Importation of Fresh Immature Inflorescences of Pacaya, Chamaedorea Tepejilote Liebm., from El Salvador Into the Continental United States
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Importation of Fresh Immature Inflorescences of Pacaya, Chamaedorea tepejilote Liebm., from El Salvador into the Continental United States A Qualitative, Pathway-Initiated Pest Risk Assessment April 5, 2010 Rev. 01 Agency Contact: Center for Plant Health Science and Technology Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory United States Department of Agriculture Animal Plant Health Inspection Services Plant Protection and Quarantine 1730 Varsity Drive, Suite 300 Raleigh, NC 27606 Pest Risk Assessment for Pacaya from El Salvador Executive Summary In this document we assessed the risk associated with the importation of fresh immature inflorescences of pacaya, Chamaedorea tepejilote, from El Salvador into the continental United States. Information on pests associated with pacaya in Central American countries that produce it revealed two quarantine pests that could be introduced into the continental United States via this pathway. The quarantine pests likely to follow the pathway are: Brevipalpus hondurani (Acari: Tenuipalpidae) Brooksithrips chamaedoreae (Thysanoptera: Thripidae) Sarasinula plebeia (Systellommatophora: Veronicellidae) We qualitatively analyzed these quarantine pests using our Guidelines for Pathway-Initiated Pest Risk Assessments, Version 5.02 (PPQ, 2000). We examined pest biology in the context of Consequences of Introduction and Likelihood of Introduction, and used these elements to estimate the Pest Risk Potential. Based on available information, Brevipalpus hondurani is highly unlikely to establish in the continental United States, and the overall risk is negligible. The other two pests pose potential phytosanitary risks to U.S. agriculture or ecosystems. We determined that the pest risk potential is Medium for Sarasinula plebeia and Low for Brooksithrips chamaedoreae. Pests assigned a Low Pest Risk Potential typically do not require specific mitigation measures as port-of-entry inspection is expected to provide sufficient phytosanitary security. For pests with a Medium Pest Risk Potential, specific phytosanitary measures may be necessary and options are presented within this document. Final phytosanitary measures to mitigate pest risk along the pacaya pathway will be determined during the development of a separate, detailed pest risk management document. Rev. 01 April 5, 2010 ii Pest Risk Assessment for Pacaya from El Salvador Table of Contents Executive Summary...................................................................................................................... ii 1. Introduction............................................................................................................................... 1 1.1. Commodity information..................................................................................................... 1 1.2. Production information ...................................................................................................... 1 1.3. Standard post-harvest processing measures....................................................................... 2 2. Risk Assessment ........................................................................................................................ 2 2.1. Initiating Event: Proposed Action...................................................................................... 2 2.2. Assessment of Weed Potential of Pacaya .......................................................................... 2 2.3. Current Import Status, Decision History, and Pest Interceptions ...................................... 3 2.4. Pest Categorization: Identification of Quarantine Pests and Quarantine Pests Likely to Follow the Pathway ........................................................................................................... 4 2.5. Consequences of Introduction.......................................................................................... 20 2.6. Likelihood of Introduction............................................................................................... 22 2.7. Conclusion: Pest Risk Potential....................................................................................... 26 3. Risk mitigation options........................................................................................................... 26 3.1. Mitigation at the origin .................................................................................................... 27 3.2. Quarantine Treatments..................................................................................................... 27 3.3. Conclusions...................................................................................................................... 27 4. Contributors ............................................................................................................................ 28 5. Literature Cited ...................................................................................................................... 28 6. Appendices............................................................................................................................... 37 Appendix A. Standard post-harvest procedures [Original and translation]............................ 37 Appendix B. Interceptions of quarantine pests on Chamaedorea sp. and C. tepejilote from 1985 to 2008 .................................................................................................................... 39 Rev. 01 April 5, 2010 Pest Risk Assessment for Pacaya from El Salvador 1. Introduction This risk assessment was prepared by the Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ) of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) in response to a request submitted by the government of El Salvador to examine potential pest risks associated with the importation of fresh immature inflorescences of pacaya, Chamaedorea tepejilote Liebm., into the continental United States. This pest risk assessment is pathway-initiated because it is based on risks associated with the importation of the commodity. This risk assessment is qualitative; we expressed risk as High, Medium, and Low, rather than in probabilities or frequencies. The methodology and rating criteria are explained in the Guidelines for Pathway- Initiated Pest Risk Assessments, Version 5.02 (PPQ, 2000). 1.1. Commodity information The genus Chamaedorea is composed of approximately 100 species. All members of the genus originate in the neotropical zones in the Americas and are understory plants that live in a warm, humid environment (Mont et al., 1994). Pacaya has a range from Southern Mexico through Central America to parts of Colombia and Brazil and is commonly called the pacaya palm (Mont et al., 1994). It is frequently found in association with other Chamaedorea palms, such as the parlor palm, Chamaedorea elegans. The immature inflorescence of the pacaya palm has been harvested and consumed in Central America, especially Guatemala, since the pre-Colombian era (Mont et al., 1994). This inflorescence is called pacaya. 1.2. Production information El Salvador plans to grow pacaya palms in association with coffee production areas at 400 to 800 m above sea level on steep slopes. The total area in production is planned to be 200 ha or about 16,670 plants total. A plant needs at least three years growth to give a commercial viable yield. Harvest season is from August to December (MAG, 2005). The Salvadoran government wishes to export pacaya to the United States to take advantage of the expatriate and immigrant Salvadorian community in the United States, marketing pacaya especially in New York, Los Angeles, Miami, Houston, San Francisco, Washington D.C., Santa Ana, Chicago, Boston, Dallas, and New Orleans (Beatres-Marques et al., 2001; Hernández et al., 2003). The Salvadoran government estimates annual production of pacaya at 5-10 tons, on 25-30 ha (Esquivel, 2005). Since pacaya has never been an agronomic commodity in El Salvador, little information exists about its production and pest problems. Thus, we included information from other countries in the growing region in the analysis, particularly Mexico, Honduras, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, and Panama. In addition, confusion exists about the taxonomy of pacaya palm, so we included information about three other taxa as well: 1) Chamaedorea sp., 2) C. alterans, which has frequently been confused with C. tepejilote (Bacon and Bailey, 2006), and 3) C. costaricacannse, which is sometimes referred to as a pacaya in the literature. Rev. 01 April 5, 2010 1 Pest Risk Assessment for Pacaya from El Salvador 1.3. Standard post-harvest processing measures Some standard post-harvest treatments were specified in the technical report on the cultivation of pacaya (MAG, 2005), and are included in Appendix A. These measures specify that the pacayas will be harvested during the months of August through December. The external bracts will be removed, and each will have a peduncle of approximately one inch. The pacayas will be immersed in vats of chlorinated water (50 ppm) for 10 seconds. They will be subjected to a heat treatment of 10 second at 62ºC and then dried by centrifugation. The pacaya will be packed in two-pound trays for export. 2. Risk Assessment The Guidelines for Pest Risk Analysis (IPPC, 2006: ISPM #2) describe three stages in analysis of pest risk associated with specific commodities. This document satisfies the requirements of the Food and Agriculture Organization’s Stages 1 (initiation) and 2 (risk assessment), and