Import Risk Analysis  
Decrowned Pineapples ( Ananas comosus ) for Human consumption  
 
Version 1.0  
 
 
 
Prepared to support  the development of Import Health Standard for decrowned 
pineapples (Ananas comosus ) for human consumption  
by Plant Risk  
Animal and Plant Health Directorate  
 
 
ISBN No: 978-1-991087 -14-0 (online ) 
 
 
March  2023 
Biosecurity New Zealand   [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  • i Disclaimer  
While every effort has been made to ensure the information in this publication is accurate, the 
Ministry for Primary Industries does not accept any responsibility or liability for error of fact, 
omission, interpretation or opinion that may be present, nor for the consequences of any 
decisions based on this information.  
The material and information contained in the import  risk analysis  is preliminary and will be 
updated based on any feedback received during consultation on any related import health 
standards or any further feedback that may be provided by internal or external experts.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Recommended citation:  
MPI (202 3) Import Risk Analysis: Decrowned Pineapples ( Ananas comosus ) for Human 
Consumption . Version 1.0. March 2023 . Ministry for Primary Industries, New Zealand.  
 
 
Ministry for Primary Industries  
PO Box 2526  
WELLINGTON 6140  
Email: brand@mpi.govt.nz  
Phone : 0800 00 83 33  
 
This publication is also available on the Ministry for Primary Industries website at  
http://www.mpi.govt.nz/news -and-resources/publications/   
 
© Crown Copyright - Ministry for Primary Industries  
   
Biosecurity New Zealand   [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  • ii  
 
Import Risk Analysis : 
Decrowned Pineapples ( Ananas com osus) for Human Consumption  
 
Version 1.0  
 
March 2023  
 
 
Approved for general release   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
© Crown Copyright - Ministry for Primary Industries  
   
Biosecurity New Zealand   [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  • iii Version information  
Version No. Comments  Approved by  Date of approval  
1.0 For external release  Enrico Perotti  10 January 2023  
    
    
New  Zealand is a member of the World Trade Organi zation and a signatory to the Agreement 
on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (“The Agreement”). Under the 
Agreement, countries must base their measures on an international standard or an assessment 
of the biological risks t o plant, animal or human health.  
This document provides a scientific analysis of the risks associated with import ing fresh  
pineapple s from selected countries. It assesses the likelihood of pests and disease s being 
introduced to New Zealand through  decrown ed pineapple s imported from selected countries . 
It also  assesses the impacts of those organisms could have if  they enter  New Zealand  and 
establish populations here . The document has been  peer reviewed and is now released 
publicly  for feedback . If we receiv e any information that alter s the level of assessed risk , we 
will review this document  and release an updated version.  
 
 
   
Biosecurity New Zealand   [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  • iv Import Risk Analysis  
 
Table of Content s 
 
1 BACKGROUND  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........  V 
2 OBJECTIVES  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............  V 
3 SCOPE OF ANALYSIS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..............................  VI 
4 IRA METHODOLOGY  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................  VII 
4.1 HAZARD IDENTIFICATION  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................  VII 
4.2 PEST RISK ASSESSMENT  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ . VIII 
5 PEST RISK LEVELS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .. IX 
6 SUMMARY OF PEST RISK ASSESSMENTS  ................................ ................................ ...............................  IX 
6.1 BACTERIA  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .....................  IX 
 Dickeya zeae  (bacterial heart rot/fruit collapse)  ................................ ................................ ............  ix 
 Pantoea ananatis  (fruitlet rot of  pineapple) ................................ ................................ ...................  xi 
6.2 FUNGI  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................  XIII 
 Fusarium oxysporum  ................................ ................................ ................................ .....................  xiii 
 Fusarium verticillioides  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... xv 
 Pestalotiopsis microspora  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........  xviii 
 Thielaviopsis paradoxa  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................  xx 
6.3 INSECTS : DIPTERA  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .......  XXII 
 Bactrocera dorsalis  (Oriental fruit fly)  ................................ ................................ ..........................  xxii 
6.4 INSECTS : HEMIPTERA , DIASPIDIDAE (ARMORED SCALE INSECTS ) ................................ ................................ ..........  XXIV 
 Diaspis bromeliae  (pineappl e scale)  ................................ ................................ ............................  xxiv 
6.5 INSECTS : HEMIPTERA , PSEUDOCOCCIDAE (MEALYBUGS ) ................................ ................................ ....................  XXVI 
 Dysmicoccus brevipes  (pink pineapple mealybug)  ................................ ................................ ...... xxvi 
 Dysmicoccus neobrevipes  (grey pin eapple mealybug)  ................................ ..............................  xxviii  
 Ferrisia virgata  (striped mealybug)  ................................ ................................ ..............................  xxx 
 Planococcus minor  (Pacific mealybug)  ................................ ................................ ......................  xxxiii  
 Pseudococcus jackbeardsleyi (Jack Beardsley mealybug)  ................................ ..........................  xxxv 
6.6 INSECTS : LEPIDOTERA , COSMOPTERIGIDAE  (COSMET MOTHS ) ................................ ................................ ...........  XXXVII  
 Anatrachyntis rileyi  (pink scavenger caterpillar)  ................................ ................................ ...... xxxvii  
 Vector analysis  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........................  xxxix  
 
   
Biosecurity New Zealand   [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  • v 1  Background  
This import risk analysis (IRA) assesses the biosecurity risks associated with import ing 
commercially produced decrown ed fresh pineapple fruit ( Ananas comosus ) for human 
consumption from Australia, Ecuador, Fiji, New Caledonia, the Philippines, Thailand, 
Vanuatu, the Cook Islands, Costa Rica, Indones ia, Malaysia, Papua New Guinea, Panama, 
Samoa, Sri Lanka, Taiwan and Tonga . This assessment  supports the development of an 
import health standard (IHS) to import  pineapple s for human consumption.  
The p athways and c omm odities covered in this analysis  are in Table 1.1. 
 
Table 1.1 Pathways and commodities assessed in this analysis  
Commodity type  Pathway description  
Fresh produce for human consumption  Commercially1 produced decrown ed fresh 
pineapple fruit ( Ananas comosus ) of all varieties 
and ripeness (excluding over ripe2) for human 
consumption. This excludes material or produce 
that is visibly damaged (damage that may be a 
result of the presence of a regulated pest or 
could expose the commodity to regulated pests). 
We did not assess the  risk from crown remnant s 
in this analysis.  The pineapples may be from 
Australia, Ecuador, Fiji, New Caledonia, 
the Philippines, Thailand, Vanuatu, the Cook 
Islands, Costa Rica, Indonesia, Malaysia, Papua 
New Guinea, Panama, Samoa, Sri Lanka, 
Taiwan or Tonga.  
 
2 Objectives  
Biosecurity New Zealand’s objectives in developing an import risk analysis  are to : 
1. identify w hich pests and diseases present a level of risk to New Zealand on the 
commodities and pathways included in the scope;  and 
2. assess these pests and diseases  using a method that provides enough  evidence about 
the biosecurity risks for risk managers to make  a robust and transparent decision on 
whether additional measures beyond the commodity description are need ed to 
manage these pests  and diseases.  
 
1 Commercial production means a process (system) where activities, such as in -field monitoring, pest control activities, harvesting, cleaning², 
sorting, and grading³ have been undertaken. These activities are carried out to minimise:  
a) the presence of regu lated pests;  
b) commodity damage which could expose the commodity to regulated pests  
Note: NPPO phytosanitary inspection, certification and documentation form part of general import requirements.  
2 Overripe is equivalent to C4 or greater as per the UNECE S tandard on the marketing and commercial quality control of pineapples  
(reference: UNECE (2013) UNECE Standard on the marketing and commercial quality control of pineapples . Explanatory Brochure. United 
Nations Economic Commission for Europe. New York and G eneva. Accessed from 
https://unece.org/DAM/trade/Publications/ECE_TRADE_398E_PineappleBrochure.pdf ).  
Biosecurity New Zealand   [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  • vi 3 Scope  of analysis  
This analysis answers several risk management questions.  
Risk management questions  
Purpose  Specific questions that the risk manager needs answered to make a decision. The  
questions  are based on the commodity description for that commodity type . 
Description 
specific to 
this analysis  1. Is each assessed pest or disease a hazard3? 
2. What is the overall risk of each assessed pest and disease ?  
Information (when available) on the following questions in each pest risk assessment 
(PRA) will assist in making risk management decisions:  
a) On which pineapple variety (or varieties) and at what stage of ripeness has 
pest association with the fruit been observed ? 
b) Which parts of the fruit is the pest associated with (e.g. fruit, bract, stem or 
crown remnant) , and is it detectable by visual inspection?  
c) Are different life stages of the pest associated with different parts of the 
fruit?  
d) Under what environmental conditions (temperature, season etc.) are 
disease symptoms expressed on the fruit?  
e) Does  the pest burrow into the fruit without obvious symptoms or hide under 
the pineapple bract ? 
 
Detailed commodity description  
Purpose  The commodity description defines the form of the commodity that is covered by this 
analysis , e.g. the commodity species and form under consideration. The commodity 
description may also include commercial production and/or grading requirements or 
other com modity quality specifications.  
Description 
specific to 
this analysis  Commodity description4 
Commercially  produced decrown ed fresh pineapple fruit ( Ananas comosus ), of all 
varieties and ripeness (excluding overripe5) for human consumption. This excludes 
material or produce which is visibly damaged (damage which may be a result of the 
presence of a regulated pest or could expose the commodity to regulated pests).  
The risk from crown remnant has not been considered in this analysis  because 
crown re mnant will be deemed a non -compliance as per the commodity description.  
 
 
3 Any pest or disease that is  not present in New Zealand (or is present but still represents a biosecurity risk, e.g. is capable of vectoring 
pathogens not present in New Zealand) , has the ability to establish and cause harm in New Zealand , and is associated with imported risk 
goods and import pathways.  
4 In the abs ence of ripeness and variety from the commodity description, pest association will be reported for all varieties and stages o f 
ripeness in the IRA.  
5 Overripe is equivalent to C4 or greater as per the UNECE Standard on the marketing and commercial quality control of pineapples  
(reference: UNECE (2013) UNECE Standard on the marketing and commercial quality control of pineapples . Explanatory Brochure. United 
Nations Economic Commission for Europe. New York and Geneva. Accessed from 
https://unece.org/DAM/trade/Publications/ECE_TRADE_398E_ PineappleBrochure.pdf ).   
Biosecurity New Zealand   [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  • vii Commercial production description  
Commercial production means a process (system) where activities, such as in -field 
monitoring, pest control activities, harvesting, cleaning6, sorting, and grading7 have 
been undertaken. These activities are carried out to minimise:  
a) the presence of regulated pests;  
b) commodity damage which could expose the commodity to regulated pests.  
Note: NPPO phytosanitary inspection, certification and  documentation form part of 
general import requirements.  
Detailed pathway description  
Purpose  The pathway description defines the markets  and methods the commodity will be 
sourced from and travel to New Zealand. The pathway description may also include 
commercial -specific pathway requirements.  
Pathway 
description  Commercially produced decrown ed fresh pineapple fruit ( Ananas comosus ) for 
human consumption from Australia, Ecuador, Fiji, New Caledonia, the Philippines, 
Thailand, Vanuatu, Cook Island , Costa Rica, Indonesia, Malaysia, Papua New 
Guinea, Panama, Samoa, Sri Lanka, Taiwan and Tong a.  
The import risk analysis development projec t covers  both sea and air cargo. All risk 
assessments consider both pathways.  
 
4 IRA m ethodology  
The import risk analysis process has two  stages:  
1. Hazard identification  
2. Pest risk assessment  
The risk analysis methodology used by Biosecurity New Zealand is described in more detail 
in ‘Guidelines for Risk Analysis in Plant Biosecurity1.0’.  
 
4.1 Hazard identification  
We define a pest or disease as a  hazard when it meets all the following criteria.  
• It is not present in New Zealand ( or is present but still represents a biosecurity risk, 
e.g. is capable of vectoring pathogens not present in New Zealand) . 
• It has the ability to establish and cause harm in New Zealand . 
• It is associated with imported risk goods and import pathways.  
In the h azard identification (hazard ID) process,  we first compile  a list of pests and diseases  
potentially associated with the commodity . We then assess these pests and diseases against 
specifi c risk evaluation criteria to determine which  potential hazards  we should assess further .  
 
6 Cleaning will remove all extraneous plant material, debris, and soil. Large mobile pests will also be removed.  
7 Grading will remove damaged produce or visibly infested produce.   
Biosecurity New Zealand   [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  • viii For this risk analysis, w e decided to further assess any  pests that met the following criteria.  
a) The pest or disease is  associated with fresh pineapple fruit  (of any variety and 
ripeness, excluding overripe8), which meets the commodity description; and  
b) The pest  or disease is present in any of the markets  included in the project; and  
c) The pest or disease has traits that indicate it may not be adequately managed 
by the commodity description (including decrown ing9 and commercial 
production methods10); and  
d) The pest or disease is able to become establish ed in New Zealand; and/or  
e) The pest or disease has the potential to cause significant impacts 
(sociocultural, economic, environmental, human health).  
After we have identified the hazards, we compile two lists.  
• Pests and diseases  that are  associated with the commodity, are present in  at least one 
exporting market  and are potentially not managed by  compliance with the commodity 
description : These pests  are ones that we assess further. You can read about this  in the 
Pest risk levels  section below.  
Pests and diseases, including groups (e.g. genera or families) that we did not need to assess 
further: for the list of these pests, please contact Plant Imports PlantImports@mpi.govt.nz . 
 
4.2 Pest risk assessment  
The purpose of pest risk assessment is to determine the level of risk that hazard pests and 
diseases (identified at the hazard ID stage as need ing further assessment) pose to 
New  Zealand.  
Pest risk assessment  addresses the following : 
• Likelihood of entry:  
o The strength or frequency of the association with the host  
o The likelihood of entry given compliance with the commodity description.  
• Likelihood of exposure and establishment:  
o The ability of the pest or disease to move from an imported  commodity  to a 
host or environment suitable for the completion of development or production 
of offspring  (exposure)  
o The suitability of the New Zealand environment for the pest or disease 
(including climate, host plants and vectors)  
• The potential impacts in New Zealand:  
o Economic impacts: on economically  important plants (symptoms on individual 
plants, crop yield, costs of management practices, trade restrictions , etc.) 
o Environment al impacts: on native plants and ecosystems  
o Human health  and sociocultural  impacts  
 
 
8 Overripe is equivalent to C4 or greater as per the UNECE Standard on the marketing and commercial quality control of pineapples 
(https://unece.org/DAM/trade/Publications/ECE_TRADE_398E_PineappleBrochure.pdf ).  
9 This analysis does not consider the  risk from crown remnant s. Any crown remnant will be deemed a non -compliance as per the commodity 
description.  
10 Commercial production means a process (system) where activities, such as in -field monitoring, pest control activities, harvesting, 
cleaning, sorting, and grading have bee n undertaken. These activities are carried out to minimise: a) the presence of regulated pests; b) 
commodity damage which could expose the commodity to regulated pests.   
Biosecurity New Zealand   [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  • ix 5 Pest risk levels  
Table 5.1 summarises the overall level of risk for each pest that underwent full pest risk 
assessment (PRA) . A more detailed summary including  the rationale for allocation of risk 
levels and reasons for uncertainty is presented in section 6.  
 
Table 5.1: Pest risk levels  
Pest/disease group  Species  requiring PRAs  Risk Uncertainty  
Bacteria  Dickeya zea e  Moderate  Moderate  
Pantoea ananatis   Moderate  Moderate  
Fungi  Fusarium oxysporum   Negligible  Low 
Fusarium verticillioides   Moderate  High 
Pestalotiopsis microspora   Low High 
Thielaviopsis paradoxa   Low High 
Insects: Diptera  Bactrocera dorsalis   Moderate  Low 
Insects: Hemiptera, 
Diaspididae ( armoured scales)  Diaspis bromeliae   Negligible  Moderate  
Insects: Hemiptera, 
Pseudococcidae (mealybugs)  Dysmicoccus brevipes   Low Moderate  
Dysmicoccus neobrevipes   Negligible  Moderate  
Ferrisia virgata   Very low  Moderate  
Planococcus minor   Very low  Moderate  
Pseudococcus jackbeardsleyi   Negligible  Moderate  
Insects: Lepidotera  Anatrachyntis rileyi   Very low  Moderate  
Vectors of pathogens  Planococcus citri  Not a hazard  
Pseudococcus longispinus  Not a hazard  
 
6 Summary of pest risk assessment s 
Organisms considered  for risk assessment by MPI meet the criteria to be a hazard on fresh 
decrown ed Ananas  comosus  (pineapple) fruit for consumption (as per the commodity 
description and hereinafter pineapple fruit) imported into New Zealand.  These criteria are:  
• They are not present in New Zealand (or if  present but still represents a biosecurity 
risk, e.g. is capable of vectoring pathogens not present in New Zealand);  
• They have  the potential to establish  and cause harm  in New Zealand  
• They have  the potential to enter New Zeala nd on pineapple fruit.  
The following sections summarise  the pest risk assessments described in detail in the annex to 
this report . 
 
6.1 Bacteria  
 Dickeya zea e (bacterial heart rot/fruit collapse)  
 
Dickeya zeae  poses an overall MODERATE risk (with MODERATE uncertainty) on 
pineapple  fruit imported to New Zealand.  
• Dickeya zeae  has a MODERATE  likelihood of entering New Zealand on  pineapple  
fruits  (LOW  uncertainty) .  
Biosecurity New Zealand   [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  • x o Dickeya  zeae is present in many of the markets in this analysis . 
o It has a  strong associat ion with pineapple fruit . 
o It has the potential for latency and asymptomatic traits.  
o It has the potential to remain viable on pineapple s during transit.  
• Dickeya zeae  has a  MODERATE  likelihood of transferring from  pineapple  fruit to a 
suitable host in New Zealand ( MODERATE unc ertainty) . 
o There is a large quantity of unavoidable waste associated with fresh 
pineapple s. 
o The pathogen has a wide host range  and climatic tolerance and persis ts in 
varying environmental niches.  
o The pathogen causes systemic infection.  
o Our u ncertainty is due to the sparse data on pineapple waste and associated 
diseases.  
• Dickeya zeae  has a MODERATE  likelihood of establishing a population in New 
Zealand ( LOW  uncertainty) . 
o Hosts are available for the establishment of Dickeya zeae . 
o Dickeya zeae has the ability to remain latent in the environment.  
o Climate matching evidence sugges ts countries with comparable temperatur es 
to New Zealand have reported occurrence of the pathogen which indicates 
climate  in New Zealand is not likely to prevent establishment .  
• Dickeya zeae  may cause  a MODERATE  overall impact on New Zealand 
(MODERATE  uncertainty) . 
o The potential economic impact  of D. zeae on New  Zealand is MODERATE  
(MODERATE  uncertainty ). 
▪ Dickeya  zeae cause s significant economic impacts  overseas  in areas 
with a similar climate to New Zealand . 
▪ The host range of D. zeae indicates  that high-value crops such as 
tomatoes, onions and potatoes grown for  export and  used domestically 
could be affected up to, in the worst case, NZ$860.64  million  over 
20 years . 
▪ Our u ncertainty is due to the sparse data on the  climatic factors 
involved in disease expr ession and the impact of climate change in 
growing regions of New Zealand.  
o The potential  environmental impact of D. zeae in New  Zealand  is LOW  
(HIGH  uncertainty ). 
o The potential human health impact s of D. zeae on New  Zealand  are 
NEGLIGIBLE (LOW  uncertainty ). 
o The potential  sociocultural impact s of D. zeae on New  Zealand are LOW  
(MODERATE  uncertainty ). 
 
The following tables contain a summary of risk assessment against the criteria.  
Criteria  Rating  Uncertainty  
Likelihood of entry on the commodity  MODERATE  LOW  
Likelihood of transferring from  imported 
commodity onto a suitable host  MODERATE  MODERATE  
Likelihood of establishing a population in 
New Zealand  MODERATE  LOW   
Biosecurity New Zealand   [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  • xi Impacts on New Zealand economy, 
environment, human health and society  MODERATE  MODERATE  
Overall level of assessed risk to New Zealand  MODERATE  MODERATE  
 
Specific considerations summary (see Annex 4.1.4 ) 
Stage of ripeness at which pest 
association with pineapple fruit 
has been observed  C3–C4 
Pineapple v arieties  the pest is 
associated with  Cultivars Josapine, MD2, PRI 73 -114 and Smooth Cayenne  
Presence of pest in markets  in this 
IRA Australia11, Malaysia, Costa Rica, the Philippines, Indonesia  
Parts of the fruit the pest is 
associated with  Whole fruit (fruit, bract, stem, crown)  
Environmental conditions  needed 
to express disease symptoms on 
pineapple fruit  Pathogen viable between 10  °C and 41  °C, with optimal 
temperature range specified as 30 –35 °C 
Different life stages of the pest 
associated wi th different parts of 
the fruit  N/A 
Asymptomatic /latent infections  on 
pineapple fruit  Remains latent in plant ovary and increases population two to 
three weeks before  ripening  
 
To full assessment of Dickeya zeae  
 Pantoea ananatis  (fruitlet rot of pineapple)  
 
Pantoea ananatis  poses an overall MODERATE risk (with HIGH uncertainty) on 
pineapple fruit imported to New Zealand.  
• Pantoea ananatis  has a MODERATE likelihood of entering New Zealand on 
pineapple fruit ( MODERAT E uncertainty).  
o Pantoea ananatis  can cause internal infection in pineapple fruit without 
externally visible symptoms when the infection is mild to moderate . 
o Pantoea ananatis  may be found on the surface of pineapple . 
o Destructive sampling is needed to detect symptomatic pineapples .  
o It is likely that P. ananatis  can survive transit conditions on pineapple s 
because it can grow between 6 °C–45 °C. 
o The prevalence of P. ananatis in exporting markets is uncertain . 
• Pantoea ananatis  has a HIGH  likelihood of transferring from pineapple fruit to a 
suitable host /environment  in New Zealand ( MODERATE  uncertainty).  
o Fresh pineapple fruit generate a large quantity of unavoidable waste . 
o The bacterium has a wide host range and climatic tolerance and is p ersistent in 
varying environmental niches . 
o Pantoea ananatis  is likely to transfer from pineapple waste to a suitable 
environment and remain viable . 
 
11Dickeya zeae has been detected in Queensland, Australia, but it is not yet clear how c losely related these strains are to other 
strains of  D. zeae  (IPCC_WGI 2014) .  
Biosecurity New Zealand   [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  • xii o Pantoea ananatis cultures can survive temperatures between -15 °C and 56  °C, 
and desiccati on. P. ananatis  grows at 6  °C–45 °C. 
o There are multiple modes of transmission available, including insect vectors 
present in New  Zealand .  
o There is limited data on the viability and spread of the bacterium from infected 
pineapple fruit . 
• Pantoea ananatis  has a HIGH likelihood of establishing a population in New Zealand 
(MODERATE  uncertainty).  
o Current and future climates are suitable for the bacterium . 
o Plant hosts are widely  available in New Zealand . 
o Pantoea ananatis  can persist in abiotic environment s. 
o The bacterium has wide temperature tolerances . 
• Pantoea ananatis  may have  a MODERATE overall impact on New Zealand ( HIGH  
uncertainty).  
o The potential economic impact of P. ananatis  in New Zealand is MODERATE 
(HIGH  uncertainty).  
▪ Disease outbreaks are sporadic a nd rare . 
▪ The environmental factors required for disease outbreaks are not fully 
understood . 
▪ The disease is likely to cause yield reduction in onion and maize . 
▪ The disease has an estimated moderate economic impact over 20 years.  
o The potential  environmental impact of P. ananatis  in New Zealand is VERY 
LOW (HIGH uncertainty ). 
o The potential human health impact of P. ananatis  in New Zealand is 
NEGLIGLIBLE  (LOW uncertainty ). 
o The potential  sociocultural impact of P. ananatis  in New Zealand is VERY 
LOW (HIGH uncertainty ). 
 
The following tables contain a summary of risk assessment against the criteria.  
Criteria  Rating  Uncertainty  
Likelihood of entering on the commodity  MODERATE  MODERATE  
Likelihood of transferring from the imported commodity 
onto a suitable host  HIGH  
 MODERATE  
Likelihood of establishing a population in New Zealand  HIGH  MODERATE  
Impacts on the New Zealand economy, environment, 
human health and society  MODERATE  HIGH  
Overall level of assessed risk to New Zealand  MODERATE  HIGH  
 
Specific considerations (see  Annex 4.2.4 ) 
Stage of ripeness the pest is associated 
with All stages following flowering  
Pineapple v arieties the pest is associated 
with Appears to be associated with all varieties  
Presence of pest in markets in this IRA  Australia, Ecuador, the Philippines, Thailand , Costa 
Rica, Malaysia, Taiwan   
Biosecurity New Zealand   [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  • xiii Parts of the fruit the pest is associated with  Internal tissues  
Environmental conditions (temperature, 
season, etc.) under which disease 
symptoms are expressed  Can express symptoms in any season. Infections in 
pineapple were more pronounced when temperatures 
were high (21  °C–27 °C) 
Asymptomatic/latent infections on 
pineapple fruit  This bacterium can cause infections that are not 
externally visible and is  found as an  epiphyte and 
endophyte on many plants hosts and environments , 
likely including pineapple.   
 
To full assessment of Pantoea ananatis  
6.2 Fungi  
 Fusarium oxysporum  
Fusarium oxysporum poses an overall NEGLIGIBLE risk (with L OW uncertainty) on 
pineapple s fruit imported to New Zealand.  
• Fusarium oxysporum  has a HIGH likelihood of entering New Zealand on pineapple 
fruit ( LOW  uncertainty) . 
o Fusarium oxysporum  is recorded from all markets  in scope of th is analysis  and 
is associated with pineapple fruit from Ecuador, Malaysia and Costa Rica . 
o Fusarium oxysporum can be associated with pineapple fruit at all 
developmental stages . 
o Fusarium oxysporum  sometimes causes internal fruitlet rot or no symptoms , so 
cannot always be detected in a visual inspection.  
• Fusarium oxysporum  has a HIGH likelihood of transferring from pineapple fruit to a 
suitable host in New Zealand ( MODERATE  uncertainty) . 
o Pineapple is a high -waste commodity , and rinds and sometimes cores are 
remov ed and discarded . 
o Many strains of F. oxysporum  can survive and reproduce as sapro trophs  on 
plant debris in the soil, including the initial pineapple waste, and in and around 
plant roots, so F. oxysporum  does not usually need a specific plant host to 
surviv e. 
o There is moderate uncertainty in this conclusion because assumptions about 
saprotrophic survival in the soil are based on reviews of the whole species 
complex and research on other formae speciales, and not on specific 
information about strains from pin eapple.  
• Fusarium oxysporum  strains from imported pineapple s have a HIGH  likelihood of 
establishing a population in New Zealand (MODERATE uncertainty) . 
o It is likely that F. oxysporum strains from pineapple s can survive in the 
absence of particular live host plants  as saprotrophs on plant debris in the soil, 
and the rhizosphere (around plant roots) or through the production of resting 
spores. As with other F. oxysporum strains, s ome strains from pineapple s may 
be able to colonise other plant hosts, with o r without disease symptoms.  
o Many strains of F. oxysporum  are already present in New Zealand , so the 
climate is likely to be suitable for some new F. oxysporum  strains .  
o There is moderate uncertainty in this conclusion because assumptions about 
saprophytic survival in the soil are based on reviews of the whole species 
complex and research on other formae speciales , and because imported  
Biosecurity New Zealand   [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  • xiv pineapples usually originate in tropi cal areas and the New Zealand climate 
may not be suitable.  
• The potential  overall impact of F. oxyporum strains from imported pineapple  on 
New  Zealand is NEGLIGIBLE  (LOW uncertainty). However,  the taxonomy of the 
F. oxyporum  species complex is currently bei ng revised . We will need to reassess  this 
if we receive  new evidence  (for example from  the Emerging Risks System) of specific 
named strain s or species in the complex  that are associated with pineapple and cause 
disease in hosts that are economically, environmentally or culturally important to 
New  Zealand.  
o The potential economic impact of F. oxysporum  strains from imported 
pineapple in New Zealand is NEGLIGIBLE (LOW uncertainty ). 
▪ Pineapple is the only confirmed host of these strains .  
▪ The New Zealand pineapple industry is currently very small and 
localised to a single production site in Northland . The likelihood of 
F. oxysporum  strains on imported pineapple s being exposed to suitable 
hosts  is extremely low . 
▪ Weather conditions in New Zealand are unlikely to favour symptom 
development in pineapple plants , even in a changing climate . 
▪ Even if F. oxysporum  strains from imported pineapple  occasionally 
cause disease symptoms on other  plant hosts in New Zealand, it is 
unlikely that the impacts will be greater than the impact of  
F. oxysporum strains that are already present.   
o The potential environmental impact of F. oxysporum  strains from imported 
pineapple in New Zealand is NEGLIGIBLE  (LOW uncertainty ). 
o The potential human health impact of F. oxysporum  strains from imported 
pineapple in New Zealand is NEGLIGIBLE  (LOW uncertainty ). 
▪ The risk of harmful mycotoxins contaminating N ew Zealand grown 
pineapples as a result of new F. oxysporum  strains from imported 
pineapples is negligible .  
▪ Opportunistic F. oxysporum  infections in humans are rare . Many 
strains of F. oxysporum are already present in New Zealand , and the 
likelihood of in fections from new strains causing additional impacts is 
negligible.  
o The potential sociocultural impact of F. oxysporum  strains from imported 
pineapple in New Zealand is NEGLIGIBLE  (LOW uncertainty ). 
 
The following tables contain a summary of risk assessment against the criteria.  
Criteria  Rating  Uncertainty  
Likelihood of ent ering  on the commodity  HIGH  LOW  
Likelihood of transferring from the imported commodity onto a 
suitable host  HIGH  MODERATE  
Likelihood of establishing a population in New Zealand  HIGH  MODERATE  
Impacts on the New Zealand economy, environment, human health 
and society  NEGLIGIBLE  LOW  
Overall level of assessed risk to New Zealand  NEGLIGIBLE  LOW   
Biosecurity New Zealand   [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  • xv  
Specific considerations summary (see Annex 5.1.4)  
Stage of ripeness the pest is 
associated with  All stages  (some strains are systemic in the plant and therefore in the 
stem/core at the time of flowering, and other strains infect at the time 
of flowering but remain latent until the fruit begins to ripen)  
Pineapple varieties th e pest 
has been recorded on  MD-2, Queen Victoria , Pérola , Moris, Josapine, Gandul , Smooth 
Cayenne , Spanish  
Presence of pest  in markets  
in this IRA Fusarium oxysporum is recorded in all markets  in scope: Australia, 
Cook Islands, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Indone sia, Malaysia, New 
Caledonia,  Panama, Papua New Guinea, The Philippines, Samoa, 
Sri Lanka, Taiwan, Thailand , Tonga  and Vanuatu.  Fusarium 
oxysporum has been reported from pineapple fruit from Ecuador, 
Costa Rica and Malaysia, and there are also records from pineapple 
from the Philippines with no record of the plant part the fungus was 
isolated from.  
Parts of the fruit the pest 
associated is with  All parts of the fruit (but may depend on the particular strain)  
Environmental conditions 
(temperature, season, etc.) 
under which disease 
symptoms are expressed  Internal f ruitlet core rot symptoms  were  expressed in ripe fruit stored 
at 19 °C or 25 °C (in two separate studies). However, some strains of 
F. oxysporum  never show symptoms in fruit . 
Different life stages of the 
pest associated with different 
parts of the fruit  Only asexual life-stages of F. oxysporum have been reported , but this 
fungus can reproduce asexually . 
Asymptomatic /latent 
infections on pineapple fruit  Fusarium oxysporum strains  associated with pineapple plantation 
dieback disease, a vascular wilt  likely to be associated with the core 
(which is a modified stem), and crown or stem remnants without 
visible symptoms. These strains would not be detected by v isual 
inspection, although the fruit of infected plants is often undersized.  
 
Fusarium oxysporum can also cause brown rots of individual fruitlets 
under the bracts of the pineapple (fruitlet core rot), which do not 
always show on the surface of the fruit. Internal fruitlet core rot 
symptoms can be detected if the fruit is cut along an axis that 
exposes the infected fruitlets. Fusarium oxysporum has also been 
isolated from fruitlets with no symptoms.  
 
To full assessment of Fusarium oxysporum  
 Fusarium verticillioide s 
Fusarium verticillioides poses an overall MODERATE risk (with HIGH uncertainty) on 
pineapple fruit imported to New Zealand.  
• Fusarium verticillioides has a  HIGH likelihood of entering New Zealand  on pineapple 
fruit (LOW uncertainty) . 
o Fusarium verticillioides  is recorded from most markets  in this analysis . 
o Fusarium verticillioides  can be associated with pineapple fruit at all 
developmental stages . 
o Fusarium verticillioides  can survive transit conditions . 
o Fusarium verticillioides  is sometimes associated with internal fruitlet rots .  
Biosecurity New Zealand   [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  • xvi o Fusarium verticillioides is sometimes asymptomatic i n pineapple fruit, so it 
cannot always be detected in a visual inspection even if fruit is cut in half.  
• Fusarium  verticillioides has a HIGH likelihood of transferring from  pineapple fruit  to 
a suitable host in New Zealand  (MODERATE  uncertainty) . 
o Pineapple  is a high -waste commodity , and rinds and sometimes cores are 
removed and discarded .  
o If pineapple waste infected with  F. verticillioides is disposed of in domestic 
compost or directly into the environment, the fungus could survive on 
pineapple waste and o ther plant debris.  
o The fungus can be spread by movement of soil and plant material (including 
compost) and can colonise/infect host plants via the roots or via asexual spores 
(microconidia) , which are carried by water , insect s or wind.  
o However, there is moderate uncertainty in these conclusions, because we do 
not have data on  what proportion of domestic fruit and vegetable waste is 
discarded into domestic compost or into the environment . 
• Fusarium verticillioides has a HIGH  likelihood of  establishing a population in 
New  Zealand  (LOW  uncertainty) . 
o The climate throughout  New Zealand is likely to be very suitable for 
F. verticillioides . 
o Suitable hosts of F. verticillioides  are ubiquitous in New Zealand . 
o Fusarium verticillioides  can reproduce asexually, so it does not require two 
different mating types . 
o Competition with Fusarium  species already present in New Zealand is 
unlikely to limit establishment of F. verticillioides , because these species 
commonly co -occur in other areas with a similar climate to New Zealand.  
• Fusarium verticillioides  may cause MODERATE  overall impact on New Zealand 
(HIGH  uncertainty).  
o The potential economic impact of F. verticillioides in New Zealand is 
MODERATE (MODERATE  uncertainty ). 
▪ Ongoing yield losses in maize from ear, stalk and root rots are expected 
to range from 0–5% depending on growing conditions . 
▪ A single severe outbreak of Fusarium  ear rot would cause yield losses 
of approximately 20% of the  maize  crop. 
▪ Symptoms of F. verticillioides are rare and sporadic in other plants of 
economic importance to New Zealand.  
▪ There is moderate  uncertainty in this conclusion because there is 
limited information available for many non -grain hosts of 
F. verticillioides .  
o The potential environmental impact of F. verticillioides in New Zealand  is 
LOW (HIGH uncertainty ). 
o The potential human health impact of F. verticillioides in New Zealand  is 
LOW (MODERATE uncertainty ). 
o The potential  sociocultural impact of F. verticillioides  in New Zealand  is 
LOW (HIGH uncertainty ). 
 
The following tables contain a summary of risk assessment against the criteria.  
Criteria  Rating  Uncertainty   
Biosecurity New Zealand   [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  • xvii Likelihood of entering on the commodity  HIGH  MODERATE  
Likelihood of transferring from the imported commodity onto a 
suitable host  HIGH  MODERATE  
Likelihood of establishing a population in New Zealand  HIGH  LOW  
Impacts on the New Zealand economy, environment, human 
health and society  MODERATE  HIGH  
Overall level of assessed risk to New Zealand  MODERATE  HIGH  
 
Specific considerations summary (see Annex 5.2.4)  
Stage of ripeness the 
pest is associated 
with It is likely that F. verticillioides can be associated with pineapple fruit from the 
earliest stages of development. Fusarium verticilliodes  was isolated from 
fruitlets of ripe pineapples of the Queen Victoria cultivar with and without 
symptoms —the pineapples were harvested when still partial ly green and 
ripened in storage (Vignassa et al. 2021 ), and fruitlet infection usually occurs 
at an early stage of development before the bracts close (Fournier et al. 
2015) . Fusarium verticilliodes was isolated from symptomatic pineapples at 
production sites in Malaysia, but the authors do not say what stage the fruit 
was at when symptoms appeared (Ibrahim et al. 2017) . 
Pineapple varieties 
the pest is associated 
with In pathogenicity tests on ripe pineapples (Gandul, Josapine and Morris 
varieties) with F. verticilliodes isolates from Malaysia, Josapine showed the 
most severe rot symptoms (Ibrahim et al. 2017) . Fusarium verticilliodes  was 
associated with fruit of MD2 variety with rot symptoms (Vilaplana et al. 2018) . 
Fusarium verticilliodes  was isolated from fruitlets of ripe pineapples of the 
Queen Victoria cultivar with and without symptoms (Vignassa et al. 2021)  
Presence of pest in 
markets  in this IRA  Fusarium verticill ioides is present in most markets  in scope of this analysis  
(for supporting evidence, see 5.2 in Annex 5.2.5 ): Indonesia, Malaysia, the 
Philippines, Sri Lanka1, Taiwan, Thailand, Australia, Cook Islands2, Vanuatu3, 
Costa Rica, Ecuador  and Panama4. 
Parts of the fruit the 
pest associated is 
with Fusarium verticillioides has been isolated from fruitlets (i.e. internal flesh) 
(Vignassa et al. 2021)  and core s (Stępień et al. 2013)  and was visible on the 
skin (i.e. bracts) of pineapple fruit with external rot (Vilaplana et al. 2018) , but 
it is a systemic vascular endophyte/pathoge n in many other hosts so may 
also be associated with crown and stem remnants.  
Environmental 
conditions 
(temperature, 
season, etc.) under 
which disease 
symptoms are 
expressed  Symptoms of F. verticillioides (external or internal rot or fruitlet core rot) ar e 
likely to develop faster at higher temperatures (although the fungus can grow 
slowly at temperatures as low as 5°C). In pathogenicity tests, rot symptoms 
developed in pineapple fruit in cold storage at 8 °C (Vilaplana et al. 2018) . 
Mild rot symptoms (small brown lesions) were observed in cut fruit of three 
cultivars (Gandul, Josapine, Moris) two weeks after wound inoculation with F. 
verticillioides in ripe pineapple fruit incubated at 27 ± 1°C with 75% –80% 
humidity (Ibrahim et al. 2017). Fruitlet core rot symptoms in fruit with early 
natural infections of F. verticillioides  developed in fruit stored at 19 °C, 
although the authors did not confirm that F. verticillioides  caused symptoms 
with pathogenicity tests (Vignassa et al. 2021)   
Asymptomatic/latent 
infections on 
pineapple fruit  Fusarium verticillioides was isolated from asymptomatic fruitlets in ripe 
pineapples, as well as fruitlets with core rot symptoms (brown rot under the 
bracts) (Vignassa et al . 2021). Internal rot of pineapple caused by  
Biosecurity New Zealand   [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  • xviii F. verticillioides  was observed during cold storage (Valencia -Chamorro et al. 
2021) .   
1 The presence in Sri Lanka has high uncertainty. See Table 5.2 in Annex 5.2.5 for more details.  
2 The presence in Cook Islands has high uncertainty. See Table 5.2 in Annex 5.2.5 for more details.  
3 The presence in Vanuatu has moderate uncertainty. See Table 5.2 in Annex 5.2.5 for more details.  
4 The presence in Panama has moderate uncertainty. See Table 5.2 in Annex 5.2.5 for more details.  
 
To fu ll assessment of Fusarium verticillioides  
 Pestalotiopsis microspor a 
Pestalotiopsis microspora  poses an overall LOW level of risk (with HIGH uncertainty) 
on pineapple fruit imported to New Zealand.  
• Pestalotiopsis microspora  has a LOW  likelihood of entering New Zealand on  
pineapple fruit  (HIGH  uncertainty) . 
o Pestalotiopsis  microspora  is associated with pineapple fruit . 
o Pestalotiopsis  microspora  can go undetected in pineapple fruit if symptoms 
are not yet developed.  
o Pestalotiopsis  micros pora  has the potential to remain viable on pineapple s 
during transit . 
However:  
o The a ssociation with pineapple fruit is indicated from a single record in a 
country that is not one of the pineapple -export ing markets in this analysis .  
o It is uncertain whether the fungus  is local to this country ( such as new strain of 
the fungus or a vector capable of moving it from the leave s to the fruit ) or 
whether fruit rot is commonly caused by the fungus but was not  diagnosed 
previously.  
• Pestalotiop sis microspora  has a MODERATE  likelihood of transferring from  
pineapple fruit  to a suitable host in New Zealand ( MODERATE  uncertainty) . 
o The fungus has a wide variety of hosts including some invasive plants.  
o The fungus can survive in the soil and water.  
o Climate is unlikely to limit exposure of P. microspora . 
However:  
o Pestalotiopsis microspora  is unlikely to survive the heat in commercial 
composts . 
o The requirement for open wounds on host plants limits the opportunities of 
P. microspora  to invade uninfected hosts.  
• Pestalotiopsis microspora  has a HIGH  likelihood of establishing a population in 
New  Zealand ( MODERATE  uncertainty) . 
o Hosts are widely avail able for the establishment of P. microspor a. 
o Climate is unlikely to limit establishment  of P. microspora  because it occurs in 
countries with similar climate to New Zealand . 
o Pestalotiopsis microspora  can occur in water and soil.  
• Pestalotiopsis microspora  may cause a LOW  overall impact in New Zealand ( HIGH  
uncertainty) . 
o The potential economic impact of P. microspora  in New Zealand is LOW  
(HIGH uncertainty ). 
▪ Some known hosts of P. microspora  are economic  plants in 
New  Zealand . 
▪ Pestalotiopsis microspora  cause s disease in  hosts such as avocado in 
the tropics.   
Biosecurity New Zealand   [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  • xix However:  
▪ We found n o evidence of P. microspora  disease expression under 
suitable fruit storage temperature conditions,  
▪ The diversity of P. microspora strains may determine se verity of 
impact.  
o The potential  environmental impact of P. microspora  in New Zealand is 
VERY LOW  (HIGH uncertainty ). 
▪ Some of the fungus’  host genera  (e.g. Podocarpus ) are present in 
New  Zealand . 
However:  
▪ Pestalotiopsis  microspora  mostly occur s as an endophyte in the 
majority of its podocarp hosts , and, in very rare cases, it may cause 
mild leaf diseases on such hosts.  
o The potential human health impact of P. microspora  in New Zealand is 
NEGLIGIBLE  (HIGH uncertainty ). 
o The potential sociocultural impact of P. microspora  in New Zealand  is VERY 
LOW  (HIGH uncertainty ). 
 
The following tables contain a summary of risk assessment against the criteria.  
Criteria  Rating  Uncertainty  
Likelihood of entering on the commodity  LOW  HIGH  
Likelihood of transferring from the imported commodity onto a 
suitable host  MODERATE  MODERATE  
Likelihood of establishing a population in New Zealand  HIGH  MODERATE  
Impacts on the New Zealand economy, environment, human 
health and society  LOW  HIGH  
Overall level of assessed risk to New Zealand  LOW  HIGH  
 
Specific considerations summary (see Annex 5.3.4)  
Stage of ripeness the pest is 
associated with  The fungus is known to infect mature pineapple fruit , but it is not 
clear if immature fruit can also be infected.  
Pineapple varieties the pest is 
associated with  The fungus is known to infect the Smooth Cayenne variety. It is 
also known to infect pineapple leaves , but those varieties were not 
specified , and it is not clear if their fruit can also be infected.  
Presence of pest in markets  in 
this IRA  The fungus has been reported from Australia, Costa Rica, 
Ecuador, Indonesia, Malaysia, Papua New Guinea, Sri Lanka, a nd 
Thailand.  
Parts of the fruit the pest is 
associated with  The fungus causes obvious dark -coloured necrotic lesions , which 
continually expand around the bracts from the sites of infection on 
the fruit.  
Environmental conditions 
(temperature, season, etc.) 
under which disease symptoms 
are expressed  Cultures of the fungus and infections on pineapple fruit developed 
well at 25  °C. The fungus also thrive s in high humidity at room 
temperature.   
Biosecurity New Zealand   [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  • xx Different life stages of the pest 
associated with different parts of 
the fruit  No information  
Asymptomatic/latent infections 
on pineapple fruits  We found n o evidence that the fungus exhibits latent or 
asymptomatic infection in pineapples. However, infection only 
occurs in wounded fruit , and it might take up to eight days for the 
pathogen to express symptoms.  
 
To full assessment of Pestalotiopsis microspora  
 Thielaviopsis paradox a 
Thielaviopsis paradoxa poses an overall LOW level of risk, with HIGH uncertainty, on 
pineapple fruit imported to New Zealand.  
• Thielaviopsis paradoxa has a MODERATE  likelihood of entering New Zealand on  
pineapple fruit  (MODERATE uncertainty) . 
o Although fruits are unlikely to be only taken from areas of production wi th 
visible infections, the fungus can latent ly infect unripe fruit , and disease 
symptoms  become obvious during ripening . 
o Severely infected fruit is likely to be discarded during the harvest and pre -
exporting processes . 
o Transit  conditions to New Zealand are not likely to support active growth and 
spread of T. paradoxa, but the fungus can resume growth once returned to 
ambient temperatures.  
• Thielaviopsis paradoxa has a HIGH likelihood of transferring from  pineapple fruit  to 
a suitable host in New Zealand ( MODERATE uncertainty) . 
o Severely infected fruit is likely to be discarded into landfil ls or composts,  
o Thielaviopsis  paradoxa produces chlamydospores (resting spores), which are 
known to remain viable for up to 10 years in soil and  can survive on rotting 
plant debris , suggest ing the fungus can survive in residential composts  and in 
waste disposed of as animal feed , 
o Asexual conidia can be spread by rain splash, used tools, rodents and insects . 
o While fruit with early or mild infection is likely to be consumed, discarded 
skin can also be infected.  
• Thielaviopsis paradoxa has a HIGH  likelihood of establishing a population in New 
Zealand ( MODERATE  uncertainty) . 
o Thielavi opsis paradoxa ’s optimum growing  temperature is 21–22°C . The 
fungus cannot survive temperatures above 52.3°C and becomes inactive below 
10°C . 
o Winter temperatures in areas where hosts are grown are likely too low for the 
fungus  to active ly grow . However, the fungus can resume growth when 
temperatures are optimal and can survive for up to 10 years in soil . 
o Preferred horticultural hosts that are severely affected by the fungus are mostly 
tropical and not widely cultivated in New Zealand. Other hosts , such as 
Eucalyptus and ornamental palms , are widespread . 
o There are uncertainties around the impact of climate change in New Zealand.  
• Thielaviopsis paradoxa may have a  LOW  overall impact on New Zealand 
(MODERATE uncertainty).  
o The potential economic impact of Thielaviopsis paradoxa in New Zealand is 
LOW  (HIGH  uncertainty ).  
Biosecurity New Zealand   [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  • xxi ▪ Some hosts of T. paradoxa are widely cultivated and economically 
significant to New Zealand  with a total annual  export and import value 
of more than NZ$1  billion . 
▪ However, no report  was found on yield loss  caused by T. paradoxa  on 
any host plant s important to New Zealand . 
o The potential environmental impact of Thielaviopsis paradoxa in New Zealand 
is VERY LOW  (MODERATE uncertainty ). 
o The potential human health impact of Thielaviopsis paradoxa in New Zealand 
is NEGLIGIBLE  (LOW uncertainty ). 
o The potential sociocultural impact of Thielaviopsis paradoxa in New Zealand 
is VERY LOW  (MODERATE  uncertainty ). 
 
The following tables contain a summary of risk as sessment against the criteria.  
Criteria  Rating  Uncertainty  
Likelihood of entering on the commodity  MODERATE  MODERATE  
Likelihood of transferring from the imported commodity onto 
a suitable host   HIGH   MODERATE  
Likelihood of establishing a population in New Zealand  HIGH  MODERATE  
Impacts on the New Zealand economy, environment, human 
health and society  LOW  MODERATE  
Overall level of assessed risk to New Zealand  LOW  HIGH  
 
Specific considerations summary (see Annex 5.4.4)  
Stage of ripeness the pest is associated with  No information  
Pineapple varieties the pest is associated with  Md2, Mauritius, Gold Honey, Perola  
Presence of pest in markets in this IRA  Tonga, Sri Lanka, Fiji, Indonesia, Malaysia, 
New Caledonia, Taiwan, Thailand, Vanuatu, 
Australia, Cook Islands, Costa Rica, Papua New 
Guinea, The Philippines, Panama  
Parts of the fruit the pest associated is with  Can infect all parts of the pineapple frui t and plant  
Environmental conditions (temperature, season, 
etc.) under which disease symptoms are 
expressed  No information  
Different life stages of the pest associated with 
different parts of the fruit  No information  
Asymptomatic/latent infections  on pineapple fruit  It can be present on the crown, stem end, 
perianth of spike region and bracts of pineapple 
fruit without causing symptoms.  T. paradoxa can 
remain latent on  the bracts of pineapples and 
become active causing disease during the 
ripening process.  
  
Biosecurity New Zealand   [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  • xxii To full assessment of Thielaviopsis paradoxa  
6.3 Insects: Diptera  
 Bactrocera dorsalis  (Oriental fruit fly)  
Bactrocera dorsalis  poses an overall MODERATE risk (with LOW uncertainty) on 
pineapple fruit imported to New Zealand.  
• Bactrocera dorsalis  has a VERY LOW  likelihood of entering New Zealand on  
pineapple fruit  (LOW  uncertainty) . 
o Bactrocera  dorsalis  is very unlikely to be associ ated with pineapple fruit.  
o However, B. dorsalis  is present in seven pineapple -exporting markets  in this 
analysis .  
o Infestation symptoms may not be visible unless the fruit is cut in half  and may 
not be visible even when the fruit is cut . 
o Bactrocera  dorsalis  is likely to survive transit .  
o Bactrocera  dorsalis  show s resistance to infield insecticide usage.  
• Bactrocera dorsalis  has a HIGH  likelihood of transferring from  pineapple fruit  to a 
suitable host in New Zealand ( LOW  uncertainty) . 
o Bactrocera  dorsalis  can survive and develop on the abundant waste of 
pineapple  fruit, some of which will be disposed of using high -risk methods.  
o Bactrocera  dorsalis  has a very broad host range , and  many plant host species 
are present in New Zealand .  
o Bactrocera  dorsalis adults can fly long distance s. 
o Bactrocera  dorsalis  adults have relatively long lifespans.  
• Bactrocera dorsalis  has a MODERATE likelihood of establishing a population in 
New Zealand ( LOW uncertainty) . 
o Bactrocera dorsalis  is a highly invasive species.  
o Bactrocera dorsalis  has a very broad host range .  
o Adult B. dorsalis can cover  long distance s in flight . 
o Bactrocera dorsalis  has a high reproductive rate.  
o Bactrocera dorsalis  has multiple overlapping generations . 
o Bactrocera dorsalis  uses pheromones to find mates.  
o However, only some parts of New Zealand ’s North Island ( Northland,  
Auckland, the Coromandel Peninsula, northern Waikato and in coastal areas 
south to  Cape Turnagain and Foxton ) have a suitable climate for the 
establishment of B. dorsalis . 
o The New Zealand National Fruit Fly Surveillance Programme is likely to 
detect and eradicate incipient populations of B. dorsalis . 
• Bactrocera dorsalis  may cause HIGH  overall impact on New Zealand ( LOW  
uncertainty) . 
o The potential economic impact of B. dorsalis  in New Zealand is HIGH  (LOW 
uncertainty ). 
▪ Bactrocera dorsalis  is a devastating pest of a wide variety of fruits and 
vegetables throughout its range, and 20 –50% of commercially farmed  
crops can be damaged . 
▪ In New Zealand (2019), 80% of the horticultural export value 
(NZ$3.7 billion in 2020) comes  from plants that are potential fruit  fly 
hosts.   
Biosecurity New Zealand   [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  • xxiii ▪ Bactrocera dorsalis  is likely to cause impacts on many plants of major 
economic importance in New Zealand, especially on the apple, citrus, 
and avocado industries, but also on the kiwifruit industry.  
▪ Independ ent of direct damage, an incursion of B. dorsalis  could have 
high impacts on exports, including market access.  
▪ The cost of a biosecurity response to eradicate B. dorsalis  would be 
high.  
▪ If B. dorsalis  becomes established in New Zealand, additional 
postharvest disinfestation would be necessary , at significant cost . 
o The potential  environmental impact of B. dorsalis  in New Zealand is LOW  
(MODERATE uncertainty ). 
▪ Bactrocera dorsalis hosts include plant genera with native 
New  Zealand plant spec ies. However, the impact of B. dorsalis  on 
these fruiting plants is likely to be limited.  
▪ Using  insecticides to control invasive B. dorsalis  populations could 
have impacts on the environment.  
▪ The main source of uncertainty is the infestation levels that B. dorsalis  
could achieve among New Zealand native plants and in the 
New  Zealand climate and how much impact on the host plant 
population dynamics it might  have.  
o The potential  human health impac t of B. dorsalis  in New Zealand is VERY 
LOW  (MODERATE uncertainty ). 
▪ Using  insecticides to control invasive B. dorsalis  populations could 
have impacts on human health.  
▪ Consuming  infested fruit could cause gastrointestinal diseases.  
▪ The main source of uncertainty is  the infestation levels that B. dorsalis 
could achieve, the degree and type of insecticide usage, and the 
frequency of local fruit consumption.  
o The potential  sociocultural impact of B. dorsalis  in New Zealand is LOW  
(MODERATE uncertainty ). 
▪ Bactrocera dorsalis  is damaging to a number of plants grown in 
domestic gardens and parks.  
▪ The main source of uncertainty is  that we were unable to find  any 
studies estimating the sociocultural impacts of the potential infestation 
of fruit fl ies on taonga plant species . 
 
The following tables contain a summary of risk assessment against the criteria.  
Criteria  Rating  Uncertainty  
Likelihood of entering on the commodity  VERY LOW  LOW  
Likelihood of transferring from the imported commodity 
onto a suitable host  HIGH  LOW  
Likelihood of establishing a population in New Zealand  MODERATE  LOW  
Impacts on the New Zealand economy, environment, 
human health and society  HIGH  LOW  
Overall level of assessed risk to New Zealand  MODERATE  LOW  
 
Specific considerations summary ( see Annex 6.1.4 ) 
Stage of ripeness the pest is associated with  In the field: overripe  (C4)  
Biosecurity New Zealand   [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  • xxiv In the laboratory: half ripe, ¾ ripe (interpreted as 
pre-C4) 
Pineapple varieties the pest is associated with  In the field: (Queen) Victoria (and potentially, 
other varieties)  
In the laboratory: different varieties, including 
Smooth Cayenne  
Presence of pest in markets  in this IRA  Bactrocera dorsalis is present in pineapple -
exporting markets  in this IRA: Indonesia, 
Malaysia, The Philip pines, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, 
Thailand, Papua New Guinea, and is transient 
and under eradication in Australia  (Queensland,  
Torres Strait).  
Parts of the fruit the pest associated is with  Fruit flesh, skin (shell), surface  
Environmental conditions under whic h infestation 
was observed  In the field: Bactrocera dorsalis could have 
(exceptionally) exploited pineapple as a hos t as a 
result of competition with other fruit  flies. 
In the laboratory: screen cage tests on whole, 
intact fruits  
Different life stages of the pest associated with 
different parts of the fruit  Eggs and maggots (three larval stages)  
Symptoms not easily visible  Oviposition puncture marks may not be visible. 
Eggs and maggots might not be visible even 
cutting the fruit.  
 
To full assessment of Bactrocera dorsalis  
6.4 Insects: Hemiptera, Diaspididae  (armoured scale  insects)  
 Diaspis bromeliae  (pineapple scale)  
  
Diaspis bromeliae  poses an overall NEGLIGIBLE level of risk (with MODERATE 
uncerta inty) on pineapple fruit imported to New Zealand.  
• Diaspis bromeliae  has a MODERATE  likelihood of entering  New Zealand on 
pineapple fruit ( LOW  uncertainty) . 
o It can be associated with pineapple fruit.  
o Some life  stages are likely to survive in -field and packhouse activities.  
o Eggs and immature stages can be undetected due to the uneven and rough 
surface of the fruit and could hide under bracts without obvious visible 
symptoms . 
o In the last 20 years  there ha ve been interceptions  of live female adults of 
D. bromeliae  at the New Zealand border on pineapple s coming from the 
Philippines, Ecuador and Fiji via sea cargo and Fiji via air cargo, suggesting 
that this species can survive transit.  
• Diaspis bromeliae  has a VERY LOW  likelihood of transferring from pineapple fruit 
to a suitable host in New Zealand ( MODERATE  uncertainty) . 
o Diaspis bromeliae  may survive and develop on the surface of pineapple fruit, 
either whole pineapples or skin pieces.  
o Most pineapple waste is likely to be disposed of using methods that are low 
risk, for example, in bagged waste to landfill, or by commercial composting, 
worm farming or home composting in contained bins.   
Biosecurity New Zealand   [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  • xxv o Pineapple skin that is used for animal feed or open composting could expose 
D. bromeliae  first-instar nymphs to the environment.  
o The main dispersal stage is the first-instar nymph (crawler) .  
o Crawlers are  flightless and can move short distances actively or long distances 
passively.  
o Crawlers are highly vulnerable to biotic and abiotic factors such as 
temperature, humidity and natural enemies.  
o Crawlers that are wind or animal dispersed are unable to actively cho ose to 
land on a suitable host plant.  
o Diaspis bromeliae  has a relatively limited range of host plants that are readily 
available throughout New Zealand.  
• Diaspis bromeliae  has a VERY LOW likelihood of establishing a population in 
New  Zealand ( MODERATE  uncer tainty) . 
o Although Diaspis bromeliae  has established populations in countries with 
climates similar to some parts of New Zealand , it is generally found in the 
tropics and subtropic . In temperate climates , it is found only in greenhouses.  
o The mode of reproduction is sexual . This may be a  significant barrier for 
establishment because it requires at least one adult of each sex or a mated 
female to establish a population.  
o The dispersal capability of crawlers is limited , and they are susceptibl e to 
abiotic and biotic factors.  
o Diaspis  bromeliae  has a limited range of host plants that are readily available 
throughout New Zealand.  
 
 
The following tables contain a summary of risk assessment against the criteria.  
Criteria  Rating  Uncertainty  
The likelihood of entering on the commodity  MODERATE  LOW  
The likelihood of transferring from the imported commodity onto 
a suitable host  VERY LOW  MODERATE  
The likelihood of establishing a population in New Zealand  VERY LOW  MODERATE  
Impacts on the New Zealand economy, environment, human 
health and society  N/A* N/A* 
Overall level of assessed risk to New Zealand  NEGLIGIBLE  MODERATE  
* Given that the combined likelihood of entry, exposure and establishment is negligible , according to the 
‘Guidelines for Risk Analysis in Plant Biosecurity 1.0 ’, we did not need to conduct further assessment on 
impacts.  
 
Specific considerations summary ( see Annex 7.1.4 ) 
Stage of ripeness the pest is 
associated with  No information —reported as “affecting pineapple mature fruit” in 
Australia in circumstances of high field infestations  
Pineapple varieties the pest is 
associated with  No information —affects both smooth and rough varieties in 
Australia  
Presence of pest in markets in the 
this IRA  Philippines, Taiwan, Indonesia, Malaysia, Australia, Costa Rica  
Cook  Islands, Fiji, Western Samoa, New Caledonia   
Biosecurity New Zealand   [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  • xxvi Parts of the fruit the pest 
associated is with (e.g. fruit, bract, 
stem, crown remnant)  The pest is associated with all parts of the fruit.  
Different life stages of the pest 
associated with different parts of 
the fruit  All life  stages can be associated with different parts of the fr uit. 
Symptoms not easily visible  Diaspis bromeliae  eggs and immature stages can be undetected 
due to the uneven and rough surface of the fruit and could hide 
under bracts without obvious visible symptoms.  
 
To full assessment of Diaspis bromeliae  
6.5 Insects: Hemiptera, Pseudococcidae (mealybugs)  
 Dysmicoccus brevipes  (pink pineapple mealybug)  
Dysmicoccus brevipes  poses an overall LOW risk (with MODERATE uncertainty) on 
pineapple fruit imported to New Zealand.  
• Dysmicoccus brevipes  has a MODERATE likelihood of en tering New Zealand on 
pineapple  fruits  (LOW uncertainty).  
o Dysmicoccus brevipes  is present in every market  in this analysis . 
o Dysmicoccus brevipes  is widely associated with pineapple plants  and has 
been reported on pineapple fruit . 
o Dysmicoccus brevipes  is commonly detected on imported pineapple fruit 
nationally and internationally.  
o Dysmicoccus brevipes  can remain viable through sea and air cargo freight 
transit  times and conditions . 
o Insectic ides may not control D. brevipes  on pineapple s. 
• Dysmicoccus brevipes  has a LOW likelihood of transferring from  pineapple fruit  
to a suitable host in New Zealand ( MODERATE  uncertainty) . 
o Dispos ing of  organic waste into landfill is unlikely to be a D. brevipes  
exposure risk.  
o Commercial composting and worm farming are also unlikely to be a 
D. brevipes  exposure risk.  
o Domestic composting is likely to be a D. brevipes  exposure risk . 
o Dispos ing of fruit waste as animal feed is also likely to be a  D. brevipes  
exposure risk . 
o The uncertainty about the  likelihood of exposure of D. brevipes  to suitable 
environment in  New  Zealand  is due to the differ ent ways in which organic 
waste is disposed of and how these methods may inhibit or facilitate 
D. brevipes  exposure.  
• Dysmicoccus brevipes  has a LOW  likelihood of establishing a population in 
New  Zealand ( MODERATE  uncertainty) . 
o Dysmicoccus brevipes  feeds on a wide range of plants  (highly 
polyphagous ) and feeds on all plant parts . Its hosts are present, diverse and 
widespread in New Zealand . 
o Dysmicoccus brevipes  has both asexual and sexual forms . 
o Climate is likely to act as a barrier to establishment in most par ts of 
New  Zealand, with the exception of the northern North Island .  
Biosecurity New Zealand   [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  • xxvii • Dysmicoccus brevipes  may cause LOW  overall impact on New Zealand 
(MODERATE  uncertainty) . 
o The potential economic impact of D. brevipes  in New Zealand is VERY 
LOW  (MODERATE  uncertainty ). 
o The uncertainty  is around  whether D. brevipes  would cause similar levels 
of grape -crop damage to that experienced in Brazil.  
o The potential  environmental impact of D. brevipes  in New Zealand is 
VERY LOW  (MODERATE uncertainty ). 
o The potential  human health impact of D. brevipes in New Zealand is 
NEGLIBLE (LOW uncertainty ). 
o The potential  sociocultural impact of D. brevipes  in New Zealand is LOW  
(MODERATE  uncertainty ). 
o The u ncertainty around  potential sociocultural impacts is due to a lack of 
information about  direct impacts of D. brevipes  infestation on kūmara and 
taro. 
 
The following tables contain a summary of risk assessment against the criteria . 
 
Criteria  Rating  Uncertainty  
Likelihood of entering on the commodity  MODERATE  LOW  
Likelihood of transferring from the imported 
commodity onto a suitable host  LOW  MODERATE  
Likelihood of establishing a population in 
New Zealand  LOW  MODERATE  
Impacts on the New Zealand economy, 
environment, human health and society  LOW  MODERATE   
Overall level of assessed risk to New Zealand  LOW*  MODERATE  
* Based on the risk assessment, the overall risk of D. brevipes  can be at the high end of very low according to the ‘Guideline for Risk 
Analysis in Plant Biosecurity 1.0’. However, given that D. brevipes  has a very wide range of hosts, wide geographical distribution (including 
some areas with similar climate to New Zealand) and can be reproduce asexually, MPI considers that a low overall risk is more  
approp riate. 
 
Specific considerations summary ( see Anne x 8.1.4 ) 
Stage of ripeness the pest is associated with  N/A 
Pineapple varieties the pest is associated with  N/A 
Presence of pest in markets in this IRA  Australia (NSW, NT, QLD, WA), Cook Islands, 
Costa Rica, Ecuador, Fiji, Indonesia, New Caledonia, 
Malaysia, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, 
Samoa, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, Thailand, Tonga, 
Vanuatu  
Parts of the fruit the pest associated is  All 
Different life stages of the pest associated 
with different parts of the fruit  All 
Signs/damage not easily visible  Given the biology of mealybugs in general, notably 
their small size, D. brevipes  can likely  hide under 
pineapple bracts.   
Biosecurity New Zealand   [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  • xxviii   
To full assessment of Dysmicoccus brevipes  
 Dysmicoccus neobrevipes  (grey pineapple mealybug)  
Dysmicoccus neobrevipes  poses an overall NEGLIGIBLE  risk (with MODERATE  
uncertainty) on pineapple fruit imported to New Zealand.  
• Dysmicoccus neobrevipes  has a MODERATE  likelihood of entering New Zealand on  
pineapple fruit  (LOW  uncertainty) . 
o Pineapple is one of the main hosts of D. neobrevipes , and all life stages of the 
mealybug are associated with the fruit.  
o However, some in -field management is likely in commercial production 
because D. neobrevipe s is a vec tor of pineapple mealybug wilt disease . 
o Post-harvest processes are not likely to remove all mealybugs from infested 
fruit due to their small size, tendency to hide and occurrence inside blossom 
cups on fruit.  
o Dysmicoccus neobrevipes  adults and immatures can survive freight transit 
times and conditions.  
• Dysmicoccus neobrevipes  has a LOW  likelihood of transferring from  pineapple fruit  
to a suitable host in New Zealand ( MODERATE  uncertainty) . 
o Fresh pineapples produce large amounts of unavoidable waste as skins and 
whole fruit, most of which is disposed of using methods that pose a low risk of 
transfer to a new host.  
o However, some waste is disposed of by methods that pose a higher risk of 
transf er to a new host, including composting in gardens and us e as animal 
feed.  
o Dysmicoccus neobrevipes  can survive and develop on the surface of fruit 
waste (whole pineapples or skin pieces).  
o Crawlers, which are the main dispersal stage and flightless, can move  short 
distances actively and longer distances passively.  
o Crawlers that are wind or animal dispersed are unable to actively choose to 
land on a suitable host plant  and depend on landing on or very close to a host 
plant.  
o Dysmicoccus neobrevipes  is polyphago us, and known hosts grow in New 
Zealand as commercial crops, in domestic gardens and as weeds.  
o Although there is general data on food waste in New Zealand, t here is no 
specific data on pineapple waste to inform the likelihood of exposure for 
D. neobrevipes . However, we assume pineapple  waste  will be a very small part 
of total food waste . 
• Dysmicoccus neobrevipes  has a VERY LOW  likelihood of establishing a population 
in New Zealand ( MODERATE  uncertainty) . 
o Dysmicoccus neobrevipes  is polyphagous , and hosts are available in the parts 
of New  Zealand most climatically suited for establishment.  
o Dysmicoccus neobrevipes , which reproduces sexually, uses sex pheromones to 
attract males , which increases the likelihood of finding a mate.  
o Dysmicoccus neobrev ipes has moderate to high fecundity . Individuals produc e 
around 350 to 1 ,000 live young.  
o First-instar crawlers are the main dispersal stage and can move actively for 
short distances to reach new feeding sites and passively for longer distances by 
wind, on animals and movement of infested plant material and produce .  
Biosecurity New Zealand   [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  • xxix o Climate may limit the establishment of D. neobrevipes  in most of 
New  Zealand but may not be a  limiting factor for the mealybug to establish in 
locations in the warmer northern region of the North Island and in sheltered 
environments.  
• Dysmicoccus neobrevipes  may cause a VERY LOW  overall impact on New Zealand 
(MODERATE  uncertainty) . 
o The potential  economic impact of  D. neobrevipes  in New Zealand is VERY 
LOW  (MODERATE  uncertainty ). 
▪ Dysmicoccus neobrevipes  is polyphagous , and cultivated plants of 
importance in New Zealand are known hosts . There could be increased 
production costs for some crops and increased phytosanitary 
requirements for some that are exported . However , we found no 
information on damage or economic impacts  for these crops  elsewhere . 
▪ Climate is likely to limit the establishment of D. neobrevipes  to 
warmer northern regions of the North Island and sheltered 
environments . The mealybug is likely to have difficulty reaching  
numbers  that have a high impact on crop production . 
o The potential environmental impact of  D. neobrevipes  in New  Zealand is 
VERY LOW  (MODERATE  uncertainty ). 
▪ Dysmicoccus neobrevipes  has a wide host range across many plant 
families which means there is potential for some New Zealand native 
plant species to be hosts. However, there is no specific information on 
which native New Zealand plant species could act as hosts and there is 
no evidence that D. neobrevipes  is likely to have unwanted impacts on 
any native species . 
▪ Dysmicoccus neobrevipes  is likely to have a very limited distribution 
due to climatic factors.  
o The potential  human health impact of  D. neobrevipes  in New Zealand is 
NEGLIGIBLE  (LOW  uncertainty ). 
o The potential  sociocultural impact of  D. neobrevipes  in New Zealand is VERY 
LOW  (MODERATE  uncertainty ). 
▪ Dysmicoccus neobrevipes  is polyphagous , and some of its known hosts 
are grown as garden and amenity plants in New Zealand.  
▪ Given the wide  host range across many plant families , there is potential 
for some New Zealand species to be hosts, but there is no evidence that 
D. neobrevipes  is likely to have unwanted impacts on any culturally 
significant species . 
▪ Dysmicoccus neobrevipes  is likely to have a very limited distribution 
due to climatic factors . 
 
The following tables contain a summary of risk assessment against the criteria.  
Crite ria Rating  Uncertainty  
Likelihood of entering on the commodity  MODERATE  LOW  
Likelihood of transferring from the imported commodity onto a 
suitable host  LOW  MODERATE  
Likelihood of establishing a population in New Zealand  VERY LOW  MODERATE   
Biosecurity New Zealand   [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  • xxx Impacts on the New Zealand economy, environment, human 
health and society  VERY LOW  MODERATE  
Overall level of assessed risk to New Zealand  NEGLIGIBLE  MODERATE  
 
Specific considerations summary (see Annex 8.2.4)  
Stage of ripeness the pest is 
associated with  Any stage  
Pineapple varieties the pest is 
associated with  The pineapple variety is generally not specified, although Baili and 
Smooth Cayenne are recorded. Dysmicoccus neobrevipes  is likely 
to be associated with all pineapple varieties.  
Presence of pest in m arkets in 
the scope of this IRA  Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Taiwan, 
Costa Rica, Panama, Cook Islands, Fiji, New Caledonia, Samoa, 
Ecuador  
Parts of the fruit the pest 
associated is with (e.g. fruit, 
bract, stem, crown remnant)  Dysmicoccus neobrevipes  is likely to be associated with any 
structure on the fruit surface, including bracts, and blossom cups.  
Different life stages of the pest 
associated with different parts of 
the fruit  All life stages (first instars to adults) can be associated with the 
fruit surface. Immature and mature mealybugs can feed inside 
closed blossom cups.  
Symptoms not easily visible  Although D. neobrevipes  feeds on plant surfaces, it tends to hide 
in protected parts of the pineapple surface, including brac ts, 
reducing the likelihood of visual detection. All life stages can occur 
inside closed blossom cups and go undetected by visual 
inspection, unless the fruit is cut open.  
 
To full assessment of Dysmicoccus neobr evipes  
 Ferrisia virgata  (striped mealybug)  
Ferrisia virgata  poses an overall very VERY LOW risk (with MODERATE uncertainty) 
on pineapple fruit imported to New Zealand.  
• Ferrisia virgata  has a LOW  likelihood of entering New Zealand on  pineapple fruit  
(with MODERATE  uncertainty) for the following reasons.  
o Pineapple i s a host  of F. virgata , and l ive F. virgata nymphs and adults have 
been intercepted twice on fresh pineapple s at the New Zealand border . 
o Nymphs , pupae  and female adults can be associated with decrown ed fruit at 
the time of harvest , while eggs may only be present on leaves.  
o We found no information to suggest that pineapple cultivar or ripeness affects 
the association of F. virgata  with pineapple fruit.  
o In general, infestation of F. virgata  is likely to be visible, but at low population 
levels, nymphs  (espec ially crawlers)  and adult  female s may not always be 
detected during routine post -harvest activities due to their small size and 
tendency to hide.  
o Nymphs (except crawlers) and adult females may remain attached to fruit 
during general washing due to their wa x-covered body, secure attachment to 
the fruit surface and tendency to hide.  
o Nymphs, pupae and adult females can survive shipping to New Zealand.   
Biosecurity New Zealand   [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  • xxxi o Uncertainty: no information found indicates the temperature threshold for F. 
virgata  and no literature found o n describing the biological association with 
pineapple fruit.  
• Ferrisia virgata  has a LOW likelihood of transferring from pineapple fruit to a 
suitable host in New Zealand (MODERATE uncertainty).  
o Ferrisia virgata  may survive on pineapple waste, but it may not be able to 
successfully find a suitable host if it arrives in New Zealand i n the cold season.  
o Fresh pineapples produce large amounts of unavoidable waste . However, most 
is likely to be disposed of as bagged waste to landfill or into in -sink disposal 
units. These methods are unlikely to result in successful exposure.  
o Commercial c omposting is unlikely to result in successful exposure since 
mealybugs will not survive the process.  
o Direct dispos ing of pineapple waste in to the environment may result in 
successful exposure, but only a very small amount of infested imported 
material is l ikely to be disposed of by this method . 
o Home composting in gardens and use as animal feed could increase the 
likelihood of successful exposure , since suitable host plants are very likely to 
be available.  
o The reproductive character istics of F. virgata  are likely to aid its exposure to a 
suitable host.   
o However, the likelihood of the mealybugs locating a suitable host is low, 
because most life stages have limited mobility (apart from crawlers) , and 
passive movement by wind or transport by other animals  cannot guarantee the 
mealybug will  locate a suitable host . 
o Uncertainty: we have no information from New Zealand specific to pineapple 
waste, on the cold tolerance of F. virgata , or on the development of F. virgata  
on pineapple fruit.  
• Ferrisia virgata  has a  LOW likelihood of establishing a population in New Zealand 
(MODERATE  uncertainty) . 
o Ferrisia virgata  has moderate to high fecundity . 
o Although most studies report that it can only reproduce sexually , asexual 
reproduction has also  been reported . 
o Females produce pheromones to attract males , which increases the likelihood 
of finding a mate , increasing its likelihood of establishment.  
o Ferrisia virgata  is high ly polyphagous, and acceptable hosts are widely 
available in nature and modified environments in New Zealand . 
o Climate conditions do not favour establishment throughout New  Zealand, but 
it is likely that summer population s in the field  (at least, in the northern 
North  Island ) or permanent populations  in protected environments (such as 
greenhouses and glasshouses ) could survive . 
o Uncertainty:  most uncertainty is related to the correct identification of 
F. virgata . Records of F. virgata  before  2012 documenting its distribution and 
host range may be incorrect and need to be verified . There are no reports 
specific to the lower temperature thresholds of this mealybug. The information 
on its overwintering behaviours and reproduction mode is inconsi stent.  
• Ferrisia virgata  may cause LOW  overall impact s in New Zealand ( MODERATE  
uncertainty) . 
o Ferrisia virgata can potentially affect many cultivated plants of economic 
importance to New Zealand (such as citrus, tomato and grapevine) , but the 
mild temperate  climate in New Zealand is likely to limit the impact .  
Biosecurity New Zealand   [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  • xxxii o Controlling F. virgata  could increase production costs for a number of crops, 
but the impact is likely to be limited , as current mealybug control programmes 
in New Zealand are likely to help control F. virgata  populations.  
o The impact of F. virgata  on market access overseas is u nlikely to be high , 
because it is present in the markets  of most of New Zealand’s trading partners, 
e.g. China, Australia and the USA.  
o Ferrisia virgata may attack native species,  but given that most areas in 
New  Zealand are not climatically suitable for th is mealybug species, the 
environmental impact is unlikely to be high.  
o Kūmara (sweet potato) and taro have been reported as hosts of F. virgata . 
These plants have  cultural importance to Māori and Pasifika communities 
(however , no significant impacts on thei r crops have been reported in 
association with F. virgata ).  
o Climate change may affect habitat suitability and provide F. virgata  with the 
potential to spread and become established further south. This may also 
increase its impacts in New  Zealand, and the unknowns around climate change 
increase our uncertainty about  the risk of this mealybug.  
 
The following tables contain a summary of risk assessment against the criteria.  
Criteria  Rating  Uncertainty  
Likelihood of entering on the commodity  LOW  MODERATE  
Likelihood of transferring from the imported commodity onto a 
suitable host  LOW  MODERATE  
Likelihood of establishing a population in New Zealand  LOW  MODERATE  
Impacts on the New Zealand economy, environment, human 
health and society  LOW  MODERATE  
Overall level of assessed risk to New Zealand  VERY LOW  MODERATE  
 
Specific considerations summary ( see Annex 8.3.4 ) 
Stage of ripeness the pest is 
associated with  No information  
Pineapple varieties the pest 
is associated with  No information  
Presence of pest in markets 
in this IRA  Ferrisia virgata has been reported from all markets  in this IRA.  
Parts of the fruit the pest 
associated is with  Ferrisia virgata is likely to be associated with every structure on the 
surface of pineapple fruit . 
Different life stages of the 
pest associated with different 
parts of the fruit  Except eggs , which may only be present on leaves , and adult males , 
which are likely to be removed by commercial production process,  all 
other  life stages of F. virgata  theoretically can be associated with 
pineapple fruit.  
Signs/damage not easily 
visible  Like most other mealybugs, F. virgata  lives on the plant surface and 
feeds by inserting its mouthparts into the plant phloem. It may hide in 
protected parts of the pineapple surface, including bracts, reducing  
Biosecurity New Zealand   [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  • xxxiii  the likelihood of visual detection. There is no evidence that F. virgata  
burrows into the plant as a borer.  
 
To full assessment of Ferrisia virgata  
 Planococcus minor  (Pacific mealybug)  
Planococcus minor  poses an overall VERY LOW level of risk (with MODERATE 
uncertainty) on pineapple fruit imported to New Zealand.  
• Planococcus minor  has a LOW  likelihood of entering New Zealand on  pineapple fruit  
(MODERATE uncertainty) .  
o We found  no information indicat ing that P. minor  is strongly associated with 
the commodity, suggesting pineapple is not a preferred plant host.  
o There have been just two interc eptions at the New Zealand border on 
pineapples since 200 0. However, it is uncertain if the low interception records 
are a result of existing control measures reduc ing the risk of  entry  of P. minor  
or a result of weak association with pineapple fruits.   
o Eggs and first -instar mealybugs (crawlers) in general are inconspicuous life 
stages that could go unnoticed in packhouses and survive commercial cleaning 
and insecticides.  
o The cold tolerance and overwintering mechanisms of P. minor  are unknown, 
but interception records at the New Zealand border on pineapples suggest that 
adults can survive transit conditions on pineapple.  
o The viability of P. minor  eggs will likely be negatively affected during sea 
freight coming from Asia or America , but eggs are likely to survive if coming 
from Australia or if transported via air freight.  
• Planococcus minor  has a VERY LOW  likelihood of transferring from  pineapple fruit  
to a suitable host in New Zealand ( MODERATE  uncertainty) . 
o Pineapple skin that is b agged and sent to the landfill, commercial composting, 
worm farming and home composting in plastic bins are low -risk methods  of 
waste disposal . 
o Pineapple skin that is sent for animal feed or open composting could 
potentially expose the crawlers to the envi ronment, because P. minor  is a 
polyphagous species , and many of its recorded hosts are present in 
New  Zealand.  
o The ability of P. minor  to find a suitable host is limited because crawlers can 
only walk and search over short distances  and are flightless . To be transported 
over long distances by passive wind dispersal , a combination of conditions 
need s to occur ( i.e., right wind speed, angle position  on the host , host location 
and survival to predation and environmental conditions) .  
o We found n o specific information  on the  behaviour of P. minor  crawlers . This 
assessment is based on information about  other mealybugs.  
o Our i nformation about crawlers was based on laboratory or greenhouse 
experiments . It is un certain  how crawlers will survive the adversities of the 
environment.  
• Planococcus minor  has a LOW likelihood of establishing a population in 
New  Zealand (MODERATE uncertainty) .   
Biosecurity New Zealand   [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  • xxxiv  o It is likely that P. minor ’s mode of reproduction is sexual . This is a significant 
barrier for establishment . 
o Planococcus minor  has a limited active long -range dispersal.  
o Planococcus minor  is a polyphagous species, and many of its recorded hosts 
are present in New Zealand. It is hig hly likely that crawlers will find a suitable 
host.  
o Planococcus minor  has established  populations  in regions with similar 
climates to New  Zealand.  
o P. minor  has a high reproductive rate and is able to produce multiple 
generations.  
o Crawlers can  easily  disperse  within and across farms aided by agricultural 
equipment, farm workers or movement of plant material.  
• Planococcus minor  may cause LOW overall impact s on New Zealand ( MODERATE  
uncertainty) .  
o There is no evidence of economic impacts attribute d to P. minor  on any 
horticultural crops of economic importance to New Zealand.  
o There are no reports of economic impacts attributed to P. minor in places 
where P. minor  has successfully  established (e.g., Australia and Puerto Rico) . 
o Planococcus minor  transmits viruses in plants that are not of economic 
importance to New Zealand.  
o The risk of ants interfering with biological control programmes targeting 
P. minor  in New Zealand is negligible , because successful biological control 
programmes have been reported in New Zealand for mealybugs that have 
established populations in the past 100 years .  
o There are no reports of health impacts on people working in field s as a result 
of aggressive ants being attracted by the honeydew excreted by mealybugs.  
o Additional management cost s to producers because of P. minor  will be  low, 
because there have been management programmes to control mealybugs in 
New Zealand vineyards since the 1960s. These programmes are  likely to 
control P. minor  populations.  
o There is no evidence of impacts to New Zealand native species or taonga and 
staple food for Māori and Pasifika communities by P. minor.  
o An incursion of this mealybug could represent additional costs to producers 
due to phytosanitary measures and compliance agreements  imposed by other 
countries where P. minor  is a regulated pest . 
 
The following tables contain a summary of risk assessment against the criteria.  
Criteria  Rating  Uncertainty  
Likelihood of entering on the commodity  LOW  MODERATE  
Likelihood of transferring from the imported commodity 
onto a suitable host  VERY LOW  MODERATE  
Likelihood of establishing a population in New Zealand  LOW  MODERATE  
Impacts on the New Zealand economy, environment, 
human health, and society  LOW MODERATE 
Overall level of assessed risk to New Zealand  VERY LOW  MODERATE  
  
Biosecurity New Zealand   [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  • xxxv Specific considerations summary ( see Annex 8.4.4 ) 
Stage of ripeness the pest is 
associated with  No information  
Pineapple varieties the pest is 
associated with  No information  
Presence of pest in markets in 
this IRA  Planococcus minor  has been reported in all market s in this IRA . 
Parts of the fruit the pest 
associated is with (e.g. fruit, 
bract, stem, crown remnant)  No specific information.  Other Planococcus  species are found on 
the base of leaves, twigs, bark, flowers and fruit. We assume 
P. minor  will have similar behaviour.  
Different life stages of the pest 
associated with different parts of 
the fruit  No specific information.  In other crops, such as cotton, P. minor  
crawlers wander around the plant toward actively growing plant 
parts before settling to feed. The female adult becomes sessile 
and can be found in similar places as the crawlers.  
Signs/damage not easily visible  Fruit that is highly infested with mealybugs is likely to be detected , 
because adults have a visible white waxy powdery coating . Eggs 
in the ovisac  are also likely to be visible . However, immature 
stages that have less coat ing and small eggs  that are not 
protected by the ovisac  could easily go unnoticed under bracts  or 
crevices of the fruit.  
 
To full assessment of Planococcus minor  
 Pseudococcus jackbeardsleyi  (Jack Beardsley mealybug)  
Pseudococcus jackbeardsleyi  poses a NEGLIGIBLE overall level of risk (with 
MODERATE uncertainty) on pineapple fruit imported to New Zealand.  
• Pseudococcus jackbeardsleyi  has a LOW  likelihood of entering  New Zealand on 
pineapple fruit ( MODERATE  uncertainty) . 
o Pseudococcus   jackbeardsleyi  is associated with the exterior of the pineapple 
fruit.  
o The first instars of  Ps. jackbeardsleyi may be missed during  border inspections  
if they are under  pineapple bract s. 
o Pseudococcus  jackbeardsleyi  can survive  short transit s to New  Zealand, 
especially if the commodity is brought in by air cargo.   
However:  
o We found n o information to associate the mealybug with pineapple fruits apart 
from interception data . 
o Basic  pre-export cleaning may reduce the abundance of Ps. jackbeardsleyi on 
the commodity.  
o Pseudococcus   jackbeardsleyi  is unlikely to remain viable after long transits 
(weeks) in cold temperatures.  
• Pseudococcus jackbeardsleyi  has a VERY LOW likelihood of transferring from 
pineapple fruit to a suitable host in New Zealand (MODERATE uncertainty) . 
o Pseudococcus   jackbeardsleyi  has a wide variety of hosts, and it  feeds on the 
stems, fruits and leaves of its hosts.  
o All lifestages  can disperse actively for short distances by walking .  
Biosecurity New Zealand   [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  • xxxvi  o Crawlers can spread passively for longer distances by wind.  
However:  
o Pseudococcus  jackbeardsleyi  is unlikely to survive commercial composting or 
a landfill.  
o Cold temperatures and plant secondary metabolites may impede 
Ps. jackbeardsleyi ’s survival.  
• Pseudococcus jackbeardsleyi  has a VERY LOW likelihood of establishing a 
population in Ne w Zealand (MODERATE uncertainty) . 
o New Zealand has many hosts of  Ps. jackbeardsleyi . 
However:  
o The climate in New Zealand is relatively unsuitable for Ps. jackbeardsleyi . 
o New Zealand has  natural enemies of mealybugs, which may impede the spread 
and populatio n size of Ps. jackbeardsleyi . 
 
The following tables contain a summary of risk assessment against the criteria.  
Criteria  Rating  Uncertainty  
Likelihood of entering on the commodity  LOW  MODERATE  
Likelihood of transferring from the imported 
commodity onto a suitable host  VERY LOW  MODERATE  
Likelihood of establishing a population in 
New Zealand  VERY LOW  MODERATE  
Impacts on the New Zealand economy, 
environment, human health, and society  N/A* N/A* 
Overall level of risk to New Zealand  NEGLIGIBLE  MODERATE  
*Given that the combined likelihood of entry, exposure and establishment is negligible , according to the 
‘Guidelines for Risk Analysis in Plant Biosecurity 1.0 ’, we did not need to further assess  the impacts.  
 
Specific considerations summary ( see Annex 8.5.4 ) 
Stage of ripeness the pest is 
associated with  No information  
Pineapple varieties the pest is 
associated with  No information  
Presence of pest in markets in this 
IRA Australia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Indonesia, Malaysia, Panama, 
Papua New Guinea, The Philippines, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, 
Thailand  
Parts of the fruit the pest 
associated is with  The pest feeds on the stems, leaves and fruit of its host plants. It 
is likely to be associated with all exterior pa rts of the fruit.  
Life stages of the pest associated 
with different parts of the fruit  No specific information. All post -egg stages of the mealybug 
have functional  legs and can move around the fruit.   
Biosecurity New Zealand   [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  • xxxvii  Signs/damage not easily visible  Pseudococcus   jackbeardsleyi  feeds on and lives on the exterior 
parts of its hosts. The first three instars are small and can easily 
hide under pineapple bracts, groves or crown remains. Adult 
females are relatively obvious. The cotton -like ovisac with eggs 
is quite obv ious.  
 
To full assessment of Pseudococcus jackbeardsleyi  
6.6 Insects: Lepidotera, Cosmopterigidae  (cosmet moths)  
 Anatrachyntis rileyi  (pink scavenger caterpillar)  
Anatrachyntis rileyi  poses an overall VERY LOW risk (with MODERATE uncertainty) 
on pineapple fruit imported to New Zealand.  
• Anatrachyntis rileyi  has a HIGH  likelihood of entering New Zealand on  pineapple 
fruit (LOW  uncertainty) . 
o Anatrachyntis rileyi  eggs and larvae are associated with pineapple fruit.  
o Anatrachyntis rileyi  larvae can show resistance to some types of pesticides.  
o Some developmental stages, such as eggs and young larvae, could be 
undetected during field and packhouse activities.  
o Anatrach yntis rileyi  can overwinter and further develop when climatic 
conditions are suitable.  
o There have been interceptions of live A. rileyi  larvae at the New Zealand border 
on pineapple fruit.  
• Anatrachyntis rileyi  has a MODERATE likelihood of transferring fro m pineapple fruit  
to a suitable host in New Zealand ( MODERATE  uncertainty) . 
o Anatrachyntis rileyi  may survive and develop on pineapple fruit waste.  
o There are waste disposal methods that could facilitate the exposure of A. rileyi  
to the environment.  
o Some hos t plants can be found throughout New Zealand.  
o Some waste disposal methods would limit the exposure of A. rileyi  to the 
environment because they are under contained structures.  
o We do not know  whether larvae can survive inside compost bins in summer 
because the larvae’s  upper temperature threshold is not known.  
o Even though A. rileyi  host range is quite wide, there is some uncertainty about 
the host range due to misidentifications of the moth in the past.  
o The information on waste disposal in New Zealand is not up to date and is 
based on general waste. There is no specific information  on pineapple waste.  
• Anatrachyntis rileyi  has a LOW  likelihood of establishing a population  in 
New  Zealand ( LOW  uncertainty) . 
o Anatrachyntis rileyi  has mostly established populations in warm tropical and 
subtropical climates.  
o Sexual reproduction is a barri er for establishment.  
o Host plant availability will not be a barrier for establishment.  
o Anatrachyntis rileyi  is a predatory and scavenger species , increasing its feeding 
choices in the environment.  
o The larvae can overwinter and resume development when clima tic conditions 
are suitable.  
• Anatrachyntis rileyi  may cause VERY LOW  overall impact s on New Zealand 
(MODERATE  uncertainty) .  
Biosecurity New Zealand   [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  • xxxviii  o The potential economic impact of Anatrachyntis rileyi  in New Zealand is 
VERY LOW (MODERATE uncertainty ). 
▪ Anatrachyntis rileyi  is mainly a scavenger but can occasionally feed on 
healthy plants.  
▪ Anatrachyntis rileyi  is a seasonal  pest of secondary importance and 
with limited distribution in some crops but is a major pest in field and 
stored corn.  
▪ Anatrachyntis rileyi  can complete  its life cycle on dead plant material 
and does not rely on living  plants  to complete its life cycle.  
▪ Anatrachyntis rileyi  is an opportunistic species, found feeding in 
previously injured sugarcane and cotton plants.  
▪ We found n o recent information about th e impacts of A. rileyi  in corn , 
and we are uncertain if A. rileyi  is still considered a major pest on this 
crop. 
▪ There is uncertainty about the host range of this species due to past 
misidentifications . 
o The potential environmental impact of A. rileyi  in New Zealand is VERY LOW  
(MODERATE uncertainty ). 
▪ We found n o evidence o f impacts on native plant species by A. rileyi or 
other  Anatrachyntis species already established in New Zealand .  
▪ Anatrachyntis rileyi  is a predator  of scales but is unlikely to cause 
impacts on New  Zealand native scales because its infestation is 
seasonal and restricted due to its limited dispersal capabilities.  
▪ We are  uncertain if A. rileyi  will prey on native scales, because  we 
found  no information on the predator –prey specificity of this species.  
o The potential  human health impact of A. rileyi  in New Zealand is 
NEGLIGIBLE  (LOW uncertainty ). 
▪ We found n o evidence of human health impacts associated with 
A. rileyi  or other Anatrachyntis  species.  
o The potential sociocultural impact of Anatrachyntis rileyi  in New Zealand is 
VERY LOW  (MODERATE uncertainty ). 
▪ We found n o evidence of any impacts of A. rileyi  or other 
Anatrachyntis  species on culturally important plants in New Zealand.  
▪ Taro has been listed as an  A. rileyi  host plant . However, we are 
uncertain if taro is a host of A. rileyi , given misidentifications with 
A. badia  in Hawaii in early literature.  
▪ Taro  is widely grown in some parts of New Zealand , and until recently , 
it was grown under glasshouse conditions.  
▪ Anatrachyntis rileyi  is unlikely to cause a major negative impact on 
taro, given that it  is mainly a scavenger  and rarely feeds on healthy 
plants during high infestations.  
▪ We found n o information  about A. rileyi  impacts on taro.  
 
The following tables contain a summary of risk assessment against the criteria.  
Criteria  Rating  Uncertainty  
Likelihood of entering on the commodity  HIGH  LOW  
Likelihood of transferring from the imported commodity onto a 
suitable host  MODERATE  MODERATE   
Biosecurity New Zealand   [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  • xxxix  Likelihood of establishing a population in New Zealand  LOW  LOW  
Impacts on the New Zealand economy, environment, human 
health, and society  VERY LOW  MODERATE  
Overall level of assessed risk to New Zealand  VERY LOW  MODERATE  
 
Specific considerations summary (see Annex 9.1.4)  
Stage of ripeness the pest is 
associated with  Anatrachyntis rileyi  usually infests very young fruit and appears to 
do little or no damage. However, occasionally, larvae are present 
when the fruit is close to ripe.  
Pineapple varieties the pest is 
associated with  Anatrachyntis rileyi  was found feeding on Cayenne and Hilo 
varieties in Hawaii and the Queen variety in South Africa.  
Presence of pest in markets  in 
this IRA  Costa Rica, Ecuador1, Thailand, Philippines, Indonesia, Australia , 
Fiji 
Parts of the fruit the pest 
associated is with (e.g. fruit, 
bract, stem, crown remnant)  Anatrachyntis rileyi  can be found inside the fruit and on the 
surface (eyes of the fruit) feeding on dead floral remains.  
Different life stages of the pest 
associated with different parts of 
the fruit  Larvae are the most damaging life stage and c an be found on the 
floral parts, inside and outside the pineapple fruit. Eggs are 
deposited mainly on the blossom cup of the young fruit , but it is 
uncertain if the female deposits eggs on the surface of the fruit 
once the fruit is fully formed.  
Signs/damage not easily 
visible  There is evidence of A. rileyi  burrowing into the fruit without 
causing obvious symptoms, especially when larvae have recently 
entered the ripening fruit. Young larvae can hide in the complex 
surface of the pineapple fruit and find refuge under the bracts.  
1 Reported present in the Galapagos Islands (Roque -Alberto 2006)  
 
To full assessment of Anatrachyntis rileyi  
 Vector analysis  
Planococcus citri is not a  hazard in this analysis . 
• Planococcus citri can transmit one pineapple pathogen, Pineapple bacilliform 
comosus virus  (PBCoV ), but we found no evidence that PBCoV can affect plants 
other than pineapple  plants .  
• Planococcus citri is not known to transmit any pathogen in the HPP/SRO12 list in a 
persistent or semi -persistent manner.  
 
Pseudococcus longispinus is not  a hazard in this analysis . 
• Pseudococcus longispinus may transmit one pineapple pathogen, Pineapple mealybug 
wilt-associated virus 2 (PMWaV -2), but no clear evidence could be found that 
PMWaV -2 can affect plant species other than pineapple.  
• Pseudococcus longispinus is not known to transmit any pathogen in the HPP/SRO list  
in a persistent or semi -persistent manner.  
 
To full vector analysis  
 
12This list is compiled from the MPI ’s high-priority pest and disease (HPP) list and the list of sector risk organisms (SRO) as 
listed/described by each Government Industry Agreem ent (GIA) partner in either their draft operational agreement, 
biosecurity plan or website. See Table 10.2 in Annex 10.   
40 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  7 Annex: Details of risk assessments  
 
Table of Content s 
 
1        RISK ANALYSIS PROCESS  
1.1 OVERVIEW OF THE RISK ANALYSIS PROCESS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................  44 
1.2 RISK ASSESSMENT RANKING ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........  45 
1.3 HAZARD IDENTIFICATION  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .............  46 
1.4 RISK ASSESSMENT  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .....................  47 
1.5 ASSESSMENT OF UNCERTAINTI ES ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................  47 
1.6 REVIEW AND CONSULTATION  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 48 
1.7 REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 1 ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 48 
2 IRA SCOPE AND INFORMATION  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...............................  49 
2.1 DESCRIPTIONS OF THE COMMODITY AND PATHWAY  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 49 
2.2 GENERAL INFORMATION RELATED TO LIKELIHOOD OF ENTRY  ................................ ................................ ..........................  50 
2.3 GENERAL INFORMATION RELATED TO LIKELIHOOD OF EXPOSURE AND ESTABLISHMENT  ................................ ....................  53 
 Waste analysis  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..............  54 
 Potential for the exposure of seed -transmitted and vector -transmitted pathogens  ................................ ....... 57 
 New Zealand climates  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 58 
 Shifting New Zealand climates with climate change  ................................ ................................ ......................  59 
2.4 GENERAL INFORMATION RELATED TO IMPACTS OF PESTS AND DISEASES  ................................ ................................ ........  61 
 Potential for spread  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 61 
 Potential impacts  in New Zealand  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................  61 
 Potential for economic impacts to the pineapple industry  ................................ ................................ .............  62 
2.5 REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 2 ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 62 
3 HAZARD IDENTIFICATION  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .........  65 
4 PEST RISK ASSESSMENTS: BACT ERIA  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................  66 
4.1 DICKEYA ZEAE  (BACTERIAL HEART ROT /FRUIT COLLAPSE ) ................................ ................................ ..............................  66 
 Taxonomic description  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 66 
 Hazard identification  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 66 
 Risk assessment  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........  69 
 Specific considerations  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 77 
 References  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................  78 
 Appendix to Risk Assessment of Dickeya zeae  ................................ ................................ ............................  82 
4.2 PANTOEA ANANATIS  (FRUITLET ROT OF PINEAPPLE ) ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 85 
 Taxonomic description  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 85 
 Hazard identification  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 85 
 Risk assessment  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........  86 
 Specific considerations  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 95 
 References  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................  96 
5 PEST RISK ASSESSMENTS: FUNGI  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................  102 
5.1 FUSARIUM OXYSPORUM  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............  102 
 Taxonomic description  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ . 103 
 Hazard Identification  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 103 
 Risk Assessment  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .........  105 
 Specific considerations  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................  116 
 Appendix to Risk Assessment of Fusarium oxysporum  ................................ ................................ ..............  118 
 References  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................  120 
5.2 FUSARIUM VERTICILLIOIDES  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 125 
 Taxonomic description  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ . 125 
 Hazard Identification  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 125 
 Risk Assessment  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .........  126 
 Specific considerations  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................  141 
 Appendix to Risk Assessment of Fusarium verticillioides  ................................ ................................ ............  142  
41 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  
 References  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................  143 
5.3 PESTALOTIOPSIS MICROSPORA  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 156 
 Taxonomic description  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ . 156 
 Hazard Identification  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 156 
 Risk Assessment  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .........  157 
 Specific consider ations  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................  167 
 References  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................  167 
 Appendix to Risk Assessment of Pestalotiopsis microspora  ................................ ................................ ....... 174 
5.4 THIELAVIOPSIS PARADOXA (PINEAPPLE BLACK ROT )................................ ................................ ................................ .... 177 
 Taxonomic description  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ . 177 
 Hazard Identification  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 177 
 Risk Assessment  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .........  178 
 Specific considerations  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................  186 
 References  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................  187 
 Appendix to Risk Assessment of Thielaviopsis paradoxa  ................................ ................................ ...........  190 
6 PEST RISK ASSESSMENTS ON INSECTS: DIPTERA  ................................ ................................ ............................  196 
6.1 BACTROCERA DORSALIS  (ORIENTAL FRUIT FLY ) ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........  196 
 Taxonomic description  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ . 196 
 Hazard identification  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 196 
 Risk assessment  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .........  197 
 Specific considerations  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................  212 
 References  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................  212 
 Appendix to risk assessment of Bactrocera dorsalis  ................................ ................................ ...................  219 
7 PEST RISK ASSESSMENTS ON INSECTS: HEMIPTERA, DIASPIDIDAE (ARMORED SCALE) ...........................  220 
7.1 DIASPIS BROMELIAE   (PINEAPPLE SCALE ) ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................  220 
 Taxonomic description  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ . 220 
 Hazard Identification  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 220 
 Risk Assessment  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .........  221 
 Specific considerations  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................  230 
 References  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................  230 
8 PEST RISK ASSESSMENTS ON INSECTS: HEMIPTERA, PSEUDOCOCCIDAE (MEALYBUGS)  ........................  236 
8.1 DYSMICOCCUS BREVIPES  (PINK PINEAPPLE MEALYBUG ) ................................ ................................ ..............................  236 
 Taxonomic description  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ . 236 
 Hazard identification  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 236 
 Risk assessment  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .........  238 
 Specific considerations  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................  249 
 References  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................  249 
8.2 DYSMICOCCUS NEOBREVIPES  (GREY PINEAPPLE MEALYBUG ) ................................ ................................ .......................  258 
 Taxonomic description  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ . 258 
 Hazard Identification  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 258 
 Risk Assessment  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .........  259 
 Specific considerations  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................  273 
 References  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................  274 
8.3 FERRISIA VIRGATA  (STRIPED MEALYBUG ) ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................  281 
 Taxonomic description  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ . 281 
 Hazard identification  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 281 
 Risk assessment  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .........  282 
 Specific considerations  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................  296 
 References  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................  298 
8.4 PLANOCOCCUS MINOR  (PACIFIC MEALYBUG ) ................................ ................................ ................................ ..............  304 
 Taxonomic description  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ . 304 
 Hazard Identification  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 304 
 Risk Assessment  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .........  305 
 Specific considerations  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................  321 
 References  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................  321 
8.5 PSEUDOCOCCUS JACKBEARDSLEYI  (JACK BEARDSLEY MEALYBUG ) ................................ ................................ ..............  329 
 Taxonomic description  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ . 329  
42 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  
 Hazard identification  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 329 
 Risk assessment  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .........  330 
 Specific considerations  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................  336 
 References  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................  337 
9 PEST RISK ASSESSMENTS ON INSECTS: LEPIDOTERA, COSMOPTERIGIDAE (COSMET MOTHS)  ...............  341 
9.1 ANATRACHYNTIS RILEYI (PINK SCAVENGER CATERPILLAR ) ................................ ................................ ...........................  341 
 Taxonomic description  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ . 341 
 Hazard Identification  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 341 
 Risk Assessment  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .........  342 
 Specific considerations  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................  355 
 References  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................  356 
10 VECTOR ANALYSIS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................  362 
10.1 SUMMARY OF THE ANALYSIS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................  364 
10.2 VECTOR ANALYSIS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...............  364 
 Planococcus citri (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae)  ................................ ................................ ....................  364 
 Pseudococcus longispinus (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae)  ................................ ................................ ..... 366 
10.3 REFERENCES  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................  368 
APPENDIX 1.  SUMMARY OF TAXA EXCLUDED AT HAZARD IDENTIFICATION ................................ ....................  370 
APPENDIX 2 TAXA EXCLUDED DURING PRA STAGE  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 461 
APPENDIX 2.1 DICKEYA DADANTII  (BACTERIAL WILT / SOFT ROT ) ................................ ................................ .............................  461 
APPENDIX 2.2 MELANOLOMA VIATRIX (PINEAPPLE FLY , MOSCA DE LA FRUTA DE LA PIÑA ) ................................ .........................  464 
APPENDIX 2.3 CURVULARIA VERRUCULOSA  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........................  466 
APPENDIX 2.4 CURVULARIA ERAGROSTIDIS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........................  469 
APPENDIX 2.5 DALDINIA ESCHSCHOLTZII  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..............................  473 
APPENDIX 2.6 FUSARIUM CON CENTRICUM  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................  476 
APPENDIX 2.7 CHRYSODEIXIS INCLUDENS  (GOLDEN TWIN -SPOT MOTH ) ................................ ................................ ...................  478 
APPENDIX 2.8 ELAPHRIA NUCICOLORA (SUGARCANE MIDGE MOTH) ................................ ................................ .......................  480 
APPENDIX 2.9 OPOGONA SACCHARI  (BANANA  MOTH ) ................................ ................................ ................................ .............  482 
APPENDIX 2.10  CARPOPHILUS MUTILATUS (CONFUSED SAP BEETLE ) ................................ ................................ ......................  485 
APPENDIX 2.11  METAMASIUS HEMIPTERUS (WEST INDIAN SUGARCANE BORER ) ................................ ................................ ...... 489 
APPENDIX 2.12  SYBRA ALTERNA NS ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 492 
APPENDIX 3 TRANSIT CONDITIONS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ . 494 
APPENDIX 4 GLOSSARY AND ABBREVIATIONS  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............  497 
   
43 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand   
1 Risk analysis process  
The World Trade  Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures 
(SPS agreement) states that phytosanitary measures must be supported by risk assessment and 
not maintained without sufficient evidence  (WTO 1995) . That is, to require addit ional 
measures, MPI must have evidence that a pathogen  would not be sufficiently managed by the 
application of the minimum requirements.  
The Biosecurity New Zealand process for undertaking an IRA builds on the existing 
international frameworks for risk an alysis under the World Organisation for Animal Health 
(OIE) and the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC), and extends the scope, under 
the SPS Agreement, to include all of the values required by the Biosecurity Act (1993)13.  
The main output is  an IRA which is used in the development or review of an IHS under the 
Biosecurity Act (1993). An IHS specifies the requirements to be met for the effective 
management of risks associated with importing risk goods14. 
The Biosecurity Act (1993) requires a chief technical officer to begin the process of 
developing an Import Health Standard by: “ analysing or assessing the risks associated with 
importing a class or description of goods”15. While the Biosecurity Act does not state how 
the risks are t o be assessed or analysed, it does state that the chief technical officer must have 
regard to certain matters when developing an IHS for recommendation to the Director -
General. A number of these are part of an IRA as described by the OIE and IPPC:  
• The lik elihood that the goods will import organisms16 
• The nature of the organisms that the goods may import  
• The possible effect on human health, the New Zealand environment17, and the New 
Zealand economy of the organisms that the goods may import  
• In relation to r equirements proposed for inclusion in an IHS, the extent to which the 
requirements reduce or manage the likelihood or impacts of adverse effects from 
organisms that may be imported on or in association with goods18 
An IRA is also a relevant factor in how a country meets its obligations under the SPS 
agreement and other agreements such as the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). 
Under the SPS agreement, risk management measures either must be based on existing 
international standards, guidelines or recommendations, or must be supported by a scientific 
 
13Biosecurity Act section 24(4)(b)(iii) “…human health, the New Zealand environment, and the New Zealand economy…” 
As defined in section 2(1), environment includes (a) ecosystems and their constituent parts, including people and their 
communities; and (b) al l natural and physical resources; and (c) amenity values; and (d) the aesthetic, cultural, economic, 
and social conditions that affect or are affected by any matter referring to paragraphs (a) to (c).   
14Section 22, Biosecurity Act 1993  
15Section 23(1) Bios ecurity Act 1993  
16From Section 2(1) Biosecurity Act 1993: “ organism —(a) does not include a human being or a genetic structure derived 
from a human being: (b)includes a micro -organism: (c) subject to paragraph (a), includes a genetic structure that is capa ble 
of replicating itself (whether that structure comprises all or only part of an entity, and whether it comprises all or only p art of 
the total genetic structure of an entity): (d) includes an entity (other than a human being) declared by the Governor -General 
by Order in Council to be an organism for the purposes of this Act: (e) includes a reproductive cell or developmental stage o f 
an organism: (f) includes any particle that is a prion”  
17From section 2(1) Biosecurity Act 1993, “ environment includes — (a) ecosystems and their constituent parts, including 
people and their communities; and (b) all natural and physical resources; and (c) amenity values; and (d) the aesthetic, 
cultural, economic, and social conditions that affect or are affected by any matter referred to in paragraphs (a) to (c)”  
18Section 23(4)(b) and (d) Biosecurity Act 1993   
44 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  justification19. Measures must not be maintained without sufficient scientific evidence20. 
Measures must also not be unnecessarily trade restrictive21. In order to m eet these obligations, 
the SPS agreement requires that measures are based on a risk analysis. Under the CBD, 
countries must consider environmental impacts in decision -making and prevent the 
introduction of, and control or eradicate alien species that threa ten ecosystems, habitats and 
species.  
The MPI process is equivalent to the process for plant health risk analysis under the 
International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPM) under the IPPC22 (the main 
differences being in terminology).  
1.1 Overview o f the risk analysis process  
The individual steps in the process for developing an IRA are the same for both the OIE and 
IPPC. However , the standards, guidelines and recommendations for animal health (sanitary) 
and plant health (phytosanitary) measures are developed by different international bodies. 
This means that there are  differences in the detail of how IRA is done for animal health (OIE) 
and plant health (IPPC). The MPI process and methodology for undertaking an IRA is 
summarised in Figure 1.1 . 
 
19SPS Agreement 1995 Article3(1) and (3)  
20SPS Agreement 1995 Article 5(7)  
21SPS Agreement Article 5(6)  
22ISPM2: Framework for Pest Risk Analysis ( Link ).  
45 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand   
Figure 1.1 BNZ process and methodology for undertaking an import risk analysis  
 
1.2 Risk assessment ranking  
For each of the likelihoods of entry, exposure, establishment, the following ranking scales 
will be used.  The column containin g the “quantitative guidance” provides a quantitative 
scale to help guide the analyst on the scale of each ranking.  
Scale  Qualitative guidance  Quantitative guidance  
High Extending above the normal or average level  More than 2 events in 3 years  
Moderate  Around the normal or average level  1 to 2 events in 3 years  
Low Less than average, coming below the normal level  1 event in 3 to 20 years  
Very low  Close to insignificant  1 event in 20 to 100 years  
Negligible  Not worth considering; insignificant  Less than 1 event in 100 years  
 
46 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand   
For consequences, the following ranking scales will be used:  
Scale  Qualitative guidance  Quantitative guidance  
Very High  Well above the normal or average level  More than 10 billion $NZ  
High Extending above the normal or average level  Between 1 and 10 billion $NZ  
Moderate  Around the normal or average level  Between 100 million and 1 billion $NZ  
Low Less than average, coming below the normal 
level Between 10 and 100 million $NZ  
Very low  Close to insignificant  Between 1 and 10 million $NZ  
Negligible  Not worth considering; insignificant  Less than 1 million $NZ  
While the values provided in the quantitative guidance are New Zealand dollars over a 20 to 
30 year period, the analyst considers how non -economic impacts can be monetarised ( e.g., 
the dollar value of damage to ecosystem services) or considered equivalent (e.g., how much 
social impact is equivalent to these economic values).  
 
1.3 Hazard identification  
Hazard identification23 is the process of identifying pests and diseases that are associated with 
imported risk goods and have the ability to cause harm to New Zealand. In this process , we 
compil e a list of potential hazards and then assess them against criteria to see whether they 
warrant further consideration. Hazard identification an swers two questions . 
• Does the species meet the criteria to be considered a biosecurity risk to New Zealand?  
• Is the species potentially associated with the commodity that is being assessed?  
The criteria for a quarantine pest for New Zealand are derived from the Biosecurity Act and 
the IPPC and WOAH . These criteria are:  
• Is the pest or disease absent from New Zealand?  
• OR is the pest or disease present in New Zealand, but it meets one of the fol lowing 
criteria?  
o The species is under official control.  
o The species is a vector of a quarantine pest or disease.  
o There are subspecific taxa (subspecies, varieties, strains, etc.) within the pest 
species that are an increased risk to New Zealand compared wi th those already 
present.  
o There are other factors that would mean that the pest or disease may still be of 
concern in associated with imported goods (e.g. increased exposure to people 
through imported goods24). 
• AND does the pest or disease have the potenti al to establish in New Zealand and harm 
“human health, the New Zealand environment, and the New Zealand economy25”? 
Association with the commodity is based on:  
 
23 Under the IPPC, the hazard identification process is known as pest categorisation in ISPM 2 (FAO 1995)  and ISPM 11 MfE (FAO 2013) . 
24 One example is venomous spiders on fresh fruit. Even if present in a country, there may be a higher likelihood of people getting bitten if 
the spiders are associated with fruit sold at a supermarket.  
25 Biosecurity Act 1993   
47 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  • association with the commodity species or genus;  
• association with the specific parts of the comm odity; and  
• whether a particular pest will stay associated with a commodity during preparation 
and/or transit to New Zealand – for example, a large flying insect is unlikely to stay 
on a piece of fruit when it is picked.  
Different approaches may be taken to  compiling and presenting the list of potential hazards 
depending on the information needed for pests or diseases in each pest/ disease  group . The 
approach for each group may be determined in the project plan, once the risk management 
question and risk eval uation criteria have been established. The specific approaches to hazard 
identification used in this import risk analysis are discussed further in chapter 3.  
 
1.4 Risk assessment  
At the end of hazard identification, we compile a list of hazards that require ri sk assessment. 
A risk assessment evaluates the likelihood of introduction (entry, exposure and 
establishment) and consequence for a particular hazard, as well as the uncertainty in the 
conclusions. The SPS agreement describes the factors to take into accou nt when assessing 
risk. These factors include:  
• available scientific evidence;  
• relevant processes and production methods;   
• relevant inspection, sampling and testing methods;  
• prevalence of specific diseases or pests;  
• relevant ecological and environmental conditions; and  
• potential damage in the event of the entry, establishment or spread of a pest or 
disease.  
A qualitative approach is suitable for most  import risk analyses and is currently the most 
common type of assessment we use to support the development and review of import 
requirements.  
 
1.5 Assessment of uncertainties  
The SPS agreement states that measures must be applied “only to the extent necessary  and 
must be supported by sufficient scientific evidence ”26. Therefore, if there is insufficient 
evidence indicating that an organism meets the criteria for additional measures, then MPI 
usually does not consider it a  hazard ( see section 1.3 ). In some cases there may be good 
reason to consider a pest or disease  a hazard  even when evidence is insufficient (e.g. 
similarity to known pests or diseases ). In these cases, we may still assess the pest or disease  
further . If there is insufficient evidence but significant uncertainty, then the decision maker 
may apply measur es, but under those circumstances the measures are provisional and further  
conditions may be required27.  
Therefore , documenting significant uncertainty is an essential part of risk assessment. We 
have documented u ncertainties such as contradictions in the  evidence or a lack of ev idence in 
this analysis . If we identify  significant uncertainty that affect s the conclusion s of our risk 
 
26 SPS Agreement 1995 Article 2.2  
27 SPS Agreement 1995 Article 5.7   
48 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  assessment , we have indicated this in the wording of the conclusion.  The rationale for our 
uncertainty rating is as follows . 
Scale Criteria  
High • Scarce or no data available; evidence provided in unpublished reports of unknown 
authenticity; or  
• Few observations and personal communications; and/or  
• Authors’ or experts’ conclusions vary considerably  
Moderate  • Some or only incomplete data available; evidence provided in small number of 
references; authors’ or experts’ conclusion vary; or  
• Limited evidence from field/lab observations; or  
• Solid and complete data available from other species that can be extrapolated to 
the speci es being considered  
Low • Solid and complete data available; strong evidence in multiple references with most 
authors coming to the same conclusions; or  
• Considerable and consistent experience from field observations  
 
1.6 Expert r eview  
Expert review is a fundamental component of risk analysis . It ensure s the analysis is based on 
the most up -to-date and credible information available.  
Expert reviewers may  check that the import risk analysis  is based on the best available and 
most credible information, that the document is clear and logical, that assumptions are valid 
and that conclusions are consistent with the evidence, with other conclusions in the risk 
analysis  and with relevant conclusions in other assessments.  
1.7 References for Annex  1 
FAO (1995) Guidelin es for pest risk analysis. International Standard for Phytosanitary 
Measures No. 2. Published by FAO on behalf of the Secretariat of the International Plant 
Protection Convention (IPPC); Rome, Italy.  
FAO (2013) Pest risk analysis for quarantine pests. Int ernational Standard for Phytosanitary 
Measures No. 11. Published by FAO on behalf of the Secretariat of the International Plant 
Protection Convention (IPPC); Rome, Italy.  
WTO (1995) World Trade Organization (WTO) Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures 
Agreem ent (SPS). www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/sps_e.htm.  
  
49 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  2 IRA scope and information  
We have developed t his import risk analysis (IRA) in response to a request to update the  
import health standard s (IHS) for the importation of fresh pineapples ( Ananas comosus ) for 
the seven  currently  approved markets  (Australia, Ecuador, Fiji, New Caledonia, 
the Philippines,  Thailand, Vanuatu) and to add an  additional 10 markets  (Cook Islands, Costa 
Rica, Indonesia, Malaysia, Papua New Guinea, Panama, Samoa, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, Tonga) . 
The purpose of the risk analysis is to identify and assess biosecurity risks associated with  
commercially produced decrown ed pineapple ( Ananas comosus ) for human consumption (of 
all varieties and ripeness (excluding overripe)). The decisions that this risk analysis will 
inform are:  
a. whether MPI should require additional measures for any pests and diseases  on 
commercially produced, decrown ed pineapple ( Ananas comosus ) for human 
consumption ((of all varieties and ripeness (excluding overripe)), beyond the  
measures  covered by the commodity description;  
b. whether MPI should  remove any pests  and diseases  from  the current standards for 
commercially produced, decrown ed pineapple ( Ananas comosus ) for human 
consumption that do not require additional measures due to new scientific evidence ; 
and 
c. what measures are available that could manage the pest risks to an appropriate level.  
The objective of the risk analysis  is to:  
a. Identify w hich pests and diseases present a level of risk to New Zealand on the 
commodit y and pathways included in the scope;  and 
b. assess these pests and diseases  using a method which provides sufficient evidence 
about the biosecurity risks to assist risk managers to determine  a robust and 
transparent decision on whether additional measures beyond the commodity 
description proposed for the IHSs are required to mana ge these pests  and diseases.  
For any particular risk good 28, there is a commodity description that describes the minimum 
condition of the commodity that is covered by this IRA. The commodity description is 
important as many pests and diseases may not be a ssociated with a commodity that is defined 
in a certain way (e.g. more pests may potentially be associated with a commodity definition 
of fresh beans for consumption than a commodity definition of frozen beans for 
consumption).  
 
2.1 Descriptions of the c ommodi ty and pathway  
This risk analysis considers the effects on the New Zealand economy, environment , society  
and human health 29 from organisms potentially associated with the importation of 
commercially produced, decrown ed pineapple fruit ( Ananas comosus ) for human 
consumption .  A detailed description of the commodity and pathway is provided in Table  2.1. 
 
 
28 Regulated article und er IPPC  
29 Specifically, this IRA covers sections 23(4)(b)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the Biosecurity Act:  
(i) the likelihood that the goods will import organisms:  
(ii) the nature of the organisms that the goods may import:  
(iii) the possible effect on human hea lth, the New Zealand environment, and the New Zealand economy of the organisms that the goods may 
import   
50 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand   
Table 2.1 Detailed description of the commodity and the pathway(s) of entry to New Zealand.  
Commodity description  
Commodity description30 
Commercially produced decrown ed fresh pineapple fruit ( Ananas comosus ), of all varieties and 
ripeness (excluding over ripe31) for human consumption. This excludes material or produce which is 
visibly damaged (damage which may be a result of the presence of  a regulated pest or could 
expose the commodity to regulated pests).  The risk from crown remn ant has not been considered in 
this IRA because crown remn ant will be deemed a non -compliance as per the commodity 
description.  
 
Commercial production description  
Commercial production means a process (system) where activities, such as in -field monitoring, pest 
control activities, harvesting, cleaning32, sorting, and grading 33 have been undertaken. These 
activities are carried out to minimise:  
a) the presence of regulated pests;  
b) commodity damage which could expose the commodity to regulated pests.  
Note: NPPO phytosanitary inspection, certification and documentation form pa rt of general import 
requirements.  
Pathway description  
Commercially produced decrown ed fresh pineapple fruit ( Ananas comosus ) for human consumption 
from Australia, Ecuador, Fiji, New Caledonia, The Philippines, Thailand, Vanuatu, Cook Island s, 
Costa Rica, Ind onesia, Malaysia, Papua New Guinea, Panama, Samoa, Sri Lanka, Taiwan and 
Tong a.  
The import risk analysis project is applie d to both sea and air cargo34. Therefore, all risk 
assessments will consider both pathways.  
 
2.2 General information related to likelihood of entry  
The following aspects of the commodity and pathway description will affect the likelihood 
that pests or d iseases will enter New Zealand:  
1. The pineapples are required to be commercially produced. Commercial production 
means a process (system) where activities, such as in -field monitoring, pest control 
activities, harvesting, cleaning , sorting, and grading have been undertaken.  Note: 
NPPO phytosanitary inspection, certification and documentation form part of general 
import requirements.  This excludes material or produce which is overripe or visibly 
damaged (damage which may be a result of the presence of a regula ted pest or could 
expose the commodity to regulated pests).  
 These activities are carried out to minimise:  
a) the presence of regulated pests;  
 
30 In the absence of ripeness and variety from the commodity description, pest association will be reported for all varieties an d stages of 
ripeness in the IRA.  
31 Overripe is equivalent to C4 or greater as per the UNECE Standard on the marketing and commercial quality control of pineapples: Link 
32 Cleaning will removal extraneous plant material, debris, and soil. Large mobile pests will also be removed.  
33 Grading will remove damaged produce or visibly infested produce.  
34 See Annex .Appendix 3 for transit conditions.   
51 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  b) commodity damage which could expose the commodity to regulated pests . 
2. The pineapples are also to be decrown ed. This prevents the association of leaf and 
foliage infecting pests and diseases as well as minimises contamination with weed 
seeds (see section 2.2.1 ).   
The import risk analysis project is applie d to both sea and air cargo. Therefore, all risk 
assessments  will consider both pathways.  Transit conditions of these pathway are described 
in Annex. Appendix 3.  
 
 Risk of introducing weed seeds on fresh pineapple   
According to a n MPI trip report to pineapple exporting countr ies (MPI 2018), despite control 
measures reducing weed prevalence to very low levels amongst fruiting pineapple plants,  
small amounts of weed plants were observed amongst the fields . The report also indicates 
that the common area of seed contamination is in the crown of pineapple. However, 
contaminating seeds is unlikely to be associated with  imported fresh decrown ed Ananas 
pineapple  fruit as per the commodity description  in this IRA  because these seeds would li kely 
be detected or removed during decrown ing, cleaning and inspection in the commercial 
production process .  
Supporting information  
The MPI Horticultural Imports team confirmed with importers that from at least 2018 only 
decrown ed pineapple  fruit have been imported in spite of it not being a requirement to 
decrown . This provided a basis to use interception data as a tool to assess whether seeds were 
still as sociated with imported decrown ed pineapple  fruit. 
 
Interception reports  (from 2002 to August 2021)  from QuanCargo (2021)  shows that there 
was a decrease in seed contamination  particularly from 2018 onwards when pineapple  fruit 
was being voluntarily decrown ed even though the volume of pineapple fruit is generally 
higher than earlier years  (Figure 2.1 ). The percentage of consignments with seed 
contamination has also decreased in recent years ( Figure 2 .2). 
 
 
Figure 2.1 Total volumes in tonnes  for imported pineapple  fruit and numbers of consignments 
with seed contamination from 2002 until August 2021  (QuanCargo 2021)  5823
15
651413
12
025
33
103
00
0510152025
02000400060008000100001200014000
Number of consignmentsVolume (tonnes)
Number of consignemnts with seed contamination in QuanCargo
Volume of imported pinepples (Tonnes) 
52 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand   
 
Figure 2.2 Percentage of  consignment entries  of pineapple fruit with seed contamination from 
2002 until August 2021  (QuanCargo 2021)  
 
Similarly, LIMS (2022)  interception database records also show only a spike betw een 2000 
and 2003 and virtually nothing thereafter  (Figure 2.3) . Of particular note is  that no records of 
seed interceptions were recorded after 2018 in this database.  
 
 
Figure 2 .3 Graph showing total number of seeds found on imported pineapple fruit in f rom 1986 until 
2021 (LIMS 2022) . 
 
For the years when pineapple  fruit were voluntarily decrown ed (2018 to August 2021) , three 
interceptions of seeds were identified  and all were  in 2019  (QuanCargo 2021 ; Table 2.2 ).  
 
Table 2.2  Records of seed interceptions since 2018 from QuanCargo (2021).  
Exporting countries  Inspection date  Genera of seeds  
Ecuador  13/05/2019  Cyperus  sp.  
Dinehra  sp.  05101520253035Percentage of consignments  %
000000000113
3054110
28
2020000100000000000
020406080100120
1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016 2021number of seeds on pineapple 
53 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Philippines  5/11/2019  Brachiaria  sp.  
Digitaria  sp.  
Setaria  sp.  
Ecuador  17/01/2019  Crepis  sp.  
 
The Quarantine officers who completed the inspections were contacted to determine where 
the seeds were found on these particular consignments. They confirmed that for one of the 
consignments the seeds were found in the remnants of the crown still attached to the fruit. 
The pineapple fruit were not very well decrown ed, meaning that it was not cleanly cut close 
to the fruit and had more crown than other consignments in general. While this does not 
classify as a non -compliance ( decrown ing is not currently requ ired) it does explain and 
confirm that crowns are indeed a reservoir for seed contamination. The other consignment 
had seeds found in a section of the stem which was, again, not cut off to the standard one 
would expect it to be, leaving bracts underneath t he fruit which trapped the seeds. The third 
consignment recalls that the seeds ( Crepis sp.) may have been windblown and attached to the 
side of the pineapple  fruit. These seeds are “fluffy” in appearance and could become stuck 
onto the spiky bracts on the side of the fruit. Generally, these seeds would be detected during 
cleaning and inspection and should be removed as part of the commercial production system.  
Therefore, if the pineapple fruit are effectively destemmed, decrown ed, cleaned and inspected 
in accordance with the commodity description , weed seeds is unlikely to be associated with 
the commodity as per the commodity description.   
 
2.3 General information related to likelihood of exposure and 
establishment  
When a pest or disease  arrives in a new area , it usually needs to transfer from the imported 
commodity or inanimate object, to a host or environment suitable for the completion of 
development or production of offspring . This is termed “exposure” in Biosecurity New 
Zealand  risk assessments.  
For pineapple fruit,  the intended use is human consumption , not propagation. There are two 
ways a pest or disease  arriving with plant products  may come into contact with a growing 
host plant:  
1. A pest may fly or be washed, blown or carried off the plant product and find a host 
plant. Examples include  mobile pests such as  thrips  and psyllids , as well as some 
fungi  and bacteria . 
2. The plant product is  discarded in to an environment that allows the pest or disease  to 
continue its life cycle and eventua lly come into contact with a host plant . Examples 
include  flies, scales and citrus canker.  
The likelihood of the first case (mobile pest) occurring depends largely on the mobility of the 
pest. However, the more mobile the pest is, the less likely it is to  be associated with harvested 
and packed plant product in the first place , due to the level of handling the plant product 
receives  during these processes.  
The likelihood of the second case (discarded plant product material) occurring depends on 
waste material generated from the commodity (either parts of the commodity not generally  
54 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  consumed, e.g. rinds or seeds, or parts generally consumed that have degenerated to the point 
of being considered inedible).  Waste mater ial discarded into bagged rubbish that goes to 
landfill, or into kitchen disposal units that flush into the sewerage system , is unlikely to be a 
risk. However, waste discarded into compost bins , under plants as mulch  or distributed as 
animal feed  presents a potential exposure pathway . 
Climate factors may impact on the likelihood of pest or disease exposure or establishment in 
New  Zealand.  
 Waste analysis  
 
Summary of the analysis  
• Pineapple is one of the higher waste fresh produce compared  to many other types of 
fresh produce . Over 50% of the weight of a decrown ed pineapple  is often  discarded as 
unavoidable waste.  
• Disposal methods  pose different levels of risk : food waste that is bagged and goes to 
landfill, or is disposed of into in -sink disposal units, is unl ikely to be a risk ; 
commercial compost and worm farming are  a low  risk method s; garden or home 
composting  can be  a high  risk method ; fruit waste distributed as animal feed may also 
represent a potential exposure pathway.  
• A recent  survey shows that  13.8% of the total supermarket food waste is directed to 
animal feed.  
• Available data suggests that 71% and 13% of household organic waste  was landfilled 
and disposed of in to in-sink disposal units, respectively . Approximately 13% of 
household organic waste was composted . 
 
Note : The proportions in  the studies that used in this analysis are for total food or organic 
waste, and as such, the pr oportion that comprises imported produce or pineapple  is much 
smaller and will be affected by seasonal differences in fruit supply.  The accurate proportion 
of food waste or pineapple waste disposed of by different methods is not known.  
 
Supporting informat ion 
Some fresh produce commodities can be entirely consumed and they generate no unavoidable 
waste, for example blueberries or leafy vegetables. Others such as apples or summerfruit 
generate small or moderate amounts (the cores or stones). However, fresh p ineapples produce 
large amounts of unavoidable waste; the thick rind is always removed and disposed of, and 
the fruit is also sometimes cored. The weight percentage of peel and core of a typical fruit of 
the Cayena Lisa variety of pineapple with the crown on is 41% and 6% respectively (Medina 
and García 2005) . Based on these data, the percentage weight of peel and core of a 
decrown ed Cayena Lisa variety pineapple is 51.25% and 7.5% respectively, that is, over 50% 
of the pineapple is likely to be discarded as unavoidable waste.   
 
The disposal of whole fruits (e.g. culled and unsold fruits, uneaten and fruit remains) is not 
uncommon during wholesale and retail marketing, or even by consumers . In addition, 
pineapple is a common ly sold commodity . Therefore, pests and pathogens associated with 
pineapple  waste could be expected to have a higher likelihood of exposure than those 
associated with many other kinds of fresh produce.  
  
55 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Disposal method s 
Food waste disposal methods in New Zealand include landfill, commercial compost, garden 
compost or worm farming, animal feed, disposal into waste water via in -sink units and direct 
disposal into the environment, e.g. by roadsides, in parks etc. In New Zealand, landfill is the 
most common method of disposing of municipal solid waste and organic waste (Askarany 
and Franklin -Smith 2014) . Different disposal methods pose different levels of risk. Food 
waste that is bagged and goes to landfill, or is disposed of into in -sink disposal units , is 
unlikely to  be a risk. However, g arden or home composting  can be  a high  risk method . 
Garden composting encompasses a wide range of practices, from open compost piles to 
commercially produced containers. Also, c ompost sites are not always covered and are often 
situate d close to weeds, grasses and garden plants.  A study conducted in Palmerston North 
found that although 63% of households that have home composts used manufactured plastic 
bins for composting, the majority of the others used ‘open’ composting systems, such as open 
compost piles and piles fenced with wire (Mensah 2017) , which will increase the likelihood 
of exposure. Fruit waste distributed as animal feed also represents a potential exposure 
pathway.  In contrast, commercial compost is a low -risk method . Waste MINZ (2009)  
describes that w aste is put in to tunnels for a period of three to four days at greater than 55°C  
for pasteurisation. WasteMINZ (2009)  defines pasteurisation as the process whereby organic 
materials are treated to kill plant and animal pathogens  and weed propagules, so these 
conditions are  likely to kill many pathogens (WasteMINZ 2009) . Worm farming is 
considered to be a low-risk method, as contained worm bins are likely to be used.  
 
Disposal pathways  
Fresh produce waste may be disposed of by wholesalers, retailers  (e.g. supermarkets) , food 
services (e.g. restaurants, hospitals  and schools ) and /or consumers (MPI 2014) . The 
percentage of the total loss of fruit and vegetables during distribution/retail marketing and at 
the consumer stage for North America, Australia and New Zealand  collectively , is 12% and 
28% respectively (NRDC 2012 in Porat et al. 2018) . In New Zealand, landfill is the most 
common disposal method, but the accurate proportion of food waste disposed of by different 
methods is not  known. Recent food waste audits (WasteNotConsulting 2015; SunshineYates 
2018)  in New Zealand only include analysis of food waste disposed of through domestic 
kerbside refuse collection. They do not include analysis of food waste disposed of through 
dispos al units, home compost and animal feed, as this information is difficult to survey 
(WasteNotConsulting 2009) . Despite the lack of accurate data, there are studies investigating 
disposal pathways used by people and households.  
 
It is important to note that  the proportions in  the following studies are for total food or 
organic waste, and as such, the proportion that comprises imported produce or pineapple  is 
much smaller and will be affected by seasonal differences in fruit supply.  
 
Wholesaler s 
MPI (2014)  conducted an analysis of fruit waste in New Zealand, but noted that wholesale 
fruit disposal pathways and practices were not covered.  A recent search on literature and data 
on wholesale fruit disposal returned no related studies.  
 
Retail ers – supermarket s 
Although normal commercial practice is to reduce waste, fruit waste in New Zealand may be 
collected from unpacking areas (e.g. supermarket preparation rooms) and taken to rural areas 
where it is placed on the ground for eventual consumption b y pigs or other farmed animals 
(MPI 2014) . A recent survey on waste from supermarkets in New Zealand (Goodman -Smith  
56 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  2018)  found that 13.8%, 1.38%, 13% and 0.65% of the total supermarket food waste directed 
to animal feed, landfill, food donation and compos ting is fresh fruit waste, which make up 
28.83% of the total supermarket food waste.   
 
  
Food services  
A recent study indicates fruit waste accounts for 9% of the 24,366 tonnes food waste 
produced from cafés and restaurants annually in New Zealand  (Waste MINZ 2018) . Food 
services are estimated to waste up to 20% of all food entering their operations. Some cafés 
and restaurants donate food scraps as animal feed (although this may not be legal) and may 
also be taken home for domestic compost (Chisnall 2018) , and these two disposal methods 
are considered to be high risk methods.   
 
Goodman -Smith et al. (2020)  conducted a food waste audit in 16 retail stores and found that 
fresh fruits contributed 17% of discarded product. Disposal methods used for food waste 
produced from these stores were low risk methods including landfill, protein reprocessing 
and commercial compost.  
 
Goonan et al. (2014)  studied food waste from hospitals in New Zealand and indicated that 
regulations on food safety and quality control limit t he use of composting and animal feed as 
disposal methods from plate waste. However, hospital food waste (kitchen waste) prior to 
patient consumption may be composted (Goonan 2013) . In a broader food service context, a 
2009 environmental survey showed that 13% of operators participated in composting organic 
waste (Anonymous 2009, cited in Goon an 2013) . However, it is not known what composting 
system was used by these operators.  
 
Households  
Most of household organic waste was disposed of using low risk method s in New Zealand: 
Available data suggests that 71% and 13% of this waste was landfilled and disposed of in 
disposal units (both are low risk methods), respectively, and approximately 13% of household 
organic waste was composted (Hogg  et al. 2010, cited in MPI 2014) . There are a few surveys 
and audits on food waste from households in New Zealand (summarised in Table 2.2), 
however, these surveys have not measured the proportion of food waste disposed of by 
different methods. These surveys indicate that a large proportion of the people or households 
surveyed used high risk disposal methods, and that high risk disposal m ethods including 
garden composting and animal feed tend to be more common in rural areas 
(WasteNotConsulting 2009) . Since different methods were used and the surveys were 
conducted in different regions, it is difficult to compare the results in order to un derstand the 
trend of change in food waste disposal behaviour. However, a  recent survey (Rabobank 2021)  
found that total household food waste , as a percentage of New Zealand household spend,  was 
similar in 2021 and in 2019 (8.6% and 10.2% respectively). Fr uit and vegetables account for 
around two thirds of all food waste, and New Zealanders are more likely to be using compost 
or worm farms in 2021 than in 2019 . The only survey found that investigated the proportion 
of food waste disposed of through differen t disposal methods is Hogg et al. (2010, cited in 
MPI 2014).  
 
Table 2.2 Summary of household food waste survey in New Zealand.  
Reference  Locations  Main findings on disposal methods   
57 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Moore et al. (2002 ), cited 
in WasteNotConsulting 
(2013 ) Christchurch  57% of people surveyed were found to compost at 
home, and 60% used council collection or via in -
sink disposal . 
Cameron (2002 ), cited in 
WasteNotConsulting 
(2009 ) Rural Areas 67% of households surveyed are reported to 
compost for Franklin District, 59% for Hauraki 
District, and 50% for the Waikato Region . 
Feldhaeuser (2003 ), cited 
in WasteNotConsulting 
(2013 ) National  43% of people composted at every opportunity; 
14% at most; 6% at ‘some’ and 3% at a ‘few’ 
opportunities . 
Taranaki Rural 
Sustainability Group 
(2004 ), cited in 
WasteNotConsulting 
(2009 ) Taranaki  75% of farmers fed food waste to farm animals . 
Johnson et al. (2008 ), 
cited in 
WasteNotConsulting 
(2013 ) Not specified  63% composted garden waste and kitchen scraps 
at home. In the urban North Island, the survey found 
that 58% of people composted and 12% worm 
farmed . 
Mobius Research and 
Strategy Ltd (2011 ), cited 
in WasteNotConsulting 
(2013 ) Auckland  
 39% of people composted at least some of their 
garden waste, with 31% stating that they composted 
half or more of garden and kitchen food waste . 
WasteNotConsulting 
(2015 ); Sunshine Yates 
(2018 ) National  New Zealand food waste audits in 2015 and 2018 
shows that 42 and 39% households surveyed used  
compost or worm farm, 29 and 28% households use 
animal feeds disposal methods (Table …), and 28 
and 32% used in -sink disposal, which indicates that 
the proportions of households that used high risk 
methods for disposing food waste in these two 
audits are similar.  
Mensah (2017)  Palmerston 
North  36% of households surveyed were home 
composters . 
 
 Potential for the exposure of seed -transmitted and vector -transmitted pathogens  
Commercial production pineapple s are not grown from seeds. Pineapple can be potentially 
grown from slips, suckers, crown s and ratoons. The commodity description and commercial 
production description of this IRA do not allow these propagation materials remain on the 
pineapple fruit. There  is no evidence that seed from discarded pineapple  fruit results in 
seedlings. Seeds are occasionally present in imported pineapple fruits. If seeds are present, 
they could be deliberately planted; however, given that this is not the intended end -use and i s 
unlikely to happen frequently, deliberate propagation is not considered further in this IRA. 
Pathogens that could only be transferred into the environment via seed growth have therefore 
been excluded from this IRA.   
 
There are also vector -transmitted pat hogens that may be detected in fruit, for example via 
PCR tests, but have no way of getting from fruit and onto a growing host in the absence of a 
vector. These have also been excluded from this IRA if the vector is not in New Zealand and 
not likely to be associated with the commodity under the commodity description.  
  
58 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  
 New Zealand climates  
New Zealand in general exhibits a mid -latitude oceanic temperate climate ( Cfb temperate 
with maritime climate in the Köppen classification (Köppen 1936; Rubel and Kottek 2 010). 
Annual precipitation varies substantially due to topography, from dry eastern and inland areas 
to very high precipitation (on a global scale) in west coast areas 35. The driest New Zealand 
climates barely reach a conventional water deficit on average (although they can do so in 
extreme years and months). The New Zealand climate ‘space’ can be visualised  as a three -
dimensional simplified climate niche (Figure  2.1). This represents the average monthly 
temperature and precipitation for each month of the year for 42 New Zealand climate 
stations.  
 
Figure 2.1 Climate niches of New Zealand. Thin grey lines: average monthly temperature (1981 –2010) for 42 New 
Zealand climate stations (data from NIWA (2020) ). Each polygon is composed of the 12 months of the year. Small 
black ellipse: average conditions for those 42 sites. Large ellipse: 95% inclusive ellipse.  
As a consequence of being a small landmass in a large ocean, New Zealand has relatively low 
diurnal and  seasonal temperature fluctuations (equable climate). Rainfall is close to evenly 
distributed between summer and winter. These features are similar in equatorial climates. 
However, there can be relatively rapid variations between days as large weather syst ems 
alternate over the oceans. Although such variations may also occur in continental climates, a 
key difference for organisms is the proximity of these variations to biological thresholds 
(such as frost).  
Unlike many Northern Hemisphere continental climat es with reliable lengthy warm and cold 
periods, a small temperature variation in a mild oceanic climate means a more significant 
change in the number of days crossing threshold degrees, which may in some cases restrict 
the ability of some organisms to esta blish. This feature is also common to smaller land 
masses and mountains of the Southern Hemisphere, which is why, globally, some of the most 
similar climate conditions to New Zealand are in the montane regions of the Andean Yungas 
 
35 This summary is written with crop pests and diseases in mind, focusing on the climate in inhabited and cultivated areas of Ne w Zealand. 
Rainy outliers (e.g. Milford and Mt Cook) and high mountain climates are not considered, as they represent extremes wit h relatively low 
human and agricultural activity  
050100150200250300
-10 0 10 20 30precipitation, monthly (mm)
temperature, average monthly (oC) 
59 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  cloud forests and grassla nds (Halloy et al. 2008) . This is reflected in high morphological 
similarities of adaptations (Halloy and Mark 1996) . 
Together with tussock grasslands, temperate rainforests are the global biome climate types 
most represented in New Zealand. The northernmo st areas of New Zealand approximate 
subtropical temperature conditions, with an ability to grow a range of subtropical plants.  
The northern part of New Zealand is the most climatically suitable for the establishment of 
new pests and diseases  coming from a subtropical/tropical climate. The area includes Kaitaia, 
Kerikeri, Whangarei, Auckland (New Zealand’s largest city) and Tauranga. The latter two 
cities both contain large active sea ports.  
The climate overlap between New Zealand and where a pest or disease  has been reported can 
be assessed using the tool described in Phillips et al. (2018) .  This tool is based on the 
composite (or climate) match index (CMI) CLIMEX -MCR of CLIMEX version 3.3. The tool 
allows the comparison of New Zealand’s climate in general  or more specifically, with areas 
where a pest or disease occurs overseas. The higher the CMI, the more similar the climate of 
the region to which the CMI pertains and the New Zealand climate. A CMI of 0.7 or more 
between the New Zealand climate and the exi sting range of the pest or disease may indicate a 
high likelihood of climatic suitability for that pest or diseases to establish in New Zealand 
(Phillips et al. 2018) . 
For many of the pests or diseases assessed, this tool may be a sufficient indication of climatic 
suitability in New Zealand for the pest or disease to establish. A whole -world map with CMI 
data from Phillips et al. (2018)  is provide in Error! Reference source not found. .2. When u
sing the tool, the map can be enlarged to show more detail at a regional level.  
 
Figure 2.2 Climate match index (CMI). World climate similarities with All New Zealand (Phillips et al. 2018).  
 Shifting New Zealand climates with climate change  
The global climate is warming rapidly and will continue to warm even faster as a result of 
greenhouse gas emissions (IPPC 1995; Allen et al. 2018; WMO 2019) . Severa l studies have 
examined the effects of these changes on the New Zealand climate (NIWA 2017; MfE 2018) . 
 
60 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Warming temperatures and changing precipitation patterns will affect existing biodiv ersity, 
pests and diseases, and will change the likelihood of establishment of new arrivals  (Gerard et 
al. 2013; Kean et al. 2015) . 
However, climate change is not just a scenario for the future. Average New Zealand 
temperatures have risen substantially ove r the last century, with concomitant but more 
variable changes in threshold and extreme conditions (including frosts, heatwaves, droughts, 
tropical storms, etc). Sea surface temperatures (SSTs) around New Zealand are closely 
correlated with atmospheric war ming, and in recent decades (since 1981), have been rising in 
the order of 0.1 –0.3°C per decade (Sutton and Bowen 2019) . This would equate to 1 –3°C per 
century, close to the modelled predictions for 2100. Such trends are, to some degree, hidden 
by inter -annual variability, but are already significant for the biota, agriculture and human 
occupation.  
These ‘shifting goal posts’ may lead to some confusion when reading climate change 
scenarios. Climate scenarios are expressed as degrees of change up to 2100, fo r example, a 
2°C increase. However , the baseline for that increase may not be explicit to the reader. The 
baseline is sometimes referred to as ‘conditions pre -industrial age’, or ‘beginning of 20th 
century’. Other times, it may be the ‘1961 –1990 average’, or more recently, the ‘1981 –2010’ 
average. Because of the continuous change since the pre -industrial period, the first baseline 
would lead to a 2 °C increase by 2100. However, adding the same 2 °C to a 1981 –2010 
baseline would mean ~3 °C increase by 2100 in respect to pre -industrial conditions . 
In New Zealand, some of the last years have already approximated a 2 °C increase on pre -
industrial levels. Although cool years will still occur, for an organism,  some conditions in 
some years already approximate some models for 2100. Model scenarios for t emperature 
increases for 2100 depend on many factors, but most scientists now expect there is little 
chance of keeping the increases below 2 °C (Wallace -Wells 2019) . For illustration’s sake, 
exploring a conservative 2 °C average increase (as in NIWA scenario s36) and a 10 -mm 
monthly increase in precipitation allows us to investigate the consequences without making 
any judgement as to which is more likely.  
We can then consider the likelihood of such scenarios. To give an idea of how conservative a 
+2°C is, cons ider that the average temperature in the last century has already climbed >1 °C 
over pre -industrial values. As averages shift, so do the extremes of the distribution and the 
thresholds for frosts, degree days, etc. Note, for example, that the m idpoint of Ju ly 2009 –
2018 is where extreme warm years were in 1928 –1937; the extreme has already become the 
norm ( Figure 2.3 )37. Moreover, the pace of increase is accelerating, greenhouse gas emissions 
are still rising, and a series of potential tipping points may soon  be breached. Due to 
prolonged lag times, the abrupt decline in emissions triggered from March 2020 due to the 
Covid -19 pandemic are not likely to affects trends in the next decades. If such declines were 
to continue, they could reduce the centennial tempe rature increase.  
 
36 2°C is an 'in between' of the 0.7 °C to 3 °C range of scenarios in NIWA: https://niwa.co.nz/our -science/climate/information -and-
resources/clivar/scenarios, 20171221. However, in more detail, https://ofcnz.ni wa.co.nz/#/localCharts shows an increase to 2100 of 2 °C 
(RCP 6) to 3 °C (RCP 8.5) annual mean (for six -model average) for Christchurch. Annual precipitation remains almost the same. Spring °C 
and mm follow the same pattern. Summer (DJF) increases less (1.5 °C to 2.3 °C). For rainfall, possible increases are around 10 mm; however, 
there will be considerable geographic variation and this is only illustrative.  
37 Note that climatologists typically prefer to use 30 years to represent a climatic period. Decadal peri ods are, however, useful for biological 
systems, as a decade is a long enough time to determine whether an organism can perish, establish or invade.   
61 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand   
Figure 2.3 Schematic normalised frequency distribution of mean monthly temperatures for July (left) and January 
(right) for Wellington, New Zealand.  The blue line is 1928 –1937, the orange line 2009 –2018. Calculated from NIWA 
National Climate Database ( https://cliflo.niwa.co.nz/ ). Note that actual frequency distributions tend to skew further 
right.  
As a result of such shifts, in future scenar ios, frosts decrease substantially, by 30% (RCP 2.6) 
to 50% (RCP 8.538) for the year 2040 (MfE 2018) . 
 
2.4 General information related to impacts of pests and diseases  
 Potential for spread  
Until recently, pineapples were not grown in New Zealand. There is now a plantation in 
Northland that produces a number of premium fruits for the local domestic market. They 
currently have 20, 000 plants. Pineapples require a tropical climate, which means their 
distribution is likely to be restricted to warmer parts of New Ze aland, such as Northland and 
potentially Auckland  (TropicalFruitGrowers 2021) . Currently, pineapple specific pests (pests 
that pineapple is the only documented host) are unlikely to establish and spread in New 
Zealand, given the limited availability of hos t plants. However, pests and diseases of 
pineapple, which have other hosts, may be able to spread and establish in New Zealand based 
on host and climate suitability.   
 Potential impacts in  New Zealand  
Ananas comosus (pineapple) is a member of the family B romeliaceae. The (NZflora 2021)  
database lists this plant family as ‘sometimes present, exotic (casual)’. There are no native 
Bromeliaceae in New Zealand (NZflora 2021; NZPCN 2022)  and they are not widespread in 
the New Zealand environment. Therefore, pest s and diseases only documented to affect 
pineapples are unlikely to cause environmental/cultural/social impacts to New Zealand. 
However, pineapples may harbour pests and diseases that affect multiple hosts, which may 
cause such impacts.  
 
38 In the latest IPCC report, RCPs (representative concentration pathways) are used to indicate emission sce narios, where 2.6 and 8.5 are 
the lowest and highest (e.g  (IPCC_WGI 2014; MfE 2018) ).  
 
62 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  
 Potential for econo mic impacts to the pineapple industry  
Currently the New Zealand pineapple industry is small . There is one registered grower in 
Northland with 22,000 plants. They supply premium fruit to the local domestic market. The 
industry does not experience significan t pest problems, with ants being the biggest issue. The 
introduction of pineapple pests and diseases, although unlikely to cause economic impacts for 
the whole of New Zealand, may cause issues for expanding the range of pineapples in New 
Zealand. It should  be noted h owever, that the likelihood of transfer of pineapple specific pests 
from fresh imported pineapple to the single growing area in Northland is extremely low.  
 
2.5 References for Chapter 2  
Allen, M; Babiker, M; Chen, Y; Coninck, H d; Connors, S; Diemen, R v; Dube, O; Ebi, K; 
Engelbrecht, F; Ferrat, M (2018) Global Warming of 1.5° C. Summary for Policymakers.  
 
Askarany, D; Franklin -Smith, A W (2014) Cost benefit analyses of organic waste composting 
systems through the lens of time driven activity -based costing. Journal of ap plied 
management accounting research 12(2): 59 –73. 
 
MPI (2014) Generic Pest Risk Assessment: armoured scale insects (Hemiptera: Coccoidea: 
Diaspididae) on the fresh produce pathway. Ministry for Primary Industries. New Zealand.  
 
Chisnall, S J (2018) A Tast e for Consumption: Food Waste Generation in New Zealand Cafés 
and Restaurants. thesis; University of Otago .  
 
Gerard, P; Barringer, J; Charles, J; Fowler, S; Kean, J; Phillips, C; Tait, A; Walker, G (2013) 
Potential effects of climate change on biological control systems: case studies from New 
Zealand. BioControl 58(2): 149 –162. 
 
Goodman -Smith, F (2018) A quantitative and qualitative study of retail food waste in New 
Zealand. thesis; University of Otago.  
 
Goodman -Smith, F; Mirosa, M; Skeaff, S (2020) A mix ed-methods study of retail food waste 
in New Zealand. Food Policy 92: 101845.  
 
Goonan, S; Mirosa, M; Spence, H (2014) Getting a taste for food waste: a mixed methods 
ethnographic study into hospital food waste before patient consumption conducted at three 
New Zealand foodservice facilities. Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics 
114(1): 63 –71. 
 
Goonan, S L (2013) Getting A Taste For Food Waste: An ethnographic exploration into the 
generation of hospital food waste prior to patient consumption. th esis; University of Otago.  
 
Halloy, S; Beck, S; Ledezma, J (2008) Central Andean Grasslands (Páramo, Puna) and High -
Andean (central and southern Perú, western Bolivia, northern Chile and northwestern 
Argentina). IUCN; Quito, Ecuador.  
 
Halloy, S; Mark, A ( 1996) Comparative leaf morphology spectra of plant communities in 
New Zealand, the Andes and the European Alps. Journal of the Royal Society of New 
Zealand 26(1): 41 –78.  
63 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand   
IPCC_WGI (2014) Climate change 2013: the physical science basis. Working Group I 
contribution to the Fifth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 
Change. Cambridge university press.  
 
IPPC (1995) Guidelines for Pest Risk Analysis. International Standards on Phytosanitary 
Measures no. 2.  
 
Kean, J M; Brockerhoff, E G; Fowler, S; Gerard, P J; Logan, D P; Mullan, A B; Sood, A; 
Tompkins, D; Ward, D F (2015) Effects of climate change on current and potential 
biosecurity pests and diseases in New Zealand . Ministry for Primary Industries.  
 
Köppen,  W (1936) Das geographische system der climate In: Köppen, W. & Geiger R.(Eds.), 
Handbuch der Klimatologie.  
 
LIMS (202 2) Laboratory Information Management System. Ministry for Primary Industries 
internal database.  
 
Medina, J; García, H (2005) Pineapple: p ost-harvest Operations . FAO, 
https://www.fao.org/3/ax438e/ax438e.pdf  
 
Mensah, S (2017) Development and trial of a methodology for the quantification and 
evaluation of home composting in Palmerston North, New Zealand: a thesis submitted in 
partial fulfilmen t of the requirements for the degree of Master of Environmental Management 
(without major) at Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand. thesis; Massey 
University,  
 
MfE (2018) Ministry for the Environment 2018. Climate Change Projections for New 
Zealand: Atmosphere Projections Based on Simulations from the IPCC Fifth Assessment, 
2nd Edition. Ministry for the Environment, Wellington.  
 
MPI (2018) MPI international pathway assurance report. Panama pineapple pathwy 
assessment. Costa Rica pineapple path way assessment. 30 July – 11 August 2018. Ministry 
for Primary Industries, New Zealand.  
 
NIWA (2017) National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research. Climate change 
scenarios for New Zealand. https://niwa.co.nz/our -science/climate/information -and-
resources/clivar/scenarios#regional  
 
NIWA (2020) National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research. The National Climate 
Database. . https://cliflo.niwa.co.nz/  
 
NZflora (2021) Flora of New Zealand. https://www.nzflora.info/ Accessed December  
 
NZPCN (2022)  New Zealand Plant Conservation Network. https://www.nzpcn.org.nz/ 
Accessed 12/04/2022  
 
Phillips, C B; Kean, J M; Vink, C J; Berry, J A (2018) Utility of the CLIMEX ‘match 
climates regional’ algorithm for pest risk analysis: an evaluation with non -native a nts in New 
Zealand. Biological Invasions : 1–15.  
64 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand   
Porat, R; Lichter, A; Terry, L A; Harker, R; Buzby, J (2018) Postharvest losses of fruit and 
vegetables during retail and in consumers’ homes: Quantifications, causes, and means of 
prevention. Postharvest Bi ology and Technology 139: 135 –149. 
 
Rabobank (2021) Together we can reduce food waste. Rabobank & KIWIHARVEST food 
waste research. https://www.rabobank.co.nz/foodwaste/ Accessed 12 September  
 
Rubel, F; Kottek, M (2010) Observed and projected climate shifts 1901 -2100 depicted by 
world maps of the Köppen -Geiger climate classification. Meteorologische Zeitschrift 19(2): 
135. 
 
QuanCargo (2021) Ministry for Primary Industries internal database. Acce ssed July 2021  
 
SunshineYates (2018) New Zealand food waste audits . Sunshine Yates Consulting Limited, 
Auckland.  
 
Sutton, P J; Bowen, M (2019) Ocean temperature change around New Zealand over the last 
36 years. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater  Research 53(3): 305 –326. 
 
TropicalFruitGrowers (2021) Tropical Fruit Growers of New Zealand. 
https://www.tropicalfruitgrowers.nz/ Accessed 7 March  
 
Wallace -Wells, D (2019) The Uninhabitable Earth, Annotated Edition Intelligencer. 
http://nymag.com/intellig encer/2017/07/climate -change -earth -too-hot-for-humans -
annotated.html  
 
WasteMINZ (2009) Consent Guide for Composting Operations in New Zealand. . Waste 
Management Institute of New Zealand.  
 
WasteMINZ (2018) Food waste in the café and restaurant sector in N ew Zealand. .  
 
WasteNotConsulting (2009) Household sector waste to landfill in New Zealand . Waste Not 
Consulting, Auckland. Ministry for the Environment, Wellington.  
 
WasteNotConsulting (2013) Summary of existing information on domestic food waste in 
New Zealand. Waste Not Consulting, Auckland. Ministry for the Environment, Wellington.  
 
WasteNotConsulting (2015) New Zealand food waste audits . WasteMINZ, Auckland. 
Minist ry for the Environment, Wellington.  
 
WMO (2019) The State of the Global Climate in 2018 . http://ane4bf -datap1.s3 -eu-west-
1.amazonaws.com/wmocms/s3fs -
public/ckeditor/files/Draft_Statement_26_11_2018_v12_approved_jk_0.pdf?VXUDp1UTysI
kHog4_TTuiHsIzZ6A9D93  
 
 
  
65 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand   
3 Hazard identification  
A hazard is a pest or disease that:  
• is not present in New Zealand ( or is present but still represents a biosecurity risk, e.g. 
is capable of vectoring pathogens not present in New Zealand) ; 
• has the ability to establish and cause harm in New Zealand; and  
• is associated with imported risk goods and import pathways.  
Hazard identification (hazard ID) is the process where , depending on the scope of the IRA,  a 
list of pests and diseases  potentially associated with the commodity is compil ed and then 
assessed against specified criteria, in order to determine which species require further 
assessment.  The objective for hazard identification in this IRA is  to identify all pests and 
diseases  that meet the risk evaluation criteria for further as sessment . 
 
In this IRA pests or diseases that were determined to require a PRA were those that are 
associated with pineapple fruit (as per the commodity description), are not present in New 
Zealand and have the ability to establish and cause harm here .  
Pineapple specific pests and diseases (pests and diseases that pineapple is the only 
documented host) were excluded, because  host availability in New Zealand is limited to 
pineapple, meaning that they are unlikely to be exposed to a suitable host and therefo re 
unlikely to establish. This however may need to be reassessed if and when the New Zealand 
pineapple industry grows or becomes more widespread.  
A list of species identified at the hazard identification stage as associated with the 
commodity, present in a t least one exporting market  and potentially not being managed by 
compliance with the commodity description, and therefore requiring further assessment (a 
Pest Risk Assessment), is provided in Table 3. 1. 
 
Table 3. 1: Pest groups and species for risk assessment following  hazard  identification.  
Pest/disease group  Pests or diseases requiring Pest Risk Assessments (PRA s) 
Bacteria  Dickeya zea  
Pantoea ananatis  
Fungi  Fusarium oxysporum  
Fusarium verticillioides  
Pestalotiopsis microspora  
Thielaviopsis paradoxa  
Insects: Order Diptera  Bactrocera dorsalis  
Insects: Order Lepidoptera  Anatrachyntis rileyi  
Insects: Hemiptera, Diaspididae  Diaspis bromeliae  
Insects: Hemiptera, 
Pseudococcidae  Dysmicoccus brevipes  
Dysmicoccus neobrevipes  
Ferrisia virgata  
Planococcus minor  
Pseudococcus  jackbeardsleyi  
Vectors of pathogens  Mealybugs: Planococcus citri , Pseudococcus longispinus  
   
66 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  4 Pest risk assessments: Bacteria  
4.1 Dickeya zeae  (bacterial heart rot/fruit collapse)  
The bacterial genus Dickeya contains many species that are important plant pathogens. 
Dickeya zeae  causes soft rot disease on plants all over the world  and significant economic 
losses in tropical, subtropical, and temperate regions, especially on crops such as maize, rice 
and banana in Southeast Asian countries. The k nown host range of D. zeae  include s over 40 
plant species . 
 
 Taxonomic description  
Scientific name:  Dickeya zeae Samson  et al. 2005  
Order : Enterobacteria  Family: Enterobacteriaceae  
Other names: Bacterium carotovorum f. sp. zeae; Erwinia carotovora ; Erwinia  carotovora f. 
sp. zeae; Erwinia carotovora var. chrysanthemi ; Erwinia chrysanthemi ; Erwinia 
chrysanthemi corn pathotype ; Erwinia chrysanthemi pv. zeae ; Erwinia maydis ; 
Pectobacterium carotovorum f. sp. zeae; Pectobacte rium carotovorum var. graminarum ; 
Pectobacterium chrysanthemi ; Pectobacterium chrysanthemi pv. zeae ; Bacterial soft rot of 
tobacco ; bacterial stalk rot of maize ; soft rot ; wet rot ; bacterial heart rot; pineapple fruit 
collapse.  
 
Taxonomic notes :  
Bacterial heart rot was first recorded in 1927, and pineapple fruit collapse w as first recorded 
in 1935 . These diseases were  attributed to Erwinia carotovora subsp. carotovora. However, 
taxonomic changes resulted in the pathogen being reclassified as Erwin ia chrysanthemi 
(Cano -Reinoso et al. 2021).  A significant taxonomic change was later proposed in which 
E. chrysanthemi was divided into six species that were transferred to a new genus , Dickeya . 
Tesoriero (2018) described or redescribed D. zeae, D. dadanti i, D. chrysanthemi, 
D. diffenbachiae , D. dianthicola  and D. paradisiaca . Both D. zeae and D. oryzae were 
distinct enough to be initially grouped into two clades (Samson et al. 2005), after which        
D. oryzae was elevated to a new species (Wang et al. 2 020; Van Gijsegem et al. 2021) . 
Dickeya zeae strains have diverged enough to be distinct, phenotypically, and genetically, 
even if they infect the same host species (Hu et al. 2018) .  
 
 Hazard identification  
Dickeya zeae  is not considered  to be present in New Zealand.  
• Although Dickeya zeae  is recorded as present in New Zealand (BiotaNZ 2022; ICMP 
2022) , the conditions (collection event details) under which these specimens were 
collected cannot be verified.  
o There are 35 specimens, recorded in New Zealand, in the ICMP (2022) , which 
were originally determined to be Erwinia  chrysanthemi, and of these, nine 
were renamed as D. zeae (Table 4.1).  However, the reasons why these 
specimens were renamed and how the specimens were determined to be D. 
zeae is uncertain (R. Taylor (PHEL), pers. comm) (MPI 2021) .  
o Of these nine isolates, one (ICMP 11094) has subsequently been reassigned to 
the genus Pseudo monas .  Three isolates (ICMP# 3915, 7131 & 7149) were 
confirmed to be D. zeae  in 2022 by sequencing at 3 protein coding loci  
67 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  (Landcare 2022). The remaining five (ICMP# 7135, 7139, 7140, 7142 & 
7143) appear to have been collected at the same time and locali ty as isolate 
7131 from Zea mays plant showing the same stem rot symptoms and it is 
assumed that these too are D. zeae . 
o The eight isolates identified as D. zeae  were all collected between 1974 and 
1981 (Table 4.1).   
o Dickeya zeae has a wide host range, incl uding widely cultivated crops such as 
carrots, maize , tomatoes, potatoes and onions, broad temperature tolerance 
(between 10°C and 41°C) (Aeny et al. 2020) , can persist in the environment, 
has caused symptoms in hosts grown in temperate, tropical and subtr opical 
climates, has a short (22 – 38 days) survival time in soil (Van Gijsegem et al. 
2021) and can have severe impacts (Kumar et al. 2017; Van Gijsegem et al. 
2021; Velez -Negron et al. 2022) .  
o Impacts caused by Dickeya species can be sporadic and require  specific 
conditions for symptoms to be expressed and for the disease symptoms to 
spread (Van Gijsegem et al. 2021). The New Zealand climate appears to be 
suitable for symptoms to be expressed in hosts such as maize and onion. 
Isolates collected in Pukekoh e and Mount Albert in 1981 (Table 4.1) all came 
from Zea mays  plants presenting stalk rot symptoms.  Studies have reported D. 
zeae causing similar symptoms on maize in several provinces in China (Li et 
al. 2020) , Korea (Hu et al. 2018)  and Japan (Takeuchi and Kodama 1992)  
where climate matching (Philips et al. 2018) indicates temperatures are similar 
to New Zealand. No symptoms were recorded in the collection details for the 
single isolate of D. zeae  collected from onion ( Allium cepa ) in Pukekoe in 
1974. However, (Palacio -Bielsaa et al. 2007)  report bacterial  soft rot in basal 
stem and leaves of onion caused by Pectobacterium chrysanthemi  biovar 3 
(later re -isolated and identified as Dickeya  sp. “probably D. zeae ” based on 
97% partial 16 S rDNA sequence similarity with the type strains of D. zeae ) 
from Zaragoza, Spain. Climate matching with this area of Spain returns an 
80% similarity to the New Zealand climate (Phillips et al. 2018) , suggesting 
that symptoms of D. zeae  are likely to be ex pressed in onion growing in New 
Zealand.  
o It seems likely, given the above traits, that if D. zeae were still present in 
New  Zealand then symptoms would have been observed and reported on in the 
years since the bacterium was last recorded here in 1981 (ICMP  2022).  
o Taking the above evidence into account, for the purposes of this risk 
assessment, MPI does not consider D. zeae as being present in New Zealand.  
• There is no entry of Dickeya zeae in PPIN (2022) . However,  Erwinia  chrysanthemi 
pv. zeae has been recorded on Zea mays leaf stalk in Gisborne (PPIN 2022). No 
further information was recorded , and it cannot be determined if the strains 
molecularly match D. zeae or the isolates recorded in BiotaNZ (2022) and ICMP 
(2022).  
• Dickeya zeae is not regu lated and is not an unwanted organism  (ONZPR (2022) ).  
 
Dickeya zeae has the potential to establish  a population , spread and cause harm to  
New  Zealand . 
• Dickeya zeae has a wide geographic distribution  (Pedron and Van Gijsegem 2019; 
Hugouvieux -Cotte -Pattat e t al. 2020; ERS 2021; Van Gijsegem et al. 2021) . It can 
complete its lifecycle i n a variety of climates  and is known to persist in soil and 
irrigation waters .   
68 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  • Dickeya zeae is known to infect more than 40  plant species, from 24 families, 
including pineappl e fruit, Allium cepa  (onion) , Solanum tuberosum (potato) and        
S. lycopersicum  (tomato)  (Hu et al. 2018; Aeny et al. 2020; Van Gijsegem et al. 
2021) . Host range assessments were conducted by using D. zeae bacterial suspension 
isolated from symptomatic pineapple leaves found in Lumpang, Indonesia ( Aeny et 
al. 2020). These host range assessments confirmed soft rot symptoms in Aloe vera, 
Brassica chinensis (cabbage), Hylocereus  undatus  (dragonfruit), Solanum melongena 
(eggplant), Lactuca sativa  (lettuce) and Allium  fistulosum  (spring onion). However, it 
is important to note that these symptoms were obtained after artificial inoculation in a 
laboratory setting and not from natural field observations.  
• Dickeya zeae has the potential to cause harm  to plant species of economic importance 
in New Zealand (e.g., tomato, potato, and maize) and to common amenity species 
such as chrysanthemums and orchids (Hu et al. 2018; Aeny et al. 2020; Van Gijsegem 
et al. 2021) . 
 
Dickeya zeae is associated with pineapple fruit.  
• Dickeya zeae has been reported from pineapple fruit and has been identified as the 
causal agent of pineapple fruit collapse and bacterial heart rot. (Aeny et al. 2017; 
Aeny et al. 2020) .  
 
Given the arguments and evidence above , MPI consid ers Dickeya zeae a hazard on  pineapple 
fruit imported to New Zealand.  
 
Table 4.1. Collection details of nine isolates identified as Dickeya zeae  collected in New Zealand 
between 1974 and 1992.  
ICPM 
# Original 
determination  Current 
determination  Host  Collection  
Locality  Collection 
date Symptoms  
3915  Erwinia 
carotovora  
subsp. 
carotovora  
(Jones 1901) 
Bergey et al. 
1923  Dickeya zeae  
Samson et al. 
2005  Allium cepa  
L. (onion)  Pukekohe  Feb 1974  Collected 
from bulb. 
No 
symptoms 
recorded  
7131, 
7135, 
7139, 
7140, 
7142,  
7143  Erwinia 
chrysanthemi  
pv. zeae (Sabet 
1954) Victoria et 
al. 1975  Dickeya zeae  
Samson et al. 
2005  Zea mays  
L. (corn)  Pukekohe  Jan 1981  sour-
smelling 
stalk rot  
7149  Erwinia 
chrysanthemi  
pv. zeae (Sabet 
1954) Victoria et 
al. 1975  Dickeya zeae  
Samson et al. 
2005  Zea mays  
L. var. 
rugosa 
Bonaf.  
(sweetcorn)  Mount 
Albert  Feb 1981  stalk rot of 
seedling  
11094  Erwinia 
chrysanthemi  
pv. zeae  (Sabet 
1954) Victoria et 
al. 1975  Pseudomonas  
Migula 1894 
near 
Pseudomonas 
mediterranea  Zea mays 
L. 
(corn)  Gisborne  Unspecified, 
but before 
May 1992  stalk rot, 
foul odour, 
translucent 
leaf spots   
69 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  
 Risk assessment  
4.1.3.1  Biology   
Hosts and geographical distribution  
Dickeya zeae has a wide host and geographic range (Appendix: Table 1). The pathogen is 
likely to have originated in Malaysia (Aeny et al. 2020; Cano -Reinoso et al. 2021)  and has 
been recorded in the African, Asian, American, and European continents  (Appendix: Table 1)  
(Pedron and Van Gijsegem 2019; Hugouvieux -Cotte -Pattat et al. 2020; ERS 2021; Van 
Gijsegem et al. 2021) . It can complete its lifecycle i n a variety of climates  and has been 
known to persist in soil and irrigation waters (Kaneshiro et al. 2008; Lin et al. 2 016). 
 
Symptoms  
Dickeya zeae  is a facultative , anaerobic bacterium that survive s in soil  and cause s water -
soaking and rot symptoms in pineapple  fruits . The disease can remain latent and cause 
systemic rot which move from leaves to heart (or vice versa)  (Cano-Reinoso et al. 2021) .   
 
Symptoms on infected pineapple fruit , commonly known as fruit collapse, include soft rot 
accompanied by gas bubbles and fruit collapse two to three weeks prior to normal ripening 
(Figure 1A and B) (Cano -Reinoso et al. 2021) . Dickeya zeae establishes its growing pattern 
by fermenting the carbo hydrates in the fruit flesh, releasing gas bubbles in the process. The 
colour of the fruit shell turns olive -green ( similar to pineapple fruit colour classified as C1 on 
the pineapple ripeness scale mentioned  in Annex 2.2 ), and the internal part of the fruit show s 
cavities within the flesh’s skeletal fibres (Figure 1) (Cano -Reinoso et al. 2021) . These 
symptoms were comparable to symptoms observed on pineapple  fruit, caused by Dickeya 
spp. (recorded as Erwinia chrysanthemi in the primary literature) in Hawaii (Kaneshiro et al., 
2008) and Malaysia (Sahilah et al., 2008).  
 
Disease symptoms on pineapple plants, while not part of the commodity description, known 
as bacterial heart rot,  can appear as bloated and dark water -soaked l esions on the plant leaves  
(Figure 1C and D). Late symptoms showed blister -like lesions on the upper surface of  the leaf 
lamina (Ramachandran et al. 2015) . 
 
Symptoms  from different countries can vary (Kaneshiro et al. (2008) . For example, wrinkled 
and dry necrotic lesions  were found on Philippine  pineapple  plant samples . Costa Rican and 
Honduran pineapple plant samples had  light tan or brown water -soaked blisters on the leaf 
lamina and broad, brown, or dark brown water -soaked areas extending from the leaf d own to 
the stock tissues in the plant heart.  
 
Dickeya zeae  is viable between 10 – 41˚C, with  the optimal temperature range specified as 
30–35°C on rice crops (Lin et al. 2016; Aeny et al. 2020) . The o ptimal temperature range on 
pineapple fruit has not been described in the available literature. Dickeya zeae  favours low 
soil temperature s, with the pathogen surviving in a loamy sand for 38 days at 8°C, for 22 
days at 20°C and for 12 days at 30°C. Slightl y longer survival periods (32 days) were found 
at low soil moisture levels (30 %) than at those exceeding 60% (22 days) (Van Gijsegem et 
al. 2021).  
 
In laboratory conditions, D. zeae symptoms can be observed 72 hours after inoculation, on 
pineapple plants . The final stage of the disease was recorded 21 days after inoculation 
(Ramachandran et al. 2015) . 
  
70 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Latency of symptoms  
Latent infection appears to be a common trait of D. zeae. The disease has previously been 
found to be asymptomatic for approximately 10  years in rice plantations in China, eventually 
resulting in 90% losses (Hu et al. 2018) .  
 
In pineapple fruit collapse, D. zeae  invade s the plant  ovary through the style, generating 
water -soaked necrosis symptoms. The pathogen remains viable but quiescent  for up to two 
months, and then break s out to invade the entire fruit (Aeny et al. 2017; Aeny et al. 2020; 
Cano -Reinoso et al. 2021) . Disease activity increase s between two to three weeks before 
ripening, when sugar levels increase rapidly and enzyme level s like polyphenol oxidase 
decline (Aeny et al. 2020; Boluk et al. 2021; Cano -Reinoso et al. 2021) . The pathogen can 
multiply rapidly before symptoms become visible (Cano -Reinoso et al. 2021) . 
 
According to Parkinson et al. (2009) , isolates or strains that have been present and latent in 
the environment for a relatively long period might accumulate molecular variation and this 
may contribute to diversity within a species. This is likely applicable for D. zeae  in Malaysia, 
where it has been present since 1927 (Ramachandran et al. 2015) . 
 
Pineapple variety susceptibility  
Fruit collapse and bacterial heart rot are common diseases in low -acid pineapple fruit hybrids  
due to  increased susceptibility to natural flow ering abrasion injuries and their physiochemical 
properties (Cano -Reinoso et al. 2021) . The Malaysian hybrid pineapple fruit cultivar s 
Josapine and MD2 have been found to be seriously infected by D. zeae  (Ramachandran et al. 
2015; Nor et al. 2019) . The l ow acid cultivar PRI 73 -114 pineapple  fruit, imported from 
Costa Rica and Honduras to Hawaii, in 2003, was found to be infected with D. zeae (Sueno et 
al. 2014) . The Josapine and Smooth Cayenne cultivars have been found to be more 
susceptible to bacterial he art rot (Sueno et al. 2014) .  
 
Reproduction and transmission  
Dickeya zeae infection occurs through the stomata  and invades the plant ovary. In pineapple  
plants , D. zeae penetrates tissue via the plant’s natural openings, lesions, and injuries, and 
mainly during the opening phase of flowering weeks prior to harvest (Cano -Reinoso et al. 
2021) . The primary inoculum source of bacterial heart rot and fruit collapse is consider ed to 
be exuded juice of previously infected plants. The process and symptomology are similar 
across different host plant types and species (Van Gijsegem et al. 2021) . 
 
The bacterium can be transmitted by insects, e.g. Pheidole megacephala (big-headed ant)  and 
Linepithema humile (Argentine ant) (Cano -Reinoso et al. 2021);  both present in New Zealand 
(NZOR 2022) , wind and windblown  rain (Aeny et al. 2020; Boluk et al. 2021; Cano -Reinoso 
et al. 2021) . However, the extent and rate at which this occurs is uncle ar.  
 
The pathogen can be present on the surface of field and processing machinery, stores and 
storage boxes and graders etc. It may also occur in artificial media used to grow plants and 
can be a major problem for cut flowers. Superficial, or epiphytic, c olonisation is likely a 
natural part of the Dickeya species lifecycle as the disease can remain on the surface of 
different plants both with and without subsequent disease development (Van Gijsegem et al. 
2021) .  
71 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand   
C 
 D 
Figure 4.1 The symptoms of fruit collapse and bacterial heart rot in pineapple, caused by Dickeya zeae . A. 
Release of gas bubbles together with olive -green colour in the shell (red circle), after harvest. B. Cavities 
within the skeletal collapse fibres in the flesh (black circle), after harvest. C. Aerial view of pineapple plant 
peduncle (red circle). D. Internal view after removing the peduncle (yellow circle). C. and D. In both images, a 
water -soaked lesion can be on white basal portion of leaves, located in the ce ntral whorl. The green mid -part 
of the leaves shows the olive -green colour and dark border formation. Images adapted and used with 
permission from (Medina and García 2005; MfE 2018) .   
72 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  4.1.3.2  Likelihood of entry  
Dickeya zeae has a wide distribution and host range  (Appendix: Table 1). The countries 
considered within the scope of this IRA project and where D. zeae is present are Malaysia, 
Costa Rica, the Philippines, and Indonesia (Rohrbach and Johnson 2003; Korres et al. 2010; 
Prasetyo and Aeny 2014; Cano -Reinoso e t al. 2021; Van Gijsegem et al. 2021) . In these 
regions, D. zeae cause bacterial wilt and fruit rot  on pineapples . Of these countries the 
bacterium has been reported causing pineapple fruit collapse in Malaysia, Brazil and 
Indonesia (Rohrbach and Johnson 2 003; Korres et al. 2010; Prasetyo and Aeny 2014; Cano -
Reinoso et al. 2021)  and bacterial heart rot disease in Malaysia, Costa Rica, Brazil, the 
Philippines and Hawaii (Rohrbach and Johnson 2003; Kaneshiro et al. 2008; Ramachandran 
et al. 2015; Pires de Mat os 2017; Cano -Reinoso et al. 2021) . Dickeya zeae has been detected 
on pineapples in Queensland , Australia (included within the scope of this IRA)  but it is as yet 
unclear how closely related these strains are to other strains of  D. zeae  (Tesoriero 2018) . 
 
A search of New Zealand interception records show no records of D. zeae or known 
synonyms, between 2000 –2020 (LIMS 2022) . The European & Mediterr anean Plant 
Protection Organization records interceptions of Erwinia sp. and E. chrysanthemi on potato 
seeds and tissue culture from the United Kingdom, Netherlands, Belgium, France, Taiwan 
and Thailand (EPPO 2022) .  
 
Symptoms on infected pineapple fruit include soft rot accompanied by gas bubbles and fruit 
collapse two to three weeks prior to normal ripening ( see detail in Annex  4.1.3.1  Symptoms ; 
Figure 4.1A and B) (Cano -Reinoso et al. 2021) . Dick eya zeae can also occur in many host 
plants in the tropics and subtropics region as this pathogen can thrive at higher temperatures 
than other soft rot bacteria (Rohrbach and Johnson 2003; Sipes and de Matos 2018) . 
 
Latent infection appears to be a common trait of D. zeae  infection ( see detail in Annex  4.1.3.1 
Latency of symptoms ). The pathogen remains viable but quiescent for up to two months and 
can invade the entire fruit (Aeny et al. 2017; Aeny et al. 2020;  Cano -Reinoso et al. 2021) . We 
found no  evidence in the literature to suggest D. zeae can develop  resistance to in -field 
bactericide s or fungicide s.  
 
It is likely that visibly symptomatic pineapple fruit, due to D. zeae, will be excluded during 
packhouse activities. However, asymptomatic fruit will likely not be excluded. Furthermore, 
due to the disease’s temperature tolerance (Rohrbach and Johnson 2003; Lin et al. 2016; 
Aeny et al. 2020)  and latency traits (Rohrbach and Johnson 2003; Lin et al. 2016; Aeny et al. 
2017; Aeny et al. 2020; Cano -Reinoso et al. 2021 ), it is likely to be viable on pineapple fruit 
during transit conditions (as described in Appendix 3). 
 
Given that: 
 
• Dickeya  zeae is present in many of the countries included within the scope of this 
IRA;  
• it has a  strong associat ion with pineapple fruit ; 
• it has the potential for latent and asymptomatic infection;  and 
• it has the potential to remain viable on pineapple fruit during transit;  
 
MPI considers the likelihood of Dickeya zeae entering New Zealand associated with 
pineapple fruit  to be MODERATE, with LOW uncertainty.   
  
73 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  4.1.3.3  Likelihood of exposure  
This assessment is made on the assumption that Dickeya zeae  has entered New Zealand 
undetected.   
 
Fresh pineapple  fruit generates substantial amounts of unavoidable waste; the thick rind is 
always removed and disposed of, and the fruit is also sometimes cored ( see waste analysis in 
Annex  2.3.1 ). The disposal of whole fruit (e.g., culled/unsold fruit, uneaten fruit remains)  is 
not uncommon during wholesale, retail and by consumers. This sugges ts that D. zeae  may 
have a higher likelihood of exposure when associate d with fresh pineapple fruit than when it 
is associated with other kinds of fresh produce.  
 
D. zeae  is a systemic bacterial pathogen with a wide host range (Appendix to Risk 
Assessment of Dickeya zeae : Table 1) (Kaneshiro et al. 2008; Aeny et al. 2020) . Dickeya 
species can survive in  a variety of environmental niches, including  water, soil and  on insects, 
which is likely to aid their spread to susceptible hosts and/or enable persistence in an 
environment (Van Gijsegem et al. 2021) . Discarded waste from imported infected fruit could 
act as a vehicle for exposure of the bacteria to the environment. Characteri stics of the 
pathogen that increase this likelihood are its variable temperature tolerance (between 10 –
41°C) (Lin et al. 2016) , wide host range (Kaneshiro et al. 2008; Aeny et al. 2020) , ability to 
remain latent in aquatic and biotic niches (Van Gijsegem e t al. 2021)  and ability to infect all 
parts of the plant. Infected soil or crop residue disturbed from compost over host plants would 
act as a primary source of inoculum. Dickeya zeae can be carried internally or externally on 
crop residues or as free bact erial cells in soil. Free water can also provide access into and 
spread bacteria in host plants. The pathogen can also be introduced and spread through insect 
feeding activity ( see detail in Annex  4.1.3.1  Reproduction and transmission ). These 
characteristi cs of the pathogen can enable not only its spread in the environment, but also its 
survivability until suitable host/climate is found.  
 
Uncertainty  
Uncertainty associated with likelihood of exposure in New Zealand to D. zeae is attributed to 
the sparse dat a available regarding pineapple fruit waste and associated diseases.  
 
Given that:  
• the large quantity of unavoidable waste associated with fresh pineapple fruit ; 
• the pathogen’s wide host range, climatic tolerance, and persistence in varying 
environmental n iches ; 
• the pathogen’s systemic nature of infection,  and 
• the pathogen can be transmitted by insects, wind, windblown rain, and free water;  
 
the likelihood of exposure of Dickeya zeae in New Zealand from pineapple  fruit is considered 
to be MODERATE, with MODERATE uncertainty.  
 
4.1.3.4  Likelihood of establishment  
This assessment is made on the basis that Dickeya zeae  has been successfully exposed to a 
suitable host plant in the New Zealand environment.  
 
Dickeya zeae has a broad host range ( Appendix: Table 1) . Many known hosts of D. zeae are 
either grown commercially in New Zealand (e.g., tomatoes and potatoes) or as backyard  
74 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  plants in many home gardens. Therefore, hosts for the establishment of Dickeya zeae are 
readily avai lable.  
 
Climate similar ity to New Zealand is assessed using the climate match index (CMI)  (Phillips 
et al. 2018) . If a country has a CMI  of ≥0.7 then it is considered to have climate similar to 
all of New Zealand . Currently, D. zeae is mostly present (on various hosts, including 
pineapples) in countries where climate does not closely match New Zealand. For example, 
pineapple fruit collapse associated with D. zeae has been recorded in Malaysia (CMI 0.5), 
Brazil (CMI 0.4 –0.5) and Indonesia (0.4 –0.6) (Rohrbach and Johnson 2003; Korres et al. 
2010; Prasetyo and Aeny 2014; Cano -Reinoso et al. 2021) . Bacterial heart rot of pineapple 
associated with D. zeae has been recorded in Malaysia, Costa Rica (0.4 –0.6), Brazil, the 
Philippines (CMI 0.3 –0.6) and H awaii (0.5 –0.8) (Rohrbach and Johnson 2003; Kaneshiro et 
al. 2008; Ramachandran et al. 2015; Pires de Matos 2017; Cano -Reinoso et al. 2021) .  
 
However, Dickeya zeae has been reported in Chin ese provinces of Jiangsu (CMI 0.7), Fujian 
(CMI 0.7), Hunan (0.7),  Guizhou (0.7) and Guangdong (CMI 0.6)  (Hu et al. 2018),  Korea  
(CMI 0.7)  (Myung et al. 2010)  and Hokkaido, Japan  (CMI 0.7 – 0.8) (recorded as                  
E. chrysanthemi pv. zeae ) (Takeuchi and Kodama 1992) . Also, variable temperature tolerance 
of the pathogen and the continued impacts of climate change, which has been predicted to 
increase the minimum temperature of the coldest month, increases the risk of D. zeae 
establishing a population in New Zealand in the fut ure (Grüter et al. 2022) .   
 
The pathogen can also persist in soil and water, increasing likelihood of establishment. 
Furthermore, northern parts of New Zealand hav e a warmer and more humid climate than the 
rest of the country, similar to optimal climate r ange of D. zeae while the rest of the country 
has comparable climate to regions overseas where the bacterium has been recorded.   
 
Given that: 
• assumptions made indicate that D. zeae is no longer present in New Zealand;  
• hosts are available for the establishment of Dickeya zeae ; 
• Dickeya zeae’s ability to remain latent in the environment, and  
• climate matching evidence suggesting countries with comparable temperatures to 
New Zealand reporting evidence of the pathogen indicate s climate  in New Zealand is 
not likely to prevent establishment ;  
the likelihood of Dickeya zeae establishing in New Zealand is considered to be MODERATE , 
with LOW  uncertainty.  
 
4.1.3.5  Impacts in New Zealand  
This assessment is made on the assumption that Dickeya  zeae has successfully established in 
the New Zealand environment .   
 
Economic impacts  
For this assessment, MPI does not consider D. zeae  present in New Zealand , and no major 
economic impacts associated with D. zeae have been recorded in New Zealand.  
 
Dickeya zeae causes significant economic impacts for the Malaysian and Indonesian 
pineapple  fruit industr y. Given the broad host range of D. zeae species, it is likely that 
pineappl e fruits  would not be the only commercially produced hosts affect ed by this pathogen  
75 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  (Appendix: Table 1). Severe infection of  some high value  crops (e.g., rice and maize) can 
cause economic lo sses of up to 90%. Crop yield and quality can diminish after infection, 
reducing marketability (Toth et al. 2011; Van Gijsegem et  al. 2021) . For example, in Israel, 
yield reductions of 20 –25% resulting from  Dickeya  infections have been recorded on various 
potato cultivars, where disease incidence was greater than 15% (Toth et al. 2011) .  
 
An experimental study by Lin et al. (2016)  found, that the optimal temperature range for 
disease expression of D. zeae on maize is between 30 –35°C . This indicates that current 
climate in New Zealand (NIWA 2022) may not be optimal for development and growth of D. 
zeae. However, maize stalk rot symptoms caused by D. zeae have been reported in Korea 
(Myung et al. 2010) , Hokkaido, Japan (recorded as E. chrysanthemi pv. zeae) (Takeuchi and 
Kodama 1992)  and several provinces in China ( Jiangsu, Fujian, Hunan, Guizhou, 
Guangdong)  (Hu et al. 2018) . Based on climate matching index (Phillips et al. 2018) , Korea 
(0.7 CMI), Hokka ido (0.7 – 0.8 CMI) and the provinces in China (0.6 – 0.7 CMI) have 
comparable climatic conditions to New Zealand. R egions where majority of maize crops are 
grown (Waikato, Gisborne, Bay of Plenty and Hawkes Bay) (StatsNZ 2018)  do not currently 
have climat e optimal for growth and development of D. zeae (NIWA 2022) . However, given 
disease symptoms have been reported in maize grown in comparable environments overseas, 
it is likely that maize rot symptoms would be observed in these regions if D. zeae  were to or 
had already established in the country. If the climate warms and D. zeae established in New 
Zealand, there are likely to be significant economic consequences for the grain and arable 
crop industry, which provides essential raw material for the wider food industry.  
 
In 2020, the cumulative domestic value of fresh fruit and vegetables listed as known hosts of 
D. zeae was NZ$ 645.1 m with a much smaller proportion (NZ$211.7 m) exported 
internationally (Appendix: Table 1). This included the domestic sale and exports of high 
value crops such as tomatoes, maize, potatoes and onions (Plant & Food Research  2021) .  
Disease incidence in D. zeae varies between 20 – 60%, depending on host and environmental 
conditions (Kumar et al. 2017; Van Gijsegem et al. 2021; Velez -Negron et al. 2022) . An in -
house MPI model predicted, at most a total economic impact of NZ$860.64m (disease 
incidence estimated to be 60%) or at least NZ$286.88m (disease inc idence estimated to be 
60%) over 20 years in the domestic market.  
• This is based on the estimated combined annual value of domestically grown hosts of 
D. zeae amounting to NZ$645.1m ( Appendix: Table 1) ;  
• The bacteria is assumed to take one year to achieve greatest impacts, to allow time for 
effective spread across New Zealand;  
• Time for recovery was assumed to be four years as the horticultural industries are 
likely to make use of resistant cultivars, effective infield treatments and other 
measures to limit spread, similar to other countries around the world (Van Gijsegem 
et al. 2021) .  
Dickeya zeae is not listed as a quarantine pest  for any other country  according to the 
importing countries phytosanitary requirements (ICPR) and thus there would be no 
immediate trade impacts.  
 
Uncertainty  
Uncertainty associated with economic impa cts caused by D. zeae in New Zealand is 
attributed to the sparse data available regarding climatic factors involved in disease  
76 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  expression and the impact of climate change in growing regions of economically important 
crops.  
 
Given that:  
• Dickeya  zeae is kno wn to cause significant economic impacts  overseas  with similar 
climate to New Zealand, and  
• the h ost range of D. zeae indicates export and domestically high value crops such as 
tomatoes, onions and potatoes could be affected to , in the worst case,  a total s um of 
NZ$860.64 over 20 years;  
MPI considers the economic impact of Dickeya zeae  on New Zealand to be MODERATE, 
with MODERATE  uncertainty.  
 
Environmental impacts  
It is not known if D. zeae  is able to infect any endemic plant species, however some known 
host genera include species that are native to New Zealand, e.g. Apium , Ipomoea , Solanum  
and Dendrobium  (Hu et al. 2018; Aeny et al. 2020; NZPCN 2022) , which indicates that 
endemic plant spec ies may be hosts.  
 
Given the likelihood  that D. zeae can survive in soils, waterways  and on surfaces,  under 
variable temperature ranges  and can infect  numerous plant hosts, this pathogen could have a 
wide range of environmental impacts.  Furthermore, contr ol and eradication measures for     
D. zeae are unlikely to be implemented due to its ability to persist in soil and water (Van 
Gijsegem et al. 2021) . Thus, impacts in the environment will likely last for more than one 
season.  
 
Uncertainty associated with likelihood of exposure in New Zealand to D. zeae is attributed to 
the limited field or laboratory observations specifically addressing spread and establishment 
of D. zeae in native environments.  
 
Given the arguments and evidence above, MPI considers the impact on environment from the 
establishment of D. zeae in New Zealand is LOW , with HIGH  uncertainty.  
 
Human health impacts  
We used the  terms ‘Dickeya zeae,’ ‘Erwinia chrysanthemi’ and combinations of these to 
search  PubMed, Google Scholar, CAB Abstracts and Google  and found no mention of 
adverse effects on humans or animals.  
 
MPI considers the health impact s of Dickeya zeae  on New Zealand to be NEGLIGIBLE, with 
LOW uncertainty.  
 
Sociocultural impacts  
Many  hosts of D. zeae are commonly grown in home gardens (e.g., tomatoes, potatoes, 
carrots). Dickeya zeae symptoms may make vegetables less attractive to consumers but are 
unlikel y to cause scarcity in local markets.  
 
Hu et al. (2018)  artificially inoculated Ipomoea batatas (kūmara). This  is a culturally 
important crop for tangata whenua in New Zealand. Kūmara  has been grown in New Zealan d 
for many years in home gardens and is ass ociated with cultural identity. No other taonga 
species are known to be hosts of D. zeae.   
77 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand   
MPI considers  the sociocultural impact s of Dickeya zeae  on New  Zealand to be  LOW, with 
MODERATE uncertainty.  
 
Overall impact to New Zealand  
The overall impact of Dickeya zeae on the New Zealand economy, environment, health, and 
society is considered to be  MODERATE, with MODERATE uncertainty .  
 
4.1.3.6  Overall risk to New Zealand  
Based on the assessments of lik elihood and consequences above, that:  
 
• the lik elihood of entry  is MODERATE  with LOW uncertainty,  
• assuming entry, the likelihood of exposure is MODERATE  with MODERATE 
uncertainty,  
• assuming successful exposure, the likelihood of establishment is MODERATE with 
LOW uncertainty,  
• the overall impact on the New Zealand econo my, environment, human health, and 
society is considered to be MODERATE  with MODERATE uncertainty,  
 
MPI assesses t he overall level of assessed risk to New Zealand from D. zeae on pineapple 
fruit is MODERATE , with MODERATE uncertainty.  
 
 Specific considerati ons 
On which pineapple fruit variety (or varieties) and at what stage of rip eness has Dickeya 
zeae association with pineapple fruit been observed?  
Fruit collapse and bacterial heart rot are common diseases in low -acid pineapple fruit hybrids  
due to  increased susceptibility to natural flowering abrasion injuries and their physiochemical 
properties (Cano -Reinoso et al. 2021) . The Malaysian hybrid pineapple fruit cultivar s 
Josapine and MD2 have been found to be seriously infected by D. zeae  (Ramachandr an et al. 
2015; Nor et al. 2019) . The l ow acid cultivar PRI 73 -114 pineapple  fruit, imported from 
Costa Rica and Honduras to Hawaii, in 2003, was found to be infected with D. zeae (Sueno et 
al. 2014) . The Josapine and Smooth Cayenne cultivars have been fou nd to be more 
susceptible to bacterial heart rot (Sueno et al. 2014) .  
 
The pathogen has been found to affect pineapple fruit between C3 – C4 stage of ripeness  
(Cano -Reinoso et al. 2021) . 
 
Which parts of the pineapple fruit is Dickeya zeae associated with  (e.g., fruit, bract, 
stem, or crown remnant) , and is it  visually  detectable?  
Dickeya zeae can cause systematic rot which move from leaves to heart (or vice versa) . The 
pathogen has been reported from whole pineapple fruit  and plant and has been identified as 
the causal agent of pineapple fruit collapse and bacterial heart rot. (Aeny et al. 2017; Aeny et 
al. 2020) .  
 
Under what environmental conditions (temperature, season , etc.) are Dickeya zeae  
symptoms expressed on pineapple fruit?   
78 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Dickeya zeae  is viable between 10 –41°C, with optimal temperature range specified as 30 –
35°C (Lin et al. 2016; Aeny et al. 2020) . However, it should be noted that this temperature 
range was described on rice in Taiwan. An o ptimal temperature range on pineapple  fruit has 
not been described in the available literature.  
 
Does Dickeya zeae  exhibits latent/asymptomatic traits?  
Latent infection appears to be a common trait of D. zeae . In pineapple fruit collapse  the 
pathogen invade s the ovary through the style, generating water -soaked necrosis symptoms. 
The pathogen remains viable but dormant  for up to two months, and then break s out to invade 
the entire fruit (Aeny et al. 2017; Aeny et al. 2020; Cano -Reinoso et al. 2021) . Disease 
activity increase s between two to three weeks before ripening, (Aeny et al. 2020; Boluk et al. 
2021; Cano -Reinoso et al. 2021) . The pathogen can multiply rapidly before symptoms 
become visible (Cano -Reinoso et al. 2021) . 
 
 References  
Aeny, T N; Suharjo, R; Gi nting, C; Hapsoro, D; Niswati, A (2020) Characterization and host 
range assessment of Dickeya zeae  associated with pineapple soft rot disease in East 
Lampung, Indonesia. Biodiversitas Journal of Biological Diversity 21(2).  
 
Aeny, T N; Suharjo, R; Niswati, A; Ginting, C; Hapsoro, D; Wardhana, R A (2017) First 
report of Dickeya zeae  associated with Pineapple soft rot and fruit collapse in Indonesia.  
 
BiotaNZ (2022) Biota of New Zealand. https://biotaNZ.landcareresearch.co.nz Accessed 
30/04/2022  
 
Boluk, G; Ari zala, D; Dobhal, S; Zhang, J; Hu, J; Alvarez, A; Arif, M (2021) Genomic and 
phenotypic biology of novel strains of  Dickeya zeae  Isolated from pineapple and taro in 
Hawaii: Insights into genome plasticity, pathogenicity, and virulence determinants. Frontier s 
in Plant Science 12: 663851.  
 
Cano -Reinoso, D M; Soesanto, L; Kharisun, K; Wibowo, C (2021) Review: Fruit collapse 
and heart rot disease in pineapple: Pathogen characterization, ultrastructure infections of plant 
and cell mechanism resistance. Biodiversi tas Journal of Biological Diversity 22(5).  
 
EPPO (2022) EPPO Reporting Service. https://gd.eppo.int/reporting/  
 
ERS (2021) Emerging Risks Systems. Accessed 14 May 2021  
 
Grüter, R; Trachsel, T; Laube, P; Jaisli, I (2022) Expected global suitability of coffee, cashew 
and avocado due to climate change. PloS one 17(1): e0261976.  
 
Hu, M; Li, J; Chen, R; Li, W; Feng, L; Shi, L; Xue, Y; Feng, X; Zhang, L; Zhou, J (2018) 
Dickeya zeae strains isolated from rice, banana and clivia rot plants show great virulence 
differentials. BMC Microbiology 18(1): 136.  
 
Hugouvieux -Cotte -Pattat, N; Condemine, G; Gueguen, E; Shevchik, V E (2020) Dickeya 
Plant Pathogens. eLS. 
  
79 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  ICMP (2022) Available from Manaaki Whenua Landcare Research International Collection 
of Microorganisms from Plants.  
 
Kaneshiro, W S; Burger, M; Vine, B G; de Silva, A S; Alvarez, A M (2008) Characterization 
of Erwinia chrysanthemi  from a bacterial heart rot of pineapple outbrea k in Hawaii. Plant 
Disease 92(10): 1444 –1450.  
 
Korres, A; Ventura, J; Fernandes, P (2010) First report of bacterium and yeasts associated 
with pineapple fruit collapse in Espírito Santo State, Brazil. Plant Disease 94(12): 1509 –
1509.  
 
Kumar, A; Hunjan, M S ; Kaur, H; Rawal, R; Kumar, A; Singh, P (2017) A review on 
bacterial stalk rot disease of maize caused by Dickeya zeae . Journal of Applied and Natural 
Science 9(2): 1214 –1225.  
 
Li, J; Hu, M; Xue, Y; Chen, X; Lu, G; Zhang, L; Zhou, J (2020) Screening, ident ification and 
efficacy evaluation of antagonistic bacteria for biocontrol of soft rot disease caused by  
Dickeya zeae . Microorganisms 8(5): 697.  
 
LIMS (2022) Laboratory Information Management System. Ministry for Primary Industries 
internal database. Access ed 11/04/2022  
 
Lin, C Y; Huang, C W; Yang, H R; Tsai, C H; Hsu, S L; Ni, H F (2016) Rice bacterial foot 
rot disease caused by Dickeya zeae  in Taiwan. Journal of Taiwan Agricultural Research 
65(2): 207 –217. 
 
MfE (2018) Ministry for the Environment 2018. Climate Change Projections for New 
Zealand: Atmosphere Projections Based on Simulations from the IPCC Fifth Assessment, 
2nd Edition. Ministry for the Environment, Wellington.  
 
MPI (2021) Global Distribution of  genus Dickeya . Wellington: Ministry for Primary 
Industries.  
 
Myung, I S; Jeong, I H; Moon, S Y; Kim, W G; Lee, S W; Lee, Y H; Lee, Y K; Shim, H S; 
Ra, D S (2010) First report of bacterial stalk rot of sweet corn caused by Dickeya zeae  in 
Korea. New Diseas e Reports 22: 236 –250. 
 
Plant & Food Research  (2021) Fresh Facts . https://www.freshfacts.co.nz/files/freshfacts -
2020.pdf  
 
NIWA (2022) Overview of New Zealand's climate. https://niwa.co.nz/education -and-
training/schools/resources/climate/overview Accessed 2 2/05/2022  
 
Nor, A; Zainol, R; Abdullah, R; Jaffar, N; Abdulrasid, M; Laboh, R; Shafawi, N; Aziz, N 
(2019) Dissemination pattern of bacterial heart rot (BHR) disease and screening of the 
disease resistance among commercial pineapple varieties in Malaysia. Malaysian Jo urnal of 
Microbiology 15(4): 346 –350. 
 
NZOR (2022) The New Zealand Organisms Register. http://nzor.org.nz Accessed May 2022  
  
80 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  NZPCN (2022) New Zealand Plant Conservation Network. https://www.nzpcn.org.nz/ 
Accessed 12/04/2022  
 
ONZPR (2022) Official New Zeala nd Pest Register. MPI Public Database. 
https://pierpestregister.mpi.govt.nz/PestsRegister/ImportCommodity/ Accessed May 2022  
 
Palacio -Bielsaa, A; Cambrab, M A; Lópezc, M M (2007) First report of bacterial soft rot on 
onion caused by Dickeya  sp. (ex Pectoba cterium chrysanthemi ) in Spain. Plant Pathology 56: 
722. 
 
Parkinson, N; Stead, D; Bew, J; Heeney, J; Tsror, L; Elphinstone, J (2009) Dickeya species 
relatedness and clade structure determined by comparison of recA sequences. International 
journal of system atic and evolutionary microbiology 59(10): 2388 –2393.  
 
Pedron, J; Van Gijsegem, F (2019) Diversity in the bacterial genus Dickeya grouping plant 
pathogens and waterways isolates. OBM Genetics 3(4).  
 
Phillips, C B; Kean, J M; Vink, C J; Berry, J A (2018) Ut ility of the CLIMEX ‘match 
climates regional’ algorithm for pest risk analysis: an evaluation with non -native ants in New 
Zealand. Biological Invasions : 1–15. 
 
Pires de Matos, A (2017) Main pests affecting pineapple plantations and their impact on crop 
development. In IX International Pineapple Symposium 1239  (pp. 137 –146).  
 
PPIN (2022) Plant Pest Information Network, Version 5.03.01. Ministry for Primary 
Industries Internal Database. Accessed May 2022  
 
Prasetyo, J; Aeny, T N (2014) Pineapple Fruit Collapse : Newly emerging disease of 
pineapple fruit in Lampung, Indonesia. Jurnal Hama dan Penyakit Tumbuhan Tropika 14(1): 
96–99. 
 
Ramachandran, K; Manaf, U A; Zakaria, L (2015) Molecular characterization and 
pathogenicity of Erwinia spp. associated with pineappl e [Ananas comosus (L.) Merr.] and 
papaya ( Carica papaya  L.). Journal of Plant Protection Research 55(4): 396 –404. 
 
Rohrbach, K G; Johnson, M W (2003) Pests, diseases and weeds. In D P Bartholomew; R E 
Paull; K G Rohrbach (eds) The Pineapple: Botany, Produc tion and Uses. 1st ed. CABI: 
Honolulu.  
 
Sipes, B; de Matos, P (2018) Pests, Diseases and Weeds. In G M Sanewski; D P 
Bartholomew; R E Paull (eds) The Pineapple: Botany, Production and Uses. 2nd ed. CABI: 
Honolulu.  
 
StatsNZ (2018) Agricultural production statistics: June 2017 (Final) . Statistics New Zealand 
Tatauranga Aotearoa, https://www.stats.govt.nz/information -releases/agricultural -production -
statisticsjune -2017 -final.  
 
Sueno, W; Marrero, G; de Silva, A; Sether, D; Alvarez, A (2014) Diversi ty of Dickeya strains 
collected from pineapple plants and irrigation water in Hawaii. Plant Disease 98(6): 817 –
824.  
81 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand   
Takeuchi, T; Kodama, F (1992) Bacterial stalk rot of corn caused by Erwinia chrysanthemi  
pv. zeae (Sabet) Victoria, Arboleda et Muñoz occur red in Hokkaido, Japan. Annual Report of 
the Society of Plant Protection of North Japan (43): 42 –44. 
 
Tesoriero, L (2018) Review bacterial blackleg disease and R&D gaps with a focus on the 
potato industry. Final Report. Hort Innovations, Sydney, Australia . 
 
Toth, I; Van Der Wolf, J; Saddler, G; LOjkowska, E; Hélias, V; Pirhonen, M; Tsror, L; 
Elphinstone, J (2011) Dickeya species: an emerging problem for potato production in Europe. 
Plant Pathology 60(3): 385 –399. 
 
Van Gijsegem, F; Van der Wolf, J; Toth, I K (2021) Plant Diseases Caused by Dickeya and 
Pectobacterium Species . Springer, Nature; Cham, Switzerland.  
 
Velez -Negron, Y I; Simbaña -Carrera, L L; Soto -Ramos, C M; Medina, O; Dinkel, E; Hardy, 
C; Rivera -Vargas, L  I; Ramos -Sepulveda, L (2022) First Report of Bacterial Pineapple Heart 
Rot Caused by Dickeya zeae  in Puerto Rico. Plant Disease . 
 
  
82 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  
 Appendix to risk assessment of Dickeya zeae  
Table 4.2. Host range of Dickeya zeae, as recorded in the cur rent, available English literature.  
Countries included within the scope of this Import Risk Analysis are in bold . The value in the 
New Zealand market of significant hosts were calculated using a report by Plant & Food Research  
(2021) . Total domestic value of fresh produce hosts of Dickeya zeae was NZ$645.1  million. Total export 
value was NZ$211.7  million. Total value of D. zeae hosts is NZ$856.8  million.  
Host family  Host species  Common name  Country 
recorded from  Value in NZ 
market (in NZ$)  Reference  
Amaranthaceae  Beta vulgaris  Beets  India, 
Indonesia  - Hu et al. (2018)  
Amaryllidaceae  Clivia sp. Bush Lily  China  - Hu et al. (2018)  
Apiaceae  Daucus carota  Carrots  USA, Brazil, 
France, Italy, 
Senegal, Cuba, 
Egypt, Mexico, 
India, Korea, 
Iran, Japan, 
China, 
Thailand  Domestic ( $58 m) 
Export ( $7.7 m 
(fresh))  Hu et al. (2018); 
CABI (2021)  
Apium graveolus  Celery  China  Domestic 
($12.5 m) Aeny et al. 
(2020)  
Araceae  Colocasia 
esculenta  Taro India  - Hu et al. (2018)  
Dieffenbachia sp. Dumb canes  China  - Hu et al. (2018)  
Monstera  sp. Swiss cheese 
plant  China  - Hu et al. (2018)  
Philodendron sp. Philodendron  China, 
Indonesia  - Hu et al. (2018); 
CABI (2021)  
Syngonium sp. Arrowhead vine  Indonesia  - Hu et al. (2018)  
Asparagaceae  Dracaena 
marginata  Dragon tree    - CABI (2021)  
Hyacinthus sp. Hyacinth  India  - Hu et al. (2018); 
Toth (2021)  
Asparagales  Allium fistulosum  Spring onion  Netherlands  - Hu et al. (2018); 
Aeny et al. 
(2020)  
Allium cepa  Onion  China  Domestic 
($23.4 m) 
Export ( $147.6  m) Hu et al. (2018); 
Aeny et al. 
(2020)  
Belamcanda sp. Blackberry lily  China  - Hu et al. (2018)  
Iris sp. Iris India  - Hu et al. (2018)  
Asphodelaceae  Aloe vera  Aloe USA, UK  - Aeny et al. 
(2020)  
Hemerocallis sp. Daylilies  China, 
Indonesia  - Hu et al. (2018)  
Asteraceae  Chrysanthemum 
morifolium  Florist’s daisy  USA, UK  
Export ( $0.1 m) Hu et al. (2018); 
CABI (2021)  
Chrysanthemum 
indicum  Chrysanthemum  China  Aeny et al. 
(2020)  
Lactuca sativa  Lettuce  India  Domestic ( $43 m) 
Export ( $0.7 m) Aeny et al. 
(2020)  
Balsaminaceae  Impatiens 
balsamina  Garden balsam  China  - Hu et al. (2018)  
Brassicaceae  Brassica oleracea  Cabbage    Domestic ( $22 m) Hu et al. (2018)   
83 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Brassica rapa  Mustard  Ivory Coast, 
Jamaica, 
Panama , 
Martinique, 
China  - Hu et al. (2018)  
Brassica chinensis  Chinese 
cabbage  China  - Aeny et al. 
(2020)  
Bromeliaceae  Ananas comosus  Pineapple  Martinique, 
Queensland, 
Malaysia  - Hu et al. (2018); 
Toth (2021)  
Aechmea fasciata  Silver vase  China  - CABI (2021)  
Cactaceae  Gymnocalycium sp.  Chin cactus  India  - Hu et al. (2018)  
Hylocereus undatus  Dragon fruit  China  - Aeny et al. 
(2020)  
Opuntia littoralis  Prickly pear  China  - Aeny et al. 
(2020)  
Cannaceae  Canna edulis syn. 
indica  Indian shot  China, 
Indonesia  - (Yang et al. 
2019); CABI 
(2021)  
Caricaceae  Carica papaya  Papaya  Japan, the 
Philippines , 
Bangladesh, 
China, India, 
Indonesia , 
South Korea, 
North Korea, 
Italy - Hu et al. (2018)  
Caryophyllaceae  Dianthus sp. Carnation  Australia , 
Papua New 
Guinea  - Hu et al. (2018)  
Convolvulaceae  Ipomoea batatas 
(artificial 
inoculation)  Sweet potato  India  Domestic ( $35 m) Hu et al. (2018) 
CABI (2021)  
Crassulaceae  Aeonium sp. Tree houseleek  Greece, USA, 
Florida  - Hu et al. (2018)  
Kalanchoe 
thyrsiflora  Paddle plant  India  - Hu et al. (2018)  
Cucurbitaceae  Cucumis sativus  Cucumber  China  Domestic ( $22 m) Hu et al. (2018)  
Luffa cylindrica  Sponge gourd  China, 
Indonesia  - Hu et al. (2018)  
Euphorbiaceae  Euphorbia 
pulcherrima  Poinsettia  Cuba, India  - Hu et al. (2018); 
CABI (2021)  
Fabaceae  Arachis hypogaea  Peanut  Greece, USA, 
Florida  - Hu et al. (2018)  
Phaseolus vulgaris  Common bean  China  Domestic 
($12.4 m) Hu et al. (2018); 
Aeny et al. 
(2020)  
Gesneriaceae  Saintpaulia 
ionantha  African violet  India, China, 
Indonesia  - CABI (2021)  
Streptocarpus sp. Cape primrose  Indonesia  - Hu et al. (2018)  
Musaceae  Musa sp. Banana  China  - Hu et al. (2018); 
Toth (2021)  
Myrtaceae  Psidium guajava  Guava  China  - Aeny et al. 
(2020)  
Orchidaceae  Calanthe sp. Christmas 
orchids  China  - Toth (2021)  
Dendrobium sp. Dendrobium  China  - Aeny et al. 
(2020)   
84 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Phalaenopsis sp. Moth Orchids  India  - CABI (2021)  
Poaceae  Brachiaria sp. Signalgrass  Netherlands  - Hu et al. (2018)  
Paspalum sp. Cowgrass  Guyana  - CABI (2021)  
Pennisetum 
purpureum  Napier grass  China  - CABI (2021)  
Imperata cylindrica  Cogon grass  China  - CABI (2021)  
Megathyrsus 
maximus  Guinea grass  China  - CABI (2021)  
Oryza sativa  Rice China  - Hu et al. (2018); 
Aeny et al. 
(2020); CABI 
(2021)  
Pennisetum sp. Fountaingrasses  China  - Hu et al. (2018)  
Saccharum 
officinarum  Sugarcane  China  - Hu et al. (2018); 
CABI (2021)  
Sorghum bicolor  Sorghum  Indonesia  - Hu et al. (2018); 
CABI (2021)  
Sorghum 
sudanense  Sudan grass  Indonesia  - CABI (2021)  
Urochloa mutica  Buffalo grass  Indonesia  - CABI (2021)  
Zea mays  Corn  Indonesia  Domestic 
($27.5 m) 
Export ( $0.1 m) Hu et al. (2018); 
Aeny et al. 
(2020); CABI 
(2021)  
Primulaceae  Cyclamen sp. Sowbread    - CABI (2021)  
Solanaceae  Capsicum sp. Capsicum  China  Domestic ( $35 m) 
Export ( $24.7 m) Hu et al. (2018)  
Nicotiana tabacum  Tobacco  China  - Hu et al. (2018)  
Petunia hybrida  Petunia  China  - CABI (2021)  
Solanum 
lycopersicum  Tomato  China, 
Indonesia  Domestic 
($120 m) 
Export ( $11.2 m) Hu et al. (2018); 
Aeny et al. 
(2020); CABI 
(2021)  
Solanum 
melongena  Eggplant  Indonesia  Domestic ( $12 m) Hu et al. (2018); 
Aeny et al. 
(2020)  
Solanum 
tuberosum  Potato  Indonesia  Domestic 
($222.3  m) 
Export ( $19.6 m) Hu et al. (2018); 
Toth (2021)  
 
   
85 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  4.2 Pantoea ananatis  (fruitlet rot of pineapple)  
Pantoea ananatis is an emerging pathogen of multiple important agricultural crops 
worldwide. It is  one of the causative agents of pineapple fruitlet brown -rot/marbling disease, 
which causes internal tissues to turn black and harden. A versatile bacterium, it can be found 
as an epiphyte, endophyte,  or pathoge n in its hosts and can persist in an abiotic environment. 
Pantoea ananatis  can cause disease outbreaks in onion, maize, eucalyptus, melon and  rice. 
 Taxonomic description  
Scientific name:  Pantoea ananatis  corrig. (Serrano 1928) Mergaert et al. 1993  
Order:  Enterobacterales  Family:  Erwiniaceae  
Other name s: Pantoea annaus , Erwinia herbicola  var. ananas , Erwinia uredovora , Erwinia 
ananus ; Marbling disease , Bacterial fruitlet brown -rot of pineapple.  
 
Taxonomic Notes:  
Pantoea ananatis  was first recorded as Erwinia ananus  by Serrano (1928) . Dye (1969)  
divided the genus Erwinia into four c lusters and revised E. ananus to E. herbicola var. 
ananas. Following the creation of the genus Pantoea by Gavini et al. (1989) , Mergaert et al. 
(1993)  revised E. herbicola var. ananas to P. ananas.  This was  changed to ananatis (Trůper 
et al. 1997) , meaning “of pineapple”. Pantoea uredovora was also synonymised in the 
revision to Pantoea ananatis  (Mergaert et al. 1993) .  
 
There  is an emerging body of work  suggesting that there may be different strains of Pantoea 
ananatis  that are only pathogenic to some hosts (Goszczynska et al. 2006; Kido et al. 2010) . 
Pineapple isolates were pathogenic to Allium cepa  (onion) and Zea mays  (maize) (Kido et al. 
2010) . More recent genomic work (Asselin et al. 2018; Stice et al. 2021)  suggests that 
pineapple strains are pathogenic to onion, but not to the same level of aggressiveness of the 
P. ananatis  strains isolated from onion from Georgia, USA . While there is emergi ng work on  
P. ananatis  strains, there are no formally described strains of P. ananatis  reported in 
literature.  
 
 Hazard identification  
Pantoea ananatis  is not known to be present in New Zealand.  
• There is no entry of Pantoea ananatis  in NZOR (2022) . 
• Pantoea ananatis  and its  synonyms are recorded as absent from New Zealand in 
BiotaNZ (2022) .  
• There is no entry of Pantoea ananatis , Erwinia herbicola  var. ananas  and Erwinia 
ananas  in Hussien et al. (2017) .  
• Pantoea ananatis  is a regulated pest for New Ze aland and has unwanted status 
ONZPR (2022) . 
Pantoea ananatis  has the potential to establish a population and spread in New Zealand.  
• Pantoea ananatis  has been recorded in the African, Asian, Australian, American, and 
European continents. It can be found acting as an epiphyte, endophyte, saprophyte, 
and pathogen and is present in a wide range of environments (Coutinho and Venter 
2009). Pantoea ananatis  can complete its lifecycle in a variety of climates and has 
been known to persist in soil and irrigation water (Lai and Hsu 1974; Pileggi et al. 
2012).   
86 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  • Pantoea ananatis  has been recorded on over 90 living plant hosts since 1928, 
including as a pathogen of Zea mays  (maize) and Allium cepa  (onion) and is 
associated with Ananas comosus  (pineapple), Vitis vinifera (grapes),  Solanum 
tuberosum  (potato), Populus  spp. (poplars), Solanum lypercosum  (tomato), Prunus  
spp. (stonefruit)  and Eucalyptus  spp.  
Pantoea anan atis has the potential to cause harm to New Zealand.  
• Economically important species of New Zealand can be affected by P. ananatis 
including maize and onions (Gitaitis and Gay 1997; Alippi and López 2010) . 
Pantoea ananatis  is associated with pineapple fruit .  
• Pantoea ananatis  has been reported as the causative agent of brown fruitlet rot in 
pineapple (Serrano 1928) , and the type strain was isolated from pineapple fruit in 
Brazil. Rohrbach (1989)  reports P. ananatis  was present on the external surfaces of 
pineapple fruit.  
Given the arguments and evidence above, MPI considers Pantoea ananatis is a hazard on 
decrowned Ananas comosus (pineapple) fruit (as described in the commodity description) 
imported to New Zealand.  
 
 Risk assessment  
4.2.3.1  Biology  
Hosts and geograph ical distribution  
Pantoea ananatis  has a wide host range of over 20 families (Gitaitis et al. 2002) . Pantoea 
ananatis  has been recorded on over 90 living plant hosts since 1928, including as a pathogen 
of Ananas comosus  (pineapple) , Allium cepa  (onion) , Eucalyptus  spp., and  Zea mays  (maize) 
and is associated with, Vitis vinifera  (grapes), Solanum tuberosum  (potato), Popu lus spp. 
(poplars), Solanum lypercosum  (tomato), Prunus  spp. etc (MPI 2021) . Pantoea ananatis  was 
intercepted multiple times on Dracaena  from Costa Rica (LIMS 2022) . The infected material 
contained viable bacteria, that were confirmed to be Pantoea ananati s. The bacterium can be 
found acting as a plant epiphyte, endophyte, pathogen  and saprophyte, in  the gut and blood of 
humans, and can be present in the environment without a plant host (Coutinho and Venter 
2009) .  
 
Pantoea  ananatis has been found in a subs tantial range of abiotic hosts , although this 
commonly relies on genetic sequencing of the 16S rDNA.  Pantoea  species often  retain the 
section of genome (16S rDNA) used for identification, which can cause difficulties in 
differentiating between related species (e.g., Pantoea agglomerans )(Stackebrandt and Goebel 
1994) .  Other methods include Multilocus sequence analysis (MLSA)  for identification to a 
species level (Brady et al. 2008) . 
 
Pantoea ananatis  has been isolated from soil (Hara et al. 2012; Kim et al. 2012)  and was 
fully sequenced to confirm identity, showing it can be viable in soil. Viable Pantoea ananatis  
has been iso lated from freshwater (Morohoshi et al. 2007; Pileggi et al. 2012)  and was 
present in salt water (Jatt et al. 2015) . These aquatic isolates rely on sequencing of the 16s 
rDNA genome for identification . Viable P. ananatis was isolated from outdoor air, and 
confirmed via sequencing to be P. ananatis (Luhung et al. 2018) . 
 
Pantoea ananatis  has been recorded in the African, Asian, Australian, American, and 
European continents  (Coutinho and Venter 2009) . This places Pantoea  ananatis in both  
87 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  highly similar climatic environments to New Zealand, and also highly divergent 
environments.  
 
Table 4.3 Geographical distribution of Pantoea ananatis  (MPI 2022). Names in bold are markets  in the 
scope of this IRA.  
Continent/Region  Country/area/market  
Africa  Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Egypt, Morocco, South Africa, Sudan, Togo, 
Uganda, Zimbabwe  
Asia Cambodia, China, East Timor, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Japan, Korea, 
Malaysia , the Philippines , Singapore, Taiwan , Thailand , Turkey, Yemen  
America  Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Costa Rica , Ecuador , Guatemala, Haiti, 
Mexico, Uruguay, USA, Venezuela  
Australia  Australia  
Europe  Belgium, Czech Republic, Finland, Germany, Italy, Poland, Russia, Slovakia, 
Spain, UK, Ukraine  
 
Symptoms   
External symptoms of the bacterial fruitlet brown -rot disease on pineapple fruit caused by P. 
ananatis  may not be visible , with mild to moderate infections resulting in no visible external  
symptoms (Serrano 1928) . Severe infections may result in a dull ripening colour, with 
extremely small purple dots. These severe infections cause the fruit to desiccate internally, 
and result in the fruit becoming extremely hard (Serrano 1928) .  
 
Internal infections infect indivi dual fruitlets (fruit segments from a single flower). Multiple, 
or all fruitlets can be infected (Serrano 1928) . Infected fruitlets appear brown, with infections 
beginning in the placental tissues and radiating inwards. Infections can cause entire fruitlet s 
to turn black (Serrano 1928) .  
 
Infected fruitlets are initially soft, but as the disease progresses, the fruitlets desiccate, and 
can become hard enough to resist cutting (Serrano 1928) . While the disease appears to be 
mostly limited to fruitlets, sever ely infected fruit will show symptoms similar to fruitlet 
infections in the core of the fruit and in connective tissues (Serrano 1928) .  
 
Fruitlet brown -rot disease on pineapple develops when the fruit is ripening and is not found 
to continue spreading aft er ripening. Disease symptoms do not appear to be present in green 
and immature fruits (Serrano 1928) .  
 
It is likely that Pantoea ananatis is present as an epiphyte on the surface of pineapple 
(Serrano 1928) . Infection appears to occur via flowers and wou nds under certain unknown 
environmental conditions, which are likely to be high temperatures combined with rainfall 
(Serrano 1928, 1935) . If these conditions are not met, it is likely that Pantoea ananatis may 
be present on the surface of pineapples withou t causing symptoms.  
 
The first report  of P. ananatis  in pineapple had the disease described as bacterial fruitlet 
brown -rot of pineapple  (Serrano 1928)  and again in (Thompson 1937)  , but this appears to 
not have entered wide spread use, with a paper in 19 50 (Smith and Ramsey 1950) , and the 
last use appearing to be in Huang and Du (1960) . This common name appears to have 
dropped out of usage, although CABI  (2022)  does still refer to “fruitlet rot of pineapple” . 
Marbling  disease is also listed  as a common na me of P. ananatis .   
88 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand   
Rohrbach and Pfeiffer (1974)  described  marbling disease of pineapple, “ characterized by a 
brittle, granular hardening of affected fruit tissues” . In order to inoculate , and identify the 
causative agent of  marbling  disease in pineapple, two tentively identified Acetobacter  spp. 
were used . Pantoea ananatis  was not used in this inoculation, or mentioned in the text.  
Rohrbach (1984)  states marbling is caused by Acetobacter  spp. and P. ananatis  referencing 
(Rohrbach and Pfeiffe r 1974) . This is repeated in two later papers (Rohrbach 1989; Rohrbach 
and Phillips 1989) . Despite this discrepancy, modern articles and handbooks have accepted 
this addition, and the pineapple disease caused by P. ananatis is now commonly known as 
marblin g disease (Rohrbach and Johnson 2003b; Sipes and Wang 2017; Ploetz 2018) . Due to 
this unclear referencing, the association of marbling diseases and P.ananatis is uncertain.  
 
In maize, infection with P. ananatis  causes leaf blight.  The bacterium causes cen tre rot in 
onion, where tissues become soft and brown (Coutinho and Venter 2009) .   
 
Pineapple variety susceptibility  
Smooth Cayenne, Costa,  Prickly Queen,  Pula and Puti were reported to be s usceptible 
(Serrano 1928) .  
 
Reproduction and transmission  
The bacterium can grow  between 6°C and 45°C degrees and the optimum temperature range 
is 30°C to 35°C (Serrano 1928) .  
 
Pantoea ananatis  can spread actively and passively. Pantoea ananatis  has swimming and 
twitching motility, which enable P. ananatis  to locate and attach to onion leaf surfaces and 
spread across the  surface (Weller‐Stuart et al. 2017) . Pantoea  ananatis  is transmitted in 
seed (Goszczynska et al. 2006) , by Thrips tabaci  (Dutta  et al. 2014)  and Western corn 
rootworm ( Diabrotica virgifera virgifera ) (Krawczyk et al. 2021) . It remains viable in soil 
(Hara et al. 2012) , water (Morohoshi et al. 2007) , and air (Luhung et al. 2018)  and is assumed 
to spread to new biotic hosts from these media . 
 
The bacteri um can be vectored by insects (Serrano 1928; Ploet et al. 1994) . Pantoea ananatis  
is assumed to enter fruitlets during flowering . It was proposed that insects and arachnids 
includi ng red mites, mealybugs, thrips and ants, found on pineapple fruit could carry the 
pathogen on their feet, but no original references are cited  (Serrano 1928) . Pantoea ananatis  
is also present in insect hosts inc luding the European honeybee  (Apis mellifera ) (Kačániová 
et al. 2017) , brown plant hoppers ( Nilaparvata lugens ) (Watanabe et al. 1996) , mulberry 
pyralid ( Glyphodes pyloalis ) (Takahashi et al. 1995)  and cotton fleahoppers 
(Pseudatomoscelis seriatus ) (Bell et al. 2007) . Thrips tabaci  and the  European honeybee are 
present in New Zealand (NZOR 2022).  
 
Pantoea anan atis can spread by infected plant material and is suggested to spread by soil, 
water (Kido et al 2010) and potentially by air. Pantoea ananatis can be dispersed by infected 
seed (Walcott et al. 2002)  as it is seed -borne and seed -transmitted (Goszczynska et al. 2006) . 
It was present on cut plant material (LIMS 2022) , that contained viable bacteria. Pantoea 
ananatis  remains viable in soil (Lai and Hsu 1974; Verma et al. 2014)  (Perez -y-Terron et al 
2009; Hara et al 2012) and water (Coutinho and Venter 2009; Morohoshi et al 2007; Pileggi 
et al 2012). The bacterium was found in water near known plant hosts , but the researchers 
(Pileggi et al. 2012)  did not mention whether the nea rby hosts had the bacteria . It is likely 
that Pantoea ananatis requires moisture in soil for exposure and transmission. Wounds and  
89 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  natural openings allow bacterial suspensions of P.ananatis (liquid and vapor) to infect 
healthy plants (Serrano 1928; Rohrbac h and Pfeiffer 1974) . Furthermore, Pantoea ananatis  
was isolated from outdoor air in Singapore, and was viable (Luhung et al. 2018) . 
 
4.2.3.2  Likelihood of entry  
Pantoea ananatis  has been recorded in over 50 countries and every continent except for 
Antarctica. Of the 17 exporting markets, seven  had records of P. ananatis or its synonyms 
(Table 4.4).  
 
Table 4.4: Pineapple exporting markets  with records of P. ananatis  
Exporting Markets  Reference  
Australia  Cother et al. (2004)  
Ecuador  Toaza et al. (2021)  
The Philippines  Serrano (1928)  
Thailand  Arayaskul et al. (2020)  
Costa Rica  LIMS (2022) * 
Malaysia  Bradbury (1986) ; Azizi et al. (2019); Toh et al. 
(2019)  Thompson (1937)  
Taiwan  Wang et al. (2018)  
* A literature search  using searching terms  “Pantoea ananatis ” or common synonyms , and “Costa Rica ” 
returned no results.  
 
Papua New Guinea, Panama and Sri Lanka all share land borders with or are geographically 
close to countries with known distributions of P. ananatis . As P.ananatis can be spread by 
air, water, soil and plant material, countries with shared borders are more likely to have P. 
ananatis.  Due to the epiphytic  nature of P. ananatis , the distribution may be wider than 
reported , as testing of healthy plants and hosts is less  likely to occur compared to the testing 
of symptomatic plants.   
 
Pantoea ananatis  was reported causing disease on pineapple in the Philippines ( Serrano 
(1935) , Malaysia (Thompson 1937)  and Taiwan (Hesu et al. 2008). Cother et al. (2004)  notes 
that there are no reliable references showing P.ananatis as a pathogen of pineapple in 
Australia. There are recent reports of P.ananatis  in pineapple in Japan (Kido et al. 2010) , 
Taiwan (Hesu et al. 2008) and India (Chand et al. 2021).    
  
Sources consistently state that pineapple fruit  infected with P. ananatis cannot be detected 
visually without destructive sampling (Serrano 1928; Weber 1973; Rohrbach 1989; Ploetz 
2018) . External symptoms of the bacterial fruitlet brown -rot disease on pineapple fruit may 
not be vis ible, with mild to moderate infections resulting in no visible external  symptoms 
(Serrano 1928) . Severe infections may result in a dull ripening colour, with extremely small 
purple dots  (refer to Symptom s in Annex  4.2.3.1 ) Barker (1924) reported that immature 
fruitlets at the top of the pineapple are not infected.  
 
Pantoea ananatis  may be present on the exterior of the pineapple (Serrano 1928; Rohrbach 
and Pfeiffer 1974) . No specific information was found regarding the remo val of P.ananatis 
from fresh produce surfaces. An outbreak of P.agglomerans infections in a medical 
environment was linked to inadequate chlorination of water (below 0.2ppm) suggesting 
chlorination is able to provide a level of control of Pantoea  spp.  
  
90 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Pantoea ananatis  cultures grew at 6°C  – 45°C, with an optimum at 30°C  – 35°C (Serrano 
1928), as such it is likely to survive transit conditions of pineapple fruit (see Appendix 2 
Transit conditions ). We have no records of P.ananatis  interceptions on pineapple (LIMS 
2022).  
 
Uncertainty  
Uncertainty is attributed to the lack of data around prevalence in exporting markets.  
 
Given that:  
• Pantoea ananatis  can cause internal infection in pineapple fruit without externally 
visible symptoms w hen the infection is mild to moderate;   
• Pantoea ananatis  may be found on the surface of pineapple;  
• Destructive sampling is needed to detect symptomatic pineapples;   
• It is likely that P. ananatis  can survive transit conditions on pineapple fruit because 
they can grow between 6°C – 45°C ; and  
• The prevalence of P. ananatis in exporting markets is uncertain;  
MPI considers the likelihood of Pantoea ananatis  entering New Zealand associated with A. 
comosu s fresh fruit for consumption (as described in the commodity description) is 
MODERATE , with a MODERATE  level of uncertainty.  
 
4.2.3.3  Likelihood of exposure  
This section assesses the likelihood of P. ananatis  being exposed to a suitable host  or 
environment  if it enters New Zealand undetected.  
 
Discarded waste from imported infected fruit could expose the bacteri um to the environment. 
Infected pineapple fruit remains may be a  source of inoculum in field conditi ons (Serrano 
1928; Sanewski et al. 2018). Fruit waste in New Zealand may be collected from unpacking 
areas (e.g., supermarket preparation rooms) and taken to rural areas where it is placed on the 
ground for eventual consumption by pigs or other farmed anim als (MPI 2014) . 
 
The commodity is intended to be sold to consumers in New Zealand. Fresh pineapple fruit 
generates substantial amounts of unavoidable waste; the thick rind is always removed and 
disposed of, and the fruit is also sometimes cored ( see waste analysis Annex  2.3.1 ). The 
disposal of whole fruit (e.g., culled/unsold fruits, uneaten fruit remains) is not  uncommon 
during wholesale, retail and by consumers . This suggests Pantoea ananatis  on pineapple fruit 
may have a higher likelihood of exposure than P. ananatis  on many other kinds of fresh 
produce . 
 
Pantoea  ananatis  is likely to survive in the outdoor environment in New Zealand as it has 
biological characteristics that indicate climatic conditions would no t be a limiting factor.  
Pantoea ananatis  has a  wide temperature range for survival ( between -15°C and 56°C ) 
(Serrano 1928) and active growth (between 6°C  – 45°C), resistance to desiccation and 
survival in freezing temperatures (Serrano 1928). The bacteri um showed extreme resistance 
to desiccation, with bacteria remaining viable on sterile cover strips for over four months at 
room temperature (Serrano 1928) .  
 
Pantoea  ananatis is likely to survive and grow on pineapple waste and is likely to survive 
and grow  as a saprophyte/environmental bacterium in the environments where pineapple  
91 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  waste is disposed of, for example on garden compost and soil. Pantoea ananatis  remains 
viable in soil (Hara et al. 2012), water (Morohoshi et al. 2007), and air (Luhung et al. 201 8), 
and would be able to transfer from waste material to these environments by direct contact and 
vectors.  
 
Pantoea anantis  can be transmitted from pineapple waste to other plants or the environment 
by insect vectors . Insect vectors are known, notably Frankliniella fusca  (Gitaitis et al. 2003) , 
Thrips tabaci (Dutta et al. 2014)  and Diabrotica virgifera virgifera (Krawczyk et al. 2021) . 
Thrips tabaci is present in New Zealand (NZOR 2022)  and feed on pineapple (Linford 1931) . 
Dutta et al. (2014)  noted that thrips faeces  passively transferred P. ananatis into onion , 
showing movement of bacteria into a host.   
 
Uncertainty  
There is limited data on viability and spread from infected pineapple fruit  and around the 
amount of pineapple waste being expo sed to the environment. However, any pineapple waste 
discarded into the environment would expose the bacterium to the environment where it can 
grow on. Therefore, the overall uncertainty is MODERATE.    
 
Given that : 
• there is limited evidence of spread from  infected pineapple;  
However,  
• fresh pineapple fruit generate a large quantity of unavoidable waste;   
• the bacterium has a wide host range and climatic tolerance and is persistent in varying 
environmental niches;   
• Pantoea ananatis  is likely to transfer from pineapple waste to a suitable environment, 
and remain viable;   
• Pantoea ananatis cultures can survive temperatures between -15°C and 56°C , and 
desiccati on, and grows at 6°C  – 45°C ;  
• there are multiple modes of transmission avail able, including insect vectors present in 
New  Zealand;  
MPI considers the likelihood of exposure of Pantoea ananatis in New  Zealand from 
pineapple fruit is HIGH , with MODERATE  uncertainty . 
 
4.2.3.4  Likelihood of establishment  
This assesses the likelihood of P. ananatis  establishing a population if it enters New Zealand 
and is  exposed to a suitable habitat.  
 
Many  known hosts of Pantoea ananatis are present in New  Zealan d (Coutinho and Venter 
2009)  as recorded in (NZOR 2022) , including commercially grown crops like onion ( Allium 
cepa ) (Gitaitis et al. 2003) , Eucalyptus  (Coutinho et al. 2002)  and maize ( Zea mays ) (Alippi 
and López 2010; Krawczyk et al. 2021; Toaza et al. 2021) . Because it  is viable  epiphytically 
(Coutinho and Venter 2009)  and in soil (Hara et al. 2012), water (Morohoshi et al. 2007), and 
air (Luhung et al. 2018) , and is found in countries with similar climatic conditions, MPI 
considers New Zealand hosts and environments are suitable for establishment.   
 
It is unlikely that there will be major climatic limitations to its establishment  in New Zealand . 
The current distribution of P. ananatis  includes climates that are similar to  the general 
New  Zealand climate. Climate  similarity are assessed using the composite m atch index  
92 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  (CMI) (Phillips et al. 2018). An area with CMI over 0.7 is considered having similar climate 
to the whole of New Zealand. Pantoea  ananatis  is present in countries with close climate 
matches  to New Zealand  such as Italy (CMI 0.8 –0.9), Poland (CMI  0.8–0.9), Belgium (CMI 
0.8–0.9) and the USA (CMI 0.7 –0.8), although the pathogen is also found in dissimilar 
climates, such as areas of Central and South America (Brazil, Costa Rica, Colombia, and 
Guatemala at 0.3 –0.4). Pantoea ananatis  survived epiphytic ally under different temperature 
and moisture regimes that mimicked conditions in Georgia, USA  (CMI 0.7 – 0.8). 
Furthermore, P.ananatis  cultures grew at 6°C  – 45°C, with an optimum at 30°C  – 35°C 
(Serrano 1928). Cultures died after fifteen days at freezing  temperatures. The bacteri um 
showed extreme resistance to desiccation, with bacteria remaining viable on sterile cover 
strips for over four months at room temperature (Serrano 1928).    
 
Variable temperature tolerance of the pathogen and the continued impacts of climate change, 
which has been predicted to increase the minimum temperature of the coldest month, 
increases the risk of Pantoea ananatis  establishing in New Zealand.  
 
Given that:  
• current and future climates are suitable for the bacterium ;  
• plant hosts are widely  available in New Zealand ;  
• Pantoea ananatis  can persist in abiotic environment ; and  
• the bacterium has wide temperature tolerances;  
MPI considers the likelihood of Pantoea a nanatis establishing a population in New Zealand 
is HIGH  with LOW  uncertainty.  
 
4.2.3.5  Impacts in New Zealand  
This assessment is made on the assumption that Pantoea ananatis  has successfully established 
in the New Zealand environment .   
 
Economic impacts  
Given t he broad host range of P. ananatis  and known pathogenicity of pineapple strains to 
onions (Kido et al. 2010) , it is likely that P. ananatis on pineapples would affect other 
commercially produced hosts .  
 
The impacts of P. ananatis  can vary dramatically and disease outbreaks  tend to occur 
sporadically.  Since  2010 there have been no major reported epidemics in onion (Carr et al. 
2010) ,although there have been smaller outbreaks (Kim et al. 2012) . There have been recent 
outbreaks in ric e in Asia (Arayaskul et al. 2020) and maize in South America (Toaza et al. 
2021). If the pathogen establishes a population in New Zealand, impacts are could be limited 
by climate, but the USA (onion) South Africa (maize), and Poland (wheat) have  reported 
disease outbreaks of Pantoea ananatis  in areas with similar climate conditions to New 
Zealand . The most severe impacts on onion were reported in Georgia, USA. The state has a 
similar climate (CMI 0.8 (Phillips et al. 2018) ), but is more humid, and is classi fied as a 
humid subtropical climate, compared to New Zealands maritime climate.It is likely that 
climate change will result in a more humid environment in areas of new Zealand, notably  
Pukekoh e and Matamata, two major onion growing regions.   
 
Onion  (Alliu m cepa ) and m aize ( Zea mays)  are the highest value crops that could be impacted 
by the establishment of P. ananatis in New Zealand. The onion industry in Georgia  (USA)  
93 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  reported 25  – 100% losses for growers in 1997 due to P. ananatis , as well as 10% pre - and 
post-harvest yield losses between 1998 and 2001  (Gitaitis et al. 2002) . The disease appears to 
emerge randomly, with South Korea reporting 30  – 50% losses in five affected fields in 2009  
–2010 (Gitaitis and Gay 1997; Kim et al. 2012) . In New Zealand, f resh, frozen, and processed 
onion exports were worth NZ$170 m, with onion seed worth an additional NZ$3.6m (Plant & 
Food Research 2020; Plant & Food Research  2021) . Onion cultivars resistant to Pantoea  sp. 
are not commercially available  (Gitaitis et al. 2003) . Thrip management, weed control, crop 
rotation and bactericides may provide a level of control, but information is limited. The use 
of only one control method will not provide effective control (Stumpf et al. 2021) .   
 
Impacts on maize appear to vary. In South Africa, 10  – 70% of the crop was affected, with 
the disease being attributed to P. ananatis and a n undescribed Pantoea sp. (Goszczynska et 
al. 2007) . The impacts in South America have not been  described, and only symptoms were 
reported (Alippi and López 2010) . In Indonesia, 1  – 8% of fields were infested, with a disease 
incidence of 5  – 8% (Aini et al. 2013) . It is unclear if these infestations are ongoing. Maize is 
not co mmercially exported, b ut the New Zealand domestic market was estimated at 
NZ$722 m in 2016 (Nixon 2015).  
 
Wheat ( Triticum  spp.) has been reported as a host, but there is limited literature on the 
impacts of infection in wheat, or occurrence, as the first record was only in 2020  (Krawczyk 
et al. 2020)  and only in association with cereal leaf beetle ( Oulema melanopus ) and western 
corn rootworm ( Diabrotica virgifera virgifera ) (Krawczyk et al. 2021) . Neither of these 
potential vectors are present in New Zealand (NZOR 2022) . Early r eports suggest P. ananatis 
infection rates of ~6% on wheat and symptoms are only associated with  insect  feeding 
damage (Krawczyk et al. 2021) . 
 
Some level of chemical control is possible in other crops with bactericides, but due  to the 
bacteria’s presence on volunteer plants and insect hosts, reinvasion is a constant threat 
(Stumpf et al. 2021) .  
 
An in -house MPI model predicted a moderate level of  economic impact  over 20 years.  
• It was assumed that the greatest level of combine d annual economic impact on onion 
and maize would be NZ$19m. This is based on the assumption of an worst case 
scenario, where 8% (Gitaitis et al. 2003)  of all onions in New Zealand are affected, 
causin g an impact of  ~ NZ$14 million to the NZ$173.6 m industr y. The value of 8% 
considers that the disease appears to be climatically limited and would reach higher 
and lower impacts in specific regions. An estimated 0.6% of maize would be affected, 
based on (Aini et al. 2013) , causing ~ NZ$5m worth of impacts.  
• The bacterium is assumed  to take 5 years to achieve greatest i mpacts, to allow time 
for effective spread across New Zealand.  
• Due to little information on  effective control, it is assumed the industries never 
recover (>100 years).  
Economic impacts assume that once the bacteria establish a population, they will be prevalent 
throughout the environment, and it will not be possible to eradicate  them.  Information on 
reducing impacts through management is limited in the literature. Resistant onion cultivars 
are not c urrently available. Insecticide  management of thrips and foliar bactericide 
applications appear to help limit impacts, but can be expensive, and have associated negative 
externalities. These would likely have to occur alongside weed management and crop 
rotation. While outbreaks may be managed, pre-emptive  control would likely be difficult and  
94 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  expensive. Research is still ongoing on effective management of the disease in onion, which 
may result in effective management in the future (Stumpf et al. 2021) . Any period of 
recovery between 10 –100 years would result in moderate economic impacts. Pantoea 
ananatis is present in a wide range of niches, and specific host control would not remove 
reservoirs.   
 
Uncertainty  
There is a high level of uncertainty around econ omic impacts. There is limited information on 
environmental  or other  factors that encourage disease outbreaks.  Impacts are often sporadic.  
Impacts often have wide ranges and may be highly restricted spatially to small production 
areas .   
 
Given that:  
• disease outbreaks are sporadic and rare;  
• The environmental factors required for disease outbreaks are not fully understood;  
• the disease is likely to cause yield reduction in onion and maize; and  
• the disease has an estimated moderate economic impacts over 2 0 years;  
MPI considers the economic impact of Pantoea ananatis  in New Zealand is MODERATE , 
with HIGH  uncertainty.  
 
Environmental impacts  
Pantoea ananatis has never been recorded in New Zealand, which has a high level of 
endemic species. Invasions by microorganisms into new environments can have dramatic 
effects on hosts and recipient environments due to host naivety (Thakur et al. 2019) . There 
are no record ed host s at a sp ecies  level  that would suggest environmental impacts . However, 
at a family level  there are 14  families , with over 1050 species endemic to New Zealand. 
These include species that are considered to be t hreatened – Nationally Endangered . 
Furth ermore, Pantoea ananatis  has been recorded on 20 families of plants, and multiple 
abiotic hosts suggesting a high level of non -host specificity. As there is no evidence of the 
impacts of P. ananatis on native hosts, there is a high level of uncertainty due  to the lack of 
information about host range and pathogenicity.  
 
Given the arguments and evidence above, that is:  
• Pantoea ananatis has never been recorded in New Zealand, which may increase 
impacts due to host naivety ;  
• A very wide  host range ; and  
• There i s no evidence of environmental impacts ;  
MPI considers the potential environmental impact of Pantoea ananatis  in New Zealand is 
VERY LOW, with HIGH uncertainty.  
 
Human health impacts  
Blood infections with Pantoea ananatis  have been reported in humans (Lind and Ursing 
1986; De Baere et al. 2004) . Pantoea ananatis  appears to be an opportunistic human 
pathog en. It was associated with septicaemia after a person was wounded with plant material 
and with hospital -acquired infecti ons from contaminated hospital materials (De Baere et al. 
2004) . There are no recorded deaths from P. ananatis, and all patients recovered following 
treatment with broad spectrum antibiotics.  
 
Given that:   
95 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  • infection with P. ananatis  in humans is rare and t reatable; and  
• no deaths have been recorded;  
MPI considers the potential human health impacts of P. ananatis  in New Zealand are 
NEGLIGIBLE , with LOW uncertainty.  
 
Sociocultural impacts  
Many hosts of P. ananatis  are commonly grown in home gardens (e.g., onions and maize). 
Pantoea ananatis  symptoms may make vegetables less attractive to consumers but are 
unlikely to cause scarcity in local markets.  There are no recorded hosts of Pantoea ananatis  
that would suggest cultural impacts. However, because P. ananat is has never been recorded 
in New Zealand, there may be increased impacts due to host naivety. As there is no evidence 
of impacts of P. ananatis on plant species with high cultural value, there is a high level of 
uncertainty due to the lack of information about the host range and pathogenicity.  
 
Given that:  
• Pantoea ananatis has never been recorded in New Zealand, which may increase 
impacts due to host availability ;  
• Pantoea  ananatis has a very wide host range across multiple families, including the 
native genus Dracaena , and   
• there is no evidence of impacts on species with sociocultural value to New Zealand;  
MPI considers the sociocultural impact of Pantoea ananatis  in New Zealand is  VERY LOW, 
with HIGH uncertainty.  
 
4.2.3.6  Overall impact to New Zealand  
MPI considers t he overall impact of Pantoea ananatis  on the New Zealand economy, 
environment, health, and society is MODERATE , with HIGH  uncertainty.  
 
4.2.3.7  Overall risk to New Zealand  
Based on the assessments of likelihood and consequences above, that:  
• the likelihood of Pantoea ananatis  entering New Zealand is MODERATE with 
MODERATE uncertainty;  
• assuming entry, the likelihood of the bacteria being exposed to a suitable habitat is 
HIGH with LOW uncertainty;  
• assuming exposure, the likelihood of it establishing a population is HIGH with LOW 
uncertainty; and  
• the overall impact on the New Zealand economy, environment, human health, and 
society is MODERATE with HIGH uncertainty;  
MPI considers  the overall level of risk to New Zealand from Pantoea ananatis  on imported 
A. comosus fresh fruit for consumption (as per the commodity description) is MODERATE, 
with HIGH  uncertainty.  
 
 Specific considerations  
On which pineapple fruit variety (or varieties) and at what stage of ripeness has 
Pantoea ananatis association with pineapple fruit been observed?   
96 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Pantoea ananatis  has been associated with the varieties Smooth Cayenne, Costa, Pula and 
Puti (Serrano 1928) . The bacteria are thought to enter  internal tissues  via flowers , natural 
openings, and wounds.   
 
Which parts of the pineapple fruit is Pantoea ananatis associated with (e.g., fruit, bract, 
stem, or crown remnant), and is it visually detectable?  
Once prese nt in internal tissues (the flesh of pineapple), slight and moderate symptoms are 
not detectable by external visual inspection.  
 
Under what environmental conditions (temperature, season, etc.) are Pantoea ananatis 
symptoms expressed on pineapple fruit?  
Infection appears to occur via flowers and wounds under certain unknown environmental 
conditions, which are likely to be high temperatures combined with rainfall (Serrano 1928, 
1935) . 
 
Does Pantoea ananatis exhibits latent/asymptomatic traits?  
There are no r ecorded asymptomatic infections in pineapple. This is likely due to the 
causative bacteria being present as epiphytes on the surface of the fruit (Rohrbach 1989) . 
Epiphytes would not be detected in fresh produce.  
 
More recent reports of Pantoea ananatis causing marbling disease in pineapple include 
Acetobacter  spp. and A. peroxydans as causative agents (Rohrbach and Johnson 2003a; 
Ploetz 2018) . It is possible that marbling disease in pineapples is an emergent disease from 
the interaction of Acetobacter  spp. and P. ananatis .  
 
 References  
Aini, L Q; Suryani, L; Sugiharto, A N; Abadi, A L (2013) Identification of bacterial wilt and 
leaf blight disease on maize ( Zea mays ) found in Kediri, Indonesia. AGRIVITA, Journal of 
Agricultural Science 35(1): 1 –7. 
 
Alippi, A M; López, A C (2010) First report of leaf spot disease of maize caused by Pantoea 
ananatis  in Argentina. Plant Disease 94(4): 487 –487. 
 
Arayaskul, N; Poompouang, S; Lithanatudom, P; Lithanatudom, S (2020) First Report of a 
Leaf Blight in Rice ( Oryza sativa ) Caused by Pantoea ananatis and Pantoea stewartii in 
Thailand. Plant Disease 104(2): 562.  
 
Asselin, J A E; Bonasera, J M; Beer, S V (2 018) Center rot of onion ( Allium cepa ) caused by 
Pantoea ananatis requires pepM, a predicted phosphonate -related gene. Molecular plant -
microbe interactions 31(12): 1291 –1300.  
 
Azizi, M; Zulperi, D; Rahman, M; Abdul -Basir, B; Othman, N; Ismail, S; Hata, E; Ina-
Salwany, M; Abdullah, M (2019) First report of Pantoea ananatis  causing leaf blight disease 
of rice in Peninsular Malaysia. Plant Disease 103(8): 2122.  
 
Bell, A A; Medrano, E; Lopez, J; Luff, R (2007) Transmission and importance of Pantoea 
ananatis  during feeding on cotton buds ( Gossypium hirsutum L.) by cotton fleahoppers 
(Pseudatomoscelis seriatus  Reuter). World Cotton Research Confernce, Lubbock, TX . 
  
97 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  BiotaNZ (2022) Biota of New Zealand. https://biotaNZ.landcareresearch.co.nz Accessed 
2022  
 
Bradbury,  J F (1986) Guide to plant pathogenic bacteria . CAB international.  
 
Brady, C; Cleenwerck, I; Venter, S; Vancanneyt, M; Swings, J; Coutinho, T (2008) 
Phylogeny and identification of Pantoea species associated with plants, humans and the 
natural environment based on multilocus sequence analysis (MLSA). Syst Appl Microbiol 
31(6–8): 447 –460. 
 
Carr, E; Bonasera, J; Zaid, A; Lorbeer, J; Beer, S (2010) First Report of Bulb Disease of 
Onion Caused by Pantoea ananatis in New York. Plant Disease 94: 916 –916. 
 
Chand, G; Shakywar, R; Kumar, P (2021) Record of pineapple marbling disease in siang 
regions of Arunachal Pradesh. Annals of Plant Protection Sciences 29(1): 63 –66. 
 
Cother, E J; Reinke, R; McKenzie, C; Lanoiselet, V; Noble, D (2004) An unusual stem 
necros is of rice caused by Pantoea ananas  and the first record of this pathogen on rice in 
Australia. Australasian Plant Pathology 33(4): 495 –503. 
 
Coutinho, T; Preisig, O; Mergaert, J; Cnockaert, M; Riedel, K -H; Swings, J; Wingfield, M 
(2002) Bacterial blight a nd dieback of Eucalyptus species, hybrids, and clones in South 
Africa. Plant Disease 86(1): 20 –25. 
 
Coutinho, T A; Venter, S N (2009) Pantoea ananatis : an unconventional plant pathogen. 
Molecular Plant Pathology 10(3): 325 –335. 
 
De Baere, T; Verhelst, R; Labit, C; Verschraegen, G; Wauters, G; Claeys, G; Vaneechoutte, 
M (2004) Bacteremic infection with Pantoea ananatis . Journal of Clinical Microbiology 
42(9): 4393 –4395.  
 
Dutta, B; Barman, A K; Srinivasan, R; Avci, U; Ullman, D E; L angston, D B; Gitaitis, R D 
(2014) Transmission of Pantoea ananatis and P. agglomerans , Causal Agents of Center Rot 
of Onion ( Allium cepa ), by Onion Thrips ( Thrips tabaci ) Through Feces. Phytopathology® 
104(8): 812 –819. 
 
Dye, D (1969) A taxonomic study of the genus Erwinia . III. The'herbicola'group. New 
Zealand Journal of Science 12(2): 223 –236. 
 
Gavini, F; Mergaert, J; Beji, A; Mielcarek, C; Izard, D; Kersters, K; DE LEY, J (1989) 
Transfer of Enterobacter agglomerans (Beijerinck 1888) Ewing and Fife 1972 t o Pantoea  
gen. nov. as Pantoea agglomerans comb. nov. and Description of Pantoea dispersa  sp. nov. 
International journal of systematic and evolutionary microbiology 39(3): 337 –345. 
 
Gitaitis, R; Walcott, R; Culpepper, S; Sanders, H; Zolobowska, L; Langston , D (2002) 
Recovery of Pantoea ananatis , causal agent of center rot of onion, from weeds and crops in 
Georgia, USA. Crop Protection 21(10): 983 –989. 
 
Gitaitis, R D; Gay, J D (1997) First Report of a Leaf Blight, Seed Stalk Rot, and Bulb Decay 
of Onion by Pantoea ananas  in Georgia. Plant Disease 81(9): 1096 –1096.   
98 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand   
Gitaitis, R D; Walcott, R R; Wells, M L; Perez, J C D; Sanders, F H (2003) Transmission of 
Pantoea ananatis , Causal Agent of Center Rot of Onion, by Tobacco Thrips, Frankliniella 
fusca . Plant Disea se 87(6): 675 –678. 
 
Goszczynska, T; Botha, W J; Venter, S N; Coutinho, T A (2007) Isolation and Identification 
of the Causal Agent of Brown Stalk Rot, A New Disease of Maize in South Africa. Plant 
Disease 91(6): 711 –718. 
 
Goszczynska, T; Moloto, V; Venter,  S; Coutinho, T (2006) Isolation and identification of 
Pantoea ananatis  from onion seed in South Africa. Seed Science and Technology 34(3): 655 –
668. 
 
Hara, Y; Kadotani, N; Izui, H; Katashkina, J I; Kuvaeva, T M; Andreeva, I G; Golubeva, L I; 
Malko, D B; Ma keev, V J; Mashko, S V (2012) The complete genome sequence of Pantoea 
ananatis AJ13355, an organism with great biotechnological potential. Applied microbiology 
and biotechnology 93(1): 331 –341. 
 
Huang, Z; Du, C (1960) Studies on Erwinia ananas  fruitlet brown rot disease of pineapple. 
Plant Prot. Bull 2: 125 –126. 
 
Hussien, T; Carlobos -Lopez, A L; Cumagun, C J R; Yli -Mattila, T (2017) Identification and 
quantification of fumonisin -producing Fusarium  species in grain and soil samples from Egypt 
and the Philippines. Phytopathologia Mediterranea 56(1): 146 –153. 
 
Jatt, A N; Tang, K; Liu, J; Zhang, Z; Xiao -Hua, Z (2015) Quorum sensing in marine snow 
and its possible influence on production of extracellula r hydrolytic enzymes in marine snow 
bacterium Pantoea ananatis  B9. FEMS microbiology ecology 91(2): 1 –13. 
 
Kačániová, M; Gasper, J; Brindza, J; Schubertová, Z; Ivanišová, E (2017) Bacteria of apis 
mellifera gastrointestinal tract: counts, identification an d their antibiotic resistance. 
Agrobiodiversity for Improving Nutrition, Health and Life Quality (1). 
 
Kido, K; Hasegawa, M; Matsumoto, H; Kobayashi, M; Takikawa, Y (2010) Pantoea 
ananatis strains are differentiated into three groups based on reactions of tobacco and welsh 
onion and on genetic characteristics. Journal of general plant pathology 76(3): 208 –218. 
 
Kim, J; Choi, O; Kim, T -S (2012) An Outbreak of Onion Center Rot Caused by Pantoe a 
ananatis  in Korea. Plant Disease 96(10): 1576 –1576.  
 
Krawczyk, K; Foryś, J; Nakonieczny, M; Tarnawska, M; Bereś, P K (2021) Transmission of 
Pantoea ananatis , the causal agent of leaf spot disease of maize ( Zea mays ), by western corn 
rootworm ( Diabrotica virgifera virgifera LeConte). Crop Protection 141: 105431.  
 
Krawczyk, K; Wielkopolan, B; Obrępalska -Stęplowska, A (2020) Pantoea ananatis , A New 
Bacterial Pathogen Affecting Wheat Plants ( Triticum  L.) in Poland. Pathogens 9(12): 1079.  
 
Lai, S; Hsu, S (1974 ) Survival of Erwinia ananas  in soil. Plant protection bulletin . 
  
99 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  LIMS (2022) Laboratory Information Management System. Ministry for Primary Industries 
internal database. Accessed 11/04/2022  
 
Lind, E; Ursing, J (1986) Clinical strains of Enterobacter agglo merans (synonyms: Erwinia 
herbicola, Erwinia milletiae) identified by DNA‐DNA‐hybridization. Acta Pathologica 
Microbiologica Scandinavica Series B: Microbiology 94(1‐6): 205 –213. 
 
Linford, M B (1931) Yellow -Spot Disease of Pineapples Transmitted by Thrips tabaci Lind. 
Science 73(1888): 263 –263. 
 
Luhung, I; Junqueira, A C M; Uchida, A; Purbojati, R W; Houghton, J N; Chénard, C; Wong, 
A; Clare, M E; Kushwaha, K K; Panicker, D (2018) Genome sequence of Pantoea ananatis 
SGAir0210, isolated from outdoor air in S ingapore. Genome announcements 6(27): e00643 –
00618.  
 
Mergaert, J; Verdonck, L; Kersters, K (1993) Transfer of Erwinia -ananas (synonym, 
Erwinia -uredovora ) and erwinia -stewartii to the genus pantoea emend as pantoea -ananas 
(serrano 1928) comb -nov and pantoea -stewartii (smith 1898) comb -nov, respectively, and 
description of pantoea -stewartii  subsp indologenes subsp nov. International Journal of 
Systematic Bacteriology 43(1): 162 –173. 
 
Morohoshi, T; Nakamura, Y; Yamazaki, G; Ishida, A; Kato, N; Ikeda, T (2007) The plant 
pathogen Pantoea ananatis produces N -acylhomoserine lactone and causes center rot disease 
of onion by quorum sensing. Journal of Bacteriology 189(22): 8333 –8338.  
 
MPI (2014) Generic pest risk assessment: armoured scale insects (Hemiptera: Coccoid ea: 
Diaspididae) on the fresh produce pathway. https://www.mpi.govt.nz/dmsdocument/5224  
 
Plant & Food Research  (2021) Fresh Facts . https://www.freshfacts.co.nz/files/freshfacts -
2020.pdf  
 
NZOR (2022) The New Zealand Organisms Register. http://nzor.org.nz Accessed May 2022  
 
ONZPR (2022) Official New Zealand Pest Register. MPI Public Database. 
https://pierpestregister.mpi.govt.nz/PestsRegister/ImportCommodity/ Accessed May 2022  
 
Phillips, C B; Kean, J M; Vink, C J; Berry, J A (2018) Utility of the CLIMEX ‘match 
climates regional’ algorithm for pest risk analysis: an evaluation with non -native ants in New 
Zealand. Biological Invasions : 1–15. 
 
Pileggi, M; Pileggi, S A V; Olchanheski , L R; da Silva, P A G; Gonzalez, A M M; Koskinen, 
W C; Barber, B; Sadowsky, M J (2012) Isolation of mesotrione -degrading bacteria from 
aquatic environments in Brazil. Chemosphere 86(11): 1127 –1132.  
 
Plant & Food Research (2020) Fresh Facts: New Zealand Ho rticulture . Plant & Food 
Research, Auckland, New Zealand.  
 
Ploet, R; Zentmyer, G A; Nishijima, W T; Rohrbach, K G; Ohr, H D (1994) Compendium of 
tropical fruit diseases . The American Phytopathological Society.  
  
100 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Ploetz, R C (2018) Diseases of tropical frui t crops . CABI Pub.; Wallingford, Oxon, UK  
Cambridge, MA, USA.  
 
Rohrbach, K (1989) Unusual tropical fruit diseases with extended latent periods. Plant 
Disease 73(7): 607 –609. 
 
Rohrbach, K; Pfeiffer, J (1974) Field induction of marbling disease in pineapple.  Proc eedings 
of Amer ican Phytopathogological  Society 1(312): 90.  
 
Rohrbach, K G (1984) Pineapple diseases and pests and their potential for spread. Exotic 
plant quarantine pests & procedures for introduction of plant materials/edited by KG Singh.  
 
Rohrbach , K G; Johnson, M W (2003a) Pests, diseases and weeds. In D P Bartholomew; R E 
Paull; K G Rohrbach (eds) The Pineapple: Botany, Production and Uses. 1st ed. CABI: 
Honolulu.  
 
Rohrbach, K G; Johnson, M W (2003b) Pests, diseases and weeds. In D P Bartholomew;  R E 
Paull; K G Rohrbach (eds) The Pineapple: Botany, Production, and Uses.  CABI Publishing: 
Wallingford, United Kingdom.  
 
Rohrbach, K G; Phillips, D J (1989) Postharvest diseases of pineapple. In Symposium on 
Tropical Fruit in International Trade 269  (pp. 503–508).  
 
Serrano, F (1928) Bacterial fruitlet brown -rot of Pineapple in the Philippines. Philippine 
Journal of Science 36(3).  
 
Serrano, F (1935) Control of Bacterial Fruitlet Rots of the Pineapple in the Philippines. The 
Philippine Journal of Science 57: 29. 
 
Sipes, B; Wang, K H (2017) Pests, diseases and weeds. In M G Lobo; R E Paull (eds) 
Handbook of pineaaple technology: production, post harvest science, processing and 
nutrition.  
 
Smith, M; Ramsey, G (1950) Bacterial fruitlet brown rot of Mexican pineapple. 
Phytopathology 40: 1132 –1135.  
 
Stackebrandt, E; Goebel, B M (1994) Taxonomic note: a place for DNA -DNA reassociation 
and 16S rRNA sequence analysis in the present species definit ion in bacteriology. 
International journal of systematic and evolutionary microbiology 44(4): 846 –849. 
 
Stice, S P; Yoon Shin, G; De Armas, S; Koirala, S; Galván, G A; Siri, M I; Severns, P M; 
Coutinho, T A; Dutta, B; Kvitko, B H (2021) The distribution of  onion virulence gene 
clusters among Pantoea spp. Frontiers in Plant Science 12: 384.  
 
Stumpf, S; Leach, L; Srinivasan, R; Coolong, T; Gitaitis, R; Dutta, B (2021) Foliar Chemical 
Protection Against Pantoea ananatis in Onion Is Negated by Thrips Feeding. Phytopathology 
111(2): 258 –267. 
  
101 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Takahashi, K; Watanabe, K; Sato, M (1995) Survival and characteristics of ice nucleation -
active bacteria on mulberry trees ( Morus spp.) and in mulberry pyralid ( Glyphodes pyloalis ). 
Japanese Journal of Phytopathology 61(5): 439–443. 
 
Thakur, M P; van der Putten, W H; Cobben, M M P; van Kleunen, M; Geisen, S (2019) 
Microbial invasions in terrestrial ecosystems. Nature Review Microbiol ogy 17(10): 621 –631. 
 
Thompson, A (1937) Pineapple fruit rots in Malaya: A preliminary report on fruit rots of the 
Singapore Canning Pineapple. Malaysian Agricultural Journal (25): 407 –420. 
 
Toaza, A; Caiza, R B; Garrido, A D; Moreno, C R; Guevara, J; Regalado, H; Flores, F J; 
Ramos, L A; Garrido, P A (2021) First Report of Pantoea ananatis Causing  Leaf Spot 
Disease of Maize in Ecuador. Plant Disease . 
 
Toh, W; Loh, P; Wong, H (2019) First report of leaf blight of rice caused by Pantoea 
ananatis and Pantoea dispersa in Malaysia. Plant Disease 103(7): 1764 –1764.  
 
Trůper, H G; De; apos; clari, L (1997)  Taxonomic Note: Necessary Correction of Specific 
Epithets Formed as Substantives (Nouns) “in Apposition”. International journal of systematic 
and evolutionary microbiology 47(3): 908 –909. 
 
Verma, P; Yadav, A N; Kazy, S K; Saxena, A K; Suman, A (2014) Evaluating the diversity 
and phylogeny of plant growth promoting bacteria associated with wheat (Triticum aestivum) 
growing in central zone of India. International  Journal of  Curr ent Microbiol ogy and  Appl ied 
Science 3(5): 432 –447. 
 
Walcott, R R; Gitaitis, R D; Castro, A C; Sanders, F H; Diaz -Perez, J C (2002) Natural 
Infestation of Onion Seed by Pantoea ananatis , Causal Agent of Center Rot. Plant Disease 
86(2): 106 –111. 
 
Wang, Y -J; Lin, C -H; Huan g, C-J (2018) Occurrence, identification, and bactericide 
sensitivity of Pantoea ananatis causing leaf blight on welsh onion in Taiwan. Journal of 
Plant Pathology 100(2): 309 –312. 
 
Watanabe, K; Kawakita, H; Sato, M (1996) Epiphytic bacterium, Erwinia anana s, commonly 
isolated from rice plants and brown planthoppers ( Nilaparvata lugens ) in hopperburn patches. 
Applied Entomology and Zoology 31(3): 459 –462. 
 
Weber, G F (1973) Bacterial and fungal diseases of plants in the tropics. University of 
Florida Press.  
 
Weller‐Stuart, T; Toth, I; De Maayer, P; Coutinho, T (2017) Swimming and twitching 
motility are essential for attachment and virulence of Pantoea ananatis in onion seedlings. 
Molecular Plant Pathology 18(5): 734 –745. 
 
  
102 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  5 Pest risk assessments: F ungi  
5.1 Fusarium oxysporu m 
Fusarium oxysporum  is a very widespread soilborne fungus that is often saprophytic (lives on 
dead plant material) in the soil. Many F. oxysporum  strains can colonise the root system 
and/or the vascular system of living  plants with or without disease symptoms. Fusarium 
oxysporum  is a common cause of root rots, seedling decays, vascular wilts, post -harvest fruit 
rots and other plant diseases  but individual strains may be non -pathogenic, pathogenic to only 
one host or have a broad host range. In pineapple, F. oxysporum has been reported as the 
cause of pineapple plantation dieback disease, a vascular wilt and as a cause of internal and 
externa l fruit rots.  
 
Context of this PRA :  
 
Preliminary hazard identification indicated that F. oxysporum was associated with fresh 
pineapple and present in markets in scope of the Import Risk Analysis. This PRA aimed to 
answer the question of whether there are strains of F. oxysporum  that are not present in New 
Zealand, can be associated with pineapple and would cause impacts in New Zealand on hosts 
other than pineapple. P ests and diseases only documented to affect pineapples are unlikely to 
be exposed to a new host and establish in New Zealand due to limited host availability  and 
cause  environmental , cultural  or social impacts to New Zealand  (see Annex 2 .4.2 Potential 
impacts in New Zealand ). 
 
To determine whether F. oxysporum required assessment on the pineappl e pathway, the 
project leads asked the MPI Plant Health and Environment Laboratory (PHEL) for additional 
information about strains of  F. oxysporum found on pineapple. In general, the available 
sequences of F. oxysporum strains from pineapple do not match sequences of known New 
Zealand isolates (Katharina Hofer, PHEL, pers. comm. 2022). Searches of sequences in 
GenBank provided no information about whether strains of F. oxysporum from pineapple 
were associated with other hosts or pathogenic in other hosts (Katharina Hofer, PHEL, pers. 
comm. 2022) . According to Edel-Hermann and Lecomte (2019) , “Molecular identification of 
F. oxysporum  formae speciales would ideally target pathogenicity -related genes”. Whole 
genome sequencin g, in order to identify virulence markers, would be necessary to determine 
host-specificity and/or identify F. oxysporum  to the formae speciales level via molecular 
methods in the future (Katharina Hofer, PHEL, pers. comm. 2022). Unfortunately, this is not  
feasible with the methods currently available to PHEL and there is no reference material 
available for the known pineapple isolates (Katharina Hofer, PHEL, pers. comm. 2022). 
Details of the advice from PHEL are provided in the appendix (Annex 5.1.5) to this PRA.  
 
Given that  
• Fusarium oxysporum strains from pineapple are not recorded in New Zealand ; and 
• initial information from hazard identification provided no insight into whether 
F. oxysporum from pineapple can be associated with other hosts or is pathoge nic in 
other hosts  
the decision was made to assess F. oxysporum  on the pineapple fresh produce pathway, 
taking into account general information on the biology and host specificity of the wider 
F. oxysporum  species complex.  
  
103 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  
 Taxonomic description  
Scientific name: Fusarium oxysporum Schltdl.  1824  
Order : Hypocreales    Family: Nectriaceae  
Other names : Fusarium bulbigenum  Cooke & Massee ; Fusarium bulbigenum  var. batatas  
Wollenw ; Fusarium orthoceras  Appel & Wollenw.  
 
In addition, some of the subspecific taxa currently referred to as formae speciales (see below; 
singular forma specialis, abbreviated to f.  sp.) were formerly described as separate  Fusarium  
species, e.g. F. cepae  for F. oxysporum  f. sp. cepae , or as varieties of F. oxysporum , 
F. bulbigenum  or F. orthoceras.  
 
Taxonomic notes:  
Fusarium oxysporum  is now recognised as a species complex, with cryptic species (i.e. hard 
to separate on the basis of morphology alone) that can be plant pathogens or non -pathogenic. 
Some individual species have been recently named within the complex.  
 
Plant pathologists often classify F. oxysporum  into subspecific taxa called ‘ formae speciales ’ 
(special forms), which are named according to the plant species on which they  were reported 
to cause symptoms. Although F. oxysporum  has been reported from pineapple ( Ananas 
comosus ) in several countries, searches 39 found only one record in a Costa Rican publication 
that referred to the strain or strains causing pineapple cultivation dieback in Costa Rica and 
Peru as F. oxysporum  f. sp. ananas  (Blanco -Menéses et al. 2022)  and no  other named strains 
on pineapples.  However, there is evidence suggesting that other strains of F. oxysporum are 
associated with f ruitlet core rot and fruit rot in pineapple  and records of F. oxysporum from 
asymptomatic pineapple fruit or commercially purchased fruit where symptoms are not 
described (Stępień et al. 2013; Ibrahim et al. 2015; Souza et al. 2018; Barral et al. 2020; 
Vignassa et al. 2021) . 
 
There is high morphological similarity between certain Fusarium species. Some Fusarium 
isolates/pathogens from culture collections may have been misidentified as F. oxysporum in 
the past. For example, a study by Silva et al. (2014)  identified two isolates as F. solani, 
although they had originally been identified as F. oxysporum  f. sp. phaseoli and 
F. oxysporum  f. sp vasinfectum.  This PRA includes some records of F. oxysporum  from 
pineapple that did not include molecular identification,  so there may be uncertainty about 
whether the information relates to F. oxysporum  or another Fusarium species . 
 
 Hazard identification  
Fusarium oxysporum  is now considered to be a species complex (the FOSC). Although 
F. oxysporum  and other taxa within  this c omplex are reported to be present in New Zealand, 
there are F. oxysporum  strains from pineapple that are different from the recorded New 
Zealand strain s: 
• Fusarium oxysporum  is recorded in NZOR (2022) . 
• Fusarium oxysporum is recorded in New Zealand in  BiotaNZ (2022) , PPIN (2022) , 
both of which record collections from many different plant hosts throughout New 
Zealand.   
 
39 Search terms in Google Scholar: with Fusarium oxysporum" and “Ananas comosus" or “pineapple ”, first 50 records checked, then search 
limited with -banana * -plantain and - -cubense ; Search terms in CAB abstracts "Fusarium oxysporum" and “Ananas comosus" or 
“pineapple ”; Farr and Rossman (2022), Mycobank (2022) and Species fungorum  (2022).   
104 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  • Most available sequences of F. oxyspor um isolates from pineapple (from the 
Philippines, Brazil, Costa Rica, Cameroon, and Dominican Republic ) do not match 
sequences available from any New Zealand isolates  (Katharina Hofer, PHEL, pers. 
comm. 2022 , see appendix for additional details ).  
• Many subspecies or strains of F. oxysporum  have previously been assessed as an 
increased risk to New Zealand compared with those already present.  
o ONZPR (2022)  records the regulatory status of F. oxysporum  as not assessed, 
with an action upon interception o n fresh fruit and vegetables of “Request 
technical advice from Plant Imports”.  
o ONZPR (2022) records the following named strains as regulated: 
F. oxysporum  f. sp. aechmeae ; F. oxysporum  var. nicotianae ; and 
F. oxysporum  formae speciales albedinis, batatas, canariensis, capsici, 
cattleyae, chrysanthemi, ciceris, coriandrii, cubense, fragariae, garlic, hebes, 
lactucae, lagenariae, lilii, melongenae, nicotianae, passiflorae, pini, radicis -
lycopersici, ranunculi, sesami, tracheiphilum, trifolii, tuberosi, vasinf ectum 
and zingiberi.   
 
Strains/species in the  F. oxysporum species complex (not present in New Zealand)  have the 
potential to establish and spread in New Zealand : 
• Fusarium oxysporum  can survive as a saprotroph on plant debris in the soil, and the 
rhizosphere (around plant roots) and by colonising the vascular system of host plants 
(Pietro et al. 2003; Gordon 2017) . 
• Many other strains of F. oxysporum  are already present in New Zealand  (BiotaNZ 
2022; PPIN 2022) , so the climate is likely to be suitable for some new F. oxysporum  
strains . 
 
Strains/species in the  F. oxysporum species complex (not present in New Zealand)  have  the 
potential to cause harm to New Zealand.  
• Fusarium oxysporum has the potential for economic impacts  
o it is considered one of the ‘Top 10’ fungal pathogens in terms of economic and 
scientific importance (Dean et al. 2012)  
o it is commonly reported as a cause of root and storage tuber rots and vascular 
wilts of many cro ps that are economically important to New Zealand , 
including onion, tomato, legumes and cucurbits (van Dam et al. 2016; Gordon 
2017; Edel -Hermann and Lecomte 2019) .  
o new strains of F. oxysporum have the potential to harm host plants of 
economic importance that are currently unaffected or to cause more severe 
impacts than the strains that are already in New Zealand .  
o Fusarium oxysporum was assessed further because comparison of available 
sequences from pineapple isolates with other records in GenBank provide d no 
insight into whether F. oxysporum from pineapple can be associated with other 
hosts or are pathogenic in other hosts (Katharina Hofer, PHEL, pers. comm. 
2022, see appendix (Annex 5.1.5) for additional details ).  
Fusarium oxysporum  is associated with pineapple fruit.  
• Fusarium  oxysporum has been recorded from pineapple plants and pineapple fruit in 
commercial production areas (Jiménez and Granados 2014; Ibrahim et al. 2015; Souza 
et al. 2018; Vignassa et al. 2021)  and from commercia lly purchased pineapple fruit 
(Stępień et al. 2013; Manthou et al. 2021)   
  
105 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Given the arguments and evidence above , strains/species in the F. oxysporum  species 
complex (not present in New Zealand)  associated with decrown ed Ananas comosus 
(pineapple) fruit ( as described in the commodity description) imported to New Zealand  are 
considered to be a hazard . 
 
 Risk assessment  
5.1.3.1  Biology  
Geographical distribution of F. oxysporum   
Fusarium oxysporum senso latu is recorded in all markets in scope. Farr and Rossman (2022)  
record F. oxysporum sensu lato as present in Australia, Cook Islands , Costa Rica, Ecuador, 
Indonesia, Malaysia, Panama, Papua New Guinea, The Philippines, Samoa, Sri Lanka, 
Taiwan, Tha iland and Tonga. The Pacific Islands Pest List Database (2022)  records 
F. oxysporum in Cook Islands , New Caledonia, Fiji, Tonga and Vanuatu.  However, it is not 
known whether new strains/species in the F. oxysporum  species complex (not present in 
New  Zealan d) are associated with pineapple in all of these markets . Fusarium oxysporum has 
been reported from pineapple fruit from Costa Rica, Ecuador and Malaysia and from 
pineapple plants (no plant part specified) in the Philippines, but searches found no reports 
from pineapple in the other markets . Table 1 (see appendix) gives further details of searches40 
of literature, fungal collections, or the GenBank nucleotide sequence database for records of 
F. oxysporum from pineapple in these markets .  
 
Reproduction and spread  
Fusarium oxysporum  produces conidia (asexual spores) in and on live plant tissue, on dead 
plant tissue and on plant debris in the soil (Pietro et al. 2003; Gordon 2017; Edel -Hermann 
and Lecomte 2019) . The main way of F. oxysporum  spreading is  via conidia produced on 
plant debris in contaminated soil  (Pietro et al. 2003; Gordon 2017; Edel -Hermann and 
Lecomte 2019) . Airborne spread of conidia has also been reported. For example, 
F. oxysporum  f. sp. basilici  produced large numbers of co nidia in lesions on the stems of 
basil plants and viable airborne conidia were collected in spore traps (Gamliel et al. 1996) .  
 
Fusarium oxysporum forms durable chlamydospores (resting spores) that can persist in soil 
and later germinate in the presence of root exudates to infect the roots of host plants (Gordon 
2017) . Conidia can be  converted to chlamydospores (resting spores that survive  harsh 
conditions)  when no host material is available and/or environmental conditions are unsuitable 
for germination (e.g. drought) (Smith and Snyder 1972; Pietro et al. 2003; Gordon 2017) . 
Chlamydospores of some formae speciales of F. oxysporum  have been reported to survive for 
six to eight years in soil (Jiménez -Díaz et al. 2015; EFSA Panel  on Plant Health et al. 2018) . 
 
Symptoms of F. oxysporum  in pineapple  
Fusarium oxysporum has been reported cause pineapple plantation dieback disease, fruit rot 
fruitlet core rot, post -harves t fruit rot and channelled rot of pineapple fruit (mancha con 
galerías)  in pineapple.  
 
 
40 GenBank (Clark et al. 2016); Google Scholar; CAB abstracts; USDA Fungal Database (Farr and Rossman 2022), HerbIMI (2022)  and the 
Pacific Islands Pest List Database (2022)  were searched with the term “Fusarium oxysporum”. Search terms for Google Scholar; CAB 
abstracts were "Fusarium oxysporum" and “Ananas comosus" or “pineapple ” and the country name. Google scholar s earches were limited 
where appropriate with -banana -plantain -Panama (not when searching for records in Panama) -cubense  
  
106 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  In Costa Rica, Brazil and Peru, F. oxysporum  is reported to cause pineapple cultivation 
dieback  disease (Jiménez and Granados 2014; Rojas 2020; Blanco -Menéses et al. 20 22), a 
vascular wilt disease. In farms in Venecia, San Carlos, affected by “pineapple cultivation 
dieback” , patches of pineapple plants (cultivar MD -2) showed dieback symptoms caused by 
fungal obstruction of the vascular symptom  of the stems (Jiménez and G ranados 2014; 
Blanco -Menéses et al. 2022) . Jiménez and Granados (2014)  identified a fungus isolated from 
infected pineapple stems as F. oxysporum  based on morphological symptoms, PCR -
Restriction Fragment Length Polymorphisms, and elongation factor 1 (EF -1) gene sequences, 
but did not confirm its pathogenicity with tests. Blanco -Menéses et al. (2022)  also identified 
fungal isolates from stems, stem -bases, roots and leaves of pineapples in Costa Rica as 
F. oxysporum  based on TEF1 -α sequences. Symptoms of infected plants includ ed yellowing , 
wilting  and eventually complete dessication of the top 15 cm of the leaves , slow plant 
growth, and death of the root system (Jiménez and Granados 2014; Blanco -Menéses et al. 
2022) . Fruit from plants infected with F. oxysporum  were asymptomatic (Blanco -Menéses et 
al. 2022)  and did not show external symptoms such as gummosis or staining (Jiménez and 
Granados 2014) . In affected plantations, yield losses due to underweight fruit were be tween 
2000 to 4000 boxes/hectare (Jiménez and Granados 2014) . None of the studies of pineapple 
cultivation dieback reported  isolating F. oxysporum  from fruit. However, given that 
F. oxysporum  was isolated from pineapple stems and the core of the pineapple fruit is a 
modified stem, it is highly likely it can be present in the core of pineapples grown on infected 
plants.  
 
Fruitlet core rot of pineapple causes  brown  rot of the flesh in individual fruitlets under the 
bract  of the mature fruit.  (Barral et al. 2 020; Vignassa et al. 2021) . Fruitlet core rot of 
pineapple occurs as a result of Penicillium and Fusarium spp. invad ing pineapple flowers at a 
very early stage of development  before the fruit forms (Fournier et al. 2015) . Fruitlet core rot 
pathogens remain latent during fruit development, but when the fruit begin to ripen, the 
individual fruitlets develop disease symptoms (Fournier et al. 2015) .  The first symptoms of 
fruitlet core rot occur inside mature fruit, when the fl esh under the bract begins to turn brown. 
As symptoms develop, the rotten area can spread as far as the core, but does not spread into 
the core or other fruitlets (Barral et al. 2020) . On ripe fruit , the eyes (bracts) may appear 
necrotic, with brown soft r ot symptom s (Fournier et al. 2015) . Photographs of fruitlet core rot 
lesions included in the publications by Souza et al. (2018)  and Vignassa et al. (2021)  suggest 
that larger lesions would be externally visible as discoloured and/or squishy patches on the  
skin, but the fruit would need to be cut to observe smaller lesions in the flesh under the bract. 
Fusarium oxysporum is not the most prevalent cause of fruitlet core rot in pineapple  in most 
countries.  However, on Réunion Island , 8% of Fusarium  isolates f rom mature pineapples 
(nine isolates from fruitlet core rot spots and one from a healthy fruitlet) were F. oxysporum 
(Barral et al. 2020)  and in a study of fruitlet core rot in Brazil, F. oxysporum  species complex  
isolates comprised one third of the Fusari um isolates from fruitlet core rot lesions (Souza et 
al. 2018) . Fruitlet core rot in pineapple fruit has also been reported from Malaysia (Ng 2009) , 
although the pathogens causing it were not identified.  
 
In Malaysia, F. oxysporum  and F. solani  (syn. Neocosmopora solani ) were isolated from 
rotten pineapple fruit with sunken skin  and brown lesions (Ibrahim et al. 2015) . In some cases 
fungal mycelia were observed in the lesions (Ibrahim et al. 2015) . Ibrahim et al. (2015)  did 
not report any molecu lar identification or characterisation of strains, but did carry out testing 
to confirm pathogenicity. The disease symptoms were observed on growing fruit, and the 
developmental stage of the plants/fruit was not reported. In pathogenicity tests, a toothpic k 
colonised by fungal mycelia was inserted through the skin of detached fruit (Ibrahim et al.  
107 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  2015) . After two weeks (no storage/incubation conditions described), infected fruit were cut 
vertically to expose brown lesions with mycelia on the surface (Ibrah im et al. 2015) . The 
authors do not comment on whether symptoms were visible on the outside of the pineapple 
before they were cut.  
In Peru, F. oxysporum is one of the fungi reported to cause channelled rot of pineapple fruit 
(mancha con galerías), a rot as sociated with attack by Pineapple Fruit Fly ( Melanoloma 
canopilosum ) (Bello Amez and Julca Otiniano 2005) . Fusarium oxysporum has also been 
isolated from pineapple fruit from Viet nam (Stępień et al. 2013) and pineapple fruit with 
post-harvest rot in India (Biswal et al. 2007) .  
 
Conditions favouring F. oxysporum  symptom development in pineapple  
Fruitlet core rot symptoms, detected in cut fruit, developed in pineapples ripened in storage at 
19 °C from the C1 stage (when approximately  a quarter of the skin was yellow ) to fully ripe  
(Vignassa et al. 2021) , although the authors do not record how long it took for the fruit to 
ripen or whether they checked for internal symptoms at the earlier stage . In pathogenicity 
tests with F. oxysporum , isolates from pineapples on Réunion Island , a solution of conidia 
was injected into ripe pineapple fruit  (described by Vignassa et al. (2021)  as “a blossom cup 
of fruitlets”) . Rot symptoms (black spots in the flesh under the bracts) were observed  when 
the fruitlets  were cut open after seven days at 19 °C.  In pathogenicity testing with isolates in 
the F. oxysporum complex from Brazilian pineapples with fruitlet core rot, 0.5 mm discs of 
mycelia were inoculated into wounds in fruit made with a sterile needle (Souza et  al. 2018) . 
All but two of the isolates caused internal rotten lesions in fruit in cut fruit after 7 days stored  
at 25 °C  (Souza et al. 2018) .  
 
Host -specificity of F. oxysporum   
Searches of Google Scholar and CAB Abstracts using the terms “Fusarium oxyspo rum” and 
“pineapple” or “Ananas” found no studies that considered the pathogenicity of isolates from 
pineapple to other hosts. However, t here are many reports of strains of F. oxysporum  that are 
pathogenic on one host colonising the roots or vascular syste ms of numerous other ‘non -
susceptible’ species  such as weeds or other crops growing nearby (for example, Abawi and 
Lorbeer 1972; Helbig and Carroll 1984; Gordon et al. 1989; Altinok 2013; Imazaki and 
Kadota 2015; Pegg et al. 2019) .This suggests that import ed plant products such as pineapple 
might sometimes carry strains pathogenic to other plant species, with no visible symptoms of 
infection on the pineapple fruit.  
 
A recent review of the literature on formae speciales  and races of pathogenic F. oxysporum  
reported that many  formae speciales  have several hosts within the same genus or family. For 
example, f. sp. gladioli is reported from gladiolus ( Gladiolus spp.), but also from other 
flowers such as crocuses ( Crocus sp.), irises ( Iris spp.) and freesias ( Freesia sp.) (Edel -
Hermann and Lecomte 2019) . Some formae speciales  of F. oxysporum  have a broader 
reported host range, including plants from several different families, e.g. forma specialis apii 
is reported from hosts in  the Apiaceae ( Apium graveolens, celery), Fabaceae ( Pisum sativum , 
pea), Asteraceae ( Tithonia rotundifoli, Mexican sunflower), Asparagaceae ( Asparagus 
officinalis; asparagus), Malvaceae ( Gossypium spp.), Solanaceae ( Solanum melongena , 
eggplant) (Edel -Herma nn and Lecomte 2019) . It is uncertain whether strains of F. oxysporum  
entering New Zealand on pineapple fruit will be pathogenic only to pineapple, particularly if 
pineapple crops had been alternated with a different crop or planted in areas near other cro ps.  
 
There is recent evidence that chromosomes or regions of chromosomes with pathogenicity 
factors can be transferred from F. oxysporum strain to another without sexual reproduction  
108 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  (i.e. horizontal transfer) (Ma et al. 2010; Mehrabi et al. 2011; Ma et a l. 2013; Lombard et al. 
2019) . Non-pathogenic strains F. oxysporum  became pathogenic to tomato due to h orizontal 
transfer of an F. oxysporum  f. sp. lycopersici  chromosome carrying genes for pathogenicity 
factors (Ma et al. 2010; Vlaardingerbroek et al. 201 6). Recent genomic studies have found 
evidence that suggests there has been recent horizontal transfer of genes for the ‘ secreted in 
xylem ’ (SIX) pathogenicity/virulence factors in other F. oxysporum  formae speciales  (for 
example, van Dam et al. 2016; Czislowski et al. 2018; Deltour et al. 2018) . This suggests the 
possibility that local lineages that are well adapted to thrive in the New Zealand environment 
can acquire new pathogenicity/virulence factors via horizontal transfer  from imported 
strains/for mae speciales.  
 
Pineapple variety susceptibility  
There are reports of F. oxysporum associated with most varieties of pineapples and several 
different pineapple diseases. Fusarium oxysporum has been reported from the MD -2 cultivar 
in Réunion  Island (fruit  with fruitlet core rot) (Barral et al. 2020; Vignassa et al. 2021)  and 
Costa Rica (pineapple plants with cultivation dieback symptoms). Fusarium oxysporum was 
also isolated from fruit of the Queen Victoria cultivar in Réunion  Island (Barral et al. 2020; 
Vignassa et al. 2021)  and the Pérola  cultivar in Brazil. In Malaysia,  F. oxysporum  was 
isolated from fruit of the Moris, Josapine, and Gandul varietie s with rot symptoms. In Peru, 
the Smooth Cayenne cultivar is susceptible to channelled rot of pineapple fru it (mancha con 
galerías), caused by F. oxysporum and other fungi (Bello Amez and Julca Otiniano 2005) . 
 
In information on diseases of pineapple from the  Kerala Agricultural University website,  Joy 
and Sindhu (2012)  report that S mooth Cayenne pineapples in Kerala usually show no 
external symptoms of fruitlet core rot ( attributed to  F. guttiforme  and P. funiculosum ), 
whereas in the Mauritius  cultivar  (in the Queen cultivar group) infected fruitlets fail to ripen, 
remaining green (k nown as “green eye”) . Assuming that this is a characteristic of the disease 
and does not reflect the particular Fusarium species, fruitlet core rot may be easier to detect 
in ripe Queen pineapples than in the Smooth Cayenne cultivar.  
 
5.1.3.2  Likelihood of entry  
Fusarium oxysporum has been reported to cause pineapple plantation dieback disease, fruit 
rot, fruitlet core rot, post -harvest fruit rot and channelled rot of pineapple fruit (mancha con 
galerías)  in pineapple.  
 
It is likely that symptoms of F oxysporum will sometimes, but not always, be detected on 
pineapple fruit during production, preparation for export using visual inspection. For 
example, F. oxysporum was recorded on pineapple fruit in Malaysia, causing rotten  lesions 
that sometimes contained visible mycelia (Ibrahim et al. 2015) . External lesions on fruit such 
as the ones described in this study are likely to be detected during production and/or removed 
during preparation for export . The “pineapple cultivation  dieback”  strain of F. oxysporum  
reported from Costa Rica was isolated from stems and it is likely that it can be systemic in the 
vascular system of the fruit core, which is a modified stem (Jiménez and Granados 2014; 
Blanco -Menéses et al. 2022) . Fruit fro m plants infected with this strain do not have visible 
lesions. However, fruit from infected plants is often undersized (Jiménez and Granados 2014; 
Blanco -Menéses et al. 2022)  and undersized fruit is likely to be rejected during preparation 
for export. Fusarium oxysporum is also reported as a cause of fruitlet core rot. Fruitlet core 
rot pathogens are thought to infect the flowers and enter the fruit as it forms, but symptoms 
remain latent until the fruit is mature (Fournier et al. 2015) . In pathogenicity t ests, rot  
109 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  symptoms were observed in cut fruitlets after seven days at 19 °C. This suggests that fruitlet 
core rot symptoms caused by F. oxysporum will develop quickly once fruit ripens if it is 
stored at (or returned to) ambient temperatures ( Vignassa et a l. (2021) . However, pineapples 
exported to New Zealand may be at the mature green stage and symptoms are unlikely to 
develop while the fruit is kept cool . Fruitlet core rot symptoms are often confined to an 
individual fruitlet and internal (see above), alt hough symptoms may sometimes be visible on 
the skin as a brown rot (Fournier et al. 2015)  or a bract that has remained green when the fruit 
ripened (Joy and Sindhu 2012) . Symptoms of fruitlet core rot can be entirely internal (see 
above) and in this case t hey would not be detected in a visual inspection unless the fruit was 
cut on an axis that exposed the infected fruitlet.  Fusarium oxysporum  has not  specifically 
been recorded as associated with fruitlet core rot in markets  in scope  of the PRA .  
 
Pineapples  are usually shipped at 7 –13 ° C under 85 –90% moisture for 14 –28 days ( see 
Annex.Appendix 3 ). Fusarium oxysporum may not be growing actively at this temperature, 
as gr owth tends to slow or stop at low temperatures (for example, mycelium of  F. oxysporum 
f. sp. ciceris  (Fusarium wilt of chickpeas) grew  at temperatures between 7.5–35 °C (Jiménez -
Díaz et al. 2015) . In pineapple ripened at 19  °C, some fruitlets developed core rot  symptoms , 
(Vignassa et al. 2021) , suggesting the fungus remained viabl e and was capable of growth at 
this temperature. Fusarium oxysporum  in ready -to-eat commercial pineapple stored at 4  °C 
also remained viable and subsequently grew in culture (Manthou et al. 2021) . Therefore , it is 
considered highly likely that most strains  of F. oxysporum  can remain viable through sea 
freight transit times and that transit conditions are likely to allow survival but unlikely to 
promote development of F. oxysporum  symptoms.  
 
There are no border interceptions of any Fusarium species, only tw o fungi and no other 
pathogens identified by the MPI diagnostic laboratories from border interceptions on 
imported fresh pineapples between 2000 –2020 (LIMS 2022) . This could be interpreted as 
evidence that fungi are not frequently associated with the fresh pineapple pathways. 
However, given the evidence presented above, it is likely that F. oxysporum can be associated 
with asymptomatic pineapple fruit or remain la tent in fruit stored at cold temperatures so that 
fruit does not show symptoms until it is returned to a temperature that allows the fungus to 
grow (as described above for fruitlet core rot caused by F. oxysporum ).  
 
Given the high volume of fresh pineappl es imported to New Zealand, and the high likelihood 
that some F. oxysporum infections of pineapple fruit will remain undetected because 
symptoms are internal or the fruit is asymptomatic, even a low prevalence of infection would 
equate to a high likelihood  of entry (one –two infected fruit entering New Zealand 
undetected/year)  
 
Uncertainty  
There is low uncertainty (strong evidence from several studies) that F. oxysporum can be 
associated with commercially produced pineapple fruit, for example Stępień et al. (2013), 
Ibrahim et al. (2015), Souza et al. (2018), Jiménez and Granados (2014), Barral et al. (2020) , 
Vignassa et al. (2021) . There is also low uncertainty (strong evidence from several studies) 
that F. oxysporum can sometimes be present in pineapple frui t without showing symptoms, 
for example Souza et al. (2018) , Barral et al. (2020)  and Vignassa et al. (2021) . Overall, there 
is low uncertainty that F. oxysporum can enter New Zealand associated with commercial 
pineapple fruit.  
 
Given that   
110 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  • Fusarium oxyspo rum is recorded from all markets  in scope of the IRA  although it is 
not known whether new strains/species in the F. oxysporum  species complex (not 
present in New Zealand) are associated with pineapple in all of them ; 
• Fusarium oxysporum has been recorded as associated with pineapple fruit from 
Ecuador, Malaysia and Costa Rica, countries in scope of the IRA;  
• Fusarium oxysporum  sometimes causes external fruit rot symptoms  in pineapple , and 
sometimes causes internal fruitlet rot or no sympt oms;   
• Fusarium oxysporum can be associated with mature commercially produced 
pineapple fruit at the time of export, but visually detectable symptoms are unlikely to 
develop in fruit stored at cool temperatures;  
• Internal symptoms caused by  F. oxysporum will only be detected if the fruit is cut 
along an axis that exposes the infected parts of the fruit.  Asymptomatic infections 
cannot be detected in a visual inspection ;  
MPI considers the likelihood of new strains/species in the F. oxysporum  species complex (not 
present in New Zealand) entering New Zealand associated with pineapple fruit is HIGH with 
LOW uncertainty.  
 
5.1.3.3  Likelihood of exposure  
This assessment is made on the basis that new strains/species in the F.  oxysporum species 
complex (not present in New Zealand) have  entered New Zealand undetected  in/on fresh 
pineapple . 
 
Exposure is considered to be the transfer of a pest or disease from an imported commodity or 
inanimate object, to a host or environment suitable for the completion of devel opment or 
production of offspring .  
 
Imported fresh pineapple fruit is intended for human consumption, therefore, when the fruit 
arrives in New Zealand it will be distributed throughout New Zealand for wholesale or retail 
sale. Fresh pineapple fruit  generates substantial amounts of unavoidable waste; the thick rind 
is always removed and disposed of, and the fruit is also sometimes cored  (see waste analysis 
Annex  2.3.1 ). Pineapple dieback strains of F. oxysporum are likely to be associated with the 
core of the pineapple . Fruitlet core rot produces internal brown rot of fruitl ets (the flesh under 
an individual bract) and rotten parts of the pineapple are also more likely to be discarded by 
consumers. The disposal of whole fruit ( e.g., culled/unsold frui t, uneaten fruit remains) is not 
uncommon during wholesale, retail and by consumers. This suggests that F. oxysporum  may 
have a higher likelihood of exposure when  associated with fresh pineapple fruit than when it 
is associated with  other kinds of fresh pr oduce  that are generally eaten whole.   
 
In New Zealand the most common method of disposal of organic waste is bagged into landfill 
(Askarany and Franklin -Smith 2014) ; this is unlikely to be a risk. However, there are other 
disposal methods that could incre ase the exposure likelihood of the fungus, such as feeding 
out to animals, home composting and direct disposal into the environment.  Fruit waste may 
be collected from unpacking areas (e.g., supermarket preparation rooms) and taken to rural 
areas where it i s placed on the ground for eventual consumption by pigs or other farm 
animals (MPI 2014) . The waste materials may also be used in worm farming. Using the waste 
materials to feed animals may inadvertently expose F. oxysporum  to the soil and waterways 
before  it eventually finds a suitable host. Many reviews and studies suggest that most or all  
111 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  strains of F. oxysporum can live in the soil as saprophytes on dead plant debris (e.g. crop 
residues  and probably pineapple waste ) (for examples, see Gordon et al. 1989; Olivain and 
Alabouvette 1997; Imazaki and Kadota 2015; Gordon 2017; Deltour et al. 2018) .  
 
Commercial composting can suppress many plant pathogens because the internal temperature 
of the compost can exceed 55°C (Hoitink et al. 1997; Mehta et al. 201 4) and F. oxysporum  is 
unlikely to survive in such conditions. However, the fungus is likely to thrive in home 
composts since their temperatures mostly range between 15°C and 30°C (Mensah 2017) . If 
pineapple waste infected with F. oxysporum  is disposed of in domestic compost, fed to 
animals or discarded directly into the environment, the fungus is highly likely to persist on 
the pineapple waste itself and on other plant debris in compost or soil. Due to its saprophytic 
lifestyle, F. oxysporum  would not requ ire a live plant host for exposure to occur.  
 
Uncertainty  
There is moderate uncertainty in these conclusions because assumptions about survival of 
F. oxysporum  strains from pineapple in the soil and rhizosphere are based on reviews of the 
whole species co mplex  and specific  research on other formae speciales . 
 
Given that : 
• pineapple is a high waste commodity and rinds and sometimes cores are removed and 
discarded; and   
• if pineapple waste infected with F. oxysporum  is disposed of in domestic compost or 
directly into the environment, the fungus can survive and reproduce on pineapple 
waste and other plant debris. It does not require  a live plant host . 
 
MPI considers the likelihood of exposure of  new strains/species in  the F. oxysporum  species 
complex (not present in New Zealand) in New Zealand from pineapple fruit  is HIGH, with 
MODERATE uncertainty . 
 
5.1.3.4  Likelihood of establishment  
This assessment is made on the basis that strains/species in the F . oxysporum species 
complex (not currently present in New Zealand) entering New Zealand on pineapples  have 
been  successfully exposed to  suitable host material in the New Zealand environment.  
 
The reported host range of F. oxysporum  strains isolated from pine apple is pineapple ( Ananas 
comosus ) and it is not known whether these strains can colonise other live plant hosts. 
However, a partial review of the extensive literature on F. oxysporum suggests that most or 
all strains are able to live as saprophytes on pl ant debris, on nutrients in the rhizosphere 
(around the root systems) and many strains can colonise the roots and vascular systems of 
nearby plants to some extent (for example, Abawi and Lorbeer 1972; Helbig and Carroll 
1984; Gordon et al. 1989; Altinok 20 13; Imazaki and Kadota 2015; Pegg et al. 2019) . 
Therefore, although pineapple is not widespread in New Zealand, it is highly likely that 
F. oxysporum  strains entering New Zealand on pineapple  would be able to live in the soil 
even if no suitable live host plants were available (see section above), assuming other 
environmental conditions favoured their survival.  
 
Fusarium oxysporum  sensu lato is widespread in New Zealand; BiotaNZ (2022)  and PPIN 
(2022)  record collections of F. oxysporum  (sometimes identified as a particular forma 
speciales) from a large range of hosts throughout New Zealand. Therefore, it is assumed that  
112 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  the climate in New Zealand will not limit the establishment of new strains of F. oxysporum . 
Although imported pineappl es originate in tropical areas and it is possible that some strains 
entering New Zealand in pineapple will not adapt well to New Zealand climate conditions , 
F. oxysporum  can produce chlamydospores (resting spores) to survive when environmental 
conditions b ecome limiting  (Jiménez -Díaz et al. 2015; Gordon 2017; EFSA Panel  on Plant 
Health et al. 2018) . Fusarium oxysporum chlamydospores have been reported to survive in 
soil for several years until suitable host material is available and the environment favours 
development of the fungus (Jiménez -Díaz et al. 2015; Gordon 2017; EFSA Panel  on Plant 
Health et al. 2018) .  
 
Uncertainty  
There is moderate uncertainty in this conclusion because assumptions about survival of 
F. oxysporum  strains from pineapple in the soil and the rhizosphere are based on reviews of 
the whole species complex  and specific  research on other formae speciales .  
Imported pineapples  originate  in tropical areas. The areas where F. oxysporum has been 
reported from cultivated pineapple are mostly tropical areas. For example, in Malaysia,  
F.  oxysporum was isolated from plants in Kedah, Penang, Perak, Selangor, Negeri Sembilan, 
and Johor (Ibrahim et al. 2015) . These areas have a climate match index of 0. 5, indicating 
that the climate is not very similar to any part of New Zealand (Phillips et al. 2018) . The 
pineapple cultivation dieback strain of F. oxysporum is reported from Venecia, San Carlos, 
Costa Rica (Jiménez -Díaz et al. 2015) , which has a very dif ferent climate from New Zealand 
(Phillips et al. 2018) . Therefore, there is also mo derate uncertainty about whether these 
strains will survive in New Zealand’s sub -tropical -temperate climates or compete 
successfully with microorganisms (including F. oxyspo rum strains present in New Zealand) 
that are already well adapted to thrive in New Zealand. However,  F.  oxysporum in pineapple 
stored at 19  °C remained viable and the fruit developed symptoms (Vignassa et al. 2021) , 
suggesting the fungus was capable of gr owth at this temperature. Fusarium oxysporum in 
ready -to-eat commercial pineapple stored at 4  °C remained viable and subsequently grew in 
culture (Manthou et al. 2021) .  
 
Given that: 
• many strains of F. oxysporum  are able to live as saprophytes on plant debris  and in the 
rhizosphere (around the root systems) , so it is likely that F. oxysporum  entering New 
Zealand on pineapple would be able to live in the soil even in the absence of 
particular live host plants ; 
• many strains can colonise the root  and vascular  systems of nearby plants to some 
extent ;  
• Fusarium  oxysporum  can produce chlamydospores (resting spores)  and these spores 
can survive for several years and germinate when conditions favour development of 
the fungus;  
• Fusarium oxysporum sensu lato i s widespread in New Zealand  and reported from 
many different host plants , so the New Zealand environment is known to be suitable 
for many strains of F. oxysporum ; 
 
MPI considers the likelihood of  new strains/species in the F. oxysporum species complex (not  
currently  present in New Zealand) from pineapple  establishing in New Zealand is HIGH, 
with MODERATE uncertainty.  
  
113 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  5.1.3.5  Impacts in New Zealand  
This assessment is made on the assumption that strains/species in the F. oxysporum  species 
complex (not currently present in New Zealand) entering New Zealand on pineapples  has 
successfully established in the New Zealand environment .   
 
It is likely that some F. oxysporum  strains from pineapple will be able to establish local 
populations in the soil (see above). New strains  of F. oxysporum  can be carried to new areas 
by human movement of soil and infected plant material. Although the only reported host of 
F. oxysporum  strains that affect pineapple is pineapple, some Fusarium oxysporum  strains are 
reported to cause disease in more than one host e.g. forma specialis apii is reported from 
hosts in the Apiaceae ( Apium graveolens, celery), Fabaceae ( Pisum sativum , pea); the 
Aster aceae ( Tithonia rotundifolia; Mexican sunflower), Asparagaceae ( Asparagus officinalis; 
asparagus), Malvaceae ( Gossypium spp.), Solanaceae ( Solanum melongena ; eggplant) (Edel -
Hermann and Lecomte 2019) . However, without additional molecular data, there is no  way of 
knowing whether any isolates from other hosts are the same as pineapple strains.  
 
Fusarium oxysporum is widespread in New Zealand on many hosts, including hosts of 
economic importance to New Zealand. Any assessment of impacts would be purely 
specu lative because there is no specific evidence that regulated/unwanted named species, or 
formae speciales, or as yet undescribed species/strains in the F. oxysporum  complex, are 
associated with pineapple  or that F. oxysporum  strains  recorded from pineapple a re 
pathogenic on other plant species. The biosecurity risks associated with F. oxysporum  on 
pineapple are similar to the biosecurity risks associated with F. oxysporum  on other fresh 
produce pathways that are not known to be host regulated or unwanted F. oxysporum  strains . 
For a newly introduced strain/species in the F. oxysporum species complex to have impacts 
on hosts other than pineapple beyond the existing impacts f rom F. oxysporum already present 
in New Zealand, it would need to be able to colonise and cause disease symptoms in plant 
hosts of economic importance or environmental significance to New Zealand, and out -
compete local Fusarium strains in the soil and/or i n plant hosts.  The likelihood of this 
sequence of events is assessed as negligible. Even if F. oxysporum  strains from imported 
pineapple occasionally cause disease symptoms on plant hosts in New Zealand, it is unlikely 
that the impacts will be greater than  the impact of  F. oxysporum strains that are already 
present. Overall, it is most likely that F. oxysporum  strains entering New Zealand associated 
with pineapple will be pathogenic only to pineapple, or opportunistic post -harvest pathogens, 
or non -pathogen ic strains and the economic or environmental impact of such strains to New 
Zealand is considered to be  negligible. There is low uncertainty in these conclusions.  
 
Economic impacts  
The only reported host of F. oxysporum  strains that affect pineapple is pin eapple. The  New 
Zealand pineapple industry is currently very small  and localised to a single production site in 
Northland. For an imported strain of F. oxysporum  to have impacts on pineapple in New 
Zealand, it would have to establish close to where pineapples are grown or be spread there by 
movement of contaminated soil or plant material.  
 
Reports on the climate/weather conditions that lead to F. oxysporum  causing  severe disease in 
pineapples (see above) suggest that the weather in Northland (or elsewhere in New Zealand if 
pineapple production expanded) would seldom be consistently warm and wet enough for 
these strains to have an impact on pineapple production. Wea ther conditions that are reported 
to favour symptom development in pineapple plants infected with the Costa Rican “pineapple 
cultivation dieback”  F. oxysporum  strain (>80% humidity and daytime temperatures from  
114 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  28–35 °C for a prolonged period (Jiménez and Granados 2014) ) are extremely unlikely to 
occur in New Zealand, even in a changing climate. In contrast,  development of fruitlet core 
rot symptoms on Réunion Island , is favoured by high rainfall and temperatures between 16 –
21 °C at the time of flowering (Fournier et al. 2015) , conditions that may sometimes occur in 
Northland. However, F. oxysporum  is not often reported as a prevalent cause of fruitlet core 
rot in pineapple, apart from a single study in Brazil by Souza et al. (2018) . 
 
Uncertainty  
There is lo w uncertainty in this conclusion because there is very limited evidence that 
F. oxysporum  strains from pineapple can be pathogenic to other hosts, and because it is 
considered highly unlikely that pineapple strains imported from tropical areas will out -
compete local F. oxysporum strains.  
 
Given th at  
• the only reported host of F. oxysporum strains from pineapple is pineapple;  
• the New Zealand pineapple industry is currently very small  and localised to a single 
production site in Northland;  
• weather conditions (prolonged periods of high temperature and humidity) that 
promote symptom development in F. oxysporum -infected pineapple plants are 
extremely unlikely to occur in New Zealand, even  in a changing climate ; 
• for a newly introduced strain of F. oxysporum  to have economic impacts on other 
plant hosts i t would need to spread to production areas,  out-compete local Fusarium 
strains in the soil  or plant hosts and be pathogenic (or acquire pat hogenicity) to 
economic hosts other than pineapple, and the likelihood of this sequence of events is 
considered negligible;  
• even if F. oxysporum  strains from imported pineapple  occasionally cause disease 
symptoms on other plant hosts in New Zealand, it is unlikely that the impacts will be 
greater than the impact of  F. oxysporum strains that are already present ; 
 
MPI considers the economic impact of  new strains/species in the F. oxysporum species 
complex (not currently present in New Zealand)  from pineapple in New Zealand is  
NEGLIGIBLE, with LOW uncertainty.  
 
Environmental impacts  
Given that it is likely that F. oxysporum  strains entering New Zealand associated with 
pineapple will be pathogenic only to pineapple, or opportunistic post -harvest pathogens, or 
non-pathogenic strains  (see above), MPI considers  the environmental impact of new 
strains/species in the F. oxysporum species complex (not currently present in New Zealand) 
from pineapple in New Zealand is negligible , with low uncertainty.  
 
Human health impacts  
Searches ( see above ) found no specific evidence that F. oxysporum  strains from pineapple  
cause human disease, but two studies reporte d that F. oxysporum  strains from pineapple 
could produce harmful mycotoxins in culture .  
 
Numerous studies record F. oxysporum  as a human pathogen in immunocompromised people 
and infections are sometimes reported in immunocompetent people (Lombard et al. 2 019), 
and F. oxysporum  has been reported to cause approximately 20% of cases of fusariosis 
(Guarro 2013) . Systemic Fusarium  infections in humans are often difficult to treat because 
they are resistant to commonly used antifungal treatments (Guarro 2013) . Although pineapple  
115 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  strains of F. oxysporum  have  not been  recorded as human pathogens, it is likely that they can 
sometimes cause opportunistic infections in humans, particularly if they are 
immunocompromised. However, given that such opportunistic infections are rare, and many 
strains of F. oxysporum  are alread y present in New Zealand (BiotaNZ 2022) , the likelihood 
of additional impacts  from new strains is considered to be negligible .  
 
Fusarium  oxysporum  can produce toxins in food that are harmful  to human health when 
eaten. For example, F. oxysporum isolate s from pineapple contain the gene for producing the 
mycotoxin beauvericin  (Stępień and Waśkiewicz 2013; Waśkiewicz and Stępień 2013) . 
Barral et al. (2020)  reported that F. oxysporum  culture from pineapple produced beauvericin . 
Eating a diet contamin ated with beauvericin  and enniatins (another class of mycotoxins) 
caused liver and gut lesions, changes in liver function, decreased diversity of the gut 
microbiome and reduced growth in recently weaned piglets (Novak et al. 2021) . Fusarium 
oxysporum has a lso been reported to produce fumosinin analogs which may also be harmful  
to human health (Rheeder et al. 2002)  and fusaric acid (López -Díaz et al. 2018)  in culture. 
However, for new F. oxysporum  strains to produce mycotoxins in New Zealand grown 
pineapples , they would first have to establish in New Zealand in this host, which is highly 
unlikely. Therefore, the health impacts for consumers from mycotoxins produced by 
F. oxysporum  in New Zealand grown pineapples are negligible. Although there is potential 
for human health impacts from mycotoxins produced by F. oxysporum  in imported 
pineapples, this is out of scope of this PRA.   
 
Given that:  
• the risk of harmful mycotoxins contaminating New  Zealand grown pineapples  as a 
result of new F. oxysporum  strains from imported pineapples is negligible ;  
• opportunistic F. oxysporum  infections in humans are rare, many strains of 
F. oxysporum  are already present in New Zealand  and the likelihood of  additional 
infections  from new strains is considered to be negligible;  
 
MPI considers the human health  impact of  new strains/species in the F. oxysporum species 
complex (not currently present in New Zealand) from pineapple in New Zealand is  
NEGLIGIBLE, with LOW uncertainty.  
 
Sociocultural impacts  
The only reported host of F. oxysporum  strains that affect pineapple is pineapple, which is 
only occasionally grown in home gardens in New Zealand. It is unlikely that F. oxysporum  
strains from pineapple are pathogenic to hosts unrelated to pineapple (see above). Therefore, 
MPI considers the sociocultural  impact of  F. oxysporum  strains  from pineapple in New 
Zealand is  NEGLIGIBLE, with LOW uncertainty.  
 
5.1.3.6  Overall impact to New Zealand  
MPI considers the overall impact of strains/species in the F. oxysporum  species complex (not 
present in New Zealand)  on the New Zealand economy, environment, health and society is 
NEGLIGIBLE, with low UNCERTAINTY .  
 
5.1.3.7  Overall risk to New Zealand  
Based on the assessments of lik elihood and consequences above, that:  
• the lik elihood of entry is HIGH,   
116 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  • assuming entry, the likelihood of exposure is HIGH,  
• assuming successful exposure, the likelihood of establishment is HIGH, and  
• the overall impact on the New Zealand economy, environment,  human health, and 
society is considered to be NEGLIGIBLE,  
 
MPI considers the overall level of assessed risk to New Zealand from  strains/species in the 
F. oxysporum species complex (not present in New Zealand)  on pineapple fruit  is 
NEGLIGIBLE  with LOW unce rtainty . 
 
 Specific considerations  
On which pineapple variety (or varieties) and at what stage of rip eness has 
F. oxysporum  association with pineapple fruit been observed?  
There are reports of F. oxysporum associated with most varieties of pineapples and several 
different pineapple diseases. Fusarium oxysporum has been reported from the MD -2 cultivar 
in Réunion  Island (fruit with fruitlet core rot) (Barral et al. 2020; Vignassa et al. 2021)  and 
Costa Rica (p ineapple plants with cultivation dieback symptoms). Fusarium oxysporum was 
also isolated from fruit of the Queen Victoria cultivar in Réunion  Island (Barral et al. 2020; 
Vignassa et al. 2021)  and the Pérola  cultivar in Brazil. In Malaysia,  F. oxysporum  was 
isolated from fruit of the Moris, Josapine, and Gandul varietie s with rot symptoms. In Peru, 
the Smooth Cayenne cultivar is susceptible to channelled rot of pineapple fruit (mancha con 
galerías), caused by F. oxysporum and other fungi (Bello Amez and Julc a Otiniano 2005) . 
Jiménez and Granados (2014)  also mention that a strain of F. oxysporum  was isolated from 
plants of the Smooth Cayenne and Spanish cultivars with dieback symptoms in Venezuela, 
but the original reference to this was not sourced.  
 
In inform ation on diseases of pineapple from the  Kerala Agricultural University website,  Joy 
and Sindhu (2012)  report that S mooth Cayenne pineapples in Kerala usually show no 
external symptoms of fruitlet core rot ( attributed to  F. guttiforme  and P. funiculosum ), 
whereas in the Mauritius  cultivar  (in the Queen cultivar group) infected fruitlets fail to ripen, 
remaining green (known as “green eye”) . Assuming that this is a characteristic of the disease 
and does not reflect the particular Fusarium speci es, fruitlet core rot may be easier to detect 
in ripe Queen pineapples than in the Smooth Cayenne cultivar.  
 
Fusarium oxysporum can be isolated from fruit at all stages of development. In fruitlet core 
rots, Fusarium spp. are reported to enter the flower a ssociated with mites, so the fungi are 
present from the earliest stages of fruitlet development, although the fungus remains latent 
until fruit is ripe (Fournier et al. 2015) . There are reports of F. oxysporum : 
• on developing fruit at production sites (Ibra him et al. 2015) , 
• sampled from fully ripe fruit with completely yellow skin  (C4 stage) . Partially ripe 
fruit was harvested when ¼ of the skin was yellow (C1 stage) and ripened at 19 °C 
(Vignassa et al. 2021) , 
• isolated from mature fruit at the time of harve st (Barral et al. 2020) , 
• isolated from commercially available ripe fruit (Stępień et al. 2013)  and from 
samples of ready to eat pineapple (fresh -cut pineapple packed in PVC trays) supplied 
by a manufacturer in Athens, Greece (Manthou et al. 2021) .  
 
Which part(s) of the pineapple fruit is Fusarium oxysporum  associated with (e.g. fruit, 
bract, stem or crown remnant) and is it detectable by visual detection?   
117 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Fusarium oxysporum is reported as the cause of pineapple plantation dieback disease, a 
vascular wilt, in Costa Rica (Jiménez and Granados 2014; Blanco -Menéses et al. 2022) , and 
possibly the Philippines, based on the descriptions of accessions MZ604650.1, MZ604651.1, 
and MZ604652.1  in GenBank. Pineapple plantation dieback disease strains of F. oxysporum 
are most likely to be associated with the core (which i s a modified stem), and crown or stem 
remnants without visible symptoms. These strains would not be detected by visual inspection.  
 
Fusarium oxysporum can also be associated with individual fruitlets under the bracts of the 
pineapple, although it is not th e most frequently reported cause of fruitlet core rots (Souza et 
al. 2018; Barral et al. 2020; Vignassa et al. 2021) . Fruitlet core rot symptoms develop 
sometimes as soft brown spots of visible rot on the bracts or skin (Fournier et al. 2015; Souza 
et al. 2018) . However, photos of cut sections of diseased fruitlets in Souza et al. (2018)  and 
Vignassa et al. (2021) , suggest that fruitlet core rots can sometimes be entirely internal and 
these would escape detection during post -harvest processing and visual in spection. Both these 
authors also reported isolating F. oxysporum from asymptomatic fruit. In the Mauritius  
cultivar  (in the Queen cultivar group) fruitlets with fruitlet core rot may fail to ripen, 
remaining green (known as “green eye”)  (Joy and Sindhu 20 12). In many cases fruitlet core 
rot would only be detected if the fruit was cut along an axis that exposed the infected fruitlets.  
 
In an outbreak in Malaysia, rotten lesions containing fungal mycelium were reported on the 
outside of the fruit (Ibrahim et al. 2015) , and a rot such as this would be easily detected 
during production or preparation for export.  
 
Are different life  stages of F. oxysporum  associated with different parts of the pineapple 
fruit?  
No sexual stages of F. oxysporum  have be en observed (Gordon 2017) , so only the asexual 
stage is associated with pineapple.  
 
Under what environmental conditions (temperature, season et c) are F. oxysporum  
symptoms expressed on pineapple fruit?  
On Réunion Island , where F. oxysporum  was sometimes a ssociated with fruitlet core rot  
(Barral et al. 2020; Vignassa et al. 2021) , disease development is favoured by high rainfall 
and temperatures between 16–21 °C  at the time that pineapple flowers, although symptoms 
do not develop until the fruit ripen (Fournier et al. 2015) . Rot symptoms (black spots in the 
flesh under the bracts) developed in pathogenicity tests on mature fruit after seven days at 19 
°C. Harvest ed fruit developed symptoms after ripening fully at 19 °C, but these were 
observed by cutting the fruit and symptoms may remain internal. In pathogenicity tests with  
F. oxysporum  isolates from pineapple in Brazil, the fungus caused internal rotten lesions  in 
fruit after 7 days stored  at 25 °C  (Souza et al. 2018) .  
 
Does F. oxysporum  exhibit latent/asymptomatic traits?  
Asymptomatic colonisation of the vascular system of above ground parts of host plants by F. 
oxysporum  is reported (for example, Imazaki and Kadota 2015, see section above) . 
 
In pineapple, F oxysporum has been isolated from fruitlet core rots, in which infection occurs 
at the time of flowering, but symptoms remain latent (do not develop) until the fruit begins to 
ripen (Fournier et al. 2015) . It is highly likely that pineapple cultivation dieback strains of 
Although the only visible symptom of pineapple cultivation dieback in fruit is reduced size in 
severe infections (Jiménez and Granados 2014; Blanco -Menéses et al. 2022) , it is highly  
118 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  likely t hat F. oxysporum  can be systemic in the vascular system of the plant, including the 
core of the fruit and stem or crown remnants (see above).  
 
 Appendix to risk assessment of Fusarium oxysporum  
 
Information from MPI Plant Health and Environment Laboratory  
The project leads asked the MPI Plant Health and Environment Laboratory  (PHEL) for 
additional information about whether strains of  F. oxysporum found on pineapple fruits are 
present in NZ  and wh ether these strains are specific to pineapple. Answers to these questions 
are detailed in the appendix.  
 
Most  available sequences of F. oxysporum strains found from pineapple do not match 
sequences of known New Zealand isolates : 
 
• Of the 316 ,360 Fusarium o xysporum  sequences in GenBank , 23 were recorded as 
associated with pineapple (Katharina Hofer, PHEL, pers. comm. 2022). None of these 
records derived from New Zealand isolates, but from isolates obtained from the 
Philippines, Brazil, Costa Rica, Cameroon, and Dominican Republic (Katharina 
Hofer, PHEL, pers. comm. 2022).  
• There is no evidence that any of the pineapple -associated F. oxysporum  strains with 
sequences in GenBank are present in New Zealand. BLAST analysis showed that 
most of these pineapple -associated sequences did not match sequences from known 
New Zealand isolates (Katharina Hofer, PHEL, pers. comm. 2022).  
• The ITS region sequenc e from one isolate matched the sequence of a New Zealand 
isolate (Katharina Hofer, PHEL, pers. comm. 2022). However an ITS sequence alone 
is not sufficient to identify Fusarium species or subspecies (Katharina Hofer, PHEL, 
pers. comm. 2022). Another gene r egion (e.g. TEF or RPB2) would need to be 
analysed to determine if this isolate is identical to the New Zealand isolate (Katharina 
Hofer, PHEL, pers. comm. 2022). Note that this only one of the 23 isolates, so even if 
this strain were present, the others a re not.  
 
Searches of F. oxysporum  sequences in GenBank provided no information about whether 
strains of F. oxysporum  from pineapple were associated with other hosts or pathogenic in 
other hosts.  
 
• Although many of the 23 pineapple -associated F. oxysporum  sequences found in 
GenBank searches matched with other publicly available records, each of these 
matches was based on a single gene region (ITS, TEF, or RPB2) from a pineapple -
associated F. oxysporum  isolate (Katharina Hofer, PHEL, pers. comm. 2022) . 
Matches across more than one would be necessary to draw conclusions whether a 
certain isolate is identical to another one (Katharina Hofer, PHEL, pers. comm. 2022) . 
• Many of the matching records in GenBank do not state the host they were isolated 
from  and/or have not been published in scientific papers, so do not provide any 
insight into host -specificity or pathogenicity of the  pineapple isolates (Katharina 
Hofer, PHEL, pers. comm. 2022) . Therefore, there is no specific information about 
whether strains of F. oxysporum  from pineapple can cause disease in other hosts.  
• According to Edel-Hermann and Lecomte (2019) , “Molecular iden tification of F. 
oxysporum formae speciales would ideally target pathogenicity -related genes” . Whole  
119 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  genome sequencing, in order to identify virulence markers, would be necessary to 
determine host -specificity  and/or identify F. oxysporum  to the formae spec iales level 
via molecular methods in the future  (Katharina Hofer, PHEL, pers. comm. 2022). 
Unfortunately , this is not feasible wit h the methods currently available to PHEL, and 
there is no reference material available for the known pineapple isolate s (Kath arina 
Hofer, PHEL, pers. comm. 2022) .  
 
Geographical distribution of F. oxysporum  from pineapple  
 
Table 5.1 shows the reports of F. oxysporum  from pineapple in markets in scope of the IRA 
found in literature and database searches 41.  
 
Table 5.1. Records of Fusarium oxysporum , from pineapple, in markets in scope of this IRA . 
Market  Record of F. oxysporum from pineapple  
Costa Rica  Isolated from commercially available Costa Rican pineapple fruit with 
fungal symptoms (sometimes in coinfection with other Fusarium species) 
(Stępień et al. 2013) . Identified based on translation elongation factor tef -
1α sequence alignment.  
 
Isolated from stalks of plants (MD -2 cultivar) with symptoms of the 
disease "pineapple cultivation dieback" (see below) collected from farms 
in Venecia, San Carlos. Identified by morphological characteristics, PCR -
Restriction Fragment Length Polymorphisms and comparison  of TEF 
gene sequences with accessions in GenBank. (Stępień et al. 2013; 
Jiménez and Granados 2014; Umaña -Castro 2018; Blanco -Menéses et 
al. 2022)  
Ecuador  Isolated from commercially available pineapple fruit from Ecuador with 
fungal symptoms (sometimes in  coinfection with other Fusarium species) 
(Stępień et al. 2013) . Identified based on translation elongation factor tef -
1α sequence alignment (Stępień et al. 2013) ; No other information found 
in searches of literature, fungal collections or the GenBank nucleotide 
sequence database.  
Malaysia  Isolated from pineapple fruit (varieties Moris, Josapine, and Gandul) with 
disease symptoms (rotten lesions and visible mycelia) in Kedah, Penang, 
Perak, Selangor, Negeri Sembilan, and Johor (Ibrahim et al. 2 015) and 
this record is cited in the USDA Fungal Database (Farr and Rossman 
2022)  Collections from Sabah and Peninsular Malaysia in HerbIMI (2022) . 
No further evidence found in searches of literature, fungal collections.  
The Philippines  Three translation elongation factor 1 -alpha (tef1 -α) sequences in 
GenBank (Clark et al. 2016)  identified as F. oxysporum from Ananas 
comosus leaf from an unpublished study of pineapple cultivation dieback 
in the Philippines (GenBank: MZ604650.1, MZ604651.1, MZ604652.1).  
 
41 GenBank (Clark et al. 2016); Google Scholar; CAB abstracts; USDA Fungal Database (Farr and Rossman 2022), HerbIMI 
(2022) and the Pacific Islands Pest List Database (2022) were searched with the term “Fusarium oxysporum”. Search terms 
for Google Scholar; CAB abstracts were "Fusarium oxysporum" and “Ananas comosus" or “pineapple” and the country 
name. Google scholar searches were limited where appropriate with -banana -plantain -Panama (not when searching for 
records in Panama) -cubense  
  
120 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Australia  No record of F. oxysporum from pineapple found in searches of literature, 
fungal collections or the GenBank nucleotide sequence database. No 
record of F. oxysporum on pineapple in a report by Summerell et al. 
(2010)  cataloguing Fusarium  species as sociated with plants in Australia.  
Indonesia, Panama, Sri 
Lanka, Taiwan, 
Thailand  No record of F. oxysporum from pineapple found in literature searches, 
fungal collections or sequence databases.  
Pacific countries: Cook 
Islands, Fiji, New 
Caledonia, Papua New 
Guinea, Samoa, Tonga 
Vanuatu  No record of F. oxysporum from pineapple found in searches of literature, 
fungal collections or the GenBank nucleotide sequence database. No 
record of F. oxysporum from pineapple in the Pacific Islands Pest  List 
Database (2022)  
 
 References  
Abawi, G; Lorbeer, J (1972) Several aspects of the ecology and pathology of Fusarium 
oxysporum f. sp. cepae. Phytopathology 62(8): 870 –876. 
 
Altinok, H H (2013) Fusarium Species Isolated from Common Weeds in Eggplant Fields and 
Symptomless Hosts of Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. melongenae in Turkey. Journal of 
Phytopathology 161(5): 335 –340. 
 
Barral, B; Chillet, M; Doizy, A; Grassi, M; Ragot, L; Lé chaudel, M; Durand, N; Rose, L J; 
Viljoen, A; Schorr -Galindo, S (2020) Diversity and Toxigenicity of Fungi that Cause 
Pineapple Fruitlet Core Rot. Toxins 12(5): 339.  
 
Bello Amez, S; Julca Otiniano, A (2005) Mechanical protection of 'Smooth Cayenne' 
Pineapple (Ananas comosus L. Merr.) inflorescence and fruit, and its effect on 'fruit rot' in 
Chanchamayo - Peru. Acta Horticulturae (666): 241 –246. 
 
BiotaNZ (2022) Biota of New Zealand. https://biotaNZ.landcareresearch.co.nz  Accessed 
30/04/2022.  
 
Biswal, P K; Mishra, B D; Mohapatra, S S (2007) Management of fungi causing post harvest 
rotting of pineapples in Orissa. Journ al of Plant Protection and Environment 4(1): 103 –105. 
 
Blanco -Menéses, M; Castro -Zúñiga, O; Umaña -Rojas, G (2022) ESTUDIO PRELIMINAR 
DE ESPECIES DE Fusarium PRESENTES EN PINA ( Ananas comosus ) EN COSTA  
RICA/Preliminary study of Fusarium species in pineappl e crop ( Ananas comosus ) in Costa 
Rica. Agronomía Costarricense 46: 47+.  
 
Farr, D F; Rossman, A Y (2022) Fungal Databases, U.S. National Fungus Collections, ARS. 
https://nt.ars -
grin.gov/fungaldatabases/new_allView.cfm?whichone=FungusHost&thisName=Thielaviopsi
s%20paradoxa&organismtype=Fungus&fromAllCount=yes  Accessed 22/04/2022  
 
Clark, K; Karsch -Mizrachi, I; Lipman, D J; Ostell, J; Sayers, E W (2016) GenBank. Nucleic 
acids research 44(D1): D67 –D72.   
121 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand   
Czislowski, E; Fraser -Smith, S; Zander, M; O'Neill, W T; Meldrum, R A; Tran -Nguyen, L T 
T; Batley, J; Aitken, E A B (2018) Investigation of the diversity  of effector genes in the 
banana pathogen, Fusarium oxysporum  f. sp. cubense , reveals evidence of horizontal gene 
transfer. Molecular Plant Pathology 19(5): 1155 –1171.  
 
Dean, R; Van Kan, J A L; Pretorius, Z A; Hammond -Kosack, K E; Di Pietro, A; Spanu, P D;  
Rudd, J J; Dickman, M; Kahmann, R; Ellis, J; Foster, G D (2012) The Top 10 fungal 
pathogens in molecular plant pathology. Molecular Plant Pathology 13(4): 414 –430. 
 
Deltour, P; França, S C; Heyman, L; Pereira, O L; Höfte, M (2018) Comparative analysis of 
pathogenic and nonpathogenic Fusarium oxysporum populations associated with banana on a 
farm in Minas Gerais, Brazil. Plant Pathology 67(3): 707 –718. 
 
Edel-Hermann, V; Lecomte, C (2019) Current Status of Fusarium oxysporum Formae 
Speciales and Races. Phyto pathology® 109(4): 512 –530. 
 
EFSA Panel  on Plant Health; Jeger, M; Bragard, C; Caffier, D; Candresse, T; Chatzivassiliou, 
E; Dehnen -Schmutz, K; Gilioli, G; Grégoire, J -C; Jaques Miret, J A; MacLeod, A; Navajas 
Navarro, M; Niere, B; Parnell, S; Potting, R; Rafoss, T; Urek, G; Van Bruggen, A; Van der 
Werf, W; West, J; Winter, S; Armengol Forti, J; Vloutoglou, I; Bottex, B; Rossi, V (2018) 
Pest categorisation of Fusarium  oxysporum  f. sp. a lbedinis . EFSA Journal 16(3): e05183.  
 
Farr, D; Rossman, A (2022) Fungal  databases, US national fungus collections, ARS, USDA. 
8. 
 
Fournier, P; Benneveau, A; Hardy, C; Chillet, M; Léchaudel, M (2015) A predictive model 
based on a pluviothermic index for leathery pocket and fruitlet core rot of pineapple cv. 
‘Queen’. European J ournal of Plant Pathology 142(3): 449 –460. 
 
Gamliel, A; Katan, T; Yunis, H; Katan, J (1996) Fusarium  wilt and crown rot of sweet basil: 
involvement of soilborne and airborne inoculum. Phytopathology 86(1): 56 –62. 
 
Gordon, T; Okamoto, D; Jacobson, D (1989) Colonization of muskmelon and nonsusceptible 
crops by Fusarium oxysporum  f. sp. melonis  and other spe cies of Fusarium. Phytopathology 
79(10): 1095 –1100.  
 
Gordon, T R (2017) Fusarium oxysporum  and the Fusarium Wilt Syndrome. Annual Review 
of Phytopathology 55(1): 23 –39. 
 
Guarro, J (2013) Fusariosis, a complex infection caused by a high diversity of fungal species 
refractory to treatment. European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases 
32(12): 1491 –1500.  
 
Helbig, J; Carroll, R (1984) Dicotyledonous weeds as a source of Fusarium oxysporum  
pathogenic on soybean. Plant disease 68(8): 694 –696. 
 
HerbIMI (2022) Herb. IMI mycological database, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. 
http://www.herbimi.info/herbimi/home.htm  Accessed 4/5/2022.  
  
122 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Ibrahim, N F; Mohd, M H; Nor, N M I M; Zakaria, L (2015) First r eport of Fusarium 
oxysporum and F. solani associated with pineapple rot in Peninsular Malaysia. Plant Disease 
99(11): 1650 –1650.  
 
Imazaki, I; Kadota, I (2015) Molecular phylogeny and diversity of Fusarium endophytes 
isolated from tomato stems. FEMS Microbi ology Ecology 91(9): fiv098.  
 
Jiménez -Díaz, R M; Castillo, P; Jiménez -Gasco, M d M; Landa, B B; Navas -Cortés, J A 
(2015) Fusarium wilt of chickpeas: Biology, ecology and management. Crop Protection 73: 
16–27. 
 
Jiménez, J V; Granados, X M (2014) Diagnosis o f Fusarium oxysporum in the cultivation of 
pineapple  Ananas comosus (L) Merr. Net Journal of Agricultural Science 2(3): 107 –112. 
 
Joy, P P; Sindhu, G (2012) Diseases of pineapple ( Ananas comosus ) - Pathogen, symptoms, 
infection, spread and management. Kera la Agricultural University . 
 
LIMS (2022) Laboratory Information Management System. Ministry for Primary Industries 
Internal Database. Accessed 11 April 2022.  
 
Lombard, L; Sandoval -Denis, M; Lamprecht, S C; Crous, P W (2019) Epitypification of 
Fusarium oxys porum - clearing the taxonomic chaos. Persoonia 43: 1 –47. 
 
López -Díaz, C; Rahjoo, V; Sulyok, M; Ghionna, V; Martín -Vicente, A; Capilla, J; Di Pietro, 
A; López -Berges, M S (2018) Fusaric acid contributes to virulence of Fusarium oxysporum  
on plant and mamma lian hosts. Molecular plant pathology 19(2): 440 –453. 
 
Ma, L -J; Geiser, D M; Proctor, R H; Rooney, A P; O'Donnell, K; Trail, F; Gardiner, D M; 
Manners, J M; Kazan, K (2013) Fusarium Pathogenomics. Annual Review of Microbiology 
67(1): 399 –416. 
 
Ma, L -J; van der Does, H C; Borkovich, K A; Coleman, J J; Daboussi, M -J; Di Pietro, A; 
Dufresne, M; Freitag, M; Grabherr, M; Henrissat, B; Houterman, P M; Kang, S; Shim, W -B; 
Woloshuk, C; Xie, X; Xu, J -R; Antoniw, J; Baker, S E; Bluhm, B H; Breakspear, A; Brown, 
D W; Butchko, R A E; Chapman, S; Coulson, R; Coutinho, P M; Danchin, E G J; Diener, A; 
Gale, L R; Gardiner, D M; Goff, S; Hammond -Kosack, K E; Hilburn, K; Hua -Van, A; 
Jonkers, W; Kazan, K; Kodira, C D; Koehrsen, M; Kumar, L; Lee, Y -H; Li, L; Manners , J M; 
Miranda -Saavedra, D; Mukherjee, M; Park, G; Park, J; Park, S -Y; Proctor, R H; Regev, A; 
Ruiz -Roldan, M C; Sain, D; Sakthikumar, S; Sykes, S; Schwartz, D C; Turgeon, B G; 
Wapinski, I; Yoder, O; Young, S; Zeng, Q; Zhou, S; Galagan, J; Cuomo, C A; Kist ler, H C; 
Rep, M (2010) Comparative genomics reveals mobile pathogenicity chromosomes in 
Fusarium. Nature 464(7287): 367 –373. 
 
Mycobank (2022) Mycobank. 
Mycobank https://www.mycobank.org/page/Simple%20names%20search   
 
Manthou, E; Coeuret, G; Chaillou, S; Nychas, G -J E (2021) Evolution of fungal community 
associated with ready -to-eat pineapple durin g storage under different temperature conditions. 
Food Microbiology 97: 103736.  
  
123 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Mehrabi, R; Bahkali, A H; Abd -Elsalam, K A; Moslem, M; Ben M'Barek, S; Gohari, A M; 
Jashni, M K; Stergiopoulos, I; Kema, G H J; de Wit, P J G M (2011) Horizontal gene and 
chromosome transfer in plant pathogenic fungi affecting host range. FEMS Microbiology 
Reviews 35(3): 542 –554. 
 
Ng, L (2009) Diseases of Pineapple in Sarawak . Department of Agriculture Sarawak, 
https://doa.sarawak.gov.my/page -0-270-283-ARC -ARTICLES -Archives.html . 
 
Novak, B; Lopes Hasuda, A; Ghanbari, M; Mayumi Maruo, V; Bracarense, A P F R L; 
Neves, M; Emsenhuber, C; Wein, S; Oswald, I P; Pinton, P; Schatzmayr, D (2021) Effects of 
Fusarium metabolites beauvericin and enniatins alone or in mixture with deoxynivalenol on 
weaning piglets. Food and Chemical Toxicology 158: 112719.  
 
NZOR (2022) The New Zealand Organisms Register. http://nzor.org.nz  Accessed 19 
February 2022.  
 
Olivain, C; Alabouvette, C (1997) Colonization of tomato root by a non -pathogenic strain of 
Fusarium oxysporum . New Phytologist 137(3): 481 –494. 
 
ONZPR (2022) Official New Zealand Pest Register. MPI Public Database. 
https://pierpestregister.mpi.govt.nz/PestsRegister/ImportCommodity/  Accessed 09 February 
2022.  
 
Pacific Islands Pest List Database (2022) Pacific Islands Pest List Database. 
https://pld.lrd.spc.int/   
 
Pegg, K G; Coates, L M; O’Neill, W T; Turner, D W (2019) The epidemiology of Fusarium 
wilt of banana. Frontiers in Plant Science 10. 
 
Phillips, C B; Kean, J M; Vink, C J; Berry, J A (2018) Utility of  the CLIMEX ‘match 
climates regional’ algorithm for pest risk analysis: an evaluation with non -native ants in New 
Zealand. Biological Invasions : 1–15. 
 
Pietro, A D; Madrid, M P; Caracuel, Z; Delgado -Jarana, J; Roncero, M I G (2003) Fusarium 
oxysporum : expl oring the molecular arsenal of a vascular wilt fungus. Molecular Plant 
Pathology 4(5): 315 –325. 
 
PPIN (2022) Plant Pest Information Network, Version 5.03.01. Ministry for Primary 
Industries Internal Database. Accessed 9 February 2022.  
 
Rheeder, J P; Marasas, W F O; Vismer, H F (2002) Production of fumonisin analogs by 
Fusarium  species. Applied and environmental microbiology 68(5): 2101 –2105.  
 
Rojas, J (2020) Aislamiento, patogenicidad y caracterización molecular de Fusarium 
oxysporum . Schltdl, que afecta piña (Ananas comosus) en Poroto, La Libertad (abstract only). 
thesis; Universidad Nacional de Trujillo, Peru, Poroto, La Libertad, Peru  
 
Silva, F; Vechiato, M; Harakava, R (2014) EF -1α gene and IGS rDNA sequencing of 
Fusarium oxysporum  f. sp. vasinfectum  and F. oxysporum  F. sp. phaseoli  reveals 
polyphyletic origin of strains. Tropical Plant Pathology 39: 64 –73.  
124 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand   
Smith, S N; Snyder, W (1972) Germination of Fusarium oxysporum chlamydospores in soils 
favorable and unfavorable to wilt establishment. Phytopathology 62: 273 –277. 
 
Souza, W C O; Nascimento, L C; Oliveira, M D M; Porcino, M M; Silva, H A O (2018) 
Genetic diversity of Fusarium  spp. in pineapple ‘Pérola’ cultivar. Europ ean Journal of Plant 
Pathology 150(4): 853 –868. 
 
Species fungorum (2022) Species fungorum CABI database. 
http://www.speciesfungorum.org/Index.htm  
 
Stępień, Ł; Koczyk, G; Waśkiewicz, A (2013) Diversity of Fusarium species and mycotoxins 
contaminating pineap ple. Journal of Applied Genetics 54(3): 367 –380. 
 
Stępień, Ł; Waśkiewicz, A (2013) Sequence Divergence of the Enniatin Synthase Gene in 
Relation to Production of Beauvericin and Enniatins in Fusarium Species. Toxins 5(3): 537 -
555. 
 
Summerell, B; Leslie, J;  Liew, E; Laurence, M; Bullock, S; Petrovic, T; Bentley, A; Howard, 
C; Peterson, S; Walsh, J; Burgess, L (2010) Fusarium  species associated with plants in 
Australia. Fungal diversity 46: 1 –27. 
 
Umaña -Castro, J (2018) Genetic relationships and physiological  characteristics of promising 
species of Trichoderma as biocontrol agents of Fusarium oxysporum and Pectobacterium 
carotovorum, pathogens of pineapple (Ananas comosus) (Relaciones genéticas y 
características fisiológicas de especies promisorias de Trichode rma como agentes 
biocontroladores de Fusarium oxysporum y Pectobacterium carotovorum, patógenos de la 
piña (Ananas comosus)). Bachelor's thesis in Agronomic Engineering thesis; Universidad 
Nacional (Costa Rica), National University (Costa Rica). School of Agricultural Sciences. 
Retrieved from https://repositorio.una.ac.cr/handle/11056/14183?show=full   
 
van Dam, P; Fokkens, L; Schmidt, S M; Linmans, J H J; Kistler, H C; Ma, L -J; Rep, M 
(2016) Effector profiles distinguish formae speciales of Fusarium oxysporum . Environmental 
Microbiology 18(11): 4087 -4102.  
 
Vignassa, M; Meile, J -C; Chiroleu, F; Soria, C; Leneveu -Jenvrin, C; Schorr -Galindo, S; 
Chillet, M (2021) Pineapple Mycobiome Relat ed to Fruitlet Core Rot Occurrence and the 
Influence of Fungal Species Dispersion Patterns. Journal of Fungi 7(3): 175.  
 
Vlaardingerbroek, I; Beerens, B; Rose, L; Fokkens, L; Cornelissen, B J C; Rep, M (2016) 
Exchange of core chromosomes and horizontal tra nsfer of lineage -specific chromosomes in 
Fusarium oxysporum . Environmental Microbiology 18(11): 3702 -3713.  
 
Waśkiewicz, A; Stępień, Ł (2013) Mycotoxins Biosynthesized by Plant -Derived Fusarium 
Isolates. Archives of Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology 63(4).  
 
 
 
 
  
125 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  5.2 Fusarium verticillioides  
Fusarium verticillioides is a fungal pathogen that often colonises its hosts systemically as an 
endophyte and causes disease symptoms when the plant is stressed or injured. It causes 
economically significant yield losses due to stalk, ear and kernel rots in some grain crops, 
especially maize, and causes occasional outbreaks of seedling, stem and root rots, vascular 
wilts or post -harvest fruit rots in many other plant crops. It is probably an opport unistic 
pathogen of pineapple and can be associated with either asymptomatic fruit or fruit with rot 
symptoms.  
 
 Taxonomic description  
Scientific name: Fusarium verticillioides  (Sacc.) Nirenberg 1976  
Order : Hypocreales      Family:  Nectriaceae  
Other names : Gibberella fujikuroi  mating population A; Oospora verticillioides  Sacc.  1881 ; 
Alysidium verticillioides (Sacc.) Kuntze  1898 ; Fusarium moniliforme  J. Sheld.  1904 ; 
Gibberella moniliformis  Wineland  1924 ; Fusarium ear rot (of maize) . 
 
Taxonomic n otes:   
Fusarium verticillioides was part of the historic species named as F. moniliforme, but they 
are not exact synonyms.  Fusarium moniliforme  included six or more reproductively isolated 
mating populations from the Fusarium fujikuroi species complex (some of which have since 
been described as separate species), and Seifert et al. (2003 ) designated one of these mating 
populations as F. verticillioides. The name F. moniliforme  should not be considered to be 
equivalent to F. verticillioides, particularly when dea ling with older literature  (Seifert et al. 
2003; Yilmaz et al. 2021) . However, this PRA has referr ed some older studies describing the 
biology of  F. moniliforme  in maize (a well -studied host of economic importance to New 
Zealand), since this probably relat es to F. verticillioides or a closely related species with 
similar biology.  
 
 Hazard Identification  
Fusarium verticillioides  is not known to be present in New Zealand.  
• Fusarium verticillioides  is recorded  as “not present in NZ”  BiotaNZ (2022) . 
• There is no entry of Fusarium verticillioides  in PPIN (2022) . Although 
F. moniliforme is recorded in New Zealand, BiotaNZ (2022)  says that the r ecord of 
F. moniliforme  by Fullerton (1978)  is unlikely to be F. fujikuroi  Mating Popul ation A  
(that is F. verticillioides ), and PPIN does not record any collections of 
F. verticillioides.  
Fusarium verticillioides  is a regulated pest for New Zealand (ONZPR 2022) . 
 
Fusarium verticillioides has the potential to establish and spread in New Zealand . 
• Fusarium verticillioides has a broad geographical distribution and is widespread in 
many areas with a similar climate to the whole of New Zealand ( based on a climate 
match index of ≥0.7 using the CLIMEX tool of (Phillips et al. 2018) ). 
• Fusarium verticillioides has a broad host range including commonly grown New 
Zealand plants and many weed species  (Postic et al. 2012; Farr and Rossman 2022) , 
and suitable hosts are likely to be available throughout New Zealand .   
126 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  • Fusarium verticillioides  produces spores on infected tissues and plant debris, which 
can be spread by water and insects (Parsons and Munkvold 2012; Drakulic et al. 
2017)  and are adapted for air (wind) dispersal (Ooka and Kommedahl 1977) . 
 
Fusarium verticillioides  has the potentia l to cause harm to New Zealand . 
• Fusarium  verticillioides  is reported to cause disease symptoms in many  horticultural 
hosts  that are important to New Zealand, such as stem and ear rots of maize ( Zea 
mays ) (Goertz et al. 2010; Parsons and Munkvold 2012) . 
• Fusarium  verticillioides  can cause disease in humans and other animals (Nucci and 
Anaissie 2007; Benedict et al. 2017; Oldenburg et al. 2017; Blacutt et al. 2018) . 
 
Fusarium verticillioides  has been isolated from commercially produced pineapple fruit , with 
and without disease symptoms  (Stępień et al. 2013; Ibrahim et al. 2017; Vilaplana et al. 2018; 
Valencia -Chamorro et al. 2021; Vignassa et al. 2021) . 
 
Given the arguments and evidence above , F. verticillioides  is considered to be a hazard on 
decrowned pineapple ( Ananas comosus ) fruit (as described in the commodity description) 
imported to New Zealand . 
 
 Risk Assessment  
5.2.3.1  Biology   
 
Hosts and geographical distribution  
Fusarium verticillioides  has a widespread distribution in tropical, sub -tropical and temperate 
areas, including many areas with a similar climate to New Zealand . For example, 
F. verticillioides has been reported in Spain  (Aguín et al. 2014) , Serbia (Krnjaja et al. 2018) , 
Germany (Pfordt et al. 2020) , Kansas, Iowa, Georgia, Tennessee California and North 
Carolina, USA (Bush et al. 2004; Parsons and Munkvold 2012) , Italy (Cao et al. 2013) , 
Poland (Czembor et al. 2019) , Germany  (Goertz et al. 2010) , Serbia (Krnjaja et al. 2018) , 
Croatia (Postic et al. 2012) , Slovakia  (Srobarova et al. 2002) , eastern China (Anhui and 
Jiangsu ) (Qiu et al. 2015) , and Australia (New South Wales) (Watson et al. 2014) , all areas 
with a climate similar to the whole of New Zealand (based on a climate match index values 
of ≥0.7 using the CLIMEX model of Phillips et al. (2018) ).  
 
Fusarium verticillioides  is reported from  pineapple (Ananas  comosus ) fruit (Stępień et al. 
2013; Ibrahim et al. 2017; Vilaplana et al. 2018; Vignassa et al. 2021 , discussed in detail in 
the next section ). There are specific reports of F. verticillioides on pineapple in Costa Rica, 
Malaysia  and Ecuador (markets in scope of this import risk analysis ). However, searches 
using the terms “Fusarium verticillioides” and “pineapple” or “Ananas comosus” found no 
evidence that F. verticillioides isolates would be specific to pineapples, so this assessment 
has assumed that the fungus can be associated with pi neapple anywhere that it is present. 
Table  (appendix) shows evidence from literature and database searches 42 that 
F. verticillioides is present  in most markets in the scope of this import risk analysis.  
 
42 GenBank (Clark et al. 2016); Google Scholar; CAB abstracts; USDA Fungal Database (Farr and Rossman 2022), Herb IMI (2022)  and the 
Pacific Islands Pest List Database (2022)  were searched with the term “Fusarium verticillioides”. Search terms for Google Scholar; CAB 
abstracts were "  Fusarium verticillioides  " and the country name. An additional search on the terms “F usarium moniliforme” and the country 
name. was included in Google scholar and CAB abstract s earches if no records were found in the initial search, but country presence records 
based on this synonym have high uncertainty (see taxonomic notes).  
  
127 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand   
Fusarium verticillioides  has a broad host range across many plant families (Farr and 
Rossman 2022) , and yield losses are commonly reported in grains and grasses (Poaceae), 
especially maize (Parso ns and Munkvold 2012; Watson et al. 2014; Li et al. 2019; Pfordt et 
al. 2020)  Although the major economic host of importance to New Zealand of 
F. verticillioides is maize, it has also sometimes been reported to cause disease symptoms in 
other crops of econ omic importance to New Zealand, e.g. head rot affecting Chinese 
flowering cabbage ( Brassica rapa L. parachinensis ) plants  (Akram et al. 2020) , post-harvest 
fruit rot of grapes ( Vitis vinifera ) (Lorenzini and Zapparoli 2015) , root rot of asparagus 
(Asparagu s officinale ) (Ismail et al. 2017) , vascular wilt of tomato (Chehri 2016; Murad et al. 
2016; Chang et al. 2018)  and spring onion (Dissanayake et al. 2009)  and bulb rot of garlic 
(Delgado -Ortiz et al. 2016) .  
 
Fusarium verticillioides has also been isolated  from soil and crop debris and weed species in 
some areas (Postic et al. 2012; Martínez et al. 2021) . Fusarium verticillioides  is reported to 
cause economic impacts in some other hosts of less importance to New Zealand, such as 
sugarcane ( Saccharum officin arum ), rice (Oryza sativa), sorghum ( Sorghum bicolor ) and 
cotton ( Gossypium hirsutum ) (not discussed in detail in this PRA but see references in the 
entry for F. verticillioides  in Farr and Rossman 2022 if more information about impacts in 
these crops is required)  
 
In addition to causing disease in plant hosts, F. verticillioides has been reported as  pathogenic 
to insects and mites  (Pelizza et al. 2011; Abdel Galil et al. 2019; Patel and Ghetiya 2019; 
Sain et al. 2021; Ni et al. 2022) . For example, blue winged grasshoppers ( Tropidacris collaris  
(Stoll) ; Orthoptera: Acridoidea: Romaleidae) were collected, and kept in conditions that 
favour fungal development of entomopathoge nic fungi   (30 °C, 14:10 light -dark photoperiod, 
60% relative humidity) (Pelizza et al. 2011) . Fusarium verticillioides was isolated from 
grasshoppers that died within 10 days of collection. In pathogenicity tests , a spur-throated 
grasshopper  species (Rond erosia bergii  (Stål) ; Orthoptera: Acridoidea: Acrididae: 
Melanoplinae)  were infected with F. verticillioides  and approximately 60% of the insects 
were dead by 10 days after inocula tion. 
 
Symptoms of F. verticillioides  in pineapple  
There are several recent records confirming that F. verticillioides can be present in pineapple 
fruit as an asymptomatic endophyte or in disease lesions alon e or with other pathogens 
(Stępień et al. 2013; Ibrahim et al. 2017; Vilaplana et al. 2018; Vignassa et al. 2021) . 
Fusarium verticillioides  can be associated with all parts of the pineapple fruit. Fusarium 
verticillioides  has been isolated from the cores (Stępień et al. 2013) , internal fruitlets 
(Vignassa et al. 2021)  and external lesions of the skin and flesh (e.g. brown discolouration, 
dry rot and sunken patches, fungal mycelium , brownish ooze ) (Ibrahim et al. 2017; Vilaplana 
et al. 2018) . Infected pineapple plants also showed symptoms including gum exudation, 
rotten  or sunken stems, dry rot of leaves and leaf chlorosis and necrosis  (Ibrahim et al. 2017) .  
 
Fusarium verticillioides can be asymptomatic or cause only internal symptoms in pineapple 
fruit. The fungus was isolated from healthy pineapple fruitlets and from fruitlets with core rot 
symptoms in pineapples harvested partially green and ripened in storage at 19 °C (Vignassa 
et al. 2021) . Vignassa et al. (2021)  did not carry out pathogenicity tests to confirm that 
F. verticillioides isolates could cause fruitlet c ore rot symptoms . Fruitlet core rot  is rot of 
individual fruitlets under the bracts which can develop into soft brown spots of visible rot on 
the bracts or skin (Fournier et al. 2015) , but photos of cut sections of diseased fruitlets in  
128 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Vignassa et al. (20 21) suggest that symptoms can sometimes be entirely internal and would 
escape detection unless  the fruit was cut along an axis that exposed the infected fruitlets. 
Internal rot of pineapple caused by F. verticillioides  was observed  during cold storage  
(Valencia -Chamorro et al. 2021) .   
 
The evidence summarised above suggests that F. verticillioides  is usually a mild (probably 
opportunistic) pathogen in pineapple fruit and may be present as an asymptomatic endophyte 
or in disease les ions along with other pathogens. Whether symptoms of F. verticillioides  are 
external and can be detected by visual inspection in pineapple fruit probably depends on the 
interaction of many factors including time and route of infection, environmental condit ions, 
coinfection with other pathogens, whether the pineapple plant or fruit is damaged or injured, 
packhouse fungicide treatments, fruit ripeness and the strain of the fungus.  
 
Conditions favouring F. verticillioides  symptom development in pineapple  
In pathogenicity tests in puncture -inoculated pineapple fruit (MD2 variety), lesions of F. 
verticillioides  developed in cold storage at 8 °C (relative humidity = 80%),  reaching 
approximately 25 mm in diameter after 21 days (Vilaplana et al. 2018) . These lesion s 
expanded to 35 mm diameter when the fruit was returned to an ambient temperature of 20 °C 
(relative humidity = 85%) for seven days (Vilaplana et al. 2018) . Vilaplana et al. (2018)  do 
not record cutting the fruit, so it is assumed that the rot lesions were externally visible. 
Fusarium verticillioides lesions developed much more slowly in pineapple fruit treated with 
the fungicide prochloraz (to a final size of approximately 10 mm di ameter), and Vilaplana et 
al. (2018)  report that this fungicide treatment is a standard packhouse treatment for fruit from 
Ecuador.  
 
Mild fruit rot symptoms (brown lesions) were observed in cut pineapple fruit, two weeks 
after wound inoculation with F. verticillioides  isolates from pineapple (fruit incubated at  27 ± 
1°C with 75% –80% humidity )(Ibrahim et al. 2017) . Ibrahim et al. (2017)  do not state the 
stage of development, but the fruit shown in the figure illustrating s ymptoms on pineapple 
fruit in the f ield appears yellow and detached mature fruit were used for pathogenicity tests.  
 
Pineapple variety susceptibility  
In pathogenicity tests on ripe pineapples ( Gandul, Josapine and Morris  varieties) with 
F. verticilliodes isolates from Malaysia, Josapine s howed the most severe rot symptoms 
(Ibrahim et al. 2017) . Fusarium verticilliodes  was associated with fruit of MD2 variety with 
rot symptoms (Vilaplana et al. 2018) . Fusarium verticilliodes  was isolated from fruitlets of 
ripe pineapples of the ‘Queen Victoria’ cultivar with and without symptoms (Vignassa et al. 
2021) . 
 
Life cycle, reproduction and transmission  
Spread:  Fusarium verticillioides  is a seed and soilborne  pathogen and microconidia , or small 
asexual spores, are the main form of inoculum and are spread by wind (up to 400km), water 
splash and insects (Ooka and Kommedahl 1977; Munkvold et al. 1997; Munkvold 2003; 
Presello et al. 2007; Wilke et al. 2007; Ortiz et al. 2015; Blacutt et al . 2018) . Although F. 
verticillioides can produce spores through sexual reproduction (for example Gomes et al. 
(2020) ), different mating types would not be required for F. verticillioides to establish in New 
Zealand. Fusarium verticillioides  can systemicall y colonise maize plants via the soil (Oren et 
al. 2003; Gai et al. 2018) . Western flower thrips ( Frankliniella occidentalis ) are associated 
with the spread of F. verticillioides  in maize (Parsons and Munkvold 2010, 2012; Drakulic et 
al. 2017)  and are present in New Zealand (BiotaNZ 2022) . Lepidopteran e ar borers such as  
129 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Helicoverpa armigera , Conogethes punctiferalis , Ostrinia nubilalis  and O. furnacalis  are also 
reported to spread F. verticillioides in maize  (Darvas et al. 2011; Mazzoni et al.  2011; 
Niculina et al. 2019; Li 2021) , but of these species, only H. armigera  is reported in New 
Zealand  (BiotaNZ 2022) . Sap beetles, rootworm beetles and picnic beetles have also been 
reported to carry spores of F. verticillioides (Gilbertson et al. 1986;  Sobek and Munkvold 
1999; Drakulic et al. 2017) . 
 
Growth and reproduction of F. verticillioides : In culture, the optimum temperature for 
growth of F. verticilliodes was between 28 –30°C and the fungus grew at temperatures 
between 4 –36 °C (Wilke et al. 2007 ), although Reid et al. (1999)  reported 5 °C as the 
minimum temperature for growth.  
 
In culture, production of conidia (asexual spores) of F. verticillioides  isolates from maize in 
Italy increased progressively from 5 °C to the optimum temperature of approximately 27 –
30°C (Rossi et al. 2009). Sporulation declined rapidly above this temperature, with only at 
low levels at 40°C and no spore production at 45°C (R ossi et al. 2009). Conidia of 
F.  verticillioides  germinated between 5 –37 °C in culture, with an optimum of 25°C (Marin et 
al. 2004)  
 
Environmental reservoirs of F. verticillioides  
Fusarium verticillioides  survives in crop residues in the soil and this serves as a reservoir and 
primary source of fungal inoculum to infect hosts systemically via the roots, or via water 
splash or wind dispersal of spores)  (Leslie et al. 1990; Wilke et al. 2007; Murillo -Williams 
and Munkvold 2008) . Fusarium verticillioides does not produce chlamydospores (resting 
spores) but overwinters on crop residues as sclerotia (quiescent thickened hyphae) which 
resume growth when environmental conditions become favourable again (Munkvold 2003; 
Parsons and Munkvold 2012) . Fusarium  verticill ioides  (as F. moniliforme ) was recovered 
from corn, sorghum, and soybean crop residues (Leslie et al. 1990) . Fusarium verticillioides 
remained viable in maize stalk residue on the soil surface or buried  for at least 630 days and 
on wheat stalks  on the soil  surface for 180 day s (when the experiment ended) (Palazzini et al. 
2013) .Fusarium verticillioides  can survive in soil and potting mix (Karim et al. 2016; 
Mohammadian et al. 2017; Puértolas et al. 2018) .  
 
Weed species from diverse monocot and dicot famili es can act as environmental reservoirs of 
F. verticillioides  including Agrostemma githago (Caryophyllaceae),  Amaranthus retroflexus  
and Chenopodium album (Amaranthaceae),  Avena fatua , Hordeum  sp. and Sorghum 
halepense (Poaceae) , Capsella bursa -pastoris (Brassicaceae),  Papaver rhoeas 
(Papaveraceae),  Helianthus  sp., Portulaca oleracea  (Portulacaceae ) and Xanthium 
strumarium (Asteraceae)  and Datura ferox (Solanaceae)  (Postic et al. 2012; Martínez et al. 
2021) .  
5.2.3.2  Likelihood of entry  
 
Fusarium verticillioides has been reported from the fruitlets of pineapple fruit (Vignassa et al. 
2021)  and the flesh and skin . Although systemic endophytic infections have not specifically 
been reported from pineapple, they are common in many other  monocot hosts (e.g. maize, 
wheat) and it is likely that F. verticillioides from the soil can systemically colonise the stems 
of pineapple, and be present in the core (a modified stem) and stem and crown remnants of 
fruit.  
  
130 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Fusarium verticillioides can be asymptomatic, or disease symptoms may be entirely internal 
in pineapple fruit (Vignassa et al. 2021) , see description of fruitlet core rot (section 4.1.3.1 ). 
It is likely that internal fruitlet core rot  symptoms would escape detection  in the packhouse or 
visual inspection .  
 
Fusarium verticillioides sometimes produces external rot symptoms on pin eapple fruit. For 
example, Vilaplana et al. (2018)  describe symptoms of F. verticillioides  as light to dark 
brown discoloured sunken patches on fruit, covered with fungal mycelium and a brownish 
exudate.  Fusarium verticillioides was one of the Fusarium species recorded on pineapple 
fruit in Malaysia, causing brown discolouration  of fruit , dry rot and sunken fruit skin and 
internal fruitlet rot  (Ibrahim et al. 2017) . External lesions on fruit such as the ones described 
in these studies are likely to be detec ted during production and/or removed during preparation 
for export .  
 
In pathogenicity tests with isolates from fruit with external rot symptoms, mild rot symptoms 
were observed in detached mature fruit by cutting the fruit vertically after 2 weeks incubat ion 
(27 ± 1°C with 75% –80% humidity ) (Ibrahim et al. 2017) . In pathogenicity tests, an isolate of 
F. verticillioides caused external rot symptoms in ripe pineapples even at 8 °C (Vilaplana et 
al. 2018) . Fruitlet core rot symptoms in fruit infected with Fusarium spp. early in 
development do not usually develop until fruit is ripe (Fournier et al. 2015) . This suggests 
that rot symptoms caused by F. verticillioides may develop once fruit ripens. However, 
pineapples exported to New Zealand may be at the mature green stage and rot symptoms do 
not seem to be reported in unripe fruit . In addition, pineapple fruit for export may be treated 
with fungicides to slow development of post -harvest rots. For example, Vilaplana et al. 
(2018) note that in Ecuador , pineapples  are usually treated in the packhouse with the 
fungicide prochloraz and in their study rotten lesions of F. verticillioides  developed more 
slowly in fruit sprayed with prochloraz . This suggests that symptoms of F. verticillioides  on 
pineapple fru it will often be mild and difficult to detect, or still internal at the time of arrival 
in New Zealand.  
 
Pineapples are usually shipped at 7 –13 ° C under 85 –90% moisture for 14 –28 days (see 
Annex.Appendix 3 ). Studies have shown that isolates of F. vertici llioides can grow in culture 
(Reid et al. 1999; Marin et al. 2004; Wilke et al. 2007)  and even produce conidia (Rossi et al. 
2009)  at temperatures as low as 5  °C (although this temperature is far below the optimum, see 
4.1.3.1 ). Fusarium verticillioides  can overwinter as sclerotia on plant debris (Munkvold 
2003b; Parsons and Munkvold 2012) . Fusarium verticillioides  is widespread in areas such as 
Poland (Czembor et al. 2019) , Germany (Goertz et al. 2010) , Serbia (Krnjaja et al. 2018) , 
Croatia (Postic et al. 2012) , Slovakia (Srobarova et al. 2002)  and corn -growing regions of 
mainland USA (Parsons and Munkvold 2012)  where winter temperatures are regularly below 
freezing point. Therefore , it is considered highly likely that F. verticillioides can remain 
viable through sea freight transit times and that transit conditions are likely to allow survival 
of F. verticillioides  but unlikely to promote rapid development  of symptoms , especially in 
less ripe fruit.  
 
There are no border interceptions of any Fusarium species on imported fresh pineapples 
between 2000 –2020 (LIMS 2022) , only two  fungi and no other pathogens identified b y the 
MPI diagnostic laboratories. This could be interpreted as evidence that fungi are not 
frequently associated with the fresh pineapple pathways. However, given the evidence 
presented above, it is likely that F. verticillioides can be associated with as ymptomatic 
pineapple fruit and remain latent in fruit stored at cold temperatures. Pineapple fruit may not  
131 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  show symptoms until it is returned to a temperature that allows the fruit to ripen and the 
fungus to grow more rapidly (as described above for fruitl et core rot caused by 
F. verticillioides ).  
 
Given the high volume of fresh pineapples imported to New Zealand, and the high likelihood 
that some F. verticillioides infections of  pineapple fruit will remain undetected because 
symptoms are internal or the fruit is asymptomatic, even a low prevalence of infection would 
equate to a high likelihood of entry (one –two infected fruit entering New Zealand 
undetected/year)  
 
Uncertainty  
There is low uncertainty (evidence from several studies) that F. verticillio ides can be 
associated with commercially produced pineapple fruit  (Stępień et al. 2013; Ibrahim et al. 
2017; Vilaplana et al. 2018; Vignassa et al. 2021) . There is  evidence that F. verticillioides 
can sometimes be present in pineapple fruit without showing  symptoms  (Vignassa et al. 
2021)  or causes only small lesions in fungicide -treated fruit (a common packhouse treatment 
in Ecuador) (Vilaplana et al. 2018)  that might be missed in a visual inspection because of the 
complex architecture of the fruit.  
 
Given  that: 
• Fusarium verticillioides  is recorded from most  markets  in scope of the IRA ; 
• Fusarium verticillioides  can be associated with pineapple fruit at all developmental 
stages ; 
• Fusarium verticillioides can survive transit conditions ; 
• Fusarium verticillioides  is sometimes associated with  internal fruitlet rots ; 
• Fusarium verticillioides  is sometimes  asymptomatic  in pineapple fruit so cannot 
always be detected in a visual inspection  even if fruit is cut in half ; 
  
the likelihood of F. verticillioides entering New Zealand associated with pineapple fruit is 
considered to be high, with low uncertainty.  
5.2.3.3  Likelihood of exposure  
This assessment is made on the basis that F. verticillioides  has entered New Zealand  
undetected.  
 
Exposure is considered to be the transfer of a pest or disease from an imported commodity or 
inanimate object, to a host or environment suitable for the completion of development or 
production of offspring .  
 
Imported fresh pineapple fruit is  intended for human consumption, therefore, when the fruit 
arrives in New Zealand it will be distributed throughout New Zealand for wholesale or retail 
sale. Fresh pineapple fruit  generates substantial amounts of unavoidable waste; the thick rind 
is always  removed and disposed of, and the fruit is also sometimes cored  (see waste analysis 
Annex  2.3.1 ). Given that F. verticillioides often colonises plants via the vas cular system (the 
water and nutrient transport system that runs through the roots and stems), it is likely that it 
can be present in the cores of pineapple fruit with internal infections. Fusarium verticillioides 
is also an occasional fruitlet core rot pat hogen – infected skin and localised areas of rotten 
flesh are likely to be discarded by consumers. The disposal of whole fruit (e.g. culled/unsold 
fruit, uneaten fruit remains) is not uncommon during wholesale, retail and by consumers. 
This suggests that F. verticillioide s may have a higher likelihood of exposure when   
132 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  associated with fresh pineapple fruit than when it is associated with  other kinds of fresh 
produce  that are generally eaten whole.  
 
In New Zealand the most common method of disposal of organic  waste is bagged into landfill 
(Askarany and Franklin -Smith 2014) ; this is unlikely to be a risk. However, there are other 
disposal methods that could increase the exposure likelihood of the fungus, such as feeding 
out to animals, home composting and direc t disposal into the environment.  Fruit waste may 
be collected from unpacking areas (e.g., supermarket preparation rooms) and taken to rural 
areas where it is placed on the ground for eventual consumption by pigs or other farm 
animals (MPI 2014) . The waste materials may also be used in worm farming. Using the waste 
materials to feed animals may inadvertently expose F. verticillioides  to the soil and 
waterways before it eventually finds a suitable host. Fusarium  verticillioides can persist in 
host residue (e.g. crop residues  and probably pineapple waste ) on or in the soil (Leslie et al. 
1990; Postic et al. 2012) for almost two years (Cotten and Munkvold 1998).  Fusarium 
verticillioides can overwinter as sclerotia (Munkvold 2003; Parsons and Munkvold 2012). 
Viab le F. verticillioides was recovered commercial potting mix at 17 months after 
inoculation (when sampling ended) (Puértolas et al. 2018). Fusarium verticillioides has been 
isolated from soil samples, although it was less prevalent than other Fusarium species (Karim 
et al. 2016; Mohammadian et al. 2017).  
 
Commercial composting can suppress many plant pathogens because the internal temperature 
of the compost can exceed 55°C (Hoitink et al. 1997; Mehta et al. 2014)  and F. verticillioides  
is unlikely to survive in such conditions. H owever, the fungus is likely to thrive in home 
composts since their temperatures mostly range between 15°C and 30°C (Mensah 2017) . This 
suggests that F. verticillioides can survive on pineapple waste in domestic compost and be 
transferred into the environm ent when the compost is spread in the garden.  
 
Fusarium verticillioides spores can be spread by water splash, wind and insects (Ooka and 
Kommedahl 1977; Munkvold et al. 1997; Munkvold 2003; Presello et al. 2007; Wilke et al. 
2007; Ortiz et al. 2015; Blacut t et al. 2018) , so it is likely that F.  verticillioides spores 
produced on pineapple waste in the compost can spread to nearby plants (rodents and 
invertebrates visiting the compost bin or pile could also contribute to this). Suitable hosts are 
highly lik ely to be growing near anywhere that pineapple waste is discarded into home 
compost, if it is fed to animals outside, and in garden areas where domestic compost is likely 
to be spread. Fusarium verticillioides can colonise many plant species that commonly grow 
in home gardens, including tomatoes (Chehri 2016; Chang et al. 2018; Mwangi et al. 2021) , 
garlic (Delgado -Ortiz et al. 2016) , corn (Parsons and Munkvold 2012) , rhododendron (Ares 
2020) , several species of pine (Salerno and Lori 2007; Martín -Pinto et a l. 2008; Maciel et al. 
2017) , and sunflowers, poppies and common weed species including sorghum and amaranth 
(Postic et al. 2012)  
 
Uncertainty  
There is moderate uncertainty in these conclusions, because it is uncertain what proportion of 
domestic fruit and vegetable waste is discarded into domestic compost or into the 
environment (see waste analysis Annex 2.3.1 ). However, given that pineapple is a high waste 
commodity, and a high volume of pineapp le is imported, it is assumed that some infected 
waste will be discarded in home compost.  
 
Given that:  
133 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  • Pineapple is a high waste commodity and rinds and sometimes cores are removed and 
discarded; and  
• If pineapple waste infected with F. verticillioides  is disposed of in domestic compost 
or directly into the environment, the fungus can survive on pineapple waste and other 
plant debris.  
• The fungus can be spread by movement of soil and plant material (including compost) 
and can colonise/infect host plants vi a the roots or via microconidia (asexual spores) 
which are carried by water, insects, or wind.  
• Suitable hosts are widespread in New Zealand.  
• The environment throughout New Zealand is likely to be suitable for F. verticillioides  
 
the likelihood of exposure of F. verticillioides in New Zealand from pineapple fruit  is 
considered to be high with moderate uncertainty.  
 
5.2.3.4  Likelihood of establishment  
This assessment is made on the basis that F. verticillioides  has been successfully exposed to a 
suitable host plant in the New Zealand  environment.  
 
The climate in New Zealand is highly unlikely to limit the establishment of  F. verticillioides. 
The fungus is reported to have a worldwide distribution and is widesprea d in areas with a 
similar climate to the whole of New Zealand, that is areas with a climate match index ≥7 
according to the CLIMEX model of Phillips et al. (2018)  (for examples see section 4.1.3.1 ). 
In cooler climates,  F. verticillioides can overwinter as sclerotia (thickened hyphae).  
 
Microconidia  (small asexual spores) can be wind, water and insect -borne and are the main 
form of inoculum for spread of F. verticilli oides (Ooka and Kommedahl 1977; Munkvold 
2003; Drakulic et al. 2017; Blacutt et al. 2018) . Given that asexual spores are the main form 
of inoculum for spread of F. verticillioides (Ooka and Kommedahl 1977) , different mating 
types would not be required for F. verticillioides  to establish in New Zealand , although 
F. verticillioides can also produce spores through sexual reproduction (Gomes et al. 2020) . 
 
Hosts of F. verticillioides are ubiquitous in the New Zea land environment and include 
tomatoes (Chehri 2016; Chang et al. 2018; Mwangi et al. 2021), garlic (Delgado -Ortiz et al. 
2016), maize/ corn (Parsons and Munkvold 2012), rhododendron (Ares 2020), several species 
of pine (Salerno and Lori 2007; Martín -Pinto e t al. 2008; Maciel et al. 2017), and sunflowers, 
poppies and common weed species including sorghum and amaranth (Postic et al. 2012) . 
 
Competition with F. graminearum, F.  proliferatum, F.  oxysporum and other Fusarium 
species common in New Zealand is unlike ly to limit establishment of F. verticillioides. 
Fusarium verticillioides co-occurs with these  species throughout its range (for examples see 
Windels et al. 1976; Presello et al. 2007; Petrovic et al. 2009; Goertz et al. 2010; Ilić et al. 
2012; Li et al. 2 019; Jabłońska et al. 2020; Pfordt et al. 2020) . 
 
There is low uncertainty in these conclusions . 
 
Given that:  
• The climate of New Zealand is likely to be very suitable for F. verticillioides  
• Suitable hosts of F. verticillioides are ubiquitous in New Zealand   
134 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  • Fusarium verticillioides can reproduce asexually, so does not require two different 
mating types  
• Microconidia of Fusarium verticillioides are spread by wind, water splash and insects  
(some species of which are present in New Zealand)  
• Competition wi th Fusarium species already present in New Zealand is unlikely to 
limit establishment of F. verticillioides . 
 
the likelihood of F. verticillioides  establishing in New Zealand is considered to be high, with 
low uncertainty.  
5.2.3.5  Impacts in New Zealand  
This asses sment is made on the assumption that F. verticillioides  has successfully established 
in the New Zealand environment .   
 
It is highly likely that F. verticillioides  can spread throughout New Zealand, given that the 
climate is likely to be suitable and microconidia can be spread over long distances (up to 400 
km) by wind (Ooka and Kommedahl 1977) , as well as by movement of plant material and 
soil (see 4.1.3.1 ). Insects have also been reported to spread F. verticillioides and increase its 
impacts in maize , including W estern flower thrips ( Frankliniella occidentalis ) (Parsons and 
Munkvold 2010, 2012)  and Helicoverpa armigera , (Darvas et al. 2011; Niculina et al. 2019) . 
These species are  reported in New Zealand (BiotaNZ 2022).  
 
Economic impacts  
Fusarium verticillioides  has the potential to cause harm to New Zealand, primarily by 
causing ear rots and reduced yield in maize. Fusarium verticillioides has also sometimes been 
reported to colonise and/or cause disease symptoms in other crops of economic importance to 
New Zeal and, but this is not expected to result in economic losses (discussed below). 
Fusarium verticillioides  is reported to cause economic impacts in some other hosts of less 
importance to New Zealand, such as sugarcane ( Saccharum officinarum ), rice (Oryza sativ a), 
sorghum ( Sorghum bicolor ) and cotton ( Gossypium hirsutum ) (not discussed further in this 
PRA but see references in the entry for F. verticillioides  in Farr and Rossman 2022 if more 
information about impacts in these crops is required) .  
 
Maize is likel y to be the main economic host of F. verticillioides in New Zealand. Mould 
symptoms and reduced kernel weight due to  F. verticillioides infection  can cause reductions 
to maize grain yields and consequently economic losses in areas with a similar climate to  
New Zealand 43, for example Argentina (Presello et al. 2007) , maize -growing regions of USA 
(Parsons and Munkvold 2012)  Chongqing, China  (Zhou et al. 2018)  and New South Wales, 
Australia (Watson et al. 2014) . The proportion of kernels with mould or starburs t44 symptoms 
attributed to F. verticillioides typically range s from 0% to 10%, depending on the 
susceptibility of hybrid and seasonal growing conditions (Presello et al. 2007; Parsons and 
Munkvold 2012) . However, symptoms and yield losses can be more severe when 
environmental conditions favour disease development. For example, in maize grain grown in 
Kauai county (Hawaii) and Yolo county (California), the proportion of mouldy kernels 
attributed to F. verticillioides was greater than 70% in some samples (Parsons and Munkvold 
2012) . (Parsons and Munkvold 2012) . Parsons and Munkvold (2012)  reported that m ould 
symptoms were highly correlated with thrips populations  Outbreaks of cob rot in sweetcorn 
 
43 areas whe re maize was grown in these studies have a similar climate to the whole of New Zealand based on a climate match index of 
0.7–0.8 according to the CLIMEX model of Phillips et al. (2018).  
44 white or pink streaks radiating from the base of the kernel  which re duce kernel weight and quality   
135 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  and maize attributed to F. verticillioides  caused processors and stockfeed suppliers to reject 
several crops in New South Wales Australia because local regulations do not allow mould 
kernels (Watson et al. 2014) .  
 
There is strong evidence suggesting that F. vertici llioides  will cause additional impacts on 
maize, greater than the impact of the Fusarium species that are already present in New 
Zealand, particularly in hotter dryer growing seasons. Fusarium verticillioides  is often the 
most prevalent Fusarium  pathogen colonising  maize , although it often coexists with other 
pathogens, including F. graminearum , F. temperatum, , F. proliferatum  and F. oxysporum  
(Munkvold 2003; Goertz et al. 2010; Krnjaja et al. 2018; Zhou et al. 2018; Li et al. 2019; Liu 
et al. 2019; Pfordt et al. 2020) . Prior infection of maize with F. graminearum  (which is 
present in New Zealand) can lead to increased rates of F. verticillioides infection (Picot et al. 
2012)) Fusarium  verticill ioides reached  higher levels in maize ears than F gramine arum  
when maize plants had been  co-inoculated with both species  (Picot et al. 2012) . This suggests 
that the presence of F. graminearum in New Zealand  may contribute to the spread and 
impacts of F. verticillioides . Some in-field management measures such as ploughing that are 
used to control F. graminearum  in maize  may favour  F. verticillioides  infection  (Pfordt et al. 
2020) , These species are also favoured by different climatic conditions.  Moderate 
temperatures and freque nt rainfall during the growing season promote infection by 
F. graminearum  and F. temperatum , whereas hotter drier (drought) seasons favour F. 
verticillioides (Goertz et al. 2010) . This suggests that the impacts  of F. verticillioides are 
likely to be highes t in hotter, drier regions and at times of drought when crops and stock are 
already experiencing the effects of water and heat stress.   
 
MPI has estimated that  that impacts of F. verticillioides in New Zealand over a 20-year 
period  would be moderate, based on yield losses to the $389 million /year  maize industry  and 
the following assumptions :  
• Fusarium verticillioides is likely to cause approximately 3% losses annually to maize 
production, based on a scenario in which between 1 –8% of  the crop develops fungal 
symptoms (usually at the lower end), depending on hybrids and growing conditions in 
a given year. This is based on the assumption that F. verticillioides widely colonises 
maize plants as it has in other areas with similar climates  to New Zealand  and that 
mould symptoms are scattered and mild in most cultivars and growing seasons .  
• The fungus was assumed to take 5 years to achieve its maximum spread across maize 
production areas of New Zealand.  
• Management measures for Fusarium speci es are not completely effective (and 
different, and sometimes incompatible controls are useful for F. verticillioides from 
other maize -infecting Fusarium species in New Zealand , see above ), so we have 
assumed that the maize industry will never fully recove r (>100 years).  
• In addition, we have assumed that there w ill be at least one growing season in the 20-
year period  where F. verticillioides has higher impacts (yield losses of approximately 
10%) across one or more maize production areas due to weather conditions favouring 
development of disease symptoms  (hot and dry years) .  
 
There are likely to be downstream impacts of yield losses from F. verticillioides  (see 
Robertson and Hurren (2022) , which estimates the total economic impact of maize, including 
downstream industries such as animal production and food manufacture as $843 
million/year), but these are difficult to quantify as downstream industr ies would presumably 
source grain from elsewhere if New Zealand maize yields were lower in one season. This 
PRA has not estimated the economic impacts of animal illness or mortality due to high  
136 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  mycotoxin levels, nor impacts of mycotoxin contamination on sa les of maize here or in 
overseas markets.  However, in areas with a similar climate to New Zealand and high 
prevalence of F. verticillioides , fumonisin levels in maize grain are sometimes above 
regulatory limits. For example, in Umbria (Italy), mean fumoni sin levels were above 4 mg/g 
(the maximum limit set by the European Union) in both 2006 and 2007 and this was 
attributed primarily to F. verticillioides (Covarelli et al. 2011) . In a survey in China between 
2016 –2018, 8.2% of maize kernel samples had fumon isin levels above 4.0 mg/kg, and 20.4% 
had fumonisin levels above 2.0 mg/kg (the maximum limit set by the United States Food and 
Drug Administration) (Li et al. 2019) . Shipments of grain with fumonisin levels above 
maximum limits might be rejected for expo rt causing losses for the producer . Fumonisins 
caused heart inflammation and intestinal lesions (atrophy and fusion of the villi in the 
jejunum) in piglets fed on feed contaminated with 3.7 mg/kg fumonisins, below the European 
Union (EU) recommended maximu m of level of 5 mg/kg of total fumonisins in swine 
(Terciolo et al. 2019) . Equine leukoencephalomalacia disease caused by fumonisins has 
occurred several times in Australia, resulting in the death of several thoroughbred horses 
(Summerell et al. 2010) . This suggests that outbreaks of F. verticillioides in maize have the 
potential for flow -on effects on animal health and productivity  
 
Wheat ( Triticum spp.) and barley ( Hordeum vulgare ) are frequently reported as hosts of 
F. verticillioides  and the fungus can cause stalk rot and kernel symptoms (rot or black point) 
in these species (Cosic et al. 2007; Busman et al. 2012; Gagkaeva and Yli -Mattila 2020)  and 
reduce germination rates (Duan et al. 2007)  However, infection rates of F. verticilliodes  in 
wheat and barley samples were  low compared with other Fusarium  species  such as  
F. graminearum, F.  proliferatum F.  avenaceum and F.  poae  (Loiveke 2006; Cosic et al. 
2007; Duan et al. 2007; Busman et al. 2012; Ji et al. 2019) , which BiotaNZ (2022)  records as 
present in New Zealand) . Isolates of F. graminearum  from Croatian wheat and barley had a 
higher kernel infection rate in pathogenicity tests in wheat and barley and caused much larger 
reductions in seed germination and total kernel weight  (that is grain yield)  than isolates of 
F. verticilliodes  (Cosic et al. 2007) . Therefore, it is considered unlikely that Fusarium 
verticillioides will cause yield losses in wheat and barley beyond those already caused by 
Fusarium species present in New Zea land.  
 
Before the recent arrival of pitch pine canker ( Fusarium  circinatum ) in Europe, 
F. verticillioides , along with F. oxysporum and F. proliferatum, was among the main causes 
of damping -off of Pinus spp. in European nurseries  (Elvira -Recuenco et al. 202 0). Isolates of  
F. verticillioides  from pine seeds of several species have been shown to reduce seedling 
emergence caus e damping -off symptoms such as wilting, low, seedling -survival rate, reduced 
root development and root rot and leaf chlorosis  in pathogenicity tests (Salerno and Lori 
2007; Maciel et al. 2017) . Fusarium verticillioides was isolated from  symptomatic  P. radia ta 
nursery plants in Portugal, although the authors did not specify the exact symptoms or 
confirm pathogenicity with testing (Ares 2020) . Damping -off associated with F. oxysporum  
is infrequent in Australasian nurseries in normal growing conditions (Dick an d Simpson 
2003)  and there is no evidence that F. verticillioides will have higher impacts on plantation 
pine species than F. oxysporum and other Fusarium species that are present in New Zealand . 
Therefore, impacts on pine were not assessed in detail.  
 
There are isolated reports of F. verticillioides causing post -harvest fruit rots, vascular wilts, 
leaf spots and defoliation and root rots (usually confirmed by pathogenicity testing) at 
isolated  production site s or at low prevalence in disease su rveys in other crop plants that are 
economically important to New Zealand, for example, grapes ( Vitis vinifera ), avocado  
137 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  (Persea Americanum ), tomato ( Solanum  lycopersicum ), cabbages (Brassica spp.), beets ( Beta 
vulgaris ), garlic ( Allium sativum ), sweet pot ato (Ipomoea batatas ), Welsh onion ( Allium 
fistulosum ) and asparagus  (Asparagus officinale ) (Zhang et al. 2008; Dissanayake et al. 2009; 
Lorenzini and Zapparoli 2015; Chehri 2016; Delgado -Ortiz et al. 2016; Ismail et al. 2017; 
Cao et al. 2018; Chang et al.  2018; Akram et al. 2020; Ekhuemelo and Nsobundu 2020; Jitjak 
and Sanoamuang 2021; Mwangi et al. 2021) . Several of these reports are from an area very 
different climate  from New Zealand, 45 such as Guangdong, China (Akram et al. 2020) , 
Thailand (Jitjak and Sanoamuang 2021) , Malaysia (Ismail et al. 2017)  or Benue, Nigeria 
(Ekhuemelo and Nsobundu 2020) . Due to the scattered nature of these reports, it appears that 
infections of F. verticillioides in crops  other than grains are sporadic. Impacts in these crops 
were not modelled  because we have assumed that it is unlikely that the fungus will cause 
disease outbreaks in these crops with impacts greater than the Fusarium species already 
present in New Zealand,  such as F. proliferatum, F.  solani or F. oxysporum which were 
found in coinfection with F. verticillioides  in these hosts  (for examples, see Zhang et al. 
2008; Dissanayake et al. 2009; Lorenzini and Zapparoli 2015; Chehri 2016; Delgado -Ortiz et 
al. 2016; Cao et al. 2018; Chang et al. 2018) .  
 
Uncertainty   
This conclusion is based on the assumption that F. verticillioides will have negligible impacts 
on hosts that are economically important in New Zealand, other than maize. There is good 
information from se veral studies available for barley and wheat that although 
F. verticillioides can be quite prevalent in these crops, it usually occurs in coinfection with 
other Fusarium species, particularly F. graminearum  which was more pathogenic to these 
hosts in tests  (Cosic et al. 2007)  and is present in New Zealand (BiotaNZ 2022) . For most of 
the other hosts described above, searches (of Google Scholar and CAB abstracts, using the 
terms “Fusarium verticillioides” and “host species name” or “host common name”) found 
zero, one or very few reports of symptomatic infections with F. verticillioides . Disease 
outbreaks were often localised to a single production site and F. verticillioides was usually a 
minor component of the  Fusarium community isolated from infected plants. Although this 
PRA has assumed that F. verticillioides is rarely a major cause of disease in hosts other than 
maize, there is moderate uncertainty in this conclusion because there is limited information 
available for  each of these hosts, diseases caused by Fusarium species are common, and the 
agents are not always identified.  
 
Given that:  
 
• estimates of economic impacts to New Zealand based on a single severe outbreak of 
ear rot in maize caused by  F. verticillioides causing yield losses of approximately 
20% of the crop in that season, and ongoing yield losses of 0 –5% depending on 
growing conditions in that season . 
• There are rare r eports  of outbreaks of symptomatic disease associated with 
F. verticil lioides in other plants  of economic importance to New Zealand.  
• Impacts in crops other than maize  are assumed to be  unlikely given that impacts will 
not be  greater than the Fusarium species already present in New Zealand.  
 
the economic impact of  F. vertici llioides  in New Zealand  is considered to be  moderate, with 
moderate uncertainty.  
 
45 Based on a climate match index of ≤6 using the Climex model of (Phillips et al. 2018)  indicating the climate is not similar to the whole of 
New Zealand   
138 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand   
Environmental impacts  
Fusarium verticillioides  has the potential to cause harm to indigenous plant species. 
Fusarium verticillioides has an extremely broad host range, but disease symptoms are 
commonly reported in grain species in the Poaceae family such as sorghum (Kelly et al. 
2017; Félix -Gastélum et al. 2022) , wild and cultivated rice ( Oryza sativa, O. australiensis ) 
(Pak et al. 2017 ) and maize (Parsons and Munkvold 2012; Watson et al. 2014) . The New 
Zealand Plant Conservation Network  lists 101 native or endemic plants in the Poaceae 
family, all of which are considered ‘at risk’ or ‘threatened’ (NZPCN 2022) . Fusarium 
verticillioides was also associated with disease symptoms in an exotic Pittosporum species 
(P. tobira ) in a Portuguese nursery but no pathogenicity testing was reported, and other 
Fusarium species associated with these plants may have been responsible for the symptoms.  
The New Zealand Plant Conservation Network  lists 23 native or endemic Pittosporum  
species or varieties, of which 13 have a conservation status of ‘threatened’  or ‘at risk’ 
(NZPCN 2022) .  
 
Fusarium verticillioides  has the potential to cause harm t o indigenous arthropod species. 
Fusarium verticillioides  has been reported to cause disease and death in insects  and mites and 
is sometimes used for biocontrol (Pelizza et al. 2011; Abdel Galil et al. 2019; Patel and 
Ghetiya 2019; Sain et al. 2021; Ni et a l. 2022) . New Zealand has indigenous species in the 
Acrididae  and has endemic species in Orthoptera with ‘at risk’ or ‘threatened’ conservation 
status (NZTCS 2022) . Fusarium verticillioides  caused high mortality in naturally infected 
blue winged grasshoppe rs (Tropidacris collaris  Orthoptera: Romaleidae ) in the wild and 
approximately a spur -throated grasshopper species ( Ronderosia bergii , Orthoptera: 
Acrididae ) (Pelizza et al. 2011) . Orthopterans tend to aggregate, especially to mate, so it is 
likely that the pathogen would have the opportunity to spread if it infected endemic 
communities in New Zealand. However, the insects in this study were kept in captivity in  
conditions that favour symptom development of fung al pathogens of insects (30 °C, 14:10 
light-dark photoperiod, 60% relative humidity) (Pelizza et al. 2011) , so there is high 
uncertainty about whether insects would develop symptoms of fungal infection under natural 
conditions  
 
Overall, there is high uncertainty about whether F. verticillioide s will cause disease in 
indigenous species in the natural environment because there is no direct evidence that 
F. verticillioides causes disease symptoms in particular indigenous plant or insect species. 
Grains in commercial production and nursery plants a re grown at high density and are likely 
to be subject to different stresses from plants growing in the natural environment in New 
Zealand. Fusarium verticillioides is unlikely to pose a significant threat to species that are 
abundant or distributed widely across New Zealand, but even localised disease symptoms that 
reduce the fitness of a few plants or insects might impact a rare or threatened species.   
 
Given that:  
 
• Fusarium verticillioides is reported to cause disease in plant and insect genera and 
famil ies that include  indigenous species with “at risk” or “threatened ” conservation 
status , but there is no direct evidence that F. verticillioides  causes disease symptoms 
in particular indigenous plant or insect species  
 
the environm ental  impact of  F. verticillioides  in New Zealand  is considered to  be very  low 
with high uncertainty.   
139 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand   
Human health impacts  
Fusarium verticillioides  can cause disease in humans (Nucci and Anaissie 2007; Benedict et 
al. 2017) . Fusarium verticillioides  is one of the fungi t hat causes superficial keratitis, 
especially in soft contact lens users or cases of eye trauma (Kamle et al. 2019) . It can 
occasionally cause deep infections, systemic  infections or even death, although usually  in 
immunocomp romised patients  (Nucci and Anai ssie 2007; Tortorano et al. 2008; Benedict et 
al. 2017) . A cluster of severe F. verticillioides  infections in seven hospitalised internal 
medicine patients  (not immunocompromised)  as a result of a hospital reconstruction in 
Greece resulted in the deaths of four patients (Benedict et al. 2017) . Infections caused by 
species in the Fusarium solani complex (e.g. F. petroliphilum ) and F. oxysporum  species 
complex  cause approximately 80 % of human clinical cases and i nfections by  
F. verticillioides are comparatively rare and more often susceptible to antifungal drugs 
(Guarro 2013) . 
 
Fusarium verticillioides  can also produce mycotoxins  (fumonisins) in food crops, especially 
maize grain,  that are associated with liver or kidney disease, cancer and birth defects in 
humans (Ortiz et al. 2015; Oldenburg et al. 2017) . Fumonisin levels are sometimes over the  
European Union and United States limits  in maize grain from areas with a similar climate t o 
New Zealand (see 0 Economic impacts)  
 
There is low uncertainty in this conclusion.   
 
Given that:  
• Fusarium verticillioides  can cause minor localised skin or eye infections but can 
occasionally cause  systemic or fatal infections . 
• In maize and other food crops, F.  verticillioides  can produce fumonisin and other 
mycotoxins that are associated with liver or kidney disease, cance r and birth defects.  
• However, fumonisin levels are usually below the European Union and United States 
limits in maize grain areas with a similar climate to New Zealand  
the human  health  impact of  F. verticillioides in New Zealand  is considered to  be very low, 
with low uncertainty.  
 
Sociocultural impacts  
Fusarium verticillioides  has the potential to cause harm to some taonga species. Fusarium 
verticillioides was one of the fungi isolated from  leaf spot  lesions on sweet potato  (Ipomoea 
batatas ) plants growing in Makurdi, Benue State, Nigeria  (Ekhuemelo and Nsobundu 2020) . 
The climate match index of this area is 0.4 indicating that the climate is not similar to all of 
New Zealand (based on the CLIMEX model of Phillips et al. (2018) ). Ipomoea batat as is the 
sweet potato species that includes the taonga plant kumara . In pathogenicity tests  in which 
the plants were inoculated by spraying with an F. verticillioides  spore suspension, dark 
brown necrotic lesions developed on the leaves  and approximately 37% of leaves were lost 
by four weeks after inoculation (Ekhuemelo and Nsobundu 2020) . There is some  uncertainty  
about the reliability of the identification because Ekhuemelo and Nsobundu (2020)  identified 
F. verticillioides based on  morphological features  only. Given that there is only a single 
report of F. verticillioides causing disease in sweet potato (along with other fungi), overall 
impacts on kumara are likely to be negligible, although there may be localised instances of 
F. verticillioides causing d isease symptoms in kumara plants.  
  
140 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Searches of Google Scholar using the terms “Fusarium verticillioides” and each genus of the 
taonga species listed in Table 5. 3 found host records relating to three of these genera, 
Phormium, Pittosporum and Solanum. Fusarium verticillioides was associated with disease 
symptoms in nursery plants of the endemic taonga species h arakeke  (New Zealand Flax; 
Phormium tenax ) in nursery p lants in Portugal, along with other Fusarium species 
(F. oxysporum, F.  subglutinans, F. graminearum ) (Ares 2020) , all of which are present in 
New Zealand (BiotaNZ 2022) . Wharariki  (mountain flax,  Phormium cookianum ), another 
endemic species  is also in this  genus. Fusarium verticillioides was also associated with an 
exotic Pittosporum species ( P. tobira ) (Ares 2020) , and tarata (lemonwood; P eugenioides ) 
and Kahurangi pittosporum  (P. dallii ) are in the genus Pittosporum. The taonga p oroporo  
(Solanum laciniatum  and S aviculare ) is in the genus Solanum  and F   verticillioides can 
cause vascular wilt in tomato ( S. lycopersicum ; confirmed by pathogenicity tests) (Chehri 
2016; Chang et al. 2018)  and was isolated from potatoes ( S. tuberosum ) with storage ro t 
(Loiveke 2006) .  
 
Given that isolates of F. verticillioides  cause d disease and death in species of two different 
families in the Orthoptera  (Pelizza et al. 2011; discussed in detail above) , the fungus might be 
capable of infecting wētā  in some conditions .  
 
Overall, there is high uncertainty about whether F. verticillioides will cause disease in taonga 
species in the natural environment because there is no direct evidence that F.  verticill ioides 
causes disease symptoms in particular indigenous plant or insect species. Given that 
F. verticillioides is commonly isolated from diverse weed species it may be able to colonise 
taonga plants growing in the wild, and environmental conditions may occ asionally favour 
development of disease symptoms in some plants in a localised area, but impacts are likely to 
be low.  
 
Given that: 
 
• There is a single report of F.  verticillioides  causing leaf spot disease in  Ipomoea 
batatas (the sweet potato species that includes New Zealand kumara cultivars), but 
only in an area of Nigeria with very different climate to New Zealand, so 
F. verticillioides is unlikely to pose a threat to kumara.  
• Fusarium verticillioides is reported to cause d isease in plant and insect genera and 
families that include  indigenous taonga species, including species with “at risk” or 
“threatened ” conservation status , but there is no direct evidence that F. verticillioides 
causes disease symptoms in particular indig enous plant or insect species .  
 
the sociocultural  impact of  F. verticillioides  in New Zealand  is considered to  be very low 
with high uncertainty.  
 
5.2.3.6  Overall impact to New Zealand  
MPI considers the overall impact of F. verticillioides  on the New Zealand  econ omy, 
environment, health and society is MODERATE  with HIGH uncertainty .  
 
5.2.3.7  Overall risk to New Zealand  
Based on the assessments of lik elihood and consequences above, that:  
• the lik elihood of entry is HIGH   
141 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  • assuming entry, the likelihood of exposure is HIGH  
• assuming successful exposure, the likelihood of establishment is HIGH  
• the overall impact on the New Zealand  economy, environment, human health, and 
society is considered to be MODERATE  
 
MPI considers the overall level of assessed risk to New Zealand  from  F. verticillioides  on 
pineapple fruit  is MODERATE  with HIGH  uncertainty . 
 
 Specific considerations  
On which pineapple variety (or varieties) and at what stage of rip eness has Fusarium 
verticillioides  associa tion with pineapple fruit been observed?  
 
It is likely that F. verticillioides can be associated with most or all pineapple varieties and 
pineapple fruit at all stages of development. Fusarium verticilliodes  was isolated from 
fruitlets of ripe pineapples of the ‘Queen Victoria’ cultivar with and without symptoms – the 
pineapples were  harvested when still partially green and ripened in storage (Vignassa et al. 
2021) , and fruitlet infection usually occurs at an early stage of development before the bracts 
close (Fournier et al. 2015) . Fusarium verticilliodes was isolated from symptomati c 
pineapples at production sites in Malaysia, but the authors do not say what stage the fruit was 
at when symptoms appeared (Ibrahim et al. 2017) . In pathogenicity tests on ripe pineapples 
(Gandul, Josapine and Morris  varieties) with F. verticilliodes isolates from Malaysia, 
Josapine showed the most severe rot symptoms (Ibrahim et al. 2017) . Ripe pineapples of the 
MD2 variety showed fusariosis symptoms (Vilaplana et al. 2018) . 
 
Which part(s) of the pineapple fruit is F. verticilliodes associated  with (e.g. fruit, bract, 
stem or crown remnant) and is it detectable by visual detection?  
Fusarium verticillioides has been isolated from fruitlets (i.e. internal flesh) (Vignassa et al. 
2021)  and the core (Stępień et al. 2013) , and was visible on the skin (i.e. brac ts) of pineapple 
fruit with fusariosis (Vilaplana et al. 2018) . It is a systemic vascular endophyte/pathogen in 
many other hosts so may also be associated with crown and stem remnants.   
 
Are different lifestages of F. verticillioides associated with different parts of the 
pineapple fruit?  
Not applicable  
 
Under what environmental conditions (temperature, season etc) are F. verticillioides  
symptoms expressed on pineapple fruit?  
Symptoms of F. verticillioides (fusariosis or fruitlet core rot) are likely to develop faster at 
higher temperatures (although the fungus can grow slowly at temperatures as low as 5°C). In 
pathogenicity tests, fusariosis (external rot) symptoms developed in pineapple fruit in cold 
storage at 8 °C (Vilaplana et al. 2018) . Mild rot symptoms (brown lesions) were observed in 
cut fruit of three cultivars (Gandul. Josapine, Moris), two weeks after wound inoculation with 
F. verticillioides in ripe pineapple fruit incubated at 27 ± 1°C with 75% –80% humidity  
(Ibrahim et al. 2017). Fruitlet core rot symptoms in fruit with early natural infections of 
F. verticillioides  developed in fruit stored at 19 °C, although the authors did not confirm that 
F. verticillioides  caused symptoms with pathogenicity tests (Vignassa et al. 2021) .  
 
Does F. verticillioides exhibit latent/asymptomatic traits  in pineapple fruit ?  
142 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Yes. Fusarium verticillioides was isolated from asymptomatic fruitlets in ripe pineapples, as 
well as fruitlets with core rot symptoms (Vignassa et al. 2021) .  
 
 Appendix to risk assessm ent of Fusarium verticillioides  
Table 5.2 Evidence for Fusarium verticillioides  in markets  in scope of this IRA  
Market  Recorded in market  Uncertainty  
Asia   
Indonesia  Yes (for example, Nugroho et al. 2013; Pakki 2016; 
Dhanti et al. 2017; Maryani et al. 2019; Widiastuti 
et al. 2020; Mirsam et al. 2021; Farr and Rossman 
2022) .  Low. Strong evidence based on many reports  
Malaysia  Yes (Hsuan et al. 2011; Ibrahim et al. 2017; Ismail 
et al. 2017; Najihah et al. 2017; Ibrahim et al. 
2020; Yazid et al. 2021; Farr and Rossman 2022)  Low. Strong evidence based on many reports.  
Philippines  Yes (for example,Cumagun et al. 2009; Alvindia 
and Acda 2010; Magculia and Cumagun 2011; Van 
Hove et al. 2011; Singh et al. 2014; Hussien et al. 
2017; Farr and Rossman 2 022)  Low. Strong evidence based on many reports.  
Sri Lanka  Yes, but record of F. verticillioides from maize is 
unreliable. Adikaram and Yakandawala (2020)  
records as present in maize based on Senevirathna 
and Aoki (2008) , but the maize samples in that 
study were from a Japanese collection  (but 
published in a Sri Lankan journal) . Seneviratne and 
Jeyanandarajah (2004)  record F. moniliforme, syn. 
F. verticillioides as a cause of Bakanae disease in 
rice. Fusarium moniliforme  is recorded as an 
important path ogen in rice (Fernando et al. 2022, 
conference abstract only) . No record in Farr and 
Rossman (2022)  and no records found in CAB 
abstracts searches.  High, because there are no reliable reports of F. verticillioides, 
only F. moniliforme. However, F. verticil lioides is reported in 
many neighbouring countries, including India and is highly likely 
to be present in Sri Lanka. .  
Taiwan  Yes (for example, Hsieh et al. 2020; Sun et al. 2020; 
Farr and Rossman 2022)  In addition, GBIF records 
F. verticillioides from T aiwan (Tianliao's Moon 
World, Taiwan, Taiwan; Chiayi, Taiwan). No 
records found in searches of CAB abstracts and 
Google Scholar. 46 Low. Strong evidence based on several reports.  
Thailand  Yes (for example, Boonyapranai et al. 2008; Van 
Hove et al. 2011; M ohamed Nor et al. 2019; 
Srihom et al. 2021; Farr and Rossman 2022) , Low. Strong evidence based on many reports.  
Oceania   
Australia  (Summerell et al. 2010; Watson et al. 2014; Liew et 
al. 2016; Kelly et al. 2017; Farr and Rossman 2022)  
GBIF has records from Queensland, New South 
Wales and Western Australia.  Low. Strong evidence based on many reports.  
Fiji, New 
Caledonia, 
Papua New 
Guinea, 
Samoa, 
Tonga  No record in Pacific Islands Pest List Database 
(2022) , nor Farr and Rossman (2022) . No records in 
other searches. 3 High. There is no record of either presence or absence (i.e. no 
survey data), so given the broad geographical distribution of 
F. verticillioides , its presence in these countries cannot be ruled 
out.  
Cook 
Islands  Yes, collected from Musa sp. in Aitutaki in 1982 
(preserved specimen in Landcare collection PDD 
44561)  High. Presence inferred based on single historic record in reliable 
database, but with no molecular data.  
Vanuatu  Yes. Collected from maize stem in Efate, Teoumu 
Gardens in 1996, Vanuatu, redetermined in 2014 
based on EF1a DNA sequence (a record in GBIF is 
derived from this record) (BiotaNZ 2022) . No other 
records found in searches.3 Moderate, based on a single (relia ble) record.  
 
Central and South America   
 
46 GenBank (Clark et al. 2016); Google Scholar; CAB abstracts; USDA Fungal Database (Farr and Rossman 2022), HerbIMI (2022)  and 
the Pacific Islands Pest List Database (2022)  were searched with the term “Fusarium verticillioides”. Search terms for Google Scholar; CAB 
abstracts were "  Fusarium verticillioides  " and the country name. An additional search on the terms “Fusarium moniliforme” and the country 
name. was included in Google scholar and CAB abstract s earches if no records were found in the initial search, but country presence records 
based on this syno nym have high uncertainty (see taxonomic notes).   
143 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Costa Rica  (Danielsen and Jensen 1998; Danielsen et al. 1998; 
Stępień et al. 2013; Guido -Mora et al. 2021)  Low, several references, including molecular identification.  
Ecuador  Yes (Pacin et al. 2003; Moretti et al. 2004; Patiño 
et al. 2006; Silva et al. 2007; Vilaplana et al. 2018; 
Valencia -Chamorro et al. 2021)  Low, several references, including molecular identification.  
Panama  Yes (Moretti et al. 2004; Patiño et al. 2006) .  Moderate, F. verticillioides is recorded from nearby countries 
including Costa Rica. Note (Van Hove et al. 2011)  record isolates 
of F. musae (a close relative of F. verticillioides lacking the 
fumonisin gene cluster) from Panama that may have originally 
been recorde d as F. verticillioides – (Patiño et al. 2006)  recorded 
non- fumonisin producing  isolates of F. verticillioides from 
banana ( M. sapientum ) Patiño et al. (2006)  recorded non -
fumonisin producing  isolates of F. verticillioides from banana 
(M. sapientum ) which may be the closely related F. musae (which 
lacks the fumonisin gene cluster)  
 
Table 5. 3 List of some taonga species (EPA 2018) checked for association with F. verticillioides  
(Search of Google Scholar with search terms “Fusarium vertic illioides” and the genus name)  
Metrosideros fulgens, Metrosideros perforata, Metrosideros colensoi, Metrosideros diffusa, Dodonaea viscosa, Geniostoma rupes tre 
var. ligustrifolium, Phormium tenax, Elaeocarpus dentatus, Pseudopanax crassifolius, Pseudowinte ra colorata, Pseudowintera axillaris, 
Hoheria sexstylosa var. ovata, Dacrycarpus dacrydioides, Pennantia corymbose, Coprosma grandifolia, Kunzea ericoides, Kunzea 
arenaria, Corynocarpus laevigatus, Aciphylla glaucescens, Aciphylla ferox, Coprosma robusta, Coprosma lucida, Ripogonum scandens, 
Porphyra columbina, Hierochloe redolens, Libocedrus plumosa, Macropiper excelsum ssp. excelsum, Freycinettia banksia, Dysoxylum 
spectabile, Tetragonia implexicoma, Tetragonia tetragonioides, Anisotome aromatic, Hebe sal icifolia, Hebe leiophylla, Peraxilla 
colensoi, Fuchsia excorticata, Sophora microphylla, Sophora longicarinata, Elaeocharis sphacelate, Melicytus ramiflorus, Aris totelia 
serrata, Asplenium bulbiferum, Cyathea medullaris, Manoao colensoi, Lepidothamnus inte rmedius, Leptospermum scoparium, 
Prumnopitys taxifolia, Rorippa divaricate, Leucopogon fasciclatus, Prumnopitys ferruginea, Lepidium banksii, Lepidium olerace um, 
Gingidia haematitica, Dracophyllum elegantissimum, Dracophyllum traversii, Dracophyllum townso nii, Dracophyllum latifolium, 
Myoporum laetum, Rhopalostylis sapida, Schefflera digitata, Polystichum richardii, Pimelea prostrata, Pimelea carnosa, Ficini a spiralis, 
Acaena anserinifolia, Peraxilla tetrapetala, Peraxilla colensoi, Cyathea dealbata, Solanu m laciniatum, Solanum aviculare,  Passiflora 
tetrandra Laurelia novae -zelandiae, Pteridium esculentum, Brachyglottis repanda, Metrosideros umbellata, Metrosideros robusta, 
Raukaua edgerleyi, Typha orientalis, Arthropodium cirrhatum, Dacrydium cupressinum, L ophomyrtus obcordate, Phyllocladus 
trichomanoides, Cyperus ustulatus, Pittosporum eugenioides, Pittosporum dallii, Rubus australis, Rubus schmidelioides, Cordyl ine 
australis, Alectryon excelsus ssp. excelsus, Austroderia richardii, Cordyline indivisa, Podo carpus totara, Podocarpus hallii, Leptecophylla 
juniperina, Coriaria arborea, Phormium cookianum, Entelea arborescens, Pseudopanax arboreus, Dicksonia squarrosa, Dicksonia 
fibrosa, Juncus pallidus, Agathis australis,  
 
 References  
Abdel Galil, F A; Moharram, A M; Mahmoud, M A; Hafez, W M M (2019) Biocontrol of 
Bean and Wheat Aphids by Fungi Isolated from Indigenous and Invasive Insects Collected 
from Different Locations in Minia Governorate, Egypt. Egyptian Academi c Journal of 
Biological Sciences, F. Toxicology & Pest Control 11(3): 79 -90. 
 
Adikaram, N; Yakandawala, D (2020) A checklist of plant pathogenic fungi and Oomycota in 
Sri Lanka. Ceylon Journal of Science 49: 93.  
 
Aguín, O; Cao, A; Pintos, C; Santiago, R; M ansilla, P; Butrón, A (2014) Occurrence of 
Fusarium species in maize kernels grown in northwestern Spain. Plant Pathology 63(4): 946 -
951. 
 
Akram, W; Ahmad, A; Juxian, G; Yasin, N A; Akbar, M; Luo, W; Wu, T; Wang, Q; Lu, M; 
Xie, D; Li, G (2020) Occurrence of head rot disease caused by Fusarium verticillioides on 
Chinese flowering cabbage (Brassica rapa L subsp. parachinensis) in China. Crop Pr otection 
134: 105180.  
 
Alvindia, D G; Acda, A (2010) Mycoflora of coffee beans in the Philippines. The 
International  Society for  Southeast Asian Agric ultural  Sciences  16: 116 -125. 
  
144 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Ares, J A (2020) Fusarium Link Ex Grey species isolated from woody ornament al hosts in 
container nurseries in Galicia in Portugal Professional Plant Protection 8: 71 -78. 
 
Askarany, D; Franklin -Smith, A W (2014) Cost benefit analyses of organic waste composting 
systems through the lens of time driven activity -based costing. Journa l of Applied 
Management Accounting Research 12(2): 59 –73. 
 
Benedict, K; Richardson, M; Vallabhaneni, S; Jackson, B R; Chiller, T (2017) Emerging 
issues, challenges, and changing epidemiology of fungal disease outbreaks. The Lancet. 
Infectious diseases 17(12): e403 -e411.  
 
BiotaNZ (2022) Biota of New Zealand. https://biotaNZ.landcareresearch.co.nz  Accessed 
2022.  
 
Blacutt, A A; Gold, S E; Voss, K A; Gao, M; Glenn, A E (2018) Fusarium verticillioides : 
Advan cements in Understanding the Toxicity, Virulence, and Niche Adaptations of a Model 
Mycotoxigenic Pathogen of Maize. Phytopathology 108(3): 312 -326. 
 
Boonyapranai, K; Tungpradit, R; Lhieochaiphant, S; Phutrakul, S (2008) Optimization of 
submerged culture fo r the production of naphthoquinones pigment by Fusarium 
verticillioides . Chiang Mai J ournal of  Science 35(3): 457 -466. 
 
Bush, B; Carson, M; Cubeta, M; Hagler, W; Payne, G (2004) Infection and fumonisin 
production by Fusarium verticillioides  in developing m aize kernels. Phytopathology 94(1): 
88-93. 
 
Busman, M; Desjardins, A E; Proctor, R H (2012) Analysis of fumonisin contamination and 
the presence of Fusarium in wheat with kernel black point disease in the United States. Food 
Additives & Contaminants: Part A 29(7): 1092 -1100.  
 
Cao, A; Santiago, R; Ramos, A J; Marín, S; Reid, L M; Butrón, A (2013) Environmental 
factors related to fungal infection and fumonisin accumulation during the development and 
drying of white maize kernels. International Journal of Food  Microbiology 164(1): 15 -22. 
 
Cao, S; Yang, N; Zhao, C; Liu, J; Han, C; Wu, X (2018) Diversity of Fusarium species 
associated with root rot of sugar beet in China. Journal of General Plant Pathology 84(5): 
321-329. 
 
Chang, Y -d; Du, B; Wang, L; Ji, P; Xie, Y-j; Li, X -f; Li, Z -g; Wang, J -m (2018) A study on 
the pathogen species and physiological races of tomato Fusarium wilt in Shanxi, China. 
Journal of Integrative Agriculture 17(6): 1380 -1390.  
 
Chehri, K (2016) Molecular identification of pathogenic Fusarium  species, the causal agents 
of tomato wilt in western Iran. Journal of Plant Protection Research 56(2): 143 -148. 
 
Cosic, J; Jurkovic, D; Vrandecic, K; Simic, B (2007) Pathogenicity of Fusarium  Species to 
Wheat and Barley Ears. Cereal Research Communications 35(2): 529 -532. 
 
Cotten, T K ; Munkvold, G P (1998) Survival of Fusarium moniliforme , F. proliferatum , and 
F. subglutinans  in maize stalk residue. Phytopathology  88(6), 550 -555.  
145 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand   
Covarelli, L; Beccari, G; Salvi, S (2011) Infection by mycotoxigenic fungal species and 
mycotoxin contamination of maize grain in Umbria, central Italy. Food and Chemical 
Toxicology 49(9): 2365 -2369.  
 
Cumagun, C J R; Ramos, J S; Dimaano, A O; Munaut, F; Va n Hove, F (2009) Genetic 
characteristics of Fusarium verticillioides  from corn in the Philippines. Journal of General 
Plant Pathology 75(6): 405.  
 
Czembor, E; Waśkiewicz, A; Piechota, U; Puchta, M; Czembor, J H; Stȩpień, Ł (2019) 
Differences in Ear Rot Res istance and Fusarium verticillioides -Produced Fumonisin 
Contamination Between Polish Currently and Historically Used Maize Inbred Lines. 
Frontiers in Microbiology 10. 
 
Danielsen; Jensen, F (1998) Relationships between seed germination, fumonisin content, a nd 
Fusarium verticillioides infection in selected maize samples from different regions of Costa 
Rica. Plant Pathology 47(5): 609 -614. 
 
Danielsen; Meyer; Jensen, F (1998) Genetic characteristics of Fusarium verticillioides 
isolates from maize in Costa Rica.  Plant Pathology 47(5): 615 -622. 
 
Darvas, B; Bánáti, H; Takács, E; Lauber, É; Szécsi, Á; Székács, A (2011) Relationships of 
Helicoverpa armigera, Ostrinia nubilalis and Fusarium verticillioides on MON 810 Maize. 
Insects 2(1): 1 -11. 
 
Delgado -Ortiz, J C; Och oa-Fuentes, Y M; Cerna -Chávez, E; Beltrán -Beache, M; Rodríguez -
Guerra, R; Aguirre -Uribe, L A; Vázquez -Martínez, O (2016) Patogenicidad de especies de 
Fusarium asociadas a la pudrición basal del ajo en el centro norte de México. Revista 
Argentina de Microbi ología 48(3): 222 -228. 
 
Dhanti, K R; Widiastuti, A; Joko, T (2017) Detection of Mycotoxin -Encoding Genes in 
Fusarium spp. Isolated from Maize Kernels in Indonesia (abstract only viewed). In (pp. 117 -
123). Cham: Springer International Publishing.  
 
Dick, M A ; Simpson, J (2003) Fusarium circinatum agent of damping off disease . 
https://www.nzfoa.org.nz/118 -forestbiosecurity/research/1427 -fhrcreports1997 .  
 
Dissanayake, M L M C; Kashima, R; Tanaka, S; Ito, S -i (2009) Pathogenic variation and 
molecular characterization of Fusarium species isolated from wilted Welsh onion in Japan. 
Journal of General Plant Pathology 75(1): 37 -45. 
 
Drakulic, J; Bruce, T J A; Ray, R V (2017) Direct and host -mediated interactions between 
Fusarium pathogens and herbivorous arthropods in cereals. Plant Pathology 66(1): 3 -13. 
 
Duan, C -x; Wang, X -m; Zhu, Z -d; Wu, X -f (2007) Testing of Seedborne Fungi in Wheat 
Germplasm Conserved in the National Cro p Genebank of China. Agricultural Sciences in 
China 6(6): 682 -687. 
  
146 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Ekhuemelo, C; Nsobundu, C M (2020) Pathogenicity of fungi associated with leaf spot 
disease of sweet potato (Ipomea batatas L. (Lam) in Makurdi, Benue State, Nigeria. GSC 
Biological and Ph armaceutical Sciences 11(2): 250 -256. 
 
Elvira -Recuenco, M; Cacciola, S O; Sanz -Ros, A V; Garbelotto, M; Aguayo, J; Solla, A; 
Mullett, M; Drenkhan, T; Oskay, F; Aday Kaya, A G; Iturritxa, E; Cleary, M; Witzell, J; 
Georgieva, M; Papazova -Anakieva, I; Chira, D; Paraschiv, M; Musolin, D L; Selikhov kin, A 
V; Varentsova, E Y; Adamčíková, K; Markovskaja, S; Mesanza, N; Davydenko, K; Capretti, 
P; Scanu, B; Gonthier, P; Tsopelas, P; Martín -García, J; Morales -Rodríguez, C; Lehtijärvi, A; 
Doğmuş Lehtijärvi, H T; Oszako, T; Nowakowska, J A; Bragança, H; Fer nández -Fernández, 
M; Hantula, J; Díez, J J (2020) Potential Interactions between Invasive Fusarium circinatum 
and Other Pine Pathogens in Europe. Forests 11(1): 7.  
 
EPA (2018) Manawhenua Mātauranga Report For the Tākaka Catchments. In. Wellington: 
Environm ental Protection Agency.  
 
Farr, D; Rossman, A (2022) Fungal databases, US national fungus collections, ARS, USDA. 
8. 
 
Félix -Gastélum, R; Mora -Carlón, B A; Leyva -Madrigal, K Y; Solano -Báez, A R; Pérez -
Mora, J L; Guerra -Meza, O; Mora -Romero, G A (2022) Sorgh um Sheath Blight Caused by 
Fusarium spp. in Sinaloa, Mexico. Plant Disease 106(5): 1454 -1461.  
 
Fernando, H; Silva, J; Sureshika, K (2022) Bio -control Potential of Rice (Oryza sativa L.) 
Endophytes against Major Rice Pathogens. In Proceedings of Internation al Forestry and 
Environment Symposium  (Vol. 26).  
 
Fournier, P; Benneveau, A; Hardy, C; Chillet, M; Léchaudel, M (2015) A predictive model 
based on a pluviothermic index for leathery pocket and fruitlet core rot of pineapple cv. 
‘Queen’. European Journal of  Plant Pathology 142(3): 449 -460. 
 
Gagkaeva, T Y; Yli -Mattila, T (2020) Emergence of  Fusarium verticillioides i n Finland. 
European Journal of Plant Pathology 158(4): 1051 -1057.  
 
Gai, X; Dong, H; Wang, S; Liu, B; Zhang, Z; Li, X; Gao, Z (2018) Infection cyc le of maize 
stalk rot and ear rot caused by Fusarium verticillioides . PLOS ONE 13(7): e0201588.  
 
Gilbertson, R; Brown Jr, W; Ruppel, E; Capinera, J (1986) Association of corn stalk rot 
Fusarium spp. and Western corn rootworm beetles. Phytopathology . 
 
Goert z, A; Zuehlke, S; Spiteller, M; Steiner, U; Dehne, H W; Waalwijk, C; de Vries, I; 
Oerke, E C (2010) Fusarium species and mycotoxin profiles on commercial maize hybrids in 
Germany. European Journal of Plant Pathology 128(1): 101 -111. 
 
Gomes, A A M; de Melo,  M P; Tessmann, D J; Lima, C S (2020) Sexual reproduction 
parameters in Fusarium verticillioides  populations from maize in Brazil. European Journal of 
Plant Pathology 156(1): 317 -323. 
  
147 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Guarro, J (2013) Fusariosis, a complex infection caused by a high diversity of fungal species 
refractory to treatment. European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases 
32(12): 1491 -1500.  
 
Guido -Mora, A Z; Blanco -Meneses, M; Milagro Granados -Montero, M d; Vinas -Meneses, M 
(2021) Identification of Fusarium species in black bean grains (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) from 
Costa Rica. Identificacion de Fusarium en granos de frijol negro (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) en 
Costa Rica. 45(2): 57 -69. 
 
Hoitink, H; St one, A; Han, D (1997) Suppression of plant diseases by composts. HortScience 
32(2): 184 -187. 
 
Hsieh, C W; Chuang, Y Y; Lee, M Z; Kirschner, R (2020) First Inventory of Fungi in 
Symptomless and Symptomatic Chinese Mesona Indicates Phytopathological Threat. Plant 
Disease 104(9): 2391 -2397.  
 
Hsuan, H M; Salleh, B; Zakaria, L (2011) Molecular Identific ation of Fusarium Species in 
Gibberella fujikuroi Species Complex from Rice, Sugarcane and Maize from Peninsular 
Malaysia. International Journal of Molecular Sciences 12(10): 6722 -6732.  
 
Hussien, T; Carlobos -Lopez, A L; Cumagun, C J R; Yli -Mattila, T (2017 ) Identification and 
quantification of fumonisin -producing Fusarium species in grain and soil samples from Egypt 
and the Philippines. Phytopathologia Mediterranea 56(1): 146 -153. 
 
Ibrahim, N F; Mohd, M H; Mohamed Nor, N M I; Zakaria, L (2017) Characterizat ion of 
Fusarium  spp. associated with pineapple fruit rot and leaf spot in Peninsular Malaysia. 
Journal of Phytopathology 165(11 -12): 718 -726. 
 
Ibrahim, N F; Mohd, M H; Mohamed Nor, N M I; Zakaria, L (2020) Mycotoxigenic potential 
of Fusarium  species associ ated with pineapple diseases. Archives of Phytopathology and 
Plant Protection 53(5-6): 217 -229. 
 
Ilić, J; Ćosić, J; Jurković, D; Vrandečić, K (2012) Pathogenicity of Fusarium  spp. isolated 
from weeds and plant debris in eastern Croatia to wheat and maize. Poljoprivreda 18(2): 7 -
11. 
 
Ismail, N A; Mohd, M H; Mohamed Nor, N M I; Zakaria, L (2017) Fumonisin B1 -producing 
Fusarium species from agricultural crops in Malaysia. Crop Protection 98: 70 -75. 
 
Jabłońska, E; Piątek, K; Wit, M; Mirzwa -Mróz, E; Wakuliński, W (2020) Molecular diversity 
of the Fusarium fujikuroi species complex from maize. European Journal of Plant Pathology 
158(4): 859 -877. 
 
Ji, L; Li, Q; Wang, Y; Burgess, L W; Sun, M; Cao, K; Kong, L (2019) Monitoring of 
Fusarium Species and Trichothecene Ge notypes Associated with Fusarium Head Blight on 
Wheat in Hebei Province, China. Toxins 11(5): 243.  
 
Jitjak, W; Sanoamuang, N (2021) Application of cost -effective coating materials 
supplemented with different types of local essential oil to control Fusarium  verticillioides  
(Sacc.) Nerenberg from post -harvest avocado fruits. Technology 17(3): 883 -898.  
148 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand   
Kamle, M; Mahato, D K; Devi, S; Lee, K E; Kang, S G; Kumar, P (2019) Fumonisins: 
Impact on Agriculture, Food, and Human Health and their Management Strategies.  Toxins 
(Basel) 11(6).  
 
Karim, N F; Mohd, M; Nor, N M; Zakaria, L (2016) Saprophytic and Potentially Pathogenic 
Fusarium Species from Peat Soil in Perak and Pahang. Trop Life Sci Res 27(1): 1 -20. 
 
Kelly, L A; Tan, Y P; Ryley, M J; Aitken, E A B (2017) Fusa rium species associated with 
stalk rot and head blight of grain sorghum in Queensland and New South Wales, Australia. 
Plant Pathology 66(9): 1413 -1423.  
 
Krnjaja, V; Stanković, S; Lukić, M; Mićić, N; Petrović, S T; Bijelić, Z; Mandić, V (2018) 
Toxigenic fun gal and mycotoxin contamination of maize samples from different districts in 
Serbia. Biotechnology in Animal Husbandry 34(2): 239 -249. 
 
Leslie, J F; Pearson, C; Nelson, P E; Toussoun, T (1990) Fusarium spp. from corn, sorghum, 
and soybean fields in the cen tral and eastern United States. Ecol. Stud 44: 66.  
 
Li, L; Qu, Q; Cao, Z; Guo, Z; Jia, H; Liu, N; Wang, Y; Dong, J (2019) The Relationship 
Analysis on Corn Stalk Rot and Ear Rot According to Fusarium Species and Fumonisin 
Contamination in Kernels. Toxins 11(6): 320.  
 
Liew, E C Y; Laurence, M H; Pearce, C A;  Shivas, R G; Johnson, G I; Tan, Y P; Edwards, J; 
Perry, S; Cooke, A W; Summerell, B A (2016) Review of Fusarium species isolated in 
association with mango malformation in Australia. Australasian Plant Pathology 45(6): 547 -
559. 
 
LIMS (2022) Laboratory Info rmation Management System. Ministry for Primary Industries 
Internal Database. Accessed 11 April 2022.  
 
Liu, S; Ma, H; Guo, N; Shi, J; Zhang, H; Hua;, S; Jin, G (2019) Analysis of main pathogens 
and dominant species of maize stalk rot in the main summer mai ze producing areas of 
Huang -Huai -Hai (English language abstract only). Scientia Agricultura Sinica 52(2): 262 -
272. 
 
Loiveke, H (2006) Incidence of Fusarium  spp. on several field crops in Estonia and their 
toxicity towards Bacillus stearothermophilus . Agron omy Res 4: 273 -280. 
 
Lorenzini, M; Zapparoli, G (2015) Occurrence and infection of Cladosporium, Fusarium, 
Epicoccum and Aureobasidium in withered rotten grapes during post -harvest dehydration. 
Antonie van Leeuwenhoek 108(5): 1171 -1180.  
 
Maciel, C G; Walke r, C; Santos, R F d; Muniz, M F B; Brum, D L (2017) Fusarium 
oxysporum and F. verticillioides  associated with damping -off in Pinus  spp. Revista Ciência 
Agronômica 48: 134 -141. 
 
Magculia, N J F; Cumagun, C J R (2011) Genetic diversity and PCR -based identifi cation of 
potential fumonisin -producing Fusarium verticillioides  isolates infecting corn in the 
Philippines. Tropical Plant Pathology 36: 225 -232.  
149 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand   
Marin, S; Magan, N; Ramos, A J; Sanchis, V (2004) Fumonisin -producing strains of 
Fusarium: a review of their  ecophysiology. Journal of food protection 67(8): 1792 -1805.  
 
Martín -Pinto, P; Pajares, J; Díez, J (2008) Pathogenicity of Fusarium verticillioides  and 
Fusarium oxysporum  on Pinus nigra  seedlings in northwest Spain. Forest Pathology 38(2): 
78-82. 
 
Martínez , M; Arata, A F; Fernández, M D; Stenglein, S A; Dinolfo, M I (2021) Fusarium 
species richness in mono - and dicotyledonous weeds and their ability to infect barley and 
wheat. Mycological Progress 20(9): 1203 -1216.  
 
Maryani, N; Sandoval -Denis, M; Lombard, L; Crous, P W; Kema, G H J (2019) New 
endemic Fusarium species hitch -hiking with pathogenic Fusarium strains causing Panama 
disease in small -holder banana plots in Indonesia. Persoonia - Molecular Phylogeny and 
Evolu tion of Fungi 43(1): 48 -69. 
 
Mehta, C M; Palni, U; Franke -Whittle, I; Sharma, A (2014) Compost: its role, mechanism 
and impact on reducing soil -borne plant diseases. Waste management 34(3): 607 -622. 
 
Mensah, S (2017) Development and trial of a methodology for the quantification and 
evaluation of home composting in Palmerston North, New Zealand: a thesis submitted in 
partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Environmental Management 
(without major) at Massey University, Palmerston No rth, New Zealand. thesis; Massey 
University .  
 
Mirsam, H; Kalqutny, S H; Suriani; Aqil, M; Azrai, M; Pakki, S; Muis, A; Djaenuddin, N; 
Rauf, A W; Muslimin (2021) Indigenous fungi from corn as a potential plant growth 
promoter and its role in Fusarium verticillioides suppression on corn. Heliyon 7(9): e 07926.  
 
Mohamed Nor, N M I; Salleh, B; Leslie, J F (2019) Fusarium  Species from Sorghum in 
Thailand. The Plant Pathology Journal 35(4): 301 -312. 
 
Mohammadian, E; Babai Ahari, A; Arzanlou, M; Oustan, S; Khazaei, S H (2017) Tolerance 
to heavy metals in filam entous fungi isolated from contaminated mining soils in the Zanjan 
Province, Iran. Chemosphere 185: 290 -296. 
 
Moretti, A; Mulè, G; Susca, A; González -Jaén, M T; Logrieco, A (2004) Toxin Profile, 
Fertility and AFLP Analysis of Fusarium verticillioides  from Banana Fruits. European 
Journal of Plant Pathology 110(5): 601 -609. 
 
MPI (2014) Generic Pest Risk Assessment: Armoured scale insects (Hemiptera: Coccoidea: 
Diaspididae) on the fresh produce pathway. In Plants and Pathways Team; Biosecurity 
Science and Risk  Assessment Group (Eds.), (Vol. 1). Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry for 
Primary Industries.  
 
Munkvold, G P (2003) Epidemiology of Fusarium Diseases and their Mycotoxins in Maize 
Ears. European Journal of Plant Pathology 109(7): 705 -713. 
  
150 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Munkvold, G P; M cGee, D C; Carlton, W M (1997) Importance of Different Pathways for 
Maize Kernel Infection by Fusarium moniliforme. Phytopathology® 87(2): 209 -217. 
 
Murad, N B A; Kusai, N A; Zainudin, N A I M (2016) Identification and diversity of 
Fusarium species isolate d from tomato fruits. Journal of Plant Protection Research 56(3): 
231-236. 
 
Murillo -Williams, A; Munkvold, G P (2008) Systemic Infection by Fusarium verticillioides 
in Maize Plants Grown Under Three Temperature Regimes. Plant Disease 92(12): 1695 -
1700.  
 
Mwangi, M W; Muiru, W M; Kimenju, J W (2021) Characterisation of Fusarium  species 
infecting tomato in Mwea West Sub -county, Kirinyaga County, Kenya. Canadian Journal of 
Plant Pathology 43(1): 56 -61. 
 
Najihah, A; IZZATI, M; Yong, S; Izham, M N M (2017) Charac terization of Fusarium 
proliferatum and Fusarium verticillioides based on species -specific gene and microsatellites 
analysis. Sains Malaysiana 46(12): 2425 -2432.  
 
Ni, N -T; Wu, S -S; Liao, K -M; Tu, W -C; Lin, C -F; Nai, Y -S (2022) Evaluation of the 
Potential E ntomopathogenic Fungi Purpureocillium lilacinum and Fusarium verticillioides for 
Biological Control of Forcipomyia taiwana (Shiraki). Journal of Fungi 8(8): 861.  
 
Niculina, N G; Otilia, C; Veronica, S; Claudia, D C; Titus, S (2019) Research regarding the 
relationship among the pests Ostrinia nubilalis, Helicoverpa armigera and the fungi Fusarium 
verticillioides, Aspergillus flavus in corn in the climatic conditions from Lovrin (Timiș 
County). Research Journal of Agricultural Science 51(4).  
 
Nucci, M; Anaiss ie, E (2007) Fusarium infections in immunocompromised patients. Clin 
Microbiol Rev 20(4): 695 -704. 
 
Nugroho, P A; Sigit, F M C; Saleh, B; Rahayu, E S (2013) Fumonisin -producing Fusarium 
from maize grains in Tretep, Indonesia. Journal of Food Science and En gineering 3(10): 534.  
 
NZPCN (2022) New Zealand Plant Conservation Network. https://www.nzpcn.org.nz/  
Accessed 6/10/22.  
 
NZTCS (2022) New Zealand Threat Classification System database. 
https://nztcs.org.nz/home   
 
Oldenburg, E; Höppner, F; Ellner, F; Weinert, J (2017) Fusarium diseases of maize 
associated with mycotoxin contamination of agricultural products intended to be used for 
food and feed. Mycotoxin Research 33(3): 167 -182. 
 
ONZPR (2022) Official New Zealand Pest Register. MPI Public Database. 
https://pierpestregister.mpi.govt.nz/PestsRegister/ImportCommodity/  Accessed 09 February 
2022.  
 
Ooka, J; Kommedahl, T (1977) Wind and rain dispersal of Fusarium moniliforme in corn 
fields. Phytopathology 67(8): 1023 -1026.   
151 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand   
Oren, L; Ezrati, S; Cohen, D; Sharo n, A (2003) Early events in the Fusarium verticillioides -
maize interaction characterized by using a green fluorescent protein -expressing transgenic 
isolate. Appl Environ Microbiol 69(3): 1695 -1701.  
 
Ortiz, C S; Richards, C; Terry, A; Parra, J; Shim, W B (2 015) Genetic variability and 
geographical distribution of mycotoxigenic Fusarium verticillioides  strains isolated from 
maize fields in Texas. The Plant Pathology Journal 31(3): 203 -211. 
 
Pacific Islands Pest List Database (2022) Pacific Islands Pest List D atabase. 
https://pld.lrd.spc.int/   
 
Pacin, A M; González, H H L; Etcheverry, M; Resnik, S L; Vivas, L; Espin, S (2003) Fungi 
associated with food and feed commodities from Ecuador. Mycopathologia 156(2): 87 -92. 
 
Pak, D; You, M P; Lanoiselet, V; Barbetti, M J (2017) Reservoir of cultivated rice pathogens 
in wild rice in Australia. European Journal of Plant Pathology 147(2): 295 -311. 
 
Pakki, S (2016) Mycotoxin contamination, bioecology of Fusarium verticillioides patho gen 
and its control on maize (English abstract only viewed in CAB abstracts). Cemaran 
mikotoksin, bioekologi patogen Fusarium verticillioides dan upaya pengendaliannya pada 
jagung. 35(1): 11 -16. 
 
Palazzini, J M; Groenenboom -de Haas, B H; Torres, A M; Köhl, J; Chulze, S N (2013) 
Biocontrol and population dynamics of Fusarium  spp. on wheat stubble in Argentina. Plant 
Pathology 62(4): 859 -866. 
 
Parsons, M W; Munkvold, G P (2010) Relationships of immat ure and adult thrips with silk -
cut, fusarium ear rot and fumonisin B1 contamination of maize in California and Hawaii. 
Plant Pathology 59(6): 1099 -1106.  
 
Parsons, M W; Munkvold, G P (2012) Effects of planting date and environmental factors on 
fusarium ear rot symptoms and fumonisin B1 accumulation in maize grown in six North 
American locations. Plant Pathology 61(6): 1130 -1142.  
 
Patel, R; Ghetiya, L (2019) Efficacy of entomopathogenic fungi Fusarium verticillioides  
(Saccardo) Nirenberg against Tetranychus urticae Koch on okra in polyhouse. International 
journal of chemical studies  7: 1234 -1236.  
 
Patiño, B; Mirete, S; Vázquez, C; Jiménez, M; Rodríguez, M T; González -Jaén, M T (2006) 
Characterization of Fusarium verti cillioides strains by PCR -RFLP analysis of the intergenic 
spacer region of the rDNA. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 86(3): 429 -435. 
 
Pelizza, S; Stenglein, S; Cabello, M; Dinolfo, M; Lange, C (2011) First record of Fusarium 
verticillioides as an entomopathogenic fungus of grasshoppers. Journal of Insect Science 
11(1).  
 
Petrovic, T; Walsh, J L; Burgess, L W; Summerell, B A (2009) Fusarium species associated 
with stalk rot of grain sorghum in the northern grain belt of eastern Australia. Austr alasian 
Plant Pathology 38(4): 373 -379.  
152 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand   
Pfordt, A; Ramos Romero, L; Schiwek, S; Karlovsky, P; von Tiedemann, A (2020) Impact of 
Environmental Conditions and Agronomic Practices on the Prevalence of Fusarium Species 
Associated with Ear - and Stalk Rot in Ma ize. Pathogens 9(3).  
 
Phillips, C B; Kean, J M; Vink, C J; Berry, J A (2018) Utility of the CLIMEX ‘match 
climates regional’ algorithm for pest risk analysis: an evaluation with non -native ants in New 
Zealand. Biological Invasions : 1–15. 
 
Picot, A; Hourcad e-Marcolla, D; Barreau, C; Pinson -Gadais, L; Caron, D; Richard -Forget, F; 
Lannou, C (2012) Interactions between Fusarium verticillioides and Fusarium graminearum 
in maize ears and consequences for fungal development and mycotoxin accumulation. Plant 
Pathol ogy 61(1): 140 -151. 
 
Postic, J; Cosic, J; Vrandecic, K; Jurkovic, D; Saleh, A A; Leslie, J F (2012) Diversity of 
Fusarium Species Isolated from Weeds and Plant Debris in Croatia. Journal of 
Phytopathology 160(2): 76 -81. 
 
PPIN (2022) Plant Pest Information Network, Version 5.03.01. Ministry for Primary 
Industries Internal Database. Accessed 9 February 2022.  
 
Presello, D A; Iglesias, J; Botta, G; Eyherabide, G H (2007) Severity of Fusarium ear rot and 
concentration of fumonisin in grain of Argentinian maize h ybrids. Crop protection 26(6): 
852-855. 
 
Puértolas, A; Boa, E; Bonants, P J M; Woodward, S (2018) Survival of Phytophthora 
cinnamomi and Fusarium verticillioides in commercial potting substrates for ornamental 
plants. Journal of Phytopathology 166(7 -8): 48 4-493. 
 
Qiu, J; Xu, J; Dong, F; Yin, X; Shi, J (2015) Isolation and characterization of Fusarium 
verticillioides from maize in eastern China. European Journal of Plant Pathology 142(4): 
791-800. 
 
Reid, L M; Nicol, R W; Ouellet, T; Savard, M; Miller, J D; Y oung, J C; Stewart, D W; 
Schaafsma, A W (1999) Interaction of Fusarium graminearum and F. moniliforme in Maize 
Ears: Disease Progress, Fungal Biomass, and Mycotoxin Accumulation. Phytopathology® 
89(11): 1028 -1037.  
 
Robertson, N; Hurren, K (2022) Economic i mpact 2021. Arable Food Industry Council . 
Business and Economic Research Limited (BERL), https://www.afic.co.nz/wp -
content/uploads/2022/07/AFIC -Economic -Impact -2021.pdf . 
 
Rossi, V; Scandolara, A; Battilani, P (2009) Effect of environmental conditions on spore 
production by Fusarium verticillioides, the causal agent of maize ear rot. European Journal 
of Plant Pathology 123(2): 159 -169. 
 
Sain, S K; Monga, D; Hiremani, N S; Nagrale, D T; Kranthi, S; Kumar, R; Kranthi, K R; 
Tuteja, O P; Waghmare, V N (2021) Evaluation of bioefficacy potential of entomopathogenic 
fungi against the whitefly (Bemisia tabaci Genn.) on cotton under polyhouse and field 
conditions. Journal of Invertebrate Pathology 183: 107618.   
153 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand   
Salerno, M I; Lori, G A (2007) Association of seed -borne Fusarium species on Pinus 
ponderosa with germination and seedling viability in Argentina. Forest Pathology 37(4): 263 -
271. 
 
Seifert, K A; Aoki, T ; Baayen, R P ; Brayford, D ; Burgess, L W ; Chulze, S, ... & Waalwijk, C 
(2003) The name Fusarium moniliforme  should no longer be used.  Mycological 
Research  107(6), 643 -644. 
 
Senevirathna, J G D T; Aoki, T (2008) Morphological and molecular identification of  
Fusarium verticillioides  in maize. Annals of the Sri Lanka Department of Agriculture 10: 
191-198. 
 
Seneviratne, S N d S; Jeyanandarajah, P (2004) Rice diseases -problems and progress. 
Tropical agricultural researcg and extension 7: 29 -48 
 
 
Silva, E; Mora, E A; Medina, A; Vasquez, J; Valdez, D; Danial, D L; Parlevliet, J E (2007) 
Fusarium ear rot and how to screen for resistance in open pollinated maize in the Andean 
regions. Euphytica 153(3): 329 -337. 
 
Singh, B; Chand, D; Maurya, A K; Sharma, R; Agarwal, P C (2014) Pathogenic fungi 
intercepted in introduced transgenics during 2006 -2013. Plant Pathology & Quarantine 4: 
99-107. 
 
Sobek, E A; Munkvold, G P (1999) European corn borer (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) larvae as 
vectors of Fusariu m moniliforme , causing kernel rot and symptomless infection of maize 
kernels. Journal of Economic Entomology 92(3): 503 -509. 
 
Srihom, C; Boonyuen, N; Khewkhom, N; Leesutthiphonchai, W; Nuankaew, S; Suetrong, S 
(2021) Potential of herb crude extracts agains t Thai isolates of Fusarium wilt pathogens. 
Current Research in Environmental & Applied Mycology (Journal of Fungal Biology) 11(1): 
570-584. 
 
Srobarova, A; Moretti, A; Ferracane, R; Ritieni, A; Logrieco, A (2002) Toxigenic Fusarium 
Species of Liseola Secti on in Pre -harvest Maize Ear Rot, and Associated Mycotoxins in 
Slovakia. European Journal of Plant Pathology 108(4): 299 -306. 
 
Stępień, Ł; Koczyk, G; Waśkiewicz, A (2013) Diversity of Fusarium species and mycotoxins 
contaminating pineapple. Journal of Appli ed Genetics 54(3): 367 -380. 
 
Summerell, B; Leslie, J; Liew, E C Y; Laurence, M; Bullock, S; Petrovic, T; Bentley, A; 
Howard, C; Peterson, S; Walsh, J; Burgess, L (2010) Fusarium species associated with plants 
in Australia. Fungal diversity 46: 1 -27. 
 
Sun, Y-C; Siao, J -Y; Huang, C -J (2020) First report of Fusarium verticillioides causing 
damping -off of corn in Taiwan. Journal of Plant Pathology 102(1): 237 -237. 
  
154 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Terciolo, C; Bracarense, A P; Souto, P; Cossalter, A M; Dopavogui, L; Loiseau, N; Oliveira, 
C A F ; Pinton, P; Oswald, I P (2019) Fumonisins at Doses below EU Regulatory Limits 
Induce Histological Alterations in Piglets. Toxins (Basel) 11(9).  
 
Tortorano, A M; Prigitano, A; Dho, G; Esposto, M C; Gianni, C; Grancini, A; Ossi, C; 
Viviani, M A (2008) Species Distribution and In Vitro Antifungal Susceptibility Patterns of 
75 Clinical Isolates of <i>Fusarium</i> spp. from Northern Italy. Antimicrobial  Agents and 
Chemotherapy 52(7): 2683 -2685.  
 
Valencia -Chamorro, S; Pérez -Revelo, K; Vásquez, W; Viera, W; Vilaplana, R (2021) Thyme 
oil treatments to control internal rot caused by Fusarium verticillioides  in pineapple fruit 
(Ananas comosus  var. MD -2). In ( pp. 73 -78). ISHS Acta Horticulturae 1323: IV International 
Symposium on Postharvest Pathology: Next Generation Innovation and Commercial 
Solutions for Postharvest Pathology to Reduce Losses, Enhance Quality, and Ensure Product 
Safety: International Society  for Horticultural Science (ISHS), Leuven, Belgium.  
 
Van Hove, F; Waalwijk, C; Logrieco, A; Munaut, F; Moretti, A (2011) Gibberella musae 
(Fusarium musae) sp. nov., a recently discovered species from banana is sister to F. 
verticillioides. Mycologia 103(3) : 570 -585. 
 
Vignassa, M; Meile, J -C; Chiroleu, F; Soria, C; Leneveu -Jenvrin, C; Schorr -Galindo, S; 
Chillet, M (2021) Pineapple Mycobiome Related to Fruitlet Core Rot Occurrence and the 
Influence of Fungal Species Dispersion Patterns. Journal of Fungi 7(3):  175. 
 
Vilaplana, R; Pérez -Revelo, K; Valencia -Chamorro, S (2018) Essential oils as an alternative 
postharvest treatment to control fusariosis, caused by Fusarium verticillioides,  in fresh 
pineapples ( Ananas comosus ). Scientia Horticulturae 238: 255 -263. 
 
Watson, A; Burgess, L W; Summerell, B A; O’Keeffe, K (2014) Fusarium species associated 
with cob rot of sweet corn and maize in New South Wales. Australasian Plant Disease Notes 
9(1): 142.  
 
Widiastuti, A; Karlina, M L; Dhanti, K R; Chinta, Y D; Joko, T; Su ryanti; Wibowo, A (2020) 
Morphological and molecular identification of Fusarium spp. isolated from maize kernels in 
Java and Lombok, Indonesia. Biodiversitas: Journal of Biological Diversity 21(6): 2741 -
2750.  
 
Wilke, A L; Bronson, C R; Tomas, A; Munkvold, G P (2007) Seed transmission of Fusarium 
verticillioides in maize plants grown under three different temperature regimes. Plant Disease 
91(9): 1109 -1115.  
 
Windels, C; Windels, M; Kommedahl, T (1976) Association of Fusarium species with picnic 
beetles on co rn ears. Phytopathology 66(3): 328 -331. 
 
Yazid, S N E; Ng, W J; Selamat, J; Ismail, S I; Samsudin, N I P (2021) Diversity and 
Toxigenicity of Mycobiota in Grain Corn: A Case Study at Pioneer Grain Corn Plantations in 
Terengganu, Malaysia. Agriculture 11(3) : 237.  
  
155 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Yilmaz, N ; Sandoval -Denis, M ; Lombard, L ; Visagie, C M ; Wingfield, B D ; Crous, P W 
(2021) Redefining species limits in the Fusarium fujikuroi  species complex.  Persoonia -
Molecular Phylogeny and Evolution of Fungi  46(1), 129 -162. 
 
Zhang, Y; Zheng, J; Xie, B; Li, J; Wu, X; Shi, Y; Ma, Y (2008) Identification on pathogen of 
cabbage wilt disease. Acta Phytopathologica Sinica 38(4): 337 -345. 
 
Zhou, D; Wang, X; Chen, G; Sun, S; Yang, Y; Zhu, Z; Duan, C (2018) The Major Fusarium 
Species C ausing Maize Ear and Kernel Rot and Their Toxigenicity in Chongqing, China. 
Toxins 10(2): 90.  
 
  
156 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand   
5.3 Pestalotiopsis microspora  
 
Pestalotiopsis microspora  is an endophytic pathogen of over 90 plant species from 48 
different families and these include pineapple, kiwifruit, blueberry, and pine trees. The 
pathogen often expresses disease symptoms on fruits, leaves and twigs of its hosts. Notable 
disease sympto ms caused by P. microspora  include black spots, scab disease, root rot and 
post-harvest fruit rot fruits.  
 
 Taxonomic description  
Scientific name: Pestalotiopsis microspor a (Speg.) G.C. Zhao & N. Li 1995  
Order : Amphisphaeriales        Family: Sporocadaceae  
Other names : Pestalotia microspora  Spegazzini 1880; Pestalotiopsis 
microspora  var. philippinensis (Saccardo & P.  Sydow) Batista & Peres 1966 ; 
Pestalotia  dichaeta  Spegazzini 1911 ; Pestalotia royenae  Guba 1932 ; Pestalotiopsis royenae  
(Guba)  Steyaert 1949 ; Pestalotia microspora var. philippinensis  Saccardo & P. Sydow 1913  
 
Taxonomic notes:   
Pestalotiopsis  was first recognised as a distinct genus in a taxonomic revision of the genus 
Pestalotia  and genus Monochaetia  (Steyaert 1949) , thus Pestalotia micro spora  became 
known as Pestalotiopsis microspora  (Batista et al. 1966) . Recognition of the genus 
Pestalotio psis was further supported by molecular and taxonomic evidence (Jeewon et al. 
2002) . However, some research articles published before 2000 still used Pestalotia 
micro spora  instead of Pestalotiopsis microspora .  
 
Metz et al. (2000)  proposed that Pestalospha eria hansenii  is the teleomorph (sexual form) of 
P. microspora, which would mean that it would now be considered to be the same species. 
Although Pestalosphaeria hansen ii is present in New Zealand, it is not recognised as the 
teleomorph of Pestalotiopsis microspora  because there is insufficient evidence to assert that 
the two species are synonymous ( Bevan Weir47, pers.  comm.). The 18S rDNA sequences used 
in the Metz et al.  (2000)  study have poor species resolution and there is no sequence data 
confirming the synonymy of the two species in the ICMP48 cultures (Bevan Weir1, pers.com). 
Pestalosphaeria hansen ii is not given as a synonyn of Pestalotiopsis microspora  in the major 
fungal taxonomy databases (BiotaNZ 2022; Farr and Rossman 2022; Index Fungorum 2022; 
Mycobank 2022) . 
 
Cultural and genetic characteristics of Pestalotiopsis microspora  are very diverse such that 
multiple distinct isolates can occur in an indi vidual plant (Li et al. 1996) . The genetic 
variability in the different isolates of P. microspora  may determine the kind of chemical 
compounds they can produce (Li et al. 1996) , and possibly their pathogenic effects on plant 
hosts (Maharachchikumbura et al . 2011) . 
 Hazard identification  
Pestalotiopsis microspora  is not known to be present in New Zealand.  
 
47 Bevan Weir, Research Leader, Biological Collections and Databases, Manaaki Whenua – Landcare Research  
48 International Collection of Microorganisms from Plants (ICMP)  
  
157 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  • Pestalotiopsis microspora  is recorded as "absent" in New Zealand (BiotaNZ 2022; 
NZOR 2022) . 
• There is no entry of Pestalotiopsis microspora  in PPIN (2022) . 
• Pestalotiopsis microspora  (syn Pestalotia microspora ) is a regulated pest for New 
Zealand and has an unwanted status in ONZPR (2022) . 
 
Pestalotiopsis microspora  has the potential to establish  and spread in New Zealand . 
• The geographic distribution of P. microspora  includes many countries (Farr and 
Rossman 2022)  and some of these countries have a similar climate with New Zealand . 
• Pestalotiopsis microspora  has a wide host range (Farr and Rossman 2022)  and some 
of the hosts (e.g. kiwifruit, blueberries and monterey pines) are commonly grown  in 
many areas of New Zealand.  
• The common ivy and monterey pine are known hosts of P. microspora (Farr and 
Rossman 2022)  and these species are also widely distributed invasive species in New 
Zealand.  
Pestalotiopsis microspora  has the potential to cause harm to  New Zealand . 
• Pestalotiopsis microspora  has the potential to harm economically important plants 
(e.g. kiwifruit ) in New Zealand by damaging their fruits or leaves.  
• Pestalotiopsis microspora  has the potential to expand its host range to include some 
native plants because it has host species in the same genera in its realised geographic 
range.  
• Pestalotiopsis microspo ra has the potential to affect ornamental trees which are 
commonly planted in parks and recreational areas.  
 
Pestalotiopsis microspora  is associated with pineapple fruit.  
• Pineapple is a reported host of P. microspora  (Rao and Mhaskar 1973; 
Maharachchikumb ura et al. 2011)  and the fungus is known to cause post -harvest fruit 
rot in pineapples (Yaouba et al. 2021) .  
 
Given the arguments and evidence above , Pestalotiopsis microspora  is considered to be a 
hazard on decrowned Ananas comosus (pineapple) fruit (as described in the commodity 
description) imported to New Zealand.   
 
 Risk assessment  
5.3.3.1  Biology  
Fungi in the genus Pestalotiopsis  are mostly identified by their conidia (Wei et al. 2005)  and 
they may occur in plants, soil and water (Guba 1961; Maharachchikumbura et al. 2011) . They 
commonly occur as endophytes of many plant species (Strobel 2002)  and are also known to 
occur as saprobes (Guba 1961; Osono and Takeda 1999) . Pestalotiopsis spp. may inhabit tree 
bark and leaves without causing symptoms but symptoms can develop when host plants are 
stressed or wounded (Maharachchikumbura et al. 2011) .  They are frequently  not host 
specific but opportunistic pathogens (Hopkins and McQuilken 2000) . Pestalotiopsis spp. are 
able to infect a wide range of host plants, usually requiring openings caused by mechanical or 
insect injuries (Hopkins and McQuilken 2000; Elliott 2006) . 
 
Pestalotiopsis spp. are common in both tropical and subtropical ecosystems  (Strobel 2002; 
Wei et al. 2007) . Some species in this genus which includes P. microspora  have received  
158 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  attention from scientists because they produce compounds which are useful in pharmaceutical 
science (Strobel et al. 1996; Strobel et al. 2002) . A very i nteresting aspect of Pestalotiopsis 
microspora  is that they are very diverse in their morphological and genetic  characteristics 
(Strobel 2002) . For example, Li et al. (1996)  found that each of the 16 P. microspora  isolates 
sampled from seven twigs in a ba ld cypress tree had distinctive cultural features except for 
two isolates. In addition, only nine of the 6 isolates were capable of producing a medically 
important compound known as Taxol, and the degree of Taxol production among the nine 
isolates varied s ignificantly (Li et al. 1996) . 
 
As pathogens, P. microspora cause a variety of diseases depending on host species. For 
example , P. microspora  is known to cause leaf blight in rubber trees (Ngobisa et al. 2018) , 
leaf spot in blueberry (Yi-Lan et al. 2021) , root rot in loquat (Lu et al. 2016) , postharvest fruit 
rot in kiwifruit (Li et al. 2016; Li et al. 2017) , scab disease in guava (Keith et al. 2006)  and 
twig disease in bayberry (Ren et al. 2013) . Although P. microspora  has not been established 
as the causa tive agent of some diseases like mango tree decline (Dianda et al. 2018)  and 
cacao leaf spot (Villavicencio et al. 2020) , its association with such diseases indicates that it 
may likely foster their prevalence.  
 
Hosts and geographical distribution  
Pestalotiopsis microspora  is known to associate with a wide range of plant species (Farr and 
Rossman 2022) . Although P. microspora  has been recorded in about 90 plant species from 
over 45 families ( Annex 5.3.6 ), the list is not exhaustive beca use the fungus may only occur 
as an endophyte in some plant species without causing any disease. For example, P. 
microspora is not known to cause any disease in Camellia sinensis  (Wei et al. 2005; Wei et 
al. 2007) , Terminalia arjuna  (Tejesvi et al. 2007)  and Artocarpus heterophyllus  (Riga et al. 
2019) . Pestalotiopsis microspora  has also been reported from soil and fresh water (EBI 
2022) . The distribution record of P. microspora  spans across all continents including 
Antarctica (Table  5.4). 
 
Table 5. 4 Geographic distribution of Pestalotiopsis microspora (CMI: 0.3 – 0.9) mostly based on Farr 
and Rossman (2022) . Markets  in the scope of this IRA are recorded in bold while distributions with cited 
references are not recorded in Farr and Rossman (2022) . 
Continent/Region  Country/Area /Market  
Africa  Burkina Faso (Dianda et al. 2018) , Camero on (Yaouba et al. 2021) , 
Egypt (El-Argawy 2016) , Ghana (iBOL 2022) , Kenya, Morocco (EBI 
2022) , Réunion Islands  (EBI 2022) , Tanzania  (Telenius 2016) . 
Asia Bangladesh, China, Hong  Kong, India, Indonesia  (Suwandi et al. 2012) , 
Iraq (EBI 2022) , Japan, Lebanon  (Verkleij 2020) , Malaysia  (EBI 2022) , 
Myanmar, Nepal, Singapore, South Korea, Sri Lanka  (EBI 2022) , 
Thailand  (Tibpromma et al. 2018) . 
Europe  Netherlands  (Verkleij 2020) , UK (BMS 2022) , Spain  (Berbegal et al. 
2010) . 
North America and the 
Caribbean Islands  Cuba, Mexico, USA (Oregon, New Jersey, Hawaii, Florida) Bermuda, 
West indies, Canada (EBI 2022) , Costa Rica  (Gall 2022)  
Oceania and 
Antarctica  Antarctica  (Gonçalves et al. 2015) , Australia , Papua New Guinea 
(Strobel et al. 2002)  
South America  Argentina, Brazil, Colombia (Chaves et al. 2022) , Ecuador  (Villavicencio 
et al. 2020) , Venezuela, Uruguay  
  
159 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Symptoms  
Pestalotiopsis microspora  is predominantly known to be a leaf pathogen in pineapple, but 
one study recently reported rot symptoms in pineapple fruit in the field and demonstrated  
that the fungus was the cause of these symptoms. Postharvest fruit -rot of pineapples caused 
by P. mic rospora  has been reported on the ‘smooth Cayenne’ variety (Yaouba et al. 2021)  
but it is not certain whether all other pineapple varieties can equally be infected. Infected 
pineapple fruits with rot symptoms were collected from different farms after harves t (Yaouba 
et al. 2021)  indicating that the infection was naturally occurring on mature pineapple fruits in 
the fields. Diseased fruits show dark coloured necrotic lesions which expand from the point 
of infection and these lesions often appear darker in the  grooves surrounding the bracts 
(Yaouba et al. 2021) . Because P. microspora  was reported to cause rot symptoms in 
pineapple fruit for the first time just recently, it is unclear whether the rot symptoms were 
common in pineapple fruit but the fungus has onl y been identified as the causative agent, or 
whether there is a newly emerged strain that affects fruit as well as causing leaf blotch.  
 
Disease symptoms on pineapple plants, while not part of the commodity description, may 
appear as leaf blotch (Rao and M haskar 1973)  or on dead leaves (Guba 1961) . Infected plants 
show pale brown circular or irregular necrotic lesions on the tips or central parts of the leaves 
and these lesions produce dark fruiting bodies (sporodachia) from which the conidia may be 
dispers ed (Rao and Mhaskar 1973) .  
 
Separate pathogenicity tests for P. microspora  on pineapple fruit (Yaouba et al. 2021)  and 
leaves (Rao and Mhaskar 1973)  in the laboratory showed that infected samples may express 
symptoms between 8 –10 days at room temperature (25 °C) but it is not clear if the same time 
is required in natural environments. Cultured specimens isolated from fruit and leaves thrived 
well at a temperatures close to 25 °C (Rao and Mhaskar 1973; Yaouba et al. 2021) . The 
fungus is also known to survive well at a pH range of 6 –7 and a temperature range of 24 –
26°C (Chen et al. 2016) . Rao and Mhaskar (1973)  also noted that sporulation of P. 
microspora  cultures may continue for up to 15 days while Yaouba et al. (2021)  noted that the 
cultures produce abundant white mycelia at the top while the base remains brownish black in 
colour.  
 
Transmission  
Pestalotiopsis  spp. are typically transmitted to uninfected hosts by rain or water splashes 
(Hopkins 1996) . Pathogenicity tests on pineapple fruits (Yaouba et al. 2021)   and leaves (Rao 
and Mhaskar 1973)  using spray inoculation techniques provides evidence that P. microspora  
can be transmitted via water droplets. H owever, the experimental inoculation on pineapple 
fruits and leaves required open wounds (Rao and Mhaskar 1973; Yaouba et al. 2021) .  
Pestalotiopsis  microspora  may occur as an endophyte (Wei et al. 2007)  but it is unclear 
whether pineapple fruits are principally infected via the vascular tissues of or via secondary 
transmission from other inoculum sources. Given that P. microspora  spores can develop on 
the exterior parts of pineapple fruits, it is possibl e that direct contact between wounded fruits 
and infected fruits may further transmit the disease.  
Pestalotiopsis  spp. may also be transmitted mechanically (Hopkins and McQuilken 2000) . 
Although no evidence was found to assert that P. microspora  can be tr ansmitted 
mechanically on pineapples, it is still possible that equipment used to harvest or decrown  
pineapples may aid transmission where infected plants or fruits occur.   
  
160 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  5.3.3.2  Likelihood of entry  
Pestalotiopsis microspora  is globally distributed (Table 5.4) and has a wide range of hosts. It 
is reported from some markets  within the scope of this I RA project, including Australia, 
Costa Rica, Ecuador, Indonesia, Malaysia, Papua New Guinea, Sri Lanka, and Thailand 
(Table 1). While P. microspora  is known to be as sociated with pineapple  (Rao and Mhaskar 
1973; Yaouba et al. 2021) , most records have been associated with other plant hosts.  
Pestalotiopsis microspora  has been observed on pineapple fruits in Cameroon (Yaouba et al. 
2021) . Although Rao and Mhaskar (1973)  demonstrated that P. microspora  is associated with 
pineapple leaves in India, it was not certain if the pineapple fruits there were also infected.  
 
No interception record of P. microspora  has been found  on pineapple fruits in Europe  (EPPO 
2022)  or New Zealand  (LIMS 2022) . However, there are over 100 interceptions of the genus 
Pestalotiopsis  on other hosts in the LIMS 2000 –2020 database (LIMS 2022)  and about half 
of these interceptions have not been identified to species level. Records from Quancar go 
database (QuanCargo 2021)  shows that pineapple fruits have been imported from countries 
where P. microspora  occur (i.e. Australia, Ecuador and Thailand) since 2001 but there was 
no interception record of P. microspora  on the commodity (LIMS 2022) .  
 
Pineapple fruits infected by P. microspora  are likely to be intercepted during border 
inspection because the symptoms are obvious – these include rotting patches and dark 
necrotic lesions (Yaouba et al. 2021; refer to Symptom in Annex  5.3.3.1). However, the 
expression of symptoms within eight days or more after infection (Yaouba et al. 2021)  
suggests that infected pineapple fruits could enter undetected. Given that P. microspora  
primarily depends on open wounds to infect its hosts, the process of harvesting and 
decrown ing of pineapples may increase the chances of infection and thus infected fruits may 
enter undetected if they arrive New Zealand less than a week after harvest. In addition, the 
temperature which was suitable for the development of symptoms on fruits within eight days 
in the pathogenici ty test was 25 °C .  The temperature required for transit (7–13 °C)  is lower 
than the temperature in the pathogenicity test and may not be suitable for symptom 
development during transit.  
 
Uncertainty  
There is high uncertainty that P. microspora  could arrive on the commodity because it has 
not been recorded on pineapples in any of the export markets  within the scope of this IRA.  
Strobel (2002)  explained that P. microspora  isolates occurring in one locat ion are often 
highly diverse in their genetics and biology which may be reflected by their different 
chemical by -products. Therefore, the pathogenic strain associated with pineapples in 
Cameroon (Yaouba et al. 2021)  may be further different from the ones o ccurring in markets  
within the scope of this IRA.  
 
Symptom development of P. microspora on pineapple fruits may be favoured by 
temperatures close to 25 °C (Yaouba et al. 2021) . Therefore, it is uncertain if symptoms will 
take longer to be expressed in the  colder conditions (7 –13 °C) required for transit, this might 
increase the likelihood of entry.   
 
Given that:  
• it is associated with pineapple fruit;  
• it can be undetected in pineapple fruits if symptoms are yet to be produced.  
• it has the potential to remain viable on pineapple fruit during transit;  
but considering  that:  
161 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  • Association with pineapple fruit is indicated from a si ngle record in a country which 
is not one of the pineapple exporting markets in this IRA.  
• It is uncertain whether it is local to this country ( such as new strain of the fungus or a 
vector capable of moving it from the leave to the fruit ) or whether fruit rot is 
commonly caused by  the fungus but has not been diagnosed previously.   
 
MPI considers the likelihood of P. microspora  entering New Zealand associated with 
pineapple fruit is LOW , with HIGH uncertainty.  
 
5.3.3.3  Likelihood of exposure  
This assessment is made on the assumption that Pestalotiopsis microspora  has entered New 
Zealand undetected. Exposure is considered to be the transfer of a pest or disease from an 
imported commodity or inanimate object, to a host or environment suitable for the 
completion of development or production of offspring.  
 
Imported fresh pineapple fruit is intended for human consumption, therefore, when the fruit 
arrives in New Zealand it will be distributed throughout New Zealand for wholesale or retail 
sale. Fresh pineapple fruit generates substantial amounts of unavoidable waste; the thick rind 
is always removed and disposed of, and the fruit is also sometimes cored (see waste analysis 
Annex  2.3.1 ). The disposal of whole fruit (e.g. culled/unsold fruit, uneat en fruit remains) is 
not uncommon during wholesale, retail and by consumers. This suggests that P. microspora  
may have a higher likelihood of exposure when associated with fresh pineapple fruit than 
when it is associated with other kinds of fresh produce t hat are generally eaten whole. Given 
that Pestalotiopsis  spp. are typically transmitted by rain or water splashes (Hopkins 1996) ,  P. 
microspora  from pineapple waste can be easily exposed to uninfected hosts or soil.  
 
In New Zealand the most common method of disposal of organic waste is bagged into landfill 
(Askarany and Franklin -Smith 2014) ; this is unlikely to be a risk. However, there are other 
disposal methods that could increase the exposure likelihood of the fungus, such as feeding 
out to animals, hom e composting and direct disposal into the environment.  Fruit waste may 
be collected from unpacking areas (e.g., supermarket preparation rooms) and taken to rural 
areas where it is placed on the ground for eventual consumption by pigs or other farm 
animals (MPI 2014) . The waste materials may also be used in worm farming. Using the waste 
materials to feed animals may inadvertently expose P. microspora  to the soil and waterways 
before it eventually finds a suitable host. Pestalotiopsis microspora  has been repo rted to 
occur in the soil (Thiruvengadam et al. 2020; EBI 2022)  and water (Nor et al. 2018; ENA 
2022) .   
 
Commercial composting can suppress many plant pathogens because the internal temperature 
of the compost ranges between 45 -65°C  and NZS 4454 stipulates  it must be held at 55°C for 
at least three days for pasteurisation (Hoitink et al. 1997; WasteMINZ 2009; Mehta et al. 
2014)  While the reported upper lethal temperature  for P. microspora  is 56 °C for 20 minutes 
(Chen et al. 2016) , the fungus is unlikely to survive exposure to the mandatory 72 hours at 
55°C  required for pasteurisation of commerical  compost . However, the fungus is likely to 
thrive in home composts since their temperatures mostly range between 15°C and 30°C 
(Mensah 2017) . Pestal otiopsis  spp. may occur in the soil (Thiruvengadam et al. 2020)  or used 
growing media (McQuilken and Hopkins 2004)  and are known to withstand harsh 
environmental conditions such as cold weather and dryness (Maharachchikumbura et al. 
2011) . Given that some hosts of P. microspora  occur widely in New Zealand, the chances of  
162 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  encountering a host is relatively high. Home composting methods may likely increase the 
likelihood of exposure of the fungus to immediate hosts that are commonly found in New 
Zealand garden s and backyards (e.g., common ivy, lemon, red alder and monterey pine trees). 
In addition, environmental temperature is unlikely to limit the exposure of P. microspora  to 
its hosts because the fungus occurs in both tropical and temperate regions (Table 5.4). 
 
Uncertainty  
Information regarding food waste in New Zealand is based on general data and there is no 
specific information on pineapple waste. Therefore, it is assumed that the quantity of 
pineapple fruit skin which are not disposed in the landfill in New Zealand will be much lower 
than the volume disposed in the landfill.  
It is uncertain if the heat in commercial composts may be sufficient to render P. microspora  
spores non -viable. Since P. microspora  often invade their hosts through open wounds, it is 
not clear if it will survive for long time before finding an opening in a suitable host.  
 
Given that: 
• the fungus has a wide range of hosts available in New Zealand including some 
invasive plants,  
• the fungus can survive in the soil and water,  
• climate is unlikely to limit exposure of P. microspora , 
but considering:  
• the uncertainty surrounding its survival in commercial composts,the requirement for 
open wounds on host plants limits the opportunities of P. mi crospora  to invade 
uninfected hosts  
 
the likelihood of exposure of P. microspora  in New Zealand from pineapple fruit is 
MODERATE , with MODERATE uncertainty . 
 
5.3.3.4  Likelihood of establishment  
This assessment is made on the basis that Pestalotiopsis microspora  has been successfully 
exposed to a suitable host plant in the New Zealand environment.  
 
Pestalotiopis microspora  has a wide range of hosts (Farr and Rossman 2022) . Some of the 
known hosts occur in New Zealand as commercially cultivated crops (e.g. kiwifruit, 
blueberry and lemon) and/or forest timber trees (e.g. Monterey pine and red alder). 
Pestalotiopis microspora is often pathogenic on many of its hosts but its symptom expression 
may depe nd on the host species (Maharachchikumbura et al. 2011) . Alternatively, the fungus 
may occur as an endophyte in some species e.g. jackfruit (Riga et al. 2019)  where it is not 
known to cause any symptom.  Common ivy  is a known host of the fungus (Guba 1961;  Farr 
and Rossman 2022)  and this plant is an invasive plant which occurs widely in New Zealand 
(Froude 2002) . The unusually wide range of host plants strongly suggests that P. microspora  
will find new hosts in New Zealand. Availability of hosts and variabi lity of disease symptom 
expression will likely favour the establishment of P. microspora  because infected plant  
 parts may increase spread and propagule pressure.  
 
Pestalotiopis microspora  is distributed across a wide geographical range (Table 1). However, 
most of the countries where P. microspora  exist have either tropical or subtropical climates. 
Some parts of New Zealand’s North Island have a slightly warmer climate, which is typical 
of countries where P. microspora  occurs. Following the observation by Chen et al. (2016)   
163 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  that the optimum conditions for P. microspora  include a temperature range of 24 –26°C and a 
pH range of 6 –7, these conditions may frequently be achieved in many parts of t he North 
Island. Climatic similarity between New Zealand and other parts of the world can be assessed 
using the composite match index (Phillips 2018) . The CMI values range from 0.2 to 1. If a 
location has a CMI of ≥ 0.7, its climate is similar to the clima te of all of New  Zealand. While 
the ranges of CMI values in most of the countries where P. microspora  occurs are less than 
0.6, it also occurs in other countries like China (0.5 –0.9), Japan (0.6 –0.8), Uruguay (0.5 –0.8), 
USA (0.5 –0.8), and Spain (0.7 –0.9), which demonstrates its potential to establish a 
population in New Zealand. The isolation of P. microspora  from rhizosphere soil of the 
Antarctic hair grass ( Deschampsia antarctica ) in Antarctica (Gonçalves et al. 2015)  strongly 
suggests that the cold clima te in New Zealand is unlikely to be a limiting factor for its 
establishment.  
 
The existence of P. microspora  in the soil (Thiruvengadam et al. 2020) , fresh water (ENA 
2022)  or aquaculture biofloc water (Nor et al. 2018)  increases its likelihood of establi shment 
if exposed in the New Zealand environment. Consequently, the fungus can potentially spread 
to new areas through flowing water and movement of infected plants with the soil 
surrounding their roots. The detection of P. microspora  in pine seeds (Cleary et al. 2019)  
suggests that it could be spread through seed trade. Conidia of P. microspora  from the 
pycnidia of infected leaves are a common source of inoculum (Maharachchikumbura et al. 
2011)  and these may spread further to new areas when the infe cted plant parts are blown off 
their trees by strong winds.   
 
Uncertainty  
Evidence for the existence of P. microspora  in water mostly come from studies in the tropics 
(Indonesia and Malaysia). Additionally, the detection of P. microspora  in fresh water (ENA 
2022)  was based on a molecular evidence and it is not clear if it was viable. Therefore, it is 
uncertain whether the fungus can remain viable in water under the cold climate in New 
Zealand.  Although spores of Pestalotiopsis spp. can often survive harsh  
conditions (Maharachchikumbura et al. 2011)  like intense cold and dryness, it is not clear if 
they can survive in cold water for a long time.  
 
Given that: 
• hosts are widely available for the establishment of P. microspora , 
• climate is unlikely to limit the establishment of P. microspora , 
• the fungus can occur in water and soil  
but considering:  
• the uncertainty of the fungus’ viability and possible growth after long exposures in  
water,  
 
the likelihood of  Pestalotiopis microspora  establishing in New Zealand is HIGH , with 
MODERATE uncertainty.  
 
5.3.3.5  Impacts in New Zealand  
This assessment is made on the assumption that P. microspora  has successfully established in 
the New Zealand environment .   
 
Economic impacts   
164 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Pestalotiopsis microspora occurs in a wide variety of hosts (Farr and Rossman 2022)  as 
either a pathogenic fungus or non -pathogenic endophyte (Strobel 2002; Maharachchikumbura 
et al. 2011) . Some of its known hosts which are important for New Zealand’s economy 
include pines, kiwifruits, grapes, blueberries and avocados but it is not patho genic on all 
these hosts.  
 
The negative impact of P. microspora  depends on the host species.  The fungus is known to 
cause post -harvest rot in kiwifruit (Li et al. 2016)  and represents up to 11% of the causative 
agents of the rot in China (Li et al. 2017) . Liu et al. (2020)  indicated that the incidence of 
post-harvest rot in kiwifruit could be up to 20% and this means that in worst case scenario, P. 
microspora  alone can account for 2% of the disease in China.  
 
Similarly, P. microspora is a known causative  agent of anthracnose disease on avocado 
where it accounts for up to 43% of fungal isolates associated with the disease in Kenya 
(Kimaru et al. 2018) . In Kenya, anthracnose disease causes up to 60% loss in avocado fruit 
production (Wasilwa et al. 2004)  and this means 26% of this loss could be attributed to  P. 
microspora  infection.  
 
The fungus is also associated with blueberry leaf lesions in Hawaii (Keith et al. 2006) . 
Although Yi-Lan et al. (2021)  argued that blueberry leaf spot caused by P. microspora  can 
affect the quality and quantity of fruits, they provided no data to support their assertion. The 
fungus has also been isolated from healthy blueberry twigs and a pathogenicity test revealed 
that it is not pathogenic on the shoots (Sessa et al. 2018) .  
 
In 2021, the cumulative value of kiwifruit, avocado and blueberry produced in New Zealand 
was NZ $2.9 billion. The export value of kiwifruit alone is about NZD 2.7 billion which 
accounts for about 40% of New Zealand’s horticultural revenue. Based on the avai lable 
impact data on only kiwifruit (2%) and avocado (26%), an inhouse model predicted a 
moderate economic impact over 20 years as the worst case scenario.  
• This is based on the estimated combined annual impact on  kiwifruit and avocado 
which amounts to NZD 83 million.  
• The fungus is assumed to take 2 years to achieve its greatest impact because even 
when it spread s, it requires wound openings to infect its hosts . 
• The time taken to full recovery was assumed to be 2 years because Pestalotiopsis  spp. 
are suscept ible to fungicides (Hopkins 1996; El -Argawy 2016)  and they can be 
controlled by managing water regime (Elliott 2006) . 
 
However, it is highly unlikely that P. microspora  can have a significant impact on kiwifruit 
as postharvest fruit -rot pathogen because Li  et al. (2017) showed that naturally infected fruits 
require temperatures in range of 15 –20 °C for two weeks in order for symptoms to be 
expressed – this is enough time and condition for the fruits to naturally deteriorate. 
Furthermore, successful inoculat ion of P. microspora  was only achieved in wounded 
kiwifruits (Li et al. 2017) which suggests that potential to affect healthy and well packed 
kiwifruit may likely be negligible. Similarly, the avocado damage caused by P. microspora  in 
Kenya is not likely t o occur in a similar magnitude in New Zealand because of the 
environmental differences between Kenya and New Zealand.  
 
Although grapes ( Vitis spp)  and pines ( Pinus radiata ) are significant for New Zealand’s 
economy, no evidence was found to indicate that  they can be negatively affected by P. 
microspora . The fungus was isolated from healthy fruits of grape (Ma et al. 2009) . It was also  
165 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  recorded as an endophyte of pine (Nattrass 1961; Cleary et al. 2019)  and tea (Wei et al. 2005; 
Wei et al. 2007) . The occurrence of P. microspora  in both heathy and yellow leaves of lemon 
at a low rate (<1% of all fungal isolates)  (Douanla -Meli et al. 2013) , suggests that it may not 
be pathogenic on the plant.  
 
Uncertainty  
Potential for  P. microspora  to harm other  crops important to New Zealand’s economy, such 
as avocado, may be linked with physiological and environmental factors. It is possible that 
climate change may increase the impacts of this fungus in some sectors. Lee et al. (1995)  
demonstrated that P. micro spora  may not cause disease as an endophyte in Torreya taxifolia  
but may become pathogenic when there is a significant physiological or environmental 
change. The biological and genetic diversity of the fungus (Strobel 2002)  may be another 
source of uncertainty as It is unclear form the available information whether the  strains of P. 
microspora  associated with pineapple fruit will be pathogenic on hosts of economic 
importance to New Zealand or whether pathogenicity is host specific . Furthermore, the 
evidence that infected fruits would develop symptoms under appropriate f ruit storage 
conditions is lacking – this implies that fruit rot caused by P. microspora  may be largely 
linked with natural fruit senescence.   
 
Given that:  
• some known hosts of P. microspora  are considered as economic  plants in New 
Zealand , and  
• the fungus is known to cause significant economic damage to hosts such as avocado 
in the tropics.  
but considering:  
• the lack of evidence for disease expression under suitable fruit storage conditions,  
• diversity of P. microspora strains may determine severity of impact  
 
the economic impact of  Pestalotiopsis microspora in New Zealand is  considered to be LOW , 
with HIGH uncertainty.   
 
Environmental impacts  
The known hosts of Pestalotiopsis microspora are mostly tropical, subtropical and temperate 
plants. No native New Zealand plants have been identified as hosts of P. microspora . 
However, it has the potential to expand its host range to include some native plant  species  
because it has hosts in the same  gener a, for example Fuchsia  and Podocarpus . Among the 
known podocarp -hosts of P. microspora , Podocarpus  is the only known genus which has 
native species occuring in New Zealand and the fungus is not known to cause any disease on 
Podocarpus  spp.  Pestaloti opsis  spp. can be managed with fungicides (Hopkins 1996)  but 
soil invertebrates may be inadvertently affected in the process (Carniel et al. 2019) . 
 
Uncertainty  
Uncertainty associated with the potential of P. microspora to cause environmental impacts 
includes the lack of information about its association with native plant species. There is no 
certainty that P. microspora will find suitable hosts among native plant species or cause any 
significant harm on such species even  though some of its hosts’ genera are present in New 
Zealand.  
Given that: 
• some of the fungus’  host genera are present in New Zealand , and   
166 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  • endemic invertebrates  can be inadvertently killed when fungus is managed with 
fungicides  
 
the environmental  impact of  P. microspora  in New Zealand is considered to  be VERY LOW, 
with HIGH uncertainty.  
 
Human health impacts  
There is no evidence  to link P. microspora to any human health impact. However, 
unidentified species in the genus Pestalotiopsis  have been isolated from eyes of patients with 
corneal abrasions (Sutton 1999) . Unidentified Pestalotiopsis  spp. have also been isolated 
from human sinuses, scalp, feet and fingernails (Sutton 1999) . It is not clear if any of those 
Pestalotiopsis  spp. are P. microspora  or if they actually cause any human disease.  
 
Given that there is no evidence of P. microspora causing any human disease, the human 
health  impact of  P. microspora in New Zealand is considered to  be NEGLIGIBLE, with 
HIGH uncertainty.  
 
Sociocu ltural impacts  
Pestalotiopsi s microspora affects a wide variety of plant species which include tea ( Camellia 
sinensis ) and Podocarpus macrophyllus  (Farr and Rossman 2022). Camellia  species are 
common in many public and private gardens in New Zealand hence there is a possibility that 
P. microspora  may infect some of them if it establishes. This may potentially have a slight 
sociocultural impact on many people who are used to having Camellia  plants around their 
homes and outdoor amenity spaces. Pestalotiopsis  microspora  has been isolated as an 
endophyte in Podocarpus  macrophyllus  in China. Nevertheless,  P. microspora  is unlikely to 
affect Podocarpus totara  which is considered taonga by Māori because the fungus is not 
known to cause any disease Podocarpus hosts . No evidence was found to indicate that the 
fungus can have any sociocultural impact in New Zealand.  
 
Given that there is no evidence  that P. microspora  may have a sociocultural impact, the 
sociocultural impact of P. microspora in New Zealan d is considered to  be VERY LOW with 
HIGH uncertainty.  
 
5.3.3.6  Overall impact to New Zealand  
MPI considers the overall impact of Pestalotiopsis microspora  on the New Zealand economy, 
environment, health and the society is LOW with HIGH uncertainty.  
 
5.3.3.7  Overall risk to New Zealand  
Based on the assessments of lik elihood and consequences above, that:  
 
• the lik elihood of entry is  LOW with HIGH uncertainty,  
• assumin g entry, the likelihood of exposure is MODERATE with MODERATE 
uncertainty,  
• assuming successful exposure, the likelihood of establishment is HIGH with 
MODERATE uncertainty,  
• the overall impact on the New Zealand economy, environment, human health, and 
societ y is considered to be is LOW with HIGH uncertainty  
  
167 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  MPI considers the overall level of assessed risk to New Zealand from  Pestalotiopsis 
microspora  on pineapple fruit  is LOW  with HIGH  uncertainty . 
 
 Specific considerations  
On which pineapple variety (or vari eties) and at what stage of rip eness has 
Pestalotiopsis microspora  association with pineapple fruit been observed?  
The fungus is known to infect the ‘smooth cayenne’ variety of pineapple fruit (Yaouba et al. 
2021) . It is also known to infect pineapple leaves (Guba 1961; Rao and Mhaskar 1973)  but 
those varieties were not specified and it is not clear if their fruits can  also be infected.  
 
Which part(s) of the pineapple fruit is Pestalotiopsis microspora  associated with (e.g. 
fruit, bract, stem or crown remnant) and is it detectable by visual detection?  
The fungus causes obvious dark -coloured necrotic lesions which contin ually expand around 
the bracts from the sites of infection on the fruit (Yaouba et al. 2021) . Given that symptoms 
may take up to eight days to be expressed (Yaouba et al. 2021) , infected fruits be not be 
detected if they reach New Zealand within a week fro m harvest.  
 
Are different lifestages of Pestalotiopsis microspora  associated with different parts of the 
pineapple fruit?  
No information was found to indicate whether any specific life stage of the fungus is 
associated or not associated with pineapple frui t. 
 
Under what environmental conditions (temperature, season e tc) are Pestalotiopsis 
microspora  symptoms expressed on pineapple fruit?  
Cultures of the fungus and infections on pineapple fruits developed well at 25°C (Yaouba et 
al. 2021) . The fungus is also  known to thrive under high humidity at room temperature (Rao 
and Mhaskar 1973) . Chen et al. (2016)  also observed that the optimum conditions for P. 
microspora  include a temperature range of 24 –26°C and a pH range of 6 –7.  
 
Does Pestalotiopsis microspora  exhibits latent/asymptomatic traits?  
No evidence was found to indicate that the fungus exhibits latent or asymptomatic traits in 
pineapples. However, Yaouba et al. (2021)  observed that infection only occurs in wounded 
fruits and i t might take up  to eight days for the pathogen to express symptoms.  
 
 References  
Askarany, D; Franklin -Smith, A W (2014) Cost benefit analyses of organic waste composting 
systems through the lens of time driven activity -based costing. Journal of applied 
management accounting research 12(2): 59 –73. 
 
Batista, A C; Peres, G E B; Poroca, D  J M; Bezerra, J L (1966) Pestalotiopsis  Steyaert: 
espécies novas e antigas. . Atas do Instituto de Micologia da Universidade do Recife 3: 92 -
110. 
 
Berbegal, M; Pérez -Sierra, A; Armengol, J; García -Jiménez, J (2010) Circular leaf Spot 
caused by Mycosphaere lla nawae Hiura & Ikata: a new disease of persimmon in Spain. 
Boletín de Sanidad Vegetal, Plagas 36(2): 213 -223. 
  
168 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  BiotaNZ (2022) Biota of New Zealand. https://biotaNZ.landcareresearch.co.nz  Accessed 
30/04/2022  
 
BMS (2022) British Mycological Society, Fungal Records Database of Britain and Ireland. 
Occurrence dataset https://www.gbif.org/occurrence/3438818109 . Accessed July 2022  
 
Carniel, L S C; Niemeyer, J C; de Oliveira Filho, L C I; Alexandre, D; Gebler, L; Klauberg -
Filho, O (2019) The fungicide mancozeb affects soil invertebrates in two subtropical 
Brazilian soils. Chemosphere 232: 180 -185. 
 
Chaves, A; Grandezz, D; Medina, A; Correa, J; Castel lanos, A I; Ramirez, H; Vargas, A F; 
Caicedo Ortega, N H (2022) Evaluation of lignocellulolytic enzymatic activities of 
endophytic fungi, isolated from Otoba gracilipes using a systematic multilevel screening test. 
In University of Icesi (Ed.). Colombia: S SRN.  
 
Chen, N; Lin, H; Chen, Y; Lin, Y; Wang, H (2016) Biological characteristics of 
Pestalotiopsis microspora . Storage and Process 16(3): 5 -10. 
 
Chen, T; Lu, J; Kang, B; Lin, M; Ding, L; Zhang, L; Chen, G; Chen, S; Lin, H (2018) 
Antifungal activity and ac tion mechanism of ginger oleoresin against Pestalotiopsis 
microspora isolated from Chinese olive fruits. Frontiers in Microbiology 9: 2583.  
 
Cleary, M; Oskay, F; Doğmuş, H T; Lehtijärvi, A; Woodward, S; Vettraino, A M (2019) 
Cryptic risks to forest biosecu rity associated with the global movement of commercial seed. 
Forests 10(5): 459.  
 
Dhakshinamoorthy, M; Packiam, K K (2021) Camptothecin: An anticancer drug from 
Pestalotiopsis microspora Mh458929 –An endophytic fungus isolated from an 
ethnopharmacologically  important medicinal plant Cordia dichotoma  G. forst. 
Pharmacognosy Magazine 17(5): 87.  
 
Dianda, Z; Wonni, I; Zombré, C; Traoré, O; Sérémé, D; Boro, F; Ouédraogo, I; Ouédraogo, 
S; Sankara, P (2018) Prevalence of mango tree decline and evaluation of fungi f requently 
associated disease in Burkina Faso. Journal of Applied Biosciences 126: 12686 -12699.  
 
Douanla -Meli, C; Langer, E; Mouafo, F T (2013) Fungal endophyte diversity and community 
patterns in healthy and yellowing leaves of Citrus limon . Fungal Ecology 6(3): 212 -222. 
 
EBI (2022) European Bioinformatics Institute, INSDC Host Organism Sequences. Ve rsion 
1.8. European Nucleotide Archive (EMBL -EBI). Occurrence dataset 
https://doi.org/10.15468/e97kmy . Accessed July 2022  
 
El-Argawy, E (2016) Characterization and control of Pestalotiopsis  spp. the causal fu ngus of 
guava scabby canker in el -beheira governorate, Egypt. International Journal of 
Phytopathology 4(3): 121 -136. 
 
Elliott, M L (2006) Pestalotiopsis (Pestalotia ) Diseases of Palm: PP -217/PP141, 1/2006. In 
University of Florida IFAS Extention.  (Vol. 200 6). Florida: University of Florida.  
  
169 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  ENA (2022) European Nucleotide Archive, Sequence: LC412112.1 ( Pestalotiopsis 
microspora ). https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/view/LC412112  Accessed July 202 2 
 
EPPO (2022) EPPO Reporting Service. https://gd.eppo.int/reporting/   
 
Farr, D; Rossman, A (2022) Fungal databases, US national fungus collections, ARS, USDA. 
8. 
 
Froude, V (2002) Biological control options f or invasive weeds of New Zealand protected 
areas (0478222661). Department of Conservation Wellington,  
 
Gall, L (2022) Occurrence dataset, Botany Division, Yale University Peabody Museum.  
https://doi.org/10. 15468/hrztgn . Accessed via https://www.gbif.org/occurrence/1038973013  . 
Accessed July 2022  
 
Gonçalves, V N; Carvalho, C R; Johann, S; Mendes, G; Alves, T; Zani, C L; Junior, P A; 
Murta, S M; Romanh a, A J; Cantrell, C L (2015) Antibacterial, antifungal and antiprotozoal 
activities of fungal communities present in different substrates from Antarctica. Polar 
Biology 38(8): 1143 -1152.  
 
Guan, B; Xu, C; Zhang, H; Yang, H; Zhao, G (2013) Identification of pathogen for leaf spot 
disease of Photinia fraseri  and pathogenicity test. Journal of West China Forestry Science 
42(2): 56 -61. 
 
Guba, E F (1961) Monograph of Monochaetia and Pestalotia . Harvard University Press; 
Massachusetts.  
 
Hoitink, H; Stone, A; Han, D (1997) Suppression of plant diseases by composts. HortScience 
32(2): 184 -187. 
 
Hopkins, K; McQuilken, M (2000) Characteristics of Pestalotiopsis  associated with hardy 
ornamental plants in the UK. European Journal of Plant Patho logy 106(1): 77 -85. 
 
Hopkins, K E (1996) Aspects of the biology and control of Pestalotiopsis on hardy 
ornamental nursery stock.  thesis; University of Glasgow, Glasgow. Retrieved from 
https://theses.gla.ac.uk/74919/1/11007839.pdf   
 
iBOL (2022) International Barcode of Life project (iBOL). Occurrence dataset 
https://doi.org/10.1546 8/inygc6  https://www.gbif.org/occurrence  Accessed July 2022  
 
ICMP (2022). Available from Manaaki Whenua Landcare Research International Collection 
of Microorganisms from Plants.  
 
Index Fungorum (2022) Index F ungorum. http://www.indexfungorum.org/names/Names.asp   
 
Jeewon, R; Liew, E C; Hyde, K D (2002) Phylogenetic relationships of Pestalotiopsis  and 
allied genera inferred from ribosomal DNA sequences  and morphological characters. 
Molecular phylogenetics and evolution 25(3): 378 -392. 
  
170 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Keith, L M; Velasquez, M E; Zee, F T (2006) Identification and characterization of 
Pestalotiopsis  spp. causing scab disease of guava, Psidium guajava , in Hawaii. Plant Di sease 
90(1): 16 -23. 
 
Kimaru, S; Monda, E; Cheruiyot, R; Mbaka, J; Alakonya, A (2018) Morphological and 
molecular identification of the causal agent of anthracnose disease of avocado in Kenya. 
International Journal of Microbiology 2018.  
 
Lee, J C; Yang, X; Schwartz, M; Strobel, G; Clardy, J (1995) The relationship between an 
endangered North American tree and an endophytic fungus. Chemistry & biology 2(11): 721 -
727. 
 
Li, H; Zhou, G; Zhang, H; Song, G; Liu, J (2011) Study on isolated pathogen of leaf blight 
and screening antagonistic bacteria from healthy leaves of Camellia oleifera . African Journal 
of Agricultural Research 6(19): 4560 -4566.  
 
Li, J-y; Strobel, G; Sidhu, R; Hess, W; Ford, E J (1996) Endophytic taxol -producing fungi 
from bald cypress , Taxodium d istichum . Microbiology 142(8): 2223 -2226.  
 
Li, L; Pan, H; Chen, M; Zhang, S; Zhong, C (2017) Isolation and identification of pathogenic 
fungi causing postharvest fruit rot of kiwifruit ( Actinidia chinensis ) in China. Journal of 
Phytopathology 165(11 -12): 7 82-790. 
 
Li, L; Pan, H; Chen, M; Zhong, C (2016) First report of Pestalotiopsis microspora causing 
postharvest rot of kiwifruit in Hubei province, China. Plant Disease 100(10): 2161.  
 
LIMS (2022) Laboratory Information Management System. Ministry for Prima ry Industries 
Internal Database. Accessed 11 April 2022  
 
Liu, H; Pang, L; Lu, X; Wang, R C; Zhou, Q (2020) First report of Phomopsis longicolla 
associated with postharvest fruit rot of Kiwifruit in China. Plant Disease 104(2): 579.  
 
Lu, H; Wang, C; Zheng, X; Zhang, Y (2016) First report of loquat root rot disease caused by 
Pestalotiopsis microspora  in China. Plant Disease 100(5): 1008 -1008.  
 
Ma, T -f; Yang, B; Yu, Y; Wang, Y -w; Yi, L; Zhen, X; Yan, L; ZHU, P -k; ZHANG, W; 
ZHANG, Z -b; Toyoda, H; Xu, L (2009) Market disease pathogens detection of imported 
fruits in Shanghai. Agricultural Sciences in China 8(9): 1087 -1096.  
 
Maharachchikumbura, S S;  Guo, L -D; Chukeatirote, E; Bahkali, A H; Hyde, K D (2011) 
Pestalotiopsis —morphology, phylogeny, biochemistry and diversity. Fungal diversity 50(1): 
167-187. 
 
McQuilken, M P; Hopkins, K (2004) Biology and integrated control of  Pestalotiopsis  on 
container‐g rown ericaceous crops. Pest Management Science: formerly Pesticide Science 
60(2): 135 -142. 
 
Mehta, C M; Palni, U; Franke -Whittle, I; Sharma, A (2014) Compost: its role, mechanism 
and impact on reducing soil -borne plant diseases. Waste management 34(3): 607 -622. 
  
171 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Mensah, S (2017) Development and trial of a methodology for the quantification and 
evaluation of home composting in Palmerston North, New Zealand: a thesis submitted in 
partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Environmental  Management 
(without major) at Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand. thesis; Massey 
University,  
 
Metz, A M; Haddad, A; Worapong, J; Long, D M; Ford, E J; Hess, W; Strobel, G A (2000) 
Induction of the sexual stage of Pestalotiopsis microspora , a taxol -producing fungusThe 
GenBank accession numbers for the sequences determined in this work are: Pestalotiopsis 
microspora  NE-32 18S rDNA, AF104356; Pestalosphaeria hansenii ATCC 48245 18S 
rDNA, AF242846. Microbiology 146(8): 2079 -2089.  
 
MPI (2014) Generic Pest Risk Assessment: Armoured scale insects (Hemiptera: Coccoidea: 
Diaspididae) on the fresh produce pathway. In Plants and Pathways Team; Biosecurity 
Science and Risk Assessment Group (Eds.), (Vol. 1). Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry for  
Primary Industries.  
 
Mycobank (2022) Mycobank. 
Mycobank https://www.mycobank.org/page/Simple%20names%20search   
 
Nattrass, R M (1961) Host lists of Kenya fungi and bacteria. Mycological P apers 81: 1 -46. 
 
Ngobisa, A; Owona, N; Doungous, O; Godswill, N; Njonje, S; Ehabe, E (2018) 
Characterization of Pestalotiopsis microspora , the causal agent of rubber leaf blight disease 
in Cameroon. Rubber Science 31(2): 112 -120. 
 
Nor, A K; Nurarina, A G; Nurul, F; Iswadi, J; Ahmad, J; Mhd, I (2018) 18s rDNA sequence 
analysis of microfungi from biofloc -based system in Pacific Whiteleg shrimp, Litopenaeus 
vannamei  culture. Biotechnology 17(3): 135 -141. 
 
NZOR (2022) The New Zealand Organisms Register. http://nzor.org.nz  Accessed 19 
February 2022  
 
ONZPR (2022) Official New Zealand Pest Register. MPI Public Database. 
https://pierpestregister.mpi .govt.nz/PestsRegister/ImportCommodity/  Accessed 09 February 
2022  
 
Osono, T; Takeda, H (1999) Decomposing ability of interior and surface fungal colonizers of 
beech leaves with reference to lignin decomposition. European Journal of Soil Biology 35(2): 
51-56. 
 
Phillips, C B K, J M; Vink, C; Berry, J (2018) Utility of the CLIMAX match climates 
regional algorithm for pest risk analysis: An evaluation with non -native ants in New Zealand. 
Biological Invasions. 20: 777 -791. 
 
PPIN (2022) Plant Pest Information Network , Version 5.03.01. Ministry for Primary 
Industries Internal Database. Accessed 9 February 2022  
 
QuanCargo (2021) Ministry for Primary Industries internal database. Accessed 1 July 2021  
  
172 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Rao, V G; Mhaskar, D N (1973) Studies on a leaf blotch disease of pine apple. Rivista di 
Patologia Vegetale 9(2): 129 –137. 
 
Ren, H -Y; Li, G; Qi, X -J; Fang, L; Wang, H -R; Wei, J -G; Zhong, S (2013) Identification and 
characterization of Pestalotiopsis  spp. causing twig blight disease of bayberry ( Myrica rubra 
Sieb. & Zucc) in C hina. European Journal of Plant Pathology 137(3): 451 -461. 
 
Riga, R; Happyana, N; Hakim, E H (2019) Chemical constituents of Pestalotiopsis 
microspora HF 12440. Journal of Applied Pharmaceutical Science 9(1): 108 -124. 
 
Sessa, L; Abreo, E; Lupo, S (2018) Di versity of fungal latent pathogens and true endophytes 
associated with fruit trees in Uruguay. Journal of Phytopathology 166(9): 633 -647. 
 
Steyaert, R L (1949) Contribution à l'étude monographique de Pestalotia de Not. et 
Monochaetia Sacc.(Truncatella gen.  nov. et Pestalotiopsis gen. nov.). Bulletin du Jardin 
botanique de l'Etat, Bruxelles/Bulletin van den Rijksplantentuin, Brussel 19: 285 -347. 
 
Strobel, G; Ford, E; Worapong, J; Harper, J K; Arif, A M; Grant, D M; Fung, P C; Chau, R 
M W (2002) Isopestacin, an isobenzofuranone from Pestalotiopsis microspora , possessing 
antifungal and antioxidant activities. Phytochemistry 60(2): 179 -183. 
 
Strobel, G; Yang, X; Sears, J; Kramer, R; Sidhu, R S; Hess, W (1996) Taxol from 
Pestalotiopsis microspora , an endophytic f ungus of Taxus wallachiana . Microbiology 
142(2): 435 -440. 
 
Strobel, G A (2002) Rainforest endophytes and bioactive products. Critical reviews in 
biotechnology 22(4): 315 -333. 
 
Sutton, D A (1999) Coelomycetous fungi in human disease. A review: clinical enti ties, 
pathogenesis, identification and therapy. Revista Iberoamericana de Micología 16(4): 171 -
179. 
 
Suwandi, S; Akino, S; Kondo, N (2012) Common spear rot of oil palm in Indonesia. Plant 
Disease 96(4): 537 -543. 
 
Tejesvi, M V; Kini, K R; Prakash, H S; Subb iah, V; Shetty, H S (2007) Genetic diversity and 
antifungal activity of species of  Pestalotiopsis  isolated as endophytes from medicinal plants. 
Fungal Divers 24(3): 1 -18. 
 
Telenius, A (2016) Fungi, GBIF -Sweden. Occurrence dataset 
https://doi.org/10.15468/qfmb77  https://www.gbif.org/occurrence  Accessed July 2022  
 
Thiruvengadam, S; Ramki, R; Rohini, S; Vanitha, R; Romauld, I (2020) Isolation, Screening 
and Evaluation of Multifunctional Strains of High Efficient Phosphate Solubilizing Microbes 
from Rhizosphere Soil. Research Journal of Pharmacy and Technology (4): 1825 -1828.  
 
Tibpromma, S; Hyde, K D; Bhat, J D; Mortimer, P E; Xu, J; Promputtha, I; Doilom, M; 
Yang, J -B; Tang, A M; Karunarathna, S C (2018) Identification of endophytic fungi from 
leaves of Pandanaceae based on their morphotypes and DNA sequence data fr om southern 
Thailand. MycoKeys (33): 25.   
173 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand   
Verkleij, G (2020) Fungal Biodiversity Centre (CBS) - Fungi strains. Westerdijk Fungal 
Biodiversity Institute. Occurrence dataset https://doi.org/10.15468/giuq7w . 
https://www.gbif.org/occurrence  Accessed July 2022  
 
Villavicencio, M; Espinosa, F; del Castillo, D (2020) Foliar endophytic fungi of Theobroma 
cacao  stimulate more than inhibit Moniliophthora  spp. growth and beh ave more as an 
endophytes than pathogens. agriRxiv . 
 
Wasilwa, L A; Njuguna, J K; Okoko, E N; Watani, G W (2004) Status of avocado production 
in Kenya .  
 
Wei, J -G; Xu, T; Guo, L -D; Liu, A -R; Zhang, Y; Pan, X -H (2007) Endophytic Pestalotiopsis 
species associ ated with plants of Podocarpaceae, Theaceae and Taxaceae in southern China. 
Fungal Divers 24(1): 55 -74. 
 
Wei, J -G; Xu, T; Guo, L; Pan, X (2005) Endophytic Pestalotiopsis species from southern 
China. Mycosystema 24(4): 481 -493. 
 
Wilton, A (2022) Internation al Collection of Microorganisms from Plants (ICMP). Landcare 
Research. Occurrence dataset https://doi.org/10.15468/ueihnf . 
https://www.gbif.org/occur rence/1315973525  Accessed July 2022  
 
Xiao, Z; Li, X; Duan, S; Sun, T; Jiang, X (2010) The identification on pathogen of 
barbadosnut leaf blight. Mycosystema 29(6): 874 -878. 
 
Yaouba, A; Metsoa, E B; Nseme, M Y D; Nyaka, N A I C (2021) Antifungal effect of p lants 
extracts against Pestalotiopsis microspora  responsible for post -harvest rot disease of 
pineapple ( Ananas comosus  (L.) Merr) fruit in Cameroon. African Journal of Agricultural 
Research 17(6): 916 -922. 
 
Yi-Lan, J; Shi -Long, J; Xuan -Li, J (2021) Disease -resistant identification and analysis to 
transcriptome differences of blueberry leaf spot induced by beta -aminobutyric acid. Archives 
of Microbiology 203(6): 3623 -3632.  
  
174 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  
 Appendix to risk a ssessment of Pestalotiopsis microspora  
Known hosts of Pestalotiopsis microspora . 
Family  Host species  Country recorded from  Database or reference  
Actinidiaceae  Actinidia chinensis  China  (Farr and Rossman 2022 )  
Actinidia sp. China  (Farr and Rossman 2022 ) 
Anacardiaceae  Mangifera indica  Burkina Faso  (Dianda et al. 2018)   
Spondias dulcis  Malaysia  (EBI 2022)  
Apocynaceae  Adenium obesum  Brazil  (Farr and Rossman 2022 ) 
Araceae  Anthurium andraenum  Thailand  (EBI 2022)  
Araliaceae  Aralia nudicaulis  Canada  (EBI 2022)   
Hedera helix  Argentina, Italy  (Farr and Rossman 2022 ) 
Araucariaceae  Araucaria bidwillii  China  (Farr and Rossman 2022 )  
Araucaria sp. Bermuda  (Farr and Rossman 2022 )  
Araucaria sp. Myanmar  (Farr and Rossman 2022 ) 
Asparagaceae  Reineckea carnea  China  (Farr and Rossman 2022 ) 
Berberidaceae  Mahonia bealei (Syn Berberis bealei ) China  (Farr and Rossman 2022 )  
Mahonia confusa  China  (Farr and Rossman 2022 )  
Nandina domestica  China  (Farr and Rossman 2022 ) 
Betulaceae  Alnus rubra  USA (oregon),  (Farr and Rossman 2022 )  
Corylus chinensis  China  (Farr and Rossman 2022 ) 
Bromeliaceae  Ananas comosus  Bermuda, India  (Farr and Rossman 2022 ) 
Boraginaceae  Cordia dichotoma  India  (Dhakshinamoorthy and 
Packiam 2021)  
Burseraceae  Canarium album  China  (Chen et al. 2018)  
Combretaceae  Terminalia arjuna  India  (Farr and Rossman 2022 ) 
 Terminalia morobensis  Papua New Guinea  (Strobel et al. 2002)   
Terminalia chebula  India  (Farr and Rossman 2022 ) 
Cupressaceae  Biota orientalis  (syn Platycladus 
orientalis ) China  (Farr and Rossman 2022 ) 
 
Cunninghamia lanceolata  China  (Farr and Rossman 2022 )  
Cupressus funebris  China  (Farr and Rossman 2022 )  
Juniperus bermudiana  Bermuda  (Farr and Rossman 2022 ) 
Cupressaceae  Sabina chinensis  (syn Juniperus 
chinensis ) China  (Farr and Rossman 2022 ) 
 
Taxodium ascendens  China  (Farr and Rossman 2022 )  
Taxodium distinchum  India  (Farr and Rossman 2022 ) 
Dipterocarpaceae  Shorea macrophylla  Malaysia  (EBI 2022)  
Ebenaceae  Diospyros kaki  Spain  (Berbegal et al. 2010)  2010  
Ericaceae  Vaccinium corymbosum  Uruguay  (Farr and Rossman 2022 ) 
Euphorbiaceae  Hevea brasiliensis  Cameroon  (Wilton 2022)   
Jatropha curcas  China  (Xiao et al. 2010)  
Fabaceae  Acacia mangium  Malaysia  (EBI 2022)   
Copaifera sp. Brazil  (Farr and Rossman 2022 )  
Hymenaea sp. Brazil  (Farr and Rossman 2022 ) 
Fagaceae  Lithocarpus glaber  China  (Farr and Rossman 2022 )  
175 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Family  Host species  Country recorded from  Database or reference   
Quercus acutissima  China  (Farr and Rossman 2022 )  
Quercus coccinea  USA (New Jersey)  (Farr and Rossman 2022 ) 
Graminae  Oryza australiensis  Australia  (Farr and Rossman 2022 )  
Sorghum  sp.  Nepal  (Farr and Rossman 2022 ) 
Hypericaceae  Hypericum androsaemum  China  (Farr and Rossman 2022 )  
Hypericum patulum  Japan  (Farr and Rossman 2022 ) 
Juglandaceae  Carya cathayensis  China  (Farr and Rossman 2022 )  
Carya illinoensis (Syn Carya pecan ) Brazil, China  (Farr and Rossman 2022 ) 
Lauraceae  Cinamomum verum  Sri Lanka  (EBI 2022)   
Lindera obtusiloba  Korea  (Farr and Rossman 2022 )  
Machilus nanmu  China  (Farr and Rossman 2022 ) 
Lauraceae  Persea americana  Kenya  (Kimaru et al. 2018)  
Lythraceae  Lagerstroemia speciosa  China  (Farr and Rossman 2022 )  
Sonneratia sp. Indonesia  (EBI 2022)  
Malvaceae  Theobroma cacao  Ecuador  (Villavicencio et al. 2020)  
Meliaceae  Azadirachta indica  India  (Farr and Rossman 2022 ) 
Musaceae  Musa sp. Bangladesh  (Farr and Rossman 2022 ) 
Myricaceae  Myrica rubra  China  (Farr and Rossman 2022 ) 
Myristicaceae  Otoba gracilis  Colombia  (Chaves et al. 2022)  
Myrtaceae  Campomanesia sp. Brazil  (Farr and Rossman 2022 )  
Psidium guajava  USA (Hawaii)  (Farr and Rossman 2022 ) 
Onagraceae  Fuchsia hybrid cultivar  ECUADOR  (EBI 2022)  
Orchidaceae  Stanhopea bucephalus  Mexico  (Farr and Rossman 2022 )  
Vanilla planifolia  Reunion  (EBI 2022)  
Palmae (syn 
Arecaceae)  Archontophoenix alexandrae  China, Singapore  (Farr and Rossman 2022 ) 
 
Elaeis guineensis  China, Indonesia  (Farr and Rossman 2022 ) 
Pandanaceae  Pandanus sp.  Thailand  (Tibpromma et al. 2018)  
Phyllanthaceae  Bridelia monoica  China  (Farr and Rossman 2022 )  
Bridelia stipularis  China  (Farr and Rossman 2022 ) 
Pinaceae  Abies beshanzuensis  China  (Farr and Rossman 2022 )  
Pinus radiata  Kenya  (Farr and Rossman 2022 ) 
Platanaceae  Platanus orientalis  China  (Farr and Rossman 2022 ) 
Podocarpaceae  Podocarpus macrophyllus  China  (Farr and Rossman 2022 ) 
Primulaceae  Aegiceras corniculatum  Hong Kong  (Farr and Rossman 2022 )  
Amomum tsao -ko (syn Lanxangia 
tsao-ko) China  (Farr and Rossman 2022 ) 
 
Ardisia sp. China  (Farr and Rossman 2022 ) 
Rosaceae  Eriobotrya japonica (Syn 
Rhaphiolepis bibas ) China  (Farr and Rossman 2022 ) 
 
Fragaria virginiana  Canada  (EBI 2022)   
Malus halliana  China  (Farr and Rossman 2022 ) 
 Photinia x Fraseri  China  Guan  (Guan et al. 2013)  
Rubiaceae  Faramea capillipes  Ecuador  (EBI 2022)   
Ixora chinensis  Malaysia  (EBI 2022)   
176 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Family  Host species  Country recorded from  Database or reference  
Rutaceae  Citrus limon  Cameroon  (Farr and Rossman 2022 ) 
Sapindaceae  Acer palmatum  China  (Farr and Rossman 2022 ) 
Taxaceae  Taxus  wallichiana  Nepal  (Farr and Rossman 2022 )  
Taxus cuspidata  Korea  (Farr and Rossman 2022 ) 
Taxaceae  Torreya grandis  China  (Farr and Rossman 2022 )  
Torreya taxifolia  USA (Florida), North America  (Farr and Rossman 2022 ) 
Theaceae  Camellia oleifera  China  (Li et al. 2011)   
Camellia sinensis  China  (Farr and Rossman 2022 ) 
Vitaceae  Vitis sp. Morocco  (EBI 2022)  
Zingiberaceae  Hedychium coronarium  Cuba, Venezuela, West indies  (Farr and Rossman 2022 ) 
 
   
177 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  5.4 Thielaviopsis paradoxa  (pineapple black rot)  
Thielaviopsis paradoxa  is a soil -borne wound parasite, capable of infecting all parts of a 
plant. The fungus was first reported in 1886 from France, causing rot in pineapple fruits. The 
fungus has spread to other warm temperate and tropical regions of the world and the 
associate d rot disease is recognised as an economically important problem for sugarcane, 
banana, and pineapple crops.  
 Taxonomic description  
Scientific name: Thielaviopsis  paradoxa  (De Seynes) Höhn. 1904  
Order : Microascales      Family: Ceratocystidaceae  
Other names : Ceratocystis paradoxa (Dade) C. Moreau 1952 ; Chalara paradoxa (De 
Seynes) Sacc. 1892;  Ceratostomella paradoxa Dade, (1928);  Sporoschisma paradoxum De 
Seynes 1886;  Endoconidiophora paradoxa (De Seynes) R.W. Davidson, (1935);  Ophiostoma 
paradoxum (Dade) Nannf., (1934);  Stilbochalara dimorpha  Ferd. & Winge 1910 ; Water 
blister of pineapple (soft rot); White leaf spot; Butt rot; Black rot of pineapple.  
 
Taxonomic n otes:   
Thielaviopsis paradoxa was previously known as Ceratocystis  paradoxa and some research 
articles continue to use this name. The fungus belongs to the filamentous ascomycetes group 
and forms thick walled spores along with infective asexual spores (conidia) (Hewajulige and 
Wijesundera 2014)  
 
A 2016 Technical Paper wa s commissioned by MPI and completed by Manaaki Whenua 
Landcare Research to investigate whether fungal samples found in New Zealand were in fact 
Thielaviopsis paradoxa (Johnston and Park 2016) . The report summarised that:  
- T. paradoxa does not occur in New Z ealand . 
- After taxonomic analysis isolates in the International Collection of Microorganisms 
from Plants (ICMP) originally identified as T. paradoxa, were actually T. musarum (= 
Ceratocystis musarum ) and T. ethacetica (often confused with T. paradoxa ). 
 
 Hazard identification  
Thielaviopsis paradoxa is not known to be present in New Zealand.  
• Thielaviopsis paradoxa was recorded in error as present in New Zealand (Johnston 
and Park 2016; NZOR 2022) . 
• Thielaviopsis paradoxa  is recorded as " recorded in error" in BiotaNZ (2 022), and it is 
recorded that "  Before April 2016 Thielaviopsis paradoxa was recorded as present in 
New Zealand as Ceratocystis paradoxa. However sequencing of ICMP cultures from 
NZ (ICMP 15221 and ICMP 13062) could not confirm its presence in NZ, thus is was 
considered to be recorded in error. [PRJ, April 2016; BSW, Aug 2021]"  
• Thielaviopsis paradoxa’s regulatory, quarantine and country freedom status has not 
been assessed, according to ONZPR (2022) . However, its synonym Ceratocystis 
paradoxa is a regula ted and quarantine pest in New Zealand.   
 
Thielaviopsis paradoxa  has the potential to establish  and spread in New Zealand . 
• Thielaviopsis paradoxa  has a wide host and geographic range (Appendix Risk 
Assessment of Thielaviopsis paradoxa : Table 1) (Hewajulig e and Wijesundera 2014) .  
178 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  • The fungus has spread to other warm temperate and tropical regions of the world 
(Elliott 2006) .  
• Thielaviopsis paradoxa  has the potential to cause harm to plant species of economic 
importance in New Zealand (e.g.  carrot,  potato, kūmara , Eucalyptus and lettuce) 
(Farr and Rossman 2022) . 
 
Thielaviopsis paradoxa  is associated with pineapple fruit.  
• Thielaviopsis paradoxa  has been reported from pineapple fruit and has been identified 
as the causal agent of pineapple fruit rot (Wisemer and Bailey 1990; Hewajulige and 
Wijesundera 2014) . 
 
Given the arguments and evidence above , MPI considers Thielaviopsis paradoxa  is a hazard  
on decrowned Ananas comosus (pineapple) fruit (as described in the commodity description) 
imported to New Zealand.  
 
 Risk assessment  
5.4.3.1  Biology  
Hosts and geographical distribution  
Thielaviopsis paradoxa  has a wide host and geographic range ( Appendix Risk Assessment of 
Thielaviopsis paradoxa : Table 1) . The fungus was first reported in 1886 from France, causing 
rot in pineapple fruits (Wisemer and Bailey 1990; Hewajulige and Wijesundera 2014) . The 
fungus has spread to other warm temperate and t ropical regions of the world and the 
associated pineapple rot disease is recognised as an economically important problem 
(Wisemer and Bailey 1990) .  
 
Its preferred host range is mostly restricted to monocot plants grown in warmer climates 
(Elliott 2006; He wajulige and Wijesundera 2014) . It is associated with other host plants 
growing in both tropical and temperate regions (Appendix 1.1.9) such as Ipomoea batatas  
(kūmara), Solanum tuberosum  (potato), Lactuca sativa  (lettuce), Cucurbita moschata  
(pumpkin), Daucus carrota  (carrots),  Cupressus macrocarpa  (macrocarpa trees)  and 
Eucalyptus spp  (Hewajulige and Wijesundera 2014) . 
 
While the fungus is found throughout the world it ceases growth and becomes almost inactive 
at temperatures above 52.3°C or below 10°C (Martínez et al. 1997)  with optimum growing 
temperatures being between 21 – 22°C (Frossard 1978; Hassan et al. 2011; Hewajulige and 
Wijesundera 2014; Pongener et al. 2018) . It was also noted by Frossard (1978)  that T. 
paradoxa (identified as Ceratocy stis) growth  rate was considerably reduced at 12°C and 
stopped at 8°C, but the fungus has the ability to resume growth when returned to suitable 
temperatures.  
 
Symptoms  
Thielaviopsis paradoxa  is a soil -borne wound parasite, capable of infecting all parts of a 
plant. Symptoms caused by T. paradoxa include soft, watery rot in the fruit flesh which can 
rapidly liquefy at 25°C, exuding a sweet odour. Following this, the infected tissue darkens 
and results in juice leaking from diseased tissue (Py et al. 1987) .  
 
The fungus can also infect pineapple fruit via broken fruit stalk (peduncle), which usually 
occurs soon after harvest. The infection results in cone -shape symptoms (circular sunken  
179 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  shaped ro t) developing within the pineapple core (Hewajulige and Wijesundera 2014) . The 
fungus can also invade through bruised or wounded fruit skin. Stored fruit for the export 
market has been associated with  20 – 80% losses in Asian countries (Hewajulige and 
Wijesundera 2014) . On pineapple, watery rots occur inside the fruit with a brittle outer shell 
remaining. However, the skin, flesh and core breakdown with the fruit leaking watery 
substance through the shell (CABI 2022) . 
 
Symptoms in pineapples consist of lea f spot, basal rot of the asexual propagative part of plant 
and fruit rot (Hewajulige and Wijesundera 2014) . Basal rot and fruit rot are more 
economically devastating than leaf spot symptoms as the latter is associated with low disease 
levels in commercial pineapple cultivars. Pineapple fruit rot is a serious and common disease 
of commercially produced pineapple fruits and is present in all pineapple producing 
countries, except Samoa, which are included within the scope of this project (Hewajulige and 
Wijesu ndera 2014) .  
 
Kowalska (2003)  reported that T. paradoxa  caused black sooty symptoms in carrots which 
appeared as black sooty patches that gradually covers the entire root. It was noted that 
temperatures of about 18°C were condusive for the spread of the d isease. While it has been 
reported to be a pathogen that causes disease in important crops such as potato, kumara and 
corn (Hewajulige and Wijesundera 2014; Farr and Rossman 2022) , symptoms caused on 
these crops species and impacts on yield were not clearl y described.  
 
Latency infection  
Thielaviopsis  paradoxa can be present in a latent phase on  the bracts of pineapples  without 
causing disease symptoms and eventually cause symptoms during the ripening process 
(Frossard 1978) . The latent phase of T. paradoxa is reported to occur especially on crown, 
stem end and perianth of the spike region  of pineapple fruits  (Adisa 1983) . Furthermore , 
While these references are dated, no recent evidence of latency of T. paradoxa in pineapple 
fruit could be found in the available literature.   
 
Pineapple variety susceptibility  
Thielaviopsis paradoxa  is an economically significant pathogen affecting pineapples and 
found in most pineapple production areas (Wisemer and Bailey 1990; Hewajulige and 
Wijesundera 2014) . As such, it is likely that the pathogen can infect most varieties of 
pineapples. However, in scientifi c literature it was specifically stated that the pathogen is 
known to infect pineapple varieties Md2 in Malaysia (Kuruppu et al. 2022) , Mauritius in Sri 
Lanka (Hewajulige et al. 2006) , Gold Honey in Columbia (Perez et al. 2014)  and Perola in 
Brazil (Sales et al. 2016) . No details regarding latency of T. paradoxa in the mentioned 
pineapple varieties were found.   
 
Reproduction and transmission  
Thielaviopsis paradoxa  produce chlamydospores which can remain viable for up to 10 year s 
in soil and plant debris (Frossard 1978; Kowalska 2003; MPI 2016) . Asexual conidia can be 
spread by rain splash and increased humidity can enable the spread of conidia from infected 
to healthy pineapple fruits. Spores can also spread from tools used in h arvesting. Infection 
occurs before harvest, by insect/rodent punctures or wounds sustained during handling of the 
fruit (Hewajulige and Wijesundera 2014) . Wounded fruit can become infected via 
contaminated soil (Elliott 2006) . Infection can occur eight to 12 hours after wounding, with 
disease development exacerbated by warm temperatures and high relative humidity. 
Furthermore, likelihood of infection is increased in washed fruits, when compared to  
180 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  unwashed fruit (Hewajulige and Wijesundera 2014)  due to spor es being disturbed. This can 
possibly strengthen transmission efficiency.  
 
On pineapple fruits, T. paradoxa is a major postharvest disease causing leaf spots, fruit, and 
basal rots. Lack of refrigeration during transport and storage increases the likeliho od of fruit 
rot caused by T. paradoxa (CABI 2022) . Fruit can be infected through bruises, growth cracks 
or wounds made when they are detached. At times, after severe infections only the fruit shell 
is left, with few fibres inside, which can collapse under slight pressure (CABI 2022) . 
 
5.4.3.2  Likelihood of entry  
Thielaviopsis paradoxa  has been reported to cause rot in pineapple fruits (Wisemer and 
Bailey 1990; Hewajulige and Wijesundera 2014) .  It is recorded to be present  in markets in 
the scope (Tonga, Sri Lanka,  Fiji, Indonesia, Malaysia, New Caledonia, Taiwan, Thailand, 
Vanuatu, Australia, Cook Islands, Costa Rica, Papua New Guinea, Philippines  and Panama ) 
of this IRA (CABI 2022) .  
 
Thielaviopsis paradoxa  can infect pineapple fruits before harvest (particularly unripe 
pineapple fruit as per commodity description) via broken fruit stalk (peduncle) or invade 
through bruised or wounded fruit skin  (Hewajulige and Wijesundera 2014)  without showing 
visible sympto ms due to its ability for latent infestation phase. This decreases likelihood of 
detection at entry. Postharvest disease resulting from infections by pathogens in the field may 
not cause  conspicuous symptoms that will  be noticed at harvest (i.e. not obse rved on the 
fruit surface), and infections in fleshy fruits and vegetables continue to develop after harvest 
(Agrios 2005) .  
 
Later stages of infection on pineapple fruit by T. paradoxa (Hewajulige and Wijesundera 
2014)  are likely to be obvious and infecte d fruits will be disca rded during harvest, processing 
or pre -export inspection. If fruits are only taken from fields which have no detectable signs of 
infection, it is unlikely that fruits for the export market will be infected with T. paradoxa.  
 
The fung us is found in all markets included within the scope of this IRA, except Samoa. It is 
unlikely that postharvest processes will remove the fungus except for some larger mycelia on 
the surface. Estimated shipping times between pineapple export markets  to New  Zealand is 
between seven days to four weeks and recommended cold storage transit temperatures for is 
between 7-13°C (Annex.Appendix 3 ). Thielaviopsis paradoxa can survive for long periods 
and is likely to survive the transit conditions as the fungus becom es inactive below 10°C 
(Martínez et al. 1997) . Furthermore, the fungus has been recorded to resume growth once 
returned to temperatures suitable for growth (Frossard 1978) , increasing the likelihood of 
entry into the country without being detected. Thus, there is a low, but not negligible, 
likelihood of fruits being imported with early stage, non -viable infections which can develop 
after the fruit has been imported and sold . 
 
Thielaviopsis paradoxa has been intercepted previously at the border. One instance of the 
fungus being intercepted was on coconuts from Ghana (EPPO 2022) . The fungus has also 
been intercepted at the New Zealand border on bananas (from Ecuador), timber ( from 
Philippines), Sansevieria spp. (from Costa Rica), palm seeds (from Australia),              
Howea fosteriana (from Australia) and on unidentified seeds (from Australia) between 2002 
– 2013 (LIMS 2022) . While the fungus has a wide host and geographic r ange, the reason it 
has not been detected at the border since 2013 could be because fungal species infecting fresh  
181 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  produce consignments are rarely identified. Inspected shipments to the USA, have in the past, 
detected the disease in up to 70% of fruits (Cappellini et al. 1988) . However, it should be 
noted details of these shipments could not be found and may not have undergone any 
biosecurity measures.  
 
Uncertainty  
The uncertainty associated with the likelihood of T. paradoxa entering the country without 
detection is based upon the lack of current information found regarding latency in pineapple 
fruits  
 
Given that: 
• Thielaviopsis paradoxa  has been reported to cause rot in pineapple fruits, and it is 
recorded as present in markets in the scope  of this IRA.  
• although fruits are likely to be only taken from areas of production without visible 
infections, T. paradoxa is capable of latent infection of unripe fruits with disease 
sypmptons becoming obvious during ripening,  
• severely infected fruits are likely to be discarded during the harvest and pre -exporting 
processes,  
• transit conditions to New Zealand are likely to not support active growth and spread 
of T. paradoxa, but the fungus has the ability to resume growth once returned to 
ambient temperatures,  
 
MPI considers the likelihood of Thielaviopsis paradoxa  entering New Zealand associated 
with pineapple fruit is MODERATE with MODERATE uncertainty.  
 
5.4.3.3  Likelihood of exposure  
This assessment is made on the basis that Thielavipsis paradoxa  has entered New Zeala nd 
undetected.  
 
Exposure is considered to be the point at which a contaminating organism becomes 
associated with a suitable host in New Zealand in a manner that allows it to complete a 
normal life cycle. This usually involves the transfer of the organism f rom imported material 
to a host of domestic origin  or suitable environment, considering that the fungus can persist in 
the soil for long period of time (Kowalska 2003) .  
 
Pineapple fruit is intended to be sold to consumers in New Zealand  and is a commodity  
which generates substantial amounts of unavoidable waste (due to the thick rind being 
removed and disposed of, and the fruit is also sometimes cored ). The disposal of whole fruit 
(e.g., culled/unsold fruits, uneaten fruit remains) is not un common during w holesale, retail 
and by consumers. This suggests, pineapple fruits infected with Thielaviopsis paradoxa  may 
have a higher likelihood of exposure than those associated with many other kinds of fresh 
produce (see waste analysis Annex 2.3.1 ).  
 
Pineapple fruits with early or mild T. paradoxa infections can, and likely will, be consumed 
(MPI 2016) . However, wast e from infected fruits are usually discarded in home/commercial 
composts or in landfill waste (see waste analysis Annex 2.3.1 ). Infected fruit or fruit parts 
which are discarded into landfills or compost s are likely to become a source  of inoculum 
with  sp ores present in surrounding soils (Elliott 2006) . As such, the fungus can remain viable  
as long -lived chlamydospores  in the environment and eventually find a suitable host.   While  
182 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  the fungus could infect hosts in the immediate surroundings, the likelihood of it spreading to 
cultivation areas of high value hosts especially since landfills, home/commercial composts 
are not usually located near horticulture growing areas  is low . However T. paradoxa (as C. 
paradoxa ) has been recorded as being dispersed by Nitidulid beetles species some of which 
are present in N ew Zealand  (Chang and Jensen 1974; BiotaNZ 2022) . This suggests th at it is 
possible that the fungus can be dispersed by insects to cultivation areas.  
 
Disposal of organic waste into landfill is unlik ely to be a T. paradoxa exposure risk. The 
most common method of organic waste disposal in New Zealand is via bagged waste entering 
landfill (Askarany and Franklin -Smith 2014) . Condiering T. paradoxa  ceases growth and 
becomes almost inactive at temperature s above 52.3°C (Martínez et al. 1997) . This method is 
unlikely to be an exposure risk given waste is sealed within bags, and the processing and 
containment methods used in such facilities would likely inhibit T. paradoxa survival.  
 
Domestic composting in c ontrast is likely to be a T. paradoxa  exposure risk. Open 
composting systems  would likely aid T. paradoxa  exposure especially if suitable hosts 
commonly found in New Zealand gardens (e.g., carrots, lettuce, potatoes and ornamentals) 
were present within the  immediate environment.  
 
Disposal of fruit waste via use as animal feed is also likely to be a T. paradoxa exposure risk. 
Fruit waste in New Zealand may be collected from unpacking areas (e.g., supermarket 
preparation rooms), and taken to rural areas to be  used as feed for farmed animals (MPI 
2014) . T. paradoxa present within such feed can infect suitable host within the environment 
as well as remain viable in the soil for long periods of time in the absence of suitable host 
plants.  
 
Uncertainty  
The uncertainty associated with the likelihood of T. paradoxa being exposed to the New 
Zealand environment is based upon the  fact that the time needed, conditions and mechanisms 
required to transfer the fungus from compost soil to plant hosts, in a New Ze aland context, is 
unknown.  
 
Given that: 
• infected fruits are likely to be discarded into landfills or composts,  
• while fruits with early or mild infection are likely to be consumed, discarded skin can 
also be infected,  
• disposal of organic waste into landfill is unlikely to be a T. paradoxa exposure risk 
because it is unlikely to survive the conditions (heat) in landfill ,  
• T. paradoxa produces chlamydospores which are known to remain viable for long 
periods in soil and ca n survive on rotting plant debris , suggesting the fungus can 
survive  composts  
• domestic composting is likely to be a T. paradoxa  exposure risk.  
• disposal of fruit waste via use as animal feed is also likely to be a T. paradoxa 
exposure risk. It is possible that it can be spread and dispersed by insects to 
cultivation areas.  
 
MPI considers the likelihood of exposure of  Thielaviopsis paradoxa  in New Zealand from 
pineapple fruit  is HIGH with MODERATE  uncertainty . 
  
183 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  5.4.3.4  Likelihood of establishment  
This assessment is made on the basis that Thielavi opsis paradoxa  has been successfully 
exposed to a suitable host plant in the New Zealand environment.  
 
Thielav iopsis paradoxa  mostly infects tropical and some temperate hosts (Hassan et al. 
2011) , it cannot  survive temperatures above 52.3°C and becomes inactive below 10°C, with 
optimum growing temperatures between 21 – 22°C (Frossard 1978; Hewajulige and 
Wijesundera 2014; Pongener et al. 2018) .  
 
While  current average summer temperatures, in regions of New Z ealand which grow known 
hosts of T. paradoxa (Appendix Risk Assessment of Thielaviopsis paradox a: Table 1 ) (Plant 
& Food Research  2021) , are conducive to the growth of the fungus, winter climate conditions 
(NIWA 2022)  are mostly below minimum active growing temperatures. This indicates that, 
in current climate conditions, there is a likelihood of T. paradoxa establishing in most of New 
Zealand during summer months. Furthermore, during colder months, the fungus could cease 
growing, become inactive and resume growth when temperatures are optimal (Frossard 
1978) . This is especially likely as the fungus is able to survive for long period in so il 
(Kowalska 2003; Elliott 2006) .  
 
 
Hosts of T. paradoxa are available and widely cultivated in New Zealand, such as carrots, 
potatoes and maize ( Appendix Risk Assessment of Thielaviopsis paradoxa : Table 1 ). 
However, preferred hosts, and on which the fung us causes significant damage (e.g. pineapple 
and sugarcane) are not widely cultivated in New Zealand (MPI 2016) . The fungus is also 
known to be saprophytic and can survive in the soil for long periods of time , increasing 
likelihood of establishment (Ellio tt 2006) .  
 
Uncertainty  
Uncertainty associated with the establishment of T. paradoxa  includes the fact that its 
preferred hosts are mostly tropical plants (sugarcane and pineapple) which are not grown 
extensively in New Zealand and its association with ot her  host plants such as potato, carrot 
kumara and lettuce of economic importance to New Zealand is unclear.  
 
Given that: 
• Thielavi opsis paradoxa  has an o ptimum growing temperature  range  of between 21 – 
22°C  which is for it to establish in all parts of New Zealand during the summer . It 
cannot survive temperatures above 52.3°C and becomes inactive below 10°C,  
• winter temperatures in areas where hosts are grown are likely too low for active  growth 
of the fungus . However, the fungus has the ability to resum e growth when temperatures 
are optimal and can survive for up to ten years in soil,  
• preferred horticultural hosts which are severely affected by the fungus are mostly 
tropical and not widely cultivated in New Zealand . Other hosts such as Eucalyptus and 
ornamental palms and horticultural crops such as carrots and potatoes are widespread,  
 
MPI considers the likelihood of Thielaviopsis paradoxa establishing in New Zealand is 
HIGH with MODERATE  uncertainty .  
184 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  5.4.3.5  Impacts in New Zealand  
This assessment is made on th e assumption that T. paradoxa  has successfully established in 
the New Zealand environment .   
 
Economic impacts  
Most hosts, especially preferred hosts, of T. paradoxa are tropical and the fungus is described 
as a major disease of sugarcane and pineapples (Chang and Jensen 1974; Hewajulige and 
Wijesundera 2014) . However, T. paradoxa has also been reported on hosts which are 
commonly grown in New Zealand, including Eucaly ptus spp., Ipomoea batatas (kūmara), 
Solanum tuberosum (potato), Lactuca sativa (lettuce), Cucurbita moschata (pumpkin), 
Daucus carrota (carrots), and Cupressus macrocarpa (macrocarpa trees) (Hewajulige and 
Wijesundera 2014; Farr and Rossman 2022b) . 
 
The a bove -mentioned species are all economically significant to New Zealand but are not 
considered to be major  or preferred  hosts of T. paradoxa. A literature search done on Google 
Scholar resulted in very few articles outlining impacts on these hosts associate d with T. 
paradoxa infections, suggesting that it is not often reported to be a major problem on these 
hosts.  
 
An in -house MPI model predicted a low level of economic impact over 20 years.  
• Assumptions: considering that T. paradoxa  has been reported to cause disease in both 
tropical and temperate areas, it is expected to establish and affect host plants in the 
whole of New Zealand.  
• Although  T. paradoxa  is known to cause 20% -80% yield loss in pineapples 
(Hewajulige and Wijesundera 2014) , no report was found on yield loss  caused by T. 
paradoxa  on any host plant important to New Zealand. Yield loss of 5% was assumed 
for carrot, kumara, maize , lettuce  and potato . A 1% yield loss was assumed for 
Eucalyptus sp. on the assumption that impacts will be  less severe on established tress .  
• Greatest level of annual impact: domestic and export value in New Zealand for carrot, 
kumara, maize , potato, lettuce, and Eucalyptus sp. are NZ$67.7m , 35m,  464.2 m, 1.06 
billion, 43.7m and 41.3m respectively . The total va lue of Thielaviopsis paradoxa  for 
hosts  plants in New Zealand  is NZ$1. 721 billion   (Appendix  Risk Assessment of 
Thielaviopsis paradoxa : Table 1) . 
• It is assumed that the fungus would take 0.5 years to achieve the greatest impact for 
annual crops (carrot, lettuce, kumara, maize and potatoes) and 5 years for Eucalyptus 
sp.  
• As New Zealand already has effective control approaches/programme for fungal 
pathogens, it is assumed the industries would only take 0.5 – 1 year to full recovery 
for annual crops and  10 years for Eucalyptus  sp. because the T. paradoxa  can persist 
in the soil for 10 years (Kowalska 2003) . 
 
Uncertainty  
Uncertainty associated with the economic impacts of T. paradoxa based on the fact that the 
impact it might have on crops/plant such as carrots, potato, kumara and Eucalyptus which are 
of economic important crops to New  Zealand is  not known.  
 
Given that:  
  
185 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  • some hosts of T. paradoxa are widely cultivated and economically significant to New 
Zealand  with total annual  export and import value of  more than one billion dollars ;  
• however, no report was  found on yield loss caused by T. paradoxa  on any host plants 
important to New Zealand ;   
 
MPI considers the economic impact of Thielaviopsis paradoxa  in New Zealand is LOW , with 
HIGH  uncertainty.  
 
Environmental impacts  
The families of host species of T. paradoxa were checked using the Plant Conservation 
Network (NZPCN 2022)  to determine if the families included native New Zealand species. 
While many native species included host families of the fungus (Farr and Rossman 2022b) , 
none of these native species have been  recorded as hosts. Some families of host species, and 
the native New Zealand plants in those families are Arecaceae (nīkau palm), Rubiaceae 
(includes many native Coprosma species, some of which are at risk or threatened), 
Cyperaceae (including some native  species which are at risk), Poaceae and Meliaceae (which 
only has one ecologically important and common native species Dysoxylum spectabile 
(kohekohe)). There is no evidence to confirm if these species in native families could become 
hosts in the future.  
 
Given that: 
 
• no native New Zealand species are recorded as hosts of T. paradoxa,  
• families of native species are  include d as hosts of the fungus,   
 
MPI considers the environmental  impact of  Thielaviopsis paradoxa  in New Zealand is VERY 
LOW, with MODERAT E uncertainty . 
 
Human health impacts  
There  are no known human health impacts from T. paradoxa recorded in the literature so the 
human health  impact of  Thielaviopsis paradoxa  in New Zealand is considered to  be 
NEGLIGIBLE , with LOW uncertainty.  
 
Sociocultural impacts  
Private home gardens could be affected by T. paradoxa infections, especially if pineapple 
fruit waste is discarded in home composts. Popular vegetables such as potatoes, kūmara, 
lettuce and pumpkin are grown by home gardeners could be  infected. Other species such as 
eucalyptus and ornamental palms could also be affected, which are widely planted as 
amenity, indoor and residential plants.  
 
MPI considers t he sociocultural health  impact of  Thielaviopsis paradoxa  in New Zealand is 
VERY LO W, with MODERATE  uncertainty.  
 
5.4.3.6  Overall impact to New Zealand  
MPI considers t he overall impact of T. paradoxa on the New Zealand economy, environment, 
health and society is LOW  with MODERATE.  
  
186 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  5.4.3.7  Overall risk to New Zealand  
Based on the assessments of likelihood and consequences above, that:  
 
• the likelihood of entry is MODERATE , with MODERATE uncertainty  
• assuming entry, the likelihood of exposure is HIGH , with MODERATE  uncertainty  
• assuming successful exposure, the likelihood of establishment is HIGH , with 
MODERATE uncertaintythe overall impact on the New Zealand economy, 
environment, human health, and society is considered to be LOW  with MODERATE 
uncertainty  
 
MPI considers the overall level of assessed risk to New Z ealand from Thielavipsis paradoxa 
on pineapple fruit is LOW , with HIGH  uncertainty.  
 
 Specific considerations  
On which pineapple variety (or varieties) and at what stage of rip eness has Thielavipsis 
paradoxa association with pineapple fruit been observed?  
In scientifi c literature it was specifically stated that the pathogen is known to infect pineapple 
varieties Md2 in Malaysia {Kuruppu, 2022 #43442} , Mauritius in Sri Lanka {Hewajulige, 
2006 #43462} , Gold Honey in Columbia {Perez, 2014 #43460}  and Perola in Brazil {Sales, 
2016 #43461} .  
 
No information was found in the literature to indicate at what stage of ripeness of pineapple 
T. paradoxa is associated with.  
 
Which part(s) of the pineapple fruit is Thielavipsis paradoxa  associated with (e.g ., fruit, 
bract, stem, or crown remnant) and is it detectable by visual detection?  
Thielaviopsis paradoxa  is a soil borne wound parasite, capable of infecting all parts of a 
plant. The fungus can also infect pineapple fruit via broken fruit stalk (peduncle ), which 
usually occurs soon after harvest. Symptoms in pineapples consist of leaf spot, basal rot of 
the asexual propagative part of plant and fruit rot {Hewajulige, 2014 #43456}. Fruit can be 
infected through bruises, growth cracks or wounds made when th ey are detached.  
 
At times, after severe infections only the fruit shell is left, with few fibres inside, which can 
collapse under slight pressure {CABI, 2022 #43445}.  
 
Are different lifestages of the Thielavipsis paradoxa  associated with different parts of the 
pineapple fruit?  
No evidence of this was found in the literature.  
 
Under what environmental conditions (temperature, season etc) are Thielavipsis 
paradoxa  symptoms expressed on pineapple fruit?  
Symptoms caused by T. paradoxa include soft, watery ro t in the fruit flesh which can rapidly 
liquefy at 25°C, exuding a sweet odour. Following this, the infected tissue darkens and results 
in juice leaking from diseased tissue {Py, 1987 #43455}. The fungus cannot survive 
temperatures above 52.3°C, becomes ina ctive at temperatures below 10°C and can resume 
active growth when temperatures are optimal (between 21 – 22°C) {Pongener, 2018 
#43477;Hewajulige, 2014 #43456;Hassan, 2011 #43441;Kowalska, 2003 #43725;Frossard, 
1978 #43452}.   
187 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand   
Does Thielavipsis paradoxa  exhibits latent/asymptomatic traits?  
The latent phase of T. paradoxa is reported to occur in pineapple fruits, especially on crown, 
stem end and perianth of the spike region {Adisa, 1983 #43476} . Furthermore , T. paradoxa 
can remain latent on  the bracts of pineapples and become active during the ripening process 
{Frossard, 1 978 #43452} .  While these references are dated, no recent evidence of latency of 
T. paradoxa in pineapple fruit could be found in the available literature. No details regarding 
latency of T. paradoxa in the mentioned pineapple varieties was found. However,  the fruit 
can be infected at harvest or during processing {Hewajulige, 2014 #43456}  and 
storage/transit temperatures are likely to retard or stop fungal growth {Martínez, 1997 
#43721}. This suggests that infections occurring at harvest or in the packhous e may not 
produce symptoms until the fruit is returned to ambient temperatures and fungal growth 
resumes, which will likely be after its pre -export phytosanitary inspection and on -arrival 
inspection in New Zealand.  
 
 References  
Adisa, V A  (1983) Studies on the nutritional requirements of the latent phase of Ceratocystis 
paradoxa  - the pineapple soft rot pathogen in Nigeria. Food/Nahrung 27(10): 951 -956. 
 
Agrios, G (2005) Plant pathology  (5th edition ed.). Elsevier Academic Press; Burlingto n, 
Massachusetts, USA.  
 
Apet, K T; Sayyad, A S; Chavan, P G (2015) Management of sugarcane pineapple disease 
caused by Ceratocystis paradoxa . 
 
Askarany, D; Franklin -Smith, A W (2014) Cost benefit analyses of organic waste composting 
systems through the len s of time driven activity -based costing. Journal of applied 
management accounting research 12(2): 59 –73. 
 
BiotaNZ (2022) Biota of New Zealand. https://biotaNZ.landcareresearch.co.nz  Accessed 
30/04/2022  
 
CABI (2022) Black Rot of Pineapples. 
https://www.plantwise.org/KnowledgeBank/datasheet/12157  Accessed 22/04/2022  
 
Cappellini, R A; Ceponis, M J; Lightner, G W (1988) Disorders in avo cado, mango, and 
pinapple shipments to the New York Market, 1972 -1985. Plant Disease . 
 
Chang, V C S; Jensen, L (1974) Transmission of the pineapple disease organism of sugarcane 
by Nitidulid beetles in Hawaii. Journal of Economic Entomology 67(2): 190 -192. 
 
Elliott, M L (2006) Thielaviopsis trunk rot of palm. Institute of Food and Agricultur al 
Science, University of Florida.  
 
EPPO (2022) EPPO Reporting Service. https://gd.eppo.int/reporting/   
 
Farr, D F; Rossman, A Y (2022) Fungal Databases, U.S. National Fungus Collections, ARS. 
https://nt.ars - 
188 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  grin.gov/fungaldatabases/new_allView.cfm?whichone=FungusHost&thisName=Thielaviopsi
s%20paradoxa &organismtype=Fungus&fromAllCount=yes  Accessed 22/04/2022  
 
Frossard, P (1978) Control of pineapple rot caused by Thielaviopsis paradoxa . Importance of 
storage temperature and fungicidal treatment. Fruits 33(2): 91 -99. 
 
Hassan, A; Othman, Z; Siriphanich, J (2011) Pineapple ( Ananas comosus L. Merr.). In E M 
Yahia (ed) Postharvest biology and technology of tropical and subtropical fruits.  Elsevier.  
 
Hewajulige, I G; Wilson Wijeratnam, S; Wijesundera, R L (2006) Pre -harvest application of 
calcium to control black heart disorder in Mauritius pineapples during low -temperature 
storage. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 86(3): 420 -424. 
 
Hewaju lige, I G N; Wijesundera, R L C (2014) Thielaviopsis paradoxa, Thielaviopsis 
basicola  (Black Rot, Black Root Rot). Postharvest Decay.  Elsevier.  
 
Hubert, J; Fourrier, C; Laplace, D; Ioos, R (2014) First report of pineapple black rot caused 
by Ceratocystis p aradoxa on Ananas comosus in French Guiana. Plant Disease 98(11): 1584 -
1584.  
 
Johnston, P R; Park, D (2016) Identification Thielaviopsis paradoxa . Manaaki Whenua 
Landcare Research, Wellington. https://mpi.govt.nz/dmsdocument/15379 -identification -of-
thielaviopsis -paradoxa -final-report  
 
Kew (2022) Ceratocystis paradoxa . https://herbtrack.science. kew.org/results  Accessed 
22/04/2022  
 
Kile, G A (1993) Plant diseases caused by species of Ceratocystis sensu stricto and Chalara . 
In M J Wingfield; K A Seifert; J F Webber (eds) Ceratocystis and Ophiostoma: taxonomy, 
ecology and pathogenicity.  APS Press: U SA. 
 
Kowalska, B (2003) Black rot on carrots. Ochrona Roślin 47(9): 20 -21. 
 
Kuruppu, M; Siddiqui, Y; Ahmad, K; Kong, L; Ali, A; Ding, P (2022) Assessing the role of 
micro -environment, inoculum density and harvesting indices on disease progression of Black 
rot disease in Md2 Pineapple caused by Thielaviopsis paradoxa . SSRN . 
 
LIMS (2022) Laboratory Information Management System. Ministry for Primary Industries 
Internal Database. Accessed 11 April 2022  
 
Martínez, B; Cachón, A; Ramos, O (1997) Effect of tempera ture and culture medium on the 
growth of Colletotrichum falcatum  (Went); Fusarium moniliforme  (Sheldon) and 
Thielaviopsis paradoxa  (De Seynes). Revista de Protección Vegetal 12(2): 99 -102. 
 
MPI (2014) Generic pest risk assessment: armoured scale insects (H emiptera: Coccoidea: 
Diaspididae) on the fresh produce pathway. https://www.mpi.govt.nz/dmsdocument/5224   
 
MPI (2016) Import Risk Analysis: Fresh salacca ( Salacca zalacca ) fruit from Indonesia 
Versio n 1.1. In B S a R Assessment (Ed.). Wellington: Ministry for Primary Industries.  
  
189 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Plant & Food Research  (2021) Fresh Facts . https://www.freshfacts.co.nz/files/freshfacts -
2020.pdf  
 
NIWA (2022) Overview of New Zealand's climate. https://niwa.co.nz/education -and-
training/schools/resources/climate/overview  Accessed 22/05/2022  
 
Nixon, C (2015) How valuable is that plant species.  
 
NZOR (2022) The New Zealand Organisms Register. http://nzor.org.nz  Accessed 19 
February 2022  
 
NZPCN (2022) New Zealand Plant Conservation Network. https://www.nzpcn.org.nz/  
Accessed 12/04/2022  
 
ONZPR (2022) Official New Zealand Pest Register. MPI Public Database. 
https://pierpestregister.mpi.govt.nz/PestsRegister/ImportCommodity/  Accessed 09 February 
2022  
 
Perez, A; Chamorro, L; Romero, J (2014) Presencia del hongo Thielaviopsis paradoxa 
causante de pudrición negra de la piña  oro miel en el departamento de Sucre. Revista 
Colombiana de Ciencia Animal -RECIA 6(2): 342 -345. 
 
Phillips, C B; Kean, J M; Vink, C J; Berry, J A (2018) Utility of the CLIMEX ‘match 
climates regional’ algorithm for pest risk analysis: an evaluation with no n-native ants in New 
Zealand. Biological Invasions : 1–15. 
 
Pongener, A; Sharma, S; Purbey, S K (2018) Heat treatment of fruits and vegetables. In M W 
Siddiqui (ed) Postharvest disinfection of fruits and vegetables.  Elsevier.  
 
PPIN (2022) Plant Pest Informa tion Network, Version 5.03.01. Ministry for Primary 
Industries Internal Database. Accessed 9 February 2022  
 
Py, C; Lacoeuilhe, J J; Teisson, C (1987) The pineapple: cultivation and uses . GP 
Maisonneuve & Larose Vicroria -Cousins; Paris.  
 
Robertson, N; Hurre n, K (2022) Economic impact 2021 Arable Food Industry Council . 
Wellington, New Zealand. https://www.afic.co.nz/wp -content/uploads/2022/07/AFIC -
Economic -Impact -2021.pdf  
 
Sales, M D C; Costa, H B; Fernandes, P M B; Ventura, J A; Meira, D D (2016) Antifungal 
activity of plant extracts with potential to control plant pathogens in pineapple. Asian Pacific 
Journal of Tropical Biomedicine 6(1): 26 -31. 
 
Wisemer, C A; Bai ley, R A (1990) Pineapple Disease. In C Ricaud; B T Egan; A G Gillaspie; 
C G Hughes (eds) Diseases of Sugarcane: Major Diseases.  Elsevier Science Publishers: 
Amsterdam.  
 
 
  
190 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  
 Appendix to risk a ssessment of Thielaviopsis paradoxa  
Table 5.5 Host and geographic range of Thielaviopsis paradoxa (and recorded synonyms) , as recorded in the current, available English literature. Markets  
included in the scope of this import risk analysis are marked with *. Climate similar to New Zealand is assessed using the co mposite match index (CMI) (Phillips 
et al. 2018). If a country /area/market  has a CMI of ≥0.7, it is considered to have climate sim ilar to all of New Zealand. The values in the New Zealand market of 
significant hosts were calculated using a report by Plant & Food Research  (2021) and Arable Food Industry council (Robertson and Hurren 2022). Total 
domestic and export value of plant host s of Thielaviopsis paradoxa  is NZ$1.721 billion.   
Family  Host species  Common 
name  Country /area/market  (CMI)  Value of host for 
NZ market (in 
NZ$)  Reference  
Anacardiaceae  Mangifera indica  mango  India ( 0.4 – 0.5) - Hewajulige and 
Wijesundera (2014); CABI 
(2022); Farr and Rossman 
(2022)  
Annonaceae  Annona muricata  guanában
o Malaysia* (0.4 – 0.5) - Farr and Rossman (2022)  
Apiaceae  Daucus carota  carrot  Poland (0.8 –0.9), Germany (0.8 –0.9) Domestic $58 
million  
Export $9.7 million  CABI (2022) , Kowalska 
(2003); Weber and Tribe 
(2004)  
Apocynaceae  Plumeria sp. frangipani  USA (0.5 – 0.8) - Farr and Rossman (2022)  
Araceae  Anthurium 
andraeanum  painter’s 
palette  West Indies ( –) - Farr and Rossman (2022)  
Colocasia esculenta  taro Tonga* (–) - Farr and Rossman (2022)  
Arecaceae  Adonidia merrillii  Manila 
palm  USA ( 0.5 – 0.8) - Farr and Rossman (2022)  
Areca catechu  date palm  India (0.4 – 0.5), Egypt (0.4 – 0.5), Kuwait (0.4), 
Libya (0.4 – 0.5), Oman (0.4 – 0.5), Sri Lanka* 
(0.4 – 0.6), Sudan (0.3 – 0.6), UAE (0.3 – 0.4) - Hewajulige and 
Wijesundera (2014)   
191 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Bactris gasipaes  Cachipá  Brazil (0.4 – 0.6) - Farr and Rossman (2022)  
Borassus flabellifer  toddy palm  India (0.4 – 0.5) - CABI (2022)  
Butia odorata  coquinho -
azedo  Uruguay (0.9 – 0.8), China (0.4 – 0.8) - CABI (2022); Farr and 
Rossman (2022)  
Cocos nucifera  coconut  Brazil (0.4 – 0.6), Brunei (0.5), China (0.4 – 0.8), 
Cote d’Ivoire (0.5), Cuba (0.5), Dominican 
Republic (0.5 – 0.7), Fiji* (0.4), Ghana (0.4 – 0.5), 
Guadeloupe ( –), India (0.4 – 0.5), Indonesia*  (0.4 
– 0.6), Jamaica (0.6), Japan (0.6 – 0.8), Malaysia*  
(0.4 – 0.5), Mauritius ( –), Mexico (0.4 – 0.8), New 
Caledonia*  (0.6 – 0.7), Nigeria (0.4 – 0.5), Papua 
New Guinea*  (0.4 – 0.7), Philippines*  (0.3 – 0.6), 
Tonga*  (–), Somalia (0.3 – 0.4), Sri Lanka*  (0.4 – 
0.6), Taiwan*  (0.4 – 0.8), Thailand*  (0.3 – 0.5), 
Vanu atu* (0.5), West Indies ( –), USA (0.5 – 0.8) - Hewajulige and 
Wijesundera (2014); CABI 
(2022); Farr and Rossman 
(2022)  
Dypsis decaryi  triangle 
palm  China ( 0.4 – 0.8) - CABI (2022); Farr and 
Rossman (2022)  
Elaeis guineesis  oil palm  Benin (0.4 – 0.5), Brazil ( 0.4 – 0.6), Cameroon 
(0.3 – 0.6), China ( 0.4 – 0.8), Colombia (0.3 – 
0.5), Congo (0.5 – 0.6), Cote d’Ivoire (0.5), DRC 
(0.5 – 0.6), Ghana ( 0.4 – 0.5), Indonesia* ( 0.4 – 
0.6), Malaysia * (0.4 – 0.5), Nigeria ( 0.4 – 0.5), 
Sierra Leone (0.3 – 0.4), Thailand * (0.3 – 0.5) - Hewajulige and 
Wijesundera (2014); CABI 
(2022); Farr and Rossman 
(2022)  
Howea forsteriana  paradise 
palm  Italy (0.8 – 0.9) - CABI (2022)  
Phoenix dactylifera  date palm  Egypt (0.4 – 0.5), India (0.4 – 0.5), Japan (0.6 – 
0.8), Kuwait (0.4), Libya (0.4 – 0.5), Qatar (0.3 – 
0.4), Spain (0.8 – 0.9), USA (0.5 – 0.8) - CABI (2022); Farr and 
Rossman (2022)   
192 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Roystonea regia  royal palm  Dominican Republic ( 0.5 – 0.7), Mauritius (–) - Farr and Rossman (2022)  
Sabal palmetto  sabal  USA (0.5 – 0.8) - Farr and Rossman (2022)  
Salacca zalacca  salak  Indonesia* ( 0.4 – 0.6), Thailand* ( 0.3 – 0.5) - CABI (2022) ; Farr and 
Rossman (2022)  
Asphodelacea
e Hemerocallis sp. - USA ( 0.5 – 0.8) - Farr and Rossman (2022)  
Asteraceae  Lactuca sativa  lettuce  Mauritius (–) Domestic $43 
million  
Export $0.7 million  Farr and Rossman (2022)  
Bromeliaceae  Ananas comosus  pineapple  Australia* (0.4 – 1), Brazil  (0.4 – 0.6), Cambodia  
(0.3 – 0.4), China  (0.4 – 0.8), Cook Islands* ( –), 
Costa Rica* (0.3 – 0.6), Cuba  (0.5), Dominican 
Republic  (0.5 – 0.7), France  (0.9), Fiji* (0.4) , 
French  Guiana  (0.4),  Ghana  (0.4 – 0.5), Guyana  
(0.4 – 0.5), India  (0.4 – 0.5), Indonesia* (0.4 – 
0.6), Jamaica  (0.6) Japan  (0.6 – 0.8), Kenya  (0.4 
– 0.8), Malaysia* (0.4 – 0.5), Mexico  (0.4 – 0.8), 
New Caledonia* (0.6 – 0.7), Papua New Guinea* 
(0.4 – 0.7), Philippines* (0.3 – 0.6), Tonga* ( –), 
Singapore  (0.5), South Africa  (0.5 – 0.9), Sri 
Lanka* (0.4 – 0.6), Suriname  (0.4 – 0.5), Taiwan* 
(0.4 – 0.8), Tanzania  (0.5 – 0.7), Thailan d* (0.3 – 
0.5), Trinidad and Tobago  (0.5), Venezuela  (0.3 – 
0.8), West Indies  (–), USA  (0.5 – 0.8) -- Wisemer and Bailey 
(1990); Farr and Rossman 
(2022)  
Caricaceae  Carica papaya  papaya  Mexico (0.4 – 0.8), Dominican Republic (0.5 – 
0.7) - Farr and Rossman (2022)  
Convolvulacea
e Ipomoea batatas  Kūmara, 
sweet 
potato  Malaysia* ( 0.4 – 0.5), Nigeria ( 0.4 – 0.5) Domestic $35 
million  Hewajulige and 
Wijesundera (2014); Farr 
and Rossman (2022)   
193 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Cucurbitaceae  Cucurbita moschata  Crookneck 
pumpkin  Dominican Republic ( 0.5 – 0.7) - Farr and Rossman (2022)  
Cupressaceae  Hesperocyparis 
macrocarpa  Monterey 
cypress  Kenya (0.4 – 0.8) - Farr and Rossman (2022)  
Cyperaceae  Eleocharis sp. - China ( 0.4 – 0.8), Taiwan* ( 0.4 – 0.8) - Farr and Rossman (2022)  
Fabaceae  Glycine max  soybean  Brazil ( 0.4 – 0.6) - Farr and Rossman (2022)  
Senegalia catechu  Catechu  India (0.4 – 0.5) - Farr and Rossman (2022)  
Fagaceae  Fagus sylvatica  copper 
beach  England (0.8 – 0.9) - Kew (2022)  
Malvaceae  Theobroma cacao  cocoa  Brazil ( 0.4 – 0.6), Cameroon (0.3 – 0.6), Ghana 
(0.4 – 0.5), Jamaica ( 0.6), Mexico ( 0.4 – 0.8), 
Venezuela ( 0.3 – 0.8) - Hewajulige and 
Wijesundera (2014); CABI 
(2022); Kew (2022) Farr 
and Rossman (2022)  
Meliaceae  Sandoricum 
koetjape  santol  Malaysia* ( 0.4 – 0.5) - Farr and Rossman (2022)  
Moraceae  Ficus sp. figs USA (0.5 – 0.8) - Farr and Rossman (2022)  
Musaceae  Musa sp. banana  Australia* (0.4 – 1), Brazil (0.4 – 0.6), China (0.4 – 
0.8), Cote d’Ivoire (0.5), El Salvador (0.4 – 0.5), 
Fiji* (0.4), Haiti (0.5), India (0.4 – 0.5), Jamaica 
(0.6), Japan (0.6 – 0.8), Mexico (0.4 – 0.8), South 
Africa (0.5 – 0.9), Taiwan* (0.4 – 0.8), Tanzania 
(0.5 – 0.7), Thailand* (0.3 – 0.5), Trinidad and 
Tobago (0.5), Turkey (0.7 – 0.9),  USA (0.5 – 0.8), 
West Indies ( –) - Hewajulige and 
Wijesundera (2014); CABI 
(2022); Farr and Rossman 
(2022)   
194 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Myrtaceae  Eucalyptus sp. eucalyptus  Brazil ( 0.4 – 0.6) Overall $41.3 
million  Nixon (2015); CABI 
(2022); Farr and Rossman 
(2022)  
Phyllanthacea
e Phyllanthus emblica  Indian 
gooseberr
y Bangladesh (0.3 – 0.4) - CABI (2022)  
Poaceae  Saccharum 
officinarum  sugarcane  Australia*  (0.4 – 1), Brazil (0.4 – 0.6), China (0.4 – 
0.8), Colombia (0.4 – 0.5), Costa Rica*  (0.3 – 
0.6), Cuba (0.5), Dominican Republic ( 0.5 – 0.7), 
El Salvador (0.4 – 0.5), Guatemala (0.3 – 0.6), 
Haiti (0.5), Honduras (0.3 – 0.6), India (0.4 – 0.5), 
Indonesia*  (0.4 – 0.6), Jamaica (0.6), Japan (0.6 
– 0.8), Mexico (0.4 – 0.8), Nicaragua (0.4 – 0.6), 
Panama*  (0.4 – 0.5), Papua New Guinea*  (0.4 – 
0.7), Philippines (0.3 – 0.6), South Africa (0.5 – 
0.9), Taiwan*  (0.4 – 0.8), Thailand*  (0.3 – 0.5), 
Trinidad and Tobago (0.5), Venezuela (0.3 – 0.8), 
USA (0.5 – 0.8) - Hewajulige and 
Wijesundera (2014); Apet 
et al. (2015); CABI (2022); 
Farr and Rossman (2022)  
Sorghum bicolor  sorghum  India ( 0.4 – 0.5) - Hewajulige and 
Wijesundera (2014)  
Urochloa  
dictyoneura  - Colombia (0.3 – 0.5) - Farr and Rossman (2022)  
Zea mays  maize  - Domestic/ Export 
$464.2 million  
 Hewajulige and 
Wijesundera (2014); CABI 
(2022)  
Rosaceae  Rosa sp. - Netherlands (0.9)  - Farr and Rossman (2022)  
Rubiaceae  Coffea sp. coffee  Brazil ( 0.4 – 0.6), Cote d’Ivoire (0.5)  - CABI (2022); Farr and 
Rossman (2022)  
Solanaceae  Solanum muricatum  pepino  - - CABI (2022)   
195 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand   
 Solanum tuberosum  potato  Fiji* (0.4)  Domestic $942.7 
million  
Export $126.5 
million  Hewajulige and 
Wijesundera (2014) ; Farr 
and Rossman (2022)   
196 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  6 Pest risk assessments on insects: Diptera  
6.1 Bactrocera dorsalis  (Oriental fruit fly)  
Bactrocera dorsalis  is one of the most destructive insect pests of tropical and subtropical 
fruits and vegetables. Adult flies  lay their eggs beneath  the skin of fruit s and vegetables . 
Maggots  (fly larvae)  hatch from the eggs and feed within the fruit, cau sing damage and 
rotting. Bactrocera dorsalis  has a very broad host range and is highly adaptable to various 
climates, which has allowed it to spread to temperate areas.  
 
 Taxonomic description  
Scientific name: Bactrocera dorsalis  (Hendel, 1912)  
Order : Dipte ra      Family: Tephritidae  
Other names : Bactrocera invadens ; Bactrocera papayae, Bactrocera  philippinensis ; 
Bactrocera (Bactrocera) variabilis ; Bactrocera ferruginea ; Strumeta dorsalis ; Chaetodacus 
dorsalis ; Chaetodacus ferrugineus ; Chaetodacus ferrugineus dorsalis ; Chaetodacus 
ferrugineus okinawanus ; Dacus dorsalis ; Dacus  ferrugineus ; Dacus ferrugineus dorsalis ; 
Dacus ferrugineus okinawanus ; Dacus  (Bactrocera) dorsalis ; Dacus (Bactrocera) 
semifemoralis ; Dacus  (Bactrocera)  vilanensis  (CABI 2022) . 
 
Taxonomic notes:  
Bactrocera  dorsalis  (sensu stricto ) is a member of the Oriental fruit fly B. dorsalis  species 
complex  (CABI 2022) . Bactrocera dorsalis  was originally treated as a single species, until it 
was split into several species, with the description of B. carambolae , B. papayae  and B. 
philippinensis  (Drew and Hancock 1994) . Based on a total  evidence approach , Schutze et al. 
(2015a) synonymised B. papayae , B. invadens  and B. philippinensis  with B. dorsalis , but 
these names can still be found in numerous p ublication s and internet website resources  
(Doorenweerd et al. 2018) . Schutze at al. (2015a) considered B. carambolae  to be a valid  
species , altho ugh it  is known to hybridise with B. dorsalis  and genetic evidence suggests that 
there is historic hybridisation with B. kandiensis  (Schutze et al. 2015; Susanto et al. 2021) . 
Records of B. pedestris  (Bezzi) from outside of the Philippines are mostly based  on 
misidentifications of B. dorsalis  (CABI 2022) . 
 
 Hazard identification  
Bactrocera dorsalis  is not known to be present in New Zealand.  
• There is no entry of  Bactrocera dorsalis  in (NZOR 2022) . 
• Bactrocera dorsalis  is a regulated pest for New Zealand ( ONZPR (2022) . 
• Bactrocera dorsalis  is an unwanted and notifiable pest for New Zealand ( ONZPR 
(2022) . 
• New Zealand has country freedom status for B. dorsalis  (MPI 2022a) . 
• Bactrocera dorsalis  is one of the targeted fruit f ly species in the National Fruit Fly 
Surveillance Programme in New Zealand (Pather 2019) . 
 
Bactrocera dorsalis  has the potential to establish  and spread in New Zealand . 
• Bactrocera dorsalis  is a highly invasive species  (Vargas et al. 2015) .  
197 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  • Some parts of  New Zealand (North Island: Northland,  Auckland,  the Coromandel 
Peninsula, northern Waikato , and coastal areas south to Cape Turnagain and Foxton) 
have a suitable climate for the establishment of B. dorsalis  (Kriticos et al. 2007) . 
• Bactrocera dorsalis  has a very broad host range  (Liquido et al. 2017) , including many 
plant species present in New Zealand . 
• Adult flies have  a high dispersal ability (Steiner 1957; Makumbe et al. 2020)  and a 
relatively long lifespan  (Christenson and Foote 1960) . 
• Bactrocera dorsalis  has a high reproductive rate  (Fletcher 1989; Ye and Liu 2007) .  
• Bactrocera dorsalis  has multiple overlapping generations  (Chen and Ye 2007; Ye and 
Liu 2007; Han et al. 2011) . 
 
Bactrocera dorsalis  has the potential to cause harm to  New Zealand . 
• Bactrocera dorsalis  has the potential to harm the New Zealand economy.  
o Bactrocera dorsalis  is likely to cause impacts on many plants of economic 
importance in New Zealand, especially on apple  (Follett et al. 2021) , citrus  
(Kriticos et al. 200 7), avocado  (Kriticos et al. 2007) , and kiwifruit industry  
(Follett et al. 2019a) . 
o The impact on exports, including market access, is likely to be severe  (Clarke 
et al. 2005; Pather 2019) .  
o The cost of a biosecurity response to eradicate B. dorsalis  would be high  (MPI 
2022) (Kiritani 1998; Cantrell et al. 2002) .  
• Bactrocera dorsalis  has the potential to harm the New Zealand environment, as its 
hosts include plant genera with native New Zealand plant species  (Allwood et al. 
1999) , and have some human health and socio -cultural impacts . 
 
Bactrocera dorsalis  is associated with pineapple f ruit.  
• Adults of B. dorsalis  can oviposit inside pineapple fruits. Eggs and larvae can be 
found inside pineapple, and viable adults can emerge from pupae originating from 
pineapple (Macion et al. 1968; Moquet et al. 2021) . 
• In laboratory cage tests,  B. dors alis could infest half ripe pineapple fruits (interpreted 
as pre -C4) (Macion et al. 1968) . 
• In the field, B. dorsalis  infested pineapple (Moquet et al. 2021) . However, the fruits 
were overripe and potentially damaged (Moquet, personal communication, May 
2022).  
 
Given the arguments and evidence above , MPI considers B. dorsalis  to be a hazard on 
decrowned Ananas comosus (pineapple) fruit (as described in the commodity description) 
imported to New Zealand.  
 
 Risk assessment  
6.1.3.1  Biology  
The Ori ental fruit fly , B. dorsalis , is a highly destructive and invasive pest (Vargas et al. 
2015) . Gravid  females lay their eggs beneath the skin of suitable hosts, especially in ripening 
or ripe fruits  and vegetable s. The hatching larvae ( maggots ) feed within the fruit  (Christenson 
and Foote 1960) . There are three larval instars, the last of which generally pupates either in or 
on the soil (Christenson and Foote 1960; Hou et al. 2006; Shi et al. 2017) . Pupae  maybe able 
to overwinter (Christenson an d Foote 1960) , and can also be found on the fruit  surface , or in  
198 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  transit in packing material . The adult fly emerge s from the puparium . Development is slower 
under cool conditions (Christenson and Foote 1960; Vargas et al. 1996) . The maximum 
known duration of egg, larval, and pupal stage is respectively 20, 35, and 26 days 
(Christenson and Foote 1960 , Vargas et al. 1996 ). Development al times from egg to adult 
vary from 15 to 81 days  (Christenson and Foote 1960; Vargas et al. 1996) . 
 
Adult  B. dorsalis  have relatively long life span,  strongly affected by temperature and diet 
(Christenson and Foote 1960; Vargas et al. 1984) . Adult B. dorsalis  normally live for  one to 
three months (Vargas et al. 1984) , but can survive up to one year in cool mounta in locations 
(Christenson and Foote 1960) . Females usually start laying eggs between  8 and 12 days after 
emergence , and as early as 5 days on particular diets (Christenson and Foote 1960).  
 
Adult B. dorsalis  are capable of long distance flights , exceeding  40 km  (Steiner 1957; Fan et 
al. 2001) . Bactrocera  dorsalis  has a high reproductive rate , with individual females capable 
of laying more than 1 ,000 eggs during their lifespan (Ye and Liu 2007) ; (Shelly 2000) . 
Bactrocera  dorsalis  has multiple overlapping generations, and t he adults occur throughout 
the year  (Ye and Liu 2007) . 
 
Damage to the fruit  
Bactrocera dorsalis females lay eggs inside the host fruit, using their ovipositor to puncture 
the fruit skin (Xu et al. 2012) . After oviposition, darker spots due to necrosis maybe visible 
around the oviposition puncture mark (CABI 2022) . It has also been noted that B. dorsalis  
females opportunistically lay eggs into fruit that is already damaged (Theron et al. 2017) . 
The B. dor salis maggots penetrate the fruit flesh while feeding on the fruit pulp, causing 
severe damage to the fruit (Tara et al. 2006) . Fruits infested with B. dorsalis  become 
malformed, and the damage caused by the feeding maggots allows for infection by secondar y 
pathogens. This causes  the fruit to rot, and ultimately fall from the plant (Tara et al. 2006) . 
 
Geographical distribution  
Bactrocera dorsalis  is native to Asia, and is now found in at least 65 countries, including 
parts of America and Oceania, and most of continental Africa (sub -Saharan countries) (CABI 
2022) .  
Table 6.1. Known geographic distribution of Bactrocera dorsalis . Information was com piled on 11 March 
2022 from CPC (2022) and EPPO (2022). Countr ies/area s/markets  with “*” are only recorded in CPC 
(2020); countr ies/area s with “**” are only recorded in EPPO (2022).  
Countr ies/area s/markets  in bold are included in the Pineapple IHS project and new market s are 
underlined.  
Continent /Region  Country/area /market  
Africa  Angola , Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, 
Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Congo, Congo -Democratic 
Republic of the, Cote d'Ivoire, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Eswatini, Ethiopia, 
Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea -Bissau, Kenya, Liberia, 
Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mayotte, Mozambique, 
Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Reunion, Rwanda, Senega l, Sudan, Sierra Leone, 
Sudan, Tanzania  (incl. Zanzibar), Togo, Uganda , Zambia, Zimbabwe  
Asia Bangladesh, Bhutan, Brunei, Cambodia, China (Anhui, Chongqing, Fujian, 
Guangdong, Guangxi, Guizhou, Hainan, Hubei, Hunan, Jiangsu, Jiangxi, 
Shanghai, Sichuan, Ti bet, Yunnan, Zhejiang, Hong Kong), Timor -Leste, India, 
Indonesia , Laos, Macau, Malaysia , Myanmar, Nepal, Oman, Pakistan, The  
199 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Philippines , Singapore, Sri Lanka , Taiwan , Thailand , United Arab Emirates, 
Vietnam  
North America  United States (California1, Hawaii)  
South America  Guyana2* 
Oceania  Australia3**, Christmas Island, French Polynesia, Palau, Papua New 
Guinea , Timor -Leste  
1.Present, transient under eradication  
2.Absent (from French Guyana) according to EPPO 2022  
3. Present in Queensland, transient under eradication according to EPPO 2022  
 
Hosts  
Bactrocera dorsalis  has a very broad host range, encompassing hundreds of fruiting plant 
species. The Oriental fruit fly was reported to be  associated with a total of 632 plant taxa  
(Liquido et al. 2017) . Of these, 481 taxa, belonging to 212 genera in 79 families, ha d 
validated records of infestation under natural field conditions  in 2017 (Liquido et al. 2017) . 
The p lant families with the most taxa reported as hosts  of B. dorsalis  are th e fig family 
(Moraceae; 38 taxa), the citrus family (Rutaceae; 37 taxa), the tomato family (Solanaceae; 33 
taxa), and the squash family (Cucurbitaceae; 29 taxa) (Liquido et al. 2017) .  
Different fruit host species and varieties can be classified as more or  less “suitable” based on 
the abundance of fly adults that can emerge from them (Follett et al. 2021) . Follett (2021) 
proposed a host suitability index (HSI) for fruit flies. The HSI is a categorical index, based on 
the logarithmic number of adult fruit flies that can emerge from a given fruit host. Hosts are 
defined as “very poor, poor, moderately good, go od, very good host”. At equal weight, a 
“moderately good host” can be infested by 10 to 100 times more fruit flies than a “poor” host 
(1-10 vs 0.1 -1 adult fruit flies per kg of fruit respectively  (Follett et al. 2021) . For example, 
pawpaw ( Carica papaya , Caricaceae) is a “very good ” host of B. dorsalis  (Table A2 , 
Appendix)  (Follett et al. 2021) . Intact pawpaw fruits exposed to gravid B. dorsalis could 
produce more than 1000 adult flies per kg of fruit (Follett et al. 2021) .  
 
Pineapple host status  
CPC (202 2) does not list A. comosus  as a host for B. dorsalis  (CABI 2022) . EPPO (2022) 
lists A. comosus  as a doubtful host for B. dorsalis  (EPPO 2022) . Australia does not require 
any measures against B. dorsalis  on pineapples from Taiwan (assessed 2019) or Malaysia 
(assessed 2012), and the IRAs are for all cultivars/varieties of commercially -produced 
decrowned pineapple.  On the other hand, B. dorsalis  was considered having high likelihood 
of introduction by USDA RA pineapples from Indonesia (2019).  
 
There is no conclusive evidence that p ineapple is a “natural host ” (sensu  ISPM 37 ) of B. 
dorsalis . A natural  host is defined as “A plant species or cultivar that has been scientifically  
found to be infested by the target fruit fly species under  natural conditions and able to sustain 
its development to  viable adults ” (ISPM 2016) .“Fruit sampling is the most reliable method to 
determine natural host status. The status of a natural host can be determined on the basis of  
confirmation of natural infestation and development to viable adults by sampling fruit during 
the harvest period ” (ISPM 2016) . 
There is only recent field evidence  (Moquet et al. 2021)  suggesting that A. comosus could be  
a natural host ( sensu  ISPM 37 ) of B. dorsalis . Ananas comosus  was reported as a new host 
association for B. dorsalis  in 2021 (Moquet et al. 2021) . Moquet et al.  (2021)  conducted fruit 
sampling in Réunion Island ( politically a French region , in the  Indian Ocean ) and found 
pineapples in fested by B. dorsalis  (Moquet et al. 2021) . This provides some evidence that  
200 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  pineapple can be  a natural host of  B. dorsalis  because “the fruit has been scientifically found 
to be infested by the fruit fly under natural conditions and able to sustain its development to 
viable adults ” (ISPM 2016) . However, this evidence is not conclusive, because Moquet et al. 
collected  pineapples  seemingly  past the ir commercial harvest period  that may have been 
damaged. In fact,  Moquet (pers. comm.) described the infested pineapples as “very ripe”, 
totally yellow, “C4” as per the UNECE Standard on the marketing and commercial quality 
control of pineapples , and hence “overripe” (UN 2013) . “Fruits were randomly collected 
regardless of the presence or absence of potential punctures ” (Moquet et al. 2021) , and the 
possibility that the infested pineapples were damaged cannot be ruled out (Moquet, pers. 
comm.) . 
 
There is no evidence that p ineapple is a “condition al host ” (sensu  ISPM 37 ) of B. 
dorsalis . A conditional host is defined as “A plant species or cultivar that is not a natural host 
but has been scientifically demonstrated to be infested by the target fruit fly species and able 
to sustain its deve lopment to viable adults as concluded from the semi -natural field 
conditions set out in this standard” i.e. in field or lab oratory  trials where the fruit is still 
attached to the tree  (ISPM 2016) .  
In a laboratory study, B. dorsalis  oviposited in half or ¾ ripe whole pineapple fruits  
(interpreted as pre -C4) of different varieties, including “Smooth Cayenne ” (Macion et al. 
1968) . Macion et al. (1968) performed non -choice cage tests, exposing pineapple fruits to 
100-10,000 fruit flies.  Healthy fly adults emerged from the pupae recovered from these 
pineapples (Macion et al. 1968) . In Macion et al’s study, the fruits were int act, but det ached 
from the plant, and their infestation does not meet the requirements to define pineapple a 
condit ional host.  “Artificial conditions are inherent in laboratory tests in which fruit flies are 
presented with harvested fruit that undergoes rapid physiological changes and thereby may 
become more susceptible to infestation. The detection of infestation in l aboratory tests for the 
determination of host status may therefore be misleading. In addition, it has been widely 
documented that under artificial conditions, females of polyphagous species will lay eggs in 
almost any fruit presented to them and, in most c ases, the larvae will develop into viable 
adults. Therefore, laboratory tests may be sufficient for demonstrating non -host status, but are 
inappropriate for demonstrating natural or conditional host status. ” (ISPM 2016) . 
 
Pineapple cannot be defined a “non  host” (sensu  ISPM 37 ) of B. dorsalis , because  the 
Oriental fruit fly can successfully infest pineapple, in natural and artificial conditions 
(Macion et al. 1968; Moquet et al. 2021) . 
 
Pineapple can be defined  a “poor ” host of B. dorsalis , because only few adults can emerge 
from infested pineapples  (Follett et al. 2021) . Moquet et al. co llected 13 pineapples of the 
Victoria (Queen) variety.  Three fruits ( 23.1% ) were infested,  and 1.5 adult flies per kg of 
pineapple emerged (Moquet et al. 2021) . Based on this information, pineapple s of the 
Victoria variety  can be defined  as poor/moderately good host s of B. dorsalis , sensu Follett  
(Follett et al. 2021) . Moquet et al. (2021) reported that B. dorsalis  exploited  pineapple as a  
new host following a nic he shift  in La Réunion island, linked to competition with other 
fruitfly species (Moquet et al. 2021) .  
Pineapples are not immune from B. dorsalis attacks, but they are resistant . Pineapples 
have physical and chemical defences against fruit flies. Pineapples have a hard fruit skin and 
are firm ( 15.1-2.4 kg/cm2 (Rao et al. 2021) , vs e.g. mango 1.1 -0.1 kg/cm2  (Rattanapun et al. 
2009) ). As with other fruit flies, B. dorsalis  frequently oviposit and develop in non-intact  
201 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  fruits  (Follett et al. 2021) , and prefer softer, ripe fruits (Seo et al. 1982; Rattanapun et al. 
2009) . Pineapples have high liquid content, and even when B. dorsalis  can puncture the fruit 
skin and oviposit, the eggs are flooded and fail to hatch (Macion et al. 1968) . Bactrocera  
dorsa lis laid most eggs in the pineapple fruit flesh (ca 75%) and surface (ca 13%), and a 
small minority (3.0 -5.4%) of these hatched (Macion et al. 1968) . However, B. dorsalis  laid 
the other eggs in the thick of the fruit skin (or shell, 12%), and most shell -laid eggs (52.0 -
78.6%) hatched. Pineapples might also have strong chemical defences against B. dorsalis . 
The phenolic contents in pineapple were reported  to be the highest  among fruits  (117.75 mg 
GAE/100 g FW)  (Rasheed et al. 2012) . Among mango varieties, th ose resistant to B. dorsalis  
have higher phenolic contents  (Verghese et al. 2012) . Phenols are  toxic to the maggots  of 
another  tephritid , Rhagoletis pomonella  (Rattanapun et al. 2009) , and high phenol content in 
fruit is associated with resistance to other fruit flies such as Anastrepha fraterculus  and 
Ceratitis capitata  (Oroño et al. 2019) . 
 
Pineapple variety susceptibility  
In the laboratory , whole fruits of six  varieties, including “Sm ooth Cayenne”  and five 
unknown varieties, were infested by B. dorsalis  (Macion et al. 1968) .  
In the field, the only variety of pineapple found infested by B. dorsalis  was (“Queen”) 
“Victoria” (Moquet et al. 2021) . In previous field infestation testing, pi neapples were not 
infested (Flitters et al. 1953; Armstrong and Jang 1997) .  
Early work from Hawaii on several varieties of pineapple (i.e., Smooth Cayenne, 59.443, D -
10, D -20, 59 -656) showed that export grade fruits of A. comosus  are not hosts for B. dors alis 
when harvested at green or colour break ripeness. Field -grown and harvested fruit from the 
island of Lanai did not produce any larvae or pupae of B. dorsalis  despite there being adults 
in the fields and surrounding areas (Seo et al. 1973; Armstrong et al. 1979; Armstrong and 
Vargas 1982) . 
An assessment of 610 export grade pineapples (variety 59.443) harvested from the field on 
the island of Lanai, Hawaii,  resulted in zero larvae or pupae being recovered  (Seo et al. 
1973) . This was despite B. dorsalis  being present in the the field and increasing in number 
during the harvesting period  (Seo et al. 1973) . The pineapples were harvested when green or 
at the colour break stage  (Seo et al. 1973) . 
No B. dorsalis  emerged from export grade pineapples (varieties Smooth Cayenne, D -10 and 
D-20) harvested from the island of Lana i, Hawaii, when assessing 521, 503 and 571 of each 
variety  (Armstrong et al. 1979) . The pineapples were harvested at green or colour break 
ripeness  (Armstrong et al. 1979) . 
Using 50 0 pineapples of variety 59 -656 harvested from the field on the island of Lanai, 
Hawaii, no B. dorsalis  emerged  (Armstrong and Vargas 1982) . The pineapples were 
harvested when green or at colour break  (Armstrong and Vargas 1982) . 
MPI has considered “Smooth Cayenne”  pineapple resistant to B. dorsalis . “The scientific 
evidence strongly suggests that pineapple varieties with ≥50% Smooth Cayenne genetic 
parentage are non -hosts of fruit flies of economic significance, including B. cucurbitae , B. 
dorsalis  and C. capitata ” (MPI 2014) ”. “Th is non -host status has been demonstrated using 
field infestation testing  (Flitters et al. 1953; Armstrong and Jang 1997) ”. “MPI agreed that 
pineapple varieties with ≥50% Smooth Cayenne genetic parentage are non -hosts of fr uit fly 
species of economic significance in Australia  (MAF/DAFF 2004) ” (MPI 2014) . The 
pineapple varieties Smooth Cayenne, Aus -Jubilee (75% Smooth Cayenne parentage) , MD2 
(50% Smooth Cayenne parentage) , and 73-50 (50% Smooth Cayenne parentage)  were given  
202 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  “non-host” status for pineapple varieties imported from Australia to New Zealand  (MPI 
2014) .  
 
6.1.3.2  Likelihood of entry  
 
Bactrocera dorsalis  is very unlikely to be associated with the commodity.  
There is clear evidence  that pineapple  is a resistant and poor host  for B. dorsalis  (refer to 
pineapple host status in section 1.1.5.1). T he Oriental fruit fly can  infest pineapple s when 
other more suitable fruit hosts are not an option (Macion et al. 1968; Moquet et al. 2021) , and 
can infest pineapple fruits of different varieties and in a pre -harvest stage of ripeness in no -
choice cage experiments (Macion et al. 1968) . The only evidence of infestation in the field 
comes from overripe pineapples (not meeting the commodity descri ption) (Moquet et al. 
2021) . Pineapple cannot be strictly defined as a “natural host”, a “conditional host”, or a 
“non -host”, referring to the ISPM 37 definitions.   
Since  1929 and to this date (14/04/2022), there have been no interceptions of B. dorsalis  on 
pineapples imported in New Zealand. This includes historical pineapple imports from two 
countries where B. dorsalis  is native and that are within the scope of this risk assessment, the 
Philippines and Thailand. There is no record in the EPPO non -complia nce database for 
detections of B. dorsalis  on pineapple  in the EU  (EPPO 2022) .  
Bactrocera  dorsalis  entered New Zealand on fresh produce other than pineapple from 
pineapple exporting countries. Between 2000 and 2020, B. dorsalis  has been intercepted and 
identified (as “ B. dorsalis ” or “ B. dorsalis complex ”) 76 times at the New Zealand border, 
mostly cons ignments from India (LIMS). In 15 of these interceptions , B. dorsalis  was found 
associated with consignments from the Philippines and Thailand  (LIMS). Bactrocera dorsalis  
was intercepted from these two countries on fruit hosts other than pineapple. Bactroc era 
dorsalis  was also intercepted in consignments originating from Sri Lanka (six interceptions) 
and Indonesia (two interceptions). Sri Lanka and Indonesia are included in this IRA as new 
market access for pineapple ( Table A2, Appendix ). These  interception records must be 
considered underestimates of the actual number of individuals and instances when B. dorsalis  
entered New Zealand.  
New Zealand imports and is likely to keep importing mostly Smooth Cayenne pineapple 
varieties. No evidence coul d be found that Smooth Cayenne pineapples can be infested in the 
field, and MPI has considered these varieties non -hosts (MPI 2014) . Historically, New 
Zealand has import ed five pineapple varieties (Smooth Cayenne, Ripley Queen, Viamama, 
Queen Tahiti and Qu een) of fresh pineapples from seven countries (Australia, Ecuador, Fiji, 
New Caledonia, the Philippines, Thailand and Vanuatu) . The vast majority of pineapples 
(87% of volume) have been imported from the Philippines (MPI 2022b) . The Philippines will 
be exp orting to New Zealand Smooth Cayenne variety pineapples (MPI 2022b) . 
B. dorsalis is present in seven pineapple exporting markets  within the scope of this IRA: 
Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, Thailand, Papua New Guinea  
(CABI 2022; EPPO 2022) , and transient and under eradication in Queensland, Australia 
(EPPO 2022)  (Table 1).  Bactrocera dorsalis is likely common in five new market access 
markets (Table 1), and this increases the likelihood of accidental introduction.   
203 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Bactrocera dorsalis  show s resistance to infield insecticide usage.  Wei et al. (201 9) reported 
that due to long and highly frequent applications of certain chemicals, B. dorsalis  has 
developed high levels of insecticide resistance  (Wei et al. 2019) . For example, B. dorsalis  
populations with a high level of resistance to trichlor phon, β-cypermethrin , and avermectin  
were detected in mainland China  (Jin et al. 2011) . More recently, resistance to malathion, 
trichlorfon , and cyantraniliprole has bee n reported  (Zhang et al. 2014; Chen et al. 2015; 
Wang et al. 2015) . 
Infestation symptoms may not be visible unless the fruit is cut in half, and even when the fruit 
is cut . Bactrocera dorsalis  infestations may be visually detectable in the field and/or 
packhouses, leading to the removal of some infested produce . Oviposition of B. dorsalis  may 
cause necrosis around the puncture mark, followed by decomposition of the fruit  (CABI 
2022) . If culling is adopted by the export markets, the practice is  likely to reduce the risk to 
some extent , as shown in citrus (Xia et al. 2019) . However, it is highly likely that infested 
fruits will not be detected . Fruits with a low level of infestation (fewer oviposit ion punctures) 
may not be obvious enough to be detected during general handling, especially if the volume 
of commodities is large. Pineapples have epicarps with uneven colour and complex texture. 
Flies’ puncture marks might  be more difficult to detect on pineapple than on other fruits such 
as citrus . Eggs of  B. dorsalis are laid under the skin of the ripened or ripening fruits and the 
maggots feed inside the fruits (Ye and Liu 2007) . Since  general handling after harvesting 
treats the fruits’ surface only, it is not effective in removing  B. dorsalis  maggots that may be  
present inside pineapple fruits. Fruits will need to be cut open to reveal the maggots of B. 
dorsalis  inside, and eggs are harder to detect.  Even when fruit is cut open, the rate of 
detection of infestations can be very low (Gould 1995) . According to Gould (1995),  the 
probability of detecting the larvae of the Caribbean fruit fly, Anastrepha suspensa  by fruit 
cutting ranged from 1 to 36% , whereas the probability of detecting infested fruits ranged 
from 17.0 to 83.5%  (Gould 1995) . The interception records of B. dorsalis also show  that 
some infested fruits cannot be detected during general handling after harvest .  
Bactrocera dorsalis  is likely to survive transit  (refer to the transit conditions section ). 
Between 2000 and 2020, B. dorsalis  has been intercepted and identified 76 times at the New 
Zealand border  (LIMS) . Most B. dorsalis  interception records (84%) reported two or more 
individuals, and in one case, more than 50 maggots were found associated with a mango 
consignment from Sri Lanka ( LIMS) (Table A3, Appendix ). In 73 cases, the viability of the 
individual or individuals intercepted was recorded. In most cases , B. dorsalis  was alive . Eggs, 
maggots, pupae, and adults  of B. dorsali s have been intercepted alive at the New Zealand 
border (LIMS)  (Table A4, Appendix ). 
Uncertainty  
Based on the above evidence, t here is low uncertainty on the very low likelihood of 
Bactrocera dorsalis  entering New Zealand in association with the commodity . There is 
evidence in multiple references and data supporting the view that pineapples are resistant to 
B. dorsalis . The few references reporting pineapple fruits infested show that pineapple is a 
“poor host” for B. dorsalis . Only one field study  (Moquet et al. 2021)  suggested that 
pineapple could be a “natural host” for B. dorsalis . However , personal communication with 
the main author of the study provided evidence that the fruits infested by B. dorsalis  did not 
meet the commodity description (the fruits were past the harvesting stage (all yellow) and 
overripe, and damage was not visible but possible). On the other hand, fruits meeting the 
commodity description could be infested in the laboratory (Macion et al. 1968) . There is  
204 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  strong evidence in m ultiple references and data supporting the view that if pineapple fruits 
were infested by B. dorsalis , the fruitfly could enter New Zealand.  
  
Given that:  
 
• Bactrocera dorsalis  is very unlikely to be associated with the commodity ; 
• Bactrocera  dorsalis  is present in seven  pineapple exporting markets  in this IRA ; 
• Infestation symptoms may not be visible unless the fruit is cut in half, and even when 
the fruit is cut;  
• Bactrocera dorsalis  is likely to survive transit ;  
• Bactrocera dorsalis  show s resistance to infield insecticide usage ; 
 
MPI considers that the likelihood of Bactrocera dorsalis  entering New Zealand associated 
with pineapple fruit is VERY LOW , with LOW uncertainty.  
 
6.1.3.3  Likelihood of exposure  
This assess es the likelihood of  B. dorsalis  transferring to a suitable host plant if it enter s New 
Zealand undetected.  
 
Bactrocera dorsalis  can survive and develop on the waste of pineapple  fruit, which will be 
partially disposed of using high -risk methods . If pineapple  fruits are disposed of as whole 
fruit, fruit pieces or fruit peel waste after consumption, it is likely that B. dorsalis  can survive 
in this waste. Most food waste in New Zealand is disposed of using low -risk methods 
(bagged waste into landfill or into ki tchen disposal units), so B. dorsalis  would either be 
killed or unable to escape from the imported fruit or fruit waste to find a new host  (see waste 
analysis in background information document ). However,  some waste is disposed of using 
high-risk methods, including composting waste in home gardens and using waste as animal 
feed.  
 
Bactrocera dorsalis  has a very broad host range . Therefore, it is likely to find a suitable host.  
Many hosts are widely distributed in New  Zealand and are commercially grown and/or 
commonly found in home gardens.  These  include apple ( Malus domestica ), apricot ( Prunus 
armeniaca ), avocado ( Persea americana ), capsicum ( Capsicum annuum ), citrus ( Citrus spp .), 
cucumber ( Cucumis sativus ), grapevine ( Vitis vinifera ), guava ( Psidium g uajava ), loquat 
(Eriobotrya japonica ), peach ( Prunus persica ), pear ( Pyrus spp.), persimmon ( Diospyros 
kaki), plum ( Prunus domestica ) and kiwifruit ( Actinidia deliciosa ) (CABI 2022) . If hosts are 
not far from the composting site or animal feeding site ( see waste analysis in background 
information document ), adult B. dorsalis  are very likely to locate a new host.  Since the adult 
is highly mobile, hosts distant from the waste disposal site could also be located.  
 
Adult B. dorsalis  are capable of  long-distance flights, and this increase s their likelihood of 
locating a suitable host. Weldon et al. (2014) reviewed previous studies and reported m ean 
dispersal distances recorded for B. dorsalis  in mark –release –recapture studies range from 1 
km to 3.6  km. The dispersal ability of B. dorsalis  seems superior to  that of other Bactrocera  
species, which have mean dispersal distances well under 1  km (Weldon et al. 2014) .  
In the field  (mark, release, and recapture studies in Hawaii ), one B. dorsalis  male was 
recove red 3 8.6 k m away from its release point , and m any other  males  were captured far away 
from  breeding site s, even at 1,100 m  of altitude  (Steiner 1957) . In another study, 1,917 flies  
205 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  were recaptured (Froerer et al. 2010) . Seven flies covered a distance of more than 10 km 
within one day  (Froerer et al. 2010) . However, the vast majority of the flies (98.5%) were 
recaptured within  2 km from the release point (Froerer et al. 2010) . In the  laboratory (flight -
mill system ), individual  B. dorsalis  could  cover  46 km in flight  (Fan et al. 2001) , and up to 15 
km in one hour (Makumbe et al. 2020) . 
 
Adult B. dorsalis  have relatively long lifespan, usually one to three months but up to a year. 
The longevity of B. dorsalis  adults increase s the likelihood of locating a suitable host.  
 
Uncertainty  
The level of uncertainty associated with the conclusion is low. There is strong evidence in 
multiple references that the biological characteristics of B. dorsalis  favour its exposure.  
It is unknown  what proportion of composting sites are exposed or enclosed  (see waste 
analysis in background information document ). Moreover , It is unknown how frequently 
suitable hosts will be present near composting sites in gardens or animal feeding locations.  
  
Given that:  
 
• Bactrocera dorsalis  can survive and develop on pineapple  fruit waste, some of which 
will be disposed of using high -risk methods;  
• Bactrocera dorsalis  has a very broad host range . Many hosts are widely distributed in 
New Zealand, and are commercially grown and/or commonly found in home 
gardens ; 
• Adult B. dorsalis  are capable of  long-distance flights;   
• As flies, a dult B. dorsalis  have relatively long lifespans;  
 
MPI considers the likelihood of  Bactrocera dorsalis  becoming exposed to a suitab le host in 
New Zealand from pineapple fruit  to be HIGH, with LOW  uncertainty . 
 
6.1.3.4  Likelihood of establishment  
This assess es the likelihood of  B. dorsalis  establishing a population in New Zealand if it is 
successfully exposed to a suitable host plant in the New Zealand environment.  
 
Bactrocera dorsalis  is a highly invasive species.  The fly is native to Asia, but is now found in 
parts of America, Africa and Oceania . It is a serious pest of a wide range of f ruit crops 
throughout its native and introduced range  (CABI 2022) . 
 
Bactrocera dorsalis  has a very broad host range . Therefore, host availability is unlikely to be 
a limiting factor for it to establish in New Zealand.  The Oriental fruit fly is associated with 
hundreds of plant species  (Liquido et al. 2017) . Many hosts are commercially grown and 
commonly found in home gardens and parks, such as apple, apricot, avocado, capsicum, 
citrus, cucumber, grapevine, guava, loquat , peach, pear, persimmon and plum. Therefore, 
hosts are likely to be available in all seasons and present in most areas in New Zealand.  
 
The New Zealand climate is suitable for B. dorsalis to establish  in the North Island . 
Bactrocera dorsalis  is native to Asia, and its current distribution is predominantly in the 
tropics and subtropics (Table 2). The current distribution includes some countries and areas 
with c omposite  match ind ices (CMI s with all of New Zealand, here and below ) (Phillips et a l. 
2018) of 0.7 –0.8 (Phillips et al. 2018). These areas include Himachal Pradesh in India (CMI:  
206 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  0.7–0.8), Anhui, Chongqing, Guizhou, Hubei, Hunan, Jiangsu, Shanghai, Yunnan, Zhejiang 
in China (CMI: 0.7) and Sichuan in China (CMI: 0.8). This suggests that B. dorsalis,  or some 
populations of the species, can adapt to a colder temperate climate.  
 
A modelling study indicates that many areas of New Zealand are likely to be suitable for the 
establishment and short -term population occurrence of B. dorsali s (Kriti cos et al. 2007) . A 
CLIMEX™ model indicates that under the reference climate (1961 –1990), B. dorsalis  could 
establish throughout much of the low -lying areas of the North Island, and most parts of New 
Zealand could support short -term populations during the summer months (Kriticos et al. 
2007) . The predicted temperature increase in the next 10 –20 years (IPCC 2022)  will increase  
the likelihood of establishment  and increase the areas where B. dorsalis  can establish long -
term populations . Under current climate , B. dorsalis  is projected to be capable of establishing 
permanent populations throughout Northland,  Auckland, the Coromandel Peninsula, northern 
Waikato and in coastal areas south to  Cape Turnagain an d Foxton  (Kriticos et al. 2007) . 
Current climatic conditions are projected to be unsuitable  for the establishment  of B. dorsalis  
in the South Island  (Kriticos et al. 2007) . Under the future climate scenarios, the area of New 
Zealand projected  to be climati cally suitable for B. dorsalis  increased to cover all of the 
lowland regions in the  North Island and the warmer parts of the South Island  (Kriticos et al. 
2007) .  
 
Bactrocera dorsalis  has a strong  dispersal ability , being capable of  long-distance flights . 
Beyond its natural dispersal ability, B. dorsalis  could disperse via unintentional transport. 
Eggs and maggots  of B. dorsalis  are inside the fruit and unlikely to be visible. Therefore, 
transporting infested fruit is a major means by which the  fruit fly can spread to areas that 
were not infested previously  (Liebhold et al. 2006) . 
 
Bactrocera dorsalis  has multiple overlapping generations.  The number of generations per 
year and occurrence of B. dorsalis  differ through out its geographic distribution, but in 
general, B. dorsalis  has 3 –5 overlapping generations per year in most tropical areas in its 
distribution and may reach 10 generations per year under optimal conditions (Ye and Liu 
2007) . In Xishuangbana, Yunan, China (CMI: 0.6), B. dorsalis  is prese nt all year round (Ye 
and Liu 2007) , while in Baoshanba, Yunan (CMI: 0.7 –0.8), B. dorsalis  occurs during April –
November  with the population peak in August  (Chen and Ye 2007) . In Hubei, China (CMI: 
0.7), where the typical climate is hot and wet in summer an d freezing cold in winter, five 
generations per year were observed  (Han et al. 2011) . 
 
Bactrocera  dorsalis  shows hi gh genetic variability , and this may facilitate the adaptation to a 
new habitat during invasion. Female B. dorsalis mate with multiple males (Prastiti et al. 
2020). Such polyandry implies high genetic variability and that even if sperm reserves w ere 
depleted , the female  could find other male s and resume  egg-laying (Shelly 2000) . High 
genetic diversity within the B. dors alis population was observed in its native range, and 
multiple introductions and hybridisation among related populations and species in the 
introduced range may further enhance genetic diversity (Aketarawong et al. 2007; Wan et al. 
2012) . 
 
Bactrocera dorsa lis has a high reproductive rate. The female s of B. dorsalis  can lay 3 –30 
eggs in each oviposition  event (Fletcher 1989) . One female can lay more than 1 ,000 eggs 
during her lifespan (Shelly 2000; Ye and Liu 2007) . 
  
207 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Female B. dorsalis  can release sex pherom ones to attract males (Shen et al. 2019) , and this  
increases the probability of females finding mates . Males also release a mating pheromone 
synthesised by Bacillus  bacteria that influences female attraction and mate selection (Ren et 
al. 2021) , which is m ade more attractive when Bactrocera  males feed on sources of the 
phenylpropanoid, methyl eugenol (Wee et al. 2007) . Methyl eugenol has several natural 
sources including numerous common garden plants (Tan and Nishida 2012) . 
 
The current  National Fruit Fly Surveillance Programme reduce s the likelihood  of B. dorsalis  
establishing in New Zealand.  Bactrocera dorsalis  is on e of the targeted fruit fly species in 
this surveillance programme  (Pather 2019) , and early detection and eradication of inc ipient 
populations  is very likely . Since sexually mature male B. dorsalis  are attracted to  the 
parapheromone  methyl eugenol (Tan and  Nishida 2012) , traps baited with this are effective 
for its trapping (Shen et al. 2019; Stringer et al. 2019) . Eradication programmes for B. 
dorsalis  call for the use of male annihilation technique using spot applications of insecticide 
mixed with methyl eugenol (Manrakhan 2020) . In New Zealand , the s urveillance for fruit 
flies uses trimedlure, cuelure and methyl eugenol as lures  (Stringer et al. 2019) . An analysis 
of 211 eradication or emergency response programs against 17 species of fruit flies in 31 
countries indicated that the failure rate for fruit fly eradication programs was low globally 
(about 7%;  (McInnis et al. 2017) ), and NZ has a 100% success rate in eradicating tephritid 
incursions  (Clarke 2019) . 
 
Uncertainty  
The level of uncertainty associated with the conclusion is low. There is strong evidence in 
multiple references that the biological characteristics of B. dorsalis  favour its establishment. 
There is evidence that the  current national surveillance programme i s likely to detect B. 
dorsalis  incursions, and reduce the likelihood  of B. dorsalis  establishment in New Zealand. 
There is  uncertainty around the suitability of all of New Zealand’s climate for  the 
establishment of long -term populations of  B. dorsalis .  
 
Given that: 
• Bactrocera dorsalis  is a highly invasive species ; 
• Bactrocera dorsalis  has a very broad host range  and, t herefore, host availability is 
unlikely to be a limiting factor for it to establish in New Zealand ; 
• Parts of  New Zealand have a  climate  that is suitable  for the establis hment of B. 
dorsali s; 
• Bactrocera dorsalis  has a strong  dispersal ability ; 
• Bactrocera dorsalis  has a high reproductive rate ; 
• Bactrocera dorsalis  has multiple overlapping generations in both warmer and colder 
climates ; 
• The current national surveillance programme is likely to reduce the likelihood of 
B. dorsalis  establishing in New Zealand ; 
 
MPI considers the likelihood of  Bactrocera dorsalis  establishi ng in New Zealand is 
MODERATE, with LOW uncertainty . 
 
6.1.3.5  Impacts in New Zealand  
This assessment is made on the assumption that B. dorsalis  has successfully established in the 
New Zealand environment .    
208 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand   
Economic impacts  
New  Zealand's freedom  from pest  fruit flies is  a key feature enabling horticultural exports. 
Independent of direct damage,  an incursion of B. dorsalis  would have severe impacts  on 
exports, including market access.  Bactrocera dorsalis  is of quarantine signi ficance to EPPO 
(European Plant Protection Organization), APPPC (Asia and Pacific Plant Protection 
Commission), COSAV (Comité de Sanidad Vegetal del Cono Sur), CPPC (Caribbean Plant 
Protection Commission), IAPSC (Inter -African Phytosanitary Council) and OI RSA 
(Organismo Internacional Regional de Sanidad Agropecuaria) countries  (CABI 2022) . 
Detection of a fruit fly in the surveillance programme would be reported internationally and 
would be expected to result in reduced market access for New Zealand host mat erials , at least 
temporarily . Drew (1997) estimated that t he incursion of B. dorsalis  (reported as B. papayae ) 
in north Queensland cause d losses of nearly A U$100m, mostly due to loss of market access 
(Clarke et al. 2005) . If B. dorsalis  established, New Ze aland would lose its pest -free status.  
 
Bactrocera dorsalis  is a devastating pest of a wide variety of fruits and vegetables throughout 
its range and damage levels can be up to 100% of unprotected fruit (CABI 2022) . In Yunnan 
(CMI: 0.7), China, infestation  rates by B. dorsalis  of over 30% have been reported on mango  
(Yongsheng et al. 1996) . In Sichuan (CMI: 0.8), infestations of B. dorsalis  occur on pears, 
apple, mango, peach and guava. Infestation level of fruits is usually 20% but can be as high 
as 50%  (Zhang and Zhao 1994) . In Hubei (CMI: 0.7), B. dorsalis  change feeding patterns 
depending on host availability. In a survey in the area, maggots  were first found in pear fruits, 
following by jujube fruits and persimmons. The most serious damage occurred in  the fourth  
generation in citrus orchards  (Han et al. 2011) .  
 
Bactrocera dorsalis  is likely to cause impact s on many plants of major economic importance 
in New Zealand, especially on apple, citrus, and avocado industries , but also on the kiwifruit 
industr y. In New Zealand, 80% of horticultural export value came from plants that are 
potential fruit -fly host s (Pather 2019) . The export value of New Zealand’s horticultural 
industry was NZ $3.7b in 2020 (Plant and Food Research  2020) . The industry has grown over  
time, and with it, the potential impact of a B. dorsalis  incursion or invasion. From 2019 to 
2020, reported fresh fruit export earnings have increased by 8%, with key categories  
including kiwifruit (10% on 2019), apples (6%) and avocado (8%)  (Plant&FoodRe search 
2020) . The main h osts of B. dorsalis  commercially grown in New Zealand include, but are 
not limited to: apple, apricot, avocado, capsicum, citrus, cucumber, grapevine, peach, pear, 
persimmon and plum (CABI 2022; EPPO 2022) . Apples, pears, and peache s grown in areas 
with similar climate to New Zealand were severely damaged by infestations of B. dorsalis  
(Zhang and Zhao 1994; Yongsheng et al. 1996; Han et al. 2011) .   
 
Apple can be classified as a good ovipositional host for B. dorsalis  (Follett et al. 2021) . Follet 
et al. (2019, 2021) evaluated fruit host suitability for B dorsalis , reporting on field and 
laboratory screen cage tests. Fruits were exposed to gravid fruit  fly females for 24 h, and th en 
held in the laboratory for four weeks for pupal development and adult emergence ( Table A 1, 
Appendix ) (Follett et al. 2021) . Follet t et al. (2019)  found that B. dorsalis could produce 269 
puparia per kg in fresh , intact  apples  (Follett et al. 2019b) . Apple is a particularly important 
horticultural crop for New Zealand, with export s value d at NZ $876m in 2020 ( Plant and 
Food Research  2020).  
 
Kiwifruit can also be infested by B. dorsalis (Follett et al. 2019a) . However, kiwifruit is a 
poorer ovipositional host for B. dorsalis  when compared to fruits such as apple (Follett et al.  
209 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  2021) . The susceptibility of kiwifruit has varietal differences. G old kiwifruit  was classified as 
a moderately good/good host and green kiwifruit as a poor/moderately  good host by Follett et 
al. (2021). In laboratory studies, B. dorsalis could produce an average of 54.7 puparia per kg 
in intact gold kiwifruit , and 1.3 puparia per kg on intact green kiwifruit (Follett et al. 2019a) . 
Kiwifruit is New Zealand’s highest va lue horticulture export, worth NZ $2534 m in 2020  
(Plant and Food Research  2020) , and  making up 38% of total export value 
(Plant&FoodResearch 2020) . Gold kiwifruit accounts for about half of the total production 
value, and the value of this variety has consi stently and substantially grown since its 
commerciali sation (Zespri, in (Plant&FoodResearch 2020) ). 
 
Citrus and avocado are considered  good hosts and could be seriously impacted. A model 
developed by Kriticos et al. (2007) suggested that an incursion of B. dorsalis  in New Zealand 
could have a major impact on the citrus and avocado industries in particular (Kriticos et al. 
2007) . Almost all areas where mandarins and avocados are cultivated are in areas projected to 
be suitable for the establishment of B. dor salis (Kriticos et al. 2007) . Avocado is reported as 
one of the most commonly attacked species (Weems et al. 2012) . The s ales value (export and 
domestic) of citrus in New Zealand was NZ$69.7 m in 2019 and the value of avocado was 
NZ$150.7 m (Plant and Food Research  2020).  
 
The cost of a biosecurity response to eradicate B. dorsalis  would be high. In 1996, there was 
an incursion of B. dorsalis  in New Zealand (Auckland, single fly detected in a trap, as B. 
papayae ). The cost of the response was 0.225m NZD  in 1996. The typical cost of fruit fly 
responses is millions of dollars. For example, the prompt Queensland fruit fly response in 
2019 cost ed approximately NZ$18 m (MPI 202 2). In Japan, the eradication of B. dorsalis 
from the Ryukyu Islands cost ed more tha n 200 m euros (Kiritani 1998) . The cost for the 
eradication programme of B. dorsalis  in northern Queensland (1995 -1999) was AU$33 m 
(Cantrell et al. 2002) . 
 
If B. dorsalis  established in New Zealand, additional postharvest disinfestation costs would 
be neces sary. In Australia, apples and citrus fruit undergo a cold treatment for fruit fly at a 
cost (1996 figures) of approximately A U$200/tonne. Avocados are treated with hot forced air 
costing approximately A U$125/tonne, and stone fruit , cucurbits and tomatoes are treated with 
a dimethoate dip which costs approximately A U$100/tonne  (MAF 1996) . 
 
Uncertainty  
The level of uncertainty associated with the conclusion is low. There is strong evidence in 
multiple references that B. dorsalis  can impact horticultural industries. The main source of 
uncertainty is the  infestation levels that B. dorsalis  could achieve in New Zealand orchards 
and weather conditions.  
 
Given that: 
 
• Bactrocera dorsalis  is a devastating pest of a wide variety of fruits and vegetables 
throughout its range , and 20-50% of protected crops can be  damaged;  
• In New Zealand  (2019 ), 80% of horticultural export value ( NZ$3.7b in 2020) came 
from plants that are potent ial fruit -fly hosts ;  
• Bactrocera dorsalis  is likely to cause impacts on many plants of major economic 
importance in New Zealand, especially on the apple, citrus, and avocado industries, 
but also on the kiwifruit industry ;  
210 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  • Independent of direct damage,  an incursion of B. dorsalis  could have high i mpacts  on 
exports, including market access ; 
• The cost of a biosecurity response to eradicate B. dorsalis  would be high ; 
• If B. dorsalis  established in New Zealand, additional postharvest disinfestation costs 
would be necessary ; 
 
MPI considers the economic im pact of  Bactrocera dorsalis  in New Zealand to be HIGH , with 
LOW uncertainty.  
 
Environmental impacts  
Bactrocera dorsalis  hosts include plant genera with native New Zealand plant species. Some 
of the native species in these genera have “At Risk” or “Threaten ed” conservation status, 
including: Planchonella costata , Solanum aviculare  var. aviculare , S. aviculare  var. 
latifolium , Streblus banksia , St. smithii , and Syzygium maire . Bactrocera dorsalis  has been 
reported to attack Syzygium  overseas  (Allwood et al. 1999; Liquido et al. 2017) . Native 
Syzygium maire  could become an alternative host if B. dorsalis  established near native 
lowland forest where the tree species predominantly occurs (MAF 2009).  However, the 
magnitude of the impact of B. dorsalis  on the se fruiting plants is likely to be limited . 
Bactrocera dorsalis  attacks only the flesh of ripe fruit, and it is unlikely to impair seed 
development, number or viability.  
The use of insecticides to control of invasive B. dorsalis  populations could have impa cts on 
the environment . 
 
Uncertainty  
The level of uncertainty associated with the conclusion is moderate . The main source of 
uncertainty is the infestations levels that B. dorsalis  could achieve among New Zealand 
native plants and in New Zealand climate, and how much impact on the host plant population 
dynamics it might  have.  
 
Given that: 
 
• Bactrocera dorsalis  hosts include plant genera with native New Zealand plant 
species ; 
• The use of insecticides to control of invasive B. dorsalis populations could have 
impacts on the environment ; 
 
MPI considers the environmental  impact of  Bactrocera dorsalis  in New Zealand is LOW , 
with MODERATE uncertainty.  
 
Human health impacts  
No evidence could be found that B. dorsalis  can have direct impacts on human health. The 
use of insecticides to control invasive B. dorsalis  populations could have indirect impacts on 
human health. For some insecticides such as  spinosad (the toxicant in GF -120 bait sprays) , 
significant impacts would  not be expected, given the characteristics of the product. However, 
other insecticides such as  malathion  have  higher levels of toxicity. According to Salcedo 
Baca et al. (2010) , 5.15 people are negatively affect ed for every 1 ,000 lit res of insecticide  
(Salcedo Baca et al. 2010) . Malathion is used in New Zealand (Maldison  brand). However, 
impacts are expected to be limited given clear health and safety regulation  and assuming high 
compliance (e.g. prohibit ing peop le from enter ing areas where Maldison has been applied for  
211 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  24 hours unless they are wearing full personal protective and respiratory protective 
equipment ) (EPA 2013) . 
There is a possibility of people consumin g infested fruit outside the market , where consumers 
grow their own fruit. In this case, eating locally produced infested fruit  could cause  
gastrointestinal diseases with abdominal pain and diarrh oea (Chen et al. 2011) . 
 
Uncertainty  
The level of uncertainty associated with the conclusion is moderate . There is uncertainty 
about the infestation levels that B. dorsalis  could achieve, on the degree and type of 
insecticide usage.  
 
Given that: 
 
• The use of insecticides to control of invasive B. dorsalis populations could have 
impacts on human health;  
• The local consumption of  infested fruit  could cause  gastrointestinal diseases ; 
 
MPI considers the human health  impact of  Bactrocera dorsalis  in New Zealand is VERY 
LOW, with MODERATE uncertainty.  
 
Sociocultural impacts  
Bactrocera dorsalis  is damaging in terms of fruit losses or lower quality of fruit . It could 
damage  a number of plants grown in domestic gardens and parks, such as Vitis spp., Prunus  
spp., Citrus  spp. and Malus  spp. It would be  a potential nuisance pest in urban environments  
if it achieved high densities and e.g. aggregated in houses . 
 
Uncertainty  
The level of uncertainty associated with the conclusion is moderate . No study estimating the 
sociocultural impacts derived from the potential infestation of fruit flies on taonga species 
could be found. However, the biology of the species suggests that it would have low impacts.  
 
Given that: 
 
• Bactrocera dorsalis  is damaging to a number of plants grown in domestic gardens and 
parks  
 
MPI considers the sociocultural impact of  Bactrocera dorsalis  in New Zealand to  be LOW , 
with MODERATE uncertainty.  
 
6.1.3.6  Overall impact to New Zealand  
The overall impact of Bactrocera dorsalis  on the New Zealand economy, environment, health 
and society is considered to be  HIGH , with LOW uncertainty .  
 
6.1.3.7  Overall level of risk to New Zealand  
Based on the assessments of lik elihood and consequences above, that:  
 
• the lik elihood of entry is VERY LOW  
• assuming entry, the likelihood of exposure is HIGH   
212 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  • assuming successful exposure, the likelihood o f establishment is MODERATE  
• the overall impact on the New Zealand economy, environment, human health, and 
society is considered to be HIGH  
 
MPI considers t he overall level of risk to New Zealand from  Bactrocera dorsalis  on 
pineapple fruit  as MODERATE , with  LOW  uncertainty . 
 
 Specific considerations  
On which pineapple  fruit  variety (or varieties) and at what stage of ripeness has  the 
association of B. dorsalis  with pineapple fruit been observed?    
In the field, three pineapples of the (“Queen”) “Victoria” variety were infested by B. dorsalis  
(Moquet et al. 2021) . These pineapples were “overripe” (C4) and potentially damaged, 
although no damage was noticed (Moquet, pers. comm.). In no -choice cage exp eriments, B. 
dorsalis  infested (undamaged) “Smooth Cayenne” pineapple fruits and other five non 
specified varieties, half or three quarters ripe (interpreted as pre -C4) (Macion et al. 1968) . 
 
Which parts of the pineapple fruit is  B. dorsalis  associated wit h (e.g.  fruit, bract, stem or 
crown remnant),  and is it detectable by visual inspection ?   
Eggs and maggots of B. dorsalis  are found inside pineapple fruits (Moquet et al. 2021) .  
When  gravid B. dorsalis  females lay eggs, they puncture the fruit skin with the ovipositor. 
The oviposition can produce marks on the fruit, but these marks may not be visible  (CABI 
2022) . It is likely that marks on  pineapple fruits would not be visible, given the size of the 
fruit, its uneven colour , and the complex texture  of the fruit skin . 
 
Does B. dorsalis  burrow into the fruit without obvious symptoms ? 
Maggots of of B. dorsalis  burrow in the pineapple flesh and they may not be visible (CABI 
2022) . 
 
 References  
Aketarawong, N; Bonizzoni, M; Thanaphum, S; Gomulski, L; Gasperi, G; Malacrida, A; 
Gugliemino, C (2007) Inferences on the population structure and colonization process of the 
invasive oriental fruit fly, Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel). Molecular Ecology 16(17): 3522 -
3532.  
 
Allwood, A; Chinajariyawong, A; Kritsaneepaiboon, S; Drew, R; Hamacek, E; Hancock, D; 
Hengsawad, C; Jipanin, J; Jirasurat, M; Krong, C K (1999) Host plant records for fruit flies 
(Diptera: Tephritidae) in Southeast Asia. Raffles Bulletin of Zoology 47(Supp lement 7): 1 -92. 
 
Armstrong, J; Jang, E (1997) An overview of present and future fruit fly research in Hawaii 
and the US mainland. In ACIAR PROCEEDINGS  (pp. 30 -42): Australian Centre for 
International Agricultural Research.  
 
Armstrong, J; Vriesenga, J; Lee , C (1979) Resistance of pineapple varieties D -10 and D -20 to 
field populations of oriental fruit flies and melon flies. Journal of Economic Entomology 
72(1): 6 -7. 
  
213 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Armstrong, J W; Vargas, R (1982) Resistance of pineapple variety ‘59 -656’to field 
populatio ns of oriental fruit flies and melon flies (Diptera: Tephritidae). Journal of Economic 
Entomology 75(5): 781 -782. 
 
CABI (2022) Bactrocera dorsalis . https://www.cabi.org/cpc/datasheet/17685   
 
Cantrell , B K; Cahill, A; Chadwick, B (2002) Fruit fly fighters: eradication of the papaya 
fruit fly . CSIRO PUBLISHING.  
 
Chen, J; Cai, P; Zhang, G; Sun, Z (2011) Research progress of occurrence and 
comprehensive control of oriental fruit fly [Bactrocera dorsalis ( Hendel)]. Plant Diseases and 
Pests 2: 42 -47. 
 
Chen, L; Liu, X; Wu, S; Zhu, Y; Zeng, L; Lu, Y (2015) A comparative study of the 
population biology of trichlorfon -resistant strains of the oriental fruit fly, Bactrocera dorsalis 
(Diptera: Tephritdae). Acta En tomologica Sinica 58(8): 864 -871. 
 
Chen, P; Ye, H (2007) Population dynamics of Bactrocera dorsalis  (Diptera: Tephritidae) 
and analysis of factors influencing populations in Baoshanba, Yunnan, China. Entomological 
Science 10(2): 141 -147. 
 
Christenson, L; F oote, R H (1960) Biology of fruit flies. Annual Review of Entomology 5(1): 
171-192. 
 
Clarke, A R (2019) Biology and management of Bactrocera and related fruit flies. CABI.  
 
Clarke, A R; Armstrong, K F; Carmichael, A E; Milne, J R; Raghu, S; Roderick, G K; 
Yeates, D K (2005) Invasive phytophagous pests arising through a recent tropical 
evolutionary radiation: the Bactrocera dorsalis complex of fruit flies. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 50: 
293-319. 
 
Doorenweerd, C; Leblanc, L; Norrbom, A L; San Jose, M; Rubinoff, D (2 018) A global 
checklist of the 932 fruit fly species in the tribe Dacini (Diptera, Tephritidae). ZooKeys (730): 
19. 
 
Drew, R A; Hancock, D L (1994) The Bactrocera dorsalis complex of fruit flies (Diptera: 
Tephritidae: Dacinae) in Asia. Bulletin of Entomolo gical Research Supplement Series 2: 1-
68. 
 
EPA (2013) Safely using insecticides containing maldison (malathion) on plants. In (pp. 4): 
Environmental Protection Authority.  
 
EPPO (2022) EPPO global database. https://gd.eppo.int/  Accessed 15 May 2022  
 
Fan, L; Jiajiao, W; Guangqin, L (2001) The first report of the test on the flight ability of 
oriental fruit fly. Acta Agriculturae Universitatis Jiangxiensis 23(2): 259 -260. 
 
Fletcher, B S (1989) Life history strategies of tephritid fruit flies. Fruit Flies: Their Biology, 
Natural Enemies, and Control.  
  
214 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Flitters, N; Miyabara, F; Nakagawa, S; Dresner, E (1953) The status of commercial 
pineapples as hosts of the oriental fruit fly i n Hawaii. Special Report Ho -1: Fruit Fly 
Investigations in Hawaii . 
 
Follett, P A; Haynes, F E; Dominiak, B C (2021) Host Suitability Index for Polyphagous 
Tephritid Fruit Flies. Journal of Economic Entomology 114(3): 1021 -1034.  
 
Follett, P A; Jamieson, L; Hamilton, L; Wall, M (2019a) New associations and host status: 
Infestability of kiwifruit by the fruit fly species Bactrocera dorsalis , Zeugodacus cucurbitae , 
and Ceratitis capitata  (Diptera: Tephritidae). Crop Protection 115: 113 -121. 
 
Follett, P A; Piner o, J; Souder, S; Jamieson, L; Waddell, B; Wall, M (2019b) Host status of 
‘scifresh’apples to the invasive fruit fly species Bactrocera dorsalis , Zeugodacus cucurbitae , 
and Ceratitis capitata  (Diptera: Tephritidae). Journal of Asia -Pacific Entomology 22(2):  458-
470. 
 
Froerer, K; Peck, S; McQuate, G; Vargas, R; Jang, E; McInnis, D (2010) Long -distance 
movement of Bactrocera dorsalis  (Diptera: Tephritidae) in Puna, Hawaii: how far can they 
go? American Entomologist 56(2): 88 -95. 
 
Gould, W P (1995) Probability of detecting Caribbean fruit fly (Diptera: Tephritidae) 
infestations by fruit dissection. Florida Entomologist : 502 -502. 
 
Han, P; Wang, X; Niu, C -Y; Dong, Y -C; Zhu, J -Q; Desneux, N (2011) Population dynamics, 
phenology, and overwintering of Bactrocera dors alis (Diptera: Tephritidae) in Hubei 
Province, China. Journal of Pest Science 84(3): 289 -295. 
 
Hou, B; Xie, Q; Zhang, R (2006) Depth of pupation and survival of the Oriental fruit fly, 
Bactrocera dorsalis  (Diptera: Tephritidae) pupae at selected soil moist ures. Applied 
Entomology and Zoology 41(3): 515 -520. 
 
IPCC (2022) AR6 WGIII Mitigation report Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,  
 
ISPM (2016) Determination of host status of fruit to fruit flies (Tephritidae).  International 
Standard for Phytosanitary Measures, International Plant Protection Convention, Food and 
Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, Rome,  
 
Jin, T; Zeng, L; Lin, Y; Lu, Y; Liang, G (2011) Insecticide resistance of the oriental fruit fly , 
Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel)(Diptera: Tephritidae), in mainland China. Pest Management 
Science 67(3): 370 -376. 
 
Kiritani, K (1998) Exotic insects in Japan. Entomological Science 1(3): 291 -298. 
 
Kriticos, D; Stephens, A; Leriche, A (2007) Effect of climate change on Oriental fruit fly in 
New Zealand and the Pacific. New Zealand Plant Protection 60: 271 -278. 
 
Liebhold, A M; Work, T T; McCullough, D G; Cavey, J F (2006) Airline baggage as a 
pathway for alien insect species invading the United States. American Entomologist 52(1): 
48-54. 
  
215 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Liquido, N; McQuate, G; Birnbaum, A; Hanlin, M; Nakamichi, K; Inskeep, J; Ching, A; 
Marnell, S; Kurashima, R (2017) A Review of Recorded Host Plants of Oriental Fruit  Fly, 
Bactrocera (Bactrocera) dorsalis (Hendel)(Diptera: Tephritidae), Version 3.1. 
https://www.ars.usda.gov/research/publications/publication/?seqNo115=347371   
 
Macion, E A; Mitchell, W C; Smith, J B (1968) Biophysical and biochemical studies on the 
nature of resistance of pineapples to the Oriental fruit fly. Journal of Economic Entomology 
61(4): 910 -916. 
 
MAF (1996) Economic Risk Assessment: Oriental Fruit Fly ( Bactrocera dorsalis ). Lynfield 
Plant Protection Centre. Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Biosecurity New Zealand. In.  
 
MAF/DAFF (2004) Australia – New Zealand 2004 Bilateral quarantine discussions: minutes 
of meeting. Ministry of Agriculture and Forestr y. Wellington, New Zealand. . In.  
 
Makumbe, L D; Moropa, T P; Manrakhan, A; Weldon, C W (2020) Effect of sex, age and 
morphological traits on tethered flight of Bactrocera dorsalis  (Hendel)(Diptera: Tephritidae) 
at different temperatures. Physiological Ent omology 45(2-3): 110 -119. 
 
Manrakhan, A (2020) Pre -harvest management of the Oriental fruit fly. CAB Reviews 
15(003): 1 -13. 
 
McInnis, D; Hendrichs, J; Shelly, T; Barr, N; Hoffman, K; Rodriguez, R; Lance, D; Bloem, 
K; Suckling, D; Enkerlin, W (2017) Can pol yphagous invasive tephritid pest populations 
escape detection for years under favorable climatic and host conditions? American 
Entomologist 63(2): 89 -99. 
 
Moquet, L; Payet, J; Glenac, S; Delatte, H (2021) Niche shift of tephritid species after the 
Oriental  fruit fly (Bactrocera dorsalis) invasion in La Réunion. Diversity and Distributions 
27(1): 109 -129. 
 
MPI (2014) Determination of fruit fly ‘non -host’ status for pineapple ( Ananas comosus ) 
varieties imported from Australia to New Zealand. In. Unpublished i nternal document: 
Ministry for Primary Industries; Wellington, NZ.  
 
MPI (2022a) Country Freedom Status database. https://www.mpi.govt.nz/news -
andresources/resources/registers -and-lists/country -freedom -status/  Accessed 23/05/2022  
 
MPI (2022b) Draft internal pathway performance report. In. Unpublished internal document: 
Ministry for Primary Industries; Wellington, NZ.  
 
NZOR (2022) The New Zealand Organisms Register. http://nzor.org.nz  Accessed 19 
February 2022  
 
ONZPR (2022) Official New Zealand Pest Register. MPI Public Database. 
https://pierpestregister.mpi.govt.nz/PestsRegister/ImportCommodity/  Accessed 09 February 
2022  
 
Oroño, L; Aluja, M; Ovruski, S; Rull, J; Interdonato, R; Prado, F E; Hilal, M (2019) 
Dynamics of soluble sugars and secondary metaboli tes in fruit of Juglans australis attacked  
216 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  by Anastrepha fraterculus  and Ceratitis capitata (Diptera: Tephritidae). Arthropod -Plant 
Interactions 13(3): 411 -421. 
 
Pather, V M, R. ;  King, K. (2019) National Fruit Fly Surveillance Programme annual report. 
Surveillance (Wellington) 46(3): 83 -86. 
 
Plant&FoodResearch (2020) Fresh Facts. https://www.freshfacts.co.nz/   
 
Prastiti, D; Suputa, S; Trisyono, Y A (2020) Polyandry in the Fruit Fly Bactrocera dorsalis  
Hendel ( Diptera: Tephritidae). Jurnal Perlindungan Tanaman Indonesia 24(2): 209 -215. 
 
Rao, K N; Sumith, G; Venkatesan, K; Babu, D R (2021) Experimental investigation on the 
rate of cooling and hardness during artificial ripening of pineapple Fruits. Annals of the 
Romanian Society for Cell Biology : 435 -445. 
 
Rasheed, A; Cobham, E; Zeighmami, M; Ong, S (2012) Extraction of phenolic compounds 
from pineapple fruit. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on Processing & 
Drying of Foods, Fruits & Vegetables, K uala Lumpur, Malaysia (pp. 8 -19). 
 
Rattanapun, W; Amornsak, W; Clarke, A R (2009) Bactrocera dorsalis preference for and 
performance on two mango varieties at three stages of ripeness. Entomologia Experimentalis 
Et Applicata 131(3): 243 -253. 
 
Ren, L; Ma, Y ; Xie, M; Lu, Y; Cheng, D (2021) Rectal bacteria produce sex pheromones in 
the male Oriental fruit fly. Current Biology 31(10): 2220 -2226. e2224.  
 
Salcedo Baca, D; Lomeli Flores, J R; Terrazas González, G H; Rodríguez Leyva, E (2010) 
Evaluación económica d e la Campaña Nacional contra moscas de la fruta en los estados de 
Baja California, Guerrero, Nuevo León, Sinaloa, Sonora y Tamaulipas (1994 -2008).  
 
Schutze, M K; Mahmood, K; Pavasovic, A; Bo, W; Newman, J; Clarke, A R; Krosch, M N; 
Cameron, S L (2015) One and the same: integrative taxonomic evidence that Bactrocera 
invadens  (Diptera: Tephritidae) is the same species as the Oriental fruit fly Bactrocera 
dorsalis . Systematic Entomology 40(2): 472 -486. 
 
Seo, S; Chambers, D; Lee, C; Komura, M; Fujimoto, M; Kama kahi, D (1973) Resistance of 
pineapple variety 59 -443 to field populations of Oriental fruit flies and melon flies. Journal 
of Economic Entomology 66(2): 522 -523. 
 
Seo, S T; Farias, G J; Harris, E J (1982) Oriental fruit fly: ripening of fruit and its effe ct on 
index of infestation of Hawaiian papayas. Journal of Economic Entomology 75(2): 173 -178. 
 
Shelly, T E (2000) Fecundity of female oriental fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae): effects of 
methyl eugenol -fed and multiple mates. Annals of the Entomologica l Society of America 
93(3): 559 -564. 
 
Shen, J; Hu, L; Zhou, X; Dai, J; Chen, B; Li, S (2019) Allyl‐2, 6‐dimethoxyphenol, a female‐
biased compound, is robustly attractive to conspecific males of Bactrocera dorsalis at close 
range. Entomologia experimentalis et applicata 167(9): 811 -819. 
  
217 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Shi, Y ; Wang, L; Dou, W; Jiang, H -B; Wei, D -D; Wei, D; Niu, J -Z; Wang, J -J (2017) 
Determination of instars of Bactrocera dorsalis (Diptera: Tephritidae). Florida Entomologist 
100(2): 270 -275. 
 
Steiner, L F (1957) Field evaluation of oriental fruit fly insecticid es in Hawaii. Journal of 
Economic Entomology 50(1): 16 -24. 
 
Stringer, L D; Soopaya, R; Butler, R C; Vargas, R I; Souder, S K; Jessup, A J; Woods, B; 
Cook, P J; Suckling, D M (2019) Effect of lure combination on fruit fly surveillance 
sensitivity. Scientifi c reports 9(1): 1 -11. 
 
Susanto, A; Faradilla, M G; Sumekar, Y; Yudistira, D H; Murdita, W; Permana, A D; Djaya, 
L; Putri, S N S (2021) Effect of Various Depth of Pupation On Adult Emergence of 
Interspecific Hybrid of Bactrocera Carambolae And Bactrocera Dorsalis.  
 
Tan, K H; Nishida, R (2012) Methyl eugenol: its occurrence, distribution, and role in nature, 
especially in relation to insect behavior and pollination. Journal of Insect Science 12(1).  
 
Tara, J; Baldev, S; Rita, S (2006) Biology of o riental fruit fly, Dacus dorsalis Hendel 
(Diptera: Tephritidae), a serious pest of guava, Psidium guajava Linn. in the plains of Jammu. 
Advances in Indian Entomology: Productivity and Health (a Silver Jubilee, Supplement No. 
3, Volume II; Insect and Enviro nment) : 33-36. 
 
Theron, C; Manrakhan, A; Weldon, C W (2017) Host use of the oriental fruit fly, Bactrocera 
dorsalis (Hendel)(Diptera: Tephritidae), in South Africa. Journal of Applied Entomology 
141(10): 810 -816. 
 
UN (2013) United Nations Economic Commissi on for Europe - UNECE Standard on the 
marketing and commercial quality control of Pineapples. In. New York and Geneva.  
 
Vargas, R I; Miyashita, D; Nishida, T (1984) Life history and demographic parameters of 
three laboratory -reared tephritids (Diptera: Tep hritidae). Annals of the Entomological Society 
of America 77(6): 651 -656. 
 
Vargas, R I; Piñero, J C; Leblanc, L (2015) An overview of pest species of Bactrocera fruit 
flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) and the integration of biopesticides with other biological 
approaches for their management with a focus on the Pacific region. Insects 6(2): 297 -318. 
 
Vargas, R I; Walsh, W A; Jang, E B; Armstrong, J W; Kanehisa, D T (1996) Survival and 
development of immature stages of four Hawaiian fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritid ae) reared at 
five constant temperatures. Annals of the Entomological Society of America 89(1): 64 -69. 
 
Verghese, A; Soumya, C; Shivashankar, S; Manivannan, S; Krishnamurthy, S (2012) 
Phenolics as chemical barriers to female fruit fly, Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel) in mango. 
Current Science : 563 -566. 
 
Wan, X; Liu, Y; Zhang, B (2012) Invasion history of the oriental fruit fly, Bactrocera 
dorsalis, in the Pacific -Asia region: two main invasion routes. PloS one 7(5): e36176.  
  
218 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Wang, L L; Huang, Y; Lu, X P; Jiang, X Z; Smagghe, G; Feng, Z J; Yuan, G R; Wei, D; 
Wang, J J (2015) Overexpression of two α‐esterase genes mediates metabolic resistance to 
malathion in the oriental fruit fly, Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel). Insect molecular  biology 
24(4): 467 -479. 
 
Wee, S -L; Tan, K -H; Nishida, R (2007) Pharmacophagy of methyl eugenol by males 
enhances sexual selection of Bactrocera carambolae. Journal of Chemical Ecology 33(6): 
1272 -1282.  
 
Weems, H V; Heppner, J B; Nation, J; Fasulo, T R (20 12) Oriental fruit fly, Bactrocera 
dorsalis (Hendel)(Insecta: Diptera: Tephritidae). EDIS 2012(3).  
 
Wei, D D; He, W; Lang, N; Miao, Z Q; Xiao, L F; Dou, W; Wang, J J (2019) Recent research 
status of Bactrocera dorsalis: Insights from resistance mechanisms and population structure. 
Archives of insect biochemistry and physiology 102(3): e21601.  
 
Weldon, C W; Schutze, M K; Karsten, M (2014) Trapping to monitor tephritid movement: 
results, best practice, and assessment of alternatives. Trapping and the detectio n, control, and 
regulation of tephritid fruit flies.  Springer.  
 
Xia, Y; Huang, J -h; Jiang, F; He, J -y; Pan, X -b; Lin, X -j; Hu, H -q; Fan, G -c; Zhu, S -f; Hou, 
B-h (2019) The effectiveness of fruit bagging and culling for risk mitigation of fruit flies 
affect ing citrus in China: a preliminary report. Florida Entomologist 102(1): 79 -84. 
 
Xu, L; Zhou, C; Xiao, Y; Zhang, P; Tang, Y; Xu, Y (2012) Insect oviposition plasticity in 
response to host availability: the case of the tephritid fruit fly Bactrocera dorsalis . Ecological 
Entomology 37(6): 446 -452. 
 
Ye, H; Liu, J (2007) Population dynamics of oriental fruit fly Bactrocera dorsalis (Diptera: 
Tephritidae) in Xishuangbanna, Yunnan Province, China. Frontiers of Agriculture in China 
1(1): 76 -80. 
 
Yongsheng, Z; Faron g, S; Huanping, Z (1996) Study on the biology of Dacusa (Bactrocera) 
dorsalis (Hendel) and synthetical control. Xi nan Nong ye da xue xue bao= Journal of 
Southwest Agricultural University 18(3): 210 -213. 
 
Zhang, R; He, S; Chen, J (2014) Monitoring of Bactr ocera dorsalis (Diptera: Tephritidae) 
resistance to cyantraniliprole in the south of China. Journal of Economic Entomology 107(3): 
1233 -1238.  
 
Zhang, Y; Zhao, X (1994) Study on oriental fruit fly in Sichuan Province. Journal of 
Southwest University (Natura l Science Edition) 7: 71 -75. 
  
219 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  
 Appendix to risk assessment of Bactrocera dorsalis   
Table A1  
 
 
Table A2  
  
 
Table  A3 
 
Table  A4 
 
 
  
Host Suitability Index (HSI) ranking of fruit hosts based on reports of adult flies emerging from fruit from tree sampling in the field or laboratory cage tests
(Modified from: Follett, P A; Haynes, F E; Dominiak, B C (2021) Host Suitability Index for Polyphagous Tephritid Fruit Flies. Journal of Economic Entomology 114(3): 1021-1034.)
Intact fruit Punctured fruit 
Carica papaya (papaya) Very Good 142 500.8 625 Follett et al. (2019a) 
Carica papaya (papaya) Good/Very Good 11.5 131 315 Follett et al. (2019b) 
Mangifera lalijiwa (mango) Good 87 McQuate et al. (2017)
Hylocereus undatus  (dragon fruit) Good 16 McQuate (2010)
Actinidia chinensis (kiwifruit ‘Gold’) Good/Moderately Good 15 7 36 Follett et al. (2019a) 
Malus × domestica (apples ‘Jazz’) Non Host/ Good 0 26 41 Follett et al. (2019b) 
Mangifera casturi (mango 'Kalimantan') Moderately Good 9 McQuate et al. (2017)
Solanum torvum  (turkey berry) Moderately Good 4 McQuate (2008) 
Solanum torvum  (turkey berry) Moderately Good 10 McQuate (2008) 
Vaccinium reticulatum (ohelo) Moderately Good 5 Follett and Zee (2011)
Actinidia chinensis (kiwifruit ‘Green’) Non Host/Moderately Good 0 1.3 30 Follett et al. (2019a) Average number of fruit fly adults per kilogram of fruit
Laboratory Bactrocera dorsalis  Host Field Reference Host Suitability Index (HSI) category
Country of origin of  Bactrocera dorsalis n interceptions included in pineapple IRA
India 24
Thailand 8v
Philippines 7v
Sri Lanka 6v
French Polynesia 4
Vietnam 4
China 2
Cook Islands 2
Indonesia 2v
Cambodia 1
Hong Kong 1
Korea - South 1
Laos 1
Unknown 13
total 76Table 2
LIMS - New Zealand Interception data 2000-2020
LIMS - New Zealand Interception data 2000-2020
Fruit host of Bactrocera dorsalis n interceptions
Mango ( Mangifera indica ) 30
Guava ( Psidium guajava ) 13
Chillies ( Capsicum frutescens ) 9
Longan ( Euphoria longana ) 5
Jujube ( Ziziphus jujuba ) 2
Lychee ( Litchi chinensis ) 2
Pawpaw, Papaya ( Carica papaya ) 2
Banana ( Musa  spp) 1
Dragon/Pitaya fruit ( Hylocereu s sp.) 1
Mandarin ( Citrus reticulata ) 1
Plum ( Prunus salicina ) 1
Rambutan ( Nephelium lappacceum ) 1
total 68Table 3
Bactrocera dorsalis  life stage and viability Alive Dead Both total
Egg 7 8 15
Larva 36 9 1 46
Pupa 3 3
Adult 4 5 9
total 50 22 1 73Table 4
LIMS - New Zealand Interception data 2000-2020 
220 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  7 Pest risk ass essments on insects: Hemiptera, Diaspididae  
(armoured scale ) 
7.1 Diaspis bromeliae  (pineapple scale)  
Diaspis bromeliae  is an armoured scale insect that affects mostly ornamental species such as 
orchids, bromeliads and palms. It is native to the neotropics but is now widespread 
throughout the tropics and subtropics and in sheltered enviro nments in some temperate 
regions. The scale insect feeds on the contents of plant cells and can affect the size and 
appearance of fruit, reducing its marketability. It is considered a pest of minor significance in 
pineapple growing regions in Australia and  United States.  
 Taxonomic description  
Scientific name: Diaspis bromeliae  (Kerner , 1778 ) 
Order/Family: Hemiptera/ Diaspididae  
Other names : Coccus bromeliae Kerner, 1778; Aspidiotus bromeliae (Kerner, 1778); 
Chermes bromeliae (Kerner, 1778); Aulacaspis bromeliae (Kerner, 1778) (García -Morales et 
al. 2016) ; pineapple scale.  
 
 Hazard identification  
Diaspis bromeliae  is not known to be present in New Zealand.  
• There is no record  of Diaspis bromeliae  in NZOR(2022), BiotaNZ (2022).  
• Diaspis bromeliae   is listed as “not present” in New Zealand in PPIN (2022).  
• Diaspis bromeliae  is a regulated pest for New Zealand , and has unwanted status 
(ONZPR 2022).  
 
Diaspis bromeliae  has the potential to establish  and spread in New Zealand . 
• Some of its recorded hosts are present in New Zealand.  
• It is reported from some regions with similar climates to New Zealand.  
• The first -instar nymph (or crawler) can disperse actively over short distances and 
passively over long distances by wind, or on other animals. Movement of infested 
plant material to new locations can spread the scale insect  both locally and over 
longer distances.  
 
Diaspis bromeliae  has the potential to cause harm to  New Zealand   
• It could affect the cut flower industry, specifically orchid production in greenhouses.  
• It is a pest of pineapple, which is grown in New Zealand and ha s the potential for 
commercial production.  
• It could affect a range of amenity plants that are cultivated in garden s by collectors or 
botanical gardens.  
• It could harm the environment indirectly by the increased use of pesticides.  
 
 
Diaspis bromeliae  can be  associated with pineapple fruit . 
• During high infestations, D. bromeliae  infests pineapple fruit.  
• Female adults h ave been intercepted alive at the New Zealand border on pineapple 
fruit.   
221 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand   
Given the arguments and evidence above, MPI considers Diaspis bromeliae  to be a hazard on 
decrowned Ananas comosus (pineapple) fruit (as described in the commodity description) 
imported to New Zealand.  
 
 Risk assessment  
7.1.3.1  Biology  
Description  
Female D. bromeliae  scale cover is described as greyish -white colour by Waterhouse and 
Sands (2001) and beige colour by Petty et al (2002) . Female mature scale covering are  
somewha t flattened and circular , measuring between 1.3 –3 mm in diameter (Petty et al 
2002; Waterhouse and Sands 2001). Immature m ale scale  coverings  are white, narrow and 
slightly ribbed longitudinally (Waterhouse and Sands 2001).  
 
Reproduction is sexual (Waterhouse and Sands 2001). In Queensland, Australia, the life 
cycle is completed in about two months (Brimblecombe 1955) and it can have up to fou r 
generations a year that can overlap (Brimblecombe 1956; Waite 1993). Oviposition occurs 
throughout the year , with the highest peaks in Brisbane summer (December ) (Min –Max: 19.8 
– 29.1 °C) and early winter (June) (Min –Max: 10.9 - 20.9 °C) (Murray 1980 ; Australian 
Bureau of Metereology 2022).  
 
Females lay eggs under the scale cover (Petty et al 2002) and can deposit up to 100 
translucent to yellowish eggs (Waterhouse and Sands 2001). In Brisbane temperature 
conditions, the eggs hatch after 7 days (Waterhouse and Sands 2001). Females have two 
nymphal instar s before moulting to the adult stage and males have two nymphal  instars 
followed by pre -pupae, pupae and orange -coloured winged adults (Waterhouse and Sands 
2001).  Adult males are fragile, unable to feed and, after they mate they only live for a  few 
days (1 -2 days) (Petty et al 2002; Joy et al 2013; Manners 2016)  
 
Ecology and feeding damage  
Unlike mealybugs, a rmoured scale  insect s, do not produce a sugary exudate known as 
honeydew and therefore are not associated with the growth of sooty mould fungi 
(Henderson 2011). T his is because, unlike mealybugs, t hey do not feed from the phloem, 
but from plant cells or parenchyma (Henderson 20 11).  
 
Newly hatched crawlers have small energy reserves and can survive only a short period 
before they need to settle and feed. They usually settle about 1 m from the sessile mother. 
Active movement is usually restricted to the same plant rather than bet ween plants 
(Greathead 1975). Crawlers are the primary dispersal stage for D. bromeliae  
(Brimblecombe 1956) as well as the stage with the highest mortality rate due to abiotic and 
biotic factors (Magsig -Castillo et al 2010; Brimblecombe 1956). They can be passively 
dispersed by wind, or by hitchhiking on animals (including humans and other insects) and 
agricultural equipment  (Petty et al 2002; Watson 2002; Magsig -Castillo et al 2010). 
However, dispersal over long distances is mostly by the movement of infes ted planting 
material (Ito and Carter 1931; Petty et al 2002).  
 
When the crawlers find a suitable place to feed, they shed their legs, insert their mouthparts 
and then remain at the chosen site (Petty et al 2002). While feeding, they incorporate the  
222 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  cast s kins of the juvenile moults and cement them together with waxes to produce a cover 
(i.e. armour). This strong protective cover is important for adult scales because of their 
sedentary behaviour (Henderson 2011).  
 
Diaspis bromeliae  typically aggregates on the leaf bases of the pineapple plant, which are 
more shaded. From there it disperses to suckers and the underside of the fruit (Murray 
1980; Waterhouse and Sands 2001). When the plants are growing in shaded positions,  
D. bromelia e can be found higher on plants (e.g., crown of developing fruit) (Petty et al 
2002; Rohrbach and Johnson 2003).  
 
The scales are not easily detected when there are low field population levels (Murray 1980) 
but the feeding damage is obvious. The earliest vi sible damage on pineapple plants are 
yellow spots on mature leaves and suckers where the scale feeds. Heavy infestations can 
kill plants 12 to 18 months old (Carter 1967). Plants assume a greyish scaly appearance, 
they are weakened and stunted and have fol iar dieback (Watson 2002).  
 
Pineapple fruits can be heavily infested, especially those that grow towards the walking 
spaces in the field (i.e., ratoon fruits). Fruits appear small with a rough grey pinched 
appearance and are sometimes cracked (Carter 1967 ; Murray 1980; Waterhouse and Sands 
2001).  
 
Plant Hosts  
Diaspis bromeliae  is a polyphagous species associated with plants in at least 12 families 
and 29 genera, amongst them pineapple (Garcia Morales et al 2016). However, Miller and 
Davidson (2005) belie ve that many of the host records are misidentifications because they 
have only seen specimens from Bromeliaceae and Orchidaceae (Table  7.1).  
 
Table 7.1. Plant hosts of Diaspis bromeliae  (Source: Claps et al 2001; Miller and Davidson 2005; 
Garcia Morales et al 2016).   
Family  Genus/Species  Common name  
Araliaceae  Hedera helix  Ivy 
Arecaceae (Palmae)  Areca sp.  
 Chamaerops humilis  European fan palm  
 Howea forsteriana  Kentia palm  
 Lytocaryum weddellianum  Weddell’s palm  
 Phoenix paludosa  Mangrove date palm  
 Rhapis excelsa  Bamboo palm  
 Syagrus campestris   
 Syagrus flexuosa  Acuma  
Asparagaceae  Agave vivipara  Caribbean agave  
 Anthericum sp.  
 Dracaena sp.  
Bromeliaceae  Aechmea fasciata  Silver varse  
 Aechmea nudicaulis   
 Ananas comosus  Pineapple  
 Billbergia amoena   
 Billbergia zebrina   
 Bromelia pinguin   
 Gusmania sp.   
223 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand   Chevalieria sp.   
 Neoregelia sp.  
 Nidularium innocentii   
 Tillandsia sp.  
Cannaceae  Canna sp. Canna lily  
Lauraceae  Ocotea aciphylla  Sweetwood  
Malvaceae  Hibiscus sp. Hibiscus  
Myrtaceae  Plinia cauliflora  Jabuticaba  
Oleaceae  Osmanthus fragans  var. aurantiacus  Fragant olive  
Orchidaceae  Brassia sp. Spider orchid  
 Cattleya sp.  
 Gomesa bifolia  Duck orchid  
Poaceae  Saccharum officinarum  Sugarcane  
Santalaceae  Jodina rhombifolia  Loose quebracho  
 
Pineapple variety susceptibility  
No information was found on the specific pineapple varieties that are susceptible to D. 
bromeliae.  Waterhouse and Sands (2001) mentioned that in Australia b oth smooth and 
rough varieties of pinea pple are susceptible to D. bromeliae  but no further informati on was 
given. The major pineapple varieties in Queensland, Australia are Smooth Cayenne, 73 -50 
(sold as Bethonga Gold and Golden Circle Gold), MD -2 and Queen (Alexander, McGregor 
and Ripley Queen) which are a combination of smooth and rough pineapple varie ties 
(Queensland Government, 2022).  
 
Geographical distribution  
Diaspis bromeliae  is mostly present in tropical climates, but it occurs in subtropical, 
Mediterranean and temperate climates (Garcia Morales et al 2016). There are contrasting 
views on the distribution of D. bromeliae  in temperate climates. Many authors report that 
D. brom eliae  is restricted to indoor planting in cooler temperate regions e.g. France and 
Czech Republic (Nakahara 1982; Germain and Matile -Ferrero 2005; Malumphy et al 2008; 
Pellizzari and Germain 2010; Sosnovskiy and Prokopiv 2010; Kozár et al 2013; Malumphy 
2014), with a Climate Matching Index (CMI) of 0.8 – 0.9 to (all of) New Zealand (Phillips 
et al 2018).  However, Longo et al. (1995)  reported D. bromeliae  as present in northern, 
central and southern Italy and the island of Sicily where the climate has a CMI  of 0.8 – 0.9. 
In Australia, D. bromeliae  is present in northern New South Wales and south eastern 
Queensland (i.e, Brisbane) (Brimblecombe 1956; Waterhouse and Sands 2001) which have a 
CMI of 0.7 – 0.8 and a CMI of 0.6 – 0.7 respectively (Phillips et al 2 018). Recently, 
D.bromeliae  was identified in a fruit orchard in the province of Tashkent in Uzbekistan with 
a CMI of 0.7 –0.8 (Yakhyoev et 2021).  
 
Table 7.2. Geographic distribution of Diaspis bromeliae . Markets included within the scope of this 
import risk analysis are marked in bold.  
Continent  Country/ area/market  References  
North America  Mexico (Veracruz), United States (Alabama, 
California*, Connecticut, District of Columbia*, 
Florida, Illinois*, Louisiana, Massachusetts, 
Missouri, New Jersey, New York*, Ohio*, 
Pennsylvania*, Texas, Virginia, Wyoming)  García -Morales et al 
2016   
224 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Central America 
& Caribbean  Belize, Costa Rica , Guatemala, Antigua and 
Barbuda, Bahamas, Bermuda, Cuba, Dominic a, 
Dominican Republic, Guadeloupe, Haiti, Jamaica, 
Martinique, Puerto Rico (Vieques Island), Saint 
Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Trinidad 
and Tobago, Virgin Islands  Gómez -Menor Ortega 
1940; Hodgson and 
Hilburn 1991; Watson 
2002; García -Morales e t 
al 2021;  
South America  Argentina (Buenos Aires, Córdoba, Salta, 
Tucumán), Brazil (Bahia, Espirito Santo, Minas 
Gerais, Rio Grande do Sul, Rio de Janeiro, Sao 
Paulo), Colombia, Ecuador,Guyana, Venezuela  Rogg 2000; García -
Morales et al 2016; 
Moreno et al 2021  
Asia Japan (Bonin Islands, Ryukyu Islands, Honshu, 
Okinawa), Myanmar, China (Guangxi, Hainan, 
Taiwan ), Indonesia , India, Malaysia , The 
Philippines , South Korea, Uzbekistan (Tashkent 
province)  Watson 2002; García -
Morales et al 2016; 
Yakhyoev et al 2021  
Africa  Egypt*, Kenya (Thika district) Mauritius, Morocco, 
Mozambique, Sierra Leone, South Africa (Eastern 
Cape), Tanzania  Carnegie 1959; De Lotto 
1967; García -Morales et 
al 2016; CABI 2019  
Europe Austria, Belgium*, Portugal (Azores, Madeira), 
Bulgaria, Spain (Canary Islands), Czech Republic*, 
Denmark, France* (Corsica), Georgia*, Germany, 
Hungary*, Italy (Sicily), Lithuania*, Malta, 
Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Russia*, Sweden, 
Switzertland, Turkey, Ukraine*  Nakahara 1982; Germain 
and Matile -Ferrero 2005; 
Šefrová et al 2005;  
Malumphy et al 2008; 
Sosnovskyi and Prokopiv 
2010; Kozár  et al 2013; 
García -; Morales et al 
2016, Batsankalashvili   et 
al 2017; CABI 2019  
Oceania  Australia (Queensland, New South Wales), Cook 
Islands,  Federated States of Micronesia (Society 
Islands, Tahiti), Fiji, Hawaiian Islands (Hawaii, 
Kauai, Lanai, Maui, Molokai, Oahu), New 
Caledonia , Pitcair Island, Seychelles, Western 
Samoa  Waterhouse and Sands 
2001; García -Morales et 
al 2016; Nakahara 1982  
*Diaspis bromeliae  found in glasshouse  
 
7.1.3.2  Likelihood of entry  
Diaspis bromeliae  is present in pineapple exporting markets  that fall within the scope of  this 
Import Risk Assessment ( IRA): The Philippines , Taiwan, Indonesia, Malaysia, Australia, 
Cook Islands, Fiji, Western Samoa, New Caledonia and Costa Rica  (García Morales et al. 
2016) . 
 
Diaspis bromeliae  has been reported infesting mature pineapple fruit in Australia but 
specifically in circumstances of high infestation levels in the field (Brimbleco mbe 1956). 
This species prefers to hide under the lower mature leaves, but as population levels rise, the 
mobile first instar nymphal stage move upward to the fruit and crown (Brimblecombe 1956; 
Murray 1980).  
  
225 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Detectability of D. bromeliae  prior to harvest  will depend on the infestation levels in the 
field. It is likely that scales will be detected in the field prior to harvest if the infestation is 
high, due to the easily seen damage on the leaves and fruits (Carter 1967; Watson 2002). 
However, when the po pulation is low, scales are difficult to locate because they hide in 
shaded areas, under mature leaves, close to the base of the newly formed pineapple fruit 
(Murray 1980, Waterhouse and Sands 2001).  
 
Harvesting and commercial processing of pineapples  in packhouses, including cleaning, 
grading and inspection can greatly impact the likelihood of entry of some life stages of D. 
bromeliae . For example, the crawler stage is highly susceptible to abiotic (e.g., temperature) 
and biotic conditions (e.g., natural enemies) (Brimblecombe 1956; Magsig -Castillo et al. 
2010) and therefore it is the stage with the highest mortality rate (Magsig -Castillo et al. 
2010). Adult males are very delicate, short -lived (Carter 1967) and are likely to be disturbed, 
therefore they a re unlikely to remain on fruit during harvesting and packhouse activities. In 
contrast, sessile immature (i.e., nymphal instars, prepupae and pupae) and adult stages could 
evade detection by visual inspection because they are small and can be inconspicuous  on the 
complex and variable surface of a pineapple  (e.g., bottom eyes of the fruit) (PestNet 2022).   
In addition, the protective cover of adult scale insects provides an effective barrier to 
insecticide penetration (Foldi 1990; Quesada et al., 2018) and p re-packing procedures such as 
washing and waxing (Medina and Garcia 2005; Jamieson et al., 2010). Viable eggs are 
protected from physical disturbance, chemicals and environmental conditions under the adult 
female’s waxy cover (Foldi 1990, Joy et al. 2013).   
 
No information was found on the thermal development requirements of D. bromeliae , thus 
the lower a nd upper temperature thresholds of this species  are uncertain . However, specimens 
intercepted alive at the New Zealand border (LIMS 2022) indicate that it can survive storage 
and transport from Asia on sea cargo with temperatures as low as 7°C for three to four weeks 
(Camelo 2004; Freight 2022; Ports.com 2022).  
 
There ha ve been 25 interceptions of  D. bromeliae  at the New Zealand border between  
2000 –2020 on pineapple fruit from the Philip pines (sea cargo) and one interception from Fiji 
(air cargo). In 2016, 12 live female adults were collected in one consignment of pineapples 
from the Philippines (C2016/38722) (LIMS 2022). From those interception records where the 
sex and life status was recorded (22), all were female and 91% were alive (LIMS 2021) . 
 
According to Assure Quality interception data there have been 54 interceptions  of which 
most of the interceptions where from the Philippines, and a few from Ecuador (4) and Fiji (1). 
From those interceptions 19% were live female adults (AssureQuality 2022 ).  
 
Given that: 
• Diaspis bromeliae  can be associated with mature pineapple fruit (as per commodity 
description);  
• Some lifestages are likely to survive infield and pack house activities;  
• Eggs and immature stages can be undetected due to the uneven and rough surface of 
the fruit and could hide under bracts without obviou s visible symptoms ; 
• In the last 20 years  there ha ve been interceptions  of live female adults of D. bromeliae  
at the New Zealand border on pineapple fruit coming from the Philippines, Ecuador 
and Fiji via sea cargo and Fiji via air cargo, suggesting that th is species can survive 
transit;  
  
226 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  MPI considers that t he likelihood of Diaspis bromeliae  entering New Zealand is 
MODERATE  with LOW  uncertainty . 
 
7.1.3.3  Likelihood of exposure  
This assessment is made on the basis that Diaspis bromeliae  has entered New Zealand 
undetected.  
 
Imported fresh pineapple fruit is intended for human consumption, therefore, when the fruit 
arrives in New Zeland it will be distributed throughout the country for wholesale or retail 
sale. Fresh pineapple  fruit genera tes large amounts of unavoidable waste . The thick skin is 
always removed  and the disposal of the fruit skin may aid the exposure of scales to suitable 
environments. Fruit may also be disposed of whole.  
 
In New Zealand, organic waste that is bagged and goes  to landfill is the most common 
method of organic waste disposal (Askarany and Franklin -Smith 2014). This method is 
considered low risk as it is unlikely to facilitate successful exposure. However, there are other 
disposal methods that could facilitate suc cessful exposure, such as feeding waste out to 
animals, composting and direct disposal into the environment.  
 
Fruit waste in New Zealand may be collected from unpacking areas (e.g., supermarket 
preparation rooms) and taken to rural areas where it is placed  on the ground for eventual 
consumption by pigs or other farmed animals (Goodman -Smith 2018). Adult females with 
eggs under the protective scale covering could survive on pineapple fruit in supermarkets, as 
evidenced in other picked fruit and vegetables (M orse et al 2009; Hennessey et al 2013), if 
the fruit remains in good condition and the environment is adequate. However, after the 
removed skin or the whole pineapple fruit is placed for animal feed, the quality of the host 
diminishes. If the eggs are able  to hatch while on the ground, newly hatched crawlers are 
unlikely to survive if no immediate host is available due to their small energy reserves and 
their susceptibility to abiotic conditions (Magsig -Castillo et al 2010).  
 
Commercial composting is consi dered a low risk disposal method. Waste in commercial 
compost is put into tunnels for a period of three to four days at temperatures of 55 °C or 
higher (WasteMINZ 2009) and these conditions are likely to kill D. bromeliae  immature 
stages. It is uncertain w hat is the upper temperature threshold of female adults, nevertheless 
high temperatures will accelerate the decomposition of the fruit and therefore it will no longer 
be a suitable host for D. bromeliae  female adult. Worm farming is also considered a low -risk 
method because it is recommended that organic waste is cut into small pieces (Angima et al. 
2011)  which will diminish the quality of the host. In addition, it is a contained structure 
which will prevent the crawlers from wandering out into the environm ent. 
 
Home composting increases the likelihood of exposure. A study conducted in Palmerston 
North found that 63% of a total of 72 households that do home composting used 
manufactured plastic bins for composting and the majority of others used an ‘open’ 
composting system, such as open compost piles and piles fenced with wire (Mensah 2017) .  
Even though both home composting methods increase the likelihood of exposure to potential 
hosts, there are significant barriers for this to occur. Eggs could potentially remain viable and 
hatch inside the compost bin. Newly hatched crawlers are searching for a a live plant to settle 
on and feed from. They usually settle close (within 1m) to the sessile mother  and do not  
actively move for long distances in search of food due to their small energy reserves  
227 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  (Greathead 1975; Magsig -Castillo et al 2010).  It is unlikely crawlers will survive for long 
periods by feeding on composting pineapple skin.  
 
The window of opportunity for a crawler to disperse from pineapple waste to outsi de the 
compost bin or open compost is short given the dispersal stage is less than a day before they 
develop into a sessile stage (i.e., pre -pupation, pupation (males) and adult females) (Magsig -
Castillo et al., 2010).  If crawlers survive and escape a plastic bin or open compost, they are 
vulnerable to abiotic and biotic factors such as heavy rain, wind and natural enemies amongst 
others (Mendel et al 1984). Crawlers could be transferred to a potential host by wind or b y 
hitchhiking on other animals (Washburn and Washburn 1984; Watson 2002).  However, for 
the crawlers to be uplifted and transported successfully by the wind or an animal, the crawlers 
need to be at an appropriate height above the ground and be positioned at  an appropriate 
direction on the plant or canopy (Washburn and Frankie 1981). In addition, a suitable plant 
host must be very close to or on the spot that the crawler lands.   
 
The plant s listed as hosts of D. bromeliae  (Table 1) are predominantly ornament al plants . 
Some plants are are not widely distributed, but other such as the common ivy ( Hedera helix ) 
is commonly found in many gardens across New Zealand. This could increase the likelihood 
of D. bromeliae  landing on a suitable host.   
 
Pineapple waste d eposited by roadsides, parks and campsites could  potentially aid the 
exposure o f D. bromeliae  because most hosts (i.e., ornamentals) are more likely to be found 
in these environments. However, abiotic and biotic conditions will still represent a significan t 
barriers for the development of eggs on discarded pineapple skin and the likelihood of 
dispersal of the crawler to a suitable host.  
 
Uncertainty  
Pineapple waste : Information regarding food waste in New Zealand is based on general data 
and there is no specific information on pineapple waste. Therefore it is assumed that the 
percentages of discarded pineapple fruit skin in New Zealand will be much lower.  
 
Dispersal of crawlers : No specific information was found on the dispersal capabilities of D. 
bromeli ae, therefore this assessment is based on information from other scale or mealybug 
species.  
 
Temperature thresholds : No information was found on D. bromeliae  lower and upper 
temperature thresholds. Therefore it is unknown if D. bromeliae  could survive unde r a home 
composting scenario.  
 
Given that:  
• Diaspis  bromeliae  may survive and develop on the surface of pineapple fruit, either 
whole or skin pieces;  
• Most pineapple waste is likely to be disposed of using methods that are considered to 
be low risk, for example, in bagged waste to landfill, or by commercial composting, 
worm farming or home composting in plastic bins;  
• Pineapple skin that is used for animal feed or open composting could expose D. 
bromeliae  crawlers to the environment ; 
• The main dispersal stage , the crawler, is flightless  and can move short distances 
actively or long distances passively ;  
228 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  • Crawlers are highly vulnerable to biotic and abiotic factors such as temperature, 
humidity and natural enemies;  
• Crawlers that are wind or animal dispersed are unable to actively choose to land on a 
suitable host plant ; 
• Diaspis bromeliae  has a relatively limited range of host plants that are readily 
available throughout New Zealand;  
 
MPI considers that t he likelihood of exposure of  Diaspis bromel iae in New Zealand is VERY 
LOW with MODERATE uncertainty  
 
7.1.3.4  Likelihood of establishment  
This assessment is made on the basis that Diaspis bromeliae  has been successfully exposed to 
a suitable host plant in the New Zealand environment . 
 
The reported host plants of D. bromeliae  are mainly ornamentals (palms, bromeliads, 
orchids ) or tropical/subtropical crops (sugarcane, pineapple) that are not present or not widely 
distributed in New Zealand ( Garcia Morales et al 2016; NZPCN 2022) . However , plant 
species in some host genera may be common in some urban areas, e.g. Hibiscus , Hedera  
(ivy), phoenix palms.  
 
Diaspis bromeliae  females are continuously producing eggs throughout the year 
(Brimblecombe 1955). According to Waterhouse and Sands (2001) “females oviposit up to 
100 eggs”, however it is unclear if this count refers to number of eggs per batch, number of 
eggs per year, or number of eggs during the female’s lifetime. The highest peaks of 
oviposition occurs at temperatures between 10 °C – 29 °C in Brisbane, Australia, with eggs 
hatching after 7 days in warm temperatures (20 °C – 29 °C) (Murray 1980; Australian Bureau 
of Metereology 2022). This suggests that most of the North Island and some coastal regions 
in the northern South Island could be suitable for D. bromeliae  reproduction and survival 
(Mackintosh 2001).  
 
Reproduction is sexual (Waterhouse and Sands 2001). This means that to establish a 
population in a suitable host, immature stages of both sexes must be at close proximity, 
survive to maturity and mate.  
 
The dispersal of crawlers is limited due to their small energy reserves. Newly hatched 
crawlers stay clo se to the mother and move actively within the plant rather than between 
plants (Greathead 1975). The crawler stage is susceptible to abiotic and biotic factors limiting 
their dispersal activity (Magsig -Castillo et al 2010). However, crawlers can be spread to 
longer distances by movement of infested plant material, equipment and on animals including 
other insects and humans (Roda et al., 2013).  
 
This species is mainly present in tropical climates, and its presence in temperate climates is 
restricted to glass houses. However, records from  Italy (Longo et al 1995), the Tashkent 
province in Uzbekistan, as well as northern New South Wales and south eastern Queensland, 
Australia (Brimblecombe 1956; Waterhouse and Sands 2001) with a CMI  between 0.6-0.8 
(Phillips et al 2018) , suggest that D. bromeliae  could establish in some regions in New 
Zealand  but establishment would be restricted since D. bromeliae  prefers deep shade and 
very high humidity (Panis and Pinet 1999).  
  
229 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Present and future projected temperatures in New  Zealand are likely to improve the 
suitability of the New Zealand environment for D. bromeliae . The mean annual temperature 
and mean maximum temperatures for many (but not all regions in New Zealand) in 2021, 
were +0.51 °C to +1.20 °C above the annual aver age (13.56 °C) (NIWA 2021). The 
temperature increase projected for New Zealand due to climate change is 1.4 °C by 2090. 
These temperatures fall within the temperature of establishment of D. bromeliae  in Brisbane, 
Australia (Brimblecombe 1956; Waterhouse an d Sands 2001).  
 
There are parasitoid wasp species present in New Zealand that are known to attack D. 
bromeliae . The species Encarsia citrina  attacks and controls D. bromeliae  in eastern 
Queensland (Waterhouse and Sands 2001) and is present in New Zealand as well as various 
Aphytis spp., e.g. A. chrysomphali , A. diaspidis  (NZOR 2022) that attack this scale insect 
(Kondo & Watson 2022)  
 
Uncertainty  
Host plants : There is uncertainty on the host plant range of Diaspis bromeliae . Some authors 
claim that its restricted to species in the family Bromeliaceae and Orchidaceae and that other 
host plants might have been the result of misidentification.  
 
Dispersal of craw lers: There is no specific information about the dispersal capability of D. 
bromeliae , so this assessment is based on the information found in other scales species.  
 
Given that:  
• Although Diaspis bromeliae  has established in countries with climates similar to 
those in some parts of New Zealand, it is generally found in the tropics and subtropics 
and in temperate climates is found only in greenhouses ;  
• The mode of reproduction is sexual and this may be a significant barrier for 
establishment ;  
• The limited dis persal capability of crawlers and its susceptibility to abiotic and biotic 
factors ; 
• Diaspis bromeliae  has a limited range of host plants that are readily available 
throughout New Zealand ; 
 
MPI considers that t he likelihood of  Diaspis bromeliae  establishing  in New Zealand is VERY 
LOW with MODERATE  uncertainty.  
 
7.1.3.5  Overall risk to New Zealand  
Based on the assessments of lik elihood above, that:  
 
• the lik elihood of entry is MODERATE with LOW uncertainty,  
• assuming entry, the likelihood of exposure is VERY LOW with MODERATE 
uncertainty,  
• assuming successful exposure, the likelihood of establishment is VERY LOW with 
MODERATE uncertainty,  
 
The combined likelihood of entry, exposure and establishment is NEGLIGIB LE. Therefore, 
MPI considers t he overall level of assessed risk to New Zealand , irrespective of the potential 
impacts here not assessed, from  Diaspis bromeliae  on pineapple fruit, is NEGLIGIBLE with  
230 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  MODERATE  uncertainty . This is based on the methodology pr ovided in the 'Guidelines for 
Risk Analysis in Plant Biosecurity 1.0'.  
 
 Specific considerations  
On which pineapple variety (or varieties) and at what stage of rip eness has Diaspis 
bromeliae association with pineapple fruit been observed?  
There is no specific information about the stage of ripeness Diaspis bromeliae  is associated 
with but it has been reported “affecting pineapple mature fruit ” in Australia in circumstances 
of high field infestations.  No information was found on the specific varieties that are 
susceptible to D. bromeliae  other that it affects both smooth and rough varieties in Australia.  
 
Which part(s) of the pineapple fruit is Diaspis bromeli ae associated with (e.g. fruit, 
bract, stem or crown remnant) and is it detectable by visual detection?  
The pest is associated with all parts of the plant. Diaspis bromeliae  eggs and immature stages 
can be undetected due to the  uneven and rough surface of the fruit and could hide under 
bracts without obvious visible symptoms. The likelihood of detection is reduced at low 
infestation levels.  
 
Are different lifestages of the Diaspis bromeliae associated with different parts of the 
pineapple fruit?  
All lifesta ges can be associated with different parts of the fruit, although there is a preference 
for the lower section of the fruit when infestation levels are low.  
 
Does Diaspis bromeliae burrows into the fruit without obvious symptoms, hides under 
the pineapple b ract?  
Diaspis bromeliae  can hide under the pineapple bract  without obvious visible symptoms.  
 
 References  
Angima, S; Noack, M; Noack, S (2011) Composting with worms. 
https://catalog.extension.oregonstate.edu/sites/catalog/files/project/pdf/em9034.pdf   
 
Askarany, D; Franklin -Smith, A W (2014) Cost benefit analyses of organ ic waste composting 
systems through the lens of time driven activity -based costing. Journal of applied 
management accounting research 12(2): 59 –73. 
 
Australian Government Bureau of Metereology (2022) Summary statistics. Brisbane 
Regional office. Data from 1840 – 1994. 
https://www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/tables/cw_040214  
 
AssureQuality (2022)  AssureQuality interception data. AssureQuality . 
 
Batsankalashvili M; Kaydan M B; Kirkitadze  G; Japoshvili G (2017) Updated checklist of 
scale insects (Hemiptera: Coccomorpha) in Sakartvelo (Georgia). Annals of Agrarian 
Science, 15(2): 252 -268 
 
BiotaNZ (2022) Biota of New Zealand. https://bio taNZ.landcareresearch.co.nz  Accessed 07 
September 2022.   
231 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand   
Brimblecombe, A R (1955) Pineapple scale investigations. Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 
12: 81 –94. 
 
Brimblecombe, A R (1956) The pineapple scale in Queensland. Queensland Agricultural 
Journal. 82: 217 –218. 
 
Camelo, A F L (2004) Manual for the preparation and sale of fruits and vegetables: from field 
to market (Vol. 151). Food & Agriculture Org.  
 
Carnegie  A J M (1959) Some insect predators of citrus mussel scale ( Lepidosaphes beckii  
Newm. (Hom.: Diaspididae)) from orchards by the Eastern Cape province. South African 
Journal of Science, 55 (1): 7 -11. 
 
Carter W (1967) Insects and related pests of pineapple i n Hawaii. Manual of the Pineapple 
Research Institute of Hawaii, pp. 53 –56. 
 
De La Cruz -Medina J; García H S (2005) Pineapple: Post -Harvest Operations. Instituto 
Tecnologico de  
Veracruz. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO).  
 
de Lot to G (1967) A contribution to the knowledge of the African Coccoidea (Homoptera). 
Journal of the Entomological Society of South Africa, 29: 109 -120 
  
Foldi, I (1990) The scale cover. In D Rosen (ed) Armored Scale Insects: Their Biology, 
Natural Enemies and  Control. World Crop Pest.  Elsevier Science Publishers: Netherlands.  
 
Freight, C (2022) Transit times. https://www.championfreight.co.nz/times  Accessed August 
2022  
 
García -Morales, M; Denno, B; Miller , G; Ben -Dov, Y; Hardy, N (2016) A literature base 
model of scale insect biology and systematics. http://scalenet.info  
 
Germain JF; Matile -Ferrero D (2005) Scale insects from greenhouses in France: an illustrated 
survey. III-Diaspididae. Phytoma, 5833:332 -335 (Abstract only)  
 
Gómez -Menor Ortega J. 1940. Cóccidos de la República Dominicana. Revista Española de 
Entomología, 1 6: 125 -143. 
 
Goodman -Smith, F (2018) A quantitative and qualitative study of retail food waste in New 
Zealand.  MSc thesis; University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.  
 
Greathead D (1975) The ecology of a scale insect, Aulacaspis tegalensis , on sugarcane in 
East Africa. Transactions of the Entomological Society of London. 127(2): 101 –114. 
 
Henderson, R C (2011) Diaspididae (Insecta: Hemiptera: Coccoidea) .: Fauna of New 
Zealand. Ko te Aitanga pepeke o Aotearoa.  (Vol. 66). Landcare Research; Auckland, New 
Zealand.  
  
232 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Hennesey, M K; Peña, J E; Zlotina, M; Santos, K (2013) Likelihood of dispersal of the 
armoured scale, Aonidiella orientalis (Hemiptera: Diaspididae), to avocado trees from 
infested fruit discarded on t he ground and observations on spread by handlers. In J E Peña 
(ed) Potential invasive pests of agricultural crops . CABI Invasive Species Series No 3.  
 
Hodgson C J; Hilburn D J (1991) An annotated checklist of the Coccoidea of Bermuda. The 
Florida Entomolo gist, 74(1): 133 -146 
 
Ito, K; Carter, W (1931) Notes on insects found on pineapple planting material. Proceeding 
of the Hawaiian Entomological Society VIII(1): 41 -44. 
 
Jamieson L E; Page -Weir A; Chagan S; Olsson S; Connolly P G; McDonald R M; Woolf A 
(2010 ) High pressure water -washing to remove pests from capsicums. New Zealand Plant 
Protection, 63: 118 –122. 
 
Joy, P P; Anjana, R; Saumy, K K (2013) Pests of pineapples and their management.  
Pineapple Research Station, Kerala Agricultural University.; Thiruvan anthapuram, India.  
 
Kondo T; Watson G P (2022) 4.2.3 Diaspis  spp. (D. bromeliae , D. boisduvalii , D. 
echinocacti ). In T Kondo; G W Watson (ed) Encyclopedia of scale insect pests . CAB 
International  
 
Kozár F; Konczné -Benedicty Z; Fetykó K; Kiss B; Szita E (20 13) An annotated update of the 
scale insect checklist of Hungary (Hemiptera, Coccoidea). Zookeys, 309: 46 -66. 
 
LIMS (2022) Laboratory Information Management System. Ministry for Primary Industries 
Internal Database. Accessed August 2022.  
 
Longo S; Marotta S; Pellizzari G; Russo A; Tranfaglia A (1995) An annotated list of the scale 
insects (Homoptera: Coccoidea) of Italy. Israel Journal of Entomology, 29:113 –130. 
 
Mackintosh L (2001) Overview of New Zealand’s climate. NIWA. 
https://niwa.co.nz/education -and-training/schools/resources/climate/overview . 
 
Mackintosh L (2001) Overview of New Zealand’s climate. NIWA. 
https://niwa.co.nz/education -and-training/schools/resources/climate/overview  
 
Magsig -Castillo, J; Morse, J G; Walker, G P; BI, J L; Rugman -Jones, P F; Stouthamer, R 
(2010) Phoretic dispersal of armored scale crawlers (Hemiptera: Diaspididae). Journal of 
Economic Entomology. 103(4): 1172 -1179.  
 
Malumphy C; Ostrauskas H; Pye D (2008) A provisional catalogue of scale insects 
(Hemiptera, Coccoidea) of Lithuania. Acta Zoologica Lituanica, 18(2): 108 -121 
 
Manners A (2016) Scale insects: a difficult problem that can be managed. Agriscience 
Queensland, Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, pp 1 –12. 
http://horticulture.com.au/globalassets/hort -innovation/resource -assets/ny15002 -scale -
insects -pest-mgmt -plan.pdf  
  
233 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Mendel, Z; Podoler, H; Rosen, D (1984) Population dynamics of the Mediterranean black 
scale, Saissetia oleae (Olivier), on  citrus in Israel. 4. The natural enemies. Journal of the 
Entomological Society of South Africa 47(1): 1 –21. 
 
Mensah, S (2017) Development and trial of a methodology for the quantification and 
evaluation of home composting in Palmerston North, New Zealand/  MSc Thesis. 
Environmental Management. Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand.  
 
Miller D R; Davidson J A (2005) Armored scale insect pests of trees and shrubs (Hemiptera: 
Diaspididae). Cornell University Press. 442pp.  
 
Moreno I; Tarazona -Velásqu ez R; Campos -Patiño Y; Rodríguez -Arévalo K A; Kondo T 
(2021) Prevalence of Dysmicoccus brevipes  (Cockerell 1983) (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) 
in MD2 pineapple crop areas in Colombia. Pesquisa Agropecuaria Tropical, 51: e678338  
 
Morse, R G; Rugman, P F; Wats on, G W; Robinson, L J; Bi, J L; Stouthamer, R (2009) High 
levels of exotic armored scales on imported avocados raise concerns regarding USDA -
APHIS phytosanitary risk assessment. Journal of Economic Entomology 102(3): 855 –867. 
 
Murray, D A H (1980) Pineapp le scale. Queensland Agricultural Journal. 106: 271 –274. 
 
Nada S M A (1986) Common coccid pests on ornamental plants in some greenhouses of 
Egypt. Bulletin de la Societe Entomologiue d -Egypte, 66: 167 -168 (Abstract)  
 
Nakahara S (1982) Checklist of the armo red scales (Homoptera:Diaspididae) of the 
conterminous United States. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 110 pp.  
 
NIWA (2022) 2021: New Zealand’s warmest year on record. Aotearoa New Zealand climate 
summary: 2021. Annual climate summary. NIWA National Climate Centre.  
 
NZOR (2022) The New Zealand Organisms Register. http://nzor.org.nz  Accessed 07 
September 2022  
 
NZPCN (2002) New Zealand Plant Conservation Network. https: //www.nzpcn.org.nz  
Accessed August 2022.  
 
ONZPR (2022) Official New Zealand Pest Register. MPI Public Database. 
https://pierpestregister.mpi.govt.nz/PestsRegister/ImportCom modity/  Accessed 07 September 
2022.  
 
Panis, A; Pinet, C (1999) A study of two plagiomerus species (Hymenoptera: Encyritidae) 
parasitising Diaspidid scales (Coccoidea) in glasshouses in France. Entomologica, Bari 33: 
423-427. 
 
PestNet (2022) Import treatmen ts. In G Jackson (Ed.), Pests > Pest Management > 
Quarantine > Import risk assessments > Risks, pineapple fruit from Fr Polynesia, Nuie (Vol. 
2022).  
  
234 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Petty, G J; Stirling, G R; Bartholomew, D P (2002) Pests on pineapples. In J E Peña; J L 
Sharp; M Wysoki (eds) Tropical Fruit Pests and Pollinators.  CAB International,: 
Wallington, United Kingdom.  
 
Phillips, C B; Kean, J M; Vink, C J; Berry, J A (2018) Uti lity of the CLIMEX ‘match 
climates regional’ algorithm for pest risk analysis: an evaluation with non -native ants in New 
Zealand. Biological Invasions : 1–15. 
 
Ports.com (2022) http://ports.com  Accessed August 2022  
 
PPIN (20 22) Plant Pest Information Network, Version 5.03.01. Ministry for Primary 
Industries Internal Database. Accessed 08 September 2022.  
 
Queensland Government (2022) Frequently asked quesitons about pineapples. Department of 
Agriculture and Fisheries. http://daf.qld.gov.ai/business -priorities/agriculture/plants/fruit -
vegetable/fruit -vegetable -crops/pineapples . 
 
Quesada, C R; Witte, A; Sa dof, C S (2018) Factors influencing insecticide efficacy against 
armored and soft scales. HortTechnology hortte 28(3): 267 –275. 
 
Roda, A; Francis, A; Kairo, M; Culik, M (2013) Planococcus minor  (Hemiptera: 
Pseudococcidae): Bioecology, survey and mitigation  strategies. In J Peña (ed) Potential 
invasive pests of agricultural crops.  CABI: UK.  
 
Rohrbach, K G; Johnson, M W (2003) Pests, diseases and weeds. In D P Bartholomew; R E 
Paull; K G Rohrbach (eds) The Pineapple: Botany, Production, and Uses.  CABI Publish ing: 
Wallingford, United Kingdom.  
 
Rogg H W. 2000. Manual de Entomología Agrícola de Ecuador. Ediciones Abya -Yala. Quito 
Ecuador. ISBN: 9978 -41-358-8. 
 
Šefrová H; Laštůvka Z (2005) Catalogue of alien animal species in the Czech Republic. Acta 
Universitatis  Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis, 53(4): 151 -170 
 
Sosnovskiy E; Prokopiv A (2010) Phytophagous arthropods in protected cultivation of 
Botanical Garden of the Ivan Franko National University of L’viv. Plant Introduction, 48:81 -
92. 
 
Waite , G R (1993) Pests. In R H Broadley; R C Wassman; E Sinclair (eds) Pineapple pests 
and disorders . Department of Primary Industries, Queensland, pp 21 –32. 
 
Washburn, J; Frankie, G (1981) Dispersal of a scale insect, Pulvinariella mesembryanthemi 
(Homoptera:  Coccoidea) on iceplant in California. Environmental Entomology 10: 724 –727. 
 
Washburn, J; Washburn, L (1984) Active aerial dispersal of minute wingless arthropods: 
exploitation of boundary -layer velocity gradients. Science 223: 1088 –1089.  
 
WasteMinz (2009) Consent guide for composting operations in New Zealand. Waste 
Management Institute of New Zealand.  
  
235 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Waterhouse, D F; Sands, D P A (2001) Classical biological control of anthropods in 
Australia.  (ACIAR) (Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research), Canberra, 
Australia. 
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Waite+1993+Diaspis+bromeli
ae&btnG=  
 
Watson, G W (2002) Arthropods of economic importance - Diaspididae of the world. In C -R 
World Biodiversity Database; Expert Center for Taxonomic Identification (ETI); University 
of Amsterdam; The Netherlands . 
 
Yakhyoev J; Kimsanbayer K; Murodov B; Akmedova Z (2021) Taxonomy and bioecology of 
Hemiptera Diaspididae in fruit and landscape trees. E3s Web of Conferences 244: 02039.  
 
 
  
236 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  8 Pest risk assessments on insects: Hemiptera, 
Pseudococcidae (mealybugs)  
8.1 Dysmicoccus brevipes  (pink pineapple meal ybug)  
Dysmicoccus brevipes  is a highly polyphagous  (feeds on a wide range of plants)  mealybug 
that feeds on all plant parts and  is widely distributed geographically. It is common on 
pineapple and has also been reported in association with a number of crops  that are of 
economic importance to New Zealand, including avocado (Persea americana ), Capsicum , 
Citrus , grape vine ( Vitis vinifera ) and potato ( Solanum tuberosum ). This mealybug  transmits 
a number of plant viruses,  notably Pineapple mealybug wilt -associated viruses. It also 
secretes  honeydew which can lead to the growth of sooty mould s. 
 Taxonomic description  
Scientific name: Dysmicoccus brevipes  (Cockerell, 1893)  
Order :  Hemiptera  Family: Pseudococcidae  
Other scient ific name : Dactylopius brevipes ; Pseudococcus brevipes ; Dactylopius  
(Pseudococcus ) ananassae ; Pseudococcus missionum ; Pseudococcus palauensis ; 
Pseudococcus cannae ; Pseudococcus longirostralis ; Pseudococcus defluiteri ; Pseudococcus 
pseudobrevipes  (García Morales et al 2016; CABI 2021); Pineapple mealybug.  
 
Taxonomic notes: 
Dysmicoccus brevipes  was originally described as Dactylopius brevipes , from specimens 
collected from pineapple in Jamaica in 1893 and was later renamed Pseudococcu s brevip es 
(Ben -Dov 1994) . There are several misidentification s of D. brevipes  under the name 
Pseudococcus bromeliae  (Williams and Watson 1988) .  
 
Ito (1938)  highlighted two distinct types of pineapple mealybug in Hawaii, a pink form and a 
grey form. The pink form reproduced asexually, whereas the grey form reproduced sexually. 
Ghose (1983)  later confirmed D. brevipes  has both uniparental and biparental race s. 
Beardsley (1959a)  identified the morphological differences between the two Hawaiian types, 
describing the grey form as a distinct species, D. neobrevipes (grey pineapple mealybug). 
Consequently, literature before  1959 could be referring to either D. brevip es or 
D. neobrevipes . 
 
 Hazard identification  
Dysmicoccus brevipes  is not known to be present in New Zealand.  
• There is no entry in NZOR (2022)  or BiotaNZ (2022) .  
• According to PPIN (2022) , one adult specimen of D. brevipes  was found during a 
1997 National Stonefruit Survey in an Auckland plum  orchard. In response, two 
delimiting surveys were conducted in 1998, and no additional D. brevipes  individuals 
were located. Given only one individual was found during three surveys, Richmond 
and Cowley (1998)  concluded the mealybug likely failed to establish, or populations 
are currently below detectable  levels. No subsequent detections have occurred post 
1997, further supporting conclusions made by Richmond and Cowley (1998)  that the 
mealybug failed to establish.   
237 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  • Dysmicoccus brevipes  is a regulated pest and an unwanted organism for New Zealand 
ONZPR (2022) . 
 
Dysmicoccus brevipes  has the potential to establish  and spread in the northern North Island , 
namely Auckland and Northland.  
• Dysmicoccus brevipes  is a highly polyphagous  (feeds on a wide range of plants)  
mealybug that feeds on all plant parts , and has been reported from 6 6 families and 1 58 
genera of plants (García -Morales et al. 2016) . 
• Many host species are widely dis tributed and grown both domestically and 
commercially in New Zealand . These includ e horticultural crops such as avocado, 
capsicum, celery, citrus, cucumber,  grape , maize, potato , taro . In addition, common 
weed and forage grass species , such as clover  are a lso hosts of D. brevipes . 
• While t he current distribution of D. brevipes  includes countries and areas with similar 
climatic conditions to the general New Zealand climate , according to Wei et al. 
(2020) , under current climate conditions New Zealand is either unsuitable, or has a 
low simiarlity to the preferred climate of D. brevipes , with the exception of the 
northern North Island, namely Auckland and Northland, which has a suitable climate.  
• Dysmicoccus brevipes  has the capacity to reproduce asexually.  
 
Dysmicoccus brevipes  has the potential to cause harm to  New Zealand . 
• Dysmicoccus brevipes  has the potential to  reduce the economic value of 
horticulturally -important crops  in New Zealand , notably citrus, a pple and grape.  
• Dysmicoccus brevipes  has the potential to harm the New Zealand environment , as the 
mealybug has been reported on plant genera which native New Zealand plants belong 
to. 
• Dysmicoccus brevipes  has the potential  to cause advserse human health impacts in 
New Zealand by attracting Vespula  wasps, which sting humans.  
• Dysmicoccus brevipes  has the potential to have sociocultural impacts in New Zealand , 
as the mealybug is associated with kūmara  and taro, both of which are culturally 
important to Māori . 
 
Dysmicoccus brevipes  is associated with pineapple fruit.  
• Dysmicoccus brevipes  has been reported on pineapple fruit (González -Hernández et 
al. 1999; Milek et al. 2009) , although the authors do not indicate where on sampl ed 
fruit or at what lifestage D. brevipes  individuals have been observed.  
• Dysmicoccus brevipes  is widely associated with pineapple plants, and has been 
reported infesting fruit, blossom cups, crowns, leaves and roots  (CPC , 2021) . While 
multiple surveys confirm D. brevipes  infests Ananas cosmosus  (pineapple) plants 
(Sether et al. 2001; Culik et al. 2007; Huang and Lin 2014; Moreno et al. 2021) , only 
two surveys found (González -Hernández et al. 1999; Milek et al. 2009) , specifically 
note that the mealybug was detected on ‘pineapple fruit’.  
 
MPI considers Dysmicoccus brevipes  a hazard on decrowned Ananas comosus (pineapple) 
fruit (as described in the commodity description) imported to New Zealand.  
  
238 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  
 Risk assessment  
8.1.3.1  Biology  
 
Biology and reproduction  
Dysmicoccus brevipes  is a broadly oval to round pinkish species . The adult female grows to 
around 3 mm long and is covered in waxy filaments  (MPI, 2009) .  
 
There are asexual and sexual forms of D. brevipes  (Lim 1973; CABI 2021) . Lim (1973)  
studied the biology of the sexual form of D. brevipes . The author observed f emales have 
three nymphal instars, reaching maturity in about 24 days , while  males have two nymphal  
instars:  a prepupal and a pupal stage, also maturing at 24 days. Eggs hatch within the female 
body, and live larvae numbering between 19 –137 are born over abou t nine days  (MPI, 2009) . 
On average, adult female s live for about 17 –49 days and males 1 –3 days (MPI, 2009) .  
 
The lowest t hermal thresholds observed in a laboratory study by Colen et al. (2000)  for first 
and second instar , cocoon and final third instar development  were 12.1, 13.5 , 12.8  and 12.8 
ºC respectively.  According to  Bertin et al. (2019), the optimal temperature for third instar 
survival was 28.6 °C, while the maximum temperature for third instar development reported 
by Colen et al. (2000)  was 35°C . The highest longevities observed occurred at 20°C for 
females and at 20 and 25°C for males . In contrast, Bertin et al. (2019)  concluded that 30°C 
was the most suitable temperature for D. brevipes  development.  
 
Dispersal  
The first instar, often ref erred to as a ‘crawler’,  is the primary dispersal stage of the mealybug  
and move s around actively for no more than a day on average (Martin -Kessing and Mau 
1992; CABI 2021) . The crawlers are spread over longer distances  via wind and  a number of 
ant species (Lim 1973; Jahn and Beardsley 2000; Jahn et al. 2003) . Notably, the big -headed 
ant Pheidole megacephala , which is present in New Zealand (BiotaNZ 2022) , has been 
observed by Lim (1973)  carrying D. brevipes  from one plant to another . However, first instar 
mealybugs are vulnerable to predation and desiccation (Mendel et al. 1984) , limiting their 
capacity to disperse long distances. All life stages may be  spread by plant material traded 
nationally and internationally  (CABI 2021) . 
 
Host s and geographical distribution  
Dysmicoccus brevipes  is highly polyphagous  (feeds on a wide range of plants) , has a wide 
host and geographic range.  
 
Dysmicoccus brevip es has been reported from 66 families and 158 genera of plants (García -
Morales et al. 2016) . Many host species are widely distributed and grown both domestically 
and commercially in New Zealand, including horticultural crops such as avocado, capsicum, 
celery, citrus, cucumber, grape, maize, potato, taro. Common weed a nd forage grass species, 
such as clover are also hosts of D. brevipes . In addition, a number of plant families that New 
Zealand native flora belong to include hosts of D. brevipes . For example, Asteraceae 
(including At R isk Abrotanella rosulat a and Abrotan ella spathulata ), Cyperaceae (including 
Threatened Carex albula  and Carex capillacea ), Myrtaceae (including Threatened Kunzea 
amathicola  and Kunzea ericoides ), Orchidaceae (including Threatened Caleana minor  and 
Calochilus herbaceus ), and Poaceae (includin g At Risk  Agrostis oresbia  and Agrostis 
pallescens ) (NZPCN 2022) . 
  
239 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  The mealybug was first recorded on pineapple in Jamaica , and has been reported in Asia, 
Africa, North America, South America, Europe and Oceania (García -Morales et al. 2016; 
CABI 2021)  (Table  7.3). 
 
Table 7.3. Geographic distribution of Dysmicoccus brevipes  (CABI 2022; Scalenet 2022). Markets  
included within the scope of this import risk analysis are marked in bold. Composite match index (CMI) 
calculated via Phillips et al. (2018)  indicat ing similar climates to the whole of New Zealand (CMI: 0.7 –
1.0).  
Continent/Region  Country/Area/Market  CMI 
Asia Bangladesh, Bonin Islands, Brunei, Cambodia, China (Beijing, 
Fujian, Guangdong, Guangxi, Hainan, Hunan, Xizang, Yunnan), 
India (Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Andhra Pradesh, Assam, 
Bihar, Karnataka, Kerala, Maharashtra, Odisha, Tamil Nadu, 
Tripura, West Ben gal), Indonesia (Irian Jaya, Java, Sumatra ), 
Iran, Israel, Japan (Ryukyu Islands), Laos , Lebanon, Malaysia 
(Peninsular Malaysia , Sabah, Sarawak) , Pakistan, The 
Philippines , Singapore, Sri Lanka , Taiwan , Thailand , Turkey , 
Vietnam  0.2–0.8 
Africa  Angola, Ascension Island, Benin, Burkina Faso, Burundi, 
Cameroon, Cape Verde , Chad, Congo, Côte d'Ivoire, Egypt, 
Ethiopia, Ghana, Guinea, Kenya, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, 
Mauritius, Mozambique, Niger, Nigeria, Réunion, Rwanda, Saint 
Helena, São Tomé and Pr incipe, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra 
Leone, Somalia, South Africa, Sudan, Tanzania, Togo, Tromelin 
Island, Uganda, Zambia , Zanzibar  0.3-0.9 
North America  Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Bermuda, 
Cayman Islands, Costa Rica , Cuba, Dominica, Dominican 
Republic, El Salvador, Grenada, Guadeloupe, Guatemala, Haiti, 
Honduras, Jamaica, Martinique, Mexico (Chiapas, Nayarit), 
Montserrat, Nicaragua, Panama , Puerto Rico, Saint Kitts and 
Nevis, Saint Lucia, Trinidad and Tobago, U.S. Virgin Islands, 
United States (California, Florida, Hawaii, Louisiana)  0.2-0.8 
South America  Argentina (Chaco, Misiones, Salta, Santa Fe, Santiago del 
Estero, Tucuman), Boliv ia, Brazil (Bahia, Ceara, Columbia, 
Espirito Santo, Mato Gerais, Minas Gerais, Parana, Pernambuco, 
Piaui, Rio de Janeiro, Rio Grande do Sui, Santa Catarina, Sao 
Paulo), Chile (Easter Island), Colombia, Ecuador , French 
Guiana, Galapagos Islands, Guyana, Par aguay, Peru, Suriname, 
Uruguay, Venezuela  0.3–0.9 
Europe  Croatia, France, Greece, Italy (Sicily), Netherlands, Portugal 
(Azores, Madeira), Sloveniz , Spain (Canary Islands)  0.3–0.9 
Oceania  American Samoa, Australia (New South Wales, Northern 
Territory, Queensland and Western Australia ), Cook Islands , 
Federated States of Micronesia (Caroline Islands, Chuuk, 
Pohnpei, Ponape Islands, Truk Islands, Yap), Fiji, French 
Polynesia, Guam, Hawaiian Islands, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, 
New Caledonia , Niue, Northern Mariana Islands, Palau, Papua 
New Guinea , Samoa , Solomon Islands, Tokelau, Tonga , Tuvalu, 
Vanuatu , Wallis and Futuna Islands  0.4–0.9  
240 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand   
Symptoms  
Dysmicoccus  brevipes  is largely found below ground and just above ground level on the roots 
and stems of host plants (Jahn et al. 2003) . However, in the absence of D. neobrevipes , which 
only infests aerial plant parts (Beardsley 1960) , D. brevipes  is commonly found infesting the 
crown and developing fruit (Jahn et al. 2003) . The mealybug may spread upwards on fruit to 
feed in floral cavities, resulting in a disorder called black spot (CABI 2021) . Symptoms of 
D. brevipes  infestation on pineapple fruit include discolouration, the presence of honeydew 
and sooty moulds (CABI 2021) . Similarly , heavy infestations on plants result in large 
quantities of honeydew and sooty moulds, which result in a reduc tion in  photosynthe tic area 
(Jahn et al. 2003) . This can lea d to a  loss of plant vigour, fruit yield and in severe cases death 
(MPI, 2008). Ornamental plants and produce can lose their market value (CABI 2021) . 
Furthermore, the production of honeydew also attracts ants which feed on it (Jahn and 
Beardsley 2000) . 
 
Dysmicoccus brevipes  has also been identified as the vector of a number of plant viruses 
(Table  7.4), notably Pineapple mealybug wilt disease, which is the leading cause of economic 
loss in  pineapple production (Jahn et al 2003; Dey et al 2018).  The disease is associated with 
a number of Pineapple mealybug wilt -associated virus es (PMWaV ), which D. brevipes  
acquires and transmits to host plants during feeding (Jahn et al. 2003) . 
 
Table 7.4: Viruses known to be vectored by  Dysmicoccus brevipes , and their presence in markets 
within the scope of this IRA.  
Virus name  Known hosts  Presence in IRA 
markets  Reference  
Cacao mild mosaic virus  
(CaMMV)  Theobroma cacao  Indonesia  (Puig et al. 2021)  
Banana streak GF virus  
(BSMYV)  Musa  spp. Australia  (Geering et al. 2000; 
Su 2000; Kubiriba et 
al. 2001)  
Banana streak MY virus  
(BSMYV)  Musa  spp. Australia and 
Tonga  (Geering et al. 2000; 
Su 2000; Kubiriba et 
al. 2001; Stainton et 
al. 2015)  
Banana streak OL virus  
(BSOLV)  Musa  spp. Australia  (Meyer et al. 2008; 
James et al. 2011)  
Pineapple bacilliform 
comosus virus  (PBCoV)  Ananas comosus  Australia  (Gambley et al . 
2008a)  
Pineapple bacilliform 
erectifolius virus  (PBErV)  Ananas comosus  Australia  (Gambley et al. 
2008a)  
Pineapple mealybug wilt -
associated viruses  
(PMWaV)  Ananas comosus  Australia, Costa 
Rica, Malaysia, 
the Philippines, 
Sri Lanka, and 
Taiwan  (Sether et al. 2001; 
Gambley et al. 
2008b)  
  
8.1.3.2  Likelihood of entry  
Dysmicoccus brevipes  is present in every market  included in the scope of this IRA (García -
Morales et al. 2016; CABI 2021)  (Table 1 ).   
241 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand   
Dysmicoccus brevipes  is widely associated with pineappl e plants, and has been reported 
infesting fruit, blossom cups, crowns, stems, leaves and roots  (CABI 2021) . While multiple 
surveys confirm D. brevipes  infests pineapple plants (Sether et al. 2001; Culik et al. 2007; 
Huang and Lin 2014; Moreno et al. 2021) , only two surveys found specifically note that the 
mealybug was detected on ‘pineapple fruit’ (González -Hernández et al. 1999; Milek et al. 
2009) . However, LIMS (2022)  border interception data between 1929 and 2019 confirms the 
mealybug is commonly associa ted with pineapple fruit imported into New Zealand at all 
lifestages. The Australian Department of Agriculture (2019)  states D. brevipes  is the most 
commonly intercepted mealybug from the USA ports of entry, with fresh produce including 
pineapple fruit.  
 
The prevalence of interceptions of D. brevipes  into New Zealand on decrowned pineapple 
fruit may decline relative to previous interceptions given New Zealand previously imported 
pineapple fruit with the crown intact. This is due to the mealybug more common ly being 
associated with the crown of pineapple fruit (CABI 2021)  rather than the fruit itself.  
 
Furthermore, insecticide use during commercial pineapple production may not be effective at 
controlling D. brevipes . Mealybugs  in general are difficult to control by insecticide when 
present on surfaces which provide areas to hide. This is particularly app licable to pineapple 
fruit given the surface features cracks and bracts, both of which D. brevipes  could inhabit and 
go unnoticed during inspection post insecticide application. Furthermore, the mealybug’s 
waxy protective coating may enable D. brevipes  to survive commercial cleaning of fruit 
(Manners and Duff 2015) . 
 
Dysmicoccus brevipes  would likely be detected during packhouse activities. This is due to 
symptoms of D. brevipes  infestation on pineapple fruit including discolouration, the presence 
of honeyd ew and sooty moulds (CABI 2021) , all of which are visible to the naked eye.  
 
Dysmicoccus brevipes  has the capacity to remain viable through sea and air cargo freight 
transit times and conditions (summary of conditions provided ). This is indicated by  
interceptions at the New Zealand border : between 1929 and 2019, there were 523  sea and air 
cargo interceptions predominantly on pineapple and banana  (LIMS 2022) . Within this data 
set, all lifestages of D. brevipes  have been detected, the majority of which were live 
specimens. Furthermore, t hermal tolerances  observed by Colen et al. (2000)  fall within the 
range of cold storage shipping temperatures.  
 
Given that: 
• Dysmicoccus brevipes  is widely associated with Ananas cosmosus  (pineapple) plants,  
and has been reported on pineapple fruit ; 
• Insecticide may not be effective at controlling D. brevipes  on pineapple fruit, as such, 
the mealybug is likely to be associated with pineapple fruit during harvest;  
• Dysmicoccus brevipes  would likely be detected during packhouse activities;  
• Dysmicoccus brevipes  is commonly detected on imported pineapple fruit nati onally 
and internationally;  
Dysmicoccus brevipes  can remain viable through sea and air cargo freight transit  
times and conditions ; 
 
MPI considers the likelihood of Dysmicoccus brevipes  entering New Zealand associated with 
pineapple fruit is MODERATE, with LOW uncertainty.   
242 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand   
8.1.3.3  Likelihood of exposure  
This assessment is made on the basis that Dysmicoccus brevipes  has entered New Zealand 
undetected. Exposure is considered to be the transfer of a pest or disease from an imported 
commodity or inanimate object, to a host or environment suitable for the completion of 
development or production of offspring.  
 
Successful exposure of D. brevipes  would likely be climate dependant as indicated by the 
thermal thresholds  observed by Bertin et al. (2019)  and Colen et al. (2000) , and limited to the 
north of the North Island. According to Colen et al. (2000) , lower thermal toleran ces for first 
and second instar , cocoon and final third instar development  were 12.1, 13.5 , 12.8  and 12.8 
ºC respectively.  In addition, according to  Bertin et al. (2019), the optimal temperature for 
third instar survival was 28.6 °C, while the maximum tempe rature for third instar 
development reported by Colen et al. (2000)  was 35°C . The highest longevities observed 
occurred at 20°C for females and at 20 and 25°C for males . In contrast, Bertin et al. (2019)  
concluded that 30°C was the most suitable temperatur e for D. brevipes  development. This 
suggests successful exposure would likely occur be limited to the summer months across 
New Zealand, and the north of the North Island outside of this period.  
 
Successful exposure of D. brevipes  would also be dependant o n the mealybug’s reproductive 
capacity. In order to produce a viable population, the sexual form of D. brevipes  would 
require at least one male and one female on or within the same quantity of pineapple fruit 
waste. This is a consequence of the limited dis persal capacity of the third instar, which is the 
reproductive lifestage of the mealybug. The asexual form of D. brevipes , however, would not 
require a suitable mate in order to produce a viable population. Given border interception 
data between 1929 and 2 019 predominantly reports the presence of only one specimen on 
imported produce (LIMS 2022) , the likelihood of multiple mealybugs being present on the 
same item is unlikely. Therefore, it is unlikely the sexual form of D. brevipes  would have the 
capacity to produce a viable population on or within the same quantity of pineapple fruit 
waste. In contrast, the asexual form of D. brevipes  would have the capacity to produce a 
viable population in the absence of more than one individual.  
 
Fresh pineapple  fruit produce generates substantial amounts of unavoidable waste ; the thick 
rind is always removed and disposed of, and the fruit is also sometimes cored  (see waste 
section 2.1.3 ). In addition, t he disposal of whole fruit (e.g. culled/unsold fruit, uneaten fruit 
remains) is not un common during wholesale, retail and by consumers. Consequently, the 
primary methods in which organic waste is disposed of in New Zealand are important factors 
when assessing D. brevipes  exposure risk. In New Zealand, the primary methods of organic -
waste disposal consist of landfill, composting, and animal fe ed. 
 
Disposal of organic waste into landfill is unlikely to be an D. brevipes  exposure risk. The 
most common method of organic waste disposal in New Zealand is via bagged waste entering 
landfill (Askarany and Franklin -Smith 2014) . This method is unlikely t o be an exposure risk 
given waste is sealed within bags, and the processing and containment methods used in such 
facilities would inhibit D. brevipes  survival and dispersal.  
 
Commercial composting and worm farming are also unlikely to be an D. brevipes  exposure 
risk. Waste in commercial compost is put into tunnels for a period of three to four days at 
temperatures of 55 °C or higher and these conditions are likely to kill D. br evipes  at all  
243 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  lifestages (Colen et al. 2000; Bertin et al. 2019) . Worm farming is considered a low -risk 
method, because organic waste is contained within a rigid, contained structure, which likely 
inhibits mealybug dispersal by acting as a physical barrier . 
 
In contrast, domestic composting is likely to be a D. brevipes  exposure risk. According to a 
home composting study conducted in Palmerston North, the primary means in which 
households compost organic waste is via contained plastic bins, and ‘open’ compo sting 
systems, such as compost piles and piles fenced with wire (Mensah 2017) . The design of 
contained plastic bins, namely the rigid structure and lid, may inhibit D. brevipes  exposure by 
acting as a physical barrier to dispersal. However, open composting  systems, which lack a 
physical barrier, would likely aid D. brevipes  exposure if suitable hosts commonly found in 
New Zealand gardens (e.g., citrus and ornamentals) were present and nearby. Furthermore, 
given D. brevipes  has a wide host range (Table 1) an d feeds on all plant parts (CABI 2021) , 
the likelihood of a suitable host being present within a domestic garden is relatively high. 
According to (Mendel et al. 1984) , if a suitable host is not present nearby, mealybug crawlers 
are vulnerable to predation, dessication, and being washed away by rain.  
 
Disposal of fruit waste via use as animal feed is also likely to be a D. brevipes  exposure risk. 
Fruit waste in New Zealand may be collected from unpacking areas (e.g., supermarket 
preparation rooms),  and taken to rural areas to be used as feed for farmed animals (MPI 
2014a) . Dysmicoccus brevipes  crawlers present within such feed may have the capacity to 
disperse via wind or livestock, and land on a suitable host, such as a weed or grass species, 
nearb y. However, mealybug crawlers are vulnerable to predation, dessication, and being 
washed away by rain. Therefore, long -distance dispersal is unlikely.  
 
Uncertainty  
There is moderate uncertainty associated with the likelihood of D. brevipes  exposure. This i s 
attributed to differing ways in which  organic waste is disposed of throughout New Zealand, 
and how these methods may inhibit or facilitate D. brevipes  exposure. More specifically, 
there is uncertainty relating to whether D. brevipes  has the capacity to s urvive in and disperse 
from environments created within landfill, worm farming, domestic composting, and animal 
feed. Furthermore, transferring from disposed pineapple fruit to a suitable host from these 
environments is reliant on D. brevipes  dispersing wa ste to a host. Given the mealybug is 
vulnerable to predation, dessicantion and being washed away by rain, there is uncertainty 
relating to whether D. brevipes  would survive dispersal events.   
 
Given that: 
• successful exposure of D. brevipes  would likely be climate dependant as indicated by 
the thermal thresholds observed by Bertin et al. (2019) ; 
• successful exposure of D. brevipes  would also be dependant on the mealybug’s 
reproductive capacity ; 
• disposal of organic waste into landfill is unlik ely to be an D. brevipes  exposure risk,  
• commercial composting and worm farming are also unlikely to be an D. brevipes  
exposure risk;  
• domestic composting is likely to be an D. brevipes  exposure risk;  
• disposal of fruit waste via use as animal feed is also l ikely to be an D. brevipes  
exposure risk ; 
 
MPI considers the likelihood of exposure of  Dysmicoccus brevipes  in New Zealand from 
pineapple fruit  is LOW,  with MODERATE uncertainty .  
244 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  8.1.3.4  Likelihood of establishment  
This assessment is made on the basis that Dysmicoccus brevipes  is successfully exposed to a 
suitable host plant in the New Zealand environment.  
 
Dysmicoccus brevipes  is highly polyphagous  (feeds on a wide range of hosts),  and has been 
reported from 66 fami lies and 158 genera of plants (García -Morales et al. 2016) . Many host 
species are widely distributed and grown both domestically and commercially in New 
Zealand, including horticultural crops such as avocado, capsicum, celery, citrus, cucumber, 
grape, maiz e, potato, taro. In addition, common weed and forage grass species, such as clover 
are also hosts of D. brevipes . 
 
Given D. brevipes  has the capacity to reproduce asexually, and females produce 19-137 
larvae over about nine days  (CABI 2021) , the potential for D. brevipes  to establish a viable 
population with minimal propagule pressure via the asexual form is likely.  
 
However, c limate is likely to act as a barrier to establishment  in most regions of New Zealand 
despite  the mealybug’s current distribution inc luding climatic conditions similar to the whole 
of New Zealand (Table 1) . According to Wei et al. (2020) , under current climate conditions 
New Zealand is either unsuitable, or has a low simiarlity to the preferred climate of D. 
brevipes , with the exception of the northern North Island, namely Auckland and Northland, 
which has suitable climate. This conclusio n is further supported by the fact the mealybug is 
commonly found in tropical and subtropical areas (Ben -Dov 1994) , indicating climatic 
conditions in Auckland and Northland  are likely more favourable to establishment of D. 
brevipes  relative to the rest of New Zealand.  
 
In addition, previous detections of D. brevipes  in New Zealand and subsequent surveys 
indicate the mealybug is unlikely to establish. A ccording to PPIN (2022) , one adult specimen 
of D. brevipes  was found during a 1997 National Stonefruit Survey in an Auckland plum 
orchard. In response, two delimiting surveys were conducted in 1998, and no additional D. 
brevipes  individuals were located. Given only  one individual was found during three surveys, 
Richmond and Cowley (1998)  concluded the mealybug likely failed to establish, or 
populations are currently below detactable levels. No subsequent detections have occurred 
post 1997, further supporting conclusions made by Richmond and Cowley (1998)  that the 
mealybug failed to establish.  
 
Given that:  
• Dysmicoccus brevipes  is a highly polyphagous  (feeds on a wide range of host plants)  
mealybug that feeds on all plant parts,  and hosts are present, diverse and widespread 
in New Zealand ; 
• Dysmicoccus brevipes  has both as exual  and sexual forms;  
• climate is likely to act as a barrier to establishment  in most parts of New Zealand , 
with the exception of the northern North Island;  
• Previous detections of D. brevipes  present in New Zealand and subsequent surve ys 
indicate the mealybug is unlikely to establish;  
 
MPI considers the likelihood of Dysmicoccus brevipes  establishing in New Zealand is LOW,  
with MODERATE  uncertainty.  
8.1.3.5  Impacts in New Zealand  
  
245 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  This assessment is made on the assumption that D. brevipes  has successfully established in 
the New Zealand environment .   
 
Economic impacts  
Economically important hosts of D. brevipes  in New Zealand include avocado (Persea 
americana ), Capsicum  species, Citrus  species (lemon and orange), grape ( Vitis vinifera ) and 
potato ( Solanum tuberosum ). 
 
Infestations of D. brevipes  result in the production of honeydew that provides a medium for 
sooty moulds. Sooty -mould accumulation leads to a  reduc tion in  photosynthe tic area (Jahn et 
al. 2003) , which in turn results in a  loss of plant vigour, fruit yield and in severe cases death 
(MPI 2008). In addition, the mealybug commonly feeds on the roots of host species (CABI 
2021) , further reducing horticultural yiel ds. Ornamental plants and produce can lose their 
market value as a consequence (CABI 2021) . The annual value of horticultural exports within 
the top ten value markets to the year ending June 2021 that would likely be at least partially 
impacted by the esta blishment of D. brevipes  include apples, valued at NZ$876.3m ; 
avocados, valued at NZ$112.3m; valued at wine produced from grapes, valued at 
NZ$1,908.5m, and potatoes, valued at NZ$129.2m (Plant & Food Research 2020, 2021) . 
However, damage would likely be restricted to crops grown in the northern North Island, 
which has moderate to high habitat suitability for D. brevipes . The annual value to the year 
ending June 2021  of horticultural imports and exports within D. brevipes ’ main host range  
grown in Auckland and Northland consist of avocados, valued at NZ$122.1m ; citrus, valued 
at NZ$3.0m, wine grapes, valued at NZ$46.4m, and potatoes, valued at NZ$23.8m  (Plant & 
Food Research 2020, 2021) . 
 
An in -house MPI model predicted a very low total ec onomic  impact over 20 years  involving 
avocado, citrus, wine grapes and potato crops grown in Auckland and Northland.  
• The model focused on horticultural import and export crops within D. brevipes ’ main 
host range. The annual value of horticultural crops  within these markets to the year 
ending June 2021 grown in Auckland and Northland consist of avocados, valued at 
NZ$122.1m ; citrus, valued at NZ$3.0m, wine grapes, valued at NZ$46.4m, and 
potatoes, valued at NZ$23.8m  (Plant & Food Research 2020, 2021) . 
• It was  assumed that the greatest level of combined annual economic  impact on all 
associated horticultural crops in Auckland and Northland would be NZ$2 million. 
This is based on the assumption of a worst case scenario, where  1% of the apple, 
avocado and potato i ndustries  with a combined 2021 annual export value of 
NZ$49,494.7 m are affected .  The value of 1% considers that the mealybug  would 
likely be climatically limited, with the most damage likely restricted to crops in the 
northern North Island, namely Auckland and Northland. Both regions, according to 
2017 data collected by Plant & Food Research (2020) , have combined land  use 
alloca tions for avocado, citrus, wine grapes, and potato production of 48.4%, 25.5%, 
2.5%, and 23.8% respectively.  
• The mealybug  is assumed  to take five years to achieve greatest i mpacts to allow time 
for spread across Auckland and Northland.  
• Due to effective chemical controls existing  targeting mealybugs in -field, it is assumed 
industries would take two years to  recover.  
 
In Brazil, D. brevipes  is one of most abundant mealybugs in V. vinifera  vineyards, with 
infestations reducing marketability and productivity (Daane et al. 2012) . While D. brevipes  is  
246 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  commonly found on V. vinefera  roots, the pest has also been observed infesting leaves, stems 
and grape clusters (Daane et al. 2012; de Sá and de Morais Oliveira 2021) , causing damage 
during harvest through sooty -moul d facilitation (Daane et al. 2012) . However, given surveys 
conducted by de Sá and de Morais Oliveira (2021)  were in tropical semi -arid areas of Brazil 
(CMI 0.5), population densities of D. brevipes  may not reach such a level to cause the same 
level of impa ct in New Zealand.  
 
In addition, D. brevipes  has also been identified as the vector of a number of plant viruses 
only associated with pineapple, banana and cacao (Table 1), including Pineapple mealybug 
wilt disease, which is the leading cause of economic loss in pineapple production (Jahn et al 
2003; Dey et al 2018).  Therefore, the mealybug has the potential to cause economic impacts 
on pineapple and banana horticulture in New Zealand. Mealybug wilt disease is associated 
with a number of Pineapple mealybug wilt -associated virus es (PMWaV ), which D. brevipes  
acquires and transmits to host plant s during feeding (Jahn et al. 2003) . Importantly, PMWaV 
are present in a number of  markets  included in the scope of this IRA  (Table 1). While these 
viruses are primarily associated with pineapple plants, it is unknown whether they have the 
capacity to tran sfer to a novel host species.  
 
Trade disruptions and associated potential trade losses with countries that have international 
quarantine regulations would occur if D. brevipes  were to establish in New Zealand. These 
countries are Egypt, French Polynesia, the Republic of Korea, Seychelles, and South Africa 
(ONZPR 2022) . According to Plant & Food Research (2021) , the Republic of Korea is one of 
the top ten export destinations in the kiwifruit ( Actinidia ) and squash ( Cucu rbita) markets, 
with a combined annual  export value of $128 M. Given squash is a known host of D. 
brevipes , squash trade with the Republic of Korea may experience trade disruptions and 
associated trade losses if D. brev ipes were to establish in New Zealand as a consequence of 
international qua rantine regulations.  
 
Uncertainty  
There is moderate uncertainty associated with the likelihood of D. brevipes  causing economic 
impacts in New Zealand. This is attributed to uncertainty associated with whether D. brevipes  
would cause similar levels of grape -crop damage experienced in Brazil. Given New 
Zealand’s climate differs from the tropical semi -arid areas of Brazil (CMI 0.5), population 
densities of D. brevipes  may not reach such a degree to cause the same level of impact in 
New Zealand.  
 
Given that: 
 
• Economically important hosts of D. brevipes in New Zealand include avocado 
(Persea americana ), Capsicum , Citrus species (lemon and orange), grape ( Vitis 
vinifera ) and potato ( Solanum tuberosum ); 
• direct and indirect damage caused to economically -important horticultural crops 
worldwide;  
• trade disruptions and associated potential trade losses with countries that hav e 
international quarantine regulations would occur if D. brevipes  were to enter and 
establish in New Zealand ; 
 
the economic impact of  Dysmicoccus brevipes  in New Zealand is  considered to be  VERY 
LOW, with MODERATE uncertainty.  
  
247 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Environmental impacts  
While no direct evidence is available regarding whether native New Zealand plants could be 
potential hosts of D. brevipes, according to Beever et al. (2007) , there are existing records of 
New Zealand native plants becoming hosts for introduced cosmopolitan  mealybug species  
(MAF 2008) . Examples include the vine pest Pseudococcus calceolariae,  which has been 
recorded on kōwhai ( Sophora microphylla ), akeake ( Dodonaea viscosa ), Coprosma australis  
(C. grandifolia ) and maire ( Nestegis lanceolata ) (MAF 2008) . Howe ver, according to 
Brockerhoff et al. (2010) , exotic oligophagous and polyphagous sapsuckers observed on 
native woody plants had minor impacts. This suggests, given D. brevipes  is polyphagous, that 
the environmental impacts caused by the mealybug may also b e minor.  
 
In addition, a number of plant families that New Zealand native flora belong to include hosts 
of D. brevipes . For example, Asteraceae (including At Risk  Abrotanella rosulate and 
Abrotanella spathulata ), Cyperaceae (including Threatened Carex albu la and Carex 
capillacea ), Myrtaceae (including Threatened Kunzea amathicola  and Kunzea ericoides ), 
Orchidaceae (including Threatened Caleana minor  and Calochilus herbaceus ), and Poaceae 
(including At Risk  Agrostis oresbia  and Agrostis pallescens ) (NZPCN 2022) . 
 
Uncertainty associated with potential environmental impacts caused by D. brevipes  in New 
Zealand  is attributed to a lack of evidence relating to whether native plants could be potential 
hosts of D. brevipes . 
 
Given that:  
 
• there are existing  records of New Zealand native plants becoming hosts for 
introduced cosmopolitan mealybug species , 
• a number of plant families that New Zealand native flora belong to include hosts of 
D. brevipes , 
 
MPI considers the environmental  impact of  Dysmicoccus brevipes  in New Zealand is VERY 
LOW, with MODERATE uncertainty.  
 
Human health impacts  
Searches using terms ‘ Dysmicoccus brevipes ’ in PubMed, Google Scholar, CAB Abstracts 
and Google found no mention of adverse effects on humans or animals. Henc e, no direct 
evidence was found to indicate D. brevipes  cause human health impacts.  
 
However, there is indirect evidence D. brevipes  has the potential to facilitate negative human -
health impacts given the mealybug secretes honeydew,  which attracts invasive  Vespula  wasps 
present in New Zealand (Harris 1991) . High numbers of wasps in urban and recreational 
areas may adversely impact human health via stings and allergic reactions to stings (MAF 
2008) . However, given most of New Zealand has unsuitable or low habitat suitablilty for D. 
brevipes , with the exception of the northern North Island , populations are unlikely to reach 
levels that would significantly influence Vespula  wasp population levels.  
 
Given that: 
• there is a lack of evidence indicating Dysmicoccus brevipes  has adverse effects on 
humans or animals,  
• there is a indirect evidence Dysmicoccus brevipes  has potential to facilitate adverse 
human health impacts by attracting Vespula  wasps via honeydew secret ion,   
248 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand   
MPI considers the human health  impact of  Dysmicoccus brevipes  in New Zealand is 
NEGLIBLE, with LOW uncertainty.  
 
Sociocultural impacts  
Dysmicoccus brevipes  has the potential to have sociocultural impacts in New Zealand, as the 
mealybug is associated with  kūmara  (Ipomoea batatas ) and  taro (Colocasia esculenta ), both 
of which are culturally important to Māori  (Maanaki -Whenua 2022) . There is currently a lack 
of literature relating to the direct impacts on kūmara  and taro. However, if heavy infestations 
of D. brevipes  were to occur on these culturally significant species, the likely consequence 
would be the production of large quantities of honeydew that provides  a medium for sooty 
moulds. Sooty -mould accumulation leads to a  reduc tion in  photosynthesi c area (Jahn et al. 
2003) , which in turn results in a  loss of plant vigour, fruit yield and in severe cases death 
(MAF 2008) . In addition, the mealybug commonly feeds  on the roots of host species (CABI 
2021) , further reducing horticultural yields. However, given most of New Zealand has 
unsuitable or low habitat suitablilty for D. brevipes , with the exception of the northern North 
Island , populations are unlikely to rea ch levels that would constitute heavy infestations of 
host.  
 
Uncertainty associated with potential sociocultural impacts caused by D. brevipes  in New 
Zealand  is attributed to a lack of evidence relating to direct impacts of D. brevipes  infestation 
on kūmara  and taro  crops.  
 
Given that: 
 
• Dysmicoccus brevipes  is associated with  kūmara  (Ipomoea batatas ) and  taro 
(Colocasia esculenta ), both of which are culturally important to Māor i, 
• there is currently a lack of literature relating to the direct impacts on kūmara  and taro,  
 
MPI considers the sociocultural impact of  Dysmicoccus brevipes  in New Zealand is VERY 
LOW, with MODERATE uncertainty.  
 
8.1.3.6  Overall impact to New Zealand  
MPI considers t he overall impact of D. brevipes  on the New Zealand economy, environment, 
health and society is LOW , with MODERATE uncertainty . 
 
8.1.3.7  Overall risk to New Zealand  
Based on the assessments of likelihood and consequences above, that:  
 
• the likelihood of entry is to be MODERATE, with LOW uncertainty,  
• assuming entry, the likelihood of exposure is LOW, with MODERATE uncertainty , 
• assuming successful exposure, the likeliho od of establishment is considered to be 
LOW,  with MODERATE  uncertainty,  
• the overall impact on the New Zealand economy, environment, human health, and 
society is considered to be LOW , 
 
MPI considers the overall level of assessed risk to New Zealand from Dysmicoccus brevipes  
on pineapple fruit is LOW,  with MODERATE  uncertainty .  
249 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand   
Note: Based on the risk assessment, the overall risk of D. brevipes  can be at the high end of 
very low according to the ‘Guideline for Risk Analysis in Plant Biosecurity 1.0’. However , 
given that D. brevipes  has a very wide range of hosts, wide geographical distribution 
(including some areas with similar climate to New Zealand) and can be reproduce asexually, 
MPI considers that a low overall risk is more appropriate .  
 
 Specific conside rations  
On which pineapple variety (or varieties) and at what stage of ripeness has Dysmicoccus 
brevipes  association with pineapple fruit been observed?  
Available literature indicates the D. brevipes  is associated with pineapple plants in general , 
and does not appear to be  variety specific.  Furthermore, no information was found regarding 
ripeness association.  
 
Which part(s) of the pineapple fruit is Dysmicoccus brevipes  associated with (e.g. fruit, 
bract, stem or crown remnant) and is it detectable by visual detection?  
Dysmicoccus brevipes  is widely associated with pineapple plants, and has been reported 
infesting fruit, blossom cups, crowns, leaves and roots  (CABI 2021) . While multiple surveys 
confirm D. brevipes  infests Ananas cosmosus  (pineapple) plants (Sether et al. 2001; Culik et 
al. 2007; Huang and Lin 2014; Moreno et al. 2021) , only two surveys found specifically note 
that the mealybug was detected on ‘pineapple fruit’ (González -Hernández et al. 1999; Milek 
et al. 2009) . Furthermore, D. brevipes  is likely to be detectable by visual inspection as 
indicated by interception data at the New Zealand border between 1929 and 2019 ( LIMS 
(2022) . 
 
Are different lifestages of the Dysmicoccus brevipes  associa ted with different parts of the 
pineapple fruit?  
New Zealand border interception data between 1928 and 2022 confirms the mealybug is 
commonly associated with pineapple fruit imported into New Zealand at all lifestages (LIMS 
2022) . 
 
Does Dysmicoccus brevipe s burrow into the fruit without obvious symptoms, and/or 
hides under t he pineapple bract?  
Symptoms on pineapple fruit infested with D. brevipes  include discolouration, the presence 
of honeydew and sooty mould (CABI 2021) . Given the biology of mealybugs in general, 
notably their small size, D. brevipes  is likely to have the capacity to hide under pineapple 
bracts.  
 
 References  
Askarany, D; Franklin -Smith, A W (2014) Cost benefit analyses of organic waste composting 
systems through the lens of time driven activity -based costing. Journal of applied 
management accounting research 12(2): 59 –73. 
 
Beardsley, J W (1959) On the taxonomy of pineapple  mealybugs in Hawaii, with a 
description of a previously unnamed species (Homoptera: Pseudococcidae).  
  
250 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Beardsley, J W (1960) A preliminary study of the males of some Hawaiian mealybugs 
(Homoptera: Pseudococcidae).  
 
Beever, R E; Harman, H; Waipara, N; Paynt er, Q; Barker, G; Burns, B (2007) Native Flora 
Biosecurity Impact Assessment (Unpublished Landcare Research report LC0607/196 to MAF 
Biosecurity New Zealand). Landcare Research,  
 
Ben-Dov, Y (1994) A systematic catalogue of the mealybugs of the world (Inse cta: 
Homoptera: Coccoidea: Pseudococcidae and Putoidae) with data on geographical 
distribution, host plants, biology and economic importance. Intercept Limited; Andover UK.  
 
Bertin, A; Lerin, S; Botton, M; Parra, J (2019) Temperature thresholds and thermal  
requirements for development and survival of Dysmicoccus brevipes (Hemiptera: 
Pseudococcidae) on Table Grapes. Neotropical Entomology 48(1): 71 -77. 
 
BiotaNZ (2022) Biota of New Zealand. https://biotaNZ.landcareresearch.co.nz Accessed 
30/04/2022  
 
Brockerho ff, E G; Barratt, B I; Beggs, J R; Fagan, L L; Malcolm, K; Phillips, C B; Vink, C J 
(2010) Impacts of exotic invertebrates on New Zealand’s indigenous species and ecosystems. 
New Zealand Journal of Ecology 34(1): 158 -174. 
 
CABI (2021) Dysmicoccus brevipes  
(pineapple mealybug) Datasheet. https://www.cabi.org/isc/datasheet/20248  
 
Colen, K; Santa -Cecília, L; Moraes, J; Reis, P (2000) Effects of different temperatures upon 
the biology of the mealybug Dysmicoccus brevipes (Cockerell, 1893)(Hemiptera: 
Pseudococc idae). Revista Brasileira de Fruticultura 22(2): 248 -252. 
 
Culik, M; Ventura, J; dos S. Martins, D (2007) Scale insects (Hemiptera: Coccidae) of 
pineapple in the State of Espírito Santo, Brazil. In VI International Pineapple Symposium 822 
(pp. 215 –218).  
 
Daane, K; Almeida, R; Vaughn, A; Walker, J; Bottom, M; Fallahzadeh, M; Mani, M; Miano, 
J; Sforza, R; Walton, V; Zaviezo, T (2012) Biology and management of mealybugs in 
vineyards. In N Bostanian; C Vincent; R Isaacs (eds) Arthropod management in vineyards. 
Springer: Dordrecht, Netherlands.  
 
de Sá, M d G R; de Morais Oliveira, J E (2021) Mealybugs on fruit crops in the Sao Franciso 
Valley, Brazil. African Journal of Agricultural Research 17(6): 822 -828. 
 
Department of Agriculture (2019) Final report for the review of biosecurity import 
requirements for fresh decrowned pineapples from Taiwan. In D o Agriculture (Ed.). 
Canberra, Australia.  
 
Gambley, C; Geering, A; Steele, V; Thomas, J (2008a) Identification of viral and non -viral 
reverse transcribing elemen ts in pineapple (Ananas comosus), including members of two new 
badnavirus species. Archives of Virology 153(8): 1599 -1604.  
  
251 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Gambley, C; Steele, V; Geering, A; Thomas, J (2008b) The genetic diversity of 
ampeloviruses in Australian pineapples and their assoc iation with mealybug wilt disease. 
Australasian Plant Pathology 37(2): 95 -105. 
 
García -Morales, M; Denno, B; Miller, G; Ben -Dov, Y; Hardy, N (2016) A literature base 
model of scale insect biology and systematics  (Publication no. 10.1093/database/bav118). 
http://scalenet.info  
 
Geering, A; McMichael, L; Dietzgen, R; Thomas, J (2000) Genetic diversity among Banana 
streak virus isolates from Australia. Phytopathology 90(8): 921 -927. 
 
Ghose, S (1983) Biology of parthenogenetic race of Dysmicoccus brevipes 
(Coc kerell)[Pseudococcidae, Hemiptera]. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences (India).  
 
González -Hernández, H; Reimer, N J; Johnson, M W (1999) Survey of the natural enemies of 
Dysmicoccus mealybugs on pineapple in Hawaii. BioControl 44(1): 47 -58. 
 
Harris, R  J (1991) Diet of the wasps Vespula vulgaris and V. germanica in honeydew beech 
forest of the South Island, New Zealand. New Zealand journal of zoology 18(2): 159 -169. 
 
Huang, S; Lin, C (2014) Distribution and control of pink pineapple mealybug and survey of 
insect pests on pineapple. Journal of Taiwan Agricultural Research 63(1): 68 -76. 
 
Ito, K (1938) Studies on the Life History of the Pineapple Mealybug, Pseudococcus brevipes 
(Ckll.). Journal of Economic Entomology 31(2): 291 -298. 
 
Jahn, G C; Beardsley, J  W (2000) Interactions of ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) and 
mealybugs (Homoptera: Pseudococcidae) on pineapple.  
 
Jahn, G C; Beardsley, J W; González -Hernández, H (2003) A review of the association of 
ants with mealybug wilt disease of pineapple. Proceedin gs of the Hawaiian Entomological 
Society 36: 9 -28. 
 
James, A; Geijskes, R; Dale, J; Harding, R (2011) Development of a novel rolling -circle 
amplification technique to detect Banana streak virus that also discriminates between 
integrated and episomal virus sequences. Plant Disease 95(1): 57 -62. 
 
Kubiriba, J; Legg, J; Tushemereirwe, W; Adipala, E (2001) Vector transmission of Banana 
streak virus in the screenhouse in Uganda. Annals of Applied Biology 139(1): 37 -43. 
 
Lim, W (1973) Studies on the bisexual race of Dysmicoccus brevipes Ckll.: its bionomics and 
economic importance. Malaysian Agricultural Journal 49(2): 254 -267. 
 
LIMS (2022) Laboratory Information Management System. Ministry for Primary Industries 
internal database. Accessed 11/04/2022  
 
Maanaki -Whenua (2022) Ngā Tipu Whakaoranga Database. 
https://www.landcareresearch.co.nz/tools -and-resources/databases/nga -tipu-whakaoranga -
maori -plant -use-database/ Accessed 14 March 2022  
  
252 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  MAF, B N Z (2008) Import Risk Analysis:  
Fresh Citrus Fruit (7 spec ies)  
from Samoa. In B N Z MAF (Ed.). Wellington, New Zealand.  
 
Manners, A; Duff, J (2015) Mealybugs - a pest of a different scale. 
https://www.horticulture.com.au/globalassets/hort -innovation/resource -assets/ny11001 -
mealy -bugs.pdf  
 
Martin -Kessing, J; Mau , R (1992) Dysmicoccus brevipes (Beardsley) Crop  
Knowledge Master Fact Sheet. http://www.extento.hawaii.edu/kbase/crop/Type/d_brevip.htm 
Accessed 1/6/2022  
 
Mendel, Z; Podoler, H; Rosen, D (1984) Population dynamics of the Mediterranean black 
scale, Saisse tia oleae (Olivier), on citrus in Israel. 4. The natural enemies. Journal of the 
Entomological Society of South Africa 47(1): 1 –21. 
 
Mensah, S (2017) Development and trial of a methodology for the quantification and 
evaluation of home composting in Palmers ton North, New Zealand: a thesis submitted in 
partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Environmental Management 
(without major) at Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand. thesis; Massey 
University,  
 
Meyer, J; Kasdorf, G ; Nel, L; Pietersen, G (2008) Transmission of activated -episomal banana 
streak ol (badna) virus (bsolv) to cv. Williams banana (Musa sp.) by three mealybug species. 
Plant Disease 92(8): 1158 -1163.  
 
Milek, T M; Šimala, M; Korić, B (2009) The scale insects ( Hemiptera: Coccoidea) of 
imported fruits in Croatia. Zbornik predavanj in referatov 9: 4 -5. 
 
Moreno, I; Tarazona -Velásquez, R; Campos -Patiño, Y; Rodríguez -Arévalo, K A; Kondo, T 
(2021) Prevalence of Dysmicoccus brevipes (Cockerell, 1893)(Hemiptera: Pseudoc occidae) 
in MD2 pineapple crop areas in Colombia. Pesquisa Agropecuária Tropical 51.  
 
MPI (2014) Generic pest risk assessment: armoured scale insects (Hemiptera: Coccoidea: 
Diaspididae) on the fresh produce pathway. https://www.mpi.govt.nz/dmsdocument/5224   
 
NZOR (2022) The New Zealand Organisms Register. http://nzor.org.nz Accessed May 2022  
 
NZPCN (2022) New Zealand Plant Conservation Network. https://www.nzpcn.org.nz/ 
Accessed 12/04/2022  
 
ONZPR (2022) Official New Zealand Pest Register. MPI Public Database. 
https://pierpestregister.mpi.govt.nz/PestsRegister/ImportCommodity/ Accessed May 2022  
 
Phillips, C B; Kean, J M; Vink, C J; Berry, J A (2018) Utility of the CLIMEX ‘match 
climates regional’ algorithm for pest risk analysis: an evaluation with non -native ants in New 
Zealand. Biological Invasions: 1 –15. 
 
Plant & Food Research (2020) Fresh Facts: New Zealand Horticulture. Plant & Food 
Research, Auckland, New Zealand.   
253 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand   
Plant & Food Research (2021) Fresh Facts: New Zealand Horticulture. Plant & Food 
Research, Auckland, New Zealand.  
 
PPIN (2022) Plant Pest Information Network, Version 5.03.01. Ministry for Primary 
Industries Internal Database. Accessed 15 September 2020  
 
Puig, A S; Wurzel, S; Suarez, S; Marelli, J -P; Niogret, J (2021) Mealybug (Hemipte ra: 
Pseudococcidae) Species Associated with Cacao Mild Mosaic Virus and Evidence of Virus 
Acquisition. Insects 12(11): 994.  
 
Richmond, J; Cowley, J (1998) Pineapple mealybug in New Zealand? Orchardist 71(7).  
 
Sether, D; Karasev, A; Okumura, C; Arakawa, C; Zee, F; Kislan, M; Busto, J; Hu, J (2001) 
Differentiation, distribution, and elimination of two different pineapple mealybug wilt -
associated viruses found in pineapple. Plant Disease 85(8): 856 -864. 
 
Stainton, D; Halafihi, M i; Collings, D A; Varsani, A (2 015) Genome sequence of banana 
streak MY virus from the Pacific Ocean island of Tonga. Genome announcements 3(3): 
e00543 -00515.  
 
Su, H -J (2000) Development and application of molecular diagnostic probes for detection, 
characterization, and management of ba nana viruses. Advancing banana and plantain R & D 
in Asia and the: 35.  
 
Wei, J; Peng, L; He, Z; Lu, Y; Wang, F (2020) Potential distribution of two invasive 
pineapple pests under climate change. Pest Management Science 76(5): 1652 -1663.  
 
Williams, D; Watso n, G (1988) The scale insects of the tropical South Pacific region. Part 2. 
The mealybugs (Pseudococcidae). CAB International Institute of Entomology; London, UK. 
Askarany, D; Franklin -Smith, A W (2014) Cost benefit analyses of organic waste composting 
systems through the lens of time driven activity -based costing. Journal of applied 
management accounting research 12(2): 59 –73. 
 
Beardsley, J W (1959) On the taxonomy of pineapple mealybugs in Hawaii, with a 
description of a previously unnamed species (Homopt era: Pseudococcidae).  
 
Beardsley, J W (1960) A preliminary study of the males of some Hawaiian mealybugs 
(Homoptera: Pseudococcidae).  
 
Beever, R E; Harman, H; Waipara, N; Paynter, Q; Barker, G; Burns, B (2007) Native Flora 
Biosecurity Impact Assessment  (Unpublished Landcare Research report LC0607/196 to MAF 
Biosecurity New Zealand). Landcare Research,  
 
Ben-Dov, Y (1994) A systematic cata logue of the mealybugs of the world (Insecta: 
Homoptera: Coccoidea: Pseudococcidae and Putoidae) with data on geographical 
distribution, host plants, biology and economic importance. Intercept Limited; Andover UK.  
  
254 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Bertin, A; Lerin, S; Botton, M; Parra, J (2019) Temperature thresholds and thermal 
requirements for development and survival of Dysmicoccus brevipes (Hemiptera: 
Pseudococcidae) on Table Grapes. Neotropical Entomology 48(1): 71 -77. 
 
BiotaNZ (2022) Biota of New Zealand. https://biotaNZ.landcareresearch.co.nz  Accessed 
30/04/2022  
 
Brockerhoff, E G; Barratt, B I; Beggs, J R; Fagan, L L; Malcolm, K; Phillips, C B; Vink, C J 
(2010) Impacts of exotic invertebrates on New Zealand’s indigenous species a nd ecosystems. 
New Zealand Journal of Ecology 34(1): 158 -174. 
 
CABI (2021) Dysmicoccus brevipes  
(pineapple mealybug) Datasheet. https://www.cabi.org/isc/datasheet/20248   
 
Colen, K; Santa -Cecília, L; Moraes, J; Reis, P (2000) Effects of different temperatures upon 
the biology of the mealybug Dysmicoccus brevipes (Cockerell, 1893)(Hemiptera: 
Pseudococcidae). Revista Brasileira de Fruticultura 22(2): 248 -252. 
 
Culik, M; Ventura, J; dos S. Martins, D (200 7) Scale insects (Hemiptera: Coccidae) of 
pineapple in the State of Espírito Santo, Brazil. In VI International Pineapple Symposium 822  
(pp. 215 –218).  
 
Daane, K; Almeida, R; Vaughn, A; Walker, J; Bottom, M; Fallahzadeh, M; Mani, M; Miano, 
J; Sforza, R; Wal ton, V; Zaviezo, T (2012) Biology and management of mealybugs in 
vineyards. In N Bostanian; C Vincent; R Isaacs (eds) Arthropod management in vineyards.  
Springer: Dordrecht, Netherlands.  
 
de Sá, M d G R; de Morais Oliveira, J E (2021) Mealybugs on fruit cr ops in the Sao Franciso 
Valley, Brazil. African Journal of Agricultural Research 17(6): 822 -828. 
 
Department of Agriculture (2019) Final report for the review of biosecurity import 
requirements for fresh decrowned pineapples from Taiwan. In D o Agriculture  (Ed.). 
Canberra, Australia.  
 
Gambley, C; Geering, A; Steele, V; Thomas, J (2008a) Identification of viral and non -viral 
reverse transcribing elements in pineapple ( Ananas comosus ), including members of two new 
badnavirus species. Archives of Virology 153(8): 1599 -1604.  
 
Gambley, C; Steele, V; Geering, A; Thomas, J (2008b) The genetic diversity of 
ampeloviruses in Australian pineapples and their association with mealybug wilt disease. 
Australasian Plant Pathology 37(2): 95 -105. 
 
García -Morales, M; Denno , B; Miller, G; Ben -Dov, Y; Hardy, N (2016) A literature base 
model of scale insect biology and systematics  (Publication no. 10.1093/database/bav118). 
http://scalenet.info   
 
Geering, A; McMichael, L; Dietzgen, R; Thomas, J (2000) Genetic diversity among Banana 
streak virus isolates from Australia. Phytopathology 90(8): 921 -927. 
  
255 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Ghose, S (1983) Biology of parthenogenetic race of Dysmicoccus brevipes 
(Cockerell)[Pseudococcidae,  Hemiptera]. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences (India) . 
 
González -Hernández, H; Reimer, N J; Johnson, M W (1999) Survey of the natural enemies of 
Dysmicoccus mealybugs on pineapple in Hawaii. BioControl 44(1): 47 -58. 
 
Harris, R J (1991) Diet of the w asps Vespula vulgaris and V. germanica in honeydew beech 
forest of the South Island, New Zealand. New Zealand journal of zoology 18(2): 159 -169. 
 
Huang, S; Lin, C (2014) Distribution and control of pink pineapple mealybug and survey of 
insect pests on pine apple. Journal of Taiwan Agricultural Research 63(1): 68 -76. 
 
Ito, K (1938) Studies on the Life History of the Pineapple Mealybug, Pseudococcus brevipes  
(Ckll.). Journal of Economic Entomology 31(2): 291 -298. 
 
Jahn, G C; Beardsley, J W (2000) Interactions of ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) and 
mealybugs (Homoptera: Pseudococcidae) on pineapple.  
 
Jahn, G C; Beardsley, J W; González -Hernández, H (2003) A review of the association of 
ants with mealybug wilt disease of pineapple. Proceedings of the Hawaiian Ento mological 
Society 36: 9 -28. 
 
James, A; Geijskes, R; Dale, J; Harding, R (2011) Development of a novel rolling -circle 
amplification technique to detect Banana streak virus that also discriminates between 
integrated and episomal virus sequences. Plant Diseas e 95(1): 57 -62. 
 
Kubiriba, J; Legg, J; Tushemereirwe, W; Adipala, E (2001) Vector transmission of Banana 
streak virus in the screenhouse in Uganda. Annals of Applied Biology 139(1): 37 -43. 
 
Lim, W (1973) Studies on the bisexual race of Dysmicoccus brevipes  Ckll.: its bionomics and 
economic importance. Malaysian Agricultural Journal 49(2): 254 -267. 
 
LIMS (2022) Laboratory Information Management System. Ministry for Primary Industries 
internal database. Accessed 11/04/2022  
 
Maanaki -Whenua (2022) Ngā Tipu Whak aoranga Database. 
https://www.landcareresearch.co.nz/tools -and-resources/databases/nga -tipu-whakaoranga -
maori -plant -use-database / Accessed 14 March 2022  
 
MAF, B N Z (2008) Import Risk Analysis:  
Fresh Citrus Fruit (7 species)  
from Samoa. In B N Z MAF (Ed.). Wellington, New Zealand.  
 
Manners, A; Duff, J (2015) Mealybugs - a pest of a different scale. 
https://www.horticulture.com.au/globalassets/hort -innovation/resource -assets/ny11001 -
mealy -bugs.pdf   
 
Martin -Kessing, J; Mau, R (1992) Dysmicoccus brevipes (Beardsley) Crop  
Knowledge Master Fact Sheet. http://www.extento.hawaii.edu/kbase/crop/Type/d_br evip.htm  
Accessed 1/6/2022   
256 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand   
Mendel, Z; Podoler, H; Rosen, D (1984) Population dynamics of the Mediterranean black 
scale, Saissetia oleae (Olivier), on citrus in Israel. 4. The natural enemies. Journal of the 
Entomological Society of South Africa 47(1): 1 –21. 
 
Mensah, S (2017) Development and trial of a methodology for the quantification and 
evaluation of home composting in Palmerston North, New Zealand: a thesis submitted in 
partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Environmental Ma nagement 
(without major) at Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand. thesis; Massey 
University,  
 
Meyer, J; Kasdorf, G; Nel, L; Pietersen, G (2008) Transmission of activated -episomal banana 
streak ol (badna) virus (bsolv) to cv. Williams banana ( Musa sp.) by three mealybug species. 
Plant Disease 92(8): 1158 -1163.  
 
Milek, T M; Šimala, M; Korić, B (2009) The scale insects (Hemiptera: Coccoidea) of 
imported fruits in Croatia. Zbornik predavanj in referatov 9: 4-5. 
 
Moreno, I; Tarazona -Velásquez, R; Ca mpos -Patiño, Y; Rodríguez -Arévalo, K A; Kondo, T 
(2021) Prevalence of Dysmicoccus brevipes (Cockerell, 1893)(Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) 
in MD2 pineapple crop areas in Colombia. Pesquisa Agropecuária Tropical 51. 
 
MPI (2014) Generic pest risk assessment: ar moured scale insects (Hemiptera: Coccoidea: 
Diaspididae) on the fresh produce pathway. https://www.mpi.govt.nz/dmsdocument/5224   
 
NZOR (2022) The New Zealand Organisms Register. http://nzor.org.nz  Accessed May 2022  
 
NZPCN (2022) New Zealand Plant Conservation Network. https://www.nzpcn.org.nz/  
Accessed 12/04/2022  
 
ONZPR (2022) Official New Zealand Pest Register. MPI Public Da tabase. 
https://pierpestregister.mpi.govt.nz/PestsRegister/ImportCommodity/  Accessed May 2022  
 
Phillips, C B; Kean, J M; Vink, C J; Berry, J A (2018) Utility of the CLIMEX ‘match 
climates regional’ algorithm for pest risk analysis: an evaluation with non -native ants in New 
Zealand. Biological Invasions : 1–15. 
 
Plant & Food Research (2020) Fresh Facts: New Zealand Horticulture . Plant & Food 
Research, Auckland, New Zealand.  
 
Plant & Food Research (2021) Fresh Facts: New Zealand Horticulture . Plant & Food 
Research, Auckland, New Zealand.  
 
PPIN (2022) Plant Pest Information Network, Version 5.03.01. Ministry for Primary 
Industries Internal Database. Accessed 15 September 2020  
 
Puig, A S; Wurzel, S; Suarez, S; Marelli, J -P; Niogret, J (2021) Mealybug (Hemiptera: 
Pseudococcidae) Species Associated with Cacao Mild Mosaic Virus and Evidence of Virus 
Acquisition. Insects 12(11): 994.  
  
257 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Richmond, J; Cowley, J (1998) Pin eapple mealybug in New Zealand? Orchardist 71(7).  
 
Sether, D; Karasev, A; Okumura, C; Arakawa, C; Zee, F; Kislan, M; Busto, J; Hu, J (2001) 
Differentiation, distribution, and elimination of two different pineapple mealybug wilt -
associated viruses found in pineapple. Plant Disease 85(8): 856 -864. 
 
Stainton, D; Halafihi, M i; Collings, D A; Varsani, A (2015) Genome sequence of banana 
streak MY virus from the Pacific Ocean island of Tonga. Genome announcements 3(3): 
e00543 -00515.  
 
Su, H -J (2000) Development and application of molecular diagnostic probes for detection, 
characterization, and management of banana viruses. Advancing banana and plantain R & D 
in Asia and the : 35. 
 
Wei, J; Peng, L; He, Z; Lu, Y; Wang, F (2020) Potential d istribution of two invasive 
pineapple pests under climate change. Pest Management Science 76(5): 1652 -1663.  
 
Williams, D; Watson, G (1988) The scale insects of the tropical South Pacific region. Part 2. 
The mealybugs (Pseudococcidae). CAB International Ins titute of Entomology; London, UK.  
  
258 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  8.2 Dysmicoccus neobrevipes  (grey pineapple mealybug)  
 
Dysmicoccus neobrevipes  is a mealybug with a largely tropical distribution  and a pest of 
pineapple, banana and other crops. It damages pineapple plants  by sucking phloem sap, 
causing green spot and vectoring pineapple mealybug wilt disease . Sooty mould growth on 
mealybug honeydew exudates can affect plant photosynthesis and appearance.  
 
 Taxonomic description  
Scientific name: Dysmicoccus neobrevipes  Beard sley, 1959  
Order : Hemiptera       Family:  Pseudococcidae  
Other names:  gray pineapple mealybug;  Annona mealybug ; annona mealybug ; Banana -
kona -kaigara -musi . 
 
Taxonomic Note s:  
• Beardsley (1959b)  described Dysmicoccus neobrevipes  as a new species  in his 
taxonomic study of pineapple mealybugs in Hawaii. The species had previously been 
considered a form of  Dysmicoccus brevipes  (Cockerell)  which is a closely related but 
distinct species . The grey and pink forms of D. brevipes  studied in Hawaii by Ito 
(1938)  are now known to be D. neobrevipes  and D. brevipes , respectively.  
 
 Hazard identification  
Dysmicoccus neobrevipes  is not known to be present in New Zealand.  
• There is no entry for  D. neobrevipes  in NZOR (2022)  or BiotaNZ (202 2).  
• Dysmicoccus neobrevipes  is listed as “not present ” in New Zealand in PPIN (2022) .  
Dysmicoccus neobrevipes  is a regulated pest for New Zealand , and has unwanted 
status  (ONZPR 2022) . 
 
Dysmicoccus neobrevipes  has the potential to establish  and spread in New Zealand . 
• Dysmicoccus neobrevipes  has a mainly tropical distribution but is also present in 
some subtropical areas. It has been recorded from locations in China (Kunming, 
25˚2’18.39" N, 102˚ 39’53.26" E; (Wang et al. 2019) ) and Ecuador ( -78.153378, -
1.399153 ) (Wei et al. 2020) ) with a composite match index (CMI) of 0.7 or greater in 
a climate comparison with all of New Zealand (Phillips et al. 2018) , indicating 
potential for D. neobrevipes  to establish in parts of New Zealand, particularly warmer 
northern regions and sheltered environments.  
• Dysmicoccus neobrevipes  is polyphagous , with hosts reported from 40 plant families 
(García Morales et al. 2016) . Hosts include citrus ( Citrus  spp.) whic h is grown both 
commercially and domestically in New Zealand especially in areas with climate s 
more likely  suited to D. neobrevipes . Other hosts, such as tomato ( Solanum 
lycopersic um), eggplant  (Solanum melongena ) and Acacia  spp., are also grown  in 
New Zealand .  
• Dysmicoccus neobrevipes  reproduces sexually (Beardsley 1959b) ; adult females 
produce sex pheromones (Tabata and Ohno 2015)  to attract adult males which, unlike 
the females, have wings. Adult females are ovoviviparous, producing large numb ers 
of live nymphs ( larvae ) (Sartiami and Kondo 2022) . The first instar  nymph  or crawler 
is the main dispersal stage and can move both actively for short distances and  
259 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  passively by wind and by ants (Sartiami and Kondo 2022) . Movement of infested 
plant mate rial to new locations can spread the mealybug both locally and longer 
distances.  
 
Dysmicoccus neobrevipes  has the potential to cause harm to New Zealand.  
• Dysmicoccus neobrevipes  has the potential to harm plants of economic importance to 
New Zealand. Its best known hosts are pineapple and banana ( Musa ) (Curry 2022)  
which are grown in New Zealand and have potential for commercial production. 
Other hosts include citrus ( Citrus  spp.) , tomato ( Solanum lycopersicon ), beans 
(Phaseolus  spp.), and eggplant ( Solanum melongena ) (García Morales et al. 2016)  
which are commercial crops in New Zealand.  
 
Dysmicoccus neobrevipes  is associated with pineapple fruit.  
• Pineapple is a host of D. neobre vipes . The mealybug is found on the aerial parts of the 
plant, including leaves, stems, flowers and fruit (Beardsley 1959b) . Live immature 
and mature D. neobrevipes  have been found inside the closed blossom cups of 
pineapple fruit (Jahn 1993) . 
• Dysmicoccus neobrevipes  (live adults and nymphs) was intercepted at the border 18 
times between 2005 and 2020 on fresh fruit of pineapple ( Ananas comosus ) imported 
from the Philippines , according to the LIMS (2022)  database.  
 
Given the arguments and evidence above , Dysmicoccus neobrevipes  is considered to be a 
hazard on decrowned Ananas comosus (pineapple) fruit (as described in the commodity 
description) imported to New Zealand.  
 
 Risk assessment  
8.2.3.1  Biology  
 
Hosts and geographical  distribution  
Dysmicoccus neobrevipes  is polyphagous and is associated with plant species in 67  genera in 
40 plant families (García Morales et al. 2016) . Pineapple and banana are the best known main 
hosts (Curry 2022) . Sisal ( Agave sisalana ) is an important host in South China (Qin et al. 
2011) . Other reported hosts  (Curry 2022)  are listed in Table  7.5.  
 
Table 7.5 Plants recorded as hosts for Dysmicoccis neobrevipes  in Curry (2022)  (and references 
therein).  Although this list is not exhaust ive, it indicates the wide range of families and species recorded 
as hosts. According to Curry (2022) , ‘Main ’ = main crop hosts on which economic damage occurs ; 
‘Other ’ = other crops/plants attacked by the pest, but not as often or not as severely ; ‘Unknow n’ = host 
information sourced from a data mining exercise - the rank/importance has not been assessed by an 
author or editor .  
Plant family  Plant name  
Asparagaceae  Main:  Agave , Agave sisalana  (sisal hemp), Polianthes , Polianthes 
tuberosa  (tuberose), Yucca  
Unknown:  Agave americana  (century plant), Beaucarnea recurvata , 
Dracaena , Yucca elephantipes  (spineless yucca)  
Annonaceae  Main:  Annona , Annona reticulata  (bullock's heart), Annona squamosa  
(sugar apple)  
Unknown:  Annona muricata  (soursop)   
260 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Apocynaceae  Main:  Wrightia arborea  (lanete)  
Unknown:  Plumeria  (frangipani)  
Araceae  Main:  Aglaonema , Philodendron  
Unknown:  Aglaonema commutatum  
Arecaceae  Main:  Cocos nucifera  (coconut)  
Asteraceae  Unknown:  Helianthus  (sunflower), Helianthus annuus  (sunflower)  
Bignoniaceae  Other:  Crescentia alata  
Boraginaceae  Unknown:  Cordia alliodora  (Ecuador laurel), Tournefortia argentea  
Bromeliaceae  Main:  Ananas comosus  (pineapple)  
Unknown: Ananas  
Cactaceae  Main:  Opuntia  (prickly  pear)  
Unknown:  Opuntia ficus -indica  (prickly pear), Opuntia megacantha  
Celastraceae  Unknown:  Euonymus japonicus  (Japanese spindle tree)  
Cucurbitaceae  Main:  Cucurbita maxima  (giant pumpkin)  
Euphorbiaceae  Main:  Codiaeum  (ornamental croton)  
Unknown:  Jatropha int egerrima  (peregrina)  
Fabaceae  Main:  Acacia  (wattles), Acacia farnesiana  (huisache), Acacia koa  
(koa), Arachis , Cajanus , Phaseolus  (beans), Samanea , Samanea saman  
[syn. Albizia saman ] (rain tree), Vigna unguiculata  (cowpea)  
Unknown: Arachis hypogaea  (groundnut), Piscidia piscipula , Vigna 
unguiculata  subsp. sesquipedalis  (asparagus bean), Cajanus cajan  
(pigeon pea)  
Heliconiaceae  Main:  Heliconia  
Unknown:  Heliconia latispatha  
Lamiaceae  Main:  Clerodendrum  (Fragrant clerodendron), Tectona  
Unknow n: Tectona grandis  (teak)  
Lecythidaceae  Main:  Barringtonia  
Unknown:  Barringtonia asiatica  (sea poison tree)  
Myrtaceae  Main:  Psidium guajava  (guava)  
Malvaceae  Main:  Gossypium  (cotton), Theobroma , Theobroma cacao  (cocoa), 
Thespesia , Thespesia populnea  (portia tree)  
Moraceae  Main:  Artocarpus  (breadfruit trees), Artocarpus altilis  (breadfruit), 
Artocarpus heterophyllus  (jackfruit)  
Unknown:  Ficus  
Musaceae  Main:  Musa  (banana), Musa acuminata  (wild banana), Musa  x 
paradisiaca  (plantain)  
Pandanace ae Main:  Pandanus  (screw -pine)  
Pinaceae  Unknown:  Pinus  (pines)  
Polygonaceae  Main:  Coccoloba  (sea grape)  
Unknown:  Coccoloba uvifera  (sea grape)  
Primulaceae  Main:  Anagallis arvensis  (scarlet pimpernel)  
Punicaceae  Main:  Punica , Punica granatum  (pomegranate)  
Rubiaceae  Main:  Coffea  (coffee)  
Unknown:  Coffea arabica  (arabica coffee), Coffea canephora  (robusta 
coffee), Guettarda , Guettarda speciosa , Ixora  
Rutaceae  Main:  Citrus , Citrus aurantiifolia  (lime), Citrus reticulata  (mandarin), 
Citrus sine nsis (sweet orange)  
Unknown:  Citrus limon  (lemon)  
Sapindaceae  Main:  Nephelium lappaceum  (rambutan)   
261 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Sapotaceae  Main:  Manilkara zapota  (sapodilla)  
Solanaceae  Main:  Solanum lycopersicum  (tomato), Solanum melongena  (eggplant ) 
Tamaricaceae  Unknown:  Tamarix aphylla  (athel)  
Urticaceae  Unknown:  Pipturus argenteus  
Zingiberaceae  Main:  Alpinia , Alpinia purpurata  (red ginger)  
Orchidaceae  Unknown:  Brassavola subulifolia  
Araliaceae  Unknown:  Nothopanax  
 
Dysmicoccus neobrevipes  occurs widely in the tropics but can also be found in some 
subtropical areas ( Table  7.6). Most of its recorded distribution has a low composite match 
index (CMI) when compared with all of New Zealand  (Phillips et al. 2018)  although some 
locations (China (Kunming, 25˚2’18.39" N, 102˚ 39’53.26" E;  CMI 0.7  (Wang et al. 2019)  
and Ecuador ( -78.153378, -1.399153 ), CMI 0.8 (Wei et al. 2020)  have a CMI of 0.7 or 
greater, indicating similar climate conditions to most of New Zealand. Dysmicoccus 
neobrevipes  has been  recorded in countries in Europe (Italy, Lithuania, Netherlands), but it is 
not clear if any of these are records are for populations established in the field or if they occur 
only in sheltered environments such as glasshouses and indoor plantings. Sartiam i and Kondo 
(2022)  note that records from high latitudes are from under glass.  
 
Table 7.6. Known geographic distribution of Dysmicoccus neobrevipes . Information compiled June 
2022 from  Curry (2022) , García Morales et al. (2016)  and (Shao 2022) . Markets  in bold are potential 
exporting markets  under consideration in this import risk analysis.  
Continent/Region  Country /area/market  
Africa  Cote d’Ivoire, Uganda  
Asia Cambodia, China, India, Indonesia , Japan, Laos, Malaysia , 
Pakistan, The Philippines , Singapore, Sri Lanka , Taiwan , 
Thailand , Vietnam  
Europe  Italy, Lithuania, Netherlands  
North America   Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Costa Rica , Dominican 
Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, 
Mexico, Panama , Puerto Rico an d Vieques Island (Puerto Rico), 
Trinidad and Tobago, US Virgin Islands, United States (Florida)  
Oceania  American Samoa, Cook Islands , Fiji, Guam, Hawaii (USA), 
Kiribati, Marshall Islands, New Caledonia , Northern Mariana 
Islands, Samoa  
South America  Brazil , Colombia, Ecuador , Peru, Suriname  
 
Climate modelling using MaxEnt (Wei et al. 2020)  indicates a very low probability of 
establishment for D. neobrevipes  in New Zealand (< 25%) under the current and future 
climate scenarios they investigated. Thermal conditions influenced the modelled distribution 
for D. neobrevipes  much more than precipitation, with the minimum temperature of the 
coldest month and mean temperature of the coldest quarter being  the factors that had the 
greatest influence  (Wei et al. 2020) . The occurrence data used in the model was analysed 
using a climate matching tool (Phillips et al. 2018) . The 35 data points coincided with 29 
CMI cells, of which only 6.9% had CMI ≥ 0.7 when compared with all of New Zealand  (CMI 
≥ 0.7 indicating similar climate conditions to most of New Zealand ). 
 
Signs or damage  
Mealybugs suck sap from the host plant which reduces plant vigour. Waxy exudates give a 
cottony appearance to the plant. Honeydew, or excreted plant sap, is found at mealybug  
262 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  feedings sites. Sooty moulds which grow on the excreted honeydew are also a sign that 
mealybugs are present. Pineapple l eaves can develop green spotting from a reaction to a 
secretion from the mealybug (Martin Kessing and Mau 1992) .  
 
In many places where pineapples are grown, D. neobrevipes  vectors pineapple mealybug 
wilt-associated viruses. Pineapple mealybug wilt disease , or mealy bug wilt of pineapple, can 
occur as either a slow or a quick wilt and has been a limiting factor contributing to the 
reduction of yield in many pineapple -growing countries (Dey et al. 2018) . The leaves of 
diseased plants droop and dry out, and t he plants produce either smaller fruit or no fruit, and 
yields are severely reduced (Martin Kessing and Mau 1992; Sether and Hu 2002; Sether et al. 
2005) . The disease  has a complex etiology that is not fully understood. It appears to be 
associated with the  presence of certain viruses, mealybug vectors, ants which can tend and 
spread the mealybugs, and environmental factors (Dey et al. 2018; Larrea -Sarmiento et al. 
2021) . Several pineapple mealybug wilt -associated virus (PMWaV) species have been 
recognised ( Pineapple mealybug wilt -associated virus 1  (PMWaV -1), PMWaV -2 and 
PMWaV -3) with other potential species yet to be characterised (e.g., Larrea -Sarmiento et al 
2021). Pineapple mealybug wilt -associated viruses  are in the genus Ampelovirus . Other 
viruses such as Pineapple bacilliform CO virus  (PBC OV), a Badnavirus  also vectored by D. 
neobrevipes , may also be involved with the disease  (Sether et al. 2012; Dey et al. 2018) . 
Pineapple mealybug wilt -associated viruses are not known to be present in New Zealand and 
are regulated species (ONZPR 2022) . Pineapple bacilliform CO virus  is also a regulated 
species (listed as Pineapple bacilliform virus ) (ONZPR 2022) . 
 
Visibility or de tectability  
Adult females  are oval, and around 1.5 mm long and 1.0 mm wide with a heavy coat of white 
mealy wax , often in tufts, and an overall greyish appearance  (Beardsley 1959b) . The 
mealybugs, which produce live young (ovoviviparous), often aggregate a nd when present in 
large numbers will be detectable by the cluster’s white cottony appearance, along with 
excreted honeydew and the sooty moulds that grow on it. Individual mealybugs may go 
undetected when populations are low, especially the early instars,  and may be hidden in 
crevices on the pineapple fruit which has a complex architecture. Adults and other life stages 
have been found inside the closed blossom cup of the fruit and will not be detected unless the 
fruit is cut open (Jahn 1993) . 
 
Pineapple va riety susceptibility  
Generally, the pineapple variety has not been given for host records and other literature on D. 
neobrevipes . Given the wide host range across many plant families, it is likely that D. 
neobrevipes  will feed on many or all pineapple varieties. The results from laboratory 
experiments using two named pineapple varieties (Qin et al. 2011) , indicate D. neobrevipes  
may find some varieties of pineapple better hosts than others regarding reproductive rate and 
other developmental parameters.  
 
Reproduction and spread  
Dysmicoccus neobrevipes  reproduces sexually (Beardsley 1959b) . Adult females produce sex 
pheromones (Tabata and Ohno 2015)  to attract adult males which, unlike the females, have 
wings. Eggs hatch inside the females which produce live nymphs  (ovoviviparous) (Martin 
Kessing and Mau 1992) . Females can produce  large numbers of live nymphs  (around 350 
nymphs, although some can prod uce up to 1000 (Martin Kessing and Mau 1992) ). Ito (1938)  
observed that “o ccasionally ovoid bodies, possibly eggs which were prematurely laid and 
which remained unhatched for a few days, were encountered, but these incidents were rare” .  
263 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand   
The first instar nymphs  or crawler s are the main dispersal stage and can move actively for 
short distances . For mealybugs, the data on how far crawlers can walk is variable but the 
distance is thought to be small (metres) (MPI 2014b) . Crawlers are also moved passively by 
wind and by ants  (including sp ecies  present in N ew Zealand  such as Pheidole  megacephala  
(ONZPR 2022) ). Movement of infested plant material to new locations can spread the 
mealybug both locally and longer distances.  
 
Development  
Population parameters for D. neobrevipes , such as fecundity, longevity and development 
times, are influenced  by both climate and plant host  (Ito 1938; Qin et al. 2011; Qin et al. 
2013; Doan et al. 2016; Wei et al. 2020) . 
 
Ito (1938)  studied the life histor y of D. neobrevipes  under laboratory conditions by caging 
individuals in glass tubes and supplying them with leaves from pineapple crowns. The 
average temperature was 74.4° F [23.6oC] with a maximum of 83.9° F [28.8oC] and a 
minimum of 61.3° F [16.3oC]. Females moulted three times before reaching maturity . Adult 
females (20) produced on average 347 progeny  (first instar nymphs). The average length of 
life (first instar to death of adult) was 95 days for mated females and 148 days for unmated 
females. M ales moulted four times before reaching the winged, adult stage  and fed only 
during the first two instars. They lived for an average length of 37 days (first instar to death 
of adult)  and had  an active adult life of about two days from the time of emerging from  their 
cocoons until death.  
 
Doan et al. (2016)  reared D. neobrevipes  on the surface of pumpkin ( Cuscuta moschata ) in 
the laboratory at 28 ± 2 °C and 70 ± 5% RH. The total life cycle (1st instar nymph to adult) 
was 30.5 ± 0.3 days (mean ± SE).  
 
A study by Qin et al. (2011)  indicated that host plant can influence the population dynamics 
of D. neobrevipes . Laboratory studies were carried out on four host plants (Agave sisalana , 
Ag. americana  var. marginata , Ananas comosus  Baili and An. comosus  Smooth Cayenne)  at 
26 + 1 oC, 75 –90% RH and 14:10 (L:D) photoperiod . The development, survivorship, 
longevity, reproduction and life table parameters of D. neobrevipes  differed among the host 
plants . In their study, the shortest developmental period (firs t instar nymph to adult) was 
recorded on An. comosus  Smooth Cayenne (22.4 days for females and 21.3 days for males), 
and the  longest was recorded on An. comosus  Baili (25.6 days for females and 24.7 days for 
males) . The highest survivorship was on An. como sus Baili (98% for both females and males) 
and the lowest was on Ag. americana  var. marginata . Fecundity and va lues for net 
reproductive rate, intrinsic rate of increase and finite rate of increase were highest on Ag. 
sisalana . The mean generation time was  shortest on An. comosus  Smooth Cayenne.  
 
Qin et al. (2013)  investigated the development, survivorship, longevity and reproduction of 
D. noebrevipes  on sisal ( Agave sisalana ) using six constant temperatures (17, 20, 23, 26, 29 
and 32 oC) under laboratory c onditions . They estimated the lower temperature thresholds for 
females and males from the first instar nymph to adult to be 8.7 and 10.3 oC, respectively. 
The thermal constants for females and males were 370.4 and 312.5 degree -days (DD) 
respectively. Their results indicated that the optimum temperature range for population 
growth of D. neobrevipes  is 23 –29 oC. In their study, the developmental period of D. 
neobrevipes  females (from the first instar nymph to adult) on sisal was 16.9 days at 29 oC and 
55.4 days at 17 oC while t hat of the males was 16.2 days at 29 oC and 54.0 days at 17 oC. The  
264 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  average longevity of adult females and males was 30.0 days and 2.5 days respectively at 26 
oC, and increased to 95.0 days and 5.6 days respectively at 17 oC. The average number of 
nymphs laid per female reached a maximum (409.4) at 23oC.  
 
8.2.3.2  Likelihood of entry  
Dysmicoccus neobrevipes  has a mainly tropical distribution but i s also found in some 
subtropical locations (Table 1). It is present in most of the markets in scope for this IRA: 
Costa Rica (Williams and Granara de Willink 1992) , Ecuador (Williams and Granara de 
Willink 1992) , Panama (Williams and Granara de Willink 1992) , Sri Lanka (Sirisena et al. 
2013) , the Philip pines (Beardsley 1959b) , Malaysia (Williams 2004) , Indonesia (Gavrilov -
Zimin 2017) , Thailand (Williams 2004) , Taiwan (Shao 2022) , Fiji (Beardsley 1965) , New 
Caledonia (Mille et al. 2016) , Cook Isla nds (Williams and Watson 1988) , Samoa  (Williams 
and Watson 1988) . 
 
Pineapple is one of the main hosts of D. neobrevipes  (Curry 2022) . The mealybug is found in 
many areas where pineapple is grown (Martin Kessing and Mau 1992)  and can be an 
economically impo rtant pest affecting commercial production (Beardsley 1959b; Martin 
Kessing and Mau 1992) . 
 
D. neobrevipes  is found on the aerial parts of the plant, including leaves, stems, flowers and 
fruit (Beardsley 1959b; Jahn et al. 2003) . As well as feeding on the external surface of fruit, 
the mealybugs can live  inside closed blossom cups (blossom cavities) of pineapple fruit. Jahn 
et al. (2003)  examined 30 unripe pineapple fruits from an abandoned field in Hawaii and 
found that all fruits contained live mature and  immature D. neobrevi pes in over half of their 
blossom cups. In addition, live adults and nymphs have been intercepted multiple times at the 
New Zealand border on fresh pineapple fruit imported from the Philippines (LIMS 2022) . 
These observations indicate that all life stages of D. neobrevipes  can be associated with 
pineapple fruit at different stages of fruit maturity.  
 
Infestations may be visible on pineapple crops in the field as white cottony clusters, along 
with sugary honey dew excretions and sooty mould growth, and associated green spotting on 
leaves, especially when the infestation level is high . However, at low levels of infestation, D. 
neobrevipes  may be difficult to detect in the field because of its small size and tende ncy to 
feed deep in the  leaf axils, under sepals, and inside blossom cups  (Jahn et al. 2003) . 
 
In-field management is likely to take place where D. neobrevipes  occurs in commercial 
pineapple crops, partly because D. neobrevipes  itself and associated sooty moulds affect the 
growth and appearance of pineapples. However, in many places D. neobrevipes  also vectors 
pineapple mealybug wilt -associated viruses which cause pineapple mealybug wilt disease 
whereby leaves droop and dry out, plants produce either smalle r fruit or no fruit, and yields 
are severely reduced (Martin Kessing and Mau 1992; Sether and Hu 2002; Sether et al. 
2005) . 
 
During the post -harvest period, mealybugs on the surface of pineapple fruit are likely to be 
both detected and removed to some degr ee by general handling and pr ocessing , including 
measures such as washing, in the packhouse. However, pineapple fruit has complex surface 
architecture, and it is much more difficult to detect or remove mealybugs hidden in crevices, 
especially when infestat ion rates are low. In addition, live adults and immatures inside  
265 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  blossom cups will not be detected by visual inspection of the fruit surface or be removed by 
general processes in the packhouse.  
 
Dysmicoccus neobrevipes  may remain viable through freight transit times and conditions. 
Storage and transport of pineapple consignments from export markets  to New Zealand are 
likely to occur at cool temperatures, with the length of time for shipment depending on the 
export marke t (Appendix 2 ). Recommended cold storage conditions for pineapple are 
temperatures 7 –13oC and relative humidity at 85 –90% moisture ( Appendix 2 ). The 
approximate storage life of the commodity under these conditions is 14 –28 days (2 –4 weeks). 
Live adu lts and nymphs of D. neobrevipes  have been intercepted at the border from fresh 
fruit of pineapple ( Ananas comosus ) imported from the Philippines (18 records between 2005 
and 2020 in the LIMS (2022)  database). The estimated shipping time from Manila in the  
Philippines to Auckland, New Zealand is 2 –3 weeks ( Appendix 2 ). Therefore, some D. 
neobrevipes  adults and nymphs will survive transit, depending on transport temperatures and 
times.  
 
Uncertainty  
Based on the above information there is low uncertainty on t he rating for likelihood of entry. 
There is strong evidence that D. neobrevipes  is associated with pineapple fruit and is widely 
distributed in areas where pineapple is grown commercially. Frequent interceptions at the  
border of live adults and immature st ages of D neobrevipes  support its association with the 
commodity post -harvest, and its ability to survive freight transit times and conditions for at 
least some of the pathways.  
 
Given that:  
• Pineapple is one of the main hosts of D. neobrevipes  and all life stages of the 
mealybug are associated with the fruit ; 
• However, some in -field management is likely in commercial production because D. 
neobrevipes  is a vector of pineapple mealybug wilt disease;  
• Post-harvest processes are not likely to remove all mealybugs from infested fruit due 
to their small size, tendency to hide and occurrence inside blossom cups on fruit;  
• Dysmicoccus neobrevipes  adults and immatures can survive freight transit times and 
conditions;  
 
MPI considers the likelihood of Dysmico ccus neobrevipes  entering New Zealand associated 
with pineapple fruit is MODERATE , with LOW  uncertainty.  
 
8.2.3.3  Likelihood of exposure  
This assessment is made on the basis that  Dysmicoccus neobrevipes  has entered New 
Zealand undetected.  
 
Imported fresh pineapple fruit for human consumption will be distributed throughout New 
Zealand for wholesale or retail sale  to consumers . Fresh pineapples produce large amounts of 
unavoidable waste. The thick skin is always removed, and the disposal of th e fruit skin may 
aid the exposure of mealybugs. In New Zealand, the most common method of disposing 
organic waste is by bagging the waste and sending it to landfill (Askarany and Franklin -
Smith 2014 ); section 2.3.1 ) which is unlikely to result in successfu l exposure. However, other 
methods, such as  composting , animal feed and direct disposal  into the environment, could 
potentially aid the exposure of D. neobrevipes .  
266 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand   
Commerical composting and worm farming are considered low risk methods of waste 
disposal. Waste in commercial compost is put into tunnels for a period of at least three to four 
days at temperatures of 55 °C or higher for pasteurisation ( section 2.3.1 ) and these conditions 
are likely to kill all stages of D. neobrevipes . For worm farming, organic  waste is  generally 
cut into small pieces (Angima et al. 2011)  which are put into a c ontained structure preventing  
the mealybug from reaching the external environment.  
 
Disposal methods where the mealybug can encounter the external environment pose a higher 
risk of transfer to a new host plant.  A study conducted in Palmerston North found that 63% of 
a total of 72 households that did home composting used manufactured plastic bins for 
composting and the majority of others used an ‘open’ composting system , such as open 
compost piles and piles fenced with wire (Mensah 2017) . Even though both home 
composting methods increase the likelihood of exposure of the mealybug to nearby host 
plants in gardens, compost in plastic bins is lower risk than open compost  largely due to a 
higher level of containment. Fruit waste in commercial settings (e.g., supermarket preparation 
rooms) may be collected from unpacking areas and taken to rural locations where it is placed 
on the ground for eventual consumption by pigs or oth er farmed animals (MPI 2014b) . Direct 
disposal of pineapple fruit skin into the environment (e.g. by roadsides, parks, campsites) 
could potentially aid the exposure of the mealybug . 
 
Dysmicoccus neobrevipes  may survive and develop on the surface of pineapp le fruit (whole 
or skin pieces ) as the fruit skin is robust and does not break down as quickly as softer skinned 
fruits. Some adult females survived on the surface of harvested pineapple fruits held at 23 –
24oC for at least the 8-week  duration of a laborato ry experiment (Jahn and Beardsley 1996)  
and pumpkin ( Cucurbita moschata ) fruits held at 28 ± 2 °C were used to rear > 30,000 D. 
neobrevipes  in the laboratory (Doan et al. 2016) . Crawlers are the main dispersal stage and 
can walk short distances. The moveme nt of crawlers from inside piles of organic matter will 
be limited but crawlers at the edges of piles can search for suitable host plants within a 
limited area. Crawlers at the top of piles can be passively dispersed by wind or by feeding 
animals.  However,  crawlers that are passively dispersed are unable to actively choose to land 
on a suitable host plant . Successful exposure therefore depends on suitable hosts being very 
close to the waste pile or to where the mealybug lands after wind dispersal. I f no hos t is 
available nearby, the crawler is vulnerable to predation, dehydration or being washed away 
by the rain (Mendel et al. 1984) . 
 
Dysmicoccus neobrevipes  is polyphagous, and known hosts such as beans, tomato, citrus, 
sunflowers, wattle and eggplant are often found in home gardens or grow as weeds (e.g, 
Japanese spindle tree, Euonymus japonicus ) or as commercial crops (e.g. citrus) in New 
Zealand. Therefore, suitable host plants are likely to be available especially in warmer 
northern regions  of the North Island .  
 
Temperature will affect the ability of crawlers to develop and to move to enable dispersal and 
settling on a new host . Ambient temperatures will vary according to location and time of 
year. Qin et al. (2013)  estimated the lower temperature thresholds for females and males of 
D. neobrevipes  from the 1st instar nymph to adult to be 8.7 and 10.3 oC, respectively. In their 
study, using six constant temperatures ( 17, 20, 23, 26, 29 and 32 oC) under laboratory 
conditions , the developmental period of D. neobrevipes females (from the first instar nymph 
to adult)  on sisal ( Agave sisalana ) was 55.4 days at 17 oC while the males’ was 54.0 days at  
267 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  17 oC. The average longevity of adult females and adult males was 95.0 days and 5.6 days 
respectively at 17 oC.  
 
Uncertainty  
Information on food waste in New Zealand is based on general data and there is no specific 
information on pineappl e waste to inform the likelihood of exposure for D. neobrevipes . 
However, it is assumed that pineapple will form a very small part of total food waste.  
 
Given that:  
• Dysmicoccus neobrevipes  may survive and develop on the surface of pineapple fruit 
(whole or skin pieces) ; 
• Fresh pineapples produce large amounts of unavoidable waste as skins and whole 
fruit, most of which is disposed of using methods that pose low risk of transfer to a 
new host ; 
• However, some waste is disposed of by methods that pose a higher risk of transfer to 
a new host, including composting in gardens and using it as animal feed ; 
• Crawlers, which are the main dispersal stage and are flightless, can move short 
distances active ly or long distances passively ; 
• Crawlers are vulnerable to extremes of temperature and humidity, predation and 
other factors that result in mortality ; 
• Crawlers that are wind or animal dispersed are unable to actively choose to land on a 
suitable host plant ; 
• Dysmicoccus neobrevipes  is polyphagous, and known hosts grow in New Zealand as 
commercial crops, in domestic gardens and as weeds ; 
 
MPI considers the likelihood of exposure of  Dysmicoccus neobrevipes  in New Zealand from 
pineapple fruit  is LOW , with MODERATE  uncertainty . 
 
8.2.3.4  Likelihood of establishment  
This assessment is made on the basis that  Dysmicoccus neobrevipes  has been successfully 
exposed to a suitable host plant in the New Zealand environment.  
 
Dysmicoccus neobrevipes  is found largely in tropica l areas extending to some subtropical 
areas, so it is likely that climate conditions through most of New Zealand do not favour its 
establishment. Most countries/areas where D. neobrevipes  is present have a low composite 
match index (CMI <0.7) with all of N ew Zealand, indicating low similarity in climate. 
Records of D. neobrevipes  from higher latitudes (e.g., Italy (Longo et al. 1995)  and Lithuania 
(Malumphy et al. 2008) ) are from  protected situations such as glasshouses and indoor 
plantings  (Sartiami and Kondo 2022) . However, the mealybug has been recorded from a 
(field -collected) location in China  (Kunming, 25˚2’18.39" N, 102˚ 39’53.26" E; Wang et al. 
(2019) ) with CMI 0.7 and a l ocation in Ecuador ( -78.153378, -1.399153 , Wei et al. (2020) ), 
with CMI 0.8 , indicating some potential for D. neobrevipes  to establish in parts of New 
Zealand, particularly warmer subtropical northern regions of the North Island and in sheltered 
environmen ts.  
 
Wei et al. (2020)  used MaxEnt to develop models for the potential distribution of D. 
neobrevipes  under climate change scenarios. The predicted distribution maps based on their 
models indicate that the probability of establishment in New Zealand is ve ry low (<  25%) for  
268 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  D. neobrevipes  in the current and future climate scenarios investigated. The minimum 
temperature of coldest month and mean temperature of coldest quarter were the major factors 
influencing the distribution of  D. neobrevipes  in their mode ls. 
 
Qin et al. (2013)  estimated the lower temperature thresholds for female and male  D. 
neobrevipes  from the first instar nymph to adult to be 8.7 and 10.3 oC, respectively. The 
thermal constants for females and males were 370.4 and 312.5 degree -days (DD)  
respectively.  The results of their laboratory study indicated that the the optimum temperature 
range for population growth of D. neobrevipes  was 23–29 oC and that D. neobrevipes  
continued to develop and reproduce, albeit more slowly, at 17 oC which was the lowest of the 
constant temperatures used in their study. Based on this information, there are likely to be 
locations in Northland where D. neobrevipes  can develop. However , the number of 
generations per year is likely to be low compared with most places where the mealybug is 
established.  For example, the average growing degree -day totals above base 10oC at the 
Kaitaia Observatory in Northland are 2086 annually (Chappell 2013) .  
 
Climate is, therefore, likely to limit the establishment of D. neobrevipes  in most of New 
Zealand, but there may be locations in the subtropical region in the north of the North Island 
that would allow establishment and suitable locations are likely to increase as climate 
changes. In addition, populations could survive in shelte red environments, including 
glasshouses.  
 
Hosts are available in the parts of New Zealand that are most climatically suitable for 
establishment. Dysmicoccus neobrevipes  is polyphagous on a range of unrelated plant 
species. Some of these hosts are grown in home g ardens and amenity areas (e.g., beans, 
tomato, citrus, eggplant , pumpkin, yucca, wattles), and as commercial crops (e.g., citrus, 
tomato, eggplant) or occur as environmental weeds  (e.g, Japanese spindle tree, Euonymus 
japonicus ), especially in the wa rmer northern regions of New Zealand. The most well -known 
hosts, pineapple and banana, although not widely grown in New Zealand, are more likely to 
occur in the subtropical northern region.  
 
Dysmicoccus neobrevipes  reproduces sexually. Adult females, whic h are wingless, produce 
pheromones that attract the winged males which increases the likelihood of a female finding a 
mate. Females are ovoviparous, producing live young rather than eggs which develop inside 
the body. Females produce around 350 nymphs, alt hough some can produce up to 1000 
(Martin Kessing and Mau 1992) .  
 
First instar nymphs or crawlers are the main dispersal stage and are capable of moving short 
distances to reach a new feeding site. Crawlers can also be moved passively by wind. 
Although a wind -dispersed crawler is unable to actively choose where it lands, the large 
numbers of crawlers produced by a single female increase the likelihood of reaching a 
suitable host plant. Ants, which feed on honeydew, have been observed moving D. 
neobrevipes  to new locations. The big headed ant Pheidole megacephala , which is associated 
with D. neobrevipes  in Hawaii (Jahn and Beardsley 1996) , is also present in New Zealand 
and may enable some mealybugs to move to nearby plants. Mealybugs can be moved over 
longe r distances in infested plant material and produce and other contaminated items.  
 
Uncertainty  
There is uncertainty around the suitability of the climate for establishment in New Zealand. 
Although D. neobrevipes  occurs in subtropical areas, the northern subtropical region of New  
269 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Zealand appears not well -suited to establishment based on known geograp hic distribution, 
CMI values and the results of a modelling study. However, it can’t be ruled out that there are 
locations within the region that are climatically suitable and that these may increase with 
climate change.  
 
Given that: 
• Climate may limit the establishment of D. neobrevipes  in most of New Zealand but 
may not be a limiting factor for the mealybug to establish in the warmer northern 
region of the North Island and in sheltered environments;  
• Dysmicoccus  neobrevipes  is polyphagous and hosts are avai lable in the parts of New 
Zealand most climatically suited for establishment;  
• Dysmicoccus neobrevipes , which reproduces sexually, uses sex pheromones to attract 
males which increases the likelihood of finding a mate;  
• Dysmicoccus neobrevipes  has a moderate to high fecundity producing around 350 to 
1000 live young;  
• First instar crawlers are the main dispersal stage and can move actively for short 
distances to reach new feeding sites, and passively by wind, animals and movement 
of infested plant material and p roduce;  
 
MPI considers the likelihood of  Dysmicoccus neobrevipes  establishing in New Zealand is  
VERY LOW , with MODERATE  uncertainty.  
 
8.2.3.5  Impacts in New Zealand  
This assessment is made on the assumption that  Dysmicoccus neobrevipes  has successfully 
established in the New Zealand environment  
 
Economic impacts  
Pineapple and banana, the  best known hosts of D. neobrevipes  are not well -established 
industries in New Zealand but there are currently growers of both these crops with potential 
for these indust ries to develop, especially in the warmer areas of New Zealand where the 
climate is most suited to establishment of D. neobrevipes . Establishment of D. neobrevipes  
could affect these emerging industries through additional pest control costs. Dysimicoccus 
neobrevipes  is a vector for viruses associated with pineapple mealybug wilt disease  which 
has a high economic impact on commercial production of pineapples elsewhere, e.g., Hawaii  
(Beardsley 1959b) . However, pineapple is the only known host for pineapple me alybug wilt -
associated ampelo viruses which are absent from New Zealand and are regulated organisms  
(ONZPR 2022) . 
 
Other recorded hosts of D. neobrevipes  that are grown commercially in New Zealand include 
citrus (orange, mandarin, limes), tomato and eggplan t. No specific information was found in 
the literature on the impact of D. neobrevipes  on these industries elsewhere. The presence of 
D. neobrevipes  may require additional control measures if existing measures for other pests 
are insufficient to manage the  mealybug.  New Zealand has established chemical treatments 
against a range of mealybugs  (Charles 2004) , however, th ese are not used in all situations 
such as when populations are low enough to not cause significant problems.  
 
Crops that are most likely to be directly impacted by D. neobrevipes  are those growing in the 
subtropical areas in the northern part of the North Island because climate is more suitable 
than in other parts of the country. However, even in this region D. ne obrevipes  may not reach  
270 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  population levels that have a high impact on crop production as the climate  is likely to limit 
the number of generations per year compared with most regions where the mealybug occurs 
(see 1.1.4.4).  
 
Crops that are often grown in com mercial glasshouses, such as tomatoes, are likely to have 
existing pest management measures to manage mealybugs and other pests and may not 
require additional measures to manage D. neobrevipes . 
 
An in -house MPI model 49 predicted a negligible to very low le vel of economic impact over 
20 years.  
• Assumptions: given that no report was found on infestation/yield loss caused by D. 
neobrevipes  for any plant hosts important for New Zealand but that the mealybug is 
known to be able to cause damage to plants, 1 % – 5% was assumed to be  the range of 
greatest level of impact that the mealybug can have on a known main host 50. The 
model only considered the impact on production in Northland as this is the area where 
D. neobrevipes  is most likely to establish in New Zealand. The plant host considered 
was citrus which is a main host for D. neobrevipes  and one of the main horticultural 
crops in Northland.  
• The greatest level of annual impact: combined domestic and export value in New 
Zealand for citrus is NZ$71.6m 51. The proporti on of production area in Northland 
compared to the whole of New Zealand is 18% for citrus 52. As such, the annual crop 
value for citrus in Northland was calculated to be NZ$13m. The greatest level of 
annual impact in Northland is 1 –5% of this value.  
• It is a ssumed that the mealybug would take 5 years to achieve the greatest impact 
based on its dispersal capability.  
• As New Zealand already has effective control approaches and programmes for 
mealybugs, it is assumed the industry would take 1 –2 years for full rec overy.  
• In addition to considering the impact on citrus in Northland, the model was used to 
consider the impact on five other crops that were of less significance in Northland but 
represented known main hosts of D. neobrevipes  (from Curry 2022), and other 
recorded hosts from the literature. However, with the addition of these five crops, the 
model continued to predict a negligible to very low level of economic impact over 20 
years . 
 
The presence of D. neobrevipes  in New Zealand may affect existing requirements for some 
exported produce. China, Japan, Mexico and South Korea have quarantine regulations for this 
mealybug (ONZPR 2022)  and it is a high priority pest of pineapples in Australia where it is 
absent (Plant Health Australia  2022) . 
 
Uncertainty  
There is uncertainty on the suitability of the New Zealand climate for D. neobrevipes  to 
establish and reach levels that would be damaging to hosts in commercial production. There 
is also a lack of information in the literature on dama ge to host plants that are of economic 
importance to New Zealand.  
 
 
49 Main inputs to the model are gre atest level of annual impact, time taken to achieve the greatest impact and time taken to full recovery.  
50 Host status  according to Curry (2022)  
51 Export values were taken from Plant & Food Research (2021)  and domestic values were taken from Plant & Food Resea rch (2020)  
because they were not provided in the former.  
52 Values are percentage of New Zealand production area (Plant & Food Research 2021) .  
271 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Given that:  
• Cultivated plants of economic importance to New Zealand are known hosts of D. 
neobrevipes  but no specific information was found in the literature on the impact of 
D. neobrevipes  on these industries elsewhere;  
• Controlling D. neobrevipes  could increase production costs for some  crops , however 
New Zealand has established chemical treatments against a range of mealybugs . 
• There could be increased phytosanitary requirements for  some of New Zealand’s 
export crops ; 
• Climate is likely to limit the establishment of D. neobrevipes  to wa rmer northern 
region s of the North Island and sheltered environments;  
• Dysmicoccus neobrevipes  may have difficulty reaching population levels that have a 
high impact on crop production as the climate  is likely to limit the number of 
generations per year;  
 
MPI considers the economic impact of  Dysmicoccus neobrevipes  in New Zealand is  VERY 
LOW , with MODERATE  uncertainty.  
 
Environmental impacts  
Dysimicoccus neobrevipes  is a polyphagous  species with recorded hosts in 40 plant families 
(García Morales et al. 2016) . None of the known host species are native to New Zealand. 
Given the wide host range across many plant families there is potential for s ome New 
Zealand species to be hosts but there is no evidence that D. neobrevipes  is likely to have 
unwanted impacts on any native species . Dysmicoccus neobrevipes  can damage plants 
directly by feeding on sap, and by excreting honeydew which enables sooty m ould growth 
that can inhibit plant photosynthesis.  Beever et al. (2007)  reported that 25% of exotic 
mealybugs established in New Zealand have been recorded to attack native plants, and most 
introduced species that attack native plant s are polyphagous. Howe ver, the se authors  also 
pointed out that highly damaging polyphagous species appear to be exceptional, and that the 
impact of relatively specialised organisms is likely to be greater.  
 
Given D. neobrevipes  has a mostly tropical distribution that extends in to subtropical areas, 
establishment is more likely in warmer northern regions of the North Island. Temperature is 
likely to restrict population growth and direct impacts on plants are likely to be within a 
limited area in New Zealand.  
 
Uncertainty  
There is a lack of specific information on which native New Zealand plant species could act 
as hosts for D. neobrevipes  and what the level of impact would be on these plant species.  
 
Given that: 
• Dysmicoccus neobrevipes  has a wide range across many plant fa milies which means 
there is potential for some New Zealand native plant species to be hosts ; 
• There are records of exotic mealybugs attacking native plants in New Zealand, but 
severe damage or outbreaks have not been recorded ; 
• Dysmicoccus neobrevipes  is likely to have a very limited distribution due to climatic 
factors ; 
 
MPI considers the environmental  impact of  Dysmicoccus neobrevipes  in New Zealand is 
VERY LOW , with MODERATE  uncertainty.  
  
272 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Human health impacts  
There are no known direct human health impacts associated with D. neobrevipe s. 
 
Given that:  
• There are no known direct human health impacts associated with D. neobrevipes ;  
 
MPI considers the human health  impact of  Dysmicoccus neobrevipes  in New Zealand is 
NEGLIGIBLE , with LOW  uncertainty.  
 
Sociocultural impacts  
Dysimicoccus neobrevipes  is polyphagous and some of its plant hosts are grown as amenity 
and home garden plants , for example, to mato ( Solanum lycopersicum ), eggplant ( S. 
melongena ), lime ( Citrus aurantiifolia ), mandarin  (C. reticulata ), sweet orange (C. sinensis ), 
pomegranate  (Punica granatum ), guava ( Psidium guajava ), beans ( Phaseolus ), wattle 
(Acacia ), giant pumpkin ( Cucurbita maxima ), pineapple ( Ananas comosus ), sunflower 
(Helianthus annuus ), Samanea saman  and Yucca . 
 
None of the known host plant species for D. neobrevipes  are native to New Zealand, although 
poroporo ( Solanum laciniatum  and S. aviculare)  is in the same genus as recorded hosts of D. 
neobrevipes  (Solanum lycopersison , S. melongena ). Given the wide host range across many 
plant families there is potential for some New Zealand species to be hosts but there is no 
evidence that D. neobrevipes  is likely to have unwanted impacts on any culturally significant 
species.  
 
Dysmicoccus neobrevi pes can directly damage plants by feeding on sap, and by excreting 
honeydew which enables sooty mould growth that can inhibit plant photosynthesis. 
Honeydew deposits and associated sooty moulds can be unsightly on both plants and items 
below affected plant s. Infestations of D. neobrevipes  may lead to additional pest control costs 
or loss of produce for home gardeners who are not already controlling other mealybugs.  
 
Given D. neobrevipes  has a mostly tropical distribution that extends into subtropical areas, 
establishment is more likely in warmer northern regions of the North Island. Te mperature is 
likely to restrict population growth and direct impacts on plants are likely to be within a  
limited area in New Zealand.  
 
Uncertainty  
There is a lack of specific information on which native New Zealand plant species could act 
as hosts for D. neobrevipes  and what the level of impact would be on these plant species.  
 
Given that: 
• Dysmicoccus neobr evipes  is polyphagous and some of its known hosts are grown as 
garden and amenity plants in New Zealand;  
• Given the wide host range across many plant families there is potential for some New 
Zealand species to be hosts , but there is no evidence that D. neob revipes  is likely to 
have unwanted impacts on any culturally significant species;  
• Dysmicoccus neobrevipes  is likely to have a very limited distribution due to climatic 
factors ; 
 
MPI considers the sociocultural  impact of  Dysmicoccus neobrevipes  in New Zealand is 
VERY LOW , with MODERATE  uncertainty.   
273 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand   
8.2.3.6  Overall impact to New Zealand  
MPI considers the overall impact of Dysmicoccus neobrevipes  on the New Zealand economy, 
environment, health and society is VERY LOW , with MODERATE  uncertainty .  
 
8.2.3.7  Overall ri sk to New Zealand  
Based on the assessments of lik elihood and consequences above, that:  
• the lik elihood of entry is MODERATE , with LOW uncertainty,  
• assuming entry, the likelihood of exposure is  LOW , with MODERATE  uncertainty , 
• assuming successful exposure, t he likelihood of establishment is VERY LOW , with 
MODERATE  uncertainty , 
• the overall impact on the New Zealand economy, environment, human health, and 
society is considered to be VERY LOW , with MODERATE  uncertainty , 
 
MPI considers the overall level of assessed risk to New Zealand from  Dysmicoccus 
neobrevipes  on pineapple fruit  is NEGLIGIBLE , with MODERATE  uncertainty . 
 
 Specific considerations  
On which pineapple variety (or varieties) and at what stage of rip eness has Dysmicoccus 
neobrevipes  association with pineapple fruit been observed?  
• Dysmicoccus neobrevipes has been recorded on pineapple fruit of varying stages of 
ripeness, including green fruit and mature fruit. It has frequently been intercepted on 
fruit that has been commercially produced and shipped to New Zealand, and therefore 
is likely to be present on pineapple fruit of the level of maturity that meets the 
commodity description for this IRA.  
• No information was found in the literature to indicate that D. neobrevipes  is specific 
to some pineapple varieties or that some varieties are not hosts. A study on the effects 
of host plant on the development, survivor ship and reproduction of D. neobrevipes  
found differences in these parameters for mealybugs reared on the two varieties, 
Ananas comosus  Baili and A. comosus  Smooth Cayenne in laboratory condi tions (Qin 
et al. 2011) . Given D. neobrevipes  is polyphagous across many plant families and is 
associated with pineapple in many regions where the plant is grown , it is likely all 
pineapple varieties are hosts, but some may be better than others . 
 
Which pa rt(s) of the pineapple fruit is Dysmicoccus neobrevipes  associated with (e.g. 
fruit, bract, stem or crown remnant) and is it detectable by visual detection?  
• Dysmicocccus neobrevipes  is a sap -sucking insect found on all aerial parts of the host 
plant, inclu ding fruit. It tends to feed deep in sheltered parts of the plant such as leaf 
axils, under sepals, and inside blossom cups  (Jahn 1993; Jahn et al. 2003) . Therefore , 
although it is possible for D. neobrevipes  to occur anywhere on the fruit surface, it is 
more likely to be found in sheltered locations such as under bracts and inside blossom 
cups.  
• Adult females, which are around 1.5 mm long and 1.0 mm wide with a heavy coat of 
white mealy wax (Beardsley 1959), can be visually detected on the fruit surface, a nd 
mealybugs often aggregate in groups that are visible as white cottony clusters, with 
excretions of sugary honeydew that are a substrate for sooty mould growth. However,  
274 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  D. neobrevipes  may go undetected at low numbers, especially at the crawler stage. 
Mealybugs inside clos ed blossom cups will go undetected no matter the life stage.  
 
Are different lifestages of the Dysmicoccus neobrevipes  associated with different parts of 
the pineapple fruit?  
• All life stages (from crawlers to adults) are associated with pineapple fruit. However, 
adult males are winged, capable of flight and short -lived and so are not likely to 
remain associated with fruit that has been handled. Given D. neobrevipes  is an 
external feeder on plant surfaces, it can be found on any part of the fruit surface. 
Females produce live young and although the crawlers are mobile, mealybugs at 
different developmental stages are often found together in clusters.  
 
Does Dysmicoccus neobr evipes  burrows into the fruit without obvious symptoms, hides 
under the pineapple bract?  
• Although D. neobrevipes  feeds on plant surfaces, it tends to hide in protected parts of 
the pineapple surface, including bracts  and blossom cups (Jahn et al. 2003) , reducing 
the likelihood of visual detection. All life stages can occur inside closed blossom cups 
(Jahn 1993)  and go undetected by visual inspection, unless the fruit is cut open.  
 
 References  
Angima, S; Noack, M; Noack, S (2011) Composting with worms. 
https: //catalog.extension.oregonstate.edu/sites/catalog/files/project/pdf/em9034.pdf  
 
Askarany, D; Franklin -Smith, A W (2014) Cost benefit analyses of organic waste composting 
systems through the lens of time driven activity -based costing. Journal of applied 
management accounting research 12(2): 59 –73. 
 
Beardsley, J W (1959a) On the taxonomy of pineapple mealybugs in Hawaii, with a 
description of a previously unnamed species (Homoptera: Pseudococcidae).  
 
Beardsley, J W (1959b) On the taxonomy of pineapple mealybugs in Hawaii, with a 
description of a previously unnamed species (Homoptera: Pseudococcidae). Proceedings of 
the Hawaiian Entomological Society 17(1): 29 -37. 
 
Beardsley, J W (1960) A preliminary st udy of the males of some Hawaiian mealybugs 
(Homoptera: Pseudococcidae).  
 
Beardsley, J W (1965) Notes on the pineapple mealybug complex, with descriptions of two 
new species (Homoptera: Pseudococcidae). Proceedings of the Hawaiian Entomological 
Society 19(1): 55 -68. 
 
Beever, R E; Harman, H; Waipara, N; Paynter, Q; Barker, G; Burns, B (2007) Native Flora 
Biosecurity Impact Assessment  (Unpublished Landcare Research report LC0607/196 to MAF 
Biosecurity New Zealand). Landcare Research,  
 
Ben-Dov, Y (1994) A sys tematic catalogue of the mealybugs of the world (Insecta: 
Homoptera: Coccoidea: Pseudococcidae and Putoidae) with data on geographical 
distribution, host plants, biology and economic importance. Intercept Limited; Andover UK.  
  
275 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Bertin, A; Lerin, S; Botton, M; Parra, J (2019) Temperature thresholds and thermal 
requirements for development and survival of Dysmicoccus brevipes (Hemiptera: 
Pseudococcidae) on Table Grapes. Neotropical Entomology 48(1): 71 -77. 
 
BiotaNZ (2022) Biota of New Zealand. https://biotaNZ. landcareresearch.co.nz Accessed 
2022  
 
Brockerhoff, E G; Barratt, B I; Beggs, J R; Fagan, L L; Malcolm, K; Phillips, C B; Vink, C J 
(2010) Impacts of exotic invertebrates on New Zealand’s indigenous species and ecosystems. 
New Zealand Journal of Ecology 34(1): 158 -174. 
 
CABI (2021) Dysmicoccus brevipes  
(pineapple mealybug) Datasheet. https://www.cabi.org/isc/datasheet/20248  
 
Chappell, P R (2013) The climate and weather of Northland  (3rd edition ed.). NIWA.  
 
Charles, J (2004) Mealybug insecticide resistan ce management strategy. 
https://resistance.nzpps.org/index.php?p=insecticides/mealybug  
 
Colen, K; Santa -Cecília, L; Moraes, J; Reis, P (2000) Effects of different temperatures upon 
the biology of the mealybug Dysmicoccus brevipes (Cockerell, 1893)(Hemipte ra: 
Pseudococcidae). Revista Brasileira de Fruticultura 22(2): 248 -252. 
 
Culik, M; Ventura, J; dos S. Martins, D (2007) Scale insects (Hemiptera: Coccidae) of 
pineapple in the State of Espírito Santo, Brazil. In VI International Pineapple Symposium 822  
(pp. 215 –218).  
 
Curry, C (2022) Dysmicoccus neobrevipes  (grey pineapple mealybug). Available from CABI, 
Wallingford, UK Crop Protection CompendiumDOI:10.1079/CPC.20251.20210102445  
 
Daane, K; Almeida, R; Vaughn, A; Walker, J; Bottom, M; Fallahzadeh, M; Mani, M; Miano, 
J; Sforza, R; Walton, V; Zaviezo, T (2012) Biology and management of mealybugs in 
vineyards. In N Bostanian; C Vincent; R Isaacs (eds) Arthropod management in vineyards.  
Springer: Dordrecht, Netherlands.  
 
de Sá, M d G R; de Morais Oliveira, J E (2021) Mealybugs on fruit crops in the Sao Franciso 
Valley, Brazil. African Journal of Agricultural Research 17(6): 822 -828. 
 
Department of Agriculture (2019) Final report for the review of biosecurity import 
requirements for fresh decrowned pineapples from Taiwan. In D o Agriculture (Ed.). 
Canberra, Australia.  
 
Dey, K K; Green, J C; Melzer, M; Borth, W; Hu, J S (2018) Mealybug wilt of pineapple and 
associated viruses. Horticulturae  4(4): 52.  
 
Doan, T T; Nguyen, T K; Vo, T K L; Nguyen, T L; Cao, V C; Tran, T T A; Nguyen, H H T 
(2016) Phytosanitary irradiation of the mealybugs, Dysmicoccus neobrevipes , Planococcus 
lilacinus , and Planococcus minor (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae), infesting  dragon fruit in Viet 
Nam. Florida Entomologist 99: 159 -165. 
  
276 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Gambley, C; Geering, A; Steele, V; Thomas, J (2008a) Identification of viral and non -viral 
reverse transcribing elements in pineapple ( Ananas comosus ), including members of two new 
badnavirus sp ecies. Archives of Virology 153(8): 1599 -1604.  
 
Gambley, C; Steele, V; Geering, A; Thomas, J (2008b) The genetic diversity of 
ampeloviruses in Australian pineapples and their association with mealybug wilt disease. 
Australasian Plant Pathology 37(2): 95 -105. 
 
García -Morales, M; Denno, B; Miller, G; Ben -Dov, Y; Hardy, N (2016) A literature base 
model of scale insect biology and systematics  (Publication no. 10.1093/database/bav118). 
http://scalenet.info  
 
García Morales, M; Denno, B; Miller, D; Miller, G; Be n-Dov, Y; Hardy, N (2016) ScaleNet: 
A literature -based model of scale insect biology and systematics. In . 
 
Gavrilov -Zimin, I A (2017) Taxonomic and faunistic notes on scale insects (Homoptera: 
Coccinea) of Bali, Flores and New Guinea (Indonesia). Biodivers ity, Biogeography and 
Nature Conservation in Wallacea and New Guinea, III Entomological Society of Latvia 
Salaspils : 141 -149. 
 
Geering, A; McMichael, L; Dietzgen, R; Thomas, J (2000) Genetic diversity among Banana 
streak virus isolates from Australia. Phytopathology 90(8): 921 -927. 
 
Ghose, S (1983) Biology of parthenogenetic race of Dysmicoccus brevipes 
(Cockerell)[Pseudococcidae, Hemiptera]. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences (India) . 
 
González -Hernández, H; Reimer, N J; Johnson, M W (1999) Survey of the natural enemies of 
Dysmicoccus mealybugs on pineapple in Hawaii. BioControl 44(1): 47 -58. 
 
Harris, R J (1991) Diet of the wasps Vespula vulgaris and V. germanica in honeydew beech 
forest of the South Island, New Zealand. New Zealand journal of zoology 18(2): 159 -169. 
 
Huang, S; Lin, C (2014) Distribution and control of pink pineapple mealybug and survey of 
insect pests on pineapple. Journal of Taiwan Agricultural Research 63(1): 68 -76. 
 
Ito, K (1938) Studies on the Life History of the Pineapple Mealybug, Pseudococcus brevipes  
(Ckll.). Journal of Economic Entomology 31(2): 291 -298. 
 
Jahn, G C (1993) Gray pineapple mealybugs, Dysmicoccus neobrevipes Beardsley 
(Homoptera: Pseudococcidae), in side closed pineapple blossom cups. Proceedings of the 
Hawaiian Entomological Society 32: 147 -148. 
 
Jahn, G C; Beardsley, J W (1996) Effects of Pheidole megacephala  (Hymenoptera: 
Formicidae) on survival and dispersal of Dysmicoccus neobrevipes  (Homoptera: 
Pseudococcidae). Journal of Economic Entomology 89(5): 1124 -1129.  
 
Jahn, G C; Beardsley, J W (2000) Interactions of ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) and 
mealybugs (Homoptera: Pseudococcidae) on pineapple.  
  
277 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Jahn, G C; Beardsley, J W; González -Hernández, H (20 03) A review of the association of 
ants with mealybug wilt disease of pineapple. Proceedings of the Hawaiian Entomological 
Society 36: 9 -28. 
 
James, A; Geijskes, R; Dale, J; Harding, R (2011) Development of a novel rolling -circle 
amplification technique to  detect Banana streak virus that also discriminates between 
integrated and episomal virus sequences. Plant Disease 95(1): 57 -62. 
 
Kubiriba, J; Legg, J; Tushemereirwe, W; Adipala, E (2001) Vector transmission of Banana 
streak virus in the screenhouse in Uga nda. Annals of Applied Biology 139(1): 37 -43. 
 
Larrea -Sarmiento, A; Olmedo -Velarde, A; Wang, X; Borth, W; Matsumoto, T K; Suzuki, J 
Y; Wall, M M; Melzer, M; Hu, J (2021) A novel ampelovirus associated with mealybug wilt 
of pineapple ( Ananas comosus ). Virus  Genes 57(5): 464 -468. 
 
Lim, W (1973) Studies on the bisexual race of Dysmicoccus brevipes Ckll.: its bionomics and 
economic importance. Malaysian Agricultural Journal 49(2): 254 -267. 
 
LIMS (2022) Laboratory Information Management System. Ministry for Prim ary Industries 
internal database. Accessed 11/04/2022  
 
Longo, S; Marotta, S; Pellizzari, G; Russo, A; Tranfaglia, A (1995) An annotated list of the 
scale insects (Homoptera: Coccoidea) of Italy. Israel Journal of Entomology 29: 113 -130. 
 
Maanaki -Whenua (20 22) Ngā Tipu Whakaoranga Database. 
https://www.landcareresearch.co.nz/tools -and-resources/databases/nga -tipu-whakaoranga -
maori -plant -use-database/ Accessed 14 March 2022  
 
MAF, B N Z (2008) Import Risk Analysis:  
Fresh Citrus Fruit (7 species)  
from Samoa. In B N Z MAF (Ed.). Wellington, New Zealand.  
 
Malumphy, C; Ostrauskas, H; Pye, D (2008) A provisional catalogue of scale insects 
(Hemiptera, Coccoidea) of Lithuania. Acta Zoologica Lituanica 18(2): 108 -121. 
 
Manners, A; Duff, J (2015) Mealybugs - a pest of a different scale. 
https://www.horticulture.c om.au/globalassets/hort -innovation/resource -assets/ny11001 -
mealy -bugs.pdf  
 
Martin -Kessing, J; Mau, R (1992) Dysmicoccus brevipes (Beardsley) Crop  
Knowledge Master Fact Sheet. http://www.extento.hawaii.edu/kbase/crop/Type/d_brevip.htm 
Accessed 1/6/2022  
 
Martin Kessing, J L; Mau, R F L (1992) Dysmicoccus neobrevipes  (Beardsley). Crop 
Knowledge Master Fact Sheet (updated  by: J.M. Diez, April 2007). 
http://www.extento.hawaii.edu/kbase/crop/Type/d_neobre.htm Accessed July 2022  
 
Mendel, Z; Podoler, H; Rosen, D  (1984) Population dynamics of the Mediterranean black 
scale, Saissetia oleae (Olivier), on citrus in Israel. 4. The natural enemies. Journal of the 
Entomological Society of South Africa 47(1): 1 –21.  
278 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand   
Mensah, S (2017) Development and trial of a methodology  for the quantification and 
evaluation of home composting in Palmerston North, New Zealand: a thesis submitted in 
partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Environmental Management 
(without major) at Massey University, Palmerston N orth, New Zealand. thesis; Massey 
University,  
 
Meyer, J; Kasdorf, G; Nel, L; Pietersen, G (2008) Transmission of activated -episomal banana 
streak ol (badna) virus (bsolv) to cv. Williams banana ( Musa sp.) by three mealybug species. 
Plant Disease 92(8): 11 58-1163.  
 
Milek, T M; Šimala, M; Korić, B (2009) The scale insects (Hemiptera: Coccoidea) of 
imported fruits in Croatia. Zbornik predavanj in referatov 9: 4-5. 
 
Mille, C; Henderson, R C; Cazères, S; Jourdan, H (2016) Checklist of the scale insects 
(Hemipte ra: Sternorrhyncha: Coccomorpha) of New Caledonia. Zoosystema 38(2): 129 -176. 
 
Moreno, I; Tarazona -Velásquez, R; Campos -Patiño, Y; Rodríguez -Arévalo, K A; Kondo, T 
(2021) Prevalence of Dysmicoccus brevipes (Cockerell, 1893)(Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) 
in MD 2 pineapple crop areas in Colombia. Pesquisa Agropecuária Tropical 51. 
 
MPI (2014a) Generic pest risk assessment: armoured scale insects (Hemiptera: Coccoidea: 
Diaspididae) on the fresh produce pathway. https://www.mpi.govt.nz/dmsdocument/5224  
 
MPI (2014b ) Generic Pest Risk Assessment: Armoured scale insects (Hemiptera: Coccoidea: 
Diaspididae) on the fresh produce pathway. In Plants and Pathways Team; Biosecurity 
Science and Risk Assessment Group (Eds.), (Vol. 1). Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry for 
Prim ary Industries.  
 
NZOR (2022) The New Zealand Organisms Register. http://nzor.org.nz Accessed May 2022  
 
NZPCN (2022) New Zealand Plant Conservation Network. https://www.nzpcn.org.nz/ 
Accessed 12/04/2022  
 
ONZPR (2022) Official New Zealand Pest Register. MPI Public Database. 
https://pierpestregister.mpi.govt.nz/PestsRegister/ImportCommodity/ Accessed May 2022  
 
Phillips, C B; Kean, J M; Vink, C J; Berry, J A (2018) Utility of the CLIMEX ‘match 
climates regional’ algorithm for pest risk analysis: a n evaluation with non -native ants in New 
Zealand. Biological Invasions : 1–15. 
 
Plant & Food Research (2020) Fresh Facts: New Zealand Horticulture . Plant & Food 
Research, Auckland, New Zealand.  
 
Plant & Food Research (2021) Fresh Facts: New Zealand Horticu lture . Plant & Food 
Research, Auckland, New Zealand.  
 
Plant Health Australia (2022) Dysmicoccus neobrevipes. 
https://www.planthealthaustralia.com.au/sci_name/dysmicoccus -neobrevipes/ Accessed July 
2022   
279 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand   
PPIN (2022) Plant Pest Information Network, Version 5.03.01. Ministry for Primary 
Industries Internal Database. Accessed May 2022  
 
Puig, A S; Wurzel, S; Suarez, S; Marelli, J -P; Niogret, J (2021) Mealybug (Hemiptera: 
Pseudococcidae) Species Associated with Cacao Mild Mosaic Virus and Evidence of Vir us 
Acquisition. Insects 12(11): 994.  
 
Qin, Z -Q; Qiu, B -L; Wu, J -H; Cuthbertson, A G; Ren, S -X (2013) Effect of temperature on 
the life history of Dysmicoccus neobrevipes  (Hemiptera: Pseudoccocidae): An invasive 
species of gray pineapple mealybug in South C hina. Crop Protection 45: 141 -146. 
 
Qin, Z; Wu, J; Qiu, B -l; Ren, S; Ali, S (2011) Effects of host plant on the development, 
survivorship and reproduction of Dysmicoccus neobrevipes  Beardsley (Hemiptera: 
Pseudoccocidae). Crop Protection 30(9): 1124 -1128.  
 
Richmond, J; Cowley, J (1998) Pineapple mealybug in New Zealand? Orchardist 71(7).  
 
Sartiami, D; Kondo, T (2022) 4.2.3 Dysmicoccus  spp. ( D. boninsis , D. brevipes , D. 
neobrevipes ). In T Kondo; G W Watson (eds) Encyclopedia of Scale Insect Pests.  CAB 
Interna tional.  
 
Sether, D; Hu, J (2002) Closterovirus infection and mealybug exposure are necessary for the 
development of mealybug wilt of pineapple disease. Phytopathology 92(9): 928 -935. 
 
Sether, D; Karasev, A; Okumura, C; Arakawa, C; Zee, F; Kislan, M; Busto,  J; Hu, J (2001) 
Differentiation, distribution, and elimination of two different pineapple mealybug wilt -
associated viruses found in pineapple. Plant Disease 85(8): 856 -864. 
 
Sether, D; Melzer, M; Borth, W; Hu, J (2012) Pineapple bacilliform CO virus: dive rsity, 
detection, distribution, and transmission. Plant Disease 96(12): 1798 -1804.  
 
Sether, D; Melzer, M; Busto, J; Zee, F; Hu, J (2005) Diversity and mealybug transmissibility 
of ampeloviruses in pineapple. Plant Disease 89(5): 450 -456. 
 
Shao, K T (2022) Catalogue of life in Taiwan. Web electronic publication. Version 2020. 
https://taibnet.sinica.edu.tw/chi/taibnet_species_detail.php?name_code=428955 Accessed 
July 2022  
 
Sirisena, U; Watson, G; Hemachandra, K; Wijayagunasekara, H (2013) Mealybugs 
(Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) species on economically important fruit crops in Sri Lanka. 
Tropical Agricultural Research 25(1): 69 -82. 
 
Stainton, D; Halafihi, M i; Collings, D A; Varsani, A (2015) Genome sequence of banana 
streak MY virus from the Pacific Ocean  island of Tonga. Genome announcements 3(3): 
e00543 -00515.  
 
Su, H -J (2000) Development and application of molecular diagnostic probes for detection, 
characterization, and management of banana viruses. Advancing banana and plantain R & D 
in Asia and the : 35.  
280 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand   
Tabata, J; Ohno, S (2015) Enantioselective synthesis of the sex pheromone of the grey 
pineapple mealybug, Dysmicoccus neobrevipes  (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae), for 
determination of the absolute configuration. Applied Entomology and Zoology 50(3): 341 -
346. 
 
Wang, Y -S; Dai, T -M; Tian, H; Wan, F -H; Zhang, G -F (2019) Comparative analysis of eight 
DNA extraction methods for molecular research in mealybugs. PloS one 14(12): e0226818.  
 
Wei, J; Peng, L; He, Z; Lu, Y; Wang, F (2020) Potential distribution of two i nvasive 
pineapple pests under climate change. Pest Management Science 76(5): 1652 -1663.  
 
Williams, D (2004) Mealybugs of Southern Asia . The Natural History Museum and 
Southdene SDN.BHD; Kuala Lampur, Malaysia.  
 
Williams, D; Granara de Willink, M (1992) Mealybugs of Central and South America . CABI; 
Wallingford, UK.  
 
Williams, D; Watson, G (1988) The scale insects of the tropical South Pacific region. Part 2. 
The mealybugs (Pseudococcidae). CAB International Institute of Entomology; London, UK.  
 
  
281 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  8.3 Ferrisia virgata  (striped mealybug)  
Ferrisia virgata is a mealybug species with a widespread tropical and subtropical 
distribution. It is also found in some temperate areas . It is  highly polyphagous , with hundreds 
of reported host plant species, including pineapple. Many host plants are of economic 
importan ce to New Zealand, for example  citrus, tomato and grapevine.  
 Taxonomic description  
Scientific name: Ferrisia virgata (Cockerell, 1893)   
Order : Hemiptera Family: Pseudococcidae   
Other names : Dactylopius ceriferus ; Dactylopius magnolicida ; Dactylopius segregatus ; 
Dactylopius setosus ; Dactylopius talini ; Dactylopius virgatus farinosus ; Dactylopius virgatus 
humilis ; Dactylopius virgatus madagascariensis ; Dactylopius v irgatus ;  
Ferrisia neovirgata ; Ferrisiana setosus ; Ferrisiana virgata ; Pseudococcus bicaudatus ;  
Pseudococcus magnolicida ; Pseudococcus marchali ; Pseudococcus segregatus ;  
Pseudococcus virgatus farinosus ; Pseudococcus virgatus humilis ; Pseudococcus virgatus 
madagascariensis ; Pseudococcus virgatus  (García -Morales et al. 2016; DAWR 2019) ; 
striped mealybug; grey mealybug; guava mealybug; white -tailed mealybug  
 
Taxonomic n otes:   
Ferrisia virgata  has been recognised as a species complex for many years (Ben -Dov 1994; 
Gullan et al. 2010) . Based on nucleotide sequence data , Gullan et al. (2010)  recognised that 
some mealybugs previously referred as “ F. virgata ” in the USA were genetically different 
from those i n Thailand, Ghana, South Africa, Mexico and Jamaica. Later, Kaydan and Gullan 
(2012)  revised the genus Ferrisia  and redescribed F. virgata , distinguishing it from related 
species. They recognised 18 species in the genus, eight of them new to science.   
 
Ferrisia virgata  is easily confused with F. malvastra  (Ben -Dov 1994) . These  two species are 
highly similar morphologically and very difficult to  distinguish  based on simple superficial 
features.  Ferrisia virgata is reported to be  biparental  except from the ob servation in 
Awadallah et al. (1979b) , whereas reproduction in F. malvastra is parthenogenetic. 
Descriptions of F. virgata  before  1980 likely  contain a combination of features of F. virgata  
and F. malvastra . Kaydan and Gullan (2012)  also found  that F. dasylirii  is very difficult to 
distinguish morphologically from F. virgata  and exhibits significant variability . Before  2012,  
it was  incorrectly considered a synonym of Ferrisia virgata . As such, early records of  F. 
virgata  may need to be verified due to c onfusion with the new species described by  Kaydan 
and Gullan (2012) .  
 
Kaydan and Gullan (2012) further suggest ed that with the exception of records of 
F. malvastra , all other reports of Ferrisia  from outside the Nearctic and Neotropical regions 
are of F. virgata . Thus, descriptions of immature stages and studies of the biolog y of 
F. virgata  in Egypt and India (e.g. Ghose and Paul (1972) cited in Kaydan and Gullan (2012); 
Awadallah et al. 1979a; A wadallah et al. 1979b) probably do refer to this species.   
 
In this pest risk assessment, “ Ferrisia virgata ” refers to the species in the strict sense ( sensu 
stricto ), rather than the species complex.  
 Hazard identification  
Ferrisia virgata  is not known to  be present in New Zealand.   
282 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  • There is no entry for Ferrisia virgata  in the New Zealand Organisms Register (NZOR 
2022) . 
• Ferrisia virgata  is not recorded  in BiotaNZ (2022) .  
• Ferrisia virgata  is not recorded in  PPIN (2022) .  
• Ferrisia virgata  is a regulated pest and an unwanted organism for New Zealand 
(ONZPR 2022) . 
 
Ferrisia virgata  has the potential to establish  and spread in New Zealand . 
• Ferrisia virgata is polyphagous and ha s plant hosts (García -Morales et al. 2016)  that 
are common and/or commercially grown in New Zealand, such as sweet potato/  
kūmara  and grapevine.  
• Ferrisia virgata is found mainly in the tropics and subtropics, but it is also present in 
areas that have similar climate condition s to New Zealand, such as France and Chile 
(CABI 2021) . 
 
Ferrisia virgata  has the potential to cause harm to  New Zealand . 
• Ferrisia virgata  has the potential to harm plants of economic importance to New 
Zealand,  
• Ferrisia virgata  has the potential to harm the  New Zealand environment,  
• It has potential to cause sociocultural impacts by affecting taonga .  
• It has the potential to indirectly cause human health impact s by supporting 
populations of harmful ant species.  
 
Ferrisia virgata  is associated with pineapple fruit.  
• Live F. virgata  mealybugs have been intercepted on fresh pineapple  fruit at the New 
Zealand border  (LIMS 2022).  
 
Given the arguments and evidence above , MPI considers Ferrisia virgata  is a hazard on 
decrowned Ananas comosus (pineapple) fruit (as described in the commodity description) 
imported to New Zealand.  
 
 Risk assessment  
8.3.3.1  Biology  
Based on the morphological description of adult females provided by Kaydan and Gullan 
(2012)  and McCorquodale and Hodges (2017) , F. virgata  has two conspicuous ly dark grey 
longitudinal dorsal stripes  on its whitish mealy/waxy covering , two long tail filaments and 
long, hair -like crystalline rods extending laterally from its body . The adult female is elongate 
oval, around 2. 10– 4.48 mm long  and 0.94–2.52 mm wide (excluding tail filaments which are 
about half the body length). The adult male is small, dark and fly -like, also with two long 
white tail  filaments.   
 
Ferrisia virgata  females  have  three nymphal instars while males have four . The f irst and 
second instar nymphs of both sexes  are light yellow  (McCorquodale and Hodges 2017) . All 
stages except very young first instar s (crawlers) are covered with a white mealy/waxy 
secretion, through which the body colour can be seen in places. Fi rst instars are 0.44 –0.65 
mm long and 0.21 –0.34 mm wide , and dull orange on hatching  and later changing to 
purplish. Second instars are 0.67 –1.24 mm long and 0.35 –0.62 mm wide and purplish  in  
283 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  colour (Awadallah et al. 1979a) . It is difficult to differentiat e between male and female 
nymphs until after the third instar. Following the third instar females become adults and 
males enter a pupal phase and emerge as winged adults  (McCorquodale and Hodges 2017) . 
Third instar  females  are 0.93–1.67 mm long and 0.48–0.78 mm wide  and purplish  in colour, 
while male s are 1.26–1.40 mm long and 0.42 –0.54 mm wide and enveloped in a loose woolly 
cocoon. Fourth  instar male s (pupa e) are 1.28–1.43 mm long and 0.38 –0.51 mm wide 
(Awadallah et al. 1979a) . 
 
Eggs are oval, pale  yellow , around 0. 36–0.44 mm long and 0.20–0.21 mm wide,  when laid 
(Awadallah et al. 1979a) . Adult f emale s do not produce ovisacs ; eggs are laid directly onto a 
pad made of whitish waxy filament s (McCorquodale and Hodges 2017) . 
 
Reproduction  
Information on reproduction on F. virgata  is contradictory in the literature. Most studies 
reported that F. virgata  reproduce biparental ly. In the laboratory only mated females 
produced offspring, whereas unmated females did not produce any eggs  (Ghose and  Paul 
(1972) cited in Kaydan and Gullan 2012; Oliveira et al. 2014b) . However, although Kaydan 
and Gullan (2012) argued that parthogenesis of F. virgata  is “highly unlikely”, Awadallah et 
al. (1979b) reported that it can reproduce uniparentally  and Kaydan and Gullan (2012) 
consider the Ferrisia  species in Awadallah et al. (1979b) is F. virgata . Oliveira et al. (2014) 
showed that F. virgata  reproduced exclusively via a sexual form when feeding on cotton, but 
they also cited two study reported that F. virgata  can reproduce uniparentally when feeding 
on other hosts, but we have no access to these reports and as such we cannot evaluate the 
information in the reports.  
 
Mealybugs are gregarious, and adult female F. virgata  produce sex pheromones to attract 
adult males (Tabata and Ichiki 2017) . Eggs hatch usually within 30 minutes of being laid 
(Ghose and Paul (1972) cited in Kaydan and Gullan 2012) . The fecundity of F. vir gata is 
moderate to high. It has been reported as 64 –78 to 222 –237 eggs per adult female (Awadallah 
et al. 1979b; Ghose and Paul (1972) cited in Kaydan and Gullan 2012) . In nature , adult 
females  prefer the lower surface of leaves and the junction of the petiole with the stem to 
deposit eggs  (Ammar et al. 1979) . 
 
Development  
Ferrisia virgata  fecundity , longevity and population density are influenced by climate  and 
host variation  (Ammar et al. 1979; Awadallah et al. 1979b; da Silva -Torres et al. 2013; 
Oliveira et al. 2014a; Ata et al. 2019) . However, no studies have been conducted  specif ically 
to determine the  optimal temperature and lower development  threshold in laboratory 
conditions. When reared at 16 –29°C and 54 –71% relative humidity (RH)  on sprouting 
potatoes , Awadallah et al. (1979b)  reported the total life span of F. virgata  females as 76.2–
154.6 days while males l ived 19–49 days  (from egg to adult death).  Other studies with a 
smaller temperature variation reported that a complete life cycle require s 44–53 days at 27–
30°C on Coccinia indica  (Vigneswaran et al. 2016)  or 53.6 –63.5 days at 25–28°C on cotton 
(Oliveira et al. 2014a) . Ferrisia virgata  can have  multiple overlapping generations per year  
when climate permits (Ammar et al. 1979; Awadallah et al. 1979b) . Awadallah et al. (1979b)  
also observed no significant change s in the incubation duration  and hatching rate of eggs 
within  this temperature range . In this study , F. virgata  eggs hatched successfully when 
incubated at 16.6 –17.4°C and 71% RH, but all nymphs hatched from these eggs  died at the 
second instar  and Awadallah et al. (1979b)  think that it was probably due to cooler weather in 
winter .  
284 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand   
Ferrisia virgata  is believed to have overwintering behaviours , though  the timing , duration 
and life stages associated with this  function are not well studied (Ammar et al. 1979; Nabil et 
al. 202 0). In Egypt, a two -year (2014 –2015) field population investigation conducted on 
Acalypha shrubs  showed that both F. virgata  female adults and immatures  began to be active 
in early June (average daily temperature at 23 –25°C), increased population density  gradually  
and peaked around early -mid October  (average daily temperature at 21 –25°C), and then 
disappeared from host plants from  the mid of January  (average daily temperature at 13 –
14°C) without detailing the status of dormancy  (Nabil et al. 2020) . It appears that F. virgata  
overwinter s at any developmental stage , contrary to a previous study that suggested  this 
mealybug  probably overwinter ed as adult female s (Ammar et al. 1979) . The closely related 
species  F. gilli  overwintered as second or third instars . However, in another two -year F. 
virgata  population survey  on ornamental corn shrubs  (Dracena fragrans ) (in Egypt), weekly 
monitoring results showed that adult females could be present year -round on leaves , with 
lowest population densities occurrin g in spring (Ata et al. 2019) . Overwintering sites include 
cracks and junctions of trunks and large branches , fallen leaves  and soil (Ammar et al. 1979) . 
Given the limited literature information, t he cold tolerance of this mealybugs cannot be 
inferred from  their overwintering behaviours.  
 
Spread  
In common with  most mealybugs,  all life -stages of F. virgata  (except eggs and the male 
pupae ) are able to walk or fly, but late instars and female adults are largely sessile when 
suitable food is present and their active dispersal distance is considered to be short. 
Mealybugs can passively disperse over longer distances by wind, waterways and by 
phoresy 53. Long  distance movement also occurs by the movement  of infested plant material s 
(Mani and Shivaraju 2016) . 
 
Damage  
Like other mealybugs, F. virgata  affects nutrient levels in plants through sap -sucking, 
causing plants to yellow, wither and dry, causing premature leaf and fruit fall, and causing 
reduced growth and even plant death in severe scenario s. Large agg regations of mealybugs 
on plants appear as conspicuous  white , stick y masses of wax ; filamentous egg pads are likely 
to be visible. All mealybugs produce honeydew, which can lead to the growth of black sooty 
moulds on foliage and fruit and reduce the photosynthetic ability of the plant (McCorquodale 
and Hodges 2017) .  
 
Species vectored  
Ferrisia virgata  has been reported to vector plant viruses, including  Citrus tristeza virus 
(reported as lime dieback) , Cacao swollen shoot virus  (CSSV) , Cocoa Trinidad virus (Diego 
Martin Valley isolate)  and Piper yellow mottle virus (PVMV) (Thorold 1975; Bhat et al. 
2003; CABI 2021) . Regarding Citrus tristeza virus , DAWR (2019)  considered that the 
original study by Hughes and Lister (1953)  referencing F. virgata  as a vector was 
unsubstantiated , because 1)  the study pre-dates the period befor e this virus species  was 
characterised and the identification information cannot be confirmed specific to the disease; 
and 2) apart from the original report, there are no subsequent reports of any mealybug species 
transmitting the virus  which is one of the  most extensively studied plant viruses.  Ferrisia 
virgata  was also reported to be able to carry ‘Candidatus  Liberibacter asiaticus’ (Las) , which  
is the causal agent of huanglongbing (a devastating disease of citrus ) (Hoffman et al. 2011) . 
 
53 Phoresy is an interaction in which a phoretic animal (or phoront) latches itself onto a host animal for the purp ose of dispersal  (White 
2017) .   
285 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  The later laborat ory study found that L as populations transmitted by the mealybugs did not 
cause disease in host plants  (Pitino et al. 2014) . In this pest risk assessment, therefore, only 
CSSV, Cocoa Trinidad virus  and PVMV are considered transmitted by F. virgata . 
 
Hosts and geographical distribution  
Ferrisia virgata  is one of the most polyphagous mealybugs . It is associated with plant species 
belonging to some 2 21 genera in 7 9 families (García -Morales et al. 2016) . Apart from 
A. comosus  (pineapple) , other main host plants are Abelmoschus esculentus  (okra) , Acalypha  
(copperleaf) , Albizia lebbeck  (Indian siris) , Anacardium occidentale  (cashew nut) , Annona  
spp., Cajanus cajan  (pigeon pea) , Carica papaya  (pawpaw) , Citrus spp., Coccoloba uvifera  
(sea grape) , Cocos nucifera  (coconut) , Codiaeum variegatum (garden croton) , Coffea spp. 
(coffee) , Colocasia esculenta  (taro) , Corchorus  (jutes) , Cucurbita maxima  (giant pumpkin) , 
Cucurbita pepo  (marrow) , Dracaena  spp., Elaeis  guineensis  (African oil palm) , Ficus spp., 
Gossypium spp. (cotton) , Ipomoea batatas  (sweet potato /kūmara ), Leucaena leucocephala  
(leucaena) , Litchi chinensis  (lichi) , Mangifera indica  (mango) , Manihot esculenta  (cassava) , 
Manilkara spp., Musa spp. (banana) , Nicotiana tabacum  (tobacco) , Phaseolus spp. (beans) , 
Phoenix dactylifera  (date  palm) , Piper betle  (betel pepper) , Piper nigrum  (black pepper) , 
Psidium guajava  (guava) , Punica granatum  (pomegranate) , Solanum lycopersicum  (tomato) , 
Solanum melongen a (aubergine) , Solanum nigrum (black nightshade) , Theobroma cacao  
(cocoa) , Vigna unguiculata  (cowpea) , Vitis vinifera  (grapevine)  and Zingiber officinale  
(ginger)  (CABI 2021) . 
 
Ferrisia virgata  is found mainly in the tropics  and subtropics, but its range can extend into 
some temperate regions . It has been reported from all zoogeographical regions , including 
Africa, Asia, North America, South America and  Oceania  (CABI 2021) . Compared with the 
climate of all of New Zealand usin g Climate Matching Index (CMI)  by Phillips et al. (2018) , 
some affected areas share a high climatic similarity with New Zealand, such as northern 
states in USA, France and Chile (CMI, 0.8 –0.9).  
8.3.3.2  Likelihood  of entry  
Ferrisia  virgata  is present in all the markets  in the scope of this IRA , which are: Australia , 
Costa Rica , Ecuador , Fiji, Indonesia,  Malaysia , New  Caledonia, Cook Islands, Panama , 
Papua New Guinea, the Philippines , Samoa, Sri Lanka , Taiwan , Thailand , Tonga and 
Vanuatu  (CABI 2021) .  
 
Ferrisia virgata  is known to infest pineapple plants (Culik et al. 2006; García -Morales et al. 
2016) . However, we found no further information regarding affected plant par ts, cultivars  and 
ripeness. S tudies on cotton  (rather than pineapple)  found that F. virgata  crawlers infested all 
plant parts  including leaves, petioles, stem, fruiting buds , flowers and open bolls, without 
preference among cotton cultivars (da Silva -Torres et al . 2013; Oliveira et al . 2014). Da 
Silva -Torres et al (2013) further highlighte d that F. virgata  was likely not affected by plant 
morphological differences between cultivars, such as leaf variation (e.g. , size, texture and the 
presence of trichomes) and plant  development stage. On cocoa trees, N'Guessan et al. (2019)  
showed that F. virgata  was present on both immature and  mature cocoa trees , but the study 
did not provide statistical details on plant ages. O ther mealybug species, such as Dysmicoccus 
brevipes  and D. grassii , have been reported to affect roots , leaves, s tems, fruit and crowns of 
pineapple (Sipes and Wang 2017) . Live F. virgata  mealybugs have been intercepted on fresh 
pineapple  from the Philippines twice  and mini pineapple fresh flowers once in 2004 from 
Thailand  at the New Zealand border  (LIMS 2022). Give n that eggs are laid on leaves and 
adult males can fly (refer to section 1.1.4.1 Biology ), only F. virgata  nymphs, adult females  
286 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  and pupae can be considered associated with decrowned fruit . There is no evidence to suggest 
that pineapple cultivar or ripeness affect their presence on the commodity.  
 
MPI found n o evidence in the available English -language literature directly documenting  the 
extent of the association of this mealybug with pineapp le fruit , although pineapple  is regarded 
as a main host by CABI (2021) . Sipes and Wang (2017)  considered F. virgata  to be of less 
economic importance  for pineapple than Dysmicoccus brevipes and D. grassii  which are the 
most common and important species. Al so, F. virgata  has been excluded from the revised 
checklist of pests of pineapple  in Taiwan (where the mealybug is established), due to the 
dubious  association (Huang and Wang 2016) . As such, F. virgata  is unlikely to have a strong 
association with pineapple fruit.  
 
Visual inspection is likely to detect infestations of F. virgata  on decrowned pineapple fruit. 
Like all mealybugs, F. virgata  has relatively limited mobility (except ing crawlers and adult 
males) . Infestations on the commodity are likely to appear in clusters  due to the mealybug’s 
gregarious nature . In severe infestations, the mealy/waxy white covering of the mealybugs is 
conspicuous . However, at low population densities or as individuals, especially on pineapple 
fruit with a tough diamond pattern and creamy -green to yellow -orange skin, it can be difficult 
to detect  mealybugs both in the field and in the packhouse . Ferrisia virgata  crawlers  are very 
small (< 1 mm), so inspection of pineapple fruit may require a  10x magnifier . Late second - or 
third -instar nymphs and adults may not always be detected because mealybugs often live 
inside plant cracks and crevices  (e.g. under the bract of the pineapp le surface and stem end), 
and they are still comparatively small (McCorquodale and Hodges 2017) . Pineapples have  
tough multicoloured skin, making visual  inspection harder.   
 
Heavy infestations in the field may damage or weaken plants, directly causing lea f and fruit  
drop and even plant death.  Even i f infestations  are not apparent, sooty mo uld and ant 
activit ies induced by produc ing honeydew may also be a sign of infestations . General 
handling in commercial orchards (described in section 2.1) may not be suf ficient to 
remove/kill all mealybugs. In common with other mealybugs, F. virgata  is very difficult to 
control with water -based  insecticides because its wax -covered body can repel aqueous 
solutions, which reduces the effectiveness of insecticides and  removal by washing  (Franco et 
al. 2009) . The  mobile early instar nymphs may hide in sheltered places (e.g. under the bracts 
of pineapple). Other life stages tend to be stationary but can attach to their hosts very firmly . 
For example, Jami eson et al. (2010)  applied h igh pressure (between 50 and 200  psi) water  to 
clean commercially produced capsicum and found that only  58–84% of live mealybugs were 
washed off . Given that fresh c apsicum  fruit have a  very smooth  surface , it is likely that 
comp arable treatments on pineapple would be even less effective . In addition, some other 
biological attributes of the mealybug, such as its cryptic behaviour , clumped spatial 
distribution  on host plants and overlapping generations  can increase the difficulty o f chemical 
pest control and aid the development of insecticide resistance (Franco et al. 2009) . As such, 
general commercial production handling is unlikely to eliminate mealybugs on the 
commodity.  
 
Ferrisia virgata  may survive cold conditions during sea transit. L ive F. virgata  adults and 
nymphs have been intercepted at New Zealand border 35 times on the fresh produce pathway 
and seven times on the cut  flowers/foliage pathway  (other than on pineapple) from 1998 to 
2019  (LIMS 2022) . Live  F. virgata  have also been detected at the European Union and 
Australian borders (DAWR 2019; EPPO 2022) . Generally, the recommended cold storage 
temperature for pineapple is 7 –13°C (and RH at 85 –90%)  as storage below this temperature   
287 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  can result in chilling injury to the fruit (Camelo 2004) . Although Awadallah et al. (1979b)  
showed that F. virgata  reared at 16.6 –17.4°C and 71% RH did not complete their lifecycle 
(with 100%  mortality of the second instar), other life stages may be able to survive  
temperature s below 16°C. Some mealybug species that hibernate overwinter are reported to 
be cold -resistant, such as Phenococcu s solenopsis  (Spodek et al. 2018)  and Ferrisia gilli  
(Haviland et al. 2012) . Cool storage may only slow or halt  the development of nymphs and 
other pre -adult stages , rather than kill them . Adult males are short lived, fragile and do not 
feed (Awadallah et al. 1979b; Tabata and Ichiki 2017) . They are unlikely to survive transit 
conditions and be introduced into New Zealand as adults, though adults may emerge f rom 
pupae.  
 
Uncertainty   
Ferrisia virgata  is a species complex composed of some morphologically similar but 
genetically different species (Gullan et al. 2010; Kaydan and Gullan 2012) . Kaydan and 
Gullan (2012)  described a number of new species from the complex. As such, there may be 
uncertainties in this PRA on the assessment of its biological characters (particularly host and 
distribution records) arising from the interpretation of older literature.  
 
We found  no information indicating the temperature thresholds for each development stage of 
F. virgata  in laboratory conditions. This contribute s to uncertaint y when assess ing the 
surviv al rate during shipping in a cold environment.  
 
We also found that no informa tion directly describing the biological association between 
F. virgata  and pineapple fruits. However, the mealybug has been intercepted on pineapple 
fruit.  
 
Given that:  
• pineapple is a host  of F. virgata  and l ive F. virgata nymphs and adults have been 
intercepted twice on fresh pineapple fruit at the New Zealand border ; 
• nymphs , pupae  and female adults can be associated with decrowned fruit at the time 
of harvest , while eggs may only be present on leaves;  
• MPI found no information to suggest that pineapple cultivar or ripeness affects the 
association of F. virgata  with pineapple fruit;  
• in general, infestation of F. virgata  is likely to be visible, but at low population 
levels, nymphs  (especially crawlers)  and adult  female s may not always be detected 
during routine post -harvest activities due to their small size and tendency to hide;  
• nymphs (except crawlers) and adult females may remain attached to fruit during 
general washing, due to their wax -covered body, s ecure attachment to the fruit 
surface and tendency to hide; and  
• Nymphs, pupae and adult females may survive shipping to New Zealand ; 
 
MPI considers the likelihood of F. virgata entering New Zealand on imported pineapple fruit 
to be LOW , with MODERATE uncer tainty.  
 
8.3.3.3  Likelihood of exposure  
This asse sses the likelihood of F. virgata  being exposed to a suitable host if it  enter s 
New Zealand undetected.  
  
288 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Although there is no specific study on the development of F. virgata  on pineapple fruit, a 
laboratory study in New Zealand (Whyte et al. 1994)  showed that the long tailed mealybug, 
Pseudococcus longispinus , survived up to 49 days on oranges (if whole fruit  was not 
consumed or decayed ). Ferrisia virgata  may survive and develop on the surface of pineapple 
fruit (whole or skin pieces) as the fruit skin is robust and does not break down as quickly as 
softer skinned fruits.  The survivorship and development on pi neapple waste also depend on 
the environment where the waste is discarded. If the mealybug arrive in New Zealand in the 
colder part of New Zealand (especially during the cold season), it may not be able to survive 
or develop into a stage that it can find a  host given that it is mainly found in the tropics and 
subtropics ( refer to Hosts and geographical distribution in Section 1.1.1.4 ). However, there is 
uncertainty around it. Awadallah et al. (1979b)  observed that F. virgata  eggs hatched 
successfully when i ncubated at 16.6 –17.4°C, but all nymphs hatched from these eggs died at 
the second instar which probably due to cooler weather in winter.  However, F. virgata has 
been intercepted on fresh pineapple and the recommended storage temperature for pineapple 
is 7–13°C (refer to section transit condition ). There is no experimental study found on cold 
tolerance of this mealybug.  
 
Imported pineapple fruit will be distributed throughout New Zealand for wholesale or retail 
sale. Fresh pineapples produce large amounts of unavoidable waste. The thick skin is always 
removed, and the disposal of the fruit skin or whole fruit may aid the exposure of mealybugs. 
The most common method of disposing of organic waste in New Zealand is bagged waste to 
landfill ( see sectio n 2.3.1 ), which is unlikely to result in successful exposure. However, there 
are other methods that could increase the likelihood  of exposure of this mealybug, for 
example direct disposal into the environment, or using waste as animal feed or for 
compostin g. 
 
Direct disposal of pineapple waste into the environment  may increase the likelihood of the 
mealybugs being exposed to a suitable host. In this scenario, the mealybugs may be able to 
passively disperse for longer distances by wind or phoresy, particular ly if the waste is 
discarded near to a suitable host plant. For crawlers, the likelihood of finding a host is higher, 
because they can move around actively for a short period. However , crawlers are vulnerable 
to predation, dehydration and being washed away  by the rain (Mendel et al. 1984) .  
 
Other waste dispos al methods  may also result in increased likelihood of exposure,  including 
home composting and us e as animal feed.  Fresh pineapple waste can generally remain a 
suitable food source for mealybugs for rea sonably long periods, supporting their continuous 
development.  However, as the fruit decays it may become unsuitable and the mealybug is 
likely to seek another food source.  Although plastic bins used for home composting may limit 
the transfer  of mealybugs to the environment, some other composting facilities (without a 
cover ) are still widely used in individual gardens, such as open compost pile , wooden box  
and wire fence  (Mensah 2017) . If infested waste is discarded in uncovered home compost 
bins with suita ble hosts nearby , this would increase the likelihood of exposure.  
 
Commercial c omposting is a common way to deal with organic waste in New Zealand . In 
aerobic  composting, w aste is subject to a heat process within a comparatively closed 
environment (composting  tunnels , 55°C or higher ) for weeks (Pandey et al. 2016) , and then 
transferred to a n open area for air exposure for more weeks (or months) before the compost is 
used. T hese conditions , for example the exposure to high temperature and  potentially long 
starvation,  are likely  to kill all stages of F. virgata . 
  
289 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Ferrisia virgata is highly polyphagous, and many  host plants are commonly planted in home 
gardens, such as  beans , cauliflower , Citrus spp., grapevine  and tomato.  Other hosts, inclu ding 
avocado, maize, eggplant,  cucurbits , and  kūmara  (sweet potato) are also widely grown in 
New Zealand. Therefore, lack of suitable host plants is unlikely to limit exposure.  
 
The reproductive characters of F. virgata  is likely to aid its exposure to a suitable host. 
Although most study reported biparenta l reproduction, uniparental reproduction has also been 
reported for F. virgata  (refer to Reproduction in Section 1.1.1. 4). F emale adults are relatively 
long lived and the longevity of ovipositing females seem not to be significantly affected by 
temperature  in the range of 17.5 –28.9° C (Awadallah et al. 1979b) . Although average 
temperature in New Zealand are well below these in many places and female adults are 
relatively sedentary, these reproductive  characteristics can support them to remain alive on 
discar ded imported product and continue to produce crawlers.  
 
Uncertainty  
No information has been found from New Zealand specific to pineapple waste. This 
contributes to some uncertainties when interpreting waste data to assess the exposure 
likelihood of F. virgata , because the consumption of pineapple fresh produce consists of a 
very small part of total organic waste. No experimental study has been found on cold 
tolerance of F. virgata . Also, there is no study found on the development of F. virgata  on 
pineappl e fruit.  
 
Given that:  
• Ferrisia virgata  may survive on pineapple waste, but it may not be able to 
successfully find a suitable host if it arrives in New Zealand in the cold season;  
• fresh pineapples produce large amounts of unavoidable waste, however, most is 
likely to be disposed of as bagged waste to landfill or into in -sink disposal units. 
These methods are unlikely to result in successful exposure;  
• commercial composting is unlikely to result in successful exposure since mealybugs 
will not survive the process;  
• direct disposal of pineapple  waste in the environment may result in successful 
exposure, but only a very small amount of infested imported material is likely to be 
disposed of by this method ;  
• home compost ing in gardens and use as animal feed  could increase the likelihood of 
successful  exposure  since suitable host plants are very likely to be available;   
• the reproductive characters of F. virgata  is likely to aid its exposure to a suitable 
host;  
• however the likelihood of the mealybugs locating a suitable host is low, because most 
life stag es have limited mobility  (apart from crawlers) while passive movement by 
wind or phoresy cannot guarantee to locate a suitable host;   
 
MPI considers t he likelihood of F. virgata  being exposed to a suitable host in New Zealand 
from pineapple fruit  to be LOW, with MODERATE uncertainty.  
 
8.3.3.4  Likelihood of establishment  
This assess es the likelihood of  F. virgata  establishing a population if it is  successfully exposed 
to a suitable host plant in the New Zealand environment.  
  
290 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Climate may be a limiting factor for F. virgata  to establish in New Zealand, since this 
mealybug  species is largely found in tropical and subtropical areas . Most countries/area s 
where F. virgata  is reported to be a pest  with annual  overlapping generations share low 
climate similarity (CMI<0.7) with New Zealand, such as lower Egypt (Ammar et al. 1979) , 
south -east A sian areas (Suasa -ard 2010) , central India (Bhat et al. 2014) , central America  
(Hernández -Arenas et al. 2011) , Guangdong and Yunnan in China (Weicai et al. 2013; Bai et 
al. 2017) , and the state of Pernambuco in Brazil (Oliveira et al. 2014b) . 
 
Ferrisia virgata has been reported from  some temperate areas with a high cl imatic similarity 
(CMI>0.7))  to New Zealand, such as northern states in USA and France (CABI 2021) . 
However, directly interpreting  the literature (especially th at published decades ago) may 
result in uncertainties,  due to mis -identification  with F. malvast ra (Ben -Dov 1994)  and the 
new species described by  Kaydan and Gullan (2012) . In Maryland , for example, the presence 
of F. virgata  was first reported by Highland (1956) , and later cited by many scholars, such as 
Ben-Dov (1994) , Kosztarab (1996)  and CABI (20 21). However, F. virgata  is a highly 
polyphagous  and invasive mealybug  species , yet there have been no subsequent reports of 
any impacts or field populations in Maryland. Gullan et al. (2003)  speculated Ferrisia  
specimens from Maryland belonged to a new species. Gullan et al. (2010)  further found that 
some  specimens referred as “ Ferrisia  virgata ” from other temperate /subtropical  states (e.g. 
Arizona, California, Florida, Virginia in the study) were not the true F. virgata . Additionally, 
responding to the revision of the genus Ferrisia  by Kaydan and Gullan (2012) , CDFA (2020)  
considered that  F. virgata  was no longer present in California . Apart from misidentifications, 
some early records of its  distribution  in most  northern countries/areas  may be based on  
greenhouse  collections (CABI 2021) . 
 
In France , the original study referencing  the first record of F. virgata  from France was from 
the French Mediterranean Hyères islands, rather than mainland  France (Foldi 2000) . In a 
more recent study using DNA barcoding to analyse 40 mealybugs populations affecting  crops 
and ornamental plants in urban areas of Egypt and France , no F. virgata  specimens were 
found to be from France  (Abd -Rabou et al. 2012) . There are no other  reports of its presence 
in France or other European countries . This suggests it may not be present, or  at least not 
prevalent  there, because  F. virgata  has a wide range of commercially significant hosts, can 
cause serious economic impacts and is readily detectable  in the field . In Australia, F. virgata  
has only been reported from Western Australia, Northern Territory and Queensland 
(Williams 1985; DAWE 2021; Atlas of Living Australia website 2022) . It does not appear to 
have spread to the southern states d espite having been present in the north for at least 50 
years (Williams 1985) . Despite its invasive potential, an absence of any controls and an 
abundance of hosts , no reports of its presence or impacts in southern states suggests that the 
distribution may be limited by cooler conditions.  
 
There is no clear data for lower thresholds for development. In the study by  Awadallah et al. 
(1979b) , F. virgata  eggs hatched successfully when inc ubated at 16.6 –17.4°C and 71% RH, 
but all nymphs died at the second instar . The authors speculated  that the cool winter weather 
caused the death of all nymphs, without s upport ing experimental data to detail its lifespan at 
such cool temperatures (16.6°C).  This temperature may t heoretically  be near to its real lower 
development threshold . However, most of New Zealand reaches or exceeds this temperature 
during summer (NIWA 2022) , meaning establishment is possible during the warmer season. 
Also, F. virgata may complete a lifecycle in warmer seasons when environmenta l conditions 
are suitable.  For example, development durations from egg to adult are about 26, 20 and 19 
days at 25, 27 and 28 °C in laboratory conditions, while pre -reproductive period of adults is  
291 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  about 19 days at 25 and 27 °C and 16 at 28 °C (Oliveira et al . 2014a) . However, as the average 
temperature for most Northland areas (the warmest part of New Zealand) in the summer 
months are just below 20 °C, the life cycle of F. virgata  is likely to be longer but 
establishment is still possible.  As such, it is likely that summer population s (at least, in the 
northern North Island)  could survive but survival through the winter months is unlikely .  
 
Ferrisia virgata  has a moderate to high fecundity  and reproduces quite rapidly under  tropical 
conditions  (Schreiner 2000) . Although information on whether F. virgata  can reproduce 
uniparentally is contradicted and most study reported that it can only reproduce biparentally, 
both reproduction forms have been reported ( refer to Reproduction in Section 1.1.4 ). The 
likeliho od of biparental mealybug  establishing is lower than that of the uni parenta l mealybug 
since reproduction requires that at least one male and female survive to sexual maturity, and 
mate successfully . If F. virgata  has population that can reproduce uniparentally and if this 
population arrive in New Zealand, this will increase the likelihood of its establishment. 
Mealybugs are gregarious and adult female F. virgata  produce sex pheromones to attract 
adult males, but a dult males are short lived, fragile and do not feed (Awadallah et al. 1979b; 
Tabata and Ichiki 2017) . They are unlikely to survive transit conditions and be introduced 
into New Zealand as adults, though adult males may emerge from pupae.  
 
Host availability  is unlikely to be a limiting factor for establishment since F. virgata  is 
extremely polyphagous . Hosts present in New Zealand include but are not limited to 
economically important crop species, ornamental and garden species.  
 
Greenhouse conditions are lik ely to enable the establishment of a permanent population of 
this mealybug species, t hough these population s may be relatively easy to eradicate in the 
early stages of an invasion . Like other countries, New Zealand uses greenhouses to produce 
many crops su ch as  cucumber, eggplant , tomato  and some ornamentals like Cordyline 
fruticosa  which are able to host F. virgata  (García -Morales et al. 2016) .  
 
Uncertainty  
Most uncertainty is related to the correct identification of F. virgata  (as discussed in the 
Taxonomy section). R ecords of F. virgata  prior to 2012 documenting  its distribution and host 
range may be incorrect and need to be verified . There are no reports s pecific to the lower 
temperature thresholds of this mealybug species. The information describing its 
overwintering behaviours and reproduction mode are inconsistent.  
 
Given that:  
• Ferrisia virgata  has moderate to high fecundity ; 
• although most studies report ed that it can only reproduce biparentally, both uni- and 
biparental reproduction forms have been reported;  
• females produce pheromones to attract males , which increases the likelihood of  
finding a mate , increasing its likelihood of establishment;  
• Ferrisia  virgata  is high ly polyphagous, and acceptable hosts are widely available in 
nature and modified environments in New Zealand ; 
However,  
• climate conditions do not favour establishment throughout New Zealand, but it is 
likely that summer population s in the field  (at least, in the northern North Island ) or 
permanent populations  in protected environments (such as greenhouses and 
glasshouses ) could survive ; 
  
292 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  MPI considers the  likelihood of  F. virgata  establishing  a population  in New Zealand to be 
LOW, with MODERATE uncertainty.  
 
8.3.3.5  Impacts in New Zealand  
This assessment is made on the assumption that F. virgata  has successfully established in the 
New Zealand environment .   
 
Economic impacts  
Ferrisia virgata  is an economically important pest in many tropical and subtropical areas. In 
southeast Mexico, for example, this species is reported as the most important mealybug pest 
in the rambutan orchards  with a mean infestation  of 35%  (Hernández -Arenas et al. 2011) . 
Like other mealybug pests, F. virgata  cluster s around the terminal  shoots, leaves and fruit . 
When the mealybugs suck the sap of the plant, it affects the plant’s nutrient levels and causes 
the plants to yellow, wither and dry. The plant sheds leaves and fruit, its growth is reduced , 
and it may even die. If F. virgata  becomes establish ed in New Zealand, damage to fresh 
produce can  directly impact on productivity  and quality  for various crops . As the mealybug 
species with the widest range of food sources, F. virgata  has the potential to affect many 
cultivated plants of economic importance to New Zealand , including  grapes,  potato es, 
avocado es, tomato es, citrus , sweet potatoes  (kūmura) , watermelons,  cauliflower s, pumpkins, 
beans,  eggplant s, asparagus  and olive s (Hardy  et al, 2007 ). All of these  crops represent an 
approximate  sales value  of NZ$3.37b for New Zealand’s horticultural industries in 2020  
(Plant & Food Research 2020) . Ferrisia virgata  is also reported to be associated with 
Cordyline fruticosa  and Polianthes tuberosa  (García -Morales et al. 2016) , cut flower and 
foliage species in New  Zealand. Damage to ornamental plants would potentially lead to loss 
of market value,  which was NZ$38.5m in 2020 (Plant & Food Research 2020) . Ferrisia 
virgata  can also excrete large quantities of sticky honeydew on foliage and fruit, reducing 
host plants’ photosynthetic capability . Black sooty moulds can grow on the honeydew, which 
would lower the mar ket value of ornamental plants and fresh produce.  
 
However, i mpacts of the mealybug are mainly reported from  tropical and sub -tropical  areas 
and few studies have quantified economic impact s. These countries/areas generally have a 
low climate similarity with New Zealand , where F. virgata  may have fewer generations  
annually  and consequently lower infestation levels.  In Australia, no report s of economic 
impacts have so far been found associated  with its  known hosts  in southern temperate areas.  
Similarly, its impacts in mainland China are only documented in tropical and subtropical 
provinces, such as Guangdong and Yunnan (Weicai et al. 2013; Bai et al. 2017) . 
Ferrisia  virgata  seems unlikely to c ause significant economic impacts in temperate zones . 
Even, taking a 2°C increase in global temperature into consideration, areas down to the 
northern part of the South Island may become suitable for establishment, but significant 
economic impact is still unlikely except possibly for the extreme north. In addition, 
New  Zealand has mature biological control programmes against  mealybugs, with a suite of 
natural enemies (Charles 2004) . The establishment of F. virgata  may only increase the cost to 
control the i mpact of mealybugs as a whole, rather than significantly change current pest 
control programmes  or cause significant e conomic losses  to farmers.  
 
An in -house MPI model 54 predicted a very low level of direct economic impact over 20 
years.  
 
54 Main inputs to the model are grestest level of annual impact, time taken to achieve the greatest impact and time taken to ful l recovery.   
293 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  • Assumptions on affected hosts and level of infestation in New Zealand: given that no 
report found on infestation level/yield loss on any important plant hosts important to 
New Zealand caused by F. virgata  but the mealybug is  known to be able to cause 
damage on plants, 1% – 5% was assumed as the range of greatest level that the 
mealybug can infest a main known host 55. The model only considers the impact in 
Northland, as it is the area where F. virgata  is likely to establish in  New Zealand. 
Plant hosts considered are citrus, sweet corn, kūmara  and grape, which are the main 
hosts of F. virgata  and are considered to be some of the main horticultural crops in 
Northland.  
• Greatest level of annual impact: domestic and export value in  New Zealand for citrus, 
sweet corns, kūmara  and grape are NZ$71m, 64m, 35m and 1857m respectively 56. 
The values for Northland have considered the proportion of production area or 
production of Northland to the whole of New Zealand (18%, 2%, 1%, 0.33% 57). As 
such, annual crop values for citrus, sweet corns, kūmara  and grape in Northland are 
estimated to be NZ$13m, 0.01m, 1.75m and 0.31m respectively. The greatest level of 
annual impact in Northland is 1% - 5% of these values for each crop.  
• It is assumed tha t the mealybug would take five years to achieve the greatest impact 
based on its dispersal capability.  
• As New Zealand already has effective control approaches/programme for mealybugs, 
it is assumed the industries would only take about one year to full reco very.   
 
Establishment of F. virgata  may also result in increased phytosanitary measures required for 
export to countries where the pest is absent.  So far, F. virgata  has not been considered 
present in most European countries. The European market is an important trading partner for 
New Zealand. Egypt, Israel, Japan and South Korea have quarantine regulations for this 
mealybug (ONZPR 2022) . However, the impact on market  access is unlikely to be high, as 
this mealybug is reported from most of New Zealand’s trading partners, such as China, 
Australia and the USA.  In addition, i nfestations of F. virgata  may also result in  some i ndirect 
consequences , such as an increase in pe st control costs and/or potential disruption of existing 
pest control programmes. There could  also be adverse  effects on market access if industry has 
to change current  pest control programmes , for example, shifting  from current low chemical 
production  regimes to high concentrations or those with high toxicity , leaving extra residue  
on commodities .  
 
Ferrisia  virgata  is known to vector at least three plant viruses, CSSV , Cocoa Trinidad virus  
and PVMV , but none of these viruses is known to be associated with  pineapple, and as such, 
the likelihood for these viruses introduced into New Zealand by the mealybug is very low . 
CSSV and PVMV are regulated and Cocoa Trinidad virus  is unassessed, but it is not known 
to be present in New Zealand (Veerakone et al. 2015; NZ Fungi 2022; PPIN 2022) . The host 
plants of CSSV are Adansonia digitata  (baobab), Ceiba pentandra  (kapok), Cola 
chlamydantha , C. gigantea  and Theobroma cacao  (cocoa) (Ameyaw et al. 2014) , which are 
all tropical species. The known hosts of PYMV are Piper nigrum ( black pepper ), P. betle, P. 
argyrophyllum, P. attenuatum, P. barberi, P. colubrinum, P. galeatum, P. longum, P. 
ornatum, P. sarmentosum and P. trichostachyon  (Bhat et al. 2014) . Piper nigrum  and P. betle  
 
55 Host status was attained from CABI (2021).  
56 Export values are attained from  Plant & Food Research (2021)  and domestic values are from Plant & Food Research (2020)  as there is no 
domestic values on specific crops available from the 2021 report; kūmara only has domestic value and grape only has expor t value  from 
these reports .  
57 The value for grape is percentage of production; the values for other crops are percentage of production area (Plant & Food Research 
2021) .  
  
294 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  are present in New Zealand (NZOR 2022) , but the distribution is unlikely to be nationally 
wide because of their tropical  nature.  
 
Uncertainty  
There is uncertainty around the extent to which current and future climate will influence the 
mealybug’s establishment and spread and around its potential impacts under these two 
scenarios. There is also uncertainty around trade impacts if the Mealybug were to establish 
here.  
 
Given that:  
• many cultivated plants of economic importance to New Zealand  are known hosts of 
F. virgata ; 
• controlling F. virgata  could increase production  costs for a number of crops , but the 
impact is likely to be limited as current mealybug control  programmes in New 
Zealand are likely to assist in control of F. virgata  populations ; 
• there could be reduced market access overseas for some of New Zealand’s export 
crops , but this impact is unlikely to be high as it is reported from most of New 
Zealand’s trading partners, su ch as China, Australia and the USA ; 
• the mild temperate climate in New Zealand is likely to limit the impact of F. virgata ; 
• F. virgata  can transmit viruses but the plants these viruses can affect are not of 
economic importance to New Zealand , and these viruses are not associated with 
pineapple ; 
• Global climate change may move the southern limit of F. virgata ’s distribution 
further south in the future, resulting in some uncertainties in assessing its impacts;  
 
MPI considers the economic impact of  F. virgat a in New Zealand to be VERY LOW, with 
MODERATE uncertainty.  
 
Environmental impacts  
Ferrisia virgata  has a broad host range, and t wo plant species attacked by F. virgata  overseas 
are Piper betel  and Piper nigrum . The family Piperaceae is represented by a v ery common 
native species Piper excelsu m, which is widespread in coastal areas of New Zealand. Three 
subspecies, Piper excelsum  subsp. delangei , P. excelsum  subsp. peltatum , and P. excelsum  
subsp. psittacorum , have “at risk” conservation status  (NZPCN 2022) . There is the potential 
for F. virgata  to attack these plants as an alternative host. However,  many areas where this 
species  has populations are likely to be climatically unsuitable for F. virgata . 
 
Species of Cordyline , Ipomoea , Canavalia , Euphorbia , and Sophora  are all documented hosts 
of F. virgata . New Zealand has native species in these genera that have “at risk” conservation 
status  (NZPCN 2022) : Co. obtecta  (Three Kings cabbage tree), I. cairica , I. pescaprae subsp.  
brasiliensis , Ca. rosea , E. glauca , S. fulvida  (Kowhai), S. longicarinata  and S. molloyi . 
Potential impact s by F. virgata  on these species cannot be ruled out.  Exotic sapsuckers (both 
polyphages and oligophages) have been reported attacking native woody pl ants in New 
Zealand, however their impacts appear to be mostly minor (Brockerhoff et al. 2010) . In 
addition, Beever et al. (2007)  state “there is no evidence of any detrimental impact of 
currently adventive polyphagous insect species on populations of nati ve New Zealand plants. 
Highly damaging polyphagous species appear exceptional,  and it has been postulated that the 
impact of relatively specialised organisms is likely to be greater than highly polyphagous 
species ”. 
  
295 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Because F. virgata  may affect  native Piper  species, potential environmental impacts of 
PVMV  vectored by the mealybugs cannot be ruled out. However, the risk posed by vectors is 
generally unlikely to be high, because  successful introduction of the pathogen that requires 
the vector to: i) acquire the pathogen from its host ( pineapple ); ii) remain infectious during 
transit and after arrival in New Zealand ; and then iii) successfully find and transmit the 
pathogen to another suitable plant host (native Piper  species ) in which the pathogen is able to 
establish (and cause unwanted impacts).  Given that  i) no association is found between PVMV  
and pineapple fruit, ii) no association is documented between PVMV  and native P. excelsum  
species, and iii) most life stages of F. virgata  have limited mo bility , the environmental 
impact of PVMV  transmitted by F. virgata  is considered negligible .  
 
If F. virgata  becomes established in New Zealand  and needs to be controlled , the application 
of insecticide s, especially of broad -spectrum chemicals, would be likely to have adverse 
impacts on native invertebrates and also on the soil and aquatic environment . However, given 
that New Zealand has established chemical treatments against mealybugs, t he incursion of F. 
virgata  is unlikely to lead to a new high environmental risk.  
 
Uncertainty  
There is no information directly indicating that F. virgata  could impact New Zealand native 
species.  
 
Given that:  
• Ferrisia virgata  is likely to attack the native species P. excelsum, but many areas 
where P. excelsum  has populations are unlikely to be climatically suitable for F. 
virgata ; 
• Ferrisia virgata  may attack some plant species that have nationally threatened 
conservation status , but there is very little evidence that of exotic sapsuckers  
(particularly polyphagous species) having significant impacts on New Zealand 
indigenous species and ecosystems ; and  
• insecticides or other chemical that may be deployed during an incursion of F. virgata  
are unlikely to have serious environmental impacts;  
 
Because of this, MPI considers the environmental  impact of  F. virgata  in New Zealand  to be  
VERY LOW, with MODERATE uncertainty.  
 
Human health impacts  
There is no evidence that F. virgata  causes direct human or animal health impacts .  
 
This mealybug may impact human activities  indirectly. Vespula  wasps are attracted to 
honeydew excreted by some insects, and high numbers of wasps in recreational, urban or  
other areas may adversely impact health (painful stings or allergy to stings) and social 
activities. However, as there are already many sap -sucking insects in New Zealand that can 
produce honeydew, the impact is likely to be minor.  
 
Pesticide application activities responding to the outbreak of F. virgata  may result to some 
health and safety issues to human, if the applicators practise incorrectly. However, as 
New  Zealand has developed successful pest control programmes against mealybugs, the 
negative impa ct may be minor.  
 
Given that:   
296 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  • many honeydew -producing insects are already present in New Zealand, and new 
human health impacts via wasps  attack induced by F. virgata  is unlikely to be 
serious; and  
• New Zealand has successful pest control programmes against mealybugs;   
 
MPI considers t he human health  impact of  F. virgata  in New Zealand to be  NEGLIGIBLE , 
with LOW uncertainty.  
 
Sociocultural impacts  
Kūmara (sweet potato) and taro are hosts of F. virgata  (CABI 2019, 2021) , and they are of 
cultural importance to Māori  and Pacific Islanders . However, no information was found that 
this mealybug species can cause significant yield losses to the production of root crops such 
as taro and kūmara .  
 
Vespula  wasps are attracted to honeydew excreted by some insects, and high numbers of 
wasps in recreational, urban or other areas may adversely impact on health (painful stings or 
allergy to stings) and social activities. However, climate conditions in N ew Zealan d can’t  
favour wide establishment of F. virgata , and consequently the  mealybug populations are 
unlikely to  be high enough to  increase the wasp population to a noticeable level across New 
Zealand.  
 
Given that  F. virgata  can attack kūmara and taro which are  of cultural importance to Māori 
and Pacific communities, but the impacts is unlikely to be high . MPI considers t he 
sociocultural impact of F. virgata  in New Zealand to be VERY LOW , with MODERATE 
uncertainty .  
 
8.3.3.6  Overall impact to New Zealand  
MPI considers t he overall impact of F. virgata  on the New Zealand economy, environment, 
health and society is LOW , with  MODERATE uncertainty .  
 
8.3.3.7  Overall risk to New Zealand  
Based on the assessments of lik elihood and consequences above, that:  
 
• the lik elihood of entry is LOW with MODERATE uncertainty;  
• assuming entry, the likelihood of exposure is LOW with MODERATE uncertainty;  
• assuming successful exposure, the likelihood of establishment is LOW with 
MODERATE uncertainty; and  
• the overall impact  of this mealybug  on the New Zealand economy, environment, 
human health and society would  be LOW with MODERATE uncertainty;  
 
MPI considers t he overall level of risk to New Zealand from  F. virgata  on pineapple fruit  to 
be VERY LOW , with MODERATE  uncertainty . 
 
 Specific considerations  
On which pineapple variety (or varieties) and at what stage of rip eness has F. virgata  
association with pineapple fruit been observed?   
297 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  MPI found nothing in the literature associating F. virgata  with the stage of ripeness or with 
specific pineapple varieties.  
• A study of this mealybug species’ host preference and establishment on four cotton 
cultivars in Brazil reported that the presence o f F. virgata  was unlikely to be affected 
by morphological differences between plant cultivars, such as leaf variation (e.g. size, 
texture and the presence of trichomes) and plant development stage (da Silva -Torres 
et al. 2013)  
• As a sap -sucking insect, howe ver, the performance (and subsequent infestation level) 
of mealybugs is believed to be affected by the composition and concentration of 
nutrients  in phloem sap of the host plants .  
o Oliveira et al. (2014a)  confirmed that nitrogen fertilisation and water str ess 
can affect the offspring production of F. virgata .  
 
Which part of the pineapple fruit is F. virgata  associated with (e.g. fruit, bract, stem or 
crown remnant) and is it visually detectable?  
MPI found no  specific information on which  parts of the pineapple fruit F. virgata  prefers .  
• As a sap -sucking insect , F. virgata  can theoretically feed on any part of the host plant 
where its mouthparts can be inserted and where phloem sap  is available.  
o For example, s ome studies on cotton found that F. virgata  crawlers could 
infest all plant structures including leaves, petioles, stem, fruiting buds , 
flowers and open bolls (da Silva -Torres et al, 2013; Oliveira et al, 2014).  
• However, many mealybug species are rarely found in direct sunlight  and they lik e to 
conceal themselves . They tend to settle on the underside of leaves, inside the calyx of 
sepals, and in axils or under bark  in the field.  
 
As such, F. virgata  is likely to be associated with every structure associated with pineapple 
fruit (e.g. the fruit, bract, stem or crown remnant) , increasing difficulties for phytosanitary 
inspection . 
 
Are different life stages of the F. virgata  associated with different pa rts of the pineapple 
fruit?  
No information was found to specify the life stages of F. virgata  on pineapple fruit. 
Theoretically , however, all development life stages (except eggs and adult males) of F. 
virgata  are believed to be associated with pineapple f ruit because phloem sap is available.  
• In the field , a study on Acalypha macrophylla  in Egypt showed that the preferred 
oviposition sites were the lower surface of leaves and the junction of the petiole with 
the stem (Awadallah et al. 1979 a). As such, eggs are likely not associated with 
decrowned pineapple fruit, but the possibility of eggs on fruit cannot be ruled out, 
because the crown may not always be fully removed.  
• In the pineapple industry , the most common and important mealybug species  are 
Dysmicoccus brevipes  and D. grassii , which affect aerial roots, leaves, stems, fruit 
and crowns of pineapple s (Sipes and Wang 2017) .   
• Adult males are able to fly and the first -instar nymphs are very mobile . Other life 
stages are less mobile when they  are on suitable food sources . They may hide under 
the bract of pineapple fruit.  
• Taking cold storage during transit into consideration, F. virgata  adult females may be 
more commonly associated with pineapple fruits than other life stages. The viable 
interceptions at the New Zealand border by far are mainly female adults (LIMS 2022)  
despite that female adults are more detectable  than other life stages . Also, Ata et al. 
(2019) observed only female adults present on shrub’s leave s in their survey during  
298 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  the w inter in Egypt.  Ammar et al. (1979) wrote that F. virgata  probably overwinters 
as adult females.  
 
Does F. virgata  burrow into the fruit without obvious symptoms, hide under the 
pineapple bract OR exhibits  latent/asymptomatic traits?  
• There are no reports of F. virgata  burrow ing into the plant as a borer.  
• Like most other mealybugs, F. virgata  lives on the plant surface  and feeds by 
inserting its mouthparts into the plant phloem. It may hide in protected parts of the 
pineapple surface, including bracts, reducing the likelihood of visual detection.  
 
 References  
Abd-Rabou, S; Shalaby, H; Germain, J -F; Ris , N; Kreiter, P; Malausa, T (2012) Identification 
of mealybug pest species (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) in Egypt and France, using a DNA 
barcoding approach. Bulletin of Entomological Research 102(5): 515 -523. 
 
Ameyaw, G; Dzahini -Obiatey, H; Domfeh, O (2014)  Perspectives on cocoa swollen shoot 
virus disease (CSSVD) management in Ghana. Crop Protection 65: 64 -70. 
 
Ammar, E; Awadallah, K; Rashad, A (1979) Ecological studies on Ferrisia virgata CKLL. on 
Acalypha shrubs in Dokki, Giza (Homoptera, Pseudococcidae).  Deutsche Entomologische 
Zeitschrift 26(4‐5): 207 -213. 
 
Ata, T; El -Awady, S; El -Khouly, A; Metwally, M (2019) Population Density of the Striped 
Mealybug Ferrisia virgata (Ckll.)(Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) on the Ornamental Corn 
Shrubs, Dracena fragrans in Relation to Biotic and Abiotic Factors in Al -Zohria Gardens, 
Cairo, Egypt. Journal of Plant Protection and Pathology 10(2): 141 -146. 
 
Atlas of Living Australia website (2022) Ferrisia virgata  (Cockerell, 1893). 
https://bie.ala.org.au/species/urn:lsid:biodiversity.org.au:afd.taxon:453b3ac6 -2824 -4519 -
b96a -cf30b1881e8c  Accessed 09 May  
 
Awadallah, K; Ammar, E; Rashad, A (1979a) Description of Immature Stages of the White 
Mealy‐Bug, Ferrisia virgata (Ckll.)(Homoptera, Pseudococcidae). Deutsche Entomologische 
Zeitschrift 26(1‐3): 9 -20. 
 
Awadallah, K; Ammar, E; Tawfik, M; Rashad, A (1979b) Life‐History of the White Mealy —
Bug Ferrisia virgata (Ckll.)(Homoptera, Pseudococcidae). Deutsche Entomologische 
Zeitschrift 26(1‐3): 101 -110. 
 
Bai, X; Wu, G; Shao, W; Zhang, H; Zhou, H; Li, J (2017) Pre liminary report on occurence of 
Ferrisia Virgata  infesting coffee in Yunnan province ( 云南咖啡害虫双条拂粉蚧发生初报 , 
in Chinese). Chinese Journal of tropical agriculture 37(6): 35 -37. 
 
Beever, R E; Harman, H; Waipara, N; Paynter, Q; Barker, G; Burns, B (2007) Native Flo ra 
Biosecurity Impact Assessment  (Unpublished Landcare Research report LC0607/196 to MAF 
Biosecurity New Zealand). Landcare Research,  
  
299 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Ben-Dov, Y (1994) A systematic catalogue of the mealybugs of the world (Insecta: 
Homoptera: Coccoidea: Pseudococcidae an d Putoidae) with data on geographical 
distribution, host plants, biology and economic importance. Intercept Limited; Andover UK.  
 
Bhat, A; Devasahayam, S; Sarma, Y; Pant, R (2003) Association of a badnavirus in black 
pepper (Piper nigrum L.) transmitted by  mealybug (Ferrisia virgata) in India. Current 
Science : 1547 -1550.  
 
Bhat, A; Sasi, S; Revathy, K; Deeshma, K; Saji, K (2014) Sequence diversity among 
badnavirus isolates infecting black pepper and related species in India. VirusDisease 25(3): 
402-407. 
 
BiotaNZ (2022) Biota of New Zealand. https://biotaNZ.landcareresearch.co.nz  Accessed 
30/04/2022  
 
Brockerhoff, E G; Barratt, B I; Beggs, J R; Fagan, L L; Malcolm, K; Phillips, C B; Vink, C J 
(2010) Impacts  of exotic invertebrates on New Zealand’s indigenous species and ecosystems. 
New Zealand Journal of Ecology 34(1): 158 -174. 
 
CABI (2019) Carpophilus mutilatus (flower beetle). 
https://www.cabi.org/is c/datasheet/11361   
 
CABI (2021) Ferrisia virgata (striped mealybug). https://www.cabi.org/cpc/datasheet/23981   
 
Camelo, A F L (2004) Manual for the preparation and sale of fruits and vegetables: from  field 
to market (Vol. 151). Food & Agriculture Org.  
 
CDFA (2020) California Pest Rating Proposal, Ferrisia virgata (Cockerell): striped mealybug 
Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae, Current Rating: B, Proposed Rating: A. California Department 
of Food and Agricultur e, https://blogs.cdfa.ca.gov/Section3162/wp -
content/uploads/2020/07/Ferrisia -virgata -1.pdf  
 
Charles, J (2004) Mealybug insecticide resistance management  strategy. Pesticide resistance: 
Prevention and management Strategies . 
 
Culik, M P; dos Santos Martins, D; Gullan, P J (2006) First records of two mealybug species 
in Brazil and new potential pests of papaya and coffee. Journal of Insect Science 6(1).  
 
da Silva -Torres, C S A; de Oliveira, M D; Torres, J B (2013) Host selection and 
establishment of striped mealybug, Ferrisia virgata, on cotton cultivars. Phytoparasitica 
41(1): 31 -40. 
 
DAWE (2021) Final Pest Risk Analysis for Cut Flower and Foliage Imports —Part 2 . 
Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment, Canberra, 
https://www.awe.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/final -report-cut-flowers -foliage -
imports -part-2.pdf  
 
DAWR (2019) Final group pest risk analysis for mealybugs and the viruses they transmit on 
fresh fruit, vegetable, cut flower and foliage imports. Department of Agriculture and Water 
Resources, Canberra,  
300 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  https://www.awe.gov.au/sites/default/files/sitecollectiondocuments/biosecurity/risk -
analysis/group -pest/draft -mealybug s-report.pdf  
 
EPPO (2022) EPPO Reporting Service. https://gd.eppo.int/reporting/   
 
Foldi, I (2000) Diversity and modification of the scale insects communities of the Hyères 
islands in natural and man -modified environments (Hemiptera: Coccoidea). In Annales de la 
Société Entomologique de France  (Vol. 36, pp. 75 -94): Paris: La Societe.  
 
Franco, J C; Zada, A; Mendel, Z (2009) Novel approaches for the management of mealybug 
pests. Biorational control of arthropod p ests. Springer.  
 
García -Morales, M; Denno, B; Miller, G; Ben -Dov, Y; Hardy, N (2016) A literature base 
model of scale insect biology and systematics  (Publication no. 10.1093/database/bav118). 
http://scalenet.info   
 
Gullan, P; Downie, D ; Steffan, S (2003) A new pest species of the mealybug genus Ferrisia 
Fullaway (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) from the United States. Annals of the Entomological 
Society of America 96(6): 723 -737. 
 
Gullan, P J; Kaydan, M B; Hardy, N B (2010) Molecular phyloge ny and species recognition 
in the mealybug genus Ferrisia Fullaway (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae). Systematic 
Entomology 35(2): 329 -339. 
 
Haviland, D R; Beede, R H; Daane, K M (2012) Seasonal phenology of Ferrisia gilli 
(Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) in commerci al pistachios. Journal of Economic Entomology 
105(5): 1681 -1687.  
 
Hernández -Arenas, M G; Nieto -Ángel, D; Téliz -Ortiz, D; Martínez -Damián, M T; Nava -
Díaz, C; Bautista -Martínez, N (2011) Ferrisia virgata (Cockerell)(Hemiptera: 
Pseudococcidae) and Formicidae Associated with Rambutan (Nephelium lappaceum L.) in 
Southeast Mexico. Southwestern Entomologist 36(3): 379.  
 
Highland, H A (1956) The biology of Ferrisiana virgata, a pest of azaleas. Journal of 
Economic Entomology 49(2): 276 -277. 
 
Hoffman, M; Duan, Y; Zh ou, L; Stocks, I; Hall, D (2011) Is the striped mealybug, Ferrisia 
virgata, a vector of huanglongbing bacterium Candidatus Liberibacter asiaticus. 
Phytopathology 101. 
 
Huang, S; Wang, T (2016) A revised checklist of insects and mites of pineapple from 
Taiw an. [in Chinese]. Journal of Taiwan Agricultural Research 65(4).  
 
Hughes, W A; Lister, C A (1953) Lime dieback in the Gold Coast, a virus disease of the lime, 
Citrus aurantifolia  (Christmann) Swingle. The Journal of Horticultural Science and 
Biotechnology 28(2): 131 -140. 
 
Jamieson, L; Page -Weir, N; Chhagan, A; Olsson, S; Connolly, P (2010) High pressure 
waterwashing to remove pests from capsicums. New Zealand Plant Protection 63: 118 –122. 
  
301 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Kaydan, M; Gullan, P (2012) A taxonomic revision of the mealybug genus Ferrisia Fulla way 
(Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae), with descriptions of eight new species and a new genus. 
Zootaxa 3543(1): 1 -65. 
 
Kosztarab, M (1996) Scale Insects of North Eastern North America: identification, biology, 
and distribution. Scale Insects of North Eastern Nor th America: identification, biology, and 
distribution.  
 
LIMS (2022) Laboratory Information Management System. Ministry for Primary Industries 
internal database. Accessed 11/04/2022  
 
Mani, M; Shivaraju, C (2016) Mode of spread of mealybugs. Mealybugs and th eir 
Management in Agricultural and Horticultural crops. Springer.  
 
McCorquodale, A; Hodges, A (2017) Striped Mealybug Ferrisia virgata Cockerell (Insecta: 
Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae).  
 
Mendel, Z; Podoler, H; Rosen, D (1984) Population dynamics of the Medite rranean black 
scale, Saissetia oleae (Olivier), on citrus in Israel. 4. The natural enemies. Journal of the 
Entomological Society of South Africa 47(1): 1 –21. 
 
Mensah, S (2017) Development and trial of a methodology for the quantification and 
evaluation of  home composting in Palmerston North, New Zealand: a thesis submitted in 
partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Environmental Management 
(without major) at Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand. thesis; Massey 
Univers ity,  
 
N'Guessan, P W; Yapi, A; N'Guessan, F K; Kouamé, N N D; Gouamené, C N; Aka, R A; 
Coulibaly, K; Tahi, M G; Koné, B; Kassin, E K (2019) Inventory and abundance of 
mealybug species in immature and mature cocoa farms in Côte d'Ivoire. Journal of Applied  
Entomology 143(10): 1065 -1071.  
 
Nabil, D; Amin, A; Elsahn, O; Yousef, E E (2020) Some Ecological Aspects on the Striped 
Mealybug Ferrisia virgata (Cockerell) Infesting Acalypha Shrubs in Qalyubiya Governorate, 
Egypt. Arab Universities Journal of Agricultu ral Sciences 28(1): 337 -348. 
 
NIWA (2022) Aotearoa New Zealand Climate Summary: Summer 2021 -22. National Institute 
of Water and Atmospheric Research, 
https://niwa.co .nz/sites/niwa.co.nz/files/Climate_Summary_Summer_Final.pdf  
 
NZ Fungi (2022) New Zealand fungi and bacteria (NZFUNGI). 
http//nzfungi.landcareresearch.co.nz Accessed 06.07.2020  
 
NZOR (2022) The New Zealand Organisms Register. http://nzor.org.nz  Accessed 19 
February 2022  
 
NZPCN (2022) New Zealand Plant Conservation Network. https://www.nzpcn.org.nz/  
Accessed 12/04/2022  
  
302 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Oliveira, M; Barbosa, P; Silva -Torres, C; Torres, J (2014a) Performance of the striped 
mealybug Ferrisia virgata Cockerell (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) under variable conditions 
of temperature and mating. Neotropical Entomology 43(1): 1 -8. 
 
Oliveira, M D; S ilva-Torres, C S; Torres, J B; Oliveira, J E M (2014b) Population growth and 
within -plant distribution of the striped mealybug Ferrisia virgata (Cockerell)(Hemiptera, 
Pseudococcidae) on cotton. Revista Brasileira de Entomologia 58(1): 71 -76. 
 
ONZPR (2022) Official New Zealand Pest Register. MPI Public Database. 
https://pierpestregister.mpi.govt.nz/PestsRegister/ImportCommodity/  Accessed 09 February 
2022  
 
Pandey, P K; Cao, W;  Biswas, S; Vaddella, V (2016) A new closed loop heating system for 
composting of green and food wastes. Journal of cleaner production 133: 1252 -1259.  
 
Phillips, C B; Kean, J M; Vink, C J; Berry, J A (2018) Utility of the CLIMEX ‘match 
climates regional’ a lgorithm for pest risk analysis: an evaluation with non -native ants in New 
Zealand. Biological Invasions : 1–15. 
 
Pitino, M; Hoffman, M T; Zhou, L; Hall, D G; Stocks, I C; Duan, Y (2014) The phloem -sap 
feeding mealybug (Ferrisia virgata) carries ‘Candidatus  Liberibacter asiaticus’ populations 
that do not cause disease in host plants. PloS one 9(1): e85503.  
 
Plant & Food Research (2020) Fresh Facts: New Zealand Horticulture . Plant & Food 
Research, Auckland, New Zealand.  
 
Plant & Food Research (2021) Fresh Fa cts: New Zealand Horticulture . Plant & Food 
Research, Auckland, New Zealand.  
 
PPIN (2022) Plant Pest Information Network, Version 5.03.01. Ministry for Primary 
Industries Internal Database. Accessed 9 February 2022  
 
Schreiner, I (2000) Striped Mealybug (F errisia virgata [Cockerel]).  
 
Sipes, B; Wang, K H (2017) Pests, diseases and weeds. Handbook of pineapple technology: 
production, postharvest science, processing and nutrition. Chichester: Wiley: 62 -88. 
 
Spodek, M; Ben -Dov, Y; Mondaca, L; Protasov, A; Erel , E; Mendel, Z (2018) The cotton 
mealybug, Phenacoccus solenopsis Tinsley (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) in Israel: pest 
status, host plants and natural enemies. Phytoparasitica 46(1): 45 -55. 
 
Suasa -ard, W (2010) Natural enemies of important insect pests of f ield crops and utilization 
as biological control agents in Thailand. In Proceedings of International Seminar on 
Enhancement of Functional Biodiversity Relevant to Sustainable Food Production in ASPAC  
(pp. 9 -11). 
 
Tabata, J; Ichiki, R T (2017) (1S, 3R) -cis-Chrysanthemyl tiglate: sex pheromone of the 
striped mealybug, Ferrisia virgata. Journal of chemical ecology 43(8): 745 -752. 
 
Thorold, C A (1975) Diseases of cocoa. Diseases of cocoa.   
303 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand   
Veerakone, S; Tang, J Z; Ward, L I; Liefting, L W; Perez -Egusquiza, Z; Lebas, B S M; 
Delmiglio, C; Fletcher, J D; Guy, P L (2015) A review of the plant virus, viroid, liberibacter 
and phytoplasma records for New Zealand. Australasian Plant Pathology 44(5):  463-514. 
 
Vigneswaran, S; Rani, W B; Kalyanasundaram, M; Shanthi, M (2016) Biology and 
Morphometric Studies of Two Tailed Mealybug Ferrisia virgata Cockerell (Pseudococcidae: 
Hemiptera) with Four C. indica Wight and Arn. Cultivars. Advances in Life Scienc es 5(4): 
1379 - 1381.  
 
Weicai, L; Yanbiao, H; Rulin, Z; Yicheng, W; Shengyou, S; Yongzan, W (2013) Occurrence 
and Damage of Ferrisia virgata Cockerell on Longan (Dimocarpus longgana Lour.) in 
Guangdong Province of China. Plant Diseases and Pests 4(1): 13.  
 
White, P M, L; de Roode, J (2017) Phoresy. Current Biology 27(12): R578 -R580.  
 
Whyte, C F; Adams, R L; Richmond, J E; Cowley, J M; Baker, R T (1994) Experimental 
analysis of pest risk factors. An analysis of some biological survival factors used in Pest Risk 
Assessment.  Lynfield Plant Protection Centre Publications No. 2. 18pp.,  
 
Williams, D J (1985) Australian mealybugs . British Museum (Natural History).  
 
 
 
 
  
304 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  8.4 Planococcus minor  (Pacific mealybug)  
Planococcus minor  is a polyphagou s mealybug that has been recorded on a wide range of 
plant hosts, including pineapple ( Ananas comosus ). It is widely distributed geographically 
and a commonly occurring species in regions where Theobroma cacao  (cacao) is grown. Its 
feeding behaviour and ex cretion of honeydew affect the development of the plant and the 
productivity and marketability of the fruit.  
 
 Taxonomic description  
Scientific name: Planococcus minor  (Maskell, 1897)   
Order : Hemiptera           Family: Pseudococcidae   
Other names: Planococcus pacificus  Cox, Pseudococcus minor , Planococcus psidii Cox, 
Pseudococcus calceolariae  var. minor  Maskell , Dactylopius calceolariae  var. minor  Maskell 
(Cox 1989; García -Morales et al. 2016; CABI 2021) ; passionvine mealybug  
 
Taxonomic n otes:   
The identification of Planococcus  species is difficult. Some species are only recognizable by 
small differences such as the number of tubular ducts on the underside of their abdomen 
(Williams and Watson 1988) . The identification of species is further complicated by the 
morphological variation that occurs as a result of the conditions under which individuals 
develop. For exa mple, Cox (1983)  demonstrated that P. citricus  Ezzat & McConnell is a high 
temperature form of P. citri . The characteristics that distinguish species may be different for 
different sized individuals and are not easily distinguishable when they are immature  
(Venette and Davis 2004) . Therefore, i t is no surprise that since its description in 1897,  
P. minor  has been synonymized with the nearly identical P. citri  (Santa -Cecília et al. 2002) . 
Molecular analyses have been conducted on Planoccoccus  specimens from  various parts of 
the world and the results indicate that the differentiation between P. minor  and P. citri  is 
valid (Rung et al. 2008) . Morphological differentiation using Cox scores (i.e., matrix of 
characters scored using a point system) between P. mino r and P. citri  can only be made with 
females ; and males can only be distinguished by molecular analyses  (Stocks and Roda 2011) . 
However, Rung et al. (2008)  study suggest that morphological identification using Cox scores 
can be used to accurately identify P. minor  females but it is not reliable to use for P. citri  
females . 
 
 Hazard identification  
Planococcus minor  is not known to be present in New Zealand.  
• There is no entry of Planococcus minor  in NZOR (2022) , BiotaNZ (2022)  or PPIN 
(2022) . 
• Planococcus minor  is a regulated pest for New Zealand in ONZPR (2022) . 
 
Planococcus minor  has the potential to establish  a population and  spread in New Zealand . 
• It is a polyphagous species and many of its recorded hosts are present in  
New Zealand.  
• The fem ale has a high reproductive rate, is long -lived and can produce multiple 
generations in a year.  
• It is reported in regions with similar climates to New Zealand.  
• It is invasive and can establish a population when introduced to new areas.   
305 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  • First-instar mealybu gs (crawlers) can be dispersed long distances by wind.  
 
Planococcus minor  has the potential to cause harm to  New Zealand . 
• It has the potential to harm plants of economic importance to New Zealand . 
• It has the potential to indirectly harm the New Zealand environment . 
• It has potential to cause sociocultural impacts by affecting taonga .  
• It has the potential to indirectly cause human health impact s by supporting 
populations of harmful ant species.  
 
Planococcus minor  is associated with pineapple fruit.  
• Planococcus minor  was recorded on pineapple by  Williams (1982)  and subsequently 
listed in  Williams and Watson (1988)  and Ben-Dov (1994) . 
• Planococcus minor   has been intercepted twice on pineapple fruit at the New Zealand 
border.  
 
Given the arguments and evidence above , MPI considers Planococcus minor  to be a hazard 
on decrowned Ananas comosus (pineapple) fruit (as described in the commodity description) 
imported to New Zealand.  
 
 Risk assessment  
8.4.3.1  Biology   
Description  
Mealybugs are small slow -moving insects with soft, segmented oval bodies which are 
covered with a white sticky powder (Mani and Shivaraju 2016) . There are slight variations 
among the species, but mealybugs such as Planococcus citri  and P. ficus  generally have three 
larval instars for the female and four instars for the male (Gullan 2000; Wakgari and 
Giliomee 2005) . Each of the instars resemble the previous except for an increase in size and 
the amount of wax secreted (Daane et al. 2012) . Female adults are approximately 2 –3.5 mm 
long, 1.5 mm in width and wingless. As they mature, they become less mobile. The females 
generally have a light -yellow body colour that may be obscured by a light dusting of white 
powdery wax  (Roda et al. 2013) . Elongated projections of denser wax can be found around 
the circumference of the body. Females are often accompanied by their ovisac, a larger and 
fluffier patch of wax which contains light yellow eggs and crawlers (i.e., first instar 
mealybugs). In heav y infestations, eggs, crawlers, immatures, and adult females can be found 
distributed on the same patch of wax (Stocks and Roda 2011) . Males undergo a prepupal 
stage after the fourth instar and emerge as winged adults. The male is about 1.5 mm in length 
with long wings, a brown body and multisegmented antennae (Daane et al. 2012) . Males do 
not feed and are very fragile and short -lived (Francis et al. 2012; Manners and Duff 2015) . 
 
Biology  
The optimal temperature for P. minor  development and reproduction is 25°C but it is able to 
develop and reproduce at temperatures between 20°C and 31°C (Francis et al. 2012) . The low 
temperature threshold and the overwintering mechanisms of P. minor  are unknown but 
closely related species such as P. citri , overwinters prima rily as eggs on the upper roots, trunk 
and lower branches of the host plant (Roda et al., 2013).  
 
Eggs appear brown, desiccated and fail to hatch when exposed for 15 days at 15°C or 35°C. 
The mean total duration of development of females was reported to be  49 d at 20 °C and  
306 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  approximately half that (27 days) at 29°C (Francis et al. 2012) . Under laboratory conditions, 
the time to complete a single generation ranges from 31 to 50 days at 26°C (Martinez and 
Surís 1998)  and Francis et al. (2012)  reported 49 days  at 20°C.  The development time for 
males is longer than for females (Maity et al. 1998) . 
 
It is likely that the mode of reproduction of P. minor  is sexual since Francis et al. (2012)  
demonstrated that in the absence of adult males, a virgin female did not  produce eggs. In 
addition, there are reports of both females and males occurring in populations and no reports 
of only female populations (Sahoo and Ghosh 2001) . 
 
In warm climates, P. minor  stays active and reproduces throughout the year (Ben -Dov 1994)  
and is able to complete up to 10 generations per year (Bastos et al. 2007) . The pre -oviposition 
period is about 15 days at 20°C and approximately eight days at 29°C and the optimal 
temperature for egg production is 20°C (270 eggs) (Francis et al. 2012) .  Egg  production in 
mealybugs is not only influenced by temperature but also by the number of matings and by 
food supply (Zaviezo et al. 2010; Waterworth et al. 2011) . Therefore, egg production can 
range from 50 eggs to over 800 eggs per female (Daane et al. 20 12). Eggs require as few as 
two to five days to hatch at 26°C and 69% RH (Martinez and Surís 1998) . Females live 
longer than males. Females and male adults live approximately 34 days and around four days 
at 20°C, respectively (Francis et al. 2012) . 
 
Ecolog y 
Mealybug nymphs and adult females have piercing –sucking mouthparts, which they insert 
into the plant’s vascular tissue and which can remain in place through several moults, 
ingesting plant sap (Roda et al. 2013) . The feeding preference of P. minor  on pin eapple plants 
is unknown but according to observations by Bastos et al. (2007)  in cotton plants, P. minor  
prefer the growing parts of the plant, such as shoots and buds but are able to infest all parts of 
the plant, if there is no other option available.  
 
In Brazil, the highest infestation rates of P. minor  on cotton plantations were evident at times 
of low rainfall and high temperatures (Bastos et al. 2007) . The lowest temperature tolerance 
and overwintering mechanism for P. minor  is unknown. However, other Planococcus  species 
such as P. citri , overwinter (but do not diapause) primarily as eggs on the upper roots, trunk 
and lower branches of the host plant. Other mealybug species overwinter in the soil or under 
the bark as late -instar nymphs or adult females (Roda et al. 2013) . 
 
Feeding of Planococcus spp. varies seasonally, and therefore, the plant locality where the 
mealybugs feed is variable (Becerra et al . 2006) . For example, the location of P. ficus  on 
grapevine varies according to the seasonal temperatures by moving from roots and trunk in 
winter to shoots, leaves and fruit in the spring to summer period (Becerra et al. 2006) .  
 
The population dynamics o f Planococcus  spp. are difficult to predict because plant host 
susceptibility can vary widely. For example, infestation levels of P. citri  can fluctuate 
spatially, even on plants in close proximity, and can vary from one year to the next (Miller 
and Koszta rab 1976) . 
 
Geographical distribution  
Planococcus minor  is currently reported from at least 100 countries  or regions (Cox 1989; 
Bastos et al. 2007; Aguiar 2009; Stocks and Roda 2011; Miller et al. 2014; Leathers 2016; 
CABI 2021) . This mealybug is native of  South Asia and it is known to be predominantly  
307 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  present in the South Pacific Islands (Williams and Watson 1988; Cox 1989)  but has 
established in the Caribbeans, Central and South America, Europe, Africa and further in other 
parts of Oceania (Stocks and Rod a 2011; Leathers 2016) .  
 
Most of P. minor  occurrences are in places with lower Climate Matching Index (CMI) with 
New Zealand (0.4 —0.6) Phillips et al. (2018) . Few ocurrences of P. minor  are reported in 
regions with similar climate to New Zealand (CMI: 0.7 –0.9) ( Table  7.7). 
 
Table 7.7. Worldwide distribution of Planococcus minor  (Cox 1989; García -Morales et al. 2016)  EPPO 
2020). Country/area /market  in bold is included in the pineapple fruit for human consumption IHS 
project.  
Continent/Region  Country/area /market  
Africa  Ascension Island, Comoros, Madagascar, Mauritius, Seychelles  
Asia Bangladesh, Brit. Indian Ocean Terr., Brunei, Burma 
(=Myanmar), China (Hong Kong), Christmas Island, India, 
Indonesia , Kampuchea, Malaysia , Maldives, The Philippines , 
Singapore, Sri Lanka , Taiwan,  Thailand , Vietnam  
North America  Bermuda, Mexico, United St ates (Florida, California1) 
Central America and 
Caribbean  Barbuda, Bahamas, Costa Rica , Cuba, Dominica, Grenada, 
Guadeloupe, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Panama , 
Saint Lucia, Trinidad and Tobago, United States Virgin Islands  
South America  Argenti na, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador2, Guyana, Suriname, 
Uruguay  
Europe3  Portugal (Madeira)  
Oceania  American Samoa, Australia (Australian Capital Territory, 
New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia, Victoria) , 
Cook Islands , Fiji, French Polynesia, Kiribati , New 
Caledonia , Papua New Guinea , Samoa , Salomon Islands, 
Tokelau, Tonga , Vanuatu , Wallis and Futuna Islands  
1 Ocurrence in Wistermann et al (2016) but contradicted by DFA (2016).  
2 Specimen collected in Ecuador previously thought to be P. citri  but identified as part of the P. minor  clade 
using Cox scores by Rung et al. (2008)   
3Ocurrence in France by CABI (2021)  is mistakenly recorded as P. minor  instead of P. citri  and P. ficus  (Tóbiás 
et al 2010).  
 
Hosts  
Planococcus minor  is a polyphagous mealybug that feeds on a wide variety of valuable plant 
hosts that range from wild to agricultural and ornamental plants exceeding 250 species in 80 
families (Leathers 2016) . However, recent lite rature suggests that earlier host records of P. 
minor  might not necessarily be reliable in certain regions due to misidentification with 
another very similar species, P. citri  that shares several common hosts (Viana de Souza et al. 
2018) . Although the host  range of P. minor  and P. citri  overlap (both recorded feeding on  
cacao and citrus), the two species have different host preferences. For example, P. minor  is 
commonly found in cacao and P. citri  in citrus (Cox and Freeston 1985; Roda et al. 2013) . 
 
Many of P. minor ’s known hosts are either present in New Zealand as ornamentals or 
agricultural crops, or belong to the same genera as native species (Table 2).  
 
 
  
308 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Table 2. Plant species or genera present in New Zealand that are reported as hosts of Planococcus 
minor  (Venet te and Davis 2004) . 
Plant species/genus  Family  Common name  
Odontonema  sp. Acanthaceae   
Justicia carnea  Acanthaceae  Brazilian plume  
Amaranthus  sp. Amaranthaceae   
Alocasia  sp. Araceae   
Xanthosoma sagittifolium  Araceae  arrowleaf elephant ear  
Aralia  sp. Araliaceae   
Hedera helix  Araliaceae  ivy 
Schefflera  sp. Araliaceae   
Asparagus plumosus  Asparagaceae  Common asparagus fern  
Dracaena sp. Asparagaceae   
Bidens pilosa  Asteraceae  black jack  
Dahlia sp. Asteraceae  dahlia  
Helianthus sp. Asteraceae  sunflower  
Tagetes patula  Asteraceae  French marigold  
Tithonia sp. Asteraceae   
Impatiens balsamina  Balsaminaceae  garden balsam  
Impatiens walleriana  Balsaminaceae  Busy Lizzie  
Bignonia sp.* Bignoniaceae   
Brassica oleraceae  Brassicaceae  broccoli and others  
Raphanis sativus  Brassicaceae  radish  
Tradescantia sp. Commelinaceae   
Ipomoea sp. Convolulaceae   
Corynocarpus sp. Corynocarpaceae   
Citrullus lanatus  Cucurbitaceae  watermelon  
Cucurbita maxima  Cucurbitaceae  squash  
Cucurbita pepo  Cucurbitaceae  squash  
Sechium edule  Cucurbitaceae  chayote (choko)  
Cyperus rotundus  Cyperaceae  coco-grass  
Aleurites moluccana  Euphorbiaceae  candlenut  
Croton sp. Euphorbiaceae  Croton  
Euphorbia pulcherrima * Euphorbiaceae  Poinsettia  
Ricinus communis  Euphorbiaceae  castor oil plant  
Acacia sp.* Fabaceae   
Arachis hypogaea  Fabaceae  peanut  
Erythrina sp. Fabaceae   
Phaseolus lunatus  Fabaceae  luna bean  
Wisteria sp. Fabaceae   
Pelargonium sp. Geraniaceae   
Gladiolus sp. Iridaceae   
Ocimum basilicum  Lamiaceae  sweet basil  
Salvia officinalis  Lamiaceae  sage 
Persea americana  Lauraceae  avocado  
Erythrina crista -galli * Leguminosae  coral tree  
Wisteria sp.* Leguminosae   
Abutilon sp. Malvaceae    
309 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Hibiscus tiliaceus  Malvaceae  sea hibiscus  
Pavonia sp. Malvaceae   
Broussonetia papyrifera  Moraceae  paper mulberry  
Morus sp.* Moraceae   
Ficus carica  Marantaceae  fig 
Psidium guajava  Myrtaceae  common guava  
Jasminum sp. Oleaceae  jasmine  
Passiflora edulis  Passifloraceae  passionfruit  
Saccharum officinarum  Poaceae  sugarcane  
Zea mays  Poaceae  corn 
Macadamia tetraphylla  Proteaceae  macadamia nut  
Rosa chinensis  Rosaceae  China rose  
Coffea arabica  Rubiaceae  Arabica coffee  
Gardenia sp.* Rubiaceae  Gardenia  
Citrus limon  Rutaceae  lemon  
Citrus aurantium * Rutaceae  Bitter orange  
Citrus sinensis  Rutaceae  orange  
Citrus paradisi  Rutaceae  grapefruit  
Citrus grandis  Rutaceae  pomelo  
Citrus reticulata  Rutaceae  mandarin  
Capsicum annum  Solanaceae  bell pepper  
Solanum lycopersicum  Solanaceae  tomato  
Solanum melongela  Solanaceae  eggplant  
Solanum torvum  Solanaceae  turkey berry  
Solanum tuberosum  Solanaceae  potato  
Stachytarpeta sp. Verbenaceae   
Verbena sp. Verbenaceae   
Vitis vinifera  Vitaceae  Grape  
* There is a level of uncertainty on some of the reported hosts of P. minor  given that P. citri  has often been 
misidentified with P. minor  in field observations according to Granara de Willink et al (2003).  
 
8.4.3.2  Likelihood of entry  
Planococcus minor  is reported to be present in all markets  considered in this IRA. The 
association of P. minor  with pineapple was recorded by Williams (1982)  and subsequently 
listed by Williams and Watson (1988)  and Ben-Dov (1994) . It is unclear to what extent this 
mealybu g is associated with pineapple. Planococcus minor  is a secondary pest of crops such 
as cacao and coffee and considered of no economic importance in neotropical regions where 
it has established (e.g., Caribbean) (Stocks and Roda 2011) . However, it is report ed to be a 
major pest in Taiwan on crops other than pineapple (Ho et al. 2007) .  
 
Planococcus minor  is a highly intercepted mealybug in the United States of America (USA) 
(Venette and Davis 2004) and Australia (DAWE 2019) . Interceptions of P. minor  in USA 
have been associated primarily with international airline passengers (75%) and permit cargo 
(16%). Interceptions have been reported most frequently from plants in the genera Nephelium 
(19%), Anona  (17%), Sechium  (7%), Syzygium  (6%), Psidium  (5%) and Musa  (4%) (Venette 
and Davis 2004).   
  
310 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Between 2000 and May 2022, P. minor  live female adults have been intercepted twice at the 
New Zealand border on fresh pineapple fruit. One interception from Singapore (AN 19863) 58 
and another one from Fiji (C2002/654) 59 via air cargo (LIMS 2022) . No interceptions 
recorded as Planococcus  sp. were found in LIMS (2022). Despite P. minor  being intercepted 
on the pineapple fresh produce pathway, the number of detections is very low considering the 
amount of pineapple that has been imported in the past 20 years [147, 697 tons (t)] (MPI 
2022) . This suggests a weak association with the commod ity; however, low interceptions 
records could also suggest that the existing control measures have managed the risk of entry 
of P. minor . 
 
The likelihood of entry of P. minor  will depend on the developmental stage associated with 
the pineapple fruit. Crawl ers in general are susceptible to adverse abiotic and biotic 
environments (Magsig -Castillo et al. 2010)  and adult winged males are fragile and short -lived 
(Francis et al 2012). Infield and packhouse activities will likely manage the risk of entry of 
these developmental stages. However, eggs and female adults could potentially be unnoticed 
and survive packhouse activities. A study on high pressure -washing on exported capsicum 
before packing revealed that not all live mealybugs were removed (58 -84%) (Jamieson  et al. 
2010) . Considering that the pineapple fruit has not a smooth, uniform surface as capsicums, 
we assume that the percentage of mealybug removal on pineapple fruit using high pressure -
washing woul d likely to be lower.  
 
Eggs can go unnoticed and can b e difficult to control with infield treatments because they can 
be located in the cracks or underneath the pineapple bracts (Manners and Duff 2015)  and thus 
not easily seen and protected from insecticides. In addition, P. minor  is known to acquire 
resistan ce to several insecticides (Shukla and Tandon 1984; Thirumurugan and Gautan 2001) . 
With eggs being an inconspicuous life stage of this insect, there is a possibility that eggs may 
be unnoticed during packhouses activities and survive commercial cleaning of  fruit because 
of their waxy protective coating (Manners and Duff 2015) . 
 
Thermal development studies by Francis et al. (2012) demonstrated that Planococcus minor  
eggs appeared brown, desiccated  and do not hatch when exposed to 15°C for a period of 45 
days. Eggs on fresh pineapple produce are likely to survive the journey to New Zealand via 
air freight at room temperature, but the recommended cold storage conditions of pineapple in 
sea freight (7 –13 °C) (Camelo 2004)  will prevent eggs hatching and surviving . The survival 
of the eggs at these low temperatures will depend on shipping times. For example, the 
estimated shipping time from Central America and some Asian countries (>30 days) will 
likely affect the viability of the P. minor eggs but shipments from A ustralia could only take 
three days and this could increase the likelihood of eggs surviving (Freight 2022; Ports.com 
2022) . The cold tolerance and overwintering mechanisms of P. minor  are currently unknown 
but interceptions of P. minor  female adults on fr esh pineapple at the New Zealand border, 
suggest that female adults are able to survive shipping temperatures as low as 7°C (Camelo 
2004).  
 
Uncertainty  
Association with the commodity : There is no specific literature on the extent of the 
association of P. minor  with pineapple fruit.  
 
58 It is likely that this interception record is a result from human error. It is be lieved that mistakenly was reported coming from the offices 
of the exporting company DOLE which are based in Singapore instead of Phillipines, the country of origin of the fruit.  
 
59 Consignment reference number  
  
311 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand   
Cold tolerance and o verwintering mechanisms : the cold tolerance and overwintering 
mechanisms of P. minor  are unknown, however the interception of live ad ult P. minor  
females on pineapples coming from Asia suggest that adults could survive temperatures as 
low as 7° C.   
 
Interceptions at the border : It is unknown if the low interceptions records at the New Zealand 
border are a result of a weak association w ith the commodity, or that existing control 
measures have managed the risk of entry.  
 
Given that: 
• No information was found to indicate that indicates that P. minor  is strongly 
associated with the commodity, suggesting pineapple is not a preferred plant hos t;  
• There have been just two interceptions at the New Zealand border on pineapples since 
2000 , suggesting a weak association with pineapples. However, it is uncertain if the 
low interceptions records is because existing control measures has reduced the ris k of 
entry;  
•  Eggs and first -instar mealybugs (crawlers) in general are inconspicuous life stages 
that could go unnoticed in packhouses and survive commercial cleaning and 
insecticide treatments ; 
• The cold tolerance and overwintering mechanisms of P. minor  are unknown, but 
interception records at the New Zealand border on pineapples shipped from Asia 
suggests that adults could survive temperatures as low as 7°C;  
• The viability of P. minor  eggs will likely be negatively affected during sea freight 
coming from Asia or America, but likely to survive if coming from Australia or if 
transported via air fr eight; 
MPI considers that the likelihood of Planococcus minor  entering New Zealand associated 
with pineapple fruit is LOW with MODERATE uncertainty.  
 
8.4.3.3  Likelihood of exposure  
This assessment is made on the basis that P. minor  has entered New Zealand undetected.  
 
Imported fresh pineapple fruit is intended for human consumption, therefore, when the fruit 
arrives in New Zealand it will be distributed throughout New Zealand for wholesale or retail 
sale. Fresh pineapples produce large amounts of unavoidable waste. The thick skin is always 
removed, and the disposal of the fruit skin may aid the exposure of mealybugs. In New 
Zealand, organic waste that is bagged and goes to landfill is the most common method of 
disposing organic waste (Askarany and Franklin -Smith 2014)  and it is unlikely to be a risk. 
However, there are other methods that could potentially aid the exposure of this insect such 
as animal feed, composting and direct disposal into the environment.  
 
Fruit waste in New Zealand may be collected from unpacking are as (e.g., supermarket 
preparation rooms) and taken to rural areas where it is placed on the ground for eventual 
consumption by pigs or other farmed animals (MPI 2014) . The movement of P. minor  
crawlers under the pile of discarded pineapple skins will be ve ry difficult. However, the 
crawlers at the top of the pile can be uplifted and dispersed by the wind or by the feeding 
animals. The mealybugs at the edges of the pile can move to nearby weeds or grass.  
312 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  However, P. minor  can actively search for a suitable h ost only within a very limited area. The 
crawlers cannot fly and can only walk over short distances. Wider dispersal is wind -mediated 
and random. Hence, successful exposure depends on suitable hosts being very close to the 
waste, or to the mealy bugs’ land ing point after wind dispersal.  
 
Composting is considered a low -risk method if it is done commercially. Waste in commercial 
compost is put into tunnels for a period of three to four days at temperatures of 55 °C or 
higher and these conditions are likely to  kill P. minor  eggs and immature stages (no eggs 
hatched at 35 °C) (Francis et al. 2012) . Worm farming is also considered a low -risk method 
because it is recommended that organic waste is cut into small pieces (Angima et al. 2011)  
and it is a contained str ucture which will prevent the mealybug from wandering out into the 
environment.  
  
Home composting increases the likelihood of exposure. A study conducted in Palmerston 
North found that 63% of a total of 72 households that do home composting used 
manufactur ed plastic bins for composting and the majority of others used an ‘open’ 
composting system, such as open compost piles and piles fenced with wire (Mensah 2017) . 
Even though both home composting methods increase the likelihood of exposure of the 
mealybug to  immediate hosts that are commonly found in New Zealand gardens (e.g., citrus 
and ornamentals), compost in plastic bins is less risk than open compost. In plastic bins, 
organic wasted is piled up inside the bin and usually the bins are black, which helps k eep 
high temperatures inside the bin. Eggs could potentially remain viable and hatch inside a 
compost bin during winter temperatures in New Zealand as long as the temperatures inside 
the bin remain >15°C (Francis et al 2012). However, this is uncertain, gi ven that it is 
unknown the lower temperature threshold of P. minor . Mealybugs’newly hatched first instar 
crawlers are unlikely to survive without a live host plant for more than a day (University of 
Minnesota Extension 2013) . If crawlers wander out of the compost bin in search for food, 
they are highly susceptible to biotic and abiotic factors. During summer months, temperatures 
inside the compost bin could be agreeable to P. minor  development  
(20 – 31 °C), however, crawlers  would have to find a live suitable host fast (≤ 1 day) to avoid 
starvation or dehydration.  
 
If a mealybug escapes a plastic bin or open compost, many suitable host plants are available 
at ground level and could be within the walking range of crawlers. For  example, greenhouse 
experiment performed by Washburn and Frankie (1981)  on the scale insect Pulvinariella 
mesembryanthemi  (Coccidae) showed that the speed of walking of a crawler is 0.72 ± 0.22 
mm/sec and studies by Greathead (1975)  on the scale Aulacaspi s tegalensis  (Diapididae) 
showed that the speed of movement is upwards rather than sideways. Despite the ability of a 
crawlers to disperse, if no host is available nearby, the crawler is vulnerable to predation, 
dehydration or being washed away by the rain  (Mendel et al. 1984) . 
 
Crawlers from other mealybug species can be wind -dispersed. Laboratory studies performed 
by Washburn and Washburn (1984)  on P. mesembryanthemi  showed that crawlers could be 
transported over 190 km in 24 hours at a wind speed of 8 km /h. However, to be uplifted and 
transported successfully by the wind over this distance, crawlers need to be at an appropriate 
height above the ground and be positioned at an appropriate direction on the plant or canopy 
(Washburn and Frankie 1981) .  
 
Direc t disposal of pineapple fruit skin into the environment ( e.g., by roadsides, parks, 
campsites) could potentially aid the exposure of the mealybug.   
313 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand   
Uncertainty  
Pineapple waste : Information regarding food waste in New Zealand is based on general data 
and t here is no specific information on pineapple waste. Therefore it is assumed that the 
percentages of discarded pineapple fruit skin in New Zealand will be much lower.  
 
Dispersal of crawlers : Information about the distance crawlers travel has been reported f or 
other mealybug species. Therefore, there is no specific information about Planococcus minor  
or other Planococcus  species. In addition, experiments were performed under laboratory 
conditions and its unknown how dispersal will be accomplished when crawler s face the 
adversities of the natural environment.  
 
Given that: 
• Pineapple skin that is bagged and sent to the landfill, commercial composting, 
worm farming and home composting in plastic bins are considered low -risk 
methods;  
• Pineapple skin that is sent for  animal feed or open composting could 
potentially expose the crawlers to the environment, because P. minor  is a 
polyphagous species and many of its recorded hosts are present in New 
Zealand;  
• The ability of P.minor  to find a suitable host is limited because crawlers can 
only walk and search over short distances, are flightless and to be transported 
over long d istances by passive wind dispersal a combination of conditions 
need to occur ( i.e., right wind speed, angle position  on the host , host location 
and survival to predation and environmental conditions) ;  
• There is no specific information on the  behaviour of P. minor  crawlers . This 
assessment is based on information gathered on other mealybug species ; 
• Information about crawlers was based on laboratory or greenhouse 
experiments . It is un certain  how crawlers will survive the adversities of the 
environment ; 
MPI considers that the likelihood of exposure of  Planococcus minor  in New Zealand from 
pineapple fruit  is VERY LOW  with MODERATE uncertainty . 
 
8.4.3.4  Likelihood of establishment  
This assessment is made on the basis that P. minor  has been successfully exposed to a 
suitable host plant in the New Zealand environment.  
 
Planococcus minor  is a polyphagous species and therefore there is a high probability that 
dispersing mealybugs in New Zealand will find a suitable host and expand to new habitats in 
surround ing areas (Venette and Davis 2004) . Some of the reported plant hosts are present in 
New Zealand either as horticultural crops (e.g., avocado and citrus) ornamentals (e.g., Dahlia  
and Schefflera ) and common weeds (e.g., Tradescantia  sp., Ricinus communis, Asparagus 
plumosus ) (Table 1).  
 
Planococcus minor  has a high reproductive rate (270 eggs or more) and under warm and 
humid conditions (26°C to 31°C) is able to produce multiple generations (i.e. 10 generations 
per year) (Sahoo et al. 1999) .    
314 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand   
It is likely that the mode of reproduction is sexual as evidenced by Francis et al. (2012) . This 
means that to establish a P. minor  population there is a significant barrier to overcome. Males 
(short -lived, fragile and without feeding mouthparts) are unlikely to enter New Zealand on 
the fresh produce pathway.  Immature stages that are males must survive to maturity and 
mate with their siblings (which also must survive to maturity and may widely dispersed by 
wind on different locations) or their mother.  
 
Most of the P. minor  distribution records have a CMI between 0.4 – 0.6 (Phillips et al. 2018)  
indicating that this mealybug has mostly established in warm, humid conditions (Table 1). 
However, some distribution records are  in regions with similar climates to New Zealand. For 
example, in Uruguay (CMI: 0.8 –0.9), the region of Serra Gaúcha in Brazil (CMI: 0.8) and in 
several states of Australia (Australian Capital Territory, New South Wales, South Australia 
and Victoria; CMI: 0 .7-0.9) (Morandi Filho et al. 2015)  (Granara de Willink et al 1997; 
Granara de Willink and Claps 2003; IPCC 2021).  
 
Likewise, Ecuador, Argentina and California (USA) have regions with similar climate to 
New Zealand (CMI: 0.6 -0.9), but there is some uncert ainty with the distribution records in 
these locations. A specimen collected in Ecuador in 2006, which was initially thought to be 
P. citri , was relocated to the P. minor  clade using phylogenetic analysis and morphological 
results (Cox scores) (Rung et al.  2008) . However no information was given on the location, 
host plant and if this specimen was collected in the environment or inside a greenhouse. For 
Argentina, the distribution records of P. minor  in the regions Jujuy, Tucumán, Entre Ríos, 
Buenos Aires a nd Santa Cruz (CMI: 0.6 -0.9) are uncertain. Granara de Willink and Claps 
(2003) acknowledge that their observations were field -based and they could have 
misidentified P. citri  as P. minor . In California  (CMI: 0.6 –0.8), a technical report on table 
grapes me ntions that P. minor  is a serious pest of grapes (Wistermann et al 2016), but the 
presence of P. minor  in California is uncertain. Stocks and Roda (2011)  reports that a P. 
minor  population was found in 2006 in a greenhouse which triggered a phytosanitary a lert 
system. Subsequent molecular work indicated that the population was in fact P. citri  and the 
alert was then retracted. In addition, a risk assessment by Leathers (2016) mentions that “ P. 
minor  has never been found in the environment in California”.  
 
Present mean annual temperature and mean maximum temperatures for many (but not all 
regions in New Zealand) in 2021, were “+0.51 °C to +1.20°C above the annual average 
(13.56°C) (NIWA 2022) . The increasing temperatures projected for New Zealand due to 
clima te change is 1.4 °C by 2090. These temperatures fall below the optimal reproductive 
and developmental temperatures for P. minor  (20 - 31°C) presented by Francis et al. (2012) , 
suggesting that P. minor  is unlikely to establish in New Zealand. However, distr ibution 
records in regions with similar climate to New Zealand suggest that P. minor  can develop and 
reproduce in temperatures lower than those reported by Francis et al. (2012) . 
 
Planococcus minor  is known to be invasive and able to establish when introduced into new 
areas. For example, since its incursion in Australia (at least 60 years ago) (ALA 2022) , P. 
minor  has established in Queensland, South Australia, Australian Capital Territory, New 
South Wales, Victoria and the Northern territory (García -Morales et al. 2016) .  
 
The lack  of a longer -range active dispersal mechanism may limit the rate at which mealybugs 
spread. Even though adult males are winged, they are fragile, do not feed and are short -lived 
(Francis et al. 2012; Manners and Duff 2015) . Crawlers are the primary dispersal phase in the  
315 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  mealybug life cycle. They are capable of active dispersal by crawling and passive dispersal 
by hitchhiking on clothing of orchard workers, equipment, insec ts (e.g., ants) and birds or 
ballooning by wind currents (Leathers 2016) . In Argentinian vineyards, the mealybug P. ficus  
developed to damaging population levels because practices such as mechanical harvesting 
had aided the movement among vineyards and reg ions (Daane et al. 2012) . Nevertheless, 
long-distance movement of this mealybug is most likely a result of the movement of infested 
plants or fresh plant parts and agricultural commerce (Roda et al. 2013) . 
 
Uncertainty  
Distribution in temperate regions : There is uncertainty on some of the distribution records in 
regions with similar climates to New Zealand.  
 
Plant hosts : Given P. minor  morphological similarity and reported misidentifications with 
P.citri  due to plant host overlap, it is uncertain if all hos t can be attributed to P. minor .  
 
Given that: 
• It is likely that P. minor  mode of reproduction is sexual and this is a significant barrier 
for establishment;  
• Planococcus minor  has a limited active long -range dispersal;   
• Planococcus minor  is a polyphagous species, and many of its recorded hosts are 
present in New Zealand. Therefore, it is highly likely that crawlers will find a suitable 
host;  
• Planococcus minor  has established in  regions with similar climates to New Zealand;  
• Has a high reproductive rate and able to produce multiple generations;  
• Dispersal of crawlers can be done easily within the farms and across farms aided by 
agricultural equipment, farm workers, or movement of plant material;  
 
MPI considers that the likelihood of  Planococcus minor  establishing in New Zealand is LOW 
with MODERATE uncertainty.  
 
8.4.3.5  Impacts in New Zealand  
This assessment is made on the assumption that P. minor  has successfully established in the 
New Ze aland environment .   
 
Economic impacts  
Although widely distributed, P. minor  is not reported to be an economic pest in many 
countries (Roda et al. 2013) . The economic impact of P. minor  alone is difficult to assess 
because P. minor  has similar host range and geographical distribution as other mealybugs 
(including P. citri ) and often multiple species may occur on a plant host. For example, P. 
minor  (recorded as P. citri ), reportedly made up approximately 90% of a scale complex that 
included other species such as Pseudococcus longispinus  (Targioni) and the soft scales 
Coccus viridis  (Green) and Saisettia coffeae  (Walker) on coffee in New Guinea and caused 
an estimated yield reduction of 70 -75 percent (Williams and Watson 1988) .  
 
Many of P. minor ’s plant hosts present in New Zealand contribute to the domestic and export 
revenue such as grapes ( Vitis vinifera ) (NZ$1857.9m), Citrus  spp.(NZ$69.7m), avocado 
(Persea americana ) (NZ$150.7m), waterm elon ( Citrullus lanatus ) (NZ$24.7m), pumpkin 
(Cucurbita maxima ) (NZ$16m), squash ( Cucurbita pepo ) (NZ$82.2m), pepper ( Capsicum 
annum )(NZ$59.7m), tomato ( Solanum lycopersicum ) (NZ$143.6m), eggplant ( Solanum  
316 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  melongela ) (NZ$12m), and potato ( Solanum tuberosum ) (NZ$962.3m) amongst others 
(Leathers 2016) . All of these agricultural crops represent an approximate cumulative revenue 
of (NZ$3.14b) (Plant & Food Research 2020) . However, no  reports  were found  of economic 
impacts attributed to P. mino r for the se plant hosts.  
Mealybugs in general can cause both direct and indirect damage to plants. Direct damage 
occurs when the mealybug feeds on the vascular tissue of the plant. This results in leaf 
discolouration, distortion and dropping, and distortion and abo rtion of new shoots (Franco et 
al. 2009) . When the plant is highly infested, the mealybug causes withering of the plant, 
stunted growth and subsequent death (Cox 1989) . Damage on the fruits includes spotting at 
feeding sites which causes fruit discoloratio n, reduction of fruit growth rate, distortion of 
fruit, and development of cork tissue on fruit peel. Attacked fruit is considered of low quality 
and is often non -marketable (Ooi et al. 2002) . 
 
Indirect damage includes the production of honeydew and the tr ansmission of viruses. 
Mealybugs secrete up to 90% of the ingested plant sap as carbohydrate -rich honeydew. This 
sugary honeydew provides a substrate for the growth of saprophytic sooty mould fungi. Sooty 
moulds form a black, powdery coating adhering to th e leaves or fruit of plants, damaging 
plant surfaces and interfering with the plant’s photosynthetic activity (Williams and Granara 
de Willink 1992) . Although honeydew can be dissolved by light rain and will dry in warm 
temperatures, when mealybug populati ons are severe, honeydew can accumulate to form a 
hard, wax -like layer that covers the infested plant (Daane et al. 2012; Leathers 2016) . The 
honeydew and sooty mould cause cosmetic defects and/or disfiguring of plants and/or their 
fruits, making plants an d plants parts unsaleable (Roda et al. 2013; Leathers 2016) . 
Honeydew excretions from mealybugs are a major source of food for many ant and wasp 
species (MacIntyre and Hellstrom 2015) . Ants protect mealybugs from predators and other 
natural enemies includi ng parasitoids (Williams 2004) . Disruption of biological control 
programmes for P. ficus  as a result of injury to parasitic wasps by ants has been reported by 
Mgocheki and Addison (2009) . Wasps feed on honeydew which otherwise will be food 
source for bees (MacIntyre and Hellstrom 2015).  
  
Mealybugs, even at low population densities, can vector viruses that kill plants (Leathers 
2016) . Planococcus minor  is known to be a vector of Piper yellow mottle virus  (PYMoV) on 
black pepper ( Piper nigrum ) in Indonesia (Miftakhurohmah et al. 2022)  and Banana streak 
virus  on plantain fruit ( Musa  x paradisiaca ) in Cuba (González -Arias et al. 2002) . The 
transmission of viruses such as swollen shoot virus of cacao ( Theobroma cacao  L.) was 
initially thought to be vectored by P. citri . However, Cox (1989)  claims that it is likely that 
the mealybug was misidentified and that the virus -transmission experiments actually involved 
P. minor . It is uncertain whether other viruses attributed to be vectored by P. citri in cacao 
(e.g., C eylon cocoa virus) (Williams 2004)  could be vectored by P. minor . Despite the ability 
of P. minor  to vector viruses, none of the hosts mentioned above are of economic importance 
to New Zealand.  
 
Planococcus minor  is one of the mealybugs associated with gr apes ( Vitis vinifera ) in Brazil 
together with P. citri  (Morandi Filho 2008; Morandi Filho et al. 2015)  and P. ficus  (Daane et 
al. 2012) .  During a survey in 131 vineyards in the region of Bento Gonçalves City, P. minor  
was observed in six percent of grape clusters (50 grape clusters in total) in each site, 
compared to other species like Dysmicoccus brevipes  which was present in 22.7% of grape 
clusters sampled (Morandi Filho et al 2015).   
  
317 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Other Planococcus  species such as P. ficus  (Engelbrecht and Kasdorf 1990)  and P. citri  
(Cabaleiro and Segura 1997)  are vectors of the Grapevine Leaf Roll associated Virus 
(GLRaV -3). To date, there is no evidence that P. minor  is a vector of GLRaV -3. 
 
Planococcus minor  has been established in Australia at least from the 1960s (ALA 2022)  and 
to date there has been no report of economic impacts to any of the known plant hosts. Similar 
case in Puerto Rico, where P. minor  is widespread and no economic impact has been report ed 
(Jenkins et al. 2014) . 
 
Programs to contain, eradicate and/or minimize the impact of mealybugs are likely to be 
costly (Bell et al. 2021)  and include pesticide application and crop monitoring. In addition, 
existing controls (e.g., specific integrated pest management or organic systems) may be 
ineffective and compromised. In New Zealand since 1960s, there are programs established to 
control Pseudococcus  mealybugs responsible for GLRAV -3, which is one of the most serious 
virus diseases affecting New Zealand grapevines (Bell et al. 2009; Bell et al. 2021) . Even 
though the incursion of P. minor  could increase to some extent the impact of mealybu gs on 
crops such as grapes, current management strategies to control the impact of mealybugs 
would be applicable for P. minor .  
 
Successful biological control programmes against two of the main mealybug pests in New 
Zealand vineyard have been reported (i.e . Pseudococcus longispinus  and P. calceolariae ) 
(Charles et al. 2010) . This suggests that despite the presence of mealybugs in New Zealand in 
the last 100 years, biological control programmes with native and introduced species have not 
been compromised due  to symbiotic relationship of mealybugs with ants.  
 
An in -house MPI model predicted a low level of economic impact (between 10 and 100 
million) over 20 years.  
• Given that no information was found on the infestation level/yield loss on any 
important plant h ost important to New Zealand caused by P. minor  but the mealybug 
is capable of causing damage, a 1% – 5% was assumed as a range of greatest level of 
impact that the mealybug can infest/damage a main known host. The model only 
considers the impact in the No rth Island, as it is the region where P. minor  is most 
likely to establish in New Zealand given its worlwide distribution (Table 1). Plant 
host considered are grapes, avocado, citrus and potatoes, which are the main host of 
P. minor  that are main agricultu ral crops in the North Island.  
• The combined domestic and export value in New Zealand for avocado, citrus and 
potatoes are NZ$ 252.2 m , 71.6 m , 178.8 m, respectively (Plant & Food Research 
2020, 2021)  and the export revenue for grapes tables and wine is N Z$1857.9 (Plant & 
Food Research 2021). The planted area (ha) of each of these crops in the North Island 
(Plant & Food Research 2017) was used to calculate the proportion of production area 
to the whole of New Zealand (19.74%, 99.65%, 99.41, 50.4%) and to o btain the 
annual crop values for grapes, avocado, citrus and potatoes in the North Island which 
were NZ$366.75m, 251.32m, 71.18m and 90.12m, respectively. The greatest level of 
annual impact of each of these crops in the North Island is 1% – 5% of these va lues. 
• The time to achieve the greatest impact was assumed to be 5 years given the limited 
dispersal capability of this mealybug.  
• It was assumed that the time industries will take for full recovery was 1 year given 
that there are already effective control a pproaches for other mealybugs (Bell et al 
2019; Bell et al., 2021).  
  
318 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  The presence of this mealybug in New Zealand could represent an added impact for exporters 
because in other countries  (e.g., USA), P. minor  is considered a ‘regulated actionable pest’. 
This means that consignments could be destroyed, re -exported or fumigated at the exporter’s 
expense. Phytosanitary measures and compliance agreements (e.g., treatment schemes and 
inspection requirements) could be put in place, which would represent an additi onal cost to 
the producer (Roda et al. 2013) . However, it was considered that this added impact is likely 
to be very low given the current effective controls approaches for other mealybugs. 
Therefore, the overall economic impact was considered to be low.  
 
Uncertainty  
Economic impacts : There is no information regarding the economic impact of P. minor  on 
plant hosts that are present in New Zealand and impacts on other commodities are difficult to 
assess for a single mealybug because often P. minor  interacts in the same host with a 
complex of other mealybugs.  
  
Direct and indirect damage :  There is no information about the damages of P. minor  on plant 
hosts present in New Zealand. Therefore information was obtained from other Planococcus  
species.  
 
Impacts on trade : It is unknown what would be the impact of trade by the potential incursion 
of P. minor  in New Zealand.  
 
Given that : 
• There is no evidence of economic impacts attributed to P. minor  on any of the 
horticultural crops of economic importance t o New Zealand;  
• Other countries/territories where P. minor  has successfully  established (e.g., 
Australia and Puerto Rico), have not reported any economic impacts;  
• Planococcus minor  transmit s viruses to host plants that are not of economic 
importance to Ne w Zealand;  
• The attraction to ants due to the honeydew produced by P. minor  is considered 
of negligible risk to biological control programmes in New Zealand because 
successful biological control programmes have been reported in  New Zealand 
for mealybugs th at have been established in the past 100 years;  
• Additional management cost to producers because of the presence of P. minor  
is considered low because there has been management programmes to control 
mealybugs in New Zealand vineyards since the 1960s. These programmes are 
likely to control P. minor  populations;  
• Incursion of this mealybug could represent additional costs to producers due to 
phytosanitary measures and compliance agreements  imposed by other 
countries where P. minor  is a regulated pest;  
 
MPI considers that the economic impact of  Planococcus minor  in New Zealand is  LOW, with 
MODERATE uncertainty  
 
Environmental im pacts  
The flowering plants genera Schefflera  sp. and Pelargonium sp. and the New Zealand laurel, 
Corynocarpus laevigatus , are listed as hosts of P. minor . However, no information was found 
regarding the extent of damage caused by P. minor  on these host plants.  The risk of P. minor  
on these native species is considered very low because there are no reports of mealybugs that 
have already established in New Zealand (eg., Pseudococcus calceolariae ) causing major  
319 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  damage to native species (Beev er et al. 2007) . In addition, New Zealand climate is not 
optimal for P. minor  establishment.  
 
The incursion of a new mealybug species to New Zealand could trigger new chemical 
treatment programs in horticulture and by residents who find infested plants rat her unpleasant 
(Leathers 2016) . The increase of pesticide application could result in the decline of native 
butterflies (Sands and New 2002) , soil toxicity (Dalvi and Salunkhe 1975) , runoff and water 
system contamination (APVMA 2008; NSWDPI 2012) . However,  increase in environmental 
impacts would likely to be negligible because current insectide treatments for mealybugs that 
are already present in New Zealand are likely to control P. minor  (Charles 2004) . 
 
Uncertainty  
Risk to native species : There is no info rmation on impacts of P. minor  on plant hosts that are 
native to New Zealand. It is uncertain if P. minor  feeds on all Schefflera  and Pelargonium 
species because they are listed as Schefflera  sp and Pelargonium  sp. by Venette and Davis 
(2004). Therefore it  is unknown if P. minor  will impact the New Zealand native species 
Schefflera digitata  and Pelargonium inodorum . 
 
Given that: 
• There is no evidence of major damage caused  to native species  by exotic mealybugs 
in New Zealand and;  
• The environmental conditions are not adequate for  the establishment of P. minor ;    
 
MPI considers that the environmental impact of Planococcus minor  in New Z ealand is 
VERY LOW with MODERATE uncertainty  
 
Human health impacts  
There is no evidence of direct impacts of Planococcus minor  on human health. The attraction 
of aggressive ants to the honeydew produced by mealybugs could potentially be an indirect 
human health impact. Some ants such as the Argentine ants a re aggressive and bite when 
disturbed and some people have serious allergic reactions (Harris 2002) .  However, Argentine 
ants have a symbiotic association with the vine mealybug Pseudococcus calceolariae  found 
in New Zealand (Hardiman 2018)  and it  is not k nown to cause a considerable human health 
impact on people working on vineyards. In addition, of all the ant species present in New 
Zealand, very few species are capable to inflict a painful sting and are not generally known to 
have tending behaviour in ab oveground plant parts (Warwick 2007) . 
Given that: 
• There are no reports of health impacts on people working in the field as a result of the 
attraction of aggressive ants by the honeydew excreted by other mealybugs found in 
New Zealand  
 
MPI considers that the human health  impact of  Planococcus minor  in New Zealand is 
NEGLIGIBLE with LOW uncertainty.  
 
Sociocultural impacts  
There is no information about damage on taonga species attributed to P. minor . The genera 
Schefflera  sp. and Pelargonium  sp. and species Corynocarpus laevigatus  (known as ‘karaka’) 
are listed by (Leathers 2016) . New Zealand native species such as S. digita  (patatē) and C. 
laevigatus  are taonga species that have medicinal properties or used as food source by Maori 
people to survive particularly before the arrival of Europeans (Maanaki -Whenua 2022) .  
320 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  These species are widespread in New Zealand and their conservation status is ‘not 
threatened’  (NZPCN 2002) . There are no reports of mealybugs in New Zealand (that have 
established for a long time) causing major damage to taonga species (Beever et al., 2007).  
Root crops such as Ipomoea batatas  (sweet potato or ‘Kūmara’), Solanum tuberosum  (potato) 
and Colocasia esculenta  (taro) are listed as hosts of P. minor  (Leathers 2016) . These crops 
are considered staple food (potatoes) and taonga by Māori people (Kūmara) and considered 
kai rangatira (food for important people) (taro) by the Pasifika communities (McFarlane 
2007; Furey 2008; McVinnie 2008) . There is no information available about  impacts on these 
crops by P. minor , however, other mealybugs that have established in New Zealand for a long 
time (such as Pseudococcus longispinus ) is not known to cause any impact on taro.  
The presence of sooty mould on New Zealand gardens is considere d a nuisance because it is 
unsightly or because the honeydew is deposited on automobiles, outdoor furniture or 
anything that is placed under a mealybug infested tree (Windbield -Rojas and Messenger -
Sikes 2020) . 
 
Uncertainty  
Risk to taonga or staple foods : There is no information regarding the impacts of P. minor  on 
New Zealand taonga species or staple foods, therefore this assessment is based on the 
information available from other mealybug species established in New Zealand.  
Given that: 
• There is no evidence of P. minor  affecting species that are considered taonga or 
staple foods for Maori or  Pasifika communities in New Zealand;  
• It is not known of any other mealybug species that have established in New Zealand, 
having major damage  that would compromise the cultivation of root crops that are 
considered of importance by Maori people and Pasifika  communities;   
 
MPI considers that the sociocultural health  impact of  Planococcus minor  in New Zealand is  
VERY LOW with MODERATE uncertainty 。 
 
8.4.3.6  Overall impact to New Zealand  
MPI considers the overall impact of P. minor  on the New Zealand economy, environmen t, 
health and society is LOW with MODERATE uncertainty.  
 
8.4.3.7  Overall risk to New Zealand  
Based on the assessments of lik elihood and consequences above, that:  
• the lik elihood of entry is LOW with MODERATE uncertainty,  
• assuming entry, the likelihood of exposure is VERY LOW with MODERATE 
uncertainty,  
• assuming successful exposure, the likelihood of establishment is LOW  with 
MODERATE uncertainty, and  
• the overall impact on the New Zealand economy, environment, human health, and 
society is considered to be LOW with MODERATE uncertainty,  
 
MPI considers t he overall level of assessed risk to New Zealand from  Planococcus minor  on 
pineapple fruit  is VERY LOW with MODERATE  uncertainty . 
  
321 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  
 Specific considerations  
On which pineapple variety (or varieties) and at what stage of rip eness has Planococcus 
minor  association with pineapple fruit been observed?  
There is no reference in the literature regarding the stage of ripeness or the pineapple 
varieties Planococcus minor  is associated with.  
 
Which part(s) of the pineapple fruit is Planococcus minor  associated with ( e.g., fruit, 
bract, stem or crown remnant) and is it detectable by visual detection?   
There is no specific information regarding the part of the pineapple P. minor  is associated 
with. However, other Planococcus  species are known to be found on the base of leaves, 
twigs, bark, flowers and fruit. Therefore, it is assumed that P. minor  will ha ve similar 
behaviour.  
 
Are different life  stages of Planococcus minor  associated with different parts of the 
pineapple fruit?   
There is no specific information about the parts of the pineapple fruit where different life 
stages of P. minor  are found. In oth er crops, such as cotton, P. minor  crawlers, wander 
around the plant toward actively growing plant parts before settling to feed. The female adult 
becomes more sessile and can be found in similar places as the crawlers.  
 
Does Planococcus minor  burrow into the fruit without obvious symptoms, or hide under 
the pineapple bract ? 
Mealybugs immature stages and eggs are inconspicuous and easily to go unnoticed in 
pineapples because they can hide under bracts and crevices of the fruit.  
 
 References  
Aguiar, A (2009) Exotic arthropod fruit pests and parasitoids found in the Archipielago of 
Madeira, Portugal since 1990. Actas do I workshop de Fruticultura - Contributo para o seu 
desenvolvimento.  Angra do Heroísmo.  
 
ALA (2022) Planococcus minor  - Ocurrence records  (Publication no. 
https://doi.org/10.26197/5d7f2348165a0). Accessed 6 April 2022  
 
Angima, S; Noack, M; Noack, S (2011) Composting with worms. 
https://catalog.extension.oregonstate.edu/sites/catalog/files/project/pdf/em9034.pdf  
 
APVMA (2008) APVMA operating principles in relation to spray drift risk. In A P a V M 
Authority (Ed.). Camberra, Australia.  
 
Askarany, D; Franklin -Smith, A W (2014) Cost benefit analyses of organic waste composting 
systems through the lens of time driven activit y-based costing. Journal of applied 
management accounting research 12(2): 59 –73. 
 
Bastos, C; de Almeida, R; Vidal Neto, F d C; de Araújo, G (2007) Ocorrência de 
Planococcus minor  Maskell (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) em algodoeiro no Nordeste do 
Brasil. Neot ropical Entomology 36(4): 625 -628 (in Portuguese).  
  
322 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Becerra, V; Gonzalez, M; Herrera, M; Miano, J (2006) Populations dynamics of vine 
mealybug Planococcus ficus  Sign. (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) in vineyards. Revista de la 
Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias UNC uyo 38: 1 –6. 
 
Beever, R E; Harman, H; Waipara, N; Paynter, Q; Barker, G; Burns, B (2007) Native Flora 
Biosecurity Impact Assessment  (Unpublished Landcare Research report LC0607/196 to MAF 
Biosecurity New Zealand). Landcare Research,  
 
Bell, V; Bonfiglioli, R; Walker, J; Lo, P; Mackay, J; Mcgregor, S (2009) Grapevine Leafroll 
Associated Virus - 3 persistence in Vitis vinifera  remnants roots. Journal of Plant Pathology 
91(3): 527 –533. 
 
Bell, V; Lester, P; Pietersen, G; Hall, A (2021) The management and financial implications 
of variable responses to grapevine leafroll disease. Journal of Plant Pathology 103: 5 –15. 
 
Ben-Dov, Y (1994) A sy stematic catalogue of the mealybugs of the world (Insecta: 
Homoptera: Coccoidea: Pseudococcidae and Putoidae) with data on geographical 
distribution, host plants, biology and economic importance. Intercept Limited; Andover UK.  
 
BiotaNZ (2022) Biota of New Zealand. https://biotaNZ.landcareresearch.co.nz Accessed 
30/04/2022  
 
Cabaleiro, C; Segura, A (1997) Field transmission of grapevine leafroll associated virus 3 
(GLRaV -3) by the mealybug Planococcus citri . Plant Disease 81: 283 –287. 
 
CABI (2021) Planococcus  minor  (passionvine mealybug) datasheet. 
https://www.cabi.org/isc/datasheet/41892#toDistributionMaps  
 
Camelo, A F L (2004) Manual for the preparation and sale of fruits and vegetables: from field 
to market (Vol. 151). Food & Agriculture Org.  
 
Charles, J ( 2004) Mealybug insecticide resistance management strategy. 
https://resistance.nzpps.org/index.php?p=insecticides/mealybug  
 
Charles, J; Bell, V; Lo, P; Cole, L; Chhagan, A (2010) Mealybugs (Hemiptera: 
Pseudococcidae) and their natural enemies in New Zealan d vineyards from 1993 -2009. New 
Zealand Entomologist 33(1): 84 –91. 
 
Cox, J (1983) An experimental study of morphological variation in mealybugs (Homoptera: 
Coccoidea: Pseudococcidae). Systematic Entomology 8: 361 –382. 
 
Cox, J (1989) The mealybug genus Plan ococcus  (Homoptera: Pseudococcidae). Bulletin of 
the British Museum of Natural History 58: 1 –78. 
 
Cox, J; Freeston, A (1985) Identification of mealybugs of the genus Planococcus 
(Homoptera: Pseudococcidae) occurring on cacao throughout the world. Journal o f Natural 
History 19(4).  
 
Daane, K; Almeida, R; Vaughn, A; Walker, J; Bottom, M; Fallahzadeh, M; Mani, M; Miano, 
J; Sforza, R; Walton, V; Zaviezo, T (2012) Biology and management of mealybugs in  
323 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  vineyards. In N Bostanian; C Vincent; R Isaacs (eds) Arthropo d management in vineyards.  
Springer: Dordrecht, Netherlands.  
 
Dalvi, R; Salunkhe, D (1975) Toxicological implications of pesticides: their toxic effect on 
seeds of food plants. Toxicology 3: 269 –285. 
 
DAWE (2019) Final group pest risk analysis for mealybugs and the viruses they transmit on 
fresh fruit, vegetable, cut -flower and foliage imports. In D o A a W Resources (Ed.). 
Canberra, Australia.  
 
Engelbrecht, D; Kasdorf, G (1990) Transmission of grapevine leafroll disease and associated 
closteroviruses by the vine mealybug, Planococcus ficus . Phytophylactica 22(3): 341 –346. 
 
EPPO (2020) EPPO Global Database. https://gd.eppo.int/ Accessed 22 May 202 0. 
 
Francis, A; Kairo, M; Roda, A (2012) Developmental and reproductive biology of 
Planococcus minor  (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) under constant temperatures. Florida 
Entomolog ist 95(2): 297 –303. 
 
Franco, J; Zada, A; Mendel, Z (2009) Novel approaches for the management of mealybug 
pests. In I Ishaaya; A Horowitz (eds) Biorational control of arthopod pests: application and 
resistance management.  Springer: Dordrecht, Netherlands.  
 
Freight, C (2022) Transit times. https://www.championfreight.co.nz/times Accessed 10 
March 2022  
 
Furey, L (2008) ‘Ngā tupu mai i Hawaiki – plants from Polynesia – Taro, uwhi and tī pore’. 
http://www.TeAra.govt.nz/en/nga -tupu-mai-i-hawaiki -plants -from -polynesia/page -3 
Accessed 12/04/2022  
 
Granara de Willink, MC; Claps, LE (2003) Cochinillas (Hemiptera: Coccoidea) presents en 
plantas ornamentals de la Argentina. Neotropical Entomology , 32(4): 625 -637. 
 
Granara de Willink, MC; Scatoni, IB; Terra, AL; Frioni, MI (1997) Cochinillas harinosas  
(Homoptera, Pseudococcidae) que afectan plantas cultivadas y silvestres en Uruguay -lista 
actualizada de plantas hospederas. Agrociencia , 1(1): 96 -100 
 
García -Morales, M; Denno, B; Miller, G; Ben -Dov, Y; Hardy, N (2016) A literature base 
model of scale insect  biology and systematics  (Publication no. 10.1093/database/bav118). 
http://scalenet.info  
 
González -Arias, G; Font, C; Miranda, E (2002) Planococcus minor  (Maskell), vector del 
virus estriado del plátano (BSV). Fitosanidad 6(2): 47 –48. 
 
Greathead, D (1975 ) The ecology of a scale insect, Aulacaspis tegalensis , on sugarcane in 
East Africa. Transactions of the Entomological Society of London 127(2): 101 –114. 
 
Gullan, P (2000) Identification of the immature instars of mealybugs (Hemiptera: 
Pseudococcidae) foun d on citrus in Australia. Australian journal of entomology 39: 160 –166. 
  
324 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Hardiman, C (2018) Inter -species horizontal toxicity: experimental control of Argentine ants 
and their citrophilus mealybug mutualists in a viticultural system. thesis; Victoria Unive rsity 
of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand.  
 
Harris, R (2002) Potential impact of the Argentine ant ( Linepithema humile ) in New Zealand 
and options for its control. In D o Conservation (Ed.). Wellington, New Zealand: Department 
of Conservation.  
 
Ho, H; Hung, C; Chuang, T; Wang, W (2007) Identification and synthesis of the sex 
pheromone of the passionvine mealybug, Planococcus minor (Maskell). Journal of chemical 
ecology 33: 1986 –1996.  
 
IPPC Secretariat. 2021. Pest status guide: unde rstanding the principal requirements for pest 
status determination. Rome. FAO on behalf of the Secretariat of the Internation Plant 
Protection Convention.  
 
Jamieson, L; Page -Weir, N; Chhagan, A; Olsson, S; Connolly, P (2010) High pressure 
waterwashing to r emove pests from capsicums. New Zealand Plant Protection 63: 118 –122. 
 
Jenkins, D; Mizell, R; III; Van Bloem, S; Whitmire, S; Wiscovitch, L; Zaleski, C; Goenaga, 
R (2014) An analysis of arthropod interceptions by APHIS -PPQ and Customs and Border 
Protection  in Puerto Rico. American Entomologist 60(1): 44 –57. 
 
Leathers, J (2016) California pest rating for Planococcus minor (Maskell): Pacific mealybug 
(Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae). https://blogs.cdfa.ca.gov/Section3162/?p=1720  
 
LIMS (2022) Laboratory Informatio n Management System. Ministry for Primary Industries 
internal database. Accessed 11/04/2022  
 
Maanaki -Whenua (2022) Ngā Tipu Whakaoranga Database. 
https://www.landcareresearch.co.nz/tools -and-resources/databases/nga -tipu-whakaoranga -
maori -plant -use-database / Accessed 14 March 2022  
 
MacIntyre, P; Hellstrom, J (2015) An evaluation of the costs of pest wasps (Vespula species) 
in New Zealand.  Department of Conservation and Ministry for Primary Industries, 
Wellington, New Zealand.  
 
Magsig -Castillo, J; Morse, J G ; Walker, G P; BI, J L; Rugman -Jones, P F; Stouthamer, R 
(2010) Phoretic Dispersal of Armored Scale Crawlers (Hemiptera: Diaspididae). Journal of 
Economic Entomology. 103(4): 1172 -1179.  
 
Maity, D; Sahoo, A; Mandal, S (1998) Evaluation of laboratory hosts f or rearing and mass 
multiplication of Planococcus minor  (Maskell) (Pseudococcidae: Hemiptera). Environmental 
and Ecology 16: 530 –532. 
 
Mani, M; Shivaraju, C (2016) Introduction. In M Mani; C Shivaraju (eds) Mealybugs and 
their management in agricultural an d horticultural crops.  Springer: New Delhi, India.  
  
325 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Manners, A; Duff, J (2015) Mealybugs - a pest of a different scale. 
https://www.horticulture.com.au/globalassets/hort -innovation/resource -assets/ny11001 -
mealy -bugs.pdf  
 
Martinez, M; Surís, M (1998) Biolo gía de Planococcus minor Maskell (Homoptera: 
Pseudococcidae) en condiciones de laboratorio. Revista de Protección Vegetal 13(3): 199 –
201. 
 
McFarlane, T (2007) The contribution of taewa (Maori potato) production to Maori 
sustainable development. thesis; Lincoln University, New Zealand.  
 
McVinnie, R (2008) 'Sweet as' - notes on the kumara or New Zealand sweet potato as a 
taonga or treasure. In  S Friedland (Ed.), Vegetables: Proceedings of the Oxford Symposium 
on Food and Cooking  (pp. 121 –131). UK: Prospect Books.  
 
Mendel, Z; Podoler, H; Rosen, D (1984) Population dynamics of the Mediterranean black 
scale, Saissetia oleae (Olivier), on citrus in Israel. 4. The natural enemies. Journal of the 
Entomological Society of South Africa 47(1): 1 –21. 
 
Mensah, S (2017) Development and trial of a methodology for the quantification and 
evaluation of home composting in Palmerston North,  New Zealand: a thesis submitted in 
partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Environmental Management 
(without major) at Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand. thesis; Massey 
University,  
 
Mgocheki, N; Addison, P (2009)  Interference of ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) with 
biological control of the vine mealybug Planococcus ficus  (Signoret) (Hemiptera: 
Pseudococcidae). Biological control 49: 180 –185. 
 
Miftakhurohmah; Hidayat, S; Mutaqin, K; Soekarno, B; Wahyuno, D (2022) S tudy on 
Ferrisia virgata  and Planococcus minor  as vectors of mottle disease in black pepper.  IOP 
Conference Series: Earth and Environment Science . Online.  
 
Miller, D; Kosztarab, M (1976) Recent advances in the study of scale insects. Annual Review 
of Ento mology 24: 1 –27. 
 
Miller, D; Rung, A; Parikh, G; Venable, G; Redford, A; Evans, G; Gill, R (2014) Scale 
insects. http://www.idtools.org/id/scales/about_citation.php Accessed February  
 
Morandi Filho, W (2008) Cochonilhas farinhentas associadas á videira na Serra Gaúcha, 
bioecologia e controle de Planococcus citri (Risso, 1813) (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae). (in 
Portuguese). thesis; Universidade Federal de Pelotas, Pelotas, Brazil.  
 
Morandi Filho, W; Pacheco -da-Silva, V; Granara de Willink, M; Prado, E; Bottom , M (2015) 
A survey of mealybugs infesting South -Brazilian wine vineyards. Revista Brasileira de 
Entomologia 59: 251 –254. 
 
MPI (2014) Generic pest risk assessment: armoured scale insects (Hemiptera: Coccoidea: 
Diaspididae) on the fresh produce pathway. htt ps://www.mpi.govt.nz/dmsdocument/5224  
  
326 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  MPI (2022) Draft internal pathway performance report. In. Wellington, NZ: Ministry of 
Primary Industries.  
 
NIWA (2022) 2021: New Zealand’s warmest year on record . NIWA National Climate 
Centre, Auckland, New Zealand.  
 
NSWDPI (2012) Impacts of urban and rural development. 
https://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fishing/habitat/threats/urban  
 
NZOR (2022) The New Zealand Organisms Register. http://nzor.org.nz Accessed May 2022  
 
NZPCN (2002) New Zealand Plant Conservation Network. https://www.nzpcn.org.nz 
Accessed 12 April 2022  
 
ONZPR (2022) Official New Zealand Pest Register. MPI Public Database. 
https://pierpestregister.mpi.govt.nz/PestsRegister/ImportCommodity/ Accessed May 2022  
 
Ooi, P; Winotai, A; Peña, J (2002) Pest o f minor tropical fruits. In J Peña; J Sharp; M Wysoki 
(eds) Tropical fruit pests and pollinators - Biology, economic importance, natural enemies 
and control.  CABI Publishing.  
 
Phillips, C B; Kean, J M; Vink, C J; Berry, J A (2018) Utility of the CLIMEX ‘ma tch 
climates regional’ algorithm for pest risk analysis: an evaluation with non -native ants in New 
Zealand. Biological Invasions : 1–15. 
 
Plant & Food Research (2020) Fresh Facts: New Zealand Horticulture . Plant & Food 
Research, Auckland, New Zealand.  
 
Plant & Food Research (2021) Fresh Facts: New Zealand Horticulture . Plant & Food 
Research, Auckland, New Zealand.  
 
Ports.com (2022) http://ports.com Accessed 10 March 2022  
 
PPIN (2022) Plant Pest Information Network, Version 5.03.01. Ministry for Primary 
Industries Internal Database. Accessed May 2022  
 
Roda, A; Francis, A; Kairo, M; Culik, M (2013) Planococcus minor  (Hemiptera: 
Pseudococcidae): Bioecology, survey and mitigation strategies. In J Peña (ed) Potential 
invasive pests of agricultural crops.  CABI: U K. 
 
Rung, A; Scheffer, J; Evans, G; Miller, D (2008) Molecular identification of two closely 
related species of mealybugs of the genus Planococcus  (Homoptera: Pseudococcidae). 
Annals of the Entomological Society of America 101(3): 525 –532. 
 
Sahoo, A; Ghosh , A (2001) Descriptions of all instars of the mealybug Planococcus minor  
(Maskell) (Homoptera, Pseudococcidae). Environmental and Ecology 19(2): 436 –445. 
 
Sahoo, A; Gosh, A; Mandal, S; Maiti, D (1999) Study on the biology of the mealybug 
Planococcus minor (Maskell) Pseudococcidae: Hemiptera. [Abstract only]. Journal of 
Interacademicia 3(1): 41 -48.  
327 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand   
Sands, D; New, T (2002) The action plan for Australian butterflies . Environment Australia; 
Camberra, Australia.  
 
Santa -Cecília, L; Reis, P; Souza, J (2002) Sobre  a nomenclatura das espécies de cochonilhas -
farinhentas do cafeiro nos estados de Minas Gerais e Espírito Santo. Neotropical Entomology 
31(2): 333 –334. 
 
Shukla, R; Tandon, P (1984) India -insect pests on custard apple. Plant Protection Bulletin 
FAO 32. 
 
Stocks, I; Roda, A (2011) The passionvine mealybug, Planococcus minor  (Maskell), a new 
exotic mealybug in South Florida (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) DACS -P-01769. 
https://www.fdacs.gov/content/download/72981/file/planococcus -minor.pdf Accessed March  
 
Tóbiás , I; Kozár , F; Kaydan , M; Fetykó , K (2010 ) Use of molecular tools for the 
identification of males of some scale insects (Hemiptera: Coccoidea), in pheromone  traps 
used for monitoring and comparison with females. Journal of Entomological and 
Acarological Research Ser. II , 42(3):171 -181. 
 
Thirumurugan, A; Gautan, R (2001) Relative toxicity of some insecticides to mealybug, 
Planococcus pacificus  (Pseudococcidae: Hemiptera). Annals of Plant Protection Sciences 9: 
135–136. 
 
University of Minnesota Extension (2013) Introduction to mealybugs. 
http://cues.cfans.umn.edu/old/inter/inmine/Mbugs.html Accessed 30 August 2022  
 
Venette, R; Davis, E (2004) Mini risk assessment - Passionvine mealybug: Planococcus 
minor  (Maskell) [Pseudococcidae: Hemiptera]. https://www.doc -developpement -
durable.org/file/Cu lture/Agriculture/ravageurs/Planococcus%20minor.pdf  
 
Viana de Souza, A; Botelho Costa, M; Souza, B; Santa -Cecília, L; Ribeiro Lima, R (2018) 
Host preference and biology of two cryptic species, Planococcus citri  (Risso) and 
Planococcus minor  (Maskell) (Hem iptera: Pseudococcidae). Revista Scientia Agraria 19(2): 
71–77. 
 
Wakgari, W; Giliomee, J (2005) Description of adult and immature females of six mealybug 
species (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) found on citrus in South Africa. African Entomology 
13: 281 –322. 
 
Warwick, D (2007) Ants of New Zealand . Otago University Press.  
 
Washburn, J; Frankie, G (1981) Dispersal of a scale insect, Pulvinariella mesembryanthemi 
(Homoptera: Coccoidea) on iceplant in California. Environmental Entomology 10: 724 –727. 
 
Washburn, J; Washburn, L (1984) Active aerial dispersal of minute wingless arthropods: 
exploitation of boundary -layer velocity gradients. Science 223: 1088 –1089.  
 
Waterworth, R; Wright, I; Millar, J (2011) Reproductive biology of three cosmopolitan 
mealybug (Hemiptera:  Pseudococcidae) species, Pseudococcus longispinus , Pseudococcus  
328 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  viburni , and Planococcus ficus . Annals of the Entomological Society of America 104: 249 –
260. 
 
Williams, D (1982) The distribution of the mealybug genus Planococcus  (Hemiptera: 
Pseudococcidae)  in Melanesia, Polynesia and Kiribati. Bulletin of Entomological Research 
72: 441 –445. 
 
Williams, D (2004) Mealybugs of Southern Asia . The Natural History Museum and 
Southdene SDN.BHD; Kuala Lampur, Malaysia.  
 
Williams, D; Granara de Willink, M (1992) Meal ybugs of Central and South America . CABI; 
Wallingford, UK.  
 
Williams, D; Watson, G (1988) The scale insects of the tropical South Pacific region. Part 2. 
The mealybugs (Pseudococcidae). CAB International Institute of Entomology; London, UK.  
 
Wistermann A; Grousset F; Petter F; Schrader G; Suffert M (2016) DROPSA Deliverable 1.3 
Report for table grapes – fruit pathway and alert list. EU project number 613678.  
 
Windbield -Rojas, K; Messenger -Sikes, B (2020) UC IPM Pest Notes: Sooty Mold. 
http://i pm.ucanr.edu/PMG/PESTNOTES/pn74108.html Accessed 14 March 2022  
 
Zaviezo, T; Cadena, E; Flores, M; Bergmann, J (2010) Influence of different plant substrated 
on development and reproduction for laboratory rearing of Pseudococcus calceolariae  
(Maskell) (Hemi ptera: Pseudococcidae). Ciencia e Investigación Agraria 37(3): 31 –37. 
 
  
329 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  8.5 Pseudococcus jackbeardsleyi (Jack Beardsley mealybug)  
 
Pseudococcus jackbeardsleyi  is a polyphagous mealybug that feeds on the sap of hos ts from 
over 50 plant families . This mealybug can infest most above -ground plant parts, including 
leaves, stems and fruit . It is present in many warmer parts of the world, in particular the 
Americas and Asia  and is commonly detected in on  nursery stock (plants for planting), 
ornamental s and fresh produce in various ports of entry around the world.  
 
 Taxonomic description  
Scientific name: Pseudococcus jackbeardsleyi  Gimpel and Miller 1996  
Order:  Hemiptera           Family:  Pseudococcidae  
Other names:  Jack Beardsley mealybug  
 
Taxonomic notes:   
Pseudococcus jackbeardsleyi  was first described by Gimpel and Miller in 1996, from 
specimens collected in 1921. Before it was  descri bed, P. jackbeardsleyi was often 
misidentified as the morphologically similar P. elisae. P seudococcus  elisae  has a more 
restricted host range and geographical distribution.  
 
 Hazard identification  
Pseudococcus jackbeardsleyi  is not present in New Zealand.  
• There is no entry of Pseudococcus  jackbeardsleyi  in NZOR (2022)  or BiotaNZ 
(2022) . 
• Pseudococcus  jackbeardsleyi  is listed as not present  in New Zealand in PPIN (2022) . 
• Pseudococcus  jackbeardsleyi  is a regulated pest for New Zealand and has unwanted 
status in ONZPR (2022) . 
 
Pseudococcus jackbeardsleyi  has the potential to become establish ed in New Zealand and  
spread . 
• The geographic distribution of P. jackbeardsleyi spans across many countries (Gimpel 
and Miller 1996) , and the climate in some of these regions is similar to some parts of 
New Zealand . 
• Pseudococcus  jackbeardsleyi  has a wide host range (Williams 2004; García -Morales 
et al. 2016)  and some hosts (e.g. tomato, potato and citrus) are commonly grown in 
many areas of New Zealand .  
• Pseudococcus jackbeardsleyi  feeds on different plant parts such as leaves, stems and 
fruits (Gimpel and Miller 1996; Williams 2004) .  
Pseudococcus jackbeardsleyi  has the potential to cause harm to  New Zealand . 
• Pseudococcus  jackbeardsleyi  has the potential to harm economically import ant plants 
(e.g. capsicum, tomato, potato and citrus) in New Zealand by damaging their 
appearance.  
• Pseudococcus  jackbeardsleyi  has the potential to expand its host range to include 
some native plants because it has host species in the same genera in its r ealised 
geographic range.   
330 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  • Pseudococcus  jackbeardsleyi  has the potential to affect culturally significant plants 
such as sweet potato (k ūmara) and plants that are grown by home gardeners.  
 
Pseudococcus jackbeardsleyi  is associated with pineapple fruit.  
• Pineapple is a host of P. jackbeardsleyi (Gimpel and Miller 1996; Culik et al. 2007) , 
and the mealybug may be found on all plant parts of its hosts including fruit (Gimpel 
and Miller 1996) .  
• Pseudococcus  jackbeardsleyi has been intercepted on pineapples at the New  Zealand 
border (LIMS 2022) . 
• Mealybug  species  associated with pineapples are typically more prevalent on mature 
plants and fruit  than immature plants or suckers that are yet to start fruiting  
(Bartholomew and Malézieux 1994) , however, the level of fruit maturity was not 
clearly defined.  
 
MPI considers Pseudococcus jackbeardsleyi  a hazard on pineapple  fruit imported to 
New  Zealand.  
 
 Risk assessment  
8.5.3.1  Biology  
 
Hosts and geographical distribution  
Pseudococcus jackbeardsleyi  is a polyphagous pest which has been reported from 158 plant 
species in 54 plant families (García -Morales et al. 2016) . Some economically important hosts 
include capsicum, tomato, potato, citrus and pineapple (Williams 2004; Culik et al. 2007; 
García -Mora les et al. 2016) . Pseudococcus  jackbeardsleyi  feeds on sap from the stems, fruits 
and leaves of its hosts (Gimpel and Miller 1996; Williams 2004; Mani et al. 2013) . It is 
mostly distributed in tropical areas (Gimpel and Miller 1996; Matile -Ferrero 2006; Ge rmain 
et al. 2008; Muniappan et al. 2009; Germain 2013; Germain et al. 2014) . The geographic 
distribution of P. jackbeardsleyi  is shown in Table 1.  
 
Table 1: Geographic distribution of Pseudococcus jackbeardsleyi . Distribution is  based on García 
Morales et al. (2016)  except where a different reference is cited. Markets  in this IRA are in bold.  
Continent/Region  Country/ area/market  
Africa  Cote d’Ivoire, Réunion, St. Helena, Seychelles  
Asia Brunei, Cambodia, China (Hainan, Xinjiang), India (Kerala, Tamilnadu), 
Indonesia  (Java, East Nusa Tenggara, West Papua), Laos, Malaysia , 
Maldives, The Philippines , Singapore, Singapore, Sri Lanka , Taiwan , 
Thailand , Vietnam  
Europe  N/A 
North America 
and the Caribbean 
Islands  Aruba, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Costa Rica , Cuba, Dominican Republic, 
El Salvador, Guadeloupe, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Martinique, 
Mexico, Panama , Puerto Rico and Vieques Island, St. Martin, St. 
Barthelemy, Trinidad and  Tobago, USA (Hawaii, Florida, Texas ), U. S . Virgin 
Islands  
Oceania  Australia  (Queensland)  (Queensland Government 2020) , Papua New 
Guinea, Federated States of Micronesia, French Polynesia, Kiribati, Niue 
(McKenzie et al. 2001) , Tuvalu   
331 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Continent/Region  Country/ area/market  
South America  Brazil (Espírito Santo, Pernambuco, Rio Grande do Sul), Colombia, Ecuador  
(Galapagos Islands), Peru, Venezuela  
 
General biology  
The feeding behaviour and general biology of P. jackbeardsleyi  is typical of other mealybugs 
(Williams 2004; CABI 2022) . There are few published reports on the biology of P. 
jackbeardsleyi  specifically, so some information is general to mealybugs. Mealybugs  have 
five male instars and four female instars (including adults). Pseudococcus  jackbeardsleyi  lays 
about 300 to 500 eggs   in a waxy cotton -like material (ovisac) on the host plant (Und hawutti 
et al. 2011) . The process of making the ovisac and laying eggs may take 1 –2 weeks 
(Undhawutti et al. 2011)  but it is not clear if the adult female lays only one set of eggs over 
the course of its life. The eggs frequently hatch within 7 –10 days (Undhawutti et al. 2011; 
Wang 2015) . The first instars (crawlers) are the most mobile stage of all mealybugs . Using 
their well developed legs, they are able to crawl out of the ovisac towards a favourable 
feeding site on the host plant (Williams 2004; Mau and  Kessig 2022) . Other life  stages are 
less mobile (Mau and Kessig 2022) . The male pupa is black and covered in multiple wax 
layers ( Wang (2015) . Although P. jackbeardsleyi  adult males have not been specifically 
described, male mealybugs are generally small,  winged, lacking functional mouth parts, and 
alive for less than a day (Williams 2004; CABI 2022) . Adult P. jackbeardsleyi females are 
the most commonly encountered lifestage (Sartiami et al. 2016; Pacheco Silva et al. 2019) . 
They can be found in mixed col onies with other mealybugs, e.g. Paracoccus marginatus  
(Sartiami et al. 2016) . Adult P. jackbeardsleyi females are occasionally tended by ants (e.g. 
Brachymyrmex  spp. and Crematogaster spp.) which feed on the honeydew produced by the 
mealybugs (Williams 20 04; Kondo et al. 2008) . Depending on climatic conditions, about 
eight or nine generations of the pest can occur in a year (CABI 2022) . The life span of P. 
jackbeardsleyi under natural conditions is not known but it takes ≤ 35 days to grow from eggs 
to adults in the laboratory (Shao et al. 2013; Wang 2015) . Since males are reported it is 
assumed that P. jackbeardsleyi reproduces sexually however it is not known whether ther e 
are also asexually reproducing forms.  
 
The optimum temperature required for growth and development of P. jackbeardsleyi in the 
laboratory is 25°C (Zhan et al. 2016; Piyaphongkul et al. 2018; Nurkomar et al. 2021)  while 
the minimum and maximum lethal temp eratures for nymphs and adults are 5°C and 56°C 
respectively (Piyaphongkul et al. 2018) . Pseudococcus  jackbeardsleyi  nymphs, like the 
nymphs of other mealbugs, can disperse naturally by walking across short distances 
(Williams 2004) . Longer distance disper sal can take place by wind or phoresy (Gimpel and 
Miller 1996; Williams 2004) , but long range dispersal (invasion) usually occurs via human -
mediated movement of infested host plant material (Gimpel and Miller 1996) . 
 
Symptoms  
Pineapple is a known host of  P. jackbeardsleyi , (Gimpel and Miller 1996; Culik et al. 2007)  
however  it is not known to cause any particular damage to the plant. The lack of reports of 
damage to pineapple by P. jackbeardsleyi is partly attributed to suppression by natural 
enemies (Culik et al. 2007) . Heavy infestions of P. jackbeardsleyi on other plants are 
generally obvious beca use they often form colonies or exist in mixed colonies with other 
mealybugs (Pacheco Silva et al. 2019) . Even after removal of the mealybugs and their ovisacs 
from heavily infested fruits, their honeydew by -products develop sooty moulds which may 
remain o n the fruits (Pacheco Silva et al. 2019) .  
  
332 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  8.5.3.2  Likelihood of entry  
Pseudococcus jackbeardsleyi  has a wide range of hosts and is mostly distributed in tropical 
regions (Table 1). It is reported from 10 out of the 17 markets within the scope of this IRA 
project , including Costa Rica, Ecuador, Indonesia, Malaysia, Panama, Papua New Guinea, 
the Philippines , Sri Lanka, Taiwan and Thailand (Gimpel and Miller 1996; Williams 2004; 
García -Morales et al. 2016) . Most of the pineapple fruit currently imported to New Zeala nd 
are from the Philippines and Ecuador (QuanCargo 2021) . While this mealybug is known to 
be associated with pineapple, most invasions have been associated with other plant hosts.  P. 
jackbeardsleyi has been observed on pineapple plants in Brazil, Costa Ric a, Cuba, Domincan 
Republic and Puerto Rico (Gimpel and Miller 1996; Williams 2004; Culik et al. 2007) .  
 
Mealybugs are generally more prevalent on mature pineapple plants and fruits (Bartholomew 
and Malézieux 1994)  but the level of fruit maturity was not c learly defined. There are three 
records  of the mealybug being intercepted at the New  Zealand border on pineapples from the 
Philippines between 2000 and 2020 (LIMS 2022) . P. jackbeardsleyi is often intercepted on 
pineaples in China (Zhan et al. 2016) . It is  possible that the interceptions of Pseudococcus  
mealybugs on pineapples at Italy’s border (EPPO 2022)  were P. jackbeardsleyi but this is not 
confirmed. Adult P. jackbeardsleyi females are 3 –4 mm long and 2 mm wide with long tail 
filaments (Gimpel and Miller 1996; Undhawutti et al. 2011) . The first instars are tiny (0.7 –
1.2 mm long), more mobile (Undhawutti et al. 2011) , and capable of hiding in the bracts, 
exterior grooves or cr own remains of pineapples. The first instars of P. jackbeardsleyi are 
more likely to be missed at border inspections than the adults. The eggs and nymphs of 
pseudococcid  mealybugs are frequently intercepted on pineapples at the New Zealand border 
(LIMS 202 2). Since pseudococcid  mealybugs are morphogically indistinguishable at the egg 
and nymphal stages (Williams 2004) , it is likely that some of Pseudococcidae interceptions 
on pineapples at the New Zealand border were P. jackbeardsleyi . 
 
Thermal acclimation experiments by Piyaphongkul et al. (2018)  showed that P. 
jackbeardsleyi mealybugs  can survive at temperatures below 13°C but are not likely to retain 
their muscular control or develop. The temperature requirement (7°C –13°C) during shipping 
may not be suffi cient to stop the mealybug entering New Zealand if it can continue its 
development at normal room temperature when it arrives. Additionally, pineaples fruits 
imported by air cargo may not undergo the required temperature (7°C –13°C), and even if 
they do, it  may only be for hours rather than days or weeks as is the case by sea ships. This 
may also explain the live P. jackbeardsleyi mealybugs that has been intercepted on 
pineapples at the New Zealand border (LIMS 2022) . P. jackbeardsleyi is susceptible to 
irradiation, chemical and heat treatment, partly because it is on the exterior of the fruit (Ma et 
al. 2014; Wang 2015; Hofmeyr et al. 2016) . 
 
Uncertainty  
There is moderate uncertainty about whether P. jackbeardsleyi could arrive on the 
commodity. Thorough cleaning is likely to reduce abundance of the mealybugs on the 
commodity especially when they occur in a colony. Thorough cleaning using high water 
pressure reduces the mealybugs on capsicums but does not eliminate t hem (Jamieson et al. 
2010) .  
Pseudococcus  jackbeardsleyi  can survive at temperatures below 13°C  (Piyaphongkul et al. 
2018) , but no information was found about the length of time it can survive at such 
temperatures. Since the mealybug can lose muscular control at temperatures close to 13°C 
(Piyaphongkul et al. 2018) , it is not clear if it will still be fit enough to survive in  the New 
Zealand environment, especially if the cold transit period is long (two to three weeks).   
333 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand   
Given that: 
• the mealybug  is associated with the exterior of the pineapple fruit , 
• the first instars of the mealybugs may be missed during border inspections i f they 
hide under pineapple bracts,  
• the mealybug  can survive short transits to New Zealand, especially if the commodity 
is brought in by air cargo.  
but considering:  
• no information was found to associate the mealybug with pineapple fruits apart from 
interce ption data.  
• that b asic pre -export cleaning may reduce the mealybugs’ abundance on the 
commodity , 
• the mealybug is unlikely to remain viable after long transits in cold temperatures,  
 
MPI considers the likelihood of P. jackbeardsleyi  entering New Zealand associated with 
pineapple fruit is LOW, with MODERATE uncertainty.  
 
8.5.3.3  Likelihood of exposure  
This assessment is made on the assumption that Pseudococcus jackbeardsleyi  has entered 
New Zealand undetected. Exposure is considered to be the transfer of a pest or disease from 
an imported commodity or inanimate object, to a host or environment suitable for the 
completion of development or production of offspring.  
 
Imported fresh pineapple fruit is intended for human consumption, therefore, when  the fruit 
arrives in New Zealand it will be distributed throughout New Zealand for wholesale or retail 
sale. Fresh pineapple fruit generates substantial amounts of unavoidable waste; the thick rind 
is always removed and disposed of, and the fruit is also sometimes cored (see waste analysis 
section 2.3.1). The disposal of whole fruit (e.g. culled/unsold fruit, uneaten fruit remains) is 
common during wholesale, retail and by consumers. This suggests that P. jackbeardsleyi  may 
have a higher likelihood of expo sure when associated with fresh pineapple fruit than when it 
is associated with other kinds of fresh produce that are generally eaten whole.  
 
In New Zealand the most common method of disposal of organic waste is bagged into landfill 
(Askarany and Franklin -Smith 2014) ; this is unlikely to be a risk. However, there are other 
disposal methods that could increase the exposure likelihood of the mealybug, such as 
feeding out to animals, home composting and direct disposal into the environment.  Fruit 
waste may be collected from unpacking areas (e.g., supermarket preparation rooms) and 
taken to rural areas where it is placed on the ground for eventual consumption by pigs or 
other farm animals (MPI 2014) . The waste materials may also be used in worm farming. 
Worm far ming is considered a low -risk method of organic waste disposal because organic 
waste is often cut into small pieces (Angima et al. 2011)  and the worm farm bins are often 
covered.  
 
Composting is considered a low -risk method if it is done commercially. Waste  in commercial 
compost is put into tunnels for a period of three to four days at temperatures of 55 °C or 
higher and these conditions are likely to kill all stages of P. jackbeardsleyi  since no lifestages 
survive at 49 °C or higher for more than two hours (Ma et al. 2014) . Home composting 
increases the likelihood of exposure. A study conducted in Palmerston North found that 63%  
334 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  of a total of 72 households that do home composting used manufactured plastic bins for 
composting and the majority of others used a n ‘open’ composting system, such as open 
compost piles and piles fenced with wire (Mensah 2017) . Even though both home 
composting methods increase the likelihood of exposure of the mealybug to immediate hosts 
that are commonly found in New Zealand gardens (e.g., citrus and ornamentals), compost in 
plastic bins is less likely to result in successful exposure than in open compost. In plastic 
bins, organic waste is piled up inside the bin and usually the bins are black, which helps keep 
high temperatures insid e the bin. Plastic bins have holes for aeration on the outside close to 
the ground. For a mealybug to escape the compost bin, the compost bin needs to be almost 
empty. If a mealybug escapes a plastic bin or open compost, many suitable host plants are 
avail able at ground level and could be within the walking range of crawlers.   
 
Pseudococcus  jackbear dsleyi is a polyphagous species that is able to feed on most plant parts 
(Gimpel and Miller 1996) , potentially allowing it to persist in the environment when infested 
pineapple fruit parts are discarded. Although the first instars of P. jackbear dsleyi, like other 
mealybugs, are more mobile than the three succeeding life stages (Williams 2004) , all the  
nymphs and adult females have well developed legs (Gimpel and Miller 1996)  and can move 
over very short distances to find an appropriate feeding site on host plants (Williams 2004) . 
Additionally, P. jackbeardsleyi can be dispersed onto other suitable host s by wind when 
infested host leaves are blown away (Williams 2004) . Its polyphagous nature means the 
mealybug has an increased likelihood of encountering a new host that is suitable by chance. 
The use of pumpkins and sprouting potatoes to culture P. jackbe ardsleyi in the laboratory 
(Undhawutti et al. 2011; Pumnuan and Insung 2016; Zhan et al. 2016; Piyaphongkul et al. 
2018)  suggests that the pest can easily survive on available plant materials when infested 
pineapple fruit parts are discarded in the environ ment.  
 
Uncertainty  
Information regarding food waste in New Zealand is based on general data and there is no 
specific information on pineapple waste. Therefore , it is assumed that the percentages of 
pineapple fruit skin which are not disposed in the landfill in New Zealand will be much 
lower.  
 
While P. jackbeardsleyi can easily feed on a wide variety of plant species, the presence of 
secondary metabolites (e.g. a lkaloids and acetogenins) in some plant stems and leaves may 
have negative impacts on the mealybug’s survival (Pacheco Silva et al. 2019) . The relatively 
colder climate of New Zealand might be a limiting factor in the survival of P. jackbear dsleyi 
and its exposure to suitable hosts since the pest is more prevalent in tropical areas (see Table 
1). It is not clear if the mealybug can develop or recover after being paralysed by the required 
low temperatures for shipping. Thus it is uncertain if it can be expos ed to the environment.  
 
Given that: 
• the mealybug  has a wide variety of hosts and it feeds on the stems, fruits and leaves 
of its hosts ; 
• the mealybug  can actively crawl to a new feeding site and can be blown by wind to a 
suitable host ; 
but considering:  
• the mealybug is unlikely to survive commercial composting, and  
• cold temperatures and plant secondary metabolites can impede the mealybugs’ s 
survival ; 
  
335 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand   
MPI considers the likelihood of exposure of  P. jackbeardsleyi in New Zealand from 
pineapple fruit  is VERY LOW , with MODERATE uncertainty . 
 
8.5.3.4  Likelihood of establishment  
This assessment is made on the basis that Pseudococcus jackbeardsleyi  has been successfully 
exposed to a suitable host plant in the New Zealand environment.  
 
Pseudococcus  jackbeardsleyi  has over 150 reported plant hosts (García -Morales et al. 2016)  
and the majority of these hosts are economically significant plants. Some of the known  hosts 
occur in New Zealand as commercially cultivated crops (e.g. capsicum, potatoes and 
tomatoes) and/or backyard plants (e.g. citrus) in many home gardens. Pseudococcus  
jackbeardsleyi  feeds on the stems, leaves and fruits of its host plants (Gimpel and Miller 
1996) . Lantana camara is a known host of the mealybug (Gimpel and Miller 1996)  and 
occurs in New  Zealand . The unusually wide range of host plants strongly suggests that 
P. jackbeardsleyi  will find new hosts in New Zealand. Availability of hosts will  likely favour 
the establishment of P. jackbeardsleyi . 
 
Pseudococcus  jackbeardsleyi  is distributed across a wide geographical range (Table 1). 
However, most of the countries where P. jackbeardsleyi exist have tropical climates. The 
northern parts of New Zealand have a warmer and more humid climate, which is typical of 
countries where P. jackbeardsleyi occurs. We assess whether climatic conditions are similar 
to New Zealand using the composite match i ndex (Phillips 2018) . The CMI values range 
from 0.2 to 1. If a country has CMI of ≥ 0.7, its climate is similar to the climate of all of 
New  Zealand. While the ranges of CMI values in most of the countries where 
P. jackbeardsleyi  occurs are less than 0.6, it also occurs in other places like Taiwan (0.4 –0.7), 
the warmer regions of USA (0.5 –0.7), and Mexico (0.3 –0.8), which demonstrates its potential 
to establish a population in the northern parts of the North Island. The few odd records from 
Canada (Gimpel a nd Miller 1996)  and China (Wang et al. 2018)  were associated with indoor 
or greenhouse plants. P. jackbeardsleyi  has not become established in those regions. The 
predicted increasing range of insect pest occurrence as a result of climate change (Skendžić e t 
al. 2021)  may increase the potential of P. jackbeardsleyi to establish a population in New 
Zealand.   
 
Established populations of mealybugs can spread to non -infested hosts when crawlers 
attached to plant parts are blown by wind to a suitable host sites (Williams 2004) . This 
suggests that P. jackbeardsleyi could spread if it becomes established in New Zealand. 
However, P. jackbeardsleyi is unlikely to spread beyond the northern part of the North 
Island, which has a warmer climate than the rest of New Zeala nd. Although P. jackbeardsleyi 
has been recorded in the warmer parts of USA (Gimpel and Miller 1996)  for about 30 years 
or more, it is yet reach the colder parts of USA. Temperature might be a factor limiting its 
spread. The detection of P. jackbeardsleyi in a flower greenhouse market in China (Wang et 
al. 2018)  suggests that the mealybug could possibly spread through the trade of greenhouse 
plants if it establishes a population in New Zealand.  
 
Uncertainty  
It is not clear if P. jackbeardsleyi ’s co -occurrence with other mealybugs can enable its 
establishment in New Zealand. For example, Planococcus minor  occurs in mixed colonies  
336 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  with P. jackbeardsleyi (Sartiami et al. 2016) , but it is not clear if P. jackbeardsleyi competes 
with such mealybugs or benefits from their presence.  
 
New Zealand has two of P. jackbeardsleyi ’s five natural enemies, which may limit its 
population size and spread . These are one insect ( Cryptolaemus montrouzieri ) (Mani et al. 
2013)  and one fun gus ( Lecanicillium lecanii ) (Ginting et al. 2020) .  
 
Given that: 
• hosts are widely available for the establishment of P. jackbeardsleyi ; 
but considering:  
• the climate is rela tively  unsuitable for the mealybug ’s establishment,  
• existence of natural enemies may  impede spread and population size of the 
mealybug;  
 
MPI considers the likelihood of  Pseudococcus jackbeardsleyi  establishing in New Zealand is 
VERY LOW , with MODERATE uncertainty.  
8.5.3.5  Overall risk to New Zealand  
Based on the assessments of lik elihood and consequences above, that:  
 
• the lik elihood of entry is LOW with MODERATE uncertainty,  
• assuming entry, the likelihood of exposure is VERY LOW with MODERATE 
uncertainty,  
• assuming successful exposure, the likelihood of establishment is VERY LOW with  
MODERATE uncertainty,  
 
The combined likelihood for entry, exposure and establishment is NEGLIGIBLE. Therefore, 
MPI considers the overall level of assessed risk to New Zealand from Pseudococcus  
jackbeardsleyi  on pineapple fruit is NEGLIGIBLE, with MODERAT E uncertainty. This is 
based on the methodology provided in the ‘Guidelines for Risk Analysis in Plant Biosecurity 
1.0’ 
 
 Specific considerations  
On which pineapple variety (or varieties) and at what stage of rip eness has  
Pseudococcus jackbeardsleyi  association with pineapple fruit been observed?  
No information was found to suggest that P. jackbeardsleyi  is associated with a particular  
stage o f ripeness o r variet y of pineapple fruits.  
 
Which parts of the pineapple fruit is Pseudococcus jackbeardsleyi  associated with (e.g. 
fruit, bract, stem or crown remnant) and is it detectable by visual detection?  
No information was found linking P. jackbeardsleyi  to any specific part of pineapple frui t, 
but it is clearly associated with fruit (LIMS 2022) . It is known to feed on stems, leaves and 
fruits of its host plants, therefore, it will likely be associated with all exterior parts of 
pineapple fruit.The mealybug is detectable by visual inspection b ut the first three instars are 
likely to be missed because they are smaller and can hide under the pineapple bracts.  
 
Are different lifestages of the Pseudococcus jackbeardsleyi  associated with different 
parts of the pineapple fruit?   
337 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  No information was fou nd about specific life stages of Pseudococcus  jackbeardsleyi  
associating with particular parts of the pineapple fruit. All post -egg stages of the mealybug 
have well developed legs and can move around the fruit.  
 
Does Pseudococcus jackbeardsleyi  burrow into  the fruit without obvious symptoms, hide 
under the pineapple bract OR exhibit latent/asymptomatic traits?  
Pseudococcus jackbeardsleyi  feeds and lives on the exterior parts of its hosts. The first three 
instars are small and can easily hide under the pineapple bracts, grooves and crown remains. 
The adult females are relatively obvious. The cotton -like ovisac with eggs is quite obvious.  
 
 References  
Angima, S; Noack, M; Noack, S (2011) Composting with worms. 
https://catalog.extension.oregonstate.edu/sites/catalog/files/project/pdf/em9034.pdf  
 
Askarany, D; Franklin -Smith, A W (2014) Cost benefit analyses of organic waste composting 
systems through the lens of time driven activity -based costing. Journal of applied 
management accounting research 12(2): 59 –73. 
 
Bartholomew, D P; Malézieux, E (1994) Pineapple. Handbook of environmental physiology 
of fruit crops 2: 243 –291. 
 
BiotaNZ (2022) Biota of New Zealand. https://biotaNZ.landcareresearch.co.nz Accessed 
30/04/2022  
 
CABI (2022) Pseudococcus jackbeardsleyi . https://www.cabi.org/cpc/datasheet/45087  
 
Culik, M; Ventura, J; dos S. Martins, D (2007) Scale insects (Hemiptera: Coccidae) of 
pineapple in the State of Espírito Santo, Brazil. In VI International Pineapple Symposium 822  
(pp. 215 –218).  
 
EPPO (2022) EPPO Reporting Service. https://gd.eppo.int/reporting/  
 
García -Morales, M; Denno, B; Miller, G; Ben -Dov, Y; Hardy, N (2016) A literature base 
model of scale insect biology and systematics  (Publication no. 10.1093/database/bav118). 
http://scalenet.info  
 
García Morales, M; Denno, B; Miller, D; Miller, G; Ben -Dov, Y; Hardy, N (2016) ScaleNet: 
A literature -based model of scale insect biology and sy stematics. In. 
 
Germain, J -F (2013) Quatre espèces de Cochenilles invasives nouvelles pour l’île de la 
Réunion (Hemiptera, Coccoidea). Bulletin de la Société entomologique de France 118(4): 
509–511. 
 
Germain, J -F; Attié, M; Barbet, A; Franck, A; Quilici, S (2008) New scale insects recorded 
for the Comoros and Seychelles Islands. In Proceedings of the XI International Symposium 
on Scale Insect Studies : ISA Press.  
  
338 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Germain, J -F; Minatchy, J; Pastou, D; B agny, P; Mérion, S; Pallas, R; Quilici, S; Matile 
Ferrero, D (2014) An updated checklist of the scale insects from Réunion Island (Indian 
Ocean). Acta Zoologica Bulgarica 6: 21 –27. 
 
Gimpel, W F; Miller, D R (1996) Systematic analysis of the mealybugs in th e Pseudococcus 
maritimus complex (Homoptera: Pseudococcidae). Systematic analysis of the mealybugs in 
the Pseudococcus maritimus complex (Homoptera: Pseudococcidae). 2(1).  
 
Ginting, S; Pameka, T D; Bustaman, H; Priyatiningsih, S; Wibowo, R H (2020) 
Pathoge nicity of entomopathogenic fungi Lecanicillium lecanii  and Beauveria bassiana  
against Pseudococcus jackbeardsleyi (Pseudococcidae) infecting rambutan. Serrangga 25(3): 
1–11. 
 
Hofmeyr, H; Indarwatmi, M; Seth, R; Zhan, G (2016) Development of a generic radia tion 
dose for the postharvest phytosanitary treatment of mealybug species (Hemiptera: 
Pseudococcidae). Florida Entomologist 99: 191 –196. 
 
Jamieson, L; Page -Weir, N; Chhagan, A; Olsson, S; Connolly, P (2010) High pressure 
waterwashing to remove pests from c apsicums. New Zealand Plant Protection 63: 118 –122. 
 
Kondo, T; Ramos -Portilla, A A; Vergara -Navarro, E V (2008) Updated list of mealybugs and 
putoids from Colombia (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae and Putoidae). Boletín del Museo de 
Entomología de la Universidad  del Valle 9(1): 29 –53. 
 
LIMS (2022) Laboratory Information Management System. Ministry for Primary Industries 
internal database. Accessed 11/04/2022  
 
Ma, C; Li, B; Ren, L; He, Y; Wang, Y; Liu, B (2014) Comparison on the tolerance of 
Pseudococcus jackbeard sleyi (Homoptera: Coccoidea) to forced hot air treatment and hot 
water immersion. Plant Quarantine 2014(2): 10 –14. 
 
Mani, M; Joshi, S; Kalyanasundaram, M; Shivaraju, C; Krishnamoorthy, A; Asokan, R; 
Rebijith, K (2013) A new invasive Jack Beardsley mealybug, Pseudococcus jackbeardsleyi  
(Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) on papaya in India. Florida Entomologist 96(1): 242 –245. 
 
Matile -Ferrero, D (2006) Cochenilles des Antilles Françaises et de quelques autres îles des 
Caraïbes [Hemiptera, Coccoidea]. Revue francaise d'Entomologie 28(4): 161 –190. 
 
Mau, R F L; Kessig, J L M (2022) Crop Knowledge Master. 
http://www.extento.hawaii.ed u/kbase/crop/type/p_jackbe.htm Accessed 08/04  
 
McKenzie, E H; Liebregts, W; Tairea, B M (2001) Niue Pest Survey . Landcare Research 
New Zealand Ltd, New Zealand. https://spccfpstore1.blob.core.windows.net/digitallibrary -
docs/files/53/5327e758a2d79150a24c073 48ed7d248.pdf?sv=2015 -12-
11&sr=b&sig=2vtrXONIz2ujyRGr%2BJzsKKBjv0jjT0AvIkj3lSZLjA4%3D&se=2022 -11-
28T03%3A42%3A36Z&sp=r&rscc=public%2C%20max -age%3D864000%2C%20max -
stale%3D86400&rsct=application%2Fpdf&rscd=inline%3B%20filename%3D%22Niue_Pest
_Survey_Final_Rep ort_Aug2001.pdf%22  
  
339 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Mensah, S (2017) Development and trial of a methodology for the quantification and 
evaluation of home composting in Palmerston North, New Zealand: a thesis submitted in 
partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Environmental Manage ment 
(without major) at Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand. thesis; Massey 
University,  
 
MPI (2014) Generic pest risk assessment: armoured scale insects (Hemiptera: Coccoidea: 
Diaspididae) on the fresh produce pathway. https://www.mpi.govt.nz /dmsdocument/5224  
 
Muniappan, R; Shepard, B; Watson, G; Carner, G; Rauf, A; Sartiami, D; Hidayat, P; Afun, J; 
Goergen, G; Rahman, A Z (2009) New records of invasive insects (hemiptera: 
Sternorrhyncha) in Southeast Asia and West Africa. Journal of Agricult ural and Urban 
Entomology 26(4): 167 –174. 
 
Nurkomar, I; Trisnawati, D W; Aisyah, S N (2021) Pest insects in cassava plantations 
intercrop with different plants at Gunungkidul, Yogyakarta, Indonesia. Serangga 26(1): 1 –12. 
 
NZOR (2022) The New Zealand Organi sms Register. http://nzor.org.nz Accessed May 2022  
 
ONZPR (2022) Official New Zealand Pest Register. MPI Public Database. 
https://pierpestregister.mpi.govt.nz/PestsRegister/ImportCommodity/ Accessed May 2022  
 
Pacheco Silva, V C; Kaydan, M B; Torres, J (201 9) Mealybug species (Hemiptera: 
Coccomorpha: Pseudococcidae) on soursop and sugar apple (Annonaceae) in North -East 
Brazil, with description of a new species of Pseudococcus Westwood. Zootaxa 4604(3).  
 
Phillips, C B K, J M; Vink, C; Berry, J (2018) Utility of the CLIMAX match climates 
regional algorithm for pest risk analysis: An evaluation with non -native ants in New Zealand. 
Biological Invasions. 20: 777 -791. 
 
Piyaphongkul, J; Suraksakul, P; Tangchitsomkid, N; Sahaya, S (2018) Thermal acclimation 
capacity of Jack Beardsley mealybug ( Pseudococcus jackbeardsleyi ) to survive in a warming 
world. Journal of Asia -Pacific Entomology 21(2): 737 –742. 
 
PPIN (2022) Plant Pest Information Network, Version 5.03.01. Ministry for Primary 
Industries Internal Database. Acce ssed May 2022  
 
Pumnuan, J; Insung, A (2016) Fumigant toxicity of plant essential oils in controlling thrips, 
Frankliniella schultzei (Thysanoptera: Thripidae) and mealybug, Pseudococcus 
jackbeardsleyi (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae). Journal of Entomological R esearch 40(1): 1 –
10. 
 
QuanCargo (2021) Ministry for Primary Industries internal database. Accessed 1 July 2021  
 
Queensland Government (2020 ) Jack Beardsley mealybug . 
https://www.business.qld.gov.au/industries/farms -fishing -
forestry /agriculture/biosecurity/plants/priority -pest-disease/jack -beardsley -
mealybug#:~:text=Jack%20Beardsley%20mealybug%20(Pseudococcus%20jackbeardsleyi,or
chids%2C%20pepper%20and%20hibiscus%20plants.)  Accessed April 2022  
  
340 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Sartiami, D; Watson, G W; Roff, M M N; I dris, A B (2016) Mealybugs (Hemiptera: 
Coccomorpha: Pseudococcidae) attacking Hibiscus rosa -sinensis  L. in Malaysia, with two 
new country records. In AIP Conference Proceedings  (Vol. 1784, pp. 060007): AIP 
Publishing LLC.  
 
Shao, Y; Ren, L; Liu, Y; Wang, Y;  Jiao, Z; Qiaoling, W; Zhan, G (2013) The primary results 
of the impact on the development and reproduction of Jack Beardsley Mealybug irradiated 
with Colbot -60 gamma rays. Plant Quarantine 2013(6): 51 –55. 
 
Skendžić, S; Zovko, M; Živković, I P; Lešić, V; Lemić, D (2021) The impact of climate 
change on agricultural insect pests. Insects 12(5): 440.  
 
Undhawutti, C; Buamas, C; Bamrungsri, L; Kaewsawat, S (2011) Taxonomy and biology of 
mealybug Pseudococcus jackb eardsleyi Gimpel and Miller . Department of Agriculture, 
Bangkok. https://www.doa.go.th/research/attachment.php?aid=10  
 
Wang, Y -S; Zhou, P; Tian, H; Wan, F -H; Zhang, G -F (2018) First Record of the Invasive 
Pest Pseudococcus jackbeardsleyi  (Hemiptera: Pseudo coccidae) on the Chinese Mainland 
and Its Rapid Identification Based on Species -Specific Polymerase Chain Reaction. Journal 
of Economic Entomology 111(5): 2120 –2128.  
 
Wang, Y (2015) Effects of ethyl formate fumigation on Pseudococcus jackbeardsleyi and 
nutritional quality of pineapple.  thesis; Shanxi Agricultural University, Shanxi, China. 
Retrieved from 
https://oversea.cnki.net/KCMS/detail/detail.aspx?dbcode=CMFD&dbname=CMFD201502&
filename=1015635255.nh&uniplatform=OVERSEAS_EN&v=G1Q5SRNcCU -
WiXy4RvMMTrKTJv_ B5Ure0GejsB4aI9Sv5QiW_TPsiH8zXQj -UoF9  
 
Williams, D (2004) Mealybugs of Southern Asia . The Natural History Museum and 
Southdene SDN.BHD; Kuala Lampur, Malaysia.  
 
Zhan, G; Shao, Y; Yu, Q; Xu, L; Liu, B; Wang, Y; Wang, Q (2016) Phytosanitary irradiation 
of Jack Beardsley mealybug (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) females on rambutan (Sapindales: 
Sapindaceae) fruits. Florida Entomologist 99(2): 114 –120. 
 
  
341 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  9 Pest risk assessments on insects: Lepidotera, 
Cosmopterigidae  (cosmet moths)  
9.1 Anatrachyntis rileyi (pink scavenger caterpillar)  
Anatrachyntis rileyi  is generally regarded as a scavenger that feeds on dead plant material, 
however it can also feed on healthy plant tissue. It has tropical and subtropical distribution but 
has also estab lished in some temperate regions. Larvae are mainly associated with the flower 
parts of the pineapple plant but occasionally damages the fruit surface by boring into the fruit. 
This affects the fruit shelf life and marketability.  
 
 Taxonomic description  
Scientific name: Anatrachyntis rileyi (Walshingham, 1882)  
Order : Lepidoptera      Family: Cosmopterigidae  
Other scientific names : Batrachedra rileyi  Walsingham, 1882;  Pyroderces rileyi  
(Walsingham, 1882) ; Sathrobrota rileyi  (Walsingham, 1882); Batrachedra stigmatophora  
Walsingham, 1897; Pyroderces stigmatophora  (Walsingham, 1897); Anatranchyntis 
stigmatophora  (Walsingham, 1897) (Synonymy from Zimmerman 1978).  
 
Other common names: scavenger bollworm , pink budmoth, pink cornworm  
 
Taxonomic notes: 
There is no uniformity in the use of the scientific name across the literature. The genus 
Anatrachyntis  has been accepted by European authors (Koster and Sinev 2003; Heckford and 
Sterling 2004), while the genus Pyroderces  is stil l commonly used in America (Cubillo and 
Guzmán 2003; Roque -Alberto 2006; Lee and Brown 2009).  
 
Larvae of A. rileyi  larvae are morphologically very similar to those of A. badia  (Adamsky et 
al 2006) and adults of A. rileyi  have nearly identical wings as A. simplex  (Halbert 2015).  
Historically these similarities have led to widespread misidentifications, particularly in 
publications in the first half of the 20th century (Zimmerman 1978, Halbert 2015). 
Examination of genital structures is recommended for accur ate species determination 
(Dawidowicz and Rozwałka 2017).  
 
 Hazard identification  
Anatrachyntis rileyi  is not known to be present in New Zealand.  
• There is no entry for Anatrachyntis rileyi  in NZOR (2022).  
• There is no entry for Anatrachyntis rileyi  in BiotaN Z (2022) .  
• There is no entry for Anatrachyntis rileyi  in PPIN (2022) .  
• Anatrachyntis rileyi  is a regulated and unwanted pest for New Zealand (ONZPR 
2022).  
 
Anatrachyntis rileyi  has the potential to establish  and spread in New Zealand . 
• Many of the host plants of this moth are cultivated or found growing wild in 
New  Zealand (BiotaNZ 2022).  
• Climate is unlikely to be a barrier for establishment, given that the species has been 
reported from places with similar climate to New Zealand (Dougla s et al 1962; 
Arbogast and van Byrd 1986; Herbison -Evans and Crossley 2002).   
342 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  • Anatrachyntis rileyi  has established in cooler regions than New Zealand, where larvae 
have overwintered in temperatures as low as -3°C, and emerged when temperatures 
are more suit able for development (Douglas et al 1962)  
 
• Anatrachyntis rileyi  has the potential to cause harm to  New Zealand . 
▪ Anatrachyntis rileyi  has the potential to cause harm to corn and citrus 
plantations (Douglas et al 1962; Grafton -Cardwell et al 2017).  
▪ Anatrachyntis rileyi has the potential to cause harm to taonga species such as 
taro (Colocasia esculenta ) (Cock and Burris 2013).  
 
Anatrachyn tis rileyi  is associated with pineapple fruit.  
• Anatrachyntis rileyi  larvae usually feed on the remains of petals, stamens and style at 
the bottom of the blossom cup but a few larvae may bore into the fruit when it is close 
to ripe, causing injury (Linford  1939).  
• Anatrachyntis rileyi larvae have been intercepted on multiple occasions on pineapple 
fruits at the New Zealand border (AQ 2022; LIMS 2022 ) 
 
Given the arguments and evidence above , MPI considers Anatrachyntis rileyi  to be a hazard 
on decrowned Ananas comosus (pineapple) fruit (as described in the commodity description) 
imported to New Zealand.  
 
 Risk assessment  
9.1.3.1  Biology  
 
Description  
Anatrachyntis rileyi  eggs are small, about 0.5 mm with a pearly white colour when depo sited. 
Gradually the eggs become opaque, then yellowish and when the eggs are almost ready to 
emerge, reddish spots appear and the head of the larvae can be seen (Herford 1934; Douglas 
et al 1962).  
 
The newly hatched larvae are translucent white with a pa le brown head. After 24 hours a pink 
colour appears over the entire larvae (Douglas et al 1962; Herbison -Evans and Crossley 
2022). After a few days the first moult occurs and over the subsequent larval moults, there is 
little change in the appearance of th e larvae, except an increase in size. The larvae has four 
moults, having in total five instars (Douglas et al 1962). The fully developed larvae is 6 to 8 
mm long (Busck 1917; Saunders et al 1998).  
 
The pupa is smooth, light yellowish, about 4 –5 mm long and  1.5 mm wide (Busck 1917; 
Herford 1934; Douglas et al 1962). The pupa is usually surrounded by a cocoon , constructed 
among the web and frass where the larva has fed (Herford 1934).  
 
Development and reproduction  
Development and reproduction is favoured by h igh temperatures and low humidity (Henry 
2001; Cubillo and Guzmán 2003). The life cycle duration (egg to adult) is commonly around 
25–28 days when adults are confined in cages (Douglas et al 1962). Larval development in 
temperate climates, with temperature  extremes (e.g. -3 to 34°C in USA), can have an average 
length as low as 21.8 days during the summer or more than six months with an overwintering 
larval stage (Douglas et al 1962; Garraway et al 2007).  
  
343 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  In laboratory conditions (26 –33°C; 75 –95% RH; 12.5 h  daylight), eggs were laid two days 
after adult emergence. The egg stage lasted three to four days, and the larval stage 26 –28 
days. The pupation period was five to seven days (Garraway et al 2007) but can be 13 days 
under field conditions (Herford 1934). The life cycle (egg to adult) is approximately 37 days 
in the laboratory (Garraway et al 2007). The life span is approximately eight days in the field 
(Herford 1934) and 5 –18 days under enclosed conditions (Douglas et al 1962).  
 
Anatrachyntis rileyi  overwi nters as larvae and the time of emergence varies from year to year. 
In Mississippi, USA (33.45°N)  the hibernating larvae pupates in late April or early May 
(Douglas et al 1962).  
 
Eggs are laid singly or in groups of up to 3 or 4, often together (Chittenden 1916; Herford 
1934). Enclosed females deposited up to 147 eggs during their lifetime (Douglas et al 1962).  
 
Ecology & behaviour   
Anatrachyntis rileyi  is generally regarded as a scavenger, feeding mostly on dead vegetable 
matter (Swezey 1909; Chittenden 1916, Taniguchi and Wright 2003). However, A. rileyi  also 
feeds on healthy plant material (Linford 1939; Starks et al 1966; Zimmerman 1978; Hughes 
and M oorte 2011) and according to Zimmerman (1978), the larva is a predator of scale 
insects.  
 
In pineapple fields in Hawaii, A. rileyi  larvae can complete their development on dead stumps 
and associated leaves, typical of old or abandoned ratoon fields or hea lthy plants with almost 
no trace of dead organic material without the need to feed on the fruit (Herford 1934). 
However, according to Linford (1939) and Zimmerman (1978), a few larvae may bore into 
the fruit from the blossom cup when the fruit is almost ri pe, or be found on the surface of the 
fruit eating the floral remains.  
 
Anatrachyntis rileyi has been found attacking host plants after they have been injured by other 
insects, suggesting that it is an opportunistic and secondary feeder (Swezey 1909; Busck  
1917; Douglas et al 1962).  
 
Moisture conditions play an important role in the feeding behaviour  of the caterpillar . In 
banana, A. rileyi  feeds preferentially  on old floral parts because the moisture level is reduced 
and as a result the latex content of t he flowers (which may act as a barrier) it is also reduced 
(Garraway et al 2007).  
 
Rainfall can affect the survival of the larvae, especially the young larvae which is very small 
(<0.5 mm). Because the larvae is mostly found in the floral parts of the host  plant, when there 
is heavy rain, the floral parts get flooded for extended periods of time causing the larvae to 
drown (Garraway et al 2007).  
 
The oviposition preference of A. rileyi  in pineapple plants is not known but in corn eggs were 
found on both gr een and dry silk of the ear and in banana eggs were found on the sticky 
stigma of the flower. Experiments by Douglas et al (1962) and Garraway et al (2007) show 
that females can deposit egg s on any available surface (e.g., saucer, crevices of cork, twine, 
cloth, and paper)  either singly or several end to end and rarely touching (Douglas et al 1962) . 
 
Oviposition occurs mainly close to the flowering stage, but it can be continued for a 
considerable period of time, since Herford (1934) observed very young lar vae on almost fully 
grown pineapple fruits . 
  
344 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Larvae of A. rileyi  have been reported not only as scavengers in dead plant material but also 
as specialized predators of scale insects (Van Duyn and Murphey 1971; Zimmerman 1978 ; 
Pierce 1995).  In the Galapagos, Ecuador, A. rileyi  larvae were found in stems of the white 
mang rove, Laguncularia racemosa  (Combretaceae) feeding on eggs and nymphs of the 
cottony cushion scale Icerya purchasi  (Roque -Alberto 2006, as Pyroderces rileyi ). 
 
Anatrachyntis rileyi interacts freely with ants and mealybu gs on young pineapple fruits. The 
African big -headed ant Pheidole megacephala  (present in New Zealand) has been observed 
supplementing the silk web produced by A. rileyi  with soil, to form a communal covering that 
shelters ants, mealybugs and A. rileyi  larvae. However, when A. rileyi  larvae are disturbed and 
leaves its normal location, there is evidence of the same ants functioning as predators (Linford 
1934).  
 
In Hawaii, the larvae is preyed by various wasps such as Polistes aurifer  Sauss, P. hebraus  
Fab. and Pachodynerus simplicornis  Sauss ( Illingworth 1928a). However, due to A. rileyi  
secretive habits, preference for shaded conditions and their practice to construct dense silk 
webs, natural enemies can only reach a small portion of the population (Linford 1939).  
 
Adults are weak flyers, espe cially in daylight. They can be seen fluttering above the pineapple 
leaves but without a sustained flight. Wind is probably the most effective method to transfer 
the moth from one area to another (Linford 1939).  The period of most activity is during 
twilig ht hours (Cubillo and Guzman 2003).   
 
Damage & visibility  
Anatrachyntis rileyi is considered a pest of secondary importance in crops such as pineapple, 
sugarcane, banana, cotton and citrus and on various other plants (Busck 1917; Arbogast and 
van Byrd 1986;  Cubillo and Guzmán; Grafton -Cardwell et al 2017). However , it has been 
reported to be a serious pest of corn (Douglas et al 1962; Saito 1992) ( Table 9.1). 
 
Table 9.1 Damage caused by Anatrachyntis rileyi  on plant hosts other than pineapple (Swezey 1909; 
Busck 1917; Douglas et al 1962; Garraway et al 2007; Grafton -Cardwell et al 2017).   
Plant Host  Plant Part  Damage  
Zea mays  (corn)  Healthy cob, kernels, silk, and 
husk.  The larvae feed on the silks but 
when the husks are dry, it starts 
feeding on the kernels (at grain 
fill stage) close to maturity. The 
larvae tunnel the cob at the 
tips, between the row of kernels 
or through the kernels.  
Musa paradisiaca  (banana)  Dead flower, young and mature 
fruit Feeds on  dead flowers residues 
but in rare occasions it may 
bore into the flower and reach 
the fruit. It can also eat through 
the skin of the ripened fruit and 
eat the fruit inside.  
Saccharum officinarum  
(sugarcane)  Dead leaves, previously injured 
canes.  Feeds b eneath the leaf sheaths 
of dead cane and previously 
bored cane sticks.  
Gossypium hirsutum  (cotton)  Damaged and healthy cotton 
bolls and cotton seeds  Feeds on rotting parts of the 
boll but occasionally seen 
feeding in healthy bolls.   
345 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Citrus limon , Citrus sinensis  
(lemon and orange)  Dry or rotten fruit, ripe fruits, 
dead floral parts.  Larvae is mainly a scavenger 
but occasionally is found eating 
the rind of ripe oranges, near 
the stem end or on the sides of 
fruit in a cluster. In heavy 
infestation m ay result in fruit 
drop or decayed fruit during 
storage.  
 
In pineapple, Anatrachyntis rileyi  larvae feed mainly on the remains of petals, stamens and 
the style at the bottom of the blossom cup (Linford 1939). From there, the larvae create 
tunnels extendin g inward toward the young fruit. Infestation is usually confined to very young 
fruit, and the larvae appear to do very little damage to the fruit. However, a few larvae can be 
present when the fruit is close to ripe, causing injury (Linford 1939).  
 
The tunnels created by the larvae into the fruit allow the entrance of pathogenic 
microorganisms (i.e. Penicillium ) (Linford 1939; Zimmerman 1978). These pathogens create 
a firm dark -brown rot of limited extent (Linford 1939). This rot increases the visibi lity of A. 
rileyi  feeding injury . However,  visibility could be difficult if the larvae had recently burrowed 
into the fruit , given  the lack of colour contrast between the larvae and the fruit internal tissue 
(Linford 1939). According to Herford (1934) the breakdown of fruit as a result of A. rileyi  
infestation is very rare since he observed a large percentage of healthy ripe fruits in the field, 
with the presence of web in the crown, from a previous infestation.  
 
The larvae can also be found in the eyes (e. g., rough spiny marking on the pineapple’s 
surface) of the fruit where they feed upon dead stamens, pistils, and the outer calyx cavities 
and at the basal area of the fruit (Zimmerman 1978) without causing significant damage to the 
fruit or plant (Taniguch i and Wright 2003). The larvae frequently gnaw the crown of the fruit, 
removing the fine layer of dead cuticle on the underside of the leaves (Herford 1934; 
Zimmerman 1978). While feeding on the pineapple fruit surface and crown, the larvae creates 
a web f rom various sorts of litter (including faecal frass) which causes an objectionable 
appearance (Illingworth 1928b; Zimmerman 1978).  
 
An outbreak of wilt in ratoon fields has been attributed to the presence of  A. rileyi  in the field. 
The plants wilt, the fru its die and shrivel to form dry black fibrous “mummies”, which can 
remain firmly attached to the plant for a long period. These provide ideal shelter and 
nourishment for the larvae . However, according to Herford (1934), there is no evidence to 
indicate tha t A. rileyi  is responsible for the condition of the plants.   
 
Pineapple variety susceptibility  
Anatrachyntis rileyi  larvae was found feeding on Cayenne and Hilo varieties (types of smooth 
Cayenne selected in Hawaii) with a preference for the Cayenne varie ty (Linford 1939). In 
South Africa, A. rileyi  is a minor pest on the variety ‘Queen’(Rabie and Mbatha 2019) which 
is also known as ‘Common Rough” in Australia, as ‘Nanas Moris’ in Malaysia, ‘Sarikei’ in 
Sarawak and ‘Phuket’, ‘Rough Mcgregor’, ‘Ripley Queen ’, ‘Alexandra’ and ‘Victoria’ in 
other parts of the world (TFNET 2016).  
 
Hosts  
Anatrachyntis rileyi  has been reported from numerous hosts ( Table 9.2), however the real 
extent of the host range is uncertain due to misidentification with A. badia  in particular.  
 
Table 9.2 Anatrachyntis rileyi  host plants   
346 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Family  Species  Common name  Reference  
Arecaceae  Cocos nucifera  coconut  Cock and Burris 2013; CABI 2019  
 Mauritia flexuosa  Moriche palm  Cock and Burris 2013  
 Roystonea oleracea  Caribbean royal 
palm  Cock and Burris 2013  
Araceae  Colocasia esculenta  taro Cock and Burris 2013  
Asphodelaceae  Aloe vera  aloe Swezey 1909  
Bromeliaceae  Ananas comosus  pineapple  Linford 1939; CABI 2019  
Combretaceae  Laguncularia 
racemosa  white mangrove  Roque -Alberto 2006  
Crassulaceae  Rochea sp. 
(Crassula  sp.) crassula  Cock and Burris 2013  
Euphorbiaceae  Ricinus communis  castor oil plant  Garraway et al 2017  
Fabaceae  Vigna unguiculata  cowpea  Chittensen 1916  
  twining bean vine  Swezey 1909  
 Samanea saman  monkey pod tree  Zimmerman 1978  
 Tamarindus indica  tamarind  Zimmerman 1978  
 Vicia faba  broad bean  Oshaiba et al 1983  
Lamiaceae  Hyptis sp. bushmint  Cock and Burris 2013  
Malvaceae  Gossypium  
hirsutum  Cotton  Busck 1917; Hinds 1928; 
Herbison -Evans and Crossley 
2022  
 Abelmoschus 
esculentus  Okra  Oshaiba et al 1983; Garraway et 
al 2007  
Musaceae  Musa x paradisiaca  Banana  Garraway et al 2007  
Pandanaceae  Pandanus sp. Pandan  Swezey 1909  
Poaceae  Saccharum 
officinarum  Sugarcane  Swezey 1909  
 Zea mays  Corn  Douglas et al 1962; CABI 2019  
 Sorghum bicolor  Sorghum  Chittenden 1916  
 Panicum torridum  Torrid panic grass  Zimmerman 1978  
 Oryza sativa  Rice Ikenaga et al 2000  
Rosaceae  Prunus dulcis  Almond  King and Saunders 1984  
 Prunus armeniaca  Apricot  Garraway et al 2007  
 Malus domestica  Apple  Garraway et al 2007  
 Prunus persica  Peach  Garraway et al 2007  
Rubiaceae  Coffea arabica  Coffee  Cock and Burris 2013  
Rutaceae  Citrus limon  Lemon  Herbison -Evans and Crossley 
2022  
 Citrus sinensis  Orange  Hughes and Moore 2011  
Sapindaceae  Sapindus oahuensis  Oahu soapberry  Zimmerman 1978  
Solanaceae  Capsicum annuum  Bell pepper  King and Saunders 1984  
 Solanum melongena  Eggplant/Aubergine  Cock and Burris 2013  
Verbenaceae  Lantana sp. Lantana  Swezey 1909  
 
Geographical distribution  
The geographical distribution of A. rileyi  is uncertain and it may be wider than that presented 
in Table 3. Some authors report its presence in the Antilles, South America (Bippus 2020), 
West Indi es (Busck 1917), Asia Minor, Indochinese Peninsula (Riedl 1969), and the 
Caribbean (Cock and Burris 2013). It is unclear whether the authors refer to all countries of  
347 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  these particular regions, therefore a conservative approach was taken and only those coun tries 
that are specifically mentioned in the literature were included in Table 9.3. 
 
Table 9.3 Geographic distribution of Anatrachyntis rileyi  and the Climate Matching Index range (by 
continent) to (all) New Zealand climate. Markets included within the scope of this import risk analysis are 
marked in bold. 
Continent  Country/ area/market  CMI Reference  
Central America & 
Caribbean  El Salvador, Costa Rica 
(Limón) , Honduras, 
Virgin Islands, Trinidad 
and Tobago, Jamaica  0.4–0.6 Wilson 1923; King and 
Saunders 1984; 
Rodriguez 1996; Henry 
1999; Cock and Burris 
2013  
North America  Mexico, United States of 
America (Georgia, 
Arkansas, Tennes see, 
North Carolina, South 
Carolina, Mississippi, 
Louisiana, Washington 
D.C, Florida, Texas, 
Arizona, California)  0.4–0.8 Chittenden 1916; Stark 
et al 1966; King and 
Saunders 1984; 
Arbogast and van Byrd 
1986; Adamski et al 
2006; Grafton -Cardwell 
et al 2017  
South America  The Galapagos Islands 
(Ecuador),  Peru, 
Colombia, Argentina, 
Brasil  0.4–0.9 Hinds 1928; Da Costa -
Lima 1945; Arbogast 
and van Byrd 1986; 
Roque -Alberto 2006; 
CABI 2019.  
Africa  Egypt, South Africa 
(Kwazulu Natal), 
Mauritius, Ivory Coast  0.4–0.7 Oshaiba et al 1983; Py 
et al 1987; Rabie and 
Mbatha 2019; Bippus 
2020  
Asia Thailand (Phra 
Phutthabat), 
Philippines , Indonesia , 
India, Iraq, Afghanistan, 
Japan, Turkey  0.4–0.9 Riedl 1969; Saito 1992; 
Riedl 1994; Ikenaga et 
al 2000  
Oceania  Australi a (Queensland, 
New South Wales),  
Hawaii  0.4–0.9 Swezey 1909; Bippus 
2020; Herbison -Evans 
and Crossley 2022  
Europe  Spain (Canary Islands)  0.8 Falck and Karsholt 
2019  
 
9.1.3.2  Likelihood of entry  
Anatrachyntis rileyi  is present in pineapple exporting markets that fall within the scope of this 
Import Risk Assessment (IRA): Costa Rica, The Galapagos Islands (Ecuador) , Thailand, 
Philippines, Indonesia, Australia (Riedl 1969; Saito 1992; Herbison -Evans and Crossley 
2002; Rodriguez 1996; Roque -Alberto 2006 ).  
 
Despite Anatrachyntis rileyi  being mainly a scavenger, there are circumstances in which it can 
be associated with pineapple fruit (as described in the commodity description). Newly 
hatched larvae are mainly present in side the floral blossom cup where they feed on the 
remains of petals, stamens and the style and build inward tunnels. At this stage they appear  
348 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  not to cause damage to the fruit. However, occasionally, the larvae bore into the ripening 
fruit, causing injury  (Linford 1939).  
 
No information was found on the oviposition preference of A. rileyi  on pineapple plants. On 
other plant hosts, such as corn and banana, it prefers to oviposit on the green dry silk or the 
sticky stigma of the flower, respectively (Dougla s et al 1962; Garraway et al 2007). It is 
uncertain if A. rileyi  could deposit eggs on the surface of the pineapple fruit. However, to 
date, there are no records of eggs intercepted in the New Zealand border (LIMS 2022).  
 
Anatrachyntis rileyi  has certain l evel of tolerance to organophosphate pesticides (Cubillo and 
Guzmán 2003). In banana plantations, the p esticide Dursban (1% chlorpyrifos ) was used to 
impregnate the polyethylene bags that cover the banana bunches. According to Cubillo and 
Guzmán (2003), th is pesticide did not affect oviposition and larval development in banana 
plantations (Cubillo and Guzmán 2003). Therefore, this suggests that some control measures 
might not be effective on managing A. rileyi  populations in the field.  
 
Detectability of A. rileyi  in the field will depend on the development al stage. Adults are likely 
to be detected during in -field activities because when disturbed they are seen flying  at the top 
of the pineapple plant (Linford 1939). Mature larvae are likely to be noticed in the field 
because while feed ing they create a  noticeably unpleasant  web made of soil and fecal frass on 
the surface of the fruit and crown  (Illingworth 1928b).  In addition, after the crown is 
removed, it is likely that old entry point s to the fruit will show a brown rot due to the entrance 
of opportunistic pathogens (Linford 1939).  However, young larv ae that recently bore d into the 
fruit would be difficult to detect after crown removal because rot formation from pathogens 
would be non -existent or not yet formed and tunnels may not be seen with the bare eye in the 
field. Similarly, eggs could be difficult to detect due to the complex surface (e.g. bracts and 
crevices) and colouring of the pineapple fruit.  
 
The larvae overwinter and can sur vive temperatures as low as -3°C in Washington and 
Arkansas (Garraway et al 2007). This suggest s that if the larva is inside the pineapple fruit or 
has recently hatched it can survive storage and transport on sea cargo (7 °C) (Camelo 2004). 
From those inte rceptions where A. rileyi  larvae where alive and identified to species level, 
there have been 35 larvae counts on 26 interceptions on pineapple fruit coming from the 
Philippines via sea cargo in the past 20 years (LIMS 2022; AQ 2022). In a period of three 
consecutive years (2018 –2020), 23 A. rileyi  larvae have been intercepted (LIMS 2022; AQ 
2022).  
 
Given that: 
• Anatrachyntis rileyi  eggs and larvae are associated with pineapple fruit (per 
commodity description).  
• Anatrachyntis rileyi  larvae can show resistance to some types of pesticides.  
• Some developmental stages, such as eggs and young larvae, could be undetected 
during field and pa ckhouse activities.  
• Anatrachyntis rileyi  can overwinter and further develop when climatic conditions are 
suitable.  
• There have been interceptions of live A. rileyi  larvae at the New Zealand border on 
pineapple fruit.  
 
the likelihood of Anatrachyntis riley i entering New Zealand associated with pineapple fruit is 
considered to be HIGH with LOW uncertainty  
  
349 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  9.1.3.3  Likelihood of exposure  
This assessment is made on the basis that A. rileyi  has entered New Zealand undetected.  
 
Imported fresh pineapple fruit is intended  for human consumption, therefore, when the fruit 
arrives in New Ze aland it will be distributed throughout the country for wholesale or retail 
sale. Fresh pineapple  fruit generates large amounts of unavoidable waste  and this waste can 
be disposed in different ways.  
 
In New Zealand, organic waste that is bagged and goes to landfill is the most common 
method of organic waste disposal (Askarany and Franklin -Smith 2014). This method is 
considered low risk as it is unlikely to facilitate successful exposure. Similarly, com mercial 
composting is considered a low risk method. Waste is placed into tunnels for a period of three 
to four days at temperatures of 55 °C or higher (WasteMINZ 2009) and these conditions are 
likely to kill A. rileyi  larvae. However, there are other dispo sal methods that could facilitate 
successful exposure, such as feeding waste out to animals, home composting and direct 
disposal into the environment.  
 
Fruit waste that is taken to rural areas and placed on the ground for eventual consumption by 
farmed an imals (Goodman -Smith 2018), open compost either in farmed areas or households 
or deposited by roadsides, parks and campsites, increases the likelihood of exposure. Once in 
the open environment, A. rileyi  larvae are likely to seek concealed areas due to the ir cryptic 
habits, thus protecting themselves from biotic (e.g. natural enemies) or abiotic factors (e.g., 
rainfall) (Linford 1939; Garraway et al 2007). Given its scavenger nature and capacity to 
complete its life cycle on dead material, it is highly like ly the larvae (or adult) would be 
successfully exposed to a host or situation suitable for it to complete its lifecycle. In addition, 
plant hosts, such as species from the Poaceae family (i.e. grasses), fruit trees (i.e. Citrus ) or 
vegetables (e.g. Capsicu m), in rural areas, roadsides and households will increase the 
likelihood of exposure.  
 
Worm farming and home composting in plastic bins could be considered a risk only when the 
contained structure is opened. The larvae could complete its life cycle feedi ng on organic 
waste and when it reaches adulthood it could fly away if the contained structure is opened. 
Adults are weak flyers (Linford 1939) and would likely settle on a nearby host plant which 
could be fruit trees (e.g., Citrus  sp or Prunus  sp.) that a re commonly found in New Zealand 
gardens. However, with the aid of wind, the adult could be exposed to other hosts at a longer 
range. In contrast, is unlikely the larvae would move away, given its cryptic behaviour 
(Linford 1939).  
 
The upper temperature t hreshold for A. rileyi  is not known . Studies by Garraway et al (2007) 
show that A. rileyi  can develop at temperatures reaching 33°C but it is unknown if higher 
temperatures such as those inside a compost bin during the summer season would reduce A. 
rileyi  survival. Nevertheless, temperatures inside a compost bin during winter could be 
suitable for A. rileyi  development.  
 
Uncertainty  
Pineapple waste : Information regarding food waste disposal methods in New Zealand is 
based on general data and there i s no specific information on pineapple waste. In addition,  the 
information may not be up to date.  
 
Temperature thresholds : No information was found on upper temperature thresholds for A. 
rileyi . Therefore , it is unknown if A. rileyi  could survive under a home composting scenario 
during summer temperatures.   
350 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand   
Given that: 
• Anatrachyntis rileyi  may survive and develop on pineapple fruit waste.  
• There are waste disposal methods that could facilitate the exposure of A. rileyi  to a 
host or environment suitable for the completion of its development . 
• Known host plants of this species are widespread and common in New Zealand.  
• Some waste disposal methods would limit the exposure of A. rileyi  to the environment 
because they are under contained structures.  
• Despite adults being weak flyers, wind can aid the exposure of A. rileyi  to other host 
found in longer distances.  
 
the likelihood of exposure of  Anatrachyntis rileyi  in New Zealand from pinea pple fruit  is 
considered to be MODERATE with MODERATE uncertainty  
 
9.1.3.4  Likelihood of establishment  
This assessment is made on the basis that A. rileyi  has been successfully exposed to a suitable 
host plant in the New Zealand environment.  
 
Host plant availability will not be a barrier for A. rileyi  establishment. Many of A. rileyi  host 
plants  are cultivated or found wild in many regions in New Zealand , either in suburban or 
rural areas. For example,  maize ( Zea mays  L.) is wide ly grown  in the  rural North Island  for 
animal feed (Millner and Roskruge 2013). Other plant hosts such as apricot ( Prunus 
armeniaca  L.), apples ( Malus domestica  B.), peach ( Prunus persica  L. ), lemon ( Citrus limon  
L.) are cultivated or  present commonly in gardens across  New Zealand (BiotaNZ 2022). In 
addition, host plants such as Lantana  sp. are considered weeds and are commonly found in 
the Northland region  (NRC 2022).  There is some uncertainty on the extent of host plants of A. 
rileyi  due to misidentifications with oth er Anatrachyntis  species.  
 
The ability of A.rileyi  to feed as a scavenger and opportunistic feeder (Douglas et al 1962; 
Tanigushi and Wright 2003) increases the likelihood of establishment because the caterpillar 
does not rely on locating healthy plants to survive. However, it is uncertain if A. rileyi  is a 
scavenger -host specific species, which will limit the food sources in the environment.  
 
Anatrachyntis rileyi  is mostly established in warm tropical and subtropical climates, 
However, it has establish ed in few countries that have similar climate to New Zealand, such 
as Argentina (CMI: 0.7 –0.9), USA (e.g., Washington D.C) (CMI: 0.8) (Arbogast and van 
Byrd 1986) and Australia (e.g., New South Wales) (CMI: 0.7 –0.9) (Herbison -Evans and 
Crossle y 2002). which have similar climate to New Zealand .  
 
The larvae are able to overwinter and survive harsh conditions for periods up to six months, 
emerging when conditions are more suitable for development and reproduction (Douglas et al 
1962; Cubillo and Guzmán 2003).  
 
Sexual reproduction is a barrier to establishment. Mated female adults are unlikely to enter 
New Zealand because they are easily disturbed during in -field and packhouse activities. 
Therefore, t o establish a population, larvae of both sexes would need to be in close proximity 
and to survive until adulthood. This could occur  if several larvae are present in the same 
pineapple waste material when disposed in the environment.  In a scenario where both sexes 
are not in close proximity, it is unlike ly they will find each other, given that adults are weak 
flyers and have a short life span in the field (8 days) (Herford 1934; Lindford 1939). 
However, pheromones could help overcome this barrier. According to Garraway et al (2007),  
351 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  no pheromone has been isolated from A. rileyi , but pheromone baits for other Anatrachyntis  
species  proved successful to attract A. rileyi  moths.   
 
Interception records at the New Zealand border show that A. rileyi  has been intercepted on 
pineapple and other fresh produce (e.g. watermelon and squash) more than 70 times in the last 
20 years (LIMS 2022; AQ 2022) and to date there is no evidence of its present in New 
Zealand (NZOR) and hence its establishment.  
 
Anatra chyntis rileyi  larvae and adults could be subject to abiotic factors (i.e.rainfall) and 
biotic factors (i.e. predation) that would limit the likelihood of establishment. Rainfall 
increases the mortality of young larvae by drowning (Garraway et al 2007) and  larvae could 
be preyed on by ants (Linford 1934).  
  
Present and future projected temperatures in New Zealand are likely to improve the suitability 
of the New Zealand environment for A. rileyi . The mean annual temperature and mean 
maximum temperatures for  many (but not all regions in New Zealand) in 2021, were +0.51 °C 
to +1.20 °C above the annual average (13.56 °C) (NIWA 2021). The temperature increase 
projected for New Zealand due to climate change is 1.4 °C by 2090. These temperatures fall 
within the te mperature of establishment of A. rileyi  in colder states of United States of 
America ( -3 – 33°C) (Garraway et al 2007).  
 
Uncertainty  
Host plant  range: The plant host range of A. rileyi  is uncertain due to potential 
misidentifications with other Anatrachyn tis species, particularly A. badia . 
 
Given that: 
• Anatrachyntis rileyi  is mostly established in warm tropical and subtropical climates.  
• Sexual reproduction is a barrier for establishment.  
• Anatrachyntis rileyi  has been intercepted frequently in pineapples and other fresh 
produce but its not known to be present and hence established in New Zealand.  
• Host plant availability will not be a barrier for establishment.  
• Anatrachyntis rileyi  is a predator and a scavenge r species which increases its feeding 
choices.  
• The larvae can overwinter and resume development when conditions are suitable for 
development.   
 
the likelihood of  Anatrachyntis rileyi  establishing in New Zealand is considered to be LOW, 
with LOW uncertainty  
 
9.1.3.5  Impacts in New Zealand  
This assessment is made on the assumption that A. rileyi  has successfully established in the 
New Zealand environment .   
 
Economic impacts  
Anatrachyntis rileyi  is mostly regarded as a scavenger species (Roque -Alberto 2006; 
Garraway 2007; Hughes and Moore 2011; Herbison -Evans and Crossley 2022) feeding on a  
variety of plant material s. However, it can also damage healthy plants ( Douglas et al 1 962; 
Stark et al 1966 ). 
 
Anatrachyntis rileyi  is considered a seasonal, secondary pest, with limited distribution in 
tropical crops such as pineapple and banana (Petty et al 2002; Cubillo and Guzman 2003 ;  
352 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Taniguchi and Wright 2003 ). However, it is consider ed an important pest of field and stored 
corn in some parts of the world (e.g., Thailand  and Mississippi, USA ) (Douglas et al 1962; 
Saito 1992).  
 
Larvae of A. rileyi  are reported to cause an annual loss in corn production of about 2% in the 
southeastern st ates of USA (i.e., Alabama, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina and South 
Carolina) (Stark et al 1966).  The current pest status of A. rileyi  in corn crops is uncertain, 
given the most recent reports of economic damage found were from the 1990s.   A study by 
Xinzhi et al (2012) mention ed that few A. rileyi  larvae were collected during a two year study 
(2007 –2008) in the state of Georgia, USA, compared to sap beetles ( Carpophilus  spp.) which 
were found abundantly damaging the corn kernels. This suggests that A. rileyi  is not regarded 
as a major pest of corn  in recent times.  
 
In New Zealand, corn is used mostly for animal consumption (Millner and Roskruge 2013; 
AFIC 2021) and repre sents a total domestic revenue of NZ$389m ( Robertson and Hurren  
2022). Besides corn, A. rileyi  feeds on other host plants of economic importance to New 
Zealand ( Table 9.4), representing an approximate cumulative revenue of NZ$1.4b (Plant & 
Food Research 20 20).  
 
Table 9.4 Domestic and export revenue of Anatrachyntis rileyi  host plants that are of  economic 
importance to New Zealand  (Plant & Food Research 2020) . 
Host plant  Domestic 
revenue 
(NZ$ million)  Export revenue 
(NZ$ million)  Total revenue 
(NZ$ million)  
Corn  (Zea mays)  389 - 389 
Apricot ( Prunus armeniaca ) 3.7 7.8 11.5 
Apple ( Malus domestica ) - 847.9  847.9  
Peach ( Prunus persica ) 11 0.3 11.3 
Lemon ( Citrus limon ) 10.8 7.2 18 
Orange ( Citrus sinensis ) 16.6 1 17.6 
Bell Pepper ( Capsicum annuum ) - 24.7 24.7 
Eggplant ( Solanum melongena)  12 - 12 
Total cumulative revenue ( $ billion)  1.4 
 
Other than corn, n o information was found on percentage of yield loss or annual losses of host 
plants of economic importance to New Zealand.  According to Grafton -Cardwell et al (2017), 
A. rileyi  (as Pyroderces rileyi ), occurs sporadically in California, USA in orange and lemon 
trees. It is considered a scavenger caterpillar feeding on dry or decaying fruit clusters, dead 
floral parts and sooty mould. However, the larvae may feed on the rind of oranges and even 
though is usually superficial and not causing much damage, during heavy infestations it may 
result in fruit drop, or decaying fruit during storage.  
 
Most of the impacts on tropical host plants are aesthetic, thus affecting the marketability of 
the fruit. For example, in bananas, 45% of fruit rejections by the Unit ed Kingdom market 
were due to in -between finger scarring. This occurs when faecal frass left by A. rileyi , causes 
a scar between fingers (Garraway et al 2007). According to Henry (2001), 22,628 kg of fruit 
was lost in Jamaica due to between -finger scar whi ch was 2% of the total production in 1997. 
In pineapples, the larva creates a web with soil and faecal material giving the fruit an 
unpleasant appearance (Illingworth 1928b). However, occasionally , the larvae can feed on the 
fruit of both crops (Linford 19 39; Zimmerman 1978), allowing the entrance of secondary 
pathogens that cause fruit rot (Zimmerman 1978).  
  
353 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Anatrachyntis rileyi  can complete its life cycle without the need to feed on the ripening fruit. 
According to Herford (1934), a large percentage of he althy ripe pineapple fruits were 
produced despite evidence of high infestations of A. rileyi . 
 
Anatrachyntis rileyi  has been regarded as an opportunistic species in cotton and sugarcane 
(Swezey 1909; Busck 1917). Larvae were found feeding in places where the leaves were dirty 
and sticky after being attacked by aphids or leafhoppers or on sugar canes that were 
previousl y damaged by other lepidopoteran species (Swezey 1909).   
 
Anatrachyntis rileyi  can be dispersed to longer distances by wind or by movement of detritus 
or plant material by people working on farms or households.  
 
An in -house MPI model predicted a low leve l of economic impact over 20 years.  
• Stark et al (1966) and Henry ( 2001 ) report an annual yield loss of 2% on corn and 
bananas, respectively. This value was used to calculate the greatest level of annual 
impact that A. rileyi  can damage important agricultural crops in New Zealand listed in 
Table 4.  
• The model considers the impact of A. rileyi in all of New Zealand given that the area 
planted by regions is clustered into groups (e.g., summerfruit covers apricot, cherries, 
necta rines, peaches and plums) (Plant & Food Research 2020).  
• The time to achieve the greatest impact was assumed to be 5 years given that 
population buildup would likely to be slow in more temperate regions.  
• It was assumed that the time industries will take for  full recovery was 1 year given that  
A. rileyi  is considered a seasonal pest, with restricted distribution in regions where 
temperatures are more favourable for development (Cubillo and Guzmán 2003).  
 
The model predicted a low level of economic impact, ho wever, it is considered that the 
impact is very low because the annual loss of 2% was obtained from crops that are mostly 
grown in warmer regions than those found in New Zealand e.g Jamaica and southern states of 
USA such as Georgia and Florida). In additi on, the annual yield loss of 2% was calculated on 
agricultural crops with the assumption that they are grown in all of New Zealand to portray a 
very pessimistic scenario. However, it is likely that the greatest level of annual impact is 
lower given that cr ops such as corn and citrus are mostly grown in the North Island.  
 
Uncertainty  
Pest status on corn : Anatrachyntis rileyi  was regarded as an important pest of corn in the 
1960s  in temperate climates of United States . No information was found on the impacts  of A. 
rileyi  on corn in recent years . Therefore , it is uncertain if this species is still considered a 
major pest in corn and  if economic impacts could be lower than those reported earlier in the 
literature.  
 
Host plants : There is a level of uncertainty on A. rileyi  host plant range due to 
misidentifications with similar species such as A. badia  and A. simplex . 
 
Given that:  
• Anatrachyntis rileyi  is mainly regarded as a scavenger species but can occasionally 
feed on healthy  plants.  
• Anatrachyntis rileyi is considered a seasonal pest with a limited distribution and a 
secondary pest of no economic importance in some crops, but a major pest in field and 
stored corn.  
• Anatrachyntis rileyi  can complete its life cycle on dead plant  material and does not 
rely on healthy fruits to complete its life cycle.   
354 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  • Anatrachyntis rileyi  is considered an opportunistic species, found feeding in 
previously injured sugarcane and cotton plants.  
• Anatrachyntis rileyi  can be easily dispersed by wind and movement of dead and 
health y plant material by humans.  
 
the economic impact of  Anatrachyntis rileyi  in New Zealand is  considered to be  VERY LOW, 
with MODERATE uncertainty.  
 
Environmental impacts  
No evidence was found on impacts associated with A. rileyi  or other Anatrachyntis  species on 
New Zealand native plant species.  
 
There is evidence that A. rileyi  larvae is a predator of scale insects (Pierce 1995; Roque -
Alberto 2006). New Zealand has nativ e scales (Henderson 2011) but it is uncertain if A. rileyi  
could feed on them because the degree of specialization of A. rileyi  predator -prey relationship 
is not known. It is unlikely A. rileyi  will cause major impacts on New Zealand native scales 
given th at its infestation is seasonal ans restricted due to the larvae limited dispersal 
capabilities.  
 
Uncertainty : 
Native scale predation : It is uncertain if A. rileyi  could feed on native scales because no 
information was found on the predator -prey specificity of this species.  
 
Given that: 
• No evidence was found on impacts associated with  A. rileyi and other  Anatrachyntis 
species on New Zealand native  plant species.  
• Anatrachyntis rileyi  is a predator of scales but unlikely to cause impacts on New 
Zealand native scales given its infestation is seasonal and restricted due to its limited 
dispersal capabilities.  
 
the environmental  impact of  Anatrachyntis rileyi  in New Zealan d is considered to  be VERY 
LOW with MODERATE uncertainty  
 
Human health impacts  
No evidence was found on human health impacts associated with A. rileyi  or other 
Anatrachyntis  species that could represent a risk to New Zealand.  
 
Given that: 
• No evidence was found on human health impacts associated with A. rileyi  or other 
Anatrachyntis  species.  
 
the human health  impact of  Anatrachyntis rileyi  in New Zealand is considered to  be 
NEGLIGIBLE with LOW uncertainty  
 
Sociocultural impacts  
The root tub er, taro ( Colocasia esculenta ), a cherished root crop amongst Pasifika and Asian 
community is listed as a A. rileyi  host plant. However, no information was found on the 
impacts of A. rileyi  on this species, suggesting that it is a pest of secondary importa nce.  
 
Taro is a widely distributed crop in Northland and Auckland regions. It is grown mainly in 
gardens and in some marae for its cultural and nutritional value and is commonly a minor 
summer crop, specifically for its leaves. Until recently taro has been grown  commercially  
355 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  under glasshouse conditions (Parshotam 2018). It is uncertain if taro is a host of A. rileyi  
given that there have been misidentifications, specifically in early literature from Hawaii with 
the species A. badia  (Zimmerman 1978). Given that A. rileyi  is considered mainly a scavenger 
species, occasionally feeding on healthy fruits during high infestations in the summer months 
(Herford 1934), it is unlikely it will have a major negative impact on crop production in those 
regions were taro is wide ly planted.   
 
Uncertainty  
Impacts on taro :  Taro is listed as a host of A. rileyi  but no information was found on impacts 
of this species or other Anatrachyntis  species, therefore it is uncertain if A. rileyi  is considered 
an important pest in other parts of the world.  
 
Taro as a host plant : It is uncertain if taro is a host plant of A. rileyi  given misidentifications 
in early publications in Hawaii with A. badia . 
 
Given that: 
• No information was found on the i mpacts of A. rileyi  and other Anatrachyntis  species 
on taro, suggesting that it is a pest of secondary importance.  
• Anatrachyntis rileyi  is considered mainly a scavenger species and occasionally 
feeding on the fruit of healthy plants, it is unlikely to cau se a major negative impact 
on taro plantations in New Zealand.  
 
the sociocultural  impact of  Anatrachyntis rileyi  in New Zealand is considered to  be VERY 
LOW with MODERATE uncertainty  
 
9.1.3.6  Overall impact to New Zealand  
The overall impact of Anatrachyntis rileyi  on the New Zealand economy, environment, health 
and society is considered to be VERY LOW  with MODERATE uncertainty  
 
9.1.3.7  Overall risk to New Zealand  
Based on the assessments of lik elihood and consequences above, that:  
 
• the lik elihood of entry is HIGH  
• assuming entry, the likelihood of exposure is MODERATE  
• assuming successful exposure, the likelihood of establishment is MODERATE  
• the overall impact on the New Zealand economy, environment, human health, and 
society is considered to be VERY LOW  
 
the overall l evel of assessed risk to New Zealand from  Anatrachyntis rileyi  on pineapple fruit  
is considered to  be VERY LOW  with MODERATE  uncertainty . 
 
 Specific considerations  
On which pineapple variety (or varieties) and at what stage of rip eness has 
Anatrachyntis rileyi  association with pineapple fruit been observed?  
 
Anatrachyntis rileyi  usually infest s very young  pineapple fruits causing little to no damage to 
the fruit. However, occasionally, larvae can cause injury when the fruit is close to ripe.   
356 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Anatrachyntis rileyi  was found feeding on Cayenne and Hilo varieties in Hawaii and the 
Queen variety in South Africa.  
 
Which part(s) of the pineapple f ruit is Anatrachyntis rileyi  associated with (e.g. fruit, 
bract, stem or crown remnant) and is it detectable by visual detection?  
 
Anatrachyntis rileyi  can be found inside the fruit and on the surface (eyes of the fruit) feeding 
on dead floral remains. The  presence of A.rileyi  can be detected by the brown rot created by 
opportunistic pathogens that enter after the larvae bores into the fruit. However, if the larvae 
enters the fruit close to the time when the crown was removed, it would be difficult to detec t 
the injury and hence the larvae.  
 
Newly emerged larvae on the surface of the fruit can be undetected because they can hide and 
find refuge on the complex fruit surface.  
 
 Are different lifestages of the Anatrachyntis rileyi  associated with different par ts of the 
pineapple fruit?  
 
Larvae can be found inside  the floral parts , inside and outside the pineapple fruit. Eggs are 
deposited mainly in the blossom cup of the young fruit but it is uncertain if the female 
deposits eggs on the surface of the ripening fruit.  
 
Does Anatrachyntis rileyi  burrows into the fruit without obvious symptoms  or hides 
under the pineapple bract ? 
 
A. rileyi  can burrow into the fruit  without causing obvious symptoms (especially when it 
recently burrows into the fruit) or hid e under the bract when the larvae is very young.  
 
 References  
Adamsky D; Brown J W; White WH (2006) Description of the immature stages of 
Pyroderces badia  (Hodges) (Lepidoptera: Cosmopterigidae), with a new host record from 
Louisiana. Proceedings of the Ent omological Society of Washington, 108(2): 341 –346. 
 
Arbogast R T; van Byrd A (1986) External morphology of the egg of the pink scavenger 
caterpillar, Pyroderces rileyi  (Walsingham) (Lepidoptera: Cosmopterigidae). International 
Journal of Insect Morphology and Embriology, 15(3): 165 –169. 
 
Askarany, D; Franklin -Smith, A W (2014) Cost benefit analyses of organic waste composting 
systems through the lens of time driven activity -based costing. Journal of applied 
management accounting research 12(2): 59 –73. 
 
Assu reQuality (2022)  AssureQuality interception data. AssureQuality . 
 
BiotaNZ (2022) Biota of New Zealand. https://biotaNZ.landcareresearch.co.nz  Accessed 
October 2022.  
 
Bippus M (2020) Record of lepidoptera from the Malagasy region with description of new 
species (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae, Noctuidae, Alucitidae, Choreutidae, Euteliidae, 
Gelechiidae, Blastobasidae, Pterophoridae, Tonzidae, Tineidae, Praydidae, Cosmopterigidae, 
Batrachedridae. Phels uma, 28:60 –100. 
  
357 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Busck A (1917) The pink bollworm, Pectinophora gossypiella . Journal of Agricultural 
Research, 9(10: 342 –382. 
 
CABI (2019) Pyroderces rileyi . Invasive Species Compendium. CAB International. UK  
 
Camelo, A F L (2004) Manual for the preparation and sale of fruits and vegetables: from field 
to market (Vol. 151). Food & Agriculture Org.  
 
Chittenden F H (1916) The pink corn worm: an insect destructive to corn in the crib. US 
Department of Agriculture Bulletin. Bulletin No. 3363. Washingt on DC.  
 
Cock M J W; Burris D H (2013) Neotropical palm -inflorescences feeding moths 
(Lepidoptera: Batrachedridae, Blastobasidae, Cosmopterigidae, Gelechiidae, Pyralidae, 
Tineidae): a review of the literature and new records from Trinidad, West Indies. The Journal 
of Research on the Lepidoptera, 46: 1 –21. 
 
Coto D; Saunders J L (2004) Insectos plagas de cultivos perennes con énfasis en frutales en 
América Central. Turrialba, CR. CATIE. 420p. (Serie técnica. Manual técnico/CATIE; N°. 
52). 
 
Cubillo D; Guzmán M (2003) Fluctuación de la población de larvas y pupas del gusano 
basurero (Pyroderces rileyi, Lepidoptera: Cosmopterygidae) en los racimos de banano (Musa 
AAA, cv. Grande Naine). Corbana, 29(56): 83 –90. 
 
Da Costa Lima A M (1945) Insetos do Brasil. Escola Na cional de Agronomia, Parte I: 
Lepidópteros. 376pp  
 
Dawidowicz Ł; Rozwałka R (2017) Anatrachyntis badia  (Hodges, 1962) (Lepidoptera: 
Cosmopterigidae): the first report from Turkey and a case of importation to Poland. Turkish 
Journal of Zoology, 41: 60 -63. 
 
Douglas W A; Henderson C A; Langston J M (1962) Biology of the pink scavenger 
caterpillar and its control in corn. Journal of Economic Entomology, 55(5): 651 –655. 
 
EPPO 2002 . Pyroderces badia . Accessed 28 October 2022.  
 
Falck P; Karsholt O (2019) New data on Praydidae, Oecophoridae, Stathmopodidae, 
Scythrididae and Cosmopterigidae from the Canary Islands, Spain (Insecta: Lepidoptera). 
SHILAP Revista de Lepidopterología, 47(186): 325 -340. 
 
Garraway E; Henry D C; Critchley B R (2007) The biology, ecology and economic 
importance of the pink scavenger caterpillar Pyroderces rileyi  (Lepidoptera: 
Cosmopterigidae) on banana in Jamaica. Tropical Science, 47(4): 231 –243. 
 
Goodman -Smith, F (2018) A quantitative and qualitative study of retail food waste in New 
Zealand.  MSc thesis; University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand  
 
Grafton -Cardwell E E; Morse J G; Haviland D R; Faber B A; Gautam S G; Rivera M J R 
(2017) Pink scavenger caterpillar – Pyroderces rileyi. In: UC IPM Management Guidelines: 
Citrus. Publlication 3441. http://www2.ipm.ucanr.edu/agriculture/citrus/Pink -Scavenger -
Caterpillar/  
  
358 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Halbert S E (2015) Anatr achyntis simplex , false pink bollworm, a new Western Hemisphere 
record. In: Putnam A H; Smith T R (eds.) Tri -ology, 54(5). 14 pp.  
https ://www.fdacs.gov/content/download/64192/file/Triology,%2054 -5,%20September%20 -
%20October%202015.pdf  
 
Heckford R J; Sterling P H (2004) Anatrachyntis badia  (Hodges, 1962) (Lepidoptera: 
Cosmopterigidae) an adventive species new to the British Islaes, possibl y the second record 
from Spain and a larval description. Entomologist’s Gazette, 55:81 –89. 
 
Henderson, R C (2011) Diaspididae (Insecta: Hemiptera: Coccoidea) .: Fauna of New 
Zealand. Ko te Aitanga pepeke o Aotearoa.  (Vol. 66). Landcare Research; Auckland, N ew 
Zealand.  
 
Henry D C (2001) The biology, ecology and economic importance of Pyroderces rileyi , 
Walsingham, in bananas in Jamaica. Pag 65. In: Report of the Research Department, Banana 
Board 1995 -1999. Kingston, JM.  
 
Herbison -Evans D; Crossley S (2022) Pyroderces rileyi  (Walsingham, 1882) -Pink scavenger. 
Australian caterpillars and their butterflies and moths. 
https://lepidoptera.butterflyhouse.com.au/cosm/rileyi.html . Accessed 3/10 /2022.  
 
Herford G V B (1934) The pineapple bud moths in Hawaii. Annals of Applied Biology, 
21(3): 530 –541. 
 
Hinds W E (1928) Important cotton insects of central Peru. Journal of Economic Entomology, 
21(4): 545 –551. 
 
Hodges R W (1978) The moths of America n orth of Mexico. Fascicle 6.1: Gelechioidea: 
Cosmopterigidae.  
 
Hughes G B; Moore W (2011) Identification tool to the pink bollworm and its look -alikes. 
Identification Technology Program, CPHST, PPQ, APHIS, USDA. Fort Collins, CO. 
https://idtools.org/id/leps/pbw/About.html Accessed 3/10/2022  
 
Ikenaga H; Yasuda K; Hirano K; Nakakita H; Sota N (2000) Seasonal prevalence of pink 
scavenger caterpillar, Anatrachyntis rileyi  (Walsing ham) (Lepidoptera: Cosmopterigidae) in 
rice and feed mills. Japanese Journal of Applied Entomology and Zoology, 44(4): 229 –234. 
Japanese (Abstract Only).  
  
Illingworth J F (1928a) Preliminary notes on pests of agricultural crops of Kona. Proceedings 
of the  Hawaiian Entomological Society, 7(2): 248 –254.  
 
Illingworth J F (1928b) Pests of pineapple in Hawaii. Proceedings of the Hawaiian 
Entomological Society, 7(2): 254 –256. 
 
King A B S; Saunders J L (1984) Las plagas invertebradas de los cultivos anuales 
alimenticios en América Central. Administración de Desarrollo Extranjero, Londres, UK. 
CATIE, Turrialba, CR. 182pp.  
 
Koster S; Sinev SY (2003) Momphidae, Batrachedridae, Stathmopodidae, Agonoxenidae, 
Cosmopterigidae, Chrysopeleiidae. Microlepidopte ra of Europe, in: Huemer P; Karsholt O; 
Lyneborg L (eds) Microlepidoptera of Europe, 5:130. Apollo Books, Stenstrup, Denmark   
359 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand   
Lee S; Brown RL (2009) Revised checklist of Cosmopterigidae in Neotropical region. Last 
updated 10 February 2009. 
https://mississippientomologicalmuseum.org.msstate.edu/Researchtaxapages/Lepido ptera/Cos
mopterigidae/Checklists/Neotropical -Cosmopterigida.html Accessed 17 October 2022 . 
 
LIMS (2022) Laboratory Information Management System (LIMS) – Plant Health and 
Environment Laboratory. [MPI internal database] Ministry for Primary Industries; 
Well ington, NZ.  
 
Linford (1939) Pineapple fruit injuries caused by larvae of the moths Ereunetis flavistriata  
and Pyroderces rileyi . Proceedings of the Hawaiian Entomological Society, 10(3): 437 –445. 
 
Millner J P; Roskruge N R (2013) The New Zealand arable ind ustry. In: Dymon J R (ed) 
Ecosystem services in New Zealand – conditions and trends. Manaaki -Whenua Press, 
Lincoln, New Zealand.  
 
NIWA (2022) 2021: New Zealand’s warmest year on record. Aotearoa New Zealand climate 
summary: 2021. Annual climate summary. NI WA National Climate Centre.  
 
NRC (2022) Lantana camara . Northland Regional Council. 
https://www.nrc.govt.nz/environment/weed -and-pest-control/pest -control -
hub/?pwsystem=true&pwid=67#:~:text=Lantana%20camara%20var.,by%20small%20blue%2
Dblack%20fruits . Accessed: 28 October 2022.  
 
NZOR (2022) The New Zealand Organisms Register. http://nzor.org.nz  Accessed October 
2022  
 
ONZPR (20 22) Official New Zealand Pest Register. MPI Public Database. 
https://pierpestregister.mpi.govt.nz/PestsRegister/ImportCommodity/  Accessed October 2022.  
 
Oshaibah A A; Al -Gamal M M (1983) Identification of Sathrobrota rileyi  (Wals.) (Lep. - 
Cosmopterigidae as a new record) in Egypt. Agricultural Research Review, 81(1): 274 –281. 
 
Parshotam A (2018) Issues facing larger -scale taro growing in New Zealand. Agronomy New 
Zealand. 48 : 177 –189. 
 
Petty G J; Stirling G R; Bartholomeu D P (2002) Pests of pineapples. In: Peña J E; Sharp J L; 
Wysoki M (eds.) Tropical fruit pests and pollinators . CABI Publilshing. Pags 157 –195. 
 
Pierce N E (1995) Predatory and parasitic lepidoptera: carnivores living on plants. Journal of 
the Lepidopterists’ Society, 49(4):412 –453 
 
Plant & Food Research (2020) Fresh Facts: New Zealand Horticulture. The New Zealand 
Institute for Plant and Food Research Ltd, Auckland, New Zealand.  
 
PPIN (20 22) Plant Pest Information Network, Version 5.03.01. Ministry for Primary 
Industries Internal Database.  
 
Py C; Lacoeuilhe J J; Teisson C (1987) The pineapple cultivation and uses. Maisonneuve & 
Larose, Paris. 568pp  
  
360 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Rabie E C; Mbatha B W (2019) New innova tions in ‘Queen’ pineapple production in South 
Africa. Acta Horticulturae, 12339: 9 -14. 
 
Riedl T (1969) Matériaux pour la connaissance des Momphidae paléarctiques (Lepidoptera). 
Partie IX. Revue des Momphidae européenes, y compris quelques espéces d’Afriqu e du Nord 
et du Proche -Orient. Polskie Pismo Entomologiczne, 39(4): 635 –919. 
 
Riedl T (1994) Liste des taxa de six familles des Lépidoptères Gelechioidea paléarctiques 
(Stathmopodidae, Batrachedridae, Agonoxenidae, Momphidae, Cosmopterigidae, 
Chrysopeleiid ae). Annals of the Upper Silasion Museum, Entomology, 5: 9 –24. 
 
Robertson N; Hurren K (2022) Economic Impact 2021. Arable Food Industry Council 
(AFIC). 29pp  
 
Rodrígues F E (1996) Biología del gusano basurero, Pyroderces rileyi (Walsingham) 
(Lepidoptera: Co smopterygidae), en restos florals de banana (Musa spp. ‘Cavendish’), en la 
zona Atlántica de Costa Rica. Thesis. University Earth (Abstract only)  
 
Roque -Alberto L (2006) Diversity and ecology of the lepidoptera in the Galapagos islands, 
Ecuador. PhD Thesis . Cardiff University/University of Wales. Cardiff, Wales. 171pp.  
 
Saito O (1992) A new record of pink cornworm, Anatrachyntis rileyi  (Walsingham) 
(Lepidoptera, Cosmopterigidae), a pest of corn, from Thailand, with some ecological notes. 
Japanese Journal of  Entomology, 60(2): 463 –464. 
Saunders J L; Coto T D; King A B S (1998) Plagas invertebradas de cultivos anuales 
alimenticios en América Central. Turrialba, CR. CATIE. 305 p. (Serie técnica. Manual 
técnico/CATIE; N°29).  
 
Starks K J; Cox H C; McMillian W W; Burton R L (1966) Damage to corn by the pink 
scavenger caterpillar and its relationship to corn earworm and rice weevil damage. Journal of 
Economic Entomology, 59(4): 931 –934. 
 
Swezey O H (1909) The Hawaiian sugar cane bud moth ( Ereunetis flabistriata ) with an 
account of some allied species and natural enemies. Report of the Experiment Station of the 
Hawaiian Sugar Cane Planters Association. Bulletin No.6. Honolulu, Hawaii.  
 
Tanigushi G; Wright M (2003) Micro -lepidoptera, a new pest problem on pineapple in 
Hawaii. In: Pineapple News, Issue No. 10. Newsletter of the Pineapple Working Group, 
International Society for Horticultural Science. 24pp.  
 
TFNET (2016) Pineapple – Common varieties. International Tropical Fruits Network. TFNET 
news compilation. In: Major fruits, tropical fruit information. 
https://www.itfnet.org/v1/ 2016/05/pineapple -common -varieties/  Accessed 17 October 2022.  
 
Van Duyn J; Murphey M (1971) Life history and control of white peach scale, 
Pseudaulacaspis pentagona  (Homoptera: Coccoidea). The Florida Entomologist, 54(1): 91 –
95. 
 
WasteMinz (2009) Consent g uide for composting operations in New Zealand. Waste 
Management Institute of New Zealand.  
  
361 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Wilson C E (1923) Insect pests of cotton in St Croix, and means for combating them. Virgin 
Islands Agricultural Experimental Station Bulletin. No. 3, 20 pp.  
 
Wiseman  B R; McMillian W W and Widstrom N W (1970) Husk and kernel resistance 
among maize hybrids to an insect complex. Journal of Eocnomic Entomology, 63(4): 1260 –
1262.  
 
Xinzhi N; Xu W; Blanco MH; Wilson JP (2012) Evaluation of corn germplasm lines for 
multiple ear-colonizing insect and disease resistance. Journal of Economic Entomology, 
105(4):1457 –1464.  
 
Zimmerman E C (1978) Microlepidoptera. Part 2, Gelechioidea. Insects of Hawaii 9(2): 883 –
1903. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu, Hawaii.  
 
 
 
  
362 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  10 Vector analysis  
 
Insect v ector analys es were  carried out for two insect species (Table 10.1) that are present in 
at least one pineapple exporting market  and are associated with pineapple  fruit. The two  
species are recorded from New Zealand but are considered in th ese analys es because they are 
known to vector various pathogens , some of which are not reported from New Zealand . 
 
Table 10.1 The two vector species considered in this analysis.  
Scientific name  Common name  Pest group  Order: Family  
Planococcus citri  citrus mealybug  mealybug  Hemiptera: 
Pseudococcidae  
Pseudococcus 
longispinus  long-tailed mealybug  mealybug  Hemiptera: 
Pseudococcidae  
 
Generally, the risk posed by vectors is low. This is because successful introduction of the 
pathogen requires the vector to: i) acquire the pathogen from its host (either pineapple or 
another plant host); ii) remain infectious during transit and after arri val in New Zealand and 
then iii) successfully transmit the pathogen to another plant host suitable for the pathogen’s 
establishment. Plant viruses can be transmitted by insects in various ways. These have been 
classified as non -persistent, semi -persistent,  and persistent, depending on the length of the 
period the vector can harbor infectious particles, which can range from minutes to hours (non -
persistent) to days (semi -persistent) and to li fe-time and even inheritance by the insect 
progeny (persistent)  (Hohn 2007) . 
 
It is assumed that the entry of pineapple pathogens via vectors is possible, no matter if the 
pathogen is transmitted in a non -persistent, semi -persistent or persistent manner. Vector -
transmitted pineapple pathogens are considered to pose a risk  if they have other plant hosts 
available in New Zealand. However, pineapple specific  pathogens are assumed to pose a 
negligible risk , since their likelihood of establishment and spread  is considered negligible  
(refer to Annex 3 ). In New Zealand, there is only a recent, small, and localised commercial 
production of p ineapples  (Northland)  ii. the risk posed by vectors is generally considered to 
be low.   
 
Vector -transmitted non -pineapple specific pathogens are considered to have a l ower 
likelihood of entry compared to pineapple pathogens. This is because the successful entry of 
non-pineapple pathogens requires an extra step, i.e. the insect vector must successfully 
acquire the pathogen from a non -pineapple host, move to pineapple, an d remain associated 
with the commodity before successfully locating a suitable host in New Zealand. Non -
pineapple specific pathogens that are transmitted in a semi -persistent or persistent manner by 
the vector may be able to enter New Zealand, while those transmitted in non -persistent 
manner are extremely unlikely to do so. In fact, pathogens need to be retained by the vector 
long enough to be exposed to suitable hosts, and it takes longer than one day for the 
commodity to arrive in New Zealand.  
 
When assessing the risk of vectors associated with fresh produce , it is usually assumed that 
commercial plantations  are grown as monocultures and that vectors are unlikely to be in 
contact with plant species other than the commodity being assessed. Therefor e, vector 
analysis is usually limited to considering vectored pathogens that are associated with the 
commodity. However, the different  pineapple  exporting markets  involved  in this risk 
assessment may have different agricultural practices (e.g. companion pl anting,  close  
363 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  distanc ing between pineapple  and other plant crops  and multi -cropping) . These alternative 
agricultural practices increase the risk of vectors being in contact with other plants that are 
potentially infected with pathogens not associated with pineapple. To allow for this 
possibility, high priority viruses and viroids (Table 10.2) are also considered in this analysis. 
This list of pathogens 60 is compiled from the MPI high priority  pest and disease ( HPP) list and 
the list of Sector Risk Organisms (SRO) as listed/described by each Government Industry 
Agreement  (GIA ).   
 
Table 10.2 HPP/SRO list - Pathogens considered in this analysis  regardless of their association to 
pineapple . This list is compiled from the  MPI high priority pest and dise ase (HPP) list and the list of 
Sector Risk Organisms (SRO) as listed/described by each Government Industry Agreement (GIA) 
partner in either their draft Operational Agreement, Biosecurity Plan or Website . 
Scientific name  Family:Genus  
Avocado sunblotch vir oid  Avsunviroidae :Avsunviroid  
Blueberry scorch virus  Quinvirinae :Carlavirus  
Broad bean wilt virus  Comovirinae :Fabavirus  
Capsicum chlorosis orthotospovirus  Tospoviridae :Orthotospoviru
s 
Clover yellow mosaic virus  Alphaflexiviridae :Potexvirus  
Cucumber green mottle mosaic virus  Virgoviridae :Tobamovirus  
Cucurbit yellow stunting disorder virus  Closteroviridae :Crinivirus  
Grapevine pinot gris virus  Betaflexiviridae :Trichovirus  
Grapevine red blotch virus  = Grapevine red blotch -
associated virus  Geminiviridae :Grablovirus  
High Plains wheat mosaic emaravirus = High plains virus  Fimoviridae:Emaravirus  
Hop stunt viroid  Pospiviroidae :Hostuviroid  
Little cherry virus 2  Closteroviridae :Ampelovirus  
Maize dwarf mosaic virus  Potyviridae :Potyvirus  
Pea early -browning virus  Virgaviridae :Tobravirus  
Pea enation mosaic virus[1]  Please see footnote  
Peach rosette mosaic virus  Comovirinae :Nepovirus  
Pelargonium Zonate Spot Virus  Bromoviridae:Anulavirus  
Pepino Mosaic Virus  Alphaflexiviridae :Potexvirus  
Plum pox virus  Potyviridae:Potyvirus  
Potato mop -top virus  Virgaviridae:Pomovirus  
Potato spindle tuber viroid  Pospiviroidae :Pospiviroid  
Potato Virus H  Quinvirinae :Carlavirus  
Potato virus Y  Potyviridae :Potyvirus  
Squash leaf curl virus  Geminiviridae :Begomovirus  
Tomato apical stunt viroid  Pospiviroidae :Pospiviroid  
Tomato Brown Rugose Fruit Virus  Virgoviridae :Tobamovirus  
Tomato Chlorosis Virus  Closteroviridae :Crini virus  
Tomato infectious chlorosis virus  Closteroviridae :Crinivirus  
Tomato leaf curl New Delhi virus  Geminiviridae :Begomovirus  
Tomato leaf curl purple vein virus  Geminiviridae :Begomovirus   
 
60 Only viruses and viroids from the MPI prio rity pest and disease list and the list of Sector Risk Organisms are considered.  
[1] Pea enation mosaic virus is regulated in ONZPR (2022). Neither Pea enation mosaic virus 1 ( Solemoviridae :Enamovirus) nor Pea enation 
mosaic virus 2 ( Tombusviridae :Umbravirus) is known to be present in New Zealand (PPIN; Veerakone et al. 2015).   
364 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Tomato mottle virus  Geminiviridae :Begomovirus   
Tomato ringspot virus  = Peach yellow bud mosaic disease, 
yellow bud mosaic  Comovirinae :Nepovirus  
Tomato torrado virus  Secoviridae :Torradovirus  
Tomato yellow leaf curl virus  Geminiviridae :Begomovirus    
 
Therefore, the criteria for an insect vector to be considered as a hazard on any market  pathway 
in the analysis are:  
• The insect transmits at least one pathogen in the HPP/SRO list OR one pineapple 
pathogen that is not present in New Zealand AND is regulated 61 /can im pact other 
plant hosts important to New Zealand.  
• For pathogens in the HPP or SRO list not associated with pineapple, the insect transmits 
the risk pathogen in a persistent or semi -persistent manner, AND  
• both the insect vector and the pathogen are present i n the same pineapple exporting 
market .  
 
10.1 Summary of the analysi s 
The two vector species assessed in this analysis are not considered to be hazards.  
 
Planococcus citri is not considered to be a hazard in this analysis, given that:  
• Planococcus citri can transmit one pineapple pathogen, Pineapple bacilliform 
comosus virus  (PBCoV ), BUT no evidence could be found that PBCoV can affect 
plant species other than pineapple.  
• Planococcus citri is not known to transmit any pathogen in the HPP/SRO list  in a 
persistent or semi -persistent manner.  
 
Pseudococcus longispinus is not considered to be a hazard in this analysis , given that:  
• Pseudococcus longispinus may transmit one pineapple pathogen, Pineapple mealybug 
wilt-associated virus 2 (PMWaV -2), BUT no clear evidence could be found that 
PMWaV -2 can affect plant species other than pineapple.  
• Pseudococcus longispinus is not known to transmit any pathogen in the HPP/SRO list  
in a persistent or semi -persistent manner.  
 
10.2 Vector analysis  
 Planococcus citri  (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae)  
 
Pineapple exporting markets  status:  
Planococcus citri  is present in Australia, Cook Islands, Costa Rica , Ecuador , Indonesia , 
Malaysia , Papua New Guinea , Philippines , Samoa , Sri Lanka , Taiwan , Thailand , Tonga  
(CABI 2022b) . 
 
 
61 Strains of pathogens that are not recorded in New Zealand, and with no defined entity (a named subspecies, pathovar, haplotyp e etc.), are 
not considered hazard s in this analysis. The criteria for regulating taxa below species level require that:  
• There is a defined entity (a named subspecies, pathovar, haplotype etc) which is not known to be present in New Zealand.  
• The entity is biologically distinct (for example  host range, pathogenicity or vector relationships). Genetic differences alone are not 
sufficient.  
• There is an increased risk to New Zealand posed by the entity.  Need a reference to these criteria.   
365 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  It is reported as absent in Fiji (unconfirmed presence record (s)), New Caledonia  
(unconfirmed presence record (s)), Panama, Vanuatu  (CABI 2022b) . However, P. citri  may 
be present in Fiji, because it has been intercepted at the New Zealand border on commodities 
coming from Fiji.  
 
New Zealand status:  
• Planococcus citri is present in New Zealand (NZOR 202 2). 
• Planococcus citri is listed as a  ‘Potential vector’ in ONZPR  (2022). 
 
Plant hosts:  
Planococcus citri is highly polyphagous, with hosts of over 200 plant species belonging to 82 
families. Many plants of economic importance are hosts of the pest, such as citrus, bananas 
and taro (CABI 2022b) . 
 
Plant parts affected:  
Nymphs and adults of P. citri  can be found on fruits, growing points, leaves, inflorescence, 
roots and stems (CABI 2022b) . At the New Zealand border , P. citri has been  intercepted and  
identified on  non decrowned  pineapple  fruits , twice from Fiji (Asure Quality data ), and once 
on pinea pple fruits from French Polynesia in 1991 (LIMS 1986 -2021) . 
 
Vectored organism s: 
Planococcus citri is reported to vector PBCoV (Gambley et al. 2008) . Planococcus citri is 
also known to vector viruses causing Banana streak disease (BSD), Banana streak OL virus 
(BSOLV) (synomym Banana streak badnavirus (Meyer et al. 2008) ) (CABI 2022b) , Banana 
streak GF virus (BSGFV), Banana streak MY virus (BSMYV), Banana streak VN virus 
(BSVNV) (DAWR 2019) . Planococcus citri is also known to vector Cacao Mild Mosaic 
Virus (CaMMV ) (Puig et al. 2021) , Cacao swollen shoot virus (CSSV), Cucumber mosaic 
virus (CMV) (CABI 2022b) , Commelina yellow mottle virus  (ComYMV) (DAWR 2019) , 
Dioscorea bac illiform virus  (DBV) (CABI 2022b) , DBALV (DAWR 2019) , Schefflera 
ringspot virus  (SRV) (CABI 2022b) , Grapevine virus A (GVA), Grapevine virus B (GVB)  
(Herrbach et al. 2017) , Grapevine leafroll -associated virus (GLRaV), Grapevine leafroll -
associated virus 1 (GLRaV -1), Grapevine leafroll -associated virus 3 (GLRaV -3) (Bertin et 
al. 2016), Citrus mosaic disease  (a synonym for Citrus yellow mosaic virus,  CiYMV)  (Reddy 
et al. 2010; Ahlawat and Pant 2003) and Piper yellow mottle virus  (PYMV or PYMoV),  
KTSV, Taro b acilliform virus  (TaBV), Sugarcane bacilliform MO virus (SCBMOV) and 
Sugarcane bacilliform IM virus (SCBIMV) indirectly, via original Sugarcane bacilliform 
virus (SCBV) (DAWR 2019) . 
 
Pineapple bacilliform comosus virus  (PBCoV)  is a Badnavirus  also referred to as Pineapple 
bacilliform CO virus  (Sether et al. 2012)  (recognised by ICTV). PBCoV affects pineapple  
(Gambley et al. 2008) . Planococcus citri is reported to  vector PBCoV  (DAWR 2019)  because 
the mealy bug  was experimentally used  to vector  PBCoV (Gambley et al. 2008) . This is here 
assumed to be sufficient evidence that P. citri can naturally vector PBCoV. PBCoV is not 
listed in ONZPR (2022).  PBCoV  is not known to be present in New Zealand (not recorded in 
Veerakone et al. 2015, PPIN 2022, or NZOR 2022) . No evidence was found that PB CoV can 
affect plant  species  other than pineapple.  
Pineapple bacilliform comosus virus  (PBCoV) is one of two currently  recognised Pineapple 
bacilliform virus  species (the other being Pineapple bacilliform ER virus  (PBERV) ) (ICTV 
2022, EPPO 2022 ). “Pineapple bacilliform virus” is regulated in ONZPR (2022). Pineapple 
bacilliform virus (PBV) (not listed by ICT V, but referred  to as such by Collins and Carter 
(1954)  is present in Australia (Wakman et al. 1995; Thomson et al. 1996) , where it is  
366 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  ubiquitous (Gambley et al. 2008) , and Sri Lanka (Kularathne et al. 2005) . No evidence was 
found that PBV can affect plant species other than pineapple.  
 
No evidence was found that any of the pathogens vectored by P. citri other than PBCoV 
affect pineapple (see Search section just before References).  
 
None of the pathogens vectored by P. citri are in the HPP/SRO list  (Table 2) . 
 
Hazard identification conclusion:  
Planococcus citri is not considered to be a hazard in this analysis, given that:  
• Planococcus citri  can transmit one pineapple pathogen, PBCoV, BUT no evidence 
could be found that PBCoV can affect plant specie s other than pineapple.  
• Planococcus citri  is not known to transmit any pathogen in the HPP/SRO list  in a 
persistent or semi -persistent manner.  
 
 Pseudococcus longispinus  (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae)  
 
Pineapple exporting markets  status:  
Pseudococcus longispinus is present in Australia, Cook Islands, Costa Rica, Fiji, Indonesia, 
Malaysia, New Caledonia, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, 
Vanuatu  (CABI 2022c) . 
It is absent in Ecuador, Samoa, Thailand, Tonga  (CABI 2022c) . 
 
New Zealand status:  
• Pseudococcus longispinus is present in New Zealand (NZOR 2022).  
• Pseudococcus longispinus is listed as a ‘Potential vector’ in New Zealand ( ONZPR  
2022). 
 
Plant hosts:  
Pseudococcus longispinus is highly polyphagous and has been recorded on over 100 host 
plants belonging to 78 plant families. Host plants include many plants of economic 
importance, such as citrus, pear and grapevine (CABI 2022c) . 
 
Plant parts affected:  
Pseudococcus  longispinus  feeds externally  on fruits, growing points, inflorescence, leaves 
and stems (CABI 2022c) . At the New Zealand border , P. longispinus  has been intercepted and 
identified on non decrowned pineapple  fruits . Between 1986 and 2021, it was intercepted six 
times on pineapples fro m the Philippines and USA (LIMS). three of these interceptions took 
place between 2000 and 2020, as one additional interception  from the Philippines (Asure 
Quality data).  
 
Vectored organisms:  
Pseudococcus longispinus is reported to acquire and transmit  PMWaV -2 (Hu et al. 2009) . 
Pseudococcus longispinus also vectors Grapevine leafroll -associated virus (GLRaV) (CABI 
2022c) , Grapevine leafroll -associated virus 1  (Bertin et al. 2010) , Grapevine leafroll -
associated virus 3  (CABI 2022c) , Grapevine leafroll -associated virus 4  (Golino et al. 2002), 
Grapevine leafroll -associated virus 9  (Tsai et al. 2010), Grapevine virus A  (GVA) (Notte et 
al. 1997), Grapevine virus B  (GVB) (Kuniyuki et al. 2006) and Cacao swollen shoot virus  
(CSSV) (CABI 202 2c). In the Solomon Islands and other islands in the south -west Pacific 
region, P. longispinus  is a vector of the smaller of two bacilliform viruses associated with  
367 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  ‘bobone’ disease in taro and Xanthosoma  sp. (CABI 2022c) , Taro bacilliform virus (TaBV) 
(Gollifer et al. 1977) . Pseudococcus longispinus  can also transmit  viruses associated to  stem -
pitting in grapevines (CABI 2022c) . Palma -Jiménez et al. (2019) report that P. longispinus 
can transmit  Banana streak OL virus (BSOLV) (synomym Banana streak badnavi rus (Meyer 
et al. 2008) ) and Banana Streak virus  (BSV) (Palma -Jiménez et al. 2019) , citing (Kubiriba et 
al. 2001; Meyer et al. 2008) . However, these viral associations are not reported in either 
Kubirba et al. (2001) or Meyer et al. 2008 and we conclude th at Palma -Jimenez et al.(2019) 
reported them in error.  
 
Pineapple mealybug wilt -associated virus 2 (PMWaV -2) is an Ampelovirus (recognised by 
ICTV 2022). Pseudococcus longispinus is reported to vector PMWaV -2(Hu et al. 2009) , also 
cited by (DAWR 2019) . However, there is high uncertainty about the association between the 
mealybug and the virus. In fact, there is only one paper reporting this association (Hu et al. 
2009) . Moreover, Hu et al. (2009) refer to P. longispinus only once  as “longtailed mealybu g”, 
reporting that  P. longispinus is not as efficient as a vector as the grey pineapple mealybug 
(Dysmicoccus neobrevipes ), without providing any further information on the transmission of 
PMWaV -2 by P. longispinus . PMWaV -2 is under consideration for Regul ation  in ONZPR 
(2022). PMWaV -2 is not known to be present in New Zealand (not recorded in Veerakone et 
al. 2015, PPIN 2022, or NZOR 2022).  
 
No evidence could be found that PMWaV -2 can affect plant species other than pineapple.  
PMWaV -2 is one of three curr ently recognised species of Pineapple mealybug wilt -associated 
virus species (PMWaV -1, PMWaV -2, PMWaV -3) (ICTV 2022). “Pineapple mealybug wilt -
associated virus”, PMWaV, is under consideration to be listed as regulated and unwanted in 
ONZPR (2022). PMWaV, as well as  P. longispinus , is present in Australia, Indonesia, 
Malaysia, Philippines, and Taiwan (CABI 2022c) . One PhD thesis suggests that the Vassi 
grass Paspalum urvillei  (L.) may act as a host of PMWaV  (Gunasinghe 1989) . Gunasinghe 
(1989) was er roneously cited to report that Andropogon insularis  may also act as a host 
(CABI 2022a) . Under the assumption that PMWaV can affect any Paspalum  species, 
PMWaV may impact one New Zealand native, threatened, and nationally vulnerable species, 
Paspalum orbic ulare  (NZPCN 2022) .  
However, there is high uncertainty about the vector relationship between P. longispinus  and 
PMWaV , the biological distinction between  PMWaV and PMWaV -2, and the association of 
PMWaV with P. urvillei , due to the  paucity and  quality of the supporting evidence. Moreover, 
no evidence could be found that P. longispinus  feeds on Paspalum.  
 
No evidence could be found that any of the pathogens v ectored by P. longispinus , other than 
PMWaV -2, will affect pineapple  and the likelihood of the virus being exposed to cultivated 
pineapple in New Zealand via the Fresh Produce Pathway is considered NEGLIGIBLE . 
 
None of the pathogens vectored by P. longispi nus are in the HPP/SRO list  (Table 2) . 
 
Hazard identification conclusion:  
Pseudococcus longispinus is not considered to be a hazard in this analysis, given that:  
• Pseudococcus longispinus may transmit one pineapple pathogen, PMWaV -2, BUT no 
clear evidence could be found that PMWaV -2 can affect plant species other than 
pineapple  and the likelihood of the virus being exposed to cultivated pineapple in New 
Zealand via the Fresh Produce Pathway  is considered NEGLIGIBLE . 
• Pseudococcus longispinus is not known to transmit any pathogen in the HPP/SRO list  
in a persistent or semi -persistent manner.  
 
  
368 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand   
 
Searches   
- Vector species – vectored organisms/plant hosts : CPC 2022, Scalenet 2022, 
Google /Google scholar  search : Scientific and common name vector species and ICTV 
AND HPP/SRO vectored organism/plant host name , first 50 results (to 9/08/2022) . 
- Ananas comosus  – vectored organisms  association: CPC 2022, Google /Google scholar  
search : Ananas comosus  OR pineapple AND vectored organism  name , first 50 results 
(to 9/08/2022) . 
- Alternative host  – vectored organisms  association: CPC 2022, Google /Google scholar  
search : host AND vectored organism  name , first 50 results (to 9/08/2022) . 
 
10.3 References   
Bertin, S; Cavalieri, V; Graziano, C; Bosco, D (2010) Survey of mealybug (Hemiptera: 
Pseudococcidae) vectors of Ampelovirus and Vitivirus in vineyards of northwestern Italy. 
Phytoparasitica 38(4): 401 -409. 
 
CABI (2022a) Pineapple mealybug wilt -associated viruses (pineapple mealybug wilt 
(PMBW)). https://www.cabi.org/cpc/datasheet/41335  
 
CABI (2022b) Planococcus citri . https://www.cabi.org/cpc/datasheet/45082  
 
CABI (2022c) Pseudococcus longispinus. https://www.cabi.org/cpc/datasheet/45079  
 
Collins, J; Carter, W (1954) Wilt resistant mutations in the Cayenne variety of pineapple. 
Phytopathology 44(11): 662 -666. 
 
DAWR (2019) Final group pest risk analysis for mealybugs and the viruses they transmit on 
fresh fruit, vegetable, cut -flower and foliag e imports. In D o A a W R 2019 (Ed.).  
 
Gambley, C; Geering, A; Steele, V; Thomas, J (2008) Identification of viral and non -viral 
reverse transcribing elements in pineapple ( Ananas comosus ), including members of two new 
badnavirus species. Archives of Virol ogy 153(8): 1599 -1604.  
 
Gollifer, D; Jackson, G; Dabek, A; Plumb, R; May, Y (1977) The occurrence and 
transmission of viruses of edible aroids in the Solomon Islands and the Southwest Pacific. 
Pans 23(2): 171 -177. 
 
Gunasinghe, U (1989) Characterization of a new virus isolated from pineapple. University of 
Hawai'i at Manoa.  
 
Herrbach, E; Alliaume, A; Prator, C A; Daane, K; Cooper, M; Almeida, R P (2017) Vector 
transmission of grapevine leafroll -associated viruses. Grapevine viruses: molecular biology, 
diagno stics and management.  Springer.  
 
Hohn, T (2007) Plant virus transmission from the insect point of view. Proceedings of the 
National Academy of Sciences 104(46): 17905 -17906.  
 
Hu, J; Sether, D; Melzer, M; Subere, C; Cheah, K; Chen, Y; Li, Q; Borth, W; Wang,  I; Nagai, 
C (2009) Characterization and management of pineapple mealybug wilt associated viruses. 
Acta Horticulturae 822: 185 -190.  
369 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand   
Kubiriba, J; Legg, J; Tushemereirwe, W; Adipala, E (2001) Vector transmission of Banana 
streak virus in the screenhouse in Uganda. Annals of Applied Biology 139(1): 37 -43. 
 
Kularathne, R; Dassanayake, E; Attanayaka, D (2005) Investigation of host range of 
pineapple mealy bug wilt associated Pineapple Bacilliform Virus (PBV) by Polymerase Chan 
Reaction (PCR) within the Bromeliaceae family.  
 
Meyer, J; Kasdorf, G; Nel, L; Pietersen, G (2008) Transmission of activated -episomal banana 
streak ol (badna) virus (bs olv) to cv. Williams banana ( Musa sp.) by three mealybug species. 
Plant Disease 92(8): 1158 -1163.  
 
NZPCN (2022) New Zealand Plant Conservation Network. 
https://www.nzpcn.org.nz/flora/species/?scientific_name=paspalum. Accessed 11 August 
2022.  
 
ONZPR (2022) Official New Zealand Pest Register. MPI Public Database. Accessed August 
2021  
 
Palma -Jiménez, M; Blanco -Meneses, M; Guillén -Sánchez, C (2019) Las cochinillas harinosas 
(Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) y su impacto en el cultivo de Musáceas. Agronom ía 
Mesoamericana 30(1): 281 -298. 
 
Puig, A S; Wurzel, S; Suarez, S; Marelli, J -P; Niogret, J (2021) Mealybug (Hemiptera: 
Pseudococcidae) Species Associated with Cacao Mild Mosaic Virus and Evidence of Virus 
Acquisition. Insects 12(11): 994.  
 
Sether, D; Melz er, M; Borth, W; Hu, J (2012) Pineapple bacilliform CO virus: diversity, 
detection, distribution, and transmission. Plant Disease 96(12): 1798 -1804.  
 
Thomson, K; Dietzgen, R; Thomas, J; Teakle, D (1996) Detection of pineapple bacilliform 
virus using the po lymerase chain reaction. Annals of Applied Biology 129(1): 57 -69. 
 
Wakman, W; Teakle, D; Thomas, J; Dietzgen, R (1995) Presence of a Clostero -Like Virus 
and a Bacilliform Virus in Pineapple Plants in Australia. Australian Journal of Agricultural 
Research 46(5): 947 -958. 
 
  
370 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Appendix 1.  Summary of taxa excluded at hazard 
identification  
 
The following table shows the g roups and species identified at the hazard identification  stage as not 
requiring further assessment and not requiring measures over and above basic measures, and the 
rationale for exclusion . 
 
Pest scientific 
name  Rationale for exclusion  
Amoebozoa  
Protosteliopsis 
fimicola  The species is present in New Zealand (NZOR 2021)  but is not listed in  
ONZPR (2021) . 
Arachnid  
Acalvolia sp. No evidence found for association with pineapple fruit (Google/Google 
Scholar: Acalvolia pineapple). The genus Acalvolia comprises of only one 
known species A. squamata that it is associated with house dust and bird 
nests. A new species was f ound on leaves in association with nymphs of the 
citrus whitefly infected by fungus Aschersonia aleyrodis . Apparently,  it feeds 
on this fungus (mycophagous).  
Amblyseius sp. Amblyseius  belong to the Phytoseeidae family which mostly comprises 
predatory mites that are commo nly used as biological controls. This mite 
feeds on pollen, fungi, nematodes, other mites, scale insects and debris. 
There are reports of being found in pineapple plantations, however not 
feeding on the plants. There are several Amblyseius  species recorded as 
present in New Zealand (PPIN 2022) . As the mites associated with pineapple 
have not been identified to species level it cannot be determined whether they 
are already present in New Zealand or not and cannot be assessed further.  
Araneae  Family  name, ad dressed through more detailed associations  
Brachytydeus  sp.  There is no record of this genus present in NZ. Other than  the three 
interception on pineapple  (AssureQuality 2021) , no other evidence of 
association with pineapple was found in the literature (Google/google scholar: 
Brachytydeus pineapple/Ananas comosus).  
Brevipalpus  sp. None of the species listed in the flat mites of the world database have 
pineapple as a recorded host (Beard et al. 2012) . A species that is associated 
with pineapple could also not be defied by google and google scholar 
searches 'Brevipalpus' and 'pineapple', and 'brevipalpus' and 'ananas'.  
Calvolia  sp. This genus is not present in New Zealand (NZOR 2021). No evidence found 
for association with pineapple fruit (Google/Google scholar: Calvolia 
pineapple) and is therefore not considered to be associated with the 
commodity.  
Clubiona  sp. Spiders are likely to be detected or removed during commercial production 
process due to their size and high mobility.  
Cosmolaelaps sp. Cosmolaelaps  sp. is listed as present  in New Zealand (PPIN 2022). Members 
of this genus are known to be predatory mites . There are reports of detections 
at the border of adult and eggs on pineapple consignment from Ecuador, as 
well as adults from pineapple coming from the Philippines. However  as these 
have not been identified to species it is uncertain whether the taxa associated 
with pineapple are the same as those recorded from New Zealand and cannot 
be assessed  further.   
371 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Crossopriza lyoni  Spiders are likely to be detected or removed during  commercial production 
process due to their size and high mobility.  
Cunaxa  sp. There has been one interception of the mite on pineapples from the 
Philippines. However, this genus of mite does not appear to be associated 
directly with fruit, but rather is a predator of other mites and pests (and all 
results found related to this behav iour) (Gerson 2008) . Therefore, the 
interception is likely a hitchhiker incident rather than a true association with 
the commodity.  
Cunaxidae  It is a family of mite. The risk of this family is assumed to be covered by 
species assessments.  
Cunaxoides  sp. Predatory mites that are likely hitchhikers rather than truly associated with the 
commodity .  
Daidalotarsonemus  
sp. No evidence was found of the genus being associated with pineapple 
(Google/Google scholar: Daidalotarsonemus pineapple).  
Dermatophagoides 
farinae  The species is present in New Zealand (NZOR 2021) and is not listed in 
ONZPR (2021). This species is a house dust mite, no specific association with 
pineapples .  
Dictyna  sp.  Spiders are likely to be detected or removed during commercial production 
process due to their size and high mobility.  
Dictynidae  Spiders are likely to be detected or removed during commercial production 
process due to their size and high mobility.  
Dolichotetranychus  
sp. Assumed to be covered by the other species assessed.  
Dolichotetranychus 
floridanus  Dolichotetranychus floridanus  is not listed in NZOR (2021)  and is regulated 
ONZPR (2021). This species is reported from exporting counties and is 
associated with pineapple (Beard et al. 2012) . It was excluded from the 
previous pineapple hazard ID because the only reported host is pineapple and 
therefore exposure  and establishment is unlikely. This conclusion remains and 
therefore this species does not require further assessment.  
Dolichotetranychus  
sp. nr. vandergooti  See D. vandergooti  assessment. This does not appear to be an accepted 
name.  
Dolichotetranychus 
vandergooti  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) or ONZPR (2021). According to the 
DAFF  (2012a) for decrowned pineapple fruit the mite feeds on leaves and is 
not associated with decrowned pineapples. The 2012 Australian IRA for 
decrowned pineapple fruit from Malaysia states that the species is not 
considered to be associated with the decrowned pineapple pa thway.  
Eutetranychus 
orientalis  This species is not listed in NZOR (2021) and is regulated ONZPR (2021). 
The association with pineapple is based on a reference from South Africa 
(Meyer 1987 cited in Migeon and Dorkeld (2021) , but full -text is not 
accessible) . The feeding location of the mite on pineapples could not be 
found. Based on the feeding of the mite on other hosts, it feeds on plant 
leaves (CABI 2021)  particularly the upper surfaces (Singh and Raghuraman 
2011) . Information on the mites effects on pineapples is lacking, however 
based on its behaviour on other hosts, it is likely that the mite feeds on leaves 
and therefore would not be associated with decrowned pineapples. No 
evidence was found that the species is found on pineapple fruits.  No record of 
it being intercepted on pineapple arriving at the New Zealand border.   
372 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Fungitarsonemus  
sp. There is on e interception of the genus on pineapple from the Philippines. No 
other evidence of an association with pineapple was found via a 
google/go ogle scholar search using appropriate search terms.  As not specify 
to species level, there is no sufficient information for a PRA.  
Gaeolaelaps 
aculeifer  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) and is non -regulated (ONZPR 2021).  
This is a soil -dwelling generalist predatory mite (Ajvad et al. 2018; Park et al. 
2021) . There are no records of this pest associated with pineapple plantation 
(Google and Google Scholar: 'Gaeolaelaps aculeifer' and pineapple). It is not 
known if this spec ies is found in the exporting markets . 
Galumna  sp.  Three species from this genus are reported present in New Zealand (NZOR 
2021). No evidence was found that this genus may be associated with 
pineapple fruit. Members of the genus are mostly collected in s oil samples, 
debris, bark of trees, moss (Saxena and Rao 2015) . 
Gamasellodes  sp. Intercepted in a pineapple consignment coming from the Philippines. There is 
no record of this genus present in N ew Zealand . This genus  is known to be 
soil-dwell ing mites and interest has increased for their potential as biocontrol 
agents for root pests. Other than the interception, no evidence was found of 
the species associated with pineapple fruit (Google/Google Scholar: 
Gamasellodes pine apple/Ananas cosmosus). Given that no association with 
the commodity is documented, was not assessed further.  
Hemicheyletia  sp. There is one interception of this genus on pineapple from Fiji. One report of 
this genus on pineapple leaves was found (Fain e t al. 2002) . No evidence of 
the genus on fruit was found. Evidence was found that 75% of the cheyletid 
mites are predatory to other arthropods and the rest are parasitic to mammals 
and birds (Ray and Hoy 2018) . Therefore, unlikely that this genus has a tru e 
association with the commodity. As not specify to species level, there is no t 
sufficient information for a PRA.  
Hexabdella  sp.  Although they m ay be associated with plants, these are predatory mites. 
Therefore,  the interceptions are likely due to the mites hitchhiking rather than 
a true association with the fruit. No results were found in a google and google 
scholar search of Hexabdella and pineap ple.  As not specify to species level, 
there is no sufficient information for a PRA.  
Lasioseius  sp. This genus is not known to present in New Zealand. Although this genus has 
been intercepted in different pineapple consignments coming from the 
Philippines and Ecuador it is excluded as contaminated pest. This genus 
contains species that are found on rotti ng organi c substances, under bark, in 
forest litter, moss, soil, nests of mammals and birds, sored products, fungi and 
hay. No evidence was found on its association with pineapple ( CAB 
Abstract /Google Scholar).  
Lauritzenia  sp. Two species present in New Zealand (NZOR 2021). No evidence found for 
association with pineapples. This is a soil -dweller mite. Very limited 
information and no association with fruits was found.  
Liebstadia  sp. Two species of the genus present in New Zeal and (NZOR 2021). No evidence 
found for association with pineapples. Species of this genus have been 
collected in litter, lichen, moss and soil. No indication that th ese mites are 
associated with pineapple fruit.  
Linyphiidae  Spiders are likely to be detected or removed during commercial production 
process due to their size and high mobility.   
373 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Lorryia  sp. There is one interception of this genus on pineapples arriving in New Zealand. 
No evidence was found of the genus associated with pineapple in 
Google /Google scholar searches using relevant search terms. References 
found were related to the genus associated with citrus (Aguilar -Piedra 2001) . 
Also no evidence was found of the genus being an important economic pest. 
Feeding on pollen, cleaning citrus tree s of sooty mould and predation of citrus 
mite pests was found (Aguilar -Piedra 2001).  
Loxosceles  sp. Spiders are likely to be detected or removed during commercial production 
process due to their size and high mobility.  
Lupaeus  sp. The genus is not known to be present in NZ (NZOR  2021 ). Although there is 
one interception on pineapple in at the New Zealand border (AssureQuality 
2021) , no other evidence found on association with pineapple ( search in 
Google Scholar , CABI (2021)  and EPPO (2021) ) 
Macquarioppia 
striata  Present in New Zealand according to NZOR (2021). A marine mite of New 
Zealand subantarctic Islands. It is not associated with pineapple fruits.  
Magnobates  sp. Magnobates flagellifer is  present in New Zealand (NZOR 2021). No evidence 
of this genus being associated with pineapple fruit.  
Metapronematus  
sp.  No evidence of association with pineapple was found, except two 
interceptions on pineapples from the Philippines. Reports of the genus on 
citrus, clover, Schefflera  sp., and moths was found but nothing for pineapple 
plants using appropriate search terms (Aguilar -Piedra 2001) . This genus is not 
known to present in New Zealand. However, due to a lack of information and 
no specific species found to be associated in literature search, further 
assessment cannot be conducte d.  
Neocunaxoides  sp. Neocunaxoides and rei and Neocunaxoides  sp. nr. Rykei  has been intercepted 
on pineapple in New Zealand for one time. No other evidence suggest that N. 
andrei and Neocunaxoides  sp. nr. Rykei  is associated with pineapple 
(literature search in Google Scholar , CABI (2021) and EPPO (2021) ). N. 
andrei is reported to be assoiate d with soil and a biological control agent of 
root-knot nematode. Not much information can be found on these mites.  
Neoramia  sp. Spiders are likely to be detected or removed during commercial production 
process due to their size and high mobility.  
Neoseiulus barkeri  The species is present in New Zealand (NZOR 2021) and non -regulated 
(ONZPR 2021). The mite is not known to be a vector of disease.  
Nyssus coloripes  Spiders are likely to be detected or removed during commercial production 
process due to their size and high mobility.  
Oligonychus litchii  This species is not listed in NZOR (2021) and is regulated in ONZPR (2021).  
Oligonychus litchii  feeds on sap by sucking near veins on a leaf, before 
spreading to the entire leaf as population density increases (Department of 
Agriculture 2019) . No evidence was found of the species being associated 
with pineapple fruit (Google/Google Scholar: Oligonyc hus litchii pineapple).   
Oribatida  sp. Species within this suborder are present in New Zealand (NZOR 2021). No 
evidence found for association with pineapple fruit.  
Oribatulidae  Some species of this family are present in New Zealand (NZOR 2021). No 
evidence found associating this family with pineapples, likely to be associated 
with soil or decaying plant material.  
Oulenzia bakeri  This species appears to be a synonym of Oulenziella bakeri , and is non -
regulated. This species is a fungus feeder (Fan et al. 2015)  and no evidence 
was found of it being associated with pineapple fruits.   
374 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Panonychus citri  The species is present in New Zealand (NZOR 2021) and is non -regulated 
(ONZPR 2021).  
Proprioseiopsis 
ovatus  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) or ONZPR (2021). This species is 
abundant in weeds, in lower vegetation. In Spain, specimens were found n ot 
on the leaves or fruits and the authors think that the mite was collected from 
the trunks, close to the soil, humus, litter and grasses similar to other species 
of this genus (Faraji et al. 2008) . No evidence found in literature of association 
with pine apple fruit (Google/Google Scholar: Proprioseiopsis ovatus 
pineapple).   
Prostigmata  Assumed to be covered by species assessments.  
Psylloglyphus  sp. Psylloglyphus parapsyllus  present in New Zealand (NZOR 2021) and this 
genus is not listed in ONZPR (2021). No evidence found associating this 
genus with pineapple fruit.  
Pulaeus  sp. Exception from the one interception record at the New Zealand border 
(AssureQuality 2021), no other evidence found indicating association with 
pineapple (Google scholar, CABI (2021) and EPPO (2021)).  
Ramusella  sp. No evidence was found of the genus being associated with pineapple 
(Google/Google scholar: Ramusella pineapple/Ananas comosus). Members  of 
the genus are found associated with soil and decomposing plant material 
(Hugo -Coetzee 2016) .  
Rhizoglyphus 
setosus  There is one report on the  association with pineapple and it is unclear which 
part of the pineapple it is associated with. This species is not reported to feed 
on or be associated with any other fruits. It is primarily associated with plant 
bulbs. Feed s on saprophytic and plant pat hogenic fungi. There appears to be 
a single report of this species being associated with mealy bugs on pineapple 
from Fiji (Zhang et al. 2004) . It is unclear how the mites are associated with 
the mealy bugs, or what part of the pineapple plant it is associ ated with. It was 
concluded that there was insufficient evidence  of an association with the 
commodity to assess further.  
Rhizoglyphus  sp. Rhizoglyphyus phylloxerae is reported to be associated with pineapple root 
system  and  Rhizoglyphus setosus is repor ted to be  associated with 
“pineapple ”(Goff 1 987) but the specific plant part is not mentioned . No 
evidence of other species under this genus being associated with pineapple . 
No evidence found for association with pineapple fruit.  
Scheloribates  sp. Several species in this genus are reported present in New Zealand (NZOR 
2021). No evidence found for association with pineapple fruit (Google search: 
Scheloribates pineapple Ananas comosus ). 
Schizotetranychus 
asparagi  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) and is regulated (ONZPR 2021). 
There is limited  information available on this species . Its host range is very 
narrow (the species is noted for damaging ornamental asparagus and young 
pineapple plants ; edible asparagus is a recorded host but the impacts on it are 
uncertain ) and there is limited potential for the mite to find a host plant . There 
is no evidence this mite is likely to be a major pest.  
Scytodes sp.  Spiders are likely to be detected or removed during commercial production 
process due to their size and high mobility.  
Steneotarsonemus 
ananas  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) or ONZPR (2021). Due to host 
specificity with pineapple, it is unlikely that it would establish in New Zealand.   
375 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Steneotarsonemus 
comosus  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) but is regulated ONZPR (2021). The 
only record found describing host and feeding, was from pineapple crown 
leaves (Ochoa Pérez 1989) . No evidence was found of the mite associated 
with pineap ple fruit or with other hosts (Google/Google Scholar: 
Steneotarsonemus comosus pineapple). Therefore it is not considered 
associated with the commodity.  
Steneotarsonemus  
sp.  Assumed to be covered by species assessments.  
Tarsonemidae  Assumed to be covered by species assessments.  
Tarsonemus 
bilobatus  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) and is regulated (ONZPR 2021). 
There is one interception of the mite on pineapple. However, no association 
with pineapple was found in the literature (Google/Google Scholar: 
Tarsonemus bilobatus  pineapple/ Ananas com osus ). Therefore, the species is 
not considered to be associated with the commodity.   
Tarsonemus 
confusus  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) and is regulated (ONZPR 2021). 
There have been  five interceptions of the mite at the New Zealand border 
(AssureQuality 2021).  However,  it is a primarily fungivorous species (Lindquist 
1986)  and present on some ornamentals (e.g. African violet, azalea, cissus, 
Cyclamen, Gloxinia, ivy and Pilea) in greenhous es in Europe and tomatoes in 
North America, but have rarely caused primary damage to its host plants 
(Zhang 2003) . Therefore , it is likely that the mites were associated with fungi 
on the pineapples rather than the pineapples themselves. No evidence was 
found of the mite being associated with pineapples in a Google/ Google 
scholar search using appropriate search terms.  
Tarsonem us sp. Assumed to be covered by species assessments.  
Tetranychus  sp. No evidence was found of Tetranychus  species being associated with 
pineapple. None of the species listed in the spider mite database had 
pineapple as a host (Migeon and Dorkeld 2021) . No interception of the genus 
on pineapples is listed in the AQ database. There is one interception from 
1992 in the LIMS dat a, but was not identify to species level. No evidence was 
found of an association with pineapple (Google/Google Scholar: Tetranychus 
pineapple/Tetranychus Ananas comosus).    
Thyreophagus 
entomophagus  This species is reported present in New Zealand (NZOR 2021) but the 
subspecies Thyreophagus entomophagus italicus is listed in ONZPR as 
regulated. The was no evidence found that this species is associated with 
pineapple fruit (Google search: Thyreophagus entomophagus pine apple) as is 
a stored product pest. This species is also commonly found in debris in 
beehives.  
Thyreophagus  sp. Species of this genus are reported in New Zealand (NZOR 2021). No 
evidence found for association with pineapple fruit (Google search: 
Thyreophagus pineapple Ananas comosus ). 
Tydeidae  Assumed to be covered in the species assessments.  
Tydeus  sp. Although there are interceptions of the genus on pineapples (which were not 
identified to species level ), no other evidence was found of an association of 
the genus with the commodity (Google/Google Scholar: Tydeus pineapple). 
No evidence was found of the genus being important economic pests, and 
there is evidence that these are predatory mites that feed on fungi, pollen and 
other small arthropods. Some may be plant feeders, but no evidence was 
found of this causing damage. Very little information on this g enus and little 
understanding of their feeding habits .  
376 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Tyrophagus 
curvipenis  The species is present in New Zealand (NZOR 2021; PPIN 2021), but is not 
listed in ONZPR (2021).  
Tyrophagus 
javensis  The species is not reported present in New Zealand (NZOR 2021) and is non-
regulated (ONZPR 2021).  This species is mostly found in stored products and 
decaying organic matter (Fan and Zhang 2007) . It has been intercepted in 
pineapples in New Zealand but there is no evidence that they are associated 
with the fruit in the field (Google search: Tyrophagus javensis pineapple 
ananas comosus).  
Tyrophagus 
putrescentiae  Present in New Zealand (NZOR 2021;  PPIN 2021) and is non -regulated 
(ONZPR 2021).  
Tyrophagus 
robertsonae  Species is reported present in New Zealand in NZOR (2021). It is non -
regulated in ONZPR (2021).  
Xenotarsonemus  
sp. There is one interception from a 2005 from pineapples in the Philippines. No 
literature was found (Google/Google Scholar searches: Xenotarsonemus 
pineapple/ananas) of an association with pineapple. Given that no association 
with the commodity was found, no  further assessment required.  
Zygoribatula  sp. Some species in this genus reported present in New Zealand (NZOR 2021). 
No evidence found for association with pineapple fruit (Google search: 
Zygoribatula pineapple ananas comosus).  
Bacteria  
Acetobacter aceti  BiotaNZ (2022)  stated A. aceti  was present in New Zealand but has added a 
statement beneath that record which says “Acetobacter aceti was declared to 
be not a New Organism by the EPA on 22 September 2016. Isolate ICMP 
1669 was initially thought to be from New Zealand but its origin is unknown”. 
There are no New Zealand isolates recorded in the NZFungi collections. 
NZOR (2021) states it is present but may have based this on information pre -
Sept 2016. There is no record in PPIN (2021) and it is listed as regulated 
(ONZPR 2021).  
Excluded from further assessment on the basis of insufficient evidence of it 
being a plant pathogen. Acetobacter aceti  was originally thought to be one of 
the organisms responsible for pink disease in post -harvest pineapple 
processed for canning (Kado 2003) . Organi sms in the genus Tatumella  have 
subsequently been found to be responsible (Brady et al. 2010) . Acetobacter 
aceti  is known to be ubiquitous in the environment, usually in association with 
any sugar fermentation process in nature. It is found in symbiotic re lationships 
with many plants like tea, coffee, mango, pineapple and bananas, also rotting 
apples, wine and canal water. Found in flowers, fruits, vegetables, honeybees 
and may also be found in soil (UCDavis 2018a) . General searches through 
Google Scholar, Google and CAB Abstracts show it is used industrially for the 
making of acetic acid and vinegars, including from pineapple waste  (Praveena 
et al. 2021) . 2021).  
Acetobacter 
liquefaciens  Acetobacter liquifaciens  is absent from New Zealand (NZOR 2021), but is not 
listed in ONZPR (2021). The species has been associated with pink disease 
of pineapple which occurs during canning. As with other species that have 
been associated with this disease and excluded ( Gluconob acter oxydans ) this 
is excluded based on lack of information that it would be able to establish in 
New Zealand, based on it only being reported from Ananas comosus . If the 
host range were to expand, it may need to be reassessed.   
377 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Acetobacter 
pasteurianus  Acetobacter pasteurianus  is reported as absent from New Zealand ( NZOR 
2021 ) and it is listed as regulated (ONZPR 2021).  Excluded from further 
assessment on the basis of insufficient evidence of it being pathogenic to 
plants of environmental or  economic concern to New Zealand.  If evidence to 
the contrary is found then A. pasteurianus  will need to be reassessed. It is one 
of a few Acetobacters that causes marbling disease in pineapple (Rohrbach 
and Apt 1993) . This bacterium is endophytic and exi sts on sugar -rich 
substrates such as flowers, fruits and vegetables. Acetobacters are also found 
on naturally spoiled fruits. They can occur on the skins of grapes and survive 
the fermentation process thus spoiling wines (UCDavis 2018b) .  General 
searches through Google Scholar, Google and CAB Abstracts show A. 
pasteurianus  is used in making wine vinegars, cellulose and acetic acid 
production.  
Acetobacter sp. Assumed to be captured by species assessments.  
Bacillus subtilis  Bacillus subtilus  is present in New Zealand ( NZOR  2021) and is non -regulated 
(ONZRP 2021). It is a ubiquitous bacterium found in soil, water and plant 
residues. Most of the information found to do with the species and pineapple 
was fermenting and isolations from juice (goo gle, google scholar). No 
evidence was found suggesting that the B. subtilus  associated with pineapple 
represents a strain not present in New Zealand.  
Brevibacillus 
borstelensis  Present in New Zealand (BiotaNZ 2022),but is not listed in ONZPR (2021). 
BiotaNZ states that a culture of the species from New Zealand is held in a 
private collection. No evidence was found that the isolates from pineapple 
represent a strain not present in  New Zealand.  
Dickeya 
chrysanthemi  Although Dickeya chrysanthemi  is listed as present in New Zealand ( NZOR  
2021), this is no longer considered to be correct.  Dickeya  sp. have been 
associated with bacterial heart rot of pineapple. However, D. chrysanthemi  
has not been specifically confirmed to be causative agent of this disease 
(Kaneshiro et al. 2008; Peckham et al. 2010; Sueno et al. 2014; Aeny et al. 
2020) . 
Dickeya 
paradisiaca  This species was found to not be associated with the commodity. It was found 
that the host association had been mis -represented in the literature. The 
references could be traced back to one primary reference, that when checked 
was found to not list D. para disiaca  in association with pineapple. No other 
reference to the bacterium associated with pineapple was found.  
Dickeya  sp. Assumed to be covered by species assessments.  
Enterobacter  sp. The Enterobacter species found associated with pineapple was E. 
agglomerns  (Rohrbach and Pfeiffer 1976) . This is a synonym of P. 
agglomerans  which has been assessed and is present in New Zealand.  
Gluconobacter 
oxydans  Gluconobacter oxydans  is reported as uncertain from New Zealand (BiotaNZ 
2022) and it is listed as regulated (ONZPR 2021). There is a note in BiotaNZ: 
‘Cultures are held in private New Zealand collections. But unverified. ’. 
However, no evidence was found of the bacterium being  isolated from New 
Zealand. Excluded from further assessment on the basis of insufficient 
evidence of it being pathogenic to plants of environmental, economic or 
cultural concern to New Zealand. All other reports found as part of Google and 
Google Scholar searches related to its industrial applications. If evidence to 
the contrary is found then G. oxydans  will need to be reassessed.   
378 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Gluconobacter  sp. Assumed to be covered by the assessed species as the paper found referring 
to Gluconobacter  and pineapple identified it as G. oxydans  (Rohrbach and 
Pfeiffer 1976) .  
Klebsiella 
pneumoniae  Present in New Zealand (NZOR 2021) and is non -regulated (ONZPR 2021) . 
No evidence that the isolates from pineapple represent strains not present in 
New Zealand.  
Klebsiella  sp. Assumed to be covered by the species assessment  
Pantoea 
agglomerans  The species is present in New Zealand ( BiotaNZ 2022 ) and is non -regulated 
(ONZPR 2021).  
Pectobacterium 
carotovorum  The species is present in New Zealand ( BiotaNZ 2022 ) and is non -regulated 
(ONZPR 2021).  
Pseudomonas  sp. Assumed to be covered by species assessments.  
Pseudomonas 
ananas  The species is not listed in BiotaNZ  (2022) and has a regulatory status of 'not 
assessed' in ONZPR (2021). Very limited literature was available for this 
species. All of the literature that was found, refers to an association with 
pineapple fruits (apart f rom the synonym from the Malaysian document 
Pseudomonas syringae  pv. Antirrhini , which is reported from snap dragon 
(Hendson et al. 1992) . However, this synonym wasn't found in other sources. 
Of the limited papers all related to the species causing disease  on pineapple 
(Serrano 1934; Ministry of Agriculture and Agro -based industry Malaysia 
2004) . It is reported that the disease is rare in Malaysia, with only 1% of the 
fruits at a cannery affected (IPPC 2004). The hosts listed in the IPPC (2004 ) 
are pineapple, snapdragon and  Penstemons. None of these are significant to 
NZ (and the snapdragon hosts is dubious based on that synonym not being 
used in other sources). Given the host range, it is unlikely that the bacterium 
would establish/cause impac ts in NZ. May need to be reassessed if the host 
range expands or the pineapple industry in N ew Zealand  increases in size. 
Based on the synonym Bacterium ananas and the DAFF  (2012a) for 
pineapple from Malaysia, this may be a synonym of Pantoea ananatis which is 
being assessed further.  
Pseudomonas 
marginalis  The species is present in New Zealand ( NZOR  2021) and is non -regulated 
(ONZPR 2021).  There are collections of the species from New Zealand. One 
pathovar of P. marginalis  (P. m. pv. pastinacae) is not present in New Zealand 
(NZFungi 2021) and is regulated (ONZPR 2021). However, no evidence was 
found of this pathovar being associated with pineapples. Therefore, no 
evidence found that isolates from pineapple represent a strain not present in 
New Zealand.  
Pseudomonas 
syringae  pv. 
antirrhini  This organism is associated with leaf and stem lesions of pin eapple. Given 
that the crown is not included in the commodity description, leaf/stem 
pathogens do not require further assessment. Beyond the listing in the  pest 
list sent by the Philippines, and the AMAF (2020)  list no evidence was found 
of the species bei ng associated with pineapple (google/google scholar). In 
IPPC (2004), it is described that P. s. pv. antirrhini  is a synonym of P. ananas , 
which does affect fruit. However, no other evidence was found that this is a 
valid synonym (Bull et al. 2010; DAFF 2012b; BiotaNZ 2022) . The other 
consideration is that other than snapdragon ( Antirrhinum majus ) was the only 
host identified ( BiotaNZ 2022 ), which although are present in N ew Zealand , 
are not of economic, cultural, social or environmental significance.  
Ralstonia 
pseudosolanacearum  No evidence was found of Ralstonia  species being associated with pineapple 
(Google/Google Scholar: Ralstonia pineapple/Ralstonia Ananas).   
379 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Tatumella citrea  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021), PPIN (2021) or ONZPR (2021). The 
species was  initially thought to cause pink disease on pin eapple as Pantoea 
citrea , but the strains have been allocated separate species status.  
Tatumella 
morbirosei  Along with strains of T. ptyseos , T. morbirosei are reported causing pink 
disease of pineapple (Brady et al. 2010; Bull et al. 2012) . This causes the 
release of a pink pigment during the canning process, in otherwise healthy 
looking fruit (Kado 2003) . No evidence was found of the pathogen affecting 
any other host Google scholar/Google searches (including Pantoea citrea , 
which used to b e considered the causative agent of pink disease). Given that 
pineapples are not commonly grown in New Zealand, this pathogen is unlikely 
to exposure or establish. This may need to be reassessed if pineapple 
become a more significant crop.  
Collembola  
Seira  sp. No literature available associating Seira  sp. with pineapples (Google search: 
Seira Poduromorpha pineapple ananas comosus). Only interception records 
available, and none identified to species level. Seira septapartita  is already 
present in New Zealand (NZOR 2021).  
Diseases of Unknown Aetiology  
glassy spoilage  Now considered to be caused by yeast species, likely Fusarium subglutinans  
(Rohrbach and Johnson 2003) . This fungus is one of the other scientific 
names of Gibberella subglutinans  in ONZPR (2021), which is non -regulated.  
terminal mottle  This is caused by an unconfirmed virus or toxin (APS 2021) . Given the 
unconfirmed nature of the disease, there is insufficient information to assess 
further.   
Triad rot  The causative agent is unknown. No information available on this disorder. 
Based on the unknown nature of the disease and the lack of information, there 
is insufficient information to conduct an assessment.   
Y-center rot  The causative agent is unknown there is no information available on this 
disorder and therefore insufficient information to assess further.  
Fungus  
Acremonium 
polychromum  Not present in New Zealand (NZOR 2021) and is regulated (ONZPR 2021). 
This fungus has been isolated from the leaf of pineapple in Sierra Leone and 
dead herbaceous stems in Costa Rica. The fungus Gliomastix murorum  var 
polychroma  is a synonym and it is repo rted to be common in dead plant 
tissues (Dickinson 1968; Granados -Montero et al. 2018) . No evidence found 
for association with pineapple fruit (Google/scholar search: Acremonium 
polychromum pineapple ananas comosus).  
Acrostalagmus 
annulatus  Acrostalagmus  annulatus  and synonym Stilbella annulata  are not reported 
present in New Zealand (NZOR 2021) and are not listed in ONZPR (2021). 
Literature found describes this species as a saprophytic fungi associated with 
dead and decaying plant material, no evidence found of association with 
pineapple fruit (Google/scholar search: Acrostalagmus annulatus Stibella 
annulata pineapple ananas comosus).  
Alternaria alternata  This fungus is present in New Zealand. Strains not present in New Zealand 
are regulated (ONZPR  2021 ). Reported causing leaf spot on pineapple (CABI 
2021) . Infection of fruit appears to be primarily association with wounding 
during processing (Troncoso -Rojas and Tiznado -Hernández 2014) . Such fruit 
is not expected to meet the commodity description and the refore this species 
was not assessed further.   
380 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Antennularia  sp. The only report of this fungus associated with pineapples is a n import risk  
analysis for the importation of pineapples from Malaysia (DAFF  2001) .  It 
appears to be only associated with the leaves of pineapple  (Singh 1980) . 
Armillaria mellea  The fungus is listed as 'recorded in error' in NZOR  (2021) and is regulated in 
ONZPR (2021). This fungus is not known to infect fruit. It affect s leaves, 
stems but mainly roots (CABI 2021 ). As such, it is not associated with the 
commodity.  
Aspergillus  sp. The primary Aspergillus  species associated  with pineapple were identified as 
A. flavus  and A. niger . Aspergillus flavus appears to be present in New 
Zealand (PPIN 2021; NZOR 2022 ). This species has been isolated from 
decayed pineapple fruits. Aspergillus flavus  var. parvisclerotigenus  is absent 
from New Zealand ( NZOR  2021), however, the fungus is from tropical soil in 
Thailand and its aflatoxin productivity, no evidence of an association with 
pineapple was found (Google/Google Scholar: Aspergillus flavus var. 
parvisclerotigenus pineapple/ Ananas cosmosus). Aspergillus niger  is present 
in New Zealand (NZFungi 2021) and non -regualted (ONZPR 2021). 
Aspergillus fumigatus  is also reported in association with pineapple, but this 
species is present in New Zealand (NZOR 2021). No other associations  with 
pineapple found within this genus.   
Aspergillus flavus  The species is present in New Zealand ( NZOR 2021 ).  The regulatory status 
is not assessed in ONZPR.  The fungus has been associated with post 
harvest rot and decay of pineapples (Sarma 2014; APS; Rohrbach and 
Johnson 2003).  
Aspergillus 
fumigatus  The species is r eported present in New Zealand (NZOR 202 1; PPIN 2021) 
and not listed in ONZPR  (2021) .  
Aspergillus 
japonicus  The species is n ot present in New Zealand (NZOR  2021 ) and not listed in 
ONZPR  (2021) . This fungus has been reported in Panama being present in 
soil samples. This fungus has been isolated from rotten pineapple fruit in 
Nigeria. The GBIF.org (2021)  reports this fungus present in other exporting 
markets  but presence should be taken carefully  as some are specimens kept 
in Museums, or DNA accessions (Piepenbring 2006) . No literature was found 
of the species causing disease of pineapples (Google/google scholar search: 
Aspergillus japonicus pineapple), rather it appears to be used in the 
processing of pineapple juice and waste.  
Aspergillus niger  Present in New Zealand (NZOR  2021;  PPIN  2021 ) and non -regulated 
(ONZPR  2021 ).  
Asterina aliena  Not reported present in New Zealand (NZOR  2021 ) and is not listed in 
ONZPR  (2021) . This fungus has been reported in association with the leaves 
of pineapple (Crane et al. 1997)  but no evidence was found for association 
with pineapple fruit. Given that no association with the commodity was 
identified, the species was not assessed furthe r.  
Asterinella 
stuhlmanni  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) or ONZPR (2021). This fungus is 
reported to affect the leaves of pineapples, causing leaf spot symptoms 
(Ministry of Agriculture and Agro -based industry Malaysia 2004).  No evidence 
was found of the species associated with pineapple fruit (Google/Google 
Scholar: Asterinella stuhlmanni pineapple).  
Athelia rolfsii  Present in New Zealand (NZOR  2021;  PPIN  2021 ) and non -regulated 
(ONZPR  2021 ).  
Beltrania rhombica  Present in New Zealand (NZOR  2021;  PPIN 2021) and not listed in ONZPR 
(2021). Beltrania indica  is a synonym.   
381 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Blakeslea trispora  Species is not present in New Zealand (NZOR  2021 ) and is regulated 
(ONZPR  2021 ). This species has been reported on pineapple from Nigeria but 
there are no specification on what part. This fungus is mainly found on waste 
by product of some fruits and is particular useful to produce carotenoids 
(HerbIMI 2022) . No further association with pineapple was found 
(Google/scholar search: Blakeslea trispora pineapple ananas comosus). 
Given that no association with the commodity was determined, the species 
was not assessed further.  
Blakeslea trispora  The species is l isted as intercepted at the border (NZOR 2021) and is 
regulated (ONZPR 2021). No evidence was found that the species is 
associated with pineapple (Google: Google Scholar: Blakeslea trispora 
pineapple/Ananas comosus; Farr and Rossman (2021)) . Some google re sults 
suggest that it grows on pineapple waste.  
Brachysporium 
ananassae  The species is not listed in (NZOR 2021) or (ONZPR 2021). This fungus has 
been reported in Taiwan present in dead pineapple leaves (Sawada 1959) . 
Therefore, it is n ot associated with the commodity.  
Brachysporium  sp.  This genus was assessed in DAFF  (2001 ). It was concluded that it was 
associated with the leaves and caused leaf spot. Google and Google scholar 
searches found examples of other Brachysporum  sp. being associated with 
leaf spot disease. As we are not considering pineapples with crowns, it does 
not appear to be associated with the commodity. No further assessment is 
required.  
Calothyriella 
ananassae  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) or ONZPR (2021). This fung us 
occurs on the leaves of pineapples. There is not much information in the 
literature about this fungus other than a list provided by the Australian 
Government where it mentions this fungus was not included because the 
pineapple is decrowned.  
Candida sake  The species is present in New Zealand ( NZOR 2021 ) and is non -regulated 
(ONZPR 2021). No evidence was found that the pineapple isolates represent 
strains not present in New Zealand.  
Candida  sp. Assumed to be covered by species assessments.  
Capnodium  sp. Some species in this genus are present in New Zealand (NZOR  2021 ) and 
some species are regulated (ONZPR 2021). Sooty mo uld that may cause 
secondary infection of pineapple leaves if mealybugs are  present (Rohrbach 
and Johnson 2003) . There is very little literature available for this genus, and it 
is unclear what species may be associated with pineapple fruit and there is 
unlikely to be enough information available to conduct a full assessment.  
Ceratocystis 
fimbriata  This species is reported present in New Zealand (NZOR  2021;  PPIN 2021). 
The Ipomoea strain is non -regulated, while strains that are not present in New 
Zealand are regulated (ONZPR  2021 ). The association of the fungus with 
pineapple is unconfirmed and is likely the result of erroneous reports (EPPO  
2021 ). Given tha t the species is not confirmed to be associated with the 
commodity, this is not assessed further. If new information becomes available, 
this may need to be reassessed.  
Ceratosphaeria  sp. No evidence found of association of this genus with pineapple fruit . There is a 
report of this genus on the leaves of pineapple in Venezuela (Urtiaga 1986) , 
but not with the fruit part .   
382 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Cercospora  sp. Members of the genus are not associated with pineapple fruit. There is one 
disease associated specifically with the leaves of pineapple called the 
Cercospora spot of pineapple. It is characterized by necrotic spots in the 
leaves. It was detected in Brazil and is not recorded in any of the exporting 
markets  (Ponte and Castro 1976) . However, there are other species of 
Cercospora  that attack other commercially important crops and that are 
present in some of the exporting markets  (but are not reported to be 
associated with pineapple).  
Cladosporium 
cladosporioides  The species is present in New Zealand ( NZOR  2021) and is non -regulated 
(ONZPR 2021). Cladosporium cladosporioides  f.sp. pisicola  has been raised 
to species level and is now Cladosporium pisicola , it is not associated with 
pineapple.  
Cladosporium 
oxysporum  The species is present in New Zealand ( NZOR  2021) and is non -regulated 
(ONZPR 2021). No evidence was found of strains that may not be present in 
New Zealand.  
Cladosporium 
perangustum  The species is present in New Zealand ( NZOR  2021) and is not listed in 
ONZPR (2021). No evidence was found of strai ns that may not be present in 
New Zealand.  
Cladosporium  sp. Assumed to be covered by species assessments.  
Cladosporium 
sphaerospermum  The species is present in New Zealand ( NZOR  2021) and is non -regulated 
(ONZPR 2021). No evidence was found of strains that may not be present in 
New Zealand.  
Clonostachys rosea  Species is present in New Zealand (NZOR  2021 ) and is non -regulated 
(ONZPR  2021 ).  
Clonostachys rosea  
f. rosea  Species is present in New Zealand (NZOR  2021 ) and is non -regulated 
(ONZPR  2021 ).  
Clonostachys  sp. Species in this genus are present in New Zealand (NZOR  2021 ). No species 
found to be specifically associated with pineapple fruit.  
Cochliobolus 
geniculatus  The species is present in New Zealand ( NZOR  2021) and non -regulated 
(ONZPR 2021).  
Collariella gracilis  Species not listed in NZOR, ONZPR or PPIN (2021). This species has been 
reported on pineapple from Thailand but there are no specification from what 
part of the plant (HerbIMI 2022) , however no other information is given. No 
evidence found of association o f this species with pineapple fruits 
(Google/scholar search: Collariella gracilis pineapple ananas comosus). Given 
that no evidence of association with the commodity was found, the species 
was not assessed further.  
Collariella gracilis  The species is not  listed in NZOR  (2021) or ONZPR (2021). No evidence that 
the species is associated with pineapple (Google/Google Scholar: Collariella 
gracilis  pineapple/ Ananas comosus ).  
Colletotrichum 
gloeosporioides  Species is present in New Zealand (NZOR  2021 ) and its regulatory status is 
not assessed (ONZPR  2021 ).  
Colletotrichum  sp. Some species within this genus are present in New Zealand (NZOR  2021 ) 
and some species are regulated (ONZPR  2021 ). Colletotrichum capsici is 
present in New Zealand  (NZOR  2021 ) and is non-regulated (ONZPR  2021 ), 
therefore is not a hazard. Colletotrichum ananas  is associated with 
pineapples, is not reported present in New Zealand (NZOR 2021), not listed in 
ONZPR (2021). It is not reported in exporting markets , therefore is not a 
hazard.   
383 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Colletotrichum 
truncatum  Species is present in New Zealand (NZOR  2021 ) and is non -regulated 
(ONZPR  2021 ).  
Coniella fragariae  Present in New Zealand ( NZOR  2021) and non -regulated (ONZPR 2021). No 
evidence was found of strains that may not be in New Zealand.  
Coniothyrium  sp. A search of 'coniothyrium' and 'ananas' in Farr and Rossman (2021)  returned 
two results: Coniothyrium fuck elii and Coniothyrium sp. Coniothyrium fuck elii 
is present in New Zealand ( NZOR  2021). The second result is on genus level. 
Although it is associated with pineapple, its distribution shown in Farr and 
Rossman (2021)  is only Cambodia, Florida and South Africa.  
Corynespora 
cassiicola  The species is present in New Zealand (NZOR 2021) a nd is non -regulated 
(ONZPR 2021).  
Curvularia  sp. Multiple species of Curvularia  have been identified association with pineapple 
(Farr and Rossman 2021). The majority of the reports are of them causing 
pineapple leaf disease (Zhong et al. 2016; Farr and Rossman 2021). There is 
one report of the species C. eragrostidis  causing post -harvest rot of pineapple 
in Brazil (Ferreira et al. 2014). This is the only report of this disease, and 
although it is a cosmopolitan fungus, such symptoms have not been observed 
in pineapples in exporting markets  (or elsewhere). Curvularia eragrostidis was 
assessed in a PRA exclusion note.   
Curvularia 
australiensis  This species is present in New Zealand (NZOR 2021) but is not listed in 
ONZPR (2021).  
Curvularia clavata  The species is present in New Zealand ( NZOR  2021) and non -regulated 
(ONZPR 2021).  
Cylindrocarpon 
effusum  The species is not listed in NZOR  (2021) and is regulated (ONZPR 2021).The 
fungus is associated with the base and root of the pineapple. The two records 
are based in Mauritius, there is no evi dence so far that this fungus is found in 
any of the exporting markets  using the google search terms 'Cylindrocarpon 
AND Ananas' or using the  Farr and Rossman (2021)  database . Therefore, 
there is no evidence of the species being associated with the commodi ty.    
Daldinia  sp. Daldinia eschscholtzii  (not known to present in New Zealand (NZOR 2021) 
and not listed in ONZPR (2021) appears to be associated with the peduncle of 
pineapples and was assessed further. No evidence found of other species of 
Daldinia  being associated with pineapple fruits.  
Dictyoarthrinium 
quadratum  D. sacchari  is not present in New Zealand (NZOR 202 1) and is regulated 
(ONZPR 2021). This species is a saprophytic fun gus and is not reported to be 
associated with pineapple fruit. This fungus occurs on mature leaves, not on 
crown leaves (Department of Agriculture 2019)  and is therefore not associated 
with the commodity.  
Dictyothyrina 
ananasicola  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) or ONZPR (2021). The current 
information are record ed from databases in which the fungus was detected on 
leaves of pineapple (Sarbhoy et al. 1971) . There is little information about the 
fungus in the literature therefore at this point it is not known its complete 
distribution. Given that no association with the commodity was determined, it 
was not assessed further.  
Diplodia  sp. Species within this genus are present in New Zealand (NZOR  2021 ) and 
many species are regulated (ONZPR  2021 ). Lasiodiplodia theobromae  (syn. 
Diplodia ananassea ) is present in New Zealand (NZOR 2021) and is non -
regulated. No evidence found for other species  in this genus being associated 
with pineapples.   
384 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Dothiorella  sp. Species within this genus are present in New Zealand (NZOR 2021) and 
some species are regulated (ONZPR 2021). No evidence found for 
association of a specific Dothiorella species with pineapple (Google/scholar 
search: Dothiorella pineapple ananas comosus).  
Echidnodes 
bromeliacearum  Not reported present in New Zealand (NZOR 2021) and is not assessed in 
ONZPR (2021). Synonym is Lembosia bromeliacearum  (EPPO 2021). While 
the fungus has been reported in association with pineapples (DAFF 2001)  it is 
unclear if it is associated with the pi neapple fruit and there is not enough 
information available to conduct further assessment. No evidence was found 
of the species associated with pineapple fruit (google/scholar search: 
Echidnodes bromeliacearum). This fungus has been observed on the leaves 
of other Bromeliads. The disease appears as elliptical leaf spots, either upper 
or lower, and light brown on the corresponding opposite sides. Spots may 
coalesce (El-Gholl et al. 1988 ) . Therefore, it is assumed that the species 
affects pineapple leaves an d is not associated with the commodity.  
Ellisiodothis  sp. The genus does not appear to be associated with pineapple fruit. There is one 
record of this genus associated with pineapple, although it is not known what 
part of the plant is affected. The publication is from Fiji, it could possibly be 
assumed that this fungus is present in Fiji but not completely certain (Wright 
2003; Pacific Islands Pest List Database 2022) . 
Elsinoe perseae  The only source that indicates an association of E. perseae  with pineapple is 
from USDA fungal database (Farr and Rossman 2021), and the reference 
from USDA is Mendes (1998) . However, this reference does not specify which 
pineapple plant part the fungus is associated with. No further association with 
pineapple was  found in literature searches (Google/Google Scholar: Elsinoe 
perseae pineapple/ Ananas cosmosus). Therefore, is not considered to be 
associated with the commodity.  
Epicoccum nigrum  The species is p resent in New Zealand ( NZOR  2021) and is non -regulated 
(ONZPR 2021) under the synonym Epicoccum purpurcens .  
Erysiphe 
cichoracearum  The species is p resent in New Zealand ( NZOR  2021) and is non -regulated 
(ONZPR 2021) under the synonym Epicoccum cichoracearum .  
Fusarium affine  The species is not listed in NZOR  (2021) or ONZPR (2021).This fungus is 
responsible of root rot in pineapple, not associated with the fruit or the base of 
the fruit (Gonsalves and Ferreira 1994) . Therefore, the species is not 
associated with the commodity.  
Fusarium ananatum  This fungus infects fruitlets causing them to remain green or delay its maturity. 
Internal browning is observed in the center of the affected fruitlet and the rot 
ocassionally spread to the fruit core (Barral et al. 2020) .  No evidence was 
found that this species infects any other hosts except for pineapple. Exposure , 
establishment and impacts are unlikely in New Zealand due to lack of host 
availability.   
385 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Fusarium 
chlamydosporum  There was only a single report of this species being associated with 
pineapple s, and was based off of morphological identification. It may be 
possible that this association was not of F. chlamydosporum , but of another 
similar (possibly undescribed) fusarium species. Fusarium chlamydosporum  is 
also considered a species complex and th e fungus may be a new species in 
this complex. There is not enough evidence of this fungus species being 
associated with pineapples for a full PRA to be justified. This fungus causes 
discoloration of the fruitlet and water -soaked appearance. On the leaves,  
rotting at the base, necrotic spot, dry rot on the roots and wilting were 
observed. Reported hosts of F. chlamydosporum  include Agaricus bisporus , 
Pennisetum glaucum , Sorghum bicolor , Morus  sp., Pinus haplepsis , 
Helianthus  sp., tobacco, kangaroo paw, rooibos tea  plants, okra, Lycium 
barbarum , Musa sampientum , Colocasia esculenta.  
Fusarium guttiforme  No evidence found that this Fusarium  species infects any other hosts except 
for pineapple. Exposure, establishment and impacts are unlikely in New 
Zealand due to lack of host availability. Presence in exporting markets  is 
uncertain, but appears to be unlikely. It affects all parts of the pla nt. Fusarium 
guttiforme  is the asexual state, however the sexual state is part of the 
Gibberella fujikuroi complex, and this sexual state has not been associated 
with fusariosis in pineapple. It is characterized gummosis on the plant and 
fruits. On the fru its, the gummosis occurs mainly on the floral cavity 
deteriorating the quality of the fruit.  
Fusarium 
polyphialidicum  There is not enough evidence of this fungus species being associated with 
pineapples for a full PRA to be justified.  
Fusarium 
temperatum  This fungus is present in New Zealand ( NZOR  2021), but is not listed in 
ONZPR (2021). No evidence was found that the pineapple isolate represents 
a strain that is not present in New Zealand.  
Gibberella fujikuroi  This is a species complex. Some  synonyms are not present in New Zealand 
and are regulated (ONZPR 2021). The preferred name, Fusarium fujikuroi , is 
reported present in New Zealand ( NZOR  2021) and is non -regulated (ONZPR 
2021).  
Gibberella sacchari  Synonym of Fusarium sacchari , which is present in New Zealand and is non -
regulated  
Gliomastix luzulae  Species is present in New Zealand (NZOR  2021) and is not listed in ONZPR 
(2021). Preferred name is Acremonium luzulae . Based on the presence in 
New Zealand, no further assessment requ ired.  
Gloeosporium 
orbiculare  The species is present in New Zealand, under the synonym Colletotrichum 
orbiculare  (NZOR  2021) and is non -regulated under the synonym Glomerella 
lagenaria  (ONZPR 2021).  
Gloeosporium  sp. Assumed to be covered by species assessed.  
Golovinomyces 
cichoracearum  Synonym of Erysiphe cichoracearum.  
Helminthosporium  
sp. The fungus Helminthosporium cassiicola  is mentioned as being associated to 
pineapples in  an import risk analysis for the importation of pineapples to 
Australia (DAFF 2019b) . However , no information was found in the literature 
searched using the search terms "Helminthosporium cassiicola AND 
pineapple" or the current name "Corynespora cassiicola AND pineapple". 
Given that no association with the commodity was found, the species was not 
assessed further.   
386 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Kloeckera  sp. Members of the Kloeckera  genus are present in NZ ( NZOR  2021). They are 
fermentation fungi (Díaz -Montaño and Córdova 2009)  and opprtunistic human 
pathogen (Sánchez -Cárdenas et al. 2021) , suggesting a ubiquitus nature. 
Based on the available information there insufficient information to justify an 
assessment - This is the only report found of a member of this genus causing 
pineapple disease, no relevant emerging risks about this genus causing plant 
disease, literature found in Google/Google scholar searches mostly relate to 
biocontrol uses, cannot identify if the  causative agent is present in exporting 
markets  (or is absent from New Zealand) as the only report is from Brazil 
(Korres et al. 2010) , the isolate did not cause symptoms when individually 
inoculated. This suggests an opportunistic infection of multiple s pecies that 
caused disease, rather than an established disease causing complex that can 
be assessed. If further information becomes available, this may need to be 
reassessed.  Genus is so broad and ubiquitous that an assessment cannot be 
done based on avai lable information.   
Lasiodiplodia 
theobromae  This species is present in New Zealand (NZOR 2021) and is non -regulated 
(ONZPR 2021).  
Lembosia  sp. Some species in this genus are present in New Zealand (NZOR 2021). 
Lembosia orbicularis  is listed in ONZPR (2021) and is regulated. No evidence 
found for association with pineapple fruit.  
Macrophoma  sp. Some species in this genus are present in New Zeala nd (NZOR 2021) and 
some species are regulated (ONZPR 2021). Macrophoma  species may be 
associated with the leaves of pineapples, but no evidence was found for 
association with pineapple fruits. Macrophoma  sp. has been isolated from 
necrotic areas of leaves of pineapple in Malaysia. The fungus  M. phaseoli  is 
associated with the root of the plant (Farr and Rossman 2021). Given that no 
evidence of the genus associated with the commodity was found, this was not 
assessed further.  
Macrophomina 
phaseolina  This species is present in New Zealand (NZOR  2021 ) and is non -regulated 
(ONZPR  2021 ) 
Marasmiellus 
scandens  The species is absent from New Zealand ( NZOR  2021) and is regulated 
(ONZPR 2021). Associated with pineapple but cocoa is the main host. Even 
on cocoa, M. scandens  is of little economic significance w hen the plants are 
properly managed. The disease is associated with poorly maintained plants 
already weakened by poor field management, other pests and diseases. The 
fungus forms a network of white mycelial strands that ramify across the 
leaves, petioles a nd branches. The infected leaves then undergo abscission 
and are then held together by the fungal threads and dense mycelial pads 
(CABI 2021; Farr and Rossman 2021) . This fungus is associated with leaves 
and the pest or symptoms are usually visible to the naked eye.  
Marasmius crinis -
equi The species is absent from New Zealand ( NZOR  2021) and is regulated 
(ONZPR 2021). Pineapple is regarded as a secondary host, although it is only 
reported associated with leaves and not the fruit (Ministry of Agriculture and 
Agro -based industry Malaysia 2004)  (DAFF  2011; CABI 2021) . This species is 
synonym with Marasmius equicrinis . 
Marasmius 
palmivorus  The fungus can affect the fruitlet and plants are not able to develop a full 
mature fruit.  The fungus is normally saprophytic on decaying and dead 
materials. It spreads to a new so urce via infected plant parts that include 
flowers, fruit, leaves, roots, stems, wood, seeds or via windblown rain, water -
splash, or air -currents. Given that the fungus prevents the fruit maturing, it is 
not going to be associated with the commodity.   
387 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Marasmius sacchari  The species is present in New Zealand ( NZOR  2021) and is regulated 
(ONZPR 2021). In the literature no association was found with pineapple 
using the search terms "Marasmius sacchari AND pineapple".  This fung us’ 
main host is sugarcane and is called pineapple wilt because it liberates a 
smell similar to pineapple; in sugarcane it affects the roots and stem (Cook) . 
Mariannaea 
elegans  This fungus is present in New Zealand ( NZOR  2021),but is not listed in 
ONZPR (202 1). No evidence was found that the pineapple isolate represents 
a strain that is not present in New Zealand.  
Meyerozyma 
guilliermondii  The species is present in New Zealand (NZOR 2021). It is not listed in 
ONZPR (2021).  
Microdiplodia 
ananasae  Species is not listed in NZOR (2021) and ONZPR (2021). Occurs on 
pineapple leaves (DAFF  2001) . No evidence found for association with 
pineapple fruits (Google /scholar search: 'Microdiplodia ananasae' and 
pineapple/'ananas comosus'). Given that the species is not associated with 
the commodity, it was not assessed further.  
Microdochium 
nivale  This fungus species is already present in New Zealand (NZOR 2021) and is 
non-regulated (ONZPR 2021).  
Microxyphium  sp.  CAB Abstract and Google Scholar search returned no relevant references 
(Microzyphium pineapple/Ananas comosus). The  USDA database lists 
pineapple of a host, but does not give a species.  Given that there is no other 
references to an association with pineapple and none from the exporting 
markets  there is insufficient information for further assessment. May need to 
be re considered if more/new information becomes available.  
Mollisia  sp. This genus is associated with pineapple but it is not clear from the sources 
found (all mainly in Hawaii) (Raabe et al. 1981; Crop Knowledge Master 
undated; HEAR 2004)  if the fungus is associated only with the leaves or can 
infect fruit. Because we are not sure what species is affecting pineapple (all 
the reports are Mollisia sp), we cannot know if the fungus is present in the 
exporting markets , or not present in New Zea land.  
Monilia  sp. Genus is so broad and ubiquitous that an assessment cannot be done based 
on available information. There is insufficient information  available to justify a 
PRA. - In Korre (2010) the species did not cause symptoms when in single 
inocualti on -there are no emerging risks of Monilia on pineapple -only one 
other record was found of the genus on A. comosus  (in Hawaii), the nature of 
the infection was not described -the genus appears to be a synonym of 
Candida (NZFungi 2021), which is a widespre ad genus with species present 
in NZ -members of the Candida genus are opportunistic human pathogens -it 
cannot be determined if the species occurs in exporting markets  as the only 
report is currently from Brazil (Korres et al. 20 10). This appears to be an 
opportunistic infection rather  than an established species complex that can be 
assessed. If further information becomes available, such as through the ERS, 
may need to be reassessed.  
Muyocopron 
pandani  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) or ONZPR (2021). This fungus is 
associated with the leaves of pineapple (Pavgi and Gupta 1967; Sarbhoy et 
al. 1971) . There are no reports in the literature that this fungus is associated 
with pineapple fruit (Google /Google Scholar: Muyocopron pandani pineapple). 
Referred in the literature as Myiocopron pandani . 
Mycosphaerella  sp. No literature was found using the search terms 'Mycosphaerella AND 
pineapple' OR 'Mycosphaerella AND Ananas comosus', where there is 
association of the genus Mycosphaerella with pineapple. There are two 
reports of this genus on USDA fungal database, but th ere are no details about  
388 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  the association (Lu 2000; Zhuang 2001) . These references were not possible 
to access.  
Nectria ananatis  The species is not listed in NZOR  (2021) or ONZPR (2021). This fungus 
infect s the leaves (DAFF 2001)  and is therefore not associated with the 
commodity.  
Neocosmospora 
solani  This fungus is present in New Zealand ( NZOR  2021).  
Neofusicoccum 
mangiferae  This species is present in New Zealand  ( NZOR  2021; PPIN 2021) and the 
synonym (Nattrassia mangiferae) is under assessment for regulatory status 
(ONZPR  2021 ).  
Neoscytalidium 
dimidiatum  This species is present in New Zealand (NZOR 2021). It is not listed in 
ONZPR (2021).  
Nigrospora oryzae  The fungus is present in New Zealand ( NZOR  2021; PPIN 2021). No evidence 
was found of the species having strains that may not be present in New 
Zealand.   
Nigrospora  sp. Lack of evidence associating an undescribed Nigrospora  sp. with pineapple. 
There is one i nterception of Nigrospora  sp. on pineapple from Vanuatu listed 
in (LIMS 2021) . The other interception of Nigrospora  on pineapple was 
identified as N. sphaerica . There was an undescribed Nigrospora  sp. that was 
found to cause postharvest rot of kiwifruit (Kwon et al. 2017) . It was 
considered a possibility that the undescribed kiwifruit species may be the 
same as the undescribed species intercepted on pineapple. However, 
according to Xinhua (2018)  the causative agent was identified as N. 
sphaerica . Nigrospora sphaerica , which is present in N ew Zealand and is non -
regulated (ONZPR 2021) . Given that there were no records of an undescribed 
species of Nigrospora  causing disease of pineapple found, and ther e were 
multiple records of N. sphaerica  as a pineapple pathogen, there is in sufficient 
informaiton to do an assessment on the Nigrospora  sp. identified in LIMS. 
Furthermore, as there is no context around the interception on LIMS that it 
was unable to be i dentified to species level. No further assessment.  
Paraconiothyrium 
fuckelii  The species is present in New Zealand (NZOR 2021). It is not listed in 
ONZPR (2021).  
Paramyrothecium 
roridum  The species is present in New Zealand ( NZOR  2021; PPIN),but is not listed in 
ONZPR (2021). However, it is non -regulated under the basionym 
Myrothecium roridum (ONZPR 2021). The fungus has been collected from 
different regions on different hosts ( NZOR  2021; PPIN).  No evidence was 
found of the speci es having strains that may not be present in New Zealand.  
Penicillium 
chrysogenum  Species is present in New Zealand ( NZOR  2021) and is non -regulated 
(ONZPR 2021).  
Penicillium citrinum  Species is present in New Zealand ( NZOR  2021; PPIN 2021) but is not listed 
in ONZPR (2021). No evidence was found of strains that may not be present 
in New Zealand.  
Penicillium 
expansum  Species is present in New Zealand ( NZOR  2021; PPIN 2021) and regulatory 
status has not been assessed (ONZPR  2021). No evidence was found strains 
that may not be present in New Zealand.  
Penicillium glabrum  Species is present in New Zealand ( NZOR  2021; PPIN 2021) but is not listed 
in (ONZPR 2021). No evidence was found strains that may not be present in 
New Zealand.   
389 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Penicillium 
pinophilum  The species is listed  as the synonym Talaromyces pinophilus  which is absent 
from New Zealand ( NZOR  2021). The regulatory status is listed as  'not 
assessed' in ONZPR (2021). There is a record of this fungus (as Talaromyces 
pinophilus ) on pineapple in Costa Rica. However, this is a soil -borne fungus 
that has been used as a biological control of other fu ngi. No other evidence of 
the fungus in exporting markets  was found (CABI; Google/Google Scholar 
search: Talaromyces  pinophilus and Penicillium pinophilum).  
Penicillium rolfsii  The species is absent from New Zealand (NZOR 2021),  and is not listed in 
ONZPR (2021). There is a record of this fungus from 1930 on fruit of 
pineapple in North America (Index Fungorum 2022) , however, except from 
saying it is on fruit of pineapple, there is no other information or original 
reference cited. Furthermore, there is no other record found on google on its 
association with pineapple fruit or the damages it inflicts to the fruit 
(Google/Scholar search: Penicillium rolfsii pineapple ananas comosus).  
Penicillium 
roqueforti  Species is reported  as present in New Zealand ( NZOR  2021) but is not listed 
in ONZPR  (2021) . No evidence was found strains that may not be present in 
New Zealand.  
Penicillium  sp. Assumed to be covered by species assessments.  
Penicillium 
vulpinum  Species is reported present in New Zealand (NZFungi 2021) but is not listed 
in ONZPR  (2021) . No evidence was found strains that may not be present in 
New Zealand.  
Periconia 
atropurpurea  This fungus is absent from New Zealand ( NZOR  2021), but is not listed in 
ONZPR (2021).This fungus is saprophytic known to be associated in host 
plants. It is known to be associated with the leaves of pineapple only by a 
record from Ghana (Farr and Rossman 2021).     
Periconia effusa  The species is not listed in NZFungi (2021) or ONZPR (2021). This fungus is 
reported as saprophytic on pineapple. No literature was found that indicates 
this species affect the fruit using the google search terms 'Periconia effusa 
AND Ananas'. Farr and Rossman (2021) rep orts this fungus in pineapple but 
there are no details. It association on leaves is bases on an IRA from Australia 
and a citation that was retrieved by the Farr and Rossman (2021) but no 
information about its association was found. In general, this Genus is known 
to fed on dead litter (Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. 2001; Farr and 
Rossman 2021).  
Periconia 
minutissima  This fungus is present in New Zealand ( NZOR  2021) and the regulatory status 
is 'under assessment' in ONZPR (2021).  It’s a saprophytic fungi and was 
reported to be associated with pineapple leaves in Ghana (Hughes 1953 cited 
in Farr and Rossman 2021).  
Pestalotia ananas  This species is not reporte d to be present in New Zealand (NZOR 2021) and 
is not listed on ONZPR (2021). This fungus is associated with pineapple 
leaves, but is not associated with the fruit (DAFF 2019b) .  
Pestalotia 
bromeliicola  This species is not reported present in New Zealand (NZOR 2021). Minimal 
information available about this species, and it does not appear to be 
associated with pineapples (Google/scholar search: Pestalotia bromeliicola 
pineapple ananas comosus).  
Pestalotia 
microspora  This species is not present in New Zealand (NZOR 2021) and regulated 
(ONZPR 2021). This species is reported cause leaf blotch disease on 
pineapple plants (Rao and Mhaskar 1973) , but no evidence was found 
associating the fungus with pineapple fruits (Google/Google scholar: 
Pestalotia mic rospora fruit).   
390 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Pestalotia  sp. Assumed to be covered by species assessments.  
Pestalotiopsis 
funerea  The species is present in New Zealand ( NZOR  2021) and non -regulated 
(ONZPR 2021).  
Pestalotiopsis 
neglecta  The species is listed as present in New Zealand ( NZOR  2021) but regulated in 
ONZPR (2021). This fungus is associated with the leaves of an ornamental 
pineapple ( Ananas lucidu ) in Brazil, on which it induces symptoms such as 
oval-sunken necrotic lesions (Meireles -Barguil et al. 2008; Souza et al.  2020) . 
2008). There are no reports in the literature that this fungus is associated with 
pineapple fruits using the google search terms Pestalotiopsis neglecta AND 
Ananas.  
Pestalotiopsis 
royenae  The species is not listed in NZOR  (2021) or ONZPR (2021). There is scarce 
literature regarding the association of this fungus to pineapple. There is a 
reference from USDA fungal database (Farr and Rossman 2021 ) being 
reported in China, but could not get access. It has been detected in 
cardamom and is known as leaf streak. The disease is characterized by 
rectangular spots running parallel to the veins and elongated, rectangular 
translucent streaks appearing on young leaves along the veins (Gopi et al. 
2018). Given that no evidence was found  of the species affecting pineapple 
fruit, and in other hosts it causes leaf symptoms, this species is not 
considered to be associated with the commodity.  
Pestalotiopsis 
sphaerelloides  The species is not listed in NZOR  (2021) or ONZPR (2021). This fungus is 
associated with the leaves of pineapple (Arnold 1986; Agriculture, Fisheries 
and Forestry 2001). No evidence was found of it associated with pineapple 
fruits.  
Pestalotiopsis 
versicolor  The species is present in New Zealand ( NZOR  2021) and non -regulated 
(ONZPR 2021).  
Phialocephala  sp. This genus was intercepted in Mexico from pineapple fruit and leaves in 1979 
(BPI undated, cited in Farr and Rossman  (2021) ). Species in this genus are 
typically associated with roots and decaying wood. No evidence found of 
association with pineapple fruits except a very old interception record 
(Google/Google Scholar: Phialocephala pineapple).  
Phoma comosi  The species is not  listed in NZOR (2021) or ONZPR (2021). Farr and 
Rossman (2021 ) refers to the species associated with pineapple. These refer 
to Phoma comosi on pineapple leaves in India. No other references were 
found (Google/Google Scholar:  Phoma comosi pineapple/Ananas comosus). 
Based on a lack of evidence of commodity association and presence in 
exporting markets , was not assessed further.   
Phoma  sp. Assumed to be covered by the species assessed. No further species of 
Phoma, beyond that already identified, was found associated with pineapple 
(Google/Google Scholar: Phoma pineapple/Ananas comosus).  
Phomopsis  sp. Assumed to be covered by the species ass essed.  
Phomopsis 
ananassae  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) or ONZPR (2021). This species is 
reported associated with pineapple leaves (Zeng 2004), but is not known to be 
associated with the fruit.  
Phomopsis 
diplodinoides  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) or ONZPR (2021). This species is 
reported associated with pineapple leaves (Zeng 2004) , but is not known to be 
associated with the fruit.  
Phomopsis 
spectabilis  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) or ONZPR (2021). This species is 
reported associated with pineapple leaves (Zeng 2004), but is not known to be 
associated with the fruit.   
391 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Phyllachora  sp. The species found in this genus are associated with the leaves of the host e.g. 
Phyllacora sacchari & Phyllaco ra maydis amongst others. The Pacific Islands 
Pest List Database (2022) records the genus Phyllacora  associated with 
pineapple but there are no details on what part of the plant, but based on the 
behaviour on other hosts, it is assumed to be the leaves (Kranz 1964; Koite 
1988) . 
Phyllosticta 
ananassae  The species is not listed in (NZOR 2021) or (ONZPR 2021). This fungus is 
associated with the leaves of pineapple, commonly known as leaf spot . no 
evidence found indicate it is associated with the commodity.  
Physalospora  sp. Physalospora rhodina  may cause post harvest fruit rot of pineapples (DAFF 
2001; Ministry of Agriculture and Agro -based industry Malaysia 2004) . This 
species is a synonym o f Lasiodiplodia theobromae which is present in New 
Zealand (NZOR 2021) and in non -regulated (ONZPR 2021). No evidence 
found of other species in this genus that may be associated with pineapples.  
Pilobolus 
crystallinus  The species is present in New Zealand ( NZOR  2021) but is not listed in 
ONZPR (2021). No evidence found that isolates from pineapple represent a 
strain not present in New Zealand.  
Pilobolus 
crystallinus  This fungus is present in New Zealand ( NZOR  2021) but is not listed in 
ONZPR (2021) . No evidence that the pineapple isolates represent a strain not 
present in New Zealand.  
Pleurostoma 
richardsiae  The presence of P. richardsiae  in New Zealand requires validation and is 
listed as uncertain ( NZOR  2021). The species is not listed in ONZPR (2021). 
The fungus is reported to be associated with pineapple in India (Farr and 
Rossman 2021). However, the source to this record , Sharma et al . (1981) , is 
not available through available pathways . No other references to the fungus 
being associated with pineapple was found. Due to no confirmed association 
with pineapple, no further assessment.   
Polynema  sp. No evidence was found of the genus being associated with pineapple 
(Google/Google Scholar: Polynema pineapple/Ananas comosus).  
Pseudopestalotiopsis 
theae The species is absent from New Zealand ( NZOR  2021) but is not listed in 
ONZPR (2021). No literature was found of the association of this fungus with 
pineapple using the key words 'Pseudopestalotiopsis thea AND Ananas'.  
Pseudopithomyces 
chartarum  The species is present in New Zealand (NZOR 2021) but  is not listed in 
ONZPR (2021).  
Pseudopithomyces 
maydicus  The species is present in New Zealand (NZOR 2021) but is not listed in 
ONZPR (2021).  
Pseudopithomyces 
sacchari  The species is absent from New Zealand (NZOR 2021) but is not listed in 
ONZPR (2021). (Kirk 1991)  and two references in Farr and Rossman (2021) 
indicate its association with Ananas  sp. and Ananas comosus . The Farr and 
Rossman references indicate an associa tion with leaves from Cambodia, 
Ghana, Sierra Leone and Venezuela. Given that no commodity association 
was found, this species was not assessed further.   
Rhizoctonia solani  Synonym of Thanatephorus cucumeris  which is present in New Zealand 
(NZOR 2021). Strains present in New Zealand are non -regulated (ONZPR 
2021). The species is soil -borne and causes root disease of hosts 
(Williamson -Benavides and Dhingra 2021) . No evidence was found of the 
species associated  with pineapple fruits (Google scholar Rhizoctonia solani 
pineapple fruit).  
Rhizoctonia  sp. Assumed to be covered by species assessments.  
Rhizopus  sp. Assumed to be covered by species assessments.   
392 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Rhizopus arrhizus  This species present in New Zealand NZOR  (2021) and has a regulatory 
status of 'under assessment' in ONZPR (2021). The synonyms listed in NZOR  
are R. oryzae  and R. maydis  (with R. arrhizus  as the preferred name). There 
is a record of R. oryzae collected fr om New Zealand in PPIN (2021).  No 
evidence of strains that may not be present in New Zealand. No further 
assessment.  
Rhizopus stolonifer  Present in New Zealand (NZFUNGI 2022)  and is non -regulated (ONZPR 
2021). There are collection records from different regions of New Zealand. No 
evidence was found of there being other strains that may not be present in 
New Zealand. No further assessment.    
Rhodotorula 
graminis  The species i s present in New Zealand (NZFungi 2021) but is not listed in 
ONZPR (2021 ). No evidence was found of strains that may not be in New 
Zealand.  
Saccharomyces 
cerevisiae  The species is present in New Zealand (NZFungi 2021) and is non -regulated 
(ONZPR 2021). There are collections of the species from New Zealand.  No 
evidence was found of strains that may not be present in New Zealand.  
Saccharomyces  sp.  Assumed to be cove red by species assessments.  
Septobasidium 
westonii  The species is not listed in NZFungi (2021) or ONZPR (2021). Very little 
literature/information was found for this fungus (Google/Google Scholar 
search Septobasidium westonii and Septobasidium westonii pineapple). 
However, it was found that the species occ urs in Panama and has been 
recorded as present in Panama on pineapple leaves (Farr and Rossman 
2021; DAFF  2001). Therefore, no association with the commodity was found.  
Spegazzinia 
sundara  The species is absent from New Zealand (NZFungi 2021), and is not  listed in 
ONZPR (2021). Saprophytic fungi that is associated with dead leaves and is 
not associated with pineapple fruit (DAFF 2001) Given that the species is not 
associated with the commodity, it was not assessed further.   
Spegazzinia 
tessarthra  Species is present in New Zealand (NZFungi 2021) and is not listed in 
ONZPR (2021). No evidence was found of strains associated with pineapple 
being different from those  present in New Zealand. The variety listed in NZOR  
(Spegazzinia tessarthra  var. deightonii) is now recognised as a distinct 
species .  
Sphaerobolus 
stellatus  Species is present in New Zealand (NZFungi 2021; PPIN 2021) and is non -
regulated (ONZPR 2021). No evidence was found of the pineapple isolate 
representing a strain that ma y not be present in New Zealand.  
Sphaeronaema  sp. Species in the genus Sphaeronaema  are know n to be present in New Zealand 
(NZOR 2021) and some species are regulated (ONZPR 2021). One species 
was detected that was associated with pineapple is Sphaeronaema fimbriata , 
however they reclassified this fungus to Ceratocystis fimbriata , which is 
present in New Zealand and assessed above . No evidence found of 
association of this genus with pineapple fruit (google/scholar search: 
Sphaeronaema pineapple ananas comosus)  
Stachybotrys  sp. Assumed to be covered by species assessments.  
Stachybotrys 
parvispora  The species is listed as present in New Zealand (NZFungi 2021) and the 
regulatory status is listed as 'under assessment' (ONZPR 2021). There are 
collection records from regions of New Zealand. No evidence was found of the 
species ha ving strains that may not be present in New Zealand.  
Steirochaete 
ananassae  The species is not listed in NZFungi (2021) or ONZPR (2021). Fungus may be 
associated with the leaves of pineapple, but no evidence was found of 
association with pineapple fruit.   
393 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Stomiopeltis  sp. The genus does not appear to be associated with pineapple fruits . DAFF 
(2001)  reports this fungus as being present on the fruit with crown and states 
that this fungus occurs only on leaves  and cited Sing (1980) which is not 
accessible.  
Syncephalastrum 
racemosum  This species is present in New Zealand (NZFungi 2021) and non -regulated 
(ONZPR 2021). No evidence was found of the species having strains that may 
not be present in N ew Zealand .  
Talaromyces flavus  Species is reported present in New Zealand (NZFungi 2021), and the 
regulatory status is under assessment (ONZPR 2021). Synonym of this 
species is Penicillium dangeardii  (anamorph taxon) which is also reported 
present in New Zealand (NZOR  2021 ).  
Talaromyc es 
funiculosus  The fungus is reported present in New Zealand and Penicillium funiculosum  is 
reported as a synonym (NZFungi 2021). The regulatory status of P. 
funiculosum  is listed in ONZPR (2021) as 'not assessed', and T. funiculosus  is 
not listed. Althoug h the species has been reported to cause of fruit core rot in 
pineapple (Lim and Rohrbach 1980; Barral et al. 2020) , and is present in 
exporting markets , given that it is present in New Zealand (and no relevant 
strains were identified), is not assessed further.  
Talaromyces 
minioluteus  The species is absent from NZFungi (2021) and not listed in ONZPR (2021). 
According to HerbIMI (2022)  this fungus has been recorded on pineapple but 
there are no details on which part of the plant. No evidence found for 
association with pineapple fruit (Go ogle/Scholar search: Talaromyces 
minioluteus pineapple ananas comosus).  
Talaromyces 
pinophilus  The species is absent from New Zealand (NZFungi 2021) and not listed in 
ONZPR (2021). No evidence found for association with pineapple fruit 
(Google/Scholar se arch: Talaromyces minioluteus pineapple ananas 
comosus).  
Talaromyces 
purpureogenus  The fungus is reported present in New Zealand (NZFungi 2021), but is not 
listed in ONZPR (2021). No evidence was found of strains that may not be 
present in New Zealand.  
Thielaviopsis 
ethacetica  Species is present in New Zealand (NZOR 2021; PPIN 2021) an d not listed in 
ONZPR (2021). No evidence was found of strains that may not be present in 
New Zealand.   
Thielaviopsis  sp. Thielaviopsis paradoxa  is reported on pineapples. Thielaviopsis paradoxa was 
assessed further. No other species in this genus report ed in association with 
pineapples (Google./scholar search: Thielaviopsis pineapple ananas 
comosus).   
Trichoderma 
harzianum  The species is present in New Zealand (NZFungi 2021) and is non -regulated 
(ONZPR 2021). No evidence was found of strains that may not be present in 
New Zealand.  
Trichoderma  sp. Trichoderma species are present in New Zealand (NZOR 2021) and are 
frequently used worldwide as biological control agents of fungal diseases such 
as fusarium (Trocoli et al. 2017). No evidence found of as sociation of this 
genus with pineapple fruits (Google/scholar search: Trichoderma pineapple 
ananas comosus).  
Trichoderma viride  The species is present in New Zealand (NZFungi 2021) and is non -regulated 
(ONZPR 2021). No evidence was found of strains that may not be present in 
New Zealand.   
394 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Trichosphaeria 
sacchari  The species is not listed on NZFungi (2021) or ONZPR (2021). The fungus is 
reported associated with pineapples in the West Indies (Farr and Rossman 
2021). Other reports are on sugarca ne in Brazil and Dominican Republic (Farr 
and Rossman 2021). Very little information was found on this fungus in 
Google/Google Scholar searches. The records found related to sugarcane 
disease. Very little information, no information that it is in exporting  markets  or 
associated with the commodity. No further assessment required.  
Tripospermum  sp. This fungus has been recorded on pineapples in Cuba. This fungus grow s on 
the honeydew produced by sap -sucking insects and cover the upper leaf 
surfaces of many plants  (Thaman 2018) . No evidence found indicates it is 
associated with the fruit. 
Verticillium 
heterocladum  The species is absent from New Zealand (NZFungi 2021) and is regulated 
(ONZPR 2021). It was reported associated with pineapple in Hawaii but there 
are no details of the association. No presence of this fungus was found in any 
of the exporting markets  using  the google search terms 'Verticillium 
heterocladum' and it current name 'Paecilomyces cinnamomeus' according to 
Index Fungorum.  
Insect  
Abgrallaspis 
cyanophylli  The species is present in New Zealand (NZOR 2021) and is non -regulated 
(ONZPR 2021). No evidence was found that the beetle vectors disease.  
Acalolepta sp. No association of the genus with decrowned pineapple was found 
(Google/Google Scholar: Acalolepta pineapple/Ananas comosus).  
Acerophagus sp. This is a genus of parasitic wasps and are not considered to be associated 
with the commodity.  
Acrolophus sp. Several species within the genus feed on roots, stems and leaves of 
Bromeliaceae. They mostly attack the plant base, close to the soil (Ministry of 
Economic Affairs 2015) . Genus does not appear to be associated with 
pineapple fruits. (Google /scholar search: Acrolophus pineapple ananas 
comosus).  
Adoretus ictericus  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021), but is regulated in ONZPR (2021). It 
attacks pineapple roots and is not considered to be associated with the 
commodity (Smith et al. 1995) .  
Adoretus tessulatus  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021), and is regulated in ONZPR (2021). 
It attacks pineapple roots (Sarah 1989)  and is not considered to be associated 
with the commodity .  
Aeolus sp. No evidence found that this genus is associated with pineapple fruit.   
Agallia  sp. The genus is not known to be associated with pineapple (Google/Google 
Scholar: Agallia pineapple/Ananas comosus).  
Agrotis ipsilon  This species is present in New Zealand (NZOR 2021) and it is not known to 
be a vector (Joshi et al. 2020; CABI 2021) . 
Ahasverus advena  This species is present in New Zealand (NZOR 2021) and is non -regulated 
(ONZPR 2021).  
Aleurodothrips 
fasciapennis  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) and is regulated (ONZPR 2021). 
Although the species has been reported from exporting markets , the species 
is not associated with pineapple fruit. Although it has been found in pineapple 
fields, this is a predatory t hrips that can feed on scales associated with 
pineapples (APHIS 1979; Rohrbach and Johnson 2003) , rather than the fruit.  
Alpheias conspirata  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021), but is regulated in ONZPR (2021). 
There is a record of an interception in US border in 1962 but there is no detail  
395 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  on the interception. No further evidence of an association with pineapple fruit 
was found (Google/G oogle Scholar: Alpheias conspirata pineapple).  
Althos obscurator  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) or ONZPR (2021). Very little 
information was found about this species and no evidence that it is associated 
with pineapple (Google/Google Scholar: A lthos obscurator pineapple/Ananas 
comosus).  
Altica sp. No evidence was found indicating that this genus is associated with pineapple 
fruit.  
Amblypelta 
lutescens  The pest is mobile and big, so it is unlikely to be associated with the 
commodity due to commercial production process of the commodity and 
inspection.  
Amorbia emigratella  Damage is typically to the foliage as larvae roll the leaves and feed on the leaf 
edges. However, it may extend to the fruit surface if leaves contact the fruit, or 
when two fruits are close together. Damage to fruit is likely to be visible. 
Mexican leafro ller will occasionally travel with imported commodities (e.g. 
papayas, cut flowers).  Given the weak association with the commodity, and 
the visibility of the damage, this species was not assessed further.  
Anagyrus ananatis  The species is not listed in N ZOR (2021) or ONZPR (2021). This is a parasitic 
wasp parasitic wasp and is a natural enemy of the pineapple mealybug 
Dysmicoccus brevipes (Pandey and Johnson 2006; CABI 2021) , which is not 
known to be present in New Zealand (PPIN 202 1). In the absence of i ts host it 
is assumed that the wasp would not be able to establish in New Zealand and 
for this reason it will not be considered further.  
Anagyrus 
coccidivorus  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) or ONZPR (2021). This is a parasitic 
wasp parasitic wasp and is a natural enemy of the pineapple mealybug 
Dysmicoccus brevipes  (Pandey and Johnson 2006; CABI 2021) , which is not 
known to be present in New Zealand (P PIN 202 1). In the absence of its host it 
is assumed that the wasp would not be able to establish in New Zealand and 
for this reason it will not be considered further.  
Anasa sp. No evidence was found that the genus is associated with pineapple 
(Google/Goo gle Scholar: Anasa pineapple/Ananas comosus).  
Anaxipha sp. The adults are very active and commonly inhabit low dense plants, but are 
occasionally found among litter on the ground or in tall shrubs or small trees. 
No other report about its association with pineapple was found other than a 
report of an interception in Panama (Fulton 1956).  Likely that this cricket will 
be disturbed during harvest and not remain on the fruit.  
Ancylosternus 
morio  Google and Google Scholar searches, including using the synonym (species 
AND pineapple (common and scientific name)) did not show an association 
with the commodity.  
Anomala expansa  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021), but is regulated in ONZPR (2021). 
DAFF (2019b) , an Australian IRA for decrowned pineapples from Taiwan 
concluded that the species only attacks roots. Therefore, it is not considered 
to be associated with the commodity.  
Anomala nitidula  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021), but is regulated in ONZPR (2021). A 
search  on Scholar and the web (species AND pineapple (common and 
scientific name) did not indicate an association with the commodity.   
Anomala sp. Assumed to be covered by species assessments.   
396 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Anomala 
xanthopleura  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021), but is regulated in ONZPR (2021). 
Not in exporting markets , appears to be limited to Japan (GBIF.org 2021) . 
Furthermore no clear association was found with decrowned pineapples 
through a web and literature research, as members of the genus feed on plant 
roots.  
Anomocaulus 
fulvovestitus  There are only very few published papers available on this pest and it remains 
unclear which plant parts are attacked. Based on the information available it 
appears to be a relatively large beetle that should be removed during 
harvesting and post -harvest p rocesses. No evidence of internal feeding was 
found.  While the beetle is noted as a serious but rare pest of pineapple there 
is not enough other information to do a PRA.  
Anoplognathus 
porosus  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) or ONZPR (2021). The  species is 
reported from roots (Joy et al. 2012)  and is not considered to be associated 
with the commodity.  
Anoplolepis 
gracilipes  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) and is regulated (ONZPR 2021). 
Associated ants are likely to be a foraging, sterile individuals unable to 
establish a population.  For this reason, this species was not considered 
further.  
Antitrogus mussoni  The s pecies is not listed in NZOR (2021) or ONZPR (2021). The species is 
reported from roots (Joy et al. 2012) and is not considered to be associated 
with the commodity.  
Antonina graminis  There is  one reference associating this species with pineapple and the 
association is related to roots (Riherd 1950) . 
Aonidiella aurantii  This species is present in New Zealand (PPIN 2021; NZOR 2021) and has 
been collected from multiple hosts. It is non -regulated (ONZPR 2021). No 
evidence was found that the species acts as a disease vector.    
Aphis gossypii  The species is not associated with the commodity. There is one  reference 
indicating a possible association  which  is (Carter 1937) . The study tested 
whether the aphid transmitted disease to pineapple plants, but does not 
mention that pineapple is a natural host of the aphid. No further evidence of 
the aphid associated with pineapple was found (Google/Google Scholar: 
Aphis gossypii pineapple/Ananas cosmosus).  
Apis mellifera  It is present in New Zealand (NZOR 2021), but not listed in ONZPR (2021). 
Furthermor e, it is not considered to be associated with the commodity.   
Apis sp. Assumed to be covered by species assessments. Members of this genus are 
not considered to be associated with the commodity.  
Araecerus 
fasciculatus  While this species is listed as present in NZOR (2021), it should not be 
considered as present in New Zeala nd (PPIN 2021) and is regulated (ONZPR 
2021). Known to lay eggs and complete lifecycle within citrus fruits and 
internal and external feeding in fruits is reported (Yokoyama et al. 2003) . 
However, it is not reported feeding or developing on or within pinea pple fruits 
and is therefore not considered to be associated with the commodity.  
Araecerus 
fasciculatus  Although this species is listed as present in NZOR (2021), it should not be 
considered as present (PPIN 2021) and is regulated (ONZPR 2021). The 
species is known to lay eggs and complete its lifecycle within citrus fruits. 
However, no evidence was found of  the species being associated with 
pineapple fruit (Google/Google Scholar: Araecerus fasciculatus 
pineapple/Ananas cosmosus).    
397 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Aspidiotus 
destructor  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) and is regulated (ONZPR 2021). No 
evidence was found of the spec ies being associated with the commodity 
(Google/Google Scholar: Aspidiotus destructor pineapple/Ananas comosus).  
Aspidiotus excisus  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) and is regulated (ONZPR 2021). No 
evidence was found of the species associated with pineapple (Google/Google 
Scholar: Aspidiotus excisus pineapple/Ananas comosus). There is an 
interception in the AssureQuality (2021 ) database on pineapple, however, 
when checked in QuanCargo the host was actually banana.  
Aspidiotus nerii  The species is present in New Zealand (NZOR 2021) and is non -regulated 
(ONZPR 2021). It is not known to be a vector.  
Aspidiotus sp. Assumed to be covered by species assessments.  
Assara albicostalis  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) and the regulatory status is 
'unassessed' ONZPR (2021). There is one report of this species on pineapple 
but there are no specifics about whether  it is associated with the fruit (DAFF 
2012a) . The larvae is known to bore into pods and feed internally in other 
fruits (DSP 2016) . Given a lack of information, and no association with the 
commodity being determined the species was not assessed fur ther.  
Atherigona 
orientalis  This species has been found associated with overripe fruits, which is not 
covered by the commodity description. The species is regulated, distributed in 
all exporting markets  and appears to have some association with pineapples 
(amongst other fruit) (Sakim ura and Linford 1940; CABI 2021) . CABI  (2021)  
includes Ananas  in host list referring to a 1992 report, which is not accessible 
and this report indicates the  association to "rotting pineapple". Sakimura and 
Linford (1940) report collection of the  species  on 1. ripe pineapple fruit; chiefly 
fruits that were picked and  placed in groups on pineapple plants and 
examined repeatedly during one week. Before collectio ns were terminated 
many of the fruits had begun to spoil and almost all were somewhat smeared 
with juice and 2. Net collections over decomposing plant waste and fallow soil 
3. Net collection in fruiting pineapple fields during day and night, 4. from 
pineap ple fruits picked after decay had begun. Moreover, there may be 
questions around the suitability of N ew Zealand  for establishement as 
discussed by Cahill (1992)  (they concluded it would not establish).  
Atherigona sp. Assumed to be covered species assessments.  
Atractomorpha 
sinensis  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) and is regulated in ONZPR (2021). 
Adults feed on a wide variety of cultivated plants of which pineapple is one of 
them. This grasshopper feeds on foliage, buds and tender stems. The eggs 
are laid in the soil. It is not known to attack the fruit and if so, adults and 
nymphs are likely to be disturbed and not remain on fruit during harvest 
(Martin Kessing and Mau 1992) . 
Atrichopogon sp. Biting midges - No evidence found of specific association to Ananas comosus  
(Google/Google Scholar: Atrichopogon pineapple/Ananas comosus). There 
has been one interception of a live adult male associated to pineapple from 
the Philippines at the New Zealand  border. However, no documented 
association with the commodity was found.    
Aulacaspis 
maculata  Not known to be associated with pineapple fruit. Ananas  sp. is listed as a host 
in Scalenet. However, no evidence of an association with pineapple was 
found in other databases.   
398 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Aulacorthum solani  The species is present in New Zealand (NZOR 2021), but is regulated 
(ONZPR 2021). The species can vector some vir uses. However, no evidence 
was found of it associated with pineapple (Google/Google Scholar: 
Aulacorthum solani pineapple/Ananas comosus). Therefore, no further 
assessment required.   
Aulacoscelis 
melanocera  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021), but is regulated in ONZPR (2021). 
No association with pineapples found through web searches (Aulacoscelis 
melanocera pineapple/Ananas comosus).  
Bactrocera 
carambolae  No scientific literature mentioning association between pineapple fruit and this 
fruit fly species could be found (Google/Google Scholar: Bactrocera 
carambolae pineapple/Ananas comosus). The scientific evidence strongly 
suggests that ‘Smooth Cayenne’ varie ties of pineapples are a ‘non -host’ of 
fruit flies including Bactrocera dorsalis , B. cucurbitae  and Ceratitis capitata . 
Furthermore, there is evidence that show that varieties of pineapples with 
50% ‘Smooth Cayenne’ parental lineage are also a ‘non -host’ f or fruit flies of 
economic importance. This is attributed that these varieties may have some 
chemical attributes that either preclude attack or cause mortality to the eggs 
or larvae of these fruit flies (Armstrong and Jang 1997) . The only reference 
found a nd cited by CABI (2021) in support of host status - Sauers -Muller 2005 
- refers to a table within the original article that mentions one pupa of 
unspecified fruitfly species in one pineapple in Suriname.  
Bactrocera 
cucurbitae  No evidence of association to commodity was found. The scientific evidence 
strongly suggests that ‘Smooth Cayenne’ varieties of pineapples are a ‘non -
host’ of fruit flies including Bactrocera dorsalis , B. cucurbitae  and Ceratitis 
capitata . Furthermore, the re is evidence that show that varieties of pineapples 
with 50% ‘Smooth Cayenne’ parental lineage are also a ‘non -host’ for fruit flies 
of economic importance. This is attributed that these varieties may have some 
chemical attributes that either preclude at tack or cause mortality to the eggs 
or larvae of these fruit flies (Armstrong and Jang 1997).  
Bactrocera facialis  No evidence was found that pineapple is a host of the species. Ananas  
reported as dubious host by White and Elson -Harris (1992) , but is not 
mentioned as a host in CABI (2021) . During the Regional Fruit Fly Projects in 
the Pacific survey, no fruit flies ever emerged from the 143 ripe pineapples 
sampled in the Pacific Islands (Leblanc et al. 2012) . 
Bactrocera kirki  No evidence of association to commodity was found. More generally, highly 
dubious host status for Ananas comosus , from single source. No fruit flies 
ever emerged from the 143 ripe pineapples sampled in the Pacific Islands 
during the Regional Fruit Fly Proj ects in the Pacific survey  surveys (Leblanc et 
al 2012). CABI (2021 ) included Ananas comosus  in Host Plants and Other 
Plants Affected list, and this information is derived from White and Elson -
Harris (1992 ) (other host plants associations refer to Leblanc et al. (2013) , not 
including A. comosus ). White and Elson -Harris 1992 reports association 
referring to Litsinger et al. (1991) . Litsinger et al. (1991 ) reports association 
between Ananas comosus  and B. kirki in Tonga, but this is considered a 
highly dubious host record (Leblanc et al 2012).  
Bactrocera sp.  Assumed to be covered by species assessments.   
399 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Bactrocera 
xanthodes  Reported that "[Bactrocera xanthodes] demonstrated not to breed on 
damaged pineapple exposed to gravid females in the laboratory" but no data 
given (Leblanc et al 2013). Drew et al. (1997)  also noted that a record from 
pineapple derived from 1905 data whic h has never been replicated. No fruit 
flies ever emerged from the 143 ripe pineapples sampled in the Pacific Islands 
during the Pacific Islands during the Regional Fruit Fly surveys (Leblanc et al. 
2012). Given a lack of evidence for commodity association,  this species is not 
assessed further.  
Baris  sp. Baris  sp. that have been reported damaging pineapples do not seem to be 
reported from the exporting markets . No information available when doing 
detailed searches on the distribution using "Baris" and the various markets , 
"Baris" AND distribution and "Baris" and pineapple as search terms. However, 
this genus was listed as an actionable regulated pest on the old IHS for 
pineapples from Ecuador. The only evidence we came across that species 
from this genus ar e associated with pineapple and transmit gummosis are 
associated with Venezuela. DAFF (2019b)  lists Baris  spp. as a significant pest 
of decrowned pineapple. However, no particular detail is given and the 
information was not very well traceable and somewhat  outdated.   
Batrachedra 
comosae  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) or ONZPR (2021). The are no 
records of this species in any of the exporting markets ; the only records 
available are in Puerto Rico (Google/Google Scholar Batrachedra comosae). 
The larvae of this moth causes gummosis  that affects the lower portion of the 
fruit, and subsequently the quality of the juice (Montalvo -Zapata et al. 1989) . 
Beckerina  sp. One live adult was intercepted on pineapple from the Philippines 
(AssureQuality 2021) . However, no other evidence found of an association to 
Ananas comosus  (Google/Google Scholar: Beckerina pineapple/Ananas 
comosus).  
Bemisia tabaci  The species is present in New Zealand (NZOR 2021), but is regulated 
(ONZPR 2021). Some biotypes are present in New Zealand. However, the 
species is not known to be associated with fruit and therefore does not require 
further assessment.  
Berecynthus 
hasta tor Stink bugs are likely to fly away or fall off fruit during harvesting. They are 
generally large enough to be visible to the naked eye and are likely to be 
managed by commercial production methods. For this reason they have been 
excluded from further assessment.  
Blapstinus  sp.  A web search showed that the genus is associated with roots.  
Blatella germanica  The species is present in New Zealand (NZOR 2021) but is not listed in 
ONZPR (2021).  
Blepyrus schwarzi  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) or ONZPR (2021). This is a parasitic 
wasp (Pacheco da Silva et al. 2021) . Its main hosts are Dysmicoccus 
brevipes , D. neobrevipes  (Noyes 2019) , and neither is present in New 
Zealand (PPIN 202 1; NZOR 202 1). In the absence of its hosts it is assumed 
that the wasp would not be able to establish in New Zealand and for this 
reason it will not be considered further.  
Blissus  sp. Members of the genus are not known to be associated with pineapple 
(Google/Google Scholar: Blissus pineapple/Ananas comosus).  
Blitopertha 
orientalis  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) or ONZPR (2021). The species was 
found associated with roots of plants (Yokoyama et al. 2003)  and is therefore 
not considered to be associated with the commodity.   
400 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Brachypeplus 
basalis  The species not listed in NZO R (2021), but is regulated (ONZPR 2021). It 
appears to be associated with pollen stored in beehives (Sagili et al. 2016) , no 
documented association with pineapples was found (Google/Google Scholar: 
Brachypeplus basalis pineapple/Ananas comosus).  
Bradysia  sp. No evidence found on association to the commodity. Included in screening for 
four interception records of live adults (known for two records) associated to 
pineapple (three from the Philippines, one from Ecuador). Bradysia ocellaris 
larvae wer e found feeding on decaying sugar cane, pineapple, wheat 
seedlings and many cultivated crops. Females are monogenic or more often 
digenic in laboratory rearing. Larvae were found feeding on the roots and/or 
stems of campanula, carnations, corn, cucumbers, geraniums, lettuce, 
nasturtiums, young orchid plants, peas, pineapple, poinsettia, potato tubers, 
primula seedlings, sugar cane, wheat, and in the soil around cactus plants 
(Steffan 1974) . No evidence of any specific species feeding on pineapple fruit.  
Cadra cautella  The moth is present in New Zealand (NZOR 2021) and is non -regulated 
(ONZPR 2021). It is not known to be a vector of any disease.  
Calandra obscura  The species not listed in NZOR (2021) or ONZPR (2021). Sugarcane appears 
to be the main host of the species and is associated with the leaves and stalks 
(Napompeth et al. 1972) . No documented association with pineapple was 
found (Google/Google Scholar: Cal andra obsca pineapple/Ananas comosus).  
Camponotus 
chloroticus  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) and is regulated (ONZPR 2021). 
Associated ants are likely to be foraging, sterile individuals unable to establish 
a population.  For this reason, this species was not considered further.  
Camponotus 
sexguttatus  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) and is regulated (ONZPR 2021). 
Associated ants are likely to be foraging, sterile individuals unable to establish 
a population.  For this reason, this species was not considered further.  
Capitophorus 
elaeagni  The species is present in New Zealand (NZOR 2021) and is non -regulated 
(ONZPR 2021). Not known to be a vector.  
Cardiocondyla 
emeryi  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) and is regulated (ONZPR 2021). 
Associated ants are likely to be foraging, sterile individuals unable to establish 
a population.  For this reason, this species was not considered further.  
Cardiocondyla  sp. Assumed to be covered by species assessments.  
Cardiocondyla 
wroughtoni  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) and is regulated (ONZPR 2021). 
Associated ants are likely to be foraging, sterile individuals unable to establish 
a population.  For this reason, this species was not considered further.  
Cardiophorus  sp. Only genu s name available, very little indicative information available that this 
is a species associated with pineapple. Search terms included genus name 
and pineapple and Ananas comosus.  
Carpophilus 
dimidiatus  The species is present in New Zealand (NZOR 2021) and is non -regulated 
(ONZPR 2021).  
Carpophilus gaveni  The species is present in New Zealand (NZOR 2021) and is non -regulated 
(ONZPR 2021).  
Carpophilus 
hemipterus  The species is present in New Zealand (NZOR 2021) and is non -regulated 
(ONZPR 2021).  
Carpophilus 
maculatus  No evidence found of association with pineapple fruits (Google/Google 
Scholar: Carpophilus maculatus pineapple/Ananas cosmosus).   
401 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Carpophilus 
marg inellus  The species is present in New Zealand (NZOR 2021) and is non -regulated 
(ONZPR 2021).  
Carpophilus  sp. Assumed to be covered by species assessments.  
Castnia invaria  The species is not listed in ONZPR (2021) or NZOR (2021). Although 
associated with pineapples (da Silva Jorge et al. 2021) , the moth is not 
reported to be in any of the exporting markets  (Google/Google Scholar 
Castnia invaria).  
Castnia licus  The synonym Telchin licus  assessed as not requiring further assessment.  
Castnia penelope  The species is not listed in ONZPR (2021) or NZOR (2021). The larvae attack 
the stem and leaves of the young pineapple plant, killing it before it is able to 
produce flower. Its reported only in Brazil. It it not known if it is present in any 
of the export ing markets  (de Melo and L; 2012) . 
Catolethrus  sp. Catolethrus longulus  reported on pineapples in the USA in 1944, but no other 
association with pineapples found, therefore it is considered that there is 
insufficient information to require further assessm ent.  
Celatoblatta  sp. Species of this cockroach genus are present in N ew Zealand , Australia and 
New Caledonia and no direct association was found with pineapples 
(Google/Google Scholar: Celatoblatta pineapple/Ananas comosus).   
Ceratitis capitata  Evidence against the host status for Ananas comosus  varieties (Armstrong 
and Jang 1997). Ananas comosus is of "unknown importance" as host 
(Thomas et al. 2001) . White and Elson -Harris 1992 reported that "a recent 
datasheet (Doss 1989) also listed pineapple as a host, without any indication 
of the source of  the data; however, it has been shown to be an unsuitable host 
(Armstrong et al. 1979) ." Armstrong et al. demonstrated resistance of multiple 
pineapple varieties (Armstrong and Vargas 1982) . The scientific evidence 
strongly suggests that ‘Smooth Cayenne’ v arieties of pineapples are a ‘non -
host’ of fruit flies including Bactrocera dorsalis , B. cucurbitae  and C. capitata . 
Furthermore, there is evidence that show that varieties of pineapples with 
50% ‘Smooth Cayenne’ parental lineage are also a ‘non -host’ for fruit flies of 
economic importance. This is attributed that these varieties may have some 
chemical attributes that either preclude attack or cause mortality to the eggs 
or larvae of these fruit flies (Armstrong and Jang 1997). Commercial 
pineapples of 50 p er cent or more Smooth Cayenne genotype are now 
recognised as not being a host for C. capitata  (DAFF 2002) (AUS IRA 2002).  
Cerchysiella abilis  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) or ONZPR (2021). This is a parasitic 
wasp.  Host are beetles in the Genus Carpophilus  -there are several species 
present in N ew Zealand  (PPIN 2022) including the main host C. Hemipterus  
(NHM Universal Chalcidoidea D atabase, 2022). No Carpophilus  spp. listed as 
native in PPIN or in NZOR. Klimaszewski and Watt (1997)  list them as field 
and stored product pest. As such, it is unlikely to cause any significant impact 
in New Zealand.  
Cerchysiella utilis  The species is no t listed in NZOR (2021) or ONZPR (2021). This is a parasitic 
wasp. Host is beetles in the Genus Carpophilus  (several species present in 
New Zealand  (PPIN 2022) including the main host C. Hemipterus  (Noyes 
2019)  and the pineapple sap beetle Urophorus humera lis (present in New 
Zealand PPIN (2022 ); non-Regulated (ONZPR )). No Carpophilus  spp. listed 
as native in PPIN or in NZOR. Klimaszewski and Watt (1997)  list them as field 
and stored product pest. As such, it is unlikely to cause any significant impact 
in New Zealand.   
402 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Ceroplastes 
floridensis  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) and is regulated in ONZPR (2021). 
No evidence was found of the species associated with pineapple 
(Google/Google Scholar: Ceroplastes floridensis pineapple/Ananas comosus; 
Scalen et).  
Cerotoma ruficornis  The species is not present in New Zealand (NZOR 2021) and is regulated 
(ONZPR 2021). No detail easily available around the association with 
pineapples (Google/Google Scholar: Cerotoma ruficornis pineapple/Ananas 
comosus).  
Chaetocnema  sp. Literature/web s earch did not find an association with pineapple 
(Google/Google Scholar: Chaetocnema pineapple/Ananas comosus).   
Chaetosiphon 
fragaefolii  The species is present in New Zealand (NZOR 2021) but is regulated 
(ONZPR 2021). It can vector some viruses, but since the species is not known 
to be associated with pineapple (Google/Google Scholar: Chaetosiphon 
fragaefolii pineapple/Ananas comosus), no f urther assessment required.  
Chalcodermus  sp. No association of the genus with the commodity was found (Google/Google 
scholar search: Chalcodermus pineapple/Ananas comosus).  
Chelinidea  sp. One species of the genus was found to be associated with pineapple leaves, 
but not with the fruit. Therefore, not associated with the commodity.  
Chelisoches morio  The species is present in New Zealand (NZOR 2021) and is non -regulated 
(ONZPR 2021).  
Chion aspis  sp. Chionaspis  sp. was recorded on pineapple at the border (from Florida) in 
1916. Evidence of Chionaspis minor associated with pineapple (DAFF 2012), 
this appears to be a synonym of Pinnaspis strachani , which is assessed 
separately.  
Cholus  sp. Assumed to be covered by species assessments.  
Cholus spinipes  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) or ONZPR (2021). It is associated 
with pineapple and found native in Grenada (Frank 1999) . However, no other 
markets  are listed as having the pest and therefore, the species is not in 
exporting markets .   
Cholus zonatus  The species is present in New Zealand (NZOR 2021) and is not listed in 
ONZPR (2021). Furthermore, this is a large beetle that would be removed by 
commercial production processes and is not reported the exporting markets  
(DAFF 2001) .  
Chrysomphalus 
ficus The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) or ONZPR (2021). No evidence was 
found that the species is associated with pineapple (Google/Google Scholar: 
Chrysomphalus ficus pineapple/Ananas comosus; Scalenet).  
Clania formosicola  This spe cies is not listed in NZOR (2021), but is regulated (ONZPR 20 21). No 
evidence found indicate it is associated with pineapple.  
Clania kondonis  There was no association with pineapple found.   
Coboldia fuscipes  The species is p resent in New Zealand (NZOR 2021) and non -regulated 
(ONZPR 2021). The larvae feed in mushroom mycelium and/or on decaying 
fungal, animal or plant tissue (Choi et al. 2000) .  
Coccidencyrtus 
ochraceipes  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) or ONZPR (202 1). This is a parasitic 
wasp.  Host are Diaspis boisduvalii  and D. Bromeliae . Diaspis boisduvalii  is 
present/ exotic in New Zealand (NZOR 2022; PPIN 2022).  Diaspis bromeliae  
is not listed as present in New Zealand (NZOR  2021 ). No evidence found that 
the parasitic wasp can attack native insect species. As such, it is unlikely to 
cause any significant impact in New Zealand.   
403 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Coccinella  sp. Assumed to be covered by species assessments.  
Coccinella 
transversalis  This species is not listed in NZOR (2021), but is regulated (ONZPR 2021). 
This is a ladybird species that is not biologically associated with pineapples 
(Google/Google Scholar: Coccin ella transversalis pineapple/Ananas 
comosus). There is an interception of this species recorded at the New 
Zealand border, which is likely to have been due to the ladybird's prey being 
on the fruit.  
Coccinellidae  Ladybird family. Assumed to be covered by species assessments.  
Coccotrypes  sp. Beetles of this genus are regulated, but no evidence was found of an 
association with pineapples (Google/Google Scholar: Coccotrypes sp. 
pineapple/Ananas comosus) - they are s ometimes listed on some documents 
about pineapples, but not in direct association.  
Coccus formicarii  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) and is regulated (ONZPR 2021). No 
evidence was found of the species associated with pineapple (Google/Google 
Scholar: Coccus formicarii pineapple/Ananas comosus; Scalenet).  
Coccus hesperidum  The species is present in New Zealand (NZOR 2021) and is non -regulated 
(ONZPR 2021).  
Coccus viridis  No reference found reporting the species associated with pineapple fruit and 
therefore is not considered associated with the commodity.   
Colaspis  sp. No association with pineapple found (Google/Google Scholar: Colaspis 
pineapple/Ananas comosus).  
Colobo psis 
conithorax  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) and is regulated (ONZPR 2021). 
Associated ants are likely to be foraging, sterile individuals unable to establish 
a population.  For this reason, this species was not considered further.  
Colopterus  sp. Members of this genus are sap feeding beetles. No clear association with 
pineapple was found when the genus name was searched in combination with 
pineapple (Google/Google Scholar: Colopterus pineapple/Ananas comosus).  
Conocephalus 
affinis  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) and is regulated in ONZPR (2021). 
Occurs in areas with tall grass, including in cultivated lands. This katydid is 
both diurnal and nocturnal and poses no threat to crops in Madagascar (Van 
Itterbeeck et al. 2019) . There is a report of this s pecies on the flower and fruit 
of pineapple when intercepted in United States in 1979 (APHIS 1979).  No 
other evidence of an association with pineapple was found (Google/Google 
Scholar Conocephalus affinis pineapple).  Furthermore, the species is likely to  
be disrupted by commercial production procedures.  
Conocephalus 
saltator  These grasshoppers can cause damage to the fruitlet but have not been 
reported to be present eating the mature fruit ready for export. These 
grasshoppers mainly feed on the leaves, gnawing on the tips, but there are 
records of the insect feeding upon the s ofter parts of the pineapple flowers 
and in some cases even gnawing the harder bracts covering the fruitlets. 
Females have been observed laying their eggs on the fruits. At the time of 
flowering the pineapple is small and therefore at this stage the female  
grasshoppers find it very convenient to shove its ovipositor into the heart of 
tender flowers. Wherever the ovipositor ruptures the floor of the calyx cavity, 
fungi can gain entrance. In a few instances, the ovipositor had gone so deeply 
as to puncture th e stem, leaving the egg deeply embedded in the solid tissue. 
Therefore, not considered to be associated with the commodity.   
404 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Cotinis mutabilis  The species is listed as occasionally associated with pineapple fruits and the 
only reference to it causing dama ge are adult damaging fruits with their 
clypeal horn and spined legs. The species does not reproduce on the fruit. No 
evidence was found of other lifestages being associated with the fruits. Given 
that the adults are large commercail processes, such as was hing, brushing a 
grading, are concluded to be sufficient to remove any associated beetles.   
Crematogaster  sp. The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) and is regulated (ONZPR 2021). 
Associated ants are likely to be foraging, sterile individuals unable to establish 
a population.  For this reason, this species was not considered further.  
Cryptamorpha 
desjardinsi  Species is present in New Zealand (NZOR 2021) and is non -regulated 
(ONZPR 2021).  
Cryptoblabes  sp. Evidence of one species from this genus being associated with pineapple 
(Cryptoblabes gnidiella ) was found. However, this comes from one report from 
a US interception record prior to 2000 reported in USDA (2019) .  The 
association was not confirmed in the literature and no further evidence of 
species in this genus being associated with pineapples was  found 
(Google/Google Scholar: Cryptoblabes pineapple).  
Cryptolaemus 
montrouzieri  Species is present in New Zealand (NZOR 2021) and is non -regulated 
(ONZPR 2021).  
Cryptostigma  sp. The genus is not known to be associated with pineapple (Google/Google 
Scholar: Cryptostigma pineapple/Ananas comosus).  
Cryptothelea 
gloverii  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) or ONZPR (2021).This species 
doesn’t seem to be associated with pineappl e.  In the literature it is associated 
with 'pineapple guava' (feijoa) and 'pineapple orange' (an orange variety) 
(Villanueva 2002; Google/Google Scholar: Cryptothelea gloverii pineapple).  
Ctenopseustis 
obliquana  Present in New Zealand (NZOR 2021) and no n-regulated (ONZPR 2021).  
Cyclocephala  sp. The genus does not appear to be associated with pineapple fruit. Based on a 
Cuban publication, although the genus seems to be associated with 
pineapple, they were talking about the possibility to control it through 
nematodes, this does line up with general  available information referring to 
this genera as 'white grubs' and mostly root feeding (Akol et al. 2011) .  
Cymus melanotylus  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) or ONZPR (2021). No evidence was 
found of the species associated with pineapple (Google/Google Scholar: 
Cymus melanotylus pineapple/Ananas comosus).  
Dactylosternum 
abdominale  This s pecies is present in New Zealand (NZOR 2021) but is regulated 
(ONZPR 2021). It is not known that this species can transmit any disease.   
Darna trima  The species is not known to be present in New Zealand (NZOR 2021). The 
regulatory status of the species is  recorded as 'not assessed' in ONZPR 
(2021). The literature shows that this species mainly damages the leaves of 
pineapple and the association to the pineapple fruit has been inferred from 
other plant species (USDA 2019).  Given that the species damages le aves, 
and no association with the fruit was determined, no further assessment 
required.  
Dermaptera  This order is assumed to be covered by species assessment.  
Diadegma  sp. This is a genus of parasitic wasps. Members  of this genus are present in New 
Zealand. Because the wasp parasitising insect larvae associated with 
pineapple has not been identified to species, its host range and environmental 
tolerances are unknown and it cannot be determined whether the wasp is  
405 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  already pre sent in New Zealand. For this reason the wasp will not be 
assessed further.  
Diapriidae  This is an insect family. Assumed to be covered by species assessments.  
Diaspididae  This is an insect family. Assumed to be covered by species assessments.  
Diaspis boisduvalii  The species is present in New Zealand (N ZOR 2021) and is non -regulated 
(ONZPR 2021).  
Diaspis  sp. Assumed to be covered by species assessments.  
Dinoderus minutus  The species is listed as present (NZOR 2021) and has a regulatory status of 
'under assessment' in ONZPR (2021). However, it appears that the species is 
not present in New Zealand, but rather has been intercepted at the border. No 
evidence was found of the species being associated with pineapple 
(Google/Google Scholar: Dinoderus minutus pineapple). All references 
checked indicate that t his species is associated with bamboo and occasionally 
stored products (CABI 2021 ).  
Diphthera festiva  The species is not listed in ONZPR (2021) or NZOR (2021). The larvae of this 
moth feeds mainly on plants in the families Sterculiaceae, Fabaceae and 
Malvaceae; the family Bromeliaceae is not mentioned as a host.  The larvae 
feed only on the leaves on early  growth stages of the host plant (Dunford and 
Barbara 2021) . Therefore, the species is not considered associated with the 
commodity  
Diplazon laetatorius  This species is present in New Zealand (NZOR 2021) and is not listed in 
ONZPR (2021).  
Discocephalessa 
humilis  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) or ONZPR (2021). No evidence was 
found of the species being associated with pineapple (Google/Google 
Scholar: Discocephalessa humilis pineapple/Ananas comosus).   
Disonycha  sp. A generic and association with pineap ple search in CABI, the web, Google 
scholar did not found evidence that decrowned pineapple would be likely to 
harbour species from this genus.  
Dohrniphora  sp. No evidence found of an association to pineapple (Google/Google Scholar: 
Dohrniphora pineapple/Ananas comosus).  
Dolichoderinae  This is a family of ants. Assumed to be covered by species assessments.  
Dolichoderus  sp.  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) and is regulated (ONZPR 2021). 
Associated ants are likely to be foraging, sterile individuals unable to establish 
a population. For this reason, this species was not considered further.  
Draeculacephala 
clypeata  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) or ONZPR (2021). There is one 
report from the leaves of pineapple (Frank 2014) , however, this was 
unconfirmed. No other records of the species being associated with this host 
(Google/Google Scholar: Discocephala clypeata pineapple/Ananas comosus). 
Given that this species is a leafhopper, it is unlikely to be associated, and 
remain as sociated with the commodity.   
Draeculacephala 
soluta  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) or ONZPR (2021). There is one 
report from the leaves of pineapple (Frank 2014),  however, this was 
unconfirmed. No other records of the species being associated with this host 
(Google/Google Scholar: Discocephala soluta pineapple/Ananas comosus). 
Given that this species is a leafhopper, it is unlikely to be associated, and 
remain associated with the commodity.       
406 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Drosophila 
ananassae  Aside from CABI, EPPO, GBIF global distribution info, a web search was 
conducted to identify additional countries (first three pages of google and 
google scholar). No evidence of association with the commodity found. 
Drosophila ananassae  is reported on rot ting fruit (Brncic 1987) . Reported as 
being associated with pineapple fruit by Yunus and Ho (1980). However, the 
condition of the fruit was not described. It was considered an improbable 
association with importation of pineapple from Malaysia to Australia,  as 
Drosophila  species deposit their eggs on or near the surface of rotting or 
fermenting (over -ripe) fruit and vegetable matter (DAFF 2012). Larvae of most 
Drosophila  species are also associated with decaying fruit and fungi (DAFF 
2012).  
Drosophila busckii  Present in the New Zealand (NZOR 2021) and non -regulated (ONZPR 2021).  
Drosophila 
immigrans  Present in the New Zealand (NZOR 2021) and non -regulated (ONZPR 2021).  
Drosophila 
melanogaster  Present in the New Zealand (NZOR 2021) and non -regulated (ONZPR 2021).  
Dryadaula 
terpsichorella  The species is present in New Zealand (NZOR 2021), and is not listed in 
ONZPR (2021). The moth is indigenous of the Kermadec Islands, New 
Zealand and is not reported from the mainland ( NZOR  2021). It is not known 
to be a vector of any diseases. The larvae is found in dead leaves of banana 
and pineapple and no evidence was found of it being associated with fruits.  
Dynastor darius  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) or ONZPR (2021). Larvae feeds on 
the leaves of bromeliads (Urich 1991) . There are no records of the larvae 
feeding on the fruit including pineapple fruits (Google/Google Scholar: 
Dynastor darius/pineapple).  
Dynastor macrosiris  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) and is regulated (ONZPR 2021). It 
feeds only on the leaves of Bromeliads, being its main host a large bromeliad 
species Aechmea nudicaulis  and pineapple leaves a secondary host (Urich 
and Emmel 1 991). No evidence was found of the species associated with 
pineapple fruits (Google/Google Scholar Dynastor macrosiris pineapple).  
Dynastor napoleon  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) or ONZPR (2021). It feeds only on 
the leaves of Bromeliads and n o evidence was found of the species 
associated with pineapple fruits (Emmel 1991; Penz 1999)  (Google/Google 
Scholar Dynastor napoleon pineapple).  
Dysdercus  sp. No evidence was found of members of the genus associated with pineapple 
(Google/Google Scholar: Dysdercus pineapple/Ananas comosus).  
Dysmicoccus 
bispinosus  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) or ONZPR (2021). No evidence was 
found of the species bei ng associated with pineapple (Google/Google 
Scholar: Discocephala soluta pineapple/Ananas comosus; Scalenet).   
Dysmicoccus 
boninsis  No evidence of commodity association. No reference to the species being 
assocaited with pineapple was found (Google/Google Scholar: Dysmicoccus 
boninsis pineapple/Ananas cosmosus), and was therefore not assessed 
further.  
Dysmicoccus 
grassii  Some reports  indicate its host association with pineapple  (García Morales et 
al. 2016; Sipes and Wang 2017; DAFF 2019a) . There is no original reference 
in DAFF (2019)  and it is a group assessment on a few mealybug, so the 
information is not specifi c to D. grass ii. Original references from García 
Morales  et al. (2016) do not specify plant part. Sipes and Wang mention that 
the two most important mealybugs found on pineapple are  D. brevipes and D. 
grassii , the pink and grey mealybugs, respecitvely. Grey mealybug is  the  
407 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  common name of another species, so we consider this record is in error, and 
there is no original reference cited.  
Dysmicoccus 
mackenziei  No evidence was found of the species associated with the commodity. The 
original references from García Morales  et al. (2016) were checked and the 
affected plant part of pineapple is not specified in the references. No 
reference to the species associated w ith pineapple fruit was found via 
literature searches (Google/Google Scholar: Dysmicoccus mackenziei 
pineapple/Ananas cosmosus).  
Dysmicoccus  sp. Assumed to be covered by species assessments.  
Dysmicoccus 
texensis  See Dysmicoccus bispinosus  (preffered name).  
Ectopsocus  sp. Some species in this genus are reported present in New Zealand (NZOR 
2021). No evidence was found in literature that any species of this genus is 
associated with pineapple fruit (Google/Google Scholar: Ectopsocus 
pineappl e). Members of the genus are book/bark lice and are unlikely to be 
associated with fresh produce.  
Egidemia anceps  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) or ONZPR (2021). There is one 
interception record of the species on pineapple. Given that this species is a 
leafhopper, it is unlikely to be associated with, and remain associated  with the 
commodity after commercial  production process.  
Elachiptera  sp. No evidence found of an association to pineapple (Google/Google Scholar: 
Elachiptera pineapple/Ananas comosus). There has been one interception of 
a live adult male associated to pineapple from the Philippines at the New 
Zealand border. However, no documen ted association with the commodity 
was found.    
Elasmopalpus 
lignosellus  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) and is regulated (ONZPR 2021). 
Larvae are in the soil moving to the host to feed on constructed tunnels at the 
base of the stem. Recognized pathways with possible risks of entry are fruit 
and vegetables (stems and pods). There are reports of an interception of this 
species in the US A on pineapple but there are no details. No evidence was 
found of the species being associated with the commodity  (Google/Google 
scholar Elasmopalpus lignosellus pineapple ) (Solis 2006; DEFRA 2021) . 
Elaunon bipartitus  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) and is regulated (ONZPR 2021). No 
evidence was found of an association with pineapple (Google/Google Scholar: 
Elaunon bipartitus pineapple/Ananas comosus). However, there may be some 
indirect association with scale insects. Such indirect associations are 
excluded from further assessment.    
Epicaerus  sp. This genus does appear on the same documents as some pineapple 
associated pests, however, we did not come across any actual associations 
through standard search ter ms (Google and Google scholar, 'Epicaerus AND 
pineapple' and 'Epicaerus AND ananas').  
Epuraea zealandica  The species is present in New Zealand (NZOR 2021)  not recorded in ONZPR 
(2021).   
408 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Erechthias 
flavistriata  The species is present in New Zealand (NZOR 2021), and is not listed in 
ONZPR (2021). Although reported as present in New Zealand, it has only 
been reported from the Kermadec Islands and not the mainland. However, no 
evidence was found of the species being  associated with pineapple fruit 
(Google/Google Scholar, 'Erechthias flavistriata' and pineapple).  
Erechthias 
minuscula  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) and is regulated (ONZPR 2021). 
Larvae are scavengers of dead plant materials, like dead trunk s, stems, 
leaves, fruits and seed pods (Robinson 1993) . Therefore, the species is not 
considered to be associated with the commodity.  
Euborellia 
annulipes  The species is present in New Zealand (NZOR 2021) and is non -regulated 
(ONZPR 2021).  
Euborellia  sp. Assumed to be covered by species assessments.  
Eudocima phalonia  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) and is regulated (ONZPR 2021). The 
larvae only feed on leaves and the adult oviposits on leaves.  Adults, with their 
well developed proboscis puncture the fruit and feed on its juices. Fruits 
become soft, and mushy and lose their market value (Kueh -Jui-Heng 2012) . 
However, this is external feeding behaviours. Even though, not depositing or 
burrowing inside the fruit and would therefore be removed through commercial 
processes.  
Euetheola bidentata  The species is not l isted in NZOR (2021) or ONZPR (2021). DAFF (2019b)  
found that the species feeds on leaves and stems and is therefore not 
associated with the commodity.  
Euproctis lutea  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) and is regulated (ONZPR 2021). 
Eggs are deposited on leaves and larvae feed on leaves. The main host is 
reported to be Barringtonia acutangula (freshwater mangrove) (DHF 2010) . 
No literature was found that this inse ct is associated with pineapple 
(Google/Google Scholar Euproctis lutea pineapple).  
Euproctis Taiwana  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) and is regulated (ONZPR 2021). 
Larvae feed on leaves of host ( DAFF  2012). No evidence was found of an 
association with the fruit of pineapple (Google/Google Scholar, 'Euproctis 
Taiwana' and pineapple/ananas). It infests the flower of pineapple and 
completes life cycle on flower (Huang and Wang 2016) so it is not associat ed 
with the commodity.  
Eurychilella  sp. No evidence was found of members of the genus being associated  with 
pineapple (Google and Google Scholar: Eurychilella and pineapple/'Ananas 
comosus').  
Euschistus  sp. Stink bugs are likely to fly away or fall off fruit during harvesting. They are 
generally large enough to be visible  to the naked eye and are likely to be 
managed by commercial production methods. For this reason they were 
excluded from further assessment.  
Euxesta 
quadrivittata  Reported as being associated with pineapple fruit by Yunus and Ho (1980), 
but the condition of the fruit was not described. Sakimura and Linford (1940) 
report collection of the species on one ripe pineapple fruit; chiefly fruits that 
were picked and  placed in groups on pineapple plants and examined 
repeatedly during one week. Before collections were terminated many o f the 
fruits had begun to spoil and almost all were somewhat smeared with juice. 
Two net collections over decomposing plant waste and fallow soil. It was 
considered an improbable association with importation of pineapple from 
Malaysia to Australia. No evid ence found on association with the commodity.    
409 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Exomala orientalis  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) and is regulated (ONZPR 2021). 
According to the EPPO pest categorisation (EFSA 2020)  although pineapple 
is a major host for the species, it is not associated with the commodity as the 
larvae are associated with the roots and soil.   
Falagria  sp.  No evidence was found of the genus being associated with pineapple 
(Google/Google scholar: 'Falagria pineapple' and 'Ananas comosus').  
Fannia  sp. No evidence found of an association to pineapple (Google and Google 
Scholar: Fannia and pineapple/'Ananas co mosus'). There has been one 
interception of a live adult male associated to pineapple from the Philippines 
at the New Zealand border. However, no documented association with the 
commodity was found.    
Ferrisia dasylirii  Although a reference was found of the species associated with pineapple 
plants, only one reference indicates its association with pineapple; no 
evidence was found of it being associated with pineapple fruit (Google and 
Google Scholar: 'Ferrisia dasylirii' and pineapple/'Ananas cosmosus') and 
therfore, is not considered to be associated with the commodity.   
Ferrisia  sp. Assumed to be covered by species assessments.  
Forcipomyia brevis  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021), but is regulated (ONZPR 2021). 
This species is a biting midge, called "pineapple midge" - No evidence found 
on association to pineapple fruit, and it is a pollinator (Google and Google 
Scholar: 'Forcipomyia brevis' and pineapple).  
Forcipomyia  sp. Assumed to be covered by species  assessments.  
Forficula auricularia  The species is present in New Zealand (NZOR 2021) and is non -regulated 
(ONZPR 2021).  
Formicococcus 
njalensis  The species is not recorded from New Zealand ( NZOR  2021; PPIN 2021). 
The regulatory status is not assessed (ONZPR 2021). Pineapple is a reported 
host of the species ( García Morales et al. 2016 ), however the species is 
currently only reported from Western/Central Africa ( García Morales et al. 
2016 ; CABI 20 21; EPPO 2021 ). No evidence was found of the species in any 
of the exporting markets  during Google and Google Scholar searches.   
Frankliniella fusca  Frankliniella fusca  is not reported from New Zealand (NZOR 2021; PPIN 
2021). This thrips is associated with pineapple (Petty et al. 2002) and is a 
vector of viruses (TSWV, INSV, IYSV -weak transmission) that are present in 
New Zealand. It is reported to vector the bacterium Pantoea ananatis , an 
organism of concern which is not reported from New Zealand. It is a regulated 
organism (ONZPR 2021). It is not reported from the pineapple exporting 
markets  listed in this IRA and is therefore excluded from further assessment. 
However, if any exporting markets  freedom status for F. fusca  changes, or 
other countries are added to the IHS that is current at 2021 then this thrips 
should be reassessed.  
Frankliniella 
occidentalis  One strain of this species is present in New Zealand, but is mainly restricted 
to the yellow tree lupin host (Mound  et al. 2017) . The species is still listed as 
regulated in ONZPR and may be a vector of several economically important 
viruses , but the viruses vectored by F. occidentalis  (other than Tomato 
Spotted Wilt Virus, TSWV ) do not infect pineapple . TSWV is present in New 
Zealand.  
Frankliniella 
occidentalis  Two distinct strains of this species are reported, the lupin strain and the 
glasshouse strain. The lupin strain is present in New Zealand -  and the 
species is regulated (ONZPR 2021). No reports found of which strain may be 
associated with pineapples. Petty  et al. (2002) report this species found in the  
410 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  floral cavities of pineapples as a minor or occasional pest. In this source it 
appears that floral cavities refer to the flowering stage, rather than the cavities 
of floral remnants on the formed fruits, but this is uncertain. No recorded 
interceptions on pineapples. The virus that F. occidentalis  may vector are 
evaluated in a vector analysis in 2018 and it was determined that only Tomato 
spotted wilt virus may infect pineapples (TSWV is already present in N ew 
Zealand  and there are no issues with differing strains). A more recent report 
by He et al (2020) states four other viruses that may be vectored by F. 
occidentalis  (Tomato yellow ring virus, Parientaria mottle virus, Pelargonium 
flower break virus, and mai ze chlorotic mottle virus). None of these additional 
viruses are reported to infect pineapples.  
Frankliniella 
schultzei  Pineapple is reported as a main host of this species (CDFA 2018) . There are 
no records on interceptions of this species on pineapple fruit entering New 
Zealand.  It is primarily a floral feeder and this feeding may lead to distortion 
and damage to the fruits. May also feed on fruit crown. Does not appear to 
feed direct ly on fruits. Petty et al. (2002) report this species found in the floral 
cavities of pineapples as a minor or occasional pest. In this source it appears 
that floral cavities refer to the flowering stage, rather than the cavities of floral 
remnants  on the formed fruits, but this is uncertain. DAFF (2019b) , the 
Australian IRA for pineapples from Taiwan considers that this species for 
further assessment as it is a vector, although its association with decrowned 
pienapples is not clear. Given no evidence of a commodity association was 
found, the species was not assessed further.  
Geisha 
distinctissima  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) and is regulated (ONZPR 2021). No 
evidence was found of the species being associated with pineapple (Google 
and Google Scholar: 'Geisha distinctissima' and pineapple/'Ananas 
comosus').  
Genopaschia 
protomis  The spe cies is not listed in NZOR (2021) or ONZPR (2021). Larvae were 
reported to be found in the axils of pineapples leaves (Plank 1940) . There is a 
record of an interception in the USA from pineapple coming from Puerto Rico, 
but no details about the interception is given (Solis 2006). This species does 
not appear to be associated with the commodity and there is insufficient 
information fo r an assessment.  
Geococcus coffeae  Not associated with the commodity/pathway, as this mealybug affects roots 
(García Morales et al. 2016 ).  
Glycyphana 
quadricolor sinuata  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) or ONZPR (2021). According to  
DAFF (2012b) , there is only one reference from 1980 that reported this pest 
on flowers and fruits. It may also feed on overripe fruits. DAFF (2012)  
concluded  that the species  did not require further assessment. No association 
with decrowned pineapple was found (Google and Google Scholar: 
Glycyphana quadricolor sinuata pineapple).   
Glyphidocera  sp. There is not much information of Glyphidocera  species, except one, 
Glyphidocera juniperella (Mizel and Schiffhauer 1987). The larvae of this 
species feed  on stems causing girdling on young plant stems. No information 
about association with pineapple plant or fruit was found for any species 
(Google an d Google Scholar: Glyphidocera pineapple).  
Gryllodes sigillatus  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) and is non -regulated (ONZPR 2021). 
A single specimen was detected in January 2007 in New Zealand and a 
biosecurity response ensued, no other individua ls were detected. It is known 
as an unpredictable hitchhiker in vessels. Another detection in 2020 in 
Tauranga in a container yard ensued a response for eradication (McNeill et al 
2009; MPI. 2020). There is a report of an interception of this species on  
411 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  pineapples (Townsend 1984), however in the literature there was no record 
found of this insect eating, or laying eggs on the fruit (Google and Google 
Scholar: Gryllodes sigillatus pineapple). Given that no association with the 
commodity was determined, the s pecies was not assessed further.  
Gryllus bimaculatus  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) and is regulated (ONZPR 2021). No 
information was found about this insects associated with pineapple using the 
keywords in Google and Google Scholar "Gryllus bimaculatus AND 
Pineapple". This insect attacks seedlings and is a major pest in wheat and 
crucifers in Pakistan. Feeds on living and dead plant parts ( Wagner 202 2). It 
is reported to be present in New Zealand in GBIF.org (2021)  but there is no 
record in NZOR (2021).  
Gymnonerius 
fuscus  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021), but is regulated (ONZPR 2021). 
Found in exporting market  (e.g. Malaysia). Yunus (1980)  have reported this 
species on pineapple fruit. However , no further records have been found to 
show G. fuscus  as a pest of on pineapple or other crops. Larvae of this family 
are saprophagous and feed on decaying plant material (Oosterbroek 1998; 
Zumbado 20 06). Identified as not being a quarantine pest (DAFF 2002) . 
Potential for establishment and spread was considered not feasible.  
Gymnonerius  sp. Assumed to be covered by species assessments.  
Hadrosomus 
teapensis  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) or ONZPR (2021). No evidence was 
found of it being associated with pineapple (Google and Google Scholar: 
Hadrosomus teapensis pineapple/'Ananas comosus').  
Halmus chalybeus  The species is present in New Zealand (NZOR 2021). The regulatory status is 
'not assessed' in ONZPR .  
Hambletonia 
pseudococcina  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) or ONZPR (2021). This is a parasitic 
wasp  (CABI 2021). Its main hosts are Dysmicoccus brevipes , Planococcoides 
njalensis  and Pseudococcus brevipes  (Noyes 2019) . None of which are listed 
as present in New Zealand (PPIN 2022, NZOR 2022). In the absence of its 
host it is assumed that the wasp would not be able to establish in New 
Zealand and for this re ason it will not be considered further.  
Haplothrips 
gowdeyi  Halothrips gowdeyi is not listed in New Zealand (NZOR 2021) and is regulated 
(ONZPR 2021). This species is reported associated with pineapple plantations 
in Hawaii, but as it is a flower feeder, it appears unlikely that it would be 
specifically associated with pineapple fruit (Rohrbach and Johnson 2003; 
Mound et al. 2017) . 
Hemiberlesia rapax  The species is present in New Zealand (NZOR 2021) and is non -regulated 
(ONZPR 2021). Has been associated with Fusarium coccophilum  which is 
present (NZFungi 2021) and non-regulated (ONZPR 2021).  
Hemiptera  This is an order of insects. Assumed to be covered by species assessments.  
Hercinothrips 
femoralis  Hercinothrips femoralis  has been reported present in New Zealand (PPIN 
2021) and is listed as non -regulated on ONZPR (2021). However, the species 
is not listed in NZOR. Based on the PPIN report, and it’s non -regulated status, 
no further assessment required.   
Heteronychus 
arator  The species is present in New Zealand (NZOR 2021) and is non -regulated 
(ONZPR 2021).   
412 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Holopothrips 
ananasi  Holopothrips ananasi  is not reported from NZ (NZOR 2021; PPIN 2021). It 
was historically recorded on the pest list for Ecuador b ut this is now thought to 
be an error. No record can be found of this thrips in Ecuador or any of the 
other markets  currently (2021) under consideration for exporting pineapple to 
New Zealand. As such it is excluded from further assessment. Should the 
coun try freedom status change or countries where this thrips is present be 
added to the IHS then H. ananasi will need to be reassessed.  
Homalodisca 
ichthyocephala  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) or ONZPR (2021). No evidence was 
found that the species is associated with pineapple (Google/Google Scholar: 
'Homalodisca ichthyocephala' and pineapple/'Ananas comosus').  
Horistonotus  sp. No literature association s with pineapples was found (Google/Google Scholar: 
Horistonotus and pineapple/'Ananas comosus'). The results suggest that 
members of the genus are more associated with cotton.   
Hortensia similis  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) or ONZPR (2021). No evidence was 
found that the species is associated with pineapple (Google/Google Scholar: 
'Hortensia similis' and pineapple/'Ananas comosus').  
Hydrellia  sp. Assumed to be covered by species assessments.  
Hydrellia tritici  Present in the New Zealand (NZOR 2021) and non -regulated (ONZPR 2021).  
Hymenoptera  It is an order of insects. Assumed to be covered by species assessments.  
Hyperodes  sp. No literature associations with pineapples was found (Google/Google Scholar: 
Hyperodes and pineapple/'Ananas comosus'). Given that no association with 
the commodity was found, was not assessed further.  
Hypothenemus  sp. This genus does appear on the same documents as some pineapple 
associated pests, however, no evidence was found of an actual association 
with pineapple (Google/Google Scholar: Hypothenemus pineapple). Most 
literature is dedicated to the coffee berry borer.  However, an old reference 
that is not accessible appears to link this genus under the synonym 
Stephanoderes to pineapple fruit (Yunus 1980) . Further original references 
were not found with standard terms.  
Icerya aegyptiaca  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) and is regulated (ONZPR 2021). No 
evidence was found that the species is associated with pineapple 
(Google/Google Scholar: 'Icerya aegyptiaca' and pineapple/'Ananas 
comosus').  
Icerya seychellarum  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) and is regulated (ONZPR 2021). No 
evidence was found that the species is associated with pineapple 
(Google/Google Scholar: 'Icerya seychellarum' and pineapple/Ananas 
comosus).  
Ischyja manlia  The species is not lis ted in NZOR (2021) and is regulated (ONZPR 2021). The 
larvae feeds on leaves and the adult is a fruit piercing moth (DAFF 2004; 
Ngampongsai 2005) . It will damage the fruit to suck the juices , but it will not 
deposit eggs on the pineapple fruit. The feeding behaviour is external and 
even if the species is associated with pineapple fruit at the point of harvest, it 
is unlikely to remain on the fruit during the harvest and post -harvest 
processes.   
Karnyothrips 
melaleucus  Not listed in NZOR (2021) and is regulated (ONZPR 2021). The species is 
reported to be a predatory thrips species and has been associated with 
populations of phytophagous mites, on dead leaves and branches where it 
predates mites or other thrips. No eviden ce was found in literature of an 
association with pineapples (Google search: Karnyothrips melaleucus  
413 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  pineapple ananas comosus). Interception records may result from incidental 
presence on pineapples.  
Kilifia acuminata  No evidence that the species is asso ciated with the commodity. García 
Morales  et al. (2016) does not list pineapple  as a host and no other reference 
was found in the literature (Google/Google Scholar: 'Kilifia acuminata' and 
pineapple/'Ananas cosmosus'). Based on a lack of commodity association, the 
species was not assessed further.  
Lachesilla 
pedicularia  This specie s has been reported present in New Zealand (PPIN 2021) and is 
listed as non -regulated on (ONZPR 2021) but is not listed in NZOR (2021). 
Based on the PPIN record and the regulatory status, no further assessment 
required.  
Lachesilla  sp. Genus not present in New Zealand (NZOR 2021). No evidence found in 
literature of association with pineapples. Bark lice  are considered unlikely to 
be associated with fresh produce but may be associated with packaging.  
Lamprolonchaea 
smaragdi  The species is not list ed in NZOR (2021) or ONZPR (2021). We could not find 
an association with decrowned pineapple through a web/literature search. 
However, considered an improbable association with the pathway as the 
immature stages of most species of the Lonchaeidae family ar e considered 
secondary invaders in diseased or injured plant material. Larvae of this 
species are reported living in damaged tomatoes within Australia. It does not 
appear that the species is associated with intact fruit. Since overripe fruit is 
out of scop e of the project (the stage most likely to be damaged), the species 
is not considered to be associated with the commodity.   
Largus  sp. No evidence was found that the species is associated with pineapple 
(Google/Google Scholar: Largus and pineapple/'Ananas comosus').  
Lasiodites pictus  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) or ONZPR (2021). There appear to 
be a few synonyms for this relatively widespread species (e.g. Phenolia picta ). 
The species is  commonly associated with fallen and overripe fruit (Kalaentzis 
2019) , which do not meet  the commodity description.  
Lawana imitata  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) and has a regulatory status of 'not 
assessed' in ONZPR (2021). No evidence was found that the species is 
associated with pineapple (Google/Google Scholar: 'Lawana imitata ' and 
pineapple/'Ananas comosus').  
Lema  sp. There does not appear to be an association with pineapple based on a 
standard web and literature search. However, there was anecdotal evidence 
by Malumphy (2015)  that Lema bilineata  had been intercepted on pineapple 
leaves, however even in that circumstanc e the author assessed pineapples as 
a not significant pathway. Given that the commodity under  consideration is 
decrowned, not considered to be associated with the commodity.  
Lepadoretus sinicus  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) or ONZPR (2021). Th is species 
appears to be a polyphagous beetle that is widespread. However, it is a leaf 
feeder. Furthermore, pineapple is not listed as a host in CABI (CABI 2020). 
No association was found between Lepadoretus simicus and pineapple 
(Google/Google Scholar: ' Lepadoretus simicus' and pineapple/'Ananas 
comosus').  
Lepidiota  sp. Assumed to be covered by species assessments.  
Lepidiota stigma  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) or ONZPR (2021). This is a large 
beetle that is associated with roots ( CABI 2021). Therefore , is not considered 
to be associated with the commodity.   
414 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Lepidosaphes 
gloverii  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) and is regulated (ONZPR 2021). 
One reference was found that mentioned the species as a pineapple pest in 
China. However, no other evidence of an association was found (Watson 
2002) . Based on a lack of evidence of a commodity association, it was not 
assessed further.  
Lepidosaphes 
laterochitinosa  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) and is regulated (ONZPR 2021). No 
evidence was found that the species is associated with pineapple 
(Google/Google Scholar: 'Lepidosa phes laterochitinosa' and 
pineapple/'Ananas comosus').  
Leptacinus  sp.  No evidence was found of an association with pineapple (Google/Google 
Scholar: Leptacinus and pineapple/'Ananas comosus'). There is an 
interception on pineapple ( AssureQuality). The interception was a dead adult 
beetle, which was most likely a hitchhiker rather than actually associated with 
pineapple as a commodity.  
Leptococcus 
metroxyli  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) and is regulated (ONZPR 2021). No 
evidence was found that the species is associated with pineapple 
(Google/Google Scholar: 'Lept ococcus metroxyli' and pineapple/'Ananas 
comosus').  
Leptoconops  sp. No evidence found of an association with pineapple (Google/Google Scholar: 
Leptoconops and pineapple/'Ananas comosus').  
Leptocorisa acuta  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) and is regulated (ONZPR 2021). No 
evidence was found that the species is associated with pineapple 
(Google/Google Scholar: 'Leptococcus acuta' and pineapple/'Ananas 
comosus').  
Leucopholis irrorata  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) but is regulated (ONZ PR 2021). This 
species of beetle is quite large with 25 -31mm ( CABI 2021) and it is known to 
affect leaves and roots of some commercial crops in the Philippines (Litsinger 
1983) . No association with pineapple was found (Google/Google Scholar: 
'Leucopholis i rrorata' and pineapple/'Ananas comosus'). Therefore, it is not 
considered to be associated with the commodity.    
Linepithema humile  The species is present in New Zealand (NZOR 2021) and is non -regulated 
(ONZPR 2021). Not known to be a vector.  
Liposcelis 
bostrychophila  This species has been reported present in New Zealand (PPIN 2021) and is 
listed as non -regulated on ONZPR (2021) but is not listed in NZOR (2021). 
Based on the PPIN record and the regulatory status, no further assessment 
required.   
Liposcelis  sp. One species ( Liposcelis corrodens ) reported present in New Zealand (NZOR 
2021). No evidence found in literature of association with pineapple fruit. 
Psocids are unlikely to be associated with fresh produce but may be 
associated with packaging.  
Litargus  sp. No association was found with pineapples (Google/Google Scholar: Litargus 
and pineapple/'Ananas comosus').  
Locusta migratoria  The species is present in New Zealand (NZOR 2021) and is non -regulated 
(ONZPR 2021). This species is present in both North and South Island in New 
Zealand. It is not known to be a vector of diseases.  
Lonchaea  sp. No evidence of association to commodity. One paper (Lim and Lowings 1977)  
mentions an association of this genus with pineapple fruits and flowers. The 
paper lists "Insects associated with collapsed pineapple fruits, heart rot plants 
and inflorescences". Gi ven that overripe fruits are not in scope of the project 
(the most likely to be collapsed), this was not assessed further.   
415 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Lycoriella  sp. There is one interception ( AssureQuality 2021) record from 2012 for live adult 
flies from this genus associated with pineapples from the Philippines. 
However, no association of the genus with pineapple is documented in the 
literature (Google/Google Scholar: Lycoriella and pineapple/'Ananas 
comosus'). The closest reference was in a paper by  Mohrig (2019)  where a 
reference was made that 'sciarid species are of economic importance, 
damaging the roots of  pineapples and hampering efforts to set up commercial 
mushroom farms in Hawai‘i'.  
Maconellicoccus 
hirsutus  No evidence found indicating commodity association. Google Scholar (English 
and Spanish), CAB Abstract and reference in García Morales et al. (2016)  
have been check, although it has been reported on pineapple plants, reports 
indicating its host association  do not mention if it was detected in fruits. 
Insufficient evidence of an association with the commodity to assess further.  
Macunolla ventralis  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) or ONZPR (2021). One reference to 
the species being associated with pineapple was found, plus an interception 
at the New Zealand border. Given that this is a leafhopper, it is unlikely to be 
associated, and remain a ssociated with decrowned pineapple fruit after 
commercial production process.  
Magusa orbifera  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) or (ONZPR 2021).  There are records 
of the larvae defoliating Rhamnus betulaefolia.  There is a research on fruit 
piercin g moths in which this species was attracted to pineapple bait.  The 
moth is recorded to be south of Canada down to Argentina so it is assumed 
that it is found in Costa Rica, Panama and Ecuador. No records of larvae 
feeding on pineapple ( McFarland (1975) ; Zenker -Moraes (2010) ; 
Google/Google Scholar: Magusa orbifera pineapple). Given that no 
association with the commodity was found, this was not assessed further.  
Maruca vitrata  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) and is regulated (ONZPR 
2021).There is only one record of this pest via an interception of a pineapple 
consignment coming from Fiji. The interception is a live larva but 
AssureQuality laboratory clarified that is not associated with pineapple but 
with the container.  
Megalographa 
biloba  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) or ONZPR (2021). No evidence 
found in literature of association with pineapples (Google/ google scholar 
searches: 'Megalographa biloba' and pineapple/'ananas comosus'). Not 
enough evidence is ava ilable of its association with pineapple to do a full 
assessment.  
Megaselia scalaris  Present in the New Zealand (NZOR 2021) and non -regulated (ONZPR 2021).  
Megaselia  sp. Assumed to be covered by species assessments.  
Melanaspis 
bromiliae  García Morales  et al. (2016) and Google Scholar were searched ('Melanaspis 
bromiliae' and pineapple/'Ananas cosmosus'). The host of the pest are only 
tropical crops, mainly pineapple ( Ananas  spp.) but also Cocos nucifera  
(García Morales et al. 2016 ). No evidence indicates it can have impact on the 
environment. Given the limited host range, it was concluded that based on a 
lack of host avaliability the species would not have the potenital to establish in 
New Zealand.  
Melanaspis smilacis  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) and is regulated (ONZPR 2021). The 
species is not associated with the commodity. The species feeds on stems 
and leaves, sucking sap from plant tissue (Huang and Wang 2016; DAFF 
2019b) ). No association with fruit was  found.    
416 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Melanaspis  sp. Assumed to be covered by species assessments  
Melanitis leda  Regulated and unwanted organism (ONZPR 2021). Caterpillars feed on 
leaves and are known to be associated with pineapple leaves, but not 
reported on fruits. Adults do feed on other fruits and likely feed on pineapples, 
but will not remain associated with ha rvested fruits.  
Melanitis leda 
ismene  Melanitis leda ismene  is not listed in (NZOR 2021) and is regulated (ONZPR 
2021). Caterpillars feed on leaves and are known to be associated with 
pineapple leaves, but not reported on fruits. Adults do feed on other fruits and 
likely feed on pineapples, but will not remain associated with harvested fruits.  
Meromyza  sp. There is one single record of a live adult found on a consignment from th e 
Philippines in 2005. No evidence was found documenting the genus being 
associated with pineapple (Google/Google Scholar: Meromyza and 
pineapple/'Ananas comosus'). Therefore, it is not considered to be associated 
with the commodity.  
Metamasius 
bromeliadi cola No further evidence was found for an association with pineapple. Search 
terms included the species name plus host/distribution/ananas/pina/pineapple 
but no indication was found.  
Metamasius 
callizona  The adults feed on leaves, sometimes the flower and larvae are associated 
with mining the leaves and stem. No clear association with decrowned 
pineapples and therefore the commodity. Additinally it appears questionable if 
the species is present in exportin g markets  due to the doubts of the records 
from Panama.   
Metamasius 
dimidiatipennis  It appears that although the species is present in exporting markets  and the 
host association is clearly documented as are the economic impacts, the 
species is not associ ated with pineapple fruits and is therefore not associated 
with the commodity.   
Metapocyrtus  sp. It appears that this species was considered for Australian pineapple PRAs but 
was only found to potentially feed on leaves and stems  (DAFF 2019b) . 
Therefore, members of the genus are not considered to be associated with 
the commodity.  
Metopina 
climieorum  Present in the New Zealand (NZOR 2021) and non -regulated (ONZPR 2021).  
Metopina  sp. Assumed to be covered by species assessments.  
Mezium 
americanum  The species is present (NZOR 2021) and is non -regulated (ONZPR 2021).  
Milviscutulus 
mangiferae  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) and is regulated (ONZPR 2021). The 
scale has been associated with pineapple in New Caledonia (Mille et al. 
2016) . However, it was not described which part of the plant. It was not 
classified as an economic pest, sug gesting limited damage. Other references 
describe the scale from leaves and stems. No evidence was found of the 
scale affecting fruit and therefore is not considered to be associated with the 
commodity.   
417 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Mimegralla 
albitarsis  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) or ONZPR (2021). No evidence was 
found of the species associated with pineapple (Google/Google Scholar: 
Mimegralla albitaris pineapple/Ananas comosus). The sources from SAPHL 
did not yield any further information. The paper from Mitra (2015)  confirms the 
presence in Sri Lanka. From DAFF (2012a) :"Yunus and Ho (1980) have 
reported Mimegralla albitarsis on fruit. However, it is considered an 
improbable association with the pathway as adults are reported as either 
predaceous on small insects or are attracted to decaying fruit and excrement 
(Evenhuis 1998). The larvae of Micropezidae are reported to live in decaying 
wood and other vegetable matter (Colless and McAlpine 1991)."  Therefore, 
the species is not considered to be associated with the commodi ty.  
Mimegralla  sp. Assumed to be covered  by species assessments.  
Mocis  sp. Some species are reported to be present in New Zealand but there are many 
species on this genus that are not present in N ew Zealand . The association of 
the genus is based on a pest list from 1984 and no further evidence found of 
association of this genus with pineapples. Not assessed further based on lack 
of evidence for commodity association.  
Monomorium 
destructor  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) and is regulated (ONZPR 2021). 
Associated ants are likely to be foraging, sterile individuals unable to establish 
a population.  For this reason, this species was not considered further.  
Monomorium 
floricola  The s pecies is not listed in NZOR (2021) and is regulated (ONZPR 2021). 
Associated ants are likely to be foraging, sterile individuals unable to establish 
a population.  For this reason, this species was not considered further.  
Monomorium 
minutum  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) and is regulated (ONZPR 2021). 
Associated ants are likely to be foraging, sterile individuals unable to establish 
a population.  For this reason, this species was not considered further.  
Monomorium 
pharaonis  The s pecies is present in New Zealand (NZOR 2021) and is non -regulated 
(ONZPR 2021). Not known to be a vector.  
Monomorium  sp. Assumed to be covered by species assessments.  
Mythimna separata  The species is present in New Zealand (NZOR 2021) and non -regulated 
(ONZPR 2021).  
Myzolecanium 
robertsi  Other than an interception from the Philippines, there is no evidence of the 
species assocaited with pineapple (Google/Google Scholar: Myzolecanium 
robertsi pineapple/Ananas cosmosus). Based on the lack of evidence for 
commodity association, the species was not assessed further.  
Myzus persicae  The species is present in New Zealand (NZOR 2021) but is regulated 
(ONZPR 2021). Given that no evidence was found of the species associated 
with pineapple (Google/Google Scholar: Myzus persicae pineapple/Ananas 
comosus), it was not assessed further.   
Napaea eucharila  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) or ONZPR (2021). The larvae of the 
moth feeds from the leaf of the plant; the larvae does not feed on the fruit. The 
species is reported as a problem on pineapple grown close to forest (Quesada 
2013) . The species is not associated with the commodity  
Naupactus cervinus  The species is present (NZOR 2021) and is non -regulated (ONZPR 2021).  
Neacoryphus 
bicrucis  The species is present in New Zealand (NZOR 2021) but is regulated 
(ONZPR 2021). No evidence was found that the species is associated with 
pineapple (Google/Google Scholar: Neacoryphus bicrucis pineapple/Ananas 
comosus)   
418 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Neodecadarchis 
flavistriata  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) or ONZPR (2021). Although 
associated with pineappl e, the moth is not present in any of the exporting 
markets . 
Neoleucinodes  sp.  Literature found suggests that this moth is not associated with pineapple 
(Google/Google Scholar: Neoleucinodes pineapple). One of the exporting 
markets  (Ecuador) has a species of Neoleucinodes but is not associated with 
pineapple.  
Nezara viridula  The spe cies is present in New Zealand (NZOR 2021) and is non -regulated 
(ONZPR 2021).  
Nilio villosus  No evidence was found that this species is present in exporting markets . If 
this were to change, may need to be reassessed.  
Nipaecoccus nipae  The only reference indicating host association is from García Morales et al. 
(2016) , this reference has been checked and does not specify which 
pineapple plant part the scale insect is associated with. Given that no 
association of the species and pineapple  was found in general searches 
(Google/Google Scholar: Nipaecoccus nipae pineapple/Ananas cosmosus), 
and the Scalenet reference does not describe an association with pineapple 
fruits there is not considered sufficient evidence of a commodity association.  
Nisia buxtoni  The only evidence of an association with pineapple is an interception in the 
LIMS database. There is no consignment information and no further evidence 
was found (Google/Google Scholar: Nisia buxtoni pineapple/Ananas 
comosus).  
Nitidulidae  Assumed to be covered by species assessments.  
Nylanderia 
bourbonica  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) and is regulated (ONZPR 2021). 
Associated ants are likely to be foraging, sterile individuals unable to establish 
a population.  For this reason, this species was not considered further.  
Nylanderia  sp. Assumed to be covered by species assessments.  
Ochetellus glaber  The species is present in New Zealand (NZOR 2021) and is non -regulated 
(ONZPR 2021). Not known to be a vector.  
Odontoponera  sp. The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) and is regulated (ONZPR 2021). 
Associated ants are likely to be foraging, sterile individuals unable to establish 
a population.  For this reason, this species was not considered further.  
Oligotoma 
saundersii  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) and is regulated ONZPR (2021). No 
evidence was found of the species associated with pineapple (Google/Google 
Scholar: Oligotoma saundersii pineapple/Ananas comosus). There is one 
interception record of a live adult on pineapples in 2014 (no detail is available 
on the interception). However, given no association with the commodity was 
found, this is likely a coincidental interception.   
Omophoita 
aequinoctialis  It appears that this species is associated wi th pineapples and is present in 
exporting markets . However, not association with the commodity was found 
(Google/Google Scholar: Omophoita aequinoctialis pineapple/Ananas 
cosmosus). Given no documented commodity association , the species was 
not assessed further.  
Opogona 
aurisquamosa  This species is present in N ew Zealand (NZOR 2021) .  
419 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Opogona 
glycyphaga  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021), but is regulated in ONZPR (2021). 
There are records of association of this species with pineapple, although it is 
not clear the association (NHM 2021) . This appears to be based on an 
interception record from New Zealand and no detail of the nature of the 
association was given. No further evidence of an association with the 
commodity was found (Google/Google Scholar: Opogona glycyphaga 
pineapple). Therefore, insufficient evidence of association with the commodity 
to assess further.  
Opogona 
omoscopa  The species is present in New Zealand (NZOR 2021) and non -regulated 
(ONZPR 2021). The species is not known to be a vector of disease.  
Opogona regressa  There is one interception record of this species on fresh pineapple from Fiji in 
1996 (LIMS  2021 ). However, no other evidence found on host association in 
literature search (Google Scholar and CAB Abstract search returned no result; 
no information found on this species  in CABI (2021) or EPPO (2021); 
pineapple is not recorded as host of this species in NHM (2021). As such, 
there is insufficient evidence on commodity association.  
Opogona  spp. Assumed to be covered by species assessments.  
Oryctes rhinoceros  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) and is regulated (ONZPR 2021). 
Larvae and eggs are not associated with fruits (except overripe fruits) and 
adults present on the fruits would be removed by harvest and processing 
methods (CABI  2021 ).  
Othreis fullonia  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) or ONZPR (2021). The adults cause 
damage by piercing tough -skinned fruit and feeding upon the juices, including 
pineapple. Feeding causes the fruit to become mushy, which reduces the 
market quality (Martin and Mau 1993) . Since the moth does not burrow into 
the fruit, it is unlikely that the moth would remain associated with the fruit 
during harvesting and post -harvest processes.  The fruit will be rotten and not 
accepted for export.  
Oxya chinensis  This spec ies is regulated (ONZPR 2021). This species is known to feed 
mainly on rice (Huadi et al. 2007) . It is considered a minor pest of pineapple in 
Hawaii (Illingworth 1929; Pemberton 1964) . This species is reported as 
associated with pineapples flowers and fru it by Stout (1982) , however no 
other literature was found that it was reported association with the fruit. Not 
likely to stay on the fruit after harvest and quality control processing. In other 
hosts, such as sugarcane, it has been reported causing defolia tion.   
Oxya velox  The species is listed as present in New Zealand (NZOR 2021) and is not 
listed in ONZPR (2021). Nymphs are known to eat newly germinated rice 
seedlings and cause them to whither. Adult grasshoppers feed on the leaves 
and shoots and sometimes cut the earhead s. They can feed on the emerging 
inflorescence. In pineapple it is known to feed on the leaves and not the fruit 
(BPI 2000; Sultana 2012) . Therefore, there is no reported association with the 
commodity and the grasshopper is unlikely to remain associated w ith 
pineapple during harvesting and post -harvest processes.  
Pachybrachius  sp. No evidence was found that the genus is associated with pineapple 
(Google/Google Scholar: Pachybrachius pineapple/Ananas comosus).  
Paracoccus 
marginatus  Although there are a few literature listing pineapple as a host of the scale 
insect, no evidence was found of it associated with the fruit. Therefore, there 
is no documented evidence of an association with the commodity and was not 
assessed further.   
420 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Para coccus solani  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) and has a regulatory status of 
'unassessed' in ONZPR (2021). No evidence was found that the species is 
associated with pineapple (Google/Google Scholar: Neacoryphus bicrucis 
pineapple/Ananas comosus).  
Paragonatas 
divergens  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) or ONZPR (2021). No evidence was 
found that the species is associated with pineapple (Google/Google Scholar: 
Paragonatas divergens pineapple/Ananas comosus).  
Paralipsa gularis  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021), but is regulated in ONZPR (2021). 
The insect is known to be a pest of stored nuts and grain. The NHM (2021)  
reports this species as associated with pineapple, however the record comes 
from an interception from the USA. There is n o detail of the association. No 
evidence found in literature of association with pineapple fruit (Google/Google 
Scholar: Paralipsa gularis). Therefore, insufficient evidence of association with 
the commodity to assess further.  
Parasa lepida  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) and is regulated (ONZPR 2021). No 
evidence was found in the literature of the species associated with pineapple 
fruit (Google/Google Scholar: Parasa lepida pineapple).  
Parasaissetia nigra  The species is present in  New Zealand (NZOR 2021) and is non -regulated 
(ONZPR 2021). Not known to be a vector.  
Paratrechina 
bourbonica  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) and is regulated (ONZPR 2021). 
Associated ants are likely to be foraging, sterile individuals unable to establish 
a population. For this reason, this species was not considered further.  
Paratrechina 
longicornis  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) and is regulated (ONZPR 2021). 
Associated ants are likely to be foraging, sterile individuals unable to establish 
a population.  For this reason, this species was not considered further.  
Paratrechina  sp. Assumed to be covered by species assessments.  
Paratrechina vaga  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) and is regulated (ONZPR 2021). 
Associated ants are likely to be foraging, sterile individuals unable to establish 
a population.  For this reason, thi s species was not considered further.  
Parcoblatta  sp. Cockroaches of this genus are generally fairly large and are expected to be 
removed by commercial production processes. Furthermore, no evidence was 
found of the genus associated with pineapples (Goog le/Google search: 
Parcoblatta pineapple)  
Parisoschoenus 
ananasi  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) and is regulated (ONZPR 2021). 
According to DAFF (2019) , this species feeds on the base of the fruiting shoot 
and is therefore not associated with decrowned pineapples. Furthermore, No 
evidence was found of the species being in exporting markets .   
Parlatoria pergandii  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) and is regulated (ONZPR 2021). Not 
known to be associated with pineapple (Google/Google Scholar: Paragonatas 
pergandii pineapple/Ananas comosus).  
Pentalonia 
nigronervosa  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) and is regulated (ONZPR 2021). Not 
known to be associated with pineapple (Google/Google Scholar: Paragonatas 
pergandii pineapple/Ananas comosus).  
Periplaneta 
americana  The species is present in New Zealand (NZOR 2021) and is non -regulated 
(ONZPR 2021).   
421 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Pheidole fervens  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) and is regulated (ONZPR 2021). 
Associated ants are likely to be foraging, sterile individuals unable to establish 
a population.  For this reason, this species was not considered further.  
Pheidole 
megacephala  The s pecies is present in New Zealand (NZOR 2021) and is non -regulated 
(ONZPR 2021). Not known to be a vector.  
Pheidole oceanica  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) and is regulated (ONZPR 2021). 
Associated ants are likely to be foraging, sterile individuals unable to establish 
a population.  For this reason, this species was not considered further.  
Pheidole  sp. Assumed to be  covered by species assessments.  
Phenacoccus 
hargreavesi  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) or ONZPR (2021). No evidence was 
found of the species associated with the commodity (Google/Google Scholar: 
Phenacoccus hargreavesi pineapple/Ananas comosus; Scalenet). 
Furthermore, the species is not reported from the exporting markets -restricted 
to Africa ( García Morales et al. 2016 ).  
Phenacoccus 
madeirensis  DAFF (2001) assessed this species as it was considered associated with 
pineapple. The original references of DAFF (2001)  are Ben-Dov (1994)  and 
CAB International (2000). Ben-dov (1994) does not specify which plant part of 
pineapple the pest was found. The original references of CAB International 
(2000) are likely to be Williams (1987)  and Culik et al. (2007) . Culik (2009) 
collected the pest on another plant host but not pineapple. William (1987) 
does not mention that the pest is associated with pineapple. I t was therefore 
concluded that there was insufficient evidence that the species is associated 
with the commodity and was not assessed further.  
Phenacoccus solani  The only relevant references, Willers (1992b)  and Willers (1992a) , indciate the 
scale insect was found on pineapple leaves and inflorescences during 
anthesis. No evidence found indicates it is associated with mature pineapple 
fruit. It is therefore not considered to be associated with the commodity and 
was not assessed further.  
Phenacoccus 
solenopsis  The primary reference for the association with pineapple is Spodek et al. 
(2018) . The study does not  specify plant parts or how many scales/plants 
were assessed. No other reference to an association with pineapple was 
found. May need to be reassessed if further evidence of the species being 
associated with pineapple is found.  
Phenolia picta  This specie s is covered under  Lasiodites pictus . 
Phera obtusifrons  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) or ONZPR (2021). No evidence was 
found of the species associated with pineapple (Google/Google Scholar: 
Phera obtusifrons pineapple/Ananas comosus).  
Phthorimaea 
operculella  The species is present in New Zealand (N ZOR 2021) and non -regulated 
(ONZPR 2021). The species is not known to vector disease.   
Phyllophaga 
hogardi  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) or ONZPR (2021). This species 
appears to be only associated with pineapple leaves and roots ( DAFF  2001) 
and therefore does not need to be further assessed.   
Phyllophaga plaei  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) or ONZPR (2021). This is a large 
beetle and no association of the species with pineapples was found 
(Google/Google Scholar: Phyllophaga  plaei pineapple/Ananas comosus).   
Phyllophaga  sp. Assumed to be covered by species assessments.   
422 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Pinnaspis 
aspidistrae  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) or ONZPR (2021). The species is 
present in New Zealand (NZOR 2021) and is non-regulated (ONZPR 2021). 
No evidence was found that the scale vectors disease.  
Pinnaspis buxi  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) and is regulated (ONZPR 2021). No 
evidence was found of the species associated with pineapple (Google/Google 
Scholar:  Pinnaspis buxi pineapple/Ananas comosus).   
Pinnaspis dysoxyli  The species is present in New Zealand (NZOR 2021) and has a regulatory 
status of 'not assessed' in ONZPR (2021). No evidence was found of the 
species vectoring disease.  
Pinnaspis minor  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) and is regulated (ONZPR 2021 ). No 
evidence was found of the species associated with pineapple (Google/Google 
Scholar: Pinnaspis minor pineapple/Ananas comosus).  
Pinnaspis strachani  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) and is regulated (ONZPR 2021). 
García Morales  et al. (2016) list pineapple as a host. However the full -text of 
the reference is not available. Culik et al. (2007)  report the species as a 
'potential pest of pineapple  in Brazil'. However, the authors did not isolate the 
scale from pineapples plants. Based on a lack of evidence that the species is 
associated with the commodity, not assessed further.  
Pison spinolae  The species is present in New Zealand (NZOR 2021) but is not listed in 
ONZPR (2021). No evidence was found of the species vectoring disease.  
Plagiolepis alluaudi  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) and is regulated (ONZPR 2021). 
Associated ants are likely to be foraging, sterile individuals unable to e stablish 
a population.  For this reason, this species was not considered further.  
Planococcoides 
njalensis  Duplicate of Formicococcus njalensis . 
Planococcus 
lilacinus  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) and is regulated (ONZPR 2021). No 
evidence was found of the species being associated with pineapple 
(Google/Google Scholar: Planococcus lilacinus pineapple/Ananas comosus).  
Planococcus  sp. Assumed to be covered by the species assessments.  
Platynota rostrana  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021), but is regulated in ONZPR (2021). 
The moth is recorded as associated with pineapples by the  Natural History 
Museum  (2021)  but no details of the association were given. No evidence of 
the species with pineapple fruit was found in the literature (Google/Google 
Scholar: Platynota rostrana pineapple). Therefore, insufficient evidence of 
association with the commodity to assess f urther.  
Plautia 
brunnipennis  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) and is regulated (ONZPR 2021). No 
evidence was found of the species being associated with pineapple 
(Google/Google Scholar: Plautia brunnipennis pineapple/Ananas comosus). 
Stink bugs a re likely to fly away or fall off fruit during harvesting.  They are 
generally large enough to be visiblt to the naked eye and are likely to be 
managed by commercial production methods. For this reason they have been 
excluded from further assessment.  
Plintheria  sp. No association of the genus with pineapples was found (Google/Google 
Scholar: Plintheria pineapple/Ananas comosus). There is also no record of the 
genus in the LIMS database between 2000 and 2020.   
Podoparalecanium 
machili  The species is n ot listed in NZOR (2021) or ONZPR (2021). No evidence was 
found of the species being associated with pineapple (Google/Google 
Scholar: Podoparalecanium machili pineapple/Ananas comosus).   
423 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Polistes humilis  The species is present in New Zealand (NZOR 2021) and is non -regulated 
(ONZPR 2021). No evidence was found that the species vectors disease.  
Prionocyphon  sp. No evidence was found of the genus associated with pineapples 
(Google/Google Scholar: Prionocyphon pineapple/Ananas comosus).  
Prococcus 
acutissimus  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) and is regulated (ONZPR 2021). No 
evidence was found of the species being associated with pineapple 
(Google/Google Scholar: Prococcus acutissimus pineapple/Ananas comosus).  
Prometheus garbei  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) or ONZPR (2021). The moth is not 
found in any of the exporting markets . 
Protaetia fusca  The species is rarely associated with pineapple fruits, and is more commonly 
found on overripe fruits, which is out of scope of the project. Furthermore, this 
is a relatively large beetle would be removed/displaced by harvesting or post -
harvest processing and any feeding damage would likely be conspicuous.  
Pseudaonidia 
trilobitiformis  The abstract of Culik et al. (2009) suggests that this is a potential pest of 
pineapple. However, the full text shows that the species actually wasn't found 
on pineapples bu t on other plants. A potential association with pineapple fruit 
in Wang and Spies is described (2017). However, given that this association 
could not be confirmed in the literature, the species was not assessed further 
based on a lack of evidence for commo dity association.   
Pseudaphycus 
dysmicocci  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) or ONZPR (2021). This is a parasitic 
wasp. It s main hosts  are  Dysmicoccus brevipes  and  Planococcoides 
njalensis  (Noyes 2019) . Neither of which are listed as present in New Zealand 
(PPIN 2022, NZOR 2022). In the absence of its host s, it is assumed that the 
wasp would not be able to establish in New Zealand and for this reason it will 
not be considered further.  
Pseudaulacaspis  
sp. No evidence was found of the genus being associated with pineapple 
(Google/Google Scholar: Pseudaulacaspis pineapple/Ananas comosus).  
Pseudococcidae  Assumed to be covered by species assessments.  
Pseudococcus 
cryptus  No evidence that the species is associated with the commodity. García 
Morales et al. (2016)  lists pineapple as a host of the scale, however no other 
reference was found in the literature (Google/Google Scholar: Pseudococcus 
cryptus pineapple/Ananas cosmosu s). Based on a lack of evidence of 
commodity association, this species was not assessed further.  
Pseudococcus 
elisae  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) and is regulated (ONZPR 2021). No 
evidence was found of the species being associated with pineapple 
(Google/Google Scholar: Pseudococcus pineapple/Ananas comosus; Garcia 
Morales et al. (2016) ).  
Pseudococcus  sp. Assumed to be covered by the species assessed  
Pseudococcus 
viburni  Pineapple is listed as a host on García Morales et al. (2016) , however no 
other evidence of a host association was found (Google/Google Scholar: 
Pseudococcus viburni pineapple/Ananas cosmosus). Scalenet does not 
describe which plant part the scale was founs on. It was concluded that there 
was insufficent evidence of  commodity association to assess further.  
Psocoptera  Hemipsocus roseus  has reported on pineapples (in Hawaii), but unclear if 
associated with the fruit. No other evidence found associating this species 
specifically with fruit.  No evidence found for other species of psocoptera 
being associated with pineapples (google search:  Psocoptera pineapple 
ananas comosus). Interception records have found psocoptera on pineapples,  
424 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  but it is likely that this contamination has resulted from cardboard packaging 
(Thornton 1981) .  
Psychoda  sp. There was one record of interception from the Philippines on pineapples in 
2003. No further evidence of an association with pineapple was found 
(Google/Google Scholar: Psychoda pineapple/Ananas comosus). There is 
one reference (Rosa 2014) , where they talke d about Psychoda larvae and 
pineapples, but the methods were not clear. Given the lack of information, 
there is insufficient justification to assess the genus further.  
Pulvinaria psidii  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) and is regulated (ONZPR 2021). No 
evidence was found of the species being associated with pineapple 
(Google/Google Scholar: Pulvinaria psidii pineapple/Ananas comosus; García 
Morales et al. (2016) ).  
Pycnoscelus 
surinamensis  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021), but is regulated in ONZPR (2021). 
This is a large cockroach that damages plant roots. Therefore , it is not 
considered to be associated with the commodity.  
Pyroderces 
aellotricha  The speci es is present in New Zealand (NZOR 2021) and non -regulated 
(ONZPR 2021). The species is not known to be a vector of disease.  
Rhabdoscelus 
obscurus  There is no evidence found to indicate that the larval and egg stage of the 
pest can be found inside or on the pineapple fruit. The adult weevil is large 
and mobile and likely to be easily detected visually. Therefore. this weevil 
could potentially be mana ged by commercial production activities. Only these 
two references found indicating its association with pineapple fruit (Google 
Scholar; Google; CPC; EPPO; CAB Abstract). The original reference cited by 
Petty et al (2002) is Waite (1993) , where it says “Damage in pineapple is 
Samoa, Taiwan, Tonga, Vanuatu confined to the fruit, mostly of the rough leaf 
variety. The adult weevils chew shallow holes in the skin of the fruit which can 
cause fermentation and rotting. While damaged fruit canno t be transported to 
distant market, they may be sold locally.” This reference does not mention 
whether the pest lays eggs on pineapple fruit or if any other life stages can be 
found on pineapple fruit. The other reference found indicating the association 
with pineapple is an interception from Canada, where it says the weevil was 
intercepted once on a shipment of pineapple from Hawaii in 2004 (CDFA 
2018) .  
Rhizobius ventralis  The species is present in New Zealand (NZOR 2021) and is non -regulated 
(ONZPR 2021 ).  
Rhizoecus 
americanus  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) and is regulated (ONZPR 2021). No 
evidence that the species is associated with the commodity, as it is a root 
affecting mealybug . 
Rhizoecus 
mayanus  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) or ONZPR (2021). There is a 
reference in García Morales et al. (2016)  that the species is associated with 
pineapple, however no details are given. It is unlikely to be associated with the 
commodity as members of the  genus are associated with roots (Mathew 
2016) . 
Rhopaea  sp. According to Joy et al. 2013, species of this genus are referred to as white 
grubs (larvae feed on the roots) and adults are very conspicuous (i.e. very 
large). This is also mirrored in Rohrbach and Johnson (2003 ). Therefore, not 
considered to be associated with the commodity and does not require further 
assessment.    
425 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Rhopalosiphum 
padi The species is present in New Zealand (NZOR 2021) but is non -regulated 
(ONZPR 2021).  It known to transmit some viruses and intercepted on 
pineapple according to AssureQuality (2021) . However, no evidence was 
found that the species is associated with the c ommodity (Google/Google 
Scholar: Rhopalosiphum padi; CPC; CAB Abstract).  
Rhopalosiphum 
rufiabdominale  The species is present in New Zealand (NZOR 2021) but is regulated under 
the synonym Rhopalosiphum rufiabdominalis  (ONZPR 2021). No evidence 
was found of the species being associated with pineapple (Google/Google 
Scholar: Rhopalosiphum rufiabdominale pinea pple/Ananas comosus).  
Rhynchophorus 
palmarum  This is a large weevil, and even if it is associated with the commodity, it is 
unlikely to remian associated with fruit following harvest and post -harvest 
processes.  
Rhyssomatus  sp. This is a genus of white grubs. No association with pineapples was found 
(Google/Google Scholar: Rhyssomatus pineapple/Ananas comosus).  
Rhyzobius ventralis  This species is present in New Zealand (BiotaNZ 2022) and non -regulated 
(ONZPR 2022).  
Ribua innoxia  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) or ONZPR (2021). The moth is not 
reported to be in any of the exporting markets . The species is only reported on 
pineapple imported into USA from Cuba (Heinrich 1940) . 
Saccharicoccus 
sacchari  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) and is regulated (ONZPR 2021). 
Pineapple is listed as a host in CABI (2021), however no specific plan t part is 
specified. Pineapple is not a host on García Morales et al. (2016) . Both 
databases  describe the species as living on leaves, stems and possibly roots. 
In Hawaii, S. sacchari  is reported from pineapple fields, but is not considered 
important as it occurs sporadically and in low numbers (Dey et al. 2018) . So 
although there a report of the species on pineapple was found, it does not 
look like it would be associated with decrowne d pineapples.  
Saissetia coffeae  The species is present in New Zealand (NZOR 2021) and is non -regulated 
(ONZPR 2021). It is not known to be a vector.  
Saprosites  sp. No association with pineapple found (Google/Google Scholar: Saprosites 
pineapple/Ananas comosus). There is an interception record from the 
Philippines of one adult, of an unknown species. Given that no association 
with the commodity was found, not assessed  further.  
Scatella  sp. There is a consignment interception record from the Philippines from 2014 
with one live adult found. No other evidence of the genus being associated 
with pineapple was found (Google/Google Scholar: Scatella pineapple/Ananas 
comosus).   
Schedorhinotermes 
intermedius  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021),  but it is regulated in ONZPR (2021). 
This is a subterranean termite, despite pineapple being listed on CABI (2021) 
as a host plant, a general search did not yield any results for an association 
with decrowned pineapples (Google/Google Scholar: Schedorhinotermes 
intermedius pineapple). Therefore, is not considered to be associated with the 
commodity.  
Sciaridae  Assumed to be covered by species assessments.  
Scoparia  sp. No information was found of its association with the pineapple fruit.  
Setothosea asigna  The species is not listed in (NZOR 2021) or (ONZPR 2021). The larvae is a 
defoliating pest, and causes damage to the leaves (USDA 2019). There is no 
evidence of the larvae feeding on the pineapple fruit (Google/Google Scholar: 
Setothosea asigna pineapple).   
426 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Silvanus  sp. There was one live adult beetle of this genus intercepted on a pineapple 
cons ignment from the Philippines. These are large beetles and the 
interception was likely a contaminant. No evidence was found of Silvanus 
species associated with pineapples (Google/Google Scholar: Silvanus 
pineapple/Ananas comosus).   
Sitophilus oryzae  The species is present in New Zealand (NZOR 2021) and is non -regulated 
(ONZPR 2021).  
Sitophilus zeamais  The species is present in New Zealand (NZOR 2021) and is non -regulated 
(ONZPR 2021).  
Solenopsis 
geminata  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) and is regulated (ONZPR 2021). 
Associated ants are likely to be foraging, sterile individuals unable to esta blish 
a population.  For this reason, this species was not considered further.  
Solenopsis invicta  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) and is regulated (ONZPR 2021). 
Associated ants are likely to be foraging, sterile individuals unable to establish 
a population.  For this reason, this species was not considered further.  
Solenopsis  sp. Assumed to be covered by species assessments.  
Sphenophorus 
incurrens  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) or ONZPR (2021). There appears to 
have been an interception record on commodity from Costa Rica, however, 
more details other than it has been on fruit were not obtainable. No 
association to pineapple could be establ ished (Google/Google Scholar: 
Sphenophorus incurrens pineapple/Ananas comosus).   
Sphenophorus 
venatus  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) and has a regulatory status of 'not 
assessed' in ONZPR (2021). There appears to have been an interception 
record on commodity from Costa Rica, however, more details other than it has 
been on fruit were not obtainabl e. No association to pineapple could be 
established (Google/Google Scholar: Sphenophorus venatus 
pineapple/Ananas comosus).   
Spodoptera 
exempta  The species is listed as 'sometimes present' in New Zealand (NZOR 2021) 
and is regulated (ONZPR 2021). This sp ecies is mainly a pest of plants of the 
Poaceae and Cyperaceae (CABI 202 1). 
Spodoptera exigua  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021), but is regulated (ONZPR 2021). The 
larvae of this insect is known to attack the leaves of other hosts (Capinera 
1999).  
Spodoptera litura  The species is present in New Zealand (NZFungi 2021) and non -regulated 
(ONZPR 2021). The species is not known to vector disease.  
Spoladea recurvalis  This species is recorded as present in New Zealand (NZOR 2021) and the 
regulatory status is recorded as 'under assessment' in ONZPR (2021). It is not 
known to be a vector of diseases.  However , this species appears to be a 
vagrant species that is a moderately regular migrant. It does not appear to be 
permanently established in New Zealand. No rec ord found of association with 
pineapple fruits (Google/Google Scholar: Spoladea recurvalis pineapple).  
Stegasta 
bosqueella  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) or ONZPR (2021).There is a record 
of the larvae of this moth found in the axils of the lea ves of pineapples in 
Brazil (Pinto 2020) . No information about association with the pineapple fruit 
was found (Google/Google Scholar: Stegasta bosqueella pineapple).  
Stenocatantops 
splendens  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) or ONZPR (2021). No information 
was found on this insect feeding on pineapple using the search terms 
'Stenocatantops splendens AND pineapples'.   
427 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Stephanitis typica  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) and is regulated (ONZPR 2021). No 
evidence was found of the species associated with pineapple (Google/Google 
Scholar: Stephanitis typica pineapple/Ananas comosus).  
Stephanoderes  sp. Already assessed under the synonym Hypothenemus.  
Sticholotis sp.  The only connection found with pineapples was an association with 
mealybugs (which can be found on pineapples). Apparently the ladybird was 
introduced to Hawaii for mealybug control purposes (Gonzalez -Hernandez 
1995) .This is a very indirect association that seems to be not very widely 
recognized and measures against mealybugs should minimize this indirect 
association.  
Strategus aloeus  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) and recorded as 'not assessed' in 
ONZPR (2021). This is a very large beetle species that is not commonly 
associated with pineapple when searched for with standard terms. The only 
association with pineapple was found  under the synonym Strategus julianus  
on CABI (2021) with one references that was also cited in the Australian Pest 
assessment . The association was that beetles were found to feed on the 
leaves of pineapples and larvae on the roots. No connection to decrowned 
pineapples was found.  
Strategus 
anachoreta  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) and has a regulatory status of 'not 
assessed' in ONZPR (2021). This is a large beetle species that is not 
commonly associated with pineapple when searched for with standard terms. 
The association was that beetles were found to feed on the leaves of 
pineapples and larvae on the roots. No conn ection to decrowned pineapples 
was found.  
Strigoderma micans  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) or ONZPR (2021). A standard web 
search did not show any associations with pineapples, therefore recommend 
to not consider further. Species returned no results on CABI  (2021) , EPPO  
(2021).  
Strymon basilides  Larvae attacks the flower and the young fruitlet. The adult butterfly deposits 
eggs at the base of the flower bracts, open flower, crown and leaves that 
emerge from the lower section of th e fruit. When the larvae emerge, they 
penetrate the softer section of the bract, devour the flower and they bore into 
the flower down to the young fruit creating internal cavities and galleries. This 
results on the fruit being deformed and rejection in the  packhouse. The 
damage is very obvious because there is gummosis that looks at first whitish -
amber colour but with air contact, this sticky exudate turns brown. These 
galleries allow disease  causing fungi  such as  Fusarium moniliforme  and 
Penicillium foniculosum  to enter . 
Tapinoma 
melanocephalum  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) and is regulated (ONZPR 2021). 
Associated ants are likely to be foraging, sterile individuals unable to establish 
a population.  For this reason, this species was not considered further.  
Tapinoma  sp. Assumed to be covered by species assessments.  
Taygete parvella  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) or ONZPR (2021). There is very little 
information available for this species. There is not much information available 
about the association of this species with pineapple.  No evidence was found 
of the species being  associated with pineapple fruit (Google/Google Scholar: 
Taygete parvella pineapple).   
428 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Technomyrmex 
albipes  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) and is regulated (ONZPR 2021). 
There are 144 interception records of Technomyrmex  spp. (AssureQuality 
2021 ). Technomyrmex worker/adult were intercepted and identified three 
times associated to pineapple (LIMS 2021; AssureQuality 2021). The colony 
reproductive strategy of the Technomyrmex albipes group is unique in the 
Formicidae, given the presence of reproductive inter -caste workers (Bolton 
2007) . Inter -caste workers are developmentally intermediate between worker 
and queen in that they have functional ovaries, can mate and produce 
offspring. The y differ from queens in that they do not have a spermatheca and 
typically only produce other workers and males. However, inter -caste workers 
do not engage in any activity outside the nest (Yamauchi 1991) . No report of 
association of ant nests to pineapple plants or fruit could be found, and the 
possibility of ant nests associated to the commodity is considered negligible. 
Associated ants are likely to be foraging workers unable to establish a 
population. For these reasons, this species was not considered fu rther.  
Technomyrmex  sp. Assumed to be covered by species assessments.  
Technomyrmex 
vitiensis  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) and is regulated (ONZPR 2021). 
There are 144 interception records of Technomyrmex  spp. ( AssureQuality 
2021 ). Technomyrmex  worker/adult were intercepted and identified three 
times associated to pineapple (LIMS 2021; AssureQuality 2021) , and two 
records specifically refer to T.vitiensis  adults ( AssureQuality 2021 ). The 
colony reproductive strategy of the Technomyrmex albipes  group is unique in 
the Formicidae, given the presence of reproductive inter -caste workers 
(Bolton 2007). Inter -caste workers are developmentally intermediate between 
worker and queen in that they have functional ovaries, can mate and produce 
offspring. They  differ from queens in that they do not have a spermatheca and 
typically only produce other workers and males. However, inter -caste workers 
do not engage in any activity outside the nest (Yamauchi et al. 1991). No 
report of association of ant nests to pine apple plants or fruit could be found, 
and the possibility of ant nests associated to the commodity is considered 
negligible. Associated ants are likely to be foraging workers unable to 
establish a population. For these reasons, this species was not conside red 
further.  
Telchin licus  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) or ONZPR (2021). The main host is 
sugarcane but it has been reported on pineapple; it feeds on stems and 
rhizomes (Triana et al. 2020) . No evidence was found of the species affecting 
pineapple fruit (Google/Google scholar: Telchin licus pineapple).  
Teleogryllus 
oceanicus  The species is present in New Zealand (NZOR 2021) and regulated (ONZPR 
2021). There is little information regarding feeding habits. Most of the 
information is about its mating behaviours. This species is intermediate vector 
of Abbreviata antarctica  (Nematoda) and Ormia ochracea  (Diptera) (King 
2013) . No information was found regarding the association of this species wit h 
pineapples using the search words Teleogryllus oceanicus AND pineapple.  
Tetramorium 
bicarinatum  The species is present in New Zealand (NZOR 2021) and is non -regulated 
(ONZPR 2021). Not known to be a vector.  
Tetramorium 
guineense  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) and is regulated (ONZPR 2021). 
Associated ants are likely to be foraging, sterile individuals unable to establish 
a population.  For this reason, this species was not considered further.   
429 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Tetramorium 
simillimum  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) and is regulated (ONZPR 2021). 
Associated ants are likely to be foraging, sterile individuals unable to establish 
a population.  For this reason, this species was not considered further.  
Tetramorium  sp. Assumed to be covered by species assessments.  
Thaumatotibia 
leucotreta  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021), but is regulated in ONZPR (2021). 
Fruit feeding larvae. MPI could not find any evidence of its presence in 
exporting markets . Appears to be r estricted to Africa with transient populations 
in Europe (Gilligan and E.; 2014; EPPO 2021) .  No specific cases were found 
of its association with pineapple other than reports that it’s a host 
(Google/Google Scholar: Thaumatotibia leucotreta pineapple).  
Thecla legota  The larvae were spotted in Brazil feeding on new pineapple fruits. There is 
uncertainty as whether this moth is found in any of the exporting markets . Also 
the taxonomy of this species is convoluted. It appears that now is considered 
Strymon lucena . Different species seem  to be the same one. The only 
difference is where they originated from. More research needs to be done for 
clarification. Google scholar search using the scientific name returned only 2 
results. From Robbins (2010) , "Thecla legota" is an un resolve d species  
complex. The species that attack pineapple within the species complex, 
according to the paper, are Strymon lucena  and S. oreala , which ha ve not 
been reported in exporting markets .  
Thecla oreala  This species  has been reported emerging from pineapple fruit but most likely 
the fruitlet and not the mature fruit. Only reports from Brazil were found. The 
larvae of this species ha ve been recorded in various Bromeliads species 
eating the inflorence and feeding on dev eloping fruits. It has been reported 
emerging from pineapple fruit but most likely the fruitlet and not the mature 
fruit. Google scholar search using the scientific name returned three  results 
and only one is relevant (Robins 2010). According to the paper,  the pest is 
likely to be in the Thecla legota  species complex, and the species that attack 
pineapple within the complex are not known to present in exporting market . 
Thlastocoris laetus  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) or ONZPR (2021). It is not known 
from the exporting markets . The species is a pest of pineapple fruit but only 
reported from Brazil, Peru and Venezuela (Couturier 1993; DAFF 2001) . If the 
exporting markets  changed, may need to be reassessed.  
Thrips flavus  Not listed in NZOR  (2021) and is regulated (ONZPR 2021). No evidence in 
literature of association with pineapple fruit (Google search: Thrips flavus 
pineapple ananas comosus). This thrips feed and oviposit on flowers, leaves 
and pods causing direct damage. The damage caused appears as necrotic 
silvering on the leaves and results in the curling, deformation and withering of 
the leaves and early senescence or deformation of flowers. No records that its 
associated  with the pineapple fruit.  
Thrips hawaiiensis  The species is present in New Zealand (NZOR 2021), but is regulated 
(ONZPR 2021).  However, it is recorded as not present in New Zealand in 
PPIN (2021). Mound et al. (2017)  states that as single female was rep orted on 
Campbell Island in 1964. Present in exporting markets . Flower feeder, not 
clearly associated with pineapple fruits (Rohrbach and Johnson 2003) .   
430 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Thrips tabaci  Petty et al. (2002)  report this species found in the floral cavities of pineapples 
and can be a major pest. In this source it appears that floral cavities refer to 
the flowering stage, rather than the cavities of floral remnants on the formed 
fruits, but this is uncertain. I nfections of the floral cavities at the flowering 
stage significantly affect the fruitlet, so the fruit would likely not be export 
quality.  No records found of interceptions on pineapples. Uncertain if there is 
an association with pineapple fruits as defined by commodity  description. Has 
the potential to vector Pantoea ananatis , which may infect economically 
significant species in New Zealand. Based on the information provided, the 
thrips is not known to be on mature pineapple fruit (it is known to present on 
young pineapple fruits). As there is not sufficient evidence to establish 
commodity association, the species was not assessed further.  
Trachyderes 
succinctus  The species is not listed i n NZOR (2021) or ONZPR (2021). Despite a 
thorough search, there was no clear association with decrowned pineapples 
found - there was anecdotal evidence, that the species may feed on leaves, 
stem and trunk (there was some evidence that the beetle can be bai ted with a 
purposefully fermented pineapple/sugarcane solution  (DAFF 2021) ). The 
species seems to be at least present in the Caribbean. CABI (2021) does list it 
as associated with pineapples, but does not give a specific reference for this 
host species.  
Trialeurodes 
vaporariorum  The species is present in New Zealand (NZOR 2021) but is listed as regulated 
in ONZPR (2021). No evidence was found of the species being associated 
with pineapple (Google/Google Scholar: Trialeurodes vaporariorum 
pineapple/Ananas  comosus).  
Tribolium 
castaneum  The species is present in New Zealand (NZOR 2021) and is non -regulated 
(ONZPR 2021). No evidence was found that the beetle vectors disease.  
Trionymus 
internodii  The species is not present in New Zealand (NZOR 2021) but is listed as 
regulated in ONZPR (2021). Two references from García Morales et al. (2016)  
indicate its association with pineapple, but not do not specify the plant part. 
However, DAFF (2001)  found that the species is associated with leaves, 
stems, crowns and roots of pineapple and would therefore not be associated 
with the commodity. Furthermore, from the distribution listed in García 
Morales et al. (2016)  (Israel, Egypt and Senegal) the species is not present in 
the e xporting markets . 
Trochalus politus  The species is not known to be present in New Zealand (NZOR 2021) and is 
regulated (ONZPR 2021). In Smith et al.1995 the biology of T. politus  in 
relation with pineapples was described as 'not specifically associated with 
pineapples, but adults damage pineapple stems and encourage decay'. 
Therefore, the species is not considered to be associated with the commodity.  
Tylozygus fasciatus  The species is present in New Zealand (NZOR 2021) but is listed as regulated 
in ONZPR (2021). No evidence was found of the species being associated 
with pineapple fruit (Google/Google Scholar: Tylozygus fasciatus 
pineapple/Ananas comosus). An unconfirmed r ecord of the species on 
pineapple leaves in Nicaragua was found (Frank 2014) . Given that no 
commodity association was determined, was not assessed further.  
Typhaea stercorea  The species is present in New Zealand (NZOR 2021) and is non -regulated 
(ONZPR 20 21).   
431 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Unaspis citri  Search has been performed in Google Scholar, Google, CAB Abstract, CABI 
(2021)  and EPPO  (2021)  (Unaspis citri pineapple/Ananas cosmosus). The 
pest is associated with pineapple but not documented associated with 
pineapple fruit. Given that there is no record of the scale associated with 
pineapple fruit in all the usual sources, there is insufficient  information  to 
require further assessment.  
Urophorus 
humeralis  The species is present in New Zealand (NZOR 2021) and is non -regulated 
(ONZPR 2021).  
Valanga nigricornis  The species is present in New Zealand (NZOR 2021) and regulated (ONZPR 
2021). The species feed s on the top of tre es. It is recorded as a pest of 
coconut palms in Indonesia. It has a wide range of hosts, including Areca , tea, 
coffee, rubber, Ficus , and Citrus  (Lever 1969) . There is a reference 
mentioning that this insect has been associated with the flower and pineapple 
fruit (Yunus and Hua 1980), but not possible to access. Furthermore, the 
species is not likely to remain associated with fruit after harvesting and 
processing.  In the literature, no obvious association was found to  the 
pineapple fruit (Google/Google Scholar: Valanga nigricornis pineapple).  
Wasmannia 
auropunctata  Wasmannia auropunctata is not listed in NZOR (2021) and is regulated 
(ONZPR 2021). This ant species was intercepted five times in New Zealand 
(LIMS 2021) . Four intereceptions were workers (id unknown in the fifth 
record). Two of these records relate to fresh produce pathway (fresh produce 
leaves and coconut). Little fire ants are very small, and simlarly to other ant 
spp., they nest in leaf axils e.g. of coc onut palms (Way and Bolton 1997). 
However, the commodity description exclude the possibility of leafs being 
present, and pineapple fruit bracts are not providing the same spatial niche. 
No report of association of ant nests to pineapple plants or fruit cou ld be 
found, and the possibility of ant nests associated to the commodity is 
considered negligible.  Associated ants are likely to be foraging workers. 
Despite the peculiar reproductive system of this species (clonal reproduction 
of queens and males, Fouca ud et al. 2006), workers are unable to establish a 
population. For this reason, this species was not considered further.  
Xyleborus 
ferrugineus  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) and is regulated (ONZPR 2021). No 
evidence was found of the species as sociated with pineapple (Google/Google 
Scholar: Xyleborus ferrugineus pineapple/Ananas comosus). Therefore, it is 
not considered to be associated with the commodity.  
Xyleborus  sp.  Assumed to be covered by species assessments.  
Xyleborus volvulus  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) or ONZPR (2021). According to the 
CABI (2021)  this species albeit polyphagous is not known to be transported 
through fruits and pineapple was not listed as a host. The species is 
associated with woody plant parts (Cruz et al. 2019)  (Google/Google Scholar: 
Xyleborus volvulus pineapple/Ananas comosus).   
Zaplatycerus 
fullawayi  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) or ONZPR (2021). This is a parasitic 
wasp parasitic wasp and is a natural enemy of the pineapple mealybug 
Dysmicoccus brevipes  (CABI 2021; Pandey & Johnson 2006), which is not 
known to be present in New Zealand (PPIN 2022). In the absence of its host it 
is assumeed that the wasp would not be able to establish in New Zealand and 
for this reason it will not be considered further.   
432 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Zonocerus elegans  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021), but is regulated in ONZPR (2021). 
Although its been recorded to feed on pineapple, this insect is big enough to 
be detected on the fruit and will likely not survive the cleaning and processing 
prior to packaging. Th is insect does not lay egg on the fruit, but in the soil  
(Lomer et al. 1999) . 
Zonocerus 
variegatus  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021), but is regulated in ONZPR (2021). 
This species is considered a serious pest in Africa and does not appear to be 
present in exporting markets . No association with fruits, including pineapple 
fruits, was found (Googl e/Google Scholar: Zonocerus variegatus pineapple).  
Kinetoplastea  
Phytomonas 
ananas  Synonym of Pseudomonas ananas  which has been assessed.  
Malacostraca  
Porcellio laevis  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021), but is regulated (ONZPR 2021). 
This species feeds on wood, detritus, compost (highly rotten vegetables and 
fruits). It dwells in damp areas, in dark areas, under rocks and logs. Pineapple 
fruit is above the soil ex posed to the sun so highly unlikely this species  will be 
around (BMIG 2021) .  Rotten pineapples will not be selected for export and 
will not pass the sugar grading analysis before packing.  
Mollusca  
Achatina fulica  The species is not listed in BiotaNZ (2022), but is regulated (ONZPR 2021). 
Excluded because this is a large contaminating pest and not truly associated 
with pineapple. Furthermore, should be managed by commercial production 
measures and general measures to manage contaminating pests.  
Bradybaena 
similaris  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) and is regulated in ONZPR (2021). 
Snails are considered as contaminating pests and managed by commercial 
production methods.  
Diplosolenodes 
occidentalis  The species is not listed on NZOR (2021) or ONZPR (2021). Slugs are 
considered to be managed by commercial production measures.  
Opeas  sp. Snails are contaminating organisms that will be removed during post harvest 
processes.  
Pallifera 
costaricensis  Slugs are contaminating organisms that will be removed during post harvest 
processes.  
Sarasinula plebeia  Slugs are considered out of scope of the project and are considered to be 
removed from the commodity by commercial production measures  
Stylommatophora  Slugs and snails are considered to be removed by the commercial production 
methods.  
Succinea 
costaricana  Snails are considered to b e removed by the commercial production methods  
Succinea  sp. Snails are considered to be removed by the commercial production methods  
Succineidae  Snails are considered to be removed by the commercial production methods  
Zonitoides arboreus  Snails are considered to be removed by the commercial production measures.  
Nematode   
433 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Aphelenchoides sp. Species of the genus occur in soil, decaying plant residues, moss, and on the 
surfaces of rocks and trees  (Ferris 2021)  and as such, it is not associated with 
the commodity.  
Aphelenchus 
avenae  Present in New Zealand (NZOR 2021) and non -regulated (ONZPR 2021).  
Aphelenchus 
eremitus  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) and is regulated in ONZPR (2021). 
There is little information available on this nematode and the information that 
is available suggests that it is not associated with the pathway, as it feeds on 
roots.  
Carphodorus  sp. Nematodes of the family Dolichodoridae are obligate ectoparasites of plant 
roots and are therefore not associated with the commodity  (Ferris 2021) . 
Cranifera  sp. Members of the family Thelastomatidae are parasites of insects and other 
invertebrates (Ferris 2021) . All references found on the species in the genus 
Cranifera  related to insect parasitisum . 
Criconemoides  Members of the family Criconematidae feed ectoparasitically on plant roots, 
some at root tips, others in more mature regions of the root (Ferris 2021) . No 
evidence  found  that they are associated with other plant parts.  
Diphtherophora  sp. Members of the or der Dorylamida are ectoparasites with their feeding site at 
the root tip and are therefore not considered to be associated with the 
commodity (Ferris 2021) .  
Discocriconemella  
sp. Members of the family Criconematidae feed ectoparasitically on plant roots,  
some at root tips, others in more mature regions of the root (Ferris 2021) . No 
evidence that they are associated with other plant parts and therefore not 
considered to be associated with the commodity.  
Ditylenchus 
intermedius  There was a single source found stating that this nematode is present in 
Australia, but no evidence was found of presence in other exporting markets . 
No evidence found of association with pineapple fruits (Google/Google 
Scholar: Ditylenchus intermedius pin eapple/Ananas cosmosus). The family 
Anguinidae contains faculative and obligate parasites of higher plants, 
frequently parasites of the above ground parts of plants. This species has 
been reported associated with pineapple plants in Hawaii. However, the on ly 
report found that detailed when in the pineapple plant the nematode was 
found recorded it from the roots and no evidence  of the nematode associated 
with pineapple fruits was found. Given the lack of commodity association, the 
species is not assessed further.  
Ditylenchus 
myceliophagus  The species is recorded as present in New Zealand (NZOR 2021), but 
regulated (ONZPR 2021) .  It is reported feeding on fungal hyphae (nemaplex 
2021). No reports found (Google/Google scholar: Ditylenchus myceliophagus) 
of it being a plant pest.  
Ditylenchus  sp.  Assumed to be covered  by species assessments.  
Dolichodorus minor  The species is not listed on NZOR (2021 ) or ONZPR (2021 ). Recorded from 
soil surrounding roots. Ectoparasite that mainly feeds at the root tip. Members 
of the Dolichodoridae are obligate ectoparasites of the root tip (Ferris 2021) . 
Therefore, not associate d with the commodity.  
Filenchus filiformis  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) or ONZPR (2021). Members of the 
family feed on algae, mosses, lichens and plant roots. Members of the genus 
also feed on fungi (Ferris 2021) . Therefore, not associated with the 
commodity.  
Filenchus  sp.  Assumed to be covered by species assessents.   
434 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Helicotylenchus 
cavenessi  The species is not listed on NZOR (2021) or ONZPR (2021). Hoplolaimids are 
a unique group of migratory root ectoparasites, semi -endoparasites and true 
endo parasites (Krall 1990) . No evidence that they are associated with other 
plant parts.  
Helicotylench us 
digonicus  This species is listed as present in New Zealand (NZOR 2021) but is 
regulated (ONZPR 2021). Hoplolaimids are a unique group of migratory root 
ectoparasites, semi -endoparasites and true endo parasites Krall 1990. No 
evidence that they are assoc iated with other plant parts.  
Helicotylenchus 
dihystera  This species is listed as present in New Zealand (NZOR 2021) and is non -
regulated (ONZPR 2021).  
Helicotylenchus 
erythrinae  This species is listed as present in New Zealand (NZOR 2021) but is 
regulated (ONZPR 2021). Hoplolaimids are a unique group of migratory root 
ectoparasites, semi -endoparasites and true endo parasites (Krall 1990). No 
evidence that they are associated with other plant parts.  
Helicotylenchus 
microcephalus  This species is not listed in NZOR (2021) and is regulated (ONZPR 2021). 
Hoplolaimids are a unique group of migratory root ectoparasites, semi -
endoparasites and true endo parasites (Krall 1990). No evidenc e that they are 
associated with other plant parts.  
Helicotylenchus 
mucronatus  This species is not listed in NZOR (2021) and is regulated (ONZPR 2021). 
Hoplolaimids are a unique group of migratory root ectoparasites, semi -
endoparasites and true endo parasites (Krall 1990). No evidence that they are 
associated with other plant parts.  
Helicotylenchus 
multicinctus  This species is not listed in NZOR (2021 ) and is regulated (ONZPR 2021). 
Hoplolaimids are a unique group of migratory root ectoparasites, semi -
endoparasites and true endo parasites (Krall 1990). No evidence that they are 
associated with other plant parts.  
Helicotylenchus 
pseudorobustus  This species is listed as present in New Zealand (NZOR 2021) but is non -
regulated (ONZPR 2021).  
Helicotylenchus  sp. Assumed to be covered by species assessments.  
Hemicriconemoides  
sp. Assumed to be captured by species assessments.  
Hemicriconemoides 
cocophillus  This species is listed as present in New Zealand (NZOR 2021) but is 
regulated (ONZPR 2021). Members of the family Criconematidae feed 
ectoparasitically on plant roots, some at root tips, others in more mature 
regions of the root ( Ferris  2021). No evidence that they are associated with 
other plant parts  
Hemicriconemoides 
mangiferae  This species is not listed in NZOR (2021 ) and is regulated (ONZPR 2021). 
Members of the family Criconematidae feed ectoparasitically on plant roots, 
some at root tips, others in more mature regions of the root (nemaplex 2021). 
No evidence that they are associated with other plant parts.  
Hemicyc liophora 
oostenbrinki  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) or ONZPR (2021). Little information 
was found about this species. Other members of the genus are not associated 
with the fresh fruit pathway as the affect roots . No evidence on Google or 
Google  scholar searches that this species affects above ground plant parts.  
Heterodera 
schachtii  Present in New Zealand (NZOR 2021) and is non -regulated (ONZPR 2021), 
however some suggestion of subspecies. Not considered further because the 
lifecycle of the nem atode occurs in soil and associated with roots ( Ferris  
2021) and is therefore not considered associated with the commodity.   
435 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Heterodera  sp. Members of the family Heteroderinae feed on developing roots ( Ferris  2021). 
No evidence that they are associated with other plant parts.  
Hoplolaimus 
pararobustus  This species is not listed in NZOR (2021) and is regulated (ONZPR 2021). 
This is a root associated nematode (CABI 2021 ; Ferris  2019) and is not 
associated with the commodity  
Hoplolaimus 
seinhorsti  This species is not listed in NZOR (2021) and is regulated (ONZPR 2021). 
The species is a root infecting nematode (CABI 2020; Vovlas 1983). It is also 
associated with soil. CABI (2021) stats that it is spread via soil and root, but is 
not spread via other plant parts including fruit. No evidence was found of the 
species being associated with plant parts other than roots.  
Longidorus 
elongatus  This species is not listed in NZOR (2021) but is regulated (ONZPR 2021). 
This is a root associated nematode and is not considered to be associated 
with the commodity ( CABI 2021 ).  
Longidorus  sp. Although Longidorus  spp. have been isolated from pineapple fields they were 
found associated with soil rather than fruits or above ground plant parts 
(Sirengo 2020). Members of the genus are ectoparasitic and are detected by 
isolation from soil. They feed on host roots (EPPO  2021 ). No evidence found 
indicates it is  associated with the commodity.  
Meloidogyne 
acronea  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) and has a regulatory status of 'not 
assessed' in ONZPR (2021). Members of the family Heteroderinae feed on 
developing roots ( Ferris  2021). No evidence that they are associated with 
other plant parts.  
Meloidogyne 
arenaria  The species is listed as present in NZOR (2021) and has a regulatory status 
of 'not assessed' in ONZPR (2021). Members of the family Heterod erinae feed 
on developing roots ( Ferris  2021). No evidence that they are associated with 
other plant parts.  
Meloidogyne 
enterolobii  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) and has a regulatory status of 'not 
assessed' in ONZPR (2021). Members of the family Heteroderinae feed on 
developing roots ( Ferris  2021). No evidence that they are associated with 
other plant parts.  
Meloidogyne hapla  This species is present in New Zealand (NZOR 2021) and is non -regulated 
(ONZPR 2021).  
Meloidogyne 
incognita  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) and has a regulatory status of 'not 
assessed' in ONZPR (2021). Members of the family Heteroderinae feed on 
developing roots ( Ferris  2021). No evidence that they are associated with 
other plant parts.  
Meloidogyne 
javanica  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) and has a regulatory status of 'not 
assessed' in ONZPR (2021). Members of the family Heteroderinae feed on 
developing roots ( Ferris  2021). No evidence that they are associated with 
other plant part s.  
Meloidogyne 
konaensis  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) and has a regulatory status of 'not 
assessed' in ONZPR (2021). Members of the family Heteroderinae feed on 
developing roots ( Ferris  2021). No evidence that they are associated with 
other plant parts.  
Meloidogyne  sp. Members of the family Heteroderinae feed on developing roots (nemaplex 
2021). No evidence that they are associated with other plant parts.   
436 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Mesocriconema 
curvatum  This species is not listed in NZOR (2021) and is regulated (ONZPR 2021). 
This species is found in soil and feeds on roots ( Ferris  2021). Therefore, it is 
not considered to be associated with the commodity.   
Mesocriconema 
denoudeni  This species i s not listed in NZOR (2021) or ONZPR (2021). Members of the 
family Criconematidae feed ectoparasitically on plant roots, some at root tips, 
others in more mature regions of the root ( Ferris  2021). No evidence that they 
are associated with other plant parts . 
Mesocriconema 
ferniae  This species is not listed in NZOR (2021) or ONZPR (2021). Members of the 
family Criconematidae feed ectoparasitically on plant roots, some at root tips, 
others in more mature regions of the root ( Ferris  2021). No evidence that they 
are associated with other plant parts.  
Mesocriconema 
onoense  This species is not listed in NZOR (2021) or ONZPR (2021). Members of the 
family Criconematidae feed ectoparasitically on plant roots, some at root tips, 
others in more mature regions of the root ( Ferris  2021). No evidence that they 
are associated with other plant parts.  
Mesocriconema 
xenoplax  This species is not listed in NZOR (2021), but is non -regulated ONZPR 
(2021). Members of the family Criconematidae feed ecto parasitically on plant 
roots, some at root tips, others in more mature regions of the root ( Ferris  
2021). No evidence that they are associated with other plant parts.  
Paratylenchus 
bukowinensis  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) and is regulated (ONZPR 2021). 
Members of the family Criconematidae feed ectoparasitically on plant roots, 
some at root tips, others in more mature regions of the root ( Ferris  2021). No 
evidence found that they are associated with other plant parts  
Paratylenchus  
minutus  The species is present in New Zealand (NZOR 2021) and is not listed in 
ONZPR (2021). Members of the family Criconematidae feed ectoparasitically 
on plant roots, some at root tips, others in more mature regions of the root 
(Ferris  2021). No evidenc e that they are associated with other plant parts.  
Paratylenchus  sp. Members of the family Criconematidae feed ectoparasitically on plant roots, 
some at root tips, others in more mature regions of the root ( Ferris  2021). No 
evidence that they are associat ed with other plant parts.  
Pratylenchus 
brachyurus  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) and is regulated ONZPR (2021). The 
entire lifecycle of species in the genus occur in or associated with soil and 
roots (Davis and MacGuidwin 2000) . The species are not associated with 
other plant parts and therefore  are not associated with the commodity.  
Pratylenchus 
coffeae  The species is present in New Zealand NZOR (2021) and is non -regulated 
ONZPR (2021).  
Pratylenchus 
goodeyi  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) and has a regulatory status as 
'unassessed' in ONZPR (2021). The entire lifecycle of species in the genus 
occur in or associated with soil and roots (Davis and MacGidwin 2000). The 
species are not associated with ot her plant parts and therefore are not 
associated with the commodity.  
Pratylenchus 
pratensis  The species is present in New Zealand (NZOR 2021) and is non -regulated 
(ONZPR 2021).  
Pratylenchus  sp.  The entire lifecycle of species in the genus occur in or associated with soil and 
roots (Davis and MacGidwin 2000). The species are not associated with other 
plant parts and therefore are not associated with the commodity.   
437 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Pratylenchus zeae  The species i s not listed in NZOR (2021) and is regulated ONZPR (2021). The 
entire lifecycle of species in the genus occur in or associated with soil and 
roots (Davis and MacGidwin 2000). The species are not associated with other 
plant parts and therefore are not assoc iated with the commodity.  
Quinisulcius curvus  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) and is regulated (ONZPR 2021). 
Members of the genus are associated with soil and roots (Hussain and Iqbal 
2019). No evidence was found of them infecting other plant pa rts and is not 
considered associated with the commodity.  
Radopholus similis  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) and is regulated (ONZPR 2021).The 
species is root associated and completes its life cycle in plant roots (Sekora 
and Crow 2018) . Not associated with other plant parts and therefore not 
considered to be associated wi th the commodity.  
Rotylenchulus 
reniformis  The species is present in New Zealand (NZOR 2021) but is regulated 
(ONZPR 2021). The entire lifecycle of the species takes place in or in 
association with plant roots (Wang 2019). Not described as being associat ed 
with any other plant parts and is therefore not considered associated with the 
commodity.  
Rotylenchulus  sp.  These are semi -endoparasites of roots ( Ferris  2019) and are therefore not 
considered associated with the commodity.  
Rotylenchus 
robustus  The species is present in New Zealand (NZOR 2021) and is non -regulated 
(ONZPR 2021).  
Scutellonema 
brachyurus  The species is present in New Zealand (NZOR 2021) and is not listed in 
ONZPR (2021). Members of this genus would not be associated with t he 
pathway as they feed on roots (Whitehead 1959; Demeure et al. 1980) . No 
evidence was found of the affecting other plant parts and are therefore not 
considered to be associated with the commodity.  
Scutellonema 
bradys  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021), but is regulated (ONZPR 2021). It is 
an endoparasite of roots and tubers and also present in soils around the host 
plant ( CABI 2021). No evidence that the species is associated with other plant 
parts and therefore not associated with the commo dity.  
Scutellonema 
siamense  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) or ONZPR (2021). The species has 
been found associated with rhizosphere soil of pineapple (Timm 1965) , but no 
evidence was found of it associated with pineapple fruit. Members of this 
genus feed on roots (Whitehead 1959; Demeure et al. 1980)  and are therefore 
not considered to be associated with the commodity.   
Scutellonema  sp.  Assumed to be covered by species assessments.  
Sphaeronema  sp. All results for members of this genus related to their association with roots . No 
evidence was found of species affecting other plant parts and are therefore 
not considered to be associated with the commodity.  
Trichodorus 
primitivus  The species is present in New Zealand (NZOR 2021), bit is l isted as regulated 
(ONZPR 2021). Trichodoridae are polyphagous root -ectoparasites; they also 
vector viruses (Decraemer and Robbins 2007 ) . No evidence was found that 
they are associated with other plant parts, so are not considered to be 
associated with th e commodity   
438 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Tylenchorhynchus 
annulatus  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) but is regulated in ONZPR (2021). 
The species is reported isolated form soil samples and other references to the 
nematode are related to damage to plant roots ( Ferris  2021). No evidence 
was found of the species associated with other plant parts and therefore is not 
considered associated with the commodity.  
Tylenchorhynchus 
digitatus  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) or ONZPR (2021). Members of the 
family are generally true ectoparasites on epidermal cells and root hairs, but 
capable of endoparasitic feeding on some hosts; all the reports of 
Tylenchorhynchus  spp. were from soils  (Ferris  2021). No evidence was found 
of them associated with other plant parts and therefore are not considered to 
be associated with the commodity.  
Tylenchorhynchus  
sp.  Assumed to be covered by species assessments.  
Tylenchus sp.  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) or ONZPR (2021). Members of the 
family are generally true ectoparasites on epidermal cells and root hairs, but 
capable of endoparasitic feeding on some hosts; all the reports of 
Tylenchorhynchus  spp. were from soils  (Ferris  2021). No evidence was found 
of them associated with other plant parts and therefore are not considered to 
be associated with the commodity.  
Xiphinema 
brasiliense  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) and is regulated (ONZPR 2021). 
Longidoridae are polyphagous root -ectoparasites and also vector viruses 
(Decraemer and Robbins 2007). No evidence that they are associated with 
other plant parts, so not considered associated with the commodity  
Xiphinema 
brevicolle  This species is present  in New Zealand (NZOR 2021) and is non -regulated 
(ONZPR 2021).  
Xiphinema 
elongatum  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) and is regulated (ONZPR 2021). 
Longidoridae are polyphagous root -ectoparasites and also vector viruses 
(Decraemer and Robbins 2007). No evidence that they are associated with 
other plant parts, so not considered associated with the commodity  
Xiphinema 
ensiculiferum  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) and is regulated (ONZPR 2021). 
Longidoridae are polyphagous root -ectoparasites and also vector viruses 
(Decraemer and Robbins 2007). No evidence that they are associated with 
other plant parts, so not considered associated with the commodity  
Xiphinema ifacolum  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) or ONZPR (2021). The species is 
not listed in NZOR (2021) and is regulated (ONZPR 2021). Longidoridae are 
polyphagous root -ectoparasites and also vector viruses (Decraemer and 
Robbins 2007). No evidence that they are associated with other plant part s, 
so not considered associated with the commodity  
Xiphinema insigne  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021) and is regulated (ONZPR 2021). 
Longidoridae are polyphagous root -ectoparasites and also vector viruses 
(Decraemer and Robbins 2007). No evidence that they are associated with 
other plant parts, so not considered associated with the commodity.  
Xiphinema 
radicicola  The species is present in New Zealand (NZOR 2021) but is not listed in 
ONZPR (2021). Longidoridae are polyphagous root-ectoparasites and also 
vector viruses (Decraemer and Robbins 2007). No evidence that they are 
associated with other plant parts, so not considered associated with the 
commodity.  
Oomycete   
439 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Aphanomyces  sp.  No information was found that diseases occurs on fruit (Google/Google 
scholar Aphanomyces). Therefore, it is not considered associated with the 
pathway.  
Globisporangium 
acanthophoron  The species is not recorded in NZFungi (2021). It is regulated as Pythi um 
acanthophoron  (ONZPR 2021), which appears to be the name commonly 
used in the literature. References found relate to the species as a 
mycoparasite and as a root rot pathogen (Google and Google scholar: 
'Pythium acanthophoron' and 'Globisporangium acanth ophoron'). In the 
current IHS for fresh pineapple from Ecuador, the species is listed as a root 
rot. No evidence was found of the species associated with fruit (Google and 
Google scholar: 'Globisporangium acanthophoron' and pineapple, and 
'Pythium acanthop horon' and pineapple, and Pythium acanthophoron fruit and 
Globisporangium acanthophoron fruit). Therefore, it was determined that the 
species is not associated with the pathway.  
Globisporangium 
debaryanum  NZFungi (2021) states that the presence of the species in New Zealand is 
uncertain, as although there are collections under the name Pythium 
debaryanum , this name has been misapplied on occasion and the cultures 
should be re -examined. Pythium species are g enerally associated with soil 
and cause root disease. CABI (2021) states that the pathogen affects the 
whole plant at the pre -emergence and seedling stage and is not carried on 
fruits. All but on record in Farr and Rossman (2021) related to root rot and 
damping off. The one record of fruit rot is from watermelon (Farr an d 
Rossman 2021), which is likely to have occurred following contact with the 
soil. The record of the species affecting pineapple in Hawaii relates to root rot 
(Raabe et al. 2009) . No evidence was found in Google and Google scholar 
searches ('Globisporangiu m debaryanum' and pineapple, and 'Pythium 
debaryanum' and pineapple) of the pathogen causing disease on pineapple 
fruits. Therefore, it was determined that the species is not associated with the 
pathway.  
Globisporangium 
intermedium  Globisporangium interme dium  is listed as present in New Zealand (Robertson 
1980; NZFungi 2021). No subspecific taxa were found, which may not be 
present in New Zealand.  
Globisporangium 
irregulare  Present in New Zealand (NZFungi 2021) and non -regulated (ONZPR 2021). 
There are multiple collections of the species from different regions of New 
Zealand and on different hosts. No evidence found that G. irregulare  
associated with pineapple represents a st rain not present in New Zealand.  
Globisporangium 
mamillatum  Present in New Zealand (NZFungi 2021) and non -regulated (ONZPR 2021). 
There are multiple collections of the species from different regions of New 
Zealand and on different hosts. No evidence found that G. irregulare  
associated with pineapple represents a st rain not present in New Zealand.  
Globisporangium 
megalacanthum  Present in New Zealand (NZFungi 2021) and non -regulated as P. 
megalacanthum  (ONZPR 2021). There is a collection of the species from NZ. 
No evidence found that isolates from pineapple represent a strain not present 
in New Zealand.  
Globisporangium 
rostratum  Present in New Zealand (NZFungi 2021) and non -regulated as P. rostratum  
(ONZPR 2021). There are collections of the species from different regions of 
New Zealand. No evidence found that isolates from pineapple represent a 
strain not present in New Zealand.   
440 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Globisporangium 
spinosum  Present in New Zealand (NZFungi 2021) and non -regulated as P. rostratum  
(ONZPR 2021). There are collections of the species from different regions of 
New Zealand. No evidence found that isolates from pineapple represent a 
strain not present in New Zealand.  
Globisporangium 
splendens  Present in New Zealand (NZFungi 2021) and non -regulated as P. splendens  
(ONZPR 2021). There are collections of the species from New Zealand. No 
evidence found that isolates from pineapple represent a strain not present in 
New Zealand.  
Phytophthora 
cactoru m Present in New Zealand (NZFungi 2021) and is non -regulated (ONZPR 2021). 
There are collections of the species from New Zealand. No evidence found 
that isolates from pineapple represent a strain not present in New Zealand.  
Phytophthora 
capsici  No evidence was found of the species being associated with pineapple: 
Google/Google Scholar: Phytophthora capsici pineapple/ Ananas). Other 
species of Phytoplthora assessed were not associated with the commodity.  
Phytophthora 
cinnamomi  This species is present in New Zealand (BiotaNZ 2022) and non -regulated 
(ONZPR 2022).  
Phytophthora 
citrophthora  This species is present in New Zealand (NZFungi 2021) and is non -regulated 
(ONZPR 2021). No evidence found that isolates from pineapple represent a 
strain not present in New Zealand.  
Phytophthora 
drechsleri  The presence of this species in New Zealand is uncertain (NZFungi 2021), but 
is reported as present in PPIN (2021). Although other Phytophthora species 
have been associated with heart rot of pineapple (Anderson et al. 2012; Shen 
et al. 2013) , no evidence w as found of P. drechsleri  causing this disease 
(Google/Google scholar searches Phytophthora drechsleri pineapple). There 
was also no evidence found of the pathogen associated with pineapple fruit 
(Google and Google Scholar search: Phytophthora drechsleri p ineapple fruit 
and Phytophthora drechsleri ananas fruit).  
Phytophthora 
infestans  The species is present in New Zealand (NZOR 2021). The A1 mating strain is 
non-regulated, whereas the A2 mating strain is regulated (ONZPR 2021). No 
evidence of P. infestans  associated with pineapple was found (Google/Google 
scholar Phytophthora infestans pineapple). Pineapple is not listed as a host in 
Farr and Rossman (2021) , CABI (2021) or (K.; et al. 1994) . 
Phytophthora 
meadii  The species is present in New Zealand (NZFungi 2021). The regulatory status 
is listed as 'under assessment' (ONZPR 2021).  No evidence that P. meadii  
associated with pineapple represents a strain not present in New Zealand  
Phytophthora 
megakarya  The species is not listed in NZFungi (2021) and has a regulatory status of 'not 
assessed' in ONZPR (2021). The species is not present in the exporting 
markets . This species is confined to West Africa (Akrofi 2015) . The CABI 
(2021) distribution table list Papua New Guinea  as also having the pathogen, 
however no primary sources were found for this and no other records outside 
of Africa were found.  
Phytophthora 
nicotianae  The species is present in New Zealand (NZFungi 2021) and is non -regulated 
(ONZPR 2021). P. nicotianae  var. parasitica  is also present in New Zealand 
(NZFungi 2021). There are collections of the species (inc. var. parasitica) from  
New Zealand (NZFungi 2021 ). No evidence found that isolates from pineapple 
represent a strain not present in New Zealand.   
441 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Phytophthora 
palmivora  This species  is one of the phytophthoras that cause heart rot of pineapple 
(Bartholomew and Malézieux 1994; Shen et al. 2013) . The disease causes 
rotting at the base of the leaves, in the centre of the leaf whorl (heart) of 
young flowering plants . As the disease progr esses the plant collapses and 
dies (Shen et al. 2013). Bartholomew and Malézieux (1994 ) describe that the 
inital symptoms are failure of the young leaves to elongate. Later symptoms 
are yellowing to bronzing of the young leaves, which may then lean to one 
side of the plant. Phytophthora infections are limited to the stem and basal 
white portion of the leaves. There is no mention of the pathogen affecting fruit. 
Green and Nelson (2015)  describe that although the main disease symptoms 
are rotting of leaves, t he pathogen can move through the plant of susceptible 
varieties and rot the fruit. The pictures associated with this show a small fruit 
rotted on the plant. It is unlikely that such fruit would be harvested or if it was 
by mistake, that it would  be removed  during cleaning/packing. Therefore, 
unlikely to be assocaited with the pathway.   
Phytophthora  sp. Assumed to be covered by species assessments.  
Phytopythium 
indigoferae  The species is not recorded in NZFungi (2021) or (ONZPR 2021). Google and 
Google scholar results (searches 'P. indigoferae fruit' and 'P. indigoferae 
pineapple fruit') related to the pathogen causing root rot. All evidence of the 
species being associated w ith pineapple refers to it causing root rot. No 
evidence was found that the pathogen has been isolated associated with 
pineapple fruit.  
Phytopythium 
vexans  The species is present in New Zealand (NZFungi 2021) and is non -regulated 
(ONZPR 2021) and there a re collections of the species from New Zealand 
(NZFungi 2021). No evidence found that isolates from pineapple represent a 
strain not present in New Zealand.  
Pythium 
acanthicum  This species is present in New Zealand (NZFungi 2021) and is non-regulated 
(ONZPR 2021).  There are collections of the species from New Zealand. No 
evidence found that isolates from pineapple represent a strain not present in 
New Zealand.  
Pythium 
aphanidermatum  The species is recorded as absent from New Zealand (NZ Fungi 2021) and is 
regulated (ONZPR 2021). No evidence was found of the species on pineapple 
fruit (Google/Google scholar searches Pythium aphanidermatum pineapple 
fruit and Pythium aphanidermatum Ananas comosus fruit). Therefore, no 
evidence was found of the species being associated with the commodity or 
pathway.  
Pythium 
arrhenomanes  This species is present in New Zealand (NZFungi 2021) and is non -regulated 
(ONZPR 2021).  There are collections of the species from New Zealand. No 
evidence found that isolates from pineapple represent a strain not present in 
New Zealand.  
Pythium butleri  The species is present in New Zealand (NZFungi 2021) but is not listed in 
ONZPR (2021). In NZFungi, no synonyms are given. A Google search failed 
to identify any synonyms. However, the species is regulated in ONZPR as a 
synonym of P. aphanidermatum. Not pr oceeded as recorded as present and 
no valid synonyms found.    
Pythium 
graminicola  This species is present in New Zealand (NZFungi 2021) and is non -regulated 
(ONZPR 2021).  There are collections of the species from New Zealand. No 
evidence found that isolates from pineapple represent a strain not present in 
New Zealand.   
442 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Pythium 
hydnosporum  The species is present in New Zealand (NZFungi 2021) and is non -regulated 
(ONZPR 2021). Furthermore, as per the 2001 Australian risk assessment for 
pineapple in 200 1 the pathogen is not associated with the pathway.  
Pythium myriotylum  The species is p resent in New Zealand (NZFungi 2021) and is non -regulated 
(ONZPR 2021). No evidence found that isolates from pineapple represent a 
strain not present in New Zealand.  
Pythium 
polymorphon  The species is not listed in NZFungi (2021) and is non -regulated under P. 
irregulare  (ONZPR 2021). Farr and Rossman (2021) also list these as 
synonyms but they are not in NZFungi. In addition, a search in Google 
Scholar, Index  Fungorum, Mycobank, has not found evidence on it being 
associated with fruit of pineapple. Index Fungorum records that it is "on root of 
Ananas sativus".  
Pythium  sp. Assumed to be covered by species assessments.  
Pythium torulosum  The species is present in New Zealand (NZFungi 2021) and is non -regulated 
(ONZPR 2021).  There are collections of the species from New Zealand. No 
evidence found that isolates from pineapple represent a strain not present in 
New Zealand.  
Phytoplasma  
"Candidatus  
Phytoplasma" 
(16SrXII)  Given that phytoplasmas are spread through propagation of infected plant 
material and vectors, there is no plausible means of establishment from 
pineapple fruit. Particularly as the commodity description requires decrown ing 
and therefore is unable to be propagated. (EFSA 2015)  consider infected fruit 
unlikely to represent an efficient entry pathway for vector -transmitted 
pathogens.  
"Candidatus  
Phytoplasma 
asteris"  There is no record of "Candidatus Phytoplasma asteris" in  NZFungi (2021), 
NZOR (2021), PPIN ( 2021 ), or Veerakone et al. (2015) . The phytoplasma is 
regulated (ONZPR 2021). "Candidatus Phytoplasma asteris" has been 
reported associated with pineapple shoot proliferation in the Wallis and 
Futuna territory (Davis et al. 2005) , and in India causing witches broom and 
shoot proliferation (Mitra et al. 2019) . Given that phytoplasmas are spread 
through propagation of infected plant material and vectors, there is no 
plausible means of establishment from pineapple fruit. Par ticularly as the 
commodity description requires decrown ing and therefore is unable to be 
propagated. EFSA (2015) consider infected fruit unlikely to represent an 
efficient entry pathway for vector -transmitted pathogens.  
"Candidatus  
Phytoplasma 
prunorum"  There is no record of Ca. P. prunorum in NZFungi (2021), NZOR (2021), PPIN 
(2018) or Veerakone et al. (2015). It is regulated in ONZRP (2021). This 
phytoplasma was reported from pineapple (variety ‘Mayanes” -crown leaves 
exhibited wi tches’ broom symptoms) in East Colombia. This is a first detection 
of Ca. P. prunorum on the American continent (Satta et al. 2015) . A vector 
was not identified by the authors. No further evidence of this phytoplasma in 
South America, or of it associated w ith pineapples was found. Given that 
phytoplasmas are spread through propagation of infected plant material and 
vectors, there is no plausible means of establishment from pineapple fruit. 
Particularly as the commodity description requires decrown ing and th erefore 
is unable to be propagated. EFSA (2015) consider infected fruit unlikely to 
represent an efficient entry pathway for vector -transmitted pathogens. This 
phytoplasma has also not been reported from the current (2021) pineapple 
exporting markets .   
443 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  "Candidatus  
Phytoplasma 
solani"  "Candidatus  Phytoplasma solani" is not known from New Zealand. It is not 
recorded in NZFungi (2021) or PPIN (2021) and is regulated in ONZPR 
(2021). Given that phytoplasmas are spread through propagation of infected 
plant mat erial and vectors, there is no plausible means of establishment from 
pineapple fruit. Particularly as the commodity description requires decrown ing 
and therefore is unable to be propagated. EFSA (2015) consider infected fruit 
unlikely to represent an effic ient entry pathway for vector -transmitted 
pathogens.  
Virus  
Ananas metavirus  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021), Veerakone et al. (2015 ) or ONZPR 
(2021 ). Very little information on this virus. All results (Google and Google 
scholar of Ananas metavirus) related to the virus associated with pineapple 
(Gambley et al. 2008) . Therefore, based on available information unlikely to 
establish and cause impacts in NZ. If further hosts are identified, may need to 
be reassessed.  
Capsicum chlorosis 
orthotospovirus  CaCV is transmitted by thrip vectors  Frankliniella occidentalis  (Sun et al. 
2018) , Frankliniella shultzei , Thrips palmi  and Ceratothripoides claratris  
(Rotenberg et al. 2015). In general Tospoviruses are transmitted by thrips 
vectors in a persistant, propagative manner (Rotenberg et al. 2015 ) . No 
evidence was found that the virus is naturally transmitted via soil (Google 
schol ar/google searches; tomatoesnz). Of the described vectors, F. 
occidentalis  is present in New Zealand (NZOR 2021). In the MPI (2022)  it was 
determined that there is no feasable route of establishment for vector 
transmitted pathogens that are associated with  fresh fruit. This conclusion is 
also shared by EFSA  (2015)  and DEFRA (2020)  that do not consider that 
infected fresh fruit is an efficinet entry pathway for X. fastidiosa . Vectors of 
pathogens are considered seperately.     
Cucumber mosaic 
virus  Cucumber mosaic virus  is present in New Zealand and has been isolated from 
many host species (Veerakone et al. 2015). The species is recorded as non -
regulated in ONZPR (2021). No evidence was found that isolates from 
pineapple represent a strain that is not present in New Zealand.  
endogenous  Pineap
ple pararetrovirus -1 There is n ot much information about this virus, however, all of the information 
found related to infection of pineapple plants (Hernandez -Rodriguez et al. 
2013) . No evidence of other hosts was found (Google and Google scholar). 
Therefore, exposure  and establishment in New Zealand  are unlikely.  
Pineapple 
bacilliform CO virus  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021), Veerakone et al. (2015) or ONZPR 
(2021). All evidence found relating to these viruses identified pineapple as the 
only host (Gambley et al. 2008; Borah et al. 2013) . No evidence was found of 
other hosts being infec ted by the virus and therefore, exposure  and 
establishment is unlikely.  
Pineapple 
bacilliform ER virus  The species is not listed in NZOR (2021), Veerakone et al. (2015) or ONZPR 
(2021). All evidence found relating to these viruses identified pineapple as the 
only host (Borah et al. 2013; Gambley et al. 2008). No evidence was found of 
other hosts being infec ted by the virus and therefore, exposure and 
establishment is unlikely.  
Pineapple chlorotic 
leaf streak virus  No information found. Google and Google Scholar of 'Pineapple chlorotic leaf 
streak virus' did not find any information that this is an identifi ed virus of 
pineapples.   
444 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Pineapple 
mealybug wilt -
associated virus  The species is not recorded in Veerakone et al. (2015) and the regulatory 
status is listed as ‘not assessed’ (ONZPR 2021). From information found the 
hosts are limited to Ananas and Pseudoananas species (Hu et al. 2005; 
Jackson 2019) . Therefore, based on a vailable information unlikely to establish 
in New Zealand based on a lack of host availability. If further hosts are 
identified, such as through the emerging risk system, this may need to be 
reassessed.  
Pineapple 
mealybug wilt -
associated virus 1  The species is not recorded in Veerakone et al. (2015) and the regulatory 
status is listed as ‘not assessed’ (ONZPR 2021). From information found the 
hosts are limited to Ananas and Pseudoananas species (Hu et al. 2005; 
Jackson 2019) . Therefore, based on a vailable information unlikely to establish 
and cause impacts in New Zealand, based on a lack of host availability. If 
further hosts are identified, such as through the emerging risk system, this 
may need to be reassessed.  
Pineapple 
mealybug wilt-
associated virus 2  The species is not recorded in Veerakone et al. (2015) and the regulatory 
status is listed as ‘not assessed’ (ONZPR 2021). From information found the 
hosts are limited to Ananas and Pseudoananas species (Hu et al. 2005; 
Jackson 2019 ). Therefore, based on available information unlikely to establish 
and cause impacts in New Zealand, based on a lack of host availability. If 
further hosts are identified, such as through the emerging risk system, this 
may need to be reassessed.  
Pineapple  
mealybug wilt -
associated virus 3  The species is not recorded in Veerakone et al. (2015) and the regulatory 
status is listed as ‘not assessed’ (ONZPR 2021). From information found the 
hosts are limited to Ananas and Pseudoananas species (Hu et al. 2005; 
Jackson 2019) . Therefore, based on available information unlikely to establish 
and cause impacts in New Zealand, based on a lack of host availability. If 
further hosts are identified, such as through the emerging risk system, this 
may need to be reassessed.  
Pineapple 
mealybug wilt -
associated virus 4  The species is not recorded in Veerakone et al. (2015) ONZPR (2021). From 
information found the hosts are limited to Ananas and Pseudoananas species 
(Hu et al. 2005; Jackson 2019) . Therefore, based on available i nformation 
unlikely to establish and cause impacts in New Zealand, based on a lack of 
host availability. If further hosts are identified, such as through the emerging 
risk system, this may need to be reassessed.  
Pineapple 
mealybug wilt -
associated virus 5  The species is not recorded in Veerakone et al. (2015) ONZPR (2021). From 
information found the hosts are limited to Ananas and Pseudoananas species 
(Hu et al. 2005; Jackson 2019) . Therefore, based on available information 
unlikely to establish and cause i mpacts in New Zealand, based on a lack of 
host availability. If further hosts are identified, such as through the emerging 
risk system, this may need to be reassessed.  
Tomato spotted wilt 
orthotospovirus  The species is present in New Zealand (Veerakone et al. 2015) and is non -
regulated (ONZPR 2021). No evidence was found that the virus isolated from 
pineapple represents a strain not present in New Zealand.  
 
References for Appendix 1  
Aeny, T N; Suharjo, R; Ginting, C; Hapsoro, D; Niswati, A (2020) Characterization and host 
range assessment of Dickeya zeae  associated with pineapple soft rot disease in East Lampung, 
Indonesia. Biodiversitas Journal of Biological Diversity 21(2).  
  
445 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Aguilar -Piedra, H G (2001) Tydeidae of citrus from selected countries: Distribution, seasonal 
occurence, relative abundance, and feeding habits (Acari: Prostigmata). University of  Florida.  
 
Ajvad, F T; Madadi, H; Michaud, J; Zafari, D; Khanjani, M (2018) Life tab le of Gaeolaelaps 
aculeifer (Acari: Laelapidae) feeding on larvae of Lycoriella auripila (Diptera: Sciaridae) with 
stage -specific estimates of consumption. Biocontrol Science and Technology 28(2): 157 -171. 
 
Akol, A M; Chidege, M Y; Talwana, H A L; Mauremoo too, J R (2011) White Grubs. 
https://keys.lucidcentral.org/keys/v3/eafrinet/maize_pests/key/maize_pests/Media/Html/Whit
e_Grubs.htm  
 
Akrofi, A Y (2015) Phytophthora megakarya : A review on its status as a pathogen on cacao 
in West Africa.  . African Crop Sci ence Journal 23(1): 67 –87. 
 
AMAF (2020) Intra -ASEAN phytosanitary guidelines for the importation of fresh pineapple 
fruit (Ananas comosus) for consumption.  
 
Anderson, J M; Pegg, K G; Scott, C; Drenth, A (2012) Phosphonate applied as a pre -plant dip 
contro ls Phytophthora cinnamomi  root and heart rot in susceptible pineapple hybrids.  . 
Australasian Plant Pathology 41(1): 59 –68. 
 
APHIS (1979) List of intercepted plant pests. Pest recorded from July 1, 1973 through 
September 30, 1977. Animal and Plant Health I nspection Srvice. US Department of 
Agriculture . 
 
APS (2021) Diseases of Pineapple (Ananas comosus (L.) Merr.). 
https://www.apsnet.org/edcenter/resources/commonnames/Pages/Pineapple.aspx Accessed 
October 2021  
 
Armstrong, J; Jang, E (1997) An overview of pre sent and future fruit fly research in Hawaii 
and the US mainland. In ACIAR PROCEEDINGS  (pp. 30 -42): Australian Centre for 
International Agricultural Research.  
 
Armstrong, J; Vriesenga, J; Lee, C (1979) Resistance of pineapple varieties D -10 and D -20 to 
field populations of oriental fruit flies and melon flies. Journal of Economic Entomology 
72(1): 6 -7. 
 
Armstrong, J W; Vargas, R (1982) Resistance of pineapple variety ‘59 -656’to field 
populations of oriental fruit flies and melon flies (Diptera: Tephritidae). Journal of Economic 
Entomology 75(5): 781 -782. 
 
AssureQuality (2021) AssureQuality interception da ta. AssureQuality . 
 
Barral, B; Chillet, M; Doizy, A; Grassi, M; Ragot, L; Léchaudel, M; Durand, N; Rose, L J; 
Viljoen, A; Schorr -Galindo, S (2020) Diversity and Toxigenicity of Fungi that Cause 
Pineapple Fruitlet Core Rot. Toxins 12(5): 339.  
 
Bartholomew, D P; Malézieux, E (1994) Pineapple. Handbook of environmental physiology of 
fruit crops 2: 243 –291. 
  
446 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Beard, J J; Ochoa, R; Bauchan, G R; Trice, M D; Redford, A J; Walters, T W; Mitter, C 
(2012) Flat Mites of the World Edition 2. Identification Technology Program, CPHST, PPQ, 
APHIS, USDA. Accessed October 2021  
 
Ben-Dov, Y (1994) A systematic catalogue of the mealybugs of the world (Insecta: 
Homoptera: Coccoidea: Pseudococcidae and Putoidae) with data on geographical distribution, 
host plants, biology and economic importance. Intercept Limited; Andover UK.  
 
BiotaNZ (2022) Biota of New Zealand. https://biotaNZ.landcareresearch.co.nz Accessed 
30/04/2022  
 
BMIG (2021) Porcellio laevis Latreille, 1804. https://www.bmig.org.uk/species/porc ellio-
laevis#tabs -0-tabs-2  
 
Bolton, B (2007) Taxonomy of the dolichoderine ant genus Technomyrmex Mayr 
(Hymenoptera: Formicidae) based on the worker caste. Contributions of the American 
Entomological Institute.  
 
Borah, B K; Sharma, S; Kant, R; Johnson, A  A; Saigopal, D V R; Dasgupta, I (2013) 
Bacilliform DNA‐containing plant viruses in the tropics: commonalities within a genetically 
diverse group.  . Molecular Plant Pathology 14(8): 759 –771. 
 
BPI (2000) List of insect pest of pineapple in the Philippines. List submitted to the Australian 
Quarantine and Inspection Service . Bureau of Plant Industry, Philippines . 
 
Brady, C L; Venter, S N; Cleenwerck, I; Vandemeulebroecke, K; De Vos, P; Coutinho, T A 
(2010) Transfer of Pantoea citrea , Pantoea punctata and Panto ea terrea  to the genus 
Tatumella emend. as Tatumella citrea  comb. nov., Tatumella punctata  comb. nov and 
Tatumella terrea  comb. nov and description of Tatumella morbirosei sp nov. International 
journal of systematic and evolutionary microbiology 60(3): 484 -494. 
 
Brncic, D (1987) A review of the genus Drosophila Fallen (Diptera: Drosophilidae) in Chile 
with the description of Drosophila atacamensis sp. nov. Revista chilena de entomología 15: 
37-60. 
 
Bull, C T; De Boer, S; Denny, T; Firrao, G; Fischer -Le Saux , M; Saddler, G; Scortichini, M; 
Stead, D; Takikawa, Y (2012) List of new names of plant pathogenic bacteria Prepared by the 
International Society of Plant Pathology Committee on the Taxonomy of Plant Pathogenic 
Bacteria (ISPP -CTPPB). Journal of Plant Path ology : 21-27. 
 
Bull, C T; De Boer, S; Denny, T; Firrao, G; Saux, M F -L; Saddler, G; Scortichini, M; Stead, 
D; Takikawa, Y (2010) Comprehensive list of names of plant pathogenic bacteria, 1980 -2007. 
Journal of Plant Pathology : 551 -592. 
 
CABI (2021) Crop Pro tection Compendium. www.cabi.org/cpc Accessed October 2021  
 
Cahill, M (1992) Eco -climatic assessment of Atherigona orientalis  (Diptera) and its pest 
potential in New Zealand. Bureau of Rural Resources . Canberra.  
 
Carter, W (1937) Aphis transmittal of Comme lina nudiflora Linnaeus mosaic to pineapple. 
Annals of the Entomological Society of America 30(1): 155 -161. 
  
447 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  CDFA (2018) New Guinea Sugarcane Weevil | Rhabdoscelus obscurus  (Boisduval) Accessed 
October 2021  
 
Choi, K -H; Kim, S -R; Cho, E -S; Yang, W -J; Jin, B -R; Takeda, M; Shon, H -D (2000) 
Developmental and life history characteristics of the oyster mushroom fly, Coboldia fuscipes  
(Diptera: Scatopsidae). Applied Entomology and Zoology 35(4): 495 –498. 
 
Cook, M (undated) Marasmius sacchari; a parasite on sugarcane: 213 -226. 
 
Couturier, G B, H; Zucchi, R A;  (1993) Thlastocoris laetus  Mayr, 1866 (hemiptera: coreidae: 
acanthocerini) nueva plaga de la piña.  . Scientia Agricola 50(3): 517 –520. 
 
Crane, J L; Crane, J L; J ones, A G (1997) An annotated catalogue of types of the University 
of Illinois mycological collections (ILL)  (No. 58). University of Illinois Press.  
 
Cruz, D R; Leandro, L F S; Munkvold, G P (2019) Effects of Temperature and pH on 
Fusarium oxysporum  and So ybean Seedling Disease. Plant Disease 103(12): 3234 -3243.  
 
Culik, M; Ventura, J; dos S. Martins, D (2007) Scale insects (Hemiptera: Coccidae) of 
pineapple in the State of Espírito Santo, Brazil. In VI International Pineapple Symposium 822  
(pp. 215 –218).  
 
da Silva Jorge, J; Silva -Jorge, J P; Santos, R L; Caliman, A; Freire, E M X (2021) Association 
of Strymon serapio (Lycaenidae: Theclinae) and Castnia invaria (Castniidae: Castniini) with 
the Habitat -Forming Bromeliad Encholirium spectabile  (Bromeliaceae: Pitcairnioideae) in the 
Brazilian Semiarid Caatinga. The Journal of the Lepidopterists' Society 75(1): 37 -43. 
 
DAFF (2001) Issues paper.  Import risk analaysis (IRA) for importation of fresh pineapple 
fruit. Biosecurity Australia (Vol. Comm onwealth of Australia, pp. 270). Canberra, Australia: 
Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Australia.  
 
DAFF (2002) Import Risk Analysis (IRA) for the Importation of Fresh Pineapple Fruit Draft 
IRA Report Part A. Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Fore stry. Australian 
Government.  Canberra, Australia.  
 
DAFF (2004) Longan and lychee fruit from the People's Republic of China and Thailand. 
Final Import Risk Analysis Report. Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry . 
Australian Government.  Canberra, Australia.  
 
DAFF (2012a) Final import risk analysis report for the importation of fresh decrowned 
pineapple ( Ananas comosus  (L.) Merr.) fruit from Malaysia. Department of Agriculture, 
Fisheries and Forestry . Australian Government.  Canberra, Australia.  
 
DAF F (2012b) Provisional final import risk analysis report for the importation of fresh 
decrowned pineapple ( Ananas comosus  (L.) Merr.) fruit from Malaysia. Department of 
Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry . Australian Government . Canberra, Australia.  
 
DAFF ( 2019a) Final group pest risk analysis for mealybugs and the viruses they transmit on 
fresh fruit, vegetable, cut flower and foliage imports. Department of Agriculture, Fisheries 
and Forestry . Australian Government.  Canberra, Australia.  
  
448 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  DAFF (2019b) Final report for the review of biosecurity import requirements for fresh 
decrowned pineapples from Taiwan. In D o Agriculture. (Ed.), (pp. 1 -109): Commonwealth 
of Australia.  
 
Davis, E L; MacGuidwin, A E (2000) Lesion nematode disease. 
https://www.apsnet.org/edcenter/disandpath/nematode/pdlessons/Pages/LesionNematode.aspx  
 
Davis, R I; Arocha, Y; Jones, P; Malay, A (2005) First report of the association of 
phytoplasmas with plan t diseases in the territory of Wallis and Futuna.  . Australasian Plant 
Pathology 34(3): 417 –418. 
 
de Melo, J P R; L;, V A F S (2012) Biological characteristics of the immature forms of 
pineapple stem borer, Castnia icarus  (Lepidoptera: Castniidae) under la boratory conditions. . 
Biológico 74(1): 5 –8. 
 
Decraemer, W; Robbins, R T (2007 ) The who, what and where of Longidoridae and 
Trichodoridae.  Journal of Nematology 39(4): 295.  
 
DEFRA (2020) Rapid Pest Risk Analysis (PRA) for: Xylella fastidiosa . Department o f 
Environment Food & Rural affairs . 
 
DEFRA (2021) Rapid pest risk analysis (PRA) for: Elasmopalpus lignosellus . In D f E F R 
Affairs (Ed.). UK.  
 
Demeure, Y; Netscher, C; Quénéhervé, P ( 1980) Biology of the plant -parasitic nematode 
Scutellonema cavenessi S her, 1964: reproduction, development and life cycle.  . Revue 
Nématol 3(2): 213 –225. 
 
Department of Agriculture (2019) Final report for the review of biosecurity import 
requirements for fresh decrowned pineapples from Taiwan. In D epartment  of Agriculture. 
Canberra, Australia.  
 
Dey, K K; Green, J C; Melzer, M; Borth, W; Hu, J S (2018) Mealybug wilt of pineapple and 
associated viruses. Horticulturae 4(4): 52.  
 
DHF (2010) Stinging and itchy caterpillars in the top end of the Northern Territory. Medical 
Entomolo gy, Centre for Disease control, Department of Health and Families  (Vol. 166).  
 
Díaz -Montaño, D M; Córdova, J D J R (2009) The fermentative and aromatic ability of 
Kloeckera and Hanseniaspora yeasts.  . Yeast biotechnology: Diversity and applications : 281 –
305. 
 
Dickinson, C H (1968) Gliomastix Guéguen. Mycological Papers 115: 1 -23. 
 
Drew, R; Allwood, A; Tau, D (1997) Bactrocera paraxanthodes Drew and Hancock -an 
example of how host records and attractant responses contribute to taxonomic research. In 
ACIAR PRO CEEDINGS  (pp. 131 -133): Australian Centre for International Agricultural 
Research.  
 
DSP (2016) Assara albicostalis https://dsp.myspecies.info/taxonomy/term/1452 Accessed 
October 2021  
  
449 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Dunford, J C; Barbara, K A (2021) Diphthera festiva . Featured Creatures . 
https://entnemdept.ufl.edu/creatures/veg/potato/hieroglyphic_moth.htm  Accessed Dec 2022  
 
EFSA (2015) Scientific Opinion on the risks to plant health posed by Xylella fastidiosa in the 
EU territory, with the identification and evaluation of risk reduction options. . EFSA Journal 
13(1): 3989.  
 
EFSA (2020) Pest categorisation of Exomala orientali s. In E P o P Health (Ed.), (Vol. 18, pp. 
e06103): European Food Safety Authority.  
 
El-Gholl, N E; Schubert, T S; Kimbrough, J W (1988 ) Echidnodes leaf spot of Tillandsia 
utriculata . . Plant Pathology Circular : 304.  
 
Emmel, T C (1991) A note on the life h istory of Dynastor napoleon  in southern Brazil 
(Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae: Brassolinae). . Tropical Lepidoptera 2(2): 151 -153. 
 
EPPO (2021) EPPO global database. https://gd.eppo.int/ Accessed October 2021  
 
Fain, A; Bochkov, A V; Corpuz -Raros, L A (2002) A r evision of the Hemicheyletia generic 
group (Acari: Cheyletidae). Bulletin de l'institut royal des sciences naturelles de belgique, 
Entomologie 72: 27 -66. 
 
Fan, Q -H; George, S; Li, D -M; Zhang, Z -Q (2015) Establishment of Oulenziella gen. nov. for 
Oulenzia b akeri (Hughes, 1962)(Acari: Winterschmidtiidae). Zootaxa 3949(2): 191 –202. 
 
Fan, Q; Zhang, Z (2007) Tyrophagus (Acari: Astigmata: Acaridae) fauna of New Zealand 56. 
Manaaki Whenua Press, Canterbury, New Zealand.  
 
Faraji, F; Bakker, F; Roig, J (2008) A new species and two new records of Phytoseiidae 
(Acari: Mesostigmata) from Spain. Revista Ibérica de Aracnología 16: 105 -111. 
 
Farr, D F; Rossman, A Y (2021) Fungal Databases, U.S. National Fungus Collections. 
https://nt.ars -grin.gov/fungaldatabases/ Accessed October 2021  
 
Ferreira, A; Pinho, D; Machado, A; Pereira, O (2014) First report of Curvularia eragrostidis 
causing postharvest rot on pineapple in Brazil. Plant Disease 98(9): 1277 -1277.  
 
Ferris, H (2021) Nemaplex. http://nemaplex.ucdavis.edu/Uppermnus/top mnu.htm# Accessed 
October 2021  
 
Frank, H (2014) Leafhoppers and planthoppers that eat bromeliads. 
https://entnemdept.ufl.edu/frank/bromeliadbiota/LEAFHOPBROM.HTM Accessed October 
2021  
 
Frank, J (1999) Bromeliad -eating weevils. Selbyana : 40-48. 
 
Gambley, C; Geering, A; Steele, V; Thomas, J (2008) Identification of viral and non -viral 
reverse transcribing elements in pineapple ( Ananas comosus ), including members of two new 
badnavirus species. Archives of Virology 153(8): 1599 -1604.  
 
García Morales,  M; Denno, B; Miller, D; Miller, G; Ben -Dov, Y; Hardy, N (2016) ScaleNet: 
A literature -based model of scale insect biology and systematics.   
450 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand   
GBIF.org (2021) Occurrence download. https://doi.org/10.15468/dl.f5juf8 Accessed October 
2021  
 
Gerson, U (2008) Th e Tenuipalpidae: An under -explored family of plant -feeding mites. 
Systematic and Applied Acarology 13(2): 83 -101. 
 
Gilligan, T M; E.;, E M (2014) Thaumatotibia leucotreta. 
https://idtools.org/id/leps/tortai/Thaumatotibia_leucotreta.htm  
 
Gonsalves, A K; Fe rreira, S A (1994) Fusarium Primer. .  
 
Gonzalez -Hernandez, H (1995) The status of the biological control of pineapple mealybugs in 
Hawaii.  thesis; University of Hawaii at Manoa, Hawaii.  
 
Granados -Montero, M; W;, M D; Castañeda -Ruiz, R F (2018) A checklis t of asexual fungi 
from Costa Rica. . Mycotaxon 133(2): 1 -41. 
 
Green, J; Nelson, S (2015) Heart and root rots of pineapple. Plant Disease 106. 
 
Heinrich, C (1940) Some new American pyralidoid moths. In Proceedings of the 
Entomological Society of Washington  (Vol. 42).  
 
Hendson, M; Hildebrand, D; Schroth, M (1992) Relatedness of Pseudomonas syringae pv. 
tomato, Pseudomonas syringae pv. maculicola and Pseudomonas syringae pv. antirrhini. 
Journal of applied bacteriology 73(6): 455 -464. 
 
HerbIMI (2022) Herb. IMI  mycological database, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. 
http://www.herbimi.info/herbimi/home.htm Accessed 4/5/2022  
 
Hernandez -Rodriguez, L; Ramos -Gonzalez, P L; Garcia -Garcia, G; Higginson, E J; Zamora -
Rodriguez, V (2013) First report of Pineapple bacilliform c omosus virus (PBCoV) and 
endogenous Pineapple pararetrovirus -1 (ePPRV -1) in pineapple plants in Cuba.  . New Disease 
Reports 28(2): 2044 -0588.  
 
Hu, J S; Sether, D M; Metzer, M J; Perez, E; Gonsalves, A; Karasev, A V; Nagai, C (2005) 
Pineapple mealybug wilt associated virus and mealybug wilt of pineapple. Acta Hort.(ISHS) 
666: 209 –212. 
 
Huadi, W; Zhihong, X; Zhiquan, F (2007) The occurrence, damage and action threshold of 
Chinese rice grasshopper, Oxya chinensis, in rice field. Acta Phytophylacica Sinica . 
 
Huang, S; Wang, T (2016) A revised checklist of insects and mites of pineapple from  Taiwan. 
[in Chinese]. Journal of Taiwan Agricultural Research 65(4).  
 
Hugo -Coetzee, E A (2016) New species of Ramusella (Oribatida, Oppiidae) from South 
Africa with additional notes on R. filamentosa (Mahunka) and R. filigera (Mahunka). 
Systematic and App lied Acarology 21(2): 227 -244. 
 
Illingworth, F J (1929) Pests of Pineapple in Hawaii. Proceedings of the Hawaiian 
Entomological Society 7(2).  
  
451 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Index Fungorum (2022) Index Fungorum. http://www.indexfungorum.org/names/Names.asp  
 
Jackson, G (2019) Pineapple wilt disease (380). 
https://apps.lucidcentral.org/ppp/text/web_full/entities/pineapple_wilt_disease_380.htm 
Accessed October 2021  
 
Joshi, M J; varadharasu, P R; Solanki, C B; Birari, V V (2020) Potato cutworm, Agrotis 
ipsilon : on overview and their managem ent. . Agriculture & Food: e -Newsletter  e-ISSN: 
2581 –8317.  
 
Joy, P; ANJAN, R; Soumya, K (2012) Insect Pests of Pineapple and Their Management. 
Pineapple Research Station, Vazkhulam, Muvattupuzha, India . 
 
K.;, G A; Ferreira, S A; A.;, S (1994) Phytophthora Primer. 
http://www.extento.hawaii.edu/kbase/crop/Type/phyt_prim.htm  
 
Kado, C I (2003) Pink disease of pineapple. Saint Paul: The American Phytopathological 
Society.  
 
Kalaentzis, K M, A.; Kazilas, C.; (2019) First record of the alien exotic sap beetle Phen olia 
(Lasiodites) picta (Coleoptera: Nitidulidae) in Greece. Entomologia Hellenica 28(2): 11 –16. 
 
Kaneshiro, W S; Burger, M; Vine, B G; de Silva, A S; Alvarez, A M (2008) Characterization 
of Erwinia chrysanthemi  from a bacterial heart rot of pineapple outb reak in Hawaii. Plant 
Disease 92(10): 1444 -1450.  
 
King, C J, H I; Tay, C Y; (2013) Arthropod intermediate hosts of Abbreviata antarctica 
(Nematoda: Physalopteridae) in Australia.  The Journal of parasitology  99(4): 708 –711. 
 
Kirk, P M (1991) Pithomyces sacchari . [Descriptions of Fungi and Bacteria]. IMI 
Descriptions of Fungi and Bacteria.  CAB International: Wallingford, UK.  
 
Klimaszewski, J; Watt, J C (1997) Coleoptera: family -group review and keys to 
identification. Fauna of New Zealand 37. 
 
Koite, H (1988) Sugar -cane diseases: a guide for field identification. . Food and Agriculture 
Organization of the United Nations (FAO); Rome, Italy.  
 
Korres, A; Ventura, J; Fernandes, P (2010) First report of bacterium and yeasts associated 
with pineapple fruit collapse in Espírito Santo State, Brazil. Plant Disease 94(12): 1509 -1509.  
 
Krall, E L (1990) Root parasitic nematodes: family Hoplolaimidae. Br ill. 
 
Kranz, J (1964) Fungi collected in the Republic of Guinea. II. Collections from the Kindia 
area in 1962. Sydowia 17(1-6): 174 -185. 
 
Kueh -Jui-Heng, R L -C-T, S; Ragai -Kundat, F; (2012) Biology and ecology of fruit piercing 
moth Eudocima phalonia  (L.) i n a citrus orchard in Sarawak, Malaysia. . Journal of Tropical 
Biology and Conservation 9(2): 176 –182. 
  
452 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Kwon, Y; Kim, M; Kwack, Y B; Kwak, Y S (2017) First report of Nigrospora sp. causing 
kiwifruit postharvest black rot.  . New Zealand Journal of Crop and Horticultural Science 
45(1): 75 –79. 
 
Leblanc, L; Vueti, E T; Allwood, A J (2013) Host plant records for fruit flies (Diptera: 
Tephritidae: Dacini) in the Pacific Islands: 2. Infestation statistics on economic hosts.  
 
Leblanc, L; Vueti, E T; Drew, R A; Allw ood, A J (2012) Host plant records for fruit flies 
(Diptera: Tephritidae: Dacini) in the Pacific Islands.  
 
Lever, R J A W (1969) Pest of the coconut palm. In FAO Plant Production and Protection 
Series, 16 . Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Na tions . Rome, Italy.  
 
Lim, T -K; Rohrbach, K G (1980) Role of Penicillium funiculosum strains in the development 
of pineapple fruit diseases. Phytopathology 70(7): 663 –665. 
 
Lim, W; Lowings, P (1977) Insects associated with collapsed pineapple fruits, heart rot plants 
and inflorescences. MARDI Research Bulletin : ISSN: 0126 -5709.  
 
LIMS (2021) Laboratory Information Management System. Ministry for Primary Industries 
Internal Database. Accessed 11 April 2022  
 
Lindquist, E E (1986) The world genera of Tarsonemida e (Acari: Heterostigmata): a 
morphological, phylogenetic, and systematic revision, with a reclassification of family -group 
taxa in the Heterostigmata. The Memoirs of the Entomological Society of Canada 118(S136): 
1-517. 
 
Litsinger, J; Fakalata, O; Faluku, T; Crooker, P; von Keyserlingk, N (1991) A study of fruit fly 
species (Tephritidae) occuring in the Kingdom of Tonga . Malaysian Agricultural Research 
and Development Institute Malaysia.  
 
Litsinger, J A A, R F; Obusan, M B; (1983) White Grub, Leucopholis irrorata  (Coleoptera: 
Scarabaeidae): Pest Status, Population Dynamics, and Chemical Control in a Rice -Maize 
Cropping Pattern in the Philippines1. Journal of Economic Entomology 76(5): 1133 –1138.  
 
Lomer, C J; Bateman, R P; Dent, D; De Groote, H; Douro -Kpindou, O -K; Kooyman, C; 
Langewald, J; Ouambama, Z; Peveling, R; Thomas, M (1999) Development of strategies for 
the incorporation of biological pesticides into the integrated management of locu sts and 
grasshoppers. Agricultural and Forest Entomology 1: 71 –88. 
 
Lu, B (2000) Checklist of Hong Kong fungi. . Fungal Diversity Press: Hong Kong.  
 
Malumphy, C (2015) Arthropods intercepted on fresh pineapple fruit, Ananas comosus (L.) 
Merr. imported into  England and Wales. Entomologist's Gazette 66: 65 –75. 
 
Martin, J L; Mau, R F L (1993) Othreis fullonia  (Clerk). 
http://www.extento.hawaii.edu/kbase/crop/Type/othreis.htm  
 
Martin Kessing, J L; Mau, F L (1992) Lamenia caliginea  (Stal) . Crop Knowledge Master . 
Extension Entomology & UH -CTAHR Integrated Pest Management Program . 
  
453 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Mathew, M, M; (2016) Mealybugs and their management in agricultural and horticultural 
crops (Vol. 65). Springer India; New Delhi, India.  
 
McFarland, N (1975) Larval foodplant records fo r 106 species of North American moths. . 
Journal of the Lepidopterist's Society 29(2): 112 –125. 
 
Meireles -Barguil, B; Soares -Pessoa, W R L; Alves de Oliveira, S M; Barbosa -Coelho, R S 
(2008) Ocorrência de Pestalotiopsis neglecta em Ananas lucidus. Summa ph ythopathol 34(1).  
 
Mendes, M A S, da Silva, V.L., Dianese, J.C., and et al. (1998) Fungos em Plantas no Brasil . 
Embrapa -SPI/Embrapa -Cenargen, Embrapa.  
 
Migeon, A; Dorkeld, F (2021) Spider Mites Web: a comprehensive database for the 
Tetranychidae. https://w ww1.montpellier.inra.fr/CBGP/spmweb Accessed October 2021  
 
Mille, C; Henderson, R C; Cazères, S; Jourdan, H (2016) Checklist of the scale insects 
(Hemiptera: Sternorrhyncha: Coccomorpha) of New Caledonia. Zoosystema 38(2): 129 -176. 
 
Ministry of Agriculture  and Agro -based industry Malaysia (2004) Technical document -For 
market access oin pineapple ( Ananas comosus ). . In d o a Crop protection and plant 
quarantine services division (Ed.). Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.  
 
Ministry of Economic Affairs (2015) Pest Risk An alysis: Acrolophus - Quick scan. 
Netherlands Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority, Ministry of Economic Affairs . 
The Netherlands.  
 
Mitra, B M, A; Chakraborti, U; Imam, I; Roy, S; (2015) A review on Indian stilt -legged flies 
(Insecta: Diptera: Micropez idae). Journal of Zoology Studies 2(5): 1 –6. 
 
Mitra, S; Debnath, P; Bahadur, A; Chandra Das, S; Yadav, A; Rao, G P ( 2019) First report 
on ‘Candidatus Phytoplasma asteris’ (16SrI -B subgroup) strain associated with pineapple 
shoot proliferation and witches’ broom symptoms in Tripura, India.  . Plant Dis ease 103(11): 
2941 –2941.  
 
Mohrig, W, Kauschke, E; Broadley, A (2019). (2019) Revision of black fungus gnat species 
(Diptera, Sciaridae) described from the Hawaiian Islands by D.E. Hardy and W.A. Steffan, 
and a contribution to the knowledge of the sciarid f auna of the Galápagos Islands. . Zootaxa 
4590(4): 401 –439. 
 
Montalvo -Zapata, R; Ingles, R; Meister, C W (1989) Residues of insecticides for gummosis 
control in pineapple. . In Twenty Fifth Annual Meeting, Guadaloupe . 
 
Mound, L; Nielsen, M; Hastings, A (201 7) Thysanoptera Aotearoa – Thrips of New Zealand. 
https://keys.lucidcentral.org/keys/v3/nz_thrips/  
 
MPI (2022) Import risk analysis: citrus ( Citrus spp.) fresh fruit for human consumption. 
Version 1.2. M inistry  of Primary  Industries (Ed.). New Zealand.  
 
Napompeth, B; Nishida, T; Mitchell, W C (1972) Biology and rearing methods of the New 
Guinea sugarcane weevil, Rhabdoscelus obscurus.  Hawaii Agricultural Experiment Station, 
University of Hawaii.,  
  
454 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Ngampongsai, A B, B; Per mkam, S; Suthapradit, N; Nilla -or R; (2005) A preliminary study 
on some ecological aspects of the fruit piercing moths in Songkhla Province of Southern 
Thailand. Journal of Science & Technology 27(6): 1135 –1145.  
 
NHM (2021) HOSTS - a Database of the World' s Lepidopteran Hostplants. 
https://www.nhm.ac.uk/our -
science/data/hostplants/search/list.dsml?searchpageurl=browse%2Edsml&sort=family&begin
Index=47040&family=copromorphidae&&_sm_au_=iVVQFrMsWDtjNjqPTJ2sKK32t38G3 
Accessed October 2021  
 
Noyes, J S (2019) Uni versal Chalcidoidea Database. . http://www.nhm.ac.uk/chalcidoids  
 
NZFUNGI (2022) New Zealand fungi and bacteria http//nzfungi.landcareresearch.co.nz 
Accessed October 2021  
 
NZOR (2021) The New Zealand Organisms Register. Accessed October 2021  
 
Ochoa Pérez,  R (1989) Review of the family Tarsonemidae in Costa Rica (Acari: 
Heterostigmata).  
 
ONZPR (2021) Official New Zealand Pest Register. MPI Public Database. Accessed October 
2021  
 
Oosterbroek, P (1998) The families of Diptera of the Malay Archipelago (Vol. 1) . Brill.  
 
Pacheco da Silva, V C; Aquino, D A; Crochard, D; Malausa, T; Botton, M; Palero, F (2021) 
Parasitoids (Hymenoptera) of Mealybug Pests (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) from Southern 
Brazil: Molecular and Morphological Characterization. Neotropical Entomology 50(5): 759 -
766. 
 
Pacific Islands Pest List Database (2022) Pacific Islands Pest List Database. 
https://pld.lrd.spc.int/  
 
Pandey, R R; Johnson, M W (2006) Physiological and morphological development of 
Anagyrus ananatis at constant temperatures. . BioControl 51: 585 –601. 
 
Park, J; Mostafiz, M M; Hwang, H -S; Jung, D -O; Lee, K -Y (2021) Comparing the Life Table 
and Population Projection of Gaeolaelaps aculeifer and Stratiolaelaps scimitus (Acari: 
Laelapidae) Based on the Age -Stage, Two -Sex Life Table Theory. Agron omy 11(6): 1062.  
 
Pavgi, M S; Gupta, P C (1967) Some foliicolous fungi on pineapple from India. Sydowia 21: 
96–99. 
 
Peckham, G D; Kaneshiro, W S; Luu, V; Berestecky, J M; Alvarez, A M (2010) Specificity of 
monoclonal antibodies to strains of dickeya sp. th at cause bacterial heart rot of pineapple. 
Hybridoma 29(5): 383 -389. 
 
Pemberton, C E (1964) Highlights in the history of entomology in Hawaii 1778 -1963. . 
Pacific Insects 6(4): 689 –729. 
  
455 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Penz, C A, A.; Srygly, RB.; (1999) Early stages of Caligo illineous  and C. idomeneus  
(Nymphalidae, Brassolinae) from Panama, with remarks on larval food plants for the 
subfamily. Journal of the Lepidopterists' Society 53(4): 142 –152. 
 
Petty, G J; Stirling, G R; Bartholomew, D P (2002) Pests on pineapples. In J E Peña; J L 
Sharp; M Wysoki (eds) Tropical Fruit Pests and Pollinators.  CAB International,: Wallington, 
United Kingdom.  
 
Piepenbring, M (2006) PB Checklist of Fungi in Panama. Puente Biológico 1(1): 1 -96. 
 
Pinto, J R L B, A L; Fernandes, O A; (2020) Biology, ecology, a nd management of rednecked 
peanutworm (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae). Journal of Integrated Pest Management 11(1): 1 –15. 
 
Plank, H S, MR; (1940) A survey of the pineapple mealybug in Puerto Rico and preliminary 
studies of its control. . The Journal of Agricult ure of the University of Puerto Rico : 49-76. 
 
Ponte, J; Castro, F (1976) The cercospora spot of pineapple [Ananas sativus Schultz.]. 
Fitopatologia brasileira . 
 
PPIN (2022) Plant Pest Information Network, Version 5.03.01. Ministry for Primary 
Industries Int ernal Database. Accessed May 2022  
 
Praveena, B; Sonashree, R; Halbavi, R R; Bhavana, J; Rizwana, S R, V V (2021) A review on 
isolation of Acetobacter and production of vinegar from pineapple and papaya waste (peels) 
using Acetobacter aceti.  Handbook of Res earch on Waste Diversion and Minimization 
Technologies for the Industrial Sector.  IGI Global.  
 
Quesada, J (2013) Desarrollo de procedimientos estandarizados de operación (PEO) para el 
manejo integrado de plagas y enfermedades del cultivo de piña Ananas comosus (L.) Merr. en 
la Región Huertar Norte de Costa Rica. San Carlos, Alajuela, Costa Rica. Recuperado de: 
https://repositoriotec. tec. ac. cr/handle/2238/5972 . 
 
Raabe, R D; Connors, I L; Martinez, A P; Nelson, S C (2009) Checklist of plant diseases in 
Hawaii, including records of microorganisms, principally fungi, found in the state.  . 
University of Hawaii; Honolulu.  
 
Rao, V G; Mhaskar, D N (1973) Studies on a leaf blotch disease of pineapple. Rivista di 
Patologia Vegetale 9(2): 129 –137. 
 
Ray, H A; Hoy, M A (2018) Hemicheyletia wellsina (D Leon). 
https://entnemdept.ufl.edu/creatures/MISC/H_wellsina .htm Accessed October 2021  
 
Riherd, P T (1950) Biological notes on Anagyrus antoninae Timberlake (Hymenoptera -
Encyrtidae) and its host Antonina graminis (Maskell)(Homoptera -Coccidae). The Florida 
Entomologist 33(1): 18 -22. 
 
Robbins, R K (2010) The “upside down” systematics of hairstreak butterflies (Lycaenidae) 
that eat pineapple and other Bromeliaceae. Studies on Neotropical Fauna and Environment 
45(1): 21 -37. 
 
Robinson, G S N, E S; (1993) Tineid genera of Australia (Lepidoptera). Monographs on 
Australian Lepidoptera.   
456 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand   
Rohrbach, K; Apt, W (1993) Diseases of Pineapple (Ananas comosus (L.) Merr.). Plant 
Pathology Online. http://www. apsnet. org/online/common/names/pineappl. asp (Rev. 
31/12/12).  
 
Rohrbach, K G; Johnson, M W (2003) Pests, diseases and weeds. In  D P Bartholomew; R E 
Paull; K G Rohrbach (eds) The Pineapple: Botany, Production and Uses. 1st ed. CABI: 
Honolulu.  
 
Rohrbach, K G; Pfeiffer, J B (1976) The interaction of four bacteria causing pink disease of 
pineapple with several pineapple cultivars.  Phytopathology 664: 396 –399. 
 
Rosa, E D, Salmah, S; Syamsuardi (2014) (2014) Fluctuation of Diptera Larvae in 
Phytotelmata and Relation with Climate Variation in West Sumatra Indonesia.  . Pakistan 
Journal of Biological Sciences 17: 947 –951. 
 
Rotenberg, D; Ja cobson, A L; Schneweis, D J; Whitfield, A E (2015 ) Thrips transmission of 
tospoviruses.  . Current opinion in virology 15: 80 –89. 
 
Sagili, R; Breece, C; Cline, A; Marshall, C (2016) First report of Brachypeplus basalis 
Erichson, 1842 (Coleoptera: Nitidulid ae) infesting honey bee hives in Oregon, USA. Pan-
Pacific Entomol 92: 213 -216. 
 
Sakimura, K; Linford, M B (1940) An annotated List of Insects from Lanai. Proceedings of 
the Hawaiian Entomological Society 10(3).  
 
Sánchez -Cárdenas, C D; Vega -Sánchez, D C; González -Suárez, T R; Flores -Rivera, J; 
Arenas, R G; Corona, T (2021) Onychomycosis Caused by Kloeckera apiculata: A Case 
Report in a Patient with Multiple Sclerosis.  . Skin Appendage Disorders : 1-4. 
 
Sarah, J (198 9) Pests damaging pineapple roots. In International Symposium on the Culture of 
Subtropical and Tropical Fruits and Crops (Vol. 275, pp. 671 –678).  
 
Sarbhoy, A K; Lal, G; Varshney, J L (1971) Fungi of India (1967 -71). Associated Publishing 
Co. New Delhi, In dia. 
 
Satta, E; Paltrinieri, N C; Bertaccini, A; Mejia, J F (2015) Detection and multigene 
characterisation of a ‘ Candidatus Phytoplasma prunorum’ -related phytoplasma associated 
with witches’ broom symptoms in pineapple fruit. . Phytopathogenic Mollicutes 5(1): 79 -80. 
 
Sawada, K (1959) Descriptive catalogue of Taiwan (Formosan) fungi. Part XI. Spec. Publ 
Coll. Agric. Taiwan Univ ersity . 8. 
 
Saxena, K; Rao, K (2015) Soil Biodiversity: Inventory, Functions and  Management . Bishen 
Singh Mahendrapal Singh . India.  
 
Sekora, N S; Crow, W (2018) Radopholus similis . 
https://entnemdept.ufl.edu/creatures/NEMATODE/Radopholus_similis.htm Accessed 
October 2021  
 
Serrano, F B (1934) Fruitlet black -rot of Pineapple in the Philippines.  Philippine Journal of 
Science 55(4).   
457 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand   
Sharma, N D; Singh, R; Jain, A C (1981) Some new fungi recorded on pineapple. Indian 
Phytopathol 34(2): 245.  
 
Shen, H F; Lin, B R; Zhan, J X; Pu, X M (2013) First report of pineapple heart rot caused by 
Phytophthora nicotianae  in Hainan province, China.  . Plant Disease 97(4): 560 –560. 
 
Singh, J; Raghuraman, M (2011) Emerging scenario of important mite pests in north India. 
Zoosymposia 6: 170 –179. 
 
Singh, K G (1980) A checklist of host and disease in Malaysia. Ministry of Agriculture . 
Malaysia.  
 
Sipes, B; Wang, K H (2017) Pests, diseases and weeds. Handbook of pineapple technology: 
production, postharvest science, processing and nutrition. Chichester: Wiley: 62 -88. 
 
Smith, T J; Petty, G J; Villet, M (1995) Description and identification of white grubs 
(Cole optera: Scarabaeidae) that attack pineapple crops in South Africa.  African Entomology 
3(2): 153 –166. 
 
Solis, M (2006) Key to Selected Pyraloidea (Lepidoptera) Larvae Intercepted at U. S. Ports of 
Entry: Revision of Pyraloidea In Weisman (Ed.), Proceedings - Entomological Society of 
Washington  (pp. 101).  
 
Souza, T M; Silva, D J G; Pereira, J (2020) Primeira ocorrência de Pestalotiopsis neglecta  
causando mancha foliar em Cariniana legalis. Semana de Agronomia da UESB (SEAGRUS) -
ISSN 2526 -8406 2(1).  
 
Spodek, M; Ben -Dov, Y; Mondaca, L; Protasov, A; Erel, E; Mendel, Z (2018) The cotton 
mealybug, Phenacoccus solenopsis Tinsley (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) in Israel: pest status, 
host plants and na tural enemies. Phytoparasitica 46(1): 45 -55. 
 
Steffan, W A (1974) Redescription of Bradysia tritici and Bradysia reynoldsi 
(DipterarSciaridae).  Proceedings Hawaiian Entomological Society , 21:467 -474. 
 
Stout, O O (1982) Plant quarantine guidelines within th e Pacific region. In: FAO/UNO 
Publication.  
 
Sueno, W; Marrero, G; de Silva, A; Sether, D; Alvarez, A (2014) Diversity of Dickeya strains 
collected from pineapple plants and irrigation water in Hawaii. Plant Disease 98(6): 817 -824. 
 
Sultana, R A -B, B; Ali, W; Khan, H; (2012) Studies on the immature stages of Oxya velox 
(Fabricius) a rice grasshopper from district Jamshoro, Sindh, Pakistan. . Fuuast Journal of 
Biology 2(1): 57 –62. 
 
Sun, S E; Wang, J Q; Chen, S; Zhang, S B; Zhang, D Y; Liu, Y (2018) First Repo rt of 
Capsicum chlorosis orthotospovirus  Infecting Zucchini ( Cucurbita pepo ) in China.  . Plant 
Disease 102(10): 2049 –2049.  
 
Thaman, R R (2018) The 2016 Fiji Ant -Mealybug Bioinvasion:Threat to food, health, 
livelihood, Cultural and Environment Security in t he Pacific Islands.  . Pacific Centre for  
458 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Environment and Sustainable Development (PaCE -SD). The University of the South Pacific,; 
Suva, Fiji.  
 
Thomas, M; Heppner, J; Woodruff, R; Weems, H; Steck, G; Fasulo, T (2001) Mediterranean 
Fruit Fly, Ceratitis capi tata (Wiedemann)(Insecta: Diptera: Tephritidae). Fla Depart Agr Cons 
Serv, DPI. Entomol Cir . 
 
Thornton, I W B (1981) The Psocoptera of the Hawaiian Islands Parts I and II. Introduction 
and The Nonendemic Fauna. Pacific Insects 23(1-2): 1-49. 
 
Timm, R W (19 65) Scutellonema siamense  n. sp.(Tylenchida: Hoplolaiminae) from Thailand. 
Nematologica 11(3).  
 
Triana, M F; Franca, P H; Queiroz, A F; Santos, J M; Goulart, H F; Santana, A E (2020) 
Morphological, chemical and electrophysiological investigations of Telchi n licus 
(Lepidoptera: Castniidae). PloS one 15(4): e0231689.  
 
Troncoso -Rojas, R; Tiznado -Hernández, M E (2014) Alternaria alternata (Black Rot, Black 
Spot). In S Bautista -Baños (ed) Postharvest Decay.  Academic Press.  
 
UCDavis (2018a) Acetobacter aceti. htt ps://wineserver.ucdavis.edu/industry -
info/enology/wine -microbiology/bacteria/acetobacter -aceti Accessed October 2021  
 
UCDavis (2018b) Acetobacter pasteurianus. https://wineserver.ucdavis.edu/industry -
info/enology/wine -microbiology/bacteria/acetobacter -pasteurianus Accessed September 2021  
 
Urich, F C E, T C; (1991) Life histories of neotropical butterflies from Trinidad 5. Dynastor 
darius darius (Lepidoptera: Nymp halidae: Brassolinae).  Tropical Lepidoptera 2(2): 145 –149. 
 
Urtiaga, R (1986) Indice de enfermedades en plantas de Venezuela y Cuba. Nuevo Siglo.,  
 
USDA (2019) Importation of Ananas comosus (Pineapple) fruit from Indonesia into the 
United States and Territories A Qualitative, Pathway -Initiated Pest Risk Assessment. United 
States Department of Agriculture,  
 
Van Itterbeeck, J; Rakotomalala Andrianavalo na, I N; Rajemison, F I; Rakotondrasoa, J F; 
Ralantoarinaivo, V R; Hugel, S; Fisher, B L (2019) Diversity and use of edible grasshoppers, 
locusts, crickets, and katydids (Orthoptera) in Madagascar. Foods 8: 666.  
 
Veerakone, S; Tang, J; Ward, L; Liefting, L ; Perez -Egusquiza, Z; Lebas, B; Delmiglio, C; 
Fletcher, J; Guy, P (2015) A review of the plant virus, viroid, liberibacter and phytoplasma 
records for New Zealand. Australasian Plant Pathology 44(5): 463 –514. 
 
Waite, G R (1993) Pests. In R H Broadly; R C W assman; E R e Sinclair (eds) Pineapple Pests 
and Disorders.  Department of Primary Industries, Brisbane.: Queensland, Australia.  
 
Watson, G W (2002) Arthropods of Economic Importance - Diaspididae of the World. In C -R 
World Biodiversity Database; Expert Cen ter for Taxonomic Identification (ETI); University 
of Amsterdam; The Netherlands . 
 
Wagner, W (2022) Gryllus bimaculatus  De Geer, 1773. Orthoptera and their ecology. 
http://www.pyrgus.de/Gryll us_bimaculatus_en.html  Accessed October 2021.   
459 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand   
White, I M; Elson -Harris, M M (1992) Fruit flies of economic significance: their 
identification and bionomics. CAB international.  
 
Whitehead, A G (1959) Scutellonema clathricaudatum  n. sp. (Hoplolaiminae: Tyle n-chida), a 
suspected ectoparasite of the roots of the cotton plant Gossypium hirsutum L. var. UK 51. 
Nematologica,  4(1): 56 –59. 
 
Willers, P (1992a) Fauna in pineapple inflorescences during anthesis and the possible 
relationship with fruitlet core rot. Inligtingsbulletin - Navorsingsinstituut vir Sitrus en 
Subtropiese Vrugte 13(4): 38 –39. 
 
Willers, P (1992b) Phenacoccus solani on pineapple in South Africa. Inligtingsbulletin - 
Instituut vir Tropiese en Subtropiese Gewasse 237: 29 –30. 
 
Williams, D (1987) Phe nacoccus gossypii Townsend & Cockerell, P. madeirensis Green and 
some related mealybug species (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae). Bulletin of Entomological 
Research 77(2): 335 –356. 
 
Williamson -Benavides, B A; Dhingra, A (2021) Understanding Root Rot Disease in 
Agricultural Crops.  Horticulturae 7(2): 33.  
 
Wright, J (2003) Forest pest and disease survey of the Federated States of Micronesia. 
Secretariat of the Pacific Community . Suva, Fiji.  
 
Xinhua (2018) Fungi causing kiwifruit diseases identified by Chinese scientists. 
http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2018 -11/26/c_137632051.htm Accessed October 2021  
 
Yamauchi, K F, T; Kinomura, K; Takamine, H; Tsuji, K; (1991) Secondary polygyny by 
inbred wingless sexuals in the dolichoderine ant Technomyrmex albipes  . Behavioral Ecology 
and Sociobiology 29(5): 313 –319. 
 
Yokoyama, T; Tanaka, M; Fujiie, A; Hasegawa, M (2003) A new strain of Paenibacillus 
lentimorbus  isolated from larvae of the oriental beetle, Blitopertha orientalis  (Coleoptera: 
Scarabaeidae), in Chiba Prefecture, Japan.  . Applied Entomology and Zoology 38(4): 523 –
528. 
 
Yunus, A H, T H; (1980) List of economic pests, host plants, parasites and predators in West 
Malaysia 1920 -1978  Vol. 153 . Ministry  of Agriculture. Malaysia.  
 
Zeng, L Q, P K; Jiang, Z D (2004) Identification of the Fungal Diseases in Ornamental Plants 
of Bromeliceae in Guangdong Province. . China Journal of Tropical Crops 25(3): 47 –52. 
 
Zenker -Moraes, M B, M; Teston, J A; Specht, A; (2010) Noctuidae moths occurr ing in grape 
orchards in Serra Gácha, Brazil and their relation to fruit -piercing. . Revista Brasileira de 
Entomologia 54(2): 288 –297. 
 
Zhang, Z -Q; Fan, Q; Martin, N; Lal, S N; Islands, F (2004) Current status of research on 
Rhizoglyphus mites associated w ith taro.  Third taro symposium . 
 
Zhang, Z (2003) Tarsonemid mites. Mites of greenhouses: identification, biology and control.  
CABI Publishing Wallingford UK.   
460 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand   
Zhong, L -C; Ai, Y -J; Chun, R -H; Yi, Y -D (2016) Identification of Curvularia clavata causing 
leaf spot on pineapple (Ananas comosus) in China. Canadian Journal of Plant Pathology 
38(2): 250 –253. 
 
Zhuang, W Y (2001) Higher fungi of Tropical China . Mycotaxon, Ltd.; Ithaca, N.Y.  
 
Zumbado, M (2006) Diptera of Costa Rica and the new World tropics. Editoria l INBio.  
  
461 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Appendix 2 Taxa excluded during PRA stage  
The following organisms have been included in the preliminary PRA list at the hazard 
identification stage. However, with further assessment, they are considered not to be a hazard 
in this IRA. The reason that they have been excluded in the PRA stage is documented here.  
 
Appendix 2. 1 Dickeya dadantii  (bacterial wilt / soft rot)  
 
Scientific name:  Dickeya dadantii Samson  et al. 2005  
Order : Enterobacteria  Family: Enterobacteriace ae 
Other names : Dickeya dadantii subsp.  dadantii ; Dickeya dadantii subsp.  dieffenbachiae ; 
Erwinia carotovora  var. chrysanthemi ; Erwinia chrysanthemi ; Erwinia chrysanthemi  pv. 
dieffenbachiae ; Erwinia dieffenbachiae ; Pectobacterium chrysanthemi ; Pectobacterium 
chrysanthemi  pv. dieffenbachiae ; Soft rot of ornamentals/potato; bacterial wilt of 
ornamentals/potatoes.  
 
Taxonomic notes:  
The present Dickeya  genus has been renamed on several occasions over the past  
100 years. In 1920, Dickeya  species all  belonged to the Erwinia  tribe that grouped all  
enterobacterial plant pathogenic bacteria (Winslow et al. 1920) . In 1953, Burkholder et al. 
(1953)  created the species Erwinia chrysanthemi . The species was elevated in 2005 to the 
genus Dickeya  based on 16S rDNA sequence phylogeny (Samson et al. 2005) . Six species 
were identified and confirmed by DNA -DNA hybridisation: Dickeya chrysanthemi , Dickeya 
dadantii , Dickeya diffenbachiae , Dickeya dianthicola , Dickeya zeae  and Dickeya 
paradisiaca . D. diffenbachiae  was later reclassified as a subspecies of D. dadantii  by DNA -
DNA hybridisation analysis and multilocus sequence analysis (Brady et al. 2012) . 
 
New Zealand  status:  
Dickeya dadantii  is not known to be present in New Zealand.  
• Dickeya dadantii and D. dadantii subsp. dadantii are recorded as absent in 
New  Zealand (BiotaNZ 2022) . The occurrence of Dickeya dadantii subsp. 
dieffenbachiae is recorded as Uncertain in BiotaNZ (2022) with a co mment stating “ 
Previously recorded as present based on the culture ICMP 8690 (Erwinia 
chrysanthemi) but that is a sample from PEQ 62. [BSW, 17 July 2022] ”.  
• The is olate referred to in BiotaNZ (2022)   (ICMP  8690 ) was reclassified as D. 
dadantii  subsp. dadan tii by B. S. Weir in July 2022 based on  assessment of multi ple 
gene sequences . The bacterium was originally  collected in 1984 by CF Hill from 
Dieffenbachia  sp. showing rotten stem symptoms in an Ellersie [New Zealand] PEQ  
facility. At the time, it was ide ntified as Erwinia chrysanthemi  (ICMP 2022) . 
• There have been no subsequent records of D. dadantii  in New Zealand since this 
detection in PEQ in 1984.  As such, there is no record of D. dadantii  in the 
environment in New Zea land.  
• Dickeya dadantii  is not listed in ONZPR (2022) . 
 
 
 
 
62 PEQ is post -entry quarantine facility.   
462 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Summary of reason for exclusion  
Dickeya dadantii is not considered to be a hazard on pineapple fruit and excluded from this 
IRA because no evidence to confirm that Dickeya dadantii is associated with pineapple fruit  
or plants was found in the available English -language literature .  
 
Supporting informatio n 
When Samson et al. (2005)  described reclassified Pectobacterium chrysanthemi and 
Brenneria paradisiaca into a novel genus Dickeya, six new species were described. One of 
these species was D. dadantii. A collection of 75 strains were used to make this 
determination. In the Samson et al. (2005)  description of D. dadantii , pineapple was listed as 
a plant host from which the pathogen was isolated. However, a  thorough examination of 
descriptions and strains included in Samson et al. (2005)  revealed none of the D. dadantii 
strains were isolated from pineapples. This was further demonstrated  when the collections 
that hold the D. dadantii strains used by Samson et al. (2005)  were also checked and found 
no eviden ce of the pathogen being isolated from pineapples was found (CIRM -CFBP 2021; 
NCPPB 2022) .  
 
The search term s [“Dickeya dadantii” AND “Pineapple” OR “Ananas comosus” ] were used 
in Google Scholar. The first 50 results were checked and none of the results that listed 
pineapple as a host of D. dadantii had isolated the pathogen from the plant . All papers  only 
cited Samson et al. (2005) . Scientific papers published after 2005 on  Dickeya species and/or 
D. dadantii cite the original Samson et al. (2005)  article as  evidence confirming pineapple as 
a host of D. dadantii or cite other authors who used Samson et al. (2005)  as their evidence. 
Furthermore, the search terms “Bromeliaceae” AND “Dickeya dadantii” in Google Scholar 
and resulted found no original literature ( i.e. not using Samson et al. (2005)  as evidence) 
confirming D. dadantii host association with any member of the Bromeliaceae family.  
 
A search of New Zealand interception records shows no records of D. dadantii or known 
synonyms between 2000 –2020 (LIMS 20 22). The European & Mediterranean Plant 
Protection Organization records interceptions of Erwinia sp. and E. chrysanthemi on potato 
seeds and tissue culture from the United Kingdom, Netherlands, Belgium, France, Taiwan, 
Thailand and Belgium (EPPO 2022) .  
 
References  
BiotaNZ (2022) Biota of New Zealand. https://biotaNZ.landcareresearch.co.nz Accessed 
2022  
 
Brady, C L; Cleenwerck, I; Denman, S; Venter, S N; Rodríguez -Palenzuela, P; Coutinho, T 
A; De Vos, P (2012) Proposal to reclassify Brenneria quercina  (Hildebrand and Schroth 
1967) Hauben et al. 1999 into a new genus, Lonsdalea gen. nov., as Lonsdalea quercina  
comb. nov., descriptions of Lonsdalea quercina  subsp. quercina comb. nov., Lonsdalea 
quercina subsp. iberica subsp. nov. and Lonsdalea quercina subsp.  britannica subsp. nov., 
emendation of the description of the genus Brenneria , reclassification of Dickeya 
dieffenbachiae as Dickeya dadantii subsp. dieffenbachiae comb. nov., and emendation of the 
description of Dickeya dadantii . International journal of systematic and evolutionary 
microbiology 62(7): 1592 –1602.  
 
Burkholder, W H; McFadden, L A; Dimock, A W (1953) A bacterial blight of 
chrysanthemums. Phytopathology 43: 522 –526.  
463 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand   
CIRM -CFBP (2021) International Centre of Microbial Resource (CIRM) - French Co llection 
for Plant -associated Bacteria  (Publication no. https://doi.org/10.15454/E8XX -4Z18). 
Accessed 29/01/2022  
 
EPPO (2022) EPPO Reporting Service. https://gd.eppo.int/reporting/  
 
ICMP (2022). Available from Manaaki Whenua Landcare Research Internation al Collection 
of Microorganisms from Plants.  
 
LIMS (2022) Laboratory Information Management System. Ministry for Primary Industries 
internal database. Accessed 11/04/2022  
 
NCPPB (2022) National Collection of Plant Pathogenic Bacteria  (Publication no. 
https://www.fera.co.uk/ncppb). Accessed 29/01/2022  
 
ONZPR (2022) Official New Zealand Pest Register. MPI Public Database. 
https://pierpestregister.mpi.govt.nz/PestsRegister/ImportCommodity/ Accessed May 2022  
 
Samson, R; Legendre, J B; Chri sten, R; Saux, M F -L; Achouak, W; Gardan, L (2005) 
Transfer of Pectobacterium chrysanthemi (Burkholder et al. 1953) Brenner et al. 1973 and 
Brenneria paradisiaca  to the genus Dickeya gen. nov. as Dickeya chrysanthemi  comb. nov. 
and Dickeya paradisiaca  comb . nov. and delineation of four novel species, Dick. 
International journal of systematic and evolutionary microbiology 55(4): 1415 –1427.  
 
Winslow, C E A; Broadhurst, J; Buchanan, R E; Krumwiede, C; Rogers, L A; Smith, G H 
(1920) The Families and Genera of t he Bacteria: Final report of the Committee of the Society 
of American Bacteriologists on Characterization and Classification of Bacterial Types. 
Journal of Bacteriology 5(3): 191 –229. 
 
  
464 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Appendix 2. 2 Melanoloma viatrix  (pineapple fly, mosca  de la fruta 
de la piña)  
 
Scientific name: Melanoloma viatrix Hendel 1911  
Order : Diptera  Family: Richardiidae   
Other names : Melanoloma canopilosum Hendel 1933 ; Melanoloma canopilosa ; 
Melanoloma loew . 
 
New Zealand status:  
Melanoloma viatrix  is not known to be present in New Zealand.  
• Melanoloma viatrix  is not listed in NZOR (2022 ). 
• Melanoloma viatrix  is not listed in (BiotaNZ 2022) . 
• Melanoloma viatrix  is not listed in PPIN (2022).  
• Melanoloma viatrix  is not listed in ONZPR (2022).  
 
Summary of reasons for exclusion  
MPI does not consider Melanoloma viatrix  to be a hazard on pineapple fruit.  
• We found no clear evidence that M. viatrix  is present in any of the pineapple 
exporting markets  in this IRA.  
• Pineapple is the only known host of M. viatrix . 
 
Supporting information  
Google and Google Scholar searches  (English and Spanish) : Melanoloma viatrix, 
Melanoloma canopilosum, Melanoloma canopilosa, pineapple fruit fly, pineapple fruit fly,  
mosca de la fruta de la piña, mosca de la piña.  
We found no clear evidence that M. viatrix  is present in any of the pineapple -exporting 
markets  in this IRA .  
• There is a lack of information about M. viatrix , the genus Melanoloma , and the  family  
Richardidae in general . Melanoloma  is Neotropic al (in Centra l and South America).  
• Melanoloma viatrix  is reported to be present in Mexico, Venezuela, Colombia, 
Ecuador  (but see below) , Perú, Bolivia  (Bello Amez et al. 2020) , Suriname (as M. 
canopilosa , Korytkoswski 1991 in Arevalo and Osorio (1995) ) and Paraguay (Boscán 
de Martínez et al. (2000)  in Sipes and de Matos (2018) ; Joy et al. 2012) .  
• Melanoloma viatrix  has been  reported  in one pineapple exporting market  included in 
this IRA,  Ecuador , by a single source (Rogg 2001) , cited by Bello Amez et al. (2 020). 
Rogg (200 1) wrote a generic document about integrated crop pest management in the 
Ecua dorian Amazon, and listed M. viatrix  (as M. canopilosum ) among the pests of 
pineapple, without providing any detail.  
• Melanoloma viatrix  is present in countries adj acent to Ecuador,  Costa Rica and 
Panama , and coud be present also in these countries. However, we have no firm 
records, and therefore assume that M. viatrix  is not present in Ecuador, Costa Rica 
and Panama  for this IRA.  
  
465 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Pineapple is the only known host of  M. viatrix . 
• Pineapple is the only known host of M. viatrix  (Arevalo and Osorio 1995; Bello Amez 
et al. 2020) .  
• Joy et al. (2012 ) reported that pineapple ( Ananas comosus ) is the “main host” of 
M. viatrix , citing Julca et al. (1992 ) and  Bello Amez et al. (1997) . The original 
sources report pineapple as the only known host (Bello Amez et al. 1997) .  
• Two other authors who published original research on M. viatrix  confirmed that the 
only known host of M. viatrix  is A. comosus  (Dr Villalobos -Moreno and Mg. Sc. 
Germán Arellano Cruz , pers. comm.)  (Arellano 2022; Villalobos -Moreno 2022) .   
 
References  
Arellano, G (2022) Personal communication.  
 
Arevalo, P E; Osorio, O M (1995) Consideraciones generales sobre Melanoloma viatrix 
Hendel, una nueva plaga de la piña (General notes on Melanoloma viatrix Hendel, a new pest 
of pineapple). Revista Colombiana de Entomologia 21(1): 1 –8. 
 
Bello Amez, S; Borj as Ventura, R; Alvarado Huamán, L; Bello Medina, N; Castro -Cepero, 
V; Julca -Otiniano, A (2020) La mosca de la fruta de la piña ( Melanoloma viatrix Hendel) 
asociada a la mancha con galerías y experiencias de control en la selva central del Perú. 
Idesia (Ari ca) 38(4): 37 –46. 
 
Bello Amez, S; Julca, A; Villachica, H (1997) Mancha de la fruta de piña tipo galerías 
asociada a Melanoloma canopilosum Hendel. Acta Horticulturae 425: 493 –500. 
 
BiotaNZ (2022) Biota of New Zealand. https://biotaNZ.landcareresearch.co.nz Accessed 
30/04/2022  
 
Boscán de Martínez, N; Rosales, C; Godoy, F (2000) La mosca del fruto de la piña 
Melanoloma viatrix  (Diptera: Richardiidae) nuevo insecto plaga en Venezuela (The fly of the 
pineapple fruit Melanol oma viatrix (Diptera: Richardiidae) a new pest in Venezuela). 
Agronomía Tropical (Venezuela) 50(1): 135 –140. 
 
Joy, P; ANJAN, R; Soumya, K (2012) Insect Pests of Pineapple and Their Management. 
Pineapple Research Station, Vazkhulam, Muvattupuzha, India . 
 
Rogg, H W (2001) Manejo integrado de plagas en cultivos de la Amazonía Ecuatoriana. IICA 
Biblioteca Venezuela.  
 
Sipes, B; de Matos, A P (2018) 12 Pests, Diseases and Weeds. The Pineapple: Botany, 
Production and Uses : 269.  
 
Villalobos -Moreno, A (2022) Personal communication. 
466 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Appendix 2.3 Curvularia verruculosa  
 
Scientific name: Curvularia verruculosa  M.P. Tandon & Bilgrami ex M.B. Ellis 1966   
Order: Pleosporales  Family: Pleosporaceae   
Other names:  Cochliobolus verruculosus  (Tsuda & Ueyama) Siva n.; Pseudocochliobolus 
verruculosus  Tsuda & Ueyama.  
 
New Zealand  status:  
• Curvularia verruculosa  is recorded as an uncertain presence in New Zealand 
(BiotaNZ 2022) . 
• Curvularia verruculosa  is regulated as the synonym Cochliobolus verruculosus  
(ONZPR 2022) . 
Summary of reason for exclusion  
Curvularia verruculosa  is not considered to be a hazard on pineapple fruit and is excluded 
from this IRA.  
• There is insufficient evidence indicating C. verruculosa  is associated with the 
commodity.  
Supporting informati on 
There is only a single source found indicating an association of C. verruculosa  and pineapple, 
and all other literature found reporting an association use this source.   
• MPI found a single field observation of Curvularia verruculosa on Ananas comosus  
(Adisa and Fajola 1982) .  
• There have been no new reports of C. verruculosa on A. comosus since 1982. A 
review of literature found five papers that mention an association between 
C. verruculosa and A. comosus (Adisa and Fajola 1982; Adisa 1983a; Adisa 1983b; 
Adisa 1985, 1988) , all of which share an author. Sivanesan (1990)  does not include 
Ananas comosus as a host, but does include  C. verruculosa as a pineapple disease, 
referencing Adisa and Fajola (1982); Adisa (1983b) . 
• There have been no reported inte rceptions of this pest on pineapple in New  Zealand 
(LIMS 2022) . 
• This association has not been reported since the original report. Only a single review 
paper has been sighted reporting this association, citing Adisa. No other sighted 
database, review, handb ook, or compendium reported an association.   
 
The association of C. verruculosa  with pineapple fruit is based on morphological 
characteristics, which has limited diagnostic value for this genus.  
• Adisa and Fajola (1982)  used morphological identification t o describe the association 
of C. verruculosa  with Ananas comosus.  
• In the same year that the pineapple observation was made, it was noted that : 
“Uncertainty in practical identifications of Curvularia species is in part caused by 
variability in conidium morphology … This is also true for C. verruculosa”  (Tsuda 
and Ueyama 1982) .  
467 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  • Huang et al. (2005)  reported that “The [ C.verruclosa ] spores are similar in 
morphology to those of C. lunata  except for the verrucose surface. Past diagnoses of 
Curvularia  leaf spot may have mistakenly identified C. verruculosa  as C. lunata.” .  
• Other recent studies have found that that morphological identification of Curvularia 
morphology does not correlate with molecular identification (Janardhan and Vijayan 
2012; Manamgod a et al. 2012; da Cunha et al. 2013; Madrid et al. 2014) . 
• It is extremely difficult to distinguish species within the  Curvularia genus based on 
morphological characteristics.  
 
Literature review : We conducted a  thorough online search of scientific literature using the 
Google chrome search engine,  Google Scholar  and CABI Direct.  
["Cochliobolus verruculosus " OR “ Pseudocochliobolus verruculosus ” and "Ananas 
comosus " OR “Pineapple”] returned no relevant results. [“ Curvularia verruculosa ” AND  
"Ananas comosus " OR “Pineapple”] returned one relevant result (Adisa 1985) in Google 
scholar. ["Curvularia verruculosa " AND "Pineapple"] returned 584 results, of which the first 
60 results were considered. Relevant results found were Adisa (1988), Adisa (1985) and 
Adisa (1982) using the Chrome search engine.  
 
In CABI Direct [ Curvularia verruculosa Ananas comosus ] returned no results. [ Curvularia 
verruculosa ] returned 17 results, n one of which were relevant. [ Pseudocochliobolus 
verruculosus ] returned 23 results, including Sivanesan (1990) , which notes  C. verruculosa  as 
a disease of pineapple, referencing Adisa and Fajola (1982) .  
 
We also consulted review papers and databases concer ning pineapple diseases . 
These  did not show an association between Ananas comosus  and Curvularia verruculosa  or 
synonyms. EPPO (2022)  does not include Ananas comosus  on the host list of Curvularia 
verruculosa . Rohrbach and Johnson (2003)  did not include C. verruculosa  as a pest of A. 
comosus . Rohrbach and Phillips (1989)  did not include C. verruculosa  as a post -harvest rot of 
pineapple fruit.  
 
References  
Adisa, V (1983a) The effects of some environmental factors on the grow th and pathogenicity 
of six pineapple fruit rot pathogens. Fitopatologia brasileira 8(1): 37 –45. 
 
Adisa, V (1985) Effects of the biodeterioration caused by two molds on some food 
substances of Ananas comosus . Phytoparasitica 13(2): 113 –120. 
 
Adisa, V (1988 ) Some nutritional requirements of spoilage molds of pineapple fruit. 
Cryptogamie. Mycologie 9(2): 111 –116. 
 
Adisa, V; Fajola, A (1982) Post -harvest fruit rots of pineapple (Ananas comosus) in Nigeria. 
Fitopatologia brasileira . 
 
Adisa, V A (1983b) Studies on the nutritional requirements of the latent phase of 
Ceratocystis paradoxa  - the pineapple soft rot pathogen in Nigeria. Food/Nahrung 27(10): 
951–956. 
 
BiotaNZ (2022) Biota of New Zealand. https://biotaNZ.landcareresearch.co.nz Accessed 
30/04/2022   
468 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand   
da Cu nha, K C; Sutton, D A; Fothergill, A W; Gené, J; Cano, J; Madrid, H; de Hoog, S; 
Crous, P W; Guarro, J (2013) In vitro antifungal susceptibility and molecular identity of 99 
clinical isolates of the opportunistic fungal genus Curvularia. Diagnostic Microbi ology and 
Infectious Disease 76(2): 168 –174. 
 
EPPO (2022) EPPO Reporting Service. https://gd.eppo.int/reporting/  
 
Huang, J; Zheng, L; Hsiang, T (2005) First report of leaf spot caused by Curvularia 
verruculosa on Cynodon sp. in Hubei, China. Plant Patholo gy 54(2): 253 –253. 
 
Janardhan, B S; Vijayan, K (2012) Types of endophytic bacteria associated with traditional 
medicinal plant Lantana camara Linn. Pharmacognosy Journal 4(32): 20 –23. 
 
LIMS (2022) Laboratory Information Management System. Ministry for Primary Industries 
internal database. Accessed 11/04/2022  
 
Madrid, H; Da Cunha, K; Gené, J; Dijksterhuis, J; Cano, J; Sutton, D; Guarro, J; Crous, P 
(2014) Novel Curvularia species from clinical specimens. Persoonia -Molecular Phylogeny 
and Evolution of Fungi 33(1): 48 –60. 
 
Manamg oda, D S; Cai, L; McKenzie, E H; Crous, P W; Madrid, H; Chukeatirote, E; Shivas, 
R G; Tan, Y P; Hyde, K D (2012) A phylogenetic and taxonomic re -evaluation of the 
Bipolaris -Cochliobolus -Curvularia complex. Fungal diversity 56(1): 131 –144. 
 
ONZPR (2022) Off icial New Zealand Pest Register. MPI Public Database. 
https://pierpestregister.mpi.govt.nz/PestsRegister/ImportCommodity/ Accessed May 2022  
 
Rohrbach, K G; Johnson, M W (2003) Pests, diseases and weeds. In D P Bartholomew; R E 
Paull; K G Rohrbach (eds) The Pineapple: Botany, Production, and Uses.  CABI Publishing: 
Wallingford, United Kingdom.  
 
Rohrbach, K G; Phillips, D J (1989) Postharvest diseases of pineapple. In Symposium on 
Tropical Fruit in International Trade 269  (pp. 503 –508).  
 
Sivanesan, A (1990) CM I Descriptions of Fungi and Bacteria no. 1005. Cochlibolus 
verruculosus. Mycopathologia 111(2): 119 –120. 
 
Tsuda, M; Ueyama, A (1982) Pseudocochliobolus verruculosus and variability of conidium 
morphology. Mycologia 74(4): 563 –568.  
469 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Appendix  2.4 Curvularia eragrostidis  
Scientific name: Curvularia eragrostidis  (Henn.) J.A. Mey. 1959  
Order : Pleosporales  Family: Pleosporaceae  
Other names: Brachysporium eragrostidis  Henn. 1908 , Cochliobolus eragrostidis (Tsuda & 
Ueyama) Sivan. 1987 , Curvularia m aculans  (C.K. Bancr.) Boedijn 1933 , 
Pseudocochliobolus eragrostidis  Tsuda & Ueyama 1985 , Spondylocladium maculans  C.K. 
Bancr. 1913 (BiotaNZ 2022) ; Leaf blight of pineapple, leaf spot of maize (EPPO 2022) . 
 
New Zealand status  
Curvularia eragrostidis  is not known to be present in New Zealand,  
• Curvularia eragrostidis  is recorded in (NZOR 2022)  as “Border I ntercept ”.  
• Biostatus of Curvularia eragrostidis  in New Zealand is “Border intercept” in BiotaNZ 
(2022) .  
• There is an entry of Curvularia eragrostidis  in PPIN (2022)  stating that “This 
organism has been entered for use in border, post border and post entry quarantine 
identifications in the STARS database. This organism is not established in New 
Zealand. Dated: 03 May 2005, J. Khan” .  
Curvularia eragrostidis  is a regul ated pest for New Zealand ( ONZPR (2022) ). 
 
Summary of reason for exclusion  
Curvularia eragrostidis  is not a hazard on pineapple fruit . MPI  has not assessed the risk of C. 
eragrostidis  further . 
• Curvularia eragrostidis  is known to cause of leaf spot symptoms in pineapple plants, 
but there is very limited information indicating it is a pathogen of pineapple fruit.  
• It is unclear from available literature whether the reported postharvest rot symptoms 
in pineapple fruit are  the result of opportunistic colonisation of wounded fruit by C. 
eragrostidis  or whether the fungus is regularly associated with these symptoms in 
pineapple fruit.  
• Previous MPI assessments suggest that the fungus can only spread over short 
distances.  
• Curvu laria eragrostidis  is known to be associated with a number of hosts present or 
cultivated in New Zealand, but no evidence was found of economic impacts to hosts 
of economic importance to New Zealand.  
• There are no known environmental impacts  caused by C. er agrostidis , although the 
fungus is known to cause “rusty flower disease ” symptoms in Dendrobium  orchids in 
Thailand . 
 
Supporting information  
 
Literature search:  we conducted an  online search of scientific literature using  Google 
Scholar, the web , CABI Abstracts and the CABI Crop Protection Compendium . We  used the 
terms ‘ Curvularia  eragrostidis  AND pineapple/ Ananas comosus /la pina’  and ‘Curvularia 
eragrostidis  AND disease /distribution ’. We included  common synonyms of C. eragrostidis  
in the searches.   
There is insufficient evidence that Curvularia eragrostidis  is associated with decrowned 
pineapple (as described in the commodity description), although it is known to cause leafspot 
disease on Ananas comosus .  
470 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  • Curvularia eragrostidis  has been reported to c ause leaf spot symptoms in pineapple 
plants  (Kranz 1964, 1965; Luo et al. 2012; García -Ordaz et al. 2021) .  
• However, o nly three references, have found the fungus in association with pineapple 
fruits and only one of these references reported it as a pathoge n on pineapple fruit.   
o Ferreira et al. (2014) : Curvularia eragrostidis was found as the causal agent of 
postharvest rot of pineapple fruits, with initially no visible outer symptoms 
being infected by rot extending to the core; symptoms on pineapple fruits 
showed three days after being on the market.  
o Kranz, 1964: no details were given about the condition of the pineapple fruit, 
no pathogenicity tests were done, but a side note was provided stating that C. 
maculans (synonym of C. eragrostidis ) was isolated from a pineapple fruit. In 
their later paper, Kranz (1965) associated their 1964 finding with dry rot  
(‘Trockenfaeule’).  
o Kuruppu et al. (2022) : ‘Thielaviopsis paradoxa  was the main black rot causal 
agent and A. aculeatus , C. eragrostidis  and T. asperellum  were confirmed as 
associated fungi with diseased fruits. ’ Their study suggested either a very 
minor role in causing disease or a co -infection by Curvularia eragrostidis ; 
however, pathogencity test was not conducted with C. eragrostidis .  
 
It should be noted that if pineapple fruit is infected with the fungus it may not be obvious by 
visual inspection . However, it is unclear from the available literature whether the reported rot 
symptoms in pineapple fruit are the result of opportunistic colo nisation of wounded fruit by 
C. eragrostidis  or whether the fungus is regularly associated with these symptoms in 
pineapple fruit.  
• Curvularia eragrostidis does not always cause externally visible symptoms (Ferreira 
et al. 2014), therefore it is possible it is not detected  through visible inspection.  
• MPI could not find any information available on typical incubation periods until 
symptom expression for near natural conditions. However, in inoculation experiments 
it took seven days until visible symptoms were present  on pineapple fruit (Ferreira et 
al. 2014).  
• However, only one paper (Ferreira et al. 2014) was found indicating the fungus is 
pathogenic to pinea pple fruit, and it was reported as postharvest rot. It is uncertain if 
the reported rot symptoms in pineapple fruit are the result of opportunistic 
colonisation of wounded fruit by C. eragrostidis , and there is no evidence indicating 
the fungus is regularl y associated with postharvest rot symptoms in pineapple fruit.  
 
Previous MPI assessments suggest that the fungus can only spread over short distances.  
• According to a previous PRA for onions by MPI (MAF 2009) , Curvularia 
eragrostidis is expected to spread only over short distances with wind (Sivanesan 
1990)  and rain/irrigations as the main dispersal modes for conidia (asexual 
reproducing spores).  
 
Curvularia eragrostidis  is known to be associated with a number of hosts present or 
cultivated in New Zealand,  but no evidence was found of economic impacts to hosts of 
economic importance to New Zealand.  
• Curvularia eragrostidis has a wide host range (Farr and Rossman 2021) , which 
includes species present in New Zealand such as : Triticum, Allium cepa, Allium 
sativ um, Ananas comosus, Capsicum annuum, Dioscorea sp., Eragrostis chapilieri, 
Eucalyptus globulosus, Solanum lycopersicum,  Musa×sapientum, Panicum 
miliaceum, Phalaenopsis amabilis, Phaseolus vulgaris, Pinus patula, Sorghum  
471 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  plumosum, Vigna unguiculata, Zea ma ys, and Saccharum officinarum (Farr and 
Rossman 2021) .  
• Despite the wide host range and the wide distribution of Curvularia eragrostidis in 
mostly tropical and subtropical countries ( (Ferreira et al. 2014; Farr and Rossman 
2021) ), MPI could not find any reports of damage to economical species of concern 
for New Zealand.  
• There is one report ( Zhu and Qiang 2004) on  infection of corn (Zea mays ) caused by 
C. eragrostidis , but it was an inoculation experiment:  Curvularia  eragrostidis  was 
studied as a biocontrol agent for Digitaria sanguinalis (large crabgrass a weed 
species), and the study found that C. eragrostidis did not cause any significant 
changes to dryweight of corn nor cause mortality when had been inoculated with C. 
eragrost idis isolate QZ -2000.  
 
There are no known environmental impacts caused by C. eragrostidis , although the fungus is 
known to cause “rusty flower disease” symptoms in Dendrobium  orchids in Thailand.  
• MPI could not find any direct reports of suceptability of native/endemic species to 
Curvularia eragrostidis. However, Dendrobium orchids were impacted in Thailand 
by C. eragrostidis where the fungus caused rusty flower disease rendering flowers 
impossible to sell (Středa et al. 2013) . No information was given on reproductive 
impacts on the infected flowers. It is not known if C. eragrostidis would cause any 
symptoms on Dendrobium cunninghamii  or other native orchid species.  
 
References  
BiotaNZ (2022) Biota of New Zealand. https:/ /biotaNZ.landcareresearch.co.nz Accessed 
30/04/2022  
 
EPPO (2022) EPPO Reporting Service. https://gd.eppo.int/reporting/  
 
Farr, D F; Rossman, A Y (2021) Fungal Databases, U.S. National Fungus Collections. 
https://nt.ars -grin.gov/fungaldatabases/ Accessed October 2021  
 
Ferreira, A; Pinho, D; Machado, A; Pereira, O (2014) First report of Curvularia eragrostidis 
causing postharvest rot on pineapple in Brazil. Plant disease 98(9): 1277 –1277.  
 
García -Ordaz, H A;  Chan -Cupul, W; Buenrostro -Nava, M T; Valadez -Ramírez, P (2021) 
Efectividad in vitro de fungicidas químicos contra Curvularia eragrostidis  (Henn) JA Mey, 
agente causal de la mancha foliar en piña. Scientia Agropecuaria 12(3): 429 –434. 
 
Kranz, J (1964) Fung i collected in the Republic of Guinea. II. Collections from the Kindia 
area in 1962. Sydowia 17(1–6): 174 –185. 
 
Kranz, J (1965) Curvularia eragrostidis  (P. Henn.) Meyer als Erreger einer 
Blattfleckenkrankheit der Ananas. Journal of Phytopathology 52(2): 202 –203. 
 
Kuruppu, M; Siddiqui, Y; Ahmad, K; Kong, L; Ali, A; Ding, P (2022) Assessing the Role of 
Micro -Environment, Inoculum Density and Harvesting Ind ices on Disease Progression of 
Black Rot Disease in Md2 Pineapple Caused by Thielaviopsis Paradoxa . Inoculum Density 
and Harvesting Indices on Disease Progression of Black Rot Disease in Md2 Pineapple 
Caused by Thielaviopsis Paradoxa . 
  
472 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Luo, Z; Fan, H; Li, X; Liu, Y; Hua, M; Wang, X; Yu, N; Zhou, W; He, F (2012) Study on 
several fungal leaf diseases of pineapple of Hainan. Southwest China Journal of Agricultural 
Sciences 25(5): 1703 –1707.  
 
MAF, B, New, Zealand; (2009) Import Risk Analysis:  
Onion ( Allium cepa  Liliaceae) Fresh  
Bulbs for Consumption from China  
DRAFT FOR CONSULTATION. In M B N Zealand; (Ed.), (pp. 281). Wellington  
New Zealand.  
 
NZOR (2022) The New Zealand Organisms Register. http://nzor.org.nz Accessed May 2022  
 
ONZPR (2022) Official New Zealand Pest Register. MPI Public Database. 
https://pierpestregister.mpi.govt.nz/PestsRegister/ImportCommodity/ Accessed May 2022  
 
PPIN (2022) Plant Pest Information Network, Version 5.03.01. Ministry for Primary 
Industries Internal Database. Accessed 15 September  2020  
 
Sivanesan, A (1990) CMI Descriptions of Fungi and Bacteria no. 1002. Cochliobolus 
eragrostidis. Mycopatholog 111(2): 113 –114. 
 
Středa, T; Krédl, Z; Pokorný, R; Sangchote, S (2013) Effect of wetting period on infection of 
orchid flowers by Alternaria alternata  and Curvularia eragrostidis . New Zealand Journal of 
Crop and Horticultural Science 41(1): 1 –8. 
 
Zhu, Y ; Qiang, S (2004) Iso lation, pathogenicity and safety of Curvularia eragrostidis isolate 
QZ-2000 as a bioherbicide agent for large crabgrass (Digitaria sanguinalis).  Biocontrol 
science and technology , 14(8), 769 –782. 
  
473 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Appendix 2. 5 Daldinia eschscholtzii  
 
Scien tific name:  Daldinia eschscholtzii (Ehrenb.) Rehm  (1904)  
Order : Xylariales  Family: Hypoxylaceae  
Other names: Sphaeria eschscholtzii  Ehrenb (1820) ; Daldinia concentrica  var. eschscholtzii 
(Ehrenb.)  (1901) ; Sphaeria concentrica  var. eschscholtzii  (Ehrenb.) (1823) ; Daldinia 
eschscholzii  (Ehrenb.) , Rehm (1904) ; Daldinia concentrica  var. eschscholzii  (Ehrenb.) , 
Starbäck (1901) ; Daldinia luzonensis  Rehm, (1913) ; Sphaeria eschscholzii  Ehrenb. (1820) ; 
Sphaeria concentrica  var. eschscholzii  (Ehrenb. ) (1823) .  
 
Taxonomic notes  
Daldinia eschscholtzii is considered a species complex (Tarman et al. 2012) . The complex 
has been revised multiple times (Child 1932; Triebel et al. 2005; Stadler et al. 2014) .  
 
New Zealand status  
• Daldinia eschscholtzii  is not known to be present in New Zealand  (BiotaNZ 2022) . It 
was previously erroneously recorded as present in the South Island, but that specimen 
has been identified as a fungus that is the southern hemisphere counterpart of D. 
eschscholtzii  (Stadler et al. 2014) .   
• Daldinia eschscholtzii  is not listed in ONZPR (2022) . 
 
Summary of reason for exclusion  
MPI does not consider Daldinia eschscholtzii to be a hazard on pineapple fruit . MPI  has not 
assessed the risk of D. eschscholtzii  further . 
• This fungus is not commonly associated with pineapples  and is not known to cause 
disease in pineapples.  
• This species complex is mostly found as an endophytic fungus or wood decaying 
fungus  
• MPI found n o reports of Daldinia eschscholtzii causing disease on oth er crops or non -
crop plant species  despite its very wide, almost exclusively tropical distribution.  
 
Supporting information  
We conducted an online search of scientific literature using  Google Scholar, the web , CABI 
Abstracts and the CABI Crop Protection Compendium . We  used the terms ‘ Daldinia 
eschscholtzii  AND pineapple/ Ananas comosus /la pina’  and ‘Daldinia eschscholtzii  AND 
disease’. We included  common synonyms of D. eschscholtzii  in the searches.   
 
There is insufficient evidence that Daldinia eschoscholztii  is associated with decrowned 
pineapple (as described in the commodity description). Only two references , from the same 
authors (Castro and Umaña 2015, 2017) referring to one survey , have found the  fungus in 
association with decrowned pineapple fruits and their study had some limitations:  
• The authors conducted one survey on pineapples during the post -harvest process in 
Costa Rica and found a variety of fungi , including D. eschscholtzii  in the disinf ecting 
water, the reused wax, and the coolant room air. They reported that in about 10% of 
the tested pineapples D. eschscholtzii was found year -round.  
• However, they did not conduct any experimental inoculum pathogenicity testin g to 
confirm any disease sy mptoms on pineapples . Although the fungus appears to be able 
to coloni se pineapples, this could be be an incidental observation due to  
474 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  contamination of the post harvest process. How ripeness of the pineapple influenced 
the coloni sation was not clear from t he methods. Since the observation occurred in 
combination with other fungi, which were more frequently encountered and then 
mould occurred, there is high uncertainty about the fungi’s ability to cause disease on 
its own on pineapples.  
• One other study isol ated Daldinia eschscholtzii as non -symptomatic endophytic 
fungus from Ananas comosus  leaves  in India  from a monoculture , but not from a 
mixed crop area or where pineapples grew wild (Bhattacharya et al. 2020) . It 
remained  unclear if the fungus would be pre sent in decrowned pineapples as per 
commodity description  as only leaves and roots were tested in this study.  
• Given the very wide host range of D. eschscholtzii , the fungus can be expected on a 
variety of species. Daldinia eschscholtzii most commonly has an endophytic or wood 
decaying lifestyle (Lee et al. 2019) . Fungi in the  genus Daldinia are not considered 
parasitic and specimens which were occasionally collected from living organisms 
such as trees, were thought by Stadler et al. (2014)  to be most likely collected from 
wounded or naturally aged plants . Specimens of D. eschscholtzii  have also been 
isolated from marine algae (Tarman et al. 2012)  and human skin, nails and blood (Ng 
et al. 2016) . Although  the fungus does not typically cause disease in humans or plants, 
(Ng et al. 2012)  identified genes of an isolate of D. eschscholtzii that are commonly 
associated with enz ymes that degrade plant wall cells, mycotoxin production, and 
resistance to antifungal drugs.   
• The genus Daldinia and the family Hypoxylaceae have undergone various revisions 
(Triebel et al. 2005; Bitzer et al. 2008; Stadler et al. 2014) , and new records o f 
Daldinia eschscholtzii have been found in new association and locations over the 
years . For example, in 2019,  Samarakoon et al. (2019)  reported D. eschscholtzii on 
Musa leaves in Thailand , and Lee et al. (2019)  reported it from Camellia japonica in 
Korea . However, despite these new records there is no support for pathogenicity of 
Daldinia eschscholtzii . The D. eschscholtzii group  is thought to have a very wide , 
almost exclusively tropical distribution  and is considered to be the most important 
tropical gr oup of Xylariaceae (Stadler et al. 2014)  
• Despite the research interest in D. eschscholtzii due to its secondary metabolic 
compounds, there is no evidence of this fungus being a pathogen that causes disease 
on plants.  
 
References  
Bhattacharya, S; Debnath, S; Krishna Saha, A (2020) Diversity and endophytic fungal 
composition in Ananas comosus  (L.) Merr. var queen cultivar isolated from three different 
growing conditions. Studies in Fungi 5(1).  
 
BiotaNZ (2022) Biota of New Zealand. h ttps://biotaNZ.landcareresearch.co.nz Accessed 
30/04/2022  
 
Bitzer, J; Laessøe, T; Fournier, J; Kummer, V; Decock, C; Tichy, H; Piepenbring, M; Persoh, 
D; Stadler, M (2008) Afiinities of Phylacia and the Daldinoid Xylariaceae, inferred from 
chemotypes of cu ltures and ribosomal DNA sequences. Mycological Research 112: 251 –270. 
 
Child, M (1932) The genus Daldinia. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 19(4): 429 –
496. 
  
475 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Lee, D J; Lee, J S; Lee, H B; Choi, Y -J (2019) Four Endophytic Ascomycetes New to Korea: 
Cladosporium anthropophilum, C. pseudocladosporioides, Daldinia eschscholtzii, and 
Nigrospora chinensis. The Korean Journal of Mycology 47(3): 187 –197. 
 
Ng, K P; Chan, C L; Yew, S M; Yeo, S K; Toh, Y F; Looi, H K; Na, S L; Lee, K W; Yee, W -
Y; Kuan, C S (2016 ) Identification and characterization of Daldinia eschscholtzii isolated 
from skin scrapings, nails, and blood. PeerJ 4: e2637.  
 
Ng, K P; Ngeow, Y F; Yew, S M; Hassan, H; Soo -Hoo, T S; Na, S L; Chan, C L; Hoh, C -C; 
Lee, K -W; Yee, W -Y (2012) Draft genome se quence of Daldinia eschscholzii  isolated from 
blood culture. Eukaryotic cell 11(5): 703 –704. 
 
ONZPR (2022) Official New Zealand Pest Register. MPI Public Database. 
https://pierpestregister.mpi.govt.nz/PestsRegister/ImportCommodity/ Accessed May 2022  
 
Samarakoon, S; Samarakoon, M; Aluthmuhandiram, J (2019) The first report of Daldinia 
eschscholtzii  as an endophyte from leaves of Musa  sp.(Musaceae) in Thailand. Asian J ournal 
of Mycology 2(1): 183 –197. 
 
Stadler, M; Laessøe, T; Fournier, J; Decock, C; Schmieschek, B; Tichy, H; Peršoh, D (2014) 
A polyphasic taxonomy of Daldinia  (Xylariaceae). Studies in Mycology 77: 1 –43. 
 
Tarman, K; Palm, G J; Porzel, A; Merzweiler, K; Ar nold, N; Wessjohann, L A; Unterseher, 
M; Lindequist, U (2012) Helicascolide C, a new lactone from an Indonesian marine 
algicolous strain of Daldinia eschscholzii (Xylariaceae, Ascomycota). Phytochemistry Letters 
5(1): 83 –86. 
 
Triebel, D; Peršoh, D; Wollweb er, H; Stadler, M (2005) Phylogenetic relationships among 
Daldinia , Entonaema , and Hypoxylon  as inferred from ITS nrDNA analyses of Xylariales. 
Nova Hedwigia 80(1–2): 25 –43. 
  
476 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Appendix 2.6 Fusarium concentricum  
Scientific name: Fusarium con centricum  Niremberg & O’Donnell (1998)   
Order : Hypocreales  Family: Nectriaceae   
 
Taxonomic notes  
Fusarium concentricum  is part of the Gibberella fujikuroi  species complex (GFSC)  (Kvas et 
al. 2019) . This species was considered part of F. subglutinans  sensu lato within the GFSC 
based on morphological characteristics of the conidia (Niremberg and O'Donnell 1998) . 
However, species within the GFSC were reevaluated based on morphological, molecular and 
phylogenetic analyses and as a result , F. concentricum  was recognized along with others as a 
separate  species (Aoki et al. 2001) . 
 
New Zealand  status:  
• Fusarium concentricum  is not known to be present in New Zealand  
o It is not listed in BiotaNZ (2022) . 
o It is not listed in PPIN (2022) . 
• Fusarium concentricum  is regulate d (ONZPR 2022) . 
 
Summary of reason for exclusion  
MPI does not consider Fusarium concentricum  to be a hazard on pineapple fruit and excluded 
it from this IRA because there is not enough evidence that it is associated with pineapple.  
 
Supporting information  
We searched  scientific literature using Google  and Google Scholar  and the search terms 
“Fusarium concentricum ”, “Fusarium concentricum  AND Ananas comosus ” and “Gibberella 
fujikuroi species complex”, as well as databases such as U.S . National Fungus Collections 
and Index Fungorum.  
 
We did not find enough  evidence that Fusarium concentricum  is ass ociated with decrowned 
pineapple (as described in the commodity description).  There is one record  found of F. 
concentricum  associat ed with decrowned pineapple s (Stępień et al. 2013) . The fungus was 
collected from fruit purchased in Europe and South Asia to eat after the fruit had been 
exported from Costa Rica and other countries. MPI does not consider this evidence of host 
association because it is unknown if the fruit was infected in Costa Rica or after exportation 
(Stępień et al. 2013; Urbaniak et al. 2019)  
 
References  
Aoki, T; O'Donnell, K; Ichikawa, K (2001) F usarium fractiflexum  sp. nov. and two other 
species within the Gibberella fujikuroi species complex recently discovered in Ja pan that 
form aerial conidia in false heads. Mycoscience 42: 461 –478. 
 
BiotaNZ (2022) Biota of New Zealand. https://biotaNZ.landcareresearch.co.nz Accessed 
30/04/2022  
 
Kvas, M; Marasas, W; Wingfield, B; Wingfield, M; Steenkamp, E (2019) Diversity and 
evolu tion of Fusarium  species in the Gibberella fujikuroi  complex. Fungal diversity 34: 1 –
21.  
477 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand   
Niremberg, H; O'Donnell, K (1998) New Fusarium species and combinations within the 
Gibberella fujikuroi  species complex. Mycologia 90(3): 434 –458. 
 
ONZPR (2022) Offic ial New Zealand Pest Register. MPI Public Database. 
https://pierpestregister.mpi.govt.nz/PestsRegister/ImportCommodity/ Accessed 09 February 
2022  
 
PPIN (2022) Plant Pest Information Network, Version 5.03.01. Ministry for Primary 
Industries Internal Databas e. Accessed 12 July 2022  
 
Stępień, Ł; Koczyk, G; Waśkiewicz, A (2013) Diversity of Fusarium  species and mycotoxins 
contaminating pineapple. Journal of Applied Genetics 54(3): 367 –380. 
 
Urbaniak, M; Stępień, Ł; Uhlig, S (2019) Evidence for naturally produced beauvericins 
containing N -Methyl -Tyrosine in hypocreales fungi. Toxins 11(3): 182.  
  
478 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Appendix 2.7 Chrysodeixis includens  (golden twin -spot moth ) 
Scientific name:  Chrysodeixis includens  (Walker, 1858)  
Order : Lepidoptera  Family: Noctuidae  
Other names : Autographa oo  (Stoll ); Autographa rogationis  (Guenée ); Phalaena oo (Stoll, 
1872 ); Phytometra oo (Stoll ); Phytometra rogationis ; Plusia binotula (Herrich -Schaffer, 
1868 ); Plusia dyaus (Grote, 1875) ; Plusia hamifera (Walker, 1858) ; Plusia includens 
(Walker, 1858) ; Plusia oo (Stoll in Cramer, 1782) ; Plusia rogationis (Guenée ); Pseudoplusia  
includens (Walker, 1858) ; Pseudoplusia oo (Stoll in Cramer, 1782 ); Pseudoplusia pertusa  
(Möschler, 1880 ); Pseudoplusia rogationis  (Guenée, 1852) ; Pusia culta (Lintner, 1885)  
(CABI 2021) ; Golden tw in-spot moth ; Soybean lopper moth . 
 
New Zealand  status:  
• Chrysodeixis includens  is not known to be present in New Zealand.   
o Chrysodeixis includens  is not listed in NZOR (2022).   
o Chrysodeixis includens  is not listed  from New Zealand in  BiotaNZ (2022) .  
o Chrysodeixis includens  is not listed  in (PPIN 2022) . 
• Chrysodeixis includens  is a re gulated pest for New Zealand (ONZPR 2022) . 
 
Summary of reason for exclusion  
MPI does not consider Chrysodeixis includens to be a hazard on pineapple fruit and excluded 
it from this IRA, because there is insufficient evidence indicating this species is asso ciated 
with the commodity.  
 
Supporting information  
The s earch terms ‘ Chrysodeixis includens ’ and ‘ Ananas comosus ’, and ‘Chrysodeixis 
includens ’ and ‘pineapple’  were used in the Centre for Agriculture and Bioscience 
International  Abstracts , the European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization , 
Google, Google Scholar, and PubMed .  
 
Chrysodeixis includens larvae have a weak association with pineapple fruit.  Detoni et al. 
(2018)  were the first to report pineapple fruit as a host of C. includ ens, and t his is the only 
report s o far of pineapple as a host of the insect . C. includens  is well studied as an 
economically -important agricultural pest, and the larval association with pineapple fruit 
appears to be weak based on the lack of published observations in the literature. Females 
predominantly lay eggs on the underside of host leave s (Pereira et al. 2018) , and so the egg 
stage is unlikely to be associated with pineapple fruit. Similarly, the adult  stage is unlikely to 
be associated with pineapple fruit as larvae are the primary feeding stage of C. includens . 
 
Chrysodeixis includens  larvae are likely to be detected during packhouse (cleaning/grading) 
activities. According to evidence gathered by Detoni et al. (2018) , external damage on 
pineapple fruit in the form of lesions and holes caused by larvae feeding is clearly visible. 
Further more, the caterpillars themselves are relatively conspicuous given they are 
predominantly light to dark green, with distinctive white stripes down the dorsal and lateral 
parts of its body (Carter and Gillett -Kaufman 2021) . This, coupled with the body lengt h of 
catepillars reaching around 3 cm (Carter and Gillett -Kaufman 2021)  indicates it is unlikely 
larvae would go undetected by hiding under fruit bracts or other crevices.  
  
479 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  References  
BiotaNZ (2022) Biota of New Zealand. https://biotaNZ.landcareresearch.co .nz Accessed 
30/04/2022  
 
CABI (2021) Chrysodeixis includens  
(soybean looper) datasheet. 
https://www.cabi.org/isc/datasheet/13245#todistributionDatabaseTable  
 
Carter, E T; Gillett -Kaufman, J L (2021) SOYBEAN LOOPER CHRYSODEIXIS 
INCLUDENS (WALKER) (INSECTA:  LEPIDOPTERA: NOCTUIDAE). 
https://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/publication/IN1198  
 
Detoni, A; Carvalho, S; Hoshino, A; Pastório, M; Schmidt, M; Menezes Junior, A; 
Androcioli, H (2018) First report of Chrysodeixis includens (Walker,[1858])(Lepidotera: 
Noctuidae) inju rious to pineapple (Ananas comosus L.)(Bromeliaceae) in Brazil. Brazilian 
Journal of Biology 78: 796 –798. 
 
NZOR (2022) The New Zealand Organisms Register. http://nzor.org.nz Accessed May 2022  
 
ONZPR (2022) Official New Zealand Pest Register. MPI Public Database. 
https://pierpestregister.mpi.govt.nz/PestsRegister/ImportCommodity/ Accessed May 2022  
 
Pereira, R; Neves, D; Campos, J; Júnior, P S; Hunt, T; Picanço, M (2018) Natural biological 
control of Chrysodeixis includens. Bulletin of Entomological  Research 108(6): 831 –842. 
 
PPIN (2022) Plant Pest Information Network, Version 5.03.01. Ministry for Primary 
Industries Internal Database. Accessed May 2022  
  
480 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Appendix 2.8 Elaphria nucicolora  (sugarcane midge moth ) 
Scientific name: Elaphria nucicolora  (Guenée 1852)   
Order : Lepidoptera  Family : Noctuidae  
Other names : Monodes nucicolora ; Elaphria clara ; Elaphria paginata ; Elaphria 
unisignata ; soldier worm (Rodríguez -Rodríguez 2010) . 
 
New Zealand  status:  
•  Elaphria nucicolora  is not known to be present in New Zealand.  
o There is no entry in BiotaNZ (2022) or PPIN (2022).  
• Elaphria nucicolora  is a regulated pest for New  Zealand ( ONZPR 2022).  
 
Summary of reason for exclusion  
MPI does not consider Elaphria nucicolora  to be a hazard on pineapple fruit and it is 
excluded from this IRA, because fruit produced from plants infested by this pest will not 
meet the commodity description and are thereby highly unlikely to be selected for export.  
 
Supporting informat ion 
Online search of scientific literature was  conducted using Google  and Google Scholar using 
the search terms  “Elaphria nucicolora ”, “Elaphria nucicolor a” AND “Pineapple” or “ Ananas 
comosus ” Elaphria nucicolor a” and “ Sugarcane Midge Moth ”. The first 50 results both in 
English and Spanish language  were reviewed.  
 
Fruits from pineapple plant infested with Elaphria nucicolora  will not meet the commodity 
description for this IRA and are highly unlikely to be selected for export.   
• Elaphria nucicolora  mainly attacks pineapple crops at the onset of fruit development 
(Jiménez 2013) . Eggs are laid on the inflorescence before it open s (Nath P 2015; Lam 
2017)  and when the eggs hatch, larvae can infest the young developing pineapple fruit 
(Vindas 2 011; Jiménez 2013; Lam 2017) . There is no report of e ggs of Elaphria 
nucicolora  being laid on pineapple fruit  (Nath P 2015) . 
• Fruits from plants infected by  Elaphria nucicolora  have  no market appeal , this leads 
to their r ejection  at pack houses (Vindas 2011; Nath P 2015) . Larvae which are 
usually between 3 -3.5 cm large voraciously feed on the exocarp of developing fruit 
causing  visible damage to the skin;  producing translucent colouration of pulp , external 
gummosis,  and deformity  (Vindas 2011; Jiménez 2013; Lam 2017) .  
• This pest is unlikely to be associated with fully matured fruits because it infests 
pineapple plants when the plant is about 76 days old, at the onset of flowering (Lam 
2017) . It takes 120-150 days after fruit initiat ion for pineapple fruit to mature 
(Connolly 2022) . Under laboratory conditions at 21o C, it completes its life cycle in 
approximately 32 days (Habeck 1965) . This suggests that  infested  fruit will show 
obvious damage before it fully matures “ 120–150 days”, as such damaged fruits are 
likely to be detected and culled.  
• Very little information is available on the associat ion of Elaphria nucicolora  with 
pineapple . Studies  on its association with pineapple  are mainly unpublished thes es 
(Rodríguez -Rodríguez  2010; Vindas 2011; Jiménez 2013) , a review (Nath P 2015)   
481 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  and an NPPO Risk Assessment  (NPPO 2015) . This suggests that it is mainly of 
interest in specific countries  where it is reported to occur, such as Costa Rica , Mexico  
and Hawaii .   
• There are no record s of interception of Elaphria nucicolora  on pineapples  from any 
country (LIMS 1986 –2020).   
 
References  
Connolly, A (2022) Pineapple Growth Stages. https://bustlingnest.com/pineapple -growth -
stages/ Accessed 11/08/2022  
 
Habeck, D H (1965) Laboratory culture  and development in Elaphria nucicolora 
(Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Florida Entomologist : 187 –188. 
 
Jiménez, J D Q (2013) Development of Standardized Operating Procedures for the 
Intergrated Management of Pests and Diseases of the Pineapple Cultivation Ananas comosus 
(L.) Merr in the Huetar Region  
Northern Costa Rica.  thesis; Technological Institute of Costa Rica San Carlos Regional 
Headquarters  
 
Lam, O F A (2017) Use of Entomopathogenic Nematodes Heterorhabditis for control of 
Anomala sp. (C oleoptera Scarabaeidae) in the cultivation of Pineapple (Ananas comosus), 
Hybrid MD -2, Diagnosis and Services carried out in Finca Popoyan, Santa Lucia 
Cotzumalguapa, Escuintla, Guatemala. thesis; University of San Carlos De Guatemala  
 
Nath P, M K, Kumar A, Yadav P K, Kumar R (2015) Pineapple Pests and their Management: 
A Review. International Journal of Advances in Agricultural Science and Technology. 2(10): 
74 – 85. 
 
NPPO, N P P O (2015) Quick scan number: QS.ENT.2014.6. In N F a C P S Authority (Ed.). 
Netherlands.  
 
Rodríguez -Rodríguez, J M (2010) Biología y distribución espacial del picudo ( Metamasius 
spp.)(Coleoptera: Curculionidae) en una plantación comercial de piña ( Ananas comosus) (L.) 
Merr. Cutris, San Carlos.  
 
Vindas, A M (2011) Evaluation of natur al products for the control of mealy mealybug, 
Dysmicoccus brevipes (Cockerell) (Hemiptera:Pseudococcidae), in the fruit of pineapple, San 
Carlos, Costa Rica. thesis; University of Costa Rica  
  
482 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Appendix 2.9 Opogona sacchari  (banana moth)  
 
Scientific name: Opogona sacchari (Bojer, 1856)  
Order : Lepidoptera  Family: Tineidae  
Other names : Alucita sacchari  Bojer; Tinea subcervinella  Walker; Gelechia sanctaehelenae  
Walker; Gelechia ligniferella  Walker; Laverna plumipes  Butler; Hieroxestis s anctaehelenae  
(Walker); Hieroxestis plumipes  Butler; Hieroxestis subcervinella  (Walker); Euplocamus 
sanctaehelenae  (Walker); Opogona subcervinella  (Walker); Opogona sanctaehelenae  
(Walker) (EPPO, 2006 ), sugarcane stalk borer; sugarcane borer; sugarcane moth (EPPO 
2022; Gibbs 1991)  
  
New Zealand status:  
• Opogona sacchari  is not known to be present in New Zealand.  
o There is no entry for it in BiotaNZ (2022) or PPIN (2022).  
• Opogona sacchari  is regulated and is an unwanted organism (ONZPR 2022).  
 
Sum mary of reason for exclusion  
MPI does not consider Opogona sacchari  to be a hazard on pineapple fruit. We excluded it 
from this IRA because:  
• it is unlikely to be associated with pineapple fruit as per the commodity description , 
and 
• there is not enough evidence that Opogona sacchari  is present in any of the exporting 
markets . 
 
Supporting information  
We conducted a n online search of scientific literature using Google  and Google Scholar using 
the search terms “ Opogona sacchari ”, “Opogona sacchar i AND Ananas comosus ”, 
“Opogona sacchari  AND piña”, “banana moth”.  
 
Opogona sacchari  is unlikely to be associated with pineapple fruit as per commodity 
description because:  
 
• Opogona sacchari  larvae mainly attack pineapple planting material such as slips, 
suckers and crown (Vorsino et al. 2005; Wright 2012 in Sipes and Wang 2017), which 
are not part the commodity. However, at high infestation  level s, larvae  can attack the 
matur ing pineapple fruit  by boring into the rind (Vorsino et al. 2005), causing 
gummosis  (carbohydrate -rich excretions), which is easily detectable visually. Fruit 
with gummosis is rejected in the packhouse (Vorsino et al. 2005; Sipes and W ang 
2017).   
• Opogona sacchari  attacks plant tissue that is already damaged and then spreads to 
healthy plant tissue (Heppner et al. 1987). In Barbados, O. sacchari  was most 
abundant in dead or dying stumps and dead sugar canes after they had been attacked 
by Diatraea saccharalis  (Lepidoptera: Crambidae), suggesting that O. sacchari  is an 
opportunistic pest (Davis and Peña 1990).  
• We found n o information on the location of egg deposition specifically on pineapples. 
On other plants, eggs are laid singly or in  groups on unexpanded leaves, stems and  
bark (Davis and Peña 1990;  EPPO 2006; CABI 2020).   
483 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand   
There is insufficient evidence that Opogona sacchari is present in any of the exporting 
markets. There are unvalidated reports of detections on nursery stock from C osta Rica, 
Taiwan and Indonesia.  
 
• Opogona sacchari  has been detected in Chile on imported nursery stock (plants for 
planting) of Dracaena fragans massangeana , Chamaedorea elegans  and Phoenix 
roebelenii . According to SAG (2019), these plants were traced bac k to Costa Rica, but 
this has not been confirmed by MPI. There is some uncertainty regarding the 
circumstances of O. sacchari  detections because it is not known whether the plants 
were kept outdoors or were exposed to other plants, which could have been a source 
of contamination (SAG 2019).  
• PestNet (2022)  posted a report of larvae intercepted on Yucca elephantipes  and 
Dracaena  plants imported from Costa Rica, Taiwan and Indonesia, which members 
andecdotally considered to be O. sacchari.  
 
References  
Biota NZ (2022) Biota of New Zealand. Manaaki Whenua – Landcare Research. 
https://biotaNZ.landcareresearch.co.nz  Accessed 3 August 2022.  
 
CAB I (2020) Opogona sacchari  (banana moth). In Invasi ve Species Compendium . CAB 
International; Wallingford, UK. https://www.cabi.org/isc/datasheet/37683  Accessed 19  July 
2022 . 
 
Davis, R  D; Peña, J E (1990) Biology and morphology of the banana moth, Opogona 
sacchari  (Bojer), and its introduction into Florida (Lepidoptera: Tineidae). Proceedings of the 
Entomological Society of Washington  92(4): 593 –618 
 
EPPO  (2006) Opogona sacchari . EPPO Bulletin  36(1): 171 –173. 10.1111/j.1365 -
2338.2006.00931  
 
EPPO  (2022) EPPO Global Database. European and Mediterranean Plant Protection 
Organization. https://gd.eppo.int/taxon/OPOGSC  Accessed 3  August 2022 . 
 
García González, I I (2013) Ciclo biológico y comportamiento de Opogona sacchari  Bojer en 
el cultivo de caña de azúcar, Virú, La Libertad. BSc thesis. Universidad Nacional de Trujillo; 
Trujillo, Peru.  
 
Gibbs,  I H (1991) The sugar cane stalk borer ( Opogona sacchari  Bojer) – a pest of stored 
yams in Barbados. In Proce eding of the Ninth Annual Conference of the Barbados Society of 
Technologists in Agriculture , Rockley Resort, Barbados, West Indies, 13 & 15 November . 
Barbados Society of Technologists in Agriculture Christ Church, Barbados (Abstract only)  
 
ONZP R (2022) Official New Zealand Pest Register . Ministry for Primary Industries; 
Wellington, NZ. https://pierpestregister.mpi.govt.nz/PestsRegister/ImportCommodity  
Accessed 3  August 2022. 
 
PestNet (2022 ) Opogona sacchari  https://www.pestnet.org/crops -ornamentals -agave -
opogona -sacchari -yucca -Costa -Rica/  Accessed 18  July 20 22. 
  
484 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  PPIN  (2022) Plant Pest Information Network, Version 5.03.01. Internal database. Ministry 
for Primary Industries. Accessed 3 August 2022.  
 
SAG (2019) Resolución exenta N°: 7677/2019: modifica resolución exenta N° 7.214 de 2014 
y establece medidas de emergencia para prevenir el ingreso de Opogona sacchari  en plantas 
para plantar de especies hospedantes. Servicio Agricola Ganadero (SAG). Santiago, Chile. 
https://members.wto.org/crnattachments/2022/SPS/CHL/22_2420_00_s.pdf  
 
Sipes, B ; Wang, K H (2017) Pests, diseases and weeds. In Lobo, M G; Paul, R E (eds) 
Handbook of Pinea pple Technology: Production, Postharvest Science, Processing and 
Nutrition.  Wiley Blackwell, UK.  
 
Vorsino, A  E; Taniguchi, G Y; Wright, M (2005) Opogona sacchari  (Lepidoptera: Tineidae), 
a new pest of pineapple in Hawaii. Proceedings of the Hawaiian Entomo logical Society  37: 
97–98. 
 
Wright, M  G (2012) Pineapple insects: ecology and control. In Encyclopedia of Pest 
Management . pp 1 –3 Taylor and Francis , New York.    
485 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Appendix 2.10 Carpophilus mutilatus  (confused sap beetle ) 
Scientific name: Carpophilus mutilatus  Erichson, 1843  
Order : Coleoptera  Family: Nitidulidae  
Synonyms/other names : Carpophilus luridus  Murray, 1864 (synonymy from Brown 2009)  
Other names:  Flower beetle  
 
Taxonomic notes  
Carpo philus mutilatus  is a member of the C. dimidiatus  complex.  The members of this 
complex are very difficult to distinguish . DiLorenzo et al. (2021)  state, “There are currently 
no known external characters to reliably distinguish members of the dimidiatus  complex from 
one another .” Other members of the complex are reported from New Zealand , e.g. 
C. dimidiatus  (NZOR 2022) . 
 
New Zealand status  
• Carpophilus mutilatus  is not known to be present in New Zealand. (NZOR 2022)  and 
BiotaNZ (2022)  state it has been recorded in error .  
• Carpophilus mutilatus is reported to be present in New Zealand in PPIN (2022) , but 
the record has been refuted (see note below).  
• Carpophilus mutilatus  is a regulated pest for New Zealand ( ONZPR (2022) . 
 
Note:  Leschen and Marris (2005)  state, “This species was described from western India and 
the first record of this species in New Zealand was by Hutton (1904). We have examined 
specimens that were intercepted from produce originating from Australia. We find no 
evidence of establishment of this species in New Zealand, contrary to the findings of 
Archibald and Chalmers (1983 ). Carpophilus mutilatus  did not fit the criteria of an 
established species as indicated in the introduction. There was a PPIN record for the s pecies 
but we were unable to locate that specimen in borrowed material and we could not validate 
the record.”  
 
Hosts and geographical distribution  
Adult and larva l sap beetles  live and develop in organic matter, including ripe and rotting 
fruit, decaying p lant tissues  and stored products . They are generally associated with a wide 
range of plant species (Wakil et al. 2015) . Carpophilus mutilatus has been reported from 
breadfruit, citrus, coconut, corn, cycads, grapes, island chestnuts , lentil seeds , Pandanus , 
quince, papaya, peppers, mangoes, melons, passionfruit, pipfruit, sugarcane, Calophyllum, 
Helianthus and Hibiscus  (Crosby and Choquenot 2005; Marler and Muniappan 2006; Brown 
2009) .    
 
Carpophilus mutilatus  is thought to be native to Central and South America, and has been 
found in many countries, including Bangladesh, India, Israel, Philippines, Saudi Arabia, 
Czechia, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Lithuania, Malta, Sweden, Antigua and Barbuda , 
the USA, an d Australia (Mostafa et al. 2017; CABI 2019) . This species is also reported 
widely through the Pacific region, including the Caroline Islands, Cook Islands, Fiji, Gilbert 
Islands, Guam, Hawai’i, Marianna Islands, Marshall Islands, Nauru, New Caledonia, Sam oa, 
Society Islands, Solomon Islands and Vanuatu (Brown 2009) .  
 
Given the similarity of C. mutilatus  to other Carpophilus  species  (particularly C. dimidatus ) 
and the historical confusion over identification  (Leschen and Marris 2005; Brown 2009) ,  
486 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  there is a moderate level of uncertainty regarding the host ranges and geographical 
distribution  of these species.  
 
Summary of reason s for exclusion  
Carpophilus mutilatus  is not considered to be a hazard on fresh pineapple fruit . MPI  has not 
assessed the risk of C. mutilatus  further . Carpophilus mutilatus  has been identified once at 
the New Zealand border on imported pineapple fruit. However:  
• Like other sap beetles, C. mutilatus  is generall y associated with overripe, damaged, 
rotten an d/or dried fruits and vegetables ; and  
• We found n o reports of C. mutilatus  causing impacts  on fresh pineapple, despite its 
wide geographical  distribution.  
 
Supporting information  
We collected evidence for this PRA exclusion note using various combinations of 
“Carpophilus mutilatus ”, “confused sap beetle/flower beetle” and “ pineapple/ Ananas 
comosus ” as search terms on Google, Google Scholar, CNKI and CAB Abstracts. We 
reviewed the f irst 100 search results (10 webpages) of each specific search combination. We 
also collected information on ‘Carpophilus ’ AND ‘pineapple/ Ananas comosus ’ and ‘sap 
beetle AND pineapple/ Ananas comosus ’ in the searches.  
 
Carpophilus mutilatus is unlikely to b e commonly associated with this fresh pineapple 
commodity . 
• We found no evidence that fresh pineapple is a host of C. mutilatus .  
o In common with other Carpophilus beetles, C. mutilatus  is generally 
associated with stored fruit products, or  fruits and other plant parts that are 
ripening or decomposing  (James et al. 1995; Wakil et al. 2015) .  
• We found n o evidence that Carpophilus beetles are directly  associated with  fresh 
pineapple fruit.  
o There are no reports in the last 30 years describing an infestation of any 
Carpophilus  beetles on fresh pineapple. The records of pineapple hosting 
C. hemipterus  and C. obsoletus  in some reports (Bartholomew and Malézieux 
1994; Leschen and Marris 2005; Wakil et al. 2015)  are likely interpreted from 
old repor ts, which may only record the Carpophilus beetles present in 
pineapple orchards or infesting trash or overripe pineapple fruit, rather than 
fresh fruit.  
o Schmidt (1935)  reported six species of sap beetles in the pineapple fields of 
Hawai ʻi, of which C. hem ipterus  and C. humeralis  were the most common. 
Laboratory feeding tests of these two species on fruits, however, showed that 
beetles could not burrow into green pineapple skin even when starved. For 
ripe pineapples, the author stated, “in all cases where the fruit as a whole 
rema ined sound the beetles did not penetrate it .” 
o Covas and Gaud (1983)  reported that pineapple gummosis (which is generally 
mainly caused by insect damage in the field) could aid C. humeralis  to burrow 
into fruits. However, gummosis is a quality defect, and a ny pineapples with 
gummosis would be excluded from the pathway.  
o The feeding behaviours of Carpophilus beetles (e.g. host selection) are 
affected by microorganisms (e.g. yeast s) on ripening and rotting fruit  (and 
producing f ermentation volatiles ) (Zilkowski  et al. 1999; Bartelt and Hossain 
2006; Baig et al. 2020) .   
487 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  • Carpophilus mutilatus  has been identified only once on fresh pineapple pathway at 
the New Zealand  border . 
o Carpophilus  beetles have been intercepted at the New Zealand border more 
than 854 times on fresh produce pathway , while 69  times on fresh pineapple 
with only one record associated with  C. mutilatus  (consignment  
C2020/876697 ) (LIMS 2022) . 
o At the New Zealand border, C. mutilatus  has only been identi fied six times on 
fresh produce: on kava sticks, capsicum ( consignment  C2008/185844 ), onion, 
garlic and p omegranate  (LIMS 2022) . 
o Carpophilus  mutilatus  has not been detected at the European Union border. 
C. hemipterus  has been intercepted on fresh pineapple  and apple, but other 
intercepted species of Carpophilus  beetles were only associated with stored 
products (EPPO 2022) .  
 
References  
Baig, F; Farnier, K; Piper, A M; Speight, R; Cunningham, J P (2020) Yeasts influence  host 
selection and larval fitness in two frugivorous carpophilus beetle species. Journal of chemical 
ecology 46(8): 675 –687. 
 
Bartelt, R J; Hossain, M S (2006) Development of synthetic food -related attractant for 
Carpophilus davidsoni and its effectivenes s in the stone fruit orchards in southern Australia. 
Journal of chemical ecology 32(10): 2145 –2162.  
 
Bartholomew, D P; Malézieux, E (1994) Pineapple. Handbook of environmental physiology 
of fruit crops 2: 243 –291. 
 
BiotaNZ (2022) Biota of New Zealand. http s://biotaNZ.landcareresearch.co.nz Accessed 
2022  
 
Brown, S (2009) Molecular systematics and colour variation of Carpophilus species 
(Coleoptera: Nitidulidae) of the South Pacific. thesis; Lincoln University, Retrieved from 
http://dspace.lincoln.ac.nz/handl e/10182/1430  
 
CABI (2019) Carpophilus mutilatus (flower beetle). 
https://www.cabi.org/isc/datasheet/11361  
 
Covas, F G; Gaud, S M (1983) Conditions that affect populations of Carpophilus humeralis 
F.(Coleoptera: Nitidulidae) in the pineapple fields of Puerto Rico. The Journal of Agriculture 
of the University of Puerto Rico 67(1): 11 –15. 
 
Crosby, T; Choquenot, D (2005) Landcare Research New Zealand Ltd 2005.  
 
DiLorenzo, C L; Powell, G S; Cline, A R; McHugh, J V (2021) Carpophiline -ID: an 
interactive matrix -based key to the carpophiline sap beetles (Coleoptera, Nitidulidae) of 
Eastern North America. ZooKeys 1028: 8 5–93. 
 
EPPO (2022) EPPO Reporting Service. https://gd.eppo.int/reporting/  
  
488 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  James, D G; Vogele, B; Faulder, R J (1995) Seasonal abundance of Carpophilus 
spp.(Coleoptera: Nitidulidae) in fallen citrus fruit in the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area of 
southern Ne w South Wales. Plant Protection Quarterly 10: 103 –103. 
 
Leschen, R; Marris, J (2005) Carpophilus (Nitidulidae) of New Zealand and notes on 
Australian species. MAF contract report (FMA121) . 
 
LIMS (2022) Laboratory Information Management System. Ministry for  Primary Industries 
internal database. Accessed 11/04/2022  
 
Marler, T; Muniappan, R (2006) Pests of Cycas micronesica leaf, stem, and male 
reproductive tissues with notes on current threat status. MICRONESICA -AGANA - 39(1): 1.  
 
Mostafa, A M; Sakr, H H; Yass in, E; Abdel Khalik, A R (2017) Occurrence of Mites and 
Insects Associated with Date Palm Fruits in Different Governorates of Egypt. Egyptian 
Academic Journal of Biological Sciences. A, Entomology 10(4): 93 –102. 
 
NZOR (2022) The New Zealand Organisms Regis ter. http://nzor.org.nz Accessed May 2022  
 
ONZPR (2022) Official New Zealand Pest Register. MPI Public Database. 
https://pierpestregister.mpi.govt.nz/PestsRegister/ImportCommodity/ Accessed May 2022  
 
PPIN (2022) Plant Pest Information Network, Version 5.03 .01. Ministry for Primary 
Industries Internal Database. Accessed 15 September 2020  
 
Schmidt, C T (1935) Biological studies on the nitidulid beetles found in pineapple fields 
(Nitidulidae, Coleoptera). Annals of the Entomological Society of America 28(4): 4 75–511. 
 
Wakil, W; Faleiro, J R; Miller, T A (2015) Sustainable pest management in date palm: 
current status and emerging challenges. Springer.  
 
Zilkowski, B W; Bartelt, R J; Blumberg, D; James, D G; Weaver, D K (1999) Identification 
of host -related volatiles attractive to pineapple beetle Carpophilus humeralis. Journal of 
chemical ecology 25(1): 229 –252.  
489 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Appendix 2.11 Metamasius hemipterus  (West Indian sugarcane 
borer ) 
 
Scientific name: Metamasius hemipterus (Linnaeus)  
Order : Coleoptera  Family: Dryophthoridae  
Other name s: Metamasius sericeus , rotten cane stalk borer, silky cane weevil, weevil borer  
 
Taxonomic notes  
There are three recognized subspecies of this weevil; M. h. hemipterus  (L.) is distributed 
southwards from Puerto Rico through the Lesser Antilles and into most of South America; 
M. h. sericeus  (Olivier) is found in the Greater Antilles and Central America  south from 
Nicaragua to western Colombia and Ecuador; while M. h. carbonarius  (Chevrolat) occurs 
from Mexico south to El Salvador and Honduras ( Vaurie  1966) . Recent , molecular data 
suggest that M. h. hemipterus  could be elevated to a separate species, an d M. h. sericeus  and 
M. h. carbonarius  could be treated as the same species (Palmieri et al. 2022) . The biology of 
the three subspecies currently recognized is very similar (Giblin -Davis et al. 1994) .  
 
New Zealand status:  
• Metamasius hemipterus  is not  know n to be present in New Zealand.  
o Metamasius hemipterus  is not listed in NZOR (2022 ).  
o Metamasius hemipterus  is not listed in PPIN ( 2022 ).  
o Metamasius hemipterus sericeus  is not present in New Zealand (PPIN 2022).  
o  There is no entry for M. hemipterus  in Biota NZ (2022).   
o Metamasius hemipterus  is a regulated and unwanted organism (ONZPR 2022).  
o Metamasius hemipterus  sericeus  is a regulated and unwanted organism 
(ONZPR 2022).  
Summary of reason for exclusion  
MPI does not  consider Metamasius hemipterus  to be a hazard on pineapple fruit and excluded 
it from this IRA because  pineapple fruits infested by M. hemipterus do not meet the 
commodity description.  
 
Supporting information  
The search terms [“ Metamasius hemipterus ” AND “Pineapple” OR “ Ananas comosus ”] were 
used in Google and Google Scholar. The first 50 results were checked both in English and 
Spanish language.  
 
Pineapple fruits infested by M. hemipterus do not meet commodity description.  
 
The occasional presence of M. hemipterus on pineapple plants causes visible damage to the 
plants before the fruit is produced and eventually attacked.  
• Metamasius spp. (e.g. M. hemipterus , M. callizona,  M. dimidiatipennis ) weevils are 
reported as occasional production p ests of cultivated pineapples (Frank and Cave 
2005; Rodríguez -Rodríguez 2010; Thorn et al. 2019) . 
• The pineapple plants attacked by Metamasius  weevils are visibly damaged 
(Rodríguez -Rodríguez 2010) . 
• On pineapple plants, M. hemipterus  adults (9-14 mm long (CAPS 2013) ) live, feed 
and lay their eggs (1.7 mm long1) in the central leaves. Larvae (3.2 to 4.5 mm wide,  
490 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  15–17 mm long  (CAPS 2013) ) are mostly found in the lower stalk of the plant and 
prefer to pupate in the peduncle .  
• Adults of M. hemipterus feed on the apical meristem of the pineapple plant , and focus 
on tender leaves (Rodríguez -Rodríguez 2010) . Adults can also feed on the pineapple 
flowers, and can also damage the skin of the pineapple fruits, causing deep scratches, 
gummosis, and damage and  deformation of the fruit  (Rodríguez -Rodríguez 2010) . 
Adults of M. hemipterus prefer to feed on the crown than on the fruit (Rodríguez -
Rodríguez 2010) . If adults feed on fruits, they prefer damaged and overripe ones 
(Rodríguez -Rodríguez 2010) .  
 
If the pin eapple fruit is attacked, it shows obvious external symptoms.  
• Only occasionally, adult M. hemipterus attack developing pineapple fruits. Depending 
on the timing of the weevil attack, the fruit grows without crown , or with visible holes 
(Rodríguez -Rodríguez  2010) . The damage makes the fruit unsuitable for export  
(Rodríguez -Rodríguez 2010) . 
• The larvae of M. hemipterus  cause linear galleries in the leaves and stem when they 
feed. A similar damage can be seen in the fruit if the larva reaches it through the 
peduncle (Rodríguez -Rodríguez 2010) . Larval galleries can structurally weaken stems 
and crowns of the plant hosts causing them to break (Thorn et al. 2019) . The damage 
to the fruit is obvious and externally visible ( Rodríguez -Rodríguez 2010 ).  
 
References  
BiotaNZ (2022) Biota of New Zealand. https://biotaNZ.landcareresearch.co.nz Accessed July 
2022  
 
CAPS (2013) Metamasius hemipterus . http://download.ceris.purdue.edu/file/223 1 Accessed 
July 2022  
 
Frank, J; Cave, R (2005) Metamasius callizona is destroying Florida’s native bromeliads. In 
Second International Symposium on Biological Control of Arthropods, Davos, Switzerland  
(Vol. 1, pp. 91 –101).  
 
Giblin -Davis, R M; Pena, J E; Du ncan, R E (1994) Lethal pitfall trap for evaluation of 
semiochemical -mediated attraction of Metamasius hemipterus sericeus (Coleoptera: 
Curculionidae). Florida Entomologist : 247 –247. 
 
ONZPR (2022) Official New Zealand Pest Register. MPI Public Database. Accessed July 
2022  
 
Palmieri, L; Chamorro, M L; Sharma, P P (2022) Phylogenetic assessment of the Metamasius 
hemipterus  species complex (Coleoptera, Curculionidae, Dryophthorinae). Molecular 
phylogenetics and evolution . 
 
PPIN (2022) Plant Pest In formation Network, Version 5.03.01. Ministry for Primary 
Industries Internal Database. Accessed July 2022  
 
Rodríguez -Rodríguez, J M (2010) Biología y distribución espacial del picudo (metamasius 
spp.)(coleoptera: curculionidae) en una plantación comercial de piña (ananas comosus)(l.) 
Merr. Cutris, San Carlos.   
491 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand   
Thorn, M; Seltzer, J; Hendon, A; Keasler, B; Hill, J (2019) The First Detection of 
Metamasius hemipterus (L.)(Coleoptera: Curculionidae) from Coastal Mississippi, USA. 
Transactions of the American Ent omological Society 145(3): 407 –412. 
 
Vaurie, P. (1967). A revision of the Neotropical genus Metamasius (Coleoptera, 
Curculionidae, Rhynchophorinae). Species group 3. Bulletin of the AMNH ; 136 : article 4 . 
 
  
492 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Appendix 2.12 Sybra alternans  
Scientific name: Sybra alternans  (Wiedemann, 1823)    
Order: Coleoptera  Family: Cerambycidae   
Other scientific names:  Lamia alternans  Wiedemann, 1823; Atelais angustata  Pic, 1926; 
Sybra fuscovittata  Aurivillius, 1927; Sybra carolina  Matsushita, 1935; Sybra ochreovittata  
Breuning, 1939; Sybra alternans  m. discomaculata  Breuning, 1950; Falsoropica javaensis  
Breuning, 1982.  
 
Taxonomic note:  Synonomy provided is from Skale and Weigel (2016)  
 
New Zealand status:  
Sybra alternans  is not known to be present in New Z ealand : 
• There is no entry for S. alternans  in NZOR (2022), ONZPR (2022) or BiotaNZ 
(2022) . 
• “Sybra altenanus ” (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae)  is listed as “not assessed” in ONZPR  
(2022) . This is likely to be a misspelling since no matching published name was 
found .  
 
Summary of reason for exclusion  
Sybra alternans  is not considered to be a hazard on pineapple fruit  as per the commodity 
description and is excluded from this IRA.  This is because n o comprehensive evidence for 
commodity association has been found in published literature. The only host association 
report that was found is from a survey of insects that visit ripe and wounded fruit or that 
emerge from rotten fruit in a pineapple orchard (Sakimura and Linford 1940) .  
 
Supporting information  
The eviden ce for the association is weak as there is only a single report  found. The report 
does not mention lifestage .  
 
• No detailed information on the biology of S. alternans  was found in searches of the 
published literature. Brief notes found indicated that S. alternans  larvae are 
generalists having found feeding on banana fruit (Chen et al 2001), dead plant tissues 
(e.g., decaying bark, Sweazy 1950) and fungus infected plant material (e.g.,in 
Vachellia farnesiana  seed pods infested with Aspergillus , Dexter 1960 ).  
• Sybra alternans  was found in association with ripe pineapple fruits that had been 
placed in groups on pineapple plants in the field . Further collections were obtained 
through sweep netting during night ( Sakimura and Linford (1940) .  
• A number of aut hors list pineapple as one of the hosts but no direct evidence was 
provided  (Chen et al. 2001; Mondaca et al. 2016; Rafil et al. 2018) , while some 
authors ( Chen et al. 2001 ) cite Sakimura and Linford (1940) as reference for host 
association.  
• Gressitt (1956 ) and Gressitt and Davis (1972)  do not list pineapple as a host, and list  
dead branches as the major host.  
• Stein and Haraguchi (1984)  list “ pulverised  dried [woody] material” as a suitable diet 
for rearing the beetle. This diet was successfully used by Keena (2017) .  
• Swezey (1950)  reported that beetle emergence occurred from cut branches  of 
Artocarpus altilis  (breadfruit) .   
493 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand   
A literature review was undertaken, using only the search term [ Sybra alternans ] or 
synonoms listed above. Other than (Chen et al. 20 01; Mondaca et al. 2016; Rafil et al. 2018)  
no relevant results were found. CABI returned no relevant results with the above search 
terms. The internal MPI databases LIMS/PPIN returned no results.  
 
New Zealand actively imports pineapple from countries whe re S. alternans  is known from 
(e.g, 47 consignments from Philippines in 2020  (QuanCargo 2021) ), but S. alternans  has not 
been identified at the New Zealand border.  
 
References  
Chen, H; Ota, A; Fonash, G E (2001) Infestation of Sybra alternans (Cerambycidae: 
Coleoptera) in a Hawaii banana plantation.  
 
Gressitt, J L (1956) Insects of Micronesia Coleoptera: Cerambycidae  (Vol. 17). Bernice P. 
Bishop Museum.  
 
Gressitt, J L; Davis, C J (1972) Seasonal occurrence and host -lists of Hawaiian 
Cerambycidae.  
 
Keena, M A (2017) Laboratory rearing and handling of cerambycids. In: Wang, Qiao, ed. 
Cerambycidae of the world: biology and pest management. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press: 
253–289. Chapter 7.: 253 –289. 
 
Mondaca, J; Ramírez, F; Rothmann, S (2016 ) Sybra alternans (Wiedemann)(Lamiinae: 
Apomecynini): an Asian cerambycid established on Easter Island, Chile.  
 
QuanCargo (2021) Ministry for Primary Industries internal database. Accessed 1 July 2021  
 
Rafil, M; Annawaty, A; Fahri, F (2018) Kumbang Antena Panjang Genus Sybra (Coleoptera: 
Cerambycidae) Dari Cagar Alam Pangi Binangga Sulawesi Tengah. Natural Science: Journal 
of Science and Technology 7(3).  
 
Sakimura, K; Linford, M B (1940) An annotated List of Insects from Lanai. Proceedings of 
the Hawaiian E ntomological Society 10(3).  
 
Skale, A; Weigel, A (2016) Systematik, Taxonomie und Faunistik der Apomecynini der 
orientalischen und  
australischen Region (Coleoptera:  Cerambycidae). Revision der Gattung Sybra Pascoe, 
1865, Teil 6: Die Gruppe der Sybra alter nans (Wiedemann, 1823). Entomologische Blätter 
und Coleoptera 112(1): 443 –463. 
 
Stein, J; Haraguchi, J (1984) Meridic diet for rearing of the host specific tropical wood -borer 
Plagithmysus bilineatus (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae).  
 
Swezey, O (1950) Notes on t he life cycle of certain introduced Cerambycid beetles.  
  
494 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Appendix 3 Transit conditions  
 
The following markets  are likely to export pineapples via air freight at room temperature:  
• Fiji 
• New Caledonia  
• Vanuatu  
• Samoa  
• Tonga  
• Cook Islands  
• Australia (sometimes air freight but sometime sea cargo)  
 
The following markets  are likely to export pineapples as sea cargo:  
• Costa Rica  
• Ecuador  
• Indonesia  
• Malaysia  
• Panama  
• The Philippines  
• Thailand  
• Sri Lanka  
• Taiwan  
• Papua New Guinea  
• Australia (sometimes air freight but sometime sea cargo)  
 
Recommended cold storage conditions for pineapple are temperature at 7 –13°C and relative 
humidity at 85 –90% moisture, and the approximate storage life under these conditions is 14 – 
28 days (Camelo 2004) . Colder than 4°C fru it fail to continue ripening and show severe 
chilling injury (Camelo 2004) . 
 
Estimated shipping duration and the fastest estimated shipping duration from exporting 
markets  are shown in App. Table 1 and App.Table 2. 
 
APP. Table 1 Estimated s hipping times fro m targeted markets  to New Zealand  (information sourced 
from Freight (2021) ). 
Markets  shipping times / schedule  
Auckland  Lyttelton  Nelson  Port 
Chalmers  Tauranga  Wellington  
Asia 
Indonesia 
(Belawan)  3w–4w 3w–4w 4w 3w 3w–4w 3w–4w 
Indonesia 
(Surabaya)  4w–5w 4w 5w 4w 3w–5w 4w–5w 
Malaysia (Port 
Klang)  2w–3w 3w 3w–4w 2w–3w 3w 3w–4w 
The Philippines 
(Manila)  2w–3w 3w 3w–4w 2w–3w 3w 3w–4w  
495 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Thailand (Port of 
Bangkok)  3w–4w 4w 4w 4w 3w–5w 3w–4w 
Sri Lanka (Port of 
Colombo)              
Taiwan (Kaohsiung)  5w 5w 6w–7w 7w 4w 4w–5w 
Central America  
Costa Rica (Puerto 
Caldera)              
Ecuador (Andiport)              
Panama              
Oceania  
Papua New Guinea 
(Port Moresby)              
Australia (cityies)              
Adelaide  1w–2w 2w 2w 3w 1w–3w 2w 
Brisbane  4d–2w 1w–2w 1w–2w 1w–2w 5d–2w 1w–2w 
Melbourne  5d–3w 2w 1w–2w 2w–3w 4d–1w 1w–2w 
Fremantle  3w–4w 3w–4w 3w 3w–4w 3w–4w 3w 
Sydney  3d–3w 1w–2w 1w 2w 2d–2w 5d–1w 
Note: the   
APP. Table 2: Fastest estimated shipping times from exporting markets  to New Zealand (calculated 
used the information from Ports.com (2021) ). 
Markets  shipping times / charter  (day)  
Auckland  Lyttleton  Wellington  
Asia 
Indonesia (Belawan)  13.1 14.1 13.8 
Indonesia (Surabaya)  12 13 12.6 
Malaysia (Port Klang)  12.6 13.6 13.2 
The Philippines (Manila)  11.3 12.3 11.9 
Thailand (Port of Bangkok)  13.6 14.7 14.3 
Sri Lanka (Port of Colombo)  14.8 15.9 15.5 
Taiwan (Kaohsiung)  12.1 13.1 12.7 
Central America  
Costa Rica (Puerto Caldera)  34.4 34.3 34.5 
Ecuador (Andiport)  35.1 27.8 35.2 
Panama  33.3 33.1 33.4 
Oceania  
Papua New Guinea (Port Moresby)  5.6 6.6 6.3 
Australia (cities)        
Adelaide  4.2 4.5 4.3 
Brisbane  3.2 4.2 3.8 
Melbourne  3.4 3.9 3.5 
Fremantle  6.6 6.5 6.7 
Sydney  2.8 3.8 3.4 
Note: Based on the estimated transit time of a charter vessel traveling the most direct shipping route at 
a speed of 20 knots .   
496 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand   
Reference s for Appendix 3 
Camelo, A F L (2004) Manual for the preparation and sale of fruits and vegetables: from field 
to market (Vol. 151). Food & Agriculture Org.  
 
Freight, C (2021) Transit Times https://www.championfreight.co.nz/times Accessed 20 
August  
 
Ports.com (2021) http://ports.com/ Accessed 20 August  
 
 
  
497 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  Appendix 4 Glossary and abbreviations  
 
Term or a bbreviation  Definition  
BRAD  Biosecurity Risk Analysis Database . MPI internal  database  that 
records the regulatory status and other information about plant 
pests.  
CMI  Climate (or composite) match index, a value that indicates the 
similarities between a location overseas and New Zealand 
(Phillips et al. 2018).  
commercial production  Definit ion for the purposes of risk assessment: a  process/system 
where activities, such as in -field monitoring, in -field pest control 
activities, harvesting, cleaning, sorting and grading have been 
undertaken to produce a commodity that is free of defects such 
as broken skin, rot and damage. Depending on the systems in 
place, these activities can be undertaken at any stage from the 
point of planting to the point of export.  
commodity 
description  The commodity description defines the form of the commodity 
that is covered by the IRA, e.g. the commodity species and the 
countries under consideration. The commodity description may 
also include commercial production and/or grading requirements 
or other commodity quality specifications.  
conditional non -host Fruit or vegetable at a specified maturity and specified physical 
condition that cannot support the complete development of a 
particular pest species.  
CPC  Crop Protection Compendium . A CABI database  that provides 
information about crop pests.  
disease  A disorder of structure or function in a plant, especially one that 
affects a specific location and is not simply a direct result of 
physical injury.  
endemic  An animal, plant, pest, or disease that is n ative to and is not 
naturally found outside a defined geographical area.  
establishment  Perpetuation, for the foreseeable future, of an organism or 
disease within an area after entry.  
ERS  Emerging Risk System , an MPI workflow  system that  allows 
MPI to  receive,  process and store information about new 
biosecurity risks and to  manage those risks  in a timely fashion.  
exposure  The process of the hazard organism moving from the commodity 
it arrived on to another host (also called “transfer”).  
exotic  This word has different meanings in different fields, but in this 
document , it is defined as an animal, plant, pest or disease that is 
not indigenous to New  Zealand.  
hazard  A hazard is a pest (including arthropods and pathogens) or 
disease that is not present in the PRA area, e.g. New Zealand (or 
is present but still represents a biosecurity risk, e.g. is capable of  
498 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  vectoring pathogens not present in the PRA area), has the ability 
to establish and cause harm in the PRA area and is asso ciated 
with the entry pathway (commodity/country of origin) under 
consideration.  
indigenous  Native; organism originating or occurring naturally in a 
specified area.  
inspection  Official visual examination of plants, plant products or other 
regulated artic les to determine if pests are present and/or to 
determine compliance with phytosanitary regulations (FAO 
2012).  
introduced  Not indigenous, not native to the area in which it now occurs, 
having been brought into this area directly or indirectly by 
human ac tivity.  
IPPC  International Plant Protection Convention, a 1951 multilateral 
treaty overseen by the Food and Agriculture Organization that 
aims to secure coordinated, effective action to prevent and to 
control the introduction and spread of pests of plants  and plant 
products.  
ISPM  International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures , 
international standard s adopted by the Conference of the Food 
and Agriculture Organization, the Interim Commission on 
phytosanitary measures or the Commission on phytosanitary 
measures, established under the IP PC. 
IHS Import Health Standard  (See “Import Health Standard” for a 
definition.)  
Import Health 
Standard  An import health standard (IHS) is a document issued under 
section 24A of the Biosecurity Act 1993. It states the 
requirements that must be met before risk goods can be imported 
into New Zealand.  
IRA Import Risk Analysi s, an administrative process through which 
quarantine policy is developed or reviewed, incorporating risk 
assessment, risk management and risk communication.  
MPI  Ministry for Primary Industries, New  Zealand  
non-host Fruit or vegetable that will not support the complete 
development of a particular pest species regardless of the stage 
of maturity and physical characteristics.  
NPPO  National Plant Protection Organisation, official service 
established by a government to discharge the functions specified 
by the IPPC.  
NZOR  New Zealand  Organisms Register , an actively maintained 
compilation of all organism names relevant to New Zealand: 
indigenous, endemic or exotic species or species not present in 
New Zealand but of national interest . 
ONZPR  Official New Zealand Pest Register. MPI database  that records 
organisms that  may be associated with plants or plant products 
that are imported into New Zealand.  Plant and plant product  
499 • [name]  IRA, [date (month/year)]  Biosecurity New Zealand  importers can use ONZPR  to find out the quarantine status of a 
species – regulated or non -regulated.  
pest Any species, strain or biotype of plant, animal, or pathogenic 
agent injurious to plants or plant products.  
pest-free area  An area in which a specific pest does not occur as demonstrated 
by scientific evidence and in which,  where appropriate, this 
condition is being officially maintained.  
pest-free place of 
production  A place of production in which a specific pest does not occur as 
demonstrated by scientific evidence and in which, where 
appropriate, this condition is being officially maintained for a 
defined period.  
PFA  Pest-free area (See “Pest -free area” for a definition.)  
PFPP  Pest-free place of production (See “Pest -free place of 
production” for a definition.)  
PPIN  Plant Pest Information Network database (MPI) , a record of 
organisms collected in New Zealand and identified by MPI’s 
Plant Health and Environment Laboratory.  
PRA  Pest Risk Assessment or Pest Risk Analysis  
QuanCargo  New Zealand border transaction database, detailing commercial 
consignments and inter ceptions of pests made by quarantine 
inspection (MPI).  
quarantine pest  A pest of potential economic importance to the area endangered 
thereby , e.g. New Zealand,  and not yet present there, or present 
but not widely distributed and being officially controll ed. 
systems approach  The integration of different pest risk management measures, at 
least two of which act independently, and which cumulatively 
achieve the appropriate level of phytosanitary protection. 
Measures  can be undertaken at any stage from the po int of 
planting to the point of export.  
vector  An organism or object that transfers a pest, parasite, pathogen or 
disease from one area or host to another.