2007 Florida CAPS Red Palm Mite Survey Interim Report Trevor R

2007 Florida CAPS Red Palm Mite Survey Interim Report Trevor R. Smith and Wayne N. Dixon1

Introduction Red palm mite, Raoiella indica Hirst (Fig. 1), was first detected in the Western Hemisphere in Martinique in 2004. It quickly spread throughout the West Indies, with the most recent detections in Venezuela and Florida (Fig. 2). Red palm mite (RPM) has been found on many different palms as well as several other plants in the Caribbean (Table 1) but seems to concentrate on coconut palms, Cocos nucifera L. Symptoms of RPM damage include severe yellowing and chlorosis of the leaves which can lead to leaflet drooping when the mite population is high. This damage can significantly lessen the ornamental value of palms. Caribbean coconut growers anticipate as much as a 50% loss in coconut production.

The Florida Cooperative Agricultural Pest Survey (CAPS) program determined that the RPM posed a significant threat to Florida’s palm industry as well as to several of the state’s native palms. South Florida is particularly at risk due to the high volume of offshore plant material brought into its many ports as well as its close geographic proximity to the RPM-infected Caribbean Islands. Coconut seeds, plant material, tropical weather systems and palm handicrafts were viewed as likely pathways for RPM to be transported into Florida from the Caribbean (Fig. 3). The first RPM survey was initiated in late October, 2006.

Objectives The primary objective of this project was to survey in and around “hot zones” high risk areas that have the highest potential for exotic pest introduction in Florida for the presence of RPM. This survey also afforded scientists the opportunity to identify predatory mites occurring in this area which may be useful as biological control agents for the RPM in the future. In addition, it enabled the recording of naturally occurring mite populations on palms, especially in the event that RPM displaces them. All CAPS personnel, both federal and state, worked along with collaborators from many other agencies and organizations.

Survey and Monitoring The hot zone areas chosen for RPM surveys were found in the central and southern parts of the state of Florida. These areas have the largest numbers of host plants as well as a large number of people traveling to and from the Caribbean islands. Nurseries with high numbers of palms were chosen with preference given to those bringing in coconut seeds for propagation from Jamaica. Due to several interceptions of RPM on coconut seeds, the CAPS team treated any nursery importing coconut seeds as a “hot zone.” One island in the southern Bahamas, Great Inagua, was also chosen for survey due to its close proximity to areas where RPM has been found (Hispaniola and possibly Cuba).

Field Surveys The survey technique consisted of a CAPS team (usually two people) selecting three to five evenly distributed sites within a section (one square mile or 640 acres) to survey with

1 CAPS State Survey Coordinator and Bureau Chief, respectively 2 priority given to “hot zones” (ports of entry, marinas, suspect plant nurseries, etc.) within the section (Fig. 4). Coconut palms were the preferred host for the survey, although other hosts, preferably Christmas palm, Adonidia merrilli (Becc.) Becc. or banana, Musa spp. were surveyed when coconut palms were not available. Two fronds were selected for inspection from each palm, the focus being placed on the lower fronds. Four leaflets from each selected frond were examined for mites. This often was accomplished without the removal of any leaf tissue. Selection of leaflets started from the middle of the frond, working towards the petiole. The frond was pulled into the light to inspect the entire underside of the leaflets. Red palm mite colonies are usually circular and located near the mid-vein (Fig. 5). All life stages of this mite are red which makes the older life stages very visible and easily seen on the underside of leaves. Leaflets with mites on them were removed from coconut palms and other pinnate palms for closer examination. On palmate palms, the suspected mite colony was removed by cutting the part of the leaf around the colony. Suspect mites were collected from any leaflet. Inspections at each site were limited to about 15 minutes.

If a plant was examined and no mites were in evidence then no sample was taken and the site was recorded as a negative. Infested or suspect plant material was collected in a one gallon, re-sealable plastic bag with a paper towel to absorb moisture. Samples were retained in coolers during daily survey activities. These samples were refrigerated until sent to the Division of Plant Industry, Entomology Section, Gainesville for identification. CAPS personnel were trained to identify RPM and related mites by FDACS/DPI, USDA/APHIS/CPHST and UF/IFAS specialists. Mite samples that were considered highly suspect were placed in alcohol before shipping to Gainesville.

Photographs of the plants as well as plant material were sent to the Botany Section in Gainesville for host verification. Several photos were taken of diagnostic portions of the plants such as leaf scars, spines, swelling of the stem, hastula, roots, and flowers as well as a photograph of the entire tree. The plant samples were placed in separate re-sealable bags.

PDAs, copilot GPS devices and ESRI ArcPad application facilitated data collection and management and allowed spatial geographic information to be available in the field. Locations of private marinas and commercial palm nurseries were available to surveyors both as printed aerial maps and on PDAs. Aerial maps allowed surveyors to focus on high-risk areas and the use of ArcPad allowed them to relate their real-time position via the global positioning system (GPS) to high risk locations. GPS points were automatically captured and linked with data supplied by the surveyor. Many changes have been made in the application and the survey protocol as a direct result of the first surveys.

Permanent inspection sites or “sentinel sites” were selected throughout Florida (Table 2). Sentinel sites were located in areas related to a potential pathway for the RPM to enter Florida. Typically, sentinel sites were chosen in areas that were easily accessible (parks with open admission, public waterways, etc.), have several host plants for inspection, contain palm trees with fronds that can be reached by the surveyor, and are in or around a point of entry. These were checked at least once a month and will be surveyed extensively after major weather events such as hurricanes and tropical storms.

Coconut Washing The most efficient way to examine coconut seeds for mites was to wash each coconut in an alcohol bath. The technique for washing coconuts can be carried out by one person; however, due to the volume in which coconuts seeds arrive in Florida a team of 3-4 persons with several washing stations was better. A 2-3 gallon plastic bucket with a lid was filled to about 25% of the total volume of the container with 70-75% isopropanol. If alcohol is not available then water with a small amount of non-foaming detergent or 2-3 pellets of sodium hydroxide in it can be used. One or two coconuts were placed in the container and the lid was placed over the top. The bucket was then agitated for 30 to 60 seconds before the coconuts were removed. After 10-12 coconuts (fewer if coconuts were particularly dirty) were washed, the liquid was poured through a strainer or sieve (mesh size no smaller than 600 μ) which was used to remove large debris from the washing liquid. The strainer was rinsed thoroughly to wash any mites attached to the debris into the liquid. This liquid was then poured through a wet washing sieve (Humboldt) and the contents of the sieve were washed back into a small jar for shipping. The filtrates from all of the coconuts washed at one site on the same day were combined into one sample. The sieves were thoroughly cleaned after completion of a coconut wash at one location. Fixed screen sieves were thoroughly back-washed with water and a soft brush was used to clear the screen. The Humboldt wet washing sieves were disassembled and washed very carefully.

Shipments of propagative coconut seeds typically arrived twenty to a bag with an average shipment size anywhere from 7,500 to 15, 000 coconuts. The “2-2 formula” was used to determine how many coconut seeds from a shipment must be washed, i.e., two coconuts from 2% of the bags in a shipment were washed.

Prior to accessing commercial or residential areas, attempts were always made to contact the owner or manager. Door hangers about the CAPS program and RPM, as well as a “Red Palm Mite Information Sheet”, were provided when surveying these types of settings.

Current Results The preliminary RPM survey took place in Miami-Dade County. The Miami area has long been a general “hot zone” for the introduction of invasive species. Particularly important to the potential introduction of RPM, this area has one deep water port (Port of Miami), a number of marinas and many palm nurseries. A pilot survey was conducted October 24 - 26, 2006 and used to develop a more universal surveying technique for RPM. Four sites in three TRSs were surveyed. A much more extensive Miami-Dade County survey took place May 21-25, 2007. For this survey, coastal TRSs as well as TRSs with a large number of palm nurseries within them were chosen for survey. Personnel from CAPS, DPI, and UF-IFAS conducted the survey. In total, 158 sites were surveyed in 62 TRSs (Fig. 7).

A survey of recently imported coconut seeds was conducted in a Miami nursery on June 11, 2007 and again at the Miami Inspection Station on July 17, 2007. For the June survey, the “2-2 formula” was used to determine that thirty coconut seeds from a shipment of 15,000 delivered to a palm nursery needed to be washed. The July survey was much more intensive and involved personnel from DPI, CAPS, USDA-APHIS-PPQ, 4 USDA-APHIS-CPHST and CBP sampling a much greater percentage of coconuts than what had occurred in the June survey. The aggregate wash samples were sent to the DPI Entomology Section for processing. No RPM was found in June survey; however, many live mite species were collected. A total of three RPM specimens were found in the July survey of which two were in very good condition and were most likely alive at the time of the wash; the third was in poor condition.

A west coast RPM survey was initiated in early December, 2006 and continued off and on throughout the month. This area is one of the fastest growing residential areas in Florida. Palms are used extensively in the landscape for new developments and palm nurseries can be found throughout the area. There are three deep water ports in this area (Port of Tampa, Port of St. Petersburg and Port of Manatee). Forty-four sites in Hillsborough, Manatee, Pinellas and Sarasota counties were surveyed (Fig. 8). A one- day survey was carried out on May 1, 2007 of several nurseries on Pine Island in Lee County (Fig. 9). Many of these nurseries bring in coconut seeds from Jamaica. DPI inspectors and CAPS personnel examined seed beds, palms within the nurseries, and palms found in the environs of the nurseries, but found no RPM. These same nurseries were surveyed again on May 31, 2007. The focus of this second survey was coconut seeds. Alcohol washes were performed on 28 coconut seeds imported from Jamaica (Fig. 10). All alcohol washes were combined into an aggregate sample and sent to DPI’s Entomology Section for sorting and identification. A single female RPM specimen was discovered in the alcohol wash. The condition of the specimen indicated that it was alive when the coconut wash occurred. Another 14 species of mite were also identified from this wash. After finding RPM, a follow-up survey was conducted June 8, 2007. Since all of the coconut seeds had been planted by this time, the seed beds were meticulously surveyed. Of the 32 mite samples collected from five counties along the west coast of Florida, only the single RPM specimen from the coconut wash was found.

Monroe County was surveyed for RPM February 8-9, 2007. This survey was limited to the Keys which are the closest point in Florida to Cuba. While it is not known if RPM is in Cuba it is suspected to be present in Cuba. The Port of Key West is a major port of call for the cruise line industry making it a “hot zone” for RPM on palm handicrafts. The main goal of this survey was to establish sentinel sites in an area most likely to receive windborne red palm mites (Fig. 11). Fifteen sites in 8 TRSs were surveyed. Four mite samples were collected from the Florida Keys, none of which was RPM.

Broward County has one deep water port (Port Everglades) and countless private and public marinas. Over 100 TRSs along the coast of Broward County and the extreme northern portions of Dade County were chosen for survey (Figure 12). The Broward/Dade county RPM survey ran from March 5-8, 2007 with a one day effort February 22, 2007. This survey was composed of CAPS, DPI and USDA-APHIS-PPQ- FFD personnel. Over 1,100 plants were surveyed from 261 sites in 61 TRSs (Table 2). Twenty-nine samples were taken from this county and all proved negative for RPM.

The only CAPS RPM survey outside of Florida took place in the Bahamas at the end of July 2007. Great Inagua is one of the largest islands in the Bahamas and the closest to Cuba and Hispaniola. Looking at the spread of RPM throughout the West Indies, and the close proximity of the southern Bahamas to infected areas (Hispaniola and possibly Cuba) it was decided that this area was a “hot zone.” While Nassau (New Providence) is the most likely location for RPM introduction via plant material Great Inagua is the most 5 likely Bahamian island for wind-borne RPM introduction. About half of Great Inagua is a National Park with extensive Cocothrinax inaguensis R.W. Read palm forests, an endemic palm, that is a possible host of RPM making this pest a major cause for concern amongst park officials. A one-day RPM survey was carried out on July 8, 2007 on the island of New Providence. Only eight locations were visited and no mite sample was collected. Great Inagua was surveyed July 9-16, 2007. Thirty-eight sites were surveyed on this island (Fig. 13 & 14). Of the 195 plants examined, only three mite samples were taken none of which was RPM (Table 3).

The first continental record was collected on November 29, 2007 in Palm Beach County. This sample was collected as part of the CAPS/FFD Sentinel Survey Program. At the time of the first find 579 sentinel sites had been established in 12 counties in southern Florida. Each of these sentinel sites was monitored at least once a month. A delimiting survey was initiated by the CAPS team immediately, beginning December 4. Within a week RPM was found as far south as Lauderdale-By-The-Sea (Fig. 15).

Mite samples were identified by DPI taxonomist Dr. Cal Welbourn. At the time this report was written the Florida CAPS team and their cooperators had collected 465 mite specimens representing more than 60 species in 21 families. The major taxa collected are shown in Table 4. Of the 395 mite samples taken in the field and sent to DPI for identification, only 46 came back as positive for RPM. These positive samples were collected washing coconut seeds and in Palm Beach and Broward Counties.

Conclusion Aside from surveys, the CAPS team helped raise RPM awareness throughout state and federal educational and regulatory agencies through training and education. The CAPS team was able to make contact with the cruise line industry and present them with all of the current information concerning RPM. A meeting was called specifically to discuss palm handicrafts which are sold to passengers at many ports of call in the Caribbean. Soon after, RPM was intercepted on a passenger’s palm handicraft from St. Martin. In June, 2007, CBP initiated “Operation Red Mighty Mite” which was an effort to prohibit passengers from bringing plant material and palm handicrafts into the U.S. from countries known to have RPM. CAPS was also responsible for the production of information flyers, distribution maps, posters, door hangers and other educational materials concerning RPM for inspectors and the public alike. The CAPS team also relayed information to federal and state agencies concerning the risk involved with coconuts imported into Florida from RPM-infected areas. Soon after this information was released, RPM was intercepted on coconut seeds in Puerto Rico destined for Florida.

To date, 4,612 sites have been visited during RPM surveys and over 17,140 plants have been surveyed. At this time, RPM has only been found in Palm Beach and Broward Counties. While the RPM has not yet been found in the Bahamas risk analysis suggests that it will arrive soon. With the RPM clearly established near ports and nurseries it is only a matter of time before this serious pest of palms spreads throughout the state of Florida. Sentinel sites will continue to be monitored to track the spread of RPM. The longer the spread of this pest can be delayed the more time researchers will have to find natural enemies and develop other effective control measures.

6 Acknowledgements It is important to note the many contributors in the planning and execution of RPM survey activities:

Andrea Chavez FDACS-DPI-CAPS GIS & Mapping Specialist Cynthia Moncrief FDACS-DPI-CAPS Information Specialist Doug Restom Gaskill FDACS-DPI-CAPS Pest Survey Specialist Dr. E. Ashley Johnson FDACS-DPI-CAPS Pest Survey Specialist Dr. Michael Meadows FDACS-DPI-CAPS Pest Survey Specialist Paul Hornby USDA-APHIS-PPQ, State Plant Health Director Ann Wildman USDA-APHIS-PPQ, Assistant State Plant Health Director Karolynne Griffiths USDA-CAPS Pest Survey Specialist Michael Patterson USDA-CAPS Pest Survey Specialist Brian Saunders USDA-CAPS Pest Survey Specialist Dr. Adam Silagyi USDA-CAPS Pest Survey Specialist Eduardo Varona USDA-APHIS-PPQ-State Operations Support Officer Heather Hursh USDA-APHIS-PPQ-FFD Supervisor Jeff Hewitt USDA-APHIS-PPQ-FFD Margarita Lahens USDA-APHIS-PPQ-FFD Ronald Lee USDA-APHIS-PPQ David Renz USDA-APHIS-PPQ Amy Roda USDA-APHIS-PPQ-CPHST-Entomologist Dr. Cal Welbourn FDACS-DPI Acarologist Richard Blaney FDACS-DPI Inspector Eduardo Camero FDACS-DPI Inspector Gregg Farina FDACS-DPI Inspector Walter Golden FDACS-DPI Inspector Keith Harris FDACS-DPI Inspector Mario Hernandez FDACS-DPI Inspector Lori Rigby FDACS-DPI Inspector Billy Thiel FDACS-DPI Inspector Matt Brodie FDACS-DPI Area Supervisor Edward Putland FDACS-DPI Area Supervisor Richard Clark FDACS-DPI Bureau Chief Divina Amalin UF-IFAS Luis Bradshaw UF-IFAS

Table 1. Confirmed Caribbean hosts of the red palm mite, Raoiella indica. Family Scientific Name Common Name(s) Arecaceae Acoelorraphe wrightii (Grises. & H. Wendl.) Everglades palm Arecaceae Adonidia merrilli (Becc.) Becc. (=Veitchia) Manila palm, Christmas palm Arecaceae Aiphanes spp. multiple crown palm, ruffle palm Arecaceae Areca catechu L. betel nut palm Arecaceae Areca spp. Arecaceae Bactris plumeriana Mart. coco macaco, prickly pole Arecaceae Caryota mitis Lour. fishtail palm Arecaceae Chamaedorea spp. chamaedorea palm Arecaceae Cocos nucifera L. coconut palm Arecaceae Dictyosperma album (Bory) H. Wendl. & Drude ex princess palm, hurricane Scheff. palm Arecaceae Dypsis decaryi (Jum.) Beentje & J. Dransf. triangle palm Arecaceae Dypsis lutescens (H.Wendl.) Beentje & J.Dransf. areca palm, golden cane (=Chrysalidocarpus) palm, butterfly palm Arecaceae Licuala grandis H. Wendl. licuala palm, ruffled fan palm Arecaceae Livistona chinensis (Jacq.) R. Br. Chinese fan palm Arecaceae Phoenix canariensis hort. ex Chabaud Canary Island date palm Arecaceae Phoenix dactylifera L. date palm Arecaceae Phoenix reclinata Jacq. Senegal date palm Arecaceae Pritchardia pacifica B.C. Seem. & H. Wendl. Fiji fan palm Arecaceae Pseudophoenix sargentii H.Wendl. ex Sarg. buccaneer palm Arecaceae Pseudophoenix vinifera (Mart.) Becc. cacheo, katié Arecaceae Ptychosperma elegans (R.Br.) Blume solitaire palm, Alexander palm Arecaceae Ptychosperma macarthurii (H.Wendl. ex Macarthur palm H.J.Veitch) H.Wendl. ex Hook.f. Arecaceae Rhapis excelsa (Thunb.) A. Henry ex Rehder lady palm, bamboo palm Arecaceae Roystonea borinquena O.F. Cook. royal palm Arecaceae Syagrus romanzoffiana (Cham.) Glassman queen palm Arecaceae Syagrus schizophylla (Mart) Glassman arikury palm Arecaceae Washingtonia robusta H. Wendl Mexican fan palm Heliconiaceae Heliconia psittacorum L. f. parrot flower Heliconiaceae Heliconia caribaea Lam. wild plantain, balisier Heliconiaceae Heliconia rostrata Ruiz & Pavon lobster claw heliconia Heliconiaceae Heliconia bihai (L.) L. macaw flower Musaceae Musa acuminata Colla edible banana, plantain Musaceae Musa balbisiana Colla wild banana Musaceae Musa uranoscopus Lour red-flowering banana Musaceae Musa x paradisiaca L. edible banana, plantain Musaceae Musa sapientum L. (synonym of the above) edible banana, plantain Musaceae Musa corniculata Rumph. red banana Musaceae Musa spp. banana, plantain Pandanaceae Pandanus utilis Bory screw pine Strelitziaceae Strelitzia reginae Banks ex Dryard bird of paradise, crane flower Strelitziaceae Ravenala madagascariensis traveler’s tree Zingiberaceae Etlingera elatior (Jack.) M. Sm. (=Nicolaia) red torch ginger Zingiberaceae Alpinia purpurata (Vieill.) K. Schum red ginger, jungle king/queen 8

Table 2. Red palm mite survey data listed by county. Number of Number of Number of TRSs Number of Samples CAPS/FFD Sentinel Locations Surveyed Surveyed Collected County Sites Broward 550 143 91 79 Charlotte 5 5 3 3 Collier 36 24 26 23 Dade 414 220 91 154 Hillsborough 5 4 9 2 Lee 182 43 66 13 Manatee 24 18 8 8 Martin 54 54 35 54 Monroe 24 17 12 14 Palm Beach 223 167 42 142 Pinellas 29 16 5 10 Sarasota 9 7 7 3

Totals 1555 718 395 505

Table 3. Bahamas red palm mite survey data listed by island.

Number of Number of Plants Number of Samples Locations Surveyed Surveyed Collected Island, Country Great Inagua, Bahamas 43 195 3 New Providence, Bahamas 8 30 0

Totals 51 225 3

Table 4. List of mite species collected and identified during RPM surveys. Number of Mite Feeding Type Family Mite Identification Identifications Dead organic matter ACARIDAE Tyrophagus sp. 3 Fungus and/or pollen ACARIDAE undetermined acarid mite 3 ORIBATIDAE undetermined oribatid mite 16 TARSONEMIDAE Diadalotarsonemus sp. 1 Metatarsonemus sp. 1 Tarsonemus sp. 46 TYDEIDAE Lorryia sp. 18 Metapronematus sp. 23 Metatriophtydeus sp. 5 Parapronematus sp. 5 Pseudotriophtydeus sp. 1 Tydeus sp. 27 undetermined tydeid mite 5 UROPODIDAE undetermined uropodid mite 1 WINTERSCHMIDTIIDAE Czenspinskia sp. 2 Czenspinskia transversostriata 7 Plant Pest ERIOPHYIDAE Aceria guerreronis 1 Aceria sp. 1 Acritonotus sp. 1 Amrineus coconuciferae 14 Colomerus sp. 1 Notostrix sp. 6 Scolocenus sp. 10 undetermined eriophyid mite 3 TENUIPALPIDAE Brevipalpus californicus 2 Brevipalpus phoenicis 11 Brevipalpus sp. 4 Raoiella indica 46 Tenuipalpus sp. 1 TETRANYCHIDAE Eutetranychus banksi 3 Eutetranychus sp. 1 Oligonychus modestus 8 Oligonychus sp. 10 Palmanychus steganus 1 Tetranychus cocosi 6 Tetranychus gloveri 35 Tetranychus sp. 27 Predatory ANYSTIDAE Anystis sp. 1 ASCIDAE Asca sp. 1 BDELLIDAE Bdella distincta 11 Bdella tropica 1 Bdella sp. 3 Spinibdella depressa 1 undetermined bdellid mite 3 CAMEROBIIDAE undetermined camerobid mite 1 CHEYLETIDAE Cheletomimus sp. 1 Undetermined cheyletid mite 1 CUNAXIDAE Cunaxa sp. 2 10 undetermined cunaxid mite 1 EUPALOPSELLIDAE Saniosulus sp. 1 HEMISARCOPTIDAE Hemisarcoptes sp. 2 PHYTOSEIIDAE Amblyseius largoensis 38 Amblyseius sp. 18 Euseius hibisci 3 Euseius sp. 1 Neoseiulus sp. 10 undetermined phytoseiid mite 5 STIGMAEIDAE Agistemus sp. 2 Zetzellia sp. 1 Undetermined EUPODIDAE Eupodes sp. 1

TOTALS 21 ≈60 465 Note: Total number of mite identifications is greater than the total number of samples since multiple mite identifications may be made from a single sample.

Fig. 1. Adult red palm mite, Raoiella indica Hirst.

Fig. 2. Spatial progression of red palm mite, Raoiella indica Hirst, through the Caribbean. 12

Fig. 3. Palm handicrafts from the Caribbean which may transport red palm mite life stages.

Fig. 4. TRS map sample showing sentinel and surveyed sites for red palm mite in Broward County. 13

Adult Mite

Cast

skins

Fig. 5. Close-up of red palm mite colony on palm frond.

Fig. 7. Map of Red Palm Mite Survey 2007 in Miami-Dade County.

Fig. 8. Map of West Coast red palm mite survey activities.

Fig. 9. Map of red palm mite surveys on Pine Island.

Fig. 10. Alcohol wash of coconut seeds from the red palm mite survey on Pine Island.

Fig. 11. Map of red palm mite survey in the Florida Keys.

Fig. 12. Map of red palm mite survey in Broward County.

Fig. 13. Close-up view of red palm mite survey in Great Inagua, Bahamas, on July, 2007.

Fig. 14. Map of red palm mite survey in Great Inagua, Bahamas, on July, 2007.

Fig. 15. Map showing RPM delimiting survey.