Cookies on Invasive Species Compendium

Like most websites we use cookies. This is to ensure that we give you the best experience possible.

Continuing to use www.cabi.org means you agree to our use of cookies. If you would like to, you can learn more about the cookies we use.

Datasheet

Sternochetus mangiferae (mango seed weevil)

Summary

  • Last modified
  • 22 November 2017
  • Datasheet Type(s)
  • Invasive Species
  • Pest
  • Preferred Scientific Name
  • Sternochetus mangiferae
  • Preferred Common Name
  • mango seed weevil
  • Taxonomic Tree
  • Domain: Eukaryota
  •   Kingdom: Metazoa
  •     Phylum: Arthropoda
  •       Subphylum: Uniramia
  •         Class: Insecta
  • Summary of Invasiveness
  • S. mangiferae is a monophagous pest on mangoes. It is one of the most important mango pests and widespread in most mango-growing countries. Adults usually emerge after fruits fall and enter a diapause until the f...

Don't need the entire report?

Generate a print friendly version containing only the sections you need.

Generate report

Pictures

Top of page
PictureTitleCaptionCopyright
Sternochetus mangiferae (mango seed weevil); adult. (museum set specimen).
TitleAdult
CaptionSternochetus mangiferae (mango seed weevil); adult. (museum set specimen).
Copyright©Georg Goergen/IITA Insect Museum, Cotonou, Benin
Sternochetus mangiferae (mango seed weevil); adult. (museum set specimen).
AdultSternochetus mangiferae (mango seed weevil); adult. (museum set specimen).©Georg Goergen/IITA Insect Museum, Cotonou, Benin
Sternochetus mangiferae (mango seed weevil); sectioned mango fruit, showing typical larval damage.
TitleDamaged symptoms
CaptionSternochetus mangiferae (mango seed weevil); sectioned mango fruit, showing typical larval damage.
Copyright©Peter A. Follett
Sternochetus mangiferae (mango seed weevil); sectioned mango fruit, showing typical larval damage.
Damaged symptomsSternochetus mangiferae (mango seed weevil); sectioned mango fruit, showing typical larval damage.©Peter A. Follett
Sternochetus mangiferae (mango seed weevil); eggs are covered by a obvious hard, amber-coloured, protective resin, and most eggs are deposited on the sinus of the fruit.
TitleOva
CaptionSternochetus mangiferae (mango seed weevil); eggs are covered by a obvious hard, amber-coloured, protective resin, and most eggs are deposited on the sinus of the fruit.
Copyright©Renkang Peng
Sternochetus mangiferae (mango seed weevil); eggs are covered by a obvious hard, amber-coloured, protective resin, and most eggs are deposited on the sinus of the fruit.
OvaSternochetus mangiferae (mango seed weevil); eggs are covered by a obvious hard, amber-coloured, protective resin, and most eggs are deposited on the sinus of the fruit.©Renkang Peng
Sternochetus mangiferae (mango seed weevil); an adult is captured by the ant Oecophylla smaragdina on mango tree bark.
TitleNatural enemy
CaptionSternochetus mangiferae (mango seed weevil); an adult is captured by the ant Oecophylla smaragdina on mango tree bark.
Copyright©Renkang Peng
Sternochetus mangiferae (mango seed weevil); an adult is captured by the ant Oecophylla smaragdina on mango tree bark.
Natural enemySternochetus mangiferae (mango seed weevil); an adult is captured by the ant Oecophylla smaragdina on mango tree bark.©Renkang Peng

Identity

Top of page

Preferred Scientific Name

  • Sternochetus mangiferae (Fabricius, 1775)

Preferred Common Name

  • mango seed weevil

Other Scientific Names

  • Acryptorhynchus mangiferae (Fabricius)
  • Cryptorhynchus mangiferae (Fabricius)
  • Curculio mangiferae
  • Sternochetus ineffectus (Walker)

International Common Names

  • English: mango stone weevil; mango weevil
  • Spanish: gorgojo de la semilla del mango; picudo de la semilla del mango
  • French: charançon de la graine du manguier; charançon de la mangue

Local Common Names

  • Germany: Ruessler, Mangokern-
  • Netherlands: Mangga-kevertje

EPPO code

  • CRYPMA (Sternochetus mangiferae)

Summary of Invasiveness

Top of page

S. mangiferae is a monophagous pest on mangoes. It is one of the most important mango pests and widespread in most mango-growing countries. Adults usually emerge after fruits fall and enter a diapause until the following fruiting season. Long-range dispersal occurs through the transport of fruit, seeds, seedlings and/or cuttings containing larvae, pupae or adults. The greatest damage caused by this pest is to interfere with fruit export because of quarantine restrictions. The damaged fruits have obvious hard, amber-coloured, protective resin marks over eggs on the fruit skin, often resulting in fruits being downgraded. For late-maturing cultivars, emerging adults can cause post-harvest damage to the fruit flesh. S. mangiferae infestation can increase fruit drop during early fruit development, and reduce the germination capacity of seeds.

Taxonomic Tree

Top of page
  • Domain: Eukaryota
  •     Kingdom: Metazoa
  •         Phylum: Arthropoda
  •             Subphylum: Uniramia
  •                 Class: Insecta
  •                     Order: Coleoptera
  •                         Family: Curculionidae
  •                             Genus: Sternochetus
  •                                 Species: Sternochetus mangiferae

Notes on Taxonomy and Nomenclature

Top of page Sternochetus mangiferae was first described in 1775, in the genus Curculio; it is widespread and occurs throughout the world. Some of the erroneous localities given for S. mangiferae in the economic literature have probably resulted from misidentification.

Description

Top of page

Eggs

When freshly laid the eggs are creamy-white. They are elliptical, 0.72-0.87 mm (0.79 + 0.20 mm) long and 0.24-0.34 (0.29 + 0.01 mm) wide.

Larvae

First instar larvae are elongate, cylindrical, legless and extremely slender; they are 1.34-1.44 mm (1.39 + 0.01 mm) long, and 0.30-0.41 (0.35 + 0.02 mm) wide. The body is white and the head is black. Final instar larvae (4th or 5th instar) are white and legless and they have a curved, typical curculionid form, measuring 16.0-18.0 mm (16.7 + 0.28 mm) long and 6.0-9.0 mm (8.0 + 0.32 mm) wide (Shukla and Tandon, 1985). The head is black, and is not retracted into the prothorax. The pronotal plate is strongly transverse. The typical abdominal segment is tripartite. The terga does not have coarse asperities, and the spiracles are annular biforous.

Pupae

The pupae are whitish when newly formed, but change to a very pale red colour just before eclosion. They are 7.0-10.0 mm (8.6 + 0.27 mm) long and 6.0-8.0 mm (6.95 + 0.22 mm) wide. The abdominal apex has paired urogomphi.

Adults

The adults have a compact body, 7.5-9.5 mm long. They are black, and covered with black, greyish or yellowish scales. The pronotum is subparallel-sided in the basal third only. Interstices 3, 5 and 7 of the elytra are strongly carinate. There is an indistinct oblique pale humeral stripe on the elytra which is elongate (6:4) and gradually declivous behind. The femora have a single large tooth ventrally. The profemora are stout, and distinctly clavate. The tarsal claws are simple and free. The female has an elevated ridge at the pygidial apex, which is absent in the male.

Distribution

Top of page

Mangoes (Mangifera indica) originated in Myanmar and north-east India and this is probably where S. mangiferae originated. The weevil occurs in most countries where mangoes are grown. It does not occur in the Canary Islands (Spain), Italy, Israel and Egypt, where mangoes are grown to a limited but increasing extent. Although reported from the Philippines and intercepted on mangoes from the Philippines by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA, 1988), it has not been detected in more recent surveys (IIE, 1995). The related S. frigidus has been found there, however (Basio et al., 1994).

The record for Hong Kong in IIE (1995) is based on an NHM specimen, however, later investigation showed that this specimen was from a quarantine interception and was incorrectly interpreted on the IIE map as a record for presence.

Records for Pakistan (Hashmi and Tashfeen, 1994; EPPO, 2003) appear to be based on a single specimen from imported mangoes in 1916, and have been removed from the map. Recent surveys (Mahmood, 2003) have not found this species in Pakistan.

The record of S. mangiferae in Vietnam published in previous editions of the Compendium (Vietnam Directorate of Rural Affairs, 1962; IIE, 1995EPPO, 2006) is considered unreliable by the Ministry of Agriculture and rural Development (MARD), Vietnam, as it is based on a single report in 1962 of a 'twig borer' on mango, rather than a 'mango seed/stone weevil'. S. mangiferae was not found on mango in a national survey carried out by the Plant Quarantine Diagnostic Centre (PQDC), Post-Entry of Plant Quarantine Centre Number 1 (PEQ 1) and Plant Protection Research Institute (PPRI), Vietnam, in 2008 (MARD, 2009, personal communication).

The NPPO of Thailand (2015) has confirmed that S. mangiferae is absent from Thailand. A specific detection survey of mango seed weevils in major mango-producing areas in Thailand conducted in 2009 found only Sternochetus olivieri, demonstrating the absence of S. mangiferae from Thailand (Udorn et al., undated). 

See also CABI/EPPO (1998, No. 147).

The distribution map includes records based on specimens of S. mangiferae from the collection in the Natural History Museum (London, UK): dates of collection are noted in the Table (NHM, London, UK, various dates).

Distribution Table

Top of page

The distribution in this summary table is based on all the information available. When several references are cited, they may give conflicting information on the status. Further details may be available for individual references in the Distribution Table Details section which can be selected by going to Generate Report.

Continent/Country/RegionDistributionLast ReportedOriginFirst ReportedInvasiveReferenceNotes

Asia

BangladeshPresentAlam, 1962; Alam, 1975; EPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015
BhutanAbsent, invalid recordEPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015
British Indian Ocean TerritoryPresentFletcher, 1917
ChinaAbsent, unreliable recordEPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015
-Hong KongAbsent, intercepted onlyEPPO, 2014
-YunnanAbsent, unreliable recordCABI/EPPO, 2015
IndiaWidespreadRutherford, 1914; EPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015
-Andaman and Nicobar IslandsPresentNHM London UK, 1989; CABI/EPPO, 2015
-Andhra PradeshPresentEPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015
-AssamPresentAnon, 1959; EPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015
-GujaratPresentCABI/EPPO, 2015
-Himachal PradeshPresentCABI/EPPO, 2015
-KarnatakaPresentBagle & Prasad, 1988; Bagle and Prasad, 1984; EPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015
-KeralaPresentEPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015
-MaharashtraPresentEPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015
-ManipurPresentDevi and Prasad, 1992; EPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015
-OdishaPresentAnon, 1959; EPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015
-Tamil NaduPresentSubramanyam, 1926; Regupathy et al., 1982; EPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015
-TripuraPresentAnon, 1959; EPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015
-Uttar PradeshPresentCABI/EPPO, 2015
-West BengalPresentFletcher, 1916; EPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015
IndonesiaPresentEPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015
-JavaPresentMuir and Swezey, 1916; Friederichs, 1920; EPPO, 2014
MalaysiaAbsent, unreliable recordEPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015
-Peninsular MalaysiaAbsent, unreliable recordCorbett, 1934; EPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015
-SabahAbsent, unreliable recordGater, 1924; Browne, 1968; EPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015
MyanmarPresentHanson, 1963; Waterhouse, 1993; EPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015
NepalPresentRana and Sharma, 1967; EPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015
OmanPresentEPPO, 2014
PakistanAbsent, intercepted onlyHashmi and Tashfeen, 1992; EPPO, 2014
PhilippinesAbsent, invalid recordAnon, 1988; Rutherford, 1914; Leefmans, 1927; EPPO, 2014
Sri LankaPresentRutherford, 1914; Leefmans, 1927; Hutson, 1939; EPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015
ThailandAbsent, confirmed by surveyNPPO of Thailand, 2015; Udorn et al., undated; Waterhouse, 1993; EPPO, 2014
United Arab EmiratesAbsent, invalid recordEPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015
VietnamAbsent, unreliable recordMinistry of Agriculture and rural Development (MARD), Vietnam, 2009, personal communication; Vietnam Directorate of Rural Affairs, 1962; EPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015
YemenWidespreadEPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015

Africa

Central African RepublicPresentEPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015
GabonPresentEPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015
GhanaPresentEPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015
GuineaPresentEPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015
KenyaPresentWheatley, 1961; EPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015
LiberiaPresentEPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015
MadagascarPresentRutherford, 1914; EPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015
MalawiPresentEPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015
MauritiusPresentSasscer, 1914; EPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015
MozambiquePresentAlmeida, 1972; EPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015
NigeriaAbsent, unreliable recordEPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015
RéunionPresentAnon, 1989a; Luziau, 1953; EPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015
SeychellesPresentEPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015
South AfricaRestricted distributionRutherford, 1914; Kok, 1979; Villiers, 1987; EPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015
TanzaniaPresentMansfield-Aders, 1920; Swaine, 1961; EPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015
UgandaPresentHargreaves, 1924; Le Pelley, 1959; EPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015
ZambiaPresentEPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015

North America

USARestricted distributionEPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015
-CaliforniaAbsent, intercepted onlyO'Brien and Wibmer, 1982; EPPO, 2014
-FloridaAbsent, intercepted onlyO'Brien and Wibmer, 1982; EPPO, 2014
-HawaiiPresentRutherford, 1914; Pope, 1929; Firman, 1982; EPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015

Central America and Caribbean

BarbadosPresent1986Anon, 1986a; EPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015
British Virgin IslandsPresentEPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015
DominicaPresent1986Anon, 1986b; EPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015
GrenadaPresentEPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015
GuadeloupePresent1986Anon, 1986d; EPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015
MartiniqueWidespread1984Anon, 1986d; EPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015
MontserratPresentEPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015
Puerto RicoAbsent, intercepted onlyEPPO, 2014
Saint LuciaPresentIntroduced1984 Invasive Anon, 1986d; Anon, 1984; Heileman, 2007; EPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015
Saint Vincent and the GrenadinesPresentEPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015
Trinidad and TobagoPresent1986CARAPHIN; FAO, 1994; EPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015
United States Virgin IslandsPresentEPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015

South America

ChileRestricted distributionEPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015
French GuianaPresent1986Anon, 1986d; EPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015

Europe

FinlandAbsent, intercepted onlyEPPO, 2014
PortugalAbsent, confirmed by surveyEPPO, 2014
SpainAbsent, confirmed by surveyEPPO, 2014

Oceania

AustraliaRestricted distributionEPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015
-Australian Northern TerritoryRestricted distribution1984Kalshoven and Laan, 1981; Smith, 1996; Smith and Brown, 2008; EPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015Not present in some southern areas
-New South WalesPresentEPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015
-QueenslandPresentStephens, 1948; Heather, 1986; EPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015
FijiAbsent, unreliable recordEPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015
French PolynesiaRestricted distributionEPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015
GuamPresentFirman, 1982; EPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015
New CaledoniaPresentRisbec, 1942; EPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015
Northern Mariana IslandsPresentEPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015
TongaPresentEPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015
Wallis and Futuna IslandsPresentCohic, 1959; EPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015

Risk of Introduction

Top of page

The fruit and seeds of mangoes containing larvae, pupae or adults present the main risk of introducing S. mangiferae, although mango plants with diapausing adults could also be a danger, and such material from countries where the pest occurs may be prohibited by mango-growing countries or states. It represents a risk to mango-growing regions of North, Central and South America and the Caribbean, Africa, Asia and parts of Australia where it has not been reported or is not widespread.

Habitat List

Top of page
CategoryHabitatPresenceStatus
Terrestrial-managed
Managed forests, plantations and orchards Principal habitat Harmful (pest or invasive)

Hosts/Species Affected

Top of page Complete development of S. mangiferae is only achieved on mangoes. Oviposition was obtained in the laboratory on potatoes, peaches, Litchi chinensis, plums, Phaseolus vulgaris and several cultivars of apples, but none of the resulting larvae reached maturity (Woodruff, 1970).

Host Plants and Other Plants Affected

Top of page
Plant nameFamilyContext
Mangifera foetida (bachang)AnacardiaceaeOther
Mangifera indica (mango)AnacardiaceaeMain

Growth Stages

Top of page Fruiting stage, Post-harvest

Symptoms

Top of page

Infected fruits are usually easy to distinguish from uninfested ones by the hardened, amber-coloured secretion often sculptured with two small angled tails at one end, which remains attached to the site of oviposition (Wadhi, 1964; Ridgway, 1989; Smith, 1996; Peng and Christian, 2004, 2007). Especially, when S. mangiferae populations are high, brown marks at the oviposition sites on mature fruits are very obvious (Smith, 1996; Peng and Christian, 2007). Maheswari and Purushotham (1999) described a simple method of diagnosing the incidence of S. mangiferae on mango based on the appearance of reddish-brown spots and water-soaked areas in the pulp of immature fruit. In rare instances where larvae feed and pupate within the pulp, or when they emerge from the seeds and tunnel up through the pulp, fruits are seriously damaged (Balock and Kozuma, 1964; Follett and Gabbard, 2000).

In South Africa, Kok (1979) showed that after harvest of late-maturing varieties, adults tended to leave the seed and tunnel through the fruit, leaving a scar on the outside which served as a site for secondary fungal infection; this renders the fruit unfit for human consumption. Internally infected fruit rots from the outer surface of the stone. The stones also show holes and the cotyledons turn black and become a rotten mass. Seeds fail to germinate if the embryo is damaged and the reserve of food in the cotyledons is greatly reduced.

List of Symptoms/Signs

Top of page

Fruit

  • abnormal shape
  • internal feeding
  • malformed skin
  • obvious exit hole
  • premature drop

Seeds

  • internal feeding

Biology and Ecology

Top of page

In Tamil Nadu, India, adults of S. mangiferae feed on the leaves and tender shoots of mangoes during March and April (Subramanyam, 1926). They are nocturnal, fly readily and usually feed, mate and oviposit from late afternoon to dusk. After emergence, adults enter a diapause, which varies in duration with the geographic range. For example, in southern India and Hawaii, adults emerging during June enter a diapause from July until late February of the following year (Pope, 1929; Balock and Kozuma, 1964; Shukla and Tandon, 1985). In the Northern Territory of Australia, adults emerging during November and mid-December enter a diapause from December to mid-August (Peng and Christian, 2004). The onset and termination of diapause appear to be associated with long-day and short-day photoperiod, respectively (Balock and Kozuma, 1964).

Adults are capable of surviving long and unfavourable conditions. During the non-fruiting period, weevils diapause under loose bark on mango tree trunks and in branch terminals, or in crevices near mango trees (Van Dine, 1907; Balock and Kozuma, 1964; Shukla and Tandon, 1985; Peng and Christian, 2004). A few adults live through two seasons with a diapause period in between.

Shukla and Tandon (1985) found that females began oviposition 3-4 days after mating. This occurred about mid-March and reached a peak during the first week of April in India. However, the ovipostion occurred from mid-August to early October in Australia (Peng and Christian, 2004). The oviposition period varies from 3 weeks (Subramanyam, 1926), 4 weeks (Hansen et al., 1989), about 5 weeks (Shukla and Tandon, 1985) to 6 weeks (Peng and Christian, 2004). Females oviposit on various sizes of fruit continuously from about marble-sized or median-sized to full-sized unripened fruits (eg. Shukla and Tandon, 1985; Hansen et al., 1989; Ridgway, 1989), and lay eggs mostly on the sinus of the fruit or sometimes on the stems (Shukla et al., 1985; Peng and Christian, 2004). When ovipositing, the female makes a boat-shaped cavity in the skin (epicarp) into which an egg is deposited. She then covers each egg with a brown exudate which is sculptured with two small angled tails at one end and cuts a crescent-shaped area 0.25-0.50 mm in the fruit, near the posterior end of the egg. The wound creates a sap flow, which solidifies and covers the egg with a protective opaque coating. These oviposition marks are difficult to remove on the fruit packing line, resulting in fruits being downgraded (Smith, 1996; Peng and Christian, 2007). One female may lay 15 eggs per day, with a maximum of almost 300 over a 3-month period in the laboratory (Balock and Kozuma, 1964).

Incubation requires 5-7 days, depending on the season and temperature (Balock and Kozuma, 1964). After hatching, the larva burrows through the flesh of the fruit and into the seed. As the fruit and seed develop, the tunnel and seed entry are completely obliterated, so that in time it is impossible to distinguish infested from non-infested seeds, unless they are cut open. The minimum time from hatching to seed penetration is one day. Larvae can penetrate the seed coat of younger fruit, but apparently find entry impossible in the mature seed of the variety Itamaraca (Balock and Kozuma, 1964). Complete larval development usually occurs within the maturing seed, but also very occasionally within the flesh (Balock and Kozuma, 1964; Hansen et al., 1989; Follett and Gabbard, 2000). Nine early-instar weevils have been found in fruit (Follett, 2002). In southern India, larvae developed in the field between March and May and pupated in late May and early June, taking about a month to develop (Shukla and Tandon, 1985). In Hawaii, the larval period ranged from 22 days to 10 weeks (Balock and Kozuma, 1964; Hansen et al., 1989). In the Northern Territory of Australia, larvae developed in mango orchards from late August to early October, taking about 40 days to develop (Peng and Christian, 2004). There are five or seven larval instars (Balock and Kozuma, 1964; Seo et al., 1974; Shukla and Tandon, 1985; Hansen et al., 1989). Pupation usually occurs within the seed and rarely in the flesh. The pupal period lasts about a week (Subramanyam, 1926; Balock and Kozuma, 1964; Shukla and Tandon, 1985). In Hawaii, Hansen et al. (1989) found pupae from the end of May until about mid-July.

Often only one adult will mature in each seed, but as many as six have been recorded (Balock and Kozuma, 1964; Follett, 2002). They cut their way out of the naked seed, usually via a small circular hole made in the concave edge of the endocarp, generally 4-8 weeks after the fruit falls and decays. In the Northern Territory, adults were found to be in seeds for 15-40 days from October to mid-November (Peng and Christian, 2004). Rarely, weevils emerge from the seed before fruit fall and eat their way through the flesh of the ripe fruit, ruining it completely. They rapidly move out of the seeds and seek hiding places by crawling, rather than flying.

In Bangalore, south India, adults of the new generation emerge during June (Shukla and Tandon, 1985), but from late November to December in the Northern Territory of Australia (Peng and Christian, 2004). The estimated time required for development from egg to adult is 35-54 days ) in India (Van Dine, 1907; Shukla and Tandon, 1985, and 45-58 days in Australia (Peng and Christian, 2004).

Adults usually remain in the vicinity of the parent tree until the following fruiting season (Jarvis, 1946) and high infestations appear year after year in some locations, while low infestations occur in others nearby (Balock and Kozuma, 1964; Hansen et al., 1989).

Climate

Top of page
ClimateStatusDescriptionRemark
A - Tropical/Megathermal climate Preferred Average temp. of coolest month > 18°C, > 1500mm precipitation annually
Af - Tropical rainforest climate Preferred > 60mm precipitation per month
Am - Tropical monsoon climate Preferred Tropical monsoon climate ( < 60mm precipitation driest month but > (100 - [total annual precipitation(mm}/25]))
As - Tropical savanna climate with dry summer Preferred < 60mm precipitation driest month (in summer) and < (100 - [total annual precipitation{mm}/25])
Aw - Tropical wet and dry savanna climate Preferred < 60mm precipitation driest month (in winter) and < (100 - [total annual precipitation{mm}/25])
B - Dry (arid and semi-arid) Preferred < 860mm precipitation annually
BS - Steppe climate Preferred > 430mm and < 860mm annual precipitation
BW - Desert climate Preferred < 430mm annual precipitation
C - Temperate/Mesothermal climate Tolerated Average temp. of coldest month > 0°C and < 18°C, mean warmest month > 10°C
Cf - Warm temperate climate, wet all year Tolerated Warm average temp. > 10°C, Cold average temp. > 0°C, wet all year
Cs - Warm temperate climate with dry summer Tolerated Warm average temp. > 10°C, Cold average temp. > 0°C, dry summers

Latitude/Altitude Ranges

Top of page
Latitude North (°N)Latitude South (°S)Altitude Lower (m)Altitude Upper (m)
22.5 30

Natural enemies

Top of page
Natural enemyTypeLife stagesSpecificityReferencesBiological control inBiological control on
Beauveria bassiana Pathogen
Oecophylla smaragdina Predator Adults Australia

Notes on Natural Enemies

Top of page

Peng and Christian (2007) reported that the ant Oecophylla smaragdina acted as predator and deterrent to limit S. mangiferae damage on fruit in the Northern Territory of Australia. S. mangiferae adults were often caught by Oecophylla ants on tree trunks. The ants frequently patrolled developing fruits, on which S. mangiferae adults oviposit, and this activity significantly reduced oviposition. Experiments conducted at two conventional mango orchards in the Northern Territory showed that treatment with Oecophylla ants plus soft chemicals produced lower levels of downgraded fruits <0.5%) caused by S. mangiferae compared with the treatment with chemical insecticides. In three organic or insecticide-free orchards, fruits were much less damaged by S. mangiferae on trees with abundant Oecophylla ants <1%) than on trees without the ants (2.5-15.7%; Peng and Christian, 2007).

Shukla et al. (1984) reported a baculovirus affecting the larvae of S. mangiferae. In their field survey, Abraham Verghese et al. (2002) found a dead weevil infected by the fungus Beauveria bassiana; the natural occurrence of this pathogen on the mango seed weevil was <1%. In South Africa strains of B. bassiana have been tested on mango seed weevil adults. In one laboratory test, two strains caused 30% mortality within 14 days, but in an orchard, neither strain had an effect on the mango seed weevil (Joubert and Labuschagne, 1995).

There is no published information on parasites of S. mangiferae.

Means of Movement and Dispersal

Top of page

Long-range dispersal occurs largely through the transport of fruit and seeds containing larvae, pupae or adults. S. mangiferae has been intercepted in mango fruits and seeds in international trade (USDA, 1988; SPC, 1989). Mango plants may harbour diapausing adults.

Pathway Causes

Top of page
CauseNotesLong DistanceLocalReferences
Food Yes Yes
Horticulture Yes Yes
Seed trade Yes Yes

Pathway Vectors

Top of page
VectorNotesLong DistanceLocalReferences
Bulk freight or cargo Yes
Luggage Yes
Mail Yes
Plants or parts of plants Yes Yes

Plant Trade

Top of page
Plant parts liable to carry the pest in trade/transportPest stagesBorne internallyBorne externallyVisibility of pest or symptoms
Bark adults Yes Pest or symptoms usually visible to the naked eye
Fruits (inc. pods) adults; larvae; pupae Yes Pest or symptoms usually invisible
Growing medium accompanying plants adults Yes Pest or symptoms usually invisible
Seedlings/Micropropagated plants adults Yes Pest or symptoms usually visible to the naked eye
Stems (above ground)/Shoots/Trunks/Branches adults Yes Pest or symptoms usually visible to the naked eye
True seeds (inc. grain) adults; larvae; pupae Yes Pest or symptoms usually invisible

Impact Summary

Top of page
CategoryImpact
Economic/livelihood Negative

Economic Impact

Top of page

Mango seed weevil infestation varies with mango cultivar. In their experiments in India, Babu (1969), Bagle and Prasad (1985) and Singh (1989) reported that all mango cultivars tested were susceptible to S. mangiferae attack. However, Godse and Bhole (2003) reported that out of 92 mango cultivars screened for resistance to S. mangiferae, 10 cultivars had no infestation.

Damaged fruits show obvious hard, amber-coloured, protective resin marks over eggs on the skin surface. These marks are difficult to remove on the fruit-packing line, resulting in fruits being downgraded in Australia (Peng and Christian, 2007). In other mango-growing regions, marketability is not reported to be directly affected because the weevil resides inside the seed within a thick husk in mature mangoes and the flesh is not damaged. However, in South Africa, emerging adults cause post-harvest damage to the fruit flesh of late-maturing cultivars (Kok, 1979). The adults tunnel through the fruit, leaving scars on the outside which serve as sites for secondary fungal infection. Control measures against S. mangiferae will affect production costs but figures have not been reported.

Mango seed weevil infestation can also increase fruit drop during early fruit development (Follett, 2002; Abraham Verghese et al. 2005), and may reduce the germination capacity of seeds. In Hawaii, germination rates for infested seeds were equal to those of uninfested control seeds in a polyembryonic cultivar (Common), whereas germination was reduced for infested seeds of a monoembryonic cultivar (Haden) compared with uninfested control seeds, but germination of infested seeds was still >70% (Follett and Gabbard, 2000). In addition to this, infestation significantly reduces fruit length and circumference in mango varieties Alphonso, Bombay Green and Raspuri (Abraham Verghese and Nagaraju, 2004).

Probably its greatest significance as a pest is to interfere with the export of fruit because of quarantine restrictions imposed by importing countries.

Risk and Impact Factors

Top of page

Diagnosis

Top of page

EPPO (2011) describes a diagnostic protocol for S. mangiferae infesting mangoes.

Detection and Inspection

Top of page

Fruits should be examined with a pocket lens to look for the hardened, amber-coloured marks (often with two small angled tails at one end) attached to the site of oviposition, especially on the sinus of fruit. Mango seeds should be opened with a knife to reveal the immature or mature stages (larvae, pupae or adults).

Similarities to Other Species/Conditions

Top of page

The adults of S. mangiferae are similar to those of S. frigidus, but can be distinguished from them because in the latter the pronotum is parallel-sided in the basal half, the elytra are shorter (5:4) and strongly declivous behind, and the profemora is slender, not clavate. The larva of S. frigidus was described by Gardner (1934) and Rahman and Ahmad (1972). However, a detailed description of the larva with diagnostic characters separating S. mangiferae larvae from that of S. frigidus has not been published.

For keys including Sternochetus and related Oriental genera, see Morimoto (1978). A key to Indian species is given by Marshall (1935).

Prevention and Control

Top of page

Prevention

SPS measures

The fruit, seeds and also plants of mangoes represent a phytosanitary risk and such material from countries where the pest occurs may be prohibited by mango-growing countries. Mango plants for planting (including seeds) may be imported if they derive from an area where the pest does not occur and the place of production has been found free from infestation by inspection during the previous growing season.

Imported mangoes from countries where S. mangiferae occurs can be subjected to a quarantine treatment. Irradiation is the most effective method of killing or sterilizing weevils within fruit (Follett, 2001). An irradiation dose of 300 Gy is approved for control of mango seed weevil in mangoes exported from Hawaii to the continental USA (US Federal Register, 2002). In South Africa, irradiation of ripe, marketable fruit protected it from damage and prevented adult emergence (Kok, 1979). Hot and cold treatment of fruit has also been tried but gave unreliable results and proved phytotoxic (Balock and Kozuma, 1964; Seo et al., 1970; Shukla and Tandon, 1985).

Control

In Australia, S. mangiferae control is of utmost importance because adult oviposition activities can downgrade the fruit, resulting in reduction in growers’ profit (Smith, 1996; Peng and Christian, 2007). In South Africa, S. mangiferae has to be controlled in orchards where fruit is grown for export market (Villiers, 1987; Joubert, 1997). Also, Follett (2002) and Abraham Verghese et al. (2005) showed the importance of controlling S. mangiferae because seed weevil infestation can increase fruit drop during the early fruit developmental stage. In other mango-growing regions, there is little incentive for growers to attempt control because the eating qualities of the fruit are usually unaffected.

Cultural control and sanitary measures

Good orchard sanitation is an effective way to reduce adult populations, and this involves the destruction of all the fallen fruit, stones and fruits with seed weevil damage during and immediately after mango harvest (Wheatley, 1960; Kok, 1979; Villiers, 1987; Peng and Christian, 2004).

In nursery beds, more seeds than are required for the projected number of seedlings can be planted to allow for a lower percentage of germination. Alternatively, the seed may be shelled and only sound kernels planted (O'Connor, 1969).

Biological control

The ant Oecophylla smaragdina is an effective biocontrol agent of S. mangiferae adults (Peng and Christian, 2004, 2007). A method of using Oecophylla ants together with orchard sanitation has been developed for controlling S. mangiferae, and is promoted by the Horticulture Division of Northern Territory Government, Australia (Peng and Christian, 2005).

 

Host plant resistance

In India, ten cultivars (out of 92 studied) were found to be free from S. mangiferae infestation, and these cultivars are Sindhu, Bombay Green, Firangi Ludua, Pulihora, Jahangir, Sabja, Salgadino, Hatizool, Dodamio and Fazri (Godse and Bhole, 2003). Larval penetration of the seed of the variety Itamaraca is reported to be impossible (Balock and Kozuma, 1964).

Chemical control

Chemical control has been used with some success and a wide range of insecticides have been recommended (see, for example, Shukla and Tandon, 1985; Villiers, 1987). The main strategy is to attack diapausing adults by trunk applications or to use foliar sprays at the time of oviposition.

References

Top of page

Abraham Verghese, Nagaraju DK, 2004. Does stone weevil (Sternochetus mangiferae (Fabricius)) infestation affect fruit size of mango? Insect Environment, 10(2):61-62.

Abraham Verghese, Nagaraju DK, Jayanthi PDK, Gopalakrishnan C, 2002. Report of entomopathogenic fungus Beauveria bassiana (Balsamo) Vuillemin on mango stone weevil. Insect Environment, 8(4):146-147.

Abraham Verghese, Nagaraju DK, Jayanthi PDK, Madhura HS, 2005. Association of mango stone weevil, Sternochetus mangiferae (Fabricius) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) with fruit drop in mango. Crop Protection, 24(5):479-481. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/0261-2194

Alam MZ, 1962. A list of insects and mites of East Pakistan. Dhaka, Bangladesh: Department of Agriculture.

Alam MZ, 1975. Entomological problems of agriculture in Bangladesh. PANS, 21(4):380-383

Almeida DM de, 1972. Pests of mango. Gazeta do Agricultor, 24(272):2-5

Anon, 1959. Ann. Rep. Dep. Agric. Suriname 98.

Anon, 1962. Annual work programme report on crop improvement programme of rice, sugar cane, vegetable and field crops for the period from July 1961 to June 1962. (II). Vietnam: Dir. Rural Affairs.

Anon, 1984. Occurrence of mango seed weevil in St. Lucia. Caribbean Plant Protection Newsletter, 1(4):10

Anon, 1986. Barbados. Mango seed weevil. FAO Plant Protection Bulletin, 34:213.

Anon, 1986. Dominica. Mango seed weevil. FAO Plant Protection Bulletin, 34:215.

Anon, 1986. French Guiana. Mango seed weevil. FAO Plant Protection Bulletin, 34(4):215

Anon, 1986. Outbreaks and new records. Lesser Antilles. Mango seed weevil in mango seed. FAO Plant Protection Bulletin, 34:65.

APPC, 1989. Quarterly Newsletter, Asia and Pacific Plant Protection Commission, 32:39-42.

Babu PCS, 1969. Studies on the varietal incidence of the mango nut weevil, Sternochetus mangiferae Fabricius. South Indian Horticulture, 17:34-40.

Bagle BG, Prasad VG, 1984. Varietal incidence and control of stone weevil Sternochetus mangiferae Fabricius. Indian Journal of Entomology, 46(4):389-392

Bagle BG, Prasad VG, 1985. Studies on varietal incidence and control of stone weevil, Sternochetus (=Cryptorrhynchus) mangiferae Fabricius (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Indian Journal of Entomology, 47(3):362-364

Balock JW, Kozuma TT, 1964. Notes on the biology and economic importance of the mango weevil, Sternochetus mangiferae (Fabricius), in Hawaii (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Proceedings of the Hawaiian Entomological Society, 18:353-364.

Basio RG, Johnson PJ, Pua DR, Bergonia HT, Diloy CC, Villegas EL, 1994. Mango pulp weevil (Sternochetus frigidus (Fabr.)) (Curculionidae, Coleoptera) found in Palawan. Philippine Entomologist, 9(3):350-351

Browne FG, 1968. Pests and diseases of forest plantation trees: an annotated list of the principal species occurring in the British Commonwealth. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.

CABI/EPPO, 1998. Distribution maps of quarantine pests for Europe (edited by Smith IM, Charles LMF). Wallingford, UK: CAB International, xviii + 768 pp.

CABI/EPPO, 2015. Sternochetus mangiferae. [Distribution map]. Distribution Maps of Plant Pests, No.December. Wallingford, UK: CABI, Map 180 (4th revision).

Cohic F, 1959. Investigation on the Animal Parasites of Agricultural Interest on Wallis. Nouméa, New Caledonia: Office de la Recherche Scientifique et Technique Outre-Mer, Institut Francais d'Océanie.

Corbett GH, 1934. Division of Entomology, Annual Report for the year 1933. General Series. Department of Agriculture Straits Settlement and Federated Malay States, No 19: 38, 54.

Devi MB, Prasad B, 1992. A note on the hibernation of mango fruit weevils (Curculionidae: Coleoptera). Bioved, 3(2):235-236

EPPO, 2014. PQR database. Paris, France: European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization. http://www.eppo.int/DATABASES/pqr/pqr.htm

European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization, 2011. Diagnostics: Sternochetus mangiferae. Bulletin OEPP/EPPO Bulletin, 41(3):352-356. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2338

FAO, 1994. Mango seed weevil, Sternochetus mangiferae, in Trinidad. FAO Plant Protection Bulletin, 42(1/2):73

Firman ID, 1982. Plant protection news. Information Circular, South Pacific Commission, No. 90:8 pp.

Fletcher TB, 1916. Agricultural Entomology. Annual Report Board. Scientific Advice for India. 1914-1915; Calcutta, Economic Entomology, 1-15.

Fletcher TB, 1917. Report of the Imperial Entomologist. Agricultural Research Institute and College. Pusa, 1915-16, 58-77.

Follett PA, 2001. Irradiation as a quarantine treatment for mango seed weevil (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Proceedings of the Hawaiian Entomological Society, 35:95-100.

Follett PA, 2002. Mango seed weevil (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) and premature fruit drop in mangoes. Journal of Economic Entomology, 95(2):336-339; 23 ref.

Follett PA, Gabbard Z, 2000. Effect of mango weevil (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) damage on mango seed viability in Hawaii. Journal of Economic Entomology, 93(4):1237-1240; 11 ref.

Friedrichs K, 1920. Weaver ants and plant protection. Tropenpflanzer, 23:142-150.

Gardner JCM, 1934, April 19th. Immature Stages of Indian Coleoptera (14) (Curculionidae). Indian Forest Records, 20(2):48 pp.

Gater BAR, 1924. Insect pests of Labuan and adjacent islands. Malayan Agricultural Journal, 11:374-376.

Godse SK, Bhole SR, 2003. Screening of mango varieties/cultivars against mango stone weevil, Sternochetus mangiferae (Fabricius). Insect Environment, 9(3):139-141.

Hansen JD, Armstrong JW, Brown SS, 1989. The distribution and biological observations of the mango weevil, Cryptorhynchus mangiferae (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), in Hawaii. Proceedings of the Hawaiian Entomological Society, 29:31-39.

Hanson HC, 1963. Disease and pests of economic plants of central and south China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan (Formosa). Washington DC., Am. Inst. Crop Ecol. 184 pp.

Hargreaves H, 1924. Annual Report of the Government Entomologist. In: Uganda Ann. Rept. Dept. Agric, 1922 Entebbe, Uganda, 29-32.

Hashmi AA, Tashfeen A, 1994. Coleoptera of Pakistan. Proceedings of Pakistan Congress of Zoology, vol. 12: Twelfth Pakistan Congress of Zoology held under auspices of the Zoological Society of Pakistan Government College, Lahore, April 1992 [edited by Ahmad, M.; Shakoori, A. R.] Karachi, Pakistan; University of Karachi,, 133-170

Heather NW, 1986. Irradiation of fruit and vegetables. Queensland Agricultural Journal, 112(2):85-87

Heileman S, 2007. Thematic Report for the Insular Caribbean Sub-Region, CLME Project Implementation Unit. Thematic Report for the Insular Caribbean Sub-Region, CLME Project Implementation Unit. Cave Hill Campus, Barbados: CERMES, University of the West Indies. http://ioc3.unesco.org/iocaribe/files/clme/Final%20Preliminary%20TDA%20for%20the%20Insular%20%20Caribbean%20Subregion.pdf

Hutson JC, 1939. Report on the work of the Entomological Division. Adm. Report Dir. Agriculture Ceylon 1938, D36-D41, Colombo.

IIE, 1995. Distribution Maps of Plant Pests, No. 180. Wallingford, UK: CAB International.

Jarvis H, 1946. Pests of the mango. Queensland Agricultural Journal, 62:10-14.

Javaid I, 1986. Causes of damage to some wild mango fruit trees in Zambia. International Pest Control, 28(4):98-99

Joubert PH, 1997. Mango weevil poses a treat to integrated pest management in mangoes. Inligtingsbulletin, Instituut Vir Tropiese en Subtropiese Gewasse, No. 293:1-3.

Joubert PH, Labuschagne TI, 1995. Alternative measures for controlling mango seed weevil, Sternochetus mangiferae (F.). Yearbook - South African Mango Growers' Association, 15:94-96; 2 ref.

Kalshoven LGE, Laan PA van der (Reviser and translator), 1981. Pests of crops in Indonesia (revised). Jakarta, Indonesia: Ichtiar Baru, 701 pp.

Karpati JF, 1987. FAO TCP project on nationwide mango seed weevil ecological survey. Quarterly Newsletter, Asia and Pacific Plant Protection Commission, FAO, Thailand, 30(3-4):34.

Kok IB, 1979. Control of the mango seed weevil by trapping and irradiation. Citrus and Subtropical Fruit Journal, No. 552:14-16

Le Pelley RH, 1959. Agricultural insects of East Africa. Nairobi, Kenya: East African High Commission.

Leefmans S, 1927. Provisional Notes on the Javanese Mango Weevil, C. grains. (Voorloopige aanteekeningen in zake het javaansche manggakevertje (Cryptorrhynchus gravis F.).) Landbonw, 3(5):306-309 pp.

Luziau R, 1953. Contribution to the phytosanitary prospection of the Isle of Réunion. Phytoma, 6(46):16-21; (47):13-19.

Maheswari TU, Purushotham K, 1999. A simple method to diagnose nut weevil incidence in mango. Insect Environment, 5(3):101.

Mahmood R, 2003. Survey for Sternochetus spp. associated with mango in Pakistan. CABI Bioscience Report #XB-1419, September 2003. Rawalpindi, Pakistan: CABI RBC Pakistan.

Mansfield-Aders W, 1920. Insects injurious to economic crops in the Zanzibar Protectorate. Bulletin of Entomological Research, 10:145-155.

Marshall GAK, 1935. New Indian Curculionidae (Col.). Indian Forest Records (Entomology, New Series), 1:205-231.

Morimoto K, 1978. On the genera of Oriental Cryptorhynchinp (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Esakia, No. 11:121-143

Muir F, Swezey OH, 1916. The cane-borer in Hawaii and its control by natural enemies. Report Hawaiian Sugar Planters Association Experiment Station, Honolulu Entomology Bulletin no.13.

O'Brien CW, Wibmer GJ, 1982. Annotated checklist of the weevils (Curculionidae sensu lato) of North America, Central America and the West Indies (Coleoptera: Curculionoidea). Memoirs, American Entomological Institute, 34:1-382.

O'Connor BA, 1969. Exotic plant pests and diseases. Noumea, New Caledonia: South Pacific Commission.

Peng RenKang, Christian K, 2007. The effect of the weaver ant, Oecophylla smaragdina (Hymenoptera: Formicidae), on the mango seed weevil, Sternochetus mangiferae (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), in mango orchards in the Northern Territory of Australia. International Journal of Pest Management, 53(1):15-24. http://journalsonline.tandf.co.uk/link.asp?id=100665

Peng RK, Christian K, 2004. Integrated control of the mango seed weevil (Sternochetus mangiferae) using weaver ants (Oecophylla smaragdina) as a major component in the Northern Territory. In: Proceedings of International Workshop on Integrated Control of Mango Insect Pests, November, 2004, Mytho, Vietnam [ed. by Peng, R. K.\Christian, K.]. 69-74.

Peng RK, Christian K, 2005. Integrated pest management for mango orchards using green ants as a major component - a manual for conventional and organic mango growers in Australia. Charles Darwin University, Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research and the Department of Primary Industry, Fisheries and Mines of Northern Territory Government, 53.

Pope WT, 1929, October. Mango Culture in Hawaii. Bull. Hawaii Agric. Exp. Stn, 58. Washington, D.C., 27 pp.

Rahman ML, Ahmad M, 1972. The immature stages of the mango fruit weevil, Sternochetus frigidus Fabricius (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Pakistan Journal of Scientific and Industrial Research, 15:188-190.

Rana PN, Sharma KC, 1967. Preliminary list of crop pests in Nepal. Part II. Technical Document FAO Plant Protection Committee S.E. Asia, 58.

Regupathy A, Habeebullah B, Kuttalam S, Balasubramanian M, Manavalan RSA, 1982. Dissipation of dimethoate, methyl demeton and fenthion in mango fruits. International Journal of Entomology, India, 1(1):7-9

Ridgway R, 1989. Mango pests and disorders. Brisbane, Australia: Department of Primary Industries, Queensland Government, 44.

Risbec J, 1942. Observations on the insects in plantations in New Caledonia. Paris, France: Secretariat d'Etat aux Colonies, 1-128.

Rutherford A, 1914, May. The Mango Weevil. Tropical Agriculture, 42(5):410-411 pp.

Sasscer ER, 1914. Notes on Entomological Inspection in the District of Columbia. Journal of Economic Entomology, 7:240-244.

Seo ST, Chambers DL, Komura M, Lee CYL, 1970. Mortality of mango weevils in mangoes treated by dielectric heating. Journal of Economic Entomology, 63:1977-1978.

Seo ST, Kobayashi RM, Chambers DL, Steiner LF, Lee CYL, Komura M, 1974. Mango weevil: cobalt-60 gamma -irradiation of packaged mangoes. Journal of Economic Entomology, 67(4):504-505

Shukla RP, Tandon PL, 1985. Bio-ecology and management of the mango weevil, Sternochetus mangiferae (Fabricius) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Current Science, 53:593-594.

Shukla RP, Tandon PL, Singh SJ, 1984. Baculovirus-a new pathogen of mango nut weevil, Sternochetus mangiferae (Fabricius) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Entomon, 10:215-218.

Shukla RP, Tandon PL, Suman CL, 1985. Intra-tree distribution of the eggs of mango stone weevil, Sternochetus mangiferae (Fabricius) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Entomon, 10(3):215-218

Singh SP, 1989. Relative incidence of mango nut weevil Sternochetus mangiferae (Fabricius) on different mango varieties. In: Acta Horticulturae, No. 231. 575-580.

Smith ESC, 1996. Mango seed weevil - Agnote, No. 692. Northern Territory, Australia: Department of Primary Industry, Fisheries and Mines. http://www.nt.gov.au/d/Content/File/p/Plant_Pest/692.pdf

Smith ESC, Brown H, 2008. Mango seed weevil (Sternochetus mangiferae). Agnote - Northern Territory of Australia, No.I10:1-3. http://www.nt.gov.au/dpifm

Smith IM, McNamara DG, Scott PR, Harris KM(Editors), 1992. Quarantine pests for Europe: data sheets on quarantine pests for the European Communities and for the European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization. Wallingford, UK; CAB International, ix + 1032 pp.

SPC, 1989. Mango stone weevil in Fiji. South Pacific Commission Plant Protection News, 21:4-5.

Stephens SE, 1948. The mango [in Queensland]. Queensland Agricultural Journal, 68:71-81; 146-53; 208-15.

Subramanyam CK, 1926. A note on the life history of Cryptorhynchus mangiferae Fabricius. Madras Agricultural Department Yearbook, 1925:29-36.

Swaine G, 1961. Plant pests of importance in Tanganyika. Bulletin Ministry Agriculture, 13.

Udorn Unahawutti, Oratai Euatrakool, Apinya Rujitharanawong, Somyot Chukumnerd, Walaikorn Rattanadechakul, Alongkot Phodee, Sunadda Chaowalit, Ittipon Bannakan, undated. Detection Survey of Mango Seed Weevil, Sternochetus mangiferae (Fabricius) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) in Thailand. Undated report available from IPPC website. Rome, Italy: FAO, 1-18. https://www.ippc.int/static/media/files/eventreporting/2015/04/20/Detection_Survey_of_Mango_Seed__Weevil_from_pdf_Entozoo_journal_APDokyM.pdf

US Federal Register, 2002. Irradiation phytosanitary treatment of imported fruits and vegetables. Rules and Regulations, 67(205):65016-65029.

USDA, 1988. List of Intercepted Plant Pests, Fiscal Year 1987. Hyattsville, Maryland, USA: United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service PPQ.

Van Dine DL, 1907. Notes on Cryptorhynchus mangiferae (Coleoptera). Proceedings of the Hawaiian Entomological Society, 1:79-82.

Villiers EA de, 1987. Mango weevil must be controlled. Information Bulletin, Citrus and Subtropical Fruit Research Institute, South Africa, 176:12-13.

Voute AD, 1935. Cryptorhynchus gravis F. and the causes of its multiplication in Java. Archives Néerlandaises de Zoologie, 2:112-142.

Wadhi SR, 1964. A basis for the separation of stone weevil infested mango fruits from uninfested ones. Indian Journal of Entomology, 26(pt. 3):362-363 pp.

Waterhouse DF, 1993. The Major Arthropod Pests and Weeds of Agriculture in Southeast Asia. ACIAR Monograph No. 21. Canberra, Australia: Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research, 141 pp.

Wheatley PE, 1961. Insect pests in the Coast Province of Kenya. 1-Mango. East African Agriculture For. Journal, 26:129-131.

Woodruff RE, 1970. The mango seed weevil, Sternochetus mangiferae (Fab.) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Entomology Circular, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Plant Industry, 93:1-2.

Organizations

Top of page

India: Indian Institute of Horticultural Research, Hessaraghata, Banagalre-560089, http://www.iihr.res.in/

USA: United States Pacific Basin Agricultural Research Center, USDA-ARS, PO Box 4459, Hilo, HI 96720, http://www.ars.usda.gov/main/site_main.htm?modecode=53-20-00-00

Contributors

Top of page

07/01/2008 Updated by:

Renkang Peng, Charles Darwin University, School of Science and Primary Industries, Darwin, NT 0909, Australia

Distribution Maps

Top of page
You can pan and zoom the map
Save map
Download KML file Download CSV file
Creative Commons Licence
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Please click OK to ACCEPT or Cancel to REJECT

Creative Commons Licence
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Please click OK to ACCEPT or Cancel to REJECT