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
  • 27 September 2018
  • 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
  • Native to South and South-East Asia, B. zonata is now found in more than 20 countries. The potential risk of its introduction to a new area is facilitated by increasing international tourism and trade, and is inf...

Don't need the entire report?

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

Generate report

Pictures

Top of page
PictureTitleCaptionCopyright
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
  • guava fruit fly
  • Rivellia persicae Bigot, 1889
  • Strumeta zonata (Saunders)
  • Strumeta zonatus Saunders

International Common Names

  • English: fruit fly, peach; peach fruitfly

EPPO code

  • DACUZO (Bactrocera zonata)

Summary of Invasiveness

Top of page

Native to South and South-East Asia, B. zonata is now found in more than 20 countries. The potential risk of its introduction 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 and has a high reproductive potential (as many as 564 eggs in a lifetime), high biotic potential (several generations of progeny in a year), and a rapid dispersal ability. B. zonata is a strong flier and can be active throughout the year.

Economic impacts may result primarily from the loss of export markets and the costly requirement of quarantine restrictions and eradication measures. Furthermore, its establishment may have a serious impact on the environment following the initiation of chemical and/or biological control programmes. B. zonata is of quarantine significance to EPPO (the European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization) countries. The pest is classified on the A1 List of Pests recommended for regulation as quarantine pests.

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 This species was originally described in the genus Dasyneura; a genus now exclusively used in the Cecidomyiidae. The synonyms Rivellia persicae and Dacus mangiferae have been little used and are unlikely to be encountered outside of taxonomic catalogues. The name Bactrocera maculigera 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

Some details were given by White and Elson-Harris (1994), but they were insufficient as to permit separation from other pest species.

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

The genus Bactrocera belongs to the family Tephritidae, which is part of the superfamily Tephritoidea. In common with most species of Tephritoidea it has patterned wings, and the female has a long telescopic and pointed ovipositor; these features are hardly known outside the Tephritoidea. The family Tephritidae may also be separated from all other Diptera by the shape of the sub-costal vein, which bends abruptly through a right-angle and fades to a fold before reaching the wing edge, combined with the presence of setulae along the dorsal side of vein R1. At the wing base, Bactrocera and Dacus species have a very deep cell bm and a very long pointed extension of cell bcu (=cup). The genus Bactrocera is separated from Dacus by the terga (dorsal sclerites of the abdomen) not being fused into a single sclerotized plate.

In common with most species in or close to subgenus Bactrocera, the scutum has two pale lateral vittae (lateral stripes). The scutum has both anterior supra-alar setae and prescutellar acrostichal setae; there are two setae (apical pair) on the margin of the scutellum. The males have a deep V-shaped notch on the fifth sternite and a pecten (comb of setae) on each side of the third abdominal tergite.

This species is unusual in its wing pattern and structure. In common with Bactrocera correcta, it lacks a complete costal band (that is reduced to an apical wing spot), and it lacks microtrichiae in the narrow raised area near the base of cell br. It differs from B. correcta in having round or oval facila spots (a dark spot in each antennal groove rather than a broken transverse line), and by having a red brown scutum (rather than almost black).

Distribution

Top of page

B. zonata has been recorded from most states of India. It is expected that it is widely distributed throughout India and Pakistan.

B. zonata occurs in two regions in Africa. It is reported from some of the islands in the Indian Ocean (Mauritius and Réunion) and is also found in northern Africa (Egypt and Libya). B. zonata is present in several countries in the Arabian Peninsula, includnig Oman, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates and Yemen. Recently it has been reported from Gezira region in Sudan, suggesting a southward spread and potential risk of invasion for Sub-Saharan region (Meyer et al., 2007).

From North America (California), three individuals were trapped (Carey and Dowell, 1989), but eradicated (Spaugy, l988). 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.

Continent/Country/RegionDistributionLast ReportedOriginFirst ReportedInvasiveReferenceNotes

Asia

BangladeshPresent, few occurrencesNativeKapoor, 1993; CABI/EPPO, 2013; EPPO, 2014
BhutanPresentCABI/EPPO, 2013; EPPO, 2014
IndiaWidespreadNativeCABI/EPPO, 2013; EPPO, 2014
-Andhra PradeshPresentCABI/EPPO, 2013; EPPO, 2014
-AssamPresentHardy, 1977; CABI/EPPO, 2013; EPPO, 2014
-BiharPresentAgarwal et al., 1995; CABI/EPPO, 2013; EPPO, 2014
-DelhiPresentBatra, 1964; CABI/EPPO, 2013; EPPO, 2014
-GoaPresentSatarkar et al., 2009; CABI/EPPO, 2013
-GujaratPresentPatel and Patel, 1998; CABI/EPPO, 2013; EPPO, 2014
-HaryanaPresentRana et al., 1990; CABI/EPPO, 2013; EPPO, 2014
-Himachal PradeshPresentGupta et al., 1990; CABI/EPPO, 2013; EPPO, 2014
-Indian PunjabPresentGrewal and Kapoor, 1986; CABI/EPPO, 2013; EPPO, 2014
-Jammu and KashmirPresentSanjeev et al., 2008; CABI/EPPO, 2013
-KarnatakaPresentNarayanan and Batra, 1960; CABI/EPPO, 2013; EPPO, 2014
-KeralaPresentCABI/EPPO, 2013; EPPO, 2014
-Madhya PradeshPresentNarayanan and Batra, 1960; CABI/EPPO, 2013; EPPO, 2014
-MaharashtraPresentNarayanan and Batra, 1960; CABI/EPPO, 2013; EPPO, 2014
-Tamil NaduPresentJalaluddin et al., 1999; CABI/EPPO, 2013; EPPO, 2014
-Uttar PradeshPresentNarayanan and Batra, 1960; CABI/EPPO, 2013; EPPO, 2014
-West BengalPresentHardy, 1977; CABI/EPPO, 2013; EPPO, 2014
IndonesiaAbsent, invalid recordCABI/EPPO, 2013; EPPO, 2014
-SumatraAbsent, unreliable recordEPPO, 2014
IranRestricted distributionIntroduced2002CABI/EPPO, 2013; EPPO, 2014
IraqPresentAbdulrazak et al., 2016via PestLens newsletter.
IsraelPresent, few occurrencesIntroduced2000CABI/EPPO, 2013; EPPO, 2014
LaosPresentNativeHardy, 1973; CABI/EPPO, 2013; EPPO, 2014
MyanmarPresentNativeHardy, 1977; CABI/EPPO, 2013; EPPO, 2014
NepalPresentKapoor and Malla, 1979; Kapoor, 1993; CABI/EPPO, 2013; EPPO, 2014
OmanPresentIntroducedWhite and Elson-Harris, 1994; CABI/EPPO, 2013; EPPO, 2014
PakistanPresentNativeQureshi et al., 1991; CABI/EPPO, 2013; EPPO, 2014
Saudi ArabiaRestricted distributionIntroduced1982 Invasive White and Elson-Harris, 1994; CABI/EPPO, 2013; EPPO, 2014Jazane, Najrane (south-west)
Sri LankaPresentNative Not invasive Narayanan and Batra, 1960; Hardy, 1977; Tsuruta et al., 1997; CABI/EPPO, 2013; EPPO, 2014
ThailandPresentNativeHardy, 1973; CABI/EPPO, 2013; EPPO, 2014
United Arab EmiratesPresentIntroducedCABI/EPPO, 2013; EPPO, 2014
VietnamPresentNativeHardy, 1973; CABI/EPPO, 2013; EPPO, 2014
YemenPresentIntroducedWhite, 2006; Meyer et al., 2007; CABI/EPPO, 2013; EPPO, 2014

Africa

EgyptWidespreadIntroduced1993 Invasive Hendel, 1927; El-Samea and Fetoh, 2006; CABI/EPPO, 2013; EPPO, 2014
LibyaLocalisedIntroduced2007Kafu, 2007; Meyer et al., 2007; CABI/EPPO, 2013; EPPO, 2014East of the country
MauritiusPresentIntroduced1942White and Elson-Harris, 1994; White et al., 2001; CABI/EPPO, 2013; EPPO, 2014Two records
RéunionRestricted distributionIntroduced1991 Invasive White et al., 2001; CABI/EPPO, 2013; EPPO, 2014
SudanRestricted distributionCABI/EPPO, 2013; EPPO, 2014

North America

USATransient: actionable, under eradicationIntroducedCABI/EPPO, 2013; CDFA, 2013; EPPO, 2014
-CaliforniaTransient: actionable, under eradicationIntroducedSpaugy, 1988; Carey and Dowell, 1989; CABI/EPPO, 2013; CDFA, 2013; EPPO, 2014via alert from PestLens newsletter.
-FloridaEradicatedFDACS, 2010; CABI/EPPO, 2013; EPPO, 2014

Oceania

New ZealandAbsent, confirmed by surveyEPPO, 2014

History of Introduction and Spread

Top of page

B. zonata 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”).

According to De Meyer et al. (2007), the first record of B. zonata being established in Egypt was in Kalubia governorate (East Cairo) in 1993 from guava (Psidium guajava) samples, and later the same year in Faiuom governorate (west Cairo). Both governorates are fruit-producing areas and there is a continuous presence of plant hosts during the year. The following year, the pest was found in Alexandria governorate (Agami), where the fig (Ficus carica) is widely distributed, and in Giza governorate (West Cairo), where various horticultural trees are cultivated in home gardens. By 1995, the insect was found in further fruit-producing governorates. 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. 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).

By the early 1980s, B. zonata had become established in the Arabian Peninsula including Saudi Arabia, Oman, and Yemen (White, 2006).

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 NAPPO (2008) last interception of flies occurred in 2006 and was eradicated
Egypt 1993 Live food or feed trade (pathway cause) Yes 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 fruit flies. 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 is alarming. Careful attempts must be taken 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 B. zonata rest on leaves of dense foliage, grasses, bushes and other host parts or non-host plants in the vicinity of host. During the 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.

Habitat List

Top of page
CategoryHabitatPresenceStatus
Terrestrial-managed
Cultivated / agricultural land Principal habitat Harmful (pest or invasive)
Managed forests, plantations and orchards Principal habitat Harmful (pest or invasive)
Terrestrial-natural/semi-natural
Arid regions Secondary/tolerated habitat Productive/non-natural
Deserts 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.

Host Plants and Other Plants Affected

Top of page

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 in 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

Biology and Ecology

Top of page

Rahman et al. (1993) described the biology of B. zonata. Winter is passed in the pupal stage and the adults emerge when the ambient temperature increases. The adults appear by the end of March and start mating. The mated female, after selecting a suitable site for oviposition, inserts her ovipositor in the host tissues and deposits three to nine eggs at one time. The hatched larvae feed and grow inside the host. 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). Full-grown larvae enter the soil for pupariation. Pupal duration is quite long in the winter. The adults hatch from pupae mainly in the early hours of the morning.

B. zonata is a tropical species and unable to survive in extreme cold. Agarwal and Pramod Kumar (1999) studied the population dynamics of B. zonata in north Bihar, India. The maximum fly population was observed during the third week of June. The fly population was positively correlated with temperature and rainfall whereas negative correlation was observed between the fly population and relative humidity. Abundance of larval host is also an important factor regulating its population. More flies were available during the second to fourth weeks of June, which synchronized with the peak fruiting period of its preferred hosts.

B. zonata is an ecological homologue of B. dorsalis. Both 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.

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

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 Biosteres longicaudatus and Biosteres vandenvoschi 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

B. 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 has 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).

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 Causes

Top of page
CauseNotesLong DistanceLocalReferences
Crop production Yes Yes
Hitchhiker Yes Yes
Horticulture Yes Yes
Live food or feed tradeEgypt Yes Yes Meyer et al., 2007; NAPPO, 2008
Smuggling Yes Yes

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 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

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) eggs; larvae Yes Pest or symptoms usually visible to the naked eye
Growing medium accompanying plants pupae Yes Pest or symptoms usually visible to the naked eye
Plant parts not known to carry the pest in trade/transport
Bark
Bulbs/Tubers/Corms/Rhizomes
Flowers/Inflorescences/Cones/Calyx
Leaves
Roots
Seedlings/Micropropagated plants
Stems (above ground)/Shoots/Trunks/Branches
True seeds (inc. grain)
Wood

Impact Summary

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

Impact

Top of page B. zonata is polyphagous. In India, Pakistan and now Egypt, it is an important fruit fly pest and causes severe damage to peach [Prunus persica], guava [Psidium guajava] and mango [Mangifera indica]. Many other fruit and vegetables are also infested by this fly. 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

B. zonata is known in India and South-East 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 [Psidum 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 recent years, B. zonata has increased its host range to a number of important commercial crops such as citrus, mango [Mangifera indica], eggplant [Solanum melongena], tomato [Solanum lycopersicum], apple [Malus domestica], loquat [Eriobotrya japonica] and even potatoes [Solanum tuberosum] (El-Samea and Fetoh, 2006). 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. 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. 

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 Bactrocera dorsalis have invaded over r-selected species, such as Ceratitis capitata, but never the reverse. In Egypt, because of the spread of B. zonata, the Mediterranean fruit fly, Ceratitis capitata has become more restricted in the horticulture areas (Hashem et al., 2001), and the mixed infestation of fruits by both species produced flies mostly of the B. zonata irrespective of which insect infested the fruit first (Mohamed, 2004). Recent reports (Saafan et al., 2005a,b) indicted that even in cultivated orchards of citrus and apricot [Prunus armeniaca] in Fayoum Governorate, Egypt, the population of Ceratitis 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 would harm native insects and species of conservation significance.

Social Impact

Top of page

Human health and tourism may be affected if plantations treated with insecticides are close to habitat and touristic resorts. However, the risk is very low because local protein bait spray and male annihilation techniques are the most common methods used for the management of B. zonata.

Risk and Impact Factors

Top of page Invasiveness
  • Invasive in its native range
  • Proved invasive outside its 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
  • Capable of securing and ingesting a wide range of food
  • Highly mobile locally
  • Long lived
  • Fast growing
  • Has high reproductive potential
Impact outcomes
  • Host damage
  • Negatively impacts agriculture
  • Transportation disruption
Impact mechanisms
  • Competition - monopolizing resources
  • Pest and disease transmission
  • Interaction with other invasive species
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 sand for rearing 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. Traps can be suspended from trees about 1.5-2.0 m above the ground in places with no direct sunlight. Agarwal et al. (1995) found protein hydrolysate+malathion+methyl eugenol combination to be most effective against male B. zonata.

For more information see Invasive Fruit Fly Pests in Africa (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 Bactrocera correcta and perhaps for Dacus ciliatus. Particular care should be taken not to confuse it with Bactrocera 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

Sanitary Measures

Infested host fruits should be plucked or those that fall on the ground should be collected and buried deep in the soil. Proper sanitation in fields and orchards is essential. After harvest no fruit should be left unpicked because they become the source of later infestation.

Physical Control

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

Chemical Control

The use of chemical control based on bait sprays and relatively less hazardous insecticide such as malathion seem to be the most convenient and efficient control methods 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).

Male Annihilation

Methyl eugenol is an effective attractant to the males of B. zonata. It can be mixed with insecticide (preferably malathion) and protein bait and can be used in traps. Male annihilation by using attractant would be effective in reducing the population to a very low level if carried out on a large scale.

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 treatment tends to reduce the shelf-life of most fruits and so the most effective method of regulatory control is preferentially to restrict imports of a given fruit to areas free from fruit fly attack.

Gaps in Knowledge/Research Needs

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. Biosteres longicaudatus, Biosteres vandenvoschi, Opius sp. and Fopius arisanus, observed as parasitoids of immature stages of B. zonata in Pakistan (Syed et al., 1970; Ahmad et al., 1975; Agarwal and Kapoor, 1986; Rousse et al., 2007), should be investigated.

The male annihilation technique (MAT) uses bait stations containing a powerful male attractant (methyl eugenol) mixed with a small amount of an insecticide. This technique is the key for any eradication programme and needs to be optimized in terms of insecticide type and formulation.

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).

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

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; Kapoor VC, l986. Indian Dacini (Diptera:Tephritidae) and their host plant relationships. In: Cavalloro R, ed. Fruit Flies of Economic Importance. CEC/IOBC adhoc meeting, Hamburg, 1984. Rotterdam:Balkema, 51-56.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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; 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.

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

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