Crop Protection Compendium

Selected sections for: zonata (guava fruit ) Biology and Ecology Detection and Inspection Impact Notes on Natural Enemies Similarities to Other Species/Conditions Symptoms Habitat Summary of Invasiveness History of Introduction and Spread Means of Movement and Dispersal References Impact: Environmental Impact: Social Impact: Description Identity Prevention and Control Notes on and Nomenclature Distribution Table Hosts/Species Affected Distribution List of Symptoms/Signs Taxonomic Tree Images Organizations Impact: Economic Impact Summary Air Temperature Habitat List Growth Stages Pathway Vectors Plant Trade Risk of Introduction Rainfall Risk and Impact Factors Host Plants and Other Plants Affected

Datasheet Type(s): Pest

Identity

Preferred Scientific Name Bactrocera zonata (Saunders, 1841)

Preferred Common Name guava fruit fly

Other Scientific Names Bactrocera maculigera Doleshall (misidentification) Chaetodacus zonatus (Saunders) Dacus (Strumeta) zonatus Dacus mangiferae Cotes, 1893 Dacus persicae Dacus persicus (Biggott) Dacus zonatus (Saunders) Dasyneura zonata Saunders Dasyneura zonatus Saunders, 1942 Rivellia persicae Bigot, 1889 Strumeta zonata (Saunders) Strumeta zonatus Saunders

International Common Names English fruit fly, peach, peach fruit fly, peach fruitfly

EPPO code DACUZO (Bactrocera zonata)

Taxonomic Tree

Domain: Eukaryota Kingdom: Metazoa Phylum: Arthropoda Subphylum: Uniramia Class: Insecta Order: Diptera Family: Genus: Bactrocera Species: Bactrocera zonata

Summary of Invasiveness Native to South and South-East Asia, B. zonata is now found in more than 20 countries. The potential risk of its introduction to a new area is facilitated by increasing international tourism and trade, and is influenced by changes in climate and land use. After introduction, it can easily adapt and spread as it is a polyphagous species and has a high reproductive potential (as many as 564 eggs in a lifetime), high biotic potential (several generations of progeny in a year), and a rapid dispersal ability. B. zonata is a strong flier and can be active throughout the year.

Economic impacts may result primarily from the loss of export markets and the costly requirement of quarantine restrictions and eradication measures. Furthermore, its establishment may have a serious impact on the environment following the initiation of chemical and/or biological control programmes. B. zonata is of quarantine significance to EPPO (the European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization) countries. The pest is classified on the A1 List of Pests recommended for regulation as quarantine pests.

Notes on Taxonomy and Nomenclature This species was originally described in the genus Dasyneura; a genus now exclusively used in the Cecidomyiidae. The synonyms Rivellia persicae and Dacus mangiferae have been little used and are unlikely to be encountered outside of taxonomic catalogues. The name Bactrocera maculigera has for many years been erroneously listed as a synonym of B. zonata in catalogues, including the recent work by Norrbom et al. (1999). However, a recent study of the type specimen of B. maculigera, from Indonesia, has shown that it is a totally unrelated species (White and Evenhuis, 1999). This is of significance as the only record of B. zonata from Indonesia was based on that misidentified specimen. B. zonata belongs to the subgenus Bactrocera within the genus Bactrocera and it may therefore be cited as Bactrocera (Bactrocera) zonata.

Description Eggs

Elongated, elliptical, whitish, 1.0-1.2 mm long, somewhat rounded at posterior end, slightly pointed anteriorly.

Larvae

Some details were given by White and Elson-Harris (1994), but they were insufficient as to permit separation from other pest species.

Pupae

Barrel-shaped, 11 segmented, yellowish or yellowish-brown, 4.2-5.8 mm long, 2.3-2.5 mm wide; anterior end with two anterior spiracles, posterior end rounded; posterior spiracles occupy the same position as in larva.

Adults

The genus Bactrocera belongs to the family Tephritidae, which is part of the superfamily . In common with most species of Tephritoidea it has patterned wings, and the female has a long telescopic and pointed ovipositor; these features are hardly known outside the Tephritoidea. The family Tephritidae may also be separated from all other Diptera by the shape of the sub-costal vein, which bends abruptly through a right-angle and fades to a fold before reaching the wing edge, combined with the presence of setulae along the dorsal side of vein R1. At the wing base, Bactrocera and Dacus species have a very deep cell bm and a very long pointed extension of cell bcu (=cup). The genus Bactrocera is separated from Dacus by the terga (dorsal sclerites of the abdomen) not being fused into a single sclerotized plate.

In common with most species in or close to subgenus Bactrocera, the scutum has two pale lateral vittae (lateral stripes). The scutum has both anterior supra-alar setae and prescutellar acrostichal setae; there are two setae (apical pair) on the margin of the scutellum. The males have a deep V-shaped notch on the fifth sternite and a pecten (comb of setae) on each side of the third abdominal tergite.

This species is unusual in its wing pattern and structure. In common with Bactrocera correcta, it lacks a complete costal band (that is reduced to an apical wing spot), and it lacks microtrichiae in the narrow raised area near the base of cell br. It differs from B. correcta in having round or oval facila spots (a dark spot in each antennal groove rather than a broken transverse line), and by having a red brown scutum (rather than almost black).

Distribution B. zonata has been recorded from most states of India. It is expected that this fly is widely distributed throughout India and Pakistan. In Africa (Mauritius), adventive populations have been recorded. From North America (California), three individuals were trapped (Carey and Dowell, 1989), but eradicated (Spaugy, l988). The record from Moluccas (Amboina) is a misidentification (White and Elson-Harris, 1994) and the record for Sumatra in this same publication cannot now be traced and is presumed to be a misidentification (CABI/EPPO, 2001). There is a specimen from the United Arab Emirates in Geneva, Switzerland (IM White, UK [address available from CABI], personal communication, 2001).

Distribution Table

Last First Distributi Invasiv Referenc Country Reporte Origin Reporte Notes on e es d d ASIA Banglades Present, Native Kapoor, h few 1993; occurrence CABI/EPP s O, 2001; EPPO, 2009 Bhutan Present, no EPPO, further 2009 details India Widesprea Native CABI/EPP d O, 2001; EPPO, 2009 -Andhra Present, no EPPO, Pradesh further 2009; details CABI/EPP O, 2001 -Assam Present, no EPPO, further 2009; details Hardy, 1977; CABI/EPP O, 2001 -Bihar Present, no EPPO, further 2009; details Agarwal et al., 1995; CABI/EPP O, 2001 -Delhi Present, no EPPO, further 2009; details Batra, 1964; CABI/EPP O, 2001 -Gujarat Present, no EPPO, further 2009; details Patel & Patel, 1998; CABI/EPP O, 2001 -Haryana Present, no EPPO, further 2009; details Rana et al., 1990; CABI/EPP O, 2001 -Himachal Present, no EPPO, Pradesh further 2009; details Gupta et al., 1990; CABI/EPP O, 2001 -Indian Present, no EPPO, Punjab further 2009; details Grewal & Kapoor, 1986; CABI/EPP O, 2001 -Karnataka Present, no EPPO, further 2009; details Narayanan & Batra, 1960; CABI/EPP O, 2001 -Kerala Present, no EPPO, further 2009; details CABI/EPP O, 2001 -Madhya Present, no EPPO, Pradesh further 2009; details Narayanan & Batra, 1960; CABI/EPP O, 2001 - Present, no EPPO, Maharasht further 2009; ra details Narayanan & Batra, 1960; CABI/EPP O, 2001 -Tamil Present, no EPPO, Nadu further 2009; details Jalaluddin et al., 1999; CABI/EPP O, 2001 -Uttar Present, no EPPO, Pradesh further 2009; details Narayanan & Batra, 1960; CABI/EPP O, 2001 -West Present, no EPPO, Bengal further 2009; details Hardy, 1977; CABI/EPP O, 2001 Indonesia Absent, EPPO, unreliable 2009 record -Sumatra Absent, EPPO, unreliable 2009 record Iran Restricted Introduc 2002 EPPO, distribution ed 2009 Israel Eradicated Introduc 2000 CABI/EPP ed O, 2001; EPPO, 2009 Laos Present, no Native Hardy, further 1973; details CABI/EPP O, 2001; EPPO, 2009 Myanmar Present, no Native Hardy, further 1977; details CABI/EPP O, 2001; EPPO, 2009 Nepal Present, no Kapoor, further 1993; details Kapoor & Malla, 1979 Oman Present, no Introduc CABI/EPP further ed O, 2001; details White & Elson- Harris, 1994; EPPO, 2009 Pakistan Present, no Native Qureshi et further al., 1991; details CABI/EPP O, 2001; EPPO, 2009 Saudi Restricted Introduc 1982 Invasive CABI/EPP Jazane, Arabia distribution ed O, 2001; Najrane White & (south- Elson- west) Harris, 1994; EPPO, 2009 Sri Lanka Present, no Native Not Tsuruta et further invasive al., 1997; details Narayanan & Batra, 1960; Hardy, 1977; CABI/EPP O, 2001; EPPO, 2009 Thailand Present, no Native Hardy, further 1973; details CABI/EPP O, 2001; EPPO, 2009 United Present, no Introduc EPPO, Arab further ed 2009 Emirates details Vietnam Present, no Native Hardy, further 1973; details CABI/EPP O, 2001; EPPO, 2009 Yemen Present, no Introduc White, further ed 2006; details Meyer et al., 2007 AFRICA Egypt Widesprea Introduc 1993 Invasive Hendel, d ed 1927; El- Samea & Fetoh, 2006; CABI/EPP O, 2001; EPPO, 2009 Libya Localised Introduc 2007 Meyer et East of ed al., 2007; the Kafu, 2007 country Mauritius Present, no Introduc 1942 CABI/EPP Two further ed O, 2001; records details White & Elson- Harris, 1994; EPPO, 2009; White et al., 2001 Réunion Restricted Introduc 1991 Invasive CABI/EPP distribution ed O, 2001; EPPO, 2009; White et al., 2001 NORTH AMERIC A USA Present, CABI/EPP few O, 2001; occurrence EPPO, s 2009 -California Eradicated 2006 Introduc 1988 Spaugy, Santa ed 1988; Clara Carey & county Dowell, 2001, 1989; Fresno CABI/EPP county O, 2001; 2006. NAPPO, Eradicat 2006; ed in EPPO, 2006 2010 -Florida Present, FDACS, Detected few 2010 in a trap occurrence in a s guava tree in Miami- Dade County OCEANI A New Absent, EPPO, Zealand confirmed 2009 by survey

History of Introduction and Spread B. zonata was detected in Egypt in 1914 (Efflatoun, 1924) in Port Said on the Red Sea coast, but there were no further records to suggest that quarantine interception was the start of establishment (label information for the two specimens, in the collection of the Ministry of Agriculture: “Port-said customs from India, Sample No. 1036.14 V 1914”).

According to De Meyer et al. (2007), the first record of B. zonata being established in Egypt was in Kalubia governorate (East Cairo) in 1993 from guava [Psidium guajava] samples, and later the same year in Faiuom governorate (west Cairo). Both governorates are fruit-producing areas and there is a continuous presence of plant hosts during the year. The following year, the pest was found in Alexandria governorate (Agami), where the fig [Ficus carica] is widely distributed, and in Giza governorate (West Cairo) where various horticultural trees are cultivated in home gardens. By 1995, the was found in further fruit-producing governorates. By 1997, it was distributed throughout Egypt, including the Dakhla and Kharga oases (west Egypt) and in Sinai (north-east Egypt), both of which are desert areas. In Egypt, due to the spread of B. zonata, the Mediterranean fruit fly, Ceratitis capitata has become more restricted in the horticulture areas (Hashem et al., 2001), and mixed infestation by both fruit produced flies mostly of B. zonata irrespective of which insect infested the fruit first (Mohamed, 2004).

Risk of Introduction For export of fruits and vegetables from countries where B. zonata is prevalent, the exporting country/agency should develop and implement a preharvest quarantine system that enables production of fruit totally free from live stages of fruit flies. They should also develop postharvest disinfestation treatments. B. zonata is mainly a tropical species and has the potential to establish itself in similar areas. The way it has shown its dominance over B. dorsalis in some parts of India is alarming. Careful attempts must be taken by the countries in which it is not found, where it is of quarantine significance. Phytosanitary measures should also be enforced to limit further spread.

Habitat Adults of B. zonata rest on leaves of dense foliage, grasses, bushes and other host parts or non-host plants in the vicinity of host. During the warmer hours of the day they disperse and fly actively. Their eggs and larvae are well protected and found inside the host. and the soil provides a good shelter for the pupae.

Habitat List

Category Habitat Presence Status Terrestrial-managed Cultivated Principal habitat Harmful (pest / or invasive) agricultura l land Managed Principal habitat Harmful (pest forests, or invasive) plantation

s and orchards Terrestrial-natural/semi- Arid Secondary/tolerate Productive/non natural regions d habitat -natural Deserts Secondary/tolerate Productive/non d habitat -natural

Hosts/Species Affected White and Elson-Harris (1994) and Allwood et al. (1999) reviewed available host data and only records accepted by these publications are listed in the table. In a recent survey in Sri Lanka (Tsuruta et al., 1997), Careya arborea was the major host and it was not found attacking any commercial fruit crops.

Host Plants and Other Plants Affected

Plant name Context Aegle marmelos (golden apple) Other Annona squamosa (sugar apple) Other Careya arborea (tummy wood) Wild host Carica papaya (papaw) Other Citrus Other Cydonia oblonga (quince) Other Ficus carica (fig) Other Grewia asiatica (phalsa) Other Luffa Other Malus domestica (apple) Other Mangifera indica (mango) Main Momordica charantia (bitter gourd) Other Phoenix dactylifera (date-palm) Other Prunus persica (peach) Main Psidium guajava (guava) Main Punica granatum (pomegranate) Other Terminalia catappa (Singapore almond) Other

Growth Stages

Fruiting stage

Symptoms In juicy fruits, fluid exudes from the oviposition puncture in the form of a droplet that later dries up and appears as a brown, resinous deposit. On hatching, maggots bore their way into the interior of the host. The activity of first instar larvae is restricted in the area below the oviposition puncture. Second- and third-instar larvae are voracious feeders, go deeper in the host and are mainly responsible for complete deterioration of the host.

List of Symptoms/Signs

Sign Fruit internal feeding

Biology and Ecology Rahman et al. (1993) described the biology of B. zonata. Winter is passed in the pupal stage and the adults emerge when the ambient temperature increases. The adults appear by the end of March and start mating. The mated female, after selecting a suitable site for oviposition, inserts her ovipositor in the host tissues and deposits three to nine eggs at one time. The hatched larvae feed and grow inside the host. The duration of various immature stages varies at different temperatures. No stages develop at 15°C or less, the optimum temperature is 25-30°C (Qureshi et al., 1993). Full-grown larvae enter the soil for pupariation. Pupal duration is quite long in the winter. The adults hatch from pupae mainly in the early hours of the morning.

B. zonata is a tropical species and unable to survive in extreme cold. Agarwal and Pramod Kumar (1999) studied the population dynamics of B. zonata in north Bihar, India. The maximum fly population was observed during the third week of June. The fly population was positively correlated with temperature and rainfall whereas negative correlation was observed between the fly population and relative humidity. Abundance of larval host is also an important factor regulating its population. More flies were available during the second to fourth weeks of June, which synchronized with the peak fruiting period of its preferred hosts.

B. zonata is an ecological homologue of B. dorsalis. Both species are polyphagous, infest common hosts and exhibit interference competition. Their larvae also compete with each other in concealed feeding niches. Narayanan and Batra (1960) considered zonata to be of less importance than dorsalis in terms of population and severity of damage. Agarwal and Kapoor (1986) reported zonata superseding dorsalis in northern India. In Bihar, the average mean population of zonata was 3.38 times greater than dorsalis (Agarwal et al., 1999). However, in southern parts of India, dorsalis is still dominating zonata.

Air Temperature

Lower Upper Parameter limit limit Absolute minimum temperature (ºC) 11 0 Mean annual temperature (ºC) 22 33 Mean maximum temperature of hottest month 31 34 (ºC) Mean minimum temperature of coldest month 21 23 (ºC)

Rainfall

Lower Upper Parameter Description limit limit Dry season 0 12 number of consecutive months with duration <40 mm rainfall; give range Mean annual 100 3200 mm; lower/upper limits rainfall

Means of Movement and Dispersal Natural Dispersal

B. zonata is a strong flier and highly mobile. Extensive dispersal movements occur during the post-teneral period. The mature adults also cover long distances in search of new hosts. Qureshi et al. (1975) recorded marked individuals moving distances of up to 40 km. The incidence of B. zonata on the Réunion Island in 1991 is indicative of the fly’s ability to spread. Initially, the infested area was limited mainly to the north of the island, with rare captures in the southern part. Two years later, there was a significant increase in the population and the pest has established near St. Denis and expanded to areas in the north-east (St. Denis, St. Marie, St. André), north-west (La Possession, Rivière des Galets, St. Paul) and in the west (Hurtrel et al., 2002).

Accidental Introduction

The transport of infested hosts, mainly fruit, from one area to another, as well as to previously uninfested areas is also an important means of movement and dispersal.

Pathway Vectors

Long Vector Comments Local References Distance Aircraft Fruits infested Yes Yes with larvae and/or eggs Bulk All life stages Yes Yes freight/cargo Consumables Fruits infested Yes Yes (food on cruise with larvae ships etc.) and/or eggs Containers and Fruits infested Yes Yes packaging (non- with larvae wood) and/or eggs Land vehicles Fruits infested Yes Yes with larvae and/or eggs Luggage (incl. Fruits infested Yes Yes sailors’ sea with larvae chests) and/or eggs Mail/post Fruits infested Yes Yes with larvae and/or eggs Plants or parts of Fruits infested Yes Yes plants with larvae and/or eggs Soil, sand, gravel Pupae Yes Yes etc. Floating Fruits infested No Yes vegetation/debris with larvae and/or eggs

Plant Trade

Plant parts liable to Pest Borne Borne Visibility of pest carry the pest in stages internally externally or symptoms trade/transport Pest or symptoms eggs; Fruits (inc. pods) Yes No usually visible to larvae the naked eye Pest or symptoms Growing medium pupae Yes No usually visible to accompanying plants the naked eye

Plant parts not known to carry the pest in trade/transport Bark Bulbs, Tubers, Corms, Rhizomes Flowers, Inflorescences, Cones, Calyx Leaves Roots Seedlings, Micropropagated plants Stems (above ground), Shoots, Trunks, Branches True seeds (inc. grain) Wood

Notes on Natural Enemies Details pertaining to natural enemies of B. zonata are not known and attempts have not been made to produce and release such natural enemies on a large scale. Syed et al. (1970) and Ahmad et al. (1975) observed Biosteres longicaudatus and Biosteres vandenvoschi as parasitoids of immature stages of B. zonata in Pakistan. Kapoor and Agarwal (1986) reported Opius sp. as a parasitoid of B. zonata pupae.

Impact Summary

Category Impact Economic/livelihood Negative Environment (generally) Negative Human health Negative

Impact B. zonata is polyphagous. In India, Pakistan and now Egypt, it is an important fruit fly pest and causes severe damage to peach [Prunus persica], guava [Psidium guajava] and mango [Mangifera indica]. Many other fruit and vegetables are also infested by this fly. In certain areas of north India and Pakistan it has been more notorious than (Qureshi et al., 1991; Kapoor, 1993). It has a great preference for fruits including peaches and guavas and sometimes the crop is severely damaged. Infestations are often mixed with B. dorsalis. The present status of this fly is quite contrary to earlier reports when dorsalis was mentioned as more aggressive and serious. However, in Sri Lanka B. zonata does not appear to be an important pest (Tsuruta et al., 1997).

Impact: Economic B. zonata is known in India and South-East Asia as a serious pest of tropical and subtropical fruits. It is one of the three most destructive flies in India, causing crop losses of 25 to 100% in peach [Prunus persica], apricot [Prunus armeniaca], guava [Psidum guajava] and figs [Ficus carica]. In Pakistan, B. zonata alone has caused 25-50% damage to guava fruit (Siddiqui et al., 2003), and the farmers have abandoned harvesting the kharif guava crop in southern Pakistan. In Egypt, the percentages of apricot and citrus infested with B. zonata were higher than those infested with Ceratitis capitata and reached 20% (Saafan et al., 2005a,b). In recent years, B. zonata has increased its host range to a number of important commercial crops such as citrus, mango [Mangifera indica], eggplant [Solanum melongena], tomato [Solanum lycopersicum], apple [Malus domestica], loquat [Eriobotrya japonica] and even potatoes [Solanum tuberosum] (El-Samea and Fetoh, 2006). Economic impacts may result from costly eradication measures and quarantine restrictions imposed by important domestic and foreign import markets, and from direct yield losses from infested fruit. After years of costly and intensive eradication and surveillance programmes following the detection of B. zonata on the Réunion Islands and in Egypt, the unsuccessful eradication campaign had to be abandoned.

Impact: Environmental Because of the competition for food, B. zonata may displace other less aggressive fruit fly species. Duyck et al. (2004) suggested that the r–K gradient could be used as a predictor of the potential invasive capacity of a species. Species with type K-demographic strategy traits, such as species of the genus Bactrocera, would be adapted for competition in saturated habitats. Duyck et al. (2004) reported that in all recorded cases, species further along the r–K gradient, such as Bactrocera dorsalis have invaded over r-selected species, such as Ceratitis capitata, but never the reverse. In Egypt, because of the spread of B. zonata, the Mediterranean fruit fly, Ceratitis capitata has become more restricted in the horticulture areas (Hashem et al., 2001), and the mixed infestation of fruits by both species produced flies mostly of the B. zonata irrespective of which insect infested the fruit first (Mohamed, 2004). Recent reports (Saafan et al., 2005a,b) indicted that even in cultivated orchards of citrus and apricot [Prunus armeniaca] in Fayoum Governorate, Egypt, the population of Ceratitis capitata was very low compared with B. zonata.

Earlier reports from India (Narayanan and Batra, 1960) considered B. zonata to be of less importance than B. dorsalis in terms of population and severity of damage. However, Agarwal and Kapoor (1986) reported that B. zonata superseded B. dorsalis in northern India. In Bihar, the average mean population of B. zonata was 3.38 times greater than B. dorsalis (Agarwal et al., 1999). Nevertheless, in southern parts of India and in Sri Lanka, B. dorsalis is still dominating B. zonata (Tsuruta et al., 1997).

Impact: Biodiversity The environmental impact is rated high because the establishment of B. zonata would be likely to trigger the initiation of chemical and/or biological control programmes. Chemical control would harm native and species of conservation significance.

Impact: Social Human health and tourism may be affected if plantations treated with insecticides are close to habitat and touristic resorts. However, the risk is very low because local protein bait spray and male annihilation techniques are the most common methods used for the management of B. zonata.

Risk and Impact Factors

Invasiveness Abundant in its native range Capable of securing and ingesting a wide range of food Fast growing Has high reproductive potential Highly adaptable to different environments Highly mobile locally Invasive in its native range Is a habitat generalist Long lived Proved invasive outside its native range Tolerates, or benefits from, cultivation, browsing pressure, mutilation, fire etc

Impact outcomes Host damage Negatively impacts agriculture Transportation disruption

Impact mechanisms Competition - monopolizing resources Interaction with other invasive species Pest and disease transmission

Likelihood of entry/control Difficult/costly to control Highly likely to be transported internationally accidentally Highly likely to be transported internationally deliberately Highly likely to be transported internationally illegally

Detection and Inspection Host fruits with oviposition punctures may contain eggs or larvae of B. zonata.

Infested host fruits should be kept in rearing jars on sand for rearing adult flies. Jars should be covered with muslin cloth. The pupae can be collected from the sand and then kept in glass vials covered with muslin cloth. Adults that subsequently hatch from the pupae may be identified.

Methyl eugenol, an extraordinary attractive and very widely used lure for males of many dacine species, has been observed to be very effective in monitoring B. zonata populations. It attracts flies at a very low concentration and is believed to attract over a range of up to 1 km (Qureshi et al., 1992). The attractant is usually placed in the trap designed by Steiner (1957). The attractant can also be mixed with malathion and then soaked in small cotton wicks. Such impregnated wicks are suspended in the middle of the trap. Traps can be suspended from trees about 1.5- 2.0 m above the ground in places with no direct sunlight. Agarwal et al. (1995) found protein hydrolysate+malathion+methyl eugenol combination to be most effective against male B. zonata.

Similarities to Other Species/Conditions A few other species of Dacus and Bactrocera have a similar wing pattern and B. zonata has sometimes been mistaken for Bactrocera correcta and perhaps for Dacus ciliatus. Particular care should be taken not to confuse it with Bactrocera affinis, a very similar species that attacks wild fruits in some areas of southern India. B. affinis only differs in its lack of prescutellar acrostichal setae and in having a trilobed (rather than pointed) aculeus (apical segment of ovipositor that usually needs dissection before it can be examined).

Prevention and Control Sanitary Measures

Infested host fruits should be plucked or those that fall on the ground should be collected and buried deep in the soil. Proper sanitation in fields and orchards is essential. After harvest no fruit should be left unpicked because they become the source of later infestation.

Physical Control

Wrapping or bagging individual fruit to prevent oviposition by females is also effective.

Chemical Control

The use of chemical control based on bait sprays and relatively less hazardous insecticide such as malathion seem to be the most convenient and efficient control methods available (Roessler, 1989). The insecticide is usually mixed with protein hydrolysate to form a bait spray. Individuals of both sexes are strongly attracted to a protein source from which ammonia emanates. Practical details have been summarized by Bateman (1982).

Male Annihilation

Methyl eugenol is an effective attractant to the males of B. zonata. It can be mixed with insecticide (preferably malathion) and protein bait and can be used in traps. Male annihilation by using attractant would be effective in reducing the population to a very low level if carried out on a large scale.

Plant Quarantine

Prevention of B. zonata from establishing in fly-free areas may be achieved by strictly enforcing quarantine regulations. Import of host fruits and vegetables from areas of infestation without postharvest disinfestation treatment should not be allowed. Travellers may also carry infested hosts in their baggage and thorough checking at entry ports is essential.

Postharvest Treatment

Many countries, such as the mainland USA, forbid the import of susceptible fruit without strict post-harvest treatment having been applied by the exporter. This may involve fumigation, heat treatment (hot vapour or hot water), cold treatments, insecticidal dipping or irradiation (Armstrong and Couey, 1989; Armstrong, 1997). Irradiation is not accepted in most countries and many have now banned methyl bromide fumigation. Heat treatment tends to reduce the shelf-life of most fruits and so the most effective method of regulatory control is preferentially to restrict imports of a given fruit to areas free from fruit fly attack.

References

Agarwal ML, Kapoor VC, 1986. New records of some hymenopterous parasites of fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) from India. Bulletin of Entomology (New Delhi), 27(2):193

Agarwal ML, Kapoor VC, l986. Indian Dacini (Diptera:Tephritidae) and their host plant relationships. In: Cavalloro R, ed. Fruit Flies of Economic Importance. CEC/IOBC adhoc meeting, Hamburg, 1984. Rotterdam:Balkema, 51-56.

Agarwal ML, Pramod Kumar, 1999. Effect of weather parameters on population dynamics of peach fruit fly, Bactrocera zonata (Saunders). Entomon, 24(1):81-84; 9 ref.

Agarwal ML, Pramod Kumar, Vinod Kumar, 1999. Population suppression of Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel) by Bactrocera zonata (Saunders) (Diptera: Tephritidae) in North Bihar. Shashpa, 6(2):189-191; 6 ref.

Agarwal ML, Rahman S, Yazdani SS, 1995. Trapping of Dacus (Bactrocera) zonatus (Saunders) (Diptera:Tephritidae) in different trap systems in north Bihar. Shashpa, 2:80-81.

Ahmad R, Murtaza M, Caleb S, Syed RA, 1975. Note on breeding parasites of fruit flies in Pakistan. Plant Protection Bulletin, FAO, 23(5):146-147

Allwood AJ, Chinajariyawong A, Kritsaneepaiboon S, Drew RAI, Hamacek EL, Hancock DL, Hengsawad C, Jipanin JC, Jirasurat M, Krong CK, Leong CTS, Vijaysegaran S, 1999. Host plant records for fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) in Southeast Asia. Raffles Bulletin of Zoology, 47(Supplement 7):1-92; 26 ref.

Armstrong JW, 1997. Quarantine treatment options for fruit fly host commodities for Pacific island countries. In: Allwood AJ, Drew RAI, eds. Management of Fruit Flies in the Pacific. A Regional Symposium, Nadi, Fiji. ACIAR Proceedings, 76: 222-224. Armstrong JW, Couey HM, 1989. Control; fruit disinfestation; fumigation, heat and cold. In: Robinson AS, Hooper G, eds. Fruit Flies; their Biology, Natural Enemies and Control. World Crop Pests. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier, 3(B):411-424.

Bateman MA, 1982. III. Chemical methods for suppression or eradication of fruit fly populations, In: Drew RAI, Hooper GHS, Bateman MA eds. Economic Fruit Flies of the South Pacific Region. 2nd edn. Brisbane, Australia: Queensland Department of Primary Industries, 115-128.

Batra HN, 1964. Value of clensel as a chemical attractant and preliminary studies on population fluctuations and movement of fruit flies in the orchards. Indian Journal Agricultural Sciences, 34:28-37.

Bezzi M, 1916. On the fruit-flies of the genus Dacus (s.l.) occurring in India, Burma and Ceylon. Bulletin Entomological Research, 7:99-121.

CABI/EPPO, 2001. Bactrocera zonata. Distribution Maps of Plant Pests, Map No. 125. Wallingford, UK: CAB International.

Carey JR, Dowell RV, 1989. Exotic fruit pests and California agriculture. California Agriculture, 43(3):38-40

Drew RAI, 1989. The tropical fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae: Dacinp) of the Australasian and Oceanian regions. Memoirs of the Queensland Museum, 26:521 pp.

Duyck PF, David P, Quilici S, 2004. A review of relationships between interspecific competition and invasions in fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae). Ecological Entomology, 29(5):511-520.

Efflatoun HC, 1924. A Monograph of Egyptian Diptera. (Part II. Fam. Trypaneidae.). Mem. Soc. R. ent. Egypte, 2(pt. 2):132 pp.

El-Samea SAA, Fetoh BEA, 2006. New record of Bactrocera zonata (Saundera) (Diptera: Tephritidae) on potatoes in Egypt. Egyptian Journal of Agricultural Research, 84(1):61-63.

EPPO, 2009. PQR database. Paris, France: European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization. www.eppo.org. EPPO, 2010. PQR database. Paris, France: European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization. www.eppo.org

FDACS, 2010. Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. Exotic fruit fly found in Miami-Dade County. Florida, USA: FDACS. http://www.doacs.state.fl.us/press/2010/11152010_2.html

Grewal JS, Kapoor VC, 1986. Bird damage and its effect on infestation by fruit-flies in various orchards in Ludhiana. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 56(5):370-373

Gupta D, Verma AK, Bhalla OP, 1990. Population of fruit-flies (Dacus zonatus and D. dorsalis) infesting fruit crops in north-western Himalayan region. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 60(7):471-474

Gupta SK, 1998. Competitive displacement in fruit fly species (Diptera:Tephritidae). Zoos' Print, 13:33-34.

Hardy DE, 1973. The fruit flies (Tephritidae-Diptera) of Thailand and bordering countries. Pacific Insects Monograph, No. 31:353pp.

Hardy DE, 1974. Resurrection of Bactrocera Macquart and clarification of the type-species, longicornis Macquart (Diptera: Tephritidae). Proceedings of the Hawaiian Entomological Society, 22(2):245-249

Hardy DE, 1977. Tephritidae (Trypetidae, Trupaneidae), In: Delfinado MD, Hardy DE, eds. A Catalog of the Diptera of the Oriental Region, Vol. III. Honolulu, USA: University Press of Hawaii, 44-134.

Hashem AG, Mohamed SMA, El-Wakkad MF, 2001. Diversity and abundance of Mediterranean and Peach fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) in different horticultural orchards. Egyptian Journal of Applied Sciences, 16:303-314.

Hendel F, 1927. Part 49. Trypetidae. In: Lindner E , ed. Die Fliegen der Palaearktischen Region, 5(1):1-221. Stuttgart, Germany.

Hurtrel B, Quilici S, Jeuffrault É, Manikom R, Georger S, Gourdon F, 2002. Siege control of Bactrocera zonata peach fly: a report on a two-year control operation on Reunion Island. Phytoma, No.551:18-21.

Jalaluddin SM, Natarajan K, Sadakathulla S, Balasubramaniyan S, 1999. Discovery of the guava fruit fly Bactrocera correcta (Bezzi). Entomon, 24(2):195-196; 3 ref.

Kafu A, 2007. Erratum: B. cucurbitae is NOT in Libya. Tephritid Workers Database News, 16 November 2007. http://www.tephritid.org

Kandybina MN, 1977. The larvae of fruit-flies (Diptera, Tephritidae). Keys to the fauna of the USSR No.114. Lichinki plodovykh mykh-pestrokrylok (Diptera, Tephritidae). Opredeliteli po faune SSSR 114. Leningrad, USSR: Nauka, 212 pp.

Kapoor VC, 1970. Indian Tephritidae with their recorded hosts. Oriental insects, 4:207-251.

Kapoor VC, 1993. Indian Fruit Flies (Insecta:Diptera:Tephritidae). New Delhi, India; Oxford, UK: IBH Publishing Company.

Kapoor VC, Agarwal ML, 1983. Fruit flies and their increasing host plants in India. In: Cavalloro R, ed. Fruit flies of economic importance. Proceedings of the CEC/IOBC International Symposium, Athens, Greece, 16-19 November 1982 A.A. Balkema Rotterdam Netherlands, 252-257

Kapoor VC, Malla YK, 1979. Tephritids (Diptera:Tephritidae) of Nepal and India (A taxonomic review). Journal Institute Science, 2:223-250.

Khan RJ, Khan MAJ, 1987. A comparative morphological study on third instar larvae of some Dacus species (Tephritidae: Diptera) in Pakistan. Pakistan Journal of Scientific and Industrial Research, 30(7):534-538

Meyer M De , Mohamed S, White IM, 2007. Invasive fruit fly pests in Africa. Tervuren, Belgium: Royal Museum for Central Africa. http://www.africamuseum.be/fruitfly/AfroAsia.htm

Mohamed SMA, 2004. Competition between Mediterranean fruit fly and Peach fruit fly in fruit infestation. Journal of the Egyptian German Society of Zoology (Entomology), 43:17-23.

NAPPO, 2006. Phytosanitary Alert System: Bactrocera zonata (peach fruit fly), Removal of quarantine area in Fresno and Madera Counties, California. Phytosanitary Alert System: Bactrocera zonata (peach fruit fly), Removal of quarantine area in Fresno and Madera Counties, California., USA: NAPPO. http://www.pestalert.org/oprDetail.cfm?oprID=212&keyword=bactrocera%2 0zonata

NAPPO, 2008. North American Plant Protection Organization's Phytosanitary Alert System. http://www.pestalert.org

Narayanan ES, Batra HN, 1960. Fruit Flies and their Control. New Delhi, India: ICAR Pub.

Norrbom AL, Carroll LE, Thompson FC, White IM, Freidberg A, 1999. Systematic Database of Names. Fruit Fly Expert Identification System and Systematic Information Database, Myia [ed. by Thompson FC]., 65-252.

Patel RK, Patel CB, 1998. Combating male fruit flies using Patel fruit fly trap. Insect Environment, 4(2):52.

Perkins FA, 1938. Studies in Oriental and Australian Trypaneidae. Part 2. Proceedings Royal Society Queensland, 49:120-144.

Qureshi Z, Hussain T, Carey JR, Dowell RV, 1993. Effects of temperature on development of Bactrocera zonata (Saunders) (Diptera: Tephritidae). Pan- Pacific Entomologist, 69(1):71-76

Qureshi ZA, Ashraf M, Bughio AR, Siddiqui QH, 1975. Population fluctuation and dispersal studies of the fruit fly, Dacus zonatus Saunders. International Atomic Energy Agency; Food and Agriculture Organization: Sterility principle for insect control 1974. Proceedings of the symposium on the sterility principle for insect control jointly organized by the IAEA and the FAO of the United Nations and held in Innsbruck, 22-26 July 1974. International Atomic Energy Agency. Vienna Austria, 201-206

Qureshi ZA, Hussain T, Siddiqui QH, 1991. Relative preference of mango varieties by Dacus zonatus (Saunders) and D. dorsalis Hendel. Pakistan Journal of Zoology, 23(1):85-87

Qureshi ZA, Siddiqui QH, Hussain T, 1992. Field evaluation of various dispensers for methyl eugenol, an attractant of Dacus zonatus (Saund.) (Dipt., Tephritidae). Journal of Applied Entomology, 113(4):365-367

Rahman O, Rahman S, Agarwal ML, 1993. Biology and immature stages of Dacus (Bactrocera) zonatus (Saunders) (Diptera:Tephritidae). Journal Morphology Physiology, 40:45-52.

Rana JS, Parkash OM, Verma SK, 1990. A note on relative susceptibility of some guava cultivars to fruit fly, Dacus zonatus (Saunders). Haryana Journal of Horticultural Sciences, 19(1-2):131-133

Roessler Y, 1989. Control; insecticides; insecticidal bait and cover sprays. In: Robinson AS, Hooper G, eds. Fruit Flies. Their Biology, Natural Enemies and Control. World Crop Pests 3(B). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier, 329- 336.

Rousse P, Chiroleu F, Veslot J, Quilici S, 2007. The host- and microhabitat olfactory location by Fopius arisanus suggests a broad potential host range. Physiological Entomology, 32(4):313-321. http://www.blackwell- synergy.com/loi/pen

Saafan MH, Foda SM, Abdel-Hafez TA, 2005. Ecological studies of flies on different hosts at Fayoum Governorate. 3 - Ecological studies of Mediterranean fruit fly, Ceratitis capitata (Wied.) and Peach fruit fly, Bectrocera zonata (Saund.) in apricot orchards. Egyptian Journal of Agricultural Research, 83(4):1635-1648.

Saafan MH, Foda SM, Abdel-Hafez TA, 2005. Ecological studies of flies on different hosts at Fayoum Governorate. 3 - Ecological studies of Mediterranean fruit fly, Ceratitis capitata (Wied.) and Peach fruit fly, Bactrocera zonata (Saund.) in citrus orchards. Egyptian Journal of Agricultural Research, 83(3):1157-1170.

Saunders WW, 1841. Description of four new dipterous insects from Central and Northern India. Transactions Royal Entomological Society London, 3:60- 61.

Schotman CYL, 1989. Plant pests of quarantine importance to the Caribbean. RLAC-PROVEG, No. 21:80 pp.

Siddiqui QH, Ahmad N, Shah Rashdi SMM, Niazi S, 2003. Effect of Time of the Day and Trap Height on the Catches of Peach/guava Fruit Flies, Bactrocera zonata (Saunders) Through Male Annihilation Technique. Asian Journal of Plant Sciences, 2((2)):228-232.

Spaugy L, 1988. Fruit flies. Two more eradication projects over. Citrograph, 73(8):168

Steiner LF, 1957. Low-cost fruit fly trap. Journal Economic Entomology, 50:508-509.

Syed RA, Ghani MA, Murtaza M, 1970. Studies on the Trypetids and their natural enemies in West Pakistan. III. Dacus (Strumeta) zonatus (Saunders). Technical Bulletin, Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control, No. 13:1-16

Tsuruta K, White IM, Bandara HMJ, Rajapakse H, Sundaraperuma SAH, Kahawatta SBMUC, Rajapakse GBJP, 1997. A preliminary note on the host- plants of fruit flies of the tribe Dacini (Diptera, Tephritidae) in Sri Lanka. Esakia, No. 37:149-160; 7 ref.

White IM, 2006. Taxonomy of the Dacina (Diptera: Tephritidae) of Africa and the Middle East. African Entomology Memoir, No. 2:1-156. http://journals.sabinet.co.za/essa

White IM, Elson-Harris MM, 1994. Fruit flies of economic significance: their identification and bionomics. Wallingford, UK: CAB International.

White IM, Evenhuis NL, 1999. New species and records of Indo-Australasian Dacini (Diptera: Tephritidae). Raffles Bulletin of Zoology, 47(2):487-540; 31 ref.

White IM, Meyer MDe , Stonehouse J, 2001. A review of the native and introduced fruit flies (Diptera, Tephritidae) in the Indian Ocean Islands of Mauritius, Réunion, Rodrigues and Seychelles. In: Proceedings of the Indian Ocean Commission Regional Fruit Fly Symposium, Mauritius, 5-9 th June 2000 [ed. by Price NS, Seewooruthun I] Mauritius: Indian Ocean Commission, 15-21.

Organizations

France: CIRAD (Centre de Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Développment), Head Office, 42, rue Scheffer, 75116 Paris, France, http://www.cirad.fr Pakistan: Nuclear Institute of Agriculture, 70060 Tandojam,

Images

Picture Title Caption Copyright Adult B. zonata; line drawing of M.L. adult. Argawal

Morphology B. zonata: line drawing of M.L. various structures; (a) egg, (b) Argawal lateral view of head and prothoracic segment of 3rd instar larva, (c) Cephalopharyngeal skeleton of third instar larva, (d) anterior prothoracic respiratory

spiracle, (e) spiracular plate and caudal respiratory (posterior) spiracle, (f) third instar larva and (g) puparium.

Date of report: 04/01/2011

© CAB International 2010