Dacus ciliatus (lesser pumpkin fly)
- Summary of Invasiveness
- Taxonomic Tree
- Notes on Taxonomy and Nomenclature
- Distribution Table
- History of Introduction and Spread
- Risk of Introduction
- Habitat List
- Hosts/Species Affected
- Host Plants and Other Plants Affected
- Growth Stages
- List of Symptoms/Signs
- Biology and Ecology
- Natural enemies
- Notes on Natural Enemies
- Means of Movement and Dispersal
- Pathway Causes
- Pathway Vectors
- Plant Trade
- Impact Summary
- Economic Impact
- Risk and Impact Factors
- Uses List
- Detection and Inspection
- Similarities to Other Species/Conditions
- Prevention and Control
- Gaps in Knowledge/Research Needs
- Links to Websites
- Distribution Maps
Don't need the entire report?
Generate a print friendly version containing only the sections you need.Generate report
PicturesTop of page
IdentityTop of page
Preferred Scientific Name
- Dacus ciliatus Loew
Preferred Common Name
- lesser pumpkin fly
Other Scientific Names
- Dacus appoxanthus var. decolor Bezzi
- Dacus brevistylus Bezzi
- Dacus cocciniae Premlata & Singh
- Dacus insistens Curran
- Dacus sigmoides Coquillett
- Didacus ciliatus (Loew)
- Leptoxyda ciliata (Loew)
- Tridacus mallyi Munro [nomen nudum]
International Common Names
- English: cucurbit fly; Ethiopian fruit fly; lesser melon fly
- DACUCI (Dacus ciliatus)
Summary of InvasivenessTop of page
Taxonomic TreeTop of page
- Domain: Eukaryota
- Kingdom: Metazoa
- Phylum: Arthropoda
- Subphylum: Uniramia
- Class: Insecta
- Order: Diptera
- Family: Tephritidae
- Genus: Dacus
- Species: Dacus ciliatus
Notes on Taxonomy and NomenclatureTop of page D. ciliatus belongs to subgenus Didacus and its name may therefore be cited as Dacus (Didacus) ciliatus Loew.
DescriptionTop of page
The genus Bactrocera belongs to the family Tephritidae, which is part of the superfamily Tephritoidea. In common with most species of Tephritoidea, this species 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 subcostal 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, species of Bactrocera and Dacus have a very deep cell bm and a very long pointed extension of cell bcu (= cup). The genus Dacus, is separated from Bactrocera, by the terga (dorsal sclerites of the abdomen) being fused into a single sclerotized plate.
D. ciliatus is a member of subgenus Didacus, which is separated from other African subgenera as follows: anterior supra-alar setae absent; male with a pecten (comb of setae along each postero-lateral edge of abdominal tergum 3). It can be separated from other pest species within the subgenus by its lack of yellow vittae (stripes) on the scutum, and by the yellow spot in each haltere base being small and separated from the scutellum by at least its own diameter. Non-reared specimens from Africa should be identified using the keys provided by Munro (1984), but it should be noted that those keys are very difficult to use. Non-reared specimens from Asia should be identified using Drew et al. (1998).
White and Elson-Harris (1994) gave some details, but they were insufficient to permit separation from other pest species of subgenus Didacus.
DistributionTop of page
D. ciliatus is a major pest of cucurbits throughout Africa, except in the Maghreb, being distributed from Egypt to South Africa (Hancock, 1989). The fly is also a pest in the Indian Ocean (Reunion and Mauritius) and Oriental Asia (Pakistan and India). It has also been reported in the Middle East (Iran, Saudi-Arabia, Yemen, amongst others). D. ciliatus has spread to Israel (Norrbom et al., 1999) and to Oman (Azam et al., 2004). It is found in a small area of the Arava desert and is still a quarantine insect in Israel (Maklakov et al., 2001). As the common name, Ethiopian fruit fly, suggests, D. ciliatus is native to East Africa (Vayssières et al., 2008).
Due to confusion with other species, some country records have been based on misidentifications. Records of D. ciliatus from Cape Verde have been found to be based on a misidentification of Dacus frontalis (White and Elson-Harris, 1994). Similarly, Sri Lankan specimens examined by Drew et al. (1998) were Dacus keiseri. A record for Botswana, cited in the 1995 edition of the Distribution Maps of Plant Pests (UK International Institute of Entomology, 1995), was based on an NHM specimen that has not been traced, and the record for Madagascar is likely to be based on a misidentification. The following records, also cited in this map, are not confirmed by voucher specimens available to either NHM staff or to Munro (1984) and are listed as requiring further confirmation: Bangladesh; Myanmar; Benin; Chad; and Sierra Leone. Refer to CABI/EPPO (2002) for further information.
Distribution TableTop of page
The distribution in this summary table is based on all the information available. When several references are cited, they may give conflicting information on the status. Further details may be available for individual references in the Distribution Table Details section which can be selected by going to Generate Report.
History of Introduction and SpreadTop of page
Adult flight and the transport of infested fruit are the major means of movement and dispersal to previously uninfected areas.
Risk of IntroductionTop of page D. ciliatus poses a phytosanitary risk to other countries with a suitable tropical climate and suitable cucurbit crops.
Habitat ListTop of page
|Terrestrial – Managed||Cultivated / agricultural land||Principal habitat||Productive/non-natural|
|Managed forests, plantations and orchards||Principal habitat||Productive/non-natural|
|Terrestrial ‑ Natural / Semi-natural||Natural grasslands||Secondary/tolerated habitat||Natural|
Hosts/Species AffectedTop of page
Host Plants and Other Plants AffectedTop of page
Growth StagesTop of page Fruiting stage
SymptomsTop of page Attacked fruit usually shows signs of oviposition punctures around which necrosis may occur. In heavy infestations the fruit may collapse leaving just the skin (El Nahal et al., 1971).
List of Symptoms/SignsTop of page
|Fruit / discoloration|
|Fruit / extensive mould|
|Fruit / gummosis|
|Fruit / internal feeding|
|Fruit / lesions: black or brown|
|Fruit / lesions: scab or pitting|
|Fruit / obvious exit hole|
|Fruit / odour|
|Fruit / ooze|
Biology and EcologyTop of page
D. ciliatus adults reach their sexual maturity at 14-15 days although there are data from Egypt stating that the adults reach their reproductive maturity after 5-6 days during the summer and after 20-30 days during the winter (El Nahal et al., 1971). As in most of the fruit flies belonging to the Dacinae, mating in D. ciliatus occurs at dusk under low light intensities (Fletcher, 1987; Smith, 1989). At light intensities lower than 50 lux, mating pairs start to copulate (Dehecq, 1995). They usually stay coupled during the entire night and are separated by the morning light (Dehecq, 1995). Although not yet confirmed, it seems that females mate only once in their life span (El Nahal et al., 1971).
Generally, mature females of the genus Bactrocera oviposit into fruit. Although in most species of Bactrocera this is usually at the start of ripening, some cucurbit-associated species may attack at fruit set or even attack the ovaries. Vayssières and Dal (2002) observed that orange spheres mostly attract sexually mature females for oviposition whereas immature females prefer yellow colours.
Females oviposit an average of 210 eggs (El Nahal et al., 1971). Fetoh (2006) recorded a mean egg production of 322.6. The eggs are laid in groups of 5-15 (El Nahal et al., 1971). After the eggs hatch, the young larvae start to feed in the host, causing damage to the fruit. The final instar larvae of Bactrocera drop to the ground, find a crack to drop into, and then form a puparium within which pupation takes place.
Patel and Patel (1998) reared D. ciliatus in the laboratory (in Coccinia grandis) and noted that larval development took 4-7 days, pupariation 7-14 days, and adult longevity was 13-27 days, depending on the season. El Nahal et al. (1971) reported similar results from Cucurbita pepo, except that they reported a pupation period of up to 40 days. Fetoh (2006) reared D. ciliatus under laboratory conditions on marrow fruits and recorded the following mean life spans: egg, 3.0 ± 0.8 days; larva, 7.3 ± 2.7 days; pupa, 9.3 ± 1.9 days; adult, 14-45 days.
In laboratory conditions, the adults may live for up to 4 months with constant sources of protein and sucrose (El Nahal et al., 1971; Yarom et al., 1997). On the other hand, if deprived from food, the adults die in about 2-3 days (El Nahal et al., 1971). Fetoh (2006) recorded a sex ratio of 1:1.
In comparison to the related species B. cucurbitae,D. ciliatus is characterised by early reproduction, lower oviposition time, shorter life span, and lower fecundity (Vayssières et al., 2008). The adults are classified as K-strategists (Vayssières et al., 2002).
Natural enemiesTop of page
|Natural enemy||Type||Life stages||Specificity||References||Biological control in||Biological control on|
Notes on Natural EnemiesTop of page
Silvestri (1913) noted that in watermelon [Citrullus lanatus], melon [Cucumis melo] and cucumber [Cucumis sativus], the larvae were not parasitized because the larvae are too deep within such large fruits. However, he reported 60% parasitism in the fruits of Momordica.
Means of Movement and DispersalTop of page
Adult flight and the transport of infested fruits are the major means of movement and dispersal to previously uninfested areas. The flight capability of D. ciliatus has not been measured. Transport of plants of host species that are transported with roots from countries where these pests occur can also be a cause of dispersal of puparia.
[Erratum: In previous versions of this datasheet, it was stated that “many Bactrocera spp. can fly 50-100 km (Fletcher, 1989)” but a review of Fletcher (1989a) and Fletcher (1989b) by Hicks (2016, unpublished data, USDA) found no evidence to support this statement and it has been removed. Fletcher (1989b) provides dispersal data for only 11 of 651 species of Bactrocera, many of the case studies lack the necessary numerical data, and the study did not discern between active flight and passive wind-assisted dispersal. There are differences among fruit fly species and further studies are required to determine dispersal distances for individual species. For further information on trapping Bactrocera species to monitor movement, see Weldon et al. (2014).]
Pathway CausesTop of page
Pathway VectorsTop of page
|Bulk freight or cargo||infested fruit||Yes|
|Clothing, footwear and possessions||fruit in cases or bags||Yes|
|Containers and packaging - wood||Of fruit cargo||Yes|
|Land vehicles||infested fruit||Yes|
|fruit in post||Yes|
Plant TradeTop of page
|Plant parts liable to carry the pest in trade/transport||Pest stages||Borne internally||Borne externally||Visibility of pest or symptoms|
|Fruits (inc. pods)||eggs; larvae||Yes||Pest or symptoms usually visible to the naked eye|
|Growing medium accompanying plants||pupae||Yes||Pest or symptoms usually visible to the naked eye|
Impact SummaryTop of page
ImpactTop of page D. ciliatus is one of several cucurbit fruit flies that, if uncontrolled, causes considerable loss of yield, although its impact is not as serious as the melon fly, Bactrocera curcurbitae, in areas where both species occur.
Economic ImpactTop of page
D. ciliatus is a serious pest of cucurbit crops (Hancock, 1989). It is reported to cause serious economic damage in Egypt (El Nahal et al., 1971) and South Africa (Hancock, 1989). In the Reunion Island, D. ciliatus, together with Dacus cucurbitae (and out of nine species of Tephritidae), represents the primary pests of Cucurbitaceae, having been reported in nine genera of this plant family (Dehecq, 1995; Vayssières et al., 2008).
It is an EPPO A1 quarantine pest within the category 'non-European Trypetidae' and is also of quarantine significance to CPPC (Caribbean Plant Protection Commission). However, the risk of establishment in most of the EPPO area is minimal, although in some areas, populations might enter and multiply during the summer months and, in southern areas may survive several winters (EPPO, 2009). The direct losses from these introductions are not believed to be high. However, its presence may cause indirect economic impact by restricting exports.
In southern areas, some populations might survive one or several winters, although the direct losses from such introductions would probably not be high. The major risk for EPPO countries arises from the probable imposition of much stricter phytosanitary restrictions on exported fruits (particularly to America) if Bactrocera spp. or tropical Dacus spp., such as D. ciliatus, enter and multiply, even temporarily.
Risk and Impact FactorsTop of page Invasiveness
- Has a broad native range
- Abundant in its native range
- Tolerates, or benefits from, cultivation, browsing pressure, mutilation, fire etc
- Highly mobile locally
- Benefits from human association (i.e. it is a human commensal)
- Fast growing
- Has high reproductive potential
- Has propagules that can remain viable for more than one year
- Host damage
- Monoculture formation
- Negatively impacts agriculture
- Negatively impacts cultural/traditional practices
- Highly likely to be transported internationally accidentally
- Difficult to identify/detect as a commodity contaminant
- Difficult to identify/detect in the field
- Difficult/costly to control
Uses ListTop of page
- Laboratory use
- Research model
Detection and InspectionTop of page
However, both sexes may be monitored using protein bait traps (either protein hydrolysate or protein autolysate); see Drew (1982) for further details. More recent experimental essays led to the conclusion that the fly seems to be attracted to low concentrations of some “food lures” and to volatiles emanating from mature melons (D Nestel, Agriculture Research Center, Israel, personal communication, 2008). Sookar et al. (2001), during a field cage trial in order to determine the preference of fruit flies to two types of bait (commercial and local), found no significant differences among the trap catches for D. ciliatus.
Similarities to Other Species/ConditionsTop of page
Prevention and ControlTop of page
Due 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.
When detected, it is important to gather all infested host fruits and destroy them. Protein baited traps should be used to monitor population size and spread continuously.
Insecticide protection is possible by using a cover spray (the bait sprays used against fruit flies in tree fruits are not generally used for cucurbit crops). Shaheen et al. (1973) found that sprays of pirimiphos-methyl or trichlorphon were effective against D. ciliatus on autumn plantings of Cucumis melo (snake cucumber and sweetmelon). Saddik and Rizkallah (1970) found that fenthion and trichlorphon all increased yield. Kazi (1976) found that adult D. ciliatus moved to non-host 'rest plants' between 1700h and 0800h, and suggested that the flies might be better controlled there, rather than on the larval host.
D.ciliatus adults are highly sensitive to low concentrations of spinosad baited with 1% yeast hydrolysate and 10% sucrose as phagostimulant; specifically 8.5 ppm had a 90% efficacy on females (Nestel et al., 2004). Chakravarthy et al. (2007) found that a garlic barrier (GB Ag; garlic juice 99.98% pure) lowered the infestation of D. ciliatus when used on gherkin cultivation. Moreover, Hussein et al. (2006) showed that the entomopathogenic nematodes, Steinernema feltiae (NC) and Heterorhabditis bacteriophora (BA1) efficiently controlled D. ciliatus larvae and pupae, whereas treatment with profenofos and pirimiphos-methyl caused even higher mortality. On the other hand, organophosphates were proved to be ineffective for the control of D. ciliatus, but pyrethroids have high potential for controlling it, showing satisfactory killing ability, massive knockdown effect, and prevention of oviposition (Maklakov et al., 2001).
Nestel found that pesticides such as Telstar (pyrethroid), Mospilan (neonicotinoid) and Avisect were effective against D. ciliatus. Organic insecticides such as Karlic@ and Hot-Pepper@ did not show any effectiveness in killing or deterring the fly (D Nestel, Agriculture Research Center, Israel, personal communication, 2008).
Physical protection provides a more environmentally acceptable approach. In Senegal, where D. ciliatus and Dacus vertebrates cause heavy losses to cantaloupe melon [Cucumis melo] production, it was found that growing under the protection of tunnels increased yield (Froissart et al., 1995; Vaissière and Froissart, 1996).
Consignments of fruits from countries where these pests occur should be inspected for symptoms of infestation and suspect fruit should be cut open in order to look for larvae. EPPO recommends that such fruits should come from an area where D. ciliatus does not occur and where routine intensive control measures are applied (OEPP/EPPO, 1990). The fruits may also be treated in transit by cold treatment (13 or 14 days at 0.0 or 0.6°C, respectively) or, for certain types of fruits, by vapour heat (keeping at 43-44°C for 6-9 h, according to commodity) (FAO, 1983), or hot water treatment. Treatment methods against fruit flies are currently under review within EPPO and as part of a common programme of the regional plant protection organizations.
Plants of host species transported with roots from countries where these pests occur should be free from soil, or the soil should be treated against puparia. The plants should not carry fruits. Importation of such plants may indeed be prohibited.
Gaps in Knowledge/Research NeedsTop of page
There are many gaps in knowledge concerning this species, including:
- Few studies have been carried out on the biology of this species
- There is only one study on the demographic parameters of this species
- There is little information about trapping methods or attractive substances - there is only one study about the attraction of D. ciliatus to several known lures for fruit flies
- There is little information about pesticide sensitivity.
ReferencesTop of page
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
Badr-Elsabah AF, Afia YI, 2004. Preliminary biological aspects of the new recorded parasitoid, Dirhinus luzonesis, (Hymenoptera: Chalcididae) of cucurbit fruit fly, Dacus ciliatus (Loew.) and peach fruit fly, Bactorcera (=Dacus) zonata (Saunders) (Diptera: Tephritidae) in Egypt. Egyptian Journal of Biological Pest Control, 14(1):73-76
Bhatia SK, Mahto Y, 1968. Notes on breeding of fruit flies Dacus ciliatus Loew and D. cucurbitae Coquillett in stem galls of Coccinia indica W. & A. Indian Journal of Entomology, 30:244-245
Çaliskan Keçe, A. F., Özbek Çatal, B., Ulusoy, M. R., 2019. A new invasive species in Turkey: Dacus ciliatus Loew, 1862 (Diptera: Tephritidae). Turkish Journal of Entomology, 43(1), 25-30.
Dehecq JS, 1995. Etude de la comunication pheromonale chez trois thephritidae de la Reunion: Dacus ciliatus Loew, Dacus demmerezi (Bezzi) et Trirhithromya cyanescens (Bezzi). France: Ecole Nationale Superieure Agronomique de Montpellier
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
El Nahal AKM, Azab AK, Swailem SM, 1971. Studies on the biology of the melon fruit fly, Dacus ciliatus Loew (Diptera:Trypanaeidae). Bulletin de la Societe Entomologique d'Egypte, 54:231-241
El-Sabah B, Fetoh A, Afia YI, 2004. New records for parasitoid species on the cucurbit fruit fly, Dacus ciliatus (Loew) and the peach fruit fly, Bactrocera zonata (Saunders), (Diptera: Tephritidae) in Egypt. Egyptian Journal of Biological Pest Control, 14(2):425
EPPO, 1990. Specific quarantine requirements. EPPO Technical Documents, No. 1008. Paris, France: European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization
EPPO, 2011. EPPO Reporting Service. EPPO Reporting Service. Paris, France: EPPO. http://archives.eppo.org/EPPOReporting/Reporting_Archives.htm
EPPO, 2014. PQR database. Paris, France: European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization. http://www.eppo.int/DATABASES/pqr/pqr.htm
FAO, 1983. International plant quarantine treatment manual. FAO Plant Production and Protection Paper No. 50. Rome, Italy: FAO
Fetoh BEA, 2006. Occurrence, distribution and biology of the pumpkin fruit fly, Dacus ciliatus Loew (Diptera: Tephritidae) as re-appearing pest in Egypt. Egyptian Journal of Agricultural Research, 84(1):11-16
Fletcher BS, 1989. Life history strategies of Tephritid fruit flies. In: Fruit Flies: Their biology, natural enemies and control. World Crop Pests, 3B [ed. by Robinson AS, Hooper G] Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier Science Publishers B. V., 195-208
Fletcher BS, 1989. Movements of tephritid fruit flies. In: Fruit Flies; their Biology, Natural Enemies and Control. World Crop Pests [ed. by Robinson, A. S., Hooper, G.]. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier Science Publishers, 209-219
Froissart R, Gerard M, Vaissiere BE, 1995. Production integree du melon cantaloup a contre-saison en Afrique de l'Ouest, a l'aide de voile non tisse. Fruits-Paris, 50:359-374
Hancock DL, 1989. Southern Africa. In: Fruit Flies: Their biology, natural enemies and control, World Crop Pests, 3A [ed. by Robinson AS, Hooper G, ] Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., 51-58
Hussein MA, El-Wakeil N, El-Sebai T, 2006. Susceptibility of melon fruit fly, Dacus ciliatus, to entomopathogenic nematodes (Rhabditida) and to insecticides. International Journal of Nematology, 16(1):13-18
Kapoor VC, 2002. Fruit-fly pests and their present status in India. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Symposium on fruit flies of economic importance, Stellenbosch, South Africa, 6-10 May 2002 [ed. by Barnes BN], 23-33
Maklakov A, Ishaaya I, Freidberg A, Yawetz A, Horowitz AR, Yarom I, 2001. Toxicological studies of organophosphate and pyrethroid insecticides for controlling the fruit fly Dacus ciliatus (Diptera: Tephritidae). Journal of Economic Entomology, 94(5):1059-1066
Mohamed SA, Wharton RA, Mérey Gvon, Schulthess F, 2006. Acceptance and suitability of different host stages of Ceratitis capitata (Wiedemann) (Diptera: Tephritidae) and seven other tephritid fruit fly species to Tetrastichus giffardii Silvestri (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae). Biological Control, 39(3):262-271. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/10499644
Nestel D, Nemny-Lavy E, Zilberg L, Weiss M, Akiva R, Gazit Y, 2004. The fruit fly PUB: a phagostimulation unit bioassay system to quantitatively measure ingestion of baits by individual flies. Journal of Applied Entomology, 128(9/10):576-582
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
Orian AJE, Moutia LA, 1960. Fruit flies (Trypetidae) of economic importance in Mauritius. Revue Agricole et Sucriere de l'Ile Maurice, 39:142-150
Patel RK, Patel CB, 1998. Biology of fruit fly, Dacus ciliatus Loew (Tephritidae: Diptera) infesting little gourd, Coccinia indica W. & A. Gujarat Agricultural University Research Journal, 23(2):54-60; 2 ref
Qureshi ZA, Siddiqui QH, Hussain T, 1986. Screening of lures for Ethiopian melon fly. In: Fruit flies: Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium [ed. by Economopoulos AP] USA: Elsevier Science Publ, 463-467
Silvestri F, 1913. Viaggio in Africa per cercare parassiti di mosche dei frutti. Bolletino del Laboratorio di Zoologia Generale e Agraria della R. Scuola Superiore d'Agricoltura, Portici, 8:1-164
Smith PH, 1989. Behavioural partitioning of the day and circadian rhytmicity. In: Fruit Flies: Their biology, natural enemies and control, World Crop Pests, 3A [ed. by Robinson AS, Hooper G, ] Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., 325-341
Sookar P, Seewooruthun SI, Khayratee F, 2001. Assessment of protein baits for the monitoring and control of fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae). Revue Agricole et Sucrière de l'Île Maurice, 80/81(3-1/3):287-294
Tsuruta K, White IM, Bandara HMJ, Rajapakse H, Sundaraperuma SAH, Kahawatta SBMUC, Rajapakse GBJP, 1997. A preliminary notes on the hosts of fruit flies of the tribe dacini (diptera, tephritidae) in Sri Lanka. Esakia, 37:149-160
Umeh VC, Garcia LE, Meyer Mde, 2008. Fruit flies of sweet oranges in Nigeria: species diversity, relative abundance and spread in major producing areas. Fruits (Paris), 63(3):145-153. http://www.fruits-journal.org/
Vayssières JF, Carel Y, Coubes M, 2002. Demographic parameters and biotic factors of two Dacini species, Bactrocera cucurbitae and Dacus ciliatus, on Réunion Island. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Symposium on fruit flies of economic importance, Stellenbosch, South Africa, 6-10 May 2002 [ed. by Barnes BN], 91-95
Vayssières JF, Carel Y, Coubes M, Duyck PF, 2008. Development of Immature Stages and Comparative Demography of Two Cucurbit-Attacking Fruit Flies in Reunion Island: Bactrocera cucurbitae and Dacus ciliatus (Diptera Tephritidae). Environmental Entomology, 37((2)):307-314
Vayssières JF, Dal F, 2002. Responses of the Ethiopian fruit fly, Dacus ciliatus Loew (Diptera: Tephritidae), to coloured rectangles, spheres and ovoids. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Symposium on fruit flies of economic importance, Stellenbosch, South Africa, 6-10 May 2002 [ed. by Barnes BN], 111-116
Weldon CW, Schutze MK, Karsten M, 2014. Trapping to monitor tephritid movement: results, best practice, and assessment of alternatives. In: Trapping and the detection, control, and regulation of Tephritid fruit flies: lures, aarea-wide programs, and trade implications [ed. by Shelly T, Epsky N, Jang EB, Reyes-Flores J, Vargas R]. New York, USA: Springer, 175-217
ContributorsTop of page
11/08/2008 Updated by:
Ana Larcher Carvalho, Biologika consulting, Ag & Rural Development Tv do Terreirinho, 11, 2-D, 1100-600 Lisboa, Portugal
Distribution MapsTop of page
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/