INTRODUCTION
Background and Terms of Reference as provided by the requestor
Background
The new Plant Health Regulation (EU) 2016/2031, on the protective measures against pests of plants, is applying from 14 December 2019. Conditions are laid down in this legislation in order for pests to qualify for listing as Union quarantine pests, protected zone quarantine pests or Union regulated non-quarantine pests. The lists of the EU regulated pests together with the associated import or internal movement requirements of commodities are included in Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2072. Additionally, as stipulated in the Commission Implementing Regulation 2018/2019, certain commodities are provisionally prohibited to enter in the EU (high-risk plants, HRP). EFSA is performing the risk assessment of the dossiers submitted by exporting to the EU countries of the HRP commodities, as stipulated in Commission Implementing Regulation 2018/2018. Furthermore, EFSA has evaluated a number of requests from exporting to the EU countries for derogations from specific EU import requirements.
In line with the principles of the new plant health law, the European Commission with the Member States is discussing monthly the reports of the interceptions and the outbreaks of pests notified by the Member States. Notifications of an imminent danger from pests that may fulfil the conditions for inclusion in the list of the Union quarantine pest are included. Furthermore, EFSA has been performing horizon scanning of media and literature.
As a follow-up of the above-mentioned activities (reporting of interceptions and outbreaks, HRP, derogation requests and horizon scanning), a number of pests of concern have been identified. EFSA is requested to provide scientific opinions for these pests, in view of their potential inclusion by the risk manager in the lists of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2072 and the inclusion of specific import requirements for relevant host commodities, when deemed necessary by the risk manager.
Terms of Reference
EFSA is requested, pursuant to Article 29(1) of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002, to provide scientific opinions in the field of plant health.
EFSA is requested to deliver 53 pest categorisations for the pests listed in Annex 1A, 1B, 1D and 1E (for more details see mandate M-2021-00027 on the Open.EFSA portal). Additionally, EFSA is requested to perform pest categorisations for the pests so far not regulated in the EU, identified as pests potentially associated with a commodity in the commodity risk assessments of the HRP dossiers (Annex 1C; for more details, see mandate M-2021-00027 on the Open.EFSA portal). Such pest categorisations are needed in the case where there are not available risk assessments for the EU.
When the pests of Annex 1A are qualifying as potential Union quarantine pests, EFSA should proceed to phase 2 risk assessment. The opinions should address entry pathways, spread, establishment, impact and include a risk reduction option analysis.
Additionally, EFSA is requested to develop further the quantitative methodology currently followed for risk assessment, in order to have the possibility to deliver an express risk assessment methodology. Such methodological development should take into account the EFSA Plant Health Panel Guidance on quantitative pest risk assessment and the experience obtained during its implementation for the Union candidate priority pests and for the likelihood of pest freedom at entry for the commodity risk assessment of high-risk plants.
Interpretation of the Terms of Reference
Coccus viridis is one of a number of pests relevant to Annex 1C to the terms of reference (ToR) to be subject to pest categorisation to determine whether it fulfils the criteria of a potential Union quarantine pest for the area of the EU excluding Ceuta, Melilla and the outermost regions of Member States referred to in Article 355(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), other than Madeira and the Azores, and so inform EU decision-making as to its appropriateness for potential inclusion in the lists of pests of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/ 2072. If a pest fulfils the criteria to be potentially listed as a Union quarantine pest, risk reduction options will be identified.
Additional information
This pest categorisation was initiated following the commodity risk assessment of Jasminum polyanthum unrooted cuttings from Uganda (EFSA PLH Panel, 2022), in which C. viridis was identified as a relevant non-regulated EU pest of possible concern, which could potentially enter the EU on cuttings of J. polyanthum.
DATA AND METHODOLOGIES
Data
Information on pest status from
In the context of the current mandate, EFSA is preparing pest categorisations for new/emerging pests that are not yet regulated in the EU. When an official pest status is not available in the European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization (EPPO) Global Database (EPPO, online), EFSA consults the NPPOs of the relevant Member States. To obtain information on the official pest status for Coccus viridis, EFSA has consulted the NPPOs of Italy and Portugal. The results of this consultation are presented in Section 3.2.2.
Literature search
A systematic literature search on C. viridis was conducted at the beginning of the categorisation (04-06-2024) in the ISI Web of Science and Scopus bibliographic database, using the scientific name of the pest, its synonyms and the international common names as search terms (for more details, see Appendix E). Papers relevant to the pest categorisation were reviewed, and further references and information were obtained from experts, as well as from citations within the references and grey literature.
Database search
Pest information, on host(s) and distribution, was extracted from the references collected in the systematic literature search mentioned above (Section 2.1.2). The CABI Database and the EPPO Global Database were consulted to double-check the information retrieved through the data extraction.
Data about the import of commodity types that could potentially provide a pathway for the pest to enter the EU and about the area of hosts grown in the EU were obtained from EUROSTAT (Statistical Office of the European Union).
The EUROPHYT (EUROPHYT, online) and TRACES databases (TRACES-NT, online) were consulted for pest-specific notifications on interceptions and outbreaks. EUROPHYT is a web-based network run by the Directorate General for Health and Food Safety (DG SANTÉ) of the European Commission as a subproject of PHYSAN (Phyto-Sanitary Controls) specifically concerned with plant health information. TRACES is the European Commission's multilingual online platform for sanitary and phytosanitary certification required for the importation of animals, animal products, food and feed of non-animal origin and plants into the European Union, and the intra-EU trade and EU exports of animals and certain animal products. Up until May 2020, the EUROPHYT database managed notifications of interceptions of plants or plant products that do not comply with EU legislation, as well as notifications of plant pests detected in the territory of the Member States and the phytosanitary measures taken to eradicate or avoid their spread. The recording of interceptions switched from EUROPHYT to TRACES in May 2020.
GenBank was searched to determine whether it contained any nucleotide sequences for C. viridis which could be used as reference material for molecular diagnosis (; Sayers et al., 2024).
Methodologies
The Panel performed the pest categorisation for C. viridis, following guiding principles and steps presented in the EFSA guidance on quantitative pest risk assessment (EFSA PLH Panel, 2018), the EFSA guidance on the use of the weight of evidence approach in scientific assessments (EFSA Scientific Committee, 2017), the protocol for pest categorisations as presented in the EFSA standard protocols for scientific assessments (Kertesz et al., 2024, EFSA PLH Panel, 2024) and the International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures No. 11 (FAO, 2013).
The criteria to be considered when categorising a pest as a potential Union quarantine pest (QP) are given in Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 Article 3 and Annex I, Section 1 of the Regulation. Table 1 presents the Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 pest categorisation criteria on which the Panel bases its conclusions. In judging whether a criterion is met, the Panel uses its best professional judgement (EFSA Scientific Committee, 2017) by integrating a range of evidence from a variety of sources (as presented above in Section 2.1) to reach an informed conclusion as to whether a criterion is satisfied.
The Panel's conclusions are formulated respecting its remit and particularly with regard to the principle of separation between risk assessment and risk management (EFSA founding regulation (EU) No 178/2002). Therefore, instead of determining whether the pest is likely to have an unacceptable impact, deemed to be a risk management decision, the Panel will present a summary of the observed impacts in the areas where the pest occurs, and make an expert knowledge elicitation about potential impacts in the EU. While the Panel may quote impacts reported from areas where the pest occurs in monetary terms, the Panel will seek to express potential EU impacts in terms of yield and quality losses and not in monetary terms, in agreement with the EFSA guidance on quantitative pest risk assessment (EFSA PLH Panel, 2018). Article 3 (d) of Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 refers to unacceptable social impact as a criterion for quarantine pest status. Assessing social impact is outside the remit of the Panel.
TABLE 1 Pest categorisation criteria under evaluation, as derived from Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 on protective measures against pests of plants (the number of the relevant sections of the pest categorisation is shown in brackets in the first column).
| Criterion of pest categorisation | Criterion in Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 regarding Union quarantine pest (article 3) |
| Identity of the pest (Section 3.1) | Is the identity of the pest clearly defined, or has it been shown to produce consistent symptoms and to be transmissible? |
| Absence/presence of the pest in the EU territory (Section 3.2) |
Is the pest present in the EU territory? If present, is the pest in a limited part of the EU or is it scarce, irregular, isolated or present infrequently? If so, the pest is considered to be not widely distributed. |
| Pest potential for entry, establishment and spread in the EU territory (Section 3.4) | Is the pest able to enter into, become established in, and spread within, the EU territory? If yes, briefly list the pathways for entry and spread. |
| Potential for consequences in the EU territory (Section 3.5) | Would the pests' introduction have an economic or environmental impact on the EU territory? |
| Available measures (Section 3.6) | Are there measures available to prevent pest entry, establishment, spread or impacts? |
| Conclusion of pest categorisation (Section 4) | A statement as to whether (1) all criteria assessed by EFSA above for consideration as a potential quarantine pest were met and (2) if not, which one(s) were not met. |
PEST CATEGORISATION
Identity and biology of the pest
Identity and taxonomy
Is the identity of the pest clearly defined, or has it been shown to produce consistent symptoms and/or to be transmissible?
Yes, the identity of the pest is clearly defined and Coccus viridis (Green, 1889) is the accepted scientific name.
Coccus viridis (Green) (Figure 1) is an insect within the order Hemiptera, suborder Sternorrhyncha and the family Coccidae. It is commonly known as green coffee scale, green scale, green shield scale and soft green scale (EPPO, online). Coccus viridis was originally described as Lecanium viride by Green in 1889 from specimens collected in Pundaluoya, Sri Lanka, on Coffea sp. (coffee). The current valid scientific name is Coccus viridis (García Morales et al., 2016).
The EPPO code1 (EPPO, 2019; Griessinger & Roy, 2015) for this species is COCCVI (EPPO, online).
[IMAGE OMITTED. SEE PDF]
Biology of the pest
Coccus viridis is an oviparous species and reproduces parthenogenetically via thelytoky (Fredrick, 1943; Rosado et al., 2014; Souza et al., 2023). The presence of males is very rare (Swirski et al., 1997; Waller et al., 2007). Eggs are laid beneath the female body where they are protected (Fredrick, 1943; Reddy et al., 2022) and hatch into nymphs from a few minutes to several hours after being laid (Dekle & Fasulo, 2001; Fredrick, 1943). Each female can produce between 50 and 600 eggs (Barrera, 2008; Reddy et al., 2022). There are three nymphal instars before becoming an adult (Mani, 2022; Souza et al., 2023). In citrus, the duration of development of the first, second and third instars takes about 10–15 days, 8–12 days and 8–12 days, respectively (Carvalho & Aguiar, 1997; Martinez & Sanchez, 1981). The first-instar nymphs (crawlers) are active and responsible for searching and choosing the feeding location (Rosado et al., 2014). They settle along the lower surface of leaves close to the midrib and veins, as well as the petiole, stems, on young buds and fruits (Barrera, 2008; Figueroa-Figueroa et al., 2023; Mani, 2022; Reddy et al., 2022). On the contrary, the older instar nymphs move very little, whereas the adults are motionless (Rosado et al., 2014). Laboratory rearing of C. viridis in Brazil at a temperature of 25°C showed that the life cycle from egg hatching to the first oviposition by the adult female lasts between 47 and 51 days (Silva & Parra, 1982).
Coccus viridis is reported to develop multiple generations per year (Souza et al., 2023). For instance, in Queensland, Australia, it completes three to four generations (García Morales et al., 2016; Smith et al., 1997), and in Taiwan, it completes four to five generations per year (Cheng & Tao, 1963). In South Florida, the developmental period from egg to egg-depositing maturity during the late summer months averages 59–62 days, with reported variation ranging from 50 to 70 days (Fredrick, 1943). Crawler emergence is typically observed in September (Camacho & Chong, 2015). In Irapuato, Mexico, the highest number of C. viridis adults in guava occurred in winter, decreased in the rainy season (June–September) and increased in October, and the crawlers peaked in December–January (Salas-Araiza et al., 2020). In West Bengal, India, Kar et al. (2023) observed C. viridis on dragon fruit from June until September–October.
Host range/species affected
Coccus viridis is polyphagous, feeding on 216 plant species assigned to 200 genera from 72 plant families (Appendix A provides a full host list) with preference for coffee (Coffea arabica), guava (Psidium guajava) and cacao (Theobroma cacao) (CABI, online; EPPO, online). Coccus viridis has also been reported on cashew (Anacardium occidentale), cassava (Manihot esculenta), citrus (Citrus sp.), coconut (Cocos nucifera), litchee (Litchi chinensis), loquat (Eriobotrya japonica), mango (Mangifera indica), papaya (Carica papaya), pear (Pyrus communis), pigeon pea (Cajanus cajan), pineapple (Ananas comosus), sapota (Manilkara zapota) and tea (Camellia sinensis). Moreover, it has been reported on ornamental plants such as Camellia sp., Ficus sp., Gardenia sp., Ixora sp., Jasminum sp. and Nerium oleander (García Morales et al., 2016).
Intraspecific diversity
To the best of the Panel's knowledge, no information on intraspecific diversity is reported for C. viridis.
Detection and identification of the pest
Are detection and identification methods available for the pest?
Yes. Visual detection is possible, and morphological and molecular identification methods are available.
Detection
Careful visual examination of plants and fruits is effective for detection of C. viridis presence. Accumulation of honeydew, sooty mould and honeydew-seeking ants are general signs of phloem feeding insect infestations; they can be used to pinpoint the areas where plants may be inspected for the presence of soft scales (Camacho & Chong, 2015). Coccus viridis occurs on the upper and lower surfaces of leaves, young stems, and colonises flower buds and fruits (Barrera, 2008; Figueroa-Figueroa et al., 2023; Mani, 2022; Reddy et al., 2022). Sticky traps around stems can be used to detect and monitor the crawlers (Bethke & Wilen, 2010; Siregar & Tulus, 2023).
Symptoms
Several studies have documented the main symptoms of C. viridis infestation (Bach, 1991; Figueroa-Figueroa et al., 2023; Hara et al., 2002; Mani, 2018; Mani, 2022; Reddy et al., 2022; Reimer et al., 1993; Rosado et al., 2014; Siregar & Tulus, 2023; Souza et al., 2023; Swirski et al., 1997; Vranjic, 1997; Wuryantini et al., 2023; Yalemar, 1999):
- Honeydew presence egested by adults and immature stages;
- Black sooty mould growing on the honeydew;
- Leaf curling;
- Partial necrosis and wilting of twigs and leaves, and;
- Yellowing, defoliation, reduced plant growth and fruit production, dieback of the branches or the entire plant caused by heavy infestations.
These symptoms are similar to those caused by many other phloem-feeding insects and should not be considered as diagnostic.
Identification
The identification of C. viridis requires microscopic examination of slide-mounted female adults and verification of the presence of key morphological characteristics. Detailed morphological descriptions, illustrations and keys of adult C. viridis can be found in Choi et al. (2018), Granara de Willink et al. (2010), and Williams and Watson (1990). The molecular identification for C. viridis relies on DNA fragments from various genetic markers with reference sequences available in GenBank (), including the mitochondrial cytochrome c oxidase subunit I (COI) gene, nuclear ribosomal genes (18S and 28S) and mitochondrial ribosomal genes(12S and 16S), as well as wingless (wg) and elongation factor 1-alpha (EF-1a) genes (Choi & Lee, 2020).
Description
The eggs are whitish green and elongate oval. The nymphs or immature green scales are oval, flat and yellowish green in colour, and have six short legs. The adult female is shiny pale green with a conspicuous black, irregular U-shaped internal marking that is dorsally visible to the naked eye. Two submarginal black eye spots are also present and can be seen with a hand lens. The outline shape may be described as elongate-oval and moderately convex. Dorsum with setae cylindrical, blunt apically; tubular ducts absent; duct tubercles present; and preopercular pores present anterior to anal plates. Marginal setae short, mostly with fimbriate apices. Venter with multilocular disc pores each usually with seven loculi; tubular ducts each with a broad inner ductule, frequent in medial area between mesocoxae, between metacoxae and occasionally a few present around each procoxa; pregenital setae numbering three pairs; antenna seven segmented; and legs each with a tibio-tarsal articulatory sclerosis.
Pest distribution
Pest distribution outside the
Coccus viridis is thought to be either of Brazilian or East African origin (Bach, 1991; Hsieh et al., 2012; Murphy, 1991; Rivera-Salinas et al., 2018). The present distribution of C. viridis includes tropical and subtropical regions in Africa, Asia, North, South and Central America and Oceania (Figure 2). Coccus viridis has been reported in 2010 in Cornwall, England, United Kingdom, within a greenhouse that resembles the environment of a tropical rainforest (Humid Tropic Biome at The Eden Project); its origin and pathway of introduction are unknown; however, its abundance within the greenhouse indicates that it may have been present there for several years (Malumphy & Treseder, 2012). For a detailed list of countries where C. viridis is present, see Appendix B.
[IMAGE OMITTED. SEE PDF]
Pest distribution in the
Is the pest present in the EU territory? If present, is the pest in a limited part of the EU or is it scarce, irregular, isolated or present infrequently? If so, the pest is considered to be not widely distributed.
Yes. Coccus viridis is present in a limited part of the EU territory. It has been recorded only on the Azores and Madeira Islands (Portugal).
In the EU, C. viridis is known to be present only on the Azores and Madeira Islands (Portugal) (EPPO, online; CABI, online; Franco et al., 2011; Swirski et al., 1997). The Portuguese NPPO confirmed that ‘the pest is present in Azores and Madeira Islands for a long time with few occurrences and does not occur in Portugal mainland. So far, no damage has been reported in Azores, and a few in Madeira, and official surveys not carried out’ (NPPO of Portugal, 2024).
Regulatory status
Commission Implementing Regulation 2019/2072
Coccus viridis is not listed in Annex II of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2072, an implementing act of Regulation (EU) 2016/2031, or in any emergency plant health legislation.
Hosts or species affected that are prohibited from entering the Union from third countries
According to the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2072, Annex VI, the introduction of several C. viridis hosts into the EU from certain third countries is prohibited (Table 2). Plants for planting of Albizia Durazz., Annona L., Cassia L., Diospyros L., Jasminum L., Nerium L. and Prunus L., which are hosts of C. viridis (Appendix A) are considered high-risk plants for the EU and their import is prohibited pending risk assessment (EU 2018/2019). According to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/1942 of 13 October 2022 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/2019, unrooted cuttings of Jasminum polyanthum Franchet originating in Uganda should no longer be considered high-risk plants.
TABLE 2 List of plants, plant products and other objects that are
| List of plants, plant products and other objects whose introduction into the union from certain third countries is prohibited | |||
| Description | CN code | Third country, group of third countries or specific area of third country | |
| 8. | Plants for planting of […] Prunus L., Pyrus L. and Rosa L., other than dormant plants free from leaves, flowers and fruits |
ex 0602 10 90 ex 0602 20 20 ex 0602 20 80 ex 0602 40 00 ex 0602 90 41 ex 0602 90 45 ex 0602 90 46 ex 0602 90 47 ex 0602 90 48 ex 0602 90 50 ex 0602 90 70 ex 0602 90 91 ex 0602 90 99 |
Third countries other than Albania, Andorra, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Canary Islands, Faeroe Islands, Georgia, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Moldova, Monaco, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Norway, Russia (only the following parts: Central Federal District (Tsentralny federalny okrug), Northwestern Federal District (Severo- Zapadny federalny okrug), Southern Federal District (Yuzhny federalny okrug), North Caucasian Federal District (Severo-Kavkazsky federalny okrug) and Volga Federal District (Privolzhsky federalny okrug)), San Marino, Serbia, Switzerland, Türkiye, Ukraine and the United Kingdom |
| 9. | Plants for planting of […] Prunus L. and Pyrus L. and their hybrids, and […] other than seeds |
ex 0602 10 90 ex 0602 20 20 ex 0602 90 30 ex 0602 90 41 ex 0602 90 45 ex 0602 90 46 ex 0602 90 48 ex 0602 90 50 ex 0602 90 70 ex 0602 90 91 ex 0602 90 99 |
Third countries other than Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Armenia, Australia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Canada, Canary Islands, Egypt, Faeroe Islands, Georgia, Iceland, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Liechtenstein, Moldova, Monaco, Montenegro, Morocco, New Zealand, North Macedonia, Norway, Russia (only the following parts: Central Federal District (Tsentralny federalny okrug), Northwestern Federal District (Severo-Zapadny federalny okrug), Southern Federal District (Yuzhny federalny okrug), North Caucasian Federal District (Severo- Kavkazsky federalny okrug) and Volga Federal District (Privolzhsky federalny okrug)), San Marino, Serbia, Switzerland, Syria, Tunisia, Türkiye, Ukraine, the United Kingdom and United States other than Hawaii |
| 11. | Plants of Citrus L., […] Poncirus Raf., and their hybrids, other than fruits and seeds |
ex 0602 10 90 ex 0602 20 20 0602 20 30 ex 0602 20 80 ex 0602 90 45 ex 0602 90 46 ex 0602 90 47 ex 0602 90 50 ex 0602 90 70 ex 0602 90 91 ex 0602 90 99 ex 0604 20 90 ex 1404 90 00 |
All third countries |
Entry, establishment and spread in the
Entry
Is the pest able to enter into the EU territory? If yes, identify and list the pathways.
Yes, the pest has already entered the EU territory. It could further enter the EU with plants for planting, cut flowers, fruits and vegetables.
Comment on plants for planting as a pathway.
Plants for planting are considered one of the main pathways for C. viridis to enter the EU.
Plants for planting, cut flowers, fruits and vegetables are potential pathways for entry into the EU of C. viridis (Table 3). Plants for planting are considered one of the main pathways for C. viridis because of the wide host range and high diversity and large volumes of plants for planting being imported (Appendix C).
TABLE 3 Potential pathways for
| Pathways | Life stage | Relevant mitigations [e.g. prohibitions (annex VI), special requirements (Annex VII) or phytosanitary certificates (annex XI) within Implementing Regulation 2019/2072] |
| Plants for planting | All life stages |
Plants for planting that are hosts of C. viridis and are prohibited to import from third countries (Regulation 2019/2072, Annex VI) are listed in Table 2. Plants for planting from third countries require a phytosanitary certificate (Regulation 2019/2072, Annex XI, Part A). Some hosts are considered high-risk plants (EU 2018/2019) for the EU and their import is prohibited subject to risk assessment. |
| Fruits, vegetables and cut flowers | All life stages | Fruits, vegetables and cut flowers from third countries require a phytosanitary certificate to be imported into the EU (2019/2072, Annex XI, Part A). However, no requirements are specified for C. viridis. |
Notifications of interceptions of harmful organisms began to be compiled in EUROPHYT in May 1994 and in TRACES in May 2020. As of 31 May 2025, there were no records of interceptions of C. viridis in the EUROPHYT and TRACES databases.
Miller et al. (2014) report that C. viridis was intercepted 5332 times on a variety of hosts at USA ports of entry between 1995 and 2012 and is the most commonly intercepted soft scale taken at USA borders. These interceptions originated from American Samoa, Antigua and Barbuda, Aruba, Bahamas, Barbados, Colombia, Cook Islands, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Fiji, Grenada, Guatemala, Haiti, Hawaii, Honduras, India, Jamaica, Laos, Malaysia, Mexico, New Caledonia, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, The Philippines, Puerto Rico, Spain, Sri Lanka, Suriname, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Maarten, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Taiwan, Tahiti, Thailand, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, The U.S. Virgin Islands and Vietnam.
Malumphy and Treseder (2012) reported that C. viridis has been intercepted by the Plant Health and Seeds Inspectorate on plants imported into England on many occasions:
- East Riding of Yorkshire, wholesaler, on jasmine (Jasminum sp., Oleaceae) from Jamaica;
- Essex, London Stansted Airport, unidentified plant;
- Port of Tilbury, on lime fruit (Citrus aurantifolia (Christm.) Swingle, Rutaceae) from Brazil;
- Greater London, London Heathrow Airport, on mangosteen (Garcinia mangostana L., Clusiaceae) (new host) from Indonesia and Thailand, on Citrus sp. foliage from the Dominican Republic, and lime fruit from Brazil;
- Hampshire, flower importer, on Dracaena sp. (Asparagaceae) from Costa Rica;
- Portsmouth, on lime fruit from the Dominican Republic;
- London, wholesaler, on lime fruit from Brazil;
- West Sussex, Gatwick Airport, on Citrus sp. fruit from the Dominican Republic, and on lime fruit from Saint Lucia.
Establishment
Is the pest able to become established in the EU territory?
Yes. Southern and central EU countries most likely provide suitable climatic conditions for the establishment of C. viridis. However, there is uncertainty about its ability to establish stable outdoor populations in central EU. Nevertheless, there is a possibility that C. viridis could occur in greenhouses and on indoor plantings in such areas.
Climatic mapping is the principal method for identifying areas that could provide suitable conditions for the establishment of a pest taking key abiotic factors into account (Baker, 2002). The approach used in EFSA pest categorisations is based on the Köppen–Geiger climate classification (version of Kottek et al., 2006; Rubel et al., 2017) which identifies potentially suitable areas based on the climate types present in Europe. Availability of hosts is considered in Section 3.4.2.1. Climatic factors are considered in Section 3.4.2.2.
Several host plants of C. viridis are present or are grown widely across the EU. Among others are Apium graveolens, Citrus spp., Eriobotrya japonica, Eucalyptus camaldulensis, Mangifera indica, Pyrus communis and some ornamental plants. The harvested area of host plants of C. viridis (available in EUROSTAT) in the EU between 2019 and 2023 is shown in Table 4.
TABLE 4 Harvested area (1000 ha) of some of the host plants of
| Harvested area (1000 ha) | ||||||
| Crop | Code | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 |
| Celery | V2200 | : | : | 8.27 | 7.83 | 7.84 |
| Citrus | T0000 | 512.83 | 522.10 | 519.96 | 520.86 | 523.71 |
| Pears | F1120 | 110.66 | 108.29 | 106.96 | 103.11 | 100.53 |
Climatic conditions affecting establishment
Coccus viridis is currently widely distributed throughout the tropical and sub-tropical regions of the world (Appendix B), in Africa, Asia, America and Oceania. Figure 3 shows the world distribution of Köppen–Geiger climate types (Rubel et al., 2017) that occur in the EU, and which occur in countries where C. viridis has been reported. Climate types of Cfc and Dfc were not included in Figure 3 due to their very limited occurrence in countries where C. viridis is present. The thermal biology of C. viridis has not been studied yet and therefore its thermal requirements and limits are not known. Based on Figure 3, southern and central EU countries most likely provide suitable climatic conditions for the establishment of C. viridis. However, since little is known about the pest's thermal biology and specific temperature requirements, and considering its tropical and subtropical origin, there is uncertainty about its ability to establish stable outdoor populations in central EU. Nevertheless, there is a possibility that C. viridis could occur in greenhouses and on indoor plantings in such areas.
[IMAGE OMITTED. SEE PDF]
Spread
Describe how the pest would be able to spread within the EU territory following establishment?
Natural spread by first instar nymphs crawling or being carried by wind, or by hitchhiking on other animals, humans or machinery, can occur locally. All stages may be moved over longer distances by movement (including trade) of infested plants specifically plants for planting, cut flowers, fruits and vegetables.
Comment on plants for planting as a mechanism of spread.
Plants for planting is likely one of the main pathways for spread (see Section 3.4.1).
First-instar nymphs (crawlers) may be carried to neighbouring plants by their own movement, wind (Vandermeer et al., 2019) or by hitchhiking on clothing, equipment or animals (EFSA PLH Panel, 2022). Movement (including trade) of infested plants for planting is likely the main pathway of spread of C. viridis over long distances (see Section 3.4.1).
Impacts
Would the pests' introduction have an economic or environmental impact on the EU territory?
Yes, if C. viridis established more widely in the EU, it would most probably have an economic impact, but the magnitude of impact is uncertain.
Coccus viridis is a polyphagous and serious pest of coffee, citrus and other crops in several regions, causing damage due to its feeding on the phloem and egesting sugary honeydew, which serves as a medium for the growth of sooty moulds (Almeida et al., 2018; Chiu, 1981; Dekle & Fasulo, 2001; Fernandes et al., 2012; Poole, 2005; Rosado et al., 2014; Smith et al., 2004; Souza et al., 2023). The infested leaves may curl up and tender twigs drop. This hinders photosynthesis, thereby weakening the plant (Reddy et al., 2022; Rosado et al., 2014). Fruits from infested plants and infested ornamental plants are becoming unmarketable due to the presence of honeydew and sooty mould (Mani, 2022; Wuryantini et al., 2023). In West Bengal, India, Kar et al. (2023) reported that C. viridis was found in both developing and ripening stages of dragon fruit with a population of 5–29 insects per fruit spike depending on the length of the spike. Coccus viridis has been reported to cause serious damage in Brazil to Arabica coffee (Coffea arabica) and robusta coffee (Coffea canephora) plants, especially to young plants and in dense plantations (Fernandes et al., 2012).
High infestation levels by C. viridis have also been reported on coffee plantations in Indonesia, where it reached 100% on sparsely shaded coffee plantations with an average of 109 individuals per twig, and in densely shaded coffee plantations with 52 individuals per twig (Syadida et al., 2024).
The green coffee scale is a major insect pest of coffee in Hawaii. Although it is usually of minor importance on healthy, mature coffee trees, it can become a serious pest of nursery stock and young trees (Reimer et al., 1993). Le Pelley (1968) cites records of heavy damage by C. viridis in Sri Lanka, Java, India, Réunion, Cuba, Jamaica, Suriname and Brazil (Waller et al., 2007). Sathish et al. (2024) reported that C. viridis incidence on sapota plants (Manilkara zapota) was recorded on average of 27.10 scales per five infected leaves per plant. Moreover, Mani et al. (2008) declared that among 25 insects known to attack sapota in India, the soft green scale is reported to cause severe loss and found a mean number of 30.72 scales per leaf on its peak month (May) in Bangalore. Severe infestations of mango trees by this coccid were recorded in Trinidad in the 1930s (Swirski et al., 1997). Infested plants, especially young trees (less than 2 years after transplant), suffer stunting, yellowing and/or loss of leaves and fruit drop (Hara et al., 2002; Mau & Kessing, 1999). Coccus viridis is considered an important pest of citrus in the Kodagu of India (Shivaramu & Pillai, 2012; Singh, 1995). In field trials performed in this area to test the efficacy of some pesticides against the pest, an infestation level of more than 64% was recorded in untreated plots of citrus (Shivaramu & Pillai, 2012). In Thailand, C. viridis damages citrus and has been reported as one of the most dominant scale insect species in citrus orchards (Nakao et al., 1977). In the Cerrados region of Brazil, C. viridis has been reported as an important pest of citrus, particularly affecting young trees (Murakami et al., 1984). A survey conducted between 2014 and 2017 in citrus orchards across the main citrus-producing regions of São Paulo State, Brazil, identified C. viridis as the fourth most prevalent species among 22 scale insects, with infestations observed on 9% of the sampled citrus plants (Almeida et al., 2018). Moreover, Brugnara et al. (2022) reported an outbreak of sooty mould (Capnodium sp.) affecting the branches, leaves and fruits of citrus plants in the western region of Santa Catarina, Brazil, during a period of water deficiency in 2020–2021. The outbreak was associated with a high incidence of scale insects, predominantly C. viridis. In Lukore, Coast Province of Kenya, scale insects primarily Aonidiella aurantii and C. viridis have been reported as the dominant leaf-feeding pests of orange trees, with average leaf infestation levels of 11% in young trees (5–6 years old) and 23% in older trees (17–20 years old) (Ekesi, 2015). In Australia, C. viridis is considered a pest of citrus. In 1999, the parasitoid Diversinervus sp. nr stramineus was introduced from Kenya and released in Queensland as a biological control agent (Smith et al., 1997; Waterhouse & Sands, 2001). The Department of Agriculture and Food of Western Australia has recommended an action threshold of 5% or more of green twigs infested with one or more scales (State of Western Australia, 2007). According to the Portuguese NPPO, in the Azores, there are no records of damage to the crops. The pest has also been present in Madeira for a long time, but little damage is reported in fruit crops, mainly citrus and guava and no damage in other crops.
In a review of insect pests of citrus in Portugal, Carvalho et al. (1996) assigned C. viridis a pest status of 3 on a scale from 1 to 5, without providing further justification or methodological details.
Several publications refer to C. viridis as an important pest of citrus. However, since quantitative data mostly refer to infestations and the level of the pest populations on citrus, while yield loss data have not been found, there is uncertainty on the magnitude of potential impact in the risk assessment area.
Available measures and their limitations
Are there measures available to prevent pest entry, establishment, spread or impacts such that the risk becomes mitigated?
Yes. Although the existing phytosanitary measures identified in Section 3.3.2 do not specifically target C. viridis, they mitigate the likelihood of its entry into, establishment and spread within the EU (see also Section 3.6.1).
Identification of potential additional measures
Phytosanitary measures (prohibitions) are currently applied to some host plants for planting (see Section 3.3.2).
Additional potential risk reduction options and supporting measures are shown in Sections 3.6.1.1 and 3.6.1.2.
Additional potential risk reduction options
Potential additional control measures are listed in Table 5.
TABLE 5 Selected control measures (a full list is available in EFSA PLH Panel, 2018) for pest entry/establishment/spread/impact in relation to currently unregulated hosts and pathways. Control measures are measures that have a direct effect on pest abundance.
| Control measure/risk reduction option (blue underline = Zenodo doc, Blue = WIP) | RRO summary | Risk element targeted (entry/establishment/spread/impact) |
| Require pest freedom | Pest-free place of production (e.g. the place of production and its immediate vicinity is free from the pest over an appropriate time period, e.g. since the beginning of the last complete cycle of vegetation, or past 2 or 3 cycles). Pest-free production site. | Entry/Establishment/Spread |
| Growing plants in isolation | The plants originate in a place of production with complete physical isolation from the pest. | Entry (reduce infestation)/ Establishment/Spread |
| Managed growing conditions | Used to mitigate likelihood of infestation at origin. Plants collected directly from natural habitats, have been grown, held and trained for at least two consecutive years prior to dispatch in officially registered nurseries, which are subject to an officially supervised control regime. | Entry (reduce infestation)/Establishment/Spread |
| Roguing and pruning | Roguing is defined as the removal of infested plants and/or uninfested host plants in a delimited area, whereas pruning is defined as the removal of infested plant parts only without affecting the viability of the plant. | Entry/Spread/Impact |
| Biological control and behavioural manipulation |
Many natural enemies, including predators and parasitoids, have been identified for C. viridis among them: Azya orbiger (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae), Chilocorus nigritus (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae), Coccophagus sp. (Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae), Cryptolaemus montrouzieri (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) and Encarsia sp. (Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae) (for a detailed list of the natural enemies, see Appendix D). In Hawaii, control was achieved by the coccinellid Azya luteipes, while in Bermuda, C. viridis was controlled locally when A. luteipes and another coccinellid Chilocorus cacti had become established. In the tropical South Pacific region, it is successfully controlled by the encyrtid Metaphycus baruensis (Williams & Watson, 1990). Coccophagus sp. along with coccinellid predators Chilocorus nigrita and Cryptolaemus montrouzieri were found to suppress C. viridis on sapota (Manilkara zapota) and the parasitism by Coccophagus sp. was up to 95% (Mani et al., 2008). Chilocorus nigritus was considered effective biological control agent against C. viridis in acid lime (Citrus aurantifolia) in India (Omkar & Pervez, 2004). In Australia, in 1999, the parasitoid Diversinervus sp. nr stramineus was introduced from Kenya and released in Queensland as a biological control agent (Smith et al., 1997; Waterhouse & Sands 2001). Furthermore, entomopathogenic fungi play an important role in restraining populations of C. viridis. Akanthomyces lecanii (cited as Lecanicillium lecanii and Verticillium lecanii) is an important biological control of C. viridis (Jackson et al., 2016; Santharam et al., 1977). In Brazil, in the 1930s, it was found to control C. viridis on coffee plants (Li et al., 2010). Akanthomyces lecaniii at a concentration of 16 × 106 spores/mL is known to cause up to 96% mortality of the green scale on coffee plants (Easwaramoorthy & Jayaraj, 1978). A. lecanii is particularly effective in the rainy season when it can kill large colonies of the green coffee scale in a short period of time (Swirski et al., 1997). Also, infection of C. viridis by Purpureocillium lilacinum (cited as Paecilomyces lilacinus) resulted in 100% mortality of the pest (Radhakrishnan, 2022). Some of the parasitoid species that have been recorded to parasitize on C. viridis in its distribution range, such as Metaphycus helvolus, Cocophagus rustii, C. ceroplastae and C. cowperi are also present in the EU territory (Noyes, 2019). |
Entry/Impact |
| Chemical treatments on crops including reproductive material |
Used to mitigate likelihood of infestation of pests susceptible to chemical treatments. The effectiveness of non-systemic insecticides against soft scales may be reduced by the waxy coating of the adult. Mortality of C. viridis on potted gardenia plants averaged 95, 89, and 88% when sprayed with limonene, insecticidal soap, or horticultural oil, respectively (Hollingsworth, 2005). In Australia, white oil and chlorpyriphos had been used occasionally to control C. viridis (Bizumungu et al., 2020). Imidacloprid, 144 hours after application, caused mortality rate at 55%. Application of imidacloprid and a mixture of neem and tobacco showed 100% mortality rate of C. viridis (Wuryantini et al., 2023). Easwaramoorthy and Jayaraj (1978) showed that at 14 days after treatment, when A. lecanii was applied alone at the highest concentration (16 × 106 spores/ml) caused 28.4% mortality of C. viridis, while lower concentrations resulted in 14.5% and 20.6% mortality. Among insecticides applied, fenthion at 0.1% caused 54.2% mortality, while phosphamidon at 0.1% caused 41.0%. The combination of A. lecanii (4 × 106 spores/ml) with fenthion at 0.05% resulted in the highest mortality at 93.7%, followed closely by fungus + fenthion 0.1% (88.8%) and fungus + phosphamidon 0.1% (73.9%). Even the lowest combination, fungus + phosphamidon 0.025%, resulted in 44.0% mortality. Synergistic interaction of A. lecanii and dichlorvos has been reported (Ambethgar, 2018; Easwaramoorthy & Jayaraj, 1977). In the EU, there are insecticides with approval that are registered against other scale insects of the same family and may have an effect on C. viridis too. |
Entry/Establishment/Impact |
| Physical treatments on consignments or during processing |
This risk mitigation measure deals with the following categories of physical treatments: irradiation/ionisation; mechanical cleaning (brushing, washing); sorting and grading; and removal of plant parts. This risk mitigation measure does not address heat and cold treatments. Following irradiation at 250 gray (Gy), prolonged survival of green scale, with 8.8%–11.4% of nymphs and up to 8.8% of crawlers remaining alive 3 months after irradiation An absorbed dose of 500, 750 or 1000 Gy caused 100% mortality in all stages of the green scale by 7, 6 and 3 weeks post-treatment, respectively (Arvanitoyannis & Stratakos, 2010; Follett, 2009; Follett & Griffin, 2012; Hara et al., 2002) |
Entry/ Spread |
| Cleaning and disinfection of facilities, tools and machinery | The physical and chemical cleaning and disinfection of facilities, tools, machinery, facilities and other accessories (e.g., boxes, pots, hand tools). | Entry/Spread |
| Heat and cold treatments | Controlled temperature treatments aimed to kill or inactivate pests without causing any unacceptable prejudice to the treated material itself. This set of measures addresses: autoclaving; steam; hot water; hot air; cold treatment. | Entry/Spread |
| Controlled atmosphere | Treatment of plants by storage in a modified atmosphere (including modified humidity, O2, CO2, temperature, pressure). | Entry/Spread (via commodity) |
Additional supporting measures
Potential additional supporting measures are listed in Table 6.
TABLE 6 Selected supporting measures (a full list is available in EFSA PLH Panel, 2018) in relation to currently unregulated hosts and pathways. Supporting measures are organisational measures or procedures supporting the choice of appropriate risk reduction options that do not directly affect pest abundance.
| Supporting measure | Summary | Risk element targeted (entry/establishment/spread/impact) |
| Inspection and trapping | ISPM 5 (FAO, 2023) defines inspection as the official visual examination of plants, plant products or other regulated articles to determine if pests are present or to determine compliance with phytosanitary regulations. The effectiveness of sampling and subsequent inspection to detect pests may be enhanced by including trapping and luring technique. | Entry/Establishment/Spread/Impact |
| Laboratory testing | Examination, other than visual, to determine if pests are present using official diagnostic protocols. Diagnostic protocols describe the minimum requirements for reliable diagnosis of regulated pests. | Entry/Establishment/Spread |
| Sampling |
According to ISPM 31, it is usually not feasible to inspect entire consignments, so phytosanitary inspection is performed mainly on samples obtained from a consignment. It is noted that the sampling concepts presented in this standard may also apply to other phytosanitary procedures, notably selection of units for testing. For inspection, testing and/or surveillance purposes the sample may be taken according to a statistically based or a non-statistical sampling methodology. |
Entry/Establishment |
| Phytosanitary certificate and plant passport | According to ISPM 5 (FAO, 2023), a phytosanitary certificate and a plant passport are official paper documents or their official electronic equivalents, consistent with the model certificates of the IPPC, attesting that a consignment meets phytosanitary import requirements:
|
Entry/Establishment/Spread |
| Certified and approved premises | Mandatory/voluntary certification/approval of premises is a process including a set of procedures and of actions implemented by producers, conditioners and traders contributing to ensure the phytosanitary compliance of consignments. It can be a part of a larger system maintained by the NPPO in order to guarantee the fulfilment of plant health requirements of plants and plant products intended for trade. Key property of certified or approved premises is the traceability of activities and tasks (and their components) inherent the pursued phytosanitary objective. Traceability aims to provide access to all trustful pieces of information that may help to prove the compliance of consignments with phytosanitary requirements of importing countries. | Entry/Spread |
| Certification of reproductive material (voluntary/official) | Plants come from within an approved propagation scheme and are certified pest free (level of infestation) following testing; used to mitigate against pests that are included in a certification scheme. | Entry/Spread |
| Delimitation of Buffer zones | ISPM 5 defines a buffer zone as ‘an area surrounding or adjacent to an area officially delimited for phytosanitary purposes in order to minimise the probability of spread of the target pest into or out of the delimited area, and subject to phytosanitary or other control measures, if appropriate’ (ISPM 5). The objectives for delimiting a buffer zone can be to prevent spread from the outbreak area and to maintain a pest free production place (PFPP), site (PFPS) or area (PFA). | Spread |
| Surveillance | Surveillance to guarantee that plants and produce originate from a pest-free area could be an option. | Establishment/Spread |
Biological or technical factors limiting the effectiveness of measures
C. viridis may not be easily detected in cases where low densities occur and when only young stages (crawlers) are present.
Limited effectiveness of non-systemic insecticides due to the presence of protective wax cover.
Uncertainty
No key uncertainties of the assessment have been identified.
CONCLUSIONS
While the magnitude of impact in the EU is associated with an uncertainty, C. viridis satisfies all criteria assessed by EFSA for consideration as a potential quarantine pest. Table 7 provides a summary of the PLH Panel conclusion.
TABLE 7 The Panel's conclusions on the pest categorisation criteria defined in Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 on protective measures against pests of plants (the number of the relevant sections of the pest categorisation is shown in brackets in the first column).
| Criterion of pest categorisation | Panel's conclusions against criterion in Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 regarding Union quarantine pest | Key uncertainties |
| Identity of the pest (Section 3.1) | The identity of the pest is clearly defined and Coccus viridis (Green) is the accepted name | None |
| Absence/presence of the pest in the EU (Section 3.2) | Coccus viridis has a restricted distribution in the EU, it is known to occur only on the Azores and Madeira Islands (Portugal). | None |
| Pest potential for entry, establishment and spread in the EU (Section 3.4) | Coccus viridis is able to further enter, become established and spread within the EU territory, especially in the southern EU MS. The main pathways are plants for planting, cut flowers, fruits, and vegetables. | None |
| Potential for consequences in the EU (Section 3.5) | The introduction of the pest could cause yield and quality losses on several crops and reduce the value of ornamental plants. | None |
| Available measures (Section 3.6) | There are measures available to prevent further entry, establishment and spread of C. viridis within the EU. Risk reduction options include inspections, chemical and physical treatments on consignments of fresh plant material from infested countries and the production of plants for import in the EU in pest free areas. Biological control is expected at a certain extent by indigenous natural enemies. | None |
| Conclusion (Section 4) | While the magnitude of impact in the EU is associated with an uncertainty, all criteria assessed by EFSA for consideration as a potential quarantine pest are met. | |
| Aspects of assessment to focus on/scenarios to address in future if appropriate: |
- Containment (of a pest)
- Application of phytosanitary measures in and around an infested area to prevent the spread of a pest (FAO, 2023).
- Control (of a pest)
- Suppression, containment or eradication of a pest population (FAO, 2023).
- Entry (of a pest)
- Movement of a pest into an area where it is not yet present, or present but not widely distributed and being officially controlled (FAO, 2023).
- Eradication (of a pest)
- Application of phytosanitary measures to eliminate a pest from an area (FAO, 2023).
- Establishment (of a pest)
- Perpetuation, for the foreseeable future, of a pest within an area after entry (FAO, 2023).
- Greenhouse
- A walk-in, static, closed place of crop production with a usually translucent outer shell, which allows controlled exchange of material and energy with the surroundings and prevents the release of plant protection products (PPPs) into the environment.
- Hitchhiker
- An organism sheltering or transported accidentally via inanimate pathways including with machinery, shipping containers and vehicles; such organisms are also known as contaminating pests or stowaways (Toy & Newfield, 2010).
- Impact (of a pest)
- The impact of the pest on the crop output and quality and on the environment in the occupied spatial units.
- Introduction (of a pest)
- The entry of a pest resulting in its establishment (FAO, 2023).
- Pathway
- Any means that allows the entry or spread of a pest (FAO, 2023).
- Phytosanitary measures
- Any legislation, regulation or official procedure having the purpose to prevent the introduction or spread of quarantine pests, or to limit the economic impact of regulated non-quarantine pests (FAO, 2023).
- Quarantine pest
- A pest of potential economic importance to the area endangered thereby and not yet present there, or present but not widely distributed and being officially controlled (FAO, 2023).
- Risk reduction option (RRO)
- A measure acting on pest introduction and/or pest spread and/or the magnitude of the biological impact of the pest should the pest be present. A RRO may become a phytosanitary measure, action or procedure according to the decision of the risk manager.
- Spread (of a pest)
- Expansion of the geographical distribution of a pest within an area (FAO, 2023).
GLOSSARY
- EPPO
- European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization
- FAO
- Food and Agriculture Organization
- IPPC
- International Plant Protection Convention
- ISPM
- International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures
- MS
- Member State
- PLH
- EFSA Panel on Plant Health
- PZ
- Protected Zone
- TFEU
- Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
- ToR
- Terms of Reference
ABBREVIATIONS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
EFSA wishes to acknowledge the contribution of Ana Guillem Amat, Malayka Picchi, Stella Papanastasiou and Erica Soldi to this opinion.
REQUESTOR
European Commission
QUESTION NUMBER
EFSA-Q-2024-00619
COPYRIGHT FOR NON-EFSA CONTENT
EFSA may include images or other content for which it does not hold copyright. In such cases, EFSA indicates the copyright holder and users should seek permission to reproduce the content from the original source.
PANEL MEMBERS
Antonio Vicent Civera, Paula Baptista, Anna Berlin, Elisavet Chatzivassiliou, Jaime Cubero, Nik Cunniffe, Eduardo de la Peña, Nicolas Desneux, Francesco Di Serio, Anna Filipiak, Paolo Gonthier, Beata Hasiów-Jaroszewska, Hervé Jactel, Blanca B. Landa, Lara Maistrello, David Makowski, Panagiotis Milonas, Nikos T. Papadopoulos, Roel Potting, Hanna Susi, and Dirk Jan van der Gaag.
MAP DISCLAIMER
The designations employed and the presentation of material on any maps included in this scientific output do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the European Food Safety Authority concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.
APPENDIX A - Coccus viridis host plants/species affected
Host plant records based on literature as indicated in the table below.
| Host name | Plant family | Common name | Reference |
| Aegle sp. | Rutaceae | Ali (1969) | |
| Aegle marmelos | Rutaceae | Bael fruit | D'Souza et al. (1969) |
| Aeglopsis chevalieri | Rutaceae | Ballou (1926) | |
| Afraegle paniculata (cited as Balsamocitrus paniculata) | Rutaceae | Ballou (1926) | |
| Agave amica (cited as Polianthes tuberosa) | Asparagaceae | Tuberose | Dias Trindade (2011) |
| Ageratum houstonianum | Asteraceae | Blue billy-goat weed | Viswanathan (1971) |
| Albizia sp. | Fabaceae | D'Souza et al. (1969) | |
| Alcea rosea (cited as Althea rosea) | Malvaceae | Common hollyhock | Khan and Agarwal (1976) |
| Alpinia purpurata | Zingiberaceae | Red ginger | Hata and Hara (1992) |
| Alstonia macrophylla | Apocynaceae | Devil tree | Nakahara (1981) |
| Alstonia scholaris | Apocynaceae | Devil tree | Malumphy and Treseder (2012) |
| Alyxia sp. | Apocynaceae | Nakahara (1981) | |
| Alyxia oliviformis (cited as Alyxia olivaeformis) | Apocynaceae | Nakahara (1981) | |
| Amaranthus sp. | Amaranthaceae | Singh and Rao (1977) | |
| Amaranthus spinosus | Amaranthaceae | Prickly caterpillar | Singh and Rao (1977) |
| Anacardium occidentale | Anacardiaceae | Cashew | Schmutterer et al. (1978) |
| Ananas comosus | Bromeliaceae | Pineapple | Williams and Watson (1990; as cited in García Morales et al., 2016) |
| Annona sp. | Annonaceae | Hodgson and Hilburn (1990); Kondo and Hardy (2008) | |
| Annona squamosa | Annonaceae | Cachiman | Mille et al. (2016) |
| Anthocephalus cadamba | |||
| Anthurium sp. | Araceae | Visalaksy et al. (2014) | |
| Antidesma sp. | Euphorbiaceae | Kannan (1918) | |
| Antidesma bunius | Euphorbiaceae | Salamander tree | D'Souza et al. (1969) |
| Antidesma venosum | Euphorbiaceae | Tasselberry | Prinsloo (1985) |
| Apium graveolens | Apiaceae | Celery | Rodríguez-Tapia et al. (2022); Yalemar (1999) |
| Aralia sp. | Araliaceae | Dias Trindade (2011) | |
| Aralia armata | Araliaceae | Martin and Lau (2011) | |
| Arctotis sp. | Asteraceae | Nakahara (1981) | |
| Ardisisa crispa | Primulaceae | Japanese holly | Nakahara (1981) |
| Areca catechu | Arecaceae | Areca-nut palm | Dubey et al. (2022) |
| Artocarpus sp. | Moraceae | Medina-Torres et al. (2013) | |
| Artocarpus integer (cited as Artocarpus integrifolia | Moraceae | D'Souza et al. (1969) | |
| Atalantia citroides | Rutaceae | Ballou (1926) | |
| Atractocarpus tahitensis (cited as Randia tahitensis) | Rubiaceae | Williams and Watson (1990; as cited in García Morales et al., 2016) | |
| Baccharis sp. | Asteraceae | Dias Trindade (2011) | |
| Baccharis halimifolia | Asteraceae | Groundsel bush | Fredrick (1943) |
| Balsamocitrus dawei | Rutaceae | Uganda powder flask | Ballou (1926) |
| Bassia latifolia | Amaranthaceae | Miller (1931) | |
| Begonia sp. | Begoniaceae | Dias Trindade (2011) | |
| Bidens sp. | Asteraceae | Krishnan (1973) | |
| Bidens pilosa | Asteraceae | Beggartick, blackjack | D'Souza et al. (1969) |
| Bischofia sp. | Phyllanthaceae | Krishnan (1973) | |
| Boninia grisea | Rutaceae | Kawai and Matsubara (1971) | |
| Brunfelsia nitida | Solanaceae | Ballou (1926) | |
| Buxus sempervirens | Buxaceae | Common box | Dias Trindade (2011) |
| Byrsonima crassifolia | Malpighiaceae | Craboo, nance | Medina-Torres et al. (2013) |
| Cajanus cajan | Fabaceae | Pigeon pea | Matile-Ferrero (2006) |
| Caladium sp. | Araceae | Nakahara (1981) | |
| Callicarpa lanata | Lamiaceae | Ali (1969); D'Souza et al. (1969) | |
| Camellia japonica | Theaceae | Camellia | Dias Trindade (2011) |
| Camellia sinensis | Theaceae | Tea | Dias Trindade (2011); Kannan (1918); Radhakrishnan (2022) |
| Campnosperma brevipetiolatum | Anacardiaceae | Williams and Watson (1990; as cited in García Morales et al., 2016) | |
| Carica papaya | Caricaceae | Papaya | Dias Trindade (2011); Padilla et al. (2016) |
| Carissa carandas | Apocynaceae | Caranda (plum) | Cheng and Tao (1963) |
| Carissa macrocarpa | Apocynaceae | Natal plum | Hara et al. (2002); Yalemar (1999) |
| Carissa spinarum | Apocynaceae | Bush plum | Varshney (1992, as cited in García Morales et al., 2016) |
| Carissa sp. | Apocynaceae | Ali (1971); Ramakrishna (1919, as cited in García Morales et al., 2016) | |
| Cascabela thevetia (cited as Thevetia neriifolia) | Apocynaceae | Be-still tree | Ballou (1926) |
| Casimiroa edulis | Rutaceae | White sapote | Pellizzari and Porcelli (2014) |
| Cassia sp. | Fabaceae | Malumphy et al. 2012) | |
| Cedrus sp. | Pinaceae | Krishnan (1973) | |
| Ceodes umbellifera | Nyctaginaceae | Kawai et al. (1971 | |
| Cestrum sp. | Solanaceae | Williams & Watson, 1990; as cited in García Morales et al., 2016) | |
| Cestrum auriculatum | Solanaceae | Lincango et al. (2010) | |
| Cestrum nocturnum | Solanaceae | Viswanathan (1971) | |
| Chassalia umbraticola | Rubiaceae | Lim et al. (2008) | |
| Chiococca racemosa | Rubiaceae | Ballou (1926) | |
| Chrysalidocarpus sp. | Arecaceae | Suh et al. (2013) | |
| Chrysophyllum cainito | Sapotaceae | Star apple | Mani et al. (2022) |
| Cinchona sp. | Rubiaceae | Dias Trindade (2011), Kannan (1918) | |
| Cinchona calisaya | Rubiaceae | Ledger-bark cinchona | Hutson (1930) |
| Cinchona officinalis | Rubiaceae | Brown Peru bark | D'Souza et al. (1969) |
| Cinchona pubescens | Rubiaceae | Red quinine tree | Plank and Winters (1949) |
| Cinnamomum verum | Lauraceae | Ceylon cinnamon | Holway et al. (2002) |
| Citharexylum spinosum (cited as Citharexylum fruticosum) | Verbenaceae | Cutlet | Martorell (1945) |
| Citropsis articulata (cited as Citropsis schweinfurthii) | Rutaceae | Ballou (1926) | |
| Citrus sp. | Rutaceae | Hara et al. (2002), Kannan (1918), Kawai and Matsubara (1971), Khan et al. (2007), Schmutterer et al. (1978) | |
| Citrus × aurantiifolia | Rutaceae | Lime | Padilla et al. (2016) |
| Citrus × aurantium | Rutaceae | Bitter orange | Vieira (1953) |
| Citrus × aurantium var. sinensis | Rutaceae | Sweet orange | Almeida et al. (2018), Fernandes et al. (2011), Jutsum et al. (1981), Khaladi et al. (2024), Nais and Busoli (2012); Rodríguez-Tapia et al. (2022) |
| Citrus australis (cited as Microcitrus australis) | Rutaceae | Australian round lime | Ballou (1926) |
| Citrus × limon | Rutaceae | Lemon | Almeida et al. (2018), Yalemar (1999), Padilla et al. (2016) |
| Citrus× limonia | Rutaceae | Mandarin lime | Almeida et al. (2018) |
| Citrus lucida (cited as Feroniella oblata) | Rutaceae | Ballou (1926) | |
| Citrus maxima | Rutaceae | Pummelo | Lin et al. (2013) |
| Citrus medica | Rutaceae | Cidran; citron | De Charmoy and Gebert (1921) |
| Citrus × nobilis | Rutaceae | King orange | Vieira (1953) |
| Citrus × paradisi | Rutaceae | Grapefruit | Matile-Ferrero and Étienne (2006) |
| Citrus × reticulata | Rutaceae | Clementine; tree mandarin | Almeida et al. (2018), Styrsky and Eubanks (2007), Tandon and Veeresh (1987), Tandon and Veeresh (1988) |
| Clausena excavata (cited as Clausena lunulata) | Rutaceae | Pink limeberry | Cheng and Tao (1963) |
| Clausena lansium | Rutaceae | Wampee | Ballou (1926) |
| Clerodendrum speciosissimum (cited as Clerodendrum fallax) | Lamiaceae | Java glorybower | Ballou (1926) |
| Coccoloba diversifolia | Polygonaceae | Martorell (1945) | |
| Coccoloba uvifera | Polygonaceae | Sea grape | Martorell (1945) |
| Coccoloba venosa | Polygonaceae | Chicory grape | Martorell (1945) |
| Cocos sp. | Arecaceae | De Lotto (1960) | |
| Coffea sp. | Rubiaceae | Malumphy and Treseder (2012) | |
| Coffea arabica | Rubiaceae | Arabica coffee | Camacho and Chong (2015), Dias Trindade (2011), Easwaramoorthy and Jayaraj (1978), Fernandes et al. (2010), Fernandes et al. (2011), Fernandes et al. (2012), Fornazier et al. (2017), Gonthier et al. (2013), González-Hernández et al. (1999), Green et al. (2015), Hara et al. (2002), Iverson et al. (2018), Jackson et al. (2012), Jha et al. (2009), Koutouleas et al. (2023), Liere and Perfecto (2008), Murphy (1991), Nais and Busoli (2012); Padilla et al. (2016), Ponsonby (2009), Reddy et al. (2022), Reimer et al. (1993), Ruiz-Orta et al. (2023), Rodríguez-Tapia et al. (2022), Rosado et al. (2014), Saengyot (2016), Schmutterer et al. (1978), Vandenberg et al. (2018), Varshney (1985) |
| Coffea canephora | Rubiaceae | Robusta coffee | Fernandes et al. (2011), Fernandes et al. (2012), Fornazier et al. (2017), Green et al. (2015), Lim et al. (2008), Magalhães et al. (2010), Souza et al., 2023, Varshney (1985) |
| Coffea excelsa | Rubiaceae | Lim et al. (2008) | |
| Coffea liberica | Rubiaceae | Liberian coffee | Fornazier et al. (2017), Lim et al. (2008) |
| Commelina sp. | Commelinaceae | Williams and Watson (1990; as cited in García Morales et al., 2016) | |
| Cordia sp. | Boraginaceae | Vieira et al. (1983) | |
| Cordia alba | Boraginaceae | Jackwood | Ballou (1926) |
| Cordia laevigata (cited as Cordia nitida) | Boraginaceae | Glossy cordia | Ballou (1926) |
| Cordia myxa | Boraginaceae | Assyrian plum | Mamet (1943); as cited in García Morales et al., 2016) |
| Cordyline fruticosa (cited as Cordyline terminalis) | Asparagaceae | Bongbush | Nakahara (1981) |
| Crossandra infundibuliformis | Acanthaceae | Firecracker flower | Vadivelu et al. (1976) |
| Cryptostegia grandiflora | Apocynaceae | Palay rubber vine | Nakahara (1981) |
| Cymbidium sp. | Orchidaceae | Suh (2023) | |
| Datura stramonium | Solanaceae | Thorn apple | Viswanathan (1971) |
| Dimocarpus longan (cited as Euphoria longana) | Sapindaceae | Dragon's eye; longan | Ballou (1926) |
| Diospyros nigra (cited as Diospyros digyna) | Ebenaceae | Padilla et al. (2016) | |
| Dodonaea viscosa (cited as Dodonaea eriocarpa) | Sapindaceae | Broad-leaf hopbush | Mille et al. (2016); Nakahara (1981) |
| Dombeya wallichii | Malvaceae | African mallow | Dias Trindade (2011) |
| Dracaena sp. | Asparagaceae | Nakahara (1981) | |
| Duranta erecta (cited as Duranta repens) | Verbenaceae | Angel's whisper | Dias Trindade (2011) |
| Dypsis sp. | Arecaceae | Suh (2023) | |
| Ehretia tinifolia | Boraginaceae | Ballou (1926) | |
| Eriobotrya japonica | Rosaceae | Loquat | Mani et al. (2022), Padilla et al. (2016), Varshney (1985) |
| Eucalyptus camaldulensis | Myrtaceae | Long-beak eucalyptus | Lim et al. (2008) |
| Eucalyptus sp. | Myrtaceae | Malumphy and Treseder (2012) | |
| Eugenia sp. | Myrtaceae | Kannan (1918) | |
| Eugenia sprengelii | Myrtaceae | Dias Trindade (2011) | |
| Eugenia uniflora | Myrtaceae | Pitanga | Nakahara (1981) |
| Eulophia alta | Orchidaceae | Wild coco | Diaz et al. (2004) |
| Fallopia convolvulus (cited as Polygonum convolvulus) | Polygonaceae | Bearbind | Ballou (1926) |
| Faramea sp. | Rubiaceae | Ballou (1926) | |
| Faramea odoratissima | Rubiaceae | Ballou (1926) | |
| Ficus sp. | Moraceae | Choi et al. (2018) | |
| Fitchia sp. | Asteraceae | Nakahara (1981) | |
| Funtumia elastica | Apocynaceae | African wild rubber | Miller (1931) |
| Garcinia mangostana | Clusiaceae | Mangosteen | Malumphy and Treseder (2012) |
| Gardenia sp. | Rubiaceae | Arvanitoyannis and Stratakos (2010), Follett and Griffin (2012), Hara et al. (2002), Kannan (1918), Neumann et al. (2010), Yalemar (1999) | |
| Gardenia augusta | Rubiaceae | Hollingsworth (2005) | |
| Gardenia jasminoides | Rubiaceae | Hara et al. (1994), Padilla et al. (2016) | |
| Gardenia taitensis | Rubiaceae | Nakahara (1981) | |
| Genipa americana | Rubiaceae | Genip | Cheng and Tao (1963) |
| Gerbera jamesonii | Asteraceae | African daisy | Mille et al. (2016) |
| Gliricidia maculata | Fabaceae | Light (1928) | |
| Gliricidia sepium | Fabaceae | Mexican lilac | Light (1928) |
| Gomphrena globosa | Amaranthaceae | Bachelor's button | Nakahara (1981) |
| Guarea guidonia (cited as Guarea trichilioides) | Meliaceae | Muskwood | Martorell (1945) |
| Hamelia patens | Rubiaceae | Butterfly bush | Srinivasa (1987) |
| Harungana madagascariensis | Hypericaceae | Orange-milk tree | Lim et al. (2008) |
| Heptapleurum sp. | Araliaceae | Suh (2023) | |
| Heritiera littoralis | Malvaceae | Looking glass tree | Ali (1971), Cheng and Tao (1963) |
| Hevea sp. | Euphorbiaceae | Reyne (1919) | |
| Hibiscus sp. | Malvaceae | Follett and Griffin (2012), García-Valente et al. (2009) | |
| Hiptage sp. | Malpighiaceae | Frappa (1929) | |
| Hiptage benghalensis (cited as Hiptage madablota) | Malpighiaceae | Helicopter flower | Ali (1971), D'Souza et al. (1969) |
| Holmskioldia sanguinea | Lamiaceae | Chinese hat plant | Matile-Ferrero (2006) |
| Selenicereus undatus (cited as Hylocereus undatus) | Cactaceae | Dragon fruit | Kar et al. (2023) |
| Inga flexuosa (cited as Inga micheliana) | Fabaceae | Schmitt et al. (2020) | |
| Inga sp. | Fabaceae | Jackson et al. (2014), Jackson et al. (2016), MacDonald et al. (2013), Rivera-Salinas et al. (2018) | |
| Ixora sp. | Rubiaceae | Hansen et al. (1991), Hara et al. (2002), Kannan (1918), Malumphy (2014) | |
| Ixora chinensis | Rubiaceae | Flame of the woods | Dias Trindade (2011) |
| Ixora coccinea | Rubiaceae | Burning love | Dias Trindade (2011), Padilla et al. (2016) |
| Ixora macrothyrsa | Rubiaceae | Dias Trindade (2011), Yalemar (1999) | |
| Jasminum nitidum | Oleaceae | Angel-wing jasmine | Dias Trindade (2011) |
| Jasminum sp. | Oleaceae | Malumphy and Treseder (2012) | |
| Jatropha sp. | Euphorbiaceae | Suh et al. (2013) | |
| Justicia betonica | Acanthaceae | White shrimp plant | Van der Goot (1916) |
| Justicia spicigera (cited as Jacobinia mohintli) | Acanthaceae | Mexican indigo | Ballou (1926) |
| Kalanchoe pinnata (cited as Bryophyllum pinnatum) | Crassulaceae | Chandelier plant | Nakahara (1981) |
| Khaya senegalensis | Meliaceae | African mahogany | Ganhao (1956) |
| Lagerstroemia sp. | Lythraceae | Choi et al. (2018) | |
| Lagerstroemia indica | Lythraceae | Gómez-Menor Ortega (1941) | |
| Lagerstroemia speciosa | Lythraceae | Bloodwood | Martorell (1945) |
| Laguncularia racemosa | Combretaceae | White buttonwood | Lincango et al. (2010) |
| Landolphia kirkii | Apocynaceae | Rutherford (1914) | |
| Lantana camara | Verbenaceae | Common lantana | Viswanathan (1971) |
| Litchi chinensis | Sapindaceae | Litchee | Hara et al. (2002), Yalemar (1999) |
| Loranthus sp. | Loranthaceae | Kannan (1918) | |
| Madhuca longifolia | Sapotaceae | Honey tree | Lim et al. (2008) |
| Maesa indica | Primulaceae | Varshney (1992) | |
| Maesa perlarius | Primulaceae | Martin and Lau (2011) | |
| Maieta guianensis | Melastomataceae | Lapola et al. (2005) | |
| Malpighia emarginata | Malpighiaceae | Acerola | Matile-Ferrero (2006) |
| Malpighia glabra | Malpighiaceae | Barbados cherry | Reyne (1919) |
| Mammea americana | Calophyllaceae | Mamey apple | Beatty (1944) |
| Mangifera indica | Anacardiaceae | Mango | Dias Trindade (2011), Schmutterer et al. (1978) |
| Manicaria saccifera | Arecaceae | Malumphy and Treseder (2012) | |
| Manihot esculenta | Euphorbiaceae | Cassava | Kannan (1918) |
| Manilkara zapota | Sapotaceae | Sapota, bully tree | Dias Trindade (2011), Dix-Luna et al. (2018), Kawai and Matsubara (1971), Lim et al. (2008), Mani et al. (2008), Padilla et al. (2016) |
| Maxillaria multifoliata | Orchidaceae | Malumphy and Treseder (2012) | |
| Maytenus spp. | Celastraceae | Vieira et al. (1983) | |
| Melia azedarach | Meliaceae | Chinaberry tree | Corseuil and Barbosa (1971), as cited in García Morales et al., 2016) |
| Melicoccus bijugatus (cited as Melicocca bijuga) | Sapindaceae | Genip | Gómez-Menor Ortega (1941 |
| Miconia prasina | Melastomataceae | Martorell (1945) | |
| Miconia robinsoniana | Melastomataceae | Lincango et al. (2010) | |
| Microcos paniculata | Malvaceae | Varshney (1992) | |
| Mimusops elengi | Sapotaceae | Bullet wood | Mani et al. (2022) |
| Mirabilis jalapa | Nyctaginaceae | False jalap | Viswanathan (1971) |
| Morinda citrifolia | Rubiaceae | Cheese fruit | Hara et al. (2002), Yalemar (1999) |
| Morinda sp. | Rubiaceae | Srinivasa (1987) | |
| Morinda coreia (cited as Morinda tinctoria) | Rubiaceae | Ayyar (1935) | |
| Murraya paniculata | Rutaceae | Burmese boxwood | Culik et al. (2007) |
| Musa sp. | Musaceae | Dias Trindade (2011), Follett (2009) | |
| Myrciaria dubia | Lithomyrtus | Wolff et al. (2016) | |
| Naringi crenulata (cited as Hesperethusa crenulate) | Rutaceae | Ballou (1926) | |
| Nectandra sp. | Lauraceae | Fredrick (1943) | |
| Nephelium lappaceum | Sapindaceae | Rambutan | Hara et al. (2002), Yalemar (1999) |
| Nerium oleander | Apocynaceae | Common oleander | Chazeau (1981) |
| Nerium odorum (cited as Nerium indicum) | Apocynaceae | Sweet oleander | Srinivasa (1987) |
| Neolamarckia cadamba (cited as Anthocephalus cadamba) | Rubiaceae | Burflower tree | Mani et al. (2022) |
| Ochrosia nakaiana | Apocynaceae | Kawai and Matsubara (1971) | |
| Oxalis sp. | Oxalidaceae | Krishnan (1973) | |
| Oxalis acetosella | Oxalidaceae | Viswanathan (1971) | |
| Ozoroa obovata | Anacardiaceae | Broad-leaved resin tree | Prinsloo (1985) |
| Palaquium formosanum | Sapotaceae | Tao et al. (1983) | |
| Pandanus sp. | Pandanaceae | Malumphy and Treseder (2012) | |
| Pittosporum tobira | Pittosporaceae | Japanese pittosporum | Nakahara (1981) |
| Planchonella sp. | Sapotaceae | Williams and Watson (1990); as cited in García Morales et al., 2016) | |
| Pluchea indica | Asteraceae | Indian fleabane | Bach (1991), García-Valente et al. (2009), Holway et al. (2002), Moya-Raygoza and Nault (2000), Simberloff and Von Holle (1999), Styrsky and Eubanks (2007), Vranjic (1997) |
| Plumeria sp. | Apocynaceae | D'Souza et al. (1969) | |
| Plumeria obtusa | Apocynaceae | Frangipani | Charanasri and Nishida (1975) |
| Plumeria rubra | Apocynaceae | Red frangipani | Hara et al. (2002) |
| Plumeria rubra f. acutifolia (cited as Plumeria rubra var. acutifolia) | Apocynaceae | Mexican frangipani | De Lotto (1960) |
| Plumeria tricolour | Apocynaceae | Vieira et al. (1983) | |
| Polyscias guilfoylei (cited as Aralia guilfoylei) | Araliaceae | Geranium-leaf aralia | Williams and Watson (1990; as cited in García Morales et al., 2016) |
| Polyscias sp. | Araliaceae | Suh et al. (2013) | |
| Polysphaeria sp. | Rubiaceae | Lim et al. (2008) | |
| Poncirus trifoliata | Rutaceae | Golden apple | Nakahara (1981) |
| Pouteria caimito | Sapotaceae | Dias Trindade (2011) | |
| Pouteria campechiana (cited as Lucuma nervosa) | Sapotaceae | Canistel | Ballou (1926) |
| Pouteria obovata | Sapotaceae | Kawai and Matsubara (1971) | |
| Prosthechea cochleata | Orchidaceae | Mestre Novoa et al. (2011) | |
| Prunus salicina | Rosaceae | Chinese plum | Padilla et al. (2016) |
| Psidium sp. | Myrtaceae | Malumphy and Treseder (2012) | |
| Psidium araca | Myrtaceae | Dias Trindade (2011) | |
| Psidium cattleyanum | Myrtaceae | Williams (1985) | |
| Psidium friedrichsthalianum | Myrtaceae | Costa Rican guava | Ballou (1926) |
| Psidium guajava | Myrtaceae | Guava | Dias Trindade (2011), Hara et al. (2002), Kannan (1918), Lim et al. (2008), Miranda-Calixto et al. (2023), Padilla et al. (2016), Rosado et al. (2014), Varshney (1985), Yalemar (1999) |
| Psychotria boninensis | Rubiaceae | Kawai and Matsubara (1971) | |
| Psychotria laurifolia | Rubiaceae | Ballou (1926) | |
| Psydrax dicoccos (cited as Canthium dicoccum) | Rubiaceae | Krishnan (1973) | |
| Psydrax odoratus (cited as Canthium odoratum) | Rubiaceae | Nakahara (1981) | |
| Pyrus communis | Rosaceae | Common pear | Viswanathan (1971) |
| Randia nigrescens | Rubiaceae | Ballou (1926) | |
| Rauvolfia mombasiana | Apocynaceae | Lim et al. (2008) | |
| Rauvolfia nitida | Apocynaceae | Martorell (1945) | |
| Rauvolfia vomitoria | Apocynaceae | Swizzlestick | García Morales et al. (2016) |
| Rosa sp. | Rosaceae | Dias Trindade (2011) | |
| Rothmannia annae | Rubiaceae | Malumphy and Treseder (2012) | |
| Salvia rosmarinus (cited as Rosmarinus officinalis) | Lamiaceae | Garden rosemary | Dias Trindade (2011) |
| Sanchezia oblonga (cited as Sanchezia nobilis) | Acanthaceae | Brilliant-flowered sanchezia | Nakahara (1981) |
| Santalum album | Santalaceae | Indian sandalwood | Rostaman (1997) |
| Scaevola sp. | Goodeniaceae | Malumphy and Treseder (2012) | |
| Schefflera sp. | Araliaceae | Suh et al. (2013) | |
| Schinus sp. | Anacardiaceae | Vieira et al. (1983) | |
| Schinus molle | Anacardiaceae | California pepper tree | Vieira et al. (1983) |
| Schinus terebinthifolia | Anacardiaceae | Brazilian pepper tree | Dias Trindade (2011) |
| Senecio sp. | Asteraceae | Malumphy and Treseder (2012) | |
| Sideroxylon ferrugineum | Sapotaceae | Cheng and Tao (1963) | |
| Sideroxylon foetidissimum | Sapotaceae | Akouma | Dias Trindade (2011) |
| Sigesbeckia orientalis | Asteraceae | Eastern St Paul's wort | Viswanathan (1971) |
| Spermacoce laevis (cited as Borreria laevis) | Rubiaceae | Buttonplant | Williams and Watson (1990); as cited in García Morales et al., 2016) |
| Strychnos nux-vomica | Loganiaceae | Nux-vomica poison nut | Ali (1971) |
| Swinglea glutinosa (cited as Chaetospermum glutinosum) | Rutaceae | Tabog | Ballou (1926) |
| Synsepalum sp. | Sapotaceae | Suh (2023) | |
| Syzygium aromaticum | Myrtaceae | Clove | Lim et al. (2008) |
| Syzygium cumini | Myrtaceae | Black plum | Lim et al. (2008) |
| Syzygium malaccense (cited as Eugenia malaccensis) | Myrtaceae | Kelat oil | Ballou (1926) |
| Tabernaemontana citrifolia | Apocynaceae | Ballou (1926) | |
| Tabernaemontana divaricata | Apocynaceae | Butterfly gardenia | Visalaksy et al. (2014) |
| Talinum paniculatum (cited as Talinum patens) | Talinaceae | Ballou (1926) | |
| Tecomaria capensis | Bignoniaceae | Cape honeysuckle | Nakahara (1981) |
| Terminalia catappa | Combretaceae | Bengal almond | Martorell (1945) |
| Tetrazygia sp. | Melastomataceae | Fredrick (1943) | |
| Theobroma cacao | Malvaceae | Cacao | Dias Trindade (2011), Hara et al. (2002), Rosado et al. (2014), Yalemar (1999) |
| Timonius sp. | Rubiaceae | Williams and Watson (1990); as cited in García Morales et al., 2016) | |
| Tipuana sp. | Fabaceae | Nakahara (1981) | |
| Tococa bullifera | Melastomataceae | Lapola et al. (2005) | |
| Triphasia trifolia | Rutaceae | Nakahara (1981) | |
| Triplaris sp. | Polygonaceae | Dias Trindade (2011) | |
| Vallaris solanacea | Apocynaceae | Srinivasa (1987) | |
| Verbena rigida | Verbenaceae | Viswanathan (1971) | |
| Veronica sp. | Plantaginaceae | Vieira et al. (1983) | |
| Viburnum sp. | Adoxaceae | Cheng and Tao (1963) | |
| Wrightia tinctoria | Apocynaceae | D'Souza et al. (1969) | |
| Zamioculcas sp. | Araceae | Suh et al. (2013) | |
| Zingiber officinale | Zingiberaceae | Nakahara (1981) |
APPENDIX B - Distribution of Coccus viridis
Distribution records are based on literature as indicated in the table below.
| Region | Country | Sub-national (e.g. state) | Status | Reference |
| Africa | Algeria | Guelma | Present | Khaladi et al. (2024) |
| Asia | Angola | Present | Malumphy and Treseder (2012), Mascarenhas de Almeida (1973), as cited in García Morales et al., 2016) | |
| Benin | Present | Kondo and Watson (2022), as cited in García Morales et al., 2016) | ||
| Burkina Faso | Present | Kondo and Watson (2022), as cited in García Morales et al., 2016) | ||
| Cameroon | Present | Malumphy and Treseder (2012), Vayssière (1913), as cited in García Morales et al., 2016) | ||
| Cabo Verde | Present | Malumphy and Treseder (2012); van Harten et al. (1990) | ||
| Cabo Verde | Fogo | Present | Schmutterer et al. (1978) | |
| Comoros | Present | Ben-Dov (1993), as cited in García Morales et al., 2016); Malumphy and Treseder (2012) | ||
| Congo | Present | Waller et al. (2007) | ||
| Côte d'Ivoire | Present | Waller et al. (2007) | ||
| Egypt | Present | Abd-Rabou and Evans (2021), Malumphy and Treseder (2012) | ||
| Eritrea | Present | Waller et al. (2007) | ||
| Ethiopia | Present | De Lotto (1960), Waller et al. (2007) | ||
| Ghana | Present | De Lotto (1960), Waller et al. (2007) | ||
| Guinea | Present | Fernandes (1987), as cited in García Morales et al., 2016); Waller et al. (2007) | ||
| Guinea- Bissau | Present | Fernandes (1987), as cited in García Morales et al., 2016) | ||
| Kenya | Present | Choi et al. (2018), De Lotto (1960), Swirski et al. (1997), Waller et al. (2007) | ||
| Kenya | Central | Present | Melville (1945) | |
| Kenya | Coast | Present | De Lotto (1960), Githae et al. (2021) | |
| Kenya | Eastern | Present | Melville (1945), Morstatt (1913), Olubayo et al. (2011) | |
| Kenya | Khayewa | Present | Olubayo et al. (2011) | |
| Kenya | Kiambu | Present | Noyes (1988) | |
| Kenya | Kilifi | Present | Githae et al. (2021) | |
| Kenya | Kithimani | Present | Olubayo et al. (2011) | |
| Kenya | Kwale | Present | Murphy (1991) | |
| Kenya | Makueni | Present | Githae et al. (2021) | |
| Kenya | Muranga | Present | Murphy (1991), Noyes (1988) | |
| Kenya | Nairobi | Present | Anderson (1917) | |
| Kenya | Nyanza | Present | De Lotto (1960) | |
| Madagascar | Ambatondrazaka | Present | Frappa (1928), Waller et al. (2007) | |
| Madagascar | Antsirabe | Present | Frappa (1928), Waller et al. (2007) | |
| Madagascar | Betafo | Present | Frappa (1928), Waller et al. (2007) | |
| Madagascar | Itasy | Present | Frappa (1928), Waller et al. (2007) | |
| Madagascar | Mananjary | Present | Frappa (1928), Waller et al. (2007) | |
| Mali | Present | Waller et al. (2007) | ||
| Mauritius | Agalega Islands | Present | Malumphy and Treseder (2012), Mamet (1978) | |
| Mauritius | Present | de Charmoy and Gebert (1921), Malumphy and Treseder (2012), Waller et al. (2007), Waterston (1916) | ||
| Niger | Present | Kondo et al. (2022, as cited in García Morales et al., 2016) | ||
| Nigeria | Present | De Lotto (1960) | ||
| Réunion | Present | Luziau (1953), Waller et al. (2007) | ||
| Rwanda | Present | Bizumungu and Majer (2019) | ||
| São Tomé and Principe | Present | de Seabra (1919), Reyne (1919), Waller et al. (2007) | ||
| Senegal | Present | Kondo et al. (2022, as cited in García Morales et al., 2016) | ||
| Seychelles | Present | Holway et al. (2002), Waller et al. (2007) | ||
| Sierra Leone | Present | De Lotto (1960) | ||
| South Africa | Present | Swirski et al. (1997) | ||
| Tanzania | Present | De Lotto (1960), Green (1916), Swirski et al. (1997), Waller et al. (2007) | ||
| Togo | Present | Kondo et al. (2022, as cited in García Morales et al., 2016) | ||
| Tunisia | Zaghouan | Present | Elimem et al. (2019) | |
| Uganda | Present | De Lotto (1960), Kannan (1918), Swirski et al. (1997), Waller et al. (2007) | ||
| Zambia | Present | Cheng and Tao (1963), Malumphy and Treseder (2012) | ||
| Bangladesh | Present | Varshney (1985), Varshney (1992) | ||
| Brunei | Present | Kondo et al. (2022, as cited in García Morales et al., 2016); Waterhouse (1993) | ||
| Cambodia 1 | Present | Waller et al. (2007), Waterhouse (1993) | ||
| Hong Kong | Present | Malumphy and Treseder (2012), Martin and Lau (2011) | ||
| Japan | Bonin Islands | Present | Kawai and Matsubara (1971) | |
| India | Present | Easwaramoorthy and Jayaraj (1978), George et al. (2022), Mani et al. (2008), Omkar and Pervez (2016), Swirski et al. (1997), Varshney (1985), Waller et al. (2007) | ||
| India | Andhra Pradesh | Present | Avasthi and Shafee (1991); Srinivasa (1987) | |
| India | Assam | Present | Avasthi and Shafee (1991), Varshney (1992) | |
| India | Bihar | Present | Kar et al. (2023), Kondo et al. (2022, as cited in García Morales et al., 2016) | |
| India | Himachal Pradesh | Present | Kondo et al. (2022, as cited in García Morales et al., 2016); Reddy et al. (2022) | |
| India | Karnataka | Present | Avasthi and Shafee (1991), Dubey et al. (2022), Joshi et al. (2017), Kannan (1918), Mani et al. (2008), Noyes (1988), Ponsonby (2009), Sathish et al. (2024), Tandon and Veeresh (1987), Varshney (1985) | |
| India | Kerala | Present | Balakrishnan et al. (1992), Mathew and Duraimurugan (2002), Samuel et al. (1981); Varshney (1992) | |
| India | Orissa | Present | Varshney (1992) | |
| India | Sikkim | Present | Joshi and Sangma (2015) | |
| India | Tamil Nadu | Present | Easwaramoorthy and Jayaraj (1977, 1978), Kumar et al. (2005), Mani et al. (2008), Noyes (1988), Ponsonby (2009), Santharam et al. (1977) | |
| India | Tripura | Present | Varshney (1992) | |
| India | Uttar Pradesh | Present | Khan and Agarwal (1976) | |
| India | West Bengal | Present | Kar et al. (2023) | |
| Indonesia | Present | Holway et al. (2002) | ||
| Indonesia | Aceh Tengah | Present | Syadida et al. (2024) | |
| Indonesia | Bali | Present | Gavrilov-Zimin (2017) | |
| Indonesia | Bebesen | Present | Syadida et al. (2024) | |
| Indonesia | East Java | Present | Muhammad et al. (2024), Wuryantini et al. (2023) | |
| Indonesia | Java | Present | Wuryantini et al. (2023) | |
| Indonesia | Jawa Timur | Present | Ultee (1931), Wurth (1920) | |
| Indonesia | Lampung | Present | Susilo (2015) | |
| Indonesia | Nusatenggara Barat | Present | Van Hall (1919) | |
| Indonesia | Nusatenggara Timur | Present | Rostaman (1997) | |
| Indonesia | Sulawesi Tenggara | Present | Gavrilov-Zimin (2013) | |
| Indonesia | Sumatra | Present | Ali (1971) | |
| Iraq | Present | Hamdia et al. (2020) | ||
| Laos | Present | Choi et al. (2018), Suh and Bombay (2015) | ||
| Malaysia | Present | Waller et al. (2007) | ||
| Malaysia | Sabah | Present | Kondo et al. (2022, as cited in García Morales et al., 2016) | |
| Malaysia | Sarawak | Present | Kondo et al. (2022, as cited in García Morales et al., 2016) | |
| Malaysia | West Malaysia | Present | Distribution Maps of Pests (1972) | |
| Myanmar/Burma | Present | Cheng and Tao (1963), Choi et al. (2018), Waller et al. (2007) | ||
| Pakistan | Present | Sarwar (2006), Varshney (1992) | ||
| Philippines | Present | Waller et al. (2007) | ||
| Philippines | Bataan | Present | Ali (1971), Mamet (1943) | |
| Philippines | Laguna | Present | Ali (1969) | |
| Philippines | Los Banos | Present | Ali (1969) | |
| Philippines | Luzon | Present | Ali (1969) | |
| Philippines | Manilla | Present | Ali (1969) | |
| Philippines | Rizal | Present | Ali (1969) | |
| Singapore | Present | Kondo and Watson (2022, as cited in García Morales et al., 2016), Waterhouse (1993) | ||
| Sri Lanka | Present | Kannan (1918), Reimer et al. (1993), Varshney (1985), Waller et al. (2007) | ||
| Taiwan | Present | Lin et al. (2013), Swirski et al. (1997), Waller et al. (2007) | ||
| Thailand | Chiang Mai | Present | Nakao et al. (1977), Smith et al. (2004) | |
| Thailand | Chiang Rai | Present | Saengyot (2016), Ueda et al. (2010) | |
| Thailand | Chiengmai | Present | Ali (1969) | |
| Thailand | Chon Buri | Present | Smith et al. (2004) | |
| Thailand | Mt. Sutep | Present | Ali (1969) | |
| Vietnam | Present | Waller et al. (2007) | ||
| Yemen | Present | Malumphy and Treseder (2012), Waller et al. (2007) | ||
| Europe | Portugal | Azores | Present | Franco et al. (2011) |
| Portugal | Madeira | Present | Carvalho and Aguiar (1997), Franco et al. (2011), Swirski et al. (1997) | |
| North America | Antigua and Barbuda | Present | Ballou (1916), Cheng and Tao (1963) | |
| Bahamas | Present | Kondo and Watson (2022), as cited in García Morales et al., 2016) | ||
| Barbados | Present | Kondo and Watson (2022), as cited in García Morales et al., 2016), Reyne (1919), Skeete (1925) | ||
| Bermuda | Present | Hodgson and Hilburn (1991) | ||
| British Virgin Islands | Present | Kondo and Watson (2022), as cited in García Morales et al., 2016) | ||
| Cayman Islands | Present | Kondo and Watson (2022), as cited in García Morales et al., 2016) | ||
| Costa Rica | Present | Waller et al. (2007) | ||
| Cuba | Present | Swirski et al. (1997), Waller et al. (2007) | ||
| Cuba | La Habana | Present | Rodríguez-Tapia et al. (2022), Mestre Novoa et al. (2011) | |
| Cuba | Pinar Del Rio | Present | Hernandez Martinez et al. (2021), Mestre Novoa et al. (2011) | |
| Cuba | Playa | Present | Rodríguez-Tapia et al. (2022) | |
| Dominican Republic | Present | Waller et al. (2007) | ||
| El Salvador | Present | Quezada et al. (1972) | ||
| Grenada | Present | Kondo and Watson (2022), as cited in García Morales et al., 2016) | ||
| Guadeloupe | Present | Waller et al. (2007) | ||
| Guatemala | Present | Waller et al. (2007), Williams (2010) | ||
| Haiti | Present | Swirski et al. (1997), Waller et al. (2007) | ||
| Honduras | Present | Waller et al. (2007) | ||
| Jamaica | Present | Waller et al. (2007) | ||
| Martinique | Present | Waller et al. (2007) | ||
| Mexico | Present | Figueroa-Figueroa et al. (2023), Koutouleas et al. (2023), Ruiz-Orta et al. (2023) | ||
| Mexico | Chiapas | Present | Caballero and Ramos-Portilla (2018), Cowal et al. (2023), Gonthier et al. (2013), Hajian-Forooshani et al. (2023), Hsieh et al. (2012), Iverson et al. (2018), Iverson et al. (2022), Jackson et al. (2012), Jackson et al. (2014), Jackson et al. (2016), Jha et al. (2009), Jiménez-Soto et al. (2013), Liere and Perfecto (2008), Liere et al. (2014), Liere and Larsen (2010), Livingston et al. (2008), MacDonald et al. (2013), Marin and Perfecto (2013), Ong and Vandermeer (2014), Padilla et al. (2016), Perfecto and Vandermeer (2006), Rivera-Salinas et al. (2018), Schmitt et al. (2020), Vandenberg et al. (2018) | |
| Mexico | Colima | Present | Miller (1996), Padilla et al. (2016) | |
| Mexico | Guanajuato | Present | Salas-Araiza et al. (2020) | |
| Mexico | Morelos | Present | Padilla et al. (2016) | |
| Mexico | Michoacan | Present | Padilla et al. (2016) | |
| Mexico | Nayarit | Present | Medina-Torres et al. (2013) | |
| Montserrat | Present | Kondo and Watson (2022), as cited in García Morales et al., 2016), Nag Raj and George (1959), Nowell (1916) | ||
| Nicaragua | Present | Matus Miranda and Jiménez-Martínez (2020) | ||
| Panama | Present | Waller et al. (2007) | ||
| Puerto Rico | Present | Hajian-Forooshani et al. (2023), Swirski et al. (1997), Waller et al. (2007) | ||
| Saint Kitts and Nevis | Present | Kondo and Watson (2022), as cited in García Morales et al., 2016) | ||
| Saint Lucia | Present | Malumphy (2014) | ||
| Saint Vincent and the Grenadines | Present | Kondo and Watson (2022), as cited in García Morales et al., 2016) | ||
| Trinidad and Tobago | Present | Gullan (1997), as cited in García Morales et al., 2016) | ||
| U.S. Virgin Islands | Saint Croix | Present | Beatty (1944), Swirski et al. (1997) | |
| United States | Florida | Present | Camacho and Chong (2015), Choi et al. (2018), Pellizzari and Porcelli (2014), Swirski et al. (1997) | |
| United States | Los Angeles | Present | Von Ellenrieder (2025) | |
| Oceania | Australia | New South Wales | Present | Poole (2005) |
| Australia | Northern Territory | Present | Poole (2005) | |
| Australia | Queensland | Present, restricted distribution | Bizumungu et al. (2020), Khan et al. (2007) | |
| Australia | Western Australia | Present | Poole (2005) | |
| Cook Islands | Present | Waller et al. (2007) | ||
| Federated States of Micronesia | Present | Waller et al. (2007) | ||
| Fiji | Present | Waller et al. (2007), Yalemar (1999) | ||
| French Polynesia | Present | Malumphy and Treseder (2012) | ||
| Guam | Present | Ben-Dov (1993), as cited in García Morales et al., 2016), Malumphy and Treseder (2012) | ||
| Kiribati | Present | Malumphy and Treseder (2012) | ||
| Nauru | Present | Ben-Dov (1993), as cited in García Morales et al., 2016); Malumphy and Treseder (2012) | ||
| New Caledonia | Present | Waller et al. (2007) | ||
| Niue | Present | Kondo and Watson (2022), as cited in García Morales et al., 2016) | ||
| Northern Mariana Islands | Present | Mamet (1943), as cited in García Morales et al., 2016) | ||
| Palau | Present | Mamet (1943), as cited in García Morales et al., 2016) | ||
| Papua New Guinea | Present | Choi et al. (2018), Murphy (1991), Noyes (1988), Swirski et al. (1997), Waller et al. (2007) | ||
| Samoa | Present | Swirski et al. (1997), Waller et al. (2007) | ||
| Solomon Islands | Present | Williams and Watson (1990); as cited in García Morales et al., 2016) | ||
| Tonga | Present | Swirski et al. (1997), Waller et al. (2007) | ||
| Tuvalu | Present | Williams and Watson (1990); as cited in García Morales et al., 2016) | ||
| Vanuatu | Present | Swirski et al. (1997), Waller et al. (2007) | ||
| Other | United Kingdom 2 | England | Present | Malumphy and Treseder (2012), Pellizzari and Porcelli (2014) |
| South America | Bolivia | Present | Boa and Bentley (2001), Waller et al. (2007) | |
| Brazil | Alagoas - Vicosa | Present | Fernandes et al. (2012), Magalhães et al. (2010) | |
| Brazil | Amapa | Present | Silva et al. (2021) | |
| Brazil | Amazonas | Present | Murakami et al. (1984), Silva et al. (2021) | |
| Brazil | Bahia | Present | Dias Trindade (2011), Fornazier et al. (2017), Granara de Willink et al. (2010) | |
| Brazil | Distrito Federal | Present | Murakami et al. (1984) | |
| Brazil | Espirito Santo | Present | Fornazier et al. (2017), Granara de Willink et al. (2010), Silva et al. (2021) | |
| Brazil | Goias | Present | Kawai and Matsubara (1971), Murakami et al. (1984), Silva et al. (2021) | |
| Brazil | Mato Grosso Do Sul | Present | Murakami et al. (1984) | |
| Brazil | Minas Gerais | Present | Dias Trindade (2011), Fernandes et al. (2011), Fornazier et al. (2017), Granara de Willink et al. (2010), Murakami et al. (1984), Rosado et al. (2014), Silva et al. (2021), Waller et al. (2007) | |
| Brazil | Para | Present | Dias Trindade (2011), Fornazier et al. (2017), Wolff et al. (2016) | |
| Brazil | Parana | Present | Dias Trindade (2011), Fornazier et al. (2017) | |
| Brazil | Pernambuco | Present | Bondar (1928) | |
| Brazil | Rio de Janeiro | Present | Dias Trindade (2011), Fornazier et al. (2017), Silva et al. (2021) | |
| Brazil | Rio Grande Do Norte | Present | Dias Trindade (2011), Fernandes et al. (2011), Fornazier et al. (2017) | |
| Brazil | Rio Grande do Sul | Present | Dias Trindade (2011), Fornazier et al. (2017), Granara de Willink et al. (2010); Silva et al. (2021) | |
| Brazil | Rondonia | Present | Santos et al. (2023) | |
| Brazil | Santa Catarina | Present | Dias Trindade (2011), Fornazier et al. (2017) | |
| Brazil | Sao Paulo | Present | Almeida et al. (2018), Dias Trindade (2011), Fornazier et al. (2017), Nais and Busoli (2012), Silva et al. (2021), Souza et al., 2023 | |
| Brazil | Present | Li et al. (2010), Swirski et al. (1997), Waller et al. (2007) | ||
| Colombia | Present | Caballero et al. (2020), Dix-Luna et al. (2018), Roba (1936), Waller et al. (2007) | ||
| Ecuador | Present | Causton et al. (2006), Lincango et al. (2010) | ||
| French Guiana | Present | Kondo and Watson (2022), as cited in García Morales et al., 2016) | ||
| Guyana | Present | Waller et al. (2007) | ||
| Hawaii | Present | Bach (1991), Hata and Hara (1992), Holway et al. (2002), Reimer et al. (1993), Yalemar (1999), Waller et al. (2007) | ||
| Hawaii | Honolulu | Present | Charanasri and Nishida (1975), Hara et al. (2002) | |
| Lesser Antilles | Present | Malumphy (2014) | ||
| Peru | Present | Waller et al. (2007) | ||
| Suriname | Present | Waller et al. (2007) | ||
| Trinidad and Tobago | Present | Jutsum et al. (1981), Swirski et al. (1997), Waller et al. (2007) | ||
| Venezuela | Present | Waller et al. (2007) | ||
| Venezuela | Merida | Present | Hanks and Sadof (1990) |
APPENDIX C - Import data
TABLE C.1 Fresh tamarinds, cashew apples, lychees, jackfruit, sapodilla plums, passion fruit, carambola and pitahaya (CN Code: 081090) imported in 100 kg into the EU (27) from regions where
| Country | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 |
| Angola | 20,572.00 | 43,593.00 | 188,355.00 | 210,059.00 | 167,607.00 |
| Australia | 1250.00 | 0.00 | |||
| Bangladesh | 20,612.00 | 38,200.00 | 102,499.00 | 95,662.00 | 138,295.00 |
| Benin | 80.00 | ||||
| Brazil | 96,663.00 | 122,026.00 | 175,862.00 | 401,369.00 | 316,578.00 |
| Burkina Faso | 523.00 | 350.00 | 210.00 | 827.00 | |
| Cambodia | 110,117.00 | 71,282.00 | 205,628.00 | 261,020.00 | 309,382.00 |
| Colombia | 8,984,731.00 | 9,074,120.00 | 12,128,665.00 | 13,725,606.00 | 12,810,645.00 |
| Congo | 185.00 | 50.00 | 270.00 | 20.00 | 76.00 |
| Costa Rica | 1862.00 | 5.00 | 438.00 | 2651.00 | |
| Côte d'Ivoire | 790.00 | 1019.00 | 4603.00 | 5145.00 | 6156.00 |
| Cuba | 207.00 | 23.00 | |||
| Dominican Republic | 82,348.00 | 60,484.00 | 48,038.00 | 40,782.00 | 66,830.00 |
| Ethiopia | 1920.00 | ||||
| French Polynesia | 10.00 | ||||
| Ghana | 526,803.00 | 677,925.00 | 541,615.00 | 346,750.00 | 115,493.00 |
| Guatemala | 856.00 | 6088.00 | 1520.00 | 558.00 | 1.00 |
| Guinea | 4913.00 | 1152.00 | 30.00 | 1739.00 | 1356.00 |
| Guinea-Bissau | 430.00 | ||||
| Honduras | 2.00 | 2045.00 | |||
| India | 11,869.00 | 75,433.00 | 7500.00 | 50,975.00 | 163,303.00 |
| Indonesia | 24,667.00 | 44,164.00 | 54,065.00 | 27,008.00 | 29,906.00 |
| Jamaica | 142.00 | ||||
| Japan | 2.00 | 3.00 | 15.00 | ||
| Kenya | 48,100.00 | 69,714.00 | 68,097.00 | 21,057.00 | 13,967.00 |
| Laos | 46,973.00 | 23,857.00 | 15,078.00 | 8606.00 | 6842.00 |
| Madagascar | 16,452,438.00 | 13,580,960.00 | 14,276,791.00 | 13,173,261.00 | 13,223,375.00 |
| Malaysia | 1423,596.00 | 784,958.00 | 679,487.00 | 455,713.00 | 494,020.00 |
| Mali | 644.00 | 2528.00 | 2170.00 | 1514.00 | 227.00 |
| Mauritius | 116715.00 | 114,597.00 | 9528.00 | 210,607.00 | 171,513.00 |
| Mexico | 66,987.00 | 233,191.00 | 556,083.00 | 629,229.00 | 573,932.00 |
| Myanmar/Burma | 996.00 | ||||
| New Caledonia | 33.00 | ||||
| Nicaragua | 399.00 | 3196.00 | 3981.00 | ||
| Nigeria | 191.00 | 309.00 | 84.00 | 6.00 | 674.00 |
| Pakistan | 250.00 | 87.00 | |||
| Panama | 25.00 | 24.00 | 166.00 | ||
| Peru | 80,103.00 | 148,633.00 | 467,311.00 | 227,815.00 | 151,482.00 |
| Philippines | 88.00 | 56.00 | 103.00 | 578.00 | |
| Rwanda | 1175.00 | 1728.00 | 412.00 | 515.00 | |
| Senegal | 757.00 | 1.00 | |||
| Singapore | 2588.00 | 3.00 | 1.00 | ||
| South Africa | 2,721,568.00 | 1,990,315.00 | 2,345,808.00 | 4,238,329.00 | 1,686,041.00 |
| Sri Lanka | 10,462.00 | 8524.00 | 25,201.00 | 11,466.00 | 8800.00 |
| St Lucia | 70.00 | 20.00 | |||
| Suriname | 198.00 | 44.00 | 4596.00 | 302.00 | |
| Taiwan | 2597.00 | 897.00 | 820.00 | 0.00 | |
| Tanzania | 877.00 | 452.00 | 563.00 | 405.00 | 1.00 |
| Thailand | 1,490,021.00 | 1,013,875.00 | 1,050,459.00 | 1,025,834.00 | 1,273,883.00 |
| Togo | 636.00 | 1244.00 | 184.00 | 414.00 | 796.00 |
| Uganda | 66,657.00 | 57,189.00 | 64,551.00 | 37,673.00 | 20,717.00 |
| United Kingdom | 562,956.00 | 494,928.00 | 198,134.00 | 7140.00 | 11,381.00 |
| United States | 2.00 | 11.00 | 3854.00 | 6.00 | |
| Viet Nam | 5,284,633.00 | 4,565,267.00 | 4,789,302.00 | 3,151,509.00 | 4493426.00 |
| Zambia | 352,604.00 | 308,769.00 | 764,211.00 | 712,545.00 | 544,350.00 |
TABLE C.2 Fresh or chilled celery (excl. celeriac) (CN Code: 070940) imported in 100 kg into the EU (27) from regions where
| Country | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 |
| Australia | 3.00 | ||||
| Cambodia | 10.00 | 39.00 | |||
| Congo | 12.00 | ||||
| Costa Rica | 1.00 | ||||
| Guatemala | 1960.00 | ||||
| Hong Kong | 1.00 | ||||
| India | 5005.00 | ||||
| Kenya | 14.00 | ||||
| Laos | 2941.00 | 2901.00 | 311.00 | ||
| Malaysia | 211.00 | 262.00 | 269.00 | ||
| Mexico | 4.00 | ||||
| Pakistan | 2.00 | ||||
| Suriname | 843.00 | 240.00 | 1643.00 | 962.00 | 931.00 |
| Thailand | 8617.00 | 6254.00 | 6914.00 | 3765.00 | 7674.00 |
| United Kingdom | 1,651,493.00 | 1,406,511.00 | 917,055.00 | 843,485.00 | 1,115,655.00 |
| United States | 59.00 | 0.00 | 17.00 | ||
| Viet Nam | 1.00 | 15.00 | 12.00 |
TABLE C.3 Citrus fruit, fresh or dried (CN Code: 0805) imported in 100 kg into the EU (27) from regions where
| Country | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 |
| Antigua and Barbuda | 1983.00 | ||||
| Australia | 1,064,540.00 | 234,347.00 | 409,742.00 | 378,445.00 | 167,570.00 |
| Bangladesh | 32,242.00 | 118,366.00 | 28,922.00 | 46,452.00 | 50,325.00 |
| Belize | 396,030.00 | 324,376.00 | 25,000.00 | 102,400.00 | |
| Bolivia | 21,008.00 | 1,407,940.00 | 299,700.00 | ||
| Brazil | 82,213,446.00 | 90,259,026.00 | 106,211,108.00 | 117,870,096.00 | 118,009,773.00 |
| Brunei | 1512.00 | ||||
| Burkina Faso | 3895.00 | 5352.00 | 7500.00 | 0.00 | |
| Cambodia | 276.00 | 284.00 | 79.00 | 13,093.00 | 15,222.00 |
| Colombia | 13,691,485.00 | 17,219,770.00 | 19,496,308.00 | 20,764,483.00 | 18,136,325.00 |
| Congo | 197.00 | 20.00 | |||
| Costa Rica | 23,120.00 | 46,160.00 | 3520.00 | 21,870.00 | 24,480.00 |
| Côte d'Ivoire | 6.00 | ||||
| Cuba | 342,211.00 | 55,603.00 | 1870.00 | ||
| Dominican Republic | 735,536.00 | 1,288,658.00 | 1,278,040.00 | 846,422.00 | 1,096,502.00 |
| Ghana | 26,157.00 | 12,986.00 | 22,139.00 | ||
| Grenada | 1.00 | ||||
| Guatemala | 1,181,609.00 | 1,781,426.00 | 871,280.00 | 831,394.00 | 580,077.00 |
| Guyana | 2400.00 | ||||
| Haiti | 3100.00 | 24,829.00 | 33,730.00 | 14,900.00 | 6615.00 |
| Honduras | 852,182.00 | 1,137,041.00 | 1,126,350.00 | 1,188,892.00 | 1,545,338.00 |
| Hong Kong | 227.00 | 100.00 | 2.00 | 42.00 | 774.00 |
| India | 8851.00 | 25,495.00 | 2237.00 | 16,485.00 | 34,505.00 |
| Indonesia | 83,673.00 | 86,454.00 | 87,268.00 | 89,040.00 | 87,903.00 |
| Jamaica | 240,955.00 | 164,687.00 | 244,176.00 | 171,886.00 | 98,478.00 |
| Japan | 31,924.00 | 16,250.00 | 18426.00 | 18,449.00 | 11,786.00 |
| Kenya | 3456.00 | 2.00 | 1.00 | 229.00 | |
| Laos | 2023.00 | 95.00 | |||
| Madagascar | 716.00 | 2216.00 | 191.00 | 269.00 | 21,481.00 |
| Malaysia | 771.00 | 131.00 | |||
| Mali | 12.00 | ||||
| Mauritius | 735.00 | ||||
| Mexico | 44,374,354.00 | 34,964,863.00 | 18,418,248.00 | 13,546,146.00 | 7,171,991.00 |
| Nigeria | 10.00 | 20,000.00 | 6.00 | 5.00 | |
| Pakistan | 59.00 | 27,200.00 | 107,740.00 | 88.00 | |
| Panama | 65,040.00 | 0.00 | |||
| Peru | 36,925,164.00 | 41,836,228.00 | 54,598,470.00 | 38,870,148.00 | 53,895,781.00 |
| Philippines | 771.00 | 10.00 | 8.00 | ||
| Singapore | 3.00 | 0.00 | |||
| South Africa | 619,683,796.00 | 783,014,760.00 | 795,085,787.00 | 790,906,599.00 | 865,059,916.00 |
| Sri Lanka | 20.00 | 6010.00 | 3.00 | 2685.00 | 2291.00 |
| Suriname | 10.00 | 10,900.00 | 2500.00 | ||
| Taiwan | 1.00 | 0.00 | |||
| Tanzania | 3595.00 | 7550.00 | 13,227.00 | 3267.00 | 10,579.00 |
| Thailand | 62,493.00 | 19,487.00 | 24,531.00 | 12,673.00 | 66,960.00 |
| Togo | 42.00 | ||||
| Uganda | 735.00 | 1188.00 | 912.00 | 662.00 | 121.00 |
| United Kingdom | 51,637,365.00 | 53,652,275.00 | 1,743,757.00 | 3,177,744.00 | 2,851,084.00 |
| United States | 17,775,545.00 | 14,860,892.00 | 11,411,050.00 | 6,451,065.00 | 5,716,376.00 |
| Uruguay | 40,277,868.00 | 33,446,813.00 | 43,324,833.00 | 21,610,225.00 | 21,651,365.00 |
| Viet Nam | 7,396,435.00 | 6,373,002.00 | 8,172,952.00 | 6,624,459.00 | 6,858,214.00 |
| Yemen | 240.00 |
TABLE C.4 Coconuts, Brazil nuts and cashew nuts, fresh or dried (CN Code: 0801) whether or not shelled or peeled imported in 100 kg into the EU (27) from regions where
| Country | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 |
| Angola | 16.00 | ||||
| Australia | 309.00 | 2.00 | 8.00 | 5.00 | 43.00 |
| Bangladesh | 443.00 | 1768.00 | 2248.00 | ||
| Barbados | 15,968.00 | ||||
| Benin | 877,477.00 | 1,141,880.00 | 864,514.00 | 866,473.00 | 1,424,324.00 |
| Bolivia | 11,509,889.00 | 12,679,626.00 | 12,417,335.00 | 11,819,580.00 | 10,596,658.00 |
| Brazil | 5,992,459.00 | 7,571,561.00 | 4,556,033.00 | 4,152,015.00 | 4,649,943.00 |
| Brunei | 15,875.00 | 234.00 | |||
| Burkina Faso | 1,655,992.00 | 2,080,827.00 | 2,631,030.00 | 2,721,825.00 | 3,029,180.00 |
| Cabo Verde | 690.00 | ||||
| Cambodia | 95.00 | 377.00 | 22,676.00 | 1357.00 | 15,698.00 |
| Cayman Islands | 5.00 | ||||
| Colombia | 62.00 | 517.00 | 23,479.00 | 1856.00 | |
| Congo | 8.00 | 7.00 | 88.00 | ||
| Costa Rica | 955,716.00 | 649,974.00 | 932,174.00 | 677,256.00 | 784,523.00 |
| Côte d'Ivoire | 22,293,219.00 | 21,472,815.00 | 27,233,981.00 | 31,718,380.00 | 32,403,316.00 |
| Cuba | 11,700.00 | ||||
| Dominican Republic | 59,468.00 | 46,796.00 | 72,424.00 | 1789.00 | 117,878.00 |
| Ethiopia | 0.00 | 65.00 | |||
| French Polynesia | 105.00 | 0.00 | |||
| Ghana | 1,508,942.00 | 2,076,902.00 | 2,059,764.00 | 1,154,882.00 | 2,482,648.00 |
| Guatemala | 22.00 | 2.00 | 12.00 | 1.00 | |
| Guinea | 75,919.00 | 16,576.00 | 31,967.00 | 9167.00 | 40,005.00 |
| Guinea-Bissau | 305,173.00 | 441,520.00 | 422,509.00 | 601,669.00 | 625,574.00 |
| Honduras | 28,140.00 | 13,138.00 | 126,537.00 | 61,798.00 | 30,917.00 |
| Hong Kong | 24.00 | 45.00 | 145.00 | 420.00 | |
| India | 20,569,306.00 | 17,213,865.00 | 12,696,809.00 | 10,908,874.00 | 17,492,121.00 |
| Indonesia | 25,964,402.00 | 23,872,048.00 | 35,425,962.00 | 26,154,760.00 | 18,716,828.00 |
| Jamaica | 26.00 | 7.00 | 2.00 | 1853.00 | |
| Japan | 4.00 | 43.00 | |||
| Kenya | 24,449.00 | 119,189.00 | 173,417.00 | 93,192.00 | 231,198.00 |
| Laos | 23.00 | 0.00 | |||
| Madagascar | 42,635.00 | 52,437.00 | 99,183.00 | 72,193.00 | 109,692.00 |
| Malaysia | 232,906.00 | 441,177.00 | 836,684.00 | 795,478.00 | 736,363.00 |
| Mali | 100.00 | 13,201.00 | 1512.00 | 4549.00 | 144,455.00 |
| Mauritius | 176.00 | 2.00 | 172.00 | 413.00 | |
| Mexico | 25.00 | 10.00 | 8230.00 | 189.00 | 1124.00 |
| Myanmar/Burma | 1000.00 | 6290.00 | 72,911.00 | 1.00 | |
| New Caledonia | 162.00 | 481.00 | |||
| Nicaragua | 478,368.00 | 424,580.00 | 459,264.00 | 523,554.00 | 39,512.00 |
| Nigeria | 383,389.00 | 544,062.00 | 987,237.00 | 1,463,464.00 | 1,906,118.00 |
| Pakistan | 2460.00 | 2570.00 | 2733.00 | 945.00 | 4685.00 |
| Panama | 92.00 | 57,728.00 | |||
| Papua New Guinea | 1.00 | ||||
| Peru | 231,831.00 | 366,935.00 | 597,431.00 | 513,361.00 | 584,728.00 |
| Philippines | 39,810,992.00 | 39,572,176.00 | 39,401,884.00 | 42,368,292.00 | 41,943,996.00 |
| São Tomé and Principe | 607.00 | 4903.00 | 8805.00 | 60.00 | 11235.00 |
| Senegal | 38,960.00 | 23,372.00 | 37,366.00 | 29,558.00 | 103,051.00 |
| Seychelles | 10.00 | 219.00 | 4.00 | ||
| Sierra Leone | 10.00 | 6000.00 | 3120.00 | ||
| Singapore | 726,220.00 | 384,387.00 | 704,764.00 | 363,926.00 | 355,174.00 |
| South Africa | 79.00 | 20,546.00 | 15,602.00 | 42,310.00 | 32,636.00 |
| Sri Lanka | 7,643,004.00 | 6,059,736.00 | 7,462,439.00 | 8,944,712.00 | 8,209,294.00 |
| St Lucia | 2.00 | 117.00 | |||
| Suriname | 5738.00 | 10.00 | 5.00 | 4266.00 | 3349.00 |
| Taiwan | 1.00 | 941.00 | 171.00 | 0.00 | |
| Tanzania | 193,129.00 | 180,005.00 | 371,503.00 | 460,523.00 | 644,838.00 |
| Thailand | 5,901,335.00 | 3,516,102.00 | 3,207,159.00 | 3,481,209.00 | 2,994,346.00 |
| Togo | 571,447.00 | 634,680.00 | 863,266.00 | 850,715.00 | 592,411.00 |
| Tonga | 16,670.00 | ||||
| Uganda | 361.00 | 190.00 | 410.00 | 111.00 | 3.00 |
| United Kingdom | 10,990,603.00 | 11,296,573.00 | 2,364,691.00 | 434,481.00 | 314,976.00 |
| United States | 51,155.00 | 84,558.00 | 145,747.00 | 43,641.00 | 198,006.00 |
| Uruguay | 37.00 | ||||
| Venezuela | 180.00 | ||||
| Viet Nam | 96,789,387.00 | 117,797,448.00 | 128,566,519.00 | 122,085,853.00 | 131,224,494.00 |
| Virgin Islands, United States | 15,876.00 |
TABLE C.5 Fresh or dried guavas, mangoes and mangosteens (CN Code: 080450) imported in 100 kg into the EU (27) from regions where
| Country | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 |
| Angola | 65,815.00 | 35,150.00 | 52,266.00 | 45,471.00 | 44,197.00 |
| Australia | 1.00 | 9.00 | 154.00 | ||
| Bangladesh | 31,073.00 | 32391.00 | 153,810.00 | 255,142.00 | 544,216.00 |
| Benin | 22,679.00 | 259,032.00 | 416,137.00 | 420,608.00 | |
| Bolivia | 4.00 | 33.00 | 1215.00 | ||
| Brazil | 143,756,920.00 | 157,704,399.00 | 179,901,286.00 | 157,087,614.00 | 177,107,128.00 |
| Burkina Faso | 6,535,419.00 | 6,440,444.00 | 6,034,055.00 | 10,738,440.00 | 7,744,022.00 |
| Cambodia | 153,379.00 | 90,449.00 | 63,164.00 | 143,658.00 | 323,075.00 |
| Colombia | 683,302.00 | 413,175.00 | 501,270.00 | 462,984.00 | 536,888.00 |
| Comoros | 9492.00 | ||||
| Congo | 41.00 | 713.00 | 19,777.00 | 1189.00 | |
| Costa Rica | 1,283,062.00 | 1495,059.00 | 2,398,426.00 | 1,718,682.00 | 1,403,652.00 |
| Côte d'Ivoire | 28,161,027.00 | 23,015,491.00 | 27,408,591.00 | 29,728,544.00 | 27,027,920.00 |
| Cuba | 10,334.00 | 23,060.00 | 13,511.00 | 23,056.00 | |
| Dominican Republic | 11,850,800.00 | 11,048,133.00 | 16,121,709.00 | 11,994,703.00 | 17,548,354.00 |
| Ethiopia | 1450.00 | ||||
| French Polynesia | 17.00 | 0.00 | |||
| Ghana | 1,113,806.00 | 3,029,655.00 | 1,526,344.00 | 2,461,354.00 | 2,493,594.00 |
| Guam | 22,400.00 | ||||
| Guatemala | 1,095,340.00 | 809,952.00 | 756,728.00 | 63,943.00 | 82,942.00 |
| Guinea | 310,688.00 | 87,501.00 | 44,532.00 | 477,226.00 | 699.00 |
| Honduras | 4190.00 | 36.00 | 3330.00 | ||
| Hong Kong | 656.00 | 801.00 | 116.00 | 387.00 | |
| India | 931,551.00 | 734,761.00 | 1,657,661.00 | 1,289,495.00 | 1,862,486.00 |
| Indonesia | 238,627.00 | 140,694.00 | 162,972.00 | 393,795.00 | 797,800.00 |
| Japan | 1.00 | 766.00 | 214.00 | 610.00 | |
| Kenya | 1030.00 | 6653.00 | 149,711.00 | 478,067.00 | 837,406.00 |
| Laos | 80,650.00 | 52,532.00 | 28,598.00 | 17467.00 | 16,243.00 |
| Madagascar | 66.00 | 105.00 | 2064.00 | 140.00 | 8688.00 |
| Malaysia | 7272.00 | 4456.00 | 1901.00 | 198.00 | 964.00 |
| Mali | 9,182,906.00 | 8,545,870.00 | 5,809,670.00 | 6,935,451.00 | 6,110,213.00 |
| Mexico | 5,093,579.00 | 5,184,189.00 | 4,667,791.00 | 4,528,410.00 | 5,340,760.00 |
| Myanmar/Burma | 100.00 | ||||
| Nauru | 22,176.00 | ||||
| New Caledonia | 3.00 | ||||
| Nicaragua | 22,400.00 | 22,400.00 | 1.00 | ||
| Nigeria | 195.00 | 3.00 | 2859.00 | 64.00 | 1380.00 |
| Pakistan | 2,920,733.00 | 1,619,650.00 | 1,973,288.00 | 1,733,987.00 | 2,969,906.00 |
| Peru | 101,283,488.00 | 118,783,517.00 | 120,772,601.00 | 123,412,675.00 | 110,065,216.00 |
| Philippines | 36,897.00 | 12,810.00 | 15,367.00 | 25,468.00 | 31,547.00 |
| Rwanda | 1859.00 | ||||
| Senegal | 12,525,279.00 | 8,896,902.00 | 17,283,295.00 | 10,203,617.00 | 10,345,532.00 |
| Sierra Leone | 5506.00 | ||||
| Singapore | 23.00 | 15.00 | 2.00 | 1.00 | 2.00 |
| South Africa | 1,211,695.00 | 865,628.00 | 577,796.00 | 2,261,245.00 | 1,303,033.00 |
| Sri Lanka | 81,383.00 | 42,316.00 | 54,013.00 | 95,135.00 | 50,289.00 |
| St Kitts and Nevis | 750.00 | ||||
| Suriname | 17,170.00 | 28.00 | |||
| Taiwan | 1734.00 | 92.00 | 528.00 | 43.00 | 114.00 |
| Tanzania | 114.00 | 9.00 | 1642.00 | 679.00 | |
| Thailand | 674,391.00 | 526,084.00 | 491,906.00 | 480,911.00 | 574,985.00 |
| Togo | 22,165.00 | 4000.00 | 562.00 | 132.00 | |
| Trinidad and Tobago | 1.00 | 4.00 | |||
| Uganda | 66,225.00 | 38,956.00 | 66,880.00 | 69,893.00 | 43,041.00 |
| United Kingdom | 3,316,110.00 | 4,742,957.00 | 600,549.00 | 90,706.00 | 89,395.00 |
| United States | 8,258,054.00 | 8,285,221.00 | 5,111,101.00 | 6,254,963.00 | 6,491,125.00 |
| United States Minor Outlying Islands | 10,368.00 | 1728.00 | 2294.00 | ||
| Venezuela | 193,911.00 | 28,269.00 | 52,230.00 | 48,817.00 | 20,721.00 |
| Viet Nam | 154,669.00 | 96,531.00 | 276,109.00 | 474,589.00 | 494,692.00 |
| Zambia | 2304.00 |
TABLE C.6 Fresh or dried pineapples (CN Code: 080430) imported in 100 kg into the EU (27) from regions where
| Country | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 |
| Angola | 3024.00 | 5111.00 | 20,054.00 | 80,225.00 | 45,340.00 |
| Australia | 0.00 | 1.00 | 0.00 | 112.00 | |
| Bangladesh | 126.00 | 4.00 | 50.00 | 142.00 | |
| Benin | 748,167.00 | 1,287,578.00 | 1,318,029.00 | 1,400,336.00 | 2,897,414.00 |
| Brazil | 63,905.00 | 28,066.00 | 13,429.00 | 5094.00 | 24,873.00 |
| Burkina Faso | 1968.00 | 357.00 | 1012.00 | 662.00 | |
| Cambodia | 50.00 | 170.00 | 126.00 | 83.00 | |
| Colombia | 5,366,349.00 | 4,213,678.00 | 5,758,981.00 | 1,447,884.00 | 250,794.00 |
| Congo | 7.00 | 46.00 | 1372.00 | 16,561.00 | |
| Costa Rica | 754,305,071.00 | 665,502,534.00 | 723,161,071.00 | 677,294,138.00 | 684,401,153.00 |
| Côte d'Ivoire | 24,417,593.00 | 203,55,253.00 | 25,554,295.00 | 25,009,029.00 | 15,961,620.00 |
| Cuba | 199,842.00 | 97,685.00 | 86,955.00 | 24.00 | |
| Dominican Republic | 2,056,635.00 | 2,052,591.00 | 2,689,446.00 | 1,328,677.00 | 309,720.00 |
| French Polynesia | 48.00 | 24.00 | 3.00 | ||
| Ghana | 11,472,371.00 | 11,193,458.00 | 10,674,211.00 | 7,274,723.00 | 4,066,227.00 |
| Guatemala | 6403.00 | 28,250.00 | 12,800.00 | 20.00 | 145,937.00 |
| Guinea | 7290.00 | 1995.00 | 350.00 | 2771.00 | |
| Guyana | 2200.00 | ||||
| Honduras | 1,526,316.00 | 3,297,712.00 | 3,517,421.00 | 3,170,498.00 | 3,019,664.00 |
| Hong Kong | 600.00 | 3.00 | |||
| India | 1152.00 | 100.00 | 1168.00 | 8136.00 | 2926.00 |
| Indonesia | 250.00 | 69.00 | 8192.00 | ||
| Jamaica | 41.00 | ||||
| Japan | 1.00 | 16.00 | |||
| Kenya | 214,797.00 | 2,379,906.00 | 2,938,299.00 | 2,391,524.00 | 4,420,398.00 |
| Madagascar | 35.00 | 316.00 | 1976.00 | 1623.00 | 259.00 |
| Malaysia | 240.00 | 1040.00 | 36,000.00 | ||
| Mauritius | 1,572,437.00 | 884,538.00 | 1,656,713.00 | 1,276,510.00 | 1,210,605.00 |
| Mexico | 14,242.00 | 17,497.00 | 20,144.00 | 20,443.00 | 19,112.00 |
| Myanmar/Burma | 70,674.00 | 37,870.00 | 40,807.00 | ||
| New Caledonia | 46.00 | ||||
| Nigeria | 24.00 | 1.00 | 800.00 | 12.00 | |
| Panama | 7,237,124.00 | 6,477,159.00 | 3,940,575.00 | 8,914,458.00 | 9,925,135.00 |
| Peru | 325,455.00 | 58,517.00 | 38,213.00 | 279,704.00 | 15,522.00 |
| Philippines | 8603.00 | 56,604.00 | 78.00 | 1852.00 | 4849.00 |
| Rwanda | 16,237.00 | 11,120.00 | 15,940.00 | 4300.00 | 17,171.00 |
| Singapore | 29.00 | 92.00 | 34.00 | ||
| South Africa | 746,018.00 | 603,845.00 | 524,683.00 | 1128,095.00 | 844,916.00 |
| Sri Lanka | 267,519.00 | 263,602.00 | 167,054.00 | 199,287.00 | 18,265.00 |
| St Kitts and Nevis | 750.00 | ||||
| Suriname | 11,250.00 | 1350.00 | 600.00 | ||
| Taiwan | 7.00 | 5.00 | 963.00 | 2038.00 | |
| Tanzania | 15,083.00 | 18,737.00 | 194,129.00 | 33,473.00 | 17395.00 |
| Thailand | 805,649.00 | 882,872.00 | 905,425.00 | 1,134,665.00 | 877,612.00 |
| Togo | 2,619,588.00 | 1,591,463.00 | 1,811,040.00 | 1,248,095.00 | 964,497.00 |
| Uganda | 136,967.00 | 173,112.00 | 204,033.00 | 154,012.00 | 292,494.00 |
| United Kingdom | 26,869,483.00 | 19,038,328.00 | 765,890.00 | 80,917.00 | 120,921.00 |
| United States | 2828.00 | 5729.00 | 145,169.00 | 56,785.00 | 80.00 |
| Venezuela | 4.00 | ||||
| Viet Nam | 2020.00 | 218.00 | 13,047.00 | 2675.00 | 9404.00 |
APPENDIX D - List of predator and parasitoid species of Coccus viridis
(Source: Iverson et al., 2018; Liere & Perfecto, 2008; Mani et al., 2008; Mani, 2022; Nais & Busoli, 2012; Neumann et al., 2010; Ponsonby, 2009; Siregar & Tulus, 2023; Waller et al., 2007)
Anicetus annulatus, A. ceylonensis (Hymenoptera: Encyrtidae), Aprostocetus gravans, A. minutus, A. purpureus, A. sicarius (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae), Azya lutipes (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae), Azya orbigera (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae), Cheilomenes sexmaculata (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae), Cheiloneuromyia javensis (Hymenoptera: Encyrtidae), Chilocorus adustus, C. angolensis, C. cacti, C. circumdatus, C. melanophthalmus, C. nigrita, C. politus, C. schioedtei (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae), Cephaleta australiensis, Cephaleta australiensis var. javensis (Hymenoptera: Pteromalidae), Cerapteroceroides sp. (Hymenoptera: Encyrtidae), Chilocorus adustus, C. angolensis, C. cacti, C. circumdatus, C. melanophthalmus, C. politus, C. schioedtei (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae), Chrysoperla externa (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae), Coccidiphaga scitula (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) Coccophagus sp., C. rustii, C. bogoriensis, C. ceroplastae, C. cowperi, C. hawaiiensis, C. lycimnia, C. ochraceus (Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae), Cryptoblabes proleucella (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae), Cryptolaemus montrouzieri (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae), Curinus coeruleus (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae), Cybocephalus sp. (Coleoptera: Nitidulidae), Cycloneda sanguinea (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae), Diomus sp. (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae), Encarsia sp., Encarsia diaspidicola (Hymenoptera; Aphelinidae), Diadiplosis sp. (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae), Diversinervus silvestrii (Hymenoptera: Encyrtidae), Encyrtus aurantii (Hymenoptera: Encyrtidae), Eublemma costimacula, Eublemma rubra (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), Exochomus ventralis (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae), Harmonia sp. (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae), Hyperaspis senegalensis, H. silvestrii (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae), Gahaniella saissetiae (Hymenoptera: Encyrtidae), Halmus chalybeus (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae), Jauravia pallidula (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae), Marietta caridei (Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae), Metaphycus baruensis, M. helvolus, M. lichtensiae, M. maculatus (Hymenoptera: Encyrtidae), Microterys nietneri (Hymenoptera: Encyrtidae), Myiocnema comperei (Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae), Neobrachista javae (Hymenoptera: Trichogrammatidae), Novius koebelei (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae), Olla v-nigrum (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae), Orcus sp., Orcus janthinus (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae), Phrynocaria quadrivittata (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae), Prochiloneurus sp. (Hymenoptera: Encyrtidae), Promuscidea unfasciativentris (Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae), Pseudocaecillius elutus africanus (Psocodea: Pseudocaecilidae), Rhyzobius ventralis (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae), Scymnus sp. (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae), Synona inaequalis (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae), Tetrastichus sp., T. ibseni (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae), Telsimia sp. (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae).
APPENDIX E - Prisma 2009 Flow Diagram
Name of the Pest: Coccus viridis
Date of the search: 03/01/2025
Approved Literature Search String: “Coccus viridis” OR “Lecanium viride” OR “Lecanium viridis” OR “Eulecanium viridis” OR “green coffee scale” OR “escama verde” OR “green scale” OR “lapa-verde” OR “ Cochenille verte du caféier” OR “cochinilla verde del café” OR “cochonilha-verde” OR “groene dopluis” OR “Grüne Kaffeeschildlaus” OR “midori-kata-kaigaramushi” OR “escamas del café” OR “groene koffieluis” OR “groene dopluis”.
From: Moher et al. (2009). For more information, visit .
Abd‐Rabou, S., & Evans, G. A. (2021). An annotated checklist of the scale insects of Egypt (Hemiptera: Sternorrhyncha: Coccomorpha: Coccoidea). Acta Phytopathologica Et Entomologica Hungarica, 56(1), 25–57.
Ali, S. M. (1969). A catalogue of the oriental Coccoidea. Indian Museum Bulletin, 4.
Ali, S. M. (1971). A catalogue of the oriental Coccoidea (part V) (Insecta: Homoptera: Coccoidea) (with an index). Indian Museum Bulletin, 6, 7–82.
Almeida, L. F. V., Peronti, A. L. B. G., Martinelli, N. M., & Wolff, V. R. S. (2018). A survey of scale insects (Hemiptera: Coccoidea) in citrus orchards in São Paulo, Brazil. Florida Entomologist, 101(3), 353–363. https://doi.org/10.1653/024.101.0324
Ambethgar, V. (2018). Strategic approaches for applications of entomopathogenic fungi to counter insecticide resistance in agriculturally important insect pests. Fungi and their Role in Sustainable Development: Current Perspective, 221–254. https://doi.org/10.1007/978‐981‐13‐0393‐7_13
Anderson, T. J. (1917). Notes on insects injurious to coffee. Department of Agriculture, British East Africa, Nairobi Division of Entomology Bulletin, 2, 20–43.
Arvanitoyannis, I. S., & Stratakos, A. C. (2010). Irradiation of insects: Disinfestation. In Irradiation of food commodities (pp. 537–560). https://doi.org/10.1016/B978‐0‐12‐374718‐1.10013‐6
Avasthi, R. K., & Shafee, S. A. (1991). Revision of the genus Coccus Linn. in India (Insecta: Homoptera: Coccidae). Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.13650359
Ayyar, P. N. K. (1935). The biology and economic status of the common black ant of South India Camponotus (Tanaemyrmex) compressus, Latr. Bulletin of Entomological Research, 26, 575–586.
Bach, C. E. (1991). Direct and indirect interactions between ants (Pheidole megacephala), scales (Coccus viridis) and plants (Pluchea indica). Oecologia, 87(2), 233–239. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00325261
Baker, R. H. A. (2002). Predicting the limits to the potential distribution of alien crop pests. In G. J. Hallman & C. P. Schwalbe (Eds.), Invasive arthropods in agriculture: Problems and solutions (pp. 207–241). Science Publishers Inc.
Balakrishnan, M. M., Vinodkumar, P. K., & Prakasan, C. B. (1992). A note on green scale‐ant association on coffee. Indian Coffee, 56, 5–6.
Ballou, C. H. (1926). Los cóccidos de Cuba y sus plantas hospederas. Estación Central Agronómica de Cuba.
Ballou, H. A. (1916). Report on the prevalence of some pests and diseases in the West Indies during 1915, Part I, Insect Pests. West Indian Bulletin, 16(1), 1–30.
Barrera, J. F. (2008). Coffee pests and their management. In J. L. Capinera (Ed.), Encyclopedia of entomology. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978‐1‐4020‐6359‐6_751
Beatty, H. A. (1944). The insects of St. Croix, V.I. The Journal of Agriculture of the University of Puerto Rico, 28(3/4), 114–172.
Ben‐Dov, Y. (1993). A systematic catalogue of the soft scale insects of the world (Homoptera: Coccoidea: Coccidae) (p. 536). Sandhill Crane Press Gainesville.
Bethke, J. A., & Wilen, C. A. (2010). UC IPM pest management guidelines: floriculture and ornamental nurseries, UCANR Publication 3392. https://ipm.ucanr.edu/agriculture/floriculture‐and‐ornamental‐nurseries/soft‐scales/.
Bizumungu, G., & Majer, J. D. (2019). The distribution of ants in a Rwandan coffee plantation and their potential to control pests. African Entomology, 27(1), 159–166. https://doi.org/10.4001/003.027.0159
Bizumungu, G., Majer, J. D., & Fay, H. A. C. (2020). The potential protective value of ants in northern Australian coffee plantations. International Journal of Pest Management, 66(3), 227–238. https://doi.org/10.1080/09670874.2019.1616129
Boa, E., & Bentley, J. W. (2001). Tree pests in Bolivia: Assessment and significance. Technical Report. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.17232.12800
Bondar, G. (1928). Coffee pests in Pernambuco. Correio Agrícola, 6, 256.
Brugnara, E. C., Castilhos, R. V., & Sabião, R. R. (2022). Consequências da seca no Oeste Catarinense para a cultura dos citros na safra 2020/21. Agropecuária Catarinense, 35(2), 11–13. https://doi.org/10.52945/rac.v35i2.1231
Caballero, A., Ramos Portilla, A., Vergara‐Navarro, E., Serna, F., & Rueda‐Ramírez, D. (2020). The scale insect (Hemiptera: Coccomorpha) collection of the entomological museum “Universidad Nacional Agronomía Bogotá”, and its impact on Colombian coccidology. Bonn Zoological Bulletin, 69, 165–183. https://doi.org/10.20363/BZB‐2020.69.2.165
Caballero, A., & Ramos‐Portilla, A. A. (2018). Hypogeal scale insects (Hemiptera: Coccomorpha) of the coffee agro‐system in Chiapas state, Mexico, with description of a new species of Williamsrhizoecus Kozár and Konczné Benedicty (Rhizoecidae). JoBAZ, 79, 41. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41936‐018‐0054‐2
CABI. (online). Coccus viridis (soft green scale) Datasheet 14670 CABI crop protection compendium. CAB International. Accessed 22 August 2022. https://www.cabidigitallibrary.org/doi/10.1079/cabicompendium.14670.
Camacho, E. R., & Chong, J. H. (2015). General biology and current management approaches of soft scale pests (Hemiptera: Coccidae). Journal of Integrated Pest Management, 6(1), 17. https://doi.org/10.1093/jipm/pmv016
Carvalho, G. P. M., Franco, J. C., Aguiar, F., & Soares, A. O. (1996). Insect pests of citrus in Portugal. In Proceedings of the International Society Citriculture 613 pp.
Carvalho, P. J., & Aguiar, A. M. F. (1997). [citrus pests in the Island of Madeira] Pragas dos citrinos na Ilha da Madeira Secretaria regional de Agricultura, Florestas e Pescs Madeira 411 pp.
Causton, C. E., Peck, S. B., Sinclair, B. J., Roque‐Albelo, L., Hodgson, C. J., & Landry, B. (2006). Alien insects: Threats and implications for conservation of Galápagos Islands. Annals of the Entomological Society of America, 99(1), 121–143. https://doi.org/10.1603/0013‐8746(2006)099[0121:AITAIF]2.0.CO;2
Charanasri, V., & Nishida, T. (1975). Relative abundance of 3 coccinellid predators of green scale, Coccus‐viridis (green) on plumeria trees. Proceedings of the Hawaiian Entomological Society, 22(1), 27–32.
Chazeau, J. (1981). Données sur la biologie de Coelophora quadrivittata [Col.: Coccinellidae], prédateur de Coccus viridis [Hom.: Coccidae] en Nouvelle‐Calédonie. Entomophaga, 26, 301–311.
Cheng, C. H., & Tao, C. C. C. (1963). Green Scale, Coccus viridis (Green). https://scholars.tari.gov.tw/handle/123456789/5981.
Chiu, H. T. (1981). The citrus insect pest management in Taiwan. Citrus Research & Technology, 38, 527–528. https://doi.org/10.5555/19800576897
Choi, J., & Lee, S. (2020). Molecular phylogeny of the family Coccidae (Hemiptera, Coccomorpha), with a discussion of their waxy ovisacs. Systematic Entomology, 45, 396–414. https://doi.org/10.1111/syen.12404
Choi, J., Soysouvanh, P., Lee, S., & Hong, K. J. (2018). Review of the family Coccidae (Hemiptera: Coccomorpha) in Laos. Zootaxa, 4460(1), 1–62. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4460.1.1
Corseuil, E., & Barbosa, V. M. B. (1971). A familia Coccidae no Rio Grande do Sul (Homoptera, Coccoidea) [the Coccidae family in the Rio Grande do Sul (Homoptera, Coccoidea)]. Arquivos do Museu Nacional, Rio de Janeiro, 54, 237–241.
Cowal, S., Morris, J. R., Jiménez‐Soto, E., & Philpott, S. M. (2023). Naturally occurring vegetation connectivity facilitates ant‐mediated coffee berry borer removal. Insects, 14(11), 869. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects14110869
Culik, M. P., Μartins, D. S., & Ventura, J. A. (2007). Coccidae, Pseudococcidae, Ortheziidae, and Monophlebidae (Hemiptera: Coccoidea) of Espírito Santo, Brazil. Biota Neotropica, 7(3), 61–65. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1676‐06032007000300006
De Charmoy, D. D. E., & Gebert, S. (1921). Insect pests of various minor crops and fruit trees in Mauritius. Bulletin of Entomological Research, 12(2), 181–190.
De Lotto, G. (1960). The green scales of coffee in Africa south of the Sahara (Homoptera, Coccidae). Bulletin of Entomological Research, 51, 389–403.
de Seabra, A. (1919). Studies of the diseases and parasites of cacao and other plants cultivated in the Island of san Thome. The new disease of cacao in S.Thome. Lisbon. xviii. 43 pp.
Dekle, G. W., & Fasulo, T. R. (2001). Coccus viridis (Green) (Insecta: Hemiptera: Coccidae). Bulletin (University of Florida Cooperative Extension Service) EENY‐253.
Dias Trindade, T. (2011). New contribution on distribution and new hosts of Coccus viridis, Green 1889 (Hemiptera: Coccidae) in the state of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Entomotropica, 26(3), 147–152. https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2‐s2.0‐84873934288&partnerID=40&md5=b5e373b2727b40029a12e5085cd9ecf3.
Diaz, A., Abreu, N., Martin, J., & Suarez, G. M. (2004). Hemiptera associated with wild orchids. Fitosanidad, 8, 43–44.
Distribution Maps of Pests. (1972). Pest: Coccus viridis (Green) Distribution Maps of Pests, Series A (Agricultural). Commonwealth Institute of Entomology. Map No. 305. Published at: 56 Queen's Gate, London, SW7 5JR. CABI Digital Library.
Dix‐Luna, O. J., Montes‐Rodríguez, J. M., Kulikowski, A. J., & Kondo, T. (2018). Alecanochiton marquesi (Hemiptera: Coccomorpha: Coccidae), a new record for Colombia and Costa Rica, and description of its first‐instar nymph. Caldasia, 40(2), 246–254. https://doi.org/10.15446/caldasia.v40n2.69451
D'Souza, G. I., Bhat, P. K., & Balarammencxn, P. (1969). Canthium dicoccum Gaertn. Merr (Rubiaceae) and Alstonia scholaris Br. (Apocyanaceae)‐two new hosts of the green‐bug (Coccus viridis gr.) in South India. Indian Coffee, 33, 65.
Dubey, V. K., Kalleshwaraswamy, C. M., Joshi, S., & Shivanna, B. K. (2022). Diversity and diagnostics of sternorrhynchan insect pests infesting arecanut. Indian Journal of Entomology, 84(3), 509–515. https://doi.org/10.55446/IJE.2021.562022
Easwaramoorthy, S., & Jayaraj, S. (1977). Effect of temperature, pH, and media on growth of fungus Cephalosporium‐lecanii. Journal of Invertebrate Pathology, 29(3), 399–400. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022‐2011(77)80055‐4
Easwaramoorthy, S., & Jayaraj, S. (1978). Effectiveness of the white halo fungus, Cephalosporium lecanii, against field populations of coffee green bug, Coccus viridis. Journal of Invertebrate Pathology, 32(1), 88–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022‐2011(78)90178‐7
EFSA PLH Panel (EFSA Panel on Plant Health), Jeger, M., Bragard, C., Caffier, D., Candresse, T., Chatzivassiliou, E., Dehnen‐Schmutz, K., Gregoire, J.‐C., Jaques Miret, J. A., MacLeod, A., Navajas Navarro, M., Niere, B., Parnell, S., Potting, R., Rafoss, T., Rossi, V., Urek, G., Van Bruggen, A., Van Der Werf, W., … Gilioli, G. (2018). Guidance on quantitative pest risk assessment. EFSA Journal, 16(8), 5350. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2018.5350
EFSA PLH Panel (EFSA Panel on Plant Health), Bragard, C., Chatzivassiliou, E., Di Serio, F., Baptista, P., Gonthier, P., Jaques Miret, J. A., Fejer Justesen, A., MacLeod, A., Magnusson, C. S., Milonas, P., Navas‐Cortes, J. A., Parnell, S., Reignault, P. L., Stefani, E., Thulke, H.‐H., Van der Werf, W., Vicent Civera, A., Yuen, J., … Potting, R. (2022). Scientific opinion on the commodity risk assessment of Jasminum polyanthum unrooted cuttings from Uganda. EFSA Journal, 20(5), 7300. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2022.7300
EFSA PLH Panel (EFSA Panel on Plant Health), Bragard, C., Baptista, P., Chatzivassiliou, E., Di Serio, F., Gonthier, P., Jaques Miret, J. A., Justesen, A. F., MacLeod, A., Magnusson, C. S., Milonas, P., Navas‐Cortes, J. A., Parnell, S., Potting, R., Stefani, E., Van der Werf, W., Civera, A. V., Yuen, J., Zappalà, L., … Thulke, H.‐. H. (2024). Standard protocols for plant health scientific assessments. EFSA Journal, 22(9), e8891. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2024.8891
EFSA Scientific Committee, Hardy, A., Benford, D., Halldorsson, T., Jeger, M. J., Knutsen, H. K., More, S., Naegeli, H., Noteborn, H., Ockleford, C., Ricci, A., Rychen, G., Schlatter, J. R., Silano, V., Solecki, R., Turck, D., Benfenati, E., Chaudhry, Q. M., Craig, P., … Younes, M. (2017). Scientific Opinion on the guidance on the use of the weight of evidence approach in scientific assessments. EFSA Journal, 15(8), 4971. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2017.4971
Ekesi, S. (2015). Arthropod pest composition and abundance on Citrus sinensis in the lowland and highland production locales of Kenya. Acta Horticulturae, 1065, 1019–1026.
Elimem, M., Guesmi, M., Lahfef, C., Jammeli, B., Bessouda, B., & Fersi, R. (2019). A preliminary checklist and survey of the diurnal entomofauna associated to Citrus orchards in the region of Mograne (Zaghouan) in Tunisia within environmental parameters. Journal of New Sciences, Sustainable Livestock Management, 11(2), 231–224.
EPPO. (2019). EPPO codes. https://www.eppo.int/RESOURCES/eppo_databases/eppo_codes.
EPPO (European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization). (online). EPPO Global Database. Coccus Viridis. https://gd.eppo.int/taxon/COCCVI [Accessed 12/08/2024].
EUROPHYT. (online). European Union Notification System for Plant Health Interceptions – EUROPHYT. https://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/plant_health_biosecurity/europhyt/index_en.htm.
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). (2013). ISPM (international standards for Phytosanitary measures) 11—Pest risk analysis for quarantine pests. FAO, Rome, 36 pp. https://www.ippc.int/sites/default/files/documents/20140512/ispm_11_2013_en_2014‐04‐30_201405121523‐494.65%20KB.pdf.
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). (2023). ISPM (international standards for Phytosanitary measures) No 5. Glossary of phytosanitary terms (p. 40). FAO. https://assets.ippc.int/static/media/files/publication/en/2023/07/ISPM_05_2023_En_Glossary_PostCPM‐17_2023‐07‐12_Fixed.pdf.
Fernandes, F. L., de Sena Fernandes, M. E., Picanco, M. C., Geraldo, G. C., Demuner, A. J., & da Silva, R. S. (2010). Coffee volatiles and predatory wasps (hymenoptera: Vespidae) of the coffee leaf miner Leucoptera coffeella. Sociobiology, 56(2), 455–464.
Fernandes, F. L., Picanco, M. C., Fernandes, M. E. S., Queiroz, R. B., Xavier, V. M., & Martinez, H. E. P. (2012). The effects of nutrients and secondary compounds of Coffea arabica on the behavior and development of Coccus viridis. Environmental Entomology, 41(2), 333–341. https://doi.org/10.1603/EN11003
Fernandes, F. L., Picanço, M. C., Gontijo, P. C., de Sena Fernandes, M. E., Pereira, E. J. G., & Semeão, A. A. (2011). Induced responses of Coffea arabica to attack of Coccus viridis stimulate locomotion of the herbivore. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata, 139(2), 120–127. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1570‐7458.2011.01113.x
Fernandes, I. M. (1987). Contribuiçao para o conhecimento da quermofauna da Guine‐Bissau. [contribution to knowledge of some coccids of Guinea‐Bissau.]. Garcia de Orta, Serial Zoology, 14(1), 31–37.
Figueroa‐Figueroa, D. K., Ramírez‐Dávila, J. F., Lara‐Vázquez, F., Mora‐Escamilla, M., & Galacho‐Jiménez, F. B. (2023). Spatial distribution of Green scale and sooty Mould in coffee plantations in Amatepec, state of Mexico. Revista Fitotecnia Mexicana, 46(4), 419–428. https://doi.org/10.35196/RFM.2023.4.419
Follett, P. A. (2009). Generic radiation quarantine treatments: The next steps. Journal of Economic Entomology, 102(4), 1399–1406. https://doi.org/10.1603/029.102.0401
Follett, P. A., & Griffin, R. L. (2012). Phytosanitary irradiation for fresh horticultural commodities: Research and regulations (2nd ed., pp. 227–254). Food Irradiation Research and Technology. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118422557.ch13
Fornazier, M. J., Martins, D. S., De Willink, M. C. G., Pirovani, V. D., Ferreira, P. S. F., & Zanuncio, J. C. (2017). Scale insects (Hemiptera: Coccoidea) associated with Arabica coffee and geographical distribution in the neotropical region. Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciências, 89(4), 3083–3092. https://doi.org/10.1590/0001‐3765201720160689
Franco, J. C., Russo, A., & Marotta, S. (2011). An annotated checklist of scale insects (Hemiptera: Coccoidea) of Portugal, including Madeira and Azores archipelagos. Zootaxa, 3004, 1–32. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.3004.1.1
Frappa, C. (1928). Sur un ennemi du caféier a Madagascar (le bostriche du caféier). Agronomie Coloniale, 133, 15–20.
Frappa, C. (1929). Au Sujet des Cochenilles du cafeier dans la Province de l'Itasy. Bulletin Économique de Madagascar, 26, 7–13.
Fredrick, J. M. (1943). Some preliminary investigations of the green scale, Coccus viridis (Green), in south Florida. Florida Entomologist, 26, 12–15. 25–29.
Ganhao, J. F. P. (1956). Cephalosporium lecanii Zimm. An Entomogenous Fungus of Cochineals. Brotéria, 25, 71–135.
García Morales, M., Denno, B. D., Miller, D. R., Miller, G. L., Ben‐Dov, Y., & Hardy, N. B. (2016). ScaleNet: A literature‐based model of scale insect biology and systematics. Database, 2016, bav118. https://doi.org/10.1093/database/bav118
García‐Valente, F., Ortega‐Arenas, L. D., González‐Hernández, H., Villanueva‐Jiménez, J. A., López‐Collado, J., González‐Hernández, A., & Arredondo‐Bernal, H. C. (2009). Natural and induced parasitism of Anagyrus kamali against pink hibiscus mealybug on teak shoots in Bahia de Banderas, Nayarit. Agrociencia, 43(7), 729–738. https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2‐s2.0‐77649171432&partnerID=40&md5=a803372766f527dfb52ba9f23523fcc9
Gavrilov‐Zimin, I. (2017). Taxonomic and faunistic notes on scale insects (Homoptera: Coccinea) of Bali, Flores and New Guinea (Indonesia). Biodiversity, Biogeography and Nature Conservation in Wallacea and New Guinea, 3, 141–149.
Gavrilov‐Zimin, I. A. (2013). New scale insects (Homoptera: Coccinea) from Sulawesi and New Guinea, with some other additions to the Indonesian fauna. Tropical Zoology, 26(2), 64–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/03946975.2013.807570
George, A., Rao, C. N., & Mani, M. (2022). Pests of citrus and their management. Trends in Horticultural Entomology, 551–575. https://doi.org/10.1007/978‐981‐19‐0343‐4_17
Githae, M., Ong'amo, G. O., Nderitu, J., Watson, G. E., & Kinuthia, W. (2021). Diversity of scale insects (Hemiptera: Coccomorpha) attacking citrus trees in Machakos, Makueni, Kilifi and Kwale counties, Kenya. Journal of Agricultural Science and Practice, 6(3), 79–85.
Gómez‐Menor Ortega, J. (1941). Cóccidos de la República Dominicana (Hem. Cocc.). Eos, Transactions of the American Geophysical Union, 16, 125–143.
Gonthier, D. J., Dominguez, G. M., Witter, J. D., Spongberg, A. L., & Philpott, S. M. (2013). Bottom‐up effects of soil quality on a coffee arthropod interaction web. Ecosphere, 4(9), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1890/ES13‐00072.1
González‐Hernández, H., Johnson, M. W., & Reimer, N. J. (1999). Impact of Pheidole megacephala (F.) (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) on the biological control of Dysmicoccus brevipes (Cockerell) (Homoptera: Pseudococcidae). Biological Control, 15(2), 145–152. https://doi.org/10.1006/bcon.1999.0714
Granara de Willink, M. C., Pirovani, V. D., & Ferreira, P. S. F. (2010). Coccus species affecting Coffea arabica in Brazil (Coccoideae: Coccidae) and the Redescription of two species. Neotropical Entomology, 39(3), 391–399. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1519‐566X2010000300013
Green, E. E. (1916). Report on some Coccidae from Zanzibar, collected by Dr. W.M. Aders. Bulletin of Entomological Research, 6, 375–376.
Green, P. W. C., Davis, A. P., Cossé, A. A., & Vega, F. E. (2015). Can coffee chemical compounds and insecticidal plants Be harnessed for control of major coffee pests? Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 63(43), 9427–9434. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jafc.5b03914
Griessinger, D., & Roy, A.‐S. (2015). EPPO codes: a brief description. https://www.eppo.int/media/uploaded_images/RESOURCES/eppo_databases/A4_EPPO_Codes_2018.pdf.
Gullan, P. J. (1997). 1.3.5 relationships with ants. Soft scale insects: Their biology, natural enemies and control [Vol. 7A] (p. 452). Elsevier.
Hajian‐Forooshani, Z., Perfecto, I., & Vandermeer, J. (2023). Novel community assembly and the control of a fungal pathogen in coffee agroecosystems. Biological Control, 177, 105099. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocontrol.2022.105099
Hamdia, Z. A., Bassim, H. H., & AbdulRahman, A. A. (2020). First record of Alternaria alternata isolate CVGCIPL isolated from Green scale insect (Coccus viridis) on citrus plants. Systematic Reviews in Pharmacy, 11(11), 1807–1812.
Hanks, L. M., & Sadof, C. S. (1990). The effect of ants on nymphal survivorship of Coccus‐viridis (Homoptera, Coccidae). Biotropica, 22(2), 210–213. https://doi.org/10.2307/2388415
Hansen, J. D., Hara, A. H., Chan, H. T., & Tenbrink, V. L. (1991). Efficacy of hydrogen‐cyanide fumigation as a treatment for pests of Hawaiian cut flowers and foliage after harvest. Journal of Economic Entomology, 84(2), 532–536. https://doi.org/10.1093/jee/84.2.532
Hara, A. H., Hata, T. Y., Hu, B. K., Kaneko, R. T., & Tenbrink, V. L. (1994). Hot‐water immersion of cape jasmine cuttings for disinfestation of green scale (Homoptera: Coccidae). Journal of Economic Entomology, 87(6), 1569–1573.
Hara, A. H., Yalemar, J. A., Jang, E. B., & Moy, J. H. (2002). Irradiation as a possible quarantine treatment for green scale Coccus viridis (Green) (Homoptera: Coccidae). Postharvest Biology and Technology, 25(3), 349–358. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925‐5214(01)00187‐9
Hata, T. Y., & Hara, A. H. (1992). Evaluation of insecticides against pests of red ginger in Hawaii. Tropical Pest Management, 38(3), 234–236.
Hernandez Martinez, F. R., Guanche Hernandez, L., & Sanchez Acosta, C. (2021). Forest pests of urban trees “Reparto Hermanos Cruz”, Pinar del Rio, Cuba. AVANCES, 23(2), 220–233.
Hodgson, C. J., & Hilburn, D. J. (1990). List of plant hosts of Coccoidea recorded in Bermuda up to 1989 (p. 22). Bulletin No. 39. Department of Agriculture, Fisheries & Parks Hamilton.
Hodgson, C. J., & Hilburn, D. J. (1991). An annotated checklist of the Coccoidea of Bermuda. Florida Entomologist, 74(1), 133–146.
Hollingsworth, R. G. (2005). Limonene, a citrus extract, for control of mealybugs and scale insects. Journal of Economic Entomology, 98(3), 772–779. https://doi.org/10.1603/0022‐0493‐98.3.772
Holway, D. A., Lach, L., Suarez, A. V., Tsutsui, N. D., & Case, T. J. (2002). The causes and consequences of ant invasions. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 33, 181–233. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.33.010802.150444
Hsieh, H.‐Y., Liere, H., Soto, E. J., & Perfecto, I. (2012). Cascading trait‐mediated interactions induced by ant pheromones. Ecology and Evolution, 2(9), 2181–2191. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.322
Hutson, J. C. (1930). Half‐yearly report of the entomological division. Department of Agriculture, Ceylon. 2 pp.
Iverson, A., Burnham, R., Perfecto, I., Vandenberg, N., & Vandermeer, J. (2022). A tropical lady beetle, Diomus lupusapudoves (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae), deceives potential enemies to predate an ant‐protected coffee pest through putative chemical mimicry. International Journal of Tropical Insect Science, 42(1), 947–953. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42690‐021‐00621‐5
Iverson, A., Jackson, D., Burnham, R., Perfecto, I., Vandenberg, N., & Vandermeer, J. (2018). Species complementarity in two myrmecophilous lady beetle species in a coffee agroecosystem: Implications for biological control. BioControl, 63(2), 253–264. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10526‐017‐9865‐1
Jackson, D., Skillman, J., & Vandermeer, J. (2012). Indirect biological control of the coffee leaf rust, Hemileia vastatrix, by the entomogenous fungus Lecanicillium lecanii in a complex coffee agroecosystem. Biological Control, 61(1), 89–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocontrol.2012.01.004
Jackson, D., Vandermeer, J., Perfecto, I., & Philpott, S. M. (2014). Population responses to environmental change in a tropical ant: The interaction of spatial and temporal dynamics. PLoS One, 9(5), e97809. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0097809
Jackson, D., Zemenick, A. T., Malloure, B., Quandt, C. A., & James, T. Y. (2016). Fine‐scale spatial genetic structure of a fungal parasite of coffee scale insects. Journal of Invertebrate Pathology, 139, 34–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jip.2016.07.007
Jha, S., Vandermeer, J. H., & Perfecto, I. (2009). Population dynamics of Coccus viridis, a ubiquitous ant‐tended agricultural pest, assessed by a new photographic method. Bulletin of Insectology, 62(2), 183–189. https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2‐s2.0‐77952073213&partnerID=40&md5=c82507703b829db92b429999a443de9a
Jiménez‐Soto, E., Cruz‐Rodríguez, J. A., Vandermeer, J., & Perfecto, I. (2013). Hypothenemus hampei (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) and its interactions with Azteca instabilis and Pheidole synanthropica (hymenoptera: Formicidae) in a shade coffee agroecosystem. Environmental Entomology, 42(5), 915–924. https://doi.org/10.1603/EN12202
Joshi, S., Rameshkumar, A., & Mohanraj, P. (2017). New host‐parasitoid associations for some coccids (Hemiptera: Coccoidea) from India. Journal of Entomological Research, 41(2), 177–182. https://doi.org/10.5958/0974‐4576.2017.00028.7
Joshi, S., & Sangma, R. H. C. (2015). Natural enemies associated with aphids and coccids from Sikkim, India. Journal of Biological Control, 29(1), 3–7.
Jutsum, A. R., Cherrett, J. M., & Fisher, M. (1981). Interactions between the Fauna of citrus trees in Trinidad and the ants Atta‐Cephalotes and Azteca sp. Journal of Applied Ecology, 18(1), 187–195. https://doi.org/10.2307/2402488
Kannan, K. K. (1918). An instance of mutation: Coccus viridis, Green, a mutant from Pulvinaria psidii, Maskell. Transactions of the Royal Entomological Society of London, 66(1–2), 130–148. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365‐2311.1918.tb02591.x
Kar, A., Majhi, D., & Misra, D. K. (2023). First report of Coccus viridis (Green) as a pest of dragon fruit in West Bengal. Pest Management in Horticultural Ecosystems, 29(2), 304–306.
Kawai, S., & Matsubara, Y. (1971). A preliminary revision of the Coccoidea‐Fauna of the Ogasawara (Bonin) islands (Homoptera: Coccoidea). Applied Entomology and Zoology, 6(1), 11–26. https://doi.org/10.1303/aez.6.11
Kertesz, V., Pautasso, M., Gobbi, A., Golic, D., Maiorano, A., Sfyra, O., & Stancanelli, G. (2024). EFSA standard protocol for pest categorisation. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.12909423
Khaladi, O., Bouderbala, A., Mahdjoubi, D., Benada, M., & Boumaaza, B. (2024). Exploring scale insects biodiversity in orange orchards: Insights from Guelma province, Algeria. Archives of Phytopathology and Plant Protection, 57(7), 555–567. https://doi.org/10.1080/03235408.2024.2375042
Khan, I., Din, S., Khalil, S. K., & Rafi, M. A. (2007). Survey of predatory Coccinellinids (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) in the Chitral District, Pakistan. Journal of Insect Science, 7, 8P https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2‐s2.0‐33846594833&partnerID=40&md5=9d677807da6294a8583a08fd06fdaf92
Khan, M. A., & Agarwal, M. M. (1976). Praleurocerus‐indicus new‐species hymenoptera Encyrtidae from India. Oriental Insects, 10, 165–168.
Kondo, T., & Hardy, N. B. (2008). Synonymy of Etiennea Matilea Ferrero with Hemilecanium Newstead (Hemiptera: Coccidae), based on morphology of adult females, adult males and firstâ instar nymphs, and description of a new potential pest species from the Ryukyu archipelago, Japan. Entomological Science, 11, 189–213.
Kondo, T., & Watson, G. W. (Eds.). (2022). Encyclopedia of scale insect pests (608). CABI International.
Kondo, T., Watson, G. W., & Gavrilov‐Zimin, I. A. (2022). Coccus (p. 608). Encyclopedia of Scale Insect Pests CABI Wallingford.
Kottek, M., Grieser, J., Beck, C., Rudolf, B., & Rubel, F. (2006). World map of the Köppen_Geiger climate classification updated. Meteorologische Zeitschrift, 15, 259–263. https://doi.org/10.1127/0941‐2948/2006/0130
Koutouleas, A., Collinge, D. B., & Ræbild, A. (2023). Alternative plant protection strategies for tomorrow's coffee. Plant Pathology, 72(3), 409–429. https://doi.org/10.1111/ppa.13676
Krishnan, R. G. (1973). Green‐bug' on the Shevaroys. Indian Coffee, 37, 13–14.
Kumar, S., Regupathy, C. M., & Regupathy, A. (2005). Risk assessment of neonicotinoids applied to coffee ecosystem. International Pest Control, 47, 82–87.
Lapola, D. M., Bruna, E. M., De Willink, C. G., & Vasconcelos, H. L. (2005). Ant‐tended Hemiptera in Amazonian myrmecophytes: Patterns of abundance and implications for mutualism function (Hymenoptera: Formicidae).
Le Pelley, R. H. (1968). Pests of coffee Longmans (p. Xii + 590).
Li, Z., Alves, S. B., Roberts, D. W., Fan, M., Delalibera, I., Tang, J., Lopes, R. B., Faria, M., & Rangel, D. E. N. (2010). Biological control of insects in Brazil and China: History, current programs and reasons for their successes using entomopathogenic fungi. Biocontrol Science and Technology, 20(2), 117–136. https://doi.org/10.1080/09583150903431665
Liere, H., & Larsen, A. (2010). Cascading trait‐mediation: Disruption of a trait‐mediated mutualism by parasite‐induced behavioral modification. Oikos, 119(9), 1394–1400.
Liere, H., & Perfecto, I. (2008). Cheating on a mutualism: Indirect benefits of ant attendance to a coccidophagous coccinellid. Environmental Entomology, 37(1), 143–149. https://doi.org/10.1603/0046‐225X(2008)37[143:COAMIB]2.0.CO;2
Liere, H., Perfecto, I., & Vandermeer, J. (2014). Stage‐dependent responses to emergent habitat heterogeneity: Consequences for a predatory insect population in a coffee agroecosystem. Ecology and Evolution, 4(16), 3201–3209.
Light, S. S. (1928). Report of the entomologist [for 1927] Bulletin. Tea Research Institute of Ceylon, 25–34.
Lim, G. T., Kirton, L. G., Salom, S. M., Kok, L. T., Fell, R. D., & Pfeiffer, D. G. (2008). Host plants and associated trophobionts of the weaver ants Oecophylla spp. (hymenoptera: Formicidae) [review]. CAB reviews: Perspectives in agriculture, veterinary science, nutrition and natural Resources, 3, 3035. https://doi.org/10.1079/PAVSNNR20083035
Lin, Y.‐P., Kondo, T., Gullan, P., & Cook, L. G. (2013). Delimiting genera of scale insects: Molecular and morphological evidence for synonymising Taiwansaissetia Tao, Wong and Chang with Coccus Linnaeus (Hemiptera: Coccoidea: Coccidae). Systematic Entomology, 38(2), 249–264. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365‐3113.2012.00664.x
Lincango, P., Hodgson, C., Causton, C., & Miller, D. (2010). An updated checklist of scale insects (Hemiptera: Coccoidea) of the Galapagos Islands, Ecuador. Galapagos Research, 67, 3–7.
Livingston, G. F., White, A. M., & Kratz, C. J. (2008). Indirect interactions between ant‐tended hemipterans, a dominant ant Azteca instabilis (Hymenoptera: Formicidae), and shade trees in a tropical agroecosystem. Environmental Entomology, 37(3), 734–740. https://doi.org/10.1603/0046‐225X(2008)37[734:IIBAHA]2.0.CO;2
Luziau, R. (1953). Contribution to the phytosanitary prospection of the Isle of Réunion. Phytoma, 6(46), 16–21.
Macdonald, A. J., Jackson, D., & Zemenick, K. (2013). Indirect effects of a fungal Entomopathogen, Lecanicillium lecanii (Hypocreales: Clavicipitaceae), on a coffee agroecosystem ant community. Environmental Entomology, 42(4), 658–667. https://doi.org/10.1603/EN12287
Magalhães, S. T. V., Fernandes, F. L., Demuner, A. J., Picanço, M. C., & Guedes, R. N. C. (2010). Leaf alkaloids, phenolics, and coffee resistance to the leaf miner Leucoptera coffeella (Lepidoptera: Lyonetiidae). Journal of Economic Entomology, 103(4), 1438–1443. https://doi.org/10.1603/EC09362
Malumphy, C. (2014). An annotated checklist of scale insects (Hemiptera: Coccoidea) of Saint Lucia, Lesser Antilles. Zootaxa, 3846(1), 69–86. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.3846.1.3
Malumphy, C., & Treseder, K. (2012). Green coffee scale Coccus viridis (Hemiptera: Coccidae), new to Britain. British Journal of Entomology and Natural History, 25, 217–225.
Mamet, J. R. (1943). A revised list of the Coccoidea of the islands of the western Indian Ocean, south of the equator. Mauritius Institute Bulletin, Port Louis, 2, 137–170.
Mamet, R. J. (1978). Contribution à la connaissance de la faune entomologique d'Agalega (Océan Indien). [contribution to the knowledge of the entomological fauna of Agalega (Indian Ocean)]. Bulletin de la Société Entomologique de France, 83, 97–107.
Mani, M. (2018). Hundred and sixty years of Australian lady bird beetle Crypotolaemus montrouzieri Mulsant ‐ a global view. Biocontrol Science and Technology, 28(10), 938–952. https://doi.org/10.1080/09583157.2018.1487029
Mani, M. (2022). Pests and their Management in Loquat (Eriobotrya japonica). In Trends in Horticultural Entomology, 757–761. https://doi.org/10.1007/978‐981‐19‐0343‐4_28
Mani, M., Krishnamoorthy, A., & Ramanujam, B. (2022). Trends in the biological control of horticultural crop pests in India. Trends in Horticultural Entomology, 243–281. https://doi.org/10.1007/978‐981‐19‐0343‐4_8
Mani, M., Visalakshy, P. N. G., Krishnamoorthy, A., & Venugopalan, R. (2008). Role of Coccophagus sp. in the suppression of the soft green scale Coccus viridis (Green) (Hompoptera: Coccidae) on sapota. Biocontrol Science and Technology, 18(7), 721–725. https://doi.org/10.1080/09583150802298769
Marin, L., & Perfecto, I. (2013). Spider diversity in coffee agroecosystems: The influence of agricultural intensification and aggressive ants. Environmental Entomology, 42(2), 204–213. https://doi.org/10.1603/EN11223
Martin, J. H., & Lau, C. S. K. (2011). The Hemiptera‐Sternorrhyncha (Insecta) of Hong Kong, China‐an annotated inventory citing voucher specimens and published records. Zootaxa, 2847(1), 1–122.
Martinez, Z., & Sanchez, J. D. (1981). Estudio biológico comparativo de Coccus viridis Green en café y citricos. Centro Agricola. Enero‐Abril. CDU [632.752.3: 582.28]: 633.131:634.3.
Martorell, L. F. (1945). A survey of the forest insects of Puerto Rico. Journal of Agriculture of the University of Puerto Rico, 29(3), 70–608.
Mascarenhas de Almeida, D. (1973). Coccoidea de Angola. 1‐ Revisao das especies conhecidas. Boletim Do Instituto de Investigacao Cientifica de Angola, Luanda, 10, 1–23.
Mathew, D., & Duraimurugan, P. (2002). Review on invasive pests in Indian horticultural ecosystem and their management. Plant Protection Bulletin (Faridabad), 54, 25–34.
Matile‐Ferrero, D. (2006). Cochenilles des Antilles françaises et de quelques autres îles des Caraïbes [hemiptera, coccoidea]. Revue Française d'Entomologie, 28(4), 161–190.
Matus Miranda, M. N., & Jiménez‐Martínez, E. (2020). Evaluación de plaguicidas para el manejo de plagas del café Coffea arabica L. en Jinotega, Nicaragua. La Calera, 20(34), 20–28. https://doi.org/10.5377/calera.v20i34.9668
Mau, R. F. L., & Kessing, J. L. M. (1999). Coccus viridis (Green). UH‐CTAHR Integrated Pest Management Program. Knowledge Master Website. http://www.extento.hawaii.edu/kbase/crop/Type/c_viridi.htm.
Medina‐Torres, R., Juarez‐Lopez, P., Salazar‐Garcia, S., & Valdivia‐Bernal, R. (2013). Study of the main pests of nance [Byrsonima crassifolia (L.) HBK] in Nayarit, Mexico. Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Agrícolas, 4, 423–433.
Melville, A. R. (1945). Mealybug; green scale, and Asterolecanium. Practical recommendations. Monthly Bulletin ‐ Coffee Board of Kenya, 10, 106–109.
Mestre Novoa, N., Hamon, A., Evans, G., Kondo, T., Herrera, P., Hernández Marrero, O. A., & Alonso, A. A. (2011). Los cocoideos (Hemiptera: Sternorrhyncha: Coccoidea) presentes en la Cordillera de Guaniguanico, Pinar del Río, Cuba, y la relación Con Sus Hospedantes. Insecta Mundi, 0183, 1–25.
Mille, C., Henderson, R. C., Cazères, S., & Jourdan, H. (2016). Checklist of the scale insects (Hemiptera: Sternorrhyncha: Coccomorpha) of New Caledonia. Zoosystema, 38(2), 129–176.
Miller, N. E. (1931). Coccus (Lecanium) viridis, Green. The "Green. Scale" of Coffee. Sci. Ser. Dept. Agric. S. S. &. F. M. S., 1931, No. 7, 17–29 pp. ref. 15.
Miller, D., Rung, A., Parikh, G., Venable, G., Redford, A. J., Evans, G. A., & Gill, R. J. (2014). Scale insects, edition 2. USDA APHIS Identification Technology Program (ITP). https://idtools.org/scales/ [Accessed 14‐10‐2024].
Miller, D. R. (1996). Checklist of the scale insects (Coccoidea: Homoptera) of Mexico. Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington, 98, 68–86.
Miranda‐Calixto, A., Loera‐Corral, O., López‐Pérez, M., & Figueroa‐Martínez, F. (2023). Improvement of Akanthomyces lecanii resistance to tebuconazole through UV‐C radiation and selective pressure on microbial evolution and growth arenas. Journal of Invertebrate Pathology, 198, 107914. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jip.2023.107914
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & The PRISMA Group. (2009). Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Medicine, 6(7), 1000097. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed1000097
Morstatt, H. (1913). Observations on the occurrence of plant diseases in 1912. Pflanzer, 9, 211–224.
Moya‐Raygoza, G., & Nault, L. R. (2000). Obligatory mutualism between Dalbulus quinquenotatus (Homoptera: Cicadellidae) and attendant ants. Annals of the Entomological Society of America, 93(4), 929–940. https://doi.org/10.1603/0013‐8746(2000)093[0929:OMBDQH]2.0.CO;2
Muhammad, F., Rizali, A., & Rahardjo, B. (2024). Ant communities and their trophobionts shape the incidence of pests and diseases in Indonesia's coffee agroforestry system. Biodiversitas Journal of Biological Diversity, 25, 1127–1134. https://doi.org/10.13057/biodiv/d250327
Murakami, Y., Abe, N., & Cosenza, G. W. (1984). Parasitoids of scale insects and aphids on citrus in the Cerrados region of Brazil (hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea). Applied Entomology and Zoology, 19(2), 237–244. https://doi.org/10.1303/aez.19.237
Murphy, S. T. (1991). Insect natural enemies of coffee green scales [Hemiptera: Coccidae] in Kenya and their potential for biological control of Coccus celatus and C. Viridis in Papua New Guinea. Entomophaga, 36(4), 519–529. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02374434
Nag Raj, T. R., & George, K. V. (1959). An interesting entomogenous fungus on green bug of coffee. Current Science, 28(11), 452–453.
Nais, J., & Busoli, A. C. (2012). Morphological, behavioral and biological aspects of Azya luteipes Mulsant fed on Coccus viridis (Green) [note]. Scientia Agricola, 69(1), 81–83. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0103‐90162012000100012
Nakahara, S. (1981). List of the Hawaiian Coccoidea (Homoptera: Sternorhyncha). Proceedings of the Hawaiian Entomological Society, 23, 387–424.
Nakao, S. I., Takagi, S., Tachikawa, T., & Wongsiri, T. (1977). Scale insects collected on citrus and other plants and their hymenopterous parasites in Thailand. Insecta Matsumurana, 11, 61–72.
National Plant Protection Organisation (NPPO) of Portugal. (2024). Re: EFSA request of information on pest status. 12 March 2024. E‐mail.
Neumann, G., Follett, P. A., Hollingsworth, R. G., & de León, J. H. (2010). High host specificity in Encarsia diaspidicola (hymenoptera: Aphelinidae), a biological control candidate against the white peach scale in Hawaii. Biological Control, 54(2), 107–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocontrol.2010.04.013
Nowell, W. (1916). A new fungus on the Green scale. Agriculture News, 15, 302.
Noyes, J. S. (1988). Metaphycus‐baruensis Spn (hymenoptera, Encyrtidae) parasitic in Green scales, Coccus spp (Hemiptera, Coccidae), on coffee in Kenya. Bulletin of Entomological Research, 78(1), 131–134. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007485300016138
Noyes, J. S. (2019). Universal Chalcidoidea database. World Wide Web Electronic Publication. https://www.nhm.ac.uk/chalcidoids.
Olubayo, F., Kilalo, D., Obukosia, S., Shibairo, S., & Kasina, M. (2011). Homopteran pests complex of citrus (Citrus sinensis) in semi‐arid Kenya. International Journal of Sustainable Crop Production, 6(2), 23–28. https://profiles.uonbi.ac.ke/dchao/files/homoptera_pests_of_citrus.pdf.
Omkar, O., & Pervez, A. (2004). Predaceous coccinellids in India: Predator‐prey catalogue (coleoptera: Coccinellidae). Oriental Insects, 38(1), 27–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/00305316.2004.104173732004
Omkar, & Pervez, A. (2016). Ladybird Beetles. Ecofriendly Pest Management for Food Security, 281–310. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978‐0‐12‐803265‐7.00009‐9
Ong, T. W., & Vandermeer, J. H. (2014). Antagonism between two natural enemies improves biological control of a coffee pest: The importance of dominance hierarchies. Biological Control, 76, 107–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocontrol.2014.06.002
Padilla, V. J. A., Martínez, E. E., Nápoles, J. R., Hernández, H. G., & Miranda, R. P. (2016). Scale insects (Hemiptera: Coccomorpha) on ornamental plants in greenhouses from the central zone of the Morelos State, Mexico. Interciencia, 41(8), 552–560. https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2‐s2.0‐84990033470&partnerID=40&md5=3bbaec274be91135d558cf74b9db18c8
Pellizzari, G., & Porcelli, F. (2014). Alien scale insects (Hemiptera Coccoidea) in European and Mediterranean countries: The fate of new and old introductions. Phytoparasitica, 42(5), 713–721. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12600‐014‐0414‐5
Perfecto, I., & Vandermeer, J. (2006). The effect of an ant‐hemipteran mutualism on the coffee berry borer (Hypothenemus hampei) in southern Mexico. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 117(2–3), 218–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2006.04.007
Plank, H. K., & Winters, H. F. (1949). Insect and other animal pests of cinchona and their control IE Puerto Rico. Bull. Fed. Exp. Stn. Puerto Rico. 16 pp.
Ponsonby, D. J. (2009). Factors affecting utility of Chilocorus nigritus (F.) (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) as a biocontrol agent. CAB Reviews: Perspectives in Agriculture, Veterinary Science, Nutrition and Natural Resources, 4, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1079/PAVSNNR20094046
Poole, M. (2005). Green coffee scale Coccus viridis (Green) [Hemiptera: Coccidae] (p. 2). Government of Western Australia, Department of Agriculture, Farm Note 16/2005.
Prinsloo, G. L. (1985). On the southern African species of Diversiner Vus [hymenoptera: Ncyr Tidae], with descriptions of two new species. Entomophaga, 30, 133–142.
Quezada, J. R., Cornejo, C., Díaz de Mira, A., & Hidalgo, F. (1972). [The main species of insects associated with citrus crops in El Salvador.] Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganaderia (p. 49).
Radhakrishnan, B. (2022). Pests and their Management in tea. Trends in Horticultural Entomology, 1489–1511. https://doi.org/10.1007/978‐981‐19‐0343‐4_64
Ramakrishna, A. T. V. (1919). A contribution to our knowledge of south Indian Coccidae. Bulletin of the Agricultural Research Institute, Pusa, 87, 1–50.
Reddy, G. V. M., Kumar, A. R., Kumar, B. V. R., & Dhanam, M. (2022). Pests and their Management in Coffee. In Trends in horticultural entomology (pp. 1513–1528). Springer Nature Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978‐981‐19‐0343‐4_65
Reimer, N. J., Cope, M. L., & Yasuda, G. (1993). Interference of Pheidole megacephala (hymenoptera: Formicidae) with biological control of Coccus viridis (Homoptera: Coccidae) in coffee. Environmental Entomology, 22(2), 483–488. https://doi.org/10.1093/ee/22.2.483
Reyne, A. (1919). Some remarks on combating insects injurious to Liberian coffee. Bulletin van het Departement van Landbouw in Suriname, 37, 18.
Rivera‐Salinas, I. S., Hajian‐Forooshani, Z., Jimenez‐Soto, E., Antonio Cruz‐Rodríguez, J., & Philpott, S. M. (2018). High intermediary mutualist density provides consistent biological control in a tripartite mutualism. Biological Control, 118, 26–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocontrol.2017.12.002
Roba, R. P. (1936). The condition of the coffee plantations of Norte de Santander from the entomological point of view. Revista Cafetera de Colombia, 6, 2091–2095.
Rodríguez‐Tapia, J. L., Milán‐Vargas, O., Zamora‐Rodríguez, V., Hernández‐Espinosa, D., & Rodríguez‐Vélez, J. (2022). Predation of Exochomus bicolor on Asian citrus psyllid and coffee Green scale under laboratory conditions. Southwestern Entomologist, 47(3), 723–728. https://doi.org/10.3958/059.047.0322
Rosado, J. F., Bacci, L., Martins, J. C., Silva, G. A., Gontijo, L. M., & Picanço, M. C. (2014). Natural biological control of green scale (Hemiptera: Coccidae): A field life‐table study. Biocontrol Science and Technology, 24(2), 190–202. https://doi.org/10.1080/09583157.2013.855165
Rostaman, R. (1997). Pests and diseases of sandalwood in Kabupaten Kupang. Duta Rimba, 23, 41–48.
Rubel, F., Brugger, K., Haslinger, K., & Auer, I. (2017). The climate of the European Alps: Shift of very high resolution Köppen‐Geiger climate zones 1800‐2100. Meteorologische Zeitschrift, 26(2), 115–125. https://doi.org/10.1127/metz/2016/0816
Ruiz‐Orta, A., Tapia‐Rodríguez, A., Figueroa‐Figueroa, D. K., & Ramírez‐Dávila, J. F. (2023). Analysis of the spatial association of fumagina (Capnodium sp.) and Green scale (Coccus viridis) In Coffee in Sultepec, Mexico. Agrociencia, 57(7), 1482–1511. https://doi.org/10.47163/agrociencia.v57i7.2945
Rutherford, A. (1914). Insects on rubber in 1913. Tropical Agriculture, 42, 41–44.
Saengyot, S. (2016). Predatory thrips species composition, their prey and host plant association in northern Thailand. Agriculture and Natural Resources, 50(5), 380–387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anres.2015.10.002
Salas‐Araiza, M., Martínez‐Jaime, O., Guzmán‐Mendoza, R., Díaz‐García, J., Guadalupe, M., & Patiño, P. (2020). Fluctuación Poblacional De La Escama Blanda Coccus Viridis (Green, 1889) (Hemiptera: Coccidae) En Irapuato, Guanajuato, México, 7, 195–201.
Samuel, S. D., Venkatesulu, K., & Chacko, M. J. (1981). Influence of insecticides on Cryptolaemus montrouzieri. 1. Effect of residues of Cythion, Ekalux, Lebaycid and Metacid on grub. Journal of Coffee Research, 11(4), 126–128. ref. 4.
Santharam, G., Easwaramoorthy, S., Regupathy, A., & Jayaraj, S. (1977). Possibility of increasing pathogenicity of White halo Fungys Cephalosporium‐lecanii on coffee Green bug Coccus‐viridis during summer. Journal of Plantation Crops, 5(2), 121–122.
Santos, R. S., da Costa, V. L., da Silva, V. V. L., & Souza, G. D. N. (2023). Occurrence of scale insect (Hemiptera: Coccidae) in coffee plantations (var. Conilon) in the state of acre, Brazil. Agrotropica, 35, 97–100.
Sarwar, M. (2006). Occurrence of insect pests on guava (Psidium guajava) tree. Pakistan Journal of Zoology, 38, 197–200.
Sathish, R., Sree, K. B., Rajesh, K., Kumar, M. S., Arunbabu, T., & Priyadarshini, G. (2024). Pest succession of Sapota [Manilkara achras (mill.) Forsberg] under hill zone of Karnataka, India. Current Research Progress in Agricultural Sciences, 2, 104–110. https://doi.org/10.9734/bpi/crpas/v2/3798G
Sayers, E. W., Cavanaugh, M., Clark, K., Pruitt, K. D., Sherry, S. T., Yankie, L., & Karsch‐Mizrachi, I. (2024). GenBank 2024 update. Nucleic Acids Research, 52(D1), D134–D137. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkad903
Schmitt, L., Aponte‐Rolon, B., & Perfecto, I. (2020). Evaluating community effects of a keystone ant, Azteca sericeasur, on Inga micheliana leaf litter decomposition in a shaded coffee agro‐ecosystem. Biotropica, 52(6), 1253–1261. https://doi.org/10.1111/btp.12833
Schmutterer, H., Pires, A., & Koch, C. K. (1978). Pests of Cape Verde Islands. Zeitschrift Fur Angewandte Entomologie‐Journal of Applied Entomology, 86(3), 320–336.
Shivaramu, K., & Pillai, K. G. (2012). Efficacy of botanicals and insecticides against citrus green scale, Coccus viridis (Green) (Coccidae: Homoptera) on Coorg mandarin (Citrus reticulata). Insect Environment, 18(3).
Silva, C. G., & Parra, J. R. P. (1982). Biologia e danos de Coccus viridis (Green, 1889) (Homoptera‐Coccidae) em mudas de café (Coffea spp.). Anais da Sociedade Entomológica do Brasil, 11(2), 181–195.
Silva, J. F., Pereira, J. M., Rocha, C. B. S., & Peres, A. J. A. (2021). First record of Parasaissetia nigra and hemipters associated with mangabeira varieties Hancornia speciosa. Ciência Florestal, 31(4), 2023–2034. https://doi.org/10.5902/1980509848381
Simberloff, D., & Von Holle, B. (1999). Positive interactions of nonindigenous species: Invasional meltdown? Biological Invasions, 1(1), 21–32. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010086329619
Singh, S. P. (1995). Use of entomopathogenic fungus, Verticillium lecanii (Zimm.) Viegas, insecticides and their combination for the control of green scale, Coccus viridis (Green). Indian Journal of Horticulture, 52(4), 259–266.
Singh, S. P., & Rao, N. S. (1977). Effectiveness of different contact insecticides against soft green scale, Coccus viridis Green (Coccidae:Homoptera) on citrus. Pesticides, 11, 33–36.
Siregar, A. Z., & Tulus. (2023). Use of yellow sticky trap (YST) and coffee experts (pakar kopi) reduces coffee pest attacks in Perteguhan hamlet, Telagah villages, Langkat District, North Sumatra. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755‐1315/1241/1/012111
Skeete, C. C. (1925). The cotton industry; entomological work. Report. Agricultural Department, Barbados. 5‐6; 9–10 pp.
Smith, D., Beattie, G. A. C., & Broadley, R. H. (1997). Citrus pests and their natural enemies: Integrated Pest Management in Australia. In State of Queensland, Dept. of primary industries, and horticultural Research and Development Corp (p. 263).
Smith, D., Papacek, D., & Neale, C. (2004). The successful introduction to Australia of Diversinervus sp. near stramineus compere (hymenoptera: Encyrtidae), Kenyan parasitoid of green coffee scale. General and Applied Entomology, 33, 33–39.
Souza, I. L., de Paulo, H. H., Siqueira, M. A., Costa, V. A., Wengrat, A. P. G. D. S., Peronti, A. L. B. G., & Martinelli, N. M. (2023). Scale insects and natural enemies associated with Conilon coffee (Coffea canephora) in Sao Paulo state, Brazil. Agriculture‐Basel, 13(4), Article 829. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13040829
Srinivasa, M. V. (1987). New parasites and host plants of coffee green scale Coccus viridis (Green) Homoptera: Coccidae in south India. Journal of Coffee Research, 17, 122–123.
State of Western Australia. (2007). Department of Agriculture and Food. Farmnote. Scale in citrus. By Sonya Broughton. Entomology Branch. Note 243. Replaces Farmnote 1/92. August 2007. https://citrusaustralia.com.au/wp‐content/uploads/fn2007_citrusscale_sbroughton.pdf.
Styrsky, J. D., & Eubanks, M. D. (2007). Ecological consequences of interactions between ants and honeydew‐producing insects. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 274(1607), 151–164. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2006.3701
Suh, S., Hye Mi, Y., & Ki‐Jeong, H. (2013). List of intercepted scale insects at Korean ports of entry and potential invasive species of scale insects to Korea (Hemiptera: Coccoidea). Korean Journal of Applied Entomology, 52(2), 160.
Suh, S. J. (2023). Updated list of intercepted Coccidae (Hemiptera: Coccomorpha) at South Korean ports of entry and potential invasive species to South Korea.
Suh, S. J., & Bombay, K. (2015). Scale insects (Hemiptera: Coccoidea) found on dracaena and ficus plants (Asparagales: Asparagaceae, Rosales: Moraceae) from southeastern Asia. Insecta Mundi, 448, 1–10.
Susilo, F. X. (2015). Preliminary study on Eublemma sp. (Eublemminae): A lepidopteran predator of Coccus viridis (Hemiptera: Coccidae) on coffee plants in Bandarlampung, Indonesia. Journal of Tropical Plant Pests and Diseases, 15(1), 10–16. https://doi.org/10.23960/J.Hptt.11510‐16
Swirski, E., Ben‐Dov, Y., & Wysoki, M. (1997). 3.3.4 Mango. In World Crop Pests, 7, 241–254. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1572‐4379(97)80087‐5
Syadida, Q., Pramayudi, N., & Jauharlina, J. (2024). Pengaruh Kerapatan Pohon Penaung Terhadap Serangan Kutu Tempurung Hijau (Coccus viridis Green) pada Perkebunan Kopi Arabika di Kabupaten Aceh Tengah. Journal Ilmiah Mahasiswa Pertanian, 9(1), 687–698.
Tandon, P. L., & Veeresh, G. K. (1987). Appropriate transformation for the population counts of citrus Green scale, Coccus‐viridis (Green) (Coccidae, Homoptera). Insect Science and its Application, 8(2), 255–257. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742758400007311
Tandon, P. L., & Veeresh, G. K. (1988). Inter‐tree spatial distribution of Coccus viridis (Green) on mandarin. International Journal of Tropical Agriculture, 6(3–4), 270–275.
Tao, C. C.‐c., Wong, C.‐y., & Chang, Y.‐c. (1983). Monograph of Coccidae of Taiwan, Republic of China (Homoptera: Coccoidea). Journal of the Taiwan Museum, 36, 57–107.
Toy, S. J., & Newfield, M. J. (2010). The accidental introduction of invasive animals as hitchhikers through inanimate pathways: A New Zealand perspective. Revue Scientifique et Technique (International Office of Epizootics), 29(1), 123–133.
TRACES‐NT. (online). TRADE Control and Expert System. https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/tracesnt.
Ueda, S., Quek, S.‐P., Itioka, T., Murase, K., & Itino, T. (2010). Phylogeography of the Coccus scale insects inhabiting myrmecophytic Macaranga plants in Southeast Asia. Population Ecology, 52(1), 137–146. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10144‐009‐0162‐4
Ultee, A. J. (1931). Report of the Malang (Java) Experiment Station for 1930 (p. 51). Mededelingen Van Het Proefstation Malang.
Vadivelu, S., David, B. V., & Rajamohan, N. (1976). Pests of Crossandra (Crossandra‐Infundibuliformis) in South India. Pesticides (Bombay), 10, 1239–1240.
Van der Goot, P. (1916). Further investigations regarding the economic importance of the Gramang‐ant. Meded. v. h. Proefstation Midden‐Java, 122.
Van Hall, C. J. J. (1919). Diseases and pests of cultivated plants in the Dutch east indies in 1918. Mededelingen Van het Laboratorium voor Plantenziekten. 49 pp.
van Harten, A., Cox, J. M., & Williams, D. J. (1990). Scale insects of the Cape Verde Islands (Homoptera: Coccoidea). Courier Forschungsinstitut Senckenberg, 129, 131–137.
Vandenberg, N. J., Iverson, A., & Liere, H. (2018). A new species of myrmecophilous lady beetle in the genus Diomus (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae: Diomini) from Chiapas, Mexico that feeds on green coffee scale, Coccus viridis (Green) (Hemiptera: Coccidae). Zootaxa, 4420(1), 113–122. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4420.1.6
Vandermeer, J., Armbrecht, I., de la Mora, A., Ennis, K. K., Fitch, G., Gonthier, D. J., Hajian‐Forooshani, Z., Hsieh, H.‐Y., Iverson, A., Jackson, D., Jha, S., Jiménez‐Soto, E., Lopez‐Bautista, G., Larsen, A., Li, K., Liere, H., MacDonald, A., Marin, L., Mathis, K. A., … Perfecto, I. (2019). The community ecology of herbivore regulation in an agroecosystem: Lessons from complex systems. Bioscience, 69(12), 974–996. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biz127
Varshney, R. K. (1985). A review of Indian coccids (homoptera: Coccoidea). Oriental Insects, 19(1), 1–101. https://doi.org/10.1080/00305316.1985.10433701
Varshney, R. K. (1992). A check list of the scale insects and mealy bugs of South Asia. Part‐1. Records of the Zoological Survey of India, Occasional Paper (No. 139): 1–152.
Vayssière, P. (1913). Note sur les coccides de l'Afrique occidentale. Annales Du Service Des Épiphyties, 1, 424–432.
Vieira, R. M. D. S., Carmona, M. M., & Pita, M. D. S. (1983). Sobre os coccídeos do Arquipélago da Madeira (Homoptera‐Coccoidea). Boletim do Museu Municipal do Funchal, 35.
Vieira, R. M. S. (1953). Duas especies de Coccideos novas para a Madeira. Boletim da Sociedade Portuguesa de Ciencias Naturais [2 A SER], 4, 205–208.
Visalaksy, P. N. G., Swathi, C., Darshana, C. N., Pillai, K. G. K., & Moorthy, A. K. (2014). Natural epizootic of pink fungus, Paecilomyces lilacinus (Thom) Samson on green scale, Coccus viridis (Green). Pest Management in Horticultural Ecosystems, 20, 240–241.
Viswanathan, P. R. K. (1971). New hosts on Coccus viridis from India. Journal of Coffee Research, 1, 15.
Von Ellenrieder, N. (2025). New records of scale insects (Hemiptera: Sternorrhyncha: Coccomorpha) from California with an updated checklist for the state. The Pan‐Pacific Entomologist, 101(1), 15–50. https://doi.org/10.3956/2024‐101.1.15
Vranjic, J. A. (1997). Effects on host plant. In Y. Ben‐Dov & C. J. Hodgson (Eds.), Soft scale insects: Their biology, natural enemies and control (Vol. 7A, pp. 323–336). Elsevier Science B.V.
Waller, J. M., Bigger, M., & Hillocks, R. J. (2007). Coffee pests (p. 434). Diseases and their Management. Crop Protection Programme.
Waterhouse, D. F. (1993). The major arthropod pests and weeds of agriculture in Southeast Asia: Distribution, importance and origin. Monograph No 21, vi + 141 pp.
Waterhouse, D. F., & Sands, D. P. A. (2001). Classical biological control of arthropods in Australia. ACIAR Monograph, 77, 560.
Waterston, J. (1916). Notes on Cocoid‐infestlng Chalcidoidea ‐ I. Bulletin of Entomological Research, 7, 137–144.
Williams, D. J. (1985). Some scale insects (Hom., Coccoidea) from the Island of Nauru. Entomologist's Monthly Magazine, 121, 53.
Williams, D. J., & Watson, G. W. (1990). The scale insects of the tropical South Pacific region. Part 3: The soft scales (Coccidae) and other families. In The scale insects of the tropical South Pacific region. Part 3: The soft scales (Coccidae) and other families (p. 267). CAB International.
Williams, M. L. (2010). Annotated list of the scale insects of Guatemala. Entomologia Hellenica, 19(2), 144–152. https://doi.org/10.12681/eh.11583
Wolff, V. R., Kondo, T., Peronti, A. L., & Noronha, A. C. (2016). Scale insects (Hemiptera: Coccoidea) on Myrciaria dubia (Myrtaceae) in Brazil. Neotropical Entomology, 45(3), 274–279. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13744‐016‐0365‐2
Wurth, T. (1920). The Malang Experiment Station report for 1919. Malang. 21 pp.
Wuryantini, S., Endarto, O., Cahyo Wicaksono, R., Istianto, M., Hussain, Z., & Triasih, U. (2023). Bioinsecticide activity of neem oil and tobacco extract mixture against citrus aphids and Green scale on citrus. E3S Web of Conferences, 432, 00036. https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202343200036
Yalemar, J. A. (1999). Irradiation as a Possible Quarantine Treatment for Green Scales, Coccus viridis (Green) (Homoptera: Coccidae) and Yellow Flower Thrips, Frankliniella schultzei (Trybom) (Thysanoptera: Thripidae). Master thesis.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
© 2025. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/ (the "License"). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Abstract
The EFSA Panel on Plant Health performed a pest categorisation of
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer