Bactrocera passiflorae (Fijian fruit fly)
- Taxonomic Tree
- Notes on Taxonomy and Nomenclature
- Distribution Table
- Risk of Introduction
- 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
- Similarities to Other Species/Conditions
- 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 passiflorae (Froggatt)
Preferred Common Name
- Fijian fruit fly
Other Scientific Names
- Bactrocera (Bactrocera) passiflorae (Froggatt)
- Chaetodacus passiflorae (Froggatt)
- Dacus passiflorae Froggatt
- Strumeta passiflorae (Froggatt)
- BCTRPA (Bactrocera passiflorae)
Taxonomic TreeTop of page
- Domain: Eukaryota
- Kingdom: Metazoa
- Phylum: Arthropoda
- Subphylum: Uniramia
- Class: Insecta
- Order: Diptera
- Family: Tephritidae
- Genus: Bactrocera
- Species: Bactrocera passiflorae
Notes on Taxonomy and NomenclatureTop of page
DescriptionTop of page
Head: Pedicel+1st flagellomere not longer than ptilinal suture. Face without a dark spot in each antennal furrow, or a line across mouth. Frons - 2 pairs frontal setae; 1 pair orbital setae.
Thorax: Predominant colour black. Postpronotal (=humeral) lobe black. Notopleuron yellow. Scutum without lateral postsutural vittae (yellow/orange stripes). Scutum without a medial vitta or stripe. Scutellum yellow. Anepisternal stripe almost to postpronotal lobe above, but not extended down onto katepisternum. Yellow marking on both anatergite and katatergite. Postpronotal lobe (=humerus) without a seta. Notopleuron with anterior seta. Scutum with anterior supra-alar setae and prescutellar acrostichal setae. Scutellum without basal setae.
Wing: Length 3.2-5.4 mm. With a complete costal band; depth not below R2+3; not expanded into a spot at apex. Cells bc and c not coloured. No transverse markings. Cells bc and c without extensive covering of microtrichia. Cell br (narrowed part) with extensive covering of microtrichia.
Legs: All femora yellow or pale.
Abdomen: Predominant colour red-brown to black. Tergites not fused. Abdomen not wasp waisted. Pattern variable; tergite 3 either all dark or dark basally/laterally; tergite 4 either all dark or dark laterally; pale form may have a medial stripe on T3-5.
Terminalia and secondary sexual characters: Male wing without a bulla. Male tergite 3 with a pecten (setal comb) on each side. Male sternite 5 V-shaped posteriorly. Surstylus (male) without a long posterior lobe. Wing (male) with a deep indent in posterior margin. Hind tibia (male) with a preapical pad. Aculeus apex pointed.
The egg of B. olae was described in detail by Margaritis (1985) and that 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 elctron microscope examination). White to yellow-white in colour.
Third instar larva: Larvae medium-sized, length 8.0-9.5 mm; width 1.2-1.5 mm. Head: Stomal sensory organs each with 4-6 sensilla (some long, some short) surrounded by 5-6 large unserrated preoral lobes; oral ridges with 9-13 rows of stout, almost parallel-sided, bluntly rounded teeth; accessory plates small, serrated, arranged along outer edges of oral ridges; mouthhooks moderately sclerotized, each with a curved, slender apical tooth. Thoracic and abdominal segments: Anterior margin of T1 with an encircling band of sharply pointed spinules, with 5-8 rows dorsally, 4-6 rows laterally and 4-8 rows ventrally; T2 with 3-5 rows of slightly smaller spinules encircling segment; T3 without spinules. Creeping welts of 10-13 rows of small sharply pointed spinules with 1 posterior row of slightly stouter spinules. A8 with small intermediate areas and small, well defined tubercles and sensilla, some of which are long and tapering. Anterior spiracles: 9-13 tubules. Posterior spiracles: Each spiracular slit about 3 times as long as broad with a sclerotised rima. Dorsal and ventral spiracular hair bundles of 9-16 hairs, lateral bundles of 4-8 hairs. Anal area: Lobes large, protuberant, surrounded by 3-6 discontinuous rows of small, stout, sharply pointed spinules concentrating into stouter spinules just below anal opening.
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.
DistributionTop of page
Distribution TableTop of page
The distribution in this summary table is based on all the information available. When several references are cited, they may give conflicting information on the status. Further details may be available for individual references in the Distribution Table Details section which can be selected by going to Generate Report.Last updated: 12 May 2022
|Continent/Country/Region||Distribution||Last Reported||Origin||First Reported||Invasive||Reference||Notes|
|Wallis and Futuna||Present||Original citation: Tora Vueti, 1997|
Risk of IntroductionTop of page
Hosts/Species AffectedTop of page
The host list was derived from Clausen et al. (1965), Drew (1989) and Litsinger et al. (1991) by White and Elson-Harris (1994). The eggplant record has been questioned (A.J. Allwood and I.M. White, IIE, personal communication, 1991) and that may have been an aberrant host. There are also records, requiring confirmation, from coffee, Malay-apple (Syzygium malaccense), Pacific lychee (Pometia pinnata) and strawberry guava (Psidium littorale) (sources listed in White and Elson-Harris, 1994).
Host Plants and Other Plants AffectedTop of page
|Anacardium occidentale (cashew nut)||Anacardiaceae||Main|
|Artocarpus altilis (breadfruit)||Moraceae||Main|
|Carica papaya (pawpaw)||Caricaceae||Main|
|Citrus aurantiifolia (lime)||Rutaceae||Main|
|Citrus reticulata (mandarin)||Rutaceae||Main|
|Mangifera indica (mango)||Anacardiaceae||Main|
|Passiflora edulis (passionfruit)||Passifloraceae||Main|
|Passiflora quadrangularis (giant granadilla)||Passifloraceae||Main|
|Persea americana (avocado)||Lauraceae||Main|
|Psidium guajava (guava)||Lithomyrtus||Main|
|Solanum melongena (aubergine)||Solanaceae||Main|
|Theobroma cacao (cocoa)||Malvaceae||Main|
Growth StagesTop of page
SymptomsTop of page
List of Symptoms/SignsTop of page
|Fruit / internal feeding|
|Fruit / lesions: black or brown|
|Fruit / premature drop|
Biology and EcologyTop of page
No details are available for B. passiflorae. However the following general description represents a typical Bactrocera sp. Eggs are laid below the skin of the host fruit. These hatch within 1-2 days and the larvae feed for another week or more. Pupariation is in the soil under the host plant for a week or more but may be delayed for several weeks under cool conditions. Adults occur throughout the year and begin mating after about 2 weeks (Christenson and Foote, 1960). Adult flight and the transport of infected fruit are the major means of movement and dispersal to previously uninfected areas. Males are attracted to cue lure.
[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 et al. (2019) 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 enemiesTop of page
|Natural enemy||Type||Life stages||Specificity||References||Biological control in||Biological control on|
|Aceratoneuromyia indica||Parasite||Arthropods|Larvae||Western Samoa||fruits|
|Biosteres arisanus||Parasite||Eggs; Arthropods|Larvae|
|Dirhinus giffardii||Parasite||Western Samoa||fruits|
|Fopius arisanus||Parasite||Eggs; Arthropods|Larvae|
|Tetrastichus giffardianus||Parasite||Arthropods|Larvae||Western Samoa||fruits|
Notes on Natural EnemiesTop of page
Pathway VectorsTop of page
|Aircraft||With fruit cargo||Yes|
|Clothing, footwear and possessions||Fruit in case or handbag.||Yes|
|Containers and packaging - wood||Of fruit cargo.||Yes|
|Fruit in post.||Yes|
|Ship structures above the water line||With fruit cargo||Yes|
|Soil, sand and gravel||Risk of puparia in soil.||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)||arthropods/eggs; arthropods/larvae||Yes||Pest or symptoms usually visible to the naked eye|
|Growing medium accompanying plants||arthropods/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
Detection and InspectionTop of page
Similarities to Other Species/ConditionsTop of page
The minimum characters which differentiate B. passiflorae from all other Bactrocera and Dacus spp. (White and Hancock, 1997) are as follows. Face without a black spot in each antennal furrow. Postpronotal (=humeral) lobe entirely dark. Katepisternum without any yellow mark. Hind femur yellow. With anterior supra-alar setae. Without basal scutellar setae.
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.
Control of Pacific fruit flies was reviewed by Allwood (1997).
Releases have been made against fruit flies in Fiji and these are summarized under the section on Natural Enemies. Levels of parasitism vary from 4.5% for native fruits such as Pacific lychee to a maximum of 61.3% in an introduced fruit such as strawberry guava (Waterhouse, 1993).
Many countries, such as the mainland USA, forbid the import of susceptible fruit without strict post-harvest treatment having been applied by the exporter. This may involve fumigation, heat treatment (hot vapour or hot water), cold treatments, insecticidal dipping, or irradiation (Armstrong and Couey, 1989; Armstrong, 1997). Irradiation is not accepted in most countries and fumigation is a hazardous operation. Heat treatment tends to reduce the shelf life of most fruits and so the most effective method of regulatory control is to preferentially 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.
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 some areas this has been developed into a very effective commercial product derived from brewery waste, for example, in Tonga (Heimoana et al., 1997b).
The males of most pest species of Bactrocera are attracted to either cue lure (4-(p-acetoxyphenyl)-2-butanone) or to methyl eugenol (4-allyl-1,2-dimethoxybenzene). Males of B. passiflorae are attracted to cue lure. 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 coutries that are free of Bactrocera spp., e.g. 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).
Monitoring is largely carried out by traps (as above) 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.
ReferencesTop of page
Allwood AJ, 1997. Control strategies for fruit flies (family Tephritidae) in the South Pacific, In: Allwood AJ, Drew RAI, eds. Management of Fruit Flies in the Pacific. A Regional Symposium, Nadi, Fiji. ACIAR Proceedings, 76: 171-182
Armstrong JW, 1997. Quarantine treatment options for fruit fly host commodities for Pacific island countries. In: Allwood AJ, Drew RAI, eds. Management of Fruit Flies in the Pacific. A Regional Symposium, Nadi, Fiji. ACIAR Proceedings, 76: 222-224
Armstrong JW, Couey HM, 1989. Control; fruit disinfestation; fumigation, heat and cold. In: Robinson AS, Hooper G, eds. Fruit Flies; their Biology, Natural Enemies and Control. World Crop Pests. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier, 3(B):411-424
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
Christenson LD, Foote RH, 1960. Biology of fruit flies. Annual Review of Entomology, 5:171-192
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, 1982. I. Taxonomy, 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,1-97
EPPO, 2014. PQR database. Paris, France: European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization. http://www.eppo.int/DATABASES/pqr/pqr.htm
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
Heimoana V, Nemeye P, Langi T, Allwood AJ, 1997. Assessment of protein bait sprays for the control of fruit flies in chilli and capsicum crops in Tonga, In: Allwood AJ, Drew RAI, eds. Management of Fruit Flies in the Pacific. A Regional Symposium, Nadi, Fiji. ACIAR Proceedings, 76: 179-182
Heimoana V, Tunupop F, Toleafoa E, Fakanaiki C, 1997. The fruit fly fauna of Tonga, Western Samoa, American Samoa and Niue. In: Allwood AJ, Drew RAI, eds. Management of Fruit Flies in the Pacific. A Regional Symposium, Nadi, Fiji. ACIAR Proceedings, 76:57-59
Hicks, C. B., Bloem, K., Pallipparambil, G. R., Hartzog, H. M., 2019. Reported Long-Distance Flight of the Invasive Oriental Fruit Fly and Its Trade Implications. In: Area-Wide Management of Fruit Fly Pests, [ed. by Perez-Staples, D., Diaz-Fleischer, F., Montoya, P., Vera, M. T.]. Boca Raton, USA: CRC Press. 9-25. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/9780429355738/chapters/10.1201/9780429355738-2
Litsinger JA, Fakalata OK, Faluku TL, Crooker PS, Keyserlingk N von, 1991. A study of fruit fly species (Tephritidae) occurring in the Kindom of Tonga, 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, 71-80
Tora Vueti E, Allwood AJ, Leweniqila L, Ralulu L, Balawakula A, Malau A, Sales F, Peleti K, 1997. Fruit fly fauna in Fiji, Tuvalu, Wallis and Futuna, Tokelau and Nauru. In: Allwood AJ, Drew RAI, eds. Management of Fruit Flies in the Pacific. A Regional Symposium, Nadi, Fiji. ACIAR Proceedings, 76:60-63
Waterhouse DF, 1993. The Major Arthropod Pests and Weeds of Agriculture in Southeast Asia. ACIAR Monograph No. 21. Canberra, Australia: Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research, 141 pp
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 RA, Gilstrap FE, 1983. Key to and status of opiine braconid (Hymenoptera) parasitoids used in biological control of Ceratitis and Dacus s.l. (Diptera: Tephritidae). Annals of the Entomological Society of America, 76(4):721-742
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
CABI, Undated. Compendium record. Wallingford, UK: CABI
CABI, Undated a. CABI Compendium: Status as determined by CABI editor. Wallingford, UK: CABI
Drew R A I, Hancock D L, 1995. New Species, Subgenus and Records of Bactrocera Macquart from the South Pacific (Diptera: Tephritidae: Dacinae). Australian Journal of Entomology. 34 (1), 7-12. DOI:10.1111/j.1440-6055.1995.tb01265.x
Leblanc L, Vueti E T, Drew R A I, Allwood A J, 2012. Host plant records for fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae: Dacini) in the Pacific Islands. [Proceedings of the Hawaiian Entomological Society], 44 USA: Hawaiian Entomological Society. 11-53. https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/handle/10125/25459
Distribution MapsTop of page
Select a dataset
CABI Summary Records
Unsupported Web Browser:
One or more of the features that are needed to show you the maps functionality are not available in the web browser that you are using.
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/