{"id":2755,"date":"2016-10-25T16:15:33","date_gmt":"2016-10-25T23:15:33","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.cdfa.ca.gov\/Section3162\/?p=2755"},"modified":"2024-04-26T11:02:55","modified_gmt":"2024-04-26T18:02:55","slug":"neofusicoccum-mangiferae-syd-p-syd-crous-slippers-a-j-l-phillips-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cdfa.ca.gov\/Section3162\/?p=2755","title":{"rendered":"Neofusicoccum mangiferae (Syd. & P. Syd.) Crous, Slippers & A. J. L. Phillips, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"
California Pest Rating for<\/strong><\/h5>\n
Neofusicoccum mangiferae<\/em><\/strong> (Syd. & P. Syd.) Crous, Slippers & A. J. L. Phillips, 2006<\/strong><\/h5>\n
Pest Rating: C<\/strong><\/h5>\n
\n
PEST RATING PROFILE<\/strong><\/h5>\n
Initiating Event: <\/strong><\/h5>\n

The current status and rating of Neofusicoccum mangiferae<\/em> in California is reassessed and a permanent rating is proposed.<\/p>\n

History & Status:<\/strong><\/h5>\n

Background:<\/u><\/strong>\u00a0 Neofusicoccum mangiferae<\/em> is a fungal plant pathogen belonging to the family Botryosphaeriaceae.\u00a0 The species was originally named Dothiorella mangiferae<\/em> but since then has undergone several taxonomic revisions and is also been known as Nattrassia mangiferae, Fusicoccum mangiferae, <\/em>and Hendersonula cypria <\/em>(Crous et al<\/em>., 2006; Farr & Rossman, 2016).<\/p>\n

In California, Neofusicoccum mangiferae <\/em>is widespread and has been found in different hosts including walnut and fig causing branch wilt and limb dieback (Michailides et al<\/em>., 2007), in citrus causing branch and trunk canker (Eskalen et al.,<\/em> 2011) and Indian leaf-laurel fig causing \u2018Sooty Canker\u2019 disease (as syn. Nattrassia mangiferae<\/em>) which severely damaged street plantings of Indian leaf-laurel fig in southern California (Hodel, et al.,<\/em> 2009; Mayorquin et al<\/em>., 2012).\u00a0 In addition, during 2015-16, CDFA plant pathologists identified the pathogen from diseased mango and avocado fruit that were intercepted in shipments from Florida to California. In natural infestations, the pathogen is often found in combination with other fungal species.<\/p>\n

Disease development<\/u>:<\/strong>\u00a0 In Indian laurel-leaf fig and other host plants, Hodel et al<\/em>., (2009) reported that the pathogen enters the tree primarily through bark wounds produced by mechanical damage, pruning, freezing weather, sunburn, insects, or other diseases.\u00a0 Smooth, thin-barked trees or those stressed from insufficient water and other factors are especially susceptible to the disease. \u00a0The fungus and disease develops most rapidly in warm temperatures (85-105\u00b0F) under high humidity. Slightly sunken cankers develop at the wound and point of infection on branches and may expand as the disease progresses.\u00a0 Once the disease expands to the trunk, the tree dies.\u00a0 Small, black, pencil-point size fungal fruiting bodies are formed on the cankers while the underlying infected sapwood inside the bark is stained grey to black and sharply demarcated from adjacent light-colored, healthy tissue.\u00a0\u00a0 Masses of dark spores are produced by the fruiting bodies and dispersed by wind, rain splash, pruning tools, and insects.<\/p>\n

Dispersal and spread:<\/em> Wind, rain, water-splash, pruning tools, insects, and animals can spread fungal spores to non-infected plants.<\/p>\n

Hosts:<\/em> Agathis spp. <\/em>(kauri; Araucariaceae), Castanea sativa<\/em> (European chestnut; Fagaceae), Dioscorea rotundata <\/em>(white yam; Dioscoreaceae), Eucalyptus grandis <\/em>(flooded\/rose gum; Myrtaceae), Mangifera indica <\/em>(mango; Anacardiaceae), Manihot esculenta <\/em>(cassava; Euphorbiaceae), Persea americana<\/em> (avocado; Lauraceae), Prunus armeniaca <\/em>(ansu apricot; Rosaceae), Phoenix dactylifera <\/em>(date palm; Arecaceae), Cupressus <\/em>(cypress; Cupressaceae), Robina pseudoacacia<\/em> (black locust; Fabaceae), Tibouchina urvilleana <\/em>(glory bush\/purple glory tree; Melastomataceae), Ficus microcarpa<\/em> (Indian laurel-leaf fig; Moraceae)) F. carica<\/em> (edible fig: Moraceae), Juglans<\/em> regia<\/em> (English walnut; Juglandaceae), Citrus<\/em> sp. (citrus; Rutaceae) (El-Trafi, 2010; Farr & Rossman, 2016; French, 1989; Heath et al<\/em>., 2011; Mayorquin et al.,<\/em> 2012; Michailides et al<\/em>., 2007; Nazerian et al<\/em>., 2015).\u00a0 Vitis vinifera<\/em> (grape: Vitaceae) was reported as a host of Neofusicoccum mangiferae<\/em> in China (Dissanayake et al.,<\/em> 2015).<\/p>\n

Symptoms<\/em>: Neofusicoccum mangiferae<\/em> causes blight of inflorescences, rachis, and branches of infected host plants.\u00a0 Symptoms include branch and trunk cankers, branch wilt and dieback, lesions and rot of fruit, rachis and flower discoloration and necrosis.<\/p>\n

The pathogen has been reported to be associated with rachis necrosis and inflorescence blight in mango in Puerto Rico (Serrato-Diaz et al., <\/em>2014), lesions and progressive rot in mango and avocado fruit in Taiwan (Ni et al<\/em>., 2009, 2010), Walnut branch wilt, fig branch dieback, citrus branch and\/or trunk cankers, branch dieback and tree death symptoms of sooty canker disease in Indian laurel-leaf fig trees in California (Eskalen et al.,<\/em> 2011; Michailides et al<\/em>., 2007; Hodel et al.,<\/em> 2009). In China, symptoms associated with grapevine dieback were characterized by partial or total death of affected cordons, with brown U-shaped necrotic sectors and brownish-black spot in cross-sections of affected trunks and arms (Dissanayake et al<\/em>., 2015).<\/p>\n

Damage Potential: <\/em>In mango, disease incidences of 20-100% have been reported (Serrato-Diaz et al<\/em>., 2014; El-Trafi, 2009) as well as 30-72% rot disease in stored mango fruit (Ni et al<\/em>., 2010).\u00a0 In several cities in Los Angeles County, California, the pathogen has devastated landscape plantings of Indian laurel-leaf fig tree by causing severe damage and death (Hodel et al.<\/em>, 2009).\u00a0 Branch and trunk canker of citrus and other tree hosts may lead to decline or death of branches and whole plants (Eskalen et al.<\/em>, 2011; Michailides et al.,<\/em> 2007).<\/p>\n

Worldwide Distribution<\/u>:<\/strong> Asia<\/em>: India, Iran, Myanmar, Pakistan, Taiwan; Africa<\/em>: Benin, Nigeria, South Africa, Sudan; Europe<\/em>: Cyprus; North America<\/em>: Arizona, California, Hawaii, Washington, West Virginia; South America: Uruguay; Caribbean<\/em>: Puerto Rico; Australia<\/em> (CABI, 2016; USDA ARS, 2016; Farr & Rossman, 2016).<\/p>\n

Official Control<\/u>:<\/strong> None reported.<\/p>\n

California Distribution<\/u>:<\/strong> Neofusicoccum mangiferae<\/em> is widespread in California in northern and southern coastal and valley counties including, Fresno, Los Angeles, Riverside, San Diego, San Luis Obispo, Tulare, and Ventura Counties (Eskalen et al.,<\/em> 2011; French, 1989; Hodel et al<\/em>., 2009; Mayorquin et al.,<\/em> 2012).<\/p>\n

California Interceptions<\/u>:\u00a0<\/strong> From June 2014 to August 2016, Neofusicoccum mangiferae<\/em> has been detected in eight shipments of mango and one shipment of avocado fruit imported to California (CDFA Pest and Damage Records<\/em>).<\/p>\n

The risk Neofusicoccum mangiferae<\/em> would pose to California is evaluated below.<\/p>\n

Consequences of Introduction:\u00a0 <\/strong><\/p>\n

1) Climate\/Host Interaction:<\/strong> Evaluate if the pest would have suitable hosts and climate to establish in California. Score:<\/p>\n

– Low (1) Not likely to establish in California; or likely to establish in very limited areas.<\/p>\n

– Medium (2)<\/strong> may be able to establish in a larger but limited part of California.<\/span><\/p>\n

– High (3) likely to establish a widespread distribution in California.<\/p>\n

Risk is Medium (2):\u00a0 <\/em><\/strong>Neofusicoccum mangiferae is able to establish in California under warm to hot and very humid climates.\u00a0 Already, it is distributed within the State in certain southern and northern coastal and valley counties.<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

2) Known Pest Host Range:<\/strong> Evaluate the host range of the pest. Score:<\/p>\n

– Low (1) has a very limited host range.<\/p>\n

– Medium (2)<\/strong> has a moderate host range.<\/span><\/p>\n

– High (3) has a wide host range.<\/p>\n

Risk is Medium (2):\u00a0 <\/em><\/strong>Neofusicoccum mangiferae has a moderate and diverse host range. In California it has been found in Indian laurel-leaf fig tree, edible fig, citrus, avocado, and chestnut.\u00a0 It has been detected in intercepted shipments of mango and avocado fruit.<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

3) Pest Dispersal Potential:<\/strong> Evaluate the natural and artificial dispersal potential of the pest. Score:<\/p>\n

– Low (1) does not have high reproductive or dispersal potential.<\/p>\n

– Medium (2)<\/strong> has either high reproductive or dispersal potential.<\/span><\/p>\n

– High (3) has both high reproduction and dispersal potential.<\/p>\n

Risk is Medium (2): <\/em><\/strong>Numerous numbers of spores are produced by this pathogen due to its high reproduction.\u00a0 However, spore dispersal to non-infested hosts is dependent on external factor such as wind, water-splash, rain, infected pruning tools, insects, and animals. Therefore, it is given a Medium score.<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

4) Economic Impact:<\/strong> Evaluate the economic impact of the pest to California using the criteria below. Score:<\/p>\n

A. The pest could lower crop yield.<\/p>\n

B. The pest could lower crop value (includes increasing crop production costs).<\/p>\n

C. The pest could trigger the loss of markets (includes quarantines).<\/p>\n

D. The pest could negatively change normal cultural practices.<\/p>\n

E. The pest can vector, or is vectored, by another pestiferous organism.<\/p>\n

F. The organism is injurious or poisonous to agriculturally important animals.<\/p>\n

G. The organism can interfere with the delivery or supply of water for agricultural uses.<\/p>\n

– Low (1) causes 0 or 1 of these impacts.<\/p>\n

– Medium (2) causes 2 of these impacts.<\/p>\n

– High (3)<\/strong> causes 3 or more of these impacts.<\/span><\/p>\n

Risk is High (3): <\/em><\/strong>Neofusicoccum mangiferae could lower crop yield, value, increase production costs, require changes in normal pruning practices, and can be spread by insects and animals, thereby, qualifying it for a high score for economic impact.<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

5) Environmental Impact:<\/strong> Evaluate the environmental impact of the pest on California using the criteria below.<\/p>\n

A. The pest could have a significant environmental impact such as lowering biodiversity, disrupting natural communities, or changing ecosystem processes.<\/p>\n

B. The pest could directly affect threatened or endangered species.<\/p>\n

C. The pest could impact threatened or endangered species by disrupting critical habitats.<\/p>\n

D. The pest could trigger additional official or private treatment programs.<\/p>\n

E. The pest significantly impacts cultural practices, home\/urban gardening or ornamental plantings.<\/p>\n

Score the pest for Environmental Impact. Score:<\/p>\n

– Low (1) causes none of the above to occur.<\/p>\n

– Medium (2) causes one of the above to occur.<\/p>\n

– High (3)<\/strong> causes two or more of the above to occur.<\/span><\/p>\n

Risk is <\/em><\/strong>High (3): <\/em><\/strong>Infections of tree hosts used as commercial landscape, ornamental and private gardens plantings could result in disrupting natural communities in those environments, subsequently requiring official or private treatments.<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

Consequences of Introduction to California for Neofusicoccum mangiferae<\/em>:<\/strong><\/h5>\n

Add up the total score and include it here. (Score)<\/p>\n

-Low = 5-8 points<\/p>\n

-Medium = 9-12 points<\/p>\n

-High<\/strong> = 13-15 points<\/span><\/p>\n

Total points obtained on evaluation of consequences of introduction to California = 13<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

6) Post Entry Distribution and Survey Information:<\/strong> Evaluate the known distribution in California. Only official records identified by a taxonomic expert and supported by voucher specimens deposited in natural history collections should be considered. Pest incursions that have been eradicated, are under eradication, or have been delimited with no further detections should not be included. (Score)<\/p>\n

-Not established (0) Pest never detected in California, or known only from incursions.<\/p>\n

-Low (-1) Pest has a localized distribution in California, or is established in one suitable climate\/host area (region).<\/p>\n

-Medium (-2) Pest is widespread in California but not fully established in the endangered area, or pest established in two contiguous suitable climate\/host areas.<\/p>\n

-High (-3)<\/strong> Pest has fully established in the endangered area, or pest is reported in more than two contiguous or non-contiguous suitable climate\/host areas.<\/span><\/p>\n

Evaluation is High (-3): <\/em><\/strong>Neofusicoccum mangiferae has been reported<\/em> from<\/em> certain southern and northern coastal and valley counties.<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

Final Score:<\/h5>\n

7) The final score is<\/strong> the consequences of introduction score minus the post entry distribution and survey information score: (Score)<\/p>\n

Final Score: <\/em><\/strong>\u00a0Score of Consequences of Introduction \u2013 Score of Post Entry Distribution and Survey Information = 9.<\/strong><\/span><\/em><\/p>\n

Uncertainty: \u00a0<\/strong><\/h5>\n

None.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Conclusion and Rating Justification: <\/strong><\/h5>\n

Based on the evidence provided above the proposed rating for Neofusicoccum mangiferae<\/em> is C.<\/strong><\/p>\n

References:<\/strong><\/h5>\n

C<\/strong>ABI.\u00a0 2016.\u00a0 Neofusicoccum mangiferae<\/em> datasheet (basic).\u00a0 http:\/\/www.cabi.org\/cpc\/datasheet\/115758<\/a> .<\/p>\n

C<\/strong>rous, P. W., B. Slippers, M. J. Wingfield, J. Rheeder, W. F. O. Warasas, A. J. L. Philips, A. Alves, T. Burgess, P. Barber, and J. Z. Groenewald.\u00a0 2006.\u00a0 Phylogenetic lineages in the Botryosphaeriaceae.\u00a0 Studies in Mycology 55: 235-253.<\/p>\n

D<\/strong>issanayake, A. J., W. Jhang, X. Li, Y. Zhou, T. Chethana, E. Hukeatirote, K. D. Hyde, J. Yan, G. Zhang, and W. Zhao.\u00a0 2015.\u00a0 First report of Neofusicoccum mangiferae<\/em> associated with grape dieback in China.\u00a0 Phytopathologia Mediterranea temp25-30.\u00a0 DOI: 10.14601\/Phytopathol_Mediterr-15159.<\/p>\n

E<\/strong>l-Trafi, M. A.\u00a0 2010.\u00a0 Studies on mango branch wilt disease caused by Neofusicoccum mangiferae<\/em>.\u00a0 FAO Agris Records.\u00a0 http:\/\/agris.fao.org\/openagris\/search.do?recordID=SD2010000222<\/a> .<\/p>\n

E<\/strong>skalen, A., A. Adesemoye, and D. Wang.\u00a0 2011.\u00a0 Identification of different species causing Botryosphaeriaceae canker in citrus reveal Neofusicoccum mangiferae<\/em> with Scytalidium<\/em>-like synanomorph.\u00a0 Phytopathology, 101: S49.<\/p>\n

F<\/strong>arr, D.F., & A. Y. Rossman. \u00a0Fungal Databases, Systematic Mycology and Microbiology Laboratory, ARS, USDA. \u00a0Retrieved January 28, 2016, from http:\/\/nt.ars-grin.gov\/fungaldatabases\/.<\/p>\n

French, A.M.<\/strong> 1989. California Plant Disease Host Index. California Department of Food and Agriculture, Sacramento, 394 pages.<\/p>\n

Heath, R.N., J. Roux, B. Slippers, A. Drenth, S. R. Pennycook, B. D. Wingfield, and M. J. Wingfield. <\/strong>\u00a0<\/strong>2011. \u00a0Occurrence and pathogenicity of Neofusicoccum parvum<\/em><\/strong> and N. mangiferae<\/em><\/strong> on ornamental Tibouchina<\/em><\/strong> species. Forest Pathology, 41: 48-51.<\/p>\n

H<\/strong>odel, D. R., A. J. Downer, and D. M. Mathews.\u00a0 2009.\u00a0 Sooty canker, a devastating disease of Indian laurel-leaf fig trees.\u00a0 Western Arborist 35: 28-32.<\/p>\n

M<\/strong>ayorquin, J. S., A. Eskalen, A. J. Downer, D. R. Hodel, and A. Liu.\u00a0 2012.\u00a0 First report of multiple species of the Botryosphaeriaceae causing bot canker disease of Indian laurel-leaf fig in California.\u00a0 Plant Disease, 96:459. http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.1094\/PDIS-08-11-0714<\/a>.<\/p>\n

M<\/strong>ichailides, T. J., D. P. Morgan, D. Felts, and H. Reyes.\u00a0 2007.\u00a0 Emerging fungal diseases in fruit and nut crops in California.\u00a0 Phytopathology, 97: S170.<\/p>\n

N<\/strong>azerian, E., H. R. Naji, H. Abdul-Hamid, and M. Moradi.\u00a0 2015.\u00a0 Phenotypic and molecular characterization of Neofusicoccum mangiferae<\/em>, the causal agent of black locust decline.\u00a0 Journal of Plant Pathology and Microbiology, 6: 1. http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.4172\/2157-7471.1000250<\/a> .<\/p>\n

N<\/strong>i, H. F., R. F. Liou, T., H. Hung, R. S. Chen, and H. R. Yang. \u00a02010. First report of fruit rot disease of mango caused by Botryosphaeria dothidea<\/em> and Neofusicoccum mangiferae<\/em> in Taiwan.\u00a0 Plant Disease 94: 128. http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.1094\/PDIS-94-1-0128C<\/a><\/p>\n

N<\/strong>i, H. F., R. F. Liou, T., H. Hung, R. S. Chen, and H. R. Yang.\u00a0 2009.\u00a0 First report of a fruit rot disease of avocado caused by Neofusicoccum mangiferae<\/em>.\u00a0 Plant Disease 93: 760. http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.1094\/PDIS-93-7-0760B<\/a><\/p>\n

S<\/strong>errato-Diaz, L. M., L. I. Rivera-Vargas, and R. D. French-Monar.\u00a0 2014.\u00a0 First report of Neofusicoccum mangiferae<\/em> causing necrosis and inflorescence blight of Mango (Mangifera indica<\/em>) in Puerto Rico.\u00a0 Plant Disease 98: 570. http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.1094\/PDIS-08-13-0878-PDN<\/a><\/p>\n

U<\/strong>SDA ARS.\u00a0 2016.\u00a0 Fungi on Mango in India, but not found in the U.S.A.\u00a0 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Systematic Mycology and Microbiology Laboratory \u2013 Nomenclature Fact Sheets.\u00a0 July 7, 2016. http:\/\/nt.ars-grin.gov\/sbmlweb\/onlineresources\/nomenfactsheets\/rptBuildFactSheet_onLine.cfm?thisName=Fungi%20on%20Mango%20in%20India&currentDS=specimens<\/a> .<\/p>\n

U<\/strong>SDA PCIT.\u00a0 2016.\u00a0 USDA Phytosanitary Certificate Issuance & Tracking System.\u00a0 https:\/\/pcit.aphis.usda.gov\/PExD\/faces\/ReportHarmOrgs.jsp<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\n
Responsible Party:<\/strong><\/h5>\n

John J. Chitambar, Primary Plant Pathologist\/Nematologist, California Department of Food and Agriculture, 3294 Meadowview Road, Sacramento, CA 95832. Phone: 916-262-1110, plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov.<\/p>\n

\n
Comment Format:<\/h5>\n

\u2666 \u00a0Comments should refer to the appropriate California Pest Rating Proposal Form subsection(s)\u00a0being commented on, as shown below.<\/p>\n

Example Comment:\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

Consequences of Introduction: \u00a01. Climate\/Host Interaction:\u00a0[Your comment that relates to \u201cClimate\/Host Interaction\u201d here.<\/em>]<\/p>\n

\u2666 \u00a0Posted comments will not be able to be viewed immediately.<\/p>\n

\u2666 \u00a0Comments may not be posted if they:<\/p>\n

Contain inappropriate language which is not germane to\u00a0the pest rating proposal;<\/p>\n

Contains defamatory, false, inaccurate, abusive, obscene, pornographic,\u00a0sexually oriented, threatening, racially offensive, discriminatory or illegal\u00a0material;<\/p>\n

Violates agency regulations prohibiting sexual harassment or other forms\u00a0of discrimination;<\/p>\n

Violates agency regulations prohibiting workplace violence, including threats.<\/p>\n

\u2666 \u00a0Comments may be edited prior to posting to ensure they are entirely germane.<\/p>\n

\u2666 \u00a0Posted comments shall be those which have been approved in content and posted to the\u00a0website to be viewed, not just submitted.<\/p>\n

\n

Pest Rating: C<\/strong><\/h3>\n
\n

Posted by ls<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

California Pest Rating for Neofusicoccum mangiferae (Syd. & P. Syd.) Crous, Slippers & A. J. L. Phillips, 2006 Pest Rating: C PEST RATING PROFILE Initiating Event: The current status and rating of Neofusicoccum mangiferae in California is reassessed and a permanent rating is proposed. History & Status: Background:\u00a0 Neofusicoccum mangiferae is a fungal plant pathogen … Continue reading Neofusicoccum mangiferae (Syd. & P. Syd.) Crous, Slippers & A. J. L. Phillips, 2006<\/span> →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1117,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[8,4],"tags":[156,432,41],"class_list":["post-2755","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-fungi","category-plant-pathology","tag-fungus","tag-neofusicoccum-mangiferae","tag-plant-pathogens"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p5l8vQ-Ir","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":13320,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cdfa.ca.gov\/Section3162\/?p=13320","url_meta":{"origin":2755,"position":0},"title":"Fusarium mangiferae Britz, M.J. Wingf. & Marasas 2002 Mango Malformation Disease","author":"Heather Martin","date":"October 7, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"California Pest Rating Profile for Fusarium mangiferae Britz, M.J. Wingf. & Marasas 2002 Mango Malformation DiseasePest Rating:\u00a0B download pest rating profile *NOTE You must be registered and logged in to post a comment. If you have registered and have not received the registration confirmation, please contact us at permits[@]cdfa.ca.gov. Posted\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "B-Rated"","block_context":{"text":"B-Rated","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cdfa.ca.gov\/Section3162\/?cat=670"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":2617,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cdfa.ca.gov\/Section3162\/?p=2617","url_meta":{"origin":2755,"position":1},"title":"Mango Shield Scale | Milviscutulus mangiferae (Green)","author":"Jason Leathers","date":"September 23, 2016","format":false,"excerpt":"California Pest Rating for Milviscutulus mangiferae (Green): Mango Shield Scale Hemiptera:\u00a0 Coccidae Pest Rating: \u00a0A PEST RATING PROFILE Initiating Event: Since 1991 Milviscutulus mangiferae has been regularly intercepted by CDFA\u2019s border stations and dog teams.\u00a0 This scale insect presently has a temporary rating of \u201cQ\u201d.\u00a0 A pest rating proposal is\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Hemiptera"","block_context":{"text":"Hemiptera","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cdfa.ca.gov\/Section3162\/?cat=18"},"img":{"alt_text":"5508173-soft-scale-milviscutulus-mangiferae-byAllesandraRung","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cdfa.ca.gov\/Section3162\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/5508173-soft-scale-milviscutulus-mangiferae-byAllesandraRung.jpg?resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cdfa.ca.gov\/Section3162\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/5508173-soft-scale-milviscutulus-mangiferae-byAllesandraRung.jpg?resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cdfa.ca.gov\/Section3162\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/5508173-soft-scale-milviscutulus-mangiferae-byAllesandraRung.jpg?resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cdfa.ca.gov\/Section3162\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/5508173-soft-scale-milviscutulus-mangiferae-byAllesandraRung.jpg?resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":8297,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cdfa.ca.gov\/Section3162\/?p=8297","url_meta":{"origin":2755,"position":2},"title":"Neofusicoccum nonquaesitum Inderb., Trouillas, Bostock & Michailides 2010","author":"Heather.Martin","date":"April 8, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"California Pest Rating for Neofusicoccum nonquaesitum Inderb., Trouillas, Bostock & Michailides 2010Pest Rating: C DOWNLOAD PEST RATING *NOTE\u00a0 You must be registered and logged in to post a comment. If you have registered and have not received the registration confirmation, please contact us at permits[@]cdfa.ca.gov. Posted by ta","rel":"","context":"In "C-Rated"","block_context":{"text":"C-Rated","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cdfa.ca.gov\/Section3162\/?cat=671"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":3285,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cdfa.ca.gov\/Section3162\/?p=3285","url_meta":{"origin":2755,"position":3},"title":"Diaporthe pseudomangiferae","author":"Admin","date":"January 31, 2017","format":false,"excerpt":"\u00a0California Pest Rating for Diaporthe pseudomangiferae R. R. Gomes, C. Glienke & Crous Pest Rating: C PEST RATING PROFILE Initiating Event: On December 15, 2016, a shipment of Cacao seed pods with symptoms of necrotic spotting and rot and destined to a private citizen in Contra Costa County, was intercepted\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Fungi"","block_context":{"text":"Fungi","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cdfa.ca.gov\/Section3162\/?cat=8"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":1969,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cdfa.ca.gov\/Section3162\/?p=1969","url_meta":{"origin":2755,"position":4},"title":"Plant Pathogens","author":"Admin","date":"May 13, 2016","format":false,"excerpt":"Plant diseases can be caused by several pathogenic microorganisms including fungi, bacteria, viruses, viroids, phytoplasmas and plant parasitic nematodes. In California, several plant pathogens have evolved with native plants and consequently, caused little damage. However, many other pathogens are either not present or have only been newly discovered within the\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Ratings"","block_context":{"text":"Ratings","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cdfa.ca.gov\/Section3162\/?cat=333"},"img":{"alt_text":"Plant pathogens montage","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cdfa.ca.gov\/Section3162\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/05\/plant-diseases-featured-image.jpg?fit=1038%2C588&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cdfa.ca.gov\/Section3162\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/05\/plant-diseases-featured-image.jpg?fit=1038%2C588&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cdfa.ca.gov\/Section3162\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/05\/plant-diseases-featured-image.jpg?fit=1038%2C588&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cdfa.ca.gov\/Section3162\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/05\/plant-diseases-featured-image.jpg?fit=1038%2C588&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":13962,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cdfa.ca.gov\/Section3162\/?p=13962","url_meta":{"origin":2755,"position":5},"title":"Neoscytalidium dimidiatum (Penzig) Crous & Slippers sooty canker\/Bot gummosis","author":"Heather Martin","date":"July 8, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"California Pest Rating Profile for Neoscytalidium dimidiatum (Penzig) Crous & Slippers sooty canker\/Bot gummosis Pest Rating: C Comment Period: 07\/08\/2025 \u2013 08\/22\/2025 Download Pest Rating Profile *NOTE You must be registered and logged in to post a comment. If you have registered and have not received the registration confirmation, please\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "C-Rated"","block_context":{"text":"C-Rated","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cdfa.ca.gov\/Section3162\/?cat=671"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cdfa.ca.gov\/Section3162\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2755","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cdfa.ca.gov\/Section3162\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cdfa.ca.gov\/Section3162\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cdfa.ca.gov\/Section3162\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1117"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cdfa.ca.gov\/Section3162\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=2755"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cdfa.ca.gov\/Section3162\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2755\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":10531,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cdfa.ca.gov\/Section3162\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2755\/revisions\/10531"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cdfa.ca.gov\/Section3162\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2755"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cdfa.ca.gov\/Section3162\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=2755"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cdfa.ca.gov\/Section3162\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=2755"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}