Submit or Track your Manuscript LOG-IN

Population Fluctuations of Bactrocera Species (Diptera: Tephritidae) in Guava and Mango Orchards at Different Climatic Conditions of Sindh

PJZ_55_1_37-42

Population Fluctuations of Bactrocera Species (Diptera: Tephritidae) in Guava and Mango Orchards at Different Climatic Conditions of Sindh

Zain-ul-Aabdin Abro1*, Naheed Baloch1, Raza Muhammad Memon2,

Niaz Hussain Khuhro2 and Iram Shaikh1

1Department of Zoology, University of Sindh, Jamshoro, Pakistan

2Nuclear Institute of Agriculture, Tando Jam, Pakistan

ABSTRACT

Two Bactrocera spp. of fruit fly (Bactrocera zonata and Bactrocera dorsalis) (Diptera: Tephritidae) associated with mango and guava fruits were studied during (January, 2019 to December, 2019) to determine the population dynamics of these notorious pests in different climatic zones of Sindh Province. Steiner type (Tando Jam) traps baited with methyl eugenol and 5% pesticide were incorporated in the guava and mango orchards of Hyderabad and Larkana. Fruit flies were trapped in the field throughout the year. The results revealed the distinct patterns of population dynamics at both climatic zones. The population density was greater for B. zonata as compared B. dorsalis in guava and mango orchards of both climatic zones. Peak population of Both Bactrocera spp. were observed in the August and June at guava and mango orchards of Sindh. The maximum number of B. zonata (989.40±75.24, 943.60±70.36) followed by B. dorsalis (708.70±21.80, 389.20±16.58) respectively were observed in off-seasoned guava at Hyderabad and Larkana. Whereas, higher population of B. zonata followed by B. dorsalis (623.50±14.76, 588.80±20.62 and 440.90±24.59, 400.40±11.86) respectively were inspected from seasoned mango orchards of both climatic regions. Minimum population of both fruit flies were obtained in January from guava and mango orchards of different climatic zones. The fruit flies density were affected by temperature and relative humidity. However, the stronger connection of population increase with matured fruits were exhibited. The present efforts would be supportive to eliminate Bactrocera species from different orchard agro-ecosystem of Sindh by using MAT in integration of other eco-friendly management techniques for fruit flies.


Article Information

Received 19 January 2022

Revised 05 May 2022

Accepted 27 May 2022

Available online 21 June 2022

(early access)

Published 15 October 2022

Authors’ Contribution

ZUAA performed the experiments, analyzed the data and wrote the article. NB supervised the study. RMM conceived the study. NHK designed the experiments. IS assisted in experiments.

Key words

Bactrocera species, Population dynamics, Fruit orchards, Climatic zones, MAT

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.17582/journal.pjz/20220119100112

* Corresponding author: zainabro128@gmail.com

0030-9923/2023/0001-37 $ 9.00/0

Copyright 2023 by the authors. Licensee Zoological Society of Pakistan.

This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).



Introduction

Bactrocera spp. of fruit fly are unquestionably the most notorious pests of fruits and vegetables all over Asia and World. The species of genus Bactrocera known as constant destructive pests (Wang, 1996). For demographic studies on population dynamics development and movement are key tools (Price, 1997). Analysis of various factors such as forecasting biological parameters, scrutinising population build-up and constancy, approximating extinction chances and examining expected outbreaks are required for demographic populations (McPeek and Kalisz, 1993). The peach fruit fly, Bactrocera zonata (Saunders) and Oriental fruit fly, Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel) are polyphagous pests and predominantly infesting peach, guava and mango (CABI/EPPO, 2001). Both Bactrocera species are major pests in India and Pakistan (Qureshi et al., 1993). According to available literature B. zonata is more significant pest species in Pakistan compared to B. dorsalis (Siddiqui et al., 2003; Sarwar et al., 2014; Abro et al., 2020). The influence of temperature on the growth and persistence of Hawaiian fruit fly species have been defined by (Vargas et al., 1996). For management of Bactrocera spp. many scientists have recommended demographic studies (Carey and Vargas, 1985; Vargas and Nishida 1985; Vargas and Carey, 1990). Fruit flies inflict 210 million US dollars and an estimated 190 million Euro damages of fruits in a year (USDA, 2016). With increasing international trade fruit flies become major quarantine pests of fruits and vegetables which not only create hindrances in exportation of fruits and vegetables but also reduce their average production (White and Elson-Harris, 1992). To make fruits completely free from infestation of fruit flies it is indispensable to control them round the year from different hosts as described in the breeding flow of the flies. The present studies were designed for the first time on comparative demography of two Bactrocera spp. in mango and guava orchard-ecosystem of two ecological zones of Sindh to develop better pest management strategy on demographic basis.

Materials and methods

The field investigations were conducted for the comparative demography of Bactrocera spp. in the (Psidium guajava L.) and mango (Mangifera indica L.) growing orchards at (25º25’60N 68º31’60E) Hyderabad and (27º26’46.66”N 68º11’07.11”E) Larkana. The area under observation mainly consist mango, guava surrounded by seasonal vegetables and cotton crop in Hyderabad while in Larkana it consisted mango, guava surrounded by wheat and rice crops.

The fruit fly traps were made of translucent plastic bottles about 2 litres volume having two holes on each side to facilitate the fruit flies entrance inside when appealed by lure (4 ml methyl eugenol) suspended inside each trap from another end near the center. The male flies attracted by lure were quickly killed by the insecticide (Pyramid 10% AS) which is dipped along with methyl eugenol on cotton wick and placed inside the traps. The traps used are locally known as Tando Jam Traps.

The traps were installed at three meters height on all planted mango and guava trees in both regions during 01-01-2019 to 31-12-2019. The male captivities of both fruit fly species were collected on weekly basis and lure were replenished at fortnight interval. The trapped flies were transported to the Fruit Flies Laboratories, Nuclear Institute of Agriculture, Tando Jam. The flies were identified using scientific methods for identification of fruit flies at species level. The identified flies of each trap were counted and kept individually for the record.

The entire studies were designated on the 5 acres area of mango and guava orchards each at diverse localities of Hyderabad and Larkana regions. The impact of abiotic factors such as temperature (ºC) and relative humidity (%) were also observed on the demography of Bactrocera species. Experiments were designed in Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD) having ten replications. Where each trap was considered as 1 replicate.

Meteorological data used in this study were provided by Regional AGRO-MET Centre Tando Jam and Larkana, Sindh, Pakistan. The data collected for these periods were month wisely summarized and compared with the data of insect count.

All statistical analyses were done with the help of Statistix® Version 8.1, Analytical Software, Inc., and Tallahassee, FL, USA. Statistical analysis was calculated using two-ways analysis of variance ANOVA for different parameters Followed by Tukey’s Post Hoc HSD Test for the significance of data.

Results and Discussion

During month wise comparative demographic studies on the population dynamics of Bactrocera spp. revealed distinct variabilities in guava and mango orchards of Hyderabad and Larkana. Comparatively maximum number of B. zonata was observed in both regions. However, (P<0.05) maximum number of B. zonata were observed in off-seasoned guava in the month of August at Hyderabad and Larkana regions (989.40±75.24, 943.60±70.36) followed by B. dorsalis (708.70±21.80, 389.20±16.58), respectively (Table I). Whereas, in the month of June peak population of B. zonata was recorded in seasoned mango at Hyderabad and Larkana regions (623.50±14.76, 588.80±20.62) followed by B. dorsalis (440.90±24.59, 400.40±11.86), respectively (Table II). Nevertheless, less activity of both fruit flies were observed in the month of January in both fruiting orchards at different regions. Furthermore, results revealed that abiotic factors significantly (p<0.001) correlated with the population dynamics B. zonata and B. dorsalis of both studied sites at different locations (Table III). Nonetheless, the positive correlation between temperature (ºC) and fruit flies population were observed in Hyderabad and Larkana region in guava and mango fields (Figs. 1A, 2A, 3A, 4A). Relative humidity has negative impact on the demographic parameters of the Bactrocera spp. in both regions (Figs. 1B, 2B, 3B, 4B).

Several comparative demographic studies on different Bactrocera spp. conceded to observe their activities in the field (Vargas et al., 2000; Brevault and Quilici, 2000). These studies have shown maximum activity of the principal fruit fly pest species. Similarly, in our studies we have found the greater number of B. zonata which is dominating pest infesting fruits in Sindh in comparison with B. dorsalis. Clarke et al. (2001) reported that maximum temperature up surged the population dynamism of fruit fly species likewise our observations established that increase in temperature tallies growth of both Bactrocera spp. in Sindh region. Prominently tephritid fruit flies lavishness and dispersal have been controlled by climatic conditions inclusion with other biotic elements.

 

Table I. Month-wise population fluctuations of Bactrocera spp. (mean no. of flies/trap±SE) in guava orchard-agroecosystem of Sindh during 2019.

Months of 2019

Hyderabad

Larkana

B. zonata

B. dorsalis

B. zonata

B. dorsalis

January

17.90±1.04 e

10.80±1.33 f

12.20±0.80 f

8.70±0.60 g

February

21.60±1.67 e

17.50±0.91 f

18.30±0.91 f

14.50±1.10 g

March

81.80±5.95 de

75.90±3.64 ef

74.50± 5.16 def

61.80±7.74 f

April

159.60±8.93 cd

112.90±4.57 de

151.70±11.02 cd

88.90±5.02 ef

May

224.40± 7.08 c

183.80±10.89 d

214.20±17.21 c

95.20±3.93 def

June

257.60±16.99 c

181.10±18.45 d

246.00±20.33 c

119.80±8.87 de

July

572.80±18.41 b

491.90±23.84 b

557.20±30.46 b

198.70±12.57 c

August

989.40±75.24 a

708.70±21.80 a

943.60±70.36 a

389.20±16.58 a

September

535.70±16.51 b

144.60±11.69 c

508.60±32.74 b

335.90±16.45 b

October

150.10±7.07 cd

18.80±1.98 de

142.90±7.61 cde

136.90±7.57 d

November

30.20±2.94 e

11.80±1.64 f

26.30±2.64 ef

14.60±0.86 g

December

18.50±1.02 e

11.80±0.98 f

15.60±1.33 f

9.90±0.64 g

 

Values followed by different letters are significantly differ at 5% according to Tukey’s Honest Significant Difference (HSD) test.

 

Table II. Month-wise population fluctuations of Bactrocera spp. (mean no. of flies/trap±SE) in mango orchard-agroecosystem of Sindh during 2019.

Months of 2019

Hyderabad

Larkana

B. zonata

B. dorsalis

B. zonata

B. dorsalis

January

11.30±1.01 f

8.10±0.41 d

5.80±0.63 f

3.60±0.52 f

February

14.80±1.35 f

12.90±0.69 d

10.50±1.15 f

8.60±0.82 f

March

101.40±11.46 e

96.10±6.94 cd

91.90± 2.63 de

80.50±3.54 de

April

216.30±13.02 d

208.90±15.71 b

192.50±12.04 c

120.40±8.41 d

May

498.80± 24.25 b

388.00±42.21 a

413.50±4.20 b

278.30±14.97 b

June

623.50±14.76 a

440.90±24.59 a

588.80±20.62 a

400.40±11.86 a

July

564.40±23.54 a

287.60±28.58 b

561.10±28.27 a

315.70±23.85 b

August

396.90±16.90 c

217.40±24.67 b

385.60±14.45 b

177.10±13.81 c

September

221.40±21.37 d

110.50±28.14 c

107.20±14.45 d

65.30±5.62 e

October

48.40±6.19 ef

34.20±4.11 cd

41.50±3.22d ef

12.20±0.59 f

November

20.60±1.97 f

11.80±1.64 d

13.90±0.99 f

5.70±0.79 f

December

11.90±0.92 f

8.50±1.15 d

7.90±0.57 f

4.80±0.42 f

 

Values followed by different letters are significantly differ at 5% according to Tukey’s Honest Significant Difference (HSD) test.

 

Table III. Pearson’s correlation between weather parameters and month wise population fluctuations of Bactrocera spp. in guava and mango orchard-agroecosystem of Sindh during 2019.

Meteorological factors

Hyderabad

Larkana

B. zonata

B. dorsalis

B. zonata

B. dorsalis

Guava orchards

Temp(°C)

Minimum

0.7276*

0.7467*

0.7199*

0.7392*

Maximum

0.4872*

0.5087*

0.6149*

0.6160*

Relative humidity (%)

-0.7064

-0.6970

-0.0304

-0.0941

Mango orchards

Temp(°C)

Minimum

0.8407 *

0.7764*

0.7981*

0.7606*

Maximum

0.7693*

0.8021*

0.8390*

0.8247*

Relative humidity (%)

-0.1268

-0.1197

-0.6635

-0.7480

 

*Positively significant at (p < 0.001) according to Pearson’s correlation significance test.

 

 

 

 

 

(Esculdero-Colomar et al., 2008; Muthuthantri et al., 2010). Our findings are in line with above researchers as abundance of both Bactrocera species were recorded during high temperature months with prevue to maturing fruits. Dyuck et al. (2004) perceived that temperature has direct impact on the fruit fly species but it lessens the interspecific competition however we did not find such results. Our revisions established that population of B. zonata and B. dorsalis started to decline after September in guava and mango orchards in Hyderabad and Larkana the results are slightly different by (Win et al., 2014) who reported decline in population of fruit flies after August. Similarly, (Mahmood and Mishkatullah, 2007) in earlier studies investigated the peak population of Bactrocera species in the August matched with our observations. The population build-up of fruit flies started from April and peak level attained in June and August at Mango and Guava orchards of both regions. The findings coincided (Gillani et al., 2002) who recorded maximum catches in August during unseasonal guava. Amice and Sales (1997) professed that fruit flies population encouraged by the (Temperature ºC) and dejected (RH %) our results are in agreement with these previous researchers.

Conclusion

In current studies on comparative demography of Bactrocera species it is concluded that Bactrocera zonata is the dominated fruit flies pest species inhabiting the different climatic conditions. Moreover, greater temperature boosts the movement of Bactrocera species in the field pertaining availability to ripened fruits.

In conclusion, comparative demographic patterns of tephritid fruit flies are worthwhile in forecasting the ecological distributions and latitudinal inclines in order to reduce their population below economic injury level.

Hence the present studies provided the worthy background and excessive data for Scientists, researchers and pest management companies working to control tephritid fruit flies in the region.

Statement of conflict of interest

The authors have declared no conflict of interest.

References

Abro, Z.A., Baloch, N., Memon, R.M., Khuhro, N.H., and Soomro, Q.A., 2020. Population variations of fruit flies, Bactrocera spp. in mango orchards of Hyderabad and Larkana, Sindh. J. Pure appl. Biol., 9: 949-955. https://doi.org/10.19045/bspab.2020.90099

Amice, R., and Sales, F., 1997. Seasonal abundance of fruit flies in New Caledonia. In: Management of fruit flies in the Pacific (eds. A.J. Allwood and R.A.I. Drew), ACIAR Proc, 76: 134–139.

Brevault, T. and Quilici, S., 2000. Relationships between temperature, development, and survival of different life stages of the tomato fruit fly, Neoceratitis cyanescens. Ent. Exp. Appl., 94: 25–30. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1570-7458.2000.00600.x

CABI/EPPO, 2001. Bactrocera zonata. Distribution Maps of Pests no. 125 (2nd revision). CAB International, Wallingford (GB).

Carey, J.R., and Vargas, R.I., 1985. Demographic analysis of insect mass rearing: A case study of three tephritids. J. econ. Ent., 78: 523-527. https://doi.org/10.1093/jee/78.3.523

Clarke, A.R., Allwood, A.J., Chinajariyawong, A., Drew, R.A.I., Hengsawad, C., Jirasurat, M., Kong Krong, C., Kristsaneepaiboon, S., and Vijaysegaran, S., 2001. Seasonal abundance and host use patterns of seven Bactrocera macquart species (Diptera: Tephritidae) in Thailand and Peninsular Malaysia. Raffles Bull. Zool., 49: 207–220.

Duyck, P.F., David, P., and Quilici, S., 2004. A review of relationships between interspecific competition and invasions in fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae). Ecol. Ent., 29: 511–520. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0307-6946.2004.00638.x

Esculdero-Colomar, L.A., Vilajeliu, M., and Batllori, L., 2008. Seasonality in occurrence of the Mediterranean fruit fly (Ceratitis capitata (Wied.) F) in north-east of Spain. J. appl. Ent., 132: 714–721. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0418.2008.01372.x

Gillani, W.A., Bashir, T., and Ilyas, M., 2002. Studies on population dynamics of fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) in guava and nectrin orchards in Islamabad. Pak. J. biol. Sci., 5: 452-454. https://doi.org/10.3923/pjbs.2002.452.454

Mahmood, K., and Mishkatullah, 2007. Population dynamics of three species of Bactrocera (Diptera: Tephritidae: Dacinae) in BARI, Chakwal (Punjab). Pakistan J. Zool., 39: 123-126.

McPeek, M.A., and Kalisz, S., 1993. Population sampling and bootstrapping in complex designs: Demographic analysis, In: Design and analysis of ecological experiments (eds. S.M. Scheiner and J. Gurevitch). Chapman and Hall, New York. pp. 232-252.

Muthuthantri, S., Maelzer, D., Zalucki, M.P., and Clarke, A.R., 2010. The seasonality of Bactrocera tryoni (Froggatt) (Diptera; Tephritidae) in Queensland. Austral. J. Ent., 49: 221–233. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-6055.2010.00759.x

Price, P.W., 1997. Insect ecology. Wiley, New York.

Qureshi, Z., Hussain, T., Carey, J.R., and Dowell, R.V., 1993. Effects of temperature on development of Bactrocera zonata. Pan-Pac. Ent., 69: 71–76.

Sarwar, M., Hamed, M., Yousaf, M., and Hussain, M., 2014. Surveillance on population dynamics and fruits infestation of tephritid fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) in mango (Mangifera indica L.) orchards of Faisalabad, Pakistan. Intl. J. Sci. Res. environ. Sci., 2: 113-119. https://doi.org/10.12983/ijsres-2014-p0113-0119

Siddiqui, Q., Ahmad, N., Rashdi, S.M.M.S., and Niazi, S., 2003. Effect of time of the day and trap height on the catches of peach/guava fruit flies, Bactrocera zonata (Saunders) through male annihilation technique. Asian J. Pl. Sci., 2: 228-232. https://doi.org/10.3923/ajps.2003.228.232

USDA Report., 2016. A review of recorded host plants of oriental fruit fly, Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel) (Diptera: Tephritidae). Version 2.1. A product of the USDA compendium of fruit fly host information (CoFFHI). A Farm Bill Project.

Vargas, R.I., and Nishida, T., 1985. Life history and demographic parameters of Dacus latifrons (Diptera: Tephritidae). J. econ. Ent., 78: l242-l244. https://doi.org/10.1093/jee/78.6.1311

Vargas, R.I., and Carey, J.R., 1990. Comparative survival and demographic statistics for wild oriental fruit fly, Mediterranean fruit fly, and melon fly (Diptera: Tephritidae) on papaya. J. econ. Ent., 83: 1344-1349. https://doi.org/10.1093/jee/83.4.1344

Vargas, R.I., Walsh, W.A., Jang, E.B., Armstrong, J.W., and Kanehisa, D.T., 1996. Survival and development of the immature stages of four Hawaiian fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) reared at constant temperatures. Annls entomol. Soc. Am., 89: 64-69. https://doi.org/10.1093/aesa/89.1.64

Vargas, R. I., Walsh, W. A., Kanehisa, D., Stark, J. D., and Nishida, T., 2000. Comparative demography of three Hawaiian fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) at alternating temperatures. Annls entomol. Soc. Am., 93: 75–81. https://doi.org/10.1603/0013-8746(2000)093[0075:CDOTHF]2.0.CO;2

Wang, X.J., 1996. The fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) of the East Asian region. Acta Zool. Sin., 21: 52.

White, I.M., and Elson-Harris, M.M., 1992. Fruit flies of economic significance: Their identification and bionomics. CAB International, Wallingford, pp. 601.

Win, N.Z., Mi, K.M., Oo, T.T., Win, K.K., Park, J., and Park, J.K., 2014. Occurrence of fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) in fruit orchards from Myanmar. Korean J. appl. Ent., 53: 323-329. https://doi.org/10.5656/KSAE.2014.06.0.011

To share on other social networks, click on any share button. What are these?

Pakistan Journal of Zoology

December

Vol. 54, Iss. 6, Pages 2501-3000

Featuring

Click here for more

Subscribe Today

Receive free updates on new articles, opportunities and benefits


Subscribe Unsubscribe