Ceratitis rosa (Natal fruit fly)
Index
- Pictures
- Identity
- Summary of Invasiveness
- Taxonomic Tree
- Notes on Taxonomy and Nomenclature
- Description
- Distribution
- Distribution Table
- History of Introduction and Spread
- Risk of Introduction
- Habitat List
- Hosts/Species Affected
- Host Plants and Other Plants Affected
- Growth Stages
- Symptoms
- List of Symptoms/Signs
- Biology and Ecology
- Climate
- Latitude/Altitude Ranges
- Rainfall Regime
- Natural enemies
- Notes on Natural Enemies
- Means of Movement and Dispersal
- Pathway Causes
- Pathway Vectors
- Plant Trade
- Impact Summary
- Economic Impact
- Threatened Species
- Social Impact
- Risk and Impact Factors
- Detection and Inspection
- Similarities to Other Species/Conditions
- Prevention and Control
- Gaps in Knowledge/Research Needs
- References
- Links to Websites
- Organizations
- Contributors
- Distribution Maps
Don't need the entire report?
Generate a print friendly version containing only the sections you need.
Generate reportPictures
Top of pageIdentity
Top of pagePreferred Scientific Name
- Ceratitis rosa Karsch
Preferred Common Name
- Natal fruit fly
Other Scientific Names
- Pterandrus rosa (Karsch)
International Common Names
- Spanish: mosca de la fruta de Natal
- French: mouche des fruits de Natal
EPPO code
- CERTRO (Ceratitis rosa)
Summary of Invasiveness
Top of pageC. rosa is a polyphagous African species. Its known distribution is mainly southern and eastern Africa. It is considered to be a major pest of a number of commercial fruits, including fruits that are grown in subtropical or more temperate environments (but see remark under host plants). It has similar environmental requirements to Ceratitis capitata except that it can withstand less dry conditions. It should be considered as a potential invasive species in other parts of Africa, outside its current range, and in other parts of the world (Tanga et al., 2018). The most likely pathway of dispersal and introduction is as larvae in infested fruits with commercial shipments or in the luggage of travellers. C. rosa is of quarantine significance for EPPO, JUNAC and OIRSA.
Taxonomic Tree
Top of page- Domain: Eukaryota
- Kingdom: Metazoa
- Phylum: Arthropoda
- Subphylum: Uniramia
- Class: Insecta
- Order: Diptera
- Family: Tephritidae
- Genus: Ceratitis
- Species: Ceratitis rosa
Notes on Taxonomy and Nomenclature
Top of pageC. rosa belongs to subgenus Pterandrus and may alternatively be cited as Ceratitis (Pterandrus) rosa Karsch. Earlier this species comprised fasciventris, but De Meyer (2001) considered both taxa as separate species.
C. rosa belongs to a species complex (Barr et al., 2006), referred to as the FAR complex and comprising Ceratitis fasciventris, Ceratitis anonae and C. rosa. Male specimens can be readily differentiated by sexual secondary characters of the legs (De Meyer and Freidberg, 2006), but females are difficult to differentiate. Molecular separation based on DNA barcodes remains difficult or impossible (Barr et al., 2006). Recent research using microsatellite polymorphism indicated the existence of five entities (Virgilio et al., 2013). An integrative approach provided evidence that the two entities, formerly under C. rosa, actually consist of two different biological species (De Meyer et al., 2015). The second entity was formerly described as C.quilicii (see De Meyer et al., 2016). Most information regarding C. rosa in the literature prior to 2016 can, therefore, refer to either or both of these two species.
Description
Top of pageC. rosa, like other Ceratitis spp., has banded wings, and a swollen scutellum which is marked yellow and black. The pattern of grey flecks in the basal wing cells distinguishes Ceratitis spp. from most other genera of tephritids.
Larvae
The larvae of C. rosa have been illustrated by Orian and Moutia (1960). The third-instar larvae have been described in detail and illustrated by Carroll (1998). Steck and Ekesi (2015) review the consistency of larval characters used to differentiate C. rosa from other species within the FAR complex and from C. capitata.
Adults (after De Meyer and Freidberg, 2006 and De Meyer et al., 2016)
Male head: antenna yellow. First flagellomere two to three times as long as pedicel. Arista with short to moderately long rays; ventral rays shorter and sparser than dorsal rays, especially basally. Frons yellow; with short scattered setulae distinctly darker than frons. Frontal setae well-developed. Face yellowish-white. Genal seta and setulae dark, well-developed.
Thorax: postpronotal lobe yellowish-white, without spot, although sometimes darker yellow around postpronotal seta. Scutal pattern: ground colour greyish-brown with orange tinge; with streaks and darker markings but without distinct spots except prescutellar white markings separate, usually with paler area in between. Scapular setae dark. Scutellum yellowish-white, basally usually with two separate dark spots, sometimes less distinct; apically with three separate black spots, extending to basal 0.33. Anepisternum on ventral half darker yellowish-brown; setulae pale.
Legs: yellow except where otherwise noted; setation mainly pale. Foreleg: femur without bushy feathering posteriorly, only dispersed rows of long black setulae posterodorsally, posteroventrally shorter and pale; ventral setae black. Midleg: femur with few dispersed pale setulae ventrally; tibia moderately broadened; anteriorly black with conspicuous silvery shine when viewed from certain angle on distal 0.66 to 0.75 (black colour sometimes inconspicuous in teneral specimens but silvery shine is always present) and reaching ventral and dorsal margins of tibia throughout the full length; with black feathering dorsally along distal 0.75 and ventrally along distal 0.66, occasionally to distal 0.75. Hindleg: femur at apical 0.25 with longer setulae dorsally and ventrally.
Wing: bands yellowish-brown. Interruption between marginal and discal bands near vein R1 clear and complete; cubital band free; medial band absent; crossvein R-M opposite middle of discal cell. Apex of vein R1 distal to level of crossvein R-M. Crossvein DM-Cu oblique anterobasally.
Abdomen: mostly yellow. Tergites 2 and 4 with pale-grey band on posterior half, anterior margin sometimes with narrowly brownish colour, especially laterally. Tergite 3 with posterior half patchily brownish colour, anterior half yellowish-brown, both parts not clearly demarcated; sometimes more complete brown. Tergite 5 with basal half brownish, sometimes divided medially into two spots.
Female: as the male except as follows: first flagellomere yellowish-orange. Crossvein DM-Cu oblique posterobasally. Anepisternum on ventral part rarely with darker setulae. Legs without feathering; forefemur posteroventrally with pale pilosity, at least in basal part, distally sometimes dark setulae. Oviscape shorter than preabdomen. Aculeus at most six times longer than wide; tip with distinct apical indentation and lateral margin slightly sinuous.
Body length: 4.96 (4.25-5.30) mm; wing length: 5.34 (4.50-5.75) mm
Distribution
Top of pageC. rosa s.s. is restricted to eastern and southern Africa. Records of C. rosa from central, western or southwestern Africa, refer to Ceratitis fasciventris. Both species have a largely allopatric distribution (De Meyer and Freidberg, 2006). The northernmost limit observed so far is in the coastal areas of Kenya. The records from Ethiopia, therefore, seem unreliable because all specimens studied by the author from Ethiopia belong to C. fasciventris. However, because the actual specimens on which these records are based could not be observed, and the proximity of Ethiopia to Kenya, these are currently considered as unreliable records that need confirmation. Records of C. rosa from southernmost part of South Africa and from the Mascarene Islands Mauritius and Réunion, refer to C. quilicii. For further discussion of the distribution of C. rosa, refer to De Meyer et al. (2015). See also UK CAB International (1985) and Smith et al. (1997b).
Distribution Table
Top of pageThe distribution in this summary table is based on all the information available. When several references are cited, they may give conflicting information on the status. Further details may be available for individual references in the Distribution Table Details section which can be selected by going to Generate Report.
Last updated: 12 May 2022Continent/Country/Region | Distribution | Last Reported | Origin | First Reported | Invasive | Reference | Notes |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Africa |
|||||||
Angola | Absent, Invalid presence record(s) | Probably confusion with Ceratitis fasciventris | |||||
Burkina Faso | Present | ||||||
Cameroon | Absent, Unconfirmed presence record(s) | ||||||
Congo, Democratic Republic of the | Absent, Invalid presence record(s) | Probably confusion with Ceratitis fasciventris | |||||
Eswatini | Absent, Unconfirmed presence record(s) | ||||||
Ethiopia | Absent, Unconfirmed presence record(s) | ||||||
Ghana | Present | ||||||
Guinea | Absent, Invalid presence record(s) | Probably confusion with Ceratitis fasciventris | |||||
Kenya | Present, Localized | Native | Originally restricted to coastal region. Central Highlands records probably due to confusion with Ceratitis quilicii. | ||||
Lesotho | Present | Native | Not confirmed; possible confusion with Ceratitis quilicii; Original citation: De and Meyer Freidberg (2006) | ||||
Malawi | Present, Widespread | Native | |||||
Mali | Absent, Invalid presence record(s) | Probably confusion with Ceratitis fasciventris | |||||
Mauritius | Absent, Invalid presence record(s) | Probably confusion with Ceratitis quilicii. | |||||
Mozambique | Present, Widespread | Native | |||||
Nigeria | Absent, Invalid presence record(s) | Probably confusion with Ceratitis fasciventris | |||||
Réunion | Absent, Invalid presence record(s) | Probably confusion with Ceratitis quilicii. | |||||
Rwanda | Absent, Invalid presence record(s) | Probably confusion with Ceratitis fasciventris | |||||
Seychelles | Absent, Invalid presence record(s) | ||||||
South Africa | Present, Localized | Native | See De Meyer et al. (2015) for distribution map in South Africa. | ||||
Tanzania | Present | Native | |||||
-Zanzibar Island | Present | Native | |||||
Uganda | Absent, Invalid presence record(s) | Probably confusion with Ceratitis fasciventris | |||||
Zambia | Absent, Unconfirmed presence record(s) | ||||||
Zimbabwe | Absent, Invalid presence record(s) | So far, there are no records of C. rosa from Zimbabwe, only C. quilicii. | |||||
Asia |
|||||||
Syria | Absent, Unconfirmed presence record(s) | ||||||
Europe |
|||||||
Belgium | Absent | ||||||
Netherlands | Absent, Confirmed absent by survey | ||||||
Slovenia | Absent, Confirmed absent by survey | ||||||
Oceania |
|||||||
New Zealand | Absent, Confirmed absent by survey |
History of Introduction and Spread
Top of pageC. rosa is a species restricted to the African mainland.
Historical records of introduction to the Mascarene Islands in the Indian Ocean (White et al., 2000), Mauritius and La Réunion, and to the Central Highlands of Kenya (Copeland and Wharton, 2006), actually refer to C. quilicii (see De Meyer et al., 2015).
Risk of Introduction
Top of pageC. rosa is of quarantine significance for EPPO, JUNAC and OIRSA. This has to be reviewed in view of the confusion with C. quilicii. Based on risk prediction by Tanga et al. (2018), C. rosa has the potential to become established in different tropical and subtropical areas of Africa, Latin America and Asia.
Habitat List
Top of pageCategory | Sub-Category | Habitat | Presence | Status |
---|---|---|---|---|
Terrestrial | Managed | Cultivated / agricultural land | Present, no further details | Harmful (pest or invasive) |
Terrestrial | Managed | Managed forests, plantations and orchards | Present, no further details | Harmful (pest or invasive) |
Terrestrial | Natural / Semi-natural | Natural forests | Present, no further details | Natural |
Hosts/Species Affected
Top of pageC. rosa is a polyphagous species. The list of known host plants for C. rosa as given by De Meyer et al. (2002) and at http://projects.bebif.be/fruitfly/index.html is based on records of C. rosa s.l. and thus can refer to either C. rosa, C. quilicii, or both. Detailed analysis, based on rearing experiments, is required to establish the exact host range of C. rosa. Transport of any of the host fruits could result in dispersal and distribution, if infested with fruit fly larvae.
Host Plants and Other Plants Affected
Top of pagePlant name | Family | Context | References |
---|---|---|---|
Acca sellowiana | Lithomyrtus | Unknown | Copeland et al. (2006); Grové et al. (2019); Isabirye et al. (2016); Duyck et al. (2008); Mwatawala et al. (2009); Orian and Moutia (1960); Mwatawala et al. (2009) |
Allophylus pervillei | Sapindaceae | Unknown | |
Anacardium occidentale (cashew nut) | Anacardiaceae | Unknown | Copeland et al. (2006); Isabirye et al. (2016) |
Angylocalyx braunii | Fabaceae | Unknown | |
Annona cherimola (cherimoya) | Annonaceae | Unknown | Copeland et al. (2006); Mwatawala et al. (2009); Mwatawala et al. (2009); Mwatawala et al. (2009) |
Annona muricata (soursop) | Annonaceae | Unknown | Copeland et al. (2006); Geurts et al. (2014); Isabirye et al. (2016); Mwatawala et al. (2009); Mwatawala et al. (2009); Mwatawala et al. (2009) |
Annona reticulata (bullock's heart) | Annonaceae | Other | Copeland et al. (2006); Duyck et al. (2008); Isabirye et al. (2016); Mukiama and Muraya (1994); Orian and Moutia (1960) |
Annona senegalensis (wild custard apple) | Annonaceae | Unknown | Copeland et al. (2006); Isabirye et al. (2016) |
Annona squamosa (sugar apple) | Annonaceae | Unknown | Copeland et al. (2006); Isabirye et al. (2016) |
Asimina triloba (Pawpaw-apple) | Annonaceae | Unknown | |
Averrhoa bilimbi (bilimbi) | Oxalidaceae | Unknown | Copeland et al. (2006) |
Averrhoa carambola (carambola) | Oxalidaceae | Other | Copeland et al. (2006) |
Calophyllum tacamahaca | Clusiaceae | Unknown | |
Calycosiphonia spathicalyx | Rubiaceae | Unknown | |
Cananga odorata (ylang-ylang) | Annonaceae | Unknown | Copeland et al. (2006) |
Capsicum frutescens (chilli) | Solanaceae | Other | Copeland et al. (2006) |
Carica cauliflora | Caricaceae | Unknown | |
Carica papaya (pawpaw) | Caricaceae | Other | Copeland et al. (2006); Isabirye et al. (2016) |
Carissa carandas (caranda (plum)) | Apocynaceae | Unknown | Copeland et al. (2006) |
Carissa macrocarpa (Natal plum) | Apocynaceae | Other | Clausen et al. (1965); Copeland et al. (2006); Villiers et al. (2013); Duyck et al. (2008); Grové et al. (2017) |
Cereus peruvianus | Cactaceae | Unknown | |
Chrysophyllum albidum | Sapotaceae | Unknown | |
Chrysophyllum cainito (caimito) | Sapotaceae | Unknown | Copeland et al. (2006); Duyck et al. (2008) |
Chrysophyllum carpussum | Sapotaceae | Unknown | |
Chrysophyllum natalense | Sapotaceae | Unknown | |
Citrus | Rutaceae | Main | |
Citrus aurantium (sour orange) | Rutaceae | Other | Copeland et al. (2006) |
Citrus nobilis (tangor) | Rutaceae | Unknown | |
Citrus reticulata (mandarin) | Rutaceae | Other | Copeland et al. (2006); Villiers et al. (2013); Duyck et al. (2008); Isabirye et al. (2016); Mwatawala et al. (2009); Mwatawala et al. (2009); Mwatawala et al. (2009) |
Citrus sinensis (sweet orange) | Rutaceae | Other | |
Citrus x paradisi (grapefruit) | Rutaceae | Unknown | Copeland et al. (2006); Duyck et al. (2008) |
Coccoloba uvifera (sea grape) | Polygonaceae | Unknown | Copeland et al. (2006) |
Coffea (coffee) | Rubiaceae | Main | |
Coffea arabica (arabica coffee) | Rubiaceae | Other | Copeland et al. (2006); Duyck et al. (2008); Isabirye et al. (2016); Mwatawala et al. (2009); Wharton et al. (2000); Mwatawala et al. (2009) |
Coffea canephora (robusta coffee) | Rubiaceae | Unknown | Greathead (1972); Mwatawala et al. (2009); Mwatawala et al. (2009); Mukiama and Muraya (1994); Mwatawala et al. (2009) |
Cola natalensis | Sterculiaceae | Unknown | |
Cucurbita (pumpkin) | Cucurbitaceae | Unknown | Copeland et al. (2006); Isabirye et al. (2016) |
Cydonia oblonga (quince) | Rosaceae | Other | Copeland et al. (2006) |
Dictyophleba lucida | Apocynaceae | Unknown | |
Dimocarpus longan (longan tree) | Sapindaceae | Unknown | Copeland et al. (2006) |
Diospyros kabuyeana | Ebenaceae | Unknown | |
Diospyros kaki (persimmon) | Ebenaceae | Unknown | |
Diospyros mespiliformis (ebony diospiros) | Ebenaceae | Unknown | |
Dovyalis caffra (kei apple) | Flacourtiaceae | Unknown | Clausen et al. (1965); Copeland et al. (2006); Villiers et al. (2013); Grové et al. (2017); Badii et al. (2015) |
Dovyalis hebecarpa (ketembilla) | Flacourtiaceae | Unknown | Copeland et al. (2006); Duyck et al. (2008) |
Dovyalis longispina | Unknown | ||
Dovyalis zeyheri | Unknown | ||
Drypetes battiscombei | Euphorbiaceae | Unknown | |
Drypetes natalensis | Euphorbiaceae | Unknown | |
Drypetes natalensis var. leiogyna | Euphorbiaceae | Unknown | |
Ehretia cymosa | Boraginaceae | Unknown | |
Ekebergia capensis | Meliaceae | Unknown | |
Englerophytum magalismontanum | Sapotaceae | Unknown | |
Englerophytum natalense | Sapotaceae | Unknown | |
Eriobotrya japonica (loquat) | Rosaceae | Other | Copeland et al. (2006); Villiers et al. (2013); Mukiama and Muraya (1994); Mwatawala et al. (2009); Mwatawala et al. (2009); Orian and Moutia (1960); Mwatawala et al. (2009) |
Eugenia uniflora (Surinam cherry) | Lithomyrtus | Other | Copeland et al. (2006); Duyck et al. (2008) |
Feijoa sellowiana (Horn of plenty) | Lithomyrtus | Unknown | |
Ficus | Moraceae | Unknown | |
Ficus carica (common fig) | Moraceae | Other | Copeland et al. (2006); Villiers et al. (2013); Duyck et al. (2008); Mwatawala et al. (2009); Mwatawala et al. (2009) |
Ficus racemosa (cluster tree) | Moraceae | Unknown | |
Ficus sur | Moraceae | Unknown | |
Flacourtia indica (governor's plum) | Flacourtiaceae | Unknown | Copeland et al. (2006); Mwatawala et al. (2009); Mwatawala et al. (2009) |
Fortunella japonica (round kumquat) | Rutaceae | Unknown | Mwatawala et al. (2009); Mwatawala et al. (2009) |
Garcinia livingstonei (african mangosteen) | Clusiaceae | Unknown | |
Garcinia mangostana (mangosteen) | Clusiaceae | Other | Copeland et al. (2006) |
Harpephyllum caffrum | Anacardiaceae | Unknown | Copeland et al. (2006); Grové et al. (2017) |
Hylocereus undatus (dragon fruit) | Cactaceae | Unknown | |
Icacina senegalensis | Icacinaceae | Unknown | |
Inga laurina (Spanish oak) | Fabaceae | Unknown | Copeland et al. (2006); Duyck et al. (2008) |
Lettowianthus stellatus | Annonaceae | Unknown | |
Litchi chinensis (lichi) | Sapindaceae | Other | Copeland et al. (2006) |
Ludia mauritiana | Salicaceae | Unknown | |
Malus domestica (apple) | Rosaceae | Other | Duyck et al. (2008); Copeland et al. (2006); Mwatawala et al. (2009); Mwatawala et al. (2009); Mwatawala et al. (2009) |
Mangifera indica (mango) | Anacardiaceae | Other | Badii et al. (2015); Copeland et al. (2006); Villiers et al. (2013); Duyck et al. (2008); Isabirye et al. (2016); Mukiama and Muraya (1994); Mwatawala et al. (2009); Mwatawala et al. (2009); Orian and Moutia (1960); Mwatawala et al. (2009) |
Manilkara zapota (sapodilla) | Sapotaceae | Other | |
Mimusops elengi (spanish cherry) | Sapotaceae | Unknown | Copeland et al. (2006) |
Monanthotaxis fornicata | Annonaceae | Other | |
Monodora grandidieri | Annonaceae | Unknown | |
Murraya paniculata (orange jessamine) | Rutaceae | Unknown | Copeland et al. (2006) |
Musa acuminata (wild banana) | Musaceae | Unknown | Copeland et al. (2006) |
Myrianthus arboreus | Cecropiaceae | Unknown | |
Nauclea latifolia (pin cushion tree) | Rubiaceae | Unknown | |
Opilia amentacea | Unknown | ||
Opuntia ficus-indica (prickly pear) | Cactaceae | Unknown | Copeland et al. (2006) |
Pachystela excelsa | Sapotaceae | Unknown | |
Parinari curatellifolia | Chrysobalanaceae | Unknown | |
Passiflora tripartita var. mollissima (banana passionfruit) | Passifloraceae | Unknown | |
Persea americana (avocado) | Lauraceae | Other | Copeland et al. (2006); Duyck et al. (2008); Isabirye et al. (2016); Mwatawala et al. (2009); Mwatawala et al. (2009); Orian and Moutia (1960); Mwatawala et al. (2009) |
Phyllanthus acidus (star gooseberry) | Euphorbiaceae | Unknown | Copeland et al. (2006) |
Pithecellobium dulce (Manila tamarind) | Fabaceae | Unknown | |
Pouteria campechiana (canistel) | Sapotaceae | Unknown | |
Pouteria usambarensis | Sapotaceae | Unknown | |
Prunus (stone fruit) | Rosaceae | Unknown | |
Prunus armeniaca (apricot) | Rosaceae | Other | Copeland et al. (2006) |
Prunus domestica (plum) | Rosaceae | Other | |
Prunus persica (peach) | Rosaceae | Other | Copeland et al. (2006); Duyck et al. (2008); Geurts et al. (2014); Manrakhan and Addison (2014); Mwatawala et al. (2009); Mwatawala et al. (2009); Orian and Moutia (1960); Mwatawala et al. (2009) |
Prunus persica var. nucipersica (nectarine) | Rosaceae | Unknown | |
Prunus persica var. persica | Unknown | ||
Prunus salicina (Japanese plum) | Rosaceae | Other | |
Psidium (guava) | Lithomyrtus | Unknown | Clausen et al. (1965) |
Psidium cattleianum (strawberry guava) | Lithomyrtus | Unknown | |
Psidium friedrichsthalianum (wild guava) | Lithomyrtus | Unknown | Copeland et al. (2006); Grové et al. (2019) |
Psidium guajava (guava) | Lithomyrtus | Other | Copeland et al. (2006); Villiers et al. (2013); Duyck et al. (2008); Geurts et al. (2014); Grové et al. (2019); Isabirye et al. (2016); Mukiama and Muraya (1994); Mwatawala et al. (2009); Orian and Moutia (1960); Mwatawala et al. (2009) |
Psidium guineense (Guinea guava) | Lithomyrtus | Unknown | |
Psidium japonicum | Lithomyrtus | Unknown | |
Pyrus (pears) | Rosaceae | Unknown | |
Pyrus communis (European pear) | Rosaceae | Other | Copeland et al. (2006); Villiers et al. (2013); Duyck et al. (2008); Mwatawala et al. (2009); Mwatawala et al. (2009) |
Rawsonia lucida | Flacourtiaceae | Unknown | |
Salacia elegans | Salacia | Unknown | |
Sclerocarya birrea (marula) | Anacardiaceae | Unknown | Mwatawala et al. (2009) |
Solanum aethiopicum (african scarlet eggplant) | Solanaceae | Unknown | Mwatawala et al. (2009) |
Solanum giganteum | Solanaceae | Unknown | |
Solanum lycopersicum (tomato) | Solanaceae | Other | |
Solanum mauritianum (tobacco tree) | Solanaceae | Unknown | Clausen et al. (1965); Duyck et al. (2008) |
Sphaerocoryne gracilis | Annonaceae | Unknown | |
Spondias dulcis (otaheite apple) | Anacardiaceae | Unknown | Mwatawala et al. (2009) |
Strombosiopsis | Unknown | ||
Strychnos henningsii | Loganiaceae | Unknown | |
Strychnos spinosa | Loganiaceae | Unknown | |
Synsepalum brevipes | Sapotaceae | Unknown | |
Synsepalum dulcificum | Sapotaceae | Unknown | Copeland et al. (2006) |
Synsepalum subvertillatum | Sapotaceae | Unknown | |
Syzygium aqueum (watery rose-apple) | Lithomyrtus | Other | Orian and Moutia (1960) |
Syzygium cordatum | Lithomyrtus | Unknown | |
Syzygium cumini (black plum) | Lithomyrtus | Other | Copeland et al. (2006); Mwatawala et al. (2009); Mwatawala et al. (2009) |
Syzygium guineense (woodland waterberry) | Lithomyrtus | Unknown | |
Syzygium jambos (rose apple) | Lithomyrtus | Other | Orian and Moutia (1960); Copeland et al. (2006); Villiers et al. (2013); Duyck et al. (2008); Grové et al. (2019) |
Syzygium malaccense (Malay apple) | Lithomyrtus | Other | Copeland et al. (2006); Duyck et al. (2008) |
Syzygium samarangense (water apple) | Lithomyrtus | Unknown | |
Terminalia catappa (Singapore almond) | Combretaceae | Other | |
Theobroma cacao (cocoa) | Malvaceae | Other | |
Toddalia asiatica | Rutaceae | Unknown | |
Tricalysia pallens | Rubiaceae | Unknown | |
Uvaria acuminata | Annonaceae | Unknown | |
Uvaria lucida | Annonaceae | Unknown | |
Vangueria infausta (African medlar) | Rubiaceae | Unknown | |
Vitis vinifera (grapevine) | Vitaceae | Other | |
Xylotheca kraussiana | Flacourtiaceae | Unknown | |
Ziziphus jujuba (common jujube) | Rhamnaceae | Other | Copeland et al. (2006); Orian and Moutia (1960) |
Ziziphus mauritiana (jujube) | Rhamnaceae | Unknown | |
Ziziphus mucronata | Rhamnaceae | Unknown |
Symptoms
Top of pageList of Symptoms/Signs
Top of pageSign | Life Stages | Type |
---|---|---|
Fruit / internal feeding | ||
Fruit / obvious exit hole |
Biology and Ecology
Top of pageDetailed biological data on C. rosa are given by Tanga et al. (2015). Predictive ecological niche models by De Meyer et al. (2008)are based on data from both C. rosa and C. quilicii and are therefore unreliable. Tanga et al. (2018) provide a comparative ILCYM (Insect Life Cycle Modelling) model prediction for C. rosa, compared to C. quilicii. Tanga et al. (2015) provided evidence that immature stages of C. rosa are less adapted to lower temperatures than C. quilicii.
Environmental Requirements
Tanga et al. (2018) proved an ILCYM model prediction for establishment risk of C. rosa, showing the potential risk of establishment in many tropical and subtropical areas in Africa, Latin America, and Asia.
Climate
Top of pageClimate | Status | Description | Remark |
---|---|---|---|
Aw - Tropical wet and dry savanna climate | Preferred | < 60mm precipitation driest month (in winter) and < (100 - [total annual precipitation{mm}/25]) | |
Cfa - Humid subtropical climate | Preferred | Warm average temp. > 10°C, Cold average temp. > 0°C, wet all year, warmest month average temp. > 22°C | |
Cw - Warm temperate climate with dry winter | Preferred | Warm temperate climate with dry winter (Warm average temp. > 10°C, Cold average temp. > 0°C, dry winters) |
Latitude/Altitude Ranges
Top of pageLatitude North (°N) | Latitude South (°S) | Altitude Lower (m) | Altitude Upper (m) |
---|---|---|---|
34 |
Natural enemies
Top of pageNatural enemy | Type | Life stages | Specificity | References | Biological control in | Biological control on |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Dirhinus giffardii | Parasite | |||||
Opius perproximus | Parasite | Arthropods|Larvae | ||||
Opius tephritivorus | Parasite | Arthropods|Larvae | ||||
Tetrastichus | Parasite | Arthropods|Larvae; Arthropods|Pupae |
Notes on Natural Enemies
Top of pageVery little information is available on the natural enemies of C. rosa. Clausen et al. (1965) reared parasitoids from samples taken in Kenya, but all in low numbers. The braconid, Fopius ceratitivorus was described from a.o. C. rosa, from Kenya (Wharton, 1999). Recently, several hymenopteran parasitoids (Psyttalia concolor, Psyttalia cosyrae, Tetrastichus giffardii) were tested in Kenya for their effectiveness in population control of C. rosa, but in most cases usually encapsulation of the eggs was observed (Mohamed et al., 2003, 2006, 2007). Limited survival rate was observed for Fopius arisanus in Réunion (Rousse et al., 2006). These data need to be reviewed in view of the confusion with C. quilicii.
Means of Movement and Dispersal
Top of pageNatural Dispersal
Adults tend to remain in the area of emergence, flight is rarely more than a few hundred metres.
Accidental introduction
C. rosa is a fruit-infesting species. Eggs are laid within fruits and the larvae develop inside the fruit. When mature, larvae leave the fruits and pupate in the soil. Introduction is usually accidental through transport and import of infested fruits. This can be through commercial shipments or in luggage of individual passengers. Introduction through soil that includes puparia could theoretically be possible, but there are no records or such introductions for this or similar fruit fly species.
Pathway Causes
Top of pageCause | Notes | Long Distance | Local | References |
---|---|---|---|---|
Crop production | Possible introduction through infested agricultural produce | Yes | Yes | White and Elson-Harris (1994) |
Food | Possible introduction through infested fruits | Yes | Yes | White and Elson-Harris (1994) |
Pathway Vectors
Top of pageVector | Notes | Long Distance | Local | References |
---|---|---|---|---|
Consumables | Possible if consumable include infested fruits.Probably high frequency for accidental introductions | Yes | Yes | White and Elson-Harris (1994) |
Luggage | Possible if luggage contains fruits.Probably high frequency for accidental introductions | Yes | Yes | White and Elson-Harris (1994) |
Soil, sand and gravel | Not reported but possible if soil contains puparia | Yes | Yes | White and Elson-Harris (1994) |
Plant Trade
Top of pagePlant parts liable to carry the pest in trade/transport | Pest stages | Borne internally | Borne externally | Visibility of pest or symptoms |
---|---|---|---|---|
Fruits (inc. pods) | arthropods/eggs; arthropods/larvae | Yes | Pest or symptoms not visible to the naked eye but usually visible under light microscope | |
Growing medium accompanying plants | arthropods/pupae | Yes | Pest or symptoms not visible to the naked eye but usually visible under light microscope |
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 |
Impact Summary
Top of pageCategory | Impact |
---|---|
Economic/livelihood | Negative |
Environment (generally) | Negative |
Human health | Negative |
Economic Impact
Top of pageC. rosa is a polyphagous species attacking a wide variety of unrelated fruits, including several commercial fruits. It can cause severe damage to commercial fruit crops, resulting in heavy losses. This indicates that it can be a serious pest species with high economic impact.
Threatened Species
Top of pageThreatened Species | Conservation Status | Where Threatened | Mechanism | References | Notes |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ceratitis catoirii | No details | Mauritius; Réunion | Competition - monopolizing resources | Duyck et al. (2004) |
Social Impact
Top of pageAlthough the impact of C. rosa is mainly economic, it has some social consequences in Africa. A large part of the fruit cultivation in Africa is by small-holder farms (Lux, 1999). Because of the high infestation rate and the consequent loss of production, this has an impact on the income of these farmer communities. It is also anticipated that the loss of fruit crops might have an impact on fruit consumption, hence the health of the local population.
Risk and Impact Factors
Top of page- Has a broad native range
- Abundant in its native range
- Tolerates, or benefits from, cultivation, browsing pressure, mutilation, fire etc
- Capable of securing and ingesting a wide range of food
- Benefits from human association (i.e. it is a human commensal)
- Has high reproductive potential
- Conflict
- Host damage
- Negatively impacts agriculture
- Negatively impacts human health
- Negatively impacts livelihoods
- Reduced native biodiversity
- Threat to/ loss of endangered species
- Threat to/ loss of native species
- Causes allergic responses
- Interaction with other invasive species
- Highly likely to be transported internationally accidentally
- Highly likely to be transported internationally illegally
- Difficult to identify/detect as a commodity contaminant
- Difficult to identify/detect in the field
- Difficult/costly to control
Detection and Inspection
Top of pageC. rosa can be monitored by traps baited with male lures. Like Ceratitis capitata, and members of subgenera Ceratitis and Pterandrus in general, it is attracted to trimedlure and terpinyl acetate, but not methyl eugenol or cue lure. It is also very sensitive to enriched ginger oil (EGO) lure (Mwatawala et al., 2015; Manrakhan et al., 2017). The responses to baits of 16 Ceratitis species were tabulated by Hancock (1987).
Trimedlure (t-butyl 4(or 5) chloro-2-methyl cyclohexane carboxylate) is the most widely used lure for C. capitata and the following information could also be relevant for C. rosa. The history of trimedlure development and the problems of isolating the best of the eight possible isomers was discussed by Cunningham (1989). The lure is usually placed on a cottonwool wick suspended in the middle of a plastic trap that has small openings at both ends. Suitable traps were described by White and Elson-Harris (1994). Lure can either be mixed with an insecticide or a piece of paper dipped in insecticide can be placed in the trap. Traps are usually placed in fruit trees at a height of ca. 2 m above ground and should be emptied regularly as it is possible to catch hundreds of flies in a single trap left for just a few days, although the lure may remain effective for a few weeks.
A detailed study of trap position effects was carried out by Israely et al. (1997). A review of the biological aspects of male lures was presented by Cunningham (1989) and the use of lures was described more fully by Drew (1982). A trapping system used to monitor for possible introductions of C. capitata into New Zealand has been described by Somerfield (1989) and should also be effective for C. rosa. The possibility of the development of pheromone based trapping systems was discussed by Landolt and Heath (1996) and it may be possible to extend that approach to C. rosa. Trapping efficiency of C. capitata is also enhanced by the use of fluorescent colours, particularly light green (Epsky et al., 1996). This may also apply to C. rosa.
Recent comparative research on attraction sensitivity of C. rosa by using different lures, has shown that enriched ginger oil (EGO) lure is an effective attractant for C. rosa (Manrakhan et al., 2017) and can actually be a more sensitive attractant than trimedlure (Mwatawala et al., 2015).
Similarities to Other Species/Conditions
Top of pageThe males of most species of subgenus Pterandrus have rows of stout setae on both the anterior and posterior edges of each mid-tibia, giving a feathered appearance. The males lack the spatulate head appendages of subgenus Ceratitis or the shiny frons and spotted abdomen of subgenus Pardalaspis. They can be differentiated from representatives of other subgenera within the genus Ceratitis by the presence of a dark band on the abdomen. C. rosa can be separated from most other members of this subgenus by having the feathering confined to slightly more than the distal half of the tibia and by lacking stout setae on the underside of the mid-femur. The closely related Ceratitis fasciventris has similar feathering on the mid tibia. It can be separated by the fact that in C. fasciventris the feathering is confined to less than the distal half of the tibia. These features are illustrated in De Meyer and Freidberg (2006) who also provide an identification key for both sexes of representatives of the subgenus Pterandrus. C. rosa is very similar to C. quilicii and male specimens can be differentiated only based on subtle morphological differences in the ornamentation and shape of the mid tibia. Illustrations depicting the main differentiating characters can be consulted in De Meyer et al. (2015) and at http://projects.bebif.be/fruitfly/index.html.
There is no simple method of recognizing females of C. rosa from either C. quilicii or C. fasciventris on morphological grounds. Virgilio et al. (2018) provide an ID decision map combining morphological and molecular identification tools to separate all life stages and sexes of representatives of the FAR complex.
Prevention and Control
Top of pageDue to the variable regulations around (de)registration of pesticides, your national list of registered pesticides or relevant authority should be consulted to determine which products are legally allowed for use in your country when considering chemical control. Pesticides should always be used in a lawful manner, consistent with the product's label.
Very little specific information has been written about the control of C. rosa. Most of the information given here is general information applicable to a large number of fruit fly species. When detected, it is important to gather all fallen and infected host fruits and destroy them. Traps containing male lures should be used to monitor population size and spread continuously (Ramsamy, 1989). Insecticidal protection is possible by using a cover spray or a bait spray (Schwartz, 1993). A bait spray consists of a suitable insecticide (for example, malathion) mixed with a protein bait. Both male and female fruit flies are attracted to protein sources emanating ammonia. Insecticides can therefore be applied to just a few spots in an orchard and the flies will be attracted to these spots. The protein most widely used is hydrolysed protein, but some supplies of this are acid hydrolysed and are highly phytotoxic.
Smith and Nannan (1988) have developed a system using autolysed protein; in Malaysia this has been developed into a very effective commercial product derived from brewery waste (developed for Bactrocera spp.).
Phytosanitary Measures
Consignments of potential host fruits from countries where C. rosa occurs should be inspected for symptoms of infestation and those suspected should be cut open in order to look for larvae. It is recommended that such fruits should come from an area where C. rosa does not occur, or from a place of production found free from the pest by regular inspection for 3 months before harvest. By analogy with C. capitata, fruits may also be treated in transit by cold treatment or, for certain types of fruits, by vapour heat.
Plants of host species transported with roots from countries where C. rosa occurs should be free from soil, or the soil should be treated against puparia. The plants should not carry fruits. The importation of such plants may be prohibited.
Biological Control
Parasitoids for biological control of C. rosa and other fruit flies were introduced in Mauritius in 1939 and 1957 (Greathead, 1971) and in Réunion during the 1960s and 1970s (Greathead, 1971; OPIE, 1986), but none became established.
Gaps in Knowledge/Research Needs
Top of pageLimited information is available on climatic thresholds, based on rearing experiments. There is some indication that C. rosa can withstand colder temperatures and/or wetter environments than its current distribution would indicate which is important for determining the risk of establishment in new regions.
In order to fully understand the impact of individual polyphagous pest species, a detailed study of interspecific competition and resource partitioning between the different species (both natural and invasive) is needed. Copeland et al. (2006) is an example of such study, which should be repeated in other parts of the geographic range of C. rosa.
References
Top of pageClausen CP, 1978. Tephritidae (Trypetidae, Trupaneidae), In: Clausen CP, ed. Introduced Parasites and Predators of Arthropod Pests and Weeds: A World Review. Agricultural Handbook, United States Department of Agriculture, 480:320-335
Clausen CP, Clancy DW, Chock QC, 1965. Biological Control of the Oriental fruit fly (Dacus dorsalis Hendel) and Other Fruit Flies in Hawaii. United States Department of Agriculture, Technical Bulletin, No. 1322
Cunningham RT, 1989. Biology and physiology; parapheromones. In: Robinson AS, Hooper G, eds. Fruit Flies; Their Biology, Natural Enemies and Control. World Crop Pests 3(A):221-230. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier
Drew RAI, 1982. Fruit fly collecting. In: Drew RAI, Hooper GHS, Bateman MA, eds. Economic Fruit Flies of the South Pacific Region, 2nd edition. Brisbane, Australia: Queensland Department of Primary Industries, 129-139
EPPO, 2014. PQR database. Paris, France: European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization. http://www.eppo.int/DATABASES/pqr/pqr.htm
FAO/IAEA, 2003. Trapping Guidelines for area-wide fruit fly programmes. Vienna, Austria: International Atomic Energy Agency, 47 pp
Landolt PJ, Heath RR, 1996. Development of pheromone-based trapping systems for monitoring and controlling tephritid fruit flies in Florida. In: Rosen D, Bennett FD, Capinera JL, eds. Pest Management in the Subtropics: Integrated Pest Management a Florida Perspective. Andover, UK: Intercept Limited, 197-207
OPIE, 1986. Lutte biologique a l'aide d'insectes entomophages. Cahiers de Liaison, 20(2) (No. 61), 48 pp
Orian AJE, Moutia LA, 1960. Fruit flies (Trypetidae) of economic importance in Mauritius. Revue Agricole et Sucriere de l'Ile Maurice, 39:142-150
Schotman CYL, 1989. Plant pests of quarantine importance to the Caribbean. RLAC-PROVEG, No. 21:80 pp
Virgilio, M., Daneel, J.-H., Manrakhan, A., Delatte, H., Meganck, K., De Meyer, M., 2018. An integrated diagnostic setup for the morphological and molecular identification of the Ceratitis FAR complex (C. anonae, C. fasciventris, C. rosa, C. quilicii, Diptera, Tephritidae). In: Bulletin of Entomological Research,doi: 10.1017/S0007485318000615
Distribution References
CABI, Undated. Compendium record. Wallingford, UK: CABI
CABI, Undated a. CABI Compendium: Status as determined by CABI editor. Wallingford, UK: CABI
Schotman C Y L, 1989. Plant pests of quarantine importance to the Caribbean. In: RLAC-PROVEG, 80 pp.
Links to Websites
Top of pageWebsite | URL | Comment |
---|---|---|
Tephritid Workers Database | http://www.tephritid.org/twd/srv/en/home | |
True Fruit Flies (Diptera, Tephritidae) of the Afrotropical Region | http://projects.bebif.be/fruitfly/index.html |
Organizations
Top of pageKenya: International Centre for Insect Physiology and Ecology, P.O. Box 30772-00100, Nairobi, http://www.icipe.org/
Tanzania: Sokoine University of Agriculture, P.O. Box 3000 Chuo Kikuu, Morogoro, http://www.suanet.ac.tz/
Belgium: Royal Museum for Central Africa, Leuvensesteenweg 13, 3080 Tervuren, http://www.africamuseum.be
Contributors
Top of page22/10/18; 11/12/07 Updated by:
Marc De Meyer, Royal Museum for Central Africa, Invertebrates Section and JEMU, Leuvensesteenweg 13, B3080 Tervuren, Belgium
Distribution Maps
Top of pageSelect a dataset
Map Legends
-
CABI Summary Records
Map Filters
Unsupported Web Browser:
One or more of the features that are needed to show you the maps functionality are not available in the web browser that you are using.
Please consider upgrading your browser to the latest version or installing a new browser.
More information about modern web browsers can be found at http://browsehappy.com/