Invasive Species Compendium

Detailed coverage of invasive species threatening livelihoods and the environment worldwide

Datasheet

Bactrocera carambolae
(carambola fruit fly)

Toolbox

Datasheet

Bactrocera carambolae (carambola fruit fly)

Summary

  • Last modified
  • 27 March 2018
  • Datasheet Type(s)
  • Invasive Species
  • Pest
  • Preferred Scientific Name
  • Bactrocera carambolae
  • Preferred Common Name
  • carambola fruit fly
  • Taxonomic Tree
  • Domain: Eukaryota
  •   Kingdom: Metazoa
  •     Phylum: Arthropoda
  •       Subphylum: Uniramia
  •         Class: Insecta

Don't need the entire report?

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

Generate report

Pictures

Top of page
PictureTitleCaptionCopyright
Bactrocera carambolae (carambola fruit fly); adult female, feeding on sap sap through an open wound on the fruit surface. Indonesia. November, 2005.
TitleAdult
CaptionBactrocera carambolae (carambola fruit fly); adult female, feeding on sap sap through an open wound on the fruit surface. Indonesia. November, 2005.
Copyright©Dr Suputa-2005/Gadjah Mada University, Indonesia - All Rights Reserved
Bactrocera carambolae (carambola fruit fly); adult female, feeding on sap sap through an open wound on the fruit surface. Indonesia. November, 2005.
AdultBactrocera carambolae (carambola fruit fly); adult female, feeding on sap sap through an open wound on the fruit surface. Indonesia. November, 2005.©Dr Suputa-2005/Gadjah Mada University, Indonesia - All Rights Reserved
Bactrocera carambolae (carambola fruit fly); adult, lateral view. Oelbubuk, West Timor, Indonesia. March, 1998.
TitleAdult
CaptionBactrocera carambolae (carambola fruit fly); adult, lateral view. Oelbubuk, West Timor, Indonesia. March, 1998.
Copyright©PaDIL/Ken Walker/Museum Victoria - CC BY 3.0 AU
Bactrocera carambolae (carambola fruit fly); adult, lateral view. Oelbubuk, West Timor, Indonesia. March, 1998.
AdultBactrocera carambolae (carambola fruit fly); adult, lateral view. Oelbubuk, West Timor, Indonesia. March, 1998.©PaDIL/Ken Walker/Museum Victoria - CC BY 3.0 AU
Bactrocera carambolae (carambola fruit fly); adult, dorsal view. Oelbubuk, West Timor, Indonesia. March, 1998.
TitleAdult
CaptionBactrocera carambolae (carambola fruit fly); adult, dorsal view. Oelbubuk, West Timor, Indonesia. March, 1998.
Copyright©PaDIL/Ken Walker/Museum Victoria - CC BY 3.0 AU
Bactrocera carambolae (carambola fruit fly); adult, dorsal view. Oelbubuk, West Timor, Indonesia. March, 1998.
AdultBactrocera carambolae (carambola fruit fly); adult, dorsal view. Oelbubuk, West Timor, Indonesia. March, 1998.©PaDIL/Ken Walker/Museum Victoria - CC BY 3.0 AU
Bactrocera carambolae (carambola fruit fly); adult, dorsal view of abdomen. Oelbubuk, West Timor, Indonesia. March, 1998.
TitleAbdomen
CaptionBactrocera carambolae (carambola fruit fly); adult, dorsal view of abdomen. Oelbubuk, West Timor, Indonesia. March, 1998.
Copyright©PaDIL/Ken Walker/Museum Victoria - CC BY 3.0 AU
Bactrocera carambolae (carambola fruit fly); adult, dorsal view of abdomen. Oelbubuk, West Timor, Indonesia. March, 1998.
AbdomenBactrocera carambolae (carambola fruit fly); adult, dorsal view of abdomen. Oelbubuk, West Timor, Indonesia. March, 1998.©PaDIL/Ken Walker/Museum Victoria - CC BY 3.0 AU
Bactrocera carambolae (carambola fruit fly); adult, dorsal view of head capsule. Oelbubuk, West Timor, Indonesia. March, 1998.
TitleHead
CaptionBactrocera carambolae (carambola fruit fly); adult, dorsal view of head capsule. Oelbubuk, West Timor, Indonesia. March, 1998.
Copyright©PaDIL/Ken Walker/Museum Victoria - CC BY 3.0 AU
Bactrocera carambolae (carambola fruit fly); adult, dorsal view of head capsule. Oelbubuk, West Timor, Indonesia. March, 1998.
HeadBactrocera carambolae (carambola fruit fly); adult, dorsal view of head capsule. Oelbubuk, West Timor, Indonesia. March, 1998.©PaDIL/Ken Walker/Museum Victoria - CC BY 3.0 AU
Bactrocera carambolae (carambola fruit fly); forewing. Oelbubuk, West Timor, Indonesia. March, 1998.
TitleWing
CaptionBactrocera carambolae (carambola fruit fly); forewing. Oelbubuk, West Timor, Indonesia. March, 1998.
Copyright©PaDIL/Ken Walker/Museum Victoria - CC BY 3.0 AU
Bactrocera carambolae (carambola fruit fly); forewing. Oelbubuk, West Timor, Indonesia. March, 1998.
WingBactrocera carambolae (carambola fruit fly); forewing. Oelbubuk, West Timor, Indonesia. March, 1998.©PaDIL/Ken Walker/Museum Victoria - CC BY 3.0 AU

Identity

Top of page

Preferred Scientific Name

  • Bactrocera carambolae Drew & Hancock

Preferred Common Name

  • carambola fruit fly

Other Scientific Names

  • Bactrocera sp. near dorsalis (A) (Hendel)

EPPO code

  • BCTRCB (Bactrocera carambolae)

Taxonomic Tree

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

Notes on Taxonomy and Nomenclature

Top of page B. carambolae is a member of the Oriental fruit fly, B. dorsalis, species complex. A general review of this group is presented in a special datasheet covering the complex. This species complex forms a group within the subgenus Bactrocera and the name may therefore be cited as Bactrocera (Bactrocera) carambolae. It should be noted that White and Elson-Harris (1992) gave code names to species that had not been formally named at that time and B. carambolae was cited as Bactrocera sp. near B. dorsalis (A).

Description

Top of page Egg

The egg of B. oleae was described in detail by Margaritis (1985) and those of other species are probably very similar. Size, 0.8 mm long, 0.2 mm wide, with the micropyle protruding slightly at the anterior end. The chorion is reticulate (requires scanning electron microscope examination). White to yellow-white in colour.

Larvae

The following larval description was taken from White and Elson-Harris (1994):

B. carambolae third instar larva: larvae medium-sized, length 7.5-9.5 mm; width 1.5-2.0 mm. Head: stomal sensory organ large, with 5 preoral lobes (at most 1 lobe with small serrations); oral ridges with 8-10 rows of large, deeply serrated, blunt-edged teeth; 8-11 small accessory plates with strongly serrated edges; mouthhooks sclerotized, without preapical teeth. Thoracic and abdominal segments: encircling bands of discontinuous rows of small spinules on anterior portion of each thoracic segment. T1 with 11-17 rows of large, sharply pointed spinules, forming small groups dorsally which gradually become discontinuous rows laterally and ventrally; T2 and T3 with 5-7 rows of smaller, stouter spinules. Creeping welts with small, stout spinules similar to those on T2, with 1 posterior row of slightly larger spinules. A8 with well defined intermediate areas and obvious sensilla. Anterior spiracles: 9-15 prominent tubules. Posterior spiracles: spiracular slits thick walled; about 2.5-3.0 times as long as broad. Spiracular hair bundles of 10-15 hairs in dorsal and ventral groups and 4-7 in lateral bundles; each hair with a broad trunk, branched in apical third and about the same length as a spiracular slit. Anal area: lobes large, protuberant, with 3-7 surrounding rows of small, stout, slightly curved spinules forming a small concentration just below anal opening.

Puparium

Barrel-shaped with most larval features unrecognisable, the exception being the anterior and posterior spiracles which are little changed by pupariation. White to yellow-brown in colour. Usually about 60-80% length of larva.

Adults

Drew and Hancock (1994) distinguish the B. dorsalis species complex as follows: Bactrocera (Bactrocera) spp. with a clear wing membrane, except for a narrow costal band (not reaching R4+5); cells bc and c colourless (except in a few non-pests with a very pale tint) and devoid of microtrichia. Scutum mostly black; with lateral but not medial vittae; yellow scutellum, except for basal band which is usually very narrow; abdomen with a medial dark stripe on T3-T5; dark laterally (but form of marking varies from species to species).

B. carambolae belongs to a subgroup which have yellow postpronotal lobes, parallel lateral vittae, and femora not extensively marked. Within this group it is distinguished by its short aculeus/aedeagus; tomentum with no gap; deep costal band; intermediate abdominal markings.

The CABIKEY to pest Dacini included here permits the separation of this species from others likely to be reared from cultivated fruit.

Distribution

Top of page B. carambolae is found in Malaysia, the southern (peninsular) area of Thailand and throughout western Indonesia. For a discussion of the distributions of related species see the datasheet on the B. dorsalis species complex. The distribution of B. carambolae was mapped by IIE (1994).

See also CABI/EPPO (1998, No. 20).

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

Brunei DarussalamPresentEPPO, 2014
IndiaRestricted distributionEPPO, 2014
-Andaman and Nicobar IslandsPresentDrew and Hancock, 1994; EPPO, 2014
IndonesiaRestricted distributionEPPO, 2014
-JavaPresentDrew and Hancock, 1994; EPPO, 2014
-KalimantanPresent
-Nusa TenggaraPresentEPPO, 2014
MalaysiaPresentEPPO, 2014
-Peninsular MalaysiaPresentDrew and Hancock, 1994; EPPO, 2014
-SabahPresentDrew and Hancock, 1994; EPPO, 2014
SingaporePresentDrew and Hancock, 1994; EPPO, 2014
ThailandRestricted distributionCABIKEY; Drew and Hancock, 1994; EPPO, 2014

South America

BrazilRestricted distributionEPPO, 2014
-AmapaRestricted distributionEPPO, 2014
French GuianaRestricted distributionCPPC; Drew and Hancock, 1994; EPPO, 2014
GuyanaEradicated1994IIE, 1994; EPPO, 2014
SurinameRestricted distribution1975CPPC; Drew and Hancock, 1994; EPPO, 2014

Risk of Introduction

Top of page The major risk is from the import of fruit containing larvae, either as part of cargo, or through the smuggling of fruit in airline passenger baggage or mail. For example, in New Zealand Baker and Cowley (1991) recorded 7-33 interceptions of fruit flies per year in cargo and 10-28 per year in passenger baggage. Individuals who successfully smuggle fruit are likely to discard it when they discover that it is rotten. This method of introduction probably accounts for the discovery of at least one fly in a methyl eugenol trap in California every year (Foote et al., 1993) although immediate implementation of eradication action plans has ensured that the fly has never been able to establish a proper breeding population.

Hosts/Species Affected

Top of page B. carambolae is a serious pest of Averrhoa carambola. However, its total host list is very extensive and the following list of economically important hosts is necessarily a mix of important hosts and others that are rarely attacked. Most of the data was gathered by an extensive hosts fruit survey carried out in Malaysia and Thailand (Allwood et al., 1999) supplemented with some extra records from Yong (1994), Ranganath and Veenakumari (1995) and Ranganath et al. (1997).

In addition to the hosts listed, Annona montana, Artocarpus elasticus, A. odoratissimus, A. rigidus, Baccaurea motleyana, Lansium domesticum, Solanum ferox [S. lasiocarpum] and Triphasia trifolia are also hosts of B. carambolae.

Host Plants and Other Plants Affected

Top of page
Plant nameFamilyContext
Anacardium occidentale (cashew nut)AnacardiaceaeOther
Annona muricata (soursop)AnnonaceaeMain
Arenga pinnata (sugar palm)ArecaceaeOther
Artocarpus altilis (breadfruit)MoraceaeOther
Artocarpus heterophyllus (jackfruit)MoraceaeOther
Artocarpus integer (champedak)MoraceaeMain
Averrhoa bilimbi (bilimbi)OxalidaceaeOther
Averrhoa carambola (carambola)OxalidaceaeMain
Capsicum annuum (bell pepper)SolanaceaeOther
Capsicum chinense (habanero pepper)SolanaceaeOther
Carica papaya (pawpaw)CaricaceaeMain
Chrysobalanus icaco (icaco plum)ChrysobalanaceaeOther
Chrysophyllum cainito (caimito)SapotaceaeOther
Citrofortunella mitisRutaceaeMain
Citrus aurantiifolia (lime)RutaceaeMain
Citrus limon (lemon)RutaceaeMain
Citrus limonia (mandarin lime)RutaceaeOther
Citrus reticulata (mandarin)RutaceaeOther
Citrus sinensis (navel orange)RutaceaeOther
Citrus x paradisi (grapefruit)RutaceaeOther
Eugenia stipitataMyrtaceaeUnknown
Eugenia uniflora (Surinam cherry)MyrtaceaeOther
Fortunella margarita (oval kumquat)RutaceaeMain
Garcinia mangostana (mangosteen)ClusiaceaeMain
Genipa americana (genipap)RubiaceaeOther
Malpighia glabra (acerola)MalpighiaceaeOther
Mangifera indica (mango)AnacardiaceaeOther
Manilkara zapota (sapodilla)SapotaceaeOther
Mimusops elengi (spanish cherry)SapotaceaeMain
Persea americana (avocado)LauraceaeMain
Pouteria campechiana (canistel)SapotaceaeMain
Psidium cattleianum (strawberry guava)MyrtaceaeMain
Psidium guajava (guava)MyrtaceaeOther
Punica granatum (pomegranate)PunicaceaeMain
Rhizophora (mangrove)RhizophoraceaeMain
Rollinia pulchrinervisAnnonaceaeMain
Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)SolanaceaeOther
Spondias dulcis (otaheite apple)AnacardiaceaeOther
Syzygium aqueum (watery rose-apple)MyrtaceaeMain
Syzygium jambos (rose apple)MyrtaceaeMain
Syzygium malaccense (Malay apple)MyrtaceaeOther
Syzygium samarangense (water apple)MyrtaceaeOther
Terminalia catappa (Singapore almond)CombretaceaeOther
Thevetia peruviana (yellow oleander)ApocynaceaeMain
Ziziphus jujuba (common jujube)RhamnaceaeOther

Growth Stages

Top of page Fruiting stage

Symptoms

Top of page Following oviposition there may be some necrosis around the puncture mark ('sting'). This is followed by decomposition of the fruit.

List of Symptoms/Signs

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

Biology and Ecology

Top of page

No specific details on the biology of B. carambolae are available. Eggs of related species are laid below the skin of the host fruit. These hatch within a day (although delayed up to 20 days in cool conditions) and the larvae feed for another 6-35 days, depending on season. Pupariation is in the soil under the host plant for 10-12 days but may be delayed for up to 90 days under cool conditions. Adults occur throughout the year and begin mating after about 8-12 days, and may live 1-3 months depending on temperature (up to 12 months in cool conditions) (Christenson and Foote, 1960). Adult flight and the transport of infected fruit are the major means of movement and dispersal to previously uninfested areas. 

[Erratum: In previous versions of this datasheet, it was stated that “many Bactrocera spp. can fly 50-100 km (Fletcher, 1989)” but a review of Fletcher (1989a) and Fletcher (1989b) by Hicks (2016, unpublished data, USDA) found no evidence to support this statement and it has been removed. Fletcher (1989b) provides dispersal data for only 11 of 651 species of Bactrocera, many of the case studies lack the necessary numerical data, and the study did not discern between active flight and passive wind-assisted dispersal. There are differences among fruit fly species and further studies are required to determine dispersal distances for individual species. For further information on trapping Bactrocera species to monitor movement, see Weldon et al. (2014).]

Natural enemies

Top of page
Natural enemyTypeLife stagesSpecificityReferencesBiological control inBiological control on
Biosteres arisanus Parasite
Biosteres vandenboschi Parasite

Notes on Natural Enemies

Top of page Bactrocera spp. can be attacked as larvae either by parasitoids or by vertebrates eating fruit (either on the tree or as fallen fruit). Mortality due to vertebrate fruit consumption can be very high as can puparial mortality in the soil, either due to predation or environmental mortality (see White and Elson-Harris, 1994, for brief review). Parasitoids appear to have little effect on the populations of most fruit flies and Fletcher (1987) noted that 0-30% levels of parasitism are typical. To date there are no records of biological control success for any Bactrocera or Dacus spp. (Wharton, 1989).

Pathway Vectors

Top of page
VectorNotesLong DistanceLocalReferences
Clothing, footwear and possessionsFruit in case or handbag. Yes
Containers and packaging - woodOf fruit cargo. Yes
Land vehiclesAeroplanes and boats, with fruit cargo. Yes
MailFruit in post. 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 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

Top of page B. carambolae is a very serious pests in Malaysia where it attacks such small carambola fruits that bagging (a normally effective control) is quite impractical.

Detection and Inspection

Top of page Fruits (locally grown or samples of fruit imports) should be inspected for puncture marks and any associated necrosis. Suspect fruits should be cut open and checked for larvae. Larval identification is difficult, so if time allows, mature larvae should be transferred to saw dust (or similar dry medium) to allow pupariation. Upon emergence, adult flies must be fed with sugar and water for several days to allow hardening and full colour to develop, before they can be identified. Detection is described in the control section under Early Warning Systems.

Prevention and Control

Top of page

Regulatory Control

Many countries, such as the mainland USA, forbid the import of susceptible fruit without strict post-harvest treatment having been applied by the exporter. This may involve fumigation, heat treatment (hot vapour or hot water), cold treatments, insecticidal dipping, or irradiation (Armstrong and Couey, 1989). 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 of fruit fly attack.

Cultural Control and Sanitary Methods

One of the most effective control techniques against fruit flies in general is to wrap fruit, either in newspaper, a paper bag, or in the case of long/thin fruits, a polythene sleeve. This is a simple physical barrier to oviposition but it has to be applied well before the fruit is attacked. Little information is available on the attack time for most fruits but few Bactrocera spp. attack prior to ripening.

Chemical Control

Although cover sprays of entire crops are sometimes used, the use of bait sprays is both more economical and more environmentally acceptable. A bait spray consists of a suitable insecticide (e.g. malathion) mixed with a protein bait. Both males and females of fruit flies are attracted to protein sources emanating ammonia, and so insecticides can be applied to just a few spots in an orchard and the flies will be attracted to these spots. The protein most widely used is hydrolysed protein, but some supplies of this are acid hydrolysed and so highly phytotoxic. Smith and Nannan (1988) have developed a system using autolysed protein. In Malaysia this has been developed into a very effective commercial product derived from brewery waste.

Male Suppression

The males B. carambolae are attracted to methyl eugenol (4-allyl-1,2-dimethoxybenzene), sometimes in very large numbers. On a small scale many farmers use male suppression as a control technique; however, with flies attracted over a few hundred metres the traps may be responsible for increasing the fly level (at least of males) on a crop as much as for reducing it. However, the technique has been used as an eradication technique (male annihilation), in combination with bait (Bateman, 1982).

Early Warning Systems

Many countries that are free of Bactrocera spp., e.g. the USA (California and Florida) and New Zealand, maintain a grid of methyl eugenol and cue lure traps, at least in high-risk areas (ports and airports) if not around the entire climatically suitable area. The trap used will usually be modelled on the Steiner trap (White and Elson-Harris, 1994).

Field Monitoring

Monitoring is largely carried out by traps (see Early Warning Systems) set in areas of infestation. However, there is evidence that some fruit flies have different host preferences in different parts of their range and host fruit surveys should also be considered as part of the monitoring process.

References

Top of page

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; Couey HM, 1989. Control; fruit disinfestation; fumigation, heat and cold. In: Robinson AS, Hooper G, eds. Fruit Flies; their Biology, Natural Enemies and Control. World Crop Pests. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier, 3(B):411-424.

Baker RT; Cowley JM, 1991. A New Zealand view of quarantine security with special reference to fruit flies, In: Vijaysegaran S, Ibrahim AG, eds. First International Symposium on Fruit Flies in the Tropics, Kuala Lumpur, 1988. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: Malaysian Agricultural Research and Development Institute, 396-408.

Bateman MA, 1982. III. Chemical methods for suppression or eradication of fruit fly populations, In: Drew RAI, Hooper GHS, Bateman MA eds. Economic Fruit Flies of the South Pacific Region. 2nd edn. Brisbane, Australia: Queensland Department of Primary Industries, 115-128.

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

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

Drew RAI; Hancock DL, 1994. The Bactrocera dorsalis complex of fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae: Dacinae) in Asia. Bulletin of Entomological Research, 84(2(Suppl.)):68 pp.

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

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

Fletcher BS, 1987. The biology of dacine fruit flies. Annual Review of Entomology, 32:115-144

Fletcher BS, 1989. Ecology; life history strategies of tephritid fruit flies, In: Robinson AS, Hooper G, eds. Fruit Flies; their Biology, Natural Enemies and Control. World Crop Pests. Amsterdam, Holland: Elsevier, 3(B):195-208.

Fletcher BS, 1989. Movements of tephritid fruit flies. In: Fruit Flies; their Biology, Natural Enemies and Control. World Crop Pests [ed. by Robinson, A. S., Hooper, G.]. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier Science Publishers, 209-219.

Foote RH; Blanc FL; Norrbom AL, 1993. Handbook of the Fruit Flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) of America North of Mexico. Ithaca, USA: Comstock.

IIE, 1994. Bactrocera carambolae Drew & Hancock (Diptera: Tephritidae) (carambola fly). International Institute of Entomology, Distribution Maps of Pests, series A, (546), 1-2. Wallingford, UK: CAB International.

Margaritis LH, 1985. Comparative study of the eggshell of the fruit flies Dacus oleae and Ceratitis capitata (Diptera: Trypetidae). Canadian Journal of Zoology, 63(9):2194-2206

Ranganath HR; Suryanarayana MA; Veenakumari K, 1997. Papaya - a new host record of carambola fruit fly Bactrocera (Bactrocera) carambolae Drew and Hancock. Insect Environment, 3(2):37; 2 ref.

Ranganath HR; Veenakumari K, 1995. Notes on the dacine fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) of Andaman and Nicobar islands. Raffles Bulletin of Zoology, 43(1):235-238; 4 ref.

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

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

Weldon CW; Schutze MK; Karsten M, 2014. Trapping to monitor tephritid movement: results, best practice, and assessment of alternatives. In: Trapping and the detection, control, and regulation of Tephritid fruit flies: lures, aarea-wide programs, and trade implications [ed. by Shelly T, Epsky N, Jang EB, Reyes-Flores J, Vargas R]. New York, USA: Springer, 175-217.

Wharton RH, 1989. Control; classical biological control of fruit-infesting Tephritidae, In: Robinson AS, Hooper G, eds. Fruit Flies; their Biology, Natural Enemies and Control. World Crop Pests 3(B). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier, 303-313.

White IM; Elson-Harris MM, 1992. Fruit flies of economic significance: their identification and bionomics. Wallingford, UK: CAB International, 601 pp.

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

Yong HS, 1994. Host fruit preferences in two sympatric taxa of the Bactrocera dorsalis complex (Insecta: Diptera: Tephritidae). In: Yong HS, Khoo SG (eds). Current Research on Tropical Fruit Flies and their Management, 1-8. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: The Working Group on Malaysian Fruit Flies.

Distribution Maps

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