 
 
Risk Management Proposal:   
Review of chemical treatment to 
manage regulated plant mites  on 
whole plants and cuttings  
(Section 2.2.1.6 Import Health Standard 
155.02.06: Importation of Nursery Stock )  
 
FOR PUBLIC CONSULTATION  
 
 
  
 
 
 
February  2020   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Plant Germplasm Imports  
Plant s & Pathways Directorate  
Ministry for Primary Industries  
TSB Building , 147 Lambton Quay  
PO Box 2526  
Wellington 6140  
New Zealand  
 
Tel: +64 4 894 0100  
 
Email: plantimports@mpi.govt.nz   
i Table of Contents  
SUBMISSIONS  2 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY  3 
OBJECTIVE  3 
PURPOSE  3 
BACKGROUND  3 
Commodity Description  4 
Trade  5 
SCOPE  5 
PART 1: CONTEXT  5 
Domestic  5 
International  5 
PART 2: RISK ASSESSM ENT 6 
Source information  6 
Summary of risk  6 
PART 3: RISK MANAGEM ENT 8 
Approach  8 
Current chemical treatment options  9 
Proposed chemical treatment options  11 
OPTION 1 : One acaricide treatment  11 
OPTION 2: Two acaricides combined treatment  11 
Proposed rate and method of chemical application  13 
Changes to the IHS  15 
PART 4: FEASIBILITY  16 
REFERENCES  18 
Appendix 1: Acaricides assessed as being effective  for all life stages of;  21 
a) all four economical plant feeding mite groups/famili es 21 
b) only three economical plant feeding mite groups/families  23 
Appendix 2: Acaricides being effective for some life stages  of a range of plant feeding mite 
groups/families  25 
Appendix 3: Calculation of dipping rate for proposed acaricides as a.i. (g) per Litre water  27 
Appendix 4: Proposed changes for the IHS 155.02.06  28 
Appendix 5: Four mite families why acaricides are justified on imported nursery stock                           29  
Risk management proposal for Tetranychus kanzawai    Page 2 of 53 Submissions  
The Ministry for P rimary Industries (MPI) invites comment from interested parties on the proposed measures for the 
management of the regulated mites on whole plants and cuttings  to which the measures apply . The proposed measures are 
supported by this risk management proposa l. 
The purpose of an import health standard  is defined as follows in section 22(1) of the Biosecurity Act 1993 (the Act): “An 
import health standard specifies requirements that must be met to effectively manage risks associated with importing risk 
goods, i ncluding risks arising because importing the goods involves or might involve an incid entally imported new organism”.  
MPI must consult with interested parties in accordance with section 23 of the Act and MPI’s consultation policy before 
issuing or amending an import health standard under section 24A of the Act. MPI therefore seeks formal comment on the 
format and phytosanitary measures in the proposed import health standard . 
The following points may be of as sistance in preparing comments:  
 
 Wherever possible,  comments should be specific to a particular section/requirement of the standard;  
 Where possible, reasons, data and supporting published references to support comments are requested;  
 The use of examples to illustrate particular points is encouraged.   
MPI encourages respondents to forward comments electronically. Please include th e following in your submission:  
 
 The title of the consultation document in the subject line of your email;  
 Your name and title (if applicable);  
 Your organisation’s name (if appli cable); and  
 Your address . 
Send submissions to:  plantimports@mpi.govt.nz . 
If you wish to forward submissions in writing, please sen d them to the following address.  
Plant  Germplasm  Imports  
Plants & Pathways Directorate  
Ministry for Primary Industries  
PO Box 2526  
Wellington 6140  
New Zealand  
All submissions must arrive by close of business on 19 December 2019 . Submissions received by the closure date will be 
considered during the development of the final standa rd. Submissions received after the closure date may be held on file for 
consideration when the issued standard is next revised/reviewed.  
Official Information Act 1982  
Please note that your submission is public information and it is MPI policy to publish s ubmissions and the review of 
submissions on the MPI website. Submissions may also be the subject of requests for information under the Official 
Information Act 1982 (OIA). The OIA specifies that information is to be made available to requesters unless ther e are 
sufficient grounds for withholding it, as set out in the OIA. Submitters may wish to indicate grounds for withholding specifi c 
information contained in their submission, such as the information is commercially sensitive or they wish personal 
informat ion to be withheld.  Any decision to withhold information requested under the OIA is reviewable by the Ombudsman.   
Risk management proposal for Tetranychus kanzawai    Page 3 of 53 Executive summary  
(1) Chemicals listed under the basic conditions  for mites in the IHS in section 2.2.1.6 ‘ Pesticide treatment for whole 
plants an d cuttings ’ are no longer considered suitable for the management of plant mites. The chemicals may  fail to 
manage all life stages of mites , or their efficacy against mites has not been reported, or they belong to more 
conventional chemical groups for which  mite resistance has been reported.    
(2) Kanzawa spider mite ( Tetranychus kanzawai ) is an unwanted organism and regulated in New Zealand. Dicofol 
treatment offshore is the only risk management option currently available for plants for planting  (nursery stock)  to 
manage the risk of this  mite specifically . Dicofol  is mandatory for  whole plants and cuttings of  all plant species  listed  
under six schedules in the IHS (155.02.06 Importation of Nursery Stock) . Stakeholders have requested equivalent 
treatment (s) optio ns to be considered . 
(3) This summary gives an overview of the proposed changes  as follows;  
New options proposed for managing regulated  mites : 
(4) The p roposed new treatment options  are only for application  to whole plants and cuttings ; and the options are 
propose d as a generic treatment for al l regulated plant feeding mites ; 
(5) Eight chemical (acaricides) treatment options are proposed under two chemical treatment a pproaches  i.e. one 
acaricide treatment (stand -alone chemicals ) and two acaricides as a combined treatme nt (combination chemicals) . 
(6) Four new chemicals are proposed under  one acaricide treatment  and another four new chemicals are proposed as a 
two-acaricide combined option . Dicofol still remains under the two-acaricide combined option for the countries where  
dicofol  is still registered and available for use . 
(7) Ten chemicals are included in the proposed eight treatment options (eight  of the  chemicals are newly proposed 
chemicals  (Abamectin and Dicofol are still remaining but as  part of  combined treatment s). 
(8) A new  treatment combination (rate/time/temperature) for Methyl bromide fumigation option is proposed.  
(9) Changes are proposed to be included in the Approved Biosecurity Treatment Standard ( MPI Standa rd MPI -STD-
ATBRT Approved Biosecurity Treatments ) and incorporated by reference in the IHS.  
(10) MPI proposes to remove specific measures for T. kanzawai  from the following six schedules in the IHS : Calanthe, 
Dahlia, Tricyrtis, Verbena, Hydrangea and Gentiana . Specific measures for T. kanzawai  are no longer required  
because the proposed measures for a generic treatment for all regulated plant feeding mites are also effective in 
managing mites belonging to the genus  Tetranychus , the spider mites.  
 
Objective  
(11) The objective of the proposed phytosanitary measures is to ensure effective management of regulated mites on 
imported nursery stock .  
Purpose  
(12) The purpose of this risk management proposal  is to:  
a. Provide alternative chemical treatment options to man age biosecurity risks that may be associated with 
imported hosts of regulated mites on whole plants and cuttings ; 
b. Show how the measures proposed will effectively manage known biosecurity risks, and are consisten t 
with New Zealand’s domestic legislation and international obligations;  
c. Provide information to support the consultation on the draft amendments to the import health standard.  
Backgr ound  
(13) Under  the Basic Conditions, Part 2.2.1.6(b ) Pesticide treatments fo r whole plants and cuttings  of the IHS  (155.02.06 
Importation of Nursery Stock), all whole plants and cuttings are required to be treated for insects and mites either 
prior to export or on arrival in New Zealand.   
Risk management proposal for Tetranychus kanzawai    Page 4 of 53 (14) Some schedules in the IHS require addition al treatment for  the regulated  mite, Tetranychus kanzawai , because  of 
the potential  entry and establishment into  New Zealand on imported whole plants and cuttings, causing unacceptable 
economic and environmental consequences.  The mite is polyphagous , infes ting more than 145 host  genera in  63 
plant families , many of which are economically important plants  (Migeon and Dorkeld, 2006 -2017 ).  
(15) Some c hemicals listed as a generic treatment for mites in the current IHS  Basic Conditions  (section 2.2.1.6 b) are no 
longer suitable to manage T. kanzawai  (or other mites) because  some ; 
i. do not cause mortality of eggs or non -feeding life stages of T. kanzawai  or other mites (Abamectin and 
Chlorpyrifos)  (Ormsby 2008).   
ii. do not kill Tetranychus  species , or there is a lack of adequate efficacy data as an ac aricide for any mite 
species  (Pirimiphos -methyl  and Acephate ) (Ormsby 2008).  
iii. have a systemic mode of action and thus do not  cause mortality on mites which  are not feeding on 
vascular tissues as discussed below  (i.e. d imethoate) . 
(16) The only treatment option currently available  in the IHS  to manage T. kanzawai  on its hosts is a pre-export treatment 
with dicofol . This requires an a dditional mandatory declaration as follows : 
“The plants have been dipped prior to export in dicofol at th e rate of 0.7g a.i. per litre of water”.    
(17) Dicofol (former ly belonging to the  Organochlorine chemical group) is an older broad -spectrum insecticide (Marcic 
2012) . It is an effective control for spider mites and related Tetranychus  species  and mortality data for all life stages 
of the mites  has been reported: e.g. Concentration of 0.075% of dicofol has been reported to cause 100% egg 
mortality of Tetranychus  species ( T. cucurbitaceae ) on brinjal  (eggplant)  under laboratory conditons (Kavya 2014) . 
(18) However, di cofol is not registered in New Zealand and also not available in  some  countries . Dicofol treatment prior to 
export to New Zealand is mandatory for T. kanzawai for some species of  whole plants and cuttings in the current IHS 
for 52 plant genera , as those we re considered hosts of T. kanzawai  which can be imported under six ornamental 
schedules i.e. Calanthe, Dahlia, Gentiana, Hydrangea, Tricyrtis, Verbena .  
(19) There are a number of other  options  for managing T. kanzawai  and these are dependent upon host and what  level of 
post entry quarantine ( PEQ ) the plants will be held in  on arrival in New Zealand . Measures may inc lude growing 
season inspection for whole plants and cuttings . These are for Camel lia sinensis , Citrus, Fortunella, Poncirus, 
Prunus, Humulus, Fragar ia, Malus  and Vitis.  
(20) MPI has assessed requests for alternative chemical  treatment s to dicofol for cuttings of Loropetalum (which fall under 
the conditions of the Tricyrtis  schedule) from USA  and Hydrangea  (under Hydrangea  schedule) and Loropetalum  
(under Tricyrtis  schedule) from Australia  and from the UK . 
(21) MPI ha s received requests from the New Zealand industry (importers/exporters) to assess measures  equivalent to 
dicofol for treatment of  T. kanzawa i as dicofol  can no longer be used in some countries  e.g. USA and Australia . 
Some importers have suggested potential alternative chemicals , while Plant and Food Research New Zealand 
produced a special report for the Ministry for Primary Industries in which  other alternative chemicals have  been  
assessed .  
Commodit y Description  
(22) The proposed measures only apply to whole plants and cuttings of all plant  species that are listed on  the MPI Plants 
Biosecurity Index  (PBI)  which require treatment for mi tes under section 2.2.1.6 b of the IHS or, where treatment for T. 
kanzawai  is listed as a requirement in a schedule in the IHS.  
(23) Definition of terms as per Section 1.4 ‘Definitions and Abbreviations’ of the Import Health Standards (IHS) 155.02.06: 
Importati on of nursery stock:  
a. cuttings:  a nursery stock commodity sub -class for propagation material from the stem only (no roots). Cuttings 
may be dormant (deciduous species) or non -dormant (evergreens).  
b. dormant:  temporarily inactive/ suspended growth (cuttings of deciduous species should have no leaves; bulbs 
should have no leaves or roots).  
c. whole plants:  a nursery stock commodity sub -class for rooted cuttings and whole plants.   
Risk management proposal for Tetranychus kanzawai    Page 5 of 53 Trade  
(24) The import  of germplasm free from T. kanzawai  is of significant value to New Z ealand plant industries for the 
development of new varieties for domestic consumption as well as to earn export revenue.  
(25) Management of the mite if it established in New Zealand can cause huge monetary losses e.g. the cost of chemic al 
control of T. kanzawai  on strawberries (Fragaria ) in Taiwan exceeds US$  233/ha  per growing  season (Plantwise 
2018 ; Chang & Huang 1995 ).  
Scope  
(26) This Risk Management Proposal  (RMP ) provides the information and process used to assess the efficacy of 
proposed phytosanitary treatmen t options to manage regulated mites.  
(27) This risk management proposal includes:  
a. A review of existing  chemical treatment for mites under basic conditions in section 2.2.1.6 b Pesticide treatment 
for whole plants and cuttings  to manage regulated mites on whole p lants and cuttings and;  
b. A review of other  chemical treatment s for the management of mites  on whole plants and cuttings ; 
c. How the proposed measures will effectively  manage the biosecurity risks posed by regulated mites . 
(28) This document is in four parts.  
a. Part 1 provides the context used to inform development of the IHS for plants for planting . 
b. Part 2 provides a summary of risk assessment . 
c. Part 3 provides a description of the risk management proposed . 
d. Part 4 provides a discussion on the feasibility of the propo sed risk management measures.  
(29) The proposed measures are the subject of consultation under section 23(3)  of the Biosecurity Act 1993. This RMP 
provides information to support the consultation on the proposed measures but is not itself the subject of 
consult ation. However, MPI will accept comments and suggestions on the RMP in order to improve future IHS 
consultations.  
 
Part 1: Context  
Domestic  
(30) The New Zealand biosecurity system is regulated through the Biosecurity Act 1993. Section 22 of the Act describes  
the meaning of  an IHS, and requires that the IHS specifies requirements to be met for the effective management of 
risks associated with importing risk goods (including plants and plant products) into New Zealand.  
(31) MPI is the government authority responsib le for the effective management of risks associated with the importation of 
risk goods into New Zealand (Part 3, Biosecurity Act 1993).  
(32) MPI engages with interested parties and/or affected New Zealand stakeholders when amendments are made to an 
IHS. 
(33) MPI fol lows MPI guidance for decision makers and procedures for the amendment of an IHS and consultation.  
International  
(34) Where possible, phytosanitary measures  are aligned with international standards, guidelines, and recommendations1 
as per New Zealand’s obligati ons under Article 3.1 of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) Agreement on the 
Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures  (SPS Agreement) ; WTO, 1995  and section 23(4)(c)  of the 
Biosecurity Act 1993.  
                                                           
1 Note that international standards, guide lines or recommendations referred to in the WTO agreement are those of Codex, OIE (World Organisation for Animal Health) and 
the IPPC.   
Risk management proposal for Tetranychus kanzawai    Page 6 of 53 (35) The SPS Agreement states that phytosanitary measur es must not discriminate unfairly between countries or between 
imported or domestically produced goods, and where there is a choice of phytosanitary measures to reduce risk to 
an acceptable level, WTO members must select the least trade restrictive measure .  
 
Part 2: Risk assessment  
Source information  
(36) The following  source  information was used to identify proposed  measures  for regulated mites  to prevent  their 
introduction ( entry and establishment ) into New Zealand:  
a. Plant and Food Research report 2014, Review  of insecticide biosecurity treatments for the importation of 
nursery stock  (Park & Walker 2014) .  
b. MPI Technical advice on: Four mite families and why acaricides are justified on imported nursery stock. 
Biosecurity, Science and Risk assessment (see Appendi x 5) 
c. MPI risk analyses  (MAF 2009. Import risk analysis: Table grapes ( Vitis vinifera ) from China) ; 
d. CTO  decision documents related to  equivalence of treatments for dicofol ; 
e. Import health standard 155.02.06: Importation of Nursery Stock ; 
f. Information from domestic stakeholders;  
g. MPI’s Plant Biosecurity Index  (PBI) database ; 
h. MPI’s Biosecurity Organisms Register for Imported Commodities  (BORIC)  
i. Relevant literature  for acaricides  (scientific journals, webpages, reports, books, databases etc.);  
j. MPI ACVM register ( Agricultural compounds and veterinary medicines  database)  
(https://eatsafe.nzfsa.govt.nz/web/public/acvm -register )    
(37) Conclusion on the proposed chemicals for effective ness  on regulated  mites in Part 2: Risk management 
are based on published literature (Palmer and Vea 2012; Stamps and Osborne 2009;), product labels (see 
Appendix 3), Insecticide Resistance Action Committee research project reports (IR -4 2015; IRAC 2018a ; 
IRAC 2019 ); techn ical reports/ product news fact sheets (Park & Walker 2014; Gilrein u.d.; Cloyd 2004, 
2008, 2011; Ormsby 2008; Nursery Management and Production i.e. NMPRO 2007; Turner 2011; Haviland 
2005; California Department of Pesticide Regulation i.e. CDPR u.d.); int ernational databases (Pesticide 
Properties DataBase i.e. PPDB) and experts communication . 
 
Summary of risk  
(38) Risk organisms are regulated on the commodity if they are;  
a. present in the exporting country and not known to be present in New Zealand (or under off icial control);  
b. have potential to be introduced on the import pathway if the risk is unmitigated;  
c. known to be associated with the commodity;  
d. their hosts include species which are present in New Zealand including environmentally and economically 
significant  hosts;  
e. could establish in New Zealand (climate matching) and;  
f. have potential to cause significant impact to the New Zealand economy . 
(39) The most  economically  important plant feeding mites that can damage whole plants and cuttings belong to four major 
famili es (Marcic 2012; Dr Qing Hai Fan, Principal Adviser, MPI Plant Health and Environment Laboratory, pers. 
comm., 30/05/2018; Manners 2015 ; Appendix 5 ): 
1. Tetranychidae : spider mites   
2. Eriophyidae : blister mites, bud mites, gall mites, rust mites or bladder mite s 
3. Tenuipalpidae : false spider mites , flat mites    
4. Tarsonemidae : tarsonemid mites    
Risk management proposal for Tetranychus kanzawai    Page 7 of 53 (40) There are species of concern to New Zealand  in each family that meet the criteria for being quarantine pests2  e.g. T. 
kanzawai  and T. evansi  (Tetranychidae) , Eriophyes inequ alis (Eriophyidae) , Steneotarson emus furcatus  
(Tarsonemidae) , Brevipalpus californicus  (Tenuipalpidae)  and are regulated (BORIC).   
(41) M ites belong ing to these four families are most commonly found on  above ground plant parts including  leaves, 
growing tips , flower buds, stems  and fruit (Manners 2015 ). Mites damage plants by piercing plant cells (leaf tissues) 
and feeding on the chlorophyll which  causes chlorosis,  reduces photosynthe sis and weakens plants . In cases of 
severe infestation this can lead to plant d eath (Palmer & Vea 2012; Sarwar 2015).  
(42) Biology and p otential impact  of each mite family is  summarised from the MPI Technical advice  (see Appendix 5 ) as 
follows ; 
a. Tetranychidae: The most important plant -feeding mites in many cropping systems worldwide  that c an have 
a significant economic impact . There are over 1,200 species described globally from over 70 genera . Many  
are highly polyphagous (damaging a large number of host plant species). They damage plants through  
feeding. There are five stages in the develo pment  of tetranychids: egg, larva, protonymph , deutonymph and 
adult . Adults are more likely to be visible due to their larger size . In temperate regions some species 
overwinter in diapause i.e. a period of suspended development, usually during unfavourable  environmental 
conditions.  Diapausing mites are likely to be well protected from pesticides.  Only Tetranychus urticae  is 
reported to show differing tolerance s to pesticides.  Tetranychid mites have both males and females so 
reproduction can be either sexual  or by arrhenotokous parthenogenesis3. 
All spider mites produce silk  to varying degrees , with some species producing masses of damaging webbing  
over the plant which can  lead to plant mortality . Tetranychus kanzawai  (kanzawa spider mite, Desert spider 
mite,  Hydrangea Mite ), T. evansi , Oligonychus punicae , Panonychus elongatus , Eutetranychus orientalis  
are amongst tetranychid mites that are  quarantine pests for New Zealand . The MPI risk assessments on 
imported table grapes (2009) and Wollemia pine nursery sto ck (2009), identified Tetranychus kanzawai  as a 
potential hazard to New Zealand. T. kanzawai  is a priority pest in the Organism Ranking System (ORS) in 
New Zealand. The New Zealand’s Government Industry Agreement (GIA) partners have also listed the mite 
as a priority plant pest for New Zealand plant industries.  
b. Eriophyidae: After spider mites, the second most important mite plant pests (Marcic 2012).  Eriophyid mites 
are often called blister mites, bud mites, gall mites , rust mites  or bladder mites.  There ar e about 3790 
species , and 274 genera  described ( see Appendix 5 ). The stages of development for eriophyid mites are 
egg, larva, protonymph and adult. They cannot be seen by the naked eye, but they induce visually 
detectable symptoms on the infected plants which indicate their presence, e.g: blisters and galls, some of 
which can be quite colourful. Reproduction is mainly by arrhenotokous parthenogenesis . 
Many species are of economic importance to specific plant species . Over 50 species within the Eriophyidae 
are considered injurious to economic plants and about 30 of these mite species cause severe damage. High 
infestation can cause significant yield reduction and plant death. Some species vector fungal, viral and 
bacterial pathogens  e.g. Fusarium  mangiferae , Rose rosette virus (Manners 2015).  Some are pests of 
broadleaved plants and nearly all the gall -forming species. Some attack monocot plants, conifers, other 
gymnosperms and ferns but most live on dicotyledons.  
c. Tenuipalpidae:  They are  commonly known as fals e spider mites because they are mostly related to spider 
mites  and are also called flat mites. There are currently over 1100 valid species belonging to 38 genera in 
this family . They can be difficult to see without magnification . The tenuipalpid lifecycle includes egg, larva, 
protonymph, deutonymph and adult .  
All tenuipalpid mites are phytophagous and feed on epidermal cells of the stems, fruits, leaves of various 
cultivated and wild plants. Feeding activity causes direct damage to plants, and some species  can vector 
viruses causing severe damage and economic impacts. Some species are reported to carry the spores of 
fungal pathogens . Some of these tenuipalpids include Raoiella indica , Tenuipalpus pacificus , Brevipalpus 
                                                           
2 are not recorded as being present in New Zealand or are present and vector pathogens not present in New Zealand (PPIN, NZOR, NZInverts), could potentially establish 
and cause unwanted impacts, and some have the ability to vector pathogens not reported from New Zealand (ISPM 2,  ISPM 11)  
3 The phenomenon by which unfertilized eggs produce haploid males and fertilized eggs pr oduce diploid females  
(http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110810104404423 )   
Risk management proposal for Tetranychus kanzawai    Page 8 of 53 lewisi  and Brevipalpus phoenicis . Brevipalpus phoenicis  is present in New Zealand but is known to vector 
Citrus leprosis virus  which is not reported from New Zealand .  
d. Tarsonemidae : Economically harmful mites wordwide . There are about 530 species in 40 genera described 
in this famil y. The tars onemid lifecycle develops through egg, larva and adult, with a quiescent nymphal 
stage inside the larval cuticle.  They can be difficult to see without magnification. Reproduction is largely 
arrhenotokous parthenogenesis . 
Feeding causes direct damage to pla nts and can distort growing tips  and may even kill the plant . The 
genera known to include phytophagous species are Polyphagotarsonemus , Hemitarsonemus , 
Steneotarsonemus , Phytonemus  and Tarsonemus . Some tarsonemids are reported to carry pathogenic 
fungi spo res on their bodies.  Hemitarsonemus  tepidariorum  is a pes t of ferns grown in glasshouses . Some 
species of Tarsonemus  are primarily fungivorous but will also feed on plants, e.g: T. confusus, T. bilobatus  
causing serious damage to ornamentals and food crops  in greenhouses  e.g. Bromel iaceae are mainly 
attacked by  Stenotarsonemus ananas  (WRU 2017) ; Stenotarsonemus laticeps  is a major pest on 
Amaryllidaceae  (Amaryllis , Narcissus, Hippeastrum)  (Zhang 2003) ; Stenotarsonemus furcatus  is a serious 
pest on Maranta  and Calathea  spp. (Denmark and Nickerson 1981) .  
(43) Tetranychus kanzawai  is the only mite species MPI currently requires specific measures i.e. application of dicofol at a 
specific rate. This requirement is applied only for six schedules in the IHS. However th ere are some other regulated 
mite species that MPI require s effective risk management measures. Therefore the following risk management 
approach (see Part 3) would replace the current measures for T. kanzawai  introducing generic chemical treatment 
effectiv e for all regulated mites .  
 
 
Part 3: Risk management  
Approach  
(44) MPI currently requir es specific measures (pre -export treatment with dicofol) to manage  the spider mite  Tetranychus 
kanzawai  on specified imported whole plants and cuttings . This is  because current chemical treatment s for whole 
plants and cuttings under basic conditions for all mites are not sufficient to manage this mite , and it is in the list of 
priority pests and diseases of biosecurity concern to plant and aquatic health (see background  section  and MPI 
Website on https://www.biosecurity.govt.nz/protection -and-response/finding -and-reporting -pests -and-
diseases/prior ity-pests -plant -aquatic/horticultural -pests/kanzawa -spider -mite/ ). T. kanzawai  is the only mite sp ecies 
which requires additional mandatory chemical treatment , where as all other regulated mites are managed under basic 
conditions.  
(45) The c hemicals  (acaricides /miticides4) that are reported  in this document  are effective to manage a range of plant 
feeding mite species  belong ing to the mite families discuss ed in  summary of risk , including spider mites . It is not 
practically  feasible to specify selective chemicals for each  high impact mite species; thus a broad  generic  approach is 
proposed  to manage all regulated  mite species  including T. kanzawai . 
(46) Revision of the chemicals for mites listed in the section 2.2.1.6 b Pesticides for whole plants  and cutti ngs in the  
current  IHS were reviewed for suitability to remain in the IHS  or not, and  new chemicals were proposed as 
alternatives.  
(47) “Effective”, ‘effect’ and  “efficacy” terms  found in the literature and used  in this RMP refer to the ability of the 
chemicals to cause  mortality  by direct contact , knockdown (paralysis so that mortality occurs due to starv ation ) or 
provide residual efficacy  e.g. translaminar activity  i.e. translaminar refers to absorption by one side of the leaf surface  
so that the active ingredient is available to insect and mite pests feeding on the other or untreated leaf surface (Cloyd 
2016a). Efficacy of translaminar activity acaricides would remain for a period of time  for approximately 14 -40 days 
against foliar fe eding insects and mites (Cloyd 2016)  to cause lethal effect  on motile stages and/or eggs of the mites . 
                                                           
4 Acaricides/ miticies are a type of pesticide.  Acaricides are pe sticides that kill members of the arachnid subclass Acari , which includes ticks and mites  
https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmXoypizjW3WknFiJnKLwHCnL72vedxjQkDDP1mXWo 6uco/wiki/Acaricide.html  . Miticides are specific to kill mites. In this RMP generic name Acaricide 
is being used throughout the document as some pesticides that kill mites may also kill ticks, although the specificity discus sed in the RMP is as a miticid e  
Risk management proposal for Tetranychus kanzawai    Page 9 of 53 This is mentioned on the label claim.  The type of efficacy for the proposed chemicals is listed in the Appendices 1 
and 2.   
(48) Proposed chemicals either as a stand alone or a combination  treatment  are sufficient to manage  mite species 
belong ing to all four major mite families as well as all life stages of them as discussed in summary of risk . 
(49) Chemicals with contact mod e of action are proposed for both dormant  and non-dormant plant material because these 
chemicals  can kill mites by direct contact (Cloyd 2016) . 
(50) Chemicals with translaminar activity are proposed only for non -dormant plant material because these are effectiv e 
only on foliage  (leaves) . 
(51) Chemicals that have systemic mode of action were not proposed because;  
a. Systemic pesticides5 are not effective at manag ing mites (Cloyd 2002). Systemic pesticides move within the 
vascular tissues (either xylem or phloem) and mite s do not feed within the vascular plant tissues  (Cloyd, 
2002). They feed on plants by piercing plant parenchymal cells (leaf tissues) and ingest ing the contents. 
They feed primarily on the lower surface of leaves of the host plant (Botha et al. , 2014).  
b. Systemic pesticides will not necessarily be absorbed into dormant plant material (Park &  Walker 2014)  and 
therefore may not affect plant feeding pests . 
c. A related plant mite ( Tetranychus urticae ) is known to be best managed using acaricides that either have 
contact or translaminar activity (Cloyd et al. , 2009).  
(52) In addition to chemical treatment, o ther risk management measures currently available in New Zealand , such as 
inspection of plant material prior to export and phytosanitary certification, inspection on arrival in New Zealand, and a 
defined period in post entry quarantine (PEQ) with regular inspection for signs or symptoms of pests and diseases , 
are considered necessary to manage regulated mite species .  This is because  there are some circumstances in 
which the biology or life stage of the mite en ables it to avoid exposure to any chemical treatment applied to the 
cutting/whole plant ; 
a. Mites which may have entered diapause (see paragraph 41a) are likely to be protected from chemicals . 
For example, Tetranychu s urticae  is reported to have differing tolerances to a number of pesticides 
amongst diapause and non -diapause female mites (see Appendix 5 ). T. urticae  is non -regulated in New 
Zealand.  Dip treatment of cuttings/whole plants  in chemical solution /s proposed  (see paragaraph 6 8) 
would also allow sufficient time to penetrate these  susp ended development stages.  
b. Webbing of mites (Tetranychidae) may protect mite eggs from physical contact of chemicals (see 
Appendix 5 ), however  visual inspection  is likely to  detect  webbing.    
c. Mites residing inside the galls (gall forming mites in Eriophyidae) are likely to be protected from chemicals 
(see Appendix 5 ). Gall production is a symptom on plants that can be visually detected  during inspection s. 
d. Arrhenotokous reproduction  (a form of asexual reproduction) is reported to cause  chemical resistance 
development . That is,  resistance to various chemicals through a state of homozygous recessive allele 
carriers (see Appendix 5 ). This type of reproduction is reported for some strains  of mites in Tetranychidae, 
Eriophyidae and Tarsenomidae  (see Appendix 5 ). This type of resistance can be managed by using 
proposed multiple treatment options from different chemical groups of the proposed acaricides and 
combination of measures such as gro wing season inspection, fumigation etc.  
 
Current c hemical treatment  options   
(53) Currrently, t here are limited chemical treatment options available under section 2.2.1.6 b in the current IHS to manage 
regulated mites on whole plants and cuttings . The options ar e Abamectin (Avermectin) as a stand alone treatment or 
treatment with two active ingredients belonging to two different chemical groups (see table below ) i.e. Dicofol  
(Organochlorine) with one of the following chemicals : Acephate, Chlorpyrifos, Dimethoate  or Pirimiphos -methyl 
(Organophosphorous). When dicofol is not registered in an exporting country or not available for use as a pre -export 
                                                           
5 Systemic insecticides are those in which the active ingredient is taken up, primarily by plant roots, and transported (transl ocated) to locations throughout the plant, such 
as growing points, where it can affect plant -feeding pests. Systemics move with in the vascular tissues, either through the xylem (water -conducting tissue) or the phloem 
(food -conducting tissue) depending on the characteristics of the material. However, most systemic insecticides move up the plant in the xylem  with the transpiration 
stream. Systemic insecticides are most effective on insects with piercing —sucking mouthparts, such as aphids, whiteflies, mealybugs, and soft scales (Cloyd 2002).   
Risk management proposal for Tetranychus kanzawai    Page 10 of 53 biosecurity treatment the only option is to treat with Abamectin , and Abamectin is known not to be effective against 
mite eggs (see paragraph 55).  
Chemical group  Active ingredient (a.i.)  Stand alone  chemical 
treatment option?  
Avermectin  Abamectin  Yes 
Organochlorine  Dicofol  No (see below combinations ) 
Organophosphorous  Acephate  No (Dicofol -Acephate)  
Organophosphorous  Chlorpyrifos  No (Dicofol -Chlorpyrifos)  
Organophosphorous  Dimethoate  No (Dicofol -Dimethoate)  
Organophosphorous  Pirimiphos -methyl  No (Dicofol -Pirimiphos -methyl)  
 
(54) MPI proposes  to remove Acephate, Chlorpyrifos, Dimethoate and Pirimiphos -methyl from the  curre nt list because ; 
a. Acephate and Pirimiphos -methyl are not known to be effective against mites (pesticide label and pesticide 
databases were checked). Ormsby (2008) recommended that these pesticides should not be adopted as a 
miticide until adequate efficacy data can be obtained.  
b. Acephate, Pirimiphos -methyl, Chlorpyrifos and Dimethoate belong to the Organophosphorus chemical 
group which contains conventional (traditional) pesticides . Mites, especially tetranychids (Marcic 2012) are 
reported to have  developed resistance to these organophosphates (IRAC 2018b).  With the introduction of  
every new insecticide class  including organophosphates  (other classes are cyclodienes, carbamates, 
formamidines, Pyrethroids ), cases of resistance surfaced within 2 -20 years  (IRAC 2 018b). The last review 
for the section 2.2.1.6 in the current IHS is in 2004 which was 15 years old.  
(55) MPI proposes to retain Dicofol  as a su itable chemical to manage mites  because;  
a. Dicofol (Kelthane) is effective  on all life stages of mites (IRA -4 2015 ; see  Appendix 1 b). Only exclusion is it 
is not effective for tarsonemid mites (Haviland 2005, IR -4 2015, Kelthane label: see Appendix 1a) . 
However a combination of dicofol with another chemical of a different chemical group that is effective on 
tarsonemid mite s is proposed (see paragraph 55).  
b. Dicofol is not considered a carcinogenic  organochlorine and does not belong to the former group 2A (IRAC 
2018a). The 2A group organochlorines are pro bably carcinogenic to humans and include the prohibitied 
pesticide DDT (1,1,1-trichloro -2,2-bis(4 -chlorophenyl)ethane) . Dicofol  is classified as UN i.e. compounds 
of unknown or uncertain mode of action or action is uncharacterized.  
c. As dicofol  is a UN compound, having unknown mode of action, is  not thought to have a target site in the 
mites  that is in common with other UN compounds ; thus it may be freely used in rotation with other 
chemicals  of the same group  (UN) unless there is reason to expect cross -resistance  (IRAC 201 7). This is  
in contrast to compounds  within the non -UN gr oups (which are  specific chemic al group s) which do  share a 
common target site within the pest, and thus do share a common mode of action. When there is a 
common mode of action,  there is a high risk of  development of  cross -resistance to all comp ounds in  the 
same group  (IRAC 201 7). This is not expected in the UN group chem icals which dicofol belongs to.    
d. Resistance of some mites e.g. T. kanzawai strains , has been reported to dicofol in some countries (PPDB 
2018) . However a review of the methods for detection  of resistance development , including for dicofol 
against Tetranychidae mites , concluded that the methods were not satisfactory for determining whether 
such failures were due to development of resistance or lack of control e.g. poor spray coverage 
contribu ted to inadequate control of the mite (Singh 2010).  MPI is mindful to manage resistance 
development by ensuring the use of proposed multiple chemicals from different chemical families to target 
all life stages of the mites along with PEQ which can act as a n opportunity to observe the efficacy of the 
treatments.  
e. Resistance to a particular chemical may be stable or unstable . For example,  Dicofol resistance in citrus 
rust mite  (Eriophyidae)  was detected throughout the citrus industry about 10 years ago, but re sistance 
proved to be unstable and usage of dicofol has continued  in Florida (Rogers & Dewdney 2017) . 
(56) MPI propose s that Abamectin remain s as a suitable chemical to manage mites  but, as a combined treatment  with a 
pesticide from another chemical group . Abam ectin on its own  is not effective against the eggs of mites and  
Risk management proposal for Tetranychus kanzawai    Page 11 of 53 Abamectin is not effective on flat mites (Tenuipalpidae ). The proposed combination is outlined in the following 
section . 
Proposed  chemical treatment options  
(57) Ten chemicals are proposed (eight  are new) . Four of the chemicals are used under the one acaricide treatment 
option , and six of the chemicals are used  under  the two-combined acaricide treatment option . These particular 
chemicals are proposed  because they are known to be effective on  plant -eating mite species of  economic ally 
important mite families discussed in summary of risk . The number of treatment options proposed is e ight: 4 use 
stand -alone  chemicals;  and 4  use combin ation chemicals .  
(58) This can be a pplied either on arrival in New Zealand at an MPI approved facility at the importer’s expense  or offshore 
prior to export.  Pre-export treatment must be endorsed by the N ational Plant Protection Organisation (NPPO) of the 
exporting country  on the phytosanit ary certificate  including  active ingredient/s of the chemical/s used, rate of 
application, mode of application (i.e. dipping or spraying with a surfactant), treatment time (i.e. how long the 
treatment was applied  for) and date of application.  
OPTION 1: One acaricide treatment  (stand -alone chemicals)  
(59) One-acaricide treatment  option is proposed because some of the available chemicals ; 
a. can target all life stages of the mite s i.e. it is adulticidal (killing adults), ovicidal (killing eggs) and 
nymphicidal (immat ure stages)  and; 
b. are effective against mite species belong ing to all four major mite groups discussed in summary of risk . 
(60) The four  One-acaricide treatment  options  proposed are as follows ( see Appendix 1 a for register ed countries, 
example of crops and targeted pests );   
Active ingredient  Chemical group  Targeted m ites groups6 Primary site of 
action7 Trade name e.g.  
Spiromesifen *  Tetronic and Tetramic acid 
derivatives; group 23  spider mites  (including T. 
kanzawai ), eriophyid  mites, 
flat mites, tarsonemid mites  Lipid biosynthesis 
inhibitor  (Acetyl 
CoA carboxylase 
inhibitor)  JUDO®  
Milbemectin  Avermectins, Milbemycins; 
group 6  spider mites  (including T. 
kanzawai ), eriophyid  mites, 
flat mites, tarsonemid mites  Chloride ch annel 
allosteric modulator  MILBEKNOCK®  
Fenpyroximate  METI acaricides and 
insecticides; group 21A  spider mites  (including T. 
kanzawai ), eriophyid  mites, 
flat mites, tarsonemid mites  Mitochondrial 
complex I electron 
transport inhibitor  Pyromite®  
Bifenaza te+Abamectin *   Bifenazate; group 20D 
Avermectins, Milbemycins; 
group 6  spider mites  (including T. 
kanzawai ), eriophyid  mites, 
flat mites, tarsonemid mites  Mitochondrial 
complex III electron 
transport inhibitor + 
Chloride channel 
allosteric modulater  SIROC COTM  
*Re-treatment required according to label and NOVACHEM agrichemical manual, depending on crop/plant species  
(61) All of the above active ingredients in the proposed list of acaricides have been reported as accepted to apply as a 
general miticide (acarici de) by the Rutgers University USA (IR-4 2015).  
(62) The lable and NOV ACHEM agrichemical manual should be consulted for potential re -treatment  options . Two of the 
One-acaricide treatemt options mentioned above  (Abamactin, Spiromesifen)  require re -treatment depen ding on the 
import commodity as indicated under the active ingredient.   
OPTION 2: Two-acaricides combined treatment (combination chemicals)  
(63) Two-acaricides combined  treatment option is proposed because;  
                                                           
6 References used are Palmer and Vea (2012), Stamps and Osborne (2009) , Gilrein (u.d.) among s ome other litereature and acaricide labels. Also see Appendix 1 for 
details.  
7 See Appendix 1a for detailed descriptions.   
Risk management proposal for Tetranychus kanzawai    Page 12 of 53 a. This will ensure the treatment is targetting  all mite life stages and avoid s repeat ing a particular chemical 
treatment 10 -14 days after the initial treatment  to manage the more difficult -to-kill life stages such as eggs  
(Ormsby 2008) . Some chemicals are known to be effective only on particular life stages as  individual 
chemicals , therefore,  an acaricide which is effective on mite eggs might be combined  with another acaricide  
which is effective on other life stages (nymphs, larvae, adult) (Cloyd 2008 ; Mark Braithwaite, pers. c omm. 
2018 May).  
b. Two acaricide comb ined treatments will ensure mite species and life stages belong ing to all four major mite 
families are effectively  managed.   
(64) Two acaricides combined  treatment options proposed are as follows :  
a. Option 2A: Etoxoazole either with Abamectin or  Chlorfenapyr  selected from Group ‘a’ (see the table below) ; 
i. Etoxazole  is not effective  at managing mite adult stage , where as Group ‘a’ chemicals are effective against 
adults . A treatment combining both chemicals  will ensure the proposed treatment is effective  for all life  
stages of mites.  
ii. Etoxazole is effective  only at managing  spider mites and flat mites , where as Group ‘a’ chemicals are 
effective  against eriophyid and tarsonemid mites . This combination will provide an effective broad 
spectrum treatment  for a range of mite  species.  
iii. Option 2A is proposed for non -dormant plant material  because Etoxazole has strong translaminar activity 
but no contact activity.  Acaricides with translaminar activity  are effective only on foliage as discussed in 
paragaraph 4 6. 
b. Option 2 B: Fenazaq uin either with Aceqinocyl  or Dicofol  selected from Group ‘b’ (see the table below) ; 
i. All three proposed chemicals are effective  at managing all life stages of mites but are not effective  on one 
of the economical ly important plant -feeding mite families ; i.e. Fenazaquin is not effective against flat mites , 
whereas Acequinocyl and Dicofol are effective  against flat mites. Combination treatment s will ensure mites 
belong ing to all four major mite families are effectively  managed.  
Note: Label of each of the acari cides must be checked for manufacturer’s  instructions for compatibility 
when acaricide  combinations are used . 
Active 
ingredient  Chemical group  Targeted m ite 
groups8 Life stages 
of efficacy  Primary site of action9 Trade name e.g.  
OPTION 2A (for non dormant  material only)   
Etoxazole  Etoxazole; group 
10B spider mites  
(including T. 
kanzawai ), flat mites  All except  
adult stage  Mite growth inhibitor  Paramite  
Group ‘a’  
Abamectin  Avermectins, 
Milbemycins; 
group 6  spider mites  
(including T. 
kanzawai ), eriophy id 
mites , tarsenomid  
mites   All except  
egg stage  Chloride channel allosteric 
modulater  Abamectin 0.15 EC  
Chlorfenapyr  Pyrroles; group 
13 Spider mites  
(including T. 
kanzawai ), Eriophy id 
mites,tarsonemid 
mites  All except  
egg stage  Uncouplers of oxidative 
phosp horylation via 
disruption of proton 
gradient  Pylon®  
OPTION 2B  
Fenazaquin  METI acaricides 
and insecticides; 
group 21A  spider mites  
(including T. 
kanzawai ), eriophyid 
mites, tarsonemid All life stages  Mitochondrial complex I 
electron transport inhib itor MAGUS®  
                                                           
8 References used are Palmer and Vea (2012), Stamps and Osborne (2009) , Gilrein (u.d.) among some other literature and acaricide label s. Also see Appendix 1 for 
details.  
9 See Appendices  2 and 1b for detailed descriptions.   
Risk management proposal for Tetranychus kanzawai    Page 13 of 53 mites  
Group ‘b’  
Aceqinocyl  Acequinocyl; 
group 20B  spider mites  
(including T. 
kanzawai ), eriophyid 
mites, flat mites  All life stages  Mitochondrial complex III 
electron transport inhibitor  SHUTTLETM15 SC  
Dicofol  Dicofol; group 
UN spider mites, 
eriophyid mites, flat 
mites  All life stages  Unknown or non -specific 
target  KELTHANE*18.5 
EC 
 Guidance: Chlorfenapyr , Dicofol and Fenazaquin are not registered in New Zealand .  
 
Proposed rate and method  of chemical application  
(65) MPI proposes maximum / full label rate for mites (in terms of active ingredient) to provide optimum acaricide efficacy  
to manage biosecurity risk. Proposed  application  rates are as follows  (see Appendix 3 for rate calculations) ; 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EC - Emulsifiable concentrate; SC - Suspension concentrate  
(66) The r ate of dicofol  in the current IHS for T. kanzawai  is 0.7 g a.i./ L  which remains unchanged because  the maximum 
label rate calculated is equivalent to this rate (0.693 g a.i. /L) 
(67) MPI does not propose rates based on available efficacy data from published liter ature . This is  because experimental 
evaluation to assess suitable application rates is insufficient  for plant quarantine  purposes, as per the ‘G uidelines on 
efficacy evalua tion for the registration of plant protection products , published by the Food and Agriculture 
Organization of the United Nations 2006 (FAO 2006). Some reasons that FAO do not suggest accepting published 
efficacy trials  are that ; 
a. They are solely laboratory evaluations on detached plant parts  such as leaf discs  and efficacy has not 
been evaluated on whole  plants .  
E.g. Kumari et al.  (2017 ) – efficacy data was based on laboratory trial on excised leaf discs  
b. There are no assessments on plant  phytotoxicity11 of the treatment.  The assessment of crop tolerance is 
an essential element of the efficacy evaluation of a chemical  (FAO 2006);  Plant protection products should 
not have an unacceptable effect on plants or plant parts used for propagation (FAO 2006);  thus the re is no 
assurance of efficacy and phytotoxicity .  
                                                           
10 Group UN pesticides represent compounds of unknown or uncertain mode of action  as per the mode of action classification by t he Insecticide Resistance Action 
Committ ee (IRAC) in the IRAC Mode of Action Classification Scheme , issued on May 2018 ( http://www.irac -online.org/modes -of-action/ ) 
11 The capacity of a plant protection product to cause temporary or long -lasting damage to plants (FAO 2006) (plant protection produ ct refers to the pesticide/chemical)  Active 
ingredient  (a.i.) Chemical group  Example 
product trade  
name Formulation 
type 2Maximum a.i. rate 
calculated for 
mites ( g/L water ) 
Abamectin  Avermectins, Milbemycins (group 6)  Abamectin 
0.15 EC  EC 0.012  
Aceqinocyl  Acequinocyl ( group 20B)  SHUTTLETM1
5 SC  SC 0.150  
Bifenazate +Abam
ectin  Bifenazate (group 20D)  
Avermerctins, Milbemycins (group 6)  SIROCCOTM SC  0.135  
0.007  
Chlorfenapyr  Pyrroles  (group 13)  Pylon®  SC 0.087  
Dicofol  Dicofol  (group UN10) KELTHANE*1
8.5 EC  EC 0.694 
Etoxazole  Etoxazole  (group 10B)  Paramite  SC 0.038  
Fenazaquin  METI acaricides and insect icides  (group 21A ) MAGUS®  SC 0.352  
Fenpyroximate  METI acaricides and insecticides  (group 21A ) Pyromite®  SC 0.025  
Milbemectin  Avermectins, Milbemycins  (group 6)  MILBEKNOC
K® SC 0.012  
Spiromesifen  Tetronic and Tetramic acid derivatives  (group 23)  JUDO®  SC 0.152   
Risk management proposal for Tetranychus kanzawai    Page 14 of 53 E.g. Ormsby (2008) - recommended dipping rates at 10 times the label rate for insecticides based on the 
original recommendation of Derraik (2006). Ten times the label rate may affect plant viability.  
c. They  are limited to particular plant species ; thus effect  of the tested chemicals  on a range of hosts are not 
known . Extrapolation of efficacy information may be possible for control of the same target pest on one 
crop to a closely related crop (FAO 2006); thu s efficacy of the chemical on many other crops is unknown . 
E.g. Kumari et al.  (2017)  – efficacy assessment is specific to bean plants  
       Whalen and  Cissel (2013 ) – efficacy assessment is specific to watermelon  
d. They h ave not been repeated  and therefor e reproducibility is unknown . A total of  about 8 – 10 fully 
supportive trials are needed over a period of at least two growing seasons to develop  high degree of 
confidence in the  efficacy of a new chemical product  (FAO 2006) . 
e. They d o not have statistical a nalysis or analysis is  not satisfactory . As per the FAO guidelines (FAO 
2006), r esults from a field trial or a trial series should, in principle, always be statistically analysed.  
(68) The p roposed application rates are derived from the label rates  because,  
a. MPI follows the EPPO principles of acceptable efficacy guideline 1/214 (4) (EPPO 2017)] that is 
consistent with the approach or the guidelines by the FAO (FAO 200 6) and UK (Mattock u.d.)  for the 
purposes of registration of chemicals . 
b. According to these guidel ines, ‘a cceptable efficacy’ for approval of any chemical product other than 
biological products is dependent on the high level of control of pests i.e. control over 80% (Mattock u.d.) 
either by direct mortality or knockdown etc. This is a satisfactory leve l of risk management in New Zealand 
plant quarantine . There are  additional  measures MPI currently has in place to manage regulated mites on 
imported plants for planting  (see paragraph 5 1. Biological  products are not proposed in this RMP as label 
claims for  biological products are mostly based on lower effectiveness such as 40% control level (Mattock 
u.d) and does not provide an acceptable  level of control.  
c. All proposed chemicals in this RMP have a performance level claimed as ‘control’ on the label (see 
Appendices) , meaning the efficacy is above 90% within 30 seconds either as knockdown, kills on contact 
etc. This is the acceptable efficacy for pesticide registration in the USA (EPA 2017) and Brazil ( Bicalho et 
al., 2001 ). 
d. The d ata requirement for chemical  registration must be high quality , generated in accordance with sound 
scientific and experimental procedures and on principles of good laboratory practices (FAO 2010), thus 
label claim reflects a high level of confidence of product effectiveness . 
(69) Use of m aximum label rate (full rate) is proposed , based on the  following  reasons and/or assumption s; 
a. Active ingredient rates given for foliar applications in the field are difficult to extrapolate accurately to 
dippin g as a biosecurity treatment (Ormsby 2008) . 
b. Some  of the chemical label rates vary for different crops i.e. ornamental or tree species . 
c. Lower rates , such as average label rate , may not be sufficient to kill mites if the rate is  designed to control 
mites below a threshold level  i.e. may not achieve 100% m ortality (Ken Glassey, Senior Adviser, MPI, 
pers. comm., 05/2018).   
d. When mixtures of pesticides are used each component of a mixture belongs to a different class of 
insecticide mode of action  and so must be us ed at its full rate (IRAC 2018a: Insecticide Re sistant 
Mangement (IRM) principles endorsed by Insecticide Resi stance Action Committee ). 
e. The maximum label rate is known to be used in plant quarantine (Ken Glassey, Senior Adviser, MPI, pers. 
comm., 05/2018) and t here is no label claim for dipping applica tions (Mark Braithwaite, Consulting 
Diagnostician, Plant Diagnostics  Ltd., pers. comm., 29/05/2018) .  
f. When the label rate would provide the maximum lethal effect for the targeted mites it may also be effective 
for its related mite species. Extrapolation of  efficacy information may be possible for control of one target 
(i.e. pest, disease or weed) to another closely related one (FAO 2006).  
g. Ormsby (2008) recommended dipping rates at 10 times the label rate for insecticides based on the original 
recommendation  of Derraik (2006). However , phytotoxicity of the crop plants is also an important  
Risk management proposal for Tetranychus kanzawai    Page 15 of 53 parameter to consider when pesticide application rate is derived. Ten times the label rate application may 
affect plant viability.  
(70) Dip treatment is proposed over spray trea tment. Dip treatments are more effective than foliar sprays as contact 
chemicals are required to have thorough coverage for better efficacy. Dipping in chemicals (insecticide dip) for cut 
flowers and foliage are reported to be more effective than field con trol of insects (Tenbrink et al. , 1914). When 
dipping is less feasible e.g. large size of consignments, spraying for full coverage with suitable surfactants12 is 
proposed. Systemic acaricides are not proposed in this RMP  (see paragaraph 50);  thus spray trea tment making sure 
thorough coverage is also proposed to be effective.  
(71) MPI proposes to keep the same dipping method and dipping time as currently  specified  in the IHS as follows; “[ For 
dipping, the treatment time is normally 2 minutes but must be increased to 5 minutes if bubbles remain present on 
the plant surface. Dip solutions must be used no more than twice or as per manufacturer's recommendations. All 
treatments must be carried out in accordance with manufacturer's recommendations using either the recom mended  
maximum label rate or the rates shown in the table below ]”.  
 
Current  Methyl bromide fumigation option  
(72) The other option to treat mites (additional to the chemical treatment option) under the Basic Conditions, 
Part 2.2.1.6(b) Pesticide treatments for  whole plants and cuttings  of the current IHS is Methyl bromide 
fumigation. This option is limited  to dormant p lant material and the current combination of application rate 
and temperature at atmospheric pres sure for 2 hours is the same as the treatment fo r insects  (see table 
below). This combination is considered to be ambiguous and the efficacy of the treatment is not optimal 
against mit es (Dr Michael Ormsby, Manager, Plants and Pathways Biosecurity Science and Risk Analysis, 
Ministry for Primary Industri es, Technical Advise , 06/12/2019 , Appendix 6 ) 
Rate (g/m3)  Temperature ( °C) 
48 10-15 
40 16-20 
32 21-27 
28 28-32 
 
Proposed  Methyl bromide fumigation option  
(73) MPI proposes a new  Methyl bromide fumigation schedule for  mites for dormant plant material under Part 2.2.1.6(b) in 
the IHS. Any of th e Methyl bromide  treatment combinations (rate/time/temperature) in Table 1 below are effective to 
manage all life stages of plant feeding mites including Tetranychus kanzawai  (Dr Michael Ormsby, Manager, Plants 
and Path ways Biosecurity Science and Risk Analysis, Ministry for Primary Industries, Technical Advise , 06/12/2019, 
Appendix 6).   
Table 1: Methyl bromide fumigation schedules (dormant plant material only): For mites (non -diapausing), 
fumigation  for a minimum  of (i) 2, (ii) 2.5 or (iii) 3 hours at atmospheric pressure.  
Minimum initial 
concentration 
(g/m3)* 
 Minimum 
concentration -time 
product (CT)/ 
achieved dose 
(g·h/m3) Minimum 
temperature over 
duration of 
treatment (°C)  Minimum 
concentration during 
fumigation (g/m3)** 
2 hi 2.5 hii 3 hiii   2 hi  2.5 hii 3 hiii 
68 56 48 120 10 51 41 34 
57 48 40 100 16 43 35 28 
                                                           
12 Surfactants or tensides are chemical species that act as wetting agents to lower the surface tension  of a liquid  and allow  for increased spreadability  
(https://www.thoughtco.com/definition -of-surfactant -605928 ) .  
Risk management proposal for Tetranychus kanzawai    Page 16 of 53 48 40 34 85 21 36 29 24 
40 32 28 70 28 30 23 20 
*The s haded area  of the table  is guidance  only.  It is guidance  on the minimum initial methyl bromide con centration  that 
can achieve the  required  CT values at the optional temperature and treatment -duration combinations.    
**Minimum concentration during fumigation (g/m3) must be achieved throughout the treatment and  depends on the 
temperature and duration of  the treatment , but must not be less than 2 hours  
i Treatment duration is over a minimum of 2 continuous hours  
ii Treatment duration is over a minimum of 2.5 continuous hours  
iii Treatment duration is over a minimum of 3 continuous hours  
 
(74) The treatment is required to be completed offshore prior to export, or on arrival in New Zealand by an MPI approved 
treatment provider . Pre-export treatment must be endorsed by the NPPO on  the phytosanitary certificate including 
the achieved concentration -time product ( CT; the minimum achieved dose (concentration over time) of Methyl 
bromide) minimum temperature over duration of treatment, minimum concentration during treatment (including the 
final residual concentration), duration of the treatment at atmospheric pressur e, OR if done on arrival in New 
Zealand, must be completed at an MPI -approved facility . 
(75) The concentration -time product (CT) utilized for methyl bromide treatment in this standard is the sum of the products 
of the concentration (g/m3) and time (h) over the duration of the treatment. This is i n accordance with 
International Standard for Phytosanitary Measrues ISPM 43 : Requirements for the use of fumigation as a 
phytosanitary measure , 
 
Changes to the IHS  
(76) The key changes to the IHS are as follows:  
a. To replace  chemical treatment option for mites  for whole plants  and cuttings in the section 2.2.1.6 b (see 
Appendix 4a). 
b. To remove the mandatory additional declaration for dicofol treatment for T. kanzawai from the six schedules in 
the IHS ( Calanthe , Dahlia , Gentiana , Hydrangea,  Tricyrtis, Verbena  and Gentiana)  (see Appendix 4b). 
c. To replace Methyl bromide fumigation treatment combinations for whole plants and cuttings in the section 
2.2.1.6 b (see Appendix 4a). 
 
 
Part 4: Feasibility  
(77) The proposed options are operationally feasible for the management of regulated  mites on plants for planting  
because:  
a. Revision of general chemical  treatment for mites  for whole plants and cuttings (section 2.2.1.6 b) will provide 
stakeholders  with a number of chemical treatment options to select  from. The current IHS has only five 
chemical treatment options where  four of the options contain dicofol which is not registered in most exporting 
countries . Eight chemical treatment opt ions are proposed in this RMP and only one of them contains dicofol for 
those countries where dicofol is registered.  
b. Of the eight chemical  treatment options proposed six of them  can be applied to either dormant or non -dormant 
plant material as they all have contact mode of action  and not translaminar action. Therefore it is not necessary 
for the plant material to contain foliage.  
c. Removal of mandatory treatment for T. kanzawai  from a number of nursery stock plant species (all six 
schedules in the IHS) will benefit mos t of the stakeholder countries.   
Risk management proposal for Tetranychus kanzawai    Page 17 of 53 d. The broad range of options  that are proposed , including  some chemicals proposed by the stakehold ers, will 
effectively manage risk while increasing opportunities for importers , e.g. Spiromesifen and Milbemectin 
proposed by USA and Australia.  
e. Impact on  trade is considered  to be minim al as all plants for planting currently require a generic mite treatme nt 
and the proposed change will add many options.  
 
  
Risk management proposal for Tetranychus kanzawai    Page 18 of 53 References  
BASF ( u.d.) Sultan™ Miticide U.S. Technical Information Brochure. BASF Agricultural Products, USA. 
http://discover.pbcgov.org/coextension/horticulture/pdf/nursery/BASFSultanMiticide.pdf    
Bicalho, K A ; Ferreira, F ; Borges, L M F ; Ribeiro, M F B (2001) In vitro  evaluation of the effects of some acaricides on life 
stages of Rhipicephalus sangui neus  (Acari: Ixodidae). Arquivo Brasileiro de Medicina Veterinária e Zootecnia  53(5) : 
548-552. 
https://scholar.google.co.nz/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=In+vitro+evaluation+of+the+effects+of+some+acaricid
es+on+life+stages+of+Rhipiceph alus&btnG=#d=gs_cit&p=&u=%2Fscholar%3Fq%3Dinfo%3ATwNZSp51UAUJ%3As
cholar.google.com%2F%26output%3Dcite%26scirp%3D0%26hl%3Den . Accessed 15 May 2018.  
Botha , J; Bennington , J; Poole , M (2014) Spider mite pests of Western Australian plants. Web page (last upda ted: 
Wednesday, 25 June 2014), Government of Western Australia. Retrieved online from  
CDPR (u.d.). Spiromesifen -public report 2005 -2. California department of pesticide regulation. 
http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/registration/ais/publicreports/5858.pdf?_sm_au_=iHVq7KFjWZSDHQZn . Accessed 16 
June 2018.  
Chang, C P; Huang, S C (1995)  Evaluation of the effectiveness of releasing green lacewing, Mallada basal is (Walker) for the 
control of tetranychid mites on strawberry. Plant Protection Bulletin (Taipei) , 37(1):  41-58. 
Cloyd, R A (2002) Systemic, Local Systemic, or Translaminar Insecticides: What's the Difference? Home, yard and garden 
pest. Newsletter, Unive rsity of Illinois Extension. http://hyg.ipm.illinois.edu/pastpest/200220e.html . Accessed 16 May 
2018.  
Cloyd, R A (2004) All Miticides Are Not Created Equal. Home, yard and garden pest. Newsl etter, University of Illinois 
Extension. http://hyg.ipm.illinois.edu/pastpest/200417g.html?_sm_au_=iHVq7KFjWZSDHQZn . Accessed 15 May 
2018.   
Cloyd, R A (2008) Tank Mi xing Revisited. Gpn greenhouse product news, Horticultural entomology/plant protection at 
Kansas State University. Online article. https://gpnmag.com/article/tank -mixing -revisited -0/. Acce ssed 15 May 2018.    
Cloyd, R  A (2011) New or Unfamiliar Pest Control Materials. Gpn -Greenhouse Product News, Article. 
https://gpnmag.com/article/new -or-unfamiliar -pest-control-materials/ . Accessed 18 May 2018.     
Cloyd, R A (2016) Greenhouse pest management. Contemporary Topics in Entomology, CRC Press (198 pgs) . 
https://books.google.co.nz/books?id=LOobDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA100&lpg=PA100& dq=systemic,+contact,+translamina
r&source=bl&ots=ZFtXelHJvO&sig=tVF5P4coO3lnJD8NeB7Y3B1KOo8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjGtsik1d3YAh
WTq5QKHZ -zAYc4ChDoAQg6MAU#v=onepage&q=systemic%2C%20contact%2C%20translaminar&f=false . 
Accessed 10 August 2018.  
Cloyd, R A (2016a ) What Impacts the Effectiveness of Translaminar Pesticides?  Grower talks News article 30/08/2016. 
https://www.growertalks.com/Article/?articleid=22487  Accessed 07/11/2019  
Cloyd, R A ; Galle, C L ; Keith, S R ; Kemp, K E (2009) Evaluation of persistence of selected miticides against the twospotted 
spider mite, Tetranychus urticae . HortScience  44(2), 476 -480. 
Derraik, J (2006) Brief report on the efficacy of selected pesticides used by biosecu rity NZ for quarantine purposes (draft). 
Biosecurity New Zealand . 
Denmark, H A ; Nickerson, E (1981 ) A tarsonemidae mite, Steneotarsonemus furcatus  De Leon, a serious pest on Maranta  
sp. and Calathea sp. (Acarina: Tarsonemidae). Proc eedings of the  Florida  State Hort icultural  Society, 94: 70 –72.  
dos Santos, F  A; Melville, C  C; de Andrade, D  J (2017) Fenpyroximate for the control of Tetranychus ogmophallos  and 
Mononychellus planki  (Acari: Tetranychidae) in the peanut crop. Cientifica  45(4), 355 -360. 
EPA (2017 ). Pesticide registration: Guidance on efficacy testing for pesticides targeting certain invertebrate pests . 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), United States, Last updated on April 26, 2017 . 
https://www.epa.gov/pesticide -registration/guidance -efficacy -testing -pesticides -targeting -certain -invertebrate -
pests#labelclaims . Accessed 18 August 2018.     
EPPO (2017) . EPPO Guideline PP1/214(4) . Principles of acceptable efficacy , Efficacy evaluation of plant protection 
products , General standards ( Bulletin OEPP/EPPO Bulletin ). https://pp1.eppo.int/standards/PP1 -214-4. Accessed 15 
May 2018.   
Factsheet (2013) . Milbemectin. Mitsui chemicals agro, Inc. information sheet. https://www.philagro.co.za/wp -
content/uploads/2013/08/milbeknoc k-info.pdf . Accessed 15 May 2018.  
FAO (2006) . Guidelines on efficacy evaluation for the registration of plant protection products.  International code of conduct 
on the distribution and use of pesticides.  Rome, Food and Agriculture Organization of the Unit ed Nations, June 2006. 
http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/agphome/documents/Pests_Pesticides/Code/Efficacy.pdf . Accessed 15 May 
2018.    
FAO (201 0). Guidelines for the Registration of Pesticides , International code of conduct on the distribution and use of 
pesticides. Rome, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, April 2010.  
Risk management proposal for Tetranychus kanzawai    Page 19 of 53 http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/agphome/documents/Pests_Pesticides/Code/Registration_2010.pdf . 
Accessed 16 August 2018.   
Gilrein , D (u.d.)* Mites and Miticides: What You Need to Know. Mitic ide guide. Cornell University Cooperative Extension of 
Suffolk County, Long Island Horticultural Research and Extension Centre, Riverhead, 
NY.https://www.azl ca.com/uploads/documents/miticide -guide.pdf?_sm_au_=iHVkVFT01vHVR2t6  (*This reference 
was not dated however the original reference cited for that is Poster Edition 6.1, April 2016. Based on the MoA 
Classification Version 8.1) . Accessed 15 May 2018.   
Havil and, D (2005) Some of the Most Common Miticidesfor Use Against Spider Mites in California (Version 1, Nov. 2005). 
http://cottoninfo.ucdavis.edu/files/133235.pdf . Accessed 12 July 2018.   
IR-4 (2015). Mite efficacy -The IR -4 Project: Ornamental Horticulture Program Research Project Sheet, Rutgers University, 
USA. http://ir4.rutgers.edu/ Ornamental/SummaryReports/OrnHortProgram_ProjectSheet_MiteEfficacy_2015.pdf . 
Accessed 20 June 2018.   
IRAC (201 7) IRAC Mode of Action Classification Scheme, Insecticide Resistance Action Committee, Prepared by: IRAC 
International MoA Working Group (Approve d by: IRAC Executive), Version 8.3 , Issued July 2017.  
file:///C:/Users/heratha/Desktop/Wrk%20aftr%20back%20in%20Sept2019/Dicofol/IRAC_MoA -
classi fication_v8.3_31July17.pdf . Accessed 06/11/2019.  
IRAC (2018a) IRAC Mode of Action Classification Scheme, Insecticide Resistance Action Committee, Prepared by: IRAC 
International MoA Working Group (Approved by: IRAC Executive), Version 8.4, Issued May 201 8. http://www.irac -
online.org/modes -of-action/ . Accessed 10 July 2018.   
IRAC (2018b) . Insecticide Resistance Action Committee (IRAC), Insecticide Resistance: Causes and Action. Mode of Action 
(MOA ) Initiative. A joint effort between the Regional Integrated Pest Management Centers and the Insecticide 
Resistance Action Committee. https://nifa.usda.gov/site s/default/files/resources/Insecticide%20resistance.pdf . 
Accessed 18 July 2018.   
IRAC (2019 ) IRAC Mode of Action Classification Scheme, Insecticide Resistance Action Committee, Prepared by: IRAC 
International MoA Working Group (Approved by: IRAC Executive) , Version 9.3, Issued June  2019. http://www.irac -
online.org/modes -of-action/ . Accessed 05 July 2019.     
Kavya, M K (2014) Toxicity of newer acaricides to two spotted spider mite, Tetranychus urtic ae Koch (Acari: Tetranychidae) 
infesting brinjal, Solanum melongena Linn (Doctoral dissertation)   
Kumari, S ; Chauhan, U ; Kumari, A ; Nadda, G (2017) Comparative toxicities of novel and conventional acaricides against 
different stages of Tetranychus urticae  Koch (Acarina: Tetranychidae). Journal of the Saudi Society of Agricultural 
Sciences  16(2), 191 -196. 
Manners, A (2015) Herbivorous mites -A pest management plan for production nurseries. Nursery levy at work: Nursery 
production plant health and biosecurity  project. Agri -science Queensland, Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, 
Australia (as part of NY11001 Plant health biosecurity, risk management and capacity building for the nursery 
industry in 2015). https://www.ngia.com.au/Category?Action=View&Category_id=689  (under the tab ‘Pest 
Management Plan -Mites) . Accessed 15 August 2018.  
Marcic, D (2012) Acaricides in modern management of plant -feeding mites. Journal of Pest Science  85(4), 395 -408. 
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10340 -012-0442 -1. Accessed 12 June 2018.   
Mattock, S  M (u.d.)  Summary of the UK efficacy evaluation process and requirement s for biological products. Pesticides 
Safety Directorate, Kings Pool, UK. 
http://www.hse.gov.uk/pesticides/resources/E/Efficacy_Guidance_for_Biopesticides.p df. Accessed 18 July 2018.   
Migeon, A ; Dorkeld, F (2006 -2017) Spider mites web: a comprehensive database for the Tetranychidae, 
http://www.montpellier.inra.fr/CBGP/spmweb . Accessed 10 April 2018.  
MPI IRA table grape (2009) . Import Risk Analysis: Table grapes ( Vitis vinifera ) from China; issued 30 October 2009 
http://www.mpi.govt.nz/mpisearch/?site -
search=The+IHS+is+based+on+the+Import+Risk+Analysis%3A+Table+grapes+%28Vitis+vinifera%29+from+China
%3B+issued+30+October +2009.+The+Risk+Analysis+can+be+viewed%3A&action_doSimpleSearch =  
NMPRO (2007) Miticide facts. Nursery Management and Production (NMPRO), Article, June 2007 ( www.GreenBeam.com ). 
http://www.bugladyconsulting.com/Articles/page%202%20spider%20mites.pdf?_sm_au_=iHVVJNFpkW6VrQqs . 
Accessed 10 June 2018.   
Ormsby, M D (2008) Import Risk Analysis: Wollemia nobilis  (Wollemi pine) Araucariaceae Nursery Stock from Australia. 
New Zealand Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. 193pp  
Osakabe, M (1967) Biology and Controlling Methods of Tea Red Spider Mite, Tetranychus Kanzawai  Kishida, in Japan. 
Japan International Resear ch Centre  2(3), 22 -24 https://www.jircas.go.jp/en/publication/jarg/2/3/22 . Accessed 15 
August 2018.    
Risk management proposal for Tetranychus kanzawai    Page 20 of 53 Ozawa , A; Yoo, J (2006)  Susceptibility to several acaricides and insecticides of kanzaw a spider mite, Tetranychus kanzawai  
Kishida (Acari; tetranychidae) collected from tea [ Camellia sinensis ] fields. Bulletin of the Shizuoka Tea Experiment 
Station (Japan).  
Palmer, C ; Vea, E (2012) IR -4 Ornamental Horticulture Program -Mite Efficacy: A Litera ture Review ( Aceria  sp., Aculops 
lycopersici , Aculus ligustri , Aculus schlechtendali , Epitrimerus pyri , Oligonychus ilicis , Panonychus citri , 
Polyphagotarsonemus latus , Raoiella indica , Tetranychus urticae ). 
http://ir4.rutgers.edu/Ornamental/SummaryReports/MiteEfficacyDataSummary2012.pdf . Accessed 12 May 2018.   
Park, N M ; Walker, J T S (2014) Review of insecticide biosecurity treatments for the importation of nu rsery stock. The New 
Zealand Institute for Plant and Food Research Limited.  
Plantwise (2018) Plantwise technical fact sheet -kanzawa spider mite ( Tetranychus kanzawai ). 
https: //www.plantwise.org/KnowledgeBank/Datasheet.aspx?dsid=53347   
PPDB (2018) . PPDB: Pesticide Properties DataBase, University of Hertfordshire, UK (last updated: Friday 30 March 2018). 
Retrieved from https://sitem.herts.ac.uk/aeru/ppdb/en/search.htm . Accessed 10 April 2018 .  
Rogers , M E; Dewdney , M M (2017) Florida Citrus Pest Management Guide: Pesticide Resistance and Resistance 
Management. 2017 -2018 Florida Citrus, Entomology and Nematology De partment, Florida Cooperative Extension 
Service, Institutre of Food and Agricultureal Sciences, University of Florida (Revised in 2017). 
https://crec.ifas.ufl.edu/extension/pest/PDF/2017/Pesticide%20Resistance%20and%20Resistance%20Management.
pdf. Accessed 10 July 2018.   
Sarwar, M (2015) Mites (Acarina) as vectors of plant pathogens and relation of these pests to plant diseases. Agricu ltural 
and Biological Sciences Journal  1(4), 150 -156. 
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1699/55578b5bff8c9f013c8ef952493f103d4d98.pdf . Accessed 15 July 2018 .  
Singh, S (2010) Resistance development in mites to plant protection chemicals: a review. Journal of Entomol ogical 
Research  34, 117 -123.  
Stamps , R H; Osborne , L S (2009) Selected Miticides for Use on Ornamental Plants, ENH1118. Environmental Horticulture 
Depa rtment, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida. 
Original publication date, April 2009. https:/ /trec.ifas.ufl.edu/mannion/IST%202010/Osborne -IST%20handout -
miticides.pdf . Accessed 12 May 2018.   
Tenbrink,  V L; Hara, A H; Hata, T Y; Hu, B K S (1914) An Insecticide Dip forTropical Cut Flowers and Foliage - Pest 
Management Guidelines . Department of Entom ology, University of Hawaii, College of Tropical Agriculture and 
Human Resources. http://www.extento.hawaii.edu/kbase/reports/flowers_pest.htm . Accessed 10 June 2018.  
Turner, P (2 011) Magister/Magus. Technical review: Fenazaquin. 2011 IR -4 Food use workshop. 
http://ir4.rutgers.edu/FoodUse/FUWorkshop/2011FUWPresent ations/2011FUWGowan.pdf?_sm_au_=iHVq7KFjWZS
DHQZn . Accessed 10 August 2018.   
UC IPM (2019)  Pest Management Guidelines: Citrus, UC ANR Publication 3441 (revised:April 23,2019). 
http://ipm.ucanr.edu/PMG /r107401211.html . Accessed 15 May 2019.   
Wakasa, F ; Watanabe, S (1999) KanemiteReg. (acequinocyl, AKD -2023) -a new acaricide for control of various species of 
mites. Agrochemicals Japan  (75):17 -20 https://eurekamg.com/research/003/486/003486484.php . Accessed 10 June 
2018.  
Whalen, J ; Cissel, B (2013) Efficacy of miticides for control of twospotted spider mites on watermelon . Arthropod 
Management Tests  38(1).  
Yokohama, T  F (2002) Insecticida l or miticidal combinations containing chlofenapyr. United States Patent no. US 
6337345B1, Jan 8, 2002.  
Zhang, Z Q (2003) Mites of greenhouses: identification, biology and control. Book (online) Cabi.  
  
Risk management proposal for Tetranychus kanzawai    Page 21 of 53 Appendix 1: Acaricides  assessed as being effective  for all life stages of ; 
a) all four economical ly important  plant feeding mite families   
Active 
ingredient  Chemical group1 Trade 
name 
examples  Mode of 
action2 & 
performance 
claim on the 
label  Registered 
countries3 Example of 
crops / Uses  Example of mite spec ies controlled  
under each mite family  Mite life stages affected/ 
controlled & Primary site of 
action   
Bifenazate+Aba
mectin  Bifenazate  
 
(group 20D - 
Mitochondrial 
complex III electron 
transport  
Inhibitors  
+ 
(group 6 -Glutamate -
gated  
chloride channel  
(GluCl)  allosteric  
modulators)  (IRAC 
2018a)  
 
(Sirocco Label 
contains UN as the 
chemical group for 
Abamectin as per 
the previous 
classificaton)  Sirocco  
 
 Contact and 
translaminar  
 
(control)  Many 
European 
countries  
Australia  
USA 
(PPDB 2018)  Greenhouse 
and field cro ps: 
avocado, 
curcubit, 
tomato, 
pomefruit, 
quince, 
eggplant, 
watermelon, 
strawberry,  
hop (PPDB 
2018; Cloyd 
2004; Gilrein 
u.d.; Sirocco 
label)  Spider mites (Tetranychidae):  
Tetranychus kanzawai , Two spotted spider 
mite ( T. urticae ), Pacific mite ( T. pacific us), 
European red mite ( Panonychus ulmi ), 
Southern red mite ( Oligonychus ilicis ), 
Spruce spider mite( Oligonychus ununguis ), 
Clover mite ( Bryobia  sp.), Citrus red mite 
(Panonychus citri ), Bamboo spider mite, 
Lewis mite  (Eotetranychus lewisi ) 
 
Tarsonemid mit es (Tarsonemidae):  
Strawberry mite ( Cyclamen  sp.), 
 
Flat mites/false spider mites 
(Tenuipalpidae):  
Broad mite  
 
Eriophy id mites (Eriophyidae):  
rust mite,  bud mite  
 
(Cloyd 2004; IR -4 2015; PPDB 2018; 
Gilrein u.d.; Sirocco label ; Ozawa & Yoo 
2006 ) Fast knock down effect (in less than 
1 day) (IR -4 2015; Sirocco label) on 
all life stages of the mites i.e.eggs , 
immatures and adults (IR -4 2015; 
Sirocco label)  
 
Action on the nervous system of 
mites by inhibiting the electron 
transfer of mitochondria  (IRAC 
2018a ; IRAC 2019 ) 
 
 
Fenpyroximate  METI acaricides 
and insecticides   
 
(group 21A - 
Mitochondrial 
complex I electron 
transport Inhibitors)  
(IRAC 2018a)  Akari  
Fenamite  
Pyromite  Contact  
 
(control)  Many 
European 
countries,  
Australia  
New Zealand  
(PPDB 2018)  
 Greenhous e 
and field crops : 
citrus,  
apple,  
pear,  
peach,  
grape ( PPDB 
2018; acaricide Spider mites (Tetranychidae)  including 
Tetranychus kanzawai ,  
 
Tarsonemid mites (Tarsonemidae) ,  
 
Flat mites /false spider mites  
(Tenuipalp idae)   
 
Erioph yid mites (Eriop hyidae)  Fast knock down effect (in less than 
1 day) (IR -4 2015) on all life stages 
i.e. eggs , immatures and adults (IR -
4 2015; NMPRO 2007; Cloyd 2008)  
 
Action on the energy metabolism of 
mites by inhibiting the mitochondrial 
complex I electron transport ) (IRAC  
Risk management proposal for Tetranychus kanzawai    Page 22 of 53 labels)  (PPDB 2018; IR -4 2015; acaricide labels ; 
dos Santos et al., 2017 ) 2018a ; IRAC 2019 ) 
Milbemectin  Avermectins,  
Milbemycins   
 
(group 6 - 
Glutamate -gated  
chloride channel  
(GluCl) allosteric  
modulators)  
(IRAC 2018a)  Milbeknock  
Ultiflora™ Contact  
 
(control ) Many 
European 
countries  
Some 
American 
country 
(including  
USA)  
Some African 
countries  
Some Asian 
countries  
Australia  
New Zealand  
(PPDB 2018)  Greenhouse 
and field 
ornamentals 
and crops : 
pome fruit , 
stone fruit , 
strawberry , 
capsicum, 
tomato, 
carnation,  
rose (PPDB 
2018; Factsheet 
2013; acaricide 
labels)  Spider mites (Tetranychidae):  
Tetranychus kanzawai , two-spotted spider 
mite, European red mite, Carmine spider 
mite, Pacific spider mite , Strawberry spider 
mite 
 
Erioph yid mites (Eriophyidae):  
Pink citrus ru st mite , Apple rust mite , Pink 
tea rust mite , Purple tea mite , Pear rust 
mite, Citrus bud mite  
 
Tarsonemid mites (Tarsonemidae):  
broad mite, Cyclamen mite  
 
Flat mites /false spider mites  
(Tenuipalp idae):  
 
(Stamps and Osborne 2009 ; PPDB 2018; 
Factsheet 2013 ; acaricide labels ; Ozawa & 
Yoo 2006 ) Fast knock down effect (in less than 
1 day) (IR -4 2015)  on all life stages  
i.e. eggs , immatures and adults (IR -
4 2015; NMPRO 2007; Milbeknock 
label)  
 
 
Action on the nervous and muscle 
system of mites by inhibiting the 
glutamate -gated chloride channel 
allosteric modulators  (IRAC 2018a ; 
IRAC 2019 ).  
 
Also has insecticidal activity  
Spiromesifen  Tetronic and 
Tetramic  
acid derivatives   
 
(group 23 - Inhibitors 
of acetyl CoA  
carboxylase)  
(IRAC 2018a)  Forbid  
Judo  
Oberon  
Optimit e Contact  
Translaminar   
 
(control)  Some 
European 
countries  
USA 
New Zealand  
Australia  
(PPDB 2018) ) Greenhouse 
and field 
ornamentals 
and crops : 
cucurbit,  
tomato,  
eggplant, 
French bean,  
melon,  
strawberry , 
rose,  
carnation 
(PPDB 2018;; 
acaricide labels)  Spider  mites (Tetranychidae):  
Tetranychus kanzawai , Two spotted spider 
mite, southern red mite, Lewis mite, tumid 
mite, maple spider mite, spruce spider mite, 
honeylocust spider mite, euonymus mite, 
boxwood spider mite  
 
Tarsonemid mites (Tarsonemidae):  
broad mit e, cyclamen  mite  
 
Flat mites /false spider mites  
(Tenuipalp idae):  
false spider mite  
 
Erioph yid mites (Eriophyidae):  
Rust and blister mites  
 
(IR-4 2015; PPDB 2018; CDPR u.d.; Medium knock down effect (in 1 -7 
days) (IR -4 2015) on all mite life 
stages i.e. eggs , immatures and 
adults (IR -4 2015; NMPRO 2007; 
CDPR u.d.; Judo label)  
 
 
Action on the lipid synthesis and 
growth regulation of mites by 
inhibiting the acetyl CoA 
carboxylase (IRAC 2018a ; IRAC 
2019 ). 
 
Toxic on some orna mentals  
 
Tetranychus urticae  shows some 
resistance   
Risk management proposal for Tetranychus kanzawai    Page 23 of 53 acaricide labels ; Ozawa & Yoo 2006 )  
 
1Chemical group classification as per the Insecticide Resistance Action Committee (IRAC): http://www.irac -online.org/documents/mo a-classification/  (accessed 13 April 2018).  
2Mode of action of the pesticide: the pesticide stays on the surface of the plant (contact), move to small distance inside the  plant (translaminar) or move long distance inside the plant (systemic).  
3The list of  registered countries may not be accurate, references could not be found for some countries but it does not mean the chemical is not approved.  
*Target protein responsible for biological activity is unknown, or uncharacterized  
 
 
 
 
b) only three economical ly important  plant feeding mite families  
Active 
ingredient  Chemical group1 Trade name 
examples  Mode of 
action2 & 
performance 
claim on the 
label  Registered 
countries3 Example of 
crops / Uses  Example of mite species controlled  
under each mite family  Mite life  stages affected/ 
controlled & Primary site of 
action   
Acequinocyl  Acequinocyl  
 
(group 20B)  
(IRAC 2018a)  Shuttle 0 
15SC  
Kanemite  Contact and 
also to a 
lesser extent 
by ingestion   
 
(control)  Some 
European 
countries  
USA 
(PPDB 2018)  Greenhouse, 
shadehouse 
and field 
ornamentals 
and nursery 
plants  (PPDB 
2018; Gilrein 
u.d.; Cloyd 
2008; acaricide 
labels)  Spider mites (Tetranychidae):  
Tetranychus kanzawai,  Two-spotted spider 
mite ( T. urticae ) and Spruce spider mite 
(Oligonychus ununguis ), European red mite 
(Pano nychus ulmi ) 
 
Flat mites /false spider mites  
(Tenuipalp idae):  
Red palm mite ( Raoiella indica ) 
 
Erioph yid mites (Eriophyidae):  
Bud mite  
 
(IR-4 2015; Gilrein u.d.; Cloyd 2011; PPDB 
2018; acaricide labels ; Wakasa & 
Watanabe 1999 ) Fast knock down effect (in les s than 
1 day) (IR -4 2015) on all life  stages 
eggs , immatures and adults (IR -4 
2015; Cloyd 2008; Cloyd 2011; 
Shuttle label)  
 
 
Action on the nervous system of 
mites by inhibiting the electron 
transfer of mitochondri a (IRAC 
2018a ; IRAC 2019 )  
Risk management proposal for Tetranychus kanzawai    Page 24 of 53 Fenazaquin  METI acaricides 
and insecticides  
 
(group 21A - 
Mitochondrial 
complex I electron 
transport inhibitors ) 
(IRAC 2018a)  Magus  
Magister  Contact   
 
(control)  Few 
European 
countries  
(PPDB 2018) ) Greenhouse 
and field 
ornamentals 
and crops  
including   
apple,  
pear,  
citrus,  
nuts (PPDB 
2018; Gilrein 
u.d.; acaricide 
labels)  Spider mites (Tetranychidae):  
Eutetranychus , panonychus , Tetranuchus , 
citrus mites  (including Tetranychus 
kanzawai) , red mites  
 
Erioph yid mites (Eriophyidae):  
rust mit e, bud mite  
 
Tarsonemid mites (Tars onemidae):  
broad mite  
 
(PPDB 2018; Gilrein u.d.; acaricide labels ; 
Turner 2011 ) Fast knock down effect (in less than 
1 day) (IR -4 2015; Magus label) on 
all life stages including eggs  
(Turner 2011; IR -4 2015) . 
 
Action on the energy metabolism of 
mites by in hibiting the mitochondrial 
complex I electron transport  (IRAC 
2018a ; IRAC 2019 ) 
 
Highly toxic to bees  
Dicofol  Dicofol   
 
(group UN*  
Compounds of  
unknown or 
uncertain  
MoA 
(IRAC 2018a)  Kelthane  Contact  
 
(control and 
ovicidal)  This is 
banned in 
many 
countrie s 
including New 
Zealand  It is applied in a 
wide variety of 
crops, fruits, 
vegetables,  
Ornamental and 
field crops.  
(Kelthane label)  
 Spider mites (Tetranychidae):  
Tetranychus kanzawai,  European red mite, 
two-spotted (red -spider) mite, sixspotted  
mite, Pacif ic mite, Schoene mite , spruce 
mite, yellow (carpini) mite,  
 
Flat mites /false spider mites  
(Tenuipalp idae):  
privet mite, McDaniel mite,  
 
Erioph yid mites (Eriophyidae):  
pear rust mite and apple rust mite  
 
(Haviland 2005; IR -4 2015; Kelthane label ; 
Osakabe 1 967) Direct contact on all life stages  
including juveniles, adults and eggs  
(IR-4 2015; Haviland 2005; Kavya 
2014; Ormsby 2008). Ovicidal effect 
on eggs (Kelthane label)  
 
Unknown or non -specific targets 
(IRAC 2019)  
  
Risk management proposal for Tetranychus kanzawai    Page 25 of 53 Appendix 2: Acaricides  effective for s ome life stages of a range of plant feeding mite families  
Active 
ingredient  Chemical 
group1 Trade name 
examples  Mode of 
action2 & 
performance 
claim on the 
label  Registered 
countries3 Example of 
crops / Uses  Example of mites  controlled  Mite life stages af fected/ 
controlled & Primary site of 
action  
Abamectin  Avermerctins,  
Milbemycins  
 
(group 6 -
Glutamate -gated  
chloride channel  
(GluCl) allosteric  
modulators)  
(IRAC 2018a)  Avid Contact and 
Translaminar   
(control)  Many 
European 
countries,  
USA 
Australia  
New Zea land 
(PPDB 2018)  Field crops, shade 
house & 
greenhouse  
Ornamental;  
Horticultural 
crops:  
citrus,  
pear, curcubits,  
beans , 
eggplant,  
tomatoe,  
watermelon  
(PPDB 2018; Avid 
label)  Spider mites (Tetranychidae):  
Tetranychus kanzawai,  European Red 
Mite,Two -spotted  Spider Mite, Carmine 
Spider Mite , Southern Red Mite , Spruce 
Spider Mite  
 
Tarsonemid mites (Tarsonemidae):  
Cyclamen , Broad Mites  
 
Erioph yid mites (Eriophyidae): : 
Rust and Bud Mites  
 
(IR-4 2015; PPDB 2018; Avid label ; UC 
IPM 2019 ) Fast knock down effect (in  less than 
1 day) on immatures and adults (IR -
4 2015) but n ot eff ective  on mite 
eggs  (IR-4 2015; NMPRO 2007; 
Cloyd 2008)  
 
Action on nerve and muscle by 
inhibiting the glutamate -gated 
chloride channel allosteric 
modulators  (IRAC 2018a ; IRAC 
2019 ) 
Chlorfena pyr Pyrroles  
 
(group 13 -
Uncouplers of  
oxidative  
phosphorylation 
via 
disruption of the  
proton gradient)  
(IRAC 2018a)  Pylon 2SC  Contact and 
translaminar   
(control)  Australia  
(PPDB 2018)  Greenhouse 
ornamentals  
(PPDB 2018; 
Cloyd 2004; Pylon 
label)  Spider mites  (Tetranychidae):  
Tetranychus spp . (e.g. T. urticae , T. 
kanzawai ) 
 
Tarsonemid mites (Tarsonemidae):  
Cyclamen , Broad Mites  
(Polyphagotarsonemus  latus ) 
 
Erioph yid mites (Eriophyidae):  
Rust and Bud Mites  
(Cloyd 2004; PPDB 2018; IR -4 2015; Pylon 
label ; Yokoham a 2002 ) Medium knock down effect (in 1 -7 
days) (IR -4 2015) o n mobile life 
stages (larvae, nymphs, adults)  but 
not eggs (IR-4 2015; Cloyd 2008; 
Pylon label)  
 
Action on the energy metabolism by  
uncoupling oxidative 
phosphorylation via disruption of 
the proto n gradient  (IRAC 2018a ; 
IRAC 2019 ) 
Etoxazole  Etoxazole  
 
(group 10B - Mite 
growth inhibitors)  Paramite  
Baroque  
TetraSan  Translaminar  
(control)  
 Some 
European 
countries,  
USA,  
Australia,  Greenhouse, 
shadehouse and 
field ornamentals 
and crops : 
stonefruit, Spider mites (Tetranychidae):  
Tetranychus kanzawai,  Two-spotted spider 
mite. European red mite , Citrus red mite, 
Pacif ic spider mite, Yellow spider mite, Medium effect (within 7 days 
control) (Paramite label) only on the  
egg, larvae, and nymphal stages. It 
has minimal effect on adult mites. 
However, adult female mites that  
Risk management proposal for Tetranychus kanzawai    Page 26 of 53 (IRAC 2018a)  New Zealand  
(PPDB 2018)  pomefruit,   
citrus,  
tomato ,  
eggplant , 
strawberry, 
avocado (PPDB 
2018; Gilrein u.d.; 
acaricide labels)  McDaniel spider  mite 
Tarsonemid mites (Tarsonemidae):  
Broad Mites   
 
Erioph yid mites (Eriophyidae):  
Yellow citrus rust mite , Brown citrus rust 
mite 
 
(Gilrein  u.d.; PPDB 2018; acaricide labels ; 
Ozawa & Yoo 2006 ) are treated do not produce viable 
eggs (sterile)  (NMPRO 2007; 
Gilrein  u.d.; Paramite label) ). 
 
Action on the growth regulator of 
mites  (IRAC 2018a ; IRAC 2019 ) 
1Chemical group classification as per the Insecticide Resistance Action Committee (IRAC): http://www.irac -online.org/do cuments/moa -classification/  (accessed 13 April 2018).  
2Mode of action of the pesticide: the pesticide stays on the surface of the plant (contact), move to small distance inside the  plant (translaminar) or move long distance inside the plant (systemic).  
3The list of registered countries may not be accurate, references could not be found for some countries but it does not mean th e chemical is not approved.  
 
  
Risk management proposal for Tetranychus kanzawai    Page 27 of 53 Appendix 3: Calculation of dipping rate for proposed acaricides as a.i. (g) per Litre water  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
List of acaricide labels referred are retrieved online from;  
 SIROCCOTM:  http://www.ohp.com/Labels_MSDS/PDF/sirocco_label.pdf     SHUTTLETM 15 SC : https://www.tlhort.com/crop_protection_label_search/Shuttle_15_SC _Miticide_ -_Acequinocyl.pdf    
 Paramite: https://sumitomo -chem.com.au/sites/default/files/sds -label/paramite_0217.pdf     MAGUS® : http://www.plantproducts.com/us/images/Magus_Label.pdf  
 MILBEKNOCK® : http://www.herbiguide.com.au/Labels/MILB9_61269 -103004.PDF    Pylon®:  https://www.domyown.com/msds/PylonMiticideLabel2014.pdf  
 Pyromite®: https://www.adria.nz/docLabel/Pyromite%201L%20label.p df    JUDO®: http://www.ohp.com/Labels_MSDS/PDF/judo_label.pdf      
 Abamectin 0.15 EC https://s3 -us-west-1.amazonaws.com/www.agrian.com/pdfs/Abamectin_0.15_EC_Label1d.pdf?_sm_au_=isVPH7bPWL3vSP45  
 KELTHANE* 18.5 EC: 
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjQjqTQvZjcAhVQEqYKHcMWDh0QFgg3MAI &url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.griculture.co.ke%2Flabels%2Fkelthane18_5ec.doc&usg=AO
vVaw10W8NyhTVs8qbVSkwUlklP  
 
1The following unit conve rters were used for calculations of rates - a) for conversion of fluid ounzes  (fl.oz.)  to grams https://www.convertunits.com/from/US+fluid+ounce/to/grams ; b) for gallons to Litres https://www.metric -
conversions.org/volume /us-liquid -gallons -to-liters.htm . 100 US gallons= 378.541 L, 4 fl.oz= 118.29 g, 5.2 fl.oz=153.78g, 8 fl.oz.=236.59g.    
For some acaricides calculation was not needed as it was already given on the label. Therefore relevant r ows in the table are shown as ‘NA’ (Not Applicable).  Active 
ingredient  
(a.i.) Chemical group   (a.i.) %  in the 
acaricide  1Maximum label rate  
for mites  Calculation Max. dipping  
rate calculated 
(g/L water )  Label  
Abamectin  Avermectins, Milbemycins (group 6)  1.9% (W/W)  8 fl.oz./100 gallons water  (1.9/100 x 236.59)     
378.541  0.012  Abamectin 0.15 EC  
Aceqinocyl  Acequinocyl ( group 20B)  NA NA NA 0.150  SHUTTLETM 15 SC  
Bifenazate + 
Abamectin  Bifenazate  (group 20D) 
 
Avermerctins, Milbemycins (group 6)  43.2% (W/W)  
 
2.2% (W/W)  4 fl.oz./100 gallons water  (43.2/ 100 x 118.29 ) 
378.541  
(2.2/100 x 118.29)  
378.541  0.135  
 
0.007  SIROCCOTM 
Chlorfenapyr  Pyrroles  (group 13)  21.4% (W/W)  5.2 fl.oz./100 gallons water  (21.4/100 x 153.78)  
378.541  0.087  Pylon®  
Dicofol  Dicofol  (group UN ) 185 g/L  75 mL/20 L water  (185/1000 x 75) 
20 0.694 KELTHANE * 18.5 EC  
Etoxazole  Etoxazole  (group 10B)  110 g/L  35 mL/100 L water  (110/1000 x 35) 
100 0.038  Paramite  
Fenazaquin  METI acaricides and insecticides  (group 21A ) 18.79% (W/W)  24 fl.oz./100 gallons water  (18.79 /100 x 709.76 ) 
378.541  0.352  MAGUS®  
Fenpy roximate  METI acaricides and insecticides  (group 21A ) 50 g/L  50 mL/100 L water  (50/1000 x 50) 
100 0.025  Pyromite®  
Milbemectin  Avermectins, Milbemycins  (group 6)  9.3 g/L  125 mL/100 L water  (9.3/1000 x 125) 
100 0.012  MILBEKNOCK®  
Spiromesifen  Tetronic and T etramic acid derivatives  (group 23)  480 g/L  120 mL./100 gallons water  (480/1000 x 120) 
378.541  0.152  JUDO®   
Risk management proposal for Tetranychus kanzawai    Page 28 of 53 Appendix 4: Proposed changes for the IHS 155.02.06  
A) Proposed changes for Section 2.2.1.6 Pesticides treatment for whole plants and cuttings   
*New section  proposed is in blue, new wording  added is highlighted in yellow and wording  proposed to remove 
has a strike through  
2.2.1.6. Pesticide treatments for whole plants and cuttings  
 
Mites (non -diapausing)  
Treatment must be completed either offshore prior to export or on arrival in New Zealand at 
the importer’s expense.  
 If performed offsho re, the exporting country NPPO must confirm that this treatment is 
endorsed in the disinfection and/or disinfection treatment section of the phytosanitary 
certificate including active ingredient/s of the chemical/s used, rate of application, 
mode of applic ation (i.e. dipping or spraying with a surfactant), treatment time (i.e. 
how long the treatment was applied for) and date of application.  
 If performed on arrival (on -shore), plant material must be treated at an MPI approved 
facility in accordance Approved Biosecurity Treatments  (ABTRT) by an MPI-
Approved  Treatment Provider .  
 A copy of the chemical label must be supplied if different to the table below.  
 
One of the following two treatments is required:  
 
(1) Methyl bromide  (dormant material only): continuous fumigation at atmospheric pressure 
in accordance  with a schedule that achieves the minimum concentration -time product (CT ) 
(minimum achieved dose ( g·h/m3)) at a minimum temperature (oC) that must not be less than 
10 oC, is specified in the table below. Treatment must be achieved over the minimum 
exposur e time (minimum duration (h)) that must not be less than 2 hours and not fall below a 
minimum concentration (final residual concentration (g/m3)) during that treatment, as per  the 
schedule s in Table 1 . Alternative options for longer exposure times with wea ker 
concentrations or at higher temperature (oC) are also specified in the table below.  
 
Table 1: Methyl bromide fumigation schedules (dormant plant material only): For mites 
(non -diapausing), fumigation  for a minimum of (i) 2, (ii) 2.5 or (iii) 3 hours at  
atmospheric pressure.  
Minimum initial 
concentration 
(g/m3)* 
 Minimum 
concentration -time 
product (CT)/ 
achieved dose 
(g·h/m3) Minimum 
temperature 
over duration of 
treatment (°C)  Minimum 
concentration 
during fumigation 
(g/m3)** 
2 hi 2.5 hii 3 hiii   2 hi  2.5 hii 3 hiii 
68 56 48 120 10 51 41 34 
57 48 40 100 16 43 35 28 
48 40 34 85 21 36 29 24 
40 32 28 70 28 30 23 20  
Risk management proposal for Tetranychus kanzawai    Page 29 of 53 *The shaded area of the table is guidance only.  It is guidance on the minimum initial methyl bromide 
concentration that can achieve the r equired CT values at the optional temperature and treatment -duration 
combinations.    
**Minimum concentration during fumigation (g/m3) must be achieved throughout the treatment and  depends on 
the temperature and duration of the treatment , but must not be l ess than 2 hours  
i Treatment duration is over a minimum of 2 continuous hours  
ii Treatment duration is over a minimum of 2.5 continuous hours  
iii Treatment duration is over a minimum of 3 continuous hours  
 
 
Guidance   
 While a number of combinations of ti me and initial concentration may be used to achieve the 
minimum requirements (CT and minimum final concentration (g/m3)) of the treatment, care must be 
taken to avoid phytotoxicity. Phytotoxic effects of the treatment may increase when a higher initial 
concentration at lower temperature and reduced duration is used.  
 It is the importers responsibility to choose which ‘d uration of treatment (time (h)) ’ option will be 
undertaken .  
 The i mporter undertak es treatments at their own risk (see legal disclaimer in Ap proved Biosecurity 
Treatments (ABTRT))  
 
The concentration -time product (CT) utilized for methyl bromide treatment in this standard is the sum of the 
products of the concentration (g/m3) and time (h) over the duration of the treatment. This is in accordance  
with ISPM 43 : Requirements for the use of fumigation as a phytosanitary measure .  
 
 
OR 
(2) Chemical treatment : spray to the point of runoff (with a suitable surfactant), or preferably 
immerse in a dip(s) with agitation, according to the following conditi ons. The plants must be 
sprayed/dipped using either OPTION 1 (one -acaricide treatment option) or OPTION 2 (two -
acaricides combined treatment option) as indicated below. For dipping, the treatment time is 
normally 2 minutes but must be increased to 5 minute s if bubbles remain present on the plant 
surface. Dip solutions must be used no more than twice or as per manufacturer's 
recommendations. All treatments must be carried out in accordance with manufacturer's 
recommendations at the maximum label rate as show n in the table below;  
 
OPTION 1: One acaricide treatment  
Select any single acaricide from the list below for dormant or non dormant plant material.  
Active 
ingredient  Chemical group  Rate (g/L 
water)**  Formulation 
type*  Re-
treatment  
period *** 
Spiromesifen  Tetronic and Tetramic acid derivatives; 
group 23  0.152  SC 7 -10 days  
Milbemectin  Avermectins, Milbemycins; group 6  0.012  SC  
Fenpyroximate  METI acaricides and insecticides; 
group 21A  0.025  SC  
Bifenazate+  
Abamectin  Bifenazate; group 20D  
Avermectins,  Milbemycins; group 6  0.135  
0.007  SC 7 -10 days  
*SC-Suspension concentrate  
**concentration of active ingredient (not amount of concentrate solution )  
***Retreatment must apply according to the NOVACHEM agrichemical manual or label   
Risk management proposal for Tetranychus kanzawai    Page 30 of 53  
OPTION 2: Two acaricide s combined treatment  
OPTION 2A: Etoxazole + one of the chemicals selected from Group a   
OPTION 2B : Fenazaquin + one of the chemicals selected from Group b   
 
Active 
ingredient  Chemical group  Rate 
(g/L 
water)  Formulation 
type*  
OPTION 2A (Non -dormant materia l only)  
Etoxazole  Etoxazole; group 10B  0.038  SC 
Group ‘a’  
Abamectin  Avermectins, Milbemycins; group 6  0.012  EC 
Chlorfenapyr  Pyrroles; group 13  0.087  SC 
OPTION 2B  
Fenazaquin  METI acaricides and insecticides; group 
21A 0.352  SC 
Group ‘b’  
Aceqinocyl  Acequinocyl; group 20B  0.150  SC 
Dicofol  Dicofol; group UN  0.694  EC 
*SC-Suspension concentrate; EC -Emulsifiable concentrate  
 
If satisfied that the pre -shipment activities have been undertaken, the exporting country NPPO must 
confirm this by recording the  treatments applied in the “Disinfestation and/or Disinfection Treatment” 
section of the phytosanitary certificate.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
Risk management proposal for Tetranychus kanzawai    Page 31 of 53  B) Proposed changes for the six schedules for removal of quarantine pest listing and conditions for T. kanza wai 
as follows;   
 
Calanthe  
Approved Countries: All  
Quarantine Pests: Phytophthora capsici, Phytophthora palmivora, Uredinales , Tetranychus 
kanzawai   
Entry Conditions: Basic; with variations and additional conditions as specified below:  
A. For Whole Plan ts  
PEQ: Level 2  
Minimum Period: 1 year  
a. Additional declarations  
"The plants have been dipped in propiconazole at the rate of 0.5g a.i. per litre of water, prior to 
export".  
AND  
"The plants have been dipped prior to export in dicofol at the rate of 0.7g a.i. per litre of water".  
 
Dahlia  
Approved Countries : All  
Quarantine Pests : Phymatotrichopsis omnivore , Phytophthora capsici, Potato spindle tuber 
viroid , Tetranychus kanzawai , Uredinales  
Entry Conditions: Basic; with variations and additional cond itions as specified below:  
A. For Whole Plants  
PEQ : Level 2  
Minimum Period : 3 months  
a. Additional Declarations  
"The nursery stock in this consignment has been sourced from a “Pest free area” or “Pest free 
place of production” [choose one], free from Potato spindle tuber viroid”.  
AND  
"Rust diseases are not known to occur on Dahlia in _ (the country in which the plants were grown) _".  
AND  
"The plants have been dipped prior to export in dicofol at the rate of 0.7g a.i. per litre of water".  
 
Tricyrtis   
Approved Countries : All  
Quarantine Pests : Tetranychus kanzawai  
Entry Conditions: Basic; with variations and additional conditions as specified below:  
A. For Whole Plants:  
PEQ : Level 2  
Minimum Period : 3 months  
Additional Declaration:  
"The plants ha ve been dipped prior to export in dicofol at the rate of 0.7g a.i. per litre of water".  
 
Verbena  
Approved Countries : All  
Quarantine Pests : Phytophthora tentaculata, Tetranychus kanzawai,  Uredinales, Xylella 
fastidiosa  
Entry Conditions: Basic; with vari ations and additional conditions as specified below:  
A. For Whole Plants  
PEQ : Level 2  
Minimum Period : 3 months   
Risk management proposal for Tetranychus kanzawai    Page 32 of 53 a. Conditions for Phytophthora tentaculata 1  
 
One of the following Additional Declarations must be endorsed on the phytosanitary certificate:   
“The [insert species name] plants in this consignment have been sourced from [insert country 
name], which is free from Phytophthora tentaculata ”.  
OR  
“The [insert species name] plants in this consignment were produced in a “pest free area” for 
Phytophth ora tentaculata ”.  
OR  
“The [insert species name] plants in this consignment were produced in a “pest free place of 
production” for Phytophthora tentaculata ”.  
 
b. Conditions for Tetranychus kanzawai  
Additional declaration: "The plants have been dipped pr ior to export in dicofol at the rate of 0.7g a.i. per litre 
of water".  
 
Gentiana  
Approved Countries : Japan  
Quarantine Pests : Cronartium flaccidum ; Tetranychus kanzawai  
Entry Conditions : Basic; with variations and additional conditions as specified below :  
A. For Whole Plants  
PEQ : Level 2  
Minimum Period : 3 months  
Additional Declarations:  
1. "The plants have been dipped in oxycarboxin at 1.5g a.i. per litre of water, prior to export".  
2. “The plants have been dipped prior to export in dicofol at the r ate of 0.7g a.i. per litre.  
 
Hydrangea  
Approved Countries : All  
Quarantine Pests : Tetranychus kanzawai ; Phellinus noxius; Xylella fastidiosa  
Entry Conditions:  
Basic; with variations and additional conditions as specified below:  
A. For Whole Plants  
PEQ : Level 2  
Minimum Period : 3 months  
a. Conditions for Xylella fastidiosa (section 2.2.1.12)  
 
Guidance for importers: The minimum quarantine period will be 6 months for nursery stock sourced from 
countries not recognised by MPI as free from Xylella fastid iosa  
b. Conditions for Phellinus noxius (section 2.2.1.13)  
Note : Only applies to the following species : Hydrangea chinensis and Morus alba  
 
c. Additional declaration: "The plants have been dipped prior to export in dicofol at the rate of 
0.7g a.i. per l itre of water".  
 
B. For Cuttings  
PEQ : Level 2  
Minimum Period : 3 months  
a. Conditions for Xylella fastidiosa (section 2.2.1.12)  
Guidance for importers: The minimum quarantine period will be 6 months for nursery stock sourced from 
countries not recognis ed by MPI as free from Xylella fastidiosa  
 
b. Additional declaration: "The plants have been dipped prior to export in dicofol at the rate of 
0.7g a.i. per litre of water".    
Risk management proposal for Tetranychus kanzawai    Page 33 of 53  
Appendix 5: Four mite families and why acaricides are justified on 
imported nursery stock (Biosecu rity Science and Risk assessment MPI)  
 
 
Risk management proposal for Tetranychus kanzawai    Page 34 of 53 
  
Risk management proposal for Tetranychus kanzawai    Page 35 of 53 
  
Risk management proposal for Tetranychus kanzawai    Page 36 of 53 
  
Risk management proposal for Tetranychus kanzawai    Page 37 of 53 
  
Risk management proposal for Tetranychus kanzawai    Page 38 of 53 
  
Risk management proposal for Tetranychus kanzawai    Page 39 of 53 
  
Risk management proposal for Tetranychus kanzawai    Page 40 of 53 
  
Risk management proposal for Tetranychus kanzawai    Page 41 of 53 
  
Risk management proposal for Tetranychus kanzawai    Page 42 of 53 
  
Risk management proposal for Tetranychus kanzawai    Page 43 of 53 Appendix 6: Methyl bromide schedules for Mites on Nursery Stock 
(Biosecurity Science and Risk assessment MPI)  
 
 
  
Risk management proposal for Tetranychus kanzawai    Page 44 of 53  
 
 
  
Risk management proposal for Tetranychus kanzawai    Page 45 of 53 
 
 
 
 
  
Risk management proposal for Tetranychus kanzawai    Page 46 of 53 
 
 
 
 
  
Risk management proposal for Tetranychus kanzawai    Page 47 of 53 
 
 
 
 
  
Risk management proposal for Tetranychus kanzawai    Page 48 of 53 
 
 
 
 
  
Risk management proposal for Tetranychus kanzawai    Page 49 of 53  
 
 
 
  
Risk management proposal for Tetranychus kanzawai    Page 50 of 53 
 
 
 
 
  
Risk management proposal for Tetranychus kanzawai    Page 51 of 53 
 