Paratrechina longicornis - Biosecurity New Zealand

Paratrechina longicornis 

Harris, R.; Abbott, K. 

(A) PEST INFORMATION 

A1. Classification 

Family: Formicidae 

Subfamily: Formicinae 

Tribe: Lasiini 

Genus: Paratrechina 

Species: longicornis 

A2. Common names 

Crazy ant (Smith 1965), long-horned ant, hairy ant (Naumann 1993), higenaga-ameiro-ari (www36), slender crazy ant 

(Deyrup et al. 2000). 

A3. Original name 

Formica longicornis Latreille 

A4. Synonyms or changes in combination or taxonomy 

Paratrechina currens Motschoulsky, Formica gracilescens Nylander, Formica vagans Jerdon, Prenolepis longicornis 

(Latreille) 

Current subspecies: nominal plus Paratrechina longicornis var. hagemanni Forel 

A5. General description (worker) 

Identification 

Size: monomorphic workers about 2.3–3 mm long. 

Colour: head, thorax, petiole, and gaster are dark brown to blackish; the body often has faint bluish iridescence. 

Surface sculpture: head and body mostly with inconspicuous sculpture; appearing smooth and shining. 

Richard Toft , Landcare Research

INVASIVE ANT RISK ASSESSMENT • Paratrechina longicornis 

Whole body has longish setae. Appears quite hairy. Hairs are light in colour grey to whitish. 

General description: antennae and legs extraordinarily long. Antenna slender, 12-segmented, without a club; scape at 

least 1.5 times as long as head including closed mandibles. Eyes large, maximum diameter 0.3 times head length; 

elliptical, strongly convex; placed close to the posterior border of the head. Head elongate; mandibles narrow, each with 5 

teeth. Clypeus without longitudinal carinae. Alitrunk slender, dorsum almost straight from anterior portion of pronotum to 

propodeal dorsum. Metanotal groove slightly incised. Propodeum without spines, posterodorsal border rounded; 

propodeal spiracles distinct. One node (petiole) present, wedge-shaped, with a broad base, and inclined forward. Dorsal 

surface of head, alitrunk and gaster with long, coarse, suberect to erect greyish or whitish setae. Propodeum without erect 

hairs. Hind femora and tibiae bearing suberect hairs with length almost equal to the width of the femora. Stinger lacking; 

acidopore present. 

Sources: www39 

Formal description: Creighton (1950) 

This species is morphologically distinctive and is one of the few Paratrechina species not consistently misidentified in 

collections. 

The crazy ant is extremely easy to identify from its rapid and erratic movements (wwwnew49). Identification can be 

confirmed with the aid of a hand lens through which the extremely long antennal scape, long legs, and erect setae are 

obvious. 

2


Fig. 1: Images of Paratrechina longicornis; a) group of workers , b) dorsal view of worker showing long antennae (Source: S.D. Porter, 

USA-ARS). 

S.D. Porter, USA-ARS 

S.D. Porter, USA-ARS 

3


A6. Behavioural and biological characteristics 

A6.1 Feeding and foraging 

Paratrechina longicornis foragers are opportunists (Andersen 1992). Workers are very fast moving, darting about in a 

jerky, haphazard fashion as if lacking a sense of direction (Smith 1965). They commonly form wide but thinly populous 

trails up to 0.5 m wide over walls and floors (Collingwood et al. 1997). Meier (1994) stated “trails form moving toward the 

nest only”, but this is not the case as they have been observed to forage to and from nests in thin (1–2 cm) trails (P. Lester, 

pers. comm.). They can forage long distances, up to 25 m from the nest (Jaffe 1993). They are very quick to discover food 

(Lee 2002) but are often displaced when dominant ants discover and then recruit to food (Banks & Williams 1989). In 

tropical locations they forage continuously (Meier 1994). 

Workers are omnivorous. They feed on live and dead insects, honeydew, fruits, and many household foods (Smith 1965). 

Honeydew is obtained by tending plant lice, mealy bugs and scales (Smith 1965; Rawat & Modi 1969; Farnsworth 1993). 

Crazy ants are especially fond of sweet food (Smith 1965). Foragers will also collect seeds (Smith 1965). Large prey 

items, e.g., lizards, are carried by a highly concerted group action (Trager 1984). They appear to show a strong preference 

for protein during summer, when they will refuse honey or sugar baits (Trager 1984). They can forage in the intertidal zone, 

where they “surf” if caught by a wave (Jaffe 1993). P. longicornis was also recorded on decaying rabbit carcasses in India, 

feeding on moist areas around the eyes, nose, mouth, and anal region during the early stage of decay and on dead flies, 

dead larvae, skin of carrion, etc., during later decay stages (Bharti & Singh 2003). 

A6.2 Colony characteristics 

Paratrechina longicornis has polygyne colonies (Passera 1994), with nests containing up to 2000 workers and 40 queens 

(Mallis (1982, cited in Thompson 1990). Reproductives are produced throughout the year in warm climates but are more 

restricted ( ~ 5 months) in cooler climates, e.g., Gainsville, Florida (Trager 1984). Workers are probably sterile (Passera 

1994). Colonies occur in temporary nests (Andersen 2000), are highly mobile and will move if disturbed (Trager 1984). 

Crazy ants nest in diverse locations from dry to moist environments (www47). They tolerate nesting sites with relatively low 

humidity, such as gaps in walls, thatching and dry litter (Trager 1984). Outdoors, nests are primarily on the ground, often 

in wood, trash, and in mulch, but occasionally they occur aboreally in tree holes and leaf axils (Trager 1984; Way et al. 

1989). Indoors, nests are often in wall spaces and under stored items (Smith 1965; www47). Colonies and individuals 

from the same location appear to tolerate each other, but they behave aggressively towards individuals from distant sites 

(Lim et al. 2003). Queens do not appear to be responsible for this lack of intra-specific aggression; rather colony odours 

obtained through their diet influence their behaviour (Lim et al. 2003). 

Colonies nesting in sand at densities of over 1 nest/m 2 have been recorded in India (Jaffe 1993). At high tide, nests were 

underwater and probably protected from flooding by air trapped in their galleries. 

A7. Pest significance and description of range of impacts 

A7.1 Natural environment 

Paratrechina longicornis appears to be a disturbance specialist and is seemingly absent from undisturbed natural habitat. 

Where it does occur in semi-natural vegetation it is often a minor component of the community (e.g., Andersen & Reichel 

1994; Clouse 1999; Santana-Reis & Santos 2001). Holway et al. (2002a) in their review of invasive ants did not consider 

P. longicornis significant. Mostly, it is not a competitive dominant (Levins et al. 1973; Torres 1984; Banks & Williams 

1989; Morrison 1996). On Nukunonu Island, Tokelau, in forested areas without the dominant invasive ant Anoplolepis 

gracilipe, P. longicornis was the second most frequently caught ant in pitfall traps (Lester & Tavite 2004) and repelled 

other ants from baits (P. Lester, pers. comm.). This was a highly modified environment with few ant competitors. It was not 

sampled where A. gracilipes was present in forested areas, and was rare in urban areas that were dominated numerically 

by A. gracilipes (Lester & Tavite 2004). 

4


MacArthur and Wilson (1967) reported that on the Dry Tortugas, P. longicornis was “an overwhelmingly abundant ant and 

has taken over nest sites that are normally occupied by other species in the rest of southern Florida: tree-boles, usually 

occupied by species of Camponotus and Crematogaster, which are absent from the Dry Tortugas; and open soil, normally 

occupied by crater nests of Dorymyrmex and Forelius, which genera are also absent from the Dry Tortugas”. The Dry 

Tortugas are the outermost of the Florida Keys, and are important ecologically as feeding and nesting grounds for turtles 

and frigate birds (Wetterer & O’Hara 2002). The islands are far from pristine and have many non-indigenous plants and 

animals. They are also highly disturbed, being periodically reshaped by hurricanes, which alter the size and even the 

number of keys. 

Wetterer and O’Hara (2002) reported P. longicornis to be common on four of the five islands in Florida Keys they surveyed. 

On Garden Key, Solenopsis geminata was the dominant ant on the ground, while P. longicornis was the most common ant 

in trees. On Loggerhead Key and Bush Key, Pheidole megacephala and P. longicornis were the most common ants. 

Although P. longicornis was common, Wetterer and O’Hara (2002) did not mention it, instead raising concern about the 

impacts of S. geminata and Ph. megacephala. 

The presence of P. longicornis at baits found first by another species was recorded during sequential checking of sugar 

water dishes and was used as a measure of species replacement by Clark et al. (1982) in the Galapagos. P. longicornis 

replaced other ant species (including the little fire ant, Wasmannia auropunctata) at sugar-water baits in 68% of observations, 

indicating some potential competition for resources, but it did not stay as long at baits as W. auropunctata. 

Apparently, P. longicornis has limited ability to displace other ants. In Sao Paulo, Brazil, banana plantations where P. 

longicornis was present had fewer other ant species than those without P. longicornis (Fowler et al. 1994); however, this 

may have been caused not by the ability of P. longicornis to eliminate other ants, but because different management 

practices in some orchards eliminated competing species and allowed P. longicornis to establish. Only one study conclusively 

documented detrimental impacts on other ants and other invertebrates, other than at bait; this was in a highly 

artificial glass house environment —”Biosphere 2" (Wetterer et al. 1999). There, ants were sampled before and after the 

arrival of P. longicornis; the composition of the ant community changed markedly and those species remaining after P. 

longicornis became abundant were uncommon. Linepithema humile and Solenopsis xyloni both disappeared from the 

glass house environment and the only abundant invertebrates thriving in Biosphere 2 besides P. longicornis were 

homopterans and species with effective defences against ants (well-armoured isopods and millipedes) or tiny subterranean 

species not vulnerable to ant predation (mites, cryptic ants, and springtails). 

This species was also an abundant opportunist in disturbed habitat (mine site restoration trial plots) in Australia, but it 

was absent from bare ground dominated by Iridomyrmex and undisturbed vegetation (Andersen 1993). 

Paratrechina longicornis interferes with seed dispersal of myrmecochorous plants by reducing dispersal distances and 

leaving seeds exposed on the soil surface (Ness & Bronstein 2004). No seeds were brought to the nest by this species 

during observations in Puerto Rico (Torres 1984). 

In some locations P. longicornis is restricted to human settlements, e.g., northern Australia (Andersen 2000), or is a 

relatively minor component of degraded habits or human-modified systems, e.g., the Canary Islands (Espadaler & Bernal 

2003), Sri Lanka (Way et al. 1989) and the Philippines (Way et al. 1998). 

A7.2 Horticulture 

Foragers are associated with honeydew-producing hemipterans (Smith 1965; Rawat & Modi 1969; Farnsworth 1993). 

Trails of foraging P. longicornis on plants in Biosphere 2 invariably led to homopterans (Wetterer et al. 1999). High 

densities of ants on plants were always found tending high densities of homopterans, such as the scale insects that 

heavily encrusted the trunks, branches, and leaves of many Piper trees, and mealybugs that covered the branches of 

many mangrove trees. Ants returning to their nests from these sources were bloated with liquid. Surveys of ants on Thalia 

geniculata L. leaves (common name alligator flag; a plant in the Marantaceae or arrowroot Family) demonstrated a strong 

positive association between ants and scale insects. On Tokelau, P. longicornis is also associated with extra-floral 

5


nectaries of Morinda citrifolia and breadfruit trees, food sources which might assist them in reaching extreme abundances 

in some areas (K. Abbott, pers. obser.). They have also been observed tending black citrus aphid Toxoptera citricida, 

(Homoptera: Aphididae) (Michaud & Browning 1999). However, they may not have an important role in protecting 

homoptera from natural enemies: Dejean et al. (2000) found that the presence of P. longicornis did not increase 

populations of a maize pest in Cameroon, as did other ants present (including Pheidole megacephala). 

An additional role of P. longicornis in a horticultural environment may be as a predator of pest species. They are occasionally 

present in soybean fields in Florida where they prey on pest insects (Whitcomb et al. 1972). They prey on late instar 

larvae of a citrus pest in the Caribbean (Jaffe et al. 1990) and other citrus pests in California (deBach et al. 1951). They 

are abundant in disturbed rice fields in the Philippines (Way et al. 1998). They were often sampled at baits not foraged on 

by the dominant ants (S. geminata and P. fervens) (Way et al. 1998). They were abundant in some coconut palms in Sri 

Lanka, where they removed some eggs of a coconut pest, but were less effective than M. floricola (Way et al 1989). They 

may also be a significant predator of fly larvae and fleas (Pimentel 1955; Smith 1965). It is unclear if they have a role in 

population regulation of some pest and beneficial insects as Way et al. (1998) discussed in relation to S. geminata. 

Paratrechina longicornis workers also gather small seeds from seedbeds of crops like lettuce and tobacco (Smith 1965). 

They do not appear to damage polythene irrigation tubing (Chang & Ota 1976). 

A7.3 Human impacts 

The crazy ant is primarily a pest in urban areas where it can become abundant indoors (wwwnew49; Lee 2002). It has 

been found on the top floors of large apartment buildings in New York, in hotels and flats in Boston and in hotel kitchens in 

San Francisco, California (wwwnew47). Its presence indoors, as well as its erratic behaviour and dark colour, make it very 

conspicuous. Workers are omnivorous in an urban setting, feeding on live and dead insects, seeds in seedbeds, fruits, 

plant and insect exudates, and many household foods. Consequently, they have potential negative and beneficial effects, 

but these have not been quantified independently of other pest ant species. 

Modular housing units in North Lauderdale (Florida) were inundated by the ant to the point that students were described 

as being ‘constantly in a state of turmoil’ (wwwnew47). Students’ lunches had to be kept in closed plastic bags placed on 

tables with each table leg sitting in a pan of water as a barrier. Elsewhere, a soda fountain business discontinued operation 

because of foraging by this ant (Smith 1965). No reports were found of crazy ants damaging wiring or any other 

structures within buildings. 

In a study carried out by pest controllers in Florida, P. longicornis was primarily seen as a nuisance both inside and outside 

of domestic dwellings. They were generally not considered to infest food or wood items (Klotz et al. 1995). 

In monsoonal Australia, P. longicornis is associated with human settlements, where it is one of the most common of the 

tramp species (Andersen 2000). In Penang, Malaysia, P. longicornis was one of the more common ants sampled in 

buildings and was the first species to arrive in newly disturbed habitats or new buildings (Lee 2002). In Florida, it was 

most abundant in southern areas where it was described as a minor nuisance at outdoor-eating areas; it frequently 

entered buildings (Deyrup et al. 2000). In temperate North America (West Lafayette, Latitude 40.43) P. longicornis was 

only a minor component of the urban-building ant fauna, with Tetramorium caespitum, Prenolepis imparis, and Tapinoma 

sessile being numerically dominant (Scharf et al. 2004). 

This ant may transmit diseases. It was the second most common species in three Brazilian hospitals, and at least 20% of 

foragers carried pathogenic bacteria (Fowler et al. 1993). 

6


A8. Global distribution 

A8.1 Native range 

Paratrechina longicornis probably originated in Africa (Wilson & Taylor 1967; Holway et al. 2002a) or Asia (Smith 1965, 

Wilson & Taylor 1967), but it is so widespread that it is difficult to determine its origin from ecological and historical 

records. 

A8.2 Introduced range 

It is one of the most common tramp ants in the tropics and subtropics, and is probably one of the most widely distributed 

of all the tramp ants (Fig. 2). It has also established in temperate regions where it is found in greenhouses and heated 

buildings. Some of the notable gaps in its distribution (e.g., southern China; Indonesia) may reflect the lack of published 

ant checklists from these regions rather than the absence of the species. 

A8.3 History of spread 

Paratrechina longicornis is a common tramp species that is frequently intercepted and has been spread with trade for well 

over a century. It has been present in many countries outside its native range for a long time (over 100 years). In some 

locations it may reinvade frequently rather than establishing permanently; Trager (1984) suggests this is the case in 

California. 

A.9 Habitat range 

The crazy ant is highly adaptable, and can live in very dry as well as moist habitats. It is usually associated with disturbance, 

including disturbed natural environments like beaches (Jaffe 1993), the Dry Tortugas (Wetterer and O’Hara 2002), 

geothermal areas (Wetterer 1998), urban environments (Lee 2002; Andersen 2000; wwwnew47), farms (Collingwood et 

al. 1997), and even ships (Weber 1940). However, it is also present in some native vegetation in the tropics, e.g., conservation 

areas on offshore islands of Samoa (K. Abbott, pers. obser.). In cold climates, crazy ants nest in centrally heated 

apartments and other similar buildings such as glasshouses and airport terminals (e.g., Freitag et al. 2000; Naumann 

1994). 

7


Fig. 2: Global distribution of Paratrechina longicornis. It is unclear whether Africa or Asia represents the original native range. Data are from the Landcare Research Invasive Ant Database 

(January 2005). The blue urban records are those where the ant was reported to be restricted to buildings. 

8


(B) LIKELIHOOD OF ENTRY 

B1. Identification of potential pathways 

Crazy ants have been reported to be transported extensively by humans (Passera 1994) and associated with nearly all 

pathways taken by humans. They are commonly reported associated with potted plants (e.g., Clark 1941; Miller 1994). 

There are several potential pathways by which P. longicornis could enter New Zealand. Between 1997 and the end of 

2002, it was intercepted at the New Zealand border 16 times; since then, a directive to identify all ants intercepted at New 

Zealand ports has resulted in 47 further interceptions at the border (MAF records). 

Paratrechina longicornis has been observed entering New Zealand on goods from a wide range of countries and commodities 

(Table 1 & 2). Most (> 80%) interceptions have been from sea freight and about 60% have been at Auckland sea 

or air ports with the remaining interceptions scattered widely around New Zealand. In recent years, post-border interceptions 

have occurred regularly at the Port of Auckland and elsewhere. In April 2002, samples taken from wharves at the 

Port of Auckland confirmed an incursion (Anon. 2004). Ants were subsequently found at a transitional facility in Mangere, 

South Auckland. In March 2003, three nests were found near the Mount Maunganui wharf of Port Tauranga. In 2004 a 

single worker was found at Sulphur Point (Port Tauranga) and a nest was observed and treated in Wellington. All these 

areas are being treated and/or monitored to ensure eradication. 

Most interceptions are of workers, but clearly queens are also being transported alive as colonies have been found postborder. 

Stopping this species arriving will be very difficult given its extensive distribution, close association with humans 

and ease of movement. Sea containers (full and empty) and timber appear to represent the main commodity pathways, 

but the high frequency with which this ant is found on ships means any vessel in any New Zealand ports is a potential risk. 

A pest risk analysis has been conducted specifically for the timber pathway after several interceptions on Jellico wharf in 

Auckland; these were associated with timber from the Pacific (Ormsby 2003). 

In Australia, P. longicornis has been intercepted frequently from many commodities and origins (Tables 3 & 4). Further 

analysis of the container data indicates the diverse range of goods with which they are associated with (Table 5). 

Fifteen interceptions from Hawaii in plants and fresh produce (data from January 1995 to May 2004; Source: Hawaii 

Department of Agriculture) list California and Georgia (USA) as origins not recorded in the Australia and New Zealand 

data. 

Some crazy ant interceptions at the New Zealand, Hawaiian and Australian borders are reported to have originated from 

countries not listed in the Landcare Research Invasive Ant Database as part of this ant’s distribution. These include 

Brunei, the Cocos (Keeling) Islands, Germany, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Malawi, Nauru, New Zealand (five interceptions in 

Australia), and Norfolk Island. If some of these origins are correct (and not errors or ants picked up in transit), this would 

further increase the risk pathways to New Zealand. Crazy ants are often intercepted on ships and clearly there is scope for 

contamination of freight in transit. 

B2. Association with the pathway 

Paratrechina longicornis is well established across the Pacific region and throughout much of the world’s tropical areas. 

Much trade arrives in New Zealand from areas of the Pacific region where this ant is present. It is commonly associated 

with urban areas and buildings. Interceptions showing its association with a wide range of commodities suggest it is 

usually a stowaway; this makes it difficult to target high risk commodities for particular scrutiny. In addition, the wide 

range of countries in which it is established and from whence it has been intercepted makes targeting specific pathways 

for this ant species particularly difficult. 

9


B3. Summary of pathways 

A summary of freight coming to New Zealand from localities within 100 km of known sites of P. longicornis infestation is 

presented in Fig. 3 (also see Appendix 1). During 2001-2003, total volumes of freight from localities near this ant were 

high, representing about 32.2% of total air freight and 34.9% of sea freight (44.2% of sea freight where the country of 

origin was reported). At many of the more temperate locations the densities of P. longicornis will likely be low and the 

distribution restricted; this reduces the risk of spread to New Zealand. 

Table 1: Commodities from which P. longicornis has been intercepted at the New Zealand border. 

Freight type 1997-2002 2003-Mar 2004 

Fresh produce 7 7 

Miscellaneous 1 3 

Personal effects 2 

Timber 1 9 b 

Containers 1 23 c 

Cut flowers 3 

On ship 2 

Incursion a 1 5 

a found near border but outside freight and association not known. 

b 4 interceptions from consignments on the same day on wharf in Auckland. 

c 3 empty. 

Table 2: Country of origin for New Zealand border interceptions of P. longicornis. 

Country 1997-2002 2003-Mar 2004 

Australia 2 1 

Fiji 5 9 

Indonesia 2 

Malaysia 1 

PNG 1 12 

Singapore 1 4 

Solomon Islands 5 

Thailand 1 2 

Tonga 4 3 

Vanuatu 1 

Vietnam 1 

Wallis & Futuna Islands 3 

10


Table 3: Country of origin for Australian border interceptions of P. longicornis. Data from January 1986 to 30 June 2003 

(Source: Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Canberra). 

Country No. 

Australia 4 

Brunei 1 

China 3 

Christmas Is. 8 

Cocos (Keeling) Islands 1 

East Timor 10 

Fiji 15 

France 2 

Germany, Fed. Repub. 1 

Guam 2 

India 2 

Indonesia 32 

Iran 1 

Ireland 1 

Italy 5 

Japan 2 

Malawi 1 

Malaysia 16 

Mauritius 1 

Nauru 1 

New Caledonia 1 

New Zealand 5 

Norfolk Is. 1 

Pacific Region 9 

Papua New Guinea 82 

Philippines 2 

Country No. 

Samoa (American) 2 

Ship 18 

Singapore 38 

Solomon Islands 4 

Spain 1 

Sri Lanka 1 

Syria 1 

Thailand 9 

Tonga 3 

United Arab Emirates 1 

Unknown 9 

USA 1 

Vanuatu 2 

Vietnam 4 

11


Table 4: Freight types associated with Australian border interceptions of P. longicornis. Data from January 1986 to 30 

June 2003 (Source: Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Canberra). 

Freight type No. 

Air baggage 27 

Container (full) 90 

Container (empty) 73 

Cut flowers 17 

Fresh produce 18 

Incursion 2 

Machinery/vehicles 10 

Miscellaneous 10 

Plants 3 

Post 3 

Ship 16 

Timber 15 

Wood products 20 

Table 5: Details of commodities listed from full containers intercepted at the Australian border containing P. longicornis. 

Data from January 1986 to 30 June 2003 (Source: Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Canberra). 

Commodity No 

Packing 26 

External on shipping container 23 

Shipping container—unknown 16 

Stock food/dried foods 9 

Machinery/vehicle 5 

Metal 3 

Wooden furniture 2 

Stone carvings 1 

Glass 1 

Cookers 1 

Rubber 1 

Slate 1 

Gas cylinders 1 

12


Fig. 3a: Summary of sea freight coming to New Zealand from localities within 100 km of known sites of P. longicornis. Values represent the total freight (tonnes) during 2001, 2002 and 

2003 (source: Statistics New Zealand). Details of locations are given in Appendix 1. 

13


Fig. 3b: Summary of air freight coming to New Zealand from localities within 100 km of known sites of P. longicornis. Values represent the total freight (tonnes) during 2001, 2002 and 

2003 (source: Statistics New Zealand). Details of locations are given in Appendix 1. 

14


(C) LIKELIHOOD OF ESTABLISHMENT 

C1. Climatic suitability of regions within New Zealand for the establishment of the 

ant species 

The aim of this section is to compare the similarity of the New Zealand climate to the locations where the ant is native or 

introduced using the risk assessment tool BIOSECURE (see Appendix 2 for more detail). The predictions are compared 

with those for two species already established in New Zealand (Ph. megacephala and L. humile) (Appendix 3). In addition, 

a summary climate risk map for New Zealand is presented; this combines climate layers that most closely approximate 

those generated by the risk assessment tool Climex. 

C1.1 Climate limitations to ants 

Given the depauperate ant fauna of New Zealand (only 11 native species), and the success of many invasive ants throughout 

the world in locations with diverse ant faunas (e.g., Human & Gordon 1996), competition with New Zealand native ant 

species is unlikely to be a major factor restricting the establishment of invasive ants in New Zealand, although competition 

may be important in native forest where native ant abundance and diversity is higher (R. Harris, pers. obs.). For some 

species, the presence of other non-native ants in human modified environments may limit their distribution (e.g., 

Solenopsis invicta has severely restricted the distribution of S. richteri and L. humile within the USA (Hung & Vinson 1978; 

Porter et al. 1988)) or reduce their chances of establishment. However, in most cases the main factors influencing 

establishment in New Zealand, should queens or colonies arrive here, are likely to be climatic. 

A significant relationship between maximum (and mean) daily temperature and foraging activity for both dominant and 

subordinate ants species indicated temperature rather than interspecific competition primarily determined the temporal 

activity of ant communities in open Mediterranean habitats (Cerda et al. 1998). Subordinates were active over a wider 

range of temperatures (Cerda et al. 1998). In California L. humile foraging activity was restricted by temperature attaining 

maximum abundance at bait at 34 o C, and bait was abandoned at 41.6 o C (Holway et al. 2002b). 

Temperature generally controls ant colony metabolism and activity, and extremes of temperature can kill adults or whole 

colonies (Korzukhin et al. 2001). Oviposition rates may be slow and may not occur at cooler temperatures (e.g., L. humile 

does not lay eggs below a daily mean air temperature of 18.3 o C (Newell & Barber (1913) quoted in Vega & Rust 2001)). 

At the local scale, queens may select warmer sites to nest (Chen et al. 2002). 

Environments with high rainfall reduce foraging time and may reduce the probability of establishment (Cole et al. 1992; 

Vega & Rust 2001). High rainfall also contributes to low soil temperatures. In high rainfall areas, it may not necessarily be 

rainfall per se that limits distribution but the permeability of the soil and the availability of relatively dry areas for nests 

(Chen et al. 2002). Conversely, in arid climates, a lack of water probably restricts ant distribution, for example L. humile 

(Ward 1987; Van Schagen et al. 1993; Kennedy 1998), although the species survives in some arid locations due to 

anthropogenic influences or the presence of standing water (e.g., United Arab Emirates (Collingwood et al. 1997) and 

Arizona (Suarez et al. 2001)). 

New Zealand has a cool temperate climate and most non-native ant species established here have restricted northern 

distributions, with most of the lower South Island containing only native species (see distribution maps in New Zealand 

information sheets (wwwnew83)). Few adventive species currently established in New Zealand have been collected 

outside urban areas in the cooler lower North Island and upper South Island (R. Harris, unpubl. data); for some this could 

reflect a lack of sampling, but the pattern generally reflects climatic limitations. In urban areas, temperatures are elevated 

compared with non-urban sites due to the warming effects of buildings and large areas of concrete, the “Urban Heat 

Island” effect (Changnon 1999). In addition, thermo-regulated habitats within urban areas (e.g., buildings) allow ants to 

avoid outdoor temperature extremes by foraging indoors when temperatures are too hot or cold (Gordon et al. 2001). 

15


C1.2 Specific information on P. longicornis 

No specific information on temperature tolerances was found for P. longicornis. Lee (2002) reported this ant to be most 

active in urban Malaysia at night (average air temperature of 25 o C with activity gradually ceasing late in the afternoon 

when temperatures peaked (averaging around 33 o C). 

The risk to New Zealand might usefully be assessed from the crazy ant’s distribution in Hawaii, where it is restricted to the 

dry lowlands (< 900 m) (Reimer 1994). This suggests that New Zealand is too cold. Ant species that occur in Hawaii’s 

colder mountainous areas (900–1800 m, Reimer 1994) include Pheidole megacephala (which has a very restricted 

northern distribution in New Zealand (Appendix 3)) and Linepithema humile. Linepithema humile also extends into the 

dry subalpine communities in Hawaii (1800–2700 m (Reimer 1994)), and its New Zealand distribution extends into the 

South Island (Appendix 3). 

C1.3 BIOSECURE analysis 

152 locality records were used for the assessment of P. longicornis, mostly from the introduced range (Fig. 4). 

The native plus introduced ranges show some overlap with all of New Zealand for mean annual temperature (MAT) and 

mean temperature of the coldest month (MINT), because of records from heated buildings in very cold climates, e.g., 

Quebec (Francoeur 1977) (Fig. 5; Table 6 & 7). Precipitation (PREC) is within the native and introduced ranges except in 

some south-western and alpine areas (Fig. 5a). 

The native and introduced (non-urban range) shows no overlap for MAT (Fig 5b). Minimum temperatures are unlikely to 

restrict establishment over most of lowland New Zealand. Precipitation is within the native and introduced ranges except in 

some south-western and alpine areas, but these regions are probably too cold for establishment outside permanently 

heated buildings. None of the other climate parameters are highly discriminating for lowland New Zealand. 

Climate summary 

The general climate summary for the international range of P. longicornis indicates low similarity to New Zealand, particularly 

compared to L. humile (Fig. 6). Climate summary graphs are less useful than individual climate layers as contrasts in 

the risk between species and regions of New Zealand are less evident. 

Climate match conclusions 

Available data indicate that New Zealand has low climatic similarity with non-urban sites where P. longicornis is established. 

There is no overlap for MAT, and MINT is either at the lower end of international data or does not overlap. The lack 

of sufficiently high temperatures over the summer period for foraging and colony development is likely to severely limit the 

likelihood of this species’ establishing permanent populations in non-urban habitats in New Zealand. 

Paratrechina longicornis could survive in most urban areas in New Zealand, as it will inhabit heated buildings when 

outside temperatures are too cold. In summer it is likely to forage outdoors, and in warm microhabitats within urban areas 

colonies may persist outdoors throughout the year. 

16


Fig. 4: Native (green), introduced non-urban (red), and introduced urban (orange) distribution records used in BIOSECURE analysis of P. longicornis. 

17


Table 6: Comparison of climate parameters for native and introduced range and native and introduced non-urban range of 

P. longicornis. 

Mean Annual Temperature (°C) 

n Mean Minimum Maximum 

Native Range 7.0 24.5 23.2 26.2 

Introduced Range 145.0 23.2 4.3 29.3 

Introduced Non-urban Range 130.0 24.3 17.5 29.3 

Minimum Temperature (°C) 

Native Range 7.0 19.7 17.7 23.1 

Introduced Range 145.0 15.3 -17.0 26.3 


Mean Annual Precipitation (mm) 

Native Range 7.0 1851.0 1125.0 3156.0 



Mean Annual Solar Radiation 

Native Range 7.0 14.3 11.5 17.5 



Vapour Pressure (millibars) 

Native Range 7.0 23.1 18.0 27.0 



Seasonality of Temperature (°C) 

Native Range 7.0 10.7 6.0 14.4 



Seasonality of Precipitation (mm) 

Native Range 7.0 369.7 199.0 854.0 



Seasonality of Vapour Pressure (millibars) 

Native Range 7.0 8.7 4.0 16.0 

Introduced Range 145 8.2 1.0 20.0 


18


Table 7: Range of climate parameters from (Table A2.1) New Zealand (N = 196 GRIDS at 0.5 degree resolution). Data 

exclude distant island groups (Chatham, Bounty, Antipodes, Campbell, Auckland, and Kermadec Islands). 

Parameter Min Max Mean 

MAT -0.5 16.6 10.9 

MINT -8.3 7.8 3.0 

PREC 356.0 5182.0 1765.0 

MAS 11.2 14.3 13.0 

VP 4.0 15.0 9.7 

MATS 6.4 10.6 8.8 

PRECS 23.0 175.0 60.5 

VPS 4.0 8.0 5.9 

19


a) 

b) 

Fig. 5: Similarity of a) native and introduced ranges and b) native and introduced non-urban ranges of P. longicornis to New Zealand 

for MAT, MINT, and PREC. 

20


Fig. 6: Comparison of climate similarity of New Zealand and the international ranges of P. longicornis, L. humile and Ph. megacephala based on the mean of the 

similarity scores of five climate layers (MAT, MINT, PREC, VP, and PRECS). This presentation approximates that produced by the risk assessment tool, Climex. The 

presentations represent native + introduced ranges. 

21


C2. Potential to establish in protected environments 

As described above, P. longicornis is highly adaptable. It is closely associated with disturbed environments and will readily 

establish nest sites in greenhouses, buildings and urban environments and could survive in such habitats in temperate 

locations. 

C3. Documented evidence of potential for adaptation of the pest 

Trager (1984) suggested that the tolerance of P. longicornis for nesting sites with relatively low humidity, including crannies 

in walls, board and trash piles, palm thatching and dry litter contributes to its success. 

C4. Reproductive strategy of the pest 

In the tropics, P. longicornis produces sexual brood at any time of the year. However, in Gainesville, Florida (approximately 

30 degrees latitude), alate production is apparently limited to the warm, rainy months of the year (Trager 1984). Nuptial 

flights are thought not to occur (Trager 1984). On warm humid evenings, large numbers of males gather outside nest 

entrances. Periodically, winged queens emerge and the wings are removed while still callow. Mating was not observed, but 

Trager (1984) suggested that it occurred in these groupings around the nest entrance. Trager (1994) did not observe 

males to fly. 

Paratrechina longicornis is polygynous (Passera 1994) and probably polydomous. Colonies and individuals from the 

same location appear to tolerate each other, but they behave aggressively towards individuals from distant sites (Lim et al. 

2003). Queens do not appear to cause this; instead, colony odors obtained through their diet appear responsible for the 

lack of intra-specific aggression (Lim et al. 2003). 

C5. Number of individuals needed to found a population in a new location 

To our knowledge, no research has been conducted on this aspect of P. longicornis ecology. However, an inseminated 

queen may have the capacity to start a new colony in isolation, but the likely mode of dispersal of this species is whole 

colonies being transported within freight. Workers alone are incapable of founding a new nest. 

C6. Likely competition from existing species for ecological niche 

This ant appears to be frequently displaced by more dominant species at baits, but in many other situations can survive 

and flourish. Rarely, it can become the numerically dominant ant. In Biosphere 2, an artificial biome constructed in 

Arizona, P. longicornis became the dominant ant species within approximately 2 years of first detection (Wetterer et al. 

1999). It displaced a suite of local native species that were deliberately introduced before the self introduction of P. 

longicornis. In Canada in a tropical glasshouse P. longicornis was in low abundance compared to Wasmannia 

auropunctata (Naumann 1994). 

Foraging workers of P. longicornis have been shown to discover baits before other ant species, and recruit in high numbers 

rapidly; however, they are usually replaced within an hour by more aggressive species that recruit additional foragers 

(Banks & Williams 1989; Lester & Tavite 2004). Wojcik (1994) monitored ant populations with bait traps on transects for 

21 years in Gainesville, FL, and found that Solenopsis invicta gradually increased from 0 to 43.3%. The presence of P. 

longicornis was positively correlated with S. invicta populations, so it appears to be able to coexist with S. invicta in Florida 

as it does in Brazil (Banks & Williams 1989). It was negatively associated with the presence of Pheidole megacephala in 

and around buildings in Brazil (Delabie et al.1995). Successful reduction of Monomorium spp. (M. pharaonis, M. destructor, 

and M. floricola) from buildings in Malaysia resulted in an increase in P. longicornis (and Tapinoma melanocephalum) 

activity, indicating that the Monomorium spp. were dominant (Lee 2002). In Sri Lanka, P. longicornis was not present on 

coconut palms that had Oecophylla, as this species behaved aggressively towards P. longicornis (Way et al. 1989), and on 

22


Floreana Island in the Galapagos, P. longicornis was absent from samples at a village site where the abundance of M. 

destructor had increased (Von-Aesch & Cherix 2003). Fowler et al. (1994) found P. longicornis and T. melanocephalum in 

49 of 80 banana plantations surveyed in Sao Paulo, Brazil, but none had both species and both were absent from nearby 

tea and cocoa crops and native vegetation. On Santa Cruz Island in the Galapagos, P. longicornis was only sampled along 

a transect where Wasmannia auropunctata was absent (Clark et al. 1982). Pimentel (1955) reported that P. longicornis 

avoided areas where S. geminata and T. melanocephalum were present, but would attack and drag away single S. 

geminata workers that tried to steal its food. 

Paratrechina longicornis is likely to show considerable overlap in nesting sites with Linepithema humile (Argentine ant). 

Where L. humile is established, establishment of P. longicornis may be inhibited and if the two did coexist, P. longicornis 

would likely be in relatively low abundance. Similarly, Doleromyrma darwiniana, which is also becoming more widespread 

around urban areas of New Zealand, could potentially compete with P. longicornis and reduce its chances of establishment. 

Pheidole megacephala has a very restricted New Zealand distribution so is unlikely to exert competitive pressure on 

P. longicornis. Where M. pharaonis is established in heated buildings (this does not appear to be widespread in New 

Zealand), it may limit P. longicornis. Coexistence is likely with other non-native ant species currently established in New 

Zealand, and native ant species are typically not abundant in disturbed habitats and so are unlikely to inhibit the establishment 

of P. longicornis. 

C7. Presence of natural enemies 

No reports of natural enemies of P. longicornis were found, and establishment in New Zealand is only likely to be hindered 

by other ant species. It is not attacked by phorid flies that attack Solenopsis in South America (Porter et al. 1995). 

C8. Cultural practices and control measures applied in New Zealand that may affect 

the ant’s ability to establish 

Practices at the point of incursion (e.g., seaports and airports) are likely to affect the ability of P. longicornis to establish at 

those sites. Presently, there are no routine treatments of port areas that would decrease the chances of survival for P. 

longicornis, except for ongoing incursion responses. 

Current (2002–2005) surveillance specifically for ants in and around ports is sufficiently thorough to detect large incursions, 

particularly in summer in northern areas where foragers are highly mobile and are attracted to surveillance baits. In 

addition, treatment of other invasive ant species in and around ports is likely to reduce the chances of survival of new 

propagules. 

In more southerly sites establishment may be more closely associated with heated buildings and ant surveillance would 

only detect an incursion if there is foraging outdoors, which would likely occur to some degree in summer. 

The importation procedures recommended by Ormsby (2003) for imported timber from the Pacific would reduce establishment 

probabilities from that pathway, but it is likely to be only one of many potential pathways for P. longicornis. Also, 

Ormsby (2003) only considered management of the timber and not the risks associated with populations in vessels 

carrying the timber. Interception histories in New Zealand and Australia would suggest ships are relatively commonly 

infested with P. longicornis (see B1. Identification of potential pathways). 

23


(D) LIKELIHOOD OF SPREAD AFTER ESTABLISHMENT 

D1. Dispersal mechanisms 

Two methods of dispersal have together aided the spread of P. longicornis at local, regional, national and international 

scales—budding and human-mediated dispersal. The latter is probably more significant. P. longicornis is a ‘tramp’ ant 

(Holldobler & Wilson 1990; Passera 1994), renowned for transportation via human commerce and trade and commonly 

associated with a wide range of freight (see Association with Pathway section above). 

Natural dispersal is primarily by budding. Neither queens nor males appear to fly (Trager 1984). It is a rapid coloniser, 

often being the first species to arrive in a newly disturbed area (Lee 2002). 

D2. Factors that facilitate dispersal 

Colonies are characterised by extreme agility—a readiness to move when only slightly disturbed and an ability to swiftly 

discover new sites and organise emigrations—and often occupy local sites that sometimes remain habitable for only a few 

weeks or days (Holldobler & Wilson 1990). Trager (1984) reports a large swarm of P. longicornis emigrating after being 

flooded out of its nest by a sprinkler. Their occurrence in disturbed habitats increases the likelihood of their being spread 

more widely by events such as flooding. A close association with human habitats facilitates dispersal as a consequence of 

the movement of plants, rubbish and other commodities. 

D3. Potential rate of spread in its habitat range(s) 

With an absence of winged dispersal, potential rates of spread in new habitats will be limited if human-mediated dispersal 

is eliminated. No information on rates of spread of P. longicornis was found. Their biology (budding, highly mobile colonies) 

suggests rates of spread will be similar to Linepithema humile. Expansion of L. humile through budding typically 

occurs over a relatively small scale, with estimates ranging from near zero in areas of climatic extremes up to 800 m/yr in 

recently invaded, highly favourable habitats (Holway 1998; Way et al. 1997; Suarez et al. 2001). In New Zealand, the rate 

of spread of P. longicornis could be more limited than that of L. humile because of the patchy availability of suitably warm 

habitats. 

D4. Presence of natural enemies 

Other ant species (particularly Linepithema humile and Doleromyrma darwiniana) are likely to be the primary factor 

limiting spread of P. longicornis. Both L. humile and D. darwiniana may be abundant at sites where they are established in 

New Zealand, and few other ants appear able to coexist with them (Ward & Harris in prep.; R. Toft, pers. comm.). 

24


(E) THE ENVIRONMENTAL, HUMAN HEALTH AND ECONOMIC CONSE- 

QUENCES OF INTRODUCTION 

E1. Direct effects 

E1.1 Potential for predation on, or competition with New Zealand’s indigenous fauna 

Available data suggest that P. longicornis is generally not an ecologically dominant species, but is highly opportunistic, 

with its success centring on its ability to find food rapidly before other ant species. It is omnivorous and will take whatever 

food is available. It does best in highly disturbed or artificial environments where other species are less suited; in such 

locations it can become the numerically dominant ant (MacArthur & Wilson 1967; Jaffe 1993; Wetterer et al.1999), 

displacing other ants and affecting other invertebrates (Wetterer et al. 1999). Highly disturbed native habitats in New 

Zealand would include coastal dunes, intertidal areas, geothermal areas, and perhaps coastal scrub. The potential for 

establishment in those habitats is considered low because of climatic limitations. If P. longicornis was to establish in 

native habitat it would probably do so in the far north of New Zealand and on northern offshore islands, all of which have a 

milder, subtropical climate. If the total ant biomass at a site increased as a result of the establishment of P. longicornis 

(not a certainty considering the limited climate suitability) there would likely be detrimental impacts on the native fauna, 

particularly the invertebrate community, with many species declining and localised extinctions being possible, placing 

invertebrate species with severely restricted distributions at risk. No native ants would be at risk of extinction because they 

are widely distributed and are present in forests that would serve as refuges. Disturbed native habitats are also those 

where L. humile is most likely to establish (Harris et al. 2002b) and it is likely that L. humile would displace P. longicornis 

in New Zealand’s climate. 

Any dispersal into northern native habitats will take many years because of the dispersal mechanisms of this ant. Localities 

with low visitation rates, especially by boat or vehicle, may never have colonies transported into the area and natural 

dispersal rates by budding would be limited by the availability of suitable habitat. 

Urban areas generally have low native biodiversity values so the consequences of establishment would be minimal. 

E1.2 Human health-related impacts 

Paratrechina longicornis does not sting or bite (Thompson 1990), and no reports were found of them spraying formic acid 

onto humans (unlike A. gracilipes). However, they could potentially vector pathogens in hospitals (Fowler et al. 1993) and 

commercial food outlets. 

E1.3 Social impacts 

In tropical areas, the frenetic behaviour of P. longicornis is often considered irritating, and may deter people from sitting in 

areas where they are abundant. In New Zealand, its presence within heated buildings such as hospitals and hotels would 

cause similar reactions and probably prompt pest control. Areas where abundant populations occur outdoors would 

probably be limited but where present they could be a nuisance. 

E1.4 Agricultural/horticultural losses 

Paratrechina longicornis may be associated with honeydew-producing insects in large numbers (Wetterer et al. 1999). It 

is likely to reach large densities and be a pest only in glasshouse environments. 

A limited economic impact assessment in New Zealand estimates potential treatment expenditure by affected sectors to 

be relatively small (up to $18 274 (Anon. 2004)). 

25


E1.5 Effect(s) on existing production practices 

There are likely to be no direct impacts on production practices from the establishment of this ant. However, if establishment 

occurs, the nursery trade may be a primary vector for the crazy ant’s spread around the country. If measures to stop 

spread were implemented within an area of incursion, freight companies and nurseries would be affected. Also people 

moving rubbish etc. 

E1.6 Control measures 

This section is largely based on the review of baiting by Stanley 2004. 

Crazy ants are difficult to control, with commercially available baits showing limited effectiveness (Hedges 1996a; Hedges 

1996b; Mampe 1997; Summerlin et al. 1998; Lee 2002; wwwnew51). The ant often nests some distance from its 

foraging area; nests can be in cracks in concrete often making them difficult to locate and control. 

Bait matrix (attractant + carrier): Experiments using food attractants found 80% of P. longicornis preferred honey over 

peanut butter (Lee 2002). Lee and Kooi (2004) report that baiting is seldom effective, particularly with paste and granular 

formulations, against P. longicornis in Singapore and Malaysia; however, they recommend sugar-based, liquid or gel 

formulations for control of P. longicornis (Lee 2002). Tuna (in oil) baits used in Biosphere 2 (in which P. longicornis was 

the dominant ant) were consistently more attractive to P. longicornis than the pecan cookie baits (carbohydrate) put out at 

the same time (Wetterer et al. 1999; J. Wetterer, pers. comm.). Few P. longicornis were attracted to oil baits in Hawaii 

(Cornelius et al. 1996), and in New Zealand, foragers preferred sweet baits over protein baits during P. longicornis incursions 

(T. Ashcroft, pers. comm.). 

P. longicornis is attracted to sugar but does not have strong preferences for different sugars, unlike Pheidole megacephala 

(Cornelius et al. 1996). Sugar-based baits (1-cm cotton dental roll soaked in 20% sucrose-water) consistently attracted 

Paratrechina spp. in a field trial in Arkansas (Zakharov & Thompson 1998). Peanut butter baits have been used in Hawaii 

to collect P. vaga and P. bourbonica (Gruner 2000). Sugar-based baits have controlled P. longicornis “pretty well” for 

homeowners in the San Antonio area, especially in the cooler winter months (wwwnew51). 

Toxicants and commercial baits: Hedges (1996b) reported P. longicornis would not feed for sufficient time on commercial 

baits to ensure effective control. Lee et al. (2003) found some evidence that Protect-B® (0.5% methoprene) baits and 

Combat Ant Killer® bait stations (1% hydramethylnon) are not effective against P. longicornis. 

Observations during incursions in New Zealand showed that P. longicornis recruits well to Xstinguish (T. Ashcroft, pers. 

comm.). However, no formal testing of the attractiveness or the efficacy of this bait against P. longicornis has been 

undertaken. Exterm-An-Ant® (8% Boric acid + 5.6% sodium borate) has also been used against P. longicornis in New 

Zealand and although attractive to foragers (V. van Dyk, pers. comm.) its ability to kill queens within the nest is unknown. 

Trials to compare the attractiveness of Xstinguish, and Exterm-An-Ant® with other potential options for management of 

P. longicornis are being conducted in Queensland for MAF (M. Stanley, pers. comm.). Paratrechina spp. present in New 

Zealand (2 undescribed Australian species) do forage on Xstinguish (Harris et al. 2002a). Bait attractiveness trials on 

Palmyra Atoll showed P. bourbonica preferred sugar water, with Xstinguish next preferred (Krushelnycky & Lester 2003). 

P. bourbonica ignored Maxforce® granules (silkworm pupae matrix) and was not observed carrying away Amdro® 

granules (soybean oil on corn grit) (Krushelnycky & Lester 2003). Protein baits (fish meal; minced meat and eggs) are 

used in baits to control P. fulva in Colombia (Zenner-Polania 1990; Anon. 1996). 

Arkansas field trials on the non-target effects of Solenopsis invicta control using Logic® (fenoxycarb) and Amdro® 

(hydramethylnon) found that Paratrechina ants were one of the few genera not to decrease in Amdro®-treated plots, and 

their abundance more than doubled in the Logic®-treated plots (Zakharov & Thompson 1998). The authors concluded 

that Paratrechina is therefore not susceptible to Logic® or Amdro®. However, this study is difficult to interpret because 

observations of ants foraging on baits were not carried out and changes in abundance could have been a result of changes 

in the abundance of competitors. 

26


E2. Indirect effects 

E2.1 Effects on domestic and export markets 

No effects on domestic or export markets have been recorded. However, if P. longicornis became established in New 

Zealand and transported to another country where they were absent, it could affect import health standards applied to 

New Zealand exports. However, with the very wide distribution of this ant most major international ports, particularly in 

tropical and subtropical zones, are likely to already have this ant established. 

E2.2 Environmental and other undesired effects of control measures 

There have been no documented cases of adverse non-target effects arising directly from the use of toxic baits to control P. 

longicornis. However, any bait used will likely be toxic to other invertebrates that eat it. Should Xstinguish baits be used 

for P. longicornis, extreme care will be needed near water as fipronil is highly toxic to fish and aquatic invertebrates 

(wwwnew81). There is no documented evidence of resistance of any ant to pesticides. 

27


(F) LIKELIHOOD AND CONSEQUENCES ANALYSIS 

F1. Estimate of the likelihood 

F1.1 Entry 

Paratrechina longicornis currently has a high risk of entry. 

This assessment is based on: 

• P. longicornis having been frequently intercepted at the New Zealand border (16 times between 1997 and 2002, 

and 47 times between 2003 and March 2004 during a period of full reporting of interceptions). 

• this species having the potential to stowaway in a wide range of freight as it commonly nests in disturbed habitat 

and in close association with goods that are often transported. 

• dispersal being by budding. Colonies being polygyne and highly mobile if disturbed. 

• all these characteristics promote the chances of queens with workers being transported.The species being widespread 

globally relative to other tramp ant species. 

• its distribution includes much of the Pacific — a high risk pathway for ants entering New Zealand. 

Data deficiencies 

• not all ants intercepted at the New Zealand border are reported or identified and it is likely that current interception 

records underestimate entry of this species (as evident by the dramatic increase in interception reports in 2003). It is 

also not always clear from interception data if castes other than workers were intercepted. 

F1.2 Establishment 

Paratrechina longicornis currently has a high risk of establishment. 


• there being suitable habitat for nesting close to sites of arrival or devanning (container unloading). 

• the ant having the capacity to establish nests in warm microclimates in urban areas in the northern part of the 

North Island and in close association with heated buildings elsewhere in New Zealand. 

• the discovery of several persistent incursions of this species at Auckland and Mt Maunganui in 2003—2004, 

indicating the ability to establish beachhead populations. 

• the ant having a history of establishment within urban areas in countries with temperate climates, although in 

some cases, e.g., California, establishment is not thought to be permanent and there have been several 

reintroductions. 

• the low likelihood that the ant will encounter natural enemies, but a higher likelihood of competition from other 

adventive ants. 

• the presence of numerous pathways from New Zealand’s Pacific trading partners for budded colonies to arrive in 

New Zealand in a fit reproductive state. 

• surveillance targeted at other invasive ants (particularly Solenopsis invicta) is likely to detect this species, because 

they will find baits rapidly but will probably be displaced by other species (such as L. humile, and S. invicta). 

28



• there is very little experimental data on climate tolerances of P. longicornis. The climate assessment is based 

principally on consideration of climate from known sites of establishment of P. longicornis. Given the numerous 

interceptions, the frequency of recent incursions, and widespread distribution of this ant it is surprising that it is not 

already established. This may suggest that New Zealand conditions are not ideal. There is a lack of experimental data 

on survivorship and reproductive potential of P. longicornis at lower temperatures that mirror those of temperate 

climates. 

• there is need for a better data on the global distribution and associated localised environmental parameters of this 

ant. In particular follow-up on populations reported from temperate localities; are they still present, if so in habitats 

are they found, and what environmental conditions are they exposed to? 

• the ability of P. longicornis to establish at sites dominated by Linepithema humile is considered unlikely but is not 

experimentally proven. 

• there is no contingency plan for successful eradication of a large incursion of this species. 

F1.3 Spread 

Paratrechina longicornis has a medium risk of spread from a site of establishment. 


• areas of New Zealand considered climatically suitable for the ant to colonise are available, although likely to be 

limited to urban areas. 

• suitable habitat occurs in New Zealand. In temperate climates suitable habitat will primarily be urban, but some 

disturbed native habitat (costal dunes, intertidal areas, geothermal areas and perhaps coastal scrub), predominantly 

in the far north, could be colonised if climate predictions underestimate distribution. 

• the assumption that conditions enable colonies to grow large enough for budding to occur and that humanmediated 

dispersal would aid spread between urban centres. 

• colony development being relatively slow. Sub-optimal temperatures in New Zealand will probably restrict foraging 

and colony development and extend the time taken for newly established colonies to reach sufficient size to produce 

reproductives and undergo budding. 


• based on climate comparisons with the non-urban global distribution, northern New Zealand’s climate is considered 

too cold for P. longicornis outside urban areas, but there is a lack of experimental data on developmental rates in 

relation to temperature to back up this assumption. 

• there is a lack of experimental data on the colony status (size and abiotic cues) that promotes budding in polygyne 

species. 

F1.4. Consequences 

The consequences of the presence of P. longicornis in New Zealand are considered low. 


• there being no medical consequences of establishment as the ant does not sting or spray formic acid. 

• the ant being only a minor nuisance pest both indoors and around domestic dwellings in limited locations, and 

29


probably an occasional pest in commercial premises through product contamination. Occasionally, in ideal conditions 

it may become a greater nuisance. Some pest control would probably be initiated where the ant was abundant but it is 

unclear if levels of control currently undertaken for other pests would increase significantly. 

• economic consequences being considered minor compared to those of L. humile, together with the probable 

overlap in suitable habitat for the two species in urban areas. 

• the low likelihood of environmental consequences even if the ant does establish in native habitats. In optimal 

climates this species is not ecologically dominant. Detrimental impacts have only been demonstrated in artificial 

(glasshouse) environments. 


• there are no impact studies specifically focussing on this species in natural environments. 

• although predicted to establish, the extent of its likely distribution and its population densities in urban areas are 

unknown. There are no quantitative studies of its abundance and/or distribution in temperate cities, but also no 

reports of its being abundant or a significant pest in such environments. 

F2. Summary table 

Ant species: Paratrechina longicornis 

Category Overall risk 

Likelihood of entry High Frequent interception. Medium - high 

Many potential pathways. 

Likelihood of establishment High Urban habitats suitable. 

Recent history of incursions. 

Likelihood of spread Medium Human assisted. 

Predominantly urban areas. 

Consequence Low Restricted distribution. 

Minor impacts. 

A detailed assessment of the Kermadec Islands is beyond the scope of this assessment. 

30


(G) References 

(NB: a copy of all web page references is held by Landcare Research (M. Stanley) should links change) 

Andersen, A.N. 1992: The rainforest ant fauna of the northern Kimberley region of Western Australia (Hymenoptera: 

Formicidae). Journal of the Australian Entomological Society 31: 187–192. 

Andersen, A.N. 1993: Ants as indicators of restoration success at a uranium mine in tropical Australia. Restoration 

Ecology 1: 156–167. 

Andersen, A.N. 2000: Ants of northern Australia: a guide to the monsoonal fauna. Melbourne, CSIRO Publishing. 106 p. 

Andersen, A.N.; Reichel, H. 1994: The ant (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) fauna of Holmes Jungle, a rainforest patch in the 

seasonal tropics of Australia’s Northern Territory. Journal of the Australian Entomological Society 33: 153–158. 

Anon. 1996: Varietal Programme: Entomology sucking insects. Control of the crazy ant, Paratrechina fulva. Carta Trimestral. 

CENICANA, Centro de Investigacion de la Cana de Azucar de Colombia 18(2): 6–8. 

Anon. 2004: Crazy ant (Paratrechina longicornis): economic impact assessment. Unpublished report. Wellington, Ministry 

of Agriculture and Forestry. 7 p. 

Banks, W.A.; Williams, D.F. 1989: Competitive displacement of Paratrechina longicornis Latreille (Hymenoptera 

Formicidae) from baits by fire ants in Mato Grosso, Brazil. Journal of Entomological Science 24: 381–391. 

Bharti, M.; Singh, D. 2003: Insect faunal succession on decaying rabbit carcasses in Punjab, India. Journal of Forensic 

Science 48: 1–11. 

Callcott, A.A.; Collins, H.L. 1996: Invasion and range expansion of imported fire ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in North 

America from 1918–1995. Florida Entomologist 79: 240–251. 

Cerda, X.; Retana, J.; Manzaneda, A. 1998: The role of competition by dominants and temperature in the foraging of 

subordinate species in Mediterranean ant communities. Oecologia 117: 404–412. 

Chang, V.C.S.; Ota, A.K. 1976: Fire ant damage to polyethylene tubing used in drip irrigation systems. Journal of Economic 

Entomology 69: 447–450. 

Changnon, S.A. 1999: A rare long record of deep soil temperatures defines temporal temperature changes and an urban 

heat island. Climatic Change 42: 531–538. 

Chen, Y.; Hansen, L.D.; Brown, J.J. 2002: Nesting sites of the carpenter ant, Camponotus vicinus (Mayr) (Hymenoptera: 

Formicidae) in Northern Idaho. Environmental Entomology 31: 1037–1042. 

Clark, D.B.; Guayasamín, C.; Pazmiño, O.; Donoso, C.; Páez de Villacís, Y. 1982: The tramp ant Wasmannia auropunctata: 

Autecology and effects on ant diversity and distribution on Santa Cruz Island, Galapagos. Biotropica 14: 196–207. 

Clark, J. 1941 Notes on the Argentine ant and other exotic ants introduced into Australia. Memoirs of the National Museum 

of Victoria 12: 59–70. 

Clouse, R. 1999: Leaf-litter inhabitants of a Brazilian pepper stand in Everglades National Park. Florida Entomologist 82: 

388–403. 

Cole, F.R.; Medeiros, A.C.; Loope, L.L.; Zuehlke, W.W. 1992: Effects of the Argentine ant on arthropod fauna of Hawaiian 

high-elevation shrubland. Ecology 73: 1313–1322. 

Collingwood, C.A. 1978: A provisional list of Iberian Formicidae with a key to the worker caste. Eos 52: 65–95. 

Collingwood, C.A.; Agosti, D. 1996: Formicidae (Insecta: Hymenoptera) of Saudi Arabia (Part 2). Fauna of Saudi Arabia 

15: 300–385. 

31


Collingwood, C.A.; Tigar, B.J.; Agosti, D. 1997: Introduced ants in the United Arab Emirates. Journal of Arid Environments 

37: 505–512. 

Cornelius, M.L.; Grace, J.K.; Yates, J.R., III 1996: Acceptability of different sugars and oils to three tropical ant species 

(Hymen., Formicidae). Anzeiger fur Schadlingskunde, Pflanzenschutz Umweltschutz 69: 41–43. 

Creighton, W.S. 1950: The ants of North America. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology 104: 585 p. 

deBach, P.; Dietrick, E.J.; Fleschner, C.A. 1951: Ants and citrus pests. California Agriculture 5(7): 7, 14. 

Dejean, A.; Orivel, J.L.; Durand, J.L.; Ngnegueu, P.R.; Bourgoin, T.; Gibernau, M. 2000: Interference between ant species 

distribution in different habitats and the density of a maize pest. Sociobiology 35: 175–189. 

Delabie, J.H.C.; Nascimento, I.C. Do; Pacheco, P.; Casimiro, A.B. 1995: Community structure of house-infesting ants 

(Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in southern Bahia, Brazil. Florida Entomologist 78: 264–270. 

Deyrup, M; Davis, L.; Cover, S. 2000: Exotic ants in Florida. Transactions of the American Entomological Society 126: 

293–326. 

Espadaler, X.; Bernal, V. 2003: Exotic ants in the Canary Islands, Spain (Hymenoptera, Formicidae). Vieraea 31: 1–7. 

Farnsworth, E.J. 1993: Interactions between Cecropia peltata L. (Moraceae) and Paratrechina longicornis (Latrielle) 

(Formicidae) at a sinkhole in the Guanica dry forest, Puerto Rico. Caribbean Journal of Science 29: 124–125. 

Fowler, H.G.; Bueno, O.C.; Sadatsune, T.; Montelli, A.C. 1993: Ants as potential vectors of pathogens in hospitals in the 

state of Sao Paulo, Brazil. Insect Science and its Application 14: 367–370. 

Fowler, H.G.; Schlindwein, M.N.; Medeiros, M.A. 1994: Exotic ants and community simplification in Brazil: a review of the 

impact of exotic ants on native ant assemblages. In: Williams, D.F. ed. Exotic ants: biology, impact and control of introduced 

species. Boulder, Westview Press. Pp. 151–162. 

Francoeur, A. 1977: Synopsis taxonomique et economique des fourmis du Quebec (Formicidae: Hymenoptera). Annals of 

the Entomological Society of Quebec 22: 205–212. 

Freitag, A.; Dorn, K.; Cherix, D. 2000: First occurrence of the crazy ant Paratrechina longicornis (Latreille) (Hym. 

Formicidae: Formicinae) in Switzerland. Bulletin de la Societe Entomologique 73: 301–303. 

Gordon, D.M.; Moses, L.; Falkovitz-Halpern, M.; Wong, E.H. 2001: Effect of weather on infestation of buildings by the 

invasive Argentine ant, Linepithema humile (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). The American Midland Naturalist 146: 321–328. 

Gruner, D.S. 2000: Distribution of the little fire ant Wasmannia auropunctata (Roger) in Hawaii: a partnership of K-12 

schools, the University of Hawaii, and the Hawaii Department of Agriculture. Unpublished report (http://www.hawaii.edu/ 

gk-12/evolution/Ant_Report00.pdf). (Accessed 22/10/2004). 

Harris, R.J.; Rees, J.S.; Toft, R.J. 2002a: Trials to eradicate infestations of the Argentine ant, Linepithema humile, (Hymenoptera: 

Formicidae) in New Zealand. In: Jones, S.C.; Zhai, J.; Robinson, W.H. eds The Fourth International Conference 

on Urban Pests. Virginia, USA, Pocahontas Press. Pp. 67–74. 

Harris, R; Ward, D. Sutherland, M. A. 2002b: A survey of the current distribution of Argentine ants, Linepithema humile, in 

native habitats in New Zealand, and assessment. Unpublished Landcare Research Contract Report: LC0102/105 to 

Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Biosecurity Authority. Nelson, Landcare Research. 

Hedges, S.A. 1996a: The great bait debate. Pest Control Technology 24: 32–101. 

Hedges, S.A. 1996b: Identical cousins. Pest Control Technology 24: 40–101. 

Holldobler, B.; Wilson, E.O. 1990: The ants. Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press. 732 p. 

Holway, D.A. 1998: Factors governing rate of invasion: a natural experiment using Argentine ants. Oecologia 115: 206– 

212. 

32


Holway, D.A.; Lach, L.; Suarez, A.V.; Tsutsui, N.D.; Case, T.J. 2002a: The causes and consequences of ant invasions. 

Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 33: 181–233. 

Holway, D.A.; Suarez, A.V.; Case, T.J. 2002b: Role of abiotic factors in governing susceptibility to invasion: a test with 

Argentine ants. Ecology 83: 1610–1619. 

Human, K.G.; Gordon, D.M. 1996: Exploitation and interference competition between the invasive Argentine ant, 

Linepithema humile, and native ant species. Oecologia 105: 405–412. 

Hung, A.C.F.; Vinson, S.B. 1978: Factors affecting the distribution of fire ants in Texas (Myrmicinae: Formicidae). The 

Southwestern Naturalist 23: 205–214. 

Jaffe, K. 1993: Surfing ants. Florida Entomologist 76: 182–183. 

Jaffe, K.; Mauleon, H.; Kermarrec, A. 1990: Predatory ants of Diaprepes abbreviatus (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) in citrus 

groves in Martinique and Guadeloupe, F.W.I. Florida Entomologist 73: 684–687. 

Kennedy, T.A. 1998: Patterns of an invasion by Argentine ants (Linepithema humile) in a riparian corridor and its effects on 

ant diversity. American Midland Naturalist 140: 343–350. 

Klotz, J.H.; Mangold, J.R.; Vail, K.M.; Davis, L.R. Jr; Patterson, R.S. 1995: A survey of the urban pest ants (Hymenoptera: 

Formicidae) of Peninsular Florida. Florida Entomologist 78: 109–118. 

Korzukhin, M.D.; Porter, S.D.; Thompson, L.C.; Wiley, S. 2001: Modelling temperature-dependent range limits for the fire 

ant Solenopsis invicta (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in the United States. Environmental Entomology 30: 645–655. 

Krushelnycky, P.D.; Lester, P. 2003: Report on observations pertaining to ants and parasitic Hymenoptera, Palmyra Atoll, 

November 18–24, 2003. Unpublished Report to US Fish & Wildlife Service. 10 p. 

Leathwick, J.; Wilson, G.; Rutledge, D.; Wardle, P.; Morgan, F.; Johnston, K.; McLeod, M.; Kirkpatrick, R. 2003: Land 

Environments of New Zealand. Auckland, David Bateman Ltd. 183 p. 

Lee, C.Y. 2002: Tropical household ants: pest status, species diversity, foraging behaviour, and baiting studies. In: Jones, 

S.C.; Zhai, J.; Robinson, W.H. eds Proceedings of the 4th international conference on Urban Pests. Virginia, Pocahontas 

Press. Pp. 3–18. 

Lee, C.Y.; Kooi, T.E. 2004: Guide to urban pest ants of Singapore. Singapore, SPMA for Pest Management Professionals. 

40 p. 

Lee, C.Y.; Lee, L.C.; Na, J.P.S.; Loke, P.Y.; Lim, K.T.; Teo, E.H.H. 2003: Evaluation of methoprene granular baits against 

foraging pharoah ants, Monomorium pharaonis (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Sociobiology 41: 717–723. 

Lester, P.J.; Tavite, A. 2004: Long-legged ants (Anoplolepis gracilipes) have invaded Tokelau, changing the composition 

and dynamics of ant and invertebrate communities. Pacific Science 58: 391–401. 

Levins, R.; Pressick, M.L.; Heatwole, H. 1973: Coexistence patterns in insular ants. Am. Sci. 61: 463–72. 

Lim, S.; Chong, A.S.; Lee, C. 2003: Nestmate recognition and intercolonial aggression in the crazy ant, Paratrechina 

longicornis (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Sociobiology 41: 295–305. 

Macarthur, R.H.; Wilson, E.O. 1967: The theory of island biogeography. Princeton, Princeton Univ. Press. 

Mampe, C.D. 1997: Crazy ant baiting may drive you nuts. Pest Control 65(5): 8. 

Michaud, J.P.; Browning, H.W. 1999: Seasonal abundance of the brown citrus aphid, Toxoptera citricida, (Homoptera: 

Aphididae) and its natural enemies in Puerto Rico. Florida Entomologist 82: 424–447. 

Meier, R.E. 1994: Coexisting patterns and foraging behavior of introduced and native ants (Hymenoptera Formicidae) in 

the Galapagos Islands (Ecuador). In: Williams, D.F. ed. Exotic ants: biology, impact, and control of introduced species. 

Boulder, Westview Press. Pp. 44–62. 

33


Miller, S.E. 1994: Dispersal of plant pests into the Virgin Islands. Florida Entomologist 77: 520–521. 

Morrison, L.W. 1996: Community organization in a recently assembled fauna: the case of Polynesian ants. Oecologia 107: 

243–56. 

Naumann, K. 1994: An occurrence of two exotic ant (Formicidae) species in British Columbia. Journal of the Entomological 

Society of British Columbia 91: 69–70. 

Ness, J.H.; Bronstein, J.L. 2004: The effects of invasive ants on prospective ant mutualists. Biological Invasions 6: 445– 

461. 

Naumann, I. 1993: Handbook of Australian insect names. Melbourne, CSIRO. 

Ormsby, M. 2003: Pest risk analysis: ants on sawn timber imported from the South Pacific Region. Unpublished MAF 

Biosecurity Authority internal report. Wellington, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. 

Passera, L. 1994: Characteristics of tramp species. In: Williams D.F. ed. Exotic ants: biology, impact, and control of 

introduced species. Boulder, Westview Press. Pp. 23–43. 

Pimentel, D. 1955: Relationship of ants to fly control in Puerto Rico. Journal of economic entomology 48: 28–30. 

Porter, S.D.; Van Eimeren, B.; Gilbert, L.E. 1988: Invasion of red imported fire ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae): 

microgeography of competitive replacement. Annals of the Entomological Society of America 81: 913–918. 

Porter, S.D.; Fowler, H.G.; Campiolo, S.; Pesquero, M.A. 1995: Host specificity of several Pseudacteon (Diptera: Phoridae) 

parasites of fire ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in South America. Florida Entomologist 78: 70–75. 

Rawat, R.R.; Modi, B.N. 1969: Biology and natural enemies of the brinjal mealy-bug, Centrococcus isolitus (Green) in 

Madhya Pradesh. Indian Journal of Agricultural Science 39: 112–116. 

Reimer, N.J. 1994: Distribution and impact of alien ants in vulnerable Hawaiian ecosystems. In: Williams, D.F. ed. Exotic 

ants: biology, impact, and control of introduced species. Boulder, Westview Press. Pp. 11–22. 

Samways, M.J.; Osborn, R.; Carliel, F. 1997: Effect of a highway on ant (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) species composition 

and abundance, with a recommendation for roadside verge width. Biodiversity and Conservation 6: 903–913. 

Santana-Reis, V.P.G.; Santos, G.M.M. 2001: Influência Da Estrutura Do Habitat Em Comunidades De Formigas (Hymenoptera 

- Formicidae) Em Feira De Santana, Bahia, Brasil. Sitientibus Série Ciências Biológicas 1: 66–70. [Influence 

of the habitat structure on ant community (Hymenoptera - Formicidae) in Feira de Santana, Bahia, Brazil)]. 

Scharf, M.E.; Ratliff, C.R.; Bennett, G.W. 2004: Impacts of residual insecticide barriers on perimeter-invading ants, with 

particular reference to the odorous house ant, Tapinoma sessile. Journal of Economic Entomology 97: 601–605. 

Smith, M.R. 1965: House-infesting ants of the eastern United States. Washington, U.S. Dept Agriculture Tech. Bull. 

No.1326. 105 p. 

Snelling, R.R. 1975: Descriptions of new Chilean ant taxa (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Natural History Museum of Los 

Angeles County Contributions in Science 274: 1–19. 

Stanley, M.C. 2004: Review of the efficacy of baits used for ant control and eradication. Unpublished Landcare Research 

Contract Report: LC0405/044 to Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. Auckland, Landcare Research. 74 p. 

Suarez, A.V.; Holway, D.A.; Case, T.J. 2001: Patterns of spread in biological invasions dominated by long-distance jump 

dispersal: Insights from Argentine ants. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 

98: 1095–1100. 

Summerlin, B.; Gould, R. J.; Howell, H.; Cook, J. 1998: Laboratory and field evaluation of granular ant baits and the 

attractiveness of liquid ant bait, 1996. Arthropod Management Tests 23: 363–364. 

Thompson, C.R. 1990: Ants that have pest status in the United States. In: Vander Meer, R.K.; Jaffe, K.; Cedeno, A. eds 

34


Applied myrmecology: a world perspective. Boulder, Westview Press. Pp. 51–67. 

Torres, J.A. 1984: Niches and coexistence of ant communities in Puerto Rico: repeated patterns. Biotropica 16: 284–95 

Trager, J. 1984: A revision of the genus Paratrechina (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) of the continental United States. 

Sociobiology 9: 51–162. 

Van Schagen, J.J.; Davis, P.R.; Widmer, M.A. 1993: Ant pests of Western Australia, with particular reference to the Argentine 

ant (Linepithema humile). In: Williams, D.F. ed.: Exotic ants: biology, impact, and control of introduced species. 

Boulder, Westview Press. Pp. 174–180. 

Vega, S.J.; Rust, M.K. 2001: The Argentine ant: A significant invasive species in agricultural, urban and natural environments. 

Sociobiology 37: 3–25. 

Von-Aesch, L.; Cherix, D. 2003: Tramp ants of Galápagos; recent evolution of populations on Floreana Island. Colloque 

annuel Section Française de Union Internationale pour l’étude des Insectes Sociaux, Bruxelles, 1–3 Septembre 

2003.http://www.univ-tours.fr/desco/UIEIS/Colloques/Bruxelles%202003/Actes-pdf/VonAesch.pdf (accessed 22/ 

10/2004). 

Ward, D.F.; Harris, R.J. (in prep.): Invasibility of native habitats by Argentine Ants, Linepithema humile, in New Zealand. 

Ward, P.S. 1987: Distribution of the introduced Argentine ant (Iridomyrmex humilis) in natural habitats of the lower 

Sacramento valley and its effects on the indigenous ant fauna. Hilgardia 55: 1–16. 

Way, M.J.; Cammell, M.E.; Paiva, M.R.; Collingwood, C.A. 1997: Distribution and dynamics of the Argentine ant 

Linepithema (Iridomyrmex) humile (Mayr) in relation to vegetation, soil conditions, topography and native competitor ants 

in Portugal. Insectes Sociaux 44: 415–433. 

Way, M.J.; Cammell, M.E.; Bolton, B.; Kanagaratnam, P. 1989: Ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) as egg predators of 

coconut pests, especially in relation to biological control of the coconut caterpillar, Opisina arenosella Walker (Lepidoptera: 

Xyloryctidae), in Sri Lanka. Bulletin of Entomological Research 79: 219–233. 

Way, M.J.; Islam, Z.; Heong, K.L.; Joshi, R.C. 1998: Ants in tropical irrigated rice: distribution and abundance, especially of 

Solenopsis geminata (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Bulletin of Entomological Research 88: 467–476. 

Weber, N.A. 1940: Ants on a Nile River steamer. Ecology 21: 292–293. 

Wetterer, J.K. 1998: Nonindigenous ants associated with geothermal and human disturbances in Hawai’i Volcanoes 

National Park. Pacific Science 52: 40–50. 

Wetterer, J.K.; Miller, S.E.; Wheeler, D.E.; Olson, C.A.; Polhemus, D.A ; Pitts, M.; Ashton I.W.; Himler, A.G.; Yospin, M.M.; 

Helms, K.R.; Harken, E.L.; Gallaher, J.; Dunning, C.E.; Nelson, M.; Litsinger, J.; Southern, A.; Burgess, T. 1999: Ecological 

dominance by Paratrechina longicornis (Hymenoptera: Formicidae), an invasive tramp ant, in biosphere 2. Florida 

Entomologist 82: 381–388. 

Wetterer, J.K.; O’Hara, B.C. 2002: Ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) of the Dry Tortugas, the outermost Florida Keys. 

Florida Entomologist 85: 303–307. 

Whitcomb, W.H.; Denmark, H.A.; Buren, W.F.; Carroll, J.F. 1972: Habits and present distribution in Florida of the exotic ant, 

Pseudomyrmex mexicanus (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Florida Entomologist 55: 31–33. 

Wilson, E.O.; Taylor, R.W. 1967: The ants of Polynesia (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Pacific Insects Monograph 14: 1–109. 

Wojcik, D.P. 1994: Impact of the red imported fire ant on native ant species in Florida. In: Williams D.F. ed. Exotic ants: 

biology, impact, and control of introduced species. Boulder, Westview Press. Pp. 269–281. 

www36: http://www.ento.csiro.au/science/ants/ [Australian ants online] (accessed 1/03/2005). 

www39: http://ant.edb.miyakyo-u.ac.jp/E/index.html [Japanese ant image database] (accessed 1/03/2005). 

35


www47 http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/scripts/htmlgen.exe?DOCUMENT_IN018 [Florida pest ants] (accessed 17/12/2004). 

wwwnew09: http://www.myrmecos.net/anttaxa.html [ant images] (accessed 29/10/2004). 

wwwnew47: http://flrec.ifas.ufl.edu/entomo/ants/Pest%20Ants%20of%20FL/crazy_ants.htm [crazy ant information 

sheet from Florida] (accessed 12/12/2004). 

wwwnew49: http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/IN299 [crazy ant information sheet from Florida] (accessed 17/12/2004). 

wwwnew51: http://bexar-tx.tamu.edu/IPM/Household/F1/homeantbait.htm [Ant control information sheet from 

Texas](accessed 21/12/2004). 

wwwnew81: http://www.beekeeping.com/intoxications/fipronil_en.htm [Fipronil] (accessed 31/05/2005). 

wwwnew83: http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz/research/biosecurity/stowaways/Ants/antsinnewzealand.asp [New 

Zealand ants] (assessed 8/06/2005). 

Zhakharov, A.A.; Thompson, L.C. 1998: Effects of repeated use of fenoxycarb and hydramethylnon baits on nontarget 

ants. Journal of Entomological Science 33: 212–220. 

Zenner- Polania, I. 1990. Management of the “hormiga loca”, Paratrechina (Nylanderia) fulva (Mayr), in Colombia. In: 

Vander Meer, R.K.; Jaffe, K.; Cedeno, A. eds Applied myrmecology: a world perspective. Boulder, Westview Press. Pp. 701– 

707. 

(H) Personal communications 

Abbott, K., Victoria University, Wellington, New Zealand. Kirsti.Abbott@vuw.ac.nz 

Ashcroft, T., Auckland, New Zealand. 

Harris, R., Perth, Australia. r3plust@westnet.com.au 

Lester, P., Victoria University, Wellington, New Zealand. Phil.Lester@vuw.ac.nz 

Stanley, M., Landcare Research, Auckland, New Zealand. stanleym@landcareresearch.co.nz 

Toft, R., Landcare Research, Auckland, New Zealand. toftr@landcareresearch.co.nz 

van Dyk, V., Auckland, New Zealand. viv@baittechnology.co.nz 

Wetterer, J., Florida Atlantic University, Florida, USA. wetterer@fau.edu 

Wild, A., University of California, Davis, USA. alexwild@myrmecos.net 

(I) Acknowledgements 

Thanks to Anne Sutherland for assistance with GIS maps, Jo Rees for help obtaining references, Jo Berry for compiling the 

taxonomic section, Phil Lester, Peter McGregor and Phil Cowan for reviewing text, and Kerry Barton for assistance with 

formatting. 

36


(J) Appendices 

Appendix 1: Freight summary 

Table a. Summary of sea freight coming to New Zealand from localities within 100 km of known sites with P. longicornis. Values represent the total freight (tonnes) during 2001, 

2002 and 2003 (source: Statistics New Zealand). Total freight is broken into different commodity types. NB: New Zealand received some freight from all locations listed, but if 

total freight is below 500 kg it is listed as 0 tonnes. Details of the freight types that comprise each category are given (c) as are the categories (HS2 Chapters) used to classify 

incoming freight in the Statistics New Zealand database (d). 

Country Port of export Total freight Appliances Fibres Bulk Foodstuffs Furniture Furs Glass Metals Produce Wood Other 

American Samoa Pago Pago 18772 929 3 21 5 0 0 0 17796 0 0 17 

Australia Adelaide, SA 331071 39124 412 137503 123093 2031 106 5368 11616 895 9576 1349 

Australia Brisbane, QL 1241885 55439 5267 382987 440174 7092 489 112104 128971 18011 61131 30221 

Australia Cairns, QL 117546 0 0 0 68684 0 0 0 0 0 0 48862 

Australia Darwin, NT 1035 134 9 463 142 3 0 1 109 0 16 158 

Australia Fremantle, WA 989264 7243 338 873646 13793 2055 563 54063 25388 2 8948 3226 

Australia Geraldton, WA 66215 0 0 0 66215 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Australia Kwinana, WA 492392 0 0 492392 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Australia Perth, WA 3980 592 31 248 225 77 1 511 429 0 1760 106 

Australia Port Adelaide, SA 175 35 0 0 20 0 0 0 72 26 16 6 

Australia Port Stanvac, SA 312369 0 0 311863 0 0 0 0 506 0 0 0 

Australia Port Stanvac, SA 312369 0 0 311863 0 0 0 0 506 0 0 0 

Bahrain Bahrain 4688 0 1 0 15 0 0 0 4672 0 0 0 

Barbados Bridgetown 306 2 0 0 298 0 0 2 0 0 0 3 

Brazil Belem, PA 756 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 172 570 0 

Brazil Brasilia, DF 167 59 0 0 0 0 0 20 88 0 0 0 

Brazil Campinas, SP 20 3 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Brazil Rio de Janeiro, RJ 4494 327 3 13 1910 5 0 433 1200 17 108 478 

Brazil Salvador, BA 633 1 1 0 388 0 0 3 113 0 0 128 

Brazil Santarem, PA 57 1 0 0 31 0 0 0 0 0 26 0 

Brazil Santos, SP 27326 2875 40 33 16008 4 60 1927 1742 78 1541 3018 

Brazil Viracopos Apt/Sao Paulo, SP 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 

Brunei Darussalam Bandar Seri Begawan 133354 0 0 133334 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 

Brunei Darussalam Muara 21 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Canada Chemainus, BC 2548 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2548 0 

Canada Crofton, BC 934 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 934 0 

Canada New Westminster, BC 26959 1948 42 122 2957 39 20 137 2082 74 19402 133 

Canada Oakville, ON 42 0 0 0 35 0 0 6 1 0 0 0 

37



Canada Quebec Apt, QC 56 4 0 0 0 9 0 13 30 0 0 0 

Canada Quebec, QC 198 40 5 63 6 0 0 0 68 0 13 2 

Canada Toronto Apt, ON 2088 355 6 62 985 28 0 5 603 0 4 40 

Canada Toronto, ON 18010 1710 21 485 2332 186 0 304 1390 10950 73 559 

Canada Vancouver Apt, BC 38307 541 93 8001 28164 64 0 176 402 24 732 110 

Canada Vancouver, BC 1401880 4736 558 1302629 73541 420 2 1599 8462 3738 5659 537 

Canada Victoria Apt, BC 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Canada Victoria, BC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

China Chiwan 2957 202 65 1851 189 155 5 31 281 71 40 67 

China Guangzhou (Canton) 68269 1634 549 56342 1526 1013 121 2916 2129 94 399 1545 

China Huangpu 38933 2482 1098 15217 4050 2892 146 4452 3498 201 1850 3047 

China Quanzhou 2102 228 64 468 244 13 11 336 279 112 205 142 

China Shekou 2012 87 30 106 170 149 5 889 314 35 104 124 

China Shenzhen 3347 288 53 105 108 392 51 1913 254 0 55 127 

China Xiamen 43808 1826 3612 6814 1378 3500 1531 5986 11934 363 342 6521 

China Yantian 13267 3561 167 95 103 3887 183 1961 1922 6 321 1062 

China (Hong Kong) Hong Kong SAR 455059 64385 33371 154811 27265 32065 5596 27075 60995 3831 9946 35718 

China (Hong Kong) Kowloon 188 10 20 0 0 42 30 1 36 0 37 14 

China (Macau) Macau 26 6 12 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 4 

Christmas Island Christmas Island 31500 0 0 31500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Colombia Barranquilla 294 0 0 0 102 0 0 0 0 0 0 192 

Colombia Buenaventura 1922 0 0 0 1800 3 0 55 64 0 0 0 

Colombia Cartagena 847 77 56 21 128 0 0 47 24 491 3 0 

Cook Islands Aitutaki 93 67 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 22 0 1 

Costa Rica San Jose 120 0 0 0 52 0 0 0 0 69 0 0 

Dominica Portsmouth 976 913 0 0 25 4 0 0 31 0 1 0 

Dominican Republic Santo Domingo 74 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 52 0 0 0 

Ecuador Guayaquil 166503 0 6 0 2515 0 0 1 0 163973 7 1 

Egypt Cairo (El Qahira) 222 0 222 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Egypt Damietta 27720 89 71 22108 1258 68 0 844 715 2337 95 134 

Egypt Port Said 556 8 3 0 535 0 0 0 7 3 0 0 

El Salvador San Salvador 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 2 0 0 

Fiji Lautoka 13455 574 219 0 7892 160 4 1 817 1570 1296 921 

Fiji Nadi 839 4 2 0 16 0 0 0 14 774 0 28 

Fiji Savusavu 66 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 0 

Fiji Suva 40544 940 464 83 8512 290 3 82 2211 18069 9328 562 

France Melun 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

France Paris 1874 617 22 52 270 15 1 136 446 3 125 186 

France Paris-Charles De Gaulle Apt 346 74 4 2 19 33 0 171 24 0 1 17 

French Polynesia Papeete 5364 321 1 6 4530 9 0 0 463 11 1 21 

Ghana Tema 119 0 1 0 51 10 0 0 0 0 57 1 

Gibraltar Gibraltar 33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 0 0 0 

Greece Thessaloniki 7250 1 35 5656 1131 0 0 102 60 55 0 210 

Greece Volos 35 0 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

38



Guyana Georgetown 2598 0 0 21 0 0 0 0 2004 0 573 0 

India Banddar 98 0 12 0 37 2 0 11 25 0 0 11 

India Bangalore 1599 7 16 104 802 38 0 256 181 58 62 75 

India Bombay (Mumbai) 31975 890 3753 6603 5258 744 191 4196 5475 1469 401 2994 

India Calcutta 13477 28 2441 423 118 2 75 522 9724 35 1 107 

India Cochin 4549 100 806 689 1636 7 0 163 218 656 205 69 

India Delhi 4704 303 699 352 520 248 95 704 1148 81 61 494 

India Haldia 4588 67 117 843 0 0 0 47 3497 0 2 13 

India Ranchi 27 1 5 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Indonesia Bandung, Java 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 

Indonesia Benoa, Bali 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 

Indonesia Denpasar, Bali 34971 0 0 34660 55 13 0 4 12 0 225 1 

Indonesia Jakarta, Java 627407 7678 6649 482350 25252 2467 74 21925 45631 26 28056 7300 

Indonesia Semarang, Java 36975 80 921 30220 1 3453 4 796 72 5 1411 12 

Israel Ashdod 32747 269 35 31300 333 13 0 0 369 0 1 426 

Israel Haifa 9932 506 1547 1542 504 310 1 14 4315 5 27 1162 

Israel Tel Aviv 311 17 154 65 0 11 0 1 63 0 0 0 

Jamaica Kingston 2084 0 6 0 2016 0 0 0 0 23 38 0 

Japan Chiba, Chiba 30452 1882 0 28570 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Japan Fukuoka, Fukuoka 524 516 0 0 4 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 

Japan Funabashi, Chiba 65477 65466 0 0 0 1 0 1 9 0 0 0 

Japan Hakata, Fukuoka 16258 8240 9 38 32 0 0 0 7913 21 1 5 

Japan Haneda Apt/Tokyo 44 17 0 0 19 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 

Japan Ikejima, Nagasaki 32 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 

Japan Kumamoto, Kumamoto 35 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Japan Miike, Fukuoka 71 44 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 0 0 0 

Japan Nagasaki, Nagasaki 1147 1142 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 

Japan Naha, Okinawa 53 44 1 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 

Japan Okinawa, Okinawa 31 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 

Japan Tokyo, Tokyo 106422 21527 233 46367 3553 373 3 394 29479 71 1513 2909 

Japan Yatsushiro, Kumamoto 8 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 

Japan Yokohama, Kanagawa 410100 256656 358 7301 9200 196 5 762 100878 173 18235 16335 

Jordan Amman 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 

Kenya Nairobi Apt 38 4 1 0 0 6 0 0 1 0 0 26 

Lebanon Beirut 177 22 0 0 144 0 0 0 2 3 2 4 

Malaysia Bagan Luar (Butterworth) 299 0 0 0 279 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 

Malaysia Pasir Gudang, Johor 120238 2267 180 177 92311 3555 5 10597 7282 5 2952 908 

Malaysia Penang (Georgetown) 30233 1752 748 258 7349 2379 1 623 10781 3 4846 1493 

Malaysia Prai 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 13 0 

Malaysia Sipitang, Sabah 7 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Malaysia Tanjong Pelepas 270508 16335 5042 105266 26303 5137 420 37261 38394 3643 24398 8308 

Malta Malta (Valetta) 29 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 18 

Mauritius Port Louis 1257 67 12 0 788 7 0 0 361 0 2 19 

Mexico Mazatlan, SIN 15 0 0 0 0 9 0 6 0 0 0 0 

39



Mexico Tampico, TAM 202 14 0 21 32 2 0 26 108 0 0 0 

Mexico Veracruz, VER 498 296 14 82 19 0 0 2 86 0 0 0 

Morocco Casablanca 930083 0 1 930050 26 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 

Nepal Kathmandu 4 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 

New Caledonia Noumea 812 262 1 12 31 0 1 0 58 411 3 35 

Nicaragua Managua 39 0 0 0 39 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Nigeria Apapa 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 

Nigeria Lagos 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 0 0 

Niue Niue Island 606 9 0 0 42 5 0 0 5 544 0 0 

Northern Mariana Islands Saipan 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Oman Min-al-Fahal 862459 0 0 862459 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Oman Muscat 351 2 0 0 312 0 0 0 38 0 0 0 

Oman Port Qaboos 180 0 0 0 174 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 

Panama Balboa 167 4 3 0 19 0 0 0 45 45 8 42 

Panama Colon 544 37 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 494 0 0 

Panama Cristobal 162 117 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 23 0 1 

Panama Panama City 147 8 9 0 93 0 19 0 6 0 2 9 

Panama Puerto Armuelles 233 0 0 0 23 0 0 0 0 210 0 0 

Papua New Guinea Kimbe 7382 0 0 0 6897 0 0 0 0 0 485 0 

Papua New Guinea Madang 5396 72 0 0 1486 0 0 0 0 0 3829 9 

Papua New Guinea Manus Island Apt 78 16 0 53 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 

Papua New Guinea Port Moresby 7025 248 0 10 1208 1 0 0 79 0 5467 11 

Papua New Guinea Rabaul 1093 0 0 0 933 0 0 0 0 0 158 2 

Peru Callao 5904 2 15 585 4459 4 0 36 1 103 691 9 

Peru Lima 28195 0 2 28046 144 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 

Philippines Cagayan de Oro, Mindanao 138 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 138 0 0 

Philippines Cebu 1675 0 34 0 938 263 10 369 3 5 20 32 

Philippines Manila 25224 924 1401 719 9993 666 37 295 6839 2947 451 951 

Phillipines Zamboanga, Mindanao 816 0 0 0 816 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Portugal Porto Santo 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Puerto Rico Ponce 703 0 0 0 699 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 

Puerto Rico San Juan 167 0 0 0 159 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 

Reunion St Denis de La Reunion 90 37 0 0 21 0 0 0 32 0 0 0 

Samoa Apia 6594 411 14 1 3275 1 0 0 666 2166 38 23 

Saudi Arabia Damman 45126 102 1063 28140 82 0 0 20 15628 17 0 74 

Saudi Arabia Dhahran 26483 0 0 26419 0 0 0 0 64 0 0 0 

Saudi Arabia Jeddah 557670 56 2517 537416 1366 0 0 9228 7067 0 0 19 

Saudi Arabia Ras Tanura 539060 0 0 539060 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Singapore Jurong 46 44 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 

Singapore Singapore 1204093 60294 16705 641019 76567 9858 583 47443 257167 7200 44352 42903 

Singapore Singapore Container Terminal 95555 8284 4242 10745 11364 1671 70 7422 37763 1991 6455 5547 

Solomon Islands Honiara, Guadalcanal Island 3205 83 1 63 471 0 0 0 0 312 2225 49 

Solomon Islands Noro, New Georgia 226 0 0 0 127 0 0 0 0 0 1 98 

40



South Africa Durban 59503 3535 1071 7339 8560 241 4 1567 12990 234 13539 10423 

Sri Lanka Colombo 11891 38 1241 218 5417 18 0 1266 2149 717 479 348 

Switzerland Zurich 409 220 12 3 0 4 0 10 127 0 1 33 

Syria Damascus (Damas) 24 0 0 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Taiwan Kaohsiung 143597 3742 1284 71543 1982 3691 33 2467 52419 105 1946 4385 

Taiwan Keelung (Chilung) 117117 12861 17064 11309 3466 4087 130 2815 57590 32 801 6959 

Taiwan Suao 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Taiwan Taipei 23820 1867 499 10496 211 435 34 595 8960 1 92 630 

Taiwan Taitung 108 10 0 0 12 15 0 0 67 3 0 0 

Tanzania Dar es Salaam 4 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 

Tanzania Tanga 32 2 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Thailand Bangkok 463060 36771 5583 88891 101865 4602 304 88983 105922 3191 16557 10391 

Thailand Koh Sichang 97 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 97 0 0 0 

Thailand Sriracha 34663 714 10 12532 3619 1 0 747 14404 21 82 2534 

Tonga Neiafu 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Tonga Tongatapu-Nuku’alofa 5782 558 0 12 174 13 0 3 516 4335 159 12 

Tonga Vava’u 369 18 0 0 5 0 0 0 11 333 1 1 

Trinidad and Tobago Port of Spain 71 23 0 40 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Tuvalu Funafuti 44 35 0 0 1 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 

UK Beckingham 17 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

United Arab Emirates Dubai 95457 61 4 1054 981 20 0 91870 1392 6 5 65 

United Arab Emirates Jebel Ali 99733 45 10 90472 1148 4 0 5593 2391 36 0 33 

United Arab Emirates Jebel Dhanna 415091 0 0 415091 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

USA Albany, GA 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

USA Annapolis, MD 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

USA Baltimore, MD 9964 7345 487 397 342 16 0 122 466 0 374 415 

USA Baton Rouge, LA 17703 0 0 0 17703 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

USA Bellingham, WA 62 59 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 

USA Benicia, CA 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 0 0 0 0 

USA Brownsville, TX 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 

USA Burbank Apt, CA 44 28 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 10 2 

USA Charleston, SC 3172 210 184 1870 436 69 0 19 161 0 118 104 

USA Chester, NY 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

USA Chicago Apt, IL 1258 344 1 73 156 24 0 1 337 69 65 189 

USA Chicago, IL 9277 2397 93 202 1012 229 2 229 2385 12 536 2179 

USA Corpus Christi, TX 15 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

USA Dallas-Fort Worth Reg, TX 105 8 19 0 4 0 0 21 31 0 4 19 

USA Dulles Intl Apt/Washington 111 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 110 0 0 0 

USA Fort Lauderdale, FL 43 28 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

USA Freeport, TX 3517 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3517 0 0 0 

USA Galveston, TX 15 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

USA Gramercy, LA 4667 0 0 0 4667 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

USA Honolulu, HI 335 43 3 0 16 19 0 0 219 0 0 35 

USA Houston, TX 152881 3481 83 11146 1526 166 257 1722 123544 92 4376 6486 

41



USA Jacksonville, FL 41 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 10 23 

USA Jersey City, NJ 37 3 0 0 0 0 0 34 0 0 0 0 

USA John F Kennedy Apt/New York 681 214 20 0 274 9 0 8 74 0 66 16 

USA La Guardia Apt/New York 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

USA Long Beach, CA 125753 8771 945 65911 25023 795 131 1654 10317 3028 1997 7180 

USA Los Angeles, CA 386498 47014 3118 88274 79498 3102 246 4544 67318 39961 12227 41195 

USA Miami, FL 596 197 13 1 4 24 0 6 109 10 23 209 

USA Mobile, AL 18061 0 0 18040 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 

USA New Orleans Intl Apt, LA 456 1 0 0 26 0 0 0 301 0 120 7 

USA New Orleans, LA 68718 185 6 38821 28801 1 0 94 661 0 72 77 

USA New York, NY 37835 3703 462 1295 10845 558 20 1439 7338 1083 5545 5548 

USA Newark, NJ 517 65 31 4 5 2 0 0 257 0 36 116 

USA Norfolk, VA 96532 2186 473 69480 11647 62 1 1622 2812 3830 1908 2512 

USA Norfolk-Newport News, VA 2806 152 10 92 559 6 0 508 362 0 988 128 

USA Oakland, CA 46899 869 23 3597 27540 436 1 199 1038 10627 1551 1019 

USA Orlando, FL 80 4 0 9 0 2 0 0 29 0 0 36 

USA Pearl Harbour, HI 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

USA Peoria, IL 11 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

USA Philadelphia, PA 34312 825 355 5544 15255 110 14 1726 4631 848 3766 1237 

USA Port Everglades, FL 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

USA San Antonio, TX 103 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 57 0 

USA San Francisco, CA 2731 276 3 330 611 148 1 92 266 577 61 364 

USA San Jose, CA 27 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 

USA San Mateo, CA 25 0 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

USA San Pedro, CA 617 11 102 0 0 1 0 0 272 0 21 208 

USA St Louis, MO 271 31 0 23 0 1 0 2 77 0 19 119 

USA St Petersburg, FL 51 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 51 0 0 0 

USA Tampa, FL 272758 23 0 272714 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 1 

USA Texas City, TX 2134 9 0 1 0 13 0 0 2098 0 0 13 

USA Wilmington, DE 96 55 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 0 

Vanuatu Espiritu Santo 4884 26 0 0 4676 3 150 0 0 29 0 0 

Vanuatu Port Vila 2158 188 0 0 1474 0 396 12 22 57 4 4 

Viet Nam Haiphong 979 53 52 90 0 165 2 183 147 0 8 279 

Viet Nam Hanoi 426 10 44 0 94 8 0 40 35 177 12 5 

Viet Nam Ho Chi Minh City 43845 520 1236 1 6645 10398 408 14925 4031 1290 1184 3207 

42


Table b. Summary of air freight coming to New Zealand from localities within 100 km of known sites with P. longicornis. Values represent the total freight (tonnes) during 2001, 

2002 and 2003 (source: Statistics New Zealand). Total freight is broken into different commodity types. NB: New Zealand received some freight from all locations listed, but if 

total freight is below 500 kg it is listed as 0 tonnes. Details of the freight types that comprise each category are given (c) as are the categories (HS2 Chapters) used to classify 

incoming freight in the Statistics New Zealand database (d). 

Country Port of export Total freight Appliances Produce Pharmaceuticals Metals Glass Funiture Fur Footware Foodstuffs Fibres Other 

American Samoa Pago Pago 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Angola Cabinda 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Antigua and Barbuda Antigua 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Australia Adelaide, SA 2783 914 7 4 276 24 33 11 61 161 868 423 

Australia Brisbane, QL 25096 1931 16252 222 1315 90 487 157 139 2484 609 1409 

Australia Cairns, QL 77 5 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 63 0 4 

Australia Cooktown, QL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Australia Darwin, NT 5 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 

Australia Fremantle, WA 3 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Australia Perth, WA 1294 365 50 149 221 19 21 41 2 58 172 198 

Australia Port Adelaide, SA 5 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Bahrain Bahrain 8 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Belize Belize City 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Bermuda Hamilton 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Brazil Brasilia, DF 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 0 0 

Brazil Campinas, SP 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 3 0 

Brazil Guarulhos Apt/Sao Paolo, SP 20 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 2 6 

Brazil Rio de Janeiro, RJ 6 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 

Brazil Salvador, BA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Brazil Santos, SP 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 

Brazil Viracopos Apt/Sao Paulo, SP 29 3 0 0 7 1 0 0 3 0 13 1 

Brunei Darussalam Bandar Seri Begawan 5 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 

Canada Hamilton Apt, ON 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Canada Nanaimo Apt, BC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Canada Oakville, ON 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Canada Quebec Apt, QC 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Canada Quebec, QC 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 

Canada Toronto Apt, ON 352 114 0 89 65 5 3 0 0 9 4 62 

Canada Toronto, ON 300 100 0 50 55 9 4 1 0 2 6 72 

Canada Vancouver Apt, BC 241 140 3 10 25 3 6 1 0 9 6 38 

Canada Vancouver, BC 108 52 10 0 9 5 2 0 0 14 5 12 

Canada Victoria Apt, BC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Canada Victoria, BC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

China Guangzhou (Canton) 279 29 0 0 18 4 15 3 5 4 186 16 

43



China Huangpu 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 

China Quanzhou 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 

China Shekou 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

China Shenzhen 8 2 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 2 

China Xiamen 110 19 1 0 8 2 6 13 6 10 41 4 

China Yantian 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

China (Hong Kong) Hong Kong SAR 7514 2458 2 53 615 51 434 203 237 87 2301 1073 

China (Hong Kong) Kowloon 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 

China (Macau) Macau 6 2 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Colombia Medellin 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 

Cook Islands Aitutaki 4 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 

Costa Rica San Jose 33 0 33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Dominican Republic Santo Domingo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Ecuador Guayaquil 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Egypt Cairo (El Qahira) 4 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 

El Salvador Acajutla 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

El Salvador San Salvador 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Fiji Lautoka 37 0 24 0 1 0 0 0 2 7 2 0 

Fiji Nadi 4316 31 2733 6 5 0 3 3 301 661 550 23 

Fiji Savusavu 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 

Fiji Suva 127 5 4 0 0 0 0 0 64 17 29 7 

France Paris 539 174 0 34 53 9 13 8 4 12 22 210 

France Paris-Charles De Gaulle Apt 1059 441 0 31 112 37 34 9 6 30 76 283 

France Paris-Orly Apt 129 11 0 0 2 1 1 1 0 0 2 112 

French Polynesia Bora Bora 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

French Polynesia Papeete 17 6 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 1 4 

French Polynesia Raiatea 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Ghana Accra 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Gibraltar Gibraltar 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 

Greece Thessaloniki 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Guatemala Guatemala City 6 0 1 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 1 0 

Haiti Port-au-Prince 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

India Banddar 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

India Bangalore 150 43 61 0 2 6 0 0 0 5 22 10 

India Bombay (Mumbai) 509 55 21 86 40 9 12 6 16 13 225 25 

India Calcutta 170 11 0 0 7 0 0 104 0 1 43 3 

India Cochin 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 2 

India Delhi 589 24 0 78 38 3 43 24 84 9 251 35 

Indonesia Bandung, Java 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 

Indonesia Benoa, Bali 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 

Indonesia Denpasar, Bali 286 50 1 5 30 13 7 16 13 3 87 60 

Indonesia Jakarta, Java 312 46 4 6 55 1 6 6 13 13 131 31 

Indonesia Jakarta-Soekarno-Hatta Airpo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Indonesia Semarang, Java 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

44



Israel Ashdod 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Israel Haifa 5 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Israel Tel Aviv 160 88 1 0 23 0 0 0 0 7 9 30 

Jamaica Kingston 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Japan Chiba, Chiba 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Japan Fukuoka, Fukuoka 9 5 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 

Japan Funabashi, Chiba 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Japan Hakata, Fukuoka 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Japan Haneda Apt/Tokyo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Japan Ikejima, Nagasaki 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Japan Kawasaki, Kanagawa 12 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Japan Kumamoto, Kumamoto 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Japan Nagasaki, Nagasaki 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Japan Okinawa, Okinawa 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Japan Tokyo, Tokyo 1912 1061 0 7 284 50 37 21 1 24 24 403 

Japan Yatsushiro, Kumamoto 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Japan Yokohama, Kanagawa 31 28 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 

Jordan Amman 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Kenya Nairobi Apt 17 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 

Kiribati Tarawa 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Lebanon Beirut 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Malaysia Malacca 12 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Malaysia Pasir Gudang, Johor 16 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Malaysia Penang (Georgetown) 1675 1569 0 1 24 0 5 20 0 20 7 27 

Malaysia Tanjong Pelepas 22 4 0 0 4 1 0 1 0 3 4 4 

Malta Malta (Valetta) 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Mauritius Port Louis 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 

Mexcio Hermosillo, SON 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Mexico Mazatlan, SIN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Mexico San Carlos, BCS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Morocco Casablanca 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Morocco Tangier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Nepal Kathmandu 30 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 15 11 

New Caledonia Noumea 88 23 58 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 0 4 

Nicaragua Managua 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Nigeria Lagos 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Niue Niue Island 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Northern Mariana Islands Saipan 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Oman Muscat 7 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Panama Colon 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 

Panama Panama City 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Papua New Guinea Kimbe 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Papua New Guinea Madang 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Papua New Guinea Port Moresby 7 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 

45



Peru Callao 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Peru Lima 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 45 0 0 15 0 

Philippines Cebu 13 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 1 0 7 

Philippines Manila 232 156 4 2 33 1 8 3 0 2 7 15 

Portugal Porto Santo 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 2 

Puerto Rico San Juan 50 2 0 18 1 0 0 0 2 5 0 21 

Samoa Apia 265 8 179 1 1 0 0 0 0 70 3 4 

Saudi Arabia Damman 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 

Saudi Arabia Jeddah 58 17 0 0 42 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Singapore Singapore 9844 5382 168 114 1000 105 125 71 66 278 544 1994 

Singapore Singapore Container Terminal 11 5 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 

Solomon Islands Honiara, Guadalcanal Island 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 

Somalia Mogadishu 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

South Africa Durban 85 20 0 2 22 1 6 1 0 3 12 18 

Sri Lanka Colombo 34 3 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 11 14 3 

Sudan Khartoum 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Switzerland Zurich 934 339 0 35 103 20 11 29 4 21 49 323 

Syria Damascus (Damas) 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 

Taiwan Kaohsiung 98 14 2 0 47 0 2 1 0 8 18 7 

Taiwan Keelung (Chilung) 119 52 0 2 20 2 6 0 0 0 27 10 

Taiwan Suao 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Taiwan Taipei 2811 1856 3 23 347 20 60 11 2 7 278 205 

Taiwan Taitung 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Tanzania Dar es Salaam 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Thailand Bangkok 1602 415 36 32 285 23 34 38 25 55 404 254 

Tonga Neiafu 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Tonga Tongatapu-Nuku’alofa 149 3 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 119 0 4 

Tonga Vava’u 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Tuvalu Funafuti 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

United Arab Emirates Dubai 57 12 0 0 7 1 2 0 1 13 3 17 

United Arab Emirates Jebel Ali 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

United Arab Emirates Sharjah 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

USA Baltimore, MD 6 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 

USA Baton Rouge, LA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

USA Beaumont, TX 8 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

USA Bellingham, WA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

USA Brownsville, TX 9 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 

USA Burbank Apt, CA 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

USA Charleston, SC 6 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 

USA Chicago Apt, IL 1057 503 1 16 189 15 17 4 2 30 17 262 

USA Chicago, IL 1519 636 1 45 245 12 31 5 1 137 29 377 

USA Corpus Christi, TX 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

USA Dallas-Fort Worth Reg, TX 415 221 0 17 80 2 9 1 1 3 15 67 

USA Dulles Intl Apt/Washington 20 11 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 

46



USA Flushing Apt/New York 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

USA Fort Lauderdale, FL 18 11 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 

USA Fort Myers, FL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

USA Freeport, TX 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

USA Galveston, TX 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

USA Georgetown, SC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

USA Hampton-Newport News-Williams 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

USA Honolulu, HI 386 185 4 3 26 4 12 4 0 14 16 118 

USA Houston, TX 152 68 0 1 55 0 3 0 0 0 4 21 

USA Jacksonville, FL 11 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 

USA Jersey City, NJ 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 

USA John F Kennedy Apt/New York 1440 400 1 21 261 10 22 3 7 33 81 601 

USA Kahului, HI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

USA Kings Bay, GA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

USA La Guardia Apt/New York 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 

USA Laredo, TX 15 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

USA Long Beach, CA 12 4 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 

USA Los Angeles, CA 9298 3840 629 79 1470 108 317 54 27 340 378 2055 

USA Lynden, WA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

USA Miami, FL 63 27 2 0 4 0 3 0 1 1 2 23 

USA Mobile, AL 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

USA New Orleans Intl Apt, LA 18 8 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 6 

USA New Orleans, LA 4 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 

USA New York, NY 624 295 0 7 71 5 9 1 1 15 22 198 

USA Newark, NJ 117 37 0 8 25 1 1 0 1 2 13 31 

USA Norfolk, VA 21 15 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 

USA Norfolk-Newport News, VA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

USA Oakland, CA 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 

USA Orlando, FL 44 7 25 1 7 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 

USA Palm Beach, FL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

USA Peoria, IL 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

USA Philadelphia, PA 174 49 0 15 39 3 15 0 0 1 10 40 

USA San Antonio, TX 9 8 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 

USA San Francisco, CA 758 494 39 9 41 3 15 3 1 21 7 125 

USA San Jose, CA 5 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 

USA San Pedro, CA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

USA Selby, CA 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

USA St Louis, MO 124 48 0 0 14 1 6 0 0 16 0 39 

USA St Petersburg, FL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

USA Tampa, FL 33 22 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 8 

USA Texas City, TX 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

USA West Palm Beach, FL 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

USA Wilmington, DE 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

USA Wilmington, NC 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

47



USA Yonkers, NY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

US Virgin Islands Frederiksted, St Croix 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

US Virgin Islands St Croix Island Apt 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Vanuatu Espiritu Santo 4 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 

Vanuatu Port Vila 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 

Viet Nam Haiphong 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Viet Nam Hanoi 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 

Viet Nam Ho Chi Minh City 95 7 10 0 5 0 5 9 25 0 31 4 

48


Table c. Details of the freight types that comprise each category and the categories (HS2 Chapters) used to classify 

incoming freight in the Statistics New Zealand database (source: Statistics New Zealand). Description of categories 

provided in Table d. 

Mode of transport Type of freight HS2 Chapters 

Sea freight Appliances and machinery 84–89 

Fibres etc 50–63 

Bulk freight 25, 27, 28, 31 

Foodstuffs 2–4, 9–23 

Furniture/toys etc 94, 95 

Furs and skins 41–43 

Glass, ceramics etc 68–70 

Metals, plastics, organic chemicals etc 72–81, 26, 29, 32, 39, 40 

Produce 6–8 

Wood based products 44–48 

Other All remaining chapters 

Air freight Appliances and machinery 84–89 

Produce 6–8 

Pharmaceutical products 30 

Metals, plastics, organic chemicals etc 72–81, 26, 29, 32, 39, 40, 83 

Glass, ceramics etc 68–70 

Furniture/toys etc 94, 95 

Fur and skins 41–43 

Footwear 64 

Foodstuffs 2–4, 9–23 

Fibres etc 50–63 

Other All remaining chapters 

49


Table d. Description of categories (HS2 Chapters) used to classify incoming freight in the Statistics New Zealand database. 

Categories Description 

01 Animals; live 

02 Meat and edible meat offal 

03 Fish and crustaceans, molluscs and other aquatic invertebrates 

04 Dairy produce; birds’ eggs; natural honey; edible products of animal origin, not elsewhere 

specified or included 

05 Animal originated products; not elsewhere specified or included 

06 Trees and other plants, live; bulbs, roots and the like; cut flowers and ornamental foliage 

07 Vegetables and certain roots and tubers; edible 

08 Fruit and nuts, edible; peel of citrus fruit or melons 

09 Coffee, tea, mate and spices 

10 Cereals 

11 Products of the milling industry; malt, starches, inulin, wheat gluten 

12 Oil seeds and oleaginous fruits; miscellaneous grains, seeds and fruit, industrial or medicinal 

plants; straw and fodder 

13 Lac; gums, resins and other vegetable saps and extracts 

14 Vegetable plaiting materials; vegetable products not elsewhere specified or included 

15 Animal or vegetable fats and oils and their cleavage products; prepared animal fats; animal or 

vegetable waxes 

16 Meat, fish or crustaceans, molluscs or other aquatic invertebrates; preparations thereof 

17 Sugars and sugar confectionery 

18 Cocoa and cocoa preparations 

19 Preparations of cereals, flour, starch or milk; pastrycooks’ products 

20 Preparations of vegetables, fruit, nuts or other parts of plants 

21 Miscellaneous edible preparations 

22 Beverages, spirits and vinegar 

23 Food industries, residues and wastes thereof; prepared animal fodder 

24 Tobacco and manufactured tobacco substitutes 

25 Salt; sulphur; earths, stone; plastering materials, lime and cement 

26 Ores, slag and ash 

27 Mineral fuels, mineral oils and products of their distillation; bituminous substances; mineral 

waxes 

28 Inorganic chemicals; organic and inorganic compounds of precious metals; of rare earth 

50



metals, of radio-active elements and of isotopes 

29 Organic chemicals 

30 Pharmaceutical products 

31 Fertilizers 

32 Tanning or dyeing extracts; tannins and their derivatives; dyes, pigments and other colouring 

matter; paints, varnishes; putty, other mastics; inks 

33 Essential oils and resinoids; perfumery, cosmetic or toilet preparations 

34 Soap, organic surface-active agents; washing, lubricating, polishing or scouring preparations; 

artificial or prepared waxes, candles and similar articles, modelling pastes, dental waxes and 

dental preparations with a basis of plaster 

35 Albuminoidal substances; modified starches; glues; enzymes 

36 Explosives; pyrotechnic products; matches; pyrophoric alloys; certain combustible preparations 

37 Photographic or cinematographic goods 

38 Chemical products n.e.s. 

39 Plastics and articles thereof 

40 Rubber and articles thereof 

41 Raw hides and skins (other than furskins) and leather 

42 Articles of leather; saddlery and harness; travel goods, handbags and similar containers; 

articles of animal gut (other than silk-worm gut) 

43 Furskins and artificial fur; manufactures thereof 

44 Wood and articles of wood; wood charcoal 

45 Cork and articles of cork 

46 Manufactures of straw, esparto or other plaiting materials; basketware and wickerwork 

47 Pulp of wood or other fibrous cellulosic material; recovered (waste and scrap) paper or 

paperboard 

48 Paper and paperboard; articles of paper pulp, of paper or paperboard 

49 Printed books, newspapers, pictures and other products of the printing industry; manuscripts, 

typescripts and plans 

50 Silk 

51 Wool, fine or coarse animal hair; horsehair yarn and woven fabric 

52 Cotton 

53 Vegetable textile fibres; paper yarn and woven fabrics of paper yarn 

54 Man-made filaments 

55 Man-made staple fibres 

56 Wadding, felt and non-wovens, special yarns; twine, cordage, ropes and cables and articles 

thereof 

51



57 Carpets and other textile floor coverings 

58 Fabrics; special woven fabrics, tufted textile fabrics, lace, tapestries, trimmings, embroidery 

59 Textile fabrics; impregnated, coated, covered or laminated; textile articles of a kind suitable for 

industrial use 

60 Fabrics; knitted or crocheted 

61 Apparel and clothing accessories; knitted or crocheted 

62 Apparel and clothing accessories; not knitted or crocheted 

63 Textiles, made up articles; sets; worn clothing and worn textile articles; rags 

64 Footwear; gaiters and the like; parts of such articles 

65 Headgear and parts thereof 

66 Umbrellas, sun umbrellas, walking-sticks, seat sticks, whips, riding crops; and parts thereof 

67 Feathers and down, prepared; and articles made of feather or of down; artificial flowers; 

articles of human hair 

68 Stone, plaster, cement, asbestos, mica or similar materials; articles thereof 

69 Ceramic products 

70 Glass and glassware 

71 Natural, cultured pearls; precious, semi-precious stones; precious metals, metals clad with 

precious metal, and articles thereof; imitation jewellery; coin 

72 Iron and steel 

73 Iron or steel articles 

74 Copper and articles thereof 

75 Nickel and articles thereof 

76 Aluminium and articles thereof 

78 Lead and articles thereof 

79 Zinc and articles thereof 

80 Tin; articles thereof 

81 Metals; n.e.s., cermets and articles thereof 

82 Tools, implements, cutlery, spoons and forks, of base metal; parts thereof, of base metal 

83 Metal; miscellaneous products of base metal 

84 Nuclear reactors, boilers, machinery and mechanical appliances; parts thereof 

85 Electrical machinery and equipment and parts thereof; sound recorders and reproducers; 

television image and sound recorders and reproducers, parts and accessories of such articles 

86 Railway, tramway locomotives, rolling-stock and parts thereof; railway or tramway track fixtures 

and fittings and parts thereof; mechanical (including electro-mechanical) traffic signalling 

equipment of all kinds 

52



87 Vehicles; other than railway or tramway rolling stock, and parts and accessories thereof 

88 Aircraft, spacecraft and parts thereof 

89 Ships, boats and floating structures 

90 Optical, photographic, cinematographic, measuring, checking, medical or surgical instruments 

and apparatus; parts and accessories 

91 Clocks and watches and parts thereof 

92 Musical instruments; parts and accessories of such articles 

93 Arms and ammunition; parts and accessories thereof 

94 Furniture; bedding, mattresses, mattress supports, cushions and similar stuffed furnishings; 

lamps and lighting fittings, n.e.s.; illuminated signs, illuminated name-plates and the like; 

prefabricated buildings 

95 Toys, games and sports requisites; parts and accessories thereof 

96 Miscellaneous manufactured articles 

97 Works of art; collectors’ pieces and antiques 

98 New Zealand miscellaneous provisions 

53


Appendix 2: Details of BIOSECURE methodology 

BIOSECURE is a computer-based decision tool for management of biosecurity risks to New Zealand’s indigenous ecosystems. 

The model runs over Landcare Research’s intranet using specifically designed software with links to databases and 

GIS software. 

Methods 

Input data 

Records of species occurrence are obtained from the scientific literature, ant collections records available on the web, and 

from communication with various researchers. Records for an exact locality or relatively defined area are predominantly 

used. For the mainland USA some data on county records are included (e.g., Callcott & Collins 1996) with the county seat 

used as the data point, and for many islands presence/absence information is all that was available. Data points are 

separated into those of introduced and native range. Within the introduced range, records closely associated with urban 

areas are identified and a separate analysis conducted excluding these data in order to separate risks associated with 

urban areas and heated buildings from other habitats. These data sets are submitted to BIOSECURE. 

Climate summary 

For each location, climate data was obtained for eight parameters (Table A2.1) from global climate surfaces based on 

half-degree grid square resolution. Summary data for each parameter (N, mean, minimum, maximum) are presented for 

native and introduced range separately. 

Table A2.1: Global climate surfaces used in BIOSECURE. 

Abbreviation Climate Parameters 

MAT Annual mean of the monthly mean temperature ( o C) 

MINT Mean temperature of the coldest month ( o C) 

MATS Seasonality of temperature - absolute difference in mean temperature between the 

warmest and coldest months ( o C) 

PREC Mean annual precipitation (mm) 

PRECS Seasonality of precipitation - absolute difference in mean precipitation between the 

wettest and driest months (mm) 

VP Annual mean of the monthly mean vapour pressure (kPa) 

VPS Seasonality of vapour pressure - absolute differences in mean vapour pressure 

between the most humid and the least humid months (kPa) 

MAS Annual mean of monthly mean solar radiation (MJ/m 2 /day) 

54


Climate similarity scores 

For each climate parameter a frequency distribution of the data points is produced. The frequency distribution is then 

divided into 10 equal bins between the minimum and maximum values. Two additional bins of the same size are added, 

one above and one below the outermost values. Each bin gets a score between 1 (the additional two bins) and 100 based 

on the rescaled frequency of occurrence of the data within each bin (Fig. A2.1). Then all global grids are allocated a 

similarity (or risk) score between 0 (the climate parameters value for that grid square is outside the values in the bins) and 

100. 

The climate similarity scores for New Zealand are projected onto a 25 m resolution climate surface that forms part of the 

LENZ environmental domains (Leathwick et al. 2003). 

Outlier data in each climate layer are checked. Data points are removed and the analysis re-run only if they are identified 

as entry errors, or the collection site was not well defined. In addition, if the outlying data point falls on the margin between 

two grids it is automatically allocated to a grid in the processing. If this automatic allocation results in an outlier 

(e.g., the grid is predominantly mountainous and has extreme temperature values) then the data are altered to move the 

point into the neighbouring grid. 

Fig. A2.1: Stylised representation of the conversion of input data points to similarity scores. (a) The input data are assumed to 

represent the niche of the species for a particular parameter. (b) The frequency distribution is divided into a series of bins across the 

range of the data, allowing any point on the globe to be compared with this distribution and given a similarity score from 0 (outside 

the range of the data) to 100 (bin with highest frequency of data = optimal climate) (figure modified from a presentation of G. 

Barker). 

Individual climate layers are assessed for distinctiveness between the international data and New Zealand, and presented 

in the results if they show a high degree of discrimination (large areas of New Zealand with no similarity or in the marginal 

zone relative to the international data. MAT, MINT and PREC are routinely presented to allow comparison between species). 

An overall summary risk map is also presented; this represents the mean of the similarity scores of five climate layers 

(MAT, MINT, PREC, VP, PRECS). This presentation approximates the summary map produced by the risk assessment tool 

Climex. 

55


Appendix 3: Summary of current known distribution and BIOSECURE 

analysis for two ant species already established in New Zealand. 

Linepithema humile is widely distributed in northern New Zealand while Pheidole megacephala is restricted to Auckland 

despite being established since the 1940s (Fig. A3.1). 

Prediction of New Zealand range for Linepithema humile (Argentine ant) 

Native range data for this species overlap with northern New Zealand for MAT. MINT shows similarity for a greater area, but 

still within northern New Zealand. MAS shows low similarity with New Zealand. The other parameters show some discrimination 

within New Zealand. The introduced range greatly extends the areas of similarity of New Zealand, as the ant has 

become widely distributed globally, particularly in areas of anthropogenic disturbance. Large areas of the North Island 

and the northern South Island show overlap for MAT (Fig. A3.2), and all other parameters show greater overlap. For many 

areas where temperature parameters show high similarity there is marginal similarity for rainfall (at the high end), which 

may restrict its distribution (Fig. A3.2). 

For MAT the climate in the native + introduced non-urban sites still shows considerable overlap with New Zealand (Fig. 

A3.3). However, this may be overstated as 3 cold outliers, from native habitat in Chile (Snelling 1975), contribute to the 

overlap of MAT across southern New Zealand, and these records may be a different species, as the taxonomy of 

Linepithema in South America is in need of revision (A. Wild, pers. comm.). 

Predictions of New Zealand range for Pheidole megacephala (big-headed ant) 

Native range data suggest most of New Zealand is too cold for Ph. megacephala, with overlap for MAT only for the far north 

of the North Island. This overlap results from a single record from grassland by a highway in Pietermaritzburg, South Africa 

(Samways et al. 1997). The native + introduced range suggests potential range overlap with Northern NZ for MAT (Fig. 

A3.4) which results principally from urban records, from Sana’a in Yemen (Collingwood & Agosti 1996), and from an 

imprecise record from “central Spain” (Collingwood 1978). Most of the North Island and coastal South Island is within the 

range of data for MINT. Precipitation is too high in south-western and alpine areas, and these areas are also too cold (Fig. 

A3.4). Other climate parameters are highly suitable across much of New Zealand. 

For the native + introduced (non-urban range), MAT overlap is minimal (Fig. A3.5), and caused only by the single point 

from Pietermaritzburg, South Africa. Overlap of MINT is reduced but there is still overlap for large areas of northern New 

Zealand. Results for the other climate parameters are the same as for the analysis of native + introduced range. 

56


57 

Fig. A3.1: New Zealand sites where L. humile and Ph. megacephala are known to be established.


Fig. A3.2: Similarity of native + introduced ranges of L. humile to New Zealand for MAT, MINT and PREC. 

58


Fig. A3.3: Similarity of native + non-urban introduced ranges of L. humile to New Zealand for MAT, MINT and PREC. 

59


Fig. A3.4: Similarity of native + introduced ranges of Ph. megacephala to New Zealand for MAT, MINT and PREC. 

60


Fig. A3.5: Similarity of native + non-urban introduced ranges of Ph. megacephala to New Zealand for MAT, MINT and PREC. 

61

Paratrechina longicornis - Biosecurity New Zealand

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?