EVALUATION OF PATHWAYS FOR EXOTIC PLANT
PEST MOVEMENT INTO AND WITHIN THE GREATER
CARIBBEAN REGION
January 9, 2009
Revised June 4, 2009
Caribbean Invasive Species Working Group (CISWG)
and
Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory (PERAL)
Center for Plant Health Science and Technology (CPHST)
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
______________________________________________________________________________
Authors:
Dr. Heike Meissner (project lead)
Andrea Lemay
Christie Bertone
Kimberly Schwartzburg
Dr. Lisa Ferguson
Leslie Newton
______________________________________________________________________________
Contact address for all correspondence:
Dr. Heike Meissner
Risk Analyst
USDA-APHIS-PPQ-CPHST-PERAL
1730 Varsity Drive
Suite 300
Raleigh, NC 27607, USA
Phone: (919) 855-7538
E-mail: Heike.E.Meissner@aphis.usda.gov
Table of Contents
Index of Figures and Tables........................................................................................................... iii
Abbreviations and Definitions ....................................................................................................... vi
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ 2
Chapter Summaries......................................................................................................................... 3
Summary of Risk Ratings by Pathway ......................................................................................... 11
Pathways of Pest Movement Not Addressed in this Analysis ...................................................... 12
Recommendations for Improved Safeguarding ............................................................................ 13
Introduction................................................................................................................................... 27
Chapter 1: Human Movement....................................................................................................... 29
Chapter 2: Airline Passenger Baggage ......................................................................................... 43
Chapter 3: International Mail........................................................................................................ 51
Chapter 4: Maritime Traffic.......................................................................................................... 59
Chapter 5: Hitchhiker Pests .......................................................................................................... 66
Chapter 6: Wood Packaging Material........................................................................................... 76
Chapter 7: Forestry-related Pathways........................................................................................... 84
Chapter 8: Plant Propagative Material.......................................................................................... 93
Chapter 9: Natural Spread........................................................................................................... 106
Acknowledgements..................................................................................................................... 113
Figures and Tables ...................................................................................................................... 115
Appendix..................................................................................................................................... 225
Literature Cited ........................................................................................................................... 245
ii
Index of Figures and Tables
List of Figures
Figure 1.1 Origin of tourists to the insular Caribbean in 2006.
Figure 1.2 Tourist arrivals to the insular Caribbean by month in 2006.
Figure 2.1 95% binomial confidence intervals for plant quarantine material
approach rates in international airline passenger baggage at U.S. ports of entry:
by travel reason.
Figure 2.2 95% binomial confidence intervals for plant quarantine material
approach rates in international airline passenger baggage at U.S. ports of entry:
by passenger origin.
Figure 2.3 95% binomial confidence intervals for plant quarantine material
approach rates in international airline passenger baggage at U.S. ports of entry:
passengers from Caribbean origin.
Figure 2.4 Number of plant quarantine materials arriving at U.S. airports: by
country of origin.
Figure 2.5 Same as figure 2.4, but Canada not displayed to show data for the
other countries at a smaller scale.
Figure 2.6 95% binomial confidence intervals for the estimated number of airline
passengers groups with plant quarantine materials: tourists by country of origin.
Figure 4.1 Container traffic in the Greater Caribbean Region.
Figure 4.2 Origin of shipping containers arriving in the Caribbean and Central
America in 2006.
Figure 6.1 Percentage of maritime cargo (both agricultural and non-agricultural)
with wood packaging material imported into the United States.
Figure 6.2 Percentage of maritime agricultural cargo with wood packaging
material imported into the United States.
Figure 6.3 Percentage of maritime non-agricultural cargo with wood packaging
material imported into the United States.
Figure 6.4 Percentage of agricultural air cargo with wood packaging material
imported into the United States.
Figure 7.1 Potential for contamination during timber extraction process.
Figure 9.1 Prevailing wind patterns in the Greater Caribbean Region.
Figure 9.2 Areas and time of hurricane formation.
115
116
121
122
123
124
125
126
141
141
175
176
177
178
206
223
224
iii
List of Tables
Table 1.1 Tourist arrivals by country or territory in 2006.
Table 1.2 Excursionist arrivals by country or territory in 2006.
Table 1.3 Pest interceptions on maritime baggage at U.S. ports of entry in the
U.S. Gulf States in 2007.
Table 1.4 Number of people moving across four major border crossings of the
Mexico-Guatemala border, June-December 2004.
Table 1.5 Influx of temporary farm workers from Guatemala into Chiapas,
Mexico.
Table 2.1 Results of Agricultural Quarantine Inspection Monitoring (AQIM) of
international air passengers arriving at U.S. airports during fiscal years 2005 and
2006.
Table 2.2 Number and percentage of travelers in the various travel reason
categories.
Table 2.3 Number of visitors arriving in Caribbean countries by airplane and
percentage of visitors that are tourists.
Table 3.1 Plant materials/pests intercepted in public and private mail of
worldwide origin during AQIM monitoring at 11 U.S. ports of entry, 2005-2007.
Table 3.2 Relative frequency of types of plant materials/plant pests intercepted in
public and private mail of worldwide origin during AQIM monitoring at 11 U.S.
ports of entry, 2005-2007.
Table 3.3 Inspection results for international public and private mail parcels
arriving in the United States, 2005-2007.
Table 3.4 Average number of international public mail packages received by
UPU member states in the Greater Caribbean Region between 2003 and 2005 and
estimated number of packages arriving with plant materials/plant pests.
Table 3.5 Pests (insects) intercepted from private mail packages between October
1, 2007 and September 30, 2008 in Miami, Florida.
Table 3.6 Pests (insects) intercepted from public (USPS) mail packages between
October 1, 2007 and September 30, 2008 in Miami, Florida.
Table 3.7 Categories of prohibited items seized in public and private mail
entering the United States (2000-2005) at the international mail facility, San
Francisco, CA.
Table 4.1 Rankings of individual ports in the Greater Caribbean Region against
ports worldwide in 2005.
Table 4.2 Container volumes handled at the major maritime ports in the Greater
Caribbean Region.
Table 4.3 Commodities carried by small vessels.
Table 4.4 Container traffic at maritime ports in the Caribbean region, 2003-2006.
Table 5.1 Reportable pests intercepted in aircraft cargo stores, quarters, or holds
at U.S. ports of entry between January 1, 1997 and December 31, 2007.
Table 5.2 Aircraft arrivals in the Greater Caribbean Region.
Table 5.3 Live hitchhiking pests intercepted at U.S. maritime ports of entry
between January 1997 and December 2007 on ships, ship decks, ship holds, ship
stores, ship quarters, containers, and non-agricultural cargo.
Table 5.4 Number of maritime vessels arriving in the Greater Caribbean Region.
117
118
119
120
120
128
129
130
131
133
136
137
138
139
140
142
143
143
144
150
155
156
164
Table 5.5 Container traffic and estimated number of containers with hitchhiker
pests at ports of entry in the Greater Caribbean Region.
Table 6.1 Imports of wood packaging material into Caribbean Region (2006).
Table 6.2 Exports of wood packaging material from Caribbean Region (2006).
Table 6.3 Pest taxa intercepted on or in wood material at U.S. ports of entry
between July 5, 2006 and January 1, 2008.
Table 6.4 Species intercepted at U.S. ports of entry on or in wood material
between January, 1985 and May, 2007.
Table 6.5 Examples of insects with potential to be introduced into one or more
countries of the Greater Caribbean Region on or in wood packaging material.
Table 7.1 Extent of forest land in the Greater Caribbean Region and changes in
extent of forest land over recent years.
Table 7.2 Imports of raw wood products from the world into the Greater
Caribbean Region (2006; excluding U.S. Gulf States).
Table 7.3 Raw wood products trade within the Greater Caribbean Region (2006):
total imports reported.
Table 7.4 Relative quantities of raw wood products traded among countries of
the Greater Caribbean Region: reported imports, 2006.
Table 7.5 Exports of raw wood products from the Caribbean into the world in
2006.
Table 7.6 Raw wood products trade within the Greater Caribbean Region (2006):
total exports reported.
Table 7.7 Relative quantities of raw wood products traded among countries of
the Greater Caribbean Region: exports (2006).
Table 7.8 Invasive trees established in the Greater Caribbean Region.
Table 8.1 Imports of “bulbs, tubers, tuberous roots, corms, crowns, and
rhizomes” into countries of the Greater Caribbean Region in 2007.
Table 8.2 Imports of “live plants (not otherwise specified) including their roots;
mushroom spawn” into countries of the Greater Caribbean Region in 2007.
Table 8.3 Imports of “trees, shrubs and bushes, of kinds which bear edible fruit
or nuts” into countries of the Greater Caribbean Region in 2007.
Table 8.4 Imports of “roses, including their roots” into countries of the Greater
Caribbean Region in 2007.
Table 8.5 Imports of “azaleas and rhododendrons, including their roots” into
countries of the Greater Caribbean Region in 2007.
Table 8.6 Imports of “unrooted cuttings and slips” into countries of the Greater
Caribbean Region in 2007.
Table 8.7 Number of shipments of propagative material imported into the United
States from countries in the Greater Caribbean Region in 2007.
Table 8.8 Reportable pests intercepted at U.S. ports of entry on shipments of
propagative material from countries in the Greater Caribbean Region in 2007.
Appendix Pests potentially associated with forest products and with the potential
to move into and within the Greater Caribbean Region.
165
179
179
180
181
202
207
208
208
209
210
210
211
212
214
215
216
217
217
218
218
219
225
v
Abbreviations and Definitions
Actionable pest
Approach rate
AQIM
APHIS
BTAG
CARICOM
CBP
CISWG
CRAG
CRISIS
CSI
DHS
Exotic pest
GCR
IPPC
ISPM
Pest
PPQ
QM
Reportable pest
Safeguarding
TEU
USDA
WADS
WPM
For the United States: a pest that triggers quarantine actions (e.g., treatment,
destruction or refusal of entry of commodity infested/infected with the pest)
when intercepted at a port of entry.
The percentage of randomly inspected sampling units that contained what the
search was targeting (e.g., percentage of packages containing plant materials).
The approach rate is usually given with a 95% binomial confidence limit (the
limit within which the true approach rate falls with a 95% likelihood).
Agricultural Quarantine Inspection Monitoring (randomized data collection at
U.S. ports of entry)
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (a branch of the USDA)
Biological Threat Advisory Group. A Miami-based interdisciplinary pest risk
discussion and analysis group
Caribbean Community and Common Market
Customs and Border Protection (a branch of the U.S. Department of
Homeland Security, responsible for port-of-entry inspections)
Caribbean Invasive Species Working Group
Caribbean Risk Assessment Group. A Puerto Rico-based interdisciplinary pest
risk discussion and analysis group
Caribbean Regional Invasive Species Intervention Strategy
Caribbean Safeguarding Initiative of United States Department of Agriculture,
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
A pest not native to an area
Greater Caribbean Region: comprised of all countries bordering the Caribbean
Sea, plus the Bahamas, Turks and Caicos, El Salvador, Suriname, Guyana,
and the U.S. Gulf States. Note: The pest risk to Mexico, Venezuela, and
Colombia is not addressed in this report.
International Plant Protection Convention
International Standard of Phytosanitary Measure
Any species of terrestrial arthropod, mollusk, weed, nematode, or plant
pathogen that is injurious to plants or plant products
Plant Protection and Quarantine (a branch of APHIS)
Quarantine material
For the United States: a pest that must be reported in the PestID database if
intercepted at port of entry because it belongs to a taxonomic group whose
members feed on plants. Not all reportable pests are actionable.
All activities aimed at preventing the entry of exotic species into a country.
Components of a safeguarding system may be: international risk management,
port-of-entry exclusion measures, permitting systems and legal framework,
domestic surveillance, and rapid response.
Twenty-foot equivalent unit (a unit of measurement for cargo containers)
United States Department of Agriculture
Work Accomplishment Data System
Wood packaging material
The Greater Caribbean Region (Image source: http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/americas/camericacaribbean.jpg)
1
Executive Summary
This report is the result of a collaboration between the Caribbean Invasive Species Working
Group (CISWG) and the United States Department of Agriculture, Plant Protection and
Quarantine (USDA-PPQ). The objective of this report is to contribute to an improved
understanding of pathways of plant pest movement into and within the entire Greater Caribbean
Region (GCR), thereby helping CISWG to enhance its Caribbean Regional Invasive Species
Intervention Strategy (CRISIS) for preventing the introduction and spread of exotic pests.
The scope of this report includes all terrestrial, non-vertebrate plant pests, such as insects, mites,
plant pathogens, nematodes, mollusks, and weeds. For the purposes of this report, the Greater
Caribbean Region is defined as all countries bordering the Caribbean Sea, plus the Bahamas,
Turks and Caicos, El Salvador, Suriname, Guyana, and the U.S. Gulf States (Florida, Alabama,
Mississippi, Lousiana, and Texas). The pest risk to Mexico, Venezuela, and Colombia is not
addressed in this report, though these countries are considered as sources of pest risk.
The pathways discussed are: human movement, airline passenger baggage, international mail,
maritime traffic, hitchhikers, wood packaging material, forestry, propagative materials, and
natural spread. The relative importance of each pathway was rated based on the available data,
and recommendations for improved safeguarding are provided.
The pest risk associated with human movement, hitchhikers, wood packaging materials, forestry,
and propagative materials was rated as very high. The pest risk associated with airline passenger
baggage, mail, and natural pest spread was rated as medium. None of the pathways assessed was
rated as low-risk. (See page 11 for a summary table of risk ratings.) Even though the pathways
are discussed separately, there is considerable overlap between them. This must be taken into
account in the development of mitigation measures.
Numerous specific recommendations for improved safeguarding are listed in this report. The
main focus for improvements should be:
• Regional coordination, planning, and communication
• Education and involvement of the public
• Early warning, biosurveillance, and pest information systems
• Preparedness and rapid response
2
Chapter Summaries
Chapter 1: Human Movement
Evidence exists in the scientific literature and in government data that people moving between
areas may contribute to the spread of plant pests in several different ways: by carrying the pest
on themselves, their clothing, or their shoes; by transporting the pest on objects brought to or
taken from an area (e.g., handicrafts made from plant parts), or by intentionally collecting the
pest to take it to a different location. The Greater Caribbean Region (GCR) is the most heavilytoured region in the world (Padilla and McElroy, 2005) – airline passengers exceed 30 million
per year (UNWTO, 2008). Thus, the GCR is exposed to the risk of pest spread mediated by the
movement of people.
Visitors to the GCR arrive by either air, water, or land, with air travel being the predominant
mode of transportation (UNWTO, 2006). Once in the GCR, it is not uncommon for visitors to
move between countries (“island-hop”), which is accomplished by regional flight, small boat,
ferry, or – in most cases - cruise ship (Garraway, 2006). Frequenting several climatically similar
destinations within a short time, cruise passengers may spread viable pests to new habitats within
the GCR, especially with the current trends of ecotourism and private island experience leading
to visitation of more natural and pristine areas. Cruise ship passengers are also likely to visit
local markets, where they may buy handicrafts or other items that could harbor plant pests.
Cruise ship, ferry, and small boat passengers are often not subject to phytosanitary inspections.
Inspection of airline passenger luggage is common (see Chapter 2), but cannot do justice to the
ever-increasing passenger volume.
Also of concern is the immense number of yachts and other small vessels moving around the
Caribbean Sea, commonly entering countries without being subject to inspection. These vessels
may be easily used to move quarantine materials (e.g., agricultural cargo, plants for planting,
souvenirs made of plant parts) between countries and may thus play an important role in
facilitating the spread of pests.
The Central and South American nations of the GCR each share land borders with at least two
other countries. These borders often can be crossed without agricultural inspection. Migrant farm
workers cross some of the land borders in large numbers and may facilitate the regional spread of
plant pests into agricultural areas. Local merchants and commuters also move back and forth
between adjacent countries on a regular basis.
The obvious potential of humans to facilitate pest spread, together with the immense number of
travelers into and within the GCR, and an overall insufficient level of phytosanitary safeguards
warrant the pest risk associated with this pathway to be rated as very high.
3
Chapter 2: Airline Passenger Baggage
The large majority of all visitors to the Greater Caribbean Region (GCR) arrive by air (UNWTO,
2006). Because passenger baggage may contain pests (e.g., snails, weed seeds) or items (e.g.,
fruits or vegetables) that are infested with pests, international air travel has long been considered
a pathway for the movement of pest organisms. This study quantifies the pest risk associated
with airline passenger baggage, based on United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) data and explores how this data may be applicable to
other countries of the GCR.
The plant quarantine material (QM) approach rate is the percentage of passenger groups arriving
at the border with plant QMs in their luggage. We calculated an overall plant QM approach rate
of 3.75% (95% binomial confidence interval: 3.70-3.81%) for travelers to the United States and
estimated that there were some 1.7 million arrivals of plant QM to the United States during 2006.
We also estimated that only one quarter of these plant QMs were intercepted by phytosanitary
inspections, leaving about 1.3 million plant QMs entering the United States undetected.
The plant QM approach rate is not the same as the pest approach rate, because not all QMs are
infested with pests. We estimated that some 375,000 pest arrivals to the United States may have
escaped detection by phytosanitary inspection in 2006.
Plant QM approach rates were significantly different between travel reasons. The category “Visit
Family” was associated with the highest QM approach rates, followed by “Visit Friends”.
“Tourists” had considerably lower approach rates than both of the preceding categories.
The ten most commonly intercepted QMs were (in decreasing order of interception frequency):
apples, mangoes, oranges, bananas, seeds, pears, unspecified fresh fruit, plums, yams, and plants.
High-risk QMs intercepted included seeds, plants, and bulbs.
Out of the 25 countries of origin with the highest plant QM approach rates, ten were GCR
countries: Haiti (approach rate: 21%), Bonaire (18%), St. Vincent (13%), Grenada (13%),
Guadeloupe (12%), St. Lucia (11%), Antigua (9%), Bahamas (9%), Jamaica (8%), and Dominica
(8%).
Even though the data was collected at U.S. ports of entry, it has applicability to other countries in
the GCR, given that they receive visitors from many of the same countries of origin. Most
travelers into the GCR countries are tourists, representing a comparatively low pest risk. Most
visitors to the GCR come from Canada, France, Germany, and the United Kingdom (The Royal
Geographical Society, 2004). The plant QM approach rates associated with these countries of
origin were 8%, 4%, 5%, and 4%, respectively. The QMs intercepted from these countries were
largely apples, bananas, and oranges. We estimated that over 1 million plant QMs arrivals
associated with airline passenger baggage may occur in the GCR annually; however, because
most visitors to the GCR are tourists from cooler-climate countries, and because the majority of
QMs found on this type of traveler were fruits for consumption, we rated the risk associated with
passenger baggage as medium.
4
Chapter 3: International Mail
Public and private postal services are an often overlooked pathway through which plants and
plant pests may move into and within the Greater Caribbean Region (GCR). Using data on
international mail entering the United States, we summarized the types of plant quarantine
materials (QM) and plant pests detected in both private and public mail and calculated the
corresponding QM approach rates.
Particularly common categories of high-risk items found in mail were: seeds, pods and other
propagative plant materials, soil, wood, and wood items. Propagative materials represented about
one third of the intercepted materials. Fresh fruits, vegetables, and other fresh plant parts,
presenting a lower pest risk than propagative materials, were also detected.
More international mail is sent to the United States through the public postal service than
through private mail. In other countries in the GCR, however, private postal services dominate
the parcel market.
Of packages sent to the United States by private mail from world-wide and GCR origins, 0.13%
and 1.6%, respectively, contained plant QMs. Of packages sent by public mail, 1.1% from
world-wide and 0.8% from GCR origins contained plant QMs.
We estimated that the GCR (excluding the United States) may annually receive between 13,876
and 14,943 mail packages containing plant materials or plant pests, with up to 4,000 of these
being propagative materials. International mail may be the pathway of choice for intentional
smuggling of high-risk items. We rated the pest risk associated with the mail pathway as
medium.
Chapter 4: Maritime Traffic
In the context of maritime traffic, there are several ways in which pests may be spread: with
commodities (both agricultural and non-agricultural); as hitchhikers on the vessels and
containers used for transport; and in the wood packaging material accompanying the
commodities.
The pest risk associated with both hitchhikers and wood packaging material is discussed in detail
in other chapters of this report. The pest risk associated with commodities, while very possibly
the most important threat, is difficult to characterize due to the immense number of different
commodities arriving from all over the world, each having a different level of pest risk
associated with it. Given that legally traded commodities already receive attention from
importing countries, and given that a general process for commodity pest risk assessment is in
place (IPPC, 2007) and must be commodity- and origin-specific to be meaningful, this chapter
does not focus on commodities.
Rather, this chapter gives a general overview of maritime traffic in the Greater Caribbean Region
(GCR), pointing out some issues of special concern and providing a general background to
5
complement the information laid out in other chapters of this report. Specifically, it compares
Caribbean ports with regard to cargo container volume handled and discusses small vessel
activity for select countries.
The GCR serves as a crossroads for international maritime trade. The region’s location at the
intersection of maritime trade routes between North and South America and the Eastern and
Western hemispheres makes it an important area for facilitating trade.
Maritime traffic has been increasing in the GCR, and this trend is expected to continue. The
United States is a primary trading partner in the GCR, providing almost half of all container
traffic. However, trade with other countries, including those in Asia and Europe, has recently
expanded. At several ports, the establishment of transshipment services accounts for much of the
increase in sea container traffic. It is possible that transshipped containers can facilitate the
introduction of exotic pests, as pests have been known to contaminate the exterior and/or interior
of shipping containers (Gadgil et al., 2000, Gadgil et al., 2002).
Intra-Caribbean trade involves the movement of cargo within the GCR, either of products made
in the GCR or foreign products being transshipped from one Caribbean port to another. Tracking
of intra-Caribbean trade is difficult, with the level of regulation and record-keeping varying
greatly between countries. Boerne (1999) estimated the number of small ships (less than 150
gross tonnage (GRT)) operating throughout the insular Caribbean to be around 200; and the
United Nations estimated that around 400 to 500 small vessels (including vessels larger than 150
GRT) operated throughout the GCR (Boerne, 1999).
Chapter 5: Hitchhiker Pests
A hitchhiker pest is a plant pest that is moved, not on a host commodity, but either with a nonhost commodity directly or on/in the conveyance (airplane, maritime vessel, etc.) or shipping
container used for transport. This chapter examines the scientific literature and U.S. government
data to assess the likelihood that hitchhiker pests are present on a conveyance, the likelihood that
they survive transit, and the likelihood that they escape detection.
Hitchhiker pests may get into or onto a non-host commodity, conveyance, or container either by
chance (e.g., weed seeds that fall off shoes) or because they are attracted by certain physical or
chemical conditions. For example, flying insects may be attracted by lights during nighttime
loading (Caton, 2003b, Fowler et al., 2008) or insects or mollusks may find shelter on or in cargo
containers. Furthermore, pests that were originally associated with a host commodity shipment
may be left behind in a container or conveyance after unloading, thus becoming hitchhiker pests.
In the scientific literature, there are numerous accounts of pests being associated with cargo
containers or with the conveyance itself. In addition, hitchhiker pests are intercepted at U.S. ports
of entry on containers, aircraft, and maritime vessels. Based on a 23% approach rate estimated by
Gadgil et al. (2000), 1.6 million of the 7 million containers arriving annually at maritime ports in
the GCR may be contaminated with one or more plant pests. Locations in the GCR that may
6
receive more than 90,000 contaminated containers annually are: the Bahamas, Costa Rica,
Jamaica, Netherlands Antilles, Panama, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Gulf Coast states.
Pest survival in or on conveyances and containers depends on the combined effects of various
environmental conditions and the duration of transport. Most insects, mollusks, weed seeds, and
plant pathogens are likely to survive modern transit conditions and are very likely to escape
detection. Several reports in the scientific literature strongly suggest that pests, such as Asian
gypsy moth, Lymantria dispar (Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae), red imported fire ant, Solenopsis
invicta (Hymenoptera: Formicidae), or terrestrial mollusks (Cowie and Robinson, 2003), have
been introduced into new areas as hitchhiker pests.
A controlled study by Dobbs and Brodel (2004) carried out in 1998-1999 resulted in an estimate
of 10% of all foreign cargo aircraft and 23% of cargo aircraft from Central American countries
arriving in MIA with live plant pests of quarantine significance.
Routine quarantine inspections are likely to miss a large portion of the arriving pests. Factors
impeding pest detection include: the level of available staff and resources compared to the
immense number of incoming conveyances and containers, the limited amount of time available
for inspection, and the large size and complex shape of conveyances.
Given the large number of conveyances and containers continuously circulating throughout the
GCR and the numerous impediments to intercepting hitchhiker pests, the hitchhiker pathway
should be considered a very high risk.
Chapter 6: Wood Packaging Material
Wood packaging material (WPM), used worldwide in shipments of both agricultural and nonagricultural products, is believed to have been the pathway for several pest introductions
worldwide, including the pine wood nematode, Bursaphelenchus xylophilus (Tylenchida:
Aphelenchoididae), in Portugal and the Asian longhorned beetle, Anoplophora glabripennis
(Coleoptera: Cerambycidae), in the United States (New York and Illinois). In this study, we use
U.S. government data to evaluate the potential role of WPM in the introduction of exotic pests
into the GCR.
WPM is usually produced from low-grade wood of various tree species, often with bark and
portions of the vascular cambium remaining (Clarke et al., 2001). Damaged or otherwise
unusable pallets are disassembled for the wood parts, which are then re-used to build or repair
pallets (Bush et al., 2002). Because WPM is routinely re-used and re-conditioned, the origin of
the WPM is not necessarily the same as the origin of the commodity with which it is being
imported.
To reduce the pest risk associated with WPM worldwide, the International Plant Protection
Convention (IPPC) developed ISPM #15 (IPPC, 2006), an international standard which
prescribes either fumigation or heat treatment for all WPM. Only a few countries of the GCR
require treatment of WPM in accordance with ISPM #15 (Foreign Agricultural Service, 2008).
7
These countries are: Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Guyana, Guatemala,
Honduras, Nicaragua, and the United States.
U.S. data on maritime and air cargo, collected between September 16, 2005 (start date for U.S.
enforcement of ISPM #15) and August 15, 2007, showed that 75% of maritime cargo shipments
(agricultural and non-agricultural combined) contained WPM. Several countries in the GCR
(Costa Rica, Guatemala, and the Dominican Republic) had high percentages of export cargo with
WPM. New Zealand and several European countries had a high incidence of WPM in export
cargo, while shipments from China had the lowest incidence of WPM. For air cargo, WPM was
found in only 33% of shipments, with shipments from the Netherlands having by far the highest
incidence of WPM.
Live pests are entering with WPM in spite of full enforcement of ISPM #15, as demonstrated by
interceptions at U.S. ports of entry of wood-boring beetles of the families Curculionidae
(Scolytinae) and Cerambycidae, as well as a variety of other insect orders, weeds, and mollusks.
The presence of these pests in or on the WPM may be due to any one of the following reasons:
ineffectiveness of the required treatments, incorrectly applied treatments, re-infestation of the
wood after effective treatment, or fraudulent use of the stamp/seal. The majority of pests
associated with WPM are likely to go undetected due to the large amount of WPM entering, the
difficulty of inspecting WPM, and the fact that port-of-entry inspections of WPM often are
limited to a verification of the required seal, rather than a search for pests.
Numerous pests intercepted on or in WPM have already established in the GCR, but many still
have potential to spread further within the region. This chapter provides a list of WPM pests with
establishment potential in the GCR. Each new establishment of these or similar pests anywhere
in the world can increase the opportunities for further infestation of WPM and pest entry into the
GCR.
Due to the immense quantity of WPM moving in international trade, the impossibility of
determining the origin of the wood, and the difficulty of WPM inspections, we rated the pest risk
associated with this pathway as very high.
Chapter 7: Forestry-related Pathways
Trade of forest products is a vital industry for several countries in the Greater Caribbean Region
(GCR). The forests of the GCR, encompassing over 92 million hectares of land, have immense
ecological, economic, and social importance. The susceptibility of these forests to exotic pest
invasions is being increased through the effects of logging and other human activities.
Forests are at risk not only from pests introduced on forest products, but also from pests entering
with agricultural commodities or through other pathways. At the same time, pests originating in
forest areas may represent a threat not only to forests, but also to fruit plantations or agricultural
production.
8
Important pathways for the introduction and movement of exotic plant pests related to forestry
include wood products, non-wood forest products, and trees for planting (e.g., for reforestation or
in agroforestry systems).
Non-wood forest products include food products (e.g., nuts, berries, leaves, and edible fungi),
medicinals, bamboo, and craft products. Christmas trees have been a vehicle for the introduction
of exotic pests into the GCR, and dried bamboo has served as a pathway for insect pests from
China. Some of the trees introduced for use in commercial plantations become invasive species
(Richardson, 1998). An extensive list of pests associated with forestry products which have the
potential to move into and within the GCR is provided.
Due to the large number of pests associated with forest products, the fact that many of the most
serious invasive pests around the world are forest pests, and the difficulty of mitigating pest risk
on wood products we rated this pathway as very high risk.
Chapter 8: Plant Propagative Material
Plant propagative material, also referred to as nursery stock, is any plant material capable of and
intended for propagation, including plants for planting.
As a pathway, propagative material overlaps with the other pathways discussed in this report in
that propagative material may be transported by any of the available methods: airplane, cargo
vessel, small boat, truck, public or private mail, as well as in the baggage of ship, plane or bus
passengers, or in personal vehicles.
Reasons for importing propagative material include its use in commercial nursery and
horticulture production, uses in agriculture and forestry, “plant exploration” by botanical gardens
or researchers, or planting (e.g., as ornamentals or food plants) by private collectors or
homeowners.
The trade of propagative material is a multi-billion dollar industry. The United States, together
with Canada, Israel, and the Netherlands, are the major exporters of nursery products to the
Greater Caribbean Region (GCR) (UNComtrade, 2008).
Traded propagative material may present a phytosanitary risk in two ways: 1) by introducing
exotic plant pests, and 2) by becoming an invasive weed in the introduced range.
Based on the available information, it is obvious that pests, and especially plant pathogens, are
being spread between countries through both legal and illegal movement of propagative
materials. This is occurring on a global scale. Due to the relative ineffectiveness of inspection
and the unavailability of diagnostic tests for pathogens, there is no easy solution to this problem.
The propagative material pathway also allows invasive plants to enter the GCR, where they often
cause considerable economic and environmental damage. The large majority of invasive exotic
plant species in the GCR were introduced on purpose. There are almost no safeguards in place to
9
prevent this from happening, as none of the countries in the GCR requires weed risk assessments
as a condition for importation of propagative materials.
The propagative material pathway presents major safeguarding challenges, and the pest risk
associated with this pathway should be considered very high.
Chapter 9: Natural Spread
Given the close proximity of land masses in the Greater Caribbean Region (GCR), natural spread
of plant pests is a pathway for pest introduction. This chapter provides a review of the scientific
literature to answer the following questions: 1) Does natural spread of pests occur into and
within the GCR? 2) What are the prevailing spatial and temporal patterns of natural spread? 3)
What types of pests are most prone to disperse by natural spread?
A substantial level of wind-assisted dispersion and migration of plant pests between the various
islands and continents in the GCR is occurring on an on-going basis. Meteorological mechanisms
operate throughout the GCR to accomplish such movement, and many plant pathogens, plants,
and arthropods possess biological mechanisms for wind dispersal.
The Windward Islands form a gateway into the GCR. This is where the predominantly
westward-bound winds first hit land after traveling across the Atlantic Ocean (Richardson and
Nemeth, 1991). Some significant plant pathogens have been carried on the wind from Africa into
the GCR (Purdy et al., 1985), and swarms of locusts reached the Windward Islands from Africa
on at least one occasion (Richardson and Nemeth, 1991). The prevailing winds tend to carry
pests from the Windward Islands (the most southeasterly islands) to the Leeward Islands, the
Greater Antilles and on to the southeastern United States.
The months of June, July, and August are the most likely time for the movement of pests out of
the GCR and into the southeastern United States. Summer is the rainy season in many areas of
the GCR, resulting in higher plant pest densities. While the prevailing winds are favorable for
pest movement nearly year-round, tropical storms and hurricanes are more common in the
summer and early fall (Rogozinski, 1999) and could contribute to the spread of plants pests.
Hurricanes have played a role in the spread of the Asian citrus canker bacterium Xanthomonas
axonopodis pv. citri (Xanthomonadales) (Irey et al., 2006) and bean golden mosaic virus
(BGMV) in the GCR. Although hurricanes can be a factor in the dispersal of some insect groups
(Torres, 1992), the force of the storm would likely kill or injure most insects that are swept up.
Tropical storms with less intense wind strength may be a more likely mechanism for natural
movement of plant pests.
We rated the pest risk associated with this pathway as medium.
10
Summary of Risk Ratings by Pathway
1
Pathway
Human movement
Risk Rating
very high
*****
Comments
Overlap with 2, 5, and 8
2
Airline passenger baggage
medium
***
Overlap with 1 and 8
3
Mail
medium
***
Overlap with 5 and 8
4
Maritime trade
(no rating)
Overlap with 5, 6, 7, and 8
5
Hitchhikers
very high
(no
rating)
*****
Overlap with 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8
6
Wood packaging material
very high
*****
Overlap with 4,5,7, and 8
7
Forestry-related pathways
very high
*****
Overlap with 5, 6, and 8
8
Propagative materials
very high
*****
Overlap with 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7
9
Natural spread
medium
***
11
Pathways of Pest Movement Not Addressed in this Analysis
Due to time constraints, we were not able to analyze every potential pathway of pest movement
in the GCR, but had to focus on those that seemed most significant and feasible. The following is
a list of pathways which were not addressed in this report, but which may nevertheless represent
a significant risk. These pathways may be explored in follow-up studies as resources become
available.
•
Cut flowers entering Miami from the Caribbean. This pathway was addressed to some
degree in a series of CPHST documents in 2003-2005 (Caton, 2003c, d, e, a). Interesting
questions in connection with this pathway include: the risk posed by the garbage and residue
left over after cut flower inspection; the risk of flying insects escaping during inspection; the
effectiveness of cut flower inspection.
•
Air cargo. Most agricultural cargo in the GCR is transported by ship. Air transport seems to
be mainly used for very high-value or highly persishable commodities (e.g., green mangoes,
strawberries, propagative materials, cut flowers, etc.) and for mail. For cut flowers, see
above. Propagative materials and mail, as well as hitchhikers are covered in their own
chapters.
•
Garbage. Garbage arrives in connection with every type of transportation existing in the
GCR. Airplanes, cruise ships, cargo vessels, buses, ferries, yachts, etc. There are numerous
examples of animal pest and disease outbreaks around the world due to the mishandling of
garbage (Benoit, 2008). The risks may be similar for plant pests.
•
Live animals as a pathway for weed seeds. Weed seeds can be attached to the fur or wool
and can also be found in the digestive tract of live animals. Research found that sheep are
long-distance seed-dispersal vectors for seeds of any morphology, while cattle and deer
dispersed hooked or bristly seeds over long distances, but not smooth seeds (Mouissie et al.,
2005). Also, feed, bedding material, and cages moved in connection with live animal trade
can harbor weed seeds or other plant pests. Quarantine regulations for live animals vary
among countries of the GCR, and modern quarantine facilities are not always available.
•
Military. The movement of military equipment (ships, planes, tanks, cars, etc.) has been
suspected as the cause of pest introductions in other parts of the world. Its significance for
the spread of pest around the GCR is unknown.
•
Medicinal plants harvested from forests. Trade in medicinal plants is increasing and
includes whole plants, or parts such as bark, roots, stems, and leaves. Much of the plant
material is harvested from forest areas. Inofficial trade within the GCR is probably common.
•
Bonsai trees. A number of important pests have been intercepted on bonsai trees from
China, among them Scirtothrips dorsalis (Thysanoptera: Thripidae), Aleurocanthus
spiniferus (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae), and larvae of Cerambicidae (Brodel, 2003). Bonsai
trees from Asia may be a major pathway for host-associated pests (Brodel, 2003).
12
Recommendations for Improved Safeguarding
The recommendations with the highest expected cost-benefit ratio are preceded by a .
General recommendations (not pathway-specific)
Create a regional, action-oriented group (“regional action group”) to coordinate
and carry out region-wide exotic species efforts. This group may either be a
strengthened and more strongly supported CISWG or a new entity, such as the National
Plant Health Directors’ group. All countries of the GCR, as well as not-for-profit
organizations and universities should actively participate in this group. Governments
should support this group by making available staff and other resources for projects and
committees. The role of this group should be to plan regional projects, obtain funding and
staffing, and oversee execution. Good project management practices should be employed.
Coordination with other groups working in the same area should be a priority.
Carry out a region-wide public awareness campaign on invasive species,
coordinated through the regional action group. Educating the public on the potential
consequences of exotic pest introductions and on ways to prevent them will increase
people’s willingness to comply with the rules and will make it easier for them to do so.
Raised awareness will also make it more likely that exotic pest incursions are detected
and reported by members of the public, and it will help recruit volunteers for exotic
species prevention.
o Campaign should be region-wide with a consistent message.
o Effectiveness of materials should be evaluated by communication experts.
o Use a variety of media (e.g., brochures, videos, pens, postcards, websites, etc.)
o Distribute message through: local television and radio; videos at airports, in
airplanes, on cruise ships, etc.; travel agencies; schools and universities; volunteer
lecturers; tourist markets; post offices; and e-mail.
o Measure impact through surveys (e.g., of travelers at airports, cruise passengers,
regular people in the street).
o Consider using the public awareness campaign developed by Australia (Plant
Health Australia, 2008) as a starting point.
o Develop curricula on invasive species to be used in elementary school through
university.
Develop a web-based clearinghouse of information related to exotic species in the
GCR. For the effective coordination of regional acitivities information-sharing is
absolutely essential. Develop a web-portal containing, among other things: a listing of
organizations and groups active in exotic species management in the GCR, relevant
reports and publications, links to electronic journals of relevant content, listing of
relevant meetings and events, meeting minutes and proceedings, educational materials for
downloading (e.g., slide presentations with audio), codes of conduct, and access to
databases of relevant content. The Jamaica Clearing-House Mechanism, Jamaica’s
Biodiversity Information Network (htpp://www.jamaica.org.jm), may serve as an
13
example. The development and maintenance of the portal should be coordinated through
the regional action group. The portal should be complementary to and integrated with the
International Phytosanitary Portal (https://www.ippc.int/IPP/En/default.jsp).
Develop surveillance systems for the early detection of pests. By itself, port-of-entry
inspection is not and can never be an effective safeguarding method. In the GCR, natural
spread of pests may be inevitable. Early detection is key in responding to new pest
introductions.
o Surveillance programs for the early detection of exotic species should be
implemented. This is one of the goals of the CISWG Caribbean Invasive Species
and Surveillance Program (CISSIP), for which a detailed project proposal has
been developed but funding has not yet been obtained. Depending on the
likelihood that funding can be found, the CISSIP project plan may have to be
reconsidered in order to move forward.
o Decisions will need to be made regarding which pests to survey for and which
areas to survey. The USDA Cooperative Agricultural Pest Survey (CAPS)
Program has developed a process for making this kind of decisions using the
analytical hierarchy process. A Central America Pest Survey Program (CAPSCA) has been suggested for Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, and Panama.
o Involve the public in surveillance and diagnostics. Hobby entomologists and
botanists, gardeners, nursery professionals, etc., may be important and competent
contributors to a regional surveillance system. Some examples of initiatives that
collect distribution information through amateur biologists are: bugguide.net and
zipcodezoo.com.
Develop an effective integrated biosurveillance and pest information system for the
entire GCR, also to be used as a mechanism for official pest reporting. Both
safeguarding against and responding to pest introductions depends strongly on current
pest information. Of special importance is information on distribution, host range,
trapping and identification tools, control methods, and port interception records. The
sheer amount of pest information available throughout the world and the fast pace at
which new information appears make it impossible for any individual to stay abreast of it.
The collection, analysis, dissemination, and storage of pest information must occur in an
efficient and organized manner. It would be most cost effectively done on a GCR-wide
basis. An on-line database is indispensable. One example of an existing biosurveillance
system is the Exotic Pest Information Collection and Analysis (EPICA) of USDAAPHIS-PPQ; examples of initiatives that deal with pest information management are: the
Global Pest and Disease Database (GPDD) and the Off-Shore Pest Information Program
(OPIP) of USDA-APHIS, as well as the Biodiversity & Environmental Resource Data
System (BERDS) of Belize (March et al., 2008), the Global Invasive Species Database of
the Invasive Species Specialist Group, and the Invasive Species Compendium of CABI.
The potential usefulness and applicability of these and other projects for the GCR should
be evaluated and collaborations should be developed as appropriate.
Hold a regional symposium on biosurveillance and pest information management
(in support of the previous recommendation). A special session at the Caribbean Food
14
Crops Society Meeting may also be a possibility. This event should be sponsored by the
regional action group.
Develop effective mechanisms and procedures for translating information into
action. The most sophisticated pest information system is useless if the information does
not lead to action. Every country should have an effective process in place for ensuring
that incoming pest information is evaluated, action plans are developed, recommended
actions are carried out, their effectiveness is assessed, and this assessment is fed back into
the information system. Any processes implemented are not static, but have to be
continuously scutinized, refined, and updated. The regional action group may be
instrumental in coordinating the development of these processes where they do not yet
exist.
Develop regional emergency action plans that are triggered as soon as a country reports
the introduction or interception of certain pests. These plans would include
communication, survey, and control strategies. This effort should be coordinated by the
regional action group.
Establish a regional “New Pest Advisory Group”. This would be a committee similar
to and collaborating with the USDA-APHIS-PPQ New Pest Advisory Group (NPAG) to
evaluate the expected impact of recently introduced pests and to recommend an
appropriate response. This committee should be comprised of experts from various
countries and should draw on additional expertise as needed in each case. The
applicability of NPAG procedures to a regional new pest advisory group should be
reviewed by a committee of the regional action action group.
Do not attempt to develop a comprehensive list of pest threats to the entire GCR.
This undertaking would have a low chance of success due to its huge scale and everchanging information. Instead, implement a database system to record distribution data,
pest survey results, pest finds, and port-of-entry interceptions from all possible sources to
have the best possible and most current information on what pests are present in the
GCR. This information could be used to develop pest lists for surveys; e.g., if a pest is
detected in one country, it makes sense for other countries to start surveying for it. The
database should be coupled with a biosurveillance and notification system. Pest lists
should be seen less as permanent documents and more as dynamic and constantly
changing output from one large collection of information.
Do not base risk estimates on port interception data alone. Often, decisions (e.g.,
what commodity to focus inspection on, what pathways to consider high or low risk, etc.)
are made using risk estimates based exclusively or mainly on pest interception records.
Port interception records are useful for exploring pest risk; however, it is erroneus to
assume that a low number of interceptions is equivalent to low risk. Of the 21 insect
species that were found to be established in Florida between 1997 and 1998, only five
had been intercepted more than once by PPQ at ports-of-entry in the 12 years prior to
their establishment (Brodel, 2003).
15
Strive for transparency in all decisions and analyses. Most decisions concerning
safeguarding (e.g., level of inspection, inspection methodology, whether something
should be considered high- or low-risk, etc.) are made by some committee or group,
either formally or informally. All decisions have to be re-evaluated periodically as the
situation changes or new information becomes available. If the reasoning behind a
decision is not clearly documented, it becomes impossible to evaluate the decision’s
validity. For the sake of continuous improvement and to reduce the possibility of errors,
the reasoning behind all decisions should therefore be clearly explained and documented,
and this information should be available within each government. No analysis or
recommendation should be accepted by any decisionmaker unless the reasoning behind it
is sufficiently clear and well-documented.
Agree on a common terminology. A mutually understood terminology is a key
ingredient for any successful cooperation. It is very common for people in different
countries or even different groups within the same country to work off different
definitions for the same terms. This discrepancy is not always obvious and may not be
noticed immediately; however, it may in some cases severely affect the outcome of a
cooperative effort (Roberts, 2004). A common glossary of all relevant terms should be
compiled and maintained for the entire GCR. The regional action group should play a
coordinating role in this undertaking. The terminology should be consistent with ISPM
#5: Glossary of Phytosanitary Terms, and may possibly be used to amend it.
Develop voluntary codes of conduct for regional groups involved in the dispersion of
exotic species (e.g., nursery trade, botanical gardens, importers/exporters, cruise ship
operators, producers/refurbishers of WPM, operators of small boats and yachts, etc.)
(March et al., 2008). These codes of conduct should be drafted/compiled by a regional
committee and shared throughout the GCR. For example, the National Invasive Species
Strategy of the Bahamas contains voluntary codes of conduct for the government,
botanical gardens, nursery professionals, the gardening public, farms, and other groups
(BEST, 2003).
Increase the use of detector dogs wherever feasible. Resources will never allow a
thorough inspection of all pathways by human inspectors. Even in countries with
relatively abundant resources, inspection cannot keep up with the ever increasing volume
of incoming planes, ships, boats, mail, etc. Detector dogs make it possible to reliably scan
a larger number of items than humans given the same amount of time. Countries with
very limited resources may consider alternating a dog between pathways or even sharing
a dog with other countries. Periodic inspection of a pathway is preferable to no inspection
at all, as it has a deterrent effect and leads to the collection of valuable data.
Leverage available resources and find low-cost approaches to achieve goals. Money
and time are always in short supply, and many good ideas never come to fruition because
of a lack of resources. It is therefore important to use available resources to the best
possible advantage. Some ideas for how to accomplish this may be:
o Involve the public. A lot of the work that needs to be done does not require
professional staff. Outreach and education efforts can be easily done by citizen
16
o
o
o
o
o
o
•
volunteers. Educational materials, such as brochures or videos may be produced
in a student competition at a minimal cost. Amateur naturalists can help with pest
surveys and report new detections. Farmers can check traps placed in their fields
and report results by phone or e-mail. Volunteer tourists even pay to be allowed to
work (Vountourism.org, 2008). Certain not-for-profit organizations (e.g., Partners
of the Americas) can provide highly qualified subject matter experts for shortterm assignments.
Carry out projects on a regional rather than a country-by-country level to
save costs. For example, instead of developing a separate database for each
country, develop a single database and share the development costs. (This does
not necessarily mean that the data has to be shared among countries.) Instead of
creating educational materials separately for each country, develop one set of
materials that can be used by all countries in the GCR. In funding research
projects, avoid duplication of effort by coordinating research needs region-wide.
Take advantage of existing projects and products. Sometimes the desired goal
has already been achieved, or at least partially achieved, by someone else. Always
explore possibilities to share into or build on the efforts of others for mutual gain.
One current example would be the UNEP project GFL/-2328-2740-4995
“Mitigating the threats of invasive alien species in the insular Caribbean”.
Form strong relationships with universities around the world. Get graduate
students involved in Caribbean research projects through internships and studyabroad opportunities. Offer graduate thesis project ideas. Form agreements with
universities to ensure that students receive university credit for research work
done in the GCR.
Break work up into feasible projects. While it is important to keep the big
picture in mind, it is usually more effective to break the work up into several
smaller projects rather than attempting one all-encompassing undertaking.
Promote grass-roots efforts rather than managing large-scale initiatives from the
top-down. Top-down management of very complex projects that involve a high
degree of uncertainty is likely to fail because of large adminstrative overhead,
overwhelming complexity of decision-making, slow progress, and lack of
ownership by the people who have to carry out the work. Instead, set a clear goal,
establish basic guidelines, and allow the work to proceed from the bottom up.
Minimize the number of groups working on similar issues in the GCR.
Commit to and invest in one or a small number of coordinating groups, rather
than forming more and more similar groups with largely overlapping agendas.
Too many independent groups cause confusion and dilute resources.
Improve collection and accessibility of traffic data at ports of entry. All ports of entry
that do not currently report traffic data should start doing so. The availability of port
traffic data at an adequate level of detail is necessary for risk quantification and costbenefit analysis regarding potential phytosanitary measures. Data format and units of
measurement should be harmonized throughout the region. Relevant information
includes: number and type of conveyances (vessels, airplanes, trucks, etc.) arriving and
departing; number and size of containers arriving, departing, or re-exported and if they
are full or empty; origin of containers.
17
•
Create and enforce phytosanitary regulations that allow the issuing of adequate fines
or other penalties for violations. Fines need to be sufficiently high in relation to the
benefit of the prohibited action to have a deterrent effect.
Recommendations related to: Human Movement
Post signs at marinas to educate visitors about the potential consequences of
transporting exotic pest species on their vessels.
Increase presence and visibility of inspectors at marinas, mainly as a deterrent
measure. Publicize interceptions as a warning to potential violators.
Post signs at eco-tourism sites describing acceptable behavior while visiting the site.
Visitors should be instructed to remain on marked paths and to neither bring into nor take
out of the area any plants, plant parts, or animals.
Instruct visitors to clean shoes and clothing when entering or leaving a natural or
agricultural area. Visitors should remove soil and plant seeds from shoes and clothing
and inspect cuffs and Velcro® closures. (Where appropriate, consider the use of water
hoses, disinfectant foot baths, metal grates in ground for cleaning shoes, etc.).
Work with tour-guides and other staff at natural or agricultural areas to educate
visitors on the potential environmental and economic effects of exotic species
introduction. For example, visitors to the El Yunque rainforest in San Juan are educated
on environmental considerations prior to taking a walking expedition (Johnson, 2006).
Educate international air travelers prior to departure and deplaning about the
potential consequences (economic, environmental, personal) of transporting
agricultural products. This could be achieved by on-flight announcements,
informational brochures, or on-flight or pre-flight educational videos.
•
Raise money by providing products such as postcards, calendars, or souvenirs to
visitors who give a donation (Johnson, 2006). Use the money towards the prevention of
exotic pest introductions. The products themselves can be educational by providing
information on exotic pests of concern, dispersal mechanisms, and possible preventative
actions.
•
Implement a user fee system for eco-tourist destinations. Funds raised through
ecotourism should go to exotic species prevention and management (Hypolite et al.,
2002).
•
Carry out biodiversity impact studies for ecotourism sites to anticipate environmental
and economic impacts of exotic species introduction.
18
•
Limit access to very sensitive sites by restricting the number of visitors, access for
vehicles, density of roads and trails, availability of accomodations, etc.
Recommendations related to: Airline Passenger Baggage
Educate international air travelers prior to departure and deplaning about the
potential consequences (economic, environmental, personal) of transporting
agricultural products. This could be achieved by on-flight announcements,
informational brochures, or on-flight or pre-flight educational videos.
Remind plane passengers to consume or discard prohibited materials during flight.
o Announcements by the flight crew could remind travelers that they are not
allowed to take certain materials into the destination countries.
o When collecting trash before landing, the flight crew may specifically ask for
fruits, vegetables, seeds, plants, meats, or other prohibited items.
Expand the use of detector dogs for baggage inspection. This is a less intrusive and
faster method than opening of the luggage by human inspectors.
•
Invest in research on inspection technology (e.g., robotic nose, x-ray technology, etc.)
•
Develop targeting strategies for inspection of airline passenger baggage. Possible
targeting criteria include origin of passenger, seasonality, and holidays. In order for this
to be possible, a systematic data collection program has to be implemented.
Recommendations related to: International Mail
Post educational information at public and private mail facilities to inform senders of
the potential economic and environmental impact of exotic species introductions and to
increase public awareness of phytosanitary regulations as they pertain to mail.
Conduct periodic data collection efforts (“blitzes”) at mail facilities. Carry out
statistically-sound data collection to answer specific questions. Consider region-wide
coordination and sharing of resources for carrying out blitzes. Share results region-wide.
Allow inspection of USPS first class mail in Puerto Rico before leaving to the United
States. The lack of authority to inspect first-class mail seriously undermines the
quarantine process. Establish a PPQ working group to devise a program that will permit
inspection of USPS first class mail in Puerto Rico before leaving to the United States.
Current regulations (7CFR318.13 and 7CFR318.58) allow for such actions. Hawaii has
developed a process for obtaining search warrants, allowing inspection of suspicious
first-class packages destined to the mainland United States. A detector dog is used to
establish probable cause.
19
Foster collaboration between customs officials, agricultural officials, mail facility
staff, and any other groups involved in mail handling and inspection.
•
Establish mail inspection systems in countries where they do not yet exist. This is
obviously a big and long-term undertaking that may not be immediately feasible
everywhere.
•
Implement package tracking and tracing technology at mail facilities. Improve public
and private mail systems, in particular the ability to track and trace parcels.
•
Increase the man-hours spent inspecting mail packages for quarantine materials, even
if only periodically.
•
Use appropriate inspection technology (e.g., x-ray systems) at mail facilities.
•
Use detector dogs at the mail facility.
•
Record data on pest interceptions in mail. Collect and archive data on pest and
quarantine material interceptions in mail. Ideally, the database or at least the format of the
database should be region-wide.
•
Create a regional bulletin or newsletter to share information about noteworthy pest
interceptions in mail, mail inspection methodologies, relevant meetings, etc.
•
Conduct surveillance of commercial internet sites. Quarantine materials (especially
propagative materials) are being sold and often smuggled through mail order. USDASITC has attempted a surveillance initiative (“AIMS”) and may be able to offer some
insights.
•
Organize a regional mail handler’s conference as a formum for sharing information,
ideas, strategies, technologies, etc. Hold mail inspector training meetings.
Recommendations related to: Maritime Traffic
Focus safeguarding efforts on the major transshipment ports for cargo from outside
of the GCR. The major transshipment ports (Colon, Panama; Kingston, Jamaica; Port-ofSpain, Trinidad) are where most of the cargo arrives from all over the world to be
distributed within the GCR by small vessels. Focusing safeguarding efforts on these
locations would require dealing with fewer entities (ports, ships, etc.) and may thus be
easier and more efficient.
Monitor inter-island trade via small vessels. Little data is available on inter-island
trade, including the transshipment of cargo from one country to another via small vessels.
Determine what commodities are being shipped, as well as their quantity, country of
origin, country of destination, and the incidence of wood packaging material.
20
Implement risk communication strategies to educate local residents and business
owners on the pest risks associated with trade. Suggest specific strategies they can
employ to reduce the risk of pest introduction.
Recommendations related to: Hitchhiker Pests
Encourage loading of vessels during times when the likelihood of pest entry is
lowest. For example, avoid nighttime loading because lights attract some major groups of
quarantine-significant insects.
Clean containers and conveyances. Evaluate effectiveness of currently used or
available cleaning methods and make changes as appropriate.
Place traps on maritime vessels (commercial and cruise ships) to catch insects and
possibly mollusks present on vessels. Coordinate and share data throughout region.
Ensure that traps do not attract pests onto the ship (e.g., place lures/turn on trapping lights
etc. only after ship is far enough from land). CISWG could be instrumental in
coordinating the development of a trapping plan, possibly in coorperation with the U.S.
Cooperative Agricultural Pest Survey (CAPS) Program and risk advisory groups such as
BTAG and CRAG.
Monitor areas on and near the perimeter of the ports regularly for introduced pests
of particular interest (Robinson et al., 2008). To reduce costs, employ the help of amateur
taxonomists, university students, and qualified volunteers. Avoid attracting pests into the
area (e.g., through lures, lights, etc.).
Inspect empty containers, as well as containers with cargo.
Minimize pest contamination on containers by:
o Minimizing time of container storage outdoors
o Avoiding container storage on soil and near vegetation
o Avoiding night-time lighting of outdoor storage areas
o Cleaning storage areas on a regular basis
o Cleaning inside and outside of containers after and before each use
•
Support studies to increase our understanding of the prevalence of hitchhikers on
transshipped containers. Focus on major maritime ports and airports that receive cargo
from outside of the GCR. Evaluate likelihood of hitchhikers to be carried to final cargo
destination given the current cargo handling procedures.
21
Recommendations related to: Wood Packaging Material
Develop a strategy to ensure adequate inspection of WPM on all agricultural and
non-agricultural cargo. Simply checking for treatment seals is not a sufficient
inspection method. A certain percentage of WPM should be randomly selected and
thoroughly searched for pests, both on the surface and inside the wood. All pertinent
information (type of cargo, origin of cargo, presence of treatment seal, types and number
of pests found, etc.) should be recorded and shared region-wide.
Make the declaration of WPM mandatory for all imports. The presence of WPM in a
shipment should be declared on the importation papers. In addition, there may be a
special mark (e.g., a sticker) placed on containers that have WPM in them. This will help
port staff more effectively target WPM for inspection.
Increase region-wide inspection and identification expertise on pests associated with
WPM. Educate inspectors on how to look for pests on WPM. Ensure that identifiers have
the expertise and the necessary reference material to identify the pests that are found.
Carry out surveys to determine the distribution of pests commonly associated with
WPM outside of their native range. Collaborate with forest services, not-for-profit
organizations (e.g., CABI) and the Cooperative Agricultural Pest Survey (CAPS)
Program. Involve the public. Use the help of hobby biologists. Do not exclude the
countries that are enforcing ISPM #15 from these survey efforts.
Allow entry of WPM only if bark-free.
•
Develop a communication network to share pest interception data, as well as
inspection and diagnostic techniques, training materials, etc.
•
Encourage research to assess the effectiveness of ISPM #15.
Recommendations related to: Forestry
Hold an international congress on introduced and imminent forest pests in the
GCR. The conference may be coordinated by Carribean Invasive Species Working
Group (CISWG) and may be modeled after a similar conference held by FAO in 2003
(FAO-RAP, 2005). The main objectives of the conference should be to:
o increase awareness of the threats of invasive species to forests and forest
products;
o share information related to exotic forest pests; and
o develop action items for regional cooperation in addressing forest pests.
Establish criteria for assessing invasive potential for exotic tree species that are
under consideration for agroforestry. The USDA-APHIS-PPQ-Center for Plant Health
Science and Technology may be able to provide expertise in weed risk assessment.
22
Exclude tree species with high invasive potential from agroforestry systems. Fastgrowing and readily reproducing tree species are often preferred for plantation planting.
However, these species also have a greater potential to become invasive. As much as
possible, promote the use of local tree species in agroforestry and reforestation.
Carry out surveys to determine the distribution of pests commonly associated with
wood and non-wood forest products outside of their native range. The efforts of
Kairo et al. (2003) would provide a useful foundation for this.
Establish Best Management Practices to reduce the potential movement of forest
pests. These could include:
o Sanitation procedures such as cleaning forest equipment after each use
o Prevent contamination of logs with soil or weeds
o Prevent hitchhiker pests
o Prevent new infestations of cut logs (protect stored logs)
o Limit the movement of untreated firewood
Recommendations related to: Propagative Material
Require a weed risk assessment for the importation of plant species. Prohibit the
importation of all plant species unless they have been deemed unlikely to become
invasive by a (predictive) weed risk assessment. Any country without this policy leaves a
weakness in its safeguarding system. (Exceptions may be made for plants that have been
historically imported at high volumes.) The Australian Weed Risk Assessment system is
the most widely known and tested system of its kind (Gordon et al., 2008).
Assess the invasiveness of plant species retrospectively (e.g., (Heffernan et al., 2001,
Fox et al., 2005, Randall et al., 2008). Retrospective assessments evaluate the
invasiveness of plants some time after they have been imported. Retrospective
assessments are important because a lag time may exist between species introduction and
onset of invasiveness, invasiveness may change due to environmental changes, or the
invasiveness potential of a species may have been misjudged in a predictive weed risk
assessment (Reichard and White, 2001).
Draft a voluntary code of conduct for nurseries and landscaping businesses to
promote the sale and use of native and non-invasive plants. This code of conduct should
stipulate that the businesses:
o ensure that their staff is knowledgeable on the subject of invasive plants
o help educate their customers about invasive plants
o refrain from selling or planting species that are known to be invasive
o clearly label native plants and foreign non-invasive plants
o immediately report any potentially exotic pest organisms found on imported
plants
23
Draft a voluntary code of conduct for local governments, resorts, hotels, and other
entities that engage in large-scale landscaping. This code of conduct should stipulate
that the entities:
o plant only native species or foreign species known to be non-invasive
o remove plants that are becoming invasive
o help educate their customers/residents on invasive plants
Draft a voluntary code of conduct for botanical gardens and arboreta. Conclusions
from the first World Botanic Gardens Congress state that “Botanic gardens and arboreta
have, and continue to, contribute to this problem by promoting actually and potentially
invasive plants. Botanic gardens and arboreta have a clear responsibility to adopt and
demonstrate to the public a strong environmental ethic” (BGCI 2000). Code of conduct
should stipulate that botanical gardens:
o conduct invasiveness studies prior to introducing a new plant into botanic
gardens, arboreta, and the landscape. Possibly model invasiveness evaluation after
systems already in place at some botanic gardens that currently have evaluation
systems in place (BGCI, 2000)
o re-evaluate current plant collections for invasiveness (BGCI, 2000)
o …“engage and educate fellow botanic gardens and arboreta, the horticulture
industry, and the public about the importance of choosing and displaying
ecologically responsible plant collections.” (BGCI, 2000)
o “support, contribute to, and share research that identifies problems and provides
solutions” related to invasive plant species.” (BGCI, 2000)
Develop an educational program on identification and potential impact of invasive
plant species in the GCR (Reichard and White, 2001, Waugh, 2008). This program
should target the general public, as well as businesses and governments throughout the
GCR. The program may be developed at universities, for example through graduate
student projects.
•
Develop a certification process that allows any entity adhering to the above-mentioned
codes of contact to become a “Certified ambassador of invasive species prevention.”
•
Develop sampling protocol for mites and other small arthropods. “Visual inspection
for mite infestations on large numbers of plants is inadequate […]… A sampling protocol
[…] would include a designated subsample of plants in a shipment. Use of either an 80%
ethanol wash or a specified concentration of detergent solution would be employed […].
This assessment should be done for a minimum period of one year to identify trends and
seasonal patterns of different pest mite species (as well as other arthropods) and provide
assurance of compliance by foreign shippers.” (Childers and Rodrigues 2005).
•
Increase attention to plant pathogens. As much as feasible, increase the availability of
molecular diagnostics. Develop a list of common pathogens of economic importance for
which plant material should be tested on a regular basis. Share test results within the
GCR. Use early warning and bio-surveillance systems as inputs for decision making.
24
•
Require phytosanitary certificates for all imports of propagative materials. The
phytosantairy certificates should indicate the species and, if applicable the variety, of the
imported plants and should provide some assurance that the plant material is free of pests
based on clearly specified inspection protocols.
•
Evaluate adequacy and reliability of procedures for issuing phytosanitary
certificates. Can the phytosanitary certificates be generally trusted? Is the staff providing
the information qualified? What is the affiliation of the persons providing the information
(NPPO, industry, etc.)? Are specific inspection guidelines in place? Is there a mechanism
for error control? Is there effective communication between the importing and the
exporting country?
•
Support the efforts of the IPPC to develop an international standard for plants for
planting. “International trade in plants for planting has a high potential for the
introduction of regulated pests. Current phytosanitary measures that rely mainly on
treatments and inspections are, in some cases, inadequate to mitigate the risks.
Harmonized procedures for phytosanitary security of traded plants for planting are
necessary to allow increased trade while minimizing phytosanitary risks and unnecessary
delays. The expert working group is tasked with drafting a standard that will outline the
main criteria for the identification and application of phytosanitary measures for the
production and international movement of plants for planting (excluding seeds), while
also providing guidance to help identify and categorize the risks.” (IPPC, 2008)
•
Record information on propagative material imported by plant species, with
information on variety, type of material (roots, cuttings, etc.), country of origin, growing
and inspection practices followed, date of importation, and amount imported in consistent
units.
•
In the United States: Give strong priority to the improvement of “quarantine 37”,
building on the recommendations of Tschanz and Lehtonen (2005). If necessary, divert
scientific, risk analysis, and regulatory resources away from fruit and vegetable towards
propagative material imports.
•
Implement systematic data collection efforts to assess the pest risk associated with at
least the most common imports of propagative materials. These data collection efforts
should be based on a statistically sound sampling scheme (validated by a qualified
statistician) and should follow a clearly documented inspection protocol. This protocol
should describe in detail the inspection methods to be followed (e.g., detergent wash,
diagnostic tests for pathogens, use of hand lens, etc.). Consider making resources
available to fund this work as graduate student research. The advantages of this approach
over using port-of-entry personnel would include: lower cost, less diversion of inspectors,
more objectivity and reliability of research, and better distribution and documentation of
results through the scientific publication process.
•
Implement a systems approach to reduce the pest risk associated with the propagative
materials that pose the highest risk of pest introduction. The systems approach should be
25
customized for each commodity and should be developed collaboratively by the
importing and the exporting countries. The systems approach may contain components
such as scouting, pesticide applications, biological control, reduction of fertilizer levels,
routine diagnostic tests for pathogens, basic sanitation practices (e.g., washing of shoes
and equipment, etc.), pre-shipment inspection, quarantine treatments, etc. The systems
approach developed for Costa Rican Dracaena plants for importation into the United
States may serve as one example of a potentially very successful and mutually beneficial
program.
Recommendations related to: Natural Spread
Conduct annual surveys to monitor the arrival of new pests in an area.
Use predictive modeling (e.g., degree-day models, etc.) for timing of surveys.
•
Use sterile insect technique (SIT). Base SIT programs on a target pest list.
•
Develop host-free zones for targeted pests.
•
Develop biological control methods for targeted pests.
•
Determine the origin of invasive pests in the GCR. Because most information about
the natural spread of pests is anecdotal, the knowledge of where a pest originated from
would be a useful start in understanding natural pest movement. Obviously, it is generally
very difficult and often not possible to determine the origin of a pest. Modern
technologies, such as trace element or DNA analysis may be useful in some cases.
26
Introduction
Like many other areas of the world, the Greater Caribbean Region (GCR) is suffering
considerable economic and environmental impacts due to the introduction of exotic plant pests.
Examples of some recently introduced pests include the pink hibiscus mealybug,
Maconellicoccus hirsutus (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae), from Asia, which spread throughout the
GCR in less than 10 years, causing crop losses in the millions. Similarly, the red palm mite,
Raoiella indica (Acari: Tenuipalpidae), is quickly expanding its range throughout the region
after being detected in Martinique in 2004 (Flechtmann and Etienne, 2004). Black Sigatoka,
Mycosphaerella fijiensis (Ascomycetes: Mycosphaerellales), the mango seed weevil,
Sternochetus mangiferae (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), and the giant African snail, Achatina
fulica (Gastropoda) are just a few more examples of economically significant pests introduced
into the GCR.
While we do not know exactly how many exotic species have already established in the GCR,
there is no doubt that their number is in the hundreds and is quickly growing. Frank and Thomas
(2004) estimated that every year about 10 new species become established in Florida alone.
Kairo et al. (2003) provide a list of over 550 exotic species in the insular Caribbean. Frank and
McCoy (1992) list over 270 exotic insects that have established in Florida since 1970. As the
land areas in and around the Caribbean share similar climates and vegetation, species that
become established in one part of the region are potentially able to invade most other parts.
The GCR is composed of a multitude of mostly small countries and territories with a diversity of
political systems. While a number of organizations with agricultural focus are active in the GCR,
no single regional plant protection organization exists (Kairo et al., 2003). Resources available
for the prevention and management of exotic pest introductions are limited and so is knowledge
about the relative importance of different pathways of introductions.
This report is the result of a collaboration between the Caribbean Invasive Species Working
Group (CISWG) and the United States Department of Agriculture, Plant Protection and
Quarantine (USDA-PPQ). Its objective is to contribute to an improved understanding of
pathways of plant pest movement as they pertain to the entire GCR, thereby helping CISWG to
enhance its Caribbean Regional Invasive Species Intervention Strategy (CRISIS) for preventing
the introduction and spread of exotic pests.
The scope of the report includes all terrestrial, non-vertebrate plant pests, such as insects, mites,
plant pathogens, nematodes, mollusks, and weeds. For the purposes of this report, the Greater
Caribbean Region is defined as all countries bordering the Caribbean Sea, plus the Bahamas,
Turks and Caicos, El Salvador, Guyana, Suriname, and the U.S. Gulf States. The pest risk to
Mexico, Venezuela, and Colombia is not addressed in this report, though these countries were
considered as sources of pest risk.
This document is a collection of chapters, each of which explores a different pathway of pest
movement. Although the chapters can be read independently of each other, there is considerable
overlap between topics. The pathways discussed are: human movement, airline passenger
27
baggage, mail, maritime traffic, hitchhikers, wood packaging material, forestry, propagative
materials, and natural spread. A list of recommendations for improved safeguarding is provided
at the end of each chapter. The recommendations that have the highest expected cost-benefit
ratio are preceded by a .
The discussion focuses on pest movement and entry. The question of establishment, an important
topic in its own right, has been purposely omitted from the scope of this report.
This report does not make the claim to answer all questions, to solve all problems, or to even
discuss all possible pathways of pest movement; rather, it is meant to be a starting point for
discussion and further study. It is hoped that this report will foster dialog and collaboration
among the Caribbean nations and will lay the groundwork for other, similar projects.
28
Chapter 1: Human Movement
Introduction
The introduction of pests into new locations has been closely linked to the movement of humans.
For example, Lonsdale (1999), accounting for site size effects, showed that the number of exotic
weeds in a particular site increases with the number of visitors.
As the most heavily touristed region in the world (Padilla and McElroy, 2005), the GCR is faced
with the challenge of managing this risk of exotic pest introduction. In the insular Caribbean, the
travel industry is among the most important industries, comprising almost 15% of the Gross
Domestic Product (GDP) and providing approximately 13% of total employment (WTTC, 2008).
In 2006, international tourist arrivals numbered 19.4 million, 7 million, and 18.7 million for the
Caribbean islands, Central America, and South America, respectively (UNWTO, 2008).
Travelers may arrive by one of three basic modes: air, water, or land. The GCR has almost 1,000
airports (Aircraft Charter World, 1998, James, 2008), and the majority of all travelers—both
from within and outside of the Caribbean—arrive by air (UNWTO, 2006). Cruise ships,
departing mainly from North America, also bring a substantial number of travelers into the GCR
(FCCA, 2008). Travelers may arrive by water on ferries or on personal or chartered boats or
yachts. Access across land borders is possible in the case of North, Central, and South American
countries, as well as the countries on the islands of Hispaniola (Haiti and the Dominican
Republic) and Saint Martin (French Saint Martin and Dutch Saint Maarten). Once in the GCR, it
is common for tourists to move between countries (“island-hop”) by regional flight, small boat,
ferry, or cruise ship.
In this chapter, we address each of the above-mentioned basic modes of human movement (air,
water, and land) into and within the GCR and discuss the potential of each to serve as pathways
for exotic pest introduction. The pest risk associated with airline passenger baggage is analyzed
in detail in its own chapter (see Chapter 2). The pest risk associated with hitchhiker pests on
vessels and airplanes is also discussed separately (see Chapter 5).
Discussion
Persons visiting an area may intentionally or unintentionally spread plant pests in several
different ways: they may be carrying the pest on themselves, their clothing, or their shoes; they
may unintentionally transport the pest on certain products such as handicrafts or plant parts
brought to or taken from the area; or they may intentionally collect the pest (e.g., insects, snails,
tree seeds, or whole plants) to take it to a different location.
Data on the frequency of such events is scarce. Given that clothing and shoes, as well as most
items picked up by travelers with the purpose of transporting them to a different location will
most likely be carried inside the travelers’ baggage at some point during the trip, the quantitative
29
analysis of the risk associated with airline passenger baggage provided in a separate chapter of
this report is relevant here (see Chapter 2).
Apart from this, most of the available information is anecdotal and non-quantitative. For
example, the plant pathogen Phytophthora ramorum (Oomycetes, Pythiales), found in greater
incidence on hiking trails and public lands than in minimally disturbed areas, appears to be
distributed via human activities such as hiking (Cushman and Meentemeyer, 2008). Spores of the
fungus Puccinia striiformis f. sp. tritici (Uredinales: Pucciniaceae) can remain viable on clothing
for at least one week (Wellings et al., 1987). Similarly, conidia of Colletotrichum acutatum
(Ascomycota) may remain viable for long periods of time in dry soil or on clothing (Norman and
Strandberg, 1997); and land snails and slugs are believed to have been accidentally introduced
into the Pacific Islands in soil on shoes (Cowie, 2001). DiThomaso (2000) points out the
possibility that travelers may carry noxious weed seeds in soil particles attached to shoes and
boots; and numerous pest fact sheets mention the possibility of spreading via clothing or shoes
plant pathogens such as:
• Puccinia graminis f. sp. tritici (Uredinales: Pucciniaceae), the causal agent of the wheat
stem rust Ug-99 (Grains Research and Development Corporation, 2008);
• Moniliophthora roreri (Agaricales: Marasmiaceae), causal agent of frosty pod rot (CABI,
2008);
• Pepino mosaic virus (PepMV) (Ferguson, 2001);
• Xanthomonas axonopodis (Xanthomonadales: Xanthomonadaceae), causal agent of citrus
canker (Telford, 2008);
• Puccinia horiana (Uredinales: Pucciniaceae), causal agent of chrysanthemum white rust
(Callahan, 2003);
• Phakopsora pachyrhizi (Uredinales: Phakopsoraceae), causal agent of soybean rust
(USDA-APHIS-PPQ, 2003); or
• Nematodes (Crow and Dunn, 2005).
Many plants have evolved special adaptations enabling their seeds to adhere to the fur of animals
(Bullock and Primack, 1977), and these same adaptations will make the seeds adhere to human
clothing as well. Lonsdale (1999) showed that the number of exotic weeds in a particular site
increases with the number of visitors. Several weed species in Mexico have been shown to be
dispersed on human clothing (Vibrans, 1999). In a study by Whinam et al. (2005), inspection of
expeditionary equipment revealed that viable seeds were carried on clothing to overseas
locations. A total of 981 propagules (seeds and fruits) and five moss shoots were collected from
the clothing and equipment of 44 expeditioners. These propagules comprised 90 species from 15
families. Outdoor equipment and equipment cases (particularly daypacks) were found with seeds
on or in them. Pockets, seams, and cuffs of outdoor clothing such as gaiters, jackets, and socks
also collected propagules. Seeds were found under the tongue, innersole, and in the tread of
walking boots. Clothing and outdoor items with Velcro® fasteners were identified as the highestrisk items.
Also of concern is the deliberate movement of organisms or objects which are pests or may
harbor pests. Based on our personal experience, it is not uncommon for travelers to actively
collect or purchase viable plants or plant parts, live insects or snails, or pieces of wood or small
quantities of soil that may contain pest organisms. Seeds, plants, and flower bulbs have been
30
intercepted in airline passenger baggage (USDA, 2008d), showing that these items are indeed
being carried by travelers. Rare orchids and endangered cycads from Asia, Australia, and Africa
have been smuggled into the United States for resale (Stokes, 2001). Given the diversity and
beauty of tropical plants and animals, it seems likely that many travelers would be tempted to
take along plant parts or small animals as souvenirs. If these travelers visit multiple locations in
the GCR, which is common especially among cruise ship passengers, there is a chance that pests
could spread from one location to the next. Residents of the GCR may be tempted to take plants
or seeds from visited locations with similar climates either within or outside of the GCR for
planting in their own yards.
Handicrafts sold at markets throughout the
GCR may also present a pest risk. For
example, at a tourist market in Old San Juan,
Puerto Rico, baskets and animals made out of
palm leaves were offered for sale (Image 1.1).
These items have the potential to harbor plant
pests, as evidenced by the detection of live red
palm mites, Raoiella indica (Acari:
Tenuipalpidae), in palm frond hats made in
the Dominican Republic and brought by cruise
ship passengers to Palm Beach, Florida
(Apgar, 2007, Welbourn, 2007). Hats are of
special concern, because people wear them as
Image 1.1 Handicrafts made of palm leaves for
they walk about, and they are at a height
sale in Puerto Rico.
where contact with vegetation is easily
possible. But it is not only Caribbean products that present a pest risk. People from other
countries visiting friends or relatives in the GCR are likely to purchase local handicrafts as gifts.
Furthermore, many of the handicrafts sold as souvenirs in Caribbean countries are actually made
in China, India, or other Asian countries (personal observation), and some of them (e.g., baskets,
wood carvings, etc.) could conceivably present a pest risk. Similarly, wooden products such as
bonsai trees, artificial Christmas trees, and bamboo stakes may be vehicles for the movement of
wood-boring pests (Haugen and Iede, 2001).
While we do not have sufficient information to quantify the likelihood of pest introduction per
traveler, it is obvious that the frequency of traveler-related pest introduction into an area is a
direct function of the number of travelers entering per unit of time. In 2006, the Caribbean
islands documented 19.4 million international tourist arrivals, Central American countries
reported almost 7 million, and those for South America numbered 18.7 million (UNWTO, 2008).
Experts project a 3.3% annual growth of tourist numbers for the next 10 years (WTTC, 2008).
Table 1.1 shows tourist arrivals for 2006. Tourist data captures arrivals of visitors staying more
than 24 hours. The Dominican Republic reported the greatest number of tourist arrivals (almost 4
million), followed by Florida (3.5 million) and Cuba (2.2 million).
In 2006, the United States provided the largest source of tourists traveling to the insular
Caribbean, with well over five million arrivals (Figure 1.1) (CTO, 2007). European tourists
31
represented about a quarter of all tourist arrivals, followed by Canada, with almost 1.5 million
arrivals (CTO, 2007).
Pattullo (1996a) pointed out that different nationalities have preferences for different
destinations. U.S. travelers tend to visit Puerto Rico (27% of U.S. tourists in 2004), the Bahamas
(12%), Jamaica (9%), the Dominican Republic (8%), Aruba (5%), and the U.S. Virgin Islands
(5%), with the remaining tourists visiting Mexico (15%) or other destinations in the GCR (19%)
(CTO, 2006). British travelers generally prefer the former British colonies (Jamaica, Barbados,
Antigua and Barbuda, Saint Lucia, and the Bahamas) (Pattullo, 1996a), while Germans favor the
Dominican Republic and Cuba, and French visitors prefer the French territories of Martinique
and Guadeloupe in addition to Cuba and the Dominican Republic (Pattullo, 1996a).
The origin and destination preferences of travelers may be useful for determining which pests
could be introduced via human movement. For example, Puerto Rico and the Bahamas may
prefer to focus on pests present in the United States (and vice versa), while the Dominican
Republic and Cuba should look to Germany and France (and vice versa) when seeking to
identify potential pest threats.
Another factor impacting the likelihood of travelers to introduce pests is travel reason. A
quantitative analysis of the pest risk associated with airline passengers entering the United States
showed that persons visiting family, and—to a lesser extent—persons visiting friends, have a
higher likelihood of carrying quarantine materials (QMs) than either vacationers or business
travelers (see Chapter 2). However, this may not be the case for other countries of destination in
the GCR. Given that the United States is an immigration country, travelers to the United States in
the “visit friends” and “visit family” categories would likely be either persons from foreign
countries visiting relatives who live in the United States, or U.S. residents of foreign origin
returning from family/friend visits in their home country. In either case, they are likely to bring
QMs such as fruits and vegetables (possibly home-grown) from a foreign country into the United
States. On the other hand, most of the other countries in the GCR are sources of emigration to the
United States, Canada, and the European Union (United Nations, 2005). Thus, travelers in the
“visit family” and “visit friends” categories who enter these Caribbean countries would not be as
likely to bring in QMs; rather, they may be expected to bring electronics, clothing, and other
types of gifts that are more inexpensive or more easily available in the immigration countries.
Data available for the insular Caribbean, Guyana, and Suriname show that the majority of all
visitors to these countries (approximately 80%) travel for leisure, which includes activities such
as recreation, holiday, shopping, sports and cultural events, and visiting family and/or friends
(CTO, 2006). Business travel, including mission trips, meetings, and paid study and research,
accounts for approximately 10% of all visitor arrivals, and the remaining 10% comprises all
other travel reasons (including health treatment, religious pilgrimage, and aircraft and ship crew
arrivals) (CTO, 2006).
During 2006, the peak numbers of visitors were recorded in March and July, while May and
September represented dips in tourist numbers (Figure 1.2). This is consistent with trends
observed in 2003 and 2004 (CTO, 2006). The high numbers of arrivals in March and July
coincide with school vacations in the United States and other countries. With a large percentage
32
of visitors to the Caribbean traveling from the United States (CTO, 2007), it is not surprising to
see this seasonal trend. The arrival of large numbers of visitors in these months may mean
increased pest risk during these times, especially in July, when pest activity in the United States
is at its highest.
Three relatively recent trends emerging in the Caribbean tourism industry are ecotourism, sports
tourism, and the “private island” experience. Ecotourism seeks to unite the traveler with the
natural environment and may offer such experiences as visits to ancient ruins and historic cities,
wildlife tours, river tubing, mountain biking, and hiking (Johnson, 2006). Noting that there is a
largely untapped market for sports tourism, a number of individuals in the tourism sector are
encouraging sports education and further development of the sports tourism sector in the GCR
(Holder, 2003, Sinclair, 2005). Cruise ship operators have begun to promote the private island
experience; remote island destinations offer visitors a secluded environment and an experience
quite different from traditional stops at large ports-of-call (Wilkinson, 2006).
The development of each of these niche markets may lead to increased tourism. For example, the
English-speaking areas of the GCR experienced an economic boost as a result of the 2007
Cricket World Cup taking place in the West Indies (CCAA, 2007). Ecotourism worldwide has
grown by 20-34% annually (Mastny, 2001, TIES, 2006) since its beginnings in the 1990s, and a
growing trend may also be expected for the Caribbean.
Not only would increased tourism cause the risk of exotic pest introductions to grow, but
ecotourism, private island experiences, and certain types of outdoor sports may exacerbate the
impact of exotic pest introductions by bringing people into closer contact with the natural
environment and with pristine ecosystems. Tourist activities, such as the use of all-terrain
vehicles or mountain-bikes, may disturb fragile ecosystems (Johnson, 2006) and create an
environment that is more favorable to the establishment of non-native species. The kind of
tourist who is fond of nature may be likely to collect living plants, seeds, insects, or snails as
souvenirs and either inadvertently or intentionally spread them to other locations within the
GCR.
Pathway: Air Travel
The Caribbean’s tourism industry is largely dependent on air transportation (Bertrand, 2007). Its
international airports primarily receive travelers from outside the GCR (Pattullo, 1996c), while
regional airports facilitate travel within the region. The GCR has almost 1,000 airports1 (Aircraft
Charter World, 1998, James, 2008), the vast majority of which are located in the U.S. states
bordering the Gulf of Mexico (Aircraft Charter World, 1998). The insular Caribbean has 53
airports, including approximately 20 international airports, which are widely distributed
throughout the region (James, 2008).
In a study of interceptions occurring over a 17-year period at U.S. ports of entry, McCullough et
al. (2006) found that 62% of intercepted pests were associated with baggage. The authors
identified Mexico, Central and South America, the insular Caribbean, and Asia as common
1
Includes public, private, and military airports.
33
origins for the pest interceptions (McCullough et al., 2006). In 2007, baggage inspections at
airports in U.S. states located in the GCR (Florida, Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas)
resulted in 126,136 plant QM interceptions, 374 soil interceptions (USDA, 2008f), and 4,049
pest interceptions (3,620 of them U.S. quarantine pests) (USDA, 2008d).
The level of airline passenger inspection varies among Caribbean countries and even among the
different airports of the same country. In the United States, CBP subjects airline passengers to
agricultural inspection; however, the level of scrutiny varies between flights, depending on the
origin of the flight, the time it lands, the origin of other flights landing at the same time, the
number of inspectors available, and other factors. For the most part, inspection of international
airline passsengers traveling to the United States takes place at U.S. airports, but there are also
preclearance operations at airports in Aruba, Bahamas, Bermuda, Canada, and Ireland (CBP,
2006). The luggage of air passengers traveling from Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, or
Hawaii to the U.S. mainland or one of the previously mentioned locations is inspected prior to
departure. However, in some cases inspection levels have not been able to keep up with growing
passenger numbers. While the number of passengers traveling from Aguadilla, Mayaguez and
Ponce, Puerto Rico to the U.S. mainland increased by 65% from 2.5 million in 2005 to 3.8
million in 2007, the number of passengers inspected grew by only 50% during the same time
period (USDA-APHIS-PPQ, 2008e). Travelers from the U.S. mainland to Puerto Rico or the
U.S. Virgin Islands are not subject to agricultural inspections by CBP. Regarding airline
passenger baggage, it may therefore be more likely for pests to be carried from the U.S.
mainland to the Caribbean rather than the other way around.
Martinique regulations prohibit the importation of any kind of plants or unprocessed plant
products by airline passengers from any origin (Iotti, 2008). Inspections focus mainly on flights
from South America, which have been identified as high-risk. Twice per month, flights are
inspected at a 100% inspection rate, passing bags through x-ray scanners, then interviewing
travelers and inspecting baggage contents as necessary. Flights originating in France are not
inspected. Customs officers collaborate closely with the plant protection organization by alerting
them of detections of agricultural interest (Ferguson and Schwartzburg, 2008). Flights from
Guayana and Guadeloupe seem to be regarded as presenting the highest phytosanitary risk (Iotti,
2008). A propensity of the inhabitants of Martinique to bring rare plants onto the island for
planting in their gardens has been noted (Iotti, 2008).
The island of Trinidad has a much better developed quarantine service than the island of Tobago,
which has recently started receiving direct international flights. Previously, all international
flights landed in Trinidad. There are no agricultural inspections between the islands of Trinidad
and Tobago (Bertone and Gutierrez, 2008).
Several experts we interviewed in Jamaica thought that airline passenger baggage was a major
pathway for pest introduction. The culprits were usually believed to be Jamaicans returning from
abroad. The opinion was also that these travelers were not aware of the potential consequences of
species introductions (Schwartzburg and Robertson, 2008).
34
Pathway: Cruise Ships
In 2007, the cruise industry carried a record 12.6 million passengers worldwide, a 4.1% increase
over 2006 (FCCA, 2008)2. This growth trend is expected to continue (Wilkinson, 2006).
Over 10 million cruise passengers departed from North America in 2007. Almost half (61%
during October through March; 23% during April through September) of all North American
cruise itineraries are headed to the Caribbean (FCCA, 2008).
Three companies dominate the worldwide cruise market: Carnival, Royal Caribbean, and Star
Group (Norwegian Cruise Line) (Johnson, 2002, Wilkinson, 2006, MARAD, 2007). In 2006,
these companies accounted for 95% of passenger nights3, with Carnival accounting for over half
of passenger nights for the year (MARAD, 2007).
Miami, Florida dominates as the departure port supporting the most passengers (1.89 million
passengers or 19% of all North American passengers) (MARAD, 2007). Also in the top five in
terms of departing cruise passengers are: Cape Canaveral, Florida; Fort Lauderdale, Florida;
Galveston, Texas; and Los Angeles, California.
The destinations in the GCR most visited by North American cruise passengers in 2006 were:
• Western Caribbean4 – 32% of passengers,
• Bahamas – 15% of passengers,
• Eastern Caribbean5 – 14% of passengers, and
• Southern Caribbean6 – 8% of passengers (MARAD, 2007).
Table 1.2 shows excursionist7 arrivals for 2006. While excursionist arrival data may include
maritime passengers arriving on small boats or ferries, it primarily represents arrivals of cruise
ship passengers. The Bahamas reported the greatest number of excursionist arrivals
(approximately 3 million). The Cayman Islands, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Netherlands
Antilles each reported close to 2 million excursionist arrivals.
Similar to airline passengers, cruise ship passengers have the potential to carry weed seeds, plant
pathogens, or small insects on their shoes or clothing. The majority of multi-destination visitors
in the Caribbean are cruise passengers (Garraway, 2006), and because these visits to climatically
similar destinations occur within a short time frame, it is quite possible that cruise passengers
may carry viable plant pests to a new location that is suitable for survival of the pest, especially
with future trends (e.g., ecotourism, private island experience, etc.) leading to more natural and
2
Cruise passenger numbers for 2007 reported from this source are based on third quarter 2007 results and fourth
quarter 2007 estimates.
3
One passenger night is equivalent to one passenger spending one night on a cruise ship; one passenger spending
four nights would equal four passenger nights.
4
Western Caribbean: west of Haiti; includes ports in Mexico, Central America, and Colombia. Note that Mexico is
not included in this analysis.
5
Eastern Caribbean: as far south as Saint Martin and as far west as Haiti.
6
Southern Caribbean: south of Saint Martin to northern coast of South America as far as Aruba. Note that
Venezuela is not included in this analysis.
7
Excursionist: visitor who stays for less than 24 hours and does not stay overnight.
35
pristine areas being visited by cruise passengers. Cruise ship passengers are also likely to visit
local markets where they may buy certain handicrafts or other items that could harbor plant
pests.
As cruise ships offer an abundance of food, cruise passengers are unlikely to bring food items
such as fresh fruits or vegetables with them on board for consumption. For customer satisfaction,
the cruise line must provide fresh food products throughout the cruise. The majority of the food
served on the cruise ship is bought from suppliers at the home port (Erkoc et al., 2005). While
cruise lines may occasionally make additional food purchases from local markets at ports-of-call,
they usually try to avoid such purchases to minimize costs. For obvious reasons, the cruise ship
company has a strong interest in purchasing only produce that is free of pests.
While passengers may conceivably take fresh produce from the ship to eat during an excursion
and may dispose of the fruit before re-entering the ship, this would not occur very frequently and
involve only small amounts of produce that would be unlikely to harbor pests.
Ports routinely utilized by cruise ships have many street vendors who sell fresh produce (fruit,
nuts, and vegetables). Although signs clearly posted in secure ship boarding areas indicate that
agricultural products need to be declared, in general, inspections do not appear to target
agricultural violations (Neeley, 2008). If the cruise passenger disposes of the local produce at
another port-of-call or at their country of origin, then there may be a (probably very small)
chance of pest introduction into the new area.
Inspection procedures for cruise ship passengers vary among GCR countries. In the United
States, rules state: “passengers and baggage on cruise ships with Caribbean, Mexico or Bermuda
itineraries are not routinely inspected by CBP. CBP/APHIS will periodically monitor the
clearance of passengers and baggage to evaluate the risk of prohibited agricultural articles that
may be associated with passengers and baggage.” and “Officials of the cruise ship are
responsible for educating passengers and crew members concerning the requirements for
bringing agricultural articles off the ship at the U.S. Port of Entry. Information should be
provided using signs at all exits from the vessel, audio and/or video presentations, and amnesty
bins. Information provided to passengers and crew must be approved by CBP/APHIS prior to
distribution”. These rules are laid out in a compliance agreement with the cruise ship. The
agreement may be revoked by CBP at any time for noncompliance (USDA-APHIS-PPQ, 2008d).
The ports of Quetzal and San José, Guatemala receive over 50 cruise ships per year, mainly
during the month of January. Passenger baggage is not inspected. Inspections are performed on
hulls, food provisions, and garbage. Usually, no quarantine materials are found (Meissner and
Schwartzburg, 2008). Cruise ships often dock in Fort-de-France, Martinique for a few hours stay,
and passengers are not subject to agricultural inspection at arrival or departure (Ferguson and
Schwartzburg, 2008).
U.S. port of entry inspections of maritime passenger baggage in 2007 yielded 22,259 plant QM
interceptions and six soil interceptions at marine ports located in U.S. states in the GCR (Florida,
Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas) (USDA, 2008f). In the same year, 35 pest
interceptions—19 of them quarantine pests for the United States—were documented at these
36
same ports from maritime (primarily cruise ship8) baggage (USDA, 2008d) (Table 1.3). The
majority of these pest interceptions were associated with leaves of the coconut palm, Cocos
nucifera, presumably in the form of handicrafts. At least 28 of the 35 pest interceptions were
from vessels originating in the GCR or Mexico (USDA, 2008d). These interceptions of plant
QMs and of plant pests indicate that maritime passenger baggage is an important pathway for the
movement of pests. It should be noted that these interceptions were the result of special blitzes
targeting red palm mite; routine inspections result in fewer interceptions, i.e., lower interception
numbers during other time periods do not necessarily indicate lower approach rates.
Pathway: Private Boats and Small Commercial Vessels
Private yachts and small commercial vessels travel constantly between nations of the GCR
(Pattullo, 1996b) and nearby countries. In many cases, inspection of these vessels is not feasible,
which means that private vessels often return to marinas and private docks without any contact
with an agricultural inspector. For example, at the Marina Puerto del Rey, the largest private
marina in the Caribbean, arriving vessels are often cleared by radio and are not boarded by an
inspector (Ruiz, 2007). The same is true in Florida (Lemay et al., 2008), Guatemala (Meissner
and Schwartzburg, 2008) and presumably in other locations throughout the Caribbean, as well.
Visitors traveling by yacht depend on local markets for provisions, and farmers often supply
agricultural products directly to sailors at marinas (Pattullo, 1996b). In some cases, sales to
sailors are a primary source of income (Pattullo, 1996b).
Small vessels are also frequently used to transport agricultural commodities, including
propagative materials for commerce (Boerne, 1999). There is a chance that these agricultural
products may be infested with pests, which may thus be transported to new locations. New pests
establish in the GCR on a constant basis and are unlikely to be detected by local farmers--and
even the scientific community--unless they cause noticeable crop damage.
For example, between Trinidad and Venezuela, there is frequent informal trade involving foods,
fruits, vegetables, as well as live animals. It is suspected that Mycospharella fijiensis, the causal
agent of the black Sigatoka disease entered Trinidad via this pathway, and there is concern that
Moniliophthora roreri, the causal agent of frosty pod of cocoa may spread to Trinidad in the
same manner (Bertone and Gutierrez, 2008).
Officials in Martinique pointed out the impossibility of controlling the traffic of small boats
between the Caribbean islands. These boats often carry plant materials, either for personal use of
for small-scale trading. At the Fisherman’s Harbor in Fort-de-France all fishing boats are
inspected once a week. They often carry crates of produce. Typical items carried for small-scale
commerce with loal merchants are rrot crops like yams or taro, or fruits, like avocados. One
concern is that fishermen often wrap their fish in banana leaves for transport between islands.
This represents a risk of introducing black sigatoga into Martinique, where bananas are the major
agricultural crop (Ferguson and Schwartzburg, 2008).
8
The datasource (USDA 2008) does not specify vessel type; however, in many cases a ship name is listed, providing
some indication of the identity of the vessel.
37
Private boats and other small vessels may also transport plants or propagative material. Often,
private vessels return to marinas and private docks without any contact with an agricultural
inspector. Pests in association with plants and propagative material will have the best chance of
surviving in their new environment. Therefore, this pathway is of great concern.
Pathway: Land Borders
In the Insular Caribbean, only the islands of Hispaniola and Saint Martin are home to more than
one country and can be accessed via land borders. On the other hand, all of the Central and South
American countries included in the scope of this report share land borders with at least two other
countries. In the following, we describe the situation at some of these borders and discuss the
pest risk they present.
Land borders in the Insular Caribbean. Haiti and the Dominican Republic are connected by a
360 km land border that is frequently crossed by migrant workers from Haiti (CIA, 2008).
Haitian and Dominican officials estimated that several hundred Haitians crossed the border daily
(Navarro, 1999). As many as 8,000 Haitians cross into the Dominican Republic twice-weekly for
market days held in the border town of Dajabon (Navarro, 1999). On the other hand, movement
of tourists across this border is almost non-existent. Haiti sees few tourists other than the cruise
passengers who visit a locked and guarded beach compound (Anonymous, 2008b). Pest
movement across the Haitian/Dominican Republic border would be expected to occur primarily
through migrant workers who may carry plants or plant products with them across the border or
by natural spread.
The island of Saint Martin holds the distinction of being the smallest landmass in the world
shared by two countries (CIA, 2008). French Saint Martin (northern region) and Dutch Saint
Maarten (southern region) share a border that is only 15 km long (CIA, 2008). Given the small
size of the island and the fact that human movement across the border is free and easy (Chase,
1996), pests are expected to move just as easily across this border.
Mexico–Guatemala border. The border between Mexico and Guatemala is approximately
1,000 km long. About 36 border crossings have been identified; however, only eight of them are
regulated (Solís, 2005). Many of the border crossings, such as the Puente Binacional connecting
Ciudad Hidalgo to Tecún Umán, facilitate an abundant circulation of travelers and merchandise,
both of which are often transported on tricycles. There is a vivid commercial interchange
between the people of both countries, of basic agricultural items and handicrafts (Núñez, 2007).
A large number of Mexicans and Guatemalans cross the border legally on a daily basis, but there
is also a great amount of illegal human movement, mainly from south to north. The National
Migration Institute (Instituto Nacional de Migración – INM) estimates that approximately two
million crossings occur annually on the Mexico-Guatemala border. In addition, there is a number
of legal and illegal agricultural day workers, as well as day visitors crossing the border for
shopping purposes (Solís, 2005).
38
Table 1.4 illustrates the dynamics at four major border crossings. More than three times as many
people move from Guatemala into Mexico than from Mexico to Guatemala. However, a large
number also enter Mexico to work in the agricultural sector (Table 1.5). Originally, they were
employed mainly on the coffee plantations of Chiapas, but in more recent years, there has also
been a growing demand in banana, sugarcane, and mango plantations (Solís, 2005).
Belize’s borders with Mexico and Guatemala. English-speaking Belize serves as a transit
country for a small percentage of Central Americans headed north (the majority transit via
Mexico) (Mahler and Ugrina, 2006). Land borders with Guatemala and Mexico are 266 km and
250 km long, respectively (CIA, 2008). Belize, despite not sharing a land border with Honduras,
regularly receives temporary workers from Honduras who help to harvest sugarcane and coffee
(Caniz, 2008). Temporary workers who enter Guatemala through official ports of entry are
subjected to agricultural inspections. Of more concern are the temporary workers who come
ashore at docks other than official ports of entry. In these cases, there is speculation that these
workers enter Belize with infested fruit fly host material, thus introducing the unwanted Medfly,
Ceratitis capitata (Diptera: Tephritidae), and prompting emergency eradication efforts (Caniz,
2008).
The border between Nicaragua and Costa Rica. A large number of immigrants from
Nicaragua, attracted by the availability of more jobs and better salaries than in their home
country, have entered Costa Rica over the past decade. Immigrants from Nicaragua presently
constitute approximately six to eight percent of all inhabitants of Costa Rica (Marquette, 2006).
Most of the immigrants reside permanently in Costa Rica, but there may be as many as 100,000
seasonal migrants at peak harvest times. In addition, illegal immigration is believed to be
common, although there are no official statistics confirming this (Marquette, 2006).
Approximately one quarter of the Nicaraguan immigrants in Costa Rica are employed in the
agricultural sector (Marquette, 2006), which brings them into close contact with plants and soil
and with plant pests such as pathogens, weed seeds, nematodes, and insects. For example, at the
Del Oro citrus farm located about 10 miles from the Nicaraguan border in Santa Cruz, Costa
Rica, farm workers are almost exclusively from Nicaragua (Bertone and Meissner, 2008b).
Nicaraguans living in Costa Rica regularly travel to their home country—often by bus—to visit
family and friends, especially during the holiday seasons. This leads to an ongoing interchange
of items, some of them of agricultural quarantine significance, between the two countries.
The Costa Rican Department of Agriculture (MAG) inspects cars, trucks, buses, and pedestrians
entering Costa Rica from Nicaragua, working very closely with other agencies such as the border
police. Interceptions of agricultural quarantine materials are very common. The coffee berry
borer, Hypothenemus hampei (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae), a serious agricultural pest,
is believed to have been inadvertently introduced into Costa Rica by pedestrians crossing the
border from Nicaragua in 1983 (Bertone and Meissner, 2008b).
Other land borders in Central America. Other land borders in Central America are the borders
between Guatemala and Honduras (256 km), Guatemala and El Salvador (203 km), El Salvador
and Honduras (342 km), Honduras and Nicaragua (922 km), Costa Rica and Panama (330 km),
and Panama and Colombia (225 km) (CIA, 2008)
39
Crossing land borders connecting Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, and Nicaragua is very easy
for citizens of any of the four countries, as well as U.S. citizens and other eligible foreign
nationals legally entering any of the four countries. Under the Central America-4 (CA-4) Border
Control Agreement, citizens and visitors meeting the above requirements may cross land borders
without completing entry and exit formalities at immigration checkpoints (USCS, 2007). Also,
throughout Central America, inspections at land borders are generally limited to immigration and
customs checks and do not include agricultural inspections (Caniz, 2008). Human movement
across land borders in Central America is not limited to migrants and visitors from Central
American countries. Starting in the 1980s, Central America became a geographic bridge to North
America for migrants from South America seeking to enter the United States (Mahler and
Ugrina, 2006). In terms of pest risk, this may mean that the flow of pest introductions due to
human movement may follow a northern course, with pests from South America moving into
Central America and North America and pests from Central America moving into North
America.
Land borders in South America. Information on human movement across land borders in
South America is scarce. Venezuela and Guyana have 743 km of shared border (CIA, 2008), yet
there are no official border crossings between the two countries (Kuiper, 2005). Movement of
people across the mountainous border is unimpeded. One known crossing point is near
Eteringbang, on the junction of the Cuyuni River (Kuiper, 2005). The movement of people
across the border and lack of inspection checkpoints likely results in an exchange of plants and
plant products between the two countries.
The same is the case for the other borders that are relevant in the context of this analysis:
between Guyana and Suriname (600 km), Suriname and French Guiana (510 km), Suriname and
Brazil (593 km), and Guyana and Brazil (1,606 km) (CIA, 2008).
Pathway: Ferries
Travel by ferry is common between some countries or islands of the GCR. The ferry Caribbean
Express carried 145,000 passengers, 16,000 vehicles and 13,000 containers between Puerto Rico
and the Dominican Republic in 2006 (Dominican Today, 2007). In Puerto Rico, seven CBP staff
inspect all luggage, vehicles, and containers coming off the ferry, as well as part of the ship’s
interior. In the past, an agricultural sniffing dog was available to help with the inspections, but
presently no dogs are being used. According to officers in Puerto Rico, ferry inspection
procedures on the Dominican Republic side are more lenient, and the ferry’s garbage is usually
disposed of in the Dominican Republic because of less stringent regulations (Bertone and
Meissner, 2008a). In April of 2007, various groups of the U.S. government joined forces in a
blitz operation targeting Caribbean Express (Caribbean Risk Assessment Group, 2008). A total
of 2,071 passengers and 198 personal vehicles were inspected over the course of 3 days,
resulting in 68 plant QM and 7 pest interceptions. Assuming that the inspections detected every
QM and pest present, this would translate into about 5,000 plant QMs and 500 pests per year
arriving in Puerto Rico via Caribbean Express (not counting the cargo containers being
transported on the ferry). Only a fraction of these pests would be intercepted by routine
agricultural inspections. What percentage of these pests would be exotic to Puerto Rico is
40
difficult to estimate. The pests intercepted during the blitz were identified as: Planococcus citri,
Dysmicoccus brevipes, Cucujidae sp., Anastrepha sp., and Melanagromyza sp., only the latter
two of which are considered actionable by the USDA. However, a number of exotic pests
established in Puerto Rico are believed to have originated in the Dominican Republic (Caribbean
Risk Assessment Group, 2008), and almost any pest may potentially be carried by ferry
passengers. This pathway should thus be considered high risk, a conclusion which also reached
by the Caribbean Risk Assessment Group.
There is also a regular ferry service between Belize and both Honduras and Guatemala
(Travour.com, 2008). Ferries and high-speed catamarans are an important means of
transportation between Martinique, St. Lucia, Barbados, Dominica, St. Vincent, and Guadeloupe;
and there is potential for movement of plant products via this pathway. Catamaran passenger
baggage is randomly selected for agricultural inspection twice a month (Ferguson and
Schwartzburg, 2008).
A twice-daily ferry operates between the islands of Trinidad and Tobago. Given that they are
traveling within the country, the passengers of this ferry are not subject to agricultural inspection.
Summary
Pest interception data related to human movement into or within the GCR is scarce; however, it
is obvious that the number of travelers is immense. Most travelers arrive by air, but small vessels
and cruise ships also carry large numbers of people. Movement across land borders in the GCR
is not well-documented and is often overlooked; however, the associated pest risk may be
considerable. The same is true for movement of yachts and other small vessels. For all modes of
travel the level of phytosanitary inspection is generally insufficient to mitigate pest risk.
Recommendations
Post signs at marinas to educate visitors about the potential consequences of
transporting exotic pest species on their vessels.
Increase presence and visibility of inspectors at marinas, mainly as a deterrent
measure. Publicize interceptions as a warning to potential violators.
Post signs at eco-tourism sites describing acceptable behavior while visiting the site.
Visitors should be instructed to remain on marked paths and to neither bring into nor take
out of the area any plants, plant parts, or animals.
Instruct visitors to clean shoes and clothing when entering or leaving a natural or
agricultural area. Visitors should remove soil and plant seeds from shoes and clothing
and inspect cuffs and Velcro® closures. (Where appropriate, consider the use of water
hoses, disinfectant foot baths, metal grates in ground for cleaning shoes, etc.).
41
Work with tour-guides and other staff at natural or agricultural areas to educate
visitors on the potential environmental and economic effects of exotic species
introduction. For example, visitors to the El Yunque rainforest in San Juan are educated
on environmental considerations prior to taking a walking expedition (Johnson, 2006).
Educate international air travelers prior to departure and deplaning about the
potential consequences (economic, environmental, personal) of transporting
agricultural products. This could be achieved by on-flight announcements,
informational brochures, or on-flight or pre-flight educational videos.
•
Raise money by providing products such as postcards, calendars, or souvenirs to
visitors who give a donation (Johnson, 2006). Use the money towards the prevention of
exotic pest introductions. The products themselves can be educational by providing
information on exotic pests of concern, dispersal mechanisms, and possible preventative
actions.
•
Implement a user fee system for eco-tourist destinations. Funds raised through
ecotourism should go to exotic species prevention and management (Hypolite et al.,
2002).
•
Carry out biodiversity impact studies for ecotourism sites to anticipate environmental
and economic impacts of exotic species introduction.
•
Limit access to very sensitive sites by restricting the number of visitors, access for
vehicles, density of roads and trails, availability of accomodations, etc.
42
Chapter 2: Airline Passenger Baggage
Introduction
During the 20th century, air travel became the most important means of international people
movement. On the Caribbean islands alone, there are over 50 airports (James, 2008), and the
majority of all visitors to the islands—both from within and outside of the Caribbean—arrive by
air (UNWTO, 2006).
International air travel has long been considered a significant means of moving pest species
(NRC, 2002, Liebhold et al., 2006). For example, Laird (1951) pointed out that aircraft are a
pathway for insect introductions. Evans et al. (1963) found significant numbers of mosquitoes
and other arthropods in both baggage compartments and passenger cabins of international
aircraft. Russell (1987) determined that insects in the wheel bays of a Boeing 747 aircraft were
likely to survive international flights of several hours’ duration. Takahashi (1984) reported finds
of insect vectors of human diseases in airplane cabins, and Takeishi (1992) found 5% of the fresh
fruits carried illegally by airplane passengers from Thailand to Japan to be infested with fruit
flies. Liebhold et al. (2006) suggested that fruit in airline passenger baggage may play an
important role in introducing exotic pest species into the United States. Brodel (2003) pointed
out that of 21 insect species that were found to have established in Florida between 1997 and
1998, only five were intercepted by PPQ prior to their establishment; four of them were
intercepted on baggage (among other pathways).
The objectives of our study were to: a) use data collected by the U.S. federal government to
estimate plant quarantine material (QM) approach rates (the percentage of sampling units
containing QMs) and the annual number of plant QMs entering the United States in airline
passenger baggage; b) discuss how plant QM approach rates relate to pest risk; and c) to explore
how this data may be applicable to other countries of the Greater Caribbean Region (GCR). We
hope that the thoughts outlined in this chapter may lead to more research and discussion and will
provide a basis for coordinated decision-making towards phytosanitary improvements related to
airline passengers.
Materials and Methods
We used Agricultural Quarantine Inspection Monitoring (AQIM) data collected by the U.S.
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Customs and Border Protection (CBP) branch to
estimate approach rates of plant QMs associated with international airline passenger baggage
arriving in the United States. Plant QMs are any plants or plant parts that are prohibited from
entering the United States. This prohibition is in most cases based on a determination that the
plant material presents a significant risk of harboring exotic pest organisms. If sampling
procedures are followed correctly, AQIM data is collected through a very detailed inspection of
randomly selected sampling units. This means that, in contrast to regular (non-AQIM) passenger
inspections at airports, which are targeted at high-risk groups, AQIM data is unbiased. Data
43
collected through AQIM activities is therefore suitable for risk quantification. AQIM data on
airline passengers contains information about passenger origin, number of people traveling
together, date of travel, airport of inspection, airline, numbers and types of QMs found, and a
host of other data elements. However, AQIM data does not include useable information on pest
interceptions. Details on AQIM data sets and sampling protocols are documented in the USDA
AQIM Handbook (USDA-APHIS-PPQ, 2008b).
The AQIM data used in this study were collected at 30 U.S. airports in 21 U.S. states between
January 1, 2005 and August 22, 2007. The plant QM approach rate is defined as the percentage
of sampling units in which plant QMs are found. The sampling unit in this case was the group of
airline passengers (one to many individuals) traveling together under one U.S. customs
declaration. To express the level of uncertainty associated with QM approach rate estimates,
estimates are presented as 95% binomial confidence intervals (i.e., the limits within which the
actual approach rates lie with 95% certainty) (Steel et al., 1997). For small sample sizes, the
uncertainty associated with the approach rate estimate is large (i.e., the binomial confidence
intervals become wide). A sample size of 30 is considered the minimum meaningful sample size
for estimating proportions (Cochran, 1977); treatment groups with sample sizes under 30 were
therefore not considered for this analysis.
We calculated approach rates by country of passenger origin and by reason for travel using the
RELIABILITY, MEANS, TABULATE, and SQL procedures in SAS® 9.1.3 (SAS Institute,
2007). To estimate the annual number of passenger groups entering the United States with plant
QMs, approach rates were then multiplied by the average number of passenger groups that
entered during 2006. This last number was calculated by dividing the annual number of visitors
(obtained from the U.S. Department of Commerce) during 2006 by the average passenger group
size as indicated by AQIM data. This AQIM-based estimate of the number of QMs arriving
annually in the United States was then compared to the number of QMs that were actually
intercepted during routine (non-AQIM) passenger inspections at airports in 2006 (USDA,
2008f). The ratio of the number actually intercepted to the estimated number to have entered is
used as a measure of the interception efficiency of routine air baggage inspections.
Information on pest interceptions was obtained from the USDA-APHIS-PPQ PestID database,
which contains records of all pest interceptions made by PPQ or CBP at U.S. ports of entry since
1985 (USDA, 2008d). For this analysis, a pest is defined as a species of arthropod, mollusk,
weed, nematode, or plant pathogen that is injurious to plants or plant products.
44
Results and Discussion
Risk to the United States
Because AQIM data are collected at U.S. ports of entry, they primarily are a reflection of the
phytosanitary risk faced by the United States. Thus, risk is discussed from the standpoint of the
United States first; the applicability of the data to other countries of the GCR is explored later.
In total, almost 52 million international visitors came to the United States in 2006 (OTTI,
2007b). With an average group size of 1.4 (AQIM data), this is equivalent to 37 million visitor
groups. Using AQIM data, the overall plant QM approach rate was calculated at 3.75% (95%
binomial confidence interval: 3.70-3.81%). Given 37 million visitor groups, an estimated 1.4
million visitor groups arrive with plant QMs in their luggage at U.S. airports per year (Table
2.1). Each group carried on average 1.2 different plant QM types (e.g., apples, oranges, mangoes,
etc.), leading us to an estimate of 1.7 million instances of QM arrivals (1.4 million visitor groups
with QMs multiplied by 1.2 QM types per group) during 2006. Each of these instances involved
one or more individual QM units (e.g., five apples).
The USDA Work Accomplishment Data System (WADS) (USDA, 2008f) records, among other
data elements, the monthly total number of QM interceptions by U.S. port of entry; each QM
type found per inspection is counted as one interception (e.g., if five oranges, three apples, and
20 mangoes are found on one sampling unit, this would be recorded as three interceptions). For
the 2006 calendar year, a total of 407,000 plant QM interceptions were recorded in WADS.
Comparing this to the AQIM-based estimate of 1.7 million instances of QM arrivals, we
conclude that around 24% of all arriving plant QMs were intercepted by CBP, leaving about 1.3
million plant QMs that entered the United States undetected in 2006. This interception efficiency
is similar to those estimated in other studies, e.g., 31-42% for international airline passenger
baggage into Hawaii (Culliney et al., 2007), 8% for personal vehicles entering across the
Mexican border (Meissner et al., 2003), and 27% for pedestrians entering across the Mexican
border (Meissner et al., 2003).
What does this mean in terms of pest risk? Not all QMs intercepted will be infested or are even
likely to be infested with pests. For example, bananas—a QM frequently intercepted on airline
passengers—are generally considered a low phytosanitary risk to the United States and are, in
cargo shipments, permissible from most countries. However, when found on airline passengers,
the origin of the fruit cannot be verified anymore, and the fruit may therefore be seized, adding a
QM interception to the database.
Translating plant QM approach rate estimates into pest approach rate estimates is not trivial.
AQIM data does not provide reliable information on the frequency of pests in airline passenger
baggage because, in contradiction to the AQIM sampling guidelines (USDA-APHIS-PPQ,
2008b), searching for pests is rarely performed during AQIM data collection (Pasek, 2007).
It is safe to assume that the pest detection efficiency of routine passenger inspections is lower
than the QM interception efficiency, because there is a considerable chance that pests may not be
detected on intercepted plant QMs. Pests may go undetected because they are minute or hidden
45
(e.g., mites, internal feeders). Due to time pressure, U.S. inspecting officers frequently discard
intercepted plant QMs without looking for pests. For procedural reasons, pest categories such as
viruses, bacteria, phytoplasmas, and nematodes are almost never identified and recorded. If we
assume that during port inspections one of every 10 infested plant QMs is identified as being
infested (Rogers, 2008), given our estimate that 24% of arriving QMs are intercepted, only 2.4%
of all infested QMs arriving in air passenger baggage are intercepted and identified as infested.
These resulting pest finds are recorded in the PPQ PestID database (USDA, 2008d). For the
calendar year 2006, 12,282 interceptions of reportable pests in international airline passenger
baggage, involving at least 1,500 pest species of quarantine significance to the United States,
were recorded in PestID. If that number was 2.4% of what actually arrived, then over half a
million instances of reportable pest arrivals, each potentially involving several pest organisms or
reproductive units, may have occurred in 2006. With a 24% QM interception efficiency, over
375,000 of these pest arrivals escaped detection by baggage inspections. (We are using the QM
interception efficiency as opposed to pest detection efficiency here because any associated pests
would be destroyed together with the intercepted QMs. Therefore, the risk associated with these
pests is mitigated.)
By Reason for Travel
The following reasons for travel were compared in terms of plant QM approach rates:
Business/Work, Visit Family, Visit Friends, Military, Tourist, Uniformed Crew, and Other. For
each of these categories, QM approach rates were significantly different from zero. The category
“Visit Family” was associated with the highest QM approach rates (Figure 2.1) and was
statistically different from all other categories. This finding corroborates the intuitive assumption
that international passengers visiting family are more likely than tourists or business travelers to
carry plant QMs because they tend to bring ethnic food items (fresh fruits, vegetables, or plant
materials) as gifts. We assume that it does not matter whether the traveler is a foreign national
visiting a relative in the United States or is a foreign-born U.S. resident returning from a family
visit in another country. In the former scenario, the traveler would bring ethnic food items as
gifts to the family in the United States. In the latter case, the traveler would return to United
States with similar items from his/her family. The second-highest approach rates were associated
with the category “Visit Friends,” which was also statistically different from all other categories.
The QM approach rate of the category “Tourism” was significantly lower than those of “Visit
Family” and “Visit Friends”, but significantly higher than those of the categories
“Business/Work,” “Military,” and “Uniformed Crew”.
The only information we have available to determine the percentage of visitors in each of the
travel reason categories is AQIM data. Based on that (Table 2.2), approximately one-third of the
travelers were tourists, one-third were visiting family, and about one-fifth were on work- or
business-related travel. The remaining categories accounted for only a small percentage of the
visitors.
Not all QMs represent the same level of risk. Across all travel reasons, the 10 most commonly
intercepted QMs were (in decreasing order of interception frequency): apples, mangoes, oranges,
bananas, seeds, pears, unspecified fresh fruit, plums, yams, and plants. Apples, oranges, and
46
bananas are fruits that are often packed by travelers for consumption along the way as they are
popular, easy to carry, and easy to eat. These items present a low risk for introduction of exotic
plant pests. In contrast, seeds, potato and yam tubers, flower bulbs, and other items suitable for
propagation are high-risk QMs. For more information on the risk of the propagative material
pathway, see Chapter 8.
The diversity of QM was higher for travelers visiting family than for tourists. More than a
hundred QM types were intercepted on travelers visiting family but not on tourists, and only 17
QM types were intercepted on tourists but not on travelers visiting family.
By Origin
A total of 237 countries of origin were represented in the AQIM data set. Of these, 164 had
sample sizes of 30 or higher and are included in the following analysis. Twenty-nine countries of
origin with sample sizes of 30 or higher are located in the GCR. Plant QM approach rate
estimates for the countries of origin range between zero (lowest lower CL) and 62% (highest
upper CL). Figure 2.2 shows the 25 countries with the highest plant QM approach rates. In some
cases, the 95% binomial confidence intervals were large, due to relatively small sample sizes.
For Angola, Botswana, French Guyana, Georgia, Luxembourg, Mongolia, Oman, Samoa, and
Sudan, binomial confidence intervals include zero (i.e., the plant QM approach rates are not
significantly different from zero). Out of the 25 countries with the highest approach rates, 10
were Caribbean countries: Haiti (21%), Bonaire (18%), St. Vincent (13%), Grenada (13%),
Guadeloupe (12%), St. Lucia (11%), Antigua (9%), Bahamas (9%), Jamaica (8%), and Dominica
(8%). The plant QM approach rates for all available Caribbean countries of origin are depicted in
Figure 2.3.
The annual number of plant QMs entering the United States from each country of origin is equal
to the plant QM approach rate for the country of origin multiplied by the average number of
QMs per declaration (1.2), multiplied by the annual number of visitor groups arriving to the
United States by air from that country. Canada is the origin of the highest number of air travelers
to the United States, over 5.5 million visitor groups annually. The estimated plant QM approach
rate for Canada is 4.7% (95% CL: 3.5-6.2%), which is significantly lower than the rates of the
following, relatively small, number of countries: Trinidad, Antigua, Syria, Peru, Jamaica, St.
Vincent, Ecuador, St. Lucia, Bolivia, Grenada, Bangladesh, Bonaire, Iran, Haiti, and Palau.
Multiplied by the large number of visitors arriving from Canada, this QM approach rate
translated into by far the highest number of plant QMs entering the United States from any
country (Figure 2.4). Approximately 135,000-240,000 plant QMs from Canada and over 30,000
each from Japan and Germany are estimated to enter the United States per year. Other countries
that almost certainly supply more than 10,000 plant QMs per year are: Argentina, Bolivia,
Ecuador, France, India, Israel, Italy, Mexico, and the Netherlands. A large number of countries
are the source of smaller numbers of QMs. The quarantine materials intercepted from Canada,
Japan, and Germany were largely apples, bananas, oranges and some other common fruits, such
as grapes. However, among the interceptions from Germany were also bulbs, seeds, wood, pine
cones, soil, and plants. From Japan, seeds, bulbs, and leaves were also intercepted.
47
Risk to Other Caribbean Nations
Although AQIM data is collected at U.S. ports of entry, the data is likely to be valuable to other
countries in the GCR, given that they receive visitors from many of the same countries of origin.
With well over 30 million9 airline passengers (20 million passenger groups), mostly tourists,
visiting the GCR annually and a plant QM approach rate of perhaps 5-10%, over 1 million plant
QMs may be entering the GCR in airline passenger baggage every year.
However, what the United States considers a QM would not necessarily be a QM to other
countries. Secondly, specific food items and propagative material carried by people visiting
friends and family will vary somewhat between countries. The United States is an immigration
country; thus, travelers to the United States in the “visit friends” and “visit family” categories
would likely be either persons from foreign countries visiting relatives who live in the United
States, or U.S. residents of foreign origin returning from family/friend visits in their home
country. In either case, they are likely to bring QMs such as typical fruits and vegetables
(possibly home-grown) from a foreign country into the United States. On the other hand, most of
the other countries in the GCR are sources of emigration to the United States, Canada, and the
European Union (United Nations, 2005). Thus, travelers in the visit family/friends categories
who enter these Caribbean countries would not be as likely to be bringing in QMs; rather, they
may be expected to be bringing electronics, clothing, and other types of gifts that are less
expensive or more easily available in the immigration countries.
Country of destination is presumably a less important factor for travelers in the “tourist”
category, as it may be assumed that a tourist brings along similar kinds of QMs regardless of
his/her destination. One third of all travelers to the GCR cited tourism as their reason for travel
(Table 2.2), a higher percentage than for any of the other travel reasons. Approximately 85% of
the tourists originated in Europe, and North America (The Royal Geographical Society, 2004). In
the following section, we provide approach rate data by country of origin for the tourist category
only.
Tourists Only
A total of 215 different countries were represented in the data set; of these, 110 had sample sizes
of 30 or higher for the tourist category and are included in the following analysis. Twenty-seven
countries of origin with sample sizes of 30 or higher are located in the GCR. QM approach rate
estimates for the countries of origin range between zero and 40%. In some cases, the 95%
binomial confidence intervals are large, due to relatively small sample sizes. For Ethiopia,
Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Cuba, Nepal, and Zambia, binomial confidence intervals
include zero (i.e., the approach rates are not significantly different from zero). Out of the 10
countries with the highest approach rates, seven are located in the GCR: Bonaire (20%), Guyana
(20%), Guadeloupe (12%), Grenada (11%), St. Vincent (10%), British Virgin Islands (9%), St.
Kitts and Nevis (9%); the others were Malta (10%), Estonia (9%), and Iran (9%) (Figure 2.6).
Canada, France, Germany, and the United Kingdom are among the countries where most of the
9
This estimate is based on data from a large number of official databases and country reports
48
visitors to the Caribbean originate (The Royal Geographical Society, 2004). The approach rates
associated with these countries of origin are 8%, 4%, 5%, and 4%, respectively.
Conclusions
International airline passenger baggage may be an important pathway for exotic species
movement. For most countries, the pest risk is not comparable to that posed by some other
pathways; however, the risk associated with passenger baggage is not negligible.
In the case of the United States, the highest risk from international airline passenger baggage can
be attributed to travelers who are visiting family or friends (about one-third of the travelers). In
contrast, tourists or business travelers do not represent a great risk to the United States. For most
other countries in the GCR, the majority of all visitors are tourists, and even visitors in the “visit
family” and “visit friends” categories may not present a high level of risk. However, as this
analysis has shown, there is a large amount of plant QMs moving in international airline
passenger baggage. Since the worldwide air transportation network quickly connects
geographically distant, but climatically similar regions (Tatem and Hay, 2007), the plant QMs
that do move may very well carry exotic plant pests that can easily adapt to the new
environment. Thus, it is important to consider mitigation options for this pathway.
Given the relatively low interception efficiency of port inspections, it is unlikely that the existing
pest risk associated with the airline passenger pathways can be mitigated effectively by
inspection alone. It may be possible to improve inspection efficiency to some degree by
increasing the numbers of inspectors and by providing them with more adequate inspection
equipment and facilities. However, additional ways of preventing exotic species introduction will
have to be pursued.
Recommendations
Educate international air travelers prior to departure and deplaning about the
potential consequences (economic, environmental, personal) of transporting
agricultural products. This could be achieved by on-flight announcements,
informational brochures, or on-flight or pre-flight educational videos.
Remind plane passengers to consume or discard prohibited materials during the
flight.
o Announcements by the flight crew could remind travelers that they are not
allowed to take certain materials into the destination countries.
o When collecting trash before landing, the flight crew may specifically ask for
fruits, vegetables, seeds, plants, meats, or other prohibited items.
Expand the use of detector dogs for baggage inspection. This is a less intrusive and
faster method than opening of the luggage by human inspectors.
49
•
Invest in research on inspection technology (e.g., robotic nose, x-ray technology, etc.)
•
Develop targeting strategies for inspection of airline passenger baggage. Possible
targeting criteria include origin of passenger, seasonality, and holidays. In order for this
to be possible, a systematic data collection program has to be implemented.
50
Chapter 3: International Mail
Definitions
The following definitions apply to mail-related terminology used throughout this chapter:
Mail: Any material, such as letters, information, tangible objects, written documents,
remittances, parcels, or packages, sent or carried in the postal service to domestic or international
destinations.
Postal Service: An organization which handles, sorts, and transports mail.
Public Postal Service: A government or ministerial department or agency, sometimes semiprivately operated or operated as a public corporation which handles the transmission of mail. It
also may be referred to as a National Postal Service. These public or national systems may also
offer overnight or express mail services.
Private Postal Service: A private company that handles, sorts, and transports mail, primarily in
the form of parcels. The emphasis in most of these businesses is on rapid overnight or express
mail movement. Some well-known private postal services include Airborne Express, DHL
Worldwide Express, Federal Express, and United Parcel Service (UPS), among other companies.
Approach rate: The percentage of randomly inspected packages that contained what the search
was targeting (e.g., plant materials). The approach rate is usually given as a percentage with a
95% binomial confidence limit. This confidence limit is the limit within which we can say the
true approach rate falls with 95% confidence.
Introduction
Among the many potential pathways for pest movement, mail, carried by both public and private
postal services, is often overlooked.
Like people everywhere, inhabitants of the Greater Caribbean Region (GCR) use public and
private postal services to send and receive items from friends and family abroad and to purchase
mail-order goods. Increasing opportunities for online shopping have spurred a demand for more
packages to be delivered by mail in recent years (Vargas, 2004, Thomson Reuters, 2008). Private
postal services such as FedEx, UPS, or DHL have experienced growth due to the active parcel
service market (Morlok et al., 2000).
Almost anything can be sent by mail—either legally or illegally—and controlling mail contents
presents an immense challenge to any country. Various data collection efforts in the United
States have shown that live plants and plant pests are being shipped by mail, often in connection
with a mail-order purchase (Keller and Lodge, 2007, Zhuikov, 2008). For example, plant seeds
51
purchased online, including anthurium, tropical jackfruit, American oil palm, papaya, oleander,
and sour orange were intercepted in separate foreign mail shipments from Belize to southern
Florida. The USDA also intercepted citrus cuttings infected with citrus canker (Hoffman, 2004).
It seems likely that similar avenues of trade in plants or plant pests occur throughout the GCR,
placing the region at risk of pest introductions. The objective of this chapter was to gather and
interpret available information to evaluate the risk of pest movement associated with the mail
pathway. Specifically, we examine the types of quarantine materials (QMs) transported by mail
and provide recommendations for improved safeguarding in connection with the mail pathway.
Discussion
During Agricultural Quarantine Inspection Monitoring (USDA, 2008f) carried out by the U.S.
Department of Homeland Security from 2005 through 2007 at 11 U.S. ports of entry, a large
variety of plant materials and a few insect pests were intercepted in both public and private
international mail entering the United States (Table 3.1). These items included fresh and dried
fruits and vegetables, leaves, spices, whole plants, and cut flowers. Some of the intercepted items
were considered items of U.S. quarantine significance. The remaining items were released after
inspection because they were not considered to present a pest risk to the United States; however,
if entering other countries within the GCR, some of the same items may very well pose a
phytosanitary threat.
The proportion of the various item types intercepted was very similar in public compared to
private mail of worldwide origin (Table 3.2). In both cases, seeds and pods, potentially very
high-risk items, were the most frequently shipped category. In public mail, the category “herbs,
spices, and flowers, dried or processed” was shipped more frequently than in private mail.
Conversely, in private mail, wood items were represented more frequently. When looking at mail
of GCR origin only, again, wood items were much more likely to be found in private compared
to public mail. Also, coffee or tea was found in 30% of the private mail packages versus only 9%
of the public mail packages. We suspect that people choose between public versus private mail
based, in part, on the weight and value of the items shipped. Because private mail carriers are
generally considered more reliable and offer better tracking of the shipment, higher-value items
would be more likely to be shipped by private mail.
A total of 76,132 public mail packages were selected randomly for inspection and opened. Of
these, 855 contained plant quarantine materials or pests, representing an approach rate of 1.15%
(95% binomial confidence interval: 1.1-1.2%) (Table 3.3).
In the case of private mail, a total of 18,455 packages were opened, leading to the interception of
1,042 plant materials/plant pests, only 24 of which were considered U.S. quarantine materials. In
15 of the cases, insects were found, 12 of them live butterflies, though not agricultural pest
species. The approach rates for plant materials/plant pests and plant materials/plant pests of U.S.
quarantine significance were 5.6% (95% binomial confidence interval: 5.3-6.0%) and 0.13%
(95% binomial confidence interval: 0.08-0.19%), respectively (Table 3.3).
52
It is curious that in private mail, the approach rate for plant materials/plant pests was twice as
high as for public mail, but the approach rate for plant material/plant pest items of U.S.
quarantine significance was 10 times as high in public compared to private mail. One possible
explanation for this may be that commercially produced, higher-priced items, which are more
likely to be free of pests may also be more likely to be sent by private mail, whereas homegrown items, which are more likely to be infested/infected with pests may be more likely to be
sent by public mail, which costs less. However, this is mere speculation.
When looking only at packages originating in countries of the GCR (excluding the United
States), of 2,414 public mail packages that were inspected, 77 contained plant materials/plant
pests, and 18 contained plant materials/plant pests of U.S. quarantine significance. The approach
rates for plant materials/plant pests and plant materials/plant pests of U.S. quarantine
significance were 3.2% (95% binomial confidence interval: 2.5-4.0%) and 0.8% (95% binomial
confidence interval: 0.4-1.2%), respectively (Table 3.3).
Of 374 private mail packages originating in the GCR that were inspected, six contained plant
materials/plant pests of U.S. quarantine significance, representing an approach rate of 1.6 (95%
binomial confidence interval: 0.6-3.6%) (Table 3.3).
The number of packages arriving with plant materials/plant pests is the approach rate multiplied
by the total number of packages arriving. We estimate countries of the GCR receive
approximately half a million packages in the public mail per year (Universal Postal Union,
2008). (This estimate does not include those Caribbean countries which did not provide postal
statistics, and the United States, for which we did not have state-level mail statistics.) Table 3.4
lists the number of packages arriving in public mail by country and provides an estimate of the
total number of packages arriving with plant materials/plant pests based on the approach rate of
2.7% (95% binomial confidence interval: 2.6-2.8%) calculated above (Table 3.3). We estimated
that the GCR (excluding the United States) may annually receive between 13,876 and 14,943
mail packages containing plant materials or plant pests, with up to 4,000 of these being
propagative materials. Whether these plant materials/plant pests constitute a threat would vary
from case to case, depending on the materials and the country of destination. It also needs to be
kept in mind that the postal statistics provided pertains to public mail only. Market studies
suggest that only 10% of parcel mail is moved by public postal services in the Caribbean region,
while 80% of parcels are moved by private postal services such as FedEx, UPS, and DHL
(Universal Postal Union, 2007). Furthermore, the statistics pertain to packages only. While most
materials we are concerned about would have to be sent in packages, some may also be mailed as
letters. This is especially a concern in the case of seeds.
While AQIM data is the most statistically useful data for risk estimates, there are various other
data available that may provide some additional insights.
Routine port-of-entry inspection of private mail in Miami was started in 2000 and is now a
component of the Foreign Mail Center Work Unit. Three inspectors and a detector dog are
dedicated to this activity. Packages are selected for inspection based on the manifest and certain
risk factors. Packages where no products of agricultural significance are listed on the manifest
are thus likely to escape inspection. During the fiscal year 2007 about 1.5 million packages were
53
received; a little over 68,000 of them were scanned, and 4,280 of these were opened. A total of
4,780 kg of plant QM, 29 shipments with non-compliant WPM, and 33 restricted soil shipments
were intercepted (Lemay et al., 2008). No pest interceptions were recorded for this time period,
but we do not know to what degree intercepted QMs were inspected for pests. In comparison,
during the fiscal year 2008 only 1,622 private mail packages were opened, resulting in 106 plant
QM interceptions (USDA, 2008f). Fourteen pest interceptions are recorded, seven of which were
from the GCR. Among the intercepted pests are a number of insects capable of flight imported
on cut flowers (Table 3.5), for which the likelihood of escaping into the environment is
relatively high.
Routine port-of-entry inspections of public mail in Miami resulted in 132 plant QM interceptions
from 1,483 packages opened during the fiscal year 2008 (USDA, 2008f). Forty-four pests were
intercepted, 11 of them from the GCR (Table 3.6).
In a collaborative data collection effort in Puerto Rico of the U.S. Department of Homeland
Security-Customs and Border Protection (DHS-CBP) and the USDA Smuggling Interdiction and
Trade Compliance (SITC), inspectors x-rayed 19,096 USPS packages sent from the U.S. Virgin
Islands to Puerto Rico, ultimately destined for the United States mainland (USDA-APHIS-SITC,
2006), between November and December, 2006. Based on the x-ray screening, 2,525 packages
were referred to inspection, which resulted in the detection of 579 packages containing
agriculture-related items. The following types of items were found: 30% seeds, many of weeds
or quarantine plants; 16% fresh fruit, such as apples, oranges, mangoes, olives, pears, peaches,
bananas, limes, loquats, bitter melons, avocados, berries, and tomatoes; 9% leaves, presumably
for tea or other food ingredients; 8% live plants, presumably for propagation, of which 20% were
weeds and 8% were bulbs for planting; and 29% other items (roots, unknown plants, etc.). Of the
packages from which items were intercepted, 46 packages (0.002% of all packages screened)
contained plant materials or plant pests of U.S. quarantine significance.
Similar data collection efforts of DHS-CBP and SITC targeted mail of Chinese origin arriving in
New Jersey during the time preceding the Chinese New Year (CBP and SITC, 2008). Most
prohibited items found during these inspections were destined for personal consumption, but a
few items were meant for commerce, such as restaurant supplies. In 2007, 44 of 2,847 (1.5%)
inspected packages contained plant materials/plant pests of U.S. quarantine significance; and in
2008, 48 of 7,188 (0.7%) inspected packages contained plant materials/plant pests of U.S.
quarantine significance. These approach rates are within the same range as the ones derived
through AQIM data collection. Prohibited plant-related items in mail in 2007 and 2008 included:
seeds, pods, entire plants, and other propagative materials (seed millet, yams, unspecified plants
and seeds for planting, citrus seeds, cucurbit seeds, roots, vegetable seeds, fava beans, coconut,
and wild rice); fresh fruits (plums, stone fruit, citrus, jujube, dates, Szechuan pepper (Rutaceae),
tomatoes, litchi, and unspecified fruits); nuts which may also be propagative (chestnuts, walnuts,
fresh peanuts, acorns, and tree nuts); other fresh plant materials (unspecified vines, leaves, grass,
curry leaves, branches with leaves, fresh herbs); wood, wood chips, and bark; processed products
(corn products, citrus peel); soil; and insect larvae in wooden crates.
SITC data collection at JFK International Airport in New York targeted private mail (e.g., DHL,
FedEx, and TNT) from India and Southeast Asia (USDA-APHIS-SITC, 2007). Canine teams
54
were used to screen shipments. Of the 3,682 items inspected, only two packages were found with
plant QMs, one containing limes and the other tubers of Amorphophallus sp. (propagative
material).
SITC international mail interceptions were reported from the San Francisco International Mail
Center (SFIMC) Mail Interception Notice (MIN) database which contains over 11,000 records
from 2000 to 2005 (USDA-APHIS-SITC, 2005). There were records of 189 international
packages containing a total of 199 different plant materials/plant pests of U.S. quarantine
significance (Table 3.7). While this data set contains no interceptions from the GCR, it provides
information about the kinds of prohibited items likely to move in international mail. Seeds were
intercepted most frequently (56 interceptions) and included primarily vegetable and grass seeds.
Fresh fruits were found 56 times, including Chinese olives, olive, citrus, loquats, persimmons,
mango, Szechuan pepper (Rutaceae), pears, and other tropical fruit. Propagative materials other
than seeds (tubers, seedlings, whole plants) were the next most commonly found items, but
included a broad array of plants, Brassica sp., noxious weeds, sugarcane, grasses, orchids,
flowers, sweet potatoes, bulbs, and bamboo (32 items). Propagative materials, including seeds,
were overall the most commonly intercepted prohibited agricultural items, emphasizing that mail
is an especially important pathway for propagative materials.
Items moved in mail worldwide that may present clear threats to the Greater Caribbean are those
related to the major crop, landscape, or forest plants in the region. For example packages
carrying any palm products (fruit, plants, leaves, shoots, seeds, coconuts, untreated handicrafts
(wooden or fronds)) would present a risk of introducing palm pests, such as the recently
introduced red palm mite, or the exotic phytoplasma palm lethal yellowing, to a region where
palms of various kinds are extremely important in the landscape, tourism, and agriculture.
Sugarcane and bananas are also extremely important crops in the region, and importation of
these plants or commodities increases risk of entry of new pests, like exotic sugarcane pests or
black Sigatoka of banana which are still absent in some areas of the Caribbean. Importation of
seeds, entire plants, or roots and tubers (cassava, dasheen, sweet potatoes, yams) that can be used
for propagation present the risk of introducing pests together with a suitable host plant and of
becoming invasive plants (Kairo et al., 2003). Movement of unroasted coffee beans within the
GCR could exacerbate problems with already established pests such as the coffee berry borer,
Hypothenemus hampei (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae) (Cruz and Segarra, 1996,
Caribbean National Weekly News, 2007), or result in the establishment of new pests or
pathogens.
Brodel (2003) reported that of 21 insect species that were found to have established in Florida
between 1997 and 1998, only five were intercepted by USDA-APHIS-PPQ prior to their
establishment; two of them were intercepted on mail.
55
To a large degree, the mailing of materials that present a phytosanitary risk is probably
inadvertent, given that people are often unaware of regulations or do not understand why certain
items are prohibited. When SITC tracked down a person who had made an on-line purchase of
several giant African snails and walking stick insects from a seller in the United Kingdom, the
customer, a high school biology teacher, stated that she was not aware of any risk associated with
importing these organisms (USDA-APHIS-PPQ, 2008c). However, there are cases where
prohibited items are clearly smuggled by mislabeling customs forms on packages. For example,
19 potted Crocosmia plants from the United Kingdom were detected in a package labeled as
“cappucino machine and cups/saucers” and a subsequent investigation revealed additional
smuggling activities by the same customer (USDA-APHIS-PPQ, 2008c). People regard the mail
as private communication and do not expect scrutiny of the contents.
Available inspection technologies and methods are often not effective when used as the only
method. For example, x-ray technology is not effective for detecting dry items such as twigs,
leaves, or seeds, although it works well to detect items with high water content, such as fruit.
Similarly, detector dogs can be very good at finding hidden items, but they detect only those
materials for which they have been specifically trained, and they get tired after a certain amount
of time. The performance of human inspectors, as well, is not always reliable and tends to vary
considerably between individuals, time of day, and other factors.
The degree to which mail is inspected varies widely within the GCR. A few countries, such as
Jamaica (Schwartzburg and Robertson, 2008), the Dominican Republic (personal comm. Colmar
Serra), and Trinidad and Tobago (Bertone and Gutierrez, 2008) open and inspect virtually every
package that arrives. Jamaica also scans all outgoing packages (Schwartzburg and Robertson,
2008). At the international mail facility in Miami, Florida the only packages opened are those
that are suspect (based on x-ray or manual examination) or are considered high-risk based on
certain criteria. X-ray machines and detector dogs are often used (USDA-APHIS-PPQ, 2008d).
Martinique has lost the use of its mail sorting facility in Fort-de-France due to an earthquake in
November of 2007. The current replacement facility is a semi-open warehouse with rolling carts
for sorting packages. No x-ray machines are available for scanning packages (Ferguson and
Schwartzburg, 2008). In most countries, many quarantine items undoubtedly pass through the
mail without being intercepted. Mail from Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands entering the
United States is treated as domestic mail. Due to differences in CBP procedures, postal facility
procedures, and local practices, methods of inspecting mail may vary from port to port. Search
warrants are mandatory for opening domestic mail (USDA-APHIS-PPQ, 2008d), but are not
necessary for international mail.
Compared to some other pathways like the commercial importation of agricultural cargo, and
especially nursery stock, the mail pathway may pose a lesser phytosanitary risk. However, this
determination is based on very limited data, and more research is needed to adequately determine
the risk posed by the mail pathway. In the meantime, international mail is definitely not a
pathway that should be ignored.
56
Recommendations
Post educational information at public and private mail facilities to inform senders of
the potential economic and environmental impact of exotic species introductions and to
increase public awareness of phytosanitary regulations as they pertain to mail.
Conduct periodic data collection efforts (“blitzes”) at mail facilities. Carry out
statistically-sound data collection to answer specific questions. Consider region-wide
coordination and sharing of resources for carrying out blitzes. Share results region-wide.
Allow inspection of USPS first class mail in Puerto Rico before leaving to the United
States. The lack of authority to inspect first-class mail seriously undermines the
quarantine process. Establish a PPQ working group to devise a program that will permit
inspection of USPS first class mail in Puerto Rico before leaving to the United States.
Current regulations (7CFR318.13 and 7CFR318.58) allow for such actions. Hawaii has
developed a process for obtaining search warrants, allowing inspection of suspicious
first-class packages destined to the mainland United States. A detector dog is used to
establish probable cause.
Foster collaboration between customs officials, agricultural officials, mail facility
staff, and any other groups involved in mail handling and inspection.
•
Establish mail inspection systems in countries where they do not yet exist. This is
obviously a big and long-term undertaking that may not be immediately feasible
everywhere.
•
Implement package tracking and tracing technology at mail facilities. Improve public
and private mail systems, in particular the ability to track and trace parcels.
•
Increase the man-hours spent inspecting mail packages for quarantine materials, even
if only periodically.
•
Use appropriate inspection technology (e.g., x-ray systems) at mail facilities.
•
Use detector dogs at the mail facility.
•
Record data on pest interceptions in mail. Collect and archive data on pest and
quarantine material interceptions in mail. Ideally, the database or at least the format of the
database should be region-wide.
•
Create a regional bulletin or newsletter to share information about noteworthy pest
interceptions in mail, mail inspection methodologies, relevant meetings, etc.
•
Conduct surveillance of commercial internet sites. Quarantine materials (especially
propagative materials) are being sold and often smuggled through mail order. USDASITC has attempted a surveillance initiative (“AIMS”) and may be able to offer some
57
insights.
•
Organize a regional mail handler’s conference as a formum for sharing information,
ideas, strategies, technologies, etc. Hold mail inspector training meetings.
58
Chapter 4: Maritime Traffic
Introduction
In a region composed largely of island nations, maritime traffic obviously plays an important
role in transportation and may thus also be expected to play an important role in the spread of
exotic pests.
In the context of maritime traffic, there are several ways in which pests may be disseminated:
with commodities (both agricultural and non-agricultural); as hitchhikers on the vessels and
containers used for transport; and in the wood packaging material (WPM) accompanying the
commodities.
The pest risk associated with both hitchhikers and WPM is discussed in detail in other chapters
of this report.
The pest risks associated with commodities, while very possibly the most important threat, are
extremely hard to characterize due to the immense number of different commodities arriving
from all areas of the world, each likely to be associated with different pest species. Given that
legally traded commodities already receive attention from importing countries, and given that a
general process for commodity pest risk assessment is in place (IPPC, 2007) and must be
commodity- and origin-specific to be meaningful, we will not focus on commodities in this
chapter. Rather, we attempt here to give a general overview of maritime trade as it pertains to the
Greater Caribbean Region (GCR), pointing out some issues of special concern and providing a
general background to complement the information laid out in later chapters of this report.
Specifically, we will discuss the importance of the GCR as a “crossroads” of international trade
and the significance of undocumented “inter-island” trade.
Discussion
The GCR as a Crossroads of International Trade
The Caribbean Basin, bordered by 33 countries and located at the intersection of maritime trade
routes between North and South America and between the Eastern and Western hemispheres, is
an important location for facilitating world trade. By providing a connection between the Pacific
and the Atlantic, the Panama Canal plays an important role in funneling maritime traffic through
the Caribbean Sea.
Several maritime ports in the GCR are among the busiest ports in the world. The ports of San
Juan, Puerto Rico; Freeport in the Bahamas; Kingston, Jamaica; Houston, Texas; Miami, Florida
and Jacksonville, Florida in the United States; and Manzanillo and Coco Solo in Panama ranked
among the top 100 ports worldwide for highest container traffic in 2005 (Table 4.1) (Degerlund,
2007). As countries (or territories), the Bahamas, Colombia, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras,
59
Jamaica, Panama, Puerto Rico, and Venezuela are among the top 60 worldwide in terms of
container traffic handled (Table 4.2) (Degerlund, 2007).
The movement of cargo via maritime containers has steadily increased worldwide. Between
1995 and 2005, container traffic more than doubled in the GCR, reaching over 13 million
TEUs10 in 2005 (Ocean Shipping Consultants, 2006). Of these containers, about half were
handled by ports of the Caribbean islands, 40% by the other ports in the GCR, and about 7% by
ports on Central America’s Pacific seaboard. Figure 4.1 depicts container traffic between the
Caribbean and other regions of the world, showing a general increase in the number of containers
moving into and out of the GCR (Frankel, 2002). Several studies have predicted further positive
growth (De Monie et al., 1998, Ocean Shipping Consultants, 2006).
While the United States remains one of the main trading partners for the GCR, trade relations
between the Caribbean and other regions of the world have expanded. The importance of AsianPacific imports grew for El Salvador, Panama, Barbados, and Trinidad and Tobago (Devlin et
al., 2008). The average annual growth rate for imports into Central America between 1990 and
2003 was approximately 37% for China, 10% for Korea, 7% for Japan, and 14% from Brunei,
Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand combined (Devlin et al., 2008). There
has also been a 25% increase in value of imports from Asian-Pacific countries into Belize,
Barbados, Dominica, Grenada, Jamaica, St. Lucia, Trinidad and Tobago, and the Dominican
Republic. The majority of the exports from Asian-Pacific countries were manufactured goods.
Trade between South America, Central America, and the Caribbean island countries also
experienced growth between 1990 and 2003 (Devlin et al., 2008).
Maritime ports in several Caribbean countries are integral to the trade network, not necessarily
because they import or export a significant amount, but because they facilitate transshipment of
commodities. Transshipment refers to a process whereby cargo enters a port from one country, is
transferred to another conveyance, and then exits the port destined for another country.
Transshipment is practiced for various logistic and economic reasons. Many Caribbean ports
have neither the capability to receive large cargo vessels nor the trade volume that would make it
economical for large vessels to call. Also, transshipment is strategic in improving delivery times
of cargo, consolidating and deconsolidating cargo, enabling customization of cargo, rerouting of
cargo, and circumventing various country regulations (Frankel, 2002). Thus, small feeder vessels
pick up the cargo from a large ship at a hub port and distribute it from there (“hub-and-spoke
schema”) (De Monie et al., 1998). These feeder vessels are often managed by local and regional
carriers which transport a mix of containers and non-containerized goods, providing flexible
service to small ports (McCalla et al., 2005). Transshipment services are an important business
to many Caribbean ports.
Transshipment traffic accounted for 40% of total container throughput in the GCR in 2005 and is
expected to increase from around 8 million TEU in 2005 to 12 million TEU by 2010 (Ocean
Shipping Consultants, 2006).
From a standpoint of pest risk, transshipment activity is important in that it leads to much larger
numbers of vessels and cargo containers entering certain ports than would be the case for imports
10
Twenty-foot equivalent unit (TEU) = the equivalent of a twenty-foot cargo container
60
alone. Even though the commodities themselves are not entering the country of the hub port,
containers are unloaded from vessels and are often stored at the port for a certain amount of time.
This provides external hitchhiker pests with an opportunity to either leave from or attach
themselves to containers, or to move from one container to another. The risk is especially high if
container yards are not paved and if vegetation is close by. Lights at container yards are bound to
attract flying insects which may then end up on containers destined for a foreign country. Vessels
being loaded and unloaded at the port may also be bringing in and taking out hitchhiker pests.
The topic of hitchhiker pests is addressed in detail in a separate chapter of this report.
The following seven ports in the GCR have become major hubs for transshipment activity,
forming what is referred to as the Caribbean Transshipment Triangle (Hoffmann, 2001, McCalla
et al., 2005):
Colon (including the ports of Manzanillo, Coco Solo, and Balboa), Panama services the
Atlantic side of the Panama Canal. In 2002, over 75% of the traffic at this port was attributed
to transshipments (McCalla et al., 2005). Together with the port of Kingston, Jamaica, this
port handles the majority of transshipment cargo related to Central America, especially since
there is no dedicated shipping service between Central America and the countries of the
Caribbean Community and Common Market (CARICOM, comprised of Antigua and
Barbuda, the Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Dominica, Grenada, Guyana, Jamaica, Montserrat,
St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Suriname, and Trinidad and
Tobago) (Harding and Hoffmann, 2003, UNCTAD, 2005). Container traffic grew five-fold
between 1994 and 2002, increasing from 255 thousand TEU to 1.45 million TEU (McCalla et
al., 2005).
Freeport, Bahamas. Located near the East-West trade routes, including those that pass
through the Panama Canal between Europe and the east coast of the United States (Frankel,
2002, McCalla et al., 2005), this port is almost exclusively a transshipment facility (De
Monie et al., 1998, McCalla et al., 2005). The port transfers containers between mega
container ships to Panamax container ships (the largest vessel that can pass through the
Panama Canal) (Frankel, 2002). The port also handles cargo passing along the Central and
South American trade routes (Frankel, 2002) and some of the cargo passing between Central
America and CARICOM countries (Harding and Hoffmann, 2003). As of 2002, the port was
directly linked to 13 other Caribbean ports (McCalla et al., 2005).
Port-of-Spain, Trinidad intersects the north-south route, handling trade coming from the
east coast of South America. The port also handles cargo passing between Central American
countries and CARICOM countries (Harding and Hoffmann, 2003). Container traffic
increased from 129,000 TEU in 1994 to 290,000 TEU in 2004 (McCalla et al., 2005).
Around 51% of the containers arriving at the port are transshipped (McCalla et al., 2005).
Kingston, Jamaica. Located in the center of the GCR and close to the main shipping lines
(McCalla et al., 2005), the port of Kingston is the dominant hub port in the central Caribbean
and is dependent on transshipments as a source of business (McCalla et al., 2005). The port
of Kingston (along with ports along the Atlantic side of Panama) handles a majority of
transshipment cargo related to Central America (Harding and Hoffmann, 2003, UNCTAD,
61
2005). In 1997, the transshipment of containers at the port of Kingston accounted for
approximately 80-90% of the container movements at the port (De Monie et al., 1998).
Container throughput at the port of Kingston increased from 339 thousand TEU in 1994 to
1.065 million TEU in 2002 (McCalla et al., 2005).
Rio Haina, Dominican Republic. The Dominican Republic, located in the center of the
GCR, is in the vicinity of the main shipping lines (McCalla et al., 2005). The port of Rio
Haina is less dependent on transshipments as a source of business than other countries in the
GCR. The port handles transshipment cargo from Central America but tends to facilitate
movements to smaller CARICOM countries (Harding and Hoffmann, 2003). In 2005,
container traffic volume was reported at 268,000 TEU (Degerlund, 2007).
In addition, some emerging transshipment ports in the GCR are the Port of Caucedo, Dominican
Republic, and the Port of the Americas, Ponce, Puerto Rico. Several other ports in the region
handle a relatively small number of transshipments. If U.S. restrictions on Cuba are withdrawn, it
is speculated that ports in Cuba will emerge as important transshipment ports (McCalla et al.,
2005).
Table 4.4 shows the number of vessels arriving in Caribbean countries. Unfortunately, we were
not able to obtain data for all countries, nor was it possible to determine how many of the ships
were carrying transshipment cargo or what the types and sizes of the ships were.
Involvement of Small Vessels in Intra-Caribbean Trade
Intra-Caribbean trade is the movement of cargo between countries of the GCR. The shipped
commodities may either have been produced within the GCR, or may be products of other
countries transshipped from the first port of entry in the Caribbean to another Caribbean port.
Regardless of size, the majority of small vessels are involved in carrying fruits, vegetables and
individuals’ packages (Table 4.3).
“Inter-island transport is the province of an informal maritime transport sector, which is subject
to few regulations which are variably enforced by port authorities” (Boerne, 1999). In a survey,
77% of the vessel operators interviewed were using shipping agents to handle customs processes
and payments (Boerne, 1999). However, trade of fruits and vegetables often occurs without a
shipping agent. Instead, farmers sell their produce directly to an individual who then transports
the produce by small vessel to neighboring islands and sells it at the local market (Boerne, 1999).
While small vessels tend to operate in a particular trade, they are rarely limited to one particular
product. The length of the voyage is dictated by the type of trade rather than by the size of the
vessel (Boerne, 1999).
Small ships (less than 150 gross tonnage (GRT)), “on average [have a] maximum cargo capacity
of approximately 34.29 tons” and “the average cargo weight…of small vessels varies from 4.8
tons to 100 tons” (Boerne, 1999). For vessels under 150 GRT, between one and five TEUs can
be carried, depending on vessel size (Boerne, 1999). The exact number of small ships operating
in the Caribbean is not known; in fact, it is even difficult to estimate. Boerne (1999) estimated
62
the number of small ships (less than 150 GRT) operating throughout the insular Caribbean to be
around 200. The United Nations estimated around 400 to 500 small vessels operated throughout
the Caribbean region; however, this estimate included vessels larger than 150 GRT (Boerne,
1999). Insufficient records and the spatial arrangement of maritime authorities in insular
countries contribute to the shortage of data on inter-island vessel movement.
Characterization of Small Vessel Activity in Select Countries
Trinidad has a major transshipment operation, accepting cargo from throughout the world,
which is then transferred to smaller vessels for distribution to other Caribbean countries. In fact,
Port-of-Spain, Trinidad, is one of the most important small vessel ports in the region (Boerne,
1999). Shipments are mostly comprised of manufactured goods, including products
manufactured in Trinidad. Vessel movement (at least in 1999) is primarily to Grenada and St.
Vincent, but vessels have been reported to travel as far north as St. Maarten (Boerne, 1999).
Upon return, small vessels bear agricultural commodities, such as fresh fruit and vegetables,
spices, and even shipments of timber from Guyana (Boerne, 1999). Small vessels arrive at Portof-Spain from St. Vincent, St. Lucia, Guyana, Barbados, and especially Grenada (Bertone and
Gutierrez, 2008). Tobago receives small cargo vessels twice a day from Trinidad and no
quarantine checks exist between Trinidad and Tobago (Bertone and Gutierrez, 2008). In 1999,
exports to Jamaica ranked the highest at 1.4 million tons of cargo (not necessarily limited to
small vessels) (CEPAL/ECLAC, 2001). The packaging of shipments arriving with small vessels
varies greatly from loose boxes to palletized cargo (Bertone and Gutierrez, 2008). Reshipment of
pallets from Jamaica and Bahamas requires fumigation prior to entry into Trinidad (Bertone and
Gutierrez, 2008). Illegal trade with Venezuela is considered to be a pathway for the introduction
of invasive species and a difficult pathway to control given the close proximity of the country to
Trinidad (Bertone and Gutierrez, 2008). It is speculated that the fungus Mycosphaerella fijiensis
(Ascomycetes: Mycosphaerellales), which causes black Sigatoka disease on banana, was
introduced to Trinidad from Venezuela through illegal trade via small vessels (Bertone and
Gutierrez, 2008). In the past, restrictions have been placed on cargo imported from Caribbean
islands into Trinidad via small vessels due to quarantine pests (Boerne, 1999).
St. Maarten re-exports manufactured goods, such as electrical items from the United States and
Europe, with islands to the south via small vessels. St. Maarten has a large tourist industry, and
given its lack of natural resources, such as water, it is necessary to import fruits and vegetables,
among other things, to sustain human activity. It is estimated that 48% of the small vessels
operating between the Caribbean islands stop at St. Maarten (Boerne, 1999). The Port of
Phillipsburg, St. Maarten (Netherlands Antilles) handles approximately 1,600 tons of cargo per
month from (on average) 40 small vessels making call. Cargo includes primarily perishable
products, such as fruits and vegetables. Small vessels commonly arrive from St. Vincent and the
islands under United Kingdom authority (in the immediate vicinity this includes Anguilla,
Montserrat, and U.K. Virgin Islands; further away is Turks and Caicos) (Boerne, 1999).
Saint Martin (French). The Port of Galisbay at Marigot is the main shipping port. On average,
60 small vessels make call per month and transport approximately 750 tons of cargo. Most of the
63
small vessels arrive from islands under United Kingdom authority. Cargo includes perishable
food products, electronic equipment, and manufactured goods (Boerne, 1999).
St. Kitts. The Port of Basseterre at St. Christopher receives about 225 tons of cargo per month
from (on average) 28 small vessels. Imports include fruit from Dominica, general cargo from
Puerto Rico, and electronics and other general cargo from St. Maarten. The island exports around
475 tons per month via small vessels, mostly concrete blocks and dairy products to Anguilla and
Statia, and gas to Antigua.
Dominica. The Ports of Roseau and Portsmouth combined receive 60 small vessel calls per
month. The amount of cargo handled by these vessels is not recorded, but estimates suggest that
1,110 tons are exported and 150 tons imported per month. Imports are mainly manufactured
goods and electrical items (Boerne, 1999).
St. Lucia. The Ports of Castries and Vieux Fort are used by small vessels. In 1997, 750 tons of
cargo, mainly fruits and vegetables, were shipped per month (it wasn’t clear if this was the value
of imports only or included exports) via (on average) 23 small vessels (Boerne, 1999).
Barbados. Small vessels call at the Port in Bridgetown. It is estimated that approximately 20
small vessels call, carrying approximately 700 tons per month of both imports and exports
(Boerne, 1999). Details on the imports and exports were not provided.
St. Vincent and the Grenadines. The Port of Kingstown receives approximately 1,000 tons of
cargo and exports approximately 150 tons of cargo per month. On average, 20 small vessels call
per month. Small vessel transport is essential to this country, since it is comprised of nine
islands. Fruits and vegetables are the principal exports. Imports are primarily comprised of
manufactured goods, building materials, and processed food products (Boerne, 1999).
Grenada. The Port of St. George’s and the Port in Carricou received approximately 1,200 tons
of cargo per month in 1997, transported by small vessels. Around 51 small vessels call at
Grenada per month, servicing ports that are unable to handle large vessels. Small vessels were
responsible for carrying 4% of the total imports into Grenada; likewise, they were responsible for
carrying 3% of the total exports. Imports were comprised of manufactured goods, building
materials, and processed food products. Exports were comprised of fruits and vegetables, spices,
and seafood (Boerne, 1999).
Guatemala. At the Port of Quetzal (Pacific side), small boats and private vessels are not
inspected. They are only checked by port authority and immigration (Customs). Small boats can
dispose of garbage at the port only if they provide sufficient advance notice; otherwise, they are
not permitted to unload garbage (Meissner and Schwartzburg, 2008).
Summary
Maritime traffic is increasing in the GCR and is expected to continue to increase. The United
States is a primary trading partner in the region; however, trade with other countries, including
64
those in Asia and Europe, has expanded. At several ports, the establishment of transshipment
services accounts for much of the increase in sea container traffic.
Tracking of intra-Caribbean trade is difficult and the level of regulation and record keeping
varies greatly from country to country. It is possible that the movement of commodities between
island countries through smaller vessels may be a means of moving pests between these
countries.
Agricultural and non-agricultural shipments, cargo containers, and vessels themselves have been
reported to be pathways for the movement of pests, pathogens, and weeds. Soil contaminants
may also harbor unwanted organisms. The exact correlation between the increase in maritime
and container traffic into and within the GCR and the introduction rate of pests, pathogens,
weeds, and soil contaminants is not known.
Recommendations
Focus safeguarding efforts on the major transshipment ports for cargo from outside
of the GCR. The major transshipment ports (Colon, Panama; Kingston, Jamaica; Port-ofSpain, Trinidad) are where most of the cargo arrives from all over the world to be
distributed within the GCR by small vessels. Focusing safeguarding efforts on these
locations would require dealing with fewer entities (ports, ships, etc.) and may thus be
easier and more efficient.
Monitor inter-island trade via small vessels. Little data is available on inter-island
trade, including the transshipment of cargo from one country to another via small vessels.
Determine what commodities are being shipped, as well as their quantity, country of
origin, country of destination, and the incidence of wood packaging material.
Implement risk communication strategies to educate local residents and business
owners on the pest risks associated with trade. Suggest specific strategies they can
employ to reduce the risk of pest introduction.
65
Chapter 5: Hitchhiker Pests
Introduction
In the context of this document, we define a hitchhiker pest as an agricultural plant pest (insect,
pathogen, mollusk, plant, etc.) which is moved to a different location not in association with a
host commodity, but either in a commodity that is not a host, or on/in the conveyance (airplane,
maritime vessel, etc.) or shipping container used for transport. This definition is different from
the one provided in the glossary of phytosanitary terms of the International Plant Protection
Convention (IPPC, 2007), which considers “hitchhiker” synonymous with “contaminating pest”
but includes in this definition only pests carried by commodities, without providing a term for
pests being carried directly on a conveyance or container.
Hitchhiker pests may arrive in or on a non-host commodity, conveyance, or container either by
pure chance (e.g., weed seeds that fall off of shoes) or, more commonly, because they are
attracted by certain physical or chemical conditions. For example, flying insects may be attracted
by lights during nighttime loading (Caton, 2003b, Fowler et al., 2008); insects or mollusks may
find shelter on or in cargo containers; etc. Pests that were originally associated with a host
commodity may be left behind in a container or conveyance after unloading, thus becoming
hitchhiker pests.
The scientific literature mentions numerous cases of hitchhiker pests that have arrived in new
areas in cargo holds, aircraft cabins, maritime vessels, or shipping containers. For example, four
species of Noctuidae and several species of Coleoptera and Homoptera are thought to have
arrived in Guam in aircraft holds or cabins (Schreiner, 1991); the Oriental fruit fly, Bactrocera
dorsalis (Diptera: Tephritidae), is believed to have been brought to Hawaii in military aircraft
(Swain, 1952); the psyllid Heteropsylla cubana (Hemiptera: Psyllidae) was carried to Hawaii in
the holds of cargo planes (Schreiner, 1991); and the red imported fire ant, Solenopsis invicta
(Hymenoptera: Formicidae), was introduced into the United States in ship ballast (USDA,
2008a).
Sea cargo containers are suspected as the pathway of introduction for the painted apple moth,
Teia anartoides (Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae), the southern saltmarsh mosquito, Ochlerotatus
camptorhynchus (Diptera: Culicidae), and the varroa bee mite, Varroa jacobsoni (Acari:
Varroidae), into New Zealand (MAF, 2003). The giant African snail, Achatina fulica
(Pulmonata: Achatinidae), and Asian gypsy moth, Lymantria dispar (Lepidoptera:
Lymantriidae), as well as snakes, have also been found associated with sea containers entering
New Zealand ports (MAF, 2003).
The objective of this chapter is to discuss the likelihood of exotic hitchhiker pest movement into
and within the GCR. Specifically, it addresses the following questions a) How common is the
presence of hitchhiker pests? b) How likely are hitchhiker pests to survive transport? and c) How
likely are hitchhiker pests to escape detection?
66
Discussion
Prevalence of Hitchhiker Pests
Aircraft. A number of scientific publications report interceptions of live pests in aircraft cabins
and cargo holds. Goh et al. (1985) found that of 330 aircraft cabins examined at Changi
International Airport, Singapore, 56 (17%) harbored insects. In a five-year study at the Manila
International Airport in the Philippines, Basie et al. (1970) inspected over 14,000 airplanes,
detecting 700 insects, the majority of which were dead mosquitoes. Evans et al. (1963) inspected
the cabins and baggage compartments of over 1,800 aircraft entering Miami, Florida and found
1,700 arthropod specimens belonging to 68 families and 12 orders. The average number of
arthropods per aircraft was 0.02 for baggage compartments, and 0.81 for cabins. A large
proportion of the arthropods collected were species attracted to light. Rainwater (1963) found
live agricultural pests on 0.6% of aircraft arriving in Hawaii from foreign countries. Table 5.1
lists reportable pests intercepted in aircraft cargo holds at U.S. ports of entry between January 1,
1997 and December 31, 2007.
In a 1998-99 controlled study conducted at the Miami International Airport (MIA), inspections
of the cockpit, galleys, exterior of palletized cargo, and cargo holds of 730 randomly selected
cargo aircraft from foreign origins resulted in the detection of 151 live hitchhiking insects from
33 families in five orders, along with one plant pathogen (Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. citri)
(Dobbs and Brodel, 2004). The study provides approach rates by country of origin, as well as
estimates of about 10% of all foreign cargo aircraft and 23% of cargo aircraft from Central
American countries arriving at MIA with live hitchhiking pests of quarantine significance.
In another study, Caton (2003b) reported an average of two flights daily arriving at MIA from
Central and South America with quarantine pests in their cargo holds, estimating that one pest
species per year may become established in Florida as a result of this pathway.
While the studies listed above provide some general indication of the pest risk associated with
airplanes, they do not give us precise approach rates to estimate the number of annual pest
introductions for the GCR overall or for specific locations within the region (with the exception
of MIA). Approach rates are almost certainly different for cargo planes versus passenger planes.
Approach rates should vary between countries of origin; as the proportion of countries of origin
differs between destination airports, it follows that approach rates should be different for
different destinations as well.
Another factor determining the number of airplane-related hitchhiker introductions is the number
of airplanes arriving. Unfortunately, this information is very difficult to obtain. Table 5.2 lists
the number of arrivals for those Caribbean nations for which data was available; it does not
distinguish between passenger and cargo planes.
Maritime vessels. Like airplanes, maritime vessels—both cargo and cruise ships—can harbor
hitchhiker pests. Ship decks, holds, and stores have been found contaminated with live pest
organisms, including species of Miridae, Cerambycidae, Curculionidae, Flatidae, and
Scarabaeidae (Table 5.3) (USDA, 2008d). In 2007, some 15,000 ship inspections conducted at
67
marine ports in the U.S. states of Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas resulted in
over 4,000 plant quarantine material interceptions from ship stores and quarters (USDA, 2008f).
Our team of analysts was able to observe insects and soil contaminations on a small vessel from
Haiti moving up the Miami River (Lemay et al., 2008). Experts also reported that “ship decks are
sometimes covered with pests.” PPQ no longer fumigates ship decks, and this pathway is thought
by some experts to present a significant risk (Lemay et al., 2008). Due to the immense size of
maritime vessels and the time constraints under which phytosanitary inspections take place, it is
very unlikely that hitchhiker pests on vessels will be detected. Therefore, we cannot quantify the
frequency of hitchhiker pests occurring on ships, nor do we know whether certain vessel types
are more prone to pest contamination than others.
Data is equally scarce regarding statistics of maritime vessel movement. Table 5.4 lists available
information on the number of vessel arrivals by country. Panama and the United States reported
by far the most vessel calls. Port statistics often do not separate vessel types (i.e., container
vessels, break bulk cargo vessels, petroleum-carrying vessels) all reported in the same category.
Container vessels often make numerous port calls, loading and unloading containers. It is not
known if multiple port calls increase the risk of pest contamination for vessels or if vessels that
make numerous port calls are more likely to play a role in the distribution of pests between
countries.
Shipping containers. Like conveyances,
shipping containers may harbor
hitchhikers. Shipping containers vary in
size and shape and may be composed of
plastic, metal, or a composite of materials.
The type of shipping container used
depends on the mode of transportation.
Standard twenty- and forty-foot containers
(Image 5.1) are used in maritime
shipping. Air cargo containers can be
specialized to fit a particular type of
Image 5.1 Twenty- and forty-foot commercial
aircraft and are typically smaller and
shipping containers (image source:
lighter in weight (Image 5.2); however,
Gallmeister Internationale Spedition,
some aircraft can accommodate standard
http://www.ingo-gallmeister.de).
twenty- or forty-foot containers. Pests,
including arthropods, mollusks, and weeds, have been found on the outside and inside of
shipping containers (Gadgil et al., 2000, Stanaway et al., 2001, Gadgil et al., 2002, MAF, 2003).
Soil, which can harbor fungi, nematodes, seeds, etc., has also been detected on containers
(Gadgil et al., 2000). The risk of containers being internally or externally contaminated varies
with the country of origin, time of shipping, storage and handling of containers, and other factors
(MAF, 2003).
68
Image 5.2 Examples of air cargo containers. Air shipping containers differ in size and shape (left
and center) and may not be completely enclosed (right) (image source: United Postal Service,
http://www.ups.com).
In a four-sided (excluding the tops and bottoms), external survey of sea cargo containers arriving
in New Zealand, soil was the main external contaminant and was found on an estimated 3.6% of
loaded and 1.3% of empty containers (MAF, 2003).
Gadgil et al. (2000) inspected the exterior of 3,681 shipping containers arriving at New Zealand
maritime ports and found soil on 31% of the containers, mostly on the underside of the
containers. Of the containers contaminated with soil, 63% carried a low amount (10-50 g), 29% a
medium amount (50-500 g), and 8% a large amount (>500 g) of soil. Fungi of taxa containing
plant pathogens were isolated from 83% of the soil samples; species of Fusarium were
commonly isolated. Nematodes were isolated from 81% of the soil samples. Foliage and woody
material were the next most common contaminant. Egg masses of the Asian gypsy moth,
Lymantria dispar (Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae), were found on two of the shipping containers. In
another study, species of Pseudomonas were isolated from soil collected from sea cargo
containers entering New Zealand (Godfrey and Marshall, 2002). Gadgil et al. (2000) estimated
that containers from South Africa had the highest rate of contamination (50%), followed by the
Pacific Islands (47.5%). Containers from the Far East, Japan, and East Asia had a contamination
rate of 13%.
Internal contamination of soil, seeds, live insects/spiders, and/or plant material was found in
approximately 21% of loaded and 18% of empty sea cargo containers arriving in New Zealand.
Viable insects were present in 14.8% of loaded and 6.5% of empty containers (MAF, 2003).
In a different study involving sea cargo containers arriving at Australian ports, Stanaway et al.
(2001) surveyed wooden components of the containers for pests, in particular timber-infesting
insects. A total of 7,861 arthropods (1,339 of which were alive and were found in 6% of the
containers) were found during the inspection of 3,001 containers. Although no live exotic
timber-feeding insects were found in the wooden floors, insects with the potential to infest
timber were found in just over 3% of the containers, suggesting that timber dunnage was the
source of the infestation. In addition, 11% of the containers were contaminated with insects
considered to be stored-product pests. The authors concluded that the risk associated with
untreated wooden components of containers is not negligible because of the high volume of
container traffic and the frequency with which containers come in contact with timber pests.
69
Air cargo containers arriving at airports in New Zealand were inspected by Gadgil et al. (2002),
who found that the exterior, including the bottom, of the containers was generally clean (only
0.8% of the containers had external contamination), whereas on the inside, they found
contaminants, mostly fresh leaves and twigs (24% of the cases). Fungi were found in soil
contaminations on 3% of the examined containers. The detection of fresh plant material
containing pests, coupled with the fact that newly introduced pests have been found in close
vicinity to airports, led the authors to conclude that air cargo containers may provide a pathway
by which exotic organisms can become established.
In the United States, pests of agricultural significance, including insects, mollusks, and weeds,
have been intercepted on or in cargo containers (Table 5.3), regardless of the containers’
contents. Taxa of agricultural significance intercepted on or in containers include crickets
(Orthoptera: Gryllidae), which tend to be polyphagous, with some species being important
agricultural pests (CABI, 2007). Several lepidopteran families have also been detected on
containers, including Pyralidae, Gelechiidae, Limacodidae, and Pieridae. Several genera of
Limacodidae are pests of coconut (Cocos nucifera), cocoa (Theobroma cacao), and banana
(Musa sp.), which are commodities of economic importance in the GCR (CABI, 2007). The
family Pieridae also contains many important crop pests. The cabbage caterpillar, Pieris
brassicae (Lepidoptera: Pieridae), which was intercepted on a container, is not reported to be
present in the GCR. This pest feeds on cruciferous crops and has been reported to cause
significant damage during years of high population buildup. Migrations have been reported to
occur (CABI, 2007). Also, intercepted on containers were chrysomelid beetles, which tend to be
good fliers and often are agricultural pests. For example, the intercepted species Aulacophora
indica (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) is not known to occur in the GCR and has caused melon
crop failures in Indonesia (CABI, 2007). Beetles belonging to the families Scarabaeidae and
Curculionidae (including Scolytid beetles), both of which contain devastating pest species, have
also been found on containers.
Ants are of extreme concern. Tramp ant species, such as the red imported fire ant, Solenopsis
invicta, or the Argentine ant, Linepithema humile (Hymenoptera: Formicidae), are ideally suited
to spread as hitchhikers, being able to move their colonies easily and swiftly, to tolerate a wide
range of environmental conditions, and to colonize new areas with amazing success.
Terrestrial mollusks are frequently
intercepted hitchhikers at U.S. ports of
entry (Image 5.3). They are typically
polyphagous and many have been
classified as general agricultural pests. In
November of 2007, four species of
mollusks were detected on a single
shipment of ceramic ties from Spain at
the port of San Juan, Puerto Rico (CBP,
2007). Examples of mollusks intercepted
on containers that are not known to be
established or are of limited distribution
in the GCR are:
Image 5.3 Snails on containers at the port of
Wilmington, North Carolina, USA. Source:
(Robinson et al., 2008).
70
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Species of Candidula, including C. intersecta (Hygromiidae)
Calcisuccinea sp. (Succineidae)
Cathaica fasciola (Bradybaenidae)
Species of Cernuella, including C. cisalpina and C. virgata (Hygromiidae)
Species of Cochlicella, including C. acuta (Cochlicellidae)
Species of Deroceras, including D. panormitanum (Agriolimacidae)
Granodomus lima (Pleurodontidae)
Species of Helicopsis (Hygromiidae)
Species of Helix (H. lucorum is a synonym of H. aspersa, which is reported in the U.S.
states of Texas and Louisiana, and Haiti (CABI, 2007)
Microxeromagna armillata (Hygromiidae)
Species of Monacha, including M. cartusiana and M. syriaca (Hygromiidae)
Species of Otala, including O. punctata (Helicidae) (suspected to be present in the U.S.
state of Florida (Mienis, 1999))
Prietocella barbara (Cochlicellidae)
Theba pisana (Helicidae)
Species of Trochoidea, including T. pyramidata (Hygromiidae)
Xerolenta obvia (Hygromiidae)
Species of Xeropicta, including X. derbentina (Hygromiidae)
Species of Xerosecta, including X. cespinum (Hygromiidae)
Xerotricha apicina, X. conspurcata (Hygromiidae)
In 2005, the GCR handled over 17 million twenty-foot equivalents (TEU)11 of containers, loaded
or empty, arriving or departing, at its maritime ports (Table 5.5). This is a rough estimate
because not all locations reported TEU movement12. Unfortunately, not all ports report arriving
and departing containers as separate categories,
nor is it usually specified if the containers are
being transshipped.
Transshipped containers enter a country through
one port, are then loaded onto a different vessel,
and exit for their final destination in a different
country. The logistics of maritime trade in the
Caribbean make transshipment a very common
occurrence. Hitchhiker pest introduction may
conceivably be facilitated by transshipment if
containers are unloaded and stored at a port
between vessel transports, as this would give
Image 5.4 Container yard in Costa Rica.
11
TEU stands for twenty foot/feet equivalent units and is used to quantify containers, i.e., 1 x 40 feet = 2 TEU; 1 x
20 feet = 1 TEU.
12
Countries where container traffic data for 2005 was not available for one or more ports: Belize, Bonaire,
Dominica, Grenada, Guyana, Haiti, Montserrat, St. Maartin, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Suriname, and Turks
and Caicos Islands. For those countries where data for 2005 was missing, data from the most recent year was used as
an estimate. These countries are Anguilla, Antigua and Barbuda, British Virgin Islands, Guyana, Martinique, St.
Kitts and Nevis, and U.S. Virgin Islands.
71
external hitchhikers an opportunity to leave the container and encounter favorable habitat.
Gadgil et al. (2000) estimated an approach rate of 23.4% (95% binomial confidence interval of
21.7 – 24.3%) for sea cargo containers arriving at New Zealand ports with external
contamination of plant pests, pathogens, or soil containing plant pests or pathogens. In another
study, 24.4% of loaded containers and 18.9% of empty containers entered New Zealand with
contamination on the exterior or interior of the containers (MAF, 2003). Based on the approach
rate estimated by Gadgil et al. (2000) and data on container movement, we calculated the
expected number of contaminated sea cargo containers entering countries within the GCR (Table
5.5). Since most ports in the GCR report container traffic in the number of twenty-footequivalent units (TEUs) rather than number of containers, we had to convert TEUs to actual
numbers of containers. We assumed an 80:20 ratio of number of forty-foot to number of twentyfoot containers, based on data provided by those ports which reported the number of arriving
twenty- and forty-foot containers separately (Panama: Chiriqui Grande Terminal, Colon
Container Terminal, Cristobal, and Manzanillo International Terminal; Guadeloupe; Nicaragua:
Corinto; and St. Lucia: Port Castries and Port Vieux-Fort).
All other factors being equal, ports receiving a higher number of containers are at a higher risk of
hitchhiker pest introduction. Overall, an annual 7 million containers are entering ports of the
GCR, and we estimate 1.6 million of them to be contaminated with plant pests or pathogens
(Table 5.5). Even though this is by no means an exact number, it nevertheless provides a general
idea of the extent of the pest risk posed by maritime containers alone, regardless of their
contents.
In summary, pest interception records at ports of entry in the United States, as well as controlled
research studies, show that live hitchhiker pests are found on containers and conveyances.
Several reports in the scientific literature have strongly implicated that pests, such as Asian
gypsy moth, red imported fire ant, or land mollusks (Cowie and Robinson, 2003), have been
introduced into new areas as hitchhiker pests.
Survival of Hitchhiker Pests During Transport
Pest survival in conveyances and containers depends on the combined effects of various
environmental conditions (e.g., temperature and relative humidity) and the duration of transport.
In modern commercial aircraft, cargo holds are pressurized and heated, generally maintaining a
temperature of about 15°C (60°F) (Mikolajczak and Moore, 2001, Anonymous, 2007) with a
normal temperature range of -1°C to 21°C (30°F to 70°F) (Anonymous, 2008a). Even when the
temperature is not actively controlled, the hold temperatures after about 8 hours of flying at
altitude are approximately 7°C (45°F) in some types of planes (Anonymous, 2007). Aircraft
cargo holds may be cooled to accommodate perishable cargo, such as fruits, vegetables, and live
plants, but these temperatures would not be lethal to most plant pests. Cargo holds of aircraft
parked in freezing or hot weather will be subject to cold or heat conditions (Anonymous, 2008a).
72
A study by Russell (1987) reported very high survival rates of mosquitoes, Culex
quinquefasciatus (Diptera: Culicidae), house flies, Musca domestica (Diptera: Muscidae), and
flour beetles, Tribolium confusum (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae) in unpressurized wheel bays of
modern Boeing 747B at altitudes greater than 10,500 m. The study found that the temperature in
the wheel bays ranged from 8°C to 25°C, even though the outside temperature was between
-42°C and -54°C. Aircraft disinfection, while employed by some countries to reduce the spread
of mosquitoes and other human disease vectors (CDC, 2007), is not uniformly performed. For
example, the United States does not disinfect arriving aircraft (Kosciuk, 2007).
Pests located in outdoor areas of maritime vessels (e.g., on ship decks), are exposed to the
environmental and climatic conditions experienced at sea, including sea spray. However, pests
may be protected by crevices and other sheltered areas. Certain life stages of the pest, such as
insect pupae, plant seeds, encapsulated nematodes, etc., tend to exhibit much higher tolerance of
environmental conditions than active life stages. Transit duration is especially likely to play a
role in pest survival for pests hitchhiking on the outside of unsheltered sea cargo containers or
ship surfaces. The environmental conditions found in temperature-controlled cargo holds of
maritime vessels or refrigerated containers that transport fresh fruits or vegetables or live plants
would be above freezing to prevent damage to the commodity contained within. Transit times
tend to be relatively short, ranging between a few hours for air transport to two weeks for longerdistance maritime transport. For example, maritime transit from the port of Limon in Costa Rica
takes two-three days to Florida, five days to New Jersey or Canada and 12 days to Europe.
Added to this must be the length of time the commodity is stored prior to shipment to the
maritime port, transit time to the maritime port, and storage times at the port prior to vessel
loading. In most cases, fresh agricultural commodities would be refrigerated during the entire
duration of transit to ensure good quality of the product. However, most insects, plant pathogens,
and mollusks would be able to survive this length of time at the prevailing storage temperatures
of 3-7°C. In comparison, USDA-approved cold treatment schedules against fruit flies prescribe
2°C or lower for 14-22 days, depending on fruit fly species and commodity involved. Cold
treatment against the pecan weevil, Curculio caryae (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), requires 0°C
for seven days (USDA, 2008g).
The fact that numerous interceptions of live hitchhiker pests have been recorded at U.S. ports of
entry demonstrates that many arthropods, mollusks, weed seeds, and plant pathogens are able to
survive the prevailing transit conditions on or in aircraft, maritime vessels, and containers.
Detection of Hitchhiker Pests
According to data of the U.S. federal government (USDA, 2008d), 38,059 commercial cargo
aircraft inspections were carried out at MIA during 2005-07, resulting in 677 interceptions of
live plant pests of U.S. quarantine significance. This means that quarantine pests were found in at
most 2% of the inspected airplanes. These inspections were routine port-of-entry inspections
with no clear guidelines on inspection procedures. It is unclear what parts of the airplanes
(underbellies, cabins, etc.) were inspected. In contrast, the controlled 1998-99 study by Dobbs
and Brodel (2004) mentioned above resulted in an estimate of 10% of all foreign aircraft arriving
in MIA with live plant pests of quarantine significance. Even though there is a nearly ten-year
73
difference between these data sets, the discrepancy between these numbers may be a sign that
phytosanitary inspections miss a large portion of the pests present.
There are several different reasons for this: First, the level of available staff and resources often
is not sufficient for inspecting the immense number of incoming conveyances and containers,
requiring ports of entry to focus on items considered as high-risk (Lemay et al., 2008). Second,
the amount of time available for inspection is often very short, as seen with some cruise ships
that dock in the morning to depart again in the afternoon (Lemay et al., 2008). Third, the large
size and complex shape of airplanes and ships makes it very easy for pests to remain hidden and
makes inspections very difficult. The task of inspecting a container vessel with a carrying
capacity of over 8,000 containers is clearly very daunting. Furthermore, there are logistical
challenges. For example, thorough inspection of the interior of a container entails removing all
the cargo from the container and storing it during inspection. Given the perishable nature of
some cargo, temperature-regulated storage facilities may be required. Access to the bottom of
containers is restricted when equipment to lift the container is not available. It is not surprising
that tailgate or door inspection comprises the majority of the inspections carried out at U.S. ports
of entry (Lemay et al., 2003, Meissner et al., 2003, Lemay et al., 2008). A study conducted at
ports in New Zealand found that one-fifth of containers where tailgate inspection did not result in
pest detection were found to be contaminated with pests upon more detailed inspection (MAF,
2003). The authors concluded that tailgate inspection only detected a small percentage of the
containers arriving with live organisms (MAF, 2003). The same study also found that 15% of
container contaminations occurred on the undersides of containers and will therefore not be
detected with only a four-sided inspection (MAF, 2003).
Other factors impeding pest detection include:
• the size of the pest (minute pests are extremely likely to escape detection);
• quality and availability of inspection facilities and equipment;
• training level of the inspectors;
• competing work priorities for inspectors (e.g., having to choose between focusing
inspections on drugs versus pests); and
• human factors (e.g., fatigue, lack of motivation, poor eyesight).
For procedural reasons, certain pest categories such as plant pathogenic bacteria and viruses, and
nematodes are almost never identified and recorded at U.S. ports of entry.
Given the numerous impediments to intercepting hitchhiker pests, it is likely that a large portion
of the pests arriving regularly on conveyances and containers at ports of entry in the GCR escape
detection.
Recommendations
Encourage loading of vessels during times when the likelihood of pest entry is
lowest. For example, avoid nighttime loading because lights attract some major groups of
quarantine-significant insects.
74
Clean containers and conveyances. Evaluate effectiveness of currently used or
available cleaning methods and make changes as appropriate.
Place traps on maritime vessels (commercial and cruise ships) to catch insects and
possibly mollusks present on vessels. Coordinate and share data throughout region.
Ensure that traps do not attract pests onto the ship (e.g., place lures/turn on trapping lights
etc. only after ship is far enough from land). CISWG could be instrumental in
coordinating the development of a trapping plan, possibly in coorperation with the U.S.
Cooperative Agricultural Pest Survey (CAPS) Program and risk advisory groups such as
BTAG and CRAG.
Monitor areas on and near the perimeter of the ports regularly for introduced pests
of particular interest (Robinson et al., 2008). To reduce costs, employ the help of amateur
taxonomists, university students, and qualified volunteers. Avoid attracting pests into the
area (e.g., through lures, lights, etc.).
Inspect empty containers, as well as containers with cargo.
Minimize pest contamination on containers by:
o Minimizing time of container storage outdoors
o Avoiding container storage on soil and near vegetation
o Avoiding night-time lighting of outdoor storage areas
o Cleaning storage areas on a regular basis
o Cleaning inside and outside of containers after and before each use
•
Support studies to increase our understanding of the prevalence of hitchhikers on
transshipped containers. Focus on major maritime ports and airports that receive cargo
from outside of the GCR. Evaluate likelihood of hitchhiker to be carried to final cargo
destination given the current cargo handling procedures.
75
Chapter 6: Wood Packaging Material
Introduction
Wood packaging material (WPM) is used worldwide in shipments of both agricultural and nonagricultural products and includes dunnage, crating, pallets, packing blocks, drums, cases, and
skids. WPM has been recognized as an important pathway for exotic species introductions
(Pasek, 2000, Allen and Humble, 2002). Pests intercepted on WPM at U.S. ports of entry over
the past 20 years include Anoplophora chinensis and A. glabripennis (Coleoptera:
Cerambycidae), Ips typographus (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae), Hylastes ater
(Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae), Monochamus sp. (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae),
Trichoferus campestris (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) (USDA, 2008d), Agrilus planipennis
(Coleoptera: Buprestidae) (McCullough et al., 2007), and Xyleborus glabratus (Coleoptera:
Cucurlionidae: Scolytinae) (Fraedrich et al., 2007). In a recent study in China, various species of
plant pathogenic nematodes of the genus Bursaphelenchus (Nematoda: Aphelenchoididae),
including the pine wood nematode, B. xylophilus, were detected in WPM from 25 countries (Gu
et al., 2006).
WPM is believed to have been the pathway for several exotic pest introductions worldwide,
including the pine wood nematode in Portugal, the wood boring beetles Sinoxylon anale and S.
senegalensis (Coleoptera: Bostrichidae) in Brazil (Teixera et al., 2002), the pine shoot beetle,
Tomicus piniperda (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae) in eastern North America (Haack,
2001), and the Asian longhorned beetle, Anoplophora glabripennis (Coleoptera; Cerambycidae)
in New York and Chicago (Bugwood, 1998). An African species of Bostrichidae, Sinoxylon
conigerum, which was found to be present on teak and mango trees in Brazil in 2006, had been
previously intercepted in Sweden in 2002 on wood pallets imported from Brazil (Filho et al.,
2006).
There are no regulations specifying the type of wood to use for WPM, and it is common to use
low-grade or scrap wood to reduce cost (Pasek, 2000). Some bark and portions of the vascular
cambium often remain on scrap lumber, providing a suitable habitat for bark beetles and their
symbionts. Each piece of WPM may consist of one or more of any woody plant species and may
be made from fresh-cut or seasoned lumber. Clark et al. (2001) list over 80 tree species as being
used as raw material for pallets in the United States. Bush et al. (2002) report that hardwood
species accounted for about two-thirds of the total wood used for pallets during the 1990s. Of
these, about half were an unsorted mix of hardwood species, one-third were species of oak, and
yellow poplar accounted for approximately 10%. Of the softwood used by the U.S. pallet
industry, nearly half were southern pine; hemlock and Douglas fir accounted for about 10% each,
and a mixture of spruce, pine, and fir for about a quarter of all softwood. Wood (e.g., radiata pine
and eucalyptus) for pallets may also be imported—often at a lower cost than domestic species—
from countries such as New Zealand, Brazil, and Chile (Bush et al., 2002).
WPM is frequently reused and reconditioned. Damaged or otherwise unusable pallets are
disassembled for the wood parts, which are then used to either repair damaged pallets or to build
76
reassembled pallets. In 1995, 18% of old pallets were recycled in this way (Clarke et al., 2001).
In 1995, recovered wood accounted for close to 27% of total wood use (both new and
recovered). By 1999, recovered wood use had grown to 36% of total use (Bush et al., 2002).
Because WPM is routinely reused and reconditioned (Bush et al., 1997), the origin of the WPM
is not necessarily the same as the origin of the commodity with which it is being imported (e.g.,
WPM in a shipment from Canada may have originated in Australia). In one study, the pine wood
nematode, Bursaphelenchus xylophilus, was detected not only in WPM from countries where it
is known to occur, but also from countries considered free of this pest, and the global circulation
of WPM was cited as the most likely explanation for this (Gu et al., 2006).
In the United States, as in most other countries, it is not mandatory for importers to indicate the
presence of WPM on the shipping manifest. This means that port quarantine officers have to rely
almost exclusively on random checks and on their experience when selecting shipments for
WPM inspection (Meissner et al., 2003).
To reduce the pest risk associated with WPM worldwide, the International Plant Protection
Organization (IPPC) developed the standard ISPM #15, “Guidelines for Regulating Wood
Packaging Material in International Trade” (IPPC, 2006), which prescribes either fumigation or
heat treatment for all WPM. WPM subjected to these approved measures is required to display a
specified mark to facilitate the verification of compliance at ports of entry. The United States
began enforcing ISPM #15 on September 16, 2005, with full enforcement for all types of WPM
going into effect on July 5, 2006. From that date on, either fumigation or heat treatment became
required for all WPM entering the United States from any country. Only a few countries of the
GCR require treatment of WPM in accordance with ISPM #15 (Foreign Agricultural Service,
2008). These countries are: Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Guyana,
Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and the United States (Foreign Agricultural Service, 2008). In
addition, Costa Rica requires a mark for heat treatment and another mark for methyl bromide
fumigation. Guatemala’s regulation is reciprocal, based on the exporting country’s requirements
(Foreign Agricultural Service, 2008).
While ISPM #15 undoubtedly reduces the pest risk posed by the movement of WPM, the degree
of its effectiveness is not known. The ISPM #15-approved heat treatment requires a minimum
core temperature of 56°C for 30 minutes. However, Qi et al. (2005) demonstrated that this
treatment is not effective against the pine wood nematode, which was able to survive at a core
temperature of 56°C for more than four hours and at a core temperature of 60°C for 3.5 hours.
During the period of 1998 to 1999 alone, China recorded 44 and 28 cases of WPM contaminated
with the pinewood nematode from the United States and Japan, respectively (Gu et al., 2006).
Between 2000 and 2005, batches of WPM imported into China from Japan, the United States,
Korea, and the European Union showed infestations with various species of nematode averaging
21%, 21%, 17%, 24%, and 17%, respectively (Gu et al., 2006). A study evaluating the
effectiveness of ISPM #15 in Chile reported that several important quarantine species were
intercepted on or in treated WPM, including Sinoxylon anale, S. conigerum, Monochamus
alternatus (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae), Pissodes castaneus (Coleoptera: Curculionidae),
Tomicus piniperda, Heterobostrychus aequalis (Coleoptera: Bostrichidae), and Sirex noctilio
77
(Hymenoptera: Siricidae), as well as Ips spp. (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae) and other
Pissodes spp. (Sanchez Salinas, 2007).
In one study, bark- and wood-boring insects (mainly Curculiondiae: Scolytinae and
Cerambycidae) were able to colonize and reproduce in logs that had been subjected to heat
treatment (56°C for 30 minutes) and then placed in the field for one month or longer. The same
was true for heat-treated wooden boards if they had any amount of bark on them (Haack et al.,
2006).
Ray and Deomano (2007) carried out a survey of U.S. and Canadian pallets and found that about
20% of them had bark on them, in spite of the fact that 88% of the pallets had been manufactured
from de-barked raw material. The incidence of bark was approximately the same for all three
bark-producing regions that were included in the study: U.S. West Coast, U.S. East Coast, and
Ontario, Canada. It was also very similar for all pallet categories examined: stacked pallets,
production pallets, hardwood pallets, softwood pallets, treated pallets, and non-treated pallets.
Surveys carried out at various U.S. ports of entry in the summer of 2006 revealed that
approximately 10% of all WPM that arrived with an ISPM #15 mark (i.e., had been treated
according to ISPM #15) had some amount of bark on it, and about 0.1% harbored live woodborers. The wood inspected in these surveys came from 50 different countries (Haack et al.,
2006).
The objective of this document is to discuss the potential role of WPM in commercial cargo in
the introduction of exotic insect species into the Greater Caribbean Region (GCR).
Methods
Agricultural Quarantine Inspection Monitoring (AQIM) data on maritime and air cargo, which
were collected by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) between September 16, 2005 and August 15, 2007, were used to estimate the
proportion of maritime and air cargo shipments that contain WPM. The data were collected at
several ports throughout the United States based on the instructions in the USDA Agricultural
Quarantine Inspection Monitoring (AQIM) Handbook (USDA-APHIS-PPQ, 2008b). Maritime
shipments containing commercial cargo were selected randomly, and the presence or absence of
WPM was recorded. The samples were divided into two categories: a) perishable, agricultural
cargo, and b) non-agricultural (excluding Italian tiles). Regarding air shipments, samples were
randomly collected from perishable, agricultural cargo, including cut flowers. Commodities
specifically excluded from both air and maritime cargo sampling were:
• commodities which were pre-cleared at foreign sites;
• commodities admissible under the National Agricultural Release Program;
• frozen commodities;
• commodities which undergo some type of mandatory treatment other than cold treatment
(e.g., fumigation, irradiation, hot water treatment) at work locations; and
• oil, salt, iron ore, coal, and similar bulk materials.
78
The USDA PestID database was consulted for pest interception records at U.S. ports of entry for
the corresponding dates.
Results and Discussion
Maritime cargo. In the case of perishable agricultural cargo, of 1,678 total shipments, 71%
contained WPM, primarily (99%) pallets. Of the shipments with WPM, 16 (1%) arrived without
the required ISPM #15 stamp. In the case of non-agricultural cargo, of 3,540 shipments, 77%
contained WPM (57% were pallets, 25% crating, and 10% dunnage). Of the shipments with
WPM, 298 (11%) arrived without the required ISPM #15 stamp. For both agricultural and nonagricultural shipments combined, 5,216 shipments were checked, and 75% of them contained
WPM. In comparison, a similar study carried out in New Zealand between 2001 and 2002
revealed that about half of all maritime containers contained WPM (MAF, 2003). When
1998/1999 AQIM data were analyzed by USDA, about half of the cargo contained WPM.
Air cargo. Out of 2,837 air cargo shipments sampled, 33% contained WPM. Of these, 51 (5%)
arrived without the stamp required by ISPM #15. Pallets were the most common type (at 97%) of
WPM.
The percentage of cargo that contained WPM differed among countries of origin. (Only countries
of origin with sample sizes of 30 or higher are discussed here.) In terms of maritime cargo
(Figure 6.1), several Caribbean countries (Costa Rica, Guatemala, and the Dominican Republic)
had high percentages of export cargo with WPM. Other countries with a high incidence of WPM
in export cargo were New Zealand and several European countries. Cargo from Honduras,
Nicaragua, Venezuela, and Panama had comparatively lower incidences of WPM. Shipments
from China had the lowest incidence of WPM, significantly lower than that from most other
countries. This was true for both agricultural and non-agricultural maritime cargo, confirming
results reported by MAF (Figures 6.2 and 6.3).
In the air cargo samples, far fewer countries were represented. Notably, imports from the
Netherlands had by far the highest incidence in WPM air cargo (Figure 6.4). In contrast to
maritime cargo, air cargo shipments from Costa Rica and the Dominican Republic had a low
incidence of WPM.
WPM does not only accompany commodity shipments but may also itself be the shipped
commodity. World imports of WPM into the GCR during 2006 exceeded $6.7 million (Table
6.1). These values represent direct imports of both new and refurbished WPM. Within the
Greater Antilles, all reported imports of WPM (from other countries within the GCR) were from
the Dominican Republic or the United States into Jamaica. The Lesser Antilles received imports
from Trinidad and Tobago, Jamaica, and the United States.
WPM exports from Caribbean countries (excluding the United States) during the year 2006
exceeded $11.2 million worldwide (Table 6.2). Products valuing $2.37 million were exported to
other countries within the region, and SWPM valuing another $7.5 million were exported to the
United States. Caribbean island exports were primarily from Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago.
79
Obviously, the phytosanitary hazard is not presented by the WPM itself but by pest organisms
that may be associated with it. Unfortunately, there is little published data available on the
incidence of pests associated with WPM. The New Zealand Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry
found that, of 1,517 maritime containers with WPM inspected, about 16% had contaminations
that resulted in phytosanitary action, such as fumigation or incineration (MAF, 2003). Among
the organisms detected on the WPM were a large number of fungi and insects, as well as
isopods, millipedes, mites, plant materials, spiders, mollusks, and reptiles. A 2006 study carried
out at several U.S. ports of entry resulted in an estimate of 0.1% of all marked WPM being
infested with live wood-boring beetles (Haack et al., 2006).
Table 6.3 lists organisms associated with wood intercepted at U.S. ports of entry between July 5,
2006 (date of full enforcement of ISPM #15) and January 1, 2008. The majority of the
interceptions included wood-boring beetles of the families Cerambycidae and Curculionidae
(including Scolytid beetles). A variety of other insect orders were also found, in addition to
weeds and mollusks. These data suggest that live pests are entering with WPM in spite of ISPM
#15. It is unknown whether the presence of pests is due to ineffectiveness of the required
treatments, incorrectly applied treatments, re-infestation of the wood after effective treatment, or
fraudulent use of the stamp/seal.
During the 18 months covered in Table 6.3, there were 427 interceptions involving 1,346
specimens. While this number may seem small in proportion to the volume of WPM entering the
country, it nevertheless represents an average of over 20 interceptions comprising over 70 pest
organisms every month.
It may safely be assumed that these port of entry interceptions represent only a fraction of the
pests that are actually entering. One study estimated that inspections at the U.S.-Mexican border
intercepted 30% or less of the incoming quarantine materials (Meissner et al., 2003). Similarly, a
report of the Hawaii Department of Agriculture stated: “Even during the Oahu risk assessment
only about 10% of the [incoming cargo] volume was inspected, but the numbers of interceptions
were about 10 times greater than the normal inspection of all of the HNL [Honolulu] cargo
during that same period” (HDOA, 2007). These estimates refer to port inspections in general, not
specifically to WPM inspections.
WPM is especially difficult to inspect, as pests are often hidden inside the wood and not all parts
of a pallet or crate are visible to the inspector. Furthermore, a large part of the incoming WPM
never gets inspected at all, especially if it is not associated with agricultural commodities. Since
the implementation of ISPM #15, inspections of WPM are often limited to verification of the
required seal, rather than a thorough inspection for pest organisms. Port inspectors are not always
sufficiently trained for, or are not focusing on, the detection of wood-boring pests. A telling
example involves training provided to USDA-APHIS Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ)
port inspectors along the Mexican border in 2002. The training focused on methods for detecting
scolytid beetles and resulted in an immediate and dramatic increase in pest interceptions in
WPM. At Pharr, Texas, and San Diego, California, the average number of intercepted scolytid
specimens increased from ≤ 1 to over 100 per month as a result of the training, suggesting that
large numbers of scolytid pests had been entering the United States without being intercepted by
80
PPQ at these ports. The same probably holds true for most ports of entry worldwide and also
applies to non-scolytid pests associated with WPM.
The New Zealand Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry underscored the importance of the
particular inspection method used, reporting a 16% contamination rate when containers were
inspected during devanning (i.e., unloading of the cargo), compared to a 3% contamination rate
found through tailgate inspections (i.e., checking what is visible from the back of the truck
without unloading the cargo) (MAF, 2003).
Table 6.4 lists species intercepted on wood at U.S. ports of entry, starting with the earliest
available records from 1985. This list illustrates the large diversity of organisms that may be
introduced over time through the WPM pathway. Some of the intercepted organisms, such as the
Orthoptera, Hemiptera, and Diptera, are not taxa that are commonly known to be associated with
wood. Rather, they traveled as true hitchhikers.
Each new establishment of one of these or similar pests anywhere in the world can increase the
opportunities for further infestation of WPM and further spread. Many of these organisms may
pose a significant threat to biodiversity, endemic plant and animal species, and, indeed, entire
ecosystems. However, unless they are serious pests on important crops, their presence is likely to
go undetected for a long time, especially in countries—such as many of the Caribbean
countries—where resources for survey and detection activities may be limited.
Many pests intercepted on or in WPM have already been introduced into the GCR, but many still
have the potential to spread further within that area. Species of the family Curculionidae,
especially Scolytid beetles, are among the pests most frequently intercepted in association with
WPM. In a 1994 survey of bark and ambrosia beetles in southern Florida, 20 of 83 scolytid
species were considered introduced into that area (Atkinson and Peck, 1994). Coccotrypes
advena (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae), recorded from Cuba and the Old World tropics,
has been introduced into southern Florida and Suriname (Bright and Torres, 2006). Premnobius
cavipennis (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae), occurring in a number of Caribbean islands,
as well as Africa and Madagascar, has been introduced into both North and South America
(Bright and Torres, 2006). Xylosandrus morigerus (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae) is
only known from Puerto Rico in the GCR but is widespread throughout the world, is often
intercepted at ports, and has been introduced into numerous countries (Bright and Torres, 2006).
The red imported fire ant, Solenopsis invicta, native to South America, has been intercepted on
WPM and has been introduced into Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands (Wetterer and Snelling,
2006). Impacts include reduction in biodiversity; injury or mortality of frogs, reptiles and small
mammals; devastation of native invertebrate communities; and multiple social and economic
problems for humans (Vinson, 1997, Allen et al., 2004).
Mollusks are often found in association with WPM. The genus Achatina, which contains the
giant African snail, A. fulica, has been intercepted at U.S. ports of entry on or in wood materials.
Achinata fulica, a serious agricultural pest and a vector of various human pathogens, has been
introduced into and is currently spreading within the GCR. Pomacea canaliculata, native to
temperate and tropical South America, from Argentina to the Amazon basin, is another example
81
of a WPM-intercepted mollusk that is now established in parts of the GCR (Florida and
Dominican Republic). Negative impacts on native species include direct competition and the
altering or disruption of suitable habitat (ISSG, 2008).
Table 6.5 lists some examples of insect species commonly associated with WPM that have the
potential to become established in the GCR or to spread within the region if they are already
established there.
The redbay ambrosia beetle, Xyleborus glabratus (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae), has
recently been introduced into the southeastern United States. There, it is rapidly destroying
endemic stands of redbay, Persea borbonia, by spreading the ‘laurel wilt’ disease, caused by the
fungus Raffaelea lauricola (Fraedrich et al., 2008). Other members of the Lauraceae are also
hosts for the redbay ambrosia beetle, including sassafras, Sassafras albidum, and avocado,
Persea americana. The potential consequences of an introduction of this beetle into the GCR are
serious. Avocado, native to tropical regions of the Caribbean, Mexico, and South America, is an
important agricultural commodity in the Dominican Republic, both for local markets as a staple
food in the Dominican diet and for exportation. Other members of Lauraceae could be attacked
as well, such as Beilschmiedia pendula, a tree endemic to the Antilles and a mast provider for
birds and bats.
Not only animals are intercepted on WPM, but plants also could easily be introduced through the
WPM pathway. For example, Pennisetum polystachion, a large grass native to Africa and India,
has been intercepted on WPM in the United States. This grass competes with native plant species
and can act as a host for maize streak virus. Pennisetum polystachion has spread to some Pacific
Islands (ISSG, 2008), and other species within this genus have already invaded the Caribbean
(Kairo et al., 2003). Ligustrum species have been intercepted on WPM. Green privet, L. lucidum,
is already an invasive tree in Bermuda, and this species, as well as others (e.g., L. sinense, L.
robustum) might easily spread through the Caribbean. All Ligustrum species have a tendency to
be invasive, disrupting species composition and plant community structure (ISSG, 2008).
In summary, WPM is used all over the world and is routinely reused and reconditioned, so that
often its origin cannot be determined. A large variety of wood-boring and other pests may be
associated with WPM. The treatments prescribed by the International Standard ISPM #15 do not
provide protection against all of these pests, and there are still many knowledge gaps regarding
effectiveness. Also, wood that is pest-free after treatment may become re-infested over time.
In spite of ISPM #15, a large number of live pests continuously approach the United States on or
in WPM. Port inspections detect only a small fraction of the pests approaching on or in WPM,
leaving the larger part to enter the country. Several exotic species that have been intercepted on
WPM have already established populations in the GCR, where they are feeding on economically
or ecologically important hosts. A significant number of insects worldwide have the potential to
be introduced into, and establish in, countries of the GCR.
82
Recommendations
Develop a strategy to ensure adequate inspection of WPM on all agricultural and
non-agricultural cargo. Simply checking for treatment seals is not a sufficient
inspection method. A certain percentage of WPM should be randomly selected and
thoroughly searched for pests, both on the surface and inside the wood. All pertinent
information (type of cargo, origin of cargo, presence of treatment seal, types and number
of pests found, etc.) should be recorded and shared region-wide.
Make the declaration of WPM mandatory for all imports. The presence of WPM in a
shipment should be declared on the importation papers. In addition, there may be a
special mark (e.g., a sticker) placed on containers that have WPM in them. This will help
port staff more effectively target WPM for inspection.
Increase region-wide inspection and identification expertise on pests associated with
WPM. Educate inspectors on how to look for pests on WPM. Ensure that identifiers have
the expertise and the necessary reference material to identify the pests that are found.
Carry out surveys to determine the distribution of pests commonly associated with
WPM outside of their native range. Collaborate with forest services, not-for-profit
organizations (e.g., CABI) and the Cooperative Agricultural Pest Survey (CAPS)
Program. Involve the public. Use the help of hobby biologists. Do not exclude the
countries that are enforcing ISPM #15 from these survey efforts.
Allow entry of WPM only if bark-free.
•
Develop a communication network to share pest interception data, as well as
inspection and diagnostic techniques, training materials, etc.
•
Encourage research to assess the effectiveness of ISPM #15.
83
Chapter 7: Forestry-related Pathways
Introduction
Forests within the Greater Caribbean Region (GCR) fulfill a range of functions, including the
production of both wood and non-wood commodities, direct and indirect contributions to local
food security, and protection of soil and water, as well as providing habitats for wildlife and
opportunities for recreation and tourism (FAO, 2005b).
All forests have immense economic and ecological value, but tropical forests are especially
important on a global scale. Covering less than 6% of the earth’s land area, these forests contain
the vast majority of the world’s plant and animal genetic resources. Forests of Puerto Rico, for
example, contain more than 500 species of trees in 70 botanical families (Mastrantonio and
Francis, 1997).
The GCR, encompasses over 230 million hectares of land, almost 40% of which is forested
(Table 7.1), and contains an immense diversity of forest types. Caribbean island forests are
tropical forests. Central American forests include tropical moist forests (rain forests), tropical
hardwood, closed pine, mixed pine-hardwood, sub-montane and montane evergreen forests, and
mangrove forests. Guyana and Suriname contain rain forests, seasonal forests, dry evergreen
forests, marsh (including mangrove), and montane forests. Forest types in the U.S. Gulf States
include pine, hardwood, mixed pine-hardwood, mangrove forests, and tropical hammocks (FAO,
2005c). This diversity of forest types offers establishment opportunities for a large variety of
organisms.
Forests may act as a source of exotic species introduction when wood or non-wood forest
products are exported. In the introduced range, these species not only may become forest pests,
but may also impact agricultural production. By the same token, forests are at risk not only from
pests introduced with forest products but also from pests introduced on agricultural commodities
or through other pathways. For example, the pink hibiscus mealybug, Maconellicoccus hirsutus
(Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae), is a destructive pest of both agriculture and forestry, infesting
numerous tropical and subtropical fruit trees and forest trees. These include teak, Tectona
grandis (Verbenaceae) and Hibiscus eleatus (Malvaceae), important plantation timber species
throughout the Caribbean islands and Central America (FAO, 2000).
Propagative materials, such as plants or seeds imported for the purpose of planting, may not only
serve as a pathway for the introduction of pests, but may also become pests themselves if they
become invasive in the introduced range. For example, Pittosporum undulatum (Pittosporaceae),
introduced into Jamaica in the late 1800s, takes advantage of vegetation gaps created by natural
disasters (e.g., hurricanes) to establish and outcompete native species. It is now considered one
of the primary threats to the tropical forests of the Blue Mountains (Goodland and Healey, 1996,
1997).
84
Our objectives for this chapter are to discuss forests in the GCR as both sources and recipients of
pest species and to outline various forestry-related pathways of pest movement. The pathways
we discuss are: wood products, non-wood forest products, and trees for planting. The important
topic of wood packaging material is covered in a separate chapter of this report and is therefore
not addressed here.
Discussion
Pathway: Wood Products
Wood products include unmanufactured products such as logs, poles, pilings, pickets, stakes,
untreated railway ties, and fuelwood, as well as finished goods, such as furniture, wooden
handicrafts, musical instruments, broomsticks, and myriad other items.
Raw wood products in particular are vulnerable to pest infestation or contamination throughout
the trading process, beginning with the timber extraction process (Figure 7.1). Trees are felled
either manually with a chainsaw or utilizing heavy forest equipment. On-site processing includes
delimbing, topping (removing the upper part of the tree), bucking (division of the tree into log
lengths), and sometimes chipping (slicing trees or parts of trees into small pieces) (Rummer and
Erwin, 2008). The primary extraction process moves the felled trees or logs from the stump to
the landing most often through a process called skidding. Skidding (dragging logs or trees across
the ground) can be accomplished in a variety of ways, including animals, tractors, cables, or
helicopters (Rummer and Erwin, 2008). The skidded logs are left at the landing for loading onto
secondary transportation. Timber may be sorted (separated by species or grade) at the landing,
then transported further to the processing facility. Finally, the timber is moved to a port and
loaded onto the shipping vessel.
Obviously, any pests infesting or attached to the standing trees (e.g., bark beetles, wood borers,
plant pathogens, snails) are likely to be moved to new locations with the wood, but additional
contaminants may also be picked up by the wood after felling. For example, plant pathogens may
get onto the wood from contaminated saws or chippers; logs may pick up soil, insects,
pathogens, or weed seeds during the skidding process (Roth et al., 1972); and pests that may not
have been associated with the standing tree may infest the felled log at the landing, the central
yard, the shipping yard, or even en-route.
Best management practices (BMPs) in forestry are voluntary measures implemented by loggers
and foresters in an effort to control soil erosion and to protect water quality. Among the BMPs
related to timber harvesting, one of the most critical is to minimize soil disturbance (AFC, 2007).
Without good sanitary processes, there is the possibility of introducing contaminants into the
logging site (Image 7.1). Forest equipment may be encrusted with soil containing plant
pathogens, nematodes, or weed seeds (Roth et al., 1972, Jules et al., 2002, Waterhouse, 2003);
snails or insects may be hitchhiking on vehicles; saws and chippers may be contaminated with
pathogens from trees they have touched; workers may have contaminants on their shoes and
clothing; animals used for transport may carry weed seeds on their fur or in their intestinal tract
(Richardson et al., 2004).
85
The disturbance caused by the logging process (e.g., the
creation of logging roads) may create conditions that
facilitate the establishment of introduced pests (USDAFS, 2001). For example, plant species with low shade
tolerance may not be able to grow in a dense,
undisturbed rain forest but can thrive in the vegetation
gaps created by the logging.
Illegal logging is a widespread problem in the GCR,
particularly in Central America (Galloway and Stoian,
2007, Wells et al., 2007). This presents a special
challenge for any efforts to implement sanitation
practices or inspections.
Image 7.1 Illegal logging road in
Panama (panamaguide.com).
Raw wood, particularly with the bark intact (Image
7.2), can serve as a potentially serious pathway for the
movement of exotic forest pests. Bark beetles and
ambrosia beetles (Coleoptera: Curculionidae:
Scolytinae), wood-boring beetles (Coleoptera:
Buprestidae), longhorned beetles (Coleoptera:
Cerambycidae), and horntail wasps (Hymenoptera:
Siricidae) are among the most destructive forest insects;
each of these groups is associated with raw timber
Image 7.2 Cutting logs in Guyana for
products (Ciesla, 1992). USDA pest risk assessments
export (Source:
provide extensive lists of insects and pathogens
guyanaforestry.blogspot.com)
associated with Pinus (Pinaceae) and Abies (Pinaceae)
logs from Mexico (USDA-FS, 1998) and with Pinus logs from Australia (USDA-FS, 2006b). In
a different pest risk assessment, 801 species of arthropod pests were found to be associated with
wood from China (USDA-APHIS, 2007). Bark beetles and wood-boring beetles entered China in
unprocessed Pseudotsuga menziesii (Pinaceae) and Tsuga heterophylla (Pinaceae) logs from the
United States (Ciesla, 1992); and Pinus radiata logs exported from New Zealand were found to
be infested with Hylurgus ligniperda (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae) (Speight and
Wylie, 2001).
A recent introduction into the southeastern United States of Raffaelea lauricola (Ascomycetes:
Ophiostomatales), a fungal symbiont of Xyleborus glabratus (Coleoptera: Curculionidae:
Scolytinae) and the causal agent of laurel wilt in trees of the Lauraceae family, is causing
increased mortality in Persea borbonia (Lauraceae) (Koch and Smith, 2008). The primary
pathway for introduction of X. glabratus is believed to be wood products (raw wood and wood
packaging material) (Rabaglia et al., 2006). Efforts are underway to prevent the continued spread
of X. glabratus, but infestations are increasing throughout the southeastern United States, and
spread models predict a high likelihood of spread throughout certain parts of the United States,
including all Gulf States. This pest is a potential risk for the Caribbean islands. Numerous trees
and shrubs in the Lauraceae family, including avocado, Persea americana, appear to be
susceptible to the pathogen (Fraedrich et al., 2008).
86
Fuelwood includes logs, billets, twigs, chips or particles, sawdust, wood waste, and scrap wood.
Logs used as fuelwood generally differ from those used for timber products by size and quality.
However, many of the pests associated with fuelwood, particularly in the form of logs and twigs,
are the same as those associated with raw timber. Wood chips, though of somewhat lower pest
risk than unprocessed wood, may still harbor many pests, including Phellinus weirii
(Agaricomycetes: Hymenochaetales); Bursaphelenchus xylophilus (Tylenchida:
Aphelenchoididae); Monochamus spp., Anoplophora glabripennis, and Tetropium fuscum
(Coleoptera: Cerambycidae); and Gnathotrichus and Trypodendron spp. (Coleoptera:
Curculionidae: Scolytinae) (Magnusson et al., 2001). Scrap wood (sawdust, wood chips, wood
shavings, and wood wool) coming into New Zealand was found to harbor fungal pathogens (e.g.,
Cryphonectria cubensis (Sordariomycetes: Diaporthales), bark and wood-boring beetles
(Coleoptera: Cerambycidae, Cucurlionidae), and termites (Rhinotermitidae and Kalotermitidae)
(NZMAF, 2003).
Tables 7.2-7.7 depict trade of raw wood reported by the Caribbean countries in 2006, illustrating
the fact that there are substantial quantities, both coniferous and deciduous, moving into and
within the GCR. The Caribbean islands, Central America, Guyana, and Suriname report imports
of over 16,000 metric tons of raw wood from throughout the world (Table 7.2). Almost half of
these imports consisted of coniferous species. Exports (including exports from the U.S. Gulf
States into the GCR) exceed 293,600 metric tons (Table 7.6). The majority (77%) consisted of
tropical hardwoods, much of it from Central America and Guyana exported into the United
States. Over 70% of the raw wood exported from the Gulf States into the GCR originated in
Florida and was destined for the Caribbean islands (UNComtrade, 2008). It is important to note
that these data reflect only raw wood (untreated, with or without bark) reported by the importing
and exporting countries; WPM, lumber (treated or untreated), and plywood are not included in
these tables.
Raw wood is not the only wood of phytosanitary concern. Manufactured wood items, such as
wooden handicrafts, musical instruments, brooms, tools, toys, wooden poles for artificial
Christmas trees, and many other items may also be infested with pests. A U.S. pest risk
assessment found 510 species of U.S. quarantine significance to be associated with manufactured
wood from China (USDA-APHIS, 2007).
Pathway: Non-Wood Forest Products
Non-wood forest products (non-timber forest products) include food products (e.g., nuts, berries,
leaves, ferns, edible fungi, bark), gums, resins and latexes of plant origin, medicinals (e.g.,
leaves, bark, roots, whole plants, fungi), bark and other plant material for dyes and tannins,
rattan, palms, bamboo, craft products (e.g., mosses, bark, willow reeds, vines), floral and
decorative products, and landscape products (FAO, 2005b). Rattan-like items used for furniture,
baskets, mats, etc., could potentially harbor insect pests and plant pathogens (NZMAF, 2003).
Mahogany bark is collected in Jamaica for making dye and mangrove bark is exported from
Guyana for tanning leather. Bark is a known pathway for the movement of insect pests and
pathogens (NZMAF, 2003). Depending upon the condition of the bark during transport and upon
87
delivery, the material could easily provide a pathway for numerous bark-infesting insects and
pathogens (Appendix 1).
Christmas trees, too, have been vehicles for the introduction of exotic pests into the GCR;
imports of Christmas foliage (coniferous species) were found to contain Adelges cooleyi
(Hemiptera: Adelgidae), Chionaspis pinifoliae (Hemiptera: Diaspididae), Paradiplosis tumifex
(Diptera: Cecidomyiidae), and others (Speight and Wylie, 2001). After implementing the
Canadian Christmas tree contingency action plan in Puerto Rico, which expedited inspections
and improved pest identification and customer service, interceptions on this commodity of
mollusks increased seven-fold and interceptions of insects doubled (USDA-APHIS-PPQ, 2008a).
If paying special attention to a pathway significantly increases pest interception rates, then this
means that without that special attention, many pests remain undetected and the risk associated
with that pathway may be underestimated.
Plants and plant products have been utilized as medicines
throughout history and play an important role in human
activities, and international trade in these commodities is
increasingly gaining momentum. Natural products are often
the only source of medicine for 75-90% of the people living in
developing countries (Wilkie et al., 2002). A medicinal plant
collection from the island of Montserrat consists of 278 taxa
from 78 families (Brussell, 2004). A study into the medicinal
plant trade in Suriname (vanAndel et al., 2007) revealed that
over 245 species of medicinal plants were sold in local
markets and that the annual value of the domestic and export
market was estimated to be worth over US$1.5 million. Plants
were selling at local markets in various forms (e.g., leaves,
fruits, roots, bark, whole plants) (Image 7.3), and most plants
were gathered from the interior forests and transported to
market.
Image 7.3 Medicinal plants
at a local market in
Paramaribo, Suriname
(Photo: Sara
Groenendijik).
Little is known about medicinal plants as a pathway for the introduction of plant pests; however,
given the growing importance of the medicinal plant market and the immense variety of
medicinal herbs that may potentially be involved, this topic is worthy of attention.
Bamboo, Bambusa vulgaris (Graminae), was introduced into the Caribbean to control soil
erosion along steep dirt roads (Francis, 1993); it has become established along streams and has
formed monocultures in some riparian areas, and questions are being raised as to its invasive
potential and risks to native forests (Blundell et al., 2003). While not considered one of the more
threatening species, B. vulgaris is considered to be invasive in Jamaica and Tobago (Kairo et al.,
2003). In the GCR, bamboo is used for fences, furniture, scaffolding, arbors, and various forms
of farm construction. Bamboo is also a favorite species for handicrafts, kitchen items, garden
accessories, screens, furniture, and musical instruments (Francis, 1993). A number of Caribbean
countries have taken steps over the past few years to increase the production of bamboo
products. For example, Jamaica and Guadeloupe signed a memorandum of understanding to
promote bamboo products (JIS, 2006). INBAR, the International Network for Bamboo and
88
Rattan, headquartered in China, has signed an international agreement with a number of
countries, including Cuba, Suriname, and Jamaica, to increase bamboo production and trade in
the Caribbean, Central America, and South America (JIS, 2004, INBAR, 2006).
Dried bamboo, particularly B. vulgaris, has been found
to serve as a pathway for phytophagous insect pests from
China (Image 7.4). A review of U.S. port interceptions
from China from 1985 through 2005 revealed that 26
species of live insects of phytosanitary concern were
found in dried bamboo garden stakes from China,
including eight genera of Coleoptera: Cerambycidae
(Anelaphus, Chlorophorus, Elaphidion, Niphona,
Phymatodes, Purpuricenus, Sternidus, and Xylotrechus).
Twelve other families were represented (USDA-APHIS, Image 7.4 Larvae in bamboo
2006). Two high-risk beetle species from families
stakes (Source: APHIS 2005).
represented multiple times in the interceptions were
Chlorophorus annularis (Cerambycidae) and Heterobostrychus aequalis (Bostrichidae). These
insects have high dispersal potential, a wide range of hosts, and can contribute to substantial
economic losses.
In 2006, China reported exports of 1352 metric tons of bamboo13 into the GCR (excluding the
United States) (UNComtrade, 2008), with almost 80% going to Central America. The Caribbean
islands, chiefly the Dominican Republic, Dominica, and Trinidad and Tobago received the
remaining 20%, with the exception of a very small amount (< 1%) going to Suriname. There was
also significant intra-Caribbean trade of bamboo products during the same time period.
Pathway: Trees for Planting
Numerous exotic plant pests have been introduced into North America on nursery stock and
propagative material. These include pathogens such as Cryphonectria parasitica
(Sordariomycetes: Diaporthales) and Cronartium ribicola (Uredinomycetes: Uredinales) (Ostry,
2001). An example from tropical forests is the introduction of Pineus pini (Hemiptera:
Adelgidae) into Kenya and Zimbabwe on pine scions from Australia; P. pini spread to six
additional countries in Africa, primarily through the movement of infested nursery stock (Odera,
1974). Pathways associated with nursery stock and propagative materials are addressed in
Chapter 8.
Plantations are established in the GCR for timber production, to provide local sources of
fuelwood, and to protect and restore the land (FAO, 2000). Agroforestry systems are employed
throughout Central America and the Caribbean islands to effect these goals and to provide
13
The trade data reported from UNComtrade include HS-96 tariff codes 14110 (bamboo used primarily for
plaiting—includes bamboo poles), 460110 (bamboo used primarily for plaiting), 460120 (mats, matting, and
screens), and 460210 (basketwork, wickerwork, and products of vegetable material – includes bamboo fencing).
Bamboo can be included in any number of HS codes, including those related to wood and anything related to
“vegetable material.” Accurate accounting of bamboo trade is impossible under the present system.
89
companion plantings for food crops, pastures, or animals (Scherr, 1999). Agroforestry provides
many advantages, but it is becoming more widely recognized that some of the trees used in
commercial plantations and in agroforestry operations are invasive species themselves
(Richardson, 1998). The most successful invaders in natural environments tend to be woody
perennials, especially trees (Cronk and Fuller, 1995). The characteristics that contribute to a
tree’s invasive potential include rapid growth, high fecundity, small seeds, and the ability to fix
nitrogen; these are the same characteristics that often make a tree species a desirable candidate
for agroforestry operations (Richardson et al., 2004).
Invasive plantation and agroforestry tree species in the GCR include Acacia spp., Leucanea
leucocephala (Fabaceae), Melaleuca quinquenervia (Myrtaceae), Schinus terebinthifolius
(Anacardiaceae), and others (Table 7.8). These species often form dense thickets or
monocultures, replace native vegetation, disrupt activities of native fauna (e.g., in Florida, turtles
are prevented from nesting and often trapped in the roots of Casuarina equisetifolia
(Casuarinaceae)), and lower the water table (Binggeli et al., 1998). Some are capable of invading
undisturbed forests (e.g., Adenanthera pavonina (Fabaceae)) and causing further degradation of
native forests by changing species composition and decreasing biodiversity (Green et al., 2004).
The alien tree Acacia mearnsii (Fabaceae), which is the center of a commercial wood-products
industry in South Africa, has invaded almost 2.5 million ha of native ecosystems there, where it
threatens water resources, biodiversity, and the stability of riparian habitats (deWit et al., 2001).
Potential Consequences of Exotic Forest Pests
The overwhelming majority of Caribbean forests are tropical forests with extremely high levels
of species richness (FAO, 2005b). The number of endemic tree species ranges from the hundreds
to the thousands in some areas (FAO, 2005b), and many of them are listed as vulnerable,
endangered, or critically endangered on the International Union for Conservation of Nature and
Natural Resources ‘red list’ (IUCN, 2007). The pressures already impacting the forests of the
GCR may exacerbate both the forests’ susceptibility to exotic species invasions and the
consequences such invasions may have.
Undisturbed old-growth forests are generally considered to be impervious to invasion by exotic
species (Simberloff, 1981, Herbold and Moyle, 1986, Huston, 1994, Hooper et al., 2005,
Stachowicz and Byrnes, 2006), and the most important indicator for susceptibility of an
ecosystem to invasion is believed to be whether or not it has been disturbed. However, it is
becoming more evident that even undisturbed forests are vulnerable to exotic pests. For example,
three exotic ambrosia beetles, Xylosandrus crassiusculus, Xyleborinus exiguus, and Euwallacea
fornicatus (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae) have been found in old-growth forests in
Costa Rica and Panama (Kirkendall and Ødegaard, 2007). Xylosandrus crassiusculus is an
aggressive, high-risk quarantine pest in North America. Host genera for X. crassiusculus include
Tectona (Lamiaceae), Cecropia (Cecropiaceae), Lecythis (Lecythidaceae), Calliandra
(Fabaceae), Quercus (Fagaceae), and Ulmus (Ulmaceae). Host genera for X. exiguous include
Brosimum (Moriaceae) and Protium (Burseraceae). Euwallacea fornicatus hosts include Cedrela
(Meliaceae), Tocoyena (Rubiaceae), and Brosimum (Moraceae) species. The specific pathways
for these insects into Central America are unknown, but bark and wood-boring insects are
90
frequently intercepted on logs and wood packaging material and these are the likely pathways for
introduction (Brockerhoff et al., 2006, Haack, 2006).
In regard to weed trees invading interior forests, it was recently observed that over 139 exotic
plant species have invaded deeply shaded forest understories that have not undergone any
substantial disturbance (Martin et al., 2008). The rate of invasion by shade-tolerant species is
slower than that of shade-intolerant species, but the long-term impacts on forest ecosystems can
be perhaps more detrimental. A recent study of long-term alien tree invasions in Puerto Rico
revealed that exotic trees such as Spathodea campanulata (Bignoniaceae) and Psidium guajava
(Myrtaceae) established on abandoned agricultural lands, forming monocultures, while the
evergreen, shade tolerant Syzygium jambos (Myrtaceae) invaded shade coffee forests and native
forests (Lugo, 2004).
Important timber species in Central America and the Caribbean islands include Tectona grandis,
Gmelina arborea (Lamiaceae), Cedrela odorata, Swietenia spp., and Pinus caribaea (FAO,
2000). Latin American and Caribbean plantations cover almost 10 million hectares (Ball et al.,
1999), 56% of which are hardwood species. Plantation establishment is increasing, especially of
Tectona grandis and Gmelina arborea. It is projected that by 2020, 60% of sustainable wood
supply in Latin America and the Caribbean will come from plantation forests (FAO, 2006).
Important plantation timber species in the Gulf States are Pinus echinata, P. elliottii, P. palustris,
and P. taeda. All of these timber species are associated with a suite of forest pests, some native,
some already introduced, and some that may be a threat to the GCR. These pests, along with
those that may infest native forests, are listed in Appendix 1.
Pines (Pinus spp.) are vulnerable to many species of bark beetles and wood borers. Central
American countries (e.g., Honduras and Belize) have been experiencing severe outbreaks of the
native Dendroctonus frontalis (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae) over the past few years
(FAO, 2008). Honduras is one of the few tropical countries with large areas of natural conifer
forests, including many endemic Pinus species (FAO, 2005a). Because of the preponderance of
Pinus species, both in natural stands and plantations, the introduction of certain exotic pests,
such as Sirex noctilio (Hymenoptera: Siricidae), into the Gulf States and Central America could
result in severe damage. Sirex noctilio, native to Eurasia and northern Africa, has been
introduced into Australia, South Africa, and parts of South America, resulting in one of the most
damaging biological invasions of pine forestry in the southern hemisphere (Hurley et al., 2007).
Climate-matching models predict that S. noctilio could establish and persist throughout North
and Central America wherever susceptible hosts are located (Carnegie et al., 2006).
Summary
Forests provide multiple ecological, economic, and social functions throughout the GCR. Most
of the forests within the region are classified as tropical and are important on a global scale for
their immense ecological value. Forests throughout the region are being degraded, largely
through the effects of increasing human populations and non-sustainable logging practices,
making them more vulnerable to the effects of exotic species.
91
Important forest pests include insects, pathogens, and plants, especially invasive tree species.
Important pathways for the introduction of exotic forest pests, pathogens, and weeds include
both wood and non-wood forest products, as well as propagative materials, such as trees for
plantations or agroforestry systems. Hitchhiker pests can be moved through the timber extraction
process. It is important to note that exotic forest pests moving through each of these pathways
may impact both natural systems and agricultural systems.
Due to a lack of data, it is difficult to determine the relative importance of each of these
pathways. Furthermore, we know very little about introduced species (how many and which
species) that may have already established in the GCR, especially in forested areas. More
research in this area is needed.
Recommendations
Hold an international congress on introduced and imminent forest pests in the
GCR. The conference may be coordinated by Carribean Invasive Species Working
Group (CISWG) and may be modeled after a similar conference held by FAO in 2003
(FAO-RAP, 2005). The main objectives of the conference should be to:
o increase awareness of the threats of invasive species to forests and forest
products;
o share information related to exotic forest pests; and
o develop action items for regional cooperation in addressing forest pests.
Establish criteria for assessing invasive potential for exotic tree species that are
under consideration for agroforestry. The USDA-APHIS-PPQ-Center for Plant Health
Science and Technology may be able to provide expertise in weed risk assessment.
Exclude tree species with high invasive potential from agroforestry systems. Fastgrowing and readily reproducing tree species are often preferred for plantation planting.
However, these species also have a greater potential to become invasive. As much as
possible, promote the use of local tree species in agroforestry and reforestation.
Carry out surveys to determine the distribution of pests commonly associated with
wood and non-wood forest products outside of their native range. The efforts of
Kairo et al. (2003) would provide a useful foundation for this.
Establish Best Management Practices to reduce the potential movement of forest
pests. These could include:
o Sanitation procedures such as cleaning forest equipment after each use
o Prevent contamination of logs with soil or weeds
o Prevent hitchhiker pests
o Prevent new infestations of cut logs (protect stored logs)
o Limit the movement of untreated firewood
92
Chapter 8: Plant Propagative Material
Plant propagative material, also referred to as nursery stock, is any plant material capable
of and intended for propagation, including buds, bulbs, corms, cuttings, layers, rhizomes,
root clumps, scions, stolons, seeds, tubers, or whole plants. In this chapter, the term
“propagative material” includes plants for planting.
As a pathway, propagative material overlaps with the other pathways discussed in this
report in that propagative material may be transported by any of the available methods:
airplane, cargo vessel, small boat, truck, personal vehicles, public or private mail, as well
as in the baggage of ship, plane or bus passengers.
Propagative material is mainly imported for commercial nursery and horticulture
production and uses in agriculture and forestry. Smaller quantities are imported for “plant
exploration” by botanical gardens or researchers, or planting (e.g., as ornamentals or food
plants) by private collectors or homeowners.
In the Greater Caribbean Region (GCR), the demand for propagative material is strongly
linked to tourism development, and there can be great economic and political pressure to
allow needed imports. Spikes in demand also tend to occur during renovation and
reforestation efforts after hurricanes and other extreme weather events (Klassen et al.,
2004).
The trade of propagative material is a multi-billion dollar industry. The United States,
together with Canada, Israel, and the Netherlands, are the major exporters of nursery
products to the GCR (UNComtrade, 2008). Available data on the commercial trade of
propagative material are categorized by harmonized tariff codes and do not contain the
taxonomic identity of the imported commodities. Compounding the difficulties in data
colelction, not all countries report their trade data (UNComtrade, 2008) (Tables 8.1-8.6),
and there is no way of quantifying the unofficial, unregistered trade that occurs among
Caribbean nations.
Based on official trade data, the propagative materials most frequently traded fall into the
category of “bulbs, tubers, tuberous roots, corms, crowns and rhizomes.” Almost 17
million plant units of these types were imported into countries of the GCR in 2007, nearly
all of them from the Netherlands into Colombia. Slightly fewer than 1 million were
imported from Canada into Guatemala (Table 8.1). The next most frequently traded
articles fall into the category “live plants (not otherwise specified) including their roots;
mushroom spawn.” This category is mainly imported into the Bahamas from the United
States (Table 8.2). Of the category “trees, shrubs and bushes, of kinds which bear edible
fruit or nuts,” approximately 2 million plant units were imported into the GCR in 2007,
mainly into Colombia (from the United States, Israel, Argentina, and Chile), Guatemala
(from Honduras, Costa Rica, Mexico, and the Netherlands), and the Bahamas (from the
United States) (Table 8.3). Less frequently imported categories of propagative materials
93
were: “roses, including their roots” (Table 8.4), “azaleas and rhododendrons, including
their roots” (Table 8.5), and “unrooted cuttings and slips” (Table 8.6) (UNComtrade,
2008).
The United States maintains a database of plant genera imported. Unfortunately, the data
is not reported in consistent units of measurement, making quantitative comparisons
impossible. In 2007, nearly 800 different plant genera were imported into the United
States from 21 countries of the GCR (USDA, 2008e), mainly from Costa Rica,
Guatemala, and Colombia (Table 8.7).14 Because the database lists only the genera and
not the species of propagative materials imported, a discussion of the potential risk posed
by these imports is difficult.
In general, any plant species imported may present a phytosanitary problem in two ways:
1) by introducing exotic plant pests, and 2) by itself becoming an invasive weed in its
introduced range.
Propagative Material as a Pathway for Plant Pests
Infested or infected propagative material is often considered to be one of the primary
means through which plant pests and pathogens invade new areas (Palm and Rossman,
2003). Pests that are introduced on propagative material have the advantage of being
moved together with a suitable host plant. In addition, the propagative material is usually
planted in a climate conducive to its growth, and the same climate is also likely to be
suitable for its associated pests. Furthermore, the plants are often planted in groups or
even large monocultures, thereby providing ideal conditions for a pest population to grow
and expand.
Numerous important plant pests are known to have been introduced to new locations on
propagative material. Metamasius callizona (Coleoptera: Dryophthoridae), a weevil
native to Mexico and Central America, was introduced on bromeliads into Florida, where
it now threatens populations of native bromeliads (Frank and McCoy, 1995). As a direct
result of the damage caused by M. callizona, the Florida Endangered Plant Advisory
Council added two species of bromeliads to its list of endangered species (Larson and
Frank, 2007).
The citrus longhorned beetle, Anoplophora chinensis (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae), was
recently detected in Germany when 100,000 potted Japanese maple, Acer palmatum
(Aceraceae), trees from China were sold throughout the country by a supermarket chain
(Deutsche Welle, 2008). Anoplophora chinensis is a pest of trees and shrubs from 26
families, including citrus and other fruit trees in China. Native to Asia, it has spread to
other areas of the world, including tropical Oceania (GPDD, 2009); thus, this beetle may
also be able to establish in the GCR if introduced.
14
Costa Rica exports annually about $30 million worth of ornamental plants - more than half of its yearly
total - to the United States WTO. 2007. Clean stock program for Dracaena spp. intended for export to the
United States. World Trade Organization..
94
Cowie et al. (2008) implicate the horticultural industry as a pathway for the spread of
terrestrial mollusks. In a survey of nurseries in Hawaii, they found 29 introduced species
(belonging to 24 families) of terrestrial snails and slugs, five of them previously
unrecorded. As these species originated from all around the world, the authors speculate
that the Hawaiian situation may be representative of the horticultural snail and slug
faunas of many other tropical regions. The potential economic and ecological impact of
terrestrial mollusks is largely unknown, but there are reports of introduced slugs reducing
seedling survival of endangered plants in Hawaii (Joe and Daehler, 2008), of exotic snails
outcompeting native species (Halwart, 1994, Wood et al., 2005), destroying native
vegetation (Carlsson et al., 2004) in Asia, and causing crop damage (Mead, 1961).
In 2003, Childers and Rodrigues (2005) sampled 24 plant shipments (cuttings or rooted
plants) entering the United States from Costa Rica, Honduras, and Guatemala and found
half of the shipments infested with mites. In total, they detected 81 mite species
belonging to 11 different families. Mites can vector plant viruses, such as citrus leprosis
virus, coffee ringspot virus, passion fruit green spot virus, ligustrum ringspot virus, and
orchid fleck virus (Miranda et al., 2007). There are numerous viruses not yet present
throughout the GCR that could cause significant economic damage if introduced and
spread within the GCR by mites occurring there (CABI, 2007).
On several occasions, Ralstonia solanacearum race 3 biovar 2 (Burkholderiales), a
bacterial pathogen, was found in geranium cuttings shipped from a commercial
greenhouses in Guatemala and Kenya to the United States for rooting and sale (USDA,
2004, 2008c). Also, in the United States, many new powdery mildew diseases have
appeared over a relatively short period of time, and it is suspected that they were
introduced on plant cuttings (Palm and Rossman, 2003). For example, poinsettia powdery
mildew may have gained entry into the United States through the importation of infected
un-rooted cuttings (Palm and Rossman, 2003).
During 2007, 1,541 specimens of reportable pests (Table 8.8) were intercepted at U.S.
ports of entry in commercial shipments of propagative material from the GCR, showing
that significant numbers of pests move in association with propagative material (USDA,
2008d).
To prevent the introduction of pests through the propagative material pathway, GCR
countries have implemented certain safeguards. While specific regulations vary, most
countries require an import permit, phytosanitary certificate, freedom from soil, and portof-entry inspection for propagative materials (IPPC, 2008). The specific procedures for
issuing phytosanitary certificates vary between countries, and the reliability or adequacy
of these procedures may be low in some cases.
Major producers of plants also implement their own safeguards to protect their
investments. For example, certain sanitary procedures, such as washing hands,
disinfecting shoes, cleaning tools, sterilizing soil, sampling for pests, and routine
diagnostic tests for certain pathogens are standard in large greenhouse production
95
(Meissner and Schwartzburg, 2008). It is not uncommon for major producers to employ
highly-qualified subject matter experts who are very familiar with the products and their
associated pests. Because the sale of diseased or pest-infested plants is not a good
business practice, and the rejection of plant shipments at the border is very costly to the
producer, companies have a strong interest in keeping their plants pest-free. However,
smaller producers may not have the financial means or the expertise to achieve high
levels of sanitation, and some companies may be more interested in short-term profits
than long-term benefits.
In general, there is heavy reliance on inspection, either as a condition for entry or for
export certification. This is problematic because there is abundant evidence that
inspection is not effective in preventing unwanted pest introductions. Brodel (2003)
pointed out that only about a quarter of the pests that established in Florida during 1997
and 1998 had been intercepted more than once at U.S. ports of entry prior to their
establishment.
While Childers and Rodrigues (2005) detected 81 mite species representing 11 different
families on only 24 shipments of propagative materials, port-of-entry inspections in
Miami have led to a mere 265 mite interceptions out of over 40,000 propagative material
shipments15; all of these mites were identified as members of a single family,
Tetranychidae. This shows that, in spite of best efforts, port-of-entry inspection misses
the overwhelming majority of mites and presumably most other types of minute
organisms associated with propagative materials. In addition, the taxonomic diversity of
the interception records in no way reflects the actual diversity of mites present on the
commodities.
If mites are underrepresented in port of entry inspections, plant pathogens are virtually
ignored. Pest interceptions in Miami on propagative materials from anywhere in the GCR
during 200716 included 1,285 interceptions (33 families) of insects and 167 interceptions
(5 families) of mollusks. In contrast, nematodes were detected only once, and fungi were
intercepted a mere 39 times (≤17 species), whereas no interceptions of viruses, bacteria,
or phytoplasmas were recorded.
This is in stark contrast to the immense diversity and abundance of plant pathogens in the
world. An estimated 10,000 known species of fungi cause plant diseases worldwide
(Agrios, 2005) and perhaps only 10 percent of all existing fungi have been described
(Palm and Rossman, 2003). An international working group estimated the number of
fungal species (not limited to plant pathogenic species) in the Guanacaste Conservation
Area in Costa Rica to be around 50,000 and that an inventory would cost $10-30 million
dollars and take 7 years to complete (Hawksworth and Mueller, 2005).
15
Interceptions on propagative materials (plants and cuttings) imported from Costa Rica, Guatemala and
Honduras during 2007. Data from 2007 was used because import data was incomplete for 2003, which is
when sampling by Childers and Rodriguez (2005) took place.
16
Ca. 42,000 shipments
96
Similarly, over 1,000 viruses are known to attack plants, and new viruses are described
every month (Agrios, 2005). Some 60% of plants surveyed in a Costa Rican region
containing about 7,000 plant species total were positive for double-stranded RNA, a
marker suggesting the presence of viruses (Wren et al., 2006).
Several hundred species of nematodes and over 100 species of bacteria are known to
cause plant diseases. In addition, about 40 plant diseases are known to be caused by
viroids, and over 200 plant diseases are caused by phytoplasmas (Agrios, 2005).
Why do port-of-entry inspections miss so many pests? The reasons for this are manifold,
including overwhelming workload, pressure to perform inspections quickly, difficulty of
detecting certain types of pests, inadequate working conditions (e.g., lighting, space),
insufficient training of inspectors, and lack of tools such as magnifying lenses,
microscopes, and diagnostic tests. Depending on the country, some of these reasons may
be more important than others.
Minute and hidden organisms are notoriously difficult to detect, and pathogens are
especially likely to escape detection (Schaad et al., 2003). Visual inspection for
pathogens relies on the expression of symptoms in the infected plants. However, it is not
uncommon for infected plants, and especially seeds, to be asymptomatic during a certain
time or under certain circumstances (Lanterman et al., 1995, Palm and Rossman, 2003),
and symptomless hosts exist for many pathogens. In these cases, detection requires
diagnostic tests.
Appropriate diagnostic tools exist only for a relatively small number of pathogens and are
often not affordable or feasible for plant quarantine purposes (Schaad et al., 2003).
Another limiting factor is the amount of time it takes to perform certain tests, which
could delay shipments for unacceptable lengths of time at ports-of-entry. Even PCRbased detection protocols, which are available for certain pathogens and allow for a
diagnosis to be made within a day or less (Schaad et al., 2003) are often not fast enough.
Nucleic acid-based procedures are not optimal for large-scale diagnostic purposes
because of expense and complexity (Lanterman et al., 1995).
Given the wide variety of propagative material that can be imported, even knowing which
pathogens to screen for is difficult. Serological diagnostic techniques require that the
causal agent has been described and characterized (Schaad et al., 2003); however, the
vast majority of plant pathogens have not yet been described, and new disease-causing
organisms are discovered all the time (Palm and Rossman, 2003). Kairo et al. (2003)
noted that the number of microorganisms reported introduced in the insular Caribbean
region is negligible, indicating a knowledge gap in species inventory.
To make matters worse, species of plant pathogens tend to be subdivided into strains,
biovars, pathovars, etc., which can differ in their infection capabilities and host range.
Palm and Rossman (2003) raised the argument that a species of pathogen should not be
considered “low risk” after it has established in an area, given that strains of that species
may still exist that are exotic to the area and may behave very differently from the one
97
that is established. Regulating strains and races of plant pathogens is difficult because
differentiation from already present strains requires molecular techniques (Palm and
Rossman, 2003).
Smuggling of propagative material bypasses established phytosanitary safeguards. For
example, in 2004, citrus budwood cuttings were intercepted in mail packages arriving in
the United States. The packages, destined for a citrus growing area in California, were
labeled on the shipment manifest as “books and chocolates.” One of the shipments tested
positive for Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. citri, the causal agent of citrus canker (CBP,
2005). Upon further investigation, several thousand citrus cuttings that had been
smuggled into the country were found on various private properties. In 2008, narcissus
bulbs from China contaminated with soil were found in a wholesale market in the United
States. Upon further investigation, it was discovered that the bulbs entered without the
proper certification and inspection; they had been labeled on the import documents as
ceramic pots. A total of 590 pounds of contaminated narcissus were seized and destroyed
(SITC, 2008). Also in 2008, 19 pounds of containerized Crocosmia spp. plants with soil,
manifested as a cappuccino machine and 4 cups/saucers, were intercepted at an
international mail facility in the United States. These plants are prohibited and lacked a
phytosanitary certificate (SITC, 2008).
In summary, it is obvious that pests, and especially plant pathogens, are spreading
between countries through both legal and illegal movement of propagative materials. This
is occurring on a global scale. About 50 new disease locations or disease-host
associations were reported during 2008 in the journal New Disease Reports alone. Apart
from severe restrictions on the importation of propagative materials, there is no easy
solution to this problem.
Plant Propagative Material as Invasive Species
In addition to serving as a pathway for pest introductions, propagative material may itself
become invasive in its introduced range.
Consumer demand drives the continued importation of new plant species and varieties. In
Florida alone, over 25,000 exotic plant species are grown in cultivation (Frank and
McCoy, 1995). Some commercial nurseries engage in plant exploration, the search for
new plant material to develop cultivars, new crops, or novel ways to utilize a plant. In
order to recoup costs, they must propagate and sell the specimens quickly (Reichard and
White, 2001). Botanical gardens and arboreta also actively introduce new plants, often
distributing propagules to other horticultural groups or the general public (Reichard and
White, 2001, Dawson et al., 2008). Private plant collectors actively (and often illegally)
introduce plants from foreign countries. For example, people of Martinique have been
known to bring back rare plants for their gardens from Guyana and Guadeloupe (Iotti,
2008).
98
There are numerous botanical gardens in the GCR (Gutierrez Misas, 2005), most of
which feature exotic plants. These gardens not only serve as an entry point for invasions
(Dawson et al., 2008), but they may also be promoting exotics in the local community
directly and indirectly (e.g., (FTG, 2007)). A recent publication about the role of botanic
gardens in plant invasions states that a screening approach for invasiveness has yet to be
applied in tropical botanic gardens (Dawson et al., 2008).
While many introduced plants do not become problematic, a certain percentage do
become invasive (Williamson and Fitter, 1996). Of 220 tree species known to have been
intentionally introduced into the GCR, at least 179 have established in the wild, many of
them growing invasively (Kairo et al., 2003).
The large majority of invasive exotic plant species were intentionally introduced. Waugh
(2008) reviewed the published literature for invasive species in the insular Caribbean and
estimated that of the 191 invasive plants examined, 66 percent were introduced
deliberately to the insular Caribbean through the horticultural pathway. The Bahamas
National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plan states “alien plants have been
introduced with little control […] mainly by gardeners and horticulturalists” (BEST,
2003). Frank and McCoy (1995) reported that about one quarter of Florida’s flora is
comprised of non-indigenous species, almost all of them introduced deliberately.
Among the worst weeds of Florida are the punk tree, Melaleuca quinquenervia
(Myrtaceae), introduced to drain wetlands, Australian pine, Casuarinas equisetifolia
(Casuarinaceae), introduced as an ornamental, as well as Brazilian pepper, Schinus
terebinthifolius (Anacardiaceae), and cogon grass, Imperata cylindrica (Poaceae), both
introduced deliberately (Frank and McCoy, 1995). Kudzu, Pueraria montana var. lobata
(Fabaceae), introduced into the United States for erosion control and strongly promoted
as a forage crop and ornamental plant, has become one of the most serious invasive
weeds in the southeastern United States (DCR, 1999).
Over 60 Ficus (fig) species have been introduced into southern Florida as ornamentals.
Because Ficus are pollinated by species-specific agaonid wasps, it is generally assumed
that they are not able to set fruit outside of their native range. However, the pollinators of
three Ficus species in Florida have been accidentally introduced, leading to the spread of
these Ficus species in two Florida counties (Frank and McCoy, 1995).
In Barbados, sweet lime, Triphasia trifolia (Rutaceae), and mother-in-law’s tongue,
Sansevieria hyacinthoides (Agavaceae), are both garden escapes that have replaced shrub
layers in forested gullies (Waugh, 2008). The neem tree, Azadirachta indica (Meliaceae),
introduced for the purpose of reforestation, has become an invasive species throughout
the Dominican Republic, as well as Puerto Rico and Antigua and Barbuda (IABIN,
2008). Mock orange, Pittosporum undulatum (Pittosporaceae), spread from the Cinchona
Botanic Gardens in Jamaica and from other points where it was planted as an ornamental
tree species; wild ginger, Hedychium gardneranum (Zingiberaceae), and redbush,
Polygonum chinense (Polygonaceae), were also introduced through the botanic garden
99
(Waugh, 2008) 17. In the Bahamas, “tree species, such as Casuarina, Melaleuca, and
Schinus, are aggressive invaders of forests, wetlands and disturbed or open sites,
displacing native plant species.” (Waugh, 2008).
Kairo et al. (2003) lists the following tree species as naturalized and/or invasive in at
least five countries of the GCR, thus considering them major invasive threats to the
region: the red beadtree, Adenanthera pavonina (Fabaceae); woman’s tongue, Albizia
lebbeck (Fabaceae); beach sheok, Casuarina equisetifolia (Casuarinaceae); white cedar,
Tabebuia heterophylla (Bignoniaceae); and Indian jujube, Ziziphus mauritiana
(Rhamnaceae). Common water hyacinth, Eichhornia crassipes (Pontederiaceae), an
aquatic plant, is also identified as a major invasive threat to the insular Caribbean (Kairo
et al., 2003) and is classified as a U.S. noxious weed (USDA, 2008b). Annual costs to
control this weed in seven African countries are between $20-50 million/year (McNeely,
1999).
In the United States, invasive plants currently infest an estimated 40 million hectares, and
continue to spread into an additional 1.2 million hectares every year (NISC, 2001).
Invasive plants have seriously degraded more than 15 million hectares of grazing lands
and natural ecosystems in Australia (Glanznig, 2003). Noxious weeds have invaded an
estimated 10 million hectares in South Africa (van Wilgen et al., 2001), where they are
appropriating as many as 3.3 billion m3 (7%) of mean annual surface water runoff from
catchments, riparian zones, and wetlands (Olckers, 1999).
Economic losses due to introduced plants surpass those caused by any other class of
invasive species. For example, the annual economic impact of invasive weeds is
estimated to be approximately $39 billion in India, $34 billion in the United States, $17
billion in Brazil, $1.4 billion in the United Kingdom (Pimentel et al., 2001), $12 billion
in South Africa (van Wilgen et al., 2001), $3 billion in Australia (Sinden et al., 2004),
and $1 billion in New Zealand (Williams and Timmins, 2002). Losses to the Canadian
economy resulting from invasion by four weeds, Cirsium arvense, Centaurea diffusa, and
Centaurea maculosa (Asteraceae) and Euphorbia esula (Euphorbiaceae), exceed $250
million annually (Claudi, 2002).
What safeguards are in place to prevent additional introductions of invasive plants?
Unfortunately, the safeguards are few and insufficient for most countries of the GCR,
including the United States.
A review of the phytosanitary laws of the GCR countries showed that most regulations
regarding propagative materials aim at preventing the introduction of pests associated
with the plants, but are not concerned with the invasiveness potential of the plants
themselves. For example, many countries require phytosanitary certificates, inspection,
and freedom from soil, but to the best of our knowledge none require weed risk
assessments as a condition for import. The regulated pest list of most countries either
17
Waugh (2008) cites the following reference: Goodland, T. and J. R. Healy. 1996. The invasion of
Jamaican montane rainforests by the Australian tree Pittosporum undulatum. School of Agricultural and
Forest Sciences, University of Wales, Bangor, UK.
100
contains no weeds at all or lists only a relatively small number of plants, which tend to be
agricultural weeds not likely to be imported as propagative materials (IPPC, 2008).
The United States generally allows the importation of any plant species, except for a
number of regulated species and families. Most of these can still enter with an import
permit or after certain treatment requirements have been fulfilled. Very few species are
absolutely prohibited. Paradoxically, weed risk assessment, a necessary condition for the
importation of fruits and vegetables, is not required for the importation of live plants that
are intended for planting and propagation. Thus, plants that are known to be notorious
invaders elsewhere in the world can be legally imported, sold and distributed within the
United States. Tschanz and Lehtonen (2005) proposed actions to address these risks, and
plans are currently underway to develop legislation that establishes a new category of
nursery stock, plants that are “not authorized for import pending risk analysis
(NAPPRA)” (USDA-APHIS, 2009).
Costa Rica’s regulations contain a detailed list of plant species for which importation is
permitted, specifying requirements by country of origin (IPPC, 2008). Again, plant pests
other than the commodity itself are the target of these regulations. Examples of plant
species explicitly permitted to enter include: Ziziphus mauritania (Rhamnaceae), named a
major invasive threat to the GCR by Kairo et al. (2003); Pittosporum undulatum
(Pittosporaceae), an economically important invasive species in Jamaica (Kairo et al.,
2003); Hedychium spp. (Zingiberaceae) and Ficus spp. (Moraceae). Hedychium
gardneranum is invasive in Jamaica (ISSG, 2008), and several Ficus species are invasive
in tropical parts of the world (Yoshioka, 2009).
Even in cases where proper regulations are in place, effective safeguarding may be
hindered by the difficulty of identifying propagative material to the species level. The
immense variety of plant material entering from all over the world easily overwhelms any
level of diagnostic expertise. In addition, the growth stage and condition (seeds, cuttings
without leaves, etc.) of the plant material complicates identification. Thus, if shipment
manifests or phytosanitary certificates provide incorrect information, phytosanitary
officers may not be able to detect the error, and prohibited species may be allowed to
enter.
The issue of smuggling, already discussed in the previous section, is again of concern
here. Literature on the illegal trade of plants is limited. Flores-Palacios and Valencia-Díaz
(2007) conducted a study in Mexico to quantify illegal trade of epiphytes and measure the
diversity of species sold. Visiting a local market, they found that the illegal trade of
epiphytes (species belonging to the Orchidaceae, Bromeliaceae, and other plant families)
is high and occurs regularly, despite being illegal. Over an 85-week period, they counted
the illegal sale of 7,598 plants or cuttings, equaling the volume of legal orchid exports
from Mexico (Flores-Palacios and Valencia-Díaz, 2007). While this study was conducted
in Mexico, there is no reason to believe that the situation would be different in many
countries of the GCR.
101
In 2001, dozens of horticultural groups worldwide drafted and adopted the St. Louis
Codes of Conduct as a voluntary measure to “curb the use and distribution of invasive
plant species through self-governance and self-regulation by the groups concerned”
(Baskin, 2002, CPC, 2008). Representatives from government, industry, and botanic
gardens agreed that a screening system was needed to identify potentially invasive plant
species before they are imported into the country (Reichard, 2004). However, despite
continued recognition of this important pathway (Burt et al., 2007, Dawson et al., 2008),
to our knowledge only one botanic garden has developed a screening procedure for
invasive weeds (e.g., (Jefferson et al., 2004)).
In summary, the propagative material pathway allows invasive plants to continuously
enter countries of the GCR, where they often cause considerable economic and
environmental damage. There are essentially no safeguards in place to prevent this from
happening.
Recommendations
Require a weed risk assessment for the importation of plant species. Prohibit
the importation of all plant species unless they have been deemed unlikely to
become invasive by a (predictive) weed risk assessment. Any country without this
policy leaves a weakness in its safeguarding system. (Exceptions may be made for
plants that have been historically imported at high volumes.) The Australian
Weed Risk Assessment system is the most widely known and tested system of its
kind (Gordon et al., 2008).
Assess the invasiveness of plant species retrospectively (e.g., (Heffernan et al.,
2001, Fox et al., 2005, Randall et al., 2008). Retrospective assessments evaluate
the invasiveness of plants some time after they have been imported. Retrospective
assessments are important because a lag time may exist between species
introduction and onset of invasiveness, invasiveness may change due to
environmental changes, or the invasiveness potential of a species may have been
misjudged in a predictive weed risk assessment (Reichard and White, 2001).
Draft a voluntary code of conduct for nurseries and landscaping businesses
to promote the sale and use of native and non-invasive plants. This code of
conduct should stipulate that the businesses:
o ensure that their staff is knowledgeable on the subject of invasive plants
o help educate their customers about invasive plants
o refrain from selling or planting species that are known to be invasive
o clearly label native plants and foreign non-invasive plants
o immediately report any potentially exotic pest organisms found on
imported plants
102
Draft a voluntary code of conduct for local governments, resorts, hotels, and
other entities that engage in large-scale landscaping. This code of conduct
should stipulate that the entities:
o plant only native species or foreign species known to be non-invasive
o remove plants that are becoming invasive
o help educate their customers/residents on invasive plants
Draft a voluntary code of conduct for botanical gardens and arboreta.
Conclusions from the first World Botanic Gardens Congress state that “Botanic
gardens and arboreta have, and continue to, contribute to this problem by
promoting actually and potentially invasive plants. Botanic gardens and arboreta
have a clear responsibility to adopt and demonstrate to the public a strong
environmental ethic” (BGCI 2000). Code of conduct should stipulate that
botanical gardens:
o conduct invasiveness studies prior to introducing a new plant into botanic
gardens, arboreta, and the landscape. Possibly model invasiveness
evaluation after systems already in place at some botanic gardens that
currently have evaluation systems in place (BGCI, 2000)
o re-evaluate current plant collections for invasiveness (BGCI, 2000)
o …“engage and educate fellow botanic gardens and arboreta, the
horticulture industry, and the public about the importance of choosing and
displaying ecologically responsible plant collections.” (BGCI, 2000)
o “support, contribute to, and share research that identifies problems and
provides solutions” related to invasive plant species.” (BGCI, 2000)
Develop an educational program on identification and potential impact of
invasive plant species in the GCR (Reichard and White, 2001, Waugh, 2008).
This program should target the general public, as well as businesses and
governments throughout the GCR. The program may be developed at universities,
for example through graduate student projects.
•
Develop a certification process that allows any entity adhering to the abovementioned codes of conduct to become a “Certified Ambassador of Invasive
Species Prevention.”
•
Develop sampling protocol for mites and other small arthropods. “Visual
inspection for mite infestations on large numbers of plants is inadequate […]… A
sampling protocol […] would include a designated subsample of plants in a
shipment. Use of either an 80% ethanol wash or a specified concentration of
detergent solution would be employed […]. This assessment should be done for a
minimum period of one year to identify trends and seasonal patterns of different
pest mite species (as well as other arthropods) and provide assurance of
compliance by foreign shippers.” (Childers and Rodrigues 2005).
•
Increase attention to plant pathogens. As much as feasible, increase the
availability of molecular diagnostics. Develop a list of common pathogens of
103
economic importance for which plant material should be tested on a regular basis.
Share test results within the GCR. Use early warning and bio-surveillance systems
as inputs for decision making.
•
Require phytosanitary certificates for all imports of propagative materials.
The phytosantairy certificates should indicate the species and, if applicable the
variety, of the imported plants and should provide some assurance that the plant
material is free of pests based on clearly specified inspection protocols.
•
Evaluate adequacy and reliability of procedures for issuing phytosanitary
certificates. Can the phytosanitary certificates be generally trusted? Is the staff
providing the information qualified? What is the affiliation of the persons
providing the information (NPPO, industry, etc.)? Are specific inspection
guidelines in place? Is there a mechanism for error control? Is there effective
communication between the importing and the exporting country?
•
Support the efforts of the IPPC to develop an international standard for
plants for planting. “International trade in plants for planting has a high potential
for the introduction of regulated pests. Current phytosanitary measures that rely
mainly on treatments and inspections are, in some cases, inadequate to mitigate
the risks. Harmonized procedures for phytosanitary security of traded plants for
planting are necessary to allow increased trade while minimizing phytosanitary
risks and unnecessary delays. The expert working group is tasked with drafting a
standard that will outline the main criteria for the identification and application of
phytosanitary measures for the production and international movement of plants
for planting (excluding seeds), while also providing guidance to help identify and
categorize the risks.” (IPPC, 2008)
•
Record information on propagative material imported by plant species, with
information on variety, type of material (roots, cuttings, etc.), country of origin,
growing and inspection practices followed, date of importation, and amount
imported in consistent units.
•
In the United States: Give strong priority to the improvement of “quarantine
37”, building on the recommendations of Tschanz and Lehtonen (2005). If
necessary, divert scientific, risk analysis, and regulatory resources away from fruit
and vegetable towards propagative material imports.
•
Implement systematic data collection efforts to assess the pest risk associated
with at least the most common imports of propagative materials. These data
collection efforts should be based on a statistically sound sampling scheme
(validated by a qualified statistician) and should follow a clearly documented
inspection protocol. This protocol should describe in detail the inspection
methods to be followed (e.g., detergent wash, diagnostic tests for pathogens, use
of hand lens, etc.). Consider making resources available to fund this work as
graduate student research. The advantages of this approach over using port-of-
104
entry personnel would include: lower cost, less diversion of inspectors, more
objectivity and reliability of research, and better distribution and documentation
of results through the scientific publication process.
•
Develop a systems approach to reduce the pest risk associated with the
propagative materials that pose the highest risk of pest introduction. The systems
approach should be customized for each commodity and should be developed
collaboratively by the importing and the exporting countries. The systems
approach may contain components such as scouting, pesticide applications,
biological control, reduction of fertilizer levels, routine diagnostic tests for
pathogens, basic sanitation practices (e.g., washing of shoes and equipment, etc.),
pre-shipment inspection, quarantine treatments, etc. The systems approach
developed for Costa Rican Dracaena plants for importation into the United States
may serve as one example of a potentially very successful and mutually beneficial
program.
105
Chapter 9: Natural Spread
Introduction
The spread of exotic organisms throughout the Greater Caribbean Region (GCR) is strongly
facilitated by trade and travel. Nevertheless, that natural spread, mediated by wind, may also play
a significant role seems to be a logical assumption given the close proximity of adjacent islands,
the separation of Florida from Cuba by less than 150 km, the separation of Cuba from Mexico by
about 250 km, and the separation of Trinidad from Venezuela by only 10 km.
The objective of this chapter is to provide a short review of the scientific literature with regard to
the following questions:
• Does natural spread of pests occur into and within the GCR?
• What are the prevailing spatial and temporal patterns of natural spread?
• What types of pests are most prone to disperse by natural spread?
Does natural spread occur into and within the GCR?
In most cases, it is impossible to determine the pathway through which a pest was introduced;
thus, examples of known pest introductions via natural spread are rare.
The fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), migrates every year from
the Caribbean islands (Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, Guadeloupe, and French Guiana), where
it occurs year-round, into the United States. Pheromone trapping of adult moths and wind current
analysis indicated seasonal migration between the Antilles and the continental United States and
between the United States and Canada (Mitchell et al., 1991). The distance of single flights of
the adult moths of S. frugiperda depend upon prevailing winds, temperature, and food supply at
the time of the flight (Luginbill, 1928).
Frank and McCoy (1995) list six butterfly species that are believed to periodically recolonize
Florida from Cuba via wind-assisted flight: Chlorostrymon maesites, Strymon acis, Eumaeus
atala (Lycaenidae); Eunica tatila, Anaea troglodyte (Nymphalidae); and Heraclides
aristrodemus (Papilionidae).
Operating insect traps on unmanned oil platforms in the Gulf of Mexico at 32, 74, 106, and 160
km from the Louisiana shoreline, Sparks et al. (1986) collected 177 species of insects over 40
days. The insects represented 69 families belonging to the following orders: Coleoptera, Diptera,
Hemiptera, Hymenoptera, Lepidoptera, Odonata, Orthoptera, and Trichoptera.
Close et al. (1978) trapped several species of insects over the ocean at distances of up to 3,000
km from land.
The first detection of the red palm mite, Raoiella indica (Acari: Tenuipalpidae), in the Western
Hemisphere occured in Martinique in 2004. Within a year, the pest appeared on nearby islands.
106
Even though human-mediated movement was an important mechanism in the subsequent spread
of this pest throughout the GCR, the presence of R. indica populations on very tall and mature
coconut palms in St. Lucia also suggests wind currents as a mode of spread (Hoy et al., 2006).
Locust swarms from the Cape Verdes region in Africa reached the Caribbean islands in 1988
(Richardson and Nemeth, 1991); however, the insects were weak and did not establish
populations in the GCR (Richardson and Nemeth, 1991).
The Asian citrus canker bacterium, Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. citri (Xanthomonadales:
Xanthomonadaceae) was detected in 1995 on citrus trees near Miami International Airport
(Gottwald et al., 1997). Disease spread is closely linked to weather events; after hurricanes
Charley, Francis, and Jeanne in 2004, its distribution increased by 80,000 acres of commercial
citrus, and after hurricane Wilma in 2005, its distribution increased by yet another 200,000 acres.
Similarly, bean golden mosaic virus (BGMV), widespread throughout large parts of the Greater
Caribbean Basin by 1990 (Brunt et al., 1990) appeared in south Florida immediately after the
passage of Hurricane Andrew in 1992 (Blair et al., 1995).
Thomas (2000) showed that only a small percent of the exotic arthropods in Florida originated in
Africa, with the majority coming from Asia, the Pacific, and the Neotropics. This suggests that
long-distance natural spread of plant pests into the GCR may be less important than transport
through trade and tourism. However, given the evidence listed above, some degree of windassisted natural spread is probably occurring on an on-going basis.
What are the prevailing spatial and temporal patterns of natural spread in the
GCR?
The history of the Caribbean islands has been strongly influenced by the continuous flow of the
trade winds that blow at a steady 15 to 25 knots (Rogozinski, 1999) from the coast of Africa
across most of the GCR. Part of the year, the winds move in a clockwise rotation (Figure 9.1)
through the GCR, favoring the wind-mediated movement of pests northward from Venezuela as
opposed to southward from Florida. Virtually all plant and animal life on the Caribbean islands
have migrated from east to west—from the northern coast of Venezuela to Trinidad, up through
the Lesser Antilles and Virgin Islands, and then across the Greater Antilles, i.e., to Puerto Rico,
Hispaniola, Jamaica, and Cuba (Rogozinski, 1999). It is therefore likely that the natural spread of
newly introduced pests would follow this same path.
The tropical trade winds carry the African dust from June through October toward the
North/Central Caribbean and the Southeastern United States. From November through May, the
shift in winds carries the dust toward the South Caribbean and South America (Griffin et al.,
2003). The dust clouds cross the Atlantic in five to seven days and are visible via satellite
imagery and to the naked eye (Griffin et al., 2003). If dust can be transported in this way, then it
is conceivable that certain organisms, such as fungal spores or insects may be transported, as
well.
107
In addition to the general direction set by the prevailing trade winds, the sea-breeze circulation,
consisting of an afternoon sea-to-shore and a nocturnal land-to-sea surface wind also may have
an influence on the movement of air-borne pests. By means of Doppler radar, Russell and
Wilson (1996) found that concentrations of weak-flying insects near the Atlantic coast of Florida
were dispersed inland on the sea breeze, while Sauvageot and Despaux (1996) reported that the
evening land-to-sea breeze at the coast of France was responsible for carrying small insects from
land out over the Atlantic.
Once over land, pest movement may also be directed by the diurnal cycle of local winds between
low and high altitude areas. During the daytime, winds tend to blow from the coastal plain
toward the mountain, and at night from the mountain toward the coastal plain. The mountainplains wind system is most apparent on days when the general prevailing winds are weak. The
upslope winds in valleys are often 3-5 m s−1 (6.7 -11.1 mph). Such local winds on and near
Caribbean islands probably help to launch some insects on flights over the sea, as well as to aid
insects arriving from across the sea to disperse well into the interior of the island.
Tropical storms (winds of 39 to 73 miles per hour) and hurricanes (winds of 74 miles per hour or
greater) can form at any time between the beginning of June to the end of November, but more
than 80 percent develop during August, September, and October (Rogozinski, 1999). An average
of about 15 tropical cyclones, including seven or eight hurricanes, occur per year, though many
never reach land (Rogozinski, 1999, Quantick, 2001).
Hurricanes affecting the GCR arise primarily near the Cape Verde Islands off the coast of West
Africa or off the coasts of Honduras and the Yucatán Peninsula in the eastern Caribbean Sea
(Quantick, 2001). The course of hurricanes is unpredictable, but most tend to travel slowly, at
about 10 miles per hour, across the Lesser Antilles or Greater Antilles (Rogozinski, 1999). Earlyseason hurricanes (July-August) usually hit the Lesser Antilles, while late-season hurricanes
(September-October), tend to be more severe and have a more northerly track that passes over
the Greater Antilles (Caviedes, 1991) (Figure 9.2). They may curve to the north or northeast,
either striking the southeastern coast of the United States or dying out in the middle of the
Atlantic Ocean. Only Trinidad and three islands off of Venezuela are far enough to the south of a
typical hurricane’s path to be safe from destruction (Rogozinski, 1999).
In summary, natural spread of pests within the GCR, is most likely to occur from Venezuela to
Trinidad, up through the Lesser Antilles and Virgin Islands, and then across the Greater Antilles.
It is not very likely to occur in the opposite direction. In addition, wind promotes the movement
between land and sea, as well as between lower and higher altitudes. As the direction of these
movements depends on the time of day, it may affect different pests in different ways, depending
on their diurnal rhythm of activity. Tropical storms and hurricanes, which can also spread pests,
are common in the GCR, occuring most frequently in late summer to fall. Their paths are
unpredictable, but tend to move from east to west into the GCR and then may curve back
towards the east or northeast.
108
What types of pests are most prone to disperse by natural spread?
Minute arthropods: mites, scales, aphids, thrips, collembola
Minute arthropods generally are not capable of covering long distances by active flight. They
are, however, transported passively over sometimes large distances by wind currents.
Mites, being wingless, cannot engage in active flight, but they do exhibit behavioral adaptations
that facilitate passive aerial dispersal. For example, the cassava green mite, Mononychellus
tanajoa (Acari: Tetranychidae), and other spider mites disperse aerially by climbing to the top of
a plant, producing a silken thread and “spinning” from the edge of a leaf before being carried
away by the breeze (Yaninek, 1988).
Immature scale insects, also known as crawlers, and mealybugs are similar in their ability to
move on wind. These types of insects generally move from plant to plant by aerial dispersal,
(Yaninek, 1988). Though generally, aerial dispersal of spider mites, mealybug and scale crawlers
covers distances of less than 10 km/year (Yaninek, 1988), there are accounts of coccids that
appear to have been carried across the Tasman Sea from Australia to New Zealand during
appropriate meteorological conditions (Close et al., 1978, Drake and Farrow, 1988).
For alate aphids, take-off is an active process, but once airborne, aphids are carried passively by
the wind. Aphids have been transported by wind over distances up to at least 800 miles
(Schneider, 1962). Within the laboratory, aphids can remain aloft for up to 12 hours (Wiktelius,
1984), and studies under natural conditions show an average flight duration of two to three hours
(Wiktelius, 1984). Some aphids (Hemiptera: Aphididae) routinely engage in long-distance
migrations, e.g. the English grain aphid, Macrosiphum avenae, the corn leaf aphid,
Rhopalosiphum maidis, the bird cherry-oat aphid, Rhopalosiphum padi, and the greenbug,
Schizaphis graminum (Johnson, 1995).
Mass flights of some thrips species, such as the western flower thrips, Frankliniella occidentalis
(Thysanoptera: Thripidae), are triggered by the senescence and death of the flowers on their host
plants (Ramachandran et al., 2001). Thrips are known to be passively borne long distances in
wind currents (Lewis, 1973, Laughlin, 1977, Lewis, 1997).
Small soil-surface-active insects such as Collembola may be swept up into the air. Wind-blown
Collembola and mites have been collected in suspended plankton nets at altitudes of 1500 m
(Coulson et al., 2003).
Minute arthropods are susceptible to dessication during flight. For example, a study in southern
Australia (Laughlin, 1977) revealed that in an ambient temperature of 10-14º C, thrips could
survive in the air without food or water for over 24 hours, while at summer temperatures of
approximately 19-23º C, survival times of airborne thrips were predicted to average six hours,
and on very hot days only three hours. Though minute arthropods may have a small chance of
surviving transport over very large distances, they may easily be able to survive travel over short
distances, such as between adjacent islands.
109
Larger insects: moths, butterflies, leafhoppers
Lepidopterans –at least the larger species- are generally strong enough fliers to be able to propel
themselves for the most part actively and to maintain a general direction, in spite of changes in
wind direction (Schneider, 1962). Numerous species of Lepidoptera engage in long-range
migration, with the family Noctuidae being the most predominant migratory group.
One study demonstrated that adults of Agrotis ipsilon (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) were able to
travel approximately 1,200 km from their release sites in Louisiana and Texas to Iowa in the
span of about three days (Showers et al., 1989). The most well-known example of a migratory
moth is the monarch butterfly, Danaus plexippus (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae), specimens of
which fly 2,500 km in one year to return to their natal area (Taylor and Reling, 1986, Johnson,
1995).
There are also well-studied examples of annual migration by economically important leafhoppers
(Hemiptera: Cicadellidae), e.g., the beet leafhopper, Circulifer tenellus, the potato leafhopper,
Empoasca fabae, and an aster leafhopper, Macrosteles fascifrons. These pests use the wind to
their advantage to spread passively to areas with better food availability (Taylor and Reling,
1986).
Plant Pathogens
Plant pathogens produce enormous quantities of spores that are passively transported, eventually
landing on both target and non-target sites. Spores of different phytopathogenic fungi are carried
singly or in clumps by wind and have been trapped far from their release sites.
Ultraviolet (UV) light from the sun causes spore mortality; however, survival during longdistance movement is still possible (Nagarajan and Singh, 1990). Microorganisms have survived
the 4,000 km airborne trip from Africa to the Caribbean and the Americas (Griffin et al., 2003).
Sugarcane smut, Ustilago scitaminea (Ustilaginales: Ustilaginaceae), is believed to have been
carried from Africa to the Caribbean with the North-East trade winds (Purdy et al., 1985,
Nagarajan and Singh, 1990); and Mycosphaerella fijiensis (Ascomycetes: Mycosphaerellales),
the causal agent of black sigatoka disease of banana, is suspected to have spread in the same
manner (Nagarajan and Singh, 1990). Hurricane Ivan is suspected to have picked up soybean rust
spores in Venezuela and deposited them over Alabama and the panhandle of Florida (FDACS,
2004, Schneider et al., 2005).
Worldwide information on the long-distance dispersal of rust diseases shows that there are
certain defined routes that operate during specific months and years, including the route from
West Africa to the GCR and Mexico to the northeastern United States (Nagarajan and Singh,
1990).
110
Conclusions
Most information on pest movement into and within the GCR is anecdotal. Once a pest
establishes in a new area, it is difficult to determine the pathway of introduction. Most likely,
pests have moved from island to island by natural spread; yet, in most instances, such movement
proceeds largely unnoticed. The route of natural movement most likely is that of prevailing
winds. In the Caribbean, the prevailing winds would carry insects or plant pathogens from the
Windward Islands (the most southeasterly islands), toward the northwest to the Leeward Islands,
and on to the Greater Antilles and the southeastern United States. Hurricanes are a potential
source for pest movement, but the force of the storm would likely kill or injure most insects that
are swept up. Tropical storms with less intense wind strength may be a more likely mechanism
for natural movement of plants pests.
The period from June to August is the most probable time for pest movement from countries of
the GCR to the United States, as summer is the rainy season in many areas of the Caribbean,
with lush plant growth and higher pest densities. While the prevailing winds are favorable for
pest movement year-round, in the summer and early fall, tropical storms are more common and
could contribute to the spread of plant pests.
Any plant pest is capable of dispersal, usually utilizing a combination of passive and active
dispersal means. Lepidopterans, especially noctuid moths, are some of the most successful
insects to move into new areas. Airborne plant pathogens such as rusts move very easily across
large areas. Arthropods not capable of active flight over long distances, such as mites, scales,
aphids, and collembola, can still be blown on the wind. These passive dispersers move at a
slower rate than active fliers and their dispersal is completely dependent on the wind direction.
Minimal capacity for migration is possessed by tiny gnats and midges, which are behaviorally
adapted to fly within a shallow boundary layer at night when atmospheric lift is minimal and
which are therefore restricted to travelling the short distances their own powers of flight can
sustain (Taylor, 1974).
There is nothing that can be done to prevent the natural spread of pests. Therefore, National Plant
Protection Organizations should employ alternative strategies to reduce the risk of pest
establishment. Annual surveys are a way to monitor new pest arrivals. Predictive modeling
works well for some plant pathogens. The primary focus should be pests that are capable of
establishing and causing economic losses or environmental damage.
Recommendations
Conduct annual surveys to monitor the arrival of new pests in an area.
Use predictive modeling (e.g., degree-day models, etc.) for timing of surveys.
•
Use sterile insect technique (SIT). Base SIT programs on a target pest list.
•
Develop host-free zones for targeted pests.
111
•
Develop biological control methods for targeted pests.
•
Determine the origin of invasive pests in the GCR. Because most information about
the natural spread of pests is anecdotal, the knowledge of where a pest originated from
would be a useful start in understanding natural pest movement. Obviously, it is generally
very difficult and often not possible to determine the origin of a pest. Modern
technologies, such as trace element or DNA analysis may be useful in some cases.
112
Acknowledgements
We thank…
Charles Brodel (USDA-APHIS-PPQ) for putting immense effort into reviewing a draft of this
document and for providing expertise on the USDA-PestID database and insight into pathways.
Robert Balaam (USDA-APHIS-PPQ) for obtaining funding for the project and establishing
initial contacts.
Cynthia Benoit (USDA-APHIS-PPQ) for providing valuable insights and suggestions.
Anthony Koop (USDA-APHIS-PPQ) for significant contributions to the chapter on proagative
materials.
Jennifer Fritz (North Carolina State University) for editing and formatting the report.
Alison Neeley (USDA-APHIS-PPQ-CPHST) and Luis Caniz (USDA-APHIS-IS) for providing
valuable information on cruise ship travel, land border crossings, and agricultural inspection
procedures.
Amy Roda for sharing relevant information.
Linda Pardoe (DHS-CBP) and Ron Komsa (USDA-APHIS-PPQ) for facilitating access to
AQIM data.
Lynn Garrett (USDA-APHIS-PPQ-CPHST) for providing access to forestry export data for the
U.S. Gulf States.
Laney Campbell (USDA-APHIS-PPQ-Eastern Region) for information on log and wood
exports, and for interception data on Christmas trees.
Paul Larkins (USDA-APHIS-PPQ-Eastern Region) for assistance with harmonized tariff codes.
Tom Culliney (USDA-APHIS-PPQ-CPHST) for reviewing various draft chapters for this report
and for providing a table of WPM pests with invasive potential in the GCR.
Scott Redlin (USDA-APHIS-PPQ-CPHST) for assistance with PPQ historical documents and
contacts.
Camille Morris (USDA-APHIS-SITC, Regional Program Manager) and Brian Marschman
(USDA-APHIS-PPQ, Idaho State Plant Health Director) for providing SITC data and
information for the mail chapter.
113
Glenn Fowler (USDA-APHIS-PPQ-CPHST), Bruce Lauckner (CARDI), Tom Kalaris
(USDA-APHIS-PPQ-CPHST), Catherine Katsar (USDA-APHIS-PPQ), Amy Roda (USDAAPHIS-PPQ), Waldemar Klassen (University of Florida), Brian Kopper (USDA-APHIS-PPQEastern Region), John Stewart (USDA-APHIS-PPQ-Eastern Region), Dionne Clarke-Harris
(CARDI), and John Rogers (USDA-APHIS-PPQ-CPHST) for reviewing drafts of various
chapters.
Charles Thayer (North Carolina State University) for maintaining the project website.
We thank the following for their assistance with organizing site visits:
Costa Rica: Benny Garcia and Roberto Salazar (Ministerio Agricultura y Ganaderia) and
Marco Gonzalez (USDA-APHIS-IS)
Guatemala: Luis Caniz (USDA-APHIS-IS)
Jamaica: Sheila Harvey, R. Denzville Williams, and Digby Scott (Jamaica Ministry of
Agriculture and Lands) and Chris Prendergast (USDA-APHIS-IS)
Martinique: Philippe Terrieux and Jean Iotti (Service de la Protection des Vegetaux)
Miami: Linda Cullen (DHS-CBP) and Eduardo Varona (USDA-APHIS-PPQ, Florida
State Operations Support Officer)
Puerto Rico: Albert Roche, Leyinska Wiscovitch, Norberto Gabriel, and Gerardo Ruíz
(USDA-APHIS-PPQ)
Trinidad: Wayne De Chi (USDA-APHIS-IS)
We are also deeply grateful to the many other people who have taken the time to meet and share
their expertise with us.
114
Figures and Tables
Figure 1.1 Origin of tourists to the insular Caribbean in 2006.
Canada
1,487,954
Other
2,753,157
United States
5,771,200
Europe
3,514,395
Tourist arrival data for 2006 as reported in Table 1.3 (CTO, 2007). Data were not available for the Bahamas, British
Virgin Islands, Guadeloupe, Haiti, Martinique, Saint Barts, Saint Kitts and Nevis, and Turks and Caicos Islands. Data
were reported as non-resident air arrivals for Antigua and Barbuda, Dominican Republic, and Saint Maarten
(Netherlands Antilles). Barbados, Cuba, Dominica, and Grenada reported preliminary data. Saint Eustatius
(Netherlands Antilles) and Trinidad and Tobago reported tourist arrivals from January to June only. Data for Puerto
Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands were reported as non-resident hotel registrations. United States arrivals to Cuba
were reported in the “Other” category.
115
Figure 1.2 Tourist arrivals to the Insular Caribbean by month in 2006.
2,000,000
1,500,000
1,000,000
500,000
ug
us
Se
t
pt
em
be
r
O
cto
be
r
N
ov
em
be
D
r
ec
em
be
r
A
Ju
ly
Ju
ne
ay
M
pr
il
A
Ja
n
ua
ry
Fe
br
ua
ry
M
ar
ch
0
Tourist arrival data for 2006 as reported in Table 1.2 (CTO, 2007). Data were excluded for locations not reporting
arrival numbers for all months (Haiti, Saint Eustatius, and Trinidad and Tobago). Data were not available for
Guadeloupe, Saint Barts, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Maarten (Netherlands Antilles), and Turks and Caicos Islands.
Data were reported as non-resident air arrivals for Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Dominican Republic, and Saint
Maarten (Netherlands Antilles). Preliminary data were reported for the British Virgin Islands, Cuba, Dominica, and
Martinique. Data for Puerto Rico were reported as non-resident hotel registrations.
116
Table 1.1 Tourist arrivals by country or territory in 2006.
1
Tourist arrival data were not available for Guadeloupe, Saint Barts, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Turks and Caicos Islands,
and the United States (Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi).
2
Overseas (excludes Canada and Mexico) non-resident air arrivals to airports in Florida (Miami, Orlando, and
Sanford) and Texas (Houston).
3
Tourist arrival data were not available for all of 2006; data reported represents 2005 stop-over arrivals (CTO, 2008).
4
Arrivals reported as non-resident air arrivals.
5
Preliminary data.
6
Netherlands Antilles includes the islands of Curaçao, Bonaire, Saint Maarten, Saint Eustatius, and Saba. Arrivals
reported for Saint Maarten were non-resident air arrivals. Arrivals to Saint Eustatius for 2006 were reported only for
the time period of January to June so data from 2005 were substituted (10,355 tourist stop-over arrivals reported for
Saint Eustatius in 2005 (CTO, 2008)).
7
Arrivals reported as non-resident hotel registrations.
8
Data for this table were obtained from the following sources: a (CTO, 2007); b (SICA, 2008); c (OTTI, 2007a); and d
(CTO, 2008).
117
Table 1.2 Excursionist6 arrivals by region and country or territory in 2006.
1
Excursionist arrival data were not available for Anguilla, Cuba, Guadeloupe, Saint Barts, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Turks
and Caicos Islands, Guyana, Suriname, and the United States (Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas).
2
Preliminary data.
3
Excursionist arrival data were not available for all of 2006; data reported represents 2005 excursionist arrivals
(reported as cruise passenger arrivals) (CTO, 2008).
4
Netherlands Antilles includes the islands of Curaçao, Bonaire, Saint Maarten, Saint Eustatius, and Saba.
Excursionist arrival data were not available for Saint Eustatius and Saba.
5
Data for this table were obtained from the following sources: a – reported as number of cruise passengers. (CTO,
2007); b – reported as number of excursionists (SICA, 2008); and c – reported as number of cruise passengers.
(CTO, 2008).
6
Visitor staying for less than 24 hours and not staying overnight.
118
Table 1.3 Pest interceptions on maritime (primarily cruise ship18) baggage at U.S. ports of entry located in
the U.S. Gulf States (Florida, Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas) during 2007. The number of
specimens intercepted is listed after the pest name. Note: These interceptions were the result of a special
data collection effort targeting Raoiella indica (USDA, 2008d).
Port of
entry
FL Miami
FL Miami
FL Miami
FL Miami
FL Miami
FL Miami
FL Miami
Origin
Inspected host
Pest
Pest type
St. Maarten
Mexico
Jamaica
Jamaica
Jamaica
Jamaica
Jamaica
Cocos nucifera (leaf)
Cocos nucifera (leaf)
Cocos nucifera (leaf)
Cocos nucifera (leaf)
Cocos nucifera (leaf)
Cocos nucifera (leaf)
Cocos nucifera (leaf)
Insect
Insect
Mite
Mite
Mite
Mite
Insect
FL Miami
FL Miami
FL Miami
FL Miami
FL Miami
FL Miami
FL Miami
FL Miami
FL Miami
FL Miami
FL Miami
FL Miami
FL Miami
FL Miami
FL Port
Everglades
FL Miami
FL Miami
FL Miami
FL Miami
FL Miami
FL Miami
TX
Houston
FL Miami
Jamaica
Jamaica
Mexico
Unknown
Unknown
Haiti
Unknown
Mexico
St. Maarten
St. Maarten
Puerto Rico
Puerto Rico
St. Maarten
Mexico
D.R.
Cocos nucifera (leaf)
Cocos nucifera (leaf)
Cocos nucifera (leaf)
Cocos nucifera (leaf)
Baggage
Cocos nucifera (leaf)
At Large
Cocos nucifera (leaf)
Cocos nucifera (leaf)
Handicrafts
Cocos nucifera (leaf)
Cocos nucifera (leaf)
Cocos nucifera (leaf)
Cocos nucifera (leaf)
Palmaceae sp.
Aonidiella orientalis (Diaspididae): 1
Hoplandrothrips flavipes (Phlaeothripidae): 1
Oribatida species: 2
Macrochelidae species: 1
Ameroseiidae species: 2
Tyrophagus species (Acaridae): 1
Hoplandrothrips flavipes (Phlaeothripidae):
13
Tyrophagus species (Acaridae): 1
Parasitidae species: 2
Hemiberlesia lataniae (Diaspididae): 1
Aonidiella orientalis (Diaspididae): 2
Sorghum sp. (Poaceae)
Mesostigmata species: 10
Gryllus sp. (Gryllidae): 1
Aleyrodicinae species (Aleyrodidae): 5
Raoiella indica (Tenuipalpidae): 2
Raoiella indica (Tenuipalpidae): 1
Tenuipalpidae species: 6
Oligonychus sp. (Tetranychidae):1
Raoiella indica (Tenuipalpidae): 9
Aleurodicinae species (Aleyrodidae): 3
Raoiella indica (Tenuipalpidae): 1
St. Maarten
Unknown
Unknown
St. Maarten
Unknown
D.R.
Brazil
Cocos nucifera (leaf)
Cocos nucifera (leaf)
Cocos nucifera (leaf)
Cocos nucifera (leaf)
Cocos nucifera (leaf)
Handicrafts
Citrus sp.
Raoiella indica (Tenuipalpidae): 2
Raoiella indica (Tenuipalpidae): 24
Tetranychus sp. (Tetranychidae): 3
Tetranychus sp. (Tetranychidae): 1
Aleurotrachelus atratus (Aleyrodidae)
Resseliella sp. (Cecidomyiidae): 37
Guinardia citricarpa (Botryosphaeriaceae)
Mite
Mite
Mite
Mite
Insect
Insect
Disease
St. Maarten
Cocos nucifera (leaf)
Raoiella indica (Tenuipalpidae): 61
Mite
Mite
Mite
Insect
Mite
Weed
Mite
Insect
Insect
Mite
Mite
Mite
Mite
Mite
Insect
Mite
18
The data source (USDA, 2008b) does not specify vessel type; however, in many cases a ship name is listed,
providing some indication of the identity of the vessel.
119
Table 1.4 Number of people moving across four major border crossings of the Mexico-Guatemala border,
June-December 2004 (Solís, 2005).
Border
crossings
El Carmen
Tecún-Umán
La Mesilla
Gracias a Dios
Total
From Mexico into Guatemala
Guatemalans Non-Guatemalans
7,418
18,448
13,181
12,100
2,074
15,175
248
1,887
22,921
47,610
From Guatemala into Mexico
Guatemalans Non-Guatemalans
41,601
9,894
17,335
9,053
14,184
5,243
6,083
1,713
79,203
25,903
Table 1.5 Influx of temporary farm workers from Guatemala into Chiapas, Mexico (Solís, 2005).
Year
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
Number of workers
60,783
49,655
64,691
69,036
42,471
39,321
46,318
120
Figure 2.1 95% binomial confidence intervals for plant QM approach rates in international airline passenger baggage at U.S. ports of entry
between January 1, 2005 and August 22, 2007. By travel reason (sample sizes in parenthesis). Data source: (USDA, 2008f).
6%
4%
3%
2%
1%
M
ili
ta
ry
(1
,4
38
)
(7
2,
72
9)
Bu
s
Cr
ew
ed
fo
rm
Un
i
in
es
s/
W
or
k
(5
,2
42
)
16
,0
86
)
r(
O
th
e
ur
is
t(
10
9,
44
6)
To
s
rie
nd
Vi
si
tF
am
ily
(9
8,
65
3)
(1
4,
07
8)
0%
Vi
si
tF
Plant QM Approach Rate
5%
Travel reason
121
Figure 2.2 95% binomial confidence intervals for plant QM approach rates in international airline passenger baggage at U.S. ports of entry
between January 1, 2005 and August 22, 2007. By country of passenger origin (sample sizes in parenthesis). Shows the 25 countries of origin
with the highest approach rates. Countries with samples sizes < 30 are omitted. Data source: (USDA, 2008f).
70%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Pa
l
Ha au
it i ( 34
Bo (1, )
na 98
ire 8)
Ira (7 4
)
n
St Alg (77
. V er 6 )
in ia
(
c
G en 79 )
re t (
Uz na d 16 6
)
a
b
Ba ek ( 2
6
i
ng st
9
la an )
de ( 4
sh 8)
Sy ( 3
G
9
ua
de ria 3)
lo (15
u
6
Bo pe )
(
St livi 94 )
.L a(
uc 34
ia 8)
(
To 58 6
g
Be o )
la ( 69
r
Tu us )
ni ( 71
si
)
La a ( 9
os 3)
Er (1
Ec it
3
ua rea 7)
do (7
An r (1 4 )
t ig ,93
9
u
Pe a ( )
8
Sl ru ( 43)
ov 3,
1
Ba aki 01
)
a
Ja ham (19
m
6)
ai a s
ca (3
M
2
ac (1 9 )
e d 0,4
on 23
ia )
(7
6)
Plant QM Approach Rate
60%
Country of origin
122
Ha
it
Bo i (1,
St
9
. V na i 8 8
in re )
(
c
G en 7 4)
r
t
e
G
ua na (16
de da 6)
(2
l
St oup 69
.L e )
u (9
An cia 4 )
(
t
Ba igu 58 6
)
a
Ja ham (8
4
m
ai a s 3)
Do ca (32
m (1 0 9 )
Tr inic ,42
in a 3)
id
ad (32
St (1 2)
. K ,4
Br
it 3 8
iti
sh El Gu ts )
Vi Sa ya n (83
rg lv
a 3
in ad ( 3 )
Is or 74
)
la
nd (34
4
s
( 6)
Cu 1,1
St
b 02
Ni . M a (4 )
ca aa
8
r
( 7
Ho agu 1,4 )
nd a 48
ur (1, )
Tu
as 34
B
rk
s a rb ( 2 9 )
an a ,0
d do 13
G
)
s
ua Cai (7
t e co 14
Co ma s ( )
s t la 6 2
7
a
(
Ri 2,3 )
c
0
An a ( 2)
gu 3,2
ill 8 5
Be a ( )
Ca li 1 2
ym ze 3)
Pa a n ( 78
na ( 1 2)
Do
m ,4
m
in Be a ( 90)
1
ic
a n rmu ,73
R da 9 )
ep (
. ( 41
1 , 8)
15
31
)
Plant QM Appraoch Rate
Figure 2.3 95% binomial confidence intervals for plant QM approach rates in international airline passenger baggage at U.S. ports of entry
between January 1, 2005 and August 22, 2007. Caribbean countries of passenger origin (sample sizes in parenthesis). Countries with samples
sizes < 30 are omitted. Data source: (USDA, 2008f).
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Country of origin
123
ad
a
(1
Ja
,0
pa
22
n
)
G
(1
er
6,
m
37
an
1)
y
Ar
(1
ge
7,
61
nt
in
3)
a
M
(
2,
ex
51
ic
8)
o
(
40
Ec
,
ua
21
do
3)
r(
1,
93
Bo
9)
l iv
ia
Fr
an
(3
48
ce
)
(1
Ba
2,
3
ha
96
m
)
as
(3
I
t
29
al
Ne
y
)
th
(1
er
0
,0
la
02
nd
)
s
(6
,6
In
36
di
)
a
(8
,
1
Is
97
ra
)
el
Ja
(2
m
,9
ai
07
ca
)
(1
Au
0
st
,4
23
ra
lia
)
(3
Ire
,
6
la
25
nd
)
(
3,
Ko
9
07
re
)
a,
(5
,7
Sp
42
ai
)
Sw n (5
,2
ed
36
en
)
Co
(
2
lo
,
2
m
51
bi
)
a
(4
,0
H
31
Sw
ai
)
ti
it z
(
1
er
,
98
la
nd
8)
(2
Ch
,5
in
51
Pe
a
)
ru
&
Ta
(3
,
iw
10
El
an
1)
Sa
(8
,2
lv
36
ad
)
or
Tr
(3
in
,4
46
id
ad
)
(1
,4
38
)
Ca
n
# Plant QMs
Figure 2.4 Estimated annual number of plant QMs arriving at U.S. airports (95% binomial confidence intervals). By country of origin (sample sizes
in parenthesis). The 25 countries with the highest predicted number of plant QMs are depicted.
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
0
Country of origin
124
an
y
(1
6,
37
1)
Ar
(1
7,
ge
61
nt
3)
in
a
M
(2
ex
,5
18
ic
o
)
(4
Ec
0,
2
ua
13
do
)
r(
1,
9
Bo
39
l iv
)
i
a
Fr
(3
an
48
ce
)
(1
Ba
2,
39
ha
6)
m
as
(3
Ita
29
Ne
ly
)
th
(1
0,
er
0
la
02
nd
)
s
(6
,
6
In
36
di
)
a
(8
,1
Is
97
ra
)
el
Ja
(
2,
m
90
ai
ca
7)
(
Au
10
,4
st
23
ra
)
lia
(3
Ire
,6
la
25
nd
)
(3
Ko
,9
07
re
)
a,
(5
,
74
Sp
2)
ai
n
Sw
(5
,2
ed
36
en
)
Co
(2
lo
,2
m
51
bi
)
a
(4
,0
Ha
31
Sw
)
it i
it z
(1
er
,9
88
la
nd
)
(
2
Ch
,5
51
in
Pe
a
)
ru
&
(3
Ta
,
10
iw
1)
an
El
Sa
(8
,2
lv
36
ad
)
or
Tr
(3
,4
in
46
id
ad
)
(1
,4
38
)
G
er
m
Ja
pa
n
# Plant QMs
Figure 2.5 Same as figure 2.4, but Canada not displayed to show data for the other countries at a smaller scale.
45,000
40,000
35,000
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
Country of origin
125
Bo
na
G Gu ire
ua y (5
de a n 9)
lo a (
G up 30)
re e
St n (4
. V ad 9)
in a (
c 7
To en 0)
rto t (4
la 7 )
Br
M (1
a 2
iti
Es lta 3)
sh
to (3
Vi
ni 1 )
rg
a
in
(
I
r
Is an 32)
la
(
n
St ds 64
)
.
Ba K i (72
ha t ts 0)
m (3
a 9
Eg s ( 3)
1
Ca yp 99
na t (1 )
da 4 7
( )
Tr Ha i 394
t
i
Cz n i ( )
ec ida 14
h d 6)
Ca Re (2 5
St m p. ( 3)
. M bo 29
aa dia 0)
rt (4
Al en 4)
Zi ba (96
m ni 1)
ba a
An bw (30
t ig e ( )
Po ua 30)
l (3
Sl a nd 18
ov ( )
en 3 3
Bo ia 8)
s (3
An nia 1)
gu (3
Is ila 2)
Sw rae ( 65
ed l (5 )
Ni en 6 9)
ge (6
ri a 7 5
( )
U
T
Ne a S 16 9
n
A
th za ( )
er n 5 5
la ia 7
)
n
De ds ( 12
nm (2 0)
ar ,31
El B k ( 6)
Sa oli 53
lv via 6)
St ado ( 7
. L r 0)
uc (46
i
0
G Au a (2 )
er s t 7
m ria 2)
an (
y 42
(5 2 )
,0
85
)
Plant QM approach rate
Figure 2.6 95% binomial confidence intervals for plant QM approach rates in international airline passenger baggage at U.S. ports of entry
between January 1, 2005 and August 22, 2007. Tourists only. By country of origin. Data source: (USDA, 2008f).
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Country of origin
126
Sw
it z
er
la
No nd
rw (8
a 08
Jo y ( )
4
Uk rda 16
ra n ( )
Se ine 6 0)
Ho ne ( 16
nd ga 7)
l
Ire ura (43
la s )
n (
Fr d ( 388
Ni an 1,8 )
ca ce 22
)
In rag ( 51
do ua 73
ne (2 )
si 09
Ita a ( 1 )
ly 1
Ta (5 7)
hi 0 5
1
t
In i ( 1 )
Ec dia 89
ua (8 )
d
Sp or 07)
ai (31
Ke n (2 7)
n 73
G ya 7)
ha (2
Tu na 0 2)
rk (1
s 0
Ru a 2)
s s (4 0
8
i
Pe a ( 4 )
3
r
U. u 6)
K (
Hu . ( 653
1
n
Ja g 7,6 )
m ar y 3 5
ai
( )
Ca ca 265
(
4
ym ,4 )
a 44
T
Au ur n ( 8 )
Ne s t key 43
w ral ( 4 )
i
Co Ze a ( 1 24)
a
l
s t a ,3
a nd 59
R
)
Ba ica ( 62
rb (1 6)
a ,
Be do 74 0
lg s ( )
iu 23
m 9
Se (6 )
Cu rbi 00)
a
Th ra c ( 3
a
ai o 1)
Po la n (63
d
Si rtu (5 )
ng ga 70
ap l ( )
o 3
G re 19)
re ( 3
ec 2
Ko e ( 8)
re 69 5
a
(8 )
33
)
Plant QM approach rate
Figure 2.6 (continued) 95% binomial confidence intervals for plant QM approach rates in international airline passenger baggage at U.S. ports of
entry between January 1, 2005 and August 22, 2007. Tourists only. By country of origin. Data source: (USDA, 2008f).
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Country of origin
127
Table 2.1 Results of Agricultural Quarantine Inspection Monitoring (AQIM) of international air passengers arriving at U.S. airports during fiscal
years 2005 and 2006. The sampling unit is the group of passengers traveling together under one U.S. Customs declaration. The table shows the
number of passenger groups that were found to have quarantine materials (QMs), the number of passenger groups inspected, the estimated
proportion of passenger groups that carry QMs (“approach rate”), and the lower and upper 95% binomial confidence limits for this estimate. It also
lists the total annual number of passengers entering the United States, the average number of passengers per group, and the annual number of
groups entering the United States. Finally, it shows the lower and upper confidence limits for the estimated total annual number of QMs entering
the United States.
Pax
with
QMS19
Pax
inspected20
11,977
319,599
Approach
rate21
Lower
95% CL22
Upper 95%
CL23
Pax
entering
Group
size25
Pax
groups
entering26
QMs entering
(Lower 95%
CL)27
QMs entering
(Upper 95%
CL)28
1.4
37 million
1.64 million
1.68 million
24
3.75%
3.70%
3.81%
52
million
19
Number of passenger groups where quarantine materials were found (Data source: USDA Agricultural Quarantine Monitoring for FY 2005 and 2006)
Number of passenger groups inspected (Data source: USDA Agricultural Quarantine Monitoring for FY 2005 and 2006)
21
Percentage of passenger groups inspected where QMIs were found
22
Lower 95% confidence limit of the approach rate
23
Upper 95% confidence limit of the approach rate
24
Number of passengers entering the United States annually (OTTI, 2007a)
25
Average number of passengers per group (Data source: USDA Agricultural Quarantine Monitoring for FY 2005 and 2006)
26
Number of passenger groups entering the United States annually (number passengers divided by average group size)
27
Lower 95% confidence limit of the approach rate x Pax groups entering x average number of QMs per declaration (1.2)
28
Upper 95% confidence limit of the approach rate x Pax groups entering x average number of QMs per declaration (1.2)
20
128
Table 2.2 Number and percentage of travelers in the various travel reason categories. Data source:
Agricultural Quarantine Inspection Monitoring, fiscal years 2005 and 2006 (USDA, 2008f).
Travel Reason
Tourist
Family Visit
Business/Work
Visit Friends
Uniformed Crew
Military
Other
Frequency
Percent
109,446
98,653
72,729
14,078
5,242
1,438
16,086
34
31
23
4
1
0.5
6
129
Table 2.3 Annual number of visitors arriving in Caribbean countries by airplane and percentage of visitors
that are tourists. Periods indicate that no data were available. Data source: (UNWTO, 2006).
Country
Anguilla
Antigua
Aruba
Bahamas
Barbados
Belize
Bonaire
British Virgin Islands
Cayman Islands
Costa Rica
Cuba
Curacao
Dominica
Dominican Republic
Grenada
Guatemala
Guyana
Haiti
Honduras
Jamaica
Martinique
Montserrat
Nicaragua
Panama
Puerto Rico
Saba
St. Eustatius
St. Kitts and Nevis
St. Lucia
St. Maarten
St. Vincent and the Grenadines
Trinidad
Turks and Caicos
U.S. Virgin Islands
Visitors by air
24,000
245,000
728,000
1,450,000
546,000
163,000
63
220,000
260,000
1,088,000
2,017,000
233,000
.
3,450,000
128,000
434,000
122,000
96,000
272,000
1,415,000
404,000
9,600
204,000
476,000
3,541,000
7,300
.
122,000
.
475,000
100,000
443,000
158,000
655,000
Tourists
83%
.
92%
82%
81%
93%
78%
95%
.
72%
91%
86%
.
95%
51%
.
.
.
.
80%
81%
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
89%
.
62%
67%
57%
.
130
Table 3.1 Plant materials/plant pests intercepted in public and private mail of worldwide origin during AQIM monitoring at 11 U.S. ports of entry,
2005-2007 (USDA, 2008f).
Type of plant
material
Fresh fruits
Public mail (Sample size: 76,132)
Private mail (Sample size: 18,455)
apples, avocado, bananas, berries (unspecified), breadfruit,
cannonball fruit, citrus, cucurbits, dates, eggplants, figs, guavas,
hog plum (mombin), jackfruit, jujube, longan, mango,
naranjilla, olives, passion fruit, peaches, peach palm, pears, chili
and bell peppers, persimmons, physalis, plums, pumpkins,
quince, rambutan, squash, tomato, and tuna (prickly pear fruit)
ackee, apple, avocado, banana, berries, blueberries, chayote,
cherries, citrus, cucumber, grapes, kiwi, mango, olives,
papayas, peaches, pears, peppers, physalis, pineapple,
plantain, plum, squash, strawberries, tomato, tuna (cactus
fruit), ya pears, and other unspecified fruit
Dried,
processed, or
preserved fruits
general dried or preserved fruit (unspecified), dried mango, and
dried chili peppers
dried chilis, raisins, dry mango, and other dried or frozen
fruit.
Propagative
plant materials,
excluding seeds
bamboo, cactus plants or pads, cassava, dasheen, entire plants
(candytuft, conifers, unidentified plants, aquatic plants), flower
bulbs, garlic, ginger root, ginseng root, lemongrass, onions,
orchids, plumeria, potatoes, sugarcane, sweet potatoes, yams,
and other unidentified roots or tubers
aloe, bamboo, boxwood, bulbs (unspecified flowers),
cassava, dasheen, garlic, geranium, lemongrass, orchids,
sugarcane and other unspecified plants
Fresh plant
material not
likely to be
propagative
(leaves, fresh
herbs, etc.)
aloe leaves, unidentified branches with leaves, citrus leaves,
curry leaves, cut flowers, epazote, eryngium, ferns, unspecified
fresh herbs, unspecified greenery, unspecified leaves, mugwort
(Artemisia), palm shoots or foliage, tea bush, and thyme
citrus leaves, cut flowers, eucalyptus, euphorbia, foliage, and
palm leaves
Herbs, spices,
and flowers,
typically dried
or processed
bay leaves, curry, cinnamon, citrus peel, dried flowers,
medicinal herbs, pepper, unspecified spices and dried herbs
spices
131
Type of plant
material
Fresh vegetables
Public mail (Sample size: 76,132)
Private mail (Sample size: 18,455)
beans and bean sprouts, beets, corn, okra, peas, and other
unspecified vegetables
artichokes, beans, broccoli, carrots, celery, corn, loroco, and
other unspecified vegetables
Seeds and pods
dried beans, cacao bean pods, coconuts, cucurbit seeds, flower
seeds, melon seeds, palm seeds, pine seeds, pumpkin seeds,
sesame, soybeans, large amounts of unspecified seed, and
tamarind
coconut, pumpkin seeds, soybeans, and other unspecified
seeds
Nuts (which
may also be
propagative)
almonds, betel nuts, cashews, chestnuts, peanuts, pistachios,
walnuts and unspecified nuts
almonds, cashews, macadamia nuts, and peanuts
Grains and grain
products
processed items like wheat or flour products, rice, red rice
unspecified whole grain
flour products, grain, quinoa, and rice
Other
honey and honey combs; hay and straw, including rice straw;
mushrooms, processed vegetables, seaweed (unclear if fresh or
dried), and soil and sand
cotton, honey, insects, jute, and one snail, clay, soil
132
Table 3.2 Relative frequency of types of plant materials/plant pests intercepted in public and private mail of worldwide origin during AQIM
monitoring at 11 U.S. ports of entry, 2005-2007 (USDA, 2008f).
Item
Seeds/Pods
Herbs, spices, and
flowers, dried or
processed
Fruits, fresh
Fruits, dried,
preserved,
processed
Propagative plant
materials (includes
plants, roots,
shoots, and tubers)
Fresh plant material
(leaves, fresh herbs,
branches with
leaves)
Coffee/Tea
Grains/Grain
products
Origin: Worldwide
Origin: GCR (Except United States)
Public mail
Private mail
Public mail
Private mail
Relative Risk
Sample size: 2,042 Sample size: 1,042 Sample size: 77
Sample size: 386
20%
24%
12%
5% High: seedborne and seed
transmitted pests, weed seeds, all
intended for planting
16%
3%
8%
4% Variable: depends on method and
level of processing. Processed items
for consumption likely low risk.
11%
7%
16%
5% Medium: many associated pests
likely to remain viable, but use for
consumption is lower risk than
items for planting.
10%
4%
16%
3% Variable: depends on method and
level of processing.
9%
3%
6%
8%
7%
9%
6%
13%
9%
3%
2%
9%
4% High: live plant materials maintain
viable pests, weed seed
contaminants, pest plants, and all
intended for planting.
2% Medium: many associated pests
likely to remain viable, but use for
consumption is lower risk than
items for planting.
30% Low: although somewhat variable
depending on method and level of
processing.
0% Medium to low: although associated
pests likely to remain viable, use for
consumption is lower risk than
items for planting, low risk items
are processed grain products.
133
Item
Miscellaneous
Mushrooms
Nuts
Vegetables, fresh
Wood/Wood items
Vegetables, dried
or preserved
Soil
Straw/Hay
Origin: Worldwide
Origin: GCR (Except United States)
Public mail
Private mail
Public mail
Private mail
Relative Risk
Sample size: 2,042 Sample size: 1,042 Sample size: 77
Sample size: 386
3%
1%
1%
1% Variable: depending on items,
processing, and intended use.
3%
0%
0%
0% Variable: depends on fresh or dried
condition, method and level of
processing and other associated
pests or soil.
3%
3%
1%
6% Variable: depends on method and
level of processing, whole untreated
in the shell is higher risk (can be
propagative) than fumigated,
irradiated, or shelled and roasted
nuts.
3%
4%
8%
3% Medium: many associated pests
likely to remain viable, but use for
consumption is lower risk than
items for planting.
2%
20%
4%
23% Medium: many associated pests
likely to remain viable, but use for
consumption is lower risk than
items for planting.
2%
1%
0%
0% Variable: depends on method and
level of processing.
1%
7%
1%
9% High: may contain seeds, soilborne
arthropods and pathogens or other
pests.
1%
0%
0%
0% Medium: many associated pests
likely to remain viable, but use for
consumption is lower risk than
items for planting, contaminating
weed seeds viable after
consumption by animals.
134
Item
Honey/Honey
combs
Insects
Origin: Worldwide
Origin: GCR (Except United States)
Public mail
Private mail
Public mail
Private mail
Relative Risk
Sample size: 2,042 Sample size: 1,042 Sample size: 77
Sample size: 386
0%
2%
0%
1% Medium: bee larvae, bee pests, or
pathogens may be present if
unprocessed.
0%
1%
0%
3% Variable: depends on viability and
species.
135
Table 3.3 Inspection results for international public and private mail parcels arriving in the United States (2005-2007). Data source: (USDA,
2008f).
Packages
inspected
Total Private (Express)
Mail
Caribbean Private
(Express) Mail
Total Public Mail (Parcel
Post)
Caribbean Public Mail
(Parcel Post)
Number of packages with
Plant
Plant materials/Plant
materials or pests of U.S. quarantine
pests
significance
Approach rate (95% binomial C.I.) for packages with
Plant materials/Plant
Plant materials/Plant
pests
pests of U.S. quarantine
significance
18,455
1,042
24
5.6% (5.3-6.0 %)
0.13% (0.08-0.19 %)
374
.
6
.
1.6% (0.6-3.6%)
76,132
2,042
855
2.7% (2.6-2.8 %)
1.15% (1.1-1.2 %)
2,414
77
18
3.2% (2.5-4.0%)
0.8% (0.4-1.2%)
136
Table 3.4 Total average number of international public mail packages received by UPU member states in
the GCR between 2003 and 2005 (Universal Postal Union, 2008) and estimated number of packages
arriving with plant materials/plant pests. (Calculated as number of packages arriving multiplied by
approach rate: 95% confidence limit 2.6-2.8%)
Postal
Administrations in
UPU
Anguilla
Antigua and Barbuda
Aruba
Bahamas
Barbados
Belize
Cayman Islands
Costa Rica
Cuba
Dominica
Dominican Republic
El Salvador
Grenada
Guadeloupe
Guatemala
Guyana
Haiti
Honduras (Rep.)
Jamaica
Martinique
Montserrat
Netherland Antilles
Nicaragua
Panama (Rep.)
Saint-Barthélemy
Saint Christopher (St.
Kitts) and Nevis
Saint Lucia
St. Martin
Saint Vincent and the
Grenadines
Suriname
Trinidad and Tobago
Turks and Caicos
Islands
Virgin Islands
GCR Total (excluding
U.S.)
Total
international
parcels received
1,895
14,042
7,067
35,641
46,717
33,447
29,481
29,889
4,748
8,361
15,469
29,853
8,193
no data
21,397
12,058
3,978
no data
83,432
no data
1,567
29,328
4,978
28,056
no data
11,480
Estimated number of parcels
arriving with plant
materials/plant pests
Lower 95%
Upper 95%
confidence
confidence
limit
limit
49
53
365
393
184
198
927
998
1,215
1,308
870
937
766
825
777
837
123
133
217
234
402
433
776
836
213
229
Year of data
2003
2005
2003
2005
2005
2006
2005
2006
2001
2005
2006
2006
2006
556
313
103
599
338
111
2006
2005
2004
2,169
2,336
2005
41
762
129
729
44
821
139
786
2005
2006
2002
2006
298
321
2005
12,299
no data
no data
320
344
2006
4,150
48,900
1,000
107
1,271
26
116
1,369
28
2006
2005
2004
6,254
533,680
163
13,876
175
14,943
2006
137
Table 3.5 Pests (insects) intercepted from private mail packages between October 1, 2007 and September 30, 2008 in Miami, Florida (USDA,
2008d).
World region
of origin
Country of
origin
Inspected Host
GCR
El Salvador
GCR
El Salvador
Fernaldia pandurata (cut
flower)
Fernaldia pandurata (cut
flower)
GCR
GCR
Guatemala
Nicaragua
Rubus sp. (fruit)
Unknown plant parts
GCR
Nicaragua
Unknown plant parts
Europe
Europe
Netherlands
Netherlands
Achillea sp. (cut flower)
Astilbe sp. (cut flower)
North America
Mexico
South America
Colombia
Mail
Chrysanthemum sp. (cut
flower)
South America
South America
South America
Ecuador
Peru
Peru
Delphinium sp. (cut flower)
Lactuca sp. (leaf)
Lactuca sp. (leaf)
Pest
Reportable
in U.S.?
Aphididae, species of
yes
Aphis gossypii (Aphididae)
Species of Anthocoridae and
Cucijidae
Cecidomyiidae, species of
Species of Chilopoda and
Coleoptera
Plusiinae, species of
(Noctuidae)
Miridae, species of
Phyciodes claudina
(Nymphalidae)
no
Frankliniella sp. (Thripidae)
Frankliniella auripes
(Thripidae)
Nysius sp. (Lygaeidae)
Reduviidae, species of
no
yes
no
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
no
138
Table 3.6 Pests (insects) intercepted from public (USPS) mail packages between October 1, 2007 and September 30, 2008 in Miami, Florida
(USDA, 2008d).
World region
of origin
GCR
GCR
Country of origin
Inspected host
Pest
Belize
Dominican Republic
Dried plant material (leaf)
Mail
GCR
Guatemala
Phaseolus vulgaris (fruit)
GCR
GCR
Guatemala
Guatemala
Unknown plant parts (stem)
Zea mays (fruit)
GCR
Europe
Guatemala
Spain
Hordeum vulgare (seed)
Zea mays (seed)
North America
North America
North America
Mexico
Mexico
Mexico
Phaseolus sp. (fruit and seed)
Mangifera indica (fruit and seed)
Prunus persica (fruit)
North America
North America
North America
North America
North America
South America
Mexico
Mexico
Mexico
Mexico
Mexico
Bolivia
Wood (wood product)
Araucaria sp. (seed)
Stored products
Polypodium sp. (plant)
Prunus sp. (fruit)
Pouteria sp. (fruit)
South America
South America
Brazil
Brazil
South America
South America
South America
Brazil
Brazil
Colombia
Phaseolus vulgaris (seed)
Araucaria araucana (seed)
Araucaria araucana, Araucaria
sp. (seed)
Phaseolus vulgaris (seed)
Limonium sp. (cut flower)
Pyralidae, species of
Tephritidae, species of
Acanthoscelides obtectus
(Bruchidae); Otitidae, species
of
Species of Agromyzidae,
Aleyrodidae, Noctuidae
Species of Cleridae, Syrphidae
Coleoptera, species of;
Sitophilus sp. (Dryophthoridae)
Sitophilus sp. (Dryophthoridae)
Acanthoscelides obtectus
(Bruchidae)
Anastrepha sp. (Tephritidae)
Anastrepha sp. (Tephritidae)
Species of Anobiidae,
Coleoptera
Cydia araucariae (Tortricidae)
Dermestes sp. (Dermestidae)
Galgupha guttiger (Cydnidae)
Pyralidae, species of
Curculionidae, species of
Acanthoscelides obvelatus
(Bruchidae)
Coleoptera, species of
Cydia araucariae (Tortricidae),
Lepidoptera, species of
Diptera, species of
Dinoderus sp. (Bostrichidae)
Reportable
into U.S.?
yes
yes
no
yes
no
no
no
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
no
no
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
no
no
139
Table 3.7 Categories of prohibited items seized in public and private mail entering the United States
(2000-2005) at the international mail facility, San Francisco, CA; 199 items in 189 packages (USDAAPHIS-SITC, 2005).
Plant-Related Item
Seeds
Fresh fruit
Propagative
Leaves
Grain
Minimally processed fruit
Fresh vegetables
Soil
Nuts
Insect
Straw
Honeycomb
Miscellaneous (moss)
Quarantine
Items Seized
67
56
32
12
8
7
4
4
3
2
2
1
1
140
Figure 4.1 Container traffic through the Greater Caribbean Region; numbers above depicted route
represent numbers of TEUs in thousands for 1999 and (in parenthesis) for 2002; TEU = equivalent of a
20-foot cargo container (adapted from Frankel, 2002).
Figure 4.2 Origin of shipping containers (TEU) arriving in the Caribbean and Central America in 2006
(Sánchez and Ulloa, 2006).
Caribbean
Rest of
world
Latin
<1%
America
15%
Africa
<1%
Central America
Asia and
Pacific
17%
Latin
America
12%
Rest of
world
2%
Africa
<1%
Asia and
Pacific
33%
Europe
21%
North
America
47%
North
America
45%
Europe
8%
Note: It was not specified if the containers were for import only or if the number of TEUs included transshipment
containers. Latin America includes Mexico and the Caribbean; however, it was not noted whether all countries in the
Caribbean region were included in the percentage for Latin America.
141
Table 4.1 Rankings of individual ports in the Greater Caribbean Region against ports worldwide in 2005
(Degerlund, 2007).
Port
Country
San Juan
Kingston
Houston, Texas
Puerto Manzanillo
Freeport
Miami, Florida
Coco Solo
Jacksonville, Florida
Puerto Limon
Balboa
Puerto Cortes
Santo Tomas de
Castilla
Port of Spain
Puerto Rico
Jamaica
USA
Panama
Bahamas
USA
Panama
USA
Costa Rica
Panama
Honduras
Guatemala
1.7
1.7
1.6
1.6
1.2
1.1
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.5
0.3
53
56
59
60
71
80
90
95
106
111
136
170
Percent change
between 2004
and 2005
+3.6
+22.8
+9.8
+7.3
+2.3
+4.5
+92.0
+6.8
+3.2
+42.7
+0.4
-21.4
Trinidad and
Tobago
Cuba
USA
0.3
171
-8.0
0.3
0.3
176
181
+22.3
-7.1
Dominican
Republic
Guatemala
USA
Guatemala
USA
0.3
192
-38.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
201
204
208
235
-1.2
+3.7
+22.1
-12.1
Havana
New Orleans,
Louisiana
Rio Haina
Puerto Barrios
Palm Beach, Florida
Puerto Quetzal
Gulfport, Mississippi
Million
TEU
Worldwide
rank
142
Table 4.2 Countries in the Greater Caribbean Region (excluding the United States) that ranked within the
top 60 for container traffic at maritime ports, based on a survey conducted at 500 maritime ports
worldwide (Degerlund, 2007).
Country
Panama
Puerto Rico
Jamaica
Bahamas
Colombia
Venezuela
Costa Rica
Guatemala
Honduras
2005
TEU 1
3,067,637 2
1,727,389
1,670,820
1,211,500
1,165,255 3
1,120,492
778,651
776,395
553,013
Rank
27
34
35
45
47
48
54
55
60
Percent change
(from 2004 to 2005)
+26.3
+3.7
+22.8
+2.3
+23.1
+21.6
+6.1
-6.1
-0.5
1
The number of TEU includes both international and domestic traffic and transshipped containers were counted
twice.
2
This total excludes container traffic at the port of Cristobal, Panama.
3
This total excludes container traffic at the port of Santa Marta, Colombia.
Table 4.3 Commodities carried by small vessels (adapted from Boerne, 1999).
Cargo type
Percentage of small vessels involved in transport, grouped according to the length of
the ship in feet1
30-39 ft.
40-49 ft.
50-59 ft.
60-69 ft.
70-79 ft.
80-89 ft.
90-99 ft.
Fruit
75
66
75
60
66
100
75
Vegetables
50
66
75
60
33
100
75
Horticulture
goods
--
--
--
20
--
--
--
Individuals’
packages
100
77
100
60
100
100
100
25
66
75
40
100
100
100
General
cargo
1
Twenty-nine small vessel crews were interviewed from the following countries: St. Maarten, Anguilla, St.
Christopher (St. Kitts and Nevis), Dominica, St. Lucia, Barbados, St. Vincent, Bequia (St. Vincent and the
Grenadines), Mystique (Martinique), Union Island (St. Vincent and the Grenadines), Petite Martinique (St. Vincent
and the Grenadines), Carricou (St. Vincent and the Grenadines), Grenada (St. Vincent and the Grenadines), and
Trinidad.
143
Table 4.4 Container traffic at maritime ports in the Caribbean region, 2003-2006.
Country 1
Port
Aruba
Oranjestad
16,470
Bahamas
1,060,000
Barbados
Freeport
(Container
Terminal)
Bridgetown
Belize
Belize City
Cayman
Islands
Colombia
Costa Rica
Unit 2
2003
container
boxes
TEU total
Unit 2
2004
16,461
1,184,800
container
boxes
TEU total
Unit 2
2005
52,149
1,211,476
TEU
total
TEU
total
2006
17,659
1,385,860
Unit 2
Data source
container
boxes
TEU total
(Degerlund, 2007, Aruba Ports
Authority, 2008)
2003: (UNCTAD, 2005); 20042006: (Degerlund, 2007)
2003: (CEPAL, 2007); 20042006: (Degerlund, 2007)
2003-2006: (Port of Belize,
2008); 2004: (Degerlund,
2007)
[No data found for this port]
70,146
TEU
82,059
TEU
88,759
TEU
92,507
TEU
33,789
TEU total
35,565
TEU total
36,388
TEU
total
37,527
TEU total
49,670
TEU total
73,346
TEU
total
59,281
TEU total
(Cayman Islands Port
Authority, 2008)
[No data found for this port]
(UNCTAD, 2005, 2006)
[No data found for these
specific ports]
(UNCTAD, 2005)
2003-2004: (UNCTAD, 2005,
2006); 2005: (CEPAL, 2007,
INCOP, 2007); 2006:
(COCATRAM, 2007)
2003-2005: (CEPAL, 2007);
2005-2006: (INCOP, 2007)
Commerce
Bight
Georgetown
Cayman Brac
Not specified
Barranquilla,
Santa Maria
Cartagena
995,203
TEU
510,000
TEU total
Ports combined
667,275
TEU total
734,088
TEU total
740,420
TEU
total
834,325
TEU total
57,275
TEU total
66,744
TEU total
51,857
TEU
total
68,649
TEU total
610,000
TEU total
667,344
TEU total
688,563
TEU
total
765,676
TEU total
216,587
TEU total
259,328
TEU total
317,105
TEU
total
81,212
TEU total
82,087
TEU total
89,229
7,724
TEU total
12,826
TEU
total
TEU
Caldera
Limón-Moín
1,073,081
TEU
Puntarenas;
Terminal
Punta Morales
Cuba
Havana
Curaçao
Mariel
Not specified
Dominica
Roseau
90,759
TEU total
11,097
TEU total
2003: (UNCTAD, 2005); 20042005: (CEPAL, 2007); 2006:
(COCATRAM, 2007)
[No data found for these
specific ports]
2003: (UNCTAD, 2005, 2006);
2004-2005: (Degerlund, 2007)
[No data found for this port]
(Curaçao Ports Authority,
2008)
(Degerlund, 2007)
144
Country 1
Port
Dominican
Republic
Ports combined
Unit 2
2003
474,986
TEU total
Unit 2
2004
537,316
TEU total
Unit 2
2005
355,404
2006
Unit 2
total
TEU
total
2003: (UNCTAD, 2005); 20042005: (CEPAL, 2007)
[No data found for these
specific ports]
Azua;
Barahona;
Haina
Occidental;
Pedernales;
Samaná; San
Pedro de
Macorís
Caucedo
1,397
TEU
[Note: In 2007, 80,689
containers entered (Dominican
Republic Port Authority,
2008)]
[Note: In 2007, 47,644
containers entered (Dominican
Republic Port Authority,
2008)]
(CEPAL, 2007)
268,738
TEU
total
2003: (UNCTAD, 2005); 20042005: (CEPAL, 2007)
TEU
47,119
TEU
(CEPAL, 2007)
31,156
TEU total
11,244
TEU
total
(CEPAL, 2007)
TEU
25,712
TEU total
26,906
TEU
total
(CEPAL, 2007)
3,800
TEU
1,622
66,216
TEU
92,857
TEU total
103,483
TEU
total
113,990
TEU total
Haina Oriental
928
TEU
1,229
390,000
TEU
435,200
Puerto Plata
35,659
TEU
42,397
Santo Domingo
30,182
TEU
Boca Chica
14,417
Manzanillo
La Romana
Rio Haina
Data source
TEU
TEU total
TEU
(CEPAL, 2007)
El Salvador
Acajutla
Guatemala
Ports combined
725,976
TEU total
838,451
TEU total
776,662
TEU
total
835,253
TEU total
Santo Tomas
de Castilla
312,154
TEU
411,153
TEU total
323,045
TEU
total
336,816
TEU total
2003: (CEPAL, 2007); 20042006: (Degerlund, 2007);
2006: (Port of Acajutla, 2008)
2003: (CEPAL, 2007); 20042005: (Degerlund, 2007);
2006: (COCATRAM, 2007)
2003: (CEPAL, 2007); 20042005: (Degerlund, 2007);
145
Country 1
Port
Unit 2
2003
Unit 2
2004
Unit 2
2005
Unit 2
2006
Data source
2006: (COCATRAM, 2007)
Barrios
242,112
TEU
232,242
TEU total
229,448
TEU
total
236,003
TEU total
2003-2005: (CEPAL, 2007);
2006: (COCATRAM, 2007)
Quetzal
171,710
TEU
195,056
TEU total
224,169
TEU
total
262,434
TEU total
Ports combined
110,073
TEU total
224,529
TEU total
154,263
TEU
total
2003-2005: (CEPAL, 2007);
2006: (COCATRAM, 2007)
[No data not found for this
port]
2003-2004: (UNCTAD, 2005,
2006); 2003: (Port of
Guadeloupe, 2008); 20032005: (CEPAL, 2007)
Basse-Terre
Jarry
Pointe-a-Pitre
1,805
108,066
202
TEU
TEU
TEU
2,274
106,213
116,042
TEU
TEU
TEU total
154,263
154,263
TEU
TEU
total
Haiti
Not specified
Cap Haitien,
Port au Prince
470,567
TEU
555,489
TEU
Honduras
Ports combined
1,208,526
TEU total
555,595
TEU total
553,013
TEU
total
593,694
TEU total
Not specified
Cortés
400,000
1,137,798
TEU
TEU
466,697
TEU total
468,563
TEU
total
507,980
TEU total
69,451
TEU
88,792
TEU total
84,450
TEU
total
85,714
TEU total
106
1,356,034
TEU
TEU total
1,670,800
TEU
total
San José
Guadeloupe
Castilla
La Ceiba;
Roatán; Tela
Jamaica
San Lorenzo
Ports combined
1,277
1,279,908
TEU
TEU total
(Port of Guadeloupe, 2008)
(CEPAL, 2007)
2003: (CEPAL, 2007); 20042005: (Degerlund, 2007)
(UNCTAD, 2005, 2006)
[No data found for these
specific ports]
2003: (UNCTAD, 2005,
COCATRAM, 2007); 2004:
(Degerlund, 2007); 2005:
(CEPAL, 2007); 2006:
(COCATRAM, 2007)
(UNCTAD, 2005)
2003: (COCATRAM, 2007);
2004-2005: (Degerlund, 2007);
2006: (COCATRAM, 2007)
2003-2005: (CEPAL, 2007);
2006: (COCATRAM, 2007)
[No data found for these
specific ports]
(CEPAL, 2007)
2003: (UNCTAD, 2005); 20032005: (CEPAL, 2007); 20042005: (Degerlund, 2007)
146
Country 1
Port
Kingston
Montego Bay;
Ocho Rios;
Port Antonio
other outports
Netherland
Antilles
Not specified
Nicaragua
Ports combined
1,137,798
TEU total
Unit 2
2004
1,356,034
TEU total
TEU
(UNCTAD, 2005)
12,328
TEU total
16,983
TEU total
Corinto
10,936
TEU
15,675
TEU
El Bluff
194
Chiriqui
Grande
Terminal
Colon includes
Manzanillo,
Evergreen,
Panama Port
Colon Port
2003: (UNCTAD, 2005,
CEPAL, 2007); 2004-2005:
(Degerlund, 2007)
[No data found for these
specific ports]
1,605,074
TEU
Balboa
TEU
total
Data source
(UNCTAD, 2005)
1,046
Almirante
1,670,800
Unit 2
2006
TEU
TEU
Cabezas; El
Rama;
Sandino; San
Juan del Sur
Ports combined
Unit 2
2005
142,110
1,198
Arlen Siu
Panama
Unit 2
2003
TEU total
262
18,002
TEU
total
46,968
795
18,002
TEU
TEU total
46,052
121
TEU total
2003-2004: (COCATRAM,
2007, EPN, 2008); 2005-2006:
(EPN, 2008)
TEU
entering
TEU
(COCATRAM, 2007)
TEU
entering
(COCATRAM, 2007)
2003-2004: (COCATRAM,
2007, EPN, 2008); 2005-2006:
(EPN, 2008)
[No data found for these
specific ports]
2,994,339
TEU total
2,929,023
TEU total
13,948
TEU
16,781
TEU
1,510,000
TEU
465,091
8,212
TEU
3,178
TEU
1,670,000
TEU
1,943,712
TEU
1,333
TEU
2,062
TEU
TEU total
3,064,264
13,235
664,185
2,054,285
TEU
total
TEU
TEU
total
TEU
4,242
TEU
entering
2003-2005: (CEPAL, 2007);
2006: (COCATRAM, 2007)
958,583
TEU total
2003: (UNCTAD, 2005); 20042005: (CEPAL, 2007); 2006:
(COCATRAM, 2007)
2,606
TEU total
2003-2004: (CEPAL, 2007);
2006: (COCATRAM, 2007)
1,331,267
TEU total
2003: (UNCTAD, 2005); 20042005: (CEPAL, 2007); 2006:
(COCATRAM, 2007)
(COCATRAM, 2007)
147
Country 1
Port
Terminal
Colon
Container
Terminal
Cristobal
Manzanillo
International
Terminal
Panama Ports
Company
Unit 2
2003
335,066
1,125,780
Puerto Rico
Terminal
Samba Bonita
Aguadulce;
Amador;
Armuelles;
Charco Azul;
Pedregal;
Terminal
Decal;
Terminal
Granelera;
Terminal
Petrolero
(Bahia las
Minas)
San Juan
St. Lucia
Ports combined
24,090
Port Castries
Port VieuxFort
TEU
TEU
Unit 2
2004
420,122
TEU total
48,369
TEU total
1,459,960
TEU total
513,460
TEU
37
TEU
Unit 2
2005
806,195
1,580,649
TEU
total
TEU
total
Unit 2
Data source
614,036
TEU total
80,799
TEU total
1,331,267
TEU total
2003: (COCATRAM, 2007);
2004-2005: (Degerlund, 2007);
2006: (COCATRAM, 2007)
2004: (Degerlund, 2007);
2006: (COCATRAM, 2007)
(COCATRAM, 2007, MIT,
2008)
2006
49,133
TEU
entering
(COCATRAM, 2007)
(COCATRAM, 2007)
[No data found for these
specific ports]
1,667,868
TEU total
1,727,389
TEU total
27,359
TEU total
33,722
19,248
TEU total
21,302
TEU total
25,719
4,842
TEU total
6,057
TEU total
449,468
TEU total
St. Martin
Not specified
440,368
TEU
Trinidad
and Tobago
Ports combined
396,368
TEU total
TEU
total
TEU
total
(Degerlund, 2007)
34,133
TEU total
(SLASPA, 2007)
TEU
total
21,374
TEU total
(SLASPA, 2007)
8,003
TEU
total
12,759
TEU total
(SLASPA, 2007)
322,466
TEU
total
(UNCTAD, 2005)
(CEPAL, 2007)
148
Country 1
Port
Unit 2
2004
Unit 2
2005
Unit 2
350,468
TEU total
98,368
TEU
99,000
TEU total
1,041,483
TEU
1,009,500
TEU
1,054,462
TEU
976,514
TEU
(Port of Miami-Dade, 2008)
Jacksonville
692,422
TEU
727,660
TEU
777,318
TEU
768,239
TEU
(Jacksonville Port Authority,
2008)
Palm Beach
224,952
TEU total
222,300
TEU total
239,822
TEU
total
241,356
TEU total
(Port of Palm Beach, 2008)
Port
Everglades
569,743
TEU total
653,628
TEU total
797,238
TEU
total
864,030
TEU total
(Port Everglades, 2008)
108,572
TEU
(Alabama State Port Authority,
2008)
Miami
Alabama
(U.S.)
Not specified
Louisiana
(U.S.)
Port of New
Orleans
Mississippi
(U.S.)
Port of
Gulfport
Texas (U.S.)
Freeport
37,375
34,816
TEU
TEU
entering
TEU
total
Data source
TEU
Port Point
Lisas
322,466
2006
298,000
Port-of-Spain
Florida
(U.S.)
Unit 2
2003
(CEPAL, 2007)
42,443
TEU
68,823
TEU
323,060
TEU
300,000
TEU
32,910
TEU
entering
(CEPAL, 2007)
38,192
TEU
entering
(Degerlund, 2007)
48,751
containers
entering
(Mississippi State Port
Authority, 2008)
38,226
TEU
entering
(Port of Freeport, 2008)
1,440,478 TEU
1,582,081 TEU
800,000
TEU
2004-2005: (Degerlund, 2007);
Port of
entering
2006: (Port of Houston, 2008)
Houston
Authority
1
Data for the following countries were not available for the years presented in the table: Anguilla, Antigua and Barbuda, British Virgin Islands, Bonaire, Grenada,
Guyana, Martinique, Montserrat, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Maarten, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Suriname, Turks and Caicos Islands, and the U.S. Virgin
Islands.
2
“TEU” (twenty foot equivalent) is the standard unit of measurment for sea cargo containers. In the table, “TEU total” is the total number of TEUs, full or empty,
imported or exported, that passes through the port (often but not always excludes transshipment containers). Not all of the data sources define whether the
reported number of TEUs includes arriving or exiting or both, full or empty or both.
149
Table 5.1 Reportable pests intercepted in aircraft
cargo stores, quarters, or holds at U.S. ports of entry
between January 1, 1997 and December 31, 2007
(USDA, 2008d).
Order and Family
Pest
Order and Family
Number
intercepted
ARTHROPODS
COLEOPTERA
Bostrichidae
Cerambycidae
Chrysomelidae
Curculionidae
Pest
Number
intercepted
Systena s-littera
1
Talurus sp.
1
Tetragonotes sp.
1
Timarcha sp.
1
Typophorus sp.
2
Apioninae
1
1
2
Bostrichidae
3
Acanthoderes sp.
1
Cerambycidae
1
Brachycerinae
Cleogonus
fratellus
Acalymma sp.
3
Cleogonus sp.
1
Altica sp.
1
Conotrachelus sp.
6
Alticinae
3
Cryptorhynchinae
1
Aphthona sp.
Aulacophora
indica
Aulacophora
nigripennis
1
Curculio sp.
1
1
Cassidinae
1
Chaetocnema sp.
1
Chrysomelidae
8
Colaspis lebasi
1
Curculionidae
13
Eulechriops sp.
Myllocerus
undatus
Naupactus
xanthographus
1
2
1
1
Phyrdenus sp.
Pityophthorus sp.
(Scolytinae)
1
19
Rhynchophorinae
2
Diabrotica viridula
1
1
Disonycha sp.
1
Epitrix sp.
1
Eumolpinae
5
Rhyssomatus sp.
Metamasius
hemipterus
Aeolus
nigromaculatus
1
Exora encaustica
1
Aeolus sp.
2
Exora sp.
1
Conoderus pictus
1
Galerucinae
Leptinotarsa
tlascalana
4
1
1
Conoderus pilatei
Conoderus
rodriguezi
Longitarsus sp.
1
Conderus sp.
2
Lysathia sp.
Malacorhinus
irregularis
1
Conoderus varians
4
1
Elateridae
5
Metachroma sp.
1
Epicauta sp.
2
Myochrous sp.
1
Meloidae
2
Oedionychus sp.
1
1
Rhabdopterus sp.
4
Adoretus sp.
Amphimallon
solstitialis
Colaspis sp.
Dryophthoridae
Elateridae
Meloidae
Scarabaeidae
1
2
2
1
150
Order and Family
Pest
Number
intercepted
Amphimallon sp.
Ancognatha
castanea
Ancognatha
scarabaeoides
1
Ancognatha sp.
Ancognatha
ustulata
45
10
Anomala sp.
44
Order and Family
Phyllophaga sp.
Plectris sp.
1
8
Archophileurus sp.
1
Athlia rustica
1
Barybas sp.
1
Blitopertha sp.
1
Bothynus sp.
1
Ceraspis centralis
1
Ceraspis sp.
4
Clavipalpus sp.
Cyclocephala
amazona
Cyclocephala
mafaffa
2
1
Pest
Number
intercepted
167
21
Rutelinae
3
Scarabaeidae
5
Serica sp.
1
Stenocrates sp.
1
Tomarus sp.
32
Blapstinus sp.
44
Epitragus sp.
4
Lagriinae
1
Lobometopon sp.
1
Opatrinus pullus
1
Tenebrionidae
1
Agromyzidae
Agromyzidae
1
Chloropidae
Tephritidae
Chloropidae
3
Anastrepha sp.
1
Ceratitis capitata
1
Tenebrionidae
DIPTERA
2
Cyclocephala sp.
65
HEMIPTERA
Diplotaxis sp.
27
Achilidae
Achilidae
1
Aleyrodidae
Aleyrodidae
Camptopus
lateralis
1
1
Aphididae
3
Dynastes hercules
Dynastinae
1
13
Alydidae
Aphididae
Dyscinetus sp.
Euetheola
bidentata
5
3
Dysaphis sp.
1
Euetheola sp.
8
Macrosiphum sp.
1
Euphoria sp.
Geniates
panamaensis
6
1
4
Aphrophoridae
Aeneolamia
reducta
2
Geniates sp.
7
Aphrophora sp.
1
Leucothyreus sp.
Liogenys
macropelma
Liogenys
quadridens
3
Cercopidae
4
Clastoptera sp.
1
22
Prosapia sp.
4
Tomaspis sp.
1
Liogenys sp.
13
Agallia sp.
2
Maladera sp.
1
Chlorotettix sp.
5
Manopus sp.
5
Melolonthinae
Aphrophoridae
Cercopidae
Cicadellidae
3
23
Cicadidae
Cicadellidae
Deltocephalinae
16
3
151
Order and Family
Cixiidae
Cydnidae
Delphacidae
Diaspididae
Lygaeidae
Membracidae
Miridae
Pachygronthidae
Pest
Number
intercepted
Order and Family
Pest
Number
intercepted
Empoasca sp.
2
Macropygium sp.
2
Exitianus sp.
1
Oebalus insularis
1
Graphocephala sp.
1
5
Haldorus sp.
1
Oncometopia sp.
1
Texananus sp.
1
Pentatomidae
Piezodorus
lituratus
Rhaphigaster
nebulosa
1
Typhlocybinae
1
Psylla sp.
1
Dysdercus sp.
1
Pyrrhocoridae
1
Rhopalidae
1
Cistalia sp.
1
Pyrrhocoridae
1
Xerophloea sp.
1
Xestocephalus sp.
2
Cicadidae
3
Cixiidae
5
Myndus sp.
1
Cryphula sp.
1
Pintalia sp.
2
Heraeus sp.
1
Cydnidae
Dallasiellus
bacchinus
13
Myodocha sp.
1
Neopamera sp.
2
Ozophora sp.
Paragonata
divergens
1
4
Paromius sp.
1
Prytanes sp.
5
Rhyparochromidae
6
Valtissius sp.
1
Scutelleridae
1
Tetyra sp.
1
Not specified
Hemiptera
1
HYMENOPTERA
Formicidae
Atta cephalotes
2
Atta sexdens
5
Atta sp.
7
Formicidae
1
12
Dallasiellus sp.
Melanaethus
spinolai
1
Pangaeus rugiceps
5
Delphacidae
9
Nilaparvata lugens
1
Parlatoria ziziphi
1
Lygaeidae
8
Nysius sp.
10
1
Membracidae
1
Eurychilella sp.
3
Miridae
Rhopalidae
Rhyparochromidae
Scutelleridae
15
Platylygus sp.
1
Pycnoderes sp.
Tropidosteptes
chapingoensis
1
1
Myrmicinae
4
Oedancala notata
1
Pheidole sp.
2
Pentatomidae
Acrosternum sp.
1
Solenopsis sp.
1
Psyllidae
Banasa sp.
Berecynthus
hastator
1
ISOPTERA
1
Termitidae
Nasutitermes
ephratae
2
Termitidae
2
Euschistus sp.
Macropygium
reticulare
2
1
LEPIDOPTERA
152
Number
intercepted
Order and Family
Pest
Acrolophidae
Acrolophidae
1
Acrolophus sp.
2
Arctiidae
Argyresthiidae
Crambidae
Order and Family
Pest
Number
intercepted
Letis sp.
Leucania
inconspicua
1
1
Melipotis sp.
4
Arctiidae
Creatonotus
transiens
23
1
Noctuidae
Ctenuchinae
2
Ecpantheria sp.
1
Estigmene sp.
1
Plusiinae
Spodoptera
cosmioides
1
Argyresthiidae
1
Spodoptera sp.
4
Crambidae
8
Notodontidae
4
Crambus sp.
1
Nymphalidae
3
Diaphania sp.
1
Ethmia sp.
1
Euchromius sp.
Herpetogramma
sp.
Mesocondyla
dardanalis
1
Oecophoridae
1
Phycitinae
3
Pyralidae
68
Pyraustinae
Nymphalidae
Oecophoridae
Pyralidae
1
1
10
Samea ecclesialis
1
Ctenuchidae
Ctenuchidae
4
Elachistidae
Elachistidae
1
Gelechiidae
Geometridae
Gelechiidae
18
Eupithecia sp.
1
Geometridae
23
342
3
Saturniidae
Saturniidae
1
Sesiidae
Sphingidae
Sesiidae
2
Erinnyis sp.
1
Sphingidae
27
Tineidae
Crocidosema
aporema
13
Tineidae
Tortricidae
Not specified
1
Tortricidae
2
Gelechioidea
2
Gracillariidae
Phyllocnistis sp.
1
Lepidoptera
12
Hesperiidae
Hesperiidae
1
Pyraloidea
10
Megalopygidae
Noctuidae
Norape sp.
1
ORTHOPTERA
Acontinae
1
Acrididae
Acrididae
1
Agaristinae
1
1
Agrotis sp.
2
Bulia sp.
1
Copitarsia sp.
4
Dichromorpha sp.
Metaleptea
brevicornis
Orphulella
punctata
Earias insulana
1
Eulepidotis guttata
5
Gonodonta sp.
Helicoverpa
armigera
3
Herminiinae
1
Hypena sp.
1
Notodontidae
1
Gryllidae
Gryllotalpidae
2
3
Sphingonotus sp.
Stenacris
vitreipennis
2
Trimerotropis sp.
1
Allonemobius sp.
1
Anaxipha sp.
7
Eneopterinae
1
1
153
Order and Family
Pest
Gryllidae
8
Gryllus capitatus
1
Gryllus sp.
Pyrgomorphidae
Romaleidae
Tetrigidae
Tettigoniidae
Number
intercepted
119
Lerneca varipes
1
Nemobiinae
1
Ornebius sp.
1
Paroecanthus sp.
1
Pteronemobius sp.
2
Gryllotalpa sp.
Atractomorpha
sinensis
1
1
Atractomorpha sp.
Tropidacris
cristata
1
Tetrix sp.
2
Tettigidea sp.
1
Bucrates capitatus
1
Bucrates sp.
Conocephalus
saltator
1
Conocephalus sp.
1
1
16
Copiphora sp.
Microcentrum
concisum
1
Microcentrum sp.
Neoconocephalus
punctipes
Neoconocephalus
sp.
1
24
Platycleis afghana
3
Subria sp.
1
Tettigoniidae
1
2
11
MOLLUSK
PULMONATA
Helicidae
Cornu aspersum
1
1
This table does not include pest interceptions made on
military aircraft or questionable records.
154
Table 5.2 Aircraft arrivals in the Greater Caribbean Region.
Country or
territory
Bonaire
Cayman
Islands
Dominican
Republic
El Salvador
Jamaica
Puerto Rico
St. Lucia
St. Maarten
U.S. Virgin
Islands
U.S. Gulf
Coast states
(Alabama,
Florida,
Louisiana,
Mississippi,
Texas)
Aircraft
Comments
arrivals
15,249 Data from 2007.
27,800 Data from 2005. Includes
international, domestic, and private
flights.
65,462 Data from 2004. Includes regular
and charter international flights.
14,236 Data from 2006. Reported as the
number of landings.
69,525 Data from 2006. Reported as the
number of air movements.
20,873 Data from 2007. Reported as
number of foreign aircraft
departures arriving in Puerto Rico
(excludes aircraft from the
continental United States and other
U.S. territories).
47,829 Data from 2006.
107,581 Data from 2006.
29,298 Data from 2006.
167,814 Data from 2007. Reported as the
number of foreign aircraft
departures arriving in these states.
Reference
(Bonaire International
Airport, 2008)
(Cayman Islands Economics
and Statistics Office, 2007)
(República Dominicana
Oficina Nacional de
Estadística, 2004)
(International Airport of El
Salvador, 2007)
(Airports Authority of
Jamaica, 2008)
(US-DOT, 2007)
(SLASPA, 2007)
(Sint Maarten International
Airport, 2008)
(U.S. Virgin Islands Port
Authority, 2006)
(US-DOT, 2007)
155
Table 5.3 Live hitchhiking pests intercepted at U.S.
maritime ports of entry between January 1997 and
December 2007 on ships, ship decks, ship holds,
ship stores, ship quarters, containers, and nonagricultural cargo (USDA, 2008d).
Pest
Where
intercepted
Pest
Apion sp. (Apionidae)
Apis sp., A. mellifera (Apidae)
Plant pathogen
Cladosporium sp. (Hyphomycetes)
Marble
Fusarium sp. (Hyphomycetes)
Marble
Phoma sp. (Coelomycetes)
Tiles
Insect
Acanthoscelides sp. (Bruchidae)
Tiles
Acheta sp., A. hispanicus (Gryllidae)
Quarry
product, tiles
Tiles
Where
intercepted
Bricks,
limestone,
machinery,
marble, ship
stores, tiles
Ceramic,
container,
quarry
product, tiles
Tiles
Arachnocephalus vestitus
(Mogoplistidae)
Araecerus sp. (Anthribidae)
Granite, tiles
Arge sp. (Argidae)
Machinery
Arhyssus sp. (Rhopalidae)
Stones
Arocatus sp., A. melanocephalus, A.
longiceps, A. roeselii (Lygaeidae)
Asiraca clavicornis (Delphacidae)
Athalia cordata (Tenthredinidae)
Tiles
Aelia acuminata, A. virgata
(Pentatomidae)
Agallia sp. (Cicadellidae)
Container,
quarry
product, tiles
Container,
marble, tiles
Tiles
Ceramic tiles,
container,
marble, tiles
Tiles
Athetis sp. (Noctuidae)
Tiles
Athous sp. (Elateridae)
Tiles
Agriotes sp., A. lineatus (Elateridae)
Tiles
Aulacophora sp., A. indica
(Chrysomelidae)
Akis sp. (Tenebrionidae)
Tiles
Alitocoris parvus (Pentatomidae)
Tiles
Bagrada sp. (Pentatomidae)
Automobile,
container,
tractor
Tiles
Altica sp. (Chrysomelidae)
Balanagastris kolae (Curculionidae)
Tractor
Bangasternus planifrons
(Curculionidae)
Baris sp. (Curculionidae)
Tiles
Amnestus sp. (Cydnidae)
Ceramic,
container,
steel, marble,
tiles
Tiles
Amphiacusta caraibea (Gryllidae)
Tiles
Anaceratagallia sp., A. venosa
(Cicadellidae)
Anacridium aegyptium (Acrididae)
Tiles
Acroleucus sp. (Lygaeidae)
Acrosternum sp., A. heegeri
(Pentatomidae)
Anaxipha sp. (Gryllidae)
Quarry
product, tiles
Tiles
Tiles
Beosus maritimus, B. quadripunctatus Marble,
(Rhyparochromidae)
quarry
product, tiles
Blapstinus sp. (Tenebrionidae)
Metal, stones,
tiles
Blissus sp. (Blissidae)
Tiles
Brachycerus algirus (Curculionidae)
Marble
Bruchidius sp., B. bimaculatus, B.
nudus, B. villosus (Bruchidae)
Bruchus sp. (Bruchidae)
Tiles
Anthaxia sp. (Buprestidae)
Military
vehicles, tiles
Marble, tiles
Anthonomus sp. (Curculionidae)
Tiles
Aphanus rolandri
(Rhyparochromidae)
Aphrodes sp. (Cicadellidae)
Tiles
Buprestis sp., B. dalmatina
(Buprestidae)
Cacopsylla sp. (Psyllidae)
Tiles
Tiles
Calliptamus italicus (Acrididae)
Tiles
Aphthona sp., A. euphorbiae
(Chrysomelidae)
Limestone,
tiles
Camponotus lateralis (Formicidae)
Marble,
quarry
product, tiles
Anomala sp. (Scarabaeidae)
Tiles
Tiles
156
Pest
Pest
Capraita sp. (Chrysomellidae)
Where
intercepted
Machinery
Caprhiobia lineola (Lygaeidae)
Bricks
Crematogaster sp. (Formicidae)
Cardiophorus sp. (Elateridae)
Tiles
Carphoborus sp. (Curculionidae:
Tiles
Scolytinae)
Carpocoris pudicus (Pentatomidae)
Tiles
Cassida sp., C. flaveola, C. prasina
Tiles
(Chrysomelidae)
Centrocoris spiniger, C. variegatus
Tiles
(Coreidae)
Cercopis sanguinolenta (Cercopidae) Tiles
Cossonus sp. (Curculionidae)
Where
intercepted
Tiles
Crocistethus waltlianus (Cydnidae)
Machinery,
marble,
quarry
product, tiles
Tiles
Crophius sp. (Oxycarenidae)
Tiles
Cryphalus sp. (Curculionidae:
Scolytinae)
Cryptocephalus sp. (Chrysomelidae)
Tiles
Stoneware
Tiles
Ceresium sp. (Cerambycidae)
Machinery
Crypturgus sp. (Curculionidae:
Scolytinae)
Cucullia sp. (Noctuidae)
Ceutorhynchus sp. (Curculionidae)
Marble, tiles
Curculio sp. (Curculionidae)
Machinery
Chaetocnema sp., C. conducta, C.
tibialis (Chrysomelidae)
Granite,
machinery,
marble, tiles
Tiles
Cyclocephala amazona, C. mafaffa
(Scarabaeidae)
Dasineura sp. (Cecidomyiidae)
Container
Deltocephalus sp. (Cicadellidae)
Tiles
Dibolia sp. (Chrysomelidae)
Tiles
Dichroplus sp. (Acrididae)
Steel bars
Tiles
Tiles
Chelymorpha sp. (Chrysomelidae)
Chlorophorus sp. (Cerambycidae)
Tiles
Stones
Chorthippus sp. (Acrididae)
Quarry
product,
granite
Tiles
Chrysobothris sp. (Buprestidae)
Marble, tiles
Chrysolina sp. (Chrysomelidae)
Tiles
Dicranocephalus sp.
(Stenocephalidae)
Diphaulaca sp. (Chrysomelidae)
Chydarteres sp. (Cerambycidae)
Tiles
Disonycha sp. (Chrysomelidae)
Metal
Tiles
Tiles
Cinara sp. (Aphididae)
Container
Dolerus rufotorquatus
(Tenthredinidae)
Dolycoris baccarum (Pentatomidae)
Clastoptera sp. (Cercopidae)
Tiles
Donacia sp. (Chrysomelidae)
Granite
Cleonus sp. (Curculionidae)
Tiles
Dorytomus sp. (Curculionidae)
Tiles
Clytus sp. (Cerambycidae)
Limestone,
tiles
Aluminum
Drasterius sp., D. bimaculatus
(Elateridae)
Dryocoetes autographus
(Curculionidae: Scolytinae)
Dyscinetus sp. (Scarabaeidae)
Quarry
product, tiles
Tiles
Cicadella sp., C. viridis (Cicadellidae) Tiles
Coccotrypes sp. (Curculionidae:
Scolytinae)
Colaspis sp. (Chrysomelidae)
Conocephalus sp. (Tettigoniidae)
Machinery,
tiles
Marble
Conoderus sp., C. rufangulus, C.
varians (Elateridae)
Conotrachelus sp. (Curculionidae)
Marble, tiles,
truck
Tiles
Coraebus sp. (Buprestidae)
Tiles
Coreus marginatus (Coreidae)
Tiles
Coriomeris denticulatus (Coreidae)
Tiles
Corizus hyoscyami (Rhopalidae)
Tiles
Dysdercus sp. (Pyrrhocoridae)
Ship deck,
ship holds,
tiles
Tiles
Emblethis sp., E. denticollis, E.
griseus, E. verbasci
(Rhyparochromidae)
Emmelia trabealis (Noctuidae)
Container,
tiles
Epitragus sp. (Tenebrionidae)
Tiles
Epitrix sp. (Chrysomelidae)
Tiles
Tiles
157
Pest
Eremocoris sp., E. fenestratus
(Rhyparochromidae)
Etiella sp. (Pyralidae)
Eurydema sp., E. oleraceum, E.
ornatum, E. ventrale (Pentatomidae)
Where
intercepted
Tiles
Machinery
Pest
Hippopsis sp. (Cerambycidae)
Holcostethus sp., H. sphacelatus, H.
strictus, H. vernalis (Pentatomidae)
Holocranum sp. (Artheneidae)
Marble,
quarry
product, tiles
Tiles
Homalodisca sp. (Cicadellidae)
Tiles
Horvathiolus superbus (Lygaeidae)
Tiles
Hylastes sp., H. ater, H. attenuatus, H.
cunicularius, H. linearis
(Curculionidae: Scolytinae)
Hylobius sp. (Curculionidae)
Electrical
parts, stones,
tiles
Electrical
parts, steel,
tiles
Electrical
parts,
machinery,
tiles
Electrical
parts,
machinery,
marble, tiles
Tiles
Eurygaster sp. (Scutelleridae)
Quarry
product,
stones, tiles
Tiles
Eurythyrea austriaca (Buprestidae)
Tiles
Eurytoma sp. (Eurytomidae)
Tiles
Euschistus sp. (Pentatomidae)
Tiles
Eutelia geyeri (Noctuidae)
Tires
Eysarcoris sp. (Pentatomidae)
Tiles
Eysarcoris ventralis (Pentatomidae)
Hylurgops sp., H. palliatus
(Curculionidae: Scolytinae)
Fromundus pygmaeus (Cydnidae)
Quarry
product, tiles
Tiles
Galeruca sp. (Chrysomelidae)
Tiles
Galerucella sp. (Chrysomelidae)
Tiles
Hylurgus sp., H. ligniperda, H.
micklitzi (Curculionidae: Scolytinae)
Galgupha albipennis (Cydnidae)
Tiles
Gastrodes abietum, G. grossipes
(Rhyparochromidae)
Gastrophysa sp. (Chrysomelidae)
Electrical
parts, marble
Tiles
Hypena sp., H. rostralis (Noctuidae)
Geotomus elongates, G. punctulatus
(Cydnidae)
Gnathotrichus sp. (Curculionidae:
Scolytinae)
Gonioctena sp., G. fornicata
(Chrysomelidae)
Gonocephalum sp. (Tenebrionidae)
Tiles
Hypocassida sp. (Chrysomelidae)
Tiles
Tiles
Marble, tiles
Gonocerus sp., G. venator (Coreidae) Tiles
Graphosoma sp., G. italicum
(Pentatomidae)
Graptostethus sp. (Lygaeidae)
Gryllomorpha campestris, G.
dalmatina (Gryllidae)
Gryllus sp. (Orthoptera: Gryllidae)
Gymnetron sp. (Curculionidae)
Hesperophanes sp. (Cerambycidae)
Heterobostrychus aequalis
(Bostrichidae)
Heterogaster artemisiae, H. urticae
(Heterogastridae)
Hexarthrum sp. (Curculionidae)
Tiles
Tiles
Quarry
product, tiles
Container,
marble, tiles
Tiles
Machinery,
tiles
Tiles
Machinery,
marble, tiles,
tractor
Tiles
Where
intercepted
Ship deck
Hypera sp. (Curculionidae)
Hypocryphalus sp. (Curculionidae:
Scolytinae)
Hypothenemus sp. (Curculionidae:
Scolytinae)
Idiocerus sp. (Cicadellidae)
Ips sp., I. acuminatus, I. erosus, I.
mannsfeldi, I. sexdentatus, I.
typographus (Curculionidae:
Scolytinae)
Ischnodemus sp. (Blissidae)
Limestone,
stones, tiles
Tiles
Tiles
Tiles
Ceramic tiles,
tiles
Container,
electrical
parts, marble,
metal, slate,
steel, tiles
Tiles
Marble, tiles
Kalotermes flavicollis
(Kalotermitidae)
Kleidocerys sp. (Lygaeidae)
Machinery
Kytorhinus sp. (Bruchidae)
Tiles
Larinus sp. (Curculionidae)
Liocoris tripustulatus (Miridae)
Quarry
product,
stones, tiles
Tiles
Liriomyza sp. (Agromyzidae)
Tiles
Listronotus sp. (Curculionidae)
Ship deck,
tiles
158
Pest
Livilla sp. (Psyllidae)
Lixus sp. (Curculionidae)
Where
intercepted
Tiles
Monosteira unicostata (Tingidae)
Where
intercepted
Aluminum,
automobile
parts, granite,
machinery,
stones, tiles
Mable, tiles
Myochrous sp. (Chrysomelidae)
Tiles
Myodocha longicollis
(Rhyparochromidae)
Nasutitermes sp., N. costalis
(Termitidae)
Nematocera, species of
Tiles
Container,
tiles
Marble
Neonemobius sp. (Gryllidae)
Tiles
Automobile,
container
Tiles
Neottiglossa sp. (Pentatomidae)
Tiles
Nezara sp. (Pentatomidae)
Tiles
Nilaparvata lugens (Delphacidae)
Tiles
Tiles
Niphades sp. (Curculionidae)
Machinery
Nysius sp., N. ericae (Lygaeidae)
Ochrosis ventralis (Chrysomelidae)
Ceramic tiles,
limestone,
marble,
quarry
product,
stones, tiles
Tiles
Ochrostomus sp. (Lygaeidae)
Tiles
Opatriodes sp. (Tenebrionidae)
Tiles
Opogona sp. (Tineidae)
Machinery
Orgyia sp. (Lymantriidae)
Tiles
Ornebius annulatus (Gryllidae)
Tiles
Longitarsus sp. (Chrysomelidae)
Container,
machinery,
tiles
Tiles
Lyctus sp. (Bostrichidae)
Machinery
Lygaeosoma sardeum (Lygaeidae)
Quarry
product, tiles
Tiles
Lygaeus creticus, L. equestris
(Lygaeidae)
Lygocoris sp. (Miridae)
Tiles
Lygus sp., L. gemellatus, L. maritimus
(Miridae)
Lymantria sp., L. dispar
(Lymantriidae)
Macroglossum stellatarum
(Sphingidae)
Magdalis sp., M. frontalis
(Curculionidae)
Mamestra brassicae (Noctuidae)
Tiles
Maruca vitrata (Crambidae)
Tiles
Mecinus circulatus (Curculionidae)
Tiles
Megalonotus chiragrus
(Rhyparochromidae)
Ceramic tiles,
container,
marble,
quarry
product, ship
stores, tiles
Ceramic tiles,
quarry
product, tiles
Tiles
Melanocoryphus albomaculatus
(Lygaeidae)
Tiles
Melanophila sp., M. cuspidata
(Buprestidae)
Melanoplus sp. (Acrididae)
Marble
Melanotus sp. (Elateridae)
Tiles
Melipotis sp. (Noctuidae)
Tiles
Metopoplax sp., M. orginai
(Oxycarenidae)
Micrapate scabrata (Bostrichidae)
Marble,
quarry
product, tiles
Mable, tiles
Micrelytra sp. (Alydidae)
Tiles
Microplax albofasciata
(Oxycarenidae)
Microtheca sp. (Chrysomelidae)
Stoneware
Microtomideus leucodermus
(Lygaeidae)
Tiles
Tiles
Pest
Monochamus sp., M. alternatus, M.
galloprovincialis, M. sutor
(Cerambycidae)
Orthotomicus laricis (Curculionidae: Limestone,
Scolytinae)
marble tiles,
tiles
Orthotomicus sp. (Curculionidae:
Limestone
Scolytinae)
Otiorhynchus sp. (Curculionidae)
Limestone,
tiles
Oulema sp. (Chrysomelidae)
Machinery,
quarry
product, tiles
Oxycarenus lavaterae, O. pallens
Tiles
(Oxycarenidae)
Pachypsylla sp. (Psyllidae)
Machinery,
tiles
Palomena prasina (Pentatomidae)
Tiles
Pandeleteius sp. (Curculionidae)
Tiles
159
Pest
Parapoynx sp., P. fluctuosalis
(Crambidae)
Paromius gracilis
(Rhyparochromidae)
Paropsis sp. (Chrysomelidae)
Peritrechus sp., P. gracilicornis
(Rhyparochromidae)
Where
intercepted
Quarry
product, tiles
Quarry
product, tiles
Container
Phaenomerus sp. (Curculionidae)
Automobile,
ceramic tiles,
container,
marble,
quarry
product, slate,
tiles
Tiles
Phaneroptera nana (Tettigoniidae)
Tiles
Philaenus sp. (Cercopidae)
Tiles
Phoracantha recurva (Cerambycidae) Tiles
Phratora sp. (Chrysomelidae)
Tiles
Phyllobius sp. (Curculionidae)
Stones, tiles
Phyllonorycter sp. (Gracillariidae)
Tiles
Phyllophaga sp. (Scarabaeidae)
Tiles
Phyllotocus sp. (Scarabaeidae)
Tiles
Phyllotreta sp. (Chrysomelidae)
Ceramic tiles,
tiles
Machinery
Phymatodes sp. (Cerambycidae)
Pieris sp., P. brassicae (Pieridae)
Piesma sp. (Piesmatidae)
Container,
steel, tiles,
tractor
Tiles
Piezodorus lituratus (Pentatomidae)
Tiles
Pintalia sp. (Cixiidae)
Tiles
Pissodes sp. (Curculionidae)
Tiles
Pityogenes sp., P. chalcographus, P.
quadridens (Curculionidae:
Scolytinae)
Pityophthorus sp. (Curculionidae:
Scolytinae)
Plagiodera sp. (Chrysomelidae)
Marble, steel,
tiles
Machinery
Tiles
Platyplax sp., P. salviae
(Heterogastridae)
Podagrica sp. (Chrysomelidae)
Tiles
Polydrusus sp. (Curculionidae)
Marble
Polygraphus poligraphus
(Curculionidae: Scolytinae)
Prytanes sp. (Rhyparochromidae)
Tiles
Tiles
Tiles
Pest
Pselactus sp. (Curculionidae)
Psylliodes sp. (Chrysomelidae)
Pteronemobius sp. (Gryllidae)
Puto superbus (Pseudococcidae)
Pyrrhalta sp. (Chrysomelidae)
Pyrrhocoris apterus (Pyrrhocoridae)
Where
intercepted
Limestone
Limestone,
tiles
Tiles
Marble,
stones
Tiles
Ceramic tiles,
limestone,
marble,
stones, tiles
Machinery,
tiles
Tiles
Raglius alboacuminatus
(Rhyparochromidae)
Remaudiereana annulipes
(Rhyparochromidae)
Reticulitermes lucifugus
Granite, tiles
(Rhinotermitidae)
Rhaphigaster nebulosa (Pentatomidae) Ceramic,
ceramic tiles,
container,
limestone,
machinery,
marble,
quarry
product, tiles
Rhopalus subrufus (Rhopalidae)
Quarry
product, tiles
Rhynchaenus sp. (Curculionidae)
Tiles
Rhyncolus sp. (Curculionidae)
Tiles
Rhyparochromus sp., R. adspersus, R. Limestone,
confusus, R. quadratus, R. saturnius, machinery,
R. vulgaris (Rhyparochromidae)
quarry
product, tiles
Rhytidoderes plicatus (Curculionidae) Ceramic, ship
holds, tiles
Scantius aegyptius (Pyrrhocoridae)
Tiles
Sciocoris cursitans, S. maculatus
(Pentatomidae)
Scolopostethus sp., S. affinis, S.
decoratus, S. pictus
(Rhyparochromidae)
Sehirus sp., S. bicolor (Cydnidae)
Sinoxylon sp., S. anale, S. conigerum
(Bostrichidae)
Marble,
quarry
product, tiles
Tiles
Tiles
Granite,
limestone,
machinery,
marble,
metal, steel,
tiles
160
Pest
Where
intercepted
Sirex noctilio (Siricidae)
Marble, tiles,
steel
Sitona sp., S. humeralis
Limestone,
(Curculionidae)
stones, tiles
Solenopsis sp., S. invicta (Formicidae) Ceramic tiles,
tiles
Spermophagus sp., S. sericeus
Tiles
(Bruchidae)
Spilosoma obliqua (Arctiidae)
Iron
Tiles
Pest
Where
intercepted
Trigonidium cicindeloides (Gryllidae) Tiles
Trigonotylus sp. (Miridae)
Tiles
Trioza sp. (Psyllidae)
Tiles
Tropidothorax leucopterus
(Lygaeidae)
Tropinota sp., T. squalida
(Scarabaeidae)
Trypodendron domesticum
(Curculionidae: Scolytinae)
Tychius sp. (Curculionidae)
Marble, tiles
Tiles
Tiles
Tiles
Tiles
Spilostethus sp., S. pandurus
(Lygaeidae)
Spodoptera littoralis (Noctuidae)
Tiles
Utetheisa pulchella (Arctiidae)
Stagonomus pusillus (Pentatomidae)
Tiles
Stenodema sp. (Miridae)
Marble
Stephanitis pyri (Tingidae)
Limestone
Stephanopachys quadricollis
(Bostrichidae)
Stictopleurus crassicornis
(Rhopalidae)
Symphysa amoenalis (Crambidae)
Tiles
Xanthochilus saturnius, X. quadratus Container,
(Rhyparochromidae)
limestone,
marble,
quarry
product, tiles
Xerophloea sp. (Cicadellidae)
Tiles
Marble,
stones, tiles
Tiles
Systena sp. (Chrysomelidae)
Xestia sp. (Noctuidae)
Tiles
Tiles
Xyleborus sp., X. eurygraphus
(Curculionidae: Scolytinae)
Xylocopa sp. (Xylocopidae)
Granite,
marble, tiles
Tiles
Taeniothrips sp. (Thripidae)
Stoneware
Xylothrips flavipes (Bostrichidae)
Machinery
Taphropeltus contractus
(Rhyparochromidae)
Tephritis sp. (Tephritidae)
Tiles
Xylotrechus sp., X. magnicollis, X.
rusticus (Cerambycidae)
Tetrix sp., T. castaneum (Tetrigidae)
Automobile
parts,
ceramic,
electrical
parts, granite,
iron,
limestone,
machinery,
marble, steel,
tiles
Automobile
parts,
machinery,
marble,
stones, tiles
Marble tiles
Aluminum,
machinery,
marble, steel,
tiles
Tiles
Tetropium sp. (Cerambycidae)
Tettigidea sp. (Tetrigidae)
Tettigometra impressifrons
(Tettigometridae)
Tomarus sp. (Scarabaeidae)
Tomicus sp., T. minor, T. piniperda
(Curculionidae: Scolytinae)
Trichoferus sp. (Cerambycidae)
Tiles
Tiles
Tiles
Zabrotes sp. (Bruchidae)
Zygaena sp., Z. ephialtes (Zygaenidae) Marble, tiles
Mite
Varroa destructor (Varroidae)
Container
Mollusk
Achatina fulica (Achatinidae)
Tools
Agriolimax sp. (Agriolimacidae)
Tiles
Arion sp., A. distinctus, A. vulgaris
(Arionidae)
Limestone,
machinery,
stones
Iron, tiles,
container,
tires
Container
Bradybaena sp. (Bradybaeinidae)
Calcisuccinea sp., C. luteola
(Succineidae)
Marble, tiles
Machinery
161
Pest
Candidula sp., C. intersecta, C.
unifasciata (Hygromiidae)
Cantareus apertus (Helicidae)
Cathaica fasciola (Bradybaenidae)
Where
intercepted
Container,
limestone,
marble,
quarry
product,
stones, tiles,
tractor
Tiles
Caucasotachea sp. (Helicidae)
Quarry
product, tiles,
machinery,
container
Tiles
Cepaea sp. (Helicidae)
Tiles
Cernuella sp., C. cisalpina, C.
neglecta, C. virgata (Hygromiidae)
Agricultural
implements,
bricks, boat,
container,
granite,
limestone,
machinery,
marble,
quarry
products, ship
holds,
stoneware,
tiles
Cochlicella sp., C. acuta, C. conoidea Container,
(Cochlicellidae)
machinery,
tiles
Cornu aspersum (Helicidae)
Stoneware,
tiles, ceramic
tiles,
automobile
parts, marble,
ship stores
Deroceras sp., D. panormitanum
Tiles,
(Agriolimacidae)
containers
Eobania vermiculata (Helicidae)
Tiles,
ceramic tiles,
ship stores
Euhadra sp. (Bradybaenidae)
Tractor
Pest
Where
intercepted
Hygromia cinctella (Hygromiidae)
Ceramic tiles,
quarry
product, tiles
Lehmannia sp., L. valentiana
Container,
(Limacidae)
granite,
machinery,
marble,
metal, quarry
product, steel,
tiles
Limacus sp., L. maculatus (Limacidae) Tiles
Limax sp., L. cinereoniger
(Limacidae)
Meghimatium bilineatum
(Philomycidae)
Microxeromagna armillata
(Hygromiidae)
Milax nigricans (Milacidae)
Monacha sp., M. bincinctae, M.
cantiana, M. cartusiana, M. obstructa,
M. parumcincta, M. syriaca
(Hygromiidae)
Monachoides incarnatus
(Hygromiidae)
Otala sp., O. punctata (Helicidae)
Oxychilus sp. (Oxychilidae)
Prietocella barbara (Cochlicellidae)
Succinea sp. (Succineidae)
Tiles
Granite
Container,
limestone,
marble,
stones, tiles
Tiles
Automobile
parts, ceramic
tiles,
container,
marble,
quarry
product,
stoneware,
tiles
Tiles
Container,
marble tiles,
tiles
Marble, tiles
Container,
marble,
quarry
product, tiles
Container,
quarry
product
Fruticocola fruticum (Bradybaenidae) Tiles
Granodomus lima (Pleurodontidae)
Helicopsis sp. (Hygromiidae)
Helix sp., H. cincta, H. lucorum
(Helicidiae)
Container,
metal, scrap
metal
Container
Container,
quarry
product, tiles
162
Pest
Theba pisana (Helicidae)
Trochoidea sp., T. elegans, T.
pyramidata, T. trochoides
(Hygromiidae)
Xerolenta obvia (Hygromiidae)
Xeropicta sp., X. derbentina, X.
krynickii, X. protea, X. vestalis
(Hygromiidae)
Xerosecta sp., X. cespinum
(Hygromiidae)
Xerotricha apicina, X. conspurcata
(Hygromiidae)
Zachrysia sp. (Pleurodontidae)
Where
intercepted
Aluminum,
automobile,
ceramic tiles,
container,
limestone,
marble,
quarry
product,
stones,
stoneware,
tiles
Container,
limestone,
quarry
product, tiles
Container,
tiles
Container,
limestone,
marble, tiles
Container,
tiles
Bricks,
ceramic tiles,
container,
granite,
machinery,
marble,
quarry
product, ship
stores, slate,
stones,
stoneware,
tiles, tools
Container
Pest
Oryza sp. (red rice) (Poaceae)
Pennisetum polystachion (Poaceae)
Saccharum sp., S. spontaneum
(Poaceae)
Tridax procumbens (Asteraceae)
Where
intercepted
Ship holds,
steel, tiles,
tractor
Ceramic,
marble,
quarry
product
Granite,
marble
Ceramic,
container,
electrical
parts, military
vehicles
Nematode
Meloidogyne sp. (Meloidogynidae)
Tiles
Xiphinema sp. (Longidoridae)
Machinery
Weed
Avena sp., A. sterilis (Poaceae)
Imperata cylindrica (Poaceae)
Ischaemum rugosum (Poaceae)
Quarry
product,
Tiles, Stones
Automobile,
granite, iron,
machinery,
metal, quarry
product, slate,
tiles, tires
Tiles
163
Table 5.4 Number of maritime vessels arriving at sea ports in the Greater Caribbean Region. Data is for
2006 unless otherwise noted.
Country or Total
Container Reference
territory
vessels vessels
Insular Caribbean
Aruba
216
216 (Aruba Ports Authority, 2008)
Cayman
155
(Cayman Islands Port Authority,
Islands
2008)
Curaçao
2,684
(Curaçao Ports Authority, 2008)
Dominican
Republic
3,656
(República Dominicana Oficina
Nacional de Estadística, 2004)
Guadeloupe
1,510
(Port of Guadeloupe, 2008)
Jamaica
St. Lucia
U.S. Virgin
Islands
2,755
938
3,502
2,004 (Port Authority of Jamaica, 2007)
382 (SLASPA, 2007)
(U.S. Virgin Islands Port Authority,
2008)
Central America
Belize
199
Costa Rica
El Salvador
Guatemala
Honduras
Nicaragua
Panama
United States
Alabama
Florida
859
8,502
(Alabama State Port Authority, 2008)
(Jacksonville Port Authority, 2008,
Port Everglades, 2008, Port of MiamiDade, 2008, Port of Palm Beach,
2008)
Louisiana
2,000
(Port of New Orleans, 2008)
Mississippi
Texas
3,042
718
3,366
2,377
621
6,159
(Port of Belize, 2008)
216
7,548
1,036
281
1,479
1,023
151
3,967
Comments
Data for 2003.
Of the vessels arriving,
1,304 were designated
as freighters.
Data for 2004. Of the
vessels arriving, 2,617
were designated as
freighters.
Data for 2003. Only
freight ships were
reported.
Data for 2005 which
includes vessels over
100 gross tons. It is
assumed these are
cargo vessels.
Includes bulk cargo
vessels.
(COCATRAM, 2007)
(COCATRAM, 2007)
(COCATRAM, 2007)
(COCATRAM, 2007)
(COCATRAM, 2007)
(COCATRAM, 2007)
Data from 2007.
Other ports in Florida
may receive cargo
vessels but are not
reflected in this
number.
The number of vessels
is the estimated average
to arrive annually.
(Mississippi State Port Authority,
2008)
(Port of Houston, 2008)
164
Table 5.5 Container traffic and estimated number of containers with hitchhiker pests at ports of entry in the Greater Caribbean Region.
1
Most ports reported only number of TEUs, not number of containers. However, data from several ports that specified container type allowed us to estimate a
80:20 ratio of forty-foot to twenty-foot containers. We used this ratio to estimate the number of containers based on reported number of TEUs for all remaining
ports.
2
The number of TEUs reported by ports often includes both containers entering and containers exiting the port. For ports that did not specify the direction of traffic
flow, the estimated number of containers was divided by 2 to estimate the number of containers entering.
3
Estimated based on a 0.234 container contamination rate provided by Gadgil et al. (2000).
Country
Port
Anguilla
Not specified
Antigua
and
Barbuda
Aruba
Not specified
Oranjestad
Bahamas
Freeport
(Container
Terminal)
Barbados
Bridgetown
Reported
number of
TEUs
Estimated
number of
containers 1
20,299
12,179
Estimated
number of
containers
entering 2
Estimated
Comments
number
ofcontainers
entering with
plant pests 3
6,090
1,425 The number of TEUs and
35,000
21,000
10,500
--
17,659
8,830
1,385,860
831,516
415,758
92,507
55,504
27,752
2,457
containers entering is
estimated from 2001 data.
The number of TEUs and
containers entering is
estimated from 2001 data.
2,066 The number of containers is
97,287
the total traffic volume in
2006. The number of
containers entering is an
estimate.
The number of TEUs is the
total traffic volume in 2006.
The number of containers
entering is an estimate.
6,494 The number of TEUs is the
Reference
(Veenstra et al., 2005)
(Veenstra et al., 2005)
(Aruba Ports Authority, 2008)
(Degerlund, 2007)
(Degerlund, 2007)
total traffic volume in 2006.
The number of containers
entering is an estimate.
165
Country
Port
Belize
Belize City
Reported
number of
TEUs
Estimated
number of
containers 1
37,527
24,516
Estimated
number of
containers
entering 2
Estimated
Comments
number
ofcontainers
entering with
plant pests 3
12,258
2,868 The number of TEUs is the
total traffic volume in 2006.
The number of containers
entering is an estimate.
The number of TEUs and
containers entering is
estimated from 2001 data.
British
Virgin
Islands
Not specified
40,599
24,359
12,180
2,850
Cayman
Islands
Georgetown
30,003
18,002
18,002
4,212 The number of TEUs is the
Colombia
Not specified
Colombia
1,073,081
643,849
321,925
75,330
Cartagena
510,000
306,000
153,000
35,802
Colombia Combined Total
1,583,081
949,849
474,925
111,132
59,879
35,927
35,927
Costa Rica
Caldera
8,407 The number of TEUs is the
Limón-Moín
382,908
229,745
382,908
89,600
Costa Rica Combined Total
442,787
265,672
418,835
98,007
Costa Rica
number entering in 2006.
The number of containers is
estimated.
The number of TEUs is the
total traffic volume in 2004.
The number of containers
entering is an estimate.
The number of TEUs is the
total traffic volume in 2003.
The number of containers
entering is an estimate.
number entering in 2006.
The number of containers is
estimated.
The number of TEUs is the
number entering in 2006.
The number of containers is
estimated.
Reference
(Port of Belize, 2008)
(Veenstra et al., 2005)
(Cayman Islands Port
Authority, 2008)
(UNCTAD, 2005, 2006)
(UNCTAD, 2005)
(COCATRAM, 2007)
(COCATRAM, 2007)
166
Country
Port
Cuba
Havana
Reported
number of
TEUs
Estimated
number of
containers 1
317,105
190,263
Estimated
number of
containers
entering 2
Estimated
Comments
number
ofcontainers
entering with
plant pests 3
95,132
22,261 The number of TEUs is the
Curaçao
Not specified
46,064
27,638
27,638
6,467
Dominica
Roseau
11,097
6,658
3,329
779
Dominican
Republic
La Romana
1,397
838
419
98
Dominican
Republic
Rio Haina
268,738
161,243
80,622
18,865
Dominican
Republic
Puerto Plata
47,119
28,271
14,136
3,308
Dominican
Republic
Santo
Domingo
11,244
6,746
3,373
789
Dominican
Republic
Boca Chica
26,906
16,144
8,072
1,889
total traffic volume in 2005.
The number of containers
entering is an estimate.
The number of TEUs is the
number entering in 2006.
The number of containers is
estimated.
The number of TEUs is the
total traffic volume in 2006.
The number of containers
entering is an estimate.
The number of TEUs is the
total traffic volume in 2005.
The number of containers
entering is an estimate.
The number of TEUs is the
total traffic volume in 2005.
The number of containers
entering is an estimate.
The number of TEUs is the
total traffic volume in 2005.
The number of containers
entering is an estimate.
The number of TEUs is the
total traffic volume in 2005.
The number of containers
entering is an estimate.
The number of TEUs is the
total traffic volume in 2005.
The number of containers
entering is an estimate.
Reference
(Degerlund, 2007)
(Curaçao Ports Authority,
2008)
(Degerlund, 2007)
(CEPAL, 2007)
(CEPAL, 2007)
(CEPAL, 2007)
(CEPAL, 2007)
(CEPAL, 2007)
167
Country
Port
Dominican
Republic
Manzanillo
Estimated
number of
containers 1
1,622
973
Estimated
number of
containers
entering 2
Estimated
Comments
number
ofcontainers
entering with
plant pests 3
487
114 The number of TEUs is the
Acajutla
357,026
214,215
107,109
65,722
39,433
39,433
Guatemala
Santo Tomas
de Castilla
169,258
101,555
101,555
Guatemala
Barrios
107,124
64,274
64,274
Guatemala
Quetzal
Guatemala Combined Total
Guadeloupe Not specified
Guadeloupe
Reference
(CEPAL, 2007)
total traffic volume in 2005.
The number of containers
entering is an estimate.
Dominican Republic
Combined Total
El Salvador
Reported
number of
TEUs
Basse-Terre
102,633
61,580
61,580
379,015
77,158
227,409
46,295
227,409
46,295
2,274
1,364
682
25,063
9,227 The number of TEUs is the
23,764
number entering in 2006.
The number of containers is
an estimate.
The number of TEUs is the
number entering in 2006.
The number of containers is
an estimate.
15,040 The number of TEUs is the
14,410
number entering in 2006.
The number of containers is
an estimate.
The number of TEUs is the
number entering in 2006.
The number of containers is
an estimate.
53,214
10,833 The number of TEUs is the
160
number entering in 2006.
The number of containers is
an estimate.
The number of TEUs is the
total traffic volume in 2004.
The number of containers is
an estimate.
(COCATRAM, 2007)
(COCATRAM, 2007)
(COCATRAM, 2007)
(COCATRAM, 2007)
(Port of Guadeloupe, 2008)
(Port of Guadeloupe, 2008)
168
Country
Port
Reported
number of
TEUs
Estimated
number of
containers 1
Guadeloupe
Jarry/ Pointea-Pitre
154,263
92,558
Guadeloupe Combined Total
231,421
138,853
92,574
13,398
8,039
4,020
Guyana
Not specified
Estimated
number of
containers
entering 2
Estimated
Comments
number
ofcontainers
entering with
plant pests 3
46,279
10,829 The number of TEUs is the
21,662
941 The number of TEUs and
Not specified
555,489
333,293
166,647
38,995
Honduras
Cortés
253,520
152,112
152,112
35,594
Honduras
Castilla
40,590
24,354
24,354
5,699
Honduras
San Lorenzo
106
64
32
7
294,216
176,530
176,498
41,300
1,670,800
1,002,000
501,000
Jamaica
Kingston
(CEPAL, 2007)
total traffic volume in 2005.
The number of containers
entering is an estimate.
Haiti
Honduras Combined Total
Reference
containers entering is
estimated from 2001 data.
The number of TEUs is the
total traffic volume in 2004.
The number of containers
entering is an estimate.
The number of TEUs is the
number entering in 2006.
The number of containers is
an estimate.
The number of TEUs is the
number entering in 2006.
The number of containers is
an estimate.
The number of TEUs is the
total traffic volume in 2005.
The number of containers
entering is an estimate.
117,234 The number of TEUs is the
(Veenstra et al., 2005)
(UNCTAD, 2005, 2006)
(COCATRAM, 2007)
(COCATRAM, 2007)
(CEPAL, 2007)
(Degerlund, 2007)
total traffic volume in 2005.
The number of containers
entering is an estimate.
169
Country
Port
Jamaica
other outports
Reported
number of
TEUs
Estimated
number of
containers 1
142,110
85,266
Estimated
number of
containers
entering 2
Estimated
Comments
number
ofcontainers
entering with
plant pests 3
42,633
9,976 The number of TEUs is the
Reference
(UNCTAD, 2005)
total traffic volume in 2003.
The number of containers
entering is an estimate.
Jamaica Combined Total
Martinique
Not specified
543,633
143,877
86,266
43,133
127,210
10,093 The number of TEUs and
963,044
481,522
112,676
795
477
477
112
Corinto
24,205
14,523
14,523
3,398
El Bluff
121
73
73
17
25,121
15,073
15,073
3,527
4,242
2,425
2,425
Not specified
Nicaragua
Arlen Siu
Nicaragua
Nicaragua
Nicaragua Combined Total
Panama
1,087,266
1,605,074
Netherland
Antilles
Panama
1,812,910
Almirante
Balboa
504,349
302,610
302,610
containers entering is
estimated from 2001 data.
The number of TEUs is the
total traffic volume in 2003.
The number of containers
entering is an estimate.
The number of TEUs is the
number entering in 2006.
The number of containers is
an estimate.
The number of TEUs is the
number entering in 2006.
The number of containers is
an estimate.
The number of TEUs is the
number entering in 2006.
The number of containers is
an estimate.
567 The number of TEUs is the
70,811
number entering in 2006.
The number of containers is
an estimate.
The number of TEUs is the
number entering in 2006.
The number of containers is
an estimate.
(Veenstra et al., 2005)
(UNCTAD, 2005)
(COCATRAM, 2007)
(COCATRAM, 2007)
(COCATRAM, 2007)
(COCATRAM, 2007)
(COCATRAM, 2007)
170
Country
Port
Panama
Chiriqui
Grande
Terminal
Panama
Panama
Panama
Colon,
includes
Manzanillo,
Evergreen,
Panama Port
Colon
Container
Terminal
Cristobal
Reported
number of
TEUs
Estimated
number of
containers 1
2,606
1,303
Estimated
number of
containers
entering 2
Estimated
Comments
number
ofcontainers
entering with
plant pests 3
652
66 The number of containers
Reference
(COCATRAM, 2007)
entering in 2006 is the
actual number reported.
729,165
437,499
437,499
102,375 The number of TEUs is the
(COCATRAM, 2007)
number entering in 2006.
The number of containers is
an estimate.
812
487
487
114 The number of TEUs is the
(COCATRAM, 2007)
number entering in 2006.
The number of containers is
an estimate.
80,799
46,554
23,277
5,447 The number of containers is
(COCATRAM, 2007)
the total container traffic
volume in 2006; the number
of containers entering is an
estimate.
Panama
Manzanillo
International
Terminal
1,331,267
788,324
394,162
92,234 The number of containers
(COCATRAM, 2007)
entering is the actual
number reported in 2006.
171
Country
Port
Panama
Panama Ports
Company
Reported
number of
TEUs
Estimated
number of
containers 1
49,133
29,480
Estimated
number of
containers
entering 2
Estimated
Comments
number
ofcontainers
entering with
plant pests 3
29,480
6,898 The number of TEUs is the
2,702,373
1,608,682
1,190,592
Puerto Rico
1,727,389
1,036,433
518,217
278,512
121,263 The number of TEUs is the
St. Kitts
and Nevis
Not specified
40,599
24,359
12,180
2,850
St Lucia
Port Castries
16,544
9,926
9,926
2,323
St. Lucia
Port VieuxFort
4,070
2,442
2,442
571
20,614
12,368
12,368
2,894
440,368
264,221
132,111
St. Lucia Combined Total
St. Martin
Not specified
(COCATRAM, 2007)
number entering in 2006.
The number of containers is
an estimate.
Panama Combined Total
San Juan
Reference
St. Vincent
and the
Grenadines
Not specified
40,599
24,359
12,180
Suriname
Paramaribo
25,374
15,224
7,612
total traffic volume in 2005.
The number of containers
entering is an estimate.
The number of TEUs and
containers entering is
estimated from 2001 data.
The number of TEUs is the
number entering in 2006.
The number of containers is
an estimate.
The number of TEUs is the
number entering in 2006.
The number of containers is
an estimate.
30,914 The number of TEUs is the
2,850
total traffic volume in 2003.
The number of containers
entering is an estimate.
The number of TEUs and
containers entering is
estimated from 2001 data.
1,781 The number of TEUs and
(Degerlund, 2007)
(Veenstra et al., 2005)
(SLASPA, 2007)
(SLASPA, 2007)
(UNCTAD, 2005)
(Veenstra et al., 2005)
(Veenstra et al., 2005)
containers entering is
estimated from 2001 data.
172
Country
Port
Trinidad
and Tobago
Port-of-Spain
Trinidad
and Tobago
Port Point
Lisas
Reported
number of
TEUs
Estimated
number of
containers 1
322,466
193,480
Estimated
number of
containers
entering 2
Estimated
Comments
number
ofcontainers
entering with
plant pests 3
96,740
22,637 The number of TEUs is the
Reference
(CEPAL, 2007)
total traffic volume in 2005.
The number of containers
entering is an estimate.
Trinidad and Tobago
Combined Total
99,000
59,400
29,700
6,950 The number of TEUs is the
(CEPAL, 2007)
total traffic volume in 2004.
The number of containers
entering is an estimate.
421,466
252,880
126,440
37,643
22,586
11,293
29,587
2,643 The number of TEUs and
U.S. Virgin
Islands
Not specified
U.S. –
Alabama
Not specified
108,572
65,143
32,572
7,622
U.S. Florida
Miami
976,514
585,908
292,954
68,551
U.S. Florida
Jacksonville
768,239
153,648
76,824
17,977
U.S. Florida
Palm Beach
116,380
69,828
69,828
16,340
containers entering is
estimated from 2001 data.
The number of TEUs is the
total traffic volume in 2006.
The number of containers
entering is an estimate.
The number of TEUs is the
total traffic volume in 2006.
The number of containers
entering is an estimate.
The number of TEUs is the
total traffic volume in 2006.
The number of containers
entering is an estimate.
The number of TEUs is the
number entering in 2006.
The number of containers is
an estimate.
(Veenstra et al., 2005)
(Alabama State Port
Authority, 2008)
(Port of Miami-Dade, 2008)
(Jacksonville Port Authority,
2008)
(Port of Palm Beach, 2008)
173
Country
Port
Reported
number of
TEUs
Estimated
number of
containers 1
U.S. Florida
Port
Everglades
239,506
143,704
U.S. –
Louisiana
Port of New
Orleans
300,000
180,000
90,000
21,060
U.S. –
Mississippi
Port of
Gulfport
48,751
48,751
48,751
11,408
U.S. –
Texas
Port of
Houston
Authority
1,582,081
949,249
474,624
111,062
U.S. –
Texas
Port of San
Antonio
773,048
463,829
231,914
U.S. Gulf States Combined
Total
4,913,091
Greater Caribbean Region
Total
Estimated
number of
containers
entering 2
Estimated
Comments
number
ofcontainers
entering with
plant pests 3
143,704
33,627 The number of TEUs is the
number entering in 2006.
The number of containers is
an estimate.
The number of TEUs is the
total number entering in
2005. The number of
containers entering is an
estimate.
The number of containers is
the actual number entering
in 2006.
The number of TEUs is the
total traffic volume in 2005.
The number of containers
entering is an estimate.
54,268 The number of TEUs
Reference
(Port Everglades, 2008)
(Degerlund, 2007)
(Mississippi State Port
Authority, 2008)
(Degerlund, 2007)
(Degerlund, 2007)
arriving in 2005 is the total
number entering. The
number of containers is
estimated.
2,660,060
1,461,171
341,915
11,655,408
6,913,124
1,617,581
174
Figure 6.1 Percentage (and 95% binomial confidence interval) of maritime cargo (both agricultural and non-agricultural) imported into the United
States with wood packaging material (Data source: (USDA, 2008f), Sept. 16, 2005-Aug. 15, 2007).
100
90
70
60
50
40
30
20
China
Thailand
Netherlands
Vietnam
Taiwan
Panama
Japan
Korea
Venezuela
Malaysia
Nicaragua
Peru
Argentina
Honduras
Chile
India
France
Belgium
Colombia
Brazil
Ecuador
Indonesia
Dom. Republic
Portugal
Guatemala
Germany
Costa Rica
Spain
Italy
0
New Zealand
10
Turkey
Percent WPM
80
Country of Origin
175
Figure 6.2 Percentage (and 95% binomial confidence interval) of maritime agricultural cargo with wood packaging material imported into the
United States between September 16, 2005 - August 15, 2007. Data source: (USDA, 2008f).
100
90
Percent WPM
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
a
hi
n
C
ru
Pe
lic
ub
il
.R
ep
om
Br
az
a
nt
in
a
m
bi
ol
o
Ar
ge
r
C
ua
do
Ec
ur
as
on
d
H
m
al
a
te
G
ua
a
os
t
C
D
N
ew
Ze
al
R
ica
an
d
10
0
Country of Origin
176
Figure 6.3 Percentage (and 95% binomial confidence interval) of maritime non-agricultural cargo with wood packaging material imported into the
United States between September 16, 2005 - August 15, 2007. Data source: (USDA, 2008f).
100
90
70
60
50
40
30
20
China
Honduras
Thailand
Vietnam
Taiwan
Japan
Venezuela
Malaysia
Korea
Argentina
Guatemala
France
Chile
India
Costa Rica
Belgium
Peru
Colombia
Brazil
Indonesia
Portugal
Germany
Spain
Italy
Turkey
0
New Zealand
10
Dom. Republic
Percent WPM
80
Country of Origin
177
Figure 6.4 Percentage (and 95% binomial confidence interval) of agricultural air cargo with wood packaging material imported into the United
States between September 16, 2005 – August 15, 2007. Data source: (USDA, 2008f).
80
70
60
Japan
Thailand
Mexico
Costa Rica
Israel
Dom. Republic
Jamaica
France
Guatemala
Brazil
Spain
Belgium
10
0
New Zealand
50
40
30
20
Netherlands
Percent WPM
100
90
Country of Origin
178
Table 6.1 Imports of wood packaging material into Caribbean Region (2006) (Data source: (UNComtrade,
2008)).
Caribbean
Islands
Importing countries
Caribbean Islands
Central America
Guyana/Suriname
1
230.0
0.2
--
Exporting countries
Central
Guyana/
America Suriname
USA1
(metric tonnes)
--1,766.9
10,244.1
1.4
3,127.5
--1.3
World
2,481.4
14,724.0
5.2
Includes all of United States
Table 6.2 Exports of wood packaging material from Caribbean Region (2006) (Data source:
(UNComtrade, 2008)).
Greater
Antilles
Exportng countries
Caribbean Islands
Central America
Guyana/Suriname
1
72.5
0.1
--
Importing countries
Central
Guyana/
America
Suriname
USA1
(metric tonnes)
4.2
-254.3
7,652.5
-- 18,871.2
--0.01
World
332.4
29,574.3
0.7
Includes all of United States
179
Table 6.3 Pest taxa (not necessarily of U.S. quarantine significance) intercepted on or in wood material at
U.S. ports of entry between July 5, 2006 and January 1, 2008 (Data source: (USDA, 2008d)).
Order
Coleoptera
Diptera
Hemiptera
Hymenoptera
Isopoda
Isoptera
Lepidoptera
Mollusks
Orthoptera
Plant
TOTAL
Family
Anobiidae
Bostrichidae
Buprestidae
Cerambycidae
Chrysomelidae
Cleridae
Corticariidae
Cryptophagidae
Curculionidae
Curculionidae: Scolytinae
Histeridae
Laemophloeidae
Mycetophagidae
Nitidulidae
Platypodidae
Scarabaeidae
Silvanidae
Staphylinidae
Tenebrionidae
Scatopsidae
Aradidae
Cixiidae
Coreidae
Miridae
Reduviidae
Rhyparochromidae
Apidae
Formicidae
unknown
Rhinotermitidae
Termitidae
Geometridae
Pyralidae
Tineidae
Cochlicellidae
Helicidae
Gryllidae
Tettigoniidae
Asteraceae
Boraginaceae
Poaceae
Ulmaceae
Interceptions Specimens
2
2
9
32
15
16
38
49
1
3
3
17
1
5
3
3
40
131
247
788
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
8
8
13
2
2
5
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
8
1
4
1
2
3
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
4
1
424
13
1
3
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
78
3
135
4
2
4
1
3
12
2
2
.
.
.
.
1,346
180
Table 6.4 Species intercepted at U.S. ports of entry
on or in wood material between January of 1985 and
May of 2007. (This list is not comprehensive.) (Data
source: (USDA, 2008d))
Pest
Pathogens
Family
Apiospora montagnei
Ascochyta sp.
Apiosporaceae
Family of
Coelomycetes
Family of
Hyphomycetes
Family of
Hyphomycetes
Family of
Coelomycetes
Family of
Coelomycetes
Pleosporaceae
Aspergillus sp.
Cladosporium sp.
Colletotrichum
gloeosporioides
Cytospora sp.
Didymella sp.
Eurotium sp.
Graphiola sp.
Gymnosporangium sp.
Hemisphaeriales, species
Lasiodiplodia theobromae
Lichen sp.
Lophodermium sp.
Melanomma sp.
Mycosphaerella sp.
Mycospharella fijiensis
Pestalotiopsis sp.
Phoma sp.
Phomopsis sp.
Polyporus versicolor
Puccinia sp.
Rhizoctonia solani
Saprophyte sp.
Insects
Acalles sp.
Acalymma vittatum
Acanthocephala femorata
Acanthocephala sp.
Acanthocinus aedilis
Graphiolaceae
Pucciniaceae
Family of
Coelomycetes
Rhytismataceae
Mycosphaerellaceae
Family of
Coelomycetes
Family of
Coelomycetes
Family of
Coelomycetes
Polyporaceae
Pucciniaceae
Curculionidae
Chrysomelidae
Coreidae
Coreidae
Cerambycidae
Pest
Acanthocinus griseus
Acanthocinus sp.
Acanthoscelides sp.
Acheta domesticus
Acheta hispanicus
Acheta sp.
Acmaeodera sp.
Acrididae, species
Acroleucus bromelicola
Acrolophus sp.
Acrosternum millierei
Acyphoderes sp.
Adelina plana
Adelina sp.
Adelphocoris lineolatus
Adoretus sinicus
Aelia acuminata
Aelia sp.
Aeolesthes sp.
Aeolus sp.
Aethus indicus
Agallia laevis
Agallia sp.
Agapanthia irrorata
Aglossa caprealis
Agrilus sp.
Agrilus sulcicollis
Agriotes aequalis
Agriotes lineatus
Agriotes sp.
Agromyzidae, species
Agrotis exclamationis
Agrotis ipsilon
Agrotis sp.
Agrypninae, species
Ahasverus advena
Ahasverus sp.
Alaus oculatus
Alaus sp.
Alphitobius diaperinus
Alphitobius laevigatus
Altica oleracea
Altica sp.
Family
Cerambycidae
Cerambycidae
Bruchidae
Gryllidae
Gryllidae
Gryllidae
Buprestidae
Lygaeidae
Acrolophidae
Pentatomidae
Cerambycidae
Tenebrionidae
Tenebrionidae
Miridae
Scarabaeidae
Pentatomidae
Pentatomidae
Cerambycidae
Elateridae
Cydnidae
Cicadellidae
Cicadellidae
Cerambycidae
Pyralidae
Buprestidae
Buprestidae
Elateridae
Elateridae
Elateridae
Noctuidae
Noctuidae
Noctuidae
Elateridae
Silvanidae
Silvanidae
Elateridae
Elateridae
Tenebrionidae
Tenebrionidae
Chrysomelidae
Chrysomelidae
181
Pest
Alydus pilosulus
Alydus sp.
Amenophis sp.
Ametastegia sp.
Amitermes sp.
Amphiacusta azteca
Amphicerus cornutus
Amphicerus sp.
Anaceratagallia venosa
Anacridium aegyptium
Anasa sp.
Anastrepha sp.
Anelaphus moestus
Anelaphus sp.
Anobiidae, species
Anobium punctatum
Anomala sp.
Anoplophora glabripennis
Anoplophora sp.
Anthaxia sp.
Anthicidae, species
Anthocoridae, species
Anthomyiidae, species
Anthonomus eugenii
Anthonomus sp.
Araptus sp.
Anthrenus sp.
Anthribidae, species
Anticarsia irrorata
Anurogryllus sp.
Apate sp.
Aphanus rolandri
Aphididae, species
Aphodiinae, species
Aphorista sp.
Aphthona sp.
Apidae, species
Apion sp.
Apionidae, species
Apis mellifera
Apis sp.
Apocrita, species
Family
Alydidae
Alydidae
Tenebrionidae
Tenthredinidae
Termitidae
Gryllidae
Bostrichidae
Bostrichidae
Cicadellidae
Acrididae
Coreidae
Tephritidae
Cerambycidae
Cerambycidae
Anobiidae
Scarabaeidae
Cerambycidae
Cerambycidae
Buprestidae
Curculionidae
Curculionidae
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Dermestidae
Noctuidae
Gryllidae
Bostrichidae
Rhyparochromidae
Scarabaeidae
Endomychidae
Chrysomelidae
Apionidae
Apidae
Apidae
Pest
Apriona sp.
Aradidae, species
Aradus betulae
Aradus sp.
Araecerus sp.
Archipini, species
Arctiidae, species
Arhopalus asperatus
Arhopalus ferus
Arhopalus rusticus
Arhopalus sp.
Arhopalus syriacus
Aridius sp.
Arma custos
Arocatus longiceps
Arocatus melanocephalus
Arocatus roeselii
Aromia moschata
Ascalapha odorata
Aseminae, species
Asemum sp.
Asemum striatum
Asilidae, species
Aspidiella hartii
Aspidomorpha sp.
Asynapta sp.
Ataenius sp.
Atractomorpha sp.
Atrazonatus umbrosus
Atta sp.
Attagenus sp.
Auchenorrhyncha, species
Aulacaspis tubercularis
Aulacophora sp.
Aulacorthum solani
Aulonsoma sp.
Autographa californica
Autographa gamma
Azteca sp.
Bactrocera dorsalis
Bactrocera sp.
Baridinae, species
Baris sp.
Family
Cerambycidae
Aradidae
Aradidae
Anthribidae
Tortricidae
Cerambycidae
Cerambycidae
Cerambycidae
Cerambycidae
Cerambycidae
Lathridiidae
Pentatomidae
Lygaeidae
Lygaeidae
Lygaeidae
Cerambycidae
Noctuidae
Cerambycidae
Cerambycidae
Cerambycidae
Diaspididae
Chrysomelidae
Cecidomyiidae
Scarabaeidae
Pyrgomorphidae
Lygaeidae
Formicidae
Dermestidae
Diaspididae
Chrysomelidae
Aphididae
Passandridae
Noctuidae
Noctuidae
Formicidae
Tephritidae
Tephritidae
Curculionidae
Curculionidae
182
Pest
Batocera rufomaculata
Batocera sp.
Belionota prasina
Belionota sp.
Beosus maritimus
Beosus quadripunctatus
Beosus sp.
Bethylidae, species
Biphyllidae, species
Blapstinus sp.
Blastobasinae, species
Blattidae, species
Blissus insularis
Blissus sp.
Bostrichidae, species
Bostrichinae, species
Bostrichini, species
Bostrychoplites cornutus
Brachmia sp.
Brachypeplus sp.
Braconidae, species
Braconinae, species
Brentidae, species
Brentus sp.
Brochymena parva
Brochymena quadripustulata
Brochymena sp.
Bruchidius sp.
Bruchinae, species
Bryothopha sp.
Bucrates capitatus
Buprestidae, species
Buprestis dalmatina
Buprestis haemorrhoidalis
Buprestis sp.
Buprestis viridisuturalis
Cacopsylla sp.
Cadra cautella
Cadra sp.
Callidiellum rufipenne
Callidiellum sp.
Callidiellum villosulum
Callidium aeneum
Family
Cerambycidae
Cerambycidae
Buprestidae
Buprestidae
Rhyparochromidae
Rhyparochromidae
Rhyparochromidae
Tenebrionidae
Coleophoridae
Blissidae
Blissidae
Bostrichidae
Bostrichidae
Bostrichidae
Gelechiidae
Nitidulidae
Pest
Callidium sp.
Callidium violaceum
Calligrapha sp.
Calliphorinae, species
Callosobruchus sp.
Camponotus fallax
Camponotus rufipes
Camponotus sp.
Camptomyia sp.
Camptopus lateralis
Camptorhinus sp.
Cantharidae, species
Carabidae, species
Carphoborus bifurcus
Carphoborus minimus
Carphoborus pini
Carphoborus rossicus
Carphoborus sp.
Braconidae
Brentidae
Pentatomidae
Pentatomidae
Pentatomidae
Bruchidae
Chrysomelidae
Gelechiidae
Tettigoniidae
Buprestidae
Buprestidae
Buprestidae
Buprestidae
Psyllidae
Pyralidae
Pyralidae
Cerambycidae
Cerambycidae
Cerambycidae
Cerambycidae
Carpocoris pudicus
Carpophilus sp.
Cartodere constricta
Carulaspis juniperi
Caryedon sp.
Cassidinae, species
Cathartosilvanus opaculus
Catocalinae, species
Catolethrus sp.
Catorhintha sp.
Caulotops sp.
Cecidomyiidae, species
Cecidomyiinae, species
Centrocoris spiniger
Centrocoris variegatus
Cerambycidae, species
Cerambycinae, species
Cerambyx sp.
Ceraphronidae, species
Ceratagallia sp.
Ceratitini, species
Family
Cerambycidae
Cerambycidae
Chrysomelidae
Calliphoridae
Bruchidae
Formicidae
Formicidae
Formicidae
Cecidomyiidae
Alydidae
Curculionidae
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Pentatomidae
Nitidulidae
Corticariidae
Diaspididae
Bruchidae
Chrysomelidae
Silvanidae
Noctuidae
Curculionidae
Coreidae
Miridae
Cecidomyiidae
Coreidae
Coreidae
Cerambycidae
Cerambycidae
Cicadellidae
Tephritidae
183
Pest
Ceratitis capitata
Ceratopogonidae, species
Cercopidae, species
Ceresium sp.
Cerylonidae, species
Ceutorhynchus sp.
Chaetocnema concinna
Chaetocnema conducta
Chaetocnema sp.
Chaetocnema tibialis
Chaetophloeus mexicanus
Chalcidoidea, species
Chalcoises plutus
Chalcophora georgiana
Chalcophora sp.
Chalcophora virginiensis
Cheirodes sp.
Chilo sp.
Chilo suppressalis
Chironomidae, species
Chlorida festiva
Chlorochroa senilis
Chlorophanus sp.
Chlorophorus annularis
Chlorophorus diadema
Chlorophorus pilosus
Chlorophorus sp.
Chramesus sp.
Chrysauginae, species
Chrysobothrini, species
Chrysobothris chrysostigma
Chrysobothris femorata
Chrysobothris octocola
Chrysobothris sp.
Chrysodeixis chalcites
Chrysolina bankii
Chrysolina polita
Chrysolina rossia
Chrysolina sp.
Chrysomela sp.
Chrysomelidae, species
Family
Tephritidae
Cerambycidae
Curculionidae
Chrysomelidae
Chrysomelidae
Chrysomelidae
Chrysomelidae
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Chrysomelidae
Buprestidae
Buprestidae
Buprestidae
Tenebrionidae
Crambidae
Crambidae
Cerambycidae
Pentatomidae
Curculionidae
Cerambycidae
Cerambycidae
Cerambycidae
Cerambycidae
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Pyralidae
Buprestidae
Buprestidae
Buprestidae
Buprestidae
Buprestidae
Noctuidae
Chrysomelidae
Chrysomelidae
Chrysomelidae
Chrysomelidae
Chrysomelidae
Pest
Cicadella viridis
Cicadellidae, species
Ciidae, species
Cinara sp.
Cixiidae, species
Cleonis sp.
Cleonus sp.
Cleridae, species
Clytini, species
Clytus sp.
Cnemonyx sp.
Cneorhinus sp.
Coccinella septempunctata
Coccinella sp.
Coccinellidae, species
Coccotrypes sp.
Coccus viridis
Colaspis sp.
Coleophoridae, species
Coleoptera, species
Collembola, species
Collops sp.
Colydiidae, species
Colydiinae, species
Conarthrus sp.
Conchaspis newsteadi
Conistra rubiginea
Conocephalus sp.
Conoderus sp.
Conotrachelus sp.
Copitarsia sp.
Coptocycla sordida
Coptops sp.
Coptotermes crassus
Coptotermes formosanus
Coptotermes sp.
Coptotermes testaceus
Corcyra cephalonica
Coreidae, species
Corimelaena pulicaria
Corixidae, species
Family
Cicadellidae
Aphididae
Curculionidae
Curculionidae
Cerambycidae
Cerambycidae
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Curculionidae
Coccinellidae
Coccinellidae
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Coccidae
Chrysomelidae
Melyridae
Zopheridae
Curculionidae
Conchaspididae
Noctuidae
Tettigoniidae
Elateridae
Curculionidae
Noctuidae
Chrysomelidae
Cerambycidae
Rhinotermitidae
Rhinotermitidae
Rhinotermitidae
Rhinotermitidae
Pyralidae
Thyreocoridae
184
Pest
Corizus hyoscyami
Corticariidae, species
Corticarina sp.
Corticeus sp.
Corylophidae, species
Cossidae, species
Cossoninae, species
Cossonus sp.
Cossus cossus
Crambidae, species
Crambinae, species
Crematogaster scutellaris
Crematogaster sp.
Crocistethus waltlianus
Cryphalus abietis
Cryphalus piceae
Cryphalus sp.
Cryptamorpha desjardinsii
Cryptinae, species
Cryptoblabes sp.
Cryptolaemus montrouzieri
Cryptolestes sp.
Cryptophagidae, species
Cryptophagus sp.
Cryptophilinae, species
Cryptophilini, species
Cryptophilus sp.
Cryptophlebia leucotreta
Cryptophlebia sp.
Cryptorhynchinae, species
Cryptorhynchus sp.
Cryptotermes brevis
Cryptotermes domesticus
Cryptotermes sp.
Crypturgus cinereus
Crypturgus mediterraneus
Crypturgus numidicus
Crypturgus pusillus
Family
Rhopalidae
Pest
Crypturgus sp.
Corticariidae
Tenebrionidae
Ctenuchinae, species
Cucujidae, species
Cucujoidea, species
Culicidae, species
Curculio sp.
Curculionidae, species
Curculionoidea, species
Cyclocephala sp.
Cyclocephalini, species
Cycloneda polita
Cyclorrhapha, species
Cydia sp.
Cydnidae, species
Cylindrocopturus sp.
Cymatodera sp.
Cymatothes tristis
Cynipidae, species
Cyphostethus tristriatus
Cyrtogenius luteus
Curculionidae
Curculionidae
Cossidae
Crambidae
Formicidae
Formicidae
Cydnidae
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Silvanidae
Ichneumonidae
Pyralidae
Coccinellidae
Laemophloeidae
Cryptophagidae
Erotylidae
Erotylidae
Erotylidae
Tortricidae
Tortricidae
Curculionidae
Curculionidae
Kalotermitidae
Kalotermitidae
Kalotermitidae
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Cyrtogenius sp.
Dargida procincta
Delia platura
Delphacidae, species
Deltocephalinae, species
Demonax sp.
Dendrobiella aspera
Dendrobiella sericans
Dendrocoris reticulatus
Dendrocoris sp.
Dendroctonus frontalis
Dendroctonus mexicanus
Dendroctonus pseudotsugae
Dendroctonus sp.
Dendroctonus valens
Deraeocoris punctulatus
Deraeocoris sp.
Family
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Arctiidae
Curculionidae
Scarabaeidae
Scarabaeidae
Coccinellidae
Tortricidae
Curculionidae
Cleridae
Tenebrionidae
Acanthosomatidae
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Noctuidae
Anthomyiidae
Cicadellidae
Cerambycidae
Bostrichidae
Bostrichidae
Pentatomidae
Pentatomidae
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Miridae
Miridae
185
Pest
Derbidae, species
Dere thoracica
Dermaptera, species
Dermestes maculatus
Dermestes sp.
Dermestidae, species
Diabrotica sp.
Diabrotica undecimpunctata
Dialeurodes citri
Diaspididae, species
Dicerca lurida
Dicerca sp.
Dictyopharidae, species
Diestrammena (tachycines)
Dieuches armatipes
Dihammus sp.
Dinoderinae, species
Dinoderus bifoveolatus
Dinoderus brevis
Dinoderus minutus
Dinoderus sp.
Diorthus sp.
Diphthera festiva
Diplognatha sp.
Diplotaxis sp.
Diptera, species
Discestra trifolii
Disonycha sp.
Dolerus sp.
Dolichopodidae, species
Dolycoris baccarum
Dorcus sp.
Doryctinae, species
Dorymyrmex sp.
Dorytomus sp.
Draeculacephala clypeata
Drasterius bimaculatus
Drasterius sp.
Drosophilidae, species
Drymus sylvaticus
Dryocoetes autographus
Dryocoetes sp.
Family
Pest
Cerambycidae
Dryocoetes villosus
Dermestidae
Dermestidae
Dynastinae, species
Dysdercus mimus
Dysdercus sp.
Dysides obscurus
Dysmicoccus neobrevipes
Eburia stigmatica
Edessa sp.
Elachistidae, species
Elaphidion sp.
Elaphria sp.
Elateridae, species
Elaterinae, species
Eleodes sp.
Embioptera, species
Emblethis denticollis
Emblethis vicarius
Emesinae, species
Empicoris sp.
Empididae, species
Encyrtinae, species
Endomychidae, species
Enopliinae, species
Entiminae, species
Entomobryidae, species
Enyo lugubris
Ephestia elutella
Ephestia kuehniella
Epicauta sp.
Epitragus sp.
Epitrix sp.
Eremocoris fenestratus
Eremocoris sp.
Eriococcidae, species
Ernobius mollis
Ernobius sp.
Erotylidae, species
Erthesina fullo
Estigmene acrea
Eubulus sp.
Euconocephalus sp.
Chrysomelidae
Chrysomelidae
Aleyrodidae
Buprestidae
Buprestidae
Gryllacrididae
Rhyparochromidae
Cerambycidae
Bostrichidae
Bostrichidae
Bostrichidae
Bostrichidae
Bostrichidae
Cerambycidae
Noctuidae
Scarabaeidae
Scarabaeidae
Noctuidae
Chrysomelidae
Tenthredinidae
Pentatomidae
Lucanidae
Braconidae
Formicidae
Curculionidae
Cicadellidae
Elateridae
Elateridae
Rhyparochromidae
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Curculionidae:
Family
Scolytinae
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Scarabaeidae
Pyrrhocoridae
Pyrrhocoridae
Bostrichidae
Pseudococcidae
Cerambycidae
Pentatomidae
Cerambycidae
Noctuidae
Elateridae
Tenebrionidae
Rhyparochromidae
Rhyparochromidae
Reduviidae
Reduviidae
Encyrtidae
Cleridae
Curculionidae
Sphingidae
Pyralidae
Pyralidae
Meloidae
Tenebrionidae
Chrysomelidae
Rhyparochromidae
Rhyparochromidae
Anobiidae
Anobiidae
Pentatomidae
Arctiidae
Curculionidae
Tettigoniidae
186
Pest
Euetheola bidentata
Euetheola sp.
Eulophinae, species
Eumeninae, species
Euphoria sp.
Euplatypus parallelus
Eurydema oleraceum
Eurydema ornatum
Eurydema ventrale
Euryscelis suturalis
Eurythyrea sp.
Eurytoma spessivtsevi
Euschistus cornutus
Euschistus servus
Euschistus strenuus
Euwallacea andamanensis
Euwallacea validus
Exora sp.
Eyprepocnemis plorans
Eysarcoris ventralis
Fannia sp.
Feltiella acarisuga
Forcipomyia sp.
Formica sp.
Formicidae, species
Formicinae, species
Frankliniella sp.
Froeschneria piligera
Froggattiella penicillata
Fulvius sp.
Galeruca sp.
Galerucella luteola
Galerucella sp.
Galleriinae, species
Gastrodes abietum
Gastrodes grossipes
Gastrophysa polygoni
Gelechiidae, species
Gelechioidea, species
Geocoris megacephalus
Geocoris sp.
Family
Scarabaeidae
Scarabaeidae
Eulophidae
Vespidae
Scarabaeidae
Platypodidae
Pentatomidae
Pentatomidae
Pentatomidae
Cerambycidae
Buprestidae
Eurytomidae
Pentatomidae
Pentatomidae
Pentatomidae
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Chrysomelidae
Acrididae
Pentatomidae
Muscidae
Cecidomyiidae
Ceratopogonidae
Formicidae
Formicidae
Thripidae
Rhyparochromidae
Diaspididae
Miridae
Chrysomelidae
Chrysomelidae
Chrysomelidae
Pyralidae
Rhyparochromidae
Rhyparochromidae
Chrysomelidae
Geocoridae
Geocoridae
Pest
Geometridae, species
Geotomus punctulatus
Gerstaeckeria sp.
Giraudiella inclusa
Glenea sp.
Glyphidocera sp.
Glyptotermes fuscus
Glyptotermes sp.
Gnaphalodes trachyderoides
Gnathamitermes sp.
Gnathotrichus denticulatus
Gnathotrichus materiarius
Gnathotrichus sp.
Gnathotrichus sulcatus
Gonioctena sp.
Gonocephalum sp.
Gonocerus acuteangulatus
Gonocerus sp.
Gonocerus venator
Gracilia minuta
Grammophorus sp.
Graphosoma sp.
Gryllidae, species
Gryllinae, species
Gryllodes sigillatus
Gryllodes sp.
Gryllodes supplicans
Gryllus bimaculatus
Gryllus campestris
Gryllus rubens
Gryllus sp.
Gymnandrosoma sp.
Gypona sp.
Hadeninae, species
Halyomorpha halys
Halyomorpha picus
Haplothrips gowdeyi
Harmonia axyridis
Harmonia sp.
Harpalus sp.
Family
Cydnidae
Curculionidae
Cecidomyiidae
Cerambycidae
Glyphidoceridae
Kalotermitidae
Kalotermitidae
Cerambycidae
Termitidae
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Chrysomelidae
Tenebrionidae
Coreidae
Coreidae
Coreidae
Cerambycidae
Elateridae
Pentatomidae
Gryllidae
Gryllidae
Gryllidae
Gryllidae
Gryllidae
Gryllidae
Gryllidae
Gryllidae
Tortricidae
Cicadellidae
Noctuidae
Pentatomidae
Pentatomidae
Phlaeothripidae
Coccinellidae
Coccinellidae
Carabidae
187
Pest
Heilipus sp.
Heleomyzidae, species
Helicoverpa armigera
Helicoverpa sp.
Helicoverpa zea
Helophorus sp.
Hemerobiidae, species
Hemieuxoa rudens
Hemiptera, species
Hepialidae, species
Heraeus sp.
Hermetia illucens
Hermetia sp.
Herpetogramma sp.
Hesperiidae, species
Hesperophanes campestris
Hesperophanes sp.
Heterobostrychus aequalis
Heterobostrychus brunneus
Heterobostrychus
hamatipennis
Heterobostrychus sp.
Heterogaster urticae
Hemiptera, species
Heterotermes aureus
Heterotermes sp.
Heterotermes tenuis
Hippodamia variegata
Hippopsis sp.
Histeridae, species
Holcostethus sphacelatus
Holcostethus vernalis
Homalodisca sp.
Homoeocerus marginellus
Hoplandrothrips sp.
Hortensia similis
Horvathiolus superbus
Hyalochilus ovatulus
Hybosorus sp.
Hylastes angustatus
Hylastes ater
Hylastes attenuatus
Family
Curculionidae
Pest
Hylastes cunicularius
Noctuidae
Noctuidae
Noctuidae
Hydrophilidae
Hylastes linearis
Hylastes opacus
Hylastes sp.
Noctuidae
Hylecoetus lugubris
Hylesininae, species
Rhyparochromidae
Stratiomyidae
Stratiomyidae
Crambidae
Hylesinus aculeatus
Hylesinus crenatus
Hylesinus sp.
Cerambycidae
Cerambycidae
Bostrichidae
Bostrichidae
Bostrichidae
Hylesinus varius
Hylobius abietis
Hylobius sp.
Hylocurus sp.
Bostrichidae
Heterogastridae
Hylotrupes bajulus
Hylurgopinus rufipes
Rhinotermitidae
Rhinotermitidae
Rhinotermitidae
Coccinellidae
Cerambycidae
Hylurgopinus sp.
Hylurgops glabrotus
Hylurgops incomptus
Hylurgops palliatus
Pentatomidae
Pentatomidae
Cicadellidae
Coreidae
Phlaeothripidae
Cicadellidae
Lygaeidae
Rhyparochromidae
Scarabaeidae
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Curculionidae:
Hylurgops planirostris
Hylurgops sp.
Hylurgus ligniperda
Hylurgus sp.
Hymenoptera, species
Hypena gonospilalis
Hypena sp.
Hypera brunnipennis
Hypera constans
Family
Scolytinae
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Lymexylonidae
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Curculionidae
Curculionidae
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Cerambycidae
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Noctuidae
Noctuidae
Curculionidae
Curculionidae
188
Pest
Hypera postica
Hypera sp.
Hyphantria cunea
Hypocassida subferrugines
Hypocryphalus mangiferae
Hypocryphalus sp.
Hypoponera sp.
Hypothenemus obscurus
Hypothenemus sp.
Hypurus bertrandi
Ibalia leucospoides
Ibalia sp.
Ibaliidae, species
Ichneumonidae, species
Icosium tomentosum
Idiocerinae, species
Idiocerus sp.
Incisitermes minor
Incisitermes modestus
Incisitermes sp.
Insect, species
Insecta, species
Ips acuminatus
Ips amitinus
Ips apache
Ips bonanseai
Ips calligraphus
Ips cembrae
Ips cribricollis
Ips erosus
Ips grandicollis
Ips integer
Ips lecontei
Family
Curculionidae
Curculionidae
Arctiidae
Chrysomelidae
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Formicidae
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Curculionidae
Ibaliidae
Ibaliidae
Cerambycidae
Cicadellidae
Cicadellidae
Kalotermitidae
Kalotermitidae
Kalotermitidae
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Curculionidae:
Pest
Ips mannsfeldi
Ips mexicanus
Ips pini
Ips sexdentatus
Ips sp.
Ips typographus
Irbisia sp.
Iridomyrmex sp.
Ischnodemus conicus
Ischnodemus sp.
Isopoda, species
Isoptera, species
Kalotermes flavicollis
Kalotermes sp.
Kalotermitidae, species
Kleidocerys resedae
Lacon sp.
Laemophloeidae, species
Lamia sp.
Lamia textor
Lamiinae, species
Lamprodema maurum
Lampyridae, species
Languriidae, species
Largus cinctus
Largus sp.
Larinus cynarae
Larinus latus
Larinus sp.
Larinus turbinatus
Lasiochilidae, species
Lasioderma serricorne
Lasius alienus
Lasius brunneus
Lasius emarginatus
Lasius niger
Lasius sp.
Latheticus oryzae
Family
Scolytinae
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Miridae
Formicidae
Blissidae
Blissidae
Kalotermitidae
Kalotermitidae
Lygaeidae
Elateridae
Cerambycidae
Cerambycidae
Cerambycidae
Rhyparochromidae
Largidae
Largidae
Curculionidae
Curculionidae
Curculionidae
Curculionidae
Anobiidae
Formicidae
Formicidae
Formicidae
Formicidae
Formicidae
Tenebrionidae
189
Pest
Lathridiidae, species
Ledomyia sp.
Leiopus sp.
Lepidoptera, species
Leptoglossus occidentalis
Leptoglossus oppositus
Leptoglossus phyllopus
Leptoglossus sp.
Leptopus marmoratus
Leptostylus sp.
Leptothorax sp.
Leptothorax subditivus
Leptura sp.
Lepyronia quadrangularis
Lestodiplosis sp.
Lestremia sp.
Lestremiinae, species
Leucania sp.
Ligyrocoris sp.
Ligyrus sp.
Limothrips cerealium
Linepithema humile
Liogenys macropelma
Liometopum sp.
Liorhyssus hyalinus
Liriomyza huidobrensis
Lissonotus flavocinctus
Listronotus sp.
Litargus sp.
Lixus sp.
Lobometopon metallicum
Lonchaea sp.
Longitarsus sp.
Lucanidae, species
Luprops sp.
Lycaenidae, species
Lyctidae, species
Lyctinae, species
Lyctus africanus
Lyctus brunneus
Lyctus cavicollis
Lyctus simplex
Lyctus sp.
Family
Cecidomyiidae
Cerambycidae
Coreidae
Coreidae
Coreidae
Coreidae
Leptopodidae
Cerambycidae
Formicidae
Formicidae
Cerambycidae
Aphrophoridae
Cecidomyiidae
Cecidomyiidae
Cecidomyiidae
Noctuidae
Rhyparochromidae
Scarabaeidae
Thripidae
Formicidae
Scarabaeidae
Formicidae
Rhopalidae
Agromyzidae
Cerambycidae
Curculionidae
Mycetophagidae
Curculionidae
Tenebrionidae
Lonchaeidae
Chrysomelidae
Tenebrionidae
Lyctidae
Bostrichidae
Bostrichidae
Bostrichidae
Bostrichidae
Bostrichidae
Pest
Lyctus villosus
Lygaeidae, species
Lygaeoidea, species
Lygaeosoma sardeum
Lygaeus equestris
Lygaeus pandurus
Lygus gemellatus
Lygus rugulipennis
Lygus sp.
Lymantria dispar
Lymantriidae, species
Lymexylidae, species
Lyphia sp.
Macrocopturus cribricollis
Macroglossum stellatarum
Macroscytus sp.
Maladera sp.
Malezonotus sodalicius
Mallodon dasystomus
Mallodon sp.
Margarodidae, species
Marshallius sp.
Mecaspis alternans
Mecinus circulatus
Mecinus pyraster
Mecinus sp.
Mecopus sp.
Megacyllene antennatus
Megacyllene sp.
Megalonotus chiragrus
Megaselia sp.
Megaspilidae, species
Melacoryphus lateralis
Melalgus sp.
Melanaethus subglaber
Melanaspis elaeagni
Melanaspis sp.
Melandryidae, species
Melanocoryphus
albomaculatus
Melanophila acuminata
Melanophila cuspidata
Melanophila notata
Family
Bostrichidae
Lygaeidae
Lygaeidae
Lygaeidae
Miridae
Miridae
Miridae
Lymantriidae
Tenebrionidae
Curculionidae
Sphingidae
Cydnidae
Scarabaeidae
Rhyparochromidae
Cerambycidae
Cerambycidae
Curculionidae
Curculionidae
Curculionidae
Curculionidae
Curculionidae
Curculionidae
Cerambycidae
Cerambycidae
Rhyparochromidae
Phoridae
Lygaeidae
Bostrichidae
Cydnidae
Diaspididae
Diaspididae
Lygaeidae
Buprestidae
Buprestidae
Buprestidae
190
Pest
Melanophila sp.
Melanoplus sp.
Melolonthinae, species
Melyridae, species
Membracidae, species
Metamasius hemipterus
Metoponium sp.
Metopoplax ditomoides
Metopoplax origani
Metopoplax sp.
Mezira sp.
Micrapate brasiliensis
Micrapate labialis
Micrapate scabrata
Micrapate sp.
Micromus angulatus
Micropezidae, species
Microplax sp.
Microtheca sp.
Migneauxia sp.
Milichiidae, species
Minthea obstita
Minthea rugicollis
Minthea sp.
Minthea squamigera
Miridae, species
Mocis frugalis
Mocis undata
Mogoplistidae, species
Molorchus minor
Molorchus sp.
Molytinae, species
Monarthrum sp.
Family
Buprestidae
Acrididae
Scarabaeidae
Dryophthoridae
Tenebrionidae
Oxycarenidae
Oxycarenidae
Oxycarenidae
Aradidae
Bostrichidae
Bostrichidae
Bostrichidae
Bostrichidae
Hemerobiidae
Oxycarenidae
Chrysomelidae
Corticariidae
Bostrichidae
Bostrichidae
Bostrichidae
Bostrichidae
Noctuidae
Noctuidae
Cerambycidae
Cerambycidae
Curculionidae
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Monochamus alternatus
Cerambycidae
Monochamus carolinensis
Cerambycidae
Monochamus clamator
Cerambycidae
Monochamus galloprovincialis Cerambycidae
Monochamus sartor
Cerambycidae
Monochamus scutellatus
Cerambycidae
Monochamus sp.
Cerambycidae
Monochamus sutor
Cerambycidae
Monochamus teserula
Cerambycidae
Pest
Monommatidae, species
Monomorium destructor
Monomorium floricola
Monomorium pharaonis
Monomorium salomonis
Monomorium sp.
Monosteira unicostata
Monotomidae, species
Mordellidae, species
Mormidea sp.
Muscidae, species
Mycetophagidae, species
Mycetophilidae, species
Myllocerus hilleri
Myocalandra sp.
Myochrous sp.
Myrmicinae, species
Nabidae, species
Nabis sp.
Naemia seriata
Nasutitermes costalis
Nasutitermes ephratae
Nasutitermes nigriceps
Nasutitermes sp.
Nathrius brevipennis
Necrobia rufipes
Nemapogon granella
Nemapogon sp.
Nematocera, species
Neoclytus caprea
Neoclytus olivaceus
Neoclytus sp.
Neoconocephalus punctipes
Neoconocephalus sp.
Neoconocephalus triops
Neotermes connezus
Neotermes modestus
Neotermes sp.
Neotrichus latiusculus
Neottiglossa sp.
Neuroptera, species
Nezara viridula
Niphades sp.
Family
Formicidae
Formicidae
Formicidae
Formicidae
Formicidae
Tingidae
Pentatomidae
Curculionidae
Dryophthoridae
Chrysomelidae
Formicidae
Nabidae
Coccinellidae
Termitidae
Termitidae
Termitidae
Termitidae
Cerambycidae
Cleridae
Tineidae
Tineidae
Cerambycidae
Cerambycidae
Cerambycidae
Tettigoniidae
Tettigoniidae
Tettigoniidae
Kalotermitidae
Kalotermitidae
Kalotermitidae
Zopheridae
Pentatomidae
Pentatomidae
Curculionidae
191
Pest
Niphades variegatus
Nitidulidae, species
Noctua comes
Noctua pronuba
Noctuidae, species
Noctuinae, species
Nymphalidae, species
Nysius ericae
Nysius graminicola
Nysius senecionis
Nysius sp.
Nysius stalianus
Nysius thymi
Nyssodrysternum sp.
Nyssonotus seriatus
Ochetellus sp.
Ochrimnus carnosulus
Odontocera sp.
Odontocolon sp.
Oebalus pugnax
Oecophoridae, species
Oedemeridae, species
Olenecamptus sp.
Olethreutinae, species
Omalus sp.
Omophlus sp.
Onthophagus sp.
Opatrinae, species
Opogona sacchari
Opogona sp.
Orphinus sp.
Orthocentrinae, species
Orthostethus sp.
Orthotomicus caelatus
Orthotomicus erosus
Orthotomicus laricis
Orthotomicus proximus
Orthotomicus sp.
Orthotomicus suturalis
Family
Curculionidae
Noctuidae
Noctuidae
Noctuidae
Lygaeidae
Lygaeidae
Lygaeidae
Lygaeidae
Lygaeidae
Lygaeidae
Cerambycidae
Curculionidae
Formicidae
Lygaeidae
Cerambycidae
Ichneumonidae
Pentatomidae
Cerambycidae
Tortricidae
Chrysididae
Tenebrionidae
Scarabaeidae
Tenebrionidae
Tineidae
Tineidae
Dermestidae
Ichneumonidae
Elateridae
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Pest
Oryctes rhinoceros
Osbornellus sp.
Otiorhynchus sp.
Otitidae, species
Oulema melanopus
Oulema sp.
Ovalisia sp.
Oxya velox
Oxycarenus pallens
Oxycarenus sp.
Oxygrylius ruginasus
Oxypleurus nodieri
Ozophora sp.
Pachybrachius sp.
Pachydissus sp.
Pagiocerus sp.
Palaeocallidium rufipenne
Palaeocallidium sp.
Palomena prasina
Palorus subdepressus
Pangaeus rugiceps
Paralipsa gularis
Paraparomius lateralis
Parasaissetia nigra
Paratenetus sp.
Paratrechina longicornis
Paratrechina sp.
Pareuchaetes insulata
Parlatoria blanchardi
Paromius gracilis
Passandridae, species
Pectinophora gossypiella
Peltophorus sp.
Pentatomidae, species
Perapion curtirostre
Perissus delerei
Peritrechus gracilicornis
Perniphora robusta
Phaedon cochleariae
Phaedon sp.
Phaenops sp.
Pheidole megacephala
Family
Scarabaeidae
Cicadellidae
Curculionidae
Chrysomelidae
Chrysomelidae
Buprestidae
Acrididae
Oxycarenidae
Oxycarenidae
Scarabaeidae
Cerambycidae
Rhyparochromidae
Rhyparochromidae
Cerambycidae
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Cerambycidae
Cerambycidae
Pentatomidae
Tenebrionidae
Cydnidae
Pyralidae
Rhyparochromidae
Coccidae
Tenebrionidae
Formicidae
Formicidae
Arctiidae
Diaspididae
Rhyparochromidae
Gelechiidae
Curculionidae
Apionidae
Cerambycidae
Rhyparochromidae
Pteromalidae
Chrysomelidae
Chrysomelidae
Buprestidae
Formicidae
192
Pest
Pheidole sp.
Philaenus spumarius
Phlaeothripidae, species
Phloeosinus canadensis
Phloeosinus punctatus
Phloeosinus rudis
Phloeosinus sp.
Phloeotribus scarabaeoides
Phloeotribus sp.
Phlogophora meticulosa
Phoracantha recurva
Phoracantha semipunctata
Phoracantha sp.
Phoridae, species
Phragmatobia fuliginosa
Phratora sp.
Phycitinae, species
Phylinae, species
Phyllobaenus sp.
Phyllobius sp.
Phyllophaga sp.
Phyllotreta sp.
Phymatidae, species
Phymatodes sp.
Phymatodes testaceus
Physonota sp.
Phytocoris sp.
Pieridae, species
Pieris brassicae
Piezodorus purus
Pimplinae, species
Pissodes castaneus
Pissodes harcyniae
Pissodes notatus
Pissodes pini
Pissodes sp.
Pityogenes bidentatus
Pityogenes bistridentatus
Family
Formicidae
Cercopidae
Pest
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Noctuidae
Cerambycidae
Cerambycidae
Cerambycidae
Pityogenes chalcographus
Arctiidae
Chrysomelidae
Pyralidae
Miridae
Cleridae
Curculionidae
Scarabaeidae
Chrysomelidae
Pityophthorus sp.
Cerambycidae
Cerambycidae
Chrysomelidae
Miridae
Pieridae
Pentatomidae
Ichneumonidae
Curculionidae
Curculionidae
Curculionidae
Curculionidae
Curculionidae
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Curculionidae:
Pityogenes calcaratus
Pityogenes quadridens
Pityogenes sp.
Pityogenes trepanatus
Pityokteines curvidens
Pityokteines sp.
Pityokteines spinidens
Pityophthorus mexicanus
Pityophthorus pityographus
Placonotus sp.
Placopsidella sp.
Placosternus difficilis
Placosternus sp.
Plagionotus christophi
Plagionotus sp.
Planococcus halli
Platycleis sp.
Platynota sp.
Platyplax salviae
Platypodidae, species
Platypus sp.
Plodia interpunctella
Plusiinae, species
Plutella xylostella
Podagrica malvae
Podagrica sp.
Pogonocherus hispidus
Pogonocherus perroudi
Pogonocherus sp.
Pogonomyrmex maricopa
Pollenia sp.
Polycesta sp.
Family
Scolytinae
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Laemophloeidae
Ephydridae
Cerambycidae
Cerambycidae
Cerambycidae
Cerambycidae
Pseudococcidae
Tettigoniidae
Tortricidae
Heterogastridae
Platypodidae
Pyralidae
Noctuidae
Plutellidae
Chrysomelidae
Chrysomelidae
Cerambycidae
Cerambycidae
Cerambycidae
Formicidae
Calliphoridae
Buprestidae
193
Pest
Polydrusus sp.
Polygraphus poligraphus
Polygraphus rufipennis
Polygraphus sp.
Polygraphus subopacus
Polyrhachis sp.
Ponera sp.
Ponerinae, species
Porricondylinae, species
Prioninae, species
Prionus californicus
Prionus sp.
Prosoplus sp.
Prostemma guttula
Prostephanus sp.
Prostephanus truncatus
Protaetia orientalis
Proxys punctulatus
Psenulus sp.
Pseudococcidae, species
Pseudococcus longispinus
Pseudohylesinus variegatus
Family
Curculionidae
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Formicidae
Formicidae
Formicidae
Cecidomyiidae
Cerambycidae
Cerambycidae
Cerambycidae
Cerambycidae
Nabidae
Bostrichidae
Bostrichidae
Scarabaeidae
Pentatomidae
Sphecidae
Pseudococcidae
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Pseudomyrmex sp.
Formicidae
Pseudopamera aurivilliana
Rhyparochromidae
Pseudopamera sp.
Rhyparochromidae
Pseudopityophthorus sp.
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Pseudopityophthorus yavapaii Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Pseudothysanoes sp.
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Psocidae, species
Psocoptera, species
Psychidae, species
Psychodidae, species
Psyllidae, species
Psylliodes sp.
Chrysomelidae
Pteleobius vittatus
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Pterolophia sp.
Cerambycidae
Pest
Pteromalidae, species
Ptiliidae, species
Ptilinus sp.
Ptinidae, species
Pycnarmon cribrata
Pyralidae, species
Pyralis farinalis
Pyraustinae, species
Pyrgocorypha sp.
Pyrochroidae, species
Pyrrhalta sp.
Pyrrhidium sanguineum
Pyrrhidium sp.
Pyrrhocoris apterus
Rachiplusia ou
Raglius alboacuminatus
Reduviidae, species
Renia discoloralis
Reticulitermes chinensis
Reticulitermes flavipes
Reticulitermes lucifugus
Reticulitermes sp.
Reticulitermes tibialis
Reuteroscopus sp.
Rhagionidae, species
Rhagium inquisitor
Rhagium mordax
Rhagium sp.
Rhaphidophoridae, species
Rhaphigaster nebulosa
Rhinotermitidae, species
Rhopalidae, species
Rhopalus parumpunctatus
Rhopalus sp.
Rhopalus subrufus
Rhopalus tigrinus
Rhynchaenus sp.
Rhynchites bacchus
Rhynchitidae, species
Rhynchophorus palmarum
Rhyncolus elongatus
Rhyncolus sculpturatus
Rhyncolus sp.
Family
Anobiidae
Pyralidae
Pyralidae
Crambidae
Tettigoniidae
Chrysomelidae
Cerambycidae
Cerambycidae
Pyrrhocoridae
Noctuidae
Rhyparochromidae
Noctuidae
Rhinotermitidae
Rhinotermitidae
Rhinotermitidae
Rhinotermitidae
Rhinotermitidae
Miridae
Cerambycidae
Cerambycidae
Cerambycidae
Pentatomidae
Rhopalidae
Rhopalidae
Rhopalidae
Rhopalidae
Curculionidae
Curculionidae
Dryophthoridae
Curculionidae
Curculionidae
Curculionidae
194
Pest
Rhyparida sp.
Rhyparochromidae, species
Rhyparochromus confusus
Rhyparochromus pini
Rhyparochromus quadratus
Rhyparochromus sp.
Rhyparochromus vulgaris
Rhyssomatus sp.
Rhytidoderes plicatus
Rhytidodus decimaquartus
Rhyzopertha dominica
Ricania fumosa
Riodinidae, species
Ropica sp.
Rugitermes sp.
Saissetia sp.
Salpingidae, species
Sambus sp.
Saperda carcharias
Saperda scalaris
Saperda sp.
Scantius aegyptius
Scaphidiinae, species
Scarabaeidae, species
Scatopsidae, species
Sciaridae, species
Sciocoris maculatus
Sciocoris sp.
Scolopostethus affinis
Scolopostethus decoratus
Scolytinae, species
Scolytodes sp.
Scolytoplatypus sp.
Scolytus intricatus
Scolytus multistriatus
Scolytus ratzeburgi
Scolytus rugulosus
Scolytus schevyrewi
Family
Chrysomelidae
Pest
Scolytus scolytus
Rhyparochromidae
Rhyparochromidae
Rhyparochromidae
Rhyparochromidae
Rhyparochromidae
Curculionidae
Curculionidae
Cicadellidae
Bostrichidae
Ricaniidae
Cerambycidae
Kalotermitidae
Coccidae
Buprestidae
Cerambycidae
Cerambycidae
Cerambycidae
Pyrrhocoridae
Staphylinidae
Pentatomidae
Pentatomidae
Rhyparochromidae
Rhyparochromidae
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Curculionidae:
Scolytus sp.
Scotinophara sp.
Scydmaenidae, species
Scyphophorus acupunctatus
Scyphophorus sp.
Scythridinae, species
Sehirinae, species
Sehirus bicolor
Selepa sp.
Semanotus sp.
Semiothisa sp.
Sericoderus sp.
Serropalpus barbatus
Serropalpus sp.
Sesiidae, species
Setomorpha rutella
Shirahoshizo sp.
Silvanidae, species
Silvanus planatus
Silvanus sp.
Sinoxylon anale
Sinoxylon conigerum
Sinoxylon crassum
Sinoxylon indicum
Sinoxylon sp.
Sipalinus gigas
Sipalinus sp.
Sirex cyaneus
Sirex juvencus
Sirex nitobei
Sirex noctilio
Sirex sp.
Siricidae, species
Sitona crinita
Sitona discoideus
Sitona hispidulus
Sitona humeralis
Sitona sp.
Sitophilus sp.
Family
Scolytinae
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Pentatomidae
Dryophthoridae
Dryophthoridae
Coleophoridae
Cydnidae
Cydnidae
Noctuidae
Cerambycidae
Geometridae
Corylophidae
Melandryidae
Melandryidae
Tineidae
Curculionidae
Silvanidae
Silvanidae
Bostrichidae
Bostrichidae
Bostrichidae
Bostrichidae
Bostrichidae
Dryophthoridae
Dryophthoridae
Siricidae
Siricidae
Siricidae
Siricidae
Siricidae
Curculionidae
Curculionidae
Curculionidae
Curculionidae
Curculionidae
Dryophthoridae
195
Pest
Situlaspis yuccae
Smicronyx interruptus
Smicronyx sp.
Sminthuridae, species
Solenopsis geminata
Solenopsis invicta
Solenopsis sp.
Solenopsis xyloni
Spermophagus sericeus
Spermophagus sp.
Sphacophilus sp.
Sphaeridiinae, species
Sphaeroceridae, species
Sphecidae, species
Sphenophorus sp.
Sphenoptera sp.
Sphingidae, species
Sphingonotus sp.
Spilosoma lubricipeda
Spilosoma sp.
Spilostethus pandurus
Spodoptera frugiperda
Spodoptera litura
Spodoptera sp.
Stagonomus pusillus
Staphylinidae, species
Stegobium paniceum
Steirastoma sp.
Stenocarus fuliginosus
Stenodontes sp.
Stenoscelis sp.
Stephanopachys quadricollis
Stephanopachys rugosus
Stephanopachys sp.
Sternochetus mangiferae
Sternochetus sp.
Stictopleurus crassicornis
Stictopleurus sp.
Stizocera sp.
Stratiomyidae, species
Stromatium barbatum
Stromatium longicorne
Stromatium sp.
Family
Diaspididae
Curculionidae
Curculionidae
Formicidae
Formicidae
Formicidae
Formicidae
Bruchidae
Bruchidae
Argidae
Hydrophilidae
Dryophthoridae
Buprestidae
Acrididae
Arctiidae
Arctiidae
Lygaeidae
Noctuidae
Noctuidae
Noctuidae
Pentatomidae
Anobiidae
Cerambycidae
Curculionidae
Cerambycidae
Curculionidae
Bostrichidae
Bostrichidae
Bostrichidae
Curculionidae
Curculionidae
Rhopalidae
Rhopalidae
Cerambycidae
Cerambycidae
Cerambycidae
Cerambycidae
Pest
Family
Strophosoma melanogrammum Curculionidae
Sympiesis sp.
Eulophidae
Synanthedon sp.
Sesiidae
Synchroa punctata
Synchroidae
Syngrapha celsa
Noctuidae
Syphrea sp.
Chrysomelidae
Syrphidae, species
Systena sp.
Chrysomelidae
Tachinidae, species
Tachyporinae, species
Staphylinidae
Taphropeltus contractus
Rhyparochromidae
Taphrorychus bicolor
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Taphrorychus sp.
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Taphrorychus villifrons
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Tapinoma melanocephalum
Formicidae
Tapinoma sp.
Formicidae
Targionia vitis
Diaspididae
Tarsostenus univittatus
Cleridae
Teleogryllus commodus
Gryllidae
Teleogryllus mitratus
Gryllidae
Teleogryllus sp.
Gryllidae
Tenebrionidae, species
Tenthredinidae, species
Tentyria sp.
Tenebrionidae
Tephritidae, species
Tephritis sp.
Tephritidae
Termes panamaensis
Termitidae
Termitidae, species
Tessaratomidae, species
Tesserocerus sp.
Platypodidae
Tetramorium bicarinatum
Formicidae
Tetramorium caespitum
Formicidae
Tetramorium sp.
Formicidae
Tetraponera rufonigra
Formicidae
Tetrapriocera longicornis
Bostrichidae
Tetrigidae, species
Tetropium castaneum
Cerambycidae
Tetropium fuscum
Cerambycidae
Tetropium gabrieli
Cerambycidae
Tetropium sp.
Cerambycidae
Tettigoniidae, species
196
Pest
Thripidae, species
Thrips meridionalis
Thrips palmi
Thyanta pallidovirens
Thyreocoris scarabaeoides
Thysanoptera, species
Tineidae, species
Tingidae, species
Tipula marmorata
Tipula sp.
Tipulidae, species
Tolype sp.
Tomarus sp.
Tomaspis inca
Tomicus minor
Tomicus piniperda
Tomicus sp.
Tomolips sp.
Tortricidae, species
Torymus sp.
Trachyderes sp.
Tremex fusicornis
Tremex sp.
Tribolium castaneum
Tribolium sp.
Trichoferus sp.
Trichophaga sp.
Trichoplusia ni
Trigonorhinus sp.
Trimerotropis pallidipennis
Trirhabda sp.
Trogoderma granarium
Trogoderma sp.
Trogoderma variabile
Trogossitidae, species
Trogoxylon praeustum
Trogoxylon sp.
Tropicanus sp.
Tropidothorax leucopterus
Tropistethus sp.
Trypodendron domesticum
Family
Pest
Thripidae
Thripidae
Pentatomidae
Thyreocoridae
Trypodendron lineatum
Tipulidae
Tipulidae
Lasiocampidae
Scarabaeidae
Cercopidae
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Curculionidae
Torymidae
Cerambycidae
Siricidae
Siricidae
Tenebrionidae
Tenebrionidae
Cerambycidae
Tineidae
Noctuidae
Anthribidae
Acrididae
Chrysomelidae
Dermestidae
Dermestidae
Dermestidae
Lyctidae
Lyctidae
Cicadellidae
Lygaeidae
Lygaeidae
Curculionidae:
Trypodendron signatum
Trypodendron sp.
Tychius sp.
Typhaea stercorea
Typhlocybinae, species
Typophorus sp.
Ulus sp.
Urgleptes sp.
Urocerus gigas
Urocerus sp.
Uroleucon sp.
Vespidae, species
Vespula germanica
Wasmannia auropunctata
Wroughtonia sp.
Xanthochilus saturnius
Xanthogaleruca luteola
Xeris sp.
Xeris spectrum
Xestocephalus sp.
Xiphydriidae, species
Xyleborinus saxeseni
Xyleborinus sp.
Xyleborus affinis
Xyleborus apicalis
Xyleborus eurygraphus
Xyleborus ferrugineus
Xyleborus intrusus
Xyleborus sp.
Xyleborus volvulus
Xylechinus pilosus
Xylechinus sp.
Family
Scolytinae
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Curculionidae
Mycetophagidae
Cicadellidae
Chrysomelidae
Tenebrionidae
Cerambycidae
Siricidae
Siricidae
Aphididae
Vespidae
Formicidae
Braconidae
Rhyparochromidae
Chrysomelidae
Siricidae
Siricidae
Cicadellidae
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Curculionidae:
197
Pest
Xylobiops sp.
Xylobiops texanus
Xylocopa sp.
Xylodiplosis sp.
Xylomyidae, species
Xyloperthella picea
Xyloperthodes nitidipennis
Xyloperthodes sp.
Xylophagus sp.
Xylopsocus capucinus
Xyloryctes fureata
Xylosandrus crassiusculus
Xylosandrus germanus
Xylosandrus morigerus
Xylosandrus sp.
Xylothrips flavipes
Xylotrechus grayi
Xylotrechus magnicollis
Xylotrechus rusticus
Xylotrechus sp.
Xylotrechus stebbingi
Xylotrupes gideon
Xystrocera globosa
Xystrocera sp.
Yponomeutidae, species
Zabrotes subfasciatus
Zacryptocerus sp.
Zacryptocerus umbraculatus
Zascelis sp.
Zootermopsis laticeps
Zootermopsis sp.
Zopheridae, species
Zophobas sp.
Zygogramma sp.
Zygopinae, species
Zygops sp.
Mites and Ticks
Allothrombium sp.
Family
Scolytinae
Bostrichidae
Bostrichidae
Xylocopidae
Cecidomyiidae
Bostrichidae
Bostrichidae
Bostrichidae
Xylophagidae
Bostrichidae
Scarabaeidae
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Bostrichidae
Cerambycidae
Cerambycidae
Cerambycidae
Cerambycidae
Cerambycidae
Scarabaeidae
Cerambycidae
Cerambycidae
Bruchidae
Formicidae
Formicidae
Curculionidae
Hodotermitidae
Hodotermitidae
Tenebrionidae
Chrysomelidae
Curculionidae
Curculionidae
Trombidiidae
Pest
Ameroseius sp.
Araneae, species
Araneidae, species
Argas sanchezi
Ascidae, species
Balaustium sp.
Bdella sp.
Bdellidae, species
Blattisocius sp.
Cheyletidae, species
Cosmoglyphus sp.
Cryptostigmata, species
Erythraeidae, species
Glycyphagus destructor
Hemicheyletia serrula
Ixodes hexagonus
Melichares sp.
Mesostigmata, species
Oribatida, species
Pediculaster sp.
Phytoseiidae, species
Proctolaelaps sp.
Pygmephoridae, species
Rhipicephalus sanguineus
Schwiebea sp.
Stigmaeidae, species
Tetranychus (tetranychus)
Tetranychus sp.
Trombidiidae, species
Uropodidae, species
Mollusks
Achatina (lissachatina)
Achatina sp.
Acusta despecta
Acusta tourannensis
Agriolimax reticulatus
Allopeas clavulinum
Arianta arbustorum
Arion (kobeltia)
Arion (mesarion)
Arion sp.
Assimineidae, species
Family
Ameroseiidae
Argasidae
Erythraeidae
Bdellidae
Ascidae
Acaridae
Glycyphagidae
Cheyletidae
Ixodidae
Ascidae
Pygmephoridae
Ascidae
Ixodidae
Acaridae
Tetranychidae
Tetranychidae
Achatinidae
Achatinidae
Bradybaenidae
Bradybaenidae
Agriolimacidae
Subulinidae
Helicidae
Arionidae
Arionidae
Arionidae
198
Pest
Balea perversa
Bradybaena seiboldtiana
Bradybaena similaris
Bradybaena sp.
Bradybaenidae, species
Bulimulidae, species
Bulimulus guadalupensis
Bulimulus sp.
Bulimulus tenuissimus
Calcisuccinea campestris
Candidula gigaxii
Candidula intersecta
Candidula sp.
Candidula unifasciata
Cantareus apertus
Cathaica fasciola
Cathaica sp.
Cepaea cf.
Cepaea hortensis
Cepaea nemoralis
Cepaea sp.
Cernuella (xerocincta)
Cernuella cf.
Cernuella cisalpina
Cernuella sp.
Cernuella virgata
Charpentieria (itala)
Chilostoma cingulata
Chilostoma cornea
Clausilia rugosa
Clausilia sp.
Clausiliidae, species
Cochlicella acuta
Cochlicella conoidea
Cochlicopa lubrica
Cochlodina laminata
Cornu aspersum
Cryptozona siamensis
Deroceras laeve
Deroceras panormitanum
Deroceras sp.
Discidae, species
Discus rotundatus
Family
Clausiliidae
Bradybaenidae
Bradybaenidae
Bradybaenidae
Bulimulidae
Bulimulidae
Bulimulidae
Succineidae
Hygromiidae
Hygromiidae
Hygromiidae
Hygromiidae
Helicidae
Bradybaenidae
Bradybaenidae
Helicidae
Helicidae
Helicidae
Helicidae
Hygromiidae
Hygromiidae
Hygromiidae
Hygromiidae
Hygromiidae
Clausiliidae
Helicidae
Helicidae
Clausiliidae
Clausiliidae
Cochlicellidae
Cochlicellidae
Cionellidae
Clausiliidae
Helicidae
Ariophantidae
Agriolimacidae
Agriolimacidae
Agriolimacidae
Discidae
Pest
Drymaeus (mesembrinus)
Enidae, species
Eobania constantinae
Eobania vermiculata
Euhadra sp.
Fruticicola fruticum
Galba truncatula
Granaria illyrica
Helicarion sp.
Helicarionidae, species
Helicella itala
Helicella maritima
Helicella neglecta
Helicella sp.
Helicella variabilis
Helicella virgata
Helicellidae, species
Helicellinae, species
Helicidae, species
Helicina (striatemoda)
Helicodonta obvoluta
Helicodonta sp.
Helix cincta
Helix lucorum
Helix sp.
Hygromia cinctella
Hygromiidae, species
Karaftahelix blakeana
Lauria cylindracea
Lehmannia valentiana
Limacidae, species
Limacus maculatus
Limax cf.
Limax cinereoniger
Limax marginatus
Limax maximus
Limax sp.
Lymnaea sp.
Marmorana sp.
Massylaea punica
Merdigera obscura
Merdighera obscura
Microxeromagna armillata
Family
Bulimulidae
Helicidae
Helicidae
Bradybaenidae
Bradybaenidae
Lymnaeidae
Chondrinidae
Helicarionidae
Hygromiidae
Hygromiidae
Hygromiidae
Hygromiidae
Hygromiidae
Hygromiidae
Hygromiidae
Helicinidae
Helicodontidae
Helicodontidae
Helicidae
Helicidae
Helicidae
Hygromiidae
Bradybaenidae
Pupillidae
Limacidae
Limacidae
Limacidae
Limacidae
Limacidae
Limacidae
Limacidae
Lymnaeidae
Helicidae
Helicidae
Enidae
Enidae
Hygromiidae
199
Pest
Mollusca, species
Monacha bincinctae
Monacha cantiana
Monacha cartusiana
Monacha cf.
Monacha sp.
Monachoides glabella
Monachoides incarnatus
Orthalicus princeps
Otala lactea
Otala punctata
Otala sp.
Oxychilus alliarius
Oxychilus cellarius
Oxychilus draparnaudi
Oxychilus sp.
Papillifera papillaris
Paralaoma servilis
Phenacolimax major
Polygyra cereolus
Pomacea canaliculata
Praticolella griseola
Prietocella barbara
Pupillidae, species
Rumina decollata
Stylommatophora, species
Subulina sp.
Succinea costaricana
Succinea horticola
Succinea putris
Succinea sp.
Theba pisana
Trochoidea cretica
Trochoidea elegans
Trochoidea pyramidata
Trochoidea sp.
Trochoidea trochoides
Trochulus hispidus
Trochulus sp.
Trochulus striolatus
Truncatellina cylindrica
Vallonia costata
Vallonia pulchella
Family
Hygromiidae
Hygromiidae
Hygromiidae
Hygromiidae
Hygromiidae
Hygromiidae
Hygromiidae
Orthalicidae
Helicidae
Helicidae
Helicidae
Oxychilidae
Oxychilidae
Oxychilidae
Oxychilidae
Clausiliidae
Punctidae
Vitrinidae
Polygyridae
Ampullariidae
Polygyridae
Cochlicellidae
Subulinidae
Subulinidae
Succineidae
Succineidae
Succineidae
Succineidae
Helicidae
Hygromiidae
Hygromiidae
Hygromiidae
Hygromiidae
Hygromiidae
Hygromiidae
Hygromiidae
Hygromiidae
Pupillidae
Valloniidae
Valloniidae
Pest
Vertiginidae, species
Vitrinidae, species
Xerolenta obvia
Xeropicta derbentina
Xeropicta protea
Xeropicta sp.
Xerosecta cespitum
Xerotricha conspurcata
Zonitidae, species
Zonitoides arboreus
Family
Hygromiidae
Hygromiidae
Hygromiidae
Hygromiidae
Hygromiidae
Hygromiidae
Gastrodontidae
Nematodes
Rhabditidae, species
Weeds
Agropyron sp.
Ailanthus altissima
Asclepias sp.
Asphodelus fistulosus
Asteraceae, species
Avena ludoviciana
Avena sterilis
Azolla pinnata
Betula sp.
Bignoniaceae, species
Boraginaceae, species
Brassica sp.
Capsicum annuum
Cenchrus sp.
Centaurea sp.
Chloris sp.
Clematis sp.
Cordia sp.
Cynodon dactylon
Digitaria sanguinalis
Echinochloa sp.
Eleusine coracana
Eleusine indica
Eleusine sp.
Eucalyptus sp.
Galium sp.
Gossypium sp.
Hordeum jubatum
Poaceae
Simaroubaceae
Asclepiadaceae
Liliaceae
Poaceae
Poaceae
Azollaceae
Betulaceae
Brassicaceae
Solanaceae
Poaceae
Asteraceae
Poaceae
Ranunculaceae
Boraginaceae
Poaceae
Poaceae
Poaceae
Poaceae
Poaceae
Poaceae
Myrtaceae
Rubiaceae
Malvaceae
Poaceae
200
Pest
Hordeum murinum
Hordeum sp.
Hordeum vulgare
Hypochaeris sp.
Imperata cylindrica
Ipomoea aquatica
Juniperus sp.
Lactuca sativa
Lens culinaris
Lens sp.
Ligustrum sp.
Linum usitatissimum
Magnoliophyta, sp.
Malvaceae, species
Miscanthus sinensis
Miscanthus sp.
Nassella trichotoma
Not a
Oryza sativa
Oryza sp.
Pennisetum glaucum
Pennisetum polystachion
Phalaris canariensis
Phragmites australis
Phragmites sp.
Picris echioides
Pinus sp.
Platanus sp.
Poa sp.
Poaceae, species
Populus sp.
Prunus sp.
Quercus sp.
Rutaceae, species
Saccharum sp.
Saccharum spontaneum
Family
Poaceae
Poaceae
Poaceae
Asteraceae
Poaceae
Convolvulaceae
Cupressaceae
Asteraceae
Fabaceae
Fabaceae
Oleaceae
Linaceae
Pest
Family
Sorghum bicolor
Poaceae
Sorghum sp.
Poaceae
Taraxacum officinale
Asteraceae
Taraxacum sp.
Asteraceae
Thymelaea sp.
Thymelaeaceae
Thysanolaena latifolia
Poaceae
Tilia sp.
Tiliaceae
Tridax procumbens
Asteraceae
Triticum aestivum
Poaceae
Triticum sp.
Poaceae
Ulmus sp.
Ulmaceae
Xylopia aethiopica
Annonaceae
Zea mays
Poaceae
Poaceae
Poaceae
Poaceae
Poaceae
Poaceae
Poaceae
Poaceae
Poaceae
Poaceae
Poaceae
Asteraceae
Pinaceae
Platanaceae
Poaceae
Salicaceae
Rosaceae
Fagaceae
Poaceae
Poaceae
Salicaceae, species
Salix sp.
Salicaceae
Sesamum indicum
Pedaliaceae
Setaria sp.
Poaceae
Solanum sp.
Solanaceae
Sonchus arvensis
Asteraceae
Sonchus oleraceus
Asteraceae
201
Table 6.5 Examples of insects with potential to be introduced into one or more countries of the Greater Caribbean
Region on or in wood packaging material (adapted from: (Culliney et al., 2007)).
Order: Family
Coleoptera: Bostrichidae
Species
Heterobostrychus brunneus
Sinoxylon anale
Sinoxylon crassum
Xylothrips flavipes
Coleoptera: Buprestidae
Buprestis haemorrhoidalis
Melanophila cuspidata
Coleoptera: Cerambycidae
Callidiellum rufipenne
Monochamus alternatus
Plagionotus christophi
Pyrrhidium sanguineum
Stromatium barbatum
Xylotrechus grayi
Xylotrechus magnicollis
Coleoptera: Curculionidae
Pissodes pini
Coleoptera: Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Carphoborus minimus
Carphoborus pini
Coccotrypes advena
Cryphalus asperatus
Cryphalus piceae
Crypturgus cinereus
Crypturgus mediterraneus
Crypturgus numidicus
Distribution1
sub-Saharan Africa,
United States (CA)
Australia, Brazil, China,
India, Indonesia, New
Zealand, Philippines,
Saudi Arabia, Southeast
Asia, Sri Lanka, United
States (CA, FL, MI, NY,
OH, PA), Venezuela
East Africa, India,
Pakistan, Southeast Asia
Greece, Madagascar,
North Africa, Southeast
Asia
Canary Islands, Europe,
Kazakhstan
North Africa, Southern
Europe
China, Italy, Japan, Korea,
Russia, Spain, Taiwan,
United States (CT, NC,
WA)
China, Japan, Korea,
Laos, Taiwan, Vietnam
Japan, Korea,
Northeastern China,
Southeastern Central Asia
Europe, North Africa,
West Asia
Bangladesh, Burma, East
Africa, India, Pakistan
China, Japan, Korea,
Taiwan
Burma, China, India,
Laos, Russia, Taiwan
Russia, Western Europe
Italy, Spain, Turkey
Italy, Spain
Cuba; Old World Tropics;
Suriname; (United States
(FL)
Germany, Italy
France, Italy
Australia, Belgium,
Germany, Russia, Spain
France, Italy, Netherlands,
Portugal, Spain
Estonia, Greece, Latvia,
References
(Pasek, 2000, Haack, 2006,
Schabel, 2006)
(Pasek, 2000, Teixera et al.,
2002)
(Singh and Bhandari, 1987,
Singh Rathore, 1995, Gul
and Bajwa, 1997, Pasek,
2000, Walker, 2006)
(Lesne, 1900, Pasek, 2000,
Nardi, 2004)
(Pasek, 2000, Löbl and
Smetana, 2006)
(Pasek, 2000, Kubán, 2004)
(Hoebeke, 1999, Pasek,
2000)
(Pasek, 2000, Kawai et al.,
2006)
(Cherepanov, 1988, Pasek,
2000, KFS, 2004)
(Pasek, 2000, Hoskovec
and Rejzek, 2006)
(CAB, 1985, Pasek, 2000)
(Pasek, 2000, Hua, 2002)
(Pasek, 2000, Hua, 2002)
(Kulinich and Orlinskii,
1998, Pasek, 2000)
(Haack, 2001)
(Haack, 2001)
(Bright and Torres, 2006)
(Haack, 2001)
(Haack, 2001)
(Haack, 2001)
(Haack, 2001)
(Haack, 2001)
202
Order: Family
Species
Dryocoetes autographus
Dryocoetes villosus
Euwallacea validus
Gnathotrichus materiarius
Hylastes angustatus
Hylastes ater
Hylastes attenuatus
Hylastes cunicularius
Hylastes linearis
Hylastes opacus
Hylesinus varius
Hylurgops glabratus
Hylurgops palliatus
Hylurgus ligniperda
Ips acuminatus
Ips amitinus
Ips cembrae
Ips mannsfeldi
Ips sexdentatus
Ips typographus
Orthotomicus erosus
Orthotomicus laricis
Orthotomicus proximus
Orthotomicus suturalis
Phloeosinus rudis
Distribution1
Spain
Belgium, Brazil,
Germany, Italy, Russia
Belgium, France,
Germany, Italy, United
Kingdom
Burma, China, Costa
Rica, Japan, Korea,
Malaysia, Philippines,
United States (LA, MD,
NY, PA), Vietnam
Dominican Republic,
United States (OR, SD),
Western Europe
Belgium, France
Chile, France, Germany,
Italy, Spain
France, Italy, Portugal,
South Africa, Spain
Belgium, Germany, Italy,
Spain
Italy, Portugal, Spain
Brazil, Canada, Russia,
United States (ME, NH,
NY, OR, WV)
Belgium, Italy, United
Kingdom
Italy
Belgium, Germany, Italy,
Spain, United Kingdom,
United States (PA)
Chile, France, Italy,
Portugal, Spain, United
States (NY)
China, France, Italy,
Russia, Spain
Finland, Italy
Belgium, China,
Germany, Italy
Spain, Turkey
Belgium, France, Italy,
Portugal, Spain
Belgium, France,
Germany, Italy, Russia
China, Mediterranean
Region, United States
(CA), West and Central
Asia
France, Germany, Italy,
Russia, Spain
Finland, Italy
Estonia, France, Germany,
United Kingdom
Belgium, Japan
References
(Haack, 2001)
(Haack, 2001)
(Pasek, 2000, Haack, 2001,
Cognato, 2004)
(Mudge et al., 2001)
(Haack, 2001)
(Haack, 2001)
(Haack, 2001)
(Haack, 2001)
(Haack, 2001)
(Haack, 2001, Mudge et al.,
2001, Haack, 2006)
(Haack, 2001)
(Haack, 2001)
(Haack, 2001, 2006)
(Haack, 2001, 2006)
(Haack, 2001)
(Haack, 2001)
(Haack, 2001)
(Haack, 2001)
(Haack, 2001)
(Haack, 2001)
(Lee et al., 2005)
(Haack, 2001)
(Haack, 2001)
(Haack, 2001)
(Haack, 2001)
203
Order: Family
Species
Phloeotribus scarabaeoides
Pityogenes bidentatus
Pityogenes bistridentatus
Pityogenes calcaratus
Pityogenes chalcographus
Pityogenes quadridens
Pityogenes trepanatus
Pityokteines curvidens
Pityokteines spinidens
Pityophthorus pityographus
Polygraphus poligraphus
Polygraphus subopacus
Pteleobius vittatus
Scolytus intricatus
Scolytus ratzeburgi
Scolytus scolytus
Taphrorychus bicolor
Taphrorychus villifrons
Tomicus minor
Tomicus piniperda
Trypodendron domesticum
Trypodendron signatum
Xyleborinus alni
Xyleborus californicus
Xyleborus eurygraphus
Xyleborus glabratus
Xyleborus pfeili
Distribution1
Asia, Mediterranean
Region, Southern Europe
France, Germany, Italy,
Portugal, Spain, United
States (NY)
France, Italy, Spain,
Turkey, United Kingdom
France, Italy, Spain
Belgium, Germany, Italy,
Russia, Spain
Finland, Lithuania,
Portugal, Spain, Turkey
Lithuania
France, Greece, Italy
Austria, France, Germany,
Italy, Russia
France, Germany, Italy,
Netherlands
Belgium, Germany, Italy,
Russia, United Kingdom
Azerbaijan, Italy
Italy
Belgium, France,
Germany, Italy
Finland, Russia, Ukraine
United Kingdom
Belgium, Finland, France,
Germany, Netherlands
Belgium, France,
Germany, Latvia, Turkey
Brazil, Italy, New
Zealand, Turkey
Belgium, France, Italy,
Spain, United Kingdom,
United States (OH)
Italy, Turkey
Belgium, France,
Germany, Netherlands
Austria, Czechoslovakia,
Germany, Japan, Poland,
Russia, United States
(OR, WA)
Canada, Russia, United
States (AR, CA, DE, MD,
OR, SC)
North Africa, Southern
and Western Europe,
Turkey
India, Japan, Taiwan,
United States (SC, GA,
FL)
Africa, Asia, Europe, New
Zealand, United States
(MD, OR)
References
(Pasek, 2000, Rodríguez et
al., 2003)
(Haack, 2001, 2006)
(Haack, 2001)
(Haack, 2001)
(Haack, 2001)
(Haack, 2001)
(Haack, 2001)
(Haack, 2001)
(Haack, 2001)
(Haack, 2001)
(Haack, 2001)
(Haack, 2001)
(Haack, 2001)
(Haack, 2001)
(Haack, 2001)
(Haack, 2001)
(Haack, 2001)
(Haack, 2001)
(Haack, 2001)
(Haack, 2001, 2006)
(Haack, 2001)
(Haack, 2001)
(Mudge et al., 2001)
(Mudge et al., 2001)
(Haack, 2001, Cognato,
2004)
(Fraedrich et al., 2008)
(Mudge et al., 2001)
204
Order: Family
Species
Xyleborus similis
Xylechinus pilosus
Xylosandrus morigerus
Xyloterinus politus
Hymenoptera: Siricidae
Sirex noctilio
Hymenoptera: Xiphydriidae
Xiphydria prolongata
Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae
Coptotermes crassus
1
Distribution1
Africa, Asia, Australia,
Micronesia, United States
(TX)
Europe
Throughout world; in
Caribbean only Puerto
Rico
Canada, United States
(WA)
Australia, Italy, New
Zealand, South Africa,
Spain, United States (NY)
Russia, United States (MI,
NJ, OR), Western Europe
Mexico, Central America
References
(Wood, 1960, Rabaglia et
al., 2006)
(Haack, 2001, AlonsoZarazaga, 2004)
(Bright and Torres, 2006)
(Mudge et al., 2001)
(Hoebeke et al., 2005)
(Mudge et al., 2001)
(Constantino, 1998, Pasek,
2000)
State abbreviations: AR = Arkansas, CA = California, CT = Connecticut, DE = Delaware, FL = Florida, LA = Louisiana, MD =
Maryland, ME = Maine, MI = Michigan, NC = North Carolina, NH = New Hampshire, NJ = New Jersey, NY = New York, OH =
Ohio, OR = Oregon, PA = Pennsylvania, SC = South Carolina, SD = South Dakota, TX = Texas, WA = Washington, WV =
West Virginia
205
Figure 7.1 Potential for contamination during timber extraction process.
Contaminations
on equipment,
people, animals
(moved into the
area)
Pests infesting the
standing trees
(moved out of the
area)
Logging equipment
transported into forest
Timber harvested
Logs skidded
through forest
Contamination with
hitchhiker soil
pathogens, weed
seeds, mollusks
(moved out of the
area)
Logs sorted at
landing
New insects,
pathogens, or
hitchhikers infest or
attach themselves
(moved out of the area)
Logs trucked to
sawmill or
central yard
Logs transported to
port
Export via truck or
ship
206
Table 7.1 Extent of forest land in the Greater Caribbean Region and changes in extent of forest land over recent
years. Data sources: (FAO, 2005b, USDA-FS, 2008).
Extent of forest land
Changes (1997-2007)
Forest
Area/Country
Florida
Alabama
Louisiana
Mississippi
Texas
Total Gulf States
Area/Country
Anguilla
Antigua and Barbuda
Aruba
Bahamas
Barbados
Bermuda
British Virgin Islands
Cayman Islands
Cuba
Dominica
Dominican Republic
Grenada
Guadeloupe
Haiti
Jamaica
Martinique
Montserrat
Netherlands Antilles
Puerto Rico
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Saint Lucia
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Trinidad and Tobago
Turks and Caicos Islands
United States Virgin Islands
Total Caribbean Islands
Total land
area
Area
1,000 ha
14,175
6,535
13,126
9,184
11,283
5,755
12,151
7,941
67,864
6,990
118,600
36,405
Forest area
Percent
of total
land area
10-year
change
Change in
forested
land
%
46.1
70.0
51.0
65.4
10.3
30.7
1,000 ha
-43
-0.7%
295
3.2%
178
3.1%
416
5.2%
-437
-6.3%
1.1%
407
Extent of forest land
Forest
Total land
Percent
area
Area
of total
land area
Changes (2000-2005)
Forest area
Change in
5-year
forested
change
land
1,000 ha
8
6
44
9
19
0.42
1,388
515
43
2
5
1
15
4
26
12
11,086
2,713
75
46
4,873
1,376
34
4
171
80
2,775
105
1,099
339
110
46
10
4
80
1
895
408
36
5
62
17
39
11
513
226
43
34
34
10
23,482
5,974
%
71.4
21.4
2.2
51.5
4
20
24.4
48.4
24.7
61.3
28.4
12.2
47.2
3.8
31.3
43.9
35
1.5
46
14.7
27.9
27.4
44.1
80
27.9
26.1
1,000 ha
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
278
-1
0
0
-1
-4
-2
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
-2
0
0
268
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
10.2%
-2.2%
0.0%
0.0%
-1.3%
-3.8%
-0.6%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
9.1%
-0.9%
0.0%
0.0%
4.5%
207
Area/Country
Belize
Costa Rica
El Salvador
Guatemala
Honduras
Nicaragua
Panama
Total Central America
Guyana
Suriname
Total South America (Car.)
Total Greater Caribbean Region
Extent of forest land
Forest
Total land
Percent
area
of total
Area
land area
2,296
1,653
72.5
5,110
2,391
46.8
2,104
298
14.4
10,889
3,938
36.3
11,209
4,648
41.5
13,000
5,189
42.7
7,552
4,294
57.7
52,160
22,411
43.9
21,497
15,104
76.7
16,327
14,776
94.7
37,824
29,880
79.0
232,066
94,670
40.8
Changes (2000-2005)
Forest area
Change in
5-year
forested
change
land
0
0.0%
15
0.6%
-26
-8.7%
-270
-6.9%
-782
-16.8%
-350
-6.7%
-13
-0.3%
-6.4%
-1,426
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0.0%
0
-0.8%
-751
Table 7.2 Imports of raw wood products from the world into the Greater Caribbean Region (2006; excluding U.S.
Gulf States. Data source: (UNComtrade, 2008).
Logs/Poles
Importing
Countries
Conifer
Caribbean Islands
Central America
Guyana/Suriname
Total
2,290.7
793.5
-3,084.2
Poles, Piles (pointed)
Nonconifer
Conifer
2,079.2
700.5
24.5
2,804.2
4,013.7
821.9
24.9
4,860.5
Nonconifer
metric tons
1,226.4
99.2
0.1
1,325.7
Railway
ties
(not
treated)
784.8
--784.8
Fuelwood
Total
Imports
1,614.9
1,681.4
0.0
3,296.3
12,009.7
4,096.5
49.5
16,155.7
Table 7.3 Raw wood products trade within the Greater Caribbean Region (2006): total imports reported (in metric
tons). Data source: (UNComtrade, 2008).
Caribbean
Islands
Importing Countries
Caribbean Islands
Central America
Guyana/Suriname
1
42.9
---
Exporting Countries
Central
Guyana/
America Suriname
metric tons
-1,703.0
--
1,661.0
---
U.S.1
9,676.2
1,830.5
24.7
Entire United States
208
Table 7.4 Relative quantities of raw wood products traded among countries of the Greater Caribbean Region:
reported imports, 2006. Data source: (UNComtrade, 2008).
Bahamas
Caribbean Islands
●
Dominica
●
Grenada
●
●
Jamaica
●
●
●
●
St Kitts-Nevis
●
St Lucia
St Vincent-Gren
●
Trinidad-Tobago
●
Central America
Costa Rica
●
El Salvador
●
●
Guatemala
●
●
Panama
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
Suriname
< 100
● 100-500
●
●
●
Nicaragua
Key (metric tonnes)
●
●
●
Honduras
United States
●
●
Belize
●
●
●
●
●
Barbados
U.S.
Suriname
Guyana
Panama
Nicaragua
Honduras
Guatemala
El Salvador
Costa Rica
Belize
Trinidad-Tobago
Jamaica
Importing Countries
Dominican Republic
Exporting Countries
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
● 1,000-5,000
● 5,000-10,000
500-1,000
209
Table 7.5 Exports of raw wood products from the Caribbean into the world (2006). Data source: (UNComtrade,
2008, USCB, 2008).
Logs/Poles
1
Exporting
Countries
Caribbean Islands
Central America
Guyana/Suriname
U.S. Gulf States1
TOTAL
Poles, Piles (pointed)
Conifer
Nonconifer
Nonconifer
metric tons
Conifer
9.6
10,872.6
6.6
13,150.4
24,039.2
33.5
123,260.8
73,961.2
4,385.4
201,640.9
0.04
18,711.7
5,351.4
7,607.3
31,670.44
3.0
1,216.3
21,323.5
426.6
22,969.4
Railway
ties
(not
treated)
Fuelwood
---273.4
273.4
1.9
3,265.6
31.5
9,724.7
13,023.7
Total
Exports
48.0
157,327.0
100,674.2
35,567.8
293,617.0
Exports to Greater Caribbean Region only.
Table 7.6 Raw wood products trade within the Greater Caribbean Region (2006): total exports reported (in metric
tons). Data source: (UNComtrade, 2008, USCB, 2008).
Caribbean
Islands
Exporting Countries
Caribbean Islands
Central America
Guyana/Suriname
U.S. Gulf States
1
20.4
1,078.5
3,394.6
33,459.0
Importing Countries
Central
Guyana/
America Suriname
metric tons
-3,045.4
67.3
2,079.7
0.3
--29.1
U.S.1
-21,501.1
52,950.1
--
Entire United States.
210
Table 7.7 Relative frequency of raw wood products traded among countries of the Greater Caribbean Region: reported exports (2006). Data
sources: (UNComtrade, 2008, USCB, 2008)
Importing Countries
Car
●
Trinidad-Tobago
●
Central America
S.A.
Costa Rica
●
El Salvador
●
●
Honduras
●
Panama
●
●
Guyana
●
●
●
●
●
●
Alabama
Gulf States
●
Nicaragua
●
Florida
●
● ●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
500 - 1,000
●
1,000 - 5,000
●
●
5,000 - 10,000
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
● ●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
Texas
Key (metric tonnes)
●
●
●
Mississippi
●
●
●
●
●
●
Louisiana
● 100 - 500
●
●
Guatemala
1 - 100
U.S.
●
Belize
●
Suriname
Guyana
Panama
S.A.
Nicaragua
Honduras
Guatemala
El Salvador
Costa Rica
Belize
Turks-Caicos Islands
Trinidad-Tobago
St. Vincent-Grenadines
St. Lucia
St .Kitts-Nevis
Netherlands Antilles
Jamaica
Haiti
Central America
Grenada
Guadeloupe
Dominican Republic
Dominica
Cuba
Cayman Islands
British Virgin Islands
Bermuda
Barbados
Bahamas
Aruba
Antigua-Barbuda
Exporting Countries
Anguilla
Caribbean Islands
●
●
> 50,000
10,000 - 50,000
211
Table 7.8 Examples of invasive trees established in the Greater Caribbean Region.
Species
Acacia farnesiana
(Fabaceae)
Acacia mangium
(Fabaceae)
Acacia nilotica
(Fabaceae)
Adenanthera pavonina
(Fabaceae)
Albizia julibrissin
(Fabaceae)
Native
Uses
Naturalized or Invasive
American Tropics
Agroforestry
Bahamas; Puerto Rico
Australia; Indonesia;
New Guinea
Africa; Indian
subcontinent
Agroforestry; ecological
restoration
browse; firewood; timber;
tannins; medicinal
India; Malaysia
References
(Kairo et al., 2003, ISSG,
2008)
Dominican Republic; Puerto Rico
(Kairo et al., 2003)
Anguilla; Antigua and Barbuda;
Puerto Rico
(Binggeli et al., 1998, Kairo et
al., 2003, ISSG, 2008)
Most Caribbean islands; Guyana
(ISSG, 2008)
Iran to Japan
Reclamation; ornamental
U.S. (Florida)
(Langeland and Stocker, 2001)
Casuarina equisetifolia
(Casuarinaceae)
Asia; Australia
firewood; charcoal; coastal
reclamation; medicinal; tannins;
dyes; pulp; timber
Bahamas; Dominican Republic;
Jamaica; Puerto Rico; U.S.
(Florida)
(Binggeli et al., 1998,
Langeland and Stocker, 2001,
Kairo et al., 2003)
Eucalyptus robusta
(Myrtaceae)
Australia
Agroforestry; plantations
Puerto Rico
(Kairo et al., 2003)
Leucanea leucocephala
(Fabaceae)
Central America;
Mexico
Reforestation; windbreaks;
firebreaks; crafts
Bahamas; Dominican Republic;
Haiti; Jamaica; Puerto Rico; U.S.
(Florida, Texas)
(Binggeli et al., 1998, Kairo et
al., 2003, ISSG, 2008)
Melaleuca
quinquenervia
(Myrtaceae)
Australia; Irian Jaya;
Papua New Guinea
Windbreaks; bark used as fruit
packing material and torches;
agroforestry
Bahamas; Dominican Republic;
Puerto Rico; throughout West
Indies; U.S. (Florida)
(Binggeli et al., 1998,
Langeland and Stocker, 2001,
Kairo et al., 2003, Lugo,
2004)
Melia azedarach
(Meliaceae)
Asia; Australia
Reforestation
U.S. (Florida)
(Langeland and Stocker, 2001)
Mimosa pigra
(Fabaceae)
Tropical America
Erosion control; ornamental
U.S. (Florida)
(ISSG, 2008)
Parkinsonia aculeate
(Fabaceae)
Central America;
Mexico; South
America; southwestern
U.S.
Agroforestry
Dominican Republic; Puerto Rico
(Richardson, 1998, Kairo et
al., 2003)
Pinus caribaea
(Pinaceae)
Central America
Plantations
Dominican Republic; Puerto Rico
(Richardson, 1998, Kairo et
al., 2003)
Psidium guajava
(Myrtaceae)
American tropics
Agroforestry
Bahamas; Puerto Rico
(Richardson, 1998, Kairo et
al., 2003)
Sapium sebiferum
(Euphorbiaceae)
Eastern Asia
Ornamental
U.S. (Alabama; Florida; Louisiana;
Mississippi; Texas)
(Langeland and Stocker, 2001)
212
Schinus terebinthifolius
(Anacardiaceae)
South America
Ornamental
Bahamas; U.S. (Florida)
(Langeland and Stocker, 2001)
Spathodea campanulata
(Bignoniaceae)
West Africa
Ornamental
Puerto Rico
(Lugo, 2004)
Tamarix spp.
(Tamaricaceae)
Southern Europe to
Asia
Erosion control; ornamental
Texas
(Langeland and Stocker, 2001,
ISSG, 2008)
Ziziphus mauritiana
(Rhamnaceae)
Central Asia
Agroforestry; timber
Barbados; Guadeloupe; Jamaica;
Martinique
(Kairo et al., 2003, ISSG,
2008)
213
Table 8.1 Imports of “bulbs, tubers, tuberous roots, corms, crowns and rhizomes” [in plant units] into countries of the Greater Caribbean Region in
2007. Data source: (UNComtrade, 2008). Note: The United States is not listed as an importing country, because data could not be restricted to the
Gulf States.
Importing country
Trading partner Bahamas Barbados Colombia El Salvador Guatemala Honduras Jamaica Trinidad and Tobago
Total
1
712,258
Canada
712,259
40
Germany
40
421,828
Israel
421,828
978,482
Italy
978,482
360 14,119,729
7,506
14,146
Netherlands
14,141,741
87,160
Peru
87,160
505
South Africa
505
10
0
1
Thailand
11
88,221
0
48,138
73,288
1,198 199,025
7,901
USA
417,771
World Total
88,221
876 15,520,039
55,644
886,851
1,198 199,065
7,902 16,759,796
214
Table 8.2 Imports of “live plants (not otherwise specified) including their roots; mushroom spawn” [in plant units] into countries of the Greater
Caribbean Region in 2007. Data source: (UNComtrade, 2008). Note: The United States is not listed as an importing country, because data could
not be restricted to the Gulf States.
Trading
partner
Brazil
Canada
China
Colombia
Costa Rica
Denmark
Ecuador
El Salvador
Germany
Guatemala
Honduras
Iceland
India
Israel
Italy
Jamaica
Japan
Mexico
Namibia
Netherlands
Other Asia
Spain
Thailand
U.K.
USA
World
Importing country
Bahamas Barbados Belize Colombia El Salvador Guatemala Honduras Jamaica Nicaragua Panama
1
Trinidad
and Tobago
79
3,236
30,003
200
680
2,467
2,224
205
1,762
20,000
1,218
12,514
204
247
117,373
199
7,223
580
1,924
2,250
4,359
310,689
2,245
1,298
90
987
14,155
170
381
626
72
114
2,291
310
74,469
3,913,508
3,913,508
2,097
97
12,613
102,325
75,926
837
696
4,269
2
228,567
353,753
205
2,443
315,299
2,911
290
163
720
180
820
7,159
1,015
1,435
9,186
18,059
2,780
11,397
6,554
9,614
4,313
44,395
382
629
1,045
119,618
215
Total
80
3,236
50,203
1,898
16,948
2,224
1,924
2,250
4,359
310,689
1,298
90
1,368
14,155
170
72
114
2,291
310
153,306
1,332
696
2,917
99
4,161,444
4,733,549
Table 8.3 Imports of “trees, shrubs and bushes, of kinds which bear edible fruit or nuts” [in plant units] into countries of the Greater Caribbean
Region in 2007. Data source: (UNComtrade, 2008). Note: The United States is not listed as an importing country, because data could not be
restricted to the Gulf States.
Trading partner
Argentina
Canada
Chile
Colombia
Costa Rica
El Salvador
Guatemala
Honduras
Israel
Japan
Mexico
Netherlands
Peru
USA
Venezuela
World
Bahamas
Colombia
104,080
Importing country
El Salvador Guatemala
Honduras
Nicaragua Panama
1,543
98,074
117,535
15,709
62,616
380,231
1,047
310,489
312,032
169,777
815,824
109,703
887
4,176
114,767
63,693
5,944
65,451
14,728
1,639
48,791
64,785
91,730
1,870
11,867
7,857
167,733
428,059
228,732
356
22,897
Total
104,080
1,543
98,074
380
380
187,172
15,709
189,882
231,236
380,231
2,686
142,391
64,785
11,078
11,078
504,166
356
11,458 1,933,769
216
Table 8.4 Imports of “roses, including their roots” [in plant units] into countries of the Greater Caribbean Region in 2007. Data source:
(UNComtrade, 2008). Note: The United States is not listed as an importing country, because data could not be restricted to the Gulf States.
Importing country
Trading partner Bahamas Barbados Colombia El Salvador Guatemala
384
Belgium
24,765
Colombia
465,499
Ecuador
2,106
France
177
Germany
99,501
Guatemala
7,180
Italy
23,158
1,205
Netherlands
352
New Zealand
262
Spain
170
United Kingdom
3,477
250
4,060
USA
World
3,477
634
498,905
99,501
30,031
Jamaica
10,892
10,892
Panama
189
189
Grand Total
384
24,765
465,499
2,106
177
99,501
7,180
24,363
352
262
170
18,868
643,629
Table 8.5 Imports of “azaleas and rhododendrons, including their roots” [in plant units] into countries of the Greater Caribbean Region in 2007.
Data source: (UNComtrade, 2008). Note: The United States is not listed as an importing country, because data could not be restricted to the Gulf
States.
Trading partner
Guatemala
USA
World
Importing country
Bahamas
El Salvador
Total
3,557
2,754
2,754
3,557
3,557
2,754
6,311
217
Table 8.6 Imports of “unrooted cuttings and slips” [in plant units] into countries of the Greater Caribbean Region in 2007. Data source:
(UNComtrade, 2008). Note: The United States is not listed as an importing country, because data could not be restricted to the Gulf States.
Trading partner
USA
Importing country
Bahamas
Trinidad and Tobago
237,875
90
Total
237,965
Table 8.7 Number of shipments1 of propagative material imported into the United States from countries in the Greater Caribbean Region in 2007.
Data source: (USDA, 2008e).
Country of origin
Bahamas
Belize
Colombia
Costa Rica
Dominica
Dominican Republic
El Salvador
Guatemala
Guyana
Haiti
Honduras
Number of shipments
2
75
339
614
8
99
37
385
4
1
31
Country of origin
Jamaica
Martinique
Netherland Antilles
Nicaragua
Panama
Puerto Rico
St. Maartin
Suriname
Trinidad and Tobago
Venezuela
Number of shipments
36
2
3
1
121
4
1
61
8
67
1
Note: the quantity of propagative material included in a shipment varies
218
Table 8.8 Reportable pests intercepted at U.S. ports of entry on shipments of propagative material from countries
in the Greater Caribbean Region in 2007. Data source: (USDA, 2008d).
Commodity
Aechmea sp.
Aglaonema sp.
Pest type
Insect
Disease
Insect
Pest name (family) [origin of shipment]
Idiarthron sp. (Tettigoniidae) [Costa Rica]
Leptosphaeria sp. (Leptosphaeriaceae) [Costa Rica]
Ceroplastes sp. (Coccidae), Pentatomoidea and Pseudococcidae [Costa
Rica]
Succinea costaricana (Succineidae) [Costa Rica]
Aleyrodidae [Costa Rica]
Aleyrodidae and Noctuidae [Costa Rica]
Acari [Costa Rica]
Pseudococcidae [Costa Rica]
Copitarsia sp. (Noctuidae) [Colombia]
Hypothenemus sp. (Curculionidae: Scolytinae) [Dominican Republic]
Pseudococcidae [El Salvador]
Tetranychidae [El Salvador]
Alternaria sp. (Hyphomycetes) [Colombia]
Frankliniella sp. (Thripidae) [Colombia]
Aleyrodidae [Costa Rica]
Agromyzidae [Colombia] and Tettigoniidae [Costa Rica]
Coccotrypes sp. (Curculionidae: Scolytinae) [Costa Rica]
Agromyzidae, Copitarsia sp. (Noctuidae) [Colombia]
Armeria sp.
Aster sp.
Bacopa sp.
Bouquet
Chrysalidocarpus sp.
Chrysanthemum sp.
Mollusk
Insect
Insect
Mite
Insect
Insect
Insect
Insect
Mite
Disease
Insect
Insect
Insect
Insect
Insect
Cleome sp.
Cocos nucifera
Codiaeum sp.
Insect
Insect
Insect
Aleyrodidae [Costa Rica]
Tineidae [Costa Rica]
Blapstinus sp. (Tenebrionidae), Frankliniella sp., Thrips palmi (Thripidae),
Leucania sp. (Noctuidae), Philephedra sp. (Coccidae), Phyllophaga sp.
(Scarabaeidae), Aleyrodidae, Cicadellidae, Coccidae, Coccoidea,
Gryllidae, Noctuidae, Pentatomidae, and Pseudococcidae [Costa Rica],
Leucothrips sp. (Thripidae) [Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, El
Salvador], Thripidae [Costa Rica, Dominican Republic]
Mite
Mollusk
Tetranychidae [Dominican Republic, El Salvador]
Ovachlamys fulgens (Helicarionidae), Pallifera costaricensis
(Philomycidae), Succinea costaricana, Succinea sp. (Succineidae),
Veronicellidae [Costa Rica]
Codiaeum variegatum
Insect
Leucothrips sp. (Thripidae), Cicadellidae, Coccidae, Noctuidae, and
Pseudococcidae [Costa Rica], Thripidae [Dominican Republic]
Colocasia esculenta
Mollusk
Insect
Succinea costaricana (Succineidae) [Costa Rica]
Dyscinetus sp. (Scarabaeidae), Planococcus sp. (Pseudococcidae),
Cecidomyiidae and Curculionidae [Costa Rica]
Colocasia sp.
Insect
Cecidomyiidae, Curculionidae, and Pseudococcidae [Costa Rica]
Cordyline fruticosa
Insect
Cicadellidae, Noctuidae, Pentatomidae, Pseudococcidae, Pyraloidea, and
Tettigoniidae [Costa Rica]
Ajuga reptans
Ajuga sp.
Alpinia sp.
Alstroemeria sp.
Anacardium occidentale
Aralia sp.
219
Commodity
Cordyline sp.
Pest type
Disease
Insect
Cornus sp.
Cotoneaster sp.
Croton sp.
Ctenanthe sp.
Cuphea sp.
Cycad sp.
Cycas revoluta
Dendranthema sp.
Dendrobium sp.
Dianella sp.
Mollusk
Mite
Mite
Insect
Mollusk
Mite
Insect
Insect
Insect
Mollusk
Disease
Dieffenbachia sp.
Dizygothecea sp.
Dracaena bicolor
Dracaena deremensis
Dracaena marginata
Mite
Insect
Insect
Insect
Mollusk
Insect
Dracaena massangeana
Dracaena sp.
Epipremnum sp.
Eryngium foetidum
Euphorbia sp.
Succinea costaricana (Succineidae) [Costa Rica]
Tetranychidae [Costa Rica]
Tetranychidae [Costa Rica]
Leucothrips sp. (Thripidae) [El Salvador]
Ovachlamys fulgens (Helicarionidae) [Costa Rica]
Tetranychidae [Dominican Republic]
Coccoidea and Pentatomoidea [Costa Rica]
Noctuidae, Tettigoniidae, and Tortricidae [Costa Rica]
Liriomyza huidobrensis (Agromyzidae) [Colombia]
Succinea costaricana (Succineidae) [Costa Rica]
Mycosphaerella sp. (Mycosphaerellaceae), Pestalotiopsis sp.
(Coelomycetes) [Costa Rica]
Tetranychidae [Costa Rica]
Pseudococcidae and Tetranychidae [Costa Rica]
Phyllophaga sp. (Scarabaeidae) [Costa Rica]
Cicadellidae [Costa Rica]
Succinea costaricana (Succineidae) [Costa Rica]
Cyclocephala sp. (Scarabaeidae), Ozophora concava (Rhyparochromidae),
Cicadellidae, Coccidae, Coreidae, Diaspididae, Heteroptera, Noctuidae,
Pentatomidae, Pseudococcidae, and Tettigoniidae [Costa Rica]
Mollusk
Succinea costaricana (Succineidae), Veronicellidae [Costa Rica]
Disease
Insect
Disease
Phoma sp. (Coelomycetes) [Costa Rica]
Curculionidae [Costa Rica]
Cercospora sp. (Hyphomycetes), Mycosphaerella sp.
(Mycosphaerellaceae), Phomopsis sp. (Coelomycetes) [Costa Rica]
Amblyrhetus sp. (Gryllidae), Cicadellidae, Coccoidea, Coreidae,
Diaspididae, Gryllidae, Heteroptera, Hymenoptera, Limacodidae,
Noctuidae, Pentatomidae, Pseudococcidae, Syrphidae, Tettigoniidae,
Tineidae, and Tortricinae [Costa Rica]
Insect
Dracaena warneckii
Duranta sp.
Pest name (family) [origin of shipment]
Mycosphaerella sp. (Mycosphaerellaceae), Phoma sp., Phomopsis sp.
(Coelomycetes) [Costa Rica]
Anchonus sp. (Curculionidae), Cicadellidae, Noctuidae, Pentatomidae,
Pseudococcidae, Tettigoniidae, and Tortricidae [Costa Rica]
Mollusk
Deroceras sp. (Agriolimacidae), Ovachlamys fulgens (Helicarionidae),
Succinea costaricana, Succinea sp. (Succineidae) [Costa Rica]
Insect
Insect
Mite
Insect
Mite
Mollusk
Insect
Insect
Cicadellidae [Costa Rica]
Bemisia tabaci (Aleyrodidae) [Costa Rica]
Tetranychidae [Costa Rica]
Pseudococcidae [Costa Rica, Dominican Republic]
Tetranychidae [Costa Rica]
Veronicellidae [Costa Rica]
Miridae [Costa Rica]
Aleyrodidae [Costa Rica] and Pseudococcidae [Dominican Republic]
220
Commodity
Evolvulus sp.
Gaillardia sp.
Guzmania sp.
Hedera sp.
Helianthemum sp.
Heliconia psittacorum
Heliconia sp.
Pest type
Insect
Insect
Disease
Insect
Mite
Insect
Insect
Insect
Pest name (family) [origin of shipment]
Frankliniella schultzei (Thripidae) [Dominican Republic]
Aleyrodidae [Costa Rica]
Phoma sp. (Coelomycetes) [Costa Rica]
Pseudococcidae [Costa Rica]
Tetranychidae [Costa Rica]
Noctuidae [Colombia]
Pseudococcidae [Costa Rica]
Aphididae, Hesperiidae, and Pseudococcidae [Costa Rica]
Heliopsis sp.
Hoya sp.
Lantana sp.
Insect
Insect
Insect
Aleyrodidae [Costa Rica]
Eurychilella sp. (Miridae) [Costa Rica]
Aleyrodidae and Heteroptera [Costa Rica], Leucothrips sp. (Thripidae),
Noctuidae, Tettigoniidae, and Thripidae [Dominican Republic]
Mite
Disease
Insect
Insect
Insect
Insect
Disease
Tetranychidae [Dominican Republic]
Mycosphaerella sp. (Mycosphaerellaceae) [Costa Rica]
Tettigoniidae [Costa Rica]
Noctuidae [Dominican Republic]
Noctuidae [Colombia]
Coccoidea [Costa Rica]
Mycosphaerella sp. (Mycosphaerellaceae), Phaeosphaeria sp.
(Phaeosphaeriaceae), Phoma sp. (Coelomycetes) [Costa Rica]
Lygaeoidea [El Salvador]
Pentatomoidea [Costa Rica]
Succinea costaricana (Succineidae) [Costa Rica]
Pestalotiopsis sp. (Coelomycetes) [Costa Rica]
Diptera [Costa Rica]
Colletotrichum rhodocyclum, Phoma sp. (Coelomycetes) [Costa Rica]
Liriope sp.
Luffa sp.
Mentha sp.
Neoregelia sp.
Ophiopogon sp.
Orchidaceae
Pachysandra sp.
Phormium sp.
Insect
Insect
Mollusk
Disease
Insect
Disease
Physostegia sp.
Pleomele sp.
Mite
Insect
Polyscias sp.
Disease
Insect
Insect
Insect
Mite
Insect
Mite
Philodendron sp.
Rosa sp.
Rosmarinus officinalis
Ruella sp.
Salvia sp.
Tetranychidae [Costa Rica]
Cicadellidae, Hymenoptera, Lepidoptera, Pentatomidae, and Tettigoniidae
[Costa Rica]
Phyllosticta sp. (Coelomycetes) [Costa Rica]
Pseudococcidae [Costa Rica]
Tortricidae [Colombia]
Noctuidae [Colombia]
Tetranychidae [Dominican Republic]
Noctuidae [Dominican Republic]
Tetranychus sp. [Costa Rica], Tetranychidae [Colombia, Dominican
Republic]
Colletotrichum sp., Fusicoccum sp., Phomopsis sp. (Coelomycetes),
Didymosphaeria sp. (Didymosphaeriaceae) [Costa Rica]
Sansevieria sp.
Disease
Scabiosa sp.
Schefflera arboricola
Disease
Insect
Cladosporium sp. (Hyphomycetes) [Colombia]
Aphididae, Cicadellidae, Coccidae, Coccoidea, Noctuidae, Pentatomidae,
and Pseudococcidae, Vinsonia stellifera (Coccidae) [Costa Rica]
Mite
Mollusk
Tetranychidae [Costa Rica]
Succinea costaricana (Succineidae) [Costa Rica]
221
Commodity
Schefflera sp.
Solidago sp.
Tagetes sp.
Theobroma cacao
Thymus vulgaris
Tillandsia cyanea
Tillandsia sp.
Tradescantia sp.
Verbena sp.
Veronica sp.
Vinca sp.
Yucca elephantipes
Yucca sp.
Zamioculcas zamiifolia
Pest type
Disease
Insect
Pest name (family) [origin of shipment]
Phomopsis sp. (Coelomycetes) [Costa Rica]
Cyclocephala sp. (Scarabaeidae), Protopulvinaria longivalvata, Vinsonia
stellifera (Coccidae), Agromyzidae, Aphididae, Cicadellidae, Coccidae,
Coccoidea, Noctuidae, Pentatomidae, Plutellidae, Tettigoniidae, and
Tortricidae [Costa Rica], Pseudococcidae [Costa Rica, El Salvador]
Mite
Mollusk
Insect
Mite
Insect
Insect
Disease
Insect
Mollusk
Insect
Insect
Insect
Disease
Insect
Mollusk
Insect
Tetranychidae [Costa Rica]
Succinea costaricana (Succineidae) [Costa Rica]
Copitarsia sp. (Noctuidae), Miridae [Colombia]
Tetranychidae [Dominican Republic]
Pseudococcidae [Costa Rica]
Aleyrodidae and Noctuidae [Colombia]
Diaporthe sp. (Valsaceae), Phomopsis (Coelomycetes) [Belize]
Elachistidae [Costa Rica]
Succinea sp. (Succineidae) [Dominican Republic]
Aleyrodidae [Costa Rica]
Aleyrodidae [Costa Rica]
Aleyrodidae [Costa Rica]
Phyllosticta yuccae (Coelomycetes) [Costa Rica]
Bagnalliella sp. (Phlaeothripidae) [Costa Rica]
Veronicella sp. (Veronicellidae) [Costa Rica]
Coccidae [Costa Rica]
222
Figure 9.1 Prevailing wind patterns in January (a) and July (b) (Lutgens and Tarbuck, 2007).
223
Figure 9.2 Areas and time of hurricane formation (Lutgens and Tarbuck, 2007).
224
Appendix
Pests potentially associated with forest products and with the potential to move into and within the Greater Caribbean Region.
(Abbreviations: WPM-Wood Packaging Material; AF-Africa; AS-Asia; CAM-Central America; CAR-Caribbean; EUR-Europe; NAM-North America;
OCE-Oceania; SAM-South America. Distribution country codes are in conformance with ISO 3166 codes; a list of countries and continents is
located at the end of this table.)
Species
Order: Family
Distribution
Hosts
Pathways
Comments
References
Coleoptera:
Bostrichidae
CAR (CUB, DMA,
GLP, JAM, MTQ,
PRI), BRA, AS,
EUR, AF
dead wood
Can attack living trees (e.g.,
Swietenia spp., causing retarded
growth, deformation and
breaking); intercepted in USA
(FL)
(CATIE, 1992, CABI-FC,
2008)
Bostrychopsis
jesuita
Coleoptera:
Bostrichidae
AUS
logs
High risk potential for
importation on Eucalyptus logs
(USDA-FS, 2003)
Dinoderus minutus
Coleoptera:
Bostrichidae
AS (native), EUR,
AF, USA (CA, FL),
CAR (CUB, TTO),
SAM (BRA, CHL)
Heterobostrychus
aequalis
Coleoptera:
Bostrichidae
EUR, IND, AS, ZAF,
IRN, IRQ
Hardwoods, incl. Acacia,
Casuarina, Citrus, Coffea,
Malus, Mangifera, Morus, Olea,
Prunus, Psidium, Pyrus,
Robinia, Swietenia, Theobroma,
Vitis
Hardwoods & conifers, incl.
Corymbia, Eucalyptus; Pinus
pinaster
Polyphagous - hosts incl.
Bambusa, Dendrocalmus,
Guadua angustifolia, Manihot
esculenta, Ochlandra
travancoria, Phyllostachys;
Pinus
Hardwoods: freshly felled trees,
green or seasoned timber,
untreated timber (poles, piles)
Heterobostrychus
brunneus
Coleoptera:
Bostrichidae
AF (sub-Saharan),
USA (CA)
Hardwoods
Mesoxylion
collaris
Sinoxylon anale
Coleoptera:
Bostrichidae
Coleoptera:
Bostrichidae
AUS
Corymbia, Eucalyptus
Coleoptera:
Bostrichidae
Hardwoods, incl. Acacia,
Albizia, Casuarina, Dalbergia
sissoo, Delonix regia,
Eucalyptus
Acacia tortilis
logs, untreated timber
(poles/piles), wood
handicrafts, WPM
Sinoxylon crassum
AUS, SAM (BRA,
VEN), AS, SAU,
NZL, USA (CA, FL,
MI, NY, OH, PA)
AF (east), IND,
PAK, AS (southeast)
Xylion cylindricus
Coleoptera:
Bostrichidae
Coleoptera:
Bostrichidae
Coleoptera:
Bostrichidae
AUS
Corymbia, Eucalyptus
logs
AUS
Corymbia, Eucalyptus
logs
AUS
Corymbia, Eucalyptus
Logs
INSECTS
Apate monachus
Xylodelis obsipa
Xylopsocus
gibbicollis
bamboo,
conveyances,
poles/piles, sawn
wood, WPM
(NZMAF, 2003, CABI-FC,
2008)
bark, manufactured
wood (furniture,
souvenirs), poles/
piles, sawn wood,
WPM
untreated timber
(poles, piles), wood
handicrafts, WPM
logs
(NZMAF, 2003, AQIS, 2007)
High risk potential for
importation on Eucalyptus logs
High risk potential for
importation on Eucalyptus logs
WPM
High risk potential for
importation on Eucalyptus logs
High risk potential for
importation on Eucalyptus logs
High risk potential for
importation on Eucalyptus logs
(Pasek, 2000, NZMAF, 2003,
Haack, 2006, Schabel, 2006,
USDA-APHIS, 2007)
(USDA-FS, 2003)
(Pasek, 2000, Teixera et al.,
2002, NZMAF, 2003, USDAFS, 2003, USDA-APHIS, 2007,
CABI-FC, 2008)
(Singh Rathore, 1995, Pasek,
2000, Walker, 2006)
(USDA-FS, 2003)
(USDA-FS, 2003)
(USDA-FS, 2003)
225
Species
Xylothrips flavipes
Order: Family
Coleoptera:
Bostrichidae
Distribution
NCL, PNG, USA
(HI), FJI, SLB
Hosts
Pathways
wood handicrafts,
WPM
Comments
Xylothrips
religiosus
Xylotillus lindi
AUS
Corymbia, Eucalyptus
AUS
Corymbia, Eucalyptus
logs, poles/piles,
sawn wood
logs
AUS
Eucalyptus
logs
High risk potential for
importation on Eucalyptus logs
High risk potential for
importation on Eucalyptus logs
High risk potential for
importation on Eucalyptus logs
PNG
Eucalyptus
Agrilus
planipennis
Coleoptera:
Bostrichidae
Coleoptera:
Bostrichidae
Coleoptera:
Bostrichidae
Coleoptera:
Buprestidae
Coleoptera:
Buprestidae
Fraxinus
Agrilus
sexsignatus
Buprestis
haemorrhoidalis
Melanophila
cuspidata
Anoplophora
chinensis
Coleoptera:
Buprestidae
Coleoptera:
Buprestidae
Coleoptera:
Buprestidae
Coleoptera:
Cerambycidae
AS (native), USA
(MI, OH, IN, IL,
MD, PA, WV, WI,
MO, VA, IL), CAN
PHL
bark, poles/piles,
sawn wood
firewood, nursery
stock, logs, wood
chips, WPM
Anoplophora
glabripennis
Coleoptera:
Cerambycidae
AS (CHN, KOR, JPN
[native]), USA
(northeast)
Hardwoods, incl. Acer, Betula,
Fraxinus, Hibiscus, Melia,
Morus, Populus, Prunus, Pyrus,
Robinia, Salix, Ulmus
Apriona cinerea
Coleoptera:
Cerambycidae
Coleoptera:
Cerambycidae
AS (IND [native])
Populus
EUR (native), NZL
Burned or windthrown conifers
Callidiellum
rufipenne
Coleoptera:
Cerambycidae
AS (native), USA
(NC, CT, WA), ITA
Conifers, incl. Chamaecyparis,
Cryptomeria, Cupressus,
Juniperus, Thuja
Callidiopsis
scutellaris
Chlorophorus
annularis
Coleoptera:
Cerambycidae
Coleoptera:
Cerambycidae
AUS
Eucalyptus
AS (native)
Chlorophorus
strobilicola
Coptocercus
rubripes
Coleoptera:
Cerambycidae
Coleoptera:
Cerambycidae
AS (IND) (native)
bamboo; hardwoods, incl.
Liquidambar formosa, Malus,
Tectona grandis
Pinus roxburghii; P. kesiya
AUS
Angophora intermedia,
Corymbia maculata, Eucalyptus
logs
Epithora dorsalis
Coleoptera:
Cerambycidae
AUS
Angophora intermedia,
Corymbia maculata, Eucalyptus,
Gmelina leichhardtii
bark, logs, poles/
piles, sawn wood
Zelotypia stacyi
Agrilus opulentus
Arhopalus ferus
Eucalyptus
EUR, KAZ
AF (south), EUR
(south)
AS (native), EUR
(ITA), USA (WA)
Threat to Gulf States (in chips,
can survive heat treatments 48
hrs at 40C )
bark, poles/piles,
sawn wood
WPM
bonsai trees, nursery
stock, wood and
wood products
bark, poles/piles,
sawdust, timber,
wood chips, WPM
bark, poles/piles,
sawn wood
cargo loaded during
flight period
(summer), timber
artificial Christmas
trees, plants, logs,
wood handicrafts,
WPM
logs
(NZMAF, 2003, CABI-FC,
2008)
(McCullough et al., 2007,
CABI-FC, 2008, ISSG, 2008)
(CABI-FC, 2008, PaDIL, 2008)
Very destructive; more recently
has become a pest in China;
ALB can attack healthy trees;
beetle is able to survive and
finish development in cut logs
Bores into the wood of young
poplars
(Magnusson et al., 2001,
NZMAF, 2003, AQIS, 2007,
FAO, 2007b)
(NZMAF, 2003, FAO, 2007c)
(AQIS, 2007)
(Hoebeke, 1999, Pasek, 2000,
USDA-APHIS, 2007, CABIFC, 2008, EPPO, 2008)
High risk potential for
importation on Eucalyptus logs
bamboo
pinecones
(USDA-FS, 2003)
(NZMAF, 2003, CABI-FC,
2008)
(Pasek, 2000, Löbl and
Smetana, 2006)
(Pasek, 2000, Kubán, 2004)
WPM
Polyphagous - incl. Citrus,
Populus, Salix
References
(Lesne, 1900, Pasek, 2000,
Nardi, 2004, USDA-APHIS,
2007, PaDIL, 2008)
(NZMAF, 2003, USDA-FS,
2003)
(USDA-FS, 2003)
(USDA-FS, 2003)
(INBAR, 2008)
Found on scented pinecones by
PPQ employees
High risk potential for
importation on Eucalyptus logs
(USDA-APHIS, 2004, CABIFC, 2008)
(USDA-FS, 2003)
High risk potential for
importation on Eucalyptus logs
(NZMAF, 2003, USDA-FS,
2003)
226
Species
Hesperophanes
campestris
Order: Family
Coleoptera:
Cerambycidae
Distribution
AS (CHN, JPN)
(native)
Hesperophanes
fasciculatus
Coleoptera:
Cerambycidae
CHN
Hesthesis
cingulata
Hoplocerambyx
spinicornis
Coleoptera:
Cerambycidae
Coleoptera:
Cerambycidae
AUS
EUR, IND (native)
Anisoptera glabra, Hopea
odorata, Parashorea , Shorea
robusta
Hylotrupes bajulus
Coleoptera:
Cerambycidae
EUR, TUR, AF,
SAM, USA, CHN
Macrones rufus
Coleoptera:
Cerambycidae
AUS
Seasoned timber - conifers:
Abies, Picea, Pinus (esp. roof
timbers)
Eucalyptus
imports of seasoned
timber or
manufactured wood
bark, logs, poles/
piles, sawn wood
High risk potential for
importation on Eucalyptus logs
(NZMAF, 2003, USDA-FS,
2003)
Monochamus
alternatus
Coleoptera:
Cerambycidae
AS (native)
Pinus, Abies firma, Abies fabri,
Larix, Picea
Phlyctaenodes
pustulosus
Coleoptera:
Cerambycidae
AUS
Casuarina, Eucalyptus
bark, poles/piles,
sawn timber, wood
handicrafts, wood
chips, WPM
bark, logs, poles/
piles, sawn wood
Monochamus species are the
main vectors for pine wilt
nematode (B. xylophilus) - can
survive in wood chips
High risk potential for
importation on Eucalyptus logs
(Pasek, 2000, Magnusson et al.,
2001, NZMAF, 2003, Kawai et
al., 2006, USDA-APHIS, 2007,
CABI-FC, 2008)
(NZMAF, 2003, USDA-FS,
2003)
Phoracantha
acanthocera
Coleoptera:
Cerambycidae
AUS
logs
High risk potential for
importation on Eucalyptus logs
(USDA-FS, 2003)
Phoracantha
mastersi
Phoracantha
odewahni
Phoracantha
punctipennis
Coleoptera:
Cerambycidae
Coleoptera:
Cerambycidae
Coleoptera:
Cerambycidae
AUS
Angophora lanceolata, Agathis
robusta, Araucaria
cunninghamii, Corymbia,
Eucalyptus
Corymbia maculata, Acacia ,
Eucalyptus
Acacia , Corymbia calophylla,
Eucalyptus
Corymbia calophylla,
Eucalyptus
logs
High risk potential for
importation on Eucalyptus logs
High risk potential for
importation on Eucalyptus logs
High risk potential for
importation on Eucalyptus logs
(USDA-FS, 2003)
Phoracantha
recurva
Coleoptera:
Cerambycidae
AUS, PNG (native),
NZL, EUR, AF,
SAM, USA (CA)
Angophora, Cupressus
lusitanica, Eucalyptus,
Syncaepia
Phoracantha
semipunctata
Coleoptera:
Cerambycidae
AUS (native), BRA,
ZAF
Phoracantha
solida
Coleoptera:
Cerambycidae
AUS
Angophora intermedia,
Corymbia, Eucalyptus,
Syncarpia laurifolia
Angophora intermedia,
Eucalyptus
Phoracantha
tricuspis
Coleoptera:
Cerambycidae
AUS
Eucalyptus
bark, logs, poles/
piles, sawn wood
Plagionotus
christophi
Coleoptera:
Cerambycidae
AS (CHN, JPN,
KOR) [northeast])
Hardwoods, esp. Quercus
wood handicrafts,
WPM
AUS
AUS
Hosts
Hardwoods & conifers: Acer,
Alnus, Betula, Camellia, Citrus,
Fagus, Juglans, Malus, Morus,
Populus, Quercus, Salix, Ulmus;
Abies, Larix, Picea
Ceratonia siliqua, Cedrus
atlantica, multiple fruit trees and
vines, also forest trees (e.g.,
Betula)
Eucalyptus
Pathways
bark, sawn wood,
untreated timber
(poles/piles), wood
chips, WPM
Comments
References
(NZMAF, 2003, CABI-FC,
2008)
bark, poles/piles,
sawn wood, wood
chips, WPM
Frequently intercepted in USA,
entry potential, likelihood of
establishment, consequences of
introduction all high risk
High risk potential for
importation on Eucalyptus logs
Causes severe damage - larvae
girdle and kill trees and riddle
heartwood with large tunnels or
galleries
(USDA-APHIS, 1998,
NZMAF, 2003, CABI-FC,
2008)
bark, poles/piles,
sawn wood
poles/piles, sawn
wood
logs
logs
bark, logs, nursery
stock, railway
sleepers, sawn
timber, logs, WPM
crates, Eucalyptus
timber; freshly cut
railway sleepers
logs
(NZMAF, 2003, USDA-FS,
2003)
(NZMAF, 2003, FAO, 2007c,
CABI-FC, 2008)
(AQIS, 2007)
(USDA-FS, 2003)
(USDA-FS, 2003)
High risk potential for
importation on Eucalyptus logs
(FAO, 2007a, CABI-FC, 2008)
High risk potential for
importation on Eucalyptus logs
(USDA-FS, 2003, FAO, 2007a,
Nair, 2007, CABI-FC, 2008)
High risk potential for
importation on Eucalyptus logs
(USDA-FS, 2003)
High risk potential for
importation on Eucalyptus logs
(NZMAF, 2003, USDA-FS,
2003)
(Cherepanov, 1988, Pasek,
2000, KFS, 2004, USDAAPHIS, 2007)
227
Species
Pyrrhidium
sanguineum
Order: Family
Coleoptera:
Cerambycidae
Distribution
EUR, AF (north), AS
(western)
Hosts
Hardwoods, esp. Quercus
Pathways
wood handicrafts,
WPM
Scolecobrotus
westwoodi
Coleoptera:
Cerambycidae
AUS
Amyema , Corymbia gummifera,
Eucalyptus
Stromatiium
barbatum
Coleoptera:
Cerambycidae
IND, LKA, BUR,
MUS, MDG, PAK,
NPL, TZA
350 species of seasoned
hardwoods and conifers; attacks
teak (Tectona grandis)
Stromatium
longicorne
Tessaromma
undatum
Tetropium
castaneum
Coleoptera:
Cerambycidae
Coleoptera:
Cerambycidae
Coleoptera:
Cerambycidae
CHN
Tetropium fuscum
Coleoptera:
Cerambycidae
Eurasia (native) CAN
(NS)
Canarium album, Ficus
religiosa
Acacia dealbata, Eucalyptus,
Nothofagus moorei
Hardwoods & conifers, incl.
Acer, Juglans, Quercus; Abies,
Larix, Piceae, Pinus
Abies, Larix, Picea, and Pinus,
occasionally hardwoods
bark, logs,
poles/piles, sawn
wood
bamboo,
manufactured wood
(furniture, cricket
bats), wood
handicrafts, WPM
poles/piles, sawn
wood
logs
Xylotrechus grayi
Coleoptera:
Cerambycidae
Coleoptera:
Cerambycidae
Coleoptera:
Cerambycidae
CHN, JPN, KOR,
THA
AS
AUS
Eucalyptus
Brontispa
longissima
Coleoptera:
Chrysomelidae
IND, PNG (native);
AS
Over 20 species of palm,
including Cocos nucifera
movement of infested
palms
Chrysophtharta
agricola
Coleoptera:
Chrysomelidae
AUS
Eucalyptus
bark, logs, poles/
piles, sawn wood
Chrysophtharta
bimaculata
Paropsis spp.,
(incl, P. atomaria,
P. charybdis, P.
delittlei)
Gonipterus
scutellatus
Coleoptera:
Chrysomelidae
Coleoptera:
Chrysomelidae
AUS (native)
Eycalyptus, Gahnia grandia,
Nothofagus cuninghamii
Eucalyptus
Hylobius abietis
Coleoptera:
Curculionidae
Xylotrechus
magnicollis
Zygocera canosa
Coleoptera:
Curculionidae
AUS
AS, EUR (native)
AUS
AUS, NZL (native),
EUR (west), USA
(CA), SAM (ARG,
BRA, CHL, URY),
AF
EUR, AS, NZL
Comments
One of the most common
longhorn beetles of central
Europe
High risk potential for
importation on Eucalyptus logs
References
(Pasek, 2000, Hoskovec and
Rejzek, 2006, USDA-APHIS,
2007)
(NZMAF, 2003, USDA-FS,
2003)
Serious pest of logged wood
(CAB, 1985, Pasek, 2000,
AQIS, 2007, USDA-APHIS,
2007, CABI-FC, 2008, INBAR,
2008)
High risk potential for
importation on Eucalyptus logs
Intercepted in Canada and U.S.
(NZMAF, 2003, CABI-FC,
2008)
(USDA-FS, 2003)
(CABI-FC, 2008)
bark, sawn wood,
untreated timber
(poles, piles), wood
chips, WPM
(Magnusson et al., 2001,
NZMAF, 2003, Kimoto and
Duthie-Holt, 2006, NRCAN,
2007)
wood handicrafts,
WPM
wood handicrafts,
WPM
bark, logs, poles/
piles, sawn wood
(Pasek, 2000, Hua, 2002,
USDA-APHIS, 2007)
(Pasek, 2000, Hua, 2002,
USDA-APHIS, 2007)
(NZMAF, 2003, USDA-FS,
2003)
High risk potential for
importation on Eucalyptus logs
Potentially the most serious pest
of coconut palms; where an
attack is severe, complete
defoliation of palms may result;
prolonged attack may result in
tree death
High risk potential for
importation on Eucalyptus logs
(FAO, 2007b, APFISN, 2008)
bark, poles/piles,
sawn wood
bark, sawn wood,
unprocessed logs,
WPM
High risk potential for
importation on Eucalyptus logs
High risk potential for
importation on Eucalyptus logs
(NZMAF, 2003)
Eucalyptus
bark of wood logs,
conveyances, foliage,
stems
Major defoliator of Eucalyptus
species, can cause tree mortality
Betula pendula, Fagus sylvatica,
Larix, Pinus, Picea, Quercus
robur
bark, poles/piles,
sawn wood
(NZMAF, 2003, USDA-FS,
2003)
(USDA-FS, 2003, CABI-FC,
2008)
(FAO, 2007a, CABI-FC, 2008)
(NZMAF, 2003, CABI-FC,
2008)
228
Species
Hylobius pales
Order: Family
Coleoptera:
Curculionidae
Distribution
CAN, USA (FL, LA,
NC, others)
Hosts
Juniperus virginiana, Pinus
Pathways
bark, poles/piles,
sawn wood
Comments
References
(NZMAF, 2003, CABI-FC,
2008)
Pissodes
nemorensis
Coleoptera:
Curculionidae
Cedrus, Picea, Pinus
(NZMAF, 2003, FAO, 2007a,
CABI-FC, 2008)
Coleoptera:
Curculionidae
bark, Christmas trees,
logs, nursery stock,
poles/piles, sawn
wood
WPM
Potential vector of Fusarium
circinatum
Pissodes pini
USA (FL, IL, LA,
MO, NY, OH, OK,
VA) (native), EUR,
AS, ZAF
RUS, EUR (west)
Amasa truncatus
Coleoptera:
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Coleoptera:
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Coleoptera:
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Coleoptera:
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Coleoptera:
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Coleoptera:
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
AUS
Angophora intermedia,
Corymbia, Eucalyptus
logs
High risk potential for
importation on Eucalyptus logs
AUS (native), NZL
Polyphagous
logs, sawn timber,
WPM
AUS (native), NZL
Polyphagous, incl. Eucalyptus
logs, sawn timber,
WPM
PHL (native)
Polyphagous
logs, sawn timber,
WPM
EUR (ITA, ESP,
TUR)
Pinus sylvestris
WPM
Intercepted in Gulf States (LA,
FL)
(Haack et al., 2006)
AF (native), USA,
EUR (ESP, GBR,
PRT), CAR (BMU,
CUB, GRD, JAM,
PRI, VIR)
AUS (native), NZL
Polyphagous; breeds in seeds of
palms, especially Sabal palmetto
logs, sawn timber,
WPM
Intercepted in Gulf States (TX,
FL)
(Bright, 1985, Atkinson and
Peck, 1994, Haack, 2001,
Brockerhoff et al., 2006,
PaDIL, 2008)
Polyphagous
logs, sawn timber,
WPM
EUR (DEU, ITA)
Conifers & hardwoods, incl.
Abies, Chamaecyparis
lawsoniana, Juniperus
communis, Larix, Picea;
Populus, Salix fragilis
Conifers, incl. Abies, Piceae,
Larix, Pinus, Pseudotsuga
WPM
Intercepted in Gulf States (AL)
(Bright and Skidmore, 1997,
Haack, 2001)
WPM
Intercepted in Gulf States (LA,
FL, AL)
(Haack, 2001)
AUS (native), NZL
Ficus
logs, sawn timber,
WPM
EUR (AUT, BEL,
DEU, ESP, RUS)
Abies pectinata, Picea, Pinus
halepensis
WPM
Intercepted in Gulf States (LA,
FL)
(Bright and Skidmore, 1997,
Haack, 2001)
EUR (ESP, FRA,
ITA, NND, PRT)
Abies pinaspo, Pinus pinaster
WPM
Intercepted in Gulf States (LA,
FL, TX)
(Lombardero, 1995, Bright and
Skidmore, 1997, Haack, 2001)
EUR (ESP, EST,
GRC, LVA)
Pinus halepensis
WPM
Intercepted in Gulf States (TX)
(Diamantoglou and Banilas,
1996, Haack, 2001)
Ambrosiodmus
apicalis
Ambrosiodmus
compressus
Arixyleborus
rugosipes
Carphoborus
minimus
Coccotrypes
carpophagus
Coptodryas
eucalyptica
Cryphalus
asperatus
Cryphalus piceae
Cryphalus wapleri
Crypturgus
cinereus
Crypturgus
mediterraneus
Crypturgus
numidicus
Coleoptera:
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Coleoptera:
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Coleoptera:
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Coleoptera:
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Coleoptera:
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Coleoptera:
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Coleoptera:
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
EUR (FRA, ITA)
Pinus, including P. mungo, P.
strobus, P. sylvestris
(Kulinich and Orlinskii, 1998,
Pasek, 2000, Bugwood, 2008)
(USDA-FS, 2003)
(Brockerhoff et al., 2006)
High risk potential for
importation on Eucalyptus logs
(USDA-FS, 2003, Brockerhoff
et al., 2006)
(Brockerhoff et al., 2006)
(Brockerhoff et al., 2006)
(Brockerhoff et al., 2006)
229
Species
Dendroctonus
frontalis
Order: Family
Coleoptera:
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Coleoptera:
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Coleoptera:
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Coleoptera:
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Coleoptera:
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Distribution
USA (south), CAM
(native)
Hosts
Pinus (including P. caribaea)
Pathways
bark, poles/piles,
sawn wood
USA (Gulf States,
OK)
Pinus
bark, poles/piles,
sawn wood
AS, EUR, NAM, AF
(north) (native), BRA
Picea, Pinus
EUR (BEL, DEU,
FRA, GBR, ITA)
Populus, Quercus
Frequently intercepted in New
Zealand; intercepted in Gulf
States (TX, FL, AL)
Intercepted in Gulf States (AL,
LA, TX, FL)
AS (native), AF,
OCE, USA (HI),
CAM (CRI, PAN),
USA (CA, FL)
Acer negundo, Alnus rubra,
Camellia sinensis, Cedrela
odorata, Gmelina arborea,
Persea americana, Platanus
racemosa, Robinia
pseudoacacia, Tectona grandis
bark, logs, sawn
timber, wood chips,
WPM
bark, poles/piles,
sawn wood, wood
chips, WPM
logs, sawn timber,
WPM
Colonized old growth forests in
Central America - scolytine bark
and ambrosia beetles seem to be
the exception to the rule that
interior, old growth, species-rich
ecosystems are immune to exotic
pests
(Kirkendall and Ødegaard,
2007, CABI-FC, 2008)
Euwallacea valida
Coleoptera:
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
AS (native)
Polyphagous
logs, sawn timber,
WPM
Intercepted in NZ on WPM from
China and Japan
(Brockerhoff et al., 2003,
Brockerhoff et al., 2006)
Euwallacea
validus
Coleoptera:
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
AS, CAM (CRI),
USA (LA, MD, NY,
PA)
Hardwoods & conifers, incl.
Acer, Carpinus, Castanea,
Dalbergia, Fagus, Juglans,
Phellodendron, Populus,
Prunus, Quercus, Tilia, Ulmus;
Abies, Chamaecyparis, Pinus,
Tsuga
furniture, wood
handicrafts, WPM
Intercepted in USA
(Pasek, 2000, Haack, 2001,
USDA-APHIS, 2007, Cognato,
2008)
Gnathotrichus
materiarius
Coleoptera:
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Coleoptera:
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
CAR (DOM) USA
(OR, SD), EUR
(west)
AS, EUR (native),
AF
Pinus
bark, poles/piles,
sawn wood, wood
chips, WPM
logs, sawn timber,
WPM
Hylastes ater
Coleoptera:
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
AS, EUR, AF (north)
(native), NZL, AUS,
CHN
Abies alba, Chamaecyparis
lawsoniana, Larix decidua,
Pinus
logs, sawn timber,
wood handicrafts,
WPM
Hylastes
attenuatus
Coleoptera:
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Coleoptera:
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Coleoptera:
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
EUR (ESP, FRA,
ITA, PRT), ZAF
Pinus pinaster
WPM
EUR (BEL, DEU,
ESP, ITA)
Picea abies
AS, EUR, AF (north)
(native), ZAF
Pinus
Dendroctonus
terebrans
Dryocoetes
autographus
Dryocoetes
villosus
Euwallacea
fornicatus
Hylastes
angustanus
Hylastes
cunicularius
Hylastes linearis
Pinus, Picea
Comments
Most damaging insect to pine
forests in Central America
References
(NZMAF, 2003, Nair, 2007,
CABI-FC, 2008, FAO, 2008)
(NZMAF, 2003, CABI-FC,
2008)
Intercepted in USA
(Haack, 2001, NZMAF, 2003,
Brockerhoff et al., 2006)
(Haack, 2001, NZMAF, 2003,
Brockerhoff et al., 2006)
(Magnusson et al., 2001,
Mudge et al., 2001, NZMAF,
2003)
(Haack, 2001, Brockerhoff et
al., 2006, FAO, 2007a)
Frequently intercepted in New
Zealand; may vector root
diseases (e.g., Ophiostoma spp.);
intercepted in Gulf States (TX,
FL)
Intercepted in Gulf States (FL,
AL)
(Haack, 2001, Sousa et al.,
2002)
WPM
Intercepted in Gulf States (AL,
FL)
(Haack, 2001, Reay et al.,
2001)
logs, sawn timber,
WPM
Intercepted in Gulf States (FL,
TX)
(Haack, 2001, Brockerhoff et
al., 2006)
(Haack, 2001, Brockerhoff et
al., 2006, USDA-APHIS, 2007,
CABI-FC, 2008)
230
Species
Hylastes opacus
Order: Family
Coleoptera:
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Distribution
BRA, CAN, USA
(ME, NH, NY, OR,
WV), RUS
Hosts
Larix decidua, Pinus
Pathways
WPM
Hylastes toranio
Coleoptera:
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Coleoptera:
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Coleoptera:
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Coleoptera:
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Coleoptera:
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
AS, EUR, AF (north)
(native), ARG
Fraxinus
logs, sawn timber,
WPM
AS, EUR (BEL,
GBR, ITA), AF
(north) (native)
EUR (ITA)
Fraxinus
logs, sawn timber,
WPM
Picea abies
WPM
EUR (BEL, DEU,
ESP, GBR), USA
(PA)
EUR, AS, AF (native
to MAR & TUN),
ZAF, SAM (BRA,
CHL, URY), AUS,
NZL, USA (NY)
CAM (CRI), CAR
(JAM, VIR)
Picea abies
wood handicrafts,
WPM
Intercepted in Gulf States (TX)
Pinus
logs, wood
handicrafts, WPM
Beetle vectors several species of
root disease fungi in the genus
Leptographium; intercepted in
Gulf States (FL, LA)
Cecropria
scrap wood and
firewood
Hypothenemus species are found
in dry and sunny areas; breed in
dead twigs along forest edges;
intercepted in USA
Intercepted in Gulf States (FL)
(Bright, 1985, Jordal and
Kirkendall, 1998, Haack, 2001)
Not yet in Puerto Rico devastating for coffee
plantations; intercepted in Gulf
States (FL, LA)
Intercepted in Gulf States (LA,
FL, TX)
(Haack, 2001, Vega et al.,
2002, Brockerhoff et al., 2006)
Intercepted in Gulf States (TX)
(Haack, 2001, USDA-APHIS,
2007, Witrylak, 2008)
unseasoned sawn
wood, WPM with
bark
wood handicrafts,
WPM
Breeds primarily in slash,
broken, fallen or dying trees
(FAO, 2008)
Intercepted in Gulf States (FL,
TX)
(Haack, 2001, USDA-APHIS,
2007)
wood handicrafts,
WPM
Intercepted in Gulf States (TX)
(Haack, 2001, Brockerhoff et
al., 2003, USDA-APHIS, 2007)
Hylesinus varius
Hylurgops
glabratus
Hylurgops
palliatus
Hylurgus
ligniperda
Hypothenemus
africanus
Coleoptera:
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Hypothenemus
birmanus
Coleoptera:
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Coleoptera:
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Coleoptera:
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Subtropics/tropics
(native), USA (FL),
CAR (CUB, JAM)
USA (FL)
Polyphagous
logs, sawn timber,
WPM
Wide variety of hosts
?
CAM (native), CAR
(JAM, CUB)
Coffea
logs, sawn timber,
WPM
Ips acuminatus
Coleoptera:
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
CHN, EUR (ESP,
FRA, ITA, RUS)
Pinus sylvestris
Ips amitinus
Coleoptera:
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Coleoptera:
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Coleoptera:
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Coleoptera:
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
EUR (central)
Picea abies
bark, sawn wood,
untreated timber
(poles, piles), wood
handicrafts, WPM
wood handicrafts,
WPM
CAM (BLZ)
Pinus (including P. caribaea)
CHN, EUR (BEL,
DEU, ITA)
Larix, Picea, Pinus
EUR (ESP, TUR)
Pinus
Hypothenemus
brunneus
Hypothenemus
hampei
Ips apache
Ips cembrae
Ips mannsfeldi
Comments
Intercepted in Gulf States (TX)
References
(Bright and Skidmore, 1997,
Haack, 2001, Mudge et al.,
2001, de Groot and Poland,
2003, Haack, 2006)
(Brockerhoff et al., 2006)
Frequently intercepted in New
Zealand intercepted in Gulf
States (FL)
Intercepted in Gulf States (LA,
TX)
(Haack, 2001, Brockerhoff et
al., 2006)
(Haack, 2001, Jacobs et al.,
2003)
(Haack, 2001, Kohnle, 2004,
Haack et al., 2006, USDAAPHIS, 2007)
(Haack, 2001, Ahamed et al.,
2005, Haack, 2006, FAO,
2007a, USDA-APHIS, 2007)
(Bright, 1985, Atkinson and
Peck, 1994, Haack, 2001,
Brockerhoff et al., 2006)
(Atkinson and Peck, 1994)
(Guérard et al., 2000, Haack,
2001, NZMAF, 2003, USDAAPHIS, 2007)
231
Species
Ips sexdentatus
Order: Family
Coleoptera:
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Distribution
AS, EUR (native)
Hosts
Abies, Picea, Pinus (incl. P.
radiata)
Ips typographus
Coleoptera:
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
EUR, CHN, JPN,
KOR, RUS (east)
Damaged and healthy softwoods
and timber (with bark)
Orthotomicus
angulatus
Coleoptera:
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Coleoptera:
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
AS (native), FJI
Pinus, Tsuga
AS, EUR, AF (north)
(native), ZAF, USA
(CA), FJI
Coleoptera:
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Coleoptera:
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Coleoptera:
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Coleoptera:
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Coleoptera:
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Coleoptera:
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Coleoptera:
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Coleoptera:
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Coleoptera:
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Coleoptera:
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Coleoptera:
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Coleoptera:
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Orthotomicus
erosus
Orthotomicus
laricis
Orthotomicus
proximus
Orthotomicus
suturalis
Phloeosinus
armatus
Phloeosinus
cupressi
Phloeosinus
perlatus
Phloeosinus rudis
Phloeotribus
scarabaeoides
Pityogenes
bidentatus
Pityogenes
bistridentatus
Pityogenes
calcaratus
Pityogenes
chalcographus
Pathways
bark, sawn wood,
untreated timber
(poles, piles), wood
handicrafts, WPM
bark, sawn wood,
untreated timber
(poles, piles), wood
handicrafts, WPM
logs, sawn timber,
WPM
Comments
Intercepted in Gulf States (FL,
TX)
References
(Haack, 2001, NZMAF, 2003,
USDA-APHIS, 2007, CABIFC, 2008)
Intercepted in Gulf States (TX,
FL, LA)
(Haack, 2001, NZMAF, 2003,
Haack, 2006, AQIS, 2007)
Frequently intercepted in New
Zealand
(Brockerhoff et al., 2006)
Abies, Cedrus, Pinus,
Pseudotsuga
bark, logs, sawn
timber, wood
handicrafts, WPM
(NZMAF, 2003, Lee et al.,
2005, Brockerhoff et al., 2006,
Haack, 2006, CABI-FC, 2008)
AS, EUR, AF (north)
(native), CHN
Picea, Pinus
logs, sawn timber,
WPM
Frequently intercepted in New
Zealand and United States; can
attack healthy trees in an
outbreak
Frequently intercepted in New
Zealand and United States
AS, EUR (native),
MDG
Pinus
logs, sawn timber,
WPM
(Haack, 2001, Brockerhoff et
al., 2006)
EUR (DEU, EST,
FRA, GBR)
Conifers: Picea abies, Pinus
sylvestris, and others
WPM
Frequently intercepted in New
Zealand; intercepted in Gulf
States (TX)
Intercepted in Gulf States (AL,
LA)
AS (native), USA
Conifers
logs, sawn timber,
WPM
(Brockerhoff et al., 2006)
NAM (native), NZL,
AUS, PAN
Cupressus
logs, sawn timber,
WPM
(Brockerhoff et al., 2006)
AS (native)
Conifers
logs, sawn timber,
WPM
Frequently intercepted in New
Zealand
(Brockerhoff et al., 2006)
EUR (BEL), JPN
Conifers
WPM
Intercepted in Gulf States (TX,
LA)
(Haack, 2001, Brockerhoff et
al., 2006)
AS, EUR (south)
Olea europaea
WPM
Intercepted in Gulf States (FL)
AS, EUR (native),
MDG, USA
Pinus
logs, sawn timber,
WPM
EUR (ESP, FRA,
GBR, ITA, TUR)
Larix, Picea, Pinus
WPM
Frequently intercepted in New
Zealand; intercepted in Gulf
States (FL, TX, AL)
Intercepted in Gulf States (FL,
TX)
(CRFG, 1997, Pasek, 2000,
Haack, 2001, Rodríguez et al.,
2003)
(Haack, 2001, Brockerhoff et
al., 2006, Haack, 2006)
EUR (ESP, FRA,
ITA)
Pinus
WPM
Intercepted in Gulf States (FL,
TX)
(Mendel et al., 1991, Haack,
2001)
AS, EUR (native),
JAM
Conifers
logs, sawn timber,
wood handicrafts,
WPM
Frequently intercepted in New
Zealand and United States
(Haack, 2001, Brockerhoff et
al., 2006, USDA-APHIS, 2007)
(Haack, 2001, Brockerhoff et
al., 2006)
(Haack, 2001, Bugwood, 2008)
(Haack, 2001, Bugwood, 2008)
232
Species
Pityogenes
quadridens
Distribution
EUR (ESP, FIN,
LTU, PRT, TUR)
Hosts
Conifers: Pinus (P. sylvestris),
occas. Abies, Larix, Picea
Pathways
WPM
Comments
Intercepted in Gulf States (FL,
AL, LA)
References
(Haack, 2001, Bugwood, 2008)
EUR (LTU)
Conifers
WPM
Intercepted in Gulf States (TX)
(Haack, 2001)
AS, EUR (native),
ARG, ZAF
Abies
logs, sawn timber,
WPM
Could be a problem for native fir
species in Central America;
intercepted in Gulf States (TX)
(Haack, 2001, Brockerhoff et
al., 2006)
Coleoptera:
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Coleoptera:
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Coleoptera:
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Coleoptera:
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Coleoptera:
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Coleoptera:
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
EUR (AUT, DEU,
FRA, ITA, RUS)
Abies
WPM
Intercepted in Gulf States (TX,
AL)
(Haack, 2001, Bugwood, 2008)
EUR (DEU, FRA,
ITA, NLD)
WPM
Intercepted in Gulf States (LA,
FL)
(Haack, 2001, Bugwood, 2008)
EUR (BEL, DEU,
GBR, ITA, RUS)
Hardwoods & conifers, incl.
Frangula, Padus; Abies, Larix,
Picea, Pinus
Picea abies, occas. Abies, Larix,
Pinus strobus, P. sylvestris
wood handicrafts,
WPM
Intercepted in Gulf States (LA,
FL)
(Haack, 2001, USDA-APHIS,
2007, Bugwood, 2008)
AS, EUR (ITA)
Picea abies
WPM
Intercepted in Gulf States (TX)
(Haack, 2001, Mandelshtam,
2002)
EUR (ITA)
Ulmus
WPM
Intercepted in Gulf States (FL)
(Haack, 2001)
AS, EUR, AF
Hardwoods, incl. Aesculus,
Betula, Carpinus, Castanea,
Corylus, Fagus, Ostrya,
Quercus, Salix, Tilia, Ulmus
bark, sawn wood,
untreated timber
(poles, piles), wood
chips, WPM
(Haack, 2001, NZMAF, 2003,
CABI-FC, 2008)
Scolytus kirschii
Coleoptera:
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
EUR (south &
central), AS (native),
ZAF
Ulmus
timber
Scolytus
ratzeburgi
Coleoptera:
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Coleoptera:
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
FIN, RUS, UKR
Betula, Ulmus
bark, sawn wood,
wood chips, WPM
Associated with oak decline;
could vector Ceratocystis
fagacearum more effectively
than the current vector if it were
to enter North America;
intercepted in Gulf States (LA)
Infestations can kill elm trees;
the beetles also vector
Ophiostoma ulmi and O.
novoulmi
Intercepted in Gulf States (LA)
AS, EUR, AF (north)
(native), ARG, CAN,
USA, MEX, CAM
(BRA, PER, URY)
AS, EUR (native)
Hardwoods
bark, logs, sawn
timber, wood chips,
WPM
Ulmus
bark, logs, sawn
timber, WPM
Pityogenes
trepanatus
Pityokteines
curvidens
Pityokteines
spinidens
Pityophthorus
pityographus
Polygraphus
poligraphus
Polygraphus
subopacus
Pteleobius vittatus
Scolytus intricatus
Scolytus rugulosus
Scolytus scolytus
Taphrorychus
bicolor
Taphrorychus
villifrons
Order: Family
Coleoptera:
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Coleoptera:
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Coleoptera:
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Coleoptera:
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Coleoptera:
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Coleoptera:
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
EUR (BEL, DEU,
FIN, FRA, NLD)
AS, EUR, AF (north)
(native)
WPM
Hardwoods, incl. Castanea,
Fagus, Quercus
logs, sawn timber,
WPM
(FAO, 2007a, PaDIL, 2008)
(Haack, 2001, NZMAF, 2003,
Kimoto and Duthie-Holt, 2006)
(NZMAF, 2003, Brockerhoff et
al., 2006, CABI-FC, 2008)
Frequently intercepted in New
Zealand; intercepted in Gulf
States (LA)
Intercepted in Gulf States (TX,
AL)
(Haack, 2001, NZMAF, 2003,
Brockerhoff et al., 2006)
Frequently intercepted in New
Zealand; intercepted in Gulf
States (LA)
(Haack, 2001, Brockerhoff et
al., 2006)
(Haack, 2001)
233
Species
Tomicus minor
Tomicus n.sp.
Order: Family
Coleoptera:
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Coleoptera:
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Distribution
BRA, ITA, NZL,
TUR
Hosts
Conifers: Pinus
Pathways
wood handicrafts,
WPM
Comments
Intercepted in Gulf States (FL)
References
(Haack, 2001, USDA-APHIS,
2007)
CHN (native)
Conifer: Pinus yunnanensis
bark, sawn wood,
wood handicrafts,
untreated timber,
WPM
(FAO, 2007b)
Conifers: Pinus
bark, sawn wood,
untreated timber
(poles, piles), wood
handicrafts, WPM
wood chips, WPM
This new species of pine shoot
beetle has caused extensive
mortality of Yunnan pines in
China, affecting over 200,000 ha
of pine plantations
Intercepted in Gulf States (FL,
TX, LA)
Intercepted in Gulf States (FL,
AL)
(Haack, 2001, Magnusson et
al., 2001)
Intercepted in Gulf States (FL)
(Haack, 2001, Magnusson et
al., 2001)
Tomicus piniperda
Coleoptera:
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
EUR (BEL, ESP,
FRA, GBR, ITA),
USA (OH)
Trypodendron
domesticum
Coleoptera:
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Coleoptera:
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Coleoptera:
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Coleoptera:
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
EUR (ITA, TUR)
Trypodendron
signatum
Xyleborinus alni
Xyleborus affinis
Xyleborus
californicus
Xyleborus dispar
Xyleborus
eurygraphus
Xyleborus exiguus
Xyleborus
glabratus
Xyleborus
mutilatus
Coleoptera:
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Coleoptera:
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Coleoptera:
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Coleoptera:
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Coleoptera:
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Coleoptera:
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
(Haack, 2001, NZMAF, 2003,
Haack, 2006, USDA-APHIS,
2007)
EUR (BEL, DEU,
FRA, NLD)
wood chips, WPM
EUR (AUS, CZE,
DEU, POL, RUS),
JPN, USA (OR, WA)
EUR, MEX, USA
(AK, FL, HI, KS),
SAM (BRA), CUB,
JAM CAR
CAN, RUS, USA
(AR, CA, DE, MD,
OR, SC)
EUR, AS (native),
USA (many states,
incl. NC, SC)
AF (north), EUR
(south and western),
TUR
CAM (CRI, PAN)
WPM
(Mudge et al., 2001)
poles/piles, sawn
wood
(Bright, 1985, NZMAF, 2003,
CABI-FC, 2008)
WPM
(Mudge et al., 2001)
AS (IND, BGD,
MMR, JPN, TWN)
(native), USA (SC,
GA)
AS (native), USA
(TN)
Ceiba pentendra, Dracena
fragrans, Juglans nigra,
Macadamia integrifolia, Pinus
Polyphagous - many hardwood
species, some pine
Could be a threat to the Gulf
States - APHIS regulated pest
list
Intercepted in Gulf States (FL,
TX)
(CABI-FC, 2008)
Pinus, Quercus, Ulmus
WPM
Brosimum utile
logs, sawn timber,
WPM
Persea borbonia, Sassafras
albidum and others in Lauraceae
logs, WPM, wood
products
(Fraedrich et al., 2008, Koch
and Smith, 2008)
Hardwoods, incl. Acer,
Camellia, Carpinus, Castanea,
Cinnamomum camphora, Fagus,
Swetenia macrophylla
firewood/fuelwood,
nursery stock, WPM
(ISSG, 2008)
Found in second growth forests
in Central America
(Haack, 2001, Cognato, 2008)
(Kirkendall and Ødegaard,
2007)
234
Species
Xyleborus
perforans
Order: Family
Coleoptera:
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Distribution
AS, EUR, AUS, AF
(native), USA (HI),
SAM (PER)
Xyleborus pfeili
Coleoptera:
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Coleoptera:
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Coleoptera:
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
AF, AS, EUR, NZL,
USA (MD, OR)
Coleoptera:
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Coleoptera:
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
EUR
AS (native), USA
(Gulf States, HI),
BRA, CAR (CUB,
VIR)
Xylosandrus
crassiusculus
Coleoptera:
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Xylosandrus
germanus
Xyleborus
saxesenii
Xyleborus similis
Xylechinus pilosus
Xylosandrus
compactus
Xylosandrus
morigerus
Xylosandrus
pseudosolidus
Xylosandrus
solidus
Xyloterinus politus
Lyctus spp., incl.
L. brunneus, L.
costatus, L.
discenen, L.
parallelocollis
AS, EUR, AF (north)
(native), USA, SAM,
OCE
AS, AUS, PNG
(native), AF, USA
(TX, HI)
Hosts
Polyphagous, incl. Acacia,
Albizia, Anacardium, Carica
papaya, Cinnamomum verum,
Citrus, Cocos nucifera,
Eucalyptus, Ficus, Hevea
brasiliensis, Mangifera indica,
Persea americana, Shorea
robusta, Theobroma cacao
Pathways
logs, sawn timber,
untreated timber
(poles, piles), WPM
Comments
Frequently intercepted in New
Zealand; high risk potential for
importation on Eucalyptus logs
WPM
References
(NZMAF, 2003, Brockerhoff et
al., 2006, CABI-FC, 2008)
(Mudge et al., 2001)
Polyphagous
logs, sawn timber,
WPM
Invasive in introduced range
(Brockerhoff et al., 2006,
CABI, 2007)
Polyphagous
logs, sawn timber,
wood handicrafts,
WPM
Invasive in introduced range
WPM
Intercepted in Gulf States (FL)
(Wood, 1960, Brockerhoff et
al., 2006, Rabaglia et al., 2006,
CABI, 2007, USDA-APHIS,
2007)
(Haack, 2001, AlonsoZarazaga, 2004)
Hardwoods & conifers, incl.
Acacia, Castanea, Cedrela
odorata, Cinnamomum verbum,
Swietenia; Pinus
Infested seedlings,
saplings or cut
branches
Pest of coffee in Hawaii
(Bright, 1985, CABI-FC, 2008)
AS, PNG (native),
AF, USA (Gulf
States, HI), WSM,
CAM (CRI, PAN)
Calliandra, Castilla elastica,
Tectona grandis, Topobea
maurofernandeziana
Invasive in North America
(southern states); has been found
in old growth, species-rich
interior forests in Central
America
(NZMAF, 2003, Brockerhoff et
al., 2006, Kirkendall and
Ødegaard, 2007, CABI, 2008)
Coleoptera:
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Coleoptera:
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
AS (native), USA
(SE USA & HI),
CRI, AF, IND
AS (native), EUR,
AF, MEX, SAM,
CAM, OCE (some),
CAR (PRI)
Polyphagous, incl. Juglans,
Malus
bamboo, bark,
logs,sawn timber,
untreated timber
(poles, piles), wood
chips, WPM
logs, sawn timber,
WPM
Polyphagous
logs, sawn timber,
WPM
Invasive in Mexico, South
America, Central America,
AUS, other parts of Oceania;
intercepted in Gulf States (FL,
LA)
Coleoptera:
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Coleoptera:
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Coleoptera:
Curculionidae:
Scolytinae
Coleoptera:
Lyctidae
AUS (native), NZL
Polyphagous
logs, sawn timber,
WPM
AUS (native), NZL
Diploglottis, Eucalyptus
logs, sawn timber,
WPM
CAN, USA (WA)
AUS
(Brockerhoff et al., 2006,
CABI-FC, 2008, PaDIL, 2008)
(Brockerhoff et al., 2006)
High risk potential for
importation on Eucalyptus logs
WPM
Corymbia, Eucalyptus
logs
(Bright, 1985, Haack, 2001,
Brockerhoff et al., 2006, CABI,
2007)
(USDA-FS, 2003, Brockerhoff
et al., 2006)
(Mudge et al., 2001)
High risk potential for
importation on Eucalyptus logs
(USDA-FS, 2003)
235
Species
Minthea rugicollis
Order: Family
Coleoptera:
Lyctidae
Distribution
AUS
Hosts
Corymbia, Eucalyptus
Pathways
poles/piles, sawn
wood
Comments
High risk potential for
importation on Eucalyptus logs
References
(NZMAF, 2003, USDA-FS,
2003)
Atractocerus
crassicornis
Coleoptera:
Lymexylidae
AUS
Eucalyptus
logs
High risk potential for
importation on Eucalyptus logs
(USDA-FS, 2003)
Atractocerus
kreuslerae
Coleoptera:
Lymexylidae
AUS
Corymbia calophylla,
Eucalyptus
logs
High risk potential for
importation on Eucalyptus logs
(USDA-FS, 2003)
Austroplatypus
incompertus
Coleoptera:
Platypodidae
AUS
Corymbia gummifera,
Eucalyptus
bark, logs, poles/
piles, sawn wood
High risk potential for
importation on Eucalyptus logs
(NZMAF, 2003, USDA-FS,
2003)
Crossotarsus
externedentatus
Coleoptera:
Platypodidae
KIR
Eucalyptus, Swietenia
macrophylla
poles/piles, sawn
wood
Platypus australis
Coleoptera:
Platypodidae
AUS
Eucalyptus saligna
logs
High risk potential for
importation on Eucalyptus logs
(USDA-FS, 2003)
Platypus
subgranosus
Coleoptera:
Platypodidae
AUS
Eucalyptus nitens, Nothofagus
cunninghamii
bark, logs, poles/
piles, sawn wood
High risk potential for
importation on Eucalyptus logs
(NZMAF, 2003, USDA-FS,
2003, CABI-FC, 2008)
Platypus
tuberculosus
Coleoptera:
Platypodidae
AUS
Eucalyptus
logs
High risk potential for
importation on Eucalyptus logs
(USDA-FS, 2003)
Asphondylia
tectonae
Diptera:
Cecidomyiidae
IND (native)
Tectona grandis
(FAO, 2007c)
Pineus pini
Hemiptera:
Adelgidae
EUR (native), AF,
CHN, IND, USA
(HI)
Pinus caribaea, P. elliotti, P.
taeda, P. patula
bark, foliage,
planting stock,
seedlings, stems
One of the few insects recorded
as pests in naturally regenerated
teak forests
Feeds on the shoots of Pinus
spp. - causes tip dieback
Cinara
cupressivora
Hemiptera:
Aphididae
Conifers: Chamaecyparis,
Cupressocyparis, Cupressus,
Juniperus, Thuja
nursery stock
Chionaspis
pinifoliae
Hemiptera:
Diaspididae
Conifers, incl. Abies, Cedrus,
Pinus
Christmas trees and
greenery
Hemiberlesia
pitysophila
Hemiptera:
Diaspididae
EUR (native), AF,
AS, USA (AZ, CA,
CO, PA, UT), SAM
(CHL), MUS
NAM (native), AF,
CAM (SLV, HND),
CAR (CUB), SAM
(CHL)
AS (JPN, THA)
(native)
Pinus, including P. caribaea, P.
elliotti, P. taeda, P. thunbergii
bark, conveyances,
infested plants, logs
Eriococcus
coriaceus
Hemiptera:
Eriococcidae
AUS, NZL
Acacia, Eucalyptus
bark
Paratachardina
pseudolobata
Hemiptera:
Kerriidae
AS (IND, LKA)
(native), USA (FL),
CAR
> 150 hosts, many native to
Caribbean; Acer, Bambusa,
Quercus, etc.; attacks tropical
fruit trees, forest trees, landscape
trees and shrubs
plants, twigs, and
small branches
Matsucoccus
matsumurae
Hemiptera:
Margarodidae
CHN, JPN
Pinus
Maconellicoccus
hirsutus
Hemiptera:
Pseudococcidae
JAM (invasive)
Fruit trees, forest trees (e.g.,
Hibiscus elatus, Tectona
grandis)
(NZMAF, 2003, CABI-FC,
2008)
Nominated as "among 100 of the
world's worst invaders"
(Culliney et al., 1988, FAO,
2007c, Nair, 2007, CABI-FC,
2008)
(FAO, 2007e, IUFRO, 2007,
ISSG, 2008)
(CABI 2007, Bishop 1994)
This is an important alien
invasive species in China heavy infestations can kill pine
trees within 3-5 years
Considered to have an especially
high potential for further spread,
into the Caribbean Islands,
Hawaii, etc. - "invasion of
natural areas is of paramount
concern"
(CABI, 2007, ISSG, 2008)
(Ben-Dov and Hodgson, 1997,
NZMAF, 2003, CABI-FC,
2008)
(Pemberton, 2003, Ben-Dov et
al., 2006, Howard et al., 2008,
ISSG, 2008)
(CABI-FC, 2008)
infested fruit;
propagative material
(Pollard, 1997, Kairo et al.,
2003)
236
Species
Ctenarytaina
eucalypti
Order: Family
Hemiptera:
Psyllidae
Distribution
AUS (native), BRA
Hosts
Eucalyptus
Pathways
bark
Comments
References
(NZMAF, 2003, Nair, 2007)
Glycaspis
brimblecombei
Hemiptera:
Psyllidae
Eucalyptus
nursery plants
Could also move on bark
(NZMAF, 2003, CABI-FC,
2008)
Quadraspidiotus
perniciosus
Hemiptera:
Sternorrhyncha:
Coccidae
Hardwoods, incl. Aesculus,
Alnus, Betula, Celtis, Fagus,
Fraxinus, Populus
attacks wood, can
also be found on
leaves and fruits
Quarantine pest in different parts
of the world - impacts trade,
when new in a country can
attack and kill whole trees and
plantations
(FAO, 2007c, CABI-FC, 2008)
Leptocybe invasa
Hymenoptera:
Eulophidae
MEX, USA (CA, FL,
HI), CHL, AUS
(native)
CHN (native), (IND),
EUR (central and
eastern), AF, CAN,
USA (CA, HI, NE
states, TN), CAR
(CUB), SAM, AUS,
NZL
AUS (native), IND,
KEN, MAR, TZA,
UGA), NZL
Eucalyptus
foliage, nursery stock
Newly described species
currently spreading around the
Mediterranean Basin and Africa
(FAO, 2007c, EPPO, 2008)
Camponotus
pennsylvanicus
Hymenoptera:
Formicidae
USA, CAN
Hardwoods & conifers, incl.
Carya, Populus tremuloides,
Ulmus; Abies balsamea,
Juniperus, Pinus strobus, P.
rigida, Pseudotsuga menziesii,
Thuja plicata
bark, containers,
sawn wood, untreated
timber, WPM
Sirex noctilio
Hymenoptera:
Siricidae
NZL, AUS, SAM,
ZAF, USA (NY, MI,
PA)
Conifers, incl. Abies, Larix,
Picea, Pinus
poles/piles, sawn
wood, unprocessed
logs, WPM
Tremex fuscicornis
Hymenoptera:
Siricidae
Hymenoptera:
Siricidae
EUR, AS (native),
CHN, AUS
AS, EUR, USA,
CAN, RUS
Hardwoods
Xiphydria
prolongata
Hymenoptera:
Xiphydriidae
EUR (west), RUS,
USA (MI, NJ, OR)
wood and wood
products, WPM
pine logs, sawn
timber, untreated
timber (poles/piles),
WPM
WPM
Bifiditermes
condonensis
Isoptera:
Kalotermitidae
AUS
Eucalyptus
logs
High risk potential for
importation on Eucalyptus logs
(USDA-FS, 2003)
Ceratokalotermes
spoliator
Isoptera:
Kalotermitidae
AUS
Eucalyptus
logs
High risk potential for
importation on Eucalyptus logs
(USDA-FS, 2003)
Cryptotermes
brevis
Isoptera:
Kalotermitidae
USA (FL, HI), CAM,
CAR, AUS
bamboo, bark, sawn
wood, untreated
timber (poles, piles),
wood chips
High risk potential for
importation on Eucalyptus logs
(NZMAF, 2003, USDA-FS,
2003, CABI-FC, 2008)
Cryptotermes
cynocephalus
Isoptera:
Kalotermitidae
AUS, USA (HI), AS
(south & southeast)
Seasoned hardwoods & conifers,
including P. caribaea and
species within Aceraceae,
Fagacae, Oleaceae, Tiliaceae,
Ulmaceae, Cupressaceae, and
Pinaceae
Seasoned hardwoods and
softwoods
logs, poles/piles,
sawn wood
High risk potential for
importation on Eucalyptus logs
Cryptotermes
domesticus
Isoptera:
Kalotermitidae
AUS
Seasoned hardwoods and
softwoods
logs
High risk potential for
importation on Eucalyptus logs
(Scheffrahn et al., 2000,
NZMAF, 2003, USDA-FS,
2003)
(USDA-FS, 2003)
Urocerus gigas
Conifers: Abies, Larix, Picea,
Pinus) - recently cut, fallen or
weakened trees, green timber
(AQIS, 2007)
Vectors fungus Amylostereum
areolatum, which kills trees
(NZMAF, 2003, Hoebeke et
al., 2005, Dodds et al., 2007,
FAO, 2007a, CABI-FC, 2008)
(CABI-FC, 2008)
(NZMAF, 2003, AQIS, 2007)
(Mudge et al., 2001)
237
Species
Cryptotermes
dudleyi
Order: Family
Isoptera:
Kalotermitidae
Distribution
AUS, CAM (NIC)
Hosts
Seasoned hardwoods and
softwoods
Pathways
logs
Glyptotermes
tuberculatus
Isoptera:
Kalotermitidae
AUS
Eucalyptus
logs
Incisitermes minor
Isoptera:
Kalotermitidae
USA, MEX, CAN
Drywood
Kalotermes
banksiae
Isoptera:
Kalotermitidae
AUS
Eucalyptus
bamboo, bark, poles/
piles, sawn wood,
shipping containers,
timber, yachts, wood
chips
logs
Kalotermes
rufinotum
Isoptera:
Kalotermitidae
AUS
Eucalyptus
Neotermes
insularis
Isoptera:
Kalotermitidae
AUS
Mastotermes
darwiniensis
Isoptera:
Mastotermitidae
Coptotermes
acinaciformis
Comments
High risk potential for
importation on Eucalyptus logs ;
introduced into Nicaragua - pest
species on dead wood
High risk potential for
importation on Eucalyptus logs
References
(USDA-FS, 2003, Scheffrahn
et al., 2005)
(USDA-FS, 2003)
(NZMAF, 2003, AQIS, 2007)
High risk potential for
importation on Eucalyptus logs
(USDA-FS, 2003)
logs
High risk potential for
importation on Eucalyptus logs
(USDA-FS, 2003)
Eucalyptus
logs, poles/piles,
sawn wood
High risk potential for
importation on Eucalyptus logs
(NZMAF, 2003, USDA-FS,
2003)
AUS
Eucalyptus, Pinus caribaea
sawn wood,
poles/piles, logs
High risk potential for
importation on Eucalyptus logs
(NZMAF, 2003, USDA-FS,
2003)
Isoptera:
Rhinotermitidae
AUS
Eucalyptus pilularis, Pinus
radiata
logs, poles/piles,
sawn wood
(NZMAF, 2003, USDA-FS,
2003, CABI-FC, 2008)
Coptotermes
crassus
Isoptera:
Rhinotermitidae
MEX, CAM (NIC)
Hardwoods & conifers, incl.
Cedrela odorata, Ceiba
pentandra, Eucalyptus, Gmelina
arborea, Mangifera indica,
Quercus, Swietenia
macrophylla; Pinus maximino,
P. oocarpa
logs, WPM
Attacks living trees; high risk
potential for importation on
Eucalyptus logs
Pest species in Nicaragua; high
risk potential for importation on
Pinus logs
Coptotermes
curvignathus
Isoptera:
Rhinotermitidae
AS (IND, MYS,
THA, VNM) (native)
Hardwoods & conifers, incl.
Cocos nucifera, Ficus elastica,
Gmelina arborea, Mangifera
indica; Pinus caribaea
bamboo, bark, logs,
poles/piles, sawn
wood, wood chips,
WPM
Pest of quarantine concern in
China, New Zealand &
Australia; can attack living trees
(NZMAF, 2003, CABI-FC,
2008)
Coptotermes
formosanus
Isoptera:
Rhinotermitidae
AS, ZAF, USA
(including HI)
50+ spp. of hardwoods &
conifers, incl. Citrus, Quercus;
Cupressus
Attacks living trees
(Lai et al., 1983, NZMAF,
2003, AQIS, 2007)
Coptotermes
frenchi
Isoptera:
Rhinotermitidae
AUS
Eucalyptus
bamboo, bark,
containers, sawn
wood, untreated
timber (poles, piles)
logs, poles/piles,
sawn wood
(NZMAF, 2003, USDA-FS,
2003, CABI-FC, 2008)
Coptotermes
lacteus
Isoptera:
Rhinotermitidae
AUS
Eucalyptus
logs
Attacks living trees; high risk
potential for importation on
Eucalyptus logs
High risk potential for
importation on Eucalyptus logs
Coptotermes
sjostedti
Isoptera:
Rhinotermitidae
AF (native), CAR
(GLP)
Hardwoods, incl. Autranella
congolensis, Entandrophragma
cylindricum, E. utile,
Triplochiton scleroxylon
logs, poles/piles,
sawn wood
Attacks living trees
(NZMAF, 2003, CABI-FC,
2008)
Heterotermes
ferox
Isoptera:
Rhinotermitidae
AUS
Eucalyptus, any hardwood or
softwood
logs, poles/piles,
sawn wood
High risk potential for
importation on Eucalyptus logs
(NZMAF, 2003, USDA-FS,
2003)
(Constantino, 1998, USDA-FS,
1998, Pasek, 2000, Scheffrahn
et al., 2005)
(USDA-FS, 2003)
238
Species
Heterotermes
paradoxus
Order: Family
Isoptera:
Rhinotermitidae
Distribution
AUS
Hosts
Eucalyptus
Pathways
logs, poles/piles,
sawn wood
Comments
High risk potential for
importation on Eucalyptus logs
References
(NZMAF, 2003, USDA-FS,
2003)
Schedorhinotermes
intermedius
Isoptera:
Rhinotermitidae
AUS
Eucalyptus, any hardwood or
softwood
logs
High risk potential for
importation on Eucalyptus logs
(USDA-FS, 2003)
Schedorhinotermes
reticulatus
Isoptera:
Rhinotermitidae
AUS
Eucalyptus
logs
High risk potential for
importation on Eucalyptus logs
(USDA-FS, 2003)
Microcerotermes
spp. (incl. M.
boreus, M.
distinctus, M.
implicatus, M.
nervosus, M.
turneri)
Nasutitermes
costalis
Isoptera:
Termitidae
AUS
Eucalyptus
poles/piles, sawn
wood
High risk potential for
importation on Eucalyptus logs
(NZMAF, 2003, USDA-FS,
2003)
Isoptera:
Termitidae
CAR, GUY (native),
USA (FL)
Gmelina arborea
shipping containers
(Scheffrahn et al., 2002, Nair,
2007)
Nasutitermes
exitiosis
Isoptera:
Termitidae
AUS
Eucalyptus
logs, poles/piles,
sawn wood
On saplings; first termitid
recorded established outside of
its endemic range
High risk potential for
importation on Eucalyptus logs
Porotermes
adamsonii
Isoptera:
Termopsidae
AUS
Hardwoods & conifers, incl.
Araucaria cunninghamii,
Ceratopetalum apetalum,
Eucalyptus, Nothofagus
cunninghamii; Pinus radiata
bark, logs, poles/
piles, sawn wood
Listed as having a high risk
potential for importation on
Eucalyptus logs
(NZMAF, 2003, USDA-FS,
2003)
Chilecomadia
valdiviana
Lepidoptera:
Cossidae
CHL
Eucalyptus, Nothofagus
allisandri
logs
Coryphodema
tristis
Lepidoptera:
Cossidae
ZAF (native)
fruits, roots, timber,
viticulture
Wood-boring insect with a wide
range of hosts (forest trees,
ornamentals, vines), particularly
damaging in Eucalyptus
plantations
(FAO, 2007a, PaDIL, 2008)
Endoxyla cinereus
Lepidoptera:
Cossidae
AUS
Hardwoods, incl. Eucalyptus and
species within Combretaceae,
Malvaceae, Myoporaceae,
Myrtaceae, Rosaceae,
Scorphulariaceae, Ulmaceae,
Vitaceae
Eucalyptus
logs
High risk potential for
importation on Eucalyptus logs
(USDA-FS, 2003)
Endoxyla spp.
Lepidoptera:
Cossidae
AUS
Eucalyptus
logs
High risk potential for
importation on Eucalyptus logs
(USDA-FS, 2003)
Xyleutes
ceramicus
Lepidoptera:
Cossidae
AS
Callicarpa, Clerodendrum,
Duabanga, Gmelina, Erythrina,
Tectona grandis, Sesbania,
Spathodea, Vitex parviflora
bark, poles/piles,
sawn wood
Considered "teak's worst and
least understood pest" - bores
into the heartwood of teak where
it causes significant damage
(NZMAF, 2003, FAO, 2007d,
Nair, 2007, CABI-FC, 2008)
Zeuzera coffeae
Lepidoptera:
Cossidae
AS (THA) (native)
Larvae tunnel into the heartwood
of living trees - degrade value of
timber
(FAO, 2007d)
Abantiades
latipennis
Lepidoptera:
Hepialidae
AUS
Hardwoods, incl. Acalypha,
Casuarina, Citrus, Coffea,
Crataegus, Eucalyptus, Psidium,
Terminalia, Theobroma,
Eucalyptus
bark, logs, poles/
piles, sawn wood
High risk potential for
importation on Eucalyptus logs
(NZMAF, 2003, USDA-FS,
2003)
Aenetus eximius
Lepidoptera:
Hepialidae
AUS
Eucalyptus
logs
High risk potential for
importation on Eucalyptus logs
(USDA-FS, 2003)
(NZMAF, 2003, USDA-FS,
2003)
(Tkacz, 2001, CABI-FC, 2008)
239
Species
Aenetus ligniveren
Order: Family
Lepidoptera:
Hepialidae
Distribution
AUS
Hosts
Hardwoods, incl. Acacia,
Eucalyptus, Leptospermum,
Malus pumila, Melaleuca,
Rubus idaeus, Ulmus
Pathways
logs
Comments
High risk potential for
importation on Eucalyptus logs
References
(USDA-FS, 2003)
Aenetus
paradiseus
Lepidoptera:
Hepialidae
AUS
Eucalyptus
bark, logs, poles/
piles, sawn wood
High risk potential for
importation on Eucalyptus logs
(NZMAF, 2003, USDA-FS,
2003)
Dendrolimus pini
Lepidoptera:
Lasiocampidae
AS, EUR, AF (MAR)
Cedrus deodora, Picea, Pinus
females lay eggs on
bark, logs
Dendrolimus
punctatus
Lepidoptera:
Lasiocampidae
CHN (native)
material infested with
egg masses
Major pest in pine plantations in
central and southern China
(FAO, 2007b)
Dendrolimus
sibiricus
Lepidoptera:
Lasiocampidae
CHN (native)
Conifers: Pinus (incl. P.
massoniana, P. radiata, P.
taeda)
Conifers, incl. Abies, Larix,
Pinus, Picea, Tsuga
forest products,
nursery stock
Is able to attack and kill healthy
trees across wide areas
(FAO, 2007b)
Dendrolimus
tabulaeformis
Lepidoptera:
Lasiocampidae
CHN (native)
Pinus
forest products,
nursery stock
Causes significant defoliation of
both natural and planted forests
(FAO, 2007b)
Lymantria dispar
Lepidoptera:
Lymantriidae
CHN (native), RUS
(east), KOR, JPN,
USA
Foliage of 600 plant species,
(hardwood & conifer) incl.
Betula, Eucalyptus, Populus,
Salix, Quercus, Ulmus; Larix,
Pinus;urban ornamental plants
containers,
conveyances, egg
masses on forest
products, nursery
stock
Destructive defoliator of a wide
range of broadleaf trees; serious
forest pest in China
(AQIS, 2007, FAO, 2007b)
Lymantria
mathura
Lepidoptera:
Lymantriidae
IND (native), AS,
RUS
bark, foliage, nursery
stock, untreated
wood, treated wood,
WPM
Serious defoliator in its native
range; intercepted in USA
(CABI-FC, 2008)
Lymantria
monacha
Lepidoptera:
Lymantriidae
EUR, RUS (east)
Lymantria
obfuscata
Lepidoptera:
Lymantriidae
AS (IND, PAK)
(native)
Orgyia thyellina
Lepidoptera:
Lymantriidae
CHN, KOR, JPN,
RUS (east), THA
Hardwoods, incl. Mangifera
indica, Quercus, Shorea
robusta, additional hosts within
Fagaceae, Salicaceae, Rosaceae,
Betulaceae, Juglandacear, and
Oleaceae
Hardwoods & conifers, incl.
Acer, Ficus, Quercus, Ulmus;
Larix
Hardwoods, incl. Alnus,
Cydomia, Juglans, Morus,
Populus, Prunus, Pyrus,
Quercus, Robinia, Rosa, Salix,
Theobroma
Many - urban/forest
Uraba lugens
AUS
Eucalyptus delegatensis
Conogethes
punctiferalis
Lepidoptera:
Noctuidae
Lepidoptera:
Pyralidae
AS (CHN) (native)
Hardwoods & conifers, incl.
Castanea, Durio, Macadamia,
Prunus; Pinus
Dioryctria
horneana
Lepidoptera:
Pyralidae
CAR (CUB)
Pinus caribaea
Hypsipyla
grandella
Lepidoptera:
Pyralidae
USA (FL), CAM,
CAR, MUS
Carapa, Cedrela, Juniperus,
Swietenia, Tabebuia
cargo, forest
products, shipping
containers, ships
bark, logs with bark
cargo, forest
products, shipping
containers, ships
bark, poles/piles,
sawn wood
infested plants, seeds,
or fruit
?
(Bugwood, 2008, CABI-FC,
2008)
(AQIS, 2007)
Major pest of forest and fruit
trees in India; trees may be
killed if they are defoliated for
more than one year; intercepted
in Europe
(FAO, 2007c, CABI-FC, 2008)
(AQIS, 2007)
Causes significant damage to
stems, fruits and seeds of host
plants; in China, contributed to
the loss of 25% of chestnut
crops
Shoot moths are a problem in
Latin America
Main pest of Swietenia and
Cedrela in the New World
(NZMAF, 2003, CABI-FC,
2008)
(FAO, 2007b)
(Nair, 2007)
(CATIE, 1992, FAO, 2007e)
240
Species
Hypsipyla robusta
Order: Family
Lepidoptera:
Pyralidae
Distribution
AS (south &
southeast), AUS, AF
(west & east), MUS
Hosts
Cedrella, Khaya, Swietenia,
Tectona grandis, Toona ciliata
Pathways
?
Didymuria
violescens
Phasmatodea:
Phasmatidae
AUS
Eucalyptus
bark, poles/piles,
sawn wood
Acari:
Tenuipalpidae
IND (native), CAR
Palms, orchids, ornamentals,
bananas
natural spread, palm
handicrafts, people
Ascomycetes:
Nectriaceae
EUR
Eucalyptus grandis, Gaultheria
shallon, Laurus nobilis
AUS
Corymbia, Eucalyptus
AUS
logs
AUS
Corymbia calophylla,
Eucalyptus
Corymbia maculata, Eucalyptus
AS (IND) (native)
Ochlandra
reed bamboo
Chrysoporthe
austroafricana
Agaricales:
Cortinariaceae
Agaricales:
Fistulinaceae
Agaricales:
Marasmiaceae
Ascomycota:
Clavicipitaceae
Ascomycota:
Cryphonectriaceae
bark, poles/piles,
sawn wood, wood
chips
logs
ZAF
Eucalyptus, Syzygium,
Tibouchina
bark, roots, stems,
wood
Subramanianospor
a vesiculosa
Ascomycota:
Incertae sedis
IND (native), IDN,
MUS, THA, VNM
Casuarina equisetifolia
timber, WPM
Armillaria fuscipes
Basidiomycota:
Marasmiaceae
ZAF (native)
Hardwoods & conifers:
Eucalyptus & Pinus
bark, roots, stems,
wood
Trichosporum
vesiculosum
Capnodiales:
Casuarinaceae
bark, nursery stock,
WPM
Cryphonectria
eucalypti
Mycosphaerella
juvensis
Corymbia, Eucalyptus
logs
AF (KEN, ZAF,
TZA, GMB)
Eucalyptus
bark, nursery stock,
seeds
Botryosphaeria
ribis
Diaporthales:
Valsaceae
Dothideales:
Mycosphaerellaceae
Dothidiales:
Botryospheriaceae
AS (IND, LKA,
MUS, IDN, VNM,
THA), AF (KEN)
AUS
AUS, USA (FL,
other Gulf States),
CAR (CUB, TTO,
BRB)
logs
Phacidium
coniferarum
Helotiales:
Phacidiaceae
Hardwoods & conifers (100+
genera), incl. Cersis, Citrus,
Cornus, Corymbia, Eucalyptus,
Liquidambar, Malus, Platanus,
Prunus, Tilia, Ulmus; Pinus
Cedrus deodora
MITES
Raoiella indica
FUNGI
Calonectria
ilicicola
Gymnopilus
junonius
Fistulina
spiculifera
Omphalotus
nidiformis
Balansia linearis
EUR, CAN, USA
(MA, OR, WA),
CAM (HON, NIC),
logs
bark, poles/piles,
sawn wood, wood
chips
Comments
Saplings are most susceptible to
attack; mahogany shoot borers
are the main hindrance to the
expansion of mahogany
throughout the tropics
Periodic outbreaks occur in
Australia, resulting in defoliation
of entire patches or hillsides
Introduced into the Caribbean
islands - threat to Greater
Caribbean Region
References
(FAO, 2007e, Nair, 2007)
(NZMAF, 2003, FAO-RAP,
2005, CABI-FC, 2008)
(ISSG, 2008)
(NZMAF, 2003, CABI-FC,
2008)
High risk potential for
importation on Eucalyptus logs
High risk potential for
importation on Eucalyptus logs
High risk potential for
importation on Eucalyptus logs
Poses a threat to the reed
bamboo industry
Causes one of the most
important diseases of Eucalyptus
planted in tropical and
subtropical regions worldwide
Infected trees are ultimately
killed; most destructive disease
of C. equisitifolia in India
A problem in Pinus and
Eucalyptus plantations in native
range
(USDA-FS, 2003)
(USDA-FS, 2003)
(USDA-FS, 2003)
(FAO, 2007c)
(FAO, 2007a, CABI-FC, 2008)
(FAO, 2007c, e)
(FAO, 2007a, CABI-FC, 2008)
(AQIS, 2007)
High risk potential for
importation on Eucalyptus logs
(USDA-FS, 2003)
(AQIS, 2007)
Causal agent for botryosphaeria
rot (bot rot or white rot); high
risk potential for importation on
Eucalyptus logs
(USDA-FS, 2003, Farr et al.,
2006)
(NZMAF, 2003, CABI-FC,
2008)
241
Species
Order: Family
Distribution
NZL
Hosts
Pathways
Comments
References
Inonotus albertinii
Hymenochaetales:
Hymenochaetaceae
Hymenochaetales:
Hymenochaetaceae
Hymenochaetales:
Hymenochaetaceae
Hymenochaetales:
Hymenochaetaceae
Hymenochaetales:
Hymenochaetaceae
AUS
Eucalyptus obliqua
logs
High risk potential for
importation on Eucalyptus logs
(USDA-FS, 2003)
AUS
Eucalyptus saligna
logs
High risk potential for
importation on Eucalyptus logs
(USDA-FS, 2003)
AUS
Eucalyptus
logs
High risk potential for
importation on Eucalyptus logs
(USDA-FS, 2003)
AUS
Corymbia calophylla,
Eucalyptus
logs
High risk potential for
importation on Eucalyptus logs
(USDA-FS, 2003)
AS, AF, OCE, CAM
(CRI), CAR (CUB,
PRI), AUS
bark, branches, logs,
poles/piles, sawn
wood, wood chips
High risk potential for
importation on Eucalyptus logs
(NZMAF, 2003, USDA-FS,
2003, CABI-FC, 2008)
Phellinus spp.
(incl. P. rimosus,
P. robustus, P.
wahlbergii)
Sarocladium
oryzae
Hymenochaetales:
Hymenochaetaceae
AUS
Hardwoods, incl. Camellia,
Coffea, Cordia alliodora,
Corymbia, Liquidambar
formosana, Tectona grandis,
Theobroma cacao, and others
Broad host range, incl.
Eucalyptus
logs
High risk potential for
importation on Eucalyptus logs
(USDA-FS, 2003)
Hypocreales:
Bambusa
bamboo
(NZMAF, 2003, CABI-FC,
2008)
Fusarium
circinatum
Hypocreales:
Nectriaceae
Pinus, Pseudotsuga
bark, lumber, nursery
stock, seeds, WPM
(AQIS, 2007)
Fusarium solani f.
dalbergiae
Hypocreales:
Nectriaceae
AS, AF, MEX, USA
(LA), SAM (ARG,
BRA, VEN), AUS
USA, MEX, ZAF,
CAR (HTI), AS
(JPN)
AS (IND) (native)
Hardwoods: Dalbergia sissoo
bark, stems, wood
Ceratocystis
albifundus
Microascales:
Ceratocystidaceae
ZAF (native)
bark, logs, roots,
WPM
Ceratocystis
fagacearum
Microascales:
Ceratocystidaceae
USA: mid-West,
Appalachians, TX
(not other Gulf
States)
Hardwoods, incl. Acacia,
Burkea, Combretum, Faurea,
Ochna, Ozoroa, Protea,
Terminalia
Castanea, Prunus, Quercus
Ceratocystis
eucalypti
Microascales:
Ceratocystidiaceae
AUS
Eucalyptus
logs
Ceratocystis
moniliformis
Ceratocystis
moniliformopsis
Leptographium
lundbergii
Ophiostoma
pluriannulatum
Microascales:
Ceratocystidiaceae
Microascales:
Ceratocystidiaceae
Microascales:
Ceratocystidiaceae
Ophiostomatales:
Ophiostomataceae
AUS
Eucalyptus
logs
AUS
Eucalyptus obliqua
logs
AUS
Eucalyptus, Nothofagus
cunninghamii
Eucalyptus
logs
Inonotus
chondromyeluis
Inonotus rheades
Phellinus gilvus
Phellinus noxius
AUS
firewood, natural
spread (with bark
beetles)
logs
F. solani is a serious pathogen
and can cause 60-80% losses in
D. sissoo stands
Serious wilt disease of
introduced and native trees in
South Africa - infects and kills
trees of all ages
Vectored by
Pseudopityophihorus spp.;
vectored by Colopterus
truncatus - native to the
Americas
High risk potential for
importation on Eucalyptus logs
High risk potential for
importation on Eucalyptus logs
High risk potential for
importation on Eucalyptus logs
High risk potential for
importation on Eucalyptus logs
High risk potential for
importation on Eucalyptus logs
(FAO, 2007c, CABI-FC, 2008,
ISSG, 2008)
(FAO, 2007a, CABI-FC, 2008)
(Rexrode and Brown, 1983,
Aldrich et al., 2003, USDA-FS,
2006a, Worrall, 2007, Juzwik
et al., 2008)
(USDA-FS, 2003)
(USDA-FS, 2003)
(USDA-FS, 2003)
(USDA-FS, 2003)
(USDA-FS, 2003)
242
Species
Ophiostoma
wageneri
Order: Family
Ophiostomatales:
Ophiostomataceae
Hosts
Abies, Picea, Pinus,
Pseudotsuga menzesii, Tsuga
Pathways
bark, insect vectors,
lumber, WPM
Setosphaeria
rostrata
Pleosporales:
Pleosporaceae
bamboo
logs
High risk potential for
importation on Eucalyptus logs
(USDA-FS, 2003, Farr et al.,
2006)
AUS
Polyphagous, incl. Bambusa,
Cocos nucifera, Eucalyptus
tereticornis, Mangifera indica,
Psidium guajava, Poaceae
Hardwoods & conifers:
Corymbia citriodora,
Eucalyptus; Pinaceae and many
other tree hosts
Eucalyptus
Ganoderma
lucidum
Polyporales:
Ganodermataceae
AUS, USA (FL, LA,
MS), CAR (PRI,
TTO)
Perenniporia
medulla-panis
Polyporales:
Polyporaceae
logs
High risk potential for
importation on Eucalyptus logs
(USDA-FS, 2003)
Piptiporus
australiensis
Piptiporus
potetntosus
Phytothphora
ramorum
Polyporales:
Polyporaceae
Polyporales:
Polyporaceae
Pythiales:
Pythiaceae
AUS
Corymbia fastigata, Eucalyptus
logs
(USDA-FS, 2003)
AUS
Eucalyptus
logs
EUR (west and
central), CAN, USA
(CA, OR, WA)
Heterobasidion
annosum
Russulales:
Bondarzewiaceae
USA, CAN, AS
(IND, CHN), EUR
bark, conveyances
(anything with soil),
foliage, logs, potting
media (with plants),
stems, wood, WPM
(with or without
bark)
bark, insect vectors,
lumber, WPM
Stereum hirsutum
Russulales:
Stereaceae
Uredinales:
Chaconiaceae
AUS
50 plant species, incl. Acer,
Aesculus, Arbutus,
Arcostaphylos, Camellia,
Corylus, Hamamelis,
Lithocarpus, Quercus,
Rhododendron, Sambucus,
Taxus, Vaccinium, Viburnum
Hardwoods & conifers, incl.
Alnus, Betula, Crataegus; Abies,
Cedrus, Juniperus, Larix, Pinus,
Picea
Eucalyptus
High risk potential for
importation on Eucalyptus logs
High risk potential for
importation on Eucalyptus logs
Destroying forests in 3 western
U.S. states (CA, OR, WA)
AS (native), MEX,
CAM, USA (CA)
Tectona grandis (Lamiaceae)
Puccinia psidii
Uredinales:
Pucciniaceae
CAM, SAM, CAR,
USA (FL), THA
Eucalyptus and other Myrtaceae
bark, lumber, nursery
stock, seeds, WPM
(AQIS, 2007)
Endocronartium
harknessii
Endocronartium
pini
Urediniomycetes:
Cronartiaceae
Urediniomycetes:
Cronartiaceae
CAN, USA, MEX
Pinus
(AQIS, 2007)
AS, EUR
Pinus (including P. sylvestris)
lumber, nursery
stock, seeds, WPM
bark, poles/piles,
sawn wood, wood
chips
Ustilago shiraiana
Ustilaginales:
Ustilaginaceae
AS, EUR, USA (CA,
FL, LA, MD, MS,
TX)
Bambusa, Nypa fruticans,
Phyllostachys
bamboo
Tylenchida:
Aphelenchoididae
USA, CAN (native),
AS (JPN, CHN,
KOR, THA), EUR
(POR)
Conifers, incl. Abies, Larix,
Picea, Pinus, Pseudotsuga
menzesii
bark, lumber, nursery
stock, wood chips,
WPM
Uredo tectonae
NEMATODES
Bursaphelenchus
xylophilus
Distribution
USA
(southwest/west),
CAN (west)
AS, AF, USA (FL,
MS, TX), BRA
logs
Comments
References
(AQIS, 2007)
(NZMAF, 2003, CABI-FC,
2008)
(USDA-FS, 2003)
(CABI-FC, 2008)
(Farr et al., 2006, AQIS, 2007)
High risk potential for
importation on Eucalyptus logs
Parasitic disease of teak -- may
cause serious losses in nursery
production
Mainly windborne but also
vectored by insects (e.g., genera
include Pissodes, Dioryctria,
Laspeyresia, Lagria, Dioryctria)
(USDA-FS, 2003)
(Nair, 2007, Tkacz et al., 2007)
(NZMAF, 2003, CABI-FC,
2008)
(NZMAF, 2003, CABI-FC,
2008)
Causal agent of pine wilt disease
- has reached epidemic
proportions in Japan; vectored
by longhorned beetles in the
genus Monochamus
(Magnusson et al., 2001,
NZMAF, 2003, AQIS, 2007,
FAO, 2007b)
243
Country codes: ARG-Argentina; AUS-Australia; AUT-Austria; BGD-Bangladesh; BRB-Barbados; BEL-Belgium; BLZ-Belize; BMU-Bermuda; BRA-Brazil; BUR-Burma; CANCanada; CHL-Chile; CHN-China; CRI-Costa Rica; CUB-Cuba; CZE-Czech Republic; DEU-Germany; DMA-Dominica; DOM-Dominican Republic; ESP-Spain; EST-Estonia;
FJI-Fiji; FIN-Finland; FRA-France; GBR-United Kingdom; GLP-Guadeloupe; GMB-Gambia; GRD-Grenada; GUY-Guyana; HND-Honduras; IND-India; IRN-Iran; IRQ-Iraq;
ITA-Italy; JAM-Jamaica; JPN-Japan; KAZ-Kazakhstan; KEN-Kenya; KIR-Kiribati; KOR-Korea; LKA-Sri Lanka; LVA-Latvia; LTU-Lithuania; MAR-Morocco; MDGMadagascar; MEX-Mexico; MMR-Myanmar; MTQ-Martinique; MUS-Mauritius; MYS-Malaysia; NCL-New Caledonia; NDL-Netherlands; NIC-Nicaragua; NPL-Nepal; NZLNew Zealand; PAN-Panama; PAK-Pakistan; PER-Peru; PHL-Philippines; PNG-Papua New Guinea; POL-Poland; PRI-Puerto Rico; PRT-Portugal; RUS-Russia; SAU-Saudi
Arabia; SLB-Solomon Islands; SLV-El Salvador; THA-Thailand; TTO-Trinidad and Tobago; TUN-Tunisia; TUR-Turkey; TWN-Taiwan; TZA-Tanzania; UKR-Ukraine; URYUruguay; USA-United States; VEN-Venezuela; VIR-Virgin Islands (U.S.); VNM-Viet Nam; WAM-Samoa; ZAF-South Africa. U.S. States: AK-Alaska; AR-Arkansas; CACalifornia; CO-Colorado; CT-Connecticut; DE-Delaware; FL-Florida; GA-Georgia; IL-Illinois; IN-Indiana; KS-Kansas; LA-Louisiana; MA-Maine; MD-Maryland; ME-Maine;
MI-Michigan; MO-Missouri; NC-North Carolina; NE-Nebraska; NH-New Hampshire; NJ-New Jersey; NY-New York; OH-Ohio; OK-Oklahoma; OR-Oregon; PA-Pennsylvania;
SC-South Carolina; SD-South Dakota; TN-Tennessee; TX-Texas; VA-Virginia; WA-Washington; WI-Wisconsin; WV-West Virginia.
244
Literature Cited
AFC. 2007. Alabama's Best Management Practices for Forestry. Alabama Forestry Commission.
Agrios, G. N. 2005. Plant Pathology, fifth edition. Elsevier Academic Press, Boston.
Ahamed, S. N., N. Syathyanarayana, S. C. Bansal, and M. Kumarasamy. 2005. Interception of red-haired
bark beetle, Hylurgus ligniperda on Pinus radiata logs imported from Costa Rica [Abstract].
Indian Journal of Plant Protection 33: 288-289.
Aircraft Charter World. 1998. Airports Worldwide. Air Broker Center, Stockholm, Sweden.
Airports Authority of Jamaica. 2008. Airport statistics (Available at:
http://www.aaj.com.jm/statistics/index.php).
Alabama State Port Authority. 2008. Port statistics (Available at: http://www.asdd.com).
Aldrich, J., R. J. Bartelt, J. C. Dickens, A. L. Knight, D. M. Light, and J. H. Tumlinson. 2003. Insect
chemical ecology research in the United States Department of Agriculture - Agricultural Research
Service. Pest Management Science 59: 777-787.
Allen, C. R., D. M. Epperson, and A. S. Garmestani. 2004. Red imported fire ant impacts on wildlife: A
decade of research. American Midland Naturalist 152: 88-103.
Allen, E. A., and L. M. Humble. 2002. Non-indigenous species introductions: A threat to Canada's forests
and forest economy. Canadian Journal of Plant Pathology 24: 103-110.
Alonso-Zarazaga, M. A. 2004. Xylechinus pilosus (Ratzeburg 1837), Fauna Europaea, vers. 1.3.
Anonymous. 2007. Yahoo! Answers: How long does the temperature of the hold get when unheated in
aircraft (Airline pilot “Answerer 8” and “Answerer 11”)?
Anonymous. 2008a. Air cargo (Available at:
http://www.inamarmarine.com/pdf/LossControl/Air%20Cargo.pdf).
Anonymous. 2008b. Haiti's tourism dreams deferred by riots (Available at:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TRAVEL/06/02/haiti.tourism.setback.ap/index.html), CNN Travel.
APFISN. 2008. Coconut leaf beetle (Brontia longissima). Asia-Pacific Forest Invasive Species Network,
United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization.
Apgar, S. 2007. Red palm mite poses threat to $3 billion nursery industry (Available at:
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/state/orl-palmmites2807dec28,0,5488031.story),
Orlando Sentinel.
245
AQIS. 2007. Forest and timber: A field guide to exotic pests and diseases. Australian Quarantine and
Inspection Service, National Office of Animal and Plant Health, Ministerial Council on Forestry,
Fisheries, and Aquaculture - Standing Committee on Forestry.
Aruba Ports Authority. 2008. (Available at: http://www.arubaports.com).
Atkinson, T. H., and S. B. Peck. 1994. Annotated checklist of the bark and ambrosia beetles (Coleoptera:
Platypodidae and Scolytidae) of tropical southern Florida. Florida Entomologist 77: 313-329.
Ball, J. B., D. Pandey, and S. Hirai. 1999. Global overview of teak plantations, Regional Seminar Site,
Technology and Productivity of Teak Plantations, Chiang Mai, Thailand.
Basio, R. G., M. J. Prudencio, and I. E. Chanco. 1970. Notes on the aerial transportation of mosquitoes
and other insects at the Manila International Airport. Philippine Entomologist 1: 407-408.
Baskin, Y. 2002. The greening of horticulture: New codes of conduct aim to curb plant invasions.
Bioscience 52: 464-471.
Ben-Dov, Y., and C. J. Hodgson. 1997. Soft scale insects: Their biology, natural enemies, and control.
Volume 7A. Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Ben-Dov, Y., D. R. Miller, and G. A. P. Gibson. 2006. ScaleNet (Available at:
http://198.77.169.79/scalenet/scalenet.htm). USDA-ARS Systematic Entomology Laboratory.
Benoit, C. 2008. E-mail: Garbage as potential pathway. Received by H. Meissner (USDA, APHIS, PPQ).
Bertone, C., and W. Gutierrez. 2008. Trip report: Site visit to Trinidad March 11-13. Site visit conducted
by C. Bertone and W. Guitierrez, United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service.
Bertone, C., and H. Meissner. 2008a. Trip report: Site visit to Puerto Rico February 12-15, 2008. Site visit
conducted by C. Bertone and H. Meissner, United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service.
Bertone, C., and H. Meissner. 2008b. Trip report: Site visit to Costa Rica January 14-19, 2008. Site visit
conducted by C. Bertone and H. Meissner, United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service.
Bertrand, I. 2007. Caribbean Air Transportation Report, pp. 34. In M. Andrew [ed.], Research and
Development Component, provided to the Caribbean Tourism Organization. PA Consulting
Group.
BEST. 2003. The National Invasive Species Strategy for the Bahamas. The Bahamas Environment,
Science, and Technology (BEST) Commission.
246
BGCI. 2000. Conservation conclusions from the 1st World Botanic Gardens Congress. Botanic Gardens
Conservation International, Asheville, NC.
Binggeli, P., J. B. Hall, and J. R. Healey. 1998. An overview of invasive woody plants in the tropics.
School of Agricultural and Forest Sciences University of Wales, Bangor.
Blair, M., M. J. Bassett, A. M. Abouzid, E. Hiebert, J. E. Polston, R. T. McMillan, W. Graves, and M.
Lamberts. 1995. Occurrence of bean golden mosaic virus in Florida. Plant Disease 79: 529-533.
Blundell, A. G., F. N. Scatena, R. Wentsel, and W. Sommers. 2003. Ecorisk assessment using indicators
of sustainability - Invasive species in the Caribbean National Forest of Puerto Rico. Journal of
Forestry 101: 14-19.
Boerne, G. 1999. Filling the gap: small inter-island Caribbean trading ships and their crew, pp. 87.
Seafarers International Research Centre (SIRC), Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
Bonaire International Airport. 2008. Airport statistics (Available at:
http://www.flamingoairport.com/statistics.asp).
Bright, D. E. 1985. Studies on West Indian Scolytidae (Coleoptera) 3. Checklist of Scolytidae of the West
Indies, with descriptions of new species and taxonomic notes. Entomologische Arbeiten aus dem
Museum G Frey 33/34: 169-187.
Bright, D. E., and R. E. Skidmore. 1997. A Catalog of Scolytidae and Platypodidae (Coleoptera),
Supplement 1 (1990-1994). NRC Research Press, Ontario, Canada.
Bright, D. E., and J. A. Torres. 2006. Studies on West Indian Scolytidae (Coleoptera) 4: A review of the
Scolytidae of Puerto Rico, U.S.A. with descriptions of one new genus, fourteen new species, and
notes on new synonymy (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). Koleopterologische Rundschau 76: 389-428.
Brockerhoff, E. G., M. Knizek, and J. Bain. 2003. Checklist of indigenous and adventive bark and
ambrosia beetles (Curculionidae: Scolytinae and Platypodinae) of New Zealand and interceptions
of exotic species (1952-2000). New Zealand Entomologist 26: 29-44.
Brockerhoff, E. G., J. Bain, M. Kimberley, and M. Knizek. 2006. Interception frequency of exotic bark
and ambrosia beetles (Coleoptera: Scolytinae) and relationship with establishment in New Zealand
and worldwide. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 36: 289-298.
Brodel, C. 2003. Major threats to the U.S. ornamentals industry (unpublished). United States Department
of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine.
Brunt, A., K. Crabtree, and A. Gibbs. 1990. Viruses of tropical plants. CAB International, Wallingford,
Oxon OX10 8DE, UK.
Brussell, D. E. 2004. A medicinal plant collection from Montserrat, West Indies. Economic Botany 58:
S203-S220.
247
Bugwood. 1998. Special report: Asian longhorned beetle (Available at:
http://counties.cce.cornell.edu/wyoming/agriculture/resources/ipd/longhorn_beetle.htm).
Bugwood. 2008. The Atlas of Forest Pests (Available at: http://www.forestpests.org). Bugwood Network,
The University of Georgia - Warnell School of Forest Resources and College of Agricultural and
Environmental Sciences - Department of Entomology.
Bullock, S. H., and R. B. Primack. 1977. Comparative experimental study of seed dispersal on animals.
Ecology 58: 681-686.
Burt, J. W., A. A. Muir, J. Piovia-Scott, K. E. Veblen, A. L. Chang, J. D. Grossman, and H. W. Weiskel.
2007. Preventing horticultural introductions of invasive plants: Potential efficacy of voluntary
initiatives. Biological Invasions.
Bush, R. J., J. J. Bejune, B. G. Hansen, and P. A. Araman. 2002. Trends in the use of materials for pallets
and other factors affecting the demand for hardwood products, 30th Hardwood Symposium.
Bush, R. J., V. S. Reddy, M. S. Bumgardner, J. L. Chamberlain, and P. A. Araman. 1997. Recycling in
the U.S. pallet industry: 1995. Center for Forest Products Marketing and Management,
Department of Wood Science and Forest Products, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University, Blacksburg, VA.
CAB. 1985. Stromatium barbatum (Fabricius), Distribution Maps of Pests, Series A (Agricultural).
Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux, London.
CABI-FC. 2008. Forestry Compendium (available at: http://www.cabicompendium.org/FC/home.asp).
Centre for Agricultural Bioscience International.
CABI. 2007. Crop Protection Compendium (Available at: http://www.cabicompendium.org/cpc/),
Wallingford, U.K.
CABI. 2008. Media release June 23, 2008: Cocoa pest poses international threat.
Callahan, J. 2003. Chrysanthemum white rust. University of Massachusetts, Department of Plant, Soil,
and Insect Science, Amherst.
Caniz, L. 2008. Email: Land border information request (Caribbean Pathway Analysis). Received by K.
A. Schwartzburg, United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine.
Caribbean National Weekly News. 2007. Coffee industry under threat.
Caribbean Risk Assessment Group. 2008. Joint Maritime Operation Presentation.
248
Carlsson, N. O. L., C. Bronmark, and L. A. Hansson. 2004. Invading herbivory: The golden apple snail
alters ecosystem functioning in Asian wetlands. Ecology 85: 1575-1580.
Carnegie, A. J., M. Matsuki, D. A. Haugen, B. P. Hurley, R. Ahumada, P. Klasmer, J. Sun, and E. T. Iede.
2006. Predicting the potential distribution of Sirex noctilio (Hymenoptera: Siricidae), a significant
exotic pest of Pinus plantations. Annals of Forest Science 63: 119-128.
CATIE. 1992. Forest pests in Central America. Tropical Agriculture Research and Training Center,
Turrialba, Costa Rica.
Caton, B. 2003a. Risk-based management of the cut flower pathway: Assessment of the 2001 pilot
program in Miami and of pest risks posed by cut flowers at Miami. USDA-APHIS-PPQ, Center
for Plant Health Science and Technology, Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory,
Raleigh, NC.
Caton, B. 2003b. Quantitative analysis of insect pest risks from the international cargo aircraft pathway to
Miami, pp. 43 pp. USDA-APHIS-PPQ, Center for Plant Health Science and Technology, Plant
Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory, Raleigh, NC.
Caton, B. 2003c. Risk-based management of the cut flower pathway: Background and potential risks in
the pathway to the Port of Miami, pp. 31. USDA-APHIS-PPQ, Center for Plant Health Science
and Technology, Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory, Raleigh, NC.
Caton, B. 2003d. Risk-based management of the cut flower pathway: Assessment of pest risks posed by
additional cut flowers at Miami. USDA-APHIS-PPQ, Center for Plant Health Science and
Technology, Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory, Raleigh, NC.
Caton, B. 2003e. Risk-based management of the cut flower pathway: Assessment of pest risks posed by
Dianthus from Colombia at Miami, pp. 5. USDA-APHIS-PPQ, Center for Plant Health Science
and Technology, Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory, Raleigh, NC.
Caviedes, C. N. 1991. Five hundred years of hurricanes in the Caribbean: Their relationship with global
climatic variabilities. GeoJournal 23: 301-310.
Cayman Islands Economics and Statistics Office. 2007. (Available at: http://www.eso.ky).
Cayman Islands Port Authority. 2008. Port statistics (Available at: www.caymanport.com).
CBP. 2005. U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers' interception of illegal citrus cuttings becomes
first conviction in violation of the Plant Protection Act of 2000 (Available at:
http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/newsroom/news_releases/archives/2005_press_releases/092005/090
92005_3.xml).
CBP. 2006. Securing America's borders at ports of entry: Office of Field Operations strategic plan
overview FY 2007-2011, pp. 16. United States Department of Homeland Security, Customs and
Border Protection.
249
CBP. 2007. Mollusks on ceramic tiles. United States Department of Homeland Security, Customs and
Border Protection.
CBP, and SITC. 2008. Packaged poultry operation at the International Mail Facility in Secaucus, New
Jersey, 2007 and 2008. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and United States Department of
Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine,
Smuggling Interdiction and Trade Compliance (SITC).
CCAA. 2007. Caribbean region profile 2007: Uniting the third border. Caribbean-Central American
Action.
CDC. 2007. Traveler's health. Center for Disease Control. (Available at:
http://www2.ncid.cdc.gov/travel/yb/utils/ybGet.asp?section=transportation&obj=sprayair.htm).
CEPAL. 2007. Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL), Maritime profile of Latin
America and the Caribbean (Available at: http://www.eclac.cl/transporte/perfil/).
CEPAL/ECLAC. 2001. International trade and maritime transport in the Caribbean (FAL Bulletin No.
173, Available at: http://www.eclac.cl). Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe
(CEPAL) and Economic and Social Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC).
Chase, H. 1996. A road sign of good times: Sint Maarten/Saint Martin - Travel (Available at:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1546/is_n6_v11/ai_19121831), American Visions.
Cherepanov, A. I. 1988. Cerambycidae of Northern Asia. Oxonian Press, New Delhi.
Childers, C., and J. Rodrigues. 2005. Potential mite species collected on ornamental plants from Central
America at port of entry to the United States. The Florida Entomologist 88: 408-414.
CIA. 2008. The World Factbook (Available at: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-worldfactbook/index.html). Central Intelligence Agency.
Ciesla, W. M. 1992. Introduction of bark beetles and wood borers into China in coniferous logs from
North America. FAO Plant Protection Bulletin 40: 154.
Clarke, J. W., M. S. White, and P. A. Araman. 2001. Performance of pallet parts recovered from used
wood pallets. Forest Products Journal 51: 1-8.
Claudi, R. 2002. Environmental and Economic Costs of Alien Invasive Species in Canada. Picton, ON:
RNT Consulting Inc.
Close, R. C., N. T. Mora, A. I. Tomlinson, and A. D. Lowe. 1978. Aerial dispersal of biological material
from Australia to New Zealand. International Journal of Biometeorology 22: 1-19.
250
COCATRAM. 2007. Comisión Centroamericana de Transporte Marítimo (Available at:
http://www.cocatram.org.ni/).
Cochran, W. G. 1977. Sampling Techniques. Wiley, New York.
Cognato, A. 2004. Euwallacea validus (Eichhoff) 1875 (Xyleborus). Holistic Insect Systematics
Laboratory. Department of Entomology. Texas A&M University (Available at:
http://xyleborini.tamu.edu/query.php?tax_id=636).
Cognato, A. 2008. Monographic research of tropical bark beetles (Scolytinae: Xyleborini). Holistic Insect
Systematics Laboratory. Department of Entomology. Texas A&M University (Available at:
http://xyleborini.tamu.edu/public/site/scolytinae/home).
Constantino, R. 1998. Catalog of the living termites of the New World (Insecta: Isoptera). Arquivos de
Zoologia 35: 135-231.
Coulson, S. J., I. D. Hodkinson, and N. R. Webb. 2003. Aerial dispersal of invertebrates over a highArctic glacier foreland: Midtre Lovénbreen, Svalbard. Polar Biology 26.
Cowie, R. H. 2001. Invertebrate invasions on Pacific islands and the replacement of unique native faunas:
A synthesis of the land and freshwater snails. Biological Invasions 3: 119-136.
Cowie, R. H., and D. G. Robinson. 2003. Pathways of introduction of nonindigenous land and freshwater
snails and slugs, pp. 518. In G. M. Ruiz and J. T. Carlton [eds.], Invasive Species: Vectors and
management strategies. Island Press, Washington, D.C.
Cowie, R. H., K. A. Hayes, C. T. Tran, and W. M. Meyer. 2008. The horticulture industry as a vector of
alien snails and slugs: widespread invasions in Hawaii. International Journal of Pest Management
54: 267-276.
CPC. 2008. Linking ecology and horticulture to prevent plant invasions. Center for Plant Conservation
(CPC).
CRFG. 1997. Olive (Available at: http://www.crfg.org/pubs/ff/olive.html). California Rare Fruit Growers.
Cronk, Q. C. B., and J. L. Fuller. 1995. Plant Invaders: The Threat to Natural Systems. Chapman & Hall,
London.
Crow, W. T., and R. A. Dunn. 2005. Nematode management for nursery crops (ornamentals and planting
stock of fruits and nuts). University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences
(UF/IFAS).
Cruz, C., and A. Segarra. 1996. Radcliffe's IPM World Textbook, University of Minnesota, Potential for
biological control of crop pests in the Caribbean.
251
CTO. 2006. Caribbean tourism statistical report (Available at:
http://www.onecaribbean.org/information/documentview.php?rowid=4455), pp. 95. Caribbean
Tourism Organization.
CTO. 2007. Latest statistics 2006 (Available at: http://www.onecaribbean.org/statistics/tourismstats/), pp.
6. Caribbean Tourism Organization.
CTO. 2008. Latest statistics 2005 (Available at: http://www.onecaribbean.org/statistics/tourismstats/), pp.
6. Caribbean Tourism Organization.
Culliney, T., A. Lemay, H. Meissner, A. Neeley, B. Spears, and N. Liquido. 2007. Pathway analysis of
invasive species introduction into Hawaii. 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.
Culliney, T. W., J. W. J. Beardsley, and J. J. Drea. 1988. Population regulation of the Eurasian pine
adelgid (Homoptera: Adelgidae) in Hawaii. Journal of Economic Entomology 81: 142-147.
Curaçao Ports Authority. 2008. (Available at: http://curports.com).
Cushman, J. H., and R. K. Meentemeyer. 2008. Multi-scale patterns of human activity and the incidence
of an exotic forest pathogen. Journal of Ecology 96: 766-776.
Dawson, W., A. S. Mndolwa, D. Burslem, and P. E. Hulme. 2008. Assessing the risks of plant invasions
arising from collections in tropical botanical gardens. Biodiversity and Conservation 17: 19791995.
DCR. 1999. Invasive alien plant species in Virginia: Kudzu (Pueraria lobata (Willd.) Ohwi). Virginia
Department of Conservation and Recreation and the Virginia Native Plant Society, Richmond.
de Groot, P., and T. M. Poland. 2003. Attraction of Hylastes opacus (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) to nonanal.
Canadian Entomologist 135: 309-311.
De Monie, G., F. Hendrickx, K. Joos, L. Couvreur, and C. Peeters. 1998. Strategies for global and
regional ports: the case of Caribbean container and cruise ports. Kluwer Academic Publishers,
Boston.
Degerlund, J. 2007. Containerisation International Yearbook 2007. Informa UK Ltd, London.
Deutsche Welle. 2008. Chinese plants blamed for beetle infestation in Germany (Available at:
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,3426195,00.html).
Devlin, R., A. Estevadeordal, K. Suominen, M. Shearer, E. Miller, R. Cornejo, M. Moreira, A. Stabilito,
M. Sobral de Elia, and M. Skinner. 2008. Integration and trade in the Americas: Special issue on
Latin America and Caribbean economic relations with Asia-Pacific (Available at:
http://enet.iadb.org/idbdocswebservices/idbdocsInternet/IADBPublicDoc.aspx?docnum=798294),
252
pp. 65. Institute for the Integration of Latin America and the Caribbean (INTAL), Integration,
Trade, and Hemispheric Issues Division, Integration and Regional Programs Department.
deWit, M. P., D. J. Crookes, and B. W. vanWilgen. 2001. Conflicts of interest in environmental
management: estimating the costs and benefits of a tree invasion. Biological Invasions 3: 167-178.
Diamantoglou, S., and G. P. Banilas. 1996. Pinus pinea L. (stone pine) and Pinus halepensis (Mill.)
Aleppo pine, pp. 389-406. In Y. P. S. Bajaj [ed.], Trees IV. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
DiTomaso, J. M. 2000. Invasive weeds in rangelands: species, impacts, and management. Weed Science
48: 255-265.
Dobbs, T. T., and C. F. Brodel. 2004. Cargo aircraft as a pathway for the entry of nonindigenous pests
into South Florida. Florida Entomologist 87: 65-78.
Dodds, K. J., R. R. Cooke, and D. W. Gilmore. 2007. Silvicultural options to reduce pine susceptibility to
attack by a newly detected invasive species, Sirex noctilio. Northern Journal of Applied Forestry
24: 165-167.
Dominican Republic Port Authority. 2008. (Available at: http://www.apordom.gov.do/).
Dominican Today. 2007. Dominican ferry looks for new port in Puerto Rico, DominicanToday.com.
Drake, V. A., and R. A. Farrow. 1988. The influence of atmospheric structure and motions on insect
migration. Annual Review of Entomology 33: 183-210.
EPN. 2008. Empresa Portuaria Nacional - Nicaragua (Available at: http://www.epn.com.ni).
EPPO. 2008. EPPO alert list (Available at:
http://www.eppo.org/QUARANTINE/Alert_List/alert_list.htm). European and Mediterranean
Plant Protection Organization.
Erkoc, M., E. T. Iakovou, and A. E. Spaulding. 2005. Multi-stage onboard inventory management policies
for food and beverage items in cruise liner operations. Journal of Food Engineering 70: 269-279.
Evans, B. R., C. R. Joyce, and J. E. Porter. 1963. Mosquitoes and other arthropods found in baggage
compartments of international aircraft. Mosquito News 23: 9-12.
FAO-RAP. 2005. The unwelcome guests. In P. McKenzie, C. Brown, S. Jianghua and W. Jian [eds.], The
Unwelcome Guests: Asia-Pacific Forest Invasive Species Conference. Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations, Kunming, Yunnan Province, China.
FAO. 2000. Forestry country profiles - Description of plantation resources. Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations (FAO).
253
FAO. 2005a. Status of tropical forest management - Honduras. Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations.
FAO. 2005b. Global forest resources assessment 2005. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations.
FAO. 2005c. State of the world's forests. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
FAO. 2006. Latin America and the Caribbean to use more wood from planted forests: High deforestation
rates expected to persist. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO
Newsroom).
FAO. 2007a. Overview of forest pests: South Africa. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations.
FAO. 2007b. Overview of forest pests: People's Republic of China. Food and Agriculture Organization of
the United Nations.
FAO. 2007c. Overview of forest pests: India. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
FAO. 2007d. Overview of forest pests: Thailand. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations.
FAO. 2007e. Overview of forest pests: Republic of Mauritius. Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations.
FAO. 2008. Overview of forest pests: Belize. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
Farr, D. F., A. Y. Rossman, M. E. Palm, and E. B. McCray. 2006. Fungal Database. USDA-ARS
Systematic Mycology and Microbiology Laboratory.
FCCA. 2008. Cruise industry overview - 2008, pp. 10. Florida-Caribbean Cruise Association, Pembroke
Pines, FL.
FDACS. 2004. Press release: Soybean rust confirmed in Florida (Available at:
http://www.doacs.state.fl.us/press/2004/11172004_2.html). Florida Department of Agriculture and
Consumer Services.
Ferguson, G. 2001. Management of Pepino Mosaic Virus in greenhouse tomatoes. Ontario Ministry of
Agriculture, Food, and Rural Affairs.
Ferguson, L., and K. Schwartzburg. 2008. Trip report: Site visit to Martinique April 7-11, 2008. Site visit
conducted by L. Ferguson and K. Schwartzburg, United States Department of Agriculture, Animal
and Plant Health Inspection Service
254
Filho, O. P., E. P. Teixera, M. L. M. Bezerra, A. Dorval, and E. B. Filho. 2006. First record of Sinoxylon
conigerum Gerstäcker (Coleoptera: Bostrichidae) in Brazil. Neotropical Entomology 35: 712-713.
Flechtmann, C., and J. Etienne. 2004. The red palm mite, Raoiella indica Hirst, a threat to palms in the
Americas (Acari: Prostigmata: Tenuipalpidae). Systematic & Applied Acarology 9.
Flores-Palacios, A., and S. Valencia-Díaz. 2007. Local illegal trade reveals unknown diversity and
involves a high species richness of wild vascular epiphytes. Biological Conservation 136: 372387.
Foreign Agricultural Service. 2008. Wood Packaging Material (WPM) Import Requirements by Country.
Fowler, G., Y. Takeuchi, R. A. Sequeira, G. Lougee, W. Fussell, M. Simon, A. Sato, and X. Yan. 2008.
Pathway-Initiated Pest Risk Assessment: Asian Gypsy Moth (Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae:
Lymantria dispar (Linnaeus)) from Japan into the United States on Maritime Ships, pp. 94.
Fox, A. M., D. R. Gordon, J. A. Dusky, L. Tyson, and R. K. Stocker. 2005. IFAS assessment of the status
of non-native plants in Florida’s natural areas. University of Florida, Institute of Food and
Agricultural Sciences, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Agronomy Department,
Gainseville, U.S.A.
Fraedrich, S. W., T. C. Harrington, and R. J. Rabaglia. 2007. Laurel wilt: a new and devastating disease of
redbay caused by a fungal symbiont of the exotic redbay ambrosia beetle. Newsletter of the
Michigan Entomological Society 52: 15-16.
Fraedrich, S. W., T. C. Harrington, R. J. Rabaglia, M. D. Ulyshen, A. E. Mayfield, III, J. L. Hanula, J. M.
Eickwort, and D. R. Miller. 2008. A fungal symbiont of the redbay ambrosia beetle causes a lethal
wilt in redbay and other Lauraceae in the southeastern United States. Plant Disease 92: 215.
Francis, J. K. 1993. Common bamboo. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.
Frank, J. H., and E. D. McCoy. 1992. Introduction to the behavioral ecology of immigration. The
immigration of insects to Florida, with a tabulation of records published since 1970. The Florida
Entomologist 75: 1-28.
Frank, J. H., and E. D. McCoy. 1995. Introduction to insect behavioral ecology: The good, the bad, and
the beautiful: Non-indigenous species in Florida - Invasive adventive insects and other organisms
in Florida. Florida Entomologist 78: 1-15.
Frank, J. H., and M. C. Thomas. 2004. Invasive insects (adventive pest insects) in Florida. University of
Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences.
Frankel, E. G. 2002. The challenge of container transshipment in the Caribbean, International Association
of Maritime Economists Conference Proceedings, Panama.
FTG. 2007. 2007 Members' day plant sale. Fairchild Tropical Garden (FTG).
255
Gadgil, P. D., L. S. Bulman, and K. L. Glassey. 2002. Quarantine risk associated with air cargo
containers. New Zealand Journal of Forestry Science 32: 28-42.
Gadgil, P. D., L. S. Bulman, R. Crabtree, K. L. Glassey, J. C. O’Neil, and R. N. Watson. 2000.
Significance to New Zealand forestry of contaminants on the external surfaces of shipping
containers. New Zealand Journal of Forestry Science 30: 341-358.
Galloway, G. E., and D. Stoian. 2007. Barriers to sustainable forestry in Central America and promising
initiatives to overcome them. Journal of Sustainable Forestry 24: 189.
Garraway, J. 2006. Perspectives on multi-destination tourism, The Greater Caribbean This Week.
Glanznig, A. 2003. Weeds and pests: eradicating the invasive threat. Position Paper No. 03/01. Sydney:
WWF Australia.
Godfrey, S., and J. Marshall. 2002. Soil on imported shipping containers provides a source of new
Pseudomonad biodiversity into New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Crop and Horticultural
Science 30: 19-27.
Goh, K. T., S. K. Ng, and S. Kumarapathy. 1985. Disease-bearing insects brought in by international
aircraft into Singapore. Southeast Asian Journal of Tropical Medicine and Public Health 16: 4953.
Goodland, T., and J. R. Healey. 1996. The invasion of Jamaican montane rainforests by the Australian
tree Pittosporum undulatum in the Blue Mountains of Jamaica. School of Agricultural and Forest
Sciences University of Wales, Bangor, UK.
Goodland, T., and J. R. Healey. 1997. The effect of Pittosporum undulatum on the native vegetation of
the Blue Mountains of Jamaica. School of Agricultural and Forest Sciences, University of Wales,
Bangor.
Gordon, D. R., D. A.Onderdonk, A. M. Fox, and R. K. Stocker. 2008. Consistent accuracy of the
Australian weed risk assessment system across varied geographies. Diversity and Distributions
ONLINE EARLY ARTICLE.
Gottwald, T. R., J. H. Graham, and T. S. Schubert. 1997. An epidemiological analysis of the spread of
citrus canker in urban Miami, Florida, and synergistic interaction with the Asian citrus leafminer.
Fruits 52.
GPDD. 2009. Anoplophora chinensis. Global Pest and Disease Database, United States Department of
Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
Grains Research and Development Corporation. 2008. Exotic Pests Fact Sheets.
256
Green, P. T., P. S. Lake, and D. J. O'Dowd. 2004. Resistance of island rainforest to invasion by alien
plants: Influence of microhabitat and herbivory on seedling performance. Journal of Biological
Invasions 6: 1-9.
Griffin, D. W., C. A. Kellogg, V. H. Garrison, J. T. Lisle, T. C. Borden, and E. A. Shinn. 2003.
Atmospheric microbiology in the northern Caribbean during African dust events. Aerobiologia 19:
143-157.
Gu, J., H. Braasch, W. Burgermeister, and J. Zhang. 2006. Records of Bursaphelenchus spp. intercepted
in imported packaging wood at Ningbo, China. Forest Pathology 36: 323-333.
Guérard, N., E. Dreyer, and F. Lieutier. 2000. Interactions between Scots pine, Ips acuminatus (Gyll.) and
Ophiostoma brunneo-ciliatum (Math.): Estimation of the critical thresholds of attack and
inoculation densities and effects on hydraulic properties in the stem. Annals of Forest Science 57:
681-690.
Gul, H., and G. A. Bajwa. 1997. Screening and economics of some pyrethroid insecticides against powder
post beetles. Pakistan Journal of Forestry 47: 81-88.
Gutierrez Misas, A. 2005. Directorio de Jardines Botanicos de America latina y el Caribe caribe.
Haack, R. A. 2001. Intercepted Scolytidae (Coleoptera) at U.S. ports of entry: 1985-2000. Integrated Pest
Management Reviews 6: 253-282.
Haack, R. A. 2006. Exotic bark- and wood-boring Coleoptera in the United States: Recent establishments
and interceptions. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 36: 269-288.
Haack, R. A., T. R. Petrice, P. Nzoku, and D. P. Kamden. 2006. Do insects infest wood packing material
with bark following heat-treatment?, IUFRO UNIT 7.03.12 Alien Invasive Species and
International Trade Inaugural Meeting, Jedlnia, Poland.
Halwart, M. 1994. The golden apple snail Pomacea canaliculata in Asian rice farming systems: Present
impact and future threat. International Journal of Pest Management 40: 199-206.
Harding, A., and J. Hoffmann. 2003. Trade between Caribbean Community (CARICOM) and Central
American Common Market (CACM) countries: the role to play for ports and shipping services.
United Nations, Natural Resources and Infrastructure Division, Transport Unit, Santiago, Chile.
Haugen, D. A., and E. T. Iede. 2001. Wood borers (Available at:
http://www.apsnet.org/online/proceedings/ExoticPest/Papers/haugen.htm), Risks of Exotic Forest
Pests and their Impact on Trade. American Phytopathological Society, Online Symposium.
Hawksworth, D. L., and G. Mueller. 2005. Fungal communities: Their diversity and distribution In J.
Dighton, J. F. White and P. Oudemans [eds.], The Fungal Community: Its Organization and Role
in the Ecosystem, third edition. CRC Press.
257
HDOA. 2007. Report to the Twenty-fourth Legislature Regular Session of 2007 Relating to Invasive
Species. Hawaii Department of Agriculture Division of Plant Industry, Honolulu.
Heffernan, K. E., P. P. Coulling, J. F. Townsend, and C. J. Hutto. 2001. Ranking invasive exotic plant
species in Virginia, pp. 149. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of
Natural Heritage, Richmond, U.S.A.
Herbold, B., and P. B. Moyle. 1986. Introduced species and vacant niches. The American Naturalist 128:
751-760.
Hoebeke, E. R. 1999. Japanese cedar longhorned beetle in the eastern United States (Available at:
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/lpa/pubs/jclbpale.pdf), USDA-APHIS Pest Alert. United States
Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
Hoebeke, E. R., D. A. Haugen, and R. A. Haack. 2005. Sirex noctilio: Discovery of a Palearctic siricid
woodwasp in New York. Newsletter of the Michigan Entomological Society 50: 24-25.
Hoffman, D. 2004. Memorandum: Nomination of multi-agency smuggled citrus bud wood group for Plant
Protection and Quarantine: Deputy Administrator's Safeguarding Award (available at:
http://www.safeguarding.org/awardnoms/Citrus_Bud_Wood_05.pdf). USDA, APHS, PPQ,
Smuggling Interdiction and Trade Compliance.
Hoffmann, J. 2001. Liberalizing coastal shipping in Latin America and the Caribbean: Potential benefits
for Caribbean shippers, ports, and carriers. Paper presented at the Terminal Operators Conference,
San Juan.
Holder, J. S. 2003. What is at stake for the Caribbean in hosting the Cricket World Cup 2007 event, pp. 9.
Caribbean Tourism Organization, Grenada, West Indies.
Hooper, D. U., F. S. Chapin, III, J. J. Ewel, A. Hector, P. Inchausti, S. Lavorel, J. H. Lawton, D. M.
Lodge, M. Loreau, S. Naeem, B. Schmid, H. Setälä, A. J. Symstad, J. Vandermeer, and D. A.
Wardle. 2005. Effects of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning: a consensus of current
knowledge. Ecological Monographs 75: 3-35.
Hoskovec, M., and M. Rejzek. 2006. Longhorn beetles (Cerambycidae) of the West Palaearctic Region
(Available at: http://www.cerambyx.uochb.cz/).
Howard, F. W., R. Pemberton, A. Hamon, G. S. Hodges, G. Steinberg, C. M. Mannion, D. McLean, and J.
Wofford. 2008. Featured creatures: Lobate lac scale, Paratachardina pseudolobata (=lobata).
Available at: http://creatures.ifas.ufl.edu/orn/scales/lobate_lac.htm. University of Florida Institute
of Food and Agricultural Sciences, and the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer
Services.
Hoy, M. A., J. E. Peña, and R. Nguyen. 2006. The red palm mite, Raoiella indica Hirst (Available at:
http://creatures.ifas.ufl.edu/orn/palms/red_palm_mite.htm), Featured Creatures. University of
258
Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences and the Florida Department of Agriculture and
Consumer Services.
Hua, L. Z. 2002. List of Chinese insects. Zhongshan (Sun Yat-sen) Univ. Press, Guangzhou, China.
Hurley, B. P., B. Slippers, and M. J. Wingfield. 2007. A comparison of control results for the alien
invasive woodwasp, Sirex noctilio, in the southern hemisphere. Agricultural and Forest
Entomology 9: 159-171.
Huston, M. A. 1994. Biological diversity: the coexistence of species on changing landscapes. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Hypolite, E., G. C. Green, and J. Burley. 2002. Ecotourism: its potential role in forest resource
conservation in the Commonwealth of Dominica, West Indies. International Forestry Review 4:
298-303.
IABIN. 2008. Especies Invasoras de Rep. Dominicana. Inter-American Biodiversity Information
Network.
INBAR. 2006. Agreement on the establishment of the International Network for Bamboo and Rattan.
International Network for Bamboo and Rattan, Beijing.
INBAR. 2008. International Network for Bamboo and Rattan, Beijing, China.
INCOP. 2007. Instituto Costarricense de Puertos del Pacífico (http://www.incop.go.cr/).
International Airport of El Salvador. 2007. (Statistics available at
http://www.cepa.gob.sv/aies/contenido.php).
Iotti, J. 2008. E-mail communication. Received by Heike Meissner, United States Department of
Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine.
IPPC. 2006. Guidelines for regulating wood packaging material in international trade (2002) with
modifications to Annex I (2006), International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures. Secretariat
of the International Plant Protection Convention, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations, Rome.
IPPC. 2007. International Standards For Phytosanitary Measures, 1 to 29 (2007 edition). Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Secretariat of the International Plant Protection
Convention (IPPC), Rome.
IPPC. 2008. International Phytosanitary Portal (Available at: https://www.ippc.int/IPP/En/default.jsp).
International Plant Protection Convention.
259
Irey, M., T. R. Gottwald, J. H. Graham, T. D. Riley, and G. Carlton. 2006. Post-hurricane analysis of
citrus canker spread and progress towards the development of a predictive model to estimate
disease spread due to catastrophic weather events. Plant Management Network Online.
ISSG. 2008. Global Invasive Species Database (Available at:
http://www.invasivespecies.net/database/welcome/). IUCN-World Conservation Union, Species
Survival Commission, Invasive Species Specialist Group (ISSG).
IUCN. 2007. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (Available at: www.iucnredlist.org). International
Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources.
IUFRO. 2007. Recommendations of a pathway approach for regulation of plants for planting: A concept
paper from the IUFRO Unit 7.03.12, Alien Invasive Species and International Trade, Radom,
Poland.
Jacksonville Port Authority. 2008. Port statistics (Available at: http://www.jaxport.com).
Jacobs, K., T. Kirisits, and M. J. Wingfield. 2003. Taxonomic re-evaluation of three related species of
Graphium, based on morphology, ecology, and phylogeny. Mycologia 95: 714-727.
James, R. 2008. Caribbean airports (Available at: http://www.tntisland.com/airports.html).
Jefferson, L., K. Havens, and J. Ault. 2004. Implementing invasive screening procedures: The Chicago
Botanic Garden model. Weed Technology 18: 1434-1440.
JIS. 2004. Plans under way to improve bamboo production locally. Jamaica Information Service.
JIS. 2006. Jamaica and Guadeloupe to produce and promote bamboo craft. Jamaica Information Service.
Joe, S. M., and C. C. Daehler. 2008. Invasive slugs as under-appreciated obstacles to rare plant
restoration: Evidence from the Hawaiian Islands. Biological Invasions 10: 245-255.
Johnson, D. 2002. Environmentally sustainable cruise tourism: a reality check. Marine Policy 26: 261270.
Johnson, D. 2006. Providing ecotourism excursions for cruise passengers. Journal of Sustainable Tourism
14: 43-54.
Johnson, S. J. 1995. Insect migration in North America: Synoptic-scale transport in a highly seasonal
environment, pp. 31-66. In V. A. Drake and A. G. Gatehouse [eds.], Insect Migrations: Tracking
Resources Through Space and Time. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Jordal, B. H., and L. R. Kirkendall. 1998. Ecological relationships of a guild of tropical beetles breeding
in Cecropia petioles in Costa Rica. Journal of Tropical Ecology 14: 153-176.
260
Jules, E. S., M. J. Kauffman, W. D. Ritts, and A. L. Carroll. 2002. Spread of an invasive pathogen over a
variable landscape: A nonnative root rot on port orford cedar. Ecology 83: 3167-3181.
Juzwik, J., T. C. Harrington, W. L. MacDonald, and D. N. Appel. 2008. The origin of Ceratocystis
fagacearum, the oak wilt fungus. Annual Review of Phytopathology 46: 13-26.
Kairo, M., B. Ali, O. Cheesman, K. Haysom, and S. Murphy. 2003. Invasive species threats in the
Caribbean Region, pp. 132, Report to The Nature Conservancy. CAB International, Egham, UK.
Kawai, M., E. Shoda-Kagaya, T. Maehara, Z. Zhou, C. Lian, R. Iwata, A. Yamane, and T. Hogetsu. 2006.
Genetic structure of pine sawyer Monochamus alternatus (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) populations
in northeast Asia: Consequences of the spread of pine wilt disease. Environmental Entomology
35: 569-579.
Keller, R. P., and D. M. Lodge. 2007. Species invasions from commerce in live aquatic organisms:
problems and possible solutions. BioScience 57: 428-436.
KFS. 2004. Plagionotus christophi (Kraatz), Insect. Nature. Korea Forest Service.
Kimoto, T., and M. Duthie-Holt. 2006. Exotic Forest Insect Guidebook. Canadian Food Inspection
Agency.
Kirkendall, L. R., and F. Ødegaard. 2007. Ongoing invasions of old-growth tropical forests:
Establishment of three incestuous beetle species in southern Central America (Curculionidae:
Scolytinae). Zootaxa 1588: 53-62.
Klassen, W., C. G. Davis, E. A. Evans, B. Lauckner, A. Adams, and T. K. K. Moses. 2004. Facilitating
Safer US-Caribbean Trade: Invasive Species Issues Workshop, pp. 159, Trinidad Hilton and
Conference Centre, Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago, West Indies.
Koch, F. H., and W. D. Smith. 2008. Spatio-temporal analysis of Xyleborus glabratus (Coleoptera:
Curculionidae: Scolytinae) invasion in eastern U.S. forests. Community and Ecosystem Ecology
37: 442-452.
Kohnle, U. 2004. Host and non-host odour signals governing host selection by the pine shoot beetle,
Tomicus piniperda and the spruce bark beetle, Hylurgops palliatus (Col., Scolytidae). Journal of
Applied Entomology 128: 588-592.
Kosciuk, J. 2007. Port procedures (conference call with J. Kosciuk, U.S. Department of Homeland
Security Customs and Border Protection: June 14, 2007). Received by A. Lemay and H. Meissner,
United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
Kubán, V. 2004. Melanophila cuspidata (Klug 1829), Fauna Europaea, vers. 1.3.
Kuiper, J. 2005. Relations between Guyana and Venezuela have improved tremendously under Chávez,
Venezuelanalysis.com.
261
Kulinich, O. A., and P. D. Orlinskii. 1998. Distribution of conifer beetles (Scolytidae, Curculionidae,
Cerambycidae) and wood nematodes (Bursaphelenchus spp.) in European and Asian Russia.
EPPO Bulletin 28: 39-52.
Lai, P. Y., M. Tamashiro, J. R. Yates, N. Y. Su, J. K. Fujii, and R. H. Ebesu. 1983. Living plants in
Hawaii attacked by Coptotermes formosanus, pp. 283-286, Hawaiian Entomological Society.
Laird, M. 1951. The accidental carriage of insects on board aircraft. Journal of the Royal Aeronautical
Society 55: 735-743.
Langeland, K. A., and R. K. Stocker. 2001. Control of non-native plants in natural areas of Florida.
Florida Department of Agronomy, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and
Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida.
Lanterman, W. S., R. Johnson, and D. Thompson. 1995. Disease control through crop certification:
woody plants. Canadian Journal of Plant Pathology 17: 274-276.
Larson, B., and J. H. Frank. 2007. Metamasius callizona (Chevrolat) (Insecta: Coleoptera:
Dryophthoridae) (Available at: http://creatures.ifas.ufl.edu/orn/m_callizona.htm). University of
Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences and Florida Department of Agriculture and
Consumer Services.
Laughlin, R. 1977. The gum tree thrips Isoneurothrips australis. Survival at different temperatures and
humidities and its relation to capacity for dispersal. Australian Journal of Ecology 2 391-398.
Lee, J. C., S. L. Smith, and S. J. Seybold. 2005. Mediterranean pine engraver, USDA Forest Service Pest
Alert.
Lemay, A., K. Schwartzburg, and S. Robertson. 2008. Air and maritime port visit, Miami, FL (March 1721, 2008). Conducted by: A. Lemay, K. Schwartzburg, and S. Robertson (USDA-APHIS). Miami,
FL.
Lemay, A., H. Meissner, J. Vilá, A. Neeley, and R. Sponaugle. 2003. Transportation and Exportation
Cargo Risk Analysis, pp. 62. 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, Raleigh, NC.
Lesne, P. 1900. Revision des Coléoptères de la famille des Bostrychides, 4e Mémoire. Annales de la
Société Entomologique de France 69: 473-639.
Lewis, T. 1973. Thrips, their biology, ecology, and economic importance. Academic Press, New York.
Lewis, T. 1997. Thrips as crop pests. CAB International, Wallingford, Oxon, UK.
262
Liebhold, A. M., T. T. Work, D. G. McCullough, and J. F. Cavey. 2006. Airline baggage as a pathway for
alien insect species invading the United States. American Entomologist 52: 48-54.
Löbl, I., and A. Smetana [eds.]. 2006. Catalogue of Palaearctic Coleoptera. Vol. 3. Scarabaeoidea,
Scirtoidea, Dascilloidea, Buprestoidea, Byrrhoidea. Apollo Books, Stenstrup, Denmark.
Lombardero, M. J. 1995. Plantas huésped y escolítidos (Col: Scolytidae) en Galicia (Noroeste de la
Península Ibérica). Boletin de Sanidad Vegetal, Plagas 21: 357-370.
Lonsdale, W. M. 1999. Global patterns of plant invasions and the concept of invasibility. Ecology 80:
1522-1536.
Luginbill, P. 1928. Technical Bulletin Number 34: The fall army worm, pp. 91. United States Department
of Agriculture.
Lugo, A. E. 2004. The outcome of alien tree invasions in Puerto Rico. Frontiers in Ecology and the
Environment 2: 265-273.
Lutgens, F. K., and E. J. Tarbuck. 2007. The Atmosphere: An Introduction to Meteorology. Pearson
Prentice Hall, Uppersaddle River, New Jersey.
MAF. 2003. Sea container review (MAF Discussion Paper No: 35). Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry
(MAF), Border Management Group, Auckland, New Zealand.
Magnusson, C., B. Okland, and H. Solheim. 2001. Wood chips (Available at:
http://www.apsnet.org/online/proceedings/exoticpest/Papers/ormsby.htm), Exotic Forest Pests
Online Symposium. American Phytopathological Society.
Mahler, S. J., and D. Ugrina. 2006. Central America: crossroads of the Americas, Migration Information
Source.
Mandelshtam, M. 2002. List of bark beetles Scolytidae of Leningrad Region (Available at:
http://www.zin.ru/Animalia/coleoptera/eng/scolspb.htm). Department of Molecular Genetics,
Institute for Experimental Medicine RAMS, St. Petersburg, Russia.
MARAD. 2007. North American cruises 2nd quarter 2007, pp. 8. United States Department of
Transportation, Maritime Administration (MARAD), Office of Policy and Plans, Washington,
D.C.
March, I. J., S. Ziller, and S. Burgiel. 2008. Progress and challenges on the prevention and control of
invasive alien species in Mesoamerica and the Caribbean Region: A brief overview, pp. 28. The
Nature Conservancy.
Marquette, C. M. 2006. Nicaraguan migrants in Costa Rica. Población y Salud en Mesoamérica 4.
263
Martin, P. H., C. D. Canham, and P. L. Marks. 2008. Why forests appear resistant to exotic plant
invasions: Intentional introductions, stand dynamics, and the role of shade tolerance. Frontiers in
Ecology and the Environment 6.
Mastny, L. 2001. Traveling Light: New Paths for International Tourism, pp. 88. In J. A. Peterson [ed.],
Worldwatch Paper. Worldwatch Institute, Danvers, MA.
Mastrantonio, J. L., and J. K. Francis. 1997. A student guide to tropical forest conservation. United States
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station.
McCalla, R., B. Slack, and C. Comtois. 2005. The Caribbean basin: adjusting to global trends in
containerization. Maritime Policy and Management 32: 245-261.
McCullough, D. G., T. T. Work, J. F. Cavey, A. M. Liebhold, and D. Marshall. 2006. Interceptions of
nonindigenous plant pests at US ports of entry and border crossings over a 17-year period.
Biological Invasions 8: 611-630.
McCullough, D. G., T. M. Poland, D. Cappaert, E. L. Clark, I. Fraser, V. Mastro, S. Smith, and C. Pell.
2007. Effects of chipping, grinding, and heat on survival of emerald ash borer, Agrilus planipennis
(Coleoptera: Buprestidae), in chips. Journal of Economic Entomology 100: 1304-1315.
McNeely, J. A. 1999. An introduction to human dimensions of invasive alien species. In J. A. McNeely
[ed.], The Great Reshuffling: Human Dimensions of Invasive Alien Species.
Mead, A. R. 1961. The giant African snail: A problem in economic malacology. The University of
Chicago Press, Chicago.
Meissner, H., and K. Schwartzburg. 2008. Guatemala trip report: January 28 - February 1. Conducted by
H. Meissner and K. Schwartzburg, United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service.
Meissner, H., A. Lemay, T. Kalaris, J. Vilá, R. Duncan, R. Olive, and B. Parker. 2003. Mexican Border
Risk Analysis. USDA-APHIS-PPQ, Center for Plant Health Science and Technology, Plant
Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory, Raleigh, N.C.
Mendel, Z., O. Boneh, Y. Shenhar, and J. Riov. 1991. Diurnal flight patterns of Orthotomicus erosus and
Pityogenes calcaratus in Israel [Abstract]. Phytoparasitica 19: 23.
Mienis, H. K. 1999. How many species of landsnail genus Otala managed to settle in North America?
American Conchologist 27: 13.
Mikolajczak, C., and D. Moore. 2001. A Study of Passenger Aircraft Cargo Hold Environments, pp. 57.
Exponent Failure Analysis Associates, Menlo Park, CA.
264
Miranda, L. C., D. Navia, and J. C. V. Rodrigues. 2007. Brevipalpus mites Donnadieu (Prostigmata:
Tenuipalpidae) associated with ornamental plants in Distrito Federal, Brazil. Neotropical
Entomology 36: 587-592.
Mississippi State Port Authority. 2008. Port statistics (Available at: http://www.shipmspa.com).
MIT. 2008. Manzanillo International Terminal - Panama, S.A. (Available at:
http://www2.mitpan.com/en/Media/Statistics/tabid/255/Default.aspx).
Mitchell, E. R., J. N. McNeil, J. K. Westbrook, J. F. Silvain, B. Lalanne-Cassou, R. B. Schalfant, S. D.
Pair, V. H. Waddill, A. Sotomayor-Rios, and F. I. Proshold. 1991. Seasonal periodicity of the fall
armyworm (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in the Caribbean Basin and northward into Canada. Journal
of Entomological Science 26: 39-50.
Morlok, E. K., B. F. Nitzberg, K. Balasubramaniam, and M. L. Sand. 2000. The parcel service industry in
the U.S.: Its size and role in commerce, pp. 52. University of Pennsylvania, School of Engineering
and Applied Science, Systems Engineering Department, Philadelphia.
Mouissie, A. M., W. Lengkeek, and R. Van Diggelen. 2005. Estimating adhesive seed-dispersal distances:
field experiments and correlated random walks. Functional Ecology 19: 478-486.
Mudge, A. D., J. R. LaBonte, K. J. R. Johnson, and E. H. LaGasa. 2001. Exotic woodboring Coleoptera
(Micromalthidae, Scolytidae) and Hymenoptera (Xiphydriidae) new to Oregon and Washington.
Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington 103: 1011-1019.
Nagarajan, S., and D. V. Singh. 1990. Long-distance dispersion of rust pathogens. Annual Review of
Phytopathology 28: 139-153.
Nair, S. K. 2007. Tropical forest insect pests. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Nardi, G. 2004. Xylothrips flavipes (Illiger 1801), Fauna Europaea, vers. 1.3.
Navarro, M. 1999. At last in Hispaniola, hands across the border, The New York Times.
Neeley, A. 2008. Caribbean cruise experience. Received by K. Schwartzburg, United States Department
of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine.
NISC. 2001. Meeting the invasive species challenge: Management plan. National Invasive Species
Council.
Norman, D. J., and J. O. Strandberg. 1997. Survival of Colletotrichum acutatum in soil and plant debris of
leatherleaf fern. Plant Disease 81: 1177-1180.
NRC. 2002. Predicting invasions of nonindigenous plants and plant pests. National Academy of Sciences,
Washington, D.C.
265
NRCAN. 2007. Exotic forest pest advisory: The brown spruce longhorn beetle (Available at:
http://cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/index/bslb2). Natural Resources Canada, Government of Canada.
Núñez, I. V. 2007. La otra frontera (México-Guatemala), La Jornada Semanal.
NZMAF. 2003. Import health standards - Importing forest and wood products (Available at:
http://www.biosecurity.govt.nz/regs/imports/plants/forest). New Zealand Ministry of Agriculture
and Forestry.
Ocean Shipping Consultants. 2006. Sustaining containerport demand in the Americas, pp. 5. Ocean
Shipping Consultants, Ltd, Surrey, England.
Odera, J. A. 1974. The incidence and host trees of pine woolly aphid, Pineus pini (L.), in East Africa
[Abstract]. Commonwealth Forestry Review 53: 128-136.
Olckers, T. 1999. Introduction, pp. 1-2. In T. Olckers and M. P. Hill [eds.], Biological Control of Weeds
in South Africa (1990-1998) (African Entomology Memoir No. 1). Entomological Society of
Southern Africa.
Ostry, M. E. 2001. Hazards associated with pest pathways and economic impacts - seeds, propagative
materials, and nursery stock (Available at:
http://www.apsnet.org/online/proceedings/exoticpest/Papers/Ostry.htm), Exotic Forest Pests
Online Symposium. American Phytopathological Society.
OTTI. 2007a. Top ports: year-to-date (Available at: http://tinet.ita.doc.gov/view/m-2006-I001/top_ports.html). Office of Travel and Tourism Industries, International Trade Administration
and Bureau of Economic Analysis, Department of Commerce, USA.
OTTI. 2007b. International arrivals to U.S. by country of residency; historical visitation - 2000 - 2006
(Available at:
http://tinet.ita.doc.gov/outreachpages/inbound.intl_arrivals_historic_visitation_2000-2006.html).
Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration and Bureau of Economic Analysis,
Office of Travel and Tourism Industries (OTTI), USA.
PaDIL. 2008. Pests and Diseases Image Library. Australia Commonwealth Government.
Padilla, A., and J. L. McElroy. 2005. The tourism penetration index in large islands: The case of the
Dominican Republic. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 13: 353-372.
Palm, M. E., and A. Y. Rossman. 2003. Invasion pathways of terrestrial plant-inhabiting fungi. In G. M.
Ruiz and J. T. Carlton [eds.], Invasive species: vectors and management strategies. Island Press,
Washington.
Pasek, J. E. 2000. Pest risk assessment for importation of solid wood packing materials into the United
States. United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service and
the USDA Forest Service.
266
Pasek, J. E. 2007. Procedures of AQIM data collection. Personal communication with J. Pasek, United
States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS).
Received by H. Meissner, (USDA, APHIS).
Pattullo, P. 1996a. The holiday and its makers: The tourists, pp. 136-153, Last Resorts: The Cost of
Tourism in the Caribbean. Cassell, London.
Pattullo, P. 1996b. Sailing into the sunset: The cruise-ship industry, pp. 156-175, Last Resorts: The Cost
of Tourism in the Caribbean. Cassell, London.
Pattullo, P. 1996c. Linkages and leakages: The planning factor, pp. 28-51, Last Resorts: The Cost of
Tourism in the Caribbean. Cassell, London.
Pemberton, R. 2003. Invasion of Paratachardina lobata lobata (Hemiptera: Kerriidae) in south Florida: A
snapshot sample of an infestation in a residential yard. Florida Entomologist 86: 373-377.
Plant Health Australia. 2008. National plant health awareness campaign.
Pollard, C. V. 1997. Introduction and establishment of pink hibiscus mealybug, Maconellicoccus hirstus,
in the Caribbean sub-region and implications for the agriculture and forestry sub-sectors. In C.
Yocum and A. E. Lugo [eds.], Proceedings of the eighth meeting of Caribbean Foresters at
Grenada. USDA Forest Service, International Institute of Tropical Forestry, St. Georges, GA.
Port Authority of Jamaica. 2007. Statistical Publication 2007: Covering shipping activities at the island's
ports (Available at: http://www.portjam.com/MonthlyStatisticalReport.pdf), pp. 18. Port Authority
of Jamaica.
Port Everglades. 2008. Port statistics (Available at: http://www.broward.org/port/).
Port of Acajutla. 2008. (Available at: http://www.puertoacajutla.gob.sv/).
Port of Belize. 2008. (Available at: http://www.portofbelize.com).
Port of Freeport. 2008. (Available at: http://www.portoffreeport.com).
Port of Guadeloupe. 2008. Port activity and statistics (Available at: http://www.port-guadeloupe.com/).
Port of Houston. 2008. (Available at http://www.portofhouston.com).
Port of Miami-Dade. 2008. Port statistics (Available at: http://www.metro-dade.com).
Port of New Orleans. 2008. Port of New Orleans Overview (Available at:
http://www.portno.com/index.htm).
Port of Palm Beach. 2008. Port statistics (Available at: http://www.portofpalmbeach.com).
267
Purdy, L. H., S. V. Krupa, and J. L. Dean. 1985. Introduction of sugarcane rust into the Americas and its
spread to Florida. Plant Disease 69: 689-693.
Qi, L., S. Shog, Z. Yan, and X. Yu. 2005. Study on the effect heat treatment for pinewood nematode,
Bursaphelenchus xylophilus, within wood packing materials. Plant Quarantine 19: 325-329.
Quantick, H. R. 2001. Climatology for airline pilots. Blackwell Science, Malden, MA.
Rabaglia, R. J., S. A. Dole, and A. I. Cognato. 2006. Review of American Xyleborina (Coleoptera:
Curculionidae: Scolytinae) occurring north of Mexico, with an illustrated key. Annals of the
Entomological Society of America 99: 1034-1056.
Rainwater, H. I. 1963. Agricultural insect pest hitchhikers on aircraft. Proceedings of the Hawaiian
Entomological Society 18: 303-309.
Ramachandran, S., J. Funderbur, J. Stavisky, and S. Olson. 2001. Population abundance and movement of
Frankliniella species and Orius insidiosus in field pepper. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 3:
129-137.
Randall, J. M., L. E. Morse, N. Benton, R. Hiebert, S. Lu, and T. Killeffer. 2008. The invasive species
assessment protocol: A tool for creating regional and national lists of invasive nonnative plants
that negatively impact biodiversity. Invasive Plant Science and Management 1: 36–49
Ray, C. D., and E. Deomano. 2007. Bark occurrence in U.S. and Canadian wooden pallets. Forest
Products Journal 57: 84-88.
Reay, S. D., J. M. Thwaites, R. L. Farrell, and P. J. Walsh. 2001. The role of the bark beetle, Hylastes ater
(Coleoptera: Scolytidae), as a sapstain fungi vector to Pinus radiata seedlings: A crisis for the
New Zealand forestry industry? Integrated Pest Management Reviews 6: 283-291.
Reichard, S. E., and P. White. 2001. Horticulture as a pathway of invasive plant introductions in the
United States. BioScience 51: 103-113.
Reichard, S. H. 2004. Conflicting values and common goals: Codes of conduct to reduce the threat
invasive species. Weed Technology 18: 1503-1507.
República Dominicana Oficina Nacional de Estadística. 2004. (Statistics available at:
http://www.one.gov.do/index.php?option=com_docman&task=cat_view&gid=14&Itemid=129).
Rexrode, C. O., and D. Brown. 1983. Oak wilt. Forest Insect and Disease Leaflet 29. United States
Department of Agriculture Forest Service.
Richardson, C. H., and D. J. Nemeth. 1991. Hurricane-borne African locusts (Schistocerca gregaria) on
the Windward Islands. GeoJournal 23: 349-357.
268
Richardson, D. M. 1998. Forestry trees as invasive aliens. Conservation Biology 12: 18-26.
Richardson, D. M., P. Binggeli, and G. Schroth. 2004. Invasive agroforestry trees: Problems and
solutions, pp. 371. In D. M. Richardson [ed.], Agroforestry and Biodiversity Conservation in
Tropical Landscapes. Island Press, Washington.
Roberts, M. 2004. Opening round table, Facilitating safer US-Caribbean trade: Invasive species issues
workshop, Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago.
Robinson, D. G., A. Roda, T. Stevens, W. Tang, and S. Weihman. 2008. Panama Canal Sentinel Survey:
Mollusk Project - June 16-20, 2008. Site Visit Review and Recommendations.
Rodríguez, E., M. Campos, A. J. Sánchez Raya, and A. Peña. 2003. Effect of the combined treatment of
insecticides and an attractant for the control of Phloeotribus scarabaeoides, a pest of Olea
europea. Pest Management Science 59: 339-346.
Rogers, J. 2008. Pest interception efficiency for airline passenger baggage. Personal communication with
J. Rogers, United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
Received by H. Meissner, USDA, APHIS.
Rogozinski, J. 1999. A brief history of the Caribbean: from the Arawak and the Carib to the present. Facts
on File, New York.
Roth, L. E., H. H. Bynum, and E. E. Nelson. 1972. Forest insect and disease leaflet: Phytophtora root rot
of Port-Orford Cedar (Available at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/nr/fid/fidls/fid131.htm). United States
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.
Ruiz, G. 2007. Email: Caribbean Pathways Analysis. G. Ruiz, United States Department of Agriculture,
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine, Smuggling
Interdiction and Trade Compliance. Received by H. Meissner, USDA, APHIS.
Rummer, B., and C. Erwin. 2008. Basic steps in timber harvesting. Forest Encyclopedia Network (Ed.
H.M. Rauscher).
Russell, R. C. 1987. Survival of insects in the wheel bays of a Boeing 747B aircraft on flights between
tropical and temperate airports. Bulletin of the World Health Organization 65: 659-662.
Russell, R. W., and J. W. Wilson. 1996. Aerial plankton detected by radar. Nature 381: 200-201.
Sánchez, R., and M. Ulloa. 2006. International maritime transport in Latin America and the Caribbean in
late 2006 (FAL Bulletin No. 253, available at http://www.eclac,cl). Economic Commission for
Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), Division of Natural Resources and Infrastructure.
Sanchez Salinas, P. F. 2007. Evaluacion de la efectividad de la implementacion de la NIMF No. 15 para
embalajes de madera de importacion en la barrera fitosanitaria internacional Puerto de San
Antonion, Region de Valparaiso. Universidad de Talca.
269
SAS Institute. 2007. SAS Online Documentation (for version 9.1).
Sauvageot, H., and G. Despaux. 1996. The clear-air coastal vespertine radar bands. Bulletine of American
Meteorology Society 77: 673-681.
Schaad, N. W., R. D. Frederick, J. Shaw, W. L. Schneider, R. Hickson, M. D. Petrillo, and D. G. Luster.
2003. Advances in molecular-based diagnostics in meeting crop biosecurity and phytosanitary
issues. Annual Review of Phytopathology 41: 305-324.
Schabel, H. G. 2006. Forest Entomology in East Africa: Forest Insects of Tanzania. Springer, Dordrecht.
Scheffrahn, R. H., B. J. Cabrera, W. H. J. Kern, and N. Y. Su. 2002. Nasutitermes costalis (Isoptera:
Termitidae) in Florida: First record of a non-endemic establishment by a higher termite. Florida
Entomologist 85: 273-275.
Scheffrahn, R. H., N. Y. Su, J. A. Chase, J. R. Mangold, J. K. Grace, and J. R. I. Yates. 2000. First record
of Cryptotermes cynocephalus Light (Isoptera: Kalotermitidae) and natural woodland infestations
of C. brevis (Walker) on Oahu, Hawaiian Islands, pp. 141-145, Hawaiian Entomological Society.
Scheffrahn, R. H., J. Krecek, B. Maharajh, J. A. Chase, J. R. Mangold, J. Moreno, and B. Herrera. 2005.
Survey of the termites (Isoptera: Kalotermitidae, Rhinotermitidae, Termitidae) of Nicaragua.
Florida Entomologist 88: 549-552.
Scherr, S. J. 1999. The economic context for agroforestry development: Evidence from Central America
and the Caribbean. Outlook on Agriculture 28: 163.
Schneider, F. 1962. Dispersal and migration. Annual Review of Entomology 7: 223-243.
Schneider, W., C. A. Hollier, H. K. Whitman, M. E. Palm, and J. M. McKemy. 2005. First report of
soybean rust caused by Phakospora pachyrhizi in the continental United States. Plant Disease 89:
774.
Schreiner, I. H. 1991. Sources of new insects established on Guam in the post World War II period.
Micronesica Supplement 3: 5-13.
Schwartzburg, K., and S. Robertson. 2008. Trip report: Site visit to Jamaica February 24-19, 2008. United
States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
Showers, W. B., F. Whitford, R. B. Smelser, A. J. Keaster, J. F. Robinson, J. D. Lopez, and S. E. Taylor.
1989. Direct evidence for meteorologically driven long-range dispersal of an economically
important moth. Ecology 70: 987-992.
SICA. 2008. Estadísticas Turísticas Centroamericanas. Sistema de la Integración Centroamericana.
270
Simberloff, D. 1981. Community effects of introduced species, pp. 53-81. In T. H. Nitecki [ed.], Biotic
crises in ecological and evolutionary time. Academic Press, New York.
Sinclair, D. 2005. Sports education - a priority for Caribbean sports tourism. International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management 17: 536-548.
Sinden, J., R. Jones, S. Hester, D. Odom, C. Kalisch, R. James, and O. Cacho. 2004. The economic
impact of weeds in Australia. CRC for Australian Weed Management Technical Series No. 8.
Singh, P., and R. S. Bhandari. 1987. Insect pests of Acacia tortilis in India. Indian Forester 113: 734-743.
Singh Rathore, M. P. 1995. Insect pests in agroforestry, International Centre for Research in Agroforestry
Working Paper.
Sint Maarten International Airport. 2008. Traffic statistics (Available at: http://www.pjiae.com/businessmovements.html). Princess Juliana International Airport, Sint Maarten.
SITC. 2008. Pathways: Bi-annual report of the National Smuggling Interdiction and Trade Compliance
Program, pp. 10.
SLASPA. 2007. Statistical digest 2006/2007 (Available at:
http://www.slaspa.com/STATISTICAL%20DIGEST%20FOR%202007%20NOVEMBER.pdf).
Saint Lucia Air and Sea Ports Authority (SLASPA).
Solís, D. V. 2005. The southern border of Mexico in the age of globalization, European Union and North
American Border Security Policies in Comparative Perspective. University of Victoria, Victoria,
British Columbia, Canada.
Sousa, E., P. Naves, L. Bonifácio, M. A. Bravo, A. C. Penas, J. Pires, and M. Serrão. 2002. Preliminary
survey for insects associated with Bursaphelenchus xylophilus in Portugal. EPPO Bulletin 32:
499-502.
Sparks, A. N., R. D. Jackson, J. E. Carpenter, and R. A. Muller. 1986. Insects captured in light traps in the
Gulf of Mexico. Annals of the Entomological Society of America 79: 132-139.
Speight, M. R., and F. R. Wylie. 2001. Insect pests in tropical forestry. Biddles Ltd, Guildford and King's
Lynn.
Stachowicz, J. J., and J. E. Byrnes. 2006. Species diversity, invasion success, and ecosystem functioning:
Disentangling the influence of resource competition, facilitation, and extrinsic factors. Marine
Ecology, Progress Series 311: 251.
Stanaway, M. A., M. P. Zalucki, P. S. Gillespie, C. M. Rodriguez, and G. V. Maynard. 2001. Pest risk
assessment of insects in sea cargo containers. Australian Journal of Entomology 40: 180-192.
271
Steel, R. G. D., J. H. Torrie, and D. A. Dickey. 1997. Principles and Procedures of Statistics: A
Biometrical Approach. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Stokes, T. 2001. Plant smugglers busted. TRENDS In Plant Science 6: 453.
Swain, R. B. 1952. How insects gain entry, pp. 350-355. In A. Stefferud [ed.], Insects: The Yearbook of
Agriculture 1952. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Takahashi, S. 1984. Survey on accidental introductions of insects entering Japan via aircraft, pp. 65-79. In
M. Laird [ed.], Commerce and the Spread of Pests and Disease Vectors. Praeger Publishers, New
York.
Takeishi, H. 1992. A study on the fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) found in the fresh fruits carried by
passengers from Thailand to Narita Airport, Japan. Research Bulletin of the Plant Protection
Service, Japan: 75-78.
Tatem, A., and S. Hay. 2007. Climatic similarity and biological exchange in the worldwide airline
transportation network. Proceedings of the Royal Society (Biological Sciences) 274: 1489-1496.
Taylor, L. R. 1974. Insect migration, flight periodicity, and the boundary layer. Journal of Animal
Ecology 43: 225-238.
Taylor, R. A. J., and D. Reling. 1986. Preferred wind direction of long-distance leafhopper (Empoasca
fabae) migrants and its relevance to the return migration of small insects. Journal of Animal
Ecology 55: 1103-1114.
Teixera, E. P., J. P. S. Novo, and E. B. Filho. 2002. First Record of Sinoxylon anale Lesne and Sinoxylon
senegalensis (Karsch) (Coleoptera: Bostrichidae) in Brazil. Neotropical Entomology 31: 651-652.
Telford, G. 2008. Exotic plant pests - citrus canker. The State of Queensland, Department of Primary
Industries and Fisheries, Australia.
The Royal Geographical Society. 2004. Certificate atlas for the Caribbean, 5th edition. Phillip's, a division
of Octopus Publishing Group Limited, London.
Thomas, M. C. 2000. The exotic invasion of Florida: A report on arthropod immigration into the sunshine
state. Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services.
Thomson Reuters. 2008. Examine the UK mail order retailers (Available at:
http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS170744+28-Jan-2008+BW20080128), Thomson
Reuters.
TIES. 2006. Fact sheet: Global ecotourism (Available at:
http://www.ecotourism.org/webmodules/webarticlesnet/templates/eco_template.aspx?articleid=15
&zoneid=2), pp. 5. The International Ecotourism Society, Washington, DC.
272
Tkacz, B., B. Moody, and J. Villa Castillo. 2007. Forest Health Status in North America. The Scientific
World Journal 7: 28-36.
Tkacz, B. M. 2001. Risks associated with world trade in logs and unmanufactured wood, Exotic Forest
Pests Online Symposium. American Phytopathological Society.
Torres, J. A. 1992. Lepidoptera outbreaks in response to successional changes after the passage of
Hurricane Hugo in Puerto Rico. Journal of Tropical Ecology 5: 285-298.
Travour.com. 2008. Belize Ferry.
Tschanz, A., and P. Lehtonen. 2005. Addressing the risks associated with the importation of plants for
planting (Available at:
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/import_export/plants/plant_imports/downloads/q37_whitepaper.pdf).
United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
U.S. Virgin Islands Port Authority. 2006. Aviation statistics, activity for fiscal years 2002-2006
(Available at: http://www.viport.com/avistats.html). U.S. Virgin Islands Port Authority, Aviation
Division.
U.S. Virgin Islands Port Authority. 2008. Port statistics (Available at: http://www.viport.com).
UNComtrade. 2008. The United Nations Commodity Trade Statistics Database (UN Comtrade).
DESA/UNSD. (Available at: http://comtrade.un.org/). United Nations, New York.
UNCTAD. 2005. Review of maritime transport, 2005, pp. 148. United Nations Conference on Trade and
Development, Geneva.
UNCTAD. 2006. Review of maritime transport, 2006, pp. 160. United Nations Conference on Trade and
Development, Geneva.
United Nations. 2005. Migration in the Caribbean - What do we know? Expert group meeting on
international migration and development in Latin America and the Caribbean. United Nations
Secretariat, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division.
Universal Postal Union. 2007. Development plan for the postal sector and postal services in the
Caribbean, pp. 36. Universal Postal Union.
Universal Postal Union. 2008. Postal statistics (Available at: http://www.upu.int/).
UNWTO. 2006. Compendium of tourism statistics data 2000-2004. United Nations World Tourism
Organization, Madrid, Spain.
UNWTO. 2008. World tourism barometer (Available at: http://www.unwto.org/facts/eng/barometer.htm),
pp. 5. United Nations World Tourism Organization, Madrid, Spain.
273
US-DOT. 2007. Air carriers: T-100 International Segment (All carriers) (Available at:
http://www.transtats.bts.gov). United States Department of Transportation (USDOT), Bureau of
Transportation Statistics (BTS), Research and Innovation Technology Administration (RITA).
USCB. 2008. USA Trade Online: The official source for U.S. merchandise trade data (Available at:
http://www.usatradeonline.gov/). United States Census Bureau.
USCS. 2007. Visitors guide to Honduras. United States Commercial Service (USCS), International Trade
Administration, Department of Commerce, USA.
USDA-APHIS-PPQ. 2003. ASA soybean rust alert. United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine.
USDA-APHIS-PPQ. 2008a. Slide presentation: Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ) Puerto Rico and
US Virgin Islands.
USDA-APHIS-PPQ. 2008b. Agricultural Quarantine Inspection Monitoring (AQIM) Handbook. United
States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection
and Quarantine.
USDA-APHIS-PPQ. 2008c. Smuggling Interdiction and Trade Compliance newsletter, January through
June 2008.
USDA-APHIS-PPQ. 2008d. Manual for Agricultural Clearance (Available at:
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/import_export/plants/manuals/online_manuals.shtml). United States
Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and
Quarantine.
USDA-APHIS-PPQ. 2008e. Slide presentation: Ponce Workunit II USDA APHIS PPQ.
USDA-APHIS-SITC. 2005. SITC international mail interceptions were reported from the San Francisco
International Mail Center (SFIMC) Mail Interception Notice (MIN) database which contains over
11,000 records (SITC-SFIMC, 2000-2005)
USDA-APHIS-SITC. 2006. "Food by Mail" SITC operation data set, contains interceptions in mail from
Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, 2006.
USDA-APHIS-SITC. 2007. "Operation Dog Bite" inspections conducted to survey prohibited items in
incoming international private (express) mail packages.
USDA-APHIS. 1998. Solid wood packing material from China: Initial pest risk assessment. United States
Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
USDA-APHIS. 2004. PPQ employees uncover pests in imported scented pine cones. United States
Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and
Quarantine.
274
USDA-APHIS. 2006. Phytosanitary risk associated with phytophagous insect pests intercepted on
bamboo garden stakes from China imported into the United States. United States Department of
Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
USDA-APHIS. 2007. Pests and mitigations for manufactured wood décor and craft products from China
for importation into the United States. United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine.
USDA-APHIS. 2009. Noxious weeds program (Available at:
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/import_export/plants/plant_imports/downloads/q37_whitepaper.pdf).
USDA-FS. 1998. Pest risk assessment of the importation into the United States of unprocessed Pinus and
Abies logs from Mexico. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.
USDA-FS. 2001. Forest roads: A synthesis of scientific information. United States Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service.
USDA-FS. 2003. Pest risk assessment of the importation into the United States of unprocessed logs and
chips of eighteen eucalypt species from Australia. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service.
USDA-FS. 2006a. 2005 oak wilt distribution (Available at:
http://www.na.fs.fed.us/fhp/ow/maps/ow_dist_fs.shtm). United States Department of Agriculture
Forest Service. Northeast Area.
USDA-FS. 2006b. Pest risk assessment of the importation into the United States of unprocessed Pinus
logs and chips from Australia. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.
USDA-FS. 2008. 2007 Resources Planning Act (RPA) Resource Tables. United States Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Inventory and Analysis National Program (Available at:
http://www.fia.fs.fed.us/).
USDA. 2004. Questions and answers on Ralstonia solanacearum race 3 biovar 2 (Available at:
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/publications/plant_health/content/printable_version/faq_phralstonia.pd
f) (Last accessed: 11 December 2008).
USDA. 2008a. Red imported fire ant (Available at:
http://www.invasivespeciesinfo.gov/animals/rifa.shtml). USDA, National Agriculture Library,
National Invasive Species Information Center.
USDA. 2008b. The Plants Database. USDA-NRCS.
USDA. 2008c. New pest response guidelines: Ralstonia solanacearum race 3 biovar 3
(http://www.aphis.usda.gov/import_export/plants/manuals/emergency/downloads/nprgralstonia.pdf) (Last accessed 11 December 2008).
275
USDA. 2008d. Agriculture Quarantine Activity Systems - PestID, USDA-APHIS-PPQ (Available at:
https://mokcs14.aphis.usda.gov/aqas/login.jsp).
USDA. 2008e. Agriculture Quarantine Activity Systems - PQ280, USDA-APHIS-PPQ (Available at:
https://mokcs14.aphis.usda.gov/aqas/login.jsp).
USDA. 2008f. Agriculture Quarantine Activity Systems - Work Accomplishment Data System (WADS),
USDA-APHIS-PPQ (Available at: https://mokcs14.aphis.usda.gov/aqas/login.jsp).
USDA. 2008g. Treatment Manual (Available at:
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/import_export/plants/manuals/ports/treatment.shtml). USDA-APHISPPQ.
van Wilgen, B. W., D. M. Richardson, D. C. Le Maitre, C. Marais, and D. Magadlela. 2001. The
economic consequences of alien plant invasions: examples of impacts and approaches to
sustainable management in South Africa. Environment, Development and Sustainability 3: 145168.
vanAndel, T., J. Behari-Randas, R. Havinga, and S. Groenendijk. 2007. The medicinal plant trade in
Suriname. Ethnobotany Research & Applications 5: 351-372.
Vargas, M. 2004. Online retail sales projection (Available at:
http://retailindustry.about.com/b/2004/08/23/online-retail-sales-projection.htm), pp. 2, About.com
Retail Industry Blog.
Veenstra, A., H. M. Mulder, and R. A. Sels. 2005. Analysing container flows in the Caribbean. Journal of
Transport Geography 13: 295-305.
Vega, F. E., R. A. Franqui, and P. Benavides. 2002. The presence of the coffee berry borer,
Hypothenemus hampei, in Puerto Rico: Fact or fiction? Journal of Insect Science 2.13: 1-3.
Vibrans, H. 1999. Epianthropochory in Mexican weed communities. American Journal of Botany 86:
476-481.
Vinson, S. B. 1997. Invasion of the red imported fire ant (Hymenoptera: Formicidae): Spread, biology,
and impact. American Entomologist 43: 23-29.
Vountourism.org. 2008. Homepage.
Walker, K. 2006. Auger beetle: Sinoxylon crassum Lesne (Coleoptera: Bostrichidae: Bostrichinae), Pest
and Diseases Image Library. Museum Victoria.
Waterhouse, B. M. 2003. Know your enemy: Recent records of potentially serious weeds in northern
Australia, Papua New Guinea and Papua (Indonesia). Telopoea 10: 477-485.
276
Waugh, J. 2008. Trade related pathways to the introduction of terrestrial invasive species in the insular
Caribbean (report to International Programs, US Forest Service). International Union for
Conservation of Nature.
Welbourn, C. 2007. Red palm mite Raoiella indica Hirst (Acari: Tenuipalpidae) (Available at:
http://www.doacs.state.fl.us/pi/enpp/ento/r.indica.html), Pest Alert, Florida Department of
Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Plant Industry.
Wellings, C. R., R. A. McIntosh, and J. Walker. 1987. Puccinia striiformis f. sp. tritici in Eastern
Australia - possible means of entry and implications for plant quarantine. Plant Pathology 36: 239241.
Wells, A., F. delGatto, M. Richards, D. Pommier, and A. Contreras-Hermosilla. 2007. Rural livelihoods,
forest law and the illegal timber trade in Honduras and Nicaragua.
Wetterer, J. K., and R. R. Snelling. 2006. The red imported fire ant, Solenopsis invicta (Hymenoptera:
Formicidae) in the Virgin Islands. Florida Entomologist 89: 431-434.
Whinam, J., N. Chilcott, and D. M. Bergstrom. 2005. Subantarctic hitchhikers: Expeditioners as vectors
for the introduction of alien organisms. Biological Conservation 121: 207-219.
Wiktelius, S. 1984. Long range migration of aphids into Sweden. International Journal of Biometeorology
28: 185-200.
Wilkie, M. L., C. M. Eckelmann, M. Laverdiere, and A. Mathias. 2002. Forests and forestry in small
island developing states (SIDS). International Forestry Review 4: 257.
Wilkinson, P. F. 2006. The changing geography of cruise tourism in the Caribbean, pp. 170-183. In R. K.
Dowling [ed.], Cruise Ship Tourism. CAB International, Oxfordshire, United Kingdom.
Williams, P. A., and S. Timmins. 2002. Economic impacts of weeds in New Zealand, pp. 175-184. In D.
Pimentel [ed.], Biological Invasions: Economic and Environmental Costs of Alien Plant, Animal,
and Microbe Species. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
Williamson, M., and A. Fitter. 1996. The varying success of invaders. Ecology 77: 1661-1666.
Witrylak, M. 2008. Studies of the biology, ecology, phenology, and economic importance of Ips amitinus
(Eichh.) (Col., Scolytidae) in experimental forests of Krynica (Beskid Sądecki, southern Poland).
Acta Scientarum Polonorum - Silvarum Colendarum Ratio et Industria Lignaria 7: 75-92.
Wood, S. L. 1960. Coleoptera: Platypodidae and Scolytidae. Insects of Micronesia 18: 1-73.
Wood, T., P. Anurakpongsatorn, R. Chaichana, J. Mahujchariyawong, and T. Satapanajaru. 2005.
Predation on freshwater bryozoans by the apple snail, Pomacea canaliculata, Ampulariidae, [sic]
an invasive species in Southeast Asia: A summary report. Denisia. 16: 283-286.
277
Worrall, J. 2007. Oak wilt (Available at: www.forestpathology.org). Forest and Shade Tree Pathology.
Wren, J. D., M. J. Roosnick, R. S. Nelson, K. Scheets, M. W. Palmer, and U. Melcher. 2006. Plant Virus
Diversity and Ecology. Public Library of Science (PLoS) Biology 4: e80.
WTO. 2007. Clean stock program for Dracaena spp. intended for export to the United States. World
Trade Organization.
WTTC. 2008. Travel & tourism - The winds of change, pp. 20, The 2008 travel and tourism economic
research: Caribbean. World Travel and Tourism Council, London, United Kingdom.
Yaninek, J. S. 1988. Continental dispersal of the cassava green mite, an exotic pest in Africa, and
implications for biological control. Exp. & Appl. Acarol. 4: 211-224.
Yoshioka, T. 2009. Invasive plants database (Available at: http://invasive.m-fuukei.jp/slist.php?g=Ficus).
Greenery Technology and Landscape Planning.
Zhuikov, M. 2008. Guarding water gardens against invasive species (Available at:
http://www.oar.noaa.gov/spotlite/archive/spot_watergarden.html), pp. 3, NOAA Research.
278
Lisa Ferguson