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 Docum **ent**

**Ma y 31**  **, 201 2** 

**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 indi ca 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 318.1 3

- 4f) after treatment with hot water, vapor heat or irradiation (USDA, 20 11b )

. 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 G overnment of Australia , (2) United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHI S) records of intercepted pests, and (3) scientific literature. The pest risk assessment (PRA) document, Importation of Fresh Fruit ofMango, 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 , 20 11 a). 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, 2011 a)

. Insects: Bactrocera aquilonis (May) (DIPTERA:Tephritidae) B actrocera cucumis (French) (DIPTERA:Tephritidae) Bactrocera frauenfeldi (Schiner) (DIPTERA:Tephritidae) Bactrocera jarvisi (Tryon) (DIPTERA:Tephritidae) Bactrocera kraussi ( Hardy) (DIPTERA:Tephritidae) Bactrocera murrayi (Perkins) (DIPTERA:Tephritidae) Bac trocera neohumeralis (Hardy) (DIPTERA:Tephritidae) Bactrocera opiliae (Drew and Hardy) (DIPTERA:Tephritidae) Bactrocera tryoni (Froggatt) (DIPTERA:Tephritidae) Ceratitis capitata Wiedemann (D IP TERA:Tephritidae) Ceroplastes rubens Maskell ( HEMIPTERA :Coccida e) 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, Sl ippers & A.J.L. Phillips Neoscytalidium novaehollandia e Pavlic, T.I
. Burgess & M.J. Wingf. Phomopsis mangiferae S. Ahmad Pseudofusicoccum adansoniae Pavlic, T.I. Burgess & M.J. Wingf. Bac t eria: Xanthomonas campestris pv. mangiferaeindicae (Patel et al .) Robbs et al

. (Xanthomonadales: Xanthomonadaceae)3

The P RA 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 novaehollandia e, 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 strongl y recommended ; for pests rated medium, specific measures beyond port of entry inspections may

be neces s ary ; and for pests rated as lo w, 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 lo nger requires action at the ports of entry (USDA, 2012). The pest was evaluated through the Federall y Recognized State Managed Ph yt osanitary Program (FRSMP). The National Plant Board concurred with the decision to stop taking action on this pest at the p ort 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 appl ying post

harvest 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 b y APHI S. All fruit flies and the mango seed weevil (Sternoche tus mangiferae ) will be effectivel y neutralized 1 with the irradiation dose of 3 00 Gy (USDA , 2006 ; Follett, 2001 ). The soft scale Ceroplastes rubens is surface pest which is readil y visible upon inspection, so no measures other than standard culling practi ces in Australia and inspection (both in Australia and at the United States port of entry) will necessary to remove th is pest from the pathway

. Australia has proposed that some areas of Australia are free of the mango seed weevil. For areas that APHI S ha s 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 novaehollandia e, Pseudofusicoccum adansoniae and Phomopsis mangiferae , and one bacterium, Xanthomonas campestris pv. mangiferaeindicae

. These pathogens may

not be effectivel y 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 phy tosanitary measures that APHI S will require if the proposed importation of mango es from Australia is approved , and documents the

1 A pest is considered neutralized w hen it is killed, rendered sterile or its further development into an adult is st opped.4

evidence used b y APHIS to conclude that these measures will effectively prevent the introduction of quarantine pests. **Proposed Risk Mitigation Measure s for Mangoes from Australia**  APHI S proposes that mango fruit from Australia may be imported into the continental United S tates only

under the following conditions: (a) The fruit must be commercially produced and part of a commercial consignment

. (b) The f ruit must be treated with irradiation by receiving a minimum absorbed dos e (MAD) of 3 00 Gy

and meet all other relevant requirements in 7 CFR 305. 9 including monitoring of the treatment b y APHIS inspectors. (c) For areas of Australia that have been approved b y AP HI S as pest free areas for the mango seed w eevil, Sternochetus mangiferae , the fruit must be treated with irradiation b y receiving a minimum absorbed dos e (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 novaehollandia e, and Pseudofusicoccum adansoniae ) must be followed : (Option 1 ) the fruit must be treated with a broad spectrum post

- harvest fungici dal 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** wa s found free of the fungi of quarantine concern

. (e) Prior to departure from Australia, the fruit must be inspected by the national plant protection organi zation (NPPO) of Australia and found free of Ceroplastes rubens, Cytosphaera mangiferae, Lasiodiplodia pseudotheobromae , Neofusicoccum mangiferae , Neoscytalidium novaehollandia e, Pseudofusicoccum adansoniae and Xanthomonas campestris pv . m angiferaeindicae. (f) If irradiation is applied outside the United States, e ach consignment of fruit must be inspected jointly

by APHI S and Australian officials and accompanied by a Phy tosanitary Certificate (PC) issued by the NPPO of Australia certifying that the fruit recei ved 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 originat ed 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 broad

spectrum fungicide during the growing season, was i nspected 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 to5 shipment and found free of Ceroplastes rubens, Cytosphaera mangi ferae, Lasiodiplodia pseudotheobromae , Neofusicoccum mangiferae , Neoscytalidium novaehollandia e, Pseudofusicoccum adansoniae and Xanthomonas campestris pv . mangiferaeindicae ." (g) If irradiation is to be applied upon arrival in the United States, e ach consignment of fruit must be inspected by Australia NPPO inspectors prior to departure and accompanied b y 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

- spec trum 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 stat ing : "The fruit in this consignment was inspected prior to shipment and found free of Ceroplastes rubens, Cytosphaera mangiferae, Lasiodiplodia pseudotheobromae , Neofusicoccum mangiferae , Neoscytalidium novaehollandia e, Pseudofusicoccum adansoniae, and Xanthomonas campestris pv . mangiferaeindicae ." (h) Fruits imported into the United S tates 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 paragraph s summarize key mitigation measures for mango fruit from Australia and provides a general discussion of their efficacy

. They also discuss the evidence APHI S uses to determine that the measures described in Section **B** effectivel y remove pests of concern from the pathway. **Insects:** A minimum absorbed dose of 15 0 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 b y 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 ruben s . 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 2 0 pests likely to follow the pathway and require mitigation are insects. Mangos have been moved interstate from H awaii into the United S tates after6

treatment with 300 Gy

irradiation dose since 2000 and APHI S records show no interceptions of quarantine pests (USDA, 20 11c ). 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 , 20 11c ). Although the pest complex in Hawaii or India may be different from that described for Australian mangoes, the 3 00 Gy minimum absorbed dose has been determined to be effective against all fruit flies and mango seed weevil (USDA , 2006 ; Follett, 20 01 ). 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 scale s are surface feeding pests and readil y visible on the surface of a smooth fruit like a mango. Therefore the inspections received b y 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 ha s 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 novaehollandia e and Pseudofusicoccum adansoniae , have a medium pest risk potential , whereas Phomopsis mangiferae (fungus ) , have a low pest risk potential. According to our p est risk assessment guidelines (PPQ, 2000) , for pests rated with low pest risk potential , specific measures beyond port of entry inspections are not required

. In fection b y Cytosphaera mangiferae in the field causes a tan lesion that develop s at the stem end of the fruit after a “zonate” leaf spot initially appears on the leaves (Johnson & Hyde, 1992; Peterson, 1986 ; MAF , 200 3 ). The leaf spot sy mptoms first appear as water
- soaked circular spots that later develop tan centers with dark brown borders. On the fruit, th e 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 t o the Family Botryosph eraceae ( Lasiodiplodia pseudotheobromae , Neofusicoccum mangiferae , Neoscytalidium novaehollandia e, and Pseudofusicoccum adansoniae ) cause watery rot that starts at the stem end of the fruit and then pro gresses throughtout the rest of the fruit (Sakalidis et al ., 2011) , which exhibits as blemished or damaged fruit

. Host infection general l y occurs following phy sical damage or general stress (Slippers & Wingfield, 2007) , which may

lea d to large parts of the host plant dying . This is eas ily detectable in the fiel d. H owever , fungi may be endophy

tic and express on fruits after harvest7

(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. M ango fruit undergo a post

- harvest fungicide treatment as well as cleaning and washing (USDA, 2011 a)

. These practices , coupled with good agricultural practices, effectivel y help remov e the pathogens of concern from the pathway

. Since the intended use of mango s imported into the United States is for consumption, the probability that infec ted fruit will come in contact with suceptible hosts and lead to disease stab lishement is very low. As discussed below, pre

- harvest field inspection, o rchard application of broad spectrum fungicide , or post
- harvest fungicidal dip are required as one of three options to mitigate the risk th e s e 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 ma ngiferae , 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 , 2011 a). Shipment of Australian mangoes would require a PC with an AD stati ng 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 nova ehollandia e, and Pseudofusicoccum adansoniae

. ” Specificall y listing the pests on the AD o f the PC alerts APHI S inspectors to the specific pests of concern. Risk Mitigation Option 2 : A pre

- harvest or growing season inspection of the orchard coupled w ith pre

export 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 w ithout the presence of fungal s ymptoms on leaves in the field. The inspection must occur at a time prior to the beginning of harvest as determined b y mutual agreement between APHI S and the Australian NPPO for s ymptoms of Cytosphaera mangiferae and the fun gi in the Botryosphaeriaceae

. Shipments of fruit must be accompanied by a PC with an AD stating that: “The fruit in this consignment originat e d from an orchad that8

was inspected prior to the beginning of harvest and the **orchard** was found free of Cytospha era mangiferae, Lasiodiplodia pseudotheobromae , Neofusicoccum mangiferae , Neoscytalidium novaehollandia e, and Pseudofusicoccum adansoniae .” Risk Mitigation Option 3 : Orchard application of broad spectrum fungicide spray s protects fruit from infectio n 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 P C with an AD stating th at fruit was inspected and found free of Cytosphaera mangifera e and the fungi in the Botryosphaeriaceae, are considered sufficient to mitigate the pathway risk of th e s e fungal pathogen s . Specificall y listing the pests on the AD o f the PC alerts APHI S inspectors to look for the specific pests of concern. The AD will state: “The fruit in this consignment originat e d 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 pseudotheobro mae , Neofusicoccum mangiferae , Neoscytalidium novaehollandia e, and Pseudofusicoccum adansoniae .” **Bacteri um**  **:** Bacterial black spot or black canker caused b y Xanthomonas campestris pv . mangiferaeindica , occurs in Australia, Brazil, India, Pakistan, Taiwan , Reunion, Sudan and South Africa (CPC , 200 7 ). 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). Sy mptoms 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 produc e gumm y 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 woul d most likely

detect this pathogen. This bacterial pathogen is not generall y considered to cause a post
- harvest disease (Johnson, 1994; Singh , 2000). "The pathogen is an epiph ytic 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 spe cific mitigation measures beyond port of entry

inspection. Visual inspection of the fruit at the packinghouse w ill 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 fre e 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 . mangife raeindicae .” As part of the U.S. requirements governing the use of irradiation as a phyt osanitary treatment (7 CFR 305. 9 ), APHI S 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 APHI S may perform before or after the treatment. Chemical treatment and i nspection of mango fruit s for the presence of pests not targeted b y irradiation during preclearance activities will further ensure that the pests of concern are removed from the pathway

. **Conclusion** The phy tosanitary requirements described above include treatment to Australia’s mango fruit with irradiation us ing a minimum absorbed dose of 3 00 Gy , a pre - harvest ins pection 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 b y the irradiation treatment. APHI S 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 , 200 11 ) from the pathway of the importing fresh mango fruit from Australia.
**Authors** Walter Gould Senior Risk Manager

- Entomology José R. Hernández Sen ior Risk Manager

- Plant Patho logy
**References** CPC. 200 7
. Crop Protection Compendium 200 7 . CAB International, Wallingford, UK.10

Follett, P.A. 2001. Irradiation as a quarantine treatment for mango seed weevil. Proc
. Hawaiian Entomol . S oc . 35: 85

– 90. Gagnevin, L. and I. Pruvost. 2001. Epidemiology and Co ntrol 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. In fection 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 contro l: 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., Zentm ye r, G. A., Nishijima, W., Rohrbach, K. and Ohr, H.D. (eds) Compendium of Tropical Fruit Diseases . APS P ress, 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

- mango datasheets

- 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 o f 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. Devel opment of bacterial black spot of mangoes and epiph yt ic populations of the pathogen ( Xanthomonas campestris pv. mangiferaeindicae ) under natural conditions in Reunion I sland. 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 . Epiphy tic survival of X. c. pv. mangiferaeindicae on mango fruits in relation to disease development. Journal of Phy

topathology

133 (2): 139

- 151. Pr uv o st, O. , A. Coutaeu and J. Luisetti. 1993. Epiphy tic 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 endophy tes 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. 20 11a . 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, Cent er for Plant Health Science & Technology , NC. USDA. 2011b . APHI S Plant Protection and Quarantine Treatment Manual. ( http://www.aphis.usda.gov/import_export/plants/manuals/ports/treatment.shtml) Last accessed J anuary 20 11

. USDA. 2011c . Animal & Plant Health Inspection Service Pest Interception Database, Last accessed J anuary 20 11

. USDA. 2012. Official Control

- The Federall y Recognized State Managed Phy tosanitary Program. USDA

- APHIS

- PPQ Plant Health Programs. http://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/plant_pest_info/frsmp/non

- reg - pests.shtml