del Mar Martinez de Altube, M., O. Strauch, G. Fernandez De Castro, and M. Peña. 2008. Control of the flat-headed root borer Capnodis tenebrionis (Linne´) (Coleoptera: Buprestidae) with the entomopathogenic nematode Steinernema carpocapsae (Weiser) (Nematoda: Steinernematidae) in a chitosan formulation in apricot orchards. BioControl 53(3):531-539. De Vrieze, M. 2003. Contribution to the knowledge of the Noctuidae from Spain. Observations and collecting trips from September 1986 till December 2001 (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) Phegea. 31(2): 61-79. Diekmann, M. and C.A.I. Putter. 1996. FAO/IPGRI Technical Guidelines for the Safe Movement of Germplasm. No. 16. Stone Fruits. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations/International Plant Genetic Resources Institute. Rome, Italy. Dionisio, M.H., M. Ahola, and J. Lehto. 2003. Expedición lepidopterológica a Huelva y Cádiz (España) y al Algarbe (Portugal) en octubre de 1991. Boletin de la SAE. 8: 13-16.

Ver. 3 March 12, 2015 42 Pest Risk Assessment for Cherries from Continental Spain

Eastwell, K.C. and M.E. Nelson. 2007. Occurrence of Viroids in Commercial Hop ( lupulus L.) Production Areas of Washington State. Plant Health Progress. Plant Management Network. doi:10.1094/PHP-2007-1127-01-RS. Ehara, S., and T. Gotoh. 1990. A new Tetranychus closely related to T. viennensis Zacher (Acari: Tetranychidae). International Journal of Acarology. 16(2):55-58. Embassy of Spain. 2001. Market Access Request for five commodities from continental Spain to continental United States Personal communication to M. Firko on May 29, 2001, from Luis Esteruelas, Counselor of Agriculture, Embassy of Spain, Office for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. EPPO. 1983. Data sheets on quarantine pests, No. 105 Ceratitis capitata (OEPP/EPPO Bulletin 11(1)). European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization (EPPO). EPPO, 2004. EPPO Standards, Good Plant Protection Practice. No 34. PP 2/33. European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization. Paris, France. pp 427-438. Esteruelas, L. 2001. Letter concerning the pest risk analysis for plum, apricot, peach and nectarine. Personal communication to D. R. Kahn on October 29, 200l, from Embassy of Spain, Office of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Evans, G. O., J. G. Sheals, and D. Macfarlane. 1961. The terrestrial Acari of the British Isles: An introduction to their morphology, biology and classification. Volume I. Introduction and biology. Trustees of the British Museum, London. 219 pp. Farr, D. F., A. Y. Rossman, M. E. Palm, and E. B. McCray. 2013. Fungal Databases. United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Systematic Mycology and Microbiology Laboratory. http://nt.ars-grin.gov/fungaldatabases/. FAS. 2012. U.S. Internet Trade System (FAS Online). United States Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS). http://www.fas.usda.gov/gats/default.aspx. FAS. 2013. Global Agricultural Trade System Online. Foreign Agriculture Service (FAS). United States Department of Agriculture. http://www.fas.usda.gov/gats/default.aspx Ferragut, F., and M. C. Santonja. 1989. Taxonomia y distribucion de los acaros del genero Tetranychus Dufour 1832 (Acari: Tetranychidae), en Espana. Bol. San. Veg. Plagas 15:271-281. Ferris, H. n.d. Plant feeding Nematodes known to be associated with Cherry: Prunus avium. Department of Nematology, University of California. http://plpnemweb.ucdavis.edu/nemaplex/hostlists/CherryHostList.htm. Fletcher, B. S. 1989. Life history strategies of Tephritid fruit flies. Pages 195-208 in A. S. Robinson and G. Hooper, (eds.). Fruit flies: their biology, natural enemies and control. Elsevier, Netherlands. Garcia, M., J. A. Teresa, A. Perez, Y. D. Arias, and M. de Velasco. 1996. Poblacion de adultos y periodo de puesta de Capnodis tenebrionis (L.) (Col.: Buprestidae en los cerezos del Valle del Jerte. Bol. San. Veg. Plagas 22(2):451-463. Gazel, M., Ç. Ulubaş, and K. Çağlayan. 2008. Detection of Hop Stunt Viroid in Sweet and Sour Cherry Trees in Turkey by RT-PCR. Proc. 5th IS on Cherry. Acta Horticulturae 795: 955-958. Gough, R. E. 1996. Growing Trees and Shrubs from Seed. Montana State University Extension Service, http://csfs.colostate.edu/pdfs/growseed.pdf. 4 pp. Gulligan, T.M and M.E. Epstien. 2014. Tortricides of Agricultural Importance: Archips podana. Lucid Key. Colorado State University and Califorina Department of Food and Agriculture. http://idtools.org/id/leps/tortai/Archips_podana.htm

Ver. 3 March 12, 2015 43 Pest Risk Assessment for Cherries from Continental Spain

Hecht, D., and V. Zinkernagel. 2006. Epidemiological studies of cherry leaf scorch (Gnomonia erythrostoma (Pers.) Auerswald). Journal of Plant Diseases and Protection. 113(2):68-73. Hely, P. C., G. Pasfield, and J. G. Gellatley. 1982. Insect pests of fruit and vegetables in NSW. Inkata Press. Henning, R. G., J. G. Shaw, J. D. Kirkpatrick, P. S. Parsons, and R. H. Rhode. 1972. An economic survey of the Mediterranean fruit fly in Central America (21). Economic Research Service; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC. 92 pp. Hiernaux, L., A. Hurtado, and J. Fernández. 2010. Catálogo de Lepidoptera Heterocera del Parque Nacional de las Islas Atlánticas de Galicia (España). SHILAP Revta. Lipid. 38(150): 1-10. Hill, D. S. 1983. Agricultural Insect Pests of the Tropics and Their Control. 2nd edition (2nd). Cambridge University Press. 746 pp. Hill, D. S. 1987. Agricultural Insect Pests of Temperate Regions and Their Control. Cambridge University Press. 659 pp. Hoebeke, E. R., A. G. Wheeler, Jr., and J. W. Brown. 2008. Archips xylosteana (L.) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae), a palearctic leafroller new to North America. Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington 110(3):789-795. INRA. 1997. Encyclopedie des ravageurs europeens: Hoplocampa minuta, Hoplocampa flava. HYPP Zoology. French National Institute for Agricultural Research. http://www7.inra.fr/hyppz/RAVAGEUR/6hopmin.htm. INRA. n.d. HYPPZ Pest Encyclopaedia: Thrips meridionalis Priesner. Institute National de la Recherche Agronomique. http://www.inra.fr/hyppz/RAVAGEUR/6thrmer.htm. IPPC. 2011. International Standards For Phytosanitary Measures, Publication No. 11: Pest Risk Analysis for Quarantine Pests Including Analysis of Environmental Risks and Living Modified Organisms. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Secretariat of the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC), Rome, Italy. 30 pp. IPPC. 2012. International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures, Publication No. 5: Glossary of Phytosanitary Terms. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Secretariat of the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC), Rome, Italy. 38pp. Jeppson, L. R., H. H. Keifer, and E. W. Baker. 1975. Mites injurious to economic plants. University of California Press. 614 pp. Jones, A. L., and H. S. Aldwinckle. 1990. Compendium of Apple and Pear Diseases. The American Phytopathological Society Press, St. Paul, MN. Karsholt, O., and E. J. van Nieukerken. 2007. Fauna Europaea: Acronicta psi. http://www.faunaeur.org/full_results.php?id=300851. Kartesz, J. T. 2013. The Biota of North America Program (BONAP). North American Plant Atlas (http://www.bonap.org/MapSwitchboard.html). Chapel Hill, N.C. [maps generated from Kartesz, J.T. 2010. Floristic Synthesis of North America, Version 1.0. Biota of North America Program (BONAP). (in press)]. Kloepper, J. W., and D. G. Garroll. 1983. Evidence for a mixed infection of spiroplasmas and nonhelical mycoplasmalike organisms in cherry with X-disease. Phytopathology. 73: 357-360. Knight, A. L., and B. A. Croft. 1991. Modeling and prediction technology. In: Tortricid pest: their biology, natural enemies and control. Ed. by Van der GeestSP, EvevhuisHM, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 301–312.

Ver. 3 March 12, 2015 44 Pest Risk Assessment for Cherries from Continental Spain

Kocourek, S., and J. Stara. 2005. Predictive value of a model of the flight activity of Adoxophyes orana (Lep.: Tortricidae). Journal of Pest Science. 78:205-211. Kovanci, O. B., and B. Kovanci. 2006. Reduced-risk management of Rhagoletis cerasi flies (Host Race Prunus) in combination with preliminary phenological model. Journal of Insect Science. 6(34):10 p. LaGasa, E., P. Hertzog, D. Bowden and B. Fair. Archips podana (Scopoli) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) Host Survey 2002 - Northwest Washington Occurrence of an Old World Tree-fruit Pest New to the United States. Washington State Department of Agriculture. http://agr.wa.gov/plantsinsects/insectpests/exotics/Surveys/fruit_tortrix02.pdf. Landi, F., A. Prandini, S. Paltrinieri, N. Mori, and A. Bertaccini. 2007. Detection of different types of phytoplasmas in stone fruit orchards in northern Italy. Bulletin of Insectology. 60(2):163-164. Landolt, P. J., D. L. Chambers, and V. Chew. 1984. Alternative to the use of probit 9 mortality as a criterion for quarantine treatments of fruit fly (Diptera: Tephritidae)-infested fruit. Journal of Economic Entomology. 77(2):285-287. Lavina, A., J. Sabate, and A. Batlle. 2011. 'Candidatus Phytoplasma mali': Identification of potential insect vectors in Spanish apple orchards. Bulletin of Insectology. 64 Supplement:S125-S126. Lee, M.-L., and M.-H. Lee. 1997. Amplified mitochondrial DNA identify four species of Tetranychus mites (Acarina: Tetranychidae) in Korea. Korean Journal of Applied Entomology. 36(1):30-36. Leeuwen, G. C. M. v., R. P. Baayen, I. J. Holb, and M. J. Jeger. 2002. Distinction of the Asiatic brown rot fungus Monilia polystroma sp. nov. from M. fructigena. Mycological Research. 106(pt.4): 444-451. Lerner, R. 2006. Consumer Horticulture: Growing Trees from Seed. Purdue University, Department of Horticulture and Landscape Architecture, http://www.hort.purdue.edu/ext/treesfromseed.html. Lewis, T. 1997. Thrips as crop pests. CAB International, Wallingford, UK. 740 pp. Liquido, N. J., L. A. Shinoda, and R. T. Cunningham. 1990. Host Plants of the Mediterranean Fruit Fly (Diptera: Tephritidae): An Annotated World Review. Entomology Society of America., Misc. Pub. 77:1-52. Lof, M., G. Isacsson, D. Rydberg, and T. N. Welander. 2004. Herbivory by the pine weevil (Hylobius abietis L.) and short-snouted weevils (Strophosoma melanogrammum Forst and Otiorhynchus scaber L.) during the conversion of a wind-thrown Norway spruce forest into a mixed-species plantation. Forest Ecology and Management. 190:281-290. MAFF. 2012a. New market access request. Description of all pest and diseases associated with the commodity: Fruits of Prunus avium (L.) cherry. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF), Madrid, Spain. MAFF. 2012b. New market access request. Description of all pest and diseases associated with the commodity: Fruits of L./plum. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF), Madrid, Spain. MAFF. 2012c. New market access request. Description of all pest and diseases associated with the commodity: Fruits of Prunus persica & P. persica var. nucipersica (Suckow)/peach & nectarine. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF), Madrid, Spain. Magarey, R. D., D. M. Borchert, and J. W. Schlegel. 2008. Global plant hardiness zones for phytosanitary risk analysis. Scientia Agricola. 65:54-59.

Ver. 3 March 12, 2015 45 Pest Risk Assessment for Cherries from Continental Spain

Mansilla, J. P., R. Vazquez, A. Abelleira, and M. C. Salinero. 1987. Principales organismos perjudiciales encontrados sobre Mirabel (Prunus insitia, var. syriaca) en la provincia de Pontevedra. Bol. San. Veg. Plagas. 13(3):229-239. MARM. 2009. Additional information for “Importation of Prunus avium (cherry), Prunus domestica (plum) and Prunus persica (nectarine/peach) from continental Spain into continental United States.” Ministerio de Medio Ambiente y Medio Rural y Marino (MARM). Madrid, Spain. 1-6 pp. Martin, R. R., I. E. Tzanetakis, J. E. Barnes, and J. F. Elmhirst. 2004. First Report of Strawberry latent ringspot virus in Strawberry in the United States and Canada. Plant Disease. 88(5):575. McGregor, B.E. 1987. Tropical Products Transport Handbook. United States Department of Agriculture. Agricultural Handbook Number 668. http://naldc.nal.usda.gov/download/CAT89930509/PDF McLean, R. R. 1929. Hosts of the Mediterranean fruit fly in Florida. Month Bull Dept Agric California: 413-417 pp. Mehle, N., J. Brzin, J. Boben, M. Hren, J. Frank, N. Petrovic, K. Gruden, T. Dreo, I. Žežlina, G. Seljak, and M. Ravnikar. 2007. First report of 'Candidatus Phytoplasma mali' in Prunus avium, P. armeniaca and P. domestica. The British Society for Plant Pathology, New Disease Reports 14. http://www.bspp.org.uk/ndr/jan2007/2006-90.asp. Meissner, S., and G. Stammler. 2010. , M. fructigena, and M. fructicola: Risk estimation of resistance to Qol fungicides and identification of species with cytochrome b gene sequences. Journal of Plant Diseases and Protection. 117(4):162-167. Melgaregjo-Nardiz, P., J. Garcia-Jimenez, M. Concepcion-Jorda-Guitierrez, M. Milagros-Lopez- Gonzalez, M. Fe-Andres-Yebes, and N. Duran-Vila. 2010. Patogenos De Plantas Descritos En Espana (2nd). Goberno de Espana, Ministerio De Medio Ambiente y Medio Rural y Marino, Madrid. 854 pp. Molinari, F. 1995. Notes on the biology and monitoring of Cydia funebrana (Trietschke). Bulletin OILB-SROP 18(2):39-42. Moral, J., F. Luque, and A. Trapero. 2008. First Report of Diplodia seriata, the Anamorph of "Botryosphaeria" obtusa, Causing Fruit Rot of Olive in Spain. Plant Disease. 92(2):311. NPPO Spain. 2013. Information pertaining to market access of stone fruits to the continental United States from continental Spain. Personal communication to the U.S. Department of Agriculture on May 24, 2013 from the NPPO of Spain. Archived in the PERAL Library, Raleigh, NC. Mound, L.A. and Halsey, S.H. 1978.Whiteflies of the world, a systematic catalogue of the Aleyrodidae (Homoptera) with host plant and natural enemy data. British Museum (Natural History), London, UK. 340 pp. NASS. 2013. Agricultural Statistics. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), United States Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Navratil, M., Valova, P., Fialova, R., Petrova, K., Franova, J., Nebesarova, J., Poncarova- Vorackova, Z., and R. Karesova. 2001. Survey for stone fruit phytoplasmas in Czech Republic. Acta Horticulturae. 550: 377-382. Nieto Nafria, J. M., T. E. Diaz Gonzalas, and M. P. Mier Durante. 1984. Catalogo de los Pulgones (Homoptera Aphidoidea) de Espana y de sus Plantas Hospedadoras. 174 pp.

Ver. 3 March 12, 2015 46 Pest Risk Assessment for Cherries from Continental Spain

NRCS. 2012. The PLANTS Database. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), The National Plant Data Center. http://plants.usda.gov. NRCS. 2013. The PLANTS Database. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), The National Plant Data Center. http://plants.usda.gov. Ogawa, J. M., E. I. Zehr, G. W. Bird, D. F. Ritchie, U. Kiyoto, and J. K. Uyemoto. 1995. Compendium of Stone Fruit Diseases. APS Press, St. Paul Minnesota. Osler, R., N. Petrovic, P. Ermacora, G. Seljak, J. Brzin, N. Loi, L. Cararro, F. Ferrini, and R. Elvio. 2001. Control strategies of Apple proliferation, a serious disease occuring both in Slovenia and in Italy Pages 238-243 in L. Milevoj, (ed.). Zbornik predavanj in referatov 5. slovenskega posvetovajna o varstvu rastlin. Papadopoulos, N. T., B. I. Katsoyannos, J. R. Carey, and N. A. Kouloussis. 2001. Seasonal and annual occurrence of the mediteranean fruit fly (Diptera: Tephritidae) in northern Greece. Annals of the Entomological Society of America 94(1):41-50. PExD. 2013. Phytosanitary Export Database. Harmful Organisms by Country and Commodity Report. United States Department of Agriculture, Animal Plant Health Inspection Service. https://pcit.aphis.usda.gov/PExD/faces/ReportHarmOrgs.jsp PERAL/CIPM. 2008. Weather based disease probability maps generated using NAPPFAST system. United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine, Center for Plant Health Science and Technology, Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory (PERAL); North Carolina State University, Center for Integrated Pest Management (CIPM); Raleigh, NC. Perez, J. A., T. Garcia, A. Arias, and D. Martinez de Velasco. 1992. Lucha contra el hongo del cerezo Gnomonia erythrostoma (Pers.) Auersw. III. Influencia de los tratamientos en el rajado de la cereza. Bol. San. Veg. Plagas. 18:585-590. PestID. 2012. Pest Identification Database (PestID). United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine. PHA. 2011. Industry Biosecurity Plant for the Summerfruit Industry. Version 1.0 July 2011. Plant Health Australia (PHA) and Summerfruit Australia. Deakin, ACT. 86 pp. http://www.summerfruit.com.au/Resources/PDF/110930-Summerfruit-IBP_Full-version- FINAL.aspx Ponti, I. and F. Laffi. 1988. Scheda fitopatologica: Maculatura rossa del ciliegio. L'Informatore Agrario. 44(46):77-78. Popova, A. I. 1971. Biology of the plum moth Grapholitha funebrana Tr. (Lepidoptera Tortricidae) on the Black Sea coast in Krasnodar Territory. Entomological Review. 50: 183-189. Postman, J. D., I. E. Tzanetakis, and R. R. Martin. 2004. First Report of Strawberry latent ringspot virus in a Mentha sp. from North America. Plant Disease. 88(8):907. PPQ. 2012. Guidelines for Plant Pest Risk Assessment of Imported Fruit and Vegetable Commodities (First Edition). United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ), Raleigh, NC. Riedl, H., and E. Kuhn. 1988. Tree Fruit Fact Sheet: Cherry Fruit Fly and Black Cherry Fruit Fly. Cornell Cooperative Extension, Ithaca.

Ver. 3 March 12, 2015 47 Pest Risk Assessment for Cherries from Continental Spain

Ritchie, D. F. 2000. Brown rot of stone fruits. APSnet, American Phytopathological Society. http://www.apsnet.org/edcenter/intropp/lessons/fungi/ascomycetes/Pages/BrownRotStone Fruits.aspx. Robinson, G. S., P. R. Ackery, I. J. Kitching, G. W. Beccaloni, and L. M. Hernández. 2001. Hostplants of the Moth and Butterfly Caterpillars of the Oriental Region. The Natural History Museum, London. Sanchez, O. L. S., and M. T. G. Becedas. 2007. Fichas tecnicas de sanidad vegetal, Ficha No. 010: Gnomonia, Apiognomonia erythrostoma. Junta de Extremadura, Consejera de Agricultura y Desarrollo Rural, Direccion General De Explotaciones Agrarias. Seemuller, E. 1990. Apple proliferation. Pages 67-68 in A. L. Jones and H. S. Aldwinckle, (ed.). Compendium of Apple and Pear Diseases. American Phytopathological Society, St. Paul, Minnesota. Seidl, V., and V. Komarkova. 1974. Studies on the natural spread of proliferation disease of apple. Phytopathologische Zeitschrift. 81:301-313. Solomon, M. E. 1991. Ecology and population dynamics. In: Tortricid pest: their biology, natural enemies and control. Ed. by Van der GeestSP, EvevhuisHM, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 209– 234. Steck, G. J. 2006. Pest Alert. The Mediterranean fruit fly, Ceratitis capitata (Wiedemann) (Diptera: Tephritidae). Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Plant Industry, Gainesville, Florida. Steffek, R., S. Follak, N. Sauvion, G. Labonne, and A. MacLeod. 2012. Distribution of 'Candidatus Phytoplasma prunorum' and its vector Cacopsylla pruni in European fruit- growing areas: a review. OEPP/EPPO Bulletin 42(2):191-202. Stamenkovic S, Garic R, Stamenkovic T, Milenkovic S, Nicolic M, 1996b. Susceptibility of some sweet cherry cultivars to Rhagoletis cerasi L.(Diptera, Tephritidae). Proceedings of the international cherry symposium, Budapest, Hungary, 14-18 June 1993. Acta Horticulturae, 410:555-560. Thomas, M. C., J. B. Heppner, R. E. Woodruff, H. V. Weems, G. J. Steck, and T. R. Fasulo. 2007. Mediterranean Fruit Fly, Ceratitis capitata (Wiedemann) (Insecta: Diptera: Tephritidae). Univerisity of Florida IFAS Extension Publication EENY-214. Torres, E., S. Paltrinieri, A. Vila, R. Masalles, and A. Bertaccini. 2004. Spreading of ESFY Phytoplasmas in Stone Fruit in Catalonia (Spain). Journal of Phytopathology. 152(7):431- 437. UGA. 2013. Widely Prevalent Bacteria of the United States. University of Georgia (UGA), Center for Invasive Species and Ecosystem Health. http://www.prevalentbacteria.org/index.html. USDA. 1960. Index of Plant Diseases in the United States. USDA, Agricultural Research Service, Crops Research Division, Washington, D.C. 531 pp. Vail, P. V., J. S. Tebbets, B. E. Mackey, and C. E. Curtis. 1993. Quarantine treatments: a biological approach to decision-making for selected hosts of codling moth (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). Journal of Economic Entomology. 86(1): 70-75. Van der Geest, L. P. S., and H. H. Evenhuis (eds.). 1991. Tortricid Pests: Their biology, natural enemies and control. Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 808 pp. Van Leeuwen, G. C. M., A. Stein, I. Holb, and M. J. Jeger. 2000. Yield loss in apple cause by Monilinia fructigena (Aderh. & Ruhl.) Honey, and spatio-temporal dynamics of disease development. European Journal of Plant Pathology. 106:519-528.

Ver. 3 March 12, 2015 48 Pest Risk Assessment for Cherries from Continental Spain

Venette, R. C., E. E. Davis, M. DaCosta, H. Heisler, and M. Larson. 2003. Mini Risk Assessment: Plum fruit moth, Cydia funebrana (Treitschke) [Lepidoptera: Tortricidae]. University of Minnesota, Department of Entomology. Vierbergen, B. 2004. Fauna Europaea: Thrips meridionalis (Priesner 1926). European Commission. http://www.faunaeur.org/full_results.php?id=90045. Wearing, C. H., Hansen, J. D., Whyte, C., Miller, C. E., & Brown, J. 2001. The potential for spread of codling moth (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) via commercial sweet cherry fruit: a critical review and risk assessment. Crop Protection. 20(6): 465-488. Weems, H. V. 1981. Mediterranean Fruit Fly, Ceratitis capitata (Wiedemann) (Diptera: Tephritidae) (No. 230). Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Plant Industry. White, I. M., and M. M. Elson-Harris. 1992. Fruit flies of economic significance: Their identification and bionomics. CAB International, Wallingford, UK. 601 pp. Whiting, D. C., G. M. O’Connor, and J. H. Maindonald. 1997. Density and time effects on distribution and survival of lightbrown apple moth (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) larvae on Granny Smith apples. Environmental Entomology. 26(2): 277-284. Whittle, K. 1984. Pests Not Known to Occur in the United States or of Limited Distribution (PNKTO), No. 49: Plum Fruit Moth. United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine. 1-12 pp. Wood, S. L., and D. E. Bright, Jr. 1992. A catalog of Scolytidae and Platypodidae (Coleoptera), Part 2: Taxonomic Index Volume A. Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah. 833 pp. Yamamura, K., and H. Katsumata. 1999. Estimation of the probability of insect pest introduction through imported commodities. Research on Population Ecology. 41(3): 275-282. Yvon, M., G. Thebaud, R. Alary, and G. Labonne. 2009. Specific detection and quantification of the phytopathogenic agent 'Candidatus Phytoplasma prunorum'. Molecular and Cellular Probes. 23: 227-234. Zhang, B. C. 1994. Index of economically important Lepidoptera. CAB International, Wallingford, U.K. 599 pp.

Ver. 3 March 12, 2015 49 Pest Risk Assessment for Cherries from Continental Spain

6. Appendix A. Pests with non-actionable regulator status

We found some evidence of the below-listed organisms being associated with cherry and being present in continental Spain; however, because these organisms have non-actionable regulatory status for the continental United States, we did not list them in Table 4 of this risk assessment.

Below we list these organisms along with the references supporting their potential association with cherry, their potential presence in continental Spain, their presence in the continental United States (if applicable), and their regulatory status for the continental United States. For organisms not present in the continental United States, we also provide justification for their non-actionable status.

Organism Evidence and/or other notes ARTHROPODS Acari Panonychus ulmi Kock Avidov and Harpaz, 1969; CABI, 2013; Jeppson et al., 1975 Tetranychus urticae Koch MAFF, 2012a; Avidov and Harpaz, 1969; CABI, 2013 Insecta Anarsia lineatella Zeller CABI, 2013 Aphis citricola van der Goot Nieto Nafria et al., 1984 Aphis fabae Scopoli Nieto Nafria et al., 1984 Aphis spiraecola Patch Blackman and Eastop, 2000; CABI, 2013 Archips rosana L. MAFF, 2012a; CABI, 2013; Carter, 1984; Zhang, 1994 Brachycaudus carui L. Blackman and Eastop, 2000; CABI, 2013 Brachycaudus helicrysi Kaltenback Avidov and Harpaz, 1969; Blackman and Eastop, 2000; CABI, 2013; Mansilla et al., 1987; Nieto Nafria et al., 1984 Caliroa cerasi L. CABI, 2013; Mansilla et al., 1987 Ceresa alta Walker CABI, 2013 Chrysomphalus aonidum (L.) Avidov and Harpaz, 1969; CABI, 2013 Cydia pomonella L. CABI, 2013; Zhang, 1994 Euproctis chrysorrhoea (L.) Carter, 1984; Zhang, 1994 Diasidiotus lenticularis CABI, 2013 Diaspidiotus ostreaeformis CABI, 2013 Frankliniella intonsa (Trybom) CABI, 2013 Grapholita molesta (Busck) [Cydia Carter, 1984 molesta] Hedya nubiferana Haworth CABI, 2013; Zhang, 1994 Syn. Grapholita variegana Hübner pruni (Geoffroy) Nieto Nafria et al., 1984 Lymantria dispar (L.) Zhang, 1994 cerasi (F.) MAFF, 2012a Nieto Nafria et al., 1984 Myzus persicae Sulzer Nieto Nafria et al., 1984 Orgyia antiqua (L.) CABI, 2013; Carter, 1984; Zhang, 1994 Otiorhynchus raucus (F.) CABI, 2013; Barclay, 2003 Operophtera brumata L. CABI, 2013; Zhang, 1994 Parabemisia myricae (Kuwana) CABI, 2013 Parthenolecanium corni (Bouche) Ben-Dov, 1994

Ver. 3 March 12, 2015 50 Pest Risk Assessment for Cherries from Continental Spain

Philaenus spumarius L. CABI, 2013 Pseudaulacaspis pentagona CABI, 2013 (Targioni Tozzetti) Quadraspidiotus perniciosus MAFF, 2012a (armored scale) Comstock Rhizoecus falcifer Kunckel Ben-Dov, 1994; d’Herculais Saissetia oleae (Olivier) Avidov and Harpaz, 1969; CABI, 2013; Zhang, 1994 Sitona discoideus Gyllenhal CABI, 2013 Spilonota ocellana (Denis & CABI, 2013; Carter, 1984; Mansilla et al., 1987; Zhang, 1994 Schiffermuller) Sphaerolecanium prunastri (Boyer CABI, 2013 de Fonscolombe) Xestia c-nigrum (L.) CABI, 2013; Carter, 1984; Zhang, 1994 Xyleborus dispar (F.) CABI, 2013 FUNGI and CHROMISTANS Alternaria alternata (Fr.) Keissl. Farr et al., 2013 Armillaria mellea (Vahl : Fr.) P. CABI, 2013; Melgaregjo-Nardiz et al., 2010; Farr et al., 2013 Kumm. Armillaria tabescens (Scop.) CABI, 2013; Farr et al., 2013 Dennis, P.D. Orton & Hora Aspergillus niger Tiegh. Farr et al., 2013 Aureobasidium prunicola (Ellis & Farr et al., 2013; Melgaregjo-Nardiz et al., 2010 Everh.) Herm.-Nijh. (Synonym: Kabatiella prunicola (Ellis & Everh) v. Arx) Blumeriella jaapii (Rehm) Arx Farr et al., 2013; MAFF, 2012a; Melgaregjo-Nardiz et al., 2010 Botryosphaeria dothidea (Moug. : Farr et al., 2013; Melgaregjo-Nardiz et al., 2010 Fr.) Ces. & De Not. Botryosphaeria ribis Grossenb. & CABI, 2013; Farr et al., 2013; Melgaregjo-Nardiz et al., 2010 Duggar Botryotinia fuckeliana (de Bary) Farr et al., 2013; Melgaregjo-Nardiz et al., 2010 Whetzel (Anamorph: Botrytis cinerea Pers. : Fr.) (Pers. : Farr et al., 2013; Melgaregjo-Nardiz et al., 2010 Fr.) Pouzar Colletotrichum acutatum Simmonds CABI, 2013; MAFF, 2012c ex Simmonds Diplodia seriata De Not. Farr et al., 2013; Moral et al., 2008; actionable only on (Synonym: Botryosphaeria propagative materials obtusa (Schwein.) Shoemaker) Eutypa lata var. lata (Pers. : Fr.) Farr et al., 2013; Melgaregjo-Nardiz et al., 2010 Tul. & C. Tul. Fomitopsis pinicola (Sw.) P. Karst. CABI, 2013; Melgaregjo-Nardiz et al., 2010 Ganoderma lucidum (Curtis : Fr.) P. Farr et al., 2013 Karst.

Ver. 3 March 12, 2015 51 Pest Risk Assessment for Cherries from Continental Spain

Glomerella cingulata (Stonem.) CABI, 2013; Farr et al., 2013 Spauld. & Schrenk (Anamorph: Colletotrichum gloeosporioides (Penz.) Penz. & Sacc.) Leucostoma cincta (Fr.: Fr.) Hohn Melgaregjo-Nardiz et al., 2010; Ogawa et al., 1995. Leucostoma and L. persoonii Hohn canker disease is associated with two fungi each with (Anamorphs: Leucocytospora teleomorph and anamorph stages and synonyms (Ogawa et al., cincta (Sacc.) Hohn and L. 1995) as follows: leucostoma (Pers.) Hohn]) Teleomorph L. cincta (Fr.:Fr) Hohn (Synonym (Valsa cincta) (Fr.:Fr) Fr.) Anamorph: L. cintca (Sacc.) Hohn (Synonym: Cytospora cincta Sacc.) Teleomorph L. persoonii Hohn (Synonym: V. leucostoma (Pers.:Fr.)Fr.) Anamorph: Leucocytospora leucostoma (Pers.) Hohn (Synonym: Cytospora leucostoma Sacc.) Macrophomina phaseolina (Tassi) Farr et al., 2013; Melgaregjo-Nardiz et al., 2010 Goid. (G. Winter) CABI, 2013; Ogawa et al., 1995 Honey Monilinia laxa (Aderh. & Ruhland) Farr et al., 2013; MAFF, 2012a; Melgaregjo-Nardiz et al., 2010 Honey Mycosphaerella cerasella Aderhold Melgaregjo-Nardiz et al., 2010; Ogawa et al., 1995 (Anamorph: Cercospora circumscissa Sacc.) Penicillium expansum Link CABI, 2013; Melgaregjo-Nardiz et al., 2010 Penicillium italicum Wehmer CABI, 2013; Farr et al., 2013 Peyronellaea pomorum (Thüm.) Farr et al., 2013; Melgaregjo-Nardiz et al., 2010 Aveskamp, Gruyter & Verkley (Synonym: Phoma pomorum Thüm.) guttata (Fr.) Lev. Farr et al., 2013 Phytophthora cactorum (Lebert & Farr et al., 2013; Melgaregjo-Nardiz et al., 2010 Cohn) J. Schröt. Phytophthora cambivora (Petri) Farr et al., 2013; Melgaregjo-Nardiz et al., 2010 Buisman Phytophthora citrophthora (R.E. CABI, 2013; Farr et al., 2013 Sm. & E. H. Sm) Leonian Phytophthora cryptogea Pethybr. & Farr et al., 2013; Melgaregjo-Nardiz et al., 2010 Laff. Phytophthora drechsleri Tucker Farr et al., 2013 Phytophthora megasperma Farr et al., 2013; Melgaregjo-Nardiz et al., 2010 Drechsler Podosphaera clandestina (Wallr. : CABI, 2013; Farr et al., 2013 Fr.) Lév. Podosphaera tridactyla (Wallr.) de Farr et al., 2013 Bary Pythium irregulare Buisman CABI, 2013 Rosellinia necatrix Prill. Farr et al., 2013; Melgaregjo-Nardiz et al., 2010

Ver. 3 March 12, 2015 52 Pest Risk Assessment for Cherries from Continental Spain

Sclerotinia sclerotiorum (Lib.) de Farr et al., 2013 Bary wiesneri (Ráthay) Mix Farr et al., 2013; Ogawa et al., 1995 Synonym: Taphrina cerasi (Fuckel) Sadeb. Taphrina pruni Tulasne Farr et al., 2013 Thanatephorus cucumeris (A. B. Farr et al., 2013; Melgaregjo-Nardiz et al., 2010 Frank) Donk Thielaviopsis basicola (Berk. & CABI, 2013; Melgaregjo-Nardiz et al., 2010 Broome) Ferraris (Synonym: Chalara elegans Nag Raj & W.B. Kendr.) Tranzschelia pruni-spinosae (Pers. : Farr et al., 2013; Melgaregjo-Nardiz et al., 2010 Pers.) Dietel (Synonym: Puccinia pruni•- spinosae Pers.: Pers.]) Thyrostroma carpophilum (Lév.) B. MAFF, 2012a; Melgaregjo-Nardiz et al., 2010; USDA, 1960 Sutton (Synonym: Coryneum beyerinckii Oudem.; Stigmina carpophila (Lev.) M.B. Ellis; Wilsonomyces carpophilus (Lev.)Adask., J.M. Ogawa & E.E. Butler) carpophila E. E Fisher Farr et al., 2013; MAFF, 2012c (Anamorph: carpophilum (Thüm.) Oudem.; Synanamorph: Cladosporium carpophilum Thüm.) Venturia cerasi Aderhold. Farr et al., 2013; Melgaregjo-Nardiz et al., 2010 (Anamorph: Fusicladium cerasi (Rabenh.) Sacc.) Verticillium dahliae Kleb. Farr et al., 2013; Melgaregjo-Nardiz et al., 2010 BACTERIA and PHYTOPLASMAS Aster yellows phytoplasma group CABI, 2013 (restricted distribution in Spain); Navratil et al., 2001 Pseudomonas fluorescens CABI, 2013 (Trevisan) Migula Pseudomonas syringae pv. CABI, 2013; Melgaregjo-Nardiz et al., 2010; UGA, 2013; morsprunorum (Wordmald) Ogawa et al., 1995 Young Pseudomonas syringae pv. syringae Bradbury, 1986; MAFF, 2012c; Melgaregjo-Nardiz et al., 2010; van Hall UGA, 2013 Psuedomonas viridiflava CABI, 2013; Melgaregjo-Nardiz et al., 2010; UGA, 2013 (Burkholder) Downson Rhizobium radiobacter Beijerinck CABI, 2013; Melgaregjo-Nardiz et al., 2010 and van Delden) Young (Synonyms: Agrobacterium tumefaciens (Smith & Townsend) Conn,; A. radiobacter (Beijerinck & van Delden) Conn)

Ver. 3 March 12, 2015 53 Pest Risk Assessment for Cherries from Continental Spain

Spiroplasma citri Saglio et al. CABI, 2013; Kloepper and Garrot, 1983; Melgaregjo-Nardiz et al., 2010 Xanthomonas arboricola pv. pruni CABI, 2013; Melgaregjo-Nardiz et al., 2010 (Smith) Vauterin, Hoste, Kersters & Swings VIRUSES and VIROIDS Apple chlorotic leaf spot trichovirus CABI, 2013; Melgaregjo-Nardiz et al., 2010 Apple mosaic ilarvirus CABI, 2013; Melgaregjo-Nardiz et al., 2010 Apple stem grooving capillovirus CABI, 2013; Melgaregjo-Nardiz et al., 2010 Arabis mosaic nepovirus CABI, 2013 Cherry leafroll nepovirus CABI, 2013; Melgaregjo-Nardiz et al., 2010 Hop stunt hostuviroid Canizares et al., 1998; Eastwell and Nelson, 2007; Gazel et al., 2008; CABI, 2013 Little cherry nepovirus CABI, 2013; CABI/EPPO, 2004a; Ogawa et al., 1995 Peach latent mosaic pelamoviroid CABI, 2013; Melgaregjo-Nardiz et al., 2010 Prune dwarf ilarvirus CABI, 2013; Melgaregjo-Nardiz et al., 2010 Prunus nectrotic ringspot ilarvirus CABI, 2013; Melgaregjo-Nardiz et al., 2010 Tomato bushy stunt tombusvirus Ogawa et al., 1995; CABI, 2013; Melgaregjo-Nardiz et al., 2010 NEMATODES Helicotylenchus dihystera (Cobb) CABI, 2013 Meloidogyne incognita (Kofoid & CABI, 2013; Melgaregjo-Nardiz et al., 2010; Ferris, n.d. White, 1919) Chitwood Pratylenchus penetrans (Cobb) CABI, 2013; Melgaregjo-Nardiz et al., 2010 Filipjev & Schuurmans- Steckhoven Pratylenchus vulnus Allen & Jensen CABI, 2013; Melgaregjo-Nardiz et al., 2010 Xiphinema americanum Cobb CABI, 2013 Xiphinema index Thorne & Allen CABI, 2013; Melgaregjo-Nardiz et al., 2010; PestID, 2012 (reported in 6 or more states) Xiphinema rivesi Delmasso CABI, 2013; Melgaregjo-Nardiz et al., 2010

Ver. 3 March 12, 2015 54