<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
<meta name="cp:revision" content="2">
<meta name="meta:word-count" content="44960">
<meta name="extended-properties:Application" content="Microsoft Office Word">
<meta name="meta:last-author" content="jsimo">
<meta name="dc:creator" content="Leah Millar">
<meta name="extended-properties:Company" content="USDA APHIS">
<meta name="meta:print-date" content="2006-05-11T15:48:00Z">
<meta name="xmpTPg:NPages" content="78">
<meta name="dcterms:created" content="2010-06-07T15:08:00Z">
<meta name="dcterms:modified" content="2010-06-07T15:08:00Z">
<meta name="meta:character-count" content="256275">
<meta name="extended-properties:Template" content="Normal.dotm">
<meta name="X-TIKA:Parsed-By" content="org.apache.tika.parser.DefaultParser">
<meta name="X-TIKA:Parsed-By" content="org.apache.tika.parser.microsoft.OfficeParser">
<meta name="dc:title" content="Importation of Fresh Mango Fruit (Mangifera indica L">
<meta name="extended-properties:TotalTime" content="0">
<meta name="Content-Length" content="1084416">
<meta name="meta:page-count" content="78">
<meta name="Content-Type" content="application/msword">
<title>Importation of Fresh Mango Fruit (Mangifera indica L</title>
</head>
<body><div class="header"><p class="header"><b>DRAFT
</b></p>
<p class="header"><b>DRAFT</b></p>
</div>
<p><div class="embedded" id="_1116735818"></div>
<img src="embedded:image1.png" alt="image1.png"></p>
<p><b>Importation of Fresh Mango Fruit (<i>Mangifera indica</i> L.) 
</b></p>
<p><b>from Pakistan into the Continental United States</b></p>
<p><b>A Qualitative, Pathway-Initiated Pest Risk Assessment
</b></p>
<p><b>September 20, 2006</b></p>
<p><b>Agency contact:
</b></p>
<p><b>United States Department of Agriculture
</b></p>
<p><b>Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
</b></p>
<p><b>Plant Protection and Quarantine
</b></p>
<p><b>Center for Plant Health Science and Technology
</b></p>
<p><b>Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory
</b></p>
<p><b>1730 Varsity Dr.; Suite 300
</b></p>
<p><b>Raleigh, NC 27606</b>
</p>
<p><b>Executive Summary</b></p>
<p>This pathway-initiated commodity risk assessment examined the risks associated with the proposed importation of fresh mango fruit, <i>Mangifera indica,</i> from Pakistan into the United States.  A list of pests reported in Pakistan and reported as attacking mango was prepared based on documents submitted by the government of Pakistan, scientific literature, and pest interception records of the United States Department of Agriculture.  The quarantine pests that are likely to follow the pathway were analyzed using the methodology described in <i>Guidelines for Pathway-Initiated Pest Risk Assessment, version 5.02</i> (USDA, 2000).  Risk was estimated based on the fruit being cleaned and washed as part of standard post-harvest practices in mango production.  The risk assessment identified the following quarantine pests that could potentially become introduced into the United States through mango importation from Pakistan: </p>
<p><b><u>ARTHROPODS
</u></b></p>
<p><b><u>Diptera
</u></b></p>
<p><b>Tephritidae
</b></p>
<p><i> 
Bactrocera correcta 
</i></p>
<p><i>Bactrocera</i> <i>cucurbitae  
</i></p>
<p><i>Bactrocera dorsalis  
</i></p>
<p><i>Bactrocera zonata  
</i></p>
<p><b><u>Hemiptera 
</u></b></p>
<p><b>Coccidae</b><i> </i></p>
<p><i>Coccus discrepans
</i></p>
<p><i>Coccus viridis  

</i></p>
<p><b>Diaspididae
</b></p>
<p><i> 
Aulacaspis tubercularis</i></p>
<p><i> 
Parlatoria blanchardi
</i></p>
<p><i> 
Parlatoria crypta</i></p>
<p><i> 
Pseudaonidia trilobitiformis</i></p>
<p><b><u>PATHOGENS
</u></b></p>
<p><i>Phomopsis mangiferae </i>(Fungi Imperfecti)
</p>
<p><i>Xanthomonas campestris</i> pv. <i>mangiferaeindica</i> (Xanthomonadales: Xanthomonadaceae)
</p>
<p>The Pest Risk Potential was estimated to be High for <i>Bactrocera correcta, B.</i> <i>cucurbitae, B. dorsalis, </i>and <i>B. zonata</i>; Medium for <i>Aulacaspis tubercularis</i>, <i>Coccus discrepans</i>, <i>Coccus viridis</i>, <i>Parlatoria blanchardi, Parlatoria crypta, Pseudaonidia trilobitiformis,</i> and<i> Xanthomonas campestris</i> pv. <i>mangiferaeindica, </i>and Low for <i>Phomopsis mangiferae.  </i>Although the armored scales were rated Medium based on the USDA <i>Guidelines</i>, these insects have a low likelihood of introduction and establishment that could not be addressed using the current USDA <i>Guidelines</i>.  This low likelihood of establishment should be an important consideration when developing risk mitigations.  
</p>
<p>The Pest Risk Potential is the summation of the ratings for the Consequences of Introduction and Pest Opportunity (<i>i.e</i>., likelihood of introduction).  The Consequences of Introduction value was estimated by assessing the Climate/Host Interaction, the Host Range, the Dispersal Potential, the Economic Impact, and the Environmental Impact, which are based on the biology of the pests.  The Pest Opportunity value was estimated by evaluating the proposed Quantity Imported Annually, in combination with the likelihood that the pests will survive post harvest treatments and shipment, avoid detection at the port of arrival, are moved to a suitable habitat, and come into contact with suitable host material.  Specific phytosanitary measures beyond port-of-entry inspection are typically not required for pests with a Pest Risk Potential of Low.  On the other hand, specific phytosanitary measures may be necessary for pests rated Medium and are strongly recommended for pests rated High, as port-of-entry inspection is not considered sufficient to provide phytosanitary security.  Risk mitigation options for the quarantine pests of concern are provided in Appendix 3.  Detailed examination and choice of appropriate phytosanitary measures to mitigate pest risk is undertaken as part of the pest risk management phase within APHIS and is not addressed within this document.</p>
<p><b>Table of Contents
</b></p>
<p class="tOC_1">5<a href="_Toc146512158"><u>I.  Introduction</u>
</a><u>
</u></p>
<p class="tOC_1">5<a href="_Toc146512159"><u>II. Risk Assessment</u>
</a><u>
</u></p>
<p class="tOC_2">5<a href="_Toc146512160"><u>A.  Initiating Event: Proposed Action</u>
</a><u>
</u></p>
<p class="tOC_2">6<a href="_Toc146512161"><u>B.  Assessment of Mango as a Potential Weed</u>
</a><u>
</u></p>
<p class="tOC_2">6<a href="_Toc146512162"><u>C.  Pest Interceptions and Decision History</u>
</a><u>
</u></p>
<p class="tOC_2">7<a href="_Toc146512163"><u>D.  Plant pests associated with mango that occur in Pakistan</u>
</a><u>
</u></p>
<p class="tOC_2">20<a href="_Toc146512164"><u>E.  Discussion of Quarantine Pests That Were Not Selected for Further Analysis</u>
</a><u>
</u></p>
<p class="tOC_2">23<a href="_Toc146512165"><u>F.  Quarantine Pests Considered for Further Evaluation</u>
</a><u>
</u></p>
<p class="tOC_2">23<a href="_Toc146512166"><u>G.  Analysis of Quarantine Pests</u>
</a><u>
</u></p>
<p class="tOC_3">23<a href="_Toc146512167"><u>Risk Elements 1-5: Consequences of Introduction</u>
</a><u>
</u></p>
<p class="tOC_3">37<a href="_Toc146512168"><u>Risk Element 6: Pest Opportunity (Survival and Access to Suitable Habitat and Hosts)</u>
</a><u>
</u></p>
<p class="tOC_3">41<a href="_Toc146512169"><u>Baseline Pest Risk Potential</u>
</a><u>
</u></p>
<p class="tOC_1">41<a href="_Toc146512170"><u>III. Conclusions</u>
</a><u>
</u></p>
<p class="tOC_1">43<a href="_Toc146512171"><u>Contributors (in alphabetical order)</u>
</a><u>
</u></p>
<p class="tOC_1">43<a href="_Toc146512172"><u>References</u>
</a><u>
</u></p>
<p class="tOC_1">59<a href="_Toc146512173"><u>Appendix 1.  Pests intercepted on commodities from Pakistan that have also been intercepted with mango from anywhere in the world (PIN309 data 1985-2002).  If the pest was not identified to species level, only genera found on mango in Pakistan were included.</u>
</a><u>
</u></p>
<p class="tOC_1">60<a href="_Toc146512174"><u>Appendix 2: Pest Risk of Armored Scale Insects (Hemiptera: Diaspididae)</u>
</a><u>
</u></p>
<p class="tOC_1">62<a href="_Toc146512175"><u>Appendix 3: Risk Mitigation Options for Importation of Fresh Mango Fruit (<i>Mangifera indica</i> L.) from Pakistan into the Continental United States</u>
</a><u>
</u></p>
<p class="tOC_1"><b>
</b></p>
<p class="level_1">
</p>
<h1>I.  Introduction
</h1>
<p>This risk assessment was prepared by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) to examine the plant pest risks associated with importing mango fruit, <i>Mangifera indica</i> L. (Anacardiaceae family) from Pakistan into the United States (U.S.).  [Note: Commercial mangoes normally have a very short (approximately 0.3 to 0.5cm) pedicel attached to the base of the fruit].  Mango is the second major crop in Pakistan (PHDEB, 2005), grown on 103,000 hectares in 2004 (Government of Pakistan, 2006).  Most production is in the provinces of Punjab and Sindh (PHDEB, 2005).  In 2004, 1,056,000 tons were produced, of which 78,000 were exported (Government of Pakistan, 2006).  The current export destinations include the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom, Singapore, and Saudi Arabia (PHDEB, 2005; Government of Pakistan, 2006).  This risk assessment examined the pest risk of commercial quality mango, which undergoes cleaning and washing of sap from the exterior of each individual fruit as part of standard post-harvest treatment.   Post-harvest cleaning and washing of the fruit is a common and essential cultural practice in mango production, as the sap which exudes from the stem end burns the fruit skin, resulting in black lesions followed by rotting (Morton, 1987).  
</p>
<p>This risk assessment is qualitative and expresses risk in terms of high, medium, and low; the details of the methodology and rating criteria can be found in: <i>Guidelines for Pathway-Initiated Pest Risk Assessment, version 5.02</i> (USDA, 2000), accessible at <a href="http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/pra/commodity/cpraguide.pdf"><u>http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/pra/commodity/cpraguide.pdf</u></a>.
</p>
<p>Guidance for conducting risk assessments is provided by regional and international plant protection organizations such as the North American Plant Protection Organization (NAPPO) and the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) administered by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations (IPPC, 1996, 2001, 2003, 2004; NAPPO, 1996).  The methods used to initiate, conduct and report this assessment, as well as the use of biological and phytosanitary terms, are consistent with these stanadards.  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.
</p>
<h1>II. Risk Assessment
</h1>
<h1>A.  Initiating Event: Proposed Action
</h1>
<p>This pest risk assessment is commodity-based or “pathway-initiated” in response to a request that the USDA authorize importations of fresh mango fruit from Pakistan into the U.S.  Plant pests could potentially be introduced into the U.S. via mango imports from Pakistan.  The Plant Protection Act of 2000 (7 U.S.C. Sections 7701-7772) gives APHIS the authority to regulate plant pests/plant products; the regulations for the importation of fruits and vegetables are codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 7, Part 319, Subpart 56 (7 CFR Section 319.56).
</p>
<h1>B.  Assessment of Mango as a Potential Weed
</h1>
<p>Mango is commercially cultivated in suitable climates and is not listed as a weed in any of the applicable references (Table 1).
</p>
<table><tbody><tr>	<td><p><b>Table 1.  Assessment of Mango as a Potential Weed.</b></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Commodity: Mango <i>Mangifera indica</i> L. (Anacardiaceae)
</p>
<p>1: Mango is commercially cultivated in Florida, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgins Islands, and the tropical regions of both Texas and California.
</p>
<p>2: Is the species listed in:
</p>
<p><u>No</u>
Geographical Atlas of World Weeds (Holm<i> et al.</i>, 1979)
</p>
<p><u>No</u>  
World's Worst Weeds (Holm, 1977) or World Weeds: Natural Histories and Distribution (Holm, 1997)
</p>
<p><u>No</u>
Report of the Technical Committee to Evaluate Noxious Weeds; Exotic Weeds for Federal Noxious Weed Act (Gunn and Ritchie, 1982) 
</p>
<p><u>No</u>
<i>Economically Important Foreign Weeds</i> (Reed, 1977)
</p>
<p><u>No</u>
Weed Science Society of America list (WSSA, 1989)
</p>
<p><u>No</u>
Is there any literature reference indicating weed potential, <i>e.</i>g., AGRICOLA, CAB Abstracts, Biological Abstracts, AGRIS; search on "species name" combined with "weed".
</p>
<p>3:  Mango is not listed as a weed in any of the above references and is commercially grown in suitable climates, so it does not appear to pose a risk as a weed.</p>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<h1>C.  Pest Interceptions and Decision History
</h1>
<p><b>Pest Interceptions</b></p>
<p>Between 1985 and 2002, U.S. agricultural inspectors intercepted pests from Pakistan 765 times (identified to the genus level).  These pests were not all intercepted on mango from Pakistan, but all of them have been intercepted with mango from somewhere else in the world (PIN, 2003) (Appendix 1).  The following insect families contained the bulk of these interceptions from Pakistan:
</p>
<table><tbody><tr>	<td><p>Diaspididae</p>
</td>	<td><p>40%</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Tephritidae</p>
</td>	<td><p>15%</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Aleyrodidae</p>
</td>	<td><p>14%</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Pyralidae</p>
</td>	<td><p>5%</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Pseudococcidae</p>
</td>	<td><p>4%</p>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<p>The following genera/species were intercepted from Pakistan more than 10 times:
</p>
<table><tbody><tr>	<td><p><i>Aleurolobus marlatti</i> Quaintance (Aleyrodidae)</p>
</td>	<td><p>103</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Aulacaspis tubercularis</i> Newstead (Diaspididae)</p>
</td>	<td><p>101</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Pseudaonidia trilobitiformis</i> (Green) (Diaspididae)</p>
</td>	<td><p>99</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Parlatoria crypta</i> McKenzie (Diaspididae)</p>
</td>	<td><p>44</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Parlatoria ziziphi</i> (Lucas) (Diaspididae)</p>
</td>	<td><p>31</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Bactrocera </i>sp.  (Tephritidae)</p>
</td>	<td><p>18</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Sternochetus mangiferae</i> (Fabricius) (Curculionidae)</p>
</td>	<td><p>16</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Parlatoria blanchardi</i> (Targioni-Tozzetti) (Diaspididae)</p>
</td>	<td><p>14</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Lepidosaphes tapleyi</i> Williams (Diaspididae)<i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p>10</p>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<p>The pathogens <i>Cladosporium </i>sp.<i> </i>and <i>Leptosphaeria </i>sp. were intercepted only once from Pakistan.</p>
<p><b>Decision History – Mango from Pakistan
</b></p>
<p>1990 - Deny entry because there was no USDA approved treatment for a complex of insect pests (Mango seed weevils <i>Sternochetus frigidus</i>, <i>S. mangiferae</i>, and fruit flies <i>Dacus correctus</i>, <i>D. cucurbitae</i>, <i>D. dorsalis</i>, and <i>D. zonatus</i>).
</p>
<p>1983 - Deny entry due to lack of approved/acceptable treatments for mango seed weevils and three species of <i>Dacus</i> fruit flies.
</p>
<h1>D.  Plant pests associated with mango that occur in Pakistan</h1>
<p>Table 2 lists the pests associated with mango (in any country) that occur in Pakistan.  This list identifies: (1) the presence or absence of pests in the U.S., (2) the generally affected plant part or parts, (3) the quarantine status of the pest in the U.S., (4) whether the pest is likely to follow the pathway to enter the U.S. on commercially exported mango fruit from Pakistan, and (5) pertinent citations for either the distribution or the biology of the pest.  Many of the organisms in the list could be eliminated from further consideration due to their biology and distribution, while others do not satisfy the definition of a quarantine pest.
</p>
<p>A pest is likely to be transported on mango if the pest is present in Pakistan, the pest is associated with mango at the time of harvest, and the pest remains viable on the fruit throughout the harvesting, packing and shipping procedures.  Quarantine pests likely to follow the pathway may be capable of establishment, or spread within the U.S. if suitable ecological and climatic conditions exist (this includes protected areas such as greenhouses).  Some of the ecological conditions necessary for establishment include the presence of primary host species, alternate hosts, and vectors.</p>
<p><i>Sternochetus frigidus</i> (F.) and <i>Sternochetus mangiferae</i> (F.) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) were not included on the pest list, as they were determined to not be present in Pakistan.  These two seed weevils were originally placed on the pest list because CABI (2003) reported them as present in Pakistan.  More recent data, however, gives good evidence that these beetles do not occur in Pakistan and, therefore, would not be likely to follow the pathway of mango from Pakistan:  
</p>
<p>CABI (2004) states that records of <i>S. mangiferae</i> in Pakistan (Hashmi and Tashfeen, 1992; EPPO, 2003) are apparently based on a single specimen intercepted on imported mangoes in 1916.  Likewise, records of <i>S. frigidus</i> in Pakistan (Hashmi and Tashfeen, 1992; EPPO, 2003) are also erroneous, as they are based on specimens from Dacca, East Pakistan, which is the former name for Bangladesh (CABI, 2004).  Further details regarding these erroneous records can be found in CABI Bioscience (2003).  Consequently, CABI (2004) as well as EPPO (2005) have removed Pakistan from the geographical distributions<i> </i>of<i> S. mangiferae</i> and <i>S. frigidus</i>.  Furthermore, comprehensive insect surveys throughout Pakistan by CABI from 1959 to 1969 did not detect weevils in mango seeds or fruit (CIBC, 1969), and a more recent survey in 2003 for <i>Sternochetus </i>spp. in the major mango producing areas of Pakistan did not detect this genus (CABI-Bioscience, 2003).  The 2003 survey by CABI Bioscience was based on collection and examination of 8,000 fruits and seeds from fruit and vegetable markets and 7,000 from mango orchards in the provinces of Sindh and Punjab (CABI Bioscience, 2003).  Additionally, adult weevils were collected from mango tree trunks for identification, and farmers and extension staff were interviewed.  No adult <i>Sternochetus</i> beetles were detected, and the farmers and extension staff had no knowledge of these beetle species (CABI Bioscience, 2003).  </p>
<p>On the other hand, as noted above, since 1985, <i>S. mangiferae</i> was intercepted by agricultural specialists at U.S. ports-of-entry 16 times with mango in airline passenger baggage from Pakistan (PIN, 2003).  Because these interceptions were in airline passenger baggage, the true origin of the fruit is difficult to determine.  <i>Sternochetus mangiferae</i> is reported from surrounding countries [<i>e.g.,</i> Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Myanmar (=Burma), Nepal, Oman, Sri Lanka, United Arab Emirates] (CABI, 2004), and it is very reasonable to expect airline passengers from surrounding countries to connect in Pakistan for a flight to the United States (Belano, 2005).  Therefore, the intercepted insects could have easily originated from a country other than Pakistan.    </p>
<p class="footnote_Text">Additionally of note: Since 1985, <i>Sternochetus</i> sp. was intercepted by agricultural specialists at U.S. ports-of-entry on mango four times in airline passenger baggage from Pakistan (PIN, 2003).  However, <i>Sternochetus</i> sp. was not included on the pest list, as we determined this genus to not be present in Pakistan.  As noted above, <i>Sternochetus</i> sp. is reported from countries surrounding Pakistan (CABI, 2004), and it is very reasonable to expect airline passengers from surrounding countries to connect in Pakistan for a flight to the United States (Belano, 2005).  Therefore, the intercepted insects could have easily originated from a country other than Pakistan.  Furthermore, reports of <i>Sternochetus</i> species in Pakistan are erroneous (CABI, 2004; CABI Bioscience, 2003), and comprehensive surveys have not detected this genus in Pakistan (CIBC, 1969; CABI Bioscience, 2003).</p>
<p>It is expected that mangoes will be accompanied by a very short stem attached to the top of the fruit (apprpoximately 0.3 to 0.5cm long and technically, a pedicel which is part of the infloresence).  Presence of this stem cap is necessary for adequate preservation of fruit quality.  Because these stem caps are relatively short and because of their close promixity to the fruit surface, it is highly unlikely that importation of mago fruit with these stems will increase the risk of importing additional pests and diseases that would not already be associated with the fruit.  Consequently, for the purpose of identifying pests likely to follow the pathway on fresh mango fruit, we did not consider the short stem cap in the pest list (Table 2).</p>
<table><tbody><tr>	<td><p><b>Table 2.  Pests reported on mango (in any country) and present in Pakistan (on any host)</b>.</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Pest</b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Geographic Distribution</b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Plant part</b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Quarantine Pest</b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Follow Pathway</b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>References</b></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Acari</b></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Cheyletidae<i></i></b></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Acaropsis venustus</i> </p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan</p>
</td>	<td><p>leaf</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>Akhtar<i> et al.</i>, 1982; PIN, 2003; Shamshad<i> et al.</i>, 1999</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Eriophyidae<i></i></b></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Aceria mangiferae </i>Sayed  </p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan </p>
</td>	<td><p>inflorescence; leaf</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>Baker <i>et al</i>., 1996; CABI, 2003; Pakistan Document, 2002; PIN, 2003</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Tenuipalpidae<i></i></b></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Brevipalpus phoenicis </i> (Geijskes)  </p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan; U.S.</p>
</td>	<td><p>stem; leaf</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2003; PIN, 2003 </p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Oligonychus coffeae  </i> (Nietner)  </p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan; U.S.</p>
</td>	<td><p>leaf</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2003; PIN, 2003</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Insecta</b></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Coleoptera</b></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Bostrichidae<i></i></b></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Sinoxylon conigerum  </i>Gerstaecker  </p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan </p>
</td>	<td><p>stem</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2003</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Cerambycidae<i></i></b></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Batocera rubus </i> (L.)  </p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan </p>
</td>	<td><p>stem; leaf</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2003; PIN, 2003 </p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Batocera rufomaculata </i>DeGeer  </p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan </p>
</td>	<td><p>stem</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan Document, 2002; PIN, 2003</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Curculionidae<i></i></b></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Chalcodermus sp. </i>  </p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan </p>
</td>	<td><p>fruit; leaf</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>PIN, 2003</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Hypomeces squamosus </i> (Fabricius)  </p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan </p>
</td>	<td><p>leaf; roots</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2003; PIN, 2003 </p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Diptera</b></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Cecidomyiidae</b></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Procontarinia mangifoliae</i> (Grover) =<i>Munierielle mangifoliae</i> Grover</p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan</p>
</td>	<td><p>leaf</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>Butani, 1993; Gangwar, 1982; Singh, 1993</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Muscidae<i></i></b></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Atherigona orientalis </i>Schiner</p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan; U.S.</p>
</td>	<td><p>stem; leaf; roots; fruit</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2003; PIN, 2003 </p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Tephritidae<i></i></b></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Bactrocera correcta </i>(Bezzi)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan</p>
</td>	<td><p>fruit</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2003</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Bactrocera cucurbitae </i>Coquillett  </p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan </p>
</td>	<td><p>fruit</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2003; Kazi, 1976; PIN, 2003</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Bactrocera dorsalis </i> (Hendel)  </p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan </p>
</td>	<td><p>fruit</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>Anjum<i> et al.</i>, 2000; CABI, 2003 Heppner, 1988</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Bactrocera sp. </i>  </p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan </p>
</td>	<td><p>fruit</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>PIN, 2003</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Bactrocera zonata</i> (Saunders)  </p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan </p>
</td>	<td><p>fruit</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>Anjum<i> et al.</i>, 2000; CABI, 2003; PIN, 2003</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Dacus sp. </i></p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan</p>
</td>	<td><p>fruit</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>PIN, 2003</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Hemiptera</b></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Aleyrodidae<i></i></b></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Aleurocanthus woglumi </i>Ashby =<i>Aleurocanthus hussaini </i>Corbett <i> </i></p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan; U.S. (FL, HI, TX)</p>
</td>	<td><p>leaf, stem</p>
</td>	<td><p>[Yes]2</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2003; Martin, 1985; PIN, 2003; NIS, 2004a</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Aleurolobus marlatti </i>Quaintance </p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan </p>
</td>	<td><p>leaf</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>No3</p>
</td>	<td><p>PIN, 2003</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Cicadellidae<i></i></b></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Amritodus atkinsoni </i>Lethierry  </p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan </p>
</td>	<td><p>leaf, inflorescence</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2003; Talpur<i> et al.</i>, 2002</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Idioscopus clypealis </i> (Lethierry)  </p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan </p>
</td>	<td><p>inflorescence; leaf</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>Ahmed, 1983; Pakistan Document, 2002; PIN, 2003</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Idioscopus niveosparsus </i> (Lethierry)  </p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan </p>
</td>	<td><p>inflorescence; leaf</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2003; Soomro<i> et al.</i>, 1987</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Coccidae<i></i></b></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Ceroplastes floridensis </i>Comstock  </p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan; U.S.</p>
</td>	<td><p>leaf, stems, fruit</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2003; PIN, 2003 </p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Ceroplastes rubens </i>Maskell  </p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan; U.S. (FL, HI) </p>
</td>	<td><p>leaves, stems, twigs, fruit </p>
</td>	<td><p>[Yes] 2</p>
</td>	<td><p>No3</p>
</td>	<td><p>PIN, 2003; CABI, 2004; ScaleNet, 2005</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Coccus discrepans</i> (Green)<i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan</p>
</td>	<td><p>leaf, stem, fruit</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes4</p>
</td>	<td><p>ScaleNet, 2006; CABI, 2002</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Coccus hesperidum </i>(L.)  </p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan; U.S.</p>
</td>	<td><p>stem; leaf</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2003; PIN, 2003 </p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Coccus viridis </i> (Green)  </p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan, U.S. (FL, HI)  </p>
</td>	<td><p>stem; leaf; fruit</p>
</td>	<td><p>[Yes]2</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2003, 2005; PIN, 2003;  ScaleNet, 2005</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Milviscutulus mangiferae</i> (Green) (synonym: <i>Coccus mangiferae</i> Green)<i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan, U.S.</p>
</td>	<td><p>leaf; flower</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>ScaleNet, 2005; Mohyuddin and Mahmood, 1993; PIN, 2006a</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Parasaissetia nigra  </i> (Nietner)  </p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan; U.S.</p>
</td>	<td><p>stem; leaf</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2003; PIN, 2003</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Parthenolecanium persicae</i> (Fabricius)<i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan, U.S.</p>
</td>	<td><p>leaf</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>Wen <i>et al.</i>, 2002; ScaleNet, 2006</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Saissetia coffeae  </i> (Walker)  </p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan; U.S.</p>
</td>	<td><p>stem; leaf</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2003; PIN, 2003</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Saissetia oleae </i>(Olivier)<i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan, U.S.</p>
</td>	<td><p>leaf, stem</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>ScaleNet, 2006; CABI, 2004; Wen <i>et al.</i>, 2002</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Saissetia privigna </i>De Lotto<i> </i></p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan</p>
</td>	<td><p>stem; leaf</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>Muzaffar and Ahmad, 1977</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Vinsonia stellifera </i>(Westwood)<i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan, U.S. (AL, FL, GA)</p>
</td>	<td><p>leaf, stem</p>
</td>	<td><p>[Yes] 2</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>ScaleNet, 2006; CPHST, 2003</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Coreidae</b></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Leptocorisa acuta </i>Thunberg  </p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan </p>
</td>	<td><p>leaf</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2003</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Diaspididae<i></i></b></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Aonidiella aurantii </i> (Maskell)  </p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan; U.S.</p>
</td>	<td><p>leaf, stems, fruit</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>No3</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2003; PIN, 2003</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Aonidiella citrina </i>(Coquillett)<i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan; U.S.</p>
</td>	<td><p>leaves, fruit</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>ScaleNet, 2006</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Aonidiella orientalis </i> (Newstead)  </p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan; U.S.</p>
</td>	<td><p>leaf, stem, fruit</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>No3</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2003; PIN, 2003 </p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Aonidiella sp. </i>  </p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan </p>
</td>	<td><p> leaf, stem, fruit</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>No3</p>
</td>	<td><p>PIN, 2003</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Aspidiella hartii </i> (Cockerell)  </p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan </p>
</td>	<td><p>roots</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>PIN, 2003</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Aspidiotus destructor </i>Signoret  </p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan; U.S.</p>
</td>	<td><p>stem; leaf; fruit</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2003; Pakistan Document, 2002; PIN, 2003</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Aspidiotus sp. </i>  </p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan </p>
</td>	<td><p>[stem; leaf; fruit]6</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>PIN, 2003</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Aulacaspis rosae</i> (Bouché)<i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan; U.S.</p>
</td>	<td><p>bark</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>ScaleNet, 2006</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Aulacaspis sp. </i>  </p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan </p>
</td>	<td><p>leaf; fruit</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>Gallardo-Covas, 1983; PIN, 2003</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Aulacaspis tubercularis </i>Newstead  </p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan; U.S. (Fl) </p>
</td>	<td><p>fruit; leaf, stem</p>
</td>	<td><p>[Yes]2</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2003; Mohyuddin and Mahmood, 1993; PIN, 2003</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Chrysomphalus aonidum </i>(L.)  </p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan; U.S.</p>
</td>	<td><p>stem; leaf; fruit</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2003; PIN, 2003</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Chrysomphalus sp</i></p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan; U.S.</p>
</td>	<td><p>fruit; leaf</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>PIN, 2003</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Chrysomphalus sp.</i></p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan; U.S.</p>
</td>	<td><p>fruit; leaf, root; seed</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>PIN, 2003</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Hemiberlesia lataniae</i> (Signoret)<i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan; U.S.</p>
</td>	<td><p>braches, leaves, fruit, bark, twigs, stems</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>ScaleNet, 2006; CABI, 2004</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Lepidosaphes beckii </i> (Newman)  </p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan; U.S.</p>
</td>	<td><p>fruit; leaf, stem</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2003; PIN, 2003</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Lepidosaphes gloverii </i> (Packard)  </p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan; U.S.</p>
</td>	<td><p>fruit; leaf, stem</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2003; PIN, 2003 </p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Lepidosaphes pallidula </i>(Williams) </p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan</p>
</td>	<td><p>leaf</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>ScaleNet, 2006; Kosztarab, 1996</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Lepidosaphes tapleyi </i>Williams  </p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan </p>
</td>	<td><p>stem, leaf</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>Butani, 1978; PIN, 2003</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Lepidosaphes tokionis </i> (Kuwana)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan; U.S. (MS, HI) </p>
</td>	<td><p>fruit; leaf</p>
</td>	<td><p>[Yes] 2</p>
</td>	<td><p>No3</p>
</td>	<td><p>PIN, 2003; ScaleNet, 2004; NIS, 2004c</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Lindingaspis ferrisi </i>McKenzie<i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan</p>
</td>	<td><p>leaf</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>ScaleNet, 2005; Swailem, 1974; Mohyuddin and Mahmood, 1993</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Lindingaspis floridana</i> Ferris<i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan; U.S.</p>
</td>	<td><p>leaf</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>ScaleNet, 2006</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Parlatoria blanchardi </i>(Targioni-tozzetti)<i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan</p>
</td>	<td><p>fruit; leaf; stem</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>Miller, 1985; PIN, 2003; CABI, 2003; Gharib, 1973; Howard, 2001</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Parlatoria cinerea </i>Hadden in Doane & Hadden<i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan; U.S. (MD, DC)</p>
</td>	<td><p>twig</p>
</td>	<td><p>[Yes] 2</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>ScaleNet, 2006; Waite and Hwang, 2002</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Parlatoria crypta </i>McKenzie</p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan </p>
</td>	<td><p>fruit; leaf; stem</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>Butani, 1993; Miller, 1985; PIN, 2003; Suresh and Mohanasundaram, 1996; ScaleNet, 2004</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Parlatoria oleae </i>(Colvée)<i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan; U.S.</p>
</td>	<td><p>bark, leaf, fruit, stem</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>ScaleNet, 2006; CABI, 2004</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Parlatoria proteus </i>(Curtis)<i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan; U.S.</p>
</td>	<td><p>bark, leaf, fruit</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>ScaleNet, 2006; Kosztarab, 1996</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Parlatoria pseudaspidiotus </i>Lindinger<i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan; U.S.</p>
</td>	<td><p>leaf</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>ScaleNet, 2006; Watson, 2005</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Parlatoria ziziphi</i> (Lucas) </p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan; U.S. (FL, HI)</p>
</td>	<td><p>leaf, fruit</p>
</td>	<td><p>[Yes] 2</p>
</td>	<td><p>No3</p>
</td>	<td><p>Miller, 1985; PIN, 2003; ScaleNet, 2004; NIS, 2004e</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Pinnaspis strachani  </i> (Cooley)  </p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan; U.S.</p>
</td>	<td><p>fruit; leaf; stem</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2003; PIN, 2003</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Pseudaonidia trilobitiformis </i> (Green)  </p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan; U.S. (FL)</p>
</td>	<td><p>fruit; leaf</p>
</td>	<td><p>[Yes] 2</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>PIN, 2003; ScaleNet, 2005; USDA, 1979; NIS, 2003</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Pulvinaria psidii </i>Maskell<i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan; U.S.</p>
</td>	<td><p>fruit; leaf; flower; stem, twig</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>Waite, 2002; Waite and Hwang, 2002; Astridge, 2001; ScaleNet, 2005</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Kerridae</b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b></b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b></b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b></b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b></b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b></b></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Kerria lacca</i> (Kerr)<i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan</p>
</td>	<td><p>stem, branch</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>ScaleNet, 2006; Hwang and Hsieh, 1981; Wen <i>et al</i>., 2002 </p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Margarodidae<i></i></b></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Drosicha mangiferae</i> (Stebbing)<i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan</p>
</td>	<td><p>stem, shoot </p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>ScaleNet, 2006; Singh, 1993</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Drosicha stebbingi </i>DeGeer  </p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan </p>
</td>	<td><p>leaf, young fruit; twigs</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2003; Pakistan Document, 2002; PIN, 2003</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Icerya aegyptiaca </i> (Douglas)  </p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan </p>
</td>	<td><p>stem; leaf</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2003; Muzaffar, 1970; PIN, 2003</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Icerya purchasi </i>Maskell  </p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan; U.S.</p>
</td>	<td><p>stem; leaf</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2003; PIN, 2003 </p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Icerya seychellarum </i> (Westwood)  </p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan </p>
</td>	<td><p>stem; leaf</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2003; PIN, 2003 </p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Pseudococcidae</b>5<b><i></i></b></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Dysmicoccus brevipes </i> (Cockerell)  </p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan; U.S.</p>
</td>	<td><p>roots, stem; fruit</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2003; PIN, 2003</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Dysmicoccus neobrevipes </i>Beardsley<i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan; U.S. (HI, FL)</p>
</td>	<td><p>roots, stems, leaves, flowers, fruit </p>
</td>	<td><p>[Yes]2</p>
</td>	<td><p>No3</p>
</td>	<td><p>ScaleNet, 2006; PIN, 2004; CABI, 2004; Miller and Miller, 2002</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Ferrisia virgata </i> (Cockerell)  </p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan; U.S.</p>
</td>	<td><p>stem; fruit; leaf</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2003; PIN, 2003 </p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Maconellicoccus hirsutus </i> (Green)  </p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan; U.S. (CA & FL) </p>
</td>	<td><p>fruit; inflorescence, stem; leaf</p>
</td>	<td><p>[Yes] 2</p>
</td>	<td><p>No3</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2003; CABI, 2004; PIN, 2003 </p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Nipaecoccus nipae  </i> (Maskell)  </p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan; U.S.</p>
</td>	<td><p>stem; fruit; leaf</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2003; PIN, 2003</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Nipaecoccus viridis  </i> (Newstead)  </p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan </p>
</td>	<td><p>inflorescence, stem; fruit; leaf</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>No3</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2003; PIN, 2003; CABI, 2005; CIE, 1983</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Phenacoccus madeirensis </i>Green<i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan; U.S.</p>
</td>	<td><p>leaf, stem</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>ScaleNet, 2006; CABI, 2004</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Planococcoides robustus </i>Ezzat & McConnell </p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan </p>
</td>	<td><p>fruit</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>No3</p>
</td>	<td><p>PIN, 2003; ScaleNet, 2004</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Planococcus citri  </i> (Risso)  </p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan; U.S.</p>
</td>	<td><p>stem; leaf; roots; fruit</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2003; PIN, 2003</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Planococcus ficus </i>(Signoret)<i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan; U.S.</p>
</td>	<td><p>bark, developing buds, root</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>ScaleNet, 2006; UC IPM, 2004</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Rastrococcus invadens </i>Williams  </p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan </p>
</td>	<td><p>inflorescence, stem; leaf</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>No3</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2003; Mahmood<i> et al.</i>, 1980; PIN, 2003</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Hymenoptera</b></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Formicidae<i></i></b></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Crematogaster sp. </i>  </p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan; U.S.</p>
</td>	<td><p>fruit; leaf, root; seed</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>PIN, 2003</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Pheidole sp. </i>  </p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan; U.S.</p>
</td>	<td><p>all parts</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>NIN, 1998; PIN, 2003</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Isoptera</b></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Termitidae<i></i></b></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Microtermes obesi </i>Holmgren  </p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan </p>
</td>	<td><p>roots</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan Document, 2002; PIN, 2003</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Lepidoptera</b></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Limacodidae<i></i></b></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Parasa lepida </i> (Cramer)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan </p>
</td>	<td><p>leaf</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2003; Srivastava, 1997</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Lymantriidae<i></i></b></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Dasychira mendosa </i>Hübner  </p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan </p>
</td>	<td><p>leaf</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2003; PIN, 2003; Zhang, 1994</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Metarbelidae<i></i></b></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Indarbela quadrinotata </i> (Walker)  </p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan </p>
</td>	<td><p>stem</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2003; Zhang, 1994</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Noctuidae<i></i></b></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Chlumetia transversa </i>Walker  </p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan </p>
</td>	<td><p>inflorescence, stem</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan Document, 2002; Soomro<i> et al.</i>, 1987</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Eudocima fullonia </i> (Clerck)  </p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan </p>
</td>	<td><p>fruit</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>No3</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2003; PIN, 2003; Zhang, 1994</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Nymphalidae<i></i></b></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Melanitis leda ismene </i>Cramer  </p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan </p>
</td>	<td><p>leaf</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2003</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Pyralidae<i></i></b></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Cadra cautella </i>Walker  </p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan; U.S.</p>
</td>	<td><p>fruit</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2003; PIN, 2003 </p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Cryptoblabes gnidiella </i>Milliere</p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan </p>
</td>	<td><p>stem; fruit; leaf</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>No3</p>
</td>	<td><p>Bjostad<i> et al.</i>, 1981; CABI, 2003; PIN, 2003</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Maruca vitrata </i> (Fabricius)  </p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan </p>
</td>	<td><p>inflorescence</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>Butani, 1993; PIN, 2003</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Scirpophaga excerptalis </i>Walker  </p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan </p>
</td>	<td><p>stem; leaf</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2003; PIN, 2003 </p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Thysanoptera</b></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Thripidae</b>5<b><i></i></b></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Megalurothrips distalis </i> (Karny)  </p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan </p>
</td>	<td><p>inflorescence; leaf</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2003; PIN, 2003</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Rhipiphorothrips cruentatus </i>Hood  </p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan </p>
</td>	<td><p>leaf</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2003; Khuhro<i> et al.</i>, 1991; PIN, 2003</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Scirtothrips dorsalis </i>Hood  </p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan </p>
</td>	<td><p>inflorescence; leaf</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2003; PIN, 2003 </p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Selenothrips rubrocintus </i>Giard  </p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan; U.S. </p>
</td>	<td><p>leaf</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan Document, 2002; PIN, 2003; CABI, 2005</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Thrips hawaiiensis  </i> (Morgan)  </p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan; U.S.</p>
</td>	<td><p>inflorescence; fruit; leaf</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2003; PIN, 2003</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Thrips palmi  </i>Karny  </p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan; U.S. (FL, HI)</p>
</td>	<td><p>fruit; leaf</p>
</td>	<td><p>[Yes] 2</p>
</td>	<td><p>No3</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2003; PIN, 2003; NIS, 2004d </p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Thrips tabaci  </i>Lindeman </p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan; U.S.</p>
</td>	<td><p>inflorescence; leaf</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2003; PIN, 2003 </p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Fungi</b></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Alternaria alternata </i>(Fries : Fries) von Keissler</p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan; U.S.</p>
</td>	<td><p>fruit</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2003; Kobiler<i> et al.</i>, 1998; PIN, 2003</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Alternaria sp. </i></p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan </p>
</td>	<td><p>fruit</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan Document, 2002; PIN, 2003</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Aspergillus niger </i>Tiegh.  </p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan; U.S.</p>
</td>	<td><p>stem; leaf; roots; fruit</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2003; PIN, 2003</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Aspergillus sp. </i>  </p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan; U.S.</p>
</td>	<td><p>fruit</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan Document, 2002; PIN, 2003</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Botryodiplodia theobromae </i>Pat.  </p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan; U.S.</p>
</td>	<td><p>stem; twigs</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2003; Pakistan Document, 2002; PIN, 2003</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Botryosphaeria ribis </i>Gros. and Dug.  </p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan; U.S.</p>
</td>	<td><p>inflorescence, stem; fruit; leaf</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2003; PIN, 2003</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Capnodium ramosum </i>Cooke  </p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan; U.S.</p>
</td>	<td><p>leaf</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan Document, 2002; PIN, 2003 </p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Cercospora sp. </i>  </p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan; U.S.</p>
</td>	<td><p>leaf</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>Farr<i> et al.</i>, 1989; PIN, 2003 </p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Colletotrichum gloeosporioides </i>(Penz) Penz and Sacc.<i> = Glomerella cingulata</i></p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan; U.S.</p>
</td>	<td><p>fruit; inflorescence</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>Akhtar, 2000; Akhtar<i> et al.</i>, 1998a; Khan and Javed, 2002; PIN, 2003</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Corticium rolfsii </i>Curzi  </p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan; U.S.</p>
</td>	<td><p>fruit; leaf; roots; stem; young fruit</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2003; Farr<i> et al.</i>, 2003; PIN, 2003</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Diplodia natalensis</i> Ev. </p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan; U.S.</p>
</td>	<td><p>stem</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>Ahmed<i> et al.</i>, 1995; PIN, 2003; CABI, 2005</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Fusarium moniliforme</i> var <i>subglutins </i>Sheldon<i>= Gibberella fujlkurot </i>var<i> subglutins </i>(Sawada)<i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan; U.S.</p>
</td>	<td><p>inflorescence, stem</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>Akhtar<i> et al.</i>, 1999a</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Fusarium oxysporum </i>Schlechtendahl  </p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan, U.S. </p>
</td>	<td><p>roots, stem</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>Arshad and Gill, 2002; Pakistan Document, 2002; PIN, 2003; Farr <i>et al.</i>, 2006</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Fusarium solani </i>(Mart.) Sacc.  </p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan; U.S.</p>
</td>	<td><p>roots, stem</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan Document, 2002; PIN, 2003</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Gibberella zeae </i>(Schwein.) Petch  </p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan; U.S.</p>
</td>	<td><p>inflorescence; leaf; roots; stem</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2003; PIN, 2003</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Glomerella cingulata </i>Spauld. & Schrenk  </p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan; U.S.</p>
</td>	<td><p>fruit; leaf; twigs</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>Akhtar<i> et al.</i>, 1998a; CABI, 2003; PIN, 2003</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Macrophomina phaseolina  </i> (Tassi) Goid  </p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan; U.S.</p>
</td>	<td><p>stem; leaf; roots</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2003; PIN, 2003</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Oidium mangiferae </i>Berthet  </p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan </p>
</td>	<td><p>twigs</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>Akhtar<i> et al.</i>, 1999b; Akhtar<i> et al.</i>, 1998b; Haq<i> et al.</i>, 1994</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Phomopsis mangiferae</i> Ahmad<i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan</p>
</td>	<td><p>fruit, inflorescence, leaf, stem</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>Johnson<i> et al.</i>, 1993; Laxminarayana and Reddy, 1975; Farr <i>et al</i>, 2005</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Phytophthora sp. </i>De Barry  </p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan </p>
</td>	<td><p>roots, stem</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan Document, 2002; PIN, 2003</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Phytoplasma sp. </i> </p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan; U.S.</p>
</td>	<td><p>inflorescence</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan Document, 2002</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Pseudomonas syringae  </i> van Hall  </p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan; U.S.</p>
</td>	<td><p>inflorescence, stem; leaf; roots; fruit</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2003; PIN, 2003</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Rhizoctonia solani </i>Kühn  </p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan; U.S.</p>
</td>	<td><p>roots</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2003; Pakistan Document, 2002; PIN, 2003</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Nematodes</b></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Triplonchida<i></i></b></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Trichodorus sp. </i></p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan</p>
</td>	<td><p>roots</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>Anwar and Chaudhry, 1976</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Dorylaimida<i></i></b></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Dorylaimidae<i></i></b></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Discolaimus sp.</i> </p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan</p>
</td>	<td><p>root</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>Anwar and Chaudhry, 1976; PIN, 2003</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Dorylaimus sp. </i></p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan; U.S.</p>
</td>	<td><p>Root</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>Anwar and Chaudhry, 1976; CABI, 2005</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Longidoridae<i></i></b></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Xiphinema americanum </i>Cobb  </p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan; U.S.</p>
</td>	<td><p>roots</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2003; PIN, 2003 </p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Xiphinema sp. </i></p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan</p>
</td>	<td><p>roots</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>Anwar and Chaudhry, 1976</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Tylenchida<i></i></b></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Aphelenchidae<i></i></b></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Aphelenchus eremitus</i> Thorne</p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan</p>
</td>	<td><p>root</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>Anwar and Chaudhry, 1976</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Belonolaimidae<i></i></b></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Tylenchorhynchus martini</i> Fielding</p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan; U.S.</p>
</td>	<td><p>roots</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>Anwar and Chaudhry, 1976; CABI, 2005</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Criconematidae</b><i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Hemicriconemoides sp. </i></p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan</p>
</td>	<td><p>Roots</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>Anwar and Chaudhry, 1976</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Criconemella sp. </i>  </p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan; U.S.</p>
</td>	<td><p>roots</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2003; PIN, 2003</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Hemicriconemoides mangiferae </i>Siddiqi</p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan </p>
</td>	<td><p>roots</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2003; PIN, 2003; Saeed, 1974 </p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Heteroderidae<i></i></b></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Meloidogyne sp. </i></p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan</p>
</td>	<td><p>roots</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>Anwar and Chaudhry, 1976</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Meloidogyne incognita  </i> (Kofoid & White) Chitwood  </p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan; U.S.</p>
</td>	<td><p>leaf; roots</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2003; PIN, 2003</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Hoplolaimidae<i></i></b></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Hoplolaimus seinhorsti </i>Luc  </p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan </p>
</td>	<td><p>roots</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2003; Maqbool and Ghazala, 1988; PIN, 2003</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Helicotylenchus digonicus </i>(Perry in Perry) Darling and Thorne)  </p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan; U.S.</p>
</td>	<td><p>roots</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>Anwar and Chaudhry, 1976; PIN, 2003</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Helicotylenchus dihystera </i> (Cobb) Sher  </p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan; U.S.</p>
</td>	<td><p>leaf; roots</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2003; PIN, 2003</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Helicotylenchus multicinctus </i> (Cobb) Golden  </p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan </p>
</td>	<td><p>roots</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2003; PIN, 2003 </p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Helicotylenchus obliqus </i></p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan</p>
</td>	<td><p>roots</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>Maqbool and Shahina, 1986</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Hoplolaimus indicus </i></p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan</p>
</td>	<td><p>roots</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>Anwar and Chaudhry, 1976</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Pratylenchidae<i></i></b></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Pratylenchus sp. </i></p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan</p>
</td>	<td><p>roots</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>Anwar and Chaudhry, 1976</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Pratylenchus brachyurus  </i> (Godfrey) Filipjev & Schuurmans Stekhoven  </p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan; U.S.</p>
</td>	<td><p>stem; leaf; roots</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2003; PIN, 2003</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Pratylenchus penetrans  </i> (Cobb) Filipjev & Schuurmans Stekhoven  </p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan; U.S.</p>
</td>	<td><p>leaf; roots</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2003; PIN, 2003</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Rotylenchulidae<i></i></b></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Rotylenchus reniformis  </i>Linford & Oliveira  </p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan; U.S.</p>
</td>	<td><p>roots</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>Anwar and Chaudhry, 1976; CABI, 2003; PIN, 2003</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Virus</b></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>MN virus </p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan</p>
</td>	<td><p>inflorescence, stem</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>Mohyuddin<i> et al.</i>, 1973</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Bacteria</b></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Mycoplasma </i>spp.<i> </i>  </p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan </p>
</td>	<td><p>inflorescence</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2003; Pakistan Document, 2002</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Xanthomonas campestris </i>pv <i>mangiferaeindicae</i>(Patel <i>et al</i>.) Robbs <i>et al</i>. = <i>Pseudomonas mangiferae-indicae</i> Patel, Kulkarni and Moriz (Proteobacteria: γ subdivision, Lysobacterales)<i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan</p>
</td>	<td><p>Leaf, fruit</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>Afzal, 1987; Bradbury, 1986; Khan and Mirza, 1995; Reddy, 1975; Shekhawat and Patel, 1975; Vala<i> et al.</i>, 1988</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Plantae</b></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Amaranthus spinosus</i> L. </p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan; U.S.</p>
</td>	<td><p>no parts</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2003; PIN, 2003</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Ceratocystis paradoxa</i>  (Dade) Moreau  </p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan; U.S.</p>
</td>	<td><p>leaf, stems, roots, fruit</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2003; PIN, 2003</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Cyperus brevifolius</i>  (Rottb.) Hassk.  </p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan; U.S.</p>
</td>	<td><p>no part</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2003; PIN, 2003</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Dendrophthoe falcata</i> (Lf) Ettingsh </p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan</p>
</td>	<td><p>stem</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>Hawksworth<i> et al.</i>, 1993</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Euphorbia hirta</i> L.  </p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan; U.S.</p>
</td>	<td><p>no parts</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2003; PIN, 2003 </p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Ipomoea aquatica</i> Forsskal  </p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan </p>
</td>	<td><p>no part</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>PIN, 2003</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Mimosa pudica</i>  L.  </p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan; U.S.</p>
</td>	<td><p>no parts</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2003; PIN, 2003</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Solanum torvum</i> Swartz </p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan </p>
</td>	<td><p>no part</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>PIN, 2003</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Tridax procumbens</i>  L.  </p>
</td>	<td><p>Pakistan </p>
</td>	<td><p>no parts</p>
</td>	<td><p>Yes</p>
</td>	<td><p>No</p>
</td>	<td><p>CABI, 2003; PIN, 2003 </p>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<p>1U.S. = United States; FL = Florida; HI = Hawaii; MS = Mississippi; TX = Texas (Individual States are listed only if the pest species is considered a quarantine pest for the U.S.).
</p>
<p>2Brackets (“[ ]”) indicate that this is a quarantine significant species with limited distribution in the US (NIS, 2003; NIS, 2004a, 2004b, 2004c, 2004d, 2004e, 2004f, 2006; PIN, 2006b).
</p>
<p>3See notes in <a href="_E.__Discussion_of Quarantine Pests "><u>Section E</u></a> (“Discussion of Quarantine Pests That Were Not Selected for Further Analysis”) of document. </p>
<p>4<i>Coccus discrepans</i>: Related species (<i>e.g</i>., <i>Coccus viridis, Coccus hesperidum</i>) are reported to attack stems and/or fruit (CABI 2002); therefore, it is assumed that this species could follow the pathway.</p>
<p>5As discussed section E, we do not consider it likely that mealybugs (Pseudococcidae) and thrips (Thysanoptera) would follow the pathway due to standard post-harvest treatments.</p>
<p>6Assuming that host plant organ association is similar to the species <i>Aspidiotus destructor</i>.  </p>
<h1>E.  Discussion of Quarantine Pests That Were Not Selected for Further Analysis</h1>
<p>Of the pests of mango in Pakistan identified in Table 2, many are not of concern to the U.S. because they are not quarantine pests (they already occur in the U.S.) or they are unlikely to be imported with fresh mango.  Those pests not associated with mango fruit, or unlikely to remain with the fruit during harvesting and packing processes were not further analyzed in this document.  For example, root infecting nematodes are not expected to be directly associated with the harvested fruit.  Likewise, fungi infecting leaves or stems are not expected to be transported with the fruit, except as infrequent contaminants within commercial shipments.
</p>
<p>This risk assessment did not analyze organisms identified only to the genus level.  A genus may contain many species that are not pests of the commodity in question, and pest risk assessments must focus on the pertinent pests for which biological information is available.  Further, we assumed that carefully prepared mitigation measures that effectively control the known pests will control similar or closely related pests that have not been identified.
</p>
<p><b>Diptera: Cecidomyiidae
</b></p>
<p>Larvae of Cecidomyiidae (gall midges) that infest mango typically bore into leaves and cause galls to form.  Larvae of several species can also infest fruit as it begins to form.  The infested fruits turn pale, become hollow and shapeless and drop down prematurely (Butani, 1993), and therefore do not become a pathway for gall midges to enter the U.S.
</p>
<p><b>Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae
</b></p>
<p class="goohl1"><b><i>Aleurolobus marlatti
</i></b></p>
<p class="goohl1"><i>Aleurolobus marlatti</i> has been intercepted with fruit by agricultural specialists at U.S. ports of entry; however, there have only been five of these interceptions since 1985, all of which were in passenger baggage and not with commercial fruit (PIN309 query September 28, 2004).  It is estimated this organism would be unlikely to follow the pathway of export quality commercial mango fruit, as whiteflies (Aleyrodidae) are reported as leaf feeders, not fruit feeders (CABI, 2003).   Interceptions of whiteflies with fruit are likely a result of leaves being associated with the imported fruit.  The overwhelming majority of whitefly interceptions with fruit imports in permit cargo have been on okra <i>Abelmoschus esculentus</i>, which are normally contaminated with stems and leaves, the actual source of the whitefly infestations (NIS, 2004b).  As leaves are unlikely to be associated with export quality mango fruit, whiteflies are unlikely to follow the pathway.  Indeed, whiteflies have never been intercepted with mango in permit cargo (PIN, 2004).  
</p>
<p><b>Hemiptera: Diaspididae
</b></p>
<p><b><i>Aonidiella sp.</i></b></p>
<p><i>Aonidiella</i> <i>inornata </i>feeds primarily on the leaves and bark of the mango trees (Gupta and Singh, 1988).  Lee & Wen (1977) reported that <i>A. inornata</i> attacked the stems, pedicels, and fruit of papaya as the fruit were setting, but numbers on fruit declined greatly as fruit matured.  When species of <i>Aonidiella </i>attack papaya they reduce the market value of fruit (Lee and Wen, 1977), so it is reasonable to assume that fruit produced in outbreak years would not be suitable for export.  Between 1985 and 2002, APHIS intercepted a species of <i>Aonidiella</i> from mango only once (PIN, 2003).  It is unlikely that species of <i>Aonidiella </i> will follow the pathway, and also unlikely that if they did, crawlers (the immature larvae that emerge from under the scale mother) could move to suitable hosts in the U.S.  For these reasons, species of <i>Aonidiella </i>were not considered likely to follow the pathway.
</p>
<p><b>Hemiptera: Diaspididae
</b></p>
<p><b><i>Parlatoria ziziphi
</i></b></p>
<p><i>Parlatoria ziziphi</i> is unlikely to follow the pathway of mango fruit, because the host status of mango is questionable.  This species is reported to feed almost exclusively on citrus and is rarely recorded on other hosts (Blackburn and Miller, 1984).  Specifically, the hosts for this scale include <i>Citrus aurantiifolia</i>, <i>C. aurantium</i>,<i> C. hystrix, C.</i> <i>limon,</i> <i>C. nobilis</i>,<i> C. x paradisi, C. reticulata</i>,<i> C. sinensis</i>, <i>Severinia buxifolia</i> (Rutaceae) and <i>Murraya paniculata</i> (Rutaceae) (CABI, 2003; Dekle, 1976a).  There are reports of this scale on other non-Rutaceae plants as well, but these reports are thought to be doubtful (Dekle, 1976a; CABI, 2003).  No reports were found in the literature of this scale species on mango.  The only evidence of it being possible for this scale species to attack mango is that, since 1985, is has been intercepted on mango fruit or leaves 35 times by agricultural specialists at U.S. ports of entry (PIN309 query October 1, 2004).  However, all but two of these interceptions were in passenger baggage (the other two being in mail and ship’s quarters), and none were with export quality mango fruit in permit cargo.  </p>
<p><b><i>Lepidosaphes tokionis </i> </b></p>
<p class="footnote_Text"><i>Lepidosaphes tokionis</i> is unlikely to follow the pathway of mango fruit, because its presence in Pakistan is questionable.   The only evidence of it possibly being in Pakistan is two interceptions on mango from Pakistan by agricultural specialists at U.S. ports of entry since 1985 (PIN, 2004) (PIN309 query September 28, 2004).  Both of these interceptions were in passenger baggage; as such, the true origin of the fruit is difficult to determine.  Consequently, we conclude there is insufficient evidence to consider this scale species likely to follow the pathway of mango fruit from Pakistan.</p>
<p class="footnote_Text"><b>Hemiptera: Coccidae</b></p>
<p class="footnote_Text"><b><i>Ceroplastes rubens</i></b><i> </i></p>
<p class="footnote_Text">Similar to <i>L. tokionis,</i> the presence of <i>Ceroplastes rubens </i>in Pakistan is questionable.  The only evidence of it possibly being in Pakistan is two interceptions at U.S. ports-of-entry on plant material from Pakistan, both in passenger baggage (PIN, 2004) (PIN309 query, September 28, 2004).  As stated above, the true origin of commodities in passenger baggage is difficult to confirm.  Furthermore, the government of Pakistan states that this species does not occur in Pakistan (Government of Pakistan, 2006).  Based on this evidence, we conclude there is insufficient evidence to consider this scale species likely to follow the pathway of mango fruit from Pakistan.</p>
<p class="footnote_Text"><b>Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae
</b></p>
<p><b><i>Dysmicoccus neobrevipes, Maconellicoccus hirsutus, Nipaecoccus viridis, Planococcoides robustus, Rastrococcus invadens 
</i></b></p>
<p>We estimate it is unlikely for mealybugs (Pseudococcidae) to be associated with commercial export-quality mango fruit, as the fruits are individually cleaned and washed as part of the standard post-harvest treatment (<i>e.g</i>., for India, see Seshadri, 2004).   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).  If any mealybugs are on the fruit at the time of harvest, they would likely be removed by this post-harvest practice.  Commercial mangoes typically are composed only of the fruit and a very short (approximately 0.3 to 0.5cm) pedicel attached to the top of the fruit.  The calyx is no longer present at harvest; therefore, there are no hiding places for the mealybugs on the fruits.
</p>
<p><b>Lepidoptera: Pyralidae: </b></p>
<p><b><i>Cryptoblabes gnidiella</i> 
</b></p>
<p><i>Cryptoblabes gnidiella</i> is unlikely to follow the pathway because larval infestations generally cause fruit to drop before harvest (Silva and Mexia, 1999).  Also fruit injury is very noticeable and causes fruit to be unfit for sale.  Butani (1993) mentions<i> C. gnidiella</i> only as a predator of whiteflies, not as a pest of mango.  In Hawaii, this pest attacks Christmas berry, coffee, corn, green beans, and sorghum, but not mango (Mau and Kessing, 1992).  <i>Crptoblabes gnidiella</i> ranges through Pakistan, India, Israel, Nigeria, Egypt, Zaire, Italy (Sicily), Spain, Cyprus, Turkey, Malaysia, Indonesia, New Zealand, Hawaii and tropical and subtropical South America (Zhang, 1994), but has only been intercepted on mango entering the U.S. once, from Egypt (PIN, 2003).  
</p>
<p><b>Lepidoptera: Noctuidae: </b></p>
<p><b><i>Eudocima fullonia</i> 
</b></p>
<p>Adults of this species feed on fruit juices by piercing the skin with the proboscis.  Feeding damage causes the fruit to become spongy and can lead to rot.  Larvae do not attack the fruit (CABI, 2003).  Adults are not expected to remain with fruit through harvest.</p>
<p class="footnote_Text"><b>Thysanoptera: Thripidae</b></p>
<p><b><i>Thrips palmi  
</i></b></p>
<p>As with the mealybugs, we estimate it is unlikely for thrips species to be associated with commercial export-quality mango fruit, as the fruits are individually cleaned and washed as part of the standard post-harvest treatment.   If any thrips are on the fruit at the time of harvest, they would likely be removed by this post-harvest practice.  The calyx is no longer present at harvest; therefore, there are no hiding places for the thrips on the fruits.
</p>
<h1>F.  Quarantine Pests Considered for Further Evaluation</h1>
<p><b>Table 3. Quarantine Pests Selected for Further Analysis.
</b></p>
<table><tbody><tr>	<td><p><b>DIPTERA:Tephritidae</b><i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p><i>Bactrocera correcta</i> (Bezzi)<b></b></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p><i>Bactrocera cucurbitae </i>Coquillett<i></i></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p><i>Bactrocera dorsalis </i>Hendel<i></i></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p><i>Bactrocera zonata</i> (Saunders)<i></i></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>HEMIPTERA: Coccidae</b></p>
</td>	<td><p><i>Coccus discrepans </i>(Green)<i></i></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b></b></p>
</td>	<td><p><i>Coccus viridis</i> Green<i></i></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>HEMIPTERA: Diaspididae
</b></p>
<p></p>
</td>	<td><p><i>Aulacaspis tubercularis</i> Newstead
</p>
<p><i>Parlatoria blanchardi </i>(Targioni-Tozzetti)
</p>
<p><i>Parlatoria crypta </i>McKenzie<i> 
</i></p>
<p><i>Pseudaonidia trilobitiformis </i>(Green)<b></b></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>BACTERIA</b></p>
</td>	<td><p><i>Xanthomonas campestris</i> pv. <i>mangiferaeindica</i> (Patel <i>et al</i>.) Robbs <i>et al</i>.</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>FUNGI</b></p>
</td>	<td><p><i>Phomopsis mangiferae </i>Ahmad </p>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<h1>G.  Analysis of Quarantine Pests
</h1>
<p>The quarantine pests listed in Table 3 were analyzed in two segments: the consequences of introduction and the likelihood of introduction.  The consequences of introduction were broken down into five risk elements: Climate-Host Interaction, Host Range, Dispersal Potential, Economic Impact and Environmental Impact.  The likelihood of introduction was divided into six sub-elements.  For each of the pests, the consequences of introduction and the likelihood of introduction were combined to estimate the Baseline Pest Risk Potential.
</p>
<p>The information provided in this document is not intended to include all of the available literature, but to identify the basis for the rating of “High,” “Medium,” or “Low” risk as defined in the PPQ risk assessment guidelines (USDA, 2000).  The major sources of uncertainty in this risk assessment were the lack of biological information on regional flora and fauna, the inherent biological variation within a population of organisms (Morgan and Henrion, 1990), the quality of the biological information (Gallegos and Bonano, 1993), and the approach used to combine risk elements (Bier, 1999; Morgan and Henrion, 1990).
</p>
<h3>Risk Elements 1-5: Consequences of Introduction</h3>
<p class="list_Number_2">This section evaluated each of the pest groups for five risk elements, (1) Climate-Host Interaction, (2) Host Range, (3) Dispersal Potential, (4) Economic Impact, and (5) Environmental Impact.  For each risk element, pests are assigned a rating of Low (1 point), Medium (2 points) or High (3 points) (USDA 2000).  The following is a description of how each of these ratings are determined for each risk element (USDA 2000):
</p>
<p><b>Risk Element #1- Climate-Host Interactions</b></p>
<p>If a species encounters suitable climate and hosts in the area where it is introduced, the organism may survive and achieve pest status in the new environment.  This risk element is evaluated on the minimum number of U.S. “Plant Hardiness Zones” in which the species might achieve pest status (USDA, 1990).  Risk ratings are based on the following criteria:
</p>
<p>Low (1): the species is only likely to become established in one hardiness zone
</p>
<p>Medium (2): the species is likely to become established in two or three hardiness zones
</p>
<p>High (3): the species is likely to become established in four or more hardiness zones 
</p>
<p><b>Risk Element #2- Host Range
</b></p>
<p>The risk posed by a plant pest depends on both its ability to establish a viable, reproductive population and its potential to injure plants.  For arthropods, risk is assumed to be correlated positively with host range.  For pathogens, risk is assumed to depend on host range, aggressiveness, virulence and pathogenicity; for simplicity, risk is rated as a function of host range:
</p>
<p>Low (1): pest attacks a single species or multiple species within a single genus
</p>
<p>Medium (2): pest attacks multiple species within a single plant family
</p>
<p>High (3): pest attacks multiple species among multiple plant families
</p>
<p><b>Risk Element #3-Dispersal Potential
</b></p>
<p>A pest may disperse after arriving in a new area.  The following items are considered: reproductive patterns of the pest (<i>e.g.</i>, voltinism, biotic potential); inherent powers of movement; factors facilitating dispersal, wind, water, presence of vectors, humans, <i>etc.
</i></p>
<p>Low (1): pest has neither high reproductive potential nor rapid dispersal capability
</p>
<p>Medium (2): pest has either high reproductive potential OR the species is capable of rapid dispersal
</p>
<p>High (3): Pest has high biotic potential, <i>e.g.</i>, many generations per year, many offspring per reproduction (“r-selected” species), AND evidence exists that the pest is capable of rapid dispersal, <i>e.g.</i>, over 10km/year under its own power; via natural forces, wind, water, vectors, <i>etc.</i>, or human-assistance.
</p>
<p><b>Risk Element #4-Economic Impact
</b></p>
<p>Introduced pests can cause a variety of direct and indirect economic impacts.  These are divided into three primary categories (other types of impacts may occur): lower yield of the host crop, <i>e.g.</i>, by causing plant mortality, or by acting as a disease vector; lower value of the commodity, <i>e.g.</i>, by increasing costs of production, lowering market price, or a combination; loss of foreign or domestic markets due to presence of a new quarantine pest.
</p>
<p>Low (1): pest causes any one or none of the above impacts
</p>
<p>Medium (2): pest causes any two of the above impacts
</p>
<p>High (3): pest causes all three of the above impacts
</p>
<p><b>Risk Element #5- Environmental Impact
</b></p>
<p>A pest may cause significant, direct consequences to the environment, e.g., cause an ecological disaster or reduce biodiversity.  In the context of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (7CFR§372), significance is qualitative and encompasses both the likelihood and severity of an environmental impact.  The act describes an environmental pest as: “expected to have direct impacts on species listed by Federal Agencies as endangered or threatened (50CFR§17.11 and §17.12), by infesting/infecting a listed plant.  If the pest attacks other species within the genus or other genera within the family, and preference/no preference tests have not been conducted with the listed plant and the pest, then the plant is assumed to be a host; pest is expected to have indirect impacts on species listed by Federal Agencies as endangered or threatened by disrupting sensitive, critical habitat; introduction of the pest would stimulate chemical or biological control programs.”
</p>
<p>Low (1): none of the above would occur
</p>
<p>Medium (2): one of the above would occur
</p>
<p>High (3): two or more of the above would occur.
</p>
<p><b>ARTHROPODS</b></p>
<table><tbody><tr>	<td><p><b>Consequences of Introduction: <i>Bactrocera correcta</i> (Bezzi), <i>Bactrocera cucurbitae </i>Coquillett, <i>Bactrocera dorsalis </i>Hendel, <i>Bactrocera zonata</i> (Saunders) (Diptera: Tephritidae)</b></p>
</td>	<td><p>Risk Value</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #1: Climate-Host Interaction
</b></p>
<p>Fruit flies in the genus <i>Bactrocera</i> infest numerous fruit species in tropical and semitropical areas of Southeast Asia (CABI, 2003). Although most of the species occur in tropical Asia, <i>Bactrocera</i> <i>cucurbitae</i> has become established in eastern Africa and Hawaii and <i>B. dorsalis</i> in Hawaii and Surinam (White and Elson-Harris, 1994).  The <i>Bactrocera</i> inhabit areas corresponding to USDA Plant Hardiness Zones 10 and 11, both of which are represented in the U.S., so the risk rating for Climate-Host Interaction was Medium (2).  </p>
</td>	<td><p>Medium (2)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #2: Host Range
</b></p>
<p>The guava fruit fly, <i>Bactrocera</i> <i>correcta</i> attacks the fruit of at least 31 tree genera in families as diverse as Anacardiaceae and Rosaceae (CABI, 2003).  The Oriental fruit fly, <i>B. dorsalis</i>, is a serious pest of a wide range of fruit crops in the northern areas of the Indian subcontinent (White and Elson-Harris, 1994), however, there has been confusion about the nomenclature of this species and many species identified as <i>B. dorsalis</i> may refer to other species in the <i>B. dorsalis</i> complex.  The peach fruit fly, <i>B. zonata</i>, is a pest of mango in Pakistan (Syed<i> et al.</i>, 1970) and attacks numerous hosts in the Rosaceae and other families.  Many of the host species of the fruit flies listed here occur in the U.S., including <i>Mangifera indica</i> and <i>Citrus</i> spp. in Florida and California, <i>Carica</i> <i>papaya</i> in the southern states, and <i>Prunus</i> spp. throughout the country, as a result, the risk related to Host Range was rated High (3).</p>
</td>	<td><p>High (3)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential
</b></p>
<p><i>Bactrocera</i> fly away from their field host within one hour after emergence from the pupal stage (Kazi, 1976), and may disperse to nearby fields.  Fruit flies also travel easily with fruit in commercial and tourist traffic (PIN, 2003), so they are all rated High (3) for the Dispersal Potential risk element.</p>
</td>	<td><p>High (3)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #4: Economic Impact
</b></p>
<p>Abbas <i>et al</i> (2000) called <i>B. dorsalis</i> the most destructive mango fruit fly in India, followed by <i>B. zonatus</i> and <i>B. correctus.</i>  Females oviposit inside the mesocarp of mature fruits, and larvae feed on the pulp, causing the fruit to rot before ripening and finally dropping (Abbas<i> et al.</i>, 2000).  In some years <i>B. cucurbitae</i> partially or totally destroys 50% of vegetable crops it attacks (Lall and Singh, 1969).  The injury by <i>B. dorsalis</i> reduces the yield and quality of mango fruits (Mann, 1996).
</p>
<p>Adult <i>B. dorsalis</i> can be controlled with methyl eugenol traps (Lakshmanan<i> et al.</i>, 1973), bait sprays, pheromone mating disruption, and pesticide applications to fruit (Abbas<i> et al.</i>, 2000).  Larvae inside fruit can be killed by cold treatments (Burikam<i> et al.</i>, 1992), vapor heat treatment (Heard<i> et al.</i>, 1992; Heather<i> et al.</i>, 1992), and gamma irradiation (Heather<i> et al.</i>, 1992).  The expense required to control fruit flies and the loss of export potential due to the presence of fruit flies would have a High (3) Economic Impact.</p>
</td>	<td><p>High (3)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact
</b></p>
<p>Potential hosts of <i>B</i>. <i>dorsalis</i> and <i>B.  correcta </i>listed by USFW (2004) as Endangered are <i>Prunus geniculata</i>, and <i>Ziziphus</i> <i>celata</i>.  Both of these plant species are present in <i>B</i>. <i>dorsalis’</i> and <i>B.  correcta’</i>s predicted climatic range in the continental U.S. and are<i> </i>congeneric with plant species reported as hosts of these two species of<i> Bactrocera</i>.   Likewise, <i>Prunus geniculata</i> is congeneric with <i>Prunus persica</i>, a reported host of <i>B. zonata</i>.   Potential hosts for <i>B.  cucurbitae </i>listed as Endangered by USFW (2004) and present within <i>B.  cucurbitae</i>’s predicted climatic range in the continental U.S. are: <i>Cucurbita okeechobeensis </i>ssp.<i> okeechobeensis</i>, <i>Prunus geniculata</i>, and <i>Ziziphus celata</i>.  These plant species are congeneric with plant species reported as hosts of <i>B. cucurbitae.  </i>As these <i>Bactrocera </i>species represent important economic threats, their establishment in the continental U.S. would likely trigger the initiation of chemical and/or biological control programs.  Based on this evidence, the Environmental Impact of was rated High (3) for all four <i>Bactrocera </i>species.</p>
</td>	<td><p>High (3)</p>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<table><tbody><tr>	<td><p><b>Consequences of Introduction: <i>Coccus discrepans</i> Green (Hemiptera: Coccidae)</b></p>
</td>	<td><p>Risk Value</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #1: Climate-Host Interaction
</b></p>
<p><i>Coccus discrepans</i> has a tropical/subtropical distribution, as it is reported in Singapore, India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, and Japan (Ben-Dov 1993; Graf 1981).  It is, therefore, estimated that this species could become established in the continental US in areas corresponding to Plant Hardiness Zones 9-11.  One or more of its potential hosts occurs in these zones (USDA NRCS 2003). </p>
</td>	<td><p>Medium (2)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #2: Host Range
</b></p>
<p><i>Coccus discrepans</i>’ host range includes: <i>Carica papaya</i> (Caricaceae); <i>Glochidion callicarpa</i> (Euphorbiaceae); <i>Maesa pedicellata</i> (Myrsinaceae); <i>Areca oleracea, Cocos nucifera</i> (Palmae); <i>Citrus, Murraya calaxylon</i> (Rutaceae); <i>Thea</i> (Theaceae); and <i>Callicarpa formosana</i> (Verbenaceae) (Ben-Dov 1993); plus <i>Mangifera indica, Mangifera odorata</i> (Anacardiaceae); <i>Musa, Musa paradisiaca</i> (Musaceae); <i>Ziziphus jujube</i> (Rhamnaceae); <i>Camellia sinensis</i> (Theaceae) (ScaleNet 2002), and <i>Dimocarpus</i> <i>longan</i> (Sapindaceae) (Anonymous 1965).</p>
</td>	<td><p>High (3)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential
</b></p>
<p>No information could be found on the dispersal potential of this species.  Because of a lack of information, its dispersal potential is assumed to be similar to that of <i>Coccus viridis</i>, and it is given a rating of High (3) for the Dispersal Potential Risk Element.</p>
</td>	<td><p>High (3)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #4: Economic Impact
</b></p>
<p>No information could be found on the economic impact of this species.  Because of a lack of information, its potential economic impact is assumed to be similar to that of <i>Coccus viridis</i>, and it is given a rating of High (3) for the Economic Impact Risk Element.</p>
</td>	<td><p>High (3)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact
</b></p>
<p><i>Ziziphus celata</i> is a potential host of <i>C. discrepans</i> and is listed as Endangered in 50 CFR §17.12.  As it is assumed this scale represents an important economic threat (see Risk Element #4), its establishment in the US would probably trigger the initiation of chemical and/or biological control programs.  </p>
</td>	<td><p>High (3)</p>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<table><tbody><tr>	<td><p><b>Consequences of Introduction: <i>Coccus viridis</i> Green (Hemiptera: Coccidae)</b></p>
</td>	<td><p>Risk Value</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #1: Climate-Host Interaction
</b></p>
<p>This species is pantropical in distribution. It has been reported from India through Indo-China, Malaysia to the Philippines and Indonesia, throughout much of Oceania and sub-Saharan Africa south to South Africa (CABI 2002).  In the New World, it is present in Florida, and ranges from Central America to the northern part of South America and throughout the Caribbean.  Its reported distribution corresponds to Plant Hardiness Zones 8-11.  It is estimated that this species could become established in areas of the U.S. corresponding to Plant Hardiness Zones 9-11, which corresponds to its present distribution in the U.S.  Zones 9-11 correspond to Florida, southern Texas, southern Arizona, much of California, and Hawaii (USDA 1990).  One or more hosts of <i>C. viridis</i> are present in these States (USDA NRCS 2003).  This estimate does not include Plant Hardiness Zone 8, as this zone only occurs in isolated areas of some of the countries (<i>e.g</i>., Andean regions of Bolivia and Peru, northern Mexico, isolated central area of South Africa) from which <i>C. viridis  </i>is reported (BackyardGardner.com 2003).  Survival outside of these areas would be limited to greenhouse or other artificial situations.  Consequently, the Climate-Host Interaction risk element was rated Medium (2) for <i>C. viridis</i>.</p>
</td>	<td><p>Medium (2)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #2: Host Range
</b></p>
<p><i>Coccus viridis</i> has a broad host range (CABI 2002).  Primary hosts are <i>Citrus</i> spp. (Rutaceae), <i>Coffea arabica</i> (Rubiaceae), <i>Artocarpus </i>sp. (Moraceae), <i>Camellia sinensis</i> (Theaceae), <i>Manihot esculenta</i> (Euphorbiaceae), <i>Mangifera indica</i> (Anacardiaceae), <i>Psidium guajava</i> (Myrtaceae), and <i>Theobroma cacao </i>(Sterculiaceae) (CABI 2002).  Other hosts include <i>Alpinia purpurata</i> (Zingiberaceae), <i>Chrysanthemum </i>sp. (Asteraceae), <i>Manilkara zapota</i> (Sapotaceae), <i>Nerium oleander</i> (Apocynaceae) (CABI 2002), and <i>Dimocarpus</i> <i>longan</i> (Sapindaceae) (ScaleNet, 2004).  Therefore, the Host Range risk element was rated High (3) for this organism.</p>
</td>	<td><p>High (3)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential
</b></p>
<p><i>Coccus viridis</i> is parthenogenetic and oviparous (Dekle 1976b).  Females may deposit up to 500 eggs (CABI 2002).  There may be several generations per year (Kosztarab 1997). The rate of natural dispersal is inherently low (Tandon and Veeresh 1988); however, since 1985, <i>C.  viridis</i> has been intercepted 10,658 times by agricultural specialists at U.S. ports of entry (PIN309 query September 30, 2004), which is strong evidence that this species can, and has, spread quickly and widely via the transport of infested plant materials.  In light of this evidence, this organism was rated High (3) for the Dispersal Potential risk element.</p>
</td>	<td><p>High (3)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #4: Economic Impact
</b></p>
<p>Although its economic impact is usually minor, it can be extremely devastating depending on location and crop (CABI 2002).  <i>Coccus viridis</i> is a pest of coffee, citrus and other crops in several regions in the tropics, and it is reported as a major pest of citrus in Bolivia (Ben-Dov 1993).  <i>Coccus viridis</i> is a major pest of coffee in Haiti (Aitken Soux 1985) and India (Narasimham 1987).  In Brazil, infestations of 50 scales per plant caused significant 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, <i>C. viridis</i> and one other scale species cause most of the yield loss (Williams 1986).  In India, citrus fruit quality was significantly lower on trees following <i>C</i>. <i>viridis</i> infestation and the sooty mold (<i>Capnodium citri</i>) contamination that accompanied it (Haleem 1984).  Based on this evidence, the wider establishment in the U.S. of <i>C. viridis</i> would likely lead to lower yield of host crops, lower value of host crop commodities, and loss of foreign or domestic markets.  Consequently, <i>C. viridis</i> was rated High (3) for the Economic Impact risk element.</p>
</td>	<td><p>High (3)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact
</b></p>
<p>The extreme polyphagy of <i>C</i>. <i>viridis</i> predisposes it to attack vulnerable native plants in the U.S.  The potential host <i>Manihot walkerae </i>(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.  The Environmental Impact risk element was, therefore, rated High (3).<b></b></p>
</td>	<td><p>High (3)</p>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<table><tbody><tr>	<td><p><b>Consequences of Introduction: <i>Aulacaspis tubercularis</i> Newstead (Hemiptera: Diaspididae)</b></p>
</td>	<td><p>Risk Value</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #1: Climate-Host Interaction
</b></p>
<p>The mango scale, <i>Aulacaspis tubercularis</i>, is found throughout the world where mango is cultivated, including the northern part of South America, the Caribbean, the east and west coasts of Africa, and India, and Italy (CABI, 2003).  The regions occupied by <i>A. tubercularis</i> correspond to USDA Plant Hardiness Zones 10 and 11 (CABI, 2003), so the Climate-Host Interaction rating was Medium (2).  </p>
</td>	<td><p>Medium (2)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #2: Host Range
</b></p>
<p>The mango scale attacks hosts in at least seven plant families (Hamon, 2002), therefore the Host Range was rated High (3).  In South Africa, it was first recorded on one cultivar of mango in 1947 and has since become a pest throughout all mango producing areas of South Africa (Joubert<i> et al.</i>, 2000).  </p>
</td>	<td><p>High (3)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential
</b></p>
<p>Armored scales go through three or more developmental stages; the females are sessile except for the crawler stage and adult males are winged.  After laying eggs the female dies leaving the eggs protected under her cover. Crawlers emerge in about two weeks and search for a place to settle, insert their mouthparts, and feed. They prefer the lower surfaces of older leaves, but when pest population is high they may infest fruit over successive generations (CABI, 2003). Only the crawler stage can move to a new host (adult males can fly but cannot establish a colony), but scale insects can move to new hosts as a result of wind, birds, and insects.  Crawlers are capable of moving distances of tens of kilometers on wind currents to infect clean crops (Greathead, 1989).  <i>Aulacaspis</i> <i>tubercularis</i> has proven it can spread through mango producing regions, so Dispersal Potential was rated High (3).  </p>
</td>	<td><p>High (3)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #4: Economic Impact
</b></p>
<p>The scale attacks mango leaves, branches and fruit where it causes superficial pink or yellow blemishes to develop, making the fruit unmarketable (Joubert<i> et al.</i>, 2000), although precise economical figures are lacking.  In the absence of evidence, Economic Impact was rated Medium (2).  </p>
</td>	<td><p>Medium (2)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact
</b></p>
<p><i>Cucurbita okeechobeensis</i> ssp. <i>okeechobeensis</i> is a potential plant host of <i>A. tubercularis</i> listed as Endangered by USFWS (2004) and reported in this scale insect’s predicted climatic range in the continental U.S.  The genus <i>Cucurbita</i> is a reported host of this scale species (CABI, 2003).   The introduction of <i>A. tubercularis</i> into the U.S. could stimulate chemical or biological control programs.  Consequently, the Environmental Impact was rated High (3).</p>
</td>	<td><p>High (3)</p>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<table><tbody><tr>	<td><p><b>Consequences of Introduction: <i>Parlatoria blanchardi</i> (Targioni Tozzetti) (Hemiptera: Diaspididae)</b></p>
</td>	<td><p>Risk Value</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #1: Climate-Host Interaction
</b></p>
<p><i>Parlatoria blanchardi</i> is subtropical and tropical in distribution (CABI, 2003).  It is found in northern Africa, the Middle East, West Asia, Australia, and parts of South America and the Caribbean (CABI, 2003). The estimated potential range of this species in the U.S. corresponds to Plant Hardiness Zones 9-11.  One or more of its potential hosts occurs in these zones (USDA NRCS 2003).  <i>Parlatoria</i> <i>blanchardi </i>is, therefore, rated Medium (2) for the Climate-Host Interaction risk element.</p>
</td>	<td><p>Medium (2)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #2: Host Range
</b></p>
<p>Primary hosts are plants in the genera <i>Hyphaene</i>, <i>Latania</i>, <i>Neowashingtonia</i>, <i>Phoenix</i>, <i>Pritchardia</i>, and <i>Washingtonia </i>(Arecaceae)<i>,</i> <i>Jasminum </i>(Oleaceae)<i>, </i>and <i>Vinca</i> (Apocynaceae) (CABI, 2003).  Based on this host range, <i>P. blanchardi</i> was rated High (3) for the Host Range risk element.</p>
</td>	<td><p>High (3)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential
</b></p>
<p>Females of <i>P. blanchardi</i> oviposit on average about 10 eggs per female, 29 being the maximum number of eggs per female recorded (Howard, 2001); there are three to five overlapping generations annually (CABI, 2002).  Dispersal of this species may occur locally via wind, birds, or insects, or long distances via the transport of infested plants (CABI, 2003). It was accidently introduced into the U.S. in 1890, but it was later eradicated (CABI, 2003).  High scale densities towards the end of the season may result in infestation of fruit just prior to harvest (Howard, 2001), also facilitating spread.  Although its reproductive capacity is rather low for an armored scale (Howard, 2001), this species has the potential to spread rapidly into new regions in which its principal hosts occur.  Based on this evidence, <i>P. blanchardi</i> was rated Medium (2) for the Dispersal Potential risk element.</p>
</td>	<td><p>Medium (2)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #4: Economic Impact
</b></p>
<p>This species is reported as a serious pest in several countries, its primary hosts being palms (CABI, 2003).  Feeding on fronds by <i>P. blanchardi</i> causes necrosis of tissues, and heavy infestation causes fronds to die prematurely (Howard, 2001).  Heavily infested offshoots become stunted; attacked fruit shrivels, resulting in downgrading or rejection (Howard, 2001).  Yield losses in data palm as high as 70-80% have been reported (Howard, 2001).  Palms five-10 years of age may be killed outright (Howard, 2001). Both chemical and biological means have been employed to control this pest (Carpenter and Elmer, 1978; Stansly, 1984; Khoualdia, et al., 1997; Gharib, 1973).  Based on this evidence, <i>P. blanchardi</i> was rated Medium (2) for the Economic Impact risk element.</p>
</td>	<td><p>Medium (2)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact
</b></p>
<p>Numerous species of <i>Pritchardia</i> are listed as Endangered by USFWS (2004).  These are potential hosts for <i>P. blanchardi</i>, as the genus <i>Pritchardia </i>is reported as a host of this scale species (CABI, 2003).  However, these endangered <i>Pritchardia</i> species are reported only in Hawaii and not in the continental U.S. (USFWS, 2004).  On the other hand, there are three plant species that are classified in plant families within this scale’s host range, that are reported in <i>P. blanchardi</i>’s predicted climatic range in the continental U.S., and that are listed as Threatened or Endangered by USFWS (2004): <i>Amsonia kearneyana</i> (Apocynaceae), <i>Chionanthus pygmaeus</i> (Oleaceae), and <i>Cycladenia jonesii</i> (=<i>humilis</i>) (Apocynaceae).  As no host preference tests with <i>P. blanchardi</i> and these plants are known, it is assumed these plants could be used as hosts.  As insecticides effective against <i>P</i>. <i>blanchardi</i> are similar to those used against other diaspidid scales (Howard, 2001), and two related <i>Parlatoria</i> pests (<i>e.g.</i>, <i>Parlatoria proteus</i>) of date palm already are present in the continental U.S., introduction and establishment of <i>P</i>. <i>blanchardi</i> is unlikely to result in the initiation of additional programs for its control.  Consequently, <i>P. blanchardi</i> was rated Medium (2) for the Environmental Impact risk element.</p>
</td>	<td><p>Medium (2)</p>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<table><tbody><tr>	<td><p><b>Consequences of Introduction: <i>Parlatoria crypta </i>(McKenzie) (Hemiptera: Diaspididae)</b></p>
</td>	<td><p>Risk Value</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #1: Climate-Host Interaction
</b></p>
<p><i>Parlatoria crypta</i> has been reported in Africa<b> (</b>Comoros, Sudan) (ScaleNet, 2004),  India (Dutta, 1996; CABI, 2003; ScaleNet, 2004), Afghanistan (CABI, 2003; Fowjhan and Kozar, 1994; ScaleNet, 2004), Pakistan (Ghani and Muzaffar, 1974; ScaleNet, 2004), Iran (Kozar et al, 1996; Najafinia et al, 2002; ScaleNet, 2004), Iraq (ScaleNet, 2004; CABI, 2003; Jarjes et al, 1989), and Saudi Arabia (ScaleNet, 2004).  Based on this distribution and availability of potential hosts, it is estimated that suitable climatic conditions for this species should be available in Plant Hardiness Zones 8-11.  One or more of its potential hosts occurs in these zones (USDA NRCS 2003).  Therefore, this species was rated High (3) for the Climate-Host Interaction.  </p>
</td>	<td><p>High (3)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #2: Host Range
</b></p>
<p><i>Parlatoria crypta</i> has as a very wide host range.  Hosts recorded for this species include <i>Agave</i> <i>americana</i> (Agavaceae), <i>Mangifera</i> <i>indica</i> (Anacardiaceae), <i>Nerium</i> <i>indicum </i>(Apocynaceae), <i>Nerium</i> <i>odorum </i>(Apocynaceae), <i>Nerium</i> <i>oleander</i> (Apocynaceae), <i>Hedera</i> <i>syriacus</i> (Araliaceae), <i>Calotropis</i> <i>procera </i>(Asclepiadaceae), <i>Calotropis</i> sp. (Asclepiadaceae), <i>Asparagus</i> sp. (Asparagaceae), <i>Alnus</i> <i>lebbek</i> (Betulaceae), <i>Cordia</i> <i>limm </i>(Boraginaceae), <i>Cordia</i> <i>myxa </i>(Boraginaceae), <i>Cordia</i> <i>obliqua </i>(Boraginaceae), <i>Ehretia</i> <i>aspera</i> (Boraginaceae), <i>Viburnum</i> <i>vinifera</i> (Caprifoliaceae), <i>Euonymus</i> sp. (Celastraceae), <i>Diospyros</i> sp. (Ebenaceae), <i>Mallotus</i> <i>philippinensis</i> (Euphorbiaceae), <i>Albizia</i> <i>lebek </i>(Fabaceae), <i>Cassia</i> <i>sophera</i> (Fabaceae), <i>Laurus</i> <i>nobilis</i>? (Lauraceae), <i>Azadirachta</i> <i>indica </i>(Meliaceae), <i>Melia</i> <i>azedarach</i> (Meliaceae), <i>Ficus</i> <i>bengalensis </i>(Moraceae), <i>Ficus</i> <i>religiosa </i>(Moraceae), <i>Ficus</i> sp. (Moraceae), <i>Morus</i> <i>alba</i> (Moraceae), <i>Jasminum</i> <i>bifarium </i>(Oleaceae), <i>Jasminum</i> <i>sambuc </i>(Oleaceae), <i>Olea</i> <i>europea</i> (Oleaceae), <i>Zizyphus</i> <i>spinachristi</i> (Rhamnaceae), <i>Malus</i> sp. (Rosaceae), <i>Rosa</i> sp. (Rosaceae), <i>Aegle</i> <i>marmelos </i>(Rutaceae), <i>Citrus</i> sp. (Rutaceae), <i>Dodonaea</i> <i>viscosa</i> (Sapindaceae), <i>Madhuca</i> <i>indica </i>(Sapotaceae), <i>Madhuca</i> <i>latifollia</i> (Sapotaceae), <i>Clerodendron</i> sp. (Verbenaceae), and <i>Nyctanthes</i> <i>arbortritis</i> (Verbenaceae) (ScaleNet, 2004).  In light of this wide host range, <i>P. crypta</i> was rated High (3) for the Host Range risk element.</p>
</td>	<td><p>High (3)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential
</b></p>
<p>No information was found on the biology of this species; however, related species exhibit multivoltinism and high fecundity.  For instance, <i>Parlatoria zizphi</i> may produce two to seven generations per year, depending on the geographical location, and fecundity varies from 8 to 34 eggs per female (CABI, 2002; Blackburn and Miller, 1984).  The crawler stage of armored scales can be dispersed by natural means (several meters), on other organisms (<i>e.g</i>., the feet of birds), or by wind (Miller 1985).  As with other scale insects, long-distance dispersal of <i>P. crypta  </i>can likely be accomplished by transport on infested plant material.  Since 1985, the genus <i>Parlatoria</i> has been intercepted on plant materials 39,072 times (including 164 times of <i>P. crypta</i> specifically) by agricultural specialists at U.S. ports of entry (PIN309 query October 1, 2004).  Consequently, the dispersal potential of <i>P. crypta</i> was rated High (3) for the Dispersal Potential risk element.</p>
</td>	<td><p>High (3)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #4: Economic Impact
</b></p>
<p>Little information could be found on the economic impact of <i>P. crypta </i>besides that it is listed as an insect pest by Miller and Davidson (1990), and it is reported to cause very serious damage (on leaves, buds, stems and the top part of trees) on olive trees in Iran (Najafinia, et al, 2002).  The related species <i>P. ziziphi</i> is reported as an important citrus pest in various parts of the world: China, Egypt, Iran, Italy, Libya, Nigeria, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco, and Southeast Asia, and is reported to cause some damage in Greece, Italy, Spain, Israel, Egypt, and South Africa (Blackburn and Miller, 1984).  It has become the most important citrus pest in Upper Egypt (Coll and Abd Rabou, 1998).  However, there is little information on the specific economic losses caused by this scale (CABI, 2002).  This insect is mainly a problem as a contaminant on fruit, which can cause rejection in most fresh fruit markets (Blackburn and Miller, 1984).  It also causes dieback of twigs, premature drop of fruit and leaves, and deformation of fruit (Blackburn and Miller, 1984).  Large populations cause chlorosis and premature drop of leaves, dieback of twigs and branches, stunting and distortion of the fruit, and premature fruit drop (Blackburn and Miller, 1984).   Based on the fact that there is little information available on the economic impact of <i>P. crypta </i>but that it is reported to cause serious damage to olives, that this species has a wide host range that includes some economically important hosts in the U.S., and that the related species <i>P. ziziphi</i> is an important economic pest, <i>P. crypta</i> was given a Medium (2) rating for the Economic Impact risk element.    </p>
</td>	<td><p>Medium (2)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact
</b></p>
<p><i>Agave arizonica</i> (Agavaceae) is the only potential host present in the continental U.S. listed as Threatened or Endangered by USFWS (2004).  This plant species is reported as present in <i>P. crypta</i>’s predicted climatic range within the U.S.  <i>Cordia bellonis</i> (Boraginaceae), which is reported in Puerto Rico, is another potential host listed as Endangered by USFWS (2004).  Control measures against armored scales (Diaspididae) are often necessary to produce a marketable crop (Miller, 1985).  In Florida, scale insects, including <i>P. ziziphi</i>, are often managed by natural as well as released parasites, predators, and pathogens; and scale populations may require treatment if biological control has been disrupted (Mossler and Nesheim, 2003).  In China, the following pesticides have been used to effectively control <i>P. ziziphi</i>: omethoate, chlorpyrifos, methidathion, quinalphos, lambda-cyhalothrin, fenvalerate or cypermethrin (CABI, 2002).  Based on this information, <i>P. crypta</i> was given a High (3) rating for the Environmental Impact risk element.</p>
</td>	<td><p>High (3)</p>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<table><tbody><tr>	<td><p><b>Consequences of Introduction: <i>Pseudaonidia trilobitiformis </i>(Green) (Hemiptera: Diaspididae)</b></p>
</td>	<td><p>Risk Value</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #1: Climate-Host Interaction
</b></p>
<p><i>Pseudaonidia trilobitiformis<b> </b></i>has been reported in Taiwan (Anonymous 1994), Mexico, Venezuela, the Caribbean (CABI 2002), East Africa, New Caledonia in the South Pacific (Fabres 1974), and Florida (Coile and Dixon 2000; USDA 1979).  Suitable climatic conditions for this species should be available in the southern U.S. (Plant Hardiness Zones 9-11).  One or more of its potential hosts occurs in these zones (USDA NRCS 2003).  It is, therefore, rated Medium (2) for the Climate-Host risk element.</p>
</td>	<td><p>Medium (2)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #2: Host Range
</b></p>
<p>Hosts recorded for this species include <i>Mangifera indica</i> and <i>Anacardium occidentale</i> (Anacardiaceae), <i>Citrus</i> spp. (Rutaceae), <i>Anthurium andreanum</i> (Araceae), <i>Persea americana</i> (Lauraceae), <i>Zingiber officinale</i> (Zingiberaceae), <i>Theobroma cacao</i> (Sterculiaceae), <i>Coffea</i> spp. (Rubiaceae), <i>Cocos nucifera</i> (Arecaceae) (CABI 2002), <i>Passiflora</i> spp. (Passifloraceae) (Hill 1983), and <i>Dimocarpus</i> <i>longan</i> (Sapindaceae) (Anonymous 1994).  <i>Pseudaonidia trilobitiformis<b> </b></i>is, therefore, rated High (3) for the Host Range risk element.</p>
</td>	<td><p>High (3)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential
</b></p>
<p>No information is available on the biology of this species, but two related species that occur in the southern U.S. exhibit multivoltinism and high fecundity.  <i>Pseudaonidia</i> <i>duplex</i> (Cockerell) has three generations per year in Louisiana, and <i>P</i>. <i>paeoniae</i> (Cockerell) produce 30-50 eggs per female (Kosztarab 1996). Long-distance dispersal of <i>P</i>.<i> trilobitiformis </i>is likely accomplished by transport on infested plant material.    Indeed, since 1985, <i>P.</i>  <i>trilobitiformis<b> </b></i>has been intercepted 11,954 times by agricultural specialists at U.S. ports of entry (PIN309 query July 9, 2003).  Based on this evidence, this scale species was rated High (3) for the Dispersal Potential risk element.</p>
</td>	<td><p>High (3)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #4: Economic Impact
</b></p>
<p><i>Pseudaonidia trilobitiformis</i> is regarded as a minor pest of avocado, cacao, citrus, coconut, coffee, mango, and passion fruit (Hill 1983).  In Brazil, however, it is a pest of cashew that requires chemical control (Silva<i> et al.</i> 1977). Wider establishment of this insect in the U.S. could stimulate chemical and/or biological control programs and cause a loss of domestic and foreign markets for commodities, such as citrus.  Based on this evidence, <i>P. trilobitiformis</i> was rated Medium (2) for the Economic Impact risk element.</p>
</td>	<td><p>Medium (2)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact
</b></p>
<p>Potential hosts listed as Threatened or Endangered by USFWS (2004) and present in the continental U.S. include, among others: <i>Ayenia limitaris</i> (Sterculiaceae), <i>Fremontodendron californicum</i> ssp. <i>decumbens</i> (Sterculiaceae), <i>Fremontodendron mexicanum</i> (Sterculiaceae), and <i>Lindera melissifolia</i> (Lauraceae).  These plants are present in <i>P. trilobitiformis</i>’ predicted climatic range in the U.S. outside of Florida and are classified in plant families within this scale’s host range.  As no host preference tests with <i>P. trilobitiformis</i> and these plants are known, it is assumed these plants could be used as hosts.  Because <i>P. trilobitiformis</i> represents a potential threat to citrus and possibly other economically important crops, wider establishment of this species in the U.S. could stimulate chemical or biological control programs.  Based on this evidence, <i>P. trilobitiformis</i> was rated High (3) for the Environmental Impact risk element.</p>
</td>	<td><p>High (3)</p>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<p><b>PATHOGENS</b></p>
<table><tbody><tr>	<td><p><b>Consequences of Introduction: <i>Xanthomonas campestris </i>pv<i>. mangiferaeindica</i></b><i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p>Risk Value</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #1: Climate-Host Interaction
</b></p>
<p>Mango black spot, <i>Xanthomonas campestris</i> pv <i>mangiferaeindica</i>, occurs in Pakistan, India, Australia, Brazil, Reunion, the Sudan, South Africa, in areas where mangoes or cashews are grown (CABI, 2003).  These regions correspond to USDA Plant Hardiness Zones 10 and 11, so the Climate-Host Interaction risk element was rated Medium (2).  </p>
</td>	<td><p>Medium (2)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #2: Host Range
</b></p>
<p>The Host Range risk element was rated Meidum (2) because this pathogen attacks multiple species in the family Anacardiaceae (CABI, 2003).  </p>
</td>	<td><p>Medium (2)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential
</b></p>
<p>Bacterial diseases in the genus <i>Xanthomonas</i> penetrate their hosts through natural openings and wounds (Agrios, 1997).  The bacteria overwinter on infected or healthy plant parts, on or in seeds, on infected plant debris, on contaminated containers or tools and in the soil (Agrios, 1997).  Rain plays an important role in disease dispersal (Agrios, 1997; Pruvost<i> et al.</i>, 1990).  This pest was rated Medium (2) for the Dispersal Potential risk element, because disease spread through an orchard could be rapid, but long range disease spread is likely to be slower.  </p>
</td>	<td><p>Medium (2)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #4: Economic Impact
</b></p>
<p>Pruvost <i>et al</i>., (1990) described the disease as one of the principle diseases of mango in many of the mango producing countries, so the Economic Impact rating was High (3).  </p>
</td>	<td><p>High (3)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact
</b></p>
<p>There are no plants species in the family Anacardiaceae that are listed as Threatened or Endangered by USFWS (2004) and occurring in this bacteria’s predicted climatic range in the US; therefore, the Environmental Impact risk element was rated Low (1).</p>
</td>	<td><p>Low (1)</p>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<table><tbody><tr>	<td><p><b>Consequences of Introduction: <i>Phomopsis mangiferae </i>Ahmad 
</b></p>
<p><b></b></p>
</td>	<td><p>Risk Value</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #1: Climate-Host Interaction
</b></p>
<p>The fungus, <i>Phomopsis mangiferae</i>, causes a post harvest rot of mango (Johnson<i> et al.</i>, 1994).  It occurs in Pakistan, India, and Australia in mango producing areas (Laxminarayana and Reddy, 1975) that correspond to USDA Plant Hardiness Zone 11; therefore, this pest was rated Low (1) for Climate-Host Interaction risk element.  </p>
</td>	<td><p>Low (1)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #2: Host Range
</b></p>
<p>The host range appears to be limited to mango (ARS, 2001; Johnson<i> et al.</i>, 1994); therefore, this fungus was also rated Low (1) for the Host Range risk element.  </p>
</td>	<td><p>Low (1)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #3: Dispersal Potential
</b></p>
<p>The disease infects mango fruit endophytically, that is, from within the plant (Johnson<i> et al.</i>, 1994; Sangchote <i>et al.,</i> 1994) and infected fruit can become mummified.  Infected seed germinate to produce infected young plants, perpetuating the fungus within the plant (Johnson<i> et al.</i>, 1994).  The Dispersal Potential risk element was rated Low (1), because dispersal assumes that the infected seed subsequently is used in mango production.  If infected fruit is consumed and the seed is discarded waste, then infected fruit is not in the mango production pathway.</p>
</td>	<td><p>Low (1)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #4: Economic Impact
</b></p>
<p><i>Phomopsis mangiferae</i> also causes a stem-end rot of harvested fruits (Johnson<i> et al.</i>, 1994), which is likely to  impact grower revenue, although mango production in the U.S. is limited (Pruvost<i> et al.</i>, 1990).  For these reasons, the Economic Impact was rated Medium (2).  </p>
</td>	<td><p>Medium (2)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Risk Element #5: Environmental Impact
</b></p>
<p>There are no plants species in the family Anacardiaceae that are listed as Threatened or Endangered by USFWS (2004) and occurring in this species’ predicted climatic range in the U.S.; therefore, the Environmental Impact risk element was rated Low (1).</p>
</td>	<td><p>Low (1)</p>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<table><tbody><tr>	<td><p><b>Table 4.  Risk Rating for Consequences of Introduction: (Risk Elements #1-5)</b></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Pest</p>
</td>	<td><p>Risk 
Element 1
</p>
<p>Climate/Host Interaction</p>
</td>	<td><p>Risk Element 2
</p>
<p>Host Range</p>
</td>	<td><p>Risk Element 3
</p>
<p>Dispersal Potential</p>
</td>	<td><p>Risk Element 4
</p>
<p>Economic Impact</p>
</td>	<td><p>Risk 
Element 5
</p>
<p>Environmental Impact</p>
</td>	<td><p>Cumulative Risk Rating1</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>INSECTS</b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b></b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b></b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b></b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b></b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b></b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b></b></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>DIPTERA</b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b></b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b></b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b></b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b></b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b></b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b></b></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Tephritidae</b><i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p><b></b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b></b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b></b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b></b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b></b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b></b></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Bactrocera correcta </i>(Bezzi)</p>
</td>	<td><p>2</p>
</td>	<td><p>3</p>
</td>	<td><p>3</p>
</td>	<td><p>3</p>
</td>	<td><p>3</p>
</td>	<td><p>High (14)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>B. </i> <i>cucurbitae</i> Coquillett<i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p>2</p>
</td>	<td><p>3</p>
</td>	<td><p>3</p>
</td>	<td><p>3</p>
</td>	<td><p>3</p>
</td>	<td><p>High
</p>
<p>(14)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>B. dorsalis </i>Hendel<i> </i></p>
</td>	<td><p>2</p>
</td>	<td><p>3</p>
</td>	<td><p>3</p>
</td>	<td><p>3</p>
</td>	<td><p>3</p>
</td>	<td><p>High
</p>
<p>(14)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>B.  zonata</i> (Saunders)<i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p>2</p>
</td>	<td><p>3</p>
</td>	<td><p>3</p>
</td>	<td><p>3</p>
</td>	<td><p>3</p>
</td>	<td><p>High
</p>
<p>(14)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>HEMIPTERA</b></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Coccidae</b></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Coccus discrepans</i> (Green)<i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p>2</p>
</td>	<td><p>3</p>
</td>	<td><p>3</p>
</td>	<td><p>3</p>
</td>	<td><p>3</p>
</td>	<td><p>High (14)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Coccus viridis</i> Green</p>
</td>	<td><p>2</p>
</td>	<td><p>3</p>
</td>	<td><p>3</p>
</td>	<td><p>3</p>
</td>	<td><p>3</p>
</td>	<td><p>High (14)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Diaspididae</b></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Aulacaspis tubercularis</i> Newstead</p>
</td>	<td><p>2</p>
</td>	<td><p>3</p>
</td>	<td><p>3</p>
</td>	<td><p>2</p>
</td>	<td><p>3</p>
</td>	<td><p>High (13)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Parlatoria blanchardi </i>(Targioni-Tozzetti)<i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p>2</p>
</td>	<td><p>3</p>
</td>	<td><p>2</p>
</td>	<td><p>2</p>
</td>	<td><p>2</p>
</td>	<td><p>Medium (11)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Parlatoria crypta </i>(McKenzie)<i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p>3</p>
</td>	<td><p>3</p>
</td>	<td><p>3</p>
</td>	<td><p>2</p>
</td>	<td><p>3</p>
</td>	<td><p>High (14)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Pseudaonidia trilobitiformis </i>(Green)<i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p>2</p>
</td>	<td><p>3</p>
</td>	<td><p>3</p>
</td>	<td><p>2</p>
</td>	<td><p>3</p>
</td>	<td><p>High (13)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>PATHOGENS</b></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Xanthomonas campestris</i> pv. <i>mangiferaeindica</i> (Patel <i>et al</i>.) Robbs <i>et al</i>.</p>
</td>	<td><p>2</p>
</td>	<td><p>2</p>
</td>	<td><p>2</p>
</td>	<td><p>3</p>
</td>	<td><p>1</p>
</td>	<td><p>Medium (10)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Phomopsis mangiferae </i>Ahmad </p>
</td>	<td><p>1</p>
</td>	<td><p>1</p>
</td>	<td><p>1</p>
</td>	<td><p>2</p>
</td>	<td><p>1</p>
</td>	<td><p>Low (6)</p>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<p>1 Low is 5-8 points, Medium is 9-12 points and High is 13-15 points</p>
<h3>Risk Element 6: Pest Opportunity (Survival and Access to Suitable Habitat and Hosts)</h3>
<p><b>Risk Element 6, sub-element 1: Quantity Imported Annually
</b></p>
<p>According the request from the government of Pakistan, the quantity of mango will be circa 100 sea containers per year.  This was considered a Medium (2) quantity for the purpose of this risk assessment (USDA, 2000).
</p>
<p><b>Risk Element 6, sub-element 2: Survive Post harvest Treatment
</b></p>
<p>This risk sub-element was estimated based on the fruit being cleaned and washed as part of standard post-harvest practices in mango production.  As internal pests, all of the fruit flies are highly likely to survive postharvest treatment and were rated High (3) for this sub-element.  As external pests, the scale insects would have less of a probability of surviving post-harvest treatments than internal feeders.  Consequently, the scale insects were rated Medium (2) for this sub-element.  Both pathogens would be highly likely to survive postharvest treatment and, therefore, were rated High (3) for this sub-element.</p>
<p><b>Risk Element 6, sub-element 3: Survive Shipment
</b></p>
<p>All of the insect pests examined have been intercepted by U.S. agricultural inspectors (PIN, 2003) and are expected to have a High (3) probability of surviving shipment.
</p>
<p>The bacteria <i>Xanthomonas campestris</i> pv. <i>mangiferaeindica</i> survive epiphytically on fruit, leaves and soil (Pruvost<i> et al.</i>, 1990; Pruvost and Luisetti, 1991); epiphytic populations are not detected on symptomless mature fruit (Pruvost and Luisetti, 1991). The number of bacterial spots occurring on mature fruits is directly related to epiphytic populations, suggesting that the resident populations are an important source of inoculum for fruit infection (Pruvost and Luisetti, 1991) so the rating was High (3).
</p>
<p>The stem end rot disease, <i>P. mangiferae, </i>is highly likely to survive shipping conditions (AFFA, 2001) because most control measures are not curative and do not eradicate the pathogens (Coates<i> et al.</i>, 1997; Coates<i> et al.</i>, 1993; Johnson<i> et al.</i>, 1993; Johnson<i> et al.</i>, 1990b; Johnson and Highley, 1994).  Additionally, controlled atmospheric conditions may only slow stem end rot or fruit rot symptom expression (Johnson<i> et al.</i>, 1993), leading to longer latent periods.  For these reasons, the rating was High (3) for <i>P. mangiferae</i></p>
<p><b>Risk Element 6, sub-element 4: Not Detected at Port of Entry
</b></p>
<p>As external feeders, the scale insects have a high probability of being detected at the port-of-entry because they will be visible on the outside of the fruit, so they were rated Low (1) for Not Detected at the Port-of-Entry.  Inspectors cutting mango failed to detect larvae of <i>Anastrepha supensa</i>, a fruit fly in the same family as <i>Bactrocera </i>spp., 71.6% of the time (Gould, 1995).  These findings underscore the high likelihood of fruit flies crossing borders undetected in fruit and supports a rating of High (3) for Not Detected at Port-of-Entry for all the <i>Bactrocera</i> species.   </p>
<p>Post harvest rots and stem end rots are likely to be detected at ports of entry when there are obvious and external symptoms (Johnson<i> et al.</i>, 1989; Lim<i> et al.</i>, 1991; MAF, 2003).  Latent infections, however, are likely to evade detection, and the use of post-harvest storage conditions, which slow symptom expression (Johnson<i> et al.</i>, 1993; Johnson<i> et al.</i>, 1990a), may lead to increased numbers of infected fruit not being detected.  The role of latent infections in mango bacterial black spot is uncertain.  Limited research into mango bacterial black spot indicates that <i>Xanthomonas campestris</i> pv. <i>mangiferaeindicae </i>causes latent infections, which would also be likely to evade detection, although presence of the bacterium strictly as an epiphyte has not be conclusively ruled out (Gagnevin & Pruvost, 2001).  For these reasons, both of the pathogens were rated Medium (2) for this sub-element.</p>
<p><b>Risk Element 6, sub-element 5: Imported or Moved to an Area Suitable for Survival
</b></p>
<p>This sub-element considers the geographic location of likely markets and the chance of the commodity moving to locations suitable for the pest’s survival.  Consumer demand for mangoes in the U.S. has grown ten-fold since 1975 (Knowledge Master, 2003), which means that markets probably exist in all parts of the U.S., and some infested fruits may arrive in areas that are suitable for pest survival.  Risk ratings for this sub-element were based on the climatic regions of the U.S. suitable for each pest and the hosts available in those areas.  Based on the evidence provided above for each pest in regard to the Climate-Host Interaction risk element, <i>Parlatoria cyrpta</i> was rated High (3); <i>Phomopsis mangiferae </i>was rated Low (1), and all the other pests were rated Medium (2) for the Imported or Moved to an Area Suitable for Survival sub- element.   
</p>
<p><b>Risk Element 6, sub-element 6: Contact with Host Material
</b></p>
<p>Even if the final destination of infested commodities is suitable for pest survival, suitable hosts must be available for the pest to survive.  This sub-element considered the likelihood that the pest species can come in contact with host material for reproduction.  The complete host range of the pest was considered.  According to the IPPC standard for pest risk analysis (IPPC 2003), other factors that may be considered are:
</p>
<p>· Dispersal mechanisms, including vectors to allow movement from the pathway to a suitable host
</p>
<p>· Whether the imported commodity is to be sent to a few or many destinations in the PRA area
</p>
<p>· Proximity of entry, transit and destination points to suitable hosts
</p>
<p>· Time of year at which import takes place
</p>
<p>· Intended use of the commodity (<i>e.g.</i>, for planting, processing or consumption)
</p>
<p>· Risks from by-products and waste
</p>
<p>The fruit flies develop quickly and have a wide range of hosts (Fletcher, 1989a).  Also, <i>Bactrocera</i> spp. have excellent dispersal capabilities, and many of them can fly 50-100km during their life (Fletcher 1989b).   Therefore, it is possible that they could escape from houses, compost piles or garbage to find nearby hosts.  Additionally, fruit infested with fruit flies often contain multiple larvae, making the chance that adults could mate higher.  For these reasons the fruit flies were rated High (3) for this risk element.
</p>
<p>Sessile hemipterans (scale insects, <i>etc</i>.) may disperse great distances by wind (Greathead, 1989, 1997), but do not have the capability for directed dispersal in this way.  Long range dispersal strategies depend on large numbers of insects being dispersed so that some may find suitable hosts.  Insects arriving with fruit represent such small populations that dispersal by air to a host would be very unlikely.  Furthermore, successful establishment of these insects in a new environment can occur only when mobile forms (<i>i.e.,</i> 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, 1985), scale insects have a low probability of establishment.  For these reasons, all the scale insects were rated Low (1) for this risk element.
</p>
<p>For the diseases, only discarded fruit are likely to create ongoing sources of inoculum.  Bacteria or spores must then be dispersed from discarded fruit into mango orchards at a time when susceptible tissue is available (Johnson<i> et al.</i>, 1993; Johnson<i> et al.</i>, 1989; Kishun and Chand, 1989; Pruvost<i> et al.</i>, 1990; Pruvost and Luisetti, 1991).  The likelihood of discarded fruit being in close proximity to cultivated mango is small. For these reasons, all of the pathogens were rated Low (1).
</p>
<table><tbody><tr>	<td><p><b>Table 5.  Risk Rating for Likelihood of Introduction: Risk Element #6.
</b></p>
<p></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Pest</p>
</td>	<td><p>Sub-element 1
</p>
<p>Quantity imported annually</p>
</td>	<td><p>Sub-element 2
</p>
<p>Survive post harvest treatment</p>
</td>	<td><p>Sub-element 3
</p>
<p>Survive shipment</p>
</td>	<td><p>Sub-element 4
</p>
<p>Not detected at port of entry</p>
</td>	<td><p>Sub-element 5
</p>
<p>Moved to suitable habitat</p>
</td>	<td><p>Sub-element 6
</p>
<p>Contact with host material</p>
</td>	<td><p>Cumulative Risk Rating1</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b><u>ARTHROPODS</u></b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b><u></u></b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b><u></u></b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b><u></u></b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b><u></u></b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b><u></u></b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b><u></u></b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b><u></u></b></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>DIPTERA</b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b></b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b></b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b></b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b></b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b></b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b></b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b></b></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Tephritidae</b><i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p><b></b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b></b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b></b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b></b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b></b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b></b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b></b></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Bactrocera correcta </i>(Bezzi)<i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p>2</p>
</td>	<td><p>3</p>
</td>	<td><p>3</p>
</td>	<td><p>3</p>
</td>	<td><p>2</p>
</td>	<td><p>3</p>
</td>	<td><p>High
</p>
<p>(16)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Bactrocera</i> <i>cucurbitae</i> Coquillett<i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p>2</p>
</td>	<td><p>3</p>
</td>	<td><p>3</p>
</td>	<td><p>3</p>
</td>	<td><p>2</p>
</td>	<td><p>3</p>
</td>	<td><p>High
</p>
<p>(16)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Bactrocera dorsalis </i>Hendel
</p>
<p><i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p>2</p>
</td>	<td><p>3</p>
</td>	<td><p>3</p>
</td>	<td><p>3</p>
</td>	<td><p>2</p>
</td>	<td><p>3</p>
</td>	<td><p>High
</p>
<p>(16)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Bactrocera zonata</i> (Saunders)<i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p>2</p>
</td>	<td><p>3</p>
</td>	<td><p>3</p>
</td>	<td><p>3</p>
</td>	<td><p>2</p>
</td>	<td><p>3</p>
</td>	<td><p>High
</p>
<p>(16)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>HEMIPTERA</b></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Coccidae</b></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Coccus discrepans </i>(Green)<i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p>2</p>
</td>	<td><p>2</p>
</td>	<td><p>3</p>
</td>	<td><p>1</p>
</td>	<td><p>2</p>
</td>	<td><p>1</p>
</td>	<td><p>Medium (11)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Coccus viridis</i> Green</p>
</td>	<td><p>2</p>
</td>	<td><p>2</p>
</td>	<td><p>3</p>
</td>	<td><p>1</p>
</td>	<td><p>2</p>
</td>	<td><p>1</p>
</td>	<td><p>Medium (11)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Diaspididae</b></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Aulacaspis tubercularis</i> Newstead</p>
</td>	<td><p>2</p>
</td>	<td><p>2</p>
</td>	<td><p>3</p>
</td>	<td><p>1</p>
</td>	<td><p>2</p>
</td>	<td><p>1</p>
</td>	<td><p>Medium (11)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Parlatoria blanchardi </i>(Targioni-Tozzetti)<i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p>2</p>
</td>	<td><p>2</p>
</td>	<td><p>3</p>
</td>	<td><p>1</p>
</td>	<td><p>2</p>
</td>	<td><p>1</p>
</td>	<td><p>Medium (11)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Parlatoria crypta </i>(McKenzie)<i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p>2</p>
</td>	<td><p>2</p>
</td>	<td><p>3</p>
</td>	<td><p>1</p>
</td>	<td><p>3</p>
</td>	<td><p>1</p>
</td>	<td><p>Medium (12)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Pseudaonidia trilobitiformis </i>(Green)<i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p>2</p>
</td>	<td><p>2</p>
</td>	<td><p>3</p>
</td>	<td><p>1</p>
</td>	<td><p>2</p>
</td>	<td><p>1</p>
</td>	<td><p>Medium (11)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b><u>PATHOGENS</u></b></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Xanthomonas campestris</i> pv. <i>mangiferaeindica</i> (Patel <i>et al</i>.) Robbs <i>et al</i>.</p>
</td>	<td><p>2</p>
</td>	<td><p>3</p>
</td>	<td><p>3</p>
</td>	<td><p>2</p>
</td>	<td><p>2</p>
</td>	<td><p>1</p>
</td>	<td><p>Medium (13)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Phomopsis mangiferae </i>Ahmad </p>
</td>	<td><p>2</p>
</td>	<td><p>3</p>
</td>	<td><p>3</p>
</td>	<td><p>2</p>
</td>	<td><p>1</p>
</td>	<td><p>1</p>
</td>	<td><p>Medium (12)</p>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<p>1Low is 6-9 points, Medium is 10-14 points, and High is 15-18 points</p>
<h3>Baseline Pest Risk Potential
</h3>
<p>A combination of the Consequences of Introduction with the Likelihood of Introduction provide an estimate of the baseline risks associated with each of the pests analyzed here.  Table 6 provides a summary of our findings.
</p>
<table><tbody><tr>	<td><p><b>Table 6.  Pest Risk Potential
</b></p>
<p></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Pest</p>
</td>	<td><p>Consequences of Introduction Cumulative Risk Rating</p>
</td>	<td><p>Likelihood of Introduction Cumulative Risk Rating</p>
</td>	<td><p>Pest Risk Potential1</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b><u>ARTHROPODS</u></b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b></b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b></b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b></b></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>DIPTERA</b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b></b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b></b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b></b></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Tephritidae</b><i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p><b></b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b></b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b></b></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Bactrocera correcta </i>(Bezzi)</p>
</td>	<td><p>H (14)</p>
</td>	<td><p>H (16)</p>
</td>	<td><p>High (30)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Bactrocera</i> <i>cucurbitae</i> Coquillett<i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p>H (14)</p>
</td>	<td><p>H (16)</p>
</td>	<td><p>High (30)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Bactrocera dorsalis </i>Hendel<i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p>H (14)</p>
</td>	<td><p>H (16)</p>
</td>	<td><p>High (30)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Bactrocera zonata</i> (Saunders)<i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p>H (14)</p>
</td>	<td><p>H (16)</p>
</td>	<td><p>High (30)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>HEMIPTERA</b></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Coccidae</b></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Coccus discrepans </i>(Green)<i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p>H (14)</p>
</td>	<td><p>M (11)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Medium (25)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Coccus viridis</i> Green</p>
</td>	<td><p>H (14)</p>
</td>	<td><p>M (11)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Medium (25)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Diaspididae</b></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Aulacaspis tubercularis</i> Newstead</p>
</td>	<td><p>H (13)</p>
</td>	<td><p>M (11)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Medium (24)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Parlatoria blanchardi </i>(Targioni-Tozzetti)<i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p>M (11)</p>
</td>	<td><p>M (11)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Medium (22)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Parlatoria crypta </i>(McKenzie)<i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p>H (14)</p>
</td>	<td><p>M (12)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Medium (26)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Pseudaonidia trilobitiformis </i>(Green)<i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p>H (13)</p>
</td>	<td><p>M (11)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Medium (24)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>PATHOGENS</b></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Xanthomonas campestris</i> pv. <i>mangiferaeindica</i> (Patel <i>et al</i>.) Robbs <i>et al</i>.</p>
</td>	<td><p>M (10)</p>
</td>	<td><p>M (13)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Medium (23)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Phomopsis mangiferae </i>Ahmad </p>
</td>	<td><p>L (6)</p>
</td>	<td><p>M (12)</p>
</td>	<td><p>Low (18)</p>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<p>1Low is 11-18 points, Medium is 19-26 points and High is 27-33 points
</p>
<h1>III. Conclusions</h1>
<p>Of the large number of pests present in Pakistan and reported to attack mango (anywhere in the world), a much smaller proportion of these are considered quarantine pests for the U.S. and likely to follow the pathway of imported mango into the U.S.  Twelve pests were chosen for a more detailed analysis, ten insects and two pathogens.  Risk was estimated for commercial quality mangoes, which are cleaned and washed as part of standard post-harvest procedures. </p>
<p>The Pest Risk Potential for the pests analyzed in this document was the sum of the ratings for consequences of introduction and the likelihood of introduction (Table 6).  The following scale was used to interpret this total: Low was 11-18 points; Medium was 19-26 points and High was 27-33 points.  This risk assessment assumed post-harvest processing was limited to washing and handling, with no specific mitigation measures.  The Pest Risk Potential was estimated to be High for <i>Bactrocera correcta, B.</i> <i>cucurbitae, B. dorsalis, </i>and <i>B. zonata</i>;<i> </i>Medium for all the scale insects and <i>Xanthomonas campestris</i> pv. <i>mangiferaeindica; </i>and Low for <i>Phomopsis mangiferae.  </i></p>
<p>Although the armored scales (Diaspididae) (<i>Aulacaspis tubercularis</i>, <i>Parlatoria blanchardi, Parlatoria crypta, Pseudaonidia trilobitiformis</i>) were rated Medium, these insects have a low likelihood of introduction and establishment that could not be addressed using the current USDA <i>Guidelines </i>(USDA, 2000).  Even if the armored scales are able to follow the pathway of mango fruit from Pakistan, these scales would be highly unlikely to become established in the United States.  This low likelihood of establishment should be an important consideration when developing risk mitigations.  This estimate of low likelihood is based on the fact that armored scale insects on fruit for consumption are highly unlikely to come into contact with host material and, therefore, to establish in the United States (Appendix 2). </p>
<p>According to USDA (2000), pests with a Low Pest Risk Potential do not typically require mitigation measures, other than port of arrival inspection.  A value within the Medium range indicates that specific phytosanitary measures may be necessary.  A rating in the High range indicates that specific phytosanitary measures, supplemental to port of arrival inspection, are strongly recommended.  Risk mitigation options for the quarantine pests of concern associated with mangoes from Pakistan are described in Appendix 3.</p>
<p>Detailed examination and choice of appropriate phytosanitary measures to mitigate pest risk is undertaken as part of the pest risk management phase and is not discussed in this document.  
</p>
<h1>Contributors (in alphabetical order)</h1>
<p>Melissa Dirani, Writer/Editor, CPHST, PERAL</p>
<p>Anthony Koop, Risk Analyst/Botanist, CPHST, PERAL
</p>
<p>Leah Millar, Risk Analyst/Entomologist, CPHST, PERAL (primary contact)</p>
<p>Shawn Robertson, Risk Analyst/Entomologist, CPHST, PERAL</p>
<p>Jim Smith, Risk Analyst/Entomologist, CPHST, PERAL</p>
<p>Eileen Sutker, Risk Analyst/Ecologist, CPHST, PERAL </p>
<p>Dan Williams, Risk Analyst/Plant Pathologist, CPHST, PERAL
</p>
<h1>References
</h1>
<p>Abbas, S. R., Srivastava, A. S., Sharma, S., and Haseeb, M. 2000.<b> </b>Note on oriental fruitfly of mango, a problem for mature mangoes in India. Biological Memoirs, 26: 74-78. 
</p>
<p>AFFA. 2001. Technical market access submission for Australian Mangoes to the USA. Agriculture, Fischeries and Forestry, Australia, received October, 2001.
</p>
<p>Afzal, M. A. 1987.<b> </b>Outbreaks and new records. Pakistan. Black spot of mango. IPPC Plant Protection Bulletin, 35: 165. (Abstract)
</p>
<p>Agricola, U., Agounke, D., Fischer, H. U., and Moore, D. 1990.<b> </b>Biology of the mealybug <i>Rastrococcus invadens</i> Williams (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) and its control with <i>Gyranusoidea tebygi </i>Noyes (Hymenoptera: Encyrtidae) in Togo. Mitteilungen der Deutschen Gesellschaft fur Allgemeine und Angewandte Entomologie, 7: 647-652. 
</p>
<p>Agrios, G. N. 1997. Plant Pathology, 4th ed. Academic Press, San Diego, California. pp.635. 
</p>
<p>Ahmed, I., Mahmood, A., Majeed, K., and Saleem, A. 1995.<b> </b>Evaluation of various fungicides against die-back disease caused by <i>Diplodia natalensis</i> in mango. Pakistan Journal of Phytopathology, 7: 208-209 (Abstract)
</p>
<p>Ahmed, M. 1983.<b> </b>Chlorophyll loss in leaves of some plants caused by leafhopper feeding. 1980, recd, 23: 48-50 (Abstract)
</p>
<p>Aitken Soux, P. 1985.<b> </b>Some pests and diseases generally encountered in coffee nurseries. Feuille d'Extension No. 53: 5 pp. (Abstract)
</p>
<p>Akhtar, C. M., Amin, C. M., and Salim, C. M. 1982. Investigations of the biological control of <i>Rhizoctonia solani</i> and <i>Fusarium oxysporum</i> f. lini causing root rot and wilt diseases in cotton and linseed crops respectively, 1982, ii + 63 pp.; 20 pl., 35 tab.; 21 ref. Ayub Agric. Res. Inst., Faisalabad; Pakistan. (Abstract)
</p>
<p>Akhtar, K. P. 2000.<b> </b>Fresh potato extract the best source for the growth of Colletotrichum gloeosporioides causing anthracnose of mango and Fusarium subglutinans isolated from malformed inflorescence of mango. Pakistan Journal of Phytopathology, 12: 134-136 (Abstract)
</p>
<p>Akhtar, K. P., Khan, A. I., Khan, I. A., and Khan, S. M. 1998a.<b> </b>Studies on the incidence and pathogenicity of <i>Colletotrichum gloeosporioides</i> Penz. causing anthracnose of mango and its chemical control. Pakistan Journal of Phytopathology, 10: 42-44. (Abstract)
</p>
<p>Akhtar, K. P., Khan, I. A., Shakir, A. S., and Khan, S. M. 1998b.<b> </b>Evaluation of fungicides against powdery mildew disease of mango. Pakistan Journal of Phytopathology, 10: 26-29 (Abstract)
</p>
<p> Akhtar, K. P., Khan, I. A., Jaskani, M. J., Asif, M., and Khan, M. A. 1999a.<b> </b>Isolation and characterization of <i>Fusarium moniliforme</i> var. <i>subglutinans</i> [<i>Gibberella fujikuroi</i> var. <i>subglutinans</i>] from malformed mango. Sultan Qaboos University Journal for Scientific Research Agricultural Sciences, 4: 19-25 
</p>
<p>Akhtar, K. P., Khan, I. A., Kazmi, M. R., Hassan, R. I., and Fatima, B. 1999b.<b> </b>Preventive control of powdery mildew disease of mango. Sultan Qaboos University Journal for Scientific Research Agricultural Sciences, 4: 23-28 (Abstract)
</p>
<p>Anjum, S., Razaq, M., and Yazadni, M. S. 2000.<b> </b>Studies on seasonal activity and control of fruit flies (Dacus spp.) on mango (Mangifera indica L.) at Faisalabad, Pakistan. Arab Journal of Plant Protection, 18: 121-123 (Abstract)
</p>
<p>Anonymous. 1965. List of phytophagous insects in Taiwan. Plant Quarantine Bulletin No. 5. Bureau of Commodity Inspection and Quarantine, Ministry of Economic Affairs, Republic of China. 
</p>
<p>Anonymous. 1994. Harmful pests of China fruit trees. Second Edition.  (English translation arranged by Ray Miyamoto, USDA APHIS International Services). China Agriculture Science Institute, China Agriculture Press. pp.1063.
</p>
<p>Anonymous. 2000. General News. <http://pest.cabweb.org/Journals/BNI/BNI21-2/Gennews.htm> <i>last accessed</i> October 14, 2004.
</p>
<p>Anwar, S. A., and Chaudhry, N. A. 1976.<b> </b>Nematodes associated with the mango in the Punjab. Pakistan Journal of Zoology, 8: 230-231. 
</p>
<p>APHIS. 2002. Treatment manual. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. <http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/manuals/pdf_files/Treatment_Chapters.htm> <i>last accessed</i> 11 December 2003.
</p>
<p>ARS. 2001. Agricultural Res Service (ARS), Online Database USDA-ARS.  National Genetic Resources Program, Germplasm Resources Information Network (GRIN).  Washington, DC.  <http://ars-grin.gov/cgi-bin/npgs/html/rare.pl>  <i>last accessed</i> 4 January 2002.
</p>
<p>Arshad, M., and Gill, M. A. 2002.<b> </b>Quick decline of mango and in vitro response of fungicides against the disease. International Journal of Agriculture and Biology, 4: 39-40 (Abstract)</p>
<p>Astridge, D. 2001.<b> </b>Insect fauna surveys on rambutan, durian and mangosteen in North Queensland. Technical Bulletin Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries, Northern Territory of Australia 288: 75-79.</p>
<p>Azam, K. M., and Babu, T. R. 1990. Grape mealybug management in India, pp. 301. <i>In</i> N. J. Bostanian, L. T. Wilson and T. J. Dennehy [eds.], Monitoring and Integrated Management of Arthropod Pests of Small Fruit Crops. Intercept Ltd., Andover, Hampshire. 
</p>
<p>BackyardGardner.com. 2003. Map of South America, Central America, and the Caribbean with USDA plant hardiness zones indicated. <http://www.backyardgardener.com/zone/sazone.html> <i>last accessed</i> March 7, 2003. 
</p>
<p>Baker, E. W., Kono, T., Amrine, J. W. J., Delfinado-Baker, M., and Stasny, T. A. 1996. Eriophyoid mites of the United States. Indira Publishing House, Bloomfield, Michigan. pp.394. </p>
<p>Balock, J. W., and Kozuma, T. T. 1964.<b> </b>Notes on the biology and economic importance of the mango weevil, <i>Sternochetus mangiferae </i>(Fabricius) in Hawaii (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Proceedings of the Hawaiian Entomological Society, 18: 353-364. </p>
<p>Belano, A. 2005. Personal communication (Email, December 22, 2005) from Alex Belano, Import Specialist, USDA-APHIS-PPQ Phytosanitary Issues Management, to Leah Millar, USDA-APHIS-PPQ-CPHST Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory 
</p>
<p>Ben-Dov, Y. 1993. A systematic catalogue of the soft scale insects of the world (Homoptera: Coccoidea: Coccidae) with data on geographical distribution, host plants, biology and economic importance. Sandhill Crane Press, Inc., Gainesville, Florida. pp.536.
</p>
<p>Ben-Dov, Y. 1994. A systematic catalogue of the mealybugs of the world (Insecta: Homoptera: Coccoidea: Pseudococcidae and Putoidae). Intercept Limited, Andover, UK. pp.686. 
</p>
<p>Bhattacharyya, B., Khound, J. N., and Thakur, A. C. 1996. Some aspects of biology and management of mango pulp weevil, <i>Sternochetus frigidus</i> (Fabr.) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Proceedings of the Seminar on Problems and Prospects of Agricultural Research and Development in North East India, Assam Agricultural University, Jorhat, India, 27-28 November 1995. (Abstract)
</p>
<p>Bier, V. M. 1999.<b> </b>Challenges to the acceptance of probabilistic risk analysis. Risk Analysis, 19: 703-710. (Abstract)
</p>
<p>Bjostad, L. B., Gurevitz, E., Gothilf, S., and Roelofs, W. L. 1981.<b> </b>Sex attractant for the honeydew moth, <i>Cryptoblabes gnidiella</i>. Phytoparasitica, 9: 95-99. 
</p>
<p>Blackburn, V. L., and Miller, D. R. 1984. Pests not known to occur in the U.S. or of limited distribution, no. 44: Black Parlatoria Scale, pp. 1-13. USDA APHIS PPQ, Beltsville, MD. 
</p>
<p>Borror, D. J., Triplehorn, C. A., and Johnson, N. F. 1989. An Introduction to the Study of Insects, 6th ed. Harcourt Brace College Publishers, New York. pp.874.
</p>
<p>Bournier, J. P. 1986.<b> </b>On the geographical distribution of <i>Thrips palmi</i> Karny. Coton et Fibres Tropicales 41: 59-61. (Abstract)
</p>
<p>Bradbury, J. F. 1986. Guide to plant pathogenic bacteria. CAB International, Wallingford, UK. pp.332. </p>
<p>Burikam, I., Sarnthoy, O., Charensom, K., Kanno, T., and Homma, H. 1992.<b> </b>Cold temperature treatment for mangosteens infested with the Oriental fruit fly (Diptera: Tephritidae). Journal of Economic Entomology, 85: 2298-2301. 
</p>
<p>Butani, D. K. 1978.<b> </b>Insect pests of fruit crops and their control Pesticides, 12: 53-59. (Abstract)
</p>
<p>Butani, D. K. 1993. Mango: Pest Problems. Periodical Expert Book Agency, Delhi, India. pp.290. 
</p>
<p>CABI. 2001. Crop Protection Compendium. CAB International, Wallingford, UK.</p>
<p>CABI. 2002. Crop Protection Compendium. CAB International, Wallingford, UK.
</p>
<p>CABI. 2003. Crop Protection Compendium. CAB International, Wallingford, UK.</p>
<p>CABI. 2004. Crop Protection Compendium. CAB International, Wallingford, UK.</p>
<p>CABI. 2005. Crop Protection Compendium. CAB International, Wallingford, UK. <http://www.cabicompendium.org/cpc/home.asp>.</p>
<p>Capinera, J. L. 2004. Featured Creature: Melon thrips, <i>Thrips palmi</i> Karny (Thysanoptera: Thripidae). University of Florida and the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. <http://creatures.ifas.ufl.edu/veg/melon_thrips.htm> <i>last accessed</i> October 14, 2004.
</p>
<p>Carpenter, J. B., and Elmer, H. S. 1978. Pests and diseases of the date palm, USDA Agriculture Handbook 527. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Science and Education Administration, Washington. </p>
<p>CERIS. 2005. Export Certification Project - EXCERPT. The Center for Environmental and Regulatory Information Systems (CERIS), Entomology Department, Purdue University. <http://excerpt.ceris.purdue.edu/>. </p>
<p>Chang, N. T. 1991. Important thrips species in Taiwan, pp. 40-56. <i>In</i> N. S. Talekar [ed.], Thrips in southeast Asia: proceedings of a regional consultation workshop, Bangkok, Thailand (AVRDC publication No. 91-342). Asian Vegetable Research and Development Center, Taipei.
</p>
<p>China. 1997. <i>Personal communication from</i> China, Pest list of longan provided by China (cited in the USDA, APHIS, PPQ Commodity Risk Assessment for Longans from China, May 1999), cited in the USDA, APHIS, PPQ Commodity Risk Assessment for Longans from China, May 1999, concerning Pest list of longan provided by China (cited in the USDA, APHIS, PPQ Commodity Risk Assessment for Longans from China, May 1999)</p>
<p>CIBC (1969) Survey of parasites of insect pests of cultivated and useful plants and survey of insects destroying weeds and their parasites. Final report 1959-69, 243pp (as cited by CABI Bioscience, 2003)
</p>
<p>C.I.E. 1983. Distribution Maps of Plant Pests, Map No. 446.  <i>Nipaecoccus viridis</i> (Newst.) (Hem., Coccoidea). CAB International, Wallingford, UK. 
</p>
<p>Coates, L. M., Johnson, G. I., and Cooke, A. W. 1993.<b> </b>Postharvest disease control in mangoes using high humidity hot air and fungicide treatments. Annals of Applied Biology, 123: 441-448. 
</p>
<p>Coates, L. M., Cooke, A. W., Dean, J. R., Lavi, U., Degani, C., Gazit, S., Lahav, E., Pesis, E., Prusky, D., Tomer, E., and Wysoki, M. 1997.<b> </b>The response of mango stem end rot pathogens to heat. Acta Horticulturae: 762-772. 
</p>
<p>Coile, N. C., and Dixon, W. N. 2000. TRI-OLOGY, Vol. 39, No. 2. Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. < http://doacs.state.fl.us/~pi/enpp/00-mar-apr.htm> <i>last accessed</i> September 16, 2003.
</p>
<p>Coll, M., and Abd Rabou, S. 1998.<b> </b>Effect of oil emulsion sprays on parasitoids of the black parlatoria, <i>Parlatoria ziziphi</i>, in grapefruit. BioControl 43: 29-37.
</p>
<p>Cook, A. A. 1975. Diseases of tropical and subtropical fruits and nuts. Hafner Press, New York. pp.317. </p>
<p>CPHST. 2003. Movement of Mangosteen, <i>Garcinia mangostana</i>, from Hawaii into the Continental United States: A Pathway-initiated Risk Assessment (Draft October 27, 2003). USDA-APHIS Plant Protection and Quarantine, Center for Plant Health Science and Technology, Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory, Raleigh, NC. 
</p>
<p>CRFG. 1996. Mango Fruit Facts. California Rare Fruit Growers Inc. <http://www.crfg.org/pubs/ff/mango.html> <i>last accessed</i> 9 December 2003.
</p>
<p>De, K., and Pande, Y. D. 1988.<b> </b>Bionomics and some behavioural aspects of the mango stone weevil, <i>Sternochetus gravis</i> (Fabricius) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Entomon, 13: 17-24. 
</p>
<p>Dekle, G. W. 1976a.<b> </b>Black parlatoria scale: <i>Parlatoria ziziphi </i>(Lucas) (Homoptera: Diaspididae). Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Plant Industry, Entomology Circular No. 171.
</p>
<p>Dekle, G. W. 1976b.<b> </b>Green scale, <i>Coccus viridis</i> (Green) (Homoptera: Coccidae). Florida Deparment of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Plant Industry, Entomology Circular 165.
</p>
<p>DOACS. 2003. Pink Hibiscus Mealybug: <i>Maconellicoccus hirsutus </i>(Green). <http://www.doacs.state.fl.us/pi/enpp/ento/pink.htm> <i>last accessed</i> October 12, 2004.
</p>
<p>Dutta, S. 1996.<b> </b>Contribution towards the studies of scale insects (Homoptera: Coccoidea: Diaspididae) of North India. Bulletin of Entomology New Delhi 31: 152-163. (Abstract)
</p>
<p>EPPO. 2003. PQR - EPPO's Plant Quarantine Data Retrieval System Version 4.2. European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization (EPPO), Paris, France. </p>
<p>EPPO. 2004. PQR - EPPO's Plant Quarantine Data Retrieval System Version 4.2. European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization (EPPO), Paris, France. 
</p>
<p>Fabres, G. 1974.<b> </b>A new species of the genus <i>Habrolepis</i> (Hym. Chalcidoidae Encyrtidae), a parasite of <i>Pseudaonidia trilobitiformis </i>(Homoptera Diaspidadae) in New Caledonia. Entomophaga 19: 55-60. (Abstract)
</p>
<p>Farr, D. F., Bills, G. F., Chamuris, G. P., and Rossman, A. Y. 1989. Fungi on Plants and Plant Products in the U.S. APS Press, St. Pau., MN. pp.152. 
</p>
<p>Farr, D. F., Rossman, A. Y., Palm, M. E., and McCray, E. B. 2003. Fungal Databases. Systematic Botany & Mycology Laboratory, ARS, USDA. <http://nt.ars-grin.gov/fungaldatabases/> <i>last accessed</i> December 2003.</p>
<p>Farr, D. F., Rossman, A. Y., Palm, M. E., and McCray, E. B. 2005. Fungal Databases. Systematic Botany & Mycology Laboratory, ARS, USDA. <http://nt.ars-grin.gov/fungaldatabases/> <i>last accessed</i> December 2005.</p>
<p>Farr, D. F., Rossman, A. Y., Palm, M. E., and McCray, E. B. 2006. Fungal Databases. Systematic Botany & Mycology Laboratory, ARS, USDA. <http://nt.ars-grin.gov/fungaldatabases/> <i>last accessed</i> February 2006.
</p>
<p>Firempong, S. 1983.<b> </b>Some aspects of biological statistics of <i>Planococcoides njalensis</i> Laing (Homoptera: Pseudococcidae) reared on cocoa seedlings. Revista Theobroma 13: 151-156. (Abstract)
</p>
<p>Fletcher, B. S. 1989a. Ecology; life history strategies of tephritid fruit flies, pp. 195-208. <i>In</i> A. S. Robinson and G. Hooper [eds.], Fruit Flies; Their Biology, Natural Enemies and Control. Elsevier, Amsterdam, Netherlands. 
</p>
<p>Fletcher, B. S. 1989b. Movement of tephritid fruit flies, pp. 209-219. <i>In</i> A. S. Robinson and G. Hooper [eds.], Fruit flies, their biology, natural enemies and control, World crop pests, Vol. 3b. Elsevier, Amsterdam.
</p>
<p>Follett, P. A. 2002.<b> </b>Mango seed weevil (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) and premature fruit drop in mangoes. Journal of Economic Entomology, 95: 336-339. 
</p>
<p>Follett, P. A., and Gabbard, Z. 2000.<b> </b>Effect of mango weevil (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) damage on mango seed viability in Hawaii. Journal of Economic Entomology, 93: 1237-1240. 
</p>
<p>Fowjhan, M.-A., and Kozar, F. 1994.<b> </b>New data on the scale insect fauna (Homoptera: Coccoidea) of fruit plants in Afghanistan. Acta Phytopathologica et Entomologica Hungarica. (Abstract)</p>
<p>Gagnevin, L., and Pruvost, O. 2001.<b> </b>Epidemiology and control of mango bacterial black spot. Plant Disease 85 (9): 928-935.
</p>
<p>Gallardo-Covas, F. 1983.<b> </b>Mangoes (Mangifera indica L.) susceptibility to Aulacaspis tubercularis Newstead (Homoptera: Diaspididae) in Puerto Rico. Journal of Agriculture of the University of Puerto Rico, 67: 179. 
</p>
<p>Gallegos, D. P., and Bonano, E. J. 1993.<b> </b>Consideration of uncertainty in the performance assessment of radioactive waste disposal from an international regulatory perspective. Relaiability Engineering and System Safety, 42. (Abstract)
</p>
<p>Gangwar, V. S. 1982. Biology of <i>Procontarinia</i> (=<i>Indodiplosis</i>) <i>mangifoliae </i>(Grover) (Cecidomyiidae: Diptera) Cecidologia Internationale. 1982, publ. 1983, 3: 3, 93 145; 5 fig.; 4 pp. of ref. (Abstract)
</p>
<p>Ghani, M. A., and Muzaffar, N. 1974.<b> </b>Relations between the Parasite Predator Complex and the Host Plants of Scale Insects in Pakistan. Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control Miscellaneous Publication. (Abstract)
</p>
<p>Gharib, A. 1973.<b> </b><i>Parlatoria blanchardi </i>Targ. (Homoptera - Diaspididae). Entomologie et Phytopathologie Appliquees: Pe 10-17. (Abstract)
</p>
<p>Godse, S. K. 2002.<b> </b>An annotated list of pests infesting cashew in Konkan Region of Maharashtra. Cashew 16: 15-20. (Abstract)
</p>
<p>Gould, W. P. 1995.<b> </b>Probability of detecting Carribbean fruit fly (Diptera: Tephritidae) infestations by fruit dissection. Florida Entomologist, 78: 502-507.</p>
<p>Government of Pakistan. 2006. Country comments regarding USDA's draft pest risk assessment for mangoes from Pakistan (May 22, 2006). Department of Plant Protection, Ministry of Food, Agriculture, & Livestock, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad.  </p>
<p>Graf, A. B. 1981. Tropica color cyclopedia of exotic plants and trees for warm-region horticulture in cool climate the summer garden or sheltered indoors, Fourth Edition. Roehrs Company, Rutherford, N.J. 
</p>
<p>Greathead, D. J. 1989. Crawler behaviour and dispersal, pp. 305-308. <i>In</i> D. Rosen [ed.], Armored scale insects.  Their biology, natural enemies and control. Elsevier Scientific Publishers., Amsterdam. </p>
<p>Greathead, D. J. 1997. Ecology: Crawler behaviour and dispersal, pp. 339-342. <i>In</i> Y. Ben-Dov and C. J. Hodgson [eds.], Soft scale insects:  their biology, natural enemies and control. Elsevier Scientific Publishers., Amsterdam. </p>
<p>Gullan, P. J., and Kosztarab, M. 1997.<b> </b>Adaptations in scale insects. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 42: 23-50.</p>
<p>Gunn, C. R., and Ritchie, C. 1982. Report of the Technical Committee to Evaluate Noxious Weeds; Exotic Weeds for Federal Noxious Weed Act (unpublished). 
</p>
<p>Gupta, B. P., and Singh, Y. P. 1988.<b> </b>Mango scale insects - occurrence in western Uttar Pradesh and their control. Progressive Horticulture, 20: 357-361. 
</p>
<p>Haleem, S. A. 1984.<b> </b>Studies on fruit quality of sweet orange as affected by soft green scale and sooty mould. South Indian Horticulture 32: 267-269.
</p>
<p>Hamon, A. B. 2002. White Mango scale, <i>Aulacaspis tubercularis</i> Newstead (Coccoidea: Diaspididae).  (Florida) Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. <http://doacs.state.fl.us/~pi/enpp/ento/aulacaspis-tubercularis.html> <i>last accessed</i> 10 October 2002.
</p>
<p>Haq, C. A., Malik, M. T., Syed, S. A., and Khan, S. H. 1994.<b> </b>Evaluation of various fungicides against powdery mildew (Oidium mangiferae) in mango. Pakistan Journal of Phytopathology, 6: 17-20 (Abstract)</p>
<p>Hashmi, A. A., and Tashfeen, A. 1994.<b> </b>Coleoptera of Pakistan. Proceedings of Pakistan Congress of Zoology: Twelfth Pakistan Congress of Zoology held under auspices of the Zoological Society of Pakistan Government College, Lahore, April 1992 12: 133-170. (as cited by CABI, 2004)
</p>
<p>Hawksworth, F. G., Pundir, Y. P. S., Shaw, C. G., III, and Geils, B. W. 1993.<b> </b>The host range of Dendrophthoe falcata (L.f.) Ettingsh. (Loranthaceae). Indian Journal of Forestry, 16: 263-281 (Abstract)
</p>
<p>Heard, T. A., Heather, N. W., and Peterson, P. M. 1992.<b> </b>Relative tolerance to vapor heat treatment of eggs and larvae of <i>Bactrocera tryoni</i> (Diptera: Tephritidae) in mangoes. Journal of Economic Entomology, 85: 461-463. 
</p>
<p>Heather, N. W., Corcoran, R. J., and Heard, T. A. 1992.<b> </b>Heat disinfestation as a quarantine treatment against Queensland fruit fly in mangoes. New Zealand Journal of Horticultural Science, 20: 256. 
</p>
<p>Heppner, J. B. 1988. Larvae of fruit flies. IV. Dacus dorsalis (Oriental fruit fly) (Diptera: Tephritidae), Entomology Circular, Division of Plant Industry, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. 1988, No. 303, 2 pp.; 7 ref. (Abstract)
</p>
<p>Hill, D. S. 1983. Agricultural insect pests of the tropics and their control, Second ed. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY. pp.xii+ 746.
</p>
<p>Hirose, Y., Kajita, H., Takagi, M., Okajima, S., Napompeth, B., and Buranapanichpan, S. 1993.<b> </b>Natural enemies of <i>Thrips palmi </i>and their effectiveness in the native habitat, Thailand. Biological Control 3: 1-5. (Abstract)
</p>
<p>Holm, L. G. 1977. World's worst weeds. University of Hawaii Press. pp.609. (Abstract)
</p>
<p>Holm, L. G. 1997. World weeds: natural histories and distribution. John Wiley & Sons, N.Y. pp.1129. (Abstract)
</p>
<p>Holm, L. G., Pancho, J. V., Herberger, J. P., and Plucknett, D. L. 1979. Geographical atlas of world weeds. John Wiley and Sons, N.Y. pp.391. 
</p>
<p>Howard, F. W. 2001. Sap-feeders on palms, pp. 109-232. <i>In</i> F. W. Howard, D. Moore, R. M. Giblin-Davis and R. G. Abad [eds.], Insects on Palms. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, U.K.
</p>
<p>Hoy, M. A., Hamon, A., and Nguyen, R. 2003. Pink Hibiscus Mealybug: <i>Maconellicoccus hirsutus</i> (Green) (Insecta: Homoptera: Pseudococcidae). University of Florida and the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. <http://creatures.ifas.ufl.edu/orn/mealybug/mealybug.htm> <i>last accessed</i> September 16, 2003.</p>
<p>Hwang, J. S., and Hsieh, F. K. 1981.<b> </b>Bionomics of the lac insect in Taiwan. Plant Protection Bulletin, Taiwan 23 (2): 103-115. (Abstract)
</p>
<p>IPPC. 1996. International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures, Guidelines for Pest Risk Analysis, pp. 18. Secretariat of the International Plant Protection Convention of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations, Rome. 
</p>
<p>IPPC. 2001. International standards for phytosanitary measures, Glossary of phytosanitary terms. Secretariat of  the International Plant Protection Convention, United Nations - IPPC, Italy. <http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/pim/pimglossary.pdf> <i>last accessed</i> 5 February 2002.
</p>
<p>IPPC. 2003. International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures, Publication No. 11: Pest risk analysis for quarantine pests including analysis of environmental risks. Secretariat of the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC), Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. < http://www.ippc.int/servlet/BinaryDownloaderServlet/ISPM_11_Rev1_English.pdf?filename=1060250221108_Ispm11Rev1_English.pdf> <i>last accessed</i> June 29, 2004.</p>
<p>IPPC. 2004. International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures, Publication No. 11: Pest risk analysis for quarantine pests including analysis of environmental risks and living modified organisms. Secretariat of the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC), Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy. <https://www.ippc.int/servlet/BinaryDownloaderServlet/34163_ISPM_11_E.pdf?filename=1146658377367_ISPM11.pdf&refID=34163>.  <i>last accessed</i> September 18, 2006.</p>
<p>Jacobsen, C. M., and Hara., A. H. 2003.<b> </b>Irradiation of <i>Maconellicoccus hirsutus </i>(Homoptera: Pseudococcidae) for phytosanitation of agricultural commodities. Journal of Economic Entomology, 96: 1334-1339. 
</p>
<p>Jarjes, S. J., Al Mallah, N. M., and Abdulla, S. I. 1989.<b> </b>Insects and mites pests survey on rose-bay shrubs in Mosul region with some ecological and biological aspects of (<i>Nipaecoccus viridis </i>New.) and (<i>Parlatoria crypta</i> M) on rose-bay shrubs. Mesopotamia Journal of Agriculture 21: 29. (Abstract)
</p>
<p>Johnson, G., Cooke, T., Mead, A., Johnson, G. I., Cooke, A. W., and Mead, A. J. 1993.<b> </b>Infection and quiescence of mango stem-end rot pathogens. Acta Horticulturae: 329-336. 
</p>
<p>Johnson, G. I., and Highley, E. 1994. Development of postharvest handling technology for tropical tree fruits. 1994, 86 pp.; ref. at ends of papers. ACIAR Proceedings No. 58., 
</p>
<p>Johnson, G. I., Muirhead, I. F., and Rappel, L. M. 1989.<b> </b>Mango post-harvest disease control: a review of research in Australia, Malaysia and Thailand. ASEAN Food Journal, 4: 139-141. 
</p>
<p>Johnson, G. I., Sangchote, S., and Cooke, A. W. 1990a.<b> </b>Control of stem end rot (Dothiorella dominicana) and other postharvest diseases of mangoes ( cv. Kensington Pride) during short- and long-term storage. Tropical Agriculture, 67: 183-187. 
</p>
<p>Johnson, G. I., Mead, A. J., Cooke, A. W., Wells, I. A., and Highley, E. 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., 
</p>
<p>Johnson, G. I., Boag, T. S., Cooke, A. W., Izard, M., Panitz, M., and Sangchote, S. 1990b.<b> </b>Interaction of post harvest disease control treatments and gamma irradiation on mangoes. Annals of Applied Biology, 116: 245-257. 
</p>
<p>Joubert, P. H., Daneel, M. S., and Grover, T. 2000.<b> </b>Progress towards integrated pest management (IPM) on mangoes in South Africa. Acta Horticulturae, 509: 811-817. 
</p>
<p>Kazi, A. S. 1976.<b> </b>Studies on the field habits of adult melon fruit fly <i>Dacus </i>(<i>Strumeta</i>) <i>cucurbitae</i>, Coquillet. Pak J Sci Ind Res, 19: 71-76. 
</p>
<p>Khan, M. A., and Mirza, J. H. 1995.<b> </b>Bacterial leaf spot of mango in Pakistan. Pakistan Journal of Phytopathology, 7: 204-205 (Abstract)
</p>
<p>Khan, S. M., and Javed, N. 2002. Evaluation of agrochemicals against anthracnose of mango. Integrated plant disease management. Proceedings of 3rd National Conference of Plant Pathology, NARC, Islamabad, 1 3 Oct. 2001. 2002, 38 40; 11 ref., (Abstract)
</p>
<p>Khoualdia, O., Rhouma, A., Brun, J., and Marro, J. P. 1997.<b> </b>Biological control of white scale. Introduction of an exotic predator in the palm grove of Segdoud. Phytoma 49: 41-42. (Abstract)
</p>
<p>Khuhro, R. D., Soomro, A. H., Ikhlas, A., Dharejo, A. G., Ansari, H. U., and Baloch, H. B. 1991.<b> </b>Bioefficacy of some contact and systemic insecticides in the control of mango thrips, Rhipiphorothrips cruentatus. 1987, publ: 95-98 (Abstract)
</p>
<p>Kishun, R., and Chand, R. 1989.<b> </b>Mechanical transmission of <i>Xanthomonas campestris </i>pv.<i> mangiferaeindicae</i> through insects. Indian Journal of Plant Pathology, 7: 112-114. 
</p>
<p>Knowledge Master. 2003. Mango. Crop Knowledge Master, University of Hawaii. Manoa, Hawaii. <http://www.extento.hawaii.edu/kbase/crop/crops/i_mango.htm> <i>last accessed</i> 22 November 2003.
</p>
<p>Kobiler, I., Reved, R., Artez, L., Prusky, D., Johnson, G. I., Highley, E., and Joyce, D. C. 1998.<b> </b>Antifungal compounds regulating quiescent diseases in mango. ACIAR Proceedings Series: 109-114. (Abstract)
</p>
<p>Kosztarab, M. 1996. Scale insects of northeastern North America : identification, biology, and distribution. Virginia Museum of Natural History, Martinsville. pp.x, 650.
</p>
<p>Kosztarab, M. 1997. Deciduous forest trees, pp. 347-355. <i>In</i> Y. Ben-Dov and C. J. Hodgson [eds.], Soft Scale Insects: Their Biology, Natural Enemies and Control Vol. 7B. Elsevier, Amsterdam.
</p>
<p>Kozar, F., Fowjhan, M.-A., and Zarrabi, M. 1996.<b> </b>Check-list of coccoidea and aleyrodoidea (homoptera) of Afghanistan and Iran, with additional data to the scale insects of fruit trees in Iran. Acta Phytopathologica et Entomologica Hungarica. (Abstract)
</p>
<p>Lakshmanan, P. L., Balasubramaniam, G., and Subramaniam, T. R. 1973.<b> </b>Effect of methyl eugenol in the control of the oriental fruit-fly <i>Dacus dorsalis</i> Hendel on mango. Madras Agricultural Journal, 60: 628-629. 
</p>
<p>Lall, B. S., and Singh, B. N. 1969.<b> </b>Studies on the biology and control of melon fly Dacus-cucurbitae Diptera Trypetidae. Labdev Journal of Science and Technology, B, 7B: 148-153. 
</p>
<p>Laxminarayana, P., and Reddy, S. M. 1975.<b> </b>A new post-harvest disease of mango. Indian Phytopathology, 28: 529-530. 
</p>
<p>Lee, H. S., and Wen, H. C. 1977.<b> </b>Seasonal occurrence and control of the papaya red scale, <i>Aonidiella inornata</i> McKenzie, (Homoptera: Diaspididae) Plant Protection Bulletin, Taiwan, 19: 196-201. (Abstract)
</p>
<p>Lim, T. K., Sijam, K., and Ong, E. T. 1991.<b> </b>Bacterial black spot of mango, a new disease in Malaysia. Acta Horticulturae, 291: 317-323. </p>
<p>Li-zhong, H. 2000. List of Chinese Insects Vol. 1. Zhongshan (Sun Yat-sen) University Press, Guangzhou, China. 
</p>
<p>MAF. 2003. Australia mango datasheets. Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, New Zealand. <http://www.maf.govt.nz/biosecurity/imports/plants/standards/drafts/australia-mango-datasheets-draft.pdf> <i>last accessed</i> 8 December 2003.
</p>
<p>Mahmood, R., Mohyuddin, A. I., and Kazimi, S. K. 1980. <i>Rastrococcus spinosus</i> (Robinson) (Homoptera: Pseudococcidae) and its natural enemies in Pakistan. Proceedings of the 1st Pakistan Congress of Zoology, 30 April 1 May, 1980, Quaid i Azam University, Islamabad. 1980, recd. 1983, 291 294; 2 fig.; 9 ref., (Abstract)
</p>
<p>Mann, G. S. 1996.<b> </b>Seasonal incidence and build-up of <i>Bactrocera dorsalis</i> on mango in Punjab. Journal of Insect Science, 9: 129-132. 
</p>
<p>Maqbool, M. A., and Shahina, F. 1986.<b> </b>Four new species of the family Hoplolaimidae: (Nematoda) with notes on Rotylenchus cypriensis Antoniou from Pakistan. Nematologia Mediterranea, 14: 117-128 (Abstract)
</p>
<p>Maqbool, M. A., and Ghazala, P. 1988.<b> </b>Observation on some known species of Hoplolaimus von Daday, 1905 (Nemata:Hoplolaimidae) from Pakistan. Pakistan Journal of Nematology, 6: 1-7 (Abstract)
</p>
<p>Martin, J. 1985.<b> </b>The whitefly of New Guinea (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae). Bulletin of the British Museum Natural History, Entomology. (Abstract)
</p>
<p>Mau, R. F. L., and Kessing, J. L. M. 1992. Cryptoblabes gnidiella (Milliere). University of Hawaii, Manoa, Knowledge Master. <http://www.extento.hawaii.edu/kbase/crop/Type/cryptobl.htm> <i>last accessed</i> 31 October 2002.
</p>
<p>Meyerdirk, D. 2002. Personal communication with D. Meyerdirk.  Proposed action plan: biological control of the pink hibiscus mealybug.  Received 10 November 2002. 
</p>
<p>Meyerdirk, D., Warkentin, R., Atttavian, B., Gersabeck, E., Francis, A., Adams, M., and Francis, G. 2000. Biological control of pink hibiscus mealybug project manual. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. 
</p>
<p>Michaud, J. P., and Evans, G. A. 2000.<b> </b>Current status of pink hibiscus mealybug in Puerto Rico including a key to parasitoid species. Florida Entomologist, 83: 97-101. 
</p>
<p>Miller, C. E. 1985. Pest risk assessment of armored scales on certain fruit. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Beltsville, Maryland.
</p>
<p>Miller, D. R., and Davidson, J. A. 1990. A list of the armored scale insect pests, pp. 299-306. <i>In</i> W. Helle [ed.], Armored Scale Insects: their biology, natural enemies, and control, Volume 4B. Elsevier, Amsterdam. 
</p>
<p>Miller, E. 2003. <i>Personal communication from</i> Miller, E., Fax (June 30, 2003) from Ed Miller, Entomologist, USDA-APHIS-PPQ to Leah Millar, Entomologist, USDA-APHIS-PPQ, stating that although <i>Coccus viridis </i>can be associated with fruit, it mainly attacks the leaves of its hosts.</p>
<p>Miller, G. L., and Miller, D. R. 2002.<b> </b><i>Dysmicoccus</i> Ferris and similar genera (Hemiptera: Coccoidea: Pseudococcidae) of the Gulf State Region including a description of a new species and New United States records. Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington 104 (4): 968-979. 
</p>
<p>Mohyuddin, A. I., and Mahmood, R. 1993.<b> </b>Integrated control of mango pests in Pakistan. Acta Horticulturae, 341: 467-483 
</p>
<p>Mohyuddin, M., Osman, N., and Aslam, M. 1973. Studies on the cause of Mango tree malformations. Abstracts of Papers, 2nd International Congress of Plant Pathology, Minneapolis. 1973, 0249., (Abstract)
</p>
<p>Morgan, M. G., and Henrion, M. 1990. Uncertainty. Cambridge Univ. Press, United Kingdom. pp.332. (Abstract)
</p>
<p class="plain_Text">Morton, Julia F. 1987.  Fruits of warm climates. Mango. Miami, Florida p. 221–239.</p>
<p>Mossler, M. A., and Nesheim, N. 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. (<i>http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/BODY_PI052</i> [Accessed 13 November 2002]). <http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/BODY_PI052> <i>last accessed</i> 13 November 2002.
</p>
<p>Mossler, M. A., and Nesheim, O. N. 2003. Florida Crop/Pest Management Profile: Limes, Pummelo, and Kumquat. University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (UF/IFAS). <http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/BODY_PI049> <i>last accessed</i> April 1, 2003.
</p>
<p>Muzaffar, N. 1970.<b> </b>A note on the Monophlebid, Icerya aegyptiaca (Dgl.), and its natural enemies in West Pakistan. Technical Bulletin, Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control: 91-93 (Abstract)
</p>
<p>Muzaffar, N., and Ahmad, R. 1977.<b> </b>A note on Saissetia privigna (Hem.: Coccidae) in Pakistan and the breeding of its natural enemies. Entomophaga, 22: 45-46 (Abstract)
</p>
<p>Najafinia, M., Azadvar, M., Namvar, P., and Moghadam, M. 2002.<b> </b>Introduction of <i>Parlatoria crypta</i> (M. Kenzie) as a new pest on olive trees in Iran. Applied Entomology and Phytopathology 70. (Abstract)
</p>
<p>NAPPO. 1996. Glossary of phytosanitary terms. North American Plant Protection Organization. <http://www.nappo.org/96-027-1.html> <i>last accessed</i> 20 November 2002.
</p>
<p>Narasimham, A. U. 1987.<b> </b>Scale insects and mealybugs on coffee, tea and cardamom and their natural enemies. Journal of Coffee Research 17: 7-13.
</p>
<p>NIN. 1998. Nomina Insecta Nearctica. Nearctica.com. <http://www.nearctica.com/nomina/nomina.htm> <i>last accessed</i> 15 December 2003.
</p>
<p>NIS. 2003. Personal communication (Email, August 4, 2003) from USDA-APHIS-PPQ National Identification Services to Leah Millar, Risk Analyst, USDA-APHIS-PPQ- CPHST Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory (on file with USDA-APHIS-PPQ-CPHST-PERAL).</p>
<p>NIS. 2004a. Personal communication (Email, February 25, 2004) from USDA-APHIS-PPQ National Identification Services to Marina Zlotina, USDA-APHIS-PPQ-CPHST Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory confirming that <i>Aleurocanthus woglumi</i> (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae) is actionable by USDA and is under official control or being considered for official control. 
</p>
<p>NIS. 2004b. Personal communication (Email, September 29, 2004) from USDA-APHIS-PPQ National Identification Services to Leah Millar, USDA-APHIS-PPQ- CPHST Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory confirming that fruit shipments of okra (<i>Abelmoschus esculentus</i>) are normally contaminated with stems and leaves - the actual source of whitefly infestations.
</p>
<p>NIS. 2004c. Personal communication (Email, February 9, 2004) from USDA-APHIS-PPQ National Identification Services to Keith Colpetzer, USDA-APHIS-PPQ-CPHST Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory, confirming that <i>Lepidosaphes tokionis</i> (Hemiptera: Diaspididae) is treated as a quarantine pest by USDA. 
</p>
<p>NIS. 2004d. Personal communication (Email, June 14, 2004) from USDA-APHIS-PPQ National Identification Services to Marina Zlotina, USDA-APHIS-PPQ-CPHST Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory, confirming that <i>Thrips palmi</i> (Thysanoptera: Thripidae) is actionable by USDA and is under official control or being considered for official control. 
</p>
<p>NIS. 2004e. Personal communication (Email, October 26, 2004) from USDA-APHIS-PPQ National Identification Services to Leah Millar, USDA-APHIS-PPQ-CPHST Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory, confirming that <i>Parlatoria ziziphi</i> (Hemiptera: Diaspididae) is actionable by USDA. </p>
<p>NIS. 2004f. Email (Feb. 24, 2004) from National Identification Services to Leah Millar, Entomologist, USDA-APHIS-PPQ, confirming that <i>Parlatoria cinerea</i> is actionable at U.S. ports-of-entry.</p>
<p>NIS. 2006.<b> </b>Personal communication (Email, February 23, 2006) from USDA-APHIS-PPQ National Identification Services to Kenneth Lakin, Senior Risk Analyst, USDA-APHIS-PPQ-CPHST Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory (on file with USDA-APHIS-PPQ-CPHST-PERAL).</p>
<p>Pakistan Document. 2002. List of pests associated with mango in Pakistan, sent by the Government of Pakistan accompanying the request to export Mangoes to the U.S. (Abstract)</p>
<p>PHDEB. 2005. Mango: Introduction and Importance. Pakistan Horticulture Development and Export Board. <http://www.phdeb.org/sec_overview/mango1.php>. 
</p>
<p>PIN. 2003. Port Information Network. Pest interception records. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
</p>
<p>PIN. 2004. Port Information Network. Pest interception records. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.</p>
<p>PIN. 2005. Port Information Network. Pest interception records. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.</p>
<p>PIN. 2006a. Port Information Network. Pest interception records. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.</p>
<p>PIN. 2006b. Port Information Network.  Quarantine Status.  Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
</p>
<p>Plan, M. R. R., Joyce, D. C., Ogle, H. J., and Johnson, G. I. 2002.<b> </b>Mango stem-end rot (<i>Botryosphaeria dothidea</i>) disease control by partial-pressure infiltration of fungicides. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture, 42: 625-629. 
</p>
<p>PPQ. 2003. Appendix 5: Site Visit Report, pp. 70-80. <i>In</i> PPQ [ed.], Importation of Fresh Commercial Citrus Fruit: Grapefruit (<i>Citrus </i>x<i> paradisi</i> Macfad.); Lime (<i>C. aurantiifolia</i> [Christm.] Swingle); Mandarin Orange or Tangerine (<i>C. reticulata</i> Blanco); Sweet Orange (<i>C. sinensis</i> [L.] Osbeck); Tangelo (<i>C. </i>x <i>tangelo</i> J.W. Ingram & H.E. Moore); from Peru into the United States: A Pathway-Initiated Plant Pest Risk Analysis (Draft October 28, 2003). USDA-APHIS Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ), Center for Plant Health Science and Technology, Raleigh, NC.
</p>
<p>PPQ. 2004. Plant Protection and Quarantine Treatment Manual, Revision 10/2002-04, updated September 17, 2004: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/manuals/pdf_files/TM.pdf. USDA-APHIS Plant Protection and Quarantine. </p>
<p>PPQ. 2005. Importation of Guava, <i>Psidium guajava</i>, from Mexico into the United States: A Pathway-initiated Commodity Risk Analysis (Draft December 2, 2005). USDA-APHIS Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ), Center for Plant Health Science and Technology.</p>
<p>Pruvost, O., and Luisetti, J. 1991.<b> </b>Effect of time of inoculation with <i>Xanthomonas campestris </i>pv.<i> mangiferaeindicae</i> on mango fruits susceptibility. Epiphytic survival of  X. c. pv. mangiferaeindicae on mango fruits in relation to disease development. Journal of Phytopathology, 133: 139-151. 
</p>
<p>Pruvost, O., Couteau, A., and Luisetti, J. 1990.<b> </b>Development of bacterial black spot of mangoes and epiphytic populations of the pathogen (<i>Xanthomonas campestris </i>pv.<i> mangiferaeindicae</i>) under natural conditions in Reunion Island. Fruits Paris, 45: 125-140. 
</p>
<p>Reddy, D. B. 1975. Insects, other pests and diseases recorded in the Southeast Asia and Pacific region, mango - Mangifera indica, Technical document no. 96, pp. 16. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Far East, Bangkok, Thailand. 
</p>
<p>Reed, C. F. 1977. Economically important foreign weeds, potential problems in the U.S., pp. 746, Agriculture Handbook No. 498. Agricultural Research Service, Animal and Plant Health Inspection, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. </p>
<p>Rohrbach, K. G., Beardsley, J. W., German, T. L., Reimer, N. J., and Sanford, W. G. 1988.<b> </b>Mealybug wilt, mealybugs, and ants of pineapple. Plant Disease 72 (7): 558-565. </p>
<p>Rosen, D. 1990. Armored Scale Insects Their Biology, Natural Enemies and Control, vol. A. Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, Netherlands. pp.384. 
</p>
<p>Saeed, M. 1974. Studies on some stylet-bearing nematodes associated with sapodilla (Achras zapota L.), with special reference to Hemicriconemoides mangiferae Siddiqi, 1961, pp. 137 Ph.D. Thesis: University of Karachi Department of Botany. (Abstract)
</p>
<p>Sakimura, K., Nakahara, L. M., and Denmark, H. A. 1986.<b> </b>A thrips, <i>Thrips palmi </i>Karny (Thysanoptera: Thripidae). Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Plant Industry, Entomology Circular No. 280.
</p>
<p>Sangchote, S., Farungsang, N., Farungsang, U., Johnson, G. I., and Highley, E. 1994. Factors affecting the incidence of stem-end rot on mango. Development of postharvest handling technology for tropical tree fruits: a workshop held in Bangkok, Thailand, 16 18 July 1992. 1994, 80 83; ACIAR Proceedings No. 58.
</p>
<p>Sauls, J. W. 2003. Home fruit production-mango. Texas A&M University, Extension Horticulture Information Resource. <http://aggie-horticulture.tamu.edu/extension/homefruit/mango/mango.html> <i>last accessed</i> 9 December 2003.</p>
<p>ScaleNet. 2002. ScaleNet: A Database of Scale Insects of the World: http://www.sel.barc.usda.gov/scalenet/scalenet.htm.</p>
<p>ScaleNet. 2004. ScaleNet: A Database of Scale Insects of the World: http://www.sel.barc.usda.gov/scalenet/scalenet.htm. </p>
<p>ScaleNet. 2005. ScaleNet: A Database of Scale Insects of the World: http://www.sel.barc.usda.gov/scalenet/scalenet.htm. </p>
<p>ScaleNet. 2006. ScaleNet: A Database of Scale Insects of the World: <a href="http://www.sel.barc.usda.gov/scalenet/scalenet.htm"><u>http://www.sel.barc.usda.gov/scalenet/scalenet.htm</u></a>.</p>
<p class="plain_Text">Seshadri, V. S. 2004. Personal communication (Letter No. WAS/COM/222/7/02, February 13, 2004) from V.S. Seshadri, Minister of Commerce, Government of India, to Cathleen Enright, Assistant Deputy Administrator, Phytosanitary Issues Management, USDA-APHIS-PPQ.</p>
<p>Sether, D. M., Ullman, D. E., and Hu, J. S. 1998.<b> </b>Transmission of pineapple mealybug wilt-associated virus by two species of mealybug (<i>Dysmicoccus</i> spp.). Phytopathology 88 (11): 1224-1230. (Abstract)</p>
<p>Shamshad, A., Shakila, M., and Rizwan, A. 1999.<b> </b>New species of the genus <i>Acaropsis</i> (Acarina: Cheyletidae) from Punjab - Pakistan. Pakistan Journal of Zoology, 31: 263-265 (Abstract)
</p>
<p>Shekhawat, G. S., and Patel, P. N. 1975.<b> </b>Studies on bacterial canker of mango. Zeitschrift fur Pflanzenkrankheiten und Krankenschutz, 82: 129-138. 
</p>
<p>Silva, Q., Cavalcante, R. D., Cavalcante, M. L. S., Castro, Z. B. d., QMA, E. S., and De Castro, Z. B. 1977.<b> </b>The cashew scale - <i>Pseudaonidia trilobitiformis </i>Green (Hom. Diaspididae) in the State of Ceara, Brazil. Fitossanidade 2: 19. (Abstract)
</p>
<p>Silva, C. G., and Parra, J. R. P. 1982.<b> </b>Biology and injuriousness of <i>Coccus viridis</i> (Green, 1889) (Homoptera Coccidae) on coffee seedlings (<i>Coffea</i> spp.). Anais da Sociedade Entomologica do Brasil 11: 181-195. (Abstract)
</p>
<p>Silva, E. B., and Mexia, A. 1999.<b> </b>The pest complex <i>Cryptoblabes gnidiella </i>(Milliere) (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) and Planococcus citri (Risso) (Homoptera: Pseudococcidae) on sweet orange groves (Citrus sinensis (L.) Osbeck) in Portugal: interspecific association Boletin de Sanidad Vegetal, Plagas, 25: 89-98. (Abstract)
</p>
<p>Singh, G. 1993. Insect Pests of Mango, pp. 1481-1500. <i>In</i> K. L. Chadha and O. P. Pareek [eds.], Advances in Horticulture - Fruit Crops: Part 3. Malhotra Publishing House, New Delhi, India. 
</p>
<p>Soomro, A. H., Khuhro, R. D., and Ansari, H. U. 1987. Status of insects associated with mango blossom. Proceedings of the 5th Pakistan Congress of Zoology, University of Karachi, Karachi, January 8 11, 1986. 1987, 123 125; 3 ref., (Abstract)
</p>
<p>Srivastava, R. P. 1997. Mango insect pest management, 1 ed. International Book Distributing Co, Lucknow; India. pp.272. 
</p>
<p>Stansly, P. A. 1984.<b> </b>Introduction and evaluation of <i>Chilocorus bipustulatus</i> (Col.: Coccinellidae) for control of <i>Parlatoria blanchardi</i> (Hom.: Diaspididae) in date groves of Niger. Entomophaga 29: 29-39. (Abstract)
</p>
<p>Suresh, S., and Mohanasundaram, M. 1996.<b> </b>Coccoid (Coccoidea: Homoptera) fauna of Tamil Nadu, India. Journal of Entomological Research, 20: 233-274. </p>
<p>Swailem, S. M. 1974.<b> </b>On the bionomics of <i>Lindingaspis ferrisi </i>McKenzie (Hemiptera-Homoptera:Diaspididae). Bulletin de la Societe Entomologique d' Egypte 58: 17-24. (Abstract)
</p>
<p>Syed, R. A., Ghani, M. A., and Murtaza, M. 1970.<b> </b>Studies on the Trypetids and their natural enemies in West Pakistan. III. Dacus (Strumeta) zonatus (Saunders). Technical Bulletin, Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control: 1-16 (Abstract)
</p>
<p>Talpur, M. A., Khuhro, R. D., and Nizamani, I. A. 2002.<b> </b>Phenological relationship between mango hoppers Idioscopus spp. and mango inflorescence/fruit. Pakistan Journal of Applied Sciences, 2: 533-536 (Abstract)
</p>
<p>Tandon, P. L., and Veeresh, G. K. 1988.<b> </b>Inter-tree spatial distribution of <i>Coccus viridis </i>(Green) on mandarin. International Journal of Tropical Agriculture 6: 270-275.
</p>
<p>UC IPM. 2004. UC IPM Online: Pest Management Guidelines: Grape vine mealybug. Statewide IPM Program, Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of California. <http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PMG/r302301911.html>. 
</p>
<p>USDA. 1979.<b> </b>A diaspidid scale (<i>Pseudaonidia trilobitiformi</i>s (Green)) - Florida - new continental U.S. record. Cooperative Plant Pest Report, 4: 750. 
</p>
<p>USDA. 1990. U.S. National Arboretum, web version of USDA Plant Hardiness Zone Map. U.S. Department of Agriculture-Agricultural Research Service (ARS).  Miscellaneous Publication No. 1475. USDA-ARS, Washington, D.C. <http://www.usna.usda.gov/Hardzone/ushzmap.html> <i>last accessed</i> </p>
<p>USDA. 2000. Guidelines for pathway-initiative pest risk assessments. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, U.S. Dept Agriculture. <http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/pra/commodity/cpraguide.pdf> <i>last accessed</i> 10 January 2002.
</p>
<p>USDA NRCS. 2003. The PLANTS Database, Version 3.5 (http://plants.usda.gov). National Plant Data Center, Baton Rouge, LA. </p>
<p>USDA NRCS. 2005. The PLANTS Database, Version 3.5 (http://plants.usda.gov). National Plant Data Center, Baton Rouge, LA.
</p>
<p>USFWS. 2002. Threatened and endangered species system (TESS). U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. <http://endangered.fws.gov/> <i>last accessed</i> February 2004.
</p>
<p>USFWS. 2004. Threatened and endangered species system (TESS). U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. <http://endangered.fws.gov/> <i>last accessed</i> August 2004.
</p>
<p>Vala, D. G., Solanky, K. U., Desai, V. D., and Joshi, H. U. 1988.<b> </b>Diseases of mango occurring in Gujarat State. Acta Horticulturae, 231: 544-548. 
</p>
<p>Waite, G. K. 2002. Pests and pollinators of mango. <i>In</i> 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. 
</p>
<p>Waite, G. K., and Hwang, J. S. 2002. Pests of litchi and longan, pp. 331-359. <i>In</i> 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. </p>
<p>Watson, G. W. 2005. Diaspididae: <i>Parlatoria pseudaspidiotus</i>. <http://ip30.eti.uva.nl/bis/diaspididae.php?selected=beschrijving&menuentry=soorten&id=159>. Arthropods of Economic Importance.</p>
<p>Wen, H. C., Lu, F. M., Hao, H. H., and Liou, T. D. 2002.<b> </b>Insects pests and their injuries and control on longan in southern Taiwan. J. Agric. Res. China 51 (3): 56-64. 
</p>
<p>White, I. M., and Elson-Harris, M. M. 1994. Fruit Flies of Economic Significance: their identification and bionomics. CAB International, Wallingford, UK. pp.601 (Abstract)
</p>
<p>Williams, D. J. 1986.<b> </b>Scale insects (Homoptera: Coccoidea) on coffee in Papua New Guinea. Papua New Guinea Journal of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries 34: 1-7.
</p>
<p>WSSA. 1989. Composite List of Weeds. Weed Science Society of America. pp.112. 
</p>
<p>Yang, C., Zhao, L., Liu, L., Yang, C. C., Zhao, L., and Liu, L. Y. 1996.<b> </b>A preliminary study on Aleurolobus marlatti Quaintance. Journal of Nanjing Forestry University, 20: 92-97. (Abstract)
</p>
<p>Zhang, B.-C. 1994. Index of Economically Important Lepidoptera. CAB International, Wallingford, UK. pp.599. 
</p>
<h1>Appendix 1.  Pests intercepted on commodities from Pakistan that have also been intercepted with mango from anywhere in the world (PIN309 data 1985-2002).  If the pest was not identified to species level, only genera found on mango in Pakistan were included.
</h1>
<table><tbody><tr>	<td><p><b>Pest</b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Interceptions</b></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Aleurolobus marlatti </i>Quaintance (Aleyrodidae)<i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p>103</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Aulacaspis tubercularis </i>Newstead<i> </i>(Diaspididae)<i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p>101</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Pseudaonidia trilobitiformis </i>(Green) (Diaspididae)<i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p>99</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Parlatoria crypta </i>McKenzie (Diaspididae)<i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p>44</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Trogoderma granarium</i> Everts (Dermestidae)<i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p>42</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Parlatoria ziziphi </i>(Lucas) (Diaspididae)<i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p>31</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Bactrocera sp.  </i>(Tephritidae)<i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p>18</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Sternochetus mangiferae</i> (Fabricius) (Curculionidae)<i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p>16</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Parlatoria blanchardi</i> (Targioni-Tozzetti) (Diaspididae)<i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p>14</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Lepidosaphes tapleyi</i> Williams (Diaspididae)<i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p>10</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Tephritidae, species of</p>
</td>	<td><p>10</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Dacus sp.  </i>(Tephritidae)<i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p>5</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Diaspididae, species of</p>
</td>	<td><p>5</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Aleurocanthus husaini </i>Corbett (Aleyrodidae)<i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p>4</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Sternochetus sp.</i>  (Curculionidae)<i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p>4</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Aspidiella hartii </i>(Cockerell) (Diaspididae)<i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p>2</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Ceroplastes rubens </i>Maskell (Coccidae)<i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p>2</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Diptera, species of</p>
</td>	<td><p>2</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Aspidiotus sp.</i> (Diaspididae)<i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p>1</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Aulacaspis sp.</i> (Diaspididae)<i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p>1</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Cladosporium sp. </i>(pathogen)<i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p>1</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Coccidae, species of</p>
</td>	<td><p>1</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Cryptoblabes gnidiella</i> (Pyralidae)<i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p>1</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Curculionidae, species of</p>
</td>	<td><p>1</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Leptosphaeria sp.</i></p>
</td>	<td><p>1</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Lindingaspis sp.  </i>(Diaspididae)<i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p>1</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Planococcoides robustus </i>Ezzat & McConnell (Pseudococcidae)<i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p>1</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><i>Planococcus lilacinus </i>(Cockerell) (Pseudococcidae)<i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p>1</p>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<h1>Appendix 2: Pest Risk of Armored Scale Insects (Hemiptera: Diaspididae)
</h1>
<p>Although the armored scales (<i>Aulacaspis tubercularis</i>, <i>Parlatoria blanchardi, Parlatoria crypta, Pseudaonidia trilobitiformis</i>) scored a Medium Pest Risk Potential rating, they have a low likelihood of introduction and establishment that could not be addressed using the current USDA <i>Guidelines </i>(USDA, 2000).  Even if the armored scales were able to follow the pathway of mango fruit from Pakistan, these scales would be highly unlikely to come in contact with host material and, therefore, to establish in the United States.  This low likelihood of introduction and establishment is an important consideration when developing risk mitigations.  The evidence to support our estimate of low likelihood follows.  </p>
<p>· Scale insects (Coccoidea), including armored scales, may disperse great distances by wind (Greathead, 1990; Greathead, 1997; Gullan and Kosztarab, 1997).  They do not have the capability for directed dispersal in this way, so long range dispersal would depend on the dispersal of large numbers of insects so that some may find suitable hosts.  Insects arriving with commercial quality fruit represent such small populations that dispersal by air to a host would be very unlikely.</p>
<p>· The newly emerged first instar nymphs (“crawlers”) of scale insects are capable of dispersing long distances by wind (Gullan and Kosztarab, 1997).  For armored scales, “only crawlers and perhaps gravid females could contribute to dispersal of the species and to the colonization of new host plants” (Greathead, 1990).  The crawler stage is the primary stage where upon dispersal is possible, because this is the only mobile stage besides the adult male (Greathead, 1990; Koteja, 1990).  Although adult males are mobile, they cannot start new infestations by themselves (Greathead, 1990; Koteja, 1990).  Based on this evidence, the spread of armored scales from infested plant materials for consumption can only occur if crawlers or adult females with eggs are present (Burger and Ulenberg, 1990), and spread from the gravid females likely would occur only if crawlers hatched from the females’ eggs.</p>
<p>· Although crawlers may disperse long distances by wind (as explained above), and can theoretically walk a distance of up to 150 m, they “usually settle within several dozen cm of their birth site” (Koteja, 1990).</p>
<p>· The crawler stage of armored scale insects occurs for a relatively short time (Koteja, 1990); this stage is divided into four periods: 1) postnatal torpidity, which lasts a few minutes to several hours, depending on ecological factors; 2) dispersal phase; 3) feeding period; and 4) morphogenetic period (Koteja, 1990).  Crawlers are mobile only during the dispersal phase, which lasts in general several hours to several days (Koteja, 1990).  For example, in one study, the wandering time of <i>Aonidiella aurantii</i> lasted from 174 to 206 minutes (approximately 3 to 3.5 hours) (Greathead, 1990).  Studies with <i>A. aurantii,</i> as well as other armored scale species, show that most crawlers will terminate wandering and settle on a host within 24 hours of emergence (Greathead, 1990).  Due to the brevity of the crawler stage, the stage most capable of dispersal (as described above), the likelihood of establishment of armored scales via imported fruit for consumption further decreases. </p>
<p>· A USDA Agricultural Research Service expert working group assessed the risk of armored scales on fruit for consumption (Miller<i> et al.</i>, 1985).  These authors concluded that, for several reasons, the probability of armored scales’ establishment in a new region, by way of commercially shipped fruit for consumption, is relatively remote.  These authors state that fruits are not the preferred feeding sites for most armored scales; therefore, these insects would be less likely to survive on fruits compared to leaves or twigs.  Secondly, the sessile nature of armored scales and their inability to disperse long distances under their own powers severely limit their ability of coming into contact with potential hosts.  Furthermore, for armored scales on imported commercial fruit to establish in a new area, many conditions must co-occur, which is highly unlikely.  These conditions include 1) survival through harvest and post-harvest handling and transport; 2) survival of the rigors of the marketplace, as well as consumer storage, handling, and consumption; 3) presence of a susceptible host near infested fruit discarded by the consumer; 4) presence of crawlers on the discarded fruit (or the fruit stays viable long enough for crawlers to develop from a gravid female); and 5) successful colonization of the new host by the crawlers (Miller<i> et al.</i>, 1985).</p>
<p><b>References (for Appendix 2)
</b></p>
<p>APHIS. 2000. Guidelines for pathway-initiative pest risk assessments. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, U.S. Dept Agriculture. <http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/pra/commodity/cpraguide.pdf> <i>last accessed</i> 10 January 2002.</p>
<p>Burger, H. C., and Ulenberg, S. A. 1990. Quarantine Problems and Procedures, pp. 313-3027. <i>In</i> D. Rosen [ed.], Armored scale insects. Their biology, natural enemies and control. World Crop Pests Volume 4B. Elsevier Scientific Publishers, Amsterdam. 
</p>
<p>Greathead, D. J. 1990. Crawler behaviour and dispersal, pp. 305-308. <i>In</i> D. Rosen [ed.], Armored scale insects: their biology, natural enemies and control, World Crop Pests Volume 4A. Elsevier Scientific Publishers, Amsterdam. 
</p>
<p>Greathead, D. J. 1997. Crawler behaviour and dispersal. <i>In</i> Y. Ben-Dov and C. J. Hodgson [eds.], Softscale insects: their biology, natural enemies, and control. Elsevier, New York. 
</p>
<p>Gullan, P. J., and Kosztarab, M. 1997.<b> </b>Adaptations in scale insects. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 42: 23-50. 
</p>
<p>Koteja, J. 1990. Life History, pp. 243-254. <i>In</i> D. Rosen [ed.], Armored scale insects: their biology, natural enemies and control, World Crop Pests Volume 4A. Elsevier Scientific Publishers, Amsterdam. 
</p>
<p>Miller, D. R., Blackburn, V. L., Davidson, J. A., and Gimpel, W. F., Jr. 1985. Pest Risk Assessment of Armored Scales on Certain Fruit (USDA-ARS Report submitted to USDA-APHIS-PPQ). USDA Agricultural Research Service, Beltsville, MD. 
</p>
<h1>Appendix 3: Risk Mitigation Options for Importation of Fresh Mango Fruit (Mangifera indica L.) from Pakistan into the Continental United States
</h1>
<p><b> I.  Introduction
</b></p>
<p>The government of Pakistan requested permission to export fresh mango,<i> Mangifera indica,</i> fruit into the United States.  The movement of fruits and vegetables into the United States is regulated in 7 CFR §319.56/37.  Currently, the entry of mango from Pakistan is not authorized under 7 CFR §319.56/37.  Consequently, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ) of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) prepared the present pest risk assessment to examine the potential unmitigated pest risks associated with the importation of fresh mango fruit from Pakistan.  This pest risk assessment identified twelve quarantine pests (ten arthropods and two pathogens) that could potentially become introduced into the United States through mango importation from Pakistan. </p>
<p>The pest risk assessment identified the following pests as having High unmitigated pest risk potential:
</p>
<p><i>Bactrocera correcta </i>(Diptera: Tephritidae)</p>
<p><i>Bactrocera</i> <i>cucurbitae </i>(Diptera: Tephritidae)</p>
<p><i>Bactrocera dorsalis </i>(Diptera: Tephritidae)</p>
<p><i>Bactrocera zonata </i>(Diptera: Tephritidae)</p>
<p>The following pests were identified as having a Medium unmitigated risk potential:
</p>
<p><i>Aulacaspis tubercularis </i>(Hemiptera: Diaspididae)</p>
<p><i>Coccus discrepans</i> (Hemiptera: Coccidae)</p>
<p><i>Coccus viridis</i> (Hemiptera: Coccidae)</p>
<p><i>Parlatoria blanchardi </i>(Hemiptera: Diaspididae)</p>
<p><i>Parlatoria crypta </i>(Hemiptera: Diaspididae)</p>
<p><i>Pseudaonidia trilobitiformis </i>(Hemiptera: Diaspididae)</p>
<p><i>Xanthomonas campestris</i> pv. <i>mangiferaeindica </i>(Xanthomonadales: Xanthomonadaceae)</p>
<p>The following pest was identified as having a Low unmitigated risk potential:
</p>
<p><i>Phomopsis mangiferae </i>(Fungi Imperfecti)</p>
<p>Although the armored scales (Diaspididae) (<i>Aulacaspis tubercularis</i>, <i>Parlatoria blanchardi, Parlatoria crypta, Pseudaonidia trilobitiformis</i>) were rated Medium, these insects have a low likelihood of introduction and establishment that could not be addressed using the current USDA <i>Guidelines </i>(USDA, 2000).  Even if the armored scales are able to follow the pathway of mango fruit from Pakistan, these scales would be highly unlikely to become established in the United States.  This low likelihood of establishment should be an important consideration when developing risk mitigations.  This estimate of low likelihood is based on the fact that armored scale insects on fruit for consumption are highly unlikely to come into contact with host material and, therefore, to establish in the United States (see Appendix 2 for more details).</p>
<p>According to USDA (2000), pests with a Low pest risk potential do not typically require mitigation measures, other than port-of-arrival inspection.  A value within the Medium range indicates that specific phytosanitary measures may be necessary.  A rating in the High range indicates that specific phytosanitary measures, supplemental to port-of-arrival inspection, are strongly recommended.  
</p>
<p>The aim of this appendix is to assist PPQ Risk Management decision makers.  This document presents available phytosanitary measures that can provide, or potentially provide, an appropriate level of protection against the medium and high rated quarantine pests of concern.</p>
<p>The appropriate level of protection may be achieved through the application of a single phytosanitary measure, such as inspection or a quarantine treatment, or a combination of measures.  A “systems approach” combines different measures and is defined as “the integration of different pest risk management measures, at least two of which act independently, and which cumulatively achieve the appropriate level of phytosanitary protection” (IPPC, 2002a).  Combining specific mitigation measures in a way that provides overlapping or sequential safeguards is distinctly different from applying single mitigation methodologies such as fumigation or inspection.  Specific measures may be selected from a range of pre-harvest and post-harvest measures (<i>e.g.</i>, surveys, inspections, sanitation, chemical treatments, <i>etc.</i>) and include mitigation measures to compensate for uncertainty.  PPQ uses systems approaches for the importation of many commodities including Unshu oranges from Japan (7 CFR § 319.28, U.S. Federal Register, 1997), tomatoes from Spain, France, Morocco, and Western Sahara (7 CFR § 319.56-2dd, U.S. Federal Register, 1997), and peppers from Israel (7 CFR § 319.56-2u U.S. Federal Register, 1997).  These programs have performed successfully for many years.
</p>
<p><b>II.  Risk Mitigation Options</b></p>
<p><b>2.1  Establishment of Pest-free Areas 
</b></p>
<p>As a sole mitigative measure, the establishment of pest-free areas or pest-free places of production may be effective in satisfying an importing country’s appropriate level of phytosanitary protection (IPPC, 1996, 1999).  The establishment and maintenance of pest-free areas or production sites should be in compliance with international standards (<i>e.g.,</i> IPPC, 1996, 1999).</p>
<p><b>2.2  Establishment of Areas of Low Pest Prevalence and Pest Suppression 
</b></p>
<p>According to the IPPC (2005), an area of low pest prevalence is “an area, whether all of a country, part of a country, or all or parts of several countries, as identified by the competent authorities, in which a specific pest occurs at low levels and which is subject to effective surveillance, control or eradication measures.”  Procedures for the establishment and maintenance of areas of low pest prevalence should comply with international standards (<i>e.g.,</i> IPPC, 2005).  For example, elements of an operational plan for establishment and maintenance of such areas might include: a geographic description to delimit the area; specification of an upper limit to pest densities; means to document and verify all necessary procedures and maintain records; specification of phytosanitary procedures (<i>e.g.,</i> survey, pest control); and movement controls to prevent pest entry or re-entry into the area.  IPPC (2005) recommends that the exporting country consults with the importing country in the early stages of implementation to ensure meeting the importing country’s requirements.  In particular, target or threshold population densities defining an area of low pest prevalence should be established in consultation with the importing country.
</p>
<p>Note: Any protocol for establishing and maintaining a pest-free area or area of low pest prevalence also should include a pest-reporting procedure and emergency action plan to address target pest detections in the pest-free or low-prevalence zones (IPPC, 1999, 2005). </p>
<p>Cultural, chemical, or mechanical means (<i>e.g.,</i> orchard sanitation, pruning of dead and diseased branches, pre-harvest application of pesticides, fruit bagging) may be used to suppress pest populations in orchards or prevent fruit infestation.  Sanitation and pesticide applications, as essential components of best management practices, are mainstays of commercial fruit production (PPQ, 2005b).  Integrated pest management with monitoring of pest presence/levels is important in mango cultivation, as this type of system better conserves natural enemies (Waite, 2002).  Other authors emphasize the need to focus on non-chemical methods in mango production, such as the use of natural predators and cultural practices, along with strategic pesticide application (<i>e.g</i>., Ridgway, 1989).  New pest problems can develop if such an integrated pest management system is not used.  For instance, in Pakistan in particular, the use of pesticides can effectively control fruit flies in mangoes, but it can sometimes lead to damaging scale infestations due to the disruption of natural enemies (Mohyuddin and Mahmood, 1993).  As a result, an integrated pest control (IPC) program was developed and transferred to mango farmers in Pakistan in 1986 (Mohyuddin and Mahmood, 1993).  This IPC program was developed based on studies of the biology and ecology of the major mango pests and their natural enemies.  This IPC program is reported to be extensively used by mango farmers in Pakistan<b> (</b>Mohyuddin and Mahmood, 1993).
</p>
<p>For tephritid fruit flies, PPQ (2003) could be used as guidelines for a systems approach in which sterile insect release and other controls are employed as prophylactic measures or in response to pest detection.   Fruit fly traps should be used to gauge fruit fly activity, and control measures should be implemented when fruit fly detections reach a certain specified level (Ridgway, 1989).  
</p>
<p>In mango production, the use of methyl eugenol (an insect attractant) traps have been shown to be extremely effective to trap and kill <i>Bactrocera dorsalis </i>and <i>B. zonata</i> (Mohyuddin and Mahmood, 1993; Muhammad<i> et al.</i>, 2004), and it has been used to control fruit flies in multiple countries (Waite, 2002).  For instance, in Pakistan, mass trapping with methyl eugenol of male <i>B. dorsalis</i> and <i>B. zonatus</i> fruit flies reduced infestations to below subeconomic levels (Mohyuddin and Mahmood, 1993).   This type of control strategy using male lures is termed “male annihilation” (Cunningham, 1989).  In localized areas, it can be used to suppress populations (Cunningham, 1989), and it “has proven effective in controlling several species of <i>Bactrocera</i>” (Aluja, 1996).  In Australia, fruit flies are monitored with pheromone traps, and it is recommended that growers apply dimethoate or fenthion sprays every two weeks, or apply bait sprays at least weekly (Waite, 2002).  It is recommended that these control measures be started 6 weeks before the anticipated harvest date or as trapping indicates.  In South Africa, it is recommended that fruit fly populations be monitored with traps, that bait sprays be applied based on trappping levels, that potential breeding hosts (such as wild guavas) of the flies be eliminated, and that growers practice orchard sanitation (Waite, 2002).  
</p>
<p>Other control methods for fruit flies in mango production include: parasitoid introductions, inducing mangoes to flower and fruit when fruit flies populations are at minimal levels, using cultivars resistant to fruit fly attack, and bagging developing fruit (Waite, 2002).  Abbas <i>et al.</i> (2000) contains additional recommended control measures for <i>B. dorsalis</i> in mangoes.  In terms of fruit bagging, it should be noted that as the fruit grows, the bag (or “envelope”) often opens to allow entry of the flies (one researcher showed that only 46% of the fruit is protected from fruit flies using this method) (Waite, 2002).  However, fruit bagging in conjuction with other control measures can be highly effective.  Fruit bagging combined with protein bait sprays reduced <i>Bactrocera</i> fruit fly infestations in unspecified fruit by up to 98% (Sar<i> et al.</i>, 2001).  </p>
<p>Pre-harvest control of the bacterial pathogen <i>Xanthomonas campestris</i> pv. <i>mangiferaeindica</i> is essential (Ridgway, 1989).  The use of copper-based bactericides is the primary control measure mentioned in the literature (e.g., Ploetz, 2004; Ridgway, 1989; Villiers<i> et al.</i>, 2001).  Because water can carry the bacteria from leaf surfaces to wound sites or openings on the plant, resulting in infection (Villiers<i> et al.</i>, 2001), use of these copper sprays is particularly recommended during rainy weather (<i>e.g.</i>, Ploetz, 2003, 2004; Ploetz<i> et al.</i>, 1994; Ridgway, 1989).  The frequency of sprays focuses on protecting fruit (Ploetz, 2003) and varies not only according to environmental conditions, but also according to cultivar susceptibility and when cultivars bear fruit (Ploetz<i> et al.</i>, 1994).  Villiers <i>et al.</i> (2001) states that “copper sprays are the only method of combatting the disease”.  However, it is “generally believed that the extensive spraying of copper is becoming uneconomical” (Boshoff, 2000).  Therefore, alternative pesticides have been studied.  These alternatives include Agry-gent, a commercial plant formulated antibiotic consisting of 100 g gentamycin [gentamicin]/kg and 300 g oxytetracycline/kg (Boshoff, 2000) and the antibiotic Steptomycin-S (Boshoff<i> et al.</i>, 2000).  
</p>
<p>Also, the importance of integrating preventative and curative measures for adequate control of bacterial black spot has been stressed (Boshoff<i> et al.</i>, 2000).  Recommended non-chemical control methods include the establishment of windbreaks and pruning of affected twigs (Ploetz, 2004; Ploetz<i> et al.</i>, 1994; Villiers<i> et al.</i>, 2001).  As infection usually occurs through wounds (Ploetz, 2004), windbreaks are recommended because they reduce the incidence of micro wounds on the plant (Ploetz, 2004; Villiers<i> et al.</i>, 2001).  Pruning infected twigs reduces inoculum in the canopy (Ploetz, 2004; Ploetz<i> et al.</i>, 1994).  Other recommendations include the use of resistant cultivars when disease pressure is high, pathogen-free planting material when orchards are established, and disease-free rootstock sprayed with copper oxychloride (Ploetz, 2003, 2004; Ridgway, 1989).  Because long distance dispersal of the pathogen is almost solely dependent on movement of infected plants (Ploetz, 2003), the use of pathogen-free planting material is a crucial control strategy.
</p>
<p><b>2.3  Phytosanitary certification inspections and monitoring</b> 
</p>
<p>Each shipment of mangoes should be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate issued by Pakistan’s department of agriculture that contains additional declarations stating the mangoes were treated and/or grown in accordance with any phytosanitary measures required by APHIS.  Production areas also may be subject to periodic, unannounced inspections by certified inspectors from APHIS and/or Pakistan’s department of agriculture to ensure that they meet stipulated requirements for the issuance of a phytosanitary certificate.  This measure is useful for detecting pests present in the field that may be more difficult to detect post-harvest, but it must be combined with other measures to ensure the absence of pests of concern.</p>
<p><b>2.4  Post-harvest safeguards and packinghouse procedures</b> 
</p>
<p>Containers of harvested fruit should be covered with screens, plastic tarpaulins, or other pest-proof covers while in transit to the packing house and while awaiting packing.  The fruit should be transferred to a pest exclusionary packing house in a timely manner (<i>e.g</i>., within three hours of harvest).  Packinghouse standards help ensure adequate pest exclusion.  While packing the mango fruit for export to the United States, the packing house should only accept mangoes from registered approved production sites.  </p>
<p>Commercial quality mangoes 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 (Kader, 2002; Nakasone and Paull, 1998).   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; Nakasone and Paull, 1998).  This standard post-harvest washing should reduce the presence of external pests, such as scale insects, on the fruit.  As part of the packinghouse procedures, the fruit should also be sized, inspected, and culled to remove damaged and deformed fruit.  Finally, the fruit should be packed in pest-proof containers and subsequently transported in sealed vehicles for shipment to the United States.  Other possible post-harvest safeguards to mitigate pest risks are outlined below.   </p>
<p><b>Fruit flies:<i> </i></b><i>Bactrocera correcta, Bactrocera</i> <i>cucurbitae , Bactrocera dorsalis , Bactrocera zonata </i>(Diptera: Tephritidae)</p>
<p>As internal pests, the fruit flies would be difficult to detect during post-harvest inspection.  To increase the likelihood of detecting fruit fly infestations, the fruit could be dissected during inspection.   On the other hand, inspectors cutting mango failed to detect larvae of <i>Anastrepha suspensa</i>, a fruit fly in the same family as <i>Bactrocera</i>, 71.6% of the time (Gould, 1995).     </p>
<p><b>Scale insects: </b><i>Coccus discrepans, Coccus viridis </i>(Hemiptera: Coccidae); <i>Aulacaspis tubercularis</i> , <i>Parlatoria blanchardi, Parlatoria crypta, Pseudaonidia trilobitiformis </i>(Hemiptera: Diaspididae)</p>
<p>The standard post-harvest washing of the mango fruits to remove sap, as well as culling for damage and insect infestation, should reduce the probability of insect pests in the pathway, especially external pests such as these scale species.  More intensive mechanical cleansing beyond the standard washing, such as brushing or using compressed air, could further reduce the likelihood of scale insects occurring on the fruit.  Townsend (1994) states that the removal and reduction of external insect pests, like aphids, mites, mealybugs, and thrips, is possible by using a brisk water spray.</p>
<p>Washing the mango fruits in a water bath containing surfactant could also reduce the presence of surface insect pests, including scale insects.  Surfactants, such as common dishwashing detergent, may show a high degree of insecticidal activity, with a minimal risk of phytotoxicity.  For example, Liu and Stansly (2000) achieved mortalities of 95-99% in leaf-infesting populations of silverleaf whitefly (<i>Bemisia argentifolii</i>) treated with detergent-water solutions ranging in concentration from 2 to 30 ml L-1.  Washing with detergent-water solutions (1 teaspoon detergent/1 gallon water) is effective in removing or killing scales, aphids, mealybugs, or other small insects on plants (Townsend, 1994).</p>
<p><b>Bacterial pathogen:</b><i> Xanthomonas campestris</i> pv. <i>mangiferaeindica</i> (Xanthomonadales: Xanthomonadaceae) (bacterial black spot)</p>
<p>Culling for damage and pests should reduce the probability bacterial black spot being in the pathway.  Bacterial black spot causes obvious symptoms; therefore, affected fruits can be culled during post-harvest grading (Ridgway, 1989).   On fruit, initial symptoms are small, irregular, water-soaked lesions around the lenticels or wounds, and bacterial ooze may develop on these spots (Ploetz<i> et al.</i>, 1994; Ridgway, 1989; Villiers<i> et al.</i>, 2001).  Later symptoms include raised black spots with greasy margins and cracks from which sap may gum (Ploetz<i> et al.</i>, 1994; Ridgway, 1989; Villiers<i> et al.</i>, 2001).  The lesions are 1 to 15 mm in diameter and can extend to a depth of 8 to 15 mm into the flesh of the fruit (Ploetz<i> et al.</i>, 1994).  
</p>
<p>A post-harvest surface-sterilization treatment could also be employed to lower the risk of asymptomatic fruit contaminated with <i>X. campestris</i> pv. <i>mangiferaeindica</i> being in the pathway.  To prevent the spread of citrus canker (<i>X. campestris</i> pv. <i>citri</i>) on surfaces of asymptomatic fruits, citrus fruit packed in Florida and sold for fresh consumption must be surface-sterilized with chlorine (sodium hypochlorite solution) or sodium orthophenylphenate (SOPP) during the packing process (Brown and Schubert, 1987; Roberts<i> et al.</i>, 2004; Schubert<i> et al.</i>, 2001).  Use of chlorine treatment was approved based on studies in Japan with the Asiatic form of <i>X. campestris</i> pv. <i>citri</i>, and SOPP was approved after studies in Florida (Brown and Schubert, 1987).  Considering these disinfectants can eliminate the above mentioned <i>Xanthomonas campestris </i>pathovars (Brown and Schubert, 1987; Zachowski and Rudolph, 1991), they may be possible options for the elimination of <i>X. campestris</i> pv. <i>mangiferaeindica </i>from asymptomatic mango fruit<i>.</i>  
</p>
<p>Additionally, the use of lactoperoxidase system (LPS) treatment to improve the shelf life of mangoes may help mitigate <i>X. campestris</i> pv. <i>mangiferaeindica</i>.  Doan Duy Le <i>et al.</i> (2005) found that LPS treatment significantly reduced disease development of <i>X. campestris</i>, as well as two other fungal pathogens, in mangoes after storage at 12oC for 2 weeks, which was followed by ripening at 25oC.  </p>
<p><b>2.5  Quarantine treatments
</b></p>
<pre><b>2.5.1 Insects
</b></pre>
<pre><b>2.5.1.1  Generic Dose Irradiation
</b></pre>
<pre>Recently, APHIS published a final rule establishing “a minimum generic dose of 150 Gy for all fruit flies of the family Tephritidae,” and “a minimum generic dose of 400 Gy for all plant pests of the class Insecta other than pupae and adults of the order Lepidoptera” for “all regulated articles (<i>i.e.</i>,<b> </b>fruits<b>, </b>vegetables<b>,</b> cut flowers, and foliage)” (Shea, 2006).  There are two exceptions to these generic doses: 1) “lower minimum doses for certain fruit flies,” and 2) “new approved minimum doses for<b> </b>10 plant pests” (Shea, 2006).  Of all the quarantine pests of concern on mango from Pakistan, none are specifically listed in the rule.  Therefore, based on the final rule (Shea, 2006), irradiation is approved for all insect pests of concern on mango from Pakistan at the following doses: </pre>
<pre>· <i>Bactrocera correcta, B.</i> <i>cucurbitae , B. dorsalis , B. zonata </i>(Diptera: Tephritidae):<i> </i>150 Gy</pre>
<pre>· All the scale insects (Hemiptera: Coccoidea): 400 Gy</pre>
<p><b>2.5.1.2  Fruit flies: </b><i>Bactrocera correcta, Bactrocera</i> <i>cucurbitae , Bactrocera dorsalis , Bactrocera zonata </i>(Diptera: Tephritidae)<b>  </b></p>
<p>PPQ recognizes vapor heat and irradiation quarantine treatments for <i>Bactrocera</i> fruit flies in mango (PPQ, 2005a), specifically the following:  
</p>
<p>· T105-a-11 irradiation for <i>B. dorsalis</i> and <i>B.</i> <i>cucurbitae </i>in mangoes (from Hawaii only) [The minimum absorbed dose of gamma irradiation shall be 300 Gy],
</p>
<p>· T106-d-1 vapor heat for <i>Bactrocera occipitalis </i>and <i>Bactrocera philippinesis </i>in mango (from the Philippines): Raise the temperature of the fruit by saturated water vapor to 114.8°F (46°C), measured at the center of the fruit, in a minimum of 4 hours, and hold fruit at this temperature for 10 minutes.  Note: This vapor heat treatment only applies to <i>Bactrocera occipitalis </i>and <i>Bactrocera philippinesis </i>and not to <i>Bactrocera</i> spp. as indicated in the PPQ Treatment Manual (Beaman, 2005).</p>
<p>· T106-d<b> </b>vapor heat for <i>B. dorsalis</i> in mango (from Taiwan): Raise the temperature of the fruit by saturated water vapor at<i> </i>117.5°F (47.5°C) until the pulp temperature near the seed reaches<i> </i>115.7°F (46.5°C).  Hold pulp temperature at 115.7 °F or above for 30 minutes, then<i> </i>cool immediately.  Note: According to Beaman (2005), this vapor heat treatment should be updated to include <i>B. cucurbitae</i> because the efficacy studies included both species of <i>Bactrocera</i>.</p>
<p>Vapor heat is a potential treatment option for <i>B. correcta </i>and<i> B. zonata, </i>but research is required to demonstrate efficacy.  Likewise, hot water, high temperature forced air, and modified atmosphere (MA) treatments are potential options for controlling all four <i>Bactrocera</i> species in mango, but research is required to demonstrate their efficacy.  We conclude that these treatments represent possible mitigation options based on the following evidence: 
</p>
<p>· As noted above, PPQ recognizes vapor heat as a quarantine treatment for <i>Bactrocera dorsalis</i>, <i>B. cucurbitae, B. occipitalis, </i>and <i>B. philippinesis </i>in mango.
</p>
<p>· PPQ recognizes hot water and high temperature forced air treatments for other tephritid fruit flies in mangoes [T102-a hot water dip at 115oF (45 oC) for 65 to 110 minutes for <i>Ceratitis capitata, Anastrepha ludens,</i> and <i>Anastrepha</i> spp.; T103-c-1 single-stage high temperature forced air at 122oF (50 oC) for <i>A. ludens, A. obliqua,</i> and <i>A. serpentina, </i>treatment lasting until the seed’s surface reaches 118 oF (48 oC)] (PPQ, 2005a).  </p>
<p>· Storage in a modified atmosphere (MA) of 0.03% to 0.26% O2 with 72% to 82% CO2 for up to four days at 20oC, or in 2% O2 and 50% CO2 for up to five days at 2oC, has been proposed for the treatment of fruit flies in mango fruit (Mitra and Baldwin, 1997).  The use of MA is recommended in Mexico to control <i>Anastrepha suspensa</i> (Diptera: Tephritidae) in mangoes (Mitra and Baldwin, 1997).</p>
<p>Additionally, Burikam <i>et al. </i>(Burikam<i> et al.</i>, 1992) estimated probit 9 mortality of <i>B. dorsalis</i> larvae in mangosteens under cold treatment (5, 6, and 7 oC for 19.4, 24.9, and 24.9 days, respectively).  However, cold treatment may not be an option for mangoes, as most tropical fruit are damaged by prolonged exposure to cold temperatures (Burikam<i> et al.</i>, 1992). 
</p>
<p>Note: If using the irradiation treatment, as the objective is sterilization and not necessarily mortality, documentation of the dosage must accompany all irradiated shipments.</p>
<p><b>2.5.1.3  Scale insects: </b><i>Coccus discrepans, Coccus viridis </i>(Hemiptera: Coccidae); <i>Aulacaspis tubercularis</i> , <i>Parlatoria blanchardi, Parlatoria crypta, Pseudaonidia trilobitiformis </i>(Hemiptera: Diaspididae)</p>
<p>According to the PPQ Treatment Manual (PPQ, 2006a, b), PPQ does not recognize any quarantine treatments aimed at these scale species or related species within these pest genera; however, PPQ does recognize methyl bromide as a quarantine treatment for surface pests, such as scale insects, thrips, and spider mites on “various commodities” (T104-a-1) (PPQ, 2006a, b).  For plant material not tolerant to fumigation, PPQ recognizes treatment T201-p-2, which involves hand removal of pests plus a malathion-carbaryl chemical dip (PPQ, 2006a).</p>
<p>Irradiation below 400 Gy and hot water immersion are potential treatment options for the scale insects, but research is required to demonstrate efficacy.  We conclude that these treatments represent possible mitigation options based on the following evidence:  </p>
<p>· Research suggests irradiation at a dose of 250 Gy can effectively control <i>Coccus viridis</i> (Hara<i> et al.</i>, 2002).   No information was found in the literature regarding the effect of irradiation on the other scale species of concern; however, other reports depict irradiation below 400 Gy as being detrimental to other scale insects.  For instance, irradiation at 200 Gy or higher sterilized twelve-day-old eggs and third-instar nymphs of <i>Pseudococcus comstocki </i>(Dohino<i> et al.</i>, 1997).  The reported minimum dose of irradiation needed to ensure quarantine security against <i>M. hirsutus</i> is between 100 and 250 Gy (Jacobsen and Hara, 2003).  After exposure to 100 Gy and 250 Gy, adults, the most resistant stage of <i>M. hirsutus</i>, produced eggs with 1.2% and 0% viability rates, respectively (Jacobsen and Hara, 2003).  Adults of <i>Planococcus citri</i> irradiated with 40 Gy or higher, produced no offspring (Arthur and Wiendl, 1996).   </p>
<p>· PPQ recognizes hot water immersion (T102-e) for mealybugs and other surface pests on limes (PPQ, 2006a).  On propagative cuttings of <i>Gardenia jasminoides</i>, hot water immersion at 49°C for 10 minutes was 99.9% effective against <i>C. viridis</i> adults and crawlers, and 99.7% effective against nymphs (Hara<i> et al.</i>, 1994).  Hara <i>et al.</i> (1994) concluded that hot water immersion can be used in a systems approach to obtain quarantine security for <i>C. viridis</i> on cape jasmine.   Evidence suggests that hot water immersion might also mitigate other scale species of concern.  In one study, hot water immersion of <i>Citrus latifolia</i> at 49oC for 20 minutes resulted in no surviving mealybugs (or other arthropods) (Gould and McGuire, 2000).  Hot water immersion is a potentially useful control method for the scale species, <i>Pseudococcus longispinus,</i> on persimmons (Lester<i> et al.</i>, 1995).
</p>
<p><b>2.5.2  Bacterial pathogen:</b><i> Xanthomonas campestris</i> pv. <i>mangiferaeindica</i> (Xanthomonadales: Xanthomonadaceae) (bacterial black spot)</p>
<p>No quarantine treatments against bacterial black spot are known.  However, as indicated above under “Post-harvest safeguards and packing house procedures”, surface-sterilization with chlorine (sodium hypochlorite solution) or sodium orthophenylphenate (SOPP) during the packing process could possibly be used to mitigate this pathogen on mango fruit.  The efficacy of this treatment needs to be confirmed.  Also, tests in Florida showed exposure to hot water treatment at 45oC to 55oC resulted in substantial mortality or elimination of<i> Xanthomonas campestris</i> pv<i> citri </i>(citrus canker) (Table 1) (Ismail, 1985).  Therefore, hot water treatment might be a risk mitigation option for bacterial black spot.      </p>
<table><tbody><tr>	<td><p><b>Table 1.  Effect of hot water treatment for 2.5, 5.0, 10.0 minutes at 45o, 50o, and 55oC on survival of <i>Xanthomonas campestris </i>pv. <i>citri </i>at various population densities (Ismail, 1985)</b></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Temperature</b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Exposure Time (minutes)</b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Number of surviving organisms 1</b></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b></b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b></b></p>
</td>	<td><p>1.346 x 102 
</p>
<p>original population density (cells/ml)</p>
</td>	<td><p>1.346 x 103 original population density (cells/ml)</p>
</td>	<td><p>1.346 x 104 original population density (cells/ml)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>26.5oC (control)</p>
</td>	<td><p>2.5</p>
</td>	<td><p>18</p>
</td>	<td><p>463</p>
</td>	<td><p>∞2</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p>5.0</p>
</td>	<td><p>15</p>
</td>	<td><p>309</p>
</td>	<td><p>∞</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p>10.0</p>
</td>	<td><p>22</p>
</td>	<td><p>278</p>
</td>	<td><p>∞</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>45.0 oC</p>
</td>	<td><p>2.5</p>
</td>	<td><p>1</p>
</td>	<td><p>138</p>
</td>	<td><p>226</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p>5.0</p>
</td>	<td><p>1</p>
</td>	<td><p>86</p>
</td>	<td><p>25</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p>10.0</p>
</td>	<td><p>0</p>
</td>	<td><p>6</p>
</td>	<td><p>6</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>50.0 oC</p>
</td>	<td><p>2.5</p>
</td>	<td><p>0</p>
</td>	<td><p>0</p>
</td>	<td><p>28</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p>5.0</p>
</td>	<td><p>0</p>
</td>	<td><p>0</p>
</td>	<td><p>3</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p>10.0</p>
</td>	<td><p>0</p>
</td>	<td><p>0</p>
</td>	<td><p>0</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>55.0 oC</p>
</td>	<td><p>2.5</p>
</td>	<td><p>0</p>
</td>	<td><p>0</p>
</td>	<td><p>0</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p>5.0</p>
</td>	<td><p>0</p>
</td>	<td><p>0</p>
</td>	<td><p>0</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p>10.0</p>
</td>	<td><p>0</p>
</td>	<td><p>0</p>
</td>	<td><p>0</p>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<p>1Average of 3 replicates</p>
<p>2Number of organisms too high to count
</p>
<p>Note: The probit-9-level security afforded by a quarantine treatment may be overwhelmed by a large volume of infested fruit (Powell, 2003).  For this reason, adoption of a particular quarantine treatment should be in conjunction with efforts to maintain pest populations in production zones below specified densities (<i>e.g.,</i> 0.01 fruit flies per trap per day; DeHaven, 2005), as would satisfy requirements for the establishment of areas of low pest prevalence (IPPC, 2005).  
</p>
<p><b>2.6</b>  <b>Point-of-entry sampling and inspection</b> 
</p>
<p>Upon arrival in the United States, consignments should be inspected as provided in CFR319.56-6, with particular attention given to paperwork and seals on vehicles, to ascertain that the chain of custody has remained intact.  Mangoes from Pakistan could also be inspected by APHIS in Pakistan under a preclearance program.
</p>
<p><b>III. Monitoring and Traceability
</b></p>
<p>We recommend that operational arrangements include provisions for the following:</p>
<p>· Inspection, treatment, and other prescribed phytosanitary procedures performed in the field and/or packinghouse be subject to direct monitoring by APHIS personnel and qualified personnel of Pakistan’s NPPO to identify shortcomings or opportunities for program modifications, and ensure conformity with program requirements (IPPC, 2002b).</p>
<p>· A program for the formal recognition of approved production sites, including the specification of conditions for revoking approved status.</p>
<p>· Labeling requirements that identify the approved production site.</p>
<p><b>IV. Conclusions 
</b></p>
<p>There are multiple options available for mitigating the pests of concern on mangoes from Pakistan.  A combination of measures is more likely to prevent the pests from entering the United States than the use of a single measure.  These combined measures include: orchard monitoring and management programs to achieve and maintain area pest freedom or low pest prevalence, packinghouse inspection and treatments, phytosanitary certification, quarantine treatments, maintenance of consignment security and traceability in transit, and port-of-entry inspection.  Options for risk mitigation are summarized in Table 2.
</p>
<table><tbody><tr>	<td><p><b>Table 2. Summary of risk mitigation options for mango, <i>Mangifera indica</i>, from Pakistan</b></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p><b>Measure(s)</b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Pests</b></p>
</td>	<td><p><b>Efficacy</b></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Pest-free areas or places of production</p>
</td>	<td><p>All</p>
</td>	<td><p>Satisfies requirements for appropriate level of protection</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Suppression/Control</p>
</td>	<td><p>All</p>
</td>	<td><p>Efficacy has been demonstrated for lowering population levels, but research required to demonstrate that satisfies requirements for appropriate level of protection if used alone</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Post-harvest and packinghouse procedures (including water bath with surfactant and surface sterilant)  </p>
</td>	<td><p>External insect pests (scales), <i>Xanthomonas campestris</i> pv. <i>mangiferaeindica</i></p>
</td>	<td><p class="default_Paragraph_Font">Likely to significantly lower population levels, but research required to demonstrate efficacy</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Irradiation1 </p>
</td>	<td><p>All </p>
</td>	<td><p>PPQ-recognized “generic dose” quarantine treatment for mango; research required to demonstrate efficacy of doses below “generic dose”</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Vapor heat treatment1 </p>
</td>	<td><p><i>B. dorsalis, B. cucurbitae</i></p>
</td>	<td><p>PPQ-recognized quarantine treatment for mango</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p><i>B. correcta, B. zonata </i></p>
</td>	<td><p>Research required to demonstrate efficacy</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Hot water immersion1 </p>
</td>	<td><p>All</p>
</td>	<td><p>Research required to demonstrate efficacy</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>High temperature forced air1 </p>
</td>	<td><p><i>B.  dorsalis, B. cucurbitae, B. correcta, B. zonata </i></p>
</td>	<td><p>Research required to demonstrate efficacy</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Modified atmosphere1 </p>
</td>	<td><p><i>B.  dorsalis, B. cucurbitae, B. correcta, B. zonata </i></p>
</td>	<td><p>Research required to demonstrate efficacy</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Methyl bromide treatment1</p>
</td>	<td><p>External insect pests (scales)<i></i></p>
</td>	<td><p>PPQ-recognized quarantine treatment for “various commodities”</p>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<p>1Treatment should be combined with low pest prevalence</p>
<p>Of note: The Pest Risk Potential was estimated to be Low for the fungal pathogen, <i>Phomopsis mangiferae.</i>  Therefore, no specific mitigations<i>, </i>beyond port-of-arrival inspection, are probably needed for this organism.  <i> </i>However, phytosanitary measure(s) required to control the other quarantine pests may mitigate this fungal pathogen.  Pre-harvest sprays of copper oxychloride used to control bacterial black spot (<i>Xanthomonas campestris</i> pv. <i>mangiferaeindica</i>) may control <i>P. mangiferae</i>, and hot water dip not exceeding 55oC for 5 minutes has been recommended for long-term control of <i>P. mangiferae</i> in mangoes for export (Ridgway, 1989).</p>
<p>This document does not purport to establish specific work plans or to evaluate the quality of a specific program or systems approach.  It provides information regarding known mitigation measures. The specification and implementation of measures, as would be present in an operational work plan, is beyond the scope of this document.
</p>
<p><b>V.  Contributors (in alphabetical order) (for Appendix 3)</b></p>
<p>Tom Culliney, Risk Analyst/Entomologist, CPHST, PERAL (document organization and approach; sections of text)</p>
<p>Leah Millar, Risk Analyst/Entomologist, CPHST, PERAL (primary contact)
</p>
<p>Shawn Robertson, Risk Analyst/Entomologist, CPHST, PERAL</p>
<p><b>VI.  References (for Appendix 3)</b></p>
<p>Abbas, S. R., Srivastava, A. S., Sharma, S., and Haseeb, M. 2000.<b> </b>Note on oriental fruitfly of mango, a problem for mature mangoes in India. Biological Memoirs 26 (2): 74-78. 
</p>
<p>Aharoni, Y., Hartsell, P. L., Stewart, J. K., and Young, D. K. 1979.<b> </b>Control of western flower thrips on harvested strawberries with acetaldehyde in air, 50% carbon dioxide or 1% oxygen. Journal of Economic Entomology 72 (6): 820-822. 
</p>
<p>Ahumada, M. H., Mitcham, E. J., and Moore, D. G. 1996.<b> </b>Postharvest quality of 'Thompson Seedless' grapes after insecticidal controlled-atmosphere treatments. HortScience 31 (5): 833-836. (Abstract)
</p>
<p>Aluja, M. 1996. Future trends in fruit fly management, pp. 309-320. <i>In</i> B. A. McPheron and G. J. Steck [eds.], Fruit fly pests: a world assessment of their biology and management. St. Lucie Press, Delray Beach, Florida. 
</p>
<p>Arthur, V., and Wiendl, F. M. 1996.<b> </b>Irradiation of <i>Planococcus citri </i>(Risso) (Homoptera: Pseudococcidae) with gamma radiation from cobalt-60 to determine the disinfestation dose. Anais da Sociedade Entomologica do Brasil 25 (2): 345-346. (Abstract)
</p>
<p>Beaman, J. M. 2005. Personal communication (Email, December 28, 2005) from Dr. Jeffrey M. Beaman, National Program Staff Scientist, USDA-APHIS-PPQ Center for Plant Health Science and Technology (CPHST), to Jeanne VanDersal, Risk Manager, Risk Analysis Systems, USDA-APHIS Policy and Program Development (On file with the USDA-APHIS-PPQ) 
</p>
<p>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. 
</p>
<p>Boshoff, M., Kotze, J. M., and Korsten, L. 2000. Control of bacterial black spot, pp. 51-57, South African Mango Growers' Association Yearbook, Volume 19 and 20, 1999-2000. Tzaneen South Africa: HortResearch SA. 
</p>
<p>Brown, G. E., and Schubert, T. S. 1987.<b> </b>Use of Xanthomonas campestris pv. vesicatoria to evaluate surface disinfectants for canker quarantine treatment of citrus fruit. Plant Disease 71 (4): 319-323. 
</p>
<p>Burikam, I., Sarnthoy, O., Charensom, K., Kanno, T., and Homma, H. 1992.<b> </b>Cold temperature treatment for mangosteens infested with the Oriental fruit fly (Diptera: Tephritidae). Journal of Economic Entomology 85 (5): 2298-2301. 
</p>
<p>CABI. 2004. Crop Protection Compendium. CAB International, Wallingford, Oxon, UK. 
</p>
<p>Cunningham, R. T. 1989. Male Annihilation. <i>In</i> A. S. Robinson and G. Hooper [eds.], Fruit flies: their biology, natural enemies and control, World Crop Pests Volume 3B, Volume 3B ed. Eslevier, Amsterdam. 
</p>
<p>DeHaven, W. R. 2005. Citrus from Peru. Proposed Rules. Federal Register 70(189): 57206-57213  (FR Doc. 05-19574). <<a href="http://frwebgate5.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate.cgi?WAISdocID=095826250441+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve>"><u>http://frwebgate5.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate.cgi?WAISdocID=095826250441+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve></u></a>. 
</p>
<p>Doan Duy Le, N., Ducamp, M. N., Dornier, M., Montet, D., Reynes, M., and Loiseau, G. 2005.<b> </b>Evaluation of lactoperoxidase system treatment to reduce anthracnose, stem-end rot, and bacterial black spot development during storage of mangoes. Journal of Food Protection 68 (8): 1671-1675. (Abstract)
</p>
<p>Dohino, T., Tanabe, K., Masaki, S., and Hayashi, T. 1996.<b> </b>Effects of electron beam irradiation on <i>Thrips palmi</i> Karny and <i>Thrips tabaci </i>Lindeman (Thysanoptera: Thripidae). Research Bulletin of the Plant Protection Service, Japan (32): 23-29. 
</p>
<p>Dohino, T., Masaki, S., Takano, T., and Hayashi, T. 1997.<b> </b>Effects of electron beam irradiation on sterility of Comstock mealybug, <i>Pseudococcus comstocki</i> (Kuwana) (Homoptera: Pseudococcidae). Research Bulletin of the Plant Protection Service, Japan (33): 31-34. (Abstract)
</p>
<p>Gonzalez, R. H. 1995.<b> </b>A new pest of stone fruits and table grapes in Chile: <i>Frankliniella occidentalis</i> (Pergande) (Thysanoptera: Thripidae). Revista Fruticola 16 (3): 107-111. (Abstract)
</p>
<p>Gould, W. P. 1995.<b> </b>Probability of detecting Caribbean fruit fly (Diptera: Tephritidae) infestations by fruit dissection. Florida Entomologist 78 (3): 502-507. 
</p>
<p>Gould, W. P., and McGuire, R. G. 2000.<b> </b>Hot Water treatment and insecticidal coatings for disinfesting limes of mealybugs (Homoptera: Pseudococcidae). Journal of Economic Entomology 93 (3): 1017-1020. 
</p>
<p>Hansen, J. D. 2001.<b> </b>Ultrasound treatments to control surface pests of fruit. HortTechnology 11 (2): 186-188. (Abstract)
</p>
<p>Hara, A. H., Yalemar, J. A., Jang, E. B., and Moy, J. H. 2002.<b> </b>Irradiation as a possible quarantine treatment for green scale <i>Coccus viridis</i> (Green) (Homoptera: Coccidae). Postharvest Biology and Technology 25 (3): 349-358. 
</p>
<p>Hara, A. H., Hata, T. Y., Hu, B. K. S., Kaneko, T., and Tenbrink, V. L. 1994.<b> </b>Hot-water immersion of cape jasmine cuttings for disinfestation of green scale (Homoptera: Coccidae). Journal of Economic Entomology 87 (6): 1569-1573. (Abstract)
</p>
<p>IPPC. 1996. International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures, Publication No. 4: Requirements for the establishment of pest free areas. Secretariat of the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC), Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy. <https://<a href="http://www.ippc.int/servlet/BinaryDownloaderServlet/13700_ISPM_04_English.pdf?filename=1027433415687_ispm4e.pdf&refID=13700>"><u>www.ippc.int/servlet/BinaryDownloaderServlet/13700_ISPM_04_English.pdf?filename=1027433415687_ispm4e.pdf&refID=13700></u></a>. 
</p>
<p>IPPC. 1999. International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures, Publication No. 10: Requirements for the establishment of pest free places of production and pest free production sites. Secretariat of the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC), Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy. <https://<a href="http://www.ippc.int/servlet/BinaryDownloaderServlet/13738_ISPM_10_English.PDF?filename=1027429549140_Ispm10e.PDF&refID=13738>"><u>www.ippc.int/servlet/BinaryDownloaderServlet/13738_ISPM_10_English.PDF?filename=1027429549140_Ispm10e.PDF&refID=13738></u></a>. 
</p>
<p>IPPC. 2002a. International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures, Publication No. 5.  Glossary of Phytosanitary Terms 2002. Secretariat of the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC), Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy. <<a href="http://www.ippc.int/servlet/BinaryDownloaderServlet/13703_ISPM_05_En_Fr_Sp.pdf?filename=1061795895343_ispm5_enfrsp02final.pdf&refID=13703>"><u>http://www.ippc.int/servlet/BinaryDownloaderServlet/13703_ISPM_05_En_Fr_Sp.pdf?filename=1061795895343_ispm5_enfrsp02final.pdf&refID=13703></u></a>. 
</p>
<p>IPPC. 2002b. International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures, Publication No. 14: The use of integrated measures in a systems approach for pest risk management. Secretariat of the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC), Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy. <https://<a href="http://www.ippc.int/servlet/BinaryDownloaderServlet/16210_ISPM_14_English.pdf?filename=1028115366312_ispm14e.pdf&refID=16210>"><u>www.ippc.int/servlet/BinaryDownloaderServlet/16210_ISPM_14_English.pdf?filename=1028115366312_ispm14e.pdf&refID=16210></u></a>. 
</p>
<p>IPPC. 2005. International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures, Publication No. 22: Requirements for the establishment of areas of low pest prevalence. Secretariat of the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC), Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy. <https://<a href="http://www.ippc.int/servlet/BinaryDownloaderServlet/76455_ICPM7_ISPM22.pdf?filename=1118415619871_ISPM22_2005.pdf&refID=76455>"><u>www.ippc.int/servlet/BinaryDownloaderServlet/76455_ICPM7_ISPM22.pdf?filename=1118415619871_ISPM22_2005.pdf&refID=76455></u></a>. 
</p>
<p>Ismail, M. A. 1985. Personal communication ("Inter-office communication" letter, September 25, 1985) from M.A. Ismail,  research scientist, Florida Department of Citrus, to Drs. Attaway, J.A., executive director of the Florida Department of Citrus, and W.J. Kender, enter director of the UF\IFAS Citrus Research Center, Lake Alfred, Florida,  regarding:  "Heat treatment of canker causing bacteria.  Test conducted at DPI, Gainesville, August 22, 1985" 
</p>
<p>Jacobsen, C. M., and Hara, A. H. 2003.<b> </b>Irradiation of <i>Maconellicoccus hirsutus</i> (Homoptera: Pseudococcidae) for phytosanitation of agricultural commodities. Journal of Economic Entomology 96 (4): 1334-1339. 
</p>
<p>Jacqua, G., and Etienne, J. 1987.<b> </b>The possibility of eliminating<i> Thrips palmi</i> on aubergine fruits by dipping in hot water. Bulletin Agronomique Petit Bourg (6): 2-3. (Abstract)
</p>
<p>Kader, A. A. 2002. Postharvest Technology of Horticultural Crops. University of California, Oakland, California. 
</p>
<p>Lay-Yee, M., and Rose, K. J. 1993.<b> </b>The effect of heat treatments for insect control on the quality of Redgold and Fantasia nectarines. Orchardist of New Zealand 66 (4): 20. (Abstract)
</p>
<p>Lester, P. J., Dentener, P. R., Petry, R. J., and Alexander, S. M. 1995.<b> </b>Hot-water immersion for disinfestation of lightbrown apple moth (<i>Epiphyas postvittana</i>) and longtailed mealy bug (<i>Pseudococcus longispinus</i>) on persimmons. Postharvest Biology and Technology 6 (3-4): 349-356. 
</p>
<p>Liu, T., and Stansly, P. A. 2000.<b> </b>Insecticidal activity of surfactants and oils against silverleaf whitefly (<i>Bemisia argentifolii</i>) nymphs (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae) on collards and tomato. Pest Management Science 56 (10): 861-866. (Abstract)
</p>
<p>McLaren, G. F., and Dale, J. R. 1987. Control of thrips on stonefruit at harvest time, DSIR Entomology Division Report. 1987; (8): 49. 
</p>
<p>Mitra, S. K., and Baldwin, J. G. 1997. Mango, pp. 85-122. <i>In</i> S. K. Mitra [ed.], Postharvest physiology and storage of tropical and subtropical fruits. CAB International, Oxon, UK. 
</p>
<p>Mohyuddin, A. I., and Mahmood, R. 1993.<b> </b>Integrated control of mango pests in Pakistan. Acta Horticulturae 341: 467-483. 
</p>
<p>Morton, J. F. 1987. Fruits of Warm Climates. Julia F. Morton, Miami, FL. <<a href="http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/morton/>"><u>http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/morton/></u></a>. 
</p>
<p>Muhammad, I., Muhammad, U., Muhammad, A., and Khan, I. A. 2004.<b> </b>Integrated pest management of mango against mealy bug and fruit fly. International Journal of Agriculture and Biology 6 (3): 452-454. 
</p>
<p>Nagai, K. 1990.<b> </b>Effects of a juvenile hormone mimic material, 4-phenoxyphenyl (RS)-2-(2-pyridyloxy) propyl ether, on <i>Thrips palmi</i> Karny (Thysanoptera: Thripidae) and its predator <i>Orius</i> sp. (Hemiptera: Anthocoridae). Applied Entomology and Zoology 25 (2): 199-204. (Abstract)
</p>
<p>Nagai, K., Hiramatsu, T., and Henmi, T. 1988.<b> </b>Effect of flufenoxuron (benzoylphenylurea) on <i>Thrips palmi</i> Karny (Thysanoptera: Thripidae). Japanese Journal of Applied Entomology and Zoology 32 (4): 297-299. (Abstract)
</p>
<p>Nakasone, H. Y., and Paull, R. E. 1998. Tropical fruits. Crop Production Science in Horticulture Series. CAB International, Oxon, UK. pp.445. 
</p>
<p>Pinon, M., Hernandez, L., Hernandez, A., Gomez, O., Casanova, A., Depestre, T., and Estrada, J. 1999.<b> </b>Evaluation of commercial products for the control of <i>Thrips palmi</i> in aubergine. Manejo Integrado de Plagas (53): 84-86. (Abstract)
</p>
<p>Ploetz, R. C. 2003. Diseases of Mango, pp. 327-364. <i>In</i> R. C. Ploetz [ed.], Diseases of Tropical Fruit Crops. CABI Publishing, CAB International, Oxon, UK. 
</p>
<p>Ploetz, R. C. 2004.<b> </b>The major diseases of mango: strategies and potential for sustainable management. Acta Horticulturae, Proceedings of the Seventh International Mango Symposium (645): 137-150. 
</p>
<p>Ploetz, R. C., Zentmyer, G. A., Nishijima, W. T., Rohrbach, K. G., and Ohr, H. D. 1994. Compendium of Tropical Fruit Diseases. The Disease Compendium Series. American Phytopathological Society, St. Paul, Minnesota. pp.88. 
</p>
<p>Powell, M. R. 2003.<b> </b>Modeling the response of the Mediterranean fruit fly (Diptera: Tephritidae) to cold treatment. Journal of Economic Entomology 96 (2): 300-310. 
</p>
<p>PPQ. 2003. Guidelines for Fruit Fly Systems Approach to Support the Movement of Regulated Articles between Mexico and the United States. USDA-APHIS Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ). <<a href="http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/manuals/domestic/pdf_files/FF_Guidelines.pdf>"><u>http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/manuals/domestic/pdf_files/FF_Guidelines.pdf></u></a>. 
</p>
<p>PPQ. 2005a. Plant Protection and Quarantine Treatment Manual, updated September 21, 2005. USDA-APHIS Plant Protection and Quarantine. <<a href="http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/manuals/port/Treatment_Chapters.htm>"><u>http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/manuals/port/Treatment_Chapters.htm></u></a>. 
</p>
<p>PPQ. 2005b. Importation of Guava, <i>Psidium guajava</i>, from Mexico into the United States: A Pathway-initiated Commodity Risk Analysis (Draft December 2, 2005). USDA-APHIS Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ), Center for Plant Health Science and Technology. 
</p>
<p>PPQ. 2006a. Plant Protection and Quarantine Treatment Manual, updated January 20, 2006. USDA-APHIS Plant Protection and Quarantine. <<a href="http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/manuals/port/Treatment_Chapters.htm>"><u>http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/manuals/port/Treatment_Chapters.htm></u></a>. 
</p>
<p>PPQ. 2006b. Plant Protection and Quarantine Treatment Manual, updated September 14, 2006. USDA-APHIS Plant Protection and Quarantine. <<a href="http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/manuals/port/Treatment_Chapters.htm>"><u>http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/manuals/port/Treatment_Chapters.htm></u></a>. 
</p>
<p>Ridgway, R. 1989. Mango pests and disorders. Queensland Government, Brisbane, Qld. 
</p>
<p>Roberts, P. D., Chamberlain, H. L., Chung, K. R., Schubert, T. S., Graham, J. H., and Timmer, L. W. 2004. PP182: 2005 Florida Citrus Pest Management Guide: Citrus Canker. University of Florida IFAS Extension. <<a href="http://www.doacs.state.fl.us/pi/canker/pubs/CG04000manguide.pdf>"><u>http://www.doacs.state.fl.us/pi/canker/pubs/CG04000manguide.pdf></u></a>. 
</p>
<p>Sar, S., Balagawi, S., Mararuai, A., and Putulan, D. 2001. Fruit fly research and development in PNG (Abstract). Food security for Papua New Guinea 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). 571-576. 
</p>
<p>Schubert, T. S., Rizvi, S. A., Sun, X., Gottwald, T. R., Graham, J. H., and Dixon, W. N. 2001.<b> </b>Meeting the challenge of eradicating citrus canker in Florida-again. Plant Disease 85 (4): 340-356. 
</p>
<p>Shea, K. 2006. Treatments for Fruits and Vegetables. Rules and Regulations. Final Rule. Federal Register: January 27, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 18) (Pages 4451-4464) (FR Doc. 06-746). <<a href="http://frwebgate6.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate.cgi?WAISdocID=846637502021+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve>"><u>http://frwebgate6.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate.cgi?WAISdocID=846637502021+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve></u></a>. 
</p>
<p>Simpson, T., Bikoba, V., and Mitcham, E. J. 2004.<b> </b>Effects of ethyl formate on fruit quality and target pest mortality for harvested strawberries. Postharvest Biology and Technology 34 (3): 313-319. (Abstract)
</p>
<p>Su, C. Y., Chiu, T. S., and Lin, Y. J. 1985.<b> </b>Study of population fluctuation of <i>Thrips palmi</i> and its insecticidal control in the field on eggplant. Chinese Journal of Entomology 5 (2): 101-118. (Abstract)
</p>
<p>Townsend, L. 1994. Houseplant insect control. Department of Entomology, University of Kentucky. <<a href="http://www.uky.edu/Ag/Entomology/entfacts/trees/ef406.htm>"><u>http://www.uky.edu/Ag/Entomology/entfacts/trees/ef406.htm></u></a>. 
</p>
<p>USDA. 2000. Guidelines for Pathway-Initiated Pest Risk Assessments, Version 5.02. Plant Protection and Quarantine, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, United States Department of Agriculture. <<a href="http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/pra/commodity/cpraguide.pdf>"><u>http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/pra/commodity/cpraguide.pdf></u></a>. 
</p>
<p>USDA. 2006. Importation of Fresh Mango Fruit (<i>Mangifera indica</i> L.) from Pakistan into the Continental United States - A Qualitative, Pathway-Initiated Pest Risk Assessment (Draft Jan. 19, 2006). Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory, Center for Plant Health Science and Technology, Plant Protection and Quarantine, Animal and Plant Health Science and Technology, USDA, Raleigh, NC. 
</p>
<p>USDA, and SAGARPA. 2005. Work plan for the exportation of Hass avocados from Mexico to the United States of America. USDA-APHIS International Services and SAGARPA, Servicio Nacional de Sanidad, Inocuidad y Calidad Agroalimentaria, Dirección General de Sanidad Vegetal. 
</p>
<p>Villiers, E. A., van den Berg, M. A., and Joubert, P. H. 2001. Mango pests and diseases in South Africa. South African Mango Growers' Association. 
</p>
<p>Waite, G. K. 2002. Pests and pollinators of mango. <i>In</i> 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. 
</p>
<p>Wit, A. K. H., and Vrie, M. v.-d. 1985.<b> </b>Gamma radiation for post harvest control of insects and mites in cutflowers. Mededelingen van de Faculteit Landbouwwetenschappen, Rijksuniversiteit Gent 50 (2b): 697-704. 
</p>
<p>Yalemar, J. A., Hara, A. H., Saul, S. H., Jang, E. B., and Moy, J. H. 2001.<b> </b>Effects of gamma irradiation on the life stages of yellow flower thrips, <i>Frankliniella schultzei</i> (Trybom) (Thysanoptera: Thripidae). Annals of Applied Biology 138 (3): 263-268. 
</p>
<p>Zachowski, M. A., and Rudolph, K. 1991.<b> </b>Reduction of bacterial blight infestation of cotton seeds by treatment with sodium hypochlorite. Journal of Phytopathology 131 (1): 53-58. (Abstract)
</p>
<p>
</p>
<div class="footer"><p class="footer">PAGE  </p>
<p class="footer">78</p>
<p class="footer">Pakistan mango PRA
September 20, 2006  LCM
Revision: 01

</p>
</div>
<div class="package-entry"><h1>_1116735818.bin</h1>
</div>
</body></html>