DOCSLIB.ORG

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA § 319.56–22

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA § 319.56–22 Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA § 319.56–22 is free of fruit flies must be treated for Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, such pests in accordance with part 305 South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, Wash- of this chapter. If an authorized treat- ington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyo- ment does not exist for a specific fruit ming, the District of Columbia, or the fly, the importation of such apples and U.S. Virgin Islands, or any part of Illi- pears is prohibited. nois, Kentucky, Missouri, or Virginia, north of the 38th parallel, subject to § 319.56–21 Okra from certain coun- the requirements of § 319.56–3. tries. (d) Importations into areas of California Okra from Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, that are not pink bollworm generally in- Guyana, Mexico, Peru, Suriname, Ven- fested or suppressive areas. (1) During ezuela, and the West Indies may be im- January 1 through March 15, inclusive, ported into the United States in ac- okra may be imported into California cordance with this section and all subject to the requirements of § 319.56– other applicable provisions of this sub- 3. part. (2) During March 16 through Decem- (a) Importations into pink bollworm ber 31, inclusive, okra may be imported generally infested or suppressive areas in into California if it is treated for the the United States. Okra may be im- pink bollworm in accordance with part ported into areas defined in § 301.52–2a 305 of this chapter. as pink bollworm generally infested or (e) Imports from Andros Island of the suppressive areas, provided the okra is Bahamas. Okra produced on Andros Is- imported in accordance with the re- land, Commonwealth of the Bahamas, quirements of § 319.56–3. Upon entry may be imported into the United into the United States, such okra is States in accordance with § 319.56–3. immediately subject to the require- [72 FR 39501, July 18, 2007, as amended at 75 ments of Subpart—Pink Bollworm FR 4252, Jan. 26, 2010] (§§ 301.52 through 301.52–10) of this chap- ter. § 319.56–22 Apples and pears from cer- (b) Importations into areas south of the tain countries in Europe. 38th parallel that are not pink bollworm (a) Importations allowed. The fol- generally infested or suppressive areas. (1) lowing fruits may be imported into the During December 1 through May 15, in- United States in accordance with this clusive, okra may be imported into section and all other applicable provi- areas of Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, sions of this subpart: Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Ne- (1) Apples from Belgium, Denmark, vada, North Carolina, South Carolina, France, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, Tennessee, or any part of Illinois, Ken- the Netherlands, Northern Ireland, tucky, Missouri, or Virginia south of Norway, Portugal, the Republic of Ire- the 38th parallel subject to the require- land, Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland; ments of § 319.56–3. (2) Pears from Belgium, France, (2) During May 16 through November Great Britain, Italy, the Netherlands, 30, inclusive, okra may be imported Portugal, and Spain. into areas of Alabama, Arkansas, Flor- (b) Trust fund agreement. Except as ida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, provided in paragraph (h) of this sec- Nevada, North Carolina, South Caro- tion, the apples or pears may be im- lina, Tennessee, or any part of Illinois, ported only if the national plant pro- Kentucky, Missouri, or Virginia south tection organization (NPPO) of the ex- of the 38th parallel if treated for the porting country has entered into a pink bollworm in accordance with part trust fund agreement with APHIS in 305 of this chapter. accordance with § 319.56–6. (c) Importations into areas north of the (c) Responsibilities of the exporting 38th parallel. Okra may be imported country. The apples or pears may be im- into Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, ported in any single shipping season Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, only if all of the following conditions Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Massa- are met: chusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mon- (1) Officials of the NPPO must survey tana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New each orchard producing apples or pears Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, for shipment to the United States at 313 VerDate Mar<15>2010 11:29 Feb 10, 2012 Jkt 226016 PO 00000 Frm 00323 Fmt 8010 Sfmt 8010 Y:\SGML\226016.XXX 226016 emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with CFR § 319.56–22 7 CFR Ch. III (1–1–12 Edition) least twice between spring blossoming only after the lines have been washed and harvest. If the officials find any with water. leaf miners that suggest the presence (iii) During packing operations, ap- of Leucoptera malifoliella in an or- ples and pears must be inspected for in- chard, the officials must reject any sect pests as follows: All fruit in each fruit harvested from that orchard dur- grower lot must be inspected at each of ing that growing season for shipment two inspection stations on the packing to the United States. If the officials line by packing shed technicians. In ad- find evidence in an orchard of any dition, one carton from every pallet in other plant pest referred to in para- each grower lot must be inspected by graph (g) of this section, they must en- officials of the plant protection serv- sure that the orchard and all other or- ice. If the inspections reveal any live chards within 1 kilometer of that or- larva or pupa of Leucoptera malifoliella, chard will be treated for that pest with the entire grower lot must be rejected a pesticide approved by the APHIS, in for shipment to the United States, and accordance with label directions and under the direction of the plant protec- the plant protection service must re- tion organization. If the officials deter- ject for shipment any additional fruit mine that the treatment program has from the producing orchard for the re- not been applied as required or is not mainder of that shipping season. If the controlling the plant pest in the or- inspections reveal any other insect chard, they must reject any fruit har- pest referred to in paragraph (g) of this vested from that orchard during that section, and a treatment authorized in growing season for shipment to the part 305 of this chapter is available, the United States. fruit will remain eligible for shipment (2) The apples or pears must be iden- to the United States if the entire grow- tified to the orchard from which they er lot is treated for the pest under the are harvested (the producing orchard) supervision of an inspector. However, if until the fruit arrives in the United the entire grower lot is not treated in States. this manner, or if a plant pest is found (3) The apples or pears must be proc- for which no treatment authorized in essed and inspected in approved pack- part 305 of this chapter is available, the ing sheds as follows: entire grower lot will be rejected for (i) Upon arrival at the packing shed, shipment to the United States. the apples or pears must be inspected (4) Apples or pears that pass inspec- for insect pests as follows: For each tion at approved packing sheds must be grower lot (all fruit delivered for proc- presented to an inspector for essing from a single orchard at a given preclearance inspection as prescribed time), packing shed technicians must in paragraph (d) of this section or for examine all fruit in one carton on inspection in the United States as pre- every third pallet (there are approxi- scribed in paragraph (h) of this section. mately 42 cartons to a pallet), or at (5) Apples and pears presented for least 80 apples or pears in every third preclearance inspection must be identi- bin (if the fruit is not in cartons on pallets). If they find any live larva or fied with the packing shed where they pupa of Leucoptera malifoliella, they were processed, as well as with the pro- must reject the entire grower lot for ducing orchard, and this identity must shipment to the United States, and the be maintained until the apples or pears NPPO must reject for shipment any ad- arrive in the United States. ditional fruit from the producing or- (6) Facilities for the preclearance in- chard for the remainder of the shipping spections prescribed in paragraph (d) of season. this section must be provided in the ex- (ii) The apples or pears must be sort- porting country at a site acceptable to ed, sized, packed, and otherwise han- APHIS. dled in the packing sheds on grading (7) Any apples or pears rejected for and packing lines used solely for fruit shipment into the United States may intended for shipment to the United not, under any circumstance, be pre- States, or, if on grading and packing sented again for shipment to the lines used previously for other fruit, United States. 314 VerDate Mar<15>2010 11:29 Feb 10, 2012 Jkt 226016 PO 00000 Frm 00324 Fmt 8010 Sfmt 8010 Y:\SGML\226016.XXX 226016 emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with CFR Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA § 319.56–22 (d) Preclearance inspection. (iii) Apples and pears precleared for Preclearance inspection will be con- shipment to the United States as pre- ducted in the exporting country by an scribed in this paragraph will not be in- inspector. Preclearance inspection will spected again in the United States (ex- be conducted for a minimum of 6,000 cept as necessary to ensure that the cartons of apples or pears, which may fruit has been precleared) unless the represent multiple grower lots from preclearance program with the export- different packing sheds.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Micro-Moth Grading Guidelines (Scotland) Abhnumber Code
    Micro-moth Grading Guidelines (Scotland) Scottish Adult Mine Case ABHNumber Code Species Vernacular List Grade Grade Grade Comment 1.001 1 Micropterix tunbergella 1 1.002 2 Micropterix mansuetella Yes 1 1.003 3 Micropterix aureatella Yes 1 1.004 4 Micropterix aruncella Yes 2 1.005 5 Micropterix calthella Yes 2 2.001 6 Dyseriocrania subpurpurella Yes 2 A Confusion with fly mines 2.002 7 Paracrania chrysolepidella 3 A 2.003 8 Eriocrania unimaculella Yes 2 R Easier if larva present 2.004 9 Eriocrania sparrmannella Yes 2 A 2.005 10 Eriocrania salopiella Yes 2 R Easier if larva present 2.006 11 Eriocrania cicatricella Yes 4 R Easier if larva present 2.007 13 Eriocrania semipurpurella Yes 4 R Easier if larva present 2.008 12 Eriocrania sangii Yes 4 R Easier if larva present 4.001 118 Enteucha acetosae 0 A 4.002 116 Stigmella lapponica 0 L 4.003 117 Stigmella confusella 0 L 4.004 90 Stigmella tiliae 0 A 4.005 110 Stigmella betulicola 0 L 4.006 113 Stigmella sakhalinella 0 L 4.007 112 Stigmella luteella 0 L 4.008 114 Stigmella glutinosae 0 L Examination of larva essential 4.009 115 Stigmella alnetella 0 L Examination of larva essential 4.010 111 Stigmella microtheriella Yes 0 L 4.011 109 Stigmella prunetorum 0 L 4.012 102 Stigmella aceris 0 A 4.013 97 Stigmella malella Apple Pigmy 0 L 4.014 98 Stigmella catharticella 0 A 4.015 92 Stigmella anomalella Rose Leaf Miner 0 L 4.016 94 Stigmella spinosissimae 0 R 4.017 93 Stigmella centifoliella 0 R 4.018 80 Stigmella ulmivora 0 L Exit-hole must be shown or larval colour 4.019 95 Stigmella viscerella
    [Show full text]
  • Moths of Poole Harbour Species List
    Moths of Poole Harbour is a project of Birds of Poole Harbour Moths of Poole Harbour Species List Birds of Poole Harbour & Moths of Poole Harbour recording area The Moths of Poole Harbour Project The ‘Moths of Poole Harbour’ project (MoPH) was established in 2017 to gain knowledge of moth species occurring in Poole Harbour, Dorset, their distribution, abundance and to some extent, their habitat requirements. The study area uses the same boundaries as the Birds of Poole Harbour (BoPH) project. Abigail Gibbs and Chris Thain, previous Wardens on Brownsea Island for Dorset Wildlife Trust (DWT), were invited by BoPH to undertake a study of moths in the Poole Harbour recording area. This is an area of some 175 square kilometres stretching from Corfe Castle in the south to Canford Heath in the north of the conurbation and west as far as Wareham. 4 moth traps were purchased for the project; 3 Mercury Vapour (MV) Robinson traps with 50m extension cables and one Actinic, Ultra-violet (UV) portable Heath trap running from a rechargeable battery. This was the capability that was deployed on most of the ensuing 327 nights of trapping. Locations were selected using a number of criteria: Habitat, accessibility, existing knowledge (previously well-recorded sites were generally not included), potential for repeat visits, site security and potential for public engagement. Field work commenced from late July 2017 and continued until October. Generally, in the years 2018 – 2020 trapping field work began in March/ April and ran on until late October or early November, stopping at the first frost.
    [Show full text]
  • Managing Floral Resources in Apple Orchards for Pest Control: Ideas, Experiences and Future Directions
    insects Review Managing Floral Resources in Apple Orchards for Pest Control: Ideas, Experiences and Future Directions Annette Herz 1,*, Fabian Cahenzli 2, Servane Penvern 3, Lukas Pfiffner 2, Marco Tasin 4 and Lene Sigsgaard 5 1 Julius Kühn-Institut, Institute for Biological Control, Heinrichstr. 243, 64287 Darmstadt, Germany 2 Department of Crop Sciences, Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL), Ackerstrasse 113, 5070 Frick, Switzerland 3 INRA, Centre de Recherche PACA, UR Ecodeveloppement, 84914 Avignon, France 4 Department of Plant Protection Biology—Unit of Integrated Plant Protection, Swedish University of Agricultural Science, P.O. Box 102, SE-230 53 Alnarp, Sweden 5 Department of Plant and Environmental Sciences, University of Copenhagen (UCPH), Thorvaldsensvej 40, DK-1871 Frederiksberg C, Denmark * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 31 May 2019; Accepted: 6 August 2019; Published: 11 August 2019 Abstract: Functional biodiversity is of fundamental importance for pest control. Many natural enemies rely on floral resources to complete their life cycle. Farmers need to ensure the availability of suitable and sufficient floral biodiversity. This review summarizes 66 studies on the management of floral biodiversity in apple orchards, published since 1986. Approaches followed different degrees of intervention: short-term practices (mowing regime and weed maintenance, cover crops), establishment of durable ecological infrastructures (perennial flower strips, hedgerows) and re-design of the crop system (intercropping, agroforestry). Although short-term practices did not always target the nutrition of natural enemies by flowering plants, living conditions for them (alternative prey, provision of habitat) were often improved. Perennial flower strips reliably enhanced natural enemies and techniques for their introduction continuously developed.
    [Show full text]
  • Additions, Deletions and Corrections to An
    Bulletin of the Irish Biogeographical Society No. 36 (2012) ADDITIONS, DELETIONS AND CORRECTIONS TO AN ANNOTATED CHECKLIST OF THE IRISH BUTTERFLIES AND MOTHS (LEPIDOPTERA) WITH A CONCISE CHECKLIST OF IRISH SPECIES AND ELACHISTA BIATOMELLA (STAINTON, 1848) NEW TO IRELAND K. G. M. Bond1 and J. P. O’Connor2 1Department of Zoology and Animal Ecology, School of BEES, University College Cork, Distillery Fields, North Mall, Cork, Ireland. e-mail: <[email protected]> 2Emeritus Entomologist, National Museum of Ireland, Kildare Street, Dublin 2, Ireland. Abstract Additions, deletions and corrections are made to the Irish checklist of butterflies and moths (Lepidoptera). Elachista biatomella (Stainton, 1848) is added to the Irish list. The total number of confirmed Irish species of Lepidoptera now stands at 1480. Key words: Lepidoptera, additions, deletions, corrections, Irish list, Elachista biatomella Introduction Bond, Nash and O’Connor (2006) provided a checklist of the Irish Lepidoptera. Since its publication, many new discoveries have been made and are reported here. In addition, several deletions have been made. A concise and updated checklist is provided. The following abbreviations are used in the text: BM(NH) – The Natural History Museum, London; NMINH – National Museum of Ireland, Natural History, Dublin. The total number of confirmed Irish species now stands at 1480, an addition of 68 since Bond et al. (2006). Taxonomic arrangement As a result of recent systematic research, it has been necessary to replace the arrangement familiar to British and Irish Lepidopterists by the Fauna Europaea [FE] system used by Karsholt 60 Bulletin of the Irish Biogeographical Society No. 36 (2012) and Razowski, which is widely used in continental Europe.
    [Show full text]
  • Lepidoptera: Noctuoidea: Erebidae) and Its Phylogenetic Implications
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ENTOMOLOGYENTOMOLOGY ISSN (online): 1802-8829 Eur. J. Entomol. 113: 558–570, 2016 http://www.eje.cz doi: 10.14411/eje.2016.076 ORIGINAL ARTICLE Characterization of the complete mitochondrial genome of Spilarctia robusta (Lepidoptera: Noctuoidea: Erebidae) and its phylogenetic implications YU SUN, SEN TIAN, CEN QIAN, YU-XUAN SUN, MUHAMMAD N. ABBAS, SAIMA KAUSAR, LEI WANG, GUOQING WEI, BAO-JIAN ZHU * and CHAO-LIANG LIU * College of Life Sciences, Anhui Agricultural University, 130 Changjiang West Road, Hefei, 230036, China; e-mails: [email protected] (Y. Sun), [email protected] (S. Tian), [email protected] (C. Qian), [email protected] (Y.-X. Sun), [email protected] (M.-N. Abbas), [email protected] (S. Kausar), [email protected] (L. Wang), [email protected] (G.-Q. Wei), [email protected] (B.-J. Zhu), [email protected] (C.-L. Liu) Key words. Lepidoptera, Noctuoidea, Erebidae, Spilarctia robusta, phylogenetic analyses, mitogenome, evolution, gene rearrangement Abstract. The complete mitochondrial genome (mitogenome) of Spilarctia robusta (Lepidoptera: Noctuoidea: Erebidae) was se- quenced and analyzed. The circular mitogenome is made up of 15,447 base pairs (bp). It contains a set of 37 genes, with the gene complement and order similar to that of other lepidopterans. The 12 protein coding genes (PCGs) have a typical mitochondrial start codon (ATN codons), whereas cytochrome c oxidase subunit 1 (cox1) gene utilizes unusually the CAG codon as documented for other lepidopteran mitogenomes. Four of the 13 PCGs have incomplete termination codons, the cox1, nad4 and nad6 with a single T, but cox2 has TA. It comprises six major intergenic spacers, with the exception of the A+T-rich region, spanning at least 10 bp in the mitogenome.
    [Show full text]
  • Table of Contents
    Table of Contents Table of Contents ............................................................................................................ 1 Authors, Reviewers, Draft Log ........................................................................................ 3 Introduction to Reference ................................................................................................ 5 Introduction to Stone Fruit ............................................................................................. 10 Arthropods ................................................................................................................... 16 Primary Pests of Stone Fruit (Full Pest Datasheet) ....................................................... 16 Adoxophyes orana ................................................................................................. 16 Bactrocera zonata .................................................................................................. 27 Enarmonia formosana ............................................................................................ 39 Epiphyas postvittana .............................................................................................. 47 Grapholita funebrana ............................................................................................. 62 Leucoptera malifoliella ........................................................................................... 72 Lobesia botrana ....................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • EU-Spain Cherry RA.Docx
    Importation of Cherry [Prunus 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 Animal 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 [Prunus avium (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 species 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
    [Show full text]
  • REPORT on APPLES – Fruit Pathway and Alert List
    EU project number 613678 Strategies to develop effective, innovative and practical approaches to protect major European fruit crops from pests and pathogens Work package 1. Pathways of introduction of fruit pests and pathogens Deliverable 1.3. PART 5 - REPORT on APPLES – Fruit pathway and Alert List Partners involved: EPPO (Grousset F, Petter F, Suffert M) and JKI (Steffen K, Wilstermann A, Schrader G). This document should be cited as ‘Wistermann A, Steffen K, Grousset F, Petter F, Schrader G, Suffert M (2016) DROPSA Deliverable 1.3 Report for Apples – Fruit pathway and Alert List’. An Excel file containing supporting information is available at https://upload.eppo.int/download/107o25ccc1b2c DROPSA is funded by the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration (grant agreement no. 613678). www.dropsaproject.eu [email protected] DROPSA DELIVERABLE REPORT on Apples – Fruit pathway and Alert List 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 3 1.1 Background on apple .................................................................................................................................... 3 1.2 Data on production and trade of apple fruit ................................................................................................... 3 1.3 Pathway ‘apple fruit’ .....................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • An Assessment of Invasive Species Management in Idaho
    University of Idaho Archives, University of Idaho, www.invasive.org Robert L. Johnson, Cornell University, www.invasive.org Preparing to Meet the Challenge An Assessment of Eric Coombs, Oregan Department of Agriculture, www.invasive.org Invasive Species Management in Idaho Prepared for: The Idaho Invasive Species Council With the Support of: Kenneth R. Law, The Idaho Department of Agriculture USDA APHIS PPQ, www.invasive.org and The Nature Conservancy Northwest Natural Resource Group, LLC Joe Hinson, ©2003 i Table of Contents Foreword....................................................................................................................... iii Acknowledgements .........................................................................................................v Executive Summary...................................................................................................... vii Introduction.....................................................................................................................1 The Concept of ÒInvasivenessÓ ....................................................................................1 Why Should IdahoÕs Citizens Worry About Invasive Species?.....................................4 Facing Up to the Challenge..............................................................................................7 What Level of Commitment is Needed?.....................................................................14 Conclusions ...............................................................................................................18
    [Show full text]
  • Meet the Challenge an Assessment of Eric Coombs, Oregan Department of Agriculture, Invasive Species Management in Idaho
    University of Idaho Archives, University of Idaho, www.invasive.org Robert L. Johnson, Cornell University, www.invasive.org Preparing to Meet the Challenge An Assessment of Eric Coombs, Oregan Department of Agriculture, www.invasive.org Invasive Species Management in Idaho Prepared for: The Idaho Invasive Species Council With the Support of: Kenneth R. Law, The Idaho Department of Agriculture USDA APHIS PPQ, www.invasive.org and The Nature Conservancy Northwest Natural Resource Group, LLC Joe Hinson, ©2003 i Table of Contents Foreword....................................................................................................................... iii Acknowledgements .........................................................................................................v Executive Summary...................................................................................................... vii Introduction.....................................................................................................................1 The Concept of ÒInvasivenessÓ ....................................................................................1 Why Should IdahoÕs Citizens Worry About Invasive Species?.....................................4 Facing Up to the Challenge..............................................................................................7 What Level of Commitment is Needed?.....................................................................14 Conclusions ...............................................................................................................18
    [Show full text]
  • Plant Pest and Disease Emergency Response Plan September 2010
    Plant Pest and Disease Emergency Response Plan September 2010 Photo credit: co.nrcs.usda.gov CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................1 1.1 Purpose & Scope ................................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Situation .............................................................................................................................. 1 1.3 Assumptions ........................................................................................................................ 2 1.4 Legal Authority .................................................................................................................. 3 1.5 Plan Maintenance ................................................................................................................ 3 2.0 Concept of Operations .......................................................................................3 2.1 Plant Pests and Diseases of Regulatory Concern ................................................................ 4 2.2 APHIS Select Agent Disease List ....................................................................................... 4 2.3 Criteria for Plant Emergency Response ............................................................................. 4 2.4 Incident Command System ................................................................................................ 4 3.0 Response Framework ...........................................................................................5
    [Show full text]
  • Pear Leaf Blister Moth Leucoptera Malifoliella
    Stone Fruit Commodity-Based Pest Survey Pear Leaf Blister Moth Leucoptera malifoliella Introduction Pear leaf blister moth is a leaf miner pest of stone fruit that is present in temperate climates throughout much of Europe and Asia. It is not currently known to be present in the United States. Biology Depending on the length of the growing season, pear leaf blister moths are capable of producing between one to five generations each year. Females produce approximately 50 eggs, laying them individually on the underside of leaves. Larvae live within and eat (i.e., mine) the upper epidermal layer. FIGURE 1. Adult pear leaf blister moth (Leucoptera malifoliella). Photo courtesy of Vladimir V. As larvae feed on leaf tissue, a spiral pattern containing frass (residue or Neimorovets, All-Russian Institute of Plant Protection, excrement from the larvae) in concentric rings is produced. Mature larvae Russian Academy of Agricultural Sciences. emerge from the upper surface of the leaf to search for pupation sites from which they will later emerge as mature moths. Symptoms Pear leaf blister moths damage the leaves of host plants. Elevated moth infestation levels can cause premature leaf fall, which can lead to yield reduction. A large amount of tunneling in the leaves may also delay shoot growth and reduce fruit weight. Repeat and heavy defoliation by moths can weaken the host tree’s overall health. Visible damage can be observed in larvae mines up to 2 centimeters wide that appear as circular blotches with concentric rings of frass (Figure 2). On host plants, mines appear brownish at first, turning purplish-brown, and then black.
    [Show full text]