## Importation of Mango Fruit, Mangifera indica
, from Jamaica into

the Continental United States

A Qualitative, Pathway

- I nitiated Risk Assessment

March 20
, 201 3

Version 3

Agency Contact:

Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laborat ory Center for Plant Health Science and Technology

United States Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant health Inspection Service Plant Protection and Quarantine Raleigh , NC 27606Pest Risk Assessment for Mango from Jamaica

Ver. 3 March 20 , 201 3 i 

### Executive Summary

In t his analysis , we examine the risks associated w ith the importation of m ango fruit ( Mangifera
indica ) from Jamaica into the continental United States

. Information on pests associated with mango fruit in Jamaica revealed five quarantine pests that could be introduced into the United States via this pathw ay, as listed below.

Arthropods: Anastrepha obliqua (Macquart) (Diptera: Tephritidae) Anastrepha suspensa (Loew) (Diptera: Tephritidae)

Coccus moestus De Lotto ( Hemiptera: Coccidae) Fungi: Phomopsis mangiferae S. Ahmad (Ascomycetes: Diaporthales)
Bacteri a: Xanthomonas campestris pv. mangifera e indica e

We analyzed these quarantine pests using our standard guidelines, consistent with international standards. We examined pest biology in the context of Consequences of Introduction and
Likelihood of Introducti on, and used these elements to estimate the Pest Risk Potential . All of these pests pose phytosanitary risks to U.S. a griculture.

The Pest Risk Potential was H igh for Anastrepha obliqua and A

. suspens a , and Medium for Coccus moestus, Phomopsis mangifera, and Xanthomonas campestris pv

. mangiferae indica e

. Specific phytosanitary measures are strongly recommended for pests rated High , as port

- of

- entry inspection is not considered sufficient to provide phytosanitary security. Specific phytosanitary
measures be yond port

- of

- entry inspection may be necessary for pests with Medium r isk

. Although the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has already approved several quarantine treatments for these pests on other commodities, there is no single treatment for the se pests on m ango.Pest Risk Assessment for Mango from Jamaica

Ver. 3 March 20 , 201 3 ii 

### Table of Contents

Executive Summary

................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... i

1. Introduction

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

................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 1 1.2. Standard post

- harvest processing

................................ ................................ ......................... 1

2. Risk Assessment

................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 2 2.1. Initiating Event: Proposed Action

................................ ................................ ........................ 2 2.2. Assessment of the Weed Potential of Mango

................................ ................................ ...... 2
2.3. Previous Decisions and Pest Inte rceptions

................................ ................................ .......... 2 2.4. Pest Categorization

................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 7 2.5. Quarantine Pests Likely to Follow the Pathway

................................ ................................ 22 2.6. Consequences of Introduction

................................ ................................ ........................... 22
2.7. L ikelihood of Introduction

................................ ................................ ................................ . 27
2.8. Pest Risk Potential/Conclusion

................................ ................................ .......................... 31

3. Authors and Reviewers

................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 32

4. Literature Cited

................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 32

5. Appendices

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 38 Appendix A. Information about commodity and shipping

................................ ....................... 38 Appendix B. Pests associated with mangoes

................................ ................................ ............ 41 Appendix C: Quarantine pests found on Mangos in Jamaica

................................ ................... 49Pest Risk Assessment for Mango from Jamaica

Ver. 3 March 20 , 201 3 1 

### 1 . Introduction

1.1. Background

This document was prepared by the Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory of the Center for Plant Health Science and Technology, USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ), in response to a request from the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (MOAF) of Jamaica, Plant Quarantine/Produce and Inspection (PQPI), Plant Risk Analysis Unit (PRAU) ( MAFJA, 2009 ) to evaluate the risks associated with the importation of c ommercially produced mango, Mangifera indica

, as fresh
fruit from Jamaica into the continental United States.

The International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) provides guidance for conducting pest risk analyses. The methods used here are consistent wi th guidelines provided by the IPPC, specifically the International Standard for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPM) on ‘Pest Risk Analysis for Quarantine Pests, Including Analysis of Environmental Risks and Living Modified Organisms’ ( IPPC, 2009 : ISPM #11). The use of biological and phytosanitary terms is consistent with the ‘Glossary of Phytosanitary Terms and the Compendium of Phytosanitary Terms’ ( IPPC,
2009 ).

Three stages of pest risk analysis are described in i nternational standards: Stage 1, Initiation, Stage 2, Risk Assessment, and Stage 3, Risk Management. This document satisfies the requirements of Stages 1 and 2.

This is a qualitative risk analysis; estimates of risk are expressed in terms of High, Medium , and Low pest risk potentials based on the combined ratings for specified risk elements (PPQ, 2000) related to the probability and consequences of importing this mango commodity from Jamaica. For the purposes of this assessment High, Medium, and Low proba bilities will be defined as: High: More likely to occur than not to occur Medium: As likely to occur as not to occur Low: Less likely to occur than not to occur

The appropriate risk management strategy for a particular pest depends on the risk posed by that pest. Identification of appropriate sanitary and phytosanitary measures to mitigate the risk, if any, for this pest is undertaken as part of Stage 3 (Risk Management). Other than listing possible mitigation options for the pests of concern, we did no t discuss risk management in this
document.

1.2. Standard post

- harvest processing

Commercial mangoes undergo cleaning and washing of sap from the exterior of each individual fruit as part of standard post

- harvest treatment ( Morton, 1987 ).Pest Risk Assessment for Mango from Jamaica

Ver. 3 March 20 , 201 3 2 

### 2. Risk Assessment

2.1. Init iating Event: Proposed Action

The Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (MOAF) of Jamaica requested market access for fresh mango fruit ( MAFJA, 2009 ). The regulatory authority for the importation of fruits and vegetables from foreign sources into the United States may be found in t he Code of Federal Regulations ( 7 CFR §319, 2007 ; section 319.56).

2.2

. Assessment of the Weed Potential of Mango

Assessing the weed potential of mangos is important to the initiation phase of the analysis process. If the commodity poses a risk as a weed, then a “pest

- initiated” pest risk assessment may begin. If it passes the weediness screening, the pathway

- initiated pest risk assessment continues. The results of the weediness screening for mango (Table 1) did not prompt a pest

initiated risk assessment.

Table 1. Weed Potential for Mango Commodity Fresh fruits of Mangifera indica ( mango)

Phase 1 Distribution in the United States: Mango is a subtropical plant that is grown in

Florida, Hawaii, and other subtropical region s of the United States (Knowledge Master, 2003; Sauls, 2008)

Phase 2 Is the species listed in

Yes Geographical Atlas of the World Weeds ( Holm et al., 1979 ). Listed as a Weed in Jamaica, but its rank of importance is unknown. Mango is not listed as a serious, principal, or common weed in any country.

No World’s Worst Weeds ( Holm et al., 1977 ), World Weeds Natural Histories and Distribution ( Holm et al., 1997 ), Report of the Technical Committee to Evaluate Noxious Weeds; Exotic Weeds for Federal Noxious Weed Act ( Gunn and Ritchie, 1982 ), Economically Important Foreign Weeds ( Reed, 1977 ), Composite List of Weeds ( Weed Science Society of America , 1989)

No Is th ere any literature reference indicating weed potential (e.g., AGRICOLA, CAB, Biological Abstracts
, AGRIS search on “species name” combined “weed”).

Phase 3 Conclusion: A survey of scientific literature showed that mango is a weed

in Jamaica and is alr eady grown in the United States. Consequently, the weed potential is low

2.3

. Previous Decisions and Pest InterceptionsPest Risk Assessment for Mango from Jamaica

Ver. 3 March 20 , 201 3 3 2.3.1

. Current status

F ruit for consumption may enter the continental United or its territories from Anguila, Antigua and Barbuda, B a hamas, Brazil, Cayman Islands, Chile, Costa Rica, Curacao, Dominican Republic, Ec u ador, Guatemala, H aiti, Honduras, India, Jamaia, M exico, Netherlan d s Antilles, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Martin, Taiwan, Turks an d Caicos Islands, and Venezuela (Table 2) . E ntry is not authorized from any other countries or
territories ( APHIS, 2011; PPQ, 2011 ).

2.3.2. Pest interceptions

In A ppendix B, we list the pest interceptions at U.S. ports

- of

- entry on mango from all countries since 1985 ( PestID, 2010 ). From 1985 through 201 0 , several pests have been intercepted on mangos from Jamaica (Table 3).

Table 2. Count ries or r egions from which mango ( Mangifera indica ) fruits are permitted entry
into the continental United States ( APHIS, 2011; PPQ, 2011 ). Country or Region Requirement for entry Anguilla (United Kingdom) Port

- of

- entry: U.S. Virgin Islands. Subject to inspection at the port of entry and all general requirements of 7 CFR
319 .56

- 3. Antiqua and Barbuda Port

- of

- entry: U.S. Virgin Islands. Subject to inspection at the port of entry and all general requirements of 7 CFR
319 .56

- 3

Bahamas Port

- of

- entry: U.S. Virgin Islands. Subject to inspection at the port of entry and all general requirements of 7 CFR
319 .56

- 3

Brazil All Ports. Subject to inspection at the port of entry and all general requirements of 7 CFR 319 .56

- 3

. Fruits must be
treated with T102

- a

. Cayman Islands (Uni ted Kingdom) Port

- of

- entry: U.S. Virgin Islands. Subject to inspection at the port of entry and all general requirements of 7 CFR
319 .56

- 3

Chile All Ports. Subject to inspection at the port of entry and all general requirements of 7 CFR 319 .56

- 3 . Consignments must be accompanied by a Chilean Phytosanitary Certificate (PC) with an Additional Declaration (AD) stating that "The fruit in this consignment comes from an area that is not under quarantine for Mediterrane an fruit fly ( Ceratitis capitata )."Pest Risk Assessment for Mango from Jamaica

Ver. 3 March 20 , 201 3 4 Country or Region Requirement for entry

Costa Rica All Ports. Subject to inspection at the port of entry and all general requirements of 7 CFR 319 .56

- 3

. Fruits must be
treated with T102

- a

. If the consignment is treated with

T102

- a, T103

- c

- 1, or T106

- a

- 3, it must be treated at an APHIS approved facility in the country of origin. Each
box must be marked with the statement "APHIS

- USDA treated with (HOT WATER, VAPOR HEAT, HIGH TEMPERATURE FORCED AIR)."
Curacao (Netherlands) Port

- of

- entry: U.S. Virgin Islands. Subject to inspection at the port of entry and all general requirements of 7 CFR
319 .56

- 3 Dominican Republic All Ports. Subject to inspection at the port of entry and all general requirements of 7 CFR 319 .56

- 3 . Mangos must be
treated with T102

- a. E ach box must be marked with the statement, “USDA APHIS Dominican Republic Treated
and Released”. Dominican Republic Port

- of

- entry: U.S. Virgin Islands. Subject to inspection at the port of entry and all general requirements of 7 CFR
319 .56

- 3

. Ecuador All Ports . Subject to inspection at the port of entry and all general requirements of 7 CFR 319 .56

- 3

. Fruits must be precleared and irradiated with T105

- a

- 2

. Fruits must
treated with T102

- a

. If the consignment is treated with

T102

- a, T103

- c

- 1, or T106

- a

- 3, it must be treated at an APHIS approved facility in the country of origin. Each
box must be marked with the statement "APHIS

- USDA treated with (HOT WATER, VAPOR HEAT, HIGH TEMPERATURE FORCED AIR)."

Guatemala All Ports . Subject to inspection at the port of entry and all general requirements of 7 CFR 319 .56

- 3

. Fruits must
treated with T102

- a

. If the consignment is treated with

T102

- a, T103

- c

- 1, or T1 06

- a

- 3, it must be treated at an APHIS approved facility in the country of origin. Each
box must be marked with the statement "APHIS

- USDA treated with (HOT WATER, VAPOR HEAT, HIGH TEMPERATURE FORCED AIR)."

Haiti All Ports . Subject to inspection at the po rt of entry and all general requirements of 7 CFR 319 .56

- 3 . Mangos must be
treated with T102

- a . If the con signment is treated with

T102

- a, T103

- c

- 1, or T106

- a

- 3, it must be treated at an APHIS approved facility in the country of origin. Each
box must be marked with the statement "APHIS

- USDA treated with (HOT WATER, VAPOR HEAT, HIGH TEMPERATURE FORCED AIR)."Pest Risk Assessment for Mango from Jamaica

Ver. 3 March 20 , 201 3 5 Country or Region Requirement for entry

H aiti Port

- of

- entry: U.S. Virgin Islands . Subject to inspection at the port of entry and all general requirements of 7 CFR
319 .56

- 3

Honduras All Ports . Subject to inspection at the port of entry and all general requirements of 7 CFR 319 .56

- 3 . Fruits must be precleared and pretreated with T102

- a

. If the consignment
is treated with T102

- a, T103

- c

- 1, or T106

- a

- 3, it must be treated at an APHIS app roved facility in the country of origin. Each box must be marked with the statement

"APHIS

- USDA treated with (HOT WATER, VAPOR HEAT, HIGH TEMPERATURE FORCED AIR)."

India 1) 400 Gy irradiation (T105

- a

- 2); 2) phytosanitary
certificate with two additional de clarations stating that "the mangos were subjected to one of the pre

- or post

harvest mitigation options described in 7 CFR § 319.56

- 46" and "the mangos were inspected during preclearance
activities and found free of Cytopshaera mangiferae

, Macrophoma mangi

ferae , and Xanthomonas camprestris

pv. mangferaeindica ."

Jamaica Port

- of

- entry: U.S. Virgin Islands . Subject to inspection at the port of entry and all general requirements of 7 CFR
319 .56

- 3

Mexico All Ports . Subject to inspection at the port of entry and all general requirements of 7 CFR 319 .56

- 3

. Fruits must be
treated with T102

- a, or T103

- c

- 1, or T106

- a

- 3, or T105

- a

1. If irradiated using T105

- a

- 1, fruits must be precleared and pretreated (irradiated) in the country of origin

. Mexico (Fruit fly areas) All Ports . Subject to inspection at the port of entry and all general requirements of 7 CFR 319 .56

- 3 . Consignments must be accompanied by a Mexican phytosanitary
certificate with the additional declaration: "These regulated articles originated from an area free from pests as designated in CFR319.56

- 5."

Netherlands Antilles Port

- of

- entry: U.S. Virgin Islands . Subject to inspection at the port of entry and all general requirements of 7 CFR
319 .56

- 3 Nicaragua All Ports . Subject to inspection at the port of entry and all general requirements of 7 CFR 319 .56

- 3

. Fruits precleared and pretreated with T102

- a . If the consignment
is treated with T102

- a, T103

- c

- 1, or T106

- a

- 3, it must be treated at an APHIS approv ed facility in the country of origin. Each box must be marked with the statement

"APHIS

- USDA treated with (HOT WATER, VAPOR HEAT, HIGH TEMPERATURE FORCED AIR)."Pest Risk Assessment for Mango from Jamaica

Ver. 3 March 20 , 201 3 6 Country or Region Requirement for entry

Pakistan 1) A signed Compliance Agreement is required for
irradiation treatment conducted in t he US; 2) 400 Gy irradiation (T105

- a

- 2); 3) phytosanitary certificate with additional declaration stating that "This consignment was inspected by the government of Pakistan inspectors and
found free of Xanthomonas campestris pv. mangiferaeindicae "; 4) Mang oes must be packed in
insect

- proof packaging. All openings in the packages must be covered by material with holes no greater than 0.8 mm at the widest point; 6) only entry port Chicago O'Hare International Airport

Peru All Ports . Subject to inspection at the port of entry and all general requirements of 7 CFR 319 .56

- 3

. Fruits precleared and pretreated with T102

- a . If the consignment
is treated with T102

- a, T103

- c

- 1, or T106

- a

- 3, it must be treated at an APHIS approved facility in the country of origin. Each box must be marked with the state ment
"APHIS

- USDA treated with (HOT WATER, VAPOR HEAT, HIGH TEMPERATURE FORCED AIR)." Philippines 1) V apor heat treatment (T106

- d

- 1) for Bactrocera occipitalis, B. cucurbitae, and B. philippinensis ; 2) phytosanitary certificate with two additional declarat ions
that "the mangos have been treated for fruit flies of the

genus Bactrocera in accordance with 7 CFR § 319.56.33(b)", and, "the mangos were grown on the
island of Guimaras." Philippines, Guimaras Island (except Palawan) 1) P ermitted entry into Guam & H awaii ports only; 2) vapor heat treatment (T106

- d

- 1) for Bactrocera occipitalis, B. cucurbitae, and B. philippinensis ; 3) phytosanitary certificate with additional declaration that "the mangos have been treated for fruit flies of the genus

Bactrocera in ac cordance with 7 CFR 319.56.33(b)"; 4)
boxes must be marked "for distribution in Guam and Hawaii only."

Saint Kitts and Nevis Port

- of

- entry: U.S. Virgin Islands . Subject to inspection at the port of entry and all general requirements of 7 CFR
319

. 56

- 3

Saint Martin Port

- of

- entry: U.S. Virgin Islands . Subject to inspection at the port of entry and all general r equirements of 7 CFR
319 .56

- 3Pest Risk Assessment for Mango from Jamaica

Ver. 3 March 20 , 201 3 7 Country or Region Requirement for entry

Taiwan All Ports . Subject to inspection at the port of entry and all

genera l requirements of 7 CFR 319

. 56

- 3, Fruits precl e a red and pretreated with T106

- d

. Vapor heat treatment (T106

- d) for Bactrocera dorsalis and B.
cucurbitae

Thailand 1) 400 Gy Irradiation (T105

- a

- 2); 2) phytosanitary certificate with an additional declaration stating that “the

fruit has been tr eated with irradiation in Thailand.”
Turks and Caicos islands (United Kingdom) Port

- of

- entry: U.S. Virgin Islands . Subject to inspection at the port of entry and all general requirements of 7 CFR
319 .56

- 3

Venezuela All Ports . Subject to inspection at the port of entry and all general requirements of 7 CFR 319 .56

- 3 . Fruits mus t be
treated with T102

- a . If the consignment is treated with

T102

- a, T103

- c

- 1, or T106

- a

- 3, it must be treated at an APHIS approved facilit y in the country of origin. Each
box must be marked with the statement "APHIS

- USDA treated with (HOT WATER, VAPOR HEAT, HIGH TEMPERATURE FORCED AIR)."

Table 3. Pest i nterceptions on mango from Jamaica entering the United States (1985

- 2010 )

. Pest Interce ptions (no.) Aulacaspis tubercularis Newstead (Diaspididae) 2884 Pseudaonidia trilobitiformis 1945 Species of Anastrepha 6319 Species of Cladosporium sp. 1 Species of Coccidae 1 Species of Lonchaeidae 1 Species of Phycitinae 1 Species of Pseudo coccidae (Pseudococcidae) 2 Species of Pyralidae 1 Species of Sternochetus (Curculionidae) 2 Species of Tephritidae 176 Sternochetus mangiferae (Fabricius) (Curculionidae) 2 Vinsonia stellifera 28

2.4

. Pest Categorization

2.4.1. Pest list me thodology
Below we list the pests associated with Mangifera indica i n any country that are known to occur in Jamaica on any host (Table 4) . We identify 1) the pest’s scientific name, 2) the presence of pests in Jamaica and in the United States, 3) the refe rence(s) that report the pest on the host, 4)Pest Risk Assessment for Mango from Jamaica

Ver. 3 March 20 , 201 3 8 the quarantine status of the pest in the United States, 5) the generally affected plant part or parts, and 6) if the pest is likely to follow the pathway. Each pest report has the pertinent citation for
the dis tribution, record on the host, and plant part association. Scientific names in bold text are currently accepted.

Many organisms are phytosanitary risks but they do not satisfy the definition of a quarantine pest. A quarantine pest is defined as “a pest of potential economic importance to the area endangered thereby and not yet present there, or present but not widely distributed and being officially controlled” ( IPPC, 200 9 ). When “Yes” appears in brackets in the Quarantine Pest column, it indicates that the pest has a limited distribution in the United States.

Table 4. Pests reported on mango ( Mangifera indi ca ) in any country and present in Jamaica on any host.
Pests in shaded rows were selected for further analysis

. Pest Scientific Name Distribution 1 Reported on Mango Quaran

tine Pest 2 Plant Part(s)

Association Follow

Pathway 2

ARTHROPODA

ACARI Eriophyidae Aceria mangiferae Sayed JA, US ( Peña et

al., 2005 ) CABI, 2007 No N/A N/A

Tenuipalpidae Brevipalpus phoenicis (Geijskes) JA, US ( CABI,

2007 ) CABI, 2007 No N/A N/A

Tarsonemidae Polyphagotarsonemus
latus (Banks) JA, US ( CABI,

2007 ) CABI, 2007 No N/A N/A

Tetranychidae Tetranychus urticae
Koch JA, US ( Peña,

1997 ) Bolland et al.,

1998 No N/A N/A

INSECTA Coleoptera: Bostrichidae Apatus monachus
Fabricius JA (CABI, 2007) Peña, 1997 Yes Stem ( Pe ña,
1997 ) No

Coleoptera: Coccinellida e Praelongorthezia praelonga (Douglas) JA ( Ben

- Dov et

al., 2010 ) Ben

- Dov et al.,

2010 Yes Leaf ( Ben

- Dov et al., 2010 ) No

1 JA = Jamaica , US = United States, AL = Alabama, CA = California, FL = Florida, HI = Hawaii, IA = Iowa, KY = Kentucky, LA = Louisiana, MS = Mississippi, TX = Texas, WA = Washington. Individual U.S. states are listed only if the
pest species is considered a quarantine pest for the United States.

2 F or non

- quarantine pests, we put N/A (Not Applicable) in the columns for “Plant Part(s) Association” and “Follow Pathway.”Pest Risk Assessment for Mango from Jamaica

Ver. 3 March 20 , 201 3 9 Pest Scientific Name Distribution 1 Reported on Mango Quaran

tine Pest 2 Plant Part(s)

Association Follow

Pathway 2
Coleoptera: Curculionidae Diaprepes abbreviatus (L.) JA, US (FL, MS)

( CAB I, 2007 ) Peña, 1997 [ Yes ] 3 Leaf, Root (CABI, 2007) No

Metamasius hemipterus (L.) JA, US (FL)

( CABI, 2007 ) CABI, 2007 [Yes] Leaf, Stem ( CABI, 2007 ) No

Pachnaeus citri
Marshall JA ( CABI, 2007 ) Peña, 1997 Yes Leaf, Root ( Peña, 1997 ) No

Coleoptera: Nitidulidae Carpophilus dimidiatus
Fabricius JA, US ( CABI,

2007 ) Butani, 1993 No N/A N/A

Coleoptera: Scarabeidae Macraspis tetradactyla ( Linnaeus ) JA ( MAFJA,

2009 ) MAFJA, 2009 Yes Leaf,
Infloresecence ( MAFJA, 2009 ) No

Coleoptera: Scolytidae Xyleborus affinis
Eichhoff JA, US ( CABI,

2007 ) CABI, 2007 No N/A N/A

Xyleborus volvulus (Fabricius) JA, US ( CABI,

2007 ) Cognato, 2004 No N/A N/A

Coleoptera: Silvanidae Oryzaephilus mercator (Fauvel) JA, US ( CABI,

2007 ) CABI, 2007 No N/A N/A

Diptera: Agromyzidae Agromyzidae sp. JA (PestID, 2010) PestID, 2010 Yes Leaf ( Parrella,
1987 ) No

Diptera: Cecidomyidae Erosomyia mangifer

a Felt JA ( Peña, 1997 ) Peña, 1997 Yes Fruit ( Peña,
1997 ) No 4

Asynapta sp. JA ( Peña, 1997 ) Peña, 1997 Yes Fruit ( Peña,
1997 ) Yes

Diptera: Muscidae Atherigona orientalis
Schiner JA, US ( CABI,

2007 ) CABI, 2007 No N/A N/A

Diptera: Tephritidae Anastrepha obliqua (Macquart) JA ( MAFJA,

2009 ) Peña, 1997 Yes Fruit ( MAFJA,
2009 ) Yes

3 Brackets around the quarantine status designation indicate that th e pest has a limited distribution in the continental United
States and is either under official control or under consideration for official control . See discussion in section 2.4.1for
more information.

4 Erosomyia mangifera attacks flowers and immature fru it, which they leave after 10 to 14 days (Waite, 2002). T he pest is
therefore unlikely to follow the pathway of mature mango fruit

.Pest Risk Assessment for Mango from Jamaica

Ver. 3 March 20 , 201 3 10 Pest Scientific Name Distribution 1 Reported on Mango Quaran

tine Pest 2 Plant Part(s)

Association Follow

Pathway 2
Anastrepha suspensa (Loew) JA ( MAFJA,

2009 ), US (FL) ( CABI, 2007 ) Peña, 1997 [Yes] Fruit ( MAFJA,
2009 ), US ( CABI, 2007 ) Yes

Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae Aleurocanthus woglumi Ashby JA ( MAFJA,

2009 ), US (HI, FL, TX ) ( CABI,
2007 ) CABI, 2007 [Yes] Fruit, Leaf,

Stem ( CABI,
2007 ) No 5

Aleurodicus dispersus
Russell JA ( USDA,

2010 ); US (FL) ( CABI, 2007 ) CABI, 2007 [Yes] Fruit, Leaf ( CABI, 2007 ) No 5

Aleurothrixus floccosus (Maskell) JA, US ( CABI,

2007 ) Mound and

Halsey, 1978 No N/A N/A

Hemiptera: Aphididae Aphis craccivora Koch JA (Hall, 2007); US ( CABI,
2007 ) Blackman and

Eastop, 2000 No N/A N/A

Aphis fabae Scopoli JA ( Miller,

2001 ); US ( CABI, 2007 ) Bruner et al.,

1945 No N/A N/A

Toxoptera aurantii Boyer de
Fonscolombe JA (Hall, 2007);

US ( CABI,
2007 ) Peña, 1997 No N/A N/A

Toxoptera citricida Boyer de
Fonscolombe JA, US ( CABI,

2007 ) Pe ña, 1997 No N/A N/A

Hemiptera: Asterolecaniidae Russellaspis pustulans
Cockrell JA ( MAFJA,

2009 ); US (Ben

Dov et al., 2010) MAFJA, 2009 No N/A N/A

Hemiptera: Coccidae Ceroplastes ceriferus (Fabricius ) JA, US ( CABI,

2007 ) CABI, 2007 No N/A N/A

Ceroplastes cirripediformis
Comstock JA, US (Ben

- Dov

et al., 2010) Ben

- Dov et al.,

2010 No N/ A N/A

Ceroplastes floridensis ( Comstock) JA ( MAFJA,

2009 ); US (Ben

Dov et al., 2010) MAFJA, 2009 No N/A N/A

5 These pests attack leaves , stems and fruit

, but whiteflies are highly unlikely to remain with the commodity after minimal processing

, which includes washing to remove sap . Therefore we did not further analyze them.Pest Risk Assessment for Mango from Jamaica

Ver. 3 March 20 , 201 3 11 Pest Scientific Name Distribution 1 Reported on Mango Quaran

tine Pest 2 Plant Part(s)

Association Follow

Pathway 2
Ceroplastes rubens
Maskell JA, US (FL, HI)

(CABI, 2007) Peña et al., 2002 [Yes] Stem (CABI, 2007) No

Coccus hesperidum L. JA, US ( CABI,
2007 ) CABI, 2007 No N/A N/A

Coccus longulus (Douglas) JA, US (Ben

- Dov

et al., 2010) Ben

- Dov et al.,

2010 N o N/A N/A

Coccus moestus De

Lotto JA (Ben

- Dov et

al., 2010) Peña, 1997 Yes Fruit, Leaf, Stem (Ben

- Dov et al., 2010; Peña, 1997 ) Yes

Coccus viridis (Green) JA ( MAFJA,
2009 ), US (FL, HI) (CABI, 2007) Peña, 1997 No N/A N/A

Eucalymnatus
tessellates (Signoret) JA ( MAFJA,

2009 ); US (Ben

Dov et al., 2010) Ben

- Dov et al.,

2010 No N/A N/A

Kilifia acuminata (Signoret) JA, US (Ben

- Dov

et al., 2010) Ben

- Dov et al.,

2010 No N/A N/A

Metamasius hemipterus
Linnaeus JA, US (Ben

- Dov

et al., 2010) CA BI, 2007 ;

Sosa et al., 1997 No N/A N/A

Milviscutulus mangiferae (Green) JA, US (Ben

- Dov

et al., 2010) Ben

- Dov et al.,

2010 No N/A N/A

Parasaissetia nigra (Nietner) JA, US ( CABI,

2007 ) CABI, 2007 No N/A N/A

Protopulvinaria mangiferae (Green) JA, US (Ben

- Dov

et al., 2010) Peña et al., 2002 No N/A N/A

Protopulvinaria pyriformis (Cockerell) JA,US (Ben

- Dov

et al., 2010) Ben

- Dov et al.,

2010 No N/A N/A

Pulvinaria psidii ( Maskell) JA, US ( CAB I,

2007 ) Peña et al., 2002 No N/A N/A

Saissetia coffeae (Walker) JA, US ( CABI,

2007 ) CABI, 2007 No N/A N/A

Saissetia miranda (Cockerell & Parrott) JA, US (Ben

- Dov

et al., 2010; CABI, 2007 ) Peña, 1997 No N/A N/A

Saissetia neglecta De

Lotto JA, US (Ben

- Dov

et al., 2010; CABI, 2007) Peña, 1997 No N/A N/APest Risk Assessment for Mango from Jamaica

Ver. 3 March 20 , 201 3 12 Pest Scientific Name Distribution 1 Reported on Mango Quaran

tine Pest 2 Plant Part(s)

Association Follow

Pathway 2

Saissetia olae (Bernard) JA, US ( Ben

- Dov et al., 2010; CABI, 2007) CABI, 2007 No N/A N/A

Saissetia sp. JA (PestID, 2010) PestID, 2010 Yes Fruit, Leaf,

Stem (Ben

- Dov et al., 2010; Peña, 1997 ) Yes

Vinsonia stellifera ( Westwood) JA ( MAFJA,

2009 ); US (AL, FL, GA) (Ben Dov et al., 2010) MAFJA, 2009 [Yes] Leaf, Stem ( Peña et al.,

2002 ; MAFJA,
2009 ) No

Hemiptera: Diaspididae Andaspis hawaiiensis (Maskell) JA, US (Ben

- Dov

et al., 2010) Ben

- Dov et al.,

2010 No N/A N/A

Aonidiella auranti i (Maskell) JA, US (Ben

- Dov

et al., 2010; CABI, 2007) CABI, 2007 No N/A N/A

Aonidiella orientalis (Newstead) JA (Ben

- Dov et

al., 2010); US (CABI, 2007) CABI, 2007 No N/A N/A

Aonidomytilus albus (Cockerell) JA, US (CABI,

2007) CABI, 2007 No N/A N/A

Aspid iotus destructor Signoret JA, US (CABI,

2007) CABI, 2007 No N/A N/A

Asterolecanium pustulans (Cockerell) JA, US (CABI,

2007) CABI, 2007 No N/A N/A

Aulacaspis rosae (Bouché ) JA, US (CABI,

2007) CABI, 2007 No N/A N/A

Aulacaspis tubercularis ( Newstead) JA, US (FL, PR,

USVI) (CABI, 2007) CABI, 2007 [Yes] Fruit, Leaf, Stem ( MAFJA,
2009 ) Yes 6

Chrysomphalus
aonidum (L.) JA, US (CABI,

2007) CABI, 2007 No N/A N/A

Chrysomphalus dictyospermi (Morgan) JA, US (CABI,

2007) CABI, 2007 No N/A N/A

Diaspis boisduvalii Signoret JA, US (Ben

- Dov

e t al., 2010) Ben

- Dov et al.,

2010 No N/A N/A

6 Although armored scales (Diaspididae) may follow the pathway on commodities for consumption, they are highly unlikely
to establish in the United States via that pathway. Therefore, we did not further analyze them. Please see the summary
discussion after this table for more information.Pest Risk Assessment for Mango from Jamaica

Ver. 3 March 20 , 201 3 13 Pest Scientific Name Distribution 1 Reported on Mango Quaran

tine Pest 2 Plant Part(s)

Association Follow

Pathway 2
Fiorinia fioriniae (Targioni Tozzetti) JA,US (Ben

- Dov

et al., 2010) Ben

- Dov et al.,

2010 No N/A N/A

Fiorinia proboscidaria

Green JA (Ben

- Dov et

al., 2010) Ben

- Dov et al.,

2010 Yes Leaf, Stem (Ben

- Dov et al.,

2 010) No

Hemiberlesia lataniae (Signoret) JA, US (CABI,

2007) CABI, 2007 No N/A N/A

Hemiberlesia palmae (Cockerell) JA, US (Ben

- Dov

et al., 2010; CABI, 2007) Ben

- Dov et al.,

2010 No N/A N/A

Howardia biclavis (Comstock) JA, US (Ben

- Dov

et al., 2010) Ben

- Dov et al.,

2010 No N/A N/A

Ischnaspis longirostris (Signoret) JA ( PestID,

2010 ); US (FL) (CABI, 2007) CABI, 2007 No N/A N/A

Lepidosaphes beckii (Newman) JA, US (CABI,

2007) CABI, 2007 No N/A N/A

Lepidosaphes gloverii (Packard) JA, US (CABI,

2007) CABI, 2007 No N/A N/A

Lindingaspis floridana
Ferris JA, US (Ben

- Dov

et al., 2010) Ben

- Dov et al.,

2010 No N/A N/A

Morganella longispina (Morgan) JA (Ben

- Dov et

al., 2010); US (CABI, 2007) Ben

- Dov et al.,

2010; CABI,
2007 No N/A N/A

Mycetaspis personata (Coms tock) JA, US (Ben

- Dov

et al., 2010) Ben

- Dov et al.,

2010 No N/A N/A

Parlatoria blanchardi (Targioni Tozzetti)
Leonardi JA, US (CABI,

2007) CABI, 2007 No N/A N/A

Parlatoria cinerea
Hadden in Doane &
Hadden JA ( Ben

- Dov et

al., 2010) Ben

- Dov et al.,

2010 Y es Leaf, Stem ( Ben

- Dov et al., 2010) No

Parlatoria pergandii
Comstock JA, US (Ben

- Dov

et al., 2010) Ben

- Dov et al.,

2010 No N/A N/A

Parlatoria proteus (Curtis) JA, US ( Ben

- Dov

et al., 2010 ) Ben

- Dov et al.,

2010 No N/A N/A

Parlatoria pseudaspidiotus Lindinger JA, US (Ben

- Dov

et al., 2010) Ben

- Dov et al.,

2010 No N/A N/A

Pin naspis strachani (Cooley) JA, US (CABI,

2007) CABI, 2007 No N/A N/APest Risk Assessment for Mango from Jamaica

Ver. 3 March 20 , 201 3 14 Pest Scientific Name Distribution 1 Reported on Mango Quaran

tine Pest 2 Plant Part(s)

Association Follow

Pathway 2

Pseudaonidia trilobitiformis ( Green) JA ( MAFJA,

2009 ); US (FL) ( Ben

- Dov et al.,

2010 ) MAFJA, 2009 [Yes] Fruit, Leaf ( MAFJA, 2009 ) Yes 6

Pseudaulacaspis

pentagona (Targioni

Tozzetti) MacGillivray JA, US (CABI,

2007) CABI, 2007 No N/A N/A

Pseudischnaspis bowreyi (Cockerell) JA, US (Ben

- Dov

et al., 2010) Ben

- Dov et al.,

2010 No N/A N/A

Ra dionaspis indica (Marlatt) JA, US ( Ben

- Dov

et al., 2010 ) Ben

- Dov et al.,

2010 No N/A N/A

Selenaspidus articulatus (Morgan) JA (PestID,

2010); US ( Ben

Dov et al., 2010 ) Ben

- Dov et al.,

2010 No N/A N/A

Hemiptera: Margarodidae Icerya purchasi Maskell JA, US (CABI, 2007) CABI, 2007 No N/ A N/A

Hemiptera: Pentatomidae

Nezara viridula L. JA, US (CABI, 2007) CABI, 2007 No N/A N/A

Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae
Dysmicoccus spp

. JA ( MAFJA,
2009 ) MAFJA, 2009 Yes Whole Plant ( Frank and Baker, 1998 ) Yes

Dysmicoccus brevipes (Cockerell) JA, US (CABI,

2007) CABI, 2007 No N/A N/A

Dysm icoccus neobrevipes Beardsley JA (Ben

- Dov et

al., 2010); US (CABI, 2007) Ben

- Dov et al.,

2010 ; CABI,
2007 [Yes] F ruit

, L eaf

, R oot

, S tem ( Ben

- Dov et al.,

2010 ; CABI,
2007 ) No

Dysmicoccus texensis (Tinsley) JA, US (Ben

- Dov

et al., 2010) Ben

- Dov et al.,

2010 No N/A N/APest Risk Assessment for Mango from Jamaica

Ver. 3 March 20 , 201 3 15 Pest Scientific Name Distribution 1 Reported on Mango Quaran

tine Pest 2 Plant Part(s)

Association Follow

Pathway 2
Ferrisia virgata (Cockerell) JA ( MAFJA,

2009 ); US (CABI, 2007) MAFJA, 2009 No N/A N/A

Maconellicoccus
hirsutus (Green) JA ( MAFJA,

2009 ); US (CA, FL) (CABI, 2007) MAFJA, 2009 [Yes] Whole Plant (Frank and Baker, 1998) No 7

Nipaecoccus nipae (Maskell) JA, US (CABI,

2007) CABI, 2007 [Yes] F ruit

, I nflorescence

, L eaf

, S tem ( CABI, 2007 ) No 6

Phenacoccus
madeirensis Green JA, US ( Ben

- Dov

et al., 2010 ) Ben

- Dov et al.,

2010 No N/A N/A

Planococcus citri (Risso) JA ( MAFJA,

2009 ); US ( Ben

Dov et al., 2010 ) MAFJA, 20 09 No N/A N/A

Planococcus minor
Maskell JA ( Venette and

Davis, 2004 ); US (CABI, 2007) CABI, 2010;

Venette and Davis, 2004 Yes F ruit

, L eaf

, R oot

, S tem ( CABI, 2010 ) No 6

Pseudococcus longispinus (Targioni

- Toz zetti) JA ( MAFJA,

2009 ); US ( Ben

Dov et al., 2010 ) MAFJA, 2009 No N/A N/A

Pseudococcus jackbeardsleyi Gimpel JA, US (CABI,

20 07) CABI, 2007 No N/A N/A

Pseudococcus viburni (Signoret) JA, US (Ben

- Dov

et al., 2010) Ben

- Dov et al.,

2010 No N/A N/A

Lepidoptera: Geometridae Pleuroprucha insulsaria (Guenee) JA ,US ( Wagner

et al., 2 008; Waite, 2002 ) Wagner et al.,

2008; Waite,

2002 No N/A N/A

Eupithecia sp. JA, ( Whitwell,
1993 ); US ( Opler et al., 2010 ) Peña, 1997 No N/A N/A

Oxydia vesulia JA, US ( Zagatti et al., 2010 ) Peña, 1997 No N/A N /A

Lepidoptera: Noctuidae Alabama argillacea
Hubner JA, US (CABI,

2007) Waite, 2002 No N/A N/A

7 Maconellicoccus hirsutus attacks the fruit

, but mealybugs are highly unlikely to remain with the commodity after processing

, whi ch includes washing to remove sap.Pest Risk Assessment for Mango from Jamaica

Ver. 3 March 20 , 201 3 16 Pest Scientific Name Distribution 1 Reported on Mango Quaran

tine Pest 2 Plant Part(s)

Association Follow

Pathway 2

Gonodonta nutrix Stoll JA ( Zagatti et al.,

2010 ); US ( Wagner et al.,

2008 ) Peña, 1997 No N/A) N/A

Lepidoptera: Pyralidae

Cadra cautella Walker JA, US (CABI, 2007) CABI, 2007 No N/A N/A

Thysanoptera: Thripidae

Frankliniella cubensis
Hood JA, U S (FL)

( Sakimura, 1986 ) Peña, 1997 [Yes] Infloresence ( Peña, 1997 ) No

Frankliniella kelliae (Sakamura) JA ( Sakimura,

1986 ),US ( Peña,
1997 ) Peña, 1997 No N/A N/ A

Frankliniella schultzei (Trybom) JA, US (CABI,

2007) Chin et al., 2002 No N/A N/A

Heliothrips
haemorrhoidalis
Bouché JA, US (CA BI,

2007) CABI, 2007 No N/A N/A

Scirtothrips dorsalis
Hood JA ( Edwards et

al., 2005 ) ; US (FL, HI) (CABI, 2007) Edwards et al.,

2005 ; CABI,
2007 [Yes] Leaf,
Infloresence

, Fruit (CABI, 2007) No 8

Selenothrips (Heliothrips)
rubrocinctus (Giard) JA ( MAFJA,

2009 ); US (CABI, 2007) MAFJA, 2009 No N/A N/A

Thrips hawaiiensis (Morgan) JA, US (CABI,

2007) CABI, 2007 No N/A N/A

Thrips palmi JA, US (FL) (CABI, 2007) Peña, 1997 [Yes] Fruit,
Infloresence

, Leaf (CABI, 2007) No 8

Thrips tabaci Lindeman) JA, US (CABI,

2007) CABI, 2007 No N/A N/A

PATHOGENS

ALGAE Cephaleuros virescens

Künze JA ( MAFJA,

2009 ); US ( CABI, 2007 ) MAFJA, 2009 No N/A N/A

8 Post

- harvest processing of export

- quality mango always involves washing (by hand or by machine) of the fruit to remove sap, as sap causes lesions and rotting ( Nakasone and Paull, 1998 ). Given that mealybugs an d thrips are not firmly attached to the fruit and have no place to hide (no calyx on fruit), the washing process should reliably remove these insects from mango fruit, i.e.

, these insects are highly unlikely to be associated with the commercial mango fruit pathway.Pest Risk Assessment for Mango from Jamaica

Ver. 3 March 20 , 201 3 17 Pest Scientific Name Distribution 1 Reported on Mango Quaran

tine Pest 2 Plant Part(s)

Association Follow

Pathway 2

BACTERIA

Rhizobium radiobacter (Be ijerinck & van Delden) JA, US (CABI,

2007) CABI, 2007 No N/A N/A

Xanthomonas campestris pv. mangiferaeindicae (Patel et al.) Robbs et
al. ( = Pseudomonas mangiferae indica Patel, Kulkarni and
Moriz ) JA ( MAFJA,

2009 ) MAFJA, 2009 Yes Fruit,
Infloresence

, Leaf ( MAFJA,
2009 ) Yes

FUNGI

Alternaria sp. JA ( PestID,
2010 ) PestID, 2010 Yes Fruit ( PestID,
2010 ) Yes

Aspergillus niger Tiegh. [Ascomycetes: Eurotiales] JA, US ( CABI,

2007 ) Farr and

R ossman, 2010 No N/A N/A

Botryosphaeria ribis
Grossenb. & Duggar, anamorph

= Fusicoccum sp. [Ascomycetes: Dothideales] JA, US ( CABI,

2007 ) CABI, 2007 ;

Farr and Rossman, 2010 No N/ A N/A

Ceratocystis fimbriata
Ellis & Halst. [Ascomycetes: Microascales] JA, US (CABI,

2007) CABI, 2007 No N/A N/A

Ceratocystis paradoxa (Dade) C. Moreau JA, US (CABI,

2007) CABI, 2007 No N/A N/A

Corticium koleroga
Höhn [Basidiomycetes: Polyporales] JA ( MAFJA,

2009 ); US (KY) ( CABI, 2007 ) MAFJA, 2009 No N/A N/A

Corticium rolf

sii Curzi =Sclerotium rolfsii (Sacc.) [Basidiomycetes: Polyporales] JA ( MAFJA,

2009 ); US ( CABI, 2007 ) MAFJA, 2009 No Infloresence, Fruit, Leaf,

Stem (CABI, 2007; MAFJA,
2009 ) YesPest Risk Assessment for Mango from Jamaica

Ver. 3 March 20 , 201 3 18 Pest Scientific Name Distribution 1 Reported on Mango Quaran

tine Pest 2 Plant Part(s)

Association Follow

Pathway 2
Elsinoë mangiferae
Bitanc. & Jenkins (= Sphaceloma mangiferae Bitanc & Jankins) [Ascomycetes: Myriangiales] JA ( MAFJA,

2009 ); US (CABI, 2007) CABI, 2007;

MAFJA, 2009 No Fruit, Leaf,

Stem (CABI, 2007; MAFJA,
2009 ) Yes

Fusarium solani (Mart.)
Sacc. (= Nectria
haematococca (Wollenw.) Gerlach [Ascomycetes: Hypocreales] JA, US ( CABI,

2007 ) CABI, 2007 No N/A N/A

Glomerella cingulata (Stoneman) Spauld.
& Schrenk ( = Colletotrichum gloeosporoides Penz.)
Penz. & Sacc. in Penz. [Fungi Imperfecti: Coelomycetes] JA, US ( CABI,

2007 ) CABI, 2007 ;

MAFJA, 2009 No N/A N/A

Golovinomyces
cichoracearu m (DC.)
V.P. Heluta ( =Erysiphe
cichoracearum ) [Ascomycetes: Erysiphales] JA ( MAFJA,

2009 ), US (CABI, 2007) MAFJA, 2009 No N/A N/A

Macrophomina phaseolina (Tassi)
Goid [Anamorphic Fungi] JA,US ( CABI,

2007 ) CABI, 2007 No N/A N/A

Mycena citricolor (Berk. & M.A. Curtis) Sacc [ Basidiomycetes: Agaricales] JA, US (CABI,

2007) CABI, 2007 No N/A N/A

Nattrassia mangiferae (Syd. & P. Syd.) B. Sutton & Dyko JA, US (CABI,

2007) CABI, 2007 No N/A N/APest Risk Assessment for Mango from Jamaica

Ver. 3 March 20 , 201 3 19 Pest Scientific Name Distribution 1 Reported on Mango Quaran

tine Pest 2 Plant Part(s)

Association Follow

Pathway 2
Nectria rigidiuscula
Berk. & Broome [Ascomycetes: Hypocreales] JA, US (CABI,

2007) CABI, 2007 No N/A N/A

Oidium mangiferae
Berthet [Ascomycetes: Erysiphales ] JA ( MAFJA,

2009 ); US (Far r et al., 2007) MAFJA, 2009 No N/A N/A

Pestalotiopsis funerea (Desm.) Steyaert ( = Pestalotia funerea ) JA ( MAFJA,

2009 ) MAFJA, 2009 Yes Leaf ( MAFJA,
2009 ) No

Phomopsis mangiferae
S. Ahmad [Ascomycetes: Diaporthales] JA ( MAFJA,

2009 ) MAFJA, 2009 Yes Fruit ( MAFJA,
2009 ) Yes

Phyllosticta sp. JA ( MAFJA,
2009 ) MAFJA, 2009 Yes Leaf ( MAFJA,
2009 ) No

Phytophthora citrophthora (R.E. Sm. & E.H. Sm.) Leonian [Oomycetes: Pythiales] JA ( MAFJA,

2009 ); US ( CABI, 2007 ) MAFJA, 2009 No N/A N/A

Phytophthora palmivora (Butler) Butler. [Oomycetes: Pythiales] JA, US ( CABI,

2007 Farr et al., 2007 No N/A N/A

Phytophthora sp. JA ( MAFJA,
2009 ) MAFJA, 2009 Yes Root ( MAFJA,
2009 ) No

Pythium splendens

Braun [Oom ycetes: Pythiales] JA, US (CABI,

2007) CABI, 2007 No N/A N/A

Pythium vexans de Bary [Oomycetes: Pythiales] JA ( MAFJA,

2009 ); US (CABI, 2007) MAFJA, 2009 No N/A N/A

Rhizoctonia solani
Kühn Kuhn [Teleomorph: Thanatephorus

cucumeris (A.B. Frank) Donk [Basidiomycetes: Ceratobasidiales] JA, US ( CABI,

2007 ) Farr et al., 2007 No N/A N/APest Risk Assessment for Mango from Jamaica

Ver. 3 March 20 , 201 3 20 Pest Scientific Name Distribution 1 Reported on Mango Quaran

tine Pest 2 Plant Part(s)

Association Follow

Pathway 2

Sclerotium sp. JA ( MAFJ A,
2009 ) MAFJA, 2009 Yes F ruit, Stem ( MAFJA, 2009 ) Ye s

Stemphylium vesicarium (Wallr.) E.G.
Simmons JA, US (CABI,

2007) CABI, 2007 No N/A N/A

NEMATODA Helicotylenchus erythrinae (Zimm.)
Golden JA ( MAFJA,

2009 ); US (CABI, 2007) MAFJA, 2009 No N/A No

Helicotylenchus
multicinctus (Cobb)
Golden JA ( MAFJA,

2009 ); US ( CABI, 2007 ) CABI, 2007 ;

MAFJA, 2009 No N/A N/A

Helicotylenchus nannus
Steiner (= Helicotylenchus dihystera (Cobb) Sher JA ( MAFJA,

2009 ); US ( CABI, 2007 ) MAFJA, 2009 ;

CABI, 2007 No N/A N/A

Meloidogyne incognita (Kofoid & W hite)
Chitwood JA, US ( CABI,

2007 ) CAB I, 2007 No N/A N/A

Meloidogyne sp. JA ( MAFJA,
2009 ) M AFJA, 2009 Yes Root ( MAFJA,
2009 ) N o

Pratylenchus sp. JA ( MAFJA,
2009 ) MAFJA, 2 009 Yes Root ( MAFJA,
2009 ) No

Rotylenchulus sp. JA( MA FJA,
2009 ) MAFJA, 2009 Yes Root ( MAFJA,
2009 ) No

Rot ylenchulus reniformis Linford &
Oliveira JA ( MAFJA,

2009 ); US ( CABI, 2007 ) CABI, 2007 ;

MAFJA, 2009 No N/A N/A

Tylenchorhynchus sp. JA ( MAFJA,
2009 ) MAFJA, 2009 Yes Root ( MAF JA,
2009 ) No

Tylenchorhynchus

acutus Allen JA ( MAFJA,

2009 ); US ( CABI, 2007 ) MAFJA, 2009 No N/A N/A

Xiphinema sp. JA ( MAFJA,
2009 ) MAFJA, 2009 Yes Root ( MAFJA,
2009 ) No

2.4.1. Discussion of p ests that are not candidates for further mitigation Lack of identification to species

. We did not assess the risk of organisms identified only to the genus or family level if the taxonomic group already occurs in the continental United States. By necessity, pest assessments focus on those organisms for which biological information is
available. This was true in this assessment for Alternaria sp., Asynapta sp., Dysmicoccus spp.,Pest Risk Assessment for Mango from Jamaica

Ver. 3 March 20 , 201 3 21 Saissetia sp., and Sclerotium sp. La ck of specific information or identification to the specific level does not indicate that a pest is not a phytosanitary risk to U.S. agriculture. It may reflect the poor quality of the specimen or the limits of current taxonomic identification. If pests id entified to higher taxa are intercepted in the future, APHIS may take action at the port

- of

- entry and we may reevaluate their risk.

Lack of evidence for a host association. We did not list Parlatoria ziziphi in the pest list
because we had insufficient ev idence for a host association with mango. We found no reports 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 ( PestID, 2011 ). 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 expo rt quality mango fruit in permit cargo. This species is reported to feed almost exclusively on citrus and is rarely recorded on other hosts ( Black burn and Miller, 1984 ). Specifically, the hosts for this scale include Citrus aurantiifolia

, C. aurantium

, C. hystrix, C. limon, C. nobilis

, C. x paradisi, C. reticulata

, C. sinensis

, Severinia buxifolia (Rutaceae) and Murraya paniculata (Rutaceae) ( CABI, 2010; Dekle, 1976b ). There are reports of this scale on other non

- Rutaceae plants, but these are thought to be doubtful ( CABI, 2010; Dekle, 1976b ).

Armored scales

. The two armored scales (Hemiptera: Diaspididae) identified in this risk assessment as quarantine pests likely to follow the pathway

— Aulacaspis tubercularis , and Pseudaonidia trilobitiformis

— are not potential candidates for mitigation measures because, although armored scales may enter on commercial fruit for consu mption, they are highly unlikely

to establish via this pathway ( Miller et al., 1985; PERAL, 2007 ). A critical review of the literature, APHIS Plant Protection and Quarantine operational data, and expert opinion concludes that, even assuming high qua ntities of imported fruit infested with armored scale species that could be parthenogenic, highly fecund, polyphagous, invasive, theoretically able to survive in most of the United States, and capable of causing high level consequences, the specific pathwa y represented by commercially produced fruit shipped without leaves, stems, or contaminants constitutes an extremely low risk ( PERAL, 2007 ). This low risk is explained by poor ability of armored scales to disperse to new host plant s from fruits for consumption, and consequently, by their low probability of establishment ( PERAL, 2007 ). The following characteristics of armored scales contribute to their poor dispersal capabilities:

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

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

 Self

- dispersal of armored scales occurs by immature forms, or “crawlers.” They are the most vulnerable life stage; their su rvival decreases with long

- distance wind dispersal. Crawlers can be passively dispersed by wind from one plant to another only during a period of approximately 24 hours. No further dispersal is possible after the crawlers start feeding as they lose their l egs during the first molt and their mouthparts are deeply inserted in the host, anchoring them firmly to the substrate.

 Dispersal from fruit discarded in the environment is considered very unlikely because of low wind speeds at ground level and low surviva l rate of crawlers on the ground or on decaying fruit or fruit peel. There is a low probability of active dispersal of crawlers by walking from their natal host since they are not capable of rapid movement over bare soil or rough
surfaces.Pest Risk Assessment for Mango from Jamaica

Ver. 3 March 20 , 201 3 22 2.5. Quarantine Pests Likely to Follow the Pathway

The quarantine pests likely to follow the pathway that we analyzed further were Anastrepha obliqu a , A. suspensa , Coccus moestus, Phomopsis mangifera e , and Xanthomonas campestris pv

. mangiferaeindica

.

2.6. Consequences o f I ntroduction

The negative impacts resulting from the introduction and establishment of quarantine pests are
considered in this assessment. We rated t he potential consequences of introduction using the five
risk elements described in the Guidelines for t he Pathway

- Initiated Pest Risk Assessments

, Version 5.02 ( PPQ, 2000 ). For each risk element, we rated the pest Low (1 point), Medium (2 points), or High (3 points). We summed all the risk element values to calculate a cumulative risk rating score, which is a biological indicator of the potential of the pest to establish, spread, and cause economic and environmental impacts ( PPQ, 2000 ) . We summarized the ratings for the Consequences of Introduction below ( Table 5 )

.

Anastrepha obliqua Risk ratings

Risk Element 1: Climate

- Host Interaction One of the most widespread of Anastrepha species ( Foote et al., 1993 ), A

. obliqua ranges from Mexico to Argentina and through the Caribbean ( CABI,
2007 ). In Mexico, it occur s in 18 states ( Hernández

- Ortiz et al., 2002 ). We estimated that the species would be able to establish populations in so uthern regions of the United States , or Plant Hardiness Zones 9

- 10 ( Magarey et al.,

2008 )

. One or more hosts of A. obliqua are present in these Plant Hardiness Zones in the continental United States (NRCS, 2010). Bas ed on that , we rated this species
Medium. Medium (2)

Risk Element 2: Host Range This fruit fly has been recorded on more than 60 plant species in 24 families ( Foote et al., 1993 ). The main wild hosts are Spondias spp. (Anacardiaceae); Mangifera indica (Anacardiaceae) is the major commercial host ( CABI, 2007 ). Other hosts include citrus (Rutaceae), Annona spp. (Annonaceae), Brosimum
alicastrum (Moraceae), Carica papaya (Carica ceae), Coffea arabica (Rubiaceae), Diospyros spp. (Ebenaceae), Eugenia spp. (Myrtaceae), Phaseolus sp. (Fabaceae), Pouteria spp. (Sapotaceae), Prunus spp. (Rosaceae), and Vitis vinifera (Vitaceae) ( Norrbom and Kim, 1988 ). Guava is a natural host of the fly ( Aluja et al., 1987 ), which suggests that the plant also is a primary host. High (3)

Risk Element 3: Dispersal Potential Fecundity may exceed 1300 eggs per female in the laboratory ( Liedo and Carey,
1996 ), but 500

- 700 is the normal range under field conditions ( Toledo A. and Lara, 1996 ). There are four to eight generations per year ( Aluja et al., 1993 ). As
in other Anastre

pha species, the major means of dispersal to previously uninfested areas is the transport of fruit, such as mango and guava containing
larvae

. A dults of Anastrepha spp. can fly as far as 135 km ( Fletcher, 1989 ) and
therefore natural movement is also an important means of spread . The species has High (3)Pest Risk Assessment for Mango from Jamaica

Ver. 3 March 20 , 201 3 23 Anastrepha obliqua Risk ratings been intercepted in France on mangos from Mexico ( CABI, 2007 ).

Risk Element 4: Economi c Impact Anastrepha obliqua is one of the most important fruit fly pests of mango ( Foote et al., 1993 ). In Brazil, infestations ranging from 7

- 88 percent i n commercial crops of Malpighia punicifolia (Malpighiaceae) were observed, leading to a downgrading of fruit quality ( Ohashi et al., 1997 ). The fly is a major pest of Eugenia stipitata in Peru, causing reductions in yield and fruit quality ( Couturier et al., 1996 , and a major pest of guava ( Gould and Raga, 2002 ). However, it apparently is not a significant pest of citrus ( CABI, 2007 ). Establishment of this pest in the United States could cause a loss of domest ic or foreign markets , since

t he species is a quarantine pest for Argentina, Uruguay, China, Taiwan, Indonesia, Korea, New Zealand, Namibia, South Africa, Turkey, eastern and southern Africa, and the European Union ( EPPO, 2003; PRF, 2 004 ). High (3)

Risk Element 5 : E n vironmental Impact Host genera include Prunus and Eugenia ( Norrbom and Kim, 1988 ), which contain species (i.e., P

. geniculata

, E

. koolauensis ) listed as Endangered in 50 CFR §17,
2007 ) and which may be attack ed by this pest. Introduction of this species into the United States also could stimulate the initiation of chemical or biological control

programs . B iological control is used in Brazil to suppress A. obliqua populations in mango orchards (e.g., Montoya et al., 2000 ). High (3)

Anastrepha suspensa Risk ratings

Risk Element 1: Climate

- Host Interaction Anastrepha suspensa is distributed throughout the Caribbean

, including the Bahamas, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Haiti, Jamaica

, and Puerto Rico (CABI, 2007). A nastrepha suspensa has also
become established in Florida. It is not found in Mexico or elsewhere Central and
South America ( White and Elson

- Harris, 1992 ). We estimated that the species would be able to establish in southern regions of the United States , i.e. Plant
Hardiness Zones 9

- 10 ( Magarey et al., 2008 ). One or more hosts of A. suspensa are present in these Plant Hardiness Zones in the continental United States (NRCS, 2010). This warranted a Medium rat ing

. Medium (2)

Risk Element 2: Host Range This fruit fly has been record ed on more than 10 0 plant species in many families ( White and Elson

- Harris, 1992)

. Guava is a natural host of the fly (White and
Elson

- Harris, 1992), which suggests that the plant also is a primary host. Other
hosts include Mangifera indica (Anacardiaceae)

, Carica papaya (Caricaceae), citrus (Rutaceae), Diospyros spp. (Ebenaceae), Eugenia spp. (Myrtaceae), Spondias spp. ( Anacardiaceae ), Pouteria spp. (Sapotaceae), and Prunus s p p. and Pyrus spp. (Rosaceae) ( Norrbom and Kim, 1988 ). The wild hosts include Annona

spp., Syzygium spp., and tropical almond ( Terminalia catappa ) (Foote et al., 1993). High (3)Pest Risk Assessment for Mango from Jamaica

Ver. 3 March 20 , 201 3 24 Anastrepha suspensa Risk ratings Risk Element 3: Dispersal Potential Fecundity averages 1 61 eggs per female in the laboratory ( Sivinski, 1993 )

. U p to
12 generations may occur per year in the tropics, fewer in cooler areas. Females average lifespan is 73 days in the laboratory, hence generations may overlap. As
in other Anastrepha species, the major means of dispersal to previous ly uninfested areas is the transport of fruit, such as guava s containing larvae. A dults
of Anastrepha spp. can fly as far as 135 km ( Fletcher, 1989 ) and therefore natural movement is also an important means of spread. High (3)

Risk Element 4: Economic Impact Anastrepha suspensa is an important fruit fly pest of mango ( White and Elson

Harris, 1992)

, and a major pest of g uava ( Gould and Raga, 2002 ). Unlike A. obliqua

, A. suspensa may be a significant pest of citrus , particularly late season
citrus ( White and Elson

- Harris , 199 2 ). Establishment of this pest outside of
Florida in the United States could cause a loss of domestic or foreign markets

, because t his pest is a quarantine pest for countries such as Aust ralia, New
Zealand

, and Japan. High (3)

Risk Element 5: Environmental Impact Host genera include Prunus and Eugenia ( Norrbom and Kim, 1988 ), which contain species (i.e., P

. geniculata

, E

. koolauensis ) listed as Endangered in 50 CFR §17
which may be attack ed by this pest. Introduction of this species into parts of the
United States outside of Florida could also stimulate the initiation of chemical or biological control programs

. High (3)

Coccus moestus Risk ratings

Risk Element 1: Climate

- Host Interaction

Coccus moestus is found throughout the world tropics ( Ben

- Dov et al., 2010 ). It

occur s in Africa, the Pacific Islands, the Caribbean, Central and South America, China, and Japan. In the New World, it ranges from Central America to South
America and throu ghout the Caribbean ( CABI, 2007 ). In the Caribbean there are records from Barbados, Dominican Republic, Jamaica, Puerto Rico

, and Trinidad. This distribution corresponds to USDA Plant Hardiness Zones 8

- 10 ( Magarey et al., 2008 ). One or more hosts of C. moestus are present in these zones ( NRCS , 2010 ). Medium (2)

Risk Element 2: Host Range The primary host of C. moestus is Mangifera indica ( Anacardiaceae ) ( CABI,
2007 ). Other hosts include Artocarpus atilis ( Moraceae ), Anacardium
occidentale ( Anacardiaceae ), Drypetes integerrima (Euphorbiaceae), Eugenia

aromatic a (Myrtaceae), Hibiscus glabra (Malvaceae), Neottopteris nidus (Aspleniaceae), Nephelium lappaceum (Sapindaceae), Persea americana ( Lauraceae)

, and Scaevola sp. (Goodeniaceae) ( Ben

- Dov, 1993 ; Ben

- Dov et al.,

2010 ). High (3)

Risk Element 3: Dispersal Potential

Coccus moestus is closel y related to Coccus viridis and is assumed to have High (3)Pest Risk Assessment for Mango from Jamaica

Ver. 3 March 20 , 201 3 25 Coccus moestus Risk ratings similar biological traits. Coccus viridis is parthenogenetic and oviparous ( Dekle,
1976a ). Females may deposit up to 500 eggs ( CABI, 2007 ). There may be several generations per year ( Kosztarab, 1997 ). The rate of natural dispersal is inherently low ( Tandon and Vee resh, 1988 ). However, since 1985, agricultural officers at U.S. ports

- of

- entry have intercepted C. moestrus 24 times and C. viridis over 15,000 times ( PestID, 2010 ), which is strong evidence that Coccidae can spread quickly and widely via the transport of infested plant materials. Risk Element 4: Economic Impact Although the economic impact of Coccidae is usually minor, it can be extremely devastating at times, depending on location and crop ( CABI, 2007 ). M ango, cashew

, rambutan

, and avocado are h osts for C. moestus in several tropical regions. There are no reports of economic damage from this scale, but newly
introduced scale species may have dramatic population increases and cause more damage than in their original ranges. Scale insects cause sec ondary damage via
secreted honeydew , which form s a substrate for sooty mold s

. Therefore, t he
establishment of C. moestus in the United States could likely lead to lower yield of host crops and lower value of host crop commodities

. Medium (2)

Risk Element 5: Environmental Impact

Coccus moestus may negatively impact federally Threatened and Endangered (T&E) species in the United States

. Because this is an economically important pest, the wider establishment of this species could stimulate the initiation of chemical or biological control programs

. Medium (2)

Phomopsis mangiferae Risk ratings

Risk Element 1: Climate

- Host Interaction Phomopsis mangiferae occurs in the mango

- producing areas of India, Pakistan , a Australia ( Laxminarayana and Reddy, 1975 ; NGRP, 2010 ) , and Jamaica ( MAFJA, 2009 ) . These areas correspond to USDA Plant Hardiness Zones 9

- 11 ( Magarey et al., 2008 ) . The primary host for this pathogen (mango) is only grown in a small percentage of the United States (southern Florida and California) ( Pollack and Perez, 2007 ) and would not be widely available for infection opportunities. Medium (2)

Risk Element 2: Host Range The host range is limited to mango ( Anacardiaceae ) (Johnson et al., 1994; NGRP,
201 0 ). Low (1)

Risk Element 3: Dispersal Potential The pathogen infects mango fruit endophytically ( Johnson et al., 1994 ; Sangchote
et al., 1994 ) and can lead to fruit mummification. In fected seeds germinate to produce infected plants ( Johnson et al., 1994 ). Long

- distance dispersal is possible if infected seeds are moved around for use in mango production. However, it is
not considered l ikely that fruit imported for consumption with potentially infected seeds will come into contact with susceptible mango plants because mango is only grown in a small area of the United States ( NRCS, 2010 ). Low (1)Pest Risk Assessment for Mango from Jamaica

Ver. 3 March 20 , 201 3 26 Phomopsis mangiferae Risk ratings Risk Element 4: Economic Impact The pest causes a stem

- end rot of harvested fruits ( Johnson et al., 1994 ), which is likely to impact grower revenue. However, commercial mango production in the United States is limited ( Mossler and Nesheim, 2002 ). Florida is the main producer of mangos in th e continental United States; in 1997, domestic mango production in Florida was worth $1.45 million ( Mossler and Nesheim, 2002 ). Thus, the impact on domestic markets will likely be very limited, and we found n o evidence that Florida exports mang os internationally ( Garrett, 2007 ). Medium (2)

Risk Element 5: Environmental Impact None of the U.S. Threatened and Endangered plant species ( USFWS, 2010 ) are in the same genera as plants in P. mangiferae ’s host range ( Johnson et al., 1994; NGRP, 2010 ); therefore, P. mangiferae would be unlikely to attack any U.S. Threatened and Endangered plant species. If P. mangiferae did establish in the United States, a broad spectrum fungicide most likely already in use for commercial mango production

, is l ikely to also be effective. For mango e s , fungicide use is common. In 1999

- 2000, 93 percent of Florida mango growers surveyed reported fungicide use ( Cran e et al., 2002

. Low (1)

Xanthomonas campestris pv

. mangiferaeindica e Risk ratings

Risk Element 1: Climate

- Host Interaction Mango bacterial black spot, caused by X. campestris pv. mangiferaeindicae , is found in India, Australia, the Comoros Islands, Japan, Kenya, Malaysia, Mauritius, New Caledonia, Pakistan, the Philippines, Réunion, Taiwan, Thailand

, the United Arab Emirates ( Gagnevin and Pruvost, 2001 ) and Jamaica ( MAFJA,
2009 ). These regions correspond to USDA Plant Hardine ss Zones 9

- 11 ( Magarey et al., 2008 )

. Medium(2)

Risk Element 2: Host Range This pathogen attacks multiple species in the family Anacardiaceae ( CABI,
2007 ). Xanthomonas campestris pv. mangiferaeindica infects mango ( Mangifera
indica ), cashew (

Anacardium occidentale ), Brazilian pepper ( Schinus terebinthifolius ), ambarella ( Spondias cytherea or S. dulcis ), and other members of the plant family Anacardiaceae growing in the regions listed above ( Gagnevin and Pruvost, 2001 ). Medium (2)

Risk Element 3: Dispersal Potential Bacterial diseases in the genus Xanthomonas penetrate their hosts through natural openings and wounds (Agrios, 1997). The bacteria overwinter on infected or healthy plant p arts, 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 et al., 1990 ). We rated it Medium

. Medium (2)

Risk Element 4: Economic Impact Bacterial pathogens in the genus Xanthomonas penetrate their hosts through natural openings and wounds ( Agrios, 1997 ). The pest causes a stem

- en d rot of harvested fruits (Johnson et al., 1994), which is likely to impact grower revenue. Medium (2)Pest Risk Assessment for Mango from Jamaica

Ver. 3 March 20 , 201 3 27 Xanthomonas campestris pv

. mangiferaeindica e Risk ratings However, commercial mango production in the United States is limited ( Mossler and Nesheim, 2002 ). Florida is the main producer of mangos in the continen tal United States; in 1997, domestic mango production in Florida was worth $1.45 million ( Mossler and Nesheim, 2002 ). Thus, the impact on domestic markets is likely to be very limited, and we found n o evidence that Florida exports mangos intern ationally ( Garrett, 2007 ). S imilar argument s appl y to the other potential
hosts for X. campestris pv. m angiferaeindica

, because they are not widely grown
in the continent al United States ( NRCS, 2010 ).

Risk Element 5 : Environmental Impact None of the U.S. Threatened and Endangered plant species ( USFWS, 2010 ) is in the same genera a s plants in X. campestris pv. mangiferaeindicae ’s host range

. T herefore, it is unlikely to attack any U.S. Threatened and Endangered plant species. For these reasons, we rated this pathogen Low

. Low (1)

Table 5

. Summary of the Risk Ratings for the Cons equences of Introduction

. Pest Risk elements Cumulative ratings a Climate

Host
interaction Host

range Dispersal

potential Economic

impact Environment

al impact

Anastrepha obliqua Med (2) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (14) Anastrepha suspensa Med (2) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (14)

Coccus moestus Med (2) High ( 3 ) High (3) Med ( 2 ) Med ( 2 ) Medium (12) Phomopsis mangifera Med (2) Low (1) Low (1) Med (2) Low (1) Low (7)

Xanthomonas campestris pv.

m angiferaeindica e Med (2) Med (2) Med (2) Med (2) Low (1) Medium (9)

a Low: 5

– 8 points; Medium: 9

– 12 points; High: 13

– 15 points

2.7. Likelihood of Introduction

The values determined for the Likelihood of Introduction for each pest are summarized below ( Table 6 )

.

2.7.1

. Quantity Impo rted and Pest Opportunity Likelihood of introduction is a function of both the quantity of the commodity imported annually and pest opportunity, which consists of five criteria that consider the potential for pest survival along the pathway ( PPQ, 2000 ). The quantity of mangos that will be imported annually is 128,350 lbs according to preliminary information submitted to USDA from Jamaica (MAFJA,

20 09). This is equivalent to about two standard 40

- foot shipping containers per year, which
equates to a low rating. However , the Dominican Republic and Haiti both ship an average of over 30 container equivalents a year to the United States, so it is presume d that Jamaican exports will grow and match other Caribbean countries. Therefore, we rated this element Medium.Pest Risk Assessment for Mango from Jamaica

Ver. 3 March 20 , 201 3 28 2.7.2

. . Survive post

- harvest treatment

Post

- harvest treatment of mango fruit in packinghouses in Jamaica consists of a clear water bath

to remov e sap, and culling defective or damaged fruits ( MAFJA, 2009 ).

Among the arthropod pests of concern, the fruit fl ies Anastrepha obliqua and A. suspensa would,

as internal feeder s , be highly likely (>10 percent; PPQ, 2000 ) to surviv e post

- harvest treatment ( especially if infestation of the fruit was not of such great age that damage was obvious )

. \

The scale insect

, C occus moestus

, is an external feeder, and therefore are l ess likely to survive
post

- harvest treatments. However, depending on the stage (egg, larva, adult) or instar, these arthropods might find shelter on fruit or in packing materials. For example, many scales prefer to settle within tight, protected areas on h osts ( Kosztarab, 1996 ). We estimate t he external pest s have a probability of between 0.1 and 10 percent for surviving post

- harvest treatment , which warrants a Medium rating

.

The bacteria X. campestris pv. mangiferaeindicae survive epiphytically on fruit, leaves

, and soil (Pruvost et al., 1990; Pruvost and Luisetti, 1991)

. P ost

- harvest treatment s may reduce epiphytic populations, but are unlikely to eliminate resident populations which are an important source of inoculum for fruit infection (Pruvost and Luisetti, 1991) , Thus, our rating was High.

The fruit rot disease ( Phompsis mangiferae ) is highly likely to survive post

- harvest treatment ( AFFA, 2001 ) because most control measures are not curative and do not eradicate the pathogens ( Coates et al., 1997; Coates et al., 1993 ; Johnson et al., 1993; Johnson et al., 1989 ; Johnson and Highley, 1994 ). Additionally, as a post

- harvest control measure, controlled atmospheric conditions may only sl ow stem end rot or fruit rot symptom expression (Johnson et al., 1993), leading to longer latent periods. For these reasons, we rated Phomopsis mangiferae as High

.

2.7.3. Survive shipment The conditions for shipping mangos to the United States include mo derate refrigeration temperatures and shipment either by air or refrigerated sea container ( Hardenburg et al., 1986 ; MAFJA, 2009 )

. Temperatures are kept in a range to p reserve shelf life of the fruit without harming it

. Shipment takes from a few hours to several days. The temperatures used are unlikely to cause significant mortality of the insects. Cold treatment temperatures required to cause significant mortality would harm the mangos. The probability of surviving shipment is H igh for
the insects.

The bacteria X. campestris pv. mangiferaeindicae survive s epiphytically on fruit, leaves

, and soil (Pruvost et al., 1990; Pruvost and Luisetti, 1991). It overwinters on infec ted or healthy fruits, on or in seeds, on contaminated containers, or in soil (Agrios, 1997; Provost et al., 1990). Even under controlled atmospheric conditions, the bacteria can survive the shipping condition s . Also, the epiphytic populations are not dete cted on symptomless mature fruit (Pruvost and Luisetti, 1991), leading to further fruit infections (Pruvost and Luisetti, 1991)

, so we rat ed it High.

Phomopsis mangifera is highly likely to survive shipping conditions (AFFA, 2001) because most shipping co nditions do not eradicate the pathogens (Coates et al., 1997; Coates et al., 1993; Johnson et al., 1993; Johnson et al., 1990; Johnson and Highley, 1994). Additionally, controlledPest Risk Assessment for Mango from Jamaica

Ver. 3 March 20 , 201 3 29 atmospheric conditions may only slow stem end rot or fruit rot and mask symp tom expression (Johnson et al., 1993), leading to longer latent periods. For these reasons, we rat ed the pest High

.

2.7.4. Not detected at a port

- of

- entry
E stimating the risk that these pests will not be detected at a port

- of

- entry involves consideration of pest size, mobility, and degree of concealment. Among the arthropods, again depending on the age of infestation, Anastrepha obliqua and A. suspensa are likely to escap e detection at a port

- of

entry inspection , since fruit infested with fruit flies can go unrecognized ( Gould, 1995 ; White
and Elson

- Harris, 1992 ). Thus, we rated these pests H igh risk

.

S cale insects like Coccus moestus are external feeders , and therefore could be visible on the
surface of fruit

. Still, s cale insects are small and tend to live in concealed habitats ( Miller et al.,

2002 ). Therefore, we rated it Medium risk

.

R ot caused by Phomopsis mangifer ae would likely be detected at ports

- of

- entry when there are obvious external symptoms, although they may not be clearly attributable to a single pathogen ( Johnson et al., 1989; Lim et al., 1991; MAF, 2003 ). Latent fungal infections, however, are likely
to evade detect ion. For these reasons, we rated P. mangifera as Medium

.

Advanced symptoms of bacterial black spot caused by X. campestris pv . mangiferaeindicae are likely to be detected at ports

- of

- entry when there are obvious external symptoms, although
symptoms may v ary depending on the susceptibility of the host and on environment and may not be clearly attributable to a single pathogen ( Shekhawat and Patel, 1975 ). Although, the role of
late nt infections in mango bacterial black spot is uncertain, limited research on mango bacterial black spot indicates that X. campestris pv. mangiferaeindica causes latent infections, which would also be likely to evade detection, although presence of the bac terium strictly as an epiphyte has not be conclusively ruled out (Gagnevin and Pruvost, 2001). For this reason, we
rated X. campestris pv. mangiferaeindicae Medium risk

.

2.7.5. Moved to a habitat suitable for survival Mangos from Jamaica are likely to be sold in every state. I f we assume , though, that demand for the fruit is proportional to the size of the consumer population in potential markets, then imports might be concentrated more in some regions of the United States than in others, and not all of

t hese regions may be conducive to pest survival. Mangos are popular in Hispanic and Asian groups ( Degner et al., 1997 ). These groups likely would constitute the major markets for mango
in the United States. Seven states that comprise 60 percent of the total U.S. Hispanic or Latino and Asian population ( U.S. Census Bureau, 2003 ) contain areas within Plant Hardiness Zones 9, 10, or 11; and 17 states (68 percent of the total Hispanic or L atino and Asian population) contain
areas within Plant Hardiness Zones 8

- 11 . Assuming that infestations will be randomly distributed among shipments, because it is considered capable of surviving in a range of states [ those containing areas within Zones 8 and above that may comprise a high percentage (> 67 percent) of likely markets for Jamaican mangos ]

, we rank A

. obliqua and A. suspensa M edium risk of moving to habitat suitable for survival. W e similarly estimated that Coccus moestus, Phomopsis mangifera e , and X. campestris pv. mangiferaeindicae present M edium risk.Pest Risk Assessment for Mango from Jamaica

Ver. 3 March 20 , 201 3 30 2.7.6. Come into contact with host material suitable for reproduction Assessment of the probability that a plant pest will come into contact with host material should
take into account not onl y the availability, in time and space, of its host plants and of the particular plant parts fed upon or used for reproduction, but also the pest’s inherent powers of movement allowing it to find and colonize hosts successfully. For several reasons, most pe sts could have a low probability of finding suitable host material. Although some mangos may be exported to the United States at all times of year, the bulk of shipments is more likely to occur during the peak harvest season from about March to August ( MAFJA, 2009 )

. Also, because

ma ngos will be imported for consumption only, the fruits would be expected to have a limited chance of introduction directly into the natural or agricultural environments, in which hosts might be found. In addition, mortality factors (e.g., predators; inclem ent weather) present in any environment (and the stochasticity often operating in these; Mack et al., 2000 ) would likely reduce to the chances of pests encountering hosts. In a study of the success of various groups of invading organisms, Williamson and Fitter, 1996 ) found that no greater than 1 percent of insects
int roduced into a new region became established.

For the quarantine pathogens, only discarded fruit or unused portions of fruit (peel, seed, etc.) are likely to be sources of inoculum. Bacteria or spores must then move from discarded fruit into mango orchard s at a time when susceptible tissue is available ( Johnson et al., 1993; Johnson et al., 1989; Kishun and Chand, 1989; Pruvost et al., 1990; Pruvost and Luisetti, 1991 ). The
likelihood of disc arded fruit being in close proximity to cultivated mango is small. For these

reasons, we rated Phomopsis mangiferae and X. campestris pv. mangiferaeindica Low risk

.

O nly a small percentage of goods passing through the ports are inspected, so at least som e intercepted pests (PestID, 2010) are likely to be present in the many items that enter the country without inspection, and thus have opportunities to establish. Yet no records of establishment exist for many of these pests. For example

, Planococcus minor has been intercepted at U.S. ports more than 3600 times on various commodities for consumption over the past 19 years (PestID, 2010), but has apparently failed to become established. For the above reasons, we estimated the
risk of the other arthropod pest s contact ing host material is L ow for most but not all of the pests.

Several of the arthropods potentially accompanying mango consignments from Jamaica (i.e.
females of the scale insects Coccus moestus ), because they lack wings or other means to achieve

f light, have very limited powers of dispersal ( Gullan and Kosztarab, 1997 ), and thus lack the ability to locate hosts quickly. For these insects, successful establishment in a new environment depends on the likelihood of at l east two necessary conditions occurring: close proximity of susceptible hosts and presence on the imported fruit of crawlers or other mobile forms to transfer to new hosts (e.g., Miller, 1985 ; Blank et al., 1993 ), circumstances that are highly unlikely to co

occur. We therefore estimated the risk to be L ow for the scale insect Coccus moestus

.

Hosts of the polyphagous and highly mobile Anastrepha spp. include temperate

- zone or widely cultivated plants, such as Prunus spp. ( NRCS, 2010 ), which should be available throughout the potential area of establishment. Risk that the se pests will encounter suitable host material is considered high. Anastrepha obliqua has become sporadically established in the continental United States in California, Florida (1930

- 1936 ) (Weems et al., 2001) and Texas (Foote et al.,1993) but has not bec ome permanently established and is subject to official control measuresPest Risk Assessment for Mango from Jamaica

Ver. 3 March 20 , 201 3 31 when detected. Anastrepha suspensa was also introduced into Florida in 1965, indicating that this may occur in other parts of the United States (Weems et al., 2001). These episodes
dem onstrate clearly that the pests previously have contacted host material. Thus, we rated the

r isk for Anastrepha obliqua a s H igh.

Table 6

. Risk ratings for likelihood of introduction of pests on mango ( Mangifera indica ) from Jamaica

. Pest Quantity

impor ted annually Survive

post

harvest

treatment Survive

shipment Not

detected at port

of

- entry Moved

to
suitable
habitat Contact

with

host
material Cumulative

risk rating a

Anastrepha obliqua Med (2) High (3) High (3) High (3) Med (2) High (3) High (16) Anastrepha suspensa Med (2) High (3) High (3) High (3) Med (2) High (3) High (16)

Coccus moestus Med (2) Med (2) High (3) Med (2) Med (2) Low (1) Medium (12) Phomopsis mangiferae Med (2) High (3) High (3) Med (2) Med (2) Low (1) Mediu m (13)

Xanthomonas campestris pv. M angiferaeindicae Med (2) High (3) High (3) Med (2) Med (2) Low (1) Medium (13)

a Low: 6

– 9 points; Medium: 10

– 14 points; High: 15

– 18 points

2.8. Pest Risk Potential / C onclusion

To estimate the Pest Risk Potential f or each pest, we calculated the Cumulative Risk Rating for the Consequences of Introduction and the Cumulative Risk Rating for the Likelihood of
Introduction ( Table 7 )

.

Pest Risk Potential ratings have the following suggested meanings ( PPQ, 2000 ):
Medium: Specific phytosanitary measures may be necessary. High: Specific phytosanitary measures are strongly recommended. Port

- of

- entry inspection is not considered sufficient to provide phytosanitary security.

Table 7

. Summary of Pest Risk Potential s

. Pest Consequences of
Introduction Likelihood of

Introduction Rating Score a

Anastrepha obliqua High (14) High (16) High (30) Anastrepha suspensa High (14) High (16) High (30)

Coccus moestus Medium ( 12 ) Medium (12) Medium ( 24 ) Phomopsis mangifera Low ( 7 ) Medium ( 13 ) Medium ( 20 ) Xanthomonas campestris pv. m angiferaeindica e Medium (9) Medium ( 13 ) Medium ( 22 )

Low: 11

– 18 points; Medium: 19

– 26 points; High: 27

– 33 pointsPest Risk Assessment for Mango from Jamaica

Ver. 3 March 20 , 201 3 32 

### 3 . Authors and Reviewers

Authors Kayimbi M. Tubajika, Plant Pathologist, USDA

- APHIS

- PPQ

- CPHST

- PERAL Walter P. Gould, Entomologist, USDA

- APHIS

- PPQ

- PHP

- RPM

- RMPP

Reviewers Leah Millar, USDA

- APHIS

- PPQ

- CPHST

- PERAL Cynthia Landr y, USDA

- APHIS

- PPQ

- CPHST

- PERAL



### 4

. Literature Cited

7 CFR §319. 2007. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 7, Part 319 (7 CFR § 319

– Foreign Quarantine Notices).
50 CFR §17. 2007. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 50, Part 17 (50 CFR § 17

– Endangered And Threatened Wildlife And Plants). AFFA. 2001. Technical market access submission for Australian Mangoes to the USA. Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (AFF), Australia. 75 pp. Agrios, G. N. 1997. Plant Pathology (Fourth Editi on). Academic Press, London, UK. 635 pp. Aluja, M., J. Guillén, G. de la Rosa, M. Cabrera, H. Celedonio, P. Liedo, and J. Hendrichs. 1987. Natural host plant survey of the economically important fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae)
of Chiapas, Mexico. Fla. E ntomol. 70(3): 329

- 338. Aluja, M., I. Jacome, A. Birke, N. Lozada, and G. Quintero. 1993. Basic patterns of behavior in
wild Anastrepha striata (Diptera: Tephritidae) flies under field

- cage conditions. Annals of the Entomological Society of America 86(6):7 76

- 793. APHIS. 2011. Fruits and Vegetables Import Requirements (FAVIR) Database. United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). https://epermits.aphis.usda.gov/manual/index.cfm?ACTION=pubHome. (Archived at

PERA L). (Archived at PERAL).

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., G ainesville, Florida. 536 pp.

Ben

- Dov, Y., D. R. Miller, and G. A. P. Gibson. 2010. ScaleNet. http://www.sel.barc.usda.gov/scalenet/scalenet.htm (Accessed July 10, 2010). Blackburn, V. L., a nd D. R. Miller. 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. Blackman, R. L., and V. F. Eastop. 2000. Aphids on the World’s Crops, An Identification and

In formation Guide. (Second Ed.) John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., Chichester, England. 466 p. Blank, R. H., M. H. Olson, and G. S. C. Gill. 1993. An assessment of the quarantine risk of armoured scale (Hemiptera: Diaspididae) fruit infestations on kiwifruit. New Zeal and. Journal of Crop and Horticultural Science 21:139

- 145 Bolland, H. R., J. Gutierrez, and C. H. W. Flechmann. 1998. World Catalogue of the Spider Mite Family (Acari: Tetranychidae). Koninklijke Brill, Leiden, Netherlands. 392 pp.Pest Risk Assessment for Mango from Jamaica

Ver. 3 March 20 , 201 3 33 Bruner, S. C., L. C. Sc aramuzza, and A. R. Otero. 1945. Catalogo de los Insectos que atacan a las Plantas Economicas de Cuba. Academia de Ciencias de Cuba, Instituto de Zoologia, Habana, Cuba. 246 pp. Butani, D. K. 1993. Mango: Pest Problems. Periodical Expert Book Agency. Delhi , India, 290

pp. CABI. 2007. Crop Protection Compendium. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureau International (CABI). . http://www.cabicompendium.org/cpc/aclogin.asp?/cpc/finda datasheet.asp?

. (Archived at PERAL). CABI. 2010. Crop Protection Compendium. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureau International (CABI). Chin, D., H. Brown, G. Brown, R. Pitkethley, B. Conde, G. Owens, K. Vinod, S. Smith, and V. Kulkarni. 2002. Pests, disease s and disorders of mangoes in the Northern Territory: an illustrated field guide. in . Northern Territory Government, Darwin; Australia. Coates, L. M., A. W. Cooke, J. R. Dean, U. Lavi, C. Degani, S. Gazit, E. Lahav, E. Pesis, D. Prusky, E. Tomer, and M. Wy soki. 1997. The response of mango stem end rot pathogens
to heat. Acta Horticulturae: 455:762

- 772. Coates, L. M., G. I. Johnson, and A. W. Cooke. 1993. Postharvest disease control in mangoes using high humidity hot air and fungicide treatments. Annals of A pplied Biology, 123:

441

- 448. . Cognato, A. 2004. PEET

- Xyleborini

- Online database. Last accessed April 9, 2007, http://xyleborini.tamu.edu/db_intro.php . (Archived at PERAL). Couturier, G., E. Tanc hiva, J. Gonzales, R. Cardenas, and H. Inga. 1996. Preliminary observations on the insect pests of araza ( Eugenia stipitata McVaugh, Myrtaceae), a new fruit crop in Amazonia [English summary]. Fruits 51(4): 229

- 239. Crane, J., M. Aerts, and M. Mossler. 200 2. Crop Profile for Mango in Florida. IPM Centers. January 2002. http://www.ipmcenters.org/cropprofiles/docs/FLMango.html

. . Degner, R. L., S. D. Moss, and J. H. Crane. 1997. Market d evelopment strategies for the Florida tropical fruit industry. Fla. Agric. Mark. Res. Cent. Ind. Rept. 97

- 2 (December 1997). Gainesville: Univ. Fla. Inst. Food Agric. Sci. Dekle, G. W. 1976a. Green scale, Coccus viridis (Green) (Homoptera: Coccidae). Flori da Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Plant Industry, Entomology Circular 165. Dekle, G. W. 1976b. Black parlatoria scale: Parlatoria ziziph i (Lucas) (Homoptera: Diaspididae). Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Service s, Division of Plant Industry, Entomology Circular No. 171. DigitalGlobe. 2009. Google Earth, Europa Technologies. Edwards, G. B., G. Hodges, and W. Dixon. 2005. Chilli thrips Scirtothrips dorsalis Hood (Thysanoptera: Thripidae) A new pest thrips for Flori daFlorida Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services, Division of Plant Industry. http://www.freshfromflorida.com/pi/enpp/ento/chillithrips.html (Modified March 2010). (Archi ved at PERAL). EPPO. 2003. EPPO Plant Quarantine Information Retrieval System (PQR), Ver. 4.2. Paris: European & Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization. FAO. 2009. List of locations of new and old mango orchards. Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO ) Fruit Tree Crop Project, 2009.Pest Risk Assessment for Mango from Jamaica

Ver. 3 March 20 , 201 3 34 Farr, D. F., and A. Y. Rossman. 2010. Fungal Databases, Systematic Mycology and Microbiology Laboratory, ARS, USDA. Retrieved September 5, 2010, from http://nt.ars

grin .gov/fungaldatabases/

. Fletcher, B. S. 1989. Ecology; movements of tephritid fruit flies. In: Robinson AS, Hooper G, eds. Fruit Flies; Their Biology, Natural Enemies and Control. World Crop Pests, 3(B). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier, 209

- 219. Foote, R. H., F. L. Blanc, and A. L. Norrbom. 1993. Handbook of the Fruit Flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) of America North of Mexico. Ithaca, NY: Comstock Publ. Assoc. Frank, and Baker. 1998. Dysmicoccus plant part association whole plant Pseudococcidae sp. Gagnevin, L., and O. Pruvost. 2001. Epidemiology and control of mango bacterial black spot. Plant Disease 85 (9): 928

- 935 Garrett, L. 2007. Economic importance of mango in the United States. Personal Communication to L. Millar on 2007 from L. Garrett (CPHST). Archi ved at PERAL, Raleigh, NC. Gould, W. P. 1995. Probability of detecting Caribbean fruit fly (Diptera: Tephritidae) infestations by fruit dissection. Florida Entomologist 78(3):502

- 507. Gould, W. P., and A. Raga. 2002. Pests of guava, pp. 295

- 313. In J.E. Pe ña, J.L. Sharp, and M. Wysoki (eds.). Tropical Fruit Pests and Pollinators: Biology, Economic Importance, Natural Enemies and Control. Wallingford, U.K.: CAB International. Gullan, P. J., and M. Kosztarab. 1997. Adaptations in scale insects. Annual Review of Entomology 42: 23

- 50. Gunn, C. R., and C. A. Ritchie. 1982. Report of the Technical Committee to Evaluate Noxious Weeds; Exotic Weeds for Federal Noxious Weed Act. . 340 pp. Hardenburg, R. E., A. E. Watada, and C. Y. Wang. 1986. The Commercial Storage o f Fruits, Vegetables, and Florist and Nursery Stocks. USDA Agric. Hdbk No. 66, Washington, D.C. 130 pp.
Hernández

- Ortiz, V., P. Manrique

- Saide, H. Delfín

- González, and L. Novelo

- Rincón. 2002. First report of Anastrepha compressa in Mexico and new records f or other Anastrepha species in the Yucatan Peninsula (Diptera: Tephritidae). Fla. Entomol. 85(2): 389

- 391. Holm, L., J. Doll, E. Holm, J. Pancho, and J. Herberger. 1997. World weeds. Natural Histories and Distribution. John Wiley and Sons, NY. . Holm, L. G ., J. V. Pancho, J. P. Herberger, and D. L. Plucknett. 1979. A Geographical Atlas of World Weeds. John Wiley and Sons, New York. 391 pp. Holm, L. G., D. L. Plucknett, J. V. Pancho, and J. P. Herberger. 1977. The World's Worst Weeds: Distribution and biolog y. University Press of Hawaii, Honolulu. 609 pp. IPPC. 2009. International Standards For Phytosanitary Measures, 1 to 32 (2009 edition). Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Secretariat of the International Plant Protection Convention ( IPPC), Rome, Italy. 432 pp. Johnson, G., T. Cooke, A. Mead, G. I. Johnson, A. W. Cooke, and A. J. Mead. 1993. Infection and quiescence of mango stem

- end rot pathogens. Acta Horticulturae: 329

- 336. Johnson, G. I., and E. Highley. 1994. Development of postha rvest handling technology for tropical tree fruits. ACIAR Proceedings No. 58., 86 pp. Johnson, G. I., A. J. Mead, A. W. Cooke, I. A. Wells, and E. Highley. 1994. Stem

- end rot diseases of tropical fruit

- mode of infection in mango, and prospects for contro l. Development of postharvest handling technology for tropical tree fruits: a workshop held in Bangkok, Thailand, 16

- 18 July 1992. ACIAR Proceedings No. 58. pp. 72

- 76Pest Risk Assessment for Mango from Jamaica

Ver. 3 March 20 , 201 3 35 Johnson, G. I., I. F. Muirhead, and L. M. Rappel. 1989. Mango post

- harvest disease contr ol: a review of research in Australia, Malaysia and Thailand. ASEAN Food Journal, 4: 139

- 141. . Kishun, R., and R. Chand. 1989. Mechanical transmission of Xanthomonas campestris pv. mangiferaeindicae through insects. Indian Journal of Plant Pathology, 7: 1 12¬

- 114. Kosztarab, M. 1996. Scale Insects of Northeastern North America: Identification, biology, and distribution. Virginia Museum of Natural History, Martinsville. 650 pp. Kosztarab, M. 1997. Deciduous forest trees, pp. 347

- 355. In Y. Ben

- Dov and C. J. Hodgson [eds.], Soft Scale Insects: Their Biology, Natural Enemies and Control Vol. 7B. Elsevier,
Amsterdam. Laxminarayana, P., and S. M. Reddy. 1975. A new post

- harvest disease of mango. Indian Phytopathology 28(4):529

- 530. Liedo, P., and J. R. Carey. 199 6. Demography of fruit flies and implications to action programs,pp. 299

- 308. In B.A. McPheron and G.J. Steck (eds.). Fruit Fly Pests: A World Assessment of their Biology and Management. Delray Beach, FL: St. Lucie Press. Lim, T. K., K. Sijam, and E. T. On g. 1991. Bacterial black spot of mango, a new disease in Malaysia. Acta Horticulturae, 291: 317

- 323. Mack, R. N., D. Simberloff, W. M. Lonsdale, H. Evans, M. Clout, and F. A. Bazzaz. 2000. Biotic invasions: causes, epidemiology, global consequences, and co ntrol. Ecol. Appl. 10(3): 689

- 710. MAF. 2003. Australia mango datasheets. Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF), New
Zealand. http:/

/www.maf.govt.nz/biosecurity/imports/plants/standards/drafts/australia

mango

- datasheets

- draft.pdf

. MAFJA. 2009. Information Requested for A Pest Risk Analysis for Mango ( Mangifera indica ) from Jamaica to the United States of America. Plant Risk Analysis U nit, Plant Quarantine/Produce and Inspection, Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries. Magarey, R. D., D. M. Borchert, and J. Schlegel. 2008. Plant Hardiness Zones of the United States. Area and Population analysis. United States Department of Agriculture, A naimal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine, center for Plant Health Science and Technology, Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory (PERAL). Miller, D. R. 1985. Pest Risk Assessment of Armored Scales on Certain Frui t. Miller, D. R., V. L. Blackburn, J. A. Davidson, and W. F. Gimpel, Jr. 1985. Pest risk assessment of armored scales on certain fruit [report submitted to USDA, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine]. United States De partment of Agriculture (USDA), Agricultural Research Service (ARS), Beltsville, MD. 35 pp. Miller, D. R., G. L. Miller, and G. W. Watson. 2002. Invasive Species of Mealybugs (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) and their Threat to U. S. Agriculture. Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington 104(4):825

- 836. Miller, S. M. B. a. G. L. 2001. Aerial feeding aphids of corn in the united states with reference to
the root

- feeding Aphis maidiradicis (Homoptera: Aphididae). Fla. Entomol. 84: 83

- 98. Montoya, P., P. Liedo, B. Benrey, J. Cancino, J. F. Barrera, J. Sivinski, and M. Aluja. 2000. Biological control of Anastrepha spp. (Diptera: Tephritidae) in mango orchards through augmentative releases of Diachasmimorpha longicaudata (Ashmead) (Hymenoptera:
Braconidae ). Biological Control 18(3):216

- 224. Morton, J. F. 1987. Fruits of Warm Climates. Julia F. Morton, Miami, FL. 505 pp.Pest Risk Assessment for Mango from Jamaica

Ver. 3 March 20 , 201 3 36 Mossler, M. A., and O. N. Nesheim. 2002. Florida Crop/Pest Management Profile: Mango. CIR 1401, Pesticide Information Office, Food Science and Human Nutrition Department, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida. Last accessed 7 July 2010, http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/BODY_PI052

. . Mound, L. A., and S. H. Halsey. 1978. Whitefly of the world

- a systematic catalogue of the Aleyrodidae (Homoptera) with host plant and natural enemy data. British Museum of Natural History and John Wiley and Sons, Chichester. 340 pp. Nakasone, H. Y., an d R. E. Paull. 1998. Tropical fruits. CAB International, Oxon, UK. 445 pp. NGRP. 2010. Germplasm Resources Information Network

- (GRIN) [Online Database]. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Agricultural Research Service (ARS), National Germpla sm Resources Laboratory, National Genetic Resources Program (NGRP), Beltsville, Maryland. Last accessed July 10, 2010. http://www.ars

grin.gov/cgi¬bin/npgs/html/tax_search.p l?language=en Norrbom, A. L., and K. C. Kim. 1988. A list of the reported host plants of the species of Anastrepha (Diptera: Tephritidae). USDA

- APHIS 81

- 52. NRCS. 2010. The PLANTS Database. United States Depratment of Agriculture, Natural

Resources Conse rvation Service (NRCS), The National Plant Data center. http://plants.usda.gov . (Archived at PERAL). Ohashi, O. S., R. Dohara, R. A. Zucchi, and D. N. Canal. 1997. Occurrence of Anastrepha obliqua (Macquart) (Diptera: Tephritidae) on Malpighia punicifolia L. in Para state. An. Soc. Entomol. Brasil 26(2): 389

- 390. [in Portuguese; English summary]. Opler, P. A., K. Lotts, and T. Naberhaus. 2010. Butterflies and Moths of North America. Bozeman, MT: Big Sky Institute. http://www.butterfliesandmoths.org/ accessed July

2010. Parrella, M. P. 1987. Biology of Liriomyza . Annual Review of Entomology, 32, 201

- 224. Peña, J. E. 1997. An analysis of the pest management situation i n mango agroecosystems. Phytoparasitica 25(1):45

- 57. Peña, J. E., E. Palevsky, G. Otero

- Colina, R. Ochoa, and C. W. Meister. 2005. Mango bud mite , Aceria mangiferae bionomics and contol under Florida conditions. Proc. Fla. State Hort.

Soc. 118:228

- 234.

Pe ña, J. E., J. L. Sharp, and M. Wysoki. 2002. Tropical fruit pests and pollinators: Biology, economic importance, natural enemies and control. CABI Publishing, Wallingford; UK. viii + 430 pp. PERAL. 2007. Phytosanitary risks associated with armored scales i n commercial shipments of fruit for consumption to the United States, Revision Original. United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine, Center for Plant Health Science and Technology, P lant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory (PERAL), Raleigh, NC. 24 pp. PestID. 2010. Pest Identification Database (PestID). United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine. https://m okcs14.aphis.usda.gov/aqas/login.jsp. (Archived at PERAL). PestID. 2011. Pest Identification Database (PestID). United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine. (Archived at PERAL).Pest Risk Assessment for Mango from Jamaica

Ver. 3 March 20 , 201 3 37 Polla ck, S., and A. Perez. 2007. Fruit and Tree Nuts Situation and Outlook Yearbook 2007 (FTS¬2007). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Market and Trade Economics Division. 200 pp. PPQ. 2000. Guidelines for pathway

- initiated pest risk as sessments (Version 5.02) (November 2, 2007). United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Riverdale, MD. PPQ. 2011. Treatment Manual. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ), Washington, D.C. Last accessed Mayt 29, 2010 http://www.aphis.usda.gov/import_export/plants/manuals /ports/downloads/treatment.pdf (Archived at PERAL). PRF. 2004. Export Certification Project (EXCERPT) Database. Purdue Research Foundation. Pruvost, O., A. Couteau, and J. Luisetti. 1990. Development of bacterial black spot of mangoes and epiphytic popula tions of the pathogen ( Xanthomonas campestris pv. mangiferaeindicae ) under natural conditions in Reunion Island. Fruits Paris, 45: 125

- 140 Pruvost, O., and J. Luisetti. 1991. Effect of time of inoculation with Xanthomonas campestris pv. mangiferaeindicae on mango fruit’s susceptibility. Epiphytic survival of X. c. pv. mangiferaeindica on mango fruits in relation to disease development. Journal of Phytopathology, 133: 139

- 151. Reed, C. F. 1977. Economically important Foreign weeds, potential problems in the United States, Agriculture Handbook No. 489. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service. Washington, D.C. 746 pp. . Sakimura, K. 1986. Thrips in and around the coconut plantations in Jamaica, with a few taxonomic notes (Thysanoptera). F lorida Entomologist 69: 348

- 363. Sangchote, S., N. Farungsang, U. Farungsang, G. I. Johnson, and E. Highley. 1994. Factors affecting the incidence of stem

- end rot on mango. Development of postharvest handling technology for tropical tree fruits: a workshop held in Bangkok, Thailand, 16

- 18 July 1992.ACIAR Proceedings No. 58. pp. 80

- 83. Shekhawat, G. S., and P. N. Patel. 1975. Studies on bacterial canker of mango. Zeitschrift fur
Pflanzenkrankheiten und Pflanzenschutz 82: 129

- 138. Sosa, O., Jr, J. M. Shine, , Jr, and P. Y. P. Tai. 1997. West Indian cane weevil (Coleoptera: Curculionidae): a new pest of sugarcane in Florida. Journal of Economic Entomology 90(2):634

- 638. Tandon, P. L., and G. K. Veeresh. 1988. Inter

- tree spatial distribution of Coccus viridis (G reen) on mandarin. International Journal of Tropical Agriculture 6: 270

- 275. Toledo A., J., and J. R. Lara. 1996. Comparison of the biology of Anastrepha obliqua reared in mango ( Mangifera indica L.) and in mombin ( Spondias mombin ) infested under field

con ditions. Pages 359

- 362 in B. A. McPheron and G. J. Steck, (eds.). Fruit Fly Pests: A World Assessment of their Biology and Management. St. Lucie Press

. Delray Beach, FL.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2003. Census 2003 Summary File Section 1: Population. United State d Department of Commerce, Economics and Statitsics Administration. United States

Census Bureau. http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/03statab/pop.pdf . (Archived at PERAL).
USDA. 2010. Whit efly fauna of the world. Aleyrodidae: Key to stages and subfamilies.( http://keys.lucidcentral.org/keys/v3/whitefly/Aleurodicinae/Media/Html/Ale
urodicus.ht m ) Accessed Aug. 2010.Pest Risk Assessment for Mango from Jamaica

Ver. 3 March 20 , 201 3 38 USFWS. 2010. USFWS Threatened and Endangered Species System: Plant species. http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/SpeciesReport.do?dsource=plants

. Venette, R. C., and E. E. Davis. 2004. Mini Risk Assessment: Passionvine mealybug :
Planococcus mino r (Maskell) [Pseudococcidae: Hemiptera] http://www.a phis.usda.gov/plant_health/plant_pest_info/pest_detection/downl oads/pra/pminorpra.pdf] . Uninverity of Minnesota, St. Paul. Wagner, D. L., D. F. Schweitzer, J. Bolling Sullivan, and R. C. Reardon. 2008. Owlet Caterpillars of Eastern North America (Lepidopt era: Noctuidae). http://www.eeb.uconn.edu/people/wagner/USDA%20Noctuid%20Guide%20October%20 2008.pdf accessed July 2010. Waite, G. K. 2002. Pests and Pollinat ors of Mango. p. 103

- 129. In Pena, J., J. Sharp, and M. Wysoki. (eds.) Tropical fruit pests and pollinators: Biology, economical importance, natural enemies and control. CABI Publishing. 448 pp. White, I. M., and M. M. Elson

- Harris. 1992. Fruit Flies of Ec onomic Significance: Their identification and bionomics. CAB International, Wallingford, UK. 601 pp. Whitwell, A. C. 1993. The pests/predator/parasitoid complex on mango inflorescences in
Dominica. Acta Horticulturae 341: 421

- 432. Williamson, M., and A. Fi tter. 1996. The Varying Success of Invaders. Ecology 77:1661

– 1666. Zagatti, P., B. Lalanne

- Cassou, and J. le Duchat d'Aubigny. 2010. Catalogue des Lepidopteres des Antilles Francaises. Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique. http://www.inra.fr/papillon accessed July 2010.



### 5 . Appendices

Appendix A. Information about commodity and shipping Provided by the Jamaica Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, Plant Quarantine /Produce and Inspection, Plant Risk Analysis Unit (MOAF

- PQPI

- PRAU).

1. Commodity

The varieties of mangos for export initially would be Julie & East Indian Mangos

. Once the market opens it could command other mangos such as Black, Common or Number 11.
Taxonomic classification Plantae Sper matophyta Angiospermae Dicotyledonae
Anacardiaceae Mangifera indica Julie Plantae Spermatophyta Angiospermae Dicotyledonae
Anacardiaceae Mangifera indica
Linnaeus
Common name Julie mango East Indian mango Plant part Fruit

End use Consumption

Harvest time March to August Export time Within 24 hours of harvestingPest Risk Assessment for Mango from Jamaica

Ver. 3 March 20 , 201 3 39 Origin: Mangos have numerous species growing in the tropics. It is indigenous to Pakistan, Bangladesh, India and Southeast Asia.

Description : Mango trees ( Mangifera indica ) reach 35

- 40 m in height, with a crown radius of 10m. Its taproots can descend to a depth of 24 ft and the profuse, wide

- spreading feeder roots also send down many anchor roots which penetrate for several feet. Mangos will grow in almost any well

- drained soil, whether sa ndy, loam or clay with a pH between 5.5 and 7.5 for optimum grow. Organic fertilizers with high Nitrogen content are especially important for good flower production. The fruit grows at the end of a long string

- like ‘stem’ (former panicle), with two or

more fruits to a ‘stem’. The fruits are up to nine (9) inches long and may be kidney shaped, ovate or (rarely) round. They range in mass from two hundred and twenty

- seven (227) grams to around six hundred and eighty (680) grams. Harvesting period: The fruit t akes three (3) to six (6) months to ripen from a mature tree. The ripe fruit is variable in size and colour. It may be yellow, orange, red or green depending on the cultivar. It is grown island wide and bears mainly in the summer months (March to August).

Distribution: Mangos grow island

- wide, from backyards to farms. See map ( A ppendix A ) , identifying major mango production areas ( FAO, 2009 ). Areas from where Island Fresh Limited currently collects mangos are highl ighted.

Current exports : Mango exports in 2008 totaled 181

, 338.30 kilograms (28

, 156 units) of Julie
and 113

, 242.23 kilograms (4

, 123 units) of East Indian. Jamaica currently exports mainly to the
UK and Canada.

2

. Shipping

Table A1. Shipping Variety Jul ie mango East Indian mango Projected quantity (per year) 110

, 350 lbs

About 16

, 000 dozen

14

, 000 boxes 18

, 000 lbs
About 1

, 800 dozen

6

, 300 boxes Projected quantity (per trip) 200 boxes

2

, 200 lbs 90 boxes

2

, 700 lbs Conveyance 11 lb box

normally 15

– 17 m angos per box 30 lb box normally 2.5 to 3 dozen mangos per box

Method of shipment : Estimated number of trips per year is seventy

- two (72). The mangos will be air freighted. The mangos are placed in new cardboard boxes, which are packed into LD3 (airpl ane container). For the Julie mangos , 300 boxes can fit in the container while for the East
Indian mangos , 100 boxes can fit in a container.Pest Risk Assessment for Mango from Jamaica

Ver. 3 March 20 , 201 3 40 3. Map of Jamaica * Showing locations of mango tree orchards

Point where mango tree orchards are located

. P rovided by Google Earth, Europa Technologies ( DigitalGlobe, 2009 ).Pest Risk Assessment for Mango from Jamaica

Ver. 3 March 20 , 201 3 41 Appendix B

. Pests associated with mango e s

Table B1

. Quaranine pests associated with mango that DID NOT follow the pathway Taxonomy Pest Scientific Name Plant Part(s) Association Arthropods Coleoptera: Bostric hidae Apatus monachus Fabricius Stem ( Peña, 1997 ) Coleoptera: Coccinellidae Praelongorthezia praelonga (Douglas) Leaf ( Ben

- Dov et al., 2010 )

Coleoptera: Curculionidae Diaprepes abbreviatus (L.) Leaf, Root (CAB I, 2007) Metamasius hemipterus (L.) Stem, Leaf ( CABI, 2007 )

Pachnaeus citri Marshall Leaf, Root ( Peña, 1997 ) Coleoptera: Scarabeidae Macraspis tetradacty la ( Linnaeus ) Leaf, Infloresecence ( MAFJA,
2009 ) Diptera: Cecidomyidae Erosomyia mangifera Felt Fruit ( Peña, 1997 ) Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae Aleurocanthus woglumi Ashb y Leaf, Fruit (CABI, 2007) Aleurodicus dispersus Russell Leaf, Fruit ( CABI, 2007 ) Hemiptera: Coccidae Ceroplastes rubens Maskell Stem (CABI, 2007) Vinsonia stellifera ( Westwood) Leaf, Stem ( Peña et al., 2002 ; MAFJA, 2009 ) Hemiptera: Diaspididae Fiorinia proboscidaria Green Leaf, Stem (Ben

- Dov et al., 2010)

Parlatoria cinerea Hadden in
Doane & Hadden Leaf, Stem ( Ben

- Dov et al., 2010) Hemiptera:
Pseudococcidae Maconellicoccus hirsutus (Green) Whole Plant (Frank and Baker, 1998) Thysanoptera: Thripidae Frankliniella cubensis Hood Flower ( Peña, 1997 ) Scirtothrips dorsalis Hood Leaf, Flower, Fruit (CABI, 2007) Thrips palmi Fruit, Flower, Leaf (CABI, 2007) Fungi Pestalotiopsis funerea (Desm.) Steyaert ( = Pestalotia funerea) Leaf ( MAFJA, 2009 )

Phyllosticta sp. Leaf ( MAFJA, 2009 ) Phytophthora sp. Root ( MAFJA, 2009 )

Nematodes Meloidogyne sp. Root ( MAFJA, 2009 ) Pratylenchus sp. Root ( MAFJA, 2009 ) Rotylenchulus sp. Root ( MAFJA, 2009 ) Tylenchorhynchus sp. Root ( MAFJA, 2009 ) Xiphinema sp. Root ( MAFJA, 2009 )Pest Risk Assessment for Mango from Jamaica

Ver. 3 March 20 , 201 3 42 Table B2

. Pest interceptions at U.S. ports

- of

- entry on mango, Mangifera indica , from all countries as reported in the Pest Identifi cation Database from 1985

- 2010 (PestID, 2010).

Pest Interceptions (no.) Abgrallaspis sp. (Diaspididae) 1

Aclerda sacchari Teague (Aclerdidae) 2 Acrolophus sp. (Acrolophidae) 1 Acutaspis albopicta (Cockerell) (Diaspididae) 65 Acutaspis sp. (Diaspidida e) 3

Adoretus sinicus Burmeister (Scarabaeidae) 1

Aeolus sp. (Elateridae) 1 Agromyzidae, species of 7

Aleurocanthus husaini Corbett (Aleyrodidae) 1

Aleurocanthus sp. (Aleyrodidae) 2 Aleurocanthus woglumi Ashby (Aleyrodidae) 4 Aleurodicus dispersus R ussell (Aleyrodidae) 2

Aleurodicus ornatus Cockerell (Aleyrodidae) 1

Aleurotrachelus sp. (Aleyrodidae) 1 Aleurotuberculatus psidii (Singh) (Aleyrodidae) 1 Aleyrodidae, species of 1 Amphideritus sp. (Curculionidae) 1

Anacentrinus sp. (Curculionidae) 1 Anastrepha ludens (Loew) (Tephritidae) 46 Anastrepha obliqua (Macquart) (Tephritidae) 6 Anastrepha serpentina (Wiedemann) (Tephritidae) 1 Anastrepha sp. (Tephritidae) 16,285 Anaxipha sp. (Gryllidae) 1

Anomala sp. (Scarabaeidae) 9

Aonidiella inornat a Mckenzie (Diaspididae) 2

Aonidiella orientalis (Newstead) (Diaspididae) 1

Aonidiella sp. (Diaspididae) 3 Aphididae, species of 2 Aphis gossypii Glover (Aphididae) 1 Apion sp. (Apionidae) 1

Araecerus sp. (Anthribidae) 1 Aspidiella hartii (Cockerell ) (Diaspididae) 1 Aspidiotus sp. (Diaspididae) 1

Asterolecanium sp. (Asterolecaniidae) 5 Aulacaspis murrayae Takahashi (Diaspididae) 4 Aulacaspis sp. (Diaspididae) 9 Aulacaspis tubercularis Newstead (Diaspididae) 13,613
Aztecariella iarae Carvalho (M iridae) 1Pest Risk Assessment for Mango from Jamaica

Ver. 3 March 20 , 201 3 43 Pest Interceptions (no.)

Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel) (Tephritidae) 282

Bactrocera sp. (Tephritidae) 172 Bagisara graellsii (Feisthamel) (Noctuidae) 2

Batocera sp. (Cerambycidae) 3 Berecynthus hastator (Fabricius) (Pentatomidae) 1 Blapstinus sp. (Tenebrionidae) 401 Bruchus rufimanus Boheman (Bruchidae) 1 Carposinidae, species of 3 Cataenococcus hispidus (Morrison) (Pseudococcidae) 1

Cataenococcus sp. (Pseudococcidae) 1 Cerambycidae, species of 9 Ceratitini, species of (Tephritidae) 7 Ceratitis capitata (Wiede mann) (Tephritidae) 16

Ceratitis sp. (Tephritidae) 2 Ceroplastes rubens Maskell (Coccidae) 6 Chaetothyrina sp. 1

Chalcodermus sp. (Curculionidae) 2 Chrysomelidae, species of 1 Chrysomphalus pinnulifer (Maskell) (Diaspididae) 1 Chrysomphalus sp. (Dia spididae) 2 Cicadellidae, species of 5 Cladosporium sp. (Hyphomycetes) 10 Clavaspis sp. (Diaspididae) 1 Coccidae, species of 45

Coccus moestus De Lotto (Coccidae) 2 Coccus psidii (Green) (Coccidae) 3

Coccus sp. (Coccidae) 7

Coccus viridis (Green) ( Coccidae) 12 Colaspis sp. (Chrysomelidae) 3

Colletotrichum sp. (Coelomycetes) 3 Conoderus flavangulus Candeze (Elateridae) 1 Conoderus pictus (Candeze) (Elateridae) 2

Conoderus sinaloae (Candeze) (Elateridae) 2

Conoderus sp. (Elateridae) 10

Conotrac helus sp. (Curculionidae) 14

Contarinia sp. (Cecidomyiidae) 3 Crambidae, species of 4 Craspeduchus pulchellus (Fabricius) (Lygaeidae) 1

Crisicoccus sp. (Pseudococcidae) 1 Cryphula sp. (Rhyparochromidae) 1 Cryptophlebia sp. (Tortricidae) 3 Cryptorhyn chus sp. (Curculionidae) 4Pest Risk Assessment for Mango from Jamaica

Ver. 3 March 20 , 201 3 44 Pest Interceptions (no.)

Curculio sp. (Curculionidae) 1 Curculionidae, species of 28 Cyclocephala mafaffa Burmeister (Scarabaeidae) 1 Cyclocephala sp. (Scarabaeidae) 57 Cylindrocopturus sp. (Curculionidae) 1 Dactynotus sp. (Aphididae) 1

Dacus dors alis Hendel (Tephritidae) 213

Dacus sp. (Tephritidae) 113

Delia sp. (Anthomyiidae) 1 Delphacidae, species of 1 Diabrotica undecimpunctata duodecimnotata Harold (Chrysomelidae) 1 Diaspididae, species of 54 Diaspis boisduvalii Signoret (Diaspididae) 1 Diceroprocta sp. (Cicadidae) 1 Dichroplus sp. (Acrididae) 1 Diphaulaca sp. (Chrysomelidae) 2 Diplotaxis sp. (Scarabaeidae) 22 Diptera, species of 13 Discocephalessa humilis (Herrich

- Schaeffer) (Pentatomidae) 1 Disonycha sp. (Chrysomelidae) 1

Drosic ha sp. (Margarodidae) 1 Dyscinetus sp. (Scarabaeidae) 1 Dysdercus andreae (Linnaeus) (Pyrrhocoridae) 1 Dysdercus sp. (Pyrrhocoridae) 2 Dysmicoccus neobrevipes Beardsley (Pseudococcidae) 6 Dysmicoccus sp. (Pseudococcidae) 1

Eburia sp. (Cerambycidae) 3 Ecdytolopha sp. (Tortricidae) 3 Elateridae, species of 1

Elsinoe sp. (Elsinoaceae) 1 Epicauta sp. (Meloidae) 1 Euphoria sp. (Scarabaeidae) 2 Euphrytus sp. (Chrysomelidae) 7

Euschistus sp. (Pentatomidae) 1

Ferrisia sp. (Pseudococcidae) 1

Fiorinia sp. (Diaspididae) 1 Gelechiidae, species of 6

Gnorimoschema sp. (Gelechiidae) 1 Golofa sp. (Scarabaeidae) 2 Gracillariidae, species of 1 Gryllidae, species of 1Pest Risk Assessment for Mango from Jamaica

Ver. 3 March 20 , 201 3 45 Pest Interceptions (no.) Gryllus capitatus Saussure (Gryllidae) 1 Gryllus sp. (Gryllidae) 16

Harmostes sp. (Rhop alidae) 1

Hemiberlesia lataniae (Signoret) (Diaspididae) 1 Hendecasis duplifascialis Hampson (Crambidae) 2

Heterodera sp. (Heteroderidae) 1

Holocranum sp. (Artheneidae) 1 Homoptera, species of 1 Hyperodes sp. (Curculionidae) 1 Hypothenemus sp. (Scol ytidae) 2 Icerya sp. (Margarodidae) 4 Imperata cylindrica (Linnaeus) Beauvois (Poaceae) 1 Ips sp. (Scolytidae) 1 Kalotermitidae, species of 1 Kilifia deltoides Delotto (Coccidae) 1 Kilifia sp. (Coccidae) 1 Lepidoptera, species of 2 Lepidosaphes lat erochitinosa Green (Diaspididae) 1 Lepidosaphes similis Beardsley (Diaspididae) 6 Lepidosaphes sp. (Diaspididae) 2 Lepidosaphes tapleyi Williams (Diaspididae) 15 Leptostylus sp. (Cerambycidae) 1 Lepturges sp. (Cerambycidae) 2 Ligyrus sp. (Scarabaeida e) 4 Lindingaspis fusca Mckenzie (Diaspididae) 2 Lindingaspis musae (Laing) (Diaspididae) 2 Lindingaspis sp. (Diaspididae) 1 Lindingaspis tingi Mckenzie (Diaspididae) 2 Liothrips sp. (Phlaeothripidae) 1 Lissorhoptrus sp. (Erirhinidae) 1

Listroderes sp. (Curculionidae) 1

Listronotus bonariensis (Kuschel) (Curculionidae) 1

Listronotus sp. (Curculionidae) 38 Lobometopon sp. (Tenebrionidae) 1 Lonchaeidae, species of 4 Lycaenidae, species of 1 Lygaeoidea, species of 2

Maconellicoccus hirsutus (Gree n) (Pseudococcidae) 1 Macropygium reticulare (Fabricius) (Pentatomidae) 1 Margarodidae, species of 2 Melanaspis sp. (Diaspididae) 2 Membracidae, species of 1Pest Risk Assessment for Mango from Jamaica

Ver. 3 March 20 , 201 3 46 Pest Interceptions (no.)

Metachroma barahonense Blake (Chrysomelidae) 1

Metachroma melanochrotum Blake (Chrysomelidae ) 1

Metachroma sp. (Chrysomelidae) 1

Microcentrum sp. (Tettigoniidae) 1 Microcentrum triangulatum (Brunner) (Tettigoniidae) 1 Minthea rugicollis (Walker) (Bostrichidae) 1 Miridae, species of 1 Mycetaspis sp. (Diaspididae) 1 Neopamera sp. (Rhyparochr omidae) 2 Nipaecoccus viridis (Newstead) (Pseudococcidae) 1 Noctuidae, species of 3 Nysius sp. (Lygaeidae) 3 Ochropepla sp. (Membracidae) 1 Octaspidiotus stauntoniae (Takahashi) (Diaspididae) 2

Oebalus insularis (Stal) (Pentatomidae) 5 Oecophoridae, species of 1 Ogdoecosta sp. (Chrysomelidae) 1 Oligonychus sp. (Tetranychidae) 2 Pachybrachis sp. (Chrysomelidae) 1 Pachycoris fabricii (Linnaeus) (Scutelleridae) 1

Pandeleteius sp. (Curculionidae) 1 Pangaeus rugiceps Horvath (Cydnidae) 1

Parabemisi a sp. (Aleyrodidae) 1

Parlatoria blanchardi (Targioni

- Tozzetti) (Diaspididae) 1

Parlatoria cinerea Hadden (Diaspididae) 2 Parlatoria crypta Mckenzie (Diaspididae) 31

Parlatoria sp. (Diaspididae) 2 Parlatoria ziziphi (Lucas) (Diaspididae) 6

Parthenicu s sp. (Miridae) 1

Pealius sp. (Aleyrodidae) 1

Pelidnota sp. (Scarabaeidae) 8 Pentatomidae, species of 1 Pestalotiopsis sp. (Coelomycetes) 5

Pheidole sp. (Formicidae) 1 Phelypera distigma (Boheman) (Curculionidae) 2 Phenacaspis cockerell (Copley) (D iaspididae) 1

Phenacoccus sp. (Pseudococcidae) 5 Philephedra lutea (Cockerell) (Coccidae) 1

Phileurus sp. (Scarabaeidae) 1

Phoma sp. (Coelomycetes) 1 Phycitinae, species of (Pyralidae) 10 Phyllophaga sp. (Scarabaeidae) 6Pest Risk Assessment for Mango from Jamaica

Ver. 3 March 20 , 201 3 47 Pest Interceptions (no.) Phyllosticta anacardiacearu m Aa (Coelomycetes) 6 Phyllostictina sp. (Coelomycetes) 1 Pinnaspis sp. (Diaspididae) 1

Planococcoides robustus Ezzat & Mcconnell (Pseudococcidae) 1

Planococcus lilacinus (Cockerell) (Pseudococcidae) 10

Planococcus minor (Maskell) (Pseudococcidae) 8

Planococcus sp. (Pseudococcidae) 7 Premnotrypes sp. (Curculionidae) 1 Protopulvinaria longivalvata Green (Coccidae) 1 Protopulvinaria sp. (Coccidae) 1 Prytanes sp. (Rhyparochromidae) 4

Pseudaonidia sp. (Diaspididae) 7 Pseudaonidia trilobitiformis (Gr een) (Diaspididae) 2,219 Pseudaulacaspis cockerelli (Cooley) (Diaspididae) 1 Pseudaulacaspis sp. (Diaspididae) 13 Pseudischnaspis acephala Ferris (Diaspididae) 1 Pseudischnaspis sp. (Diaspididae) 1 Pseudococcidae, species of 134

Pseudococcus sp. (Ps eudococcidae) 12 Psyllidae, species of 2

Pulvinaria sp. (Coccidae) 3 Pycnarthrum sp. (Scolytidae) 1 Pyralidae, species of 17 Pyraustinae, species of (Crambidae) 14 Pyroderces sp. (Cosmopterigidae) 1 Rastrococcus iceryoides (Green) (Pseudococcidae) 1

Rastrococcus sp. (Pseudococcidae) 2 Rhipiphorothrips pulchellus Morgan (Thripidae) 1 Rhopalidae, species of 1 Rhyssomatus sp. (Curculionidae) 2

Saissetia sp. (Coccidae) 2
Saissetia zanzibarensis Williams (Coccidae) 1 Saturniidae, species of 1

Scar abaeidae, species of 3 Scolytidae, species of 1 Scythrididae, species of 1 Septoria sp. (Coelomycetes) 1 Sphaceloma perseae Jenk. (Coelomycetes) 2 Sphenophorus sp. (Dryophthoridae) 1 Stemphylium sp. (Hyphomycetes) 1 Steriphanus sp. (Tenebrionidae) 1 Sternochetus frigidus (Fabricius) (Curculionidae) 2Pest Risk Assessment for Mango from Jamaica

Ver. 3 March 20 , 201 3 48 Pest Interceptions (no.) Sternochetus mangiferae (Fabricius) (Curculionidae) 4,863

Sternochetus olivieri Faust (Curculionidae) 36

Sternochetus sp. (Curculionidae) 171 Stomiopeltis sp. 3 Strigoderma sp. (Scarabaeidae) 1 Sy bra sp. (Cerambycidae) 1 Syrphidae, species of 2

Tarsonemus sp. (Tarsonemidae) 1 Tenebrionidae, species of 1

Tenthecoris orchidearum (Reuter) (Miridae) 1 Tephritidae, species of 397

Tetraleurodes sp. (Aleyrodidae) 2 Tetranychidae, species of 3

Tet tigoniidae, species of 1 Thripidae, species of 1 Thrips palmi Karny (Thripidae) 1 Thyrididae, species of 1

Tominotus sp. (Cydnidae) 1 Tortricidae, species of 1 Trachyderes succinctus (Linnaeus) (Cerambycidae) 1

Tridax sp. (Asteraceae) 1

Trioza sp. (Psyllidae) 2 Trupanea bisetosa Coquillett (Tephritidae) 1 Tychius sp. (Curculionidae) 1 Tyloderma sp. (Curculionidae) 1

Udinia catori (Green) (Coccidae) 6

Ulus sp. (Tenebrionidae) 17 Unaspis yanonensis (Kuwana) (Diaspididae) 1

Veronicella sp. (Ver onicellidae) 1 Vinsonia stellifera (Westwood) (Coccidae) 64 Xyleborus sp. (Scolytidae) 1Pest Risk Assessment for Mango from Jamaica

Ver. 3 March 20 , 201 3 49 Appen d ix C: Quarantine pests found on Mango s in Jamaica

Table C1

. Quarantine pests found on Mango fruit in Jamaica Taxonomy Pest Scientific

Name Reported on

mango Jamaica and US

Distribution Plant parts

association

ARTHROPODS Coleoptera:
Bostrichidae Apatus monachus Peña, 1997 Jamaica ( CA BI, 2011) Stem ( Peña, 1997 )

Coleoptera:
Coccinellidae Praelongorthezia

praelonga Ben

- Dov et

al., 2010 JA ( Ben

- Dov et

al., 2010 ) Leaf ( Ben

- Dov et

al., 2010 )

Coleoptera:
Curculionidae Diaprepes

abbreviatus Peña, 1997 JA, US (FL, MS) ( CABI, 2007 ) Leaf, Roo t (CABI,

2007)

Metamasius hemipterus CABI, 2007 JA, US (FL) ( CABI, 2007 ) Stem, Leaf ( CABI,

2007 )

Pachnaeus citri Peña, 1997 JA ( CABI, 2007 ) Leaf, Root ( Peña,
1997 ) Coleoptera:
Scarabeidae Macraspis

tetradactyla MAFJA,

2009 JA ( MAFJA,

2009 ) Leaf,

Infloresecence ( MAFJA, 2009 ) Diptera: Agromyzidae Agromyzidae sp. PestID, 2010 JA (PestID, 2010) Leaf ( Parrella,
1987 ) Diptera: Cecidomyidae Erosomyia mangifera Peña, 1997 JA ( Peña, 1997 ) Fruit ( Peña, 1997 )

Asynapta sp. Peña, 1997 JA ( Peña, 1997 ) Fruit ( Peña, 1997 ) Diptera: Tephritidae Anastrepha obliqua Peña, 1997 JA ( MAFJA,
2009 ) Fruit ( MAFJA,

2009 ) Anastrepha suspensa Peña, 1997 JA ( MAFJA,
2009 ), US (FL) ( CABI, 2007 ) Fruit ( MAFJA,

2009 ), US ( CABI,
2007 )

Diptera: Aleyrodidae Aleurocanthus

woglumi CABI, 2007 JA ( MAFJA,
2009 ), US (HI, FL, TX) ( CABI,
2007 ) Leaf, Stem, Fruit

(CABI, 2007)

Aleurodicus dispensus CABI, 2007 JA ( USDA, 2010 ); US (FL) ( CA BI,
2007 ) Leaf, Stem, Fruit

(CABI, 2007)

Hemiptera:
Coccidae Ceroplastes rubens Peña et al.,

2002 JA, US (FL, HI)

(CABI, 2007) Stem (CABI,

2007)

Coccus moestus Peña, 1997 JA (Ben

- Dov et al., 2010) Fruit, Leaf, Stem

(Ben

- Dov et al.,Pest Risk Assessment for Mango from Jamaica

Ver. 3 March 20 , 201 3 50 Taxonomy Pest Scientific

Name Reported on

mango Jamaica and US

Distribution Plant parts

association
2010; Peña, 1997 )
Saissetia sp. PestID, 2010 J A (PestID, 2010) Leaf, Stem, Fruit (Ben

- Dov et al., 2010; Peña, 1997 ) Vinsonia stellifera MAFJA,

2009 JA ( MAFJA,

2009 ); US (AL, FL, GA) (Ben Dov et al., 2010) Leaf, Stem ( Peña

et al., 2002 ; MAFJA, 2 009 )

Hemiptera: Diaspididae Aulacapsis

tubercularis CABI, 2007 JA, US (FL, PR, USVI) (CABI, 2007) Fruit, Leaf, Stem

( MAFJA, 2009 )

Florinia proboscidaria Ben

- Dov et

al., 2010 JA (Ben

- Dov et

al., 2010) Leaf, Stem (Ben

Dov et al., 2010)

Parlatoria cinerea Ben

- Dov et

al., 2010 JA ( Ben

- Dov et

al., 2010) Leaf, Stem ( Ben

Dov et al., 2010)

Pseudaonidia trilobitiformis MAFJA,

2009 JA ( MAFJA,

2009 ); US (FL) ( Ben

- Dov et al.,

2010 ) Fruit, Leaf

( MAFJA, 2009 )

Hemiptera:
Pseudococcidae Dymicoccus sp MAFJA,
2009 JA ( MAFJA,

2009 ) Whole Plant

( Frank and Baker,
1998 )
Dymicoccus neobrevipes Ben

- Dov et

al., 2010 ; CABI, 2007 JA (Ben

- Dov et

al., 2010); US (CABI, 2007) F,L, R,S

Ben

- Dov et al.,

2010 ; CABI, 2007

Maconellicoccus
hirsutus MAFJA,

2009 JA ( MAFJA,

2009 ); US (CA, FL) (CABI, 2007) Whole Plant

(Frank and Baker, 1998)
Nipaecoccus nipae CABI, 2007 JA, US (CABI, 2007) F,I, L,S

CABI, 2007

Planococcus minor CABI, 2010 ;

Venette and Davis, 2004 JA ( Venette and

Davis, 2004 ); US (CABI, 2007) F,L,R,S

CABI, 2010

Thysanoptera: Thripidae Frankliniella

cubensis Peña, 1997 JA, US (FL) ( Sakimura, 1986 ) Flower ( Peña, 1997 )

Scirtothrips dorsalis Edwards et

al., 2005 ; CABI, 2007 JA ( Edwards et

al., 2005 ); US (FL, HI) (CABI, 2007) Leaf, Flower, Fruit

(C ABI, 2007)

Thrips palmi Peña, 1997 JA, US (FL) (CABI, 2007) Fruit, Flower, Leaf

(CABI, 2007)

BACTERIAPest Risk Assessment for Mango from Jamaica

Ver. 3 March 20 , 201 3 51 Taxonomy Pest Scientific

Name Reported on

mango Jamaica and US

Distribution Plant parts

association

Xanthomonas campestris pv.

m angiferaeindicae MAFJA,

2009 JA ( MAFJA,

2009 ) Fruit, F lower, Leaf

( MAFJA, 2009

F UNGI

Altenaria sp. PestID, 2010 JA ( PestID, 2010 ) Fruit ( PestID,
2010 ) Pestalotiopsis funerea MAFJA,

2009 JA ( MAFJA,

2009 ) Leaf ( MAFJA,

2009 ) Phomopsis mangiferae MAFJA,

2009 JA ( MAFJA,

2009 ) Fruit ( MAFJA,

2009 ) Phyllosticta sp. MAFJA,

2009 JA ( MAFJA,

2009 ) Leaf ( MAFJA,

2009 ) Phytophthora sp. MAFJA,

2009 JA ( MAFJA,

2009 ) Root ( MAFJA,

2009 )

Sclerotium sp. MAFJA,

2009 JA ( MAFJA,

2009 ) Fruit, Stem

( MAFJA, 2009 )

NEMATODA Meloidogyne sp. MAFJA,
2009 JA ( MAFJA,

2009 ) Root ( MAFJA,

2009 )
Pratylenchus sp. MAFJA,

2009 JA ( MAFJA,

2009 ) Root ( MAFJA,

2009 ) Rothylenchus sp. MAFJA,

2009 JA( MAFJA, 2009 ) Root ( MAFJA,
2009 ) Tylechorhynchus sp

. MAFJA,

2009 JA ( MAFJA,

2009 ) Root ( MAFJA,

2009 ) Xiphinema sp MAFJA,

2009 US JA ( MAFJA,

2009 ) Root ( MAFJA,

2009 )