Final Import Risk Analysis Report for Fresh Mango Fruit from India

4.8. Cocoa tussock moth – Orgyia postica [Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae]

4.8.1 Previous policy

4.9. Red-banded mango caterpillar – Deanolis sublimbalis [Lepidoptera: Pyralidae]

The species examined in this pest risk analysis is:

• 
  Deanolis sublimbalis – Red-banded mango caterpillar
  

4.9.1. Probability of entry

Probability of importation

• 
  Red-banded mango caterpillar has been reported on mangoes in northern India (Peña and Mohyuddin 1997; Waterhouse 1998). Levels of infestation of 40 – 50% have been reported in the Philippines (Krull and Basedow 2006) and 20 – 40% fruit damage has been reported in Papua New Guinea (Tenakanai et al. 2006).
  
• 
  Eggs are laid in small crevices (often dried anthracnose spots) on the peduncle, on non-fruiting vegetative branches close to fruit, or on the fruit itself (Krull and Basedow 2006). Eggs have been observed to be laid in clusters of 2 – 6 with 1 – 10 eggs per cluster (Sujatha and Zaheruddeen 2002), although Tenakanai et al. (2006) reported up to 15 eggs per cluster.
  
• 
  Eggs are typically laid on fruit of marble size (Krull and Basedow 2006). Few eggs are observed on mature fruit (Krull and Basedow 2006).
  
• 
  After 3 to 4 days, larvae hatch and burrow into the distal end of the mango fruit (Golez 1991). Larvae pass through 5 instars within the fruit, with a larval development period of 14 – 20 days (Golez 1991).
  
• 
  Early instars feed on the fruit pulp forming a network of tunnels which may eventually cause the fruit to collapse (Golez 1991). Later instar larvae feed on the seed (Krull and Basedow 2006). Up to 11 larvae have been found in a single fruit, but they disperse in search of fresh fruit as the food source runs out (Tenakanai et al. 2006). Commonly, there is only a single larva in a fruit (Waterhouse 1998).
  
• 
  Fruit infested at this young stage is misshapen and may abort (B. Pinese, personal communication 2008). Although red banded mango caterpillar feeds internally, the damage is conspicuous as sap oozing from entry holes stains the skin of the fruit (Tenakanai et al. 2006). Frass may also be produced and deposited around the hole and infected fruits may split at the apex and develop longitudinal cracks (Krull 2004).
  
• 
  Fruit infested with later instars has a conspicuous entry hole that leads to visible sap staining on the surface of the fruit (B. Pinese 2008, pers. comm.). Other symptoms include secondary fungal and bacterial infections of the fruit (Golez 1991).
  
• 
  Infested fruit with obvious symptoms is likely to be graded out during harvesting and grading operations. However, late infested fruit with early instars may remain undetected.
  
• 
  Larvae exit the fruit to pupate in deadwood, cracks or crevices in the bark of the host tree (Sujatha and Zaheruddeen 2002; Krull 2004; Krull and Basedow 2006; B. Pinese 2008, pers. comm.), or soil (Golez 1991).
  
• 
  The larvae enter a pre-pupal stage lasting 2 – 3 days followed by a pupal period ranging from 9 – 14 days (Golez 1991). Total development (from egg to adult emergence) is completed in 28 – 41 days (Golez 1991).
  
• 
  Pupation in fruit was not observed in surveys by Sujatha and Zaheruddeen (2002) and Krull and Basedow (2006). Early reports of pupation in fruit in India (Sengupta and Behura 1955, 1957) probably mistakenly refer to larvae undergoing pre-pupal diapause.
  

• 
  Red-banded mango caterpillar completes the larval stages of its lifecycle inside the mango fruit where the early instars feed on the pulp and later instars feed on the seed (Tenakanai et al. 2006). As an internal pest feeding on mango fruit, red-banded mango caterpillar is likely to survive during transport and storage.
  
• 
  Red banded mango caterpillar may undergo a pre-pupal diapause within the fruit during the off-season season (Sujatha and Zaheruddeen 2002). This may favour its survival in fruit transport and storage.
  
• 
  Larvae take 14 – 20 days to develop through the five instar phases before exiting the fruit to pupate (Golez 1991).
  

• 
  Infestation of fruit by red-banded mango caterpillar can be controlled by insecticidal sprays (Golez 1991). However, these will not have any impact on the larvae inside the mango seed.
  

Probability of distribution

• 
  Larvae of red-banded mango caterpillar feed internally on mango fruit pulp and seed (Krull and Basedow 2006; Tenakanai et al. 2006). If the larvae or pupae were to survive cold storage they would need to complete development and then find a suitable site to pupate. Adults emerge after 9 – 14 days pupation (Golez 1991).
  
• 
  While the imported fruit would be a suitable site for development, this would need to be completed before fruit is either destroyed, eaten or decomposes.
  
• 
  Red-banded mango caterpillar has limited hosts (Peña and Mohyuddin 1997; Krull and Basedow 2006), a short life cycle of less than one month and may have 3 – 4 generations during the mango season (Sujatha and Zaheruddeen 2002).
  
• 
  Adult moths are possibly not capable of flying long distances (Sujatha and Zaheruddeen 2002; Gibb et al. 2007). Adults are short lived; mean of 2.5 days for females and 2.9 days for males in a study by Sujatha and Zaheruddeen (2002). Krull (2004) reported that adult moths live for about 9 days.
  

• 
  Mangoes are likely to be distributed to multiple destinations throughout Australia for retail sale. The ability of the pest to develop within the fruit would allow it to survive this distribution. Wholesalers, retailers or consumers could discard spoiled fruit distributing larvae to multiple locations.
  
• 
  During the winter period, the species may undergo pre-pupal diapause (Sujatha and Zaheruddeen 2002) or survive in pupal cocoons (Krull and Basedow 2006). Its ability to undergo diapause may assist the distribution of this species.
  

• 
  The intended use of the commodity is for human consumption but waste material will be generated. Larvae in infested mangoes could complete development in discarded waste.
  
• 
  Larvae complete their development inside the fruit (Peña and Mohyuddin 1997) and pupation occurs outside the fruit (Tenakanai et al. 2006); dead wood, cracks and crevices on the bark are pupation sites (Sujatha and Zaheruddeen 2002).
  
• 
  Larvae may also pupate in packing material (CAB International 2007). If this packing material is reused for mango, cross infestation could occur.
  

Probability of entry (importation x distribution)

4.9.2. Probability of establishment

• 
  Red-banded mango caterpillar is capable of surviving and reproducing on Mangifera indica, M. minor, M. odorata and Bouea burmanica all in the Anacardiaceae family (Tenakanai et al. 2006). Mangifera species are grown widely in tropical areas of Australia as ornamental, shade and fruit trees (Maynard et al. 2004).
  

• 
  The distribution of red-banded mango caterpillar includes India, South-East Asia, Papua New Guinea and the northern tip of Cape York Peninsula in Queensland, Australia (Krull and Basedow 2006; Tenakanai et al. 2006). It is likely that other suitable environments occur in Australia especially in warmer tropical and sub-tropical environments where mango is grown.
  
• 
  Optimum conditions for the development of red-banded mango caterpillar range from
  

• 
  Female moths produce sex pheromones that attract males (Gibb et al. 2007). This increases the chances of individuals being able to find a suitable mate, even at low initial densities.
  
• 
  Oviposition occurs as early as 45 to 55 days after flower induction and continues up to fruit maturity (Waterhouse 1998). The preferred oviposition site is under the sepals of developing fruit (Krull 2004; Krull and Basedow 2006).
  
• 
  In India, red-banded mango caterpillar has a life cycle of less than one month, with 3 – 4 generations during the mango season (Sujatha and Zaheruddeen 2002). Adults are generally nocturnal and during the day spend most of their time resting under leaves on the tree (Waterhouse 1998).
  
• 
  Red-banded mango caterpillar may diapause (pre-pupal) overwinter (Sujatha and Zaheruddeen 2002). Pupation occurs on the deadwood, cracks or crevices in the bark of the host tree (Sujatha and Zaheruddeen 2002; Krull 2004; Krull and Basedow 2006; B. Pinese 2008, pers. comm.), or soil (Golez 1991). The emergence of adults may be initiated by physiological changes within the mango tree associated with flowering onset and fruit development (Krull and Basedow 2006).
  
• 
  In the absence of mango fruit, adults cannot reproduce in other parts of the mango tree or on other fruit species (Peña and Mohyuddin 1997; Krull 2004). Therefore the likelihood of establishment is limited to the fruiting period within mango areas.
  

• 
  To prevent infestation of fruit, insecticide spray regimes in commercial mango production areas must coincide with the larvae hatching from eggs prior to tunnelling into developing fruit (Golez 1991; Krull 2004). It is unlikely that suitable chemical control would be applied to host trees in urban or suburban areas. Therefore, it is unlikely that current control measures would impact on the establishment of red-banded mango caterpillar in Australia.
  

4.9.3. Probability of spread

• 
  Red-banded mango caterpillar has been reported from a variety of tropical and subtropical environments. For example, red-banded mango caterpillar has a distribution from India, South-East Asia to Australia, where it is currently restricted to the northern tip of Cape York Peninsula in Queensland (Peña and Mohyuddin 1997; Krull and Basedow 2006; Tenakanai et al. 2006).
  
• 
  Based on its current distribution, it is likely that suitable habitats exist in Australia outside its current restricted occurrence.
  
• 
  The spread of red-banded mango caterpillar within managed or natural environments is slow. The pest spreads on the initial host tree first and then on to other host trees (Krull 2004).
  

• 
  The presence of natural barriers such as deserts or mountain ranges may prevent long-range natural spread of red-banded mango caterpillar.
  
• 
  The significance of flight to the adults ability to disperse requires further study (Gibb et al. 2007), but it is likely that this is a significant factor in spread over short distances (e.g. within orchards and between closely spaced orchard areas). If red-banded mango caterpillar is introduced to major commercial production areas of Australia it is likely to slowly spread within that area.
  

• 
  Transportation of infested fruit would aid the movement of the red-banded mango caterpillar between orchards and into new areas.
  
• 
  Red-banded mango caterpillar has demonstrated a capacity to spread, from its original range in India-Myanmar through South-East Asia and Papua New Guinea (Krull and Basedow 2006; Tenakanai et al. 2006; CAB International 2007).
  
• 
  This species has also spread to the Torres Strait and northern tip of Cape York where the only hosts of red-banded mango caterpillar are introduced mango trees grown for fruit production and shade (Maynard et al. 2004).
  

• 
  Several parasites and predators have been recorded as attacking red-banded mango caterpillar overseas (Krull and Basedow 2006). However, there are no natural enemies of red-banded mango caterpillar recorded in Australia likely to impede the spread of the species.
  
• 
  Two species of egg parasitoids (Trichogramma chilonis and T. chilotraeae) and one larval predator species (Rhychium attrisimum) have been observed attacking immature stages of red-banded mango caterpillar in the Philippines, but with little effect (Golez 1991).
  
• 
  Some other species have been mentioned in the literature as potential parasites including Evania appendigaster, Carcelia species, and an unidentified fungus, but their importance remains unknown (Krull 2004).
  

4.9.4. Overall probability of entry, establishment and spread

The overall probability that red-banded mango caterpillar will be imported as a result of trade in mango fruit from India, be distributed in a viable state to a susceptible host, establish and spread within Australia, is: LOW.

4.9.5. Consequences

4.9.6. Unrestricted risk estimate

4.10. Mango thrips – Rhipiphorothrips cruentatus [Thysanoptera: Thripidae]

Mango thrips can reproduce sexually and by parthenogenesis (Chiu 1984). The life cycle is temperature-dependent, with more eggs being produced, and life history lengths reduced, at high temperatures. In India, adults emerge from hibernating pupae in March, whereas in southern Taiwan the species continues to breed at various rates throughout the year (Rahman and Bharadwaj 1937; Chiu 1984).

4.10.1. Previous policy

4.11. Mango malformation – Fusarium mangiferae

Mango malformation has been reported in Africa (Egypt, South Africa, Sudan, Swaziland and Uganda), the Americas (Brazil, Cuba, El Salvador, Mexico, Nicaragua, USA and Venezuela) and Asia (Bangladesh, India, Israel, Malaysia, Pakistan and United Arab Emirates) (Kumar et al. 1993; Bains and Pant 2003; Marasas et al. 2006). Kumar et al. (1993) and Bains and Pant (2003) were wrong in concluding from their reading of Peterson (1986) that the disease was present in Australia, as there were no records of this disease in Australia at this time.

Until recently mango malformation was thought to result from infection by Fusarium subglutinans (Wollenw. & Reinking) P.E. Nelson, Toussoun & Marasas [synonyms: Fusarium moniliforme var. subglutinans Wollenw. & Reinking, Fusarium neoceras var. subglutinans (Wollenw. & Reinking) Raillo; Fusarium sacchari var. subglutinans (Wollenw. & Reinking) Nirenberg], Fusarium verticillioides (Sacc.) Nirenberg [synonym: Fusarium moniliforme J. Sheld.] or Fusarium oxysporum Schltdl. (Bhatnager & Beniwal 1977; Kumar et al. 1993).

Mango malformation is now known to be a disease syndrome caused by numerous species in the Gibberella fujikuroi species complex (O’Donnell et al. 1998; Britz et al. 2002). It appears that in different regions of the world different Fusarium anamorphs of members of the G. fujikuroi complex have adapted to Mangifera indica and are causing disease symptoms described as mango malformation. Two of these Fusarium species have been described and others will be in the near future (Britz et al. 2002). The pathogen associated with mango malformation in India is Fusarium mangiferae (Britz et al. 2002). This fungus also occurs in Egypt, Israel, Malaysia, South Africa and USA (Britz et al. 2002; Marasas et al. 2006). It is not known to infect plants other than mango.

The pathogen examined in this pest risk analysis is:

• 
  Fusarium mangiferae – the causal agent of mango malformation disease in India
  

Mango malformation was not considered in the 2004 Draft document (DAFF 2004). An assessment of the pathogen has been provided below. The resultant risk rating has been determined to be ‘very low’. However, given that India uses a hot water fungicidal dip as part of the existing commercial practices this would lower the rating even further.

4.11.1. Probability of entry

Probability of importation

• 
  Fusarium mangiferae is recorded in mango orchards in India as the causal agent of mango malformation (Kumar et al. 1993; Marasas et al. 2006). The pathogen affects vegetative shoots and floral panicles, resulting in distortion (phyllody and hypertrophy) (Iqbal et al. 2006b; Ploetz 1994).
  
• 
  Infected panicles and shoots persist on trees and are a source of conidia (Kumar et al. 1993; Noriega-Cantú et al. 1999). Conidia production peaks with rains and conidia are probably splash dispersed (Kumar et al. 1993; Noriega-Cantú et al. 1999).
  
• 
  Conidia may contaminate the fruit surface but infection of the flesh and seed is not known to occur (Freeman et al. 2004; Youssef et al. 2007). Studies indicate that fruit within a two metre radius of infected panicles can be contaminated with viable conidia (Freeman et al. 2004; Youssef et al. 2007). There is no evidence that F. mangiferae can be spread on mango fruit or mango seeds (DPIFM 2008).
  
• 
  Infected panicles usually do not produce fruit (Kumar et al. 1993; Noriega-Cantú et al. 1999), or the fruits are aborted early (Kumar et al. 1993; Ploetz et al. 2002).
  
• 
  Picked fruit could be surface-contaminated by: (a) pickers’ hands or gloves getting contaminated with spores after touching infected panicles and (b) spores carried in rain splash and wind currents being deposited on clean fruit.
  
• 
  Post-harvest cleaning and washing of the fruit is routinely employed in mango production in India to remove the sap that exudes from the stem end (Morton 1987). If any conidia of F. mangiferae are on the fruit at the time of harvest, some may be removed by this post­harvest practice.
  
• 
  The existing commercial practice of hot fungicide dipping has not been taken into account in this unrestricted risk assessment.
  

• 
  Fusarium mangiferae has not been recorded from the flesh or seeds of fruit, although they may be present on the fruit surface (Youssef et al. 2007). The level of fruit contamination is unlikely to increase by germination of spores and mycelial growth on the fruit surface during transit. Therefore, contamination of adjacent fruits is unlikely to occur.
  
• 
  No information is available on the effect of environmental conditions on survival of macro- and microconidia of F. mangiferae during storage or transport. However, the growth and survival of conidia of other Fusarium species are affected by environmental conditions. For instance, macroconidia of F. graminearum do not germinate at relative humidities below 80% and lose viability after 90 hours at 53% relative humidity (Beyer et al. 2004).
  

• 
  The application of fungicides (Noriega-Cantú et al. 1999) and standard sanitation measures (Youssef et al. 2007) in the field may significantly reduce the incidence of infestation. However, panicles infected at low levels would not show visible symptoms and may escape standard sanitation measures (Iqbal et al. 2006a). Therefore, F. mangiferae is likely to survive the existing pest management procedures.
  

Probability of distribution

• 
  Fusarium mangiferae has a narrow host range, primarily limited to mangoes (Akhtar and Alam 2002). This host is present in urban and commercial production areas in tropical and subtropical parts of Australia where fruit might be disposed. However, the narrow host range decreases the probability of conidia being spread to a suitable host when conditions are favourable for infection.
  
• 
  The distance the fungus could be dispersed from contaminated mango waste is limited, as conidia would need to be dispersed by water splash (or possibly wind) from discarded waste to a susceptible host.
  
• 
  Suitable sites for infection include bud or flower tissues (Freeman et al. 2004; Youssef et al. 2007). Wounds also provide points of entry for the pathogen (Freeman et al. 1999).
  
• 
  Mango fruits from India would arrive in Australia during autumn and winter. Imports would only overlap with flowering in the mango production areas of Darwin, Katherine, Kununurra and Carnarvon in arid tropical Australia (Poffley et al. 1999; Johnson and Parr 2008).
  
• 
  Flowering in the mango production areas in Queensland and New South Wales occurs in spring, which is after the import season for Indian mangoes.
  

• 
  The commodity would be distributed within Australia through its sale to various locations, so a portion of contaminated fruit may enter tropical and subtropical areas where mangoes are grown.
  
• 
  The pathogen may survive storage and transport on the surface of the fruit as conidia.
  
• 
  There is no information available on the survival of conidia on mango fruit in cold storage.
  

• 
  The intended use of the commodity is human consumption but waste material would be generated (e.g. skins of fruit, overripe fruit, damaged fruit and seed). There is no published information that F. mangiferae is seed-borne or that it can multiply on the fruit. The pathogen is known to contaminate the fruit externally but infection of the flesh is not reported (Freeman et al. 2004; Youssef et al. 2007).
  
• 
  Discarded waste contaminated with fungal conidia would be rapidly colonized by other saprophytic micro-organisms. As F. mangiferae is a slow growing species (Kumar et al. 1993), it is likely to be out competed by these micro-organisms. Therefore, the chance of the fungus producing macro- or microconidia is low. Additionally, macro- or microconidia of Fusarium species are short lived and are vulnerable to desiccation (Beyer et al. 2004).
  
• 
  Survival of F. mangiferae in soil is poor, with 100% mortality in 102 days in winter conditions (14°C average) and close to 100% after 28 days in summer conditions (28°C average) (Freeman et al. 2004; Youssef et al. 2007).
  

Probability of entry (importation x distribution)

4.11.2. Probability of establishment

• 
  Fusarium mangiferae is capable of surviving and reproducing only on mango (Akhtar and Alam 2002; Britz et al. 2002) and this host is present in urban and commercial production areas in tropical and subtropical parts of Australia. Mango trees are grown for their fruits and for shade throughout northern Australia (Maynard et al. 2004).
  
• 
  Conidia of F. mangiferae are dispersed by water splash, so a vector is not required.
  
• 
  Aceria mangiferae (mango bud mite), which is thought to vector the pathogen (Youssef et al. 2007), is widespread on mangoes in Australia.
  

• 
  Fusarium mangiferae is distributed in a wide range of climates (Kumar et al. 1993; Ploetz et al. 2002), and regions of Australia are likely to be suitable for the establishment of these species (Espenshade 1990).
  
• 
  Fusarium mangiferae occurred in a mango plantation near Darwin in the Northern Territory, demonstrating that the environment in regions of Australia is suitable for this fungus to establish.
  
• 
  Infection requires the presence of new vegetative or inflorescence growth and high humidity and temperatures (Kumar et al. 1993; Ploetz et al. 2002). However, when flowering occurs during the dry season, such as in northern mango production areas in Australia, the potential for disease establishment is limited.
  

• 
  Fusarium mangiferae reproduces asexually, producing conidia (Freeman et al. 2004). No sexual stage is known (Britz et al. 2002).
  
• 
  Fusarium mangiferae survives in the infected host tissues (i.e. flowers and buds) and produces conidia on infected tissues (Kumar et al. 1993; Noriega-Cantú et al. 1999).
  
• 
  Pathogen populations in infected plant debris (i.e. old panicles) decline more rapidly on the soil surface than when they are buried in the soil (Freeman et al. 2004; Youssef et al. 2007).
  
• 
  Survival of the pathogen inside of plant debris declines rapidly (Freeman et al. 2004).
  
• 
  Survival of F. mangiferae in soil is poor with 100% mortality in 102 days in winter conditions (14°C average) and close to 100% after 28 days in summer conditions (28°C average) (Freeman et al. 2004; Youssef et al. 2007).
  

• 
  Standard measures include sanitation, whereby infected panicles and branches are removed and destroyed to reduce disease spread and the build up of pathogen inoculum (Youssef et al. 2007). However, symptoms may not be visible at low levels (Iqbal et al. 2006a) and typical symptoms are only visible when significant amounts of mycelia colonise the stems and inflorescences (Iqbal et al. 2006a). Therefore, F. mangiferae is likely to survive the existing pest management procedures.
  

4.11.3. Probability of spread

• 
  Fusarium mangiferae has been reported in the tropics (India, Malaysia, Pakistan), sub­tropics (South Africa and USA) and Mediterranean (Egypt and Israel) regions (Britz et al. 2002; Iqbal et al. 2006b; Marasas et al. 2006). Similar climates occur in parts of Australia. This suggests that F. mangiferae could spread within Australia.
  

• 
  The presence of natural barriers such as deserts or mountain ranges may prevent long-range natural spread of F. mangiferae. Fusarium mangiferae is limited to short distance dispersal by splashed/blown conidia (Freeman et al. 2004; Youssef et al. 2007).
  
• 
  Spread may be assisted by Aceria mangiferae (mango bud mite) (Kumar et al. 1993; Youssef et al. 2007), which is present in Australia.
  
• 
  Hosts of F. mangiferae are located in many parts of tropical Australia. Natural barriers, such as arid areas, climatic differentials and long distances exist between these areas. The long distances between commercial mango orchards in Australia may prevent long-range natural spread of this fungus.
  
• 
  If this fungus is introduced to major commercial production areas of Australia, such physical barriers are unlikely to be a limiting factor to the spread. Fusarium mangiferae has the potential to gradually spread by human activity, thereby expanding the range of infestation to all mango fruit production areas in Australia.
  

• 
  Movement of infected planting material is the main pathway by which F. mangiferae has been introduced to other countries (Kumar et al. 1993). Indeed, the introduction of the pathogen to the United Arab Emirates was linked to the importation of infected seedlings (Burhan 1991).
  
• 
  Detection of spores of Fusarium species with mango pollen grains indicates that the pathogen may also be spread by pollen assisted by wind or insect vectors (Freeman et al. 1999).
  
• 
  Existing interstate quarantine control on the movement of nursery stock could reduce the rate of spread of this pathogen. However, similar measures are not usually applied for the movement of propagative material within a state.
  

• 
  There is no published information available on natural enemies of F. mangiferae.
  

4.11.4. Overall probability of entry, establishment and spread

The overall probability that F. mangiferae will enter Australia as a result of trade in mango fruit from India and be distributed in a viable state to suitable hosts, establish and subsequently spread, is: VERY LOW.

4.11.5. Consequences

Unrestricted risk is the result of combining probability of entry, establishment and spread with the outcome of overall consequences. Probabilities and consequences are combined using the risk estimation matrix shown in Table 2.5.

4.12. Mango scab – Elsinoë mangiferae

Young, succulent tissues are preferentially infected (Ploetz et al. 1994). In general, host tissues become increasingly resistant as they mature. High humidity and free moisture are required for the production of spores and for host infection (Ploetz et al. 1994). Elsinoë mangiferae produces two types of spores: ascospores (the sexual stage); and conidia (the asexual stage). The asexual life stage is sometimes referred to by a different name: Denticularia mangiferae. There are no reports of it affecting plants other than mango (Ploetz et al. 1994).

4.12.1. Previous policy

4.13. Risk assessment conclusion

Fruit fly species with mango as a preferred host (Bactrocera caryeae, B. correcta, B. dorsalis

Melon fruit fly (Bactrocera cucurbitae), mango weevils (Sternochetus frigidus and Sternochetus mangiferae), mealybugs (Ferrisia virgata, F. malvastra, Planococcus lilacinus, Rastrococcus iceryoides, R. invadens and R. spinosus) and red-banded mango caterpillar (Deanolis sublimbalis) were assessed to have an unrestricted risk estimate of ‘low’. The unrestricted risk estimates for these pests exceed Australia’s appropriate level of protection. Specific risk management measures are therefore required for the import of fresh mango fruits from India into Australia to adequately address the potential quarantine risk.

Armoured scales (Abgrallaspis cyanophylli and Parlatoria crypta), pumpkin fruit fly (Bactrocera tau), mango thrips (Rhipiphorothrips cruentatus), mango malformation disease syndrome (Fusarium mangiferae) and mango scab (Elsinoë mangiferae) were assessed to have an unrestricted risk estimate of ‘very low’ and therefore do not require the application of any specific phytosanitary measures in order to maintain Australia’s appropriate level of protection.

Tussock moth (Orgyia postica) was assessed to have an unrestricted risk estimate of ‘negligible’ and therefore does not require the application of any specific phytosanitary measures in order to achieve Australia’s appropriate level of protection.

Table 4.2: Summary of pest risk assessments for quarantine pests for fresh mango fruit from India

*Regional quarantine pests have the endangered area identified in parentheses.