Invasive Species Compendium

Detailed coverage of invasive species threatening livelihoods and the environment worldwide

Datasheet

Bactrocera zonata
(peach fruit fly)

Toolbox

Datasheet

Bactrocera zonata (peach fruit fly)

Summary

  • Last modified
  • 21 June 2022
  • Datasheet Type(s)
  • Invasive Species
  • Pest
  • Natural Enemy
  • Preferred Scientific Name
  • Bactrocera zonata
  • Preferred Common Name
  • peach fruit fly
  • Taxonomic Tree
  • Domain: Eukaryota
  •   Kingdom: Metazoa
  •     Phylum: Arthropoda
  •       Subphylum: Uniramia
  •         Class: Insecta
  • Summary of Invasiveness
  • Bactrocera zonata is native to South and Southeast Asia. It was first reported from Bengal (India) and is now widespread in India, Pakistan and present throughout South and Southeast Asia. It is found in more than 20 countries in Asia and...

Don't need the entire report?

Generate a print friendly version containing only the sections you need.

Generate report

Pictures

Top of page
PictureTitleCaptionCopyright
Bactrocera zonata (peach fruit fly); Adult. Image taken by Viwat Wornoayporn/IAEA. Seibersdorf, Austria. September 2010.
TitleAdult
CaptionBactrocera zonata (peach fruit fly); Adult. Image taken by Viwat Wornoayporn/IAEA. Seibersdorf, Austria. September 2010.
Copyright©IAEA Imagebank/via Flickr - CC BY-SA 2.0
Bactrocera zonata (peach fruit fly); Adult. Image taken by Viwat Wornoayporn/IAEA. Seibersdorf, Austria. September 2010.
AdultBactrocera zonata (peach fruit fly); Adult. Image taken by Viwat Wornoayporn/IAEA. Seibersdorf, Austria. September 2010.©IAEA Imagebank/via Flickr - CC BY-SA 2.0
Bactrocera zonata (peach fruit fly); Adults. Image taken by Viwat Wornoayporn/IAEA. Seibersdorf, Austria. September 2010.
TitleAdults
CaptionBactrocera zonata (peach fruit fly); Adults. Image taken by Viwat Wornoayporn/IAEA. Seibersdorf, Austria. September 2010.
Copyright©IAEA Imagebank/via Flickr - CC BY-SA 2.0
Bactrocera zonata (peach fruit fly); Adults. Image taken by Viwat Wornoayporn/IAEA. Seibersdorf, Austria. September 2010.
AdultsBactrocera zonata (peach fruit fly); Adults. Image taken by Viwat Wornoayporn/IAEA. Seibersdorf, Austria. September 2010.©IAEA Imagebank/via Flickr - CC BY-SA 2.0
Bactrocera zonata (peach fruit fly); Adults mating. Image taken by Viwat Wornoayporn/IAEA. Seibersdorf, Austria. September 2010.
TitleAdults mating
CaptionBactrocera zonata (peach fruit fly); Adults mating. Image taken by Viwat Wornoayporn/IAEA. Seibersdorf, Austria. September 2010.
Copyright©IAEA Imagebank/via Flickr - CC BY-SA 2.0
Bactrocera zonata (peach fruit fly); Adults mating. Image taken by Viwat Wornoayporn/IAEA. Seibersdorf, Austria. September 2010.
Adults matingBactrocera zonata (peach fruit fly); Adults mating. Image taken by Viwat Wornoayporn/IAEA. Seibersdorf, Austria. September 2010.©IAEA Imagebank/via Flickr - CC BY-SA 2.0
Bactrocera zonata (peach fruit fly); Adults mating. Image taken by Viwat Wornoayporn/IAEA. Seibersdorf, Austria. September 2010.
TitleAdults mating
CaptionBactrocera zonata (peach fruit fly); Adults mating. Image taken by Viwat Wornoayporn/IAEA. Seibersdorf, Austria. September 2010.
Copyright©IAEA Imagebank/via Flickr - CC BY-SA 2.0
Bactrocera zonata (peach fruit fly); Adults mating. Image taken by Viwat Wornoayporn/IAEA. Seibersdorf, Austria. September 2010.
Adults matingBactrocera zonata (peach fruit fly); Adults mating. Image taken by Viwat Wornoayporn/IAEA. Seibersdorf, Austria. September 2010.©IAEA Imagebank/via Flickr - CC BY-SA 2.0
Bactrocera zonata (peach fruit fly); Adults. Image taken by Viwat Wornoayporn/IAEA. Seibersdorf, Austria. September 2010.
TitleAdults
CaptionBactrocera zonata (peach fruit fly); Adults. Image taken by Viwat Wornoayporn/IAEA. Seibersdorf, Austria. September 2010.
Copyright©IAEA Imagebank/via Flickr - CC BY-SA 2.0
Bactrocera zonata (peach fruit fly); Adults. Image taken by Viwat Wornoayporn/IAEA. Seibersdorf, Austria. September 2010.
AdultsBactrocera zonata (peach fruit fly); Adults. Image taken by Viwat Wornoayporn/IAEA. Seibersdorf, Austria. September 2010.©IAEA Imagebank/via Flickr - CC BY-SA 2.0
Bactrocera zonata (peach fruit fly); Adults mating. Image taken by Viwat Wornoayporn/IAEA. Seibersdorf, Austria. September 2010.
TitleAdults mating
CaptionBactrocera zonata (peach fruit fly); Adults mating. Image taken by Viwat Wornoayporn/IAEA. Seibersdorf, Austria. September 2010.
Copyright©IAEA Imagebank/via Flickr - CC BY-SA 2.0
Bactrocera zonata (peach fruit fly); Adults mating. Image taken by Viwat Wornoayporn/IAEA. Seibersdorf, Austria. September 2010.
Adults matingBactrocera zonata (peach fruit fly); Adults mating. Image taken by Viwat Wornoayporn/IAEA. Seibersdorf, Austria. September 2010.©IAEA Imagebank/via Flickr - CC BY-SA 2.0
Bactrocera zonata (peach fruit fly); Adults mating. Image taken by Viwat Wornoayporn/IAEA. Seibersdorf, Austria. September 2010.
TitleAdults mating
CaptionBactrocera zonata (peach fruit fly); Adults mating. Image taken by Viwat Wornoayporn/IAEA. Seibersdorf, Austria. September 2010.
Copyright©IAEA Imagebank/via Flickr - CC BY-SA 2.0
Bactrocera zonata (peach fruit fly); Adults mating. Image taken by Viwat Wornoayporn/IAEA. Seibersdorf, Austria. September 2010.
Adults matingBactrocera zonata (peach fruit fly); Adults mating. Image taken by Viwat Wornoayporn/IAEA. Seibersdorf, Austria. September 2010.©IAEA Imagebank/via Flickr - CC BY-SA 2.0
Bactrocera zonata (peach fruit fly); Adults. Image taken by Viwat Wornoayporn/IAEA. Seibersdorf, Austria. September 2010.
TitleAdults
CaptionBactrocera zonata (peach fruit fly); Adults. Image taken by Viwat Wornoayporn/IAEA. Seibersdorf, Austria. September 2010.
Copyright©IAEA Imagebank/via Flickr - CC BY-SA 2.0
Bactrocera zonata (peach fruit fly); Adults. Image taken by Viwat Wornoayporn/IAEA. Seibersdorf, Austria. September 2010.
AdultsBactrocera zonata (peach fruit fly); Adults. Image taken by Viwat Wornoayporn/IAEA. Seibersdorf, Austria. September 2010.©IAEA Imagebank/via Flickr - CC BY-SA 2.0
B. zonata: line drawing of various structures; (a) egg, (b) lateral view of head and prothoracic segment of 3rd instar larva, (c) Cephalopharyngeal skeleton of third instar larva, (d) anterior prothoracic respiratory spiracle, (e) spiracular plate and caudal respiratory (posterior) spiracle, (f) third instar larva and (g) puparium.
TitleMorphology
CaptionB. zonata: line drawing of various structures; (a) egg, (b) lateral view of head and prothoracic segment of 3rd instar larva, (c) Cephalopharyngeal skeleton of third instar larva, (d) anterior prothoracic respiratory spiracle, (e) spiracular plate and caudal respiratory (posterior) spiracle, (f) third instar larva and (g) puparium.
CopyrightM.L. Argawal
B. zonata: line drawing of various structures; (a) egg, (b) lateral view of head and prothoracic segment of 3rd instar larva, (c) Cephalopharyngeal skeleton of third instar larva, (d) anterior prothoracic respiratory spiracle, (e) spiracular plate and caudal respiratory (posterior) spiracle, (f) third instar larva and (g) puparium.
MorphologyB. zonata: line drawing of various structures; (a) egg, (b) lateral view of head and prothoracic segment of 3rd instar larva, (c) Cephalopharyngeal skeleton of third instar larva, (d) anterior prothoracic respiratory spiracle, (e) spiracular plate and caudal respiratory (posterior) spiracle, (f) third instar larva and (g) puparium.M.L. Argawal

Identity

Top of page

Preferred Scientific Name

  • Bactrocera zonata (Saunders, 1841)

Preferred Common Name

  • peach fruit fly

Other Scientific Names

  • Bactrocera maculigera Doleshall (misidentification)
  • Chaetodacus zonatus (Saunders)
  • Dacus (Strumeta) zonatus
  • Dacus mangiferae Cotes, 1893
  • Dacus persicae
  • Dacus persicus (Biggott)
  • Dacus zonatus (Saunders)
  • Dasyneura zonata Saunders
  • Dasyneura zonatus Saunders, 1942
  • Rivellia persicae Bigot, 1889
  • Strumeta zonata (Saunders)
  • Strumeta zonatus Saunders

International Common Names

  • English: fruit fly, peach; guava fruit fly; peach fruitfly

EPPO code

  • DACUZO (Bactrocera zonata)

Summary of Invasiveness

Top of page

Bactrocera zonata is native to South and Southeast Asia. It was first reported from Bengal (India) and is now widespread in India, Pakistan and present throughout South and Southeast Asia. It is found in more than 20 countries in Asia and Africa. The potential risk of its entry to a new area is facilitated by increasing international tourism and trade, and is influenced by changes in climate and land use. After introduction, it can easily adapt and spread as it is a polyphagous species, with high reproductive potential (as many as 564 eggs in a life span), high biotic potential (several generations of progeny in a year) and rapid dispersal ability. B. zonata is a strong flier and can be active throughout the year.

B. zonata is classified on the A1 List of Pests recommended for regulation as quarantine pests for EPPO (the European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization). This pest is of quarantine significance to EPPO countries.

Economic impacts may result primarily from the loss of export markets and secondly, the costly requirement of quarantine restrictions that are imposed by importing countries to prevent entry of this species, and eradication measures. Furthermore, its establishment may have a serious impact on the environment following the initiation of chemical and/or biological control programmes.

Taxonomic Tree

Top of page
  • Domain: Eukaryota
  •     Kingdom: Metazoa
  •         Phylum: Arthropoda
  •             Subphylum: Uniramia
  •                 Class: Insecta
  •                     Order: Diptera
  •                         Family: Tephritidae
  •                             Genus: Bactrocera
  •                                 Species: Bactrocera zonata

Notes on Taxonomy and Nomenclature

Top of page

Prior to the 1990s, almost all Dacini species were described in the genera Dacus or StrumetaBactrocera was considered a subgenus of Dacus until Drew (1989) divided Dacus into Bactrocera and Dacus. Bactrocera became the main genus for the Dacini tribe, with Bactrocera further divided into Zeugodacus and Bactrocera in 2015 (De Meyer et al., 2015).

Bactrocera zonata was originally described in the genus Dasyneura; a genus now exclusively used in the Cecidomyiidae, and named Dasyneura zonata Saunder,1842, (unspecified type in Central India). This species has other synonyms; Rivellia persicae Bigot,1890 (syntypes in Bihar (Chota Nagpur, Ranchi), India) and Dacus mangiferae,1893 (lectotype in Bihar (Tirhoot) India) but they have been little used and are unlikely to be encountered outside of taxonomic catalogues. Also, the name B. maculigera,1858 (unspecified type in Indonesia) has for many years been erroneously listed as a synonym of B. zonata in catalogues, including the recent work by Norrbom et al. (1999). However, a recent study of the type specimen of B. maculigera from Indonesia has shown that it is a totally unrelated species (White and Evenhuis, 1999). This is of significance as the only record of B. zonata from Indonesia was based on that misidentified specimen. B. zonata belongs to the subgenus Bactrocera within the genus Bactrocera and it may, therefore, be cited as Bactrocera (Bactrocera) zonata.

Description

Top of page

Eggs

Elongated, elliptical, whitish, 1.0-1.2 mm long, somewhat rounded at posterior end, slightly pointed anteriorly.

Larvae

Bactrocera zonata has three larval instars and its spiracular openings of the respiratory system are restricted to a pair each on the prothorax and the posterior of the abdomen.

First instar: The first-instar larvae are elongated, white and 1.7-2.3 mm long. The anterior end of the larva is narrow and pointed, while the posterior end is broad and somewhat rounded. The head region has minute, yellowish-brown mouth hooks. The cephalopharyngeal skeleton is readily visible through the semi-transparent body of newly hatched larvae. The anterior portion of pharyngeal sclerites is visible as small, brownish dots (Fletcher, 1989; Rahman et al., 1993).

Second instar: The second-instar larvae are elongated, white and 4.0-6.5 mm (0.16-0.26 in) long. This larval instar is characterized by the presence of anterior spiracles, each having 13-15 apical lobes. Each lobe has an opening. In general, most spiracles are further developed than in the first instar with a greater sclerotization apparent here and in the cephalopharyngeal region (Fletcher, 1989; Rahman et al., 1993).

Third instar: The head segment has two small, jointed antennae, antennae 2 segmented and a single jointed maxillary palpus. Stomal sensory organ small, rounded. Oral ridges with 10-11 deep, clearly defined rows. Accessory plates present. Cephalopharyngeal skeleton. Mouth hook without preapical tooth; dental sclerite present; Parastomal bare elongate. Anterior spiracles. Elevated, margin concave medially and with 13-15 short tubules are still present.

Thoracic and abdominal segments. Thoracic 1 with 6-9 rows of small spinules encircling anterior portion of segment; Thoracic 2 with fewer rows encircling anterior portion of segment; Thoracic 3 with a few spinules dorsally but forming rows laterally and ventrally; Abdomen 1-8 with rows of spinules ventrally forming creeping welts, with 1 anterior and 1-2 posterior rows of slightly larger spinules.

Anal area. Lobes well-developed and surrounded by discontinuous rows of small spinules. Posterior spiracles. Spiracular slits 3.0-3.5 times as long as they are broad, each with moderately sclerotized rima; spiracular hairs slightly longer than half the length of a spiracular slit, frequently branched; dorsal and ventral bundles of 3-17 hairs, lateral bundles of 6-8 hairs (EPPO, 2013).

Pupae

Barrel-shaped, 11 segmented, yellowish or yellowish brown, 4.2-5.8 mm long, 2.3-2.5 mm wide; anterior end with two anterior spiracles, posterior end rounded; posterior spiracles occupy the same position as in larva.

Adults

Adults are about 6 mm long and reddish brown with yellowish thoracic markings.

Head. Head higher than long. Chaetotaxy reduced: Ocellar and postocellar bristles absent; Frontal bristles: two pairs; Orbital bristles one pair; Posterior orbital bristles reclinate. Dark round spots in each antennal furrow. First flagellomere elongate (at least three times as long as broad); rounded apically. Arista longer than flagellomere.

Thorax: Anterior supra-alar bristles present. Presutural supra-alar bristles absent. Postsutural supra-alar bristle present. Intra-alar bristles present well developed, similar to post-alar bristles. Prescutellar acrostichal setae present. Anterior notopleural bristles present. Scutum orange brown, or red brown. Postpronotal lobe entirely pale whitish or yellowish; Posterior half of anepisternum pale whitish or yellowish. Scutum has two pale whitish to yellow lateral postsutural stripes (vittae), they extending to intra-alar bristles or beyond. Scutum without blackish dorsoventral stripe. Katepisternite, katatergite and anatergite all with pale yellowish or whitish spot present and distinct. Scutellum densely setulose; without a dark and pale pattern (at most a narrow dark basal line); without mark. Setulae on scutellum short, decumbent; unicolorous, acuminate.

Wings: Family Tephritidae may be separated from all other Diptera by the shape of the sub-costal vein (Sc), which bends abruptly almost 90° 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, all species of Bactrocera and Dacus have a very long pointed extension of cell bcu (=cup). Also, the cell bm of all Bactrocera species, and most Dacus species, is deeper than cell bcu.

In general, wing pattern of B. zonata reduced and mostly yellowish or brownish. Wing without complete costal band, costal band with only cell sc and apex of vein R4 + 5 coloured (apical spot).

Cell bm broad, parallel-sided; ratio of length to width 2; ratio of width to cell cup width 2. Vein M distally curved anteriad.

Cell dm widens apically gradually from base. Posterodistal corner of cell dm approximately a right angle. Cell cup extension present and coloured, vein CuA2 abruptly bent; longer than vein A1 + CuA2; with parallel margin. Anal streak without a well-marked. Narrow subbasal section of cell br without microtrichia.

Abdomen: Abdomen ovate or parallel sided. Abdominal tergites separate (except basal 2 segments). Abdominal tergite 1 broader at apex than at base; without a prominent hump laterally. Male: pecten of ci on tergite 3. Abdominal tergites 3-5 predominantly yellow to orange brown. Abdominal tergites with medial dark stripe usually on T5; not brown with medial T-shaped yellow mark; Aculeus pointed; length 1.0-1.2 mm.

Legs: Femora slender. Fore femur with regular bristles; without ventral spines; with 1-3 posterodorsal and 1 posteroventral rows of bristles only, or without major bristles. Mid femur and hind femur without spine bristles. Middle leg of male without feathering. Femora all entirely yellow without dark mark. Wings. Length: 5.2-6.1 mm (EPPO, 2013).

Distribution

Top of page

Bactrocera zonata was first recorded from Bengal, India (Kapoor). It is now widely distributed throughout India (Kapoor, 1993; Mir et al., 2014) and Pakistan.

B. zonata is present in several countries in the Arabian Peninsula, including Oman, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates and Yemen. It occurs in two regions in Africa; it is reported from some of the islands in the Indian Ocean (Mauritius and Réunion) (Permalloo et al., 1998) and is also found in northern Africa (Egypt and Libya) (EPPO, 2021). In 2011, it was reported from Gezira and Sinnar regions in Sudan, suggesting a southward spread and potential risk of invasion for the sub-Saharan region (Salah et al., 2012).

In North America, four individual adult males were trapped in California in 2001 and one specimen was recorded in 2010 in Florida, but eradicated (EPPO, 2021). Recently, it has been recorded in the city of Dublin and Alameda County (CDFA, 2018). B. zonata is occasionally trapped in California and always subject to eradication measures (EPPO, 2021).

The record from Moluccas (Amboina) is a misidentification (White and Elson-Harris, 1994) and the record for Sumatra in this same publication cannot now be traced and is presumed to be a misidentification (CABI/EPPO, 2001). There is a specimen from the United Arab Emirates, in Geneva, Switzerland (IM White, UK [address available from CABI], personal communication, 2001).

Distribution Table

Top 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.

Last updated: 13 May 2022
Continent/Country/Region Distribution Last Reported Origin First Reported Invasive Reference Notes

Africa

EgyptPresent, WidespreadIntroduced1993Invasive
LibyaPresent, LocalizedIntroduced2007East of the country
MauritiusPresentIntroduced1942Two records
RéunionPresent, LocalizedIntroduced1991Invasive
SudanPresent, Localized

Asia

BangladeshPresent, Few occurrencesNative
BhutanPresent
IndiaPresent, WidespreadNative
-Andhra PradeshPresent
-AssamPresent
-BiharPresent
-ChhattisgarhPresent
-DelhiPresent
-GoaPresent
-GujaratPresent
-HaryanaPresent
-Himachal PradeshPresent
-Jammu and KashmirPresent
-KarnatakaPresent
-KeralaPresent
-Madhya PradeshPresent
-MaharashtraPresent
-PunjabPresent
-Tamil NaduPresent
-TelanganaPresent
-Uttar PradeshPresent
-UttarakhandPresent
-West BengalPresent
IndonesiaAbsent, Invalid presence record(s)
-SumatraAbsent, Unconfirmed presence record(s)
IranPresent, LocalizedIntroduced2002
IraqPresentvia PestLens newsletter.
IsraelPresent, Few occurrencesIntroduced2000
LaosPresentNative
MyanmarPresentNative
NepalPresent
OmanPresentIntroduced
PakistanPresentNative
Saudi ArabiaPresent, LocalizedIntroduced1982InvasiveJazane, Najrane (south-west)
Sri LankaPresentNative
ThailandPresentNative
United Arab EmiratesPresentIntroduced
VietnamPresentNative
YemenPresentIntroduced

Europe

AustriaAbsent, Confirmed absent by survey
FranceAbsent, Intercepted only
SloveniaAbsent

North America

United StatesPresent, Transient under eradication
-CaliforniaPresent, Transient under eradication
-FloridaAbsent, Eradicated

Oceania

New ZealandAbsent, Confirmed absent by survey

History of Introduction and Spread

Top of page

Bactrocera zonata is native to Bengal, India. It is now widely distributed throughout India (Kapoor, 1993; Mir et al., 2014) and Pakistan. It has recently appeared in several countries in the Arabian Peninsula, including Oman, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Yemen (EPPO, 2005White, 2006).

In Africa, B. zonata exists in two regions; it was reported from some of the islands in the Indian Ocean (Mauritius and Réunion) (Permalloo et al., 1998) and in northern Africa. It was detected in Egypt in 1914 (Efflatoun, 1924) in Port Said on the Red Sea coast, but there were no further records to suggest that quarantine interception was the start of establishment (label information for the two specimens, in the collection of the Ministry of Agriculture: 'Port-Said Customs from India, Sample No. 1036.14 V 1914'). However, B. zonata has established in Egypt since the late 1990s and is now widespread throughout the country. The first record of its establishment in Egypt was from guava (Psidium guajava) samples in Kalubia Governorate (East Cairo) in 1993 and subsequently in Fayoum Governorate (West Cairo) in the same year (De Meyer et al. (2007). In 1998, this pest was found in Alexandria Governorate (Agami) and in Giza Governorate (West Cairo). By 1997, it was distributed throughout Egypt, including the Dakhla and Kharga oases (west Egypt) and in Sinai (north-east Egypt), both of which are desert areas. It was recorded in Libya (EPPO, 2021). It was also reported from Gezira and Sinnar regions in Sudan in 2011, suggesting a southward spread and potential risk of invasion for the sub-Saharan region (Salah et al., 2012) and possibly the Middle East and Tunisia, and raising the alert level in Mediterranean countries (Papadopoulos and Quilici, 2014).

In North America, four individuals of adult males were trapped in California in 2001 and one specimen was recorded in 2010 in Florida, but eradicated (EPPO 2021). Recently, B. zonata has been recorded in the city of Dublin and Alameda County, California (CDFA, 2018).

The record from Moluccas (Amboina) is a misidentification (White and Elson-Harris, 1994) and the record for Sumatra in this same publication cannot now be traced and is presumed to be a misidentification (CABI/EPPO, 2001).

Introductions

Top of page
Introduced toIntroduced fromYearReasonIntroduced byEstablished in wild throughReferencesNotes
Natural reproductionContinuous restocking
California 1988-2006 Live food or feed trade (pathway cause) No No NAPPO (2008) Last interception of flies occurred in 2006 and was eradicated
Egypt 1993 Live food or feed trade (pathway cause) Yes No Meyer et al. (2007) Widespread

Risk of Introduction

Top of page

For export of fruits and vegetables from countries where B. zonata is prevalent, the exporting country/agency should develop and implement a preharvest quarantine system that enables production of fruit totally free from live stages of B. zonata. They should also develop postharvest disinfestation treatments. B. zonata is mainly a tropical species and has the potential to establish itself in similar areas. The way it has shown its dominance over B. dorsalis in some parts of India, a tropical area, and C. capitata in some districts of Egypt, a temperate area (El-Gendy and Nassar, 2014) is alarming. Careful steps must be taken to avoid introduction of B. zonata by the countries in which it is not found, where it is of quarantine significance. Phytosanitary measures should also be enforced to limit further spread.

Habitat

Top of page

Adults of Bactrocera zonata rest on leaves of dense foliage, grasses, bushes and other host parts or non-host plants in the vicinity of host. During warmer hours of the day they disperse and fly actively. Their eggs and larvae are well protected and found inside the host, and the soil provides a good shelter for the pupae.

B. zonata has the ability to establish outside tropical climates and is adaptable to temperate conditions. In Egypt, B. zonata develops throughout the year when temperatures exceed 12°C and can complete several generations per year, apparently overwintering also in temperate climates.

In Egypt, due to the spread of B. zonata, the Mediterranean fruit fly, Ceratitis capitata, has become more restricted in the horticulture areas (Hashem et al., 2001) and mixed infestation by both fruit flies produced flies mostly of B. zonata irrespective of which insect infested the fruit first (Mohamed, 2004).

Habitat List

Top of page
CategorySub-CategoryHabitatPresenceStatus
Terrestrial ManagedCultivated / agricultural land Principal habitat Harmful (pest or invasive)
Terrestrial ManagedManaged forests, plantations and orchards Principal habitat Harmful (pest or invasive)
Terrestrial Natural / Semi-naturalDeserts Secondary/tolerated habitat Productive/non-natural
Terrestrial Natural / Semi-naturalArid regions Secondary/tolerated habitat Productive/non-natural

Hosts/Species Affected

Top of page

White and Elson-Harris (1994) and Allwood et al. (1999) reviewed available host data and only records accepted by these publications are listed in the table. In a recent survey in Sri Lanka (Tsuruta et al., 1997), Careya arborea was the major host and it was not found attacking any commercial fruit crops.

B. zonata has been reported on potato in Egypt (El-Samea and Fetoh, 2006) but surveys conducted by the Plant Protection Research Institute, Egypt, have confirmed that the report is invalid (NPPO of Egypt, communication to CABI, 2020).

Host Plants and Other Plants Affected

Top of page
Plant nameFamilyContextReferences
Abelmoschus esculentus (okra)MalvaceaeUnknown
Aegle marmelos (golden apple)RutaceaeOther
Annona reticulata (bullock's heart)AnnonaceaeUnknown
Annona squamosa (sugar apple)AnnonaceaeOther
Careya arborea (tummy wood)LecythidaceaeWild host
Carica papaya (pawpaw)CaricaceaeOther
CitrusRutaceaeOther
Citrus aurantium (sour orange)RutaceaeUnknown
Saafan et al. (2005)
Citrus limetta (sweet lemon tree)RutaceaeUnknown
Citrus limon (lemon)RutaceaeUnknown
Saafan et al. (2005)
Citrus reticulata (mandarin)RutaceaeUnknown
Citrus sinensis (sweet orange)RutaceaeUnknown
Citrus x paradisi (grapefruit)RutaceaeUnknown
Saafan et al. (2005); Muhammad et al. (2020)
Cydonia oblonga (quince)RosaceaeOther
Diospyros kaki (persimmon)EbenaceaeUnknown
Drypetes roxburghiiEuphorbiaceaeUnknown
Elaeocarpus hygrophilusElaeocarpaceaeUnknown
Eriobotrya japonica (loquat)RosaceaeMain
FicusMoraceaeUnknown
Ficus carica (common fig)MoraceaeOther
Grewia asiatica (phalsa)TiliaceaeOther
Lagenaria siceraria (bottle gourd)CucurbitaceaeUnknown
LuffaCucurbitaceaeOther
Malus domestica (apple)RosaceaeOther
Malus sylvestris (crab-apple tree)RosaceaeUnknown
Mangifera indica (mango)AnacardiaceaeMain
Manilkara zapota (sapodilla)SapotaceaeUnknown
Mimusops elengi (spanish cherry)SapotaceaeUnknown
Momordica charantia (bitter gourd)CucurbitaceaeOther
Musa x paradisiaca (plantain)MusaceaeUnknown
Persea americana (avocado)LauraceaeUnknown
Phoenix dactylifera (date-palm)ArecaceaeOther
Prunus armeniaca (apricot)RosaceaeUnknown
Prunus domestica (plum)RosaceaeUnknown
Prunus persica (peach)RosaceaeMain
Psidium cattleianum (strawberry guava)LithomyrtusUnknown
Psidium guajava (guava)LithomyrtusMain
Punica granatum (pomegranate)PunicaceaeOther
Pyrus pyrifolia (Oriental pear tree)RosaceaeUnknown
Syzygium jambos (rose apple)LithomyrtusUnknown
Syzygium samarangense (water apple)LithomyrtusUnknown
Terminalia catappa (Singapore almond)CombretaceaeOther
ZiziphusRhamnaceaeOther
Ziziphus mauritiana (jujube)RhamnaceaeOther

Growth Stages

Top of page
Fruiting stage

Symptoms

Top of page

In juicy fruits, fluid exudes from the oviposition puncture in the form of a droplet that later dries up and appears as a brown, resinous deposit. On hatching, maggots bore their way into the interior of the host. The activity of first-instar larvae is restricted to the area below the oviposition puncture. Second- and third-instar larvae are voracious feeders, go deeper in the host and are mainly responsible for complete deterioration of the host.

List of Symptoms/Signs

Top of page
SignLife StagesType
Fruit / internal feeding
Fruit / lesions: black or brown
Fruit / premature drop

Biology and Ecology

Top of page

The eggs of Bactrocera zonata are laid below the skin of the host fruit. The adult female can lay up to 93 eggs in 1 day and as many as 564 in its lifetime (Qureshi et al., 1974). These hatch in an average of 2.7 days. The larvae have three instars that feed inside the host for another 8.8-11.2 days, depending on the host. Pupation takes place in the soil under the host canopy and the pupae take 10.8-12.5 days at 24±3°C and 70% RH (El-Gendy, 2002). The duration of various immature stages varies at different temperatures. No stages develop at 15°C or less, the optimum temperature is 25-30°C (Qureshi et al., 1993). The adults hatch from pupae mainly in the early hours of the morning (Rahman et al., 1993). The premature females take about 14.4-39 days and females may live for 82-112 days, and males for 66.6-105 days, depending on the host (El-Gendy, 2002).

B. zonata is a tropical species, unable to survive in extreme cold. The activity of the fly was positively correlated with temperature and rainfall and negatively correlated with relative humidity (Agarwal and Pramod Kumar, 1999; El-Gendy and El-Saadany, 2012). The abundance of larval hosts is also an important factor regulating its population. More flies were available during the peak fruiting period of its preferred hosts.

B. zonata is an ecological homologue of Bactrocera dorsalis and Ceratitis capitata. These species are polyphagous, infest common hosts and exhibit interference competition. Their larvae also compete with each other in concealed feeding niches. Narayanan and Batra (1960) considered zonata to be of less importance than dorsalis in terms of population and severity of damage. Agarwal and Kapoor (1986) reported zonata superseding dorsalis in northern India. In Bihar, the average mean population of zonata was 3.38 times greater than dorsalis (Agarwal et al., 1999). However, in southern parts of India, dorsalis is still dominating zonata. In Egypt, B. zonata has suppressed C. capitata in some areas, with annual mean density of 0.97 of B. zonata compared with 0.21 of C. capitata in Kom-Hamada district (El-Gendy and Nassar, 2014).

Climate

Top of page
ClimateStatusDescriptionRemark
Aw - Tropical wet and dry savanna climate Preferred < 60mm precipitation driest month (in winter) and < (100 - [total annual precipitation{mm}/25])
B - Dry (arid and semi-arid) Tolerated < 860mm precipitation annually
BS - Steppe climate Tolerated > 430mm and < 860mm annual precipitation
BW - Desert climate Tolerated < 430mm annual precipitation
C - Temperate/Mesothermal climate Tolerated Average temp. of coldest month > 0°C and < 18°C, mean warmest month > 10°C
Cs - Warm temperate climate with dry summer Tolerated Warm average temp. > 10°C, Cold average temp. > 0°C, dry summers

Latitude/Altitude Ranges

Top of page
Latitude North (°N)Latitude South (°S)Altitude Lower (m)Altitude Upper (m)
35 22

Air Temperature

Top of page
Parameter Lower limit Upper limit
Absolute minimum temperature (ºC) 11 0
Mean annual temperature (ºC) 22 33
Mean maximum temperature of hottest month (ºC) 31 34
Mean minimum temperature of coldest month (ºC) 21 23

Rainfall

Top of page
ParameterLower limitUpper limitDescription
Dry season duration012number of consecutive months with <40 mm rainfall
Mean annual rainfall1003200mm; lower/upper limits

Rainfall Regime

Top of page
Summer
Winter

Natural enemies

Top of page
Natural enemyTypeLife stagesSpecificityReferencesBiological control inBiological control on
Diachasmimorpha longicaudata Parasite Syed et al. (1970); Ahmad et al. (1975)
Fopius vandenboschi Parasite Syed et al. (1970); Ahmad et al. (1975)

Notes on Natural Enemies

Top of page

Details pertaining to natural enemies of B. zonata are not known and attempts have not been made to produce and release such natural enemies on a large scale. Syed et al. (1970) and Ahmad et al. (1975) observed Diachasmimorpha longicaudata and Fopius vandenboschi as parasitoids of immature stages of B. zonata in Pakistan. Kapoor and Agarwal (1986) reported Opius sp. as a parasitoid of B. zonata pupae.

Means of Movement and Dispersal

Top of page

Natural Dispersal

Bactrocera zonata is a strong flier and highly mobile. Extensive dispersal movements occur during the post-teneral period. The mature adults also cover long distances in search of new hosts. Qureshi et al. (1975) recorded marked individuals moving distances of up to 40 km. The incidence of B. zonata on the Réunion Island in 1991 is indicative of the fly’s ability to spread. Initially, the infested area was limited mainly to the north of the island, with rare captures in the southern part. Two years later, there was a significant increase in the population and the pest became established near St. Denis and expanded to areas in the north-east (St. Denis, St. Marie, St. André), north-west (La Possession, Rivière des Galets, St. Paul) and in the west (Hurtrel et al., 2002). Similarly, the incidence of B. zonata in Egypt in Kalubia Governorate in 1993 was initially limited to the infested area, followed by Fayuom Governorate. Two years later, significant dispersal via flight and wind dispersal of adult flies and water dispersal of eggs and larvae, and an increase in the population led to the pest becoming established throughout Egypt.

Accidental Introduction

The transport of infested hosts, mainly fruit, from one area to another, as well as to previously uninfested areas, is also an important means of movement and dispersal.

Pathway Vectors

Top of page
VectorNotesLong DistanceLocalReferences
AircraftFruits infested with larvae and/or eggs Yes Yes
Bulk freight or cargoAll life stages Yes Yes
ConsumablesFruits infested with larvae and/or eggs Yes Yes
Containers and packaging - non-woodFruits infested with larvae, pupae and/or eggs Yes Yes
Floating vegetation and debrisFruits infested with larvae and/or eggs Yes
Land vehiclesFruits infested with larvae and/or eggs Yes Yes
LuggageFruits infested with larvae and/or eggs Yes Yes
MailFruits infested with larvae and/or eggs Yes Yes
Plants or parts of plantsFruits infested with larvae and/or eggs Yes Yes
Soil, sand and gravelPupae Yes Yes
Debris and waste associated with human activitiesEggs, larvae Yes Yes
BaitAdult Yes
WaterFruits infested with larvae and/or eggs Yes Yes
WindAdult Yes Yes

Plant Trade

Top of page
Plant parts liable to carry the pest in trade/transportPest stagesBorne internallyBorne externallyVisibility of pest or symptoms
Fruits (inc. pods) arthropods/eggs; arthropods/larvae; 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
Growing medium accompanying plants
Leaves
Roots
Seedlings/Micropropagated plants
Stems (above ground)/Shoots/Trunks/Branches
True seeds (inc. grain)
Wood

Wood Packaging

Top of page
Wood Packaging not known to carry the pest in trade/transport
Loose wood packing material
Processed or treated wood
Solid wood packing material with bark
Solid wood packing material without bark

Impact Summary

Top of page
CategoryImpact
Economic/livelihood Negative
Environment (generally) Negative
Human health Negative

Impact

Top of page

Bactrocera zonata is polyphagous. In India, Pakistan, and now Egypt, it is an important fruit fly pest and causes severe damage to more than 40 hosts, especially peach [Prunus persica], guava [Pisidium guajava], mango [Mangifera indica], apple [Malus domestica], jujube (Ziziphus) and loquat (Eriobotrya japonica), then moves to cucurbits [Cucurbitaceae], citrus, pomegranate (Punica granatum) and sapodilla (Manilkara zapota). In recent years, B. zonata has increased its host range to a number of vegetables such as okra [Abelmoschus esculentus], aubergine [Solanum melongena], squash, tomatoes [Solanum lycopersicum] and cucumber (Cucumis sativus) (CDFA, 2011; El-Gendy, 2017).

In certain areas of north India and Pakistan it has been more notorious than Bactrocera dorsalis (Qureshi et al., 1991; Kapoor, 1993). It has a great preference for fruits including peaches and guavas and sometimes the crop is severely damaged. Infestations are often mixed with B. dorsalis. The present status of this fly is quite contrary to earlier reports when dorsalis was mentioned as more aggressive and serious. However, in Sri Lanka B. zonata does not appear to be an important pest (Tsuruta et al., 1997).

Economic Impact

Top of page

Bactrocera zonata is known in India and Southeast Asia as a serious pest of tropical and subtropical fruits. It is one of the three most destructive flies in India, causing crop losses of 25 to 100% in peach [Prunus persica], apricot [Prunus armeniaca], guava [Psidium guajava] and figs [Ficus carica]. In Pakistan, B. zonata alone has caused 25-50% damage to guava fruit (Siddiqui et al., 2003) and the farmers have abandoned harvesting the kharif guava crop in southern Pakistan. In Egypt, the percentages of apricot and citrus infested with B. zonata were higher than those infested with Ceratitis capitata and reached 20% (Saafan et al., 2005a,b) in loquat. In certain areas, it has been more notorious than B. dorsalis (north India and Pakistan) (Qureshi et al., 1991Kapoor, 1993) and C. capitata (in Egypt). In recent years, B. zonata has increased its host range to a number of important commercial crops such as citrus, mango [Mangifera indica], aubergine [Solanum melongena], tomato [S. lycopersicum], apple [Malus domestica] and loquat [Eriobotrya japonica].

Economic impacts may result from costly eradication measures and quarantine restrictions imposed by important domestic and foreign import markets, and from direct yield losses from infested fruit, the annual costs of damage in the Near East are estimated at 320 million EUR and in Egypt at 190 million EUR per year (EPPO, 2005). After years of costly and intensive eradication and surveillance programmes following the detection of B. zonata on the Réunion Islands and in Egypt, the unsuccessful eradication campaign had to be abandoned. In Egypt, the fly is restricted in some areas with rarely high numbers (El-Gendy and Nassar, 2014).

Environmental Impact

Top of page

Because of the competition for food, B. zonata may displace other less aggressive fruit fly species. Duyck et al. (2004) suggested that the r-K gradient could be used as a predictor of the potential invasive capacity of a species. Species with type K-demographic strategy traits, such as species of the genus Bactrocera, would be adapted for competition in saturated habitats. Duyck et al. (2004) reported that in all recorded cases, species further along the r-K gradient, such as B. dorsalis have invaded over r-selected species, such as Ceratitis capitata, but never the reverse. In Egypt, B. zonata has higher r0 than C. capitata from the first week of the year to about 44 weeks (El-Gendy and Nassar, 2014). In Egypt, because of the spread of B. zonata, C. capitata has become more restricted in the horticulture areas (Hashem et al., 2001; Saafan et al., 2005a, b; El-Gendy and Nassar, 2014) and the mixed infestation of fruits by both species produced flies mostly of B. zonata irrespective of which insect infested the fruit first (Mohamed, 2004). Reports (Saafan et al., 2005a, b) have indicted that even in cultivated orchards of citrus and apricot [Prunus armeniaca] in Fayoum Governorate, Egypt, the population of C. capitata was very low compared with B. zonata.

Earlier reports from India (Narayanan and Batra, 1960) considered B. zonata to be of less importance than B. dorsalis in terms of population and severity of damage. However, Agarwal and Kapoor (1986) reported that B. zonata superseded B. dorsalis in northern India. In Bihar, the average mean population of B. zonata was 3.38 times greater than B. dorsalis (Agarwal et al., 1999). Nevertheless, in southern parts of India and in Sri Lanka, B. dorsalis is still dominating B. zonata (Tsuruta et al., 1997).

Impact: Biodiversity

Top of page

The environmental impact is rated high because the establishment of B. zonata would be likely to trigger the initiation of chemical and/or biological control programmes. Chemical control could harm native insects and species of conservation significance.

Social Impact

Top of page

Public health may be affected if insecticide-treated plantations are close to habitat and touristic resorts. However, the risk is very low because bait stations and male annihilation techniques are the most common methods used to control B. zonata.

Risk and Impact Factors

Top of page
Invasiveness
  • 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
  • Is a habitat generalist
  • Tolerates, or benefits from, cultivation, browsing pressure, mutilation, fire etc
  • Pioneering in disturbed areas
  • Tolerant of shade
  • Capable of securing and ingesting a wide range of food
  • Highly mobile locally
  • Long lived
  • Fast growing
  • Has high reproductive potential
Impact outcomes
  • Ecosystem change/ habitat alteration
  • Host damage
  • Negatively impacts agriculture
  • Negatively impacts cultural/traditional practices
  • Negatively impacts human health
  • Negatively impacts livelihoods
  • Reduced native biodiversity
  • Threat to/ loss of endangered species
  • Threat to/ loss of native species
  • Transportation disruption
  • Damages animal/plant products
  • Negatively impacts trade/international relations
Impact mechanisms
  • Competition - monopolizing resources
  • Competition (unspecified)
  • Pest and disease transmission
  • Interaction with other invasive species
  • Rapid growth
Likelihood of entry/control
  • Highly likely to be transported internationally accidentally
  • Highly likely to be transported internationally deliberately
  • Highly likely to be transported internationally illegally
  • Difficult/costly to control

Detection and Inspection

Top of page

Host fruits with oviposition punctures may contain eggs or larvae of B. zonata.

Infested host fruits should be kept in rearing jars on fine sand for obtaining adult flies. Jars should be covered with muslin cloth. The pupae can be collected from the sand and then kept in glass vials covered with muslin cloth. Adults that subsequently hatch from the pupae may be identified.

Methyl eugenol, an extraordinarily attractive and very widely used lure for males of many dacine species, has been observed to be very effective in monitoring B. zonata populations. It attracts flies at a very low concentration and is believed to attract over a range of up to 1 km (Qureshi et al., 1992). The attractant is usually placed in the trap designed by Steiner (1957). The attractant can also be mixed with malathion and then soaked in small cotton wicks. Such impregnated wicks are suspended in the middle of the trap. The white colour of the Jackson trap was preferred. Traps can be suspended from trees about 1.5-2.0 m above the ground in a westerly direction (El-Gendy, 2012) with no direct sunlight. Agarwal et al. (1995) found a protein hydrolysate+malathion+methyl eugenol combination to be most effective against male B. zonata.

For more information see Invasive Fruit Fly Pests in Africa (De Meyer et al., 2007).

Similarities to Other Species/Conditions

Top of page

A few other species of Dacus and Bactrocera have a similar wing pattern and B. zonata has sometimes been mistaken for B. correcta and perhaps for D. ciliatus. Particular care should be taken not to confuse it with B. affinis, a very similar species that attacks wild fruits in some areas of southern India. B. affinis only differs in its lack of prescutellar acrostichal setae and in having a trilobed (rather than pointed) aculeus (apical segment of ovipositor that usually needs dissection before it can be examined).

Prevention and Control

Top 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.

Sanitary Measures

Infested fruits should be picked or those that fall on the ground should be collected and packed in plastic bags, tied carefully and exposed to direct sunlight, or buried deep in the soil. Proper sanitation in fields and orchards is essential. The soil water content level should be sustained at 100% of the field capacity to control B. zonata pupae in the soil (El-Gendy and AbdAllah, 2019). Furthermore, after harvest, no fruits should be left unpicked in the garden.

Physical Control

Wrapping or bagging individual fruit to prevent oviposition by females is effective.

Biological control

The parasitoid Aganaspis daci attacks B. zonata and could be used as a part of a biological controlling programme; however it is not expected to be a key agent for control of the pest (Adly, 2016).

Chemical Control

The use of chemical control based on bait sprays and relatively less hazardous insecticides such as malathion seems to be the most convenient and efficient control method available (Roessler, 1989). The insecticide is usually mixed with protein hydrolysate to form a bait spray. Individuals of both sexes are strongly attracted to a protein source from which ammonia emanates. Practical details have been summarized by Bateman (1982).

Bait Application Technique (BAT)

The use of chemical control based on bait application technique and relatively less hazardous and more environmentally friendly insecticides, such as spinosad was reported by El-Gendy (2018).

Male Annihilation Technique, MAT)

Methyl eugenol, an effective attractant to the males of B. zonata, is mixed with an insecticide (preferably technical malathion). Fibreboards are soaked in this solution and hung in the tree canopy in the manner of bait stations. This technique is effective in reducing the population to a very low level if carried out on a large scale. It is the key to any eradication programme and needs to be optimized in terms of insecticide type and formulation.

Plant Quarantine

Prevention of B. zonata from establishing in fly-free areas may be achieved by strictly enforcing quarantine regulations. Import of host fruits and vegetables from areas of infestation without postharvest disinfestation treatment should not be allowed. Travellers may also carry infested hosts in their baggage and thorough checking at entry ports is essential.

Postharvest Treatment

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; Armstrong, 1997). Irradiation is not accepted in most countries and fumigation is a hazardous operation. Heat treatments involve immersion in hot water either in a system of batches or an uninterrupted bath. The use of forced hot air or hot vapour can also be used as temperatures above 45°C kill fly eggs and larvae (Collin et al., 2007). This method is suitable for mango [Mangifera indica] fruits. Heat treatment is preferable to the restriction of fruit imports to areas free from fruit fly attack. Cold treatments were effective against Ceratitis capitata eggs and larvae at 0°C reaching 100% mortality (Al-Behadili et al., 2019).

Gaps in Knowledge/Research Needs

Top of page

Details pertaining to natural enemies of B. zonata are not known and there have been no attempts to produce and release such natural enemies on a large scale. Diachasmimorpha longicaudata, Fopius arisanus, F. vandenboschi and Opius sp., observed as parasitoids of immature stages of B. zonata in Pakistan (Syed et al., 1970; Ahmad et al., 1975; Agarwal and Kapoor, 1986a; Rousse et al., 2007), should be investigated.

The male annihilation technique (MIT) is key in eradication programmes for B. zonata and needs to be optimized in terms of insecticide type.

Sterile insect technique (SIT) was used successfully to sterilize B. zonata under laboratory conditions, but it needs further study in eradication of the fly under field conditions (El-Gendy, 2002; El-Gendy et al., 2013).

A trapping system geared towards female B. zonata would be a good tool for improving the efficacy of integrated fruit fly management, including the sterile insect technique (SIT).

Studies on the use of Jackson traps for monitoring B. zonata would be useful. In Egypt, these traps were distributed in a grid system throughout the country using GPS to detect hot spots of fruit fly populations.

Investigation of abiotic environmental factors as a method of suppressing the population of B. zonata pupae in the soil.

References

Top of page

Abdulrazak AS, Hadwan HA, Hassan SA, Aydan NI, Mohammed AK, Haider KM, 2016. New record of peach fruit fly Bactrocera zonata (Saunders) (Tephritidae: Diptera) in Iraq. Arab and Near East Plant Protection Newsletter, 69:3. http://www.asplantprotection.org/PDF/ANEPPN/ANEPPNL69En.pdf

Adly, D, 2016. Thermal requirements of the peach fruit fly, Bactrocera zonata (Saunders) (Diptera: Tephritidae), and its exotic parasitoid species Aganaspis daci (Weld) (Hymenoptera: Eucoilidae). Egyptian Academic Journal of Biological Sciences, 9, 89-96.

Agarwal ML, Kapoor VC, 1986. New records of some hymenopterous parasites of fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) from India. Bulletin of Entomology (New Delhi), 27(2):193

Agarwal ML, Pramod Kumar, 1999. Effect of weather parameters on population dynamics of peach fruit fly, Bactrocera zonata (Saunders). Entomon, 24(1):81-84; 9 ref

Agarwal ML, Pramod Kumar, Vinod Kumar, 1999. Population suppression of Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel) by Bactrocera zonata (Saunders) (Diptera: Tephritidae) in North Bihar. Shashpa, 6(2):189-191; 6 ref

Agarwal ML, Rahman S, Yazdani SS, 1995. Trapping of Dacus (Bactrocera) zonatus (Saunders) (Diptera:Tephritidae) in different trap systems in north Bihar. Shashpa, 2:80-81

Agarwal, M. L., Kapoor, V. C., 1986. Indian Dacini (Diptera:Tephritidae) and their host plant relationships. In: Fruit Flies of Economic Importance. CEC/IOBC adhoc meeting, Hamburg, 1984 [Fruit Flies of Economic Importance. CEC/IOBC adhoc meeting, Hamburg, 1984], [ed. by Cavalloro, R.]. Rotterdam, Netherlands: Balkema. 51-56.

Ahmad R, Murtaza M, Caleb S, Syed RA, 1975. Note on breeding parasites of fruit flies in Pakistan. Plant Protection Bulletin, FAO, 23(5):146-147

Al-Behadili, F. J. M., Bilgi, V., Li JunXi, Wang PengHao, Taniguchi, M., Agarwal, M., Ren YongLin, Xu Wei, 2019. Cold response of the Mediterranean fruit fly (Ceratitis capitata) on a lab diet. Insects, 10(2), 48. doi: 10.3390/insects10020048

Allwood AJ, Chinajariyawong A, Kritsaneepaiboon S, Drew RAI, Hamacek EL, Hancock DL, Hengsawad C, Jipanin JC, Jirasurat M, Krong CK, Leong CTS, Vijaysegaran S, 1999. Host plant records for fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) in Southeast Asia. Raffles Bulletin of Zoology, 47(Supplement 7):1-92; 26 ref

Armstrong JW, 1997. Quarantine treatment options for fruit fly host commodities for Pacific island countries. In: Allwood AJ, Drew RAI, eds. Management of Fruit Flies in the Pacific. A Regional Symposium, Nadi, Fiji. ACIAR Proceedings, 76: 222-224

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

Armstrong, J. W., Couey, H. M., 1989. Control; fruit disinfestation; fumigation, heat and cold. In: Fruit Flies: Their biology, natural enemies and control, [ed. by Robinson, A. S., Hooper, G.]. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier. 411-424.

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, 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.

Batra HN, 1964. Value of clensel as a chemical attractant and preliminary studies on population fluctuations and movement of fruit flies in the orchards. Indian Journal Agricultural Sciences, 34:28-37

Batra, H. N. , 1964. VALue of Clensel as a chemical attractant and preliminary studies on population fluctuations and movements of fruit-flies in the orchards. Indian Journal of Agricultural Science, 34(1), 28-37 pp.

Batra, H. N., 1964. Value of Clensel as a chemical attractant and preliminary studies on population fluctuations and movements of fruit-flies in the orchards. Indian Journal of Agricultural Science, 34, 28-37.

Bezzi M, 1916. On the fruit-flies of the genus Dacus (s.l.) occurring in India, Burma and Ceylon. Bulletin Entomological Research, 7:99-121

Bezzi, M., 1916. On the fruit-flies of the genus Dacus (s. l.) occurring in India, Burma and Ceylon. Bulletin Entomological Research, 7, 99-121.

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

CABI/EPPO, 2001. Bactrocera zonata. Distribution Maps of Plant Pests, Map No. 125. Wallingford, UK: CAB International

CABI/EPPO, 2013. Bactrocera zonata. [Distribution map]. Distribution Maps of Plant Pests, No.December. Wallingford, UK: CABI, Map 125 (3rd revision)

Carey JR, Dowell RV, 1989. Exotic fruit pests and California agriculture. California Agriculture, 43(3):38-40

CDFA, 2013. Amendment to the proclamation of an eradication project regarding the peach fruit fly. California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA), July 18, 2013., USA: California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA). http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/plant/pdep/treatment/pep/PEP-PFF_T_CHINO_2013-Amendment-072213.pdf

CDFA, 2018. Notification of treatment for the peach fruit fly in Dublin, Alameda County, October 5, 2018. USA: California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA). https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/plant/PDEP/treatment/notices/2018/AlamedaCounty/PFF-NOTDublinAlamedaCountyAmend01_2018Oct-05.pdf

Collin, M. N. D., Arnaud, C., Kagy, V., Didier, C., 2007. Fruit flies: disinfestation, techniques used, possible application to mango. Fruits (Paris), 62(4), 223-236. doi: 10.1051/fruits:2007018

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

Duyck PF, David P, Quilici S, 2004. A review of relationships between interspecific competition and invasions in fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae). Ecological Entomology, 29(5):511-520

Duyck, P. F., David, P., Pavoine, S., Quilici, S., 2008. Can host-range allow niche differentiation of invasive polyphagous fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) in La Réunion?. Ecological Entomology, 33(4), 439-452. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2311.2008.00989.x

Efflatoun HC, 1924. A Monograph of Egyptian Diptera. (Part II. Fam. Trypaneidae.). Mem. Soc. R. ent. Egypte, 2(pt. 2):132 pp

El-Gendy, I. R., 2012. Elevation of attraction efficiency of Jackson trap on Peach Fruit Fly, Bactrocera zonata (Saunders). International Journal of Agricultural Research, 7(4), 223-230. doi: 10.3923/ijar.2012.223.230

El-Gendy, I. R., 2017. Host preference of the peach fruit fly, Bactrocera zonata (Saunders) (Diptera: Tephritidae), under laboratory conditions. Journal of Entomology, 14(4), 160-167. doi: 10.3923/je.2017.160.167

El-Gendy, I. R., AbdAllah, A. M., 2019. Effect of soil type and soil water content levels on pupal mortality of the peach fruit fly [Bactrocera zonata (Saunders)] (Diptera: Tephritidae). International Journal of Pest Management, 65(2), 154-160. doi: 10.1080/09670874.2018.1485988

El-Gendy, I. R., El-Aw, M. A. M., Hashem, A. G., Draz, K. A., 2013. Assessment effect of gamma radiation on the flight ability of the peach fruit fly, Bactrocera zonata (Saunders). Pakistan Journal of Biological Sciences, 16(23), 1730-1736. doi: 10.3923/pjbs.2013.1730.1736

El-Gendy, IR, 2002. Studies on peach fruit fly, Bactrocera zonata (Saunders) at El-Beheira government (MSc Thesis). Alexandria, Egypt: University of Alexandria.

El-Gendy, IR, 2018. Insecticide resistance of a field strain of Mediterranean fruit fly, Ceratitis capitata (Wiedemann) (Diptera: Tephritidae) in Egypt. Journal of Applied Science, 18, 25-32.

El-Gendy, IR, El-Saadany, GB, 2012. Monitoring the changes in the population dynamics of field generations of peach fruit fly, Bactrocera zonata and some factors affecting them under field conditions. Egyptian Journal of Agriculture Research, 90(2), 777-798.

El-Gendy, IR, Nassar, AMK, 2014. Delimiting survey and seasonal activity of peach fruit fly, Bactrocera zonata and Mediterranean fruit fly, Ceratitis capitata (Diptera: Tephritidae) at El-Beheira Governorate, Egypt. Egyptian Academic Journal of Biological Sciences A Entomology, 7(2), 157-169.

Elnagar, S., El-Sheikh, M., Hashem, A., Afia, Y., 2010. Recent invasion by Bactrocera zonata (Saunders) as a new pest competing with Ceratitis capitata (Wiedemann) in attacking fruits in Egypt. Aspects of Applied Biology, (No.104), 97-102.

El-Samea SAA, Fetoh BEA, 2006. New record of Bactrocera zonata (Saundera) (Diptera: Tephritidae) on potatoes in Egypt. Egyptian Journal of Agricultural Research, 84(1):61-63

El-Wakeil, N, Shalaby, S, Abdou, G, 2013. Pesticide-residue relationship and its adverse effects on occupational workers. In: Insecticides – Development of Safer and More Effective Technologies, [ed. by Trdan, S. ]. Rijeka, Croatia: InTech. 57-81. doi: 10.5772/54338

EPPO, 2005. Bactrocera zonata. Bulletin OEPP/EPPO Bulletin, 35(3), 371-373. http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/servlet/useragent?func=showIssues&code=epp

EPPO, 2013. PM 7/114 (1) Bactrocera zonata. Bulletin OEPP/EPPO Bulletin, 43(3), 412-416. doi: 10.1111/epp.12058

EPPO, 2014. PQR database. Paris, France: European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization. http://www.eppo.int/DATABASES/pqr/pqr.htm

EPPO, 2021. EPPO Global database. In: EPPO Global database Paris, France: EPPO.https://gd.eppo.int/

FAO/IAEA, 2003. Trapping Guidelines for area-wide fruit fly programmes. Vienna, Austria: International Atomic Energy Agency, 47 pp

FDACS, 2010. Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. Exotic fruit fly found in Miami-Dade County. Florida, USA: FDACS. http://www.doacs.state.fl.us/press/2010/11152010_2.html

Fletcher, BS, 1989. Movements of tephritid fruit flies. In: World Crop Pests: Fruit Flies. Their biology, Natural Enemies and Control, 38 [ed. by Robinson, AS, Hooper, G]. 209-219.

Grewal JS, Kapoor VC, 1986. Bird damage and its effect on infestation by fruit-flies in various orchards in Ludhiana. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 56(5):370-373

Gupta D, Verma AK, Bhalla OP, 1990. Population of fruit-flies (Dacus zonatus and D. dorsalis) infesting fruit crops in north-western Himalayan region. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 60(7):471-474

Gupta SK, 1998. Competitive displacement in fruit fly species (Diptera:Tephritidae). Zoos' Print, 13:33-34

Hardy DE, 1973. The fruit flies (Tephritidae-Diptera) of Thailand and bordering countries. Pacific Insects Monograph, No. 31:353pp

Hardy DE, 1974. Resurrection of Bactrocera Macquart and clarification of the type-species, longicornis Macquart (Diptera: Tephritidae). Proceedings of the Hawaiian Entomological Society, 22(2):245-249

Hardy DE, 1977. Tephritidae (Trypetidae, Trupaneidae), In: Delfinado MD, Hardy DE, eds. A Catalog of the Diptera of the Oriental Region, Vol. III. Honolulu, USA: University Press of Hawaii, 44-134

Hardy, D. E., 1973. The fruit flies (Tephritidae-Diptera) of Thailand and bordering countries. In: Pacific Insects Monograph , USA: Entomology Dept., Bernice P. Bishop Museum.1-353. https://trove.nla.gov.au/work/21600476

Hashem AG, Mohamed SMA, El-Wakkad MF, 2001. Diversity and abundance of Mediterranean and Peach fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) in different horticultural orchards. Egyptian Journal of Applied Sciences, 16:303-314

Hendel F, 1927. Part 49. Trypetidae. In: Lindner E , ed. Die Fliegen der Palaearktischen Region, 5(1):1-221. Stuttgart, Germany

Hendel, F., 1927. Die Fliegen der Palaearktischen Region, Vol. 5(1). Part 49. Trypetidae, [ed. by Lindner, E.]. Stuttgart, Germany: Schweizerbart'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung.221 pp.

Hurtrel B, Quilici S, Jeuffrault É, Manikom R, Georger S, Gourdon F, 2002. Siege control of Bactrocera zonata peach fly: a report on a two-year control operation on Reunion Island. Phytoma, No.551:18-21

Jalaluddin SM, Natarajan K, Sadakathulla S, Balasubramaniyan S, 1999. Discovery of the guava fruit fly Bactrocera correcta (Bezzi). Entomon, 24(2):195-196; 3 ref

Kafu A, 2007. Erratum: B. cucurbitae is NOT in Libya. Tephritid Workers Database News, 16 November 2007. http://www.tephritid.org

Kandybina MN, 1977. The larvae of fruit-flies (Diptera, Tephritidae). Keys to the fauna of the USSR No.114. Lichinki plodovykh mykh-pestrokrylok (Diptera, Tephritidae). Opredeliteli po faune SSSR 114. Leningrad, USSR: Nauka, 212 pp

Kapoor VC, 1970. Indian Tephritidae with their recorded hosts. Oriental insects, 4:207-251

Kapoor VC, Agarwal ML, 1983. Fruit flies and their increasing host plants in India. In: Cavalloro R, ed. Fruit flies of economic importance. Proceedings of the CEC/IOBC International Symposium, Athens, Greece, 16-19 November 1982 A.A. Balkema Rotterdam Netherlands, 252-257

Kapoor VC, Malla YK, 1979. Tephritids (Diptera:Tephritidae) of Nepal and India (A taxonomic review). Journal Institute Science, 2:223-250

Kapoor, V. C., 1993. Indian fruit flies: (Insecta: Diptera: Tephritidae), New York, USA: International Science Publisher.iv + 228 pp.

Khan RJ, Khan MAJ, 1987. A comparative morphological study on third instar larvae of some Dacus species (Tephritidae: Diptera) in Pakistan. Pakistan Journal of Scientific and Industrial Research, 30(7):534-538

Mahmood, R., Rehman, A., Poswal, M. A., 2004. Fruit Flies Associated With Citrus in Punjab Province of Pakistan. [In M. Ibrahim (Ed.), Proceedings of International Conference on Citriculture], 91-96. http://www.geocities.ws/icc2004_proceedings/ICC2004/91-96.pdf

Mathaji, B. G., 2009. Studies on Comparative Biology, Population Dynamics and Management of Orchard Flies (Bactrocera spp.). India: Navsari Agricultural University. https://krishikosh.egranth.ac.in/handle/1/65033

Meyer M De, Mohamed S, White IM, 2007. Invasive fruit fly pests in Africa. Tervuren, Belgium: Royal Museum for Central Africa. http://www.africamuseum.be/fruitfly/AfroAsia.htm

Meyer, M. de, Delatte, H., Mwatawala, M., Quilici, S., Vayssieres, J. F., Virgilio, M., 2015. A review of the current knowledge on Zeugodacus cucurbitae (Coquillett) (Diptera, Tephritidae) in Africa, with a list of species included in Zeugodacus. ZooKeys, (No.540), 539-557. http://zookeys.pensoft.net/articles.php?id=6225

Mir, SH, Mir, GM, Haji, SA, Dar, SA, 2014. First report of peach fruit fly, Bactrocera zonata on peach from Kashmir, India. Indian Journal of Plant Protection, 42(1), 83-85.

Mohamed SMA, 2004. Competition between Mediterranean fruit fly and Peach fruit fly in fruit infestation. Journal of the Egyptian German Society of Zoology (Entomology), 43:17-23

Muhammad Ashfaq, Khan, M. A., Gogi, M. D., Abdul Rehman, 2020. Loss assessment and management of Bactrocera zonata (Diptera: Tephritidae) in citrus orchards. Pakistan Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 57(2), 451-456. doi: 10.21162/PAKJAS/19.9310

NAPPO, 2006. Phytosanitary Alert System: Bactrocera zonata (peach fruit fly), Removal of quarantine area in Fresno and Madera Counties, California. Phytosanitary Alert System: Bactrocera zonata (peach fruit fly), Removal of quarantine area in Fresno and Madera Counties, California., USA: NAPPO. http://www.pestalert.org/oprDetail.cfm?oprID=212&keyword=bactrocera%20zonata

NAPPO, 2008. North American Plant Protection Organization's Phytosanitary Alert System. http://www.pestalert.org

Narayanan ES, Batra HN, 1960. Fruit Flies and their Control. New Delhi, India: ICAR Pub

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

Papadopoulos NT, Quilici S, 2014. Special Issue: Biology, ecology, behavior, host status and management of invasive and native fruit flies of Europe, Africa and the Middle East. Journal of Applied Entomology, 138(6), 393-394. doi: 10.1111/jen.12139

Patel RK, Patel CB, 1998. Combating male fruit flies using Patel fruit fly trap. Insect Environment, 4(2):52

Perkins FA, 1938. Studies in Oriental and Australian Trypaneidae. Part 2. Proceedings Royal Society Queensland, 49:120-144

Perkins, F. A., 1938. Studies in Oriental and Australian Trypaneidae. Part 2. Proceedings Royal Society Queensland, 49, 120-144.

Permalloo, S, Seewooruthun, SI, Joomaye, A, Soonnoo, AR, Gungah, B, Unmole, L, Boodram, R, 1998. In: Proceedings of the 2nd annual meeting of Agricultural scientists, 1997. Food and Agricultural Research Council, Reduit, Mauritius . 203-210.

Qureshi Z, Hussain T, Carey JR, Dowell RV, 1993. Effects of temperature on development of Bactrocera zonata (Saunders) (Diptera: Tephritidae). Pan-Pacific Entomologist, 69(1):71-76

Qureshi ZA, Ashraf M, Bughio AR, Siddiqui QH, 1975. Population fluctuation and dispersal studies of the fruit fly, Dacus zonatus Saunders. International Atomic Energy Agency; Food and Agriculture Organization: Sterility principle for insect control 1974. Proceedings of the symposium on the sterility principle for insect control jointly organized by the IAEA and the FAO of the United Nations and held in Innsbruck, 22-26 July 1974. International Atomic Energy Agency. Vienna Austria, 201-206

Qureshi ZA, Hussain T, Siddiqui QH, 1991. Relative preference of mango varieties by Dacus zonatus (Saunders) and D. dorsalis Hendel. Pakistan Journal of Zoology, 23(1):85-87

Qureshi ZA, Siddiqui QH, Hussain T, 1992. Field evaluation of various dispensers for methyl eugenol, an attractant of Dacus zonatus (Saund.) (Dipt., Tephritidae). Journal of Applied Entomology, 113(4):365-367

Qureshi, Z. A., Ashraf, M., Bughio, A. R., Hussain, S., 1974. Rearing, reproductive behaviour and gamma sterilization of fruit fly, Dacus zonatus (Diptera:Tephritidae). Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata, 17(4), 504-510. doi: 10.1111/j.1570-7458.1974.tb00376.x

Rahman O, Rahman S, Agarwal ML, 1993. Biology and immature stages of Dacus (Bactrocera) zonatus (Saunders) (Diptera:Tephritidae). Journal Animal Morphology Physiology, 40:45-52

Rana JS, Parkash OM, Verma SK, 1990. A note on relative susceptibility of some guava cultivars to fruit fly, Dacus zonatus (Saunders). Haryana Journal of Horticultural Sciences, 19(1-2):131-133

Roessler Y, 1989. Control; insecticides; insecticidal bait and cover sprays. In: Robinson AS, Hooper G, eds. Fruit Flies. Their Biology, Natural Enemies and Control. World Crop Pests 3(B). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier, 329-336

Rousse P, Chiroleu F, Veslot J, Quilici S, 2007. The host- and microhabitat olfactory location by Fopius arisanus suggests a broad potential host range. Physiological Entomology, 32(4):313-321. http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/loi/pen

Saafan MH, Foda SM, Abdel-Hafez TA, 2005. Ecological studies of flies on different hosts at Fayoum Governorate. 3 - Ecological studies of Mediterranean fruit fly, Ceratitis capitata (Wied.) and Peach fruit fly, Bectrocera zonata (Saund.) in apricot orchards. Egyptian Journal of Agricultural Research, 83(4):1635-1648

Saafan MH, Foda SM, Abdel-Hafez TA, 2005. Ecological studies of flies on different hosts at Fayoum Governorate. 3 - Ecological studies of Mediterranean fruit fly, Ceratitis capitata (Wied.) and Peach fruit fly, Bactrocera zonata (Saund.) in citrus orchards. Egyptian Journal of Agricultural Research, 83(3):1157-1170

Saafan, M. H., Foda, S. M., Abdel-Hafez, T. A., 2005. Ecological studies on Mediterranean fruit fly, Ceratitis capitata (Wied.), and peach fruit fly, Bactrocera zonata (Saund.), in citrus orchards. Egyptian Journal of Agricultural Research, 83(3), 1157-1170.

Salah, FEE, Abdelgader, H, de Villiers, M, 2012. The occurrence of the peach fruit fly, Bactrocera zonata (Saunders) (Tephritidae) in Sudan. In: Abstract of a paper presented at the TEAM 2nd International Meeting ‘Biological invasions of Tephritidae ecological and economic impacts’ (Kolymbari, Crete (GR), 2012-07-03/06) . 128. http://www.teamfly2012.com/public/conferences/1/schedConfs/1/abstract_book_2nd_team_meeting.pdf

Sanjeev Rai, Uma Shankar, Bhagat RM, Gupta SP, 2008. Population dynamics and succession of fruit fly on sub-tropical fruits under rainfed condition in Jammu Region. Indian Journal of Entomology, 70(1):12-15

Satarkar VR, Krishnamurthy SV, Faleiro JR, Verghese A, 2009. Spatial distribution of major Bactrocera fruit flies attracted to methyl eugenol in different ecological zones of Goa, India. International Journal of Tropical Insect Science, 29(4):195-201. http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayJournal?jid=JTI

Saunders WW, 1841. Description of four new dipterous insects from Central and Northern India. Transactions Royal Entomological Society London, 3:60-61

Saunders, W. W., 1841. Description of four new dipterous insects from Central and Northern India. Transactions Royal Entomological Society London, 3, 60-61.

Schotman CYL, 1989. Plant pests of quarantine importance to the Caribbean. RLAC-PROVEG, No. 21:80 pp

Siddiqui QH, Ahmad N, Shah Rashdi SMM, Niazi S, 2003. Effect of Time of the Day and Trap Height on the Catches of Peach/guava Fruit Flies, Bactrocera zonata (Saunders) Through Male Annihilation Technique. Asian Journal of Plant Sciences, 2((2)):228-232

Spaugy L, 1988. Fruit flies. Two more eradication projects over. Citrograph, 73(8):168

Steiner LF, 1957. Low-cost fruit fly trap. Journal Economic Entomology, 50:508-509

Stonehouse, J., Mahmood, R., Poswal, A., Mumford, J., Baloch, K. N., Chaudhary, Z. M., Makhdum, A. H., Mustafa, G., Huggett, D., 2002. Farm field assessments of fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) in Pakistan: distribution, damage and control. Crop Protection, 21(8), 661-669. doi: 10.1016/S0261-2194(02)00018-2

Syed RA, Ghani MA, Murtaza M, 1970. Studies on the Trypetids and their natural enemies in West Pakistan. III. Dacus (Strumeta) zonatus (Saunders). Technical Bulletin, Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control, No. 13:1-16

Tigvatananont, S., Areekul, S., 1984. The economic importance of the fruit fly Dacus zonatus (Saunders) in Thailand. Kasetsart Journal, 18(3), 180-185.

Tsuruta K, White IM, Bandara HMJ, Rajapakse H, Sundaraperuma SAH, Kahawatta SBMUC, Rajapakse GBJP, 1997. A preliminary note on the host-plants of fruit flies of the tribe Dacini (Diptera, Tephritidae) in Sri Lanka. Esakia, No. 37:149-160; 7 ref

White IM, 2006. Taxonomy of the Dacina (Diptera: Tephritidae) of Africa and the Middle East. African Entomology Memoir, No. 2:1-156. http://journals.sabinet.co.za/essa

White IM, Elson-Harris MM, 1994. Fruit flies of economic significance: their identification and bionomics. Wallingford, UK: CAB International

White IM, Evenhuis NL, 1999. New species and records of Indo-Australasian Dacini (Diptera: Tephritidae). Raffles Bulletin of Zoology, 47(2):487-540; 31 ref

White IM, Meyer MDe, Stonehouse J, 2001. A review of the native and introduced fruit flies (Diptera, Tephritidae) in the Indian Ocean Islands of Mauritius, Réunion, Rodrigues and Seychelles. In: Proceedings of the Indian Ocean Commission Regional Fruit Fly Symposium, Mauritius, 5-9 th June 2000 [ed. by Price NS, Seewooruthun I] Mauritius: Indian Ocean Commission, 15-21

Yugendra, K., Gopali, J. B., Athani, S. I., Tulsiram, K., 2020. Survey and surveillance of fruit fly on guava across Karnataka. Journal of Experimental Zoology, India, 23(1), 485-489. http://www.connectjournals.com/jez

Zain-ul-Aabdin Abro, Naheed Baloch, Memon, R. M., Khuhro, N. H., Soomro, Q. A., 2020. Population variations of fruit flies, Bactrocera spp. in mango orchards of Hyderabad and Larkana Sindh. Pure and Applied Biology, 9(1), 949-955. doi: 10.19045/bspab.2020.90099

Distribution References

Abdulrazak AS, Hadwan HA, Hassan SA, Aydan NI, Mohammed AK, Haider KM, 2016. New record of peach fruit fly Bactrocera zonata (Saunders) (Tephritidae: Diptera) in Iraq. In: Arab and Near East Plant Protection Newsletter, 69 3. http://www.asplantprotection.org/PDF/ANEPPN/ANEPPNL69En.pdf

Agarwal ML, Rahman S, Yazdani SS, 1995. Trapping of Dacus (Bactrocera) zonatus (Saunders) (Diptera:Tephritidae) in different trap systems in north Bihar. In: Shashpa, 2 80-81.

Batra H N, 1964. VALue of Clensel as a chemical attractant and preliminary studies on population fluctuations and movements of fruit-flies in the orchards. Indian Journal of Agricultural Science. 34 (1), 28-37 pp.

CABI, EPPO, 2013. Bactrocera zonata. [Distribution map]. In: Distribution Maps of Plant Pests, Wallingford, UK: CABI. Map 125 (3rd revisio. DOI:10.1079/DMPP/20143031648

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

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

Carey J R, Dowell R V, 1989. Exotic fruit pests and California agriculture. California Agriculture. 43 (3), 38-40.

CDFA, 2013. Amendment to the proclamation of an eradication project regarding the peach fruit fly. In: California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA), USA: California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA). http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/plant/pdep/treatment/pep/PEP-PFF_T_CHINO_2013-Amendment-072213.pdf

CDFA, 2020. Notice of treatment for the peach fruit fly., USA: California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA). https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/plant/PDEP/treatment/notices/2020/MaderaCounty/PFF-NOT-ChowchillaMaderaCounty2020Oct2.pdf

Drew R A I, Romig M C, Dorji C, 2007. Records of dacine fruit flies and new species of Dacus (Diptera: Tephritidae) in Bhutan. Raffles Bulletin of Zoology. 1-21.

Duyck P F, David P, Pavoine S, Quilici S, 2008. Can host-range allow niche differentiation of invasive polyphagous fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) in La Réunion? Ecological Entomology. 33 (4), 439-452. DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2311.2008.00989.x

El-Samea S A A, Fetoh B E A, 2006. New record of Bactrocera zonata (Saundera) (Diptera: Tephritidae) on potatoes in Egypt. Egyptian Journal of Agricultural Research. 84 (1), 61-63.

EPPO, 2022. EPPO Global database. In: EPPO Global database, Paris, France: EPPO. 1 pp. https://gd.eppo.int/

Grewal J S, Kapoor V C, 1986. Bird damage and its effect on infestation by fruit-flies in various orchards in Ludhiana. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 56 (5), 370-373.

Grewal J S, Malhi C S, 1987. Prunus persica Batsch damage by birds and fruit fly pests in Ludhiana (Punjab). Journal of Entomological Research. 11 (1), 119-120.

Gupta D, Verma A K, Bhalla O P, 1990. Population of fruit-flies (Dacus zonatus and D. dorsalis) infesting fruit crops in north-western Himalayan region. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 60 (7), 471-474.

Hardy D E, 1973. The fruit flies (Tephritidae-Diptera) of Thailand and bordering countries. In: Pacific Insects Monograph, 353pp.

Hardy DE, 1977. Tephritidae (Trypetidae, Trupaneidae). In: A Catalog of the Diptera of the Oriental Region, III [ed. by Delfinado MD, Hardy DE]. Honolulu, USA: University Press of Hawaii. 44-134.

Hendel F, 1927. Die Fliegen der Palaearktischen Region, Vol. 5(1). Part 49. Trypetidae. [ed. by Lindner E]. Stuttgart, Germany: Schweizerbart'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung. 221 pp.

Iwahashi O, Routhier W, 2001. Aedeagal length and its variation of the peach fruit fly, Bactrocera zonata (Saunders) (Diptera: Tephritidae), which recently invaded Egypt. Applied Entomology and Zoology. 36 (1), 13-17. DOI:10.1303/aez.2001.13

Jalaluddin S M, Natarajan K, Sadakathulla S, Balasubramaniyan S, 1999. Discovery of the guava fruit fly Bactrocera correcta (Bezzi). Entomon. 24 (2), 195-196.

Jiang F, Jin Q, Liang L, Zhang A B, Li Z H, 2014. Existence of species complex largely reduced barcoding success for invasive species of Tephritidae: a case study in Bactrocera spp. Molecular Ecology Resources. 14 (6), 1114-1128. DOI:10.1111/1755-0998.12259

Kafu A, 2007. Erratum: B. cucurbitae is NOT in Libya. In: Tephritid Workers Database News, 16 November 2007, http://www.tephritid.org

Kapoor VC, 1993. Indian Fruit Flies (Insecta:Diptera:Tephritidae)., New Delhi; Oxford, India; UK: IBH Publishing Company.

Kapoor VC, Malla YK, 1979. Tephritids (Diptera:Tephritidae) of Nepal and India (A taxonomic review). In: Journal Institute Science, 2 223-250.

Mathaji B G, 2009. Studies on Comparative Biology, Population Dynamics and Management of Orchard Flies (Bactrocera spp.). India: Navsari Agricultural University. https://krishikosh.egranth.ac.in/handle/1/65033

Meyer M De, Mohamed S, White I M, 2007. Invasive fruit fly pests in Africa. In: Invasive fruit fly pests in Africa, Tervuren, Belgium: Royal Museum for Central Africa. http://www.africamuseum.be/fruitfly/AfroAsia.htm

Mosleh Y I, Moussa S F M, Mohamed L H Y, 2011. Comparative toxicity of certain pesticides to peach fruit fly, Bactrocera zonata Saunders (Diptera: Tephritidae) under laboratory conditions. Plant Protection Science. 47 (3), 115-120. http://www.cazv.cz

Mosleh Y Y, Yousry L H, Alo-El-Elaa A, 2011a. Toxicological and biochemical effects of some insecticides on peach fly, Bactrocera zonata (Diptera: Tephritidae). Plant Protection Science. 47 (3), 121-130. http://www.cazv.cz

Muhammad Ashfaq, Khan M A, Gogi M D, Abdul Rehman, 2020. Loss assessment and management of Bactrocera zonata (Diptera: Tephritidae) in citrus orchards. Pakistan Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 57 (2), 451-456. DOI:10.21162/PAKJAS/19.9310

Narayanan ES, Batra HN, 1960. Fruit Flies and their Control., New Delhi, India: ICAR Pub.

Patel R K, Patel C B, 1998. Combating male fruit flies using Patel fruit fly trap. Insect Environment. 4 (2), 52.

Prabhakar C S, Pankaj Sood, Mehta P K, 2012. Fruit fly (Diptera: Tephritidae) diversity in cucurbit fields and surrounding forest areas of Himachal Pradesh, a north-western Himalayan state of India. Archives of Phytopathology and Plant Protection. 45 (10), 1210-1217. http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gapp20 DOI:10.1080/03235408.2012.660612

Qureshi Z A, Hussain T, Siddiqui Q H, 1991. Relative preference of mango varieties by Dacus zonatus (Saunders) and D. dorsalis Hendel. Pakistan Journal of Zoology. 23 (1), 85-87.

Rana J S, Parkash O M, Verma S K, 1990. A note on relative susceptibility of some guava cultivars to fruit fly, Dacus zonatus (Saunders). Haryana Journal of Horticultural Sciences. 19 (1-2), 131-133.

Sanjeev Rai, Uma Shankar, Bhagat R M, Gupta S P, 2008. Population dynamics and succession of fruit fly on sub-tropical fruits under rainfed condition in Jammu Region. Indian Journal of Entomology. 70 (1), 12-15.

Satarkar V R, Krishnamurthy S V, Faleiro J R, Verghese A, 2009. Spatial distribution of major Bactrocera fruit flies attracted to methyl eugenol in different ecological zones of Goa, India. International Journal of Tropical Insect Science. 29 (4), 195-201. http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayJournal?jid=JTI DOI:10.1017/S174275840999035X

Siddiqui Q H, Ahmad N, Shah Rashdi S M M, Niazi S, 2003. Effect of Time of the Day and Trap Height on the Catches of Peach/guava Fruit Flies, Bactrocera zonata (Saunders) Through Male Annihilation Technique. Asian Journal of Plant Sciences. 2 (2), 228-232.

Sookar P, Permalloo S, Gungah B, Alleck M, Seewooruthun S I, Soonnoo A R, 2008. An area wide control of fruit flies in Mauritius. In: Fruit Flies of Economic Importance to Applied Knowledge. Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on Fruit Flies of Economic Importance, 10-15 September 2006, Salvador, Brazil [Fruit Flies of Economic Importance to Applied Knowledge. Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on Fruit Flies of Economic Importance, 10-15 September 2006, Salvador, Brazil.], [ed. by Sugayama R L, Zucchi R A, Ovruski S M, Sivinski J]. Salvador, Brazil: Biofábrica Moscamed Brasil, SBPC. 261-269.

Spaugy L, 1988. Fruit flies. Two more eradication projects over. Citrograph. 73 (8), 168.

Steck G J, 2010. Pest Alert: A peach fruit fly, Bactrocera zonata (Saunders) (Tephritidae)., USA: Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Plant Industry . https://www.fdacs.gov/content/download/65230/file/PEST%20ALERT%20Peach%20Fruit%20Fly%20Bactrocera%20Zonata.pdf

Stonehouse J, Mahmood R, Poswal A, Mumford J, Baloch K N, Chaudhary Z M, Makhdum A H, Mustafa G, Huggett D, 2002. Farm field assessments of fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) in Pakistan: distribution, damage and control. Crop Protection. 21 (8), 661-669. DOI:10.1016/S0261-2194(02)00018-2

Syed R A, Ghani M A, Murtaza M, 1970. Studies on the Trypetids and their natural enemies in West Pakistan. III. Dacus (Strumeta) zonatus (Saunders). Technical Bulletin, Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control. 1-16.

Tigvatananont S, Areekul S, 1984. The economic importance of the fruit fly Dacus zonatus (Saunders) in Thailand. Kasetsart Journal. 18 (3), 180-185.

Tsuruta K, White I M, Bandara H M J, Rajapakse H, Sundaraperuma S A H, Kahawatta S B M U C, Rajapakse G B J P, 1997. A preliminary note on the host-plants of fruit flies of the tribe Dacini (Diptera, Tephritidae) in Sri Lanka. Esakia. 149-160.

USA, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, 2010. Exotic fruit fly found in Miami-Dade County. In: Exotic fruit fly found in Miami-Dade County, Florida, USA: Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS). http://www.doacs.state.fl.us/press/2010/11152010_2.html

White I M, 2006. Taxonomy of the Dacina (Diptera: Tephritidae) of Africa and the Middle East. African Entomology. 1-156. http://journals.sabinet.co.za/essa

White I M, Meyer M De, Stonehouse J, 2001. A review of the native and introduced fruit flies (Diptera, Tephritidae) in the Indian Ocean Islands of Mauritius, Réunion, Rodrigues and Seychelles. In: Proceedings of the Indian Ocean Commission Regional Fruit Fly Symposium, Mauritius, 5-9 th June 2000 [Proceedings of the Indian Ocean Commission Regional Fruit Fly Symposium, Mauritius, 5-9 th June 2000], [ed. by Price N S, Seewooruthun I]. Mauritius: Indian Ocean Commission. 15-21.

Yugendra K, Gopali J B, Athani S I, Tulsiram K, 2020. Survey and surveillance of fruit fly on guava across Karnataka. Journal of Experimental Zoology, India. 23 (1), 485-489. http://www.connectjournals.com/jez

Zain-ul-Aabdin Abro, Naheed Baloch, Memon R M, Khuhro N H, Soomro Q A, 2020. Population variations of fruit flies, Bactrocera spp. in mango orchards of Hyderabad and Larkana Sindh. Pure and Applied Biology. 9 (1), 949-955. DOI:10.19045/bspab.2020.90099

Links to Websites

Top of page
WebsiteURLComment
California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA)http://www.cdfa.ca.gov
Invasive Fruit Fly Pests in Africahttp://www.africamuseum.be/fruitfly/AfroAsia.htm

Organizations

Top of page

Pakistan: Nuclear Institute of Agriculture, 70060 Tandojam

France: CIRAD (Centre de Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Développment), Head Office, 42, rue Scheffer, 75116 Paris, http://www.cirad.fr

Contributors

Top of page

05/10/2019 Updated by:

Ismail El-Gendy, Plant Protection Research Institute, Agricultural Research Center, Giza, Egypt

26/03/2008 Updated by:

Abdeljelil Bakri, University Cadi Ayyad, Faculty of Science Semlalia, Unit of Insect Biological Control, Boulevard Prince My Abdallah, 40 000 Marrakech, Morocco

Distribution Maps

Top of page
You can pan and zoom the map
Save map
Select a dataset
Map Legends
  • CABI Summary Records
Map Filters
Extent
Invasive
Origin
Third party data sources: