Invasive Species Compendium

Detailed coverage of invasive species threatening livelihoods and the environment worldwide

Datasheet

Anastrepha fraterculus
(South American fruit fly)

Toolbox

Datasheet

Anastrepha fraterculus (South American fruit fly)

Summary

  • Last modified
  • 27 September 2018
  • Datasheet Type(s)
  • Invasive Species
  • Pest
  • Natural Enemy
  • Preferred Scientific Name
  • Anastrepha fraterculus
  • Preferred Common Name
  • South American fruit fly
  • Taxonomic Tree
  • Domain: Eukaryota
  •   Kingdom: Metazoa
  •     Phylum: Arthropoda
  •       Subphylum: Uniramia
  •         Class: Insecta
  • Summary of Invasiveness
  • A. fraterculus has a broad host range, particularly in the family Myrtaceae, but it is also a pest of citrus and apples [Malus domestica] in some areas. It is the most important pest species of Anastrep...

Don't need the entire report?

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

Generate report

Pictures

Top of page
PictureTitleCaptionCopyright
Anastrepha fraterculus, wing markings and venation.
TitleWing
CaptionAnastrepha fraterculus, wing markings and venation.
CopyrightUSDA-ARS
Anastrepha fraterculus, wing markings and venation.
WingAnastrepha fraterculus, wing markings and venation.USDA-ARS
Anastrepha fraterculus, genitalia.
TitleGenitalia
CaptionAnastrepha fraterculus, genitalia.
CopyrightUSDA-ARS
Anastrepha fraterculus, genitalia.
GenitaliaAnastrepha fraterculus, genitalia.USDA-ARS
Anastrepha fraterculus, genitalia.
TitleGenitalia.
CaptionAnastrepha fraterculus, genitalia.
CopyrightUSDA-ARS
Anastrepha fraterculus, genitalia.
Genitalia.Anastrepha fraterculus, genitalia.USDA-ARS
Anastrepha fraterculus, genitalia.
TitleGenitalia.
CaptionAnastrepha fraterculus, genitalia.
CopyrightUSDA-ARS
Anastrepha fraterculus, genitalia.
Genitalia.Anastrepha fraterculus, genitalia.USDA-ARS
Anastrepha fraterculus, adult female.
TitleAdult
CaptionAnastrepha fraterculus, adult female.
CopyrightUSDA-ARS
Anastrepha fraterculus, adult female.
AdultAnastrepha fraterculus, adult female.USDA-ARS

Identity

Top of page

Preferred Scientific Name

  • Anastrepha fraterculus (Wiedemann)

Preferred Common Name

  • South American fruit fly

Other Scientific Names

  • Acrotoxa fraterculus (Wiedemann)
  • Anastrepha braziliensis Greene
  • Anastrepha costarukmanii Capoor
  • Anastrepha fraterculus var. soluta Bezzi
  • Anastrepha lambayecae Korytkowski & Ojeda
  • Anastrepha peruviana Townsend
  • Anastrepha pseudofraterculus Capoor
  • Anastrepha scholae Capoor
  • Anthomyia frutalis Weyenburgh
  • Dacus fraterculus Wiedemann
  • Tephritis mellea Walker
  • Trypeta fraterculus (Wiedemann)
  • Trypeta unicolor Loew

International Common Names

  • English: fruit fly, South American
  • Spanish: mosca de la ciruela; mosca de la fruta suramericana; mosca sudamericana de la fruta
  • French: mouche des fruits sud-américaine
  • Portuguese: mosca das frutas sul-americana

Local Common Names

  • Germany: Fruchtfliege, Suedamerikanische

EPPO code

  • ANSTFR (Anastrepha fraterculus)

Summary of Invasiveness

Top of page

A. fraterculus has a broad host range, particularly in the family Myrtaceae, but it is also a pest of citrus and apples [Malus domestica] in some areas. It is the most important pest species of Anastrepha in subtropical areas of South America, thus it and Anastrepha ludens may be more of a threat of introduction to other subtropical areas of the world than other species of Anastrepha. It is invasive in the Galapagos Islands. As it is probably a complex of cryptic species whose ranges and delimitation remain unresolved, there is also the threat of introduction of particular cryptic species to other areas within the range of the complex. It is considered an A1 quarantine pest by EPPO.

Taxonomic Tree

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

Notes on Taxonomy and Nomenclature

Top of page

This is probably a complex of cryptic species, which has not yet been studied in sufficient detail to permit clear delimitation of the individual species. Data of various types, including isozymes, karyotypes, morphometric analysis of morphology, mating incompatability and pest status (e.g. Steck, 1991, 1999; Alberti et al., 2002; Hernández-Ortiz et al., 2004; Selivon et al., 2005; Vera et al., 2006), indicate that certain populations (e.g. Andean and lowland populations in Venezuela; sympatric populations in southern Brazil) are likely to be distinct species, but comprehensive analysis is needed to resolve the status of other populations from throughout the range of the complex.

The oldest name pertaining to the complex is Dacus fraterculus Wiedemann, 1830. The current combination was proposed by Wulp (1899). Numerous names are currently recognized as synonyms of A. fraterculus, but remain available and may become valid if the complex is split into multiple species.

Description

Top of page

For a general description of the genus, see the datasheet on Anastrepha.

Adult

As in most other Anastrepha spp., the adults of A. fraterculus are easily separated from those of other tephritid genera by a simple wing venation character; vein M, the vein that reaches the wing margin just behind the wing apex, curves forwards before joining the wing margin. Furthermore, most Anastrepha spp. have a very characteristic wing pattern; the apical half of the wing has two inverted 'V'-shaped markings, one fitting within the other; and a stripe along the forward edge of the wing, which runs from near the wing base to about half-way along the wing length.

Identification to species is more difficult. In particular, for positive identification it is essential to dissect the aculeus (the distal, piercing part of the ovipositor that is normally retracted into the oviscape) of a female specimen. A. fraterculus adults are difficult to separate from those of Anastrepha sororcula, Anastrepha zenildae and Anastrepha turpiniae, and to a lesser extent Anastrepha obliqua and Anastrepha suspensa, and several other species of the fraterculus group; if necessary, specimens should be referred to a specialist.

The body is predominantly yellow to orange-brown, and the setae are red-brown to dark-brown.

Head: yellow except ocellar tubercle brown. Facial carina, in profile, concave. Frons with three or more frontal setae, two orbital setae. Antenna not extended to ventral facial margin.

Thorax: mostly yellow to orange-brown, with the following areas yellow to white and often contrasting: postpronotal lobe; single medial and paired sublateral vittae on scutum, the slender medial vitta extended nearly full-length of the scutum, slightly broadened posteriorly, ovoid; sublateral vitta extended from transverse suture almost to posterior margin, including intra-alar seta; scutellum; propleuron; dorsal margin of anepisternum; dorsal margin of katepisternum; katepimeron; and most of anatergite and katatergite. Area bordering scutoscutellar suture medially usually with dark-brown spot. Subscutellum and mediotergite dark-brown laterally. Scutum entirely microtrichose or at most with small presutural, medial bare area.

Wing: vein M strongly curved apically. Vein R2+3 nearly straight. Pattern mostly orange-brown and moderate brown. C-band and S-band usually connected along vein R4+5, but sometimes separated; marginal hyaline spot (or end of band) present in cell r1 at apex of vein R4+5. S-band with middle section between costa and vein Cu1 largely yellow to orange with narrow brown margins, darkening distally; distal section of band relatively narrow, well-separated from apex of vein M. V-band with distal arm usually complete and connected to proximal arm; proximal arm extended to vein R4+5, not connected to S-band.

Abdomen: tergites yellow to orange-brown, without dark-brown markings.

Male terminalia: lateral surstylus moderately long, in posterior view slightly tapered, somewhat truncate apically. Phallus 2.7-3.2 mm long; ratio to mesonotum length 0.90-1.10. Glans with basolateral membranous lobe, mostly membranous medially, with isolated, T-shaped apical sclerite.

Female terminalia: oviscape straight, 1.40-2.15 mm long; ratio to mesonotum length 0.59-0.75. Dorsobasal scales of eversible membrane numerous, hook-like, in triangular pattern. Aculeus length 1.50-1.95 mm; tip 0.20-0.30 mm long, 0.12-0.15 mm wide, gradually tapering, but with slight constriction proximal to serrate part, distal 0.50-0.67 serrate. Three spermathecae ovoid.

Immature Stages

Larva: it is very difficult, and in some cases impossible, to identify larvae of Anastrepha species from morphological characteristics. The key by Steck et al. (1990) and the interactive key by Carroll et al. (2004) are the best tools for larval identification. Descriptions of A. fraterculus larvae are provided by Weems (1980), Steck et al. (1990) and White and Elson-Harris (1994). White and Elson-Harris (1994) described the third-instar larva as follows:

Larvae: medium-sized; 8.0-9.5 mm long; 1.4-1.8 mm wide.

Head: stomal sensory organ rounded, protuberant, with two to three peg-like sensilla; 7-10 oral ridges; accessory plates small; mandible heavily sclerotised, with a large slender curved apical tooth.

Thoracic and abdominal segments: anterior margin of T1 with a broad, encircling band of 4-11 discontinuous rows of small, sharply pointed spinules; T2 and T3 with three to seven rows of smaller spinules encircling each segment. Dorsal spinules occasionally on A1-A3, but absent from A4-A8. Creeping welts with 7-12 rows of small spinules. A8 with dorsal and sensilla well-developed; intermediate areas obvious, with large sensilla; ventral sensilla present.

Anterior spiracles: with 14-18 tubules.

Posterior spiracles: spiracular slits about three times as long as broad, with heavily sclerotised, dark-brown rimae. Spiracular hair bundles large; dorsal and ventral bundles of 12-16 long hairs, many branched in apical third; lateral bundles of six to nine hairs similarly branched.

Anal area: lobes large, protuberant, not grooved, grooved, or bilobed; surrounded by two to four discontinuous rows of small, sharp spinules.

Distribution

Top of page

A record of A. fraterculus in Texas, USA (Stone, 1942; EPPO, 2014) published in previous versions of the Compendium is unreliable as the original source of the record (Stone, 1942) is old and was published before the fraterculus group and complex was distinguished (Norrbom et al., 1999). A. fraterculus is considered a quarantine pest in the USA and is regulated at ports of entry (PestID, 2016). USDA-APHIS has an ongoing Mexican fruit fly trapping network in southern Texas, which includes traps capable of attracting A. fraterculus, ensuring that it will be detected if it enters the area (USDA-APHIS-PPQ, 2010, 2015) and triggering response plans, including eradication (USDA-APHIS-PPQ, 2016). There have been no detections of A. fraterculus in the USA in six years of surveys from 2011 to 2016 (NAPIS, 2017).

See also CABI/EPPO (1997).

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

North America

MexicoLocalisedNative Not invasive Stone, 1942a; Wulp, 1899; Hernandez Ortiz, 1992; EPPO, 2014Lowlands north to Nuevo Leon, absent from northwest
USAAbsent, unreliable recordEPPO, 2014
-TexasAbsent, unreliable recordStone, 1942a; EPPO, 2014

Central America and Caribbean

BelizeWidespreadNative Not invasive Norrbom, 2004b; Stone, 1942a
Costa RicaWidespreadNative Not invasive Stone, 1942a; Jirón et al., 1988; EPPO, 2014
El SalvadorWidespreadNative Not invasive Norrbom, 2004b
GuatemalaWidespreadNative Not invasive Norrbom, 2004b; EPPO, 2014
HondurasWidespreadNative Not invasive Norrbom, 2004b
NicaraguaWidespreadNative Not invasive Norrbom, 2004b
PanamaWidespreadNative Not invasive Norrbom, 2004b; Stone, 1942a; EPPO, 2014
Trinidad and TobagoWidespreadNative Not invasive Norrbom, 2004b; Stone, 1942a; EPPO, 2014

South America

ArgentinaLocalisedNative Not invasive Stone, 1942a; Weyenbergh, 1874; Blanchard, 1961; Segura et al., 2006; EPPO, 2014Occurs south to San Luis
BoliviaPresentEPPO, 2014
BrazilWidespreadNative Not invasive Stone, 1942a; Wiedemann, 1830; Malavasi Zucchi, 2000; EPPO, 2014Absent from Amazonia
-AlagoasPresentNative Not invasive Zucchi, 1978; EPPO, 2014
-AmapaPresentEPPO, 2014
-BahiaPresentNative Not invasive Malavasi Zucchi, 2000; EPPO, 2014
-CearaPresentNative Not invasive Malavasi Zucchi, 2000; EPPO, 2014
-Espirito SantoPresentNative Not invasive Malavasi Zucchi, 2000; EPPO, 2014
-GoiasPresentNative Not invasive Malavasi Zucchi, 2000; EPPO, 2014
-MaranhaoPresentEPPO, 2014
-Mato Grosso do SulPresentNative Not invasive Malavasi Zucchi, 2000; EPPO, 2014
-Minas GeraisPresentNative Not invasive Malavasi Zucchi, 2000; EPPO, 2014
-ParaibaPresentNative Not invasive Malavasi Zucchi, 2000; EPPO, 2014
-ParanaPresentNative Not invasive Zucchi, 1978; EPPO, 2014
-PernambucoPresentNative Not invasive Malavasi Zucchi, 2000; EPPO, 2014
-PiauiPresentNative Not invasive Malavasi Zucchi, 2000; EPPO, 2014
-Rio de JaneiroPresentNative Not invasive Malavasi Zucchi, 2000; EPPO, 2014
-Rio Grande do NortePresentNative Not invasive Malavasi Zucchi, 2000; EPPO, 2014
-Rio Grande do SulPresentNative Not invasive Malavasi Zucchi, 2000; EPPO, 2014
-Santa CatarinaPresentNative Not invasive Malavasi Zucchi, 2000; EPPO, 2014
-Sao PauloPresentNative Not invasive Malavasi Zucchi, 2000; EPPO, 2014
-SergipePresentNative Not invasive Zucchi, 1978
-TocantinsPresentNative Not invasive Bomfim et al., 2007; EPPO, 2014
ChileEradicatedIntroduced Invasive Stone, 1942a; Enkerlin et al., 1989; EPPO, 2014Eradicated 1964
ColombiaWidespreadIntroduced Invasive Norrbom, 2004b; Stone, 1942a; Wulp, 1899; Núñez Bueno, 1981; EPPO, 2014
EcuadorWidespreadStone, 1942a; Foote, 1982; Harper et al., 1989; Molineros et al., 1992; EPPO, 2014Native and not invasive on the mainland, exotic and invasive on the Galapagos Islands, where it was first recorded in 1979
GuyanaPresentNative Not invasive Stone, 1942b; EPPO, 2014
ParaguayWidespreadNative Not invasive Stone, 1942a; EPPO, 2014
PeruWidespreadNative Not invasive Stone, 1942a; Wulp, 1899; Townsend, 1913; Korytkowski, 2001; EPPO, 2014
SurinamePresentEPPO, 2014
UruguayWidespreadNative Not invasive Stone, 1942a; EPPO, 2014
VenezuelaWidespreadNative Not invasive Stone, 1942a; Caraballo, 1981; EPPO, 2014

Oceania

New ZealandAbsent, confirmed by surveyEPPO, 2014

Introductions

Top of page
Introduced toIntroduced fromYearReasonIntroduced byEstablished in wild throughReferencesNotes
Natural reproductionContinuous restocking
Chile No No Enkerlin et al. (1989) Eradicated after establishment
Galapagos Islands <1979 Yes No Foote (1982); Harper et al. (1989) Probably introduced from mainland Ecuador

Risk of Introduction

Top of page

EPPO lists A. fraterculus as an A1 quarantine pest (OEPP/EPPO, 1983) within the broad category 'non European Trypetidae'; it is also of quarantine significance to APPPC, CPPC and NAPPO. A. fraterculus, like the other Anastrepha spp., derives from tropical wet forest habitats and therefore represents a high risk to similar areas.

Consignments of fruits of Annona, Citrus, Fortunella, Malus, mango [Mangifera indica], peach [Prunus persica] and guava [Psidium guajava] from countries where A. fraterculus occurs should be inspected for symptoms of infestation and those suspected should be cut open in order to look for larvae. For example, EPPO recommends that such fruits should come from an area where A. fraterculus does not occur, or from a place of production found free from the pest by regular inspection for 3 months before harvest. Fruits may also be treated in transit by cold treatment (e.g. 13, 15 or 17 days at 0.5, 1 or 1.5°C, respectively) or, for certain types of fruits, by vapour heat (for example, keeping at 43°C for 4-6 h) (USDA, 1994), or by hot water immersion (Nascimento et al., 1992). Ethylene dibromide was previously widely used as a fumigant, but is now generally withdrawn because of its carcinogenicity. Carneiro and Salles (1994) showed that an entomopathogenic fungus (Paecilomyces fumosoroseus isolate CG 260) could be used to treat larvae entering soil, which then die upon pupariation.

Plants of host species transported with roots from countries where A. fraterculus occurs should be free from soil, or the soil should be treated against puparia, and should not carry fruits. Such plants may be prohibited for importation.

Habitat

Top of page A. fraterculus may be found in fruit-growing areas with suitable hosts and in natural forests.

Habitat List

Top of page
CategoryHabitatPresenceStatus
Terrestrial-managed
Cultivated / agricultural land Present, no further details Harmful (pest or invasive)
Disturbed areas Present, no further details
Managed forests, plantations and orchards Present, no further details Harmful (pest or invasive)
Urban / peri-urban areas Present, no further details Harmful (pest or invasive)
Terrestrial-natural/semi-natural
Natural forests Present, no further details Natural

Hosts/Species Affected

Top of page

Pest status varies among populations of the fraterculus complex. The populations in Mexico and Central America are less significant pests (e.g. of guava [Psidium guajava], rose apple [Syzygium jambos] and occasionally peach [Prunus persica] and mango [Mangifera indica], but not citrus or apple [Malus domestica]) than some populations in the Andes, southern Brazil, and Argentina that also attack apples, citrus and a variety of other crops (even blackberries [Rubus fruticosus]). Some populations range into subtropical areas in southern Brazil and Argentina and temperate elevations in the Andes, and are pests in those zones.

The complex as a whole is broadly polyphagous (Norrbom, 2004a), but the preferred hosts are Myrtaceae, particularly the native American guava (P. guajava). Other cultivated mytaceous hosts include other Psidium spp., Campomanesia spp., rose apple, Horn of plenty [Feijoa sellowiana], Surinam cherry [Eugenia uniflora] and other Eugenia spp. Prunus spp., especially peach, and loquat [Eriobotrya japonica] are commonly reported hosts. The most frequent introduced hosts in Mexico are S. jambos and Terminalia catappa [Indian-almond] (Hernandez-Ortiz, 1992). Apple, pear, kumquat [Fortunella spp.], peach, loquat and various Citrus spp. are among the cultivated crops attacked in southern Brazil, although most of the primary hosts are Myrtaceae (Salles, 1995b). Guava, Surinam cherry, grapefruit [Citrus paradisi], cherimoya [Annona cherimola], apricot [Prunus armeniaca], plum [Prunus domestica] and peach are significant hosts in Argentina (Ovruski et al., 2003; Segura et al., 2006).

In common with other polyphagous and difficult to identify species, many host records cannot be substantiated and only records confirmed by Norrbom (2004a) or subsequent reliable sources have been accepted here.

Host Plants and Other Plants Affected

Top of page
Plant nameFamilyContext
Actinidia chinensis (Chinese gooseberry)ActinidiaceaeOther
Actinidia deliciosa (kiwifruit)ActinidiaceaeOther
Ampelocera hottleiUlmaceaeOther
Annona cherimola (cherimoya)AnnonaceaeOther
Annona muricata (soursop)AnnonaceaeOther
Annona squamosa (sugar apple)AnnonaceaeOther
Averrhoa carambola (carambola)OxalidaceaeOther
Butia eriospathaArecaceaeOther
Campomanesia xanthocarpaMyrtaceaeMain
Carica papaya (pawpaw)CaricaceaeOther
Chrysophyllum gonocarpumSapotaceaeMain
Citrus aurantium (sour orange)RutaceaeOther
Citrus limetta (sweet lemon tree)RutaceaeOther
Citrus maxima (pummelo)RutaceaeOther
Citrus reticulata (mandarin)RutaceaeOther
Citrus sinensis (navel orange)RutaceaeOther
Citrus x paradisi (grapefruit)RutaceaeOther
Coffea arabica (arabica coffee)RubiaceaeOther
Coffea liberica (Liberian coffee tree)RubiaceaeOther
Cydonia oblonga (quince)RosaceaeOther
Diospyros kaki (persimmon)EbenaceaeOther
Diospyros malabaricaEbenaceaeOther
Eriobotrya japonica (loquat)RosaceaeMain
Eugenia brasiliensis (brazil cherry)MyrtaceaeMain
Eugenia involucrataMain
Eugenia pyriformisMyrtaceaeMain
Eugenia stipitataMyrtaceaeOther
Eugenia uniflora (Surinam cherry)MyrtaceaeMain
Feijoa sellowiana (Horn of plenty)MyrtaceaeMain
Ficus carica (common fig)MoraceaeOther
Fortunella japonica (round kumquat)RutaceaeMain
Fragaria vesca (wild strawberry)RosaceaeOther
Inga edulis (ice-cream bean)FabaceaeOther
Inga marginataFabaceaeOther
Juglans australisJuglandaceaeOther
Juglans neotropica (andean walnut)JuglandaceaeOther
Juglans regia (walnut)JuglandaceaeOther
Malus (ornamental species apple)RosaceaeOther
Malus domestica (apple)RosaceaeOther
Mangifera indica (mango)AnacardiaceaeOther
Manilkara zapota (sapodilla)SapotaceaeOther
Olea europaea subsp. europaea (European olive)OleaceaeOther
Passiflora alataOther
Persea americana (avocado)LauraceaeOther
Pouteria caimitoSapotaceaeOther
Pouteria obovataSapotaceaeOther
Prunus (stone fruit)RosaceaeMain
Prunus armeniaca (apricot)RosaceaeOther
Prunus domestica (plum)RosaceaeOther
Prunus dulcis (almond)RosaceaeOther
Prunus persica (peach)RosaceaeMain
Psidium cattleianum (strawberry guava)MyrtaceaeMain
Psidium guajava (guava)MyrtaceaeMain
Psidium guineense (Guinea guava)MyrtaceaeMain
Punica granatum (pomegranate)PunicaceaeOther
Pyrus communis (European pear)RosaceaeOther
Quassia guianensisSimaroubaceaeOther
Rubus glaucusRosaceaeOther
Solanum quitoense (naranjilla)SolanaceaeOther
Spondias dulcis (otaheite apple)AnacardiaceaeOther
Spondias mombin (hog plum)AnacardiaceaeOther
Spondias purpurea (red mombin)AnacardiaceaeOther
Spondias tuberosaAnacardiaceaeMain
Syzygium jambos (rose apple)MyrtaceaeMain
Syzygium malaccense (Malay apple)MyrtaceaeOther
Talisia olivaeformisSapindaceaeOther
Terminalia catappa (Singapore almond)CombretaceaeOther
Theobroma cacao (cocoa)SterculiaceaeOther
Vitis vinifera (grapevine)VitaceaeOther
Ziziphus joazeiroRhamnaceaeMain
Zuelania guidoniaFlacourtiaceaeOther

Growth Stages

Top of page Fruiting stage, Post-harvest

Symptoms

Top of page Attacked fruit can show signs of oviposition punctures, but these, or any other symptoms of damage, are often difficult to detect in the early stages of infestation. Much damage may occur inside the fruit before external symptoms are seen, often as networks of tunnels accompanied by rotting. Very sweet fruits may produce a sugary exudate.

List of Symptoms/Signs

Top of page
SignLife StagesType
Fruit / internal feeding

Biology and Ecology

Top of page

A. fraterculus eggs are laid below the skin of the host fruit. Many Anastrepha spp. lay their eggs deeper inside the fruit or in the seeds. The life cycle includes: the egg, three larval stages, pupa and adult. Salles (2000) presented a table showing the length of development at temperatures from 15-30°C. At 25°C the eggs hatch in 2.6-3.2 days and the larvae feed for another 11-14 days (up to 34.5 days at 15°C). Pupariation is in the soil under the host plant and the adults emerge after 10-15 days (43.2 days at 15°C) and may live up to 161 days in laboratory conditions. Salles (2000) reported that females can produce 278-437 eggs. The adults occur throughout the year (Christenson and Foote, 1960). They have no winter diapause or quiescence in more temperate areas such as southern Brazil (Salles, 1993). Reproductive behaviour in the laboratory and field has been studied by Lima et al. (1994).

Climate

Top of page
ClimateStatusDescriptionRemark
A - Tropical/Megathermal climate Preferred Average temp. of coolest month > 18°C, > 1500mm precipitation annually
Af - Tropical rainforest climate Preferred > 60mm precipitation per month
Am - Tropical monsoon climate Preferred Tropical monsoon climate ( < 60mm precipitation driest month but > (100 - [total annual precipitation(mm}/25]))
As - Tropical savanna climate with dry summer Preferred < 60mm precipitation driest month (in summer) and < (100 - [total annual precipitation{mm}/25])
Aw - Tropical wet and dry savanna climate Preferred < 60mm precipitation driest month (in winter) and < (100 - [total annual precipitation{mm}/25])
Cs - Warm temperate climate with dry summer Preferred Warm average temp. > 10°C, Cold average temp. > 0°C, dry summers
Cw - Warm temperate climate with dry winter Preferred Warm temperate climate with dry winter (Warm average temp. > 10°C, Cold average temp. > 0°C, dry winters)

Latitude/Altitude Ranges

Top of page
Latitude North (°N)Latitude South (°S)Altitude Lower (m)Altitude Upper (m)
26 35

Natural enemies

Top of page
Natural enemyTypeLife stagesSpecificityReferencesBiological control inBiological control on
Aganaspis pelleranoi Parasite
Coptera haywardi Parasite
Doryctobracon areolatus Parasite Larvae/Pupae
Doryctobracon brasiliensis Parasite Larvae
Opius bellus Parasite Larvae
Pachycrepoideus vindemmiae Parasite
Trichopria anastrephae Parasite Cruz et al., 2011
Utetes anastrephae Parasite Larvae

Notes on Natural Enemies

Top of page Average parasitism ranged from 0.44 to 29.3% (Aluja et al., 1990). For further information, see Loiacono (1981) and Salles (1996).

Means of Movement and Dispersal

Top of page

There is evidence that adults of Anastrepha spp. can fly up to 135 km (Fletcher, 1989) and therefore natural movement can be an important means of spread.

In international trade, the major means of dispersal to previously uninfested areas is the transport of fruit containing live larvae. For most regions, the most important fruits liable to carry A. fraterculus are guavas [Psidium guajava] and other Myrtaceae; Citrus, Malus and Prunus are attacked in some areas. There is also a risk from the transport of puparia in soil or packaging with plants that have already fruited.

Pathway Causes

Top of page
CauseNotesLong DistanceLocalReferences
Crop production Yes Yes

Pathway Vectors

Top of page
VectorNotesLong DistanceLocalReferences
AircraftImmatures in fruit Yes Yes
Clothing, footwear and possessionsFruit in case or handbag. Yes
Containers and packaging - woodOf fruit cargo. Yes
Land vehiclesAeroplanes and boats, with fruit cargo. Yes
LuggageImmatures in fruit Yes Yes
MailFruit in post. Yes
Plants or parts of plantsImmatures in fruit Yes Yes
Soil, sand and gravelRisk of puparia in soil. 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; pupae Yes Pest or symptoms not visible to the naked eye but usually visible under light microscope
Growing medium accompanying plants larvae; pupae Yes 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

Impact

Top of page

Anastrepha spp. are the most serious fruit fly pests in the tropical Americas (Norrbom and Foote, 1989), with the possible exception of introduced Ceratitis capitata (EPPO/CABI, 1996). A. fraterculus is an important pest of guavas [Psidium guajava] (and locally significant Myrtaceae) and mangoes [Mangifera indica], and also to some extent of Citrus and Prunus spp. (Hernandez Ortiz, 1992; White and Elson Harris, 1994). Some populations in South America, particularly in southern Brazil to northern Argentina, and in the Andean countries, are considered more significant pests than those in Mexico and Central America, and these probably represent different cryptic species.

Risk and Impact Factors

Top of page Invasiveness
  • 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
  • Capable of securing and ingesting a wide range of food
  • Has high reproductive potential
  • Has high genetic variability
Impact outcomes
  • Host damage
  • Negatively impacts agriculture
  • Negatively impacts livelihoods
Likelihood of entry/control
  • Highly likely to be transported internationally accidentally
  • Highly likely to be transported internationally illegally
  • Difficult to identify/detect as a commodity contaminant
  • Difficult to identify/detect in the field
  • Difficult/costly to control

Detection and Inspection

Top of page

No male lures have yet been identified for Anastrepha spp. However, they are captured by traps emitting ammonia. McPhail traps are usually used for the capture of Anastrepha spp. (White and Elson-Harris, 1994) and possible baits are ammonium acetate (Hedstrom and Jimenez, 1988), casein hydrolysate (Sharp, 1987) and torula yeast (Hedstrom and Jiron, 1985). The number of traps required per unit area is high. In a release and recapture test, Calkins et al. (1984) placed 18 traps per 0.4 ha and only recovered approximately 13% of the released flies.

Some studies have shown that egg morphology can be used to separate closely related species found in host fruits (Souza et al., 1983; Murillo and Jiron, 1994). The larvae of some species may also be differentiated using cuticular hydrocarbons (Sutton and Carlson, 1993). Neither method has yet been generalized for application outside of very specific circumstances.

Similarities to Other Species/Conditions

Top of page

Identification of the fraterculus complex and closely related species is very difficult and is based mainly on measurements and subtle differences in the shape of the aculeus and its tip (Araujo et al., 1996; Araujo and Zucchi, 2006). The species most likely to be confused with A. fraterculus are Anastrepha obliqua, Anastrepha suspensa, and especially Anastrepha sororcula, Anastrepha zenildae and Anastrepha turpiniae.

A. obliqua differs in having the subscutellum entirely orange, not dark-brown laterally. It also lacks the medial spot on the scuto-scutellar suture that is usually present in the fraterculus complex. The aculeus tip is more serrate and less tapered basal to the serrate part. A. suspensa has the apical part of the S-band (the band on the anterior apical margin of the wing) much broader and touching or almost touching the apex of vein M. The other three species are distinguished from the fraterculus complex by the length of the aculeus and its tip, although there is slight overlap in these characters among these species. A. sororcula has a shorter aculeus, with a shorter, stouter tip, whereas A. zenildae and A. turpiniae have longer aculeus tips.

The larvae of Anastrepha are extremely difficult to identify and specialist help should be sought to confirm critical identifications. The third-stage larva is very similar to those of A. obliqua and A. suspensa, and these species usually cannot be distinguished (Steck et al., 1990). The larvae of A. sororcula, A. zenildae and A. turpiniae have not been described.

Prevention and Control

Top of page

Control can be considerably aided by good cultural practices, for example, by gathering all fallen and infected host fruits and destroying them. Insecticidal protection is possible by using a cover spray or a bait spray. Malathion is the usual choice of insecticide for fruit fly control and this is usually combined with protein hydrolysate to form a bait spray (Roessler, 1989). Practical details are given by Bateman (1982). Bait sprays work on the principle that both male and female tephritids are strongly attracted to a protein source from which ammonia emanates. Bait sprays have the advantage over cover sprays in that they can be applied as a spot treatment so that the flies are attracted to the insecticide and there is minimal impact on most natural enemies. However, Nasca et al. (1983) warned that bait sprays could have a substantial effect on Chrysopidae (Neuroptera), which are natural enemies of many pests.

The toxicity to A. fraterculus of different insecticides used in baits was recently compared by Salles (1995) and Lerenzato et al. (1984). They advocated control measures be applied when 0.5-1.0 flies per day per trap were found. Like many fruit flies, shape and colour play a role in host seeking behaviour and Cytrynowicz et al. (1982) found a preference for yellow spheres. The sterile insect technique was tried in Peru (Gonzalez et al., 1971), but has not been applied on a realistic scale.

References

Top of page

Alberti AC, Rodriguero MS, Gomez Cendra P, Saidman BO, Vilardi JC, 2002. Evidence indicating that Argentine populations of Anastrepha fraterculus (Diptera: Tephritidae) belong to a single biological species. Annals of the Entomological Society of America, 95(4):505-512.

Aluja M, Guillen J, Liedo P, Cabrera M, Rios E, Rosa G de la, Celedonio H, Mota D, 1990. Fruit infesting tephritids (Dipt.: Tephritidae) and associated parasitoids in Chiapas, Mexico. Entomophaga, 35(1):39-48

Araujo EL, Zucchi RA, 2006. [English title not available]. (Medidas do acúleo na caracterização de cinco espécies de Anastrepha do grupo fraterculus (Diptera: Tephritidae)). Neotropical Entomology, 35:329-337.

Araujo EL, Zucchi RA, Canal DNA, 1996. Caracterizacao e ocorrencia de Anastrepha zenilade Zucchi (Diptera: Tephritidae) e seus parasitoides (Hymentoptera: Braconidae) numa nova plant hospedeira, no Rio Grande do Norte. Anais da Sociedade Entomologica do Brasil, 25:147-150.

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.

Berg GH, 1979. Pictorial key to fruit fly larvae of the family Tephritidae. Pictorial key to fruit fly larvae of the family Tephritidae. Organismo Internacional Regional de Sanidad Agropecuaria. San Salvador El Salvador, 36 pp.

Blanchard EE, 1961. [English title not available]. (Especies argentinas del género Anastrepha Schiner (sens. lat.) (Diptera, Trypetidae)). Rev. Invest. Agric, 15(2):281-342.

Bomfim DA do, Uchôa-Fernandes MA, Bragança MAL, 2007. [English title not available]. (Biodiversidade de moscas-das-frutas (Diptera, Tephritoidea) em matas nativas e pomares domésticos de dois municípios do estado do Tocantins, Brasil.) Revista Brasileira de Entomologia, 51:217-223.

CABI/EPPO, 1997. Anastrepha fraterculus. In: Quarantine Pests for Europe. Second Edition. Data sheets on quarantine pests for the European Union and for the European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization Wallingford, UK: CABI, 37-41.

CABI/EPPO, 1997. Anastrepha fraterculus. In: Quarantine Pests for Europe. Second Edition. Data sheets on quarantine pests for the European Union and for the European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization Wallingford, UK: CABI, 37-41.

CABI/EPPO, 1997. Anastrepha fraterculus. In: Quarantine Pests for Europe. Second Edition. Data sheets on quarantine pests for the European Union and for the European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization Wallingford, UK: CABI, 37-41.

Calkins CO, Schroeder WJ, Chambers DL, 1984. Probability of detecting Caribbean fruit fly, Anastrepha suspensa (Loew) (Diptera: Tephritidae), populations with McPhail traps. Journal of Economic Entomology, 77(1):198-201.

Caraballo J, 1981. [English title not available](Las moscas de frutas del genero Anastrepha Schiner, 1868 (Diptera: Tephritidae) de Venezuela.) Dissertation, Universidad Central de Venezuela, Maracay. Maracay, Venezuela: Universidad Central de Venezuela, xi + 210 pp.

Carneiro RMDG, Salles LAB, 1994. Pathogenicity of Paecilomyces fumosoroseus isolate CG 260 on larvae and pupae of Anastrepha fraterculus Wied. Anais da Sociedade Entomologica do Brasil, 23(2):341-343

Castañeda Mdel R, Osorio F A, Canal NA, Galeano PÉ, 2010. Species, distribution and hosts of the genus Anastrepha Schiner in the Department of Tolima, Colombia. (Especies, distribución y hospederos del género Anastrepha Schiner en el Departamento del Tolima, Colombia.) Agronomía Colombiana, 28(2):265-271. http://www.scielo.org.co/pdf/agc/v28n2/v28n2a16.pdf

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

CIE, 1958. Distribution Maps of Insect Pests, Map No. 88. Wallingford, UK: CAB International.

Cruz PP, Neutzling AS, Garcia FRM, 2011. First record of Trichopria anastrephae, parasitoid of fruit flies, in the Rio Grande do Sul State, Brazil. (Primeiro registro de Trichopria anastrephae, parasitoide de moscas-das-frutas, no Rio Grande do Sul.) Ciência Rural, 41(8):1297-1299. http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0103-84782011000800001&lng=pt&nrm=iso&tlng=pt

Cytrynowicz M, Morgante JS, Souza HMLde, 1982. Visual responses of South American fruit flies, Anastrepha fraterculus, and Mediterranean fruit flies, Ceratitis capitata, to colored rectangles and spheres. Environmental Entomology, 11(6):1202-1210

Deus Eda Gde, Pinheiro Ldos S, Lima CR, Sousa Mdo SMde, Guimarães JA, Strikis PC, Adaime R, 2013. Wild hosts of frugivorous dipterans (Tephritidae and Lonchaeidae) and associated parasitoids in the Brazilian Amazon. Florida Entomologist, 96(4):1621-1625. http://www.fcla.edu/FlaEnt/

Drew RAI, 1982. Fruit fly collecting. In: Drew RAI, Hooper GHS, Bateman MA, eds. Economic Fruit Flies of the South Pacific Region, 2nd edition. Brisbane, Australia: Queensland Department of Primary Industries, 129-139.

Enkerlin D, Garcia RL, Lopez F, 1989. Mexico, Central and South America. In: Fruit flies: their biology, natural enemies and control, vol. A (World crop pests; 3A) [ed. by Robinson AS, Hooper G] Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier Science Publishers B. V., 83-90.

EPPO, 1983. Data sheets on quarantine organisms. Set 6. EPPO Bulletin, 13(1). unnumbered.

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

Fletcher BS, 1989. Ecology; movements of tephritid fruit flies. In: Robinson AS, Hooper G, eds. Fruit Flies; Their Biology, Natural Enemies and Control. World Crop Pests, 3(B). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier, 209-219.

Foote RH, 1982. The Tephritidae (Diptera) of the Galapagos Archipelago. Memoirs of the Entomological Society of Washington, 10:48-55.

García-Ramírez Ade J, Medina H RE, López-Martínez V, Vázquez L M, Duarte U IE, Delfín-González H, 2010. Talisia olivaeformis (Sapindaceae) and Zuelania guidonia (Flacourtiaceae): new host records for Anastrepha spp. (Diptera: Tephritidae) in México. Florida Entomologist, 93(4):633-634. http://www.fcla.edu/FlaEnt/

Gonzalez BJ, Vargas VC, Jara PB, 1971. Estudios sobre la aplicacion de la tecnica de machos esteriles en el control de la mosca sudamericana de la fruta, Anastrepha fraterculus (Wied.). Revista Peruana de Entomologia, 14:66-86.

Harper JD, Escobar JS, Cereceda G, 1989. Collection of Anastrepha fraterculus on Santa Cruz Island, Galapagos Province, Ecuador. Florida Entomologist, 72(1):205-206

Hedstrom I, Jimenez J, 1988. Field evaluation of attractants in the capture of Anastrepha spp. (Diptera, Tephritidae), pests of fruit trees in tropical America. II. Ammonium acetate and torula with sodium borate. Revista Brasileira de Entomologia, 32(2):319-322.

Hedström I, Jirón LF, 1985. Field evaluation of attractants in the trapping of Anastrepha spp. (Diptera, Tephritidae), pests of fruit trees in tropical America. I. Molasses and torula yeast. Revista Brasileira de Entomologia, 29(3/4):515-520.

Hernandez Ortiz V, 1992. El genero Anastrepha en Mexico. Taxonomia, distribucion y sus plantas huespedes. Xalapa, Mexico: Instituto de Ecologia Publication.

Hernández-Ortiz V, Gómez-Anaya JA, Sánchez A, McPheron BA, Aluja M, 2004. Morphometric analysis of Mexican and South American populations of the Anastrepha fraterculus complex (Diptera: Tephritidae) and recognition of a distinct Mexican morphotype. Bulletin of Entomological Research, 94(6):487-499. http://www.ingenta.com/journals/browse/cabi/ber

Hickel ER, Schuck E, 1996. Pragas do quivi em Santa Catarina: primeiras ocorrencias, sintomas de ataque e perspectivas para o futuro. Agropecuaria Catarinense, 9:18-22.

Jirón LF, Soto-Manitiu J, Norrbom AL, 1988. A preliminary list of the fruit flies of the genus Anastrepha (Diptera: Tephritidae) in Costa Rica. Florida Entomologist, 71(2):130-137

Korytkowski CA, 2001. [English title not available]. (Situación actual del género Anastrepha Schiner, 1868 (Diptera: Tephritidae) en el Perú.) Revista Peruana de Entomología, 42:97-158.

Lerenzato D, Melzer R, Berton O, 1984. Control of fruit flies of the genus Anastrepha in apple orchards. Anais do VII Congresso Brasileiro de Fruticultura Florianopolis, Brazil; Empresa Catarinense de Pesquisa Agropecuaria S.A., Volume 3:760-781

Lima IS de, Howse PE, Salles LAB, 1994. Reproductive behaviour of the South American fruit fly Anastrepha fraterculus (Diptera: tephritidae): laboratory and field studies. Physiological Entomology, 19(4):271-277

Loiacono MS, 1981. Notes on Neotropical Diapriinp (Hymenoptera, Diapriidae). Revista de la Sociedad Entomologica Argentina, 40(1/4):237-241

Malavasi A Zucchi RA, 2000. [English title not available](Moscas-das-frutas de importancia economica no Brasil. Conhecimento basico e aplicado.) Riberão Preto, Brazil: Holos, 327 pp.

Molineros J, Tigrero JO, Sandoval D, 1992. [English title not available]. (Diagnostico de la situacion actual del problema de las moscas de la fruta en el Ecuador.) Quito, Ecuador: Comision Ecuatoriana de Energia Atomica, Direccion de Investigaciones, 53 pp.

Murillo T, Jiron LF, 1994. Egg morphology of Anastrepha obliqua and some comparative aspects with eggs of Anastrepha fraterculus (Diptera: Tephritidae). Florida Entomologist, 77(3):342-348

NAPIS, 2017. National Agricultural Pest Information System (NAPIS). United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Ins[ection Service, Plant Protection and QQuarantine, Pest Detection, Cooperative Agricultural Pest Survey https://napis.ceris.purdue.edu/home

Nasca AJ, Fernandez RV, Herrero AJ de, Manzur BE, 1983. Incidence of chemical treatment for control of fruit-flies (Trypetidae) on chrysopids and hemerobids (Neuroptera) on citrus trees. Revista de Investigacion, CIRPON, 1(2):47-73

Nasca AJ, Zamora JA, Vergara LE, Jaldo HE, 1996. Fruit flies' hosts in the Antinaco-Los Colorados valley, La Rioja Province, Argentina. Revista de Investigacio^acute~n - Centro de Investigaciones para la Regulacio^acute~n de Poblaciones de Organismos Nocivos, 10(1/4):19-24; 6 ref.

Nascimento AS, Malavasi A, Morgante JA, Duarte ALA, 1992. Hot-water immersion treatment for mangoes infested with Anastrepha fraterculus, A. obliqua, and Ceratitis capitata (Diptera: Tephritidae) in Brazil. Journal of Economic Entomology, 85(2):456-460

Norrbom AL, 2004. Fruit Fly (Diptera: Tephritidae) Species Database. http://www.barc.usda.gov:591/diptera/Tephritidae/TephName/search

Norrbom AL, 2004. Host plant database for Anastrepha and Toxotrypana (Diptera: Tephritidae: Toxotrypanini). Diptera Data Dissemination Disk (CD-ROM) 2.

Norrbom AL, Foote RH, 1989. Taxonomy and zoogeography; the taxonomy and zoogeography of the genus Anastrepha (Diptera: Tephritidae). In: Robinson AS, Hooper G, eds. Fruit flies; Their Biology, Natural Enemies and Control. World Crop Pests, 3(A). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier, 15-26.

Norrbom AL, Kim KC, 1988. A list of the reported host plants of the species of Anastrepha (Diptera: Tephritidae). Hyattsville, MD, USA: US Dept. Agric., Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine.

Norrbom, A. L., Zucchi, R. A., Hernández-Ortiz, V., 1999. Phylogeny of the genera Anastrepha and Toxotrypana (Trypetinae: Toxotrypanini) based on morphology., In: Fruit flies (Tephritidae): phylogeny and evolution of behaviour. Boca Raton, USA: CPC Press. 944.

Núñez Bueno L, 1981. [English title not available]. (Contribucion al reconocimiento de las moscas de las frutas (Diptera: Tephriridae [sic]) en Colombia.) Revista do Instituto Colombiano Agropecuario, Bogotá, 16:173-179.

Ovruski S, Schliserman P, Aluja M, 2003. Native and introduced host plants of Anastrepha fraterculus and Ceratitis capitata (Diptera: Tephritidae) in Northwestern Argentina. Journal of Economic Entomology, 96(4):1108-1118.

Pallipparambil, G. R., 2017. Status of Anastrepha fraterculus (Wiedemann) in the United States. Report USDA TASC. USDA-APHIS. Raleigh, USA, 13 pp.

PestID, 2016. Pest identification database (PestID) https://aqas.aphis.usda.gov United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine. Accessed on 30 November 2016.

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.

Salles LAB, 1993. Emergence of adults of Anastrepha fraterculus (Wied., 1830) (Diptera: Tephritidae) during the autumn and winter in Pelotas - RS. Anais da Sociedade Entomologica do Brasil, 22(1):63-69

Salles LAB, 1995. Bioecologia e controle da mosca-das-frutas sul-americana. Pelotas, Brazil: Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária, Centro de Pesquisa Agropecuária de Clima Temperado, 58 pp.

Salles LAB, 1995. Toxic bait for the control of adults of Anastrepha fraterculus (Wied.) (Diptera: Tephritidae). Anais da Sociedade Entomologica do Brasil, 24(1):153-157

Salles LAB, 1996. Parasitism of Anastrepha fraterculus (Wied.) (Diptera: Tephritidae) by Hymenoptera in Pelotas, RS. Pesquisa Agropecua^acute~ria Brasileira, 31(11):769-774; 8 ref.

Salles LAB, 2000. [English title not available]. (Biologia e ciclo de vida de Anastrepha fraterculus (Wied.).) In: Moscas-das-frutas de importância econômica no Brasil. Conhecimento básico e aplicado [ed. by Malavasi A, Zucchi RA] Riberão Preto, Brazil: Holos, 81-86.

Savaris M, Lampert S, Marsaro-Júnior AL, Adaime R, Souza Filho MFde, 2013. First record of Anastrepha fraterculus and Ceratitis capitata (Diptera, Tephritidae) on Arecaceae in Brazil. Florida Entomologist, 96(4):1597-1599. http://www.fcla.edu/FlaEnt/

Segura DF, Vera MT, Cagnotti CL, Vaccaro N, Coll Ode, Ovruski SM, Cladera JL, 2006. Relative abundance of Ceratitis capitata and Anastrepha fraterculus (Diptera: Tephritidae) in diverse host species and localities of Argentina. Annals of the Entomological Society of America, 99(1):70-83. http://docserver.esa.catchword.org/deliver/cw/pdf/esa/freepdfs/00138746/v99n1s9.pdf

Selivon D, Perondini ALP, Morgante JS, 2005. A genetic-morphological characterization of two cryptic species of the Anastrepha fraterculus complex (Diptera: Tephritidae). Annals of the Entomological Society of America, 98(3):367-381. http://www.esa.catchword.org

Sharp JL, 1987. Laboratory and field experiments to improve enzymatic casein hydrolysate as an arrestant and attractant for Caribbean fruit fly, Anastrepha suspensa (Diptera: Tephritidae). Florida Entomologist, 70(2):225-233.

Smith IM, McNamara DG, Scott PR, Holderness M, 1997. Quarantine pests for Europe. Second Edition. Data sheets on quarantine pests for the European Union and for the European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization. Quarantine pests for Europe. Second Edition. Data sheets on quarantine pests for the European Union and for the European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization., Ed. 2:vii + 1425 pp.; many ref.

Souza HML de, Cytrynowicz M, Morgante JS, Pavan OH de O, 1983. Occurrence of Anastrepha fraterculus (Wied.), Ceratitis capitata (Wied.) (Diptera, Tephritidae) and Silba spp. (Diptera, Lonchpidae) eggs in oviposition bores on three host fruits. Revista Brasileira de Entomologia, 27(3/4):191-195

Steck GJ, 1991. Biochemical systematics and population genetic structure of Anastrepha fraterculus and related species (Diptera: Tephritidae). Annals of the Entomological Society of America, 84(1):10-28

Steck GJ, 1999. Taxonomic status of Anastrepha fraterculus. In: Proceedings Workshop, The South American fruit fly, Anastrepha fraterculus (Wied.); advances in artificial rearing, taxonomic status and biological studies Vienna, Austria: International Atomic Energy Agency, 13-20.

Steck GJ, Carroll LE, Celedonio-Hurtado H, Guillen-Aguilar J, 1990. Methods for identification of Anastrepha larvae (Diptera: Tephritidae), and key to 13 species. Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington, 92(2):333-346

Stone A, 1942. New species of Anastrepha and notes on others. Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences, 32:298-304.

STONE A, 1942. The Fruitflies of the Genus Anastrepha. Miscellaneous Publications. United States Department of Agriculture. Washington, D.C., 112 pp.

Sutton BD, Carlson DA, 1993. Interspecific variation in tephritid fruit fly larvae surface hydrocarbons. Archives of Insect Biochemistry and Physiology, 23(2):53-65

TOWNSEND CHT, 1913. The Peruvian Fruit Fly (Anastrepha peruviana, n.sp.). Journal of Economic Entomology, 6(4):345-346 pp.

USDA, 1994. Treatment manual. Frederick, USA: USDA/APHIS.

USDA-APHIS-PPQ, 2010. United States and Mexico Lower Rio Grande Valley: Mexican fruit fly eradication program review, final report. United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine, Washington, D.C., 130 pp.

USDA-APHIS-PPQ, 2015. National exotic fruit fly detection trapping guidelines. United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine, Washington, D.C., 126 pp.

USDA-APHIS-PPQ, 2016. Cooperative fruit fly emergency response triggers & guidelines. United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine, Washington, D.C., 2 pp.

Vera MT, Cáceres C, Wornoayporn V, Islam A, Robinson AS, Vega MHde la, Hendrichs J, Cayol JP, 2006. Mating incompatibility among populations of the South American fruit fly Anastrepha fraterculus (Diptera: Tephritidae). Annals of the Entomological Society of America, 99(2):387-397. http://docserver.esa.catchword.org/deliver/cw/pdf/esa/freepdfs/00138746/v99n2s21.pdf

Weems HV Jr, 1980. Anastrepha fraterculus (Wiedemann) (Diptera: Tephritidae). Entomology Circular, Division of Plant Industry, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, No. 217:4 pp.

Weyenbergh H, 1874. [English title not available]. (Insectos dañinos a la agricultura Argentina.) Anales de Agricultura de la Republica Argentina, 2(6):165.

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.

Wiedemann CRW, 1830. Two non-European fluge leaf insects.(Aussereuropaische zweiflugelige Insekten). Hamburg, Germany: Schulzische Buchhandlung, xii + 684 pp.

Wulp FM van der, 1899. Family Muscidae. In: Biologia Centrali-Americana. Zoologia. Class Insecta. Diptera [ed. by Godman FD, Salvin O] London, UK: Taylor & Francis, 393-408. [Contributions to the knowledge of the fauna and flora of Mexico and Central America.]

Zucchi RA, 1978. [English title not available](Taxonomia das especies de Anastrepha Schiner, 1868 (Diptera, Tephritidae) assinaladas no Brasil.)Dissertation, Universidade de São Paulo, Piracicaba. Piracicaba, Brazil: Universidade de São Paulo, vi + 105 pp.

Links to Websites

Top of page
WebsiteURLComment
Featured Creatureshttp://entnemdept.ufl.edu/creatures/

Contributors

Top of page

27/02/2008 Updated by:

Allen Norrbom, Systematic Entomology Laboratory, USDA, c/o National Museum of Natural History, MRC 168, PO Box 37012, Washington, DC 20013-7012, USA

Distribution Maps

Top of page
You can pan and zoom the map
Save map