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

**from Australia into the Continental United States**

**A Pathway -**  **initiated Risk Analysis**

**June 2**  **2 , 2011**  **Version 8** 

**Agency Contact:** Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory C enter 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 27606Pest 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 fro m documents submitted by

Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry of Australia (AFFA), scientific literature, and pest interception records of the United States Department of Agriculture. We anal yz ed 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 pest s 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, thereb y 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 p ests 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 Botryosphaeria ceae ( Lasiodiplodia pseudotheobromae, Neofusicoccum mangiferae, Neoscytalidium novaehollandia, Pseudofusicoccum adansoniae) , and the bacterium, Xanthomonas campestris pv. mangiferaeindicae

. We rated the fun gus , Phomopsis mangiferae , and the as

- yet
-unidentified Fusarium spp. complex associated with mango malformation disease as **Low**
. Detailed examination and choice of appropriate phy tosanitary measures to mitigate pest risk is undertaken as part of the pest risk management phase within APHI S 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 Anal ys is

........... 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. Co ntributors

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

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ . 27 7. Appendices

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 47 Appendix A: Interceptions on mango ................................ ................................ ....................... 47 Appendix B: Pests associated with mango and reported in Australia

................................ ...... 54Pest Risk Assessment for Mangoes from Australia

Ver. 8 June 22, 2011 1 

### 1 **. Introduction 1.1. Background**  This risk assessment was prepared b y 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 L aboratory

(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 mang o, 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 assigne d 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 America n Plant Protection Organization (NAPPO) and the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) provide standards for conducting pest risk anal ys es (IPPC, 2007: I SPM #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 prod uction 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 nearl y 100 percent of commercial mangoes in the continental United States (FDACS, 200 3), 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 m angoes may enter the co ntinental United States with irradiation (PPQ, 200 8 ). **1 .2.**  **Commodity and Import I nformation**  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 mangoesPest 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 ye ar (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 ft 3 ), 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 lb s) (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 T ablelands 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 2 74,794 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 exporte d 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 sa

p contact with the fruit. The first s ys tem 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 finall y destemming b y hand. The second s ys tem entails picking the fruit without stems, dropping the fruit onto a trailer fitted with a tightly stretched canvass , immediatel y 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 toPest Risk Assessment for Mangoes from Australia

Ver. 8 June 22, 2011 3 quality control , labelling , and quarantine certification by AQI S. The export cartons are corrugated cardboard boxes , which are fruit fl y-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 Sty nes, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry , Plant Quarantine Po licy

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 (Im ai, 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 anal ys is 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 W eeds (Holm et al

. , 1979) World’s Worst Weeds (Holm, 1977 ) World Weeds : Natural Histories and Distributio n (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. AGRI COLA, 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**  M ango fruit for consumption may enter the co ntinental United States from four countries in Asia/Oceania (Table 4)

. **3.3 . Pest interceptions**  In Appendi x A , we list the pest interceptions at U.S. ports

- of

- entry on mango from all countries since 1985 (PestID, 2009). F rom 1985 through 200 9, s everal pes ts 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 (APHI S, 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 mangferae indica ." Philippines (Guimaras Island only) 1) vapor heat treatment (T106

- d

- 1) for Bactrocera occipitalis, B. cucurbitae, and B.

philippinensis ; 2) phytosanitary certi ficate 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 (e xcept Palawan) 1) p ermitted 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

- 200 9 ) **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

. Inthis list we identif

y : (1) the presence or absence of these pests in the United States, (2) generall y 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. Th e 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 p resence of this stem cap is necessary to preserv e fruit quality

. Because they are relativel y shortPest Risk Assessment for Mangoes from Australia

Ver. 8 June 22, 2011 5 and in close proximity to the fruit surface, it is highly unlikel y 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 miseran a (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 m ention 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 Mo yhuddin, 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 b y 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 anal ys is, for reasons explained below. For example, some were identified only to the genus level, and the genus in question o ccurs 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 h ave 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 establi sh 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 o r human activity, will not remain with the commodity . In contrast, quarantine pests that are unable to leave the commodity

may have immobile or cry

ptic 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 anal yz e 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., E picoccum 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., Oligo nychus 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 mealy bugs (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 meal ybugs o r thrips are on the fruit at the time of harvest, they would likely

be removed b y this post

- harvest practice. Furthermore, because the cal yxis no longer present on the very short stem (approximately

0.3 to 0.5cm) that ty

pically accompanies commercial mang oes, there are no hiding places for small insects on mangoes. Consequently , washing should remove any mealy bugs and thrips present on the surface of the fruit. Also, we did not further anal yz e the armored scale s identified as quarantine pests likely to fo llow the pathway (i.e., Aulacaspis tubercularis , Pseudaonidia trilobitiformis ) (Hemiptera: Diaspididae) . This was b ecause, 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, APHIS

PPQ operational data, and expert opinion concludes that, even assuming high quantities of imported fruit infested with armored scale species that could be parthenogenic, highl y fecund, poly phagous, invasive, theoreticall y able to survive in most of the United States, and cause high

level consequences, the specific pathway represented by

commerciall y 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 b y 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 deepl y inserted in the host, anchoring them firml y 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 b y the same mitigation strategies. **Table 5.** Quarantine pests of mango anal yz ed 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 ( Coc cidae) Ceroplastes rubens Coccus viridis Fungi Cytosphaera mangiferae Fusarium spp. complex associated with mango malformation disease Lasiodiplodia pseudotheobromae a Neofusicoccum mangiferae a Neoscytalidium novaehollandia a Phomops is mangiferae Pseudofusicoccum adansoniae a Bacteria Xanthomonas campestris pv. mangiferaeindicae a We analy

zed the noted fungi as a group of species in the Botryosphaeria ceae, 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 ). APest 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 availa bility 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 spe cies 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 generall y 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 12,2 81 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 fl y 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. zo natus ) 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, respectivel y (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 ye ar. B ecause 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 ass essment , 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 partiall y or totally destro ys50 percentPest 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 yi eld 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 introdu ced 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 rate d all the Bactrocera fruit fl y species **Hig h**  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 the se fruit fl y 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 Bactr ocera species are all rated High for the Environmental I

mpact risk element.
**Table 6.** The climate

- host interaction risk rating for the Bactrocera fruit fl y species, with geographic distribution and the estimated Plant Hardiness Zones suitable for establi shment **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 I slands, 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. op iliae northern Australia (Hancock et al

. , 2000; White and

Elson

- Harris, 1992) 10 Low (1) B. tryoni Australia, French Pol ynesia, and New Caledonia (CABI,

2005) 9

- 10 Medium (2)

**Table 7.** Evidence for the economic impact risk element for Bactrocera specie s **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

- Harri s (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 are a” (Smith et al

. , 1988). Pest control measures, including field and quarantine treatments, are used for the management of B. aquiloni s (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 occasio nally

attacks litchi, but normally onl y when the skin of the fruit has been damaged b y fruit borers (Biosecurity

Australia, 2002). External damage to the fruit skin is manifested by bruising, necrosis, and oviposition punctures, and internal fruit damage i s caused b y larval tunneling and decay of flesh (CABI, 2005; DBIRD, 2002). This is a “major quarantine pest” (DBIRD, 2002). CERI S (2006) reports at least one country

that lists this species as a quarantine pest

. B. kraussi No information found on economi c impact. B. murrayi No information found on economic impact. B. neohumeralis The host range of B. neohumeralis includes many economicall y important

plants, such as apple, apricot, grapefruit, lemon, mandarin, peach, pear, plum, strawberry , orange, tom ato (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 cause s 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 b y B. tryoni (CABI, 2005). External damage to the fruit skin is manifested by bruising, necrosis, and oviposition punctures, and internal fruit damage is caused b y 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 phy tosanitary measures (such as fumigation, heat treatment, cold treatment, insecticidal dipping, or irradiation) are applied (CABI, 2005). CERI S (2006) reports eleven countries that list this species as a quarantine pest.
**Table 8.** Threatened and Endangered plant species (USFWS, 2006) vulnerable to attack b y the Bactrocera fruit fly

species and present in areas of the contin ental United States with suitable climatic conditions for the fruit fl y 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) andPest 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 (Euphorb iaceae), 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), O

puntia ( Cactaceae ) (Hancock et al

. , 2000) Cucurbita okeechobeensis ssp. okeechobeensis (Cucurbitaceae), Prunus geniculata (Rosaceae) , and Opuntia treleasei ( Cactaceae ) **Species in the Botr y**  **os p**  **haeri a**  **cea e**  **Infecting Mango:** L asiodiplodia pseudotheobromae, Neo fusicoccum 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. W e 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 , ha s only one reported hos t, M. indica , although extensive host range testing has not been conducted (Sakalids et al., 2011) . Thus, we rated thi s 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 infe ction (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 (Cope s and Hendrix, 2004) , we expect related pathogens of mango would have similarly high reproductive potential

. The conidia and ascospores of sp ecies in the Botryosphaeria ceae 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 federall y 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 th ese pest s **Medium** for this risk element.Pest Risk Assessment for Mangoes from Australia

Ver. 8 June 22, 2011 14 **T able 9**  **.** G eographic distribution s for pathogen and hosts, estimated USDA Plant Hardiness Zones suitable for establishment , and environmental hosts impacted by the Botryosphaeriaceae species in fecting 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 a cicularis, 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 o n 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 H awaii (CABI, 2003; Peña and Moy huddin, 1997). The Mediterranean fruit fly clearl y 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 pol yphagous species and its pattern of host relationships from region to region appears to relate largel y to what fruits are available. Hosts include sp ecies in the following families: Annonaceae, Apocyanaceae, Caricaceae, Clusiaceae, Combretaceae, Ebenaceae, Eleocarpaceae, Flacourtiaceae, Juglandaceae, Lauraceae, Malpighiaceae, Moraceae, My rtaceae, Oxalidaceae, Passifloraceae, Proteaceae, Punicaceae, Ros aceae, 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 71.3 0, 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 ( F letcher, 1989 ). InPest Risk Assessment for Mangoes from Australia

Ver. 8 June 22, 2011 15 general, movement is limited to around 200 m, but adults appear to fl y further when released into areas deficient in hosts ( Fletcher, 1989 ). For these reasons, we rated this insect **High**

. Economic Impact. This pest damage s fruit producti on, both in quality and quantity

in Spain. In the earl y part of the 20 th 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 Australi a, 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 medfl y **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 (Lanc e 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

i s found in East and South Asia, throughout Oceania, Australia, East Africa, and the West I ndies (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, 200 6 ) . We rated this risk element **High**

. Host Range
. C

eroplastes 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 (My rtaceae), (CABI , 2005), and Dimocarpus longan (Sapindaceae ) (Li

- zhong, 2000; Ben
- Dov et al., 2004 )

. The h ost 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 photosy nthetic efficiency, causing reduced growth (CABI , 2002). Based on this evidence, if C. rubens should become more widely established in thePest Risk Assessment for Mangoes from Australia

Ver. 8 June 22, 2011 16 US, there would likely

be a lower y

ield 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 poly phagy of this species increases the probability of it attacking plants in the US listed as Threatened or Endangered. I t 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. I t has been reported from I ndia through I ndo

- China, Malaysia to the Philippines and I ndonesia, 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. It s 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 pre sent 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, 200 6 ). 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 ou tside 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 (My rtaceae), 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 virid is is parthenogenic and oviparous (Dekle, 1976). Females may deposit up to 500 eggs (CABI , 2002) , and s everal generations occur per year (Kosztarab, 1997). The rate of natural dispersal is inherently low (Tandon and Veeresh, 1988 ). Between 1985 and 2003 , h owever, C. viridis w as intercepted 10,658 times at U.S. ports of entry (PestID, 2004 ), which strongl y indicates that this species can move long distances on plant materials

. Given these factors , we rated it **High**

. Economic Impact
. Although its economic imp act 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

- Do v, 1993). Coccus viridis is a major pest of coffee in Haiti (Aitken Soux, 1985) and I ndia (Narasimham, 1987). In Brazil, infestations of 50 scales per plant caused significantPest 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 yi eld loss (Williams, 1986). In I ndia, citrus fruit quality

was significantly

lower on trees following C

. viridis infestati on 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 y

ield of host crops, lower value of host crop commodities, and lo ss of foreign or domestic markets. Consequently, C. viridis was rated **High** for the Economic Impact risk element. Environmental Impact. The extreme poly phagy of C

. viridis predisposes it to attack vulnerable native plants in the U.S. The potential host Man ihot 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 t he risk element **High**

. **Cytosphaera mangiferae** Climate

- Host Interaction. Cytosphaera mangiferae is found primarily in tropical regions (MAF, 2003); these regions roughly correspond to the US DA 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 State s (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 pe st **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 In teraction. Mango ( Mangifera indica ) malformation disease (MMD) is reported in India, Israel, Malaysia, Pakistan, Egy pt, 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 onl y on mango (Britz et al

. , 2002; Marasas et al

. , 2006). In the U.S., comm ercial 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 diseas e 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 reall y 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 onl y 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 relativel y 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 b y 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 ty picall y 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 sy mptomatic tissues be removed from trees to reduce inoculum levels in the orchard (Ploetz, 2002). Unl ess 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, sinc e the mango

growing area is so small. Although the Fusarium sp. causing MMD can lower crop yi elds 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** ri sk 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 re ason, 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 onl y 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) report ed “rich fl ying” for S. mangiferae . In ports of entry into the United States near areas of mango cultivation it would be possible for adults to fl y to host trees. The mango weevil has become established in virtually every mango growing area of the world, except in the Canary I slands (Spain), Italy , Israel and Egy pt (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 reduc e 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) rarel y 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 economic all y 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 En vironmental 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 campes tris**  **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, 200 3). 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 onl y species in the famil y 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 yi eld 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 sy mptoms 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 destro ying inoculum sources (pruning), cultural practices (i.e., windbreaks and drip irrigation), and regularl y appl ying copper, which contribute to the cost of production. Although the pathogen can be damaging, commercial mango production in the United States i s limited (Mossler and Nesheim, 2002). Most mangoes in the continental United States are produced in Florida : the value in 1997 w as $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 . N o 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, 200 6 ). Native Anacardiaceae populations, such as poison ivy ( Toxicodendron radicans (L.) Kuntze)), are not expected to bePest 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; NRC S, 200 6 ). 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 Introduction**  **a Climate /**  **Host Host** 

**Range Dispersal** 

**Pot ential**  **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 Botryosphaeria**  **ceae** 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 Lo w 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 (APHI S, 2000). The first is the quantity imported annually

. The five biological factors representPest 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 be ing detected during visual inspection, the likelihood of being imported or subsequentl y 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 1 1 ). **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 (APHI S, 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 postharves t 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 hy pochlorite (Block, 1991), this treatment is not proposed for use (AFFA, 2001 ). A bleach treatment was inef fective 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 b y an efficacious dose of fungicidal agents (Coates et al

. , 1993; Johnson et al

. , 1993). For these reasons we rated the species in the Botryosphaeria ceae , 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 rate d 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 typicall y 10

- 13oC (Knowledge Master, 2003). Under such benign conditions, we expect all of the insect pests to have a **High** probability

of surviving shipment. Th e bacteria Xanthomonas campestris pv. mangiferaeindicae survive epiphy ticall y on fruit, leaves and soil (Pruvost et al

. , 1990; Pruvost and Luisetti, 1991); epiphy tic populations are not detected on s ymptomless mature fruit (Pruvost and Luisetti, 1991). The number of bacterial spotsPest Risk Assessment for Mangoes from Australia

Ver. 8 June 22, 2011 23 occurring on mature fruits is directly related to epiphy

tic 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 partial

pressure infiltration and dip treatments (Plan et al

. , 20 02) 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 particularl y s uitable for preventing pathogen introduction (Youssef et al

. , 2007). Propagules of Fusarium spp. causing MMD in soil lost viabil ity

over time when stored at 14 oC (survived 14.7 to 15 weeks) (Youssef et al

. , 2007), which may

indicate relatively

lengthy survival at cooler temperatures. Mixed population s 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 onl y slow s ymptom expression (John son 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**  M ango seed weevil l arva e feed inside mango seeds (Follett and Gabbard, 2000) and can only be detected b y cutting open the mangoes and seeds. Therefore, we assigned m ango seed weevil a **High** risk. In spectors cutting mango failed to detect larvae of Anastrepha supensa , a fruit fl y in the same famil y 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

wil l be visible on th e outside of the fruit, so we rated them **Low** for this sub

- element

. Some fungi are likel y to be detected at ports of entry when their s ymptoms 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 sy mptom expression, may

lead to increased numbers of infected fruit not being detected. Fusarium spp. associated with MMD do not produce visible sy

mptoms or damage to mature fruit s, 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 s ymptoms of bacterial black spot, caused by Xanthomonas campestris p v. mangiferaeindicae , are likely to be detected at ports of entry when there are obvious external sy mptoms ( Shekhawat and Patel , 1975). S ymptoms 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 epiphy

te has not be en conclusivel y ruled out (Gagnevin and Pruvost, 2001). SincePest Risk Assessment for Mangoes from Australia

Ver. 8 June 22, 2011 24 they may cause s ymptoms 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 ge ographic 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 Botryosphaeria ceae 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 cl imatic 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 fro m houses, compost piles , or garbage to find nearb y 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 fl y to find a host (Balock and Kozuma, 1964), although likel y less so than the fruit flies, and therefore could also escape from houses, compost piles or garbage to find nearb y 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 b y wind (Greathead, 1990; Greathead, 1997), but do not have the capa bility 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. In sects arriving with fruit represent such small populations that dispersal b y 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 pathogen s , only

discarded fruit are likel y t o 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 1**  **1 .**  Summary

of the Risk Ratings for the Likelihood of Introduction. For each pes t, the rating for ‘Quantity imported annually ’ was Medium. **Pest Quantitiy** 

**imported annually**  **Survive**

**postharvest treatment**  **Survive**

**ship**   ** ment** **Not**

**detected at port of**  **entry Move to** 

**suitable habitat**  **Find**

**suitable hosts**  **Risk**

**Rating a**  Bactrocera aquilonis Med ( 2) High (3) High (3) High (3) Low (1) High (3) High ( 1 5 ) Bactrocera cucumis Med (2) High (3) High (3) High (3) Med (2) High (3) High ( 1 6 ) Bactrocera frauenfeldi Med (2) High (3) High (3) High (3) Med (2) High (3) High ( 1 6 ) Bactrocera jarvisi Med (2) High (3) High (3) High (3) Med (2) High (3) High ( 1 6 ) Bactrocera kraussi Med (2) High (3) High (3) High (3) Low (1) High (3) High ( 1 5 ) Bactrocera murrayi Med (2) High (3) High (3) High (3) Low (1) High (3) High ( 1 5 ) Bactrocera neohumeralis Med (2) High (3) High (3) High (3) Med (2) High (3) High ( 1 6 ) Bactrocera opiliae Med (2) High (3) High (3) High (3) Low (1) High (3) High ( 1 5 ) Bactrocera tryoni Med (2) High (3) High (3) High (3) Med (2) High (3) High ( 1 6 ) **Species in the Botryosphaeria** **ceae** Las iodiplodia 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**

**ship**   ** ment** **Not**

**detected at port of**  **entry Move to** 

**suitable habitat**  **Find**

**suitable hosts**  **Risk**

**Rating a** 
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 Lo w = 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 Introdu ction values (Table 1 2 ). 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 ty pically require mitigation measures, other than port of arrival inspection. A Medium rating indicates that specific phy tosanitary measures may

be necessary . A High rating indicates that specific phytosanitary measures, supplemental to port of arrival inspe ction, are strongl y recommended

. Detailed examination and choice of appropriate phy tosanitary measures to mitigate pest risk is undertaken during the pest risk management phase and is not discussed in this document.
**Table 1**  **2 .**  Summary

of the Consequences of Introduction, the Likelihood of Introductio n 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) **Botryosphaeria ceae**  **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) Cytospha era mangiferae Low (7) Medium (12) Medium (19) Fusarium spp. complex associated with mango malformation disease Low (6) Medium ( 11 ) Low (1 7 ) Phomopsis mangiferae Low (6) Medium (12) Low (18) Sternochetus mangiferae Low (7) Medium (13) Medium (20) Xa nthomonas campestris pv. mangiferaeindicae Low ( 8 ) Medium (12) Medium ( 20 )

a Lo w 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, P h.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 econo mic 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. AF FA. 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 Y ork. 635 pp. Aitken Soux, P. 1985. Some pests and diseases generall y 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 da ci 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 m anagement. St. Lucie Press, Delray

Beach, Florida. Anony mous. 1965. A host list of the insects of Thailand. Thailand Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Operations Mission to Thailand. 149 pp. APHI S. 2009. Fruits and Vegetables Import Requirements (FAVIR) Database. United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHI S). https://epermits.aphis.usda.gov/manual/index.cfm?ACTION=pubHome. (Archived at PERAL). Arnett, R. H. J. 2000. American Insects. A Handbook of the Insec ts 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. 2 000a. 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: Platy

podidae and Scol ytidae) of tropical southern Florida. Florida Entomologist 77(3):313

- 329. Atwall, A

. S. 1976. Agricultural Pests of India and South

- East Asia. Kal yan i 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 C itrus: Summary , Conclusions and Recommendations of the 1997

- 2000 Kell y'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 Soc iety 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. Egy ptian Journal of Agricultural Research 78(4):1525

- 1540. Beaver, R
. A. 1976. Biological studies of Braz ilian Scoly tidae and Platy

podidae (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 I sland and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands, Indian Ocean. Australian Entomologist 31(3):93

- 102. Ben
- Dov, Y. 1993. A s ys tematic 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 s ys tematic catalogue of the mealy bugs 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. 200 4 . 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 Prosp ects of Agricultural Research and Development in North East India, Assam Agricultural University , Jorhat, India, 27

- 28 November 1995. Agricultural Science Society of North

East India; Jorhat; India. Biosecurity Australia. 2002. Technical Market Access Submission: Export of Australian Tropical Fruits to USA (report submitted to USDA

- APHI S 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. 199 8. 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 B race 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 L iparetrus. 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 contro l of mango planthopper Colgaroides acuminata (Walker)

- (Hemiptera: Flatidae) in north Queensland. Plant Protection Quarterl y 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. M ango: 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. 200 7 . Crop Protection Compendium. CAB International (CABI), Wallingford, Oxo n, 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 anal ys is 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, S ys tematic Entomology L aboratory . 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: Descrip tions, Illustrations, Identification, and In formation Retrieval. Version: 8th Augu st 2002. http://www.sel.barc.usda.gov/Diptera/tephriti/pests/adults/. CERI S. 2006. Export Certification Project

- EXCERPT. The Center for Environmental and Regulatory

Information Systems (CERI S), 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 dise ase 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, 2 008, 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. M iller. 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_DI SEASE_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. Rey nes, and G. Loiseau. 2005. Evaluation of lactoperoxidase s ys tem treatment to reduce anthracnose, stem

- end rot, and bacterial black spot develop ment 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 mealy

bug, Pseudococcus comstocki (Kuwana) (Homoptera: Pseudoco ccidae). 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, Das yc hiridae. Monographs on Australian Lepidoptera 4:275

- 277. EPPO. 2006. Bactrocera invadens (Diptera: Tephritidae). A new fruit fl y 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 Phy topathological 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, S ys tematic Mycology and Microbiology

L aboratory

. 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. Unite d States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, S ys tematic Mycology and Microbiology

L aboratory

. http://nt.ars

- grin.gov/fungaldatabases/ . (Archived at PERAL). Farr, D. F., and A. Y. Rossman. 2011. Fungal Databases, S ys tematic M yco logy and Microbiology

L aboratory, ARS, USDA Last accessed May 27, 2011 at http://nt.ars

grin.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 (Ly mantriidae: Lepidoptera), a new pest on mango in Uttar Pradesh Current Science 58(22):1258

- 1260. FDACS. 2003. Florida farm co mmodities: tropical fruit. Flori da Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS) , Division of Marketing and Development. http://www.fl

ag.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 Sy mposium, 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/re ader/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: Scoly tidae), A Key

hole Ambrosia Beetle. Forest and Timber Insects in New Zealand No. 39. Froud, K

. J., P
. S. Stevens, and D. Stevens. 2001. Survey o f alternative host plants for Kell y'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 (I soptera: 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 fl y (Diptera: Tephritidae) infestations by

fruit dissection. Florida Entomologist 78(3):502

- 507. Gould, W.P. 1995b. Probability of detecting Carribbean fruit fl y (Diptera: Tephritidae) in festations 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 mealy bugs (Homoptera: Pseudococcidae). Journal of Economic Entomology

93(3):10 17

- 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 b ehaviour 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 (Thys anoptera) 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 b y soft green scale and sooty mould. South Indi an 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) (H omoptera: 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 Departm ent of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Gainesville. 194 pp. Hancock, D.L., E.L. Hamacek, A.C. Llo yd, 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. Hawaii an 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. H assan, 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 11 0(2):58

- 65. Herbison

- Evans, D., and S. Crossley . 2003. Caterpillars, especiall y 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 Bor neo: 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 distributio n. 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. I smail, research scientist, Florida Department of Citrus, to Drs. Attaway , J.A., executive director of thePest 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. 2 008. 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_DI SPLAY,F2400_P1202_PUB_MAIL_ID:X,71616. Jacobsen, C.M., and A.H. Hara. 2003. Irradiation of Maconellicoccus hirsutus (Homoptera: Pseudococcidae) for phyt osanitation 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 S tudies 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 dis ease 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 b y 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. Lyo n. 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 Technol ogy 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 Phy topathology

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 No vember 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 b iology 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 ins ects: 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 Dacus

cucurbitae Diptera Try

petidae. 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 Y ork. 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 disinfestati on of lightbrown apple moth ( Epiphyas postvittana ) and longtailed meal y bugPest 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 P ress, 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 fl y 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. Stansl y. 2000. Insecticidal activity of surfactants and oils against silverle af whitefly ( Bemisia argentifolii) ny

mphs (Homoptera: Aley

rodidae) 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 Australi a: history , current perspective and future prospects. Sy mposium on insect eucal ypt interactions, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research ( CSIRO ) Discovery , Canberra, Australia, 7 8 February 2000. Au stral Ecology

. 26 (5): 458

- 466
. Lyal, C.H.C. 1993. Cry

ptorhy nchinae (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

- mango datasheets

- 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, APHI S

- PPQ, concerning "New invasive Bactrocera invadens officiall y 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. Phy topathology 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 Haw aii. http://www.extento.hawaii.edu/kbase/crop/Ty pe/achaea.htm. Mau, R.F.L., and J.L . Martin Kessing. 1992 b

. Crop Knowledge Master : Ceratitis capitata (Wiedemann). University of Hawaii

. http://www.extento.hawaii.edu/kbase/crop/Ty pe/ceratiti.htm.Pest Risk Assessment for Mangoes from Australia

Ver. 8 June 22, 2011 39 Merkl, O. 1 987. 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. Mohy uddin, A.I., and R. Mahmood. 1993. Integrated control of mango pest s 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 20 02]). 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 Aley rodidae (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. Thys anoptera. 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 phy

tophagous 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 meal y 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. Unite d 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 phy tosanitary 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 meal ybugs on coffee, tea and cardamom and their natural enemies. Journal of Coffee Research 17(1):7

- 13. Nauman, I.D. 1991. Hy

menoptera. 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. Ne al, 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 NI S. 2003a. Personal communication (Email August 4, 2003) from USDA

- APHI S

- PPQ National Id entification Services (NI S) to Leah Millar, Entomologist, USDA

- APHIS

- PPQ

- CPHST Plant Epidemiology

and Risk Analysis Laboratory NI S. 2003b. Personal communication (Email September 5, 2003) from USDA

- APHIS

- PPQ National Identification Services (NI S) to Leah Millar, Entomologist, USDA

- APHIS

PPQ

- CPHST Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory

. NI S. 2004a. Personal communication (Email February 3, 2004) from USDA

- APHIS

- PPQ National Identification Services (NI S) to Marina Zlotina, USDA

- APHI S

- PPQ

- CPHST Plant Epidemiology

and Risk Analysis Laboratory

. NI S. 2004b. Personal Communication (Email February 24, 2004) from USDA

- APHIS

- PPQ National Identification Services (NI S) to Leah Millar, Entomologist, USDA

- APHIS

PPQ

- CPHST Plant Epidemiology and Risk Anal ys is Laboratory

. NI S. 2004c. Personal communication (Email, February 25, 2004) from USDA

- APHI S

- PPQ National Identification Services (NI S) to Marina Zlotina, USDA

- APHI S

- PPQ

- CPHST Plant Epidemiology

and Risk Analysis Laboratory

. NI S. 2004d. Personal communication (Email, June 14, 2004) from USDA

- APHI S

- PPQ National Id entification Services (NI S) to Marina Zlotina, USDA

- APHIS

- PPQ

- CPHST Plant Epidemiology

and Risk Analysis Laboratory

. NI S. 2006a. Personal communication (Email, February 23, 2006) from USDA

- APHI S

- PPQ National Identification Services (NI S) to Kenneth Lakin, USDA

- APHIS

- PPQ

- C PHST Plant Epidemiology

and Risk Analysis Laboratory

. NI S. 2006b. Personal communication (Email, October 12, 2006) from USDA

- APHIS

- PPQ National Identification Services (NI S) to Leah Millar, USDA

- APHIS

- PPQ

- CPHST Plant Epidemiology

and Risk Analysis Laborato ry . NI S. 2006c. Personal communication (Email, October 12, 2006) from USDA

- APHIS

- PPQ National Identification Services (NI S) 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?sy mbol=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&famil yc ateg 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. M yco logia 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 M ango. 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. Phy

tosanitary 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 Pla nt 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 Try petinae (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 P lant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine , Center for Plant Health Science and Technology , Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory (PERAL)

. PestID. 2 006 . 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. 200 8 . 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

- 11 4. 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 o f 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 VI I International Mango S ymposium 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 Sy mposium (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 Phy topathological 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 Fl y S ys tems Approach to Support the Movement of Regulated Articles between Mexico and the United States. United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and P lant 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, update d November 1, 2006. Plant Protection and Quarantine, 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/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 I sland. 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 . Epiphy tic survival of X. c. pv. mangiferaeindicae on mango fruits in relatio n to disease development. Journal of Phy topathology

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 Butterfl y Caterpillars of the Oriental Region. The National History Museum Publishing, London. 744 pp. Robins on, 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

. (Archive d 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 b y 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 dy namics 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. Facto rs 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

- 83Pest Risk Assessment for Mangoes from Australia

Ver. 8 June 22, 2011 44 Sar, S., S. Balagawi, A. Mararuai, and D. Putulan. 2001. Fruit fl y 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 In formation Resource, Texas A & M University

. http://aggie

horticulture.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 1 481

- 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 b y 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):4 02

- 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. S outh, 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, Luckno w; 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. Lepidop terous 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/Ty pe/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/Ty pe/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/Ty pe/h_biclav.htm. Thomas, P., A. Kannan, V.H. Degwekar, and M.S. Ramamurthy . 1995. Non

- destructive detection of seed weevil

- infested mango fruits b y 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 ) : 44 51

- 4464 ( January 27, 2006 )

. Urbez

- Torres, J.R., G.M. L eavitt, T.M. Voegel, and W.D. Gubl er. 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 Fl y. 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 acces sed 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_publ ic/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. Evenhui s. 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 Australi a, Australian Government, to Michael A. Guidicipietro, Acting Assistant Deputy Administrator, USDA

- APHI S

- PPQ, regarding "export of fresh mango fruit to USA" Personal communication to on fromPest 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 N o. 29. White, I ., and M.M. Elson

- Harris. 1992. Fruit Flies of Economic Significance: Their Id entification and Bionomics. CAB International, Redwood Press, Ltd., Melksham, U.K. 601 pp. Williams, D.J. 1986. Scale insects (Homoptera: Coccoidea) on coffee in P apua 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 Scoly tidae and Platy

podidae (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. May wald, 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. May

mon, 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 Egy pt. Plant Pathology

56:257

- 263. Yunus, A., and T. H. Ho. 1980. List of economic pests, host plants, para sites 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 b y treatment with sodium hy pochlorite. Journal of Phy topathology

1 31(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 , f rom 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**  **Other 1**  **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** Aeo lus 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 R

ussell (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** An astrepha 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** Aonidi ella 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 2 0 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**  **Other 1**  **Total** Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel) (Tephritidae) 282 **282** Bactrocera sp. (Tephritidae) 172 **172** Bagisara graellsii (Feisthamel) (Noctuidae) 2 **2** Batocera sp. (Cerambyc idae) 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** Chrys omphalus 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** C occus 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**  **Other 1**  **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** Diabrotic a 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** Dipha ulaca 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. (Ps eudococcidae) 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**  **Other 1**  **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** H yperodes 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 o f 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** Microcent

rum 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**  **Other 1**  **Total** Minthea rugicollis (Walker) (Bostrichidae) 1 **1** Miridae, species of 1 **1** Mycetaspis sp. (Diaspididae) 1 **1** Neopamera sp. (Rhy

parochromidae) 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) (Diaspidida e) 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** Plano coccoides 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**  **Other 1**  **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** Stemphyliu m 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**  **Other 1**  **Total** Tarsonemus sp. (Tarsonemi dae) 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 B**  **1** . Pests associated with mango and reported in Australia. **Pest Geographic**  **d istribution**  **1 Plant**  **p art** 

**a ffected** **2 Quar**  **an**  

** tine p** **est Follow** 

**p athway**  **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 Mast er, 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 Bo czek, 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 = rootPest Risk Assessment for Mangoes from Australia

Ver. 8 June 22, 2011 55 **Pest Geographic**  **d istribution**  **1 Plant**  **p art** 

**a ffected** **2 Quar**  **an**  

** tine p** **est Follow** 

**p athway**  **References Acari:**  **Tetranychidae** Oligo nychus 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, 1 997; 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 Tetran ychus 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

. bih arensis 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**  **d istribution**  **1 Plant**  **p art** 

**a ffected** **2 Quar**  **an**  

** tine p** **est Follow** 

**p athway**  **References Coleoptera:**  **Chrysomelidae** Haltica corrusca Erichson Australia L Y es 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, 2 001 Idotasia aequalis Pascoe Australia non selective Yes 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 non selective Yes 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, 200 3; 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 W e assumed that the feeding behavior of Eutyrhinus sp. on mango is the same as that of E

. meditabundus (AFFA, 2001; Hawkeswoo d, 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), wefound no specific information. 7 Most Liparetrus spp. feed on flowers or leaves (Lawson and King, 2003; Loch and Floyd, 2001), so this pest i s unlikely to follow the pathway. We found no specific information fo r it or it s synonyms, L
. fallax and L
. micans (Britton, 1980).Pest Risk Assessment for Mangoes from Australia

Ver. 8 June 22, 2011 57 **Pest Geographic**  **d istribution**  **1 Plant**  **p art** 

**a ffected** **2 Quar**  **an**  

** tine p** **est Follow** 

**p athway**  **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 non selective Yes 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 Peñ a 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 fun gi (Lawrence and Britton, 1991). We found no specific information on this spe cies 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 f lies (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 con sumption. 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**  **d istribution**  **1 Plant**  **p art** 

**a ffected** **2 Quar**  **an**  

** tine p** **est Follow** 

**p athway**  **References Diptera:**  **Muscidae** Atherigona orientalis Schiner Australia, US F , L , S No Yes CABI, 2003; Hill, 1994 **Hemipte ra:**  **Aleyrodidae** Aleurocanthus woglumi Ashby Australia (Christmas Island) , US (HI, FL, TX) L [ Yes ] 1 0 No Bellis et al., 2004 ; Mound and Halsey, 1978 ; CABI, 2007 Aleurodicus destructor Mackie Australia L Yes No AFFA, 2001 ; CABI, 2003 Aleurodicus disp ersus 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 ; Le e 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**  **d istribution**  **1 Plant**  **p art** 

**a ffected** **2 Quar**  **an**  

** tine p** **est Follow** 

**p athway**  **References** Ceroplastes destructor (Newstead) Australia L Yes No AFFA, 2001 ; CABI, 2003 Ceroplastes rubens Maskell Australia, US (FL) S , L , F [Yes] 1 0 Yes Ben
-Dov et al., 2004; Butani, 1993; CABI, 2003; Peña and Moyhuddin, 1997; Srivas tava, 1997 Coccus viridis (Green) Australia, US (FL, HI) S , L , F [Yes] 1 0 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] 1 0 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 1 1 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**  **d istribution**  **1 Plant**  **p art** 

**a ffected** **2 Quar**  **an**  

** tine p** **est Follow** 

**p athway**  **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 dest

ructor 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] 1 0 Yes 12 Butani, 1993; CABI, 2003; Cunningham, 1991; Peña, 1993; PestID, 2006 Aulacaspis sp. Australia S , L , F Yes Yes 1 2 Cunningham, 1991 Chrysomphalus aonidum (L.) Australia, US S , L , F No Yes AFFA, 2001 ; Butani, 1993; CABI, 2003; Peña, 1993 Ch rysomphalus 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, 199 2a 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 Mill er, 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 Mo yhuddin, 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 scale s (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**  **d istribution**  **1 Plant**  **p art** 

**a ffected** **2 Quar**  **an**  

** tine p** **est Follow** 

**p athway**  **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] 1 0 Yes 1 2 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 1 1 AFFA, 2001 ; Brown, 1991; Peña and Moyhuddin, 1997; Smith, 1998 Colgaroides sp. Australia I , F Yes No 1 1 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 non selective Yes No 1 1 AFFA, 2001 **Hemiptera: Margarodidae**  Drosicha stebbingi (Green) Australia S , L Yes No AFFA, 2001 ; Butani, 1993; CABI, 2003; Cunningham, 1984; Singh, 1993; Veeresh, 1988Pest Risk Assessment for Mangoes from Australia

Ver. 8 June 22, 2011 62 **Pest Geographic**  **d istribution**  **1 Plant**  **p art** 

**a ffected** **2 Quar**  **an**  

** tine p** **est Follow** 

**p athway**  **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., 200 8; CABI, 2007; PPQ, 2002 **Hemiptera: Miridae**  Campylomma liebknechti Girault Australia I , L , F Yes No 1 1 AFFA, 2001 ; CSIRO/AFFA, 2002; Fletcher, 1997 Helopeltis clavifer (Walker) Australia F , L , S Yes No 1 1 AFFA, 2001 ; CABI, 2003; Stonedahl, 1991 He lopeltis sp. Australia non selective Yes No 1 1 AFFA, 2001 Taylorilygus pallidulus (Blanchard) Australia, US F , L No No 1 1 AFFA, 2001 ; Hill, 1994; Snodgrass et al

. , 1984; South et al

. , 1993 **Hemiptera: Pentatomidae**  Piezodorus hybneri (Gmelin) Austral ia F , S Yes No 1 1 AFFA, 2001 ; CABI, 2003 Plautia affinis Dallas Australia F , L , S Yes No 1 1 AFFA, 2001 ; Fletcher, 1997; Peña and Moyhuddin, 1997 **Hemiptera: Plataspididae**  Coptosoma sp. Australia non selective Yes No 1 1 AFFA, 2001 **Hemiptera: Pseudoc**  **occidae** 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 1 4 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] 1 0 No 1 4 Ben
-Dov et al., 2004; CABI, 2003 Nipaecoccus viridis (Newstead) Australia, US (HI) F , L , S Yes No 1 4 AFFA, 2001 ; Ben
-Dov et al., 2004 ; CABI, 2003 Planococcus citri (Risso) Australia, US F , S , R No No 1 4 Ben
-Dov et al., 2004; CABI, 2003

13 T he 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 onc e on commercial fruit (PestID, 2008). W e 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). W ashing (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 . T he 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 ) remove s this pest from the pathway.Pest Risk Assessment for Mangoes from Australia

Ver. 8 June 22, 2011 63 **Pest Geographic**  **d istribution**  **1 Plant**  **p art** 

**a ffected** **2 Quar**  **an**  

** tine p** **est Follow** 

**p athway**  **References** Planococcus minor (Maskell) Australia, U S (Virgin Isls.) F , L , R , S Yes No 1 4 Ben
-Dov, 1994; Ben

-Dov et al., 2004; CABI, 2003; Peña et al

. , 2002 **Hymenoptera: Anthrophoridae** Xylocopa bryorum Fabricius Australia non selective Yes No 15 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 ; Herbison

Evans and Crossley., 2003; Holloway, 1996 Gymnoscelis lophopus Turener Australia I , L Yes No AFFA, 2001 ; Herbis on Evans 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 me mbers excavate cavities in dead woo d and feed on pollen and nectar (Nauman, 1991).Pest Risk Assessment for Mangoes from Australia

Ver. 8 June 22, 2011 64 **Pest Geographic**  **d istribution**  **1 Plant**  **p art** 

**a ffected** **2 Quar**  **an**  

** tine p** **est Follow** 

**p athway**  **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 non selective Yes Yes AFFA, 2001 Lyma ntria lunata Stoll (= L. diversa, Pegella diversa ) Australia F , I , L Yes No 16 AFFA, 2001 ; CABI, 2003; Edwards, 1996; Herbison

Evans and Crossley , 2003 Orgyia australis (Walker) (= O

. postica (Walker)) Australia F , I , L Yes No 17 AFFA, 2001 ; CABI, 2003; Fasih et al

. , 1989; Gupta and Singh, 1986; Herbison

Evans and Crossley., 2003 **Lepidoptera: Noctuidae**  Achaea janata (Linnaeus) Australia, US (HI) F , I , L Yes No 18 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) Austral ia, US (HI) F Yes No 19 AFFA, 2001 ; CABI, 2003; Herbison

- Evans and Crossley., 2003; Waite, 2002a Eudocima materna (Linnaeus) Australia F Yes No 19 AFFA, 2001 ; CABI, 2003; Herbison

- Evans and Crossley., 2003; Waite, 2002a Eudocima salaminia (Cramer) Australia F Yes No 19 AFFA, 2001 ; CABI, 2003 Herbison

- Evans and Crossley., 2003; Waite, 2002a Eudocima tyrannus (Guenée) Australia F Yes No 19 AFFA, 2001 ; CABI, 2003

16 Lymantria lunata is unlikely to follow the pathway because members of this genus are typ ically 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 feed s 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 becaus e 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**  **d istribution**  **1 Plant**  **p art** 

**a ffected** **2 Quar**  **an**  

** tine p** **est Follow** 

**p athway**  **References** Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner) (= Heliothis armigera Hübner) Australia F , L Yes No 20 Butani, 1993; CABI, 2003 PestID, 2006 Homodes bracteigutta (Walker) (= Lophoruza chalcocosma ) Australia F , L 12 Yes No 21 Butani, 1993; Herbison

Evans 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 No 22 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 No 23 CABI, 2003 Cateremna quadriguttella Walker Australia I , F Yes No 24 AFFA, 2001 ; Storey and Rogers, 1980 Cryptoblabes adoceta Turner Australia I Yes No AFFA, 2001 Ephestia sp. Australia non selective Yes Yes AFFA, 2001 Scirpophaga excerp talis (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 No 25 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 behave s like other Catocalinae members, which often feed on fo l i age as larvae , and pierce fruit as adults (Nielson and Common, 1991). T herefore , H. bracteigutta is unlikely to follow the pathway because minimal processing would likely remove the adult bef ore 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 produc t pest (CABI, 2003) that is unlikely to be associated with fresh mango. 24 Although larvae of C

. quadriguttella feed on litchi seed s 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**  **d istribution**  **1 Plant**  **p art** 

**a ffected** **2 Quar**  **an**  

** tine p** **est Follow** 

**p athway**  **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] 1 0 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 No 14 , 26 CABI, 2003; Clark, 2005; Hodges et al

. , 2005; Lee and Wen, 1982; PestID, 2006 Selenothrips rubrocinctus (Giard) Australia, US L , F No No 1 4 Peña and Moyhuddin, 1997 Thrips hawaiiensis (Morgan) Australia, US F , I No No 1 4 CABI, 2003 Thrips imaginis Bagnall Australia I Yes No AFFA, 2001 Thrips palmi Karny Australia, U S (CA, FL, HI, TX) F , I [Yes] 1 0 No 1 4 CABI, 2003 Thrips sp. Australia I Yes No AFFA, 2001 Thrips tabaci Lindeman Australia, US F , I , L , S No No 1 4 CABI, 2003 **BACTERIA** Agrobacterium tumefaciens Aus tralia, 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), wefound no other report that mango is a host

. 26 T he 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**  **d istribution**  **1 Plant**  **p art** 

**a ffected** **2 Quar**  **an**  

** tine p** **est Follow** 

**p athway**  **References** Erwinia carotovora subsp. carotovora Australia, US F , L No Yes Agrios, 1997 ; Bradbury, 1986 Pseudomonas syringae van Hall, (Pseudo monadaceae) 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 Y es No AFFA, 2001 ; Farr et al

. , 1989 Athelia rolfsii (Curzi) Tu & Kim brough (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

. , 2003Pest Risk Assessment for Mangoes from Australia

Ver. 8 June 22, 2011 68 **Pest Geographic**  **d istribution**  **1 Plant**  **p art** 

**a ffected** **2 Quar**  **an**  

** tine p** **est Follow** 

**p athway**  **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; Urbez

Torres 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 No 27 Yes AFFA, 2001

C ladosporium 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 castaneic ola (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, 20 06). This fungu s 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**  **d istribution**  **1 Plant**  **p art** 

**a ffected** **2 Quar**  **an**  

** tine p** **est Follow** 

**p athway**  **References** Crinitospora pulchra Sutton & Alcorn Australia L , S Yes No AFFA, 200 1 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
Curvu laria 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 radico la 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

. , 1996Pest Risk Assessment for Mangoes from Australia

Ver. 8 June 22, 2011 70 **Pest Geographic**  **d istribution**  **1 Plant**  **p art** 

**a ffected** **2 Quar**  **an**  

** tine p** **est Follow** 

**p athway**  **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 D isease 28 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) Yes 31 Yes 32 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

. , 19 89

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 di stribution 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 con sider 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 S tates , 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**  **d istribution**  **1 Plant**  **p art** 

**a ffected** **2 Quar**  **an**  

** tine p** **est Follow** 

**p athway**  **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 un
named) Yes Sakalidis et al., 2011

Lasiodiplodia sp. 2 AU (Sakalidis et al., 2011) S

(Sakalidis et al., 2011) Yes

( since species as yet un
named) 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 (P avlic 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**  **d istribution**  **1 Plant**  **p art** 

**a ffected** **2 Quar**  **an**  

** tine p** **est Follow** 

**p athway**  **References** Lasiodiplodia pseudotheobromae Phil lips, 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 N o 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 th e 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 v ery 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 Botryosphaeriace ae 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 diseas e 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 pla

nt 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**  **d istribution**  **1 Plant**  **p art** 

**a ffected** **2 Quar**  **an**  

** tine p** **est Follow** 

**p athway**  **References** Neoscytalidium novaehollandia Pavlic, Burgess and Wingf. AU (Sakalidis et al.) 36 F, S

(Sakalidis e t 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 Aus tralia, 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 f rom Derby and Kununurra (P avlic 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 f

rom A ustralian 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 c onsidered to follow the pathway with mango fruit in trade.Pest Risk Assessment for Mangoes from Australia

Ver. 8 June 22, 2011 74 **Pest Geographic**  **d istribution**  **1 Plant**  **p art** 

**a ffected** **2 Quar**  **an**  

** tine p** **est Follow** 

**p athway**  **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
Pseudo fusicoccum 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 & Kim brough (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 (P avlic 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**  **d istribution**  **1 Plant**  **p art** 

**a ffected** **2 Quar**  **an**  

** tine p** **est Follow** 

**p athway**  **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 T hanatephorus 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 Prat ylenchus 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 renifo rmis Linford & Oliveira (Tylenchida: Pratylenchidae) Australia, US R No No AFFA, 2001; SON, 1984 Tylenchus leptosoma (Tylenchida: Pratylenchidae) Australia R Yes No AFFA, 2001