Pacific Island Ecosystems at Risk (PIER)


Annona cherimola


RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS: Low risk, score: -4


Australian/New Zealand Weed Risk Assessment adapted for Hawai‘i.

Research directed by C. Daehler (UH Botany) with funding from the Kaulunani Urban Forestry Program and US Forest Service

Information on Risk Assessments
Original risk assessment

Annona cherimola

Answer

1.01

Is the species highly domesticated?

y=-3, n=0

n

1.02

Has the species become naturalized where grown?

y=-1, n=-1

n

1.03

Does the species have weedy races?

y=-1, n=-1

n

2.01

Species suited to tropical or subtropical climate(s) (0-low; 1-intermediate; 2-high) – If island is primarily wet habitat, then substitute “wet tropical” for “tropical or subtropical”

See Append 2

2

2.02

Quality of climate match data (0-low; 1-intermediate; 2-high) see appendix 2

2

2.03

Broad climate suitability (environmental versatility)

y=1, n=0

n

2.04

Native or naturalized in regions with tropical or subtropical climates

y=1, n=0

y

2.05

Does the species have a history of repeated introductions outside its natural range? y=-2

?=-1, n=0

y

3.01

Naturalized beyond native range y = 1*multiplier (see Append 2), n= question 2.05

n

3.02

Garden/amenity/disturbance weed y = 1*multiplier (see Append 2)

n=0

n

3.03

Agricultural/forestry/horticultural weed y = 2*multiplier (see Append 2)

n=0

n

3.04

Environmental weed y = 2*multiplier (see Append 2)

n=0

n

3.05

Congeneric weed y = 1*multiplier (see Append 2)

n=0

y

4.01

Produces spines, thorns or burrs

y=1, n=0

n

4.02

Allelopathic

y=1, n=0

n

4.03

Parasitic

y=1, n=0

n

4.04

Unpalatable to grazing animals

y=1, n=-1

n

4.05

Toxic to animals

y=1, n=0

n

4.06

Host for recognized pests and pathogens

y=1, n=0

y

4.07

Causes allergies or is otherwise toxic to humans

y=1, n=0

n

4.08

Creates a fire hazard in natural ecosystems

y=1, n=0

n

4.09

Is a shade tolerant plant at some stage of its life cycle

y=1, n=0

n

4.1

Tolerates a wide range of soil conditions (or limestone conditions if not a volcanic island)

y=1, n=0

n

4.11

Climbing or smothering growth habit

y=1, n=0

n

4.12

Forms dense thickets

y=1, n=0

n

5.01

Aquatic

y=5, n=0

n

5.02

Grass

y=1, n=0

n

5.03

Nitrogen fixing woody plant

y=1, n=0

n

5.04

Geophyte (herbaceous with underground storage organs -- bulbs, corms, or tubers)

y=1, n=0

n

6.01

Evidence of substantial reproductive failure in native habitat

y=1, n=0

n

6.02

Produces viable seed.

y=1, n=-1

y

6.03

Hybridizes naturally

y=1, n=-1

6.04

Self-compatible or apomictic

y=1, n=-1

y

6.05

Requires specialist pollinators

y=-1, n=0

y

6.06

Reproduction by vegetative fragmentation

y=1, n=-1

n

6.07

Minimum generative time (years) 1 year = 1, 2 or 3 years = 0, 4+ years = -1

See left

4

7.01

Propagules likely to be dispersed unintentionally (plants growing in heavily trafficked areas)

y=1, n=-1

n

7.02

Propagules dispersed intentionally by people

y=1, n=-1

y

7.03

Propagules likely to disperse as a produce contaminant

y=1, n=-1

n

7.04

Propagules adapted to wind dispersal

y=1, n=-1

n

7.05

Propagules water dispersed

y=1, n=-1

n

7.06

Propagules bird dispersed

y=1, n=-1

7.07

Propagules dispersed by other animals (externally)

y=1, n=-1

n

7.08

Propagules survive passage through the gut

y=1, n=-1

8.01

Prolific seed production (>1000/m2)

y=1, n=-1

n

8.02

Evidence that a persistent propagule bank is formed (>1 yr)

y=1, n=-1

y

8.03

Well controlled by herbicides

y=-1, n=1

8.04

Tolerates, or benefits from, mutilation, cultivation, or fire

y=1, n=-1

8.05

Effective natural enemies present locally (e.g. introduced biocontrol agents)

y=-1, n=1

Total score:

-4

Supporting data:

Source

Notes

1.01

no evidence

1.02

no evidence

1.03

no evidence

2.01

USDA, ARS, National Genetic Resources Program. Germplasm Resources Information Network - (GRIN). [Online Database] National Germplasm Resources Laboratory, Beltsville, Maryland. Available: http://www.ars-grin.gov/var/apache/cgi-bin/npgs/html/tax_search.pl?Annona+cherimola (06 December 2001)

Native: Southern America: Ecuador [Andes]; Peru [Andes]

2.02

2.03

Bydekerke, L.; Ranst, E. van; Vanmechelen, L.; Groenemans, R. (1998) Land suitability assessment for cherimoya in southern Ecuador using expert knowledge and GIS. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 1998, Vol.69, No.2, pp.89-98, 34 ref.

Cherimoya, a wild fruit-tree growing under specific physical land conditions in southern Ecuador, has economic potential. Its natural occurrence is largely restricted to locations within an altitude range of 1500-2200 m a.s.l.

2.04

USDA, ARS, National Genetic Resources Program. Germplasm Resources Information Network - (GRIN). [Online Database] National Germplasm Resources Laboratory, Beltsville, Maryland. Available: http://www.ars-grin.gov/var/apache/cgi-bin/npgs/html/tax_search.pl?Annona+cherimola (06 December 2001)

Native: Southern America: Ecuador [Andes]; Peru [Andes]

2.05

(1) Anderson, P. A.; Richardson, A. C. (1994) Pollination of cherimoya in New Zealand. Proceedings of the forty-seventh New Zealand plant protection conference, Waitangi Hotel, New Zealand, 9-11 Aug. 1994., 1994, pp.350-352, 10 ref.
(2) Australia, Queensland Department of Primary Industries, Horticulture Postharvest Group (1994) Biennial review 1994.Biennial review 1994., 1994, 52 pp.
(3) Farré, J. M.; Hermoso, J. M.; Guirado, E.; García-Tapia, J. (1999) Techniques of cherimoya cultivation in Spain. Damme, V. van; Damme, P. van; Scheldeman, X. Acta Horticulturae, 1999, No.497, pp.91-118, 16 ref.
(4) Gol'berg, A. M.; Itzchaki, J.; Nuriel, E.; Keren, S. (1991) The scarabaeid beetle, Maladera matrida Argaman, its damage to the fruit trees and its rearing technique. Alon Hanotea, 1991, Vol.45, No.4, pp.281-284, 12 ref.
(5) Phillips, P. A.; Bekey, R. S.; Goodall, G. E. (1987) Argentine ant management in cherimoyas. California Agriculture, 1987, Vol.41, No.3-4, pp.8-9
(6) Agustín, J. A. Advances in rese

(1) New Zealand
(2) Australia
(3) Spain
(4) Israel
(5) California, USA.
(6) Mexico
(7) Italy
(8) Florida, USA

3.01

no evidence

3.02

no evidence

3.03

no evidence

3.04

no evidence

3.05

Weeds Australia Database<http://www.weeds.org.au/noxious.htm>

A. glabra is listed as prohibited. [Prohib Species on the Prohibited List, not permitted entry into WA under the Plant Diseases Act. ] Pond apple (Annona glabra) is one of the worst invaders of the Wet Tropics.

4.01

Gomez, M. C. (1983) The cherimoya.California Rare Fruit Growers Yearbook, 1983, Vol.15, pp.5-29 (p.5)

no evidence

4.02

no evidence

4.03

no evidence

4.04

no evidence

4.05

no evidence

4.06

Ros, J. P.; Escobar, I.; Garcia-Tapia, F. J.; Aranda, G.(1999) Pilot experiment to control medfly (Ceratitis capitata Wied.) using mass trapping technique in a cherimoya (Annona cherimola Mill) orchard.
[FT: Experiencia piloto de defensa de una plantación de chirimoyos contra la mosca de la fruta (Ceratitis capitata Wied.) mediante trampeo masivo.] Boletín de Sanidad Vegetal, Plagas, 1999, Vol.25, No.3, pp.395-404, 9 ref.

medfly

4.07

no evidence

4.08

no evidence

4.09

Utsunomiya, N.; Higuchi, H. (1996) Effects of irradiance level on the growth and photosynthesis of cherimoya, sugar apple and soursop seedlings. Environment Control in Biology, 1996, Vol.34, No.3, pp.201-207, 14 ref.

Potted cherimoya cv. Big Sister, sugar apple (Annona squamosa ) and soursop (A. muricata ) seedlings were grown at 100, 45, 25 or 5% of full sunlight. For all species, shoot length and whole-plant dry weight were reduced at 25% sunlight compared with full sunlight, but there was little difference in these parameters between the 45% and 100% treatments. In sugar apple and soursop, total leaf area was greatest at 45% sunlight, while in cherimoya it was similar at 100% and 45%. Leaf area ratio (mg/cm<sup(2) increased with decreasing light intensity in every species, and the degree of increase was least in cherimoya. With decreasing light intensity, leaves became thinner and the specific leaf weight decreased for all species. Chlorophyll content and photosynthetic rate were lower at 25% sunlight than at 100% and 45% sunlight in sugar apple and soursop, but differed little between these 3 light intensities in cherimoya, indicating that cherimoya had higher adaptability to low irradiance than the other 2 species.

4.1

George, A. P.; Nissen, R. J.; Brown, B. I. (1987) The custard apple. Queensland Agricultural Journal, 1987, Vol.113, No.5, pp.287-297 (p.290)

sandy to clay loam

4.11

Gomez, M. C. (1983) The cherimoya.California Rare Fruit Growers Yearbook, 1983, Vol.15, pp.5-29 (p.5)

erect tree

4.12

no evidence

5.01

Gomez, M. C. (1983) The cherimoya.California Rare Fruit Growers Yearbook, 1983, Vol.15, pp.5-29 (p.5)

woody tree

5.02

Gomez, M. C. (1983) The cherimoya.California Rare Fruit Growers Yearbook, 1983, Vol.15, pp.5-29 (p.5)

woody tree

5.03

no evidence

5.04

Gomez, M. C. (1983) The cherimoya.California Rare Fruit Growers Yearbook, 1983, Vol.15, pp.5-29 (p.5)

tree

6.01

no evidence

6.02

Richardson, A.; Anderson, P. (1993) Propagating cherimoya rootstocks.Orchardist of New Zealand, 1993, Vol.66, No.3, pp.41-43, 6 ref.

(2) A study was conducted with seeds obtained from mature fruits of 9 cultivars; fruits were generally the result of manual cross-pollination but seeds were also obtained from self-pollinated cv. Reretai fruits. Seeds were washed, dried and held at room temperature for up to 14 weeks before being sown in deep pots. Half were set horizontally and half vertically in the pots. After 7 weeks, assessments were made of percentage germination, incidence of pronounced taproot curvature, shoot weight, root weight, stem length, taproot length and lateral root development. More than 90% of all seeds germinated; germination was unaffected by cultivar and seed orientation. Seedling vigour varied widely between cultivars; it was largely determined by seed size.

6.03

Hybridized with A. squamosa but unknown if natural.

6.04

Richardson, A. C.; Anderson, P. A. (1996) Hand pollination effects on the set and development of cherimoya (Annona cherimola ) fruit in a humid climate. Scientia Horticulturae, 1996, Vol.65, No.4, pp.273-281, 15 ref.

The effects of hand pollination technique, pollen source and the time of pollination were evaluated on the set and development of cherimoya fruits. Up to 5% of flowers on trees of 4 cultivars (Bays, Reretai, Spain and White) set naturally but few of these fruits remained on the tree at harvest. Depending on cultivar, 84-96% of flowers that were hand pollinated with pollen from the same cultivar set fruit, compared with 38-69% of flowers pollinated with a mixture of pollen from all cultivars. Fruits resulting from self pollination were more symmetrical and had a higher mean fruit weight than cross pollinated fruits.

6.05

López, E.; Uquillas, C. (1997) Carpophilus hemipterus (Coleoptera: Nitidulidae) as cherimoya (Annona cherimolia Mill.) pollination agent under controlled conditions. [ FT: Carpophilus hemipterus (Coleoptera: Nitidulidae) como agente polinisante de chirimoyo (Annona cherimolia Mill.) bajo condiciones controladas.] Acta Entomologica Chilena, 1997, Vol.21, pp.89-99, 12 ref.  

Carpophilus hemipterus pollination capacity was evaluated through exclosure for cherimoya trees (Annona cherimola ) in Quillota, Chile. Similar results were obtained with manual pollination or with a population of 34 insects. The fraction of well formed fruits was similar under manual or insect pollination. (Without Nitidulidae pollinatior the fruit raate is usually so low that fruit growers routinely hand pollinate trees. )

6.06

no evidence

6.07

Gomez, M. C. (1983) The cherimoya.California Rare Fruit Growers Yearbook, 1983, Vol.15, pp.5-29 (p.18)

4th year first fruits

7.01

7.02

grown for fruits

7.03

7.04

7.05

7.06

Gomez, M. C. (1983) The cherimoya.California Rare Fruit Growers Yearbook, 1983, Vol.15, pp.5-29 (p.6)

Green fruit color and odor suggest bat and other mammal dispersal, but unknown

7.07

7.08

no evidence

8.01

Continella, G.; Longo, S.; Zappia, R.; Palmeri, V. (1996) Fruit and flower biology of some cherimoya (Annona cherimola Mill.) clones. (FT: Biologia fiorale e di fruttificazione di alcuni cloni di anona (Annona cherimola Mill.)). Italus Hortus, 1996, Vol.3, No.6, pp.32-38, 17 ref.

Flowering and fruiting were monitored in 4 cherimoya clones growing in Calabria, Italy in 1991 and 1992. Flowering period depended on weather and peaked between mid-June and early July. Flower density ranged from 29.4 to 58.3 per m of branch and fruit set from 0.5 to 5.1%. Fruit weight ranged from 202 to 310 g and seed index from 11.4 to 24.5. (need 55.7 fruits/m, which is unlike under low fruit set rate)

8.02

(1) Smet, S. de; Damme, P. van; Scheldeman, X.; Romero, J. (1999) Seed structure and germination of cherimoya (Annona cherimola Mill.) Acta Horticulturae, 1999, No.497, pp.269-288, 14 ref. (2) Richardson, A.; Anderson, P. (1993) Propagating cherimoya rootstocks.Orchardist of New Zealand, 1993, Vol.66, No.3, pp.41-43, 6 ref.

(1) Germination was evaluated during a period of 900 days, at the end of which germination was still occurring, although reduced to very low levels. Germination varied between 10.0-74.5% after 98 days and 49.5-77.0% after 900 days, over the different treatments. An uncontrolled temperature regime may account for similar peaks in the different germination curves.
(2) A study was conducted with seeds obtained from mature fruits of 9 cultivars; fruits were generally the result of manual cross-pollination but seeds were also obtained from self-pollinated cv. Reretai fruits. Seeds were washed, dried and held at room temperature for up to 14 weeks before being sown in deep pots. Half were set horizontally and half vertically in the pots. After 7 weeks, assessments were made of percentage germination, incidence of pronounced taproot curvature, shoot weight, root weight, stem length, taproot length and lateral root development. More than 90% of all seeds germinated; germination was unaffected by cultivar and seed o

8.03

no evidence of resistance

8.04

no evidence, unlikely

8.05


Need more info? Have questions? Comments? Information to contribute? Contact PIER!


[ Return to PIER homepage ] [Risk assessment page]


This page updated 23 February 2005.