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

responsible for port-of-entry inspections) Caribbean Invasive Species Working Group Caribbean Risk Assessment Group. Guyana. and Colombia is not addressed in this report. domestic surveillance. The percentage of randomly inspected sampling units that contained what the search was targeting (e.g.g. percentage of packages containing plant materials). and the U. Department of Homeland Security A pest not native to an area Greater Caribbean Region: comprised of all countries bordering the Caribbean Sea.Abbreviations and Definitions Actionable pest Approach rate For the United States: a pest that triggers quarantine actions (e. 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.S. Suriname.S. port-of-entry exclusion measures. A Miami-based interdisciplinary pest risk discussion and analysis group Caribbean Community and Common Market Customs and Border Protection (a branch of the U. ports of entry) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (a branch of the USDA) Biological Threat Advisory Group. Plant Protection and Quarantine U.S. Turks and Caicos. and rapid response. Note: The pest risk to Mexico. Not all reportable pests are actionable. plus the Bahamas. Agricultural Quarantine Inspection Monitoring (randomized data collection at U. Venezuela. El Salvador. Components of a safeguarding system may be: international risk management. treatment. destruction or refusal of entry of commodity infested/infected with the pest) when intercepted at a port of entry.. nematode. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. weed.S. mollusk. permitting systems and legal framework. Twenty-foot equivalent unit (a unit of measurement for cargo containers) United States Department of Agriculture Work Accomplishment Data System Wood packaging material 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 . 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). International Plant Protection Convention International Standard of Phytosanitary Measure Any species of terrestrial arthropod. Department of Homeland Security. All activities aimed at preventing the entry of exotic species into a country. Gulf States.. 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.

edu/maps/americas/camericacaribbean.jpg) 1 .utexas.The Greater Caribbean Region (Image source: http://www.lib.

and natural spread. 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). The pest risk to Mexico. wood packaging materials. forestry. Lousiana. plus the Bahamas. mites. mail. Plant Protection and Quarantine (USDA-PPQ). propagative materials. None of the pathways assessed was rated as low-risk. Turks and Caicos. hitchhikers. The main focus for improvements should be: • Regional coordination. Gulf States (Florida. This must be taken into account in the development of mitigation measures. and natural pest spread was rated as medium.) Even though the pathways are discussed separately. planning. The pest risk associated with human movement. For the purposes of this report. the Greater Caribbean Region is defined as all countries bordering the Caribbean Sea. and weeds. forestry. biosurveillance. non-vertebrate plant pests. and the U. Alabama. Suriname.S. hitchhikers. such as insects. though these countries are considered as sources of pest risk. maritime traffic. there is considerable overlap between them. Mississippi. The pest risk associated with airline passenger baggage. plant pathogens. and Texas). Venezuela. thereby helping CISWG to enhance its Caribbean Regional Invasive Species Intervention Strategy (CRISIS) for preventing the introduction and spread of exotic pests. (See page 11 for a summary table of risk ratings. and propagative materials was rated as very high.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. and Colombia is not addressed in this report. Guyana. airline passenger baggage. wood packaging material. The pathways discussed are: human movement. mollusks. and recommendations for improved safeguarding are provided. and communication • Education and involvement of the public • Early warning. Numerous specific recommendations for improved safeguarding are listed in this report. El Salvador. international mail. The scope of this report includes all terrestrial. The relative importance of each pathway was rated based on the available data. and pest information systems • Preparedness and rapid response 2 . nematodes.

Cruise ship passengers are also likely to visit local markets. agricultural cargo.cruise ship (Garraway. cruise passengers may spread viable pests to new habitats within the GCR. Once in the GCR. ferry. These vessels may be easily used to move quarantine materials (e. together with the immense number of travelers into and within the GCR. or by intentionally collecting the pest to take it to a different location. especially with the current trends of ecotourism and private island experience leading to visitation of more natural and pristine areas.g. Inspection of airline passenger luggage is common (see Chapter 2).. commonly entering countries without being subject to inspection. souvenirs made of plant parts) between countries and may thus play an important role in facilitating the spread of pests. Local merchants and commuters also move back and forth between adjacent countries on a regular basis. where they may buy handicrafts or other items that could harbor plant pests. 3 . The obvious potential of humans to facilitate pest spread. it is not uncommon for visitors to move between countries (“island-hop”). with air travel being the predominant mode of transportation (UNWTO. by transporting the pest on objects brought to or taken from an area (e. water. 2006). The Central and South American nations of the GCR each share land borders with at least two other countries. Migrant farm workers cross some of the land borders in large numbers and may facilitate the regional spread of plant pests into agricultural areas. The Greater Caribbean Region (GCR) is the most heavilytoured region in the world (Padilla and McElroy.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.. Cruise ship. and an overall insufficient level of phytosanitary safeguards warrant the pest risk associated with this pathway to be rated as very high. Visitors to the GCR arrive by either air. 2008). small boat. 2006).g. 2005) – airline passengers exceed 30 million per year (UNWTO. Also of concern is the immense number of yachts and other small vessels moving around the Caribbean Sea. ferry. the GCR is exposed to the risk of pest spread mediated by the movement of people. plants for planting. Frequenting several climatically similar destinations within a short time. or land. but cannot do justice to the ever-increasing passenger volume. Thus. or – in most cases . These borders often can be crossed without agricultural inspection. or their shoes. handicrafts made from plant parts). and small boat passengers are often not subject to phytosanitary inspections. which is accomplished by regional flight.

Bahamas (9%). The QMs intercepted from these countries were largely apples.g.. Most visitors to the GCR come from Canada. oranges. bananas. mangoes. because not all QMs are infested with pests. and the United Kingdom (The Royal Geographical Society. ten were GCR countries: Haiti (approach rate: 21%). We estimated that over 1 million plant QMs arrivals associated with airline passenger baggage may occur in the GCR annually. unspecified fresh fruit. “Tourists” had considerably lower approach rates than both of the preceding categories.75% (95% binomial confidence interval: 3. snails. Out of the 25 countries of origin with the highest plant QM approach rates. and plants. Guadeloupe (12%). 4 . bananas. High-risk QMs intercepted included seeds. We also estimated that only one quarter of these plant QMs were intercepted by phytosanitary inspections.000 pest arrivals to the United States may have escaped detection by phytosanitary inspection in 2006. St. pears. and 4%. weed seeds) or items (e. ports of entry. Because passenger baggage may contain pests (e. 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.7 million arrivals of plant QM to the United States during 2006. followed by “Visit Friends”. This study quantifies the pest risk associated with airline passenger baggage. The plant QM approach rate is not the same as the pest approach rate. Jamaica (8%). 5%. Bonaire (18%). because most visitors to the GCR are tourists from cooler-climate countries. respectively. Most travelers into the GCR countries are tourists. Vincent (13%).81%) for travelers to the United States and estimated that there were some 1. and bulbs. We calculated an overall plant QM approach rate of 3. given that they receive visitors from many of the same countries of origin. we rated the risk associated with passenger baggage as medium. The category “Visit Family” was associated with the highest QM approach rates. The plant QM approach rates associated with these countries of origin were 8%. and oranges. 2004). however.Chapter 2: Airline Passenger Baggage The large majority of all visitors to the Greater Caribbean Region (GCR) arrive by air (UNWTO.3 million plant QMs entering the United States undetected. seeds. representing a comparatively low pest risk. international air travel has long been considered a pathway for the movement of pest organisms. St. Even though the data was collected at U. The plant quarantine material (QM) approach rate is the percentage of passenger groups arriving at the border with plant QMs in their luggage.S. We estimated that some 375. and because the majority of QMs found on this type of traveler were fruits for consumption. France.. fruits or vegetables) that are infested with pests. 2006). plums. and Dominica (8%). yams. Grenada (13%). it has applicability to other countries in the GCR.70-3. leaving about 1.g. Lucia (11%). Plant QM approach rates were significantly different between travel reasons. Antigua (9%). Germany. plants. 4%. The ten most commonly intercepted QMs were (in decreasing order of interception frequency): apples.

876 and 14. Using data on international mail entering the United States. Propagative materials represented about one third of the intercepted materials. is difficult to characterize due to the immense number of different commodities arriving from all over the world. however. private postal services dominate the parcel market. there are several ways in which pests may be spread: with commodities (both agricultural and non-agricultural). were also detected. 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. Of packages sent by public mail. and in the wood packaging material accompanying the commodities. Fresh fruits. and given that a general process for commodity pest risk assessment is in place (IPPC. International mail may be the pathway of choice for intentional smuggling of high-risk items. and other fresh plant parts. each having a different level of pest risk associated with it. We estimated that the GCR (excluding the United States) may annually receive between 13. 1.000 of these being propagative materials. this chapter does not focus on commodities.8% from GCR origins contained plant QMs. Chapter 4: Maritime Traffic In the context of maritime traffic.1% from world-wide and 0. The pest risk associated with commodities. Particularly common categories of high-risk items found in mail were: seeds.943 mail packages containing plant materials or plant pests. while very possibly the most important threat. pointing out some issues of special concern and providing a general background to 5 . presenting a lower pest risk than propagative materials. as hitchhikers on the vessels and containers used for transport. 0. pods and other propagative plant materials. and wood items. contained plant QMs. this chapter gives a general overview of maritime traffic in the Greater Caribbean Region (GCR). More international mail is sent to the United States through the public postal service than through private mail.6%. In other countries in the GCR. The pest risk associated with both hitchhikers and wood packaging material is discussed in detail in other chapters of this report.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). soil. vegetables.and origin-specific to be meaningful. Of packages sent to the United States by private mail from world-wide and GCR origins. Rather. with up to 4. 2007) and must be commodity.13% and 1. We rated the pest risk associated with the mail pathway as medium. Given that legally traded commodities already receive attention from importing countries. respectively. wood.

It is possible that transshipped containers can facilitate the introduction of exotic pests. etc. At several ports. the establishment of transshipment services accounts for much of the increase in sea container traffic. 2002). The GCR serves as a crossroads for international maritime trade. Hitchhiker pests may get into or onto a non-host commodity. (2000). weed seeds that fall off shoes) or because they are attracted by certain physical or chemical conditions. but either with a nonhost commodity directly or on/in the conveyance (airplane.. including those in Asia and Europe. thus becoming hitchhiker pests.g. as pests have been known to contaminate the exterior and/or interior of shipping containers (Gadgil et al. Tracking of intra-Caribbean trade is difficult. 1. Chapter 5: Hitchhiker Pests A hitchhiker pest is a plant pest that is moved. 2003b. either of products made in the GCR or foreign products being transshipped from one Caribbean port to another. has recently expanded. pests that were originally associated with a host commodity shipment may be left behind in a container or conveyance after unloading. For example.6 million of the 7 million containers arriving annually at maritime ports in the GCR may be contaminated with one or more plant pests. providing almost half of all container traffic. This chapter examines the scientific literature and U.. there are numerous accounts of pests being associated with cargo containers or with the conveyance itself. and the likelihood that they escape detection. Locations in the GCR that may 6 .complement the information laid out in other chapters of this report. and maritime vessels. In addition. 2008) or insects or mollusks may find shelter on or in cargo containers. it compares Caribbean ports with regard to cargo container volume handled and discusses small vessel activity for select countries. Furthermore. the likelihood that they survive transit. Specifically.S. Intra-Caribbean trade involves the movement of cargo within the GCR. government data to assess the likelihood that hitchhiker pests are present on a conveyance. aircraft. The United States is a primary trading partner in the GCR.. with the level of regulation and record-keeping varying greatly between countries. conveyance.S. In the scientific literature. and this trend is expected to continue. Gadgil et al. hitchhiker pests are intercepted at U.) or shipping container used for transport. 2000. Maritime traffic has been increasing in the GCR. maritime vessel. trade with other countries. 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. flying insects may be attracted by lights during nighttime loading (Caton. ports of entry on containers. 1999). and the United Nations estimated that around 400 to 500 small vessels (including vessels larger than 150 GRT) operated throughout the GCR (Boerne. However. Boerne (1999) estimated the number of small ships (less than 150 gross tonnage (GRT)) operating throughout the insular Caribbean to be around 200. Fowler et al. Based on a 23% approach rate estimated by Gadgil et al. or container either by chance (e.. not on a host commodity.

Routine quarantine inspections are likely to miss a large portion of the arriving pests. Solenopsis invicta (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Chapter 6: Wood Packaging Material Wood packaging material (WPM). Puerto Rico. we use U. Gulf Coast states. mollusks. Only a few countries of the GCR require treatment of WPM in accordance with ISPM #15 (Foreign Agricultural Service. the hitchhiker pathway should be considered a very high risk. To reduce the pest risk associated with WPM worldwide. Damaged or otherwise unusable pallets are disassembled for the wood parts. 2001). Lymantria dispar (Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae). Pest survival in or on conveyances and containers depends on the combined effects of various environmental conditions and the duration of transport. and the U.. In this study. Bursaphelenchus xylophilus (Tylenchida: Aphelenchoididae). weed seeds. and plant pathogens are likely to survive modern transit conditions and are very likely to escape detection. or terrestrial mollusks (Cowie and Robinson.receive more than 90. often with bark and portions of the vascular cambium remaining (Clarke et al. such as Asian gypsy moth. have been introduced into new areas as hitchhiker pests. which are then re-used to build or repair pallets (Bush et al. the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) developed ISPM #15 (IPPC. 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. in Portugal and the Asian longhorned beetle. the limited amount of time available for inspection. Costa Rica. an international standard which prescribes either fumigation or heat treatment for all WPM. Most insects.S. 2003). including the pine wood nematode. Anoplophora glabripennis (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae). in the United States (New York and Illinois). Netherlands Antilles.S. used worldwide in shipments of both agricultural and nonagricultural products. Because WPM is routinely re-used and re-conditioned. 2008). WPM is usually produced from low-grade wood of various tree species.. Factors impeding pest detection include: the level of available staff and resources compared to the immense number of incoming conveyances and containers. Several reports in the scientific literature strongly suggest that pests. 2006). 7 .000 contaminated containers annually are: the Bahamas. Given the large number of conveyances and containers continuously circulating throughout the GCR and the numerous impediments to intercepting hitchhiker pests. 2002). is believed to have been the pathway for several pest introductions worldwide. red imported fire ant. and the large size and complex shape of conveyances. Jamaica. Panama. the origin of the WPM is not necessarily the same as the origin of the commodity with which it is being imported. government data to evaluate the potential role of WPM in the introduction of exotic pests into the GCR.

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.S. 8 . and the fact that port-of-entry inspections of WPM often are limited to a verification of the required seal. Dominican Republic. Forests are at risk not only from pests introduced on forest products. Chapter 7: Forestry-related Pathways Trade of forest products is a vital industry for several countries in the Greater Caribbean Region (GCR). Costa Rica. showed that 75% of maritime cargo shipments (agricultural and non-agricultural combined) contained WPM. Guatemala. New Zealand and several European countries had a high incidence of WPM in export cargo. enforcement of ISPM #15) and August 15. while shipments from China had the lowest incidence of WPM. the impossibility of determining the origin of the wood. 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. and social importance. The susceptibility of these forests to exotic pest invasions is being increased through the effects of logging and other human activities. ports of entry of wood-boring beetles of the families Curculionidae (Scolytinae) and Cerambycidae. the difficulty of inspecting WPM. Guatemala. and the difficulty of WPM inspections. At the same time.S. Several countries in the GCR (Costa Rica. pests originating in forest areas may represent a threat not only to forests. re-infestation of the wood after effective treatment. WPM was found in only 33% of shipments. Honduras. economic. 2007. rather than a search for pests. The forests of the GCR. but also to fruit plantations or agricultural production. The majority of pests associated with WPM are likely to go undetected due to the large amount of WPM entering. 2005 (start date for U. data on maritime and air cargo. have immense ecological. Live pests are entering with WPM in spite of full enforcement of ISPM #15. collected between September 16. For air cargo. as demonstrated by interceptions at U. Cuba.S. we rated the pest risk associated with this pathway as very high.These countries are: Colombia. but also from pests entering with agricultural commodities or through other pathways. Numerous pests intercepted on or in WPM have already established in the GCR. encompassing over 92 million hectares of land. with shipments from the Netherlands having by far the highest incidence of WPM. Due to the immense quantity of WPM moving in international trade. or fraudulent use of the stamp/seal. Guyana. as well as a variety of other insect orders. Nicaragua. incorrectly applied treatments. weeds. but many still have potential to spread further within the region. and the Dominican Republic) had high percentages of export cargo with WPM. and the United States. U. and mollusks.

also referred to as nursery stock. or planting (e. plane or bus passengers. As a pathway. and especially plant pathogens. medicinals. Chapter 8: Plant Propagative Material Plant propagative material. there is no easy solution to this problem. are the major exporters of nursery products to the Greater Caribbean Region (GCR) (UNComtrade.g. This is occurring on a global scale. or in personal vehicles. Israel. and craft products. The propagative material pathway also allows invasive plants to enter the GCR. it is obvious that pests. cargo vessel. as ornamentals or food plants) by private collectors or homeowners. Traded propagative material may present a phytosanitary risk in two ways: 1) by introducing exotic plant pests. where they often cause considerable economic and environmental damage. leaves. is any plant material capable of and intended for propagation. An extensive list of pests associated with forestry products which have the potential to move into and within the GCR is provided. non-wood forest products. and edible fungi). are being spread between countries through both legal and illegal movement of propagative materials. Non-wood forest products include food products (e. Reasons for importing propagative material include its use in commercial nursery and horticulture production. 1998). together with Canada. There are almost no safeguards in place to 9 . The United States. nuts. for reforestation or in agroforestry systems)... The trade of propagative material is a multi-billion dollar industry. bamboo. including plants for planting.Important pathways for the introduction and movement of exotic plant pests related to forestry include wood products. uses in agriculture and forestry. the fact that many of the most serious invasive pests around the world are forest pests. 2008). public or private mail. berries. Due to the large number of pests associated with forest products. 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. and the difficulty of mitigating pest risk on wood products we rated this pathway as very high risk. “plant exploration” by botanical gardens or researchers. and 2) by becoming an invasive weed in the introduced range.. The large majority of invasive exotic plant species in the GCR were introduced on purpose. and dried bamboo has served as a pathway for insect pests from China. small boat. Due to the relative ineffectiveness of inspection and the unavailability of diagnostic tests for pathogens. Some of the trees introduced for use in commercial plantations become invasive species (Richardson. truck. as well as in the baggage of ship. and the Netherlands.g. and trees for planting (e. Based on the available information. Christmas trees have been a vehicle for the introduction of exotic pests into the GCR.g.

resulting in higher plant pest densities. and the pest risk associated with this pathway should be considered very high. 1991). the force of the storm would likely kill or injure most insects that are swept up. and swarms of locusts reached the Windward Islands from Africa on at least one occasion (Richardson and Nemeth. plants. This is where the predominantly westward-bound winds first hit land after traveling across the Atlantic Ocean (Richardson and Nemeth.. We rated the pest risk associated with this pathway as medium. 1985). Summer is the rainy season in many areas of the GCR. and August are the most likely time for the movement of pests out of the GCR and into the southeastern United States. Some significant plant pathogens have been carried on the wind from Africa into the GCR (Purdy et al. Hurricanes have played a role in the spread of the Asian citrus canker bacterium Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. and arthropods possess biological mechanisms for wind dispersal. The propagative material pathway presents major safeguarding challenges. Although hurricanes can be a factor in the dispersal of some insect groups (Torres. The months of June. as none of the countries in the GCR requires weed risk assessments as a condition for importation of propagative materials. natural spread of plant pests is a pathway for pest introduction. 1992). 10 . tropical storms and hurricanes are more common in the summer and early fall (Rogozinski. 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. The prevailing winds tend to carry pests from the Windward Islands (the most southeasterly islands) to the Leeward Islands. The Windward Islands form a gateway into the GCR. 1999) and could contribute to the spread of plants pests. citri (Xanthomonadales) (Irey et al. 1991). 2006) and bean golden mosaic virus (BGMV) in the GCR. Chapter 9: Natural Spread Given the close proximity of land masses in the Greater Caribbean Region (GCR). and many plant pathogens. Meteorological mechanisms operate throughout the GCR to accomplish such movement. While the prevailing winds are favorable for pest movement nearly year-round.prevent this from happening. the Greater Antilles and on to the southeastern United States. Tropical storms with less intense wind strength may be a more likely mechanism for natural movement of plant pests. July..

6.5. 6. 6. 7. and 8 Overlap with 1 and 8 Overlap with 5 and 8 Overlap with 5. and 8 Overlap with 4. and 8 Overlap with 5. 6.7. 7. and 8 Overlap with 1. 5. 3. and 8 Overlap with 1. 5.Summary of Risk Ratings by Pathway Pathway Human movement Airline passenger baggage Mail Maritime trade Hitchhikers Wood packaging material Forestry-related pathways Propagative materials Natural spread Risk Rating very high ***** medium medium (no rating) very high very high very high very high medium *** *** (no rating) ***** ***** ***** ***** *** Comments Overlap with 2. 2. and 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 11 . 4. 3. 4.

g. planes.Pathways of Pest Movement Not Addressed in this Analysis Due to time constraints. etc. etc. 2005). 12 • • • • • • . Airplanes. d. and cages moved in connection with live animal trade can harbor weed seeds or other plant pests. but not smooth seeds (Mouissie et al. Air cargo. cars. Garbage. Bonsai trees. These pathways may be explored in follow-up studies as resources become available. tanks.. Propagative materials and mail. buses. Medicinal plants harvested from forests. • Cut flowers entering Miami from the Caribbean. Interesting questions in connection with this pathway include: the risk posed by the garbage and residue left over after cut flower inspection. and modern quarantine facilities are not always available. ferries. The movement of military equipment (ships. 2003). There are numerous examples of animal pest and disease outbreaks around the world due to the mishandling of garbage (Benoit. the risk of flying insects escaping during inspection. 2003c. cruise ships. 2003). Inofficial trade within the GCR is probably common. Weed seeds can be attached to the fur or wool and can also be found in the digestive tract of live animals. Bonsai trees from Asia may be a major pathway for host-associated pests (Brodel. a).) and for mail. Garbage arrives in connection with every type of transportation existing in the GCR. For cut flowers. or parts such as bark. and leaves. Trade in medicinal plants is increasing and includes whole plants. stems. A number of important pests have been intercepted on bonsai trees from China. Much of the plant material is harvested from forest areas. Also. while cattle and deer dispersed hooked or bristly seeds over long distances. the effectiveness of cut flower inspection. and larvae of Cerambicidae (Brodel. as well as hitchhikers are covered in their own chapters. Most agricultural cargo in the GCR is transported by ship. The following is a list of pathways which were not addressed in this report. etc. Live animals as a pathway for weed seeds. green mangoes.) has been suspected as the cause of pest introductions in other parts of the world. see above. roots. bedding material. propagative materials. Air transport seems to be mainly used for very high-value or highly persishable commodities (e. Quarantine regulations for live animals vary among countries of the GCR. yachts. Aleurocanthus spiniferus (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae). cargo vessels. Military. This pathway was addressed to some degree in a series of CPHST documents in 2003-2005 (Caton. strawberries. The risks may be similar for plant pests. Its significance for the spread of pest around the GCR is unknown. 2008). we were not able to analyze every potential pathway of pest movement in the GCR. cut flowers. but which may nevertheless represent a significant risk. feed. e. among them Scirtothrips dorsalis (Thysanoptera: Thripidae).. Research found that sheep are long-distance seed-dispersal vectors for seeds of any morphology. but had to focus on those that seemed most significant and feasible.

cruise passengers. travel agencies. Good project management practices should be employed. relevant reports and publications. The Jamaica Clearing-House Mechanism. in airplanes. links to electronic journals of relevant content. listing of relevant meetings and events. This group may either be a strengthened and more strongly supported CISWG or a new entity. and e-mail. educational materials for downloading (e.. postcards. and it will help recruit volunteers for exotic species prevention. Carry out a region-wide public awareness campaign on invasive species. Jamaica’s Biodiversity Information Network (htpp://www. etc. tourist markets. among other things: a listing of organizations and groups active in exotic species management in the GCR. o Effectiveness of materials should be evaluated by communication experts. 2008) as a starting point. action-oriented group (“regional action group”) to coordinate and carry out region-wide exotic species efforts.jm). of travelers at airports. For the effective coordination of regional acitivities information-sharing is absolutely essential.. Raised awareness will also make it more likely that exotic pest incursions are detected and reported by members of the public. General recommendations (not pathway-specific) Create a regional. Develop a web-based clearinghouse of information related to exotic species in the GCR. obtain funding and staffing.g. volunteer lecturers.Recommendations for Improved Safeguarding The recommendations with the highest expected cost-benefit ratio are preceded by a . pens. and oversee execution.) o Distribute message through: local television and radio. websites. o Develop curricula on invasive species to be used in elementary school through university. slide presentations with audio). o Campaign should be region-wide with a consistent message. schools and universities. videos at airports. as well as not-for-profit organizations and universities should actively participate in this group. o Consider using the public awareness campaign developed by Australia (Plant Health Australia. post offices. 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. coordinated through the regional action group. such as the National Plant Health Directors’ group. meeting minutes and proceedings. All countries of the GCR.org. Governments should support this group by making available staff and other resources for projects and committees. videos. on cruise ships. codes of conduct. The role of this group should be to plan regional projects. o Use a variety of media (e.jamaica. may serve as an 13 . Develop a web-portal containing.. brochures. o Measure impact through surveys (e.g. Coordination with other groups working in the same area should be a priority.. etc.g. and access to databases of relevant content. regular people in the street).

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. may be important and competent contributors to a regional surveillance system. The potential usefulness and applicability of these and other projects for the GCR should be evaluated and collaborations should be developed as appropriate. Early detection is key in responding to new pest introductions. In the GCR. analysis. A special session at the Caribbean Food 14 . A Central America Pest Survey Program (CAPSCA) has been suggested for Honduras. and the Invasive Species Compendium of CABI. nursery professionals. and storage of pest information must occur in an efficient and organized manner. Develop an effective integrated biosurveillance and pest information system for the entire GCR. o Decisions will need to be made regarding which pests to survey for and which areas to survey. trapping and identification tools.. gardeners. o Involve the public in surveillance and diagnostics. Both safeguarding against and responding to pest introductions depends strongly on current pest information.example. also to be used as a mechanism for official pest reporting. The collection. dissemination.net and zipcodezoo. and port interception records. Develop surveillance systems for the early detection of pests.com. The portal should be complementary to and integrated with the International Phytosanitary Portal (https://www.jsp). This is one of the goals of the CISWG Caribbean Invasive Species and Surveillance Program (CISSIP). Of special importance is information on distribution. the CISSIP project plan may have to be reconsidered in order to move forward. natural spread of pests may be inevitable. One example of an existing biosurveillance system is the Exotic Pest Information Collection and Analysis (EPICA) of USDAAPHIS-PPQ. Hobby entomologists and botanists.. Some examples of initiatives that collect distribution information through amateur biologists are: bugguide. An on-line database is indispensable. as well as the Biodiversity & Environmental Resource Data System (BERDS) of Belize (March et al. port-of-entry inspection is not and can never be an effective safeguarding method. Costa Rica. for which a detailed project proposal has been developed but funding has not yet been obtained. By itself. Hold a regional symposium on biosurveillance and pest information management (in support of the previous recommendation). Depending on the likelihood that funding can be found. control methods. the Global Invasive Species Database of the Invasive Species Specialist Group. host range.ippc. 2008). and Panama. It would be most cost effectively done on a GCR-wide basis. o Surveillance programs for the early detection of exotic species should be implemented. The development and maintenance of the portal should be coordinated through the regional action group. Nicaragua. 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.int/IPP/En/default. The USDA Cooperative Agricultural Pest Survey (CAPS) Program has developed a process for making this kind of decisions using the analytical hierarchy process. etc.

Every country should have an effective process in place for ensuring that incoming pest information is evaluated. This undertaking would have a low chance of success due to its huge scale and everchanging information. Develop effective mechanisms and procedures for translating information into action. 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.. if a pest is detected in one country. 15 . Any processes implemented are not static. survey.. This event should be sponsored by the regional action group. Instead.Crops Society Meeting may also be a possibility. and control strategies. what commodity to focus inspection on. only five had been intercepted more than once by PPQ at ports-of-entry in the 12 years prior to their establishment (Brodel. The regional action group may be instrumental in coordinating the development of these processes where they do not yet exist. This committee should be comprised of experts from various countries and should draw on additional expertise as needed in each case. recommended actions are carried out. Port interception records are useful for exploring pest risk. it is erroneus to assume that a low number of interceptions is equivalent to low risk. Pest lists should be seen less as permanent documents and more as dynamic and constantly changing output from one large collection of information. Of the 21 insect species that were found to be established in Florida between 1997 and 1998. This information could be used to develop pest lists for surveys. etc. action plans are developed. Often. decisions (e. Do not base risk estimates on port interception data alone.g. 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. implement a database system to record distribution data. Establish a regional “New Pest Advisory Group”. what pathways to consider high or low risk. 2003). their effectiveness is assessed. The most sophisticated pest information system is useless if the information does not lead to action.) are made using risk estimates based exclusively or mainly on pest interception records. pest finds. This effort should be coordinated by the regional action group. The database should be coupled with a biosurveillance and notification system. it makes sense for other countries to start surveying for it. however. The applicability of NPAG procedures to a regional new pest advisory group should be reviewed by a committee of the regional action action group. Develop regional emergency action plans that are triggered as soon as a country reports the introduction or interception of certain pests. but have to be continuously scutinized.g. pest survey results. These plans would include communication. and updated. and this assessment is fed back into the information system. refined. Do not attempt to develop a comprehensive list of pest threats to the entire GCR. e.

All decisions have to be re-evaluated periodically as the situation changes or new information becomes available. The regional action group should play a coordinating role in this undertaking. 2004).) are made by some committee or group. etc. 2008). inspection methodology. Outreach and education efforts can be easily done by citizen 16 . Most decisions concerning safeguarding (e. No analysis or recommendation should be accepted by any decisionmaker unless the reasoning behind it is sufficiently clear and well-documented. Countries with very limited resources may consider alternating a dog between pathways or even sharing a dog with other countries. A common glossary of all relevant terms should be compiled and maintained for the entire GCR. botanical gardens. whether something should be considered high. the reasoning behind all decisions should therefore be clearly explained and documented. importers/exporters. Money and time are always in short supply. it becomes impossible to evaluate the decision’s validity. A lot of the work that needs to be done does not require professional staff. Develop voluntary codes of conduct for regional groups involved in the dispersion of exotic species (e. either formally or informally. nursery trade. however. as it has a deterrent effect and leads to the collection of valuable data. and other groups (BEST. This discrepancy is not always obvious and may not be noticed immediately. Leverage available resources and find low-cost approaches to achieve goals. 2003). level of inspection. For example. Increase the use of detector dogs wherever feasible. Periodic inspection of a pathway is preferable to no inspection at all..or low-risk.g. operators of small boats and yachts. and many good ideas never come to fruition because of a lack of resources..Strive for transparency in all decisions and analyses. Resources will never allow a thorough inspection of all pathways by human inspectors. the gardening public. and this information should be available within each government. These codes of conduct should be drafted/compiled by a regional committee and shared throughout the GCR. etc.. it may in some cases severely affect the outcome of a cooperative effort (Roberts. the National Invasive Species Strategy of the Bahamas contains voluntary codes of conduct for the government. etc. ships. A mutually understood terminology is a key ingredient for any successful cooperation.) (March et al. inspection cannot keep up with the ever increasing volume of incoming planes. Agree on a common terminology. The terminology should be consistent with ISPM #5: Glossary of Phytosanitary Terms. boats. farms. and may possibly be used to amend it.g. producers/refurbishers of WPM. Detector dogs make it possible to reliably scan a larger number of items than humans given the same amount of time. Some ideas for how to accomplish this may be: o Involve the public. 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. For the sake of continuous improvement and to reduce the possibility of errors. Even in countries with relatively abundant resources. botanical gardens. It is therefore important to use available resources to the best possible advantage. If the reasoning behind a decision is not clearly documented. nursery professionals. mail. cruise ship operators.

Certain not-for-profit organizations (e.) Instead of creating educational materials separately for each country.o o o o o o volunteers. airplanes. Minimize the number of groups working on similar issues in the GCR. Educational materials. Partners of the Americas) can provide highly qualified subject matter experts for shortterm assignments. and allow the work to proceed from the bottom up. Instead. develop one set of materials that can be used by all countries in the GCR. avoid duplication of effort by coordinating research needs region-wide. Break work up into feasible projects. For example. Offer graduate thesis project ideas. Always explore possibilities to share into or build on the efforts of others for mutual gain. establish basic guidelines. All ports of entry that do not currently report traffic data should start doing so. Carry out projects on a regional rather than a country-by-country level to save costs. Amateur naturalists can help with pest surveys and report new detections. The availability of port traffic data at an adequate level of detail is necessary for risk quantification and costbenefit analysis regarding potential phytosanitary measures. develop a single database and share the development costs. Top-down management of very complex projects that involve a high degree of uncertainty is likely to fail because of large adminstrative overhead. slow progress. (This does not necessarily mean that the data has to be shared among countries. instead of developing a separate database for each country. 2008). Too many independent groups cause confusion and dilute resources.org. number and size of containers arriving. origin of containers. trucks. rather than forming more and more similar groups with largely overlapping agendas. by someone else. Sometimes the desired goal has already been achieved. Data format and units of measurement should be harmonized throughout the region. Form strong relationships with universities around the world. or at least partially achieved. Relevant information includes: number and type of conveyances (vessels. and lack of ownership by the people who have to carry out the work. Form agreements with universities to ensure that students receive university credit for research work done in the GCR. In funding research projects. 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. While it is important to keep the big picture in mind. Get graduate students involved in Caribbean research projects through internships and studyabroad opportunities. such as brochures or videos may be produced in a student competition at a minimal cost. • Improve collection and accessibility of traffic data at ports of entry. Volunteer tourists even pay to be allowed to work (Vountourism. Farmers can check traps placed in their fields and report results by phone or e-mail.) arriving and departing. or re-exported and if they are full or empty.. Commit to and invest in one or a small number of coordinating groups. 17 . departing. set a clear goal. overwhelming complexity of decision-making. Take advantage of existing projects and products. etc. One current example would be the UNEP project GFL/-2328-2740-4995 “Mitigating the threats of invasive alien species in the insular Caribbean”.g.

For example. or on-flight or pre-flight educational videos. Carry out biodiversity impact studies for ecotourism sites to anticipate environmental and economic impacts of exotic species introduction. Fines need to be sufficiently high in relation to the benefit of the prohibited action to have a deterrent effect. 2006). plant parts. (Where appropriate. Instruct visitors to clean shoes and clothing when entering or leaving a natural or agricultural area. 2002).). The products themselves can be educational by providing information on exotic pests of concern. Post signs at eco-tourism sites describing acceptable behavior while visiting the site. mainly as a deterrent measure. Educate international air travelers prior to departure and deplaning about the potential consequences (economic. Publicize interceptions as a warning to potential violators. environmental. This could be achieved by on-flight announcements. 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. informational brochures. consider the use of water hoses. etc..• Create and enforce phytosanitary regulations that allow the issuing of adequate fines or other penalties for violations. disinfectant foot baths. Implement a user fee system for eco-tourist destinations. dispersal mechanisms. personal) of transporting agricultural products. • Raise money by providing products such as postcards. Increase presence and visibility of inspectors at marinas. and possible preventative actions. Funds raised through ecotourism should go to exotic species prevention and management (Hypolite et al. Visitors should be instructed to remain on marked paths and to neither bring into nor take out of the area any plants. Use the money towards the prevention of exotic pest introductions. metal grates in ground for cleaning shoes. 2006). Visitors should remove soil and plant seeds from shoes and clothing and inspect cuffs and Velcro® closures. or souvenirs to visitors who give a donation (Johnson. • • 18 . or animals. calendars. visitors to the El Yunque rainforest in San Juan are educated on environmental considerations prior to taking a walking expedition (Johnson. Recommendations related to: Human Movement Post signs at marinas to educate visitors about the potential consequences of transporting exotic pest species on their vessels.

58) allow for such actions. Share results region-wide. 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. The lack of authority to inspect first-class mail seriously undermines the quarantine process. etc. Possible targeting criteria include origin of passenger. Conduct periodic data collection efforts (“blitzes”) at mail facilities. 19 .13 and 7CFR318. • • Invest in research on inspection technology (e. In order for this to be possible.. Remind plane passengers to consume or discard prohibited materials during flight. Carry out statistically-sound data collection to answer specific questions. Allow inspection of USPS first class mail in Puerto Rico before leaving to the United States. or other prohibited items. plants. Consider region-wide coordination and sharing of resources for carrying out blitzes. o When collecting trash before landing. robotic nose. allowing inspection of suspicious first-class packages destined to the mainland United States.• Limit access to very sensitive sites by restricting the number of visitors.g. 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. density of roads and trails. environmental. seasonality.) Develop targeting strategies for inspection of airline passenger baggage. Hawaii has developed a process for obtaining search warrants. o Announcements by the flight crew could remind travelers that they are not allowed to take certain materials into the destination countries. personal) of transporting agricultural products. the flight crew may specifically ask for fruits. informational brochures. and holidays. Current regulations (7CFR318. access for vehicles. meats. This could be achieved by on-flight announcements. availability of accomodations. A detector dog is used to establish probable cause. This is a less intrusive and faster method than opening of the luggage by human inspectors. seeds. a systematic data collection program has to be implemented. vegetables. x-ray technology. etc. or on-flight or pre-flight educational videos. Expand the use of detector dogs for baggage inspection. Recommendations related to: Airline Passenger Baggage Educate international air travelers prior to departure and deplaning about the potential consequences (economic.

strategies. country of origin. Port-ofSpain.g. Hold mail inspector training meetings. mail inspection methodologies. This is obviously a big and long-term undertaking that may not be immediately feasible everywhere. Quarantine materials (especially propagative materials) are being sold and often smuggled through mail order. the database or at least the format of the database should be region-wide. even if only periodically. Record data on pest interceptions in mail. including the transshipment of cargo from one country to another via small vessels. Increase the man-hours spent inspecting mail packages for quarantine materials. Trinidad) are where most of the cargo arrives from all over the world to be distributed within the GCR by small vessels. ships.. Kingston. USDASITC has attempted a surveillance initiative (“AIMS”) and may be able to offer some insights. as well as their quantity. Panama. Organize a regional mail handler’s conference as a formum for sharing information. Use detector dogs at the mail facility. and any other groups involved in mail handling and inspection.Foster collaboration between customs officials. Monitor inter-island trade via small vessels. Ideally. and the incidence of wood packaging material. ideas. x-ray systems) at mail facilities. • • • • • • • • Recommendations related to: Maritime Traffic Focus safeguarding efforts on the major transshipment ports for cargo from outside of the GCR. country of destination. Use appropriate inspection technology (e. etc. • Establish mail inspection systems in countries where they do not yet exist. Conduct surveillance of commercial internet sites. etc. technologies.) and may thus be easier and more efficient. mail facility staff. relevant meetings. Focusing safeguarding efforts on these locations would require dealing with fewer entities (ports. Create a regional bulletin or newsletter to share information about noteworthy pest interceptions in mail. agricultural officials. Determine what commodities are being shipped. Improve public and private mail systems. Little data is available on inter-island trade. etc. Jamaica. Implement package tracking and tracing technology at mail facilities. in particular the ability to track and trace parcels. Collect and archive data on pest and quarantine material interceptions in mail. The major transshipment ports (Colon. 20 .

2008). Focus on major maritime ports and airports that receive cargo from outside of the GCR. possibly in coorperation with the U. through lures. Evaluate effectiveness of currently used or available cleaning methods and make changes as appropriate. To reduce costs.. Monitor areas on and near the perimeter of the ports regularly for introduced pests of particular interest (Robinson et al. Suggest specific strategies they can employ to reduce the risk of pest introduction. and qualified volunteers.). avoid nighttime loading because lights attract some major groups of quarantine-significant insects. as well as containers with cargo. Evaluate likelihood of hitchhikers to be carried to final cargo destination given the current cargo handling procedures. Place traps on maritime vessels (commercial and cruise ships) to catch insects and possibly mollusks present on vessels. Clean containers and conveyances. Avoid attracting pests into the area (e. place lures/turn on trapping lights etc. Recommendations related to: Hitchhiker Pests Encourage loading of vessels during times when the likelihood of pest entry is lowest.S. Ensure that traps do not attract pests onto the ship (e. Cooperative Agricultural Pest Survey (CAPS) Program and risk advisory groups such as BTAG and CRAG..Implement risk communication strategies to educate local residents and business owners on the pest risks associated with trade. Inspect empty containers. etc.g. For example. 21 . only after ship is far enough from land). employ the help of amateur taxonomists. lights. 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. Coordinate and share data throughout region.. university students.g. CISWG could be instrumental in coordinating the development of a trapping plan.

Encourage research to assess the effectiveness of ISPM #15. types and number of pests found. not-for-profit organizations (e. The presence of WPM in a shipment should be declared on the importation papers. CABI) and the Cooperative Agricultural Pest Survey (CAPS) Program. Educate inspectors on how to look for pests on WPM. • • Develop a communication network to share pest interception data. Recommendations related to: Forestry Hold an international congress on introduced and imminent forest pests in the GCR. o share information related to exotic forest pests. both on the surface and inside the wood. there may be a special mark (e. The USDA-APHIS-PPQ-Center for Plant Health Science and Technology may be able to provide expertise in weed risk assessment. 22 . Increase region-wide inspection and identification expertise on pests associated with WPM. etc. etc. Ensure that identifiers have the expertise and the necessary reference material to identify the pests that are found. In addition. Collaborate with forest services. Involve the public. This will help port staff more effectively target WPM for inspection. and o develop action items for regional cooperation in addressing forest pests. Allow entry of WPM only if bark-free. The main objectives of the conference should be to: o increase awareness of the threats of invasive species to forests and forest products. a sticker) placed on containers that have WPM in them. Simply checking for treatment seals is not a sufficient inspection method. 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.) should be recorded and shared region-wide.. 2005).g. presence of treatment seal. A certain percentage of WPM should be randomly selected and thoroughly searched for pests. as well as inspection and diagnostic techniques. Carry out surveys to determine the distribution of pests commonly associated with WPM outside of their native range. Do not exclude the countries that are enforcing ISPM #15 from these survey efforts. All pertinent information (type of cargo. Establish criteria for assessing invasive potential for exotic tree species that are under consideration for agroforestry..Recommendations related to: Wood Packaging Material Develop a strategy to ensure adequate inspection of WPM on all agricultural and non-agricultural cargo.g. origin of cargo. training materials. Use the help of hobby biologists. Make the declaration of WPM mandatory for all imports.

Establish Best Management Practices to reduce the potential movement of forest pests. 2005. 2008). 2001.Exclude tree species with high invasive potential from agroforestry systems. (Exceptions may be made for plants that have been historically imported at high volumes. or the invasiveness potential of a species may have been misjudged in a predictive weed risk assessment (Reichard and White. However.. 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. Fox et al. Prohibit the importation of all plant species unless they have been deemed unlikely to become invasive by a (predictive) weed risk assessment.) The Australian Weed Risk Assessment system is the most widely known and tested system of its kind (Gordon et al. Retrospective assessments evaluate the invasiveness of plants some time after they have been imported. (2003) would provide a useful foundation for this. these species also have a greater potential to become invasive. The efforts of Kairo et al.. Draft a voluntary code of conduct for nurseries and landscaping businesses to promote the sale and use of native and non-invasive plants. 2008). 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 .g... Any country without this policy leaves a weakness in its safeguarding system. As much as possible. promote the use of local tree species in agroforestry and reforestation. 2001). Fastgrowing and readily reproducing tree species are often preferred for plantation planting. Retrospective assessments are important because a lag time may exist between species introduction and onset of invasiveness.. Carry out surveys to determine the distribution of pests commonly associated with wood and non-wood forest products outside of their native range. Randall et al. invasiveness may change due to environmental changes. Assess the invasiveness of plant species retrospectively (e. (Heffernan et al.

and the landscape. and continue to. resorts. Botanic gardens and arboreta have a clear responsibility to adopt and demonstrate to the public a strong environmental ethic” (BGCI 2000). Use of either an 80% ethanol wash or a specified concentration of detergent solution would be employed […]. contribute to. Possibly model invasiveness evaluation after systems already in place at some botanic gardens that currently have evaluation systems in place (BGCI.Draft a voluntary code of conduct for local governments. Develop a list of common pathogens of economic importance for which plant material should be tested on a regular basis. contribute to this problem by promoting actually and potentially invasive plants. 2008). • • 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. and the public about the importance of choosing and displaying ecologically responsible plant collections. 2000) o “support. Waugh.” (BGCI. 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. arboreta.” (Childers and Rodrigues 2005). • 24 . Use early warning and bio-surveillance systems as inputs for decision making. as well as businesses and governments throughout the GCR. Conclusions from the first World Botanic Gardens Congress state that “Botanic gardens and arboreta have. 2000) o …“engage and educate fellow botanic gardens and arboreta. hotels. Increase attention to plant pathogens. “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. and other entities that engage in large-scale landscaping. and share research that identifies problems and provides solutions” related to invasive plant species. 2000) o re-evaluate current plant collections for invasiveness (BGCI. The program may be developed at universities. Code of conduct should stipulate that botanical gardens: o conduct invasiveness studies prior to introducing a new plant into botanic gardens. As much as feasible. 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.” Develop sampling protocol for mites and other small arthropods. 2000) Develop an educational program on identification and potential impact of invasive plant species in the GCR (Reichard and White. increase the availability of molecular diagnostics. Share test results within the GCR.” (BGCI. the horticulture industry. This program should target the general public. for example through graduate student projects. 2001.

divert scientific. in some cases. The systems approach should be 25 • • • • • • . 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.g. less diversion of inspectors. 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. Consider making resources available to fund this work as graduate student research. use of hand lens.). and amount imported in consistent units. while also providing guidance to help identify and categorize the risks. cuttings. This protocol should describe in detail the inspection methods to be followed (e. etc. Implement systematic data collection efforts to assess the pest risk associated with at least the most common imports of propagative materials. and regulatory resources away from fruit and vegetable towards propagative material imports.). more objectivity and reliability of research. if applicable the variety. 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). If necessary. of the imported plants and should provide some assurance that the plant material is free of pests based on clearly specified inspection protocols. etc. Implement a systems approach to reduce the pest risk associated with the propagative materials that pose the highest risk of pest introduction. 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.” (IPPC. country of origin. risk analysis. Evaluate adequacy and reliability of procedures for issuing phytosanitary certificates. diagnostic tests for pathogens. The advantages of this approach over using port-of-entry personnel would include: lower cost. building on the recommendations of Tschanz and Lehtonen (2005). Current phytosanitary measures that rely mainly on treatments and inspections are. type of material (roots. The phytosantairy certificates should indicate the species and. 2008) Record information on propagative material imported by plant species. with information on variety. Harmonized procedures for phytosanitary security of traded plants for planting are necessary to allow increased trade while minimizing phytosanitary risks and unnecessary delays. “International trade in plants for planting has a high potential for the introduction of regulated pests. date of importation.• Require phytosanitary certificates for all imports of propagative materials. growing and inspection practices followed. industry. inadequate to mitigate the risks. In the United States: Give strong priority to the improvement of “quarantine 37”.. detergent wash. and better distribution and documentation of results through the scientific publication process.

customized for each commodity and should be developed collaboratively by the importing and the exporting countries. Develop biological control methods for targeted pests. Base SIT programs on a target pest list.. Because most information about the natural spread of pests is anecdotal. 26 . such as trace element or DNA analysis may be useful in some cases.g. degree-day models. Determine the origin of invasive pests in the GCR. Develop host-free zones for targeted pests. Use predictive modeling (e. Recommendations related to: Natural Spread Conduct annual surveys to monitor the arrival of new pests in an area. routine diagnostic tests for pathogens.. pre-shipment inspection. biological control. the knowledge of where a pest originated from would be a useful start in understanding natural pest movement. it is generally very difficult and often not possible to determine the origin of a pest. etc. Obviously. etc. The systems approach may contain components such as scouting. Modern technologies. basic sanitation practices (e. reduction of fertilizer levels.). pesticide applications. etc.) for timing of surveys.g. quarantine treatments. • • • • Use sterile insect technique (SIT). washing of shoes and equipment. 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.

the Greater Caribbean Region (GCR) is suffering considerable economic and environmental impacts due to the introduction of exotic plant pests. This document is a collection of chapters. Frank and Thomas (2004) estimated that every year about 10 new species become established in Florida alone.Introduction Like many other areas of the world. mites. non-vertebrate plant pests. While we do not know exactly how many exotic species have already established in the GCR. Guyana. mollusks. Achatina fulica (Gastropoda) are just a few more examples of economically significant pests introduced into the GCR. Plant Protection and Quarantine (USDA-PPQ). The pest risk to Mexico. causing crop losses in the millions. (2003) provide a list of over 550 exotic species in the insular Caribbean. For the purposes of this report. Although the chapters can be read independently of each other. Venezuela. thereby helping CISWG to enhance its Caribbean Regional Invasive Species Intervention Strategy (CRISIS) for preventing the introduction and spread of exotic pests. Black Sigatoka. airline passenger 27 . though these countries were considered as sources of pest risk. and weeds.S. Sternochetus mangiferae (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). plant pathogens. the Greater Caribbean Region is defined as all countries bordering the Caribbean Sea. 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. The scope of the report includes all terrestrial. the red palm mite. Kairo et al. Examples of some recently introduced pests include the pink hibiscus mealybug. The pathways discussed are: human movement. The GCR is composed of a multitude of mostly small countries and territories with a diversity of political systems. no single regional plant protection organization exists (Kairo et al. nematodes. and the U. from Asia. and the giant African snail. the mango seed weevil. Gulf States.. Similarly. Its objective is to contribute to an improved understanding of pathways of plant pest movement as they pertain to the entire GCR. 2003). While a number of organizations with agricultural focus are active in the GCR. 2004). there is no doubt that their number is in the hundreds and is quickly growing. This report is the result of a collaboration between the Caribbean Invasive Species Working Group (CISWG) and the United States Department of Agriculture. is quickly expanding its range throughout the region after being detected in Martinique in 2004 (Flechtmann and Etienne. there is considerable overlap between topics. each of which explores a different pathway of pest movement. Turks and Caicos. species that become established in one part of the region are potentially able to invade most other parts. Suriname. Maconellicoccus hirsutus (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae). El Salvador. and Colombia is not addressed in this report. which spread throughout the GCR in less than 10 years. Mycosphaerella fijiensis (Ascomycetes: Mycosphaerellales). 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. plus the Bahamas. Raoiella indica (Acari: Tenuipalpidae). such as insects.

propagative materials. mail. It is hoped that this report will foster dialog and collaboration among the Caribbean nations and will lay the groundwork for other. it is meant to be a starting point for discussion and further study. maritime traffic. or to even discuss all possible pathways of pest movement. The discussion focuses on pest movement and entry. A list of recommendations for improved safeguarding is provided at the end of each chapter. The question of establishment. rather. has been purposely omitted from the scope of this report.baggage. This report does not make the claim to answer all questions. 28 . and natural spread. The recommendations that have the highest expected cost-benefit ratio are preceded by a . wood packaging material. to solve all problems. similar projects. forestry. hitchhikers. an important topic in its own right.

and South American countries. Once in the GCR. or they may intentionally collect the pest (e. their clothing. 2008). Travelers may arrive by one of three basic modes: air. For example. or their shoes. 2006). Travelers may arrive by water on ferries or on personal or chartered boats or yachts. and land) into and within the GCR and discuss the potential of each to serve as pathways for exotic pest introduction. and 18. The pest risk associated with hitchhiker pests on vessels and airplanes is also discussed separately (see Chapter 5). Given that clothing and shoes. insects. In the insular Caribbean. 7 million. The pest risk associated with airline passenger baggage is analyzed in detail in its own chapter (see Chapter 2).. the travel industry is among the most important industries. water. tree seeds. 2005).4 million. Data on the frequency of such events is scarce. Cruise ships. respectively (UNWTO. it is common for tourists to move between countries (“island-hop”) by regional flight. they may unintentionally transport the pest on certain products such as handicrafts or plant parts brought to or taken from the area. and South America. 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). In this chapter. As the most heavily touristed region in the world (Padilla and McElroy. and the majority of all travelers—both from within and outside of the Caribbean—arrive by air (UNWTO. showed that the number of exotic weeds in a particular site increases with the number of visitors.Chapter 1: Human Movement Introduction The introduction of pests into new locations has been closely linked to the movement of humans. Access across land borders is possible in the case of North. 1998. or land. James. Discussion Persons visiting an area may intentionally or unintentionally spread plant pests in several different ways: they may be carrying the pest on themselves. In 2006. or whole plants) to take it to a different location. accounting for site size effects. we address each of the above-mentioned basic modes of human movement (air. Lonsdale (1999). 2008). comprising almost 15% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and providing approximately 13% of total employment (WTTC. 2008). small boat. or cruise ship. ferry. snails. water. also bring a substantial number of travelers into the GCR (FCCA.000 airports (Aircraft Charter World. Central America. departing mainly from North America. the GCR is faced with the challenge of managing this risk of exotic pest introduction. the quantitative 29 . 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. international tourist arrivals numbered 19.7 million for the Caribbean islands. Central. The GCR has almost 1. 2008).g.

For example. 2008). and these same adaptations will make the seeds adhere to human clothing as well. jackets. innersole. and flower bulbs have been 30 . sp. live insects or snails. Seeds were found under the tongue. DiThomaso (2000) points out the possibility that travelers may carry noxious weed seeds in soil particles attached to shoes and boots. tritici (Uredinales: Pucciniaceae) can remain viable on clothing for at least one week (Wellings et al. 1977). A total of 981 propagules (seeds and fruits) and five moss shoots were collected from the clothing and equipment of 44 expeditioners. sp. • Pepino mosaic virus (PepMV) (Ferguson. 1997). Many plants have evolved special adaptations enabling their seeds to adhere to the fur of animals (Bullock and Primack. seams. 2001). and land snails and slugs are believed to have been accidentally introduced into the Pacific Islands in soil on shoes (Cowie. tritici (Uredinales: Pucciniaceae). Pythiales). and socks also collected propagules. In a study by Whinam et al. Several weed species in Mexico have been shown to be dispersed on human clothing (Vibrans. • Moniliophthora roreri (Agaricales: Marasmiaceae). and numerous pest fact sheets mention the possibility of spreading via clothing or shoes plant pathogens such as: • Puccinia graminis f. Spores of the fungus Puccinia striiformis f. Based on our personal experience. causal agent of citrus canker (Telford. or pieces of wood or small quantities of soil that may contain pest organisms. appears to be distributed via human activities such as hiking (Cushman and Meentemeyer. 1987). Lonsdale (1999) showed that the number of exotic weeds in a particular site increases with the number of visitors. plants. found in greater incidence on hiking trails and public lands than in minimally disturbed areas. it is not uncommon for travelers to actively collect or purchase viable plants or plant parts.. conidia of Colletotrichum acutatum (Ascomycota) may remain viable for long periods of time in dry soil or on clothing (Norman and Strandberg. (2005). the plant pathogen Phytophthora ramorum (Oomycetes. These propagules comprised 90 species from 15 families. 2003). 2003).analysis of the risk associated with airline passenger baggage provided in a separate chapter of this report is relevant here (see Chapter 2). 1999). most of the available information is anecdotal and non-quantitative. Also of concern is the deliberate movement of organisms or objects which are pests or may harbor pests. or • Nematodes (Crow and Dunn. 2005). Pockets. causal agent of soybean rust (USDA-APHIS-PPQ. Clothing and outdoor items with Velcro® fasteners were identified as the highestrisk items. and cuffs of outdoor clothing such as gaiters. causal agent of frosty pod rot (CABI. the causal agent of the wheat stem rust Ug-99 (Grains Research and Development Corporation. • Phakopsora pachyrhizi (Uredinales: Phakopsoraceae). • Xanthomonas axonopodis (Xanthomonadales: Xanthomonadaceae). causal agent of chrysanthemum white rust (Callahan. Seeds. and in the tread of walking boots. inspection of expeditionary equipment revealed that viable seeds were carried on clothing to overseas locations. 2008). • Puccinia horiana (Uredinales: Pucciniaceae). Outdoor equipment and equipment cases (particularly daypacks) were found with seeds on or in them. 2008). Apart from this. 2008). 2001). Similarly.

it seems likely that many travelers would be tempted to take along plant parts or small animals as souvenirs. Experts project a 3. because people wear them as Image 1. Handicrafts sold at markets throughout the GCR may also present a pest risk. etc. wood carvings. The Dominican Republic reported the greatest number of tourist arrivals (almost 4 million).3% annual growth of tourist numbers for the next 10 years (WTTC.1) (CTO. many of the handicrafts sold as souvenirs in Caribbean countries are actually made in China. there is a chance that pests could spread from one location to the next. or other Asian countries (personal observation). Given the diversity and beauty of tropical plants and animals. artificial Christmas trees. Hats are of special concern. wooden products such as bonsai trees. If these travelers visit multiple locations in the GCR. 2007.1 Handicrafts made of palm leaves for they walk about. But it is not only Caribbean products that present a pest risk.intercepted in airline passenger baggage (USDA. in palm frond hats made in the Dominican Republic and brought by cruise ship passengers to Palm Beach. Furthermore. 2001). Florida (Apgar. Welbourn. For example. followed by Florida (3. and Africa have been smuggled into the United States for resale (Stokes.2 million). Table 1. 2001). 2008). at a tourist market in Old San Juan. People from other countries visiting friends or relatives in the GCR are likely to purchase local handicrafts as gifts. 2008). with well over five million arrivals (Figure 1. and those for South America numbered 18.1 shows tourist arrivals for 2006. Rare orchids and endangered cycads from Asia. European tourists 31 . and bamboo stakes may be vehicles for the movement of wood-boring pests (Haugen and Iede. the United States provided the largest source of tourists traveling to the insular Caribbean. as evidenced by the detection of live red palm mites. In 2006. While we do not have sufficient information to quantify the likelihood of pest introduction per traveler.7 million (UNWTO.5 million) and Cuba (2. 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. baskets and animals made out of palm leaves were offered for sale (Image 1.. Tourist data captures arrivals of visitors staying more than 24 hours.) could conceivably present a pest risk. baskets. the Caribbean islands documented 19. In 2006.g.1). Raoiella indica (Acari: Tenuipalpidae). 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. showing that these items are indeed being carried by travelers. Similarly. Australia. Puerto Rico. where contact with vegetation is easily possible. and some of them (e. 2007). India. and they are at a height sale in Puerto Rico.4 million international tourist arrivals. which is common especially among cruise ship passengers. 2007). These items have the potential to harbor plant pests. 2008d). Central American countries reported almost 7 million.

On the other hand. During 2006. and the U. Virgin Islands (5%). tourists in 2004). 2007). accounts for approximately 10% of all visitor arrivals. and aircraft and ship crew arrivals) (CTO. 2006). while Germans favor the Dominican Republic and Cuba. or U. this may not be the case for other countries of destination in the GCR. Antigua and Barbuda. they are likely to bring QMs such as fruits and vegetables (possibly home-grown) from a foreign country into the United States. religious pilgrimage. including mission trips. For example. 2006). travelers tend to visit Puerto Rico (27% of U.5 million arrivals (CTO.S. with the remaining tourists visiting Mexico (15%) or other destinations in the GCR (19%) (CTO. meetings. Saint Lucia. residents of foreign origin returning from family/friend visits in their home country. Barbados. while May and September represented dips in tourist numbers (Figure 1. the Bahamas (12%). the Dominican Republic (8%). while the Dominican Republic and Cuba should look to Germany and France (and vice versa) when seeking to identify potential pest threats. With a large percentage 32 . Thus.S. and the European Union (United Nations. and the remaining 10% comprises all other travel reasons (including health treatment. However. and French visitors prefer the French territories of Martinique and Guadeloupe in addition to Cuba and the Dominican Republic (Pattullo. and other types of gifts that are more inexpensive or more easily available in the immigration countries. which includes activities such as recreation. and visiting family and/or friends (CTO. sports and cultural events. The origin and destination preferences of travelers may be useful for determining which pests could be introduced via human movement. followed by Canada. 2005). Data available for the insular Caribbean.2). Another factor impacting the likelihood of travelers to introduce pests is travel reason. most of the other countries in the GCR are sources of emigration to the United States. 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.S. holiday. 1996a). and Suriname show that the majority of all visitors to these countries (approximately 80%) travel for leisure. the peak numbers of visitors were recorded in March and July. British travelers generally prefer the former British colonies (Jamaica. travelers in the “visit family” and “visit friends” categories who enter these Caribbean countries would not be as likely to bring in QMs. Given that the United States is an immigration country. Pattullo (1996a) pointed out that different nationalities have preferences for different destinations. U. 2006). A quantitative analysis of the pest risk associated with airline passengers entering the United States showed that persons visiting family. they may be expected to bring electronics. The high numbers of arrivals in March and July coincide with school vacations in the United States and other countries.represented about a quarter of all tourist arrivals. Guyana. Puerto Rico and the Bahamas may prefer to focus on pests present in the United States (and vice versa). Aruba (5%). This is consistent with trends observed in 2003 and 2004 (CTO. and—to a lesser extent—persons visiting friends. rather. In either case. with almost 1.S. Jamaica (9%). and paid study and research. shopping. have a higher likelihood of carrying quarantine materials (QMs) than either vacationers or business travelers (see Chapter 2). 1996a). 2006). and the Bahamas) (Pattullo. clothing. Canada. Business travel.

a number of individuals in the tourism sector are encouraging sports education and further development of the sports tourism sector in the GCR (Holder. The GCR has almost 1. such as the use of all-terrain vehicles or mountain-bikes. 1996c). For example. 2007). 1998. remote island destinations offer visitors a secluded environment and an experience quite different from traditional stops at large ports-of-call (Wilkinson. 2007). 2008). and a growing trend may also be expected for the Caribbean. TIES. 2006) since its beginnings in the 1990s. private island experiences. it is not surprising to see this seasonal trend.S. Not only would increased tourism cause the risk of exotic pest introductions to grow. insects. the insular Caribbean. and Asia as common 1 Includes public. 33 . including approximately 20 international airports. 2007). 2006) and create an environment that is more favorable to the establishment of non-native species. Pathway: Air Travel The Caribbean’s tourism industry is largely dependent on air transportation (Bertrand. 1998). Tourist activities.000 airports1 (Aircraft Charter World. 2006). The development of each of these niche markets may lead to increased tourism. Its international airports primarily receive travelers from outside the GCR (Pattullo. 2005). but ecotourism. The kind of tourist who is fond of nature may be likely to collect living plants. The insular Caribbean has 53 airports.of visitors to the Caribbean traveling from the United States (CTO. In a study of interceptions occurring over a 17-year period at U. while regional airports facilitate travel within the region. seeds. sports tourism. Noting that there is a largely untapped market for sports tourism. mountain biking. James. Ecotourism seeks to unite the traveler with the natural environment and may offer such experiences as visits to ancient ruins and historic cities. Cruise ship operators have begun to promote the private island experience. Central and South America. may disturb fragile ecosystems (Johnson. 2001. 2006). wildlife tours. ports of entry. McCullough et al. Sinclair. The arrival of large numbers of visitors in these months may mean increased pest risk during these times.S. 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. 2008). 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. (2006) found that 62% of intercepted pests were associated with baggage. when pest activity in the United States is at its highest. especially in July. and military airports. and the “private island” experience. Ecotourism worldwide has grown by 20-34% annually (Mastny. The authors identified Mexico. or snails as souvenirs and either inadvertently or intentionally spread them to other locations within the GCR. Three relatively recent trends emerging in the Caribbean tourism industry are ecotourism. 2003. and hiking (Johnson. which are widely distributed throughout the region (James. private. states bordering the Gulf of Mexico (Aircraft Charter World. river tubing. the vast majority of which are located in the U.

The culprits were usually believed to be Jamaicans returning from abroad. mainland or one of the previously mentioned locations is inspected prior to departure.S. baggage inspections at airports in U. 2006). quarantine pests) (USDA. 2008). 2008). The luggage of air passengers traveling from Puerto Rico. the U. which has recently started receiving direct international flights. 2008). mainland increased by 65% from 2. 2008e).S. however.136 plant QM interceptions.S. A propensity of the inhabitants of Martinique to bring rare plants onto the island for planting in their gardens has been noted (Iotti. Mississippi. depending on the origin of the flight. Martinique regulations prohibit the importation of any kind of plants or unprocessed plant products by airline passengers from any origin (Iotti. the number of passengers inspected grew by only 50% during the same time period (USDA-APHIS-PPQ. Flights originating in France are not inspected. or Hawaii to the U. Inspections focus mainly on flights from South America. However. airports. Alabama.S. Canada.620 of them U. Bermuda. Customs officers collaborate closely with the plant protection organization by alerting them of detections of agricultural interest (Ferguson and Schwartzburg.S. Flights from Guayana and Guadeloupe seem to be regarded as presenting the highest phytosanitary risk (Iotti. Louisiana. it may therefore be more likely for pests to be carried from the U. the time it lands.. and 4. 2008). and other factors. 374 soil interceptions (USDA. There are no agricultural inspections between the islands of Trinidad and Tobago (Bertone and Gutierrez. the origin of other flights landing at the same time.8 million in 2007. 2008f). 2008d). 34 .origins for the pest interceptions (McCullough et al. 2006). the level of scrutiny varies between flights.S. all international flights landed in Trinidad. In the United States. Bahamas.S. the number of inspectors available. mainland to the Caribbean rather than the other way around. flights are inspected at a 100% inspection rate. passing bags through x-ray scanners. Virgin Islands are not subject to agricultural inspections by CBP. mainland to Puerto Rico or the U. inspection of international airline passsengers traveling to the United States takes place at U. and Ireland (CBP. and Texas) resulted in 126. Previously. states located in the GCR (Florida. then interviewing travelers and inspecting baggage contents as necessary. While the number of passengers traveling from Aguadilla.S.049 pest interceptions (3. 2008). Several experts we interviewed in Jamaica thought that airline passenger baggage was a major pathway for pest introduction. The island of Trinidad has a much better developed quarantine service than the island of Tobago. Travelers from the U. in some cases inspection levels have not been able to keep up with growing passenger numbers. Mayaguez and Ponce. which have been identified as high-risk. but there are also preclearance operations at airports in Aruba.5 million in 2005 to 3. Twice per month. For the most part. Virgin Islands. In 2007. Regarding airline passenger baggage. Puerto Rico to the U.S. 2008). CBP subjects airline passengers to agricultural inspection. The level of airline passenger inspection varies among Caribbean countries and even among the different airports of the same country. The opinion was also that these travelers were not aware of the potential consequences of species introductions (Schwartzburg and Robertson.

2008)2.2 shows excursionist7 arrivals for 2006. Florida. Royal Caribbean. Also in the top five in terms of departing cruise passengers are: Cape Canaveral. it primarily represents arrivals of cruise ship passengers. cruise ship passengers have the potential to carry weed seeds. 2008).. these companies accounted for 95% of passenger nights3. includes ports in Mexico. MARAD. Over 10 million cruise passengers departed from North America in 2007.g. and because these visits to climatically similar destinations occur within a short time frame. etc. 2007). • Eastern Caribbean5 – 14% of passengers. Table 1. Texas. Central America. 5 Eastern Caribbean: as far south as Saint Martin and as far west as Haiti. 23% during April through September) of all North American cruise itineraries are headed to the Caribbean (FCCA. Miami. 7 Excursionist: visitor who stays for less than 24 hours and does not stay overnight. 2006. and Star Group (Norwegian Cruise Line) (Johnson.89 million passengers or 19% of all North American passengers) (MARAD. In 2006.Pathway: Cruise Ships In 2007. ecotourism. the cruise industry carried a record 12. Florida dominates as the departure port supporting the most passengers (1. and • Southern Caribbean6 – 8% of passengers (MARAD. Fort Lauderdale. Note that Venezuela is not included in this analysis. 2006). This growth trend is expected to continue (Wilkinson. While excursionist arrival data may include maritime passengers arriving on small boats or ferries. 2007).6 million passengers worldwide. 6 Southern Caribbean: south of Saint Martin to northern coast of South America as far as Aruba. 3 One passenger night is equivalent to one passenger spending one night on a cruise ship. 4 Western Caribbean: west of Haiti. and Los Angeles. and Colombia. especially with future trends (e. Florida. 2006). it is quite possible that cruise passengers may carry viable plant pests to a new location that is suitable for survival of the pest. Similar to airline passengers. with Carnival accounting for over half of passenger nights for the year (MARAD. or small insects on their shoes or clothing. Virgin Islands. The Cayman Islands. 2007). 2007). 2002. 2 35 . California. one passenger spending four nights would equal four passenger nights. • Bahamas – 15% of passengers. Almost half (61% during October through March. Wilkinson. plant pathogens. and the Netherlands Antilles each reported close to 2 million excursionist arrivals.1% increase over 2006 (FCCA. Galveston.) leading to more natural and Cruise passenger numbers for 2007 reported from this source are based on third quarter 2007 results and fourth quarter 2007 estimates. Three companies dominate the worldwide cruise market: Carnival. The destinations in the GCR most visited by North American cruise passengers in 2006 were: • Western Caribbean4 – 32% of passengers. the U. The majority of multi-destination visitors in the Caribbean are cruise passengers (Garraway. a 4. private island experience.S. The Bahamas reported the greatest number of excursionist arrivals (approximately 3 million). Note that Mexico is not included in this analysis.

In the same year. and amnesty bins. Information provided to passengers and crew must be approved by CBP/APHIS prior to distribution”. and garbage.S. and Texas) (USDA. rules state: “passengers and baggage on cruise ships with Caribbean. These rules are laid out in a compliance agreement with the cruise ship. Inspection procedures for cruise ship passengers vary among GCR countries. the cruise ship company has a strong interest in purchasing only produce that is free of pests. 2008d). Louisiana. For customer satisfaction. While cruise lines may occasionally make additional food purchases from local markets at ports-of-call. Although signs clearly posted in secure ship boarding areas indicate that agricultural products need to be declared.. If the cruise passenger disposes of the local produce at another port-of-call or at their country of origin. in general. Alabama.” 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. food provisions. and vegetables). mainly during the month of January. U. The agreement may be revoked by CBP at any time for noncompliance (USDA-APHIS-PPQ. inspections do not appear to target agricultural violations (Neeley. Inspections are performed on hulls. Martinique for a few hours stay. Mexico or Bermuda itineraries are not routinely inspected by CBP. Information should be provided using signs at all exits from the vessel. As cruise ships offer an abundance of food.S. 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. 2008). port of entry inspections of maritime passenger baggage in 2007 yielded 22. and passengers are not subject to agricultural inspection at arrival or departure (Ferguson and Schwartzburg. Port of Entry. 2008). The ports of Quetzal and San José. no quarantine materials are found (Meissner and Schwartzburg. 2008f). Cruise ships often dock in Fort-de-France. 2008). In the United States. 2005). Usually. Mississippi. The majority of the food served on the cruise ship is bought from suppliers at the home port (Erkoc et al. cruise passengers are unlikely to bring food items such as fresh fruits or vegetables with them on board for consumption. then there may be a (probably very small) chance of pest introduction into the new area. Cruise ship passengers are also likely to visit local markets where they may buy certain handicrafts or other items that could harbor plant pests. they usually try to avoid such purchases to minimize costs. the cruise line must provide fresh food products throughout the cruise. states in the GCR (Florida. nuts.259 plant QM interceptions and six soil interceptions at marine ports located in U.pristine areas being visited by cruise passengers. Ports routinely utilized by cruise ships have many street vendors who sell fresh produce (fruit. For obvious reasons. this would not occur very frequently and involve only small amounts of produce that would be unlikely to harbor pests. 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. 35 pest interceptions—19 of them quarantine pests for the United States—were documented at these 36 . audio and/or video presentations. Guatemala receive over 50 cruise ships per year. Passenger baggage is not inspected.

In many cases. between Trinidad and Venezuela. inspection of these vessels is not feasible. It is suspected that Mycospharella fijiensis. at the Marina Puerto del Rey. Typical items carried for small-scale commerce with loal merchants are rrot crops like yams or taro. there is frequent informal trade involving foods.same ports from maritime (primarily cruise ship8) baggage (USDA. 2008d). 1999). 1996b).. This represents a risk of introducing black sigatoga into Martinique. At the Fisherman’s Harbor in Fort-de-France all fishing boats are inspected once a week. the causal agent of the black Sigatoka disease entered Trinidad via this pathway. It should be noted that these interceptions were the result of special blitzes targeting red palm mite. as well. 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. routine inspections result in fewer interceptions. There is a chance that these agricultural products may be infested with pests. i. and there is concern that Moniliophthora roreri. The datasource (USDA 2008) does not specify vessel type. In some cases. Guatemala (Meissner and Schwartzburg. where bananas are the major agricultural crop (Ferguson and Schwartzburg. 2008). Pathway: Private Boats and Small Commercial Vessels Private yachts and small commercial vessels travel constantly between nations of the GCR (Pattullo. including propagative materials for commerce (Boerne. 8 37 . the causal agent of frosty pod of cocoa may spread to Trinidad in the same manner (Bertone and Gutierrez. or fruits. The same is true in Florida (Lemay et al.3). and farmers often supply agricultural products directly to sailors at marinas (Pattullo. vegetables. which means that private vessels often return to marinas and private docks without any contact with an agricultural inspector. 2008). like avocados. 1996b). the largest private marina in the Caribbean. For example. presumably in the form of handicrafts. Cocos nucifera. These interceptions of plant QMs and of plant pests indicate that maritime passenger baggage is an important pathway for the movement of pests. At least 28 of the 35 pest interceptions were from vessels originating in the GCR or Mexico (USDA.e. sales to sailors are a primary source of income (Pattullo. 2007). however. Visitors traveling by yacht depend on local markets for provisions. 2008). One concern is that fishermen often wrap their fish in banana leaves for transport between islands. For example. 2008d) (Table 1. 1996b) and nearby countries. fruits. 2008) and presumably in other locations throughout the Caribbean. Small vessels are also frequently used to transport agricultural commodities. Officials in Martinique pointed out the impossibility of controlling the traffic of small boats between the Caribbean islands. either for personal use of for small-scale trading. These boats often carry plant materials.. in many cases a ship name is listed. providing some indication of the identity of the vessel. which may thus be transported to new locations. The majority of these pest interceptions were associated with leaves of the coconut palm. arriving vessels are often cleared by radio and are not boarded by an inspector (Ruiz. lower interception numbers during other time periods do not necessarily indicate lower approach rates. They often carry crates of produce. as well as live animals.

2005). Pathway: Land Borders In the Insular Caribbean. 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. 1999). The island of Saint Martin holds the distinction of being the smallest landmass in the world shared by two countries (CIA. 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. 38 . Often. this pathway is of great concern. Pests in association with plants and propagative material will have the best chance of surviving in their new environment. we describe the situation at some of these borders and discuss the pest risk they present. The border between Mexico and Guatemala is approximately 1. mainly from south to north. About 36 border crossings have been identified.000 km long. of basic agricultural items and handicrafts (Núñez. facilitate an abundant circulation of travelers and merchandise. As many as 8. 1996). On the other hand. 2008). On the other hand. only eight of them are regulated (Solís. Many of the border crossings. such as the Puente Binacional connecting Ciudad Hidalgo to Tecún Umán. Haitian and Dominican officials estimated that several hundred Haitians crossed the border daily (Navarro. There is a vivid commercial interchange between the people of both countries. A large number of Mexicans and Guatemalans cross the border legally on a daily basis. Haiti and the Dominican Republic are connected by a 360 km land border that is frequently crossed by migrant workers from Haiti (CIA. however. In the following. Given the small size of the island and the fact that human movement across the border is free and easy (Chase. private vessels return to marinas and private docks without any contact with an agricultural inspector. Land borders in the Insular Caribbean. 2008). pests are expected to move just as easily across this border. there is a number of legal and illegal agricultural day workers. The National Migration Institute (Instituto Nacional de Migración – INM) estimates that approximately two million crossings occur annually on the Mexico-Guatemala border. 2008b). but there is also a great amount of illegal human movement. In addition. both of which are often transported on tricycles. French Saint Martin (northern region) and Dutch Saint Maarten (southern region) share a border that is only 15 km long (CIA. Therefore. Mexico–Guatemala border. as well as day visitors crossing the border for shopping purposes (Solís. only the islands of Hispaniola and Saint Martin are home to more than one country and can be accessed via land borders.000 Haitians cross into the Dominican Republic twice-weekly for market days held in the border town of Dajabon (Navarro. 2008). all of the Central and South American countries included in the scope of this report share land borders with at least two other countries.Private boats and other small vessels may also transport plants or propagative material. 1999). 2007). 2005).

However. In these cases. Interceptions of agricultural quarantine materials are very common. The Costa Rican Department of Agriculture (MAG) inspects cars. have entered Costa Rica over the past decade. between the two countries. More than three times as many people move from Guatemala into Mexico than from Mexico to Guatemala. 2008b). although there are no official statistics confirming this (Marquette. and Panama and Colombia (225 km) (CIA. buses. which brings them into close contact with plants and soil and with plant pests such as pathogens. In addition. Nicaraguans living in Costa Rica regularly travel to their home country—often by bus—to visit family and friends. Guatemala and El Salvador (203 km). illegal immigration is believed to be common. Land borders with Guatemala and Mexico are 266 km and 250 km long. nematodes. farm workers are almost exclusively from Nicaragua (Bertone and Meissner. Originally. This leads to an ongoing interchange of items. Hypothenemus hampei (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae).Table 1. they were employed mainly on the coffee plantations of Chiapas. Honduras and Nicaragua (922 km). The border between Nicaragua and Costa Rica. there is speculation that these workers enter Belize with infested fruit fly host material. some of them of agricultural quarantine significance.4 illustrates the dynamics at four major border crossings. sugarcane. 2006). especially during the holiday seasons. working very closely with other agencies such as the border police. 2008). but there may be as many as 100. and mango plantations (Solís.5). Most of the immigrants reside permanently in Costa Rica. Temporary workers who enter Guatemala through official ports of entry are subjected to agricultural inspections. and prompting emergency eradication efforts (Caniz. thus introducing the unwanted Medfly. despite not sharing a land border with Honduras.000 seasonal migrants at peak harvest times. Costa Rica. 2008). Ceratitis capitata (Diptera: Tephritidae). there has also been a growing demand in banana. weed seeds. but in more recent years. respectively (CIA. Costa Rica and Panama (330 km). Of more concern are the temporary workers who come ashore at docks other than official ports of entry. Immigrants from Nicaragua presently constitute approximately six to eight percent of all inhabitants of Costa Rica (Marquette. is believed to have been inadvertently introduced into Costa Rica by pedestrians crossing the border from Nicaragua in 1983 (Bertone and Meissner. 2008). Approximately one quarter of the Nicaraguan immigrants in Costa Rica are employed in the agricultural sector (Marquette. A large number of immigrants from Nicaragua. For example. 2008b). Other land borders in Central America. 2006). a serious agricultural pest. trucks. 2006). a large number also enter Mexico to work in the agricultural sector (Table 1. The coffee berry borer. Belize. regularly receives temporary workers from Honduras who help to harvest sugarcane and coffee (Caniz. Other land borders in Central America are the borders between Guatemala and Honduras (256 km). 2008) 39 . attracted by the availability of more jobs and better salaries than in their home country. 2005). 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. Belize’s borders with Mexico and Guatemala. at the Del Oro citrus farm located about 10 miles from the Nicaraguan border in Santa Cruz. and insects. 2006). El Salvador and Honduras (342 km). and pedestrians entering Costa Rica from Nicaragua.

inspections at land borders are generally limited to immigration and customs checks and do not include agricultural inspections (Caniz. 2008a). Information on human movement across land borders in South America is scarce. ferry inspection procedures on the Dominican Republic side are more lenient. Assuming that the inspections detected every QM and pest present. In terms of pest risk. seven CBP staff inspect all luggage. and the ferry’s garbage is usually disposed of in the Dominican Republic because of less stringent regulations (Bertone and Meissner. El Salvador. 2005). The same is the case for the other borders that are relevant in the context of this analysis: between Guyana and Suriname (600 km). A total of 2.S. Only a fraction of these pests would be intercepted by routine agricultural inspections.000 containers between Puerto Rico and the Dominican Republic in 2006 (Dominican Today. on the junction of the Cuyuni River (Kuiper. In Puerto Rico. this may mean that the flow of pest introductions due to human movement may follow a northern course. 16.071 passengers and 198 personal vehicles were inspected over the course of 3 days. 2005). According to officers in Puerto Rico. this would translate into about 5. Suriname and French Guiana (510 km).Crossing land borders connecting Guatemala. One known crossing point is near Eteringbang. Honduras.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). Venezuela and Guyana have 743 km of shared border (CIA. Land borders in South America. Also. as well as U. resulting in 68 plant QM and 7 pest interceptions. 2007). In April of 2007. and Nicaragua is very easy for citizens of any of the four countries. 2006). Central America became a geographic bridge to North America for migrants from South America seeking to enter the United States (Mahler and Ugrina.000 vehicles and 13. citizens and other eligible foreign nationals legally entering any of the four countries. and containers coming off the ferry. 2007). 2008). as well as part of the ship’s interior.S. Movement of people across the mountainous border is unimpeded. throughout Central America. 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. government joined forces in a blitz operation targeting Caribbean Express (Caribbean Risk Assessment Group. various groups of the U. yet there are no official border crossings between the two countries (Kuiper. and Guyana and Brazil (1. with pests from South America moving into Central America and North America and pests from Central America moving into North America.606 km) (CIA. Starting in the 1980s. Under the Central America-4 (CA-4) Border Control Agreement. What percentage of these pests would be exotic to Puerto Rico is 40 . 2008).000 passengers. The ferry Caribbean Express carried 145. Human movement across land borders in Central America is not limited to migrants and visitors from Central American countries. 2008). In the past. Suriname and Brazil (593 km). citizens and visitors meeting the above requirements may cross land borders without completing entry and exit formalities at immigration checkpoints (USCS. but presently no dogs are being used. vehicles. Pathway: Ferries Travel by ferry is common between some countries or islands of the GCR. 2008). an agricultural sniffing dog was available to help with the inspections.

A twice-daily ferry operates between the islands of Trinidad and Tobago. however. Ferries and high-speed catamarans are an important means of transportation between Martinique. The same is true for movement of yachts and other small vessels. and there is potential for movement of plant products via this pathway. There is also a regular ferry service between Belize and both Honduras and Guatemala (Travour. Dysmicoccus brevipes. Visitors should be instructed to remain on marked paths and to neither bring into nor take out of the area any plants. etc. or animals.. it is obvious that the number of travelers is immense. 41 . metal grates in ground for cleaning shoes. Given that they are traveling within the country. Dominica. Anastrepha sp. plant parts. St. Movement across land borders in the GCR is not well-documented and is often overlooked. consider the use of water hoses. mainly as a deterrent measure. St. 2008). Barbados. 2008).com. the associated pest risk may be considerable.. Catamaran passenger baggage is randomly selected for agricultural inspection twice a month (Ferguson and Schwartzburg. Post signs at eco-tourism sites describing acceptable behavior while visiting the site. only the latter two of which are considered actionable by the USDA. and Melanagromyza sp. Increase presence and visibility of inspectors at marinas. Lucia. For all modes of travel the level of phytosanitary inspection is generally insufficient to mitigate pest risk. (Where appropriate. 2008). Visitors should remove soil and plant seeds from shoes and clothing and inspect cuffs and Velcro® closures. but small vessels and cruise ships also carry large numbers of people. disinfectant foot baths. the passengers of this ferry are not subject to agricultural inspection. and almost any pest may potentially be carried by ferry passengers. The pests intercepted during the blitz were identified as: Planococcus citri. This pathway should thus be considered high risk. a conclusion which also reached by the Caribbean Risk Assessment Group. however. Recommendations Post signs at marinas to educate visitors about the potential consequences of transporting exotic pest species on their vessels. Publicize interceptions as a warning to potential violators. a number of exotic pests established in Puerto Rico are believed to have originated in the Dominican Republic (Caribbean Risk Assessment Group. Most travelers arrive by air.. Instruct visitors to clean shoes and clothing when entering or leaving a natural or agricultural area. However. and Guadeloupe.difficult to estimate.). Vincent. Summary Pest interception data related to human movement into or within the GCR is scarce. Cucujidae sp.

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. density of roads and trails. 2006). 2002). calendars. 2006). This could be achieved by on-flight announcements. or souvenirs to visitors who give a donation (Johnson. or on-flight or pre-flight educational videos. Use the money towards the prevention of exotic pest introductions. visitors to the El Yunque rainforest in San Juan are educated on environmental considerations prior to taking a walking expedition (Johnson. For example. Implement a user fee system for eco-tourist destinations. Carry out biodiversity impact studies for ecotourism sites to anticipate environmental and economic impacts of exotic species introduction. and possible preventative actions. informational brochures. dispersal mechanisms. personal) of transporting agricultural products. Educate international air travelers prior to departure and deplaning about the potential consequences (economic. The products themselves can be educational by providing information on exotic pests of concern. • Raise money by providing products such as postcards. access for vehicles. Limit access to very sensitive sites by restricting the number of visitors. Funds raised through ecotourism should go to exotic species prevention and management (Hypolite et al. environmental. etc.. • • • 42 . availability of accomodations.

Data 43 . Russell (1987) determined that insects in the wheel bays of a Boeing 747 aircraft were likely to survive international flights of several hours’ duration. Laird (1951) pointed out that aircraft are a pathway for insect introductions. 2002. International air travel has long been considered a significant means of moving pest species (NRC. This means that. air travel became the most important means of international people movement. Brodel (2003) pointed out that of 21 insect species that were found to have established in Florida between 1997 and 1998.S. 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. and the majority of all visitors to the islands—both from within and outside of the Caribbean—arrive by air (UNWTO. If sampling procedures are followed correctly. and Takeishi (1992) found 5% of the fresh fruits carried illegally by airplane passengers from Thailand to Japan to be infested with fruit flies. there are over 50 airports (James. 2006). and c) to explore how this data may be applicable to other countries of the Greater Caribbean Region (GCR).Chapter 2: Airline Passenger Baggage Introduction During the 20th century.. This prohibition is in most cases based on a determination that the plant material presents a significant risk of harboring exotic pest organisms. 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. Takahashi (1984) reported finds of insect vectors of human diseases in airplane cabins. Evans et al. in contrast to regular (non-AQIM) passenger inspections at airports. 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. 2008). The objectives of our study were to: a) use data collected by the U. (1963) found significant numbers of mosquitoes and other arthropods in both baggage compartments and passenger cabins of international aircraft. b) discuss how plant QM approach rates relate to pest risk.S. AQIM data is collected through a very detailed inspection of randomly selected sampling units. For example. 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. Materials and Methods We used Agricultural Quarantine Inspection Monitoring (AQIM) data collected by the U. four of them were intercepted on baggage (among other pathways). Liebhold et al. Plant QMs are any plants or plant parts that are prohibited from entering the United States. On the Caribbean islands alone. only five were intercepted by PPQ prior to their establishment. AQIM data is unbiased. 2006). which are targeted at high-risk groups.

. To estimate the annual number of passenger groups entering the United States with plant QMs. which contains records of all pest interceptions made by PPQ or CBP at U. airline.S. 44 . The sampling unit in this case was the group of airline passengers (one to many individuals) traveling together under one U. AQIM data does not include useable information on pest interceptions. For this analysis. or plant pathogen that is injurious to plants or plant products. However. customs declaration. Details on AQIM data sets and sampling protocols are documented in the USDA AQIM Handbook (USDA-APHIS-PPQ. states between January 1. MEANS. date of travel. To express the level of uncertainty associated with QM approach rate estimates. 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. TABULATE... approach rates were then multiplied by the average number of passenger groups that entered during 2006. 2007). number of people traveling together.S. nematode. The plant QM approach rate is defined as the percentage of sampling units in which plant QMs are found. 2005 and August 22. A sample size of 30 is considered the minimum meaningful sample size for estimating proportions (Cochran. treatment groups with sample sizes under 30 were therefore not considered for this analysis. numbers and types of QMs found. This last number was calculated by dividing the annual number of visitors (obtained from the U.e.S. and SQL procedures in SAS® 9. Department of Commerce) during 2006 by the average passenger group size as indicated by AQIM data. the limits within which the actual approach rates lie with 95% certainty) (Steel et al.S. airports in 21 U. mollusk. 2007.1. 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. 2008f). Information on pest interceptions was obtained from the USDA-APHIS-PPQ PestID database. 1977). the uncertainty associated with the approach rate estimate is large (i. We calculated approach rates by country of passenger origin and by reason for travel using the RELIABILITY. the binomial confidence intervals become wide). estimates are presented as 95% binomial confidence intervals (i. weed. a pest is defined as a species of arthropod. 1997). ports of entry since 1985 (USDA.S.collected through AQIM activities is therefore suitable for risk quantification. AQIM data on airline passengers contains information about passenger origin.3 (SAS Institute. 2008d).e. The AQIM data used in this study were collected at 30 U. and a host of other data elements. For small sample sizes. airport of inspection. 2008b).

With an average group size of 1.S. an estimated 1.g. a total of 407. 2003). they primarily are a reflection of the phytosanitary risk faced by the United States..2 different plant QM types (e. Thus.g. among other data elements.4 million visitor groups with QMs multiplied by 1. we conclude that around 24% of all arriving plant QMs were intercepted by CBP. airports per year (Table 2.. the origin of the fruit cannot be verified anymore. apples. 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.4 million visitor groups arrive with plant QMs in their luggage at U. Comparing this to the AQIM-based estimate of 1. Using AQIM data. 2007). when found on airline passengers. AQIM data does not provide reliable information on the frequency of pests in airline passenger baggage because. mangoes. etc.1).S. ports of entry. the applicability of the data to other countries of the GCR is explored later. leading us to an estimate of 1. 31-42% for international airline passenger baggage into Hawaii (Culliney et al. Pests may go undetected because they are minute or hidden 45 . if five oranges. This interception efficiency is similar to those estimated in other studies.3 million plant QMs that entered the United States undetected in 2006.000 plant QM interceptions were recorded in WADS. because there is a considerable chance that pests may not be detected on intercepted plant QMs. For example. 2003). the overall plant QM approach rate was calculated at 3.4 (AQIM data). It is safe to assume that the pest detection efficiency of routine passenger inspections is lower than the QM interception efficiency. Each group carried on average 1.7 million instances of QM arrivals (1. this would be recorded as three interceptions). bananas—a QM frequently intercepted on airline passengers—are generally considered a low phytosanitary risk to the United States and are. leaving about 1. in cargo shipments. and 27% for pedestrians entering across the Mexican border (Meissner et al. 2008f) records.75% (95% binomial confidence interval: 3. For the 2006 calendar year. port of entry. five apples)..2 QM types per group) during 2006.Results and Discussion Risk to the United States Because AQIM data are collected at U. 2007). 2007b).7 million instances of QM arrivals. e. 2008b). Each of these instances involved one or more individual QM units (e. adding a QM interception to the database. the monthly total number of QM interceptions by U. three apples.). In total. risk is discussed from the standpoint of the United States first. searching for pests is rarely performed during AQIM data collection (Pasek.70-3.g. in contradiction to the AQIM sampling guidelines (USDA-APHIS-PPQ. this is equivalent to 37 million visitor groups.g. almost 52 million international visitors came to the United States in 2006 (OTTI. and 20 mangoes are found on one sampling unit. permissible from most countries. and the fruit may therefore be seized. The USDA Work Accomplishment Data System (WADS) (USDA. oranges. each QM type found per inspection is counted as one interception (e.S. 8% for personal vehicles entering across the Mexican border (Meissner et al.81%).. Translating plant QM approach rate estimates into pest approach rate estimates is not trivial. However.... Given 37 million visitor groups.

Based on that (Table 2. and about one-fifth were on work. involving at least 1. (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.000 of these pest arrivals escaped detection by baggage inspections. internal feeders). only 2. Visit Family. Tourist. Across all travel reasons. each potentially involving several pest organisms or reproductive units. pest categories such as viruses. seeds.282 interceptions of reportable pests in international airline passenger baggage. For each of these categories. With a 24% QM interception efficiency. the traveler would bring ethnic food items as gifts to the family in the United States. mangoes. If that number was 2. In the former scenario. may have occurred in 2006.” “Military. resident returning from a family visit in another country. QM approach rates were significantly different from zero. 2008). or plant materials) as gifts.g. Military. oranges. bacteria. 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. the traveler would return to United States with similar items from his/her family. given our estimate that 24% of arriving QMs are intercepted. Uniformed Crew. In the latter case.” which was also statistically different from all other categories. then over half a million instances of reportable pest arrivals. The only information we have available to determine the percentage of visitors in each of the travel reason categories is AQIM data. bananas. phytoplasmas.500 pest species of quarantine significance to the United States.4% of what actually arrived. For procedural reasons. If we assume that during port inspections one of every 10 infested plant QMs is identified as being infested (Rogers. unspecified fresh fruit. 2008d). and 46 . approximately one-third of the travelers were tourists. inspecting officers frequently discard intercepted plant QMs without looking for pests. For the calendar year 2006. These resulting pest finds are recorded in the PPQ PestID database (USDA. The remaining categories accounted for only a small percentage of the visitors. Due to time pressure. Visit Friends.or business-related travel. the risk associated with these pests is mitigated. and nematodes are almost never identified and recorded. 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.1) and was statistically different from all other categories. oranges. The QM approach rate of the category “Tourism” was significantly lower than those of “Visit Family” and “Visit Friends”.4% of all infested QMs arriving in air passenger baggage are intercepted and identified as infested. but significantly higher than those of the categories “Business/Work. the 10 most commonly intercepted QMs were (in decreasing order of interception frequency): apples.) By Reason for Travel The following reasons for travel were compared in terms of plant QM approach rates: Business/Work. and plants.2). mites. Therefore. The second-highest approach rates were associated with the category “Visit Friends. U. yams. one-third were visiting family. Not all QMs represent the same level of risk. over 375. vegetables. The category “Visit Family” was associated with the highest QM approach rates (Figure 2.S.” and “Uniformed Crew”.S. 12.(e. plums. Apples.. and Other. were recorded in PestID. pears.

flower bulbs. For more information on the risk of the propagative material pathway. and Palau. 10 were Caribbean countries: Haiti (21%). Georgia. 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 (1.000 plant QMs per year are: Argentina.3.5-6. In contrast. Approximately 135. over 5. and Sudan.000-240. oranges and some other common fruits.7% (95% CL: 3. Plant QM approach rate estimates for the countries of origin range between zero (lowest lower CL) and 62% (highest upper CL). A large number of countries are the source of smaller numbers of QMs. The estimated plant QM approach rate for Canada is 4. such as grapes. Bahamas (9%).2). see Chapter 8. Other countries that almost certainly supply more than 10. The quarantine materials intercepted from Canada. St. potato and yam tubers. and Dominica (8%). bananas. seeds. Bangladesh. and leaves were also intercepted.2%). and other items suitable for propagation are high-risk QMs. The plant QM approach rates for all available Caribbean countries of origin are depicted in Figure 2. which is significantly lower than the rates of the following. Ecuador.5 million visitor groups annually. St. soil. Lucia. However. and plants. and easy to eat. Ecuador. Guadeloupe (12%). Lucia (11%). The diversity of QM was higher for travelers visiting family than for tourists. Italy. and only 17 QM types were intercepted on tourists but not on travelers visiting family.4).bananas are fruits that are often packed by travelers for consumption along the way as they are popular. among the interceptions from Germany were also bulbs. Peru.. bulbs. multiplied by the annual number of visitor groups arriving to the United States by air from that country. seeds. Mongolia.000 plant QMs from Canada and over 30. For Angola. binomial confidence intervals include zero (i. and the Netherlands. number of countries: Trinidad. Israel. 164 had sample sizes of 30 or higher and are included in the following analysis. Grenada. 47 . Antigua (9%). Botswana. pine cones. French Guyana. Grenada (13%). St. Luxembourg. Multiplied by the large number of visitors arriving from Canada. Mexico.e. By Origin A total of 237 countries of origin were represented in the AQIM data set. due to relatively small sample sizes. Vincent. Bonaire (18%). More than a hundred QM types were intercepted on travelers visiting family but not on tourists. France. In some cases. Iran. and Germany were largely apples. Samoa. Jamaica. Jamaica (8%).2 shows the 25 countries with the highest plant QM approach rates. wood. Syria. Bolivia. From Japan. Antigua. this QM approach rate translated into by far the highest number of plant QMs entering the United States from any country (Figure 2. Bolivia. St. easy to carry. Of these. the 95% binomial confidence intervals were large. the plant QM approach rates are not significantly different from zero). Vincent (13%). Haiti. Oman. Japan. Canada is the origin of the highest number of air travelers to the United States. seeds. Out of the 25 countries with the highest approach rates.000 each from Japan and Germany are estimated to enter the United States per year. Twenty-nine countries of origin with sample sizes of 30 or higher are located in the GCR. India. Figure 2. These items present a low risk for introduction of exotic plant pests. relatively small. Bonaire.

British Virgin Islands (9%). binomial confidence intervals include zero (i.S. With well over 30 million9 airline passengers (20 million passenger groups). Saudi Arabia. On the other hand. In some cases. due to relatively small sample sizes. Canada. However.6). St. visiting the GCR annually and a plant QM approach rate of perhaps 5-10%. Germany. Out of the 10 countries with the highest approach rates. over 1 million plant QMs may be entering the GCR in airline passenger baggage every year. seven are located in the GCR: Bonaire (20%). the approach rates are not significantly different from zero). we provide approach rate data by country of origin for the tourist category only. thus. travelers in the visit family/friends categories who enter these Caribbean countries would not be as likely to be bringing in QMs. In either case. Grenada (11%). specific food items and propagative material carried by people visiting friends and family will vary somewhat between countries. Guadeloupe (12%). France. and the European Union (United Nations. Nepal. they are likely to bring QMs such as typical fruits and vegetables (possibly home-grown) from a foreign country into the United States. the 95% binomial confidence intervals are large.e. the data is likely to be valuable to other countries in the GCR. rather. the others were Malta (10%). as it may be assumed that a tourist brings along similar kinds of QMs regardless of his/her destination. clothing. ports of entry. QM approach rate estimates for the countries of origin range between zero and 40%.2). Thus. residents of foreign origin returning from family/friend visits in their home country. Canada. Guyana (20%). most of the other countries in the GCR are sources of emigration to the United States. Approximately 85% of the tourists originated in Europe. Vincent (10%). In the following section.Risk to Other Caribbean Nations Although AQIM data is collected at U. Kitts and Nevis (9%). what the United States considers a QM would not necessarily be a QM to other countries. and North America (The Royal Geographical Society. a higher percentage than for any of the other travel reasons. Secondly. Twenty-seven countries of origin with sample sizes of 30 or higher are located in the GCR. and other types of gifts that are less expensive or more easily available in the immigration countries. 2004).S. of these. Pakistan. or U. Estonia (9%).. they may be expected to be bringing electronics. Cuba. The United States is an immigration country. 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 . St. Lebanon. 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. mostly tourists. and Iran (9%) (Figure 2. 2005). Country of destination is presumably a less important factor for travelers in the “tourist” category. 110 had sample sizes of 30 or higher for the tourist category and are included in the following analysis. given that they receive visitors from many of the same countries of origin. One third of all travelers to the GCR cited tourism as their reason for travel (Table 2. and Zambia. For Ethiopia. Tourists Only A total of 215 different countries were represented in the data set.

however. Given the relatively low interception efficiency of port inspections. 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.visitors to the Caribbean originate (The Royal Geographical Society. additional ways of preventing exotic species introduction will have to be pursued. meats. informational brochures. Expand the use of detector dogs for baggage inspection. it is important to consider mitigation options for this pathway. or on-flight or pre-flight educational videos. plants. However. the risk associated with passenger baggage is not negligible. 2007). In the case of the United States. o Announcements by the flight crew could remind travelers that they are not allowed to take certain materials into the destination countries. the majority of all visitors are tourists. o When collecting trash before landing. 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). or other prohibited items. environmental. 2004). Remind plane passengers to consume or discard prohibited materials during the flight. Conclusions International airline passenger baggage may be an important pathway for exotic species movement. and even visitors in the “visit family” and “visit friends” categories may not present a high level of risk. the pest risk is not comparable to that posed by some other pathways. it is unlikely that the existing pest risk associated with the airline passenger pathways can be mitigated effectively by inspection alone. This is a less intrusive and faster method than opening of the luggage by human inspectors. the plant QMs that do move may very well carry exotic plant pests that can easily adapt to the new environment. Thus. 49 . as this analysis has shown. vegetables. 4%. The approach rates associated with these countries of origin are 8%. However. seeds. Recommendations Educate international air travelers prior to departure and deplaning about the potential consequences (economic. but climatically similar regions (Tatem and Hay. and 4%. Since the worldwide air transportation network quickly connects geographically distant. For most countries. the flight crew may specifically ask for fruits. tourists or business travelers do not represent a great risk to the United States. personal) of transporting agricultural products. In contrast. 5%. For most other countries in the GCR. respectively. This could be achieved by on-flight announcements. there is a large amount of plant QMs moving in international airline passenger baggage.

50 . robotic nose.g. x-ray technology.. Possible targeting criteria include origin of passenger.• • Invest in research on inspection technology (e. seasonality.) Develop targeting strategies for inspection of airline passenger baggage. a systematic data collection program has to be implemented. In order for this to be possible. etc. and holidays.

2004. The emphasis in most of these businesses is on rapid overnight or express mail movement.g. This confidence limit is the limit within which we can say the true approach rate falls with 95% confidence. sometimes semiprivately operated or operated as a public corporation which handles the transmission of mail. Almost anything can be sent by mail—either legally or illegally—and controlling mail contents presents an immense challenge to any country.. often in connection with a mail-order purchase (Keller and Lodge. Various data collection efforts in the United States have shown that live plants and plant pests are being shipped by mail. Like people everywhere. sorts. and transports mail. Postal Service: An organization which handles. 2000). For example. Increasing opportunities for online shopping have spurred a demand for more packages to be delivered by mail in recent years (Vargas. mail. such as letters. and United Parcel Service (UPS). is often overlooked. Federal Express. remittances.. Zhuikov. written documents. UPS.Chapter 3: International Mail Definitions The following definitions apply to mail-related terminology used throughout this chapter: Mail: Any material. Private Postal Service: A private company that handles. carried by both public and private postal services. Approach rate: The percentage of randomly inspected packages that contained what the search was targeting (e. plant materials). sorts. Some well-known private postal services include Airborne Express. parcels. plant seeds 51 . or packages. or DHL have experienced growth due to the active parcel service market (Morlok et al. and transports mail. sent or carried in the postal service to domestic or international destinations. Private postal services such as FedEx. DHL Worldwide Express. information. It also may be referred to as a National Postal Service. 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. 2008). primarily in the form of parcels. These public or national systems may also offer overnight or express mail services. tangible objects. Introduction Among the many potential pathways for pest movement. Thomson Reuters. 2007. The approach rate is usually given as a percentage with a 95% binomial confidence limit. 2008). among other companies. Public Postal Service: A government or ministerial department or agency.

respectively (Table 3. ports of entry. only 24 of which were considered U.3).455 packages were opened. Specifically.S. The approach rates for plant materials/plant pests and plant materials/plant pests of U. 52 . spices. however. A total of 76. a total of 18. whole plants. were the most frequently shipped category. It seems likely that similar avenues of trade in plants or plant pests occur throughout the GCR. coffee or tea was found in 30% of the private mail packages versus only 9% of the public mail packages. representing an approach rate of 1. leaves. the category “herbs.3-6. again. in private mail. seeds and pods. papaya. The objective of this chapter was to gather and interpret available information to evaluate the risk of pest movement associated with the mail pathway. some of the same items may very well pose a phytosanitary threat. leading to the interception of 1. Conversely.S. Discussion During Agricultural Quarantine Inspection Monitoring (USDA. spices. if entering other countries within the GCR. higher-value items would be more likely to be shipped by private mail. In the case of private mail.S. wood items were represented more frequently. American oil palm. quarantine materials. tropical jackfruit. In public mail. though not agricultural pest species.13% (95% binomial confidence interval: 0.2). Also.132 public mail packages were selected randomly for inspection and opened. placing the region at risk of pest introductions.purchased online.S. wood items were much more likely to be found in private compared to public mail. 2004).0%) and 0. 12 of them live butterflies. oleander.S.6% (95% binomial confidence interval: 5. Of these. Because private mail carriers are generally considered more reliable and offer better tracking of the shipment. 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 3.08-0. and sour orange were intercepted in separate foreign mail shipments from Belize to southern Florida. including anthurium. on the weight and value of the items shipped.042 plant materials/plant pests. In 15 of the cases.15% (95% binomial confidence interval: 1. dried or processed” was shipped more frequently than in private mail.19%). These items included fresh and dried fruits and vegetables. The proportion of the various item types intercepted was very similar in public compared to private mail of worldwide origin (Table 3. We suspect that people choose between public versus private mail based. potentially very high-risk items. and flowers.2%) (Table 3. 855 contained plant quarantine materials or pests. quarantine significance were 5. Some of the intercepted items were considered items of U.1). 2008f) carried out by the U. we examine the types of quarantine materials (QMs) transported by mail and provide recommendations for improved safeguarding in connection with the mail pathway. The remaining items were released after inspection because they were not considered to present a pest risk to the United States. Department of Homeland Security from 2005 through 2007 at 11 U. When looking at mail of GCR origin only. insects were found. The USDA also intercepted citrus cuttings infected with citrus canker (Hoffman. In both cases. quarantine significance. and cut flowers. in part.1-1.3).

However. but the approach rate for plant material/plant pest items of U. with up to 4.5-4. six contained plant materials/plant pests of U. Of 374 private mail packages originating in the GCR that were inspected. It also needs to be kept in mind that the postal statistics provided pertains to public mail only. 2008).) Table 3. which are more likely to be infested/infected with pests may be more likely to be sent by public mail. there are various other data available that may provide some additional insights. depending on the materials and the country of destination. Whether these plant materials/plant pests constitute a threat would vary from case to case. The approach rates for plant materials/plant pests and plant materials/plant pests of U. The number of packages arriving with plant materials/plant pests is the approach rate multiplied by the total number of packages arriving. We estimated that the GCR (excluding the United States) may annually receive between 13.6-3. quarantine significance were 3. 2007).3). One possible explanation for this may be that commercially produced. some may also be mailed as letters. while 80% of parcels are moved by private postal services such as FedEx.6%) (Table 3.It is curious that in private mail. quarantine significance was 10 times as high in public compared to private mail. the approach rate for plant materials/plant pests was twice as high as for public mail. Furthermore. We estimate countries of the GCR receive approximately half a million packages in the public mail per year (Universal Postal Union. While AQIM data is the most statistically useful data for risk estimates. While most materials we are concerned about would have to be sent in packages. UPS. for which we did not have state-level mail statistics. respectively (Table 3. which costs less.2%). and 18 contained plant materials/plant pests of U.000 of these being propagative materials.8%) calculated above (Table 3.S. When looking only at packages originating in countries of the GCR (excluding the United States).S. 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.5 million packages were 53 .0%) and 0. (This estimate does not include those Caribbean countries which did not provide postal statistics. of 2. higher-priced items.S. Market studies suggest that only 10% of parcel mail is moved by public postal services in the Caribbean region.6-2.3). representing an approach rate of 1. and the United States. During the fiscal year 2007 about 1.943 mail packages containing plant materials or plant pests. whereas homegrown items. 77 contained plant materials/plant pests.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. Packages where no products of agricultural significance are listed on the manifest are thus likely to escape inspection. which are more likely to be free of pests may also be more likely to be sent by private mail.414 public mail packages that were inspected. This is especially a concern in the case of seeds. quarantine significance. quarantine significance. this is mere speculation. Packages are selected for inspection based on the manifest and certain risk factors.S.876 and 14. and DHL (Universal Postal Union.3).8% (95% binomial confidence interval: 0.2% (95% binomial confidence interval: 2.7% (95% binomial confidence interval: 2.4-1. the statistics pertain to packages only. Three inspectors and a detector dog are dedicated to this activity.6 (95% binomial confidence interval: 0.

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.000 of them were scanned. Fourteen pest interceptions are recorded. but we do not know to what degree intercepted QMs were inspected for pests. In 2007. 16% fresh fruit. during the fiscal year 2008 only 1.received. for which the likelihood of escaping into the environment is relatively high. between November and December. dates. citrus peel). and tree nuts).7%) inspected packages contained plant materials/plant pests of U. leaves. roots. 11 of them from the GCR (Table 3.188 (0. Prohibited plant-related items in mail in 2007 and 2008 included: seeds. acorns. quarantine significance. 2. tomatoes. 2008).280 of these were opened. entire plants.). 44 of 2. such as restaurant supplies. 2007). 2008f). These approach rates are within the same range as the ones derived through AQIM data collection.5%) inspected packages contained plant materials/plant pests of U. such as apples. quarantine significance. presumably for propagation. jujube. a little over 68. avocados. which resulted in the detection of 579 packages containing agriculture-related items. etc. oranges. seven of which were from the GCR. Canine teams 54 . and other propagative materials (seed millet. quarantine significance. nuts which may also be propagative (chestnuts. 29 shipments with non-compliant WPM. cucurbit seeds. curry leaves. bananas.. 9% leaves. presumably for tea or other food ingredients. pods. of which 20% were weeds and 8% were bulbs for planting. and 29% other items (roots. 48 of 7. berries. soil. grass.002% of all packages screened) contained plant materials or plant pests of U. fresh peanuts. 2008).525 packages were referred to inspection. Forty-four pests were intercepted. walnuts. limes.S. unknown plants. resulting in 106 plant QM interceptions (USDA. DHL. 2006). yams. and tomatoes. Based on the x-ray screening. pears. olives.096 USPS packages sent from the U. Among the intercepted pests are a number of insects capable of flight imported on cut flowers (Table 3. 2006. inspectors x-rayed 19. coconut. and TNT) from India and Southeast Asia (USDA-APHIS-SITC. and in 2008. citrus. FedEx. mangoes.847 (1. Most prohibited items found during these inspections were destined for personal consumption.S.S.5). and unspecified fruits). Of the packages from which items were intercepted. and bark. bitter melons. and insect larvae in wooden crates. loquats.483 packages opened during the fiscal year 2008 (USDA. 2008f). stone fruit. unspecified plants and seeds for planting.. The following types of items were found: 30% seeds. branches with leaves. processed products (corn products. SITC data collection at JFK International Airport in New York targeted private mail (e. citrus seeds. No pest interceptions were recorded for this time period. wood. 8% live plants.g. litchi. fresh herbs).6). other fresh plant materials (unspecified vines. many of weeds or quarantine plants. and 33 restricted soil shipments were intercepted (Lemay et al. and 4. A total of 4.S. fava beans.622 private mail packages were opened. Szechuan pepper (Rutaceae).S. fresh fruits (plums. vegetable seeds. 46 packages (0. Department of Homeland Security-Customs and Border Protection (DHS-CBP) and the USDA Smuggling Interdiction and Trade Compliance (SITC). Virgin Islands to Puerto Rico.780 kg of plant QM. ultimately destined for the United States mainland (USDA-APHIS-SITC. In a collaborative data collection effort in Puerto Rico of the U. In comparison. and wild rice). peaches. but a few items were meant for commerce. Routine port-of-entry inspections of public mail in Miami resulted in 132 plant QM interceptions from 1. wood chips.

or the exotic phytoplasma palm lethal yellowing. it provides information about the kinds of prohibited items likely to move in international mail. persimmons. quarantine significance (Table 3. mango. one containing limes and the other tubers of Amorphophallus sp.were used to screen shipments. whole plants) were the next most commonly found items. but included a broad array of plants. to a region where palms of various kinds are extremely important in the landscape. tourism. pears. While this data set contains no interceptions from the GCR. dasheen. bulbs. olive. Caribbean National Weekly News. Of the 3. entire plants. coconuts. only five were intercepted by USDA-APHIS-PPQ prior to their establishment. and bamboo (32 items). seedlings. For example packages carrying any palm products (fruit.682 items inspected. or roots and tubers (cassava. 2003). Szechuan pepper (Rutaceae). including seeds. or forest plants in the region. including Chinese olives. Hypothenemus hampei (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae) (Cruz and Segarra. 55 . Importation of seeds. Seeds were intercepted most frequently (56 interceptions) and included primarily vegetable and grass seeds. citrus. sweet potatoes. shoots.. leaves. Brodel (2003) reported that of 21 insect species that were found to have established in Florida between 1997 and 1998. seeds. 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. Items moved in mail worldwide that may present clear threats to the Greater Caribbean are those related to the major crop. two of them were intercepted on mail.. loquats. like exotic sugarcane pests or black Sigatoka of banana which are still absent in some areas of the Caribbean. Propagative materials other than seeds (tubers. grasses. or result in the establishment of new pests or pathogens. Brassica sp. landscape.S. flowers. emphasizing that mail is an especially important pathway for propagative materials. untreated handicrafts (wooden or fronds)) would present a risk of introducing palm pests. noxious weeds. Fresh fruits were found 56 times. Movement of unroasted coffee beans within the GCR could exacerbate problems with already established pests such as the coffee berry borer. and other tropical fruit. Propagative materials. plants. were overall the most commonly intercepted prohibited agricultural items.7). 2007). only two packages were found with plant QMs. and importation of these plants or commodities increases risk of entry of new pests. and agriculture.000 records from 2000 to 2005 (USDA-APHIS-SITC. sweet potatoes. 2005). sugarcane. orchids. SITC international mail interceptions were reported from the San Francisco International Mail Center (SFIMC) Mail Interception Notice (MIN) database which contains over 11. (propagative material). such as the recently introduced red palm mite. 1996. Sugarcane and bananas are also extremely important crops in the region. There were records of 189 international packages containing a total of 199 different plant materials/plant pests of U.

2008). Colmar Serra). this determination is based on very limited data. or seeds. 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. Compared to some other pathways like the commercial importation of agricultural cargo. the customer. many quarantine items undoubtedly pass through the mail without being intercepted. leaves. 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. In most countries. and other factors. the Dominican Republic (personal comm. Available inspection technologies and methods are often not effective when used as the only method. and local practices. although it works well to detect items with high water content. the mailing of materials that present a phytosanitary risk is probably inadvertent. For example. Due to differences in CBP procedures. A few countries. stated that she was not aware of any risk associated with importing these organisms (USDA-APHIS-PPQ. the mail pathway may pose a lesser phytosanitary risk. 2008) open and inspect virtually every package that arrives. 56 . such as Jamaica (Schwartzburg and Robertson. and they get tired after a certain amount of time. In the meantime. 2008d). 2008d). Similarly. a high school biology teacher. given that people are often unaware of regulations or do not understand why certain items are prohibited. Mail from Puerto Rico and the U. X-ray machines and detector dogs are often used (USDA-APHIS-PPQ.To a large degree. The current replacement facility is a semi-open warehouse with rolling carts for sorting packages. Martinique has lost the use of its mail sorting facility in Fort-de-France due to an earthquake in November of 2007. Virgin Islands entering the United States is treated as domestic mail. No x-ray machines are available for scanning packages (Ferguson and Schwartzburg. The degree to which mail is inspected varies widely within the GCR.S. as well. postal facility procedures. Jamaica also scans all outgoing packages (Schwartzburg and Robertson. but are not necessary for international mail. At the international mail facility in Miami. x-ray technology is not effective for detecting dry items such as twigs. The performance of human inspectors. 2008c). but they detect only those materials for which they have been specifically trained. and especially nursery stock. and Trinidad and Tobago (Bertone and Gutierrez. However. such as fruit. However. 2008). and more research is needed to adequately determine the risk posed by the mail pathway. time of day. is not always reliable and tends to vary considerably between individuals. detector dogs can be very good at finding hidden items. 2008). People regard the mail as private communication and do not expect scrutiny of the contents. For example. there are cases where prohibited items are clearly smuggled by mislabeling customs forms on packages. 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. Search warrants are mandatory for opening domestic mail (USDA-APHIS-PPQ. international mail is definitely not a pathway that should be ignored. methods of inspecting mail may vary from port to port. 2008c).

Carry out statistically-sound data collection to answer specific questions. Improve public and private mail systems. agricultural officials.13 and 7CFR318. in particular the ability to track and trace parcels. Use appropriate inspection technology (e. 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. Conduct periodic data collection efforts (“blitzes”) at mail facilities. etc. allowing inspection of suspicious first-class packages destined to the mainland United States. Create a regional bulletin or newsletter to share information about noteworthy pest interceptions in mail. Share results region-wide. USDASITC has attempted a surveillance initiative (“AIMS”) and may be able to offer some 57 • • • • • • • . Record data on pest interceptions in mail. Increase the man-hours spent inspecting mail packages for quarantine materials. Foster collaboration between customs officials. mail inspection methodologies. The lack of authority to inspect first-class mail seriously undermines the quarantine process..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. Allow inspection of USPS first class mail in Puerto Rico before leaving to the United States. relevant meetings. A detector dog is used to establish probable cause. mail facility staff.58) allow for such actions. x-ray systems) at mail facilities. Collect and archive data on pest and quarantine material interceptions in mail. Current regulations (7CFR318. • Establish mail inspection systems in countries where they do not yet exist. and any other groups involved in mail handling and inspection. Ideally. even if only periodically. Implement package tracking and tracing technology at mail facilities.g. Quarantine materials (especially propagative materials) are being sold and often smuggled through mail order. Hawaii has developed a process for obtaining search warrants. This is obviously a big and long-term undertaking that may not be immediately feasible everywhere. the database or at least the format of the database should be region-wide. Conduct surveillance of commercial internet sites. Consider region-wide coordination and sharing of resources for carrying out blitzes. Use detector dogs at the mail facility.

58 . strategies. technologies. ideas. Hold mail inspector training meetings.insights. • Organize a regional mail handler’s conference as a formum for sharing information. etc.

2007). we will discuss the importance of the GCR as a “crossroads” of international trade and the significance of undocumented “inter-island” trade. Given that legally traded commodities already receive attention from importing countries. is an important location for facilitating world trade. Rather. 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. 59 . 2007) and must be commodity. In the context of maritime traffic. the Bahamas. As countries (or territories). Several maritime ports in the GCR are among the busiest ports in the world. and given that a general process for commodity pest risk assessment is in place (IPPC. The pest risks associated with commodities. Florida in the United States. The pest risk associated with both hitchhikers and WPM is discussed in detail in other chapters of this report. The ports of San Juan. we attempt here to give a general overview of maritime trade as it pertains to the Greater Caribbean Region (GCR). Colombia.and origin-specific to be meaningful. are extremely hard to characterize due to the immense number of different commodities arriving from all areas of the world. we will not focus on commodities in this chapter. By providing a connection between the Pacific and the Atlantic. Discussion The GCR as a Crossroads of International Trade The Caribbean Basin. Puerto Rico. Guatemala. the Panama Canal plays an important role in funneling maritime traffic through the Caribbean Sea. pointing out some issues of special concern and providing a general background to complement the information laid out in later chapters of this report. each likely to be associated with different pest species.1) (Degerlund. Costa Rica. while very possibly the most important threat. Jamaica. Texas. Florida and Jacksonville. Miami. there are several ways in which pests may be disseminated: with commodities (both agricultural and non-agricultural). Honduras. Kingston. Houston. 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. Freeport in the Bahamas. as hitchhikers on the vessels and containers used for transport. and in the wood packaging material (WPM) accompanying the commodities. and Manzanillo and Coco Solo in Panama ranked among the top 100 ports worldwide for highest container traffic in 2005 (Table 4.Chapter 4: Maritime Traffic Introduction In a region composed largely of island nations. Specifically.

. 1998). The importance of AsianPacific imports grew for El Salvador. Panama. trade relations between the Caribbean and other regions of the world have expanded. 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. Maritime ports in several Caribbean countries are integral to the trade network. rerouting of cargo. about half were handled by ports of the Caribbean islands. There has also been a 25% increase in value of imports from Asian-Pacific countries into Belize. but because they facilitate transshipment of commodities. Central America. Of these containers. Dominica. Barbados. showing a general increase in the number of containers moving into and out of the GCR (Frankel. Transshipment refers to a process whereby cargo enters a port from one country..1 depicts container traffic between the Caribbean and other regions of the world. Indonesia. 40% by the other ports in the GCR. Between 1995 and 2005. Figure 4. Puerto Rico. While the United States remains one of the main trading partners for the GCR. Ocean Shipping Consultants. and Venezuela are among the top 60 worldwide in terms of container traffic handled (Table 4. and then exits the port destined for another country. The majority of the exports from Asian-Pacific countries were manufactured goods. The average annual growth rate for imports into Central America between 1990 and 2003 was approximately 37% for China. Barbados. and about 7% by ports on Central America’s Pacific seaboard. Panama. 10% for Korea. 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 . and Trinidad and Tobago (Devlin et al. 2006). 2006).. and Thailand combined (Devlin et al. not necessarily because they import or export a significant amount. and 14% from Brunei. and the Dominican Republic.. 2005). Transshipment services are an important business to many Caribbean ports.. Trade between South America. 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. 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.2) (Degerlund. 2006). 7% for Japan. and the Caribbean island countries also experienced growth between 1990 and 2003 (Devlin et al. Also. Malaysia. 2002). 2002). Philippines. Several studies have predicted further positive growth (De Monie et al. enabling customization of cargo. Thus. Grenada. Jamaica. Singapore. Lucia. transshipment is strategic in improving delivery times of cargo. 2007). 1998.. 2008). 2008). and circumventing various country regulations (Frankel. Transshipment is practiced for various logistic and economic reasons. reaching over 13 million TEUs10 in 2005 (Ocean Shipping Consultants. St.Jamaica. The movement of cargo via maritime containers has steadily increased worldwide. consolidating and deconsolidating cargo. From a standpoint of pest risk. is transferred to another conveyance. container traffic more than doubled in the GCR. These feeder vessels are often managed by local and regional carriers which transport a mix of containers and non-containerized goods. 2008). providing flexible service to small ports (McCalla et al. Trinidad and Tobago.

containers are unloaded from vessels and are often stored at the port for a certain amount of time. The topic of hitchhiker pests is addressed in detail in a separate chapter of this report. Dominica. Container traffic increased from 129. forming what is referred to as the Caribbean Transshipment Triangle (Hoffmann. Bahamas. The risk is especially high if container yards are not paved and if vegetation is close by. Located in the center of the GCR and close to the main shipping lines (McCalla et al. St. 2005). Barbados. Lucia. Around 51% of the containers arriving at the port are transshipped (McCalla et al. especially since there is no dedicated shipping service between Central America and the countries of the Caribbean Community and Common Market (CARICOM. Lights at container yards are bound to attract flying insects which may then end up on containers destined for a foreign country. Even though the commodities themselves are not entering the country of the hub port. McCalla et al. 2005): Colon (including the ports of Manzanillo. Jamaica.. The port also handles cargo passing along the Central and South American trade routes (Frankel. UNCTAD.. 2005). Suriname. over 75% of the traffic at this port was attributed to transshipments (McCalla et al. increasing from 255 thousand TEU to 1. and Balboa).. 2005). Located near the East-West trade routes.. or to move from one container to another. Vessels being loaded and unloaded at the port may also be bringing in and taking out hitchhiker pests. The port transfers containers between mega container ships to Panamax container ships (the largest vessel that can pass through the Panama Canal) (Frankel. This provides external hitchhiker pests with an opportunity to either leave from or attach themselves to containers. 2005). 2005). the port was directly linked to 13 other Caribbean ports (McCalla et al. 1998. Coco Solo. Montserrat.000 TEU in 2004 (McCalla et al. Freeport. 2005). Panama services the Atlantic side of the Panama Canal. 2002). In 2002. 2002) and some of the cargo passing between Central America and CARICOM countries (Harding and Hoffmann.. and Trinidad and Tobago) (Harding and Hoffmann. The following seven ports in the GCR have become major hubs for transshipment activity. Jamaica. Port-of-Spain. this port handles the majority of transshipment cargo related to Central America. Guyana. As of 2002. The port also handles cargo passing between Central American countries and CARICOM countries (Harding and Hoffmann. 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). McCalla et al. Trinidad intersects the north-south route. 2003. 2001. 2003).000 TEU in 1994 to 290... the Bahamas. 61 . including those that pass through the Panama Canal between Europe and the east coast of the United States (Frankel.. St. Container traffic grew five-fold between 1994 and 2002. Vincent and the Grenadines. 2005). comprised of Antigua and Barbuda. Jamaica.. Belize. St. 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. 2002.45 million TEU (McCalla et al.. Grenada. this port is almost exclusively a transshipment facility (De Monie et al. McCalla et al. Together with the port of Kingston. UNCTAD. handling trade coming from the east coast of South America.. Kitts and Nevis. Kingston. 2005). 2003. 2003).alone.

the majority of small vessels are involved in carrying fruits. 77% of the vessel operators interviewed were using shipping agents to handle customs processes and payments (Boerne. Table 4... it is speculated that ports in Cuba will emerge as important transshipment ports (McCalla et al.S. Dominican Republic. Puerto Rico. In addition. vegetables and individuals’ packages (Table 4.8 tons to 100 tons” (Boerne.3). we were not able to obtain data for all countries. While small vessels tend to operate in a particular trade. “on average [have a] maximum cargo capacity of approximately 34. restrictions on Cuba are withdrawn. depending on vessel size (Boerne. which is subject to few regulations which are variably enforced by port authorities” (Boerne. and the Port of the Americas. 1999). 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. Instead. 2007). 2005). 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. For vessels under 150 GRT. Regardless of size. is in the vicinity of the main shipping lines (McCalla et al. container traffic volume was reported at 268.29 tons” and “the average cargo weight…of small vessels varies from 4. “Inter-island transport is the province of an informal maritime transport sector. The port of Rio Haina is less dependent on transshipments as a source of business than other countries in the GCR. The shipped commodities may either have been produced within the GCR. 1998).2005). Rio Haina. 1999). 2003). 1999). The length of the voyage is dictated by the type of trade rather than by the size of the vessel (Boerne. 2005). it is even difficult to estimate. in fact. located in the center of the GCR. In 2005.000 TEU (Degerlund. 2005). or may be products of other countries transshipped from the first port of entry in the Caribbean to another Caribbean port. 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. Boerne (1999) estimated 62 . 1999).. In 1997. In a survey. 1999). The port handles transshipment cargo from Central America but tends to facilitate movements to smaller CARICOM countries (Harding and Hoffmann. The Dominican Republic. Unfortunately. 1999). between one and five TEUs can be carried. Ponce. some emerging transshipment ports in the GCR are the Port of Caucedo.4 shows the number of vessels arriving in Caribbean countries. trade of fruits and vegetables often occurs without a shipping agent. The exact number of small ships operating in the Caribbean is not known. Several other ports in the region handle a relatively small number of transshipments. If U. Small ships (less than 150 gross tonnage (GRT)). they are rarely limited to one particular product.. Involvement of Small Vessels in Intra-Caribbean Trade Intra-Caribbean trade is the movement of cargo between countries of the GCR. Dominican Republic. However. Container throughput at the port of Kingston increased from 339 thousand TEU in 1994 to 1.065 million TEU in 2002 (McCalla et al.

but vessels have been reported to travel as far north as St. Most of the 63 . 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. Characterization of Small Vessel Activity in Select Countries Trinidad has a major transshipment operation. 2008). was introduced to Trinidad from Venezuela through illegal trade via small vessels (Bertone and Gutierrez. Guyana. among other things. Maarten (Boerne. it is necessary to import fruits and vegetables. exports to Jamaica ranked the highest at 1. which is then transferred to smaller vessels for distribution to other Caribbean countries. accepting cargo from throughout the world. such as water. and U. and especially Grenada (Bertone and Gutierrez. Maarten re-exports manufactured goods. Upon return. such as fruits and vegetables. St. Montserrat. Maarten (Boerne. In the past. spices. 1999). In 1999. The Port of Phillipsburg. 2008). which causes black Sigatoka disease on banana. and given its lack of natural resources. Tobago receives small cargo vessels twice a day from Trinidad and no quarantine checks exist between Trinidad and Tobago (Bertone and Gutierrez. such as electrical items from the United States and Europe. In fact. 1999).600 tons of cargo per month from (on average) 40 small vessels making call. restrictions have been placed on cargo imported from Caribbean islands into Trinidad via small vessels due to quarantine pests (Boerne. It is estimated that 48% of the small vessels operating between the Caribbean islands stop at St. Vessel movement (at least in 1999) is primarily to Grenada and St. small vessels bear agricultural commodities. Cargo includes primarily perishable products. Small vessels commonly arrive from St. Insufficient records and the spatial arrangement of maritime authorities in insular countries contribute to the shortage of data on inter-island vessel movement. Maarten (Netherlands Antilles) handles approximately 1.4 million tons of cargo (not necessarily limited to small vessels) (CEPAL/ECLAC.the number of small ships (less than 150 GRT) operating throughout the insular Caribbean to be around 200. St. 1999). St. The packaging of shipments arriving with small vessels varies greatly from loose boxes to palletized cargo (Bertone and Gutierrez. further away is Turks and Caicos) (Boerne. Trinidad. The Port of Galisbay at Marigot is the main shipping port. 1999). Shipments are mostly comprised of manufactured goods. Saint Martin (French). is one of the most important small vessel ports in the region (Boerne. 1999). such as fresh fruit and vegetables. 60 small vessels make call per month and transport approximately 750 tons of cargo. and even shipments of timber from Guyana (Boerne. however. this estimate included vessels larger than 150 GRT (Boerne. 1999). including products manufactured in Trinidad. Vincent and the islands under United Kingdom authority (in the immediate vicinity this includes Anguilla. Vincent. with islands to the south via small vessels. 2008). Lucia. Small vessels arrive at Portof-Spain from St. to sustain human activity. Maarten has a large tourist industry. Port-of-Spain.K. Reshipment of pallets from Jamaica and Bahamas requires fumigation prior to entry into Trinidad (Bertone and Gutierrez. On average. 2008). 2008). Virgin Islands. It is speculated that the fungus Mycosphaerella fijiensis (Ascomycetes: Mycosphaerellales). 1999). Vincent. Barbados. The United Nations estimated around 400 to 500 small vessels operated throughout the Caribbean region. St. 2001). 2008).

but estimates suggest that 1. servicing ports that are unable to handle large vessels. 20 small vessels call per month. trade with other countries. 1999). St. otherwise. including 64 . Small vessels were responsible for carrying 4% of the total imports into Grenada. The amount of cargo handled by these vessels is not recorded. The Port of St. and processed food products. Exports were comprised of fruits and vegetables. The Ports of Roseau and Portsmouth combined receive 60 small vessel calls per month. It is estimated that approximately 20 small vessels call. mainly fruits and vegetables. however. Cargo includes perishable food products. general cargo from Puerto Rico. Fruits and vegetables are the principal exports. The island exports around 475 tons per month via small vessels. Around 51 small vessels call at Grenada per month. and gas to Antigua. Barbados. Small vessels call at the Port in Bridgetown. Guatemala. The United States is a primary trading partner in the region. 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. Summary Maritime traffic is increasing in the GCR and is expected to continue to increase. Small vessel transport is essential to this country. Imports are mainly manufactured goods and electrical items (Boerne.000 tons of cargo and exports approximately 150 tons of cargo per month. 1999). 1999). 1999). Grenada. and manufactured goods (Boerne. electronic equipment.110 tons are exported and 150 tons imported per month. At the Port of Quetzal (Pacific side). The Ports of Castries and Vieux Fort are used by small vessels. transported by small vessels. Dominica. small boats and private vessels are not inspected. they were responsible for carrying 3% of the total exports. 1999). Vincent and the Grenadines. In 1997. mostly concrete blocks and dairy products to Anguilla and Statia.200 tons of cargo per month in 1997. They are only checked by port authority and immigration (Customs). and seafood (Boerne. Imports are primarily comprised of manufactured goods. St. spices.small vessels arrive from islands under United Kingdom authority. likewise. Christopher receives about 225 tons of cargo per month from (on average) 28 small vessels. since it is comprised of nine islands. On average. The Port of Basseterre at St. Imports include fruit from Dominica. building materials. 2008). they are not permitted to unload garbage (Meissner and Schwartzburg. Lucia. building materials. Details on the imports and exports were not provided. 1999). Small boats can dispose of garbage at the port only if they provide sufficient advance notice. and electronics and other general cargo from St. Kitts. and processed food products (Boerne. Maarten. 750 tons of cargo. George’s and the Port in Carricou received approximately 1. The Port of Kingstown receives approximately 1. St. carrying approximately 700 tons per month of both imports and exports (Boerne. Imports were comprised of manufactured goods.

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. Suggest specific strategies they can employ to reduce the risk of pest introduction. has expanded. and the incidence of wood packaging material. Kingston. ships. cargo containers. Soil contaminants may also harbor unwanted organisms. At several ports. Trinidad) are where most of the cargo arrives from all over the world to be distributed within the GCR by small vessels. Agricultural and non-agricultural shipments. pathogens. Implement risk communication strategies to educate local residents and business owners on the pest risks associated with trade.those in Asia and Europe. country of origin. The exact correlation between the increase in maritime and container traffic into and within the GCR and the introduction rate of pests. Port-ofSpain. as well as their quantity. and soil contaminants is not known. pathogens. Determine what commodities are being shipped. 65 . Recommendations Focus safeguarding efforts on the major transshipment ports for cargo from outside of the GCR. Focusing safeguarding efforts on these locations would require dealing with fewer entities (ports.) and may thus be easier and more efficient. Jamaica. etc. The major transshipment ports (Colon. Little data is available on inter-island trade. Panama. country of destination. It is possible that the movement of commodities between island countries through smaller vessels may be a means of moving pests between these countries. including the transshipment of cargo from one country to another via small vessels. Monitor inter-island trade via small vessels. and vessels themselves have been reported to be pathways for the movement of pests. weeds. and weeds.

The scientific literature mentions numerous cases of hitchhiker pests that have arrived in new areas in cargo holds. Hitchhiker pests may arrive in or on a non-host commodity. and the red imported fire ant.. maritime vessel. Ochlerotatus camptorhynchus (Diptera: Culicidae). For example. Lymantria dispar (Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae). pathogen. The giant African snail. flying insects may be attracted by lights during nighttime loading (Caton. Sea cargo containers are suspected as the pathway of introduction for the painted apple moth. and the varroa bee mite. Fowler et al. conveyance.Chapter 5: Hitchhiker Pests Introduction In the context of this document. have also been found associated with sea containers entering New Zealand ports (MAF. or shipping containers. etc. is believed to have been brought to Hawaii in military aircraft (Swain. 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 . etc. mollusk. as well as snakes. Teia anartoides (Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae). Bactrocera dorsalis (Diptera: Tephritidae). maritime vessels. into New Zealand (MAF. 2008a). Pests that were originally associated with a host commodity may be left behind in a container or conveyance after unloading. 1991). 2007). 2003). etc. the Oriental fruit fly. four species of Noctuidae and several species of Coleoptera and Homoptera are thought to have arrived in Guam in aircraft holds or cabins (Schreiner. without providing a term for pests being carried directly on a conveyance or container.. more commonly. we define a hitchhiker pest as an agricultural plant pest (insect. 1952). or container either by pure chance (e. The objective of this chapter is to discuss the likelihood of exotic hitchhiker pest movement into and within the GCR.) which is moved to a different location not in association with a host commodity.) or shipping container used for transport. the southern saltmarsh mosquito. 1991). This definition is different from the one provided in the glossary of phytosanitary terms of the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC. Achatina fulica (Pulmonata: Achatinidae). and Asian gypsy moth. 2003b. which considers “hitchhiker” synonymous with “contaminating pest” but includes in this definition only pests carried by commodities. aircraft cabins. 2003). thus becoming hitchhiker pests. but either in a commodity that is not a host. or on/in the conveyance (airplane. Solenopsis invicta (Hymenoptera: Formicidae).g. For example. because they are attracted by certain physical or chemical conditions. the psyllid Heteropsylla cubana (Hemiptera: Psyllidae) was carried to Hawaii in the holds of cargo planes (Schreiner. insects or mollusks may find shelter on or in cargo containers. Specifically. was introduced into the United States in ship ballast (USDA. Varroa jacobsoni (Acari: Varroidae). weed seeds that fall off of shoes) or. 2008). plant.

citri) (Dobbs and Brodel. Ship decks. inspections of the cockpit. along with one plant pathogen (Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. Like airplanes. this information is very difficult to obtain.700 arthropod specimens belonging to 68 families and 12 orders. exterior of palletized cargo.Discussion Prevalence of Hitchhiker Pests Aircraft.81 for cabins. as the proportion of countries of origin differs between destination airports. A number of scientific publications report interceptions of live pests in aircraft cabins and cargo holds. 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. Table 5. it follows that approach rates should be different for different destinations as well. Singapore. Maritime vessels. Evans et al. (1963) inspected the cabins and baggage compartments of over 1. estimating that one pest species per year may become established in Florida as a result of this pathway. In another study. Goh et al. maritime vessels—both cargo and cruise ships—can harbor hitchhiker pests. detecting 700 insects. Flatidae. galleys. 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). Florida and found 1. 56 (17%) harbored insects. 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. (1985) found that of 330 aircraft cabins examined at Changi International Airport.S. Curculionidae.3) (USDA. and stores have been found contaminated with live pest organisms. and 0. 2008d). ports of entry between January 1. Approach rates should vary between countries of origin. While the studies listed above provide some general indication of the pest risk associated with airplanes. 2007.6% of aircraft arriving in Hawaii from foreign countries. including species of Miridae. In a 1998-99 controlled study conducted at the Miami International Airport (MIA). A large proportion of the arthropods collected were species attracted to light. it does not distinguish between passenger and cargo planes. In a five-year study at the Manila International Airport in the Philippines. Rainwater (1963) found live agricultural pests on 0.000 airplanes. The study provides approach rates by country of origin. Unfortunately. In 2007.1 lists reportable pests intercepted in aircraft cargo holds at U.2 lists the number of arrivals for those Caribbean nations for which data was available. Basie et al. the majority of which were dead mosquitoes. 1997 and December 31. (1970) inspected over 14. some 15. The average number of arthropods per aircraft was 0. 2004). Table 5. and Scarabaeidae (Table 5. holds. Another factor determining the number of airplane-related hitchhiker introductions is the number of airplanes arriving.800 aircraft entering Miami. Approach rates are almost certainly different for cargo planes versus passenger planes. Cerambycidae.000 ship inspections conducted at 67 .02 for baggage compartments. Caton (2003b) reported an average of two flights daily arriving at MIA from Central and South America with quarantine pests in their cargo holds.

The risk of containers being internally or externally contaminated varies with the country of origin.marine ports in the U. Alabama. Table 5.. 2008). 2008f).. 2003).and forty-foot commercial aircraft and are typically smaller and shipping containers (image source: lighter in weight (Image 5.. however. 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. including arthropods.2).1 Twenty. Panama and the United States reported by far the most vessel calls. 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. loading and unloading containers. Stanaway et al. have been found on the outside and inside of shipping containers (Gadgil et al. Air cargo containers can be specialized to fit a particular type of Image 5. 2003).000 plant quarantine material interceptions from ship stores and quarters (USDA. storage and handling of containers. Shipping containers vary in size and shape and may be composed of plastic. it is very unlikely that hitchhiker pests on vessels will be detected. break bulk cargo vessels. container vessels.1) are used in maritime shipping. metal. Standard twenty. MAF. Data is equally scarce regarding statistics of maritime vessel movement. and this pathway is thought by some experts to present a significant risk (Lemay et al. Shipping containers. 2000.de). Container vessels often make numerous port calls. or a composite of materials. and other factors (MAF. The type of shipping container used depends on the mode of transportation.. Louisiana. Like conveyances.S. seeds.4 lists available information on the number of vessel arrivals by country. 2001. nematodes. Mississippi. twenty.and forty-foot containers (Image 5. and weeds. nor do we know whether certain vessel types are more prone to pest contamination than others. 2002..or forty-foot containers. Gadgil et al.e. mollusks.ingo-gallmeister. etc.. has also been detected on containers (Gadgil et al. Pests. and Texas resulted in over 4. petroleum-carrying vessels) all reported in the same category. Experts also reported that “ship decks are sometimes covered with pests. Port statistics often do not separate vessel types (i.” PPQ no longer fumigates ship decks. 2008). Soil. 2000).. which can harbor fungi. Gallmeister Internationale Spedition. Due to the immense size of maritime vessels and the time constraints under which phytosanitary inspections take place.. states of Florida. some aircraft can accommodate standard http://www. 68 . shipping containers may harbor hitchhikers. time of shipping. Therefore. we cannot quantify the frequency of hitchhiker pests occurring on ships.

in particular timber-infesting insects. 2002).Image 5. and/or plant material was found in approximately 21% of loaded and 18% of empty sea cargo containers arriving in New Zealand. followed by the Pacific Islands (47. Egg masses of the Asian gypsy moth. (2000) estimated that containers from South Africa had the highest rate of contamination (50%). Internal contamination of soil.339 of which were alive and were found in 6% of the containers) were found during the inspection of 3.861 arthropods (1. In a four-sided (excluding the tops and bottoms). mostly on the underside of the containers. In a different study involving sea cargo containers arriving at Australian ports. were found on two of the shipping containers. Stanaway et al. and 8% a large amount (>500 g) of soil. 11% of the containers were contaminated with insects considered to be stored-product pests. insects with the potential to infest timber were found in just over 3% of the containers.001 containers. Japan. 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.2 Examples of air cargo containers. 29% a medium amount (50-500 g). seeds. Nematodes were isolated from 81% of the soil samples. Foliage and woody material were the next most common contaminant. suggesting that timber dunnage was the source of the infestation. http://www.com). 69 . Lymantria dispar (Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae).ups.8% of loaded and 6. and East Asia had a contamination rate of 13%. soil was the main external contaminant and was found on an estimated 3. Gadgil et al. 2003).5% of empty containers (MAF. external survey of sea cargo containers arriving in New Zealand. species of Fusarium were commonly isolated. Although no live exotic timber-feeding insects were found in the wooden floors. 2003). Gadgil et al.681 shipping containers arriving at New Zealand maritime ports and found soil on 31% of the containers. Air shipping containers differ in size and shape (left and center) and may not be completely enclosed (right) (image source: United Postal Service. live insects/spiders. (2000) inspected the exterior of 3. 63% carried a low amount (10-50 g).3% of empty containers (MAF. Fungi of taxa containing plant pathogens were isolated from 83% of the soil samples. (2001) surveyed wooden components of the containers for pests.5%). Of the containers contaminated with soil. In addition. Containers from the Far East. Viable insects were present in 14. species of Pseudomonas were isolated from soil collected from sea cargo containers entering New Zealand (Godfrey and Marshall. In another study.6% of loaded and 1. A total of 7.

2007). cocoa (Theobroma cacao). they found contaminants. have also been found on containers. ports of entry (Image 5. with some species being important agricultural pests (CABI. Gelechiidae. mollusks. For example. which tend to be good fliers and often are agricultural pests. four species of mollusks were detected on a single shipment of ceramic ties from Spain at the port of San Juan. Several genera of Limacodidae are pests of coconut (Cocos nucifera). which tend to be polyphagous. The detection of fresh plant material containing pests.S. In November of 2007.3 Snails on containers at the port of Wilmington. the intercepted species Aulacophora indica (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) is not known to occur in the GCR and has caused melon crop failures in Indonesia (CABI. being able to move their colonies easily and swiftly. whereas on the inside. and banana (Musa sp. North Carolina. regardless of the containers’ contents. 2008). 2007). led the authors to conclude that air cargo containers may provide a pathway by which exotic organisms can become established. Taxa of agricultural significance intercepted on or in containers include crickets (Orthoptera: Gryllidae). Beetles belonging to the families Scarabaeidae and Curculionidae (including Scolytid beetles). This pest feeds on cruciferous crops and has been reported to cause significant damage during years of high population buildup. They are typically polyphagous and many have been classified as general agricultural pests. Ants are of extreme concern. are ideally suited to spread as hitchhikers. Terrestrial mollusks are frequently intercepted hitchhikers at U. 70 . (2002).3). and weeds. Fungi were found in soil contaminations on 3% of the examined containers. In the United States. including the bottom. 2007). and Pieridae. Migrations have been reported to occur (CABI. The cabbage caterpillar.3). Linepithema humile (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Solenopsis invicta. mostly fresh leaves and twigs (24% of the cases). Several lepidopteran families have also been detected on containers. Tramp ant species. 2007). intercepted on containers were chrysomelid beetles. and to colonize new areas with amazing success. Source: (Robinson et al. of the containers was generally clean (only 0. which was intercepted on a container. have been intercepted on or in cargo containers (Table 5. both of which contain devastating pest species.).Air cargo containers arriving at airports in New Zealand were inspected by Gadgil et al. 2007). or the Argentine ant. who found that the exterior. Pieris brassicae (Lepidoptera: Pieridae). such as the red imported fire ant.. is not reported to be present in the GCR. to tolerate a wide range of environmental conditions. USA. pests of agricultural significance. Also. coupled with the fact that newly introduced pests have been found in close vicinity to airports. Limacodidae. Puerto Rico (CBP. including Pyralidae.8% of the containers had external contamination). which are commodities of economic importance in the GCR (CABI. Examples of mollusks intercepted on containers that are not known to be established or are of limited distribution in the GCR are: Image 5. The family Pieridae also contains many important crop pests. including insects.

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

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
11

Image 5.4 Container yard in Costa Rica.

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

• commodities which undergo some type of mandatory treatment other than cold treatment (e. 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. as well as Ips spp. 2006)..S. 2008b). U. and Canadian pallets and found that about 20% of them had bark on them. agricultural cargo.S. fumigation. and similar bulk materials. treated pallets. and about 0. and the presence or absence of WPM was recorded. coal..1% harbored live woodborers. Surveys carried out at various U.. Canada.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. In one study.g. 78 . The samples were divided into two categories: a) perishable. • commodities admissible under the National Agricultural Release Program. in spite of the fact that 88% of the pallets had been manufactured from de-barked raw material. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Customs and Border Protection (CBP) between September 16.. 2007. 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). Regarding air shipments. • frozen commodities. bark. production pallets. (Sanchez Salinas. Maritime shipments containing commercial cargo were selected randomly. and • oil. ports of entry in the summer of 2006 revealed that approximately 10% of all WPM that arrived with an ISPM #15 mark (i.S. The wood inspected in these surveys came from 50 different countries (Haack et al. The same was true for heat-treated wooden boards if they had any amount of bark on them (Haack et al. East Coast. had been treated according to ISPM #15) had some amount of bark on it. Methods Agricultural Quarantine Inspection Monitoring (AQIM) data on maritime and air cargo.(Hymenoptera: Siricidae). Ray and Deomano (2007) carried out a survey of U. salt. iron ore. Commodities specifically excluded from both air and maritime cargo sampling were: • commodities which were pre-cleared at foreign sites. were used to estimate the proportion of maritime and air cargo shipments that contain WPM.S. It was also very similar for all pallet categories examined: stacked pallets.S. and non-treated pallets. hardwood pallets. 2005 and August 15. and b) non-agricultural (excluding Italian tiles). samples were randomly collected from perishable. including cut flowers. agricultural cargo.e. and Ontario. which were collected by the U. The incidence of bark was approximately the same for all three bark-producing regions that were included in the study: U. 2006). hot water treatment) at work locations. (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae) and other Pissodes spp. 2007). softwood pallets. irradiation. West Coast.

79 .S. 2003).7 million (Table 6. (Only countries of origin with sample sizes of 30 or higher are discussed here. Results and Discussion Maritime cargo. When 1998/1999 AQIM data were analyzed by USDA.2). In the case of perishable agricultural cargo. Notably. 25% crating. Caribbean island exports were primarily from Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago. far fewer countries were represented.2 and 6.37 million were exported to other countries within the region. and SWPM valuing another $7. Jamaica. 71% contained WPM. Guatemala. These values represent direct imports of both new and refurbished WPM. ports of entry for the corresponding dates. For both agricultural and nonagricultural shipments combined. The Lesser Antilles received imports from Trinidad and Tobago. The percentage of cargo that contained WPM differed among countries of origin.) In terms of maritime cargo (Figure 6. Pallets were the most common type (at 97%) of WPM. Cargo from Honduras.1). WPM does not only accompany commodity shipments but may also itself be the shipped commodity. about half of the cargo contained WPM. 5. Within the Greater Antilles. In the case of non-agricultural cargo.3).2 million worldwide (Table 6. Out of 2. Shipments from China had the lowest incidence of WPM. and 10% dunnage). 33% contained WPM. imports from the Netherlands had by far the highest incidence in WPM air cargo (Figure 6. Products valuing $2. Other countries with a high incidence of WPM in export cargo were New Zealand and several European countries.540 shipments. 51 (5%) arrived without the stamp required by ISPM #15. 77% contained WPM (57% were pallets.837 air cargo shipments sampled. and the United States. primarily (99%) pallets. Of the shipments with WPM. confirming results reported by MAF (Figures 6. This was true for both agricultural and non-agricultural maritime cargo.216 shipments were checked. a similar study carried out in New Zealand between 2001 and 2002 revealed that about half of all maritime containers contained WPM (MAF. and Panama had comparatively lower incidences of WPM. Air cargo. In contrast to maritime cargo. of 3. World imports of WPM into the GCR during 2006 exceeded $6. Nicaragua. and 75% of them contained WPM. significantly lower than that from most other countries. In comparison. 16 (1%) arrived without the required ISPM #15 stamp.The USDA PestID database was consulted for pest interception records at U. several Caribbean countries (Costa Rica. of 1.1).678 total shipments. all reported imports of WPM (from other countries within the GCR) were from the Dominican Republic or the United States into Jamaica. Venezuela. and the Dominican Republic) had high percentages of export cargo with WPM. In the air cargo samples.5 million were exported to the United States.4). Of the shipments with WPM. Of these. air cargo shipments from Costa Rica and the Dominican Republic had a low incidence of WPM. WPM exports from Caribbean countries (excluding the United States) during the year 2006 exceeded $11. 298 (11%) arrived without the required ISPM #15 stamp.

-Mexican border intercepted 30% or less of the incoming quarantine materials (Meissner et al. A telling example involves training provided to USDA-APHIS Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ) port inspectors along the Mexican border in 2002. or fraudulent use of the stamp/seal. there were 427 interceptions involving 1.S. Port inspectors are not always sufficiently trained for. Furthermore.346 specimens. 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.3. it nevertheless represents an average of over 20 interceptions comprising over 70 pest organisms every month.. millipedes. Among the organisms detected on the WPM were a large number of fungi and insects. 2008. incorrectly applied treatments. or are not focusing on. It is unknown whether the presence of pests is due to ineffectiveness of the required treatments. of 1. Texas.Obviously. Similarly. there is little published data available on the incidence of pests associated with WPM. rather than a thorough inspection for pest organisms. re-infestation of the wood after effective treatment. as well as isopods.1% of all marked WPM being infested with live wood-boring beetles (Haack et al. The New Zealand Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry found that. 2003).3 lists organisms associated with wood intercepted at U. in addition to weeds and mollusks. mollusks.S. 2006). and reptiles. California. ports of entry between July 5. These estimates refer to port inspections in general. Table 6. not specifically to WPM inspections. the phytosanitary hazard is not presented by the WPM itself but by pest organisms that may be associated with it. It may safely be assumed that these port of entry interceptions represent only a fraction of the pests that are actually entering. Unfortunately. The majority of the interceptions included wood-boring beetles of the families Cerambycidae and Curculionidae (including Scolytid beetles). One study estimated that inspections at the U. ports of entry resulted in an estimate of 0. While this number may seem small in proportion to the volume of WPM entering the country. especially if it is not associated with agricultural commodities. plant materials. 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. the detection of wood-boring pests. inspections of WPM are often limited to verification of the required seal. 2003). These data suggest that live pests are entering with WPM in spite of ISPM #15. 2007). as pests are often hidden inside the wood and not all parts of a pallet or crate are visible to the inspector. During the 18 months covered in Table 6. At Pharr. spiders.. The training focused on methods for detecting scolytid beetles and resulted in an immediate and dramatic increase in pest interceptions in WPM. A 2006 study carried out at several U. the average number of intercepted scolytid specimens increased from ≤ 1 to over 100 per month as a result of the training. and San Diego. WPM is especially difficult to inspect.517 maritime containers with WPM inspected. such as fumigation or incineration (MAF. 2006 (date of full enforcement of ISPM #15) and January 1. about 16% had contaminations that resulted in phytosanitary action. A variety of other insect orders were also found. suggesting that large numbers of scolytid pests had been entering the United States without being intercepted by 80 .S. Since the implementation of ISPM #15. mites. a large part of the incoming WPM never gets inspected at all.

Hemiptera. Solenopsis invicta. are among the pests most frequently intercepted in association with WPM. fulica. endemic plant and animal species. Coccotrypes advena (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae). Some of the intercepted organisms. In a 1994 survey of bark and ambrosia beetles in southern Florida. occurring in a number of Caribbean islands. ports of entry on or in wood materials. Premnobius cavipennis (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae). Rather. 20 of 83 scolytid species were considered introduced into that area (Atkinson and Peck. recorded from Cuba and the Old World tropics. has been intercepted at U. such as the Orthoptera. 2006).S. Achinata fulica.S. is another example 81 . This list illustrates the large diversity of organisms that may be introduced over time through the WPM pathway. has been introduced into southern Florida and Suriname (Bright and Torres. has been introduced into both North and South America (Bright and Torres. Table 6. is often intercepted at ports. as well as Africa and Madagascar. especially in countries—such as many of the Caribbean countries—where resources for survey and detection activities may be limited. 2003). a serious agricultural pest and a vector of various human pathogens.. but many still have the potential to spread further within that area. reporting a 16% contamination rate when containers were inspected during devanning (i. Mollusks are often found in association with WPM. are not taxa that are commonly known to be associated with wood. The same probably holds true for most ports of entry worldwide and also applies to non-scolytid pests associated with WPM. they traveled as true hitchhikers. unless they are serious pests on important crops. Many pests intercepted on or in WPM have already been introduced into the GCR. The red imported fire ant. which contains the giant African snail. Species of the family Curculionidae.e. 1994).4 lists species intercepted on wood at U. from Argentina to the Amazon basin. and has been introduced into numerous countries (Bright and Torres. ports of entry. 2006).. indeed. especially Scolytid beetles. Impacts include reduction in biodiversity. native to temperate and tropical South America. devastation of native invertebrate communities. native to South America. has been intercepted on WPM and has been introduced into Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands (Wetterer and Snelling.e. checking what is visible from the back of the truck without unloading the cargo) (MAF. Xylosandrus morigerus (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae) is only known from Puerto Rico in the GCR but is widespread throughout the world. compared to a 3% contamination rate found through tailgate inspections (i. 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. and. and Diptera. and multiple social and economic problems for humans (Vinson. Many of these organisms may pose a significant threat to biodiversity. The genus Achatina. 2006).PPQ at these ports. Allen et al. 2006). The New Zealand Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry underscored the importance of the particular inspection method used. 1997. A. their presence is likely to go undetected for a long time. However. Pomacea canaliculata. injury or mortality of frogs. 2004). reptiles and small mammals. starting with the earliest available records from 1985. entire ecosystems. has been introduced into and is currently spreading within the GCR. unloading of the cargo)..

so that often its origin cannot be determined. as well as others (e. it is rapidly destroying endemic stands of redbay. but plants also could easily be introduced through the WPM pathway. disrupting species composition and plant community structure (ISSG.of a WPM-intercepted mollusk that is now established in parts of the GCR (Florida and Dominican Republic). In spite of ISPM #15. wood that is pest-free after treatment may become re-infested over time. Other members of the Lauraceae are also hosts for the redbay ambrosia beetle. L. Mexico. Other members of Lauraceae could be attacked as well. For example. Pennisetum polystachion has spread to some Pacific Islands (ISSG. is already an invasive tree in Bermuda. Avocado. Persea borbonia. a large number of live pests continuously approach the United States on or in WPM. native to tropical regions of the Caribbean. In summary. sinense. and establish in. Table 6. Negative impacts on native species include direct competition and the altering or disruption of suitable habitat (ISSG. is an important agricultural commodity in the Dominican Republic. where they are feeding on economically or ecologically important hosts. 2008). Port inspections detect only a small fraction of the pests approaching on or in WPM. There. countries of the GCR. and there are still many knowledge gaps regarding effectiveness. Sassafras albidum. and avocado.. 2003). This grass competes with native plant species and can act as a host for maize streak virus. 82 . Ligustrum species have been intercepted on WPM. and other species within this genus have already invaded the Caribbean (Kairo et al.g.. 2008). and South America. by spreading the ‘laurel wilt’ disease. 2008). 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. Also. caused by the fungus Raffaelea lauricola (Fraedrich et al. including sassafras. L. both for local markets as a staple food in the Dominican diet and for exportation. robustum) might easily spread through the Caribbean. leaving the larger part to enter the country. The treatments prescribed by the International Standard ISPM #15 do not provide protection against all of these pests. The potential consequences of an introduction of this beetle into the GCR are serious.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. has been intercepted on WPM in the United States. L. Green privet. and this species. 2008).. The redbay ambrosia beetle. lucidum. Persea americana. All Ligustrum species have a tendency to be invasive. a large grass native to Africa and India. has recently been introduced into the southeastern United States. A large variety of wood-boring and other pests may be associated with WPM. A significant number of insects worldwide have the potential to be introduced into. WPM is used all over the world and is routinely reused and reconditioned. Xyleborus glabratus (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae). Several exotic species that have been intercepted on WPM have already established populations in the GCR. Pennisetum polystachion.

Make the declaration of WPM mandatory for all imports. CABI) and the Cooperative Agricultural Pest Survey (CAPS) Program. etc. Encourage research to assess the effectiveness of ISPM #15. types and number of pests found. both on the surface and inside the wood. This will help port staff more effectively target WPM for inspection. The presence of WPM in a shipment should be declared on the importation papers. a sticker) placed on containers that have WPM in them. presence of treatment seal.. Do not exclude the countries that are enforcing ISPM #15 from these survey efforts. not-for-profit organizations (e. All pertinent information (type of cargo. A certain percentage of WPM should be randomly selected and thoroughly searched for pests. etc. Carry out surveys to determine the distribution of pests commonly associated with WPM outside of their native range.. training materials.g. there may be a special mark (e. In addition. as well as inspection and diagnostic techniques. 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. Involve the public.) should be recorded and shared region-wide. Simply checking for treatment seals is not a sufficient inspection method. Increase region-wide inspection and identification expertise on pests associated with WPM. Use the help of hobby biologists. origin of cargo. Allow entry of WPM only if bark-free.g. 83 .Recommendations Develop a strategy to ensure adequate inspection of WPM on all agricultural and non-agricultural cargo. Collaborate with forest services. • • Develop a communication network to share pest interception data.

For example. Guyana and Suriname contain rain forests. infesting numerous tropical and subtropical fruit trees and forest trees. All forests have immense economic and ecological value. may not only serve as a pathway for the introduction of pests. contain more than 500 species of trees in 70 botanical families (Mastrantonio and Francis. encompasses over 230 million hectares of land. These include teak. 84 . mangrove forests. but tropical forests are especially important on a global scale. important plantation timber species throughout the Caribbean islands and Central America (FAO. as well as providing habitats for wildlife and opportunities for recreation and tourism (FAO. the pink hibiscus mealybug. Maconellicoccus hirsutus (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae). It is now considered one of the primary threats to the tropical forests of the Blue Mountains (Goodland and Healey. hardwood. tropical hardwood. seasonal forests. 2005c). mixed pine-hardwood. Caribbean island forests are tropical forests. 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. and mangrove forests. dry evergreen forests. 2000). In the introduced range.. Forests of Puerto Rico. including the production of both wood and non-wood commodities.Chapter 7: Forestry-related Pathways Introduction Forests within the Greater Caribbean Region (GCR) fulfill a range of functions.g. By the same token. but may also become pests themselves if they become invasive in the introduced range. Tectona grandis (Verbenaceae) and Hibiscus eleatus (Malvaceae). Pittosporum undulatum (Pittosporaceae). such as plants or seeds imported for the purpose of planting. 1997). Propagative materials. For example.S. introduced into Jamaica in the late 1800s. almost 40% of which is forested (Table 7. direct and indirect contributions to local food security. closed pine. these species not only may become forest pests. is a destructive pest of both agriculture and forestry. 1996. Forest types in the U. This diversity of forest types offers establishment opportunities for a large variety of organisms. sub-montane and montane evergreen forests. mixed pine-hardwood. hurricanes) to establish and outcompete native species. Covering less than 6% of the earth’s land area. but may also impact agricultural production. The GCR. takes advantage of vegetation gaps created by natural disasters (e.1). 1997). and tropical hammocks (FAO. marsh (including mangrove). Gulf States include pine. 2005b). and protection of soil and water. and montane forests. these forests contain the vast majority of the world’s plant and animal genetic resources. Forests may act as a source of exotic species introduction when wood or non-wood forest products are exported. and contains an immense diversity of forest types. Central American forests include tropical moist forests (rain forests).

the central yard. 2003). tractors. any pests infesting or attached to the standing trees (e. wooden handicrafts. musical instruments. The important topic of wood packaging material is covered in a separate chapter of this report and is therefore not addressed here. plant pathogens may get onto the wood from contaminated saws or chippers. 1972). Among the BMPs related to timber harvesting. there is the possibility of introducing contaminants into the logging site (Image 7. bucking (division of the tree into log lengths). one of the most critical is to minimize soil disturbance (AFC.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.. or helicopters (Rummer and Erwin. pickets. poles. Timber may be sorted (separated by species or grade) at the landing. Waterhouse. Without good sanitary processes. saws and chippers may be contaminated with pathogens from trees they have touched. For example. topping (removing the upper part of the tree). snails) are likely to be moved to new locations with the wood. pilings. 2007). Jules et al.. plant pathogens. Raw wood products in particular are vulnerable to pest infestation or contamination throughout the trading process. The primary extraction process moves the felled trees or logs from the stump to the landing most often through a process called skidding. bark beetles. and fuelwood. pathogens. and pests that may not have been associated with the standing tree may infest the felled log at the landing. the timber is moved to a port and loaded onto the shipping vessel. untreated railway ties. non-wood forest products. or weed seeds during the skidding process (Roth et al.1). 2008). 85 . Discussion Pathway: Wood Products Wood products include unmanufactured products such as logs. Forest equipment may be encrusted with soil containing plant pathogens.. Finally. insects. animals used for transport may carry weed seeds on their fur or in their intestinal tract (Richardson et al. the shipping yard. or weed seeds (Roth et al. cables. 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.g. Skidding (dragging logs or trees across the ground) can be accomplished in a variety of ways. and myriad other items..1). but additional contaminants may also be picked up by the wood after felling. beginning with the timber extraction process (Figure 7. logs may pick up soil. 1972. On-site processing includes delimbing. Trees are felled either manually with a chainsaw or utilizing heavy forest equipment. stakes. 2002. broomsticks. and sometimes chipping (slicing trees or parts of trees into small pieces) (Rummer and Erwin. The pathways we discuss are: wood products. Obviously. wood borers. and trees for planting. including animals. as well as finished goods. 2004). or even en-route. then transported further to the processing facility. snails or insects may be hitchhiking on vehicles. nematodes. 2008). The skidded logs are left at the landing for loading onto secondary transportation. such as furniture.. workers may have contaminants on their shoes and clothing.

The disturbance caused by the logging process (e.com). Image 7. Numerous trees and shrubs in the Lauraceae family.g. particularly in Central America (Galloway and Stoian. appear to be susceptible to the pathogen (Fraedrich et al. is causing increased mortality in Persea borbonia (Lauraceae) (Koch and Smith. Wells et al. wood-boring beetles (Coleoptera: Buprestidae). and spread models predict a high likelihood of spread throughout certain parts of the United States.2 Cutting logs in Guyana for products (Ciesla. particularly with the bark intact (Image 7. including avocado. glabratus is believed to be wood products (raw wood and wood packaging material) (Rabaglia et al. 801 species of arthropod pests were found to be associated with wood from China (USDA-APHIS. Illegal logging is a widespread problem in the GCR. Efforts are underway to prevent the continued spread of X. 86 . Bark beetles and ambrosia beetles (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae). 2008).blogspot. can serve as a potentially serious pathway for the movement of exotic forest pests. 1998) and with Pinus logs from Australia (USDA-FS.. A recent introduction into the southeastern United States of Raffaelea lauricola (Ascomycetes: Ophiostomatales). 2007. In a different pest risk assessment. 2007).2). 2008). 1992). each of these groups is associated with raw timber Image 7. Raw wood. glabratus. 2006). This presents a special challenge for any efforts to implement sanitation practices or inspections. the creation of logging roads) may create conditions that facilitate the establishment of introduced pests (USDAFS. 2007). For example.. 2001). including all Gulf States.. 1992). and horntail wasps (Hymenoptera: Siricidae) are among the most destructive forest insects.. USDA pest risk assessments export (Source: provide extensive lists of insects and pathogens guyanaforestry. Bark beetles and wood-boring beetles entered China in unprocessed Pseudotsuga menziesii (Pinaceae) and Tsuga heterophylla (Pinaceae) logs from the United States (Ciesla. The primary pathway for introduction of X. undisturbed rain forest but can thrive in the vegetation gaps created by the logging. a fungal symbiont of Xyleborus glabratus (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae) and the causal agent of laurel wilt in trees of the Lauraceae family.1 Illegal logging road in Panama (panamaguide. This pest is a potential risk for the Caribbean islands. 2001). but infestations are increasing throughout the southeastern United States. plant species with low shade tolerance may not be able to grow in a dense. 2006b). Persea americana. and Pinus radiata logs exported from New Zealand were found to be infested with Hylurgus ligniperda (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae) (Speight and Wylie. longhorned beetles (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae).com) associated with Pinus (Pinaceae) and Abies (Pinaceae) logs from Mexico (USDA-FS.

2008). wood waste. Bark is a known pathway for the movement of insect pests and pathogens (NZMAF.g. mats. nuts.g. whole plants. Bursaphelenchus xylophilus (Tylenchida: Aphelenchoididae). resins and latexes of plant origin. A U. toys.. moving into and within the GCR. medicinals (e. ferns. willow reeds. Cryphonectria cubensis (Sordariomycetes: Diaporthales). are the same as those associated with raw timber. fungi). Gulf States into the GCR) exceed 293. and plywood are not included in these tables. illustrating the fact that there are substantial quantities.g. etc. Depending upon the condition of the bark during transport and upon 87 . Monochamus spp. with or without bark) reported by the importing and exporting countries. 2001)... Tables 7. Almost half of these imports consisted of coniferous species. and Suriname report imports of over 16. Mahogany bark is collected in Jamaica for making dye and mangrove bark is exported from Guyana for tanning leather. both coniferous and deciduous.S. and Gnathotrichus and Trypodendron spp. 2003). chips or particles..S.000 metric tons of raw wood from throughout the world (Table 7. craft products (e. Exports (including exports from the U.2). bamboo. bark. Wood chips. musical instruments.7 depict trade of raw wood reported by the Caribbean countries in 2006. lumber (treated or untreated).. The majority (77%) consisted of tropical hardwoods. many of the pests associated with fuelwood.. billets. It is important to note that these data reflect only raw wood (untreated. Raw wood is not the only wood of phytosanitary concern. wooden poles for artificial Christmas trees. though of somewhat lower pest risk than unprocessed wood. Anoplophora glabripennis.. 2005b).600 metric tons (Table 7. leaves. (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae) (Magnusson et al. pest risk assessment found 510 species of U. bark and wood-boring beetles (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae. Guyana. Manufactured wood items. berries. roots. such as wooden handicrafts. particularly in the form of logs and twigs.g. However. mosses. and many other items may also be infested with pests. bark. and wood wool) coming into New Zealand was found to harbor fungal pathogens (e. wood shavings. vines). 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. rattan. Rattan-like items used for furniture. much of it from Central America and Guyana exported into the United States. tools.Fuelwood includes logs.S. and Tetropium fuscum (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae). including Phellinus weirii (Agaricomycetes: Hymenochaetales). 2003). sawdust. bark). The Caribbean islands. twigs. floral and decorative products. Logs used as fuelwood generally differ from those used for timber products by size and quality. and scrap wood. Central America.6). may still harbor many pests. leaves. brooms. Pathway: Non-Wood Forest Products Non-wood forest products (non-timber forest products) include food products (e. palms. could potentially harbor insect pests and plant pathogens (NZMAF. quarantine significance to be associated with manufactured wood from China (USDA-APHIS. wood chips. Scrap wood (sawdust. bark and other plant material for dyes and tannins. and landscape products (FAO. gums. baskets. edible fungi. 2003).2-7. and termites (Rhinotermitidae and Kalotermitidae) (NZMAF. WPM. Cucurlionidae). 2007).

. have been vehicles for the introduction of exotic pests into the GCR. If paying special attention to a pathway significantly increases pest interception rates. arbors. the International Network for Bamboo and 88 . 1993). and questions are being raised as to its invasive potential and risks to native forests (Blundell et al.. Suriname (Photo: Sara Groenendijik). screens. too. 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. bark. Bamboo is also a favorite species for handicrafts. Plants and plant products have been utilized as medicines throughout history and play an important role in human activities. was introduced into the Caribbean to control soil erosion along steep dirt roads (Francis. 2006). kitchen items. While not considered one of the more threatening species. In the GCR. For example. imports of Christmas foliage (coniferous species) were found to contain Adelges cooleyi (Hemiptera: Adelgidae)..3). Image 7. Plants were selling at local markets in various forms (e. Bambusa vulgaris (Graminae).. Jamaica and Guadeloupe signed a memorandum of understanding to promote bamboo products (JIS. Christmas trees.. 2002). 1993). After implementing the Canadian Christmas tree contingency action plan in Puerto Rico. this topic is worthy of attention. fruits. and various forms of farm construction. the material could easily provide a pathway for numerous bark-infesting insects and pathogens (Appendix 1). Little is known about medicinal plants as a pathway for the introduction of plant pests. whole plants) (Image 7. 2001). it has become established along streams and has formed monocultures in some riparian areas. 2003). given the growing importance of the medicinal plant market and the immense variety of medicinal herbs that may potentially be involved. INBAR. Bamboo. Chionaspis pinifoliae (Hemiptera: Diaspididae). leaves. scaffolding. and others (Speight and Wylie. garden accessories. and most plants were gathered from the interior forests and transported to market.5 million. bamboo is used for fences. Paradiplosis tumifex (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae). roots. 2003). 2008a). 2004). A number of Caribbean countries have taken steps over the past few years to increase the production of bamboo products. however.delivery. A medicinal plant collection from the island of Montserrat consists of 278 taxa from 78 families (Brussell. which expedited inspections and improved pest identification and customer service. B.3 Medicinal plants at a local market in Paramaribo. A study into the medicinal plant trade in Suriname (vanAndel et al. many pests remain undetected and the risk associated with that pathway may be underestimated. Natural products are often the only source of medicine for 75-90% of the people living in developing countries (Wilkie et al. then this means that without that special attention. vulgaris is considered to be invasive in Jamaica and Tobago (Kairo et al. and musical instruments (Francis. interceptions on this commodity of mollusks increased seven-fold and interceptions of insects doubled (USDA-APHIS-PPQ. furniture.g. and international trade in these commodities is increasingly gaining momentum. furniture.

Niphona. and South America (JIS. matting. 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). particularly B. 460120 (mats. Suriname. There was also significant intra-Caribbean trade of bamboo products during the same time period. 2004. Chlorophorus. and can contribute to substantial economic losses. with almost 80% going to Central America. and screens).4). Elaphidion. with the exception of a very small amount (< 1%) going to Suriname. a wide range of hosts. Image 7.” Accurate accounting of bamboo trade is impossible under the present system. chiefly the Dominican Republic. and products of vegetable material – includes bamboo fencing).Rattan. Sternidus. 1974). and Trinidad and Tobago received the remaining 20%. 460110 (bamboo used primarily for plaiting). including eight genera of Coleoptera: Cerambycidae (Anelaphus.S. 2001). vulgaris. INBAR. wickerwork. to increase bamboo production and trade in the Caribbean. A review of U. represented multiple times in the interceptions were Chlorophorus annularis (Cerambycidae) and Heterobostrychus aequalis (Bostrichidae). 2000). including Cuba. Bamboo can be included in any number of HS codes. 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 those related to wood and anything related to “vegetable material. primarily through the movement of infested nursery stock (Odera. 89 . and 460210 (basketwork. These insects have high dispersal potential. Plantations are established in the GCR for timber production. to provide local sources of fuelwood. In 2006. These include pathogens such as Cryphonectria parasitica (Sordariomycetes: Diaporthales) and Cronartium ribicola (Uredinomycetes: Uredinales) (Ostry. Purpuricenus. 2008). China reported exports of 1352 metric tons of bamboo13 into the GCR (excluding the United States) (UNComtrade. has signed an international agreement with a number of countries. has been found to serve as a pathway for phytophagous insect pests from China (Image 7. Twelve other families were represented (USDA-APHIS. and to protect and restore the land (FAO. The Caribbean islands. pini spread to six additional countries in Africa. Dominica. and Jamaica. headquartered in China. Central America. P. Pathways associated with nursery stock and propagative materials are addressed in Chapter 8. Pathway: Trees for Planting Numerous exotic plant pests have been introduced into North America on nursery stock and propagative material.4 Larvae in bamboo 2006). 2006). Two high-risk beetle species from families stakes (Source: APHIS 2005). and Xylotrechus). An example from tropical forests is the introduction of Pineus pini (Hemiptera: Adelgidae) into Kenya and Zimbabwe on pine scions from Australia. Dried bamboo. Phymatodes.

Schinus terebinthifolius (Anacardiaceae). Quercus (Fagaceae). Stachowicz and Byrnes. Invasive plantation and agroforestry tree species in the GCR include Acacia spp. 2005b). these are the same characteristics that often make a tree species a desirable candidate for agroforestry operations (Richardson et al. 2004).. Xylosandrus crassiusculus. 2005. The alien tree Acacia mearnsii (Fabaceae). 2005b).. 2006). and many of them are listed as vulnerable. and the ability to fix nitrogen. 2007). and the stability of riparian habitats (deWit et al. Host genera for X. Agroforestry provides many advantages.. and Euwallacea fornicatus (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae) have been found in old-growth forests in Costa Rica and Panama (Kirkendall and Ødegaard.companion plantings for food crops. biodiversity. Adenanthera pavonina (Fabaceae)) and causing further degradation of native forests by changing species composition and decreasing biodiversity (Green et al. high-risk quarantine pest in North America. 1994. These species often form dense thickets or monocultures. and the most important indicator for susceptibility of an ecosystem to invasion is believed to be whether or not it has been disturbed. Huston. and Brosimum (Moraceae) species. or animals (Scherr. Xyleborinus exiguus.g. 2004). 1995). 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. and lower the water table (Binggeli et al. which is the center of a commercial wood-products industry in South Africa. or critically endangered on the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources ‘red list’ (IUCN. replace native vegetation. and Ulmus (Ulmaceae). The most successful invaders in natural environments tend to be woody perennials. crassiusculus include Tectona (Lamiaceae). and others (Table 7. small seeds.. Hooper et al. 1998). The specific pathways for these insects into Central America are unknown. Melaleuca quinquenervia (Myrtaceae). 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. pastures.8). However. Cecropia (Cecropiaceae). The number of endemic tree species ranges from the hundreds to the thousands in some areas (FAO. Calliandra (Fabaceae). Undisturbed old-growth forests are generally considered to be impervious to invasion by exotic species (Simberloff.. The characteristics that contribute to a tree’s invasive potential include rapid growth. exiguous include Brosimum (Moriaceae) and Protium (Burseraceae). has invaded almost 2. Lecythis (Lecythidaceae). Tocoyena (Rubiaceae). 1981. 1986. endangered. turtles are prevented from nesting and often trapped in the roots of Casuarina equisetifolia (Casuarinaceae)). three exotic ambrosia beetles.g. Herbold and Moyle. Potential Consequences of Exotic Forest Pests The overwhelming majority of Caribbean forests are tropical forests with extremely high levels of species richness (FAO. Leucanea leucocephala (Fabaceae). disrupt activities of native fauna (e. especially trees (Cronk and Fuller... 1999).5 million ha of native ecosystems there. but bark and wood-boring insects are 90 . Xylosandrus crassiusculus is an aggressive. where it threatens water resources. 2007). high fecundity. For example. 2001). Some are capable of invading undisturbed forests (e.. Host genera for X. in Florida. Euwallacea fornicatus hosts include Cedrela (Meliaceae). 1998). it is becoming more evident that even undisturbed forests are vulnerable to exotic pests.

2006). especially of Tectona grandis and Gmelina arborea. the introduction of certain exotic pests. 2006). noctilio could establish and persist throughout North and Central America wherever susceptible hosts are located (Carnegie et al. 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. while the evergreen. 2008).. Important plantation timber species in the Gulf States are Pinus echinata. making them more vulnerable to the effects of exotic species. are listed in Appendix 1. but the long-term impacts on forest ecosystems can be perhaps more detrimental. 1999). Most of the forests within the region are classified as tropical and are important on a global scale for their immense ecological value. Honduras is one of the few tropical countries with large areas of natural conifer forests. both in natural stands and plantations. economic. and social functions throughout the GCR.. largely through the effects of increasing human populations and non-sustainable logging practices. and parts of South America. palustris. shade tolerant Syzygium jambos (Myrtaceae) invaded shade coffee forests and native forests (Lugo. some already introduced. and some that may be a threat to the GCR. Honduras and Belize) have been experiencing severe outbreaks of the native Dendroctonus frontalis (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae) over the past few years (FAO. Cedrela odorata. Plantation establishment is increasing. Important timber species in Central America and the Caribbean islands include Tectona grandis. 2005a). In regard to weed trees invading interior forests.) are vulnerable to many species of bark beetles and wood borers. Central American countries (e. elliottii.. South Africa. 60% of sustainable wood supply in Latin America and the Caribbean will come from plantation forests (FAO. including many endemic Pinus species (FAO. and P. Pines (Pinus spp. and Pinus caribaea (FAO. P. forming monocultures.. some native. 2008). 56% of which are hardwood species. Forests throughout the region are being degraded.g. It is projected that by 2020. 91 .frequently intercepted on logs and wood packaging material and these are the likely pathways for introduction (Brockerhoff et al. The rate of invasion by shade-tolerant species is slower than that of shade-intolerant species. into the Gulf States and Central America could result in severe damage. taeda. Climate-matching models predict that S. 2004). 2006. native to Eurasia and northern Africa. Because of the preponderance of Pinus species. 2000). P. has been introduced into Australia. resulting in one of the most damaging biological invasions of pine forestry in the southern hemisphere (Hurley et al. 2007). 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. These pests. Sirex noctilio. Swietenia spp. Latin American and Caribbean plantations cover almost 10 million hectares (Ball et al. Summary Forests provide multiple ecological.. 2006). along with those that may infest native forests. All of these timber species are associated with a suite of forest pests. Gmelina arborea (Lamiaceae). such as Sirex noctilio (Hymenoptera: Siricidae). Haack...

More research in this area is needed.Important forest pests include insects. and plants. Important pathways for the introduction of exotic forest pests. these species also have a greater potential to become invasive. The main objectives of the conference should be to: o increase awareness of the threats of invasive species to forests and forest products. 2005). it is difficult to determine the relative importance of each of these pathways. promote the use of local tree species in agroforestry and reforestation. Recommendations Hold an international congress on introduced and imminent forest pests in the GCR. 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. However. The USDA-APHIS-PPQ-Center for Plant Health Science and Technology may be able to provide expertise in weed risk assessment. and o develop action items for regional cooperation in addressing forest pests. Fastgrowing and readily reproducing tree species are often preferred for plantation planting. especially invasive tree species. As much as possible. (2003) would provide a useful foundation for this. 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. Establish Best Management Practices to reduce the potential movement of forest pests. Furthermore. as well as propagative materials. especially in forested areas. Hitchhiker pests can be moved through the timber extraction process. such as trees for plantations or agroforestry systems. o share information related to exotic forest pests. Exclude tree species with high invasive potential from agroforestry systems. Establish criteria for assessing invasive potential for exotic tree species that are under consideration for agroforestry. 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. pathogens. we know very little about introduced species (how many and which species) that may have already established in the GCR. and weeds include both wood and non-wood forest products. 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 . pathogens.

Guatemala (from Honduras. cargo vessel. The trade of propagative material is a multi-billion dollar industry. mushroom spawn. rhizomes.1).2).” This category is mainly imported into the Bahamas from the United States (Table 8. and there is no way of quantifying the unofficial. including buds.” approximately 2 million plant units were imported into the GCR in 2007. and there can be great economic and political pressure to allow needed imports. personal vehicles.g. tubers. Mexico.Chapter 8: Plant Propagative Material Plant propagative material. are the major exporters of nursery products to the GCR (UNComtrade. seeds. bulbs. public or private mail. the demand for propagative material is strongly linked to tourism development. In this chapter. small boat. not all countries report their trade data (UNComtrade. the term “propagative material” includes plants for planting. of kinds which bear edible fruit or nuts. Based on official trade data. is any plant material capable of and intended for propagation.” Almost 17 million plant units of these types were imported into countries of the GCR in 2007. and the Bahamas (from the United States) (Table 8. Propagative material is mainly imported for commercial nursery and horticulture production and uses in agriculture and forestry. Less frequently imported categories of propagative materials 93 . Israel. As a pathway. as ornamentals or food plants) by private collectors or homeowners. and Chile). Compounding the difficulties in data colelction. together with Canada. as well as in the baggage of ship. truck.3). 2008). Slightly fewer than 1 million were imported from Canada into Guatemala (Table 8. 2004).6). Of the category “trees. plane or bus passengers. The next most frequently traded articles fall into the category “live plants (not otherwise specified) including their roots. mainly into Colombia (from the United States. Israel. 2008) (Tables 8. and the Netherlands). and the Netherlands. cuttings.1-8. tuberous roots. Smaller quantities are imported for “plant exploration” by botanical gardens or researchers. Argentina. scions. corms. stolons. The United States. Costa Rica. 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. crowns and rhizomes. tubers. or whole plants.. Spikes in demand also tend to occur during renovation and reforestation efforts after hurricanes and other extreme weather events (Klassen et al. corms. layers. 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. shrubs and bushes. root clumps. also referred to as nursery stock. In the Greater Caribbean Region (GCR). nearly all of them from the Netherlands into Colombia. unregistered trade that occurs among Caribbean nations. the propagative materials most frequently traded fall into the category of “bulbs.. or planting (e.

1995). 94 . mainly from Costa Rica. it has spread to other areas of the world.4). thereby providing ideal conditions for a pest population to grow and expand. 2008e). a discussion of the potential risk posed by these imports is difficult. Native to Asia.7). 2009). and the same climate is also likely to be suitable for its associated pests.6) (UNComtrade. the propagative material is usually planted in a climate conducive to its growth. In 2007. was introduced on bromeliads into Florida. including citrus and other fruit trees in China. including tropical Oceania (GPDD. 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. As a direct result of the damage caused by M. 2008). Anoplophora chinensis is a pest of trees and shrubs from 26 families. 2003). “azaleas and rhododendrons. The United States maintains a database of plant genera imported. Guatemala. World Trade Organization. Clean stock program for Dracaena spp. Metamasius callizona (Coleoptera: Dryophthoridae). the plants are often planted in groups or even large monocultures. nearly 800 different plant genera were imported into the United States from 21 countries of the GCR (USDA.000 potted Japanese maple. thus.to the United States WTO. was recently detected in Germany when 100.5). Furthermore. a weevil native to Mexico and Central America. callizona. making quantitative comparisons impossible. 2007. Acer palmatum (Aceraceae). the Florida Endangered Plant Advisory Council added two species of bromeliads to its list of endangered species (Larson and Frank. any plant species imported may present a phytosanitary problem in two ways: 1) by introducing exotic plant pests. including their roots” (Table 8.were: “roses. 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 . 2007). In general. Numerous important plant pests are known to have been introduced to new locations on propagative material. the data is not reported in consistent units of measurement. 2008). and Colombia (Table 8. and 2) by itself becoming an invasive weed in its introduced range. including their roots” (Table 8. Anoplophora chinensis (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae). where it now threatens populations of native bromeliads (Frank and McCoy. The citrus longhorned beetle. intended for export to the United States.14 Because the database lists only the genera and not the species of propagative materials imported.more than half of its yearly total . trees from China were sold throughout the country by a supermarket chain (Deutsche Welle. Unfortunately.. Pests that are introduced on propagative material have the advantage of being moved together with a suitable host plant. In addition. and “unrooted cuttings and slips” (Table 8.

Also. 2007). a bacterial pathogen. many new powdery mildew diseases have appeared over a relatively short period of time. 1961).S. In 2003. As these species originated from all around the world. In total. such as citrus leprosis virus. and portof-entry inspection for propagative materials (IPPC. sterilizing soil. In a survey of nurseries in Hawaii. GCR countries have implemented certain safeguards. 2008d). of exotic snails outcompeting native species (Halwart. and orchid fleck virus (Miranda et al. and Guatemala and found half of the shipments infested with mites. most countries require an import permit. destroying native vegetation (Carlsson et al. they detected 81 mite species belonging to 11 different families. they found 29 introduced species (belonging to 24 families) of terrestrial snails and slugs. 2008). freedom from soil. 1.. but there are reports of introduced slugs reducing seedling survival of endangered plants in Hawaii (Joe and Daehler. sampling for pests. While specific regulations vary. The potential economic and ecological impact of terrestrial mollusks is largely unknown. Ralstonia solanacearum race 3 biovar 2 (Burkholderiales). 1994. For example. On several occasions. showing that significant numbers of pests move in association with propagative material (USDA. and the reliability or adequacy of these procedures may be low in some cases. and causing crop damage (Mead. certain sanitary procedures. the authors speculate that the Hawaiian situation may be representative of the horticultural snail and slug faunas of many other tropical regions. passion fruit green spot virus. coffee ringspot virus. To prevent the introduction of pests through the propagative material pathway. Childers and Rodrigues (2005) sampled 24 plant shipments (cuttings or rooted plants) entering the United States from Costa Rica. ports of entry in commercial shipments of propagative material from the GCR. 2004) in Asia. phytosanitary certificate. cleaning tools. 2008). 2007). and it is suspected that they were introduced on plant cuttings (Palm and Rossman. Honduras. 2004. poinsettia powdery mildew may have gained entry into the United States through the importation of infected un-rooted cuttings (Palm and Rossman.8) were intercepted at U. 2005)..Cowie et al. Wood et al. in the United States. and routine diagnostic tests for certain pathogens are standard in large greenhouse production 95 . 2008c). Mites can vector plant viruses. such as washing hands. ligustrum ringspot virus. During 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. For example.541 specimens of reportable pests (Table 8. disinfecting shoes. (2008) implicate the horticultural industry as a pathway for the spread of terrestrial mollusks. Major producers of plants also implement their own safeguards to protect their investments.. five of them previously unrecorded. was found in geranium cuttings shipped from a commercial greenhouses in Guatemala and Kenya to the United States for rooting and sale (USDA. The specific procedures for issuing phytosanitary certificates vary between countries. 2003). 2003).

While Childers and Rodrigues (2005) detected 81 mite species representing 11 different families on only 24 shipments of propagative materials. there is heavy reliance on inspection.(Meissner and Schwartzburg. Data from 2007 was used because import data was incomplete for 2003. This shows that. and some companies may be more interested in short-term profits than long-term benefits. and the rejection of plant shipments at the border is very costly to the producer. in spite of best efforts. either as a condition for entry or for export certification. all of these mites were identified as members of a single family. In addition. ports of entry prior to their establishment.285 interceptions (33 families) of insects and 167 interceptions (5 families) of mollusks. Tetranychidae. nematodes were detected only once. In contrast. If mites are underrepresented in port of entry inspections. Interceptions on propagative materials (plants and cuttings) imported from Costa Rica. smaller producers may not have the financial means or the expertise to achieve high levels of sanitation. which is when sampling by Childers and Rodriguez (2005) took place. 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.000 and that an inventory would cost $10-30 million dollars and take 7 years to complete (Hawksworth and Mueller. Pest interceptions in Miami on propagative materials from anywhere in the GCR during 200716 included 1. Because the sale of diseased or pest-infested plants is not a good business practice. This is in stark contrast to the immense diversity and abundance of plant pathogens in the world. Guatemala and Honduras during 2007. companies have a strong interest in keeping their plants pest-free. However. This is problematic because there is abundant evidence that inspection is not effective in preventing unwanted pest introductions. or phytoplasmas were recorded.000 known species of fungi cause plant diseases worldwide (Agrios. 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. the taxonomic diversity of the interception records in no way reflects the actual diversity of mites present on the commodities. An estimated 10. In general. 2005) and perhaps only 10 percent of all existing fungi have been described (Palm and Rossman. plant pathogens are virtually ignored. 42.000 propagative material shipments15. 2003).000 shipments 15 96 . port-of-entry inspection misses the overwhelming majority of mites and presumably most other types of minute organisms associated with propagative materials. bacteria. port-of-entry inspections in Miami have led to a mere 265 mite interceptions out of over 40. 2005). whereas no interceptions of viruses. 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.S. and fungi were intercepted a mere 39 times (≤17 species). 16 Ca. 2008).

pressure to perform inspections quickly. indicating a knowledge gap in species inventory. given that strains of that species may still exist that are exotic to the area and may behave very differently from the one 97 . and lack of tools such as magnifying lenses..000 plant species total were positive for double-stranded RNA. space).. which could delay shipments for unacceptable lengths of time at ports-of-entry. Minute and hidden organisms are notoriously difficult to detect. and new disease-causing organisms are discovered all the time (Palm and Rossman.Similarly. and new viruses are described every month (Agrios. however. To make matters worse.. Nucleic acid-based procedures are not optimal for large-scale diagnostic purposes because of expense and complexity (Lanterman et al. which are available for certain pathogens and allow for a diagnosis to be made within a day or less (Schaad et al. detection requires diagnostic tests.. about 40 plant diseases are known to be caused by viroids. 2003). it is not uncommon for infected plants. Even PCRbased detection protocols. a marker suggesting the presence of viruses (Wren et al. 2003) are often not fast enough.g. Depending on the country. including overwhelming workload. biovars. and pathogens are especially likely to escape detection (Schaad et al.. Serological diagnostic techniques require that the causal agent has been described and characterized (Schaad et al. 1995. Visual inspection for pathogens relies on the expression of symptoms in the infected plants. even knowing which pathogens to screen for is difficult. Another limiting factor is the amount of time it takes to perform certain tests. etc. In addition. Some 60% of plants surveyed in a Costa Rican region containing about 7. However.. (2003) noted that the number of microorganisms reported introduced in the insular Caribbean region is negligible. which can differ in their infection capabilities and host range. 2005). over 1. difficulty of detecting certain types of pests. 2006). species of plant pathogens tend to be subdivided into strains. some of these reasons may be more important than others. 2003). Palm and Rossman. 2003).. Kairo et al. 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.. insufficient training of inspectors. 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. In these cases. Given the wide variety of propagative material that can be imported. 1995). and symptomless hosts exist for many pathogens. the vast majority of plant pathogens have not yet been described.. Several hundred species of nematodes and over 100 species of bacteria are known to cause plant diseases. pathovars. inadequate working conditions (e. 2005). to be asymptomatic during a certain time or under certain circumstances (Lanterman et al. 2003). Why do port-of-entry inspections miss so many pests? The reasons for this are manifold. and especially seeds. and diagnostic tests. lighting. 2003).000 viruses are known to attack plants. microscopes. and over 200 plant diseases are caused by phytoplasmas (Agrios.

they had been labeled on the import documents as ceramic pots. citri. in 2004. and especially plant pathogens. Also in 2008. destined for a citrus growing area in California. plants with soil.” One of the shipments tested positive for Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. Private plant collectors actively (and often illegally) introduce plants from foreign countries. or novel ways to utilize a plant. the causal agent of citrus canker (CBP. Apart from severe restrictions on the importation of propagative materials. citrus budwood cuttings were intercepted in mail packages arriving in the United States. About 50 new disease locations or disease-host associations were reported during 2008 in the journal New Disease Reports alone. Upon further investigation.000 exotic plant species are grown in cultivation (Frank and McCoy. A total of 590 pounds of contaminated narcissus were seized and destroyed (SITC. there is no easy solution to this problem. 2008). In summary. Smuggling of propagative material bypasses established phytosanitary safeguards. manifested as a cappuccino machine and 4 cups/saucers. were intercepted at an international mail facility in the United States. the search for new plant material to develop cultivars. Plant Propagative Material as Invasive Species In addition to serving as a pathway for pest introductions. over 25. 2008). Regulating strains and races of plant pathogens is difficult because differentiation from already present strains requires molecular techniques (Palm and Rossman. it is obvious that pests. 2001). people of Martinique have been known to bring back rare plants for their gardens from Guyana and Guadeloupe (Iotti. new crops. 2003). 98 . This is occurring on a global scale. were labeled on the shipment manifest as “books and chocolates. 2005). Some commercial nurseries engage in plant exploration. 1995). For example.that is established. Upon further investigation. Botanical gardens and arboreta also actively introduce new plants. it was discovered that the bulbs entered without the proper certification and inspection. they must propagate and sell the specimens quickly (Reichard and White. often distributing propagules to other horticultural groups or the general public (Reichard and White. In order to recoup costs. several thousand citrus cuttings that had been smuggled into the country were found on various private properties. The packages. Consumer demand drives the continued importation of new plant species and varieties. For example. In Florida alone. narcissus bulbs from China contaminated with soil were found in a wholesale market in the United States. 2001. In 2008. Dawson et al. propagative material may itself become invasive in its introduced range. 2008). are spreading between countries through both legal and illegal movement of propagative materials. These plants are prohibited and lacked a phytosanitary certificate (SITC. 2008).. 19 pounds of containerized Crocosmia spp.

2008). both introduced deliberately (Frank and McCoy. Imperata cylindrica (Poaceae). most of which feature exotic plants. and cogon grass. Sansevieria hyacinthoides (Agavaceae). Pittosporum undulatum (Pittosporaceae). The large majority of invasive exotic plant species were intentionally introduced. has become an invasive species throughout the Dominican Republic. the pollinators of three Ficus species in Florida have been accidentally introduced. Waugh (2008) reviewed the published literature for invasive species in the insular Caribbean and estimated that of the 191 invasive plants examined. 2007)). Frank and McCoy (1995) reported that about one quarter of Florida’s flora is comprised of non-indigenous species. 1996). almost all of them introduced deliberately. The Bahamas National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plan states “alien plants have been introduced with little control […] mainly by gardeners and horticulturalists” (BEST. Schinus terebinthifolius (Anacardiaceae). Over 60 Ficus (fig) species have been introduced into southern Florida as ornamentals. introduced for the purpose of reforestation. While many introduced plants do not become problematic. introduced into the United States for erosion control and strongly promoted as a forage crop and ornamental plant. 2003). 2003). 2008). 2008). 66 percent were introduced deliberately to the insular Caribbean through the horticultural pathway. These gardens not only serve as an entry point for invasions (Dawson et al. In Barbados. spread from the Cinchona Botanic Gardens in Jamaica and from other points where it was planted as an ornamental tree species. Kudzu. The neem tree.. but they may also be promoting exotics in the local community directly and indirectly (e. introduced to drain wetlands. introduced as an ornamental. sweet lime. Hedychium gardneranum (Zingiberaceae). (FTG. has become one of the most serious invasive weeds in the southeastern United States (DCR. wild ginger. However.. and mother-in-law’s tongue. Australian pine.g. a certain percentage do become invasive (Williamson and Fitter. at least 179 have established in the wild. as well as Puerto Rico and Antigua and Barbuda (IABIN.There are numerous botanical gardens in the GCR (Gutierrez Misas. are both garden escapes that have replaced shrub layers in forested gullies (Waugh. lobata (Fabaceae). 2008). 1995). Azadirachta indica (Meliaceae).. as well as Brazilian pepper. Polygonum chinense (Polygonaceae). leading to the spread of these Ficus species in two Florida counties (Frank and McCoy. Mock orange. 1999). Casuarinas equisetifolia (Casuarinaceae).. were also introduced through the botanic garden 99 . 2005). Because Ficus are pollinated by species-specific agaonid wasps. 1995). Melaleuca quinquenervia (Myrtaceae). many of them growing invasively (Kairo et al. Among the worst weeds of Florida are the punk tree. it is generally assumed that they are not able to set fruit outside of their native range. 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. and redbush. Pueraria montana var. Triphasia trifolia (Rutaceae). Of 220 tree species known to have been intentionally introduced into the GCR.

white cedar. T. including the United States. and Indian jujube. and J. Annual costs to control this weed in seven African countries are between $20-50 million/year (McNeely. Kairo et al. and freedom from soil. The invasion of Jamaican montane rainforests by the Australian tree Pittosporum undulatum.2 million hectares every year (NISC. 2004). UK. 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. Common water hyacinth. 1999). 2008). $12 billion in South Africa (van Wilgen et al. 2008b). Centaurea diffusa. Casuarina equisetifolia (Casuarinaceae). thus considering them major invasive threats to the region: the red beadtree. University of Wales. and wetlands (Olckers. displacing native plant species. Adenanthera pavonina (Fabaceae). 2002). Losses to the Canadian economy resulting from invasion by four weeds.. $34 billion in the United States. is also identified as a major invasive threat to the insular Caribbean (Kairo et al. exceed $250 million annually (Claudi. noxious weed (USDA. 2003) and is classified as a U. where they are appropriating as many as 3. riparian zones.” (Waugh. Melaleuca. 2001). $3 billion in Australia (Sinden et al. the annual economic impact of invasive weeds is estimated to be approximately $39 billion in India. Albizia lebbeck (Fabaceae). $17 billion in Brazil. 2002). an aquatic plant. and continue to spread into an additional 1. 1999).. In the United States. and Schinus.4 billion in the United Kingdom (Pimentel et al. For example. Bangor. woman’s tongue. School of Agricultural and Forest Sciences. Cirsium arvense. 2008) 17. and Centaurea maculosa (Asteraceae) and Euphorbia esula (Euphorbiaceae). 2001). are aggressive invaders of forests. Eichhornia crassipes (Pontederiaceae). $1. invasive plants currently infest an estimated 40 million hectares. (2003) lists the following tree species as naturalized and/or invasive in at least five countries of the GCR. but are not concerned with the invasiveness potential of the plants themselves..3 billion m3 (7%) of mean annual surface water runoff from catchments. For example. 2003). beach sheok. 2001). 100 .(Waugh. What safeguards are in place to prevent additional introductions of invasive plants? Unfortunately. “tree species. In the Bahamas.. 2001). The regulated pest list of most countries either 17 Waugh (2008) cites the following reference: Goodland. but to the best of our knowledge none require weed risk assessments as a condition for import. Economic losses due to introduced plants surpass those caused by any other class of invasive species. and $1 billion in New Zealand (Williams and Timmins. R.. Noxious weeds have invaded an estimated 10 million hectares in South Africa (van Wilgen et al. inspection. the safeguards are few and insufficient for most countries of the GCR. Healy.S. Invasive plants have seriously degraded more than 15 million hectares of grazing lands and natural ecosystems in Australia (Glanznig. Ziziphus mauritiana (Rhamnaceae). 1996. Tabebuia heterophylla (Bignoniaceae). wetlands and disturbed or open sites. many countries require phytosanitary certificates. such as Casuarina.

Flores-Palacios and Valencia-Díaz (2007) conducted a study in Mexico to quantify illegal trade of epiphytes and measure the diversity of species sold. plant pests other than the commodity itself are the target of these regulations. Pittosporum undulatum (Pittosporaceae). Even in cases where proper regulations are in place.. Visiting a local market. already discussed in the previous section. Tschanz and Lehtonen (2005) proposed actions to address these risks. effective safeguarding may be hindered by the difficulty of identifying propagative material to the species level. Hedychium gardneranum is invasive in Jamaica (ISSG. Very few species are absolutely prohibited. equaling the volume of legal orchid exports from Mexico (Flores-Palacios and Valencia-Díaz. plants that are “not authorized for import pending risk analysis (NAPPRA)” (USDA-APHIS. a necessary condition for the importation of fruits and vegetables. While this study was conducted in Mexico. and other plant families) is high and occurs regularly. The issue of smuggling. (Zingiberaceae) and Ficus spp. Literature on the illegal trade of plants is limited. 2008). 2009). Again. Examples of plant species explicitly permitted to enter include: Ziziphus mauritania (Rhamnaceae). if shipment manifests or phytosanitary certificates provide incorrect information. and plans are currently underway to develop legislation that establishes a new category of nursery stock. which tend to be agricultural weeds not likely to be imported as propagative materials (IPPC. is not required for the importation of live plants that are intended for planting and propagation. the growth stage and condition (seeds. Over an 85-week period. Hedychium spp. (2003). they counted the illegal sale of 7. etc. plants that are known to be notorious invaders elsewhere in the world can be legally imported. sold and distributed within the United States. is again of concern here. weed risk assessment. except for a number of regulated species and families. named a major invasive threat to the GCR by Kairo et al. In addition. 2007). Thus. despite being illegal.contains no weeds at all or lists only a relatively small number of plants. The immense variety of plant material entering from all over the world easily overwhelms any level of diagnostic expertise. 2009). cuttings without leaves. 2008). Bromeliaceae. The United States generally allows the importation of any plant species. and several Ficus species are invasive in tropical parts of the world (Yoshioka. Most of these can still enter with an import permit or after certain treatment requirements have been fulfilled. an economically important invasive species in Jamaica (Kairo et al. 2008). 101 . Thus. 2003). there is no reason to believe that the situation would be different in many countries of the GCR. specifying requirements by country of origin (IPPC. they found that the illegal trade of epiphytes (species belonging to the Orchidaceae. (Moraceae).598 plants or cuttings. Paradoxically. Costa Rica’s regulations contain a detailed list of plant species for which importation is permitted.) of the plant material complicates identification. and prohibited species may be allowed to enter. phytosanitary officers may not be able to detect the error.

There are essentially no safeguards in place to prevent this from happening. to our knowledge only one botanic garden has developed a screening procedure for invasive weeds (e. 2008).) The Australian Weed Risk Assessment system is the most widely known and tested system of its kind (Gordon et al. Prohibit the importation of all plant species unless they have been deemed unlikely to become invasive by a (predictive) weed risk assessment. CPC. 2008).. Representatives from government. where they often cause considerable economic and environmental damage. Recommendations Require a weed risk assessment for the importation of plant species. 2008).. 2005. dozens of horticultural groups worldwide drafted and adopted the St. Fox et al. Any country without this policy leaves a weakness in its safeguarding system. the propagative material pathway allows invasive plants to continuously enter countries of the GCR.g. 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. (Jefferson et al. 2004). Draft a voluntary code of conduct for nurseries and landscaping businesses to promote the sale and use of native and non-invasive plants... 2004)).. (Exceptions may be made for plants that have been historically imported at high volumes. 2001. Dawson et al.. 2007. 2008). However. (Heffernan et al. 2001). invasiveness may change due to environmental changes. Randall et al. and botanic gardens agreed that a screening system was needed to identify potentially invasive plant species before they are imported into the country (Reichard. or the invasiveness potential of a species may have been misjudged in a predictive weed risk assessment (Reichard and White..g. Retrospective assessments are important because a lag time may exist between species introduction and onset of invasiveness. Assess the invasiveness of plant species retrospectively (e. 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 . In summary.In 2001... industry. Retrospective assessments evaluate the invasiveness of plants some time after they have been imported. despite continued recognition of this important pathway (Burt et al.

2000) o …“engage and educate fellow botanic gardens and arboreta. Possibly model invasiveness evaluation after systems already in place at some botanic gardens that currently have evaluation systems in place (BGCI. and the landscape. and share research that identifies problems and provides solutions” related to invasive plant species.” Develop sampling protocol for mites and other small arthropods. arboreta. This program should target the general public. resorts. increase the availability of molecular diagnostics.” (BGCI. Botanic gardens and arboreta have a clear responsibility to adopt and demonstrate to the public a strong environmental ethic” (BGCI 2000). Use of either an 80% ethanol wash or a specified concentration of detergent solution would be employed […]. and continue to. as well as businesses and governments throughout the GCR. 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. and the public about the importance of choosing and displaying ecologically responsible plant collections. and other entities that engage in large-scale landscaping. contribute to this problem by promoting actually and potentially invasive plants.Draft a voluntary code of conduct for local governments. 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. 2000) Develop an educational program on identification and potential impact of invasive plant species in the GCR (Reichard and White. for example through graduate student projects. Conclusions from the first World Botanic Gardens Congress state that “Botanic gardens and arboreta have. Code of conduct should stipulate that botanical gardens: o conduct invasiveness studies prior to introducing a new plant into botanic gardens. Develop a list of common pathogens of • • 103 . • Develop a certification process that allows any entity adhering to the abovementioned codes of conduct to become a “Certified Ambassador of Invasive Species Prevention. 2000) o re-evaluate current plant collections for invasiveness (BGCI. 2000) o “support.” (BGCI. hotels. 2001. “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. Waugh. As much as feasible. 2008).” (Childers and Rodrigues 2005). The program may be developed at universities. contribute to. the horticulture industry. Increase attention to plant pathogens.

” (IPPC.. risk analysis. Harmonized procedures for phytosanitary security of traded plants for planting are necessary to allow increased trade while minimizing phytosanitary risks and unnecessary delays. growing and inspection practices followed. Implement systematic data collection efforts to assess the pest risk associated with at least the most common imports of propagative materials. This protocol should describe in detail the inspection methods to be followed (e. in some cases. country of origin. etc. with information on variety.g. • Require phytosanitary certificates for all imports of propagative materials.). detergent wash.). of the imported plants and should provide some assurance that the plant material is free of pests based on clearly specified inspection protocols. 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. inadequate to mitigate the risks. 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. The advantages of this approach over using port-of- • • • • • 104 .)? 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. diagnostic tests for pathogens. and regulatory resources away from fruit and vegetable towards propagative material imports. Use early warning and bio-surveillance systems as inputs for decision making. divert scientific. cuttings. “International trade in plants for planting has a high potential for the introduction of regulated pests. while also providing guidance to help identify and categorize the risks. etc. etc. type of material (roots. 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). In the United States: Give strong priority to the improvement of “quarantine 37”. Current phytosanitary measures that rely mainly on treatments and inspections are. building on the recommendations of Tschanz and Lehtonen (2005). date of importation. Evaluate adequacy and reliability of procedures for issuing phytosanitary certificates. if applicable the variety.economic importance for which plant material should be tested on a regular basis. and amount imported in consistent units. Share test results within the GCR. Consider making resources available to fund this work as graduate student research. If necessary. The phytosantairy certificates should indicate the species and. use of hand lens. industry. 2008) Record information on propagative material imported by plant species.

less diversion of inspectors. more objectivity and reliability of research.. etc. and better distribution and documentation of results through the scientific publication process. pesticide applications. 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. 105 . washing of shoes and equipment. basic sanitation practices (e. biological control. 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. routine diagnostic tests for pathogens.g. pre-shipment inspection. • Develop a systems approach to reduce the pest risk associated with the propagative materials that pose the highest risk of pest introduction. reduction of fertilizer levels.entry personnel would include: lower cost. etc. quarantine treatments.

Odonata.. that natural spread. 1928). 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. the separation of Cuba from Mexico by about 250 km. it is impossible to determine the pathway through which a pest was introduced. Strymon acis. into the United States. Orthoptera. The fall armyworm. (1986) collected 177 species of insects over 40 days. Raoiella indica (Acari: Tenuipalpidae). Sparks et al. Frank and McCoy (1995) list six butterfly species that are believed to periodically recolonize Florida from Cuba via wind-assisted flight: Chlorostrymon maesites. the pest appeared on nearby islands. Guadeloupe. frugiperda depend upon prevailing winds. may also play a significant role seems to be a logical assumption given the close proximity of adjacent islands. Operating insect traps on unmanned oil platforms in the Gulf of Mexico at 32. Eunica tatila. examples of known pest introductions via natural spread are rare. and the separation of Trinidad from Venezuela by only 10 km. in the Western Hemisphere occured in Martinique in 2004.000 km from land. Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). where it occurs year-round. migrates every year from the Caribbean islands (Puerto Rico. the separation of Florida from Cuba by less than 150 km. Hymenoptera. mediated by wind. thus. 106 . Nevertheless. The insects represented 69 families belonging to the following orders: Coleoptera. temperature. 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. 106. The distance of single flights of the adult moths of S. Hemiptera. Within a year. and Heraclides aristrodemus (Papilionidae). and Trichoptera. U. Anaea troglodyte (Nymphalidae). Eumaeus atala (Lycaenidae).S. Close et al. and 160 km from the Louisiana shoreline. 74. The first detection of the red palm mite. Lepidoptera. 1991). (1978) trapped several species of insects over the ocean at distances of up to 3. and French Guiana). Virgin Islands. and food supply at the time of the flight (Luginbill. Diptera.Chapter 9: Natural Spread Introduction The spread of exotic organisms throughout the Greater Caribbean Region (GCR) is strongly facilitated by trade and travel.

Virtually all plant and animal life on the Caribbean islands have migrated from east to west—from the northern coast of Venezuela to Trinidad. widespread throughout large parts of the Greater Caribbean Basin by 1990 (Brunt et al.. to Puerto Rico. the shift in winds carries the dust toward the South Caribbean and South America (Griffin et al. Lucia also suggests wind currents as a mode of spread (Hoy et al. Similarly. and Jeanne in 2004. given the evidence listed above. 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. 2003). 1995). then it is conceivable that certain organisms.. and the Neotropics. its distribution increased by yet another 200. as well. however. This suggests that long-distance natural spread of plant pests into the GCR may be less important than transport through trade and tourism. Francis. with the majority coming from Asia. up through the Lesser Antilles and Virgin Islands.Even though human-mediated movement was an important mechanism in the subsequent spread of this pest throughout the GCR. 1999).000 acres. Part of the year. after hurricanes Charley. Xanthomonas axonopodis pv.. 107 . 1990) appeared in south Florida immediately after the passage of Hurricane Andrew in 1992 (Blair et al. Jamaica. the winds move in a clockwise rotation (Figure 9. Hispaniola.. and then across the Greater Antilles. 1997). If dust can be transported in this way. and after hurricane Wilma in 2005. i. favoring the wind-mediated movement of pests northward from Venezuela as opposed to southward from Florida. its distribution increased by 80. such as fungal spores or insects may be transported. and Cuba (Rogozinski. Thomas (2000) showed that only a small percent of the exotic arthropods in Florida originated in Africa. The tropical trade winds carry the African dust from June through October toward the North/Central Caribbean and the Southeastern United States. Disease spread is closely linked to weather events. The Asian citrus canker bacterium..e. 1991). the insects were weak and did not establish populations in the GCR (Richardson and Nemeth. indica populations on very tall and mature coconut palms in St.. 1999) from the coast of Africa across most of the GCR. 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. From November through May.. It is therefore likely that the natural spread of newly introduced pests would follow this same path. 2003).000 acres of commercial citrus. 1991). the Pacific. citri (Xanthomonadales: Xanthomonadaceae) was detected in 1995 on citrus trees near Miami International Airport (Gottwald et al.1) through the GCR. Locust swarms from the Cape Verdes region in Africa reached the Caribbean islands in 1988 (Richardson and Nemeth. However. the presence of R. some degree of windassisted natural spread is probably occurring on an on-going basis. 2006). bean golden mosaic virus (BGMV).

pest movement may also be directed by the diurnal cycle of local winds between low and high altitude areas. Earlyseason hurricanes (July-August) usually hit the Lesser Antilles. which can also spread pests. During the daytime. By means of Doppler radar. 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. depending on their diurnal rhythm of activity. As the direction of these movements depends on the time of day.7 -11. occuring most frequently in late summer to fall. 1999). occur per year. 1999. 1999). it may affect different pests in different ways. while late-season hurricanes (September-October). 2001). Their paths are unpredictable. They may curve to the north or northeast. The upslope winds in valleys are often 3-5 m s−1 (6. but more than 80 percent develop during August. 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. In summary. Such local winds on and near Caribbean islands probably help to launch some insects on flights over the sea. An average of about 15 tropical cyclones. winds tend to blow from the coastal plain toward the mountain. and then across the Greater Antilles. including seven or eight hurricanes. Once over land. natural spread of pests within the GCR. but tend to move from east to west into the GCR and then may curve back towards the east or northeast. and at night from the mountain toward the coastal plain. September. 2001). wind promotes the movement between land and sea. the sea-breeze circulation. Russell and Wilson (1996) found that concentrations of weak-flying insects near the Atlantic coast of Florida were dispersed inland on the sea breeze. In addition. 108 . though many never reach land (Rogozinski.1 mph).In addition to the general direction set by the prevailing trade winds. 1999). 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.2). The course of hurricanes is unpredictable. are common in the GCR. either striking the southeastern coast of the United States or dying out in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. 1991) (Figure 9. at about 10 miles per hour. is most likely to occur from Venezuela to Trinidad. The mountainplains wind system is most apparent on days when the general prevailing winds are weak. 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. up through the Lesser Antilles and Virgin Islands. 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. It is not very likely to occur in the opposite direction. as well as to aid insects arriving from across the sea to disperse well into the interior of the island. and October (Rogozinski. but most tend to travel slowly. as well as between lower and higher altitudes. tend to be more severe and have a more northerly track that passes over the Greater Antilles (Caviedes. Quantick. Tropical storms and hurricanes. across the Lesser Antilles or Greater Antilles (Rogozinski.

but they do exhibit behavioral adaptations that facilitate passive aerial dispersal. 1988). For alate aphids. Schizaphis graminum (Johnson. Rhopalosiphum padi. 2003). Thrips are known to be passively borne long distances in wind currents (Lewis. 1997). 1988). and mealybugs are similar in their ability to move on wind. 1978. and other spider mites disperse aerially by climbing to the top of a plant. thrips could survive in the air without food or water for over 24 hours. Mites.. the bird cherry-oat aphid. 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. aphids are carried passively by the wind. Lewis. aphids. however. the cassava green mite. Macrosiphum avenae. 1973. transported passively over sometimes large distances by wind currents. Minute arthropods are susceptible to dessication during flight. Small soil-surface-active insects such as Collembola may be swept up into the air. Drake and Farrow. and on very hot days only three hours. such as between adjacent islands. Some aphids (Hemiptera: Aphididae) routinely engage in long-distance migrations. 1984). Though generally. Mononychellus tanajoa (Acari: Tetranychidae). e. 1988). 2001). are triggered by the senescence and death of the flowers on their host plants (Ramachandran et al. (Yaninek. take-off is an active process. they may easily be able to survive travel over short distances. They are. 1984). the English grain aphid. aphids can remain aloft for up to 12 hours (Wiktelius. Rhopalosiphum maidis. Within the laboratory. 1977) revealed that in an ambient temperature of 10-14º C. thrips. while at summer temperatures of approximately 19-23º C. and the greenbug. also known as crawlers.What types of pests are most prone to disperse by natural spread? Minute arthropods: mites. cannot engage in active flight. These types of insects generally move from plant to plant by aerial dispersal. producing a silken thread and “spinning” from the edge of a leaf before being carried away by the breeze (Yaninek. Aphids have been transported by wind over distances up to at least 800 miles (Schneider. 1977. Wind-blown Collembola and mites have been collected in suspended plankton nets at altitudes of 1500 m (Coulson et al. being wingless. 1995).. Mass flights of some thrips species. scales. a study in southern Australia (Laughlin. 109 . For example. mealybug and scale crawlers covers distances of less than 10 km/year (Yaninek.g. Laughlin. Though minute arthropods may have a small chance of surviving transport over very large distances. collembola Minute arthropods generally are not capable of covering long distances by active flight. the corn leaf aphid. 1962). Immature scale insects. Frankliniella occidentalis (Thysanoptera: Thripidae). such as the western flower thrips. but once airborne. survival times of airborne thrips were predicted to average six hours.. 1988). and studies under natural conditions show an average flight duration of two to three hours (Wiktelius. aerial dispersal of spider mites. For example.

One study demonstrated that adults of Agrotis ipsilon (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) were able to travel approximately 1. Macrosteles fascifrons. Johnson. Worldwide information on the long-distance dispersal of rust diseases shows that there are certain defined routes that operate during specific months and years. with the family Noctuidae being the most predominant migratory group. The most well-known example of a migratory moth is the monarch butterfly. leafhoppers Lepidopterans –at least the larger species. 1990). Ultraviolet (UV) light from the sun causes spore mortality. is believed to have been carried from Africa to the Caribbean with the North-East trade winds (Purdy et al. 1986). Ustilago scitaminea (Ustilaginales: Ustilaginaceae). Numerous species of Lepidoptera engage in long-range migration.are generally strong enough fliers to be able to propel themselves for the most part actively and to maintain a general direction.. Empoasca fabae.500 km in one year to return to their natal area (Taylor and Reling. 1962). Danaus plexippus (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae). 2003). the potato leafhopper. Sugarcane smut. including the route from West Africa to the GCR and Mexico to the northeastern United States (Nagarajan and Singh. eventually landing on both target and non-target sites. butterflies. Nagarajan and Singh. 1990). and Mycosphaerella fijiensis (Ascomycetes: Mycosphaerellales). 1989).. specimens of which fly 2. Schneider et al. 1986.. is suspected to have spread in the same manner (Nagarajan and Singh.Larger insects: moths. the beet leafhopper.200 km from their release sites in Louisiana and Texas to Iowa in the span of about three days (Showers et al. the causal agent of black sigatoka disease of banana.g. Circulifer tenellus. and an aster leafhopper. e. 2004. 1990). These pests use the wind to their advantage to spread passively to areas with better food availability (Taylor and Reling. Hurricane Ivan is suspected to have picked up soybean rust spores in Venezuela and deposited them over Alabama and the panhandle of Florida (FDACS... Microorganisms have survived the 4. Spores of different phytopathogenic fungi are carried singly or in clumps by wind and have been trapped far from their release sites. 1990). There are also well-studied examples of annual migration by economically important leafhoppers (Hemiptera: Cicadellidae). survival during longdistance movement is still possible (Nagarajan and Singh. however. 110 .000 km airborne trip from Africa to the Caribbean and the Americas (Griffin et al. 1985. Plant Pathogens Plant pathogens produce enormous quantities of spores that are passively transported. in spite of changes in wind direction (Schneider. 1995). 2005).

usually utilizing a combination of passive and active dispersal means.g. degree-day models. The period from June to August is the most probable time for pest movement from countries of the GCR to the United States. can still be blown on the wind. Minimal capacity for migration is possessed by tiny gnats and midges. but the force of the storm would likely kill or injure most insects that are swept up. as summer is the rainy season in many areas of the Caribbean. it is difficult to determine the pathway of introduction. aphids. Arthropods not capable of active flight over long distances. The primary focus should be pests that are capable of establishing and causing economic losses or environmental damage. Tropical storms with less intense wind strength may be a more likely mechanism for natural movement of plants pests. Most likely. the prevailing winds would carry insects or plant pathogens from the Windward Islands (the most southeasterly islands). Airborne plant pathogens such as rusts move very easily across large areas. Develop host-free zones for targeted pests. 111 . In the Caribbean. are some of the most successful insects to move into new areas. Annual surveys are a way to monitor new pest arrivals. scales. Lepidopterans. While the prevailing winds are favorable for pest movement year-round.) for timing of surveys. in most instances. such as mites. Therefore. yet.Conclusions Most information on pest movement into and within the GCR is anecdotal. National Plant Protection Organizations should employ alternative strategies to reduce the risk of pest establishment. Use predictive modeling (e. • • Use sterile insect technique (SIT). Predictive modeling works well for some plant pathogens. and collembola. Recommendations Conduct annual surveys to monitor the arrival of new pests in an area. in the summer and early fall. Any plant pest is capable of dispersal. especially noctuid moths. and on to the Greater Antilles and the southeastern United States.. tropical storms are more common and could contribute to the spread of plant pests. etc. These passive dispersers move at a slower rate than active fliers and their dispersal is completely dependent on the wind direction. 1974). with lush plant growth and higher pest densities. Hurricanes are a potential source for pest movement. such movement proceeds largely unnoticed. 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. pests have moved from island to island by natural spread. There is nothing that can be done to prevent the natural spread of pests. The route of natural movement most likely is that of prevailing winds. Once a pest establishes in a new area. Base SIT programs on a target pest list. toward the northwest to the Leeward Islands.

Obviously. such as trace element or DNA analysis may be useful in some cases. the knowledge of where a pest originated from would be a useful start in understanding natural pest movement. Determine the origin of invasive pests in the GCR. it is generally very difficult and often not possible to determine the origin of a pest. 112 . Because most information about the natural spread of pests is anecdotal. Modern technologies.• • Develop biological control methods for targeted pests.

Alison Neeley (USDA-APHIS-PPQ-CPHST) and Luis Caniz (USDA-APHIS-IS) for providing valuable information on cruise ship travel. Laney Campbell (USDA-APHIS-PPQ-Eastern Region) for information on log and wood exports. Robert Balaam (USDA-APHIS-PPQ) for obtaining funding for the project and establishing initial contacts. Gulf States. 113 . Regional Program Manager) and Brian Marschman (USDA-APHIS-PPQ. 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. Camille Morris (USDA-APHIS-SITC. Amy Roda for sharing relevant information. Scott Redlin (USDA-APHIS-PPQ-CPHST) for assistance with PPQ historical documents and contacts. land border crossings. and for interception data on Christmas trees.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.S. 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. and agricultural inspection procedures. Linda Pardoe (DHS-CBP) and Ron Komsa (USDA-APHIS-PPQ) for facilitating access to AQIM data. Paul Larkins (USDA-APHIS-PPQ-Eastern Region) for assistance with harmonized tariff codes. Idaho State Plant Health Director) for providing SITC data and information for the mail chapter. Jennifer Fritz (North Carolina State University) for editing and formatting the report. Lynn Garrett (USDA-APHIS-PPQ-CPHST) for providing access to forestry export data for the U.

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. Norberto Gabriel. and John Rogers (USDA-APHIS-PPQ-CPHST) for reviewing drafts of various chapters. Denzville Williams. Brian Kopper (USDA-APHIS-PPQEastern Region). Leyinska Wiscovitch. Florida State Operations Support Officer) Puerto Rico: Albert Roche. Dionne Clarke-Harris (CARDI). Tom Kalaris (USDA-APHIS-PPQ-CPHST). Catherine Katsar (USDA-APHIS-PPQ). Bruce Lauckner (CARDI). R.Glenn Fowler (USDA-APHIS-PPQ-CPHST). John Stewart (USDA-APHIS-PPQ-Eastern Region). Charles Thayer (North Carolina State University) for maintaining the project website. 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. 114 . Amy Roda (USDAAPHIS-PPQ). Waldemar Klassen (University of Florida). 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.

Haiti. Data were not available for the Bahamas. Data were reported as non-resident air arrivals for Antigua and Barbuda. Canada 1.771. Cuba. and Grenada reported preliminary data. Dominican Republic.487. Dominica. Saint Barts. Saint Kitts and Nevis.395 Tourist arrival data for 2006 as reported in Table 1.Figures and Tables Figure 1. 2007). Martinique.954 Other 2. Data for Puerto Rico and the U. Guadeloupe. United States arrivals to Cuba were reported in the “Other” category. British Virgin Islands. 115 . and Turks and Caicos Islands.753. Saint Eustatius (Netherlands Antilles) and Trinidad and Tobago reported tourist arrivals from January to June only.200 Europe 3.514. Barbados. Virgin Islands were reported as non-resident hotel registrations.1 Origin of tourists to the insular Caribbean in 2006.S.3 (CTO. and Saint Maarten (Netherlands Antilles).157 United States 5.

000 500.2 (CTO. Preliminary data were reported for the British Virgin Islands. Data were reported as non-resident air arrivals for Antigua and Barbuda. 2. 2007).2 Tourist arrivals to the Insular Caribbean by month in 2006. Saint Barts. Saint Eustatius. Dominican Republic. Bahamas. and Martinique. Data were not available for Guadeloupe. Dominica.000 1. and Trinidad and Tobago). Cuba.000. Saint Maarten (Netherlands Antilles).000 0 pr il ug us Se t pt em be r O cto be r N ov em be D r ec em be r ua ry Fe br ua ry M ar ch ay Ja n A M Ju ne Ju ly Tourist arrival data for 2006 as reported in Table 1.000. and Turks and Caicos Islands. Data were excluded for locations not reporting arrival numbers for all months (Haiti.Figure 1.500. Saint Kitts and Nevis.000 1. Data for Puerto Rico were reported as non-resident hotel registrations. and Saint Maarten (Netherlands Antilles). A 116 .

Table 1. 4 Arrivals reported as non-resident air arrivals. Bonaire. 2007).1 Tourist arrivals by country or territory in 2006. Saint Kitts and Nevis. 2008)). 1 Tourist arrival data were not available for Guadeloupe. c (OTTI. 5 Preliminary data. Turks and Caicos Islands. Louisiana. Arrivals to Saint Eustatius for 2006 were reported only for the time period of January to June so data from 2005 were substituted (10. 2008). 3 Tourist arrival data were not available for all of 2006. 6 Netherlands Antilles includes the islands of Curaçao. 2008). 2 Overseas (excludes Canada and Mexico) non-resident air arrivals to airports in Florida (Miami. Saint Maarten. Orlando. and Mississippi). 8 Data for this table were obtained from the following sources: a (CTO. and Saba. and Sanford) and Texas (Houston). 117 . and d (CTO. 2008). Saint Barts. b (SICA. Saint Eustatius. and the United States (Alabama. 7 Arrivals reported as non-resident hotel registrations. data reported represents 2005 stop-over arrivals (CTO. Arrivals reported for Saint Maarten were non-resident air arrivals.355 tourist stop-over arrivals reported for Saint Eustatius in 2005 (CTO. 2007a).

and c – reported as number of cruise passengers. 2008). and Saba. 6 Visitor staying for less than 24 hours and not staying overnight. Cuba. Florida. Saint Kitts and Nevis. 5 Data for this table were obtained from the following sources: a – reported as number of cruise passengers. Saint Eustatius. Bonaire.2 Excursionist6 arrivals by region and country or territory in 2006. 3 Excursionist arrival data were not available for all of 2006.Table 1. 2007). Guyana. Louisiana. Turks and Caicos Islands. 2 Preliminary data. Guadeloupe. 4 Netherlands Antilles includes the islands of Curaçao. Excursionist arrival data were not available for Saint Eustatius and Saba. b – reported as number of excursionists (SICA. data reported represents 2005 excursionist arrivals (reported as cruise passenger arrivals) (CTO. Suriname. and the United States (Alabama. 1 Excursionist arrival data were not available for Anguilla. Saint Barts. (CTO. (CTO. 2008). 118 . Saint Maarten. and Texas). Mississippi. 2008).

Maarten Inspected host Cocos nucifera (leaf) Cocos nucifera (leaf) Cocos nucifera (leaf) Cocos nucifera (leaf) Cocos nucifera (leaf) Cocos nucifera (leaf) Cocos nucifera (leaf) 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. Brazil St.3 Pest interceptions on maritime (primarily cruise ship18) baggage at U. Gulf States (Florida. Note: These interceptions were the result of a special data collection effort targeting Raoiella indica (USDA. (Tetranychidae):1 Raoiella indica (Tenuipalpidae): 9 Aleurodicinae species (Aleyrodidae): 3 Raoiella indica (Tenuipalpidae): 1 Raoiella indica (Tenuipalpidae): 2 Raoiella indica (Tenuipalpidae): 24 Tetranychus sp. Alabama. Port of entry 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 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 Origin St. and Texas) during 2007. Louisiana. providing some indication of the identity of the vessel. Maarten Puerto Rico Puerto Rico St.R. Mississippi. (Poaceae) Mesostigmata species: 10 Gryllus sp. 18 119 .Table 1. Cocos nucifera (leaf) Pest 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.S. Cocos nucifera (leaf) Cocos nucifera (leaf) Cocos nucifera (leaf) Cocos nucifera (leaf) Cocos nucifera (leaf) Handicrafts Citrus sp. The number of specimens intercepted is listed after the pest name. ports of entry located in the U. (Tetranychidae): 3 Tetranychus sp. (Tetranychidae): 1 Aleurotrachelus atratus (Aleyrodidae) Resseliella sp. in many cases a ship name is listed. Maarten Unknown Unknown St. (Gryllidae): 1 Aleyrodicinae species (Aleyrodidae): 5 Raoiella indica (Tenuipalpidae): 2 Raoiella indica (Tenuipalpidae): 1 Tenuipalpidae species: 6 Oligonychus sp. St. Maarten Mexico D.R.S. Maarten Mexico Jamaica Jamaica Jamaica Jamaica Jamaica Jamaica Jamaica Mexico Unknown Unknown Haiti Unknown Mexico St. 2008d). 2008b) does not specify vessel type. Maarten Unknown D. however. (Cecidomyiidae): 37 Guinardia citricarpa (Botryosphaeriaceae) Raoiella indica (Tenuipalpidae): 61 Pest type Insect Insect Mite Mite Mite Mite Insect Mite Mite Insect Mite Weed Mite Insect Insect Mite Mite Mite Mite Mite Insect Mite Mite Mite Mite Mite Insect Insect Disease Mite The data source (USDA. Maarten St.

335 9.175 248 1.655 64.610 From Guatemala into Mexico Guatemalans Non-Guatemalans 41. Mexico (Solís.036 42. June-December 2004 (Solís.243 6.100 2.903 Table 1.601 9.691 69.448 13.318 120 .181 12.321 46.184 5. 2005).921 47. Border crossings El Carmen Tecún-Umán La Mesilla Gracias a Dios Total From Mexico into Guatemala Guatemalans Non-Guatemalans 7.418 18.5 Influx of temporary farm workers from Guatemala into Chiapas. Year 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Number of workers 60.887 22.471 39.053 14.713 79.083 1.203 25. 2005).074 15.4 Number of people moving across four major border crossings of the Mexico-Guatemala border.894 17.783 49.Table 1.

72 9) 16 . 2007.Figure 2.4 38 ) M ili ta ry r( Cr ew Vi si tF Vi si tF fo rm Travel reason Un i Bu s in es s/ W or k ily s rie nd O th e am To ed 121 .2 42 ) (1 . 44 6) (1 4. 6% 5% Plant QM Approach Rate 4% 3% 2% 1% 0% ur is t( 10 9.S.0 86 ) (9 8. By travel reason (sample sizes in parenthesis). 07 8) (7 2. ports of entry between January 1. 2008f). Data source: (USDA.1 95% binomial confidence intervals for plant QM approach rates in international airline passenger baggage at U. 2005 and August 22. 65 3) (5 .

93 9 u Pe a ( ) 84 Sl ru ( 3) ov 3. V er 6 ) in ia ( c G en 79 ) re t ( Uz na d 16 6 ) a b Ba ek ( 2 is 69 ng t 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 go ) Be 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 .2 95% binomial confidence intervals for plant QM approach rates in international airline passenger baggage at U. ports of entry between January 1. ) na 98 ire 8) Ira (7 4 ) n St Alg (77 . Countries with samples sizes < 30 are omitted.S. Shows the 25 countries of origin with the highest approach rates. 2005 and August 22. 1 Ba aki 01 ) a Ja ham (19 m 6) ai a s ca (3 M 2 ac (1 9 ) e d 0.Figure 2. By country of passenger origin (sample sizes in parenthesis).4 on 23 ia ) (7 6) Country of origin 122 . Data source: (USDA. 2007. 2008f). 70% 60% Plant QM Approach Rate 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Pa l Ha au it i ( 34 Bo (1.

8) 15 31 ) 123 . Countries with samples sizes < 30 are omitted.3 ) ca 02 An ) gu (3.4 ) nd a 48 u (1.73 R da 9 ) ep ( . Country of origin Ha it Bo i (1.2 ill 8 5 ) B a Ca e li (1 2 ym ze 3) Pa a n ( 78 na ( 1 2) Do m . M a (4 ) aa ca 8 r ( 7 Ho agu 1. Data source: (USDA.3 95% binomial confidence intervals for plant QM approach rates in international airline passenger baggage at U. 2007. V na i 8 8 in re ) ( c G en 7 4) re t G ua na (16 de da 6) (2 l St oup 69 . ) Tu Ba ras 349 rk ( ) s r an ba 2.4 m in Be a ( 90) 1 ic a n rmu . 2005 and August 22.S.L e ) u (9 An cia 4 ) ( t Ba igu 58 6 ) a Ja ham (8 43 m ai a s ) Do ca (32 m (1 0 9 ) Tr inic . Caribbean countries of passenger origin (sample sizes in parenthesis).0 do 13 d G ) s ua Cai (7 t e co 14 Co ma s ( ) s t la 6 2 7 a ( Ri 2.4 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 46 s ) ( Cu 1.Plant QM Appraoch Rate 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 0% 5% Figure 2. K .1 St 02 b Ni . St 9 .42 in a 3) id ad (32 St (1 2) . ports of entry between January 1. 2008f). ( 41 1 .

000 50. st 42 ra 3) lia (3 Ire .5 ic 18 o ) (4 Ec 0.03 Sw 1) it i it z (1 er .6 la 25 nd ) (3 Ko .0 pa 22 n ) G (1 er 6. 93 Bo 9) l iv ia Fr an (3 48 ce ) (1 Ba 2.2 ed 36 en ) Co (2 lo .2 m 51 bi ) a (4 Ha . ua 21 do 3) r( 1. 39 ha 6) m as (3 29 Ne Ital y ) th (1 er 0.1 iw 01 El an ) Sa (8 .9 07 re ) a. ad a (1 Ja .000 250. By country of origin (sample sizes in parenthesis).000 150.6 In 36 di ) a (8 .5 in 51 Pe a ) ru & Ta (3 .2 lv 36 ad ) or Tr (3 in .000 200.7 Sp 42 ai ) Sw n (5 .9 ai 07 ca ) (1 Au 0. (5 . la nd 00 2 ) s (6 .4 38 ) Country of origin 124 . The 25 countries with the highest predicted number of plant QMs are depicted.4 46 id ad ) (1 .S.4 Estimated annual number of plant QMs arriving at U.000 0 Figure 2. 61 nt in 3) a M (2 ex .# Plant QMs Ca n 100.1 Is 97 ra ) el Ja (2 m . m 37 an 1) y Ar (1 ge 7.9 la 88 nd ) (2 Ch . airports (95% binomial confidence intervals).

21 ua 3) do r( 1.000 20.000 15.000 5.000 40. er 00 la nd 2) s (6 .000 45.4.1 Is 97 ra ) el Ja (2 m .2 ed 36 en ) Co (2 lo .2 m 51 bi ) a (4 .000 0 G er m an y Figure 2.6 la 25 nd ) (3 Ko .5 51 in Pe a ) ru & (3 Ta .1 iw 01 an El ) Sa (8 .0 Ha 31 Sw ) it i it z (1 er . st 42 ra 3) lia (3 Ire .000 35. (5 .7 Sp 42 ai ) n Sw (5 .9 ai 07 ca ) (1 Au 0.# Plant QMs Ja pa n 10.4 in 46 id ad ) (1 . 37 1) Ar (1 7. (1 6.9 07 re ) a. 93 Bo 9) l iv ia Fr (3 an 48 ce ) (1 Ba 2.4 38 ) Country of origin 125 .2 lv 36 ad ) or Tr (3 . 39 ha 6) m as (3 Ita 29 Ne ly ) th (1 0. ge 61 nt 3) in a M (2 ex .6 In 36 di ) a (8 .5 Same as figure 2.5 18 ic o ) (4 Ec 0.9 88 la nd ) (2 Ch .000 25.000 30. but Canada not displayed to show data for the other countries at a smaller scale.

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 ) 126 . By country of origin. Data source: (USDA. Tourists only.K ( ) Ba 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 in t i ) Cz ec ida (14 h d 6) Ca Re (2 5 St m p. 2008f).6 95% binomial confidence intervals for plant QM approach rates in international airline passenger baggage at U. 2007. ports of entry between January 1.S. 2005 and August 22. 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 ) Ta US (16 Ne nz A 9) th er an (5 5 la ia 7 ) n De ds ( 12 nm (2 0) ar . 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 Ira (32 Is la n ) St nds (64 .Plant QM approach rate 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 0% 5% Figure 2.31 El B k ( 6) Sa oli 53 lv via 6) St ado ( 7 . Country of origin Bo na G Gu ire ua y (5 de a n 9) lo a ( G up 30) re e St n (4 . ( 3) .

2007. By country of origin.3 a nd 59 R ) Ba ica ( 62 rb (1 6) a .6 (continued) 95% binomial confidence intervals for plant QM approach rates in international airline passenger baggage at U. Data source: (USDA. 2005 and August 22. K ( ) Hu .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 ) ru 36 U.Plant QM approach rate 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 0% 5% Figure 2.4 a 44 Au Tur n ( 8 ) Ne s t key 43 w ral ( 4 ) i Co Ze a ( 1 24) al s t a . ( 653 ng 17. ) Ja m ar y 63 5 ai ( ) Ca ca 265 (4 ) ym . Tourists only. ports of entry between January 1.S. 2008f). Country of origin 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. Be do 74 0 lg s ( ) iu 23 m 9 Se (6 ) Cu rbi 00) a Th ra c ( 3 ao 1) ai 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 ) 127 .

977 Pax inspected20 Approach rate21 Lower 95% CL22 Upper 95% CL23 Pax entering 24 Group size25 Pax groups entering26 37 million QMs entering (Lower 95% CL)27 1. and the lower and upper 95% binomial confidence limits for this estimate. Finally. it shows the lower and upper confidence limits for the estimated total annual number of QMs entering the United States. 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) 128 .64 million QMs entering (Upper 95% CL)28 1. The sampling unit is the group of passengers traveling together under one U.68 million 319.S. Customs declaration.70% 3.2) 28 Upper 95% confidence limit of the approach rate x Pax groups entering x average number of QMs per declaration (1.75% 3. It also lists the total annual number of passengers entering the United States.S. the average number of passengers per group.1 Results of Agricultural Quarantine Inspection Monitoring (AQIM) of international air passengers arriving at U. The table shows the number of passenger groups that were found to have quarantine materials (QMs).4 19 20 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. and the annual number of groups entering the United States. the number of passenger groups inspected. Pax with QMS19 11.599 3.Table 2. airports during fiscal years 2005 and 2006. the estimated proportion of passenger groups that carry QMs (“approach rate”).81% 52 million 1.

242 1.653 72.5 6 129 .086 34 31 23 4 1 0.078 5. fiscal years 2005 and 2006 (USDA.729 14.Table 2. 2008f). Travel Reason Tourist Family Visit Business/Work Visit Friends Uniformed Crew Military Other Frequency Percent 109.2 Number and percentage of travelers in the various travel reason categories. Data source: Agricultural Quarantine Inspection Monitoring.446 98.438 16.

000 1. Data source: (UNWTO. 62% 67% 57% .000 272.000 1.000 163. Periods indicate that no data were available.000 260.Table 2.000 404.600 204.000 100.450. . 3.415.000 245.000 Tourists 83% .000 3. Eustatius St. Vincent and the Grenadines Trinidad Turks and Caicos U. 80% 81% .450. 95% 51% .300 .000 122.000 655. Kitts and Nevis St.3 Annual number of visitors arriving in Caribbean countries by airplane and percentage of visitors that are tourists.000 2.000 233. .000 7.S. . .000 1. 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. 122. 475. . 130 .000 128. 89% .000 443. Maarten St.000 9.541. 92% 82% 81% 93% 78% 95% .017. Virgin Islands Visitors by air 24.000 476.000 63 220. . .000 96.000 . .000 546. Lucia St. 2006). .000 728.000 434.000 .000 158. 72% 91% 86% .088.

ferns. and tuna (prickly pear fruit) general dried or preserved fruit (unspecified). strawberries. orchids. onions. unspecified fresh herbs. dasheen. peaches. cinnamon. and other dried or frozen fruit. citrus peel. eggplants. aquatic plants). bamboo. and palm leaves bay leaves. cucurbits. pears. entire plants (candytuft. geranium. 2005-2007 (USDA. physalis. foliage. cut flowers. pineapple. cactus plants or pads. mango. cherries. rambutan. unidentified branches with leaves. mango. yams. orchids. cucumber. etc. plums. aloe. ginger root. peppers. fresh herbs. conifers.Table 3. typically dried or processed citrus leaves. potatoes.S. olives.455) ackee. guavas. 2008f). excluding seeds Fresh plant material not likely to be propagative (leaves. pepper. breadfruit. eucalyptus. and flowers. naranjilla. palm shoots or foliage. spices. squash. processed. citrus leaves. passion fruit. peach palm. tomato. kiwi. bulbs (unspecified flowers). tuna (cactus fruit). dates. plum. persimmons. mugwort (Artemisia). dry mango. sweet potatoes. and other unspecified fruit dried chilis. tomato. tea bush. and dried chili peppers bamboo. olives. curry leaves. unspecified spices and dried herbs spices 131 . lemongrass. raisins. ports of entry. bananas. Type of plant material Fresh fruits Public mail (Sample size: 76. flower bulbs. garlic.132) apples. longan. pears. berries. chayote. dasheen. ginseng root. banana. grapes. citrus. blueberries. papayas.) Herbs. garlic. epazote. squash. sugarcane. berries (unspecified). cannonball fruit. boxwood. chili and bell peppers.1 Plant materials/plant pests intercepted in public and private mail of worldwide origin during AQIM monitoring at 11 U. and thyme Private mail (Sample size: 18. jujube. dried flowers. plumeria. euphorbia. lemongrass. or preserved fruits Propagative plant materials. pumpkins. physalis. unspecified leaves. curry. quince. sugarcane and other unspecified plants Dried. citrus. jackfruit. cut flowers. apple. hog plum (mombin). ya pears. dried mango. plantain. figs. medicinal herbs. cassava. cassava. and other unidentified roots or tubers aloe leaves. peaches. avocado. eryngium. avocado. unidentified plants. unspecified greenery.

large amounts of unspecified seed. including rice straw. rice. cashews. red rice unspecified whole grain honey and honey combs. and rice cotton.455) artichokes. seaweed (unclear if fresh or dried). and other unspecified seeds Nuts (which may also be propagative) Grains and grain products Other almonds.Type of plant material Fresh vegetables Seeds and pods Public mail (Sample size: 76. peas. pumpkin seeds. jute. okra. and one snail. chestnuts. melon seeds. walnuts and unspecified nuts processed items like wheat or flour products. pistachios. loroco. and other unspecified vegetables coconut. cacao bean pods. mushrooms. soybeans. corn. broccoli. pumpkin seeds.132) beans and bean sprouts. carrots. beets. grain. betel nuts. and soil and sand Private mail (Sample size: 18. and peanuts flour products. corn. macadamia nuts. clay. hay and straw. processed vegetables. and other unspecified vegetables dried beans. peanuts. honey. beans. cucurbit seeds. cashews. and tamarind almonds. flower seeds. soybeans. palm seeds. insects. celery. quinoa. sesame. pine seeds. soil 132 . coconuts.

Item Seeds/Pods Herbs. pest plants. Processed items for consumption likely low risk. fresh herbs.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. 2008f). 2005-2007 (USDA. 10% 4% 16% 3% Variable: depends on method and level of processing. 30% Low: although somewhat variable depending on method and level of processing. low risk items are processed grain products. but use for consumption is lower risk than items for planting. weed seeds. 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. all intended for planting 16% 3% 8% 4% Variable: depends on method and level of processing. spices.042 Sample size: 77 Sample size: 386 20% 24% 12% 5% High: seedborne and seed transmitted pests.Table 3. shoots. and tubers) Fresh plant material (leaves. and flowers. 2% Medium: many associated pests likely to remain viable. roots. 9% 3% 6% 4% High: live plant materials maintain viable pests. preserved. 11% 7% 16% 5% Medium: many associated pests likely to remain viable. dried. but use for consumption is lower risk than items for planting. 0% Medium to low: although associated pests likely to remain viable. processed Propagative plant materials (includes plants. ports of entry. and all intended for planting. fresh Fruits. dried or processed Fruits.042 Sample size: 1. use for consumption is lower risk than items for planting. weed seed contaminants.S. 8% 7% 9% 6% 3% 13% 2% 9% 9% 133 .

1% 0% 0% 0% Medium: many associated pests likely to remain viable. but use for consumption is lower risk than items for planting. 1% 7% 1% 9% High: may contain seeds. 3% 3% 1% 6% Variable: depends on method and level of processing. or shelled and roasted nuts. and intended use. but use for consumption is lower risk than items for planting. method and level of processing and other associated pests or soil. 3% 0% 0% 0% Variable: depends on fresh or dried condition. soilborne arthropods and pathogens or other pests. 2% 20% 4% 23% Medium: many associated pests likely to remain viable. 2% 1% 0% 0% Variable: depends on method and level of processing.Item Miscellaneous Mushrooms Nuts Vegetables. but use for consumption is lower risk than items for planting. 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. contaminating weed seeds viable after consumption by animals. 134 . processing.042 Sample size: 77 Sample size: 386 3% 1% 1% 1% Variable: depending on items.042 Sample size: 1. 3% 4% 8% 3% Medium: many associated pests likely to remain viable. whole untreated in the shell is higher risk (can be propagative) than fumigated. irradiated. fresh Wood/Wood items Vegetables.

bee pests.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. 135 .042 Sample size: 77 Sample size: 386 0% 2% 0% 1% Medium: bee larvae. 0% 1% 0% 3% Variable: depends on viability and species. or pathogens may be present if unprocessed.042 Sample size: 1.

2 %) 0.3 Inspection results for international public and private mail parcels arriving in the United States (2005-2007).) for packages with Plant materials/Plant Plant materials/Plant pests pests of U. 2.042 .15% (1.0%) 0.6-3.I. quarantine pests significance 1.2% (2.6-2.414 Number of packages with Plant Plant materials/Plant materials or pests of U.08-0.8% (0.Table 3.132 2.4-1. quarantine significance 5.0 %) . 2008f). Packages inspected Total Private (Express) Mail Caribbean Private (Express) Mail Total Public Mail (Parcel Post) Caribbean Public Mail (Parcel Post) 18.19 %) 1.S.3-6.5-4.6% (5.6% (0.1-1.455 374 76. 2.7% (2.S.042 77 24 6 855 18 Approach rate (95% binomial C. Data source: (USDA.13% (0.8 %) 3.6%) 1.2%) 136 .

) Saint-Barthélemy Saint Christopher (St.308 870 937 766 825 777 837 123 133 217 234 402 433 776 836 213 229 556 313 103 2.567 29.150 48.876 116 1.169 41 762 129 729 298 320 599 338 111 2.215 1.336 44 821 139 786 321 344 Year of data 2003 2005 2003 2005 2005 2006 2005 2006 2001 2005 2006 2006 2006 2006 2005 2004 2005 2005 2006 2002 2006 2005 2006 107 1.748 8.397 12.193 no data 21.Table 3.469 29.853 8. 2008) and estimated number of packages arriving with plant materials/plant pests.447 29.) Jamaica Martinique Montserrat Netherland Antilles Nicaragua Panama (Rep.978 28.943 2006 2005 2004 2006 137 .058 3.6-2.S.4 Total average number of international public mail packages received by UPU member states in the GCR between 2003 and 2005 (Universal Postal Union.328 4.480 12. Kitts) and Nevis Saint Lucia St.271 26 163 13.895 14.042 7. (Calculated as number of packages arriving multiplied by approach rate: 95% confidence limit 2.299 no data no data 4.067 35.8%) Postal Administrations in UPU Total international parcels received 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.000 6.) 1.254 533.889 4.900 1.978 no data 83.056 no data 11.641 46.361 15.481 29. Martin Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Suriname Trinidad and Tobago Turks and Caicos Islands Virgin Islands GCR Total (excluding U.717 33.369 28 175 14.680 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 1.432 no data 1.

(cut flower) Astilbe sp. (Lygaeidae) Reduviidae. (leaf) Pest Aphididae.S. (leaf) Lactuca sp. species of Aphis gossypii (Aphididae) Species of Anthocoridae and Cucijidae Cecidomyiidae. (cut flower) Mail Chrysanthemum sp.Table 3.? yes no no yes no yes yes no yes yes yes no 138 . (Thripidae) Frankliniella auripes (Thripidae) Nysius sp. species of Phyciodes claudina (Nymphalidae) Frankliniella sp.5 Pests (insects) intercepted from private mail packages between October 1. (fruit) Unknown plant parts Unknown plant parts Achillea sp. species of Species of Chilopoda and Coleoptera Plusiinae. 2008d). (cut flower) Delphinium sp. World region of origin GCR GCR GCR GCR GCR Europe Europe North America South America South America South America South America Country of origin El Salvador El Salvador Guatemala Nicaragua Nicaragua Netherlands Netherlands Mexico Colombia Ecuador Peru Peru Inspected Host Fernaldia pandurata (cut flower) Fernaldia pandurata (cut flower) Rubus sp. species of (Noctuidae) Miridae. 2007 and September 30. species of Reportable in U. 2008 in Miami. (cut flower) Lactuca sp. Florida (USDA.

World region of origin GCR GCR GCR GCR GCR GCR Europe North America North America North America North America North America North America North America North America South America South America South America South America South America South America Country of origin Belize Dominican Republic Guatemala Guatemala Guatemala Guatemala Spain Mexico Mexico Mexico Mexico Mexico Mexico Mexico Mexico Bolivia Brazil Brazil Brazil Brazil Colombia Inspected host Dried plant material (leaf) Mail Phaseolus vulgaris (fruit) Unknown plant parts (stem) Zea mays (fruit) Hordeum vulgare (seed) Zea mays (seed) Phaseolus sp. species of Tephritidae. (fruit and seed) Mangifera indica (fruit and seed) Prunus persica (fruit) Wood (wood product) Araucaria sp. (Tephritidae) Species of Anobiidae. species of Acanthoscelides obvelatus (Bruchidae) Coleoptera. species of Acanthoscelides obtectus (Bruchidae). species of Cydia araucariae (Tortricidae). Syrphidae Coleoptera. Coleoptera Cydia araucariae (Tortricidae) Dermestes sp. species of Diptera. (Dryophthoridae) Sitophilus sp. (Bostrichidae) Reportable into U. species of Dinoderus sp. Araucaria sp. (Dryophthoridae) Acanthoscelides obtectus (Bruchidae) Anastrepha sp. Aleyrodidae. (Tephritidae) Anastrepha sp.? yes yes no yes no no no yes yes yes no yes no no yes yes yes no yes no no 139 .Table 3. (fruit) Phaseolus vulgaris (seed) Araucaria araucana (seed) Araucaria araucana. (seed) Stored products Polypodium sp. (plant) Prunus sp. Florida (USDA. 2008 in Miami. Noctuidae Species of Cleridae. (cut flower) Pest Pyralidae. (Dermestidae) Galgupha guttiger (Cydnidae) Pyralidae. (seed) Phaseolus vulgaris (seed) Limonium sp. species of Curculionidae.6 Pests (insects) intercepted from public (USPS) mail packages between October 1. species of Species of Agromyzidae. Sitophilus sp. species of. 2007 and September 30. Otitidae.S. 2008d). (fruit) Pouteria sp. Lepidoptera.

Table 3. 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 .7 Categories of prohibited items seized in public and private mail entering the United States (2000-2005) at the international mail facility. CA. 199 items in 189 packages (USDAAPHIS-SITC. San Francisco.

Figure 4. Latin America includes Mexico and the Caribbean. 2002).2 Origin of shipping containers (TEU) arriving in the Caribbean and Central America in 2006 (Sánchez and Ulloa. TEU = equivalent of a 20-foot cargo container (adapted from Frankel. Figure 4. Caribbean Rest of world Latin <1% America 15% Africa <1% Central America Rest of world 2% Asia and Pacific 17% Latin America 12% 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. 2006). numbers above depicted route represent numbers of TEUs in thousands for 1999 and (in parenthesis) for 2002. however. 141 . it was not noted whether all countries in the Caribbean region were included in the percentage for Latin America.1 Container traffic through the Greater Caribbean Region.

7 0.3 0.3 +2.1 0.2 1. Florida Puerto Limon Balboa Puerto Cortes Santo Tomas de Castilla Port of Spain Havana New Orleans.3 +4.2 -1.3 0.2 Worldwide rank 53 56 59 60 71 80 90 95 106 111 136 170 171 176 181 192 201 204 208 235 Percent change between 2004 and 2005 +3.8 +3.2 +42.7 +0.7 1.3 0.1 -12. 2007).1 142 .6 1.1 Rankings of individual ports in the Greater Caribbean Region against ports worldwide in 2005 (Degerlund.1 -38. Mississippi Country Puerto Rico Jamaica USA Panama Bahamas USA Panama USA Costa Rica Panama Honduras Guatemala Trinidad and Tobago Cuba USA Dominican Republic Guatemala USA Guatemala USA Million TEU 1.5 0. Texas Puerto Manzanillo Freeport Miami.3 0.8 +9.7 1.2 0.3 -7.8 +7.8 0.2 0.3 0.5 +92. Port San Juan Kingston Houston.6 1.7 0.4 -8.0 +6.4 -21.7 +22.Table 4. Louisiana Rio Haina Puerto Barrios Palm Beach. Florida Puerto Quetzal Gulfport. Florida Coco Solo Jacksonville.2 +3.8 0.6 +22.0 +22.2 0.

651 776. Vincent and the Grenadines).165. Colombia. St. grouped according to the length of the ship in feet1 30-39 ft. 2007).3 Commodities carried by small vessels (adapted from Boerne. Vincent and the Grenadines).1 +21. 70-79 ft.820 1.255 3 1.500 1. 80-89 ft. Anguilla.013 Rank 27 34 35 45 47 48 54 55 60 Percent change (from 2004 to 2005) +26. Maarten. Kitts and Nevis).7 +22. 60-69 ft. 1999). and Trinidad. Christopher (St. Vincent.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. Barbados. 90-99 ft.211. 2 This total excludes container traffic at the port of Cristobal.3 +23. Vincent and the Grenadines). Cargo type Percentage of small vessels involved in transport. 40-49 ft.6 +6.1 -0.067.Table 4. Vincent and the Grenadines). 143 .727. St. Bequia (St. Lucia.5 The number of TEU includes both international and domestic traffic and transshipped containers were counted twice. Mystique (Martinique). Grenada (St.3 +3. Dominica.1 -6.492 778. Vincent and the Grenadines).670. 50-59 ft. Carricou (St. Panama. St.8 +2. Country Panama Puerto Rico Jamaica Bahamas Colombia Venezuela Costa Rica Guatemala Honduras 1 2005 TEU 1 3. 75 50 -100 25 66 66 -77 66 75 75 -100 75 60 60 20 60 40 66 33 -100 100 100 100 -100 100 75 75 -100 100 Fruit Vegetables Horticulture goods Individuals’ packages General cargo 1 Twenty-nine small vessel crews were interviewed from the following countries: St. 3 This total excludes container traffic at the port of Santa Marta. Petite Martinique (St. Table 4.120.395 553.389 1.637 2 1. Union Island (St.

2004-2005: (Degerlund. 2008) (Degerlund. 2007) 2003-2005: (CEPAL.649 765.275 TEU total TEU total 734. Terminal Punta Morales Cuba Havana Mariel Not specified Roseau 216.059 35. 2008).149 1.073.476 88. 2005-2006: (INCOP.325 TEU total Costa Rica Caldera Limón-Moín 57. 2007) [No data found for this port] (Curaçao Ports Authority. 2007).563 68.184.860 92.346 TEU total 59.826 144 . 2005).587 TEU total 259. 20042006: (Degerlund. 2006). 2005. 2007).857 688.565 Unit 2 container boxes TEU total TEU TEU total 2005 52.146 33.744 667. 2007.328 TEU total 317.344 TEU total TEU total 51. 2005. 2005. 2003-2006.388 Unit 2 TEU total TEU total TEU TEU total 2006 17. Country 1 Aruba Bahamas Port Oranjestad Freeport (Container Terminal) Bridgetown Belize City 2003 16.659 1. 2006: (COCATRAM.087 7. 2005) 2003-2004: (UNCTAD.203 TEU 1.724 TEU total TEU total 89.081 TEU 510.461 1. 20042005: (CEPAL.759 36. 2007) [No data found for this port] (Cayman Islands Port Authority.000 70.212 TEU total 82. 2008) [No data found for this port] (UNCTAD.000 667.670 TEU total 73. 2008) 2003: (UNCTAD.105 TEU total TEU total TEU 90.676 TEU total TEU total Puntarenas.211.097 TEU total TEU total Curaçao Dominica 81.420 TEU total TEU total TEU total 834.507 37.4 Container traffic at maritime ports in the Caribbean region.229 12.759 11. 2006). 2006: (COCATRAM. Santa Maria Cartagena Ports combined 49.060.000 TEU total TEU total 66.800 82.470 1. 2007) Barbados Belize Cayman Islands Colombia Commerce Bight Georgetown Cayman Brac Not specified Barranquilla.088 TEU total 740. 2005). 2007) 2003: (UNCTAD.385.527 Unit 2 container boxes TEU total TEU TEU total Data source (Degerlund. Aruba Ports Authority. 2007) 2003: (CEPAL. 2007).275 610. 2007). INCOP. 2004: (Degerlund. 2006) [No data found for these specific ports] (UNCTAD. 2007) [No data found for these specific ports] 2003: (UNCTAD. 20042006: (Degerlund.281 TEU total 995. 2005: (CEPAL.789 Unit 2 container boxes TEU total TEU TEU total 2004 16. 2007.Table 4. 2007) 2003-2006: (Port of Belize.

689 containers entered (Dominican Republic Port Authority. 2007). 2007) 2003: (CEPAL.483 776. 80.229 435.800 66. 2007) (CEPAL. 2008) 2003: (CEPAL.397 31.816 TEU total TEU total TEU total Guatemala Ports combined Santo Tomas de Castilla 2003: (CEPAL.659 30.182 14.976 312. 2008)] (CEPAL. 2006: (COCATRAM.451 411.857 838.990 835. 20042005: (CEPAL. 2005). 2006: (Port of Acajutla.Country 1 Port 2003 474. 2005).153 TEU TEU total TEU TEU total TEU total TEU TEU total TEU total TEU total 1.986 Unit 2 TEU total 2004 537. San Pedro de Macorís Caucedo Haina Oriental La Romana Rio Haina Puerto Plata Santo Domingo Boca Chica Manzanillo El Salvador Acajutla 928 390.712 1. 145 .216 725.156 25.662 323. 2008)] [Note: In 2007.154 TEU TEU TEU TEU TEU TEU TEU TEU total TEU 1. 2007) (CEPAL. 2007). 2007). 2007) (CEPAL. 2007).316 Unit 2 TEU total 2005 355. 2007) 103. Samaná.404 Unit 2 total TEU total 2006 Unit 2 Data source 2003: (UNCTAD. 20042005: (CEPAL.397 268. Haina Occidental.738 47.200 42.244 26. 2007) (CEPAL.417 3.644 containers entered (Dominican Republic Port Authority. 20042005: (Degerlund. 2007) 2003: (UNCTAD. 20042006: (Degerlund. 47. Barahona.622 92.906 TEU TEU total TEU TEU total TEU total [Note: In 2007.045 TEU total TEU total TEU total 113.000 35. 2007) [No data found for these specific ports] Dominican Republic Ports combined Azua.253 336. 20042005: (Degerlund.119 11. 2007). Pedernales. 2007).

434 TEU total TEU total 2003-2005: (CEPAL. 2003: (Port of Guadeloupe.451 TEU TEU TEU 466.714 TEU total TEU total Castilla La Ceiba. 2007) 2003-2005: (CEPAL. 2007). 2007). 2007). 2006) [No data found for these specific ports] 110.792 TEU total TEU total 468. 20042005: (Degerlund.Country 1 Port 2003 Unit 2 2004 Unit 2 2005 Unit 2 2006 Unit 2 Data source 2006: (COCATRAM. 2006: (COCATRAM. 2007) [No data not found for this port] 2003-2004: (UNCTAD. 2005). Port au Prince Ports combined 1.697 88. 2005.448 224.263 TEU TEU total Honduras 1.242 195.526 TEU total 555. 2008) (CEPAL.529 TEU total 154. 2006: (COCATRAM.137.980 85. 20042005: (Degerlund.489 TEU TEU TEU total TEU 154. 2005. 2007). 2007). 20032005: (CEPAL. 2008). 2006: (COCATRAM. 2007) (UNCTAD. 2007) Barrios Quetzal San José Guadeloupe Ports combined 242.003 262.042 555.356. 2007) 1.056 TEU total TEU total 229.263 TEU total Basse-Terre Jarry Pointe-a-Pitre Haiti Not specified Cap Haitien. 2007). 2007). 2004: (Degerlund.066 202 470.563 84. 2005.805 108. Roatán.450 TEU total TEU total 507. 2007) 2003-2005: (CEPAL.279.263 154.000 1.800 TEU total 146 .798 69.208. 2006: (COCATRAM. 2007) [No data found for these specific ports] (CEPAL. 2007) (Port of Guadeloupe.595 TEU total 553.274 106.567 TEU TEU TEU TEU 2. 2005) 2003: (COCATRAM.034 TEU TEU total 1. 2005: (CEPAL. 2007) 2003: (CEPAL. 2007).277 1.694 TEU total Not specified Cortés 400. 2004-2005: (Degerlund. 2007).710 TEU TEU 232. 2007). 2007) 2003: (UNCTAD.169 TEU total TEU total 236.073 TEU total 224. Tela Jamaica San Lorenzo Ports combined 2003: (UNCTAD.908 TEU TEU total 106 1.112 171. 2006). COCATRAM. 2006: (COCATRAM. 2007) (UNCTAD.013 TEU total 593.213 116.670. 20032005: (CEPAL.

Ocho Rios.264 13.023 16.267 TEU total TEU total 1.800 Unit 2 TEU total 2006 Unit 2 Data source 2003: (UNCTAD.929.062 TEU 147 .781 465.185 TEU total TEU TEU total 4. 2007).178 1. 2005-2006: (EPN.339 13. 2005) Montego Bay. 2007) 2003: (UNCTAD. 2007) (COCATRAM. 2005).983 TEU total 18.285 TEU 2. 2005) (UNCTAD. 2006: (COCATRAM.000 TEU total TEU TEU 2. 2008). 2007).Country 1 Port Kingston 2003 1.034 Unit 2 TEU total 2005 1.798 Unit 2 TEU total 2004 1.328 TEU TEU TEU total 16.235 664. Sandino. 2007) 2003-2004: (COCATRAM. 2007) [No data found for these specific ports] (UNCTAD. 2007) [No data found for these specific ports] Arlen Siu Corinto 1. 2005).968 TEU total 2003-2004: (COCATRAM. CEPAL. 2004-2005: (Degerlund.242 958. 20042005: (CEPAL. 2008) (COCATRAM.064.091 TEU total TEU TEU total 3. 2007. 2005. 2007).670.583 TEU entering TEU total 2003-2005: (CEPAL.936 TEU TEU 1.333 TEU 2. 2007) Chiriqui Grande Terminal Colon includes Manzanillo.052 TEU entering TEU El Bluff Cabezas.000 TEU TEU 3. 20042005: (CEPAL.670. Port Antonio other outports Netherland Antilles Nicaragua Not specified Ports combined 142. 2007).046 15.331.712 TEU TEU 2. 2006: (COCATRAM.356. Evergreen.943.137.675 TEU TEU 18.002 TEU 795 46. 2007.198 10. 2006: (COCATRAM.948 1.510. 2008) (COCATRAM. 2007). 2007) 2003: (UNCTAD. San Juan del Sur Ports combined Almirante Balboa 194 TEU total 262 TEU total 121 TEU entering Panama 2.606 1. 2005-2006: (EPN.054.212 1. Panama Port Colon Port 8. El Rama. EPN. 2006: (COCATRAM.002 TEU total 46.074 12.994. EPN.110 1. 2008).605. 2007) 2003-2004: (CEPAL.

2004-2005: (Degerlund. 2007) (SLASPA. 2007) 2004: (Degerlund. Pedregal.667. 2007). 2007).125.090 19. 2007.460 37 1. Terminal Petrolero (Bahia las Minas) San Juan Ports combined Port Castries Port VieuxFort 2003 Unit 2 2004 Unit 2 2005 Unit 2 2006 Unit 2 Data source 335. Terminal Decal.122 48.580.248 4.374 12. 2007) 34. 2007) (COCATRAM.359 21.195 TEU total 614. Charco Azul.722 25.868 24.Country 1 Port Terminal Colon Container Terminal Cristobal Manzanillo International Terminal Panama Ports Company Terminal Samba Bonita Aguadulce. Martin Trinidad and Tobago Not specified Ports combined TEU total 322. 2006: (COCATRAM. Terminal Granelera. 2005) St.302 6. 2007).267 49.727.057 TEU total TEU total TEU total TEU total 1. Amador.842 440. 2006: (COCATRAM. 2007) (UNCTAD.066 TEU 420. Lucia 1.780 TEU 1.368 396.369 TEU total TEU total TEU total TEU TEU 806.759 TEU total TEU total TEU total (SLASPA. 2007) [No data found for these specific ports] Puerto Rico St.799 TEU total TEU total TEU total TEU entering 1.649 TEU total 1.368 TEU total TEU total TEU total TEU TEU total 449.133 21.466 (CEPAL.331.960 513.719 8.468 27. 2007) (SLASPA. MIT.459. 2007) 148 . Armuelles.389 33.003 TEU total TEU total TEU total TEU total TEU total (Degerlund. 2007) (COCATRAM. 2008) (COCATRAM.133 2003: (COCATRAM.036 80.

226 containers entering TEU entering (Mississippi State Port Authority.S. St.238 68.) Louisiana (U.030 108.239 241.Country 1 Port Port-of-Spain Port Point Lisas 2003 298. Montserrat. Turks and Caicos Islands. Suriname. 2 “TEU” (twenty foot equivalent) is the standard unit of measurment for sea cargo containers. 2007) Alabama (U. 149 .081 TEU 800.823 300. British Virgin Islands.478 TEU 1. 2007).743 37. full or empty. 2008) (Degerlund.468 99.000 1. Vincent and the Grenadines. 2008) (Port of Freeport. St. that passes through the port (often but not always excludes transshipment containers).462 777.S. Martinique.300 653.514 768.822 797.000 TEU 2004-2005: (Degerlund.500 727. 2008) 1.582. 2008) (Alabama State Port Authority.041. In the table.S. Not all of the data sources define whether the reported number of TEUs includes arriving or exiting or both.S.628 42.816 TEU entering 32. 2007) (CEPAL.) Mississippi (U. 2008) (Port Everglades. “TEU total” is the total number of TEUs.060 Unit 2 TEU total TEU total TEU TEU TEU total TEU total TEU TEU 2005 322. Guyana.751 34.368 1.422 224.000 TEU TEU TEU total TEU total TEU TEU 976.466 Unit 2 TEU total 2006 Unit 2 Data source (CEPAL.318 239. 2007) Florida (U. Kitts and Nevis.009.443 323. Grenada. Bonaire.000 98.952 569. 2008) (Jacksonville Port Authority. Virgin Islands. 2008) (Port of Palm Beach.440. 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. St.S.) Not specified Port of New Orleans Port of Gulfport Freeport 48.192 TEU entering 38.S. Maarten.572 TEU TEU TEU total TEU total TEU (Port of Miami-Dade.) Texas (U.054.375 Unit 2 TEU TEU TEU TEU TEU total TEU total TEU 2004 350. and the U. full or empty or both.660 222.483 692.) Miami Jacksonville Palm Beach Port Everglades 1. imported or exported.356 864.910 TEU entering 38. Antigua and Barbuda.

(Scolytinae) Rhynchophorinae Rhyssomatus sp. or holds at U. Meloidae Adoretus sp.S. 2008d). Conoderus pictus Conoderus pilatei Conoderus rodriguezi Conderus sp. Pityophthorus sp. 3 1 1 3 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 8 1 19 1 1 1 5 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 Meloidae Scarabaeidae Dryophthoridae Elateridae Apioninae Brachycerinae Cleogonus fratellus Cleogonus sp. Amphimallon solstitialis 150 . Altica sp. Cryptorhynchinae Curculio sp. Eumolpinae Exora encaustica Exora sp. Myllocerus undatus Naupactus xanthographus Phyrdenus sp. 2007 (USDA. Timarcha sp. Curculionidae Eulechriops sp. Conoderus varians Elateridae Epicauta sp. Galerucinae Leptinotarsa tlascalana Longitarsus sp. Diabrotica viridula Disonycha sp.1 Reportable pests intercepted in aircraft cargo stores. Typophorus sp.Table 5. 1997 and December 31. Metamasius hemipterus Aeolus nigromaculatus Aeolus sp. quarters. Cerambycidae Acalymma sp. Myochrous sp. Lysathia sp. Malacorhinus irregularis Metachroma sp. Epitrix sp. Conotrachelus sp. Chrysomelidae Colaspis lebasi Colaspis sp. Tetragonotes sp. Rhabdopterus sp. Alticinae Aphthona sp. Number intercepted 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 6 1 1 13 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 4 5 2 2 1 1 Order and Family ARTHROPODS COLEOPTERA Bostrichidae Cerambycidae Chrysomelidae Pest Curculionidae Bostrichidae Acanthoderes sp. ports of entry between January 1. Number intercepted Order and Family Pest Systena s-littera Talurus sp. Aulacophora indica Aulacophora nigripennis Cassidinae Chaetocnema sp. Oedionychus sp.

Ceratitis capitata HEMIPTERA Achilidae Aleyrodidae Alydidae Aphididae Achilidae Aleyrodidae Camptopus lateralis Aphididae Dysaphis sp. Tomarus sp. Cyclocephala amazona Cyclocephala mafaffa Cyclocephala sp. Clavipalpus sp. Diplotaxis sp. Cercopidae Clastoptera sp. Archophileurus sp. Cicadidae Chlorotettix sp. Tomaspis sp. Opatrinus pullus Tenebrionidae DIPTERA Agromyzidae Chloropidae Tephritidae Agromyzidae Chloropidae Anastrepha sp. Number intercepted 167 21 3 5 1 1 32 44 4 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 2 1 4 1 4 1 2 5 16 3 Tenebrionidae Blapstinus sp. Stenocrates sp. Aphrophoridae Cercopidae Cicadellidae Aphrophoridae Aeneolamia reducta Aphrophora sp. Ceraspis centralis Ceraspis sp. Athlia rustica Barybas sp. Leucothyreus sp. Euetheola bidentata Euetheola sp.Order and Family Pest Amphimallon sp. Epitragus sp. Macrosiphum sp. Agallia sp. Melolonthinae Number intercepted 1 1 8 45 10 44 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 2 1 2 65 27 1 13 5 3 8 6 4 7 3 22 3 13 1 5 23 Order and Family Pest Phyllophaga sp. Lagriinae Lobometopon sp. Cicadellidae Deltocephalinae 151 . Dynastes hercules Dynastinae Dyscinetus sp. Euphoria sp. Bothynus sp. Blitopertha sp. Rutelinae Scarabaeidae Serica sp. Prosapia sp. Maladera sp. Ancognatha castanea Ancognatha scarabaeoides Ancognatha sp. Liogenys macropelma Liogenys quadridens Liogenys sp. Ancognatha ustulata Anomala sp. Plectris sp. Geniates panamaensis Geniates sp. Manopus sp.

Melanaethus spinolai Pangaeus rugiceps Delphacidae Diaspididae Lygaeidae Delphacidae Nilaparvata lugens Parlatoria ziziphi Lygaeidae Nysius sp. Xestocephalus sp. Cryphula sp. Hemiptera Atta cephalotes Atta sexdens Atta sp. Graphocephala sp. Typhlocybinae Xerophloea sp. Solenopsis sp. Pyrrhocoridae Rhopalidae Cistalia sp. Pycnoderes sp.Order and Family Pest Empoasca sp. Oebalus insularis Pentatomidae Piezodorus lituratus Rhaphigaster nebulosa Psylla sp. Texananus sp. Number intercepted 2 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 4 1 5 6 1 1 1 1 2 5 7 1 4 2 1 Pyrrhocoridae Dysdercus sp. Rhyparochromidae Valtissius sp. Exitianus sp. Berecynthus hastator Euschistus sp. Banasa sp. Ozophora sp. Tropidosteptes chapingoensis Oedancala notata Scutelleridae Not specified HYMENOPTERA Formicidae Scutelleridae Tetyra sp. Formicidae Myrmicinae Pheidole sp. Rhopalidae Rhyparochromidae Cydnidae Cydnidae Dallasiellus bacchinus Dallasiellus sp. Cicadidae Number intercepted 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 5 1 2 13 12 1 1 5 9 1 1 8 10 1 3 15 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 Order and Family Pest Macropygium sp. Neopamera sp. Myodocha sp. Prytanes sp. Haldorus sp. Macropygium reticulare ISOPTERA Termitidae LEPIDOPTERA Nasutitermes ephratae Termitidae 2 2 152 . Paragonata divergens Paromius sp. Miridae Platylygus sp. Membracidae Miridae Pachygronthidae Pentatomidae Psyllidae Acrosternum sp. Cixiidae Cixiidae Myndus sp. Oncometopia sp. Membracidae Eurychilella sp. Pintalia sp. Heraeus sp.

Number intercepted 1 2 23 1 2 1 1 1 8 1 1 1 1 1 10 1 4 1 18 1 23 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 4 1 5 3 1 1 1 Order and Family Pest Letis sp. Euchromius sp. Leucania inconspicua Melipotis sp. Eneopterinae 153 . Bulia sp. Diaphania sp. Acontinae Agaristinae Agrotis sp. Copitarsia sp. Helicoverpa armigera Herminiinae Hypena sp. Tineidae Tortricidae Not specified Gracillariidae Hesperiidae Megalopygidae Noctuidae Notodontidae ORTHOPTERA Acrididae Acrididae Dichromorpha sp. Earias insulana Eulepidotis guttata Gonodonta sp. Sphingidae Tineidae Crocidosema aporema Tortricidae Gelechioidea Lepidoptera Pyraloidea Pyralidae Saturniidae Sesiidae Sphingidae Ctenuchidae Elachistidae Gelechiidae Geometridae Ctenuchidae Elachistidae Gelechiidae Eupithecia sp. Metaleptea brevicornis Orphulella punctata Sphingonotus sp. Notodontidae Number intercepted 1 1 4 342 3 1 4 4 3 1 1 3 68 1 2 1 27 13 1 2 2 12 10 1 1 2 3 2 1 1 1 7 1 Argyresthiidae Crambidae Argyresthiidae Crambidae Crambus sp. Geometridae Phyllocnistis sp. Stenacris vitreipennis Trimerotropis sp. Noctuidae Plusiinae Spodoptera cosmioides Spodoptera sp. Herpetogramma sp. Anaxipha sp. Mesocondyla dardanalis Pyraustinae Samea ecclesialis Nymphalidae Oecophoridae Nymphalidae Ethmia sp. Hesperiidae Norape sp. Arctiidae Creatonotus transiens Ctenuchinae Ecpantheria sp.Order and Family Acrolophidae Arctiidae Pest Acrolophidae Acrolophus sp. Oecophoridae Phycitinae Pyralidae Saturniidae Sesiidae Erinnyis sp. Estigmene sp. Gryllidae Gryllotalpidae Allonemobius sp.

154 . Neoconocephalus punctipes Neoconocephalus sp. Tettigidea sp. Gryllotalpa sp. Paroecanthus sp.Order and Family Pest Gryllidae Gryllus capitatus Gryllus sp. Atractomorpha sinensis Atractomorpha sp. Tropidacris cristata Tetrix sp. Microcentrum concisum Microcentrum sp. Copiphora sp. Conocephalus saltator Conocephalus sp. Platycleis afghana Subria sp. Pteronemobius sp. Lerneca varipes Nemobiinae Ornebius sp. Bucrates capitatus Bucrates sp. Tettigoniidae Number intercepted 8 1 119 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 16 1 1 1 2 24 3 1 11 Pyrgomorphidae Romaleidae Tetrigidae Tettigoniidae MOLLUSK PULMONATA Helicidae 1 Cornu aspersum 1 This table does not include pest interceptions made on military aircraft or questionable records.

Table 5. Gulf Coast states (Alabama. Florida.814 Data from 2007. 69.S. domestic. 2008) (US-DOT. Lucia St. Country or territory Bonaire Cayman Islands Dominican Republic El Salvador Jamaica Puerto Rico Aircraft Comments arrivals 15. Includes regular and charter international flights. 47. Virgin Islands U. 2008) (U.S.581 Data from 2006. Reported as the number of air movements. territories). 2008) (Cayman Islands Economics and Statistics Office.249 Data from 2007. 65. Virgin Islands Port Authority.236 Data from 2006.2 Aircraft arrivals in the Greater Caribbean Region.873 Data from 2007. Mississippi. 2004) (International Airport of El Salvador.S. 107. 2007) St. Reported as the number of foreign aircraft departures arriving in these states.298 Data from 2006. Reported as the number of landings. Louisiana. 20.525 Data from 2006.800 Data from 2005. 2007) 155 . 167. Reference (Bonaire International Airport. 29. 2006) (US-DOT. Reported as number of foreign aircraft departures arriving in Puerto Rico (excludes aircraft from the continental United States and other U. 14. Maarten U.S. Includes international. Texas) (SLASPA.462 Data from 2004. 2007) (Airports Authority of Jamaica. 2007) (Sint Maarten International Airport. and private flights.829 Data from 2006. 27. 2007) (República Dominicana Oficina Nacional de Estadística.

marble. tractor Tiles Tractor Tiles Tiles Amnestus sp. (Coelomycetes) Insect Acanthoscelides sp. (Curculionidae) Where intercepted Bricks. melanocephalus. machinery. limestone. B. roeselii (Lygaeidae) Asiraca clavicornis (Delphacidae) Athalia cordata (Tenthredinidae) Athetis sp. and nonagricultural cargo (USDA.. A. A. (Apionidae) Apis sp. A. B. tiles Tiles Granite. (Rhyparochromidae) quarry product. stones. ship decks. A.. steel. (Curculionidae) Aphanus rolandri (Rhyparochromidae) Aphrodes sp. hispanicus (Gryllidae) Acroleucus sp. heegeri (Pentatomidae) Aelia acuminata. (Hyphomycetes) Phoma sp. container. (Pentatomidae) Balanagastris kolae (Curculionidae) Bangasternus planifrons (Curculionidae) Baris sp. (Argidae) Arhyssus sp.S. A. marble. (Hyphomycetes) Fusarium sp. A. tiles Machinery Stones Ceramic tiles. container. Pest Plant pathogen Cladosporium sp. ship quarters. tiles Tiles Tiles Tiles Tiles Ceramic. lineatus (Elateridae) Akis sp. containers. (Tenebrionidae) Alitocoris parvus (Pentatomidae) Altica sp. (Scarabaeidae) Anthaxia sp.Table 5.. 2008d). tiles Tiles Container. villosus (Bruchidae) Bruchus sp. bimaculatus. (Anthribidae) Arge sp. marble. A. (Gryllidae) Anomala sp. (Elateridae) Aulacophora sp. nudus. tiles Ceramic. quarry product.. (Psyllidae) Calliptamus italicus (Acrididae) Camponotus lateralis (Formicidae) Marble Tiles Tiles Tiles Tiles Tiles Marble. tiles Marble Marble Tiles Where intercepted Pest Apion sp. (Lygaeidae) Acrosternum sp. tiles Tiles Tiles Tiles Tiles Automobile. tiles Tiles Military vehicles.3 Live hitchhiking pests intercepted at U. indica (Chrysomelidae) Bagrada sp. (Tenebrionidae) Metal.. quarry product. (Cicadellidae) Aphthona sp. (Cydnidae) Amphiacusta caraibea (Gryllidae) Anaceratagallia sp. quarry product. marble. (Bruchidae) Buprestis sp. B. venosa (Cicadellidae) Anacridium aegyptium (Acrididae) Anaxipha sp. ship holds. mellifera (Apidae) Arachnocephalus vestitus (Mogoplistidae) Araecerus sp. quadripunctatus Marble. (Buprestidae) Anthonomus sp.. maritime ports of entry between January 1997 and December 2007 on ships. (Blissidae) Tiles Brachycerus algirus (Curculionidae) Bruchidius sp. tiles Blapstinus sp. container. tiles Tiles Tiles Tiles Limestone. ship stores. euphorbiae (Chrysomelidae) Beosus maritimus.. B. (Rhopalidae) Arocatus sp. A.. virgata (Pentatomidae) Agallia sp. (Noctuidae) Athous sp. (Bruchidae) Acheta sp. tiles Marble. A. container. (Chrysomelidae) Tiles Quarry product. tiles 156 . A. ship stores.. B.. tiles Blissus sp. longiceps. tiles Container. A. dalmatina (Buprestidae) Cacopsylla sp. tiles Tiles Tiles Tiles Quarry product. (Cicadellidae) Agriotes sp.

(Chrysomelidae) Disonycha sp. tiles Tiles Tiles Tiles Tiles Stoneware Tiles Machinery Container Stones Tiles Tiles Steel bars Tiles Tiles Metal Tiles Tiles Granite Tiles Quarry product.. (Curculionidae) Crematogaster sp. (Acrididae) Chrysobothris sp. conducta. E.Pest Capraita sp. E. (Cercopidae) Cleonus sp. marble. (Curculionidae: Scolytinae) Colaspis sp. (Chrysomelidae) Dichroplus sp. (Chrysomelidae) Chydarteres sp. viridis (Cicadellidae) Tiles 157 . C. (Cerambycidae) Cinara sp. (Aphididae) Clastoptera sp. (Chrysomelidae) Dorytomus sp. (Cerambycidae) Chorthippus sp. tibialis (Chrysomelidae) Chelymorpha sp. (Stenocephalidae) Diphaulaca sp. D. (Tenebrionidae) Epitrix sp. tiles. (Cerambycidae) Ceutorhynchus sp. tiles Tiles Tiles Container Tiles Tiles Limestone. tiles Tiles Container. quarry product. C. tiles Aluminum Machinery. (Buprestidae) Chrysolina sp. (Curculionidae) Clytus sp. (Acrididae) Dicranocephalus sp. (Pyrrhocoridae) Emblethis sp. tiles Tiles Ship deck. (Scarabaeidae) Dysdercus sp. (Noctuidae) Curculio sp. griseus. (Curculionidae: Scolytinae) Cryptocephalus sp. (Chrysomelidae) Cicadella sp. C. variegatus Tiles (Coreidae) Cercopis sanguinolenta (Cercopidae) Tiles Ceresium sp. (Cerambycidae) Coccotrypes sp. (Curculionidae: Scolytinae) Cucullia sp. (Chrysomelidae) Conocephalus sp. ship holds. (Oxycarenidae) Cryphalus sp. (Cecidomyiidae) Deltocephalus sp. (Curculionidae) Chaetocnema sp. C.. C. granite Tiles Marble. mafaffa (Scarabaeidae) Dasineura sp.. prasina Tiles (Chrysomelidae) Centrocoris spiniger. bimaculatus (Elateridae) Dryocoetes autographus (Curculionidae: Scolytinae) Dyscinetus sp. machinery. (Curculionidae: Where intercepted Machinery Bricks Tiles Tiles Pest Cossonus sp. marble.. tiles Tiles Quarry product. verbasci (Rhyparochromidae) Emmelia trabealis (Noctuidae) Epitragus sp. rufangulus. (Chrysomelidae) Crypturgus sp. E. truck Tiles Tiles Tiles Tiles Tiles Crocistethus waltlianus (Cydnidae) Crophius sp. (Buprestidae) Coreus marginatus (Coreidae) Coriomeris denticulatus (Coreidae) Corizus hyoscyami (Rhopalidae) Machinery Marble. (Tettigoniidae) Conoderus sp. C. (Curculionidae) Coraebus sp. (Elateridae) Carphoborus sp. flaveola. C. (Cicadellidae) Dibolia sp. C. denticollis.. C. (Formicidae) Where intercepted Tiles Machinery. (Curculionidae) Drasterius sp. tiles Marble Marble. (Chrysomellidae) Caprhiobia lineola (Lygaeidae) Cardiophorus sp. (Chrysomelidae) Chlorophorus sp. tiles Tiles Tiles Tiles Scolytinae) Carpocoris pudicus (Pentatomidae) Tiles Cassida sp.. tiles Granite. (Curculionidae) Cyclocephala amazona. (Chrysomelidae) Dolerus rufotorquatus (Tenthredinidae) Dolycoris baccarum (Pentatomidae) Donacia sp. varians (Elateridae) Conotrachelus sp.

G. (Lygaeidae) Kytorhinus sp. I. H. dalmatina (Gryllidae) Gryllus sp. H. (Curculionidae) Where intercepted Tiles Machinery Quarry product. sphacelatus. urticae (Heterogastridae) Hexarthrum sp.. G.. tiles Tiles Tiles Tiles Electrical parts. tiles Tiles Machinery. machinery. (Chrysomelidae) Geotomus elongates. (Bruchidae) Larinus sp. I. tiles Tiles Tiles Ship deck. typographus (Curculionidae: Scolytinae) Ischnodemus sp. stones. H. marble Tiles Tiles Tiles Tiles Marble. tiles Tiles Tiles Tiles Tiles Tires Tiles Quarry product. tiles Tiles Machinery. stones. grossipes (Rhyparochromidae) Gastrophysa sp. H. tiles Tiles Tiles Tiles Ceramic tiles. E. sexdentatus. (Curculionidae) Hesperophanes sp. tiles Electrical parts. fenestratus (Rhyparochromidae) Etiella sp. tiles. acuminatus. (Curculionidae) Where intercepted Ship deck Marble. H. italicum (Pentatomidae) Graptostethus sp. strictus. mannsfeldi. (Cerambycidae) Holcostethus sp. G. micklitzi (Curculionidae: Scolytinae) Hypena sp. venator (Coreidae) Tiles 158 . linearis (Curculionidae: Scolytinae) Hylobius sp. fornicata (Chrysomelidae) Gonocephalum sp. (Cicadellidae) Ips sp. I. tractor Tiles Pest Hippopsis sp. I... (Chrysomelidae) Hypocryphalus sp. (Artheneidae) Homalodisca sp. G. I. ornatum. punctulatus (Cydnidae) Gnathotrichus sp. ater. stones. oleraceum.. H. marble. tiles Tiles Marble. tiles Machinery Tiles Quarry product. machinery. H. (Cerambycidae) Heterobostrychus aequalis (Bostrichidae) Heterogaster artemisiae. (Scutelleridae) Eurythyrea austriaca (Buprestidae) Eurytoma sp. (Agromyzidae) Listronotus sp. (Pyralidae) Eurydema sp. G. H. E. (Blissidae) Kalotermes flavicollis (Kalotermitidae) Kleidocerys sp. (Curculionidae) Hypocassida sp. (Curculionidae) Hylurgops sp.Pest Eremocoris sp. E. steel.. (Lygaeidae) Gryllomorpha campestris. (Eurytomidae) Euschistus sp. electrical parts. H. cunicularius. H. erosus. palliatus (Curculionidae: Scolytinae) Hylurgus sp. H. (Tenebrionidae) Graphosoma sp. attenuatus. tiles Electrical parts. marble. quarry product. (Pentatomidae) Eutelia geyeri (Noctuidae) Eysarcoris sp. tiles Tiles Limestone. tiles Tiles Tiles Tiles Tiles Electrical parts. marble. slate. (Curculionidae: Scolytinae) Gonioctena sp. H. G.. (Pentatomidae) Eysarcoris ventralis (Pentatomidae) Fromundus pygmaeus (Cydnidae) Galeruca sp. ligniperda. tiles Electrical parts. tiles Container. (Cicadellidae) Horvathiolus superbus (Lygaeidae) Hylastes sp. (Curculionidae: Scolytinae) Idiocerus sp. tiles Gonocerus sp. (Curculionidae: Scolytinae) Hypothenemus sp.. vernalis (Pentatomidae) Holocranum sp.. metal. tiles Tiles Tiles Quarry product. stones. tiles Container.. marble.. (Chrysomelidae) Galgupha albipennis (Cydnidae) Gastrodes abietum. (Chrysomelidae) Galerucella sp. (Orthoptera: Gryllidae) Gymnetron sp. (Curculionidae) Liocoris tripustulatus (Miridae) Liriomyza sp. rostralis (Noctuidae) Hypera sp. E. steel. ventrale (Pentatomidae) Eurygaster sp.

(Curculionidae) Limestone. quarry product. machinery. dispar (Lymantriidae) Macroglossum stellatarum (Sphingidae) Magdalis sp.. (Chrysomelidae) Machinery. tiles Oulema sp. tiles Tiles Stoneware Tiles Tiles Pest Monochamus sp. M. (Curculionidae) Longitarsus sp. container Tiles Tiles Tiles Tiles Tiles Ceramic tiles. orginai (Oxycarenidae) Micrapate scabrata (Bostrichidae) Micrelytra sp. granite. (Curculionidae) Nysius sp.. (Chrysomelidae) Lyctus sp. N. tiles Tiles Tiles Container. M. M. tiles Mable. (Tineidae) Orgyia sp.. (Noctuidae) Metopoplax sp. frontalis (Curculionidae) Mamestra brassicae (Noctuidae) Maruca vitrata (Crambidae) Mecinus circulatus (Curculionidae) Megalonotus chiragrus (Rhyparochromidae) Where intercepted Tiles Container. N.. quarry product. tiles Oxycarenus lavaterae.. quarry product. (Psyllidae) Lixus sp. ericae (Lygaeidae) Where intercepted Aluminum. tiles Mable. stones. maritimus (Miridae) Lymantria sp. stones. L. (Pentatomidae) Nezara sp. tiles Tiles Machinery Quarry product. marble. gemellatus. limestone. marble. (Chrysomelidae) Myodocha longicollis (Rhyparochromidae) Nasutitermes sp. pallens Tiles (Oxycarenidae) Pachypsylla sp. tiles Marble Tiles Tiles Tiles Tiles Machinery Ceramic tiles. Scolytinae) marble tiles. equestris (Lygaeidae) Lygocoris sp. quarry product. alternatus. species of Neonemobius sp. (Tenebrionidae) Opogona sp. (Chrysomelidae) Microtomideus leucodermus (Lygaeidae) Orthotomicus laricis (Curculionidae: Limestone. tiles Palomena prasina (Pentatomidae) Tiles Pandeleteius sp. ship stores. (Acrididae) Melanotus sp.. costalis (Termitidae) Nematocera. tiles Tiles Tiles Tiles Automobile. (Lygaeidae) Opatriodes sp. L. L. machinery. (Bostrichidae) Lygaeosoma sardeum (Lygaeidae) Lygaeus creticus. (Miridae) Lygus sp. M. M. automobile parts. (Curculionidae) Tiles 159 . (Gryllidae) Neottiglossa sp. O. (Lymantriidae) Ornebius annulatus (Gryllidae) Melanocoryphus albomaculatus (Lygaeidae) Melanophila sp. (Alydidae) Microplax albofasciata (Oxycarenidae) Microtheca sp. M.Pest Livilla sp. tiles Tiles Marble Tiles Tiles Marble.. quarry product. tiles Ceramic tiles. (Curculionidae: Limestone Scolytinae) Otiorhynchus sp. galloprovincialis. container. (Pentatomidae) Nilaparvata lugens (Delphacidae) Niphades sp. tiles Orthotomicus sp. sutor (Cerambycidae) Monosteira unicostata (Tingidae) Myochrous sp.. tiles Tiles Tiles Tiles Machinery Tiles Tiles Ochrosis ventralis (Chrysomelidae) Ochrostomus sp. (Psyllidae) Machinery. (Elateridae) Melipotis sp. L. cuspidata (Buprestidae) Melanoplus sp.

tiles.. (Piesmatidae) Piezodorus lituratus (Pentatomidae) Pintalia sp. ship holds. stones Tiles Ceramic tiles. quarry product. (Curculionidae) Tiles Rhyncolus sp. tiles Scantius aegyptius (Pyrrhocoridae) Tiles Sciocoris cursitans. tiles Machinery Tiles Tiles Tiles Marble Tiles Tiles Pest Pselactus sp. saturnius. S. metal. pictus (Rhyparochromidae) Sehirus sp. limestone. ceramic tiles. bicolor (Cydnidae) Sinoxylon sp. tiles Container Automobile. (Chrysomelidae) Phyllobius sp. P. marble. S. (Chrysomelidae) Polydrusus sp. tiles Machinery. (Cercopidae) Phratora sp. salviae (Heterogastridae) Podagrica sp. tiles Machinery Container. limestone. machinery. S. gracilicornis (Rhyparochromidae) Where intercepted Quarry product. R. (Scarabaeidae) Phyllotocus sp. steel. tiles Rhynchaenus sp. R.. S. machinery. (Curculionidae: Scolytinae) Plagiodera sp.. (Chrysomelidae) Pteronemobius sp. Limestone. container. fluctuosalis (Crambidae) Paromius gracilis (Rhyparochromidae) Paropsis sp. R. (Curculionidae) Tiles Rhyparochromus sp. (Cixiidae) Pissodes sp. slate. tiles Rhytidoderes plicatus (Curculionidae) Ceramic. (Curculionidae) Phyllonorycter sp. tiles (Rhinotermitidae) Rhaphigaster nebulosa (Pentatomidae) Ceramic. S.. S. decoratus. (Curculionidae) Psylliodes sp. tiles Rhopalus subrufus (Rhopalidae) Quarry product. chalcographus. (Curculionidae) Polygraphus poligraphus (Curculionidae: Scolytinae) Prytanes sp. stones. container. P. vulgaris (Rhyparochromidae) quarry product. maculatus (Pentatomidae) Scolopostethus sp. quarry product. tractor Tiles Tiles Tiles Tiles Marble. conigerum (Bostrichidae) Marble. quadridens (Curculionidae: Scolytinae) Pityophthorus sp. tiles Quarry product. marble. P. S. (Gracillariidae) Phyllophaga sp.. steel. anale. brassicae (Pieridae) Piesma sp. tiles Tiles Tiles Granite. R. (Scarabaeidae) Phyllotreta sp. confusus.Pest Parapoynx sp. machinery. (Curculionidae) Phaneroptera nana (Tettigoniidae) Philaenus sp. (Gryllidae) Puto superbus (Pseudococcidae) Pyrrhalta sp. adspersus.. tiles 160 . P. tiles Tiles Tiles Tiles Tiles Stones. (Rhyparochromidae) Phoracantha recurva (Cerambycidae) Tiles Raglius alboacuminatus (Rhyparochromidae) Remaudiereana annulipes (Rhyparochromidae) Reticulitermes lucifugus Granite. tiles Tiles Marble. (Cerambycidae) Pieris sp. limestone. (Chrysomelidae) Platyplax sp.. marble. ceramic tiles.. (Chrysomelidae) Phymatodes sp. tiles Tiles Tiles Tiles Ceramic tiles. tiles Tiles Phaenomerus sp. R. affinis. (Chrysomelidae) Peritrechus sp. P. quadratus. (Chrysomelidae) Pyrrhocoris apterus (Pyrrhocoridae) Where intercepted Limestone Limestone. P.. quarry product. (Curculionidae) Pityogenes sp. marble. steel.

eurygraphus (Curculionidae: Scolytinae) Xylocopa sp.. (Tephritidae) Tetrix sp. invicta (Formicidae) Ceramic tiles. X.. magnicollis. tiles. steel. tiles Spermophagus sp. rusticus (Cerambycidae) Zabrotes sp. stones. S.Pest Where intercepted Sirex noctilio (Siricidae) Marble. T. container. (Chrysomelidae) Taeniothrips sp.. (Agriolimacidae) Arion sp. (Xylocopidae) Xylothrips flavipes (Bostrichidae) Xylotrechus sp. steel. T. iron. T. S.. X.. (Tetrigidae) Tettigometra impressifrons (Tettigometridae) Tomarus sp. tiles Tiles Machinery Aluminum. (Cerambycidae) Tettigidea sp.. S.. T. Z. marble.. X.. A. luteola (Succineidae) Tools Tiles Limestone. C. tiles Automobile parts. X. marble. (Curculionidae) Utetheisa pulchella (Arctiidae) Tiles Tiles Marble. sericeus Tiles (Bruchidae) Spilosoma obliqua (Arctiidae) Iron Spilostethus sp. S. machinery. steel Sitona sp. tiles Xerophloea sp. (Curculionidae) stones. (Bradybaeinidae) Calcisuccinea sp. machinery. tiles Tiles Tiles Tiles Tiles Xanthochilus saturnius. (Cicadellidae) Tiles Xestia sp. tiles Tetropium sp. tiles. quarry product. (Thripidae) Taphropeltus contractus (Rhyparochromidae) Tephritis sp. pandurus (Lygaeidae) Spodoptera littoralis (Noctuidae) Stagonomus pusillus (Pentatomidae) Stenodema sp. piniperda (Curculionidae: Scolytinae) Trichoferus sp. humeralis Limestone. (Cerambycidae) 161 . vulgaris (Arionidae) Bradybaena sp. (Noctuidae) Xyleborus sp. marble. machinery. stones. (Miridae) Trioza sp. tiles Machinery Pest Where intercepted Trigonidium cicindeloides (Gryllidae) Tiles Trigonotylus sp. tiles Tiles Tiles Stoneware Tiles Tiles Automobile parts. squalida (Scarabaeidae) Trypodendron domesticum (Curculionidae: Scolytinae) Tychius sp. ephialtes (Zygaenidae) Marble. quadratus Container. distinctus. marble. tiles Tiles Zygaena sp. electrical parts. (Scarabaeidae) Tomicus sp. limestone. tires Container Container Tiles Granite. ceramic.. granite. (Psyllidae) Tropidothorax leucopterus (Lygaeidae) Tropinota sp. (Miridae) Stephanitis pyri (Tingidae) Stephanopachys quadricollis (Bostrichidae) Stictopleurus crassicornis (Rhopalidae) Symphysa amoenalis (Crambidae) Systena sp. castaneum (Tetrigidae) Tiles Tiles Tiles Marble Limestone Tiles Marble. A. tiles Solenopsis sp. stones Iron.. marble. (Rhyparochromidae) limestone. tiles Marble tiles Tiles Tiles Marble. (Bruchidae) Mite Varroa destructor (Varroidae) Mollusk Achatina fulica (Achatinidae) Agriolimax sp. minor.. machinery.

. tiles Marble. metal. ceramic tiles. marble. machinery. metal. machinery. tiles Container. H. conoidea Container. quarry product Caucasotachea sp. M. tiles.. quarry product. boat. L. neglecta. quarry product. ship stores Euhadra sp. limestone. (Succineidae) 162 . (Helicidae) Cernuella sp. M.. stoneware. C. tiles. tiles Limacus sp. bricks. limestone. C. cisalpina.Pest Candidula sp. cinereoniger (Limacidae) Meghimatium bilineatum (Philomycidae) Microxeromagna armillata (Hygromiidae) Milax nigricans (Milacidae) Monacha sp. H... L. ship holds. marble. (Limacidae) granite. ship stores Deroceras sp.. valentiana Container. marble. C. ceramic tiles. marble. (Bradybaenidae) Tractor Fruticocola fruticum (Bradybaenidae) Tiles Granodomus lima (Pleurodontidae) Helicopsis sp. tiles Tiles Automobile parts.. C. container. tiles Lehmannia sp. (Oxychilidae) Prietocella barbara (Cochlicellidae) Succinea sp. container Tiles Tiles Pest Where intercepted Hygromia cinctella (Hygromiidae) Ceramic tiles. tractor Tiles Quarry product. cantiana. bincinctae. intersecta. cartusiana. unifasciata (Hygromiidae) Cantareus apertus (Helicidae) Cathaica fasciola (Bradybaenidae) Where intercepted Container. tiles Cochlicella sp. M. quarry product. punctata (Helicidae) Oxychilus sp. O. panormitanum Tiles. obstructa. D. lucorum (Helicidiae) Container. marble. (Agriolimacidae) containers Eobania vermiculata (Helicidae) Tiles. stones. M. marble tiles. cincta. automobile parts. quarry product. C. tiles. steel. granite. (Hygromiidae) Helix sp. marble. C.. syriaca (Hygromiidae) Tiles Granite Container. (Helicidae) Cepaea sp. quarry products.. C. maculatus (Limacidae) Tiles Limax sp. quarry product. quarry product. scrap metal Container Container. ceramic tiles. M. L. tiles Tiles Container. marble. tiles Monachoides incarnatus (Hygromiidae) Otala sp. container. acuta. parumcincta. stoneware. limestone. machinery. stones. tiles Cornu aspersum (Helicidae) Stoneware.. (Cochlicellidae) machinery. M. virgata (Hygromiidae) Agricultural implements. tiles Container.

A. vestalis (Hygromiidae) Xerosecta sp.. limestone. quarry product. steel. metal. stones. automobile. limestone. ceramic tiles. tiles Container. cespinum (Hygromiidae) Xerotricha apicina. (Pleurodontidae) Nematode Meloidogyne sp.. tiles Container. Stones Automobile. trochoides (Hygromiidae) Xerolenta obvia (Hygromiidae) Xeropicta sp. container. X. conspurcata (Hygromiidae) Zachrysia sp. (Meloidogynidae) Xiphinema sp. tiles Container. elegans. quarry product. X. container. stoneware. quarry product. T.. X.. protea. X. (Longidoridae) Weed Avena sp. granite. stoneware. tires Tiles Pest Oryza sp. slate. T. X. spontaneum (Poaceae) Tridax procumbens (Asteraceae) Where intercepted Ship holds. pyramidata. marble. tiles. machinery. stones. krynickii. tiles. marble. Tiles. limestone. electrical parts. S. X. marble Ceramic.. sterilis (Poaceae) Imperata cylindrica (Poaceae) Where intercepted Aluminum. derbentina. marble.Pest Theba pisana (Helicidae) Trochoidea sp. quarry product. granite. tiles. T. tractor Ceramic. military vehicles Ischaemum rugosum (Poaceae) 163 . tiles Container. quarry product Granite. (red rice) (Poaceae) Pennisetum polystachion (Poaceae) Saccharum sp. container. ceramic tiles. tiles Bricks. tools Container Tiles Machinery Quarry product. marble. slate. iron. ship stores. machinery.

2008) (Port of Houston.366 2.159 859 8. Port of MiamiDade.042 718 3. 2008. 1. 2008. Of the vessels arriving. 2007) (COCATRAM. Data for 2004. 2008) (COCATRAM. Virgin Islands Port Authority.617 were designated as freighters. It is assumed these are cargo vessels. 2007) (Alabama State Port Authority. 2004) (Port of Guadeloupe. Data for 2005 which includes vessels over 100 gross tons.036 281 1. 2008) (Jacksonville Port Authority.377 621 6.479 1. 2008) (Mississippi State Port Authority. Data is for 2006 unless otherwise noted. 1. 2. 164 . Of the vessels arriving. 2008) Louisiana Mississippi Texas 2. 2007) (COCATRAM.S.502 1.004 (Port Authority of Jamaica. 2008. Virgin Islands 3. Only freight ships were reported. The number of vessels is the estimated average to arrive annually.023 151 3. 2008) 2. 2007) 382 (SLASPA.000 216 7.510 2. 2008) Comments Data for 2003.304 were designated as freighters. 2007) (COCATRAM.4 Number of maritime vessels arriving at sea ports in the Greater Caribbean Region. Other ports in Florida may receive cargo vessels but are not reflected in this number.684 (Curaçao Ports Authority. 2007) (U. 2007) (COCATRAM.502 Central America Belize 199 Costa Rica El Salvador Guatemala Honduras Nicaragua Panama United States Alabama Florida 3. Includes bulk cargo vessels. 2008) Cayman 155 (Cayman Islands Port Authority.548 Data from 2007.S. Data for 2003. Lucia U. Islands 2008) Curaçao 2. 2007) (COCATRAM.967 (Port of Belize.755 938 3. 2008) (Port of New Orleans.656 (República Dominicana Oficina Nacional de Estadística. Country or Total Container Reference territory vessels vessels Insular Caribbean Aruba 216 216 (Aruba Ports Authority. 2008) Dominican Republic Guadeloupe Jamaica St. Port of Palm Beach. Port Everglades.Table 5.

752 6. the estimated number of containers was divided by 2 to estimate the number of containers entering. The number of containers entering is an estimate. 2007) Barbados 92. 2005) 10..659 Estimated number of containers entering 2 Anguilla Antigua and Barbuda Aruba Not specified Not specified Estimated Comments number ofcontainers entering with plant pests 3 6. The number of containers entering is an estimate. 3 Country Port Reported number of TEUs 20.494 The number of TEUs is the (Degerlund.425 The number of TEUs and 2.234 container contamination rate provided by Gadgil et al.758 97. 2007) 165 .507 55. total traffic volume in 2006. For ports that did not specify the direction of traffic flow. 2005) (Veenstra et al.457 Reference (Veenstra et al.179 21.830 containers entering is estimated from 2001 data.000 17. However. 2008) Bahamas Freeport (Container Terminal) Bridgetown 1.385. The number of containers entering is an estimate. The number of TEUs and containers entering is estimated from 2001 data. 1 Most ports reported only number of TEUs.299 35.Table 5.066 The number of containers is (Aruba Ports Authority.5 Container traffic and estimated number of containers with hitchhiker pests at ports of entry in the Greater Caribbean Region.504 27.090 1. (2000). We used this ratio to estimate the number of containers based on reported number of TEUs for all remaining ports. data from several ports that specified container type allowed us to estimate a 80:20 ratio of forty-foot to twenty-foot containers. Oranjestad 2.860 831.287 (Degerlund.500 8.. the total traffic volume in 2006.000 -- Estimated number of containers 1 12. The number of TEUs is the total traffic volume in 2006. Estimated based on a 0.516 415. 2 The number of TEUs reported by ports often includes both containers entering and containers exiting the port. not number of containers.

000 306.908 229.908 89.000 153. (Veenstra et al.002 4.330 Colombia Cartagena 510.359 12.925 35.516 Estimated number of containers entering 2 Belize Belize City Estimated Comments number ofcontainers entering with plant pests 3 12. The number of TEUs is the total traffic volume in 2004.081 59.003 18.002 18.583.745 382.927 111. The number of containers entering is an estimate. 2007) number entering in 2006. The number of containers entering is an estimate. number entering in 2006.132 8. 2006) Not specified 1.925 75. 2005.212 The number of TEUs is the (Cayman Islands Port Authority.081 643.258 2. The number of TEUs and containers entering is estimated from 2001 data.849 35.407 The number of TEUs is the (COCATRAM. The number of containers entering is an estimate.007 166 .527 Estimated number of containers 1 24. The number of containers is estimated.802 (UNCTAD.849 321.000 35.073.879 949.600 (COCATRAM. 2005) Georgetown 30. The number of TEUs is the total traffic volume in 2003. The number of TEUs is the number entering in 2006. The number of containers is estimated. The number of containers is estimated.180 2.Country Port Reported number of TEUs 37.868 The number of TEUs is the Reference (Port of Belize. 2008) British Virgin Islands Cayman Islands Colombia Not specified 40. Costa Rica Limón-Moín 382.. 2007) Costa Rica Combined Total 442. 2005) Colombia Combined Total Costa Rica Caldera 1.835 98.599 24. 2008) (UNCTAD.787 265.850 total traffic volume in 2006.927 474.672 418.

638 27. The number of containers entering is an estimate. The number of TEUs is the number entering in 2006.132 22.144 8.373 789 26.397 838 419 98 Rio Haina 268. The number of containers entering is an estimate.906 16. 2008) (Degerlund. (Curaçao Ports Authority. The number of TEUs is the total traffic volume in 2005. The number of containers entering is an estimate. The number of containers entering is an estimate.622 18.119 28.329 779 Dominican Republic Dominican Republic Dominican Republic Dominican Republic Dominican Republic La Romana 1.889 total traffic volume in 2005.658 3.243 80. 2007) (CEPAL.638 6.271 14.467 Dominica Roseau 11.136 3.097 6.244 6. The number of containers entering is an estimate. 2007) (CEPAL. The number of TEUs is the total traffic volume in 2005. 2007) 167 .263 Estimated number of containers entering 2 Cuba Havana Estimated Comments number ofcontainers entering with plant pests 3 95. 2007) (CEPAL.865 Puerto Plata 47. The number of TEUs is the total traffic volume in 2006.261 The number of TEUs is the Reference (Degerlund.Country Port Reported number of TEUs 317.072 1. 2007) (CEPAL. 2007) Curaçao Not specified 46. 2007) (CEPAL. The number of containers is estimated.105 Estimated number of containers 1 190.746 3. The number of TEUs is the total traffic volume in 2005. The number of TEUs is the total traffic volume in 2005. The number of containers entering is an estimate.064 27.308 Santo Domingo Boca Chica 11. The number of TEUs is the total traffic volume in 2005.738 161. The number of containers entering is an estimate.

Country

Port

Reported number of TEUs 1,622

Estimated number of containers 1 973

Estimated number of containers entering 2

Dominican Republic

Manzanillo

Estimated Comments number ofcontainers entering with plant pests 3 487 114 The number of TEUs is the

Reference

(CEPAL, 2007)

total traffic volume in 2005. The number of containers entering is an estimate.

Dominican Republic Combined Total El Salvador Acajutla

357,026 65,722

214,215 39,433

107,109 39,433

25,063 9,227 The number of TEUs is the
(COCATRAM, 2007)

Guatemala

Santo Tomas de Castilla

169,258

101,555

101,555

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.

(COCATRAM, 2007)

Guatemala

Barrios

107,124

64,274

64,274

15,040 The number of TEUs is the

(COCATRAM, 2007)

Guatemala

Quetzal

102,633

61,580

61,580

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.

(COCATRAM, 2007)

Guatemala Combined Total Guadeloupe Not specified

379,015 77,158

227,409 46,295

227,409 46,295

53,214 10,833 The number of TEUs is the

(Port of Guadeloupe, 2008)

Guadeloupe

Basse-Terre

2,274

1,364

682

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.

(Port of Guadeloupe, 2008)

168

Country

Port

Reported number of TEUs 154,263

Estimated number of containers 1 92,558

Estimated number of containers entering 2

Guadeloupe

Jarry/ Pointea-Pitre

Estimated Comments number ofcontainers entering with plant pests 3 46,279 10,829 The number of TEUs is the

Reference

(CEPAL, 2007)

total traffic volume in 2005. The number of containers entering is an estimate. (Veenstra et al., 2005) (UNCTAD, 2005, 2006)

Guadeloupe Combined Total Guyana Haiti Not specified Not specified

231,421 13,398 555,489

138,853 8,039 333,293

92,574 4,020 166,647

21,662 941 The number of TEUs and 38,995
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.

Honduras

Cortés

253,520

152,112

152,112

35,594

(COCATRAM, 2007)

Honduras

Castilla

40,590

24,354

24,354

5,699

(COCATRAM, 2007)

Honduras

San Lorenzo

106

64

32

7

(CEPAL, 2007)

Honduras Combined Total Jamaica Kingston

294,216 1,670,800

176,530 1,002,000

176,498 501,000

41,300 117,234 The number of TEUs is the
(Degerlund, 2007) total traffic volume in 2005. The number of containers entering is an estimate.

169

Country

Port

Reported number of TEUs 142,110

Estimated number of containers 1 85,266

Estimated number of containers entering 2

Jamaica

other outports

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. (Veenstra et al., 2005) (UNCTAD, 2005)

Jamaica Combined Total Martinique Netherland Antilles Nicaragua Not specified Not specified

1,812,910 143,877 1,605,074

1,087,266 86,266 963,044

543,633 43,133 481,522

127,210 10,093 The number of TEUs and 112,676
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.

Arlen Siu

795

477

477

112

(COCATRAM, 2007)

Nicaragua

Corinto

24,205

14,523

14,523

3,398

(COCATRAM, 2007)

Nicaragua

El Bluff

121

73

73

17

(COCATRAM, 2007)

Nicaragua Combined Total Panama Almirante

25,121 4,242

15,073 2,425

15,073 2,425

3,527 567 The number of TEUs is the
(COCATRAM, 2007) 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.

Panama

Balboa

504,349

302,610

302,610

70,811

(COCATRAM, 2007)

170

Country

Port

Reported number of TEUs 2,606

Estimated number of containers 1 1,303

Estimated number of containers entering 2

Panama

Chiriqui Grande Terminal Colon, includes Manzanillo, Evergreen, Panama Port

Estimated Comments number ofcontainers entering with plant pests 3 652 66 The number of containers
entering in 2006 is the actual number reported.

Reference

(COCATRAM, 2007)

Panama

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.

Panama

Colon Container Terminal

812

487

487

114 The number of TEUs is the

(COCATRAM, 2007)

number entering in 2006. The number of containers is an estimate.

Panama

Cristobal

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. (COCATRAM, 2007) entering is the actual number reported in 2006.

Panama

Manzanillo International Terminal

1,331,267

788,324

394,162

92,234 The number of containers

171

Country

Port

Reported number of TEUs 49,133

Estimated number of containers 1 29,480

Estimated number of containers entering 2

Panama

Panama Ports Company

Estimated Comments number ofcontainers entering with plant pests 3 29,480 6,898 The number of TEUs is the

Reference

(COCATRAM, 2007)

number entering in 2006. The number of containers is an estimate. (Degerlund, 2007)

Panama Combined Total Puerto Rico San Juan

2,702,373 1,727,389

1,608,682 1,036,433

1,190,592 518,217

278,512 121,263 The number of TEUs is the
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.

St. Kitts and Nevis St Lucia

Not specified Port Castries

40,599 16,544

24,359 9,926

12,180 9,926

2,850 2,323

(Veenstra et al., 2005) (SLASPA, 2007)

St. Lucia

Port VieuxFort

4,070

2,442

2,442

571

(SLASPA, 2007)

St. Lucia Combined Total St. Martin Not specified

20,614 440,368

12,368 264,221

12,368 132,111

2,894 30,914 The number of TEUs is the
(UNCTAD, 2005) 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. containers entering is estimated from 2001 data.

St. Vincent and the Grenadines Suriname

Not specified

40,599

24,359

12,180

2,850

(Veenstra et al., 2005)

Paramaribo

25,374

15,224

7,612

1,781 The number of TEUs and

(Veenstra et al., 2005)

172

514 585. The number of containers entering is an estimate. The number of containers entering is an estimate.380 69.293 32. Florida U.S.466 37.340 containers entering is estimated from 2001 data.480 Estimated number of containers entering 2 Trinidad and Tobago Port-of-Spain Estimated Comments number ofcontainers entering with plant pests 3 96. The number of TEUs is the total traffic volume in 2006.440 11. The number of containers entering is an estimate. Trinidad and Tobago Port Point Lisas 99.950 The number of TEUs is the Trinidad and Tobago Combined Total U.143 126. 2008) Miami 976.572 252.400 29.908 292. – Alabama U. 2007) total traffic volume in 2005.954 68. The number of TEUs is the total traffic volume in 2006. 2005) (Alabama State Port Authority.648 76.700 6. Virgin Islands U. Florida Not specified Not specified 421.977 Palm Beach 116. 2008) (Port of Miami-Dade.643 108. Florida U.637 The number of TEUs is the Reference (CEPAL. The number of containers entering is an estimate. 2008) (Port of Palm Beach.572 29.S. 2008) 173 .551 Jacksonville 768. The number of containers is an estimate.824 17.828 16.740 22.000 59.S.643 The number of TEUs and 7.Country Port Reported number of TEUs 322.S. (Jacksonville Port Authority.S.587 2. The number of TEUs is the number entering in 2006. The number of containers entering is an estimate..466 Estimated number of containers 1 193. 2007) total traffic volume in 2004. The number of TEUs is the total traffic volume in 2006.586 65. (CEPAL.622 (Veenstra et al.828 69.239 153.880 22.

751 949.S. The number of TEUs is the total traffic volume in 2005.914 54.000 90.081 48.091 2.408 111.660.249 48.913.171 6. 2008) (Degerlund. The number of containers is estimated. The number of containers is the actual number entering in 2006. 2007) U.S. The number of containers entering is an estimate. Florida U. U.617.000 21.624 11. Gulf States Combined Total Greater Caribbean Region Total 4. – Mississippi U.655. (Degerlund. The number of TEUs is the total number entering in 2005.S.461.000 180.704 Estimated number of containers entering 2 U.S.913. The number of containers is an estimate.S. – Texas 773.751 1.506 Estimated number of containers 1 143. The number of containers entering is an estimate.408 1.582.704 33.060 U. – Texas Port of Gulfport Port of Houston Authority Port of San Antonio 48.751 474.S. 2007) (Mississippi State Port Authority.268 The number of TEUs (Degerlund. 2007) arriving in 2005 is the total number entering.915 1.062 number entering in 2006.581 174 .627 The number of TEUs is the Reference (Port Everglades.124 341.060 11.829 231. 2008) 300. – Louisiana Port Everglades Port of New Orleans Estimated Comments number ofcontainers entering with plant pests 3 143.Country Port Reported number of TEUs 239.048 463.

Republic Venezuela Honduras Indonesia Germany Guatemala Argentina Malaysia Thailand Belgium Taiwan India Chile Nicaragua Portugal Ecuador Colombia Panama Vietnam France Japan Korea China Brazil Peru Country of Origin 175 .Figure 6. Sept. 16. 2008f). 15. 2007).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. 100 90 80 Percent WPM 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 New Zealand 0 Turkey Italy Spain Costa Rica Netherlands Dom. 2005-Aug.

2005 . 2008f). 100 90 Percent WPM 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 an d ur as a m al a lic ica ua do Br az nt in ru Pe a m bi al R ub on d G ua ew C Country of Origin D om N .2 Percentage (and 95% binomial confidence interval) of maritime agricultural cargo with wood packaging material imported into the United States between September 16. Data source: (USDA. 2007.Figure 6.R ep te H C Ar ge os t Ec ol o Ze a C hi n a r il 176 .August 15.

Data source: (USDA.Figure 6.August 15. 100 90 80 Percent WPM 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 New Zealand 0 Turkey Italy Dom. 2005 . 2008f). 2007.3 Percentage (and 95% binomial confidence interval) of maritime non-agricultural cargo with wood packaging material imported into the United States between September 16. Republic Indonesia Germany Portugal Brazil Spain Venezuela Thailand Honduras Belgium Taiwan India Guatemala Argentina Malaysia Costa Rica Colombia Vietnam France Japan Korea China Chile Peru Country of Origin 177 .

2007.Figure 6. 100 90 Percent WPM 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Netherlands Belgium Guatemala Brazil France Spain Jamaica New Zealand Dom. Data source: (USDA. Republic Thailand Israel Country of Origin Costa Rica Mexico Japan 178 . 2005 – August 15. 2008f).4 Percentage (and 95% binomial confidence interval) of agricultural air cargo with wood packaging material imported into the United States between September 16.

3 7.2 -254.7 72.244.2 230.871.5 --1.724.4 14. Exporting countries Central Guyana/ America Suriname USA1 (metric tonnes) --1.652.3 Caribbean Islands Importing countries Caribbean Islands Central America Guyana/Suriname 1 World 2.3 0.01 Greater Antilles Exportng countries Caribbean Islands Central America Guyana/Suriname 1 World 332. 2008)).2 -- Includes all of United States Table 6.0 5. Importing countries Central Guyana/ America Suriname USA1 (metric tonnes) 4.5 -.18.9 10.Table 6.1 -- Includes all of United States 179 .127.2 Exports of wood packaging material from Caribbean Region (2006) (Data source: (UNComtrade.1 Imports of wood packaging material into Caribbean Region (2006) (Data source: (UNComtrade.4 3.766.5 0.4 29.2 --0.574.0 0.481. 2008)).1 1.

2006 and January 1. 1.S. .Table 6.346 Diptera Hemiptera Hymenoptera Isopoda Isoptera Lepidoptera Mollusks Orthoptera Plant TOTAL 180 . quarantine significance) intercepted on or in wood material at U. . ports of entry between July 5. 2008 (Data source: (USDA. .S. 2008d)). Order Coleoptera 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 .3 Pest taxa (not necessarily of U.

Colletotrichum gloeosporioides Cytospora sp. Alphitobius diaperinus Alphitobius laevigatus Altica oleracea Altica sp. Mycospharella fijiensis Pestalotiopsis sp.S. Acrosternum millierei Acyphoderes sp. Aspergillus sp. Aeolus sp. 2008d)) Pest Pathogens Apiospora montagnei Ascochyta sp. (This list is not comprehensive. Agrypninae. Aethus indicus Agallia laevis Agallia sp.4 Species intercepted at U. Acmaeodera sp. species Acroleucus bromelicola Acrolophus sp.Table 6. Insects Acalles sp. Rhizoctonia solani Saprophyte sp. Adelina plana Adelina sp.) (Data source: (USDA. Alaus oculatus Alaus sp. Acanthocinus aedilis Family Apiosporaceae Family of Coelomycetes Family of Hyphomycetes Family of Hyphomycetes Family of Coelomycetes Family of Coelomycetes Pleosporaceae 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. Phomopsis sp. Phoma sp. Polyporus versicolor Puccinia sp. Acanthoscelides sp. Mycosphaerella sp. Eurotium sp. Acrididae. Graphiola sp. species Ahasverus advena Ahasverus 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 . Agromyzidae. Cladosporium sp. Acheta domesticus Acheta hispanicus Acheta sp. Gymnosporangium sp. Acalymma vittatum Acanthocephala femorata Acanthocephala sp. species Agrotis exclamationis Agrotis ipsilon Agrotis sp. Hemisphaeriales. Adelphocoris lineolatus Adoretus sinicus Aelia acuminata Aelia sp. species Lasiodiplodia theobromae Lichen sp. Melanomma sp. Lophodermium sp. Didymella sp. Agrilus sulcicollis Agriotes aequalis Agriotes lineatus Agriotes sp. Aeolesthes sp. Agapanthia irrorata Aglossa caprealis Agrilus sp. ports of entry on or in wood material between January of 1985 and May of 2007.

Attagenus sp. Archipini. Arma custos Arocatus longiceps Arocatus melanocephalus Arocatus roeselii Aromia moschata Ascalapha odorata Aseminae. Asynapta sp. Auchenorrhyncha. Asemum striatum Asilidae. Aradidae. Amphiacusta azteca Amphicerus cornutus Amphicerus sp. Anthribidae. Amitermes sp. species Arctiidae. Anastrepha sp. species Baris sp. Apionidae. species Anthocoridae. Baridinae. Anthrenus sp. species Anthonomus eugenii Anthonomus sp. species Aphorista sp. species Arhopalus asperatus Arhopalus ferus Arhopalus rusticus Arhopalus sp. Ataenius sp. Apocrita. 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 . Arhopalus syriacus Aridius sp. Ametastegia sp. Anobiidae. Atrazonatus umbrosus Atta sp. Aphthona sp. Anthaxia sp. species Aradus betulae Aradus sp. Anaceratagallia venosa Anacridium aegyptium Anasa sp. Aulacorthum solani Aulonsoma sp. species Asemum sp. Anthicidae. Aphanus rolandri Aphididae. Apate sp. species Apis mellifera Apis sp. Amenophis sp. Araecerus sp. Anoplophora glabripennis Anoplophora sp. Bactrocera dorsalis Bactrocera sp. Apidae. Anelaphus moestus Anelaphus sp. Autographa californica Autographa gamma Azteca sp. species Aulacaspis tubercularis Aulacophora sp. species Aspidiella hartii Aspidomorpha sp.Pest Alydus pilosulus Alydus sp. species Anticarsia irrorata Anurogryllus sp. Araptus sp. 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. species Apion sp. species Anthomyiidae. Atractomorpha sp. species Anobium punctatum Anomala sp. species Aphodiinae.

species Ceratagallia sp. Cecidomyiidae. Brachypeplus sp. Carpocoris pudicus Carpophilus sp. Bucrates capitatus Buprestidae. species Brentus sp. species Cerambycinae. Camptopus lateralis Camptorhinus sp. Beosus maritimus Beosus quadripunctatus Beosus sp. species Bostrichinae. species Brentidae. Bruchinae. Belionota prasina Belionota sp. species Blapstinus sp. species Cathartosilvanus opaculus Catocalinae. Calliphorinae. Blastobasinae. species Cecidomyiinae. 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 . Bostrichidae. Bethylidae. Cantharidae. species Carabidae. species Callosobruchus sp. species Bostrichini. species Braconinae. species Carphoborus bifurcus Carphoborus minimus Carphoborus pini Carphoborus rossicus Carphoborus sp. Bruchidius sp. Callidium violaceum Calligrapha sp. Cadra cautella Cadra sp. Callidiellum villosulum Callidium aeneum Family Cerambycidae Cerambycidae Buprestidae Buprestidae Rhyparochromidae Rhyparochromidae Rhyparochromidae Tenebrionidae Coleophoridae Blissidae Blissidae Bostrichidae Bostrichidae Bostrichidae Gelechiidae Nitidulidae Braconidae Brentidae Pentatomidae Pentatomidae Pentatomidae Bruchidae Chrysomelidae Gelechiidae Tettigoniidae Buprestidae Buprestidae Buprestidae Buprestidae Psyllidae Pyralidae Pyralidae Cerambycidae Cerambycidae Cerambycidae Cerambycidae Pest Callidium sp. Ceraphronidae.Pest Batocera rufomaculata Batocera sp. species Blissus insularis Blissus sp. Caulotops sp. Cassidinae. Ceratitini. species Cerambyx sp. Buprestis viridisuturalis Cacopsylla sp. species Centrocoris spiniger Centrocoris variegatus Cerambycidae. species Bostrychoplites cornutus Brachmia sp. Camptomyia sp. species Buprestis dalmatina Buprestis haemorrhoidalis Buprestis sp. species Bryothopha sp. species Catolethrus sp. Callidiellum rufipenne Callidiellum sp. species Blattidae. Catorhintha sp. Camponotus fallax Camponotus rufipes Camponotus sp. species Biphyllidae. Brochymena parva Brochymena quadripustulata Brochymena sp. Braconidae. Cartodere constricta Carulaspis juniperi Caryedon sp.

Coccus viridis Colaspis sp. species Cinara sp.Pest Ceratitis capitata Ceratopogonidae. 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 . Cleridae. species Clytini. species Collembola. Chrysomelidae. Chilo suppressalis Chironomidae. Cneorhinus sp. Cixiidae. Conotrachelus sp. species Ceresium sp. species Coleoptera. Coptotermes testaceus Corcyra cephalonica Coreidae. Chrysomela sp. 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. Coccinellidae. species Ciidae. species Ceutorhynchus sp. Copitarsia sp. Chilo sp. species Colydiinae. Coptocycla sordida Coptops sp. species Coccotrypes sp. Cleonus sp. Conchaspis newsteadi Conistra rubiginea Conocephalus sp. Chaetocnema tibialis Chaetophloeus mexicanus Chalcidoidea. Coleophoridae. species Corimelaena pulicaria Corixidae. species Clytus sp. Conoderus sp. Chalcophora virginiensis Cheirodes sp. species Chlorida festiva Chlorochroa senilis Chlorophanus sp. Cerylonidae. species Collops sp. species Chalcoises plutus Chalcophora georgiana Chalcophora sp. Chaetocnema concinna Chaetocnema conducta Chaetocnema sp. Coccinella septempunctata Coccinella sp. Chrysauginae. species Cleonis sp. species Chrysobothris chrysostigma Chrysobothris femorata Chrysobothris octocola Chrysobothris sp. species Chrysobothrini. Coptotermes crassus Coptotermes formosanus Coptotermes sp. Chlorophorus annularis Chlorophorus diadema Chlorophorus pilosus Chlorophorus sp. species Conarthrus sp. Chrysodeixis chalcites Chrysolina bankii Chrysolina polita Chrysolina rossia Chrysolina sp. Chramesus sp. Cnemonyx sp. species Cercopidae. Colydiidae.

Cymatodera sp. species Cryptorhynchus sp. Crypturgus cinereus Crypturgus mediterraneus Crypturgus numidicus Crypturgus pusillus Family Rhopalidae Corticariidae Tenebrionidae Pest Crypturgus sp. Ctenuchinae. Cryptorhynchinae. species Cydia sp. species Cycloneda polita Cyclorrhapha. Cryptophlebia leucotreta Cryptophlebia sp. species Cryptophagus sp. Cydnidae. Cryptophagidae. Cryptolaemus montrouzieri Cryptolestes sp. Crocistethus waltlianus Cryphalus abietis Cryphalus piceae Cryphalus sp. species Crematogaster scutellaris Crematogaster sp. species Corticarina sp. species Crambinae. Dendroctonus valens Deraeocoris punctulatus Deraeocoris sp. Cossus cossus Crambidae. Cryptophilinae. species Curculio sp. Cryptotermes brevis Cryptotermes domesticus Cryptotermes sp. species Demonax sp. Cryptamorpha desjardinsii Cryptinae. Dendrobiella aspera Dendrobiella sericans Dendrocoris reticulatus Dendrocoris sp. Family Curculionidae: Scolytinae Arctiidae 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 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 . Corylophidae. species Deltocephalinae. species Culicidae. species Cossoninae.Pest Corizus hyoscyami Corticariidae. species Cossidae. species Cossonus sp. species Cyclocephala sp. Dargida procincta Delia platura Delphacidae. species Cryptophilini. Cymatothes tristis Cynipidae. species Cylindrocopturus sp. Cyclocephalini. species Cyphostethus tristriatus Cyrtogenius luteus Cyrtogenius sp. species Curculionoidea. Corticeus sp. species Cryptophilus sp. species Cucujoidea. species Cryptoblabes sp. Curculionidae. Dendroctonus frontalis Dendroctonus mexicanus Dendroctonus pseudotsugae Dendroctonus sp. species Cucujidae.

Dinoderinae. species Entiminae. species Endomychidae. species Enopliinae. Epitrix sp. Diorthus sp. Epitragus sp. Dolerus sp. species Diestrammena (tachycines) Dieuches armatipes Dihammus sp. species Dinoderus bifoveolatus Dinoderus brevis Dinoderus minutus Dinoderus sp. Elachistidae. Diptera.Pest Derbidae. species Enyo lugubris Ephestia elutella Ephestia kuehniella Epicauta sp. species Drymus sylvaticus Dryocoetes autographus Dryocoetes sp. species Dermestes maculatus Dermestes sp. 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 . Elateridae. species Erthesina fullo Estigmene acrea Eubulus sp. species Ernobius mollis Ernobius sp. species Encyrtinae. species Dorymyrmex sp. Empididae. Dysides obscurus Dysmicoccus neobrevipes Eburia stigmatica Edessa sp. species Elaterinae. Eremocoris fenestratus Eremocoris sp. Diphthera festiva Diplognatha sp. species Eleodes sp. Family Cerambycidae Dermestidae Dermestidae 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: Pest Dryocoetes villosus Dynastinae. species Dicerca lurida Dicerca sp. Embioptera. Dorytomus sp. Dictyopharidae. Elaphria sp. Erotylidae. Dermestidae. species Diabrotica sp. species Empicoris sp. Dolichopodidae. Eriococcidae. species Dolycoris baccarum Dorcus sp. species Elaphidion sp. Diplotaxis sp. Drosophilidae. Doryctinae. Draeculacephala clypeata Drasterius bimaculatus Drasterius sp. species Entomobryidae. species Dere thoracica Dermaptera. species Emblethis denticollis Emblethis vicarius Emesinae. Euconocephalus sp. species Discestra trifolii Disonycha sp. Diabrotica undecimpunctata Dialeurodes citri Diaspididae. species Dysdercus mimus Dysdercus sp.

Glyptotermes fuscus Glyptotermes sp. Glyphidocera sp. species Frankliniella sp. Giraudiella inclusa Glenea sp. Eyprepocnemis plorans Eysarcoris ventralis Fannia sp. Gymnandrosoma sp. species Gryllodes sigillatus Gryllodes sp. Gryllidae. Feltiella acarisuga Forcipomyia sp. species Gelechioidea. species Eumeninae. Formica sp. Gryllodes supplicans Gryllus bimaculatus Gryllus campestris Gryllus rubens Gryllus sp. Gonocephalum sp. species Geocoris megacephalus Geocoris sp. Gnaphalodes trachyderoides Gnathamitermes sp. Galeruca 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 Pest Geometridae. species Formicinae. Eulophinae. species Gastrodes abietum Gastrodes grossipes Gastrophysa polygoni Gelechiidae. Gonocerus venator Gracilia minuta Grammophorus sp. Gypona sp. Galerucella luteola Galerucella sp. Gnathotrichus denticulatus Gnathotrichus materiarius Gnathotrichus sp. Gnathotrichus sulcatus Gonioctena sp. Hadeninae. Euplatypus parallelus Eurydema oleraceum Eurydema ornatum Eurydema ventrale Euryscelis suturalis Eurythyrea sp. Graphosoma 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 Geocoridae Geocoridae 187 . Froeschneria piligera Froggattiella penicillata Fulvius sp. Gonocerus acuteangulatus Gonocerus sp. species Gryllinae. Harpalus sp. species Geotomus punctulatus Gerstaeckeria sp. Galleriinae. Eurytoma spessivtsevi Euschistus cornutus Euschistus servus Euschistus strenuus Euwallacea andamanensis Euwallacea validus Exora sp.Pest Euetheola bidentata Euetheola sp. species Halyomorpha halys Halyomorpha picus Haplothrips gowdeyi Harmonia axyridis Harmonia sp. species Euphoria sp. Formicidae.

Hermetia illucens Hermetia sp.Pest Heilipus sp. species Rhyparochromidae Stratiomyidae Stratiomyidae Crambidae Cerambycidae Cerambycidae Bostrichidae Bostrichidae Bostrichidae Bostrichidae Heterogastridae Rhinotermitidae Rhinotermitidae Rhinotermitidae Coccinellidae Cerambycidae Pentatomidae Pentatomidae Cicadellidae Coreidae Phlaeothripidae Cicadellidae Lygaeidae Rhyparochromidae Scarabaeidae Curculionidae: Scolytinae Curculionidae: Scolytinae Curculionidae: Hylesinus aculeatus Hylesinus crenatus Hylesinus sp. Helicoverpa zea Helophorus sp. Heleomyzidae. Hylurgops glabrotus Hylurgops incomptus Hylurgops palliatus Hylurgops planirostris Hylurgops sp. Hortensia similis Horvathiolus superbus Hyalochilus ovatulus Hybosorus sp. Hylurgus ligniperda Hylurgus sp. Heterobostrychus aequalis Heterobostrychus brunneus Heterobostrychus hamatipennis Heterobostrychus sp. Homoeocerus marginellus Hoplandrothrips sp. species Helicoverpa armigera Helicoverpa sp. Hemerobiidae. species Holcostethus sphacelatus Holcostethus vernalis Homalodisca sp. Hylocurus sp. Hylecoetus lugubris Hylesininae. Hylotrupes bajulus Hylurgopinus rufipes Hylurgopinus sp. species Heterotermes aureus Heterotermes sp. species Hemieuxoa rudens Hemiptera. species Hepialidae. Heterogaster urticae Hemiptera. species Heraeus sp. Herpetogramma sp. Hylastes angustatus Hylastes ater Hylastes attenuatus Family Curculionidae Noctuidae Noctuidae Noctuidae Hydrophilidae Noctuidae Pest Hylastes cunicularius Hylastes linearis Hylastes opacus Hylastes sp. species Hesperophanes campestris Hesperophanes sp. Hymenoptera. 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 . species Hypena gonospilalis Hypena sp. Histeridae. Heterotermes tenuis Hippodamia variegata Hippopsis sp. Hesperiidae. Hylesinus varius Hylobius abietis Hylobius sp.

species Lamia sp. species Languriidae.Pest Hypera postica Hypera sp. Lamia textor Lamiinae. 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 Pest Ips mannsfeldi Ips mexicanus Ips pini Ips sexdentatus Ips sp. species Insecta. Hypothenemus obscurus Hypothenemus sp. Hypoponera sp. Ips typographus Irbisia sp. Ischnodemus conicus Ischnodemus sp. species Kalotermes flavicollis Kalotermes sp. species Lasioderma serricorne Lasius alienus Lasius brunneus Lasius emarginatus Lasius niger Lasius sp. Isopoda. species Largus cinctus Largus sp. Laemophloeidae. species Kleidocerys resedae Lacon sp. Larinus turbinatus Lasiochilidae. species Isoptera. Larinus cynarae Larinus latus Larinus sp. species Idiocerus sp. Insect. Hyphantria cunea Hypocassida subferrugines Hypocryphalus mangiferae Hypocryphalus sp. Hypurus bertrandi Ibalia leucospoides Ibalia sp. species Icosium tomentosum Idiocerinae. species Ichneumonidae. species Lamprodema maurum Lampyridae. Incisitermes minor Incisitermes modestus Incisitermes sp. Latheticus oryzae Family Scolytinae Curculionidae: Scolytinae Curculionidae: Scolytinae Curculionidae: Scolytinae Curculionidae: Scolytinae Curculionidae: Scolytinae Curculionidae: Scolytinae Miridae Formicidae Blissidae Blissidae Cerambycidae Cicadellidae Cicadellidae Kalotermitidae Kalotermitidae Kalotermitidae Kalotermitidae Kalotermitidae Lygaeidae Elateridae Cerambycidae Cerambycidae Cerambycidae Rhyparochromidae Curculionidae: Scolytinae Curculionidae: Scolytinae Curculionidae: Scolytinae Curculionidae: Scolytinae Curculionidae: Scolytinae Curculionidae: Scolytinae Curculionidae: Scolytinae Curculionidae: Scolytinae Curculionidae: Scolytinae Curculionidae: Scolytinae Curculionidae: Largidae Largidae Curculionidae Curculionidae Curculionidae Curculionidae Anobiidae Formicidae Formicidae Formicidae Formicidae Formicidae Tenebrionidae 189 . Kalotermitidae. Iridomyrmex sp. Ibaliidae.

Malezonotus sodalicius Mallodon dasystomus Mallodon sp. species Melacoryphus lateralis Melalgus sp. Melanaethus subglaber Melanaspis elaeagni Melanaspis sp. Leptothorax sp. Litargus sp. Megalonotus chiragrus Megaselia sp. Ligyrocoris sp. Megacyllene antennatus Megacyllene sp. Liorhyssus hyalinus Liriomyza huidobrensis Lissonotus flavocinctus Listronotus sp. species Lygaeosoma sardeum Lygaeus equestris Lygaeus pandurus Lygus gemellatus Lygus rugulipennis Lygus sp. Maladera sp.Pest Lathridiidae. species Lyphia sp. Lucanidae. Lycaenidae. species Lyctinae. Leiopus sp. Lobometopon metallicum Lonchaea sp. Mecaspis alternans Mecinus circulatus Mecinus pyraster Mecinus sp. species Ledomyia 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. Lixus sp. Lestremiinae. Melandryidae. species Marshallius sp. Lestremia sp. 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 . species Lymexylidae. species Lygaeoidea. Lepyronia quadrangularis Lestodiplosis sp. Lymantria dispar Lymantriidae. species Lyctus africanus Lyctus brunneus Lyctus cavicollis Lyctus simplex Lyctus sp. species Lyctidae. species Luprops sp. Margarodidae. species Leucania sp. Longitarsus sp. Limothrips cerealium Linepithema humile Liogenys macropelma Liometopum sp. Mecopus sp. Leptothorax subditivus Leptura sp. Ligyrus sp. Leptopus marmoratus Leptostylus sp. species Leptoglossus occidentalis Leptoglossus oppositus Leptoglossus phyllopus Leptoglossus sp. Megaspilidae. Lepidoptera. Macrocopturus cribricollis Macroglossum stellatarum Macroscytus sp.

species Membracidae. species Minthea obstita Minthea rugicollis Minthea sp. species Nabis sp. species Mocis frugalis Mocis undata Mogoplistidae. Monosteira unicostata Monotomidae. Metopoplax ditomoides Metopoplax origani Metopoplax sp. Cerambycidae Monochamus sutor Cerambycidae Monochamus teserula Cerambycidae Pest Monommatidae. Neotrichus latiusculus Neottiglossa sp. Migneauxia sp. Nematocera. species Monomorium destructor Monomorium floricola Monomorium pharaonis Monomorium salomonis Monomorium sp. Myochrous sp. Microtheca sp. species Mycetophilidae. Melanoplus sp. species Molorchus minor Molorchus sp. species Mycetophagidae. Nathrius brevipennis Necrobia rufipes Nemapogon granella Nemapogon sp. species Myllocerus hilleri Myocalandra sp. species Mormidea sp. Melolonthinae. Minthea squamigera Miridae. 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 . Muscidae. species Microplax sp. species Mordellidae. Milichiidae. 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.Pest Melanophila sp. species Nezara viridula Niphades sp. species Melyridae. Neoconocephalus triops Neotermes connezus Neotermes modestus Neotermes sp. species Nabidae. species Metamasius hemipterus Metoponium sp. Mezira sp. Neoconocephalus punctipes Neoconocephalus sp. Micromus angulatus Micropezidae. Micrapate brasiliensis Micrapate labialis Micrapate scabrata Micrapate sp. Naemia seriata Nasutitermes costalis Nasutitermes ephratae Nasutitermes nigriceps Nasutitermes sp. Neuroptera. species Monarthrum sp. Molytinae. Myrmicinae. species Neoclytus caprea Neoclytus olivaceus Neoclytus sp.

species Oulema melanopus Oulema sp. Odontocolon sp. Ovalisia sp. Palomena prasina Palorus subdepressus Pangaeus rugiceps Paralipsa gularis Paraparomius lateralis Parasaissetia nigra Paratenetus 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 Cerambycidae Tortricidae Chrysididae Tenebrionidae Scarabaeidae Tenebrionidae Tineidae Tineidae Dermestidae Ichneumonidae Elateridae Curculionidae: Scolytinae Curculionidae: Scolytinae Curculionidae: Scolytinae Curculionidae: Scolytinae Curculionidae: Scolytinae Curculionidae: Scolytinae 192 . species Orthostethus sp. Olethreutinae. Paratrechina longicornis Paratrechina sp. Ochrimnus carnosulus Odontocera sp. Orthotomicus suturalis Family Curculionidae Noctuidae Noctuidae Noctuidae Lygaeidae Lygaeidae Lygaeidae Lygaeidae Lygaeidae Lygaeidae Cerambycidae Curculionidae Formicidae Lygaeidae Cerambycidae Ichneumonidae Pentatomidae Pest Oryctes rhinoceros Osbornellus sp. Pachydissus sp. Oebalus pugnax Oecophoridae. Palaeocallidium rufipenne Palaeocallidium sp. Onthophagus sp. Orthotomicus caelatus Orthotomicus erosus Orthotomicus laricis Orthotomicus proximus Orthotomicus sp. Otitidae. Pagiocerus sp. Oxya velox Oxycarenus pallens Oxycarenus sp. Otiorhynchus sp. Omophlus sp. species Noctuinae. species Noctua comes Noctua pronuba Noctuidae. species Nymphalidae. species Nysius ericae Nysius graminicola Nysius senecionis Nysius sp. Pareuchaetes insulata Parlatoria blanchardi Paromius gracilis Passandridae.Pest Niphades variegatus Nitidulidae. Nysius stalianus Nysius thymi Nyssodrysternum sp. Pachybrachius sp. Orthocentrinae. Opatrinae. Nyssonotus seriatus Ochetellus sp. species Omalus sp. Oxygrylius ruginasus Oxypleurus nodieri Ozophora sp. Orphinus sp. species Perapion curtirostre Perissus delerei Peritrechus gracilicornis Perniphora robusta Phaedon cochleariae Phaedon sp. species Pectinophora gossypiella Peltophorus sp. species Oedemeridae. species Olenecamptus sp. species Opogona sacchari Opogona sp. Pentatomidae.

Pityogenes bidentatus Pityogenes bistridentatus Family Formicidae Cercopidae Curculionidae: Scolytinae Curculionidae: Scolytinae Curculionidae: Scolytinae Curculionidae: Scolytinae Curculionidae: Scolytinae Curculionidae: Scolytinae Noctuidae Cerambycidae Cerambycidae Cerambycidae Arctiidae Chrysomelidae Pyralidae Miridae Cleridae Curculionidae Scarabaeidae Chrysomelidae Cerambycidae Cerambycidae Chrysomelidae Miridae Pieridae Pentatomidae Ichneumonidae Curculionidae Curculionidae Curculionidae Curculionidae Curculionidae Curculionidae: Scolytinae Curculionidae: Pest Pityogenes calcaratus Pityogenes chalcographus Pityogenes quadridens Pityogenes sp. Phytocoris sp. Platyplax salviae Platypodidae. species Platypus sp. Phlogophora meticulosa Phoracantha recurva Phoracantha semipunctata Phoracantha sp. Polycesta sp. species Phyllobaenus sp. species Pieris brassicae Piezodorus purus Pimplinae. Pieridae. Plagionotus christophi Plagionotus sp. Placopsidella sp. Platynota 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 . Phyllotreta sp. Philaenus spumarius Phlaeothripidae. Phyllophaga sp. species Phylinae. Pogonocherus hispidus Pogonocherus perroudi Pogonocherus sp. species Pissodes castaneus Pissodes harcyniae Pissodes notatus Pissodes pini Pissodes sp. species Phymatodes sp. Pityokteines spinidens Pityophthorus mexicanus Pityophthorus pityographus Pityophthorus sp. Phycitinae. Phymatodes testaceus Physonota sp. Pityogenes trepanatus Pityokteines curvidens Pityokteines sp. Phoridae. Phloeotribus scarabaeoides Phloeotribus sp. Pogonomyrmex maricopa Pollenia sp. Phyllobius sp. species Plutella xylostella Podagrica malvae Podagrica sp. Placonotus sp. Plodia interpunctella Plusiinae. species Phragmatobia fuliginosa Phratora sp. Placosternus difficilis Placosternus sp. Phymatidae. species Phloeosinus canadensis Phloeosinus punctatus Phloeosinus rudis Phloeosinus sp. Planococcus halli Platycleis sp.Pest Pheidole sp.

species Porricondylinae. Prosoplus sp. species Psylliodes sp. species Psychidae. species Pyrrhalta sp. Rhaphidophoridae. species Rhaphigaster nebulosa Rhinotermitidae. Rhagionidae. species Rhagium inquisitor Rhagium mordax Rhagium sp. 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. Polygraphus poligraphus Polygraphus rufipennis Polygraphus sp. Prostephanus truncatus Protaetia orientalis Proxys punctulatus Psenulus sp.Pest Polydrusus sp. species Ptiliidae. species Prionus californicus Prionus sp. Curculionidae: Scolytinae Pseudopityophthorus yavapaii Curculionidae: Scolytinae Pseudothysanoes sp. Cerambycidae Pest Pteromalidae. Formicidae Pseudopamera aurivilliana Rhyparochromidae Pseudopamera sp. species Psocoptera. Rhopalus subrufus Rhopalus tigrinus Rhynchaenus 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 . Pseudococcidae. species Rhopalus parumpunctatus Rhopalus sp. Prostemma guttula Prostephanus sp. Pyrrhidium sanguineum Pyrrhidium sp. Reticulitermes tibialis Reuteroscopus sp. Rhyparochromidae Pseudopityophthorus sp. Curculionidae: Scolytinae Psocidae. species Prioninae. Pyrochroidae. species Pyralis farinalis Pyraustinae. species Rhynchophorus palmarum Rhyncolus elongatus Rhyncolus sculpturatus Rhyncolus sp. Ptinidae. species Pyrgocorypha sp. species Ptilinus sp. Chrysomelidae Pteleobius vittatus Curculionidae: Scolytinae Pterolophia sp. species Rhopalidae. Rhynchites bacchus Rhynchitidae. species Pycnarmon cribrata Pyralidae. Ponera sp. species Psyllidae. species Psychodidae. Pyrrhocoris apterus Rachiplusia ou Raglius alboacuminatus Reduviidae. species Renia discoloralis Reticulitermes chinensis Reticulitermes flavipes Reticulitermes lucifugus Reticulitermes sp. Ponerinae. Polygraphus subopacus Polyrhachis sp.

Sipalinus gigas Sipalinus sp. species Sehirus bicolor Selepa sp. Scythridinae. Sinoxylon anale Sinoxylon conigerum Sinoxylon crassum Sinoxylon indicum Sinoxylon sp. Saissetia sp. species Ropica sp. Rugitermes sp. Silvanidae. species Silvanus planatus Silvanus sp. species Sambus 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 Pentatomidae Pentatomidae Rhyparochromidae Rhyparochromidae Curculionidae: Scolytinae Curculionidae: Scolytinae Curculionidae: Scolytinae Curculionidae: Scolytinae Curculionidae: Scolytinae Curculionidae: Scolytinae Curculionidae: Scolytinae Curculionidae: 195 . Scolopostethus affinis Scolopostethus decoratus Scolytinae. Saperda carcharias Saperda scalaris Saperda sp. Salpingidae. species Scarabaeidae. Siricidae. species Sitona crinita Sitona discoideus Sitona hispidulus Sitona humeralis Sitona sp. Sirex cyaneus Sirex juvencus Sirex nitobei Sirex noctilio Sirex sp. species Sciocoris maculatus Sciocoris sp. Scotinophara sp. Rhyparochromus vulgaris Rhyssomatus sp. species Scolytodes sp. species Rhyparochromus confusus Rhyparochromus pini Rhyparochromus quadratus Rhyparochromus sp. Sesiidae. Scydmaenidae. Rhyparochromidae. Scolytus intricatus Scolytus multistriatus Scolytus ratzeburgi Scolytus rugulosus Scolytus schevyrewi Family Chrysomelidae Rhyparochromidae Rhyparochromidae Rhyparochromidae Rhyparochromidae Rhyparochromidae Curculionidae Curculionidae Cicadellidae Bostrichidae Ricaniidae Cerambycidae Kalotermitidae Coccidae Buprestidae Cerambycidae Cerambycidae Cerambycidae Pyrrhocoridae Staphylinidae Pest Scolytus scolytus Scolytus sp. species Sehirinae. Rhytidoderes plicatus Rhytidodus decimaquartus Rhyzopertha dominica Ricania fumosa Riodinidae. Serropalpus barbatus Serropalpus sp. species Sciaridae. species Scyphophorus acupunctatus Scyphophorus sp. Semanotus sp. Semiothisa sp. Scolytoplatypus sp.Pest Rhyparida sp. species Scatopsidae. Sericoderus sp. species Setomorpha rutella Shirahoshizo sp. Sitophilus sp. Scantius aegyptius Scaphidiinae.

Chrysomelidae Tachinidae. species 196 . species Systena sp. species Tachyporinae. Stictopleurus crassicornis Stictopleurus sp. Stizocera sp. Sphacophilus sp. Curculionidae: Scolytinae Taphrorychus villifrons Curculionidae: Scolytinae Tapinoma melanocephalum Formicidae Tapinoma sp. species Tentyria sp. species Sphingonotus sp. Gryllidae Tenebrionidae. species Sphaeroceridae. Sesiidae Synchroa punctata Synchroidae Syngrapha celsa Noctuidae Syphrea sp. species Solenopsis geminata Solenopsis invicta Solenopsis sp. Formicidae Tetraponera rufonigra Formicidae Tetrapriocera longicornis Bostrichidae Tetrigidae. 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. Platypodidae Tetramorium bicarinatum Formicidae Tetramorium caespitum Formicidae Tetramorium sp. species Stegobium paniceum Steirastoma sp. Stenoscelis sp. Stratiomyidae. Tephritidae Termes panamaensis Termitidae Termitidae. species Tephritis sp. Sphingidae. species Tessaratomidae. Chrysomelidae Syrphidae. Formicidae Targionia vitis Diaspididae Tarsostenus univittatus Cleridae Teleogryllus commodus Gryllidae Teleogryllus mitratus Gryllidae Teleogryllus sp. Cerambycidae Tettigoniidae. species Tesserocerus sp. species Staphylinidae Taphropeltus contractus Rhyparochromidae Taphrorychus bicolor Curculionidae: Scolytinae Taphrorychus sp. Solenopsis xyloni Spermophagus sericeus Spermophagus sp. species Sphecidae. Tenebrionidae Tephritidae. species Stromatium barbatum Stromatium longicorne Stromatium sp. Sphenoptera sp. species Tenthredinidae. species Tetropium castaneum Cerambycidae Tetropium fuscum Cerambycidae Tetropium gabrieli Cerambycidae Tetropium sp. Sphaeridiinae. species Sphenophorus sp. Sminthuridae. Stenocarus fuliginosus Stenodontes sp. Spilostethus pandurus Spodoptera frugiperda Spodoptera litura Spodoptera sp. Spilosoma lubricipeda Spilosoma sp. Sternochetus mangiferae Sternochetus sp. Stephanopachys quadricollis Stephanopachys rugosus Stephanopachys sp. Stagonomus pusillus Staphylinidae.Pest Situlaspis yuccae Smicronyx interruptus Smicronyx sp. Eulophidae Synanthedon sp.

Tortricidae. Trachyderes sp. Trichoferus sp. 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: 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 . Tropidothorax leucopterus Tropistethus sp. species Vespula germanica Wasmannia auropunctata Wroughtonia sp. Trimerotropis pallidipennis Trirhabda sp. Typhaea stercorea Typhlocybinae. Urocerus gigas Urocerus sp. species Tipula marmorata Tipula sp. Tribolium castaneum Tribolium sp. species Xyleborinus saxeseni Xyleborinus sp. Tomarus sp. species Torymus sp. Uroleucon sp. Ulus sp. Tychius sp. species Tolype sp. Tomolips sp. Xyleborus volvulus Xylechinus pilosus Xylechinus sp. Tipulidae. species Tineidae. Urgleptes sp. species Tingidae. Trogoderma variabile Trogossitidae. species Trogoxylon praeustum Trogoxylon sp. Trypodendron domesticum Family Thripidae Thripidae Pentatomidae Thyreocoridae Pest Trypodendron lineatum Trypodendron signatum Trypodendron sp. Xanthochilus saturnius Xanthogaleruca luteola Xeris sp. Trichophaga sp. Trichoplusia ni Trigonorhinus sp. Tropicanus sp.Pest Thripidae. Xyleborus affinis Xyleborus apicalis Xyleborus eurygraphus Xyleborus ferrugineus Xyleborus intrusus Xyleborus sp. Trogoderma granarium Trogoderma sp. Tremex fusicornis Tremex sp. Vespidae. species Thrips meridionalis Thrips palmi Thyanta pallidovirens Thyreocoris scarabaeoides Thysanoptera. Xeris spectrum Xestocephalus sp. Tomaspis inca Tomicus minor Tomicus piniperda Tomicus sp. Xiphydriidae. species Typophorus sp.

Mesostigmata. species Argas sanchezi Ascidae. Bdellidae. Xylothrips flavipes Xylotrechus grayi Xylotrechus magnicollis Xylotrechus rusticus Xylotrechus sp. species Mollusks Achatina (lissachatina) Achatina sp. Xylophagus sp. species Proctolaelaps 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 Pest Ameroseius sp.Pest Xylobiops sp. species Zygops sp. Cheyletidae. Assimineidae. Trombidiidae. Cryptostigmata. Acusta despecta Acusta tourannensis Agriolimax reticulatus Allopeas clavulinum Arianta arbustorum Arion (kobeltia) Arion (mesarion) Arion sp. Xylodiplosis sp. species Zophobas sp. Zootermopsis laticeps Zootermopsis sp. Zacryptocerus umbraculatus Zascelis sp. species Cosmoglyphus sp. species Xyloperthella picea Xyloperthodes nitidipennis Xyloperthodes sp. Xylotrechus stebbingi Xylotrupes gideon Xystrocera globosa Xystrocera sp. Zygogramma sp. Xylomyidae. Yponomeutidae. species Blattisocius sp. Bdella sp. species Uropodidae. Pygmephoridae. species Zabrotes subfasciatus Zacryptocerus sp. Xylobiops texanus Xylocopa sp. Zygopinae. Zopheridae. species Rhipicephalus sanguineus Schwiebea sp. species Erythraeidae. Mites and Ticks Allothrombium sp. species Araneidae. species Glycyphagus destructor Hemicheyletia serrula Ixodes hexagonus Melichares sp. species Balaustium sp. species Oribatida. 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 Trombidiidae 198 . species Tetranychus (tetranychus) Tetranychus sp. Araneae. Xylopsocus capucinus Xyloryctes fureata Xylosandrus crassiusculus Xylosandrus germanus Xylosandrus morigerus Xylosandrus sp. Phytoseiidae. Stigmaeidae. species Pediculaster sp.

Fruticicola fruticum Galba truncatula Granaria illyrica Helicarion sp. species Eobania constantinae Eobania vermiculata Euhadra sp. Clausiliidae. species Helicina (striatemoda) Helicodonta obvoluta Helicodonta sp. Cernuella virgata Charpentieria (itala) Chilostoma cingulata Chilostoma cornea Clausilia rugosa Clausilia sp. Helix cincta Helix lucorum Helix sp. species Karaftahelix blakeana Lauria cylindracea Lehmannia valentiana Limacidae. Limax cinereoniger Limax marginatus Limax maximus Limax sp.Pest Balea perversa Bradybaena seiboldtiana Bradybaena similaris Bradybaena sp. Helicarionidae. Cepaea cf. Cernuella (xerocincta) Cernuella cf. species Helicella itala Helicella maritima Helicella neglecta Helicella sp. Bulimulus tenuissimus Calcisuccinea campestris Candidula gigaxii Candidula intersecta Candidula sp. species Limacus maculatus Limax cf. 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. Bradybaenidae. Helicella variabilis Helicella virgata Helicellidae. species Bulimulidae. species Cochlicella acuta Cochlicella conoidea Cochlicopa lubrica Cochlodina laminata Cornu aspersum Cryptozona siamensis Deroceras laeve Deroceras panormitanum Deroceras sp. Cepaea hortensis Cepaea nemoralis Cepaea sp. species Helicidae. species Helicellinae. Cernuella cisalpina Cernuella sp. species Bulimulus guadalupensis Bulimulus sp. Candidula unifasciata Cantareus apertus Cathaica fasciola Cathaica sp. Lymnaea sp. Hygromia cinctella Hygromiidae. Discidae. 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 .

species Weeds Agropyron sp. Eucalyptus sp. species Brassica sp. Cynodon dactylon Digitaria sanguinalis Echinochloa sp. Theba pisana Trochoidea cretica Trochoidea elegans Trochoidea pyramidata Trochoidea sp. species Monacha bincinctae Monacha cantiana Monacha cartusiana Monacha cf. Bignoniaceae. species Vitrinidae. Ailanthus altissima Asclepias sp. Asphodelus fistulosus Asteraceae. Chloris sp. Gossypium sp. Monachoides glabella Monachoides incarnatus Orthalicus princeps Otala lactea Otala punctata Otala sp. species Xerolenta obvia Xeropicta derbentina Xeropicta protea Xeropicta sp. species Boraginaceae. Hordeum jubatum Family Hygromiidae Hygromiidae Hygromiidae Hygromiidae Hygromiidae Hygromiidae Gastrodontidae 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 . Oxychilus alliarius Oxychilus cellarius Oxychilus draparnaudi Oxychilus sp. Cordia sp. Monacha sp.Pest Mollusca. Eleusine coracana Eleusine indica Eleusine sp. Papillifera papillaris Paralaoma servilis Phenacolimax major Polygyra cereolus Pomacea canaliculata Praticolella griseola Prietocella barbara Pupillidae. Capsicum annuum Cenchrus sp. Centaurea sp. Xerosecta cespitum Xerotricha conspurcata Zonitidae. 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. Galium sp. Clematis sp. Succinea costaricana Succinea horticola Succinea putris Succinea sp. species Avena ludoviciana Avena sterilis Azolla pinnata Betula sp. species Zonitoides arboreus Nematodes Rhabditidae. Trochoidea trochoides Trochulus hispidus Trochulus sp. species Subulina sp. species Rumina decollata Stylommatophora.

Taraxacum officinale Taraxacum sp. Poa sp. species Saccharum sp. Lactuca sativa Lens culinaris Lens sp. species Miscanthus sinensis Miscanthus sp. Thysanolaena latifolia Tilia sp. sp. species Salix sp. species Populus sp. Poaceae. Saccharum spontaneum Salicaceae. Nassella trichotoma Not a Oryza sativa Oryza sp.Pest Hordeum murinum Hordeum sp. Hordeum vulgare Hypochaeris sp. Ligustrum sp. Malvaceae. Sonchus arvensis Sonchus oleraceus Family Poaceae Poaceae Poaceae Asteraceae Poaceae Convolvulaceae Cupressaceae Asteraceae Fabaceae Fabaceae Oleaceae Linaceae Pest Sorghum bicolor Sorghum sp. Platanus sp. Linum usitatissimum Magnoliophyta. Picris echioides Pinus sp. Sesamum indicum Setaria sp. Imperata cylindrica Ipomoea aquatica Juniperus sp. Solanum sp. Rutaceae. Pennisetum glaucum Pennisetum polystachion Phalaris canariensis Phragmites australis Phragmites sp. Tridax procumbens Triticum aestivum Triticum sp. Quercus sp. Prunus sp. Ulmus sp. Thymelaea sp. Xylopia aethiopica Zea mays Family Poaceae Poaceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Thymelaeaceae Poaceae Tiliaceae Asteraceae Poaceae Poaceae Ulmaceae Annonaceae Poaceae Poaceae Poaceae Poaceae Poaceae Poaceae Poaceae Poaceae Poaceae Poaceae Poaceae Asteraceae Pinaceae Platanaceae Poaceae Salicaceae Rosaceae Fagaceae Poaceae Poaceae Salicaceae Pedaliaceae Poaceae Solanaceae Asteraceae Asteraceae 201 .

India. Italy. 2000. 2002) Sinoxylon crassum Xylothrips flavipes Coleoptera: Buprestidae (Singh and Bhandari. 2002) (Kulinich and Orlinskii. Taiwan. Russia. Taiwan Burma. Italy Australia. Brazil. References (Pasek. 2000) (Pasek. NC. North Africa. Pasek. India. Pasek. Taiwan Russia. Burma. FL. Spain Cuba. Southeastern Central Asia Europe. Japan. New Zealand. Venezuela East Africa. Sri Lanka. Southern Europe China. Pasek. Hua. Netherlands. Korea. West Asia Bangladesh. Turkey Italy. Portugal. Belgium. United States (CT. 2000. Philippines. 1985. NY. 2004) (Hoebeke.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. Spain. Germany. United States (CA) Australia. 2006) (Cherepanov. Korea. China. 2000. Southeast Asia Canary Islands. Indonesia. 2004) (Pasek. Madagascar. 2001) (Haack. Hoskovec and Rejzek. Gul and Bajwa. 2006) (Lesne. 2001) (Haack. 1997. Japan. 2001) (Haack. Pasek. 2000) (Haack. Order: Family Coleoptera: Bostrichidae Species Heterobostrychus brunneus Sinoxylon anale Distribution1 sub-Saharan Africa. 2006) (Pasek.Table 6. 2000. Latvia. Kazakhstan North Africa. WA) China. 2001) (Haack. Southeast Asia Greece. Suriname. OH. Taiwan. Europe. 2006. 1987. 2001) Buprestis haemorrhoidalis Melanophila cuspidata Coleoptera: Cerambycidae Callidiellum rufipenne Monochamus alternatus Plagionotus christophi Pyrrhidium sanguineum Stromatium barbatum Xylotrechus grayi Xylotrechus magnicollis Coleoptera: Curculionidae Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae Pissodes pini Carphoborus minimus Carphoborus pini Coccotrypes advena Cryphalus asperatus Cryphalus piceae Crypturgus cinereus Crypturgus mediterraneus Crypturgus numidicus 202 . 2000) (Pasek. Southeast Asia.. East Africa. Korea. Laos. Nardi. (United States (FL) Germany. Russia. Greece. Pakistan China. Hua. Old World Tropics. 1988. Korea. China.. Schabel. North Africa. Japan. 1999. Spain France. Pasek. 2000. 2000. India. MI. Western Europe Italy. 2000. Teixera et al.. Spain. Singh Rathore. Saudi Arabia. Haack. Walker. Löbl and Smetana. Kawai et al. 2007)). PA). 2000. Laos. Italy. 2006) (Pasek. 2002) (Pasek. 1998. 2006) (Haack. Spain Estonia. 2000. Pakistan. Russia. 2006) (CAB. KFS. India. Kubán. 2001) (Haack. Northeastern China. United States (CA. 2000. 2001) (Bright and Torres. 1900. Italy France. 1995. Vietnam Japan. 2000. Pasek. 2004) (Pasek.

West and Central Asia France. SD). United Kingdom Burma. NY.. 2005) (Haack. Portugal. 2001. Italy Estonia. France. Germany. Portugal. Germany. 2001) (Haack. 2001) (Haack. 2001) (Haack. Germany. NH. 2001) 203 . Germany. 2001.. Italy. 2001) (Haack. Malaysia. 2001) (Haack. 2001) (Haack. Cognato. Spain. NY. Canada. Russia China. South Africa.. Vietnam Dominican Republic. United States (LA. Italy. United States (ME. Russia. 2001) (Haack. Japan References (Haack. 2001) (Pasek. Haack. France. Italy. Italy Belgium. 2001) (Haack. Italy. 2004) (Mudge et al. Italy. United States (PA) Chile. Italy. United Kingdom. Korea. MD. Italy Spain. United Kingdom Belgium. France. Spain France. China. Costa Rica. United States (CA). Turkey Belgium. France. 2001) (Haack. 2001. Germany. OR. Portugal. Spain. Japan. France. United Kingdom Italy Belgium. United States (OR. Western Europe Belgium. 2001) (Haack. 2001) (Haack. Italy. Spain Finland. Germany.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. 2006) (Haack. 2001) (Haack. Brazil. Portugal. Italy. 2001) (Lee et al. Russia. Italy. Haack. Philippines. Spain Belgium. China. 2001) (Haack. France. WV) Belgium. Italy. Russia Belgium. Italy. 2001) (Haack. Spain Belgium. Germany. 2001) (Haack. Spain Italy. PA). 2001. 2000. Germany. Italy. Spain Finland. Germany. Spain Brazil. Mudge et al. 2001. United States (NY) China. 2001) (Haack. 2001) (Haack. France. Russia. 2006) (Haack. France Chile. 2006) (Haack. Mediterranean Region.

Poland. 2001) (Haack. 2001) (Haack. New Zealand.. Japan. Rodríguez et al. 2001) (Haack. Italy. FL) Africa. Asia. 2008) (Mudge et al. 2001) (Mudge et al.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. United Kingdom Azerbaijan. 2001) (Haack. Netherlands Belgium. New Zealand. United States (SC. Italy. Italy. 2001) (Haack. Russia. Spain. Turkey Brazil. France. Ukraine United Kingdom Belgium. 2001) (Haack. Italy. Mediterranean Region. Spain. 2001) (Mudge et al. Greece. Germany. Germany. Germany. 2001) (Haack. Russia. MD. Japan. France. Finland. Germany. Turkey India. 2001. United States (OR. SC) North Africa. 2003) (Haack. 2001) (Haack. 2004) (Fraedrich et al. France. CA. 2001) (Haack. Turkey Belgium. 2001) (Haack. Italy. 2000. Europe. 2001) (Haack. 2001) (Haack. 2001) (Haack. Netherlands Austria. Turkey Belgium. Latvia. Germany. GA. Germany. Spain Belgium. 2001) (Haack. 2001) (Haack. 2001) (Haack. Italy. Spain Finland. 2001. Turkey. France.. 2006) (Haack. 2001. United Kingdom France. OR) References (Pasek. 2001) 204 . Italy Finland. WA) Canada. United States (OH) Italy. United States (NY) France. Southern Europe France.. DE. Cognato. Portugal. Germany. Portugal. Lithuania.. Italy. Russia. Southern and Western Europe. Germany. Spain. Russia. Taiwan. Russia. United Kingdom. Italy Italy Belgium. France.. Russia France. Italy. Germany. 2001) (Haack. Spain. 2001) (Haack. Germany. Italy Austria. France. United States (MD. Turkey Lithuania France. 2001) (Haack. 2006) (Haack. OR. United States (AR. Italy. Czechoslovakia. Netherlands Belgium.

NY = New York. 2001) (Hoebeke et al. NH = New Hampshire. CT = Connecticut. DE = Delaware. FL = Florida. CA = California. Rabaglia et al. Micronesia. WV = West Virginia 205 . MD = Maryland.Order: Family Species Xyleborus similis Xylechinus pilosus Xylosandrus morigerus Distribution1 Africa. Italy. New Zealand. LA = Louisiana. South Africa.. WA = Washington.. NJ. 2006) (Haack. United States (WA) Australia. in Caribbean only Puerto Rico Canada. 2006) (Mudge et al. 2001) (Constantino. PA = Pennsylvania. Spain. MI = Michigan. OR). 2004) (Bright and Torres. Asia. 2001. 2000) Xyloterinus politus Hymenoptera: Siricidae Hymenoptera: Xiphydriidae Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae 1 Sirex noctilio Xiphydria prolongata Coptotermes crassus State abbreviations: AR = Arkansas. 1998. Western Europe Mexico. United States (TX) Europe Throughout world.. NJ = New Jersey. AlonsoZarazaga. Australia. NC = North Carolina. SC = South Carolina.. United States (NY) Russia. United States (MI. 2005) (Mudge et al. OH = Ohio. Pasek. ME = Maine. Central America References (Wood. 1960. TX = Texas. SD = South Dakota. OR = Oregon.

people. pathogens. animals (moved into the area) Logging equipment transported into forest Timber harvested Contamination with hitchhiker soil pathogens.Figure 7. 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 . Contaminations on equipment. weed seeds.1 Potential for contamination during timber extraction process. mollusks (moved out of the area) Pests infesting the standing trees (moved out of the area) Logs skidded through forest Logs sorted at landing New insects.

Extent of forest land Forest Area/Country Total land area Area Percent of total land area % 46.0% 0.7 Changes (1997-2007) Forest area 10-year change Change in forested land Florida Alabama Louisiana Mississippi Texas Total Gulf States 1.086 2.2% -2.0% 0.9 35 1. USDA-FS.4 44.126 9.2 51.873 1.1% -0.990 118.2 3.1 80 27.4 24.4 2.0% 0.184 11.1 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 207 .0% 10.3% 1.3% -3.000 ha -43 -0.0% 0.0% -1. 2005b.7 61.0% 0.0% 0.1 Extent of forest land in the Greater Caribbean Region and changes in extent of forest land over recent years.1 70.405 1.2% 0.0% 0.9 26.42 1.5 46 14.283 5.6% 0.4 10. Data sources: (FAO.9% 0.974 % 71.0 65.8% -0.099 339 110 46 10 4 80 1 895 408 36 5 62 17 39 11 513 226 43 34 34 10 23.775 105 1.151 7.376 34 4 171 80 2.3 43.4 21.2% 0.4 48.5 4 20 24.9 27.3 28.0% 0.4 12.755 12.535 13.0% 0.5% Area/Country Extent of forest land Forest Total land Percent area Area of total land area 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 51.482 5.Table 7.7% 295 3. 2008).0% 0.7 27.388 515 43 2 5 1 15 4 26 12 11.941 67.0% 4.1% 407 Changes (2000-2005) Forest area Change in 5-year forested change land 1.1% 416 5.2% 178 3.0% 9.000 ha 14.0% 0.0% 0.864 6.8 31.2 47.0% 0.713 75 46 4.3 30.600 36.175 6.2% -437 -6.000 ha 8 6 44 9 19 0.

5 24.7 793. Gulf States.5 Nonconifer metric tons 1.104 76.8% -350 -6.614.3% -6.226.160 22.9 4.0 232. Data source: (UNComtrade.5 24.552 4.000 5.189 42.S.0 3.7 Railway ties (not treated) 784.670 40.1 1.411 43.703.4 10.7 52.2 0.9 21.681.9% -782 -16.661.889 3.4% -1.7 7.8% -751 Table 7.2 Poles.5 13.0% 15 0. Piles (pointed) Conifer 4.938 36.009.497 15.5 2.2 Nonconifer 2.676.104 298 14.9 --- Entire United States 208 .296.4 0.2 1.7% -13 -0.7 37.776 94.7% -270 -6.3 11.3 12.325.084.9 1.0 --- Caribbean Islands Importing Countries Caribbean Islands Central America Guyana/Suriname 1 U.8 --784.294 57. 2008).6% -26 -8.824 29.1 9.5 16.327 14.830.8 Changes (2000-2005) Forest area Change in 5-year forested change land 0 0.5 5.3 Raw wood products trade within the Greater Caribbean Region (2006): total imports reported (in metric tons).7 821.155.0% 0.5 49.0% 0 0.2 700.648 41.290.110 2.) Total Greater Caribbean Region Extent of forest land Forest Total land Percent area of total Area land area 2.013.2 Imports of raw wood products from the world into the Greater Caribbean Region (2006.079.7 42.5 -3.S.426 0 0.8 2.7 4.8 Fuelwood Total Imports 1.860.209 4. Exporting Countries Central Guyana/ America Suriname metric tons -1.066 94.653 72.880 79. Data source: (UNComtrade. Logs/Poles Importing Countries Caribbean Islands Central America Guyana/Suriname Total Conifer 2.804.096.7 16.9 24. 2008). excluding U.0 -1.4 99.7 Table 7.Area/Country Belize Costa Rica El Salvador Guatemala Honduras Nicaragua Panama Total Central America Guyana Suriname Total South America (Car.391 46.296 1.0% 0 -0.

S.000 U. Exporting Countries Dominican Republic Trinidad-Tobago El Salvador Guatemala Costa Rica Nicaragua Honduras Suriname ● Jamaica Panama Guyana Belize Importing Countries Bahamas Barbados Caribbean Islands Dominica Grenada Jamaica St Kitts-Nevis St Lucia St Vincent-Gren Trinidad-Tobago Belize Costa Rica Central America El Salvador Guatemala Honduras Nicaragua Panama Suriname United States Key (metric tonnes) ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● < 100 ● 100-500 ● ● 5.000-5.000 500-1.000 ● 1. 209 .4 Relative quantities of raw wood products traded among countries of the Greater Caribbean Region: reported imports.000-10. 2006.Table 7. Data source: (UNComtrade. 2008).

023.6 Raw wood products trade within the Greater Caribbean Region (2006): total exports reported (in metric tons).6 33.S.6 10.6 6.079.9 Railway ties (not treated) ---273.670.0 Entire United States.045.1 -21.039.1 U.2 35. Gulf States 1 Importing Countries Central Guyana/ America Suriname metric tons -3.323.6 13.1 52.7 48.4 7. 2008.961.711.3 31. 2008).2 Nonconifer 33.567.5 123.8 73. Data source: (UNComtrade.S.617. USCB.04 18.501.3 2. Piles (pointed) Conifer 0. 210 .4 Fuelwood Total Exports 1.640.6 22. USCB. 2008.150.S.265.4 Conifer 9.5 3.260.Table 7.5 426.950. Data source: (UNComtrade.607.5 Exports of raw wood products from the Caribbean into the world (2006).3 --29.4 1.969.394.4 201.459.0 Exports to Greater Caribbean Region only.078.385.7 0.4 24.7 5. Logs/Poles Exporting Countries Caribbean Islands Central America Guyana/Suriname U. Gulf States1 TOTAL 1 Poles.9 3.674.1 -- 20.0 157.0 100.216.7 13.8 293.4 67.4 273.2 4.6 31. Table 7. Caribbean Islands Exporting Countries Caribbean Islands Central America Guyana/Suriname U.327.351.724.872. 2008).3 21.5 9.44 Nonconifer metric tons 3.0 1.

USCB.7 Relative frequency of raw wood products traded among countries of the Greater Caribbean Region: reported exports (2006).000 ● 100 .000 U. Vincent-Grenadines British Virgin Islands Turks-Caicos Islands Central America S.10.S.A. Guyana Alabama Gulf States Florida Louisiana Mississippi Texas Key (metric tonnes) ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 1 .000 ● > 50.000 1.000 .000 . 2008) Importing Countries Caribbean Islands St.000 .A.000 10.500 ● ● ● 5. 2008.100 ● 500 . 211 . Netherlands Antilles Dominican Republic Antigua-Barbuda Trinidad-Tobago Cayman Islands St . Lucia Grenada Anguilla Jamaica Panama Guyana Aruba Belize Cuba Haiti Exporting Countries Car Trinidad-Tobago Belize Costa Rica Central America El Salvador Guatemala Honduras Nicaragua Panama S.Kitts-Nevis Guadeloupe El Salvador Guatemala Costa Rica Nicaragua Honduras Suriname Barbados Dominica Bermuda Bahamas St.50.Table 7.5.1. Data sources: (UNComtrade.

1998. 2003) (Binggeli et al. South America. 1998. 2001. throughout West Indies.. Texas) 212 . 2003) (Richardson. Jamaica. ISSG. firewood. Mexico Australia. Dominican Republic.S. U. (Florida) References (Kairo et al. southwestern U. 2003. Langeland and Stocker. 2003.. Puerto Rico Dominican Republic. 2001) (Binggeli et al.. (Alabama. Puerto Rico. Australia Reclamation. 2008) (ISSG. 2001) (ISSG. Guyana U. 2001. 2003. Puerto Rico. ornamental Uses Agroforestry Agroforestry.S. 2003) (Langeland and Stocker.S. Louisiana. windbreaks. tannins. 1998. Puerto Rico Bahamas. ISSG. 2008) (Langeland and Stocker. Puerto Rico U.. Puerto Rico Plantations Agroforestry Ornamental Dominican Republic. Kairo et al. 2001) Australia Central America.. Dominican Republic.. ISSG. bark used as fruit packing material and torches. Papua New Guinea Asia. coastal reclamation. New Guinea Africa. U. 2003) (Richardson...S. Haiti.. 2003) (Binggeli et al. 2003) (Kairo et al.. Lugo. Species Acacia farnesiana (Fabaceae) Acacia mangium (Fabaceae) Acacia nilotica (Fabaceae) Adenanthera pavonina (Fabaceae) Albizia julibrissin (Fabaceae) Casuarina equisetifolia (Casuarinaceae) Eucalyptus robusta (Myrtaceae) Leucanea leucocephala (Fabaceae) Melaleuca quinquenervia (Myrtaceae) Melia azedarach (Meliaceae) Mimosa pigra (Fabaceae) Parkinsonia aculeate (Fabaceae) Pinus caribaea (Pinaceae) Psidium guajava (Myrtaceae) Sapium sebiferum (Euphorbiaceae) Native American Tropics Australia. (Florida) Bahamas. 2008) (Kairo et al. Puerto Rico. 2004) (Langeland and Stocker. Texas) Bahamas. Kairo et al. Dominican Republic. (Florida) U. charcoal. Malaysia Iran to Japan Asia. agroforestry Reforestation Erosion control. timber Agroforestry. Jamaica. Australia Tropical America Central America. 1998. Mexico. Indian subcontinent India. Puerto Rico Anguilla. (Florida) Puerto Rico Bahamas. crafts Windbreaks. Puerto Rico Most Caribbean islands.. Florida. 2008) (Richardson.. ecological restoration browse. Indonesia. firebreaks. Mississippi. tannins. 1998.. medicinal Naturalized or Invasive Bahamas. 2008) (Binggeli et al.S. plantations Reforestation. ornamental firewood.S. Kairo et al.. 1998. Kairo et al. U. 1998. pulp. 2003.S.8 Examples of invasive trees established in the Greater Caribbean Region. Kairo et al. (Florida. Kairo et al. dyes. Irian Jaya. timber. Langeland and Stocker. Central America American tropics Eastern Asia Agroforestry Dominican Republic. Antigua and Barbuda.S. medicinal.Table 7. Kairo et al. (Florida) U.

2008) 213 . 2008) (Kairo et al. 2004) (Langeland and Stocker. Martinique (Langeland and Stocker. (Tamaricaceae) Ziziphus mauritiana (Rhamnaceae) South America West Africa Southern Europe to Asia Central Asia Ornamental Ornamental Erosion control. 2001. timber Bahamas. ornamental Agroforestry.S. ISSG. Guadeloupe.. ISSG. U. Jamaica. 2001) (Lugo.Schinus terebinthifolius (Anacardiaceae) Spathodea campanulata (Bignoniaceae) Tamarix spp. 2003. (Florida) Puerto Rico Texas Barbados.

146 Netherlands 14.759.198 199.198 199.520.160 Peru 87.828 Israel 421.259 40 Germany 40 421.771 World Total 88.288 1.482 Italy 978. corms.828 978.258 Canada 712. crowns and rhizomes” [in plant units] into countries of the Greater Caribbean Region in 2007. tubers.901 USA 417.796 214 . Note: The United States is not listed as an importing country.141. 2008).1 Imports of “bulbs.138 73.644 886.851 1.039 55. Data source: (UNComtrade. tuberous roots.160 505 South Africa 505 10 0 1 Thailand 11 88.729 7.221 0 48.221 876 15.902 16. because data could not be restricted to the Gulf States.025 7. Importing country Trading partner Bahamas Barbados Colombia El Salvador Guatemala Honduras Jamaica Trinidad and Tobago Total 1 712.Table 8.482 360 14.065 7.119.506 14.741 87.

155 170 72 114 2.Table 8.618 215 . 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.155 170 114 2. mushroom spawn” [in plant units] into countries of the Greater Caribbean Region in 2007.397 1.753 2.444 4.003 680 2.467 2.917 99 4.291 310 74.913.733.332 696 2.443 315. 2008).269 119.926 837 696 2 228.236 50.469 75.097 97 12.373 199 7.567 353.298 381 90 987 14.924 2.291 310 153.306 1.508 3.613 102.554 9. Note: The United States is not listed as an importing country.435 6.159 9.689 1.223 79 Trinidad and Tobago Total 80 3.689 1.911 290 820 2.236 30.313 44.250 4.368 14.K.898 16.948 2. Data source: (UNComtrade.614 205 3.000 1.359 310.395 382 629 163 720 7.015 2.359 310.299 4. USA World Importing country Bahamas Barbados Belize Colombia El Salvador Guatemala Honduras Jamaica Nicaragua Panama 1 3.924 2.250 4.059 2.913.2 Imports of “live plants (not otherwise specified) including their roots.224 205 1.549 580 626 72 1. because data could not be restricted to the Gulf States.780 11.298 90 1.045 180 1.762 200 20.224 1.186 18.218 12.203 1.325 4.514 204 247 117.508 2.161.245 1.

Data source: (UNComtrade.074 380 380 187.176 114.703 887 167.867 428.Table 8.616 380. 2008).172 15.489 312.236 380. shrubs and bushes.451 5. of kinds which bear edible fruit or nuts” [in plant units] into countries of the Greater Caribbean Region in 2007.785 11.3 Imports of “trees.857 228.767 11.686 142.080 98.080 1.709 189.059 63.882 231.639 48. Note: The United States is not listed as an importing country. Trading partner Argentina Canada Chile Colombia Costa Rica El Salvador Guatemala Honduras Israel Japan Mexico Netherlands Peru USA Venezuela World Bahamas 1.074 Importing country El Salvador Guatemala Honduras Nicaragua Panama 117.728 91.944 14.733 1.730 1.166 356 11.231 2. because data could not be restricted to the Gulf States.709 62.777 815.078 11.231 1.933.870 310.785 4.535 15.391 64.047 109.078 504.693 65.769 216 .458 1.824 7.543 98.032 169.732 356 22.543 Colombia 104.791 64.897 Total 104.

501 30.180 24.106 177 99. Data source: (UNComtrade.754 2.892 189 189 Grand Total 384 24.180 Italy 23.Table 8.765 Colombia 465. Note: The United States is not listed as an importing country.060 USA World 3. including their roots” [in plant units] into countries of the Greater Caribbean Region in 2007.629 Table 8.477 250 4.311 217 .754 6.158 1.031 Jamaica Panama 10.557 Total 3.765 465.363 352 262 170 18. 2008). Note: The United States is not listed as an importing country.501 Guatemala 7. including their roots” [in plant units] into countries of the Greater Caribbean Region in 2007.106 France 177 Germany 99. Importing country Trading partner Bahamas Barbados Colombia El Salvador Guatemala 384 Belgium 24.905 99.499 2.4 Imports of “roses.5 Imports of “azaleas and rhododendrons.557 2. because data could not be restricted to the Gulf States.557 2.868 643.477 634 498.754 3.499 Ecuador 2. 2008).501 7.205 Netherlands 352 New Zealand 262 Spain 170 United Kingdom 3.892 10. Data source: (UNComtrade. Trading partner Guatemala USA World Importing country Bahamas El Salvador 3. because data could not be restricted to the Gulf States.

7 Number of shipments1 of propagative material imported into the United States from countries in the Greater Caribbean Region in 2007.965 Table 8. Country of origin Bahamas Belize Colombia Costa Rica Dominica Dominican Republic El Salvador Guatemala Guyana Haiti Honduras 1 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. 2008). Trading partner USA Importing country Bahamas Trinidad and Tobago 237.6 Imports of “unrooted cuttings and slips” [in plant units] into countries of the Greater Caribbean Region in 2007. Maartin Suriname Trinidad and Tobago Venezuela Number of shipments 36 2 3 1 121 4 1 61 8 67 Note: the quantity of propagative material included in a shipment varies 218 .875 90 Total 237. Note: The United States is not listed as an importing country.Table 8. Data source: (UNComtrade. 2008e). because data could not be restricted to the Gulf States. Data source: (USDA.

Cleome sp. Veronicellidae [Costa Rica] Leucothrips sp. Cordyline fruticosa Mollusk Insect Insect Insect 219 . El Salvador]. (Tenebrionidae). Chrysanthemum sp. (Curculionidae: Scolytinae) [Costa Rica] Agromyzidae.S. (Coccidae). Planococcus sp. Cecidomyiidae and Curculionidae [Costa Rica] Cecidomyiidae. Dominican Republic] Mite Mollusk Tetranychidae [Dominican Republic. and Pseudococcidae [Costa Rica] Cicadellidae. Data source: (USDA. Thrips palmi (Thripidae). 2008d). (Hyphomycetes) [Colombia] Frankliniella sp. and Pseudococcidae [Costa Rica]. (Curculionidae: Scolytinae) [Dominican Republic] Pseudococcidae [El Salvador] Tetranychidae [El Salvador] Alternaria sp. Pyraloidea. Dominican Republic. Curculionidae. Cicadellidae. Succinea costaricana. Gryllidae. Copitarsia sp. Pentatomidae. Bacopa sp. Anacardium occidentale Aralia sp. (Thripidae) [Colombia] Aleyrodidae [Costa Rica] Agromyzidae [Colombia] and Tettigoniidae [Costa Rica] Coccotrypes sp. Cicadellidae. (Thripidae). Pentatomidae. Coccidae. ports of entry on shipments of propagative material from countries in the Greater Caribbean Region in 2007. Noctuidae. (Noctuidae). Alpinia sp. Aglaonema sp. Bouquet Chrysalidocarpus sp. Alstroemeria sp. Pest name (family) [origin of shipment] Idiarthron sp. Thripidae [Dominican Republic] Succinea costaricana (Succineidae) [Costa Rica] Dyscinetus sp. (Scarabaeidae). Coccoidea. Leucania sp. Pseudococcidae. and Tettigoniidae [Costa Rica] Codiaeum variegatum Insect Colocasia esculenta Colocasia sp. (Noctuidae) [Colombia] Hypothenemus sp. Coccidae. and Pseudococcidae [Costa Rica]. Aster sp. (Coccidae). (Leptosphaeriaceae) [Costa Rica] Ceroplastes sp. Aleyrodidae. Commodity Aechmea sp. (Scarabaeidae). (Thripidae) [Costa Rica. Pallifera costaricensis (Philomycidae). Cocos nucifera Codiaeum sp. (Tettigoniidae) [Costa Rica] Leptosphaeria sp.8 Reportable pests intercepted at U.Table 8. Noctuidae. Phyllophaga sp. (Succineidae). 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. Philephedra sp. Frankliniella sp. (Noctuidae) [Colombia] Aleyrodidae [Costa Rica] Tineidae [Costa Rica] Blapstinus sp. Leucothrips sp.. (Pseudococcidae). Armeria sp. El Salvador] Ovachlamys fulgens (Helicarionidae). Succinea sp. Thripidae [Costa Rica. Pest type Insect Disease Insect Mollusk Insect Insect Mite Insect Insect Insect Insect Mite Disease Insect Insect Insect Insect Insect Insect Insect Insect Ajuga reptans Ajuga sp. Noctuidae.

(Hyphomycetes).Commodity Cordyline sp. (Coelomycetes) [Costa Rica] Anchonus sp. Hymenoptera. Ozophora concava (Rhyparochromidae). (Coelomycetes) [Costa Rica] Curculionidae [Costa Rica] Cercospora sp. Syrphidae. and Tortricidae [Costa Rica] Succinea costaricana (Succineidae) [Costa Rica] Tetranychidae [Costa Rica] Tetranychidae [Costa Rica] Leucothrips sp. Heteroptera. (Coelomycetes) [Costa Rica] Amblyrhetus sp. (Mycosphaerellaceae). Pseudococcidae. Tettigoniidae. Cicadellidae. Cycad sp. Limacodidae. Succinea costaricana. Tineidae. Mollusk Mite Mite Insect Mollusk Mite Insect Insect Insect Mollusk Disease Mite Insect Insect Insect Mollusk Insect Dieffenbachia sp. Dianella sp. Pentatomidae. (Mycosphaerellaceae). Diaspididae. Cuphea sp. Heteroptera. (Agriolimacidae). Phomopsis sp. (Succineidae) [Costa Rica] Cicadellidae [Costa Rica] Bemisia tabaci (Aleyrodidae) [Costa Rica] Tetranychidae [Costa Rica] Pseudococcidae [Costa Rica. (Scarabaeidae). Tettigoniidae. Ctenanthe sp. (Curculionidae). Phomopsis sp. Noctuidae. Succinea sp. Pseudococcidae. Pentatomidae. Pentatomidae. (Gryllidae). and Tortricinae [Costa Rica] Deroceras sp. Coccoidea. Diaspididae. Dominican Republic] Tetranychidae [Costa Rica] Veronicellidae [Costa Rica] Miridae [Costa Rica] Aleyrodidae [Costa Rica] and Pseudococcidae [Dominican Republic] Cornus sp. and Tortricidae [Costa Rica] Liriomyza huidobrensis (Agromyzidae) [Colombia] Succinea costaricana (Succineidae) [Costa Rica] Mycosphaerella sp. Ovachlamys fulgens (Helicarionidae). Cotoneaster sp. 220 . Disease Insect Disease Insect Mollusk Dracaena warneckii Duranta sp. Insect Insect Mite Insect Mite Mollusk Insect Insect Eryngium foetidum Euphorbia sp. Phoma sp. Tettigoniidae. Gryllidae. Mycosphaerella sp. Croton sp. Dracaena bicolor Dracaena deremensis Dracaena marginata Mollusk Dracaena massangeana Dracaena sp. Noctuidae. Dizygothecea sp. Veronicellidae [Costa Rica] Phoma sp. Coccidae. (Mycosphaerellaceae).. Epipremnum sp. Coreidae. Cycas revoluta Dendranthema sp. Pseudococcidae. Pest type Disease Insect Pest name (family) [origin of shipment] Mycosphaerella sp. and Tettigoniidae [Costa Rica] Succinea costaricana (Succineidae). Pestalotiopsis sp. Dendrobium sp. (Thripidae) [El Salvador] Ovachlamys fulgens (Helicarionidae) [Costa Rica] Tetranychidae [Dominican Republic] Coccoidea and Pentatomoidea [Costa Rica] Noctuidae. (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. Noctuidae. Cicadellidae. Coreidae. Cicadellidae.

Physostegia sp. Lepidoptera. Vinsonia stellifera (Coccidae) [Costa Rica] Tetranychidae [Costa Rica] Succinea costaricana (Succineidae) [Costa Rica] Liriope sp. Scabiosa sp. Noctuidae. Heliconia psittacorum Heliconia sp. Phomopsis sp. Mentha sp. [Costa Rica]. (Coelomycetes) [Costa Rica] Diptera [Costa Rica] Colletotrichum rhodocyclum. Guzmania sp. Cicadellidae. Hoya sp. (Coelomycetes) [Costa Rica] Pseudococcidae [Costa Rica] Tetranychidae [Costa Rica] Noctuidae [Colombia] Pseudococcidae [Costa Rica] Aphididae. (Mycosphaerellaceae) [Costa Rica] Tettigoniidae [Costa Rica] Noctuidae [Dominican Republic] Noctuidae [Colombia] Coccoidea [Costa Rica] Mycosphaerella sp. (Coelomycetes) [Costa Rica] Lygaeoidea [El Salvador] Pentatomoidea [Costa Rica] Succinea costaricana (Succineidae) [Costa Rica] Pestalotiopsis sp. Pleomele sp. Helianthemum sp. Orchidaceae Pachysandra sp. and Thripidae [Dominican Republic] Tetranychidae [Dominican Republic] Mycosphaerella sp. Rosa sp. Coccidae. Pest type Insect Insect Disease Insect Mite Insect Insect Insect Insect Insect Insect Pest name (family) [origin of shipment] Frankliniella schultzei (Thripidae) [Dominican Republic] Aleyrodidae [Costa Rica] Phoma sp. Salvia sp. (Phaeosphaeriaceae). (Didymosphaeriaceae) [Costa Rica] Cladosporium sp. Pentatomidae. Gaillardia sp. Dominican Republic] Colletotrichum sp.. Schefflera arboricola Mite Mollusk 221 . Phoma sp. Hymenoptera. Tetranychidae [Colombia. Hedera sp. Mite Disease Insect Insect Insect Insect Disease Insect Insect Mollusk Disease Insect Disease Mite Insect Disease Insect Insect Insect Mite Insect Mite Disease Disease Insect Sansevieria sp. Heliopsis sp. Lantana sp. Fusicoccum sp. and Tettigoniidae [Costa Rica] Phyllosticta sp. Neoregelia sp. (Coelomycetes) [Costa Rica] Tetranychidae [Costa Rica] Cicadellidae. (Miridae) [Costa Rica] Aleyrodidae and Heteroptera [Costa Rica]. Leucothrips sp. Didymosphaeria sp.Commodity Evolvulus sp. (Hyphomycetes) [Colombia] Aphididae. Polyscias sp. Tettigoniidae. Philodendron sp. Coccoidea. (Thripidae).. Noctuidae. Pentatomidae. Phormium sp. Ophiopogon sp. Rosmarinus officinalis Ruella sp. Phaeosphaeria sp. and Pseudococcidae. Luffa sp. Hesperiidae. (Coelomycetes). (Coelomycetes) [Costa Rica] Pseudococcidae [Costa Rica] Tortricidae [Colombia] Noctuidae [Colombia] Tetranychidae [Dominican Republic] Noctuidae [Dominican Republic] Tetranychus sp. (Mycosphaerellaceae). and Pseudococcidae [Costa Rica] Aleyrodidae [Costa Rica] Eurychilella sp. Phoma sp.

Miridae [Colombia] Tetranychidae [Dominican Republic] Pseudococcidae [Costa Rica] Aleyrodidae and Noctuidae [Colombia] Diaporthe sp. Zamioculcas zamiifolia Mite Mollusk Insect Mite Insect Insect Disease Insect Mollusk Insect Insect Insect Disease Insect Mollusk Insect 222 . (Veronicellidae) [Costa Rica] Coccidae [Costa Rica] Solidago sp. Plutellidae.Commodity Schefflera sp. Verbena sp. (Coelomycetes) [Costa Rica] Cyclocephala sp. (Noctuidae). Cicadellidae. El Salvador] Tetranychidae [Costa Rica] Succinea costaricana (Succineidae) [Costa Rica] Copitarsia sp. Vinca sp. Yucca elephantipes Yucca sp. (Succineidae) [Dominican Republic] Aleyrodidae [Costa Rica] Aleyrodidae [Costa Rica] Aleyrodidae [Costa Rica] Phyllosticta yuccae (Coelomycetes) [Costa Rica] Bagnalliella sp. Protopulvinaria longivalvata. (Phlaeothripidae) [Costa Rica] Veronicella sp. Pest type Disease Insect Pest name (family) [origin of shipment] Phomopsis sp. Pseudococcidae [Costa Rica. Tagetes sp. Vinsonia stellifera (Coccidae). Phomopsis (Coelomycetes) [Belize] Elachistidae [Costa Rica] Succinea sp. and Tortricidae [Costa Rica]. Tettigoniidae. Coccoidea. (Scarabaeidae). Agromyzidae. Tradescantia sp. Noctuidae. Aphididae. Theobroma cacao Thymus vulgaris Tillandsia cyanea Tillandsia sp. Pentatomidae. Coccidae. Veronica sp. (Valsaceae).

2007).Figure 9.1 Prevailing wind patterns in January (a) and July (b) (Lutgens and Tarbuck. 223 .

2007).2 Areas and time of hurricane formation (Lutgens and Tarbuck.Figure 9. 224 .

2003. SAM (BRA.hosts incl. ZAF. Mangifera. Bambusa. 2006. incl. AF-Africa. 2003. SAM (BRA. 1995. Acacia. AS. 2003) Sinoxylon crassum Xylion cylindricus Xylodelis obsipa Xylopsocus gibbicollis High risk potential for importation on Eucalyptus logs High risk potential for importation on Eucalyptus logs High risk potential for importation on Eucalyptus logs 225 . EUR-Europe. EUR. IRQ Heterobostrychus brunneus Mesoxylion collaris Sinoxylon anale Coleoptera: Bostrichidae Coleoptera: Bostrichidae Coleoptera: Bostrichidae Coleoptera: Bostrichidae Coleoptera: Bostrichidae Coleoptera: Bostrichidae Coleoptera: Bostrichidae AF (sub-Saharan). Dalbergia sissoo. NZMAF.Appendix Pests potentially associated with forest products and with the potential to move into and within the Greater Caribbean Region. Corymbia. PA) AF (east). Eucalyptus Corymbia. WPM untreated timber (poles. Olea. sawn wood. GLP. Robinia. MI. Morus. CAM-Central America. WPM logs logs. DMA. Eucalyptus Acacia tortilis Corymbia. Ochlandra travancoria. Guadua angustifolia. VEN). OH.g. USA (CA) AUS AUS. USDA-APHIS. 2007) High risk potential for importation on Eucalyptus logs High risk potential for importation on Eucalyptus logs (Pasek. 2006) (USDA-FS. IND. Theobroma. USDA-APHIS. EUR. conveyances. Vitis Hardwoods & conifers. Dendrocalmus. piles). SAM-South America. (Abbreviations: WPM-Wood Packaging Material. Delonix regia. Malus. Eucalyptus Corymbia. Manihot esculenta. 2003. 2003. Distribution country codes are in conformance with ISO 3166 codes. 2008) Heterobostrychus aequalis Coleoptera: Bostrichidae EUR. AF. a list of countries and continents is located at the end of this table. USA (CA. Haack. Swietenia spp. SAU. deformation and breaking).. intercepted in USA (FL) High risk potential for importation on Eucalyptus logs References (CATIE. PRI). CAR (CUB. WPM WPM logs logs Logs (NZMAF. IRN. AS. wood handicrafts.) Species INSECTS Apate monachus Order: Family Coleoptera: Bostrichidae Distribution CAR (CUB. Phyllostachys. JAM. AS. piles) Hardwoods Pathways dead wood Comments Can attack living trees (e. AS (southeast) AUS AUS AUS Corymbia. wood handicrafts. Teixera et al. Psidium. untreated timber (poles/piles). AQIS. 2007) (USDA-FS. NZL. poles/piles. green or seasoned timber. USDAFS. 2003. 2003) (USDA-FS. BRA. CABI-FC. PAK. Citrus. MTQ. untreated timber (poles. CHL) logs bamboo. 2007. Acacia. Pyrus. Schabel. Walker. 2003) (Pasek. IND. NY.. CABI-FC. manufactured wood (furniture. Prunus. 2003) (NZMAF. incl. 2003) (USDA-FS. OCE-Oceania. TTO). souvenirs). poles/ piles. Pinus pinaster Polyphagous . WPM (USDA-FS. CABI-FC. AS-Asia. Albizia. FL). Swietenia. AF Hosts Hardwoods.. 2000. 2002. 2000. 2000. Eucalyptus. Eucalyptus bark. Coffea. USA (CA. NZMAF. 2008) Bostrychopsis jesuita Dinoderus minutus Coleoptera: Bostrichidae Coleoptera: Bostrichidae AUS AS (native). CAR-Caribbean. Pasek. Casuarina. FL. Casuarina. sawn wood. causing retarded growth. 2008) (Singh Rathore. Eucalyptus Hardwoods. NAM-North America. 2006. 1992. Pinus Hardwoods: freshly felled trees. incl.

Corymbia maculata. Liquidambar formosa. poles/piles. poles/piles. wood handicrafts. CAN PHL EUR. 2007. logs. 2004. PaDIL. Betula. IL). 2008. 2000. WI. Pasek. 2000. WPM bark. more recently has become a pest in China. Corymbia maculata. poles/ piles. incl. USDA-FS. 2003. 2007b) (NZMAF. JPN [native]). 2003. WA). WV. 2008) (NZMAF. KAZ AF (south). poles/piles. 2007. Thuja Eucalyptus bamboo. 2008) (USDA-FS. Chamaecyparis. CT. Löbl and Smetana. incl. Gmelina leichhardtii bonsai trees. 2003) (USDA-FS. 2008) Agrilus sexsignatus Buprestis haemorrhoidalis Melanophila cuspidata Anoplophora chinensis Anoplophora glabripennis Eucalyptus Polyphagous . Eucalyptus Corymbia. CABI-FC. Kubán. USDA-FS. Robinia. 2003) 226 . FAO. ITA AUS AS (native) AS (IND) (native) AUS AUS Hosts Pathways wood handicrafts. 2006) (Pasek. USDA-APHIS. 1999. Eucalyptus. USDA-APHIS. CABIFC. 2003) (NZMAF. ISSG. sawn wood Apriona cinerea Arhopalus ferus Coleoptera: Cerambycidae Coleoptera: Cerambycidae Coleoptera: Cerambycidae Coleoptera: Cerambycidae Coleoptera: Cerambycidae Coleoptera: Cerambycidae Coleoptera: Cerambycidae Coleoptera: Cerambycidae Very destructive. can survive heat treatments 48 hrs at 40C ) References (Lesne. KOR. FAO. MD. sawn wood WPM WPM Comments Xylothrips religiosus Xylotillus lindi Zelotypia stacyi Agrilus opulentus Agrilus planipennis Corymbia. Tectona grandis Pinus roxburghii. WPM bark. 2003. 2007. timber. Populus. wood chips. 2008. 1900. 2008) Found on scented pinecones by PPQ employees High risk potential for importation on Eucalyptus logs High risk potential for importation on Eucalyptus logs (USDA-APHIS. USA (MI. 2008) (Pasek. NZMAF. nursery stock. CABI-FC. USA (NC. 2008. wood and wood products bark. 2000. 2003. Eucalyptus Angophora intermedia. hardwoods. IL. Nardi. sawn wood firewood. Juniperus. kesiya Angophora intermedia.. USA (northeast) AS (IND [native]) EUR (native). PNG. 2000. timber artificial Christmas trees. Malus. sawn wood logs logs bark. P. Morus. 2003) (USDA-FS. 2003) (NZMAF. logs. sawdust. CABIFC. FJI. WPM logs bamboo pinecones logs bark.Species Xylothrips flavipes Order: Family Coleoptera: Bostrichidae Coleoptera: Bostrichidae Coleoptera: Bostrichidae Coleoptera: Bostrichidae Coleoptera: Buprestidae Coleoptera: Buprestidae Coleoptera: Buprestidae Coleoptera: Buprestidae Coleoptera: Buprestidae Coleoptera: Cerambycidae Coleoptera: Cerambycidae Distribution NCL. NZL AS (native). Pasek. USA (HI).. incl. logs. 2008) (NZMAF. 2007) (Hoebeke. 2003. USA (WA) AS (CHN. EPPO. 2007. MO. 2001. PaDIL. Acer. VA. CABI-FC. Cupressus. Fraxinus. 2004. sawn wood cargo loaded during flight period (summer). PA. wood chips. 2004) (CABI-FC. Melia. nursery stock. 2008) Callidiellum rufipenne Callidiopsis scutellaris Chlorophorus annularis Chlorophorus strobilicola Coptocercus rubripes Epithora dorsalis High risk potential for importation on Eucalyptus logs (USDA-FS. Cryptomeria. AQIS. Pyrus. IN. WPM logs. Hibiscus. Citrus. ALB can attack healthy trees. Eucalyptus Eucalyptus Eucalyptus Fraxinus High risk potential for importation on Eucalyptus logs High risk potential for importation on Eucalyptus logs High risk potential for importation on Eucalyptus logs Threat to Gulf States (in chips. 2003) (INBAR. plants. OH.incl. poles/piles. Salix Hardwoods. beetle is able to survive and finish development in cut logs Bores into the wood of young poplars (Magnusson et al. Salix. EUR (south) AS (native). 2007c) (AQIS. 2003. Ulmus Populus Burned or windthrown conifers Conifers. Prunus. poles/piles. EUR (ITA). Populus. SLB AUS AUS AUS PNG AS (native). 2008) (McCullough et al.

Eucalyptus Eucalyptus Hardwoods. 2003. Shorea robusta Seasoned timber . USDA-FS. Salix. entry potential. sawn wood bark.Species Hesperophanes campestris Order: Family Coleoptera: Cerambycidae Distribution AS (CHN. wood chips. WPM bark. Eucalyptus timber. Nair. 2003. untreated timber (poles/piles). Corymbia calophylla. roof timbers) Eucalyptus Pinus. sawn wood logs Comments References (NZMAF. NZL. railway sleepers. 1998. 2008) (USDA-FS. 2007c. xylophilus) . 2003) (Pasek. IND (native) Hosts Hardwoods & conifers: Acer. 2003. Hopea odorata. Morus. 2007a. AF. USDA-FS. JPN) (native) Hesperophanes fasciculatus Coleoptera: Cerambycidae Coleoptera: Cerambycidae Coleoptera: Cerambycidae Coleoptera: Cerambycidae Coleoptera: Cerambycidae Coleoptera: Cerambycidae Coleoptera: Cerambycidae Coleoptera: Cerambycidae Coleoptera: Cerambycidae Coleoptera: Cerambycidae Coleoptera: Cerambycidae Coleoptera: Cerambycidae Coleoptera: Cerambycidae Coleoptera: Cerambycidae Coleoptera: Cerambycidae Coleoptera: Cerambycidae CHN Hesthesis cingulata Hoplocerambyx spinicornis AUS EUR. Syncarpia laurifolia Angophora intermedia.g. Abies firma. 2003) (NZMAF. Eucalyptus. USA (CA) AUS (native). 2000. WPM bark. Eucalyptus Acacia . freshly cut railway sleepers logs bark. USA. 2003. logs. 2007) Hylotrupes bajulus EUR. Acacia . Picea Pathways bark. KFS. Eucalyptus Angophora. 2003. FAO. sawn wood wood handicrafts. Malus. Betula. Eucalyptus Corymbia calophylla. 2007. sawn wood. Quercus Phoracantha mastersi Phoracantha odewahni Phoracantha punctipennis Phoracantha recurva AUS AUS AUS AUS. CABI-FC. wood handicrafts. likelihood of establishment. nursery stock. 2004. sawn timber. USDAAPHIS. 2003) (USDA-FS. Eucalyptus. Cedrus atlantica. logs. JPN.larvae girdle and kill trees and riddle heartwood with large tunnels or galleries (USDA-APHIS. Eucalyptus Angophora lanceolata. WPM (USDA-FS. 1988. Corymbia. Parashorea . logs. FAO. poles/piles. logs. logs. CABI-FC. sawn wood imports of seasoned timber or manufactured wood bark. poles/ piles. USDA-FS. also forest trees (e. AF.conifers: Abies. ZAF AUS AUS AS (CHN. Picea. CABI-FC. 2008) (NZMAF. wood chips. WPM crates. 2007a. 2003. PNG (native). consequences of introduction all high risk High risk potential for importation on Eucalyptus logs Causes severe damage . wood chips. CABI-FC. Pinus (esp. 2008) (AQIS. 2008) (NZMAF.. Agathis robusta. 2008) Phoracantha semipunctata Phoracantha solida Phoracantha tricuspis Plagionotus christophi (USDA-FS. sawn wood. 2003) (FAO. BRA. poles/piles. 2000. KOR) [northeast]) logs logs logs bark. Alnus. poles/ piles. Camellia. Juglans.. USDA-FS. EUR. SAM. Larix. esp.. 2003) (USDA-FS. Cupressus lusitanica. NZMAF. Eucalyptus Corymbia maculata. Fagus. 2007) 227 . SAM.can survive in wood chips 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 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 (NZMAF. 2003. 2003. Citrus. sawn timber. 2003) (Cherepanov. 2001. Syncaepia Angophora intermedia. Magnusson et al. CABI-FC. poles/piles. Corymbia. USDA-APHIS. Larix. multiple fruit trees and vines. sawn wood poles/piles. 2003) (USDA-FS. 2006. poles/ piles. Picea Ceratonia siliqua. Betula) Eucalyptus Anisoptera glabra. 2007. Pasek. 2003. TUR. CABI-FC. 2003) Phlyctaenodes pustulosus Phoracantha acanthocera AUS AUS Casuarina. CHN AUS AS (native) Macrones rufus Monochamus alternatus High risk potential for importation on Eucalyptus logs Monochamus species are the main vectors for pine wilt nematode (B. Abies fabri. NZMAF. 2003) (NZMAF. WPM bark. Araucaria cunninghamii. 2008) Frequently intercepted in USA. Abies. Quercus. Populus. Kawai et al. Ulmus.

Quercus Pathways wood handicrafts.S. 2006. JPN. Piceae. CABI-FC. 2007) (Pasek. CABI-FC. KOR.. BUR. Juglans. Fagus sylvatica. 2007) (NZMAF. charybdis. 2003. 2006. 2007a. 2003) (CABI-FC. 2003. 2003) (NZMAF. delittlei) Gonipterus scutellatus Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae Coleoptera: Curculionidae AUS AUS (native) AUS Eucalyptus Eycalyptus. 2003. 2002. P. poles/piles. APFISN. CABI-FC. CABI-FC. 2000. logs. sawn wood logs Amyema . Quercus. WPM bark of wood logs. Pasek. 2003. sawn wood bamboo. Quercus robur (NZMAF. Hoskovec and Rejzek. WPM wood handicrafts. Hua. cricket bats). AS (western) AUS IND. 2007. complete defoliation of palms may result. AS Eucalyptus Over 20 species of palm. INBAR. NPL. LKA. sawn wood. USDA-FS. Picea. BRA. wood handicrafts. atomaria. can cause tree mortality Chrysophtharta agricola Chrysophtharta bimaculata Paropsis spp. untreated timber (poles. USDA-APHIS. poles/ piles. poles/ piles. Ficus religiosa Acacia dealbata. USDA-FS. 2008. USDA-APHIS. Picea. NZMAF. Kimoto and Duthie-Holt. logs. Eucalyptus 350 species of seasoned hardwoods and conifers. P. 2003) (CAB. bark. WPM poles/piles. sawn wood. poles/piles. WPM bark. occasionally hardwoods High risk potential for importation on Eucalyptus logs Intercepted in Canada and U. 2003) (FAO. 2003. where an attack is severe. 2008) (Magnusson et al. SAM (ARG. Eucalyptus. NZL (native). MDG.. AF EUR. Corymbia gummifera. CHL. WPM bark. 2003. unprocessed logs. Pinus. conveyances. 2000. Pinus Abies. 2000. stems bark. incl. Abies. logs. Acer. manufactured wood (furniture. EUR (west). USDA-FS. Gahnia grandia. 2008) (USDA-FS. sawn wood (NZMAF. NRCAN. AS. 2007b. CABI-FC. including Cocos nucifera High risk potential for importation on Eucalyptus logs Potentially the most serious pest of coconut palms. MUS. WPM wood handicrafts. USA (CA). AQIS. THA AS AUS IND. wood chips. PNG (native). piles). Hua. 2007) (NZMAF. 2008) 228 . TZA CHN AUS AS. Larix. 2007) (Pasek. P. 2003) (USDA-FS. 2001. EUR (native) Eurasia (native) CAN (NS) Hosts Hardwoods. sawn wood movement of infested palms Xylotrechus grayi Xylotrechus magnicollis Zygocera canosa Brontispa longissima Coleoptera: Cerambycidae Coleoptera: Cerambycidae Coleoptera: Cerambycidae Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae CHN. attacks teak (Tectona grandis) Comments One of the most common longhorn beetles of central Europe High risk potential for importation on Eucalyptus logs Serious pest of logged wood References (Pasek.Species Pyrrhidium sanguineum Scolecobrotus westwoodi Stromatiium barbatum Order: Family Coleoptera: Cerambycidae Coleoptera: Cerambycidae Coleoptera: Cerambycidae Distribution EUR. prolonged attack may result in tree death High risk potential for importation on Eucalyptus logs High risk potential for importation on Eucalyptus logs High risk potential for importation on Eucalyptus logs Major defoliator of Eucalyptus species. 2008) Stromatium longicorne Tessaromma undatum Tetropium castaneum Tetropium fuscum Coleoptera: Cerambycidae Coleoptera: Cerambycidae Coleoptera: Cerambycidae Coleoptera: Cerambycidae Canarium album. PAK. esp. 2008) (NZMAF. poles/piles. AF (north). 1985. Larix. 2008) Hylobius abietis Coleoptera: Curculionidae AUS. 2000. and Pinus. USDA-APHIS. sawn wood bark. Nothofagus cuninghamii Eucalyptus bark. Nothofagus moorei Hardwoods & conifers. URY). foliage. sawn wood bark. Larix. NZL Eucalyptus Betula pendula. 2007. 2003. 2008) (FAO. (incl. 2002. USDA-APHIS.

AL) (Haack. Eucalyptus Polyphagous High risk potential for importation on Eucalyptus logs (USDA-FS. WPM WPM logs. Haack. sawn timber. Picea. sawn timber. LA. USA. 2003) (Brockerhoff et al. poles/piles. Bugwood. WPM Comments References (NZMAF. PRI. Chamaecyparis lawsoniana. FL) (Haack et al. 2008) (Brockerhoff et al. MO. AS. Pinus Pathways bark. Corymbia. FL. Pinus halepensis Abies pinaspo. GRC. 2006) Ambrosiodmus apicalis Ambrosiodmus compressus Arixyleborus rugosipes Carphoborus minimus Coccotrypes carpophagus High risk potential for importation on Eucalyptus logs (USDA-FS. incl. EUR (west) AUS AUS (native).Species Hylobius pales Pissodes nemorensis Order: Family Coleoptera: Curculionidae Coleoptera: Curculionidae Coleoptera: Curculionidae 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 Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae Distribution CAN. 1998. 2000. 1994. sawn timber.. poles/piles. WPM WPM Intercepted in Gulf States (AL) (Bright and Skidmore. Larix. incl. others) USA (FL. Pseudotsuga Ficus logs. 2007a. 2003. FL) Intercepted in Gulf States (LA. NZL AUS (native). P. VIR) AUS (native). Pinus pinaster Intercepted in Gulf States (LA. CAR (BMU. Haack. 2006) (Brockerhoff et al. Piceae. 1996. mungo. TX) Intercepted in Gulf States (TX) (Bright and Skidmore. 1997. 1995. PaDIL. Pinus Cedrus. including P. Haack. NY. IL. Haack. 2008) (NZMAF. FL. PRT) EUR (ESP. FAO. Brockerhoff et al. USA (FL. ESP. ITA. CABI-FC. Haack. Pinus. EUR. GRD. FL) Intercepted in Gulf States (TX. nursery stock. ITA) Hosts Juniperus virginiana. sawn timber. Brockerhoff et al. 1985. 2008) Potential vector of Fusarium circinatum Pissodes pini Amasa truncatus Pinus. Bright and Skidmore. NC.. especially Sabal palmetto Intercepted in Gulf States (LA. 2001) Pinus halepensis 229 . sawn timber. 2003. ZAF RUS. CABI-FC. 2006. TUR) AF (native).. EST. Juniperus communis. breeds in seeds of palms. 2001) (Diamantoglou and Banilas. Pasek. Atkinson and Peck. OH. Picea. FRA. 2001) (Brockerhoff et al. sylvestris Angophora intermedia. logs. VA) (native). EUR (ESP. Larix. Populus. Salix fragilis Conifers. 2006) Coptodryas eucalyptica Cryphalus asperatus Polyphagous Conifers & hardwoods. JAM. 2006) Cryphalus wapleri Crypturgus cinereus Crypturgus mediterraneus Crypturgus numidicus Abies pectinata. sawn wood WPM logs logs. 2008) (Kulinich and Orlinskii. WPM WPM WPM WPM Intercepted in Gulf States (LA. sawn wood bark. LVA) WPM logs. incl. Eucalyptus Polyphagous Polyphagous.. Christmas trees. NZL EUR (AUT. Abies. P. DEU. GBR. 2001. WPM logs. 2006) Pinus sylvestris Polyphagous. RUS) EUR (ESP. NZL PHL (native) EUR (ITA. NND. LA. ESP. strobus. BEL. 1997. 2001) (Lombardero. sawn timber. PRT). CUB. 2003. Picea. Abies. 2006) (Bright. NZL EUR (DEU.. 1997.. 2001) Cryphalus piceae EUR (FRA.. OK. ITA) AUS (native). WPM logs.

ITA) AS (native). Tilia. Carpinus. USDA-APHIS. Brockerhoff et al. Ophiostoma spp. AF (north) (native). WPM logs. AF (north) (native). sawn timber. 2001. Mudge et al. 2000. 2001. 2007.. AF AS. sawn wood. Cedrela odorata. FRA. 2003) (Haack.. ITA. FL. EUR. ESP. WPM (Brockerhoff et al... CABI-FC. Persea americana. GBR. Brockerhoff et al. may vector root diseases (e. Ulmus. FL) Colonized old growth forests in Central America . EUR.g. Populus. Pinus Hylastes attenuatus Hylastes cunicularius Hylastes linearis Pinus pinaster Frequently intercepted in New Zealand. NZMAF. TX. 2001. 2008) Euwallacea validus AS. Sousa et al. BRA EUR (BEL. 2001. Quercus Frequently intercepted in New Zealand.. SD). WPM furniture. 2001. CABI-FC. WPM WPM WPM logs. TX) Picea abies Pinus 230 . 2006) (Haack. USDA-APHIS. sawn wood bark. Chamaecyparis lawsoniana. 2001. Nair. AL) Intercepted in Gulf States (AL. 2008) (Haack. 2007. Juglans. 2007a) (Haack. Pinus Populus. 2002) (Haack. sawn wood. Chamaecyparis. incl. CABI-FC. Prunus. FL) Intercepted in Gulf States (FL. Larix decidua. 2001. wood chips.. 2003. Quercus. 2006. 2003. 2001. CAM (CRI. 2003. NZMAF. Acer. Platanus racemosa. WPM logs. 2008) Pinus Picea. DEU. OCE. CABI-FC. ITA) AS. Alnus rubra. 2006) Abies alba. Haack. sawn timber. WPM Intercepted in USA (Magnusson et al. EUR (west) AS. logs. Reay et al. Phellodendron. Fagus. Castanea. intercepted in Gulf States (TX. MD. Tsuga Pinus Gnathotrichus materiarius Hylastes angustanus Hylastes ater Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae CAR (DOM) USA (OR.. wood chips. 2008) Acer negundo. CHN EUR (ESP. sawn timber. FAO. Picea bark.scolytine bark and ambrosia beetles seem to be the exception to the rule that interior. sawn timber. NAM. EUR. 2001) (Haack. Brockerhoff et al. wood handicrafts. NY. EUR (native). wood handicrafts. NZMAF. Camellia sinensis. caribaea) Pathways bark. PA) Hardwoods & conifers. AF. FL) Intercepted in Gulf States (FL. AL) Intercepted in Gulf States (AL. 2008. poles/piles.. 2006. Robinia pseudoacacia. Dalbergia. Brockerhoff et al. Tectona grandis Polyphagous Euwallacea valida Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae AS (native) logs. USA (LA. intercepted in Gulf States (TX. WPM bark. PRT). CAM (native) USA (Gulf States. Abies. 2003. LA. Gmelina arborea. WPM logs. sawn timber. 2007. CAM (CRI). 2006) (Pasek. DEU. PAN). Brockerhoff et al.. sawn wood bark. poles/piles. 2006) (Kirkendall and Ødegaard. WPM Comments Most damaging insect to pine forests in Central America References (NZMAF. USA (CA. NZL. ZAF Pinus. Cognato.Species Dendroctonus frontalis Dendroctonus terebrans Dryocoetes autographus Dryocoetes villosus Euwallacea fornicatus Order: Family Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae Distribution USA (south). Brockerhoff et al. USA (HI). 2008) (NZMAF. FL) Hosts Pinus (including P. 2003..). FAO. species-rich ecosystems are immune to exotic pests Intercepted in NZ on WPM from China and Japan Intercepted in USA (Haack. 2007. 2001. AUS. sawn timber. wood chips.. 2001. ZAF EUR (BEL. Pinus. OK) AS. poles/piles. AF (north) (native).. FRA. poles/piles. old growth.

NH. fallen or dying trees Intercepted in Gulf States (FL. Jacobs et al. AF (north) (native) EUR (ITA) EUR (BEL. 2001. Ahamed et al. 2001. 2002.. 2007) Hylesinus varius Fraxinus Hylurgops glabratus Hylurgops palliatus Hylurgus ligniperda Picea abies Picea abies Pinus Hypothenemus africanus Cecropria scrap wood and firewood logs. caribaea) Ips apache Ips cembrae Larix. Brockerhoff et al. WV). 2007. 2006) (Atkinson and Peck. URY).. 2001. DEU. Haack. 2007) (Bright.. VIR) Subtropics/tropics (native). WPM Hypothenemus birmanus Hypothenemus brunneus Hypothenemus hampei Polyphagous Wide variety of hosts Coffea Ips acuminatus Pinus sylvestris Not yet in Puerto Rico devastating for coffee plantations. AS. CAN.. USA (PA) EUR. NZL. WPM logs. Mudge et al. CAR (JAM.. intercepted in Gulf States (FL. Pinus Ips mannsfeldi Pinus 231 . 2007a. USDA-APHIS. de Groot and Poland. WPM Frequently intercepted in New Zealand intercepted in Gulf States (FL) Intercepted in Gulf States (LA. 2005. 2008) (Haack. CAR (JAM. Haack et al. TX) Intercepted in Gulf States (TX) Ips amitinus Picea abies Pinus (including P. 2006) (Guérard et al. CUB) CHN. WPM wood handicrafts.. sawn timber.. Vega et al. intercepted in Gulf States (FL. 2001. piles). 2003. NY. USDA-APHIS. WPM bark. Haack. ITA). 2000. NZMAF. Witrylak. ARG AS. 1998. EUR (ESP. 2001) (Bright. untreated timber (poles. Kohnle. OR. AF (north) (native). RUS AS. 2001. 2001. GBR). Pinus Pathways WPM Comments Intercepted in Gulf States (TX) Hylastes toranio Fraxinus logs. USDA-APHIS. TUR) Hosts Larix decidua. intercepted in USA Intercepted in Gulf States (FL) References (Bright and Skidmore. 2006. 2001. wood handicrafts. DEU. 2008) (FAO. WPM logs. TX) Intercepted in Gulf States (TX) Breeds primarily in slash. GBR. 2001. ITA) EUR (ESP. 2003) (Haack. LA) Hypothenemus species are found in dry and sunny areas. Picea. 2006. 2001. EUR (BEL. 2007) (Haack. WPM with bark wood handicrafts. TX) Intercepted in Gulf States (TX) Beetle vectors several species of root disease fungi in the genus Leptographium. USA (FL). Haack. CHL. Brockerhoff et al. RUS) EUR (central) CAM (BLZ) CHN. CAR (CUB. AF (native to MAR & TUN). ZAF. EUR (BEL. sawn timber. Haack. sawn timber. WPM unseasoned sawn wood. Brockerhoff et al. 2001. USA (NY) CAM (CRI).Species Hylastes opacus Order: Family 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 Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae Distribution BRA. 2006) (Haack. SAM (BRA. FL. LA) Intercepted in Gulf States (LA.. Haack. 1997. ESP. wood handicrafts. 1994) (Haack. Haack. USDAAPHIS. WPM wood handicrafts. AUS. USA (ME. USDA-APHIS.. JAM) USA (FL) CAM (native). WPM WPM wood handicrafts. 2007) (Haack. Jordal and Kirkendall.. 2006) (Haack. 1985. 1985. 2007) (Haack. Brockerhoff et al. FAO. broken. 2001. 2003. Atkinson and Peck. 2006) (Brockerhoff et al. sawn timber. sawn wood. 2003. 2001. EUR. USDAAPHIS. ITA. breed in dead twigs along forest edges.. FRA. WPM ? logs. 1994. 2004.

Rodríguez et al. Brockerhoff et al. 2006. Pinus (incl. WPM logs. FJI AS. sawn timber. sawn timber. USA (CA). AL) Intercepted in Gulf States (FL. 2001. NZMAF. Picea. WPM WPM WPM logs.. 2006) (Haack. Brockerhoff et al. 2006) (Haack. Haack. EST. LA) Frequently intercepted in New Zealand Frequently intercepted in New Zealand and United States. WPM WPM logs. can attack healthy trees in an outbreak Frequently intercepted in New Zealand and United States Frequently intercepted in New Zealand.Species Ips sexdentatus Order: Family 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 Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae Distribution AS. TX. LA) Intercepted in Gulf States (FL) Frequently intercepted in New Zealand. 2006) (NZMAF. 2007. JPN AS. AF (north) (native). Haack. Lee et al. 2003. 2001. USDA-APHIS. sawn timber. 2001. sawn timber. piles). 2001. CABIFC. 2006. CHN AS.. ITA) AS. Haack. 2008) (Haack. Picea. NZMAF. CABI-FC. 2006. sawn wood. 2001. 2006) (Haack. wood handicrafts. Brockerhoff et al. 2001.. EUR (south) AS. 2006. Haack. TUR) EUR (ESP. 1997. Pinus. WPM logs. Brockerhoff et al.. GBR) AS (native). WPM logs. sawn timber. Cedrus.. EUR. 2008) (Haack. Brockerhoff et al. TX) Intercepted in Gulf States (FL. AQIS. 2001. NZL. sawn wood.. PAN AS (native) EUR (BEL). Bugwood. USA NAM (native). piles). radiata) Damaged and healthy softwoods and timber (with bark) Ips typographus EUR. AUS.. 2008) (Mendel et al. MDG. logs. EUR (native). 2001. GBR. 2001. 2007) (Brockerhoff et al. WPM bark. JAM Orthotomicus angulatus Orthotomicus erosus Pinus. FRA. intercepted in Gulf States (FL. EUR. Tsuga Pathways bark. 2006) Abies.. MDG EUR (DEU. EUR (native). TX) Intercepted in Gulf States (TX. ZAF. Pasek. LA) References (Haack. CHN. USDA-APHIS. AF (north) (native). 2006) (Brockerhoff et al. 2003) (Haack. wood handicrafts. 2005. 1991. untreated timber (poles. 2001.. Pseudotsuga Orthotomicus laricis Orthotomicus proximus Orthotomicus suturalis Phloeosinus armatus Phloeosinus cupressi Phloeosinus perlatus Phloeosinus rudis Picea. sawn timber. RUS (east) AS (native). WPM Comments Intercepted in Gulf States (FL. Pinus sylvestris. TX) Frequently intercepted in New Zealand and United States (Brockerhoff et al. 2008) (Brockerhoff et al... Pinus Pinus Conifers 232 . P. FRA.. WPM bark. Haack. FL. WPM WPM WPM logs. EUR (native) Hosts Abies. 2006. sawn timber. USA EUR (ESP. wood handicrafts.. untreated timber (poles. 2001) (Haack. 2006) (CRFG. 2006) (Haack. JPN. Pinus Pinus Conifers: Picea abies. WPM logs. 2000. KOR. 2003. FJI AS. sawn timber. ITA. FRA. Brockerhoff et al. WPM logs. sawn timber. 2003. EUR (native). wood handicrafts. intercepted in Gulf States (TX) Intercepted in Gulf States (AL. and others Conifers Cupressus Conifers Conifers Frequently intercepted in New Zealand Intercepted in Gulf States (TX. 2007) Phloeotribus scarabaeoides Pityogenes bidentatus Pityogenes bistridentatus Pityogenes calcaratus Pityogenes chalcographus Olea europaea Pinus Larix. Bugwood.

NZMAF. AF (north) (native). occas. LA) Intercepted in Gulf States (TX) Could be a problem for native fir species in Central America. Picea. WPM 233 . CABI-FC. MEX. AL) Intercepted in Gulf States (LA.. Picea Conifers Pathways WPM WPM logs. ZAF FIN. sawn timber. GBR. Brockerhoff et al. 2006) Hardwoods. Kimoto and Duthie-Holt. Pinus strobus. EUR (native) EUR (BEL. ITA. 2001. WPM bark. 2001) (Haack. WPM bark. NLD) AS. Betula. untreated timber (poles. 2001. wood chips. intercepted in Gulf States (LA) Intercepted in Gulf States (TX. DEU. Brockerhoff et al. Larix. 2008) (Haack. NZMAF. 2008) (Haack. USDA-APHIS. 2006) (Haack. 2001. incl. Frangula. AL) Frequently intercepted in New Zealand. AF Hosts Conifers: Pinus (P. logs. 2001. FL) Intercepted in Gulf States (LA. Padus. Abies. Quercus. Ulmus Scolytus intricatus Scolytus kirschii Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae EUR (south & central). Larix. incl. PRT. NLD) EUR (BEL. 2001. Salix. Corylus. 2001. Tilia. 2003. ZAF EUR (AUT. 2007. 2008) (Haack. Bugwood. WPM WPM (Haack. intercepted in Gulf States (LA) Infestations can kill elm trees. sylvestris Picea abies Ulmus Hardwoods. CABI-FC. Fagus. WPM WPM WPM bark. AF (north) (native) Ulmus timber (FAO. novoulmi Intercepted in Gulf States (LA) References (Haack.Species Pityogenes quadridens Pityogenes trepanatus Pityokteines curvidens Pityokteines spinidens Pityophthorus pityographus Polygraphus poligraphus Polygraphus subopacus Pteleobius vittatus Order: Family 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 Distribution EUR (ESP. 2003. logs. 2001. 2003. Bugwood. Bugwood. EUR. Aesculus. could vector Ceratocystis fagacearum more effectively than the current vector if it were to enter North America. 2001) (Haack. FRA. 2007a. TUR) EUR (LTU) AS. Castanea. intercepted in Gulf States (LA) (Haack. ARG. 2008) Abies Abies Hardwoods & conifers. Abies. Brockerhoff et al. CAN. Bugwood. Larix. FRA. 2006) (Haack. the beetles also vector Ophiostoma ulmi and O.. PaDIL. 2006. 2002) (Haack. sylvestris). FRA. RUS. occas. RUS) EUR (DEU. UKR AS. LTU. AL. PER. WPM WPM WPM wood handicrafts. EUR. intercepted in Gulf States (TX) Intercepted in Gulf States (TX.. sawn timber. DEU. 2001. Mandelshtam. CAM (BRA. 2008) Scolytus ratzeburgi Scolytus rugulosus Betula. 2001. AS (native). Ostrya. incl. 2006) (NZMAF. URY) AS. Pinus Picea abies. Brockerhoff et al. sawn timber. 2008) (Haack. 2001) (Haack. ITA. DEU. Quercus logs. EUR. ARG. wood chips. 2003. Abies. 2008) Scolytus scolytus Ulmus Taphrorychus bicolor Taphrorychus villifrons Frequently intercepted in New Zealand.. NZMAF. sawn wood. piles). wood chips. Fagus. USA. P. Carpinus. FL) Intercepted in Gulf States (TX) Intercepted in Gulf States (FL) Associated with oak decline. Ulmus Hardwoods bark. sawn wood. ITA. EUR (native). Castanea. sawn timber. FIN. WPM Comments Intercepted in Gulf States (FL. 2001. EUR (ITA) EUR (ITA) AS. FIN. RUS) AS.

Species Tomicus minor Tomicus n.sp.

Order: Family 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 Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae

Distribution BRA, ITA, NZL, TUR CHN (native)

Hosts Conifers: Pinus Conifer: Pinus yunnanensis

Pathways wood handicrafts, WPM bark, sawn wood, wood handicrafts, untreated timber, WPM bark, sawn wood, untreated timber (poles, piles), wood handicrafts, WPM wood chips, WPM wood chips, WPM WPM poles/piles, sawn wood WPM

Comments Intercepted in Gulf States (FL) 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) Intercepted in Gulf States (FL)

References (Haack, 2001, USDA-APHIS, 2007) (FAO, 2007b)

Tomicus piniperda

EUR (BEL, ESP, FRA, GBR, ITA), USA (OH) EUR (ITA, TUR) EUR (BEL, DEU, FRA, NLD) 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) AS (IND, BGD, MMR, JPN, TWN) (native), USA (SC, GA) AS (native), USA (TN)

Conifers: Pinus

(Haack, 2001, NZMAF, 2003, Haack, 2006, USDA-APHIS, 2007) (Haack, 2001, Magnusson et al., 2001) (Haack, 2001, Magnusson et al., 2001) (Mudge et al., 2001) (Bright, 1985, NZMAF, 2003, CABI-FC, 2008) (Mudge et al., 2001)

Trypodendron domesticum Trypodendron signatum Xyleborinus alni

Xyleborus affinis

Ceiba pentendra, Dracena fragrans, Juglans nigra, Macadamia integrifolia, Pinus

Xyleborus californicus Xyleborus dispar

Polyphagous - many hardwood species, some pine Pinus, Quercus, Ulmus WPM logs, sawn timber, WPM logs, WPM, wood products firewood/fuelwood, nursery stock, WPM

Xyleborus eurygraphus Xyleborus exiguus

Could be a threat to the Gulf States - APHIS regulated pest list Intercepted in Gulf States (FL, TX) Found in second growth forests in Central America

(CABI-FC, 2008) (Haack, 2001, Cognato, 2008) (Kirkendall and Ødegaard, 2007) (Fraedrich et al., 2008, Koch and Smith, 2008) (ISSG, 2008)

Brosimum utile

Xyleborus glabratus

Persea borbonia, Sassafras albidum and others in Lauraceae Hardwoods, incl. Acer, Camellia, Carpinus, Castanea, Cinnamomum camphora, Fagus, Swetenia macrophylla

Xyleborus mutilatus

234

Species Xyleborus perforans

Order: Family Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae

Distribution AS, EUR, AUS, AF (native), USA (HI), SAM (PER)

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

References (NZMAF, 2003, Brockerhoff et al., 2006, CABI-FC, 2008)

Xyleborus pfeili

Xyleborus saxesenii Xyleborus similis

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: Lyctidae

AF, AS, EUR, NZL, USA (MD, OR) AS, EUR, AF (north) (native), USA, SAM, OCE AS, AUS, PNG (native), AF, USA (TX, HI) EUR AS (native), USA (Gulf States, HI), BRA, CAR (CUB, VIR) AS, PNG (native), AF, USA (Gulf States, HI), WSM, CAM (CRI, PAN) AS (native), USA (SE USA & HI), CRI, AF, IND AS (native), EUR, AF, MEX, SAM, CAM, OCE (some), CAR (PRI) AUS (native), NZL AUS (native), NZL CAN, USA (WA) AUS Hardwoods & conifers, incl. Acacia, Castanea, Cedrela odorata, Cinnamomum verbum, Swietenia; Pinus Calliandra, Castilla elastica, Tectona grandis, Topobea maurofernandeziana Polyphagous, incl. Juglans, Malus Polyphagous Polyphagous Polyphagous

WPM logs, sawn timber, WPM logs, sawn timber, wood handicrafts, WPM WPM Infested seedlings, saplings or cut branches bamboo, bark, logs,sawn timber, untreated timber (poles, piles), wood chips, WPM logs, sawn timber, WPM logs, sawn timber, WPM Invasive in introduced range Invasive in introduced range

(Mudge et al., 2001) (Brockerhoff et al., 2006, CABI, 2007) (Wood, 1960, Brockerhoff et al., 2006, Rabaglia et al., 2006, CABI, 2007, USDA-APHIS, 2007) (Haack, 2001, AlonsoZarazaga, 2004) (Bright, 1985, CABI-FC, 2008)

Xylechinus pilosus

Intercepted in Gulf States (FL) Pest of coffee in Hawaii

Xylosandrus compactus

Xylosandrus crassiusculus

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) (Brockerhoff et al., 2006, CABI-FC, 2008, PaDIL, 2008)

Xylosandrus germanus Xylosandrus morigerus

Invasive in Mexico, South America, Central America, AUS, other parts of Oceania; intercepted in Gulf States (FL, LA)

(Bright, 1985, Haack, 2001, Brockerhoff et al., 2006, CABI, 2007) (Brockerhoff et al., 2006)

Xylosandrus pseudosolidus Xylosandrus solidus Xyloterinus politus Lyctus spp., incl. L. brunneus, L. costatus, L. discenen, L. parallelocollis

Polyphagous

logs, sawn timber, WPM logs, sawn timber, WPM WPM logs High risk potential for importation on Eucalyptus logs High risk potential for importation on Eucalyptus logs

Diploglottis, Eucalyptus

(USDA-FS, 2003, Brockerhoff et al., 2006) (Mudge et al., 2001) (USDA-FS, 2003)

Corymbia, Eucalyptus

235

Species Minthea rugicollis Atractocerus crassicornis Atractocerus kreuslerae Austroplatypus incompertus Crossotarsus externedentatus Platypus australis Platypus subgranosus Platypus tuberculosus Asphondylia tectonae Pineus pini

Order: Family Coleoptera: Lyctidae Coleoptera: Lymexylidae Coleoptera: Lymexylidae Coleoptera: Platypodidae Coleoptera: Platypodidae Coleoptera: Platypodidae Coleoptera: Platypodidae Coleoptera: Platypodidae Diptera: Cecidomyiidae Hemiptera: Adelgidae Hemiptera: Aphididae Hemiptera: Diaspididae Hemiptera: Diaspididae Hemiptera: Eriococcidae Hemiptera: Kerriidae

Distribution AUS AUS AUS AUS KIR AUS AUS AUS IND (native) EUR (native), AF, CHN, IND, USA (HI) 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) AUS, NZL AS (IND, LKA) (native), USA (FL), CAR

Hosts Corymbia, Eucalyptus Eucalyptus Corymbia calophylla, Eucalyptus Corymbia gummifera, Eucalyptus Eucalyptus, Swietenia macrophylla Eucalyptus saligna Eucalyptus nitens, Nothofagus cunninghamii Eucalyptus Tectona grandis

Pathways poles/piles, sawn wood logs logs bark, logs, poles/ piles, sawn wood poles/piles, sawn wood logs bark, logs, poles/ piles, sawn wood logs

Comments 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

References (NZMAF, 2003, USDA-FS, 2003) (USDA-FS, 2003) (USDA-FS, 2003) (NZMAF, 2003, USDA-FS, 2003) (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 One of the few insects recorded as pests in naturally regenerated teak forests Feeds on the shoots of Pinus spp. - causes tip dieback Nominated as "among 100 of the world's worst invaders"

(USDA-FS, 2003) (NZMAF, 2003, USDA-FS, 2003, CABI-FC, 2008) (USDA-FS, 2003) (FAO, 2007c) (Culliney et al., 1988, FAO, 2007c, Nair, 2007, CABI-FC, 2008) (FAO, 2007e, IUFRO, 2007, ISSG, 2008) (CABI 2007, Bishop 1994)

Pinus caribaea, P. elliotti, P. taeda, P. patula Conifers: Chamaecyparis, Cupressocyparis, Cupressus, Juniperus, Thuja Conifers, incl. Abies, Cedrus, Pinus Pinus, including P. caribaea, P. elliotti, P. taeda, P. thunbergii

bark, foliage, planting stock, seedlings, stems nursery stock

Cinara cupressivora

Chionaspis pinifoliae

Christmas trees and greenery bark, conveyances, infested plants, logs bark plants, twigs, and small branches Considered to have an especially high potential for further spread, into the Caribbean Islands, Hawaii, etc. - "invasion of natural areas is of paramount concern" This is an important alien invasive species in China heavy infestations can kill pine trees within 3-5 years

Hemiberlesia pitysophila

(CABI, 2007, ISSG, 2008)

Eriococcus coriaceus Paratachardina pseudolobata

Acacia, Eucalyptus > 150 hosts, many native to Caribbean; Acer, Bambusa, Quercus, etc.; attacks tropical fruit trees, forest trees, landscape trees and shrubs Pinus Fruit trees, forest trees (e.g., Hibiscus elatus, Tectona grandis)

(Ben-Dov and Hodgson, 1997, NZMAF, 2003, CABI-FC, 2008) (Pemberton, 2003, Ben-Dov et al., 2006, Howard et al., 2008, ISSG, 2008)

Matsucoccus matsumurae Maconellicoccus hirsutus

Hemiptera: Margarodidae Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae

CHN, JPN JAM (invasive)

(CABI-FC, 2008) infested fruit; propagative material (Pollard, 1997, Kairo et al., 2003)

236

Species Ctenarytaina eucalypti Glycaspis brimblecombei Quadraspidiotus perniciosus

Order: Family Hemiptera: Psyllidae Hemiptera: Psyllidae Hemiptera: Sternorrhyncha: Coccidae

Distribution AUS (native), BRA 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 USA, CAN

Hosts Eucalyptus Eucalyptus Hardwoods, incl. Aesculus, Alnus, Betula, Celtis, Fagus, Fraxinus, Populus

Pathways bark nursery plants attacks wood, can also be found on leaves and fruits

Comments

References (NZMAF, 2003, Nair, 2007) (NZMAF, 2003, CABI-FC, 2008) (FAO, 2007c, CABI-FC, 2008)

Could also move on bark Quarantine pest in different parts of the world - impacts trade, when new in a country can attack and kill whole trees and plantations Newly described species currently spreading around the Mediterranean Basin and Africa

Leptocybe invasa

Hymenoptera: Eulophidae Hymenoptera: Formicidae

Eucalyptus

foliage, nursery stock

(FAO, 2007c, EPPO, 2008)

Camponotus pennsylvanicus

Hardwoods & conifers, incl. Carya, Populus tremuloides, Ulmus; Abies balsamea, Juniperus, Pinus strobus, P. rigida, Pseudotsuga menziesii, Thuja plicata Conifers, incl. Abies, Larix, Picea, Pinus Hardwoods Conifers: Abies, Larix, Picea, Pinus) - recently cut, fallen or weakened trees, green timber

bark, containers, sawn wood, untreated timber, WPM

(AQIS, 2007)

Sirex noctilio

Hymenoptera: Siricidae Hymenoptera: Siricidae Hymenoptera: Siricidae Hymenoptera: Xiphydriidae Isoptera: Kalotermitidae Isoptera: Kalotermitidae Isoptera: Kalotermitidae

NZL, AUS, SAM, ZAF, USA (NY, MI, PA) EUR, AS (native), CHN, AUS AS, EUR, USA, CAN, RUS EUR (west), RUS, USA (MI, NJ, OR) AUS AUS USA (FL, HI), CAM, CAR, AUS

poles/piles, sawn wood, unprocessed logs, WPM wood and wood products, WPM pine logs, sawn timber, untreated timber (poles/piles), WPM WPM logs logs bamboo, bark, sawn wood, untreated timber (poles, piles), wood chips

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)

Tremex fuscicornis Urocerus gigas

Xiphydria prolongata Bifiditermes condonensis Ceratokalotermes spoliator Cryptotermes brevis

(Mudge et al., 2001) 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) (USDA-FS, 2003) (NZMAF, 2003, USDA-FS, 2003, CABI-FC, 2008)

Eucalyptus Eucalyptus Seasoned hardwoods & conifers, including P. caribaea and species within Aceraceae, Fagacae, Oleaceae, Tiliaceae, Ulmaceae, Cupressaceae, and Pinaceae Seasoned hardwoods and softwoods Seasoned hardwoods and softwoods

Cryptotermes cynocephalus Cryptotermes domesticus

Isoptera: Kalotermitidae Isoptera: Kalotermitidae

AUS, USA (HI), AS (south & southeast) AUS

logs, poles/piles, sawn wood logs

High risk potential for importation on Eucalyptus logs High risk potential for importation on Eucalyptus logs

(Scheffrahn et al., 2000, NZMAF, 2003, USDA-FS, 2003) (USDA-FS, 2003)

237

Species Cryptotermes dudleyi

Order: Family Isoptera: Kalotermitidae Isoptera: Kalotermitidae Isoptera: Kalotermitidae

Distribution AUS, CAM (NIC)

Hosts Seasoned hardwoods and softwoods

Pathways logs

Glyptotermes tuberculatus Incisitermes minor

AUS USA, MEX, CAN

Eucalyptus Drywood

logs bamboo, bark, poles/ piles, sawn wood, shipping containers, timber, yachts, wood chips logs logs logs, poles/piles, sawn wood sawn wood, poles/piles, logs logs, poles/piles, sawn wood logs, WPM

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)

Kalotermes banksiae Kalotermes rufinotum Neotermes insularis Mastotermes darwiniensis Coptotermes acinaciformis Coptotermes crassus

Isoptera: Kalotermitidae Isoptera: Kalotermitidae Isoptera: Kalotermitidae Isoptera: Mastotermitidae Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae

AUS AUS AUS AUS AUS MEX, CAM (NIC)

Eucalyptus Eucalyptus Eucalyptus Eucalyptus, Pinus caribaea Eucalyptus pilularis, Pinus radiata Hardwoods & conifers, incl. Cedrela odorata, Ceiba pentandra, Eucalyptus, Gmelina arborea, Mangifera indica, Quercus, Swietenia macrophylla; Pinus maximino, P. oocarpa Hardwoods & conifers, incl. Cocos nucifera, Ficus elastica, Gmelina arborea, Mangifera indica; Pinus caribaea 50+ spp. of hardwoods & conifers, incl. Citrus, Quercus; Cupressus Eucalyptus

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 Attacks living trees; high risk potential for importation on Eucalyptus logs Pest species in Nicaragua; high risk potential for importation on Pinus logs

(USDA-FS, 2003) (USDA-FS, 2003) (NZMAF, 2003, USDA-FS, 2003) (NZMAF, 2003, USDA-FS, 2003) (NZMAF, 2003, USDA-FS, 2003, CABI-FC, 2008) (Constantino, 1998, USDA-FS, 1998, Pasek, 2000, Scheffrahn et al., 2005)

Coptotermes curvignathus

Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae

AS (IND, MYS, THA, VNM) (native)

bamboo, bark, logs, poles/piles, sawn wood, wood chips, WPM bamboo, bark, containers, sawn wood, untreated timber (poles, piles) logs, poles/piles, sawn wood logs logs, poles/piles, sawn wood

Pest of quarantine concern in China, New Zealand & Australia; can attack living trees Attacks living trees

(NZMAF, 2003, CABI-FC, 2008)

Coptotermes formosanus

Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae

AS, ZAF, USA (including HI) AUS AUS AF (native), CAR (GLP)

(Lai et al., 1983, NZMAF, 2003, AQIS, 2007) (NZMAF, 2003, USDA-FS, 2003, CABI-FC, 2008) (USDA-FS, 2003) (NZMAF, 2003, CABI-FC, 2008)

Coptotermes frenchi Coptotermes lacteus Coptotermes sjostedti

Eucalyptus Hardwoods, incl. Autranella congolensis, Entandrophragma cylindricum, E. utile, Triplochiton scleroxylon Eucalyptus, any hardwood or softwood

Attacks living trees; high risk potential for importation on Eucalyptus logs High risk potential for importation on Eucalyptus logs Attacks living trees

Heterotermes ferox

Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae

AUS

logs, poles/piles, sawn wood

High risk potential for importation on Eucalyptus logs

(NZMAF, 2003, USDA-FS, 2003)

238

sawn wood Eucalyptus Hardwoods & conifers. timber. sawn wood Comments 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 References (NZMAF. Malvaceae. turneri) Nasutitermes costalis Nasutitermes exitiosis Porotermes adamsonii Order: Family Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae Isoptera: Termitidae Distribution AUS AUS AUS AUS Hosts Eucalyptus Eucalyptus. Ceratopetalum apetalum. M. Araucaria cunninghamii. sawn wood bark. 2003) (NZMAF. 2003. Spathodea. Crataegus. 2008) (FAO. USDA-FS. Terminalia. USA (FL) AUS AUS Gmelina arborea shipping containers logs. 2007a. 2003. USDA-FS. 2003) Chilecomadia valdiviana Coryphodema tristis Lepidoptera: Cossidae Lepidoptera: Cossidae CHL ZAF (native) logs fruits. Gmelina. Myoporaceae. 2008) Endoxyla cinereus Endoxyla spp. viticulture Wood-boring insect with a wide range of hosts (forest trees. Duabanga. CABI-FC. Nair. logs.Species Heterotermes paradoxus Schedorhinotermes intermedius Schedorhinotermes reticulatus Microcerotermes spp.bores into the heartwood of teak where it causes significant damage Larvae tunnel into the heartwood of living trees . 2001. Coffea. GUY (native). M. 2003. Myrtaceae. Acalypha. roots. Eucalyptus Eucalyptus On saplings. FAO. Eucalyptus. Vitaceae Eucalyptus Eucalyptus Callicarpa. Pinus radiata Eucalyptus. Theobroma. nervosus. sawn wood logs High risk potential for importation on Eucalyptus logs High risk potential for importation on Eucalyptus logs (Tkacz. USDA-FS. any hardwood or softwood Eucalyptus Eucalyptus Pathways logs. M. 2003) (USDA-FS. incl. 2003. USDA-FS. Ulmaceae. poles/ piles. Clerodendrum. Rosaceae. 2002. 2003) 239 . Xyleutes ceramicus Lepidoptera: Cossidae Lepidoptera: Cossidae Lepidoptera: Cossidae AUS AUS AS logs logs bark. (incl. poles/piles. Nothofagus allisandri Hardwoods. boreus. 2003) (USDA-FS.degrade value of timber bark. incl. sawn wood (USDA-FS. ornamentals. Psidium. Tectona grandis. Eucalyptus and species within Combretaceae.. sawn wood logs logs poles/piles. 2003) (USDA-FS. poles/piles. Nothofagus cunninghamii. first termitid recorded established outside of its endemic range High risk potential for importation on Eucalyptus logs Listed as having a high risk potential for importation on Eucalyptus logs (Scheffrahn et al. Eucalyptus. 2003. Nair. poles/ piles. 2007d) Abantiades latipennis Aenetus eximius AUS AUS (NZMAF. vines). 2003) (USDA-FS. particularly damaging in Eucalyptus plantations High risk potential for importation on Eucalyptus logs High risk potential for importation on Eucalyptus logs Considered "teak's worst and least understood pest" . 2003) (NZMAF. 2008) Zeuzera coffeae Lepidoptera: Cossidae Lepidoptera: Hepialidae Lepidoptera: Hepialidae AS (THA) (native) (FAO. implicatus. incl. Casuarina. CABI-FC. USDA-FS. Sesbania. Vitex parviflora Hardwoods. M. distinctus. 2003) (NZMAF. poles/piles. M. 2003. 2007d. Erythrina. 2007) (NZMAF. 2007. 2003) Isoptera: Termitidae Isoptera: Termitidae Isoptera: Termopsidae CAR. Citrus. logs. Scorphulariaceae. PaDIL.

2007b) (FAO. 2003) Aenetus paradiseus Dendrolimus pini Dendrolimus punctatus Dendrolimus sibiricus Dendrolimus tabulaeformis Lymantria dispar Lepidoptera: Hepialidae Lepidoptera: Lasiocampidae Lepidoptera: Lasiocampidae Lepidoptera: Lasiocampidae Lepidoptera: Lasiocampidae Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae AUS AS. AF (MAR) CHN (native) CHN (native) CHN (native) CHN (native). KOR. Acacia. incl. Ulmus. radiata. Salix. shipping containers. ships bark. Theobroma Many . CABI-FC. CABI-FC. 2003. Eucalyptus. Cydomia. additional hosts within Fagaceae. PAK) (native) cargo. Ulmus Eucalyptus Cedrus deodora. Leptospermum. egg masses on forest products. Ficus. FAO. treated wood. nursery stock bark. CAM.urban ornamental plants Hardwoods. Rosaceae. Robinia. Quercus. JPN. 2008. CABI-FC. trees may be killed if they are defoliated for more than one year. Tsuga Pinus Foliage of 600 plant species. untreated wood. Larix.Species Aenetus ligniveren Order: Family Lepidoptera: Hepialidae Distribution AUS Hosts Hardwoods. intercepted in Europe (FAO. fruits and seeds of host plants. forest products. Ulmus. Swietenia. 2003. in China. Rubus idaeus. incl. logs material infested with egg masses forest products. incl. Tabebuia ? Causes significant damage to stems. or fruit (AQIS. Picea. incl. logs. Quercus. Prunus. Salix. Betulaceae. 2007. Juglans. Juniperus. 2007) (NZMAF. Salicaceae. 2007b) (FAO. MUS Pinus caribaea Carapa. (hardwood & conifer) incl. nursery stock. 2007) Major pest of forest and fruit trees in India. sawn wood females lay eggs on bark. Alnus. Abies. Castanea. JPN. nursery stock containers. forest products. 2008) Orgyia thyellina Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae Lepidoptera: Noctuidae Lepidoptera: Pyralidae CHN. 2007b) Dioryctria horneana Hypsipyla grandella Lepidoptera: Pyralidae Lepidoptera: Pyralidae CAR (CUB) USA (FL). AS. USA bark. RUS (east) AS (IND. Shorea robusta. and Oleaceae Hardwoods & conifers. THA AUS AS (CHN) (native) Uraba lugens Conogethes punctiferalis Eucalyptus delegatensis Hardwoods & conifers. 1992. Pinus. nursery stock forest products. poles/piles. Morus. ships bark. 2007) (CATIE. FAO. intercepted in USA (CABI-FC. sawn wood infested plants. 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 (Nair. EUR. CAR. 2007b) Lymantria mathura Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae IND (native). Macadamia. RUS (east). Pyrus. WPM High risk potential for importation on Eucalyptus logs (NZMAF. P. shipping containers. Durio. Cedrela. Populus. Acer. Malus pumila. poles/ piles. Eucalyptus. Pinus. logs with bark (AQIS. Quercus. foliage. incl. USDA-FS. incl. serious forest pest in China (FAO. massoniana. 2008) Major pest in pine plantations in central and southern China Is able to attack and kill healthy trees across wide areas Causes significant defoliation of both natural and planted forests Destructive defoliator of a wide range of broadleaf trees. RUS (east). KOR. seeds. Prunus. conveyances. Mangifera indica. 2003) (Bugwood. Betula. 2007b) (AQIS. 2007e) 240 . Pinus Conifers: Pinus (incl. Rosa. Larix. P. Populus.urban/forest Pathways logs Comments High risk potential for importation on Eucalyptus logs References (USDA-FS. Larix Hardwoods. 2007c. Juglandacear. 2008) Lymantria monacha Lymantria obfuscata Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae EUR. taeda) Conifers. P. Picea. 2008) (FAO. Pinus cargo. RUS Serious defoliator in its native range. Melaleuca. Quercus.

2008) 241 . 2008) (AQIS. FAO-RAP.threat to Greater Caribbean Region (ISSG. equisitifolia in India A problem in Pinus and Eucalyptus plantations in native range (USDA-FS. roots. GMB) AUS. bananas natural spread. CAN. MUS AUS Hosts Cedrella..Species Hypsipyla robusta Order: Family Lepidoptera: Pyralidae Distribution AS (south & southeast). Pinus Cedrus deodora High risk potential for importation on Eucalyptus logs (USDA-FS. CABI-FC. CABI-FC. THA). VNM ZAF (native) AS (IND. 2003) (USDA-FS. stems. CABI-FC. Cersis. 2003) (FAO. high risk potential for importation on Eucalyptus logs (USDA-FS. other Gulf States). 2006) Phacidium coniferarum Helotiales: Phacidiaceae bark. ZAF. Toona ciliata Pathways ? Didymuria violescens Phasmatodea: Phasmatidae Eucalyptus bark. CABI-FC. 2007e. Liquidambar. 2008) MITES Raoiella indica Acari: Tenuipalpidae IND (native). 2003) (AQIS. incl. stems. MUS. VNM. 2007c) (FAO. wood bark. people Introduced into the Caribbean islands . sawn wood. 2003) (USDA-FS. THA. WA). mahogany shoot borers are the main hindrance to the expansion of mahogany throughout the tropics Periodic outbreaks occur in Australia. nursery stock. Swietenia. Citrus. MUS. CAM (HON. NIC). Khaya. AF (west & east). WPM (NZMAF. IDN. CABI-FC. Eucalyptus Corymbia maculata. 2007) Causal agent for botryosphaeria rot (bot rot or white rot). OR. Cornus. Laurus nobilis Corymbia. Prunus. Tibouchina bark. 2008) Subramanianospor a vesiculosa Armillaria fuscipes IND (native). 2007) (NZMAF. Malus. Ulmus. sawn wood. 2003. IDN. poles/piles. wood timber. Gaultheria shallon. Eucalyptus. 2007a. TTO. Nair. USA (FL. USA (MA. wood chips (NZMAF. AF (KEN) AUS AF (KEN. 2005. Syzygium. Tilia. CAR (CUB. Tectona grandis. poles/piles. sawn wood Comments Saplings are most susceptible to attack. poles/piles. Eucalyptus Eucalyptus Hardwoods & conifers (100+ genera). BRB) EUR. TZA. e) Hardwoods & conifers: Eucalyptus & Pinus Casuarinaceae bark. ornamentals. orchids. Casuarina equisetifolia (FAO. LKA. 2007c. 2008) FUNGI Calonectria ilicicola Gymnopilus junonius Fistulina spiculifera Omphalotus nidiformis Balansia linearis Chrysoporthe austroafricana Ascomycetes: Nectriaceae Agaricales: Cortinariaceae Agaricales: Fistulinaceae Agaricales: Marasmiaceae Ascomycota: Clavicipitaceae Ascomycota: Cryphonectriaceae Ascomycota: Incertae sedis Basidiomycota: Marasmiaceae Capnodiales: Diaporthales: Valsaceae Dothideales: Mycosphaerellaceae Dothidiales: Botryospheriaceae EUR AUS AUS AUS AS (IND) (native) ZAF Eucalyptus grandis. 2003. Platanus. nursery stock. 2007a. 2003. seeds logs (FAO. 2007) Trichosporum vesiculosum Cryphonectria eucalypti Mycosphaerella juvensis Botryosphaeria ribis Corymbia. 2003. Corymbia. Eucalyptus Corymbia calophylla. wood chips logs logs logs reed bamboo bark. WPM logs bark. palm handicrafts. most destructive disease of C. roots. Eucalyptus Ochlandra Eucalyptus. resulting in defoliation of entire patches or hillsides References (FAO. CAR Palms. Farr et al. AUS. 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.

robustus. Ozoroa. natural spread (with bark beetles) logs logs logs logs logs F. 2003) (USDA-FS. incl. wood bark. Eucalyptus Hardwoods. Ochna. 2008. MEX. rimosus. Terminalia Castanea. 2008) (FAO. 2007) (FAO. 2003. Protea. incl. 2003) (USDA-FS. Theobroma cacao. 2007c..Species Order: Family Distribution NZL AUS AUS AUS AUS AS. 2003) (USDA-FS. wood chips 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 High risk potential for importation on Eucalyptus logs (USDA-FS. Liquidambar formosana. Faurea. AUS USA. Camellia. 2007a. 2003) (USDA-FS.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 (NZMAF. lumber. Quercus Ceratocystis fagacearum USA: mid-West. CABI-FC. 2003) (USDA-FS. 2003) (USDA-FS. Combretum.infects and kills trees of all ages Vectored by Pseudopityophihorus spp. poles/piles. branches. Prunus. VEN). CABI-FC. WPM bark. CABI-FC. 2003. AF. CABI-FC. P.. dalbergiae Ceratocystis albifundus High risk potential for importation on Eucalyptus logs (USDA-FS. vectored by Colopterus truncatus . Coffea. Pseudotsuga Hardwoods: Dalbergia sissoo Hardwoods. PRI). USA (LA). solani is a serious pathogen and can cause 60-80% losses in D. Appalachians. Juzwik et al. CAR (CUB. 2008) Eucalyptus saligna Eucalyptus Corymbia calophylla. AUS AUS Hosts Pathways Comments References Inonotus albertinii Inonotus chondromyeluis Inonotus rheades Phellinus gilvus Phellinus noxius Hymenochaetales: Hymenochaetaceae Hymenochaetales: Hymenochaetaceae Hymenochaetales: Hymenochaetaceae Hymenochaetales: Hymenochaetaceae Hymenochaetales: Hymenochaetaceae Hymenochaetales: Hymenochaetaceae Hypocreales: Hypocreales: Nectriaceae Hypocreales: Nectriaceae Microascales: Ceratocystidaceae Microascales: Ceratocystidaceae Eucalyptus obliqua logs logs logs logs bark. Burkea. 2003) AS. 2008) Pinus. 2008) (AQIS. CAR (HTI). MEX. USDA-FS. logs. 2008) (USDA-FS. AS (JPN) AS (IND) (native) ZAF (native) Bambusa bamboo bark. sawn wood. Cordia alliodora. 2007. CAM (CRI). nursery stock. ISSG. 2003) Ceratocystis eucalypti Ceratocystis moniliformis Ceratocystis moniliformopsis Leptographium lundbergii Ophiostoma pluriannulatum Microascales: Ceratocystidiaceae Microascales: Ceratocystidiaceae Microascales: Ceratocystidiaceae Microascales: Ceratocystidiaceae Ophiostomatales: Ophiostomataceae Eucalyptus Eucalyptus Eucalyptus obliqua Eucalyptus. TX (not other Gulf States) AUS AUS AUS AUS AUS (Rexrode and Brown. Corymbia. stems.. Aldrich et al. WPM firewood. ZAF. AF. 2003) (NZMAF. (incl. OCE. 1983. sissoo stands Serious wilt disease of introduced and native trees in South Africa . P. Nothofagus cunninghamii Eucalyptus 242 . Eucalyptus Phellinus spp. roots. Tectona grandis. 2006a. wahlbergii) Sarocladium oryzae Fusarium circinatum Fusarium solani f. Acacia. seeds. logs. Worrall. incl. P. USDA-FS. and others Broad host range. BRA. 2003. 2003) (USDA-FS. 2003. SAM (ARG.

2003) (USDA-FS. stems. Pseudotsuga menzesii. Nypa fruticans. CHN). seeds.. SAM. genera include Pissodes. vectored by longhorned beetles in the genus Monochamus (Magnusson et al. NZMAF. lumber. MEX AS. Eucalyptus. 2008) (NZMAF. Eucalyptus Eucalyptus 50 plant species. WPM bamboo Comments References (AQIS. WPM Causal agent of pine wilt disease . 2006. Psidium guajava. seeds. wood chips bamboo Mainly windborne but also vectored by insects (e.. nursery stock.. CABI-FC. BRA AUS. Hamamelis. Cedrus. Dioryctria) (NZMAF. CABI-FC. nursery stock. MEX. Arbutus. AS (JPN. THA CAN. USA (CA) CAM. 2008) Ganoderma lucidum 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 Destroying forests in 3 western U. FL. EUR AUS AS (native). 2001. USA (CA. TX) USA. Betula. CAN. AQIS. 2003) (USDA-FS. CAN (west) AS. USA. Lagria. 2007b) 243 . Rhododendron. Mangifera indica. nursery stock. AF. Dioryctria. WPM logs Heterobasidion annosum Russulales: Bondarzewiaceae Russulales: Stereaceae Uredinales: Chaconiaceae Uredinales: Pucciniaceae Urediniomycetes: Cronartiaceae Urediniomycetes: Cronartiaceae Ustilaginales: Ustilaginaceae USA. incl. Lithocarpus. insect vectors. 2007) Stereum hirsutum Uredo tectonae High risk potential for importation on Eucalyptus logs Parasitic disease of teak -. Taxus. WPM (with or without bark) bark. Corylus.. AS (IND. EUR. CAR (PRI. OR. 2006) (USDA-FS. MS. CAN (native). Camellia. 2003. 2003. lumber. Pinus. CAN. Sambucus. 2007) (AQIS. Pinus. conveyances (anything with soil). 2007) Puccinia psidii Endocronartium harknessii Endocronartium pini bark.Species Ophiostoma wageneri Setosphaeria rostrata Order: Family Ophiostomatales: Ophiostomataceae Pleosporales: Pleosporaceae Polyporales: Ganodermataceae Polyporales: Polyporaceae Polyporales: Polyporaceae Polyporales: Polyporaceae Pythiales: Pythiaceae Distribution USA (southwest/west). Picea.S. Alnus. poles/piles. incl. foliage. WPM lumber. potting media (with plants). 2007.g. Pseudotsuga menzesii bark. CABI-FC. KOR. Picea. Abies. wood. insect vectors. Laspeyresia. WPM bark. 2007) (NZMAF. CAR. LA. 2008) Ustilago shiraiana AS. Eucalyptus tereticornis. incl. Phyllostachys NEMATODES Bursaphelenchus xylophilus Tylenchida: Aphelenchoididae Conifers. incl. Crataegus. Arcostaphylos. Bambusa. wood chips. Larix. Pinaceae and many other tree hosts Eucalyptus Corymbia fastigata. sawn wood.has reached epidemic proportions in Japan. 2007. AQIS. MS). Picea Eucalyptus Tectona grandis (Lamiaceae) Eucalyptus and other Myrtaceae Pinus Pinus (including P. states (CA.. 2003. sylvestris) Pathways bark. CHN. USA (CA. Tkacz et al. USA (FL). EUR (Farr et al. Cocos nucifera. Abies. Tsuga Polyphagous. lumber. Juniperus. CAM. 2008) Perenniporia medulla-panis Piptiporus australiensis Piptiporus potetntosus Phytothphora ramorum logs logs logs bark. TX). Larix. 2003) (CABI-FC. FAO. WA) Hosts Abies. TTO) AUS AUS AUS EUR (west and central). 2003) (Nair. Viburnum Hardwoods & conifers. EUR (POR) Bambusa. lumber. USA (FL. Aesculus.may cause serious losses in nursery production (USDA-FS. USA (FL. Pinus. THA). Acer. MS. WA) (USDA-FS. Farr et al. Quercus. Poaceae Hardwoods & conifers: Corymbia citriodora. logs. 2003. MD. LA. 2007) (AQIS. Vaccinium. OR. 2003.

KS-Kansas. AUS-Australia. IRQ-Iraq. GBR-United Kingdom. WAM-Samoa. GUY-Guyana. NY-New York. MYS-Malaysia. FJI-Fiji. PHL-Philippines. ME-Maine. NCL-New Caledonia. MUS-Mauritius. NZLNew Zealand. WI-Wisconsin. WV-West Virginia. NJ-New Jersey. JPN-Japan.). NH-New Hampshire. DE-Delaware. AR-Arkansas. PAK-Pakistan. LA-Louisiana. GMB-Gambia. VEN-Venezuela. VIR-Virgin Islands (U. NDL-Netherlands. U. BRA-Brazil. DOM-Dominican Republic. MI-Michigan. ZAF-South Africa. CHN-China. MD-Maryland. KAZ-Kazakhstan. DMA-Dominica.S. IND-India. MA-Maine. MEX-Mexico. CO-Colorado. GRD-Grenada. FL-Florida. OH-Ohio.Country codes: ARG-Argentina. KIR-Kiribati. BUR-Burma. TUN-Tunisia. USA-United States. FIN-Finland. TWN-Taiwan. NC-North Carolina. RUS-Russia. WA-Washington. OR-Oregon. TTO-Trinidad and Tobago. ESP-Spain. AUT-Austria. VA-Virginia. LVA-Latvia. DEU-Germany. CRI-Costa Rica. SD-South Dakota. FRA-France. BGD-Bangladesh. SLV-El Salvador. SC-South Carolina. KOR-Korea. GA-Georgia. VNM-Viet Nam. LKA-Sri Lanka. MDGMadagascar. States: AK-Alaska. PAN-Panama. THA-Thailand. KEN-Kenya. BLZ-Belize. SLB-Solomon Islands. CUB-Cuba. TZA-Tanzania. CT-Connecticut. UKR-Ukraine. GLP-Guadeloupe. PER-Peru. EST-Estonia. BEL-Belgium. JAM-Jamaica. URYUruguay. IL-Illinois. ITA-Italy. POL-Poland. CACalifornia. IRN-Iran. MMR-Myanmar. SAU-Saudi Arabia. OK-Oklahoma. BRB-Barbados. PRT-Portugal. NIC-Nicaragua. CZE-Czech Republic. MTQ-Martinique. TX-Texas. CANCanada. NPL-Nepal. PA-Pennsylvania. HND-Honduras. TN-Tennessee.S. IN-Indiana. MAR-Morocco. NE-Nebraska. 244 . PRI-Puerto Rico. TUR-Turkey. BMU-Bermuda. CHL-Chile. MO-Missouri. LTU-Lithuania. PNG-Papua New Guinea.

Non-indigenous species introductions: A threat to Canada's forests and forest economy. American Midland Naturalist 152: 88-103. J. Canadian Journal of Plant Pathology 24: 103-110. 2002. Airport statistics (Available at: http://www. M. Orlando Sentinel. Asia-Pacific Forest Invasive Species Network.tourism.com.inamarmarine. Anonymous. Kumarasamy. Insect chemical ecology research in the United States Department of Agriculture . 2007. 2007.jm/statistics/index. 2004.. Red palm mite poses threat to $3 billion nursery industry (Available at: http://www. S. N. Allen. Apgar. C. Red imported fire ant impacts on wildlife: A decade of research. 1. 1998. CNN Travel.com/news/local/state/orl-palmmites2807dec28. C. G. Coconut leaf beetle (Brontia longissima). Hylurgus ligniperda on Pinus radiata logs imported from Costa Rica [Abstract]. R. 2008b. S. Airports Authority of Jamaica. L. Boston. J. Anonymous. Syathyanarayana.story). Air cargo (Available at: http://www. C. Humble. Ahamed.asdd. Interception of red-haired bark beetle. M. and A.aaj. Allen. Fauna Europaea. 2008. Agrios. Sweden. Epperson. Elsevier Academic Press. M. J. 2003. S. A.3. Knight. Airports Worldwide.Agricultural Research Service. Pest Management Science 59: 777-787.com/pdf/LossControl/Air%20Cargo.cnn. Air Broker Center. Alabama's Best Management Practices for Forestry.. Port statistics (Available at: http://www. Xylechinus pilosus (Ratzeburg 1837). A.. 2005. A. E. Yahoo! Answers: How long does the temperature of the hold get when unheated in aircraft (Airline pilot “Answerer 8” and “Answerer 11”)? Anonymous.ap/index. D. Plant Pathology. and J. D.html).0. Alonso-Zarazaga. APFISN. 2008a.Literature Cited AFC.setback. Stockholm.php). Indian Journal of Plant Protection 33: 288-289. 2005. and L. Tumlinson. Alabama State Port Authority. M.. N.orlandosentinel. Light. 2007. 245 . United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization. Aldrich.pdf). Aircraft Charter World. 2008. R. S. vers. Haiti's tourism dreams deferred by riots (Available at: http://www. Bansal. Garmestani. N. 2004. fifth edition.com/2008/TRAVEL/06/02/haiti.5488031. Bartelt. Alabama Forestry Commission. and M. 2008.com). H. Dickens.

B. Notes on the aerial transportation of mosquitoes and other insects at the Manila International Airport. 2006. 2008.169. and C. Benoit. natural enemies. Research and Development Component. J. Bertrand. ScaleNet (Available at: http://198. Annotated checklist of the bark and ambrosia beetles (Coleoptera: Platypodidae and Scolytidae) of tropical southern Florida. 34. Atkinson. Y. (Available at: http://www. D. In M. 1994. J. Florida Entomologist 77: 313-329. 2008. Bertone. 1970. 2008b. Guitierrez.htm). D. Trip report: Site visit to Puerto Rico February 12-15. Gutierrez. Bertone and H. Elsevier. United States Department of Agriculture.. 2007. The greening of horticulture: New codes of conduct aim to curb plant invasions. The National Invasive Species Strategy for the Bahamas.77. PPQ).]. R. APHIS. Ball. G. 2007.79/scalenet/scalenet. Thailand. Trip report: Site visit to Costa Rica January 14-19.arubaports. Soft scale insects: Their biology. Aruba Ports Authority. M. C. Site visit conducted by C. and W. Bertone and H. Trip report: Site visit to Trinidad March 11-13. 2008a. 246 . Amsterdam. Bioscience 52: 464-471. 2008. Miller. Philippine Entomologist 1: 407-408. J.. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. Received by H. and H. Bertone. 2003. I. Site visit conducted by C. Regional Seminar Site. Meissner (USDA. C. 1999. Technology and Productivity of Teak Plantations. pp. Pandey. Meissner.Standing Committee on Forestry. Fisheries. and Technology (BEST) Commission. Science. and Aquaculture . United States Department of Agriculture. Baskin.. Y. 2002. Meissner. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. Peck. Hirai.. P. B. Forest and timber: A field guide to exotic pests and diseases. Ben-Dov.com). Chiang Mai. Bertone. R. Y. Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service. Ben-Dov. BEST. and S. Basio.. E. H. Andrew [ed.. Volume 7A. 2008. Caribbean Air Transportation Report. Hodgson. Site visit conducted by C. PA Consulting Group.. provided to the Caribbean Tourism Organization. A. Bertone and W. T. Meissner. and I. USDA-ARS Systematic Entomology Laboratory. The Bahamas Environment. and control. C. and H. Chanco.. 1997. Ministerial Council on Forestry. Global overview of teak plantations. E-mail: Garbage as potential pathway. and G. National Office of Animal and Plant Health. 2008.AQIS. Meissner. Gibson. C. and S. United States Department of Agriculture. Prudencio. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.

1990. Brockerhoff. Bright.Invasive species in the Caribbean National Forest of Puerto Rico. Asheville. F. and J. 2003. Brussell.. Wentsel. E. Bangor. E. N. and J. E. NRC Research Press. W. M. Sommers. pp. E. Wallingford. J. 1995. Bonaire International Airport. Bright. Canada.. and J. D. Checklist of indigenous and adventive bark and ambrosia beetles (Curculionidae: Scolytinae and Platypodinae) of New Zealand and interceptions of exotic species (1952-2000). 2006. 1985. E. Healey. and R. Gibbs. and A. Scatena. A medicinal plant collection from Montserrat. M. G. 2003. West Indies.com/statistics. J. and M. Lamberts. A. Blundell. Cardiff. D. Conservation conclusions from the 1st World Botanic Gardens Congress. Hall. CAB International. M.. B. G.asp). 1997. E. Blair. Brunt. Cardiff University. fourteen new species. Bain. 87. P. Polston. Occurrence of bean golden mosaic virus in Florida. 1999. Abouzid. with descriptions of one new genus. Supplement 1 (1990-1994). D. Economic Botany 58: S203-S220. Oxon OX10 8DE. Hiebert. Brodel. J. Filling the gap: small inter-island Caribbean trading ships and their crew. R. E. M. Bain. ornamentals industry (unpublished). McMillan. Plant Disease 79: 529-533.S. Major threats to the U. Graves. Studies on West Indian Scolytidae (Coleoptera) 4: A review of the Scolytidae of Puerto Rico.. Boerne. Interception frequency of exotic bark and ambrosia beetles (Coleoptera: Scolytinae) and relationship with establishment in New Zealand and worldwide. Seafarers International Research Centre (SIRC). Viruses of tropical plants. Bright... D.flamingoairport. A Catalog of Scolytidae and Platypodidae (Coleoptera)..S.. Bassett. School of Agricultural and Forest Sciences University of Wales. Ontario. 1998. UK. G. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. UK.BGCI. E. Crabtree. 2008. A. United States Department of Agriculture. Torres. 2006. with descriptions of new species and taxonomic notes. Checklist of Scolytidae of the West Indies. J. M. NC. G. Botanic Gardens Conservation International. Knizek. and W. Journal of Forestry 101: 14-19. Koleopterologische Rundschau 76: 389-428. Skidmore. Brockerhoff. U. Ecorisk assessment using indicators of sustainability . 2000. Entomologische Arbeiten aus dem Museum G Frey 33/34: 169-187. R. 2004. Kimberley. and M.A. and notes on new synonymy (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). Studies on West Indian Scolytidae (Coleoptera) 3. A. Airport statistics (Available at: http://www. Binggeli. T. New Zealand Entomologist 26: 29-44. 2003. Knizek. K. An overview of invasive woody plants in the tropics. 247 . C. E. A. R. Plant Protection and Quarantine. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 36: 289-298.

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.Warnell School of Forest Resources and College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences . Department of Wood Science and Forest Products.. 2008. S. B. The University of Georgia . and P.org/cpc/). Wallingford.edu/wyoming/agriculture/resources/ipd/longhorn_beetle. 2008.cabicompendium. Stromatium barbatum (Fabricius). Veblen. Callahan. Biological Invasions. Email: Land border information request (Caribbean Pathway Analysis). Distribution Maps of Pests. Bugwood. A. D. 2008. 2008. Schwartzburg. Comparative experimental study of seed dispersal on animals. Piovia-Scott. Araman.forestpests. Burt. W. 2007. L. W. A. Preventing horticultural introductions of invasive plants: Potential efficacy of voluntary initiatives. Chamberlain.cabicompendium. R. Coffee industry under threat. Grossman.K.. Bush. U. Chrysanthemum white rust. Special report: Asian longhorned beetle (Available at: http://counties. Bejune. H. J.. Soil. Bush. V. Amherst. 1998. K. L. CAB. CABI. J. A. and Insect Science. A. Bullock. J. 2008: Cocoa pest poses international threat. Joint Maritime Operation Presentation. United States Department of Agriculture. and P. and R. 30th Hardwood Symposium.cornell. M. G. Trends in the use of materials for pallets and other factors affecting the demand for hardwood products. London. Bumgardner. S. E. Crop Protection Compendium (Available at: http://www. Reddy. R. 2008. Forestry Compendium (available at: http://www. Center for Forest Products Marketing and Management. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. University of Massachusetts. Primack.org). 2002. Blacksburg. J. 2007. 1985. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux. J. Araman. B.htm). CABI-FC. J. Series A (Agricultural). 1997.Department of Entomology.Bugwood. Chang. J. 1977. Caribbean Risk Assessment Group. Hansen. S. and H. Media release June 23. A. Department of Plant. CABI.asp). Centre for Agricultural Bioscience International. L. VA. 2003. J. Caniz. Received by K.cce. 2007. The Atlas of Forest Pests (Available at: http://www.S. Plant Protection and Quarantine. J..org/FC/home. A. Caribbean National Weekly News. Weiskel. 248 . Bugwood Network. Ecology 58: 681-686. Recycling in the U. Muir. pallet industry: 1995.

gov/xp/cgov/newsroom/news_releases/archives/2005_press_releases/092005/090 92005_3. and L.eso. 1992. 2006. Center for Plant Health Science and Technology. Bronmark. GeoJournal 23: 301-310. Sun. Invading herbivory: The golden apple snail alters ecosystem functioning in Asian wetlands. P.com). 43 pp. a significant exotic pest of Pinus plantations. 2003d. A. B. Caton.Carlsson. B. Center for Plant Health Science and Technology. C. USDA-APHIS-PPQ. Raleigh. M. P.. T. Customs and Border Protection. N. Raleigh. 31. Risk-based management of the cut flower pathway: Assessment of pest risks posed by Dianthus from Colombia at Miami. NC. Hansson. USDA-APHIS-PPQ. Center for Plant Health Science and Technology. 1991. 249 . Forest pests in Central America.. 2003a. Cayman Islands Economics and Statistics Office. 16.cbp. Carnegie. USDA-APHIS-PPQ. pp. NC. NC. Quantitative analysis of insect pest risks from the international cargo aircraft pathway to Miami.ky). CBP. 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. Klasmer. Turrialba. Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory. Haugen. Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory. 2003c. pp. J. 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. Risk-based management of the cut flower pathway: Assessment of pest risks posed by additional cut flowers at Miami. Predicting the potential distribution of Sirex noctilio (Hymenoptera: Siricidae). 2003e. and E. NC. N. Hurley. Port statistics (Available at: www. Cayman Islands Port Authority. Raleigh. 2006. Risk-based management of the cut flower pathway: Background and potential risks in the pathway to the Port of Miami. CBP. Annals of Forest Science 63: 119-128. Caton. CATIE. Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory. Raleigh. Caton. 2008. D. 2003b. Tropical Agriculture Research and Training Center. USDA-APHIS-PPQ. Iede. Caviedes. Ecology 85: 1575-1580. Center for Plant Health Science and Technology. 2005. R. J. Caton. Center for Plant Health Science and Technology. L. U. A. pp. Matsuki. USDA-APHIS-PPQ. B.xml). B. B. Costa Rica. 5.caymanport. United States Department of Homeland Security.S. Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory. Raleigh. C. pp. A. Five hundred years of hurricanes in the Caribbean: Their relationship with global climatic variabilities. NC. 2007. Caton. B. Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory. 2004. O. (Available at: http://www. Ahumada. Securing America's borders at ports of entry: Office of Field Operations strategic plan overview FY 2007-2011.

CDC. White. Potential mite species collected on ornamental plants from Central America at port of entry to the United States.cia.. and P.Travel (Available at: http://findarticles. Close. (Available at: http://www2.ncid. Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL) and Economic and Social Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC). Cherepanov. J. 2002. FAO Plant Protection Bulletin 40: 154. Ciesla. Central Intelligence Agency. Cerambycidae of Northern Asia. Oxonian Press. 1988. Caribbean region profile 2007: Uniting the third border. CEPAL. 2007. M. 1978. 2007. ON: RNT Consulting Inc. N. and J. A. Lowe. International Journal of Biometeorology 22: 1-19.html). Environmental and Economic Costs of Alien Invasive Species in Canada. Customs and Border Protection. Tomlinson. W. Clarke. H. Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL). 173. CCAA. A road sign of good times: Sint Maarten/Saint Martin .htm). Introduction of bark beetles and wood borers into China in coniferous logs from North America.cdc. Rodrigues. Araman.eclac. W.CBP. Available at: http://www. 2001. Claudi. C. Packaged poultry operation at the International Mail Facility in Secaucus. I. A. and SITC. CIA. Aerial dispersal of biological material from Australia to New Zealand.com/p/articles/mi_m1546/is_n6_v11/ai_19121831). R. Plant Protection and Quarantine. 2007.eclac. United States Department of Homeland Security. CBP. 2007.. New Delhi.cl). 2001. Center for Disease Control. The Florida Entomologist 88: 408-414. 2008. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and United States Department of Agriculture. 1992. New Jersey. Childers.gov/travel/yb/utils/ybGet. 2007 and 2008. Chase. Mora. Mollusks on ceramic tiles. International trade and maritime transport in the Caribbean (FAL Bulletin No. Performance of pallet parts recovered from used wood pallets. Forest Products Journal 51: 1-8. and A. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. T. American Visions.cl/transporte/perfil/). R. 2008. A. Traveler's health. I. D. Caribbean-Central American Action. 2005. Maritime profile of Latin America and the Caribbean (Available at: http://www. S. The World Factbook (Available at: https://www. Smuggling Interdiction and Trade Compliance (SITC).asp?section=transportation&obj=sprayair. 1996.. CEPAL/ECLAC. Picton. 250 .gov/library/publications/the-worldfactbook/index. M. C.

2004. 2007. 2008. Hodkinson. Olive (Available at: http://www. D. 1998. A.html). J. Cochran. Potential for biological control of crop pests in the Caribbean. C. T. R. L. H. S. T. Fuller. Carlton [eds. Cowie. Plant Invaders: The Threat to Natural Systems. W. 1996. Cowie. B. 2003. Sampling Techniques. and A. Coulson. Pathways of introduction of nonindigenous land and freshwater snails and slugs. Webb.. Q.org/pubs/ff/olive.edu/query. Svalbard. Robinson. Comisión Centroamericana de Transporte Marítimo (Available at: http://www. Invasive Species: Vectors and management strategies. Catalog of the living termites of the New World (Insecta: Isoptera). Meyer. Texas A&M University (Available at: http://xyleborini. Aerial dispersal of invertebrates over a highArctic glacier foreland: Midtre Lovénbreen. The horticulture industry as a vector of alien snails and slugs: widespread invasions in Hawaii. 1997. 2005. C.cocatram. Euwallacea validus (Eichhoff) 1875 (Xyleborus). Chapman & Hall. International Journal of Pest Management 54: 267-276. G.tamu. Cowie. H. Tran. R. Polar Biology 26.COCATRAM. 251 . University of Minnesota. W. Texas A&M University (Available at: http://xyleborini. Ruiz and J.C. Hayes. Cognato. University of Florida. Cruz. and R. Cronk. D. CPC. R. 2003. 2001. Biological Invasions 3: 119-136. Arquivos de Zoologia 35: 135-231. R.crfg. K. R. I. Washington. Crow. Department of Entomology. Invertebrate invasions on Pacific islands and the replacement of unique native faunas: A synthesis of the land and freshwater snails. and W. Linking ecology and horticulture to prevent plant invasions. T. and D.]. Island Press. 1977. In G. Holistic Insect Systematics Laboratory. London. M.. Constantino. Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (UF/IFAS). 518. Wiley...edu/public/site/scolytinae/home). and N.tamu. Radcliffe's IPM World Textbook.ni/). A. Nematode management for nursery crops (ornamentals and planting stock of fruits and nuts). Center for Plant Conservation (CPC). Monographic research of tropical bark beetles (Scolytinae: Xyleborini). Department of Entomology. New York. Cognato. California Rare Fruit Growers. 1995. Dunn. G. M. CRFG.php?tax_id=636). and J.. A. C.org. 2008. H. Segarra.. 2008. Holistic Insect Systematics Laboratory. pp. A.

M. D. A. Meissner. K. Degerlund. H. Mndolwa. A. Canadian Entomologist 135: 309-311. 95. J.. 6. 2008. E. K. Strategies for global and regional ports: the case of Caribbean container and cruise ports..iadb. Spears. pp. K.onecaribbean. and N. Multi-scale patterns of human activity and the incidence of an exotic forest pathogen. 2008. R. Peeters. Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory. Plant Protection and Quarantine. M. L.00. Richmond. de Groot. and P. R. Lemay. H. Cushman. Caribbean Tourism Organization.html). 1999. 1998. Biodiversity and Conservation 17: 19791995. 6. Joos. Integration and trade in the Americas: Special issue on Latin America and Caribbean economic relations with Asia-Pacific (Available at: http://enet.dw-world. Hulme. (Available at: http://curports. Deutsche Welle. Couvreur. P. Population regulation of the Eurasian pine adelgid (Homoptera: Adelgidae) in Hawaii.org/statistics/tourismstats/). J. T. 2003. Caribbean Tourism Organization. DCR.CTO. W. Meentemeyer. 2007. Caribbean Tourism Organization. Poland. and T. 2007.onecaribbean. Skinner.. J. Liquido.aspx?docnum=798294). Curaçao Ports Authority. A. Culliney. W. Pathway analysis of invasive species introduction into Hawaii. Chinese plants blamed for beetle infestation in Germany (Available at: http://www. T. Drea. Devlin. Dawson... Cornejo. Hendrickx. Latest statistics 2006 (Available at: http://www. 2006.. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation and the Virginia Native Plant Society.org/information/documentview.php?rowid=4455). Miller. and J. De Monie. Containerisation International Yearbook 2007.com).. A.3426195. Center for Plant Health Science and Technology. 2008. G. and R. Kluwer Academic Publishers.onecaribbean. W. Journal of Ecology 96: 766-776. B. CTO. Culliney. S. M. Journal of Economic Entomology 81: 142-147. 2008. Latest statistics 2005 (Available at: http://www. F. A. and M. Sobral de Elia. Stabilito. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. J. Moreira.2144. Burslem. Invasive alien plant species in Virginia: Kudzu (Pueraria lobata (Willd. Estevadeordal. Beardsley. E. and C. 2008. Attraction of Hylastes opacus (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) to nonanal. Caribbean tourism statistical report (Available at: http://www. M. 2007. Informa UK Ltd. pp. 1988. 2008. United States Department of Agriculture. Neeley.de/dw/article/0. Shearer. Assessing the risks of plant invasions arising from collections in tropical botanical gardens.org/statistics/tourismstats/).org/idbdocswebservices/idbdocsInternet/IADBPublicDoc. London.) Ohwi). 252 . CTO. Boston. Suominen. pp. J.

Gilmore. FAO. Institute for the Integration of Latin America and the Caribbean (INTAL). T. European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization.apordom. The influence of atmospheric structure and motions on insect migration. Cooke.. V. Springer-Verlag. 1963. In Y. Berlin.. W. McKenzie. P.eppo. E. Iakovou.. Weed Science 48: 255-265. J. Dominican Republic Port Authority. Mosquito News 23: 9-12. 2008. Sirex noctilio. M. Mosquitoes and other arthropods found in baggage compartments of international aircraft.ni). Bajaj [ed. EPN. Biological Invasions 3: 167-178. Spaulding.do/). and B. Porter. Dodds. vanWilgen. C. 1988. W. Silvicultural options to reduce pine susceptibility to attack by a newly detected invasive species. DiTomaso. Dobbs.. 2004. impacts. and Hemispheric Issues Division. and J. The Unwelcome Guests: Asia-Pacific Forest Invasive Species Conference. 2008.. pp.com. S. and A. FAO-RAP. K. DominicanToday. Invasive weeds in rangelands: species. 2000. 2008. T. E. EPPO. Northern Journal of Applied Forestry 24: 165-167. 65. Cargo aircraft as a pathway for the entry of nonindigenous pests into South Florida. and R. 2007. 2005. and D. In P.htm). Dominican Today. R. Forestry country profiles . M. Dominican ferry looks for new port in Puerto Rico. 2001. Conflicts of interest in environmental management: estimating the costs and benefits of a tree invasion. Brown. D. J. Kunming. Brodel. 2000. (Available at: http://www. 389-406.. J. 2007. P. Yunnan Province. EPPO alert list (Available at: http://www. Integration and Regional Programs Department. 253 . Diamantoglou. China. Florida Entomologist 87: 65-78. T. Erkoc. F. A.pp. Empresa Portuaria Nacional . Journal of Food Engineering 70: 269-279. The unwelcome guests.com..) Aleppo pine. Multi-stage onboard inventory management policies for food and beverage items in cruise liner operations. Annual Review of Entomology 33: 183-210. and management. Crookes.epn. Drake. deWit. B. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO).]. (stone pine) and Pinus halepensis (Mill. R. 1996. 2005. S. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Integration.Description of plantation resources. Joyce.org/QUARANTINE/Alert_List/alert_list. S. Trees IV.]. and C. P. Jianghua and W. A.Nicaragua (Available at: http://www. M. E. C. Farrow. R. and G. R.gov. Banilas. Pinus pinea L. Evans. Trade. Jian [eds.

2008. 2008. and E. FAO.. Farr. FAO. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Schwartzburg. USDA-ARS Systematic Mycology and Microbiology Laboratory. 2007c. Site visit conducted by L. Rossman. FCCA. FAO. 2008. State of the world's forests. United States Department of Agriculture. Ferguson. Global forest resources assessment 2005. and Rural Affairs. 2007e.Honduras. Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. Status of tropical forest management . A.2008. FAO. Palm. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. G.doacs. 2007b. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 254 . Overview of forest pests: Republic of Mauritius. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Fungal Database. Overview of forest pests: Thailand. FAO. FAO. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Pembroke Pines. Y. Management of Pepino Mosaic Virus in greenhouse tomatoes. E. Ontario Ministry of Agriculture. FAO. Overview of forest pests: South Africa. 2005c. Overview of forest pests: Belize. 2004. F. Overview of forest pests: People's Republic of China. FAO. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2008. L. FL.us/press/2004/11172004_2. Trip report: Site visit to Martinique April 7-11. Press release: Soybean rust confirmed in Florida (Available at: http://www.state. Food. Florida-Caribbean Cruise Association. 2007d. 2005b. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. McCray. 2007a. FAO. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Ferguson. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO Newsroom). Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Schwartzburg. Cruise industry overview . 2006.html). 10. 2001. M. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.. Latin America and the Caribbean to use more wood from planted forests: High deforestation rates expected to persist. Overview of forest pests: India. D.fl. FDACS. 2005a. Ferguson and K. 2006. and K. B.FAO. pp.

W. U. E. R. M. Invasive insects (adventive pest insects) in Florida. J. Fussell. J. J. Miller. the bad. and R. Fairchild Tropical Garden (FTG). A. Gordon. G. Mayfield. T. M. Florida Cooperative Extension Service. Introduction to the behavioral ecology of immigration. 2002. P. J. Agronomy Department. Fraedrich. Fox. T. The Florida Entomologist 75: 1-28. M. J.. E. Frank. and R.. C. S. University of Florida. IFAS assessment of the status of non-native plants in Florida’s natural areas. III. Takeuchi. 1993. R. Rabaglia. A. Flores-Palacios. 2008. J. 2007. 1992. Biological Conservation 136: 372387. Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences. Fraedrich. K. C. H.. Neotropical Entomology 35: 712-713.. 2006. Introduction to insect behavioral ecology: The good. O... D. K. and X. B. and S. L. Pathway-Initiated Pest Risk Assessment: Asian Gypsy Moth (Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae: Lymantria dispar (Linnaeus)) from Japan into the United States on Maritime Ships. Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences. Hanula. pp. and E. L. 94. Newsletter of the Michigan Entomological Society 52: 15-16. Frank. Francis. M. The challenge of container transshipment in the Caribbean. Tyson. United States Department of Agriculture. M. Simon. G. Stocker. A. A. a threat to palms in the Americas (Acari: Prostigmata: Tenuipalpidae). McCoy. Rabaglia. D. with a tabulation of records published since 1970. Raoiella indica Hirst. Laurel wilt: a new and devastating disease of redbay caused by a fungal symbiont of the exotic redbay ambrosia beetle. Harrington. R.. 2008. M. J. and E. 2007. J. 2004. Frankel. H. Systematic & Applied Acarology 9. Lougee. 2005. Forest Service. Plant Disease 92: 215. A. 255 . Frank. Local illegal trade reveals unknown diversity and involves a high species richness of wild vascular epiphytes. W.Invasive adventive insects and other organisms in Florida. and D. J. Wood Packaging Material (WPM) Import Requirements by Country. FTG. 2007 Members' day plant sale. D. A fungal symbiont of the redbay ambrosia beetle causes a lethal wilt in redbay and other Lauraceae in the southeastern United States. Foreign Agricultural Service... Sequeira. Dorval. and E. and M. Yan. Sato. Valencia-Díaz. Gainseville. Fowler. Common bamboo. Filho. The red palm mite. Panama. Eickwort. 2004. Florida Entomologist 78: 1-15. 2008.Filho.S. The immigration of insects to Florida. First record of Sinoxylon conigerum Gerstäcker (Coleoptera: Bostrichidae) in Brazil. R. C. D. Etienne. Dusky. W.A. P. McCoy. and J.. Y. 2007. Bezerra. Harrington. G. A. 1995. Flechtmann. and the beautiful: Non-indigenous species in Florida . C. A. Thomas. International Association of Maritime Economists Conference Proceedings. University of Florida. S. E. Teixera. L. H. Ulyshen.

R. Graham. O’Neil. R. 1985. Healey. 2007. Grains Research and Development Corporation. Gordon.. Fruits 52. E. and synergistic interaction with the Asian citrus leafminer. and S. School of Agricultural and Forest Sciences University of Wales. Bulman. Stoian. S. D. 1997. and J. Sydney: WWF Australia.. Bangor. Stocker. Watson. 2002. K. School of Agricultural and Forest Sciences. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. New Zealand Journal of Forestry Science 30: 341-358. Goodland. Consistent accuracy of the Australian weed risk assessment system across varied geographies. G. K. and K. Weeds and pests: eradicating the invasive threat.Onderdonk. Gottwald. S. Perspectives on multi-destination tourism. Fox. and J. A. 1997. Barriers to sustainable forestry in Central America and promising initiatives to overcome them. Godfrey. J. Bangor. T. T. UK. Ng. Galloway.. 2006. Global Pest and Disease Database. Glassey. Anoplophora chinensis. Journal of Sustainable Forestry 24: 189. and J. A. and R. Bulman. L. R. Significance to New Zealand forestry of contaminants on the external surfaces of shipping containers. L. The effect of Pittosporum undulatum on the native vegetation of the Blue Mountains of Jamaica. The Greater Caribbean This Week. and R. C. Marshall. P. R. New Zealand Journal of Crop and Horticultural Science 30: 19-27. Crabtree. Gadgil. L.. Florida. Disease-bearing insects brought in by international aircraft into Singapore. 2002. and T. Goodland. Quarantine risk associated with air cargo containers. Glassey. Diversity and Distributions ONLINE EARLY ARTICLE. United States Department of Agriculture. D. J. Kumarapathy. H. T. and D.. 2008. K. S.Gadgil. N. S. P... 03/01. S. T. Glanznig. K. New Zealand Journal of Forestry Science 32: 28-42. Garraway. 2000. 256 . 1996. An epidemiological analysis of the spread of citrus canker in urban Miami. Goh. 2009. D. Southeast Asian Journal of Tropical Medicine and Public Health 16: 4953. The invasion of Jamaican montane rainforests by the Australian tree Pittosporum undulatum in the Blue Mountains of Jamaica. 2008. J. A. M. Exotic Pests Fact Sheets. GPDD. Position Paper No. L. 2003. University of Wales. R.. Healey. Soil on imported shipping containers provides a source of new Pseudomonad biodiversity into New Zealand.. D. Schubert.

Dreyer. P. A.. Transport Unit. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 36: 269-288. Nzoku. Journal of Biological Invasions 6: 1-9. 2000. A. 2004. 2006. third edition. White and P. 1994. T.. E. J. Forest Pathology 36: 323-333. L. Guérard. O'Dowd. American Phytopathological Society. Zhang. Borden. Integrated Pest Management Reviews 6: 253-282. Harding. 257 . The Fungal Community: Its Organization and Role in the Ecosystem. 2003. Lieutier. T. 2001. W. and F. 2005. Wood borers (Available at: http://www. Annals of Forest Science 57: 681-690.S. T. R. Gul. R.. Santiago. Braasch. Kellogg. 1997. Bajwa. J.. 2005. Haack. Gutierrez Misas. J.org/online/proceedings/ExoticPest/Papers/haugen. Records of Bursaphelenchus spp. Intercepted Scolytidae (Coleoptera) at U. ports of entry: 1985-2000. T. Kamden. Oudemans [eds.): Estimation of the critical thresholds of attack and inoculation densities and effects on hydraulic properties in the stem. A. T. Directorio de Jardines Botanicos de America latina y el Caribe caribe. and E. Interactions between Scots pine. D.. R. Risks of Exotic Forest Pests and their Impact on Trade. Screening and economics of some pyrethroid insecticides against powder post beetles. H. Resistance of island rainforest to invasion by alien plants: Influence of microhabitat and herbivory on seedling performance. P. A. Shinn. N. Online Symposium.. D.Green. Atmospheric microbiology in the northern Caribbean during African dust events. D. Haugen. Dighton. V. 2006. and G. A. International Journal of Pest Management 40: 199-206. A. W. H. Halwart. C. Poland. CRC Press.. Iede. Haack. IUFRO UNIT 7.) and Ophiostoma brunneo-ciliatum (Math. United Nations. and D. Pakistan Journal of Forestry 47: 81-88. H. Exotic bark. Petrice.12 Alien Invasive Species and International Trade Inaugural Meeting. Natural Resources and Infrastructure Division. A. P. Burgermeister. Jedlnia. Ips acuminatus (Gyll. The golden apple snail Pomacea canaliculata in Asian rice farming systems: Present impact and future threat. A. Trade between Caribbean Community (CARICOM) and Central American Common Market (CACM) countries: the role to play for ports and shipping services. and E.]. China. and J. Haack. Do insects infest wood packing material with bark following heat-treatment?. R. and D. Chile. Aerobiologia 19: 143-157. and J. J. F.. Griffin.and wood-boring Coleoptera in the United States: Recent establishments and interceptions.htm). intercepted in imported packaging wood at Ningbo. S. A.03.apsnet. 2006. 2003. P. Hawksworth. and G. Mueller. M. Fungal communities: Their diversity and distribution In J. Lake. Lisle.. Gu. 2001. C. Garrison. Hoffmann.

pdf). Lavorel. Hawaii Department of Agriculture Division of Plant Industry. K. The American Naturalist 128: 751-760. A. B. Effects of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning: a consensus of current knowledge. Nguyen. Inchausti. 9. Rejzek. Hodges. Liberalizing coastal shipping in Latin America and the Caribbean: Potential benefits for Caribbean shippers.. J.. Hoy. Raoiella indica Hirst (Available at: http://creatures. Smuggling Interdiction and Trade Compliance.ufl. D. S. G. Newsletter of the Michigan Entomological Society 50: 24-25.ufl.uochb. Hoskovec. 2005. Division of Natural Heritage. McLean. Hoebeke. Heffernan. and P. PPQ. Vandermeer. G. Hector.ifas. Wofford. and the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. S..ifas.pdf). Holder. Lawton. Herbold. Longhorn beetles (Cerambycidae) of the West Palaearctic Region (Available at: http://www. C. 2007. M. University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences. J. Wardle. M.edu/orn/scales/lobate_lac. D. West Indies. Grenada. B. Hoebeke. E.htm). E.usda. ports. Hoffmann. Japanese cedar longhorned beetle in the eastern United States (Available at: http://www. Setälä. D. J. 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. J. Sirex noctilio: Discovery of a Palearctic siricid woodwasp in New York. Honolulu.S. San Juan. Introduced species and vacant niches. Symstad. Steinberg. 149. A. Lodge. and M. J. S. Ewel. 1986. E.cerambyx. F. Paper presented at the Terminal Operators Conference. 2005. H. M. and carriers. United States Department of Agriculture.org/awardnoms/Citrus_Bud_Wood_05. 2001.edu/orn/palms/red_palm_mite. A.. Hoffman. Ecological Monographs 75: 3-35. and J. pp. 2008. USDA.A. S. U. P. 2003. USDA-APHIS Pest Alert. A. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. APHS. Loreau. Featured creatures: Lobate lac scale.. P. F. P. pp. Featured Creatures. A. Townsend. Richmond. 2004. Coulling. Ranking invasive exotic plant species in Virginia. Peña. and D. R. M. W. and R. 2006. U. The red palm mite. and R. B. Schmid. M. J. University of 258 . Hutto. Caribbean Tourism Organization. 2001. Report to the Twenty-fourth Legislature Regular Session of 2007 Relating to Invasive Species. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation. R. 1999. Mannion. Haack. D. J...gov/lpa/pubs/jclbpale. and C. J. Pemberton. Moyle. J. E. III. Available at: http://creatures. Hooper. Paratachardina pseudolobata (=lobata). Howard. 2006. J.aphis. Haugen.HDOA. Hamon. What is at stake for the Caribbean in hosting the Cricket World Cup 2007 event.cz/). F. Chapin. A. Naeem.htm. D. A. S. R. H.

. A comparison of control results for the alien invasive woodwasp.go. 2007. E-mail communication. Wingfield. INBAR. J. Sirex noctilio. Guidelines for regulating wood packaging material in international trade (2002) with modifications to Annex I (2006). 2006. 2008. Green. Burley. Biological diversity: the coexistence of species on changing landscapes. C. International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures. 2007. INBAR. China. and M. 2002. 2008. Hua. B. in the southern hemisphere. Plant Protection and Quarantine. List of Chinese insects.int/IPP/En/default. China. Press. Slippers.php). Beijing. International Network for Bamboo and Rattan. Dominicana. 1 to 29 (2007 edition). Iotti. 2008. 259 . Hypolite. Agricultural and Forest Entomology 9: 159-171. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. Cambridge. Ecotourism: its potential role in forest resource conservation in the Commonwealth of Dominica. Cambridge University Press. IABIN. Received by Heike Meissner. 2002. Secretariat of the International Plant Protection Convention. Rome. Rome. West Indies.gob.incop. Inter-American Biodiversity Information Network. IPPC. Beijing. International Phytosanitary Portal (Available at: https://www. Especies Invasoras de Rep. IPPC. Agreement on the establishment of the International Network for Bamboo and Rattan. Instituto Costarricense de Puertos del Pacífico (http://www. International Standards For Phytosanitary Measures. Zhongshan (Sun Yat-sen) Univ. and J. 2007. International Airport of El Salvador.cr/). 2007. Hurley. Secretariat of the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC). A.Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences and the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. B. Huston. Z. 2006. P. 1994. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. M. International Network for Bamboo and Rattan. J. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. International Plant Protection Convention. International Forestry Review 4: 298-303. L.sv/aies/contenido. INCOP. United States Department of Agriculture.jsp).ippc. (Statistics available at http://www. E. 2008. IPPC.cepa. G.. Guangzhou.

Irey. M. T. Jamaica Information Service. Jacobs. R.03. Ecological relationships of a guild of tropical beetles breeding in Cecropia petioles in Costa Rica. Journal of Tropical Ecology 14: 153-176. 2006. Implementing invasive screening procedures: The Chicago Botanic Garden model. based on morphology. M. JIS. Port statistics (Available at: http://www. Insect Migrations: Tracking Resources Through Space and Time. Weed Technology 18: 1434-1440. Gottwald. Species Survival Commission. James. 2003. Biological Invasions 10: 245-255. and M. Jefferson. Wingfield. B. Johnson.12. D.com). H. Graham. Cambridge. Poland. Jordal. T. IUCN-World Conservation Union. and C. IUFRO. Gatehouse [eds. Plans under way to improve bamboo production locally. Johnson. Kirisits. 2007. Taxonomic re-evaluation of three related species of Graphium.iucnredlist.tntisland. C. Daehler. and J. 2008. Providing ecotourism excursions for cruise passengers. JIS. D.]. Havens.com/airports. 2008. Jacksonville Port Authority. Plant Management Network Online. 2006. 31-66.. Invasive slugs as under-appreciated obstacles to rare plant restoration: Evidence from the Hawaiian Islands. 2006.. 2008. 1998. L. Jamaica and Guadeloupe to produce and promote bamboo craft. and L. K. Carlton. J. Mycologia 95: 714-727. pp. Insect migration in North America: Synoptic-scale transport in a highly seasonal environment. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (Available at: www. Caribbean airports (Available at: http://www. 2004. Invasive Species Specialist Group (ISSG). 2002. S. Jamaica Information Service. G. R. Radom.net/database/welcome/). 2007. Johnson.html). S. and G. Cambridge University Press. J.org). 1995. Environmentally sustainable cruise tourism: a reality check. K. International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources. Ault.jaxport. A. J. and phylogeny. 260 . T. Recommendations of a pathway approach for regulation of plants for planting: A concept paper from the IUFRO Unit 7. Joe. Marine Policy 26: 261270. 2008. ecology. 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. ISSG. UK.. IUCN. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 14: 43-54.invasivespecies. Drake and A. H... 2004. In V. Global Invasive Species Database (Available at: http://www. Kirkendall. Riley. D. Alien Invasive Species and International Trade. R.

N. 2006. and D. K. Iwata. M. Kairo. 2007. Venezuelanalysis. Keller. Kubán. Maehara. KFS. 2008.3. Moses. M. Species invasions from commerce in live aquatic organisms: problems and possible solutions. Relations between Guyana and Venezuela have improved tremendously under Chávez.. 2003. Z. UK. MacDonald. 2004. the oak wilt fungus. Harrington. Host and non-host odour signals governing host selection by the pine shoot beetle. B. Plagionotus christophi (Kraatz). Murphy. Hylurgops palliatus (Col. Korea Forest Service.. Smith.com. vers. Canadian Food Inspection Agency. M. G. 261 . and A. 2007). Ødegaard. Kimoto. Adams.. Carroll. Cheesman. and W. West Indies. M. and D. Lemay and H. R. A.Jules. Appel. A. E. Nature. Port of Spain. 2002. Kauffman. P. U. Shoda-Kagaya. V.. Ali. United States Department of Agriculture. and M. R. Report to The Nature Conservancy. B. C. Exotic Forest Insect Guidebook. J. Kohnle. Egham. Trinidad Hilton and Conference Centre. E.. pp. BioScience 57: 428-436. 2004. Fauna Europaea. 132. K. Koch. and T. 2008. Genetic structure of pine sawyer Monochamus alternatus (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) populations in northeast Asia: Consequences of the spread of pine wilt disease.S. H. T. T. Department of Homeland Security Customs and Border Protection: June 14. pp.. Spread of an invasive pathogen over a variable landscape: A nonnative root rot on port orford cedar. T. E. Kosciuk. Kosciuk. Annual Review of Phytopathology 46: 13-26. D. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. C. Ongoing invasions of old-growth tropical forests: Establishment of three incestuous beetle species in southern Central America (Curculionidae: Scolytinae). Community and Ecosystem Ecology 37: 442-452. Meissner. and T.S. W. Hogetsu. Ritts. forests. Zootaxa 1588: 53-62. 1. Received by A. Lodge. W. 2004. Zhou. Juzwik. Invasive species threats in the Caribbean Region. Ecology 83: 3167-3181. 2004. Lauckner. U. L. R. Scolytidae). and S. Facilitating Safer US-Caribbean Trade: Invasive Species Issues Workshop. L. Environmental Entomology 35: 569-579. K. Yamane. Kirkendall. 2007. D.. Lian. A. W. Duthie-Holt. Port procedures (conference call with J. 2006. Davis. Melanophila cuspidata (Klug 1829). Journal of Applied Entomology 128: 588-592. Spatio-temporal analysis of Xyleborus glabratus (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae) invasion in eastern U. 159. Trinidad and Tobago. Tomicus piniperda and the spruce bark beetle. CAB International. S... J. O. Kawai. Haysom. 2007. Klassen. Kuiper. Insect. L. 2005. F.. and F. The origin of Ceratocystis fagacearum. C. J. Evans. J.

. A. B. Meissner. 1900. and J. A..) in European and Asian Russia. USDA Forest Service Pest Alert. Vilá. R. University of Florida. A. P. Ebesu. Stocker. Annales de la Société Entomologique de France 69: 473-639. The accidental carriage of insects on board aircraft. J. H. Larson. Control of non-native plants in natural areas of Florida.ifas. Langeland. R. J. UK. University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences and Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. Australian Journal of Ecology 2 391-398. Miami. their biology. pp. T. Sponaugle.. Laughlin. and S. Cerambycidae) and wood nematodes (Bursaphelenchus spp. Lesne. Conducted by: A. and R. Lai. Thrips as crop pests. Florida Department of Agronomy. Schwartzburg. Transportation and Exportation Cargo Risk Analysis. Robertson. 1983. Thompson. Raleigh. Robertson (USDA-APHIS). Smith. 2008). K. Tamashiro. Journal of the Royal Aeronautical Society 55: 735-743.edu/orn/m_callizona. K. Lanterman. pp. Wallingford. Laird. 1995. NC.. A. T.htm). R. Seybold. S. and P. 1951. Y. Schwartzburg. Center for Plant Health Science and Technology. Lemay. J. Survival at different temperatures and humidities and its relation to capacity for dispersal. Orlinskii. New York. 2001. EPPO Bulletin 28: 39-52. United States Department of Agriculture. Thrips. 1997. 2005. Metamasius callizona (Chevrolat) (Insecta: Coleoptera: Dryophthoridae) (Available at: http://creatures. and S. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. 1998. N. Lemay. Mediterranean pine engraver. J. Hawaiian Entomological Society. L. J. and R. 1977.. ecology. and S. P.Kulinich. M.. Oxon. FL. Johnson. O. S. Florida Cooperative Extension Service. Distribution of conifer beetles (Scolytidae.. M. Plant Protection and Quarantine. H. 283-286.ufl. Living plants in Hawaii attacked by Coptotermes formosanus. W. A. 262 . D. 4e Mémoire. Curculionidae. The gum tree thrips Isoneurothrips australis. K. Yates. CAB International. Neeley. Lewis. Su. 2008. Frank. and R. and economic importance. Lewis. Air and maritime port visit. Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences. Revision des Coléoptères de la famille des Bostrychides. FL (March 1721. Lemay.. Y. K. 1973. Fujii. 2003. C. Miami. 62. Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory. Disease control through crop certification: woody plants. 2007. K. and D. Academic Press. H. Lee. Canadian Journal of Plant Pathology 17: 274-276.

M. 2007. Sea container review (MAF Discussion Paper No: 35). Smetana [eds. F. G. 2006. Global patterns of plant invasions and the concept of invasibility. Department of Molecular Genetics. MARAD. 28. D. and H. Maritime Administration (MARAD). 2001. Progress and challenges on the prevention and control of invasive alien species in Mesoamerica and the Caribbean Region: A brief overview. Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF). T. Exotic Forest Pests Online Symposium. Lonsdale. and A. Löbl.htm). Byrrhoidea. Wood chips (Available at: http://www.. Mandelshtam. March. S. Ugrina. American Entomologist 52: 48-54. The Nature Conservancy. Pearson Prentice Hall. M. Cavey. United States Department of Transportation.. 2004. Migration Information Source. 3. J. Scarabaeoidea. 2007. Boletin de Sanidad Vegetal. Tarbuck. Ziller. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 2: 265-273. MAF. P.apsnet. 91. North American cruises 2nd quarter 2007. Plagas 21: 357-370. Buprestoidea.. C.Liebhold.org/online/proceedings/exoticpest/Papers/ormsby. 1999.ru/Animalia/coleoptera/eng/scolspb. New Zealand. Apollo Books. Stenstrup. The Atmosphere: An Introduction to Meteorology.htm). Burgiel. Ecology 80: 1522-1536. pp. J. and S. 1995. Border Management Group.. E. Marquette. pp. M. F. pp. St. C. Office of Policy and Plans. J. Dascilloidea. 2006. W. McCullough. Lutgens. B. T. American Phytopathological Society. 8. Población y Salud en Mesoamérica 4. Scirtoidea. M. 2003. Nicaraguan migrants in Costa Rica. M. Uppersaddle River. D. New Jersey. Institute for Experimental Medicine RAMS. 2006. S. 263 . Auckland. Plantas huésped y escolítidos (Col: Scolytidae) en Galicia (Noroeste de la Península Ibérica). I. Petersburg. J. Luginbill. Russia. Lombardero. I. Work.]. Magnusson. A. and E. Lugo.. Mahler. United States Department of Agriculture. Denmark.. Catalogue of Palaearctic Coleoptera. Central America: crossroads of the Americas. Washington. 2006. Technical Bulletin Number 34: The fall army worm. 2008. List of bark beetles Scolytidae of Leningrad Region (Available at: http://www. Solheim. and D. Airline baggage as a pathway for alien insect species invading the United States. K.zin. The outcome of alien tree invasions in Puerto Rico. Vol. 1928. and J. 2002. Okland. A.C.

Agrilus planipennis (Coleoptera: Buprestidae). Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory. and B. and C. and heat on survival of emerald ash borer. Southern Research Station. McNeely. An introduction to human dimensions of invasive alien species. V.]. B. and C. 88. D. Z. and P. Riov. 1999. and D. In J. H.. Journal of Economic Entomology 100: 1304-1315. Comtois. M. and D. Pell. pp.. R. C. Smith. Mikolajczak. M. Liebhold. H. Cappaert. G. Mastro. J. A. and the role of shade tolerance. A. 2001. Shenhar. 264 . L. 1961. Mendel.. United States Department of Agriculture. CA. 2001.. in chips. Diurnal flight patterns of Orthotomicus erosus and Pityogenes calcaratus in Israel [Abstract]. Mienis. D. Worldwatch Institute. Fraser.]. R. Forest Service. How many species of landsnail genus Otala managed to settle in North America? American Conchologist 27: 13. Schwartzburg. Center for Plant Health Science and Technology. Biological Invasions 8: 611-630. L. Parker. grinding. Effects of chipping. O. Lemay. H. Vilá. Canham. L. G. MA. 2003. A. R. A. Marks. K. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 6. Menlo Park. Mead. Kalaris. The University of Chicago Press. T.. Danvers. Meissner. P. Peterson [ed. stand dynamics.February 1. USDA-APHIS-PPQ. and J. Francis. T.Martin. Moore. 2006. Traveling Light: New Paths for International Tourism. C. S. pp. 57.. Slack. McCullough. Chicago. A Study of Passenger Aircraft Cargo Hold Environments. 2005. 2008. H. Meissner.C. Marshall. Why forests appear resistant to exotic plant invasions: Intentional introductions. R.. J. McCullough. 1997. 1999. Exponent Failure Analysis Associates. Olive. F. D. Work. I. The giant African snail: A problem in economic malacology. Worldwatch Paper. J. A student guide to tropical forest conservation. Cavey. United States Department of Agriculture. In J. Clark. Guatemala trip report: January 28 . and J. 2007. J. T. The Great Reshuffling: Human Dimensions of Invasive Alien Species. Maritime Policy and Management 32: 245-261. K. Poland. The Caribbean basin: adjusting to global trends in containerization. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. 1991. L. Interceptions of nonindigenous plant pests at US ports of entry and border crossings over a 17-year period. Y. Conducted by H. 2008. D. T. Raleigh. McCalla. Duncan. Boneh. Schwartzburg. Phytoparasitica 19: 23. Mastrantonio. and K. A.. Mexican Border Risk Analysis. E. McNeely [ed. N. Meissner and K. Mastny.. A.

K. W. Brazil. Schalfant. S. A. R. Washington. NRC. Tropical forest insect pests. Long-distance dispersion of rust pathogens. A. Seasonal periodicity of the fall armyworm (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in the Caribbean Basin and northward into Canada. and M. D. Pair.. Silvain. Cambridge. Scolytidae) and Hymenoptera (Xiphydriidae) new to Oregon and Washington. Mudge. H. Brevipalpus mites Donnadieu (Prostigmata: Tenuipalpidae) associated with ornamental plants in Distrito Federal. 2001.. Neeley. Strandberg. V. Singh. and D. 1997. Caribbean cruise experience. C. Systems Engineering Department.shipmspa. The New York Times. J. Manzanillo International Terminal . F. S. Nair. Xylothrips flavipes (Illiger 1801). F.. and J.3.com/en/Media/Statistics/tabid/255/Default. pp. 1991. Waddill. 2001. R. Proshold. N. 2002. Cambridge University Press. Balasubramaniam. Navarro. Journal of Entomological Science 26: 39-50. 1. G. At last in Hispaniola. Fauna Europaea. Sand. R. L. Philadelphia. 2008. Predicting invasions of nonindigenous plants and plant pests. Annual Review of Phytopathology 28: 139-153. J. McNeil. Port statistics (Available at: http://www. L. (Available at: http://www2. J. K. 2008. hands across the border. Nagarajan. D. A. National Invasive Species Council.mitpan. J. UK. LaGasa. 1999. Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington 103: 1011-1019. Estimating adhesive seed-dispersal distances: field experiments and correlated random walks. Rodrigues.. J. M. Van Diggelen. Mississippi State Port Authority. MIT. and J. The parcel service industry in the U. United States Department of Agriculture. D. C. B. and F. Exotic woodboring Coleoptera (Micromalthidae. 2004. V. H. Functional Ecology 19: 478-486. Received by K. A. Navia.. B.. S. 2008.com).: Its size and role in commerce. University of Pennsylvania. B. National Academy of Sciences. Lengkeek. R. Westbrook. M. Morlok. 2007. D. 2005. Johnson.A. Survival of Colletotrichum acutatum in soil and plant debris of leatherleaf fern. Meeting the invasive species challenge: Management plan. 265 . O. V. Norman. Sotomayor-Rios. 52. Plant Protection and Quarantine.. S.Miranda. 2000. School of Engineering and Applied Science.C. I. 2007. Nardi. Neotropical Entomology 36: 587-592. K.Panama. Schwartzburg. K. and R.aspx). and E. E. Nitzberg. Plant Disease 81: 1177-1180. D. 1990. K. NISC. LaBonte.S. Lalanne-Cassou. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. Mouissie. vers. J. E. Mitchell.

govt. 2003. by country of residency. Núñez. 2003. Rossman. Import health standards . International Trade Administration and Bureau of Economic Analysis.2006 (Available at: http://tinet. J. 1-2. Ocean Shipping Consultants. International Trade Administration and Bureau of Economic Analysis. J. 266 .. Ltd. The incidence and host trees of pine woolly aphid. PaDIL. pp. 2007a. P. USA. Invasion pathways of terrestrial plant-inhabiting fungi. historical visitation . La otra frontera (México-Guatemala). La Jornada Semanal.gov/outreachpages/inbound.doc.ita.intl_arrivals_historic_visitation_2000-2006.gc. Ostry.seeds.org/online/proceedings/exoticpest/Papers/Ostry.htm). Pest risk assessment for importation of solid wood packing materials into the United States. Natural Resources Canada. NZMAF. 1974. Olckers. 2007. M.html). A. L. T. 2007b. Y. 5.ita. Exotic Forest Pests Online Symposium.html). Biological Control of Weeds in South Africa (1990-1998) (African Entomology Memoir No.].apsnet.nrcan.ca/index/bslb2). Commonwealth Forestry Review 53: 128-136. United States Department of Agriculture. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service and the USDA Forest Service. New Zealand Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry.gov/view/m-2006-I001/top_ports. Carlton [eds. American Phytopathological Society. McElroy. OTTI. in East Africa [Abstract]. Odera. V.2000 . Invasive species: vectors and management strategies. Padilla. M. International arrivals to U.nz/regs/imports/plants/forest). USA. M. England. In G.biosecurity. Entomological Society of Southern Africa. Island Press. E.doc. Top ports: year-to-date (Available at: http://tinet.]. 2007. Department of Commerce. Government of Canada. pp. 2000. 2008. Pineus pini (L. and J. Sustaining containerport demand in the Americas.NRCAN. 1). 2001. Office of Travel and Tourism Industries. The tourism penetration index in large islands: The case of the Dominican Republic. Exotic forest pest advisory: The brown spruce longhorn beetle (Available at: http://cfs.Importing forest and wood products (Available at: http://www. Ocean Shipping Consultants. Ruiz and J. T. Olckers and M. Hill [eds. OTTI.. E. Pests and Diseases Image Library. Palm. I. and A. Australia Commonwealth Government.). propagative materials.S. Department of Commerce. Surrey. and nursery stock (Available at: http://www. 2005. Introduction. 2006. Office of Travel and Tourism Industries (OTTI). Washington. In T. E. A. Pasek. 1999. Hazards associated with pest pathways and economic impacts . Journal of Sustainable Tourism 13: 353-372.

sv/).com). 2008.org/port/).gob.com/). (USDA. E. London.portofpalmbeach. Sailing into the sunset: The cruise-ship industry. 156-175. 2008. pp. 28-51. USDA Forest Service.com). Received by H. P. Pattullo. 2008.com/MonthlyStatisticalReport.htm).Pasek. 1996b. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). International Institute of Tropical Forestry. Port of Miami-Dade. Port Authority of Jamaica. The holiday and its makers: The tourists. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). Last Resorts: The Cost of Tourism in the Caribbean.com). P. APHIS). Port of Guadeloupe. Lugo [eds. Meissner. Port Authority of Jamaica. Cassell.portno. Port of Freeport. Port Everglades. In C. National plant health awareness campaign. 2007. London. 2008. 1996a. in the Caribbean sub-region and implications for the agriculture and forestry sub-sectors. 2008. Pemberton. (Available at: http://www. Last Resorts: The Cost of Tourism in the Caribbean.portjam. Florida Entomologist 86: 373-377.puertoacajutla. Port of Belize. Pasek. J. pp. 2008. Port statistics (Available at: http://www. Maconellicoccus hirstus. Port of Palm Beach. E. Port of New Orleans.portofhouston. Statistical Publication 2007: Covering shipping activities at the island's ports (Available at: http://www. C. Invasion of Paratachardina lobata lobata (Hemiptera: Kerriidae) in south Florida: A snapshot sample of an infestation in a residential yard. GA. Port activity and statistics (Available at: http://www. 267 . R.metro-dade. Pollard. 136-153.pdf). Linkages and leakages: The planning factor. 2007. V. 18.com/index. London. Port statistics (Available at: http://www. Pattullo.portofbelize.portoffreeport. Port of Acajutla. 2003. 2008.com).]. Pattullo. Port statistics (Available at: http://www. pp. Cassell. Last Resorts: The Cost of Tourism in the Caribbean. Introduction and establishment of pink hibiscus mealybug.port-guadeloupe. (Available at: http://www. Port of Houston.broward. Personal communication with J. Port of New Orleans Overview (Available at: http://www.com). Plant Health Australia. 2008. (Available at http://www. 2008. pp. Proceedings of the eighth meeting of Caribbean Foresters at Grenada. Yocum and A. P. 2008. (Available at: http://www. 1997. Georges. 1996c. St. Cassell. Procedures of AQIM data collection.

Agricultural insect pest hitchhikers on aircraft.do/index. Conflicting values and common goals: Codes of conduct to reduce the threat invasive species. Forest Insect and Disease Leaflet 29. Dean. S. E. Z. The invasive species assessment protocol: A tool for creating regional and national lists of invasive nonnative plants that negatively impact biodiversity.. Introduction of sugarcane rust into the Americas and its spread to Florida.. United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service. Stavisky. Krupa. Rainwater. 2001. S. R. 2004. 2001. White. Reay. Dole. Malden. J. H. Reichard. and J.. O. R. Killeffer. J. E.. Proceedings of the Hawaiian Entomological Society 18: 303-309. 2008. The role of the bark beetle. Forest Products Journal 57: 84-88. J. H. Hurricane-borne African locusts (Schistocerca gregaria) on the Windward Islands. Qi. A. Horticulture as a pathway of invasive plant introductions in the United States. D.php?option=com_docman&task=cat_view&gid=14&Itemid=129).. N. 2005. I. 2004. R. Richardson. Morse. GeoJournal 23: 349-357. Weed Technology 18: 1503-1507..S. and X. L..gov. Rabaglia. Hiebert. Shog. L. MA.. Study on the effect heat treatment for pinewood nematode. Hylastes ater (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). 1985. BioScience 51: 103-113. Lu. Thwaites. D. and S. C. Review of American Xyleborina (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae) occurring north of Mexico. L. J. H. 2006. 268 . and D. Bark occurrence in U. Ramachandran. S. República Dominicana Oficina Nacional de Estadística. I. Reichard. M. Olson. L. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 3: 129-137. Annals of the Entomological Society of America 99: 1034-1056. C. Oak wilt.. S. M. J. 1991. R.. 2001. Population abundance and movement of Frankliniella species and Orius insidiosus in field pepper. Plant Quarantine 19: 325-329. Benton. J. Cognato. Nemeth. Funderbur. Blackwell Science. Randall. and Canadian wooden pallets. and D. 2001. S. 1963. Invasive Plant Science and Management 1: 36–49 Ray. Brown. and T. Rexrode. Yan. and E. Quantick. with an illustrated key. S. Yu. and A.one. Walsh. 2007. 1983. H. S. J. Climatology for airline pilots. Bursaphelenchus xylophilus. (Statistics available at: http://www. S.Purdy. Deomano. L. Plant Disease 69: 689-693. C. and P. and P. as a sapstain fungi vector to Pinus radiata seedlings: A crisis for the New Zealand forestry industry? Integrated Pest Management Reviews 6: 283-291. within wood packing materials. H. V. Farrell.

Facilitating safer US-Caribbean trade: Invasive species issues workshop. 2004. M. and S. 2007.Richardson. H. Facts on File. D. 1998. 2008. E. G. C. and G. Forestry trees as invasive aliens. 2008. 2008. Email: Caribbean Pathways Analysis. R. Forest Encyclopedia Network (Ed. Sánchez Raya. P. Region de Valparaiso.us/r6/nr/fid/fidls/fid131. 2006. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. Ulloa. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. pp. Nelson. and J. Stevens. Opening round table. Richardson [ed. United States Department of Agriculture. D. Invasive agroforestry trees: Problems and solutions. Basic steps in timber harvesting. Personal communication with J. Division of Natural Resources and Infrastructure. H. M. A brief history of the Caribbean: from the Arawak and the Carib to the present. 1999. 253. Russell. G. Bynum. E. A. Rodríguez. Washington.M. Site Visit Review and Recommendations. Robinson.. P. Roberts. Bulletin of the World Health Organization 65: 659-662. J. APHIS. available at http://www.fs. A. 1987. United States Department of Agriculture. Smuggling Interdiction and Trade Compliance. L. Plant Protection and Quarantine. Pest interception efficiency for airline passenger baggage. Conservation Biology 12: 18-26. Evaluacion de la efectividad de la implementacion de la NIMF No. Rummer. and A. Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC). 1996. Meissner. J. 269 . Received by H. W. H. Wilson. D. In D. W.htm). Erwin. Roth.. Peña. International maritime transport in Latin America and the Caribbean in late 2006 (FAL Bulletin No. E. M. Pest Management Science 59: 339-346. Schroth. USDA. R. Meissner. Effect of the combined treatment of insecticides and an attractant for the control of Phloeotribus scarabaeoides.. M. Aerial plankton detected by radar. Forest Service..]. Richardson. Universidad de Talca.June 16-20. G. Agroforestry and Biodiversity Conservation in Tropical Landscapes. Tang. Panama Canal Sentinel Survey: Mollusk Project . W.. Survival of insects in the wheel bays of a Boeing 747B aircraft on flights between tropical and temperate airports. 2003. Weihman.cl).eclac.fed.. Sanchez Salinas. Roda. Island Press. Port of Spain. Ruiz. M. Campos. United States Department of Agriculture. T. Rogers. Forest insect and disease leaflet: Phytophtora root rot of Port-Orford Cedar (Available at: http://www. Binggeli. J. 2007. F. 2008. and C. Sánchez. B. APHIS. Nature 381: 200-201. USDA. Rogozinski. a pest of Olea europea. Rauscher). Received by H. R. New York. and E.. Russell. 15 para embalajes de madera de importacion en la barrera fitosanitaria internacional Puerto de San Antonion. Rogers. 371. and M. 2004. Ruiz. 1972. Trinidad and Tobago.

S. Y. A. Grace. Cabrera. Maharajh. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. and D. United States Department of Agriculture. J. R. Direct evidence for meteorologically driven long-range dispersal of an economically important moth. Kern. Sources of new insects established on Guam in the post World War II period. W. A. L. Nasutitermes costalis (Isoptera: Termitidae) in Florida: First record of a non-endemic establishment by a higher termite.1). J. 2008. Whitford. Advances in molecular-based diagnostics in meeting crop biosecurity and phytosanitary issues. Luster. B. J. brevis (Walker) on Oahu. J. R. J..SAS Institute. Schabel. Robinson. Despaux. J. F. Survey of the termites (Isoptera: Kalotermitidae. J. J. and B. Hawaiian Entomological Society. E. Mangold.. N. Lopez. and J. H. M. and G. Florida Entomologist 85: 273-275. Schneider.. Outlook on Agriculture 28: 163. 2008. 141-145. D. Frederick. K. J. Florida Entomologist 88: 549-552. W. Hollier. and J. R. R. W. Estadísticas Turísticas Centroamericanas. Palm. K. Schneider. Chase. Whitman. 2003. J. I. J. G. H. Keaster. 1999. R. Hickson. SICA. Springer. Su. Smelser. R.. W. W. B. Yates. Robertson. Trip report: Site visit to Jamaica February 24-19... D. M. 2005. Schaad. Krecek. Scheffrahn. McKemy. 2002. 1962. Su. Mangold. G. and N. Shaw. F. J. Plant Disease 89: 774. Annual Review of Entomology 7: 223-243. Moreno. Chase. Herrera. R. 2006. Petrillo. Taylor. H. Ecology 70: 987-992. 1989. Sistema de la Integración Centroamericana. Scheffrahn. Forest Entomology in East Africa: Forest Insects of Tanzania. Annual Review of Phytopathology 41: 305-324. 1996. The economic context for agroforestry development: Evidence from Central America and the Caribbean. J. and S. H. K. B. 2005. 1991. 2008. Y. H. The clear-air coastal vespertine radar bands. Showers. Schwartzburg. Schneider. 270 . B.. Scheffrahn. C. Schreiner. Dispersal and migration. H. Dordrecht. D. Bulletine of American Meteorology Society 77: 673-681. pp. R. Scherr. E. Micronesica Supplement 3: 5-13. 2000. M. F.. Termitidae) of Nicaragua. Sauvageot. First record of Cryptotermes cynocephalus Light (Isoptera: Kalotermitidae) and natural woodland infestations of C. H. SAS Online Documentation (for version 9. H. Rhinotermitidae. 2007. A. I. J. First report of soybean rust caused by Phakospora pachyrhizi in the continental United States. and S. N. R. A. Hawaiian Islands.

Bonifácio. Preliminary survey for insects associated with Bursaphelenchus xylophilus in Portugal. R. The economic impact of weeds in Australia. 271 . Sousa. and extrinsic factors. Bhandari.. M. J. Wylie. M. SLASPA. Annals of the Entomological Society of America 79: 132-139. 1987. C. European Union and North American Border Security Policies in Comparative Perspective. A. and M. EPPO Bulletin 32: 499-502. James. 1986. A. M. The southern border of Mexico in the age of globalization. Sinden. and ecosystem functioning: Disentangling the influence of resource competition. pp.. facilitation. S. Community effects of introduced species. 2007. Byrnes. Rodriguez. Stachowicz. Traffic statistics (Available at: http://www. Stanaway. R. International Centre for Research in Agroforestry Working Paper. M. Guildford and King's Lynn. New York. M. R. Statistical digest 2006/2007 (Available at: http://www. J. Bravo. Solís. R. Kalisch. Speight. Serrão. Gillespie. In T. J. Insect pests in tropical forestry. Carpenter. Pires. V. P. N. Princess Juliana International Airport.a priority for Caribbean sports tourism.. 2001. Marine Ecology. R. 2005. Penas. C. Odom. Species diversity. Naves. J. 53-81. 2005. Biotic crises in ecological and evolutionary time. 1995. 2008. Victoria. D. Cacho. J. D. H. Singh Rathore. Singh. 2006. SITC. and J. pp. Insect pests in agroforestry. Sint Maarten. P. and R. Indian Forester 113: 734-743.pjiae. P. Maynard. and R. D.. and F. Nitecki [ed. M. Sports education .com/STATISTICAL%20DIGEST%20FOR%202007%20NOVEMBER. Jones.. University of Victoria.]. S.com/businessmovements. C. S.html). Sint Maarten International Airport. CRC for Australian Weed Management Technical Series No. Canada. Academic Press. invasion success. 2001. Hester. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 17: 536-548. Insects captured in light traps in the Gulf of Mexico. 2008. Jackson. Pest risk assessment of insects in sea cargo containers. Insect pests of Acacia tortilis in India. P. Saint Lucia Air and Sea Ports Authority (SLASPA). L. V. Australian Journal of Entomology 40: 180-192. E. Zalucki. British Columbia. E. E.pdf). D.. and G.Simberloff..slaspa. 2004. Sinclair. Biddles Ltd. 10. Progress Series 311: 251. Sparks. A. 1981. 2002. A. P. Muller. 8. Pathways: Bi-annual report of the National Smuggling Interdiction and Trade Compliance Program. and O. A. D.

Japan. Telford. Hay. U.C. TRENDS In Plant Science 6: 453.S. B. Novo. P. E.. Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. Washington. Teixera. How insects gain entry. Tatem. New York. G. H. Journal of Animal Ecology 43: 225-238. 2006. R. 2008. A study on the fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) found in the fresh fruits carried by passengers from Thailand to Narita Airport. Certificate atlas for the Caribbean. Research Bulletin of the Plant Protection Service. 2004.]. H. C. 2000. 1997. Preferred wind direction of long-distance leafhopper (Empoasca fabae) migrants and its relevance to the return migration of small insects. pp. Torrie. Laird [ed. Washington. Principles and Procedures of Statistics: A Biometrical Approach. Reling. Fact sheet: Global ecotourism (Available at: http://www. 65-79. Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries. D. 2008.. In A. 2002.org/webmodules/webarticlesnet/templates/eco_template. J. Dickey. M. Filho. G. and S. Exotic plant pests . 2001. 272 . Thomson Reuters.Steel. A. 5. R. Takeishi. Praeger Publishers. Taylor. Plant smugglers busted. 1992. pp. J. Insect migration. London. 5th edition. Australia. First Record of Sinoxylon anale Lesne and Sinoxylon senegalensis (Karsch) (Coleoptera: Bostrichidae) in Brazil. S. T.. Climatic similarity and biological exchange in the worldwide airline transportation network. New York. 2007. Taylor. Commerce and the Spread of Pests and Disease Vectors. 1974.]. The Royal Geographical Society. 1984. flight periodicity. Thomson Reuters. The State of Queensland. McGraw-Hill. A. Journal of Animal Ecology 55: 1103-1114. Thomas. The exotic invasion of Florida: A report on arthropod immigration into the sunshine state. P. Japan: 75-78. J. L. The International Ecotourism Society. 1986. Phillip's. 350-355. A. 1952. and D. TIES. Stefferud [ed. Takahashi. In M. R.ecotourism. B. and the boundary layer. Proceedings of the Royal Society (Biological Sciences) 274: 1489-1496. Stokes. S. DC. R. and E.aspx?articleid=15 &zoneid=2). Neotropical Entomology 31: 651-652. and D.reuters. Survey on accidental introductions of insects entering Japan via aircraft. Swain. D.citrus canker. pp.. Government Printing Office. a division of Octopus Publishing Group Limited.com/article/pressRelease/idUS170744+28-Jan-2008+BW20080128). Examine the UK mail order retailers (Available at: http://www. Insects: The Yearbook of Agriculture 1952.

2008. U. B.unwto. Geneva. Forest Health Status in North America.com). UNWTO. Aviation statistics. Madrid. Population Division. A. Torres. Virgin Islands Port Authority. 2005. Spain. United States Department of Agriculture. Spain. New York.com/avistats.com. Risks associated with world trade in logs and unmanufactured wood.S. United Nations World Tourism Organization. and P.What do we know? Expert group meeting on international migration and development in Latin America and the Caribbean. The Scientific World Journal 7: 28-36. and J. 2006. Aviation Division. Lepidoptera outbreaks in response to successional changes after the passage of Hurricane Hugo in Puerto Rico. Belize Ferry.htm).viport. Villa Castillo. (Available at: http://comtrade. Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Addressing the risks associated with the importation of plants for planting (Available at: http://www. 2005. 273 . United Nations Secretariat. B. pp.S. Journal of Tropical Ecology 5: 285-298. Compendium of tourism statistics data 2000-2004.viport.html). United Nations World Tourism Organization. Postal statistics (Available at: http://www. Port statistics (Available at: http://www. American Phytopathological Society. UNComtrade. pp. Migration in the Caribbean .gov/import_export/plants/plant_imports/downloads/q37_whitepaper. 2008.pdf). Virgin Islands Port Authority. 148. activity for fiscal years 2002-2006 (Available at: http://www. pp. U. The United Nations Commodity Trade Statistics Database (UN Comtrade). 2006.org/). 2006. Universal Postal Union.un. Moody. 2007. United Nations. Exotic Forest Pests Online Symposium. 2008.. 5. pp. J.usda.Tkacz. United Nations. B. 2008. Review of maritime transport. DESA/UNSD. U.aphis. 2008. Geneva. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. A. Virgin Islands Port Authority.int/). 2005. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. 2001.S. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. M. Lehtonen. UNCTAD.. Review of maritime transport. 36. Tkacz. Madrid. 2005. Travour. 2007. Universal Postal Union. Tschanz. 1992. UNCTAD. UNWTO. 160. World tourism barometer (Available at: http://www. Universal Postal Union.upu. 2006. Development plan for the postal sector and postal services in the Caribbean.org/facts/eng/barometer.

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. USDA-APHIS-PPQ. Department of Commerce.usda. "Operation Dog Bite" inspections conducted to survey prohibited items in incoming international private (express) mail packages.000 records (SITC-SFIMC. 2008c. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. PPQ employees uncover pests in imported scented pine cones. United States Commercial Service (USCS). Slide presentation: Ponce Workunit II USDA APHIS PPQ. USDA-APHIS. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. United States Department of Agriculture. Visitors guide to Honduras.S. 2008a.usatradeonline. 1998. ASA soybean rust alert. Research and Innovation Technology Administration (RITA). United States Department of Agriculture. 2008. Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS).transtats. 274 . Virgin Islands. USDA-APHIS-PPQ. USDA-APHIS-PPQ.shtml). United States Department of Agriculture. Manual for Agricultural Clearance (Available at: http://www. USDA-APHIS. "Food by Mail" SITC operation data set. 2008d. merchandise trade data (Available at: http://www. United States Department of Agriculture. Smuggling Interdiction and Trade Compliance newsletter. SITC international mail interceptions were reported from the San Francisco International Mail Center (SFIMC) Mail Interception Notice (MIN) database which contains over 11. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. January through June 2008. 2008e. International Trade Administration. 2005. Plant Protection and Quarantine. 2007.US-DOT. 2004. USCB. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. USDA-APHIS-SITC. 2008b. United States Census Bureau. Plant Protection and Quarantine. USA Trade Online: The official source for U. 2006. Agricultural Quarantine Inspection Monitoring (AQIM) Handbook. USDA-APHIS-PPQ.gov/). 2006. 2003.aphis. contains interceptions in mail from Puerto Rico and the U. USA. Plant Protection and Quarantine.bts. Slide presentation: Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ) Puerto Rico and US Virgin Islands.gov/import_export/plants/manuals/online_manuals. USCS. Plant Protection and Quarantine.S. USDA-APHIS-SITC. USDA-APHIS-PPQ. United States Department of Agriculture. Air carriers: T-100 International Segment (All carriers) (Available at: http://www. Solid wood packing material from China: Initial pest risk assessment. 2007. 2000-2005) USDA-APHIS-SITC. United States Department of Transportation (USDOT).gov). USDA-APHIS-PPQ. 2007.

usda. Forest Inventory and Analysis National Program (Available at: http://www.pdf) (Last accessed 11 December 2008).pd f) (Last accessed: 11 December 2008). USDA-FS. Pest risk assessment of the importation into the United States of unprocessed logs and chips of eighteen eucalypt species from Australia.gov/animals/rifa. 2008b.usda. Questions and answers on Ralstonia solanacearum race 3 biovar 2 (Available at: http://www. USDA-FS. USDA-APHIS. United States Department of Agriculture. 2009.shtml). 2008c. Red imported fire ant (Available at: http://www.gov/import_export/plants/manuals/emergency/downloads/nprgralstonia. Forest Service.us/fhp/ow/maps/ow_dist_fs. Northeast Area. United States Department of Agriculture. United States Department of Agriculture. 1998. USDA-FS. Pest risk assessment of the importation into the United States of unprocessed Pinus logs and chips from Australia. USDA-NRCS.fs. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. Forest Service.aphis. USDA-FS. United States Department of Agriculture. 2003.us/). United States Department of Agriculture.invasivespeciesinfo. Forest roads: A synthesis of scientific information.pdf). Forest Service. Forest Service. USDA. Pests and mitigations for manufactured wood décor and craft products from China for importation into the United States. United States Department of Agriculture. Forest Service. 2006a. 2001. 2006b. USDA-APHIS.gov/import_export/plants/plant_imports/downloads/q37_whitepaper. New pest response guidelines: Ralstonia solanacearum race 3 biovar 3 (http://www. USDA. 2006. United States Department of Agriculture.fed. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. Pest risk assessment of the importation into the United States of unprocessed Pinus and Abies logs from Mexico. USDA. 2007. 275 .usda. The Plants Database. USDA-FS.na.aphis. 2005 oak wilt distribution (Available at: http://www. National Invasive Species Information Center. 2007 Resources Planning Act (RPA) Resource Tables.fed.gov/publications/plant_health/content/printable_version/faq_phralstonia.aphis.fia. Plant Protection and Quarantine. Phytosanitary risk associated with phytophagous insect pests intercepted on bamboo garden stakes from China imported into the United States. United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service. National Agriculture Library. USDA-FS.shtm). 2008a.fs. USDA. USDA. 2004.USDA-APHIS. 2008. Noxious weeds program (Available at: http://www.

2002.PQ280.jsp). Telopoea 10: 477-485.Work Accomplishment Data System (WADS). and P.com/b/2004/08/23/online-retail-sales-projection. The presence of the coffee berry borer.gov/aqas/login. Pest and Diseases Image Library. 2008f.gov/aqas/login.13: 1-3. Vountourism. USDA-APHIS-PPQ (Available at: https://mokcs14. 2005.. vanAndel. Homepage. Hypothenemus hampei. The economic consequences of alien plant invasions: examples of impacts and approaches to sustainable management in South Africa. 2001. Environment. 276 . and S. American Entomologist 43: 23-29.gov/aqas/login. C. H.aphis. Know your enemy: Recent records of potentially serious weeds in northern Australia. Behari-Randas. R. 2008. D. Franqui. USDA. Walker. A.USDA. Le Maitre. B. Epianthropochory in Mexican weed communities. and impact.usda. biology. 2004. J. 2006.usda. Groenendijk. Benavides.shtml). M. Agriculture Quarantine Activity Systems . B. D. S. W. Papua New Guinea and Papua (Indonesia). Richardson. C. 1999. Development and Sustainability 3: 145168. Vinson.. Museum Victoria. F. 1997. USDA-APHISPPQ. A. 2. USDA-APHIS-PPQ (Available at: https://mokcs14. 2003.gov/import_export/plants/manuals/ports/treatment.jsp). Ethnobotany Research & Applications 5: 351-372. in Puerto Rico: Fact or fiction? Journal of Insect Science 2.. B.aphis. and R. Magadlela. 2008g. K. T.jsp). Online retail sales projection (Available at: http://retailindustry. van Wilgen. The medicinal plant trade in Suriname. Analysing container flows in the Caribbean. E. Agriculture Quarantine Activity Systems . USDA. Waterhouse. Mulder. Auger beetle: Sinoxylon crassum Lesne (Coleoptera: Bostrichidae: Bostrichinae). and D. Veenstra.aphis. M. Journal of Transport Geography 13: 295-305. M. H. Invasion of the red imported fire ant (Hymenoptera: Formicidae): Spread. Agriculture Quarantine Activity Systems . Vega. American Journal of Botany 86: 476-481. 2008e.org. 2007. Treatment Manual (Available at: http://www. USDA. USDA-APHIS-PPQ (Available at: https://mokcs14. Vibrans. Vargas.htm).com Retail Industry Blog. About. A.aphis. Sels. pp. Havinga.usda. R.about. M. Marais.PestID..usda. 2008d.

K.. Timmins.possible means of entry and implications for plant quarantine. Division of Plant Industry. Wilkie.Silvarum Colendarum Ratio et Industria Lignaria 7: 75-92. Wood. southern Poland). CAB International. Animal. Snelling. Subantarctic hitchhikers: Expeditioners as vectors for the introduction of alien organisms. and A. Bergstrom. 1960. 2007.. The red imported fire ant. Boca Raton. Ampulariidae. A. International Forestry Review 4: 257. P. N. M. Insects of Micronesia 18: 1-73. CRC Press.doacs. McIntosh. Pommier. 2006. M.. forest law and the illegal timber trade in Honduras and Nicaragua. and S. Coleoptera: Platypodidae and Scolytidae. Dowling [ed. F. S. R. International Journal of Biometeorology 28: 185-200. and A.. C.Waugh. Mathias. Pimentel [ed.fl. 170-183. 277 . US Forest Service). Laverdiere. Cruise Ship Tourism. S. and T. J. L. R. Biological Conservation 121: 207-219. 2007.) (Col. 2006. Studies of the biology. Walker. Chilcott. J. K. M. Fitter. 2008. Forests and forestry in small island developing states (SIDS). Red palm mite Raoiella indica Hirst (Acari: Tenuipalpidae) (Available at: http://www. A. and economic importance of Ips amitinus (Eichh. Witrylak. pp. and R. Trade related pathways to the introduction of terrestrial invasive species in the insular Caribbean (report to International Programs. Plant Pathology 36: 239241. R. Predation on freshwater bryozoans by the apple snail. In R. 2002.. M. Puccinia striiformis f. Chaichana. 2005.. 2008. Mahujchariyawong. 175-184. Whinam.state.. and A. Rural livelihoods.us/pi/enpp/ento/r. Economic impacts of weeds in New Zealand. Florida Entomologist 89: 431-434. Scolytidae) in experimental forests of Krynica (Beskid Sądecki. Ecology 77: 1661-1666. delGatto. United Kingdom. and D.]. Anurakpongsatorn. Contreras-Hermosilla. Acta Scientarum Polonorum . The varying success of invaders.. Biological Invasions: Economic and Environmental Costs of Alien Plant. R.]. Solenopsis invicta (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in the Virgin Islands. FL. 1987. Oxfordshire. A. L. J.indica. 2005. 2002. M. Eckelmann. ecology. International Union for Conservation of Nature. Williamson. Satapanajaru. tritici in Eastern Australia . Richards. P. C. In D. phenology. Welbourn. Wellings. and J. and Microbe Species. The changing geography of cruise tourism in the Caribbean. T. F. C. 1996. Pest Alert. Long range migration of aphids into Sweden.. M. sp. Denisia. Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. Pomacea canaliculata. Wetterer. 1984. D. M. [sic] an invasive species in Southeast Asia: A summary report. P. Wilkinson. 16: 283-286. Wood. Wiktelius. Williams. Wells.html). pp. J.

R. and implications for biological control. WTO. J. J.Worrall. 2007.. Clean stock program for Dracaena spp. M. J. Palmer.php?g=Ficus). NOAA Research.forestpathology. pp. an exotic pest in Africa. Exp. 4: 211-224. D. J. London. S. The 2008 travel and tourism economic research: Caribbean. Forest and Shade Tree Pathology. Wren. Continental dispersal of the cassava green mite. Oak wilt (Available at: www. W. Yoshioka.gov/spotlite/archive/spot_watergarden. 20. World Travel and Tourism Council. K. and U. pp. T. Nelson. Travel & tourism . WTTC. 1988. & Appl. 2008.The winds of change. 2008.m-fuukei. Invasive plants database (Available at: http://invasive.org). 2007.noaa. 278 . Greenery Technology and Landscape Planning. Acarol. 3. Guarding water gardens against invasive species (Available at: http://www. Plant Virus Diversity and Ecology. United Kingdom.html). Melcher. S. Scheets. 2006. intended for export to the United States. Zhuikov. M. 2009.oar. Roosnick. Public Library of Science (PLoS) Biology 4: e80.jp/slist. Yaninek. M. World Trade Organization.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful