1. New Pest Prioritization Model: Impacts to CAPS Program Melinda SullivanLisa Jackson melinda.j.sullivan@aphis.usda.gov lisa.d.jackson@aphis.usda.gov Daniel Mackesy daniel.z.mackesy@aphis.usda.gov

2. Observations on New Model

3. Arthropods Consistency of damage = high score. Consistency of damage = high score. Moths (caterpillars) consistently damage the marketable portion of many crops = high score. Moths (caterpillars) consistently damage the marketable portion of many crops = high score. Polyphagy (many hosts) not as important as previously thought. Polyphagy (many hosts) not as important as previously thought. Some forest pests moved down in rank drastically for several reasons. Some forest pests moved down in rank drastically for several reasons. If pest could likely be controlled, lowered rank. If pest could likely be controlled, lowered rank.

4. Observations on New Model Arthropods Polyphagous pests ranked higher in last model. Polyphagous pests ranked higher in last model. In new model, many pests with only a few hosts moved up considerably: In new model, many pests with only a few hosts moved up considerably: Paysandisia archon (South American palm borer) Paysandisia archon (South American palm borer) Tecia solanivora (Guatemalan potato moth) Tecia solanivora (Guatemalan potato moth) Tuta absoluta (Tomato leaf miner) Tuta absoluta (Tomato leaf miner)

5. Observations on New Model Arthropods Forest pests have several reasons for not ranking as high: Forest pests have several reasons for not ranking as high: Pests that only cause problems in one portion of their established range do not score as high. Pests that only cause problems in one portion of their established range do not score as high. Outbreak pests do not score as high. Outbreak pests do not score as high. Wood-boring beetles and bark beetles often have inconsistent damage. Wood-boring beetles and bark beetles often have inconsistent damage. It is hard to predict how these beetles will behave in a new environment. Moths usually act consistently. It is hard to predict how these beetles will behave in a new environment. Moths usually act consistently.

6. Observations on New Model Arthropods Forest pests that were previously ranked higher: Forest pests that were previously ranked higher: Agrilus biguttatus (Oak splendor beetle) (Moderate – may periodically be High under outbreak) Agrilus biguttatus (Oak splendor beetle) (Moderate – may periodically be High under outbreak) Massicus raddei (Mountain oak longhorned beetle) (Low) Massicus raddei (Mountain oak longhorned beetle) (Low) Tomicus destruens (Mediterranean pine shoot beetle) (Moderate or Low) Tomicus destruens (Mediterranean pine shoot beetle) (Moderate or Low) Tremex fuscicornis (Tremex woodwasp) (Moderate - may periodically be High under outbreak) Tremex fuscicornis (Tremex woodwasp) (Moderate - may periodically be High under outbreak)

7. Observations on New Model Arthropods If pest could likely be controlled with current practices, lowered rank. If pest could likely be controlled with current practices, lowered rank. These pests were ranker higher previously, but would be expected to be controlled in most of their host cropping systems: These pests were ranker higher previously, but would be expected to be controlled in most of their host cropping systems: Helicoverpa armigera (Old World bollworm) (High or Moderate) Helicoverpa armigera (Old World bollworm) (High or Moderate) Nysius huttoni (Wheat bug) (Low) Nysius huttoni (Wheat bug) (Low)

8. Observations on New Model Plant Pathogens Many plant pathogens ranked higher this year Many plant pathogens ranked higher this year Polyphagy not necessarily related to higher score Polyphagy not necessarily related to higher score Consistent damage/ impact (particularly causing plant death) = higher score Consistent damage/ impact (particularly causing plant death) = higher score Lack of control measured/ mitigations = high score; Availability of control measures = low/ lower score Lack of control measured/ mitigations = high score; Availability of control measures = low/ lower score Control/ mitigation options are quite limited for many of the pathogens Control/ mitigation options are quite limited for many of the pathogens Example: Monilinia fructigena (Apple brown rot) – moved to moderate Example: Monilinia fructigena (Apple brown rot) – moved to moderate

9. Pest Prioritization Process

10. Pre-assessment Post-assessment Prioritization Model (OPEP) Final List

11. Pests are suggested by CAPS community and other sources. Pests are run through Pre-assessment Form. Pest is a candidate for Prioritized Pest List. Pest is run through model. Pest is not a candidate for Prioritized Pest List. Completed pre- assessment form is archived. Pest may be re- submitted in the future if more information becomes available. High and Moderate Impact Pests are run through the Post-assessment Form. Low impact pests are not added to the final Prioritized Pest List list. Pests are run through Post-assessment Form (evaluate Survey and ID methods/ capacity). Pests that make it through the Post- assessment will be on the final pest list. Pests that do not pass the Post-assessment are put on a research list for methods development/ improvement or ID capacity improvement.

12. Pest Prioritization Process Pre-assessment Questionnaire 1. Is it a plant pest as defined by the IPPC? 2. Does the pest cause measurable damage on any plant of value or interfere with trade? 3. Is citrus the only important host for this pest? (If yes, refer to CPHST citrus team.) 4. Is the pest exotic to the United States? 5. Is it listed in the AQAS database as non-reportable at the species level? Yes = Fail 6. Is there a demonstrated pathway of introduction, not including smuggling? 7. Is the deliberate smuggling of this pest or any host of this pest likely to occur?

13. Pest Prioritization Process Post-assessment Questionnaire Evaluates:  Survey method  Identification/ diagnostic method  Capacity/ expertise to perform ID/ diagnostics  Exclude pests that don’t have effective methods.  These pests would not be listed on the final prioritized pest list.  Pests would go to a research and development list.  Farm Bill Goal 3 has asked us for recommendations for priorities each year

14. Pest Prioritization Process Outcome for New Model Pests fall into three categories: Category 1 (Top 45 pests, High and some Moderate pests)  Pests have a greater than 20% probability of being a high impact pest.  If the pest passes the Post-assessment, they will be listed on the Pests of Economic and Environmental Importance List.  Pests will also be added to relevant commodity manuals.  If pests fail the Post-assessment, they will be placed on a priority list for research.

15. Pest Prioritization Process Outcome for New Model Category 2 (Middle 15 pests, Moderate pests)  Pests are most likely to have a moderate impact.  Pests have a 10 to 20% probability of being a high impact pest. impact pest.  These pests will not be part of the Pests of Economic and Environmental Importance List. and Environmental Importance List.  Pests that are recommended for survey and pass the Post-assessment will be added to commodity or posted as free-standing datasheets.  If fail the Post-assessment, they may or may not be listed as priorities for research.

16. Pest Prioritization Process Outcome for New Model Category 3 (Bottom 31 pests, Low impact pests)  Pests are most likely to have a low impact.  Pests have a less than 10% probability of being a high impact pest.  These pests will not be included on the Pests of Economic and Environmental Importance List.  New pests assessed will not be included in a commodity manual or posted as free-standing datasheets.  Existing pests present in a commodity-manual will likely be removed from manuals over time.

17. Pests Analyzed in 2017 (using new model)

18. Pests Analyzed in 2017 53 Existing prioritized pests 38 new pests analyzed PestLens: 13 PestLens: 13 2012 OPIS A List: 12 2012 OPIS A List: 12 CAPS Community: 7 CAPS Community: 7 New Pest Advisory Group (NPAG): 5 New Pest Advisory Group (NPAG): 5 CPHST: 4 CPHST: 4 Additional Pests of Concern List: 4 Additional Pests of Concern List: 4 Select Agents: 2 Select Agents: 2 Trade Issues: 1 Trade Issues: 1 * Some pests were suggested from multiple sources, so they may be listed in two categories

19. Pests Analyzed for 2017 New Arthropod Pests Analyzed Scientific nameCommon nameImpactRemoval reasonSource Aromia bungiiRedneck longhorned beetleModerate or LowUnder considerationNPAG Batocera horsfieldiSquare-spotted longicorn beetleModerateNo survey methodCPHST Blosyrus asellusRough sweet potato weevilLowLow impactNPAG, CPHST Brevipalpus chilensis Low* CAPS Community; OPIS A Chilecomadia valdivianaCarpenter wormUndeterminedHasn't spread out of native range Additional Pests of Concern Chilo partellusSpotted stem borerModerate OPIS A Eurygaster integricepsSunn pestHigh OPIS A Halotydeus destructorRed legged earth miteHighRangeland pestOPIS A Icerya seychellarumSeychelles scaleLowLow impactOPIS A Ladodelphax striatellusSmall brown planthopperHigh OPIS A Mamestra brassicaeCabbage mothModerate CAPS Community Penthimiola bellaCitrus leafhopperLowLow impactPestLens Praelongorthezia praelongaCitrus ortheziaModerate (may periodically be High under outbreak) Citrus pestPestLens Polygraphus proximusSakhalin-fir bark beetleLowLow impactCPHST Psacothea hilarisYellow spotted longhorn beetleModerate or LowNo survey methodNPAG Thaumetopoea pityocampaPine processionary mothHigh CAPS Community Tibraca limbativentrisRice stalk stink bugLowLow impactAdditional Pests of Concern; CAPS Community

20. Pests Analyzed for 2017 New Plant Pathogen/Nematode Pests Analyzed

21. Questions