1

United States Department of Agriculture

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

Plant Protection and Quarantine

Importation of Fresh Mango (Mangifera indica) 

Fruit from Australia into the

Continental United States

Risk Management Document

May 31, 2012

United States Department of Agriculture

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

Agency Contact: Paul.Gadh@aphis.usda.gov
2

Introduction

The Government of Australia requested permission to import mango (Mangifera indica 

L.) fruit into the continental United States. Mangoes are currently enterable into the 

United States from India, Mexico, Philippines, Thailand, Taiwan, and countries in 

Central and South America (7 CFR 319.56), and from the State of Hawaii (7 CFR 

318.13-4f) after treatment with hot water, vapor heat or irradiation (USDA, 2011b).

Mangoes have not been imported from Australia before, so a pathway-initiated 

commodity risk assessment was conducted. A list of mango pests in Australia was 

prepared based on (1) documents submitted by the Government of Australia, (2) United 

States Department of Agriculture (USDA)’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 

(APHIS) records of intercepted pests, and (3) scientific literature. The pest risk 

assessment (PRA) document, Importation of Fresh Fruit of Mango, Mangifera indica L.,

from Australia into the Continental United States identified thirteen insects, six fungi 

and one bacterium likely to follow the pathway of fresh mango fruit from Australia 

(USDA, 2011a). The assessment is based on the assumption that, as part of standard 

post-harvest practices, the mangoes are cleaned and washed in packing houses for sap 

removal and quality enhancement (USDA, 2011a).

Insects:

Bactrocera aquilonis (May) (DIPTERA:Tephritidae)

Bactrocera cucumis (French) (DIPTERA:Tephritidae)

Bactrocera frauenfeldi (Schiner) (DIPTERA:Tephritidae)

Bactrocera jarvisi (Tryon) (DIPTERA:Tephritidae)

Bactrocera kraussi (Hardy) (DIPTERA:Tephritidae)

Bactrocera murrayi (Perkins) (DIPTERA:Tephritidae)

Bactrocera neohumeralis (Hardy) (DIPTERA:Tephritidae)

Bactrocera opiliae (Drew and Hardy) (DIPTERA:Tephritidae)

Bactrocera tryoni (Froggatt) (DIPTERA:Tephritidae)

Ceratitis capitata Wiedemann (DIPTERA:Tephritidae)

Ceroplastes rubens Maskell (HEMIPTERA:Coccidae)

Coccus viridis (Green) (HEMIPTERA:Coccidae)

Sternochetus mangiferae (F.) (COLEOPTERA:Curculionidae)

Fungi:

Cytosphaera mangiferae Died.

Lasiodiplodia pseudotheobromae A.J.L. Phillips, A. Alves & Crous

Neofusicoccum mangiferae (Syd. & P. Syd.) Crous, Slippers & A.J.L. Phillips

Neoscytalidium novaehollandiae Pavlic, T.I. Burgess & M.J. Wingf.

Phomopsis mangiferae S. Ahmad

Pseudofusicoccum adansoniae Pavlic, T.I. Burgess & M.J. Wingf.

Bacteria:

Xanthomonas campestris pv. mangiferaeindicae

(Patel et al.) Robbs et al. (Xanthomonadales: Xanthomonadaceae)
3

The PRA of mangoes from Australia determined that risk is high for Ceratitis capitata

and the nine fruit flies in the genus Bactrocera; medium for Ceroplastes rubens, Coccus 

viridis, Cytosphaera mangiferae, Lasiodiplodia pseudotheobromae, Neofusicoccum 

mangiferae, Neoscytalidium novaehollandiae, Pseudofusicoccum adansoniae,

Sternochetus mangiferae, and Xanthomonas campestris pv. mangiferaeindicae; and low

for Phomopsis mangiferae.

According to APHIS pest risk assessment guidelines (USDA, 2000): for pests rated high, 

specific measures beyond port of entry inspection are strongly recommended; for pests 

rated medium, specific measures beyond port of entry inspections may be necessary; and 

for pests rated as low, specific measures beyond port of entry inspections are not 

required. So, we are not recomending any specific mitigation measure Phomopsis 

mangiferae.

On April 12, 2012 APHIS National Inspection Service concluded that Coccus viridis

(green scale) no longer requires action at the ports of entry (USDA, 2012). The pest was 

evaluated through the Federally Recognized State Managed Phytosanitary Program 

(FRSMP). The National Plant Board concurred with the decision to stop taking action on 

this pest at the port of entry. Therefore no mitigations are needed for Coccus viridis on 

fresh mango from Australia.

Australia proposed to treat mangoes with an APHIS-approved irradiation treatment that 

would mitigate pathway risks from the targeted insect pests, continue applying postharvest washing and cleaning practices that would mitigate risks from scale insects, and 

apply additional measures to mitigate risks from pathogens and other pests as required by 

APHIS. All fruit flies and the mango seed weevil (Sternochetus mangiferae) will be 

effectively neutralized1 with the irradiation dose of 300 Gy (USDA, 2006; Follett, 2001). 

The soft scale Ceroplastes rubens is surface pest which is readily visible upon inspection, 

so no measures other than standard culling practices in Australia and inspection (both in 

Australia and at the United States port of entry) will necessary to remove this pest from 

the pathway. Australia has proposed that some areas of Australia are free of the mango 

seed weevil. For areas that APHIS has accepted as Pest Free Areas for the mango seed 

weevil, the irradiation dosage for the fruit flies alone would be 150 gy. The plant 

pathogens that are likely to follow the pathway include six fungi, Cytosphaera 

mangiferae, Lasiodiplodia pseudotheobromae, Neofusicoccum mangiferae,

Neoscytalidium novaehollandiae, Pseudofusicoccum adansoniae and Phomopsis 

mangiferae, and one bacterium, Xanthomonas campestris pv. mangiferaeindicae. These

pathogens may not be effectively neutralized with irradiation and require additional 

measures. 

The proposed importation of mango fruit from Australia, if approved, would be regulated 

by an amendment to the existing fruits and vegetables regulations (7 CFR § 319.56). 

This document outlines the phytosanitary measures that APHIS will require if the 

proposed importation of mangoes from Australia is approved, and documents the 

 

1 A pest is considered neutralized when it is killed, rendered sterile or its further development into an adult 

is stopped.
4

evidence used by APHIS to conclude that these measures will effectively prevent the 

introduction of quarantine pests. 

Proposed Risk Mitigation Measures for Mangoes from Australia

APHIS proposes that mango fruit from Australia may be imported into the continental 

United States only under the following conditions: 

(a) The fruit must be commercially produced and part of a commercial consignment.

(b) The fruit must be treated with irradiation by receiving a minimum absorbed dose

(MAD) of 300 Gy and meet all other relevant requirements in 7 CFR 305.9

including monitoring of the treatment by APHIS inspectors.

(c) For areas of Australia that have been approved by APHIS as pest free areas for 

the mango seed weevil, Sternochetus mangiferae, the fruit must be treated with

irradiation by receiving a minimum absorbed dose (MAD) of 150 Gy and meet all 

other relevant requirements in 7 CFR 305.9

(d) One of the following options for the fungi (Cytosphaera mangiferae,

Lasiodiplodia pseudotheobromae, Neofusicoccum mangiferae, Neoscytalidium 

novaehollandiae, and Pseudofusicoccum adansoniae) must be followed: (Option 

1) the fruit must be treated with a broad spectrum post-harvest fungicidal dip; or 

(Option 2) the fruit must originate from an orchard that was inspected prior to the 

beginning of harvest and the orchard was found free of the fungi of quarantine 

concern; or (Option 3) the fruit must originate from an orchard that was treated 

with a broad spectrum fungicide during the growing season, inspected prior to 

harvest and the fruit was found free of the fungi of quarantine concern. 

(e) Prior to departure from Australia, the fruit must be inspected by the national plant 

protection organization (NPPO) of Australia and found free of Ceroplastes 

rubens, Cytosphaera mangiferae, Lasiodiplodia pseudotheobromae, 

Neofusicoccum mangiferae, Neoscytalidium novaehollandiae, Pseudofusicoccum 

adansoniae and Xanthomonas campestris pv. mangiferaeindicae.

(f) If irradiation is applied outside the United States, each consignment of fruit must 

be inspected jointly by APHIS and Australian officials and accompanied by a 

Phytosanitary Certificate (PC) issued by the NPPO of Australia certifying that the 

fruit received the required irradiation treatment. The PC must also include an

additional declaration (AD) that, depending on the option implemented, would 

state: (1) "The fruit was subjected to a post-harvest broad-spectrum fungicidal 

dip," (2) "The fruit originated from an orchard that was inspected prior to the

beginning of harvest and the orchard was found free of fungi of quarantine 

concern" or (3) "The fruit was originated from an orchard treated with a broadspectrum fungicide during the growing season, was inspected prior to harvest, and 

the fruit was found free of fungi of quarantine concern." Additionally, the PC 

must include an AD stating: "The fruit in this consignment was inspected prior to 
5

shipment and found free of Ceroplastes rubens, Cytosphaera mangiferae,

Lasiodiplodia pseudotheobromae, Neofusicoccum mangiferae, Neoscytalidium 

novaehollandiae, Pseudofusicoccum adansoniae and Xanthomonas campestris pv. 

mangiferaeindicae." 

(g) If irradiation is to be applied upon arrival in the United States, each consignment

of fruit must be inspected by Australia NPPO inspectors prior to departure and 

accompanied by a PC issued by the NPPO of Australia with an AD that,

depending on the option chosen, would state: (1) "The fruit was subjected to a 

post-harvest broad-spectrum fungicidal dip," (2) "The fruit was originated from 

an orchard inspected prior to the beginning of harvest and the orchard was found 

free of fungi of quarantine concern" or (3) "The fruit was originated from an 

orchard treated with a broad-spectrum fungicide during the growing season, was 

inspected prior to harvest, and the fruit was found free of fungi of quarantine 

concern." Additionally, the PC must also include an AD stating: "The fruit in this 

consignment was inspected prior to shipment and found free of Ceroplastes 

rubens, Cytosphaera mangiferae, Lasiodiplodia pseudotheobromae, 

Neofusicoccum mangiferae, Neoscytalidium novaehollandiae, Pseudofusicoccum 

adansoniae, and Xanthomonas campestris pv. mangiferaeindicae." 

(h) Fruits imported into the United States will also be subject to inspection at the port 

of entry. 

Evidence for the Effective Removal of Pests of Concern from the Pathway

The following paragraphs summarize key mitigation measures for mango fruit from 

Australia and provides a general discussion of their efficacy. They also discuss the 

evidence APHIS uses to determine that the measures described in Section B

effectively remove pests of concern from the pathway. 

Insects:

A minimum absorbed dose of 150 Gy is required by U.S. regulations (7 CFR 305.9)

and has been determined by APHIS to be adequate to neutralize or mitigate risks of 

all fruit flies. A minimum absorbed dose of 300 Gy is required by U.S. regulations (7

CFR 305.9) and has been determined by APHIS to be adequate to neutralize or 

mitigate risks of the mango seed weevil, Sternochetus mangiferae (USDA, 2006; 

Follett, 2001). Therefore the 300 gy irradiation treatment is a valid treatment for all 

the insect pests of concern except the soft scale Ceroplastes rubens. For Australia to 

be able to use the lower dose of 150 gy (generic irradiation dose for fruit flies), they

will have to have provided sufficient evidence for pest free areas for the mango seed 

weevil, Sternochetus mangiferae, and APHIS will subsequently follow 7 CFR 

319.56-5 in recognizing those areas.

Twleve of the 20 pests likely to follow the pathway and require mitigation are insects. 

Mangos have been moved interstate from Hawaii into the United States after 
6

treatment with 300 Gy irradiation dose since 2000 and APHIS records show no 

interceptions of quarantine pests (USDA, 2011c). Over 300 consignments of Indian 

mangoes irradiated with 400 Gy entered into the United States since the program 

began in 2007 and no pest of quarantine significance has been reported (USDA,

2011c). Although the pest complex in Hawaii or India may be different from that 

described for Australian mangoes, the 300 Gy minimum absorbed dose has been 

determined to be effective against all fruit flies and mango seed weevil (USDA, 2006; 

Follett, 2001). Numerous scientific research studies support the 300 gy dose for 

mango seed weevil (Follett, 2001).

Ceroplastes rubens is a soft scale in the family Coccidae. Soft scales are surface 

feeding pests and readily visible on the surface of a smooth fruit like a mango. 

Therefore the inspections received by mangos in Australia and at the first port of 

entry to the United States will be effective in preventing these pests from following 

the pathway of fresh mangos. Ceroplastes rubens has not been intercepted in 

irradiated mangos from Hawaii. Current inspection practices are sufficient to 

mitigate for scale insects on fruit without significant hiding places for surface pests.

Pathogens:

Fungi:

The PRA determined that the five pathogens, Cytosphaera mangiferae, Lasiodiplodia 

pseudotheobromae, Neofusicoccum mangiferae, Neoscytalidium novaehollandiae and

Pseudofusicoccum adansoniae, have a medium pest risk potential, whereas 

Phomopsis mangiferae (fungus), have a low pest risk potential. According to our pest 

risk assessment guidelines (PPQ, 2000), for pests rated with low pest risk potential, 

specific measures beyond port of entry inspections are not required.

Infection by Cytosphaera mangiferae in the field causes a tan lesion that develops at 

the stem end of the fruit after a “zonate” leaf spot initially appears on the leaves 

(Johnson & Hyde, 1992; Peterson, 1986; MAF, 2003). The leaf spot symptoms first 

appear as water-soaked circular spots that later develop tan centers with dark brown 

borders. On the fruit, the fungus causes slow-spreading, tan lesions that form initially

on the stem end of the fruits and eventually spread onto the shoulder of the fruit. It 

can be distinguished from other fungi by the conidiomata it produces, which appear 

as dark pinpoints within the tan lesions (Johnson et al., 1993; Ploetz et al., 1994).

The fungi of quarantine concern belonging to the Family Botryospheraceae 

(Lasiodiplodia pseudotheobromae, Neofusicoccum mangiferae, Neoscytalidium 

novaehollandiae, and Pseudofusicoccum adansoniae) cause watery rot that starts at 

the stem end of the fruit and then progresses throughtout the rest of the fruit

(Sakalidis et al., 2011), which exhibits as blemished or damaged fruit. Host infection 

generally occurs following physical damage or general stress (Slippers & Wingfield, 

2007), which may lead to large parts of the host plant dying. This is easily detectable 

in the field. However, fungi may be endophytic and express on fruits after harvest 
7

(Sakalidis et al., 2011; Slippers & Wingfield, 2007). These mango pathogens can be 

transported in infected fruit or planting material, and pruning equipment can also aid 

in their transmission (Sakalidis et al., 2011).

In Australia, spraying of mango plants with broad spectrum fungicides during the 

growing season is a common practice to control fungal diseases. Additionally, the 

fruit that are blemished and damaged are culled by hand in the field and during the 

processing of commercial mango fruit. Mango fruit undergo a post-harvest fungicide 

treatment as well as cleaning and washing (USDA, 2011a). These practices, coupled 

with good agricultural practices, effectively help remove the pathogens of concern 

from the pathway. Since the intended use of mangos imported into the United States

is for consumption, the probability that infected fruit will come in contact with 

suceptible hosts and lead to disease stablishement is very low.

As discussed below, pre-harvest field inspection, orchard application of broad 

spectrum fungicide, or post-harvest fungicidal dip are required as one of three options 

to mitigate the risk these fungal pathogen may cause post-harvest infections. 

Risk Mitgation Option 1: 

The fruit is subjected to a post-harvest broad spectrum fungicidal dip. The broad 

spectrum fungicidal dip treatment is one of the required options to treat Indian 

mangoes for Cytopshaera mangiferae, Macrophoma mangiferae, and Xanthomonas 

camprestris pv. mangferaeindica and, when coupled with a pre-export inspection of 

the fruit, is considered sufficient to mitigate the pathway risk (USDA, 2011a). 

Shipment of Australian mangoes would require a PC with an AD stating that: “The 

fruit in this consignment was subjected to a broad spectrum fungicidal dip, inspected 

during the pre-clearance activities, and found free of Cytosphaera mangiferae,

Lasiodiplodia pseudotheobromae, Neofusicoccum mangiferae, Neoscytalidium 

novaehollandiae, and Pseudofusicoccum adansoniae.” 

Specifically listing the pests on the AD of the PC alerts APHIS inspectors to the 

specific pests of concern.

Risk Mitigation Option 2: 

A pre-harvest or growing season inspection of the orchard coupled with preexport inspection of the fruit are required. Cytosphaera mangiferae and the 

fungi in the Botryosphaeriaceae can be easily seen and detected in the field on 

mango leaves and fruit during pre-harvest inspection. Post-harvest diseases 

do not occur without the presence of fungal symptoms on leaves in the field. 

The inspection must occur at a time prior to the beginning of harvest as 

determined by mutual agreement between APHIS and the Australian NPPO 

for symptoms of Cytosphaera mangiferae and the fungi in the 

Botryosphaeriaceae. Shipments of fruit must be accompanied by a PC with an 

AD stating that: “The fruit in this consignment originated from an orchad that 
8

was inspected prior to the beginning of harvest and the orchard was found 

free of Cytosphaera mangiferae, Lasiodiplodia pseudotheobromae, 

Neofusicoccum mangiferae, Neoscytalidium novaehollandiae, and 

Pseudofusicoccum adansoniae .”

Risk Mitigation Option 3: 

Orchard application of broad spectrum fungicide sprays protects fruit from infection 

by aerial spores produced on leaves or stems (Jarvis, 1992).

An orchard treatment and orchard inspection, when coupled with a pre-export 

inspection of the fruit and a PC with an AD stating that fruit was inspected and found 

free of Cytosphaera mangiferae and the fungi in the Botryosphaeriaceae, are

considered sufficient to mitigate the pathway risk of these fungal pathogens. 

Specifically listing the pests on the AD of the PC alerts APHIS inspectors to look for 

the specific pests of concern. The AD will state: “The fruit in this consignment 

originated from an orchard that was treated with a broad spectrum fungicide during 

the growing season, was inspected prior to harvest, and the fruit was found free of 

Cytosphaera mangiferae Lasiodiplodia pseudotheobromae, Neofusicoccum 

mangiferae, Neoscytalidium novaehollandiae, and Pseudofusicoccum adansoniae .”

Bacterium:

Bacterial black spot or black canker caused by Xanthomonas campestris pv.

mangiferaeindica, occurs in Australia, Brazil, India, Pakistan, Taiwan, Reunion, 

Sudan and South Africa (CPC, 2007). Since the pathogen moves only short distances 

in wind-blown aerosols (usually within orchards), the long-distance spread of the 

pathogen depends almost entirely upon the movement of infected plants (Manicom &

Pruvost, 1994). 

Symptoms of Xanthomonas campestris pv. mangiferaeindica on mango fruit consist 

of fruit lesions that develop into water-soaked halos, become raised, blacken and 

crack open (Ploetz et al., 1994). These conspicuous lesions usually produce gummy 

exudates and are discernible with the naked eye (Johnson et al., 1989). Fruit 

susceptibility increases over time and is highest during the month preceding harvest 

(Gagnevin & Pruvost, 2001). Visual inspection of the fruit at the packinghouse 

would most likely detect this pathogen. This bacterial pathogen is not generally 

considered to cause a post-harvest disease (Johnson, 1994; Singh, 2000). "The 

pathogen is an epiphytic colonist of leaves (Pruvost et al., 1990), buds (Pruvost et al., 

1993) and fruit (Pruvost & Luisetti, 1991). Infection occurs through wounds and, less 

often, through stomata" (Ploetz, 1997). 

This pest is rated as medium risk in the PRA. According to our pest risk assessment 

guidelines, pests rated as medium may require specific mitigation measures beyond 

port of entry inspection. Visual inspection of the fruit at the packinghouse will detect 

this pathogen. 
9

Inspection of the fruit prior to shipment and a PC with an AD that stating that the fruit 

was inspected and found free of evidence of the bacterium are recommended to 

remove this pest from the pathway.

All shipments require the following AD: ”The fruit in this consignment was inspected 

during pre-clearance activities and found free of Xanthomonas campestris pv. 

mangiferaeindicae.”

As part of the U.S. requirements governing the use of irradiation as a phytosanitary

treatment (7 CFR 305.9), APHIS and the NPPO of Australia will jointly develop an 

operational work plan. The work plan shall incorporate details of treatment and 

preclearance activities, including inspection, of articles that APHIS may perform 

before or after the treatment. Chemical treatment and inspection of mango fruits for 

the presence of pests not targeted by irradiation during preclearance activities will 

further ensure that the pests of concern are removed from the pathway.

Conclusion

The phytosanitary requirements described above include treatment to Australia’s 

mango fruit with irradiation using a minimum absorbed dose of 300 Gy, a pre-harvest 

inspection of the orchard by the Australian NPPO, treatment of the orchard with a 

broad spectrum fungicide during the growing season, or post-harvest fungicidal dip of 

fruit, and a preclearance inspection for pests not targeted by the irradiation treatment. 

APHIS concludes that, based on the evaluation of effectiveness of these measures 

directed against the pests of concern, the safeguards of 7 CFR § 319.56, and the 

additional mitigations described in this document, will result in the effective removal 

of the pests of concern identified by the PRA (USDA, 20011) from the pathway of 

the importing fresh mango fruit from Australia.

Authors

Walter Gould

Senior Risk Manager - Entomology

José R. Hernández

Senior Risk Manager - Plant Pathology

References

CPC. 2007. Crop Protection Compendium 2007. CAB International, Wallingford, UK.
10

Follett, P.A. 2001. Irradiation as a quarantine treatment for mango seed weevil. Proc.

Hawaiian Entomol. Soc. 35: 85–90.

Gagnevin, L. and I. Pruvost. 2001. Epidemiology and Control of Mango Bacterial Black 

Spot. Plant Disease 85: 928-935. 

Jarvis, W.R. 1992. Managing Diseases in Greenhouse Crops. APS Press, St. Paul, 

Minnesota, p. 130.

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., and K.D. Hyde. 1992. Cytosphaera mangiferae. I.M.I. Descr. 1122 : 1-2.

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. 1994. Stem-end rot. In: Ploetz, R.C., Zentmyer, G. A., Nishijima, W., 

Rohrbach, K. and Ohr, H.D. (eds) Compendium of Tropical Fruit Diseases. APS 

Press, St. Paul, Minnesota, pp. 39-41. 

Manicom, B.Q. and O.P. Pruvost. 1994. Bacterial black spot. In: Ploetz, R.C. Zentmyer, 

G.A. Nishijima, W.T., Rohrbach, K.G. and Ohr, H.D. (eds) Compendium of Tropical 

Fruit Diseases. APS Press, St. Paul, Minnesota, pp. 41-42. 

MAF. 2003. Australia mango datasheets. Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, New 

Zealand, Available: 

http://www.maf.govt.nz/biosecurity/imports/plants/standards/drafts/australia-mangodatasheets-draft.pdf. Accessed: 8 December 2003.

Peterson, R.A. 1986. Mango diseases. In First Australian mango research workshop. 

Proceedings. 233-247. 

Ploetz, R.C., Ed. 1997. Diseases of Tropical Fruits. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK. 

pp. 327-364.

Ploetz, R. C., G. A. Zentmyer, W. T. Nishijima, K. G. Rohrbach, and H. D. Ohr, 1994. 

Compendium of tropical fruit diseases. 88 pp.

Pruvost, O., A. Couteau and J. Luisetti. 1990. Development of bacterial black spot of 

mangoes and epiphytic populations of the pathogen (Xanthomonas campestris pv.

mangiferaeindicae) under natural conditions in Reunion Island. Fruits Paris 45 (2): 

125-140.
11

Pruvost, O. and J. Luisetti. 1991. Effect of time of inoculation with Xanthomonas 

campestris pv. mangiferaeindicae on mango fruits susceptibility. Epiphytic survival 

of X. c. pv. mangiferaeindicae on mango fruits in relation to disease development. 

Journal of Phytopathology 133 (2): 139-151.

Pruvost, O., A. Coutaeu and J. Luisetti. 1993. Epiphytic survival of Xanthomonas 

campestris pv. mangiferaeindicae on mango buds. Acta Horticulturae 341: 337-344.

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.

Singh, R.S. 2000. Diseases of Fruit Crops. Science Publishers, Inc., Enfield, New 

Hampshire, pp. 153-182.

Slippers, B., M.J. Wingfield. 2007. Botryosphaeriaceae as endophytes and latent 

pathogens of wooedy plants: diversity, ecology and impact. Fungal Biology Reviews 

21:90-106.

USDA. 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. 30 pp. 

USDA. 2006. Treatments for Fruits and Vegetables. January 27, 2006 issue of Federal 

Register 71(18): 4451-4464.

USDA. 2011a. Importation of Fresh Fruit of Mango, Mangifera indica L., from Australia 

into the Continental United States, A Qualitative Pathway-Initiated Pest Risk 

Assessment. US Department of Agriculture, Animal & Plant Health Inspection 

Service, Plant Protection & Quarantine, Center for Plant Health Science & 

Technology, NC.

USDA. 2011b. APHIS Plant Protection and Quarantine Treatment Manual. 

(http://www.aphis.usda.gov/import_export/plants/manuals/ports/treatment.shtml) 

Last accessed January 2011.

USDA. 2011c. Animal & Plant Health Inspection Service Pest Interception Database, 

Last accessed January 2011.

USDA. 2012. Official Control - The Federally Recognized State Managed 

Phytosanitary Program. USDA-APHIS-PPQ Plant Health Programs.

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/plant_pest_info/frsmp/non-reg-pests.shtml