Pest Risk Assessment of the Importation into the United States

144 Pages·2001·1.12 MB·English

United States Pest Risk Assessment
Department of
Agriculture
of the Importation into

Forest Service

Forest the United States of
Products
Laboratory
Unprocessed Eucalyptus
General
Technical
Report Logs and Chips from
FPL- GTR- 124
South America
Abstract A moderate pest risk potential was assigned to eleven other
organisms or groups of organisms: eucalypt weevils
In this report, we assess the unmitigated pest risk potential of (Gonipterus spp.), carpenterworm (Chilecomadia valdivi-
importing Eucalyptus logs and chips from South America ana) on two Eucalyptus species other than E. nitens, platy-
into the United States. To do this, we estimated the likeli- podid ambrosia beetle (Megaplatypus parasulcatus), yellow
hood and consequences of introducing representative insects phorancantha borer (Phoracantha recurva), subterranean
and pathogens of concern. Nineteen individual pest risk termites (Coptotermes spp., Heterotermes spp.), foliar
assessments were prepared, eleven dealing with insects and diseases (Aulographina eucalypti, Cryptosporiopsis
eight with pathogens. The selected organisms were represen- eucalypti, Cylindrocladium spp., Phaeophleospora spp.,
tative examples of insects and pathogens found on the foli- Mycosphaerella spp.), eucalyptus rust (Puccinia psidii),
age, on the bark, in the bark, and in the wood of Eucalyptus Cryphonectria canker (Cryphonectria cubensis), Cytospora
spp. Among the insects and pathogens assessed, eight were cankers (Cytospora eucalypticola, Cytospora eucalyptina),
rated a high risk potential: purple moth (Sarsina violescens), Coniothyrium canker (Coniothyrium zuluense), and root and
scolytid bark and ambrosia beetles (Scolytopsis brasiliensis, stem rots (Armillaria spp., Phellinus spp., Ganoderma sp.,
Xyleborus retusus, Xyleborus biconicus, Xyleborus spp.), Gymnopilus spectabilis). For those organisms of concern that
carpenterworm (Chilecomadia valdiviana) on Eucalyptus are associated with logs and chips of South American Euca-
nitens, round-headed wood borers (Chydarteres striatus, lyptus spp., specific phytosanitary measures may be required
Retrachyderes thoracicus, Trachyderes spp., Steirastoma to ensure the quarantine safety of proposed importations.
breve, Stenodontes spinibarbis), eucalyptus longhorned borer
(Phoracantha semipunctata), Botryosphaeria cankers (Bot- Keywords Pest risk assessment, Eucalyptus, South America,
ryosphaeria dothidea, Botryosphaeria obtusa, Botryosphae- log importation, chip importation
ria ribi), Ceratocystis canker (Ceratocystis fimbriata), and
pink disease (Erythricium salmonicolor).

April 2001

Kliejunas, John T.; Tkacz, Borys M.; Burdsall, Harold H., Jr.; DeNitto,
Gregg A.; Eglitis, Andris; Haugen, Dennis A.; Wallner, William E. 2001.
Pest risk assessment of the importation into the United States of unproc-
essed Eucalyptus logs and chips from South America. Gen. Tech. Rep.
FPL-GTR-124. Madison, WI: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory. 134 p.
A limited number of free copies of this publication are available to the
public from the Forest Products Laboratory, One Gifford Pinchot Drive,
Madison, WI 53705–2398. Laboratory publications are sent to hundreds
of libraries in the United States and elsewhere.
The Forest Products Laboratory is maintained in cooperation with the
University of Wisconsin.
The use of trade or firm names in this publication is for reader information
and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Department of Agriculture of
any product or service.
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimina-
tion in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national
origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or
marital or familial status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.)
Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication
of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact
the USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720–2600 (voice and TDD). To file a
complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights,
Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Wash-
ington, DC 20250–9410, or call (202) 720–5964 (voice and TDD). USDA
is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
Pest Risk Assessment of the
Importation into the United States
of Unprocessed Eucalyptus Logs
and Chips from South America
John T. Kliejunas
Borys M. Tkacz
Harold H. Burdsall, Jr.
Gregg A. DeNitto
Andris Eglitis
Dennis A. Haugen
William E. Wallner
ii
Contents
Page Page
Wood Import Pest Risk Assessment and Pathogens.......................................................................57
Mitigation Evaluation Team............................................iv
Foliar Diseases............................................................57
Acknowledgments................................................................v
Eucalyptus Rust..........................................................61
Executive Summary...........................................................vii Cryphonectria Canker.................................................64
Botryosphaeria and Cytospora Cankers......................68
Chapter 1. Introduction.......................................................1
Ceratocystis Canker....................................................72
Background......................................................................1
Coniothyrium Canker..................................................75
Statement of Purpose........................................................1
Pink Disease...............................................................77
Scope of Assessment........................................................1
Root and Stem Rots....................................................80
Pest Risk Assessment Process..........................................1
Chapter 4. Summary and Conclusions..............................85
Outreach...........................................................................5
Background....................................................................85
Site Visits.........................................................................7 Pest Risk Assessment.....................................................85
Resources at Risk.............................................................7 Major Pests of Eucalyptus Species on Imported
Logs or Chips..............................................................86
Chapter 2. Eucalyptus Resources of South America...........9
Factors Influencing Risk Potential..................................88
Eucalyptus Plantations in South America.........................9
Conclusions....................................................................89
Characteristics of the Proposed Importation..................11 Chapter 5. Bibliography....................................................91
Previous Interceptions of Quarantine Organisms...........13 Appendix A—Team’s Site Visits to South America........101
Brazil: March 15–April 2, 1998...................................101
Chapter 3. Insects and Pathogens Posing Risk..................15
Argentina, Uruguay, and Chile: April 13–30, 1998.....106
Introduction....................................................................15
Appendix B—Scientific Authorities for Species
Analysis Process.............................................................15
of Eucalyptus................................................................125
Individual Pest Risk Assessments...................................15 Appendix C—Summary of Reviewers’ Comments
and Team’s Responses..................................................126
Insects.............................................................................27
Introduction..................................................................126
Leafcutting Ants..........................................................27
General Comments From Reviewers............................126
Eucalyptus Weevil......................................................30
Major Issues of Reviewers...........................................127
Flea of the Tifa Leaf...................................................33
Issue 1: Geographical Scope of Assessment.............127
Purple Moth................................................................35 Issue 2: Biological Scope of Assessment..................128
Scolytid Bark and Ambrosia Beetles..........................38 Issue 3: Definition of a Quarantine Pest...................129
Issue 4: Lack of Adequate Background Information130
Carpenterworm...........................................................41
Issue 5: Crossover of Pests (Alternate Hosts)...........131
Platypodid Ambrosia Beetle.......................................44
Issue 6: Import of Potential Pests on Chips..............131
Round-Headed Wood Borers......................................46
Issue 7: Pest Risk Criteria.........................................132
Eucalyptus Longhorned Borer....................................49
Issue 8: Pest Risk Potentials.....................................133
Yellow Phoracantha Borer..........................................52 Issue 9: Unknown Virulence–Genetic Variability
of Pests...................................................................133
Subterranean Termites................................................55
Issue 10: Unknown (Sleeper) Pests...........................134
Issue 11: Issue of Tropical Hardwoods.....................134
iii
Wood Import Pest Risk Assessment and
Mitigation Evaluation Team

Dr. Harold H. Burdsall, Jr. Dr. John T. Kliejunas
Forest Mycologist (retired) Forest Pathologist
USDA Forest Service USDA Forest Service, SPF
Forest Products Laboratory 1323 Club Drive
One Gifford Pinchot Dr. Vallejo, CA 94592
Madison, WI 53705-2398
Mr. Borys M. Tkacz, Team Leader
Dr. Gregg A. DeNitto USDA Forest Service
Forest Pathologist Forest Health Protection
USDA Forest Service, CFFHP P.O. Box 96090
P.O. Box 7669 Washington, DC 20090
Missoula, MT 59807
Dr. William E. Wallner
Dr. Andris Eglitis Forest Entomologist (retired)
Forest Entomologist USDA Forest Service
USDA Forest Service Northeastern Center for Forest Health Research
Central Oregon Insect and Disease Field Office 51 Mill Pond Road
1645 Highway 20 East Hamden, CT 06514
Bend, OR 97701

Dr. Dennis A. Haugen
Forest Entomologist
USDA Forest Service, St. Paul Field Office
1992 Folwell Avenue
St. Paul, MN 55108
iv
Acknowledgments Professor Alejandro Madrigal Cardeño
Facultad de Ciencias
Numerous individuals made valuable contributions to the Universidad Nacional de Colombia
success of the risk assessment project and to the site visits. Apartado Aéreo 3840
Everywhere the team visited, we were warmly received by Medellín, Colombia
the local officials and consultants who helped us understand
Charles Crosthwaite Eyre
the local forestry and resource management issues. Some of
Eyre Associates
the key individuals who had prominent roles in coordinating
The Old Malthouse, Upper Clatford
the site visits and who accompanied the team are listed by
Andover, Hampshire SP 11 7 QL
country:
Great Britain
Argentina: Norberto Echeverría and Diego Quiroga of
Robert B. Floyd
SENASA (Servicio Nacional de Sanidad y Calidad Agroali-
Program Leader, Natural Resources and Biodiversity
mentaria); Martin Sanchez Acosta of INTA (Instituto
CSIRO Entomology
Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria) in Concordia
GPO Box 1700
Brazil: Erich Schaitza and Edson Tadeu Iede of EMBRAPA Canberra ACT 2601
(Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuaria) in Curitiba; Australia
Charles S. Hodges (North Carolina State University)
Diana Maria Guillen
Chile: Marcos Beeche Cisternas and Miguel Angel Poisson Secretaria de Agricultura, Ganadería, Pesca y Alimentación
(Servicio Agrícola y Ganadero) Ministerio de Economía
Paséo Colón 367 P11 CP 1067
Uruguay: Juan F. Porcile and Nora Telechea (Division Fore- Buenos Aires, Argentina
stal, Dirección General de Recursos Naturales Renovables)
Dr. Lawrence M. Hanks
Other individuals and organizations that provided valuable Department of Entomology
contributions are named in the site visit reports in 320 Morrill Hall
Appendix A. University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign
Urbana, IL 61801
Portions of this document were extracted from the Chilean
pest risk assessment (USDA Forest Service 1993) and the Dr. Everett Hansen
Mexican pest risk assessment (Tkacz and others 1998). Botany and Plant Pathology Department
2082 Cordley Hall
We thank the following colleagues for providing critical
Oregon State University
reviews of an earlier draft of this document:
Corvallis, OR 97331
Dr. Ronald F. Billings Dr. Charles S. Hodges, Jr.
Forest Resource Development Department Department of Plant Pathology
Texas Forest Service North Carolina State University
2127 S. First – Highway 59 South P.O. Box 7616
Lufkin, TX 75902–0310 Raleigh, NC 27695
Dr. George M. Blakeslee Dr. William Jacobi
School of Forest Resources and Conservation Department of Bioagricultural Sciences & Pest Management
118 Newins Ziegler Hall Colorado State University
University of Florida Ft. Collins, CO 80523–1177
Gainesville, FL 32611–0410
Dr. Kathleen Johnson
Dr. Brian J. Cabrera Supervisor, PP&D Programs
Department of Entomology Oregon Department of Agriculture
219 Hodson Hall, University of Minnesota 635 Capitol Street NE
1980 Folwell Avenue Salem, OR 97310–2532
St. Paul, MN 55108
Dr. John D. Lattin
Dr. R. Scott Cameron Department of Entomology
Forest Research & Biotechnology 2046 Cordley Hall
International Paper Oregon State University
1201 West Lathrop Avenue Corvallis, OR 97331–2907
Savannah, GA 31402
v
Dr. Emmanuel Mireku Juan F. Porcile
Plant Quarantine Policy Branch Dirección Forestal
Australian Quarantine & Inspection Service (AQIS) Avenida 18 de Julio 1455, 6o Piso
Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Montevideo, Uruguay
GPO Box 858, Canberra ACT 2601
Fernando Peña Royo
Australia
Servicio Agrícola y Ganadero
Dr. Nancy Osterbauer Departamento Protección Agrícola
Survey Plant Pathologist Santiago, Chile
Oregon Department of Agriculture
635 Capitol Street NE Dr. Stephen J. Seybold
Salem, OR 97310–2532 Department of Entomology
219 Hodson Hall, University of Minnesota
Dr. Don Owen
1980 Fowell Avenue
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
St. Paul, MN 55108
6105 Airport Road
Redding, CA 96002 Nora Telechea
Dirección Forestal
Dr. Timothy D. Paine
Avenida 18 de Julio 1455, 6o Piso
Department of Entomology
Montevideo, Uruguay
University of California, Riverside
Riverside, CA 92521–0314 Ms. Dorthea Zadig
Division of Plant Industry, Pest Exclusion Branch
Dr. J.H. Pedrosa–Macedo
Department of Food and Agriculture
Departamento de Ciências Florestais
1220 N Street
Universidade Federal do Paraná
Sacramento, CA 95814
80060–000—Curitiba, Paraná
Brazil
vi
Executive Summary However, by developing IPRAs for known organisms that
inhabit a variety of different niches on logs, effective mitiga-
Background and Objectives tion measures can subsequently be identified by APHIS to
eliminate the recognized pests. It is anticipated that any
Current regulations require that unprocessed temperate
similar unknown organisms that inhabit the same niches
hardwood logs from countries in South America may be
would also be eliminated by the application of these
imported if they are fumigated with methyl bromide prior to
mitigation measures.
arrival in the United States to eliminate pests (Title 7, CFR
part 319.40-5(d)). Chips are required to be of tropical origin
Conclusions
from healthy, plantation-grown, tropical species, or if of
temperate origin, must be fumigated with methyl bromide, There are numerous potential pest organisms found on
heat-treated, or heat-treated with moisture reduction (Title 7, Eucalyptus spp. in South America that have a high likelihood
CFR part 319.40-6 (c)). Because of several requests from of being inadvertently introduced into the United States on
forest industries in the United States to import chips of Euca- unprocessed logs and chips. The potential mechanisms of log
lyptus species from countries in South America, Animal and or chip infestation by nonindigenous pests are complex.
Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) requested that the These complex mechanisms may be affected by country-
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service specific differences in harvesting and processing practices
prepare a pest risk assessment. The objectives of the risk and differences in the distribution and prevalence of pest
assessment were to identify potential pests of Eucalyptus in organisms. Differences in the distribution and prevalence of
South America, estimate the likelihood of their entry on pest organisms are noted in the IPRAs. These differences
South American logs and chips into the United States, and may change the risk potential of organisms from one country
evaluate the economic, environmental, and social conse- to another. The scope of this assessment is, however, the
quences of such an introduction. entire South American continent. Differences in cultural and
processing procedures or pest distribution and prevalence
The Risk Assessment Team
may warrant country-specific mitigation measures. Where
warranted, country-specific mitigation measures would be
A USDA Forest Service Wood Import Pest Risk Assessment
recommended by APHIS during the risk management phase
and Mitigation Evaluation Team (WIPRAMET) conducted
based on data provided in the IPRAs.
the assessment. The team was chartered in 1995 by the Chief
of the Forest Service to provide a permanent source of tech-
Among the insects and pathogens found on Eucalyptus spp.
nical assistance to APHIS in conducting pest risk assess-
in South America, eight were rated a high risk potential:
ments. In 1998, two delegations of WIPRAMET members
purple moth (Sarsina violescens), scolytid bark and ambrosia
and an APHIS representative traveled to South America, one
beetles (Scolytopsis brasiliensis, Xyleborus retusus, Xyle-
team to Brazil and the other team to Argentina, Chile, and
borus biconicus, Xyleborus spp.), carpenterworm (Chileco-
Uruguay. Each team met with local agricultural, quarantine,
madia valdiviana) on Eucalyptus nitens, round-headed wood
and forestry officials, entomologists, pathologists, and forest
borers (Chydarteres striatus, Retrachyderes thoracicus,
industry representatives to gather information. Each team
Trachyderes spp., Steirastoma breve, Stenodontes spinibar-
toured harvest areas, inspected processing plants and ports,
bis), eucalyptus longhorned borer (Phoracantha semipunc-
and viewed pest problems in Eucalyptus plantations and
tata), Botryosphaeria cankers (Botryosphaeria dothidea,
forests. The pest risk assessment document prepared by
Botryosphaeria obtusa, Botryosphaeria ribis), Ceratocystis
the team also takes into consideration comments by
canker (Ceratocystis fimbriata), and pink disease (Erythri-
individuals who provided critical reviews of an earlier draft
cium salmonicolor). All of these, except Botryosphaeria
(Appendix C).
dothidea, Botryosphaeria obtusa, Botryosphaeria ribis, and
Ceratocystis fimbriata are nonindigenous to the United
Pest Risk Assessment
States and would be classified as quarantine pests under the
log import regulations.
The team compiled lists of insects and microorganisms
known to be associated with South American species of
A moderate pest risk potential was assigned to 11 organisms
Eucalyptus. From these lists, insects and pathogens that have
(or groups of organisms) found on Eucalyptus spp. in South
the greatest risk potential as pests on imported logs or chips
America: eucalypt weevils (Gonipterus spp.), carpenterworm
were identified. Nineteen individual pest risk assessments
(Chilecomadia valdiviana) on two Eucalyptus species other
(IPRAs) were prepared, 11 dealing with insects and 8 dealing
than E. nitens (E. camaldulensis and E. gunnii), platypodid
with pathogens. The objective was to include in the IPRAs
ambrosia beetle (Megaplatypus parasulcatus), yellow
representative examples of insects and pathogens found on
phorancantha borer (Phoracantha recurva), subterranean
the foliage, on the bark, in the bark, and in the wood. By
termites (Coptotermes spp., Heterotermes spp.), foliar dis-
necessity, this pest risk assessment focuses on those insects
eases (Aulographina eucalypti, Cryptosporiopsis eucalypti,
and pathogens for which biological information is available.
vii
Cylindrocladium spp., Phaeophleospora spp., Mycosphae- knowledge of forest insects and pathogens and the ability to
rella spp.), eucalyptus rust (Puccinia psidii), Cryphonectria recognize problem situations when they occur. However,
canker (Cryphonectria cubensis), Cytospora cankers some of the pest organisms of concern are those native to
(Cytospora eucalypticola, Cytospora eucalyptina), Conio- South America that have been capable of attacking intro-
thyrium canker (Coniothyrium zuluense), and root and stem duced Eucalyptus. This characteristic suggests an ability to
rots (Armillaria spp., Phellinus spp., Ganoderma sp., have a wider host range and adaptability for new hosts. In-
Gymnopilus spectabilis). While some of these organisms do troduction into the United States of these organisms and the
occur in the United States, they may be capable of further array of new hosts that would then be available could result
dissemination or differ in their capacity for causing damage in unforeseen consequences.
based on the genetic variation exhibited by the species.
For those organisms of concern that are associated with
Several factors suggest that eucalypt logs or chips destined Eucalyptus spp. in South America, specific phytosanitary
for export from South America may be relatively free of most measures may be required to ensure the quarantine safety of
damaging organisms. Commercial Eucalyptus plantations are proposed importations. Detailed examination and selection of
well managed for maximum production, closely monitored to appropriate phytosanitary measures to mitigate pest risk is
detect and control damaging pests, and grow under condi- the responsibility of APHIS and is beyond the scope of this
tions that do not generally lead to a high incidence of damage assessment.
by insects or pathogens. There appears to be a good working
viii