sign in sign up
<<
Home , 2021 in Pakistan, Agrius (moth), Agrius convolvuli, Aleurocanthus, Aleurocanthus woglumi, Aleurothrixus

Importation of fresh ( indica L.) for consumption from into the United States and Territories

A Qualitative, Pathway-Initiated Risk Assessment

June 28, 2021

Version 2

Agency Contact Pest Risk Analysis (PPRA) Science and Technology

Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ) and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) 1730 Varsity Drive, Suite 300 Raleigh, NC 27606 Pest Risk Assessment for mango from Egypt

Executive Summary The purpose of this report is to assess the pest risks associated with importing commercially produced mango fruit, L. (), from Egypt into the United States and territories for consumption.

Based on the market access request submitted by Egypt, we considered the pathway to include the following processes and conditions involving post-harvest washing. The pest risk ratings depend on the application of all conditions of the pathway as described. Mango produced under different conditions were not evaluated and may pose a different pest risk.

We used scientific literature, port-of-entry pest interception data, and information from the government of Egypt to develop a list of pests with quarantine significance for the United States and territories. These are pests that occur in Egypt on any host and are associated with the commodity plant (anywhere in the world).

The following organisms are candidates for pest risk management because they have met the threshold for unacceptable consequences of introduction. Pest type Scientific name Likelihood of Introduction rating Diptera: Bactrocera zonata Saunders High (Wiedemann) High Dacus ciliatus Loew : privigna De Lotto Low Hemiptera: Icerya seychellarum (Westwood) Low Hemiptera: hirsutus (Green) Low Pseudococcidae Nipaecoccus viridis (Newstead) Low (Action only when destined to American Samoa, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands) Rastrococcus invadens Williams Low Thysanoptera: aurantii Faure Medium Fungi : pseudotheobromae Low A.J.L. Phillips, A. Alves & Crous mangiferae (Syd. & P. Low Syd.) B. Sutton & Dyko

A detailed examination and list of appropriate phytosanitary measures to mitigate pest risk are addressed in a separate document.

Ver. 2 June 28, 2021 2 Pest Risk Assessment for mango from Egypt

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ...... 2 Table of Contents ...... 3 1. Introduction ...... 4 1.1. Background ...... 4 1.2. Initiating event ...... 4 1.3. Determining if a weed risk analysis for the commodity is needed ...... 4 1.4. Description of the pathway ...... 4 2. Pest List and Pest Categorization ...... 5 2.1. Pest list ...... 5 2.2. Notes on pests identified in the pest list ...... 13 2.4. Pests selected for further analysis ...... 13 3. Assessing Pest Risk Potential ...... 14 3.1. Introduction ...... 14 3.2. Assessment ...... 14 4. Summary ...... 37 5. Literature Cited ...... 38 6. Appendix: Pests with non-quarantine status ...... 51

Ver. 2 June 28, 2021 3 Pest Risk Assessment for mango from Egypt

1. Introduction

1.1. Background The purpose of this report is to assess the pest risk associated with the importation of commercially produced fresh mango fruits (Mangifera indica L.) for consumption from Egypt (referred to as the export area) into the United States and Territories (referred to as the pest risk analysis or PRA area).

This is a qualitative risk assessment. The likelihood of pest introduction is expressed as a qualitative rating rather than on numerical terms. This methodology is consistent with guidelines provided by the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) in the International Standard for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPM) No. 11, “Pest Risk Analysis for Quarantine Pests” (IPPC, 2017). The use of biological and phytosanitary terms is consistent with ISPM No. 5, “Glossary of Phytosanitary Terms” (IPPC, 2018).

As defined in ISPM No. 11, this document comprises Stage 1 (Initiation) and Stage 2 (Risk Assessment) of risk analysis. On the other hand, Stage 3 (Risk Management) will be covered in a separate document.

1.2. Initiating event The importation of fruits and vegetables for consumption into the United States is regulated under Title 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 319.56-3 (7 CFR §319.56-3, 2019). Under this regulation, the entry of mango from Egypt into the PRA area is not authorized. This commodity risk assessment was initiated in response to a request by the National Plant Protection Organization (NPPO) of Egypt to change the Federal Regulation to allow entry (MALR, 2006).

1.3. Determining if a weed risk analysis for the commodity is needed We determined that a weed risk analysis of mango is not necessary because it is already enterable into the United States from other countries (PPQ, 2020); it is also cultivated in the PRA area.

1.4. Description of the pathway A pathway is “any means that allows the entry or spread of a pest” (IPPC, 2018). In the context of this document, the pathway is the commodity to be imported, together with all the processes the commodity undergoes from production through importation and distribution. The following description of this pathway focuses on the conditions and processes that may have an impact on pest risk. Our assessment is, therefore, contingent on the application of all components of the pathway as described in this section.

1.4.1. Description of the commodity The specific pathway of concern is the importation of fresh mango fruit for consumption.

1.4.2. Summary of the production, harvest, post-harvest procedures, shipping and storage conditions being considered

Ver. 2 June 28, 2021 4 Pest Risk Assessment for mango from Egypt

For the PRA, we considered the shipping season to be year-round. Other than washing, which occurs at harvest, we did not consider any production, harvesting, or post-harvesting procedures in the export area for this assessment, nor did we consider any shipping or storage conditions.

2. Pest List and Pest Categorization The pest list is a compilation of plant pests of quarantine significance to the United States and territories. This includes pests that are both present on any host in Egypt and known to be associated with Mangifera indica (anywhere in the world). Pests are considered to be of quarantine significance if they (a) are not present in the PRA area, (b) are actionable at U.S. ports of entry, (c) are regulated non-quarantine pests, (d) are considered for or under Federal official control, or (e) require evaluation for regulatory action. Consistent with ISPM No. 5, pests that meet any of these definitions are considered “quarantine pests” and are candidates for analysis. Species with a reasonable likelihood of following the pathway into the PRA area are analyzed to determine their pest risk potential. Woodboring and root-feeding pests have been excluded from the pest list.

2.1. Pest list We developed the pest list based on the scientific literature, port-of-entry pest interception data, and information provided by the government of Egypt. Under Table 1, we listed pests that are of quarantine significance to the PRA area. For each pest, we provided evidence of the pest’s presence in Egypt and its association with Mangifera indica. We also indicated the plant parts with which the pest is generally associated and any information on the pest’s distribution in the United States. Pests that are likely to remain associated with the harvested commodity in a viable form are indicated by shaded rows and are listed separately under Table 2.

Table 1. List of quarantine pests associated with Mangifera indica (in any country) and present in Egypt (on any host) Pest name Presence in Host Plant part(s) 1 Considered further?2 Egypt association ARTHROPODA : Cisaberoptus kenyae Knihinicki and Knihinicki and (Knihinicki No. It is not associated Keifer Boczek, 2002 Boczek, 2002 and Boczek, 2002) with the traded plant part.

Metaculus mangiferae Abou-Awad et Abou-Awad et Buds (Abou-Awad No. It is not associated Attiah al., 2011 al., 2011 et al., 2011) with the traded plant part.

1 The plant part(s) listed are those for the plant species under analysis. If the information has been extrapolated, such as from plant part association on other plant species, we note that. 2 “Yes” indicates simply that the pest has a reasonable likelihood of being associated with the harvested commodity; the level of pest prevalence on the harvested commodity (low, medium, or high) is qualitatively assessed as part of the Likelihood of Introduction assessment (section 3).

Ver. 2 June 28, 2021 5 Pest Risk Assessment for mango from Egypt

Pest name Presence in Host Plant part(s) 1 Considered further?2 Egypt association Tegonotus mangiferae Attiah, 1970; Abreu et al., Leaves, stems No. It is not associated (Keifer) Knihinicki and 1987; Amrine (Knihinicki and with the traded plant part. Boczek, 2002 and Stasny, Boczek, 2002) 1994 Present in Hawaii (Amrine and Stasny, 1994; Knihinicki and Boczek, 2002) and Puerto Rico (Abreu et al., 1987) Acari: Tetranychidae Eutetranychus Ibrahim et al., Iqbal and Ali, Leaves (CABI, No. It is not associated orientalis (Klein) 2005 2008 2021; Iqbal and with the traded plant part. Ali, 2008), twigs (Iqbal and Ali, Present in Hawaii (Heu, 2008) 2007) Oligonychus Hussian et al., Hussian et al., Leaves (Hussian et No. It is not associated mangiferus (Rahman 2018 2018; Lin, 2013 al., 2018; Lin, with the traded plant part. & Sapra) 2013) is reportable (AQAS, 2021).

Present in Hawaii (Heu, 2007) Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae Aulacophora Shaheen, 1973 Butani, 1993; Leaves (Butani, No. It is not associated foveicollis (Lucas); Tandon and 1993; Tandon and with the traded plant part. syn. Rhaphidopalpa Lal, 1977 Lal, 1977), flowers foveicollis (Lucas) (Tandon and Lal, 1977) Diptera: Tephritidae Bactrocera zonata El-Samea and Duyck et al., Fruit (Duyck et al., Yes Saunders Fetoh, 2006; 2008; Elnagar 2008; Srivastava, Elnagar et al., et al., 2010; 1997; Stonehouse 2010; Gazia, Stonehouse et et al., 2002) 2020; Iwahashi al., 2002 and Routhier, 2001 Ceratitis capitata Elnagar et al., Liquido et al., Fruit (Liquido et Yes (Wiedemann) 2010; Gazia, 1990; Nicacio al., 1990; Nicacio 2020 and Uchoa, and Uchoa, 2011; Present in Hawaii (CABI, 2011 Srivastava, 1997) 2021) Dacus ciliatus Loew Fetoh, 2003; Kambura et al., Fruit (Kambura et Yes Hussein et al., 2018 al., 2018) 2006 Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae

Ver. 2 June 28, 2021 6 Pest Risk Assessment for mango from Egypt

Pest name Presence in Host Plant part(s) 1 Considered further?2 Egypt association Evans, 2008 Evans, 2008 Leaves (Nguyen No. It is not associated woglumi Ashby and Hamon, 2019) with the traded plant part.

Present in CONUS (Dowell et al., 1979), Hawaii (Culliney et al., 2003), and Puerto Rico (Medina-Gaud et al., 1991) Aleurolobus marlatti Shaaban, 2014 Evans, 2008 Leaves (Hill, 1987) No. It is not associated (Quaintance) with the traded plant part. Hemiptera: Coccidae Ceroplastes García-Morales García-Morales Leaves No. It is not associated actiniformis Green et al., 2016 et al., 2016 (Srivastava, 1997) with the traded plant part.

Genus is reportable (AQAS, 2021) Ceroplastes rubens García-Morales García-Morales Leaves, shoots, No. It is not associated Maskell et al., 2016 et al., 2016 stems (Srivastava, with the traded plant part. 1997; Vithana et al., 2018) Present in CONUS, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico (García-Morales et al., 2016) Ceroplastes rusci García-Morales García-Morales Leaves, shoots, No. It is not associated (Linnaeus) et al., 2016 et al., 2016 twigs (Hamon and with the traded plant part. Mason, 2020) Present in CONUS, Puerto Rico, and Virgin Islands (García-Morales et al., 2016) Ceroplastes sinensis García-Morales García-Morales Leaves, stems No. It is not associated Del Guercio et al., 2016 et al., 2016 (Snowball, 1970) with the traded plant part.

Present in CONUS (García-Morales et al., 2016)

Ver. 2 June 28, 2021 7 Pest Risk Assessment for mango from Egypt

Pest name Presence in Host Plant part(s) 1 Considered further?2 Egypt association Saissetia privigna De García-Morales García-Morales We did not find Yes Lotto et al., 2016 et al., 2016 information on plant part Genus is reportable association for (AQAS, 2021). Saissetia privigna. Congeners are found on the leaves, twigs (Byron et al., 2018; Cao et al., 2019; Pantoja and Peña, 2006), and fruit (Byron et al., 2018; Pantoja and Peña, 2006) of host . Hemiptera: Monophlebidae Icerya aegyptiaca García-Morales García-Morales Leaves, stems No. It is not associated (Douglas) et al., 2016 et al., 2016 (CABI, 2021; with the traded plant part. Uesato et al., 2011), twigs (Uesato et al., 2011) Icerya seychellarum Bakry et al., Bakry et al., Leaves (Salman Yes (Westwood) 2015; García- 2015; García- and Bakry, 2012; Morales et al., Morales et al., Verde et al., 2020), 2016 2016 shoots, twigs, fruits (Salman and Bakry, 2012) Hemiptera: Abdel-Aziz, Abdel-Aziz, Leaves (Abdel- No. Cotton bugs rely hyalinipennis (Costa) 1968 1968; Shah, Aziz, 1968; Shah, on Malvaceous hosts to 2016 2016), fruit grow and develop (Abdel- (Shah, 2016) Aziz, 1968); however, they will feed on other plants for moisture. The pest is unlikely to follow the pathway because it feeds on the surface of fruit and is highly mobile. Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae

Ver. 2 June 28, 2021 8 Pest Risk Assessment for mango from Egypt

Pest name Presence in Host Plant part(s) 1 Considered further?2 Egypt association Maconellicoccus García-Morales García-Morales Stems, leaves, Yes hirsutus (Green) et al., 2016 et al., 2016 buds, fruit, and roots (Hoy et al., Reportable, but no action 2020) to St. Thomas (AQAS, 2021)

Present on CONUS, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and U.S. Virgin Islands (García-Morales et al., 2016) Nipaecoccus viridis García-Morales García-Morales Leaves, fruits, and Yes (Newstead) et al., 2016 et al., 2016 stems (Ben-Dov, 1994) Present in CONUS and Hawaii (García-Morales et al., 2016)

Action only when destined to American Samoa, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands (AQAS, 2021). Planococcus García-Morales García-Morales Roots No. It is not associated lindingeri et al., 2016 et al., 2016 [extrapolated from with the traded plant part. (Bodenheimer) ] (Ben- Dov, 1994) Genus is reportable (AQAS, 2021). Rastrococcus García-Morales García-Morales Leaves, petioles, Yes invadens Williams et al., 2016 et al., 2016 flowers, and fruit (Agounke et al., 1988) : Anatrachyntis simplex De Prins and Butani, 1993 Flowers, rotten No. is associated (Walsingham) De Prins, 2020 fruits (Butani, with rotten fruits (Butani, 1993) 1993), whereas mature, fresh fruits are the stage to be harvested.

Genus is reportable (AQAS, 2021). Lepidoptera: Noctuidae

Ver. 2 June 28, 2021 9 Pest Risk Assessment for mango from Egypt

Pest name Presence in Host Plant part(s) 1 Considered further?2 Egypt association Helicoverpa armigera Soliman et al., Bharati et al., Young leaves, No. Larvae are associated (Hübner) 2014 2007; Grové flowers, and young with young fruits (Bharati and De Beer, fruit (Bharati et al., et al., 2007; Grové and De 2015 2007; Grové and Beer, 2015), whereas De Beer, 2015) mature fruits are the stage to be harvested. Additionally, feeding on young fruit would cause visible damage such as superficial scars or deep holes (Grové and De Beer, 2015), which would be noticed at harvest or result in culling.

Present in Puerto Rico (Tembrock et al., 2019). Lepidoptera: Abdel-Moaty et Abdel Kareim Inflorescences No. It is not associated gnidiella (Millière) al., 2017 et al., 2018 (Abdel Kareim et with the traded plant part. al., 2018) Present in Hawaii (Nishida, 2002) Lepidoptera: convolvuli El-Saeady et al., Butani, 1993 Leaves (Butani, No. It is not associated (Linnaeus) 2011 1993) with the traded plant part. Lepidoptera: Stathmopodidae Stathmopoda Badr et al., Badr et al., Flowers (Badr et No. It is not associated auriferella Walker 1986 1986 al., 1986) with the traded plant part.

Genus is reportable (AQAS, 2021). Thysanoptera: Thripidae Retithrips syriacus Ibrahim, 2017 Wysoki, 1999 Leaves No. It is not associated (Mayet) [extrapolated from with the traded plant part. other host species] (Ibrahim, 2017; Action only when Medina-Gaud and destined to Hawaii, USVI, Franqui, 2001) and Pacific Territories (AQAS, 2021).

Present in CONUS and Puerto Rico (Hamon and Edwards, 1994) Agamy et al., Grove et al., Fruit, leaves, Yes Faure 2017 2000 shoots (Grove et al., 2000)

Ver. 2 June 28, 2021 10 Pest Risk Assessment for mango from Egypt

Pest name Presence in Host Plant part(s) 1 Considered further?2 Egypt association Scirtothrips Mound and Mound and Leaves (Mound No. It is not associated mangiferae Priesner Stiller, 2011 Stiller, 2011; and Stiller, 2011) with the traded plant part. Wysoki et al., 1993 palmi Karny El-Wahab et al., Aliakbarpour Leaves (Capinera, No. It is not associated 2012 and Rawi, 2012 2020; El-Wahab et with the traded plant part. al., 2012) Present in CONUS (Welter et al., 1990), Hawaii (Hata et al., 1991), and Puerto Rico (Viteri et al., 2010). FUNGI AND CHROMISTANS Bipolaris MycoBank, Chinnusamy (Chinnusamy No. It is not associated australiensis (Bugnic. 2004 et al., 2010 et al., 2010) with the traded plant part. ex M.B. Ellis) Tsuda & Ueyama; Syn.: Curvularia australiensis (Bugnic. ex M.B. Ellis) Manamgoda, L. Cai & K.D. Hyde; Drechslera australiensis Bugnic. ex M.B. Ellis mangiferae Britz et al., Britz et al., Shoot, leaves, No. It is not associated Britz, M.J. Wingf. & 2002 2002 inflorescence. with the traded plant part; Marasas (Gamliel-Atinsky it is reportable at U.S. et al., 2009). ports-of-entry when destined to HI, PR and USVI (AQAS, 2021).

Fusarium Haggag and El- Haggag and El- Shoot, leaves, No. It is not associated sterilihyphosum Britz, Wahab, 2009 Wahab, 2009 inflorescence with the traded plant part. Marasas & M.J. (Lima et al., 2009). Wingf. Lasiodiplodia Ismail et al., Ismail et al., Twig, leaves No. It is not associated egyptiacae (Sibilia) 2012 2012 (Ismail et al., with the traded plant part. A. Alves - 2012) (Lasiodiplodia laeliocattleyae Sibilia)

Ver. 2 June 28, 2021 11 Pest Risk Assessment for mango from Egypt

Pest name Presence in Host Plant part(s) 1 Considered further?2 Egypt association Lasiodiplodia Ismail et al., Ismail et al., Twig, leaves, fruit Yes; this pest may still pseudotheobromae 2012 2012 (Ismail et al., 2012; qualify for quarantine A.J.L. Phillips, A. Rodríguez-Gálvez status for HI or US Alves & Crous et al., 2017) territories (PERAL, 2020).

Nattrassia mangiferae CABI, 2021 Reckhaus and Branch, twigs, Yes (Syd. & P. Syd.) B. Adamou, 1987 shoots, leaves Sutton & Dyko (Syn: (Reckhaus and Hendersonula Adamou, 1987), toruloidea Nattrass); fruit (Saaiman, 1996). mangiferae (Syd. & P. Syd.) Crous, Slippers & A.J.L. Phillips. Neopestalotiopsis Solarte et al., Solarte et al., Leaf (Souza, 2017) No. It is not associated egyptiaca A.M. 2018 2018 with the traded plant part. Ismail, G. Perrone & Crous Phoma mangiferae S. Haggag, 2010 Haggag, 2010 Leaf (Zainab and No. It is not associated Ahmad Shinkafi, 2016) with the traded plant part.

Pseudocochliobolus Sivanesan, Peregrine and Leaf (Peregrine No. It is not associated pallescens Tsuda & 1990 Bin Ahmad, and Bin Ahmad, with the traded plant part. Ueyama. Syn.: 1982 1982) Curvularia pallescens Boedijn BACTERIUM Xanthomonas citri pv. Haggag, 2010 Haggag, 2010 Fruit, leaves No. See note in section mangiferaeindicae (Haggag, 2010) 2.2 (Patel, Moniz & Kulkarni) Constantin, This bacterium has been Cleenwerck, Maes, reported in the continental Baeyen, Van United States (CONUS: Malderghem, De Vos, CABI, 2021; Sanahuja et Cottyn (Syn. al., 2016), HI (Yasuhara- Xanthomonas Bell et al., 2013), and PR axonopodis pv. (Alvarado-Ortiz et al., mangiferaeindicae 2004). Patel, Kulkarni, and Moriz; Syn. Xanthomonas campestris pv. mangiferaeindicae (Patel et al.) Robbs et al.)

Ver. 2 June 28, 2021 12 Pest Risk Assessment for mango from Egypt

2.2. Notes on pests identified in the pest list Xanthomonas citri pv. mangiferaeindicae (Xcm) is a bacterium that infects mangoes and causes fruit drop, especially when infections start on young fruits or when fruit stalks become infected (Gagnevin and Pruvost, 2001; Ploetz et al., 1994). Bacterial canker disease causes fruit drop (10- 70%), yield losses ranging from 10 to 85 percent and stem-end rot of harvested fruit (Haggag, 2010; Johnson et al., 1991). Early fruit drop would limit the prevalence of the pathogen on harvested fruit. Furthermore, this pathogen also causes storage rot (5-100%), which would be detected during visual inspection as fruit showing cankers or water-soaked lesions are unmarketable, making an introduction unlikely. In addition, xanthomonads are generally poor colonizers of the plant surface (Swings and Civerolo, 1993); multiple reports indicate that levels of epiphytic bacteria on fruit surfaces decrease rapidly to levels insufficient to cause disease to develop (Roberts et al., 1998a; Roberts et al., 1998b; Stefani and Giovanardi, 2011b; Stefani and Giovanardi, 2011a). Studies suggest that xanthomonads can vary in their ability to survive on plant surfaces, with humid conditions generally favorable to epiphytic survival of this group of bacteria whereas populations quickly decrease to undetectable levels during dry conditions (Swings and Civerolo, 1993; Timmer et al., 1987). The bacterium has no significant long-term ability to survive on the ground in dead leaves or in soil (Gagnevin and Pruvost, 2001; Pruvost et al., 1995). Because of the specific conditions that this disease requires for survival and spread, its restricted host range (mango and ), and the limited commercial production of its hosts in the endangered area (Gagnevin and Pruvost, 2001; McLaughlin et al., 2017; Mossler and Neisheim, 2002; Viana et al., 2007; NASS, 2021), it is unlikely to come into contact with host material by way of the fruit for consumption pathway. Further, seed transmission of Xcm has not been demonstrated (Gagnevin and Pruvost, 2001). Taken all together, evidence indicates that the introduction of this bacterium via commercial, export-quality mango fruit is unlikely (i.e., negligible). Long-distance dissemination of this pest likely occurs on contaminated plant material used for propagation (Gagnevin and Pruvost, 2001).

2.3.1. Organisms with non-quarantine status We found evidence of organisms that are associated with mango; these are present in the export area but are not of quarantine significance for the PRA area. These organisms are listed in the Appendix.

2.4. Pests selected for further analysis We identified 9 quarantine pests for further analysis (Table 2).

Table 2. Pests selected for further analysis Pest type Taxonomy Scientific name Arthropod Diptera: Tephritidae Bactrocera zonata Saunders Ceratitis capitata (Wiedemann) Dacus ciliatus Loew Hemiptera: Coccidae Saissetia privigna De Lotto Hemiptera: Icerya seychellarum (Westwood) Monophlebidae Hemiptera: (Green) Pseudococcidae Nipaecoccus viridis (Newstead)

Ver. 2 June 28, 2021 13 Pest Risk Assessment for mango from Egypt

Rastrococcus invadens Williams Thysanoptera: Thripidae Scirtothrips aurantii Faure Fungi Botryosphaeriales: Lasiodiplodia pseudotheobromae A.J.L. Phillips, A. Botryosphaeriaceae Alves & Crous Nattrassia mangiferae (Syd. & P. Syd.) B. Sutton & Dyko

3. Assessing Pest Risk Potential

3.1. Introduction We estimated the overall pest risk potential for each pest we analyzed. Risk is described by the likelihood of an adverse event, the potential consequences, and the uncertainty associated with these parameters. For each pest, we determined if an endangered area exists within the PRA area. The endangered area is defined as the portion of the PRA area where ecological factors favor the pest’s establishment and where the pest’s presence will likely result in economically important losses. If a pest causes an unacceptable impact (i.e., is a threshold pest), that means it could adversely affect agricultural production by causing 10 percent or greater yield loss, increasing production costs, or impacting an environmentally important host, or international trade. Once we defined the endangered area for a pest, we assessed the pest’s overall risk by evaluating the likelihood of its introduction into the endangered area on the imported commodity.

The likelihood of introduction is based on the likelihoods of entry and establishment. We qualitatively assess risk using the ratings: Low, Medium, and High. The risk factors comprising the likelihood of introduction are interdependent; therefore, the model is multiplicative rather than additive. We define the risk categories as follows:

High: This outcome is highly likely to occur. Medium: This outcome is possible; but for that to happen, the exact combination of required events needs to occur. Low: This outcome is unlikely to occur because one or more of the required events are unlikely to happen, or because the full combination of required events is unlikely to align properly in time and space.

Uncertainty is addressed within the assessment as follows:

Negligible: Additional or better evidence is very unlikely to change the rating. Low: Additional or better evidence probably will not change rating. Moderate: Additional or better evidence may or may not change rating. High: Reliable evidence is not available.

3.2. Assessment

3.2.1. Bactrocera zonata (Diptera: Tephritidae) The peach fruit is present in northeast and south (CABI, 2021). The peach fruit fly is a strong flier and can disperse up to 40 km (CABI, 2021). Each female can produce up to

Ver. 2 June 28, 2021 14 Pest Risk Assessment for mango from Egypt

564 eggs (CABI, 2021). In , Egypt, and , the peach fruit fly is most damaging to peach, guava, and mango (CABI, 2021).

Defining the endangered area for Bactrocera zonata within the United States and territories Climatic suitability Bactrocera zonata is present in Africa: Egypt, Libya, Mauritius, Reunion, Sudan; Asia: Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Iran, , Israel, Laos, Myanmar, , Oman, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, , Thailand, United Arab Emirates, Vietnam, and Yemen (CABI, 2021). These areas encompass Plant Hardiness Zones 8-13 (Takeuchi et al., 2018). Bactrocera zonata is a subtropical/tropical fruit fly. Low winter temperatures would likely limit the ability of this fly to establish in Plant Hardiness Zones cooler than Zone 8. Hosts in PRA area Bactrocera zonata feeds on a large variety of hosts across numerous plant families. Some of those that are at risk in the PRA area include Anacardiaceae: Mangifera indica; : squamosa; : Phoenix dactylifera; Caricaceae: Carica ; Lythraceae: Punica granatum; Moraceae: Ficus carica; Myrtaceae: ; Musaceae: Musa spp.; Rhamnaceae: Ziziphus spp.; : Cydonia oblonga, Malus domestica, Prunus persica, Pyrus spp.; Rutaceae: spp.; Solanaceae: Solanum lycopersicum (CABI, 2021). Economically Mango, citrus, fig, , peach, guava, pomegranate, and tomato are important hosts at economically important hosts in the PRA area. riska Pest potential on This pest is likely to cause unacceptable consequences because economically Bactrocera zonata primarily damages fruit, and heavy infestations can important hosts at cause major losses in fruit production (White and Elson-Harris, 1994). It risk is considered one of the three most destructive fruit in India. In Pakistan, B. zonata is possibly a more important pest than B. dorsalis (Qureshi et al., 1991). Endangered Area The endangered area includes anywhere host plants occur within Plant Hardiness Zones 8-13 within the continental United States, Hawaii, and territories. a As defined by ISPM No. 11, supplement 2, “economically” important hosts refers to both commercial and non- market (environmental) plants (IPPC, 2017).

Assessing the likelihood of introduction of Bactrocera zonata into the endangered area via mango imported from Egypt Risk Element Risk Uncertainty Evidence for rating (and other notes as Rating Rating necessary) Likelihood of Entry

Ver. 2 June 28, 2021 15 Pest Risk Assessment for mango from Egypt

Risk Element Risk Uncertainty Evidence for rating (and other notes as Rating Rating necessary) Pest prevalence on High Negligible Mango is a well-documented host for the harvested Bactrocera zonata (Duyck et al., 2008; Elnagar commodity et al., 2010; Stonehouse et al., 2002), and the fruit is the preferred plant part for the fruit fly (Duyck et al., 2008; Srivastava, 1997; Stonehouse et al., 2002). Likelihood of High Negligible Washing would not affect the prevalence of this surviving post- fruit fly. Other post-harvesting processes were harvest processing not considered. Therefore, this rating remains before shipment “High”. Likelihood of High Negligible Transport and storing conditions were not surviving transport considered. Therefore, this rating remains and storage “High”. conditions of the consignment Overall High Likelihood of Entry Likelihood of High Low Bactrocera zonata is likely to find suitable host Establishment material in the endangered area because of its wide host range (CABI, 2021; White and Elson- Harris, 1994) and ability to fly long distances (Christenson and Foote, 1960). Even if the pest is introduced during winter months in Zones 8- 13, temperatures would permit development and survival (Christenson and Foote, 1960), and some host material is likely to be available. Likelihood of High Introduction (combined likelihoods of entry and establishment)

3.2.2. Ceratitis capitata (Diptera: Tephritidae) The Mediterranean fruit fly is a highly invasive species that has established in many parts of the world. This fruit fly is highly polyphagous (CABI, 2021). The introduction of C. capitata into the United States (outside of Hawaii where the pest is already established) would trigger control programs to prevent widespread damage (FDACS, 2011; Vo and Miller, 1993).

Defining the endangered area for Ceratitis capitata within the United States and territories Climatic suitability Mediterranean fruit fly is widely distributed in Africa, the Mediterranean region, South and Central America, west Asia, and (CABI,

Ver. 2 June 28, 2021 16 Pest Risk Assessment for mango from Egypt

2021; EPPO, 2021; White and Elson-Harris, 1994). Based on its current distribution, we estimate that Mediterranean fruit fly could establish in areas of the United States corresponding to global Plant Hardiness Zones 8-13 (Takeuchi et al., 2018). The fly is already present in Hawaii (Mason, 1932). Hosts in PRA area Mediterranean fruit fly potentially feeds on over 350 hosts (CABI, 2021; Liquido et al., 1991; White and Elson-Harris, 1992), many of which are common within global Plant Hardiness Zones 8-13 in the United States. Economically Economically important hosts widely present in the area of concern important hosts at include citrus, fig, mango, pepper, peach, and plum (CABI, 2021; Mason, riska 1932). Pest potential on This pest is likely to cause unacceptable consequences because damage economically to fruit crops may reach 100 percent on unprotected hosts (CABI, 2021). important hosts at Mediterranean fruit fly, therefore, could impact several of the risk economically important hosts listed above. Endangered Area The area endangered by Mediterranean fruit fly comprises citrus, fig, mango, pepper, peach, and plum crops and other hosts in Zones 8-13. a As defined by ISPM No. 11, supplement 2, “economically” important hosts refers to both commercial and non- market (environmental) plants (IPPC, 2017).

Assessing the likelihood of introduction of Ceratitis capitata into the endangered area via mango imported from Egypt Risk Element Risk Uncertainty Evidence for rating (and other notes as Rating Rating necessary) Likelihood of Entry Pest prevalence on High Low Mango is a well-documented host for Ceratitis the harvested capitata (Liquido et al., 1990; Nicacio and commodity Uchoa, 2011); the fruit is the preferred plant part for the fruit fly (Liquido et al., 1990; Nicacio and Uchoa, 2011; Srivastava, 1997). Likelihood of High Negligible Washing would not affect the prevalence of this surviving post- fruit fly. Other post-harvesting processes were harvest processing not considered. Therefore, this rating remains before shipment “High”. Likelihood of High Negligible Transport and storing conditions were not surviving transport considered. Therefore, this rating remains and storage “High”. conditions of the consignment Overall High Likelihood of Entry

Ver. 2 June 28, 2021 17 Pest Risk Assessment for mango from Egypt

Risk Element Risk Uncertainty Evidence for rating (and other notes as Rating Rating necessary) Likelihood of High Medium Mediterranean fruit fly has an expansive host Establishment range and it is a strong flyer (CABI, 2021; Christenson and Foote, 1960). Suitable hosts are widely and regularly distributed throughout the entire endangered area (Kartesz, 2015; NRCS, 2020), making establishment likely.

However, there is likely a seasonal component to establishment. Development in egg, larval, and pupal stages stops at 10°C (50°F) (Thomas et al., 2010), suggesting that establishment would not occur during the colder parts of the year. Therefore, we rated the uncertainty as “Medium” due to variable weather conditions in parts of the endangered area. Likelihood of High Introduction (combined likelihoods of entry and establishment)

3.2.3. Dacus ciliatus (Diptera: Tephritidae) The lesser pumpkin fly is primarily a pest of cucurbits in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East (CABI, 2021). The females oviposit into fruit, which leaves puncture marks and eventually, necrosis and collapse of the tissue (CABI, 2021). Females, on average, may lay approximately 200–300 eggs (CABI, 2021).

Defining the endangered area for Dacus ciliatus within the United States and territories Climatic suitability Dacus ciliatus is present in Africa: Angola, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Comoros, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Cote d’Ivoire, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Ghana, Guinea, Kenya, Lesotho, Malawi, Mauritius, Mayotte, Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Reunion, Rwanda, Saint Helena, , , Somalia, , Sudan, , Togo, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe; Asia: Bangladesh, India, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Nepal, Oman, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, and Yemen (CABI, 2021). This encompasses Plant Hardiness Zones 8-13 (Takeuchi et al., 2018). Hosts in PRA area Host plants present in the PRA area are Cucurbitaceae: Cucumis melo, Cucumis sativus, Cucurbita maxima, Cucurbita pepo, and Citrullus lanatus (NRCS, 2020; White and Elson-Harris, 1994). Economically Economically important hosts include cantaloupe, cucumber, pumpkin, important hosts at squash, and watermelon. riska

Ver. 2 June 28, 2021 18 Pest Risk Assessment for mango from Egypt

Pest potential on This pest is likely to cause unacceptable consequences because it infests economically the fruit of many important cucurbit crops (White and Elson-Harris, important hosts at 1994). Oviposition into the fruit causes puncture marks on the surface in risk which fluid oozes out (El-Nahal et al., 1970). Larvae feed around their oviposition site, causing the fruit tissue to become soft and brown, and eventually, this tissue collapses (El-Nahal et al., 1970). Endangered Area The endangered area includes Plant Hardiness Zones 8-13 where host plants occur. a As defined by ISPM No. 11, supplement 2, “economically” important hosts refers to both commercial and non- market (environmental) plants (IPPC, 2017).

Assessing the likelihood of introduction of Dacus ciliatus into the endangered area via mango imported from Egypt Risk Element Risk Uncertainty Evidence for rating (and other notes as Rating Rating necessary) Likelihood of Entry Pest prevalence on High High Mango fruit was heavily-infested by Dacus the harvested ciliatus larvae in a study from Kenya (Kambura commodity et al., 2018). However, this is the only study that reports mango fruit infestation by D. ciliatus; therefore, uncertainty was elevated to “High”. Likelihood of High Negligible Washing would not affect the prevalence of this surviving post- fruit fly. Other post-harvesting processes were harvest processing not considered. Therefore, this rating remains before shipment “High”. Likelihood of High Negligible Transport and storing conditions were not surviving transport considered. Therefore, this rating remains and storage “High”. conditions of the consignment Overall High Likelihood of Entry Likelihood of Medium Medium We could not find any information on the flight Establishment capabilities of the lesser pumpkin fly, but its dispersal capabilities are likely similar to Bactrocera spp. (CABI, 2021), which would allow it to reach host plants. However, this fruit fly has a somewhat narrow host range and host plants (primarily cucurbits) may not always be available; therefore, a risk rating of “Medium” was selected (CABI, 2021).

Ver. 2 June 28, 2021 19 Pest Risk Assessment for mango from Egypt

Risk Element Risk Uncertainty Evidence for rating (and other notes as Rating Rating necessary) Likelihood of Medium Introduction (combined likelihoods of entry and establishment)

3.2.4. Saissetia privigna (Hemiptera: Coccidae) Little information is available on Saissetia privigna. It is an externally-feeding, soft-bodied, that is sessile during most stages of its life. First instar nymphs can crawl on their host plant (CABI, 2021). It may not have a considerable economic impact; however, one source stated that it is a “minor pest” of mango in Israel (Germain et al., 2010).

Defining the endangered area for Saissetia privigna within the United States and territories Climatic suitability Saissetia privigna is present in Africa: Angola, Benin, Egypt, Eritrea, Kenya, South Africa, Tanzania, Zambia, Zimbabwe; Asia: India, Israel, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Turkey; and : (García-Morales et al., 2016). These areas encompass Plant Hardiness Zones 9-13 (Takeuchi et al., 2018). Hosts in PRA area Host plants present in the PRA area include Anacardiaceae: Mangifera indica (mango); Cucurbitaceae: Cucurbita maxima (winter squash); : hirsutum (cotton); rosa-sinensis (shoeblackplant); Moraceae: Ficus carica (fig); Rubiaceae: arabica (); Rutaceae: Citrus aurantium (orange); Solanaceae: Solanum tuberosum (potato) (García-Morales et al., 2016; NRCS, 2020). Economically Economically important hosts include mango, cotton, fig, coffee, orange, important hosts at and potato. riska Pest potential on It is possible that the introduction of Saissetia privigna may cause economically unacceptable consequences; however, the lack of evidence leaves our important hosts at uncertainty as “high”. Ben-Dov (1985) stated that this insect is not risk problematic while Muzaffar and Ahmad (1977) had stated that the scale was very scarcely found in their survey. However, Germain et. al (2010) claimed that it is a minor pest of mango in Israel. Endangered Area The endangered area includes areas in Plant Hardiness Zones 9-13 where host plants are present. a As defined by ISPM No. 11, supplement 2, “economically” important hosts refers to both commercial and non- market (environmental) plants (IPPC, 2017).

Ver. 2 June 28, 2021 20 Pest Risk Assessment for mango from Egypt

Assessing the likelihood of introduction of Saissetia privigna into the endangered area via mango imported from Egypt Risk Element Risk Uncertainty Evidence for rating (and other notes as Rating Rating necessary) Likelihood of Entry Pest prevalence on Medium High Mango is a documented host for Saissetia the harvested privigna (Germain et al., 2010). We did not find commodity information on plant part association for Saissetia privigna; however, congeners are reported from fruit (Byron et al., 2018; Pantoja and Peña, 2006). The frequency that the scale colonizes fruit versus other plant parts is unknown; therefore, a we initiate our assessment with a rating of “Medium” with an elevated uncertainty of “High”. Likelihood of Low Low As externally-feeding, soft-bodied insects, surviving post- washing could remove or destroy some of the harvest processing scales on the mango fruit, so the risk rating was before shipment reduced to “Low”. Other post-harvesting processes were not considered. Likelihood of Low Negligible Transport and storing conditions were not surviving transport considered. Therefore, this rating remains and storage “Low”. conditions of the consignment Overall Low Likelihood of Entry Likelihood of Low Low As a scale insect, S. privigna is sessile during Establishment most stages of its life, though the first instar nymphs can crawl on their host plant (CABI, 2021). Crawlers can disperse in wind but these are susceptible to exposure and die within hours (Hill, 1980). It is unlikely that will be left outside under conditions that would permit wind dispersal of crawlers. Likelihood of Low Introduction (combined likelihoods of entry and establishment)

Ver. 2 June 28, 2021 21 Pest Risk Assessment for mango from Egypt

3.2.5. Icerya seychellarum (Hemiptera: Monophlebidae) The scale is a large scale (up to 10 mm long) covered in white or yellow wax with waxy threads along the margins of its body (CABI, 2021). This scale may reproduce sexually or asexually (CABI, 2021). Eggs are orange (Miller et al., 2014) and are laid into a waxy brood pouch (Hill, 1980).

Defining the endangered area for Icerya seychellarum within the United States and territories Climatic suitability Icerya seychellarum is present in Africa, Asia, the , Europe, , and South America (EPPO, 2021). These areas encompass Plant Hardiness Zones 8-13 (Takeuchi et al., 2018). Hosts in PRA area Hosts present in Plant Hardiness Zones 8-13 in the continental United States include : Acalypha spp. (copperleaf); Moraceae: Broussonetia papyrifera (paper mulberry) and Ficus spp. (fig); Rutaceae: Citrus spp.; Arecaceae: Cocos nucifera ( palm); Rosaceae: Eriobotrya japonica (loquat), Pyrus spp. (pear), and Rosa spp. (rose); : Mimosa pudica (shameplant); and Solanaceae: Solanum spp. (tomato, potato) (CABI, 2021; NRCS, 2020). Economically Host plants of economic importance include citrus, fig, rose, and important hosts at solanaceous crops (CABI, 2021; NRCS, 2020). riska Pest potential on This pest is likely to cause unacceptable consequences because this scale economically produces , which acts a substrate for sooty mold that inhibits important hosts at (CABI, 2021). The insect feeds on the sap of its host risk plants, which can cause leaf drop and stunted growth (CABI, 2021). Endangered Area The endangered area includes areas within Plant Hardiness Zones 8-13 in the United States and territories where host plants are present. a As defined by ISPM No. 11, supplement 2, “economically” important hosts refers to both commercial and non- market (environmental) plants (IPPC, 2017).

Assessing the likelihood of introduction of Icerya seychellarum into the endangered area via mango imported from Egypt Risk Element Risk Uncertainty Evidence for rating (and other notes as Rating Rating necessary) Likelihood of Entry

Ver. 2 June 28, 2021 22 Pest Risk Assessment for mango from Egypt

Risk Element Risk Uncertainty Evidence for rating (and other notes as Rating Rating necessary) Pest prevalence on Low Medium In mango, Icerya seychellarum can be found on the harvested the leaves, twigs, fruit (Bakr, 2009; Salman and commodity Bakry, 2012), and roots (Salman and Bakry, 2012). One source states that fruit infestation occurs when the population is dense (Bakr, 2009). Other sources only stated that the scale is found on twigs and leaves (CABI, 2021; Peña et al., 2002; The Sun, 2015; Yunus and Hua, 1980); consequently, we initiate our assessment with a rating of “Low” . Uncertainty was elevated to “Medium” due to the limited amount of information available specifically for mango. Likelihood of Low Low As externally-feeding, soft-bodied insects, surviving post- washing could remove or destroy some of the harvest processing scales on the mango fruit; therefore, the risk before shipment rating was reduced to “Low”. Other post- harvesting processes were not considered. Likelihood of Low Negligible Transport and storing conditions were not surviving transport considered. Therefore, this rating remains and storage “Low”. conditions of the consignment Overall Low Likelihood of Entry Likelihood of Low Low As a scale insect, I. seychellarum is sessile Establishment during most stages of its life, though the first instar nymphs can crawl on their host plant (CABI, 2021). Crawlers can disperse in wind but are susceptible to exposure and die within hours (Hill, 1980). It is unlikely that mangos will be left outside in conditions that would permit wind dispersal of crawlers. Likelihood of Low Introduction (combined likelihoods of entry and establishment)

3.2.6. Maconellicoccus hirsutus (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) The pink hibiscus is an important pest of cotton, hibiscus, other fiber and fruit crops, mulberry and various ornamentals and forest trees in parts of Asia, Africa, and the Caribbean (EPPO, 2005; Gentry, 1965). Fecundity of 650 or more eggs per female has been reported (Mani,

Ver. 2 June 28, 2021 23 Pest Risk Assessment for mango from Egypt

1989). Depending on latitude, there may be as many as 15 generations per year (EPPO, 2005). Crawlers also may disperse locally on the wind (EPPO, 2005). Long-distance spread to previously uninhabited areas generally occurs through ports-of-entry on consignments of plant material or in passenger baggage; thereafter, dispersal occurs along routes of commercial traffic (Sagarra and Peterkin, 1999). Beginning in the 1990s, M. hirsutus spread rapidly through the Caribbean region and into the United States (Kairo et al., 2000).

Defining the endangered area for Maconellicoccus hirsutus within the United States and territories Climatic suitability Maconellicoccus hirsutus has been reported from Africa: Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Egypt, Gabon, Gambia, Kenya, Liberia, Niger, Nigeria, Republic of the Congo, Réunion, Senegal, Seychelles, Somalia, Sudan, Tanzania, Tunisia; Asia: Bangladesh, Brunei, Burma, , (Guangdong, Hong Kong, Macau, Shanxi, Tibet, Yunnan), India (Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Delhi, Gujarat, Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Orissa, Punjab, Tamil Nadu, Tripura, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal), (Irian Jaya, Java, Nusa Tenggara, Sulawesi, Sumatra), Iran, Israel, (Ryukyu Islands), Jordan, Laos, Lebanon, Malaysia (Peninsular), Maldives, Nepal, Oman, Pakistan, Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, Thailand, United Arab Emirates, Vietnam, Yemen; Australia: Northern Territory, Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia; Europe: Cyprus, Greece (Rhodes); North America: Antigua and Barbuda, Aruba, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Costa Rica, , Dominica, Grenada, Guadeloupe, Haiti, Jamaica, Martinique, Montserrat, Mexico, Netherlands Antilles, St. Kitts-Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and Grenadines, Trinidad and Tobago, United States (California, Florida, Louisiana, Puerto Rico, Texas, U.S. Virgin Islands); Oceania: Federated States of Micronesia, , Guam, Hawaii, Northern Mariana Islands, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu; and South America: Brazil (Alagoas, Bahia, Espirito Santo, Maranhão, Mato Grosso, Roraima, São Paulo), Colombia, French Guiana, Guyana, Suriname, Venezuela (Bográn and Ludwig, 2007; CABI, 2021; Ceballos Vázquez et al., 2016; de Siqueira et al., 2019; EPPO, 2021; Milonas and Partsinevelos, 2017; Peres-Filho et al., 2017; Ramos et al., 2018; Spodek et al., 2016). These areas encompass Plant Hardiness Zones 7-14 (Takeuchi et al., 2018). Hosts in PRA area The mealybug is polyphagous. Hosts in the PRA area include Anacardiaceae: Mangifera indica, Schinus terebinthifolius, Spondias dulcis, S. mombin, S. purpurea; Annonaceae: Annona × , A. cherimola, A. muricata, A. reticulata, A. squamosa; Apiaceae: Daucus carota; Apocynaceae: oleander; : Colocasia esculenta; Araliaceae: Schefflera actinophylla; Arecaceae: Cocos nucifera, Phoenix dactylifera; Asteraceae: Bidens pilosa, Helianthus annuus,

Ver. 2 June 28, 2021 24 Pest Risk Assessment for mango from Egypt

Lactuca sativa, Parthenium hysterophorus, Synedrella nodiflora; Bromeliaceae: Ananas comosus; Caricaceae: Carica papaya; Casuarinaceae: Casuarina equisetifolia; Chenopodiaceae: Chenopodium album; : Ipomoea batatas; Cucurbitaceae: Cucumis sativus, Cucurbita maxima, Cu. pepo; Euphorbiaceae: Euphorbia hypericifolia, Manihot esculenta, Ricinus communis; Fabaceae: Arachis hypogaea, Glycine max, Leucaena leucocephala; Lauraceae: Persea americana; Liliaceae: officinalis; Malvaceae: Hibiscus rosa-sinensis; Moraceae: Ficus carica; Myrtaceae: Psidium guajava; Poaceae: Zea mays; Portulacaceae: Portulaca oleracea; Rosaceae: Malus domestica, Prunus persica, Pyrus communis; Rutaceae: Citrus × paradisi, C. sinensis; Scrophulariaceae: Scoparia dulcis; Solanaceae: Capsicum annuum, Solanum lycopersicum, S. melongena; Sterculiaceae: ; Urticaceae: Boehmeria nivea; Verbenaceae: Lantana camara; Vitaceae: Vitis vinifera (García- Morales et al., 2016; Hara and Jacobsen, 2005; Murthy and Babu, 1997; Neal, 1965; NRCS, 2020; Setchell, 1924; Williams, 2004). Economically Of the hosts listed above, those of significant economic importance important hosts at include Daucus carota (carrot), Phoenix dactylifera (date), Helianthus riska annuus (sunflower), Lactuca sativa (lettuce), Ipomoea batatas (sweetpotato), Cucumis sativus (cucumber), Cucurbita maxima (squash), Cucurbita pepo (pumpkin), Arachis hypogaea (), Glycine max (), Persea americana (avocado), Zea mays (), Capsicum annuum (bell pepper), Solanum lycopersicum (tomato), and Vitis vinifera (grape) (NASS, 2019). Pest potential on Yield losses ranges from 10% in guava and mango; to 100% in economically and carambola have been reported (Broglio et al., 2015). However, M. important hosts at hirsutus has not caused significant damages in the United States. The risk mealybug is considered to be of no economic importance in Hawaii or Guam, where it is under fortuitous biological control by natural enemies introduced with it or otherwise already present (Beardsley, 1985, 1988; Meyerdirk et al., 2001; Reddy et al., 2009). Following the deliberate introduction of parasitoids, the mealybug also has come under successful biological control in California (Andreason et al., 2019; Roltsch et al., 2006), Florida (Amalin et al., 2009; Hodges, 2006), Louisiana, Texas, and Puerto Rico (Michaud and Evans, 2000). The general lack of significant economic impact is attributed to the rapid and complete control exerted by introduced natural enemies, an outcome observed in every country initiating a biological control program against the mealybug (Kairo et al., 2000). Endangered Area Other than where the mealybug is established, the endangered area encompasses Plant Hardiness Zones 7-14 where one or more hosts are present. a As defined by ISPM No. 11, supplement 2, “economically” important hosts refers to both commercial and non-market (environmental) plants (IPPC, 2017).

Ver. 2 June 28, 2021 25 Pest Risk Assessment for mango from Egypt

Assessing the likelihood of introduction of Maconellicoccus hirsutus into the endangered area via mango imported from Egypt Risk Element Risk Uncertainty Evidence for rating (and other notes as Rating Rating necessary) Likelihood of Entry Pest prevalence on Medium Medium Maconellicoccus hirsutus was documented to the harvested colonize mango fruit (Cermeli et al., 2002). commodity The frequency that the scale colonizes fruit versus other plant parts is unknown; therefore, we assess a rating of “Medium” with an elevated uncertainty of “Medium”. Likelihood of Low Low As externally-feeding, soft-bodied insects, surviving post- washing could remove or destroy some of the harvest processing scales on the mango fruit; therefore, the risk before shipment rating was reduced to “Low”. Other post- harvesting processes were not considered. Likelihood of Low Negligible Transport and storing conditions were not surviving transport considered. Therefore, this rating remains and storage “Low”. conditions of the consignment Overall Low Likelihood of Entry Likelihood of Low Low As a scale insect, M. hirsutus is sessile during Establishment most stages of its life, though the first instar nymphs can crawl on their host plant (CABI, 2021). Crawlers can disperse by wind, but are susceptible to exposure and die within hours (Hill, 1980). It is unlikely that mangos will be left outside in conditions that would permit wind dispersal of crawlers. Likelihood of Low Introduction (combined likelihoods of entry and establishment)

3.2.7. Nipaecoccus viridis (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) The spherical mealybug is highly polyphagous with a host list containing over 50 plant families (García-Morales et al., 2016). It can reproduce both sexually and parthenogenically and a female can produce over 1,100 eggs (García-Morales et al., 2016). This scale is present in the

Ver. 2 June 28, 2021 26 Pest Risk Assessment for mango from Egypt

continental United States and Hawaii (García-Morales et al., 2016), but it is still actionable for American Samoa, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands (AQAS, 2021).

Defining the endangered area for Nipaecoccus viridis within American Samoa, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands Climatic suitability Nipaecoccus viridis is present in Africa, Asia, the Caribbean, the Middle East, Oceania, and North America, including the United States (Hawaii and Florida) (EPPO, 2021; Stocks and Hodges, 2010). These areas encompass Plant Hardiness Zones 9-13 (Takeuchi et al., 2018). Hosts in PRA area Host plants in American Samoa, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands include Anacardiaceae: Mangifera indica (mango); Annonaceae: Annona muricata (soursop), (sugar apple); Apocynaceae: Nerium oleander (oleander); Arecaceae: Cocos nucifera (coconut palm); Moraceae: Ficus spp. (fig); Rhamnaceae: Ziziphus spp. (jujube); Rubiaceae: Coffea arabica (Arabian coffee); and Rutaceae: Citrus spp. (García-Morales et al., 2016; NRCS, 2020). Economically Economically important hosts in the PRA area include mango, fig, important hosts at coffee, and citrus. riska Pest potential on This pest is likely to cause unacceptable consequences because as a economically mealybug, N. viridis feeds on the sap of its host plants. This feeding can important hosts at reduce host vigor and cause yellowing of foliage. The insect also risk produces honeydew, which acts as a substrate for sooty mold that can hinder photosynthesis (CABI, 2021). Endangered Area The endangered area includes areas within Plant Hardiness Zones 9-13 where host plants are present. a As defined by ISPM No. 11, supplement 2, “economically” important hosts refers to both commercial and non-market (environmental) plants (IPPC, 2017).

Assessing the likelihood of introduction of Nipaecoccus viridis into the endangered area via mango imported from Egypt Risk Element Risk Uncertainty Evidence for rating (and other notes as Rating Rating necessary) Likelihood of Entry Pest prevalence on Medium Medium Nipaecoccus viridis was documented to the harvested colonize mango fruit (Ben-Dov, 1994). We did commodity not find literature detailing the frequency that the scale colonizes fruit versus other plant parts, therefore, we initiate our assessment with a rating of “Medium” with an elevated uncertainty of “Medium”.

Ver. 2 June 28, 2021 27 Pest Risk Assessment for mango from Egypt

Risk Element Risk Uncertainty Evidence for rating (and other notes as Rating Rating necessary) Likelihood of Low Low As externally-feeding, soft-bodied insects, surviving post- washing could remove or destroy some of the harvest processing scales on the mango fruit; consequently, the risk before shipment rating was reduced to “Low”. Other post- harvesting processes were not considered. Likelihood of Low Negligible Transport and storing conditions were not surviving transport considered. Therefore, this rating remains and storage “Low”. conditions of the consignment Overall Low Likelihood of Entry Likelihood of Low Low As a scale insect, N. viridis is sessile during Establishment most stages of its life, though the first instar nymphs are can crawl on their host plant (CABI, 2021). Crawlers can disperse in wind but are susceptible to exposure and die within hours (Hill, 1980). It is unlikely that mangos will be left outside in conditions that would permit wind dispersal of crawlers. Likelihood of Low Introduction (combined likelihoods of entry and establishment)

3.2.8. Rastrococcus invadens (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) The is native to Asia, but it was introduced to west Africa where it has spread rapidly (CABI, 2021). Researchers have recorded over 100 hosts that this pest feeds on in Africa, but it is primarily a pest of mango and citrus (CABI, 2021).

Defining the endangered area for Rastrococcus invadens within the United States and territories Climatic suitability Rastrococcus invadens is present in Africa: Angola, Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of Congo, Republic of the Congo, Cote d’Ivoire, Egypt, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, , Nigeria, Rwanda, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Togo; Asia: Bangladesh, Bhutan, China, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Pakistan, Philippines, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Vietnam; and South America: French Guiana (García-Morales et al., 2016). These areas encompass Plant Hardiness Zones 10-13 (Takeuchi et al., 2018).

Ver. 2 June 28, 2021 28 Pest Risk Assessment for mango from Egypt

Hosts in PRA area Host plants in the PRA area include Anacardiaceae: Mangifera indica (mango); Apocynaceae: Nerium oleander (oleander); Cannaceae: Canna indica (Indian shot); Convolvulaceae: Ipomoea batatas (sweetpotato); Lauraceae: Persea americana (avocado); Malvaceae: acuta (common wireweed); Myrtaceae: Psidium guajava (guava); Rutaceae: Citrus spp.; Scrophulariaceae: Lindernia crustacea (Malaysian false pimpernel) (García-Morales et al., 2016; NRCS, 2020). Economically Economically important hosts include mango, , avocado, important hosts at guava, and citrus. riska Pest potential on This pest is likely to cause unacceptable consequences because feeding economically by the scales causes the production of honeydew. The honeydew lands on important hosts at the leaves of host plants, serving as a medium for the growth of sooty risk mold which hinders photosynthesis of host plants. This results in decreased productivity of the plant (CABI, 2021). Endangered Area The endangered area includes areas in Plant Hardiness Zones 10-13 where host plants occurs. a As defined by ISPM No. 11, supplement 2, “economically” important hosts refers to both commercial and non- market (environmental) plants (IPPC, 2017).

Assessing the likelihood of introduction of Rastrococcus invadens into the endangered area via mango imported from Egypt Risk Element Risk Uncertainty Evidence for rating (and other notes as Rating Rating necessary) Likelihood of Entry Pest prevalence on Medium Medium The scale is known to feed on fruit (Agounke et the harvested al., 1988); mango is considered a main host for commodity the scale (CABI, 2021). The frequency that the scale colonizes fruit versus other plant parts is unknown, so we initiate our assessment with a rating of “Medium” with an elevated uncertainty of “Medium”. Likelihood of Low Low As externally-feeding, soft-bodied insects, surviving post- washing could remove or destroy some of the harvest processing scales on the mango fruit, so the risk rating was before shipment reduced to “Low”. Other post-harvesting processes were not considered. Likelihood of Low Negligible Transport and storing conditions were not surviving transport considered. Therefore, this rating remains and storage “Low”. conditions of the consignment

Ver. 2 June 28, 2021 29 Pest Risk Assessment for mango from Egypt

Risk Element Risk Uncertainty Evidence for rating (and other notes as Rating Rating necessary) Overall Low Likelihood of Entry Likelihood of Low Low As a scale insect, Rastrococcus invadens is Establishment sessile during most stages of its life, though the first instar nymphs can crawl on their host plant (CABI, 2021). Crawlers can disperse in wind but are susceptible to exposure and die within hours (Hill, 1980). It is unlikely that mangos will be left outside in conditions that would permit wind dispersal of crawlers. Likelihood of Low Introduction (combined likelihoods of entry and establishment)

3.2.9. Scirtothrips aurantii (Thysanoptera: Thripidae) The South African citrus thrips is, primarily, a pest of citrus in Africa (CABI, 2021; Grove et al., 2000). It causes discolored areas and lesions on fruit of citrus, mango, and banana (CABI, 2021; Grove et al., 2000; Mound and Palmer, 1981). Generally, thrips are among the weakest flying insects, their dispersal primarily relies on wind (Lewis, 1991).

Defining the endangered area for Scirtothrips aurantii within the United States and territories Climatic suitability Scirtothrips aurantii is present in Africa: Angola, Cote d’Ivoire, Egypt, Eswanti, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Malawi, Mauritius, Nigeria, Reunion, South Africa, Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda, Zimbabwe; Asia: Yemen; Europe: ; and Oceania: Australia (EPPO, 2021). These areas encompass Plant Hardiness Zones 9-13 (Takeuchi et al., 2018). Hosts in PRA area Host plants present in the PRA area include Fabaceae: Acacia spp. and Arachis hypogaea (peanut), Asparagaceae: Asparagus spp., Rutaceae: Citrus spp., Malvaceae: Gossypium spp. (cotton), and Musaceae: Musa paradisiaca (banana) (EPPO, 2021). Economically Economically important hosts at risk include peanut, asparagus, citrus, important hosts at cotton, and banana. riska Pest potential on This pest is likely to cause unacceptable consequences because, in citrus, economically S. aurantii feeds on leaves and fruits, which causes silver spots and important hosts at distorted fruit (CABI, 2021). Feeding on banana fruits causes brown risk spots (Mound and Palmer, 1981). Endangered Area The endangered area includes areas in Plant Hardiness Zones 9-13 where host plants are present.

Ver. 2 June 28, 2021 30 Pest Risk Assessment for mango from Egypt a As defined by ISPM No. 11, supplement 2, “economically” important hosts refers to both commercial and non- market (environmental) plants (IPPC, 2017).

Assessing the likelihood of introduction of Scirtothrips aurantii into the endangered area via mango imported from Egypt Risk Element Risk Uncertainty Evidence for rating (and other notes as Rating Rating necessary) Likelihood of Entry Pest prevalence on High Low Scirtothrips aurantii are documented to feed the harvested and breed on mango fruit (Grove et al., 2000). commodity Likelihood of Medium Medium Larvae and adults are present externally on the surviving post- mango fruit and washing may remove many of harvest processing them from the external fruit surface. However, before shipment eggs are embedded into the tissue (Grove et al., 2000) and are unlikely to be removed from washing. Other post-harvesting processes were not considered. The risk rating was reduced to “Medium” due to removal of larvae and adults. Likelihood of Medium Negligible Transport and storing conditions were not surviving transport considered. Therefore, this rating remains and storage “Medium”. conditions of the consignment Overall Medium Likelihood of Entry Likelihood of Medium Low As tiny insects with poor flight capabilities Establishment (Lewis, 1991), thrips are not likely to move long distances unaided. They can, however, move several kilometers via wind dispersal (Fernandes and de Sena Fernandes, 2015; Lewis, 1991), but it is not likely mangos will be placed in windy, outdoor conditions. Likelihood of Medium Introduction (combined likelihoods of entry and establishment)

Ver. 2 June 28, 2021 31 Pest Risk Assessment for mango from Egypt

3.2.10. Lasiodiplodia pseudotheobromae A.J.L. Phillips, A. Alves & Crous (Botryosphaeriales: Botryosphaeriaceae) This pathogen causes stem cankers, dieback, and stem end rot of mangoes. Impacts include reductions in yield, post-harvest fruit rot, dieback and decline of infected plants, and increasing need for to control these pathogens.

Defining the endangered area for Lasiodiplodia pseudotheobromae within the continental United States and Hawaii Climatic suitability Lasiodiplodia pseudotheobromae is present in Africa: Democratic Republic of the Congo, Egypt, Guinea-Bissau, Mozambique, Namibia, South Africa, Tunisia Asia: China, India, Iran, Korea, Laos, Malaysia, Pakistan, Thailand, Turkey; Central America: Costa Rica; Europe: Spain, and the Netherlands; North America: Mexico, and Puerto Rico; Oceania: Australia; South America: Brazil, Ecuador, Peru, Suriname, and Venezuela (CABI, 2021; Farr and Rossman, 2020; Sakalidis et al., 2011; Serrato-Diaz et al., 2020).

Based on a comparison of this distribution with a global map of Plant Hardiness Zones (Takeuchi et al., 2018), we estimate it could establish in Plant Hardiness Zones 6-14 in the United States. These Hardiness Zones are found throughout the continental United States, Hawaii, Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands. Hosts in PRA area The hosts for L. pseudotheobromae include M. indica (Anacardiaceae) Acacia confusa, A. mangium (Fabaceae), Albizia falcataria, Citrus aurantium (Rutaceae), Coffea sp., Eucalyptus grandis, Gmelina arborea, Mangifera sylvatica, Myrcianthes pungens, Paulownia fortunei, Rosa sp., and Terminalia catappa (Sakalidis et al., 2011) Economically Economically important hosts include orange and coffee. There is a important hosts at limited production of mango (3329 acres) in the continental United States riska in Florida, California, Hawaii, and Texas (NASS, 2021). Pest potential on This pest is likely to cause unacceptable consequences because it causes economically stem cankers, dieback, and stem end rot of mangoes. Impacts include important hosts at reductions in yield, post-harvest fruit rot, dieback and decline of infected risk plants (Sakalidis et al., 2011). Endangered Area The endangered area includes areas corresponding to Plant Hardness Zones 6 to 14 in the continental United States and Hawaii where hosts occur. a As defined by ISPM No. 11, supplement 2, “economically” important hosts refers to both commercial and non- market (environmental) plants (IPPC, 2017).

Ver. 2 June 28, 2021 32 Pest Risk Assessment for mango from Egypt

Assessing the likelihood of introduction of Lasiodiplodia pseudotheobromae into the endangered area via mango imported from Egypt Risk Element Risk Uncertainty Evidence for rating (and other notes as Rating Rating necessary) Likelihood of Entry Pest prevalence on High Low Mango is a host for L. pseudotheobromae, and the harvested the fruit is often affected, causing fruit rot commodity (Ismail et al., 2012). Likelihood of Medium Low Severely diseased fruit would not be harvested surviving post- for the export market. Washing would not affect harvest processing the prevalence of this disease. Other post- before shipment harvesting processes were not considered. However, latent infections could be present (Ploetz et al., 1994). We reduced the rating by one because visibly infected fruit should not be harvested. Likelihood of Medium Low Transport and storing conditions were not surviving transport considered. Therefore, this rating remains and storage unchanged. conditions of the consignment Overall Medium Likelihood of Entry

Ver. 2 June 28, 2021 33 Pest Risk Assessment for mango from Egypt

Risk Element Risk Uncertainty Evidence for rating (and other notes as Rating Rating necessary) Likelihood of Low Low Lasiodiplodia pseudotheobromae colonizes the Establishment inflorescence and reaches the stem end of the fruit several weeks after flowering. Stem end infections then remain quiescent until the fruit ripens. Under natural conditions stem-end rot symptoms appear between 3 and 7 days after harvest, but symptoms can be delayed by cold treatment (Ploetz et al., 1994), which means that the pathogen may enter new areas through the movement of infected fruit, as such conditions may be encountered during storage and transport.

The conidia and ascospores of species in the Botryosphaeriaceae can be dispersed with rain or irrigation splash and may also become airborne (Copes and Hendrix Jr, 2004), however fruit whose intended use is consumption is unlikely to be introduced into commercial production areas, and are not likely to come in contact with host materials in the endangered area. Likelihood of Low Introduction (combined likelihoods of entry and establishment)

3.2.11. Nattrassia mangiferae (Syd. & P. Syd.) B. Sutton & Dyko (Botryosphaeriales: Botryosphaeriaceae) This pathogen causes postharvest disease, including stem cankers, dieback, and stem end rot of mangoes. Impacts include reductions in yield, post-harvest fruit rot, dieback and decline of infected plants, and increasing need for fungicides to control these pathogens.

Defining the endangered area for Nattrassia mangiferae within the United States Climatic suitability Nattrassia mangiferae is present in Africa: Benin, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Egypt, Ethiopia, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea-Bissau, Mali, Mozambique, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Sudan, Tanzania, Tunisia, Uganda, and Zimbabwe; Asia: Bangladesh, Bhutan, Brunei, China, India, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Kuwait, Lebanon, Malaysia, Myanmar, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Sri Lanka; Caribbean: Cuba, and Jamaica; Europe: Cyprus, Greece, , Sweden, and the United Kingdom; North America: Canada, United States (Arizona, California, Hawaii, Washington, and West Virginia); Oceania: Australia,

Ver. 2 June 28, 2021 34 Pest Risk Assessment for mango from Egypt

Fiji and Solomon Islands; South America: Brazil, and Venezuela (CABI, 2021; Farr and Rossman, 2020; Heath et al., 2011; HerbIMI, n.d.; Lin et al., 2019; Mackinaite, 2010; Phillips et al., 2013).

Based on a comparison of this distribution with a global map of Plant Hardiness Zones (Takeuchi et al., 2018), we estimate it could establish in Plant Hardiness Zones 6-14 in the United States. These Hardiness Zones are found throughout the continental United States, Hawaii, Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands. Hosts in PRA area The hosts for Nattrassia mangiferae include Chestnut (Castanea sativa Mill.), (Citrus limon (L.) Burm. f.), Grapefruit (Citrus paradisi Macfad.), Citrus (Citrus spp. L.), Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus grandis W. Hill ex Maiden), Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus spp. L'Hér.), Grapefruit (Citrus ×paradisi Macfad.), Hevea (Hevea spp. Aubl.), Sweetpotato (Ipomoea batatas (L.) Lam.), Horseradish (Armoracia rusticana G. Gaertn. et al.), Mango (Mangifera indica L.), Cassava (Manihot esculenta Crantz), Plantain (Plantago spp. L.), Apricot (Prunus armeniaca L.), Guava (Psidium guajava L.), (Saccharum officinarum L.), Grape (Vitis vinifera L.), Walnut (Juglans regia L.) (CABI, 2021; Farr and Rossman, 2020; HerbIMI, n.d.; Saaiman, 1996) Economically Economically important hosts include citrus and grape. There is a limited important hosts at production of mango (3329 acres) in the continental United States in riska Florida, California, Hawaii, and Texas (NASS, 2021). Pest potential on This pest is likely to cause unacceptable consequences. Nattrassia economically mangiferae is an important pathogen of mango, causing blossom blight, important hosts at stem-end dieback and soft brown fruit rot (Ni et al., 2012; Saaiman, risk 1996). Endangered Area The endangered area includes areas corresponding to Plant Hardiness Zones 6 to 14 in the continental United States and Hawaii where hosts occur. a As defined by ISPM No. 11, supplement 2, “economically” important hosts refers to both commercial and non- market (environmental) plants (IPPC, 2017).

Assessing the likelihood of introduction of Nattrassia mangiferae into the endangered area via mango imported from Egypt Risk Element Risk Uncertainty Evidence for rating (and other notes as Rating Rating necessary) Likelihood of Entry Pest prevalence on High Low Mango is a host for Nattrassia mangiferae, and the harvested the fruit is often affected, causing blossom commodity blight, stem-end dieback and soft brown fruit rot (Ni et al., 2012; Saaiman, 1996).

Ver. 2 June 28, 2021 35 Pest Risk Assessment for mango from Egypt

Risk Element Risk Uncertainty Evidence for rating (and other notes as Rating Rating necessary) Likelihood of Medium Low Severely diseased fruit would not be harvested surviving post- for the export market. Washing would not affect harvest processing the prevalence of this disease. Other post- before shipment harvesting processes were not considered. However, latent infections could be present (Ploetz et al., 1994). We reduced the rating by one because visibly infected fruit should not be harvested. Likelihood of Medium Low Transport and storing conditions were not surviving transport considered. Therefore, this rating remains and storage unchanged. conditions of the consignment Overall Medium Likelihood of Entry Likelihood of Low Low Nattrassia mangiferae colonizes the Establishment inflorescence and then remain quiescent until the fruit ripens, at which point causes water- soaked lesions that radiate from the stem end in fingerlike projections (Ploetz et al., 1994). Under natural conditions stem-end rot symptoms appear between 3 and 7 days after harvest, but symptoms can be delayed by cold treatment (Ploetz et al., 1994), which means that the pathogen may enter new areas through the movement of infected fruit, as such conditions may be encountered during storage and transport.

The conidia and ascospores of species in the Botryosphaeriaceae can be dispersed with rain or irrigation splash and may also become airborne (Copes and Hendrix Jr, 2004), however fruit whose intended use is consumption is unlikely to be introduced into commercial production areas, and are not likely to come in contact with host materials in the endangered area. Likelihood of Low Introduction (combined likelihoods of entry and establishment)

Ver. 2 June 28, 2021 36 Pest Risk Assessment for mango from Egypt

4. Summary Of the organisms associated with mango worldwide and present in the export area, we identified eleven organisms that are quarantine pests for the United States and territories. These pests are likely to meet the threshold for unacceptable consequences in the PRA area and have a reasonable likelihood of following the commodity pathway (Table 3). Thus, these pests are candidates for risk management. Furthermore, these results represent a baseline estimate of the risks associated with the import commodity pathway as described in section 1.4.

Table 3. The list below is a summary of pests selected for further evaluation and determined to be candidates for risk management. These pests meet the threshold for unacceptable consequences of introduction and have a reasonable likelihood of following the commodity pathway. Pest type Scientific name Likelihood of Uncertainty Introduction rating statement (optional)a Arthropod Bactrocera zonata Saunders High Ceratitis capitata (Wiedemann) High Dacus ciliatus Loew Medium Saissetia privigna De Lotto Low Icerya seychellarum (Westwood) Low Maconellicoccus hirsutus (Green) Low Nipaecoccus viridis (Newstead) Low (Action only when destined to American Samoa, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands) Rastrococcus invadens Williams Low Scirtothrips aurantii Faure Medium Fungi Lasiodiplodia pseudotheobromae Low A.J.L. Phillips, A. Alves & Crous Nattrassia mangiferae (Syd. & P. Low Syd.) B. Sutton & Dyko aThe uncertainty statement, if included, identifies the most important source(s) of uncertainty.

Our assessment of risk is contingent on the application of all components of the pathway as described in section 1.4. The choice of appropriate phytosanitary measures to mitigate pest risk is not addressed in this document.

Ver. 2 June 28, 2021 37 Pest Risk Assessment for mango from Egypt

5. Literature Cited

7 CFR § 319.56-3. 2019. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 7, Part 319.56-3 (7 CFR § 319.56-3 - General requirements for all imported fruits and vegetables). https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/CFR-2019-title7-vol5/CFR-2019-title7-vol5- sec319-56-3. IPPC. 2017. International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures, Publication No. 11: Pest Risk Analysis for Quarantine Pests. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Secretariat of the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC), Rome, . 36 pp. IPPC. 2018. International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures, Publication No. 5: Glossary of Phytosanitary Terms. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Secretariat of the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC), Rome, Italy. 35 pp. Abd-Rabou, S., H. Badary, and N. Ahmed. 2012. Control measures of two soft scale insects (Hemiptera: Coccidae) infesting guava and mango trees in Egypt. The Journal of Basic & Applied Zoology 65(1):55-61. Abdel-Aziz, O. S. 1968. A revision of the African species of Oxycarenus (Hemiptera: ). Doctoral Thesis, Imperial College of Science and Technology, South Kensington, London. Abdel-Moaty, R., S. Hashim, and A. Tadros. 2017. Monitoring the honeydew , Millière (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) in pomegranate orchards in the northwestern region of Egypt. Journal of Plant Protection and Pathology 8(10):505-509. Abdel-Raheem, M., Z. A. Ragab, and I. Abdel-Rhman. 2011. Effect of entomopathogenic fungi on the green stink bug, Nezara viridula L. in sugar-beet in Egypt. Bulletin of the National Research Centre 36(2):145-152. Abdel Kareim, A., M. Ragab, N. Ghanim, A. El-Salam, and A. Samira. 2018. Seasonal activity, natural enemies and life table parameters of Cryptoblabes gnidiella Mill. on mango inflorescences. Journal of Plant Protection and Pathology 9(7):393-397. Abou-Awad, B. A., A.-S. Metwally, and M. M. Al-Azzazy. 2011. Environmental management and biological aspects of two eriophyid mango mites in Egypt: Aceria mangiferae and Metaculus mangiferae. Acarologia 51(4):481-497. Abreu-Rodríguez, E. 2017. Annotated checklist of the Acarina of Puerto Rico. Journal of Agriculture of the University of Puerto Rico 101(Special Issue 2):61-151. Abreu, E., S. Medina-Gaud, and J. Maldonado-Capriles. 1987. New records of mites for Puerto Rico. Journal of Agriculture of the University of Puerto Rico 71(4):399-402. Agamy, E. A., M. M. El-Husseini, I. I. El-Sebaey, and M. E. Wafy. 2017. The Egyptian thripid species in groves at Ismaialia, Egypt. Egyptian Academic Journal of Biological Sciences. A, 10(4):1-17. Agounke, D., U. Agricola, and H. A. Bokonon-Ganta. 1988. Rastrococcus invadens Williams (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae), a serious exotic pest of fruit trees and other plants in West Africa. Bulletin of Entomological Research 78:695-702. Alfieri, S. A., C. Wehlburg, K. R. Langdon, and J. W. Kimbrough. 1984. Index of Plant Diseases in Florida (Bulletin 11). Florida Deparment of Agriculture & Consumer Services, Gainesville, FL. 389 pp. Ali, S., V. Rivera, and G. Secor. 2005. First report of Fusarium graminearum causing dry rot of potato in North Dakota. Plant disease 89(1):105.

Ver. 2 June 28, 2021 38 Pest Risk Assessment for mango from Egypt

Aliakbarpour, H., and C. S. M. Rawi. 2012. The species composition of thrips (Insecta: Thysanoptera) inhabiting mango orchards in Pulau Pinang, Malaysia. Tropical Life Sciences Research 23(1):45-61. Alvarado-Ortiz, A. N., N. Acin, and J. L. Zamora. 2004. Crop Profile for Mangos in Puerto Rico. National information system for the regional IPM centers. 16 pp. Amalin, D. M., L. Nieves-Rivera, A. Roda, and C. Mannion. 2009. Tracking the pink hibiscus mealybug (Maconellicoccus hirsutus Green) and the success of its parasitoids in Miami– Dade County, Florida, using the GPS/GIS mapping system. Proceedings of the Florida State Horticultural Society 122:438-440. Amrine, J. W., and T. A. Stasny. 1994. Catalog of the Eriophyoidea (Acarina: Prostigmata) of the World. Pages 1-798 in. Indira Publishing House, West Bloomfield, MI. Andreason, S. A., S. V. Triapitsyn, and T. M. Perring. 2019. Untangling the Anagyrus pseudococci species complex (Hymenoptera: ), parasitoids of worldwide importance for biological control of (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae): genetic data corroborates separation of two new, previously misidentified species. Biological Control 129:65-82. AQAS. 2021. Pest ID 2.4. United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Quarantine Activity Systems (AQAS). https://aqas.aphis.usda.gov/aqas/HomePageInit.do#defaultAnchor. Attiah, H. H. 1970. New records of Eriophyid mites from Egypt (Acarina). Bulletin de la Societe Entomologique d'Egypte 54:43-47. Badr, M. A., A. A. Oshaibah, M. M. Al-Gamal, and M. M. Salem. 1986. Taxonomy of Five Species of Superfamily Yponomeutoidea - Lep. in Egypt. Agricultural Research Review 61(1):257-272. Baker, E. W., and D. M. Tuttle. 1964. The false spider mites of Arizona (Acarina: Tenuipalpidae). Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ. 1- 80 pp. Bakr, R. F. A. 2009. Ecological and taxonomic studies on the scale insects that infest mango trees at Qaliobiya governorate. Egyptian Academic Journal of Biological Sciences 2(2):69-89. Bakry, M., G. Bussières, M. S. Lamhamedi, H. A. Margolis, D. A. Stowe, and M. Abourouh. 2009. A first record of Pestalotiopsis clavispora in Argan mass cutting propagation: Prevalence, prevention and consequences for plant production. Phytoprotection 90(3):117-120. Bakry, M. M. S., M. S. Fouad, S. F. M. Moussa, and F. F. Ahmed. 2015. Field evaluation of some against Insulaspis pallidula and Icerya seychellarum on mango trees at Qena Governorate, Egypt. AshEse Journal of Agricultural Science 1(5):28-32. Beardsley, J. W. 1985. Notes and Exhibitions: Maconellicoccus hirsutus (Green). Proceedings of the Hawaiian Entomological Society 25:27. Beardsley, J. W. 1988. Notes and Exhibitions: Marietta exitiosa Compere. Proceedings of the Hawaiian Entomological Society 28:7. Ben-Dov, Y. 1985. Further observations on scale insects (Homoptera: Coccoidea) of the Middle East. Phytoparasitica 13(3-4):185-192. Ben-Dov, Y. 1994. A systematic catalogue of the mealybugs of the world (Insecta: Homoptera: Coccoidea: Pseudococcidae and ) With Data on Geographical Distribution, Host Plants, Biology and Economic Importance. Intercept Ltd, Andover, UK. 686 pp.

Ver. 2 June 28, 2021 39 Pest Risk Assessment for mango from Egypt

Bharati, S. M., K. P. Gundannavar, R. S. Giiraddi, J. S. Hilli, B. C. Kamanna, and R. A. Budhihal. 2007. Mango - a new record for Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner). Current Science 92(8):1033. Bográn, C. E., and S. Ludwig. 2007. Pink hibiscus mealybug: a new pest in Texas (E-454). Bradbury, J. F. 1986. Guide to Plant Pathogenic Bacteria. CAB International Mycological Institute, Slough, UK. 331 pp. Britz, H., E. T. Steenkamp, T. A. Coutinho, B. D. Wingfield, W. F. Marasas, and M. J. Wingfield. 2002. Two new species of Fusarium section Liseola associated with mango malformation. Mycologia 94(4):722-730. Broglio, S. M. F., E. P. Cordero, J. M. D. Santos, and L. B. Micheletti. 2015. Registro da cochonilha-rosada-do-hibisco infestando frutíferas em Maceió, Alagoas, Brasil. Revista Caatinga 28(2):242-248. Butani, D. K. 1993. Mango: Pest Problems. Periodical Expert Book Agency, Delhi, India. 290 pp. Byron, M. A., J. L. Gillett-Kaufman, and S. A. Allan. 2018. Black scale - (Olivier, 1791) (Insecta: Hemiptera: Coccoidea: Coccidae) (EENY-620). University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. CABI. 2021. Crop Protection Compendium. Wallingford, UK. CAB International. https://www.cabi.org/cpc/. Cao, T., N. Zhang, and J. Feng. 2019. The genus Saissetia (Hemiptera, Coccomorpha, Coccidae) in China, with description of a new species. ZooKeys 873:55. Capinera, J. L. 2020. Melon thrips - Thrips palmi Karny (Insecta: Thysanoptera: Thripidae) (EENY-135). University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. Ceballos Vázquez, M., H. L. Baños, R. Chico, and M. d. l. A. Martínez. 2016. Presencia en Cuba de enemigos naturales de la chinche rosada del hibisco (Maconellicoccus hirsutus Green). Revista de Protección Vegetal 31(1):77-80. Cermeli, M., P. M. Valles, F. Godoy, R. Romero, and O. Cárdenas. 2002. Presencia de la cochinilla rosada de la cayena Maconellicoccus hirsutus (Green) (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) en Venezuela. Entomotropica 17(1):103-105. Childers, C. C. 1994. Feeding injury to 'Robinson' tangerine leaves by Brevipalpus mites (Acari: Tenuipalpidae) in Florida and evaluation of chemical control on citrus. Florida Entomologist 77(2):265-271. Chinnusamy, S., M. Hubballi, A. Sornakili, and B. Saralemma. 2010. First report of leaf blight of mango caused by Drechslera australiensis in India. World Journal of Agricultural Sciences 6:565-567. Christenson, L. D., and R. H. Foote. 1960. Biology of fruit flies. Annual Review of Entomology 5:171-192. Chumak, P. 2004. Brevipalpus obovatus Donn. and biological measures of introduced plants protection from vermin. Plant Introduction 24:83-87. Collado-Romero, M., R. M. Jiménez-Díaz, and J. Mercado-Blanco. 2010. DNA sequence analysis of conserved genes reveals hybridization events that increase genetic diversity in Verticillium dahliae. Fungal biology 114(2-3):209-218. Copes, W., and F. Hendrix Jr. 2004. Effect of temperature on sporulation of dothidea, B. obtusa, and B. rhodina. Plant disease 88(3):292-296.

Ver. 2 June 28, 2021 40 Pest Risk Assessment for mango from Egypt

Culliney, T. W., W. T. Nagamine, and K. K. Teramoto. 2003. Introductions for biological control in Hawaii 1997-2001. Proceedings of the Hawaiian Entomological Society 36:145-153. De Prins, J., and W. De Prins. 2020. Afromoths, online database of Afrotropical moth species (Lepidoptera). www.afromoths.net. de Siqueira, M. A., A. L. B. G. Peronti, N. M. Martinelli, and V. A. Costa. 2019. New records of parasitoids hymenopteran (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea) associated with Maconellicoccus hirsutus (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) in the State of São Paulo. Journal of Agricultural Science 11(4):100-112. Dowell, R. V., F. W. Howard, R. H. Cherry, and G. E. Fitzpatrick. 1979. Field studies of the host range of the Citrus Blackfly, Aleruocanthus woglumi (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae). The Canadian Entomologist 111(1):1-6. Duyck, P. F., P. David, S. Pavoine, and S. Quilici. 2008. Can host-range allow niche differentiation of invasive polyphagous fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) in La Réunion? Ecological Entomology 33(4):439-452. Ebratt-Ravelo, E. E., A. P. Castro-Avila, J. L. Vaca-Uribe, D. Corredor-Pardo, T. Hance, and A. Goldarazena. 2019. Composition and structure of Thripidae populations in crops of three geographical regions in Colombia. Journal of Insect Science 19(1):1-12. El-Nahal, A. K. M., A. K. Azab, and S. M. Swailem. 1970. Studies on the biology of the melon fruit fly, Dacus ciliatus Loew. Bull. Soc. Entomol. Egypt. 54:231-241. El-Saeady, A., S. El-Awady, M. Mahmoud, M. Badr, and M. Megahed. 2011. Survey of the most Lepidopterous attracted to a light-trap at two regions in Egypt. Journal of Plant Protection and Pathology 2(11):947-956. El-Samea, S. A. A., and B. E. A. Fetoh. 2006. New record of Bactrocera zonata (Saundera) (Diptera: Tephritidae) on potatoes in Egypt [Abstract]. Egyptian Journal of Agricultural Research 84(1):61-63. El-Wahab, A. A., S. Salah, S. Elnagar, and M. A. K. El-Sheikh. 2012. First record in Egypt of two thrips species infesting cucumber crop. Academic Journal of Entomology 5(3):164- 168. El-Wahab, S. A. 2016. Survey, seasonal abundance of thrips species and first record of two thrips species associated with soybean and weed plants in Egypt. Egyptian Academic Journal of Biological Sciences Entomology 9(3):49-68. Elnagar, S., M. El-Sheikh, A. Hashem, and Y. Afia. 2010. Recent invasion by Bactrocera zonata (Saunders) as a new pest competing with Ceratitis capitata (Wiedemann) in attacking fruits in Egypt. Aspects of Applied Biology 104:97-102. EPPO. 2005. European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization. Data sheets on quarantine pests: Maconellicoccus hirsutus. EPPO Bulletin 35(3):413-415. EPPO. 2021. EPPO Global Database. EPPO. https://gd.eppo.int/. Evans, G. A. 2008. The (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae) of the World and Their Host Plants and Natural Enemies. United States Department of Agriculture, Animal Plant Health Inspection Service, Washington, DC. 703 pp. Evans, G. A., and S. Abd-Rabou. 2005. Two new species, and additional records, of aphelinids from Egypt (Hymenoptera: ). Zootaxa 838(1):1-7. Farr, D. F., and A. Y. Rossman. 2020. Fungal Databases, U.S. National Collections, ARS, USDA. in. https://nt.ars-grin.gov/fungaldatabases/.

Ver. 2 June 28, 2021 41 Pest Risk Assessment for mango from Egypt

FDACS. 2011. Mediterranean fruit fly, Ceratitis capitata (Diptera: Tephritidae), found in Florida, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. North Carolina State University, Center for Integrated Pest Management, Raleigh, NC. Feliciano, M., I. Cabrera-Asencio, and L. I. Rivera-Vargas. 2008. Frankliniella occidentalis, F. schultzei and F. fusca (Thysanoptera: Thripidae) in Puerto Rico. Journal of Agriculture - University of Puerto Rico 92(1-2):107-110. Fernandes, F. L., and M. E. de Sena Fernandes. 2015. Flight movement and spatial distribution of immunomarked thrips in onion, potato, and tomato. Pesquisa Agropecuária Brasileira 50(5):399-406. Ferreira, R. G., and F. R. Barbosa. 2002. Occurrence of damaging mango (Mangifera indica L.), in the São Francisco Valley. Revista Brasileira de Fruticultura 24(1):267-268. Fetoh, B. E. A. 2003. Recent record of parasitoid species of cucurbit fruit fly, Dacus ciliatus (Loew) (Diptera: Tephritidae) in Egypt. Egyptian Journal of 13(1/2):127. Gagnevin, L., and O. Pruvost. 2001. Epidemiology and control of mango bacterial black spot. Plant disease 85(9):928-935. Gamliel-Atinsky, E., A. Sztejnberg, M. Maymon, H. Vintal, D. Shtienberg, and S. Freeman. 2009. Infection dynamics of Fusarium mangiferae, causal agent of mango malformation disease. Phytopathology 99(6):775-781. García-Morales, M., B. D. Denno, D. R. Miller, G. L. Miller, Y. Ben-Dov, and N. B. Hardy. 2016. ScaleNet: A literature-based model of scale insect biology and systematics. http://scalenet.info. Gazia, E. 2020. Innovation of a new trap, for catching mediterranean fruit fly, Ceratitis capitata (Wied.) and peach fruit fly, Bactrocera zonata (Saund.) in Egypt. Journal of Plant Protection and Pathology 11(2):111-114. Gentry, J. W. 1965. Crop insects of northeast Africa-southwest Asia (273). Germain, J.-F., J.-F. Vayssieres, and D. Matile-Ferrero. 2010. Preliminary inventory of scale insects on mango trees in Benin. Entomologia Hellenica 19:124-131. Grové, T., and M. De Beer. 2015. Insect pests affecting the production of mango in South Africa. Pages 297-304 in XI International Mango Symposium 1183. Grove, T., J. Giliomee, and K. Pringle. 2000. Seasonal abundance of different stages of the citrus thrips, Scirtothrips aurantii, on two mango cultivars in South Africa. Phytoparasitica 28(1):43-53. Haggag, W., and M. A. El-Wahab. 2009. First report of Fusarium sterilihyphosum-and F. proliferatum-induced malformation disease of mango in Egypt. Journal of 91(1):232. Haggag, W. M. 2010. Mango diseases in Egypt. Agriculture and Biology Journal of North America 1(3):285-289. Halawa, A. M., and M. M. Fawzy. 2014. A new species of Brevipalpus Donnadieu (Acari: Tenuipalpidae) and key to the Egyptian species. Zootaxa 3755(1):87-95. Hamon, A. B., and G. B. Edwards. 1994. Thrips (Thysanoptera) New to Florida: I. Thripidae: Panchaetothripinae (No. 365). Pages 1-2 in Entomology Circular. Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Plant Industry. Hamon, A. B., and G. J. Mason. 2020. Fig wax scale - Ceroplastes rusci (Linnaeus) (Insecta: Hemiptera: Coccoidea: Coccidae) (EENY-187). University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.

Ver. 2 June 28, 2021 42 Pest Risk Assessment for mango from Egypt

Hara, A. H., and C. M. Jacobsen. 2005. Hot water immersion for surface disinfestation of Maconellicoccus hirsutus (Homoptera: Pseudococcidae). Journal of Economic Entomology 98(2):284-288. Hata, T. Y., A. H. Hara, and J. D. Hansen. 1991. Feeding preference of melon thrips on orchids in Hawaii. HortScience 26(10):1294-1295. Heath, R. N., J. Roux, B. Slippers, A. Drenth, S. R. Pennycook, B. D. Wingfield, and et al. 2011. Occurrence and pathogenicity of Neofusicoccum parvum and N. mangiferae on ornamental Tibouchina species. Forest Pathology 41(1):48-51. HerbIMI. n.d. Herb. IMI records for Fungus: Neofusicoccum mangiferae. Board of Trustees of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. http://www.herbimi.info/herbimi/results.htm?name=Neofusicoccum%20mangiferae https://www.gpdd.info/download_file_securely.cfm?file=references/6047_xx_nd_Herb_IMI_70 991.pdf. Heu, R. 2007. Distribution and host records of agricultural pests and other organisms in Hawaii. Pages 1-71 in. State of Hawaii Department of Agriculture, Plant Industry Division, Plant Pest Control Branch, Survey Program, Honolulu, HI. Hill, D. S. 1987. Agricultural Insect Pests of Temperate Regions and Their Control. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA. 659 pp. Hill, M. G. 1980. Wind dispersal of the coccid Icerya seychellarum (: Homoptera) on Aldabra Atoll. Journal of Animal Ecology 49:939-957. Hodges, G. 2006. Pink hibiscus mealybug, Maconellicoccus hirsutus (Green) (DACS-P-01652). Hoy, M. A., A. Hamon, and R. Nguyen. 2020. Pink hibiscus mealybug - Maconellicoccus hirsutus (Green) (Insecta: Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) (EENY-29). University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. Hussein, M. A., N. El-Wakeil, and T. El-Sebai. 2006. Susceptibility of melon fruit fly, Dacus ciliatus, to entomopathogenic nematodes (Rhabditida) and to insecticides. International Journal of Nematology 16(1):13. Hussian, N. A., H. M. El-Sharabasy, A. Aboughalia, and M. F. Soliman. 2018. Population fluctuations of the phytophagous mite, Oligonychus mangiferus and its predator on mango trees in Ismailia Governorate, Egypt. Egyptian Academic Journal of Biological Sciences 11(4):83-88. Ibrahim, G. A., M. S. El-Ghobashy, K. M. El-Sayed, and A. A. Shoeib. 2005. Biological control of citrus brown mite Eutetranychus orientalis using predatory mite, Neoseiulus californicus (McGregor) (Acari: Tetranychidae & Phytoseiidae) on citrus trees. Egyptian Journal of Agricultural Research 83(1):131-139. Ibrahim, M. M. A. 2017. Influence of host plants, temperature and relative humidity on occurrence and population dynamic of black vine thrips, Retithrips syriacus Mayet at El Qassaseen district, Ismailia Governorate. Egyptian Journal of Agricultural Research 95(2):661-678. IPPC. 2017. International Standards For Phytosanitary Measures, Publication No. 11: Pest Risk Analysis for Quarantine Pests. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Secretariat of the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC), Rome, Italy. 40 pp. IPPC. 2018. International Standars For Phytosanitary Measures, Publication No. 27: Diagnostic protocols for regulated pests - DP 25: Xylella fastidiosa. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Secretariat of the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC), Rome, Italy. 32 pp.

Ver. 2 June 28, 2021 43 Pest Risk Assessment for mango from Egypt

Iqbal, I., and A. Ali. 2008. Red spider mites from fruit orchards of Abbottabad, including a new species. Biologia (Pakistan) 54(2):125-130. Ismail, A., G. Cirvilleri, G. Polizzi, P. Crous, J. Groenewald, and L. Lombard. 2012. Lasiodiplodia species associated with dieback disease of mango (Mangifera indica) in Egypt. Australasian Plant Pathology 41(6):649-660. Ismail, M. S., N. A. Elzohery, and M. Ghallab. 2016. Seasonal Abundance of Brevipalpus phoenicis (Acari: Tenuipalpidae) and Its Predators and Their Effects on Gerbera jamesonii Morphology. Egyptian Academic Journal of Biological Sciences (A. Entomology) 9(4):129-140. Iwahashi, O., and W. Routhier. 2001. Aedeagal length and its variation of the peach fruit fly, Bactrocera zonata (Saunders) (Diptera: Tephritidae), which recently invaded Egypt. Applied Entomology and Zoology 36(1):13-17. Johnson, G., A. Mead, A. Cooke, and I. Wells. 1991. Stem end rot diseases of tropical fruit-mode of infection in mango, and prospects for control. Frontier in Tropical Fruit Research 321:882-890. Kairo, M. T. K., G. V. Pollard, D. D. Peterkin, and V. F. Lopez. 2000. Biological control of the hibiscus mealybug, Maconellicoccus hirsutus Green (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) in the Caribbean. Integrated Pest Management Reviews 5(4):241-254. Kambura, C., C. M. Tanga, D. Kilalo, J. Muthomi, D. Salifu, and I. Rwomushana. 2018. Composition, host range and host suitability of vegetable-infesting tephritids on cucurbits cultivated in Kenya. African Entomology 26(2):379-397. Kartesz, J. T. 2015. The Biota of North America Program (BONAP). maps generated from Kartesz, J.T. 2015. Floristic Synthesis of North America, Version 1.0. Biota of North America Program (BONAP). http://bonap.net/napa. Knihinicki, D. K., and J. Boczek. 2002. New eriophyoid mites (Acari: Eriophyoidea) from Australia. International Journal of Acarology 28(3):241-249. Lenné, J. M. 1990. A World List of Fungal Diseases of Tropical Pasture Species (Phytopathological Papers No. 31). CAB International, Wallingford, UK. 162 pp. Lewis, T. 1991. Feeding, Flight and Dispersal in Thrips. Pages 63-70 in B. L. Parker, M. Skinner, and T. Lewis, (eds.). Towards Understanding Thysanoptera. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Radnor, PA. Lima, C., L. Pfenning, S. Costa, M. Campos, and J. Leslie. 2009. A new Fusarium lineage within the Gibberella fujikuroi species complex is the main causal agent of mango malformation disease in Brazil. Plant Pathology 58(1):33-42. Lin, M.-Y. 2013. Temperature-dependent life history of Oligonychus mangiferus (Acari: Tetranychidae) on Mangifera indica. Experimental and Applied Acarology 61(4):403- 413. Lin, Q., H. He, and S. Xie. 2019. First report of leaf spot caused by Neofusicoccum mangiferae on Kandelia obovata in China. Plant disease 103(9):2479-2479. Liquido, N. J., R. T. Cunningham, and S. Nakagawa. 1990. Host plants of Mediterranean fruit fly (Diptera: Tephritidae) on the island of Hawaii (1949-1985 survey). Journal of Economic Entomology 83(5):1863-1878. Mackinaite, R. 2010. Fungi diversity on wild and cultivated common caraway (Carum carvi L.) . Zemdirbyste 97(4):73-84. Mahaffey, L. A., and W. S. Cranshaw. 2010. Thrips Species Associated with Onion in Colorado. The Southwestern Entomologist 35(1):45-50.

Ver. 2 June 28, 2021 44 Pest Risk Assessment for mango from Egypt

MALR. 2006. Mango. Cairo, Egypt: Ministry of Agriculture and Land Reclamation (MALR), Central Administration of Plant Quarantine (CAPQ). Mani, M. 1989. A review of the pink mealybug—Maconellicoccus hirsutus (Green). Insect Science and Its Application 10(2):157-167. Mason, A. C. 1932. The economic importance of the Mediterranean fruit fly to Hawaiian horticulture. Proceedings of the Hawaiian Entomological Society 8(1):163-178. McLaughlin, J., J. Crane, and M. Carlos Balerdi, I. 2017. Apple Fruit Growing in the Florida Home Landscape. The Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS), Gainesville, FL. Medina-Gaud, S., F. D. Bennett, and R. A. Franqui. 1991. La Mosca Negra de los Citricos, Ashby (Homoptera:Aleyrodidae), en Puerto Rico. The journal of agriculture of the university of puerto rico 75(3):301-305. Medina-Gaud, S., and R. A. Franqui. 2001. Retithrips syriacus (Mayet), the black vine thrips (Insecta: Thysanoptera: Thripidae) new to Puerto Rico. The Journal of Agriculture of the University of Puerto Rico 85(1-2):85-89. Metwally, A. M., G. N. Gamieh, A. A. Abdalla, and E. A. El-Shamy. 2018. Mites associated with weeds under navel orange trees and effect of weed control on phytophagous mite Phyllocoptruta oleivora and predatory mite Amblyseius swirskii. Egyptian Journal of Plant Protection Research 6(2):86-98. Meyerdirk, D. E., R. Warkentin, B. Attavian, E. Gersabeck, A. Francis, M. Adams, and G. Francis. 2001. Biological Control of Pink Hibiscus Mealybug Project Manual. USDA- APHIS, PPQ. Michaud, J. P., and G. A. Evans. 2000. Current status of pink hibiscus mealybug in Puerto Rico including a key to parasitoid species. Florida Entomologist 83(1):97-101. Miller, D., A. Rung, G. Parikh, G. Venable, A. J. Redford, G. A. Evans, and R. J. Gill. 2014. Scale Insects: Identification Tool for Species of Quarantine Significance, Edition 2. USDA APHIS Identification Technology Program (ITP). http://www.idtools.org/id/scales/index.php. Milonas, P. G., and G. K. Partsinevelos. 2017. The pink hibiscus mealybug Maconellicoccus hirsutus (Green) (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) in Greece. Hellenic Plant Protection Journal 10(2):80-83. Montezano, D. G., A. Specht, D. R. Sosa-Gómez, V. F. Roque-Specht, J. C. Sousa-Silva, S. d. Paula-Moraes, J. A. Peterson, and T. Hunt. 2018. Host plants of Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in the Americas. African Entomology 26(2):286-300. Mossler, M. A., and N. O. Neisheim. 2002. Florida Crop/Pest Management Profile: Mango. CIR 1401. Information Office, Food Science and Human Nutrition Department, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Gainsville, FL. 7 pp. Mossler, M. A., and O. N. Nesheim. 2002. Florida Crop/Pest Management Profile: Mango (CIR 1401).1-11. Last accessed 2002, March, http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pdffiles/PI/PI05200.pdf https://www.gpdd.info/download_file_securely.cfm?file=references/2691_Mossler_2002_Florid a_Crop_12007.pdf. Mound, L. A., and J. M. Palmer. 1981. Identification, distribution and host-plants of the pest species of Scirtothrips (Thysanoptera: Thripidae). Bulletin of Entomological Research 71:467-479.

Ver. 2 June 28, 2021 45 Pest Risk Assessment for mango from Egypt

Mound, L. A., and M. Stiller. 2011. Species of the genus Scirtothrips from Africa (Thysanoptera, Thripidae). Zootaxa 2786(1):51-61. Murthy, G. R., and T. R. Babu. 1997. Casuarina as an alternate host to grape mealybug, Maconellicoccus hirsutus. Journal of Research ANGRAU 25(4):89. Muzaffar, N., and R. Ahmad. 1977. A Note on Saissetia privigna (Hem.: Coccidae) in Pakistan and the Breeding of its Natural Enemies. Entomophaga 22(1):45-46. MycoBank. 2004. MycoBank: Bipolaris australiensis. International Mycological Association. http://www.mycobank.org/MycoTaxo.aspx https://www.gpdd.info/download_file_securely.cfm?file=references/3322_xx_2004_MycoBank_ Bipolaris_28481.pdf. NASS. 2019. Agricultural Statistics 2019. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. NASS. 2021. National Agricultural Statistics Service - Quick Stats. United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. https://quickstats.nass.usda.gov/. Nassar, O. A., and S. Ghai. 1981. Taxonomic studies on tetranychoid mites infesting vegetable and fruit crops in Delhi and surrounding areas. Oriental Insects 15(4):333-396. Neal, M. C. 1965. In Gardens of Hawaii (revised). Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu. Nelson, S. C. 2008. Mango . PD-46. University of Hawaii, College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources (CTAHR), Honolulu, Hawai‘i. 6pp. pp. Nguyen, R., and A. B. Hamon. 2019. Citrus blackfly - Aleurocanthus woglumi Ashby (Insecta: Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae) (EENY-42). University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. Ni, H.-F., H.-R. Yang, R.-S. Chen, T.-H. Hung, and R.-F. Liou. 2012. A nested multiplex PCR for species-specific identification and detection of Botryosphaeriaceae species on mango. European journal of plant pathology 133(4):819-828. Nicacio, J., and M. A. Uchoa. 2011. Diversity of frugivorous flies (Diptera: Tephritidae and Lonchaeidae) and their relationship with host plants (Angiospermae) in environments of South Pantanal Region, Brazil. Florida Entomologist 94(3):443-466. NIS. 2008. Change in action status for armored scales (Hemiptera: ) on material for consumption (NIS action policy, March 25, 2008). United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine, National Identification Services (NIS). 2 pp. Nishida, G. M. 2002. Hawaiian Terrestrial Arthropod Checklist (4th ed.). Hawaii Biological Survey Bishop Museum, Honolulu, HI. 313 pp. NRCS. 2020. PLANTS Database. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. https://plants.usda.gov/java/. Pantoja, A., and J. E. Peña. 2006. Papaya Insects: Ecology and Control. Pages 1-7 In Encyclopedia of Pest Management. Peña, J. E., J. L. Sharp, and M. Wysoki. 2002. Tropical Fruit Pests and Pollinators: Biology, Economic Importance, Natural Enemies and Control. CAB International, Wallingford, UK. 430 pp. PERAL. 2020. Pest Categorization. United States Department of Agricultrue, Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory, Raleigh, NC. Peregrine, W. T. H., and K. Bin Ahmad. 1982. Brunei: a first annotated list of plant diseases and associated organisms (Phytopathological Paper No. 27). Commonwealth Mycological Institute, Wallingford, UK. 87 pp.

Ver. 2 June 28, 2021 46 Pest Risk Assessment for mango from Egypt

Peres-Filho, O., Y. Ben-Dov, V. R. d. S. Wolff, A. Dorval, and M. D. d. Souza. 2017. Maconellicoccus hirsutus (Green) register in forest santds [sic] in the Mato Grosso State, Brazil. Floresta e Ambiente 24. PestID. 2019. Pest Identification Database (PestID). United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine. https://aqas.aphis.usda.gov/aqas/. Phillips, A. J. L., A. Alves, J. Abdollahzadeh, B. Slippers, M. J. Wingfield, and J. Z. Groenewald. 2013. The Botryosphaeriaceae: genera and species known from culture. Studies in Mycology 76:51-167. Ploetz, R. C., G. A. Zentmyer, W. T. Nishijima, K. G. Rohrbach, and H. D. Ohr. 1994. Compendium of Tropical Fruit Diseases. APS Press. PPQ. 2020. Fruits and Vegetables Import Requirements (FAVIR). United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ). https://epermits.aphis.usda.gov/manual/index.cfm?action=pubHome. Pruvost, O., A. Couteau, J. Luisetti, and C. Vernière. 1995. Biologie et épidémiologie de l'agent de la maladie des taches noires de la mangue. Fruits 50(3):183-189. Qureshi, Z., T. Hussain, and Q. Siddiqui. 1991. Relative preference of mango varieties by Dacus zonatus (Saunders) and D. dorsalis Hendel. Pakistan Journal of Zoology 23(1):85-87. Raabe, R. D., I. L. Conners, and A. P. Martinez. 1981. Checklist of plant diseases in Hawaii including records of Microorganisms, principally Fungi, found in the State, Manoa, Hawaii. 319 pp. Ramos, A. S. J. C., A. L. B. G. Peronti, T. Kondo, and R. N. S. Lemos. 2018. First record of Crypticerya zeteki (Cockerell, 1914) (Monophlebidae) in Brazil and Maconellicoccus hirsutus (Green, 1908) (Pseudococcidae) in the state of Maranhão. Brazilian Journal of Biology 78(1):87-90. Reckhaus, P., and I. Adamou. 1987. Hendersonula dieback of mango in Niger. Plant disease 71:1045. Reddy, G. V. P., R. Muniappan, Z. T. Cruz, F. Naz, J. P. Bamba, and J. Tenorio. 2009. Present status of Maconellicoccus hirsutus (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) in the Mariana Islands and its control by two fortuitously introduced natural enemies. Journal of Economic Entomology 102(4):1431-1439. Rivera-Vargas, L. I., Y. Lugo-Noel, R. J. McGovern, T. Seijo, and M. J. Davis. 2006. Occurrence and Distribution of Colletotrichum spp. on Mango (Mangifera indica L.) in Puerto Rico and Florida, USA. Plant Pathology Journal 5(2):191-198. Roberts, R., C. Hale, T. Van der Zwet, C. Miller, and S. Redlin. 1998a. The potential for spread of Erwinia amylovora and fire blight via commercial apple fruit; a critical review and risk assessment. Crop Protection 17(1):19-28. Roberts, R. G., C. N. Hale, T. van der Zwet, C. E. Miller, and S. C. Redlin. 1998b. The potential for spread of Erwinia amylovora and fire blight via commercial apple fruit; a critical review and risk assessment. Crop Protection 17(1):19-28. Rodrigues, J. C. V., M. Gallo-Meagher, R. Ochoa, C. C. Childers, and B. J. Adams. 2004. Mitochondrial DNA and RAPD polymorphisms in the haploid mite Brevipalpus phoenicis (Acari: Tenuipalpidae). Experimental & Applied Acarology 34:275-290. Rodríguez-Gálvez, E., P. Guerrero, C. Barradas, P. W. Crous, and A. Alves. 2017. Phylogeny and pathogenicity of Lasiodiplodia species associated with dieback of mango in Peru. Fungal biology 121(4):452-465.

Ver. 2 June 28, 2021 47 Pest Risk Assessment for mango from Egypt

Roltsch, W. J., D. E. Meyerdirk, R. Warkentin, E. R. Andress, and K. Carrera. 2006. Classical biological control of the pink hibiscus mealybug, Maconellicoccus hirsutus (Green), in southern California. Biological Control 37(2):155-166. Saaiman, W. 1996. Biology and control of Nattrassia mangiferae. Pages 558-574 in V International Mango Symposium 455. Sadana, G. L., S. C. Chhabra, and B. K. Gupta. 1982. Tetranychoid mites infesting fruit trees in the Punjab together with records of some new hosts and description of a new species. Entomon 7(3):397-401. Sagarra, L. A., and D. D. Peterkin. 1999. Invasion of the Caribbean by the hibiscus mealybug, Maconellicoccus hirsutus Green [Homoptera: Pseudococcidae]. Phytoprotection 80(2):103-113. Sakalidis, M. L., J. D. Ray, V. Lanoiselet, G. E. S. Hardy, and T. I. Burgess. 2011. Pathogenic Botryosphaeriaceae associated with Mangifera indica in the Kimberley region of Western Australia. European journal of plant pathology 130(3):379-391. Salman, A. M. A., and M. M. S. Bakry. 2012. Relationship between the Rate of Infestation with the Mealybug, Icerya seychellarum (Westwood) (Margarodidae: Homoptera) and the Yield Loss of Seedy Balady Mango Trees at Luxor Governorate. World Rural Observations 4(4):50-56. Sanahuja, G., R. Ploetz, P. Lopez, J. Konkol, A. Palmateer, and O. Pruvost. 2016. Bacterial Canker of Mango, Mangifera indica, Caused by Xanthomonas citri pv. mangiferaeindicae, Confirmed for the First Time in the Americas. Plant disease 100(12):2520. Serrato-Diaz, L., A. Aviles-Noriega, A. Soto-Bauzó, L. Rivera-Vargas, R. Goenaga, and P. Bayman. 2020. Botryosphaeriaceae fungi as causal agents of dieback and corky bark in rambutan and longan. Plant disease 104(1):105-115. Setchell, W. A. 1924. American Samoa: Part I. Vegetation of Tutuila Island (341, pp. 1-188). Shaaban, A.-R., & Simmons, A. M. 2014. Survey of natural enemies of whiteflies (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae) in Egypt with new local and world records. Entomological News 124(1):38- 56. Shabana, Y. M., and M. E. Ragab. 1997. Alternaria infectoria , a Promising Biological Control Agent for the Fig Wax Scale, Ceroplastes rusci (Homoptera: Coccidae), in Egypt. Biocontrol Science and Technology 7(4):553-564. Shah, Z. U., Ali, A., Haq, I. and Hafeez, F. 2016. Seasonal history of dusky cotton bug ( Costa). Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies 4(3):228- 233. Shaheen, A. 1973. Biological studies on Aulacophora foveicollis Lucas in Egypt. Agricultural Research Review 51(1):91-95. Sivanesan, A. 1990. CMI Descriptions of Fungi and Bacteria: Cochliobolus pallescens (No. 1003). Mycopathologia 111:115-116. Snowball, G. J. 1970. Ceroplastes sinensis del Guercio (Homoptera: Coccidae), a wax scale new to Australia. J. Aust. Ent. Soc. 9:57-64. Solarte, F., C. G. Muñoz, S. S. Maharachchikumbura, and E. Álvarez. 2018. Diversity of Neopestalotiopsis and Pestalotiopsis spp., causal agents of guava scab in Colombia. Plant disease 102(1):49-59. Soliman, M. M., A. Abdel-Moniem, and M. Abdel-Raheem. 2014. Impact of some insecticides and their mixtures on the population of tomato borers, Tuta absoluta (Meyrick)

Ver. 2 June 28, 2021 48 Pest Risk Assessment for mango from Egypt

(Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae) and Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner)(Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in tomato crop at Upper Egypt. Archives Of Phytopathology And Plant Protection 47(14):1764-1776. Souza, L. N. d. 2017. Complexo Pestalotioid associado a doenças em mangueiras e goiabeiras: abordagem filogenética e patogênica, Universidade Estadual Paulista, Jaboticabal. Spodek, M., G. W. Watson, and Z. Mendel. 2016. The pink hibiscus mealybug, Maconellicoccus hirsutus (Green) (Hemiptera: Coccomorpha: Pseudococcidae), a new threat to Israel’s agriculture and horticulture. EPPO Bulletin 46(2):311-312. Srivastava, R. P. 1997. Mango Insect Pest Management. International Book Distributing Co, Charbagh, Lucknow, India. 1-272 pp. Stefani, E., and D. Giovanardi. 2011a. Dissemination of Pseudomonas syringae pv. actinidiae through pollen and its epiphytic life on leaves and fruits. Phytopathologia Mediterranea 50(3):489-496. Stefani, E., and D. Giovanardi. 2011b. Dissemination of Pseudomonas syringae pv. actinidiae through pollen and its epiphytic life on leaves and fruits. Phytopathologia Mediterranea 50:489-496. Stevenson, J. A. 1975. The Fungi of Puerto Rico and the American Virgin Islands. Reed Herbarium, Baltimore, MD. 743 pp. Stocks, I. C., and G. Hodges. 2010. Nipaecoccus viridis (Newstead), a New Exotic Mealybug in South Florida (Coccoidea: Pseudococcidae) (DCAS-P-10678). Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Plant Industry, Gainesville, FL. 3 pp. Stonehouse, J., R. Mahmood, A. Poswal, J. Mumford, K. N. Baloch, and Z. M. Chaudhary. 2002. Farm field assessments of fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) in Pakistan: distribution, damage and control. Crop Protection 21(8):661-669. Swings, J. G., and E. L. Civerolo (eds.). 1993. Xanthomonas. Chapman & Hall, London. 399 pp. Takeuchi, Y., G. Fowler, and A. S. Joseph. 2018. SAFARIS: Global Plant Hardiness Zone Development. North Carolina State University, Center for Integrated Pest Management; United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine, Science and Technology, Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory, Raleigh, NC. Last accessed 3/2/2021, https://safaris.cipm.info/safarispestmodel/StartupServlet?phz. Tandon, P. L., and B. Lal. 1977. New records of insect pests of mango from India. The Indian Journal of Horticulture 34(2):193-195. Tembrock, L. R., A. E. Timm, F. A. Zink, and T. M. Gilligan. 2019. Phylogeography of the recent expansion of Helicoverpa armigera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in South America and the Caribbean Basin. Annals of the Entomological Society of America 112(4):388- 401. The Sun. 2015. Scale insect scare in La Plaine. in The Sun, Roseau, Dominica. Thomas, M. C., J. B. Heppner, R. E. Woodruff, H. V. Weems, and G. J. Steck. 2010. Featured Creatures: Mediterranean fruit fly (EENY-214). University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. 26 pp. Timmer, L., J. Marois, and D. Achor. 1987. Growth and survival of Xanthomonads under conditions nonconductive to disease development. Phytopathology 77(9):1341-1345. Uesato, T., T. Kondo, C. Unruh, and D. J. Williams. 2011. Establishment and host records of Icerya aegyptiaca (Douglas) (Hemiptera: Coccoidea: Monophlebidae) in the Sakishima

Ver. 2 June 28, 2021 49 Pest Risk Assessment for mango from Egypt

Islands of the Ryukyu Archipelago, Japan, with notes on its worldwide distribution. Entomological Science 14(1):49-55. USDA-ARS. 1960. Index of plant diseases in the United States. USDA Agriculture Handbook No. 165. Verde, G. L., G. Cerasa, B. Altamore, and V. Farina. 2020. First record of Icerya seychellarum and confirmed occurrence of Aulacaspis tubercularis (Hemiptera: Coccomorpha) in Italy. Phytoparasitica:1-8. Viana, F., J. Cardoso, H. Saraiva, M. Ferreira, R. Mariano, and L. Trindade. 2007. First report of a bacterial leaf and fruit spot of cashew nut (Anacardium occidentale) caused by Xanthomonas campestris pv. mangiferaeindicae in Brazil. Plant disease 91(10):1361. Viteri, D., I. Cabrera, and C. Estévez de Jensen. 2010. Identification and abundance of thrips species on soybean in Puerto Rico. International Journal of Tropical Insect Science 30(1):57-60. Vithana, K., U. Sirisena, and K. Hemachandra. 2018. Pink wax scale (Ceroplastes rubens) a growing threat to agriculture in Sri Lanka. Tropical Agricultural Research 30(2):13 – 22. Vo, T. T., and C. E. Miller. 1993. An economic impact assessment of the mediterranean fruit fly cooperative eradication program. USDA APHIS PPD. 1-78 pp. Wafa, A. K., and A. A. Osman. 1973. Further studies on the mango bud mite, Aceria mangiferae (Sayed), in Egypt (Acarina:Eriophyidae) [Abstract]. Bulletin de la Societe Entomologique d' Egypte 57:441-445. Welter, S. C., J. A. Rosenheim, M. W. Johnson, R. F. L. Mau, and L. R. Gusukuma-Minuto. 1990. Effects of Thrips palmi and western flower thrips (Thysanoptera: Thripidae) on the yield, growth, and carbon allocation pattern in cucumbers. Journal of Economic Entomology 83(5):2092-2101. White, I. M., and M. M. Elson-Harris. 1994. Fruit Flies of Economic Significance: their identification and bionomics. CAB International, Wallingford, UK. 608 pp. Williams, D. J. 2004. Mealybugs of Southern Asia. The Natural History Museum/Southdene Sdn. Bhd., Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Wysoki, M. 1999. Thysanoptera in Israel [Abstract]. Phytoparasitica 27(3):73-74. Wysoki, M., Y. Ben-Dov, E. Swirski, and Y. Izhar. 1993. The arthropod pests of mango in Israel. Acta Horticulturae 341:452-466. Yasuhara-Bell, J., A. de Silva, A. Alvarez, R. Shimabuku, and M. Ko. 2013. First Report in Hawai'i of Xanthomonas citri pv. mangiferaeindicae Causing Bacterial Black Spot on Mangifera indica. Plant disease 97(9):1244. Yunus, A., and H. T. Hua. 1980. List of economic pests, host plants, parasites and predators in West Malaysia (1920-1978). Ministry of Agriculture, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. 204 pp. Zainab, M., and S. Shinkafi. 2016. Isolation and identification of fungi responsible for leaf spots disease of mango (Mangifera indica linneaus) in Sokoto state, Nigeria. Bayero Journal of Pure and Applied Sciences 9(2):166-173. Zhu, X. Q., and C. L. Xiao. 2015. Phylogenetic, Morphological, and Pathogenic Characterization of Alternaria Species Associated with Fruit Rot of Blueberry in California. Phytopathology 105(12):1555-1567.

Ver. 2 June 28, 2021 50 Pest Risk Assessment for mango from Egypt

6. Appendix: Pests with non-quarantine status We found some evidence of the organisms, listed below, being associated with mango and present in Egypt. Because these organisms are not of quarantine significance for the United States and territories (PestID, 2019; or as defined by ISPM 5, IPPC, 20182019), we did not list them under Table 1 of this risk assessment. Also, we did not do an intensive evaluation of their association with mango or their presence in Egypt. Therefore, we considered the following pests to have only “potential” association with the commodity and presence in Egypt.

We listed these organisms along with the references supporting their potential presence in Egypt, their presence in the United States and territories, and their potential association with the mango. If any of the organisms listed on the table are not present in the United States and territories, we provided justification for their non-quarantine status. Unless otherwise noted, these organisms are non-actionable at U.S. ports of entry.

Organism In Egypt In U.S. Mango Notes Association Acari: Eriophyidae Aceria mangiferae Sayed Wafa and CONUS: Mossler Wafa and Osman, 1973 and Nesheim, 2002 Osman, HI: no evidence 1973 PR: Abreu- Rodríguez, 2017 USVI: no evidence Acari: Tenuipalpidae Brevipalpus californicus Metwally et CONUS: Childers, Nassar (Banks) al., 2018 1994 and Ghai, HI: EPPO, 2021 1981 PR: Abreu- Rodríguez, 2017 VI: no evidence Brevipalpus obovatus Halawa and CONUS: Baker and Chumak, Donnadieu Fawzy, 2014 Tuttle, 1964 2004 HI: Heu, 2007 PR: Abreu- Rodríguez, 2017 USVI: no evidence Brevipalpus phoenicis Ismail et al., CONUS: Rodrigues Sadana et (Geijskes) 2016 et al., 2004 al., 1982 HI: Heu, 2007 PR: Abreu- Rodríguez, 2017 USVI: no evidence Acari: Tetranychidae Oligonychus coffeae CABI, 2021 CONUS: CABI, CABI, (Nietner) 2021 2021 HI: no evidence PR: no evidence USVI: no evidence

Ver. 2 June 28, 2021 51 Pest Risk Assessment for mango from Egypt

Organism In Egypt In U.S. Mango Notes Association Tetranychus urticae Koch CABI, 2021 CONUS: CABI, Iqbal and 2021 Ali, 2008 HI: Heu, 2007 PR: Abreu- Rodríguez, 2017 USVI: no evidence Diptera: Atherigona orientalis CABI, 2021 CONUS: CABI, CABI, Schiner 2021 2021 HI: CABI, 2021 PR: CABI, 2021 USVI: no evidence Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae floccosus EPPO, 2021 CONUS: EPPO, Evans, Maskell 2021 2008 HI: Heu, 2007 PR: EPPO, 2021 USVI: EPPO, 2021 Hemiptera: Aphis craccivora Koch CABI, 2021 CONUS: CABI, Ferreira 2021 and HI: Heu, 2007 Barbosa, PR: CABI, 2021 2002 USVI: no evidence Aphis gossypii Glover CABI, 2021 CONUS: CABI, Ferreira 2021 and HI: Heu, 2007 Barbosa, PR: CABI, 2021 2002 USVI: no evidence Toxoptera aurantii Boyer CABI, 2021 CONUS: CABI, Ferreira de Fonscolombe 2021 and HI: Heu, 2007 Barbosa, PR: CABI, 2021 2002 USVI: CABI, 2021 Hemiptera: Russellaspis pustulans García- CONUS: García- García- (Cockerell) Morales et al., Morales et al., 2016 Morales et 2016 HI: García-Morales al., 2016 et al., 2016 PR: García-Morales et al., 2016 USVI: García- Morales et al., 2016 Hemiptera: Coccidae

Ver. 2 June 28, 2021 52 Pest Risk Assessment for mango from Egypt

Organism In Egypt In U.S. Mango Notes Association Ceroplastes cirripediformis García- CONUS: García- García- Comstock Morales et al., Morales et al., 2016 Morales et 2016 HI: García-Morales al., 2016 et al., 2016 PR: García-Morales et al., 2016 USVI: García- Morales et al., 2016 Ceroplastes floridensis García- CONUS: García- García- Comstock Morales et al., Morales et al., 2016 Morales et 2016 HI: García-Morales al., 2016 et al., 2016 PR: García-Morales et al., 2016 USVI: no evidence hesperidum García- CONUS: García- García- (Linnaeus) Morales et al., Morales et al., 2016 Morales et 2016 HI: García-Morales al., 2016 et al., 2016 PR: García-Morales et al., 2016 USVI: García- Morales et al., 2016 Coccus longulus (Douglas) García- CONUS: García- García- Morales et al., Morales et al., 2016 Morales et 2016 HI: García-Morales al., 2016 et al., 2016 PR: García-Morales et al., 2016 USVI: García- Morales et al., 2016 (Green) García- CONUS: García- García- Morales et al., Morales et al., 2016 Morales et 2016 HI: García-Morales al., 2016 et al., 2016 PR: García-Morales et al., 2016 USVI: García- Morales et al., 2016 Eucalymnatus tessellatus García- CONUS: García- García- (Signoret) Morales et al., Morales et al., 2016 Morales et 2016 HI: García-Morales al., 2016 et al., 2016 PR: García-Morales et al., 2016 USVI: García- Morales et al., 2016

Ver. 2 June 28, 2021 53 Pest Risk Assessment for mango from Egypt

Organism In Egypt In U.S. Mango Notes Association Kilifia acuminata (Signoret) García- CONUS: García- García- Morales et al., Morales et al., 2016 Morales et 2016 HI: García-Morales al., 2016 et al., 2016 PR: García-Morales et al., 2016 USVI: García- Morales et al., 2016 Milviscutulus mangiferae García- CONUS: García- García- (Green) Morales et al., Morales et al., 2016 Morales et 2016 HI: García-Morales al., 2016 et al., 2016 PR: García-Morales et al., 2016 USVI: García- Morales et al., 2016 nigra García- CONUS: García- García- (Nietner) Morales et al., Morales et al., 2016 Morales et 2016 HI: García-Morales al., 2016 et al., 2016 PR: García-Morales et al., 2016 USVI: García- Morales et al., 2016 Parthenolecanium persicae García- CONUS: García- García- (Fabricius) Morales et al., Morales et al., 2016 Morales et 2016 HI: García-Morales al., 2016 et al., 2016 PR: no evidence USVI: no evidence floccifera Abd-Rabou et CONUS: García- Abd- (Westwood) al., 2012 Morales et al., 2016 Rabou et HI: no evidence al., 2012 PR: no evidence USVI: no evidence Pulvinaria psidii Maskell García- CONUS: García- García- Morales et al., Morales et al., 2016 Morales et 2016 HI: García-Morales al., 2016 et al., 2016 PR: García-Morales et al., 2016 USVI: García- Morales et al., 2016

Ver. 2 June 28, 2021 54 Pest Risk Assessment for mango from Egypt

Organism In Egypt In U.S. Mango Notes Association (Walker) García- CONUS: García- García- Morales et al., Morales et al., 2016 Morales et 2016 HI: García-Morales al., 2016 et al., 2016 PR: García-Morales et al., 2016 USVI: García- Morales et al., 2016 Saissetia oleae (Olivier) García- CONUS: García- García- Morales et al., Morales et al., 2016 Morales et 2016 HI: García-Morales al., 2016 et al., 2016 PR: García-Morales et al., 2016 USVI: no evidence Hemiptera: Diaspididae3

Aonidiella aurantii García- N/A García- (Maskell) Morales et al., Morales et 2016 al., 2016 citrina Evans and N/A García- (Coquillett) Abd-Rabou, Morales et 2005 al., 2016 Aonidiella orientalis CABI, 2021 N/A García- (Newstead) Morales et al., 2016 Aspidiotus destructor García- N/A García- Signoret Morales et al., Morales et 2016 al., 2016 Aspidiotus nerii Bouché García- N/A García- Morales et al., Morales et 2016 al., 2016 Aulacaspis rosae (Bouché) García- N/A García- Morales et al., Morales et 2016 al., 2016

3 All armored scales (Diaspididae) are non-actionable at U.S. ports of entry on fruits and vegetables for consumption (NIS, 2008). Therefore, we did not need to determine whether they occur in the United States.

Ver. 2 June 28, 2021 55 Pest Risk Assessment for mango from Egypt

Organism In Egypt In U.S. Mango Notes Association Aulacaspis tubercularis García- N/A García- Action only Newstead Morales et al., Morales et when destined to 2016 al., 2016 Hawaii, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa per DEEP report dated 9/5/2019 (AQAS, 2021) aonidum García- N/A García- (Linnaeus) Morales et al., Morales et 2016 al., 2016 Chrysomphalus García- N/A García- dictyospermi (Morgan) Morales et al., Morales et 2016 al., 2016 Diaspis boisduvalii García- N/A García- Signoret Morales et al., Morales et 2016 al., 2016 Fiorinia fioriniae (Targioni García- N/A García- Tozzetti) Morales et al., Morales et 2016 al., 2016 cyanophylli García- N/A García- (Signoret) Morales et al., Morales et 2016 al., 2016 Hemiberlesia lataniae García- N/A García- (Signoret) Morales et al., Morales et 2016 al., 2016 Hemiberlesia rapax García- N/A García- (Comstock) Morales et al., Morales et 2016 al., 2016 longirostris García- N/A García- (Signoret) Morales et al., Morales et 2016 al., 2016 Lepidosaphes beckii García- N/A García- (Newman) Morales et al., Morales et 2016 al., 2016 Lepidosaphes gloverii García- N/A García- (Packard) Morales et al., Morales et 2016 al., 2016 Lepidosaphes pallidula García- N/A García- Reportable (Williams) Morales et al., Morales et (AQAS, 2021) 2016 al., 2016 Lepidosaphes tapleyi García- N/A Tandon Reportable Williams Morales et al., and Lal, (AQAS, 2021) 2016 1977

Ver. 2 June 28, 2021 56 Pest Risk Assessment for mango from Egypt

Organism In Egypt In U.S. Mango Notes Association Lindingaspis floridana García- N/A García- Ferris Morales et al., Morales et 2016 al., 2016 Lindingaspis rossi García- N/A García- (Maskell) Morales et al., Morales et 2016 al., 2016 Morganella longispina García- N/A García- (Morgan) Morales et al., Morales et 2016 al., 2016 Mycetaspis personata García- N/A García- (Comstock) Morales et al., Morales et 2016 al., 2016 Oceanaspidiotus spinosus García- N/A García- (Comstock) Morales et al., Morales et 2016 al., 2016 Parlatoria oleae (Colvée) García- N/A García- Morales et al., Morales et 2016 al., 2016 Parlatoria proteus (Curtis) García- N/A García- Morales et al., Morales et 2016 al., 2016 aspidistrae García- N/A García- (Signoret) Morales et al., Morales et 2016 al., 2016 García- N/A García- (Cooley) Morales et al., Morales et 2016 al., 2016 Pseudaonidia trilobitiformis García- N/A García- (Green) Morales et al., Morales et 2016 al., 2016 Pseudaulacaspis cockerelli García- N/A García- (Cooley) Morales et al., Morales et 2016 al., 2016 Pseudaulacaspis pentagona García- N/A García- (Targioni Tozzetti) Morales et al., Morales et 2016 al., 2016 Unaspis citri (Comstock) García- N/A García- Morales et al., Morales et 2016 al., 2016 Hemiptera: Nezara viridula (Linnaeus) Abdel- CONUS: CABI, Tandon Raheem et 2021 and Lal, al., 2011 HI: CABI, 2021 1977 PR: CABI, 2021 USVI: CABI, 2021 Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae

Ver. 2 June 28, 2021 57 Pest Risk Assessment for mango from Egypt

Organism In Egypt In U.S. Mango Notes Association Dysmicoccus brevipes García- CONUS: García- García- (Cockerell) Morales et al., Morales et al., 2016 Morales et 2016 HI: García-Morales al., 2016 et al., 2016 PR: García-Morales et al., 2016 USVI: García- Morales et al., 2016 Ferrisia virgata (Cockerell) García- CONUS: García- García- Morales et al., Morales et al., 2016 Morales et 2016 HI: Heu, 2007 al., 2016 PR: García-Morales et al., 2016 USVI: García- Morales et al., 2016 Phenacoccus parvus García- CONUS: García- García- Morrison Morales et al., Morales et al., 2016 Morales et 2016 HI: Heu, 2007 al., 2016 PR: García-Morales et al., 2016 USVI: García- Morales et al., 2016 Phenacoccus solani Ferris García- CONUS: García- García- Morales et al., Morales et al., 2016 Morales et 2016 HI: García-Morales al., 2016 et al., 2016 PR: García-Morales et al., 2016 USVI: no evidence Phenacoccus solenopsis García- CONUS: García- García- Tinsley Morales et al., Morales et al., 2016 Morales et 2016 HI: Heu, 2007 al., 2016 PR: no evidence USVI: no evidence Planococcus citri (Risso) García- CONUS: García- García- Morales et al., Morales et al., 2016 Morales et 2016 HI: García-Morales al., 2016 et al., 2016 PR: García-Morales et al., 2016 USVI: García- Morales et al., 2016 Planococcus ficus García- CONUS: García- García- (Signoret) Morales et al., Morales et al., 2016 Morales et 2016 HI: no evidence al., 2016 PR: no evidence USVI: no evidence

Ver. 2 June 28, 2021 58 Pest Risk Assessment for mango from Egypt

Organism In Egypt In U.S. Mango Notes Association Pseudococcus longispinus García- CONUS: García- García- (Targioni Tozzetti) Morales et al., Morales et al., 2016 Morales et 2016 HI: García-Morales al., 2016 et al., 2016 PR: García-Morales et al., 2016 USVI: no evidence Hemiptera: Monophlebidae Icerya purchasi Maskell García- CONUS: García- García- Morales et al., Morales et al., 2016 Morales et 2016 HI: García-Morales al., 2016 et al., 2016 PR: García-Morales et al., 2016 USVI: no evidence Lepidoptera: Noctuidae Spodoptera frugiperda (J.E. CABI, 2021 CONUS: CABI, Montezan Smith) 2021 o et al., HI: no evidence 2018 PR: EPPO, 2021 USVI: EPPO, 2021 Lepidoptera: Pyralidae Cadra cautella Walker CABI, 2021 CONUS: CABI, Montezan 2021 o et al., HI: Heu, 2007 2018 PR: no evidence USVI: no evidence Thysanoptera: Thripidae Frankliniella schultzei El-Wahab, CONUS: Mahaffey Ebratt- (Trybom) 2016 and Cranshaw, 2010 Ravelo et HI: Nishida, 2002 al., 2019 PR:Feliciano et al., 2008 USVI: no evidence Heliothrips CABI, 2021 CONUS: CABI, CABI, haemorrhoidalis Bouché 2021 2021 HI: Heu, 2007 PR: CABI, 2021 USVI: no evidence Thrips tabaci Lindeman CABI, 2021 CONUS: CABI, CABI, 2021 2021 HI: Heu, 2007 PR: CABI, 2021 USVI: no evidence FUNGI AND CHROMISTANS

Ver. 2 June 28, 2021 59 Pest Risk Assessment for mango from Egypt

Organism In Egypt In U.S. Mango Notes Association Alternaria alternata (Fr. : Haggag, 2010 CONUS: Alfieri et Haggag, Fr.) Keissl. Syn.: Alternaria al., 1984, HI: Raabe 2010 tenuis Nees; Alternaria et al., 1981, PR: tenuissima (Nees & T. Stevenson, 1975, Nees: Fr.) Wiltshire USVI: Stevenson, 1975. Alternaria infectoria E. G. Shabana and Zhu and Xiao, 2015 Rivera- Simmons, Ragab, 1997 Vargas et al., 2006 Aspergillus flavus Link : Fr CABI, 2021 CONUS: USDA- CABI, ARS, 1960, HI: 2021 Raabe et al., 1981, PR: Stevenson, 1975, USVI: Stevenson, 1975. Aspergillus fumigatus Farr and Present in CONUS, Farr and Fresen. Rossman, PR (Farr and Rossman, 2020 Rossman, 2020) 2020 Aspergillus niger Tiegh. Haggag, 2010 CONUS: Alfieri et Haggag, al., 1984, HI: Raabe 2010 et al., 1981, PR: Stevenson, 1975, USVI: Stevenson, 1975. Aspergillus terreus Thom CABI, 2021 CONUS: USDA- CABI, ARS, 1960, no 2021 evidence of presence in HI, PR or USVI. Athelia rolfsii (Curzi) C.C. CABI, 2021 CONUS: USDA- CABI, Tu & Kimbr. Syn.: ARS, 1960, HI: 2021 Corticium rolfsii Curzi; Raabe et al., 1981, Sclerotium rolfsii Sacc. PR: Farr and Rossman, 2020, USVI: No evidence. Aureobasidium pullulans Farr and Farr and Rossman, Farr and (de Bary) G. Arnaud; Rossman, 2020 Rossman, Dematium pullulans de 2020 2020 Bary & Löwenthal; Pullularia pullulans (de Bary & Löwenthal) Berkhout Botryosphaeria visci Farr and Farr and Rossman, Farr and (Kalchbr.) Arx & E. Müll. Rossman, 2020 Rossman, Syn.: Sphaeropsis visci (Fr.) 2020 2020 Sacc.

Ver. 2 June 28, 2021 60 Pest Risk Assessment for mango from Egypt

Organism In Egypt In U.S. Mango Notes Association Botrytis cinerea Pers. : Fr. CABI, 2021 CONUS: Alfieri et CABI, (= Botryotinia fuckeliana al., 1984, HI: Raabe 2021 (de Bary) Whetzel) et al., 1981, PR: Stevenson, 1975, USVI: Stevenson, 1975. Ceratocystis paradoxa CABI, 2021 CONUS: USDA- CABI, (Dade) C. Moreau ARS, 1960, HI: 2021 [Anamorph: Charlara USDA-ARS, 1960, paradoxa (De Seynes) PR: Farr and Sacc.] Syn.: Thielaviopsis Rossman, 2020, paradoxa (De Seynes) USVI: No evidence. Honn. Cladosporium herbarum CABI, 2021 CONUS: USDA- CABI, (Pers.: Fr.) Link ARS, 1960, HI: 2021 (=Mycosphaerella tassiana Raabe et al., 1981, (De Not.) Johans. ) PR: Lenné, 1990, USVI: No evidence. Colletotrichum acutatum CABI, 2021 CONUS: CABI, CABI, J.H. Simmonds 2021, no evidence of 2021 presence in HI, PR or USVI. Colletotrichum communis Farr and Farr and Rossman, Farr and G. Sharma, A.K. Pinnaka & Rossman, 2020 Rossman, B.D. Shenoy. Syn.: 2020 2020 Colletotrichum siamense Prihastuti, L. Cai & K.D. Hyde; Colletotrichum endomangiferae W.A.S. Vieira, M.P.S. Camara & S.J. Michereff; Colletotrichum hymenocallidis Y.L. Yang, Zuo Y. Liu, K.D. Hyde & L. Cai; Colletotrichum jasmini-sambac Wikee, K.D. Hyde, L. Cai & McKenzie Colletotrichum Haggag, 2010 CONUS: USDA- Haggag, gloeosporioides (Penz.) ARS, 1960, HI: 2010 Penz. & Sacc. [Telemorph: Raabe et al., 1981, Glomerella cingulata PR: Stevenson, (Stonem.) Spauld. & 1975, USVI: Schrenk] Colletotrichum Stevenson, 1975. papayae Henn.

Ver. 2 June 28, 2021 61 Pest Risk Assessment for mango from Egypt

Organism In Egypt In U.S. Mango Notes Association Corticium rolfsii Curzi Syn: CABI, 2021 CONUS: CABI, CABI, Sclerotium rolfsii (Sacc.) 2021, HI: CABI, 2021 2021, PR: CABI, 2021, USVI: No evidence. Curvularia lunata (Wakker) Farr and Farr and Rossman, Farr and Boedijn; Syn.: Acrothecium Rossman, 2020 Rossman, lunatum Wakker; 2020 2020 Cochliobolus lunatus R.R. Nelson & F.A. Haasis Diaporthe citri (H.S. EPPO, 2021 Farr and Rossman, EPPO, Fawc.) F.A. Wolf 2020 2021; Farr and Rossman, 2020 Drechslera hawaiiensis Farr and Present in CONUS Farr and Bugnic. ex M.B. Ellis. Syn.: Rossman, and HI Farr and Rossman, Curvularia hawaiiensis 2020 Rossman, 2020 2020 (Bugnic.) Manamgoda, L. Cai & K.D. Hyde; Bipolaris hawaiiensis (M.B. Ellis) J.Y. Uchida & Aragaki Elsinoë mangiferae Bitanc. CABI, 2021 CONUS: USDA- CABI, & Jenkeins (Syn: ARS, 1960, HI: 2021 Sphaceloma mangiferae CABI, 2021, PR: Bitanc. & Jenkins) CABI, 2021, USVI: No evidence. quercicola S. CABI, 2021 CONUS: Alfieri et CABI, Takam. & U. Braun al., 1984, HI: 2021 (= mangiferae Nelson, 2008, PR: Berthet); Oidium anacardii Stevenson, 1975, F. Noack ); Pseudoidium USVI: Stevenson, anacardii (Noack) U. Braun 1975. & R.T.A. Cook Erysiphe cichoracearum Farr and Farr and Rossman, Farr and DC.Syn.: Golovinomyces Rossman, 2020 Rossman, cichoracearum (Ehrenb.) 2020 2020 Heluta Erysiphe communis (Wallr. Farr and Farr and Rossman, Farr and : Fr.) Schltdl. Syn.: Rossman, 2020 Rossman, Erysiphe pisi var. pisi DC. 2020 2020 Fumago vagans Pers., nom. Farr and Farr and Rossman, Farr and conf. Rossman, 2020 Rossman, 2020 2020

Ver. 2 June 28, 2021 62 Pest Risk Assessment for mango from Egypt

Organism In Egypt In U.S. Mango Notes Association Fusarium incarnatum Farr and Farr and Rossman, Farr and (Desm.) Sacc.Syn.: Rossman, 2020 Rossman, Fusarium pallidoroseum 2020 2020 (Cooke) Sacc.; Fusarium semitectum Berk. & Ravenel Fusarium lateritium Nees : Farr and Farr and Rossman, Farr and Fr. Syn. Gibberella baccata Rossman, 2020 Rossman, (Wallr.) Sacc 2020 2020 Fusarium moniliforme J. Farr and Farr and Rossman, Farr and Sheld Rossman, 2020 Rossman, 2020 2020 Fusarium oxysporum CABI, 2021 CONUS: USDA- CABI, Schltdl. : Fr. ARS, 1960, HI: 2021 Raabe et al., 1981, PR: Stevenson, 1975, USVI: Stevenson, 1975. Fusarium proliferatum Haggag et al CONUS: Farr and Haggag et (Matsush.) Nirenberg ex 2009 Rossman, 2020, HI: al 2009 Gerlach & Nirenberg Farr and Rossman, 2020, no evidence of presence in PR or USVI. Fusarium solani (Mart) CABI, 2021 CONUS: USDA- CABI, Sacc. (Syn: Nectria ARS, 1960, HI: 2021 haematococca (Wollenw.) Raabe et al., 1981, Gerlah); Neocosmospora PR: Stevenson, solani (Mart.) L. Lombard 1975, USVI: & Crous Stevenson, 1975. Haggag, 2010 CONUS: USDA- Haggag, (Wollenw. & Reinking) ARS, 1960, HI: 2010 P.E. Nelson, Toussoun & Raabe et al., 1981, Marasas no evidence of presence in PR or USVI. Fusarium verticillioides Farr and Farr and Rossman, Farr and (Sacc.) Nirenberg Rossman, 2020 Rossman, 2020 2020 dimidiatum Farr and Farr and Rossman, Farr and (Penz.) D.F. Farr; Syn;: Rossman, 2020 Rossman, dimidiatum 2020 2020 (Penz.) Crous & Slippers; Hendersonula toruloidea Nattrass. Neoscytalidium hyalinum (C.K. Campb. & J.L. Mulder) A.J.L. Phillips, Groenewald & Crous

Ver. 2 June 28, 2021 63 Pest Risk Assessment for mango from Egypt

Organism In Egypt In U.S. Mango Notes Association Gibberella zeae (Schwein.) CABI, 2021 CONUS: Ali et al., CABI, Petch (=Fusarium 2005, HI: Raabe et 2021 graminearum Schwabe) al., 1981, no evidence of presence in PR or USVI. Haggag, 2010 CONUS: Lenné, Haggag, (Pat) Griffiths & Maubl. 1990, HI: Raabe et 2010 (Anamorph : al., 1981, PR: Bothryodiplodia Lenné, 1990, USVI: theobromae Pat) Syn. Lenné, 1990. Botryosphaeria rhodina (Berk. & M.A. Curtis) Arx; cacaoicola Henn.; Diplodia natalensis Pole- Evans; Physalospora rhodina Berk. & M.A. Curtis phaseolina CABI, 2021 CONUS: USDA- CABI, (Tassi) Goid. Syn.: ARS, 1960, HI: 2021 lamellifera W. Raabe et al., 1981, Small PR: Stevenson, 1975, USVI: Stevenson, 1975. Neocosmospora CABI, 2021 CONUS: USDA- CABI, haematococca (Berk. & ARS, 1960, HI: 2021 Broome) Samuels, Nalim & Raabe et al., 1981, Geiser (=Haematonectria no evidence of haematococca (Berk. & presence in PR or Broome) Samuels & USVI. Rossman) Nigrospora oryzae (Berk. & Farr and Farr and Rossman, Farr and Broome) Petch; Syn.: Rossman, 2020 Rossman, Khuskia oryzae H.J. Huds. 2020 2020 Pestalotiopsis clavispora Bakry et al., Farr and Rossman, Farr and (Atk.) Steyaert. Syn.: 2009 2020 Rossman, Neopestalotiopsis 2020 clavispora (G.F. Atk.) Maharachch., K.D. Hyde & Crous Pestalotiopsis mangiferae CABI, 2021 CONUS: Alfieri et CABI, (Henn.) Steyaert al., 1984, no 2021 evidence of presence in HI, PR or USVI.

Ver. 2 June 28, 2021 64 Pest Risk Assessment for mango from Egypt

Organism In Egypt In U.S. Mango Notes Association Phytophthora citrophthora CABI, 2021 CONUS: USDA- CABI, (R.E. Sm. & E.H. Sm.) ARS, 1960, HI: 2021 Leonian Raabe et al., 1981, PR: Stevenson, 1975, USVI: Stevenson, 1975. Phytophthora palmivora Farr and Farr and Rossman, Farr and (E.J. Butler) E.J. Butler; Rossman, 2020 Rossman, Syn.: Phytophthora arecae 2020 2020 (L.C. Coleman) Pethybr; Phytophthora nicotianae Farr and Farr and Rossman, Farr and Breda de Haan. Syn.: Rossman, 2020 Rossman, Phytophthora nicotianae 2020 2020 var. parasitica (Dastur) G.M. Waterh.; Phytophthora parasitica Dastur; Phytophthora terrestris Shreb. Pythium middletonii Farr and Farr and Rossman, Farr and Sparrow; Syn.: Rossman, 2020 Rossman, Globisporangium 2020 2020 middletonii (Sparrow) Uzuhashi, Tojo & Kakish. Rhizoctonia solani Kühn CABI, 2021 CONUS: USDA- CABI, Kuhn [Teleomorph: ARS, 1960, HI: 2021 Thanatephorus cucumeris Raabe et al., 1981, (A.B. Frank) Donk PR: Stevenson, 1975, USVI: Stevenson, 1975. Rhizopus stolonifer Farr and Farr and Rossman, Farr and (Ehrenb. : Fr.) Vuill. Syn.: Rossman, 2020 Rossman, Rhizopus nigricans Ehrenb. 2020 2020 Sclerotinia sclerotiorum Farr and Farr and Rossman, Farr and (Lib.) de Bary Anamorph: Rossman, 2020 Rossman, Sclerotium varium Pers. : 2020 2020 Fr.; Synonym: Sclerotinia libertiana Fuckel Setosphaeria rostrata K.J. Farr and Farr and Rossman, CABI, Leonard; Syn.:Exserohilum Rossman, 2020 2021 rostratum (Drechsler) K.J. 2020 Leonard & Suggs Stemphylium vesicarium CABI, 2021 CONUS: USDA- CABI, (Wallr.) E.G. Simmons ARS, 1960, HI: 2021 Raabe et al., 1981, no evidence of presence in PR or USVI.

Ver. 2 June 28, 2021 65 Pest Risk Assessment for mango from Egypt

Organism In Egypt In U.S. Mango Notes Association Verticillium albo-atrum Haggag, 2010 CONUS: USDA- Haggag, Reinke & Berthold ARS, 1960, HI: 2010 Raabe et al., 1981, PR: Stevenson, 1975, USVI: No evidence. Verticillium dahliae Kleb. Haggag, 2010 CONUS: Collado- Haggag, Romero et al., 2010, 2010 no evidence of presence in HI, PR or USVI. BACTERIA AND PHYTOPLASMAS Pseudomonas syringae pv. CABI, 2021 CONUS: Bradbury, CABI, syringae van Hall 1986, HI: Raabe et 2021 al., 1981, PR: Bradbury, 1986, USVI: No evidence. Rhizobium radiobacter CABI, 2021 CONUS: CABI, CABI, (Beijerinck & van Delden 2021, HI: Bradbury, 2021 1902) Young 1986, PR: CABI, 2021, USVI: No evidence.

Ver. 2 June 28, 2021 66