Bactrocera tryoni (Queensland fruit fly)
Index
- Pictures
- Identity
- Summary of Invasiveness
- Taxonomic Tree
- Notes on Taxonomy and Nomenclature
- Description
- Distribution
- Distribution Table
- Introductions
- 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
- Air Temperature
- Rainfall Regime
- Natural enemies
- Notes on Natural Enemies
- Means of Movement and Dispersal
- Pathway Causes
- Pathway Vectors
- Plant Trade
- Impact Summary
- Impact
- Economic Impact
- Environmental Impact
- Risk and Impact Factors
- Uses
- Detection and Inspection
- Similarities to Other Species/Conditions
- Prevention and Control
- References
- Links to Websites
- 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
- Bactrocera tryoni (Froggatt)
Preferred Common Name
- Queensland fruit fly
Other Scientific Names
- Bactrocera (Bactrocera) tryoni (Froggatt)
- Chaetodacus sarcocephali Tryon
- Chaetodacus tryoni (Froggatt)
- Dacus ferrugineus tryoni (Froggatt)
- Dacus tryoni (Froggatt)
- Strumeta melas Perkins & May
- Strumeta tryoni (Froggatt)
- Tephritis tryoni Froggatt
International Common Names
- English: qfly; Queensland fruitfly
- Spanish: mosca de la fruta de Queenslandia
- French: mouche des fruits de Queenslande
Local Common Names
- Germany: Fruchtfliege, Queensland-
EPPO code
- DACUTR (Bactrocera tryoni)
Summary of Invasiveness
Top of pageB. tryoni, the Queensland fruit fly, is the most costly horticultural pest in Australia and has invaded several countries in the surrounding region (White and Elson-Harris, 1994). It has the potential to spread to many places around the world because of its wide climatic and host range (Meats 1989b; Sutherst et al., 2000) and a tendency to be carried by human travellers at the larval stage inside infested fruit. B. tryoni is a very serious pest of a wide variety of fruits throughout its range. Damage levels can be anything up to 100% of unprotected fruit.
Taxonomic Tree
Top of page- Domain: Eukaryota
- Kingdom: Metazoa
- Phylum: Arthropoda
- Subphylum: Uniramia
- Class: Insecta
- Order: Diptera
- Family: Tephritidae
- Genus: Bactrocera
- Species: Bactrocera tryoni
Notes on Taxonomy and Nomenclature
Top of pageB. tryoni was originally described as Tephritis tryoni by Froggatt in 1897 and two little-used synonyms are attributable to Tryon. The status of B. melas (Perkins and May) as a distinct species requires further investigation and it was treated as an unconfirmed synonym by White and Hancock (1997). B. tryoni could be confused with B. aquilonis (May), a species known only from northern Western Australia and the Northern Territory. There are some other generic combinations, most notably Dacus tryoni. It is a member of subgenus Bactrocera and can therefore sometimes be cited as Bactrocera (Bactrocera) tryoni.
Description
Top of page
Adult description derived from computer-generated descriptions from White and Hancock (1997). Larval description from White and Elson-Harris (1994).
Adult
Head: Pedicel+1st flagellomere not longer than ptilinal suture. Face with a dark spot in each antennal furrow; facial spot large, round to elongate. Frons - 2 pairs frontal setae; 1 pair orbital setae.
Thorax: Predominant colour of scutum red-brown. Postpronotal (=humeral) lobe entirely pale (yellow or orange). Notopleuron yellow. Scutum with lateral postsutural vittae (yellow/orange stripes), which do not extend anterior to suture, are tapered, and reach to the posterior supra-alar seta. Scutum without a medial vitta. Scutellum entirely yellow (except for narrow basal band). Anepisternal stripe not reaching anterior notopleural seta. Yellow marking on both anatergite and katatergite. Postpronotal lobe (=humerus) without a seta. Notopleuron with anterior seta. Scutum with anterior supra-alar setae and prescutellar acrostichal setae. Scutellum without basal setae.
Wing: length 4.8-6.3 mm. With a complete costal band which may extend below R2+3, but not to R4+5; not expanded into a spot at apex. With an anal streak. Cells bc and c coloured. No transverse markings. Cell bc without extensive covering of microtrichia. Cell c with extensive covering of microtrichia. Cell br (narrowed part) with extensive covering of microtrichia.
Legs: All femora yellow / pale.
Abdomen: Predominant colour red-brown. Tergites not fused. Abdomen not wasp waisted. Pattern on abdomen diffuse to distinct. Tergite 3 darkened basally and laterally. Tergite 4 dark laterally. Medial longitudinal stripe on T3-5.
Terminalia and secondary sexual characters: Male wing without a bulla. Male tergite 3 with a pecten (setal comb) on each side. Male sternite 5 V-shaped posteriorly. Surstylus (male) without a long posterior lobe. Wing (male) with a deep indent in posterior margin. Hind tibia (male) with a preapical pad. Aculeus apex pointed.
Egg
The egg of B. oleae was described in detail by Margaritis (1985) and those of other species are probably very similar. Size, 0.8 mm long, 0.2 mm wide, with the micropyle protruding slightly at the anterior end. The chorion is reticulate (requires scanning electron microscope examination). White to yellow-white in colour.
Third instar larva
Larvae medium-sized, length 8.0-11.0 mm; width 1.2-1.5 mm.
Head: Stomal sensory organs large, rounded, each with 3 sensilla and surrounded by 6 large unserrated preoral lobes; oral ridges with 9-12 rows of deeply serrated, bluntly rounded teeth; 8-12 small, serrated accessory plates; mouthhooks large, heavily sclerotised, without preapical teeth. Thoracic and abdominal segments: a band of small posteriorly directed spinules encircling anterior portion of each thoracic segment. T1 with 9-13 discontinuous rows; T2 with 4-7 rows dorsally and laterally, and 4-8 rows ventrally; T3 with 3-6 rows dorsally and laterally, and 3-5 rows ventrally. Creeping welts with 2-3 anteriorly directed and 3-8 posteriorly directed rows of spinules. A8 with well defined intermediate areas and large sensilla. Anterior spiracles: 9-12 tubules. Posterior spiracles: placed just above midline; each spiracular slit about 3 times as long as broad. Dorsal and ventral spiracular hair bundles of 12-17, broad, stout, often branched hairs; lateral bundles of 5-9 similar hairs. Anal area: lobes well defined, surrounded by 3-5 discontinuous rows of spinules, becoming longer and stouter below anal opening.
Puparium
Barrel-shaped with most larval features unrecognisable, the exception being the anterior and posterior spiracles which are little changed by pupariation. White to yellow-brown in colour. Usually about 60-80% length of larva.
Distribution
Top of pageB. tryoni is found throughout the eastern half of Queensland, eastern New South Wales, and the extreme east of Victoria. In 1989 it became established in the Perth area of Western Australia and it was declared eradicated by 1991. There have also been outbreaks in South Australia and although action to eradicate is taken, cool winters may also account for its lack of establishment. The record for Tasmania in CABI/EPPO (1998) is an error. B. tryoni has never been found in Tasmania.
A few males have been trapped in Papua New Guinea but it is unlikely to be established there (Drew, 1989). It is also adventive in French Polynesia (Austral and Society Islands) and New Caledonia and has twice been adventive in Easter Island, but eradicated (Bateman, 1982). The distribution of this species was mapped by Drew (1982) and IIE (1991).
B. tryoni has a distribution almost entirely sympatric with B. neohumeralis, and both species attack a similar range of hosts, although B. tryoni is by far the more damaging. These two species mate at different times of day (B. tryoni at dusk; B. neohumeralis at midday). There is genetic evidence that the two species hybridize (Morrow et al., 2000). Reports of hybridization between B. tryoni and B. aquilonis (EPPO, 2002) (a similar species in the Northern Territory) are almost certainly erroneous as those two species lack sympatry.
See also CABI/EPPO (1998, No. 31).
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 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Asia |
|||||||
Singapore | Absent | ||||||
Europe |
|||||||
Slovenia | Absent | ||||||
North America |
|||||||
United States | Absent, Formerly present | Transient incursion | |||||
-California | Absent, Formerly present | Transient incursion | |||||
Oceania |
|||||||
Australia | Present, Localized | ||||||
-New South Wales | Present, Localized | ||||||
-Northern Territory | Present | ||||||
-Queensland | Present, Widespread | ||||||
-South Australia | Absent, Eradicated | Many transient incursions, some eradicated, remainder dying out without action | |||||
-Tasmania | Absent, Confirmed absent by survey | ||||||
-Victoria | Present, Localized | ||||||
-Western Australia | Absent, Eradicated | 1995 | |||||
French Polynesia | Present, Localized | ||||||
New Caledonia | Present, Localized | ||||||
New Zealand | Absent, Eradicated | ||||||
Northern Mariana Islands | Absent, Invalid presence record(s) | ||||||
Papua New Guinea | Absent, Formerly present | ||||||
Pitcairn | Present | ||||||
Vanuatu | Absent, Invalid presence record(s) | ||||||
South America |
|||||||
Chile | Absent, Eradicated | ||||||
-Easter Island | Absent, Eradicated | Transient incursion |
Introductions
Top of pageIntroduced to | Introduced from | Year | Reason | Introduced by | Established in wild through | References | Notes | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Natural reproduction | Continuous restocking | |||||||
Cook Islands | 2001 | No | No | Poona (2003) | Eradicated 2002 | |||
Easter Island | Pre-1971 | Hitchhiker (pathway cause) | No | No | Bateman et al. (1973) | Two incursions, both eradicated | ||
French Polynesia | 1970 | Hitchhiker (pathway cause) | Yes | No | Purea et al. (1997) | |||
New Caledonia | 1969 | Hitchhiker (pathway cause) | Yes | No | Amice and Sales (1997) | |||
Papua New Guinea | No | No | Drew (1989) | Natural extinction |
Risk of Introduction
Top of pageThe major risk is from the importation of fruit containing larvae, either as part of cargo, or through the smuggling of fruit in airline passenger baggage or mail. For example, in New Zealand Baker and Cowley (1991) recorded 7-33 interceptions of fruit flies per year in cargo and 10-28 per year in passenger baggage. Private individuals who successfully smuggle fruit are likely to discard it when they discover that it is rotten. An isolated catch of B. tryoni in a cue lure baited trap in California (Foote et al., 1993) probably had an origin of this sort.
Habitat List
Top of pageCategory | Sub-Category | Habitat | Presence | Status |
---|---|---|---|---|
Terrestrial | Managed | Managed forests, plantations and orchards | Principal habitat | Harmful (pest or invasive) |
Terrestrial | Managed | Managed forests, plantations and orchards | Principal habitat | Natural |
Terrestrial | Managed | Urban / peri-urban areas | Principal habitat | Harmful (pest or invasive) |
Terrestrial | Managed | Urban / peri-urban areas | Principal habitat | Natural |
Hosts/Species Affected
Top of pageB. tryoni is the most serious insect pest of fruit and vegetable crops in Australia, and it infests all commercial fruit crops, other than pineapple (Drew, 1982). Most of the data given here are from the host catalogue of Hancock et al. (2000), much of which derives from host data gathered in a major survey in the Cairns area. That revised list recorded B. tryoni from 49 families of plants, represented by 234 species.
In addition to the hosts listed, Garcinia dulcis, Diplocyclos palmatus, Flaacourtia inermis, Sandoricum indicum, Artocarpus odoratissima, Casimiroa tetrameria, Murraya exotica and Solanum muricatum are economically important hosts of B. tryoni. Other major wild hosts are Annona atemoya, Terminalia aridicola, T. muelleri, T. platyphylla, T. sericocarpa, T. subacroptera, Syzgium suborbiculare, S. tierneyanum and Nauclea orientalis.
Host Plants and Other Plants Affected
Top of pageSymptoms
Top of pageList of Symptoms/Signs
Top of pageSign | Life Stages | Type |
---|---|---|
Fruit / internal feeding | ||
Fruit / lesions: black or brown | ||
Fruit / premature drop |
Biology and Ecology
Top of pageEggs are laid below the skin of the host fruit. These hatch within 2-3 days and the larvae feed for another 10-31 days. Pupariation is in the soil under the host plant for about 7 days but may be delayed under cool conditions. Adults occur throughout the year in 4-5 overlapping generations and overwinter as adults; up to 70 individuals have been recorded as developing from a single infested fruit (Christenson and Foote, 1960). Adult flight and the transport of infected fruit are the major means of movement and dispersal to previously uninfected areas. Male B. tryoni are collected in very large numbers in cue lure traps, which will also trap B. neohumeralis in slightly lower numbers in most of its range (Osborne et al., 1997).
[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 et al. (2019) 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).]
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]) | |
BS - Steppe climate | Tolerated | > 430mm and < 860mm annual precipitation | |
Cf - Warm temperate climate, wet all year | Preferred | Warm average temp. > 10°C, Cold average temp. > 0°C, wet all year | |
Cs - Warm temperate climate with dry summer | Tolerated | Warm average temp. > 10°C, Cold average temp. > 0°C, dry summers | |
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) |
---|---|---|---|
11-38 |
Air Temperature
Top of pageParameter | Lower limit | Upper limit |
---|---|---|
Absolute minimum temperature (ºC) | -4.5 | |
Mean maximum temperature of hottest month (ºC) | 16 | 33 |
Mean minimum temperature of coldest month (ºC) | -2 |
Natural enemies
Top of pageNatural enemy | Type | Life stages | Specificity | References | Biological control in | Biological control on |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Biosteres arisanus | Parasite | Eggs; Arthropods|Larvae | ||||
Biosteres deeralensis | Parasite | Arthropods|Larvae | ||||
Biosteres longicaudatus | Parasite | Arthropods|Larvae | ||||
Diachasmimorpha tryoni | Parasite | Arthropods|Larvae | ||||
Dipterophagus daci | Parasite | |||||
Fopius arisanus | Parasite | Eggs; Arthropods|Larvae | ||||
Fopius deeralensis | Parasite | Arthropods|Larvae | ||||
Opius perkinsi | Parasite | Arthropods|Larvae |
Notes on Natural Enemies
Top of pageBactrocera spp. in general can be attacked as larvae either by parasitoids or by vertebrates eating fruit (either on the tree or as fallen fruit). Mortality due to vertebrate fruit consumption can be very high, as can puparial mortality in the soil, either due to predation or environmental mortality (see White and Elson-Harris, 1994, for brief review). Parasitoids appear to have little effect on the populations of most fruit flies and Fletcher (1987) noted that 0-30% levels of parasitism are typical. To date, complete biological control in the classical sense, has never been achieved for any Bactrocera or Dacus spp. (Wharton, 1989). Three opiine parastoids (Hymenoptera: Braconidae), Fopius arisanus (Sonan), Diachasmimorpha tryoni (Cameron) and D. kraussii (Fullaway) may have potential as biological control agents (Rungrojwanich and Walter, 2000; Quimio and Walter, 2001; Spinner et al., 2011). These species have established following introduction in Australia. Their ecology throughout their ranges requires study and no augmentative releases have been made. In some places frugivorous birds and rodents can destroy a large percentage of wild fruit that would be otherwise available to fruit flies or may have fruit fly larvae already in them (Drew, 1987).
Due to difficulties in verifying the identifications of both parasitoids and (in some cases) the fruit fly hosts, no attempt has been made to catalogue all natural enemy records; see White and Elson-Harris (1994) for major sources. Consequently, no comprehensive list of parasitoid records is given here; those listed were extracted from Waterhouse (1993) and Wharton and Gilstrap (1983).
Means of Movement and Dispersal
Top of pageNatural Dispersal
This is normally limited to about 1 km.
Accidental Introduction
Jump dispersal, such as hitch-hiking in infested fruit in luggage, cargo and vehicles is common. Adventitious introduction by human agency does not always lead to establishment; in South Australia 71% of incipient incursions did not establish to a stage that warranted insecticidal or other treatments (Meats et al., 2003). Most released B. tryoni do not disperse far from their point of origin (~45% <100 m; ~95% < 1 km) (Meats and Edgerton, 2008) and this is consistent with the finding that the spread of incipient populations is also limited to ~1 km (Maelzer et al., 2004).
Intentional Introduction is unlikely.
Pathway Causes
Top of pageCause | Notes | Long Distance | Local | References |
---|---|---|---|---|
Hitchhiker | >2 YR (local), ~10 YR (long distance) | Yes | Yes | Baker and Cowley (1991); Dominiak and Barchia (2005); Maelzer et al. (2004) |
Pathway Vectors
Top of pageVector | Notes | Long Distance | Local | References |
---|---|---|---|---|
Aircraft | High frequency, larvae in host fruit | Yes | Baker and Cowley (1991) | |
Clothing, footwear and possessions | Fruit in case or handbag. | Yes | ||
Containers and packaging - wood | Of fruit cargo. | Yes | ||
Land vehicles | Aeroplanes and boats, with fruit cargo. | Yes | ||
Luggage | Yes | |||
Fruit in post. | Yes | |||
Soil, sand and gravel | Risk of puparia in soil. | Yes |
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 usually visible to the naked eye | |
Growing medium accompanying plants | arthropods/pupae | Yes | Pest or symptoms usually visible to the naked eye |
Plant parts not known to carry the pest in trade/transport |
---|
Bark |
Bulbs/Tubers/Corms/Rhizomes |
Flowers/Inflorescences/Cones/Calyx |
Leaves |
Roots |
Seedlings/Micropropagated plants |
Stems (above ground)/Shoots/Trunks/Branches |
True seeds (inc. grain) |
Wood |
Impact
Top of pageThis is a very serious pest of a wide variety of fruits throughout its range. Damage levels can be anything up to 100% of unprotected fruit. In Australia potential losses if fruit flies were not controlled have been estimated at A$100 million a year (Anonymous, 1986), and most of this would be attributable to B. tryoni.
Economic Impact
Top of pageThere are about 4,500 species of tephritid flies (Diptera: Tephritidae). Approximately one third are frugivorous and around 250 are considered economic pests, with 23 of these known to be serious pests in Australia, Oceania and tropical Asia (White and Elson-Harris, 1992; Vijaysegaran, 1997). Adults of frugivorous Tephritidae lay their eggs beneath the skin of sound ripening fruit; the larvae feed within the fruit and cause direct damage and induce decay and premature fruit drop (Allwood and Leblanc, 1997). The percentage of produce lost has been estimated to be 10-50% in tropical Asia and Oceania and higher levels can occur in other parts of the world if control measures are not in place (Allwood and Leblanc, 1997). B. tryoni has a permanent presence in the eastern Australian states as well as the Northern Territory and the north of Western Australia (Meats, 2006; Cameron et al., 2010). Various statutory authorities have estimated economic losses in Australia due to B. tryoni to be between $28.5 million and $100 million per annum (Sutherst et al., 2000).
Environmental Impact
Top of pageImpact on Natural Habitats
Impacts on natural habitats are unlikely because B. tryoni is a generalist and is mainly abundant in crops, villages and towns, and in natural habitats it would be only one of several fruit fly species present (Drew et al., 1984; Raghu et al., 2000).
Impact on Biodiversity
Impacts on biodiversity are also unlikely for the same reasons as for impacts on natural habitats. However, as far as fruit flies are concerned an unequivocal answer to the question - whether there is an impact of a pest species on other species in a district - should be assessed only by experiment or by incubating field-sampled fruit individually in order to rear out and identify surviving adult insects (see for example Gibbs, 1967; Fitt, 1986). Conversely, frugivorous birds and rodents can destroy a large percentage of wild fruit in some places that would be otherwise available to fruit flies or have fruit fly larvae already in them (Drew, 1987).
Risk and Impact Factors
Top of page- Invasive in its native range
- Proved invasive outside its native range
- Has a broad native range
- Abundant in its native range
- Highly adaptable to different environments
- Capable of securing and ingesting a wide range of food
- Highly mobile locally
- Has high reproductive potential
- Has high genetic variability
- Host damage
- Negatively impacts agriculture
- Negatively impacts livelihoods
- Damages animal/plant products
- Negatively impacts trade/international relations
- Highly likely to be transported internationally accidentally
Detection and Inspection
Top of pageSimilarities to Other Species/Conditions
Top of pageB. tryoni is separated from most of the other pest species by the coloured cells bc and c (i.e. the costal band extends from the wing base, not just from cell sc [the stigma]). However, it occurs sympatrically with B. neohumeralis, which also has that feature but from which it differs in having yellow postpronotal (=humeral) lobes. In Australia both species attack a similar range of hosts and can even be reared from the same individual specimens of field-collected fruit (Gibbs, 1967). These two species mate at different times of day (B. tryoni at dusk; B. neohumeralis ~ 10 AM–4 PM. There is no genetic evidence that the two species hybridize (Gilchrist and Ling, 2006).
B. tryoni is allopatric from B. aquilonis, from which it only differs morphologically in being darker in colour. Previous arguments about distinguishing B. tryoni from B. aquilonis in northern Australia are well discussed in Morrow et al. (2000; see also CABI/EPPO, 1998, No. 31) but the evidence and analysis provided by Cameron et al. (2010) favours the conclusion that B. tryoni is found in allopatric populations across northern Australia from north Queensland to the northwest coast of Western Australia.
The minimum characters which differentiate B. tryoni from all other Bactrocera and Dacus spp. (White and Hancock, 1997) are as follows: postpronotal lobe entirely yellow. Scutum predominantly red-brown; with lateral vittae (yellow stripes) not extended anterior of suture, posteriorly reaching to the posterior supra-alar setae; with prescutellar acrostichal setae. Anepisternal stripe not reaching as far as anterior notopleural seta. Wing cell c covered in microtrichia; cell bc devoid of microtrichia. Tergite 3 dark laterally and basally.
B. tryoni is larger than a house fly (wing length 4.8-6.3 mm).
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.
Biological Control
Several non-indigenous species have been released for biological control of this fruit fly in Australia. Of these, only Fopius arisanus became established, and although it reduced the number of flies per fruit it had little effect on the percentage of fruits damaged (Waterhouse, 1993).
Regulatory Control
Many countries, such as the mainland USA, forbid the import of susceptible fruit without strict post-harvest treatment having been applied by the exporter. This may involve fumigation, heat treatment (hot vapour or hot water), cold treatments, insecticidal dipping, or irradiation (Armstrong and Couey, 1989). Recent work on hot water dipping was reported by Waddell et al. (2000). Irradiation is not accepted in most countries and many have now banned methyl bromide fumigation. Heat treatment tends to reduce the shelf life of most fruits and so the most effective method of regulatory control is to preferentially restrict imports of a given fruit to areas free of fruit fly attack.
Cultural Control and Sanitary Methods
One of the most effective control techniques against fruit flies in general is to wrap fruit, either in newspaper, a paper bag, or in the case of long/thin fruits, a polythene sleeve. This is a simple physical barrier to oviposition but it has to be applied well before the fruit is attacked. Little information is available on the attack time for most fruits but few Bactrocera spp. attack prior to ripening.
Chemical Control
Although cover sprays of entire crops are sometimes used, the use of bait sprays is both more economical and more environmentally acceptable. A bait spray consists of a suitable insecticide (e.g. malathion) mixed with a proteinaceous bait (usually termed ‘protein’). Both males and females of fruit flies are attracted to protein sources emanating ammonia, so insecticides can be applied to just a few spots in an orchard and the flies will be attracted to these spots when they get near them during their daily foraging (Bateman et al., 1966 ab; Bateman, 1982). The protein most widely used in Australia was acid-hydrolysed yeast. This was neutralised by sodium hydroxide yielding a concentrate with a salt content of up to 50%. In South Australia an effective concentration was found to be strongly phytotoxic due to its high salt content. Thus from 1983 yeast autolysate was used instead (Madge et al., 1997). This product can be made cheaply from brewery waste (Umeh and Garcia, 2008). Horticultural mineral oil (HMO) is strongly repellent to female B. tryoni and can be used successfully to protect fruit in small crops, including home gardens (Nguyen et al., 2007; Meats et al., 2012).
Male Suppression/Annihilation Techniques and SIT.
The males of most pest species of Bactrocera are attracted to either cue lure (4-(p-acetoxyphenyl)-2-butanone) or to methyl eugenol (4-allyl-1,2-dimethoxybenzene). Males of B. tryoni are attracted to cue lure, sometimes in very large numbers. Combined with an insecticide it can be impregnated into small caneite blocks or other absorbent material. If these are distributed at sufficient density (~ 30m spacing) most males can be annihilated (Bateman, 1982). This has been termed the ‘male annihilation technique’ (MAT). Bateman et al. (1966a,b) pioneered combined MAT and bait spray in Australian coastal and inland towns and on Easter Island (Bateman et al.,1973; Bateman, 1982). This tactic is now used in are-wide management programmes.
The sterile insect technique (SIT) has been used for localised outbreaks in quarantined areas (Jessup et al., 2007).
Early Warning Systems
Many countries that are free of Bactrocera spp., such as the USA (California and Florida) and New Zealand, maintain a grid of methyl eugenol and cue lure traps, at least in high risk areas (ports and airports) if not around the entire climatically suitable area. The trap used will usually be modelled on the Steiner trap (White and Elson-Harris, 1994) or Lynfield (pot) trap (Cowley et al., 1990).
Field Monitoring
Monitoring is largely carried out by traps (as above) set in areas of infestation. However, there is evidence that some fruit flies have different host preferences in different parts of their range and host fruit surveys should also be considered as part of the monitoring process.
IPM
The control of tephritid fruit flies is practised in two ways. The first is area-wide control that requires quarantine regulations and expensive technology such as SIT in a restricted and defendable area, but may require grower and community participation (Jessup et al., 2007). Features include trap arrays for early warning and prompt responses, border inspections, community awareness programmes as well as bait-spraying and the male annihilation technique (MAT) (Jessup et al., 2007). A good example and case study is given by Lloyd et al. (2010).
The second is farmer-operated local or ‘crop by crop’ control and is generally suited to local economies with local (non-export) distribution and is particularly relevant to areas with naturally high endemic pest populations and to village horticulture in tropical Asia and the South Pacific islands (Allwood & Leblanc 1997; Vijaysegaran 1997), where high infestation rates would damage local economies and cause migration to towns.
References
Top of pageAllwood AJ, Leblanc L, 1997. Losses caused by fruit flies (Diptera : Tephritidae) in seven Pacific Island countries. Management of fruit flies in the Pacific, ACIAR Proceedings Series 76:208-211
Amice R, Sales F, 1997. Fruit fly fauna in New Caledonia. In: Allwood AJ, Drew RAI, eds. Management of Fruit Flies in the Pacific. A Regional Symposium, Nadi, Fiji. ACIAR Proceedings, 76: 68-76
Anon., 1986. Report of the expert consultation on progress and problems in controlling fruit fly infestation, Bangkok, 1986. Food and Agriculture Organisation, Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific (RAPA), 1986(28):1-18.
APPPC, 1987. Insect pests of economic significance affecting major crops of the countries in Asia and the Pacific region. Technical Document No. 135. Bangkok, Thailand: Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific region (RAPA)
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
Baker RT, Cowley JM, 1991. A New Zealand view of quarantine security with special reference to fruit flies, In: Vijaysegaran S, Ibrahim AG, eds. First International Symposium on Fruit Flies in the Tropics, Kuala Lumpur, 1988. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: Malaysian Agricultural Research and Development Institute, 396-408
Bateman MA, 1982. III. Chemical methods for suppression or eradication of fruit fly populations, In: Drew RAI, Hooper GHS, Bateman MA eds. Economic Fruit Flies of the South Pacific Region. 2nd edn. Brisbane, Australia: Queensland Department of Primary Industries, 115-128
Christenson LD, Foote RH, 1960. Biology of fruit flies. Annual Review of Entomology, 5:171-192
DPINSW, 2013. Abolition of Fruit Fly Exclusion Zone. http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/responses/qff
Drew RAI, 1982. I. Taxonomy, In: Drew RAI, Hooper, GHS, Bateman MA, eds. Economic Fruit Flies of the South Pacific Region. 2nd ed. Brisbane, Australia: Queensland Department of Primary Industries, 1-97
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
Fletcher BS, 1987. The biology of dacine fruit flies. Annual Review of Entomology, 32:115-144
Fletcher BS, 1989. Ecology; life history strategies of tephritid fruit flies, In: Robinson AS, Hooper G, eds. Fruit Flies; their Biology, Natural Enemies and Control. World Crop Pests. Amsterdam, Holland: Elsevier, 3(B):195-208
Fletcher, B. S., 1989b. 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
Foote RH, Blanc FL, Norrbom AL, 1993. Handbook of the Fruit Flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) of America North of Mexico. Ithaca, USA: Comstock
Froggatt WW, 1909. III.- Fruit flies. In: Official report, fruit fly and other pests various countries, 1907-8. New South Wales Department of Agriculture, Sydney, Australia
Hicks, C. B., Bloem, K., Pallipparambil, G. R., Hartzog, H. M., 2019. Reported Long-Distance Flight of the Invasive Oriental Fruit Fly and Its Trade Implications. In: Area-Wide Management of Fruit Fly Pests, [ed. by Perez-Staples, D., Diaz-Fleischer, F., Montoya, P., Vera, M. T.]. Boca Raton, USA: CRC Press. 9-25. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/9780429355738/chapters/10.1201/9780429355738-2
IIE, 1991. Bactrocera tryoni (Froggatt) (=Dacus tryoni (Froggatt)), Diptera: Tephritidae, Queensland fruit-fly. Distribution Maps of Pests, Series A (Agricultural), 110. Wallingford, UK: CAB International
IPPC, 2014. After 14 days of intensive surveillance and fruit monitoring, no further Queensland fruit flies have been detected. The absence of Bactrocera tryoni in New Zealand is confirmed. IPPC Official Pest Report, No. NZL-04/2. Rome, Italy: FAO. https://www.ippc.int/
IPPC, 2015. Isolated population of Bactrocera tryoni. IPPC Official Pest Report, No. NZL-01/1. Rome, Italy: FAO. https://www.ippc.int/
IPPC, 2015. Pest free status of Ceratitis capitata and Bactrocera tryoni in Singapore. IPPC Official Pest Report, No. SGP-02/3. Rome, Italy: FAO. https://www.ippc.int/
Mabberley DJ, 2000. Citrus reunited. Australian Plants, 21(166):52-55
Meats A, 1989. Bioclimatic potential. Fruit Flies: Biology, natural enemies and control, 3B:241-252
Meats A, 1989. Water relations of Tephritidae. Biology, natural enemies and control, 3A. Rotterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier World Crop Pest Series, 241-246
Morrow J, Scott L, Congdon B, Yeates D, Frommer M, Sved J, 2000. Close genetic similarity between twosympatric species of tephritid fruit fly reproductively isolated by mating time. Evolution, 54:899-910
Poona S, 2003. Cook Islands. In: Prevention and management of invasive alien species: Proceedings of a Workshop on Forging Cooperation throughout the Austral-Pacific, 2002, Bishop Museum, Honolulu, Hawaii [ed. by Shine, C. \Reaser, J. K. \Gutierrez, A. T.]. Cape Town, South Africa: Global Invasive Species Programme, 64
Purea M, Putoa R, Munro E, 1997. Fauna of fruit flies in the Cook Islands and French Polynesia. In: Allwood AJ, Drew RAI, eds. Management of Fruit Flies in the Pacific. A Regional Symposium, Nadi, Fiji. ACIAR Proceedings, 76:54-56
Raghu S, Clarke AR, Drew RAI, Hulsman K, 2000. Impact of habitat modification on the distribution and abundance of fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) in Southeast Queensland. Population Ecology, 42:153-160
Swingle WT, Reece PT, 1967. The botany of citrus and its wild relatives of the orange subfamily. In: The citrus industry, revised 2nd ed., vol. 1: History, world distribution, botany, and varieties [ed. by Reuther, W. \Webber, H. J. \Batchelor, L. D.]. Berkeley, California, USA: University of California, 190-430
Vijaysegaran S, 1997. Fruit fly research and development in tropical Asia. ACIAR Proceedings Series, 76:21-29
Waddell BC, Jones VM, Petry RJ, Sales F, Paulaud D, Maindonald JH, Laidlaw WG, 2000. Thermal conditioning in Bactrocera tryoni eggs (Diptera: Tephritidae) following hot-water immersion. Postharvest heat treatments: effects on commodity, pathogens and insect pests. Proceedings of a BARD Workshop, Israel, March 2000. Postharvest Biology and Technology. 21:113-128
Weldon, C. W., Schutze, M. K., 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
Wharton RH, 1989. Control; classical biological control of fruit-infesting Tephritidae, In: Robinson AS, Hooper G, eds. Fruit Flies; their Biology, Natural Enemies and Control. World Crop Pests 3(B). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier, 303-313
Distribution References
Amice R, Sales F, 1997. Fruit fly fauna in New Caledonia. [Management of Fruit Flies in the Pacific. A Regional Symposium, Nadi, Fiji. ACIAR Proceedings], 76 [ed. by Allwood AJ, Drew RAI]. 68-76.
CABI, Undated. Compendium record. Wallingford, UK: CABI
CABI, Undated a. CABI Compendium: Status as determined by CABI editor. Wallingford, UK: CABI
Drew RAI, 1982. I. Taxonomy. In: Economic Fruit Flies of the South Pacific Region, [ed. by Drew RAI, Hooper GHS, Bateman MA]. Brisbane, Australia: Queensland Department of Primary Industries. 1-97.
IPPC, 2014. After 14 days of intensive surveillance and fruit monitoring, no further Queensland fruit flies have been detected. The absence of Bactrocera tryoni in New Zealand is confirmed. In: IPPC Official Pest Report, No. NZL-04/2, Rome, Italy: FAO. https://www.ippc.int/
IPPC, 2015. Isolated population of Bactrocera tryoni. In: IPPC Official Pest Report, Rome, Italy: FAO. https://www.ippc.int/en/
IPPC, 2015a. Pest Free Status of Ceratitis capitata and Bactrocera tryoni in Singapore. In: IPPC Official Pest Report, Rome, Italy: FAO. https://www.ippc.int/en/
IPPC, 2017. Bactrocera tryoni (Q-fly) was declared eradicated. In: IPPC Official Pest Report, Rome, Italy: FAO. https://www.ippc.int/en/
IPPC, 2020. Absence of Queensland fruit fly Bactrocera tryoni is confirmed in New Zealand. In: IPPC Official Pest Report, Rome, Italy: FAO. https://www.ippc.int/
IPPC, 2021. Pest Free Status of Ceratitis capitata and Bactrocera tryoni in Singapore. In: IPPC Official Pest Report, Rome, Italy: https://www.ippc.int/
Purea M, Putoa R, Munro E, 1997. Fauna of fruit flies in the Cook Islands and French Polynesia. [Management of Fruit Flies in the Pacific. A Regional Symposium, Nadi, Fiji. ACIAR Proceedings], 76 [ed. by Allwood AJ, Drew RAI]. 54-56.
Links to Websites
Top of pageWebsite | URL | Comment |
---|---|---|
Global register of Introduced and Invasive species (GRIIS) | http://griis.org/ | Data source for updated system data added to species habitat list. |
Nucleus - IAEA | http://nucleus.iaea.org/sites/naipc/twd/Newsletters/ | |
Plant Health Australia | http://www.planthealthaustralia.com.au | |
South Australian Research and Development Institute | http://www.sardi.sa.gov.au | Southern Bluefin Tuna Aquaculture Subprogram. Provides a range of information on southern bluefin tuna research. |
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/