Bactrocera tryoni
(Queensland fruit fly)

Pictures

Picture	Title	Caption	Copyright
Title Adult Caption Bactrocera tryoni (Queensland fruit fly); adult. Museum set specimen. Copyright ©CABI	Adult	Bactrocera tryoni (Queensland fruit fly); adult. Museum set specimen.	©CABI

Identity

Preferred 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

B. 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

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

Notes on Taxonomy and Nomenclature

B. 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

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

B. 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.

There is a preliminary report of an isolated population of B. tryoni detected in an urban residential area of central Auckland, New Zealand (IPPC, 2015).

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

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.

Introductions

Risk of Introduction

The 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

Hosts/Species Affected

B. 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

Growth Stages

Symptoms

List of Symptoms/Signs

Biology and Ecology

Eggs 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

Latitude/Altitude Ranges

Air Temperature

Rainfall Regime

Natural enemies

Notes on Natural Enemies

Bactrocera 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

Natural 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

Pathway Vectors

Plant Trade

Impact Summary

Impact

This 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

There 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

Impact 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

• 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

Uses

No known positive value.

Detection and Inspection

Similarities to Other Species/Conditions

B. 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

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.

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

Allwood 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

Bateman MA, Friend AH, Hampshire F, 1966. Population suppression in the Queensland fruit fly, Dacus (Strumeta) tryoni, I. The effects of male depletion in a semi-isolated population. Australian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 17(5):687-697 pp

Bateman MA, Friend AH, Hampshire F, 1966. Population suppression in the Queensland fruit fly, Dacus (Strumeta) tryoni. II. Experiments on isolated populations in western New South Wales. Australian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 17:699-718

Bateman MA, Insunza V, Arretz P, 1973. The eradication of Queensland fruit fly from Easter Island. Plant Protection Bulletin, FAO, 21(5):114

Bayer RJ, Mabberley DJ, Morton C, Miller CH, Sharma IK, Pfeil BE, Rich S, Hitchcock R, Sykes S, 2009. A molecular phylogeny of the orange subfamily (Rutaceae: Aurantioideae) using nine cpDNA sequences. American Journal of Botany, 96(3):668-685. http://www.amjbot.org/

CABI/EPPO, 1998. Distribution maps of quarantine pests for Europe (edited by Smith IM, Charles LMF). Wallingford, UK: CAB International, xviii + 768 pp

Cameron EC, Sved JA, Gilchrist AS, 2010. Pest fruit fly (Diptera: Tephritidae) in northwestern Australia: one species or two? Bulletin of Entomological Research, 100(2):197-206. http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayJournal?jid=ber

Christenson LD, Foote RH, 1960. Biology of fruit flies. Annual Review of Entomology, 5:171-192

Dominiak B, Barchia I, 2005. A survey of travellers carrying host fruit of Queensland fruit fly, Bactrocera tryoni (Froggatt), into a fruit fly free area in 1998/99 following road signposting of penalties for infringements. Plant Protection Quarterly, 20(4):148-154

Dominiak BC, McLeod LJ, Cagnacci M, 2000. Review of suppression program using three ground release methods of sterile Queensland fruit fly Bactrocera tryoni (Froggatt) at Wagga Wagga, NSW, in 1996/97. General and Applied Entomology, 29:49-57; 26 ref

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

Drew RAI, 1987. Reduction in fruit fly (Tephritidae: Dacinae) populations in their endemic rainforest habitat by frugivorous vertebrates. Australian Journal of Zoology, 35(3):283-288

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

Drew RAI, Zalucki MP, Hooper GHS, 1984. Ecological studies of eastern Australian fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) in their endemic habitat. I. Temporal variation in abundance. Oecologia, 64(2):267-272

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

Fitt GP, 1986. The influence of a shortage of hosts on the specificity of oviposition behaviour in species of Dacus (Diptera, Tephritidae). Physiological Entomology, 11(2):133-143

Fitt GP, 1986. The roles of adult and larval specialisations in limiting the occurrence of five species of Dacus (Diptera: Tephritidae) in cultivated fruits. Oecologia, 69:101-109

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

Gibbs GW, 1967. The comparative ecology of two closely related sympatric species of Dacus (Díptera) in Queensland. Australian Journal of Zoology, 15(6):1123-1139 pp

Gilchrist AS, Ling AE, 2006. DNA microsatellite analysis of naturally occurring colour intermediates between Bactrocera tryoni (Froggatt) and Bactrocera neohumeralis (Hardy) (Diptera: Tephritidae). Australian Journal of Entomology, 45(2):157-162. http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/servlet/useragent?func=showIssues&code=aen

Gilchrist AS, Meats AW, 2010. The genetic structure of populations of an invading pest fruit fly, Bactrocera tryoni, at the species climatic range limit. Heredity, 105(2):165-172. http://www.nature.com/hdy

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) (No.110). Wallingford, UK: CAB International

IIE, 1991. Bactrocera tryoni (Froggatt) (=Dacus tryoni (Froggatt)), Diptera: Tephritidae, Queensland fruit-fly. Distribution Maps of Pests, Series A (Agricultural) (No.110). Wallingford, UK: CAB International

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/

Jessup AJ, Dominiak B, Woods B, Lima CPFde, Tomkins A, Smallridge CJ, 2007. Area-wide management of fruit flies in Australia. In: Area-wide control of insect pests: from research to field implementation [ed. by Vreysen, M. J. B.\Robinson, A. S.\Hendrichs, J.]. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer SBM, 685-697

Lloyd AC, Hamacek EL, Kopittke RA, Peek T, Wyatt PM, Neale CJ, Eelkema M, Gu HaiNan, 2010. Area-wide management of fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) in the Central Burnett district of Queensland, Australia. Crop Protection, 29(5):462-469. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/02612194

Mabberley DJ, 2000. Citrus reunited. Australian Plants, 21(166):52-55

Mabberley DJ, 2004. Citrus (Rutaceae): a review of recent advances in etymology, systematics and medical applications. Blumea, 49(2/3):481-498

Madge P, Mobbs P, Bailey P, Perepelicia N, 1997. Fifty years of fruit fly eradication in South Australia. Fifty years of fruit fly eradication in South Australia. Adelaide, Australia: South Australian Research and Development Institute, 69 pp

Maelzer DA, Bailey PT, Perepelicia N, 2004. Factors supporting the non-persistence of fruit fly populations in South Australia. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture, 44(1):109-126

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

Meats A, Beattie A, Ullah F, Bingham S, 2012. To push, pull or push-pull? A behavioural strategy for protecting small tomato plots from tephritid fruit flies. Crop Protection, 36:1-6. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/02612194

Meats A, Edgerton JE, 2008. Short- and long-range dispersal of the Queensland fruit fly, Bactrocera tryoni and its relevance to invasive potential, sterile insect technique and surveillance trapping. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture, 48(9):1237-1245. http://www.publish.csiro.au/nid/72.htm

Meats AW, Clift AD, Robson MK, 2003. Incipient founder populations of Mediterranean and Queensland fruit flies in Australia: the relation of trap catch to infestation radius and models for quarantine radius. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture, 43(4):397-406

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

Nguyen VL, Meats A, Beattie GAC, Spooner-Hart R, Liu ZM, Jiang L, 2007. Behavioural responses of female Queensland fruit fly, Bactrocera tryoni, to mineral oil deposits. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata, 122(3):215-221. http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/loi/eea

Osborne R, Meats A, Frommer M, Sved JA, Drew RAI, Robson MK, 1997. Australian distribution of 17 species of fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) caught in cue lure traps in February 1994. Australian Journal of Entomology, 36(1):45-50

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

Quimio GM, Walter GH, 2001. Host preference and host suitability in an egg-pupal fruit fly parasitoid, Fopius arisanus (Sonan) (Hym., Braconidae). Journal of Applied Entomology, 125(3):135-140

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

Rungrojwanich K, Walter GH, 2000. The Australian fruit fly parasitoid Diachasmimorpha kraussii (Fullaway): life history, ovipositional patterns, distribution and hosts (Hymenoptera: Braconidae: Opiinae). Pan-Pacific Entomologist, 76(1):1-11

Smith D, Nannan L, 1988. Yeast autolysate bait sprays for control of Queensland fruit fly on passionfruit in Queensland. Queensland Journal of Agricultural and Animal Sciences, 45(2):169-177

Spinner JE, Cowling AM, Gurr GM, Jessup AJ, Reynolds OL, 2011. Parasitoid fauna of Queensland fruit fly, Bactrocera tryoni Froggatt (Diptera: Tephritidae) in inland New South Wales, Australia and their potential for use in augmentative biological control. Australian Journal of Entomology, 50(4):445-452. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1440-6055

Sutherst RW, Collyer BS, Yonow T, 2000. The vulnerability of Australian horticulture to the Queensland fruit fly, Bactrocera (Dacus) tryoni, under climate change. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research, 51(4):467-480

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

Umeh VC, Garcia LE, 2008. Monitoring and managing Ceratitis spp. complex of sweet orange varieties using locally made protein bait of brewery waste. Fruits (Paris), 63(4):209-217. http://www.fruits-journal.org/

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

Waterhouse DF, 1993. Biological control: Pacific prospects - supplement 2. Canberra, Australia: ACIAR, 138 pp

Waterhouse DF, 1993. Biological control: Pacific prospects - supplement 2. Canberra, Australia: ACIAR, 138 pp

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 RA, Gilstrap FE, 1983. Key to and status of opiine braconid (Hymenoptera) parasitoids used in biological control of Ceratitis and Dacus s.l. (Diptera: Tephritidae). Annals of the Entomological Society of America, 76(4):721-742

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

White IM, Elson-Harris MM, 1994. Fruit Flies of Economic Significance. Their Identification and Bionomics. Wallingford, UK: CAB International

White IM, Hancock DL, 1997. CABIKEY to the Dacini (Diptera, Tephritidae) of the Asian, Pacific and Australasian Regions. Wallingford, UK: CAB International

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.

Bateman M A, 1982. III. Chemical methods for suppression or eradication of fruit fly populations. In: Economic Fruit Flies of the South Pacific Region. [ed. by Drew R A I, Hooper G H S, Bateman M A]. Brisbane, Australia: Queensland Department of Primary Industries. 115-128.

CABI, Undated. Compendium record. Wallingford, UK: CABI

CABI, Undated a. CABI Compendium: Status as determined by CABI editor. Wallingford, UK: CABI

Cameron E C, Sved J A, Gilchrist A S, 2010. Pest fruit fly (Diptera: Tephritidae) in northwestern Australia: one species or two? Bulletin of Entomological Research. 100 (2), 197-206. http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayJournal?jid=ber DOI:10.1017/S0007485309990150

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.

EPPO, 2014. EPPO Global database (available online). Paris, France: EPPO. https://gd.eppo.int/

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/

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.

White I M, Elson-Harris M M, 1994. Fruit Flies of Economic Significance. Their Identification and Bionomics. Wallingford, UK: CAB International.

Links to Websites

Contributors

31/03/14 Updated by:

Alan Meats, University of Sydney, Australia

Distribution Maps