Importation of Fresh Fruit of Mango, Mangifera indica L.,

from Australia into the Continental United States

A Pathway-initiated Risk Analysis

June 22, 2011

Version 8

Agency Contact:

Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory

Center for Plant Health Science and Technology

United States Department of Agriculture

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

Plant Protection and Quarantine 

1730 Varsity Dr., Suite 300

Raleigh, NC 27606
Pest Risk Assessment for Mangoes from Australia

Ver. 8 June 22, 2011 ii

Executive Summary

In this pathway-initiated commodity risk assessment, we examined the plant pest risks associated 

with the importation of fresh mango fruit, Mangifera indica L., from Australia into the 

continental United States. We prepared a list of pests present in Australia that attack mango from 

documents submitted by Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry of Australia (AFFA), scientific 

literature, and pest interception records of the United States Department of Agriculture. We 

analyzed quarantine pests likely to follow the pathway using the current risk assessment 

guidelines (PPQ, 2000). We determined the Pest Risk Potential of each of those pests by

examining pest biology in the context of the Consequences of Introduction and the Likelihood of 

Introduction. In this assessment we assumed that all mangoes would be washed, as a standard 

post-harvest treatment, thereby eliminating several small external insects from following the 

pathway. The pest risk potentials below are valid only if this practice is followed.

We identified twenty one quarantine pests that could follow the pathway on mango fruit: thirteen 

arthropods, seven fungi, and one bacterium. The following ten fruit flies (Diptera) and one soft 

scale (Hemiptera) received High Pest Risk Potentials:

Diptera

Bactrocera aquilones, B. cucumis, B. frauenfeldi, B. jarvisi, B. kraussi, B. neohumeralis, B. 

murrayi, B. opiliae, B. tryoni, and Ceratitis capitata

Hemiptera

Ceroplastes rubens

We gave Medium ratings to the arthropods Sternochetus mangiferae and Coccus viridis, the 

fungus Cytosphaera mangiferae, fungal species in the Botryosphaeriaceae (Lasiodiplodia 

pseudotheobromae, Neofusicoccum mangiferae, Neoscytalidium novaehollandia,

Pseudofusicoccum adansoniae), and the bacterium, Xanthomonas campestris pv. 

mangiferaeindicae. We rated the fungus, Phomopsis mangiferae, and the as-yet-unidentified 

Fusarium spp. complex associated with mango malformation disease as Low.

Detailed examination and choice of appropriate phytosanitary measures to mitigate pest risk is 

undertaken as part of the pest risk management phase within APHIS and is not addressed within 

this document.
Pest Risk Assessment for Mangoes from Australia

Ver. 8 June 22, 2011 iii

Table of Contents

Executive Summary........................................................................................................................ ii

1. Introduction................................................................................................................................. 1

1.1. Background.......................................................................................................................... 1

1.2. Commodity and Import Information.................................................................................... 1

1.3. Standard Post-Harvest Processing ....................................................................................... 2

2. Initiating Event............................................................................................................................ 3

3. Assessing Pest Risk..................................................................................................................... 3

3.1. Assessment of the Weed Potential of Mango ...................................................................... 3

3.2. Current Status ...................................................................................................................... 3

3.3. Pest interceptions................................................................................................................. 3

3.4. Pest Categorization .............................................................................................................. 4

3.5. Quarantine Pests Not Selected for Further Analysis ........................................................... 5

3.6. Quarantine Pests Likely to Follow the Pathway and Selected for Further Analysis........... 7

4. Analysis of Quarantine Pests...................................................................................................... 7

4.1. Consequences of Introduction ............................................................................................. 7

4.2. Likelihood of Introduction................................................................................................. 21

4.3. Conclusion: Pest Risk Potential......................................................................................... 26

5. Contributors.............................................................................................................................. 27

6. References................................................................................................................................. 27

7. Appendices................................................................................................................................ 47

Appendix A: Interceptions on mango....................................................................................... 47

Appendix B: Pests associated with mango and reported in Australia ...................................... 54
Pest Risk Assessment for Mangoes from Australia

Ver. 8 June 22, 2011 1

1. Introduction 

1.1. Background

This risk assessment was prepared by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ), 

Center for Plant Health Science and Technology (CPHST), Plant Epidemiology and Risk 

Analysis Laboratory (PERAL). Our purpose was to examine pest risks associated with the 

importation of Mangifera indica L. (mango) as fresh fruit from Australia into the continental 

United States. This risk assessment examined the pest risk of commercial quality mango, which 

undergoes cleaning and washing of sap from the exterior of each individual fruit as part of 

standard post-harvest treatment. Post-harvest cleaning and washing of the fruit is a common and 

essential cultural practice in mango production, as the sap which exudes from the stem end burns 

the fruit skin, resulting in black lesions followed by rotting (Morton, 1987).

Plant pest risks associated with the importation of fresh fruit of mango from Australia into the 

United States were estimated and assigned the qualitative terms of high, medium or low, in 

accordance with the template document, Guidelines for Pathway-Initiated Pest Risk Assessments, 

Version 5.02 (PPQ, 2000).

Regional and international plant protection organizations such as the North American Plant 

Protection Organization (NAPPO) and the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) 

provide standards for conducting pest risk analyses (IPPC, 2007: ISPM #s 5 and 11; NAPPO, 

2004). The methods used to initiate, conduct, and report this assessment, as well as the use of 

biological and phytosanitary terms are based on these standards. The IPPC standards describe 

three stages of pest risk analysis: Stage 1, Initiation; Stage 2, Risk Assessment; and Stage 3, Risk 

Management. This document satisfies the requirements of IPPC Stages 1 and 2.

Mango, which likely originated in South-East Asia, is now grown in tropical and subtropical 

areas worldwide (Waite, 2002a). Hundreds of cultivars have been named (CABI, 2003; Ploetz et 

al., 1994). World mango production is estimated at 19.2 million metric tons annually, with India, 

China, Pakistan, Thailand and Indonesia being the top five producers (CABI, 2003).

Florida produces nearly 100 percent of commercial mangoes in the continental United States 

(FDACS, 2003), although some trees are grown in Texas (Sauls, 2008) and California (CRFG, 

1996). Hawaii produced 73,548 kg of mango in1999 for $166,000, and Florida produced 

24,970,000 kg in 1997 for $1,450,000 (Martin et al., 2001). Hawaiian mangoes may enter the 

continental United States with irradiation (PPQ, 2008).

1.2. Commodity and Import Information

Australia grows four main varieties of mangoes: Kensington Pride (commonly known as Bowen 

Special); R2E2; Keitt; and Palmer (AFFA, 2001). Mangoes are mainly produced in Queensland, 

New South Wales, the Northern Territory (NT), and Western Australia, with an estimated 

production area of 14,995 hectares (AFFA, 2002) (Table 2). Australia is able to harvest mangoes 
Pest Risk Assessment for Mangoes from Australia

Ver. 8 June 22, 2011 2

for eight months of the year (September to April), and U.S. sales are targeted for October to 

March each year (AFFA, 2002).

Australia expects to export a volume to the United States similar to its other large markets: Hong 

Kong and Singapore (Table 3) (an annual mean of 1,080,117 kg). The package size is 40 x 30 x 

10 cm (0.43 ft3), with 8-12 fruit per box. Fruit will be shipped in corrugated cardboard boxes 

with each box averaging 10 fruits (ca. 6 kg). R2E2 mangoes are also known under the name of 

'masc' in Japan, and have an average weight of 600 gm (1.32 lbs) (Large and Large, 2002). 

Australia expects to air freight 100 percent of the fruit, around 1,000 metric tons per year. For 

comparison purposes, this volume equates to around 40 containers (40 ft) per year; Australia will 

ship around 1,000 mt tons/year and a 40 ft container holds around 24.75 mt tons.

Table 2. Growers (Departments) within the Production Region

Growing Region Trees Area (Ha) Locations

Dry tropics 468,000 3,342 Burdekin, Townsville, Bowen

Wet tropics 520,000 3,714 Mareeba and Atherton Tablelands

Central Queensland 103,000 736 Rockhampton, Yeppoon, Yarwun, Emarld

South Queensland 21,000 1,507 Bundaburg, to Nambour

New South Wales 23,000 164 non specific

Northern Territory 800,000 5,714 non specific

Western Australia 67,000 478 non specific

Table 3. Australian mango exports: 2000-2001 (kg)

Destination Monthly amount (kg) Total

Oct ‘00 Nov ‘00 Dec ‘00 Jan ‘01 Feb ‘01 Mar ‘01

Hong Kong 87,870 146,081 282,775 489,121 153,609 5,276 1,164,732

Singapore 70,522 129,031 406,114 274,794 90,092 24,949 995,502

Japan 12,610 38,496 34,606 89,878 64,360 14,000 253,950

1.3. Standard Post-Harvest Processing

For this risk assessment, we assumed the following processes (AFFA, 2001; AFFA, 2002) are 

standard and completed for all exported products. These processes will be subject to verification 

and compliance checks. The mango fruit undergo a post-harvest fungicide treatment as well as 

cleaning and washing. Two systems are used during the harvesting and handling of mangoes to 

minimize sap contact with the fruit. The first system entails cutting the fruit off the tree with 10-

20 cm of stem attached, followed by packing in plastic crates or bins, transport to the packing 

shed, dipping or spraying of the fruit with a solution of detergent or wetting agent, and finally 

destemming by hand. The second system entails picking the fruit without stems, dropping the 

fruit onto a trailer fitted with a tightly stretched canvass, immediately covering the fruit with a 

detergent solution, rinsing off the detergent, placing them in plastic crates or bulk bins, and then 

transporting them to the packing shed. Following destemming and washing, the fruit are dried, 

brushed (during drying or after), graded, and packed into export cartons. Cartons are subject to
Pest Risk Assessment for Mangoes from Australia

Ver. 8 June 22, 2011 3

quality control, labelling, and quarantine certification by AQIS. The export cartons are 

corrugated cardboard boxes, which are fruit fly-proof by either sealing or use of vent holes 

screened with mesh.

2. Initiating Event 

We developed this risk assessment in response to a request for USDA authorization to permit 

importation of fresh mango fruit into the continental United States by the government of 

Australia through Dr. Brian Stynes, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Plant 

Quarantine Policy Branch, Policy and International Division, Caberra Act, Australia (Imai, 

2001). Mango from Australia is not permitted entry into the United States, and entry of this 

commodity presents a potential pathway for the introduction of plant pests. Title 7, Part 319, 

Section 56 of the United States Code of Federal Regulations (7 CFR §319.56) provides 

regulatory authority for the importation of fruits and vegetables from foreign sources into the 

United States. A second request was made on 14 February, 2002 (Imai, 2002), and a complete set 

of information was received from Australia on 3 March, 2002 (AFFA, 2002).

3. Assessing Pest Risk

3.1. Assessment of the Weed Potential of Mango

The potential of the mango to become a weed after entering the United States was examined in 

this step, and a pest-initiated risk assessment was not conducted because the analysis did not 

indicate that the commodity had a significant weed potential. Mango is cultivated in commercial 

and private orchards in parts of California, Florida, Hawaii and Texas (Knowledge Master, 2003; 

Sauls, 2008). Mango was not listed as a weed in any of the following sources:

Geographical Atlas of World Weeds (Holm et al., 1979)

World’s Worst Weeds (Holm, 1977)

World Weeds: Natural Histories and Distribution (Holm, 1997)

Report of the Technical Committee to Evaluate Noxious Weeds: Exotic Weeds for 

Federal Noxious Weed Act (Gunn and Ritchie, 1982)

Economically Important Foreign Weeds (Reed, 1977)

Weed Science Society of America Composite List of Weeds (WSSA, 1989)

A search of scientific literature (e.g. AGRICOLA, CAB, Biological Abstracts) with the search 

terms “species name” combined with “weed” did not indicate that mango is a potential weed.

3.2. Current Status

Mango fruit for consumption may enter the continental United States from four countries in 

Asia/Oceania (Table 4).

3.3. Pest interceptions

In Appendix A, we list the pest interceptions at U.S. ports-of-entry on mango from all countries 

since 1985 (PestID, 2009). From 1985 through 2009, several pests have been intercepted on 

mangoes from Australia (Table 5).
Pest Risk Assessment for Mangoes from Australia

Ver. 8 June 22, 2011 4

Table 4. Countries in Asia/Oceania from which mangoes are permitted entry into the United 

States (APHIS, 2009)

Country Requirement for entry

India 1) 400 Gy irradiation (T105-a-2); 2) phytosanitary certificate with two additional 

declarations stating that "the mangoes were subjected to one of the pre- or post-harvest 

mitigation options described in 7CFR 319.56-46" and "the mangoes were inspected 

during preclearance activities and found free of Cytopshaera mangiferae, Macrophoma 

mangiferae, and Xanthomonas camprestris pv mangferaeindica."

Philippines 

(Guimaras 

Island only)

1) vapor heat treatment (T106-d-1) for Bactrocera occipitalis, B. cucurbitae, and B. 

philippinensis; 2) phytosanitary certificate with two additional declarations that "the 

mangoes have been treated for fruit flies of the genus Bactrocera in accordance with 

7CFR 319.56.33(b)", and, "the mangoes were grown on the island of Guimaras." 

Philippines, 

other than 

Guimaras 

Island (except 

Palawan)

1) permitted entry into Guam & Hawaii ports only; 2) vapor heat treatment (T106-d-1)

for Bactrocera occipitalis, B. cucurbitae, and B. philippinensis; 3) phytosanitary 

certificate with additional declaration that "the mangoes have been treated for fruit flies 

of the genus Bactrocera in accordance with 7 CFR 319.56.33(b)"; 4) boxes must be 

marked "for distribution in Guam and Hawaii only."

Taiwan vapor heat treatment (T106-d) for Bactrocera dorsalis and B. cucurbitae

Thailand 1) 400 Gy Irradiation (T105-a-2); 2) phytosanitary certificate with an additional 

declaration stating that “the fruit has been treated with irradiation in Thailand.”

Table 5. Pest interceptions on mango from Australia entering the United States (not in permit 

cargo) (1985-2009)

Pest Interceptions

Aulacaspis tubercularis Newstead (Diaspididae) 24

Species of Sternochetus. (Curculionidae) 11

Sternochetus mangiferae (Fabricius) (Curculionidae) 5

Species of Pseudococcidae (Pseudococcidae) 1

Species of Cladosporium sp. 1

Species of Ceutorhynchus sp. (Curculionidae) 1

Species of Bactrocera sp. (Tephritidae) 1

3.4. Pest Categorization

Pests associated with Mangifera indica and reported in Australia are listed in Appendix B. In this 

list we identify: (1) the presence or absence of these pests in the United States, (2) generally 

affected plant part(s), (3) the quarantine status of the pest with respect to the United States, (4) 

whether the pest is likely to follow the pathway to enter the United States, and (5) pertinent 

citations for either the distribution or the biology of the pest.

The mangoes will most likely come with a very short stem—approximately 0.3 to 0.5cm long—

attached to the top of the fruit (technically a pedicel, which is part of the inflorescence). The 

presence of this stem cap is necessary to preserve fruit quality. Because they are relatively short 
Pest Risk Assessment for Mangoes from Australia

Ver. 8 June 22, 2011 5

and in close proximity to the fruit surface, it is highly unlikely that importation of mango fruit 

with these stems will increase the risk of importing additional pests and diseases not already 

associated with the fruit. Consequently, when identifying pests likely to follow the pathway on 

fresh mango fruit, we did not consider the short stem cap (see Appendix B).

The orange fruit borer moth, Isotenes miserana (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae), was originally

included on the pest list, because mango was reported as a host in Australia’s original market 

access submission (AFFA, 2001) based on the reference Swaine et al. (1991). However, 

Biosecurity Australia found that reference did not mention the orange fruit borer in association 

with mango (Van Meurs, 2006). Thus, I. miserana was mistakenly included in the original 

market access submission. Furthermore, a search of the scientific literature (e.g., Astridge and 

Fay, 2003; Hill, 1983; Peña and Moyhuddin, 1997; Robinson et al., 2001; Robinson et al., 2006; 

Van Der Geest and Evenhuis, 1991; Waite, 2002b; CAB Abstracts), a query of the Australian 

national pest database (Van Meurs, 2006), as well as expert opinion from the Queensland 

Department of Primary Industries (DPI) entomologist responsible for horticulture and forestry

science (Van Meurs, 2006), revealed no other report of mango being a host of this species. 

Finally, since 1985, out of over 100,000 pest interceptions on mango by agricultural officers at 

U.S. ports-of-entry, there have been zero interceptions of the genus Isotenes (PestID, 2006).

Consequently, we removed I. miserana from the pest list.

3.5. Quarantine Pests Not Selected for Further Analysis

Some quarantine plant pests listed in Appendix B may be detrimental to U.S. agricultural 

production systems but were not chosen for further analysis, for reasons explained below. For 

example, some were identified only to the genus level, and the genus in question occurs in the 

continental United States. Some pests cannot reasonably become established in the United States 

through mango imports. Examples include (but are not limited to): they may be mainly

associated with plant parts other than the commodity; they have been intercepted as biological 

contaminants of the commodity during U.S. agricultural port-of-entry inspection, but are not 

likely to be present in commercial shipments; non-fertile life stages can be transported in a 

shipment but are unable to establish viable populations upon entry into the United States; or the 

pests may be associated with the commodity, but will not remain with it during transport or 

processing. Insects with inherent mobility (wings, legs, etc.), and/or the instinct to avoid light or 

human activity, will not remain with the commodity. In contrast, quarantine pests that are unable 

to leave the commodity may have immobile or cryptic life stages which can follow the pathway. 

Organisms Not Identified to Species. We generally do not further analyze organisms identified

only to the genus or higher taxonomic level if the taxon in question is reported in the PRA area

of the United States. Often there are many species within a genus, and we cannot know if the

unidentified species occurs in the continental United States and, consequently, whether it meets

the definition of a quarantine pest for the continental United States. Here, we did not further

analyze the following genera for that reason: Acrocercops sp., Alternaria sp., Aphelenchoides

sp., Armillaria sp., Asterina sp., Asteromella sp., Aulacaspis sp., Chaetomium sp., Chloroclystis

sp., Cladosporium sp., Colgaroides sp., Coptosoma sp., Curvularia sp., Cylindrocladium sp., 

Diplodia sp., Dothiorella sp., Dysmicoccus sp., Ephestia sp., Epicoccum sp., Euproctis sp., 

Eutyrhinus sp., Fusarium sp., Fusicoccum sp., Haplothrips sp., Helopeltis sp., Hendersonula sp., 
Pest Risk Assessment for Mangoes from Australia

Ver. 8 June 22, 2011 6

Lasiodiplodia sp. 1 and 2, Lobesia sp., Macrophomopsis sp., Meloidogyne sp., Mesomorphus sp., 

Nigrospora sp., Oidium sp., Oligonychus sp., Phomopsis sp., Phyllosticta sp., Phytophthora sp., 

Proctolaelaps sp., Pyroderces sp., Rhyparida sp., Thrips sp., Tirathaba sp., and Verticillium sp.

At least one species of each of these genera is already present in the continental United States. If 

pests identified to higher taxa are intercepted in the future, then we may reevaluate their risk.

We considered it unlikely that mealybugs (Pseudococcidae, Margarodidae) or thrips 

(Thysanoptera) would be associated with commercial export-quality mango fruit, as the fruit 

undergo cleaning and washing (water-bath or hand-washed) of sap from the exterior of each 

individual fruit as part of standard post-harvest treatment (AFFA, 2001; Kader, 2002; Nakasone 

and Paull, 1998). Post-harvest cleaning and washing of mango fruit is a common and essential 

cultural practice in mango production, as the sap which exudes from the stem end burns the fruit 

skin, resulting in black lesions followed by rotting (Morton, 1987; Nakasone and Paull, 1998). If 

any mealybugs or thrips are on the fruit at the time of harvest, they would likely be removed by 

this post-harvest practice. Furthermore, because the calyx is no longer present on the very short 

stem (approximately 0.3 to 0.5cm) that typically accompanies commercial mangoes, there are no 

hiding places for small insects on mangoes. Consequently, washing should remove any 

mealybugs and thrips present on the surface of the fruit.

Also, we did not further analyze the armored scales identified as quarantine pests likely to follow 

the pathway (i.e., Aulacaspis tubercularis, Pseudaonidia trilobitiformis) (Hemiptera: 

Diaspididae). This was because, although armored scales may enter on commercial fruit for 

consumption, they are not expected to become established, and therefore introduced, via this 

pathway (Miller et al., 1985; PERAL, 2007). A recent critical review of the literature, APHISPPQ operational data, and expert opinion concludes that, even assuming high quantities of 

imported fruit infested with armored scale species that could be parthenogenic, highly fecund, 

polyphagous, invasive, theoretically able to survive in most of the United States, and cause highlevel consequences, the specific pathway represented by commercially produced fruit shipped 

without leaves, stems or contaminants constitutes an extremely low risk (PERAL, 2007). This 

low risk is explained by poor ability of armored scales to disperse to new host plants from fruits 

for consumption, and consequently, by their low probability of establishment. The following 

characteristics of armored scales contribute to their poor dispersal capabilities:

 Legs and wings are absent in females and in feeding immature forms. Males possess wings 

but are short-lived, do not feed, and tend to mate with nearby females.

 Self-dispersal of armored scales occurs by immature forms, or “crawlers”. They are the most 

vulnerable life stage, survival of which decreases with long distance wind dispersal. Crawlers 

can be passively dispersed by wind from one plant to another only during a time period of 

approximately 24 hours. No further dispersal is possible after the crawlers start feeding, as 

they lose their legs during the first molt and the mouth parts are deeply inserted in the host, 

anchoring them firmly to the substrate.

 Dispersal from fruit discarded in the environment is considered very unlikely because of low 

wind speeds at ground level and low survival rate of crawlers on the ground or on decaying 

fruit or fruit peel. There is a low probability of active dispersal of crawlers by walking from 

their natal host since they are not capable of rapid movement over bare soil or rough 

surfaces.
Pest Risk Assessment for Mangoes from Australia

Ver. 8 June 22, 2011 7

3.6. Quarantine Pests Likely to Follow the Pathway and Selected for Further Analysis

We analyzed the Bactrocera fruit flies as a group because they are biologically similar, and they

would be affected by the same mitigation strategies.

Table 5. Quarantine pests of mango analyzed in this risk assessment.

Type Taxonomy Pest

Arthropoda Coleoptera (Curculionidae) Sternochetus mangiferae

Diptera (Tephritidae) Bactrocera aquilonis

Bactrocera cucumis

Bactrocera frauenfeldi

Bactrocera jarvisi

Bactrocera kraussi

Bactrocera murrayi

Bactrocera neohumeralis

Bactrocera opiliae

Bactrocera tryoni 

Ceratitis capitata 

Hemiptera (Coccidae) Ceroplastes rubens

Coccus viridis

Fungi Cytosphaera mangiferae

Fusarium spp. complex associated with mango 

malformation disease

Lasiodiplodia pseudotheobromae a

Neofusicoccum mangiferae a

Neoscytalidium novaehollandia a

Phomopsis mangiferae

Pseudofusicoccum adansoniae a

Bacteria Xanthomonas campestris pv. mangiferaeindicae

a We analyzed the noted fungi as a group of species in the Botryosphaeriaceae, which infect 

mango and share similar pathogenic niches.

4. Analysis of Quarantine Pests

4.1. Consequences of Introduction

The potential consequences of introduction into the United States were evaluated using five Risk 

Elements (PPQ, 2000): Climate-Host Interaction, Host Range, Dispersal Potential, Economic 

Impact, and Environmental Impact. These risk elements reflect the biology, host range, and 

climatic and geographic distribution of each pest. For each risk element, pests were assigned a 

rating of Low (1 point), Medium (2 points), or High (3 points) (PPQ, 2000). The sum of the risk 

element ratings was used as a value for the overall Consequences of Introduction (Table 10). A 
Pest Risk Assessment for Mangoes from Australia

Ver. 8 June 22, 2011 8

cumulative value of 5 to 8 points was considered a Low risk for the Consequences of 

Introduction, 9 to 12 points was Medium, and 13 to 15 points was considered High (PPQ, 2000).

Bactrocera spp.: [B. aquilonis, B. cucumis, B. frauenfeldi, B. jarvisi, B. kraussi, B. murrayi, B. 

neohumeralis, B. opiliae, B. tryoni] 

Climate-Host Interaction. The Climate-Host Interaction risk rating is based on the availability of 

host material and suitable climatic conditions. Table 6 presents the assigned Climate-Host 

Interaction risk ratings for each Bactrocera species. Each species’ reported geographic 

distribution is used to estimate which USDA Plant Hardiness Zones in the continental United 

States are suitable for fruit fly establishment. We estimate the fruit flies could establish in either 

Plant Hardiness Zone 10 or in both Zones 9 and 10 (Table 6). One or more hosts of these 

Bactrocera species are present in these Plant Hardiness Zones in the continental United States

(NRCS, 2006). Hence, we rated this element Low for B. aquilonis, B. kraussi, B. murrayi, and B. 

opiliae, but Medium for all other Bactrocera spp.

Host Range. The host ranges of all nine Bactrocera species include plants in multiple families 

(CABI, 2005; Hancock et al., 2000; White and Elson-Harris, 1992). Consequently, the Host 

Range risk element is rated High.

Dispersal Potential. Fruit flies in the genus Bactrocera generally have a high reproductive rate 

and disperse over long distances. The major means of dispersal of Bactrocera species to new 

areas are adult flight and transport of infested fruit as eggs and larvae present internally in fruit 

and as pupae in growing media accompanying plants (CABI, 2005). Since 1985, Bactrocera fruit 

flies have been intercepted 12,281 times at U.S. ports-of-entry (PestID, 2006), which is evidence 

of their ability to be dispersed via human-assisted movement of plants and plant products. 

Fletcher (1989b) reports that many Bactrocera spp. can fly 50-100km. There appears to be a 

dispersal phase immediately after adults emerge and before they reach sexual maturity (Fletcher, 

1989). Adults fly away from their host field within one hour after emergence from the pupal 

stage (Kazi, 1976). In a mark-recapture experiment, flies moved approximately 12-13 km over 

their lifetimes, and some moved as far as 24 km within three weeks after emergence (Fletcher, 

1989). Other studies have recorded Bactrocera species (B. dorsalis and B. zonatus) up to 65 km 

from release sites in the Mariana Islands (Fletcher, 1989). Individuals of B. cucurbitae flew as 

far as 82 km in a mark-recapture experiment (Kohoma and Kuba, 1996). Once flies find a host 

their behavior changes and the dispersal phase ends (Fletcher, 1989). Reported reproductive rates 

vary, and population doubling times range from 4.3 to 18.2, depending on the host and strain 

(Carey, 1989; Liedo and Carey, 1996). Females of B. jarvisi up to 10 weeks of age are reported 

to produce 240.1 and 201.3 female eggs on Planchonia careya and apples, respectively (Fitt, 

1990). This fruit fly completes its life cycle in about 2.5 weeks in the summer (Biosecurity 

Australia, 2002), therefore, it can have multiple generations per year. Because of the genus’ high 

reproductive rate and ability to disperse rapidly, we rated all species of Bactrocera High.

Economic Impact. Bactrocera species are frequently important economic pests. See Table 7 

below for details about quarantine pest species in this risk assessment, although economic data is 

lacking for most of these species. Since we lack economic data, some supplemental information 

was included for related Bactrocera species to assess potential economic impact of these fruit 

flies as a group. For example, in some years B. cucurbitae partially or totally destroys 50 percent 
Pest Risk Assessment for Mangoes from Australia

Ver. 8 June 22, 2011 9

of the attacked crops (Lall and Singh, 1969); and injury by B. dorsalis reduces yield and quality 

of mango fruits (Mann, 1996). Bactrocera cucurbitae is a destructive pest that has greatly reduced 

the production of melons, cucumbers, tomatoes, and similar vegetables in Hawaii (USDA, 1983; 

Weems, 1964). Bactrocera cucurbitae caused a loss of nearly $1 million (annually) in Hawaii, 

when more than 95 percent of the pumpkin crop was destroyed (USDA, 1983), and damage levels 

up to 100 percent were reported on unprotected fruit (CABI, 2002). In Africa, Bactrocera 

invadens attacks important food crops and is of significant economic importance (Drew et al., 

2005; Mansell, 2005), readily attacking and damaging mangoes (EPPO, 2006). Economic losses 

caused by Bactrocera dorsalis, which extend to other Bactrocera species include: 1) downgrading 

quality caused by oviposition “stings,” which spoil the appearance of fruits, including those 

unfavorable for larval survival; 2) fruit spoilage caused by larval tunneling and the entry of 

organisms that cause decay; and 3) indirect damage in the form of lost markets resulting from the 

imposition of quarantine restrictions (Harris, 1989). In Hawaii, annual losses in major fruit crops 

caused by B. dorsalis may exceed 13 percent, or $3 million (Culliney, 2002), illustrating the 

potential for Bactrocera species to cause economic impacts.

For some of the species, we found little or no information on economic damage; however, 

because of the important economic damage caused by many species within the genus 

Bactrocera, we assume that all the Bactrocera species of concern associated with mangoes from 

Australia could become significant pests in the United States. If introduced into the United 

States, the expense required to control the Bactrocera fruit flies and the loss of export potential 

due to their presence would have a high economic impact.

Based on the above evidence, we rated all the Bactrocera fruit fly species High for the 

Economic Impact risk element. 

Environmental Impact. All nine Bactrocera species of concern could potentially attack 

Threatened and/or Endangered plant species (USFWS, 2006) in areas of the continental United 

States with suitable climate for these fruit fly species (Table 8). Following the USDA Guidelines

(PPQ, 2000), we estimated these Threatened and Endangered plants are vulnerable to attack 

because they are congeneric with or in the same family as plant species reported as hosts of these 

fruit fly species. Additionally, because these fruit fly species represent important economic threats, 

their establishment in the United States would likely trigger the initiation of chemical and/or 

biological control programs. Based on this evidence, all Bactrocera species are all rated High for 

the Environmental Impact risk element. 

Table 6. The climate-host interaction risk rating for the Bactrocera fruit fly species, with 

geographic distribution and the estimated Plant Hardiness Zones suitable for establishment

Species Distribution Zones Rating

Bactrocera 

aquilonis

Australia, in northern areas of Western Australia and the 

Northern Territory (Hancock et al., 2000; White and 

Elson-Harris, 1992)

10 Low (1)

B. cucumis Australia (CABI, 2005) in the Northern Territory, Torres 

Strait islands, eastern Queensland, and northeast New 

South Wales (Hancock et al., 2000)

9-10 Medium (2)
Pest Risk Assessment for Mangoes from Australia

Ver. 8 June 22, 2011 10

Species Distribution Zones Rating

B. frauenfeldi Australia (Queensland), the New Guinea area (Bismarck 

Archipelago, Bougainville Island, Papua New Guinea, 

Solomon Islands, Stuart Island), and the South Pacific 

(White and Elson-Harris, 1992)

9-10 Medium (2)

B. jarvisi Australia (Australian Northern Territory, New South 

Wales, Queensland, Western Australia) (CABI, 2005)

9-10 Medium (2)

B. kraussi northeastern Australia (White and Elson-Harris, 1992) 

(Torres Strait islands and northeast Queensland, “as far 

south as Townsville) (Hancock et al., 2000)

10 Low (1)

B. murrayi Australia (Torres Strait islands and northeast Queensland, 

south to Innisfail) (Hancock et al., 2000)

10 Low (1)

B.

neohumeralis

Papua New Guinea and Australia (“eastern coastal areas 

of Queensland, plus some isolated areas on the west of the 

Cape York Peninsula; north eastern New South Wales”) 

(White and Elson-Harris, 1992)

9-10 Medium (2)

B. opiliae northern Australia (Hancock et al., 2000; White and 

Elson-Harris, 1992)

10 Low (1)

B. tryoni Australia, French Polynesia, and New Caledonia (CABI, 

2005)

9-10 Medium (2)

Table 7. Evidence for the economic impact risk element for Bactrocera species

Species Evidence

Bactrocera 

aquilonis

The host range of B. aquilonis includes economically important plants, such as 

grapefruit, apple, avocado, bell pepper, lemon, peach, tangerine, tomato (White 

and Elson-Harris, 1992). However, White and Elson-Harris (1992) report it as 

only a “potential” pest species, and do not give any information on economic 

damage. On the other hand, in Australia, B. aquilonis “recently extended its host 

range and developed into a major pest of cultivated fruit in the Darwin area” 

(Smith et al., 1988). Pest control measures, including field and quarantine 

treatments, are used for the management of B. aquilonis (Smith, 1992a, 1992b, 

1992c).

B. cucumis Bactrocera cucumis is “a serious pest” of cucurbits, tomato, and papaya (White

and Elson-Harris, 1992). CABI (2005) reports it as “a serious pest of cucurbits, 

tomatoes and paw paws, causing serious crop losses before harvest, especially

in northern Queensland, Australia.”

B. frauenfeldi In Micronesia, B. frauenfeldi can infest 91 percent of Psidium guajava fruit, 37 

percent of Artocarpus altilis, 20 percent of Citrus sp., 8 percent of Mangifera 

indica, and 4 percent of Citrus sinensis (CABI, 2005). When commercial fruit 

growing develops within its range, this species has the potential to become a 

“serious pest” (White and Elson-Harris, 1992).

B. jarvisi Bactrocera jarvisi is listed in “Pest fruit flies of the World” by Carrol et al.

(2002 onwards) and is considered a “significant pest” (CABI, 2005). This fruit 

fly infests both native and commercial plants in Australia (DBIRD, 2002). 
Pest Risk Assessment for Mangoes from Australia

Ver. 8 June 22, 2011 11

Species Evidence

While this fruit fly causes little impact on yield of its host commodities, it 

causes high impact on the quality of the commodity (DBIRD, 2002). In 

Queensland, Australia, this fruit fly species occasionally attacks litchi, but 

normally only when the skin of the fruit has been damaged by fruit borers 

(Biosecurity Australia, 2002). External damage to the fruit skin is manifested by

bruising, necrosis, and oviposition punctures, and internal fruit damage is 

caused by larval tunneling and decay of flesh (CABI, 2005; DBIRD, 2002). 

This is a “major quarantine pest” (DBIRD, 2002). CERIS (2006) reports at least 

one country that lists this species as a quarantine pest.

B. kraussi No information found on economic impact.

B. murrayi No information found on economic impact.

B.

neohumeralis

The host range of B. neohumeralis includes many economically important 

plants, such as apple, apricot, grapefruit, lemon, mandarin, peach, pear, plum, 

strawberry, orange, tomato (White and Elson-Harris, 1992). It is a “major pest” 

of commercial crops in Queensland, Australia (CABI, 2005; Fletcher et al., 

1983; White and Elson-Harris, 1992), and can occur in equal abundance to B. 

tryoni (CABI, 2005). Bactrocera neohumeralis is also of economic importance 

in Papua New Guinea (Sar et al., 2001). 

B. opiliae B. opiliae is a member of the Bactrocera dorsalis complex; it is usually only

associated with a wild host, Opilia amentacea (Opiliaceae) (Drew and Hardy, 

1981; White and Elson-Harris, 1992).

B. tryoni B. tryoni is a very serious pest in fruit, vegetable, and horticultural production in 

Australia (CABI, 2005; Hassan, 1977; Yonow et al., 2004). While this fruit fly

causes little impact on yield of its host commodities, it causes high impact on 

the quality of the commodity (DBIRD, 2002). Damage levels can be up to 100 

percent of unprotected fruit (CABI, 2005). It is estimated that, if fruit flies were 

not controlled in Australia, potential losses could reach $100 million a year, 

most of which would be caused by B. tryoni (CABI, 2005). External damage to 

the fruit skin is manifested by bruising, necrosis, and oviposition punctures, and 

internal fruit damage is caused by larval tunneling and decay of flesh (CABI, 

2005; DBIRD, 2002). This is a “major quarantine pest” (DBIRD, 2002). Many

countries prohibit the importation of hosts of this fruit fly unless strict 

phytosanitary measures (such as fumigation, heat treatment, cold treatment, 

insecticidal dipping, or irradiation) are applied (CABI, 2005). CERIS (2006) 

reports eleven countries that list this species as a quarantine pest. 

Table 8. Threatened and Endangered plant species (USFWS, 2006) vulnerable to attack by the 

Bactrocera fruit fly species and present in areas of the continental United States with suitable 

climatic conditions for the fruit fly species (i.e., California and/or Florida).

Species Reported host plants Threatened or Endangered plants 

Bactrocera 

cucumis

Cucurbita moschata, Cucurbita 

pepo (Cucurbitaceae) (CABI, 2005)

Cucurbita okeechobeensis ssp. 

okeechobeensis (Cucurbitaceae)

B. aquilonis Prunus persica (Rosaceae) Prunus geniculata (Rosaceae) and 
Pest Risk Assessment for Mangoes from Australia

Ver. 8 June 22, 2011 12

Species Reported host plants Threatened or Endangered plants 

(Hancock et al., 2000) ; Cucurbita 

pepo (Cucurbitaceae) (White and 

Elson-Harris, 1992)

Cucurbita okeechobeensis ssp.

okeechobeensis (Cucurbitaceae)

B. frauenfeldi Mangifera indica, Anacardium 

occidentale (Annonaceae); 

Aleurites moluccana

(Euphorbiaceae); Fagraea 

cambagei (Loganiaceae); Geutarda 

speciosa, Nauclea orientalis

(Rubiaceae) (Hancock et al., 2000)

Asimina tetramera (Annonaceae), 

Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. deltoidea

(Euphorbiaceae), Chamaesyce garberi

(Euphorbiaceae), Chamaesyce hooveri

(Euphorbiaceae), Deeringothamnus 

pulchellus (Annonaceae), Deeringothamnus 

rugelii (Annonaceae), Euphorbia 

telephioides (Euphorbiaceae), Galium 

buxifolium (Rubiaceae), Galium 

californicum ssp. sierrae (Rubiaceae), and 

Spigelia gentianoides (Loganiaceae)

B. jarvisi Opuntia sp. (Cactaceae) (Hancock

et al., 2000); Prunus armeniaca and 

Prunus persica (Rosaceae) (CABI, 

2005; Hancock et al., 2000)

Opuntia treleasei (Cactaceae), Prunus 

geniculata (Rosaceae)

B. kraussi Prunus persica (Rosaceae) 

(Hancock et al., 2000)

Prunus geniculata (Rosaceae)

B. murrayi Nauclea orientalis (Rubiaceae) 

(Hancock et al., 2000)

Galium buxifolium and Galium

californicum ssp. sierrae (Rubiaceae) 

B. 

neohumeralis

Opuntia sp. (Cactaceae); Prunus 

armeniaca, Prunus domestica, 

Prunus persica (Rosaceae); 

Ziziphus jujube, Ziziphus 

mauritiana (Rhamnaceae) 

(Hancock et al., 2000)

Opuntia treleasei (Cactaceae), Prunus 

geniculata (Rosaceae), and Ziziphus celata

(Rhamnaceae)

B. opiliae Mukia maderaspatana

(Cucurbitaceae) (Hancock et al., 

2000)

Cucurbita okeechobeensis ssp. 

okeechobeensis (Cucurbitaceae) 

B. tryoni Cucurbita moschata 

(Cucurbitaceae), Prunus 

(Rosaceae), Opuntia (Cactaceae) 

(Hancock et al., 2000)

Cucurbita okeechobeensis ssp. 

okeechobeensis (Cucurbitaceae), Prunus 

geniculata (Rosaceae), and Opuntia 

treleasei (Cactaceae)

Species in the Botryosphaeriaceae Infecting Mango: Lasiodiplodia pseudotheobromae, 

Neofusicoccum mangiferae, Neoscytalidium novaehollandia, Pseudofusicoccum adansoniae

Climate-Host Interaction. We evaluated which U.S. Plant Hardiness Zones (PERAL, 2007) 

would provide both host material and suitable climate conditions for these pathogens. We rated 

all of these species Medium for climate-host interaction since they and their reported hosts could 

survive in three plant hardiness zones (see Table 9).
Pest Risk Assessment for Mangoes from Australia

Ver. 8 June 22, 2011 13

Host Range. One of these pathogens, Neoscytalidium novaehollandia, has only one reported 

host, M. indica, although extensive host range testing has not been conducted (Sakalids et al., 

2011). Thus, we rated this pest Low risk. 

Lasiodiplodia pseudotheobromae, Neofusicoccum mangiferae, and Pseudofusicoccum 

adansoniae each infect multiple hosts in multiple plant families. The hosts for L. 

pseudotheobromae include M. indica (Anacardiaceae) Acacia confusa, A. mangium (Fabaceae), 

Albizia falcataria, Citrus aurantium (Rutaceae), Coffea sp., Eucalyptus grandis, Gmelina 

arborea, Mangifera sylvatica, Myrcianthes pungens, Paulownia fortunei, Rosa sp., and 

Terminalia catappa (Sakalidis et al., 2011). The hosts for Neofusicoccum mangiferae include 

Mangifera indica, Eucalyptus grandis, Agathis palmerstonii, A. robusta, Prunus armeniaca, 

Dioscorea rotundata, Ficus religiosa, Manihot esculenta, Plumeria obtusa, Psidium guajava, 

Persea americana, and Syzygium cordatum (Farr and Rossman, 2011). Finally, the hosts for 

Pseudofusicoccum adansoniae include M. indica, Acacia synchronica, and Eucalyptus sp.

(Sakalidis et al., 2011). We rated these species High risk. 

Dispersal Potential. Biotic potential is high for some related Botryosphaeria spp. (B. rhodina, B. 

dothidea, B. obtusa). We will focus on conidia since they are important for infection (Copes and 

Hendrix, 2004), and other life stages (teleomorph) are unknown for some of these pathogens 

(Pavlic et al., 2008). Conidia may be produced abundantly by related species, with repeated 

cycles of spore production, dependent upon suitable environmental conditions (Copes and 

Hendrix, 2004), we expect related pathogens of mango would have similarly high reproductive

potential. The conidia and ascospores of species in the Botryosphaeriaceae can be dispersed with 

rain or irrigation splash and may also become airborne (Copes and Hendrix, 2004). These mango 

pathogens can be transported in infected fruit or planting material, and pruning equipment can 

also aid in transmission of these fungi (Sakalidis et al., 2011). Some species in the 

Botryosphaeriaceae are seed-borne (Gure et al., 2005), but it is not clear if any of the newly

reported species in Sakalidis et al., (2011) are seed-borne. Due to their high reproductive 

potential and their ability to move long-distance in infected plant material, we rated these 

pathogens High for dispersal potential. 

Economic Impact. Pathogens in the Botryosphaeriaceae “commonly cause stem cankers, 

dieback, and stem end rot of mangoes worldwide” (Sakalidis et al., 2011), so can cause direct 

economic impacts on their hosts. Impacts include reductions in yield, post-harvest fruit rot, 

dieback and decline of infected plants, and increasing need for fungicides to control these 

pathogens, so we ranked the economic impact as Medium for these pathogens.

Environmental Impact. If these pathogens in the Botryosphaeriaceae can infect species within the 

genera of their listed hosts, there is at least one federally listed threatened or endangered species 

that could be impacted (Prunus geniculata) (USFWS, 2011), and over a dozen other state-listed 

species (NRCS, 2011) (Table 9). It is unknown if these fungi would have other indirect impacts 

on sensitive species or ecosystems, or if their introduction would stimulate the use of control 

measures which could have other environmental impacts. Based on the current evidence we rated 

these pests Medium for this risk element.
Pest Risk Assessment for Mangoes from Australia

Ver. 8 June 22, 2011 14

Table 9. Geographic distributions for pathogen and hosts, estimated USDA Plant Hardiness Zones 

suitable for establishment, and environmental hosts impacted by the Botryosphaeriaceae species infecting 

mango fruit.

Species Distribution 

(Pathogen/Hosts)

Zones Environmental Hosts 

Impacted?

Lasiodiplodia 

pseudotheobromae 

Australia (Broome, 

WA – Sakalidis et al., 

2011), China, Costa 

Rica, Uruguay, 

Suriname, Iran, 

Democratic Republic 

of the Congo (Farr and 

Rossman, 2011) 

9-11 (California Rare 

Fruit Growers, 1997; 

PERAL, 2007), hosts 

other than mango (e.g. 

Rosa sp.) may allow 

expansion to other 

zones 

State threatened and endangered 

species: Acacia angustissima, A.

choriophylla, A. tortuosa, Rosa 

acicularis, R. acicularis ssp. Sayi, 

R. arkansana, R. blanda, R.

blanda var. glabra, R. minutifolia, 

R. nitida, R. stellata ssp. abyssa 

(NRCS, 2011)

Neofusicoccum 

mangiferae

Australia (Slippers et 

al., 2005), India, 

Pakistan, Uruguay, 

Cyprus,Nigeria, Iran, 

Benin, Myanmar, 

Taiwan, Uruguay, 

South Africa (Farr and 

Rossman, 2011)

9-11 (California Rare 

Fruit Growers, 1997; 

PERAL, 2007), hosts 

other than mango (e.g. 

Prunus armeniaca) 

may allow expansion 

to other zones

Prunus (P. geniculata - Federally 

endangered, 14 state endangered 

species), State endangered: Persea 

borbonia, P. palustris (NRCS, 

2011)

Neoscytalidium 

novaehollandia

Australia (Sakalidis et 

al., 2011)

9-11 None, only on Mangifera

Pseudofusicoccum 

adansoniae

Australia (Sakalidis et 

al., 2011)

9-11 State threatened and endangered 

species: Acacia angustissima, A.

choriophylla, A. tortuosa

Ceratitis capitata

Climate-Host Interaction. Ceratitis capitata is present throughout many parts of South America, 

Africa, southern Europe, Australia, and Hawaii (CABI, 2003; Peña and Moyhuddin, 1997). The 

Mediterranean fruit fly clearly can establish in California, Florida, and Texas, because it has 

been eradicated from these areas in the past (CABI, 2003). Areas inhabited by C. capitata fall 

into USDA Plant Hardiness Zones 9-11. Given this, we rated it Medium risk.

Host Range. Ceratitis capitata is a highly polyphagous species and its pattern of host 

relationships from region to region appears to relate largely to what fruits are available. Hosts 

include species in the following families: Annonaceae, Apocyanaceae, Caricaceae, Clusiaceae, 

Combretaceae, Ebenaceae, Eleocarpaceae, Flacourtiaceae, Juglandaceae, Lauraceae, 

Malpighiaceae, Moraceae, Myrtaceae, Oxalidaceae, Passifloraceae, Proteaceae, Punicaceae, 

Rosaceae, Rubiaceae, Rutaceae, Santalaceae, Sapindaceae, Sapotaceae, Solanaceae, 

Sterculiaceae, and Vitaceae (CABI, 2003). Therefore, we rated it High.

Dispersal Potential. Ceratitis capitata has a high rate of reproduction; the net reproductive rate 

is 71.30, and the doubling time for a population is 6.8 days under optimal conditions (Liedo and 

Carey, 1996). Movements of C. capitata adults appear to be on a smaller scale than species of 

Bactrocera, but migratory movements of up to 20 km have been reported (Fletcher, 1989). In 
Pest Risk Assessment for Mangoes from Australia

Ver. 8 June 22, 2011 15

general, movement is limited to around 200 m, but adults appear to fly further when released into 

areas deficient in hosts (Fletcher, 1989). For these reasons, we rated this insect High.

Economic Impact. This pest damages fruit production, both in quality and quantity in Spain. In 

the early part of the 20th century some peach orchards in Italy were 100 percent infested in some 

cases, and losses were up to 92 percent in the 1970s (Fimiani, 1989). Medfly is a major pest in 

Western Australia, but it is has been eradicated or maintained at a very low prevalence in other 

parts of Australia (Hooper and Drew, 1989). Thus, we rated medfly High for economic impact.

Environmental Impact. The broad host range of C. capitata predisposes it to attack plants in the 

United States listed as Threatened or Endangered in 50 CFR §17.12. Examples of potential host 

plants listed as Threatened or Endangered and present in the continental United States include 

Opuntia treleasei in California and Prunus geniculata in Florida (USFWS, 2006). As it is a 

significant economic threat, establishment of C. capitata in the continental United States would 

trigger the initiation of chemical and/or biological control programs, as has occurred, for 

example, in California (Lance and Gates, 1994) and Hawaii (Mau and Martin Kessing, 1992b). 

Based on this evidence, we rated it High for this element. 

Ceroplastes rubens

Climate-Host Interaction. Ceroplastes rubens’ distribution extends from warm temperate zones to 

the tropics. It is found in East and South Asia, throughout Oceania, Australia, East Africa, and the 

West Indies (CABI, 2005). It is estimated that it could survive in US Plant Hardiness Zones 8-11.

One or more of its potential hosts occurs in these zones (NRCS, 2006). We rated this risk element 

High.

Host Range. Ceroplastes rubens has been recorded on numerous wild and cultivated hosts, 

including Mangifera indica (Anacardiaceae), Alpinia purpurata (Zingiberaceae), Annona sp. 

(Annonaceae), Artemisia sp. (Asteraceae), Artocarpus altilis (Moraceae), Camellia sinensis

(Theaceae), Cinnamomum verum (Lauraceae), Citrus spp. (Rutaceae), Cocos nucifera (Arecaceae), 

Coffea sp. (Rubiaceae), Litchi chinensis (Sapindaceae), Myristica fragrans (Myristicaceae), Pinus

spp. (Pinaceae), Prunus spp. (Rosaceae), Psidium guajava (Myrtaceae), (CABI, 2005), and 

Dimocarpus longan (Sapindaceae) (Li-zhong, 2000; Ben-Dov et al., 2004). The host range risk 

element was rated High.

Dispersal Potential. Females of this scale may deposit over 1000 eggs, but mean fecundity is just 

below 300 (CABI, 2001). There are two generations per year (CABI, 2005). As with other scales, 

the species exhibits limited mobility under its own power. Long-distance dispersal is usually on 

infested plant materials (CABI, 2002). The risk element was rated High for C. rubens.

Economic Impact. Ceroplastes rubens is a widespread pest of Citrus, coffee, tea, Cinnamomum, 

mango, avocado and litchi (CABI, 2001). It is considered a major pest of citrus in Australia, 

Hawaii, Korea, China and Japan (CABI, 2002). Economic damage is caused directly through 

phloem feeding and indirectly through the promotion of sooty mold growth, which lowers the 

market value of fresh fruit and can reduce photosynthetic efficiency, causing reduced growth 

(CABI, 2002). Based on this evidence, if C. rubens should become more widely established in the 
Pest Risk Assessment for Mangoes from Australia

Ver. 8 June 22, 2011 16

US, there would likely be a lower yield of host crops, lower value of host crop commodities, and 

loss of foreign or domestic markets. Thus, we rated its potential economic impact as High.

Environmental Impact. The extreme polyphagy of this species increases the probability of it 

attacking plants in the US listed as Threatened or Endangered. It has been recorded from species of 

Euphorbia, Gardenia, Ilex, Lindera, and Rhus (CABI, 2001), which have congeners (E. 

haeleeleana, E. telephioides, G. brighamii, G. mannii, I. cookii, I. sintenisii, L. melissifolia, and R. 

michauxii) listed in 50 CFR §17.12. As this species is a pest of citrus, the wider establishment of 

this pest in the US would likely result in the initiation of chemical and/or biological control 

programs. We rated this risk element High.

Coccus viridis

Climate-Host Interaction. This species is pantropical in distribution. It has been reported from India 

through Indo-China, Malaysia to the Philippines and Indonesia, throughout much of Oceania and 

sub-Saharan Africa south to South Africa (CABI, 2002). In the New World, it is present in Florida, 

and ranges from Central America to the northern part of South America and throughout the 

Caribbean. Its reported distribution corresponds to Plant Hardiness Zones 8-11. It is estimated that 

this species could become established in areas of the U.S. corresponding to Plant Hardiness Zones 

9-11, which corresponds to its present distribution in the U.S. Zones 9-11 correspond to Florida, 

southern Texas, southern Arizona, much of California, and Hawaii (ARS, 1990). One or more hosts 

of C. viridis are present in these States (NRCS, 2006). This estimate does not include Plant 

Hardiness Zone 8, as this zone only occurs in isolated areas of some of the countries (e.g., Andean 

regions of Bolivia and Peru, northern Mexico, isolated central area of South Africa) from which C. 

viridis is reported (BackyardGardner.com, 2003). Survival outside of these areas would be limited 

to greenhouse or other artificial situations. Consequently, we rated this element Medium.

Host Range. Coccus viridis has a broad host range (CABI, 2002). Primary hosts are Citrus spp. 

(Rutaceae), Coffea arabica (Rubiaceae), Artocarpus sp. (Moraceae), Camellia sinensis (Theaceae), 

Manihot esculenta (Euphorbiaceae), Mangifera indica (Anacardiaceae), Psidium guajava

(Myrtaceae), and Theobroma cacao (Sterculiaceae) (CABI, 2002). Other hosts include Alpinia 

purpurata (Zingiberaceae), Chrysanthemum sp. (Asteraceae), Manilkara zapota (Sapotaceae), 

Nerium oleander (Apocynaceae) (CABI, 2002), and Dimocarpus longan (Sapindaceae) (Ben-Dov 

et al., 2004). Therefore, we rated this risk element High.

Dispersal Potential. Coccus viridis is parthenogenic and oviparous (Dekle, 1976). Females may

deposit up to 500 eggs (CABI, 2002), and several generations occur per year (Kosztarab, 1997). The 

rate of natural dispersal is inherently low (Tandon and Veeresh, 1988). Between 1985 and 2003, 

however, C. viridis was intercepted 10,658 times at U.S. ports of entry (PestID, 2004), which 

strongly indicates that this species can move long distances on plant materials. Given these factors, 

we rated it High.

Economic Impact. Although its economic impact is usually minor, it can be extremely

devastating depending on location and crop (CABI, 2002). Coccus viridis is a pest of coffee, 

citrus and other crops in several regions in the tropics, and it is reported as a major pest of citrus 

in Bolivia (Ben-Dov, 1993). Coccus viridis is a major pest of coffee in Haiti (Aitken Soux, 1985) 

and India (Narasimham, 1987). In Brazil, infestations of 50 scales per plant caused significant 
Pest Risk Assessment for Mangoes from Australia

Ver. 8 June 22, 2011 17

damage to coffee seedlings, reducing leaf area and plant growth rate (Silva and Parra, 1982). Of all 

the scale insects known on coffee in Papua New Guinea, C. viridis and one other scale species

cause most of the yield loss (Williams, 1986). In India, citrus fruit quality was significantly lower 

on trees following C. viridis infestation and the sooty mold (Capnodium citri) contamination that 

accompanied it (Haleem, 1984). Based on this evidence, the wider establishment in the U.S. of C. 

viridis would likely lead to lower yield of host crops, lower value of host crop commodities, and 

loss of foreign or domestic markets. Consequently, C. viridis was rated High for the Economic 

Impact risk element.

Environmental Impact. The extreme polyphagy of C. viridis predisposes it to attack vulnerable 

native plants in the U.S. The potential host Manihot walkerae (Euphorbiaceae), which is present in 

Texas, is listed as Endangered by USFWS (2004). The wider establishment of this species could 

have a negative impact on the citrus industry in areas, such as Arizona and Texas, and stimulate the 

initiation of chemical or biological control programs. Therefore, we rated the risk element High.

Cytosphaera mangiferae

Climate-Host Interaction. Cytosphaera mangiferae is found primarily in tropical regions (MAF, 

2003); these regions roughly correspond to the USDA Plant Hardiness Zone 11 (ARS, 1990). 

Cytosphaera mangiferae was, therefore, rated Low (1) for Climate-Host Interaction.

Host Range. The host range of C. mangiferae includes agarwood (Aquillaria agallocha Roxb.), 

which is not present in the United States (NRCS, 2006), and mango (MAF, 2003). Cytosphaera 

mangiferae was, therefore, rated Low.

Dispersal Potential. The fungus grows endophytically within stem tissue prior to inflorescence 

emergence (Johnson and Highley, 1994; Johnson et al., 1992). If rotting fruit are not properly

disposed of, then the asexual spores could become wind or water-borne and infect mango 

production areas; this is, however, not confirmed in the literature. We gave C. mangiferae a 

Medium risk rating because of uncertainty.

Economic Impact. Cytosphaera mangiferae causes stem-end rot (Peterson, 1986), a zonate leaf 

spot, twig canker, and a post-harvest fruit rot (MAF, 2003). It is more prevalent as orchards age 

and when anthracnose is controlled (MAF, 2003). Therefore, we rated the pest Medium.

Environmental Impact. No threatened, endangered, or candidate plants are listed in the family

Anacardiaceae (USFWS, 2002). Thus, we rated C. mangiferae Low.

Fusarium spp. complex associated with mango malformation disease (MMD)

Climate-Host Interaction. Mango (Mangifera indica) malformation disease (MMD) is reported 

in India, Israel, Malaysia, Pakistan, Egypt, South Africa, Sudan, Swaziland, Uganda, Brazil, El 

Salvador, Mexico, Nicaragua, Venezuela, and in the United States in Florida (Marasas et al., 

2006). The species of Fusarium associated with the disease and identified to date—F. 

mangiferae, F. sterilihyphosum—and other Fusarium sp. yet to be described, are reported only 

on mango (Britz et al., 2002; Marasas et al., 2006). In the U.S., commercial mango production is 

quite limited. Mango grows in plant hardiness zones 10b or above (Gilman and Watson, 1994), 

and in the continental U.S. only in one zone. Based on this, the climate-host risk rating is Low. 
Pest Risk Assessment for Mangoes from Australia

Ver. 8 June 22, 2011 18

Host Range. Mango malformation disease and associated fungi have only been reported on 

mango (Britz et al., 2002; Marasas et al., 2006), although some undescribed Fusarium sp. 

associated with MMD may have a broader host range. Previous descriptions of MMD identified 

F. subglutinans as a causal agent, but this really represents a broad group of Fusarium species 

that share similar morphology (Britz et al., 2002). Within the group F. subglutinans, species are 

associated with different plant hosts, each representing a distinct lineage within the group which 

are distinguishable using molecular techniques (Britz et al., 2002). Consequently, we will not 

consider F. subglutinans to be the causal agent of MMD. Current evidence indicates that fungi 

associated with MMD (above) attack only mango (Britz et al., 2002; Marasas et al., 2006).

Therefore we rated the pest Low risk for this element. 

Dispersal Potential. Fusarium mangiferae appears to have a relatively high reproductive 

potential, producing propagules on mango fruit surfaces in the range of 27.4 (+ 4.5) to 61.5 ( +

2.8) propagules per gram of fruit (Youssef et al., 2007). Long distance spread of MMD relies 

primarily on movement of infected planting material, but short distance local spread from tree to 

tree appears to be rather slow (Ploetz, 2002). Inoculum on infected panicles and fruits is likely

airborne and spread by the mango bud mite, but does not move systemically through the trees via 

roots (Youssef et al., 2007). The Fusarium sp. that cause MMD are capable of high reproductive 

rates, but the dispersal is typically quite slow, apart from human-assisted movement, so this pest 

is rated Medium for this aspect. 

Economic Impact. MMD is one of the most serious diseases of mango, since it causes abnormal 

growth of inflorescences which do not set fruit, reduces fruit production by up to 80 percent, and 

may affect vegetative growth (Ploetz, 2002). Management of the disease is costly, requiring that 

symptomatic tissues be removed from trees to reduce inoculum levels in the orchard (Ploetz, 

2002). Unless the pathogens associated with MMD impact other crops, the introduction of this 

quarantine pathogen is unlikely to impact foreign markets, because mango exports from the U.S. 

are very limited. Moreover, domestic markets are unlikely to be affected, since the mangogrowing area is so small. Although the Fusarium sp. causing MMD can lower crop yields and 

increase the cost of production, MMD already occurs in Florida, and growing areas in California 

and Texas are quite small, so we rated this pest as Low risk for economic impact.

Environmental Impact. One endangered species, Rhus michauxii Sarg., which occurs in Florida, 

is in the same plant family as mango (Anacardiaceae) (NRCS, 2008b). Still, no evidence exists 

that Rhus sp. are hosts of MMD. Thus, we rated the risk of environmental impact Low.

Phomopsis mangiferae 

Climate-Host Interaction. Phomopsis mangiferae, which occurs in India, Pakistan and Australia 

(Farr et al., 2003; Laxminarayana and Reddy, 1976), causes a postharvest rot of mango (Johnson 

and Highley, 1994). These areas correspond to USDA Plant Hardiness Zone 11. Phomopsis 

mangiferae was, therefore, rated Low for Climate-Host Interaction.

Host Range. Mango is the only known host of P. mangiferae (Johnson et al., 1994), so P.

mangiferae was rated Low for Host Range.
Pest Risk Assessment for Mangoes from Australia

Ver. 8 June 22, 2011 19

Dispersal Potential. Phomopsis mangiferae infects mango fruit endophytically (Johnson and 

Highley, 1994; Sangchote et al., 1994). Infected fruit may mummify, and infected seed 

germinate to produce infected plants (Johnson and Highley, 1994). The Dispersal Potential was 

rated Low because dispersal assumes that the infected seed is subsequently used in mango 

production. If infected fruit is consumed and the seed is discarded, then the fungus is not in the 

mango production pathway.

Economic Impact. Although mango production in the United States is limited (Mossler and 

Nesheim, 2002), P. mangiferae causes a stem-end rot of harvested fruit (Johnson and Highley, 

1994) that is likely to impact grower revenue (Peterson, 1986). For this reason, we rated this 

element Medium.

Environmental Impact. We rated this element Low because P. mangiferae has a very limited host 

range (Farr et al., 2003), and its host is not a threatened or endangered species (USFWS, 2002).

Sternochetus mangiferae

Climate-Host Interaction. The mango seed weevil, S. mangiferae, attacks only mango fruit and is 

found in most places where mangoes are grown (CABI, 2003). In the Western Hemisphere S. 

mangiferae was identified in several islands of the Caribbean, French Guiana, and Hawaii, but is 

absent from Florida (CABI, 2003). The mango seed weevil occurs only in tropical regions 

(CABI, 2003) corresponding to USDA Plant Hardiness Zones 10 and 11. Mango is cultivated 

only in zone 11 of the United States, so the Climate-Host Interaction was rated Low. 

Host Range. We also rated this element Low, because mango is the only host of the mango seed 

weevil (CABI, 2003).

Dispersal Potential. Adults are capable of surviving long, unfavorable periods. Balock and 

Kozuma (1964) reported “rich flying” for S. mangiferae. In ports of entry into the United States 

near areas of mango cultivation it would be possible for adults to fly to host trees. The mango 

weevil has become established in virtually every mango growing area of the world, except in the 

Canary Islands (Spain), Italy, Israel and Egypt (CABI, 2003). The mango seed weevil is a mobile 

insect and has a proven ability to disperse to new regions so Dispersal Potential was rated High.

Economic Impact. The mango seed weevil can reduce seed fertility in nursery crops, damage 

fruit pulp, and cause exporting countries to be put under quarantine for mango exportation 

(Follett, 2002). The seed weevil may also cause early fruit drop; Follett (2002) found a 

nominally higher percentage of weevils in prematurely dropped fruit than on trees. Follett and 

Gabbard (2000) rarely found any damage to fruit pulp and challenged the idea that S. mangiferae

is a serious pest. The mango seed weevil could limit exports and impact the mango industry

economically due to its status as a quarantine pest (Follett, 2002). In 1997, domestic mango 

production in Florida was worth $1.45 million (Mossler and Nesheim, 2002). The mango seed 

weevil is already present in Hawaii (Follett, 2002). Although the presence of mango weevil in 

the United States would prevent export to several countries, the economic impact would be 

small, because Florida does not export mangoes. Hence, we expect the overall Economic Impact 

of the mango seed weevil on the United States to be Low.
Pest Risk Assessment for Mangoes from Australia

Ver. 8 June 22, 2011 20

Environmental Impact. We rated this element Low because mango is the only host of S. 

mangiferae, and it is not an endangered species. The weevils do not harm mango trees per se, but 

may affect seed germination (Follett and Gabbard, 2000).

Xanthomonas campestris pv. mangiferaeindicae

Climate-Host Interaction. Mango black spot, Xanthomonas campestris pv. mangiferaeindicae, 

occurs in India, Australia, Brazil, Pakistan, Reunion, the Sudan, South Africa, and in areas where 

mangoes or cashews are grown (CABI, 2003). These regions correspond to USDA Plant 

Hardiness Zones 10 and 11. Because Zone 11 is so small, however, we rated the Climate-Host 

Interaction Low.

Host Range. We rated this Medium because X. campestris pv. mangiferaeindicae attacks only 

species in the family Anacardiaceae (CABI, 2003).

Dispersal Potential. Bacterial diseases in the genus Xanthomonas penetrate their hosts through 

natural openings and wounds (Agrios, 1997), causing leaf spots and cankers (Khan and Mirza, 

1995). The bacteria overwinter on infected or healthy plant parts, on or in seeds, on infected 

plant debris, contaminated containers or tools, and in the soil (Agrios, 1997). Rain (Agrios, 1997; 

Pruvost et al., 1990) and insects (Kishun and Chand, 1989) aid in disease dispersal. Because the 

disease could spread rapidly through an orchard, but long distance spread is likely to occur 

slowly, we rated this pest Medium.

Economic Impact. Xanthomonas campestris pv mangiferaeindicae is a principal disease of 

mango in many countries (Pruvost et al., 1990). Its infection of mango trees can cause drastic 

yield losses due to premature fruit drop, reduction of fruit quality, and defoliation (Gagnevin and 

Pruvost, 2001). On very susceptible cultivars, 50 to 80 percent fruit infection is common. Fruit 

symptoms include a “tear stain,” or small water-soaked spots which become star-shaped, 

erumpent, and exude an infectious gum (Gagnevin and Pruvost, 2001). Successful control of 

mango bacterial black spot requires an integrated approach that includes destroying inoculum 

sources (pruning), cultural practices (i.e., windbreaks and drip irrigation), and regularly applying 

copper, which contribute to the cost of production. Although the pathogen can be damaging, 

commercial mango production in the United States is limited (Mossler and Nesheim, 2002). 

Most mangoes in the continental United States are produced in Florida: the value in 1997 was 

$1.45 million (Mossler and Nesheim, 2007). We found no evidence that Florida exports mangoes 

(Garrett, 2007), so loss of foreign markets is unlikely to occur. Few states produce mangoes due 

to climatic requirements, so the impact on domestic markets is also very limited. The situation 

for other potential hosts for X. campestris pv. mangiferaeindicae is similar, as they are not 

widely grown in the continental United States (NRCS, 2007). Since X. campestris pv. 

mangiferaeindicae reduces mango fruit yields and fruit quality, and requires more costly inputs 

to control in the orchard, but is unlikely to result in loss of foreign or domestic fruit markets, we 

rated the pathogen Medium.

Environmental Impact. No threatened, endangered, or candidate plants are listed in the family

Anacardiaceae (USFWS, 2002). Commercially grown hosts in the family Anacardiaceae are not 

widely distributed within the continental United States (NRCS, 2006). Native Anacardiaceae 

populations, such as poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans (L.) Kuntze)), are not expected to be 
Pest Risk Assessment for Mangoes from Australia

Ver. 8 June 22, 2011 21

dense or continuous enough to sustain a disease epidemic (Agrios, 1997; Burdon, 1987; NRCS, 

2006). For these reasons, the of X. campestris pv. mangiferaeindicae was rated Low.

Table 10. Summary of the Risk Ratings for the Consequences of Introduction

Pest Risk Elements Consequences of 

Introductiona

Climate / 

Host 

Host 

Range

Dispersal 

Potential

Economic

Impact

Environmental 

Impact

Bactrocera aquilonis Low (1) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (13)

B. cucumis Med (2) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (14)

B. frauenfeldi Med (2) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (14)

B. jarvisi Med (2) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (14)

B. kraussi Low (1) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (13)

B. murrayi Low (1) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (13)

B. neohumeralis Med (2) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (14)

B. opiliae Low (1) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (13)

B. tryoni Med (2) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (14)

Species in the 

Botryosphaeriaceae

Lasiodiplodia 

pseudotheobromae

Med (2) High (3) High (3) Med (2) Med (2) Med (12)

Neofusicoccum 

mangiferae

Med (2) High (3) High (3) Med (2) Med (2) Med (12)

Neoscytalidium 

novaehollandia

Med (2) Low (1) High (3) Med (2) Med (2) Med (10)

Pseudofusicoccum 

adansoniae

Med (2) High (3) High (3) Med (2) Med (2) Med (12)

Ceratitis capitata Med (2) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (14)

Ceroplastes rubens High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (15)

Coccus viridis Med (2) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (14)

Cytosphaera mangiferae Low (1) Low (1) Med (2) Med (2) Low (1) Low (7)

Fusarium spp. complex 

associated with mango 

malformation disease

Low (1) Low (1) Med (2) Low (1) Low (1) Low (6)

Phomopsis mangiferae Low (1) Low (1) Low (1) Med (2) Low (1) Low (6)

Sternochetus mangiferae Low (1) Low (1) High (3) Low (1) Low (1) Low (7)

Xanthomonas campestris

pv. mangiferaeindicae

Low (1) Med (2) Med (2) Med (2) Low (1) Low (8)

a

Low is 5-8 points; Medium is 9-12 points; and High is 13-15 points

4.2. Likelihood of Introduction

The Likelihood of Introduction was rated for six factors, five of which concern pest biology

(APHIS, 2000). The first is the quantity imported annually. The five biological factors represent 
Pest Risk Assessment for Mangoes from Australia

Ver. 8 June 22, 2011 22

a series of independent events that must all take place before a pest outbreak occurs, as follows:

survival of post-harvest treatment, survival of shipping, the likelihood of being detected during 

visual inspection, the likelihood of being imported or subsequently moved to an area with a 

suitable climate and host plants, and the likelihood the pest will contact host material. The value 

for the Likelihood of Introduction is the sum of the sub-element ratings (Table 11).

4.2.1. Quantity Imported Annually

The rating for this risk element is based on the amount of proposed export reported by the 

country, converted into standard units of 40-foot long shipping containers (APHIS, 2000).

Australia anticipates sending the equivalent of 40 containers per year, which corresponds to a 

Medium risk rating.

4.2.2. Survive Postharvest Treatment

This risk sub-element is estimated based on the fruit being cleaned and washed as part of 

standard post-harvest practices in mango production.

Internal feeders, like Bactrocera spp., Ceratitis capitata, and S. mangiferae, should be unaffected 

by the postharvest treatment, and we rated them High for this risk element. As external pests, the 

scale insects would be less likely to survive post-harvest treatments than internal feeders.

Consequently, we rated the scale insects Medium for this sub-element.

While bacteria and some fungi on the surface of fruit (e.g. Fusarium spp. complex associated 

with MMD) are not likely to survive a post-harvest dip in sodium hypochlorite (Block, 1991), 

this treatment is not proposed for use (AFFA, 2001). A bleach treatment was ineffective at 

reducing stem end rots (Sangchote et al., 1994). Current post-harvest treatments (AFFA, 2002) 

are not expected to be active against the endophytic organisms because the fungi are not directly

contacted by an efficacious dose of fungicidal agents (Coates et al., 1993; Johnson et al., 1993).

For these reasons we rated the species in the Botryosphaeriaceae, Cytosphaera mangiferae, 

Xanthomonas campestris pv. mangiferaeindicae, and Phomopsis mangiferae High for this risk 

element.

Viability of the as-yet-unidentified Fusarium spp. complex associated with mango malformation 

disease is likely to be reduced by post-harvest washing and fungicide use (AFFA, 2002), since 

the pathogen remains on the surface of mangoes and has not been isolated from the flesh or seeds 

from infected trees (Youssef, et al. 2007). Thus we rated this risk element Low for Fusarium

spp. associated with mango malformation disease.

4.2.3. Survive Shipment

This sub-element evaluates pest mortality during commodity shipment. Australia anticipates air 

freighting the mangoes in corrugated cardboard boxes. Aircraft conditions are typically 10-13oC 

(Knowledge Master, 2003). Under such benign conditions, we expect all of the insect pests to 

have a High probability of surviving shipment.

The bacteria Xanthomonas campestris pv. mangiferaeindicae survive epiphytically on fruit, 

leaves and soil (Pruvost et al., 1990; Pruvost and Luisetti, 1991); epiphytic populations are not 

detected on symptomless mature fruit (Pruvost and Luisetti, 1991). The number of bacterial spots 
Pest Risk Assessment for Mangoes from Australia

Ver. 8 June 22, 2011 23

occurring on mature fruits is directly related to epiphytic populations, suggesting that the resident 

populations are an important source of inoculum for fruit infection (Pruvost and Luisetti, 1991) 

so our rating is High.

The fungi (4 species in the Botryosphaeriaceae., C. mangiferae, P. mangiferae and Fusarium 

spp. associated with MMD) are likely to survive shipping conditions (AFFA, 2002) because 

most control measures are not curative and do not eradicate the pathogens (Coates et al., 1993 

Coates et al., 1997; Johnson et al., 1993; Johnson et al., 1990; Johnson and Highley, 1994).

Combination treatments of gamma irradiation and fungicides (Johnson et al., 1990) or partialpressure infiltration and dip treatments (Plan et al., 2002) may provide control in the future.

Fusarium spp. associated with MMD are reported to be on the surface of fruits, and not in the 

flesh, seeds or seed coats, so disinfesting treatments would be particularly suitable for preventing 

pathogen introduction (Youssef et al., 2007). Propagules of Fusarium spp. causing MMD in soil 

lost viability over time when stored at 14oC (survived 14.7 to 15 weeks) (Youssef et al., 2007), 

which may indicate relatively lengthy survival at cooler temperatures. Mixed populations of C. 

mangiferae and P. mangiferae exist within tissues and the relative growth of the various fungi is 

related to the environmental conditions (Johnson et al., 1993). Additionally, controlled 

atmospheric conditions may only slow symptom expression (Johnson et al., 1993), leading to 

longer latent periods. For these reasons, we rated the fungi High.

4.2.4. Not Detected at Port of Entry

Mango seed weevil larvae feed inside mango seeds (Follett and Gabbard, 2000) and can only be 

detected by cutting open the mangoes and seeds. Therefore, we assigned mango seed weevil a 

High risk. Inspectors cutting mango failed to detect larvae of Anastrepha supensa, a fruit fly in 

the same family as Bactrocera and Ceratitis capitata, 71.6 percent of the time (Gould, 1995b).

These findings underscore the high likelihood of fruit flies and weevils crossing borders 

undetected in fruit, and support a High rating. As external feeders, the scale insects have a high 

probability of being detected at the port-of-entry because they will be visible on the outside of 

the fruit, so we rated them Low for this sub-element.

Some fungi are likely to be detected at ports of entry when their symptoms are obvious (Johnson

et al., 1989; Lim et al., 1991; MAF, 2003). Latent infections, however, are likely to evade 

detection, and post-harvest storage conditions, which slow symptom expression, may lead to 

increased numbers of infected fruit not being detected. Fusarium spp. associated with MMD do 

not produce visible symptoms or damage to mature fruits, yet inoculum invisible to the naked 

eye may cover fruit surfaces (Youssef et al., 2007). Since it is unlikely to be detected, we rated 

Fusarium spp. associated with MMD High.

Advanced symptoms of bacterial black spot, caused by Xanthomonas campestris pv. 

mangiferaeindicae, are likely to be detected at ports of entry when there are obvious external 

symptoms (Shekhawat and Patel, 1975). Symptoms may vary depending on the susceptibility of 

the host and on environment and may not be clearly attributable to a single pathogen. The role of 

latent infections in mango bacterial black spot is uncertain. Limited research into mango 

bacterial black spot indicates that Xanthomonas campestris pv. mangiferaeindicae causes latent 

infections, which would also be likely to evade detection, although presence of the bacterium 

strictly as an epiphyte has not been conclusively ruled out (Gagnevin and Pruvost, 2001). Since 
Pest Risk Assessment for Mangoes from Australia

Ver. 8 June 22, 2011 24

they may cause symptoms that allow elimination of infected fruit from the pathway, but can also 

have latent states, we rated this and the remaining fungal pathogens, including species in the 

Botryosphaeriaceae, Phomopsis mangiferae, and Cytosphaera mangiferae, Medium.

4.2.5. Imported or Moved to an Area Suitable for Survival

This sub-element considers the geographic location of likely markets and the chance of the 

commodity moving to locations suitable for the pest’s survival. Consumer demand for mangoes 

in the United States has grown ten-fold since 1975 (Knowledge Master, 2003). Markets, 

therefore, probably exist in all parts of the United States, and some infested fruit may arrive in 

areas that are suitable for pest survival. Risk ratings for this sub-element were, therefore, based 

on the area of the United States that was suitable for each pest’s survival.

Based on the evidence provided above for each pest in regard to the Climate-Host Interaction 

risk element, we rated the following as Low: Bactrocera aquilonis, B. kraussi, B. murrayi, B. 

opiliae, Sternochetus mangiferae, Cytosphaera mangiferae, Fusarium spp. associated with 

MMD, Phomopsis mangiferae, and Xanthomonas campestris pv. mangiferaeindicae. We rated 

all the other fruit flies, Coccus viridis, and species in the Botryosphaeriaceae as Medium, and 

rated Ceroplastes rubens as High.

4.2.6. Contact with Host Material

The relative lack of suitable hosts restricts pest establishment. Temporal restrictions also play an 

important role in host suitability. Australia plans to export mangoes from October through March 

(AFFA, 2002), a time when most hosts and climatic conditions are unsuitable for colonizing 

insects or pathogens throughout large portions of the United States.

Fruit flies develop quickly and have wide host ranges (Fletcher, 1989). Also, the fruit flies can 

disperse well, so they might escape from houses, compost piles, or garbage to find nearby hosts.

Additionally, fruit infested with fruit flies often contain multiple larvae, making the chance that 

adults could mate higher. Consequently, we rated the fruit flies High for this risk sub-element.

Sternochetus mangiferae can also fly to find a host (Balock and Kozuma, 1964), although likely 

less so than the fruit flies, and therefore could also escape from houses, compost piles or garbage 

to find nearby hosts. However, as this weevil has a very narrow host range and any potential host 

plants have a very limited distribution in the United States, we rated it Low.

Sessile hemipterans (scale insects, etc.) may disperse great distances by wind (Greathead, 1990; 

Greathead, 1997), but do not have the capability for directed dispersal in this way. Long range 

dispersal strategies depend on large numbers of insects being dispersed so that some may find 

suitable hosts. Insects arriving with fruit represent such small populations that dispersal by air to 

a host would be very unlikely. Furthermore, successful establishment of these insects in a new 

environment can occur only when mobile forms (i.e., crawlers) are present on the imported fruit and 

these fruit are placed in close proximity to a susceptible host. As these circumstances are highly

unlikely to co-occur (Miller et al., 1985), scale insects have a low probability of establishment. For 

these reasons, we rated all of the scale insects Low.
Pest Risk Assessment for Mangoes from Australia

Ver. 8 June 22, 2011 25

For the pathogens, only discarded fruit are likely to create ongoing sources of inoculum or 

provide an initial source of inoculum (Fusarium spp. associated with MMD). Bacteria or spores 

must then disperse from discarded fruit into mango orchards when susceptible host tissue is 

available (Johnson et al., 1993; Johnson et al., 1989; Kishun and Chand, 1989; Pruvost et al., 

1990; Pruvost and Luisetti, 1991). Hence, we rated the pathogens specifically infecting mango

Low, these include C. mangiferae, Fusarium spp. associated with MMD, Neoscytalidium 

novaehollandia, P. mangiferae, and X. c. pv. mangiferaeindicae. The remaining fungal 

pathogens with broader host ranges we rated Medium since they have a higher likelihood of 

contacting hosts. 

Table 11. Summary of the Risk Ratings for the Likelihood of Introduction. For each pest, the rating for 

‘Quantity imported annually’ was Medium.

Pest Quantitiy 

imported 

annually

Survive 

postharvest 

treatment

Survive 

shipment

Not 

detected 

at port of 

entry

Move to 

suitable 

habitat

Find 

suitable 

hosts

Risk 

Ratinga

Bactrocera aquilonis Med (2) High (3) High (3) High (3) Low (1) High (3) High (15)

Bactrocera cucumis Med (2) High (3) High (3) High (3) Med (2) High (3) High (16)

Bactrocera frauenfeldi Med (2) High (3) High (3) High (3) Med (2) High (3) High (16)

Bactrocera jarvisi Med (2) High (3) High (3) High (3) Med (2) High (3) High (16)

Bactrocera kraussi Med (2) High (3) High (3) High (3) Low (1) High (3) High (15)

Bactrocera murrayi Med (2) High (3) High (3) High (3) Low (1) High (3) High (15)

Bactrocera 

neohumeralis

Med (2) High (3) High (3) High (3) Med (2) High (3) High (16)

Bactrocera opiliae Med (2) High (3) High (3) High (3) Low (1) High (3) High (15)

Bactrocera tryoni Med (2) High (3) High (3) High (3) Med (2) High (3) High (16)

Species in the

Botryosphaeriaceae

Lasiodiplodia 

pseudotheobromae

Med (2) High (3) High (3) Med (2) Med (2) Med (2) Med (14)

Neofusicoccum 

mangiferae

Med (2) High (3) High (3) Med (2) Med (2) Med (2) Med (14)

Neoscytalidium 

novaehollandia

Med (2) High (3) High (3) Med (2) Med (2) Low (1) Med (13)

Pseudofusicoccum 

adansoniae

Med (2) High (3) High (3) Med (2) Med (2) Med (2) Med (14)

Ceratitis capitata Med (2) High (3) High (3) High (3) Med (2) High (3) High (16)

Ceroplastes rubens Med (2) Med (2) High (3) Low (1) High (3) Low (1) Med (12)

Coccus viridis Med (2) Med (2) High (3) Low (1) Med (2) Low (1) Med (11)

Cytosphaera 

mangiferae

Med (2) High (3) High (3) Med (2) Low (1) Low (1) Med (12)
Pest Risk Assessment for Mangoes from Australia

Ver. 8 June 22, 2011 26

Pest Quantitiy 

imported 

annually

Survive 

postharvest 

treatment

Survive 

shipment

Not 

detected 

at port of 

entry

Move to 

suitable 

habitat

Find 

suitable 

hosts

Risk 

Ratinga

Fusarium spp. 

complex associated 

with mango 

malformation disease

Med (2) Low (1) High (3) High (3) Low (1) Low (1) Med (11)

Phomopsis 

mangiferae

Med (2) High (3) High (3) Med (2) Low (1) Low (1) Med (12)

Sternochetus 

mangiferae 

Med (2) High (3) High (3) High (3) Low (1) Low (1) Med (13)

Xanthomonas 

campestris pv. 

mangiferaeindicae

Med (2) High (3) High (3) Med (2) Low (1) Low (1) Med (12)

a

Low = 6-9 points; Medium = 10-14 points; and High = 15-18 points

4.3. Conclusion: Pest Risk Potential

Pest Risk Potentials are the summation of the Consequences of Introduction and Likelihood of 

Introduction values (Table 12). For this risk assessment, we assumed post-harvest processing 

was limited to washing and handling, with no specific mitigation measures.

Pests with a Low Pest Risk Potential do not typically require mitigation measures, other than port 

of arrival inspection. A Medium rating indicates that specific phytosanitary measures may be 

necessary. A High rating indicates that specific phytosanitary measures, supplemental to port of 

arrival inspection, are strongly recommended. Detailed examination and choice of appropriate 

phytosanitary measures to mitigate pest risk is undertaken during the pest risk management 

phase and is not discussed in this document. 

Table 12. Summary of the Consequences of Introduction, the Likelihood of Introduction and 

Pest Risk Potential.

Pest Consequences of 

Introduction

Likelihood of 

Introduction

Pest Risk 

Potential a

Bactrocera aquilonis High (13) High (15) High (28)

Bactrocera cucumis High (14) High (16) High (30)

Bactrocera frauenfeldi High (14) High (16) High (30)

Bactrocera jarvisi High (14) High (16) High (30)

Bactrocera kraussi High (13) High (15) High (28)

Bactrocera murrayi High (13) High (15) High (28)

Bactrocera neohumeralis High (14) High (16) High (30)

Bactrocera opiliae High (13) High (15) High (28)
Pest Risk Assessment for Mangoes from Australia

Ver. 8 June 22, 2011 27

Pest Consequences of 

Introduction

Likelihood of 

Introduction

Pest Risk 

Potential a

Bactrocera tryoni High (14) High (16) High (30)

Botryosphaeriaceae spp.

Lasiodiplodia pseudotheobromae Medium (12) Medium (14) Medium (26)

Neofusicoccum mangiferae Medium (12) Medium (14) Medium (26)

Neoscytalidium novaehollandia Medium (10) Medium (13) Medium (23)

Pseudofusicoccum adansoniae Medium (12) Medium (14) Medium (26)

Ceratitis capitata High (14) High (16) High (30)

Ceroplastes rubens High (15) Medium (12) High (27)

Coccus viridis High (14) Medium (11) Medium (25)

Cytosphaera mangiferae Low (7) Medium (12) Medium (19)

Fusarium spp. complex associated 

with mango malformation disease

Low (6) Medium (11) Low (17)

Phomopsis mangiferae Low (6) Medium (12) Low (18)

Sternochetus mangiferae Low (7) Medium (13) Medium (20)

Xanthomonas campestris pv. 

mangiferaeindicae

Low (8) Medium (12) Medium (20)

a

Low is 11-18 points; Medium is 19-26 points; and High is 27-33 points

5. Contributors 

(in alphabetical order)

Keith Colpetzer, M.S. Leah Millar, M.S.

Lisa M. Ferguson, Ph.D. Shawn P. Robertson, Ph.D.

Michael Hennessey, Ph.D. Eileen Sutker, Ph.D.

Anthony Koop, Ph.D. Daniel Williams, Ph.D.

6. References

Abraham, E.V., M.D. Padmanabhan, A. Mohandoss, and C.R. Gunasekharan. 1970. Record of 

some insects of economic importance on the hill crops in Tamil Nadu. Madras 

Agricultural Journal 57(12):718-722.

AFFA. 2001. Technical market access submission for Australian Mangoes to the USA. 

Agriculture, Fischeries and Forestry, Australia (AFFA), received October, 2001.

AFFA. 2002. Additional Information, Technical market access submission for Australian 

Mangoes to the USA. Agriculture, Fischeries and Forestry, Australia (AFFA), received 3 

March 2002.

Agrios, G.N. 1997. Plant Pathology, Fourth Edition. Academic Press, New York. 635 pp.

Aitken Soux, P. 1985. Some pests and diseases generally encountered in coffee nurseries. Feuille 

d'Extension No. 53:5 pp.
Pest Risk Assessment for Mangoes from Australia

Ver. 8 June 22, 2011 28

Allwood, A.J., and R.A.I. Drew. 1996. Seasonal abundance, distribution, hosts and taxonomic 

placement of Dipterophagus daci Drew & Allwood (Strepsiptera: Dipterophagidae). 

Australian Entomologist 23(2):61-72.

Aluja, M. 1996. Future trends in fruit fly management. Pages 309-320 in B.A. McPheron and 

G.J. Steck, (eds.). Fruit fly pests: a world assessment of their biology and management. 

St. Lucie Press, Delray Beach, Florida.

Anonymous. 1965. A host list of the insects of Thailand. Thailand Department of Agriculture 

and the U.S. Operations Mission to Thailand. 149 pp.

APHIS. 2009. Fruits and Vegetables Import Requirements (FAVIR) Database. United States 

Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). 

https://epermits.aphis.usda.gov/manual/index.cfm?ACTION=pubHome. (Archived at 

PERAL).

Arnett, R. H. J. 2000. American Insects. A Handbook of the Insects of America North of 

Mexico. Second edition. CRC Press, Boca Raton. 1003 pp.

ARS. 1990. Plant Hardiness Zone Map, Misc. Pub. No. 1475. United States Department of 

Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service (ARS), DC. 

http://usna.usda.gov/Hardzone/ushzmap.html.

Arthur, V., and F.M. Wiendl. 1996. Irradiation of Planococcus citri (Risso) (Homoptera: 

Pseudococcidae) with gamma radiation from cobalt-60 to determine the disinfestation 

dose. Anais da Sociedade Entomologica do Brasil 25(2):345-346.

Astridge, D. 2000a. Redshouldered Leaf Beetle in Rare Fruit. The State of Queensland, 

Department of Primary Industry, Queensland, Australia. Last accessed 23 November 

2003, http://www.dpi.qld.gov.au/horticulture/5056.htm.

Astridge, D., and H.Fay. 2003. Horticulture and fresh produce DPI&F Note: Orange Fruit Borer 

in rare fruit. Queensland Government Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries. Last 

accessed http://www2.dpi.qld.gov.au/horticulture/5093.html.

Atkinson, T.H., and S.B. Peck. 1994. Annotated checklist of the bark and ambrosia beetles 

(Coleoptera: Platypodidae and Scolytidae) of tropical southern Florida. Florida 

Entomologist 77(3):313-329.

Atwall, A.S. 1976. Agricultural Pests of India and South-East Asia. Kalyani Publishers, Delhi, 

India. 502 pp.

BackyardGardner.com. 2003. Map of South America, Central America, and the Caribbean with 

USDA plant hardiness zones indicated. Last accessed March 7, 2003, 

http://www.backyardgardener.com/zone/sazone.html.

Baker, E.W., T. Kono, J.W. J. Amrine, M.D. Delfinado-Baker, and T.A. Stasny. 1996. 

Eriophyoid Mites of the United States. Indira Publishing House, West Bloomfield, 

Michigan. 394 pp.

Baker, G., M. Kelly, A. MacGregor, D. Jackman, and S. Purvis. 2001. Development of an 

Integrated Pest Management System for Thrips in Citrus: Summary, Conclusions and 

Recommendations of the 1997-2000 Kelly's Citrus Thrips Research Project. South 

Australian Research and Development Institute. Urrbrae, South Australia. Last accessed 

3 December 2003, 

http://www.sardi.sa.gov.au/pages/entomolo/kctrec.htm:sectID=878&tempID=7.

Balock, J.W., and T.T. Kozuma. 1964. Notes on the biology and economic importance of the 

mango weevil, Sternochetus mangiferae (Fabricius) in Hawaii (Coleoptera: 

Curculionidae). Proceedings of the Hawaiian Entomological Society 18(3):353-364.
Pest Risk Assessment for Mangoes from Australia

Ver. 8 June 22, 2011 29

Batt, A.E.M. 2000. Efficacy of some insecticides on certain small powder post beetles (Family: 

Bostrychidae) infesting mango trees. Egyptian Journal of Agricultural Research 

78(4):1525-1540.

Beaver, R.A. 1976. Biological studies of Brazilian Scolytidae and Platypodidae (Coleoptera). V. 

The tribe Xyleborini. Zeitschrift fur Angewandte Entomologie 80(1):15-30.

Bellis, G. A., J. F. Donaldson, M. Carver, D. L. Hancock, and M. J. Fletcher. 2004. Records of 

insect pests on Christmas Island and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands, Indian Ocean. 

Australian Entomologist 31(3):93-102.

Ben-Dov, Y. 1993. A systematic catalogue of the soft scale insects of the world (Homoptera: 

Coccoidea: Coccidae) with data on geographical distribution, host plants, biology and 

economic importance. Sandhill Crane Press, Inc., Gainesville, Florida. 536 pp.

Ben-Dov, Y. 1994. A systematic catalogue of the mealybugs of the world (Insecta: Homoptera: 

Coccoidea: Pseudococcidae and Putoidae). Intercept Limited, Andover, UK. 686 pp.

Ben-Dov, Y., D.R. Miller, and G.A.P. Gibson. 2004. ScaleNet, Scales associated with Mangifera 

indica Query Results. http://www.sel.barc.usda.gov/scalenet/scalenet.htm. (Archived at 

PERAL).

Ben-Dov, Y., D. R. Miller, and G. A. P. Gibson. 2008. ScaleNet. 

http://www.sel.barc.usda.gov/scalenet/scalenet.htm. (Archived at PERAL).

Ben-Dov, Y., D. R. Miller, and G. A. P. Gibson. 2009. ScaleNet. 

http://www.sel.barc.usda.gov/scalenet/scalenet.htm. (Archived at PERAL).

Bhattacharyya, B., J.N. Khound, and A.C. Thakur. 1996. Some aspects of biology and 

management of mango pulp weevil, Sternochetus frigidus (Fabr.) (Coleoptera: 

Curculionidae). Pages 298-304 in Proceedings of the Seminar on Problems and Prospects 

of Agricultural Research and Development in North East India, Assam Agricultural 

University, Jorhat, India, 27-28 November 1995. Agricultural Science Society of NorthEast India; Jorhat; India.

Biosecurity Australia. 2002. Technical Market Access Submission: Export of Australian Tropical 

Fruits to USA (report submitted to USDA-APHIS July 31, 2002). Agriculture, Fisheries 

and Forestry - Australia, Canberra, Australia.

Blackman, R.L., and V.F. Eastop. 1984. Aphids on the world's crops. An identification and 

information guide. John Wiley, Chichester; United Kingdom. recd. 1986, vii + 1466 pp.

Block, S.S. 1991. Disinfection, sterilization, and preservation (4th). Lea and Febiger, 

Philadelphia. 1162 pp.

Bolland, H.R., J. Gutierrez, and C.H. W. Flechmann. 1998. World Catalogue of the Spider Mite 

Family (Acari: Tetranychidae). Koninklijke Brill, Leiden, Netherlands. 392 pp.

Borror, D.J., C.A. Triplehorn, and N.F. Johnson. 1989. An introduction to the study of insects 

(6). Saunders College Publishing, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers, Fort 

Worth. 875 pp.

Boshoff, M. 2000. Efficacy of Agry-gent for control of bacterial black spot (Xanthomonas 

campestris pv. mangiferaeindicae) in mango. South African Mango Growers' Association 

Yearbook, Volume 19 and 20, 1999 2000. 2000; 125 130. Tzaneen South Africa: 

HortResearch SA.

Boshoff, M., J.M. Kotze, and L. Korsten. 2000. Control of bacterial black spot. Pages 51-57 

South African Mango Growers' Association Yearbook, Volume 19 and 20, 1999-2000. 

Tzaneen South Africa: HortResearch SA.
Pest Risk Assessment for Mangoes from Australia

Ver. 8 June 22, 2011 30

Bradbury, J.F. 1986. Guide to plant pathogenic bacteria. CAB International, Wallingford, UK. 

332 pp.

Britton, E.B. 1980. A revision of the Australian chafers (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: 

Melolonthinae) Vol. 3. Tribe Liparetrini: Genus Liparetrus. Australian Journal of 

Zoology, Supplementary Series 76:209 pp.

Britz, H., E.T. Steenkamp, T.A. Coutinho, B.D. Wingfield, W.F.O. Marasas, and M.J. Wingfield. 

2002. Two new species of Fusarium section Liseola associated with mango 

malformation. Mycologia 94(4):722-730.

Brown, G.E., and T.S. Schubert. 1987. Use of Xanthomonas campestris pv. vesicatoria to 

evaluate surface disinfectants for canker quarantine treatment of citrus fruit. Plant 

Disease 71(4):319-323.

Brown, J.D. 1991. Insecticidal control of mango planthopper Colgaroides acuminata (Walker) -

(Hemiptera: Flatidae) in north Queensland. Plant Protection Quarterly 6(2):64.

Burdon, J.J. 1987. Diseases and plant population biology. Cambridge University Press, 

Cambridge, UK. 208 pp.

Burger, H.C., and S.A. Ulenberg. 1990. Quarantine Problems and Procedures. Pages 313-3027 in

D. Rosen, (ed.). Armored scale insects. Their biology, natural enemies and control. 

World Crop Pests Volume 4B. Elsevier Scientific Publishers, Amsterdam.

Butani, D.K. 1993. Mango: Pest Problems. Periodical Expert Book Agency, Delhi, India. 290 pp.

CABI. 2001. Crop Protection Compendium. CAB International (CABI), Wallingford, Oxon, UK.

CABI. 2002. Crop Protection Compendium. CAB International (CABI), Wallingford, Oxon, UK.

CABI. 2003. Crop Protection Compendium. CAB International (CABI), Wallingford, Oxon, UK.

CABI. 2005. Crop Protection Compendium. CAB International (CABI), Wallingford, Oxon, UK.

CABI. 2007. Crop Protection Compendium. CAB International (CABI), Wallingford, Oxon, UK.

Cai, Z., and S. Wen. 2002. The red mite of loquat and its control [Abstract]. South China Fruits 

31(6):41-42.

California Rare Fruit Growers. 1996. Mango fruit facts. California Rare Fruit Growers 

Publications: 7. Last accessed May 27, 2011 at http://www.crfg.org/pubs/ff/mango.html.

Carey, J.R. 1989. Bioclimatic potential, demographic analysis of fruit flies. Pages 209-219 in

A.S. Robinson and G. Hooper, (eds.). Fruit Flies; Their Biology, Natural Enemies and 

Control. Elsevier, Amsterdam, Netherlands.

Carrol, L.E., I.M. White, A. Friedberg, A.L. Norrbom, M.J. Dallwitz, and F.C. Thompson. 2002. 

Pest Fruit Flies of the World: Descriptions, Illustrations, Identification and Information. 

United States Department of Agriculture, Systematic Entomology Laboratory. Last 

accessed 23 November 2003, 

http://www.sel.barc.usda.gov/Diptera/tephriti/pests/adults/www/bac_krau.htm.

Carrol, L.E., I.M. White, A. Friedberg, A.L. Norrbom, M.J. Dallwitz, and F.C. Thompson. 2002 

onwards. Pest Fruit Flies of the World: Descriptions, Illustrations, Identification, and 

Information Retrieval. Version: 8th August 2002.

http://www.sel.barc.usda.gov/Diptera/tephriti/pests/adults/.

CERIS. 2006. Export Certification Project - EXCERPT. The Center for Environmental and 

Regulatory Information Systems (CERIS), Entomology Department, Purdue University. 

Last accessed http://excerpt.ceris.purdue.edu/.

Childers, C.C., R. J. Beshear, J.R. Brushwein, and H.A. Denmark. 1990. Thrips (Thysanoptera) 

species, their occurrence and seasonal abundance on developing buds and flowers of 

Florida citrus. Journal of Entomological Science 25(4):601-614.
Pest Risk Assessment for Mangoes from Australia

Ver. 8 June 22, 2011 31

CIE. 1994. Distribution Maps of Pests. International Institute of Entomology (CIE), London.

Citrus from Peru. 2005. Federal Register 70(189): 57206-57213 (September 30, 2005).

Clark, R.A. 2005. Scirtothrips dorsalis, Chilli Thrips: Regulatory Status. Florida Department of 

Agriculture & Consumer Services, Gainesville, Florida. Last accessed 

http://mrec.ifas.ufl.edu/lso/thripslinks.htm.

Coates, L.M., A.W. Cooke, J.R. Dean, U. Lavi, C. Degani, S. Gazit, E. Lahav, E. Pesis, D. 

Prusky, E. Tomer, and M. Wysoki. 1997. The response of mango stem end rot pathogens 

to heat. Acta Horticulturae (455):762-772.

Coates, L.M., G. I. Johnson, and A.W. Cooke. 1993. Postharvest disease control in mangoes 

using high humidity hot air and fungicide treatments. Annals of Applied Biology

123(2):441-448.

Cook, A.A. 1975. Diseases of tropical and subtropical fruits and nuts. Hafner Press, New York. 

317 pp.

Copes, W. E., and F. F. Hendrix, Jr. 2004. Effect of temperature on sporulation of 

Botryosphaeria dothidea, B. obtusa, and B. rhodina Plant Dis. 88:292-296.

Crane, J., M. Aerts, and M. Mossler. 2002. Crop Profile for Mango In Florida. IPM Centers Crop 

Profiles:11. Last accessed April 15, 2008, 

http://www.ipmcenters.org/cropprofiles/docs/FLMango.html. 

CRFG. 1996. Mango Fruit Facts. California Rare Fruit Growers (CRFG) Inc. Last accessed 9 

December 2003. http://www.crfg.org/pubs/ff/mango.html.

CSIRO/AFFA. 2002. Australian Insect Common Names, Version 1.31. Commonwealth 

Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIRO)/ Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Australia

(AFFA). http://www.ento.csiro.au/aicn/index_no.htm.

Culliney, T.W. 2002. The aliens have landed: invasive species threaten Hawaii agriculture. 

Agric. Hawaii 3(1):6-9.

Cunningham, I.C. 1984. Mango insect pests.First Australian Mango Research Workshop. 

Standing Committee on Agriculture-Plant Protection Committee, Cairns, Queensland.

Cunningham, I.C. 1991. Common mango scales in Queensland. Acta Horticulturae 291:409-412.

Cunningham, R.T. 1989. Male Annihilation. in A.S. Robinson and G. Hooper, (eds.). Fruit flies: 

their biology, natural enemies and control, World Crop Pests Volume 3B (Volume 3B). 

Eslevier, Amsterdam.

Davidson, J.A., and D.R. Miller. 1990. Ornamental plants. Pages 603-632 in D. Rosen, (ed.). 

Armoured Scale Insects, thier Biology, Natural Enemies and Control. Elsevier, 

Amsterdam, Netherlands.

DBIRD. 2002. Pests, Diseases and Disorders of Pests, Diseases and Disorders of Mangoes in the 

Northern Territory: An Illustrated Guide. Entomology and Plant Pathology Sections, 

Resource Protection Division and the Horticulture Division, Department of Business, 

Industry and Resource Development (DBIRD), Northern Territory Government, in 

partnership with the Northern Territory Mango Industry Association. Last accessed 

http://kakadu.nt.gov.au/pls/portal30/docs/FOLDER/DBIRD_PI/HORTICULTURE/FRUI

T/MANGO/MANGO_PUBLICATIONS/MANGO_PEST_DISEASE_BOOK.PDF.

Dekle, G.W. 1976. Green scale, Coccus viridis (Green) (Homoptera: Coccidae). Florida 

Deparment of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Plant Industry, 

Entomology Circular 165.

Denmark, H.A. 1983. Eriophyes mangiferae (Sayed), a pest of mango (Acari: Eriophyidae). 

Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Entomology Circular No. 254.
Pest Risk Assessment for Mangoes from Australia

Ver. 8 June 22, 2011 32

Doan Duy Le, N., M.N. Ducamp, M. Dornier, D. Montet, M. Reynes, and G. Loiseau. 2005. 

Evaluation of lactoperoxidase system treatment to reduce anthracnose, stem-end rot, and 

bacterial black spot development during storage of mangoes. Journal of Food Protection 

68(8):1671-1675.

Dohino, T., S. Masaki, T. Takano, and T. Hayashi. 1997. Effects of electron beam irradiation on 

sterility of Comstock mealybug, Pseudococcus comstocki (Kuwana) (Homoptera: 

Pseudococcidae). Research Bulletin of the Plant Protection Service, Japan (33):31-34.

DPI. 1997. Mango pests and disorders. Department of Primary Industries (DPI), Queensland, 

Australia. 44 pp.

DPIF. 2008. A-Z list of significant plant pests and diseases. Department of Primary Industries 

and Fisheries (DPIF), Queensland, Australia. 

http://www.dpi.qld.gov.au/cps/rde/xchg/dpi/hs.xsl/26_6460_ENA_HTML.htm.

DRDPIFR. 2008. New mango pest detected in the NT (Northern Territories). Department of 

Regional Development, Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources (DRDPIFR), Northern 

Territory Government, Australia.

http://www.nt.gov.au/d/Content/File/p/Plant_Pest/mango_malformation_revised.pdf. 

Drew, R.A.I. 1989. The tropical fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae: Dacinae) of the Australasian 

and Oceanian regions. Memoirs of the Queensland Museum 26:1-521.

Drew, R. A.I., and D.E. Hardy. 1981. Dacus (Bactrocera) opiliae, a new sibling species of the 

dorsalis complex of fruit flies from Northern Australia (Diptera: Tephritidae). Journal of 

the Australian Entomological Society 20(2):131-137.

Drew, R.A.I., K. Tsuruta, and I.M. White. 2005. A new species of pest fruit fly (Diptera: 

Tephritidae: Dacinae) from Sri Lanka and Africa. African Entomology 13(1):149–154.

Ebert, T.A., and B. Cartwright. 1997. Biology and ecology of Aphis gossypii Glover 

(Homoptera: Aphididae). Southwestern Entomologist 22(1):116-153.

Edwards, E.D. 1996. Lymantriidae: Liparidae, Lariidae, Orgyiidae, Dasychiridae. Monographs 

on Australian Lepidoptera 4:275-277.

EPPO. 2006. Bactrocera invadens (Diptera: Tephritidae). A new fruit fly species. European and 

Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization (EPPO). Last accessed 

http://www.eppo.org/QUARANTINE/Alert_List/insects/bactrocera_invadens.htm.

Farr, D.F., G.F. Bills, G.P. Chamuris, and A.Y. Rossman. 1989. Fungi on Plants and Plant 

Products in the United States. American Phytopathological Society, St. Paul, Minnesota. 

1252 pp.

Farr, D. F., A. Y. Rossman, M. E. Palm, and E. B. McCray. 2003. Fungal Databases. United 

States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Systematic Mycology

and Microbiology Laboratory. http://nt.ars-grin.gov/fungaldatabases/. (Archived at 

PERAL).

Farr, D. F., A. Y. Rossman, M. E. Palm, and E. B. McCray. 2009. Fungal Databases. United 

States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Systematic Mycology

and Microbiology Laboratory. http://nt.ars-grin.gov/fungaldatabases/. (Archived at 

PERAL).

Farr, D. F., and A. Y. Rossman. 2011. Fungal Databases, Systematic Mycology and 

Microbiology Laboratory, ARS, USDA Last accessed May 27, 2011 at http://nt.arsgrin.gov/fungaldatabases/index.cfm.
Pest Risk Assessment for Mangoes from Australia

Ver. 8 June 22, 2011 33

Fasih, M., R.P. Srivastava, S.R. Abbas, and S. Sharma. 1989. Outbreak of Orgyia postica Walker 

(Lymantriidae: Lepidoptera), a new pest on mango in Uttar Pradesh Current Science 

58(22):1258-1260.

FDACS. 2003. Florida farm commodities: tropical fruit. Florida Department of Agriculture and 

Consumer Services (FDACS), Division of Marketing and Development. http://www.flag.com/agfacts/tropical.htm.

Fimiani, P. 1989. Pest status, Mediterranean region. Pages 39-50 in A.S. Robinson and G. 

Hooper, (eds.). Fruit Flies; Their Biology, Natural Enemies and Control. Elsevier, 

Amsterdam, Netherlands.

Fitt, G.P. 1990. Comparative fecundity, clutch size, ovariole number and egg size of Dacus 

tryoni and D. jarvisi, and their relationship to body size. Entomologia Experimentalis et 

Applicata 55(1):11-21.

Fletcher, B.S. 1989. Life history strategies of tephritid fruit flies. Pages 195-208 in A.S. 

Robinson and G. Hooper, (eds.). Fruit flies, their biology, natural enemies and control, 

World crop pests, Vol. 3b. Elsevier, Amsterdam.

Fletcher, B.S., M.A. Bateman, and R. Cavalloro. 1983. Combating the fruit fly problems in 

Australia: the current situation and future prospects. Fruit flies of economic importance. 

Proceedings of the CEC/IOBC International Symposium, Athens, Greece, 16-19 

November 1982:555-563.

Fletcher, M. 1997. Plant bugs. Agfacts No. AE 38. Last accessed 25 November 2003, 

http://www.agric.nsw.gov.au/reader/2941.

Fletcher, M.J., and P.C. Dangerfield. 2002. Idioscopus clypealis (Lethierry), a second new 

leafhopper pest of mango in Australia (Hemiptera: Cicadellidae: Idiocerinae). Australian 

Journal of Entomology 41(1):35-38.

Follett, P.A. 2002. Mango seed weevil (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) and premature fruit drop in 

mangoes. Journal of Economic Entomology 95(2):336-339.

Follett, P.A., and Z. Gabbard. 2000. Effect of mango weevil (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) damage 

on mango seed viability in Hawaii. Journal of Economic Entomology 93(4):1237-1240.

Forest Research. 1979. Xyleborinus saxeseni (Ratzeburg) (Coleoptera: Scolytidae), A Keyhole 

Ambrosia Beetle. Forest and Timber Insects in New Zealand No. 39.

Froud, K.J., P.S. Stevens, and D. Stevens. 2001. Survey of alternative host plants for Kelly's 

citrus thrips (Pezothrips kellyanus) in citrus growing regions. New Zealand Plant 

Protection 54:15-20.

Gagnevin, L., and O. Pruvost. 2001. Epidemiology and control of mango bacterial black spot. 

Plant Disease 85(9):928-935.

Gay, F.J., and R.A. Barrett. 1983. The occurence in Australia of Prorhinotermes inopinatus

Silvestri (Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae). Journal of the Australian Entomological Society 

22:75-77.

Geier, P.W., and D.T. Briese. 1981. The light-brown apple moth, Epiphyas postvittana (Walker): 

a native leafroller fostered by European settlement. Pages 131-155 in R.L. Kitching and 

R.E. Jones, (eds.). The ecology of pests: some Australian case histories. Commonwealth 

Scientific and Industrial Research, Melbourne, Australia.

Gilman, E.D., and D.G. Watson. 1994. Mangifera indica - Mango Factsheet (Factsheet ST-404). 

Environmental Horticulture Department, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute 

of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida., Gainesville FL.
Pest Risk Assessment for Mangoes from Australia

Ver. 8 June 22, 2011 34

Gould, W.P. 1995a. Probability of detecting Caribbean fruit fly (Diptera: Tephritidae) 

infestations by fruit dissection. Florida Entomologist 78(3):502-507.

Gould, W.P. 1995b. Probability of detecting Carribbean fruit fly (Diptera: Tephritidae) 

infestations by fruit dissection. Florida Entomologist 78(3):502-507.

Gould, W.P., and R. G. McGuire. 2000. Hot Water treatment and insecticidal coatings for 

disinfesting limes of mealybugs (Homoptera: Pseudococcidae). Journal of Economic 

Entomology 93(3):1017-1020.

Gould, W. P., and A. Raga. 2002. Pests of Guava. Pages 295-313 in J. E. Peña, J. L. Sharp, and 

M. Wysoki, (eds.). Tropical fruit pests and pollinators: biology, economic importance, 

natural enemies and control. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK.

Greathead, D.J. 1990. Crawler behaviour and dispersal. Pages 305-308 in D. Rosen, (ed.). 

Armored scale insects: their biology, natural enemies and control, World Crop Pests 

Volume 4A. Elsevier Scientific Publishers, Amsterdam.

Greathead, D.J. 1997. Crawler behaviour and dispersal. in Y. Ben-Dov and C.J. Hodgson, (eds.). 

Softscale insects: their biology, natural enemies, and control. Elsevier, New York.

Grove, T., J.H. Giliomee, and K.L. Pringle. 2001. Thrips (Thysanoptera) species associated with 

mango trees in South Africa. African Entomology 9(2):153-162.

Gullan, P.J., and M. Kosztarab. 1997. Adaptations in scale insects. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 42:23-

50.

Gunn, C.R., and C. Ritchie. 1982. Report of the Technical Committee to Evaluate Noxious 

Weeds; Exotic Weeds for Federal Noxious Weed Act (unpublished).

Gupta, B.P., and Y.P. Singh. 1986. New record of Orgyia postica Walk. as a pest of mango. 

Progressive Horticulture 18(3-4):273.

Gure, A., B. Slippers, and J. Stenlid. 2005. Seed-borne Botryosphaeria spp. from native Prunus

and Podocarpus trees in Ethiopia, with a description of the anamorph Diplodia rosulata

sp. nov. Mycol. Res. 109(9):1005-1014.

Haleem, S.A. 1984. Studies on fruit quality of sweet orange as affected by soft green scale and 

sooty mould. South Indian Horticulture 32(5):267-269.

Halliday, R.B. 2000. Additions and corrections to Mites of Australia; a checklist and bibliograpy. 

Australian Journal of Entomology 39(4):233-235.

Hamon, A.B. 1970. False oleander scale, Pseudaulacaspis cockerelli (Cooley) (Homoptera: 

Coccoidea; Diaspididae). Entomology Circular, Florida Department of Agriculture and 

Consumer Services 95:2 pp.

Hamon, A.B. 2002. White Mango scale, Aulacaspis tubercularis Newstead (Coccoidea: 

Diaspididae). (Florida) Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. Last accessed 

http://doacs.state.fl.us/~pi/enpp/ento/aulacaspis-tubercularis.html (last accessed 10 

October 2002).

Hamon, A.B., and M.L. Williams. 1984. The soft scale insects of Florida (Homoptera:

Coccoidea: Coccidae). Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, 

Gainesville. 194 pp.

Hancock, D.L., E.L. Hamacek, A.C. Lloyd, and M.M. Elson-Harris. 2000. The distribution and 

host plants of fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) in Australia. Queensland Dept. of Primary

Industries. 80 pp.

Hara, A.H., T.Y. Hata, B.K. S. Hu, T. Kaneko, and V.L. Tenbrink. 1994. Hot-water immersion 

of cape jasmine cuttings for disinfestation of green scale (Homoptera: Coccidae). Journal 

of Economic Entomology 87(6):1569-1573.
Pest Risk Assessment for Mangoes from Australia

Ver. 8 June 22, 2011 35

Hara, A.H., J.A. Yalemar, E.B. Jang, and J.H. Moy. 2002. Irradiation as a possible quarantine 

treatment for green scale Coccus viridis (Green) (Homoptera: Coccidae). Postharvest 

Biology and Technology 25(3):349-358.

Harris, E.J. 1989. Hawaiian islands and North America. Pages 73-81 in A.S. Robinson and G. 

Hooper, (eds.). Fruit flies, their biology, natural enemies and control. Elsevier, 

Amsterdam.

Harris, J.A., and G. Minko. 1980. An ambrosia beetle in radiata pine. Forestry Technical Papers, 

Forests Commission, Victoria 28:26-31.

Hassan, E. 1977. Major Insect and Mite Pest of Australian Crops. Gatton, Qld.: Ento Press.

Hawkeswood, T.J. 1991. Review of the biology and host plants of the Australian weevil 

Eutyrhinus meditabundus (Fabricius) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Entomologist 

110(2):58-65.

Herbison-Evans, D., and S. Crossley. 2003. Caterpillars, especially Australian ones. Macleay 

Museum, University of Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. Last accessed 25 

November 2003, http://www.usyd.edu.au/su/macleay/larvae/larvae.html.

Hill, D.S. 1983. Agricultural insect pests of the tropics and their control (2nd). Cambridge 

University Press, Cambridge; UK. 746 pp.

Hill, D.S. 1994. Agricultural Entomology. Timber Press, Portland, Oregon. 640 pp.

Hodges, G. 2003. Stellate scale, Vinsonia stellifera (Westwood). Florida Department of 

Agriculture and Consumer Services Pest Alert. Last accessed 

http://www.doacs.state.fl.us/~pi/enpp/ento/v-stellifera.htm.

Hodges, G., G.B. Edwards, and W. Dixon. 2005. Chilli thrips Scirtothrips dorsalis Hood 

(Thysanoptera: Thripidae) a new pest thrips for Florida. Florida Department of 

Agriculture & Consumer Services, Gainesville, Florida. Last accessed October 26, 2006, 

http://www.doacs.state.fl.us/pi/enpp/ento/chillithrips.html.

Holloway, J.D. 1996. The moths of Borneo: family Geometridae, subfamilies Oenochrominae, 

Desmobathrinae and Geometrinae. Malayan Nature Journal 49:147-326.

Holm, L.G. 1977. World's worst weeds. University of Hawaii Press. 609 pp.

Holm, L.G. 1997. World weeds: natural histories and distribution. John Wiley & Sons, N.Y. 

1129 pp.

Holm, L.G., J.V. Pancho, J.P. Herberger, and D.L. Plucknett. 1979. Geographical atlas of world 

weeds. John Wiley and Sons, N.Y. 391 pp.

Hooper, G.H.S., and R.A.I. Drew. 1989. Pest status, Australia and South Pacific islands. Pages 

39-50 in A.S. Robinson and G. Hooper, (eds.). Fruit Flies; Their Biology, Natural 

Enemies and Control. Elsevier, Amsterdam, Netherlands.

Imai, E. 2001. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA. Personal communication to 

PERAL on 23 November 2001.

Imai, E. 2002. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA. Personal communication to 

PERAL on 14 February 2002.

IPPC. 2007. International Standards For Phytosanitary Measures, 1 to 29 (2007 edition). Food 

and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Secretariat of the International Plant 

Protection Convention (IPPC), Rome, Italy. 376 pp.

Ismail, M.A. 1985. Heat treatment of canker causing bacteria. Test conducted at DPI, 

Gainesville, August 22, 1985. Personal communication from M.A. Ismail, research 

scientist, Florida Department of Citrus, to Drs. Attaway, J.A., executive director of the 
Pest Risk Assessment for Mangoes from Australia

Ver. 8 June 22, 2011 36

Florida Department of Citrus, and W.J. Kender, director of the UF\IFAS Citrus Research 

Center, Lake Alfred, Florida. September 25, 1985.

Jackson, K. 2008. Fungal diseases, mango - Australia, Pakistan. Pro-MED-mail post. Last 

accessed 2 April 2008, 

http://www.promedmail.org/pls/otn/f?p=2400:1202:4297705967072320::NO::F2400_P1

202_CHECK_DISPLAY,F2400_P1202_PUB_MAIL_ID:X,71616. 

Jacobsen, C.M., and A.H. Hara. 2003. Irradiation of Maconellicoccus hirsutus (Homoptera: 

Pseudococcidae) for phytosanitation of agricultural commodities. Journal of Economic 

Entomology 96(4):1334-1339.

Jeppson, L.R., H.H. Keifer, and E.W. Baker. 1975. Mites injurious to economic plants. H.H. 

Eriophyid Studies C-1-C-11. University of California Press., Berkeley, California. 1614 

pp.

Johnson, G., T. Cooke, A. Mead, G.I. Johnson, A.W. Cooke, and A.J. Mead. 1993. Infection and 

quiescence of mango stem-end rot pathogens. Acta Horticulturae (341):329-336.

Johnson, G.I. 1994. Stem-end rot. Pages 39-41 in R.C. Ploetz, G.A. Zentmyer, W. Nishijima, K. 

Rohrbach, and H.D. Ohr, (eds.). Compendium of Tropical Fruit Diseases. APS Press, St. 

Paul, Minnesota.

Johnson, G.I., and E. Highley. 1994. Development of postharvest handling technology for 

tropical tree fruits.1994, 86 pp.; ref. at ends of papers. ACIAR Proceedings No. 58. 

Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR); Canberra; Australia.

Johnson, G.I., I.F. Muirhead, and L.M. Rappel. 1989. Mango post-harvest disease control: a 

review of research in Australia, Malaysia and Thailand. ASEAN Food Journal 4(4):139-

141.

Johnson, G.I., T.S. Boag, A.W. Cooke, M. Izard, M. Panitz, and S. Sangchote. 1990. Interaction 

of post harvest disease control treatments and gamma irradiation on mangoes. Annals of 

Applied Biology 116(2):245-257.

Johnson, G.I., A.J. Mead, A.W. Cooke, and J.R. Dean. 1992. Mango stem end rot pathogens -

fruit infection by endophytic colonization of the inflorescence and pedicel. Annals of 

Applied Biology 120(2):225-234.

Johnson, G.I., A.J. Mead, A.W. Cooke, I.A. Wells, and E. Highley. 1994. Stem-end rot diseases 

of tropical fruit - mode of infection in mango, and prospects for control.Development of 

postharvest handling technology for tropical tree fruits: a workshop held in Bangkok, 

Thailand, 16 18 July 1992. 1994, 72 76; ACIAR Proceedings No. 58.; 14 ref. Australian 

Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR); Canberra; Australia.

Johnson, W.T., and H.H. Lyon. 1991. Insects that feed on trees and shrubs (2nd, revised). 

Comstock Publishing Associates, Ithaca, NY. 560 pp.

Jones, D.R., and R.H. Stover. 2000. Fungal Diseases of Banana Fruit. Pages 173-211 in D.R. 

Jones, (ed.). Diseases of Banana, Abaca and Enset. CAB International, Wallingford, the 

United Kingdom.

Joubert, P.H., M.S. Daneel, and T. Grover. 2000. Progress towards integrated pest management 

(IPM) on mangoes in South Africa. Acta Horticulturae 509:811-817.

Kader, A.A. (ed.). 2002. Postharvest Technology of Horticultural Crops. University of 

California, Oakland, California.

Kazi, A.S. 1976. Studies on the field habits of adult melon fruit fly Dacus (Strumeta) cucurbitae, 

Coquillet. Pak J Sci Ind Res 19(2):71-76.
Pest Risk Assessment for Mangoes from Australia

Ver. 8 June 22, 2011 37

Khan, M.A., and J.H. Mirza. 1995. Bacterial leaf spot of mango in Pakistan. Pakistan Journal of 

Phytopathology 7(2):204-205 

Kishun, R., and R. Chand. 1989. Mechanical transmission of Xanthomonas campestris pv.

mangiferaeindicae through insects. Indian Journal of Plant Pathology 7(2):112-114.

Knihinicki, D.K., and J. Boczek. 2002. New eriophyoid mites (Acari: Eriophyoidea) from 

Australia. International Journal of Acarology 28(3):241-249.

Knowledge Master. 2003. Mango. Crop Knowledge Master, University of Hawaii. Manoa, 

Hawaii. Last accessed 22 November 2003, 

http://www.extento.hawaii.edu/kbase/crop/crops/i_mango.htm.

Kohoma, T., and H. Kuba. 1996. Movement of sterile melon flies in Okinawa, Japan. Pages 415-

423 in B.A. McPheron and G.J. Steck, (eds.). Fruit fly pests: a world assessment of their 

biology and management. St. Lucie Press, Delray Beach, Florida.

Kosztarab, M. 1996. Scale Insects of Northeastern North America: Identification, Biology and 

Distribution. Virginia Museum of Natural History, Martinsville, Virginia. 650 pp.

Kosztarab, M. 1997. Deciduous forest trees. Pages 347-355 in Y. Ben-Dov and C. J. Hodgson, 

(eds.). Soft Scale Insects: Their Biology, Natural Enemies and Control Vol. 7B. Elsevier, 

Amsterdam.

Koteja, J. 1990. Life History. Pages 243-254 in D. Rosen, (ed.). Armored scale insects: their 

biology, natural enemies and control, World Crop Pests Volume 4A. Elsevier Scientific 

Publishers, Amsterdam.

Kwee, L. T., and K. K. Chong. 1990. Guava in Malaysia: production, pests and diseases. 

Tropical Press SDN. BHD., Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. 260 pp.

Lall, B.S., and B.N. Singh. 1969. Studies on the biology and control of melon fly Dacuscucurbitae Diptera Trypetidae. Labdev Journal of Science and Technology, B 7B(2):148-

153.

Lance, D.R., and D.B. Gates. 1994. Sensitivity of detection trapping systems for Mediterranean 

fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) in southern California. Journal of Economic Entomology

87(6):1377-1383.

Large, B., and J. Large. 2002. Australian mangoes from the Northern Territory. Last accessed 24 

March 2002, http://members.ozemail.com.au/~mjl1/mangoes.html.

Lawrence, J.F., and E.B. Britton. 1991. Coleoptera. Pages 912 In The Insects of Australia: A 

Textbook for Students and Research Workers. Cornell University Press. Ithaca, New 

York. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York.

Lawson, S.A., and J.King. 2003. Swarming Scarab Beetles. The State of Queensland, 

Department of Primary Industry, Queensland, Australia. Last accessed 20 November 

2003, http://www.dpi.qld.gov.au/hardwoodsqld/9353.html.

Laxminarayana, P., and S.M. Reddy. 1976. A new post-harvest disease of mango. 1975, publ 

28(4):529-530.

Lee, H.S., and H.C. Wen. 1982. Seasonal occurrence of and injury caused by thrips and their 

control on mangoes. Plant Protection Bulletin, Taiwan 24(3):179-187.

Lee, S., and D.H. Kim. 2002. A new record of Sinomegoura citricola (van der Goot, 1917) 

(Sternorhyncha: Aphididae) from Korea. Korean Journal of Applied Entomology 41(1):9-

14.

Lester, P.J., P.R. Dentener, R.J. Petry, and S.M. Alexander. 1995. Hot-water immersion for 

disinfestation of lightbrown apple moth (Epiphyas postvittana) and longtailed mealy bug 
Pest Risk Assessment for Mangoes from Australia

Ver. 8 June 22, 2011 38

(Pseudococcus longispinus) on persimmons. Postharvest Biology and Technology 6(3-

4):349-356.

Li-zhong, H. 2000. List of Chinese Insects Vol. 1. Zhongshan (Sun Yat-sen) University Press, 

Guangzhou, China.

Liedo, P., and J.R. Carey. 1996. Demography of fruit flies and implications to action programs. 

Pages 299-308 in B. A. McPheron and G. J. Steck, (eds.). Fruit fly pests: a world 

assessment of their biology and management. St. Lucie Press, Delray Beach, Florida.

Lim, T.K., K. Sijam, and E.T. Ong. 1991. Bacterial black spot of mango, a new disease in 

Malaysia. Acta Horticulturae 291:317-323.

Liu, T., and P.A. Stansly. 2000. Insecticidal activity of surfactants and oils against silverleaf 

whitefly (Bemisia argentifolii) nymphs (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae) on collards and 

tomato. Pest Management Science 56(10):861-866.

Loch, A.D., and R.B. Floyd. 2001. Insect pests of Tasmanian blue gum, Eucalyptus globulus 

globulus, in south-western Australia: history, current perspective and future prospects.

Symposium on insect eucalypt interactions, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial 

Research (CSIRO) Discovery, Canberra, Australia, 7 8 February 2000. Austral Ecology. 

26 (5): 458-466.

Lyal, C.H.C. 1993. Cryptorhynchinae (Insecta: Coleoptera: Curculionidae). DSIR Plant 

Protection Mt Albert Research Centre, Auckland; New Zealand. 307 pp.

MAF. 2003. Australia mango datasheets. Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF), New 

Zealand. Last accessed 8 December 2003, 

http://www.maf.govt.nz/biosecurity/imports/plants/standards/drafts/australia-mangodatasheets-draft.pdf.

Mann, G.S. 1996. Seasonal incidence and build-up of Bactrocera dorsalis on mango in Punjab. 

Journal of Insect Science 9(2): 129-132.

Mansell, M.W. 2005. Personal communication from Mansell, M. W., APHIS-IS to S. Robertson, 

APHIS-PPQ, concerning "New invasive Bactrocera invadens officially named as it 

extends its distribution and host range across Africa". Personal communication to on 

from 

Marasas, W.F.O., R.C. Ploetz, M.J. Wingfield, B.D. Wingfield, and E.T. Steenkamp. 2006. 

Mango Malformation Disease and the Associated Fusarium Species. Phytopathology

96(6): 667-672.

Martin, D.A., R.W. Hidano, and K.A. Lee. 2001. Hawaii tropical specialty fruits. Hawaii 

Agricultural Statistics Service, Hawaii Department of Agriculture. Last accessed 11 

December 2003, http://www.nass.usda.gov/hi/fruit/topfrt.htm.

Mathew, G. 1982. A survey of beetles damaging commercially important stored timber in 

Kerala. (Final report of the Research project Entom. 07/79, January 1979 to June 1981) in

Research Report, Kerala Forest Research Institute. 1982, No. 10, 93 pp.

Mau, R.F.L., and J.L. Martin Kessing. 1992a. Crop Knowledge Master: Achaea janata 

(Linnaeus). University of Hawaii. 

http://www.extento.hawaii.edu/kbase/crop/Type/achaea.htm.

Mau, R.F.L., and J.L. Martin Kessing. 1992b. Crop Knowledge Master: Ceratitis capitata 

(Wiedemann). University of Hawaii.

http://www.extento.hawaii.edu/kbase/crop/Type/ceratiti.htm.
Pest Risk Assessment for Mangoes from Australia

Ver. 8 June 22, 2011 39

Merkl, O. 1987. A review of the Australian species of the subtribe Lagriina (Coleoptera: 

Tenebrionidae: Lagriini). Annales Historico Naturales Musei Nationalis Hungarici 

79:121-166.

Miller, D. R., V. L. Blackburn, J. A. Davidson, and W. F. Gimpel, Jr. 1985. Pest risk assessment 

of armored scales on certain fruit [report submitted to USDA, Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine]. United States Department of 

Agriculture (USDA), Agricultural Research Service (ARS), Beltsville, MD. 35 pp..

Mitra, S.K., and J.G. Baldwin. 1997. Mango. Pages 85-122 in S. K. Mitra, (ed.). Postharvest 

physiology and storage of tropical and subtropical fruits. CAB International, Oxon, UK.

Mohyuddin, A.I., and R. Mahmood. 1993. Integrated control of mango pests in Pakistan. Acta 

Horticulturae 341:467-483.

Morton, J.F. 1987. Fruits of Warm Climates. Julia F. Morton, Miami, FL. Last accessed 

http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/morton/.

Mossler, M.A., and N. Nesheim. 2002. Florida Crop/Pest Management Profile: Mango. CIR 

1401, Pesticide Information Office, Food Science and Human Nutrition Department, 

Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, 

University of Florida. (http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/BODY_PI052 [Accessed 13 November 

2002]). Last accessed 13 November 2002, http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/BODY_PI052.

Mound, L. A., and S. H. Halsey. 1978. Whitefly of the world - a systematic catalogue of the 

Aleyrodidae (Homoptera) with host plant and natural enemy data. British Museum of 

Natural History and John Wiley and Sons, Chichester. 340 pp.

Mound, L.A. 1996. Thysanoptera. Pages 249-332 in A. Wells, (ed.). Zoological Catalogue of 

Australia Volume 26: Psocoptera, Pthiraptera and Thysanoptera. CSIRO Publishing, 

Melbourne, Australia.

Moutia, L. A. 1958. Contribution to the study of some phytophagous Acarina and their predators 

in Mauritius. Bulletin of Entomological Research 49(pt. 1):59-75.

Muhammad, I., U. Muhammad, A. Muhammad, and I.A. Khan. 2004. Integrated pest 

management of mango against mealy bug and fruit fly. International Journal of 

Agriculture and Biology 6(3):452-454.

Nakahara, S. 1982. Checklist of the Armoured Scales (Homoptera: Diaspididae) of the 

Conterminous United States. United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine, Riverdale, Maryland.

Nakasone, H.Y., and R.E. Paull. 1998. Tropical fruits. CAB International, Oxon, UK. 445 pp.

NAPPO. 2004. NAPPO glossary of phytosanitary terms (RSPM No. 5). North American Plant 

Protection Organization (NAPPO), Regional Standards for Phytosanitary Measures

(RSPM). Ontario, Canada.

Narasimham, A.U. 1987. Scale insects and mealybugs on coffee, tea and cardamom and their 

natural enemies. Journal of Coffee Research 17(1):7-13.

Nauman, I.D. 1991. Hymenoptera. Pages 912 In The Insects of Australia: A Textbook for 

Students and Research Workers. Cornell University Press. Ithaca, New York. Cornell 

University Press, Ithaca, New York.

Neal, M. 1993. Red shouldered leaf beetle. Department of Industries and Fisheries Northern 

Territory, Australia, Agnote 565.

Nielson, E.S., and I.F.B. Common. 1991. Lepidoptera. Pages 912 In The Insects of Australia: A 

Textbook for Students and Research Workers. Cornell University Press. Ithaca, New 

York. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York.
Pest Risk Assessment for Mangoes from Australia

Ver. 8 June 22, 2011 40

NIS. 2003a. Personal communication (Email August 4, 2003) from USDA-APHIS-PPQ National 

Identification Services (NIS) to Leah Millar, Entomologist, USDA-APHIS-PPQ- CPHST 

Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory

NIS. 2003b. Personal communication (Email September 5, 2003) from USDA-APHIS-PPQ 

National Identification Services (NIS) to Leah Millar, Entomologist, USDA-APHISPPQ- CPHST Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory. 

NIS. 2004a. Personal communication (Email February 3, 2004) from USDA-APHIS-PPQ 

National Identification Services (NIS) to Marina Zlotina, USDA-APHIS-PPQ-CPHST 

Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory. 

NIS. 2004b. Personal Communication (Email February 24, 2004) from USDA-APHIS-PPQ 

National Identification Services (NIS) to Leah Millar, Entomologist, USDA-APHISPPQ-CPHST Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory. 

NIS. 2004c. Personal communication (Email, February 25, 2004) from USDA-APHIS-PPQ 

National Identification Services (NIS) to Marina Zlotina, USDA-APHIS-PPQ-CPHST 

Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory. 

NIS. 2004d. Personal communication (Email, June 14, 2004) from USDA-APHIS-PPQ National 

Identification Services (NIS) to Marina Zlotina, USDA-APHIS-PPQ-CPHST Plant 

Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory. 

NIS. 2006a. Personal communication (Email, February 23, 2006) from USDA-APHIS-PPQ 

National Identification Services (NIS) to Kenneth Lakin, USDA-APHIS-PPQ-CPHST 

Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory.

NIS. 2006b. Personal communication (Email, October 12, 2006) from USDA-APHIS-PPQ 

National Identification Services (NIS) to Leah Millar, USDA-APHIS-PPQ-CPHST Plant 

Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory.

NIS. 2006c. Personal communication (Email, October 12, 2006) from USDA-APHIS-PPQ 

National Identification Services (NIS) to Leah Millar, USDA-APHIS-PPQ-CPHST Plant 

Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory, regarding the quarantine status of Vinsonia 

stellifera (Hemiptera: Coccidae). 

NRCS. 2006. The PLANTS Database. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural 

Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), The National Plant Data Center. Natural 

Resource Conservation Service -- USDA Plants. 2011. Threatened and Endangered 

Species. Last accessed May 27, 2011. http://plants.usda.gov/threat.html.

NRCS. 2008a. Mangifera indica Plants Profile. The PLANTS Database. United States 

Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), The 

National Plant Data Center. http://plants.usda.gov/java/profile?symbol=MAIN3.

NRCS. 2008b. Threatened and Endangered Species. The PLANTS Database. United States 

Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), The 

National Plant Data Center. 

http://plants.usda.gov/java/threat?txtparm=anacardiaceae&category=family&familycateg

ory=all&duration=all&growthhabit=all.

NSW Agriculture. 2002. Siphanta acuta (Walker), S. hebes (Walker), S. angularis Fletcher, S. 

eberhardi and S. tropica Fletcher. New South Wales Agriculture (NSW Agriculture), 

New South Wales, Australia. Last accessed 23 November 2003, 

http://www.agric.nsw.gov.au/.
Pest Risk Assessment for Mangoes from Australia

Ver. 8 June 22, 2011 41

Osborne, R., A. Meats, M. Frommer, J.A. Sved, R.A.I. Drew, and M.K. Robson. 1997. 

Australian distribution of 17 species of fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) caught in cue lure 

traps in February 1994. Australian Journal of Entomology 36(1):45-50.

Pavlic, D., M. J. Wingfield, P. Barber, B. Slippers, G. E. S. Hardy, and T. I. Burgess. 2008. 

Seven new species of the Botryosphaeriaceae from baobab and other native trees in 

Western Australia. Mycologia 100(6):851-866.

Peña, J.E. 1993. Pests of mango in Florida. Acta Horticulturae 341:395-406.

Peña, J.E., and A.I. Moyhuddin. 1997. Insect pests. Pages 327-362 in R. Litz, (ed.). The Mango. 

CAB International.

Peña, J.E., J.L. Sharp, and M. Wysoki. 2002. Tropical fruit pests and pollinators: Biology, 

economic importance, natural enemies and control. CABI Publishing, Wallingford; UK. 

430 pp.

PERAL. 2007. Phytosanitary risks associated with armored scales in commercial shipments of 

fruit for consumption to the United States, Revision Original. United States Department 

of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and 

Quarantine, Center for Plant Health Science and Technology, Plant Epidemiology and 

Risk Analysis Laboratory (PERAL), Raleigh, NC. 24 pp.

PERAL. 2007. NAPPFAST Global Plant Hardiness Zones. United States Department of 

Agriculture and Consumer Services, Plant Protection and Quarantine, Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service, Center for Plant Health Science and Technology, Plant 

Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory. 3 pp.

Perezny, K., and R. Ploetz. 2000. Some common diseases of mango in Florida (PP-23). Florida 

Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of 

Florida. 7 pp.

Permkam, S., and D.L. Hancock. 1995. Australian Trypetinae (Diptera: Tephritidae). 

Invertebrate Taxonomy 9(6):1047-1209.

Peterson, R.A. 1986. Mango diseases. First Australian mango research workshop. Proceedings. 

Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research, Melbourne, Australia. pp. 233-247.

Pillai, K.S., M.S. Palaniswami, P. Rajamma, C. Mohandas, and C.A. Jayaprakas. 1993. Pest 

management in tuber crops Indian Horticulture 38(3):20-23.

PERAL. 2005. Importation of Guava, Psidium guajava, from Mexico into the United States: A 

Pathway-initiated Commodity Risk Analysis (Draft December 2, 2005). United States 

Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection 

and Quarantine, Center for Plant Health Science and Technology, Plant Epidemiology

and Risk Analysis Laboratory (PERAL).

PestID. 2006. Pest Identification Database (PestID). United States Department of Agriculture, 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine. 

https://mokcs14.aphis.usda.gov/aqas/login.jsp. (Archived at PERAL)

PestID. 2008. Pest Identification Database (PestID). United States Department of Agriculture, 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine. 

https://mokcs14.aphis.usda.gov/aqas/login.jsp. (Archived at PERAL)

Peterson, A. 1960. A leaf skeletonizer, Lobesia liriodendrana (Kearfott), Olethreutidae, on 

Magnolia grandiflora in Florida [Abstract]. Florida Ent 43(3):105-114.

Pillai, K. S., and M. S. Palaniswami. 1991. Economic threshold and injury levels of spider mite 

damage on cassava [Abstract]. Journal of Root Crops 17(Special issue):220-222.
Pest Risk Assessment for Mangoes from Australia

Ver. 8 June 22, 2011 42

Pillai, K. S., and M. S. Palaniswamy. 1981. Some new records of predators of the spider mites of 

cassava [Abstract]. Cassava Newsletter (9):10.

Plan, M.R.R., D.C. Joyce, H.J. Ogle, and G.I. Johnson. 2002. Mango stem-end rot 

(Botryosphaeria dothidea) disease control by partial-pressure infiltration of fungicides. 

Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 42(5):625-629.

Ploetz, R.C. 2002. The major diseases of mango: Strategies and potential for sustainable 

management - Acta Horticulturae. Pages 137-150 in A.C.Q. Pinto, M.E.C. Pereira, and 

R.E. Alves, (eds.). Proceedings of the VII International Mango Symposium International 

Society for Horticultural Science, Recife City, Brazil.

Ploetz, R.C. 2003. Diseases of Mango. Pages 327-364 in R.C. Ploetz, (ed.). Diseases of Tropical 

Fruit Crops. CABI Publishing, CAB International, Oxon, UK.

Ploetz, R.C. 2004. The major diseases of mango: strategies and potential for sustainable 

management. Acta Horticulturae, Proceedings of the Seventh International Mango 

Symposium (645):137-150.

Ploetz, R.C., D. Benscher, A. Vazquez, A. Colls, J. Nagel, and B. Schaffer. 1996. A 

reexamination of mango decline in Florida. Plant Disease 80(6):664-668.

Ploetz, R.C., G.A. Zentmyer, W.T. Nishijima, K.G. Rohrbach, and H.D. Ohr. 1994. 

Compendium of Tropical Fruit Diseases. American Phytopathological Society, St. Paul, 

Minnesota. 88 pp.

Powell, M.R. 2003. Modeling the response of the Mediterranean fruit fly (Diptera: Tephritidae) 

to cold treatment. Journal of Economic Entomology 96(2):300-310.

PPQ. 2000. Guidelines for Pathway-Initiated Pest Risk Assessments, Version 5.02. United States 

Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection 

and Quarantine (PPQ). Riverdale, MD. 

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/pra/commodity/cpraguide.pdf.

PPQ. 2002. Electronic Files for Arthropods from Pests Not Known to Occur in the United States 

or of Limited Distribution and Insects Not Known to Occur in the United States. United 

States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant 

Protection and Quarantine (PPQ), Policy and Program Development, Risk Analysis 

Systems. 941 pp.

PPQ. 2003. Guidelines for Fruit Fly Systems Approach to Support the Movement of Regulated 

Articles between Mexico and the United States. United States Department of Agriculture, 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ). 

Riverdale, MD. 

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/manuals/domestic/pdf_files/FF_Guidelines.pdf.

PPQ. 2006. Treatment Manual, updated November 1, 2006. Plant Protection and Quarantine, 

United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 

Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ). Riverdale, 

MDhttp://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/manuals/port/Treatment_Chapters.htm.

PPQ. 2008. Hawaii: Regulation and Clearance of Carriers, Mail, Passengers, Plants, Plant 

Products, Sand, Soil, and Earth from Hawaii to Other Parts of the United States. United 

States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant 

Protection and Quarantine (PPQ). Riverdale, MD. 28 pp.

PRS. 2003. New Caledonia. Pocquereux Research Station (PRS), Service Vétérinaire et de la 

Protection des Végétaux, New Caledonia. Last accessed 3 December 2003, 

http://www.spc.org.nc/pacifly/Country_profiles/New_Caledonia.htm.
Pest Risk Assessment for Mangoes from Australia

Ver. 8 June 22, 2011 43

Pruvost, O., A. Couteau, and J. Luisetti. 1990. Development of bacterial black spot of mangoes 

and epiphytic populations of the pathogen (Xanthomonas campestris pv.

mangiferaeindicae) under natural conditions in Reunion Island. Fruits Paris 45(2):125-

140.

Pruvost, O., and J. Luisetti. 1991. Effect of time of inoculation with Xanthomonas campestris pv.

mangiferaeindicae on mango fruits susceptibility. Epiphytic survival of X. c. pv. 

mangiferaeindicae on mango fruits in relation to disease development. Journal of 

Phytopathology 133(2):139-151.

Reed, C.F. 1977. Economically important foreign weeds, potential problems in the United States. 

Agriculture Handbook No. 498. Agricultural Research Service, Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. 746 pp.

Ridgway, R. 1989. Mango pests and disorders. Queensland Government, Brisbane, Qld.

Roberts, P.D., H.L. Chamberlain, K.R. Chung, T.S. Schubert, J.H. Graham, and L.W. Timmer. 

2004. PP182: 2005 Florida Citrus Pest Management Guide: Citrus Canker. University of 

Florida IFAS Extension. 

http://www.doacs.state.fl.us/pi/canker/pubs/CG04000manguide.pdf.

Robinson, A.S., and G. Hooper. 1989. Fruit Flies; Their Biology, Natural Enemies and Control. 

Elsevier, Amsterdam, Netherlands. 372 & 447 pp.

Robinson, G.S., P.R. Ackery, I.J. Kitching, G.W. Beccaloni, and L.M. Hernandez. 2001. 

Hostplants of the Moth and Butterfly Caterpillars of the Oriental Region. The National 

History Museum Publishing, London. 744 pp.

Robinson, G. S., P. R. Ackery, I. J. Kitching, G. W. Beccaloni, and L. M. Hernández. 2003. 

HOSTS - a database of the world's Lepidopteran hostplants. Natural History Museum. 

http://www.nhm.ac.uk/research-curation/research/projects/hostplants/index.html. 

(Archived at PERAL).

Robinson, G. S., P. R. Ackery, I. J. Kitching, G. W. Beccaloni, and L. M. Hernández. 2006. 

HOSTS - a database of the world's Lepidopteran hostplants. Natural History Museum. 

http://www.nhm.ac.uk/research-curation/research/projects/hostplants/index.html. 

(Archived at PERAL).

Robinson, G. S., P. R. Ackery, I. J. Kitching, G. W. Beccaloni, and L. M. Hernández. 2009. 

HOSTS - a database of the world's Lepidopteran hostplants. Natural History Museum. 

http://www.nhm.ac.uk/research-curation/research/projects/hostplants/index.html. 

(Archived at PERAL).

Royalty, R.N., and T.M. Perring. 1989. Reduction in photosynthesis of tomato leaflets caused by 

tomato russet mite (Acari: Eriophyidae). Environmental Entomology 18(2):256-260.

Sakalidis, M. L., J. D. Ray, V. Lanoiselet, G. E. S. Hardy, and T. I. Burgess. 2011. Pathogenic 

Botryosphaeriaceae associated with Mangifera indica in the Kimberley Region of 

Western Australia. Eur J Plant Pathol.

Salama, H.S., and M.K. Hamdy. 1973. Studies on the population dynamics of Lepidosaphes 

pallida (Green) (Homoptera, Cocccoidea). II. Interaction of factors affecting insect 

distribution. Zeitschrift fur Angewandte Entomologie 73(2):197-202.

Sangchote, S., N. Farungsang, U. Farungsang, G.I. Johnson, and E. Highley. 1994. Factors 

affecting the incidence of stem-end rot on mango. Development of postharvest handling 

technology for tropical tree fruits: a workshop held in Bangkok, Thailand, 16 18 July

1992. ACIAR Proceedings No. 58. Australian Centre for International Agricultural 

Research (ACIAR); Canberra; Australia. pp. 80-83
Pest Risk Assessment for Mangoes from Australia

Ver. 8 June 22, 2011 44

Sar, S., S. Balagawi, A. Mararuai, and D. Putulan. 2001. Fruit fly research and development in 

PNG (Abstract). Pages 571-576 in R. M. Bourke, M. G. Allen, and J. G. Salisbury, (eds.). 

Food security for Papua New Guinea (PNG), Proceedings of the Papua New Guinea Food 

and Nutrition 2000 Conference, PNG University of Technology, Lae, Papua New 

Guinea, June 26-30, 2000. Canberra Australia: Australian Centre for International 

Agricultural Research (ACIAR).

Sauls, J.W. 2008. Home fruit production -- Mango. Extension Horticulture Information 

Resource, Texas A & M University. http://aggiehorticulture.tamu.edu/extension/homefruit/mango/mango.html. 

Schubert, T.S., S.A. Rizvi, X. Sun, T.R. Gottwald, J.H. Graham, and W.N. Dixon. 2001. Meeting 

the challenge of eradicating citrus canker in Florida-again. Plant Disease 85(4):340-356.

Shekhawat, G.S., and P.N. Patel. 1975. Studies on bacterial canker of mango. Zeitschrift fur 

Pflanzenkrankheiten und Pflanzenschutz 82:129-138.

Silva, C.G., and J.R.P. Parra. 1982. Biology and injuriousness of Coccus viridis (Green, 1889) 

(Homoptera Coccidae) on coffee seedlings (Coffea spp.). Anais da Sociedade 

Entomologica do Brasil 11(2):181-195.

Singh, G. 1993. Insect Pests of Mango. Pages 1481-1500 in K.L. Chadha and O.P. Pareek, (eds.). 

Advances in Horticulture - Fruit Crops: Part 3. Malhotra Publishing House, New Delhi, 

India.

Singh, M.P., and K.M. Singh. 1999. Some phytophagous and predaceous mites associated with 

summer vegetables in Manipur Insect Environment 4(4):117.

Slippers, B., G.I. Johnson, P.W. Crous, T.A. Coutinho, B.D. Wingfield, and M.J. Wingfield. 

2005. Phylogenetic and morphological re-evaluation of the Botryosphaeria species 

causing diseases of Mangifera indica. Mycologia 97(1):99-110.

Smith, E. 1996. Control of longicorn beetles in mango trees. Agnote Darwin (695):2 pp.

Smith, E.S.C. 1992a. Control of fruit flies by commercial producers of fruit and vegetables. 

Agnote (Darwin) (223).

Smith, E.S.C. 1992b. Fruit flies in the home garden. Agnote (Darwin) (425).

Smith, E.S.C. 1992c. Fruit fly disinfestation in mangoes by hot water dipping. Proceedings of the 

3rd International Conference on Plant Protection in the Tropics (6):188-195.

Smith, E.S.C. 1998. Mango leafhopper. Department of Industries and Fisheries Northern 

Territory, Agnote 769:1-2.

Smith, E.S.C., D. Chin, A.J. Allwood, and S.G. Collins. 1988. A revised host list of fruit flies 

(Diptera: Tephritidae) from the Northern Territory of Australia. Queensland Journal of 

Agricultural and Animal Sciences 45(1):19-28.

Snodgrass, G.L., W.P. Scott, and J.W. Smith. 1984. Host plants of Taylorilygus pallidulus and 

Polymerus basalis (Hemiptera: Miridae) in the delta of Arkansas, Louisiana, and 

Mississippi. Florida Entomologist 67(3):402-408.

Sohi, A.S. 1990. Mango leafhoppers (Homoptera: Cicadellidae) - a review. Journal of Insect 

Science 3(1):1-12.

SON. 1984. Distribution of plant-parasitic nematode species in North America. Society of 

Nematologists (SON), Lakeland, Florida. 205 pp.

South, D.B., J.B. Zwolinski, and H.W. Bryan. 1993. Taylorilygus pallidulus (Blanchard): a 

potential pest of pine seedlings. Tree Planters' Notes 44(2):63-67.

Srivastava, R.P. 1997. Mango insect pest management (1). International Book Distributing Co, 

Lucknow; India. 272 pp.
Pest Risk Assessment for Mangoes from Australia

Ver. 8 June 22, 2011 45

Stonedahl, G.M. 1991. The Oriental species of Helopeltis (Heteroptera: Miridae): a review of 

economic literature and guide to identification. Bulletin of Entomological Research 

81(4):465-490.

Storey, R. I., and D. J. Rogers. 1980. Lepidopterous pests of the litchi in north Queensland. 

Queensland Journal of Agricultural and Animal Sciences 37(2):207-212.

Swirski, E., Y. Ben-Dov, and M. Wysoki. 1997. Mango. Pages 442 in Y. Ben-Dov and C.J. 

Hodgson, (eds.). Soft Scale Insects - Their Biology, Natural Enemies and Control. 

Elsevier Science B.V., New York.

Tandon, P.L., and G.K. Veeresh. 1988. Inter-tree spatial distribution of Coccus viridis (Green) 

on mandarin. International Journal of Tropical Agriculture 6(3-4):270-275.

Tenbrink, L., and A.H. Hara. 1992a. Crop Knowledge Master: Diaspis boisduvalii (Signoret). 

University of Hawaii. http://www.extento.hawaii.edu/kbase/crop/Type/d_boisdu.htm.

Tenbrink, L., and A.H. Hara. 1992b. Crop Knowledge Master: Ischnaspis longirostris (Signoret). 

University of Hawaii. http://www.extento.hawaii.edu/kbase/crop/Type/i_longin.htm.

Tenbrink, L., and A.H. Hara. 1994. Crop Knowledge Master: Howardia biclavis (Comstock).

University of Hawaii. http://www.extento.hawaii.edu/kbase/crop/Type/h_biclav.htm.

Thomas, P., A. Kannan, V.H. Degwekar, and M.S. Ramamurthy. 1995. Non-destructive 

detection of seed weevil-infested mango fruits by X-ray imaging. Postharvest Biology

and Technology 5(1-2):161-165.

Townsend, L. 1994. Houseplant insect control. Department of Entomology, University of 

Kentucky. Last accessed http://www.uky.edu/Ag/Entomology/entfacts/trees/ef406.htm.

Treatments for Fruits and Vegetables. 2006. Federal Register: 71(18): 4451-4464 (January 27, 

2006).

Urbez-Torres, J.R., G.M. Leavitt, T.M. Voegel, and W.D. Gubler. 2005. Botryosphaeria species 

associated with wedge shape canker on Vitis vinifera in California.2005 APS Pacific 

Division Meeting Abstracts. American Phytopathological Society, Portland, Oregon.

USDA. 1983. Pests not known to occur in the United States or of limited distribution, no. 33: 

Melon Fly. United States Department of Agriculture. Hyattsville, MD. 1-10 pp.

USFWS. 2002. Threatened and endangered species system (TESS). Department of the Interior, 

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Last accessed 20 November 2003, 

http://endangered.fws.gov/.

USFWS. 2004. Threatened and endangered species system (TESS). Department of the Interior, 

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Last accessed August 2004, 

http://endangered.fws.gov/.

USFWS. 2006. Threatened and endangered species system (TESS) (query made May 3, 2006). 

Department of the Interior, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Last accessed 

http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/SpeciesReport.do?dsource=plants.

USFWS. 2011. Threatened and endangered species system (TESS) U. S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Last accessed May 27, 

http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/SpeciesReport.do?dsource=plants.

Van Der Geest, L.P.S., and H.H. Evenhuis. 1991. Tortricid pests: their biology, natural enemies, 

and control. Elsevier, Amsterdam; New York. 808 pp.

Van Meurs, L. 2006. Personal communication (letter, June 13, 2006) from Louise van Meurs, 

General Manager, Plant Biosecurity, Biosecurity Australia, Australian Government, to 

Michael A. Guidicipietro, Acting Assistant Deputy Administrator, USDA-APHIS-PPQ, 

regarding "export of fresh mango fruit to USA" Personal communication to on from 
Pest Risk Assessment for Mangoes from Australia

Ver. 8 June 22, 2011 46

Veeresh, G.K. 1988. Pest problems in mango-world situation. Acta Horticulturae 231.

Vierbergen, G., and W.P. Mantel. 1991. Contribution to the knowledge of Frankliniella schultzei

(Thysanoptera: Thripidae). Entomologische Berichten 51(1):7-12.

Villiers, E.A., M.A. van den Berg, and P.H. Joubert. 2001. Mango pests and diseases in South 

Africa. South African Mango Growers' Association.

Waite, G.K. 2002a. Pests and pollinators of mango. Pages 103-129 in J.E. Pena, J.L. Sharp, and 

M. Wysoki, (eds.). Tropical fruit pests and pollinators. CABI Publishing, Wallingford; 

UK.

Waite, G.K. 2002b. Pests and pollinators of mango. Pages 103-129 in J.E. Peña, J.L. Sharp, and 

M. Wysoki, (eds.). Tropical fruit pests and pollinators: biology, economic importance, 

natural enemies and control. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK.

Walter, D.E., R.A. Hudgens, and D.W. Freckman. 1986. Consumption of nematodes by

fungivorous mites, Tyrophagus spp. (Acarina: Astigmata: Acaridae). Oecologia 

70(3):357-361.

Waterhouse, D.F. 1993. The major arthropod pests and weeds of agriculture in Southeast Asia: 

distribution, importance and origin. Canberra, Australia. 141 pp.

Weems, H.V., Jr. 1964. Melon fly (Dacus cucurbitate Coquillett) (Diptera: Tephritidae). Florida 

Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Plant Industry, 

Entomology Circular No. 29.

White, I., and M.M. Elson-Harris. 1992. Fruit Flies of Economic Significance: Their 

Identification and Bionomics. CAB International, Redwood Press, Ltd., Melksham, U.K. 

601 pp.

Williams, D.J. 1986. Scale insects (Homoptera: Coccoidea) on coffee in Papua New Guinea. 

Papua New Guinea Journal of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries 34(1-4):1-7.

Wongsiri, N. 1991. List of insect, mite and other zoological pests of economic plants in 

Thailand. Department of Agriculture, Entomology and Zoology Division, Thailand. 168 

pp.

Wood, S.L., and D.E. Bright, Jr. 1987. A catalog of Scolytidae and Platypodidae (Coleoptera), 

Part 1: Bibliography. in Great Basin Naturalist Memoirs. 11:685

WSSA. 1989. Composite List of Weeds. Weed Science Society of America (WSSA). 112 pp.

Yonow, T., M.P. Zalucki, R.W. Sutherst, B.C. Dominiak, G.F. Maywald, D.A. Maelzer, and D.J. 

Kriticos. 2004. Modelling the population dynamics of the Queensland fruit fly, 

Bactrocera (Dacus) tryoni: a cohort-based approach incorporating the effects of weather. 

Ecological Modelling 173(1):9-30.

Young, T.W., and J.W. Sauls. 1981. The mango industry in Florida. Extension Bulletin, 

University of Florida 189.

Youssef, S.A., M. Maymon, A. Zveibil, D. Klein-Gueta, A. Sztejnberg, A.A. Shalaby, and S. 

Freeman. 2007. Epidemiological aspects of mango malformation disease caused by

Fusarium mangiferae and source of infection in seedlings cultivated in orchards in Egypt. 

Plant Pathology 56:257-263.

Yunus, A., and T. H. Ho. 1980. List of economic pests, host plants, parasites and predators in 

West Malaysia (1920-1978). Ministry of Agriculture, Malaysia. 448 pp.

Zachowski, M.A., and K. Rudolph. 1991. Reduction of bacterial blight infestation of cotton 

seeds by treatment with sodium hypochlorite. Journal of Phytopathology 131(1):53-58.

Zhang, B.-C. 1994. Index of Economically Important Lepidoptera. CAB International, 

Wallingford, UK. 599 pp.
Pest Risk Assessment for Mangoes from Australia

Ver. 8 June 22, 2011 47

7. Appendices

Appendix A: Interceptions on mango 

Table A1. Pest interceptions at U.S. ports-of-entry on mango, Mangifera indica, from all countries as 

reported in the Pest Identification Database from 1985-2009 (PestID, 2009; query March 11, 2009)

Pest Interceptions (no.)

Commodity imported as: Fruit Leaf Plant Seed Stem Other1 Total

Abgrallaspis sp. (Diaspididae) 1 1

Aclerda sacchari Teague (Aclerdidae) 2 2

Acrolophus sp. (Acrolophidae) 1 1

Acutaspis albopicta (Cockerell) (Diaspididae) 62 62

Acutaspis sp. (Diaspididae) 3 3

Adoretus sinicus Burmeister (Scarabaeidae) 1 1

Aeolus sp. (Elateridae) 1 1

Agromyzidae, species of 7 7

Aleurocanthus husaini Corbett (Aleyrodidae) 1 1

Aleurocanthus sp. (Aleyrodidae) 2 2

Aleurocanthus woglumi Ashby (Aleyrodidae) 1 1 2 4

Aleurodicus dispersus Russell (Aleyrodidae) 1 1 2

Aleurodicus ornatus Cockerell (Aleyrodidae) 1 1

Aleurotrachelus sp. (Aleyrodidae) 1 1

Aleurotuberculatus psidii (Singh) (Aleyrodidae) 1 1

Aleyrodidae, species of 1 1

Amphideritus sp. (Curculionidae) 1 1

Anacentrinus sp. (Curculionidae) 1 1

Anastrepha ludens (Loew) (Tephritidae) 46 46

Anastrepha obliqua (Macquart) (Tephritidae) 6 6

Anastrepha serpentina (Wiedemann) (Tephritidae) 1 1

Anastrepha sp. (Tephritidae) 16,247 6 3 1 2 16,259

Anaxipha sp. (Gryllidae) 1 1

Anomala sp. (Scarabaeidae) 9 9

Aonidiella inornata Mckenzie (Diaspididae) 2 2

Aonidiella orientalis (Newstead) (Diaspididae) 1 1

Aonidiella sp. (Diaspididae) 3 3

Aphididae, species of 2 2

Aphis gossypii Glover (Aphididae) 1 1

Apion sp. (Apionidae) 1 1

Araecerus sp. (Anthribidae) 1 1

Aspidiella hartii (Cockerell) (Diaspididae) 1 1

Aspidiotus sp. (Diaspididae) 1 1

Asterolecanium sp. (Asterolecaniidae) 4 1 5

Aulacaspis murrayae Takahashi (Diaspididae) 4 4

Aulacaspis sp. (Diaspididae) 9 9

Aulacaspis tubercularis Newstead (Diaspididae) 13,446 141 20 3 3 13,613

Aztecariella iarae Carvalho (Miridae) 1 1
Pest Risk Assessment for Mangoes from Australia

Ver. 8 June 22, 2011 48

Pest Interceptions (no.)

Commodity imported as: Fruit Leaf Plant Seed Stem Other1 Total

Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel) (Tephritidae) 282 282

Bactrocera sp. (Tephritidae) 172 172

Bagisara graellsii (Feisthamel) (Noctuidae) 2 2

Batocera sp. (Cerambycidae) 3 3

Berecynthus hastator (Fabricius) (Pentatomidae) 1 1

Blapstinus sp. (Tenebrionidae) 400 1 401

Bruchus rufimanus Boheman (Bruchidae) 1 1

Carposinidae, species of 3 3

Cataenococcus hispidus (Morrison) (Pseudococcidae) 1 1

Cataenococcus sp. (Pseudococcidae) 1 1

Cerambycidae, species of 9 9

Ceratitini, species of (Tephritidae) 7 7

Ceratitis capitata (Wiedemann) (Tephritidae) 16 16

Ceratitis sp. (Tephritidae) 2 2

Ceroplastes rubens Maskell (Coccidae) 2 1 3 6

Chaetothyrina sp. 1 1

Chalcodermus sp. (Curculionidae) 2 2

Chrysomelidae, species of 1 1

Chrysomphalus pinnulifer (Maskell) (Diaspididae) 1 1

Chrysomphalus sp. (Diaspididae) 2 2

Cicadellidae, species of 4 1 5

Cladosporium sp. (Hyphomycetes) 8 1 1 10

Clavaspis sp. (Diaspididae) 1 1

Coccidae, species of 38 5 2 45

Coccus moestus De Lotto (Coccidae) 2 2

Coccus psidii (Green) (Coccidae) 3 3

Coccus sp. (Coccidae) 7 7

Coccus viridis (Green) (Coccidae) 8 1 3 12

Colaspis sp. (Chrysomelidae) 3 3

Colletotrichum sp. (Coelomycetes) 3 3

Conoderus flavangulus Candeze (Elateridae) 1 1

Conoderus pictus (Candeze) (Elateridae) 2 2

Conoderus sinaloae (Candeze) (Elateridae) 2 2

Conoderus sp. (Elateridae) 9 1 10

Conotrachelus sp. (Curculionidae) 14 14

Contarinia sp. (Cecidomyiidae) 3 3

Crambidae, species of 4 4

Craspeduchus pulchellus (Fabricius) (Lygaeidae) 1 1

Crisicoccus sp. (Pseudococcidae) 1 1

Cryphula sp. (Rhyparochromidae) 1 1

Cryptophlebia sp. (Tortricidae) 3 3

Cryptorhynchus sp. (Curculionidae) 4 4

Curculio sp. (Curculionidae) 1 1

Curculionidae, species of 23 5 28
Pest Risk Assessment for Mangoes from Australia

Ver. 8 June 22, 2011 49

Pest Interceptions (no.)

Commodity imported as: Fruit Leaf Plant Seed Stem Other1 Total

Cyclocephala mafaffa Burmeister (Scarabaeidae) 1 1

Cyclocephala sp. (Scarabaeidae) 57 57

Cylindrocopturus sp. (Curculionidae) 1 1

Dactynotus sp. (Aphididae) 1 1

Dacus dorsalis Hendel (Tephritidae) 213 213

Dacus sp. (Tephritidae) 113 113

Delia sp. (Anthomyiidae) 1 1

Delphacidae, species of 1 1

Diabrotica undecimpunctata duodecimnotata Harold 

(Chrysomelidae) 1 1

Diaspididae, species of 52 1 1 54

Diaspis boisduvalii Signoret (Diaspididae) 1 1

Diceroprocta sp. (Cicadidae) 1 1

Dichroplus sp. (Acrididae) 1 1

Diphaulaca sp. (Chrysomelidae) 2 2

Diplotaxis sp. (Scarabaeidae) 19 19

Diptera, species of 13 13

Discocephalessa humilis (Herrich-Schaeffer) 

(Pentatomidae) 1 1

Disonycha sp. (Chrysomelidae) 1 1

Drosicha sp. (Margarodidae) 1 1

Dyscinetus sp. (Scarabaeidae) 1 1

Dysdercus andreae (Linnaeus) (Pyrrhocoridae) 1 1

Dysdercus sp. (Pyrrhocoridae) 2 2

Dysmicoccus neobrevipes Beardsley (Pseudococcidae) 6 6

Dysmicoccus sp. (Pseudococcidae) 1 1

Eburia sp. (Cerambycidae) 3 3

Ecdytolopha sp. (Tortricidae) 3 3

Elateridae, species of 1 1

Elsinoe sp. (Elsinoaceae) 1 1

Epicauta sp. (Meloidae) 1 1

Euphoria sp. (Scarabaeidae) 2 2

Euphrytus sp. (Chrysomelidae) 7 7

Euschistus sp. (Pentatomidae) 1 1

Ferrisia sp. (Pseudococcidae) 1 1

Fiorinia sp. (Diaspididae) 1 1

Gelechiidae, species of 5 1 6

Gnorimoschema sp. (Gelechiidae) 1 1

Golofa sp. (Scarabaeidae) 2 2

Gracillariidae, species of 1 1

Gryllidae, species of 1 1

Gryllus capitatus Saussure (Gryllidae) 1 1

Gryllus sp. (Gryllidae) 16 16

Harmostes sp. (Rhopalidae) 1 1
Pest Risk Assessment for Mangoes from Australia

Ver. 8 June 22, 2011 50

Pest Interceptions (no.)

Commodity imported as: Fruit Leaf Plant Seed Stem Other1 Total

Hemiberlesia lataniae (Signoret) (Diaspididae) 1 1

Hendecasis duplifascialis Hampson (Crambidae) 2 2

Heterodera sp. (Heteroderidae) 1 1

Holocranum sp. (Artheneidae) 1 1

Homoptera, species of 1 1

Hyperodes sp. (Curculionidae) 1 1

Hypothenemus sp. (Scolytidae) 1 1 2

Icerya sp. (Margarodidae) 4 4

Imperata cylindrica (Linnaeus) Beauvois (Poaceae) 1 1

Ips sp. (Scolytidae) 1 1

Kalotermitidae, species of 1 1

Kilifia deltoides Delotto (Coccidae) 1 1

Kilifia sp. (Coccidae) 1 1

Lepidoptera, species of 2 2

Lepidosaphes laterochitinosa Green (Diaspididae) 1 1

Lepidosaphes similis Beardsley (Diaspididae) 6 6

Lepidosaphes sp. (Diaspididae) 2 2

Lepidosaphes tapleyi Williams (Diaspididae) 14 1 15

Leptostylus sp. (Cerambycidae) 1 1

Lepturges sp. (Cerambycidae) 2 2

Ligyrus sp. (Scarabaeidae) 4 4

Lindingaspis fusca Mckenzie (Diaspididae) 2 2

Lindingaspis musae (Laing) (Diaspididae) 2 2

Lindingaspis sp. (Diaspididae) 1 1

Lindingaspis tingi Mckenzie (Diaspididae) 2 2

Liothrips sp. (Phlaeothripidae) 1 1

Lissorhoptrus sp. (Erirhinidae) 1 1

Listroderes sp. (Curculionidae) 1 1

Listronotus bonariensis (Kuschel) (Curculionidae) 1 1

Listronotus sp. (Curculionidae) 38 38

Lobometopon sp. (Tenebrionidae) 1 1

Lonchaeidae, species of 4 4

Lycaenidae, species of 1 1

Lygaeoidea, species of 2 2

Maconellicoccus hirsutus (Green) (Pseudococcidae) 1 1

Macropygium reticulare (Fabricius) (Pentatomidae) 1 1

Margarodidae, species of 2 2

Melanaspis sp. (Diaspididae) 2 2

Membracidae, species of 1 1

Metachroma barahonense Blake (Chrysomelidae) 1 1

Metachroma melanochrotum Blake (Chrysomelidae) 1 1

Metachroma sp. (Chrysomelidae) 1 1

Microcentrum sp. (Tettigoniidae) 1 1

Microcentrum triangulatum (Brunner) (Tettigoniidae) 1 1
Pest Risk Assessment for Mangoes from Australia

Ver. 8 June 22, 2011 51

Pest Interceptions (no.)

Commodity imported as: Fruit Leaf Plant Seed Stem Other1 Total

Minthea rugicollis (Walker) (Bostrichidae) 1 1

Miridae, species of 1 1

Mycetaspis sp. (Diaspididae) 1 1

Neopamera sp. (Rhyparochromidae) 2 2

Nipaecoccus viridis (Newstead) (Pseudococcidae) 1 1

Noctuidae, species of 2 1 3

Nysius sp. (Lygaeidae) 3 3

Ochropepla sp. (Membracidae) 1 1

Octaspidiotus stauntoniae (Takahashi) (Diaspididae) 1 1 2

Oebalus insularis (Stal) (Pentatomidae) 5 5

Oecophoridae, species of 1 1

Ogdoecosta sp. (Chrysomelidae) 1 1

Oligonychus sp. (Tetranychidae) 1 1 2

Pachybrachis sp. (Chrysomelidae) 1 1

Pachycoris fabricii (Linnaeus) (Scutelleridae) 1 1

Pandeleteius sp. (Curculionidae) 1 1

Pangaeus rugiceps Horvath (Cydnidae) 1 1

Parabemisia sp. (Aleyrodidae) 1 1

Parlatoria blanchardi (Targioni-Tozzetti) 

(Diaspididae) 1 1

Parlatoria cinerea Hadden (Diaspididae) 2 2

Parlatoria crypta Mckenzie (Diaspididae) 29 29

Parlatoria sp. (Diaspididae) 2 2

Parlatoria ziziphi (Lucas) (Diaspididae) 4 2 6

Parthenicus sp. (Miridae) 1 1

Pealius sp. (Aleyrodidae) 1 1

Pelidnota sp. (Scarabaeidae) 8 8

Pentatomidae, species of 1 1

Pestalotiopsis sp. (Coelomycetes) 3 1 1 5

Pheidole sp. (Formicidae) 1 1

Phelypera distigma (Boheman) (Curculionidae) 2 2

Phenacaspis cockerell (Copley) (Diaspididae) 1 1

Phenacoccus sp. (Pseudococcidae) 4 1 5

Philephedra lutea (Cockerell) (Coccidae) 1 1

Phileurus sp. (Scarabaeidae) 1 1

Phoma sp. (Coelomycetes) 1 1

Phycitinae, species of (Pyralidae) 9 1 10

Phyllophaga sp. (Scarabaeidae) 6 6

Phyllosticta anacardiacearum Aa (Coelomycetes) 1 4 1 6

Phyllostictina sp. (Coelomycetes) 1 1

Pinnaspis sp. (Diaspididae) 1 1

Planococcoides robustus Ezzat & Mcconnell 

(Pseudococcidae) 1 1

Planococcus lilacinus (Cockerell) (Pseudococcidae) 10 10
Pest Risk Assessment for Mangoes from Australia

Ver. 8 June 22, 2011 52

Pest Interceptions (no.)

Commodity imported as: Fruit Leaf Plant Seed Stem Other1 Total

Planococcus minor (Maskell) (Pseudococcidae) 8 8

Planococcus sp. (Pseudococcidae) 7 7

Premnotrypes sp. (Curculionidae) 1 1

Protopulvinaria longivalvata Green (Coccidae) 1 1

Protopulvinaria sp. (Coccidae) 1 1

Prytanes sp. (Rhyparochromidae) 4 4

Pseudaonidia sp. (Diaspididae) 6 1 7

Pseudaonidia trilobitiformis (Green) (Diaspididae) 2,195 38 1 2 2,236

Pseudaulacaspis cockerelli (Cooley) (Diaspididae) 1 1

Pseudaulacaspis sp. (Diaspididae) 12 12

Pseudischnaspis acephala Ferris (Diaspididae) 1 1

Pseudischnaspis sp. (Diaspididae) 1 1

Pseudococcidae, species of 118 7 3 1 1 130

Pseudococcus sp. (Pseudococcidae) 12 12

Psyllidae, species of 2 2

Pulvinaria sp. (Coccidae) 3 3

Pycnarthrum sp. (Scolytidae) 1 1

Pyralidae, species of 17 17

Pyraustinae, species of (Crambidae) 13 1 14

Pyroderces sp. (Cosmopterigidae) 1 1

Rastrococcus iceryoides (Green) (Pseudococcidae) 1 1

Rastrococcus sp. (Pseudococcidae) 2 2

Rhipiphorothrips pulchellus Morgan (Thripidae) 1 1

Rhopalidae, species of 1 1

Rhyssomatus sp. (Curculionidae) 2 2

Saissetia sp. (Coccidae) 2 2

Saissetia zanzibarensis Williams (Coccidae) 1 1

Saturniidae, species of 1 1

Scarabaeidae, species of 3 3

Scolytidae, species of 1 1

Scythrididae, species of 1 1

Septoria sp. (Coelomycetes) 1 1

Sphaceloma perseae Jenk. (Coelomycetes) 2 2

Sphenophorus sp. (Dryophthoridae) 1 1

Stemphylium sp. (Hyphomycetes) 1 1

Steriphanus sp. (Tenebrionidae) 1 1

Sternochetus frigidus (Fabricius) (Curculionidae) 2 2

Sternochetus mangiferae (Fabricius) (Curculionidae) 4,378 480 2 4,860

Sternochetus olivieri Faust (Curculionidae) 19 17 36

Sternochetus sp. (Curculionidae) 124 1 42 167

Stomiopeltis sp. 3 3

Strigoderma sp. (Scarabaeidae) 1 1

Sybra sp. (Cerambycidae) 1 1

Syrphidae, species of 2 2
Pest Risk Assessment for Mangoes from Australia

Ver. 8 June 22, 2011 53

Pest Interceptions (no.)

Commodity imported as: Fruit Leaf Plant Seed Stem Other1 Total

Tarsonemus sp. (Tarsonemidae) 1 1

Tenebrionidae, species of 1 1

Tenthecoris orchidearum (Reuter) (Miridae) 1 1

Tephritidae, species of 396 1 397

Tetraleurodes sp. (Aleyrodidae) 2 2

Tetranychidae, species of 3 3

Tettigoniidae, species of 1 1

Thripidae, species of 1 1

Thrips palmi Karny (Thripidae) 1 1

Thyrididae, species of 1 1

Tominotus sp. (Cydnidae) 1 1

Tortricidae, species of 1 1

Trachyderes succinctus (Linnaeus) (Cerambycidae) 1 1

Tridax sp. (Asteraceae) 1 1

Trioza sp. (Psyllidae) 2 2

Trupanea bisetosa Coquillett (Tephritidae) 1 1

Tychius sp. (Curculionidae) 1 1

Tyloderma sp. (Curculionidae) 1 1

Udinia catori (Green) (Coccidae) 6 6

Ulus sp. (Tenebrionidae) 17 17

Unaspis yanonensis (Kuwana) (Diaspididae) 1 1

Veronicella sp. (Veronicellidae) 1 1

Vinsonia stellifera (Westwood) (Coccidae) 17 37 8 1 63

Xyleborus sp. (Scolytidae) 1 1

Total 39,092 274 59 549 11 12 39,997
Pest Risk Assessment for Mangoes from Australia

Ver. 8 June 22, 2011 54

Appendix B: Pests associated with mango and reported in Australia

Table B1. Pests associated with mango and reported in Australia.

Pest Geographic 

distribution1

Plant part 

affected2

Quarantine pestFollow 

pathway

References

ARTHROPODS

Acari: Acaridae

Tyrophagus putrescentiae

(Schrank)

Australia; US predatory 

and mold 

feeding

No No Walter et al., 1986

Acari: Ascidae

Proctolaelaps scolyti Evans Australia predatory No No AFFA, 2001

Proctolaelaps sp. Australia predatory No No AFFA, 2001

Acari: Eriophyidae

Aceria mangiferae Sayed Australia, US 

(FL)

B No No Atwall, 1976; Baker et al., 

1996; CABI, 2003; Crane, 

2002; Denmark, 1983; 

Jeppson et al., 1975; 

Knowledge Master, 2003; 

DPI, 1997; Waite, 2002a

Aculops lycopersici (Tryon) Australia, US F, L, I No Yes AFFA, 2001; CABI, 2003; 

Royalty and Perring, 1989

Cisaberoptus kenyae Keifer Australia L, I Yes No AFFA, 2001; CABI, 2003; 

Jeppson et al., 1975; 

Knihinicki and Boczek, 2002

Metaculus mangiferae (Attiah) Australia I (bud), L Yes No AFFA, 2001; Butani, 1993; 

CABI, 2003; Denmark, 

1983; Jeppson et al., 1975; 

Peña and Moyhuddin, 1997

Neocalacarus mangiferae

Channa & Basavanna 

Australia L; S Yes No AFFA, 2001; Butani, 1993; 

Jeppson et al., 1975; 

Knihinicki and Boczek, 2002

Tegonotus mangiferae (Kieiffer) Australia, US 

(HI)

L Yes No AFFA, 2001; Butani, 1993; 

CABI, 2003; Jeppson et al., 

1975; Knihinicki and 

Boczek, 2002

Acari: Tarsonemidae

Polyphagotarso-nemus latus

(Banks)

Australia, US F, I, L, S No Yes CABI, 2003; Peña and 

Moyhuddin, 1997 Waite, 

2002a

Acari: Tenuipalpidae

Brevipalpus phoenicis (Geijskes) Australia, US F, L, S No Yes CABI, 2003; Peña and 

Moyhuddin, 1997

 

1 US = United States (specific states were listed only if the distribution was limited; AL = Alabama; AZ = Arizona; CA = 

California; FL = Florida; GA = Georgia; HI = Hawaii; TX = Texas)

2

Plant parts: B = bark, Br = branch, F = fruit, I = inflorescence, L = leaf, S = Stem or shoot, R = root
Pest Risk Assessment for Mangoes from Australia

Ver. 8 June 22, 2011 55

Pest Geographic 

distribution1

Plant part 

affected2

Quarantine pestFollow 

pathway

References

Acari: Tetranychidae

Oligonychus biharensis (Hirst) Australia L

3 Yes No AFFA, 2001; Bolland et al., 

1998; CABI, 2003; Halliday, 

2000; Jeppson et al., 1975

Oligonychus coffeae (Nietner) Australia, US 

(FL)

L No No AFFA, 2001; CABI, 2003; 

Jeppson et al., 1975; Peña 

and Moyhuddin, 1997; 

Waite, 2002a

Oligonychus mangiferus

(Rahman & Sapra) 

Australia, US 

(HI)

S, L Yes No Bolland et al., 1998; Butani, 

1993; Jeppson et al., 1975; 

Waterhouse, 1993

Oligonychus punicae (Hirst) Australia, US L No No AFFA, 2001; Bolland et al., 

1998; CABI, 2003; Halliday, 

2000; Jeppson et al., 1975; 

Peña and Moyhuddin, 1997

Oligonychus sp. Australia L Yes No AFFA, 2001

Tetranychus desertorum Banks

(= Tetranychus opuntium)

Australia; US L No No AFFA, 2001; Bolland et al., 

1998; Jeppson et al., 1975

Tetranychus gloveri Banks Australia; US L No No AFFA, 2001; Bolland et al., 

1998; Jeppson et al., 1975

Tetranychus neocaledonicus

André 

Australia; US L No No Bolland et al., 1998; Butani, 

1993; CABI, 2003; Pillai et 

al., 1993; Singh and Singh, 

1999

Tetranychus urticae Koch Australia; US L No No Jeppson et al., 1975; Peña 

and Moyhuddin, 1997

INSECTA

Coleoptera: Bostrichidae

Bostrychopsis jesuita (Fabricius) Australia S Yes No AFFA, 2001; CSIRO/AFFA, 

2002

Dinoderus minutus (Fabricius) Australia, US S No No Batt, 2000; CABI, 2003; 

CSIRO/AFFA, 2002

Sinoxylon anale (Lesne) Australia S Yes No Butani, 1993; CABI, 2003; 

CSIRO/AFFA, 2002

Xylothrips religiosus 

(Bodsduval) 

Australia S Yes No AFFA, 2001

Coleoptera: Cerambycidae

Acalolepta mixtus (Hope) Australia S Yes No AFFA, 2001; Smith, 1996

Platyomopsis pedicornis 

Fabricius

Australia S Yes No AFFA, 2001; Smith, 1996

Platyomopsis sodalis Pascoe Australia S Yes No AFFA, 2001

 

3 Although we found one report of O. biharensis on guava fruit (Gould and Raga, 2002), an extensive search of the scientific 

literature revealed no other report of this mite on fruit and only reports on leaves of its hosts (i.e., Kwee and Chong, 1990; 

Moutia, 1958; Wongsiri, 1991; Yunus and Ho, 1980; Cai and Wen, 2002; Pillai and Palaniswami, 1991; Pillai and 

Palaniswamy, 1981). Therefore, we estimate this mite is unlikely to attack mango fruit.
Pest Risk Assessment for Mangoes from Australia

Ver. 8 June 22, 2011 56

Pest Geographic 

distribution1

Plant part 

affected2

Quarantine pestFollow 

pathway

References

Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae

Haltica corrusca Erichson Australia L Yes No AFFA, 2001; CSIRO/AFFA, 

2002

Monolepta australis (Jacoby) Australia L Yes No 4 AFFA, 2001; Astridge, 

2000a; CABI, 2003; Neal, 

1993

Monolepta divisa (Jacoby) Australia F, L Yes No 4 AFFA, 2001; Neal, 1993

Rhyparida limbatipennis Jacoby Australia F, L Yes No 4 AFFA, 2001; Neal, 1993

Rhyparida sp. Australia L Yes No 4 AFFA, 2001; Neal, 1993

Coleoptera: Curculionidae

Eutyrhinus meditabundus 

(Fabricius)

Australia S Yes No AFFA, 2001; Hawkeswood, 

1991

Eutyrhinus sp. Australia S

5 Yes No AFFA, 2001

Idotasia aequalis Pascoe Australia nonselectiveYes No 6 AFFA, 2001

Sternochetus (Cryptorhynchus) 

mangiferae (F.)

Australia, US 

(HI)

F, Sd Yes Yes Butani, 1993; CABI, 2003; 

CIE, 1994; Peña and 

Moyhuddin, 1997; PestID, 

2006; Singh, 1993; 

Srivastava, 1997

Coleoptera: Nitidulidae

Carpophilus dimidiatus

Fabricius

Australia, US F, Sd No Yes Butani, 1993; CABI, 2003

Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae

Liparetrus atriceps Macleay Australia nonselectiveYes No 7 AFFA, 2001

Phyllotocus macleayi Fischer Australia I Yes No AFFA, 2001; PestID, 2006

Protaetia fusca (Herbst) Australia I, S Yes No AFFA, 2001; CSIRO/AFFA, 

2002; Knowledge Master, 

2003

Coleoptera: Scolytidae

Euwallacea (Xyleborus)

fornicatus (Eichhoff)

Australia, US 

(HI)

S Yes No CABI, 2003; Knowledge 

Master, 2003

Xyleborus perforans (Wollaston) 

(= Xyleborus kraatzi Eichhoff)

Australia, US 

(HI)

S Yes No Beaver, 1976; CABI, 2003; 

Mathew, 1982; Wood and 

Bright, 1987

 

4

Species feeds on the surface of immature fruit, but is unlikely to follow the pathway because it is highly mobile (Astridge, 

2000a; Neal, 1993). Minimal processing of the commodity would likely remove the pest prior to shipment.

5 We assumed that the feeding behavior of Eutyrhinus sp. on mango is the same as that of E. meditabundus (AFFA, 2001; 

Hawkeswood, 1991).

6

Idotasia aequalis is unlikely to follow the pathway because most members of the subfamily Cryptorhynchinae feed in, or 

on, dead wood (Lawrence and Britton, 1991; Lyal, 1993). In a literature search for the generic name Idotasia, and its 

proper name Trigonopterus (Lyal, 1993), we found no specific information.

7 Most Liparetrus spp. feed on flowers or leaves (Lawson and King, 2003; Loch and Floyd, 2001), so this pest is unlikely to 

follow the pathway. We found no specific information for it or its synonyms, L. fallax and L. micans (Britton, 1980).
Pest Risk Assessment for Mangoes from Australia

Ver. 8 June 22, 2011 57

Pest Geographic 

distribution1

Plant part 

affected2

Quarantine pestFollow 

pathway

References

Xyleborus pseudosolidus Shedl 

(Wollaston) 

Australia S Yes No AFFA, 2001; CABI, 2003

Xyleborus saxeseni (Ratzeburg) 

(= X. saxesenii and 

Xyleborinus saxeseni 

(Ratzeburg))

Australia, US S No No Atkinson and Peck, 1994; 

CABI, 2003; CSIRO/AFFA, 

2002; Forest Research, 1979; 

Harris and Minko, 1980; 

Peña and Moyhuddin, 1997

Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae

Lagria cyanea Macleay Australia nonselectiveYes No 8 AFFA, 2001; Merkl, 1987; 

PestID, 2006

Mesomorphus sp. Australia S Yes No AFFA, 2001

Diptera: Tephritidae

Bactrocera aquilonis (May) Australia F Yes Yes AFFA, 2001; Peña and 

Moyhuddin, 1997

Bactrocera cucumis (French) Australia F Yes Yes AFFA, 2001

Bactrocera frauenfeldi (Schiner) Australia F Yes Yes Drew, 1989; Peña and 

Moyhuddin, 1997; Waite, 

2002a

Bactrocera jarvisi (Tryon) Australia F Yes Yes AFFA, 2001; Peña and 

Moyhuddin, 1997

Bactrocera kraussi (Hardy) Australia F Yes Yes AFFA, 2001; Carrol et al., 

2002

Bactrocera murrayi (Perkins) Australia F Yes Yes AFFA, 2001

Bactrocera neohumeralis 

(Hardy)

Australia F Yes Yes Drew, 1989; Peña and 

Moyhuddin, 1997; Waite, 

2002a

Bactrocera opiliae (Drew and 

Hardy)

Australia F Yes Yes Peña and Moyhuddin, 1997

Bactrocera tryoni (Froggatt) Australia F Yes Yes Allwood and Drew, 1996; 

Drew, 1989; Peña and 

Moyhuddin, 1997

Ceratitis capitata Wiedemann Australia; US 

(HI)

F Yes Yes Peña and Moyhuddin, 1997; 

Waite, 2002a

Dirioxa pornia (Walker) Australia F No 9 No AFFA, 2001; Osborne et al., 

1997; Permkam and 

Hancock, 1995

 

8

Lagria cyanea is unlikely to follow the pathway because most members of the tribe Lagriini are scavengers on detritus or 

fungi (Lawrence and Britton, 1991). We found no specific information on this species or its synonyms, L. erythroptera and 

L. purpureipennis (Merkl, 1987).

9 Dirioxa spp. are not considered pests because they feed only on fallen, injured, or rotting fruit (CABI, 2003). The genus is 

not considered in the Elsevier World Crop Pests series on fruit flies (Robinson and Hooper, 1989). Dirioxa pornia is 

mentioned as occuring on New Caledonia, but only as feeding on damaged or fallen fruits (PRS, 2003). By definition, D.

pornia is not a quarantine pest (IPPC, 2007: ISPM #5), nor is it likely to follow the pathway on fresh fruit for 

consumption. Still, this analysis should not be construed to indicate future agency policy for these pests.
Pest Risk Assessment for Mangoes from Australia

Ver. 8 June 22, 2011 58

Pest Geographic 

distribution1

Plant part 

affected2

Quarantine pestFollow 

pathway

References

Diptera: Muscidae

Atherigona orientalis Schiner Australia, US F, L, S No Yes CABI, 2003; Hill, 1994

Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae

Aleurocanthus woglumi Ashby Australia

(Christmas 

Island), US 

(HI, FL, TX)

L [Yes]

10 No Bellis et al., 2004; Mound 

and Halsey, 1978; CABI, 

2007

Aleurodicus destructor Mackie Australia L Yes No AFFA, 2001; CABI, 2003

Aleurodicus dispersus Russell Australia, US 

(FL, HI)

L [Yes] 10 No AFFA, 2001; Peña and 

Moyhuddin, 1997; Waite, 

2002a

Hemiptera: Aphididae

Aphis craccivora Koch Australia, US L, S No No CABI, 2003; Peña and 

Moyhuddin, 1997

Aphis gossypii Glover Australia, US Whole

plant

No Yes Butani, 1993; Ebert and 

Cartwright, 1997; Peña and 

Moyhuddin, 1997; 

Srivastava, 1997

Aphis spiraecola Patch Australia, US L, S No No CABI, 2003; Peña and 

Moyhuddin, 1997

Sinomegoura citricola (Van der 

Goot)

Australia L Yes No AFFA, 2001; Lee and Kim, 

2002

Toxoptera aurantii Boyer de 

Fonscolombe) 

Australia, US 

(CA, FL, 

MS)

Whole 

plant

No Yes Blackman and Eastop, 1984; 

Butani, 1993; CABI, 2003; 

Peña and Moyhuddin, 1997; 

Srivastava, 1997

Toxoptera citricida (Kirkaldy) Australia, US L, I (bud), 

S

No No AFFA, 2001; CABI, 2003

Hemiptera: Cicadellidae

Amrasca splendens Ghauri Australia I Yes No CABI, 2003; Peña and 

Moyhuddin, 1997; Waite, 

2002a

Idioscopus clypealis (Lethiery) Australia L, I Yes No Atwall, 1976; Butani, 1993; 

CABI, 2003; Fletcher and 

Dangerfield, 2002; Singh, 

1993

Idioscopus niveosparsus

(Lethiery) 

Australia L, I Yes No Butani, 1993; CABI, 2003; 

Peña and Moyhuddin, 1997; 

Sohi, 1990

Hemiptera: Coccidae

Ceroplastes ceriferus (Fabricius) Australia, US L, S No No Ben-Dov et al., 2004; CABI, 

2003

 

10 Brackets (“[ ]”) indicate that this is a quarantine significant species with limited distribution in the United States and is 

being considered by APHIS for official control (NIS, 2003a, 2003b, 2004a, 2004b, 2004c, 2004d, 2006a, 2006b, 2006c).
Pest Risk Assessment for Mangoes from Australia

Ver. 8 June 22, 2011 59

Pest Geographic 

distribution1

Plant part 

affected2

Quarantine pestFollow 

pathway

References

Ceroplastes destructor 

(Newstead)

Australia L Yes No AFFA, 2001; CABI, 2003

Ceroplastes rubens Maskell Australia, US 

(FL)

S, L, F [Yes] 10 Yes Ben-Dov et al., 2004; 

Butani, 1993; CABI, 2003; 

Peña and Moyhuddin, 1997; 

Srivastava, 1997

Coccus viridis (Green) Australia, US 

(FL, HI)

S, L, F [Yes] 10 Yes AFFA, 2001; Ben-Dov et al., 

2004; Butani, 1993; CABI, 

2003; Swirski et al., 1997

Parasaissetia nigra (Nietner) Australia, US S, L No No Abraham et al., 1970; AFFA, 

2001; Ben-Dov et al., 2004; 

CABI, 2003

Parthenolecanium persicae

persicae (F.)

Australia, US S, L No No AFFA, 2001; Ben-Dov et al., 

2004; Johnson and Lyon, 

1991

Protopulvinaria (Milviscutulus)

mangiferae (Green)

Australia, US 

(HI)

L Yes No AFFA, 2001; CABI, 2003; 

Knowledge Master, 2003

Pulvinaria polygonata Cockerell Australia L, S Yes No Ben-Dov et al., 2004; CABI, 

2003; CSIRO/AFFA, 2002

Pulvinaria psidii Maskell Australia, US L, S No No Ben-Dov et al., 2004; CABI, 

2003; Peña and Moyhuddin, 

1997

Saissetia coffeae (Walker) Australia, US S, L, F No Yes Ben-Dov et al., 2004; 

Butani, 1993; Hamon and 

Williams, 1984; Johnson and 

Lyon, 1991

Saissetia oleae (Olivier) (= S. 

miranda (Cockerell and 

Parrott))

Australia, US F, L, S No Yes AFFA, 2001; Ben-Dov et al., 

2004; CABI, 2003; Johnson 

and Lyon, 1991; Peña and 

Moyhuddin, 1997

Vinsonia stellifera (Westwood) Australia, US 

(AL, GA, 

FL)

L [Yes] 10 No Ben-Dov et al., 2004; CABI, 

2003; Hodges, 2003; Peña 

and Moyhuddin, 1997

Hemiptera: Coreidae

Amblypelta lutescens lutescens 

Distant

Australia F (young), 

S

Yes No 11 Cunningham, 1984; Peña 

and Moyhuddin, 1997; 

Waite, 2002a

Amblypelta nitida Stal Australia F (young) Yes No 11 Cunningham, 1984; Peña 

and Moyhuddin, 1997; 

Waite, 2002a

Hemiptera: Diaspididae

Aonidiella aurantii (Maskell) Australia, US F, L, S No Yes AFFA, 2001; CABI, 2003; 

Peña and Moyhuddin, 1997

 

11 Large, mobile arthropods that feed externally on fruits were considered unlikely to follow the pathway because minimal

processing of the commodity would likely remove these pests prior to shipment.
Pest Risk Assessment for Mangoes from Australia

Ver. 8 June 22, 2011 60

Pest Geographic 

distribution1

Plant part 

affected2

Quarantine pestFollow 

pathway

References

Aonidiella orientalis Signoret Australia, US 

(FL)

L, S, F No Yes AFFA, 2001; CABI, 2003; 

Johnson and Lyon, 1991; 

Peña and Moyhuddin, 1997

Aspidiotus destructor Signoret Australia, US 

(CA, FL)

L, S, F No Yes Butani, 1993; CABI, 2003; 

Peña and Moyhuddin, 1997; 

Srivastava, 1997

Aspidiotus nerii Bouché Australia, US 

(CA, HI)

F, L, S No Yes CABI, 2003

Aulacaspis tubercularis

Newstead

Australia, US 

(FL)

L, F [Yes] 10 Yes 12 Butani, 1993; CABI, 2003; 

Cunningham, 1991; Peña, 

1993; PestID, 2006

Aulacaspis sp. Australia S, L, F Yes Yes 12 Cunningham, 1991

Chrysomphalus aonidum (L.) Australia, US S, L, F No Yes AFFA, 2001; Butani, 1993; 

CABI, 2003; Peña, 1993

Chrysomphalus dictyospermi

(Morgan)

Australia, US F, L, S No Yes AFFA, 2001; CABI, 2003; 

Peña and Moyhuddin, 1997

Diaspis (Aulacapsis) boisduvalii 

Signoret

Australia, US F, L, S No Yes Ben-Dov et al., 2004; CABI, 

2003; Nakahara, 1982; 

Tenbrink and Hara, 1992a

Fiorinia (Diaspis) fioriniae

(Targioni Tozzetti)

Australia, US L, S No No Ben-Dov et al., 2004; CABI, 

2003; Kosztarab, 1996; 

Nakahara, 1982; Peña and 

Moyhuddin, 1997

Hemiberlesia lataniae (Signoret) Australia, US L No No CABI, 2003; Davidson and 

Miller, 1990; Peña and 

Moyhuddin, 1997

Hemiberlesia rapax (Comstock) Australia, US B, L, F No Yes Butani, 1993; CABI, 2003; 

Davidson and Miller, 1990

Howardia biclavis (Comstock) Australia, US F, L, S No Yes Ben-Dov et al., 2004; 

Nakahara, 1982; Peña and 

Moyhuddin, 1997; Tenbrink 

and Hara, 1994

Ischnaspis longirostris

(Signoret)

Australia, US F, L, S No Yes Ben-Dov et al., 2004; CABI, 

2003; Nakahara, 1982; Peña 

and Moyhuddin, 1997; 

Tenbrink and Hara, 1992b

Lepidosaphes beckii (Newman) Australia, US F, L, S No Yes Ben-Dov et al., 2004; CABI, 

2003

Lepidosaphes gloverii (Packard) Australia, US F, L, S No Yes Ben-Dov et al., 2004; CABI, 

2003

 

12 Armored scales (Diaspididae) may enter on commercial fruit for consumption but are highly unlikely to become 

established via this pathway. Please see discussion in section 3.4 for a detailed explanation.
Pest Risk Assessment for Mangoes from Australia

Ver. 8 June 22, 2011 61

Pest Geographic 

distribution1

Plant part 

affected2

Quarantine pestFollow 

pathway

References

Lepidosaphes pallidula 

(Williams) (= L. pallida 

(Maskell))

Australia, US L No No Ben-Dov et al., 2004; 

Kosztarab, 1996; Nakahara, 

1982; Salama and Hamdy, 

1973

Lindingaspis rossi (Maskell) Australia; US L No No AFFA, 2001; Butani, 1993; 

Johnson and Lyon, 1991; 

Nakahara, 1982

Parlatoria oleae (Colvée) Australia, US F, L, S No Yes Ben-Dov et al., 2004; CABI, 

2003

Parlatoria proteus (Curtis) Australia, US F, L, S No Yes Ben-Dov et al., 2004; CABI, 

2003; Kosztarab, 1996

Phenacaspis dilatata (Green) Australia L Yes No Borror et al., 1989; Butani, 

1993; Cunningham, 1991; 

Peña and Moyhuddin, 1997

Pseudaonidia trilobitiformis

(Green)

Australia, US 

(FL)

B, S, L, F [Yes] 10 Yes 12 Ben-Dov et al., 2008; 

Kosztarab, 1996; USDA, 

1979; PestID, 2008

Pseudaulacaspis cockerelli

(Cooley) =Phenacaspis 

cockerelli (Cooley)

Australia, US Whole 

plant

No Yes Ben-Dov et al., 2004; 

Davidson and Miller, 1990; 

Hamon, 1970; Young and 

Sauls, 1981

Pseudaulacaspis pentagona

(Targioni Tozzetti)

Australia, US S, R No No Ben-Dov et al., 2004; CABI, 

2003; Kosztarab, 1996

Hemiptera: Flatidae

Colgaroides acuminata (Walker) Australia I, F Yes No 11 AFFA, 2001; Brown, 1991; 

Peña and Moyhuddin, 1997; 

Smith, 1998

Colgaroides sp. Australia I, F Yes No 11 AFFA, 2001; Smith, 1998

Siphanta eberhardi Fletcher Australia I Yes No AFFA, 2001; NSW 

Agriculture, 2002

Hemiptera: Fulgoridae

Desudaba maculata Distant Australia L Yes No AFFA, 2001

Desudaba psittacus Walker Australia L Yes No AFFA, 2001

Hemiptera: Lygaeidae

Graptostethus servus Fabricius Australia nonselectiveYes No 11 AFFA, 2001

Hemiptera: Margarodidae

Drosicha stebbingi (Green) Australia S, L Yes No AFFA, 2001; Butani, 1993; 

CABI, 2003; Cunningham, 

1984; Singh, 1993; Veeresh, 

1988
Pest Risk Assessment for Mangoes from Australia

Ver. 8 June 22, 2011 62

Pest Geographic 

distribution1

Plant part 

affected2

Quarantine pestFollow 

pathway

References

Icerya aegyptiaca (Douglas) Australia S, L Yes No CABI, 2003

Icerya seychellarum (Westwood) Australia L, S, I, F,

Br

Yes No 13 Ben-Dov et al., 2008; CABI, 

2007; PPQ, 2002

Hemiptera: Miridae

Campylomma liebknechti Girault Australia I, L, F Yes No 11 AFFA, 2001; CSIRO/AFFA, 

2002; Fletcher, 1997

Helopeltis clavifer (Walker) Australia F, L, S Yes No 11 AFFA, 2001; CABI, 2003; 

Stonedahl, 1991

Helopeltis sp. Australia nonselectiveYes No 11 AFFA, 2001

Taylorilygus pallidulus 

(Blanchard)

Australia, US F, L No No 11 AFFA, 2001; Hill, 1994; 

Snodgrass et al., 1984; South

et al., 1993

Hemiptera: Pentatomidae

Piezodorus hybneri (Gmelin) Australia F, S Yes No 11 AFFA, 2001; CABI, 2003

Plautia affinis Dallas Australia F, L, S Yes No 11 AFFA, 2001; Fletcher, 1997; 

Peña and Moyhuddin, 1997

Hemiptera: Plataspididae

Coptosoma sp. Australia nonselectiveYes No 11 AFFA, 2001

Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae

Dysmicoccus sp. Australia L Yes No AFFA, 2001

Dysmicoccus brevipes

(Cockerell)

Australia, US F, L, S No No 14 Ben-Dov et al., 2004; CABI, 

2003

Ferrisia virgata Cockerell Australia, US F, L, S No No 14 Ben-Dov et al., 2004; CABI, 

2003; Waite, 2002a

Geococcus coffeae Green Australia R Yes No Ben-Dov et al., 2004; CABI, 

2003; CSIRO/AFFA, 2002

Maconellicoccus hirsutus

(Green)

Australia, US 

(CA, FL, HI)

F, I, L, S [Yes]10 No 14 Ben-Dov et al., 2004; CABI, 

2003

Nipaecoccus viridis (Newstead) Australia, US 

(HI)

F, L, S Yes No 14 AFFA, 2001; Ben-Dov et al., 

2004; CABI, 2003

Planococcus citri (Risso) Australia, US F, S, R No No 14 Ben-Dov et al., 2004; CABI, 

2003

 

13 The giant mealybug Icerya seychellarum is unlikely to be associated with commercial export quality fruit. Despite its wide 

geographical range and wide host range (CABI, 2007 PPQ, 2002), it has been intercepted at U.S. ports-of-entry on fruit 

only 11 times, and only once on commercial fruit (PestID, 2008). We found no other report of this insect attacking fruit. 

This insect usually attacks leaves, twigs, and small branches (PPQ, 2002). Only in heavy infestations may it also attack the 

petioles of flowers and fruits (PPQ, 2002). Washing (Kader, 2002) is likely to remove the pest, and any individuals on the 

fruit or stem are likely to be highly visible and therefore culled during standard post-harvest processing. The early 

immature stage is covered with bright yellow or white wax, and the bodies of the intermediate stages are covered with 

yellow wax and fringed with long, glassy, waxy filaments. The female adult is similar but orange red (PPQ, 2002). Males 

are rarely found.

14 The standard postharvest practice of washing mangoes to remove the latex that exudes from the cut stem (Kader, 2002) 

removes this pest from the pathway.
Pest Risk Assessment for Mangoes from Australia

Ver. 8 June 22, 2011 63

Pest Geographic 

distribution1

Plant part 

affected2

Quarantine pestFollow 

pathway

References

Planococcus minor (Maskell) Australia, US 

(Virgin Isls.)

F, L, R, S Yes No14 Ben-Dov, 1994; Ben-Dov et 

al., 2004; CABI, 2003; Peña

et al., 2002

Hymenoptera: Anthrophoridae

Xylocopa bryorum Fabricius Australia nonselectiveYes No15 AFFA, 2001

Isoptera: Kalotermitidae

Cryptotermes brevis Walker Australia, US 

(FL,HI)

S No No Butani, 1993; CABI, 2003; 

CSIRO/AFFA, 2002

Neotermes insularis (Walker) Australia S Yes No AFFA, 2001; CSIRO/AFFA, 

2002; Peña and Moyhuddin, 

1997; Waite, 2002a

Termes cheeli (Mjoberg) Australia S Yes No AFFA, 2001; Peña and 

Moyhuddin, 1997

Isoptera: Mastotermitidae

Mastotermes darwiniensis 

Froggatt

Australia R, S Yes No AFFA, 2001

Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae

Coptotermes acinaciformis 

Froggatt

Austrlalia S Yes No Peña and Moyhuddin, 1997; 

Waite, 2002a

Prorhinotermes inopinatus 

Silvestri

Australia S, R Yes No Gay and Barrett, 1983

Isoptera: Termitidae

Microcerotermes biroi 

(Desneux)

Australia S Yes No Cunningham, 1984; Peña 

and Moyhuddin, 1997

Nasutitermes graveolus (Hill) Australia R, S Yes No Peña and Moyhuddin, 1997

Lepidoptera: Cosmopterigidae

Pyroderces sp. Australia L Yes No AFFA, 2001

Lepidoptera: Geometridae

Chloroclystis sp. Australia L Yes No AFFA, 2001

Cleora acaciaria (Turner) Australia I Yes No AFFA, 2001

Comostola laesaria Walker Australia I Yes No AFFA, 2001

Eucyclodes pieroides Walker (= 

Anisozyga pieroides (Walker))

Australia I, L Yes No AFFA, 2001; HerbisonEvans and Crossley., 2003; 

Holloway, 1996

Gymnoscelis lophopus Turener Australia I, L Yes No AFFA, 2001; HerbisonEvans and Crossley., 2003

Prasinocyma albicosta (Walker) Australia I Yes No AFFA, 2001; CSIRO/AFFA, 

2002

Lepidoptera: Gracillaridae

Acrocercops sp. Australia L Yes No Cunningham, 1984; Peña 

and Moyhuddin, 1997

 

15 Xylocopa bryorum is unlikely to follow the pathway because Xylocopa members excavate cavities in dead wood and feed 

on pollen and nectar (Nauman, 1991).
Pest Risk Assessment for Mangoes from Australia

Ver. 8 June 22, 2011 64

Pest Geographic 

distribution1

Plant part 

affected2

Quarantine pestFollow 

pathway

References

Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae

Dasychira mendosa (Hübner) (= 

Olene mendosa Hübner)

Australia L Yes No Butani, 1993; CABI, 2003; 

Herbison-Evans and 

Crossley., 2003

Chionophasma fimbriata (Lucas) Australia I Yes No AFFA, 2001

Euproctis sp. Australia nonselectiveYes Yes AFFA, 2001

Lymantria lunata Stoll

(= L. diversa, Pegella diversa)

Australia F, I, L Yes No16 AFFA, 2001; CABI, 2003; 

Edwards, 1996; HerbisonEvans and Crossley, 2003

Orgyia australis (Walker) (= O. 

postica (Walker))

Australia F, I, L Yes No17 AFFA, 2001; CABI, 2003; 

Fasih et al., 1989; Gupta and 

Singh, 1986; HerbisonEvans and Crossley., 2003

Lepidoptera: Noctuidae

Achaea janata (Linnaeus) Australia, US 

(HI)

F, I, L Yes No18 AFFA, 2001; Butani, 1993; 

CABI, 2003; Mau and 

Martin, 1992a; Zhang, 1994

Chlumetia euthysticha (Turner) Australia I, S Yes No AFFA, 2001; CABI, 2003 

Robinson et al., 2003

Eublemma abrupta (Walker) Australia I Yes No AFFA, 2001; Butani, 1993; 

CABI, 2003

Eublemma pectorora (Lucas) Australia I Yes No AFFA, 2001

Eudocima fullonia (Clerck) Australia, US 

(HI)

F Yes No19 AFFA, 2001; CABI, 2003; 

Herbison-Evans and 

Crossley., 2003; Waite, 

2002a

Eudocima materna (Linnaeus) Australia F Yes No19 AFFA, 2001; CABI, 2003; 

Herbison-Evans and 

Crossley., 2003; Waite, 

2002a

Eudocima salaminia (Cramer) Australia F Yes No19 AFFA, 2001; CABI, 2003 

Herbison-Evans and 

Crossley., 2003; Waite, 

2002a

Eudocima tyrannus (Guenée) Australia F Yes No19 AFFA, 2001; CABI, 2003

 

16 Lymantria lunata is unlikely to follow the pathway because members of this genus are typically defoliators (Hill, 1994). 

We found no specific information about this species or its synonyms.

17 Orgyia australis is unlikely to follow the pathway because it feeds externally on mango fruit (Gupta and Singh, 1986).

Also, attacked fruits are generally rendered unmarketable (CABI, 2003; Fasih et al., 1989).

18 Achaea janata is unlikely to follow the pathway because the highly mobile adult is the only life stage that attacks fruit 

(Butani, 1993), and minimal processing would likely remove these pests before shipment.

19 Eudocima fullonia, E. materna, E. salaminia and E. tyrannus are unlikely to follow the pathway because highly mobile 

adults are the only life stage that attacks fruit (CABI, 2003; Herbison-Evans and Crossley, 2003; Waite, 2002a), and 

minimal processing would likely remove these pests before shipment.
Pest Risk Assessment for Mangoes from Australia

Ver. 8 June 22, 2011 65

Pest Geographic 

distribution1

Plant part 

affected2

Quarantine pestFollow 

pathway

References

Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner)

(= Heliothis armigera Hübner)

Australia F, L Yes No20 Butani, 1993; CABI, 2003 

PestID, 2006

Homodes bracteigutta (Walker)

(= Lophoruza chalcocosma)

Australia F, L

12 Yes No21 Butani, 1993; HerbisonEvans and Crossley., 2003; 

Robinson et al., 2003

Nanaguna breviuscula Walker Australia I Yes No AFFA, 2001; CABI, 2003

Ophiusa tirhaca (Cramer) Australia F, I Yes No22 AFFA, 2001; CABI, 2003; 

Hill, 1983

Penicillaria jocosatrix (Guenée) Australia, US 

(HI)

I, L, S Yes No AFFA, 2001; Butani, 1993; 

CABI, 2003; Herbison-Evans 

and Crossley., 2003; Peña and 

Moyhuddin, 1997; Robinson

et al., 2003

Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae

Melanitis leda ismene Cramer Australia L Yes No CABI, 2003

Lepidoptera: Oecophoridae

Protrarchintis hospita Felder Australia L Yes No AFFA, 2001

Lepidoptera: Pyralidae

Cadra cautella Walker Australia, US F, Sd No No23 CABI, 2003

Cateremna quadriguttella

Walker

Australia I, F Yes No24 AFFA, 2001; Storey and 

Rogers, 1980

Cryptoblabes adoceta Turner Australia I Yes No AFFA, 2001

Ephestia sp. Australia nonselectiveYes Yes AFFA, 2001

Scirpophaga excerptalis

(Walker)

Australia L, S Yes No CABI, 2003

Tirathaba sp. Australia L Yes No AFFA, 2001

Lepidoptera: Tortricidae

Crytoptila immersana Walker Australia I Yes No DPI, 1997

Dudua aprobola (Meyrick) Australia S, L Yes No AFFA, 2001; Butani, 1993;

Srivastava, 1997; Zhang, 

1994

Epiphyas postvittana Walker Australia L, F Yes No25 AFFA, 2001; Geier and 

Briese, 1981

 

20 In over 100,000 interceptions of exotic pests and pathogens entering the United States on mango, H. armigera has never 

been found. It appears to be an opportunistic feeder on fruit, so it is unlikely to follow the pathway.

21 We found no specific information about H. bracteigutta or its synonym. We assumed it behaves like other Catocalinae 

members, which often feed on foliage as larvae, and pierce fruit as adults (Nielson and Common, 1991). Therefore, H.

bracteigutta is unlikely to follow the pathway because minimal processing would likely remove the adult before shipment.

22 Ophiusa tirhaca is unlikely to follow the pathway because highly mobile adults are the only life stage attacking fruit (Hill, 

1983), and minimal processing would likely remove these pests before shipment.

23 Cadra cautella is a stored product pest (CABI, 2003) that is unlikely to be associated with fresh mango.

24 Although larvae of C. quadriguttella feed on litchi seeds by burrowing through the edible fruit tissue (Storey and Rogers, 

1980), we only found evidence that it attacks the flowers (AFFA, 2001). Also, we found very little information on C.

quadriguttella; therefore, we assume it is a pest of very sporadic occurrence and minor significance. Thus, this species is

unlikely to follow the pathway of commercial quality mango fruit for export.
Pest Risk Assessment for Mangoes from Australia

Ver. 8 June 22, 2011 66

Pest Geographic 

distribution1

Plant part 

affected2

Quarantine pestFollow 

pathway

References

Homona coffearia (Nietner) Australia L Yes No CABI, 2003

Lobesia sp. Australia F Yes Yes AFFA, 2001

Psocoptera: Archipsocidae

Archipsocopsis fernandi Australia L Yes No AFFA, 2001

Thysanoptera: Phlaeothripidae

Aleurodothrips fasciapennis 

(Franklin)

Australia, US predatory No No AFFA, 2001; Grove et al., 

2001

Haplothrips bituberculatus Australia predatory Yes No AFFA, 2001

Haplothrips froggatti Hood Australia I Yes No AFFA, 2001

Haplothrips gowdeyi Franklin Australia, US I No No Childers et al., 1990; 

Knowledge Master, 2003

Haplothrips sp. Australia I Yes No AFFA, 2001

Thysanoptera: Thripidae

Frankliniella schultzei (Trybom) Australia, US 

(FL, HI)

I [Yes]10 No AFFA, 2001; Childers et al., 

1990

Heliothrips haemorrhoidalis

Bouché

Australia, US I No No AFFA, 2001

Pezothrips kellyanus

(Bagnall)=Megalurothrips 

kellyanus (Bagnall)

Australia I Yes No AFFA, 2001; Baker et al., 

2001; Froud et al., 2001; 

Mound, 1996

Mymarothrips garuda (R & M) Australia predatory Yes No AFFA, 2001

Scirtothrips dorsalis Hood Australia, US 

(HI, FL)

F, I, L, S [Yes]10 No14, 26 CABI, 2003; Clark, 2005; 

Hodges et al., 2005; Lee and 

Wen, 1982; PestID, 2006

Selenothrips rubrocinctus

(Giard)

Australia, US L, F No No14Peña and Moyhuddin, 1997

Thrips hawaiiensis (Morgan) Australia, US F, I No No14 CABI, 2003

Thrips imaginis Bagnall Australia I Yes No AFFA, 2001

Thrips palmi Karny Australia, US 

(CA, FL, HI, 

TX)

F, I [Yes]10 No14 CABI, 2003

Thrips sp. Australia I Yes No AFFA, 2001

Thrips tabaci Lindeman Australia, US F, I, L, S No No14 CABI, 2003

BACTERIA

Agrobacterium tumefaciens Australia, US R, S No No Agrios, 1997; Bradbury, 

1986

Bacillus subtilis Australia, US R, S No No Agrios, 1997; Bradbury, 

1986

 

25 The only evidence that mango may be a host of E. postvittana is a single record from 1958 in the Australian Plant Pest 

Database (APPD) (Van Meurs, 2006). We considered this insufficient evidence that the species would follow the pathway. 

In a literature search and consultation with the Departments of Primary lndustries in Queensland, New South Wales, and 

Northern Territory in Australia (Van Meurs, 2006), we found no other report that mango is a host.

26 The Australian Plant Pest Database (APPD) has no evidence of S. dorsalis being collected from mature mango fruit (Van 

Meurs, 2006). It only attacks “new leaf shoots, pink flush leaves, and...fruitlets and flowers.”
Pest Risk Assessment for Mangoes from Australia

Ver. 8 June 22, 2011 67

Pest Geographic 

distribution1

Plant part 

affected2

Quarantine pestFollow 

pathway

References

Erwinia carotovora subsp.

carotovora

Australia, US F, L No Yes Agrios, 1997; Bradbury, 

1986

Pseudomonas syringae van Hall, 

(Pseudomonadaceae)

Australia, US peduncle,

petiole

No Yes AFFA, 2001

Xanthomonas campestris pv. 

mangiferaeindicae (Patel, 

Moniz, and Kulkarni) Robbs, 

Ribeiro & Kimura 

(Xanthomonadaceae)

Australia L, F Yes Yes AFFA, 2001

FUNGI

Alternaria alternata (Fr.:Fr.) 

Keissl =Alternaria tenuis Nees

=Alternaria fasciculata 

(Cooke & Ellis) Jones & 

Grout =Macrosporium 

fasciculatum Cooke & Ellis

=Macrosporium maydis

(Cooke & Ellis)

Australia, US F, L No Yes AFFA, 2001; CABI, 2003

Alternaria sp. (Fungi imperfecti: 

Hyphomycetes)

Australia L, F Yes Yes AFFA, 2001; Farr et al., 

1989; Ploetz et al., 1996

Armillaria mellea

(Basidiomycetes: Agaricales)

Australia, US R No No Farr et al., 2003

Armillaria sp. (Basidiomycetes: 

Agaricales)

Australia R Yes No AFFA, 2001

Aspergillus niger Tieghem

(Fungi imperfecti: 

Hyphomycetes)

Australia, US F, L No Yes AFFA, 2001; CABI, 2003

Asterina sp. 

(Loculoascomycetes: 

Dothideales)

Australia L Yes No AFFA, 2001; Farr et al., 

1989

Asteromella sp. 

(Loculoascomycetes: 

Dothideales)

Australia L Yes No AFFA, 2001; Farr et al., 

1989

Athelia rolfsii (Curzi) Tu & 

Kimbrough (Basidiomycetes: 

Aphyllophorales) =Corticum 

rolfsii Curzi =Pellicularia 

rolfsii E. West =Sclerotium 

rolfsii Sacc.

Australia, US R No No AFFA, 2001; Farr et al., 

1989

Bipolaris hawaiiensis (M.B. 

Ellis) Uchida & Aragaki 

(Imperfecti: Hyphomycetes) 

=Drechslera hawaiiensis 

M.B. Ellis

=Helminthosporium 

hawaiiense Bugnicourt, nom. 

Inval.)

Australia, US L No No AFFA, 2001; Farr et al., 

2003
Pest Risk Assessment for Mangoes from Australia

Ver. 8 June 22, 2011 68

Pest Geographic 

distribution1

Plant part 

affected2

Quarantine pestFollow 

pathway

References

Botryosphaeria dothidea (Moug. 

: Fr.) Ces. & De Not.

AU

(Sakalidis et 

al., 2011), 

US (Farr and 

Rossman, 

2011)

F

(Sakalidis 

et al., 

2011)

No Yes Farr and Rossman, 2011; 

Sakalidis et al., 2011

Botryosphaeria parva

Pennycook & Samuels

Australia, US F No Yes Slippers et al., 2005; UrbezTorres et al., 2005

Botrytis cinerea Pers.:Fr. 

Mitosporitic fungi =Botrytis 

vulgaris Link:Fr.teleomorph:

Botryotinia fuckeliana (De 

Bary) Whetzel

Australia, US F, I No Yes AFFA, 2001; Farr et al., 

1989

Ceratocystis fimbriata Ellis & 

Halst. (Ascomycetes: 

Microascales)

Australia, US F, R, L, S No Yes CABI, 2003; Cook, 1975

Chaetomium sp.

(Pyrenomycetes: Sordariales)

Australia, US F Yes Yes AFFA, 2001; Farr et al., 

2003

Chaetothyrina tenuissima

(Petch) Arx 

(Loculoascomycetes: 

Dothideales)

Australia F, L No27 Yes AFFA, 2001

Cladosporium sp. (Fungi 

imperfecti)

Australia F, L Yes Yes AFFA, 2001; Farr et al., 

1989

Colletotrichum acutatum

Simmonds ex Simmonds 

(Fungi imperfecti)

Australia, US F, L No Yes AFFA, 2001; CABI, 2003

Colletotrichum gloeosporioides 

(Penz.) Penz & Sacc. in Penz.

(telomorph: Glomerella 

cingulata (Stoneman) Spauld. 

& Schrenk (Fungi imperfecti)

Australia, US F, L No Yes AFFA, 2001; CABI, 2003; 

Cook, 1975; Farr et al., 2003

Coniella castaneicola (Ell. & 

Everh.) Sutton (Fungi 

imperfecti) =Pilidiella 

castaneicola (Ellis & Everh.) 

Arx =Coniella eucalypticola

Nag Raj =Pilidiella quercicola

(Oudem.) Petr. teleomorph: 

Schizoparme straminea Shear

Australia, US L No No AFFA, 2001; Farr et al., 

2003

 

27 Chaetothyrina tenuissima is listed by PPQ as non-reportable and non-actionable (PestID, 2006). This fungus is a stem 

sooty blotch (AFFA, 2001b). Other members of the genus, like C. musarum, are saprophytic fungi called “sooty blotches”

or “sooty mould” (Jones and Stover, 2000). Sooty blotches and sooty molds are not parasitic but live off honeydew from

certain insects, particularly aphids and scale insects (Agrios, 1997; Jones and Stover, 2000), and their presence is usually 

of minor importance to the health of the plant (Agrios, 1997).
Pest Risk Assessment for Mangoes from Australia

Ver. 8 June 22, 2011 69

Pest Geographic 

distribution1

Plant part 

affected2

Quarantine pestFollow 

pathway

References

Crinitospora pulchra Sutton & 

Alcorn

Australia L, S Yes No AFFA, 2001

Curvularia brachyspora Boedijn 

(Fungi imperfecti)

Australia, US I No No AFFA, 2001; Farr et al., 

1989

Curvularia lunata (Wakk.) 

Boedijn var. aeria (Batista et 

al.) M.B. Ellis (Fungi 

imperfecti)

Australia, US L No No AFFA, 2001; Farr et al., 

1989

Curvularia senegalensis (Speg.) 

Subramanian (Fungi 

imperfecti)

Australia, US L No No AFFA, 2001; Farr et al., 

1989

Curvularia sp. (Fungi 

imperfecti)

Australia F, L Yes Yes AFFA, 2001; Farr et al., 

1989

Curvularia tuberculata P.C. Jain 

(Fungi imperfecti) 

teleopmorph: Cochliobolus 

tuberculatus Sivanesan

Australia, US L No No AFFA, 2001; Farr et al., 

1989

Cylindrocarpon destructans 

(Zinssmeister) Scholten

(Fungi imperfecti) =C. 

radicicola Wollenweb, 

=Ramularia destructans

Zinssmeister 

teleomorph: Nectria radicola

Gerlach & Nilsson

Australia, US R No No AFFA, 2001; Farr et al., 

1989

Cylindrocladiella parva (P.J. 

Anderson) =Cylindrocladium 

parvum P.J. Anderson (Fungi 

imperfecti)

Australia, US R No No AFFA, 2001; Farr et al., 

1989

Cylindrocladium sp. (Fungi 

imperfecti)

Australia F, L Yes Yes AFFA, 2001; Farr et al., 

1989

Cytosphaera mangiferae Died., 

(Fungi imperfecti)

Australia F, L, S Yes Yes AFFA, 2001; CABI, 2003; 

Farr et al., 2003

Daedalea sanguinea Klotzsch. 

(Basidiomycetes: 

Aphyllophorales)

Australia R, S Yes No AFFA, 2001

Diplodia sp. (Fungi imperfecti) Australia F, L Yes Yes AFFA, 2001; Farr et al., 

1989

Dothiorella aromatica (Sacc.) 

Petr. & Syd.(Fungi imperfecti) 

= Botryosphaeria dothidea

(Moug)

Australia, US F, L, S No Yes AFFA, 2001; Ploetz et al., 

1996; Slippers et al., 2005

Dothiorella dominicana Petrak 

& Cif. (Fungi imperfecti)

Australia, US 

(FL)

F, L No Yes AFFA, 2001; Farr et al., 

2003; Ploetz et al., 1996
Pest Risk Assessment for Mangoes from Australia

Ver. 8 June 22, 2011 70

Pest Geographic 

distribution1

Plant part 

affected2

Quarantine pestFollow 

pathway

References

Dothiorella mangiferae H.&P. 

Syd.&But. (Fungi imperfecti) 

= Torula dimidiata Penz. 1882

Australia, US F, L, S No Yes AFFA, 2001; Farr et al., 

2003; Ploetz et al., 1996

Dothiorella sp. (Fungi 

imperfecti)

Australia F, L, S Yes Yes AFFA, 2001; Farr et al., 

1989

Elsinoe mangiferae Bitancourt & 

Jenk., anamorph: Spaceloma 

mangiferae Bitancourt & Jenk. 

(Ascomycetes: Myriangiales)

Australia, US 

(FL)

F, L No Yes AFFA, 2001; CABI, 2003; 

Cook, 1975; Farr et al., 1989

Epicoccum sp. (Fungi 

imperfecti)

Australia F Yes Yes AFFA, 2001; Farr et al., 

2003

Erythricium salmonicolor (Berk. 

& Broome) Burdsall 

(Basidiomycetes: 

Aphyllophorales) =Corticium 

salmonicolor Berk. & Broome 

=Phanerocheefe salmonicolor 

(Berk. & Broome) Julich., 

anamorph: Necator decretus

Massee)

Australia, US S No No AFFA, 2001; Farr et al., 

1989

Fusarium sp. causing Mango 

Malformation Disease28

Australia29

(DRDPIFR, 

2008; 

Jackson, 

2008), US 

(FL)30

(Perezny and 

Ploetz, 2000, 

Britz et al., 

2002)

F, I, L, S,

R

(Youssef

et al., 

2007)

Yes31 Yes32 DRDPIFR, 2008; Britz et al., 

2002; Jackson, 2008; 

Perezny and Ploetz, 2000; 

Youssef et al., 2007

Fusicoccum sp. (Fungi 

imperfecti)

Australia F, L Yes Yes AFFA, 2001; Farr et al., 

1989

Ganoderma lucidum (Curtis: Fr.) 

P. Karsten (Basidiomycetes: 

Aphyllophorales) =Polyporus 

lucidus (CurtkFr.) Fr.

Australia, US R No No AFFA, 2001; CABI, 2003; 

Farr et al., 1989

 

28 The causal species have not yet been identified in Australia, although it is likely to be in the Gibberella fujikuroi species complex, such 

as Fusarium mangiferae, F. sterilihyphosum, or other unidentified Fusarium sp. (Marasas et al., 2006, Britz et al., 2002).

29 Mango malformation disease (MMD) has limited distribution in Australia and is currently under official control (letter dated July 2008).

30 Fusarium mangiferae causes MMD in Florida (Britz et al., 2002).

31 We lack confirmation on the species of Fusarium causing the disease in Australia, thus we must consider the pathogen to have 

quarantine status. Australia considers F. mangiferae and other Fusarium sp. causing MMD as exotic pests [i.e., not present in Australia, 

or are present but not established and are under an official containment and/or eradication program (DPIF, 2008)]. Of the Fusarium

species reported to be associated with MMD, F. mangiferae occurs in the United States, with a limited distribution in Florida. 

32 Fusarium inoculum is found on the surface of fruits and not in the flesh, seed coats, or seeds (Youssef et al., 2007). Post-harvest 

processing may eliminate Fusarium from the fruit surface if a sanitizing agent, such as sodium hypochlorite is used (Youssef et al., 

2007), but standard practices mention only routine washing.
Pest Risk Assessment for Mangoes from Australia

Ver. 8 June 22, 2011 71

Pest Geographic 

distribution1

Plant part 

affected2

Quarantine pestFollow 

pathway

References

Geotrichum candidum Link

(Fungi imperfecti: 

Hyphomycetes) =Oospora 

lactis (Fresen.) Sacc. 

=Oospora lactis (Fresen.) var 

parasitica Pritchard & Porte, 

teleomorph: Galactomyces 

geotrichum (E.E. Butler & L.J. 

Petersen) Redhead & Malloch

Australia, US F, L No Yes AFFA, 2001; Farr et al., 

1989

Colletotrichum orbiculare (Berk. 

& Mont.) Arx (Fungi 

imperfecti) =Gloeosporium 

lagenarium (Pass.) Sacc.

Australia, US F, L No Yes AFFA, 2001; Farr et al., 

2003

Gloeosporium mangiferae Racib. 

(Fungi imperfecti)

Australia, US 

(FL)

F, L No Yes AFFA, 2001; Farr et al., 

2003

Guignardia mangiferae A.J. Roy 

(Ascomycetes: Dothideales) 

=Phyllosticta 

anacardiacearum Van Der Aa 

(anamorph)

Australia, US 

(FL)

F, L No Yes Farr et al., 2003

Hendersonula sp. (Fungi 

imperfecti)

Australia L, S Yes No AFFA, 2001; Farr et al., 

2003

Hyphopolynema tropicale Nag 

Raj (Ascomycetes: 

Hyphomycetes)

Australia L Yes No AFFA, 2001; Farr et al., 

2003

Lasiodiplodia sp. 1 AU 

(Sakalidis et 

al., 2011)

F, S 

(Sakalidis 

et al., 

2011)

Yes

(since 

species is 

as yet unnamed)

Yes Sakalidis et al., 2011

Lasiodiplodia sp. 2 AU 

(Sakalidis et 

al., 2011)

S 

(Sakalidis 

et al., 

2011)

Yes

(since 

species as 

yet unnamed)

No Sakalidis et al., 2011

Lasiodiplodia hormozganensis

Abdollahzadeh, Zare and 

Phillips

AU 

(Sakalidis et 

al., 2011)

S 

(Sakalidis 

et al., 

2011)

Yes No Sakalidis et al., 2011

Lasiodiplodia iraniensis

Abdollahzadeh, Zare and 

Phillips

AU 

(Sakalidis et 

al.)33

S 

(Sakalidis 

et al., 

2011)

Yes No Sakalidis et al., 2011

 

33 To date, this pathogen has only been recorded from certain areas of Australia, in this instance from Broome and Kununurra (Pavlic et al., 

2008; Sakalidis et al., 2011), although we have no records of extensive surveys of mango orchards throughout Australia. According to a 

letter from the Australian Government, Biosecurity Australia, “Kununurra has large commercial orchards, Broome and Derby only have 

very small hobby orchards (May 27, 2011, Ref # 07/00797).”
Pest Risk Assessment for Mangoes from Australia

Ver. 8 June 22, 2011 72

Pest Geographic 

distribution1

Plant part 

affected2

Quarantine pestFollow 

pathway

References

Lasiodiplodia 

pseudotheobromae Phillips, 

Alves and Crous

AU 

(Sakalidis et 

al.) 34

F, S 

(Sakalidis 

et al., 

2011)

Yes Yes 35 Sakalidis et al., 2011

Lasiodiplodia theobromae (Pat.) 

Griffon & Maubl. (Fungi 

imperfecti) =Botryosphaeria 

theobromae Pat.

Australia, US F, I, L No Yes AFFA, 2001; CABI, 2003; 

Cook, 1975

Macrophomina phaseolina

(Tassi) Goidanich (Fungi 

imperfecti)

Australia, US L, S No No AFFA, 2001; CABI, 2003; 

Farr et al., 2003

Macrophomopsis sp. Australia S Yes No AFFA, 2001

Mortierella sp. (Zygomycetes: 

Mucorales)

Australia R Yes No AFFA, 2001; Farr et al., 

2003

Mucor circinelloides Tiegh. 

(Zygomycetes: Mucorales) 

=Mucor ambiuus Vuill.

Australia, US F No Yes AFFA, 2001; Farr et al., 

2003

Mycotribulus mirabilis Nag Raj 

& Kendrick (Fungi imperfecti)

Australia, US 

(HI)

L Yes No AFFA, 2001; Farr et al., 

2003

Nectria haematococca Berk. & 

Broome (Ascomycete: 

Pyrenomycetales)

Australia, US R No No Farr et al., 1989

Neofusicoccum mangiferae (Syd. 

and Syd.) Crous, Slippers and 

Phillips

AU 

(Sakalidis et 

al., 2011)

F 

(Sakalidis 

et al., 

2011)

Yes Yes Sakalidis et al., 2011

Neofusicoccum ribis (Slippers, 

Crous and Wingf.) Crous, 

Slippers and Phillips

AU, US (Farr 

and 

Rossman, 

2011)

S

(Sakalidis 

et al., 

2011)

No No Sakalidis et al., 2011; Farr 

and Rossman, 2011

Neoscytalidium dimidiatum

(Penz.) Crous and Slippers

AU 

(Sakalidis et 

al.), US (Farr 

and 

Rossman, 

2011)

F, S

(Sakalidis 

et al., 

2011)

No Yes Sakalidis et al., 2011; Farr 

and Rossman, 2011

 

34 This pathogen has only been recorded from certain areas in the Kimberley Region of Western Australia, Broome specifically (Pavlic et 

al., 2008; Sakalidis et al., 2011). According to a letter from the Australian Government, Biosecurity Australia, “Kununurra has large 

commercial orchards, Broome and Derby only have very small hobby orchards (May 27, 2011, Ref # 07/00797).” For this reason, if 

commercial mango fruit do not originate from Broome, then this pathogen would be unlikely to move in trade with mango fruit.

35 Lasiodiplodia pseudotheobromae was shown to infect fruit in artificial inoculations only, and was not collected from naturally infected 

mangoes from Australian orchards (Sakalidis et al., 2011). However, a range of other related species in the Botryosphaeriaceae cause stem 

end rot (SER) of mango, including: Neofusicoccum parvum, N. mangiferae, Botryosphaeria dothidea, and Lasiodiplodia theobromae

(Slippers et al., 2005; Johnson, 2008). These pathogens may become established in mango plants without expressing symptoms, but stress 

or ripening trigger disease development, expressed as SER, cankers, and mango decline (Sakalidis et al., 2011). This newly reported 

pathogen of mango, L. pseudotheobromae, may occupy a similar niche associated with mango in which it switches from quiescent to 

pathogenic in the plant tissue, and may affect a range of plant parts of its host. For this reason, this pathogen is considered to follow the 

pathway with mango fruit in trade. 
Pest Risk Assessment for Mangoes from Australia

Ver. 8 June 22, 2011 73

Pest Geographic 

distribution1

Plant part 

affected2

Quarantine pestFollow 

pathway

References

Neoscytalidium novaehollandia

Pavlic, Burgess and Wingf.

AU 

(Sakalidis et 

al.) 36

F, S

(Sakalidis 

et al., 

2011)

Yes Yes 37 Sakalidis et al., 2011

Nigrospora sp. (Fungi 

imperfecti)

Australia F Yes Yes AFFA, 2001; Farr et al., 

2003

Oidium mangiferae Berthet 

(Fungi imperfecti)

Australia, US 

(CA, FL)

L No No AFFA, 2001; CABI, 2003; 

Cook, 1975; Farr et al., 2003

Oidium sp. (Fungi imperfecti) Australia L Yes No AFFA, 2001; Farr et al., 

2003

Parasympodiella laxa (Subram. 

& Vittal) Ponappa 

(anamorphic Ascomycetes)

Australia S Yes No AFFA, 2001

Penicillium expansum Link 

(Fungi imperfecti) =P. 

glaucum Link

Australia, US F No Yes AFFA, 2001; Farr et al., 

1989

Pestalotiopsis mangiferae 

(Henn.) Steyaert (Fungi 

imperfecti) =Pestalotia 

mangiferae Henn.

Australia, US L No No AFFA, 2001; Farr et al., 

1989

Phellinus linteus (Berk. & M. A. 

Curtis) S. Teng 

(Basidiomycetes: 

Aphyllophorales) =Polyporus 

linteus Berk. & M. A. Curtis)

Australia, US S No No AFFA, 2001; Farr et al., 

1989

Phellinus senex (Nees & Mont.) 

Imazeki (Basidiomycetes: 

Aphyllophorales) =Fomes 

senex (Nees ex Mont.) Cooke

Australia R, S Yes No AFFA, 2001

Phialophora parasitica Ajello et 

al. (Fungi Imperfecti)

Australia, US S No No AFFA, 2001; Farr et al., 

1989

Phomopsis mangiferae Ahmad 

(Fungi imperfecti)

Australia F, L Yes Yes AFFA, 2001; Ploetz et al., 

1996

Phomopsis sp. (Fungi 

imperfecti)

Australia F, L Yes Yes AFFA, 2001; Farr et al., 

1989

 

36 To date, this pathogen has only been recorded from certain areas of Australia, in this instance from Derby and Kununurra (Pavlic et al., 

2008; Sakalidis et al., 2011), although we have no records of extensive surveys of mango orchards throughout Australia. According to a 

letter from the Australian Government, Biosecurity Australia, “Kununurra has large commercial orchards, Broome and Derby only have 

very small hobby orchards (May 27, 2011, Ref # 07/00797).”

37 Neoscytalidium novaehollandia was shown to infect fruit in artificial inoculations only, and was not collected from naturally infected 

mangoes from Australian orchards (Sakalidis et al., 2011). However, a range of other related species in the Botryosphaeriaceae cause stem 

end rot (SER) of mango, including: Neofusicoccum parvum, N. mangiferae, Botryosphaeria dothidea, and Lasiodiplodia theobromae

(Slippers et al., 2005; Johnson, 2008). These pathogens may become established in mango plants without expressing symptoms, but stress 

or ripening trigger disease development, expressed as SER, cankers, and mango decline (Sakalidis et al., 2011). This newly reported 

pathogen of mango, N. novaehollandia, may occupy a similar niche associated with mango in which it switches from quiescent to 

pathogenic in the plant tissue, and may affect a range of plant parts of its host. For this reason, this pathogen is considered to follow the 

pathway with mango fruit in trade. 
Pest Risk Assessment for Mangoes from Australia

Ver. 8 June 22, 2011 74

Pest Geographic 

distribution1

Plant part 

affected2

Quarantine pestFollow 

pathway

References

Phyllosticta sp. (Fungi 

imperfecti)

Australia L Yes No AFFA, 2001; Farr et al., 

1989

Phytophthora nicotianae Breda 

de Haan var. parasitica

(Dastur) G. M. Waterhouse 

(Oomycetes: Peronosporales)

=P. parasitica Dastur

Australia, US F No Yes AFFA, 2001; Farr et al., 

1989

Phytophthora sp. (Oomycetes: 

Peronosporales)

Australia R, S Yes No AFFA, 2001; Farr et al., 

1989

Pithomyces chartarum (Berk. & 

M.A. Curtis) M. A.Ellis 

(Fungi imperfecti) 

=Sporidesmium chartarum 

Berk. & M.A. Curtis 

=Piricauda chartarum (Berk. 

& M.A. Curtis) R.T.

Australia, US F, L No Yes AFFA, 2001; Farr et al., 

1989

Pseudofusicoccum adansoniae

Sakalidis, Hardy, and Burgess

AU 

(Sakalidis et 

al., 2011) 38

F, S Yes Yes 39 Sakalidis et al., 2011

Pseudofusicoccum ardesiacum

Sakalidis, Hardy, and Burgess

AU 

(Sakalidis et 

al., 2011)

S Yes No Sakalidis et al., 2011

Pseudofusicoccum 

kimberleyense Sakalidis, 

Hardy, and Burgess

AU 

(Sakalidis et 

al., 2011)

S Yes No Sakalidis et al., 2011

Pythium splendens H. Braun 

(Oomycetes: Pythiales)

Australia, US L, R, S No No CABI, 2003

Athelia rolfsii (Curzi) Tu & 

Kimbrough (teleomorph) 

(Basidiomycete: 

Aphyllophorales) = Corticium 

rolfsii Curzi = Sclerotium 

rolfsii Sacc. var. delphinii 

(Welch) Boerema & Hamers

Australia, US R, S No No AFFA, 2001; Farr et al., 

1989

 

38 To date, this pathogen has only been recorded from certain areas of Australia, in this instance from Derby and Kununurra (Pavlic et al., 

2008; Sakalidis et al., 2011), although we have no records of extensive surveys of mango orchards throughout Australia. According to a 

letter from the Australian Government, Biosecurity Australia, “Kununurra has large commercial orchards, Broome and Derby only have 

very small hobby orchards (May 27, 2011, Ref # 07/00797).”

39 Pseudofusicoccum adansoniae was shown to infect fruit in artificial inoculations only, and was not collected from naturally infected 

mangoes from Australian orchards (Sakalidis et al., 2011). However, a range of other related species in the Botryosphaeriaceae cause stem 

end rot (SER) of mango, including: Neofusicoccum parvum, N. mangiferae, Botryosphaeria dothidea, and Lasiodiplodia theobromae

(Slippers et al., 2005; Johnson, 2008). These pathogens may become established in mango plants without expressing symptoms, but stress 

or ripening trigger disease development, expressed as SER, cankers, and mango decline (Sakalidis et al., 2011). This newly reported 

pathogen of mango, P. adansoniae, may occupy a similar niche associated with mango in which it switches from quiescent to pathogenic in 

the plant tissue, and may affect a range of plant parts of its host. For this reason, this pathogen is considered to follow the pathway with 

mango fruit in trade.
Pest Risk Assessment for Mangoes from Australia

Ver. 8 June 22, 2011 75

Pest Geographic 

distribution1

Plant part 

affected2

Quarantine pestFollow 

pathway

References

Stemphylium vesicarium (Wallr.) 

E. Simmons (Fungi 

imperfecti)

Australia, US F No Yes AFFA, 2001; Farr et al., 

1989

Stigmina mangiferae (Koorders) 

M.B. Ellis (Fungi imperfecti)

Australia L Yes No AFFA, 2001

Thanatephorus cucumeris (A.B. 

Frank) Donk (Basidiomycetes: 

Tulasnellales) =Corecium 

areolatum Stahel 

=Pellicularia filamentosa 

(Pat.) D.P. Rogers

Australia, US R, S No No AFFA, 2001; Farr et al., 

1989

Verticillium dahliae Kleb. 

(Fungi imperfecti)

Australia, US R No No AFFA, 2001; Farr et al., 

1989

Verticillium sp. (Fungi 

imperfecti)

Australia R Yes No AFFA, 2001; Farr et al., 

1989

NEMATODA

Aphelenchoides sp. 

(Aphelenchida: 

Aphelenchoididae)

Australia R Yes No AFFA, 2001

Hemicriconemoides mangiferae

Slddiqi (Tylenchida: 

Criconematidae) =H. 

birchfieldi Edward et al.

Australia, US R No No AFFA, 2001; SON, 1984

Lelenchus leptosoma Australia R Yes No AFFA, 2001

Meloidogyne sp. (Tylenchilda: 

Meloidogynidae)

Australia R Yes No AFFA, 2001; SON, 1984

Pratylenchus brachyurus

(Godfrey) Filipjev & 

Schuurmans Stekhoven 

(Tylenchida: Pratylenchidae)

Australia, US R No No AFFA, 2001; CABI, 2005

Pratylenchus zeae Graham 

(Tylenchida: Pratylenchidae)

Australia, US R No No AFFA, 2001; SON, 1984

Rotylenchulus reniformis 

Linford & Oliveira 

(Tylenchida: Pratylenchidae)

Australia, US R No No AFFA, 2001; SON, 1984

Tylenchus leptosoma 

(Tylenchida: Pratylenchidae)

Australia R Yes No AFFA, 2001