Bactrocera correcta (guava fruit fly)
- Taxonomic Tree
- Notes on Taxonomy and Nomenclature
- Distribution Table
- Habitat List
- Hosts/Species Affected
- Host Plants and Other Plants Affected
- Growth Stages
- List of Symptoms/Signs
- Biology and Ecology
- Natural enemies
- Notes on Natural Enemies
- Pathway Vectors
- Plant Trade
- Detection and Inspection
- Prevention and Control
- Distribution Maps
Don't need the entire report?
Generate a print friendly version containing only the sections you need.Generate report
PicturesTop of page
IdentityTop of page
Preferred Scientific Name
- Bactrocera correcta (Bezzi)
Preferred Common Name
- guava fruit fly
Other Scientific Names
- Bactrocera (Bactrocera) correcta (Bezzi)
- Chaetodacus correctus Bezzi
- Dacus correctus (Bezzi)
- BCTRCO (Bactrocera correcta)
Taxonomic TreeTop of page
- Domain: Eukaryota
- Kingdom: Metazoa
- Phylum: Arthropoda
- Subphylum: Uniramia
- Class: Insecta
- Order: Diptera
- Family: Tephritidae
- Genus: Bactrocera
- Species: Bactrocera correcta
Notes on Taxonomy and NomenclatureTop of page Bezzi first described B. correcta in 1916. This species has also been known as Chaetodacus correctus and Dacus correctus. It is a member of subgenus Bactrocera, within the genus Bactrocera, and its name may therefore be cited as Bactrocera (Bactrocera) correcta.
DescriptionTop of page B. correcta is similar to B. zonatus but is distinguished by the colour of the thorax and the facial spots being united, or almost so, to form a black transverse band. The whitish cross band on the second abdominal segment is less developed. The hind tibiae of the male are distinctly tuberculate before the end. Scutum with anterior supra-alar setae, prescutellar acrostichal setae, two scutellar setae, wing with a reduced pattern (costal band reduced to an apical spot); male with a pecten. The puparium is a dark, shiny yellow. Adults are attracted to open termitaria (Bezzi, 1916).
DistributionTop of page
B. correcta has been recorded in India from Pusa (Bihar), Coimbatore, Guindy and Tiruchirappalli (Tamil Nadu), Bangalore, Balechonnur, Bijapur, Hagari (Karnataka), South Gujarat, Bilaspur (Madya Pradesh), Haryana, Himachal Pradesh and Punjab. Hancock (1991) recorded this species from Thailand. White and Elson-Harris (1992) reported its presence in Pakistan, Nepal and Sri Lanka.
An unconfirmed record of B. correcta in Florida, USA (NAPPO, 2001) published in previous versions of the Compendium has been removed. There have been rare detections of the pest in Florida but these events have initiated programmes leading to the eradication of the pest (PPQ, 2018). B. correcta is a quarantine pest in the USA and was officially declared eradicated from the USA in 2015 (NAPPO, 2015).
A record of B. correcta in Taiwan (EPPO, 2014) published in previous versions of the Compendium is considered invalid (Bureau of Animal and Plant Health Inspection and Quarantine (BAPHIQ), Taiwan, correspondence to CABI, 2015). B. correcta is listed as a quarantine pest in Taiwan.
Distribution TableTop of page
|Continent/Country/Region||Distribution||Last Reported||Origin||First Reported||Invasive||Reference||Notes|
|China||Present||CABI and EPPO (2003); EPPO (2020)|
|-Yunnan||Present||CABI and EPPO (2003); EPPO (2020)|
|India||Present, Widespread||White and Elson-Harris (1992); CABI and EPPO (2003); EPPO (2020)|
|-Andhra Pradesh||Present||CABI and EPPO (2003); EPPO (2020)|
|-Bihar||Present||Bezzi (1916); CABI and EPPO (2003); EPPO (2020)|
|-Goa||Present||Satarkar et al. (2009); EPPO (2020)|
|-Gujarat||Present||Shah and Vora (1974); CABI and EPPO (2003); EPPO (2020)|
|-Haryana||Present||White and Elson-Harris (1992); CABI and EPPO (2003); EPPO (2020)|
|-Himachal Pradesh||Present||White and Elson-Harris (1992); CABI and EPPO (2003); EPPO (2020)|
|-Karnataka||Present, Widespread||Puttarudriah and Usman (1954); Ganesh Bhat (1989); Mani (1993); CABI and EPPO (2003); EPPO (2020)|
|-Kerala||Present||CABI and EPPO (2003); EPPO (2020)|
|-Madhya Pradesh||Present||EPPO (2020)|
|-Maharashtra||Present||CABI and EPPO (2003); EPPO (2020)|
|-Punjab||Present||Narayanan and Batra (1960); Kapoor and Agarwal (1983); EPPO (2020)|
|-Tamil Nadu||Present, Widespread||Mohamed Jalaluddin (1996); CABI and EPPO (2003); EPPO (2020)|
|-Uttar Pradesh||Present||CABI and EPPO (2003); EPPO (2020)|
|-West Bengal||Present||CABI and EPPO (2003); EPPO (2020)|
|Japan||Absent, Intercepted only||Satoh et al. (1985)|
|Myanmar||Present||Foote et al. (1993); CABI and EPPO (2003); EPPO (2020)|
|Nepal||Present||White and Elson-Harris (1992); CABI and EPPO (2003); EPPO (2020)|
|Pakistan||Present, Widespread||White and Elson-Harris (1992); CABI and EPPO (2003); EPPO (2020)|
|Sri Lanka||Present, Widespread||White and Elson-Harris (1992); CABI and EPPO (2003); EPPO (2020)|
|Taiwan||Absent, Invalid presence record(s)||EPPO (2020)|
|Thailand||Present, Widespread||White and Elson-Harris (1992); Allwood et al. (1999); CABI and EPPO (2003); EPPO (2020)|
|United States||Absent, Eradicated||IPPC (2015); EPPO (2020)|
|-California||Absent, Eradicated||IPPC (2015); Foote et al. (1993); CDFA (2013); EPPO (2020)|
|-Florida||Absent, Eradicated||PPQ (2018); EPPO (2020)|
Habitat ListTop of page
Hosts/Species AffectedTop of page In India, this potential pest often occurs with serious pest species such as B. zonata and B. dorsalis (Kapoor, 1989). Mohamed Jalaluddin (1996) reported that B. correcta caused 60-80% fruit damage in Tamil Nadu, India. Carey and Dowell (1989) reported that it posed a serious threat to Californian (USA) agriculture. The host data presented here is based on two recently published host lists that are largely based on host-fruit surveys carried out in Sri Lanka and Thailand (Tsuruta et al., 1997; Allwood et al., 1999). These publications also list numerous wild hosts but few of those were noted as of especial significance.
Host Plants and Other Plants AffectedTop of page
|Anacardium occidentale (cashew nut)||Anacardiaceae||Main|
|Areca catechu (betelnut palm)||Arecaceae||Other|
|Artocarpus integer (champedak)||Moraceae||Other|
|Averrhoa carambola (carambola)||Oxalidaceae||Other|
|Carica papaya (pawpaw)||Caricaceae||Other|
|Citrus maxima (pummelo)||Rutaceae||Other|
|Citrus reticulata (mandarin)||Rutaceae||Other|
|Cucumis melo (melon)||Cucurbitaceae||Other|
|Dimocarpus longan (longan tree)||Sapindaceae||Other|
|Flacourtia indica (governor's plum)||Flacourtiaceae||Other|
|Flacourtia jangomas (Indian plum)||Flacourtiaceae||Other|
|Madhuca longifolia (honey tree)||Sapotaceae||Other|
|Malpighia glabra (acerola)||Malpighiaceae||Other|
|Mangifera indica (mango)||Anacardiaceae||Main|
|Manilkara zapota (sapodilla)||Sapotaceae||Main|
|Mimusops elengi (spanish cherry)||Sapotaceae||Main|
|Muntingia calabura (Jamaica cherry)||Tiliaceae||Main|
|Musa x paradisiaca (plantain)||Musaceae||Other|
|Phyllanthus acidus (star gooseberry)||Euphorbiaceae||Other|
|Prunus avium (sweet cherry)||Rosaceae||Other|
|Prunus cerasus (sour cherry)||Rosaceae||Other|
|Prunus persica (peach)||Rosaceae||Other|
|Psidium guajava (guava)||Myrtaceae||Main|
|Spondias purpurea (red mombin)||Anacardiaceae||Other|
|Syzygium aqueum (watery rose-apple)||Myrtaceae||Other|
|Syzygium cumini (black plum)||Myrtaceae||Other|
|Syzygium jambos (rose apple)||Myrtaceae||Other|
|Syzygium malaccense (Malay apple)||Myrtaceae||Other|
|Syzygium samarangense (water apple)||Myrtaceae||Main|
|Terminalia catappa (Singapore almond)||Combretaceae||Main|
|Ziziphus jujuba (common jujube)||Rhamnaceae||Main|
|Ziziphus mauritiana (jujube)||Rhamnaceae||Other|
Growth StagesTop of page Fruiting stage
SymptomsTop of page Adult fruit flies damage the fruit where they lay their eggs causing blemishes and discoloration. The maggots bore into the fruit, develop inside and pave the way for secondary invaders (fungi or bacteria), which cause extensive rotting and dropping of fruit. Damaged fruits are unfit for human consumption. Damage symptoms do not vary on different crops.
List of Symptoms/SignsTop of page
|Fruit / internal feeding|
|Fruit / obvious exit hole|
Biology and EcologyTop of page The pre-oviposition, oviposition and post-oviposition periods of B. correcta were 14.1, 13.7 and 27.2 days, respectively, at 30±2°C and 70% relative humidity. The incubation, larval and pupal periods were 3.1, 19.0 and 7 days, respectively. The adult longevity was ca 10 days. The sex ratio was observed to be 1:1.
A maximum of 80% fruit damage was recorded during the second fortnight of July and August. The fruit fly population was higher during June-September than in October-February. There was no significant positive correlation between trap catches of adult fruit flies and per cent fruit damage.
Correlation studies between trap catches and weather factors indicated that there was significant positive correlation between weekly catches and maximum temperature, minimum temperature, thermal units, morning relative humidity and rainfall. More fruit fly activity was seen at a height of ca 1.5 m where the fruit is abundantly distributed on the host tree.
(Mohamed Jalaluddin, 1996)
In India, Shah and Patel (1976) found that males were also attracted to tulsi plant (Ocimum sanctum) which yields aromatic oils, 40% of which are methyl eugenol. Adults are found congregating under host leaves during the morning and evening. Maggots damage fruit whereas pupae are found in the soil.
Natural enemiesTop of page
Notes on Natural EnemiesTop of page Very few parasites and predators were found to suppress the population of B. correcta. In India, it was observed that a solitary parasite, Dirhinus sp., parasitized the puparium of B. correcta (Puttarudriah and Usman, 1954) and a carabid predator Pheropsophus sobrinus was observed preying on the larvae and pupae of B. correcta on the ground. The carabid population peaked in July and August (Mohamed Jalaluddin et al., 1998). In Thailand, Biosteres longicaudatus, a Braconid larval endoparasitoid is a potential parasitoid in biological control (Sangvorn-Kitthawee et al., 1999).
Pathway VectorsTop of page
|Clothing, footwear and possessions||Air baggage||Yes|
Plant TradeTop of page
|Plant parts liable to carry the pest in trade/transport||Pest stages||Borne internally||Borne externally||Visibility of pest or symptoms|
|Fruits (inc. pods)||eggs; larvae; nymphs||Yes||Pest or symptoms not visible to the naked eye but usually visible under light microscope|
|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|
|Stems (above ground)/Shoots/Trunks/Branches|
|True seeds (inc. grain)|
ImpactTop of page Detailed studies on crop loss are lacking. In India, B. correcta is one of the important fruit borers of guava and can cause 80% damage. Reductions in the total phenolic content in fruits of susceptible cultivars also causes damage (Manoukas, 1993; Mohamed Jalaluddin and Sadakathulla, 1999).
Detection and InspectionTop of page Facial spots are more or less joined together towards the middle, forming a transverse band; male abdomen reddish behind the middle, with a black longitudinal middle stripe; ovipositor red.
Males are highly attracted to methyl eugenol. Mohamed Jalaluddin (1996) devised a modified new trap which was more efficient at attracting B. correcta males than a conventional model. The frequency distribution of B. correcta catches per trap per day in different entrance port sizes (5 to 30 mm diameter) varied. Orange and yellow coloured traps attracted more fruit flies, recording 4.34 and 4.18 numbers/day respectively, compared with green, red, white, violet and blue. Traps placed at heights of between ca 1.5 and 2.1 m caught the highest numbers of B. correcta. Traps placed at the border of the orchard intercepted the invading adults and attracted greater numbers of invading adults and more male adults. Twelve new attractant traps with methyl eugenol were hung by nylon fishing line. Each week, trapped files were collected and counted and fresh bait was added. Since the sex ratio is 1:1, the population can be intercepted, monitored and timely control measures can be applied.
Prevention and ControlTop of page
Due to the variable regulations around (de)registration of pesticides, your national list of registered pesticides or relevant authority should be consulted to determine which products are legally allowed for use in your country when considering chemical control. Pesticides should always be used in a lawful manner, consistent with the product's label.Phytosanitary Measures
Since B. correcta occurs on tropical and subsistence fruit, the possibility of introduction to other countries is limited.
Cultural Control and Sanitary Methods
Collect and destroy affected fruit to reduce the inoculum. Rake the soil and flood fields for 24 hours to kill the pupae.
In India, a few commercial guava varieties have shown resistance to or tolerance of B. correcta. The shape of the fruit influenced the damage. The non-preference mechanism played a major role in the mechanism of resistance in guava fruits. Gibberellic acid treatment of fruits given prior to 'colour break' enhanced the resistance of fruits against oviposition and fly development (Mohamed Jalaluddin, 1996).
A few species of parasites and predators were effective in combating this pest in Thailand and India. However, effective biological control studies are required for controlling this pest.
A bait spray application of malathion killed congregating adults (Mohamed Jalaluddin, 1996). Soil drenching with azadirachtin (a neem oil product) or neem seed kernal extract (NSKE) also killed pupating larvae (Mohamed Jalaluddin, 1999).
Early Warning System
Since the sex ratio is 1:1 the emerged males can easily be lured and killed with modified methyl eugenol, in an orange coloured attractant trap (Mohamed Jalaluddin, 1996). The traps can be situated at a rate of 12/hectare on orchard borders to intercept invading adults.
Economic Threshold Levels
ETL for B. correcta have not been determined.
Integrated Pest Management
IPM programmes combining cultural, chemical and host-plant resistance are being devised and implemented, especially in India and Thailand (see Mohamed Jalaluddin, 1999 and Sangvorn-Kitthawee et al., 1999 for further details).
ReferencesTop 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
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
CDFA, 2013. Proclamation of an eradication project for the guava fruit fly. California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA), July 8, 2013., USA: California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA). http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/plant/pdep/treatment/pep/PEP-GFF-SanJose-SantaClaraCounty-071513.pdf
Chen, 2015. Investigation of important quarantine pest in Taiwan. Symposium on Trans-Century Plant Protection and Quarantine Technologies. Taichung, Taiwan
Clausen CP, Clancy DW, Chock QC, 1965. Biological Control of the Oriental fruit fly (Dacus dorsalis Hendel) and Other Fruit Flies in Hawaii. United States Department of Agriculture, Technical Bulletin, No. 1322
Drew RAI, Raghu S, 2002. The fruit fly fauna (Diptera: Tephritidae: Dacinae) of the rainforest habitat of the Western Ghats, India. Raffles Bulletin of Zoology, 50(2):327-352. http://rmbr.nus.edu.sg/rbz/biblio/50/50rbz327-352.pdf
EPPO, 2014. PQR database. Paris, France: European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization. http://www.eppo.int/DATABASES/pqr/pqr.htm
EPPO, 2018. EPPO Global Database. Paris, France: EPPO. https://gd.eppo.int/
Fletcher TB, 1919. Annotated list of Indian Crop Pests. Proc. Ent. mtg. Pusa, 3:33-34
Foote RH, Blanc FL, Norrbom AL, 1993. Handbook of the Fruit Flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) of America North of Mexico. Ithaca, USA: Comstock
Ganesh Bhat U, 1989. Faunistic and some ecological studies on fruit flies (Diptera:Tephritidae) of Bangalore and Kodagu districts. MSc, (Ag.) Thesis. Bangalore, India: University of Agriculture Science
Hancock DL, 1991. New Species and records of Thailand Dacinae (Dipt:Teph) Aronoldia Thailand, 9:299-314
IPPC, 2015. Bactrocera correcta (Guava fruit fly) - removal of quarantine area in Long Beach, Los Angeles County, California. IPPC Official Pest Report, No. USA-63/1. Rome, Italy: FAO. https://www.ippc.int/
Jalaluddin SM, Sadakathulla S, 1999. Development and survival of Bactrocera correcta (Bezzi) (Diptera: Tephritidae) on selected guava cultivars. Pest Management in Horticultural Ecosystems, 5(1):24-27; 6 ref
Kapoor VC, 1989. Fruitflies, Indian subcontinent. In Robinson AS, Hooper G (eds). World Crop Pests, Volume 3B, Fruit Flies, their biology, natural enemies and control. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier Science
Kapoor VC, Agarwal ML, 1983. Fruit flies and their natural enemies 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, 104-105
LüWenGang, Deng YuLiang, Li ZhiHong, Lin Wei, Wan FangHao, Wang ZhiLing, 2010. A predication of potential geographical distribution of guava fruit fly, Bactrocera (Bactrocera) correcta (Bezzi) in China. Acta Phytophylacica Sinica, 37(6):529-534. http://www.wanfangdata.com.cn
Mani M, 1993. Bactrocera correcta or grapevine in India. FAO Plant Protection Bulletin, 40(4):162-163
Mohamed Jalaluddin S, 1996. Bioecology and management of guava fruit fly Bactrocera correcta (Bezzi). Thesis submitted to Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore (Madurai Campus)
Mohamed Jalaluddin S, 1999. Integrated pest management of guava fruit fiy. Indian Farming, 48(10):14
Monouka AG, 1993. The effect of some phenols on the larval performance of the olive fruit fly, Docus Oleae Gmel. (Dipt:Tephritidae). Journal of Applied Entomology (Germany), 116:303-307
NAPPO, 2001. Phytosanitary Alert System: Second Guava fruit fly, Bactrocera correcta, detected in Florida this year. NAPPO. http://www.pestalert.org/viewArchNewsStory.cfm?nid=78&keyword=bactrocera%20correcta
NAPPO, 2015. Phytosanitary Alert System: Bactrocera correcta (Guava Fruit Fly) - Removal of Quarantine Area in Long Beach, Los Angeles County, California. NAPPO. https://www.pestalerts.org/oprDetail.cfm?oprID=639&keyword=bactrocera%20correcta
Narayanan ES, Batra HN, 1960. Fruit Flies and their Control. New Delhi, India: ICAR Pub
PPQ, 2018. Status of Bactrocera correcta (Bezzi) in the United States. Technical Assistance for Specialty Crops (TASC). United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ), Raleigh, NC. 10 pp
Puttarudriah M, Usman S, 1954. Mysore Dacinae and their natural parasites. Mysore Agricultural Journal, 30:257-262
Sangvorn Kitthawee, Siripong Singhapong, Visut Baimai, 1999. Metaphase chromosomes of parasitic wasp, Diachasmimorpha longicaudata (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) in Thailand. Cytologia, 64(1):111-115; 14 ref
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
Satoh I, Yamabe M, Satoh S, Ohki A, 1985. Study on the frequency of finding of the fruit flies infesting the fruits imported as air baggage. Research Bulletin of the Plant Protection Service, Japan, No. 21:71-73
Shah AH, Vora VJ, 1975. Occurrence of D. correcta (Bezzi) (Teph. Dipt.) on mango and chiku in South Gujarat. Indian Journal of Entomology, 36:76
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
Weems HV Jr, 1987. Guava fruit fly, Dacus (Strumeta) correctus (Bezzi) (Diptera: Tephritidae). Entomology Circular, Division of Plant Industry, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, No. 291:4pp
Allwood A J, Chinajariyawong A, Kritsaneepaiboon S, Drew R A I, Hamacek E L, Hancock D L, Hengsawad C, Jipanin J C, Jirasurat M, Krong C K, Leong C T S, Vijaysegaran S, 1999. Host plant records for fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) in Southeast Asia. Raffles Bulletin of Zoology. 47 (Supplement 7), 1-92.
CABI, Undated. CABI Compendium: Status as determined by CABI editor. Wallingford, UK: CABI
CDFA, 2013. Proclamation of an eradication project for the guava fruit fly. In: California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA), July 8, 2013, USA: http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/plant/pdep/treatment/pep/PEP-GFF-SanJose-SantaClaraCounty-071513.pdf
Ganesh Bhat U, 1989. Faunistic and some ecological studies on fruit flies (Diptera:Tephritidae) of Bangalore and Kodagu districts., Bangalore, India: University of Agriculture Science.
IPPC, 2015. Bactrocera correcta (Guava fruit fly) - removal of quarantine area in Long Beach, Los Angeles County, California. In: IPPC Official Pest Report, No. USA-63/1, Rome, Italy: FAO. https://www.ippc.int/
Kapoor V C, Agarwal M L, 1983. Fruit flies and their natural enemies in India. In: Fruit flies of economic importance. Proceedings of the CEC/IOBC International Symposium, Athens, Greece, 16-19 November 1982 [Fruit flies of economic importance. Proceedings of the CEC/IOBC International Symposium, Athens, Greece, 16-19 November 1982], [ed. by Cavalloro R]. Rotterdam, Netherlands: A.A. Balkema. 104-105.
Mani M, 1993. Bactrocera correcta or grapevine in India. In: FAO Plant Protection Bulletin, 40 (4) 162-163.
Mohamed Jalaluddin S, 1996. Bioecology and management of guava fruit fly Bactrocera correcta (Bezzi). In: Thesis submitted to Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore (Madurai Campus),
Narayanan ES, Batra HN, 1960. Fruit Flies and their Control., New Delhi, India: ICAR Pub.
PPQ, 2018. Status of Bactrocera correcta (Bezzi) in the United States. Technical Assistance for Specialty Crops (TASC)., Raleigh, NC, USA: United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ).
Satarkar V R, Krishnamurthy S V, Faleiro J R, Verghese A, 2009. Spatial distribution of major Bactrocera fruit flies attracted to methyl eugenol in different ecological zones of Goa, India. International Journal of Tropical Insect Science. 29 (4), 195-201. http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayJournal?jid=JTI DOI:10.1017/S174275840999035X
Satoh I, Yamabe M, Satoh S, Ohki A, 1985. Study on the frequency of finding of the fruit flies infesting the fruits imported as air baggage. Research Bulletin of the Plant Protection Service, Japan. 71-73.
Distribution MapsTop of page
Unsupported Web Browser:
Please consider upgrading your browser to the latest version or installing a new browser.
More information about modern web browsers can be found at http://browsehappy.com/