Importation of Mango Fruit, Mangifera indica, from Jamaica into 

the Continental United States

A Qualitative, Pathway-Initiated Risk Assessment

March 20, 2013

Version 3

Agency Contact:

Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory

Center for Plant Health Science and Technology

United States Department of Agriculture

Animal and Plant health Inspection Service

Plant Protection and Quarantine

Raleigh, NC 27606 
Pest Risk Assessment for Mango from Jamaica 

Ver. 3 March 20, 2013 i

Executive Summary

In this analysis, we examine the risks associated with the importation of mango 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 pathway, 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)

Bacteria:

Xanthomonas campestris pv. mangiferaeindicae

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 Introduction, and used these elements to estimate the Pest Risk Potential. All of these 

pests pose phytosanitary risks to U.S. agriculture.

The Pest Risk Potential was High for Anastrepha obliqua and A. suspensa, and Medium for 

Coccus moestus, Phomopsis mangifera, and Xanthomonas campestris pv. mangiferaeindicae.

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 beyond port-of-entry inspection may be necessary for pests with Medium risk.

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 these 

pests on mango.
Pest Risk Assessment for Mango from Jamaica 

Ver. 3 March 20, 2013 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 Interceptions .......................................................................... 2

2.4. Pest Categorization .............................................................................................................. 7

2.5. Quarantine Pests Likely to Follow the Pathway................................................................ 22

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

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

Ver. 3 March 20, 2013 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 commercially 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 with 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 international 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 probabilities 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 not 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, 2013 2

2. Risk Assessment 

2.1. Initiating 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 the 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 pestinitiated 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 regions 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 there 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 already grown in the United States. Consequently, the

weed potential is low

2.3. Previous Decisions and Pest Interceptions
Pest Risk Assessment for Mango from Jamaica 

Ver. 3 March 20, 2013 3

2.3.1. Current status

Fruit for consumption may enter the continental United or its territories from Anguila, Antigua 

and Barbuda, Bahamas, Brazil, Cayman Islands, Chile, Costa Rica, Curacao, Dominican 

Republic, Ecuador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, India, Jamaia, Mexico, Netherlands Antilles, 

Nicaragua, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Martin, Taiwan, Turks and 

Caicos Islands, and Venezuela (Table 2). Entry is not authorized from any other countries or 

territories (APHIS, 2011; PPQ, 2011).

2.3.2. Pest interceptions

In Appendix B, we list the pest interceptions at U.S. ports-of-entry on mango from all countries 

since 1985 (PestID, 2010). From 1985 through 2010, several pests have been intercepted on 

mangos from Jamaica (Table 3).

Table 2. Countries or regions 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 (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

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 Mediterranean fruit 

fly (Ceratitis capitata)."
Pest Risk Assessment for Mango from Jamaica 

Ver. 3 March 20, 2013 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. Each 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 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)." 

Haiti 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. 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)."
Pest Risk Assessment for Mango from Jamaica 

Ver. 3 March 20, 2013 5

Country or Region Requirement for entry

Haiti 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 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)."

India 1) 400 Gy irradiation (T105-a-2); 2) phytosanitary 

certificate with two additional declarations stating that 

"the mangos were subjected to one of the pre- or postharvest mitigation options described in 7 CFR §319.56-

46" and "the mangos were inspected during preclearance 

activities and found free of Cytopshaera mangiferae, 

Macrophoma mangiferae, 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-a1. 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 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, 2013 6

Country or Region Requirement for entry

Pakistan 1) A signed Compliance Agreement is required for 

irradiation treatment conducted in the 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) Mangoes 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 statement 

"APHIS-USDA treated with (HOT WATER, VAPOR 

HEAT, HIGH TEMPERATURE FORCED AIR)."

Philippines 1) Vapor heat treatment (T106-d-1) for Bactrocera 

occipitalis, B. cucurbitae, and B. philippinensis; 2) 

phytosanitary certificate with two additional declarations 

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) Permitted entry into Guam & Hawaii ports only; 2) 

vapor heat treatment (T106-d-1) for Bactrocera 

occipitalis, B. cucurbitae, and B. philippinensis; 3) 

phytosanitary certificate with additional declaration that 

"the mangos have been treated for fruit flies of the genus 

Bactrocera in accordance with 7 CFR 319.56.33(b)"; 4) 

boxes must be marked "for distribution in Guam and 

Hawaii only."

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 requirements of 7 CFR 

319.56-3
Pest Risk Assessment for Mango from Jamaica 

Ver. 3 March 20, 2013 7

Country or Region Requirement for entry

Taiwan 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 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 treated 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 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)."

Table 3. Pest interceptions on mango from Jamaica entering the United States (1985-2010).

Pest Interceptions (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 Pseudococcidae (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 methodology

Below we list the pests associated with Mangifera indica in 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 reference(s) that report the pest on the host, 4) 
Pest Risk Assessment for Mango from Jamaica 

Ver. 3 March 20, 2013 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 distribution, 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, 2009). 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 indica) in any country and present in Jamaica on any host. 

Pests in shaded rows were selected for further analysis.

Pest Scientific Name Distribution1 Reported on 

Mango

Quarantine Pest2Plant Part(s) 

Association

Follow 

Pathway2

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 (Peña, 

1997)

No

Coleoptera: Coccinellidae

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.

2For 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, 2013 9

Pest Scientific Name Distribution1 Reported on 

Mango

Quarantine Pest2Plant Part(s) 

Association

Follow 

Pathway2

Coleoptera: Curculionidae

Diaprepes abbreviatus 

(L.)

JA, US (FL, MS) 

(CABI, 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 mangifera 

Felt

JA (Peña, 1997) Peña, 1997 Yes Fruit (Peña, 

1997)

No4

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 the 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 fruit, which they leave after 10 to 14 days (Waite, 2002). The pest is

therefore unlikely to follow the pathway of mature mango fruit.
Pest Risk Assessment for Mango from Jamaica 

Ver. 3 March 20, 2013 10

Pest Scientific Name Distribution1 Reported on 

Mango

Quarantine Pest2Plant Part(s) 

Association

Follow 

Pathway2

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)

No5

Aleurodicus dispersus 

Russell

JA (USDA, 

2010); US (FL)

(CABI, 2007)

CABI, 2007 [Yes] Fruit, Leaf

(CABI, 2007)

No5

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)

Peña, 1997 No N/A N/A

Hemiptera: Asterolecaniidae

Russellaspis pustulans

Cockrell

JA (MAFJA, 

2009); US (BenDov 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 (BenDov 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, 2013 11

Pest Scientific Name Distribution1 Reported on 

Mango

Quarantine Pest2Plant Part(s) 

Association

Follow 

Pathway2

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

No 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 (BenDov 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)

CABI, 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 (CABI, 

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/A
Pest Risk Assessment for Mango from Jamaica 

Ver. 3 March 20, 2013 12

Pest Scientific Name Distribution1 Reported on 

Mango

Quarantine Pest2Plant Part(s) 

Association

Follow 

Pathway2

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 aurantii 

(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

Aspidiotus 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)

Yes6

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 

et 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, 2013 13

Pest Scientific Name Distribution1 Reported on 

Mango

Quarantine Pest2Plant Part(s) 

Association

Follow 

Pathway2

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., 

2010)

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

(Comstock) 

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

Yes 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

Pinnaspis strachani

(Cooley)

JA, US (CABI, 

2007)

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

Ver. 3 March 20, 2013 14

Pest Scientific Name Distribution1 Reported on 

Mango

Quarantine Pest2Plant Part(s) 

Association

Follow 

Pathway2

Pseudaonidia 

trilobitiformis 

(Green)

JA ( MAFJA, 

2009); US (FL) 

(Ben-Dov et al., 

2010)

MAFJA, 2009 [Yes] Fruit, Leaf

(MAFJA, 2009)

Yes6

Pseudaulacaspis 

pentagona (TargioniTozzetti) 

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

Radionaspis 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 (BenDov 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

Dysmicoccus 

neobrevipes 

Beardsley

JA (Ben-Dov et 

al., 2010); US 

(CABI, 2007)

Ben-Dov et al., 

2010; CABI, 

2007

[Yes] Fruit, Leaf, 

Root, Stem 

(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/A
Pest Risk Assessment for Mango from Jamaica 

Ver. 3 March 20, 2013 15

Pest Scientific Name Distribution1 Reported on 

Mango

Quarantine Pest2Plant Part(s) 

Association

Follow 

Pathway2

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)

No7

Nipaecoccus nipae

(Maskell)

JA, US (CABI, 

2007)

CABI, 2007 [Yes] Fruit,

Inflorescence, 

Leaf, Stem

(CABI, 2007)

No6

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 (BenDov et al., 2010)

MAFJA, 2009 No N/A N/A

Planococcus minor 

Maskell

JA (Venette and 

Davis, 2004); US 

(CABI, 2007)

CABI, 2010; 

Venette and 

Davis, 2004

Yes Fruit, Leaf,

Root, Stem 

(CABI, 2010)

No6

Pseudococcus 

longispinus

(Targioni-Tozzetti)

JA (MAFJA, 

2009); US (BenDov et al., 2010)

MAFJA, 2009 No N/A N/A

Pseudococcus 

jackbeardsleyi 

Gimpel

JA, US (CABI, 

2007)

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., 2008; 

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

Ver. 3 March 20, 2013 16

Pest Scientific Name Distribution1 Reported on 

Mango

Quarantine Pest2Plant Part(s) 

Association

Follow 

Pathway2

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, US (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 (CABI, 

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)

No8

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)

No8

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 and 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, 2013 17

Pest Scientific Name Distribution1 Reported on 

Mango

Quarantine Pest2Plant Part(s) 

Association

Follow 

Pathway2

BACTERIA

Rhizobium radiobacter 

(Beijerinck & 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 

Rossman, 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 rolfsii Curzi

=Sclerotium rolfsii

(Sacc.) 

[Basidiomycetes:

Polyporales]

JA (MAFJA, 

2009); US 

(CABI, 2007)

MAFJA, 2009 No Infloresence, 

Fruit, Leaf, 

Stem (CABI, 

2007; MAFJA, 

2009)

Yes
Pest Risk Assessment for Mango from Jamaica 

Ver. 3 March 20, 2013 18

Pest Scientific Name Distribution1 Reported on 

Mango

Quarantine Pest2Plant Part(s) 

Association

Follow 

Pathway2

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 

cichoracearum (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/A
Pest Risk Assessment for Mango from Jamaica 

Ver. 3 March 20, 2013 19

Pest Scientific Name Distribution1 Reported on 

Mango

Quarantine Pest2Plant Part(s) 

Association

Follow 

Pathway2

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 (Farr 

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 [Oomycetes: 

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/A
Pest Risk Assessment for Mango from Jamaica 

Ver. 3 March 20, 2013 20

Pest Scientific Name Distribution1 Reported on 

Mango

Quarantine Pest2Plant Part(s) 

Association

Follow 

Pathway2

Sclerotium sp. JA (MAFJA, 

2009)

MAFJA, 2009 Yes Fruit, Stem

(MAFJA, 2009)

Yes

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 & White) 

Chitwood 

JA, US (CABI, 

2007)

CABI, 2007 No N/A N/A

Meloidogyne sp. JA (MAFJA, 

2009)

MAFJA, 2009 Yes Root (MAFJA,

2009)

N o

Pratylenchus sp. JA (MAFJA, 

2009)

MAFJA, 2009 Yes Root (MAFJA, 

2009)

No

Rotylenchulus sp. JA(MAFJA, 

2009)

MAFJA, 2009 Yes Root (MAFJA, 

2009)

No

Rotylenchulus 

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 (MAFJA, 

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 pests 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, 2013 21

Saissetia sp., and Sclerotium sp. Lack 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 identified 

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 evidence 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 export quality mango fruit in permit cargo. This 

species is reported to feed almost exclusively on citrus and is rarely recorded on other hosts 

(Blackburn and Miller, 1984). Specifically, the hosts for this scale include 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 consumption, 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 quantities 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 pathway 

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 plants 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 survival 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 legs 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 survival rate of crawlers on the ground or on decaying 

fruit or fruit peel. There is a low probability of active dispersal of crawlers by walking from 

their natal host since they are not capable of rapid movement over bare soil or rough 

surfaces.
Pest Risk Assessment for Mango from Jamaica 

Ver. 3 March 20, 2013 22

2.5. Quarantine Pests Likely to Follow the Pathway

The quarantine pests likely to follow the pathway that we analyzed further were Anastrepha 

obliqua, A. suspensa, Coccus moestus, Phomopsis mangiferae, and Xanthomonas campestris pv.

mangiferaeindica.

2.6. Consequences of Introduction

The negative impacts resulting from the introduction and establishment of quarantine pests are 

considered in this assessment. We rated the potential consequences of introduction using the five 

risk elements described in the Guidelines for the 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 occurs in 18 states (Hernández-Ortiz et al., 2002). We

estimated that the species would be able to establish populations in southern 

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). Based 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 (Caricaceae), 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 Anastrepha species, the major means of dispersal to previously 

uninfested areas is the transport of fruit, such as mango and guava containing 

larvae. Adults 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, 2013 23

Anastrepha obliqua Risk ratings

been intercepted in France on mangos from Mexico (CABI, 2007).

Risk Element 4: Economic 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 in 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 domestic or foreign markets, since 

the 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, 2004). 

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, 

2007) and which may be attacked by this pest. Introduction of this species into the 

United States also could stimulate the initiation of chemical or biological control 

programs. Biological 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). Anastrepha 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 rating.

Medium (2)

Risk Element 2: Host Range

This fruit fly has been recorded on more than 100 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 spp. 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, 2013 24

Anastrepha suspensa Risk ratings

Risk Element 3: Dispersal Potential

Fecundity averages 161 eggs per female in the laboratory (Sivinski, 1993). Up 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 previously 

uninfested areas is the transport of fruit, such as guavas containing larvae. Adults 

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 ElsonHarris, 1992), and a major pest of guava (Gould and Raga, 2002). Unlike A. 

obliqua, A. suspensa may be a significant pest of citrus, particularly late season 

citrus (White and Elson-Harris, 1992). Establishment of this pest outside of 

Florida in the United States could cause a loss of domestic or foreign markets, 

because this pest is a quarantine pest for countries such as Australia, 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 attacked 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 

occurs 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 throughout 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 

aromatica (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 closely related to Coccus viridis and is assumed to have 

High (3)
Pest Risk Assessment for Mango from Jamaica 

Ver. 3 March 20, 2013 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 Veeresh, 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). Mango, 

cashew, rambutan, and avocado are hosts 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 secondary damage via

secreted honeydew, which forms a substrate for sooty molds. Therefore, the 

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, 

2010). 

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. Infected 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 likely 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, 2013 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 the 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 no 

evidence that Florida exports mangos 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 likely to also be effective. For mangoes, 

fungicide use is common. In 1999-2000, 93 percent of Florida mango growers 

surveyed reported fungicide use (Crane et al., 2002.

Low (1)

Xanthomonas campestris pv. mangiferaeindicae 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 Hardiness 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 parts, on or in seeds, on infected plant debris, on contaminated 

containers or tools and in the soil (Agrios, 1997). Rain plays an important role in 

disease dispersal (Agrios, 1997; Pruvost 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-end 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, 2013 27

Xanthomonas campestris pv. mangiferaeindicae 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 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 is 

likely to be very limited, and we found no evidence that Florida exports mangos

internationally (Garrett, 2007). Similar arguments apply to the other potential 

hosts for X. campestris pv. mangiferaeindica, because they are not widely grown 

in the continental 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 as plants in X. campestris pv. mangiferaeindicae’s host range. 

Therefore, 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 Consequences of Introduction.

Pest Risk elements Cumulative 

ratingsa ClimateHost

interaction

Host 

range

Dispersal 

potential

Economic 

impact

Environmental 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.

mangiferaeindicae

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 Imported 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, 

2009). 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 presumed 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, 2013 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 remove sap, and culling defective or damaged fruits (MAFJA, 2009). 

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

as internal feeders, be highly likely (>10 percent; PPQ, 2000) to survive post-harvest treatment 

(especially if infestation of the fruit was not of such great age that damage was obvious). \

The scale insect, Coccus moestus, is an external feeder, and therefore are less 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 hosts (Kosztarab, 1996). We estimate the external pests 

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). Post-harvest treatments 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 slow 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 moderate refrigeration 

temperatures and shipment either by air or refrigerated sea container (Hardenburg et al., 1986; 

MAFJA, 2009). Temperatures are kept in a range to preserve 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 High for 

the insects.

The bacteria X. campestris pv. mangiferaeindicae survives epiphytically on fruit, leaves, and soil 

(Pruvost et al., 1990; Pruvost and Luisetti, 1991). It overwinters on infected 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 conditions. Also, 

the epiphytic populations are not detected on symptomless mature fruit (Pruvost and Luisetti, 

1991), leading to further fruit infections (Pruvost and Luisetti, 1991), so we rated it High.

Phomopsis mangifera is highly likely to survive shipping conditions (AFFA, 2001) because most 

shipping conditions 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, controlled 
Pest Risk Assessment for Mango from Jamaica 

Ver. 3 March 20, 2013 29

atmospheric conditions may only slow stem end rot or fruit rot and mask symptom expression 

(Johnson et al., 1993), leading to longer latent periods. For these reasons, we rated the pest High.

2.7.4. Not detected at a port-of-entry

Estimating 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 escape detection at a port-ofentry inspection, since fruit infested with fruit flies can go unrecognized (Gould, 1995; White 

and Elson-Harris, 1992). Thus, we rated these pests High risk. 

Scale insects like Coccus moestus are external feeders, and therefore could be visible on the 

surface of fruit. Still, scale insects are small and tend to live in concealed habitats (Miller et al., 

2002). Therefore, we rated it Medium risk. 

Rot caused by Phomopsis mangiferae 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 detection. 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 vary 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 

latent 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 bacterium 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. If 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 

these 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 Latino 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 Medium risk of 

moving to habitat suitable for survival. We similarly estimated that Coccus moestus, Phomopsis 

mangiferae, and X. campestris pv. mangiferaeindicae present Medium risk.
Pest Risk Assessment for Mango from Jamaica 

Ver. 3 March 20, 2013 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 only 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 pests 

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 

mangos 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; inclement 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 

introduced 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 orchards 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 discarded fruit being in close proximity to cultivated mango is small. For these 

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

Only a small percentage of goods passing through the ports are inspected, so at least some 

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 pests contacting host material is Low 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 

flight, 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 least 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 cooccur. We therefore estimated the risk to be Low 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 these 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 become permanently established and is subject to official control measures 
Pest Risk Assessment for Mango from Jamaica 

Ver. 3 March 20, 2013 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 

demonstrate clearly that the pests previously have contacted host material. Thus, we rated the 

risk for Anastrepha obliqua as High.

Table 6. Risk ratings for likelihood of introduction of pests on mango (Mangifera indica) from Jamaica.

Pest Quantity 

imported 

annually

Survive 

postharvest 

treatment

Survive 

shipment

Not 

detected 

at portof-entry

Moved 

to 

suitable 

habitat

Contact 

with 

host 

material

Cumulative 

risk ratinga

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) Medium (13) 

Xanthomonas 

campestris pv.

Mangiferaeindicae

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/Conclusion

To estimate the Pest Risk Potential for 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 Potentials.

Pest Consequences of 

Introduction

Likelihood of 

Introduction

Rating Scorea

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. mangiferaeindicae Medium (9) Medium (13) Medium (22)

Low: 11–18 points; Medium: 19–26 points; High: 27–33 points
Pest Risk Assessment for Mango from Jamaica 

Ver. 3 March 20, 2013 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 Landry, 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 Edition). 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. Entomol. 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):776-793.

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 

PERAL). (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., Gainesville, 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., and 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 

Information 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 Zealand. 

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, 2013 33

Bruner, S. C., L. C. Scaramuzza, 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/findadatasheet.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, diseases 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. Wysoki. 1997. The response of mango stem end rot pathogens 

to heat. Acta Horticulturae: 455:762-772.

Coates, L. M., G. I. Johnson, and A. W. Cooke. 1993. Postharvest disease control in mangoes 

using high humidity hot air and fungicide treatments. Annals of Applied 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. Tanchiva, 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. 2002. 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 development 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). Florida 

Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Plant Industry, 

Entomology Circular 165.

Dekle, G. W. 1976b. Black parlatoria scale: Parlatoria ziziphi (Lucas) (Homoptera: 

Diaspididae). Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, 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 FloridaFlorida Department of 

Agriculture & Consumer Services, Division of Plant Industry. 

http://www.freshfromflorida.com/pi/enpp/ento/chillithrips.html (Modified March 2010). 

(Archived 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, 2013 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.arsgrin.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). Archived 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. Peña, 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 of 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 for 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 biology. 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 postharvest 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 control. 

Development of postharvest handling technology for tropical tree fruits: a workshop held 

in Bangkok, Thailand, 16-18 July 1992. ACIAR Proceedings No. 58. pp. 72-76 
Pest Risk Assessment for Mango from Jamaica 

Ver. 3 March 20, 2013 35

Johnson, G. I., I. F. Muirhead, and L. M. Rappel. 1989. Mango post-harvest disease control: a 

review of research in Australia, Malaysia and Thailand. ASEAN Food Journal, 4: 139-

141. .

Kishun, R., and R. Chand. 1989. Mechanical transmission of Xanthomonas campestris pv. 

mangiferaeindicae through insects. Indian Journal of Plant Pathology, 7: 112¬-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. 1996. 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. Ong. 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 control. 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/australiamango-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 Unit, 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, Anaimal 

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 Fruit.

Miller, D. R., V. L. Blackburn, J. A. Davidson, and W. F. Gimpel, Jr. 1985. Pest risk assessment 

of armored scales on certain fruit [report submitted to USDA, Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine]. United States Department of 

Agriculture (USDA), Agricultural Research Service (ARS), Beltsville, MD. 35 pp.

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, 2013 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., and 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 Germplasm Resources Laboratory, National Genetic Resources Program 

(NGRP), Beltsville, Maryland. Last accessed July 10, 2010. http://www.arsgrin.gov/cgi¬bin/npgs/html/tax_search.pl?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 Conservation 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 in 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.

Peña, J. E., J. L. Sharp, and M. Wysoki. 2002. Tropical fruit pests and pollinators: Biology, 

economic importance, natural enemies and control. CABI Publishing, Wallingford; UK. 

viii + 430 pp.

PERAL. 2007. Phytosanitary risks associated with armored scales in commercial shipments of 

fruit for consumption to the United States, Revision Original. United States Department 

of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and 

Quarantine, Center for Plant Health Science and Technology, Plant Epidemiology and 

Risk Analysis Laboratory (PERAL), Raleigh, NC. 24 pp.

PestID. 2010. Pest Identification Database (PestID). United States Department of Agriculture, 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine. 

https://mokcs14.aphis.usda.gov/aqas/login.jsp. (Archived at PERAL).

PestID. 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, 2013 37

Pollack, 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 assessments (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 populations 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). Florida 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 (Green) 

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 

conditions. 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 Stated 

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. Whitefly fauna of the world. Aleyrodidae: Key to stages and 

subfamilies.(http://keys.lucidcentral.org/keys/v3/whitefly/Aleurodicinae/Media/Html/Ale

urodicus.htm) Accessed Aug. 2010.
Pest Risk Assessment for Mango from Jamaica 

Ver. 3 March 20, 2013 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 minor (Maskell) [Pseudococcidae: 

Hemiptera]http://www.aphis.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 (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). 

http://www.eeb.uconn.edu/people/wagner/USDA%20Noctuid%20Guide%20October%20

2008.pdf accessed July 2010.

Waite, G. K. 2002. Pests and Pollinators 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 Economic 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. Fitter. 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

Spermatophyta

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 harvesting 
Pest Risk Assessment for Mango from Jamaica 

Ver. 3 March 20, 2013 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 sandy, 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 takes 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 (Appendix A) , 

identifying major mango production areas (FAO, 2009). Areas from where Island Fresh Limited 

currently collects mangos are highlighted.

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 Julie 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 mangos 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 

(airplane 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, 2013 40

3. Map of Jamaica

* Showing locations of mango tree orchards

Point where mango tree orchards are located. Provided by Google Earth, Europa 

Technologies (DigitalGlobe, 2009).
Pest Risk Assessment for Mango from Jamaica 

Ver. 3 March 20, 2013 41

Appendix B. Pests associated with mangoes

Table B1. Quaranine pests associated with mango that DID NOT follow the pathway

Taxonomy Pest Scientific Name Plant Part(s) Association

Arthropods

Coleoptera: Bostrichidae Apatus monachus Fabricius Stem (Peña, 1997)

Coleoptera: Coccinellidae Praelongorthezia praelonga 

(Douglas)

Leaf (Ben-Dov et al., 2010)

Coleoptera: Curculionidae Diaprepes abbreviatus (L.) Leaf, Root (CABI, 2007)

Metamasius hemipterus (L.) Stem, Leaf (CABI, 2007)

Pachnaeus citri Marshall Leaf, Root (Peña, 1997)

Coleoptera: Scarabeidae Macraspis tetradactyla

(Linnaeus)

Leaf, Infloresecence (MAFJA, 

2009)

Diptera: Cecidomyidae Erosomyia mangifera Felt Fruit (Peña, 1997)

Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae Aleurocanthus woglumi Ashby 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, 2013 42

Table B2. Pest interceptions at U.S. ports-of-entry on mango, Mangifera indica, from all 

countries as reported in the Pest Identification 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. (Diaspididae) 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 Russell (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 inornata 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 (Miridae) 1
Pest Risk Assessment for Mango from Jamaica 

Ver. 3 March 20, 2013 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 (Wiedemann) (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. (Diaspididae) 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

Conotrachelus 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

Cryptorhynchus sp. (Curculionidae) 4
Pest Risk Assessment for Mango from Jamaica 

Ver. 3 March 20, 2013 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 dorsalis 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

Drosicha 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 1
Pest Risk Assessment for Mango from Jamaica 

Ver. 3 March 20, 2013 45

Pest Interceptions (no.)

Gryllus capitatus Saussure (Gryllidae) 1

Gryllus sp. (Gryllidae) 16

Harmostes sp. (Rhopalidae) 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. (Scolytidae) 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 laterochitinosa 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. (Scarabaeidae) 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 (Green) (Pseudococcidae) 1

Macropygium reticulare (Fabricius) (Pentatomidae) 1

Margarodidae, species of 2

Melanaspis sp. (Diaspididae) 2

Membracidae, species of 1
Pest Risk Assessment for Mango from Jamaica 

Ver. 3 March 20, 2013 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. (Rhyparochromidae) 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

Parabemisia 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

Parthenicus 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) (Diaspididae) 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) 6
Pest Risk Assessment for Mango from Jamaica 

Ver. 3 March 20, 2013 47

Pest Interceptions (no.)

Phyllosticta anacardiacearum 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 (Green) (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. (Pseudococcidae) 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

Scarabaeidae, 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) 2
Pest Risk Assessment for Mango from Jamaica 

Ver. 3 March 20, 2013 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

Sybra 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

Tettigoniidae, 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. (Veronicellidae) 1

Vinsonia stellifera (Westwood) (Coccidae) 64

Xyleborus sp. (Scolytidae) 1
Pest Risk Assessment for Mango from Jamaica 

Ver. 3 March 20, 2013 49

Appendix C: Quarantine pests found on Mangos 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 (CABI, 

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, Root (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) (CABI, 

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, 2013 50

Taxonomy Pest Scientific

Name

Reported on 

mango

Jamaica and US 

Distribution

Plant parts 

association

2010; Peña, 1997)

Saissetia sp. PestID, 2010 JA (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, 2009)

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 (BenDov et al., 2010)

Parlatoria cinerea Ben-Dov et 

al., 2010

JA (Ben-Dov et 

al., 2010)

Leaf, Stem (BenDov 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 

(CABI, 2007)

Thrips palmi Peña, 1997 JA, US (FL) 

(CABI, 2007)

Fruit, Flower, Leaf 

(CABI, 2007)

BACTERIA
Pest Risk Assessment for Mango from Jamaica 

Ver. 3 March 20, 2013 51

Taxonomy Pest Scientific

Name

Reported on 

mango

Jamaica and US 

Distribution

Plant parts 

association

Xanthomonas 

campestris pv.

mangiferaeindicae

MAFJA, 

2009

JA (MAFJA, 

2009)

Fruit, Flower, Leaf 

(MAFJA, 2009

FUNGI

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)