Fruit flies of the genus Bactrocera are the most damaging pests of horticultural crops, leading to severe economic losses hindered exportation. Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel) and Bactrocera zonata (Saunders) were reported in Sudan in 2005 and 2011 respectively affecting most of the fruits and vegetables in Sudan threatening income of poor farmers. Only Male Annihilation Technique (MAT) is applied in Sudan to manage the two Bactrocera species. A filed experiment was conducted to evaluate the response of B. dorsalis, B. zonata and Zeugodacus cucurbitae to three food-based attractants using McPhail traps in two sites in Gezira state, Sudan. Also, other trial was undertaken to determine the effect of spray of Mazoferm and Spinosad combination to control B. zonata. The results showed that food-based attractants lured both sexes of the above mentioned fruit flies and females represented (55-86%). At the first site, B. zonata responded in high numbers to Mazoferm followed by Torula yeast and GF-120 respectively while it responded equally to the Mazoferm and Torula yeast in the second site. B. dorsalis responded positively to Mazoferm followed by Torula yeast and GF-120 while Z. cucurbitae was attracted to Mazoferm, GF-120 and Torula for each attractant respectively. Spray of Mazoferm combined with Spinosad significantly reduced population of B. zonata (FTD) population and suppressed infestation level of guava fruits (fruit flies/Kg of fruits) when compared to unsprayed orchard. Bait Application Technique is an environmentally friendly approach that reduces infestation levels, lessen contamination and safeguard produce.
Research Article
Field response of three Tephritid fruit flies to three food-based attractants and suppression of Bactrocera zonata (Saunders) using Mazoferm–Spinosad in guava ecosystem in Sudan
https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1141817/v1
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License
Version 1
posted
You are reading this latest preprint version
Guava (Psidium guajava L.) belonging to the family Myrtaceae is one of the most important tropical fruit trees in the world enriching the diet of hundreds of millions of people with high nutritive and health values (Morton, 1987; El-Bulk et al, 1997). In Sudan, guava is a popular fruit representing source of income to farmers all around the year (Ali et al,. 2014). Guava fruits are produced all around Sudan and most are consumed locally. For its long fruiting period and softness, guava fruit are a highly preferred susceptible host to many insects and diseases and among them are fruit flies. Fruit flies are a group of insect belonging to the family Tephrtidae of the order Diptera with various genera of economic importance among them are Ceratitis, Zeugodacus, Dacus and Bactrocera.
Ceratitis capitata (Wiedemann), Ceratitis cosyra (Walker), Ceratitis quinaria (Bezzi) and Carpomya incomplete (Becker) are indigenous fruit flies that negatively affected guava fruit while B. dorsalis and B. zonata are the alien invasive introduced to Sudan in 2005 and 2012 respectively (Mahmoud et al 2020).
Fruit flies are subjected to strenuous efforts worldwide regarding their control for their vast invasions, highly reproduction and huge damage they caused. Different types of protein hydrolysates baited in different types of traps or sprayed in combination with insecticides are widely used since a century ago for monitoring and controlling fruit flies ( (Ekesi and Tanga, 2016). Food-based attractants, caught both sexes of fruit flies but they are highly preferred by females because they are highly required by females for the development of the ovaries and to increase eggs maturity (Bateman and Morton 1981; Mazor et al., 1987, Epsky and Heath, 1998; Robacker and Flath, 1995; Robacker and Heath, 1996; Hull and Cribb, 2001). Other sources of protein such as ammonia which are released by human urine, chicken and duck feces was found as a potential attractant for Anastrepha spp (Hedström, 1988 and Pin ˜ero et al., 2009) and three species of Ceratitis, four species of Bactrocera as well as two species of Dacus (Mahmoud et al. 2012a).
Mahmoud et al. 2012a, b reported that, Nulure, Torula yeast, Mezoferm, human urine, water extract of mango, guava, apple and grape attracted B. dorsalis, C. cosyra, C. capitata, C. quinaria Dacus ciliates Loew, D. vertebratus Bezzi and Z. cucurbitae. Mazoferm E802 and Torula yeast were found very effective to attract B. dorsalis and captured more flies than the standard Nulure (Ekesi et al. 2014).
Field control of fruit flies using GF-120 combined with Spinosad is widely used since many years ago (Vayssières et al 2009). Recently, mixture of Mazoferm and Spinosad was found very effective in suppression population of B. invadens/ dorsalis in mango fields in Kenya (Ekesi et al. 2014). The use of Spinosad; an insecticide derived from the metabolites of the soil bacterium Saccharopolyspora spinosa, has proofed high mortality for different insect pests without affecting human health and natural enemies (Thompson et al. 2000).
The Peach Fruit Fly (PFF), Bactrocera zonata (Saunders) is an alien invasive pest of horticultural crops known to be native to Asia with a wide range of host plants. The pest was detected in central Sudan in 2011 (Salah et al. 2012) and since that time it became the key fruit fly which displaced native species and competed strongly with the highly invasive B. dorsalis which infested Sudan in 2005 and spread to different states (Mahmoud, et al. 2020a).
Spatial distribution studies in Sudan, revealed the movement of B. zonata southward and eastward endangering the Republic of South Sudan, Ethiopia and Eretria respectively while temporally B. zonata existed all around the year due to the availability of its hosts (Mahmoud, et al., 2017a). Peach Fruit Fly was reported to attack more than 50 host plants and among them are peach, mango, guava, papaya, orange, grape fruit (edible hosts), Jujube and Ivy gourd (wild hosts) (Mahmoud et al. 2017). In Sudan, B. zonata infestation level of mango reached 15% while 100% loss was recorded in guava (Mahmoud et al. 2016).
B. zonata is a newly introduced pest to Sudan; no any studies were conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of different food-based attractants for its monitoring and suppression. Thus this study was conducted to evaluate the field response of Bactrocera species specially B. zonata to three different food-based attractants viz., Torula, Mazoferm and GF-120, and to determine the effectiveness of Mazoferm in combination with Spinosad in attract and kill tool to control this alien invasive fruit flies in guava ecosystem.
Suppression trials
Effect of Mazoferm combined with Spinosad on controlling fruit flies was evaluated for two consecutive fruiting seasons of guava (November 2015 – April 2016) and (October 2016 to January 2017) respectively at Fadasi area, Gezira State, Sudan.
Half hectare farm consisted of hundred guava trees was used to be treated with the combination of Mazoferm and Spinosad and same area with same number of trees was selected on a distance of 1 Km as untreated one. The spacing between trees was 6 X 6m. The two selected farms did not receive any control measures before and the trial was conducted with full cooperation of the growers.
Before starting the suppression trial, pre-spray assessment for the population of fruit flies was conducted through distributing 4 McPail traps equipped with 15 g of Torula yeast (Standard attractant) diluted in 300 ml of water. Traps were distributed 20 m apart from each other in the middle of each farm. Traps were settled as described above and the same procedure was applied after each spray to assess the performance of Mazoferm and Spinosad combination on reducing the population of fruit flies. Mazoferm E802Ð + Spinosad bait spray was applied for eight consecutive weeks to the orchard that was selected as (treated) for two successive seasons while the second orchard remained untreated (control). The application rate of Mazoferm E802 was 400 ml active ingredient per hectare with Spinosad (Tracer 4 EC; Dow Agro Sciences, Indianapolis, IN) at 100 g active ingredient per hectare at an output volume of 5 litres per hectare (50 ml per tree). The Mazoferm E802Ð Spinosad bait spray was applied as spot application using Knapsack sprayer to 1 m2 of the canopy of every tree using a quadrate.
Caught fruit flies in traps were collected, preserved in 70% alcohol, sorted out, sexed and recoded as fruit fly/trap/day, on other hand the level of infestation was assessed where ambient amount of fruits were collected from the trees and from the ground from the two farms. Collected fruit were weighed, kept on ventilated container on surface of 20 cm sterilized sand up to the emergence of puparia. Emerged puparia were transferred to other container on humidified sand up to the emergence of adult flies which were sorted out, sexed and recorded as fruit flies/ kg of fruit.
Statistical analysis
To evaluate the efficacy of food–bait attractants on trapping fruit flies, data of trapping flies/trap/day of each week was transformed using the formula
(( 
+1) and the results of all weeks of each treatment for each site was combined and subjected to ANOVA statistical analysis and Tukey test was applied to separate the means between different treatments, weeks and the interaction between treatments and weeks.
For fruit flies suppression trial, T-test analysis (PROC TTEST) was conducted to determine the difference between populations of fruit flies, level of infestation and harvest loss % due to infestation by B. zonata for treated and control orchards.
For both trials SAS (SAS Institute 2009) computer based statistical software was applied
Bait evaluation trials
Fadasi site:
At Fadasi site, significant differences between the mean numbers of total daily captured flies of B. zonata per trap was recorded among weeks (Pr>F Week <0.0001) treatments (Pr>F Treatment < 0.0001), and interaction between treatments and weeks (Pr>F Week*Treatment <0.0001). The same trend of significance was also reported for females and males. All test products attracted a higher percentage of females and represented 67.2, 61.3 and 68.4% of total caught flies for Mazoferm, Torula and GF-120 respectively and it was obviously that traps equipped with water only didn’t attract any fruit fly (Table 1).
The highest number of B. zonata was attracted to Mazoferm (18.6±3.4) flies/trap/day followed by Torula yeast and GF-120 with (8±1.3) and (1.9±0.4) flies/trap/day) respectively.
Mazoferm attracted the highest number of B. zonata females and males (12.5, 6.1) /trap/day followed by Torula yeast (4.9,3.1) and GF-120 -(1.3,0.6).
G. Elfil
At G. Elfil, the test baits attracted B. zonata, B. dorsalis and Z. cucurbitae in different numbers.
B. zonata
Table 2 showed the results of response of B. zonata to different test attractants at this site, significant difference was observed in the mean number daily captures of B. zonata per trap among weeks, treatments and also among the interaction between treatments and weeks Pr>F Treatment <.0001, Pr>F Week <.0001 and Pr>F Week*Treatment <.0075. Statistically same number of B. zonata was attracted to both Torula and Mazoferm 1.2 and 1.1 while GF-120 attracted the least number 0.3 fly/trap/day (Table 2.).
Sex wise, the catch of attractants was found significantly different in the mean numbers of males and/ or females and also between catches for different weeks and also the interaction between treatments and weeks (Pr>F Treatment <.0001, Pr>F Week <.0001 and Pr>F Week*Treatment<.0001 for both sexes.
Mazoferm and Torula attracted same number of males as well as same number females greater than that attracted to GF-120. The percentage of captured females for each attractant were 81.8, 75 and 66.7% to Mazoferm, Torula and GF-120 respectively.
B. dorsalis
The results indicated that, B. dorsalis responded positively to the test attractants and there was significant differences among the number of fruit flies for weeks (Pr>F week<.0001), treatments (Pr>F Treatment <.0001 and their interaction Pr>F week*Treatment<.0075. Mazofrm attracted the highest number of B. dorsalis followed by Torula yeast and G-F120 with 10.8, 4.4, 1.6 flies/trap/day respectively (Table 3). The same trend of attraction was observed for both females and males and the percentage of attracted females for the three test attractants were 68.5, 68.2, 56.3 % for Mazoferm, Torula and GF-120 respectively (Table 3).
Z. cucurbitae:
This fruit fly was not found infesting guava but was attracted form cucurbits growing wildly around the farm of the study.
Z. cucurbitae was attracted positively to the three test products but its attraction to Mazoferm was greater than that to Torula and GF-120 which were statistically same.
Suppression trials:
Effect of bait spray on the population and level of infestation of B. zonata
In the both seasons, according to the T- test results, the difference between the means of the daily caught B. zonata per trap for the two treatments is not equal to zero at 0.05 probability because the value is greater than Pr> T = 0.0502 in the first season and Pr> T= 0.0029 in the second season respectively. The result in this study indicated that using Mazoferm + Spinosad is very effective to reduce population of B. zonata.
According to (Fig 1 and 3) the population of B. zonata was very high in both sites during the period before application of Mazoferm combined with Spinosad there were 30 FTD for control and > 20 FTD for the treatment. After application of the second spray of Mazoferm plus Spinosad, the population of B. zonata decreased drastically and due to the prolonging of spraying the population went down till it reached zero FTD and then started to increase slightly before the application of the last three sprays where the population decreased again to very low levels.
The T-Test for the level of infestations revealed significant difference between treated and untreated orchards (Pupa of B. zonata/kg of fruit) for the two consecutive seasons with (Pr > |t| 0.0005) and (Pr > |t| 0.0049) respectively. As indicated in (Fig 2 and 4), the number of pupa/Kg fruit of the untreated farm is greater than that of the treated farm for the two consecutive seasons. It is very clear that, the decrease of infestation levels in the first farm is attributed to the application of the Mazoferm and Spinosad combination.
Fruit flies are polyphagous pests and their control is very difficult unless there is integrated procedures. Different management techniques were used worldwide to reduce the devastating effect caused by fruit flies. Field sanitation, the use of natural enemies, applying of the male annihilation technique have been used widely for the suppression of tephritid fruit flies;
Cornelius et al., (2000) ; Vargas et al., (2003); Mahmoud et al., (2012a) and Ekesi et al., (2014) reported that, the most important factor that affect the attractiveness of fruit flies is the type of protein. As demonstrated in the results of this study, the tested food based attractants were found potent to attract both sexes of B. zonata and other species of fruit flies with different levels due to type of attractant. Mazoferm and Torula were more effective than GF-120 on trapping B. zonata especially females in the two study sites. Nulure was excluded in this experiments because under Sudan condition a thick layer of fungus was found growning on the product which prohibit the emission of the attractant (Mahmoud et al., 2012a).
The high number of females attracted to the three protein hydrolysates in this study is in accordance with findings of (Vargas et al., 2002) where he and others reported the positive response of females of C. capitata to USB® yeast hydrolysate enzymatic, Mazoferm® E802, Nu-Lure® Insect Bait, or Provesta® 621 autolyzed yeast extract) he added that, the protein-starved females responded more than protein-fed females.
Studies conducted by many authors regarding the attractiveness of different protein hydolystes to different species of fruit flies proofed that most of the baits are highly attractive to fruit flies but due to the high price of most of them, use Mazoferm because it was considered the cheapest (Moreno and Mangan, 1995).
With regard to its attractiveness, Ekesi et al., (2014) put a high emphasis on using Mazoferm to control B. dorsalis in Africa and from the results obtained the new invasive species (B. zonata) can be added to the list of fruit flies that are attracted to it.
The attractiveness of GF-120 in this study is very low when compared with Torula and Mazoferm. The same result was obtained by (Mahmoud et al. 2012 a) when compared to Nulure, Torula and Mazoferm for trapping B. dorsalis and three species of Ceratitis in Sudan even the less it was used to control other genera of fruit flies in different countries all around the world (Vayssie `res et al.(2009) ; Revis et al. 2004 and McQuate et al. 2005).
Torula yeast is the most attractive protein hydrolysates used for monitoring of different species of fruit flies among the genera Ceratits, Dacus, Bactorcera (Mahmoud et al 2012 a and Anastrepha (AEA 2003).
Torula yeast was found to be very effective to attract B. dorsalis (Mahmoud etal 2012 and Ekesi et al. 2014) but due to its high price it comes second to be recommended to be used for trapping fruit flies.
The application of protein bait spray to control Tephritid fruit flies was used many years ago against Rhagoletis (Diptera: Tephritidae) flies (Roessler 1989). Little was known about the attraction of different species to GF-120 Fruit Fly Bait (Dow AgroSciences, Indianapolis, Indiana) (Pelz et al. 2005; Yee and Chapman 2005 and Pelz et al. 2006). Mazoferm (Corn Products) is an amino-acid (autolyzed protein) baits that have been tested extensively against several Tephritids (Peck and McQuate 2000, Vargas et al. 2002; Fabre et al. 2003; Vargas and Prokopy 2006; Ekesi etal.,2014). Yee 2006 stated that, Mazoferm and Nulure significantly reduced the larval infestations while GF-120 and Spinosad alone did not significantly reduced larval infestations.
In Sudan, controlling fruit flies depend on the use of different pesticides and the use of the male annihilation technique with methyl eugenol for controlling B. dorsalis. Not any use of bait or spray of food attractant is practiced and according to cited literature regarding effectiveness of Mazoferm, its cheapness, availability as animal feed and due to its results obtained in this study, using Mazoferm as bait spray is considered as right choice for farmers for the mentioned reasons in addition to its environmental friendly characteristics. The obtained results regarding reduction of population of B. zonata are in agreement with that achieved by (Vayssie `res et al. 2009) who recorded 8% mango fruit infestation by B. dorsalis and C. cosyra using GF-120 (which is also a combination of Spinosad and a bait derived from Mazoferm E802) compared to 48% infestation in the control. Ekesi et al. 2009 also reported mango fruit infestation ranging from 28 to 30% by B. dorsalis in orchards receiving six treatments of GF-120 baits spray compared with 60% fruit infestation in an untreated mango orchard and Ekesi et al. 2014 reported that using Mazoferm in combination with Spinosad is cost effective and increase farmers profitability.
In summary, results of this study revealed that, the three test baits were attractive to B. zonata, B. dorsalis and Z. cucurbitae when compared to water only. Mazoferm gained the highest attraction level to B. zonata and the other fruit flies with specific attraction to females. Mazofem has the ability to reduce the population of fruit flies to zero level when sprayed in a combination with Spinosad and it increase the production significantly. Based on the above results of the existing study, Mazoferm can be used as costless attractant and in combination with Spinosad for controlling B. zonata in an Area-wide management strategy that can suppress fly populations.
Competing interests
Authors would like to proof that there is no any competing of interest
Ali D, Ahmed R and Basir, E. Physicochemical and nutritional value of red and white guava cultivars grown in Sudan. Journal of Agri-Food and Applied Sciences, 2(2), 27-30. 2014.
Bateman M, Morton T. The importance of ammonia in proteinaceous attractants for fruit flies (Family: Tephritidae). Crop and Pasture Science, 32(6), 883-903. 1981.
Cornelius M, Nergel L, Duan J, Messing R. Responses of female oriental fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) to protein and host fruit odors in field cage and open field tests. Environmental Entomology, 29(1), 14-19. 2000.El Bulk R, Babiker F, El Tinay A. Changes in chemical composition of guava fruits during development and ripening Food Chemistry Volume 59, Issue 3 Pages 395-399. 1997.
Ekesi S BillahK. Afield Guide to the Management of economically important Tephritd fruit flies in Africa.Modren Lithographic (K) Ltd. Nairobi, Kenya. 2006.
Ekesi S, Billah K, Peterson N, Slawomir A, Rwomushana I. Evidence for Competitive Displacement of Ceratitis cosyra by the Invasive Fruit Fly Bactrocera invadens (Diptera: Tephritidae) on Mango and Mechanisms Contributing to the Displacement. Journal of Economic Entomology, 102(3): 981-991. 2009.
Ekesi S, Mohamed S, Tanga C. Comparison of food-based attractants for Bactrocera invadens (Diptera: Tephritidae) and evaluation of Mazoferm–Spinosad bait spray for field suppression in mango. Journal of economic entomology, 107(1), 299-309. 2014.
Ekesi S Tanga C. Waste Brewer’s Yeast as an Alternative Source of protein for use as a bait in the management of Tephritid fruit flies. In: Ekesi S, Mohamed S, De Meyer M. (eds) Fruit Fly Research and Development in Africa - Towards a Sustainable Management Strategy to Improve Horticulture. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43226-7_14 (2016).
Epsky N, Heath R. Exploiting the Interactions of Chemical and Visual Cues in Behavioral Control Measures for Pest Tephritid Fruit Flies. The Florida Entomologist Vol. 81, No. 3, pp. 273-282 . Florida Entomological Society. https://doi.org/10.2307/3495918.1998.
Fabre F, Ryckewaert P, Duyck P, Chiroleu Fand Quilici S. Comparison of the efficacy of food attractants and their concentration for melon fly (Diptera: Tephritidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 96: 231–238. 2003.
Hedström I. Una sustancia natural en la captura de moscas de la fruta del generoAnastrepha Schiner (Diptera: Tephritidae). Rev Biol Trop 36:269–272. 1988.
Hull C, Cribb B. Olfaction in the Queensland Fruit Fly, Bactrocera tryoni. I: Identification of Olfactory Receptor Neuron Types Responding to Environmental Odors. J Chem Ecol 27, 871–887. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010374617409. 2001.
IAEA. International Atomic Energy Agency. Trapping guidelines for Area-wide fruit flyy programmes. International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, Austria. (IAEA). 2003.
Mahmoud M, Mohamed S, Khamis F Ekesi S. Spatial and temporal distribution, relative abundance and host range of Bactrocera zonata in Sudan. 3rd International Symposium of TEAM (Tephritid Workers of Europe, Africa and the Middle East) in Stellenbosch South Africa .2016.
Mahmoud M, Kambal MAbuKashawa S. Prospects of using protein hydrolysates s for trapping and monitoring major fruit flies (Tephritidae: Diptera) in Sudan. Volume 1، No. 2 Persian Gulf Crop protection Journal.2012 a.
Mahmoud M, Kambal M AbuKashawa S. Potential use of human urine as attractant to Tephritid fruit flies in Sudan. Persian Gulf Crop Protection, 1(3), 1-6. 2012 b.
Mahmoud M, Mohamed S. Khamis F, EkesiS. Tephritid fruit flies in Sudan: Species Composition, distribution, abundance, host plants and prospects of management. AAIS Meeting and Scientific Conference Book of Abstract. Wad Medani, Sudan. 2107.
Mahmoud M, Abdellah A, Basher M, Mohamed S, Ekesi S. Chronological Review of Fruit Fly Research and Management Practices in Sudan. In: Niassy S, Ekesi S, Migiro L., Otieno W. (eds) Sustainable Management of Invasive Pests in Africa. Sustainability in Plant and Crop Protection, vol 14. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-41083-4_14 .(2020).
Mahmoud M, Mohamed S, Ndlela S, Azrag A, Khamis F, Bashir M, Ekesi S. Distribution, relative abundance, and level of infestation of the invasive peach fruit fly Bactrocera zonata (Saunders) (Diptera: Tephritidae) and its associated natural enemies in Sudan. Phytoparasitica, 48, 589–605. (2020a).
Mazor M, Gothilf S, Galun R. The role of ammonia in the attraction of females of the Mediterranean fruit fly to protein hydrolysate baits. Entomol Exp Appl 43:25–29. 1987.
McQuate G, Sylva C, Jang E. Mediterranean fruit ßy (Diptera: Tephritidae) suppression in persimmon through bait sprays in adjacent coffee plantings. J. Appl. Entomol. 129: 110Ð117.2005.
Moreno D, Mangan, R. Responses of the Mexican fruit fly (Diptera: Tephritidae) to two hydrolyzed proteins and incorporation of Phloxine B to kill adults. ACS Symp. Ser. 616: 257–279. Peck, S. L. & G. T. McQuate. 2000. Field tests of environmentally friendly malathion replacements to suppress wild Mediterranean fruit fly (Diptera: Tephritidae) populations. J. Econ. Entomol. 93: 280–289. 1995.
Morton J. Fruits of warm climate. - cabdirect.org. 1987
Peck S, McQuate G. Field tests of environmentally friendly Malathion replacements to suppress wild Mediterranean fruit fly (Diptera: Tephritidae) populations. J. Econ. Entomol. 93: 280Ð289. 2000.
Pelz K, Isaacs R, Wise J, Gut L. Protection of fruit against infestation by apple maggot and blueberry maggot (Diptera: Tephritidae) using compounds containing spinosad. J. Econ. Entomol. 98: 432–437.2005.
Pelz K, Gut L, Isaacs R. Behavioral responses of Rhagoletis cingulata (Diptera: Tephritidae) to GF-120 insecticidal bait enhanced with ammonium acetate. J. Econ. Entomol. 99: 1316–1320. 2006.
Pin ˜ero J, Mau R, Vargas R. Managing Oriental fruit ßy (Diptera: Tephritidae), with Spinosadbased protein bait sprays and sanitation in papaya orchards in Hawaii. J. Econ. Entomol. 102: 1123Ð1132. 2009.
Revis H, Miller W, Vargas R. Effects of aging and dilution on attraction and toxicity of GF-120 fruit fly ybait spray for melon fly control inHawaii. J. Econ. Entomol. 97: 1659Ð1665. 2004.
Robacker D, Flath R. Attractants from Staphylococcus aureus cultures for Mexican fruit fly, Anastrepha ludens . J Chem Ecol 21, 1861–1874 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02033682. 1995.
Robacker D, Heath R. Attraction of Mexican Fruit Flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) to Lures Emitting Host-Fruit Volatiles in a Citrus Orchard. The Florida Entomologist. Vol. 79, No. 4 , pp. 600-602. Florida Entomological Society. https://doi.org/10.2307/3496075.1996.
Roessler Y, Insecticidal bait and cover sprays, pp. 329–335. In A. S. Robinson and G. Hooper [Ed.], Fruit Flies: Their Biology, Natural Enemies and Control. World Crop Pests. Vol. 3B. Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 1989.
Salah F, Abdelgader H, De Villiers M. The occurrence of the peach fruit fly, Bactrocera zonata (Saunders) (Tephritidae) in Sudan. In TEAM 2nd International Meeting: Biological Invasions of Tephritidae Tvephritidae: Ecological and Economic Impacts (pp. 3-6). Greece: Kolymbari, Crete. 2012.
Thompson G, Dutton R, Sparks T. Spinosad–a case study: an example from a natural products discovery programme. Pest Management Science, 56(8), 696-702. 2000.
Vargas R, Prokopy R. Attraction and feeding responses of melon flies and oriental fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) to various protein baits with and without toxicants. Proc. Hawaiian Entomol. Soc. 38: 49–60. 2006.
Vargas R, Jang E, Klungness L. Area-wide pest management of fruit flies in Hawaiian fruits and vegetables. pp. 37–46. In Recent Trends on Sterile Insect Technique and Area-wide Integrated Pest Management. Research Institute for Subtropics. (2003).
Vargas R, Miller N, Prokopy R. Attraction and feeding responses of Mediterranean fruit fly and a natural enemy to protein baits laced with two novel toxins, phloxine B and Spinosada. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata, 102(3), 273-282. 2002.
Vayssie `res J, Sinzogan A, Korie S, Ouagoussounon I, Anges T. Effectiveness of Spinosad bait sprays (GF-120) in controlling mango-infesting fruit ßies (Diptera: Tephritidae) in Benin. J. Econ. Entomol. 102: 515Ð521.2009.
Yee W. GF-120, Nu-Lure and Mazoferm effects on feeding responses and infestations of western cherry fruit fly (Diptera: Tephritidae).J. Agric. Urban Entomol., 23, 125-140. 2006.
Yee W, Chapman P. Effects of GF-120 Fruit Fly Bait concentrations on attraction, feeding, mortality, and control of R
Table 1. Mean Number of Bactrocera zonata/trap/day (±SE) attracted to Mazoferm, GF-120 and Torula yeast at guava orchard at Fadasi, Gezira State, Sudan (Combined analysis of six weeks)
|
Treatment |
B. zonata/trap/day |
% Females |
||
|
Males |
Females |
Total |
||
|
Mazoferm |
6.1 ± 1.2 A (2.7) |
12.5 ± 2.3 (3.1) A |
18.6 ± 3.4 A (3.4) |
67.2 |
|
GF-120 |
0.6 ± 0.2 C (1.8) |
1.3 ± 0.2 C (2.0) |
1.9 ±0.4 C (2.2) |
68.4 |
|
Torula Yeast |
3.1 ± 0.6 B (2.3) |
4.9 ± 0.7 B (2.9) |
8.0 ±1.3 B (2.8) |
61.3 |
|
Control |
0.1 (1.5) D |
0.1 (1.5) D |
0.1 (1.5) D |
0 |
|
SE± |
0.3 |
0.7 |
1.1 |
|
|
C. V |
12.8 |
13.2 |
11.9 |
|
|
Pr>F week |
<.0001 |
<.0001 |
<.0001 |
|
|
Pr>F Treatment |
<.0001 |
<.0001 |
<.0001 |
|
|
Pr>F Week*Treatment |
<.0001 |
<.0001 |
<.0001 |
|
Numbers between brackets are transformed data and numbers with same letters are statistically same.
SE = standard error
Table 2. Mean Number of B. zonata/trap/day (±SE) attracted to Mazoferm, GF-120 and Torula yeast at guava orchard at G.Elfil, Gezira State, Sudan (Combined analysis of six weeks)
|
Treatment |
B. zonata/trap/day |
% Females |
||
|
Males |
Females |
Total |
||
|
Mezofarm |
0.3 ±0.1 A (1.1) |
0.9 ±0.2 A (1.3) |
1.1 ±0.2 A (1.4) |
81.8 |
|
GF-120 |
(1) |
0.2 ±0.1 B (1.1) |
0.3±01 B (1.1) |
66.7 |
|
Torula Yeast |
(1.1) |
0.9 ±0.1 A (1.4) |
1.2 ±0.2 A (1.5) |
75 |
|
Control |
0.0 (1) B |
0.0 (1.0)B |
0.0 (1.0)B |
0 |
|
SE± |
0.03 |
0.07 |
0.08 |
|
|
C. V |
7.5 |
13.7 |
14.6 |
|
|
Pr>F Week |
<.0001 |
<.0001 |
<.0001 |
|
|
Pr>F Treatment |
<.0001 |
<.0001 |
<.0001 |
|
|
Pr>F Week*Treatment |
<.0001 |
<.0001 |
<.0075 |
|
Numbers between brackets are transformed data and numbers with same letters are statistically same. SE = standard error
Table 3. Mean Number of Bactrocera dorsalis and Zeugodacus cucurbitae/ trap/day (±SE) attracted to Mazoferm, GF-120 and Torula yeast at guava orchard at Gezirat Elfil, Gezira State, Sudan (Combined analysis of six weeks)
|
Treatment |
B. dorsalis/ trap/day |
Z. cucurbitae/trap/day |
||||
|
Males |
Females |
Total |
Males |
Females |
Total |
|
|
Mezofarm |
3.4 ±0.6 A (2) |
7.4 ±1.1 A (2.2) |
10.8 ± 1.6 A (3.3) |
1.1 ±0.2 A (1.4) |
0.8 ±0.2 A (1.3) |
1.9±0.4 A ( 1.6) |
|
GF-120 |
0.7±0.2 C (1.3) |
0.9 ±0.2C (1.3) |
1.6 ±0.4 C (1.5) |
0.2 ±0.04B ( 1.1) |
0.1 ±0.04B (1.1) |
0.3 ±0.04 B (1.1) |
|
Torula Yeast |
1.4 ±0.2 B (1.5) |
3.0±0.3 B (2) |
4.4 ±0.5 B (2.3) |
0.1 ±0.02 B (1.0) |
0.1 ±0.02 B (1.0) |
0.2 ±0.04 B (1.0) |
|
Control |
0.0 (1.0) D |
0.0 (1.0) D |
0.0 (1.0) D |
0.0 (1.0) B |
0.0 (1.0) B |
0.0 (1.0) B |
|
SE± |
0.2 |
0.4 |
0.6 |
0.07 |
0.05 |
0.1 |
|
C. V |
21.1 |
21.3 |
24.8 |
15.1 |
13.3 |
20.02 |
|
Pr>F week |
<.0007 |
<.0001 |
<.0001 |
0.1464 |
<.0001 |
<.01218 |
|
Pr>F Treatment |
<.0001 |
<.0001 |
<.0001 |
<.0001 |
<.0001 |
0.2843 |
|
Pr>F week*Treatment |
<.0028 |
<.0075 |
<.0075 |
0.4573 |
<.3522 |
0.0075 |
Numbers between brackets are transformed data and numbers with same letters are statistically same.
SE = standard error