Integrated Pest Management of Fruit fly

(Tephritidae: Diptera) in Punjab, Pakistan.

By
DR. MUHAMMAD AHSAN KHAN
Assistant Professor (T.T.S.)
Deptt. of Agri. Entomology, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad.
Vision
Achieve environmentally sound and sustainable
Agricultural production ensuring food security,
social equity, self reliance and economic welfare of
the producer.

Goal
Large scale and sustainable implementation of IPM
in Pakistan. Rational pesticide use, maintaining
production level and increasing farmer’s profit.
 Pest:
PEST CONTROL
“Any organism which competes with human for food and shelter.”

 Magnitude of losses by various pests are very high. Almost 1/3 of the total
harvest is destroyed from the potential harvest.
 Pest infestation reduces yield, lowers quality and increases cost of production,
hence adequate control measures must be adopted.
 Insect control:
By Insect control we mean the regulation of insect activity for the best of
humanity.
 Limitations of insect control :
1. High biotic potential.
2. Efficient adaptability to the environment.
3. High cost of control.
4. Resistance.
5. High in number and small in size.
6. Can live in adverse condition. etc
BUT UNFORTUNATELY

At present Farmers largely rely on chemical insecticides to control the

insects pests of various crops.
 IMPACT OF PESTICIDE USE
 Pesticide residues enter in food chain
 Development of pest resistance
 Elimination of natural enemies
 Extinction of wild life
 Degradation of cropland soil
 Loss of Pollinators
 Harm to non-target organisms
 Contamination of underground and
surface water
 Air Pollution due to fumigants and
other volatile pesticides
 Bio-accumulation and bio-
magnification
 Health concerns, etc
Only in Pakistan on an average, 12,000 metric tons of active
ingredient of pesticides are being imported annually
 RESULTANTLY:-
The chemical control is a two edged sword with both
positive and negative impacts.

Despite of the advantage of convenience, simplicity

and effectiveness; insecticides have led to
unsolvable problems of insect resistance,
resurgence, outbreak of secondary pests, adverse
effects on non-target organisms and other
externalities.
SO
Integrated Pest Management is now a global
philosophy.
 What is IPM ?
(A theme of clean environment, sustainability, resource
conservation and organic farming)

“IPM is intelligent selection and integration of compatible

control measures which are ecologically sound, economically
viable and socially acceptable.”

 IPM is an approach of pest management which considers the

whole agro-ecosystem.

 IPM is specific way of thinking, not a method of insect control.

Major Components of IPM
Biological Control

Cultural control
Physical Control

Genetic control
Healthy crop
Chemical Control

t r ol
Con
iv e Mec
i slat han
ica
Leg l Co
ntro
l

Increased Production
 FRUIT FLY

Arthropoda Insecta

Animalia

Diptera Tephritidae
 FACTS ABOUT THE FRUIT FLY

There are more than 120,000 species of fruit flies

worldwide but 70 species are economically most important.

Fruit fly is recorded in India, south-east Asia and many

other countries.
There are about 250 host plants on which fruit fly feeds.

Medical doctors use a special species of fruit fly maggots

to help patients with flesh wounds, especially burn victims.
Maggots eat away the damaged flesh, which helps the wound to
heal.
LIFE CYCLE OF FRUIT FLY
 LIFE CYCLE OF THE FRUIT FLY
There are four stages in the life cycle of the fruit fly:

egg, maggot, pupa, and adult.

At a typical room temperature fruit fly produces new adults in about

two weeks; eight days in the egg and maggot stages (3+5 respectively), and
six days in the pupal stage. The total life span of a fruit fly may be several
weeks depending upon the temperature.
Twenty-four hours after the egg is laid, the legless maggots hatches .
The maggot has two molting periods, during which the cuticle, mouth parts,
hooks, and spiracles are shed. The maggot is called an instar during the
periods of growth before and after molting. Thus, the fruit fly has three
instars. The puparium develops from the third instar which becomes hard in
texture and darker in color.
The puparium is where metamorphosis takes place, just before the
adult fly emerges from the puparium, the pupa becomes dark. Approximately
24 hours before the adult fruit fly emerges, one can see the folded wings and
the pigment of the eyes, if one looks closely through the puparium.
 On completion of metamorphosis, the adult forces its way
through the operculum (anterior end of the puparium). Initially the fruit fly
appears light in color with a long abdomen and unexpanded wings. In
just a few hours the fruit fly gets darker in color, rounder in the abdomen
and extends its wings. Approximately 48 hours after emerging from the
puparium, it is possible for females to start laying eggs. However, there
are only 12 hours that a female can be considered virgin after emerging
as an adult. After reaching this maturity, the flies are fertile for life. A
female fruit fly can store sperm after a single insemination and use it for
many reproductions.
The fruit fly over winters in the adult stage and is able to
withstand temperatures as low as 20°F. Food, water, and shelter are
more important factors for over wintering than temperature. Over
wintering fruit flies feed on honeydew and require an abundant water
supply.
 In this picture, you can identify male and female fruit fly by
looking carefully at their tail end.
You can easily see that one fruit fly is all black at the end of
the abdomen which is male and the other has very narrow black
bands at the base of the abdomen which is female.
 INTRODUCTION
Among various species of pest insects attacking the fruits, fruit flies
(Tephritidae; Diptera) have great economic importance due to their heavy
losses to fruits & vegetables in Pakistan. The incidence of fruit flies reduces
both yield and quality of fruits when females puncture and lay eggs in the
fruit under the skin. The maggots after hatching, tunnel into the fruits for
feeding on the pulp and render them unfit for human consumption. In certain
fruits, rotting starts at the puncture points. The losses caused to fruits by fruit
flies varied according to species and the host fruit plant species. In the
scientific literature the most serious pest species reported is the oriental fruit
fly (Bactrocera dorsali.s), which caused 5-100 percent loss to various fruits
(Syed et of., I970b). Highest loss of 80 percent in guava fruit was reported
by Kali (1986).
The peach fruit fly is an other insect pest species, found most
abundantly in all climatic regions of Pakistan and cause 3-100 percent loss
in different fruits (Sycd et al., 1970a). The ber fruit fly (Carpomya vesuviana)
can cause 90-100 percent damage to ber fruit.
 Many conventional and modem techniques of pest control have
been tested to avoid the losses caused by fruit flies in the world.
These pest control techniques included orchards sanitation, physical,
chemical, biological control and sterile male technique. But in
Pakistan, sole reliance has been made on pesticides for the control of
fruit flies which has created environmental contamination, residues
problem, killing of non-target organisms, development of resistance
against pesticides in insects etc.
However in some instances, the use of male lures and protein baits
are being used for the control of fruit flies but these control measures
are not practiced in integrated manners. Therefore there is a dire
need to develop a long lasting pest control strategy. Thus for
promoting a combination of these control strategies, the present
studies were designed with an overall objective to develop low cost
technology for fruit flies control and to avoid indiscriminate use of the
insecticides.
Keeping in view the above facts the present project was under taken
on different fruits viz., apple, mango, guava and ber at their respective
ecological zones viz., Murree, Multan, Sheikhupura and Faisalabad
respectively.
 OBJECTIVES

1. To study population dynamics and infestation percentage of fruit

flies on various selected fruits apple, ber, mango and guava of
their respective ecological areas.

2. To identify the species found damaging apple, ber, mango and

guava fruits in their respective areas.

3. To determine the impact of abiotic factors on the population

fluctuation and infestation percentage through simple correlation
and by developing regression models.

4. To integrate various control measures viz., cultural, trapping,

baiting and use of selective insecticide for management and
suppression of fruit flies on one of the most affected fruit.
 IDENTIFICATION
Adults were collected from each pheromone
trap during fruiting season from each respective
locality. These specimens were killed in cyanide
killing bottle and set on setting boards by
entomological pins No.16, labeled and stored
them in classified collection boxes. Naphthalene
balls and Coopex powder was used in these
collection boxes for protection of specimens from
the attack of beetles, ants, etc. These specimens
were identified up to species level with the help of
revolving stage and wild M3B binocular
microscope having three magnifications i.e.,
10 X 5.4 X, 10 X 16 X and 10 X 40 X.
 METHODOLOGY

Studies were carried out on integrated pest management of

fruit flies. Four fruits viz., Apple, Ber', Guava and Mango at four
localities i.e Murree, Faisalabad, Sheikhupura and Multan
respectively were selected. The data on population dynamics, by
installing methyl euginol and cue lure traps and infestation
percentage by ring method were recorded for two consecutive years
in each selected fruit of its respective locality. Fruit flies collected
from each fruit plant were identified.
The pest was managed through integrated approach including
hoeing, baiting, trapping and using insecticide individually and in
their all possible combinations by selecting one showing maximum
infestation. Impact of abiotic factor on population fluctuation per trap
and infestation percentage were determined by processing the data
into simple correlation, multiple regression models and principal
component of analysis (PCA).
Map of Pakistan Showing localities (district) of conducting
experiments

1. Faisalabad
2. Murree
3. Multan
4. Sheikhupura
 POPULATION DYNAMICS
Eight gardens comprising not less than 30 trees of each fruit viz.,
Apple, Ber, Guava and Mango in their respective areas i.e., Murree
Hills, Faisalabad, Sheikhupura and Multan were selected. Sex
attractant pheromones methyl euginol and cue Iure were used in traps
for population monitoring. Each trap has cotton wicks soaked with 5-6
ml sex attractants. Four gardens meant for methyl euginol and four for
cue lure in each locality. Traps were installed at fortnight interval and
remained there for 24 hours . The trap to trap distance was kept as 30
+ 5 m. Six traps per hectare were used in each garden at each locality.
One garden considered as one replication and thus there were four
replications for each trap at their respective localities. The data on
adult fruit flies were recorded from each pheromone trap 24 hours after
each installation. The duration of recording population data was two
consecutive fruiting season of each fruit.
The observations were started at fruit formation and continued up
to the maturity of the fruit when the trapped population reached to zero
or negligible level.
INFESTATION
 ROLE OF WEATHER FACTORS
EFFECTING FRUIT FLIES POPULATION
Meteorological observations relevant to temperature, relative
humidity and rainfall were taken from the adjoining metrological
department of each locality. The data were used to assess the effect
of weather on the fruit flies population attacking different fruit plants at
their respective localities.
The impact of weather factors on the population fluctuation and
infestation of fruit flies for each fruit was calculated by processing the
data into simple correlation. The correlation between infestation and
population fluctuation of fruit flies was also calculated for both fruiting
seasons separately and on cumulative basis. The data were also
processed for multivariate regression models among abiotic factors,
population fluctuation and infestation with the objective to see the
actual role of weather factor on the population fluctuation and
infestation of fruit flies. Principle Component of Analysis (PCA) was
also performed to determine the influence of weather factors on
infestation and population of fruit flies.
INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT
OF FRUIT FLIES ON GUAVA
Study was conducted in Guava orchards of District
Sheikhupura (showing maximum infestation of fruits caused by fruit
flies). Four control practices viz., hoeing, baiting, sex attractants
pheromone (methyl euginol) and selective insecticides (Dipterex 80
SP) were applied singly and in all their possible combination. There
were 16 treatments including control and each treatment was
repeated three times. Three fruit gardens not less than 30 trees
were selected for each treatment. So there were 48 gardens in total.
The distance between one garden to another was not less than one
kilometer. The specific detail of each treatment was as follows.
 VARIOUS TREATMENTS AND THEIR
ALL POSSIBLE COMBINATIONS
Sr. # Treatments
T1 Hoeing
T2 Baiting
T3 Sex pheromone (Methyl euginol)
T4 Chemical Control (Dipterex 80 SP @ 1 gm/l liter water
T5 Hoeing + Baiting (T1 + T2)
T6 Hoeing + Sex Pheromone_(T 1 + T3)
T7 Hoeing + Chemical Control (T1 + T4)
T8 Baiting + Methyl Euginol (T2 + T3)
T9 Baiting + Chemical Control (T2 + T4)
T10 Methyl Euginol + Chemical Control T3+T4
T11 Hoeing + Baiting + Methyl Euginol (T1+T2+T3)
T12 Hoeing + Baiting + Chemical Control (T1+T2+T4)
T13 Hoeing + Methyl Euginol +Chemical Control (Tl+T3+T4)
T14 Baiting + Methyl Euginol + Chemical Control (T2+T3+T4)
T15 Hoeing +Baiting + Methyl Euginol +Chemical Control (Ti+T2+T3+T4)
T16 Control
 MASS TRAPPING WITH METHYL
EUGINOL
The traps with sex attractant methyl euginol were used for mass
trapping of fruit flies in guava orchards as the attractant showed
maximum catches of adult fruit flies comparing with cue lure. The traps
were installed 1.5 meter above ground level on a branch of the trees.
The trap to trap distance was maintained at 30 meter and 6
traps/hectare. The cotton wicks soaked with methyl euginol were
placed in the traps and changed at 15 days interval. The data on
trapped adult population of fruit flies were recorded fortnightly through
out the fruiting season.

HOEING
Hoeing was done under the canopy of each tree of respective selected
garden at 15 days interval regularly throughout the fruiting season with
the help of spade up to 10-12mm.
 BAITING
A wooden sheet measuring 15 x 30 cm was used for baiting
and hanged with a branch 1.5 meter above ground level of tree. The
distance between two baits was maintained as 30 meters and 6
baiting traps per hectare were used and changed after one month
interval. Following are the bait ingredients which were used

Name of ingredient Quantity

Molasses 12 gm
Dipterex 80 SP 12 gm
Petroleum Jelly 6 gm
Protein hydrolysate 6 gm

CHEMICAL CONTROL
Dipterex 80 SP (Trichlorfon) @ 1 gm/ litre water was sprayed
at 15 days interval to selective gardens in respective treatments
 RESULTS
Study was carried out to monitor fruit flies population and infestation
percentage on different fruit plant viz., apple, 'ber', guava and mango
in their respective localities viz., Murree, Faisalabad, Sheikhupura and
Multan Districts. Methyl euginol use as sex attractant pheromones
used for population monitoring at each locality. Infestation percentage
of fruits was recorded from fruit trees by counting healthy and infested
fruits. The impact of abiotic factors was also calculated for each
locality on the population and infestation percentage bases, by
processing the data for simple correlation, multivariate regression
models and Principal Component Analysis (PCA).
Various control measures like hoeing, haiting (Protein hydrolysate),
pheromone(Methyl eugenol) and application of insecticide ( ‘Dipterex
80 sp) were integrated on guava for the control of fruit flies.
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF THE DATA REGARDING POPULATION OF
FRUIT FLIES IN APPLE ORCHARDS TRAPPED BY METHYL EUGINOL
AND CUE LURE AT VARIOUS DATES OF OBSERVATION AT MURREE.

S.O.V. D.F. M.S. F. RATIO

Replications 3 1.961 2.79
Years (Y) 1 0.080 0.11 NS
Traps (T) 1 2.009 2.86 NS
YXT 1 0.009 0.01 NS
Dates (D) 6 1.063 1.51 NS
YXD 6 0.872 1.24 NS
TXD 6 0.134 0.19 NS
YXTXD 6 0.217 0.31 NS
Error 81 0.702

The analysis of variance reveals non-significant differences between

years, traps, among dates and in their all possible interactions.
MEANS COMPARISON OF THE DATA REGARDING POPULATION OF
FRUIT FLIES IN APPLE ORCHARDS OF MURREE HILLS

Dates Population / Trap/ Day Means

July 1 1.00 (1.22) 0.62 (0.93) 0.81

July 15 1.37 (1.37) 0.87 (1.17) 1.12

August 1 1.62 (1.45) 1.00 (1.22) 1.31

August 15 0.87 (1.17) 1.37 (1.36) 1.12

September I 0.87 (1.17) 0.75 (1.12) 0.81

September 15 0.62 (1.06) 1.00 (1.22) 0.81

October 1 0.37 (0.93) 0.75 (1.12) 0.56

Means 0.96 0.91

The dates of observation viz., July 15th , August 1st and August 15th
showed comparatively higher level of population of fruit flies on apple
orchards of Murree Hills.
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF THE DATA REGARDING INFESTATION
(%) IN APPLE FRUIT CAUSED BY FRUIT FLIES IN ORCHARDS OF
MURREE HILLS.

S.O.V. D.F. M.S. F. RATIO

Replications 3 2.234 7.05

Years (Y)
1 1.422 4.49 *

Date (D) 88.8

7 28.160 **
2

YXD 7 1.367 4.81 **

Error 45 0.317

Analysis of variance reveals significant differences between years,

among dates of observation and in their interaction.
MEANS COMPARISON OF THE DATA REGARDING INFESTATION (%) IN
APPLE FRUIT CAUSED BY FRUIT FLIES IN ORCHARDS OF MURREE
HILLS ON VARIOUS DATES OF OBSERVATION

DATES OF AVERAGE
FRUIT INFESTATION (%)
OBSERVATIONS
July 15 0.00 (0.71) F 0.00 (0.71) F 0.00 D
August 1 0.29(0.88) F 0.64(1.07) F 0.46 D
August 15 1.54 (1.44) DE 1.95(1.56) D 1.74 C
September 1 2.80 (1.82) C 3.06 (1.89) C 2.93 B
September 15 4.34 (2.20) AB 4.72 (2.28) AB 4.53 A
October 1 5.1(2.37) A 4.1 1 (2.15) B 4.61 A
October 15 5.18 (2.38) A 3.89 (2.09) B 4.51 A
November 1 2.36 (1.69) CD 0.79 (1.15) EF 1.57 C
Means 2.69 A 2.39

Fruit flies caused infestation to apple throughout the fruiting

season. The observations recorded on September 15th , October
1st and October 15th showed maximum infestation.
 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF THE DATA REGARDING
POPULATION OF FRUIT FLIES IN `BER' ORCHARDS TRAPPED BY
METHYL EUGINOL AND CUE LURE AT VARIOUS DATES OF
OBSERVATION
S.O.V. D.F. M.S. F. RATIO
Replications 3 1.146 0.24
Years (Y) 1 4.500 0.94 NS
Traps (T) 1 7.031 1.47 NS
YXT 1 0.031 0.01 NS
Dates (D) 7 409.857 85.45 **
YXD 7 112.839 23.53 *
TXD 7 8.013 1.67 NS
YXTXD 7 4.406 0.92 NS
Error 93 4.796
The analysis of variance of the data regarding population of fruit flies in `ber'
orchards trapped by methyl euginol and cue lure at various dates of observation in
Faisalabad District reveals highly significant differences among dates of observation
and inter-actional response between years and dates of observation. The population
did not differ significantly between years, traps, interaction of years and traps, traps
and dates of observation and years, traps and dates of observation.
MEANS COMPARISON OF THE DATA REGARDING POPULATION OF
FRUIT FLIES ON ‘BER' ORCHARDS OF DISTRICT FAISALABAD

Dates Population / Trap /Day Mean

December 15 035 (1.I2) E 0.50 (1.00 E 0.62 E
January 1 1.0 (1.22) E 0.63 (1.06) E 0.81 E
January 15 3.50 (2.00) D 0.87 (I.17) E 2.18 DE
February I 7.25 (2.78) C 3.87 (2.09) D 5.56 C
February 15 12.75 (3.64) B 6.62 (2.67) C 9.68 B
March 1 16.75 (4.15) A 11.62 (3.48) B 14.18 A
March 15 6.12 (2.57) C 15.25 (3.97) A 10.68 B
April 1 0.62 (1.06) E 6.37 (2.62) C 3.50 D
Means 6.09 5.72
Significant variations were again observed when the data of both the
years pooled together. The observation taken on March 1st showed the
highest population of fruit flies i.e., 14.18/trap/day followed by those of
recorded on March 15th (10.68/trap/day) and February 15th
(9.68/trap/day).
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF THE DATA REGARDING INFESTATION (%)
ON `BER' FRUIT CAUSED BY FRUIT FLIES IN FAISALABAD.

S.O.V. D.F. M.S. F. RATIO

Replications 3 0.610 0.84

Years (Y) 1 4.884 5.09 *
Date (D) 7 244.493 254.88 **

YXD 7 64.565 67.33 **

Error 45 0.959

The analysis of variance shows a significant differences

between years, among dates of observation and in their
interaction
MEANS COMPARISON OF THE DATA REGARDING INFESTATION
(%) ON `BER' FRUIT CAUSED BY FRUIT FILIES IN FAISALABAD.

Dates Average
December 15 0.15 (0.81) G 0.00 (0.71 G 0.07 G
January 1 3.40 (1.97) F 0.19 (0.83) G 1.79 F
January 15 5.20 (2.39) E 3.43 (1.98) F 4.32 E
February 1 8.25 (2.96) D 5.13 (2.37) E 6.69 D
February 15 14.70 (3.90) BC 7.95 (2.91) D 11.33 B
March I 15.63 (4.02) AB 13.80 (3.78) C 14.72 A
March 15 4.01 (2.12) EF 16.52 (4.13) A 10.26 C
April 1 0.09 (0.77) G 0.00 (0.71) G 0.04 G
Means 6.43 A 5.66 B 6.04

The infestation appeared on December 15th i.e., 0.15% and jumped up to

3.40% on January 1st . The infestation increased tremendously on the
subsequent dates of observation starting from 5.20% to 14.70% from January
15th to February 15th .
 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF THE DATA REGARDING
POPULATION OF FRUIT FLIES IN GUAVA ORCHARDS TRAPPED
BY METHYL EUGINOL AND CUE LURE AT VARIOUS DATES OF
OBSERVATION IN DISTRICT SHEIKHUPURA.
S.O.V. D.F. M.S. F. RATIO
Replications 3 10.917 2.33
Years (Y) 1 0.818 0.17 NS
'Traps (T) 1 3.273 0.70 NS
YXT 1 1.114 0.24 NS
Dates (D) 10 336.205 71.84 **
YXD 10 0.968 0.21 NS
TXD 10 14.348 3.07 **
YXTXD 10 0.489 0.10 NS
Error 129 4.680
The analysis of variance of the data regarding population of fruit flies in
guava orchards trapped by methyl euginol and cue lure at various dates of
observation in District Sheikhupura. Variations were found to be significant among
dates of observation and inter-actional response of dates of observation and traps.
The responses of year, traps, interactions of year and date of observation and year,
trap and date of observation were non-significant.
MEANS COMPARISON OF THE DATA REGARDING POPULATION
OF FRUIT FLIES IN GUAVA ORCHARDS OF SHEIKHUPURA
DISTRICT .
Dates Population /Trap/Day Mean
May 1 0.75 (1.12) 0.87 (1.17) 0.81 G
May I5 1.75 (1.50) 1.62 (1.46) 1.68 FG
June 1 3.25 (1.94) 3.00 (1.87) 3.12 EF
June 15 4.87 (2.32) 4.12 (2.15) 4.50 DE
July I 6.37 (2.62) 5.50 (2.45) 5.93 CD
July 15 6.25 (2.60) 6.25 (2.60) 6.25 C
August 1 8.25 (2.96) 8.62 (3.02) 8.43 B
August 15 14.00 (3.81) 14.12 (3.82) 14.06 A
September 1 14.25 (3.84) 13.37 (3.72) 13.81 A
September 15 5.50 (2.45) 5.87 (2.52) 5.66 CD
October 1 1.12 (1.27) 1.50 (1.41) 1.31 G
Means 6.03 5.89
Differences were found to be significant among dates of observation regarding
population of fruit flies in guava orchards of Sheikhupura district when both the study years
were computed together. Maximum population was recorded on August 15 th i.e.,
14.06/trap/day, which was at par with that of recorded on September 1 i.e., 13.81/trap/day.
st

The population decreased down there after from 5.66 to 1.31/tap/day on September 15 th and
October 1st respectively. The population of fruit flies appeared on May 1 st i.e., 0.81/trap/day.
The increasing trend was recorded on the subsequent dates of observation gradually and the
population reached to 8.43/trap/day on August 1 st .
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF THE DATA REGARDING
INFESTATION (%) OF GUAVA FRUIT CAUSED BY FRUIT FLIES IN
ORCHARDS OF SHEIKHUPURA.

S.O.V. D.F. M.S. F. RATIO

Replications 3 3.81 3.77

Years (Y) 1 0.001 0.00 NS

Date (D) 7 273.267 270.77 **

YXD 7 0.954 0.94 NS

Error 45 1.009

The analysis of variance reveals highly significant variations among

dates of observation. Non-significant differences were observed in
response to years and interaction of years and dates of observation
 MEANS COMPARISON OF THE DATA REGARDING INFESTATION (%)
IN GUAVA FRUIT CAUSED BY FRUIT FLIES IN ORCHARDS OF
SHEIKHUPURE .
Dates INFESTATION (%) Average
May 15 0.14 (0.80) 0.00 (0.71) 0.07 H
June 1 2.48 (1.73) 2.52 (1.74) 2.50G
June 15 4.05 (2.13) 4.15 (2.16) 4.10 F
July 1 5.33 (2.41) 5.97 (2.54) 5.65 E
July 15 7.33 (2.80) 7.65 (2.85) 7.48 D
August I 10.76 (3.36) 10.84 (3.77) 10.80 C
August 15 13.98 (3.81) 15.75 (4.03) 13.87 B
September 1 15.57 (4.00) 16.15 (4.08) 15.85 A
September 15 14.19 (3.83) 14.58 (3.88) 14.39 B
October 1 1.80 (1.52) 0.00 (0.71) 0.90 I I
Means 7.56 7.76
The infestation reached to a peak level of 15.85% on September 1st
followed by 14.39% and 13.87% on September 15th and August 15th ,
respectively. The infestation after September 15th decreased sharply and
reached to 0.90%. The month of August and September was found to be
very crucial which showed higher level of infestation on guava fruit
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF THE DATA REGARDING
POPULATION OF FRUIT FLIES IN MANGO ORCHARDS OF MULTAN
DISTRICT TRAPPED BY METHYL EUGINOL AND CUE LURE

S.O.V. D.F. M.S. F. RATIO

Replications 3 6.09 1.49
Years (Y) 4 0.017 0.00 NS
Traps (T) 7 11.267 2.76 NS
YXT 8 0.600 0.15 NS
Dates (D) 14 142.677 34.97 **
YXD 14 1.874 0.46 NS
TXD 14 8.606 2.11 NS
YXTXD 14 0.814 0.20 NS
Error 177 4.080

The results reveal significant differences among dates of

observation. The response of years, traps and in their all
interactions on population fluctuations was non-significant.
 MEANS COMPARISON OF THE DATA REGARDING POPULATION OF
FRUIT FLIES IN MANGO ORCHARDS OF MULTAN DISTRICT.
Dates Population/Trap/Day Means
March 1 2.50 (1.73) 3.75 (2.06) 3.12G
March 15 4.62 (2.26) 4.37 (2.21) 4.50 FG
April 1 `5.25 (2.40) 5.00 (2.34) 5.12 F
April 15 6.37 (2.62) 5.62 (2.47) 6.00 EF
May 1 7.25 (2.78) 6.87 (2.71) 7.06 DE
May 15 7.37 (2.81) 7.37 (2.80) 7.37 DE.
June 1 7.25 (2.78) 7.87 (2.89) 7.56 DE
June 15 6.62 (2.67) 8.25 (2.92) 8.45 CD
July 1 9.67 (3.19) 9.25 (3.12) 9.56 BC
July 15 10.75 (3.35) 10.37 (3.29) 10.56 AB
August 1 11.00 (3.39) 10.87 (3.37) 11.18A
August 15 9.62 (3.18) 9.75 (3.20) 9.68 BC
September 1 7.25 (2.78) 7.50 (2.82) 7.37 DE
September 15 4.25 (2.18) 5.87 (2.52) 5.06 F
October 1 0.00 (0.71) 0.00 (0.71) 0.0 H
Means
The results 6.83 among dates
reveal significant difference 6.85
of observation. The highest
population was recorded on August 1st i.e., 11.18/trap/day which did not differ from
10.56/trap/day on July 15th. The increase was gradual throughout the study period up to
August 1st . The population decreased subsequently up to 0.00 level on October 1st .
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF THE DATA REGARDING
INFESTATION (%) ON MANGO FRUIT CAUSED BY FRUIT FLIES IN
ORCHARDS OF MULTAN .

S.O.V. D.F. M.S. F. RATIO

3 3.41 9.08
Replications
1 2.53 6.73 **
Years (Y)
Date (D) 7 102.89 273.46 **

YXD 7 0.18 0.56 NS

Error 45 0.37

The analysis of variance in orchards of Multan district reveals highly

significant differences between years and among dates of
observation. The inter-actional response between years and dates of
observation was non-significant.
MEANS COMPARISON OF THE DATA REGARDING INFESTATION
(%) ON MANGO FRUIT CAUSED BY FRUIT FLIES IN ORCHARDS
OF MULTAN DISTRICT

Dates Average
June 1 1.04 (1.24) 0.99 (1.22) 1.01 FG
June 15 1.31 (1.34) 1.39 (1.37) 1.35 F
July 1 5.16 (2.37) 4.51 (2.24) 4.85 E
July 15 5.42 (2.43) 5.01 (2.34) 5.21 E
August 1 6.52 (2.64) 6.17 (2.58) 6.35 D
August 15 7.76 (2.87) 7.26 (2.78) 7.51 C
September 1 8.45 (2.99) 8.11 (2.93) 8.27 B
September 15 10.44 (3.31) 10.06 (3.25) 10.25 A
October 1 9.69 (3.19) 9.67 (3.19) 9.68 A
October 15 0.93 (1.19) 0.00 (0.71) 0.46 G
Means 5.67 A 5.32 B

The observation recorded on September 15th showed maximum

infestation of mango fruit. The month of September and 15th
October found to be very favorable for insect development.
TOTAL FRUIT FLIES CATCHES, THEIR PERCENT EXISTANCE
AND INFESTATION IN VARIOUS FRUITS.

Name of Fruit Total Catches Existence (%) Infestation (%)

Apple 53 3.00 2.39
`Ber' 366 20.75 5.66

Guava 524 29.70 7.56

Mango 821 46.54 5.32

The percent existence was found to be positive. The minimum

existence was recorded on apple that was 3.00%. The trapped adults were
increased on other fruits i.e., 20.75%, 29.70 and 46,54% in `ber', guava and
mango orchards, respectively. The percent infestation was maximum in
guava orchards followed by 'ber' mango and apple. These results showed
that the infestation increased as the trapped adults population increased in
case of apple, 'ber' and guava but in case of mango in comparison with the
other fruits, variations in results were found in this statement, because the
adults trapped were maximum in mango as compared to guava but
infestation was the highest in guava as compared to mango.
 PERCENT EXISTENCE OF FRUIT FLY SPECIES OF DIFFERENT
SELECTED FRUITS IN THEIR RESPECTIVE LQCALITIES.
PERECNT EXISTENCE
Sr. No. Name of Species Name of Fruits
Apple `Ber' Guava Mango
1 Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel) 33.96 - 46.37
2 B. affinis (Hardy) 4.75
3 B. tau (Walker) 9.43 6.29
4 B. scutellaris (Bezzi) 5.66
5 B. diversa (Coquillentt) 7.55
6 B. cucurbitae (Coquillett) 15.09 - 9.92 21.80
7 B. zonala (Saunders) 28.30 11.74 49.62 74.66
8. B. abbasi sp. nov. 6.87
9 Corpomya incomplela (Becker) 51.91 -
10 C. Vesuviana - 36.34 -
The fruit flies caught by methyl euginol were identified from each fruit. In
apple, B. dorsalis (Hendel) was dominant i.e., 33.96% existence followed by B. zonata
(28.30%). In Ber, C. incomplela (Becker) was dominant i.e., 51.91% existence followed
by C. Vesuviana (36.34%). In Guava, B. zonata (Saunder) was dominant i.e., 49.62%
existence followed by B. dorsalis (46.37%). In Mango, B. zonata (Saunder) was
dominant i.e., 74.66% existence followed by B. cucurbitae (Coquillett ) i.e (21.80%).
 .

GRAPHICAL PRESENTATION OF
WEATHER FACTORS, POPULATION
OF FRUIT FLIES PER TRAP PER DAY
AND INFESTATION PERCENTAGE
OF FRUIT ON DIFFERENT DATES OF
OBSERVATION
 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF THE DATA REGARDING FRUIT
INFESTATION (%) CAUSED BY FRUIT FLIES IN DIFFERENT
TREATMENTS ON VARIOUS DATES OF OBSERVATION IN GUAVA
ORCHARDS OF DISTRICT SHEIKHUPURA.

S.O.V. D.F. M.S. F. Ratio

2 0.328 0.35
Replication
10 1661.583 1795.66 **
Dates of Observations (D)
Treatments (T) 15 1306.828 1412.28 **
DXT 150 91.500 98.88 **

Error 350 0.925

The results show highly significant differences among dates of

observation, treatments and between interaction of dates of
observation and treatments.
NTEGRATED MANAGEMENT OF FRUIT FLIES BASED ON
INFESTATION (%) OF GUAVA FRUITS DISTRICT SHEIKHUPURA .

Treatments Infestation (%) % infestation decreased

Hoeing (H) 6.89c 76.52
Baiting (B) 6.87 c 76.58
Methyl euginol (ME) 6.82 c 76.76
Diptrex 80 SP (C) 8.48 b 71.09
HXB 5.72 de 80.50
HXME 5.73 dc 80.47
HXC 4.30 f 85.34
BXME 6.17 d 78.97
BXC 4.12 f 85.95
MEXC 4.34 f 85.21
HXBXME 5.39 a 81.63
IIXII XC 3.11 gh 89.40
HXMEXC 2.86 hi 90.25
BXME XC 3.45 g 88.24
BXHXMEXC 2.44 i 91.68
Control 29.34 a
 INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT OF
FRUIT FLIES IN GUAVA ORCHARDS
Significant differences were found to exist among treatments. The maximum
infestation was recorded to be 29.34% in control gardens, which differed
significantly from all other treatments. The minimum infestation (2.44%) was
found in that treatment where all the control operations were integrated followed
by 2.86% infestation in that treatment where hoeing + methyl euginol and
chemical control were applied. A similar trend was also observed between T12
(hoeing + baiting + chemical control) and TI4 (baiting + methyl euginol +
chemical control) with 3.11% and 3.45% fruit infestation respectively. Non-
significant difference was found among Tl5 (hoeing + baiting), T6 (hoeing +
methyl euginol) and T1(hoeing). Similarly the treatments viz.. hoeing. baiting
and methyl euginol showed non-significant differences among themselves with
6.89. 6.87 and 6.82% fruit infestation. respectively. The combination of baiting
and methyl euginol resulted 6.17% infestation and differed significantly from all
other treatments. Similarly the chemical application alone showed 8.48% fruit
infestation and also differed significantly from all other teatments. A non-
significant difference was also recorded among T7 (hoeing + chemical control),
T9 (baiting + chemical control) and T10 (methyl euginol + chemical control)
having 4.30, 4.12 and 4.34% fruit infestation, respectively.
 ROLE OF ABIOTIC FACTORS ON POPULATION
FLUCTUATION AND INFESTATION
APPLE FRUIT
PERCENTAGE OF FRUITS
On an average basis rain fall and relative humidity showed significant and
positive correlation with population and infestation, respectively. Principle
Component Analysis revealed that rainfall is important factor.
BER FRUIT
All the factors played non-significant effect on the population fluctuation and
infestation of fruit flies except relative humidity which played significant role
with negative response on population.
GUAVA FRUITS
A biotic factors showed positive and significant contribution in infestation
except maximum temperature which showed negative correlation. when all
abiotic factors were computed together for multiple regression. Rainfall again
proved to be an important factor in combination with maximum temperature
showing contrasting behavior and minimum temperature and relative
humidity with positive signs.
MANGO FRUIT
All the a biotic factors showed non-significant correlation with population
fluctuation of fruit flies. Minimum temperature played a significant role with
positive sign on population fluctuation. Temperatures and relative humidity
were important for infestation. Rainfall appeared as an important factor with
positive sign in combination of temperatures and relative humidity
 AVERAGE EFFECT OF ABIOTIC
FACTORS

On an average basis of the data for all the fruits, population of fruit
flies did not affected significantly by weather factors, however,
temperatures and humidity showed a significant and positive
correlation with infestation percentage of the fruits. Principle
Component Analysis showed that rainfall with positive sign appeared
to be an important factor with contrasting behavior of temperatures.
The present findings can not be compared with those of Allwood and
Drew (1996) who reported that the population of B. Spp. increased
with the onset of higher temperature and moisture level.
RESULTS CAN SUMMARIZED AS FOLLOWS
 Low population of fruit flies was recorded on apple at Murree Hills
ranged from minimum of 0.37 to maximum of 1.62/trap/day on
October 1st and August 1st , respectively.
 The second fortnight of February and the first fortnight of March was
crucial for ber' fruits which showed maximum catches of fruit flies
whereas for guava fruits the months of August and September were
important. Similarly the months of July and August showed maximum
adult catches of fruit flies in mango orchards.
 Second fortnight of August and first fortnight of September showed
maximum population trapped by pheromones in guava orchards.
 In case of mango fruit, maximum adult catches were found on
September 15th and did not differ significantly from those of recorded
on October 1st .
 The population of fruit flies remained present throughout the fruiting
season from flowering to maturity in all fruits.
 The maximum infestation of fruit flies in apple orchards was recorded to be
4.61% on October 1st and was statistically at par with 4.53 and 4.51% recorded
on September 15th and October 15th , respectively.
 The maximum infestation was recorded to be 14.72% on March 1 st in ber'
orchards followed by 11.33 and 10.26% on February 15 th and March 15th ,
respectively.
 Guava fruit affected maximum showing maximum infestation i.e. 7.56% followed
by 5.66, 5.32 and 2.39% on `ber', mango and apple, respectively
 The methyl euginol traps showed maximum adult of fruit flies in all the fruit
orchards in Murree, Faisalabad, Sheikhupura and Multan.
 On an average weather factors did not play significant role towards population
fluctuation whereas infestation percentage affected significantly by temperatures
and relative humidity with positive responses.
 Rainfall proved to be the most important factor with positive response in
combination with contrasting behavior of temperature showing 85.96 percent
variance.
 All the control measures viz., hoeing, baiting, pheromone traps and use
of chemical (Diptrex 80 SP @ 1 gm/1 Iitre water) showed the lowest
infestation of it flies i.e., 2.44% in guava orchards followed by 2.86% in
combination of hoeing + pheromone + use of chemical.
 The infestation level 5.39% was recorded in combination of hoeing,
baiting and use of pheromone as against 29.34% infestation in control.
Thus infestation can be decreased up to 81.63% in the absence of
chemical application.
 The months of August and September showed maximum infestation
(11.38 to 15.36%) in guava orchards.
60