Submit or Track your Manuscript LOG-IN

Settling, Oviposition and Reproduction Response of Peach Fruit Fly, Bactrocera zonata (Saunders) to the Plant Extracts of Native Species of Kalat Division in Balochistan

PJZ_56_2_687-693

Settling, Oviposition and Reproduction Response of Peach Fruit Fly, Bactrocera zonata (Saunders) to the Plant Extracts of Native Species of Kalat Division in Balochistan

Nasir Shah1,4, Muhammad Ibrahim1*, Zarnosh Habib2, Kalsoom3 and Zahir Shah4

1Department of Agriculture Extension, Kalat, Balochistan, Pakistan

2Department of Entomology, Sindh Agriculture University, Tandojam, Hyderabad, Pakistan

3Department of Plant Sciences, Sardar Bahadur Khan (SBK) Women’s University Quetta, Pakistan

4Department of Entomology, Faculty of Agriculture, Lasbela University of Agriculture, Water & Marine Sciences (LUAWMS), Lasbela, Pakistan

ABSTRACT

Fruit flies are notorious insect pests causing considerable loss to agriculture produce. This effort was meant to evaluate the response of different life stages of peach fruit fly to plant extracts having insecticidal properties. Extract of three native plant species (Azadirachta indica, Zataria multiflora, Achillea santolina) and their various concentration (2, 1, and 0.5%) were used for the purpose. Firstly, the artificial diet of fruit flies was subjected to these treatments, while on the other hand chikoo fruits which were used for flies to settle on, were dipped in same concentrations of these plant extracts, and dried under shade and exposed to peach fruit flies for feeding for 15 days. All the three plants exhibited insect repelling potential but these had no significant difference from each other, while A. indica showing nonsignificant but most promising results. Similarly, there was no significant combine effect of plants extracts and its various concentrations. However, various doses of plant extracts showed significant difference in reducing the number of oviposition, pupae developed, flies settled and post settling reproduction. There was inverse response of peach fruit flies to increasing concentration of plant extracts. Minimum significant number of fruit flies (0.58) settled after 18 h, reaching to its peak (1.73) after 42 h showing a decreasing trend subsequently. Hence, all the plants exhibited insecticidal potential and resulted in reduction of fruit fly population in laboratory condition. Thus, these plant extracts could be considered as potent biological insecticides for peach fruit fly owing to field trails.


Article Information

Received 04 June 2021

Revised 15 September 2022

Accepted 08 October 2022

Available online 23 December 2022

(early access)

Published 27 January 2024

Authors’ Contribution

NS and ZH designed the idea. NS and ZS carried out the lab trials. MI supervised the study, analyzed the data. NS and MI wrote the manuscript. K and ZH provided help in preparation of the manuscript by critical analysis.

Key words

Fruit fly, Botanical extract, Settling, Insect repellent, Oviposition deterrent

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.17582/journal.pjz/20210604200621

* Corresponding author: ibrahimafridi811@gmail.com

0030-9923/2024/0002-0687 $ 9.00/0

Copyright 2024 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

The demand for fruits has increased in many folds especially in the form of canned or fresh fruits due to increasing population. However, disease and insect pest problems affect both quality and quantity of fruits. Among insect pest fruit flies of family Tephritidae (Diptera) are most harmful insect pests of fruits and vegetables. About 4000 species of fruit flies were reported out of which 700 species found throughout the world (Fletcher, 1987). Approximately, 250 species of Bactrocera fruit flies are widely found in most tropical and temperate areas throughout the world. Nearly, 11 fruit fly species including B. cucurbita, B. zonata and B. dorsalis are examined to cause losses of fruit and vegetable production in Pakistan.

Peach fruit fly is one of the most harmful species of Tephritidae. It is a serious pest of peach and custard apple in neighboring country (Butani, 1976; Grewal and Malhi, 1987), as well as guava and mango in Pakistan (Syed et al., 1970). It is a polyphagous species attacking some 40 species of fruit and vegetables (White and Elson-Harris, 1992).

The presence of male adults of B. zonata in the orchards of mango and guava was about 74.66% and 46.62%, respectively in Pakistan (Khan et al., 2005). In semi-desert and coastal areas of Balochistan and Punjab the fruit fly B. zonata has been found as a serious threat for peach orchards, although these pests were rarely found in hilly areas of Pakistan (Marwat et al., 1992; Sarwar, 2006). There is urgent need to adopt eco-friendly technologies such as Integrated Pest Management to enhance productivity of fruits and vegetables.

Number of control methods used to reduce damage of the fruit flies to vegetation. For this purpose, many cultural, biological, chemical practices including insecticidal and pesticide sprays have been used. The pesticide and insecticide sprays are able to kill the larvae of fruit flies and other insects to some extent but it affects the quality and taste of the fruits. Additionally, chemical sprays also affect environment and surrounding vegetation. Due to lack of awareness, local farmers use many insecticide sprays without knowing the effect of those sprays, which further causes toxic effects to environment and fruit quality.

A wide range of natural botanical extracts against plant diseases (Matrose et al., 2020; Shamsullah et al., 2020) and insect pests (Schmutterer and Singh, 2002) have become popular to achieve their environment friendly management. These plant extracts have been used against peach fruit fly (Siddiqi et al., 2011; Ilyas et al., 2017) as well as other fruit flies (Riaz et al., 2018; Ugwu et al., 2021).

Among natural insect repellents, neem has a great commercial potential. It has an advantage over synthetic insecticides in a way that it has no or less toxic effect on man, animals and useful insects (Schumutterrer, 1985). As many as 540 insect species including all key agriculture insect pests have already been reported to be vulnerable and exhibit various behavioral and physiological effects of neem (Schmutterer and Singh, 2002). Neem plant extract affects the insect potency, long life and productivity (Arora and Dhaliwal, 1994). The secondary metabolites present in neem extract prevent the growth and productivity to insects (Prakash and Rao, 1997). Different experiments proved that the neem extracts are the best sprays to check the insects and pests. However, little is known about the efficacy of similar insect repelling properties of Zataria multiflora (Karim and Yousefi, 2013) and Achillea santolina (Yonus et al., 2016).

The upper and lower highlands of Kalat division in Balochistan have a diverse resource of endemic plants with ethnomedicinal properties including Z. multiflora and A. santolina (Tareen et al., 2010; Bibi et al., 2016), which can also be explored for their potential to coup with agricultural insect pests and diseases. Therefore, present research work was carried out to determine the effect of neem along with two other plant extracts, with similar properties, on settling and reproduction response of B. zonata peach fruit fly.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Laboratory studies

This study was undertaken in the Department of Entomology, Faculty of Agriculture, Lasbela University of Agriculture, Water and Marine Sciences, Lasbela, Pakistan. The experiment, to study the potential of different plant extracts at different doses, included two factors; different plant extracts (with 3 levels) and concentrations (with 4 levels including control) and each treatment factor was replicated four times.

Water extract of ‘Neem’ seed (Azadirachta indica A. Juss.) Meliaceae, stem and leaves extract of ‘Izghand’ (Zataria multiflora Boiss.) Lamiaceae, and extract from leaves and flower of ‘Boh-e-Madran’ (Achillea santolina L.) Asteraceae, were used in this study. These plant materials were brought from Ayurvedic shop and ground to fine powder in a grinding machine. From each plant sample, 30 g of powder was added in 500 ml of water and shaken after 24 h to mix evenly. These samples were used at 0.5, 1 and 2% concentrations in laboratory experiments. The culture of B. zonata was maintained under controlled laboratory conditions at 28 ± 2°C and 60 ± 5% R.H.

Effect of plant extract on the oviposition of peach fruit fly

The water extracts of the plants were used to determine its effect on oviposition of fruit fly. Extracts were mixed with chikoo juice at 0.5%, 1 and 2 concentrations. This treated juice was applied inside plastic glasses having pin-holes all around the wall of glass. The glasses applied with treated juice were exposed to 15 days old 20 fruit fly adults (mixed population) for 24 h for egg laying in the pin-holes. Untreated chikoo juice was used as control. The eggs laid in different treatment were collected separately with a camel hairbrush in water filled petri dishes. The number of eggs laid in different treatments were compared for determining the effect of extracts.

Effect of plant extracts on the progeny of peach fruit fly

Water extract of A. indica, Z. multiflora, and A. santolina were mixed with the diet of fruit fly at 0.5, 1 and 2 concentrations. The flies were separately offered untreated chikoo fruit for oviposition for three days. Five pairs of fruit flies were fed with the treated and control (untreated) diet at each concentration for 15 days. The fruits were labelled and then kept in glass jars having one-inch layer of sand at the bottom. After 15 days, number of pupae were counted and emerged adults were also counted and compared.

 

Table I. Mean number of fruit flies at its different life stages fed on fruits treated with various concentrations of plant extracts.

Concentration (%)

Plant extracts

Total mean

A. indica

Z. multiflora

A. santolina

(a) Number of eggs laid

Control

28.75 a

32.50 a

31.00 a

30.75 A

0.5

19.50 bcd

21.25 bc

22.50 b

21.08 B

1

13.75 ef

16.50 cde

15.75 de

15.33 C

2

6.25 g

9.50 fg

8.25 g

8.00 D

Total mean

17.06 B

19.94 A

19.38 B

(b) Number of pupae developed from eggs

Control

48.75 a

50.00 a

52.50 a

50.42 A

0.5

30.00 bcd

37.50 b

32.50 bc

33.33 B

1

25.50 cde

30.00 bcd

30.00 bcd

28.50 BC

2

18.25 e

22.50 de

20.50 de

20.42 C

Total mean

30.63 A

35.00 A

33.88 A

(c) Number of adults emerged from pupae

Control

42.25 a

43.25 a

47.50 a

44.33 A

0.5

25.50 bc

32.50 b

27.50 bc

28.50 B

1

21.25 cde

24.75 cd

24.50 cd

23.50 B

2

12.25 f

17.75 def

15.75 ef

15.25 C

Total mean

25.31 A

29.56 A

28.21 A

(d) Number of fruit flies settled on fruits

Total mean

0.92 A

1.00 A

0.96 A

0.5

0.81 abcd

0.94 abcd

0.86 abcd

0.87 B

1

0.69 bcd

0.75 bcd

0.75 bcd

0.73 BC

2

0.56 d

0.61 d

0.64 cd

0.60 C

Control

1.61 ab

1.72 a

1.58 abc

1.64 A

(e) Number of pupae developed after settling

Control

56.50 ab

47.00 bcd

58.75 a

54.08 A

0.5

33.75 ef

42.00 cde

49.50 abc

41.75 B

1

29.50 fg

34.75 ef

36.25 def

33.50 BC

2

22.00 g

26.25 fg

29.50 fg

25.92 C

Total mean

35.44 B

37.50 B

43.50 A

(f) Number of adults emerged after settling

Control

49.25 ab

40.75 bcd

53.75 a

47.92 A

0.5

27.75 ef

37.50 cde

44.00 abc

36.42 B

1

23.00 fg

29.50 def

31.25 def

27.92 BC

2

16.25 g

21.50 fg

25.00 fg

20.92 C

Total mean

29.06 C

32.31 B

38.50 A

 

Means sharing similar letters are not significantly different by DMRT at P ≤ 0.05.

 

Settling and post settling reproduction response of peach fruit fly on chikoo fruit treated with different plant extracts

For the purpose, individual fruits were treated by dipping them in various concentrations of the plant extracts and were air dried in the laboratory. Untreated fruits were used as control. These treated fruits were placed in rearing cages. About 20 flies were introduced in the cages and their settling response was recorded after each 6 h for three days. Development of pupae and emergence of adults were also recorded from the fruits exposed to treatments.

Statistical analysis

The collected data was statistically analyzed using MSTAT-C software and means were compared by Duncan’s Multiple Range Tests (DMRT) at P ≤ 0.05.

RESULTS

Effect on the oviposition

The results showed that exposure of fruit flies to the water extracts of tested plants, reduced the number of eggs laid. It indicates that these plant extracts acted as oviposition deterrents against fruit fly. The interaction effect of plant extracts with its doses was non-significant. However, various doses of these extracts had significant difference on reducing oviposition of peach fruit fly B. zonata (Table 1a). Minimum significant (average 8 number of eggs) oviposition was at 2% concentration. Comparatively, the treatment of three plant extracts did not exhibit any significant variance on the number of eggs laid.

Effect on the progeny of peach fruit fly

Table 1b shows the number of pupae developed from the eggs laid by female peach fruit flies fed on diet treated with different concentrations of plants extracts. An interaction of plants extracts and their concentration, applied to artificial diet of peach fruit flies, did not show any significant effect. However, lowest number of pupae 18.25 recovered at 2% concentration of A. indica extract which were lower than 1, 0.5% and control of same plant extract but pupae recovered from controls were significantly higher than those recovered at all other concentrations of plant extracts. Similarly, 22.50 in Z. multiflora and 20.50 in A. santolina extract at 2% concentration were lower than those of all concentrations and their controls. The comparison of plants extract shows that there was no significant difference in mean number of pupae recovered from all three extracts. However, the different concentrations of plants extract showed significant difference that the significantly lowest number of 20.42 pupae were recovered at highest concentration.

Table 1c shows the number of adults emerged from the developed pupae. The plant extracts alone and its interaction with its various concentrations had no significant difference on the number of adults emerged from the developed pupae. In contrast, the concentration factor had significant effect on the number of adults emerge from developed pupae. Minimum significant adults 15.25 emerged at 2% followed by 23.50 and 28.50 at 1 and 0.5%, respectively.

Effect on settling response of peach fruit fly

Table II shows the number of fruit flies settled on chikoo fruits treated with various concentrations of plant extracts after given age intervals. Chikoo fruits were dipped in different concentration of plants extract, dried under shade and exposed to fruit fly in order to determine the settling response of fruit fly. Overall, there was no significant difference in interaction effect of plant extracts, its doses and age intervals. However, the lowest settling observed was 0.25 flies settled fruit-1 after 18 h at 0.5, 1 and 2% concentrations of A. indica and Z. multiflora extracts and while at same time interval in control treatments the settled flies were 1.5 and 2.0 fruit-1, respectively which were higher than those treated. This lowest value was also observed after 36 and 54 h at 2% concentration of A. Indica and after 36 h at 1% concentration of Z. multiflora. Similarly, lowest settling response was observed 0.25 flies settled fruit-1 after 18 and 36 h at 2% concentration in A. santolina extract. The highest settling response on treated chikoo fruits was observed after 42 h at 0.5% in Z. multiflora (2.25 flies) which was higher than 2 and 1% concentrations. Moreover, the values of control were higher than values of each concentration showing 3.0 flies after 24 h in the control of Z. multiflora (Table II).

Unlike interaction of all three factors, settling response was significantly different at different concentrations. Minimum settling was observed at 2% and maximum settling was observed at control treatment (Table II). However, the interaction of different concentration of plant extract with various time intervals was non-significant by DMRT at P ≤ 0.05 (Table IIIb).

In accordance with concentration factor, time interval also showed a significant effect by DMRT at P ≤ 0.05 on settling response of peach fruit fly in this experiment (Table II). Significantly lowest number of flies 0.58 and 0.60 settled on fruits after 18 and 36 h, respectively. Whereas, highest significant number of flies 1.73 settled after 42 h. However, the interaction of various time intervals with different plant extract had no significant effect on settling response of peach fruit flies (Table IIIa).

 

Table II. Mean number of flies showing hourly settling response to various concentrations of different plant extracts.

H

Azadirachta indica

Zataria multiflora

Achillea santolina

Total means

0.5%

1%

2%

0%

0.5%

1%

2%

0%

0.5%

1%

2%

0%

6

0.75

fgh

0.75

fgh

0.75

fgh

1.00 efgh

0.75

fgh

0.50

gh

0.75

fgh

1.50 cdef

0.50

gh

0.75

gfh

0.50 gh

1.75 bcde

0.85 D

12

0.50

gh

0.50

gh

0.50

gh

1.50 cdef

0.75

fgh

0.75

fgh

0.50

gh

1.50 cdef

0.75

fgh

0.50

gh

0.75 fgh

2.00

bcd

0.88 D

18

0.25

h

0.25

h

0.25

h

1.50 cdef

0.25

h

0.25

h

0.25

h

2.00 bcd

0.50

gh

0.50

gh

0.25 h

0.75

fgh

0.58 E

24

0.75

fgh

0.50

gh

0.75

fgh

1.25 defg

0.75

fgh

0.75

fgh

0.75

fgh

3.00

a

1.00

efgh

0.75

fgh

0.75 fgh

1.75 bcde

1.06 C

30

0.75

fgh

0.75

fgh

0.50

gh

1.75 bcde

1.00

efgh

1.00 efgh

0.50

gh

1.00 efgh

0.75

fgh

0.75

fgh

0.50 gh

1.50

cdef

0.90 D

36

0.50

gh

0.50

gh

0.25

h

1.75 bcde

0.50

gh

0.25

h

0.50

gh

0.75

fgh

0.50

gh

0.50

gh

0.25 h

1.00 efgh

0.60 E

42

1.75

bcde

1.25 defg

1.25 defg

2.00

bcd

2.25

abc

1.75 bcde

0.75

fgh

2.25 abc

1.75

bcde

1.75 bcde

1.50 cdef

2.50

ab

1.73 A

48

1.00

efgh

1.00 efgh

0.50 gh

2.00

bcd

1.50

cdef

1.00 efgh

1.00 efgh

2.00 bcd

1.25

defg

0.75

fgh

0.75 fgh

2.25

abc

1.25 B

54

1.00

efgh

0.75

fgh

0.25 h

1.75 bcde

0.75

fgh

0.50

gh

0.50

gh

1.50 cdef

0.75

fgh

0.50

gh

0.50 gh

0.75

fgh

0.79 D

Total Means

0.81 ABCD

0.69 BCD

0.56

D

1.61

AB

0.94 ABCD

0.75 BCD

0.61

D

1.72

A

0.86 ABCD

0.75 BCD

0.64 CD

1.58 ABC

 

Means sharing similar letters are not significantly different by DMRT at P ≤ 0.05. H, hour.

 

Table III. Mean number of fruit flies settled on fruit treated with plant extracts (a) and by different concentrations (b) after various time intervals.

Time (h)

6

12

18

24

30

36

42

48

54

(a) Plant extracts

A. indica

0.82 bcd

0.75 cd

0.56 d

0.81 bcd

0.94 abcd

0.75 cd

1.56 abc

1.13 abcd

0.94 abcd

Z. multiflora

0.88 bcd

0.88 bcd

0.69 cd

1.31 abcd

0.88 bcd

0.50 d

1.75 ab

1.38 abcd

0.81 bcd

A. santolina

0.87 bcd

1.0 abcd

0.50 d

1.06 abcd

0.88 bcd

0.56 d

1.87 a

1.25 abcd

0.63 cd

(b) Concentration (%)

Control

1.42 a

1.67 a

1.42 a

2.00 a

1.41 a

1.17 a

2.25 a

2.08 a

1.33 a

0.5

0.67 a

0.67 a

0.33 a

0.83 a

0.83 a

0.50 a

1.92 a

1.25 a

0.83 a

1

0.67 a

0.58 a

0.33 a

0.67 a

0.83 a

0.42 a

1.58 a

0.92 a

0.58 a

2

0.67 a

0.58 a

0.25 a

0.75 a

0.50 a

0.33 a

1.17 a

0.75 a

0.42 a

 

Means sharing similar letters are not significantly different by DMRT at P ≤ 0.05.

 

Accordingly, the interaction of different plant extracts with its various concentrations had no significant difference on settling response of fruit fly (Table 1d). Nevertheless, 2% concentration of A. indica and Z. multiflora showed lower number of fruit flies settled than at 0.5, 1% and control. The comparison of the effects of plant extracts on mean settling response showed no significant difference, however different doses of plant extracts had a significant difference on settling response of fruit fly, showing inverse trend to the increasing concentration of extracts. The lowest number of 0.60 fruit fly fruit-1 settled at 2% concentration fallowed by 0.73 at 1% and 0.87 at 0.5% dose as compared to 1.64 in control, which were significantly highest.

Table 1e shows the number of pupae developed after settling on the fruits treated with different concentrations of plant extracts. As the fruit flies lay eggs beneath the skin of fruit and counting of eggs is not possible, therefore, the oviposition response of the test insect would either be noted by counting the larvae in the infested fruit by dissecting them or by counting the number of pupae recovered. The results indicate that both different plant extracts and its various doses alone had significant effect on the number of pupae developed on the fruits treated but their interaction had no significant difference. In case of A. indica seed extract, the lowest number of 22.00 pupae were recovered from 2% and most pupae 56.50 were recovered in control. Similar trend was seen while treated with other two plant extracts. However, plants extract results show that significantly lowest number of pupae 35.44 recovered from A. indica seed extract treated fruits followed by 37.50 from Z. multiflora and 43.50 from A. santolina extract. Likewise, at various doses lowest significant number of pupae 25.92 were recovered from the fruits treated with 2% concentration which was significantly lower than those 54.08 recovered at control.

Table 1f shows the number of adults emerged from pupae developed after settling on the fruits treated with different concentrations of plant extracts. The results indicate that both factors plant extracts and its various doses had significant effect on the number of adults emerged from collected pupae on the fruits treated but the interaction of these two factors had no significant difference (Table 1f). The comparison of plants extract shows that lowest significant number of 29.06 adults emerged in A. indica seed extract which was significantly lower than 32.31 in Z. multiflora and 38.50 in A. santolina. Whereas, the results of different concentrations of plants extracts shows that in 2% concentration significantly lowest number of adults 20.92 emerged as compared to 27.92 at 1%, 36.42 in 0.5% and dose and 47.92 at control.

DISCUSSION

Neem contains an array of chemicals having different complex mode of action on insects. Azadirachtin, a chemical compound from the neem seeds, is the main component responsible for the toxic effects in insects. Azadirachtin from neem effects insects in a variety of different ways: as an antifeedant, insect growth regulator and sterilant (Mordue and Nisbet, 2000).

Results of our study are in accordance with a study which implies neem seed kernel extract, for oriental fruit fly, as an ovipositional deterrent (Chen et al., 1996). Similarly, neem seed kernel extract had effect on the fecundity and post-embryonic development of fruit flies B. cucurbitae and B. dorsalis (Singh, 2003). This idea was further supported the ingestion of neem can significantly reduce the longevity and fertility of melon fly and the oriental fruit fly (Khan et al., 2007). Accordingly, significant repellency of the Mexican fruit fly was observed in terms of oviposition at 3 and 5% aqueous neem extract and 4.5% neem oil treatment (Valencia-Botin et al., 2004). Lower number of B. zonata adults settled on fruits treated with petroleum ether extract of sweet flag followed by neem acetone extract and sweet flag extract. The number of pupae and adults obtained from fruits decreased with increase in the extract dosage (Naheed et al., 2004).

Effect of crud extracts of A. santolina determined for feeding toxicity against adult of Oryzaephilus surinamensis. The results of the study showed that Hexane extract of A. santolina was effective reaching survival rate of adult to 66.2% at concentration of 10% (Yonus et al., 2016). Antifeedant activity of Z. maltiflora oil was reported to be more effective on feeding deterrence index than Thymus daenensis (Karim and Yousefi, 2013).

Looking at the settling response our findings agreed with the similar study, where settling of melon fruit fly was adversely affected by neem seed water extract and neem oil (Khattak et al., 2009). The study further reported that significantly lower number of pupae was recovered from the fruit treated with 2% concentration of neem oil and 3% of neem seed water extract as compared to control.

CONCLUSION

All the plant extracts exhibited insecticidal properties and resulted in reduction of fruit fly population in laboratory condition and decreasing trend of fruit fly population continued with increasing concentration. A. indica showed most promising results followed by A. santolina. These plants studied in this research work, contain an array of chemicals having different complex mode of action on insects, hence further investigation is needed to evolve strategies for integrated pest management techniques. Furthermore, the increasing dosage of these plant extracts had increasing degree of fruit fly repellence. Hence, more research is needed to standardize the dosage. Moreover, these findings are based on laboratory trials and may differ in field trials due to the various biotic and abiotic conditions in different agro-ecological zones.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

We firmly acknowledge the Department of Entomology, Lasbela University of Agriculture, Water and Marine Sciences, Pakistan for providing all the means to accomplish this study.

Funding

No funds were provided for this study.

Ethical statement

Essential ethical guidelines and approval of the Department of Entomology, LUAWMS were adopted for this study.

Statement of conflict of interest

The authors have declared no conflict of interest.

REFERENCES

Arora, R., and Dhaliwal, G.S., 1994. Botanical pesticides in insect pest management. In: Management of agricultural pollution in India (eds. G.S. Dhaliwal and B.D. Kansal). Commonwealth Publishers, New Delhi. pp. 213-245.

Bibi, T., Ahmad, M., Edwards, S.E., Tareen, N.M., Jabeen, R., and Abdullah, I., 2016. Ethnomedicinal uses of plants in the treatment of paediatric geohelminth infections in Kalat district of Northern Balochistan. Pak. J. Ethnopharmacol., 183: 176-186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jep.2016.02.029

Butani, D.K., 1976. Insect pests of fruit crops and their control: Custard apple. Pesticides, 10: 27-28.

Chen, C.C., Dong, Y.J., Cheng, L.L., and Hou, R.F., 1996. Deterrent effect of neem seed kernel extract on oviposition of the oriental fruit fly (Diptera: Tephritidae) in guava. J. econ. Ent., 89: 462-466. https://doi.org/10.1093/jee/89.2.462

Fletcher, B.S., 1987. The biology of dacine fruit flies. Annu. Rev. Ent., 32: 115-144. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.en.32.010187.000555

Grewal, J.S., and Malhi, C.S., 1987. Prunus persica Batsch damage by birds and fruit fly pests in Ludhiana (Punjab). J. entomol. Res., 11: 119-120.

Ilyas, A., Khan, H.A.A., and Qadir, A., 2017. Effect of leaf extracts of some indigenous plants on settling and oviposition responses of peach fruit fly, Bactrocera zonata (Diptera: Tephritidae). Pakistan J. Zool., 49: 1547-1553. https://doi.org/10.17582/journal.pjz/2017.49.5.1547.1553

Karim, S., Yousefi, M., 2013. Essential oil and antifeedant activity of Zataria multiflora Boiss and Thymus daenensis Celak on Plodia interpunctella Hubner. Int. J. med. Arom. Pl., 3: 151-158.

Khan, M.A., Ashfaq, M., Akram, W., and Lee, J.J., 2005. Management of fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) of the most perishable fruits. J. entomol. Res., 35: 79-84. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-5967.2005.tb00140.x

Khan, M., Hossain, M.A., and Islam, M.S., 2007. Effects of neem leaf dust and a commercial formulation of a neem compound on the longevity, fecundity and ovarian development of the melon fly, Bactrocera cucurbitae (Coquillett) and the oriental fruit fly, Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel) (Diptera: Tephritidae). Pak. J. biol. Sci., 10: 3656-3661. https://doi.org/10.3923/pjbs.2007.3656.3661

Khattak, M.K., Rashid, M.M.U., and Abdullah, K., 2009. Effect of neem derivatives on infestation, settling and oviposition of melon fruit fly Bactrocera cucurbitae (Tephritidae: Diptera). Pak. Entomol., 31: 11-15.

Marwat, N.K., Hussain, N., and Khan, A., 1992. Suppression of population and infestation of Dacus spp. by male annihilation in guava orchard. Pakistan J. Zool., 24: 82-84.

Matrose, N.A., Obikeze, K., Belay, Z.A., and Caleb, O.J., 2020. Plant extracts and other natural compounds as alternatives for post-harvest management of fruit fungal pathogens: A review. Fd. Biosci., 41: 100840. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fbio.2020.100840

Mordue, (Luntz) A.J., and Nisbet, A.J., 2000. Azadirachtin from the neem tree Azadirachta indica: Its action against insects. Annls Soc. Ent. Brasil, 29: 615-632. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0301-80592000000400001

Naheed, A., Ghulam, J., Riaz, M., Muhammad, A., and Javeed, I., 2004. Effects of plant derivatives on settling response and fecundity of peach fruit fly Bactrocera zonata (Saunders). Sarhad J. Agric., 20: 269-274.

Prakash, A., and Rao, J., 1997. Botanical pesticides in agriculture. CRC Press, USA. pp. 125.

Riaz, B., Zahoor, M.K., Zahoor, M.A., Majeed, H.N., Javed, I., Ahmad, A., Jabeen, F., Zulhussnain, M., and Sultana, K., 2018. Toxicity, phytochemical composition, and enzyme inhibitory activities of some indigenous weed plant extracts in fruit fly, Drosophila melanogaster. Evid Based Complement. Altern. Med., 2018: 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/2325659

Sarwar, M., 2006. Management of guava (Psidium guajava) orchard against insect pests. Econ. Rev., 8: 28-30.

Schmutterer, H., 1985. Which insect pests can be controlled by application of neem seed kernel extracts under field conditions. J. appl. Ent., 100: 468-475. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0418.1985.tb02808.x

Schmutterer, H., and Singh R.P., 2002. List of insect pests susceptible to neem products. In: The neem tree Azadirachta indica A. Juss. and other meliaceous plants (eds. H. Schmutterer and Weinhiem). VCH Publications, Germany. pp. 411-456.

Shamsullah S., Ibrahim, M., Abbas, A., Ullah, M.A., Aslam, M., Kamran M., and Hussain, S., 2020. Grapes post-harvest decaying process, associated fungal pathogens and their ecofriendly control by plant extracts and oils. Int. J. Biosci., 16: 197-204.

Siddiqi, A.R., Rafi, A., Naz, F., Masih, R., Ahmad, I., and Jilani, G., 2011. Effects of Curcuma longa extracts on mortality and fecundity of Bactrocera zonata (Diptera: Tephritidae). Ciênc. Agrotec., 35: 1110-1114. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1413-70542011000600010

Singh, S., 2003. Effects of aqueous extract of neem seed kernel and azadirachtin on the fecundity, fertility and post-embryonic development of the melon fly, Bactrocera cucurbitae and the oriental fruit fly, Bactrocera dorsalis (Diptera: Tephritidae). J. appl. Ent., 127: 540-547. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1439-0418.2003.00787.x

Syed, R.A., Ghani, M.A., and Murtaza, M., 1970. Studies on the trypetids and their natural enemies in West Pakistan. III. Dacus (Strumeta) zonatus (Saunders). Tech. Bull. Commonw. Inst. Biol. Contr., 13: 1-16.

Tareen, R.B., Bibi, T., Khan, M.A., Ahmad, M., Zafar, M., and Hina, S., 2010. Indigenous knowledge of folk medicine by the women of Kalat and Khuzdar regions of Balochistan, Pakistan. Pak. J. Bot., 42: 1465-1485.

Ugwu, J.A., Alabi, O.Y., and Aluko, O.J., 2021. Insecticidal activity of crude extracts of three spices and commercial botanical pesticide on oriental fruit fly under laboratory conditions. J. Basic appl. Zool., 82: 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41936-021-00227-w

Valencia-Botin, A.J., Bautista-Martinez, N., and Lopez-Buenfil, J.A., 2004. Use of neem (Azadirachta indica) aqueous extract on the oviposition of Mexican fruit fly, (Anastrepha ludens) (Diptera: Tephritidae) in sweet orange (Valencia orange). Fitosanidad, 8: 57-59.

White, I.M., and Elson-Harris, M.M., 1992. Fruit flies of economic significance: Their identification and bionomics. Wallingford, CAB International. pp. 601. https://doi.org/10.1079/9780851987903.0000

Yonus, M.I., Kareem, S.A., and Mahdii, B.A., 2016. Biological activity of some plants extracts against in the survival of rate adult Oryzaephilus surinamensis (Coleopteran Silvanaidae). Iraqi J. Sci., 57: 1377-1382.

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

Pakistan Journal of Zoology

February

Pakistan J. Zool., Vol. 56, Iss. 1, pp. 01-501

Featuring

Click here for more

Subscribe Today

Receive free updates on new articles, opportunities and benefits


Subscribe Unsubscribe